Assessing Advertising Creativity Using

tiie Creative Product Semantic Scale

The purpose of the study was to ascertain whether advertising professionals judge
advertising creativity in the same way as the general public, and whether demographic
variables significantly affect judgments about the creativity of advertising. Fifteen print
ALISA WHITE
advertisements were evaluated using the Creative Product Semantic Scale. The
University of Texas
at Ariington judgments of advertising professionals, college students, and the general public
arwhite@uta.edu were compared. The results were significantly different. There were also significant
differences on the basis of demographic variables.
BRUCE L. SMITH
Southwest Texas State
University
bs20@swt.edu

CREATIVITY IS A frequently discussed topic among of creativity (Altsech, 1995; MacKinnon, 1987;
advertising professionals. Some creatives hold that Kneller, 1965):
creativity is a prerequisite for advertising effec-
tiveness, while others equate the two concepts 1. The product or outcome of creative behavior
(Kover, Goldberg, and James, 1995). What does 2. The creative process
creativity mean in advertising? Do advertising 3. The creative personality
professionals agree on measures of creativity? Do 4. The environmental and cultural influences on
advertising professionals judge advertising cre- creativity
ativity in the same way as the public?
Kover et al. (1997) cite potential negative conse- Parnes (1975) said the essence of the concept of
quences of what they call disjunction between re- creativity was the notion of "aha," which is "the
sponses of advertising professionals and viewers fresh and relevant association of thoughts, facts,
to advertising content, including the possibility and ideas, into a new configuration which pleases,
that viewers will not spend the time necessary to which has meaning beyond the sum of the parts,
correctly interpret advertising messages or that which provides a synergistic effect." Kneller (1965)
they will "let the message slip by." Further, they said creative thought is innovative, exploratory,
charge that advertising creatives fail to "connect in and venturesome. Risk and uncertainty stimulate
their work with the people who eventually will see it. Noncreative thought, he said, is cautious, me-
their work." thodical, and conservative. Peters (1997) linked
creativity to surprise, and he equated surprise
The purpose of this study was to measure ex-
with grace, excitement, and "bending the rules
perimentally how advertising creativity is judged,
and going the extra mile."
and whether those judgments differ between
groups. The researchers also sought to ascer- Barron (1988) contributed what he called the
tain whether other factors such as age, gender, "ingredients of creativity," which include:
education, race, and region where one lives sig-
nificantly affect judgments about the creativity of 1. Recognizing patterns
advertising. 2. Making connections
3. Taking risks
LITERATURE REVIEW 4. Challenging assumptions
Creativity has no generally accepted definition. It 5. Taking advantage of chance
has often been discussed in terms of the four facets 6. Seeing in new ways

November . December 2 0 0 1 JDURIIIIL OF HDDEIITISIIIG RESEBHCH 2 7

ASSESSING ADVERTISING CREATIVITY
Creativity in advertising
Much of the research conducted on adver-
tising creativity has focused on creative
strategy (Flandin, Martin, and Simkin,
1992; Kreshel, 1990; Taylor, Hoy, and
Haley, 1996), Blasko and Mokwa (1986)
defined advertising creativity as "mental
resolution of contradictory ideas"
(Altsech, 1995), According to Amabile
(1982), a product is creative to the "ex-
tent that appropriate observers inde-
pendently agree it is creative," Typically,
"appropriate" observers are advertising
"creatives"—copywriters and art direc-
tors—who produce advertisements and
vote to bestow industry recognition such
as the One Show, Clio, and Addy awards,
Taylor et al,'s (1996) research comparing
advertising strategies common in France
and in the United States suggests that
definitions of creativity differ across
cultures.
Bell (1992) describes advertising creativ-
ity as a "kind" of creativity different from
the "concept" of creativity. He said the
creativity needed in advertising is prob-
lem-solving creativity, constrained by
marketing objectives, competition, and
the organizational approval hierarchy,
among other things, Flandin et al, (1992)
describe the functional role of creativity in
advertising as focusing customer attention
on the brand and ultimately leading to its
purchase, Marra (1990) defined creativity
in advertising as "being new and relevant
with your ideas,"
Kover et al, (1995) sought to answer the
following research questions in their
study on creativity and advertising ef-
fectiveness: "How do consumers react
to different kinds of advertising ex-
ecutions? Do they respond as those in the
advertising business believe they will?"
Their results do not support commonly
held beliefs in the advertising industry.
They found that advertisements that were
perceived as unexpected by viewers were
2 8 JOORIL OF llDyEllTISinG RESEflRCH November . December 2 0 0 1
not necessarily perceived as creative or
persuasive.
Measuring advertising creativity
Much of the research about advertising
creativity has focused on it from the per-
spective of the advertising professional,
Fletcher (1990) said that really creative
people have the ability to judge their own
ideas. Bell (1992) said the creative process
in advertising is often guided by research.
According to Flandin et al, (1992), profes-
sionals conduct research on whether or
not proposed advertisements are interest-
ing, likable, understandable, and believ-
able. The assumption is that a creative
product will "work," Yet, Altsech (1995)
posits the consumers' judgment of "cre-
ative" advertising to be important and rel-
evant as "domain-specific knowledge," In
other words, consumers, rather than ex-
perts, may have the last word. In addition
to the perspectives held by advertising
creatives and consumers, clients of adver-
tising agencies make judgments on adver-
tising creativity (Bell, 1992), Some clients
award bonuses based on their assessment
of an agency's creative product, while oth-
ers rely only on sales figures to evaluate
the advertising product. According to
William C, Cowan, clients often consider
"creative capabilities," "creative con-
cepts," and "creative experience" when
choosing an advertising agency (Marra,
1990), Regardless of the perspective, the
judge of the creative product needs an in-
strument by which to measure creativity.
Subjects in Altsech's (1995) quasi-
experimental study of advertising creativ-
ity rated advertisements on 65 items re-
lated to originality, appropriateness or
relevance, liking, and excitement or bore-
dom, Altsech's factor analysis of the
65 items identified 14 terms related to
originality and 5 related to appropriate-
ness. The following terms are related to
originality: different, unusual, original.
unique, rare, innovative, unexpected,
imaginative, ordinary, typical, common,
predictable, novel, and nonconformist; the
following terms are related to appropri-
ateness: inappropriate, irrelevant, inad-
equate, fitting, and confusing. According
to Altsech, originality in advertising can
be defined as "novelty, unusualness and
unexpectedness; the same terms appli-
cable to creative products in general,"
Early studies suggest creativity to be a
function of originality and appropriate-
ness, MacKinnon (1970) said appropriate-
ness "must serve to solve a problem, fit
the needs of a given situation; accomplish
some recognizable goal," Altsech con-
cluded from his study that creativity and
originality are synonymous, but that
appropriateness is a "qualifier" for cre-
ativity. That is, assessment of originality
and creativity may be discounted if an
advertisement does not fit the product or
audience,
Kover et al, (1997) compared advertis-
ing research over time and concluded that
advertising creatives respond to and cre-
ate advertising according to professional
standards while viewers respond to ad-
vertising that lead to feelings of personal
enhancement.
Generai iiypotheses
This study tested the following null
hypotheses:
HI: There will be no significant dif-
ference in the evaluation of print
advertisements by advertising
professionals and samples of col-
lege students and the general
public,
H2: There will be no significant dif-
ference in the evaluation of print
advertisements based on demo-
graphic variables.

METHOD
Population and sample
Convenience samples were drawn from
three populations: professionals working
in advertising agencies, the general pub-
lic, and college students in introductory
mass communication survey courses. A
sample of 43 advertising professionals
consisted of 25 individuals from three ad-
vertising agencies in Sioux Falls, South
Dakota, and 18 individuals from two
agencies in Atlanta, Georgia. A sample
representing the general public consisted
of 61 participants, 30 from South Dakota
and 31 from Georgia. A total of 189 stu-
dents participated in the study, 121 of
them from two classes at the University of
South Dakota and 68 from one class at the
State University of West Georgia.
Of the advertising professionals 21 per-
cent identified themselves as account ex-
ecutives, 60 percent work in creative ser-
vices, 12 percent in agency management,
and the rest in other functions. The mean
age of professionals was 32.5 years, 52
percent were female and 48 percent male,
95 percent were Caucasian and 5 percent
African-American. Sixty-nine percent of
the professionals had bachelor's degrees,
five percent had completed some gradu-
ate coursework, and five percent had com-
pleted a graduate degree. The rest had
completed some college coursework.
Twenty-eight percent of the college stu-
dents were communication majors. The
rest were majoring in a variety of disci-
plines. None of the students had yet taken
an advertising course. Subjects were de-
mographically diverse. The average age
was 20.5 years, 51 percent were female
and 49 percent male, 88 percent were Cau-
casian, 6 percent African-American, and 6
percent identified themselves as Asian,
Hispanic, or multiracial.
Sixty-one percent of the sample repre-
senting the general public was female and
ASSESSING ADVERTISING CREATIVITY
thirty-nine percent were male. Their ages Measurement
ranged from 21 to 75, with an average age The Creative Product Semantic Differen-
of 45. Ninety percent were Caucasian, five tial Scale (CPSS) was used to assess cre-
percent were African-American, and five ativity. The scale is based on the standard
percent were Asian or Native American. principles of semantic differential and was
developed by researchers at the State Uni-
versity College at Buffalo (Besemer and
Procedures O'Quin, 1986; O'Quin and Besemer, 1989)
Subjects were given two booklets. One in- to judge creative products. Russell (1991)
cluded the subject consent form, instruc- used the scale to judge creative problem
tions, and assessment forms. The other solving by elementary school students.
was labeled "Advertisements" and con- Smith (1993) used it to judge the creativity
tained high-quality color photocopies of of ideas produced by problem-solving
15 advertisements selected from the fol- groups.
lowing 12 consumer magazines appealing The CPSS is similar in purpose to the
to various demographics: Travel America instrument used by Altsech (1995) to mea-
(June 1997), Redbook (July 1997), Cooking sure advertising creativity. The CPSS,
Light (July 1997), Today's Homeowner (May however, measures the dimension of how
1997), Family PC Qul/Aug 1997), Hunting well crafted the creative product is, or
(May 1997), Ladies' Home Journal (July how well executed, as well as originality
1997), Home (July 1997), Better Homes & and appropriateness. The originality sub-
Gardens (May 1997), Weight Watchers scale corresponds to the "newness" com-
(Mar/Apr 1997), People (July 14, 1997), ponent while the appropriateness sub-
and Time (July 14, 1997). scale corresponds to the "relevance" com-
Each issue was searched for full-page ponent of Marra's (1990) definition of
general-interest advertisements. Adver- advertising creativity. Subjects rated the
tisements were sought that were not age advertisements by circling a number rang-
or gender specific. Advertisements that ing from 1 to 7 that best described the ad-
promoted a variety of products, repre- vertisements in terms of bipolar adjec-
sented a variety of styles, and used a va- tives. For example, an advertisement was
riety of colors, fonts, and appeals were judged whether or not it was "appropri-
identified. Approximately 35 advertise- ate" or "inappropriate." A rathig of "4,"
ments fitting that description were cho- halfway between 1 and 7, would indicate
sen, and the list was narrowed to include a neutral response. A rating of "1," closest
a range of advertisements from various to the "inappropriate" side of the attrib-
categories (three food, three beverage, ute, would indicate the strongest asso-
three health/personal care, two garden, ciation with the negative aspect of that at-
two pet, and two automobile). One adver- tribute. A rating of "6," close to the
tisement had to be discarded and replaced "appropriate" side of the attribute, would
with a substitute because it could not be indicate a strong association with the posi-
adequately reproduced using color- tive aspect of the attribute.
photocopying technology. The complete CPSS uses 55 items on a
Subjects were asked to evaluate each 7-point scale. The 55 items are divided
advertisement using the 15-item Creative into three dimensions: (1) novelty,
Product Semantic Scale and to provide (2) resolution, and (3) elaboration and syn-
demographic information for analysis thesis. The three dimensions, in turn, are
purposes. divided into 11 subscales. The subscales
November . December 2 0 0 1 JDURURL DF RODERTISIDB RESERRCR 2 9
ASSESSING ADVERTISING CREATIVITY
associated with the novelty dimension in-
clude original, surprising, and germinal.
The subscales associated with the resolu-
tion dimension include valuable, logical,
and useful. The elaboration and synthesis
dimension contain five subscales, which
include organic, elegant, complex, under-
standable, and well crafted.
The following is a list of the dimensions,
subscales, and individual items from the
revised CPSS (O'Quin and Besemer, 1989)
used in this study:
Novelty Dimension
Original Subscale
• overused-fresh
• predictable-novel
• usual-unusual
• unique-ordinary
• original-conventional
Resoiution Dimension
Logical Subscale
• illogical-logical
• makes sense-senseless
• irrelevant-relevant
• appropriate-inappropriate
• adequate-inadequate
Eiaboration and Synthesis Dimension
Well-Crafted Subscale
• skillful-bungling
• well-made-botched
• crude-well-crafted
• meticulous-sloppy
• careless-careful
While only three of the eleven subscales
were used, representing a total of 15
items, all three dimensions of creativity
were represented. Karen O'Quin, one of
the originators of the instrument, recom-
mends using an abridged version of the
3 0 JDlllIlL OFflDUERTISinGRESEBRCH November . December 2 0 0 1
CPSS. The longer instrument, she said,
was very fatiguing to evaluators and
yielded little improvement in results over
using a shorter version (personal commu-
nication, February 24, 1992). In addition,
not all subscales are applicable to all cre-
ative products.
Each advertisement was printed on a
separate sheet and clearly linked with a
particular evaluation sheet that was used
to judge it. Advertisements were printed
in random order. Random order of the
CPSS scales was achieved through com-
puter-generated random ordering. Eleven
of the fifteen evaluation scales were pre-
sented to subjects in positive to negative
order. The other four were presented in
negative to positive order to discourage
evaluators from going down the list of
items and marking all items with one
rating. Before statistical analysis was
conducted, adjective pairs were ordered
negative to positive, and correspond-
ing numbers transformed in the order of
1 to 7.
Mean scores were calculated for each
item, and one-way analysis of variance
tests were calculated to determine judg-
ment differences between advertising pro-
fessionals, members of the general public,
and students. In addition, the 15 items
were reduced to 3 constructs, termed sub-
scales by the originators of the instrument
(original, logical, and well-crafted). One-
way analysis of variance tests were con-
ducted on the mean scores of both the in-
dividual adjective pairs and the subscales
to determine differences between adver-
tising professionals, members of the gen-
eral public, and students.
The experimental treatment, CPSS in-
strument, and instructions to the subjects
were pretested on a group of 14 univer-
sity students who evaluated them for clar-
ity of instructions. Slight modifications
were made to the questionnaire before
proceeding with the study.
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Evaluations by professionais,
the general pubiic, and students
The three samples made different judg-
ments about which advertisements they
ranked highest and lowest. Professionals
gave the Absolut Vodka advertisement
the highest rating, while students gave the
Minute Maid Orange Juice advertisement
the highest rating, and the general public
ranked the General Foods International
Coffee advertisement the highest. They
also disagreed about which advertisement
to give the lowest ranking to. For the pro-
fessionals, the lowest ranking advertise-
ment was for DuPont Comforel pillows.
Students least favored the Ro-Tel Diced
Tomato advertisement, and the general
public was least attracted to an Ortho
Weed-B-Gon advertisement. In general,
however, the three groups came to similar
judgments about advertisements. For ex-
ample, the Purina One dog food adver-
tisement was ranked eighth by two
groups and ninth by the third group. The
Neutrogena Sunblock advertisement was
ranked 12"' by two groups and 13"' by
the third. A chi-square test of the rank-
ings confirmed that there were no signifi-
cant differences (DF = 28, p = .386). (See
Table 1.)
Rankings, however, do not tell the
whole story. The different sample groups
were consistent in their evaluations. Stu-
dents consistently gave advertisements
the highest mean ratings. Advertising pro-
fessionals consistently gave them the low-
est. And the general public was consis-
tently in the middle. This was true for the
overall Total CPSS ratings and for the
Originality, Logic, and Well-Crafted sub-
scale ratings. Students were most gener-
ous in the ratings, and professionals were
most critical. (See Table 2.)
Analysis of variance for total CPSS rat-
ings show a significant difference (F =
 ASSESSING ADVERTISING CREATIVITY

TABLE 1
Rankings of Advertisements by Students and Advertising Professionals
Advertisement Prof. Prof. Student Student Public Pubiic
Description Rank iVIean Rani< iVIean Rani< iVIean

Hershey's Syrup 6 4.897 5 5,0276 8 4,889

Kibbles 'n Bits 10 4,309 11 4,5433 10 4,669
Purina One Dog Food 8 4,691 8 4,8011 9 4,734
Plymouth Breeze 5 5,129 4 5,0922 4 5,121
Subaru Outback 12 4,13 10 4,5487 11 4,594
Ortho Weed-B-Gon 9 4,521 9 4,5615 15 4,216
Off Citronella Candles 2 5,343 3 5,1203 6 4,957
Neutrogena Sunblock 13 4,044 12 4,4226 12 4,521
Comforel Pillows 15 3,549 13 4,251 14 4,273
Atrovent Nasal Spray 7 4,722 2 5,2539 5 5,012
Ro-Tel Tomatoes 14 3,576 15 4,2007 2 5,153
Minute Maid Juice 4 5,173 1 5,3849 3 5,141
International Coffees 3 5,205 6 4,9409 1 5,184
Gardenburger 11 4,132 14 4,2377 13 4,307
Absolut Vodka 1 5,513 7 4,8925 7 4,955
N = 189 A/ = 43 A/ = 6 1

TABLE 2 and careful-careless. The differences

Mean Ratings of CPSS Subscales by Sample Type "^^'^ ^^''y significant (F = 8,i6, p < ,oi),
Stepwise regression analysis was used
Sampie Type Totai Originality Logic Weli-Crafted to identify the principal components that
Advertising 4 5939 4,7150 contributed to the overall and subscale

Professionals 4!5611 15196 '^''''^^- ^''^ '^^^'"^ *° * ^ '^"^^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ''"*•

College Students 4,7507 4,6544 4,8583 4,7396
,,,
General Public iJH? 4,5666 f;?.!!? f:!.9i?
5,48, p < ,01), There were not, however, ate-inappropriate, logical-illogical,
significant differences for all three sub- makes s e n s e - s e n s e l e s s , r e l e v a n t -
scales. Judgments of the advertisements irrelevant, and adequate-inadequate,
using the original subscale, which mea- was not quite significant between the
sured the attributes original—conven- three samples (F = 2,94, p > ,05), The great-
tional, novel—predictable, unusual— est differences were for the well-crafted
usual, unique—ordinary, and fresh- subscale, which measured the execution
overused, were not significantly different of the advertisements with such attributes
(F = 1,87, p > ,05), The logical subscale, as well-crafted-crude, meticulous-sloppy,
which measures the attributes appropri- skillful-bungling, well-made-botched,
ings and the ratings for the Well-Crafted
, , . , • c •
subscale, where analysis of variance was
significantly different, the principal com-
ponents were experience in advertising,
followed by type of sample (professionals,
public, students), followed by region of
the country the person is from, age, and
gender. The results for the Total CPSS rat-
ings and the Well-Crafted subscale were
essentially identical,
For the Originality and Logic subscales,
however, the predictors were somewhat
different. The most significant predictor
for the Originality subscale was the adver-
tisement number—or which advertise-

November . December 2 0 0 1 JDIIRHIIL OFflDHERTISKlGRESEHBCH 3 1

ASSESSING ADVERTISING CREATIVITY

Students consistently gave advertisements the highest spondents come from, whether they con-
sider themselves rural or urban, the num-
mean ratings. Advertising professionals consistently ber of years' experience they have work-
ing in advertising, and their advertising
gave them the lowest. And the general public was con- job title. There were also significant differ-
ences based on media conception, includ-
sistently in the middle. ing number of magazines and newspaper
readership and TV viewing habits. How
advertising creativity is judged varies sig-
ment was being evaluated. Other predic- viewer. The advertisement number was nificantly based on a number of factors.
tors in order of consequence were gender, not a significant predictor. The only demographic variable that did
rural versus urban, experience in advertis- Professionals, members of the general not show a difference was education.
ing, and type of sample. For the Logic sub- public, and students agreed on the origi- Evaluations of advertisements were very
scale, experience in advertising had the nality and logic of advertisements but not similar regardless of level of education.
highest loading as a predictor, followed about how well-crafted they were. And, How we judge advertising is clearly a
by advertisement number, region, type, overall, their judgments were different. function of who we are, as represented by
and gender. Hypothesis HI, which posited that there various demographic and other descrip-
When it came to the Originality and would be no differences in the judgments tive variables. Evaluations differ signifi-
Logic subsets, the CPSS ratings were more of the three groups, was rejected. cantly based on all sorts of differences be-
affected by which advertisement was be- tween individuals. Hypothesis H2, which
ing evaluated and by the personal charac- Demographic variables posited that there would be no differences
teristics of the reviewer. For the Total One-way analysis of variance tests indi- in evaluations of advertisements based on
CPSS score and the Well-Crafted subset, cated significant differences in the evalu- demographic variables, was rejected. (See
the type of sample was most predictive, ations of advertisements based on age, Table 3.)
followed by the characteristics of the re- gender, income, race, region where the re-
Factor analysis of the CPSS subscales
The researchers wondered whether factor
TABLE 3 analysis of the individual items in the Cre-
Analysis of Variance of Evaluation Differences by ^"^^ P^^o^uct semantic Scaie would con-
Demographic Variables ^^'"^ '^^ relationships that should exist be-
tween the items and the CPSS subscales.
Variable F p In other words, do the five items that
^gg 4 gy Q QQQ make up the CPSS original, logical, and
well-crafted subscales load as distinct fac-
Gender 19.50 0.000
tors? A maximum likelihood factor analy-
!??!J£^!?[^ ^.Jl 9:^84 gig ^ i t h a Varimax rotation w a s con-
Income 3.48 0.008 ducted on the 15 CPSS items. The results
Race 5.15 0.000 confirm the relationships between the five
P I 3 42 0 001 items that make up each subscale. All five
items had high loadings (0.6 and above).
Rural/Urban 11.32 0.000 „ . ,. , . , , , ,. , _ , ,
The five highest loadings for Factor 1 were
!.^P?.''.'.?".^.® .ly?.^.*:^.* 2.13 0.000 the five items that make up the original
Experience Gob title) 11.32 0.000 subscale. The same was true for the other
Magazine readership 3.74 0.000 ^ ° subscales. In each case the five items
., . u- ^nr^^ ^^]^^ associated with a subscale had the highest
Newspaper readership 12.99 0.000 °
loadings for a factor, and the loadings
TV viewing
? 4.28 0.000 . • . /n^ i \ J
were high (0.6 or above) or moderate (0.4

3 2 JOlllBL OFflDUERTISlOGflESEOOCHNovember . December 2 0 0 1


or above). The validity of the CPSS sub-
scales was confirmed.
DISCUSSiON
Different groups of people judge the cre-
ativity of print advertisements differently.
That is the general conclusion of this
study. The situation is somewhat more
complex than that, however. Advertising
professionals, members of the general
public, and college students judged the
originality and logic of advertisements
similarly. A 1995 study by Kover et al. ex-
amined consumer responses to commer-
cials and found that those that were per-
ceived as unexpected by viewers were not
necessarily perceived as creative or per-
suasive. That study found that consumers
liked advertising that fit their expecta-
tions. Thus, it is important that advertis-
ing professionals be able to predict the
expectations of consumers. Consumer ex-
pectations may be linked both to advertis-
ing originality and logic. Altsech (1995)
concluded from his study that creativity
and originality are synonymous, but that
appropriateness is a "qualifier" for cre-
ativity. If one accepts that argument, then
a clear understanding of the appropriate-
ness or "logic" component of the creativ-
ity construct is essential to creating adver-
tisements that work.
This study found differences in the way
that advertising professionals, members
of the general public, and college students
viewed how well-crafted the advertise-
ments were. Professionals, whose experi-
ence and training should give them
greater insights about creative executions,
judged the advertisements differently on
the Well-Crafted subscale, and the results
for that subscale were sufficiently differ-
ent to affect the overall Total ratings as
well.
People of different ages, gender, profes-
sional experience, region of the country.
and other demographic groups judged the
advertisements differently. People of dif-
ferent ages experience the same advertise-
ment in different ways. Men and women
saw the advertisements differently. Mid-
westerners and southerners had different
judgments. Many factors apparently affect
the experience of looking at an advertise-
ment and judging its creativity.
When a group of people judges the
originality or logic of an advertisement, it
appears that what is most important is the
content of the advertisement itself. People
from all three samples seemed to agree
on which advertisements were most origi-
nal and made the most sense. As far as
how well executed an advertisement is,
however, training and experience in ad-
vertising becomes the key factor. Ad-
vertising professionals judge the execu-
Creativity is in the eye of the beholder in advertising, as
well as other spheres of creative endeavor.
tion of advertisements differently from
other sample groups.
What difference does it make? Perhaps
the main thing that advertising profes-
sionals could take from the study is an
understanding of the significant role the
consumers' individual characteristics play
in how they judge an advertisement. Who
they are affects how they experience an
advertisement. Creativity is in the eye of
the beholder in advertising, as well as
other spheres of creative endeavor. Evi-
dence that this small sample of advertis-
ing professionals judged originality and
logic of advertisements similarly to some
members of the general public and stu-
dents may indicate that advertising pro-
fessionals are more connected to consum-
ers than previously thought. Of course.
November . December 2 0 0 1 JOURIL OF ROOERTISIRG RESERRCR 3 3
ASSESSING ADVERTISING CREATIVITY
this may apply only to judgments of cre-
ativity. More research into judgments of
advertisements based on appeals and
key messages in advertising content is
warranted.
Advertising is pervasive in Western so-
ciety and may be examined in terms of its
content, its vehicle, product, and process,
among other things. Industry lore pre-
sumes desirable and effective advertising
to be creative. Industry awards are predi-
cated on this assumption. To date, adver-
tising creativity has been judged primarily
by advertising professionals who have
training and experience in the creation of
advertising. One may also assume that ad-
vertising professionals attempt to predict
that which will capture the attention of
the consumer. This study demonstrates
the differences in judgments made by ad-
vertising professionals, members of the
general public, and students. Additional
research on creativity as a function of
advertising content is needed to identify
common characteristics that are likely to
be thought creative. (QJ)
AusA WHITE is assistant professor at the University of
Texas at Arlington where she teaches advertising
strategy and copywriting. She has 15 years
professional media experience and a Ph. D. from
the University of Tennessee.
BRUCE L. SMITH is professor and chair of Mass
Communications at Southwest Texas State University,
San Marcos. He has more than 20 years of
professional broadcasting experience in five states,
including 17 years managing TV and radio stations.
ASSESSING ADVERTISING CREATIVITY
He has an Ed, D, from Boston University, and a B,A,
from the University of Minnesota, Duiuth,
REFERENCES
ALTSECH, M , B, "The Assessment of Creativity
in Advertising and the Effectiveness of Cre-
ative Advertisements," Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Pennsylvania State University,
1995,
AMABILE, T, "Social Psychology of Creativity:
A Consensual Assessment Technique," journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 43, 5
(1982): 997-1013,
BARRON, F , "Putting Creativity to Work," In
The Nature of Creativity, R, J, Sternberg, ed,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1988,
BELL, J, A, "Creativity, TV Commercial Popu-
larity, and Advertising Expenditures," Interna-
tional journal of Advertising 11, 2 (1992):
165-83,
BESEMER, S,, and K. O ' Q U I N . "Analyzing Cre-
ative Products: Refinement and Test of a
Judging Instrument," journal of Creative Behav-
ior 20, 2 (1986): 115-25,
BLASKO, V,, and M, MOKWA, "Creativity in
Advertising: A Janusian Perspective," journal
of Advertising 15, 4 (1986): 43-50,
COWAN, W , C , " H O W Agencies Are Most
3 4 JDimHIlL OF HDllEIITISinG RESEflRCII November • December 2 0 0 1
Likely to Win Accounts," Advertising Age,
1986,
ELANDIN, M , P , , E , MARTIN, and L, P. SIMKIN,
"Advertising Effectiveness Research: A Sur-
vey of Agencies, Clients and Conflicts," Inter-
national journal of Advertising 11, 3 (1992):
203-14,
FLETCHER, W , "The Management of Creativ-
ity," International journal of Advertising 9, 1
(1990): 1-37,
KNELLER, G , F, The Art and Science of Creativity.
New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1965,
KOVER, A,, S, GOLDBERG, and W, JAMES, "Cre-
ativity versus Effectiveness? An Integrating
Classification for Advertising," journal of
Advertising Research 35, 6 (1995): 29-38,
, W, JAMES, and B, SONNER, " T O Whom
Do Advertising Creatives Write? An Inferen-
tial Answer," journal of Advertising Research
37, 1 (1997): 41-53,
KRESHEL, P , J, "John B, Watson at J, Walter
Thompson: The Legitimization of "Science' in
Advertising," journal of Advertising 19, 2
(1990): 49-59,
MACKINNON, D, W, "Some Critical Issues for
Future Research in Creativity," In frontiers of
Creativity Researeh, S, G, Isaksen, ed, Buffalo,
NY: Bearly Ltd,, 1987,
, "Creativity: A Multi-faceted Phenom-
enon," In Creativity: A Discussion at the Nobel
Conference, J, Roslansky, ed. Amsterdam:
North Holland Publishing, 1970,
MARRA, J. L, "Advertising Creativity: Tech-
niques for Generating Ideas." Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1990,
O ' Q U I N , K , , and S, P, BESEMER, "The Develop-
ment, Reliability, and Validity of the Revised
Creative Product Semantic Scale," Creativity
Research journat 2, 4 (1989): 267-78,
PARNES, S, J, "Aha!" In Perspectives in Creativ-
ity, I, A, Taylor, and J, W, Getzels, eds, , Chi-
cago, IL: Aldine, 1975,
PETERS, T. "The Circle of Innovation: You
Can't Shrink Your Way to Greatness," New
York, NY: Knopf, 1997,
RUSSELL, S, G , "A Comparison of Approaches
to Problem Solving with Elementary School
Students," Doctoral dissertation, Boston Uni-
versity, 1991, Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional, 52, 2505a-06a,
SMITH, BRUCE L , "Interpersonal Behaviors That
Damage the Productivity of Creative Problem
Solving Groups," journat of Creative Behavior
27, 3 (1993): 171-87.
TAYLOR, R. E., M , G , HOY, and E, HALEY.
"How French Advertising Professionals De-
velop Creative Strategy." journal of Advertising
25, 1 (1996): 1-14,