Exploring the Relationship between Pre- and in-Market Ad Testing of Anti-Tobacco Advertising

Theoretical Background and research questions/hypothesis: Public health mass media campaigns, which are not trying to sell a product but effect social change, have been successful in impacting health related attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. Evaluating the potential effectiveness of a mass media campaign includes the process of testing advertising executions (ads) in relation to a variety of ad attributes among a target audience. Pre-market testing is conducted prior to messages being broadcast on air. In contrast, in-market testing examines message attributes when messages are aired within a real-world setting, where context plays an important role in determining audience response. These two types of ad testing provide critical feedback to helping optimize the execution of an ad and the implementation of a campaign. Few studies have assessed the relationship between pre-market ad testing results and in-market ad metrics specific to cause-related prevention messages to measure how well pre-market testing reflects how an ad does when it is on air. This study analyzes two nationally representative samples of youth and young adults, aged 15-21 years old, to examine the relationship between pre-market ad testing measures and in-market ad performance metrics.

Methods: Using an ad from the truth campaign, a national youth tobacco use prevention campaign, this study examines the relationship between pre-market ad testing measures and in-market ad performance metrics. Two samples of youth ages 15-21 from different online panels were collected: pre-market ad testing measures through forced exposure to the ad (n=938) and in-market ad performance metrics (n=329) using a truth continuous tracking survey. 

Results: A receptivity index was developed based on the mean score to “This ad captured my attention” and “This ad was meaningful.” An initial assessment of differences using an independent-samples t-test indicate that receptivity was statistically significantly higher in-market (M = 3.76, SD = 1.05) compared to pre-market (M = 3.43, SD = 1.01, p< 00.), suggesting that context plays a significant role when viewing ad messages. Regression analyses indicate no differences for receptivity of pre-market scores in relation to in-market ad performance metrics (CI: -.34, .04), demonstrating the value of pre-market testing scores in gauging campaign impact. 

Conclusions: If resources are limited, and both pre-market and in-market testing are not possible, pre-market testing can gauge in market performance and can also be a valuable tool to obtain important feedback from a target audience to help ensure optimal message comprehension and receptivity. These study findings demonstrate that even within the current media landscape, pre-market testing is a robust indicator of ad performance. 

Implications for research and/or practice: Findings demonstrate that pre-market ad testing is strongly associated with how well an ad will perform once aired on a media platform. Moreover, these data allow creative developers to modify various message elements in an effort to maximize ad performance before an ad airs. Pre- and in-market testing can also be used to make decisions regarding which media platform might be the optimal platform for each ad.