Conclusion

 

Frequency Tests

Only twenty one participants kept the same scores from pre to post-advertisement exposure. The brand with the greatest decrease in scoring was Max Factor. Neutrogena mascara incurred the greasted increase in attitudinal change.

Multiple Regression Analysis

The relationship between a person’s perception of a Max Factor advertisement and their perception of the Max Factor brand is somewhat weak. The most important variables concern perceptions of the mascara’s ability to make eyes look bigger, curl lashes and overall effectiveness as “good” mascara. Although less than one third of the variance in the change score explains sample results, we can assume that similar results of a weak relationship would be gathered from the greater population as well.

We can definitely assume that understanding how people feel about the Revlon advertisement does not help at all in understanding a relationship between the ad and their perception of the Revlon brand. It can be noted that of the ten Likert items, participants felt that separation and lengthening were the most important factors. Unfortunately, 15% of the variance in the change score explains this, and the scores are not significant. The sample results are therefore not applicable to the population as a whole.

Similar to Revlon mascara, the participants also felt that the ability of the Neutrogena mascara to separate and lengthen lashes was most important, as well as the ease of use. While the relationship between a person’s perception of a Neutrogena advertisement and their perception of the Neutrogena brand is somewhat weak, the results themselves are significant. We can therefore apply this weak relationship from the sample to the population as a whole.

Discriminant Analysis

Because there is little differentiation throughout the mean scores for Revlon, we can assume that exposure to the advertisement had little bearing on participants’ feelings about the brand. Even for the “good mascara” Likert item, the difference is not enough to prove significant.

We can also assume that the more participants felt that Revlon was a “good” mascara, the more they decreased their scores after seeing the advertisement. This is even truer for respondents who felt that Revlon mascara makes eyes look bigger. Conversely, the more that participants felt that Revlon curls and volumizes lashes, the more they liked the advertisement. This means that for the Revlon brand, it is important for the advertisement to illustrate the mascara’s ability to curl and volumize lashes. The most important variables overall are highlighted and include curling and volumizing.

ANOVA/MANOVA

Participants who scored Revlon the highest were women who did not change their scores after seeing the advertisement. This suggests that women who perceive Revlon to be a “good” mascara will continue to do so regardless of the advertising.

When participants liked the Revlon advertisement, they responded by scoring the even brand higher than the participants who liked the brand before viewing the ad and whose scores did not change at all. Because this is true for both men and women, there is no variance in this attribute relationship. Both genders also scored the Likert items very low when the scores decreased. When viewers perceive a mascara ad to promote the “curling” and “lengthening” abilities of mascara, this improves the likeability of the brand.

Factor Analysis

There is very little difference between the mean scores, which is representative of the lack of attitudinal variance among participants. The Neutrogena brand is scored slightly higher, but is not significant enough to prove any favor against the other brands. The relationship between Max Factor and Revlon was the only significant combination of brand comparison; therefore in 85 or more samples of every 100 samples drawn from the same population as this sample, we can expect to find similar brand attitude scores concerning the Max Factor and Revlon brands.