The Strong and Weak Theory!

Under the strong theory, adverting is believed to be capable of increasing sales at the brand and class levels. These upward shifts are achieved through the use of manipulative and psychological techniques, which are deployed against consumers who are passive, possibly due to apathy, and are generally incapable of processing information intelligentally. The most appropriate theory would appear to be the hierarchy of effects model, where sequential steps move buyers forward to a purchase, stimulated by timely and suitable promotional messages.

Increasing numbers of the European writers argue that the strong theory does not reflect practice. Most notable of these writers is Ehrenberg (1988; 1997), who believes that a consumer's patter of brand purchases is driven more by habit that by exposure to promotional messages.

The framework proposed by Ehrenberg is saying that awareness is required before any purchase can be made, although the elapsed time between awareness and action may be very short or very long. For few people intrigued enough to want to try a product, a trial purchase constitutes the next phase. This may be stimulated by retail availability as much as by advertising, word-of-mouth or personal selling stimuli.

Adverting's role is to breed brand familiarity and identification (Ehrenberg, 1997).

Following on from the original ATR model (Ehrenberg, 1974), various enhancements have been suggested. However, Ehrenberg added a further stage in 1997, referred to as the nudge. He argues that some customers can 'be nudged into buying the brand more frequently (still as part of their split-loyalty repertories) or to favour it more than the other brands in their consideration sets'. Advertising need not be any different from before; it just provides more reinforcement that stimulates particular habitual buyers into more frequent selections of the brand from their repertoire.

According to the weak theory, advertising is capable of improving peoples knowledge, and so is in agreement with the strong theory. In contrast, however, consumers are regarded as selective in determining which advertisements they observe and only perceive those which promote products that they either use or have some prior knowledge of. This means that they already have some awareness of the characteristics of the advertised product.  It follows the amount of information actually communicated is limited. Advertising, (Jones) say's is not potent enough to convert people who hold reasonable strong beliefs that are counter to those portrayed in an advertisement. Advertising is employed as a defense, to retain customers and to increase product or brand usage. Advertising is used to reinforce existing attitudes not necessarily to drastically change them.

Unlike the strong theory, this perspective accepts that when people say that they are not influenced by advertising they are in the main correct. It also assumes that people are not apathetic or even stupid, but capable of high levels of cognitive processing.

In summary, the strong theory suggests that advertising can be persuasive, can generate long-run purchasing behaviour, can increase sales and regards consumers as passive. The weak theory suggests that purchase behaviour is based on habit and that advertising can improve knowledge and reinforce existing attitudes. It views consumers as active problem solvers.

These two perspectives serve to illustrate the dichotomy of views that have emerged about this subject. They are important because they are both right and they are both wrong. The answer to the question, 'how does advertising work?' lies somewhere between the two views, and dependent upon the particular situation facing each advertiser. Where elaboration is likely to be high if advertising is to work, then it is most likely to work under the strong theory. For example, consumer durables and financial products require that advertising urges prospective customers into some form of trial behaviour. The vast majority of product purchases, however, involve low levels of elaboration, where involvement is low and where people select, often unconsciously, brands from an evoked set.

New products require people to convert or change their purchasing patterns. It is evident that the strong theory must prevail in these circumstances. Where products become established their markets generally mature, so that real growth is non-franchise and by allowing users to have their product choices confirmed and reinforced.

If the strong theory was the only acceptable approach, then theoretically advertising would be capable of continually increasing the size of each market, until everyone had been converted. There would be no 'stationary' markets.

The strong theory fails to deliver the expected results, and the weak theory does not apply to all circumstances. Reality may be a mixture of the two.

Well, comparing the two events, I believe The ARC Show is following along the lines of the weak theory because they are only exposing themselves to people and companies that know them and their aim is to get people and companies they know to come along to their event and purchase goods. I'm sure they welcome joe public to come along but that's not the market they are aiming for, they want lighting designers and architects and so on, thats their market and that's what they get, even though they might not get as many people attending as they would want as when I visited it wasn't the busiest of events that I've ever been to.

As for Frank Warren, I believe that they go with the strong theory as they are reaching to their current market but by using t.v, the web and lots of media coverage they are always trying to reach to a new market as its not always going to be the same people to attend different fights that they promote/ put on because different fighters have different styles which can lead to different fighters having a different fan base as with boxing fans not everyone likes a certain boxers personality.