Pieters, Warlop, and Wedel (2002) test a common fear about creative ads: that originality steals attention from the brand. Eye-tracking in a magazine clutter setting shows the opposite pattern when originality is paired with familiarity.

Infrared eye-tracking of 119 consumers paging through two magazines with 58 full-page ads. Original ads drew more attention to the advertised brand. Ads that were both original and familiar attracted the largest brand attention, which improved subsequent brand memory. Original and familiar ads also promoted brand memory directly, beyond the attention path.

Sample and method

119 consumers; 58 full-page magazine ads; fixations to brand, text, and pictorial surfaces; indirect brand-memory task. A Bayesian (MCMC) model separates consumer and ad heterogeneity while linking originality and familiarity to fixation paths and memory.

Main findings

  • Originality helps the brand. Original ads increase brand attention rather than only ad attention.
  • Originality × familiarity is strongest. The peak brand-attention condition is ads that are both original and already familiar.
  • Memory has a direct path. Original-and-familiar ads improve brand memory even after accounting for attention.

Why this is in the Darwin index

This is the peer-reviewed rebuttal to “fresh creative always burns out the brand.” It pairs with the 2020 creativity meta-analysis (originality vs appropriateness) and with Pieters & Wedel (2004) on which surfaces capture attention. For Darwin’s element work, the practical prior is: novelty without brand-familiar scaffolding is not the peak attention condition.

Source of record: doi:10.1287/mnsc.48.6.765.192.