REFERENCES 151References
1 Malhotra, N. (2008), Marketing Research: An Applied
Orientation. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
2 Ries, A. and Trout, J. (2001), Positioning: Th e Battle for
Yo u r M i n d , 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
3 Bovée, C.L., Th ill, J.V., Dovel, G.P. and Wood, M.B.
(1995), Advertising Excellence. Englewood Cliff s, NJ:
McGraw-Hill.
4 Dibb, S. and Simkin, L. (2007), Th e Market Segmenta-
tion Workbook: Making it happen. London: Routledge;
Cathelat, B. (1993), Socio-Styles: Th e New Lifestyles Classi-
fi cation System for Identifying and Targeting Consumers
and Markets. London: Kogan Page.
5 IP Backstage , 26 October 2008, 4–9.
6 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/business/media/
axe-adds-fragrance-for-women-to-its-lineup.html
(accessed 20 September 2012).
7 Banks, I.B., De Pelsmacker, P. and Dens, N. (2012), ‘Men
Might Be from Mars, but Women Are Defi nitely from
Venus – Infl uence of Gender on Eff ectiveness of Probability
Markers in Advertising’, Proceedings of the 2012 AMA
Conference, Tampa, FL.
8 Meyers-Levy, J. and Sternthal, B. (1991), ‘Gender
Diff erences in the Use of Message Cues and Judgments’,
Journal of Marketing , 28 (February), 84–96.
9 Darley, W.K. and Smith, R.E. (1995), ‘Gender Diff erences
in Information Processing Strategies: An Empirical Test
of the Selectivity Model in Advertising Response’, Journal
of Advertising , 24(1), 41–56.
10 Carli, L. (1990), ‘Gender, Language, and Infl uence’, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology , 59(5), 941–51.
11 Meyers-Levy, J. (1989), ‘Gender Diff erences in Information
Processing: A Selectivity Interpretation’, in Caff erate, P.
and Tybout, A.M. (eds), Cognitive and Aff ective Responses
to Advertising. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
12 Areni, C.S. and Kiecker, P. (1993), ‘Gender Diff erences in
Competitiveness and Risk Aversion: Th eoretical Found a-
tions and Some Preliminary Findings’, in Gender and
Consumer Behavior Volume 2. Duluth, MN: Association
for Consumer Research, 30–43; Tannen, D. (1991), Yo u
Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation.
New York: Ballantine.13 Areni, C.S. (2002), ‘Th e Proposition-Probability Model of
Argument Structure and Message Acceptance’, Journal of
Consumer Research , 29(2), 168–87.
14 Berney-Reddish, I.A. and Areni, C.S. (2005), ‘Eff ects
of Probability Markers on Advertising Claim Acceptance’,
Journal of Marketing Communications , 11(1), 41–54.
15 Areni, C.S. and Kiecker, P. (1993), ‘Gender Diff erences in
Competitiveness and Risk Aversion: Th eoretical Found a-
tions and Some Preliminary Findings’, in Gender and
Consumer Behavior Volume 2. Duluth, MN: Association
for Consumer Research, 30–43.
16 Meyers-Levy, J. (1989), ‘Gender Diff erences in Information
Processing: A Selectivity Interpretation’, in Caff erate, P.
and Tybout, A.M. (eds), Cognitive and Aff ective Responses
to Advertising. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
17 Peter, J.P. and Olson, J.C. (1993), Consumer Behavior and
Marketing Strategy. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.
18 Herbig, P., Koehler, W. and Day, K. (1993), ‘Marketing to
the Baby Bust Generation’, Journal of Consumer Marketing ,
10(1), 4–9.
19 De Morgen , 27 December 2008.
20 http://www.wikipedia.com , Generation Y.
21 Junco, R. and Mastrodicasa, J.M. (2007), Connecting to the
Net.Generation: What Higher Education Professionals Need
to Know About Today’s Students. Washington, DC: NASPA.
22 Novak, R. (2009), ‘Marketing to Millennials: A Lesson
Learned from the Obama Campaign’, Th e Daily Anchor ,
19 January, http://www.thedailyanchor.com/2009/01/19/
marketing-to-millennials-a-lesson-learned-from-barack-
obama/ (accessed June 2009).
23 Fields, B. ‘Marketing to Gen Y: What You Can’t Aff ord Not
to Know’, http://www.startupnation.com/articles/9011/1/
marketing-GenY.htm (accessed June 2009).
24 Feierabend, S. and Chan-Olmsted, S. (2008), ‘Was Kinder
sehen’, Media Perspektiven, 2008 (4), 190–204.
25 Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A. and Olafsson, K.
(2011), EU Kids Online II. London: EU Kids Online.
26 Kunkel, D., Wilcox, B.L., Joanne, C., Edward, P., Linn, S. and
Dowrick, P. (2004), Report of Th e American Psychological
Association Task Force on Advertising and Children.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.- The total budget for this campaign was split as follows:
print (49%), TV (17%) and digital (34%). Based on
the results, was this a good decision? Would you do it
differently? Why/why not?
4. The approach of the ‘Ex-Smokers are Unstoppable’
campaign has proven successful. Explain.
5. What could be a good follow-up to this campaign in the
future?
Sources : Isabel Raes prepared this case study based on the following sources: Information received from Despina Spanou, Principal Advisor for Communication
and Stakeholders, Health & Consumers at the European Commission; Yves Van Landeghem, Strategy Director, Saatchi & Saatchi Brussels, 27 June 2012,
Euro-Effie case 2012; http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/11/405&formal=HTML&aged=0&language=en.M04_PELS3221_05_SE_C04.indd 151M04_PELS3221_05_SE_C04.indd 151 6/5/13 3:00 PM6/5/13 3:00 PM