比較式廣告是一種將目標品牌與背景品牌並列比較，藉以顯示目標品牌優於背景品牌的廣告方式，在廣告設計上，主要包括：(1)目標品牌、(2)背景品牌、(3)比較屬性特徵等三個要素所構成，其主要目的在於透過廣告訊息傳遞目標品牌在特定屬性上相對績效表現較佳的資訊，引發消費者對廣告品牌和比較品牌產生知覺上的差異，形成差異化的品牌定位。文獻回顧顯示過去對於比較式廣告效果的研究多半以產品類別內多數品牌共通的典型屬性作為比較基礎，至於其他屬性性質是否仍將帶來相同的效果卻相對缺乏討論，另一方面，過去文獻主張目標品牌與背景品牌市場地位不一致時，比較式廣告能獲得最佳的效果，然而，實務執行上卻呈現與學術理論背離的情形，有越來越多廣告選擇以相同市場階層的品牌來進行相互比較。因此，本研究以比較式廣告為脈絡，探討消費者在觀看比較式廣告時，比較屬性的性質與品牌市場地位一致性之間的交互作用將會如何影響消費者對目標品牌的評價。
本研究以實驗法的方式進行，自變項為屬性性質(典型屬性∕新奇屬性∕瑣碎屬性)、品牌市場地位一致性(不一致∕高階品牌一致∕中階品牌一致)，依變項為目標品牌的整體評價。研究發現：(1)在比較式廣告中，增添新奇屬性對消費者品牌評價的影響並不顯著。(2)揭露瑣碎屬性的本質並不會貶損消費者對目標品牌的評價。(3)當目標品牌為中階品牌時，同階比較的廣告效果並不會比跨階比較來得差。本研究的結果為目前消費產品市場上以瑣碎屬性作為廣告訴求焦點的趨勢提供了一個詮釋的途徑，也說明了除了傳統上慣見的市場地位不一致的比較式廣告之外，同階比較的廣告在某種程度上仍可達到定位品牌的效果。

Comparative Advertising is an advertising approach which is used to demonstrate the superiority of target brand to context brand. While designing advertising message, three major components are considered: (1) target brand, (2) context brand and (3) featured attributes. By comparing featured attributes of target brand and context brand in one advertising message, comparative advertisements transmits the information that the target brand offers better performance in featured attributes than the context brand. Therefore, it induces consumers’ diverse perception toward the brands and achieves brand positioning differentiation. Literature reviews show that most past studies of comparative advertising only regarded the advertising effect of typical attributes, which appear on most of the brands within the same product category; however, whether non-typical attributes generate the same outcomes is still in doubt. In addition, literature reviews assert that comparative advertising produces outstanding effect while brand positions between the target brand and the context brand are incongruous, but real cases deviated from academic literature-- more and more advertisements were designed to compare brands from the same market position. Therefore, the main purpose of this research is to understand how the interaction between featured attributes and brand congruity affects consumers’ evaluation toward target brand.
This research employed a 3×3 between-subjects experimental design, with dependent variable being target brand evaluation, and independent variables being featured attribute (typical attribute/novel attribute/trivial attribute) and brand congruity (incongruent/congruent in high class/congruent in middle class). The result shows that (1) adding novel attributes to comparative advertising message does not change consumers’ brand evaluations significantly, (2) revealing the true properties of trivial attributes does not discount consumers’ brand evaluations, and (3) the effect of within-class comparative advertising does not show significant difference to that of across-class comparative advertising when target brand is regarded in middle class. These findings provide a comprehensive explanation of why advertisers focused on trivial attributes in their advertising appeals. Moreover, the conclusion of this research illustrates that within-class comparative advertising may achieve the same effect on brand positioning as traditional incongruent comparative advertising does.

參考文獻

中文部分
丁瑞華（2004）。《微觀非必要產品屬性對產品線延伸之影響》。台北大學企業管理學系博士論文。
別蓮蒂（2004）。〈優勢與平位比較性廣告之策略運用及溝通效果〉，《管理學報》，21（1）：47-62。
祝鳳岡（1994）。〈國際比較廣告規範之研究〉，《廣告學研究》，4：93-110。
陳櫻琴（1999）。《「比較廣告」理論與案例》，台北：翰蘆。

英文部分
Anderson, R. E. (1973). Consumer dissatisfaction: The effect of disconfirmed expectancy on perceived product performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 10, 38-44.
Armstrong, G., & Kotler, P. (2005). Marketing: An introduction (7th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Auken, S. V., & Adams, A. J. (1999). Across- versus within-class comparative advertising: Insights into prestige class anchoring. Psychology & Marketing, 16(5), 429-450.
Auken, S. V., & Adams, A. J. (1998). Attribute upgrading through across-class, within-category comparison advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 38(2), 6-16.
Barry, T. E. (1993a). Comparative advertising: What have we learned in two decades? Journal of Advertising Research, 33(2), 19-29.
Barry, T. E. (1993b). Twenty years of comparative advertising in the United States. International Journal of Advertising, 12, 325-350.
Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 187-217.
Bickart, B., Simmons, C. J., & Vyas, C. (2003). The effects of featured brand quality on price valuations of the product portfolio. Advances in Consumer Research, 30, 264-269.
Blackwell, R. D., Miniard, P. W., & Engel, J. F. (2001). Consumer behavior (9th ed.). Ohio: South-Western.
Boyd, Jr., H. W., Ray, M. L., & Strong, E. C. (1972). An attitudinal framework for advertising strategy. Journal of Marketing, 36, 27-33.
Broniarczyk, S. M., & Gershoff, A. D. (2003). The reciprocal effects of brand equity and trivial attributes. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(2), 161-175.
Broniarczyk, S. M., & Gershoff, A. D. (1997). Meaningless differentiation revisited. Advances in Consumer Research, 24, 223-228.
Brown, C. L., & Carpenter, G. S. (2000). Why is the trivial important? A reasons-based account for the effects of trivial attributes on choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 372-385.
Campbell, M. C., & Goodstein, R. C. (2001). The moderating effect of perceived risk on consumers’ evaluations of product incongruity: Preference for the norm. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 439-449.
Carpenter, G. S., Glazer, R., & Nakamoto, K. (1994). Meaningful brands from meaningless differentiation: The dependence on irrelevant attributes. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(3), 339-350.
Chakravati, A., & Xie, J. (2006). The impact of standards competition on consumers: Effectiveness of product information and advertising formats. Journal of Marketing research, 43(2), 224-236.
Chow, C. W. C., & Luk, C. L. (2006). Effects of comparative advertising in high- and low-cognitive elaboration conditions. Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 55-67.
Dhar, R., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). The effect of common and unique features in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 23, 193-203.
Flynn, L. R., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). A short, reliable measure of subjective knowledge. Journal of Business Research, 46(1), 57-66.
Frazier, G. L., & Lassar, W. M. (1996). Determinants of distribution intensity. Journal of Marketing, 60, 39-51.
Gatignon, H., & Robertson, T. S. (1993). The impact of risk and competition on choice of innovations. Marketing Letters, 4(3), 191-204.
Gorn, G. J., & Weinberg, C. B. (1984). The impact of comparative advertising on perception and attitude: Some positive findings. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 719-727.
Grewal, D., Gotlieb, J., & Matmorstein, H. (1994). The moderating effects of message framing and source credibility on the price-perceived risk relationship. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 145-153.
Grewal, D., Kavanoor, S., Fern, E. F., Costley, C., & Barnes, J. (1997). Comparative versus noncomparative advertising: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 61(4), 1-15.
Herr, P. M. (1989). Priming price: Prior knowledge and context effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 67-75.
Hoch, S. J., & Deighton, J. (1989). Managing what consumers learn from experience. Journal of Marketing, 53, 1-20.
Hutchinson, J. W., & Alba, J. W. (1991). Ignoring irrelevant information: Situational determinants of consumer learning. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 325-345.
Kavanoor, S., Grewal, D., & Blodgett, J. (1997). Ads promoting OTC mediations: The effect of ad format and credibility on beliefs, attitude, and purchase intentions. Journal of Business Research, 40, 219-227.
Klein, J. G. (1999). Developing negatives: Expectancy assimilation and contrast in product judgments. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 463-468.
Levin, P. I., & Levin, A. M. (2000). Modeling the role of brand alliance in the assimilation of product evaluations. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 9(1), 43-52.
Meyvis, T., & Janiszewski, C. (2002). Consumers’ beliefs about product benefits: the effect of obviously irrelevant product information. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 618-635.
Moorman, C. (1995). Organizational market information process: Cultural antecedents and new product outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 318-335.
Mukherjee, A., & Hoyer, W. D. (2001). The effect of novel attributes on product evaluation. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 462-472.
Nowlis, S. M., & Simonson, I. (1996). The effect of new product features on brand choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 33, 36-46.
Olshavsky, R. W., & Spreng, R. A. (1996). An exploratory study of the innovation evaluation process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(6), 512-529.
Pechmann, C., & Ratneshwar, S. (1991). The use of comparative advertising for brand positioning: Association versus differentiation. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(2), 145-160.
Pechmann, C., & Stewart, D. W. (1990). The effects of comparative advertising on attention, memory, and purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 180-191.
Priester, J. R., Godek, J., Nayakankuppum, DJ, & Park, K. (2004). Brand congruity and comparative advertising: When and why comparative advertisements lead to greater elaboration. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1&2), 115-123.
Punj, G., & Moon, J. (2002). Positioning options for achieving brand association: A psychological categorization framework. Journal of Business Research, 55, 275-283.
Rosbergen, E., Pieters, P., & Wedel, M. (1997). Visual attention to advertising: A segment level analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 305-314.
Rose, R. L., Miniard, P. W., Barone, M. J., Manning, K. C., & Till, B. D. (1993). When persuasion goes undetected: The case of comparative advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(3), 315-330.
Shimp, T. A. and Bearden, W. O. (1982). Warranty and other extrinsic cue effects on consumers’ risk perceptions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 38-46.
Simonson, I., Carmon, Z., & O’Curry, S. (1994). Experimental evidence on the negative effect of product features and sales promotions on brand choice. Marketing Science, 13, 23-40.
Solomon, M. R., & Stuart, E. W. (1997). Marketing: Real people, real choices. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Stapel, D. A., & Winkielman, P. (1998). Assimilation and contrast as a function of context-target similarity, distinctness, and dimensional relevance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(6), 634-646.
Sujan, M., & Dekleva, C. (1987). Product categorization and inference making: Some implications for comparative advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 372-378.
Ward, J., & Loken, B. (1988). The generality of typicality effects on preference and comparison: An exploratory test. Advances in Consumer Research, 15, 55-61.
Wilkie, W. L., & Farris, P. W. (1975). Comparison advertising: Problems and potential. Journal of Marketing, 39, 7-15.
Zhou, K. Z., & Nakamoto, K. (2007). How do enhanced and unique features affect new product preference? The moderating role of product familiarity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 53-62.
Ziamou, P., & Ratneshwar, S. (2003). Innovations in product functionality: When and why are explicit comparisons effective? Journal of Marketing, 67, 49-61.