It's interesting to recall that at the start of the CRVP, the ARF asked copy-testing services as well as agencies and advertisers for validity data, but none was forthcoming.
This survey found that there was good awareness of the CRVP with two out of three respondents indicating that they were aware of the project.
The CRVP found that several pre-test measures were predictive of which of matched pairs of copy would be more effective in the marketplace and supported likability" as one of the measures which should be included in copy pre-tests - but only one of many.
Of those who were aware of the CRVP, over two-thirds of the respondents said that they were very or somewhat familiar with the CRVP study.
Many readers of the CRVP drew such a conclusion despite Haley and Baldinger's (1991) assurance that "no methods or measures can be rejected from the study.
We also present evidence subsequent to the CRVP suggesting that ad likability is not a valid-all-purpose predictor and that a better candidate is a measure that appeared to fare poorly in the CRVP: pre/post persuasion.
Before presenting our analysis in detail, we outline the CRVP for those unfamiliar with it.
The CRVP was based on five pairs of TV commercials for five different consumer packaged-goods products.
But the CRVP
found that a simpler measure, "brand recall from a product category cue," was a discriminator of sales effects.
In the CRVP, 35 advertising pretest or "copy-test" measures were examined for their ability to predict the sales effectiveness of five pairs of TV commercials--a "winner" and a "loser" in each pair--for consumer product brands.
In total, then, from the data reported in the CRVP, and using our 90/50/10 decision rule, there are 12 provisionally acceptable measures.
With the additional tests, Pre/Post Persuasion joins the top band of measures from the CRVP.