Advertising Under Pressure: Why Strong and Weak Brands Respond Differently

15 NOVEMBER 2025

Advertising is often treated as a universal lever for brand growth, but the reality is far more complex. The effectiveness of advertising depends not only on creative execution or media spend but also on the underlying strength of the brand itself. Dahlén and Lange’s (2005) study offers a striking insight: advertising can reinforce strong brands when remembered, but paradoxically, it can harm weak brands when recalled. This counterintuitive finding challenges conventional wisdom and forces managers to reconsider how advertising interacts with brand equity, consumer memory, and joint promotional strategies.

Recall as a Double-Edged Sword

For strong brands, advertising recall is unequivocally beneficial. Consumers who already hold positive associations with a brand enjoy seeing its advertising, and recall serves to reinforce those favorable attitudes. This dynamic is consistent with earlier research showing that liked brands generate more favorable ad evaluations and even voluntary exposure, as consumers seek out advertising that validates their preferences (Machleit & Wilson, 1988; Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982). In this context, recall acts as a multiplier: the more consumers remember the ad, the stronger their purchase intentions become.

Weak brands, however, face a different reality. When consumers recall advertising for a brand they dislike or rate poorly, the act of remembering triggers negative associations. Dahlén and Lange (2005) found that weak brands actually benefited more when consumers were exposed to advertising without recalling it. This phenomenon aligns with research on implicit memory and preattentive processing, which shows that advertising can influence perceptions even when consumers do not consciously remember the exposure (Janiszewski, 1993; Shapiro, MacInnis, & Heckler, 1997). In such cases, weak brands gain familiarity and consideration set inclusion without activating the negative judgments that explicit recall would bring.

The Complexities of Joint Advertising

Joint advertising—pairing two brands in a single campaign—has become increasingly common, from co-branded promotions to cross-industry partnerships. Yet Dahlén and Lange’s findings reveal that joint advertising produces asymmetric outcomes depending on brand strength. Weak brands tend to suffer in joint ads, as their attitudes and purchase intentions decline compared to single-brand ads. Strong brands, conversely, benefit from the comparison, appearing more attractive when juxtaposed with weaker partners.

This dynamic challenges the assumption that co-branding always produces mutual gains. While classical conditioning and spillover effects suggest that associations can transfer between brands (Grossman, 1997; Simonin & Ruth, 1998), the reality is more nuanced. Familiar weak brands may not benefit from exposure alongside strong brands because consumers already hold entrenched negative evaluations. Instead of lifting the weak brand, joint advertising highlights the disparity, reinforcing the dominance of the stronger partner.

Strategic Lessons for Managers

The implications of this research are profound. For managers of strong brands, advertising should be designed to maximize recall. Campaigns that encourage memorability—through distinctive creative, repeated exposure, or emotionally resonant storytelling—will reinforce positive associations and drive purchase intention. Joint advertising can be strategically useful, but only when reputational risks are carefully managed. Strong brands must weigh whether association with weaker partners could dilute their equity, even as comparative effects make them appear more attractive.

For managers of weak brands, subtlety may be more effective than memorability. Advertising strategies that rely on implicit exposure—such as product placement, sponsorships, or low-intrusion digital formats—can build familiarity without triggering negative recall. Joint advertising with stronger brands should be approached cautiously, as the evidence suggests it often harms rather than helps. Weak brands may benefit more from partnerships with congruent peers or from campaigns that emphasize authenticity and gradual trust-building rather than direct comparison.

Advertising as a Function of Equity

Ultimately, Dahlén and Lange’s study underscores that advertising is not a neutral tool. Its effects are mediated by brand equity and consumer memory. Strong brands thrive when consumers recall their ads, while weak brands may gain more from exposure without recall. Joint advertising amplifies these differences, often to the detriment of weaker partners. For leaders, the key insight is that advertising strategy must be tailored to the brand’s position in the market. Treating advertising as a one-size-fits-all solution risks wasting resources and, in the case of weak brands, actively undermining equity.

Conclusion

Advertising under pressure reveals the fragility of weak brands and the reinforcing power of strong ones. Recall, far from being universally desirable, can harm brands that lack consumer goodwill. Joint advertising, while attractive in theory, often produces asymmetric outcomes that highlight disparities rather than bridge them. For managers, the lesson is clear: advertising must be designed with brand strength in mind. Strong brands should pursue memorability, while weak brands may benefit from subtle exposure strategies that build familiarity without triggering negative associations. In a marketplace defined by disruption and scrutiny, tailoring advertising to brand equity is not optional—it is essential for survival and growth.

References

Dahlén, M., & Lange, F. (2005). Advertising weak and strong brands: Who gains? Psychology & Marketing, 22(6), 473–488.

Grossman, R. P. (1997). Co-branding in advertising: Developing effective associations. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 6(3), 191–201.

Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132–140.

Janiszewski, C. (1993). Preconscious processing effects: The independence of attitude formation and conscious thought. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 199–213.

Machleit, K. A., & Wilson, R. D. (1988). Emotional feelings and attitude toward the advertisement: The roles of brand familiarity and repetition. Journal of Advertising, 17(3), 27–35.

Shapiro, S., MacInnis, D. J., & Heckler, S. E. (1997). The effects of incidental ad exposure on the formation of consideration sets. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(1), 94–104.

Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. A. (1998). Is a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 30–42.