Two recent papers in the JAR (Blair and Rabuck, 1998 and Scott and Solomon,
1998) reach seemingly very different conclusions regarding advertising wea
rout. An analysis of the two papers reconciles the conclusions by showing t
hat the two papers focus on different units of analysis, single executions
versus advertising campaigns, and different measures (a choice-based measur
e of persuasiveness versus verbal measures of memory and attitude). Other d
ifferences in the foci of the two papers are also discussed and some genera
l conclusions about advertising wearout offered.