Table 1

Theoretical contributions, limitations and AI-driven evolution of marketing communication models

ModelTheoretical contributionCritical limitationsAI disruption impact
Shannon and Weaver (1949), Schramm (1954) Linear transmission model establishing core elements (sender–message–channel–receiver) and introducing feedback/noise; foundation for later marketing communication modelsLinear structure ignores psychosocial context; assumes unidirectional control, stable channels and limited interactivity; weak treatment of meaning co-construction, social context and nonconscious processingAI not only enables real-time, algorithmically optimized feedback loops across channels (e.g. chatbot response tracking) but also introduces machine agency (LLMs and recommenders) and opaque mediation that the model does not theorize
AIDA (Lewis, 1899)Pragmatic sales funnel (Attention → Interest → Desire → Action); useful for planning persuasive sequences and performance metricsOverly linear and sales-centric; under-specifies post-purchase learning, social influence, brand equity and multi-touch journeysAI compresses or reorders stages via predictive intent scoring, dynamic creative and agentic journeys (e.g. dynamic product recommendations); AIDA lacks mechanisms for adaptive orchestration and governance
Hierarchy of effects (Lavidge & Steiner, 1961)Links attitudinal stages (Cognition → Affect → Conation) to long-term brand-building and measurement of intermediate effectsAssumes stable attitude formation and slow-moving measurement; limited ability to model implicit affect, habit and real-time feedbackAI shifts measurement from surveys to behavioral + sentiment signals and enables continuous optimization; the model lacks constructs for algorithmic learning and privacy/ethics constraints
RACE (Chaffey & Ellis-Chadwick, 2019)Closed-loop digital planning optimization (Reach → Act → Convert → Engage)Tactical focus, lacks brand-building mechanism and strategy integration; risks channel silos; limited guidance on governance/ethicsAI strengthens targeting, personalization, and experimentation at scale but also risks filter bubbles and manipulation; RACE needs explicit guardrails for responsible automation
Customer-Based Brand Equity - CBBE (Keller, 1993, 2001)Explains how brand knowledge structures into building brand equity: Brand identity → meaning → responses → relationships (resonance); bridges communications to long-term brand assetsResource-intensive; requires consistent cross-channel alignment; less explicit on platform dynamics, co-creation and fluid identity signals; assumes relative stability of brand meaning and firm stewardshipAI multiplies touchpoints and personalized brand expressions, challenging coherence; requires integrating machine-mediated authorship, synthetic content provenance and trust management
Awareness–Trial–Reinforcement (ATR) (Ehrenberg, 1974)Advertising primarily builds salience and reinforces buying habits; emphasizes penetration, availability and repetition over persuasion, especially for frequently bought goodsUnder-specifies strong persuasion contexts (high-involvement, high-risk categories) and overlooks cultural/identity meaning-makingAI can automate frequency/reach optimization and personalize reinforcement triggers, but ATR does not address hyper-personalized creative variants, attribution complexity or algorithmic bias effects
Primary affective reaction model (Van Raaij, 1989)Proposes an initial, often subconscious affective “gatekeeper” response during scanning that determines whether deeper processing follows; integrates emotion into early-stage attentionConceptual and difficult to operationalize; limited treatment of sustained engagement, interactive media and downstream learning across touchpointsAI-driven attention optimization (feeds, recommender systems) amplifies pre-attentive affective filtering; the model lacks an account of algorithmic curation and transparency effects on trust
Low-attention processing model (Heath, 2000)Advertising can build implicit memory and emotional associations under low attention; brand effects accrue without active recallDebates about measurement and boundary conditions; less suited to interactive, dialogic environments where consumers co-produce contentAI increases low-attention exposures (always-on, micro-content) and can personalize emotional cues; model needs extension to agent interfaces (chatbots/assistants) and synthetic media disclosure
Integrated information response model (Smith & Swinyard, 1982)Integrates hierarchy-of-effects and low-involvement learning: advertising forms tentative beliefs that are strengthened/validated through trial and experience; emphasizes belief strength and sequencingAssumes relatively discrete “ad → experience” sequencing; limited account of network effects, social proof and continuous algorithmic experimentationAI blurs ad/experience boundaries (conversational commerce, generative service encounters) and continuously tests messages; model needs constructs for real-time experimentation, personalization externalities and governance

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal