Traditional advertising is giving way to a variety of new methods to communi­ cate and interact with consumers. This trend is driven by technology (e.g., wireless text messaging to phones, Internet search advertising, GPS­based loca­ tion advertising on PDAs, self­ destructing SMS messages, QR coded posters), pure opportunism (e.g., free­ floating holograms, guerilla light projections, street theater, moving billboards), and sheer ingenuity (e.g., subway turnstiles, airplane tray tables, parking lot stripes, water coolers). Its rise also comes at a time of a general decline in the use and fragmentation of traditional media, a shift in the amount of time consumers spend outside the home, and the perva­ siveness of technology in media-both in ad­ avoidance technology (such as DVRs) and new capabilities in ad transmission (such as digital billboards and mobile/cell phone advertising) (Chafkin, 2007; Francese, 2004). The absolute number and variety of non­ traditional advertising can make its study and use appear daunting. However, despite its seemingly eclectic and varied nature, non­ traditional advertising does share some theoretical common­ alities that help to understand, evaluate, and implement its use. To organize these commonalities, we present the Non­ traditional Advertising Message Processing (NAMP) framework, which is simple yet theoretically sound and robust. Our NAMP framework uses the capacity theory of attention and message response involvement theory to frame the relevant issues pertaining to McGuire’s (1969) receiver and channel components while the resource­ matching hypothesis is used to frame issues concerning the message compon­ ent. The NAMP framework additionally takes into account Thorson and Rodgers’ Figure 1.1 advertising “context” to better understand how to maxi­ mize advertising effectiveness.