Consumers’ attitudes toward an ad (Aad) have offered a critical theoretical construct since 1981, with the publication of two influential articles (Mitchell & Olson, 1981; Shimp, 1981). Following these seminal articles, various studies were dedicated to demonstrating the effects of Aad on brand attitudes and purchase intentions (e.g., Gardner, 1985; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch 1986; McKenzie, & Lutz, 1989). Other studies show that Aad notably depends on attitudes toward advertising in general (Lutz, McKenzie, & Belch, 1983; Muehling, 1987; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989; Mehta, 2000). Yet attitudes toward advertising in general (AG) and their influence on advertising effectiveness have rarely been studied in cross-national studies (Mehta, 2000). This gap is puzzling, in that AG seems likely to differ across countries (Durvasula, Lysonski, & Mehta, 1999) and authors add about the countries studied, as "consumers in India and Singapore analyze advertisements differently. It would, therefore, appear to be inappropriate to standardize all advertising campaigns" (p.57). Alongside these results, it is surprising that a number of advertisements are used uniformly over several countries notably European and seem reach satisfactory efficiency scores in each country. It is therefore possible that other factors influence that. The purpose of this paper is to show that this gap between theory and practice comes from the definition of AG. We show from an experiment that if it is possible to detect by country some attitudinal differences toward advertising in general, these differences can be higher or lower depending on the type of advertising. Indeed, the concept of AG is in some cases too broad and needs to be replaced by more accurate measurements which focus on specific ads. We show that the concept of AG must be accompanied by more precise measurements for contextualizing advertising. We start with a theoretical background to clarify the key constructs of attitude toward advertising in general and attitude toward an ad, as well as their relationship. In light of our theoretical background and empirical evidence, we present the international context of our research and develop research hypotheses. Next, we outline our methodology and our research findings, followed by a discussion, conclusion, and some implications for managers.