CONSUMER PERCEIVED ADVERTISING VALUE AND ATTITUDE
Abstract
With Internet-based advertising spending taking a down turn and many studies attempting to study different reasons, it is important to understand what consumers on the receiving side of the ads think about online advertising. It is also important to further find out if consumers have different perceptions toward traditional and online advertising. Literature in advertising and information systems suggests that the following four factors contribute to consumers’ perceived advertising value and attitude for both traditional and Internet media: entertainment, irritation, informativeness, and credibility. We believe that interactivity is another factor that influences consumers’ perceptions. The present study extends the existing literature by (1) introducing interactivity as another contributory factor, and (2) measuring consumers’ perceived value and attitude of advertising for different purposes (brand building and directional advertising) and different media (traditional and Internet-based). The findings indicate that (1) the model originally developed by Ducoffe and extended by Brackett and Carr is a valid model in general; (2) interactivity is a necessary factor that contributes to consumer perceptions of advertising attitude; (3) the differences between traditional media advertising and the Internet-based advertising do not exist in the model but reflect on different perceived levels of entertainment, informativeness, credibility, irritation, value and attitude; and (4) advertising value is not a mediator between the antecedents and advertising attitude. A parsimonious model of measuring advertising attitude can be better illustrated by removing value from the model. In addition to adding findings to the literature from a theoretical perspective, this study provides practical guidelines for advertising designers and marketers to better strategize their advertising designs, especially for Internet-based advertising.
Keywords: Internet-based advertising, traditional advertising, consumer perception, advertising value, attitude toward advertising, interactivity
1 Introduction
While the top 100 U.S advertisers spent 64 billion on advertising in 1998 and the spending in all media totaled 231.3 billion in 2001, advertising efficiency has been in question (Luo, 2001; Coen, 2002). Practitioners would like to know the efficiency of advertising into which they have poured huge investment and how to improve their advertising strategy. To their disappointment, literature in advertising and Information Systems suggests that advertising in both traditional media and the Internet is either easily ignored by the audience or is perceived to have little value. The intrusive tactics advertisers employ when competing for consumers’ attention can be “annoying” to the audiences (Sandage & Leckenby, 1980; Rettie, Robinson & Jenner, 2001). The intrusive advertisements can also be costly to decrease viewers’ information seeking task performance (Zhang 2000). Limited time and mental resources make it difficult for the audience to dedicate sufficient attention to most advertisements. Moreover, the development of the Internet is resulting in great growth of online advertising, exposing the audience to an ever-increasing number of promotional messages (Fitzgerald, 1999; Clutter 2000). It not only has the competition for attraction more intensive, but also makes consumers develop a more sophisticated and selective attention for advertising. All of the above enhances the challenge for advertisers to attract attention from the audience. Consequently, studies tend to show a generally negative public attitude toward advertising (Alwitt & Prabhaker, 1994; Zanot, 1981; Zhang 2002). Consumers’ ignorance also reflects on the falling click-though-rate (CTR) of online advertisement. Statistics show that CTR of advertising have plummeted down from an average 2-3% to 0.24% in December 2000 (Hoffman 2001). CTR of sales promotion through emails during August 2001-August 2002 is only 1.7% (Internet Advertising Bureau 2002).
However, the above findings may not be sufficient to eliminate the accountability of advertising as a vehicle of conveying information to the intended audiences. Of interest is the continuing and steady rise of online traffic well after the subsiding of enthusiasm associated with the dot-com craze. The Internet has become a proven medium for advertising and has become a viable alternative to traditional media such as television and billboards. Although current figures fail to meet previous expectations, the online environment has established itself as a unique venue for commerce that has high growth potential. Ducoffe (1996) argues, “The vast majority of advertising exposures reach individuals when they are not shopping for the product or service being advertised, so most messages are simply not relevant to consumer concerns at the time of exposure” (p.22). This places researchers and practitioners in the position of refining their understanding of online advertising in order to better utilize the strengths of the Internet environment. Therefore, the importance of an advertising strategy that caters to consumers’ needs has emerged. It also reveals that the focal point for the development of effective advertising strategy, especially focusing on how the Internet should be differentiated from more traditional means of advertising (Eighmey, 1997; Bezjian, 1998; Chen & Wells, 2000), is in grasping factors that contribute to positive values and favorable attitudes of consumers.
Among the fruitful studies on online advertising, some do not differentiate the fundamental differences of advertising purposes, thus making the studies hard to compare or interpret. Advertising can be classified into two categories: brand building and directional (Fernandez and Rosen, 2000; Lohse and Rosen, 2001). Brand building advertising is synonymous with product advertising and is commonly seen in traditional mass media, including TV, radio, magazine, and
2 newspaper. Brand building advertisements tend to be product/service (or retailer) oriented with the purpose of establishing a positive image and creating demand for a product or service that leads to eventual purchase (Barrow, 1990; Rosenberg, 1995). The communication route is typically one-to-many and is designed to reach a mass audience by using a tactic of “intrusion” aimed at capturing the attention of viewers. Directional advertising is designed to help potential buyers locate interesting information (Fernandez, 1995). The communication route is typically one-to-one and it is assumed that a potential buyer brings himself or herself to ads. Advertising in this case is catering to customers’ needs. There is modest research on “directional media” such as Yellow Pages, catalogs, newspaper classifieds, movie listings, directories and industrial guides while there is considerable research on advertising placed in traditional mass media. Advertisements in directional media differ from those in traditional mass media. For example, ads in directional media are placed in goal-oriented and highly organized settings (Fernandez, 2000) that allow consumers to collect and process information at a desired pace. Conversely, advertisements in traditional mass media can be within a distracting and unorganized environment where little room is spared to the audience to critically evaluate the quality of the product and/or service. These two fundamentally different types of advertising are sometimes undistinguishable in several research studies, making their findings difficult to apply.
The literature of advertising and Information Systems has studies measuring the efficiency of advertising from both advertisers’ and consumers’ perspectives. Studies represent perspectives of advertisers tend to focus on the amount of sales and consumers purchasing behaviors (Simon and Arndt, 1980; Ekici, Commuri and Kennedy, 1999). There are also studies that focus on consumer advertising behavior (Chatterjee, et al. 1998), or effective online ad designs (Bhatnagar & Papatla, 2001; Langheinrch, et al.; Dreze and Zufryden, 1997; Palmer and Griffith, 1998; Rararski, 2002).
On the other hand, effectiveness of advertising can be measured from a consumer’s perspective by studying consumers’ perceived advertising value and their perceived favor in advertising, or their attitude, which have implications to the consumer’s future advertising intention and behavior (Ajzen, 1991).
In this study, we examine consumers’ perceptions on the values and attitudes between the Internet-based advertising and traditional advertising for both brand building and directional advertising purposes. By doing so, we intend to clarify some conceptual confusions in the current literature on advertising attitude and value, to validate and to extend some existing models on advertising attitude and value. We believe that the Internet and Web have the potential to support goal-oriented consumers. This can be utilized by well-designed directional online ads through data based marketing. We hope that this research can provide practical suggestions on how to design effective online ads to fully utilize the advantages of the online medium.
A Model of Advertising Value and Attitude
Existing advertising literature shows some confusion between the two constructs used in studying advertising perceptions. Some do not draw a distinction between advertising value and attitude (Alwitt & Prabhaker 1994; Metha, 2000; Chen & Wells, 2000; Bezjian-Avery et al. 1998); while others think that value and attitude are separate constructs.
3 Attitude toward advertising (Aad) is a multidimensional construct with numerous definitions (Heath and Gaeth, 1994). It is an affective construct with a cognitive component and is useful in explaining the influences of ad exposure on consumer brand beliefs, brand attitude and purchase intention (Mitchell and Olson, 1981; Shimp, 1981). It has been suggested by researchers that the cognitive dimensions of Aad come from more deliberate, effortful and central processing while the affective dimensions are from less effortful, low involvement, peripheral processing (Petty and Cacioppo, 1981; MacKenzie and Lutz, 1989). However, pinpointing attitude toward the ad as an affective response to ads has been a popular indicator for measuring the effectiveness of advertising (Srull 1990; Brown and Staymen 1992).
Advertising value, on the other hand, is defined by Ducoffe (1995) as a “subjective evaluation of the relative worth or utility of advertising to consumers” (p. 1). Ducoffe (1996) further defines ad value as a cognitive assessment of the extent to which advertising gives consumers what they want. He explains that the distinction between advertising value and attitude toward advertising allows for variability in consumers’ responses. For example, customers could dislike an ad they deem valuable and vice versa. Although consumers’ emotional response to ads has been intertwined with cognitive assessment, researchers have attempted to untangle emotional responses from cognitive processing to better understand the influence of advertising (MacInnis and Jaworski 1989). One way of doing this is to conceptualize the relationship between emotional effects and cognitive evaluation (Lang and Friestad, 1993)
By separating emotional component from cognitive reaction, Ducoffe (1995) develops a framework for predicting consumer’s value and attitude toward advertising. He identifies entertainment, informativeness, and irritation as factors contributing to consumers’ evaluations of ad values and thus attitude toward ads. Ducoffe (1996) then applies his model to the web environment. Without distinguishing the two types of advertising purposes, he confirms previous results and finds that attitude toward Web advertising is directly dependent on advertising value. Furthermore, advertising value is dependent on perceived levels of entertainment, informativeness, and irritation.
Brackett and Carr (2001) further validate Ducoffe’s model and extend the model to include credibility and consumer demographics. Credibility is directly related to both advertising value and attitude toward advertising. Demographic variables such as college major and gender are shown to affect only attitude toward advertising. Ducoffe (1996) and Brackett and Carr (2001) measure Attitude toward Aad by favorability/unfavorability. Again, Brackett and Carr do not separate brand building from directional adverting purposes.
One of the many differences between traditional and online advertising is the level of interactivity a consumer may experience with an ad. Compared to traditional media, the Internet provides more capabilities and thus more opportunities for consumers. Some of the Internet-based ads have certainly utilized the capabilities and have higher interactivity than many of the ads carried in traditional medium. There are also studies that find that interactivity is a factor that may affect consumer perceptions on ad value and attitude (Cho and Leckenby, 1999; Wu, 1999). Thus it is reasonable to believe that interactivity should be another antecedent to advertising value and attitude.
4 Interactivity is an underdefined concept that muddles different meanings and is used in different disciplines (Heeter 2000; Wu 1999). Among the many definitions, there are three dominant ways of defining interactivity: human-human interaction, human-message interaction and human-computer interaction (Cho and Leckenby 1999; Sukpanich and Chen, 2000). Hwang and McMillan (2002) summarize that the focus of human-human interaction is two-way communication or information exchange between/among sender(s) and receiver(s); the focus of human-computer interaction is often on locus of control; and the emphasis in human-message interaction is the perception of time in terms of the speed with which messages exchanged/delivered, the speed with which an individual processes message, and users’ ability to quickly navigate through a wealth of information. Cho and Leckenby (1999) also identify that customization of the message is an important factor in human-message interaction.
In a similar vein, Sukpanich and Chen (2000) classify interactivity in the Web environment into three categories: machine interactivity, content interactivity and personal interactivity. Machine interactivity occurs when the computer responds to a users’ click, while content interactivity exists as a person feels that the content matches their needs. Personal interactivity establishes as a one-on-one relationship with the salesperson or other consumers online presents.
In our study, we view advertising as a combination of media and promotional messages. Thus the focus is on machine interactivity and content interactivity. Specifically, interactivity is measured by two-way communication (or vividness), control, frequency of exchange, and customization. Since active engagement from the users is a prerequisite for the interaction to exist, we incorporate degree of cognitive involvement as another measurement.
Figure 1 depicts our framework of consumer’s perception on advertising. The four factors (informativeness, entertainment, irritation, and credibility) are expected to affect value and attitude in the ways shown, according to the literature (note that the relationship between informativeness and attitude only appears in Brackett and Carr’s model). Interactivity may affect both value and attitude in positive ways. In this study, we do not consider demographic impact on value and/or attitude.
Entertainment
Informativeness Value Attitude Irritation
Credibility
Interactivity
Figure 1. Extended Model of Advertising Value and Attitude
5 Research Method
The purpose of the study is to identify viewers’ general perceptions on advertising value and attitude. The perceptions are normally self-reported. Thus a survey method is suitable and has been a popular method for this type of research.
A self-reported survey is conducted at a major northeastern university in US in the spring of 2002. Participants are 303 college students from 13 undergraduate and graduate classes. Marketers have recognized the importance of youth market since the 1920s (Giles, 1992). The college market has been regarded as a segment with enormous size and economic potential (Dumont, 1920; Burns, 1926; Kessler, 1998; Gannon, 1999). According to Wolburg and Pokrywczynski (2001), students tend to be early adopters of new products and are good examples of the remainder of the population. They establish loyalties and preferences for brands and goods that persist long after graduation. Also, students have influence on parental choices for products (Russell, 1926). Therefore the market of college students demands careful attention.
A total of 12 advertising examples are chosen to represent different advertising purposes (brand building vs. directional advertising) and media (traditional vs. Internet based). The purpose of using examples is to put the participant’s mind into a specific situation with a specific advertising medium when responding to the questions in the survey. For instance, for the Traditional Brand Building situation, TV commercial, Billboards, and Newspaper Non-Classified Sections are used as advertising examples.
Each participant is randomly given one of the 12 examples and is asked to answer the questions based on his or her overall experience with the example advertisement in a given situation, which is stated in the survey. A sample survey can be found in the appendix. All surveys are completed during class time. A total of 290 usable surveys are analyzed. The average age of these 290 participants is 23 with a standard deviation of 5.7. Among the participants, 20% are in freshmen/sophomore classes, 55% junior/senior, and 25% graduate and doctoral. In addition, 33% are females, 54% white, 26% Asian, and 20% of African-America, Hispanic, Native America, and multi-racial all together. These participants have an average of 6.3 years (std is 2) of Internet experience, and spend an average of 22 hours (std is 15) on the Internet per week. Fifty percent of the participants report that they use the Internet primarily for information, 23% for entertainment, and 27% for both.
Data Analysis and Results
Factor analyses confirm the loading of three antecedents (entertainment, informativeness, and credibility) in the original model. One item within the original irritation construct, “confusing,” does not load with the rest of the irritation items and is dropped from the consequent analyses. Factor analysis also confirms the loading of the six items for Interactivity. Table 1 shows the constructs and the corresponding measuring items.
6 Table 1. Constructs and Measuring Items N=290, -3 = strongly disagree, 3 = strongly agree.
Traditional Internet Overall Scale
Media Mean Media Mean Means Reliability Informativeness .29 -.14 0.08 .88 are good sources of product/service information. .33 -.28 0.03 supply relevant product information. .56 -.11 0.23 provide timely information. .51 -.30 0.11 are good sources of up-to-date product/service information. .61 -.18 0.22 make product information immediately accessible. .20 .40 0.30 are convenient sources of product/service information. .46 .07 0.27 supply complete product/service information. -.56 -.79 -0.68 Entertainment -.02 -.95 -0.49 .92 are entertaining. .33 -.79 -0.23 are pleasing. -.07 -.94 -0.51 are enjoyable. .03 -.99 -0.48 are fun to use. -.27 -1.08 -0.68 are exciting. -.09 -1.02 -0.56 Irritation .13 .99 0.56 .77 insult people's intelligence. -.14 .10 -0.02 are annoying. .13 1.53 0.83 are irritating. .27 1.54 0.91 are deceptive. .27 .84 0.56 Credibility -.14 -1.08 -0.61 .89 are credible. .19 -.79 -0.30 are trustworthy. -.46 -1.30 -0.88 are believable. -.05 -1.19 -0.62 Interactivity -.73 -.92 -0.83 .85 provide high degree of cognitive involvement. -.44 -1.21 -0.83 provide frequent exchange. -.12 -.50 -0.31 can offer me a vivid communication experience. -.44 -.91 -0.68 facilitate two-way communication. -1.15 -1.11 -1.13 are customized to meet my own needs. -1.09 -.89 -0.99 give me a lot of control over my experience with this ad. -1.00 -1.11 -1.06 Value .34 -.83 -0.25 .87 are useful. .77 -.67 0.05 are valuable. -.04 -.85 -0.45 are important. .33 -.98 -0.33 Attitude -.11 -.97 -0.54 are favorable. -.11 -.97 -0.54
Testing the Model
Structured equation models are used to test the model in Figure 1. Figure 2 depicts the empirical model demonstrated by the 290 surveys. All pathways are significant with p <.01 or less. This result is consistent with that of Ducoffe’s (1996) in terms of the relationships between the three antecedents (informativeness, entertainment, and irritation) to value and attitude. In terms of Brackett & Carr’s model, our analysis confirms the significant pathways credibility has with value and attitude but does not confirm the direct relationship between informativeness and attitude. Our model in Figure 2 also shows that interactivity has rather strong positive correlations with
7 informativeness, credibility, and entertainment, and a negative correlation with irritation. Interactivity is an antecedent to attitude, but not to value.
ENTE
.67 .34 .29 -.42 INFO .26 d1 d2 .58 -.47 .73 .69 .69 -.14 .31 .66 IRRI VALUE ATTI
.34 .71 -.51 .16
-.33 .14 CRED
.55
INTERACT
Figure 2. Empirical Model of Advertising Value and Attitude
Comparing the Traditional and the Internet-base Media Advertising
Among the 290 surveys, 140 are about traditional media and 150 Internet based. Using structured equation models to examine these two groups of data reveals the models in Figures 3 and 4. As the models indicate, there are no significant differences on the relationships between the five independent variables and value, and between Entertainment, Credibility, Interactivity, Value and Attitude. The differences lie with the correlations between the independent variables. For example, there is no significant correlation between Entertainment and Irritation for the traditional media, but a negative one for the Internet media. It is the same between Interactivity and Irritation. Also, the correlation between Information and Irritation is enlarged (negatively) for the Internet media.
Table 2 includes the pairwise comparisons of the means of the seven constructs for the two media categories. It shows that there are significant differences between traditional media advertising and the Internet based advertising for all the constructs except Interactivity at the level of .001. A further data analysis is planed to investigate whether the different purposes of advertising (brand building vs. directional advertising) may affect the perceived levels on the constructs.
8 ENTE
.57 .29 .35 INFO .29 d1 d2 .41 -.29 .66 .64 .63 -.11 .29 .65 IRRI VALUE ATTI .34 .70 -.39 .17
.14 CRED
.49
INTERACT
Figure 3. Empirical Model of Traditional Media
ENTE
.71 .26 .33 -.46 INFO .31 d1 d2 .61 -.52 .72 .68 .76 -.12 .30 .64 IRRI VALUE ATTI .31 .70 -.47 .16
.13 -.48 CRED
.61
INTERACT
Figure 4. Empirical Model of Internet Media
Table 2. Pairwise Comparisons of Means
Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig. (I) MEDIA (J) MEDIA Information Traditional Internet .469 *** .141 .001 Entertainment Traditional Internet .947 *** .148 .000 Irritation Traditional Internet -.885 *** .138 .000 Credibility Traditional Internet .973 *** .151 .000 Interactivity Traditional Internet .220 .133 .099 Value Traditional Internet 1.214 *** .168 .000 Attitude Traditional Internet .902 *** .166 .000 Based on estimated marginal means The mean difference is significant at the .05 level (*), .01 level (**), .001 level (***).
9 A Model of Advertising Attitude
Ducoffe proposes that advertising value and advertising attitude are highly associated. Therefore, a consumer who assesses advertising to be valuable is expected to generate favorable attitude. Both Ducoffe and Brackett & Carr’s studies find entertainment would directly impact advertising attitude. Ducoffe (1996) attributes this to the affective component of both constructs that are not captured by advertising value. In this sense, Ad value is positioned as one of the antecedents (or predictors) of Attitude toward Ad. However, this interpretation of affective component does not explain why irritation, a very affective component, does not directly relate to attitude. The fact that entertainment, credibility, and interactivity directly contribute to attitude may suggest that advertising value does not mediate the relationships between the four antecedents and advertising attitude due to reasons other than differences between affective vs. cognitive. This fact also indicates that the model alone is not clear to show what the relationships between the four independent variables and attitude are. Therefore there is a need to reconceptualize the relationship between attitude toward ad and ad value.
To investigate the contributing factors of attitude toward advertising, we reexamine the model in Figure 2 by removing the value construct, resulting the model in Figure 5. The Aikake Information Index (AIC) is 40 for the model in Figure 5, and 51 for the model in Figure 2. Figure 2 has a squared multiple correlation (SMC) of .69, whereas Figure 5 has an SMC of .67. These results suggest that leaving value out of the model causes little reduction in the variance accounted for and provides a more parsimonious and clearer model for advertising attitude. Note that informativeness and irritation have very minimum influence (non-significant) on attitude, which suggest that if one’s purpose is to investigate consumers’ attitude toward advertising, only entertainment, credibility, and interactivity should be considered as the antecedents to attitude.
ENTE
.70 .45 -.47 INFO .04 (ns) d2 .64 -.49 .67 .68 -.06 (ns) .68 IRRI ATTI
.74 -.54 .22
.19 -.38 CRED
.62
INTERACT
Figure 5. Empirical Model of Advertising Attitude (Value Removed)
Discussions and Implications
In general, this study supports what Ducoffe (1996) and Brackett and Carr (2001) find about consumer advertising value and attitude. It confirms that the original model is a valid one that can
10 be applied to advertising in both the traditional and the Internet media. However, the role of ad value in consumers’ attitude toward advertising needs to be clarified further. We are yet to look at the data further to verify if the model is valid for both brand building and directional advertising.
Although interactivity does not contribute to value, it does have a small but significant effect on advertising attitude. This relationship is the same for both traditional and Internet based advertising. One way of interpreting the high correlations interactivity has with the other four constructs is that interactivity enhances entertainment for example. High interactivity results in high level of perceived entertainment, which in turn contributes to advertising value. That is, interactivity itself does not contribute to the value directly but has impact on the antecedents of value. High interactivity also seems to correlates with low irritation level, high credibility and high informativeness, which all have positive impact on value.
On the other hand, high correlations between interactivity and other constructs may indicate that it has a unique position in the model other than in parallel with the other four constructs. Further data analysis will be conducted to test if interactivity is a precursor to the other four constructs.
It is important to understand that advertising value is not a mediator between the antecedents and advertising attitude. If the purpose of a study is to test consumer attitude toward advertising, then using a parsimonious model is better to illustrate the relationships between attitude and other factors. For example, informativeness does not contribute to attitude at all. On the other hand, however, if advertising value is also the purpose of a study, then the model in Figure 2 is useful, although it hides the real relationships between the antecedents and attitude.
Even though the versatility of Internet provides more opportunities for advertising than the traditional media do, respondents consider traditional advertising more informative, more entertaining, more credible, and less irritating than the Internet based advertising. Consequently, they perceive traditional advertising more valuable and more favorable. This may have to do with the fact that most people use the Internet primarily for information purpose (50% of this sample report they use the Internet primarily for information, and 27% say primarily for both information and entertainment) and thus are annoyed/irritated when they are distracted or interrupted by pop-up windows, banners, email advertising etc. This implies that advertisers may be backfired by employing intrusive strategies unscrupulously. It also reveals that taking consumers’ perceptions into account is very important while designing Internet based advertising.
Conclusion
In this research, we take a consumer’s perspective and examine consumers’ perceptions of different types of ads. Our aims are to understand the determining factors that affect consumers’ perceived value and attitude, and their perceived differences between the Internet-based advertising and traditional advertising for both brand building and directional purposes. We hope to contribute to a better conceptual understanding of consumers’ perceptions by extending the existing frameworks. Meanwhile, this study can provide practical suggestions on how to design effective online ads to better serve consumers’ needs.
11 There are several limitations in this research. First of all, similar to some of the existing studies, our sample of participants is students from a major northeastern university in US. Despite the fact the youth market is an important one, this sample does not represent the entire population. Consequently, the generalizability of our findings is limited. A study drawing on more diverse segments of the population may provide fruitful insight. Nevertheless, this study does confirm the previous findings on consumer perceived advertising value and attitude. Secondly, owing to the time constraints, only preliminary data analyses are conducted. Further analyses are needed to compare any differences between advertising purposes (brand building vs. directional advertising), what might have caused the perception differences of the constructs between traditional and Internet based media, and whether interactivity is a precursor of the original four antecedents. Third, this study omits the demographic impact on consumer advertising perceptions. Although Brackett & Carr’s study does not indicate that demographic variables directly affect Advertising Value, they find that gender and major have influences on attitude. Even though their explanation of the implications of this relationship is less clear, it may be worth to verify and explicate the impact of demographic variables on customers’ perceptions of advertising in future studies.
References
1. Alwitt, L. F. and Prabhaker, P. R. “Identifying Who Dislikes Television Advertising: Not By Demographics Alone.” Journal of Advertising Research (34:6), 1994, pp. 17-29. 2. Ajzen, I., “The Theory of Planned Behavior,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 1991, pp. 179-211 3. Barrow, P. “Does Your Advertising Direct or Intrude?” Canadian Manager, 15 Spring, 1990, pp. 26-27. 4. Bezjian, A., Calder, B., and Iacobucci, D. “New Media Interactive Advertising vs. Traditional Advertising”, Journal of Advertising Research (38:4), 1998, pp.23-51. 5. Bhatnagar, A. & Papatla, P. (2001), “Identifying Locations for Targeting Advertising on the Internet,” International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Spring, 5 (3), pp.23-44 6. Bogart, L. “War of the Words: Advertising in the Year 2010.” Across the Board, January 1985. 7. Brackett, L. K. and Carr, B. N. “Cyberspace Advertising vs. Other Media: Consumer vs. Mature Student Attitudes.” Journal of Advertising Research. (41:5), 2001, pp. 23-33. 8. Brown, Steven P. & Staymen, Douglas M. (1992), “Antecedents and Consequences of Attitude toward the AD: a Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research 19(1), pp. 34-51. 9. Burns, J. W. “Selling the College Market.” Printers’ Ink, October 7, 1926. 10. Chatterjee, P., Hoffman, D., & Novak, T. (1998), “Modeling the Clickstream: Implications for Web-Based Advertising Efforts,” http://elab.vanderbilt.edu/research/papers/pdf/manuscripts/Clickstream-pdf.pdf 11. Chen, Q. and Wells, W. D. “A New Look at Traditional Measures: Attitude toward the Site”. Proceedings of the 2000 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, 2000, pp. 231. 12. Cho, Chang-Hoan and John D. Leckenby, "Interactivity as a Measure of Advertising Effectiveness," Proceedings ofAmerican Academy of Advertising, 1999 13. Cho, Chang-Hoan and John D. Leckenby, "Impact of Banner Exposure and Clicking on Attitude Changes," Proceedings of American Academy of Advertising, 2000 14. Coen, R. J. “Advertising Boom in U.S. Ended in ’01,” Advertising Age; Chicago (73:19),2002:24-25. 15. Dreze, Xavier & Zufryden, Fred, “Testing Web Site Design and Promotional Content” Journal of Advertising Research (37:2), 1997 pp.7-92. 16. Ducoffe, R. H. "How Consumers Assess the Value of Advertising." Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising 17, 1995, pp. 1-18. 17. Ducoffe, R. H. “Advertising Value and Advertising on the Web” Journal of Advertising Research (36:5), 1996, pp. 21-35. 18. Dumont, H. “Spangles’ Strikes Pay Dirt in the College Market.” Sales Management, April 6, 1920.
12 19. Eighmey, J. “Profiling User Responses to Commercial Web Sites”, Journal of Advertising Research (37:3), 1997, pp.59-66. 20. Ekici, A., Commuri S., and Kennedy P. “Influence of Advertising Appeal on Perceived Efficacy and Pre-purchase Trust: An Investigation of Fear and Profit Motive Appeals,” Proceedings of the 1999 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising. 47-53. 21. eMarketer, http://www.emarketer.com, retrieved on September 20, 2002 22. Fernandez, K. V. and Rosen, D. L (2000). “The effectiveness of information and color in yellow pages advertising”, Journal of Advertising (29:2), 2000, pp. 61-73. 23. Fernandez, K. V. “Information Processing in Directional Media: The Effectiveness of Selected Advertising Executional Cues In the Yellow Pages”, Dissertation submitted to the School of Business and the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Kansas, 1995. 24. Gannon, M. “E-Business Targeting College Students Rakes in $6 Million. “Venture Capital Journal, (May), 1999:1. 25. Giles, R. “Making Youth the Bull’s Eye of the Advertising Targer.” Printers’ Ink, September 14, 1922. 26. Haeckel, S. “About the nature and future of interactive marketing”, Journal of Interactive marketing (12:1), 1998, pp. 63-71 27. Heeter, C. “Interactivity in the Context of Designed Experiences” Journal of Interactive Advertising (1:1), 2000: 28. Hoffman, D. & Novak, T. (2000), “Advertising Pricing Models for the World Wide Web,” in Internet Publishing and Beyong: The Economics of Digital Information and Intellectual Property, Deborah Hurley, Brian Kahin and Hal Varian, eds., Cambridge: MIT Press. 29. Hoffman, D. & Novak, T. (2000), “How to Acquire Customers on the Web,” May/.June, Harvard Business Review, 179-188 30. Hoffman, D (2001), “Internet Advertising: From CPMs to Results” http://ecommerce.vanderbilt.edu/research/papers/ppt/SEC.May01.ppt, retrieved on September 21, 2002. 31. Hwang, Jan-Sun and McMillan, Sally J. “The Role of Interactivity and Involvement in Attitude Toward the Web Site” Proceedings of the 2002 Conference of the American Academy of Adverting, pp10-17 32. Internet Advertising Bureau , http://63.99.7.209/resources/industrystats.asp, retrieved on September 21, 2002. 33. Kessler, A. “College Students: A Market Worth Persuing.” Bank Marketing (30:7), 1998:14-17. 34. Li, Daugherty, & Biocca (in press), “Impact of 3-D Advertising on Porduct Kknowledge, Brand Attitude, and Purchase Intention: The Mediating Role of Presence,” Journal of Advertising 35. Lang and Friestad, M. “Emotion, Hemispheric Specialization, and Visual and Verbal Memory for Television Messages,” Communication Research, 20, pp. 647-670. 36. Liu, Y. “Understanding The Interactive Media: Interactivity And Its Implications For Consumer Behavior”. Doctoral Dissertation Proposal, Rutgers University. April, 2001. 37. Lohse, G. L. and Rosen, D. “Signaling Quality and Credibility in Yellow Pages Advertising: The Influence of Color and Graphics on Choice,” Journal of Advertising (30:2), 2001, pp. 73-85. 38. Luo, X. and Donthu, N. “Benchmarking Advertising Efficiency,” Journal of Advertising Research, (41:6), 2001:7-18 39. MacInnis, Deborah J. and Bernanrd J. Jaworski (1989(, “Information Processing Form Advertisements: Toward and Integrative Framework,” Journal of Consumer Research, 22, pp. 154-164. 40. MacKenzie, S. B. and Lutz, R.J. “An Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context,” Journal of Marketing, 53 (April),1989: 48-65. 41. Mitchell, A. A. and Olson, J. C. “Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitudes, “Journal of marketing Research, 18 August (1981):318-322. 42. Palmer, Jonathan W. and Griffith, David A. “An Emerging Model of Web Site Design for Marketing, “ Communications of the ACM, March, Vol. 41, No.3. pp. 44-51. 43. Rettie, R., Robinson, H., and Jenner, B. “Does Internet Advertising Alienate Users?” Paper presented at Academy of Marketing, 2001
13 47. Sandage and Leckenby. “Student Attitudes Toward Advertising: Institution vs. Instrument.” Journal of Advertising (9:2), 1980, pp. 29-32. 48. Srull, Thomas K. “Individual Responses to Advertising: Mood and its Effects from an Information Processing Perspective, In Staurt J. Agres, Julie A. Edell, and Tony M. Dubitsky (Eds.) Emotion in Advertising, New York, NY: Quorum Books, 35-52. 49. Sukpanich, N., and Chen, L. (2000). “Interactivity as the Driving Force Behind E-Commerce” Proceedings of Americas Conference of Information System. 50. Shimp, T. A. “Attitude Toward the Ad as a Mediator of Consumer Brand Choice,” Journal of Advertising, (10:2), 1981, 9-15 51. Simon, J. L., and Arndt, J. “The Shape of the Advertising Response Function.” Journal of Advertising Research (20:4), 1980:11-28 52. Sohn, Dongyoung and John D. Leckenby, "Locus of Control and Interactive Advertising," Proceedings of American Academy of Advertising, 2001, forthcoming 53. P. Williams, “The Impact of Emotional Advertising Appeals on Consumer Implicit and Explicit Memory: A Diagnosticity versus Accessibility Perspective” 54. Wolburg J. M. & Pokrywczynski. “A Psychographic Analysis of Generation Y College Students” Journal of Advertising Research, September-October 2001: 33-50. 55. Wu, G. “Perceived Interacivity and Attitude toward Website” 1999 Proceedings of American Academy of Advertising 56. Zanot, E. “Public Attitudes Toward Advertising.” In H. Keith hount (Ed.), Advertising in a New Age,. Provo, Utah: American Academy of Advertising, 1981. 57. Zhang, P. “The Effect of Animation on Information Seeking Performance on the World Wide Web: Securing Attention or Interfering with Primary Tasks,” Journal of Association for Information Systems (JAIS) (1:1), 2000.
14 Appendix. A Sample Survey
Attached is a copy of one of the 12 survey versions. The 12 versions are the same except for the blue colored parts (mostly indicate the type and purpose of the advertising). Here is a list of the instructions that include the first blue colored part of the surveys.
ID Media Purpose Instruction A1 Traditional Brand When responding to the following statements, please think in general (not a single Building ad) about TV commercials that you have encountered when you would not be looking for a particular product or service. A2 Traditional Brand When responding to the following statements, please think in general (not a single Building ad) about advertisements on billboards that you have encountered when you would not be looking for a particular product or service. A3 Traditional Brand When responding to the following statements, please think in general (not a single Building ad) about advertisements in Newspapers (excluding Classified Sections) that you have encountered when you would not be looking for a particular product or service. B1 Traditional Directional When responding to the following statements, please think in general (not a single ad) about advertisements in TV Shopping Channels that you have used when you would be looking for a particular product or service. B2 Traditional Directional When responding to the following statements, please think in general (not a single ad) about Yellow Pages that you have used when you would be looking for a particular product or service. B3 Traditional Directional When responding to the following statements, please think in general (not a single ad) about advertisements in Newspaper Classified that you have used when you would be looking for a particular product or service. C1 Internet Brand When responding to the following statements, please think in general (not a single Building ad) about email advertising that you have encountered when you would not be looking for a particular product or service. C2 Internet Brand When responding to the following statements, please think in general (not a single Building ad) about Banner Advertisements that you have encountered when you would not be looking for a particular product or service on the Internet. C3 Internet Brand When responding to the following statements, please think in general (not a single Building ad) about Advertisements in Pop-up Windows that you have encountered when you would not be looking for a particular product or service on the Internet. D1 Internet Directional When responding to the following statements, please think in general (not a single ad) about Online Directories or Online Yellow Pages or Online Classified that you have used when you would be looking for a particular product or service on the Internet. D2 Internet Directional When responding to the following statements, please think in general (not a single ad) about advertisements found by using Search Engines that you have used when you would be looking for a particular product or service on the Internet. D3 Internet Directional When responding to the following statements, please think in general (not a single ad) about Company Websites that you have used when you would be looking for a particular product or service on the Internet.
15 Consumer Opinion Survey on Advertising Value A1
T his is a survey of consumers’ opinions on advertising. The result of this survey will help us provide guidelines for ad vertisement designers on how to directly address the needs of customers. Your anonymous and honest participation is greatly appreciated. This survey will take you about 15 minutes. Please answer all the questions in this survey. All answers are confidential and for research purpo ses only.
For each of the descriptions below, please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree by circling the appropriate number: –3 for “Strongly Disagree,” 0 is “Neutral” or “Not Applicable,” and 3 “Strongly Agree.”
When responding to the following statements, please think in general (not a single ad) about TV commercials that you have encountered when you would not be looking for a particular product or service.
If you are not familiar with this type of ad, please stop here and return the survey to the researchers.
TV commercials … Strongly Strongly Strongly Strongly disagree agree disagree agree 1. are amusing. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 16. are meaningful. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
2. provide high degree of -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 17. provide frequent -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 cognitive involvement. exchange.
3. are good sources of -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 18. can offer me a vivid -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 up-to-date communication product/service experience. information.
4. are dull. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 19. are appealing. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
5. can provide me various -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 20. are just trying to push -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 ways of what I want to information to its see or do. viewers.
6. supply relevant product -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 21. facilitate two-way -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 information. communication.
7. show empathy. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 22. are attractive. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
8. are useful. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 23. are bad. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
9. are exciting. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 24. are convincing. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
10. are important. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 25. are irritating. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
11. are stimulating. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 26. are annoying. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
12. are tasteless. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 27. are sensual. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
13. are unique. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 28. are likable. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
14. are interesting. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 29. are credible. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
15. provide timely -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 30. insult people's -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 information. intelligence.
16
31. show that it knows about -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 48. can provide smooth -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 my past behavior. experience.
32. supply complete -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 49. can involve many -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 product/service entities - other people, information. the company, the message in the ad, etc.
33. are effective. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 50. are enjoyable. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
34. are entertaining. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 51. are deceptive. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
35. are good sources of -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 52. are convenient sources -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 product/service of product/service information. information.
36. are confusing. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 53. are persuasive. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
37. are fun to use. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 54. are pleasing. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
38. have high degree of -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 55. can provide additional -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 sensory involvement. information very quickly.
39. are vigorous. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 56. are warm. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
40. are not responsive to my -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 57. are customized to meet -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 actions. my own needs.
41. make product -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 58. give me a lot of control -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 information immediately over my experience with accessible. this ad.
42. are clever. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 59. are trustworthy. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
43. are clear. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 60. are believable. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
44. are humorous. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 61. have high utility. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
45. are simple. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 62. are valuable. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
46. are familiar. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 63. are favorable. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
47. are lively. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 64. are what I like. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
For each of the descriptions below, please indicate the extent to which you feel most appropriate.
Strongly Strongly disagree agree 65. I have used this type of ad very often for various reasons in the past. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
66. I have purchased something as a result of this type of ad very often. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
67. I will definitely use this type of ad in the future. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
68. I will definitely recommend this type of ad to others who are unaware of them. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
17 Now, please recall your most recent experience when you were not looking for a particular product or service, but were attracted to a TV commercial. Please answer all the questions below by referring to this experience:
69. What were you doing at the moment? ______
70. In the space provided, please describe the content of the advertisement in terms of the product(s) being advertised, the ad layout or context (i.e., people, places, and things depicted in the advertisement), and organization associated with the advertisement. Please be as detailed as possible:
______
______
______
______
71. Was this ad relevant to your needs at the time? Yes ____ No ____ Unsure ____
72. Was this ad meaningful to you at the time? Yes ____ No ____ Unsure ____
73. What aspect(s) of the advertisement initially attracted your attention? ______
______
74. What aspects of the advertisement made it memorable? ______
______
75. Did you become interested in the product or service because of the ad? Yes ____ No ____
We would like to know a little bit more about you. Please complete all questions. Remember, this information is confidential and all responses are anonymous and will be used in an aggregated way for research purpose only.
Strongly Strongly disagree agree 76. I prefer activities that don't require a lot of reading. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
77. When I'm learning something new I'd rather watch a demonstration -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 than read how to do it.
78. I can never seem to find the right word when I need it. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
79. I generally prefer to use a diagram than a written set of instructions. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
80. I enjoy doing work that requires the use of words. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
81. I like to daydream. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
82. My thinking always consists of mental images or pictures. -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
83. I prefer to read instructions about how to do something rather than -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 have someone show me.
18
84. My age is ______.
85. My gender is: ____ Male ____ Female
86. My ethnicity is: a. ____ African-American b. ____ Hispanic c. ____ Asian/Pacific Rim d. ____ Native American e. ____ White f. ____ Multi-racial g. ____ Other (please specify): ______
87. My highest degree earned is: ______
88. (If currently employed) My current occupation is: ______.
89. I have worked for ______months/years.
90. I work _____ hours per week at my current job.
91. (If a student), I am currently a ___ Freshmen/Sophomore ___ Junior/Senior ___ Graduate (Master) ___ Doctoral
92. My approximate annual household income is: ______
93. I have been using the Internet for ____ years.
94. On average, I use the Internet ____ hours/week.
95. The frequency of my accessing the Internet is____ daily ____ less than daily.
96. I use the Internet primarily for ____ Information ____ Entertainment
97. Last week, my estimated percentage of accessing the Internet from different places is ( sum=100% ):
____ School ____ Home ____ Work ____ Other (specify) ______
98. (If having access at home) I have unlimited number of hours to access Internet at home: ____ Yes ____ No
99. I pay for my access to the Internet at home: ____ Yes ____ No
100. Please provide any other comments you may have about this survey.
Thank you for your time and input!
4/19/02 19