1. An Analysis of Interactivity
and its Effects on Advertising
By Griffin Harris

2. Research
• More seemingly interactive = more
effective
• “Effectiveness” based on click-rate or
product/brand recall

3. Findings
21.4%
• Most people don’t click
on advertisements 78.6%
Rarely Sometimes
• Video decreased ineffectiveness by over 14%

4. Findings (Cont.)
• People who clicked on an ad, 60%
remembered what was being advertised
• People who bought product, 75%
remembered product

5. Relationship
• 8.8% said they rarely click pop-ups
• DoubleClick: 0.01% avg. click rate in
2009
• Effectiveness goes up with video
• Increase in obtrusiveness = increase in
effectiveness
• 28.8% bought product from advertisement

6. Limitations
• Very small sample size
• Small, limited survey
• Didn’t ask extensive questions
• “Most important predictor of perceived interactivity was
found to be the degree to which a message was
personalized”

7. Instrumentation
• Effectiveness was based on
• [1] Click on ad
• [2] Recall of advertised product/brand
• “Online advertising medium offers a
measurable context, because marketers
can collect data about users’ interactions

8. Implications
• Perceived interactiveness = ad
effectiveness
• Different types of interactivity (videos,
video pop-ups, “unclosable” ads,
Generally, more obtrusive and
interactive ads are more effective

9. Future Research
• Discern between perception of interactivity
and dislike of an advertisement
• Ads presented in a less pleasant way could
be deemed less interactive

10. Sources
• Drèze, X., & Hussherr, F. (2003). Internet advertising: Is anybody
watching? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 17(4), 8-23. doi:
10.1002/dir.10063
• Voorveld, H. A., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2011). The Relation
Between Actual and Perceived Interactivity. Journal of
Advertising, 40(2), 77-92. Retrieved November 7, 2011, from
http://0-search.ebscohost.com.ilsprod.lib.neu.edu/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=bth&AN=61847437&site=eds-live