Simultaneous cross-media advertising: the role of involvement

567 views
451 views

Published on

Paper presented at the ICORIA2013 conference.

Authors: @timsmitstim & @joshornikx

Please contact the authors for more info on the study

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
567
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
31
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Simultaneous cross-media advertising: the role of involvement

  1. 1. The effects of simultaneous cross-media advertising on recall and brand attitude: The role of involvement Tim Smits (KULeuven - @timsmitstim) Jos Hornikx (RU Nijmegen - @joshornikx) ICORIA2013 (ZAGREB, CROATIA)
  2. 2. Mere repetition vs Synergetic repetition  Extensive research  Synergy = varied but integrated marcom  Results:  Proven efficiency (NAIK & RAMAN, 2003; NAIK & PETERS, 2009)  Stronger effects on cognition than on attitudes (CHANG & THORSON, 2004; STAMMERJOHAN ET AL. 2005; VOORVELD, NEIJENS & SMIT, 2011)  Synergy in tools (ads-publicity) or channels (TV-radio-web-print)
  3. 3. Synergetic vs Simultaneous repetition  Increasing popularity of media multitasking  Plausible negative effects on information processing given the distraction  But what about ads? Possible benefits: • Semi-conscious: Forward encoding, costly signal, … (VOORVELD, 2012) • Peripheral: multichannel variation on roadblocking Drawback: • Capacity distribution over channels reducing impact; distraction interfering with dominant process (cf. ELM)
  4. 4. VOORVELD (2012)  Between-subjects design: web-web ; radio-radio ; web-radio  Target ad: Panasonic Plasma TV  Results: web-radio = web-web > radio-radio  No a priori advantage of multi-channel roadblocking?  Potential explanation: visual dominance OR experimental circumstances boosted message involvement, resulting in good single-channel effect
  5. 5. Hypotheses  H1: Repetition > Single ad exposure cf. common marketing knowledge (BERLYNE 1970; PECHMANN & STEWART 1989)  H2: Simultaneous synergy > mere repetition ONLY IF low involvement in message processing – High involvement = conceptual replication VOORVELD (2012) – Low involvement: perceptual roadblocking advantage
  6. 6. Material  2 x 3-minute presentation: web+radio  Target ad (Ford) manipulation BS: - web-radio (cross-media) - web-web (single media exact repetition) - web (single exposure)  Filler ads for all non-target ad places  Order manipulation for balanced design
  7. 7. Visual Materials single exposure; cross-channel repetition single media repetition
  8. 8. Participants and instrumentation N = 380 (72% female; Mage =21) DVs: - free recall - cued recall - brand attitude Ford
  9. 9. Results on cued recall H1: Repetition > Single ad exposure (F(2, 395) = 11.20, p < .001) H2: Simultaneous synergy > mere repetition ONLY IF low involvement in message processing: (F(1, 242) = 11.18, p = .011)
  10. 10. Results on % free recall Similar pattern cf. cued recall Results on attitudes No differences between conditions 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Cross-media Single medium repetitive Single exposure Low involvement High Involvement
  11. 11. Discussion  Repetition > Single ad exposure (H1)  Simultaneous synergy > mere repetition under low involvement (H2)  Further support of synergetic effects  Study adds importance of involvement  Study underlines importance of control condition of single ad exposure
  12. 12. Discussion  Cross-media effects benefit particularly in situations of low involvement -> peripheral, perceptual “roadblocking”  No effect on brand attitudes? Cf. earlier findings OR because product was unaffordable?
  13. 13. Take-home message Synergetic effects of web+radio exist, but do not overestimate them:  No effects on brand attitude  Can radio commercials actually be targeted simultaneously to banners?

×