Paper presented at the ICORIA2013 conference. Authors: @timsmitstim & @joshornikx Please contact the authors for more info on the study

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Visual Materials
single exposure;
cross-channel
repetition
single media
repetition

8. Participants and instrumentation
N = 380 (72% female; Mage =21)
DVs:
- free recall
- cued recall
- brand attitude Ford

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. 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. 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. 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. 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?