CONCEPT FOR DIPLOMA THESIS IN MARKETING         THE IMPACT OF SOURCE IDENTIFICATION ON   THE EVALUATION OF CONSUMER GENERA...
CONCEPT FOR DIPLOMA THESISAGENDA   ‣ INTRODUCTION   ‣ USER GENERATED CONTENT   ‣ THE SOURCE EFFECT   ‣ SOURCE CREDIBILITY ...
INTRODUCTION
IN 2006 TIME MAGAZINE NAMED"YOU" PERSON OF THE YEAR.                          Source: TIME 2006
YOU CONTROLT    H    EINFORMATION AGE.              Source: TIME 2006
YOU CONTROL .                Source: TIME 2006
YOU .        Source: TIME 2006
OLDTECHNOLOGYCONNECTED YOU!
NEWTECHNOLOGYEMPOWERS YOU!
WHATHASCHANGED?
FROMONE WAYCOMMUNICATION
TO AMULTI-CHANNELDISCUSSION
FROM     FEW SOURCESOF COMMUNICATION
TO    MANY SOURCESOF COMMUNCIATION
USERGENERATEDCONTENT
USER GENERATED CONTENTDEFINITION     C O N T E N T M A D E P U B L I C LY     AVAILABLE OVER THE INTERNET,     WHICH REFLE...
USER GENERATED CONTENTDISTINCTION        USER              BRAND        GENERATED        RELATED
BRANDS ARE A COMPLEXSYMBOL. IT IS THEINTANGIBLE SUM OF APRODUCTS ATTRIBUTES,ITS NAME, PACKAGINGAND PRICE, ITS HISTORY,REPU...
A BRAND IS ALSO DEFINEDBY     CONSUMERSIMPRESSION OF PEOPLEWHO USE IT, AS WELL ASTHEIR OWN EXPERIENCE.     - DAVID OGILVY,...
WHY  THEHYPE?
USER GENERATED CONTENTCOMMUNICATION ADVANTAGES "CONSUMERS VOICE MORE TRUST IN PRODUCT INFORMATION CREATED  BY OTHER CONSUM...
USER GENERATED CONTENTCOMMUNICATION ADVANTAGES "CONSUMERS VIEW PEOPLE POSTING UGC ON DISCUSSION BOARDS OR    REVIEWER SITE...
USER GENERATED CONTENTCOMMUNICATION ADVANTAGES "CONSUMERS DO NOT ONLY LOOK FOR ONLINE PRODUCT INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THEI...
USER GENERATED CONTENTCOMMUNICATION ADVANTAGES           UGC,   A VITAL PART IN OUREVERYDAY DECISION MAKING       PROCESSES.
CONSUMERGENERATEDADVERTISING
CONSUMER-GENERATED ADVERTISINGDEFINITION     "ANY PUBLICLY DISSEMINATED,     CONSUMER-GENERATED     ADVERTISING MESSAGE WH...
USER GENERATED CONTENTDISTINCTION        USER                       BRAND        GENERATED                 RELATED        ...
CONSUMER-GENERATED ADVERTISING            WHAT WE KNOW                                                                    ...
CONSUMER-GENERATED ADVERTISINGWHAT WE KNOW       LOSS OF       CONTROL
CONSUMER-GENERATED ADVERTISINGWHAT WE DONT KNOW      HOW   EFFECTIVE?
THESOURCEEFFECT
THE SOURCE EFFECTDEFINITION "SOURCE EFFECT THEORY SUGGESTS THAT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AN AD IS IMPACTED BY THE CONSUMERS PE...
THE SOURCE EFFECTTHE ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODELTWO ROUTES TO PERSUASION- THE CENTRAL ROUTE- THE PERIPHERAL ROUTE        ...
ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODELTHE CENTRAL ROUTE•   EFFORTFUL COGNITIVE ACTIVITY•   EXPERIENCES & KNOWLEDGE•   CAREFUL EVALUA...
ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL     ISSUE INVOLVEMENT                 WHEN Y                       OURE I                    ...
ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL    THE CENTRAL ROUTE•   EFFORTFUL COGNITIVE ACTIVITY•   EXPERIENCES & KNOWLEDGE•   CAREFUL EV...
ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL    THE PERIPHERAL ROUTE•   MESSAGE CUES, SIGNALS, STIMULI (+/-)•   ASSOCIATION OF ISSUE WITH ...
THE SOURCE EFFECTDEFINITION        ONE OF SUCH MESSAGE CUES:      THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SOURCE.                          ...
SOURCECREDIBILITY
SOURCE CREDIBILITYTWO FACTORS                EXPERTISE  "THE EXTENT TO WHICH A COMMUNICATOR IS     PERCEIVED TO BE A SOURC...
SOURCE CREDIBILITYTWO FACTORS            TRUSTWORTHINESS     "THE DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE IN THE  COMMUNICATORS INTENT TO COM...
SOURCE CREDIBILITYTHE STUDIES  A VARIETY OF STUDIES AND EXPERIMENTS HAVE CONFIRMED THE  SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OF THESE TWO VA...
PERCEIVEDSIMILARITY
PERCEIVED SIMILARITYDEFINITION "THE EXTENT TO WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL BELIEVES A PORTRAYAL SEEMS  TO REALISTICALLY REFLECT HIS...
PERCEIVED SIMILARITY THE STUDIES                                                                                       "PE...
PERCEIVED SIMILARITYREVISITING ISSUE INVOLVEMENT AS MODERATOR    "THE EFFECT OF A PERCEIVABLY SIMILAR PRODUCER IS MORE PRO...
SO ONE MIGHTCONCLUDETHAT CGAEFFECTIVENES
EXCEEDS THEO      N     ETRADITIONALADS CAUSE OF:
HIGER SOURCECREDIBILITY &PERCEIVEDSIMILARITY
THESTUDIES
THE STUDIES1) LAWRENCE ET AL. 2009     "THE EXPERIMENT DEMONSTRATES SIGNIFICANT RESPONSE    ADVANTAGES FOR CGAs IN TERMS O...
THE STUDIES2) STEYN ET AL. 2010  "THE EXPERIMENT DID NOT FIND ANY SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE THAT       CGAs ARE PREFERRED OVER ...
THE STUDIES3) STEYN ET AL. 2011 "THE STUDY DID NOT FIND ANY OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT CGAS           ARE PREFERRED OVER A...
WHY?
1978
COGNITIVERESPONSETHEORY
COGNITIVE RESPONSE THEORYINSIGHTS   "IN RESPONSE TO A PERSUASIVE APPEAL, INDIVIDUALS REHEARSE THEIR ISSUE-RELEVANT THOUGHT...
COGNITIVE RESPONSE THEORYINSIGHTS "DEPENDING ON THE INDIVIDUALS INITIAL PREDISPOSITION TOWARDS THE ADVOCACY - IN FAVOR VS ...
THISMEANS
THETHEORY AN APPEAL PRESENTED BY A MODERATELY CREDIBLE SOURCE TO AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A POSITIVE INITIAL ATTITUDE TOWARDS TH...
RESEARCHQUESTIONS
RESEARCH     QUESTIONSA) DOES THE EXISTENCE OF SOURCE CREDIBILITY EFFECTS IN CGAs, DEPEND ON THEINITAL PREDISPOSITION OF T...
RESEARCHMODEL
RESEARCHMODEL
THEHYPOTHESIS
THE HYPOTHESIS           PART IH1: Group AB(yes) will attribute a higher level of trustworthiness to   H4: Subjects who at...
THE HYPOTHESIS           PART IIH6: Subjects who state a high level of perceived similarity with the       H8: Attitude to...
RESEARCHDESIGN
RESEARCH DESIGN            OVERVIEW•   2 X 2 BETWEEN SUBJECTS EXPERIMENTAL STUDY•   INDEPENDENT VARIABLES:       •   INITI...
RESEARCH DESIGN         AD SELECTION•   CONSUMER GENERATED SPOT•   HIGH PRODUCTION QUALITY•   IN FAVOR OF THE BRAND•   MAT...
*RANDOMLY ASSIGNED SOURCE ID                                          - PRIOR                                          - V...
THESCALES
THE SCALES         SCREENING QUESTIONSYES/NO  - BUSINESS STUDENT AT UIBK?  - 18 TO 26 YEARS OLD?  - FAMILIARITY WITH BRAND?
THE SCALES     OVERALL LIKEABILITYINSIGHT  "SINGLE ITEM MEASURES OF LIKEABILITY ARE COMMONLY USED WITHIN VIEWER RESPONSE  ...
THE SCALES     SOURCE CREDIBILITYOHANIAN 1990  "IN EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF SOURCE CREDIBILITY, THE SCALE CAN BE USED TO AS...
THE SCALES      PERCEIVED SIMILARITYPAEK ET AL. 2011   - 2-ITEM SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALE   - "NOT SIMILAR TO YOU" TO "S...
THE SCALES     ISSUE INVOLVEMENTZAICHKOWSKY 1985  - 20-ITEM SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALE  - RELEVANCE OF THE CONCEPT IN AN ...
THE SCALES     ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE ADOBJECTIVE: QUANTIFY THE PARTICIPANTS SUBJECTIVE FEELINGS ABOUT THE AD.SCHLINGERS VIE...
THE SCALES     ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE BRANDOBJECTIVE: QUANTIFY THE PARTICIPANTS SUBJECTIVE FEELINGS ABOUT THE BRAND.LAFFERTY...
THE SCALES      PURCHASE INTENTOBJECTIVE: QUANTIFY THE PARTICIPANTS INTENTIONS TO PURCHASE THE PRODUCT/SERVICE.Yi 1990   -...
THE SCALESDEMOGRAPHICS       THE FINAL SECTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE WILL       GATHER BASIC DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION IN ORD...
THE SCALESMANIPULATION CHECK            WAS THE TREATMENT SUCCESSFUL?           WHO DO YOU THINK PRODUCED THE AD?
THESTRUCTURE
THE STRUCTURE           PART I 1. Introduction    1.1 A Changing Communication-Landscape                                  ...
THE STRUCTUREPART II          5. Empirical Study          5.1 Research Methodology             5.1.2 Set Up of the Current...
TIMESCHEDULE
TIME SCHEDULEOVERVIEW
REFERENCELIST
REFERENCE LIST          PART IAndsager, J. L., Bemker, V., Choi, H. L. & Torwel, V. (2006), ‘Perceived similarity of exemp...
REFERENCE LIST          PART IIDaugherty, T., Eastin, M. S. & Bright, L. (2008), ‘Exploring Consumer Motivations For Creat...
REFERENCE LIST          PART IIILafferty, B. A. & Goldsmith, R. E. (1998), ‘Corporate Credibility’s Role in Consumers’ Att...
REFERENCE LIST           PART IVOtto, P. A. & Bois, J. R. (2001), ‘Brand Management Facilitation: A System Dynamics Approa...
REFERENCE LIST          PART IVSchlinger, M. J. (1979), ‘A Profile of Responses to Commercials’, Journal of Advertising Res...
THANKS!THANKS!
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

2nd Concept for Diploma Thesis: The Impact of Source Identification on the Evaluation of Consumer-Generated Advertising

823 views

Published on

2nd Concept for Diploma Thesis - Marketing Department, University of Innsbruck (AUT): The Impact of Source Identification on the Evaluation of Consumer-Generated Advertising

Published in: Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
823
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

2nd Concept for Diploma Thesis: The Impact of Source Identification on the Evaluation of Consumer-Generated Advertising

  1. 1. CONCEPT FOR DIPLOMA THESIS IN MARKETING THE IMPACT OF SOURCE IDENTIFICATION ON THE EVALUATION OF CONSUMER GENERATED ADVERTISING Andreas Mahringer | 0716538 | Supervisor: Dr. Oliver Koll & MSc Roland Schroll
  2. 2. CONCEPT FOR DIPLOMA THESISAGENDA ‣ INTRODUCTION ‣ USER GENERATED CONTENT ‣ THE SOURCE EFFECT ‣ SOURCE CREDIBILITY ‣ COGNITIVE RESPONSE THEORY ‣ RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ‣ THE STRUCTURE ‣ TIME SCHEDULE ‣ REFERENCE LIST
  3. 3. INTRODUCTION
  4. 4. IN 2006 TIME MAGAZINE NAMED"YOU" PERSON OF THE YEAR. Source: TIME 2006
  5. 5. YOU CONTROLT H EINFORMATION AGE. Source: TIME 2006
  6. 6. YOU CONTROL . Source: TIME 2006
  7. 7. YOU . Source: TIME 2006
  8. 8. OLDTECHNOLOGYCONNECTED YOU!
  9. 9. NEWTECHNOLOGYEMPOWERS YOU!
  10. 10. WHATHASCHANGED?
  11. 11. FROMONE WAYCOMMUNICATION
  12. 12. TO AMULTI-CHANNELDISCUSSION
  13. 13. FROM FEW SOURCESOF COMMUNICATION
  14. 14. TO MANY SOURCESOF COMMUNCIATION
  15. 15. USERGENERATEDCONTENT
  16. 16. USER GENERATED CONTENTDEFINITION C O N T E N T M A D E P U B L I C LY AVAILABLE OVER THE INTERNET, WHICH REFLECTS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF CREATIVE EFFORT AND WHICH IS CREATED OUTSIDE OF PROFESSIONAL ROUTINES AND PRACTICES. Source: OECD 2007
  17. 17. USER GENERATED CONTENTDISTINCTION USER BRAND GENERATED RELATED
  18. 18. BRANDS ARE A COMPLEXSYMBOL. IT IS THEINTANGIBLE SUM OF APRODUCTS ATTRIBUTES,ITS NAME, PACKAGINGAND PRICE, ITS HISTORY,REPUTATION, AND THEWAY ITS ADVERTISED.
  19. 19. A BRAND IS ALSO DEFINEDBY CONSUMERSIMPRESSION OF PEOPLEWHO USE IT, AS WELL ASTHEIR OWN EXPERIENCE. - DAVID OGILVY, 1955
  20. 20. WHY THEHYPE?
  21. 21. USER GENERATED CONTENTCOMMUNICATION ADVANTAGES "CONSUMERS VOICE MORE TRUST IN PRODUCT INFORMATION CREATED BY OTHER CONSUMERS THAN GENERATED BY MANUFACTURERS [...] REGARDLESS OF WHETHER PARTICIPANTS VIEW POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE INFORMATION." Source: Cheong & Morrison 2010
  22. 22. USER GENERATED CONTENTCOMMUNICATION ADVANTAGES "CONSUMERS VIEW PEOPLE POSTING UGC ON DISCUSSION BOARDS OR REVIEWER SITES AS OPINION LEADERS WHOSE INPUT IS STILL CONSIDERED IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS EVEN IF THEY DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE STATED OPINION." Source: Cheong & Morrison 2010
  23. 23. USER GENERATED CONTENTCOMMUNICATION ADVANTAGES "CONSUMERS DO NOT ONLY LOOK FOR ONLINE PRODUCT INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THEIR PEERS DUE TO UTILITARIAN MOTIVES, BUT AS PART OF A RISK MINIMIZING STRATEGY." Source: Goldsmith & Horowitz 2006
  24. 24. USER GENERATED CONTENTCOMMUNICATION ADVANTAGES UGC, A VITAL PART IN OUREVERYDAY DECISION MAKING PROCESSES.
  25. 25. CONSUMERGENERATEDADVERTISING
  26. 26. CONSUMER-GENERATED ADVERTISINGDEFINITION "ANY PUBLICLY DISSEMINATED, CONSUMER-GENERATED ADVERTISING MESSAGE WHOSE SUBJECT IS A COLLECTIVELY RECOGNIZED BRAND." Source: Berthon et al. 2008
  27. 27. USER GENERATED CONTENTDISTINCTION USER BRAND GENERATED RELATED ADVERTISING
  28. 28. CONSUMER-GENERATED ADVERTISING WHAT WE KNOW "CONSUMERS CAN BE QUITE SKILLED IN THE CREATION OF "WITH THE PROLIFERATION OF PERSONAL DIGIT B R A N D - R E L E V A N T MEDIA TECHNOLOGY, TODAYS CONSUMERS HAVE COMMUNICATIONS, APPLYING TO TO O L B OX TO C H E A P LY A N D Q U I C K LY THE STYLES, LOGICS, AND P R O D U C E , D I S T R I B U T E A N D E N GAG E I N THE MOTIVES: GRAMMAR OF ADVERTISING." SOPHISTICATED MARKETING CONTENT." - INTRINSIC ENJOYMENT Source: Cheong & Morrison 2010 Source: Muniz & Schau 2007 - SELF-PROMOTION - CHANGE PERCEPTIONS Source: Berthon et al. 2008 STRATEGIC STANCES TAKEN BY FIRMS:THE ADS: - FACILITATE (active & positive)- RELATIONSHIP WITH OFFICIAL BRAND MESSAGE (ASSONANT - DISSONANT) - APPLAUD (passive & positive)- MESSAGE (POSITIVE - NEGATIVE) - DISAPPROVE (passive & negative)Source: Berthon et al. 2008 - REPEL (active & negative) Source: Berthon et al. 2008
  29. 29. CONSUMER-GENERATED ADVERTISINGWHAT WE KNOW LOSS OF CONTROL
  30. 30. CONSUMER-GENERATED ADVERTISINGWHAT WE DONT KNOW HOW EFFECTIVE?
  31. 31. THESOURCEEFFECT
  32. 32. THE SOURCE EFFECTDEFINITION "SOURCE EFFECT THEORY SUGGESTS THAT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF AN AD IS IMPACTED BY THE CONSUMERS PERCEPTION OF ITS SOURCE, THE FRAMING OF CLUES AND STIMULI." Source: Steyn et al. 2010
  33. 33. THE SOURCE EFFECTTHE ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODELTWO ROUTES TO PERSUASION- THE CENTRAL ROUTE- THE PERIPHERAL ROUTE Source: Petty et al. 1983
  34. 34. ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODELTHE CENTRAL ROUTE• EFFORTFUL COGNITIVE ACTIVITY• EXPERIENCES & KNOWLEDGE• CAREFUL EVALUATION OF MESSAGE NEED FOR MOTIVATION Source: Petty et al. 1983
  35. 35. ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL ISSUE INVOLVEMENT WHEN Y OURE I NVOLVE YOURE D, MOTIVA TED!ISSUE INVOLVEMENT (MODERATOR)THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE ATTITUDINALISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS OFPERSONAL RELEVANCE. Source: Petty et al. 1979
  36. 36. ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL THE CENTRAL ROUTE• EFFORTFUL COGNITIVE ACTIVITY• EXPERIENCES & KNOWLEDGE• CAREFUL EVALUATION OF MESSAGE HIGH ISSUE INVOLVEMENT Source: Petty et al. 1983
  37. 37. ELABORATION LIKELIHOOD MODEL THE PERIPHERAL ROUTE• MESSAGE CUES, SIGNALS, STIMULI (+/-)• ASSOCIATION OF ISSUE WITH CUES• MAKING OF INFERENCES• SUBLIMINAL PROCESS LOW ISSUE INVOLVEMENT Source: Steyn et al. 2010
  38. 38. THE SOURCE EFFECTDEFINITION ONE OF SUCH MESSAGE CUES: THE CREDIBILITY OF THE SOURCE. Source: Steyn et al. 2011
  39. 39. SOURCECREDIBILITY
  40. 40. SOURCE CREDIBILITYTWO FACTORS EXPERTISE "THE EXTENT TO WHICH A COMMUNICATOR IS PERCEIVED TO BE A SOURCE OF VALID ASSERTATIONS." Source: Hovland et al. 1953
  41. 41. SOURCE CREDIBILITYTWO FACTORS TRUSTWORTHINESS "THE DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE IN THE COMMUNICATORS INTENT TO COMMUNICATE THE ASSERTIONS HE CONSIDERS MOST VALID." Source: Hovland et al. 1953
  42. 42. SOURCE CREDIBILITYTHE STUDIES A VARIETY OF STUDIES AND EXPERIMENTS HAVE CONFIRMED THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OF THESE TWO VARIABLES - INDIVIDUALLY OR COMBINED - ON PERSUASION EFFECTIVENESS, OPINION AGREEMENT, LIKING AND ATTITUDE CHANGE. Source: Crano 1970; Mills and Harvey 1972; Horai et al. 1974; Ohanian 1990; Goldsmith et al. 2000; Newell and Goldsmith 2001
  43. 43. PERCEIVEDSIMILARITY
  44. 44. PERCEIVED SIMILARITYDEFINITION "THE EXTENT TO WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL BELIEVES A PORTRAYAL SEEMS TO REALISTICALLY REFLECT HIS OR HER OWN EXPERIENCES, OR AS SIMILAR TO THEMSELVES BASED ON CERTAIN ATTRIBUTES." "ATTRIBUTES MAY INCLUDE DEMOGRAPHICS, SHARED VALUES, SHARED IDEAS AND COMMON EXPERIENCES." Source: Andsager et al. 2006, Salmon and Atkin 2003
  45. 45. PERCEIVED SIMILARITY THE STUDIES "PERCEIVED SIMILARITY IS POSITIVELY RELATED TO "WHEN CONTENT IS CONSUMER-GENERATED, THE CONSUMER MESSAGE VIEWS THE SOURCE OF THE MESSAGE AS SIMILAR TO EFFECTIVENESS." THEMSELVES, THUS RENDERING THE COMMUNICATION AS Andsager et al. 2006 MORE PERSUASIVE." Price, Feick and Higie 1989;"CONTENT PRODUCED "SOURCES WHOM AUDIENCES PERCEIVE BY A PERCEIVABLY AS SIMILAR TO THEMSELVES ARE MORE SIMILAR PEER WERE LIKELY TO PRODUCE PERSUASION THANMORE EFFECTIVE IN THE SOURCES WHOM AUDIENCES PERCEIVE AS ENHANCEMENT OF DISSIMILAR." ATTITUDES" Perloff 2003 Paek et al. 2011
  46. 46. PERCEIVED SIMILARITYREVISITING ISSUE INVOLVEMENT AS MODERATOR "THE EFFECT OF A PERCEIVABLY SIMILAR PRODUCER IS MORE PRONOUNCED WHEN VIEWERS HAVE A LOW RATHER THAN HIGH ISSUE INVOLVEMENT." Source: Paek et al. 2011
  47. 47. SO ONE MIGHTCONCLUDETHAT CGAEFFECTIVENES
  48. 48. EXCEEDS THEO N ETRADITIONALADS CAUSE OF:
  49. 49. HIGER SOURCECREDIBILITY &PERCEIVEDSIMILARITY
  50. 50. THESTUDIES
  51. 51. THE STUDIES1) LAWRENCE ET AL. 2009 "THE EXPERIMENT DEMONSTRATES SIGNIFICANT RESPONSE ADVANTAGES FOR CGAs IN TERMS OF PERSONAL RELEVANCE, PERCEPTIONS OF EXECUTIONAL QUALITY, ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE AD, BRAND INTEREST AND PURCHASE INTENT.
  52. 52. THE STUDIES2) STEYN ET AL. 2010 "THE EXPERIMENT DID NOT FIND ANY SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE THAT CGAs ARE PREFERRED OVER AGENCY-CREATED ADS."
  53. 53. THE STUDIES3) STEYN ET AL. 2011 "THE STUDY DID NOT FIND ANY OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT CGAS ARE PREFERRED OVER AGENCY CREATED ADS." "CONSUMERS SEEM TO BE MORE CRITICAL TOWARDS AN AD WHEN THEY ARE EXPOSED TO CUES THAT INFORM THEM WHO CREATED THE AD."
  54. 54. WHY?
  55. 55. 1978
  56. 56. COGNITIVERESPONSETHEORY
  57. 57. COGNITIVE RESPONSE THEORYINSIGHTS "IN RESPONSE TO A PERSUASIVE APPEAL, INDIVIDUALS REHEARSE THEIR ISSUE-RELEVANT THOUGHTS, AS WELL AS THOSE PRESENTED TO THEM." THE MORE CREDIBLE THE SOURCE, THE MORE THE REHEARSAL OF THEIR [THE INDIVIDUALS] OWN REPERTOIRE OF ATTITUDE RELEVANT THOUGHTS GETS SUPPRESSED BY THE APPEAL. Source: Sternthal et al. 1978a, 1978b
  58. 58. COGNITIVE RESPONSE THEORYINSIGHTS "DEPENDING ON THE INDIVIDUALS INITIAL PREDISPOSITION TOWARDS THE ADVOCACY - IN FAVOR VS AGAINST - THE PERSUASIVE EFFECT OF THE APPEAL CAN BE MODERATED BY THE LEVEL OF SOURCE CREDIBILITY." Source: Sternthal et al. 1978a, 1978b
  59. 59. THISMEANS
  60. 60. THETHEORY AN APPEAL PRESENTED BY A MODERATELY CREDIBLE SOURCE TO AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A POSITIVE INITIAL ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE ISSUE, MIGHT BE MORE EFFECTIVE THAN THE SAME APPEAL PRESENTED BY A HIGHLY CREDIBLE SOURCE. THIS THEORY WAS REPLICATED IN TWO EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES, ITS RELEVANCE HAS NEVER BEEN INVESTIGATED IN AN ADVERTISING CONTEXT. Source: Sternthal et al. 1978a; 1978b
  61. 61. RESEARCHQUESTIONS
  62. 62. RESEARCH QUESTIONSA) DOES THE EXISTENCE OF SOURCE CREDIBILITY EFFECTS IN CGAs, DEPEND ON THEINITAL PREDISPOSITION OF THE SPECTATOR TOWARD THE ADVERTISED BRAND?B) DO CGAs BENEFIT FROM AN INCREASED LEVEL OF PERCEIVED SIMILARITYBETWEEN THE SPECTATOR AND THE SOURCE?C) WHICH IMPACT DOES THE LEVEL OF ISSUE INVOLVEMENT HAVE ON THEEVALUATION OF CGAs?
  63. 63. RESEARCHMODEL
  64. 64. RESEARCHMODEL
  65. 65. THEHYPOTHESIS
  66. 66. THE HYPOTHESIS PART IH1: Group AB(yes) will attribute a higher level of trustworthiness to H4: Subjects who attribute a high level of source credibility to thethe source of the advertising message than Group AB(no). source of the advertising message will indicate a more favorable attitude towards the ad (H4a), attitude towards the brand (H4b) andH2: Group AB(yes) will attribute a lower level of expertise to the purchase intentions (H4c) than subjects who attribute a low level ofsource of the advertising message than Group AB(no). source credibility to the source of the advertising message.H3: Group AB(yes) will indicate a more favorable attitude towards H5: Group AB(yes) will indicate a higher level of perceived similaritythe ad (H3a), attitude towards the brand (H3b) and purchase with the source of the advertising message than Group AB(no).intentions (H3c) than Group AB(no).
  67. 67. THE HYPOTHESIS PART IIH6: Subjects who state a high level of perceived similarity with the H8: Attitude towards the ad (H8a), attitude towards the brand (H8b) andsource of the advertising message will indicate a more favorable purchase intentions (H8c) will not differ significantly amongst subjects,attitude towards the ad (H6a), attitude towards the brand (H6b) and irrespective if they indicate a high or a low level of perceived similaritypurchase intentions (H6c) than subjects who state a low level of with the source of the advertising message, if the level of issueperceived similarity with the source of the advertising message. involvement is high.H7: Attitude towards the ad (H7a), attitude towards the brand (H7b) H9: Group A(no) will indicate a more favorable attitude towards the adand purchase intentions (H7c) will not differ significantly amongst (H9a), attitude towards the brand (H9b) and purchase intentions (H9c)subjects, irrespective if they attribute a high or a low level of source than Group A(yes).credibility to the source of the advertising message, if the level ofissue involvement is high. H10: Group B(yes) will indicate a more favorable attitude towards the ad (H10a), attitude towards the brand (H10b) and purchase intentions (H10c) than Group B(no).
  68. 68. RESEARCHDESIGN
  69. 69. RESEARCH DESIGN OVERVIEW• 2 X 2 BETWEEN SUBJECTS EXPERIMENTAL STUDY• INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: • INITIAL PREDISPOSITION TOWARDS THE BRAND (POSITIVE | NEGATIVE) • SOURCE IDENTIFICATION (YES | NO)• SAMPLE SIZE: 200• SAMPLE FRAME: BUSINESS STUDENTS AT UIBK, 18-26 YEARS OF AGE;
  70. 70. RESEARCH DESIGN AD SELECTION• CONSUMER GENERATED SPOT• HIGH PRODUCTION QUALITY• IN FAVOR OF THE BRAND• MATCH CORPORATE COMMUNICATION STYLE• TARGET MARKET HAST TO APPLY TO SAMPLE FRAME• BRAND MUST ALLOW FOR BOTH, POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE, INITIAL PREDISPOSITIONS• BRAND MUST ALLOW FOR BOTH, HIGH AND LOW, LEVELS OF ISSUE INVOLVEMENT, IRRESPECTIVE OF GENDER AND AGE• PRE-TESTS DURING AD SELECTION PROCESS
  71. 71. *RANDOMLY ASSIGNED SOURCE ID - PRIOR - VISUAL - NEUTRALRESEARCH DESIGNTHE PROCEDURE IDyes* FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE + EVALUATION GROUPA POS IDno* SCREENING OVERALL QUESTIONS LIKEABILITY IDyes* NEG GROUPB IDno*
  72. 72. THESCALES
  73. 73. THE SCALES SCREENING QUESTIONSYES/NO - BUSINESS STUDENT AT UIBK? - 18 TO 26 YEARS OLD? - FAMILIARITY WITH BRAND?
  74. 74. THE SCALES OVERALL LIKEABILITYINSIGHT "SINGLE ITEM MEASURES OF LIKEABILITY ARE COMMONLY USED WITHIN VIEWER RESPONSE RESEARCH AND HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO VALIDATE MULTI-ITEM MEASURES OF LIKEABILITY" - PRESENTATION OF BRAND LOGO (VISUAL) - 5-POINT SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALE - FROM "I DO NOT LIKE THE BRAND AT ALL" TO "I DO LIKE THE BRAND A LOT"; - "RIGHT" FROM MEDIAN: GROUPA - "LEFT" FROM MEDIAN: GROUPB - "ON" MEDIAN: DISMISSAL Source: Steyn et al. 2011
  75. 75. THE SCALES SOURCE CREDIBILITYOHANIAN 1990 "IN EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES OF SOURCE CREDIBILITY, THE SCALE CAN BE USED TO ASSESS EFFECTIVENESS OF THE EXPERIMENTAL MANIPULATION." - 10-ITEM SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALE - 50% TRUSTWORTHINESS, 50% EXPERTISE - CHECKED FOR RELIABILITY & VALIDITY Source: Ohanian 1990
  76. 76. THE SCALES PERCEIVED SIMILARITYPAEK ET AL. 2011 - 2-ITEM SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALE - "NOT SIMILAR TO YOU" TO "SIMILAR TO YOU" - "SOMEONE NOT LIKELY TO BE YOUR PEER" TO "SOMEONE LIKELY TO BE YOUR PEER" Source: Paek et al. 2011
  77. 77. THE SCALES ISSUE INVOLVEMENTZAICHKOWSKY 1985 - 20-ITEM SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALE - RELEVANCE OF THE CONCEPT IN AN ADVERTISING CONTEXT HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED Source: Petty & Cacioppo 1981 - ISSUE INVOLVEMENT AS MEASURE OF PERSONAL RELEVANCE ATTRIBUTED TO AD Source: Chaiken 1980; Petty & Cacioppe 1979, 1981, 1990;
  78. 78. THE SCALES ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE ADOBJECTIVE: QUANTIFY THE PARTICIPANTS SUBJECTIVE FEELINGS ABOUT THE AD.SCHLINGERS VIEWER RESPONSE PROFILE (1979) - RECEIVED MUCH ATTENTION BY BOTH ACADEMICS AND COMMERCIAL RESEARCH AGENCIES - USED IN PREVIOUS CGA STUDIES (LAWRENCE ET AL. 2010; STEYN ET AL. 2011) - 32-ITEM SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALE - 7 DIMENSIONS OF RESPONSES TO COMMERCIALS - STRASHEIM ET AL. (2007) REDUCED VRP TO 14-ITEM SCALE FOR HIGHER USABILITY - 7 DIMENSIONS STILL EFFECTIVELY REPRESENTED Source: Schlinger 1979; Steyn et al. 2011; Lawrence et al. 2010; Strasheim et al. 2007
  79. 79. THE SCALES ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE BRANDOBJECTIVE: QUANTIFY THE PARTICIPANTS SUBJECTIVE FEELINGS ABOUT THE BRAND.LAFFERTY AND GOLDSMITH 1998 - THREE 7-POINT SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALES - FROM "GOOD" TO "BAD" - FROM "FAVORABLE" TO "UNFAVORABLE" - FROM "SATISFACTORY" TO "UNSATISFACTORY" Source: Lafferty & Goldsmit 1998; Bruner & Hensel 1992;
  80. 80. THE SCALES PURCHASE INTENTOBJECTIVE: QUANTIFY THE PARTICIPANTS INTENTIONS TO PURCHASE THE PRODUCT/SERVICE.Yi 1990 - THREE 7-POINT SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SCALES - FROM "VERY LIKELY" TO "VERY UNLIKELY" - FROM "PROBABLE" TO "IMPROBABLE" - FROM "POSSIBLE" TO "IMPOSSIBLE" Source: YI 1990
  81. 81. THE SCALESDEMOGRAPHICS THE FINAL SECTION OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE WILL GATHER BASIC DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR VALIDATION CHECKS OF SAMPLE HOMOGENEITY.
  82. 82. THE SCALESMANIPULATION CHECK WAS THE TREATMENT SUCCESSFUL? WHO DO YOU THINK PRODUCED THE AD?
  83. 83. THESTRUCTURE
  84. 84. THE STRUCTURE PART I 1. Introduction 1.1 A Changing Communication-Landscape 3. Theoretical Background: Advertising Effectiveness- The Road to Persuasion 1.2 Problem Statement 3.1 Hierarchy-Of-Effects Models 1.3 Aim of the Thesis & Research Questions 3.2 The Elaboration Likelihood Model 1.4 Structure of the Thesis 3.2.1 The Central Route to Persuasion 3.2.2 The Peripheral Route to Persuasion2. Theoretical Background: User Generated Content 3.2.3 Issue Involvement as Moderating Variable 2.1 Definition 2.2 State of the Art 4. Theoretical Background: The Source Effect 2.3 Consumer Generated Advertising 4.1 Definition 2.3.1 Definition 4.2 Source Credibility 2.3.2 Motivations for Consumer Creativity 4.2.1 Expertise 2.3.3. Types of Consumer-Generated Ads 4.2.2 Trustworthiness 2.3.4. Strategic Stances Towards Consumer-Generated Ads 4.3 The Role of Initial Predisposition: Cognitive Response Theory 4.4 Perceived Similarity 4.5 Revisiting Issue Involvement as Moderating Variable
  85. 85. THE STRUCTUREPART II 5. Empirical Study 5.1 Research Methodology 5.1.2 Set Up of the Current Research Design 5.1.2.1 The Sample 5.1.2.2. The Scales 5.2.2.3. The Ad 5.2.2.4. The Procedure 5.2.3 Pre-Tests and Results 5.2 Empirical Findings 6. Discussion of the Findings & Management Implications 7. Research Limitations & Agenda for Future Research 8. Appendix
  86. 86. TIMESCHEDULE
  87. 87. TIME SCHEDULEOVERVIEW
  88. 88. REFERENCELIST
  89. 89. REFERENCE LIST PART IAndsager, J. L., Bemker, V., Choi, H. L. & Torwel, V. (2006), ‘Perceived similarity of exemplar traits and behavior’, Communication Research, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 3-18.Arnhold, U. (2010),’User Generated Branding - Integrating User Generated Content into Brand Management’, Gabler Verlag, Berlin.Austin, E. W. & Meili, H. K. (1994), ‘Effects of interpretations of televised alcohol portrayals on children’, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 417-435.Berthon, P., Pitt, L. & Campbell, C. (2008), ‘Ad Lib: When Customers Create The Ad’, California Management Review, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 6-30.Brunel, F., Lawrence, B. & Fournier, S. (2010), ‘Towards A Contingency Theory of Consumers’ Engagement with CGAs’, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 37, Special SessionSummary - Consumer-Generated Advertising: Creators and Spectators, pp. 285-286.Campbell, C., Pitt, L. F., Parent, M. & Berthon, P. R. (2011), ‘Understanding Consumer Conversations Around Ads in a Web 2.0 World’, Journal of Advertising, vol. 40, no. 1, pp.87-102.Chaiken, S. (1980), ‘Heuristic Versus Systematic Information Processing and the Use of Source Versus Message Cues in Persuasion’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 752-766.Cheon, H. J. & Morrison, M. A. (2010), ‘Consumers’ Reliance on Product Information and Recommendations Found in UGC’, Journal of Interactive Advertising, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 38-49.Cho, C. H. (1999), ‘How Advertising Works on the WWW: Modified Elaboration Likelihood Model’, Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 33-50.Crano, W. D. (1970), Effects of sex, response order, and expertise in conformity: A dispositional approach, Sociometry, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 239-252.
  90. 90. REFERENCE LIST PART IIDaugherty, T., Eastin, M. S. & Bright, L. (2008), ‘Exploring Consumer Motivations For Creating User-Generated Content’, Journal of Interactive Advertising, vol. 8., no. 2, pp- 16-25.Ertimur, B. & Gilly, M. C. (2010), ‘The Impact of Consumer-Generated Advertising on Brand Associations’, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 37, Special Session Summary -Consumer-Generated Advertising: Creators and Spectators, pp. 286.Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A. & Newell, S. J. (2000), ‘The Impact of Corporate Credibility and Celebrity Credibility on Consumer Reaction to Advertisements and Brands’, Journal ofAdvertising, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 43-54.Goldsmith, R. E. & Horowitz, D. (2006), ‘Measuring Motivations for Online Opinion Seeking’, Journal of Interactive Advertising, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1-16.Harrison-Walker, L. J. (2001), ‘The Measurement of Word-of-Mouth Communication and an Investigation of Service Quality and Customer Commitment as Potential Antecedents’,Journal of Service Research, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 60-75.Hearn, G., Foth, M. & Gray, H. (2009), ‘Applications and implementations of new media in corporate communications - An action research approach’, Corporate Communications: AnInternational Journal, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 49-61.Hoffman, D. L. & Novak, T. P. (1997), ‘A New Marketing Paradigm for Electronic Commerce’, The Information Society, vol. 13, pp. 43-54.Horai, J., Naccari, N., & Fatoullah, E. (1974), The effects of expertise and physical attractiveness upon opinion agreement and liking, Sociometry, vol. 37, pp. 601-606.Hovland, C., Janis, I. & Kelley, H. (1953), ‘Communication and Persuasion’, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
  91. 91. REFERENCE LIST PART IIILafferty, B. A. & Goldsmith, R. E. (1998), ‘Corporate Credibility’s Role in Consumers’ Attitudes and Purchase Intentions When a High versus a Low Credibility Endorser is Used in theAd’, Journal of Business Research, vol. 44, pp. 109-116.Lawrence, B., Fournier, S. & Brunel, F. (2009), ‘Consuming the Consumer-Generated Ad’, Boston University School of Management, viewed 6 May 2012, <http://bit.ly/IvsuYu>McDaniel, C. Jr & Gates, R. (2010), ‘Marketing Research - 8th Edition’, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.Mills, J. & Harvey, J. (1972), ‘Opinion change as a function of when information about the communicator is received and whether he is attractive or expert’, Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 52-55.Muniz, A. M. Jr. & Schau, H. J. (2007), ‘Vigilante Marketing and Consumer-Created Communications’, Journal of Advertising, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 35-50.Muniz, A. M. Jr. & Schau, H. J. (2011), ‘How to inspire value-laden collaborative consumer-generated content’, Business Horizons, vol. 54, pp. 209-217.Newell, S. J. & Goldsmith, R. E. (2001), ‘The development of a scale to measure perceived corporate credibility’, Journal of Business Research, vol. 52, pp. 235-247.OECD (2007), ‘Participative Web: User-Created Content (UCC)’, DSTI/ICCP/IE(2006)7/FINAL, viewed 5 May 2012, <http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/57/14/38393115.pdf>.Ohanian, R. (1990), ‘Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure Celebrity Endorsers’ Perceived Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Attractiveness’, Journal of Advertising, vol.19, no. 3, pp. 39-52.
  92. 92. REFERENCE LIST PART IVOtto, P. A. & Bois, J. R. (2001), ‘Brand Management Facilitation: A System Dynamics Approach for Decision Makers’ Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, University atAlbany, State University of New York, viewed 5 May 2012, <http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/2001/papers/Otto_1.pdf>.Paek, H., Hove, T., Jeong, H. J. & Kim, M. (2011), ‘Peer or expert? The persuasive impact of You Tube public service announcement producers’, International Journal of Advertising,vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 161.188.Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979), ‘Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses’, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, vol. 37, pp. 1915-1926.Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981), ’Issue involvement as a moderator of the effects on attitude of advertising content and context’, Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 8, pp.20-24.Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T. & Schumann, D. (1983), ‘Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement’, Journal of ConsumerResearch, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 135-146.Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1990), ‘Involvement and Persuasion: Tradition Versus Integration’, Psychological Bulleting, vol. 107, no.3, pp. 367-374.Petty, R. E., Heesacker, M. & Hughes, J. N. (1997), ‘The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Implications for Practice of School Psychology’, Journal of School Psychology, vol. 35, no. 2, pp.107-136.Price, L. L., Feick, L. F., & Higie, R. A. (1989), ‘Preference Heterogeneity and Coorientation as Determinants of Perceived Informational Influence’, Journal of Business Research, vol.19, no. 3, pp. 227-242.
  93. 93. REFERENCE LIST PART IVSchlinger, M. J. (1979), ‘A Profile of Responses to Commercials’, Journal of Advertising Research, vol.19, pp. 37-46.Scott, L. M. (1994), ‘The Bridge from Text to Mind: Adapting Reader-Response Theory to Consumer Research’, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 21, pp. 461-479.Sternthal, B., Dholakia, R. & Leavitt, C. (1978), ‘The Persuasive Effect of Source Credibility: Tests of Cognitive Response’, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 4, pp. 252-260.Sternthal, B., Phillips, L. W. & Dholakia, R. (1978), ‘The Persuasive Effect of Source Credibility: A Situational Analysis’, Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 285-314.Steyn, P., Wallström, A. & Pitt, L. (2010), ‘Consumer-generated content and source effects in financial services advertising: An experimental study’, Journal of Financial ServicesMarketing, vol. 15, pp. 49-61.Steyn, P., Ewing, M. T., van Herden, G., Pitt, L. F. & Windisch, L. (2011), ‘From whence it came - Understanding source effects in consumer-generated advertising’, InternationalJournal of Advertising, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 133-160.Strasheim, A., Pitt, L. & Caruana, A. (2007), ‘Psychometric properties of the Schlinger viewer response profile (VRP)’, Journal of Advertising, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 101-114.Ward, C. & McGinnies, E. (1974), ‘Persuasive Effects of Early and Late Mention of Credible and Non-Credible Sources’, Journal of Psychology, no. 86, pp. 17-23.Yi, Y. (1990), ‘Cognitive and Affective Priming Effects of the Context for Print Advertisements’, Journal of Advertising, vol. 19, pp. 40-48.Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985), ‘Measuring the Involvement Construct’, Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 12, pp. 341-352.
  94. 94. THANKS!THANKS!

×