Printer Friendly

Different Forced-Exposure Levels to Banner Advertisements.

This study explores the effects of different levels of forced exposure to banner ads on advertising responses such as advertising perception, clicking of banner ads, banner attitude, brand attitude, and purchase intention. The study employed a within-group experimental design using online data collection technology called Cold Fusion. It was found that the degree of forced exposure to banner ads had a significantly positive relationship with advertising perception and clicking of banner ads. Unexpectedly, it was also found that the banner ad presented in the format of the highest forced-exposure level also yielded the most desirable advertising effects (i.e., favorable attitude toward the banner ad, favorable attitude toward the brand, and high purchase intention).

THE WORLD WIDE WEB is emerging as a viable mass medium because of its unique and versatile capabilities (Ducoffe, 1996). As the WWW has been experiencing rapid growth as an advertising medium with $7.1 billion spent on U.S. online advertising in 2000 (eMarketer, 2001), it has increasingly become important for advertisers and marketers to examine the factors that influence how consumers process advertising on the web (Cho, 1999). One possible influence is the exposure condition of advertisements on the web, since the unique and flexible presentation technologies of the web make it possible for advertisers to generate different levels of advertising exposure conditions. The WWW can carry graphics, images, text, audio, and video in various sophisticated ways.

In traditional media, most exposures to advertisements occur at the same level of forced or incidental exposure conditions. However, in the web circumstances, different levels of forced exposure can occur. This means that even the same advertisement can be presented to the audience with different degrees of forced exposure. Despite such unique characteristics of the web as a mediator of advertising exposure, there has been little research on the impact of different degrees of forced exposure condition on consumers' advertising processing. This paper reports on a study that examines the possibility that the degree of forced exposure in web advertising may affect consumers' advertising perceptions, clicking behavior, attitudes toward the advertisement and the brand, as well as purchase intentions.

ADVERTISING ON THE WWW

Although there are many different forms of web advertising--banners, buttons, text links, sponsorships, target sites, and interstitials--banner ads are the most prevalent. The use of banner ads on the WWW began in October 1994 when AT&T first advertised on HotWired.com (Zeff and Aronson, 1999). Since then, banners have dominated advertising on the WWW and have become the standard web advertising format (Meland, 2000; Hofacker and Murphy, 1998; Cho and Leckenby, 1998).

Forced and unforced advertising exposure on the WWW

In traditional media, most advertising exposures occur at the same level of forced-exposure conditions. In other words, there is little difference in the degree to which audiences feel forced to view advertisements. Unlike traditional media, the WWW makes it possible for the audience to be exposed to advertisements at many different degrees of forced exposure. Cho (1999) classified advertising exposure on the WWW into two types: involuntary exposure to banner ads and voluntary exposure to target advertisements. This general classification could be applied to typical banner and target advertisements. However, with the aid of advanced and sophisticated presentation technologies of the web, it is possible for advertisers to generate different levels of advertising exposure conditions. In other words, even the same banner ad (involuntary exposure) can be presented to the audience in different ways. These differences in the level of advertising exposure are in part caused by the degree to which the audiences feel forced to view the banner ad. In this study, the researchers refer to these different levels of forced exposure as "the degree of the forced exposure" to banner ads.

Traditionally, advertisers have used advertising and brand awareness as measures of advertising effectiveness. It has been reported that there is a significant relationship between advertising awareness and sales in traditional media (Hollis, 1994). On the web, the audience is involuntarily exposed to banner ads. Even though this is involuntary exposure, the audience may or may not perceive the banner ad. However, in more forced-exposure conditions, where the audience has little control over banner ad exposure, the banner ad is more likely to be perceived by the audience. In some instances, the audience may face the banner ad for a certain period of time regardless of his or her choice to do so. From this point of view, we might expect that the audience in forced-exposure conditions is more aware of the banner ad than in less forced-exposure conditions. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is stated:

H1: A higher degree of forced exposure in a banner ad will yield a higher level of advertising perception.

The internet has several distinguishing characteristics, among them interactivity, irrelevance of distance and time, low setup costs, global coverage, and ease of entry (Berthon, Pitt, and Watson, 1996). However, interactivity is considered to be the key advantage of the medium (Rafaeli and Sudweeks, 1997; Morris and Ogan, 1996; Pavilk 1996). There are many different ways of defining interactivity in the internet (Flaherty, 1985; Cook, 1994; Rice, 1984; Steuer, 1992; Williams, Rice, and Rogers, 1988; Ariely, 1998; Cho and Leckenby, 1999). There also exist many different consumer activities that can be understood as interactivity on the WWW (e.g., clicking, providing feedback, searching, etc.).

In web advertising, the banner ad clickthrough is believed to be the first gate to entering the world of interactivity (Cho and Leckenby, 1999). Accordingly, measuring banner ad clickthrough rates has already become important both for the advertiser and the website. In addition, the pricing of online advertising is moving toward clickthrough rates (MediaPost, 2000), and it is relatively easy to measure clickthrough rates with the aid of innovative technology.

There are many known and unknown factors influencing people's clicking behaviors (Hofacker and Murphy, 1998). These factors can be classified into two different categories: (1) audience-related factors and (2) advertising-related factors (Briggs and Hollis, 1997). Because all these factors are involved at the very point when the audiences are exposed to the advertisement, it is expected that different levels of forced-exposure conditions will also influence the audience's tendency to click the banner ads. It is believed that different advertising presentation formats with different degrees of forced exposure may generate different levels of attention paid to the advertisement, which in turn may yield different clickthrough rates. In other words, it is believed that a higher level of forced advertising exposure will draw more attention to the banner ad and, thus, yield a higher clickthrough rate. This rationale generates the following hypothesis:

H2: Higher degrees of forced exposure in the banner ad will yield a higher clickthrough rate.

Various attitude measures have been used in rating of advertising effectiveness in traditional media--persuasion-based copytesting methods (Leckenby and Plummer, 1983). Attitude toward the advertisement is one of the most often-used persuasion-based measures and has been found to be superior to other measures in many aspects (Clancy and Ostlund, 1976; Gibson, 1983; Haley, 1994; Ross, 1982).

The assumption underlying the use of attitude toward the advertisement, as a measure of advertising effectiveness, is that the attitude toward the advertisement influences attitude toward the brand. There have been many research studies on the effect of attitude toward the advertisement on brand attitude (Shimp, 1981; Mitchell and Olson, 1981; MacKenzie and Lutz, 1983; Lutz, MacKenzie, and Belch, 1983; Lutz, 1985; Aaker, Stayman, and Hagerty, 1986; Mitchell, 1986; Edell and Burke, 1987; Holbrook and Batra, 1987; Homer, 1990).

In these studies, advertising exposure is at the same level of forced-exposure conditions in traditional media. However, in the web circumstance, different levels of forced exposure can occur due to innovative presentation technologies. As a result, these differences may yield different advertising effects. If other conditions are identical, it could be predicted that people may have more unfavorable attitudes toward an advertisement presented in a forced way than an advertisement presented in a less forced way.

Learning theory offers a rationale for this assumption. According to this theory, people acquire unfavorable attitudes toward objects associated with bad things (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). Consequently, we can expect that negative feelings associated with the forced-exposure condition may transfer to attitudes toward the advertisement, the advertised brand, and purchase intentions. In other words, the higher the level of forced exposure, the more negative are the effects of advertising on consumers. On this basis the following hypotheses are generated:

H3.1: A higher degree of forced exposure will yield a more unfavorable attitude toward the banner ad.

H3.2: A higher degree of forced exposure will yield a more unfavorable attitude toward the brand.

H3.3: A higher degree of forced exposure will yield a lower purchase intention.

METHODOLOGY

Stimulus material

As stimulus materials, four animated banner ads, four imaginary new brands, and four test websites were professionally developed by the researchers to eliminate any effects from previous experience with the brands or advertisements (i.e., prior banner ad exposure, attitudes toward the ad, attitudes toward the brand, or purchase intentions). Four popular product categories on the web, consisting of consumer brands, retailers, financial services, and travel, according to WebTrack (1998), were adopted for the product categories of the test banner ads. The resulting imaginary brands used in the study include: (1) CostLess Computer (consumer brand); (2) FreeLoan (financial services); (3) CheapFly (travel-related products); and (4) QuickShopping (retailers). To reduce the possibility that creative styles of banner ads might influence various advertising responses studied (i.e., advertising awareness, clicking of the banner ad, attitude toward the banner ad, attitude toward the brand, or purchase intention), the res earchers created four sample banner ads with similar creative style. The common creative or message style for the four banner ads included: (1) animation with eight frames; (2) stimulating consumer's needs by showing problems and solutions; and (3) use of "Click now" or "Click here" at the end of the frame. Figure 1 shows the graphic image of the four banner ads used in this study.

To represent different levels of forced-exposure conditions, four different types of banner presentation formats were created. First, for the most forced-exposure level (forced exposure with no skip option), subjects saw only the banner ad on the screen for a brief period of time, before moving to the desired website and ultimately to the page where they originally wanted to go. In this case, the subjects had no choice to get away from the banner ad because they had to wait until they were automatically connected to the next web page. For the second most forced-exposure level (forced exposure with skip option), other conditions were the same as the first format except that subjects could move to the desired site at any time they wanted, by clicking the skip button on the screen. For the third level of forced exposure (pop-up window), a pop-up window containing banner ads appeared when subjects opened the desired website. Finally, for the least forced-exposure level (normal banner), typical banner ads were pla ced at the top of a web page when subjects opened the desired website.

These four different presentation formats were randomly assigned to each of the four banner ads to reflect the different levels of the forced-exposure condition. To eliminate the ordering effects of the stimuli, the researchers counterbalanced the order of four banner presentation formats by using Latin Square Counterbalancing. Four different websites, each having different presentation orders for their respective banner ads, were developed without changing the content of the web pages. Table 1 summarizes the experimental stimuli used in the current study.

Sample

An electronic recruiting message for the survey was distributed via postings in various discussion LISTSERV lists. The LISTSERV lists were selected from CataList, the catalog of LISTSERV lists (http://www.lsoft.com/catalist.html). This website provided 34,077 public LISTSERV lists on the internet at the point of the study, March 2000. Among these LISTSERV lists, education-, internet-, advertising-, and marketing-related LISTSERV lists were selected because the researchers believed that the discussion subjects of these LISTSERVs were relevant to the current study.

The study had a total of 215 participants. To recruit these 215 subjects, the researchers posted recruiting messages on a total of 40 LISTSERV lists, which were randomly divided into four experimental groups (four different-order combinations). The URLs of four different websites were randomly assigned to each of four subject groups, as shown in Table 2.1. Each website consisted of four web pages, and each of four different banner presentation formats was embedded in each of four web pages in different order. Subjects were told that the purpose of the study was to evaluate a new website. The last part of each website was linked to a web page containing a questionnaire.

Procedure

The online questionnaire was composed of five parts. After finishing each part of the questionnaire, subjects were moved to the next part by clicking the "continue" button. First, the level of product involvement for each of four product categories was measured to check the effect of this variable on various dependent variables of the current study.

The second part of the questionnaire was designed to measure the awareness of the banner ads presented at different levels of forced exposure. Subjects saw four banner ads and were asked whether they remembered each banner ad or not. Then, to measure the clickthrough rate of each banner ad and reasons for clicking, subjects were asked if they clicked each banner ad or not, and then why they clicked the banner ad if they did.

In the third part of the online questionnaire, subjects were asked to answer questions concerning their attitudes toward each of the four banner ads. A battery of eight Likert-scale items was used to measure the attitude toward each banner ad. In the next part, brand attitude and purchase intentions were measured by again using a battery of four Likert-scale items.

Finally, in order to check the level of the forced-exposure condition manipulation, four Likert-scale items were used to measure the degree to which each subject felt forced to view four different banner presentation formats. Then, subjects answered the questions concerning demographic information and internet usage. It took around 10 to 15 minutes for subjects to complete the online survey.

RESULTS

This study used a within-group experimental design. To control the order effect, the researchers employed Latin Square Counterbalancing design. To eliminate the possibility that subjects in four subgroups are different enough to influence the effects of the treatment, the researchers compared the groups in terms of their demographic and web usage. The four groups were very similar in terms of age, gender, and web-surfing hours. Table 2.2 shows the results of a series of ANOVAs and chi-squares to compare the four groups. However, this study could not address the comparability of the nonresponders to those who responded to the experiment, which would be important in establishing the overall validity of the sample.

Manipulation check

The main independent variable of the study was the degree of the forced exposure. This variable was manipulated by using four different banner presentation formats. As a manipulation check, the researchers measured the degree to which each subject felt forced to view four different banner-presentation formats. Three different paired t-tests were employed to check whether the degree of forced exposure was manipulated successfully in the expected order. Table 3.1 shows the results of three sequential paired t-tests. As expected, the mean perceived forced exposure of "Forced Exposure with No Skip Option" (M = 3.55) was significantly higher than that of "Forced Exposure with Skip Option" (M = 3.41), which was significantly higher than that of "Pop-up Window" (M = 3.20) and "Normal Banner" (M = 2.95). The results were statistically significant (p [less than or equal to] .05). Therefore, it is concluded that the degree of forced exposure was successfully manipulated in the expected order.

Hypotheses testing

The first hypothesis states that a higher degree of forced exposure to the banner ad will yield a higher level of banner ad perception. A chi-square test was conducted to check the relationship between the degree of forced exposure and advertising awareness or perception. Table 3.2 reveals that the experimental treatments (the degree of forced exposure) had a strong impact on the rate of perceiving the banner ads, with a chi square value of 87.83 with three degrees of freedom (p [less than or equal to] .01).

To check the rank order of the perception rate for each treatment condition (i.e., degree of forced exposure), three sequential paired t-tests comparing perception proportion differences among the four treatment conditions were conducted. As shown in Table 3.3, the highest perception proportion was produced in the format of "Forced Exposure with No Skip Option" (p = .93), which was followed by "Forced Exposure with Skip Option" (p = .76), "Pop-up Window" (p = .47), and last was "Normal Banner" (p = .28). In other words, it was found that 93 percent of subjects exposed to the banner ad in the format of "Forced Exposure with No Skip Option" remembered seeing the banner ad, 76 percent for "Forced Exposure with Skip Option," 47 percent for "Pop-up Window," and 28 percent for "Normal Banner." The results were statistically significant (p [less than or equal to] .01). Therefore, H1 is supported.

The second hypothesis states that a higher degree of forced exposure in the banner ad will yield a higher clickthrough rate. A chi-square test was conducted to check the relationship between the degree of forced exposure and banner click-through. Table 4.1 reveals that the degree of forced exposure had a strong impact on the clickthrough rate of the banner ads, with a chi square value of 140.09 with three degrees of freedom (p [less than or equal to] .01).

To check the rank order of the perception rate for each treatment condition (i.e., degree of forced exposure), three sequential paired t-tests comparing clicking proportion differences among the four treatment conditions were conducted. As shown in Table 4.2, the highest clicking proportion was produced in the format of "Forced Exposure with No Skip Option" (p = .48), which was followed by "Forced Exposure with Skip Option" (p = .19), "Pop-up Window" (p = .07), and last was "Normal Banner" (p = .02). In other words, it was found that 48 percent of subjects exposed to the banner ad in the format of "Forced Exposure with No Skip Option" clicked the banner ad, 19 percent for "Forced Exposure with Skip Option," 7 percent for "Pop-up Window," and 2 percent for "Normal Banner." The results were statistically significant (p [less than or equal to] .01). Therefore, H2 is supported.

The last stream of hypotheses state that a higher degree of forced exposure in the banner ad will yield a more unfavorable attitude toward the banner ad, a more unfavorable attitude toward the brand, and a lower purchase intention. First, to check the rank order of attitude toward the banner ad for each treatment condition (i.e., degree of forced exposure), three sequential paired t-tests comparing mean differences in attitude toward the banner ad for each treatment condition were conducted.

In this analysis, the index banner attitude scores were first calculated by averaging eight items measuring attitude toward the banner ad. Unexpectedly, as shown in Table 5.1, the mean bannerattitude index score for "Forced Exposure with No Skip Option" (M = 3.38) was significantly higher than that for "Forced Exposure with Skip Option" (M = 3.26). Similarly, the mean banner-attitude index score for "Forced Exposure with Skip Option" (M = 3.26) was significantly higher than that for "Pop-up Window" (M = 3.17) and "Normal Banner" (M = 2.97) (p [less than or equal to] .01). Therefore, H3.1 is not supported.

Second, to check the rank order of attitude toward the brand for each treatment condition (i.e., degree of forced exposure), three sequential paired t-tests comparing mean differences in attitude toward the brand for each treatment condition were conducted. In this analysis, the index brand attitude scores were first calculated by averaging three items measuring attitude toward the brand. Unexpectedly, as shown in Table 5.2, the mean brand-attitude index score for "Forced Exposure with No Skip Option" (M = 3.58) was significantly higher than those for the three other presentation formats (p [less than or equal to] .01). However, there were no significant mean differences in index brand-attitude scores among three remaining formats: "Forced Exposure with Skip Option" (M = 3.23), "Pop-up Window" (M = 3.23), and "Normal Banner" (M = 3.19). Therefore, H3.2 is not supported.

Similar paired t-tests were conducted to check the relationship between the degree of forced exposure and purchase intention. Table 5.3 reveals the unexpected results that the mean purchase-intention index score for "Forced Exposure with No Skip Option" (M = 3.66) was significantly higher than those for the three other presentation formats (p [less than or equal to] .01). However, there were no significant mean differences in index purchase-intention scores among the three remaining formats: "Forced Exposure with Skip Option" (M = 3.13), "Pop-up Window" (M = 3.08), and "Normal Banner" (M = 2.98). Therefore, H3.3 is not supported.

Table 6.1 summarizes the findings of this study by showing the relationship between banner exposure formats and various advertising responses (i.e., perception rate, clickthrough rate, banner attitude, brand attitude, and purchase intention). Table 6.2 shows a comparison of positive-response-proportions among the four banner-exposure formats, i.e., the proportions of subjects who remembered seeing the banner ad, clicked the banner ad, and had a positive attitude toward the banner ad, positive attitude toward the brand, and positive purchase intention. For three attitude measures--banner attitude, brand attitude, and purchase intention-- subjects who scored higher than 3 points on 5-point Likert scales were considered as "having positive responses. The researchers classified subjects into "having all positive responses" when they remembered seeing the banner ad, clicked the banner ad, and had a positive banner attitude, brand attitude, and purchase intention. The proportion of subjects "having all positive re sponses" was 14 percent for the "Forced Exposure with No Skip Option," 1.4 percent for the "Forced Exposure with Skip Option," .017 percent for the "Pop-up Window," and .009 percent for the "Normal Banner."

Other findings

Level of involvement has been a very important variable in audience processing of both traditional advertising (Krugman, 1965; Ray et al., 1973; Houston and Rothschild, 1978; Petty and Cacioppo, 1981; 1983; 1986) and web advertising (Raman and Leckenby, 1998; Cho, 1999). In the current study, the researchers looked at the effect of involvement level on perception and clicking of banner ads. Table 7.1 shows that people who were highly involved in computer-related products and loan services were more likely to remember seeing the CostLess banner .ad and FreeLoan banner ad, respectively (p [less than or equal to .01]). However, there were no significant differences m the perception of the banner ad between high- and low-involved people for the QuickShopping and CheapFly banner advertisements (p [greater than] .05). The results, overall, show that the level of involvement partly influences people's perception of banner ads.

Similarly, Table 7.2 shows that there was a significantly positive relationship between the level of involvement and the clicking of banner ads for three products--CheapFly, CostLess, and FreeLoan (p [less than or equal to] 05). In other words, people with high product-involvement levels were more likely to click the banner ad than those with low product-involvement levels. These results are consistent with findings from previous studies (Cho 1998a; 1998b; 1999).

DISCUSSION

Summary and implications

The current study explores the effect of forced exposure to banner ads on advertising responses such as advertising awareness, clicking of banner ads, banner ad attitude, brand attitude, and purchase intention. As predicted, it was found that the degree of forced exposure during the presentation of banner ads had a significantly positive relationship with perception of the banner ads (H1) and clicking of the banner ads (H2). The implication of this finding is that advertisers can present banner ads in a forced manner in order to increase advertising awareness and clicking of the banner ads. Unexpectedly, however, it was found that the banner ad presented in the format of the highest forced exposure also yielded the most desirable advertising effects (i.e., favorable attitude toward the banner ad, favorable attitude toward the brand, and high purchase intention). It is believed that these effects of forced exposure on consumer attitudes are due to the large amount of attention paid to the banner ad presented i n the forced presentation format.

This paper also looked at the effect of level of involvement on advertising perception and clicking of banner ads. It was found that level of involvement has a significantly positive relationship with perception and clicking of the banner ad.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

A weakness of this study is that the samples are not representative of general internet users since they were drawn from the pool of people who subscribed to discussion LISTSERVs. It is believed that people who subscribe to discussion LISTSERVs tend to be more active and frequent users of the internet than general internet users. In addition, the size of sample subjects and sample banner ads was relatively small. Therefore, it would be valuable to replicate the current study with samples drawn from general internet users other than LISTSERV subscribers and with an increased number of sample banner ads.

Another weakness of the current study is that clickthrough was measured through self-reporting by asking whether subjects clicked each banner ad or not. There is a chance that self-reported "click-throughts" might either inflate or underrate the real clickthrough rate. Therefore, it would also be valuable to replicate the current study by measuring real clickthrough rates.

CHANG-HOAN CHO is an assistant professor of advertising at the University of Florida. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Texas at Austin. His doctoral dissertation proposal, entitled "How Advertising Works on the WWW: Copytesting and Audience Processing," won the 1999 American Academy of Advertising's Doctoral Dissertation Award. His primary research interests include internet advertising, advertising media, and international advertising. His work has appeared in the Proceedings of the Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, and several Korean publications.

JUNQ-GYO LEE is a doctoral candidate in the School of Journalism at the University of Missouri-Columbia. He received a master's degree in advertising from the University of Texas at Austin. His primary research interests are in issues related to evaluation of online advertising effectiveness, consumers' advertising processing on the WWW, and effects of new media technologies on audience's information processing. His work has appeared in the Proceedings of the Conference of the American Academy of Advertising.

MARYE C. THARP is an associate professor of advertising at the University of Texas at Austin. She received her Ph.D. in marketing from the University of Texas at Austin. Her research interests involve multicultural and international advertising and marketing. Her publications include books on international and multicultural marketing and articles, appearing in the Journal of Macromarketing, the International Journal of Advertising, Journalism Quarterly, the Journal of Global Marketing, the Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs, Columbia Journal of World Business, and the Journal of Consumer Research, among others. She is also active as a consultant for private and public enterprises in the United States and other countries.

REFERENCES

AAKER, DAVID A., DOUGLAS M. STAYMAN, and MICHAEL R. HAGERTY. "Warmth in Advertising: Measurement, Impact, and Sequence Effects." Journal of Consumer Research 12, 1 (1986): 365-81.

ARIELY, DAN. "Controlling the Information Flow: On the Role of Interactivity in Consumers' Decision Making and Preferences," Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, 1998.

BERTHON, PIERRE F., LAYLAND PITT, and RICHARD T. WATSON. "The World Wide Web as an Advertising Medium: Toward an Understanding of Conversion Efficiency." Journal of Advertising Research 36, 1 (1996): 43-54.

BRIGGS, REX, and NIGEL HOLLIS. "Advertising on the Web: Is There Response Before Clickthrough?" Journal of Advertising Research 37, 2 (1997): 33-45.

CHO, CHANG-HOAN. "Information Processing of Web Advertising." Presented at Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication 81st Annual Convention, August 6, 1998a.

-----. "Audience Processing of Web Advertising: Applying ELM to the Internet." In Proceedings of the 1998 Conference of American Academy of Advertising, Darrel D. Muehling, ed. Pullman, Washington: American Academy of Advertising, 1998b.

-----, "How Advertising Works on the WWW: Modified Elaboration Likelihood Model." Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising 21, 1 (1999): 33-50.

-----, and JOHN D. LECKENBY. "Copytesting of Advertising on the WWW: Clicking Motivation Profile." In Proceedings of the 1998 Conference of American Academy of Advertising. Darrel D. Muehling, ed. Pullman, WA: American Academy of Advertising, 1998.

-----, and -----. "Interactivity as a Measure of Advertising Effectiveness: Antecedents and Consequences of Interactivity in Web Advertising." In Proceedings of the 1999 Conference of American Academy of Advertising, Marilyn S. Roberts, ed. Pullman, WA: American Academy of Advertising, 1999.

CLANCY, K. J., and L. E. OSTLUND. "Commercial Effectiveness Measures." Journal of Advertising Research 16, 1 (1976): 24-35.

CooK, WILLIAM A. "Is It Interactive Media, or Hyperactive Media?" Journal of Advertising Research 34, 1 (1994): 7-9.

DUCOFFE, ROBERT H. "Advertising Value and Advertising on the Web." Journal of Advertising Research 36, 3 (1996): 21-35.

EDELL, JULIE A., and MARIAN C. BURKE. "The Power of Feelings in Understanding Advertising Effects." Journal of Consumer Research 14, 4 (1987): 421-33.

EMARKETER "Online Advertising Perspective." (URL: http://www.emarketer.com/analysis/eadvertising/200/0412_ead.htm/)

FISHBEIN, MARTIN, and ICEK AJZEN. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1975.

FLAHERTY, DAVID H. Protecting Privacy in Two-way Electronic Services. White Plains, NY: Knowledge Industry Publications, Inc., 1985.

GIBSON, D. LAWRENCE. "If the Question Is Copytesting, the Answer Is Not Recall." Journal of Advertising Research 23, 1 (1983): 5-15.

HALEY, RUSSELL, J. STAFFARONI, and A. Fox. "The Missing Measures of Copy Testing." Journal of Advertising Research 34, 3 (1994): 46-56.

HOFACKER, CHARLES F., and JAMIE MURPHY. "World Wide Web Banner Advertisement Copy Testing." European Journal of Marketing 32, 7 & 8 (1998): 703-12.

HOLBROOK, MORRIS B., and RAJEEV BATRA. "Assessing the Role of Emotions as Mediators of Consumer Responses to Advertising." Journal of Consumer Research 14, 4 (1987): 404-20.

HOLLIS, NIGEL "The Link between TV Ad Awareness and Sales." Journal of Market Research Society 36, 1, (1994): 41-55.

HOMER, PAMELA M. "The Mediating Role of Attitude toward Ad: Some Additional Evidence." Journal of Marketing Research 27, 1 (1990): 78-86.

HOUSTON, MICHAEL J., and MICHAEL L. ROTHSCHILD. "Conceptual and Methodological Perspectives on Involvement." In Research Frontiers in Marketing: Dialogues and Directions, Subhash C. Jam, ed. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, 1978.

KRUGMAN, HERBERT E. "The Impact of Television Advertising: Learning without Involvement." Public Opinion Quarterly 29, 3 (1965): 349-56.

LECKENBY, JOHN D., and JOSEPH T. PLUMMER. "A Review of Advertising Testing Methods." Current Issues and Research in Advertising 5 (1983): 5-15.

LUTZ, RICHARD J. "Affective and Cognitive Antecedents of Attitude toward the Ad: A Conceptual Framework." In Psychological Processes and Advertising Effects, Linda F. Alwitt and Andrew A. Mitchell, eds. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, 1985.

-----, SCOTT B. MACKENZIE, and GEORGE E. BELCH. "Attitude toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: Determinants and Consequences." In Advances in Consumer Research, Richard P. Bagozzi and Alice M. Tybout, eds. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 1983.

MACKENZIE, SCOTT B., and RICHARD J. LUTZ. "Testing Competing Theories of Advertising Effectiveness via Structural Equation Models." In Proceeding of tile Winter Educators' Conference. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, 1983.

MEDIAPOST. "Just an Online Minute: More Cost Per Clicks." March 13, 2000. (URL: http://www.mediapost.com).

MELAND, MARIUS. "Banner Advertisements Get Sexy." Forbes.com, February 18, 2000. (URL: http://www.forbes.com).

MITCHELL, ANDREW A. "The Effect of Verbal and Visual Components of Advertisements on Brand Attitudes and Attitude toward the Advertisement." Journal of Consumer Research 13, 1 (1986): 12-24.

-----, and JERRY C. OLSON. "Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitudes?" Journal of Marketing Research 18, 3 (1981): 318-32.

MORRIS, MERRILL, and CHRISTINE OGAN. "The Internet as Mass Medium." Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 1, 4 (1996) (URL: http://www.cwis.usc.edu/dept/ annenberg/vol1/issue4/vol1no4.html).

NOVAK, T.P., and DONNA. L. HOFFMAN. "New Metrics for New Media: Toward the Development of Web Measurement Standards." World Wide Web Journal 2, 4 (1997): 213-46.

PAVLIK, JOHN V. New Media Technology: Cultural and Commercial Perspectives. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1996.

PETTY, RICHARD E., and JOHN T. CACIOPPO. "Central and Peripheral Routes to Persuasion: Applications to Advertising." In Advertising and Consumer Psychology, L. Percy and A. G. Woodside, eds. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1981.

-----, and -----, "Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement." Journal of Consumer Research 19, 3 (1983): 135-46.

-----, and -----. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 1986.

RAMAN, NIRANJAN V., and JOHN D. LECKENEY. "Factors affecting consumers' Webad visits." European Journal of Marketing 32, 7 & 8 (1998):737-48.

RARAELI, SCHEIZAF, and FAY SUDWEEKS. "Networked Interactivity." Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 2, 4 (1997). (URL: http://www.usc.edu/dept/annenberg/vol2/ issue4/rafaeli.sudweeks.html).

RAY, MICHAEL L., A.G. SAWYER, M.L. ROTHSCHILD, R.M. HEELER, E.C. STRONG, and J.B. REED. "Marketing Communications and the Hierarchy-of-Effects." In New Models for Mass Communications Research, P. Clarke, ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1973.

RICE, RONALD E. "New Media Technology: Growth and Integration." In The New Media: Communication, Research and Technology, Ronald E. Rice, ed. Sage Publications: Beverly Hills, CA, 1984.

Ross, H.L., JR. "Recall versus Persuasion: An Answer." Journal of Advertising Research 22, 1 (1982): 5-15.

SHIMP, TERENCE A. "Attitude toward the Ad as a Mediator of Consumer Brand Choice." Journal of Advertising 10, 2 (1981): 9-15.

STEUER, JONATHAN. "Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence." Journal of Communication 42, 4 (1992): 73-93.

WEBTRACK. "WebTrack Advertisers Scoreboard." WebTrack: Online Advertising Monthly, August 1998. (URL: http://www.webtrack. com).

WILLIAMS, FREDERICK, RONALD E. RICE, and EVERETT M. ROGERS. Research Methods and the New Media. New York, NY: The Free Press, 1988.

ZEFF, ROBBIN, and BRAD ARONSON. Advertising on the Internet. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1999.
TABLE 1

Experimental Stimuli


          Order   1st Page       2nd Page       3rd Page

Group 1   Format  Forced 1       Forced 3       Forced 2
          Brand   CheapFly       CostLess       QuickShopping

Group 2   Format  Forced 4       Forced 1       Forced 3
          Brand   FreeLoan       CheapFly       CostLess

Group 3   Format  Forced 3       Forced 2       Forced 4
          Brand   CostLess       QuickShopping  FreeLoan

Group 4   Format  Forced 2       Forced 4       Forced 1
          Brand   QuickShopping  FreeLoan       CheapFly




          4th Page

Group 1   Forced 4
          FreeLoan

Group 2   Forced 2
          QuickShopping

Group 3   Forced 1
          CheapFly

Group 4   Forced 3
          CostLess



Forced 1: Forced exposure with no skip option

Forced 2: Forced exposure with skip option

Forced 3: Pop-up window

Forced 4: Normal banner
TABLE 2.1

URLs for the Online Survey


Group 1  http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/-jglee/aaa20/g1.html

Group 2  http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/.-jglee/aaa20/g2.html

Group 3  http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/-jglee/aaa20/g3.html

Group 4  http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/-jglee/aaa20/g4. html
TABLE 2.2

The Comparison of Four Experimental Subgroups


               Group 1   Group 2  Group 3   Group 4   Statistical

Variables      (n = 52)  (n = 56) (n = 54)  (n = 53)  Tests

Age            34.5      34.6     33.4      31.6      F-ratio = 1.58

Gender         27/25     29/27    30/24     28/25     [X.sup.2] = .20
(male/female)

Average web-   14.9      15.2     14.6      13.8      F-ratio = 1.37
surfing hours
per week



p [greater than] .05
TABLE 3.1

Mean Differences of Perceived Forced Exposure among Four Banner-
Exposure Formats


                                           Mean
Banner-Exposure Format                     Differences  St. Dev.

Forced with No Skip     Forced with Skip   .14          1.20
Option (M = 3.55)       Option CM = 3.41)
n = 196                 n = 194

Forced with Skip        Pop-up Window      .21          1.11
Option (M = 3.41)       (M = 3.20)
n = 194                 n = 194

Pop-up Window           Normal Banner      .27          1.16
(M = 3.20)              (M = 2.95)
n = 194                 n = 194





Banner-Exposure Format  t-value

Forced with No Skip     1.68 [*]
Option (M = 3.55)
n = 196

Forced with Skip        2.60 [**]
Option (M = 3.41)
n = 194

Pop-up Window           3.18 [**]
(M = 3.20)
n = 194



(*)p [less than or equal to] .05,

(**)p [less than or equal to].01 (one-tailed)

The perceived forced-exposure item was measured by a 5-point Likert
scale.
TABLE 3.2

The Relationship Between Degree of Forced Exposure and Perception of
Banner Ads


                            Perception Rate  Perception Rate

Banner-Exposure Format      (%)              Frequency        N

Forced with No Skip Option  93               194              209

Forced with Skip Option     76               157              206

Pop-up Window               47                98              207

Normal Banner               28                57              206



Chi-Square = 87.83 [**]

d.f. =3

(**)p [less than or equal to] .01
TABLE 3.3

Differences in Perception Proportions be between Four Banner-
Exposure Formats


                                                 Perception Proportion
Banner-Exposure Format                           Differences

Forced with No Skip     Forced with Skip Option  .17
Option (p = .93)        (p = .76)
n = 209                 n = 207

Forced with Skip        Pop-up Window            .29
Option (p = .76)        (p = .47)
n = 207                 n = 206

Pop-up Window           Normal Banner            .19
(p = .47)               (p = .28)
n = 206                 n = 206





Banner-Exposure Format  t-value

Forced with No Skip     9.71  [**]
Option (p = .93)
n = 209

Forced with Skip        12.11 [**]
Option (p = .76)
n = 207

Pop-up Window           7.97  [**]
(p = .47)
n = 206



(**)p [less than or equal to] .01 (one tailed)
TABLE 4.1

The Relationship between Degree of Forced Exposure and Clicking of
Banner Ads


                            Clickthrough
                            Rate          Clickthrough Rate
Banner-Exposure Format      (%)           Frequency          N

Forced with No Skip Option  48            100                209

Forced with Skip Option     19             39                204

Pop-up Window                7             14                207

Normal Banner                2              5                204



Chi-Square = 140.09 [**]

d.f. = 3

(**)p [less than or equal to] .01
TABLE 4.2

Clicking Proportion Differences of Four Banner-Exposure Formats


                                          Clicking Proportion
Banner-Exposure Format                    Differences

Forced with No Skip     Forced with Skip  .29
Option (p = .48)        Option (p = .19)
n = 209                 n = 204

Forced with Skip        Pop-up Window     .12
Option (p = .19)        (p = .07)
n = 204                 n = 207

Pop-up Window           Normal Banner     .05
(p = .07)               (p = .02)
n = 207                 n = 204





Banner-Exposure Format  t-value

Forced with No Skip     12.49 [**]
Option (p = .48)
n = 209

Forced with Skip         7.23 [**]
Option (p = .19)
n = 204

Pop-up Window            4.84 [**]
(p = .07)
n = 207



(**)p [less than or equal to] .01 (one-tailed)
TABLE 5.1

Mean Differences of Attitude toward the Banner Ad among Four
Banner-Exposure Formats

                                           Mean
Banner-Exposure Format                     Differences  St. Dev.

Forced with No Skip     Forced with Skip   .12          .70
Option (M = 3.38)       Option (M = 3.26)
n = 189                 n = 186

Forced with Skip        Normal Banner      .12          .74
Option (M = 3.26)       (M = 3.17)
n = 186                 n = 186

Normal Banner           Pop-up Window      .18          .66
(M = 3.17)              (M = 2.97)
n = 186                 n = 131




Banner-Exposure Format  t-value

Forced with No Skip     2.27 [*]
Option (M = 3.38)
n = 189

Forced with Skip        2.17 [*]
Option (M = 3.26)
n = 186

Normal Banner           3.71 [**]
(M = 3.17)
n=186



(*)p [less than or equal to] .05,

(**)p [less than or equal to] .01 (one-tailed)

* Attitude toward the banner ad was measured by eight 5-Point Likert
scales.
TABLE 5.2

Mean Differences of Attitude toward the Brand among Four Banner-
Exposure Formats


                                               Mean
Banner-Exposure Format                         Differences  St. Dev.

Forced with No Skip        Forced with Skip
Option (M = 3.58)          Option (M = 3.23)
n = 192                    n = 187             .35          .91

Forced with Skip           Pop-up Window
Option (M = 3.23) n = 187  (M = 3.23) n = 186  .00          .88

Pop-up Window              Normal Banner
(M = 3.23) n = 186         (M = 3.19) n = 191  .04          .74





Banner-Exposure Format     t-value

Forced with No Skip
Option (M = 3.58)
n = 192                    5.25 [**]

Forced with Skip
Option (M = 3.23) n = 187  .06

Pop-up Window
(M = 3.23) n = 186         .73



(*)p [less than or equal to] .05,

(**)p [less than or equal to] .01 (one-tailed)

* Attitude toward the brand was measured by three 5-Point Likert
scales.
TABLE 5.3

Mean Differences of Purchase Intention among Four Banner-
Exposure Formats


                                           Mean
Banner-Exposure Format                     Differences  St. Dev.

Forced with No Skip     Forced with Skip   .53          1.14
Option (M = 3.66)       Option (M = 3.13)
n = 193                 n = 191

Forced with Skip        Pop-up Window      .05           .96
Option (M = 3.13)       (M = 3.08)
n = 191                 n = 192

Pop-up Window           Normal Banner      .10           .90
(M = 3.08)              (M = 2.98)
n = 192                 n = 191





Banner-Exposure Format  t-value

Forced with No Skip     6.43 [**]
Option (M = 3.66)
n = 193

Forced with Skip         .68
Option (M = 3.13)
n = 191

Pop-up Window           1.52
(M = 3.08)
n = 192



(*)p [less than or equal to] .05,

(**)p [less than or equal to] .01

* Purchanse intention was measured by one 5-point Likert scale.
TABLE 6.1

Summary of Banner-Exposure Formats and Various Advertising Responses


                            Perception  Clickthrough
                            Rate        Rate          Banner
Banner-Exposure Format      (%)         (%)           Attitude

Forced with No Skip Option  93          48            3.38
Forced with Skip Option     76          19            3.26
Pop-up Window               47           7            2.97
Normal Banner               28           2            3.17




                            Brand     Purchase
Banner-Exposure Format      Attitude  Intention

Forced with No Skip Option  3.58      3.66
Forced with Skip Option     3.23      3.13
Pop-up Window               3.23      3.08
Normal Banner               3.19      2.98
TABLE 6.2

Comparison of Positve-Response Proportion among Four Banner-Exposure
Formates

                                        Banner
Banner-Exposure         Percep-         Attitude
Format                  tion     Click  ([greater than]3.0)

Forced w/o Skip Option  .93      .48    .74
Forced w/Skip Option    .76      .19    .57
Pop-up Window           .47      .07    .04
Normal Banner           .28      .02    .13


                        Brand                Purchase
Banner-Exposure         Attitude             Intention
Format                  ([greater than]3.0)  ([greater than]3.0)

Forced w/o Skip Option  .70                  .61
Forced w/Skip Option    .46                  .37
Pop-up Window           .46                  .28
Normal Banner           .45                  .27


                        All
Banner-Exposure         Positive
Format                  Responses

Forced w/o Skip Option  .14
Forced w/Skip Option    .014
Pop-up Window           .000169
Normal Banner           .0000884
TABLE 7.1

The Relationship between Level of Involvement and Perception of Banner
Ads


               Perception of          Level of Involvement
               the Banner Ad  Case #  Mean                  (Std. Dev)

CheapFly       Yes               160  3.77                         .74
               No                  8  3.55                         .53

CostLess       Yes                81  3.91                         .70
               No                 72  3.52                         .70

QuickShopping  Yes               131  2.92                        1.04
               No                 30  2.90                        1.06

FreeLoan       Yes                48  3.84                         .79
               No                104  3.54                         .83





               t-value

CheapFly        .82


CostLess       3.50 [**]


QuickShopping   .10


FreeLoan       2.14 [*]




(**)p [less than or equal to].01,

(*)p [less than or equal to].05 (one-tailed)

* Level of involvement was measured by five 5-point Likert scales.
TABLE 7.2

The Relationship between Level of Involvement and Clicking of Banner Ads


                Clicking of the          Level of Involvement
                Banner Ad        Case #          Mean

Cheap Fly       Yes                  82          3.98
                No                   87          3.60

Cost Less       Yes                  12          4.12
                No                  149          3.72

Quick Shopping  Yes                  22          2.96
                No                   74          2.87

Free Loan       Yes                   4          4.05
                No                  157          3.41





                (Std. Dev)   t-value

Cheap Fly              .77  3.33 [**]
                       .71

Cost Less              .39  1.81 [*]
                       .74

Quick Shopping        1.08   .40
                      1.05

Free Loan              .41  1.77 [*]
                       .72



(**)p [less than or equal to] .01,

(*)p [less than or equal to] .05 (one-tailed).

* Level of involvement was measured by five 5-point Likert Scales.
COPYRIGHT 2001 World Advertising Research Center Ltd.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2001 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Comment:Different Forced-Exposure Levels to Banner Advertisements.
Author:Cho, Chang-Hoan; Lee, Jung-Gyo; Tharp, Marye
Publication:Journal of Advertising Research
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:Jul 1, 2001
Words:7241
Previous Article:How Smart Are "Smart Banners"?
Next Article:The Medium Is Not the Message: Advertising Effectiveness and Content Evaluation in Print and on the Web.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters