Download New Media Interactive Advertising vs. Traditional

New Media Interactive Advertising vs.
Traditional Advertising
ALEXA BEZJIAN-AVERY
DePaul University
This research explores the effectiveness of interactive advertising on a new medium
platform. Like the presence in industry and the media themselves, the academic
research stream is fairly new. Our research seeks to isolate the key feature of
interactivity from confounding factors and to begin to tease apart those situations for
which interactivity might be highly desirable from those situations for which traditional
advertising vehicles may be sufficient or superior.
We find that the traditional linear advertising format of conventional ads is actually
better than interactive advertising for certain kinds of consumers and for certain kinds
of ads. In particular, we find that a cognitive “matching” of the system properties
(being predominately visual or verbal) and the consumer segment needs (preferring
their information to be presented in a visual or verbal manner) appears to be critical.
More research should be conducted before substantial expenditures are devoted to
advertising on these interactive media. These new means of communicating with
customers are indeed exciting, but they must be demonstrated to be effective on
consumer engagement and persuasion.
MARKETING SYSTEMS are enjoying ex-
(Blattberg and Deighton, 1991). The consumer’s in-
plosive growth, giving firms a plethora of ways of
put allows subsequent information to be custom-
contacting consumers (e.g., kiosks, Web pages,
ized to pertinent interests and bars irrelevant com-
home computers). In these interactive systems, a
munications, thereby enhancing both the con-
customer controls the content of the interaction,
sumer experience and the efficiency of the firm’s
requesting or giving information, at the attribute-
advertising and marketing dollar.
INTERACTIVE
BOBBY CALDER
Northwestern University
level (e.g., a PC’s RAM and MHz) or in terms of
As exciting as these new interactive media ap-
benefits (e.g., a PC’s capability and speed). A cus-
pear to be, little is actually known about their ef-
tomer can control the presentation order of the
fect on consumers’consideration of the advertised
information, and unwanted options may be de-
products. As Berthon, Pitt, and Watson (1996)
leted. The consumer may request that the informa-
state, “advertising and marketing practitioners,
tion sought be presented in comparative table for-
and academics are by now aware that more
mat, in video, audio, pictorial format, or in stan-
systematic research is required to reveal the true
dard text. Increasingly, customers can also order
nature of commerce on the Web” or for interactive
products using the interactive system.
systems more generally. Our research is intended
These new media are no fad, and while they are
to address this need, and more specifically to focus
only in the infancy of their development, they are
on the effects of interactivity. We investigate inter-
already changing the marketplace (cf. Hoffman
active marketing in terms of its performance in
and Novak, 1996). The hallmark of all of these new
persuading consumers to buy the advertised
media is their irlteuactivity-the consumer and the
products.
We wish to begin to understand whether inter-
manufacturer enter into dialogue in a way not previously possible.
active methods are truly superior to standard ad-
Interactive marketing, as defined in this paper,
vertising formats as the excitement about the new
DAWN IACOBUCCI
is: “the immediately iterative process by which
media would suggest. Alternatively, perhaps there
Northwestern University
customer needs and desires are uncovered, met,
are some circumstances for which traditional ad-
modified, and satisfied by the providing firm.” In-
vertising is more effective. Certainly it would not
WP nw pt+l to the editor, nri
teractivity iterates between the firm and the cus-
be desirable to channel the majority of one’s ad-
nrmyrmms YL’III~~“L’Y, Aim
tomer, eliciting information from both parties, and
vertising resources toward interactive media until
Chrnm, Aqylo Lw, imd
attempting to align interests and possibilities. The
they are demonstrated to be superior persuasion
Chvistie Nordheilm for tlviu
iterations occur over some duration, allowing the
vehicles. To this end we present an experimental
helpful fwdbuck 011 this
firm to build databases that provide subsequent
study comparing consumer reactions to products
rrrmrrxvivt
purchase opportunities tailored to the consumer
advertised through an interactive medium with re-
July
l
August 1998 JflURnflt
OF tlOUERTlSlllG RESERRCH 23
INTERACTIVE VS. TRADITIONAL ADVERTISING
Traditional advertising can be concep-
be superior, we consider two additional
tualized in a parallel way in order to fo-
factors in this study. One is a psycho-
cus, for research purposes, on its lack of
graphic personality characteristic of con-
interactivity. With traditional advertising,
sumers. It relates to how the consumer
CLEAN COMPARISON OF INTERACTIVE
the consumers have no control over the
mentally represents the world-whether
TO TRADITIONAL ADS
order in which they are exposed to infor-
the consumer thinks “in pictures” or “in
Comparing interactive to traditional ad-
mation. The traversal mode is a simple,
words.” A picture or visual orientation is
vertising poses the difficult problem of ob-
linearly ordered string. Ads for products
thought to involve a relatively more com-
taining a valid, apples-to-apples compari-
are presented one after the other in a lin-
plex comprehension process. Thus, we an-
son. If the advertising differs in incidental
ear flow with consumers reading or view-
ticipate that interactive advertising might
ways, it will be difficult to attribute differ-
ing predetermined ordered sequences of
be more poorly suited to these “visual
ences to the media per se. The interactive
information.
consumers” because it adds to the com-
actions to products advertised in a more
traditional, noninteractive format.
presentation thus should be no more high-
The linear flow of traditional advertis-
tech than the traditional. Nor should the
ing media such as TV and print stand in
traditional have superior production val-
contrast to the design of any interactive
that we examine is the nature of the ad-
ues. Most of all, the basic product infor-
system. We focus in this research on a hi-
vertising message itself. Advertisements
plexity of their comprehension task.
Another factor that should be important
mation presented should be the same in
erarchical traversal system and contrast it
themselves can be more visual or more
both cases.
with the linear. Other designs for interac-
verbal. Reasoning along the same lines as
To obtain a valid comparison then, it is
tive advertising (circular, networked, etc.)
above, it would seem that more visual ad-
necessary to create interactive advertising
are of course possible and should be pur-
vertisements may be more demanding
that differs from traditional advertising on
sued in future research. All interactive de-
and hence might actually yield better
the core dimension of interactivity but is
signs, however, stand in the same contrast
performance delivered via traditional
advertising.
the same in other respects. We conceptu-
to the linear. Specifically, in any interac-
alize this dimension of interactivity as fol-
tive format, the user has greater control
To summarize, in this study we will
lows. Interactivity is fundamentally the
over the traversal order and the resulting
compare interactive advertising imple-
ability to control information. Whereas in
subset of information presented.
mented in a hierarchical information tra-
traditional advertising, the presentation is
The excitement over new interactive
versal design to the linear flow of tradi-
linear and the consumer is passively exposed
media has implied that interactive sys-
tional advertising. We will equate all other
to product information, for interactive ad-
tems should always be superior to tradi-
aspects of the advertising beyond this con-
vertising, the consumer instead actively
tional advertising. This expectation appar-
ceptual difference in order to obtain a
traverses the information. The pieces of in-
ently translates into the hypothesis that
valid comparison. We further examine the
formation the consumer sees depends on
hierarchical (or any other interactive) in-
visual-ness and verbal-ness of both con-
where the consumer wants to go from one
formation traversal is inherently superior
sumers and the advertisements. Specifi-
step to the next.
to the linear flow of product information.
cally, we will measure and classify our re-
Depending on the design of the interac-
But when viewed at the level of informa-
spondents as relatively more visual or
tive system, many modes of traversal are
tion traversal it seems to us entirely rea-
more verbal using the Childers, Heckler,
possible. One major possibility is the hier-
sonable to ask why this should necessarily
and Houston (1985) scale. And we will
archical tree organization for traversing
be the case. Might the linear traversal of
pre-test (and re-verify) our advertise-
information through which decisions are
traditional advertising sometimes be bet-
ments to be either highly visual or highly
made at branching points that determine
ter? And, if so, the best question would
verbal. Results will be based on typical
subsequent pathways. Traversal here
seem to be, in what cases does the added
measures of recall and recognition and at-
means making choices at every branch
complexity of the interactive system inter-
titude and purchase intentions.
point, as with asking people if they wish
fere with comprehension and persuasion?
to see books or music, then fiction or non-
To explore the possibility whether inter-
fiction, then mystery or romance, etc. A de-
active advertising is always superior to
THE INTERACTIVE MEDIUM EMPLOYED
sign based on hierarchical traversal is used
traditional advertising, or to begin identi-
The hierarchical information traversal in-
in this study to implement interactivity.
fying when traditional advertising might
teractive advertising design used in this
24 JllURRRL
OF ROUERTISIRR RESEARCH July . August 1998
INTERACTIVE VS. TRADITIONAL ADVERTISING
study was implemented on an Apple personal computer. A program was written
for the PC that simulates an interactive
system. Consumers had control over their
viewing experience. They clicked icon
buttons and chose the products for which
they wished to see advertisements.
The linear information traversal of traditional advertising also employed the PC
for the sake of comparability. But the program simulated a viewing session more
like television viewing or reading a magazine in which the selection of advertisements and their ordering was predetermined, i.e., linear. As a reviewer pointed
..
. ..,........_........
I ~._.~~~.~.~._.~.~._.~.~~~.~._.~.~._.,~_.~._.~.~._.
,
I
,
,Y,...
‘.~I’.-I’I-I’
.,._.;;_.;,._
. I~.‘l’.~j’.~l’
. l~.‘l~.’
,
*
,
:.-.
~-~~:::~~:::~:-,
.
,,,.,
.,.,,.........-.............
I’_‘.-.~.~.‘.‘I
,‘,~,‘_‘,‘_‘,~.‘.~.‘_~.-.~.~ .:.
.‘
.~.‘
.‘
.‘
.‘
.‘
,‘
.‘
.~.~.‘
.‘
.~.‘
.‘
.
,‘.~_‘_‘.‘_‘.~,‘.‘, . ;;,-,‘
_‘
,
,‘.‘.‘_~.‘.‘.~,‘_~.-_‘.-,‘_~,‘_‘.
:::::.
‘.‘.‘.~.‘_‘.‘_‘.
::::::::::~.:_::l::::::j::::::::.
.~_‘.~_‘.-.‘.‘.‘.‘.-. a.:,-:,
‘.
-:
~.~.~,-.~_-.‘_~.~_~_
..-.
::.
.‘.
,
.
.
‘_‘.~_~.~_‘,-.‘_~.‘_‘.-.‘_-.‘_~.~
‘.‘_‘.-.‘.‘.-.‘_‘_
,‘_-.~_‘.-.‘.. . . _ , S@h3d~tig~ &*$ $c++ ;! ; I ; I I I ; I; :
‘_‘_‘.~_‘_‘.~.‘_~.
;_‘.-.‘_~:.
. . .‘_‘.
,..,.
.
.
.‘,‘_‘,-,’ ‘,.,‘,‘.
.‘_~_~.~_‘.~.‘,~.‘_‘.-.‘_
.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘_‘:,
,
.
,
,
~‘~~~‘~‘~-~‘~~~‘~~~-~‘~‘~‘~‘~‘.
_‘_‘.~.‘_‘.~.’ ._
,._.,.,._.,.,._.,._.,._._.~._.,-,._.,._.
.,.._‘.~.‘.~.‘_‘.~.~.I ::::::.
I ::,, ,
,
,
:.
‘.~.‘I~.~.~_‘_‘,.. _ . , , _ , _, ,‘_‘.‘,
. .‘_‘.‘.~.~.‘.~.‘_~.‘.~.-.‘.~.‘_
5 . , ,
, ,
.I
,,..
.‘_‘_-.~.‘.~.~.‘_
.‘.‘.-.‘.~.‘.~.‘.-.‘.‘.~.‘.-.‘,‘.~.’.‘.~.~.’.~.‘.‘.‘.‘.‘.’.’.’.
”
. . . . . . . . . . I...
. ““.‘
-.-:::.
-:: .’ .‘.-.‘.~.~.‘.‘.-.‘_‘.~.‘_‘.~.~.~.~_’.’.’.-.’_’_~_‘.
..-_ , . _ _ 8 .,
,._.,_,._.,.,_,._.,.,.~.,.~,_.
,
,
,
,
_
.
.-_‘.‘,~_‘.~.~_‘.-.‘.‘.‘.‘.-.‘_‘.’_’.-_’.-.’.’.‘_’
’, ”
”
.
out, the vividness of the PC screen makes
it likely more engaging than a true print
advertisement in a magazine; but we
mean the comparability in the focus on the
linearity of both systems-one advertisement follows another and the consumer
has no input over the flow.
Thus both the interactive and the traditional advertising were conducted on the
PC screen. The common format was used
range Juice freshly squeezed
on the day of delivery
to facilitate comparison across the key
conceptual dimension of interactivity (not
confounded with other factors such as the
More nutrients than any other
orange juice including Thiamine
and Carotene
novelty of the computer for advertising).
Our concern was not so much to replicate
exactly any one traditional advertising
medium but to provide a setting in which
Only the finest Florida Royal
Oranges are used
we could compare interactive versus linear, with no other confounding difference
such as medium. Our consumers experienced the traditional advertising much
like low preproduction value TV advertising using slides. The important point for
this study was that this noninteractive advertising experience was comparable to
that for the interactive except for the cru-
Figure 1 Screen Images of Advertisements for “Less Visual”
cial fact of interactivity. The key point is
Products A and B
that the presentation of products and advertisements and their order was prede-
HOW THE ADS WERE CONSTRUCTED
and drinks was administered to a small
termined in a linear sequence for the non-
AND SELECTED
test sample of 17 consumers. The com-
interactive advertising, in contrast to the
A pretest of 31 stimulus advertisements
puter program permitted the respondents
interactive advertising.
constructed from art photographs of foods
to view the advertisements for the prod-
July . August 1998 dififlit
Of ROUEATISIIIG RESERRCH
25
INTERACTIVE VS. TRADITIONAL ADVERTISING
ucts at their own pace. Each advertise-
w
ment showed a picture and varying
d
amounts of advertising copy text. Likert
tc
scales were used to measure the following
IT
stimulus properties: product appeal, ap-
d
petite appeal, novelty, how visual the ad-
Ll
vertisement appeared, and how verbal the
S
advertisement appeared.
t
On the basis of this pre-testing, prod-
t
ucts were selected to be approximately
t
equally appealing in order to diminish
any effect of initial preferences or affect.
Products were also chosen that were moderately novel-not so new that respondents spent a great deal of time pondering
the new offering and not so familiar that
respondents made associations to familiar
brands.
Based on the extent to which the stimulus advertisement was considered to be
visual or verbal in conveying information,
four target stimuli (products A, B, C, and
D) were chosen. The advertisements for
products C and D were perceived to be
relatively more visual in nature than for
products A and B; e.g., the product shots
for C and D cover the entire screen and are
richer in color and detail. Products A and
B have less appetite appeal, as the product
shots were smaller and featured products
that appeared healthier than products C
and D. Black and white images from the
color system of products A and B are
shown in Figure 1; images for visual products C and D appear in Figure 2.
THE EXPERIMENTAL INTERACTIVE
ADVERTISING EXPOSURE EXPERIENCE
An interactive shopping program was
constructed to advertise the products.
Figure 2 Screen Images of Advertisements for “Visual”
There were two product categories, bev-
Products C and D
erages and desserts, chosen for their familiarity and simplicity. These categories
included our four focal products and four
were contacted in a restaurant in the mid-
system at their own pace, clicking icon
filler products.
west. They were recruited with a cash lot-
buttons to proceed. Respondents in the in-
tery as an incentive.
teractive condition were given sequential
The research participants consisted of
96 people from a cross section of ages who
26 JOURRRL
Participants navigated the interactive
Of RDUERTlSlRG RESEARCH July . August 1998
choices about the products that they
INTERACTIVE VS. TRADITIONAL ADVERTISING
would see. Respondents in the linear condition had no choices and hence the system was not interactive. Each advertisement for an item included a picture and
Now, try to remember the ADVERTISEMENT for American Apple
(candy apple). To the best of your ability, rate the
ADVERTISEMENT on these dimensions:
detailed advertising copy. A single product image was projected per screen. The
system recorded the system choices that
they made, the time spent on each advertisement, and the time spent choosing the
type of advertisement to peruse.
After looking at all the advertisements,
participants were asked on-line to list the
names of all the products that they had
seen. Following this initial recall task, respondents’affect toward each brand and
advertisement was measured using affective and cognitive semantic differential
not persuasive 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 persuasive
unappealing 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 appealing
badO1020304050607good
unattractive 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 attractive
not clear 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 clear
unconvincing 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 convincing
simple 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 complex
overall disliking 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 overall liking
scales. The items measuring attitude toward the product are shown in Figure 3,
and those that measure attitude toward
the advertisement appear in Figure 4. Participants then rated their likelihood to
Figure 4 Screen Image Showing the Attitude Toward the
Advertising Measures
r-
Try to remember the PRODUCT American Apple (candy apple).
To the best of your ability, please rate the PRODUCT American
Apple on these dimensions:
purchase each of the items by distributing
100 points across the four products in a
category.
Finally, we measured respondents on a
bad 01020304050607good
variety of personality measures. Likert
dislikevery much 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 likevery much
low quality 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 high quality
scales measured a consumer’s predilection for understanding information in visual and verbal format based on Childers
et al. (1985). Items used to discern respon-
unhealthy 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 healthy
dents as relatively more visual or more
awful 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 nice
verbal are presented in Table 1. Partici-
boring 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 interesting
pants also responded to requests for demographic information (age and gender).
negative 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 positive
We also asked them to rate their level of
inferior 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 superior
hunger. The entire experiment took about
30 to 50 minutes to complete.
Thus, in this study we investigated the
role of interactivity versus linear presentation of advertisements, advertising copy
I
characteristics (verbal or visual), and con-
Figure 3 Screen Image Showing the Attitude Toward the
Product Measures
sumer psychographic orientations (verbal
or visual) in the context of a shopping
July . August 1998
JOURRRL Uf RllUERTlSlllR RESERRCH
27
INTERACTIVE VS. TRADITIONAL ADVERTISING
task. In the interactive condition, consum-
modality of presentation or the different
and D). The findings can be interpreted
ers had more control over the presentation
advertisements.)
either from the point of view of the re-
ear condition. In the linear condition re-
WHAT THE CONSUMERS DID
visual, or from the point of view of the
spondents clicked through the pre-set
The dependent measures in Figures 3 and
linear versus interactive contrast.
group of product advertisements in a pre-
4 supported two factors, “attitude toward
set order; they had no choice in the prod-
the brand” and “attitude toward the ad”
spondent orientation varies on the hori-
ucts that were shown to them or the order
(X’ = 670.269, df = 16, p < .005), yielding
zontal axis-our participants were classi-
in which the products were shown. In the
empirical results consistent with the exist-
fied as either predominately verbal or vi-
interactive condition, respondents con-
ing theoretical literature and collective
sual in their orientation and preference for
trolled the products that were shown to
wisdom. The factor loadings are pre-
the presentation of information. Verbal
them as well as the order that the product
sented in Table 2.
participants (those at the left of the plot)
spondent orientation, relatively verbal or
of information than in the traditional, lin-
information was presented.
To take the former perspective, the re-
who saw the advertisements presented in
While the interactive condition allowed
Purchase intention
a linear controlled manner did not indi-
participants to experience and perceive
Using the respondents’ scores on the
cate (statistically) differently purchase in-
control, in reality the interactive and lin-
Childers et al. (1985) scale, we classified
tentions compared with those verbal con-
ear conditions ran parallel advertise-
each consumer as relatively more visual
sumers who saw the advertisements in an
ments in order to allow for comparability
or more verbal and found that those per-
interactive manner. This finding is per-
across conditions. (If the participants in
sons scoring higher on visual-processing
haps sensible, considering that a domi-
the interactive condition had seen ad-
styles indeed tended to rate lower on ver-
nant feature of interactive systems is their
vertisements different from those pre-
bal processing and vice versa (X’= 5.778,
pictorial nature. Verbal persons are not
sented to participants in the linear condi-
p = ,016).
seeking photos, but rather information via
tion, we would not be able to attribute dif-
Figure 5 shows the results on purchase
ferences in recall or persuasion to the
intentions for the more visual products (C
text, and appear to simply be ignoring the
graphics content.
In contrast, the visual consumers (those
TABLE 1
at the right side of the plot) were different.
Psychographic Items Used to Discern Respondents with
Visual or Verbal Orientations*
who saw advertisements in the linear (tra-
Visual
Orientation
.
.
.
1.
I
like
to
daydream.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
Persons preferring visual information
ditional advertising) format stated more
positive purchase intentions than the vi-
.
sual consumers who saw the advertise-
.
.
.
.
.
.
2.
or pictures.
. My thinking always .consists of mental images
.
.
.
3. When I’m learning something new I’d rather watch a demonstration than read how to
ments via the interactive system
do
. it.
.
4.
I
generally
prefer
to
use
a
diagram
than
a
written
. set of instructions.
.
.
.
..
Verbal
Orientation
.
.
.
.
..
1. I prefer to read instructions about how to do something rather than have someone
formation find it more positively persuad-
show
me.
.
.
.
2.
I
can
never
seem
to
find
the
right
word
when
I
need
it. (reverse scored)
.
3.
(reverse
scored)
. I prefer. activities .that don’t. require a. lot of reading.
.
.
.
work
the use
of words.
4.
. I enjoy doing
.
. that requires
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(F,,,, = 5.56 p = .0210). This finding suggests that consumers seeking visual ining using the traditional linear vehicle
format.
Alternatively, Figure 5 can be examined
by comparing the linear versus interactive
profiles in the plot. Purchase intentions
.
.
are enhanced in linear presentations for
visual (versus verbal) consumers, and, in
.
.
contrast, they are enhanced somewhat in
.
.
interactive presentations for verbal (ver-
“These questions ore deriwdfrom Childrvs, Heckler, and Houston (1985). This swq dmonstrntes a velinbihty coef,f,cient
sus visual) consumers. Thus, these results
a = 0.88.
indicate that interactive systems are not
28 JuURnf!t Of
ADllERTlSlIlG
RESfRRCH July . August 1998
INTERACTIVE VS. TRADITIONAL ADVERTISING
TABLE 2
uniformly superior. For visual persons, in-
Factor Analysis Results*
teractivity provides less effective persuasion than linear advertising presentations.
Attitude toward
It is important to note that if interactive
Attitude toward
the Brand
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .the
. . . . . Advertisement
. . . . . ................................
bad-good product
0.893
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................
like-dislike-verymuch product
0.958
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................................
low-quality-high-quality product
0.739
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................
awful-nice product
0.828
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................
boring-interesting product
0.505
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................
negative-positive product
0.846
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..............................
inferior-superior product
0.724
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................................
not persuasive-persuasive advertisement
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .0.832
. . . . . . ..............................
systems were always superior to traditional linear advertising formats, Figure 5
would have shown the interactive line
above the linear line, for both sorts of persons. Instead, verbal persons appear to be
unaffected by the system (linear or interactive), at least for these visual products.
Furthermore, visual persons demonstrated more positive purchase intentions
under the linear, noninteractive system.
Thus we might begin to conclude that
unappealing-appealing advertisement
indeed, sometimes interactive systems en0.703
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...................................
hance preference and persuasion, and
bad-good advertisement
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.734
. . . . . . ....................................
sometimes traditional linear formats do a
unattractive-attractive advertisement
0.658
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................... superior job. In particular, certain systemnot clear-clear advertisement
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.640
. . . . . ....................................
user matches may be optimal; the result in
unconvincing-convincing advertisement
0.835
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................................Figure 5 reveals an interaction between visual skill and interactivity. For highly vioverall liking-disliking advertisement
0.336
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.631
. . . . . . . . . . ................................
sual people, there was a significant in“Only thosr landings > 0.3 UYE noted
crease in purchase intention for highly visual products when information was
presented linearly. In contrast to the interactive condition, this increase did not oc7
cur for people with less visual orientations. It appears that the rather verbal task
26
of making choices in the interactive con-
24
ditions seems to have truncated visual
22
processing. For low visual persons, limiting visual processing had no effect be-
20
+ linear
18
+ interactive
cause they were not likely to draw from
their visually oriented systems; instead,
their purchase intentions were more influ-
16
enced by the text.
14
Thus, there are at least some circum-
relatively
relatively
verbal
visual
stances for which interactivity does not
enhance advertising effectiveness. However, our explanation, regarding the vi-
Respondents: Verbal vs. Visual Psychographic Orientation
sual person’s processing being interrupted, could use more investigation. To
Figure 5 Interactive Effect of Interactivity and Visual
Orientation of Respondent on Purchase Intention for Highl:
Visual Products (C and D)
this end, we examine the process measure
of how much time each person spent examining each advertisement.
July . August 1998 JOURRRL
Of ROUERTISIRR RESEARCH 29
INTERACTIVE VS. TRADITIONAL ADVERTISING
I
In the interactive system, users spent less time viewing
Time spent viewing advertisement
We found that for products with highly
the advertisements, and they were less likely to pur-
visual advertisements, participants spent
more time looking at products presented
chase target products.
in a linear format (M = 6.276 seconds)
than when the same advertisements were
presented in the interactive system
(M = 5.256; F,,75 = 4.70 p = .0333). Even
sual ads (C and D; F, 7s = 5.51 p = .0215).
visual processing. Perhaps the visual
with the novelty of interactivity, respon-
The pattern in Figure 6 is strikingly simi-
needs of the visual consumers are much
dents did not spend more time with the
lar to that in Figure 5, which immediately
more intense than the beauty shots in the
advertising. Instead, they spent more time
suggests that persuasion to purchase in-
product advertisements. This hypothesis
looking at advertisements that were pre-
tention is, perhaps not surprisingly, en-
challenges advertising development: the
sented in the traditional format. A re-
hanced with time spent considering the
visual needs are ultra-demanding and
viewer made the observation that the PC
advertisements.
must be particularly appealing in order to
capture the attention of the visual-seeking
interactive mode resembles the television
For verbal people, the manner in which
medium, which, by association, might
the advertisements were presented did
have prompted similarly passive “veg-
not affect the time they spent on each ad-
Overall, the results on the time depen-
consumer.
ging” viewing. We wish to examine
vertisement. By comparison, for visual
dent variable suggest that interactivity
whether this amount of time spent on the
people, there was a significant decrease in
may interrupt the process of persuasion.
advertisements also varied with partici-
time spent viewing these highly visual
Specifically, there is evidence that visual
pant type.
products when information was pre-
processing is inhibited by the use of an
sented interactively in comparison to the
interactive system.
Figure 6 contains the interaction between the consumers’ visual versus verbal
linear condition.
orientation and the interactivity versus
An aspect of the interactivity, perhaps
linear presentation factors on the depen-
the task of making the verbal choices in
DISCUSSION: INTERACTIVITY
dent variable of “time spent” on the vi-
the interactive condition, truncated highly
INHIBITS PROCESSING
These results suggest that something unexpected may happen to people when
they are exposed to advertising on an in-
8
z
t
‘;
s
E
n
s
E
$
UJ
f
i=
teractive system. In the interactive system,
users spent less time viewing the advertisements, and they were less likely to
7 --
purchase target products.
Media developers talk about interactive
vehicles as being inherently more interest+ interactive
ing and motivating. However, our results
indicate that the consumer can still simply
5 --
buzz right through the interactive media,
paying so little attention to the advertise-
4
relatively
relatively
verbal
visual
Respondents: Verbal vs. Visual Psychographic Orientation
Figure 6 Interactive Effect of Interactivity and Visual
Orientation of Respondent on Time Spent on Advertisements
for Highly Visual Products (C and D)
30 JflURflflt Of AllUERTlSlllG
RESEARCH July
l
August 1998
ments, that the message cannot function
persuasively. Most software and Web
pages certainly stand room for improvement for both ease of use and aesthetic
quality; so perhaps as these are improved
with more creative design, interactive formats will be better able to retain the attention of users traversing screens and mak-
I
INTERACTIVE VS. TRADITIONAL ADVERTISING
ing millisecond decisions regarding interest level and relevance.
Our findings are intriguing because
they would seem to contradict new media
hype implying an entirely beneficial role
for interactivity with respect to memory,
The most important implication of this research is that
sometimes interactive is not better! Under certain conditions, interactivity interrupts the process of persuasion.
attitude, and purchase intention. Interactivity indeed can be “fine,” but consumers
appears that, with the interactive system,
Increasingly, Web pages and the like are
viewing advertisements via traditional
the latter stages of the persuasion process
offering viewers an option to obtain the
linear formats performed at least as desir-
may have been inhibited.
information sought via “text only” op-
ably (i.e., were more thoughtful in time
tions. This option would be an important
spent and more persuaded in terms of
SUMMARY AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
one to study in subsequent research, be-
likelihood to purchase) in some conditions
The most important implication of this re-
cause it would seem to align a format op-
and better in some conditions than those
search is that sometimes interactive is not
timally with the verbal consumers’prefer-
making active decisions to obtain infor-
better! Under certain conditions, interac-
ence for information presented in a
tivity interrupts the process of persuasion.
wholly verbal manner. The fact that our
For the targeted products, purchase inten-
findings indicated that the interactive
nying the decrease in purchase intention
tion and the time spent viewing the ad-
method was nearly irrelevant to the verbal
for some of the interactive conditions,
vertisement declined when advertising
consumers is quite sensible given that the
there were, however, no effects of interac-
was interactive. Moreover, there was fur-
overall impact of much interactivity is the
tivity on attitude; thus a puzzling ques-
ther evidence that in particular visual
rich visual quality. If the graphics were
tion: how could purchase intentions
processing was inhibited by interactiv-
pared down so that the content of the ver-
change without effecting attitude toward
ity: respondents with visual orientations
bal information were comparatively more
the product or ad? Persuasion is thought
appeared to be hampered by the interac-
salient, verbal consumers may have spent
to be a process from presentation and at-
tive system as evidenced by decreases in
more time on the ads and hence have been
more persuaded to purchase.
mation via the interactive system.
As a brief aside, consider that accompa-
tention, to comprehension, generation,
purchase intention for the targeted
and retrieval of related cognitions, to
products and less time spent on the adver-
In terms of limitations, our sample size
yielding and retention. Apparently when
tisements. Respondents who were rela-
was somewhat small. We would like to
a customer uses an interactive system, the
tively more verbal were unaffected by the
see our findings confirmed on a larger
link between retrieval and yielding to the
interactivity.
scale before generalizing more broadly. In
persuasion may be broken.
These results also raise the intriguing
addition, in hindsight, we regret not mea-
To further explain, consider evidence
questions how and why the visual infor-
suring the respondents’ level of experi-
from our findings. The recall order of the
mation display sped up the visual proces-
ence with interactive media. Frequent us-
products indicates the top-of-mind char-
sors’ time in the interactive condition. Per-
ers of such systems might indeed have dif-
acter of a product. The correlation be-
haps the decreased time was a function of
ferent preferences and needs, so a scale
tween recall order and the log time spent
the very control afforded the users. When
tapping interactive experience would pro-
viewing the product was significantly
companies design Web pages, they are es-
vide a potentially useful covariate for fu-
greater (z = 2.193, p = 0.029) for the linear
sentially relinquishing traversal control
ture research.
(Yhnear = 0.558) than interactive conditions
(r mtcrartivr = 0.067). In the linear condition,
to the user. Enhancing the page’s visual
There may be implications regarding
appeal may allow the (visual) users to
other demographic and psychographic
people had spent less time on the prod-
capture the essence of the incoming infor-
variables as well. For example, gender has
ucts that came to mind quickly. This result
mation more quickly and perhaps in
traditionally been linked to visual/verbal
implies that users spent time considering
greater detail. However, we should also
abilities and processing preferences, so we
the products that were presented to them.
note that our results on the purchase in-
might expect the more typically verbal-
In the interactive condition, there is no re-
tentions provide a cautionary conclusion
prone users (e.g., women) to benefit more
lation between time and the top-of-mind
with regard to the effectiveness of new
from, or at least not get distracted from,
nature of the product. From this result it
media advertising.
verbal interactivity than the more visual
July . August 1998
JOURRRL OF RDUERTISIRG RESERRCH 31
INTERACTIVE VS. TRADITIONAL ADVERTISING
users (e.g., men). It is also known that
2. whether the advertising content is
novices to a category spend more time in
inherently visual or verbal in
marketing media. He teaches courses on consume!
detailed comparison, whereas experts
impression.
behavior and communicating with customers.
have already formed useful heuristics,
and these differences should also have
l
behavior, information processing. and interactive
The “effectiveness” of the interactive
media can be measured in two ways:
DAWN IACOBUCCI is professor of marketing at the
counterparts in time spent on interactive
1. its engagement, i.e., do consumers
systems, as well as providing some resis-
spend more (enough) time consid-
Northwestern University, where she teaches marketing
tance to truncated processing for the ex-
ering the advertisements, and
research service marketing. Her Ph.D. is in
perts, for example.
2. its persuasiveness, i.e., do consum-
Kellogg Graduate School of Management at
quantitative psychology from the University of llllnols
While we focused our investigation on
ers report stronger positive af-
at Urbana-Champaign. Her research Interests include
visual versus verbal-oriented people,
fect, preferences, and purchase
models for networks, and service interactlons.
there are many other relevant aspects of
intentions.
cognitive customization (e.g., expertise) to
explore in future research. There are also
Taken together, interactive media appear
presumably many attributes of the adver-
to be particularly constraining for verbal
tisements themselves that should be in-
persons. A cognitive “matching” of the
vestigated further.
system properties (being predominately
The research, like the industrial use and
the media themselves, is fairly new. Many
more paths of inquiry must be followed
visual or verbal) and the consumer segment needs appears to be critical.
Investigating additional properties of
before we can state simply what consum-
the interactive system and consumer psy-
ers are doing when confronted with inter-
chographic factors can only enhance the
active formats. Until further investigation
future effectiveness of interactive adver-
is conducted, it is wise to caution expen-
tising. The new media are indeed exciting,
ditures devoted solely to advertising on
and the potential is rich for shaping mes-
these interactive media until they are
sages and formats for these vehicles of the
demonstrated to be superior persuasion
future. a
vehicles, or at least not comparatively
denigrative. However, we do know:
l
l
Sometimes interactive media do not
REFERENCES
BERTHON, PIERRE, LEYLAND Pm,
and
RICHARD
WATSON. “The World Wide Web as an Advertising Medium: Toward an Understanding of
Conversion Efficiency.” ]ournal of Advertising
Research 36, 1 (1996): 43-54.
BLATTBERG, ROBERT, and JOHN DEIGHTON. “Interactive Marketing: Exploiting the Age of
Addressibility.” Sloan Management Review 32,
1 (1991): 5-14.
CHILDERS, TERRY, SUSAN E. HECKLER, and
MICHAEL HOUSTON. “Measurement of Individual Differences in Visual Versus Verbal
ALEXA BEZJIAN-AVERY IS assistant professor of
Information Processing.” journal of Consumer
marketing at DePaul University. She received her
Research 12, 2 (1985): 125-34.
Ph.D. from Northwestern University In 1997. She
perform as well as traditional, linear ad
conducts research on and teaches interactive
HOFFMAN, DONNA, and THOMAS NOVAK. “Mar-
presentations.
marketing management.
keting in Hypermedia Computer-Mediated
BOBBY CALDER is the Charles H. Kellstadt
journal of Marketing 60, 3 (1996): 50-68.
Whether the interactive method is as
“effective” depends on two things:
1. whether the consumer prefers in-
Environments: Conceptual Foundations.”
DistInguIshed Professor of Marketing at the Kellogg
formation presented in a visual or
Graduate School of Management at Northwestern
SCHANK, ROGER. Dynamic Memory. New York:
verbal manner, and
University. His research interests include consumer
Cambridge University Press, 1982.
32 JflURnit Of
RllUERTlSlNl RESERRCH
July . August 1998