See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/308984525

Ketelaar, P. E., van't Riet, J., Thorbjornsen, H., & Buijzen, M. (2016). Positive
uncertainty: the benefit of the doubt in advertising, International Journal of
Advertising., 1-14.

Article · January 2016

DOI: 10.1080/02650487.2016.1231163

CITATIONS READS

0 230

1 author:

Paul Ketelaar
Radboud University
48 PUBLICATIONS   175 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

information privacy paradox View project

Openness in advertising View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul Ketelaar on 07 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 How Do Teaser Advertisements Boost
Word of Mouth about New Products?
For Consumers, the Future Is More Exciting
Than the Present

Helge Thorbjørnsen Future-framed marketing is highly effective in generating positive product-related

Norwegian School of
word of mouth (WOM) for new products. This was demonstrated in two studies:
Economics
helge.thorbjornsen@nhh. Study 1 reported a novel online field experiment on WOM behavior; Study 2 tested
no the proposed WOM effects in a more controlled laboratory setting on a representative

Paul Ketelaar sample. Results of the current research revealed that product preannouncements
Radboud University significantly increased consumers’ product interest and WOM behavior. And, more so
Nijmegen, Netherlands
than messaging about currently available products, preannouncements increased the
p.ketelaar@ru.nl
favorability and elaborateness of WOM.
Jonathan van ’t Riet
Radboud University
Nijmegen, Netherlands
INTRODUCTION of WOM in boosting a new product’s commercial
j.vantriet@maw.ru.nl
Advertising that stimulates consumer curiosity success. It is important, therefore, to identify fac-
and positive word of mouth (WOM) is effective tors that effectively facilitate positive WOM for
Micael Dahlén
(Rubinson, 2009). Research long has demonstrated new products.
Stockholm School of
the importance of consumer WOM in attitude Advertisers long have used teaser advertise-
Economics
formation (Bone, 1995), decision making (Bansal ments and product pre-announcements to create
micael.dahlen@hhs.se
and Voyer, 2000), and the reduction of uncertainty online and offline “buzz” for forthcoming movies
(Murray, 1991). In one investigation, WOM com- and books, new car models, future high-tech prod-
munications influenced nearly 70 percent of all ucts, and so on. To date, however, little research has
buying decisions (Balter, 2008). investigated the effects of such advertising on con-
Since the advent of Facebook and other social sumers’ WOM behavior.
media—and the addition of a wide range of online In the current research, the authors argued and
brand communities and new communication for- demonstrated that future-framed advertising is a
mats—little doubt has existed as to the potential potent tool for facilitating positive product-related

• Forthcoming products generate more word-of-mouth (WOM) than do currently available products.
• WOM about forthcoming products also is more favorable and elaborate when compared to WOM
about (identical) current products

• Pre-announcing new products, therefore, is more effective in generating product interest and
positive WOM than merely advertising new products at the time of product launch.

• Future research should investigate the psychological mechanisms driving WOM for forthcoming
products and the boundary conditions of the effects.

DOI: 10.2501/JAR-55-1-000-000 March 2015  JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  1

How Do Teaser Advertisements Boost Word of Mouth about New Products?
WOM for new products. The study pre-
supposes that the future generally is more
interesting than the present: It is more
uncertain, often more optimistic, and cer-
tainly more interesting to discuss.
Anecdotal evidence has suggested that
this also is true for future products. An
often-cited example is the 2012 launch
of iPhone 5, for which the WOM/buzz
was believed to have contributed signifi-
cantly to its success: The new iPhone was
discussed on the Internet long before its
release date (Appleinsider.com 2012).
Google trends showed a significant
increase in search volume in 2011, when
advance reports suggested that the iPhone
5 would appear on the market in Septem-
ber 2011. When it later became known that
the launch had been postponed to 2012, the
search volume dropped enormously, only
to rise again when its actual release date in
September 2012 approached.
The example of the iPhone 5 sug-
gests that, in the domain of consumer
behavior, people sometimes demonstrate
inflated interest and preference for future
products over currently available ones
(Dahlén, Thorbjørnsen, and Sjödin, 2011).
One reason for this may be the (positive)
uncertainty (Lee and Qiu, 2009) associated
with new products and services. Uncer-
tainty offers consumers the opportunity
to imagine and speculate on a product’s
potentially positive characteristics and out-
comes. (See “The Power of Positive Uncer-
tainty” below).
In the current research, the authors pos-
ited that the positively framed uncertainty
associated with future products (versus
currently available products) would make
consumers perceive these products as
more interesting and cause them to spend
more effort on imagining and elaborating
on product features. Earlier research had
suggested that advertisements for forth-
coming products resulted in more posi-
tive evaluations than advertisements for
2  JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  March 2015
To the authors’ knowledge, no studies to date
have investigated the potential for future-
oriented advertising to facilitate WOM
otherwise equivalent current products.
The cultural phenomenon is captured in
the term “Nextopia,” described as “a gen-
eral belief among consumers that the next
product will always be the better one”
(Dahlén et al., 2011, p. 33).
The authors of the current study argued
that the positive uncertainty associated
with future products would not only
make consumers more interested in an
advertised product but render them more
inclined to engage in product-related
WOM. To that end, they investigated
whether (and how) future-oriented adver-
tising could spur positive WOM about
the advertised product compared with
present-oriented advertisements.
To the authors’ knowledge, no studies
to date have investigated the potential for
future-oriented advertising to facilitate
WOM. In their research, the authors tested
the relationship between future-oriented
advertising and WOM in two separate
studies. Also, they hypothesized that con-
sumers more likely would elaborate on,
like, and ultimately forward information
about forthcoming products than informa-
tion about currently available products.
WOM AND ITS MARKETING POTENTIAL
WOM usually was long characterized as
oral, person-to-person communication
between a receiver and a communica-
tor whom the receiver perceives as non-
commercial toward a brand, product, or
service (Arndt, 1967). As the marketing
ecosystem entered the digital age, most
researchers have added electronic media to
this definition (Buttle, 1998; Li and Zhan,
2011). Others preferred to call it electronic
WOM, or e-WOM (Hennig-Thurau et al.,
2004). In the current research, the authors
conceptualize WOM as being both offline
and online.
It can be hugely profitable for firms—
seemingly acting without obvious com-
mercial intent—to induce consumers to
pass on commercial messages, mostly
because receivers trust the intrinsic moti-
vations of senders. Indeed, WOM has been
shown to affect not only purchasing behav-
ior (Arndt, 1967; Price and Feick, 1984;
Udell, 1996) but consumer expectations
(Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996), feelings, and
attitudes both before (Herr, Kardes, and
Kim, 1991) and after (Bone, 1995) product
purchase. In one online setting, consumers
did not perceive an e-mail with product
information as junk mail when it came
from someone they knew (Phelps et al.,
2004); rather they inferred that the prod-
uct in question must be worthwhile if the
sender wanted to inform them about it.
Although marketers sometimes attempt
to stimulate positive WOM through
oral communication and/or electronic
media—an activity known as WOM mar-
keting or viral marketing (Hinz et al., 2011;
Vilpponen, Winter, and Sundqvist, 2006;
Woerdl et al., 2008)—what people say
about products largely is beyond the con-
trol of marketers (Woerdl et al., 2008). Thus,
advertising that proves to increase positive
WOM would seem to have important mar-
keting ramifications because it would pro-
vide a vital tool that marketers could use to
boost product interest.
In the current research, the authors
hypothesized that future-oriented adver-
tising (i.e., advertising about products that

will become available in the future) would
trigger more WOM than present-oriented
advertising (i.e., advertising about cur-
rently available products). If so, the authors
believe, future-oriented advertising would
provide marketers with an important tool
with which to influence consumers’ WOM
behavior.
How—and why—however, would
future-oriented advertising stimulate posi-
tive WOM?
The Power of “Positive Uncertainty”
The idea that consumers prefer future
products to currently available ones has
been studied previously. Consider experi-
ments that were conducted in which
participants were shown one of two adver-
tisements (Dahlén et al., 2011). One adver-
tisement promoted a product described as
currently available; the other advertised
the same product, but participants were
led to believe that the product was yet to
be released. The results showed that the
future-oriented advertisements consist-
ently induced greater elaboration and
resulted in more positive evaluations of
both advertisement and brand.
One key mechanism likely explain-
ing these effects is “positive uncertainty.”
Although most economics and marketing
research explicitly or implicitly has concep-
tualized uncertainty as something negative
for consumers, other research has indicated
that, when positively framed, uncertainty
can yield more pleasure than certainty (Lee
and Qiu, 2009; Wilson et al., 2005).
For example, when people do not know
exactly what they might win (or even have
won) in a lottery, they tend to enjoy the
experience more than when they do know
(Lee and Qiu, 2009). Moreover, in the case
of films, people have higher expectations
when movie trailers leave them uncertain
about the specific content and resolution of
the movie (Wilson et al., 2005). Thus, there
are two implications:
How Do Teaser Advertisements Boost Word of Mouth about New Products?
• the future is more uncertain than the
present, and
• the properties of forthcoming products
are more (positive) uncertain than those
of currently available ones.
Scholarly work on the optimistic bias
has suggested that this uncertainty has
a positive valence (McKenna, 1993; Oet-
tingen and Mayer, 2002; Weinstein, 1980).
People are overly optimistic about their
own (uncertain) future and overestimate
the value of future products (Dahlén et al.,
2011; Loewenstein, O’Donoghue, and
Rabin, 2003; Zhao, Meyer, and Han, 2003).
Therefore, the current authors believe,
the (positive) uncertainty and novelty
stemming from future products will stimu-
late consumers’ product interests, imagina-
tion, elaboration and, in turn, their WOM
behavior.
Indeed, the link between uncertainty
and WOM has drawn attention in WOM
research: The perceived uncertainty associ-
ated with a product was suggested to have
stimulated WOM (Arndt, 1967). And, in
consumption settings in which uncer-
tainty was high, such as for experience
goods (e.g., movies), WOM was common
and also played a central role in product
success (Bruce, Foutz, and Kolsarici, 2012;
Neelamegham and Jain, 1999).
In addition to being more uncertain,
future products likely will be more inter-
esting than currently available products.
Conventional wisdom and practice have
suggested that products need to be inter-
esting to spur discussion (Berger and
Schwartz, 2011). Consumers generally talk
about things that they perceive as interest-
ing and that also make them appear inter-
esting to others. Additionally, consumers’
self-presentation and self-enhancement
have been found to be key motivations for
generating WOM (De Angelis et al., 2012).
Thus, because consumers generally per-
ceive forthcoming products as more novel,
March 2015  JOURNAL
interesting, and having more “social cur-
rency” (possibilities for self-enhancement)
than currently available products, such
products more likely will generate positive
WOM than (identical) currently available
products.
HYPOTHESES
Considerations about how future-oriented
advertising may be more (positive) uncer-
tain, novel, and interesting than advertis-
ing for currently available products led
the authors of the current study to present
hypotheses that further were tested in two
separate studies:
H1a: Advertising with a future focus
compared to content with a cur-
rent time frame leads to more
product interest.
H1b: Advertising with a future focus
compared to content with a cur-
rent perspective leads to more
product-related thoughts.
H2: Advertising with a future focus
increases recipients’ propensity
to engage in WOM when com-
pared to content with a current
time frame.
That is, the authors hypothesized, the mere
information about a product that is forth-
coming likely would lead to
• more interest in the product (e.g., online
“clicks”);
• more product elaboration; and
• increased propensity to share the prod-
uct information via online WOM (e.g.,
online forwarding).
In addition, the authors expected that the
content of the WOM consumers forward to
others would be more elaborate and favora-
ble when stemming from future-oriented
OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  3
How Do Teaser Advertisements Boost Word of Mouth about New Products?
advertisements—an assumption that led to
the following hypothesis:
H3a: Advertising with a future focus
compared to content with a cur-
rent perspective increases the
elaborateness of WOM.
H3b: Advertising with a future focus
compared to content with a
current time frame increases
the favorability of forwarded
WOM.
METHODOLOGY
Study 1
Study 1 used a real setting to test H1a, H2,
and H3a/b. The study tested time frame
(future versus present) as a between-
subjects factor in a field experiment of an
actual product launch.
A Swedish marketer cooperated with
the research team to study the launch of
two models of a designer alarm clock—
one black, the other white—a few weeks
apart. The clocks were identical except for
the color. At the time of the release of the
first (black) model, the Swedish lifestyle
magazine Plaza reported on the introduc-
tion in its “Things and Gadgets” section
that could be accessed only through a link
in a headline-alert e-mail.
Stimuli and Procedure
During the release of the new model, sub-
scribers were exposed to the magazine’s
online alert about a new designer alarm
clock but with two different executions: It
presented two versions of the headline:
• “Just Out: The Really Cool Wake-Up
Caller” and
• “Coming Soon: The Really Cool Wake-Up
Caller.”
Each headline-alert e-mail version was sent
to 40,000 subscribers, who were assigned
4  JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  March 2015
randomly to the two treatments. Respond-
ents could choose:
• Click on the headline. The headlines
were linked to an online page with a
brief editorial item about the alarm
clock and its design. The editorial cor-
respondingly featured either the black
(“just out”) or the white (“coming soon”)
model. The texts and layouts were iden-
tical except for the information that the
black model “is just out” and that the
white model “will be released in a few
weeks.”
• Forward the information in the editor-
ial to other people. To make forwarding
possible, the online page promoted a rec-
ommendation function in which readers
could forward the link to the editorial
piece by typing in any number of e-mail
addresses and writing a message to the
receivers in a text box. The authors used
this function to compare WOM between
the two time frames for
H2 (number of sent recommendations,
——
gauged as the percentage of readers
who forwarded the link),
H3a (average word count in the mes-
——
sages), and
H3b (average valence of the mes-
——
sages, coded on a scale from –3 to
+3 by two judges [r = 0.74] blind to
the study purpose and experimental
conditions).
TABLE 1
Results of Study 1: Mean Comparisons
Click-Through (Product Interest)
Numer of Recommendations
Average Recommendation Word Count
Average Recommendation Valence (–3/+3)
**Difference significant at p < 0.01. *Difference significant at p < 0.05.
Results
In support of H1a—advertising with a
future-versus-present time frame results
in more positive product interest—the
future-framed version of the headline that
promoted the “coming soon” model gener-
ated a significantly (χ2 = 126.95, p < 0.01)
higher click-through rate (3.14 percent, n
= 1256) to the editorial than the “current
version,” which promoted the “just out”
model (1.86 percent, n = 756).
This finding suggested that there
was a main effect of time framing of the
advertisements on product interest (See
Table 1).
In examination of H2—that, in adver-
tising with a future-versus-present time
frame, recipients’ propensity to engage
in WOM would increase—readers of the
editorial significantly reported that they
would more likely forward the link in the
future-framed condition (5.89 percent, n =
74) than in the present-framed condition
(3.72 percent, n = 28; χ2 = 4.25, p < 0.05).
Thus, H2 was supported.
As the authors had hypothesized, adver-
tising with a future-versus-present time
frame increased the amount/elaborate-
ness of WOM. In comparing the actual
recommendations, the researchers found
that the future-framed condition gener-
ated a higher average word count than
the present-framed condition (4.63 ver-
sus 3.15; p < 0.01, t = 3.11). Thus, H3a was
supported.
Present-
Future-Framed Framed Hypothesis
3.14 percent** 1.86 percent H1a
5.89 percent* 3.72 percent H2
4.63** 3.15 H3a
0.97** 0.48 H3b

Finally, the average valence shows that
the recommendations were more positive
for the future-framed condition than for
the present-framed condition (0.97 versus
0.48; p < 0.01, t = 2.37). Thus, H3b—future
frames increase WOM more favorability
than present frames—was supported.
Discussion
The findings supported the authors’
hypothesized main effects.
The future time frame exerted signifi-
cantly positive effects on WOM with respect
to the number of recommendations, elabo-
ration in terms of the average number of
words, and favorability in terms of the
average valence of the recommendations.
Although the field experiment provided a
novel and ecologically valid test of an actual
product launch, however, this test environ-
ment had lower internal validity when com-
pared with a more controlled lab setting.
Although the future-framed versus
present-framed product releases were
highly similar, they were not 100 percent
identical in that the colors of the products
in the two experimental treatments var-
ied (black versus white). Thus, to increase
internal validity and also test the hypoth-
eses for other product categories, the
researchers conducted a second experi-
ment in a more controlled lab setting.
STUDY 2
Study 2 was designed to test H1b, H2, and
H3b, and it included two additional prod-
uct categories: mineral water and movies.
These categories frequently feature adver-
tising in both future and present time
frames.
The researchers used print advertise-
ments as stimuli. The advertisements
were identical in both executions, with the
exception of the manipulation:
• In the future-framed condition, the
headline read, “Coming Soon”;
How Do Teaser Advertisements Boost Word of Mouth about New Products?
• in the present-framed condition, the
headline read, “Out Now.”
The mineral-water advertisement pro-
moted a new flavor for the domestic
number-two brand; the movie advertise-
ment showcased a new foreign movie that
recently had been released in its home
market. With this selection of materials, the
researchers avoided confounding effects
from previous exposures.
Some 340 participants were recruited
through an online panel for the experiment
(48 percent male, Mage = 24.4). The online
panel was representative in terms of demo-
graphics of the general population in the
relevant market.
The researchers randomly assigned
the participants to two conditions
(future- versus present-framed advertise-
ments). No difference existed between the
two conditions in terms of gender and age.
In total, there were four cells (2 time frames
× 2 products), for an average cell size of 85
participants. The participants received no
incentive for their participation.
Measures
The researchers measured product-related
thoughts with a thought protocol similar
to an earlier scenario in which participants
listed their spontaneous thoughts imme-
diately after seeing the advertisement
(Dahlén et al., 2011). Next, they counted
the total number of thoughts. To obtain a
measure of favorability, they asked the par-
ticipants to go back to the thought protocol
TABLE 2
Results of Study 2: Mean Comparisons
Product-Related Thoughts (net positive)
WOM Propensity
WOM Favorability
F = 3.66, **Difference significant at p < 0.01. *Difference significant at p < 0.05.
after finishing the questionnaire and to
indicate for each listed thought whether
it was positive (+), negative (–), or neutral
(0). They then calculated the net number
of positive thoughts by subtracting them
from the negative thoughts.
They measured WOM propensity with
two items (“would talk about” and “will
post information about”; r = 0.85), and
assessed WOM favorability with two items
(“would forward positive information
about” and “would forward negative
information about”). The researchers then
subtracted the positive information item
from the negative information item to
obtain a measure of net favorability.
Results
The future-framed condition generated
a significantly greater number of spon-
taneous thoughts (3.88 versus 3.42; p <
0.05) and more favorable spontaneous
thoughts (1.21 versus 0.69; p < 0.05) than
the present-framed condition. Thus, H1b
was supported.
In line with the hypotheses, WOM pro-
pensity (H2) (3.30 versus 2.66; p < 0.01)
and favorability (H3b) (2.27 versus 1.73; p
< 0.01) also were greater in the future than
the present condition (See Table 2). Thus,
H2 was supported
DISCUSSION OF THE TWO STUDIES
The Benefits of Future-Framed
Advertising
The buzz surrounding forthcoming prod-
ucts—such as next-generation iPhones or
Future-Framed Present-Framed Hypotheses
3.88* (1.21*) 3.42 (0.69) H1b
3.30** 2.66 H2
2.27** 1.73 H3b
March 2015  JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  5
How Do Teaser Advertisements Boost Word of Mouth about New Products?
the latest Justin Bieber albums, to name
two—clearly demonstrates that con-
sumers are biased toward the “next big
thing.” The current research suggests that
future-oriented advertising can result in
more—and more positive—WOM than
present-oriented advertising.
In Study 1, a future-oriented headline
about a new designer alarm clock resulted
in a higher click-through rate than a head-
line about a currently available designer
alarm clock. The research design of Study 1
enabled the authors to assess actual WOM
behavior in a real-life setting. The study’s
results showed that participants more
likely would forward an editorial link
(using the recommendation function on
the website) and forward positive WOM
after being exposed to a future-oriented
headline than a present-oriented headline.
Study 2 results showed that future-
oriented advertising about mineral water
and movies resulted in more positive
thoughts, more favorability, and a higher
propensity to engage in WOM than
present-oriented advertising.
Combined, the two studies showed that
information about forthcoming products
significantly can contribute to increased,
positive WOM. These results are highly rel-
evant to marketers and advertisers because
they illustrate that teaser advertising and
product pre-announcements cannot only
result in immediate increased interest in
the product but help to create buzz that
renders the product even more exciting to
an increasing number of consumers.
It has been demonstrated that new
products may profit from a significant
jump start from the viral communication
of brand messages, given the diffusion
range of advertising messages within
social media: “A friend tells a friend who
tells his/her friends and the diffusion rate
increases as the information travels the
social channel” (Petrescu and Korgaonkar,
2011, p. 213).
6  JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  March 2015
Advertising a product that is not yet on the market,
however, also may have negative effects
Notable in Study 1 is that the percent-
age of people who forwarded the infor-
mation about the product was not very
high (5.89 percent in the future-oriented
condition and 3.72 percent in the present-
oriented condition). Viral-marketing
models derived from the discipline of epi-
demiology (i.e., Bampo et al., 2008; Hoang
and Lim, 2012), however, have shown that
the relatively small difference between the
two conditions can continue to increase
if perpetuated through several cycles of
WOM.
Also, given that WOM generally has
higher credibility and relevance to cus-
tomers than marketer-created sources of
information (Bickart and Schindler, 2001;
Duana, Gua and Whinston, 2008), even
small differences in forwarding behav-
ior may have a substantial payoff. In the
context of advertising for membership
of a social network site, in fact, one esti-
mate cited the effect of WOM on customer
acquisition at 20 times that of regular mar-
keting events (Trusov, Bucklin, and Pau-
wels, 2009).
Hence, even if future-framed advertis-
ing results in an increase in exposure that
is quantitatively small, the extra expo-
sure may be of very high quality from an
advertiser’s point of view. In all, given the
importance of WOM for marketing (Arndt,
1967; Bone, 1995; Herr et al., 1991; Keller
and Fay, 2012; Price and Feick, 1984; Udell,
1996; Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996), the cur-
rent research suggests that employing
future-framed advertising likely is profit-
able for many firms.
Advertising a product that is not yet on
the market, however, also may have nega-
tive effects. By revealing a future product
launch, for example, the firm enables its
competitors to effectively respond to the
pre-announced product through adver-
tising or other marketing means. Future-
oriented advertising also might be risky
and even wasteful, for example, when the
time between the pre-announcement and
the actual availability of the product is too
long. If interest and awareness quickly
wane, firms risk “advertising to an empty
shelf” and waste advertising spending.
Moreover, the long-term success
of future-oriented advertising likely
depends on the type of product (e.g.,
high- versus low-involving) and the exist-
ing familiarity with the brand. Apple’s pre-
announcements of forthcoming products
likely would have a stronger and more
enduring effect on WOM than a similar
pre-announcement effort by a less-known
producer of Gouda cheese.
Future Research Directions
The current study builds on consumer
psychology literature to discuss how the
future is construed as a positive uncer-
tainty that generates more product interest,
elaboration, and pleasure and, in turn, how
this may boost WOM behavior.
Future-framed advertising generates
more product-related thoughts, higher
WOM propensity, and more favorable
WOM than current-framed advertising.
The likely explanation for this is that
people perceive the future as more novel,
interesting, and positive uncertain than the
present.
This research did not allow for a direct
test of these explanations, however; further
research should devote more attention to
the underlying mechanisms involved. For
example, several other intertwined psy-
chological mechanisms may account for

consumers’ biased preferences for tempo-
ral distant objects and events, including
the optimistic bias (McKenna, 1993; Tanner
and Carlson, 2008; Weinstein, 1980), inac-
curate affective forecasting (Ebert, Gilbert,
and Wilson, 2009; Wilson et al., 2005), and
construal level (Trope and Liberman, 2000).
The current research shows that future-
framed advertising can be an effective
vehicle in increasing consumers’ interest
in the advertised product and enhancing
their propensity to engage in WOM.
Future studies should focus on media-
tors and moderators of the mechanisms
underlying the effects of future-framed
advertising on WOM. Moreover, future
research also could examine other adver-
tising tactics using consumers’ positive
uncertainty in generating WOM. For
example, open (versus closed) advertising
messages may increase consumers’ (posi-
tive) uncertainty and product interest and
thus boost WOM in ways similar to the
studies reported herein.  events.” Retrieved Septemner 28, 2012, from
Helge Thorbjørnsen is professor at the Center for
Service Innovation at the Norwegian School of
Economics. His areas of specialization are consumer
psychology, marketing communication, and branding.
His work has been published in journals such as
the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Journal
of Services Research, and Journal of Advertising.
Paul E. Ketelaar is a senior assistant professor
in media communication and influence at the
Behavioural Science Institute of Radboud University
Nijmegen. His research focuses on the effects of
innovative marketing communication strategies with
a special interest in tailored persuasion campaigns.
His research has appeared in the Journal of Current
Issues and Research in Advertising, the Journal of
Euromarketing, and the Journal of Visual Literacy.
Jonathan van ‘t Riet is an assistant professor of
persuasive communication at the Behavioral Science
How Do Teaser Advertisements Boost Word of Mouth about New Products?
Institute of Radboud University Nijmegen. His work
focuses on health communication, with a special
interest in online and digital communication. His
work has been published in the Journal of Medical
Internet Research, Psychology and Health, and Health
Psychology Review, among other outlets.
Micael Dahlén is a professor in marketing at the
Center for Consumer Marketing at Stockholm School
of Economics. His research interests are consumer
behavior and creativity and advertising. Dahlén has
written books on diverse topics such as marketing,
happiness, serial killers, and social media, and
his work has appeared in journals such as Journal
of Advertising Research, Journal of Advertising,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, and
Psychology and Marketing.
References
Appleinsider.Com. “Apple may launch next-
gen iPhone, ‘iPad mini’ at two separate media
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/152097/
apple-may-launch-next-gen-iphone-ipad-mini-
at-two-separate-media-events.
Arndt, J.“Role of Product-Related Conversa-
tions in the Diffusion of a New Product.” In
Risk Taking and Information Handling in Consumer
Behavior, Donald F. Cox, ed. Boston: Harvard
University, 1967.
Balter, D.The Word of Mouth Manual, vol. 2.
Boston: Bzz Pubs, 2008.
Bampo, M., M. T. Ewing, D. R. Mather, D.
B. Steward, and M. Wallace.“The Effects of
the Social Structure of Digital Networks on Viral
Marketing Performance.” Information Systems
Research 19, 3 (2008): 273–290.
Bansal, H. S., and P. A. Voyer.“Word of
Mouth Processes within a Services Purchase
Decision Context.” Journal of Service Research 3,
2 (2000): 166–177.
March 2015  JOURNAL
Berger, J., and E. M. Schwartz.“What Drives
Immediate and Ongoing Word of Mouth?” Jour­
nal of Marketing Research 48, 5 (2011): 869–880.
Bickart, B., and R. M. Schindler.“Internet
Forums as Influential Sources of Consumer
Information.” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 15,
3 (2001): 31–40.
Bone, P. F.“Word-of-Mouth Effects on Short-
Term and Long-Term Product Judgments.” Jour­
nal of Business Research 32, 3 (1995): 213–223.
Bruce, N., N. Z. Foutz, and C. Kolsarici.
“Dynamic Effectiveness of Advertising and
Word of Mouth in Sequential Distribution of
New Products.” Journal of Marketing Research 49,
4 (2012): 469–486.
Buttle, F. A. “Word of Mouth: Understanding
and Managing Referral Behavior. Journal of Stra­
tegic Marketing 6, 3 (1998): 241–254.
Dahlén, M., H. Thorbjørnsen, and H. Sjö-
din. “A Taste of ‘Nextopia’: Exploring Con-
sumer Response to Advertising for Future
Products.” Journal of Advertising 40 (2011): 33–44.
De Angelis, M., A. Bonezzi, A. M. Peluso,
D. D. Rucker, and M. Costabile.“On Brag-
garts and Gossips: A Self-Enhancement Account
of Word-of-Mouth Generation and Transmis-
sion.” Journal of Marketing Research 49, 4 (2012):
551–563.
Duana, W., B. Gu, and A. B. Whinston.“Do
Online Reviews Matter? An Empirical Investiga-
tion of Panel Data.” Decision Support Systems 45,
3 (2008): 1007–1016.
Ebert, J. E. J., D. T. Gilbert, and T. D.
Wilson.“Forecasting and Backcasting: Predict-
ing the Impact of Events in the Future.” Journal
of Consumer Research 36 (2009): 353–666.
Hennig-Thurau, T., K. P. Gwinner, G.
Walsh, and D. D. Gremler.“Electronic
OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  7
How Do Teaser Advertisements Boost Word of Mouth about New Products?
Word-of-Mouth via Consumer-Opinion Plat-
forms: What Motivates Consumers to Articulate
Themselves on the Internet?” Journal of Inter­
active Marketing 18, 1 (2004): 38–52.
Herr, P. M., F. R. Kardes, and J. Kim.“Effects
of Word of Mouth and Product-Attribute
Information on Persuasion: An Accessibility
Diagnosticity Perspective.” Journal of Consumer
Research 17, 4 (1991): 454–462.
Hinz, O., B. Skiera, C. Barrot, and J. U.
Becker. “Seeding Strategies for Viral Mar-
keting: An Empirical Comparison.” Journal of
Marketing 75, 6 (2011): 55–71.
Hoang, T. A., and E. P. Lim.“Virality and Sus-
ceptibility in Information Diffusions.” In Pro­
ceedings of the Sixth International AAAI Conference
on Weblogs and Social Media, 2012.
Keller, E., and B. Fay.“Word-of-Mouth Advo-
cacy: A New Key to Advertising Effectiveness.”
Journal of Advertising Research 52, 4 (2012):
459–464.
Lee, Y. H., and C. Qiu.“When Uncertainty
Brings Pleasure: The Role of Prospect Image­
ability and Mental Imagery.” Journal of Consumer
Research 36, 4 (2009): 624–633.
Li, J., and L. Zhan.“Online Persuasion:
How the Written Word Drives WOM. Evidence
from Consumer-Generated Product Reviews.”
Journal of Advertising Research 51, 1 (2011):
239–257.
Loewenstein, G., T. O’donoghue, and M.
Rabin. “Projection Bias in Predicting Future
Utility.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, 4
(2003): 1209–1248.
McKenna, F. P.“It Won’t Happen to Me: Unre-
alistic Optimism or Illusion of Control?” British
Journal of Psychology 84, 1 (1993): 39–50.
8  JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH  March 2015
View publication stats
Murray, K. B.“A Test of Services Marketing
Theory: Consumer Information Acquisition
Activities.” Journal of Marketing 55, 1 (1991),
10–25.
Neelamegham, R., and D. Jain.“Consumer
Choice Process for Experience Goods: An Econo-
metric Model and Analysis.” Journal of Marketing
Research 36, 3 (1999): 373–386.
Oettingen, G., and D. Mayer.“The Moti-
vating Function of Thinking about the Future:
Expectations versus Fantasies.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 83, 5 (2002):
1198–1212.
Petrescu, M., and P. Korgaonkar.“Viral
Advertising: Definitional Review and Synthe-
sis.” Journal of Internet Commerce 10, 3 (2011):
208–226.
Phelps, J. E., R. Lewis, L. Mobilio, and D.
Perry. “Viral Marketing or Electronic Word-
of-Mouth Advertising: Examining Consumer
Responses and Motivations to Pass Along
Email.” Journal of Advertising Research 11, 1
(2004): 333–348.
Price, L. L., and L. F. Feick.“The Role of Inter-
personal Sources in External Search: An Infor-
mational Perspective.” In Advances in Consumer
Research, vol. 11, T. C. Kinnear, ed. Provo, UT:
Association for Consumer Research, 1984.
Rubinson, J.“Why You Should Make People
Curious about Your Brand.” Journal of Advertis­
ing Research December (2009): 399–400
Tanner, R. J., and K. A. Carlson.“Unre-
alistically Optimistic Consumers: A Selective
Hypothesis Testing Account for Optimism in
Predictions of Future Behavior.” Journal of Con­
sumer Research 35, 5 (2008): 810–22.
Trope, Y., and N. Liberman.“Temporal
Construal and Time-Dependent Changes in
Preference.” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 79, 6 (2000): 876–889.
Trusov, M., R. E. Bucklin, and K. H.
Pauwels. “Effects of Word-of-Mouth versus
Traditional Marketing: Findings from an Inter-
net Social Networking Site.” Journal of Marketing
7, 5 (2009): 90–102.
Udell, J. G.“Prepurchase Behavior of Buyers of
Small Electrical Appliances.” Journal of Market­
ing 30, 4 (1996): 50–52.
Vilpponen, A., S. Winter, and S. Sundqvist.
“Electronic Word-of-Mouth in Online Environ-
ments: Exploring Referral Network Structure
and Adoption Behavior.” Journal of Interactive
Advertising 6, 2 (2006): 71–86.
Weinstein, N. D.“Unrealistic Optimism
about Future Live Events.” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 39, 5 (1980): 806–820.
Wilson, T. D., D. B. Centerbar, D. A.
Kermer, and D. T. Gilbert.“The Pleasures
of Uncertainty: Prolonging Positive Moods
in Ways People Do Not Anticipate.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 88, 1 (2005):
5–21.
Woerdl, M., S. Papagiannidis, M. Bour­
lakis, and F. Li. “Internet-Induced Mar-
keting Techniques: Critical Factors in Viral
Marketing Campaigns.” Journal of Business
Science and Applied Management 3, 1 (2008):
35–45.
Zeithaml, V. A., and M. J. Bitner.Services
Marketing. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996.
Zhao, S., R. J. Meyer, and J. K. Han.“The
Enhancement Bias in Consumer Decisions
to Adopt and Utilize Product Innovations.”
Research collection, Lee Kong Chian School of
Business. Paper 1911, 2003.