Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Engagement With Online Media and Adverti
Engagement With Online Media and Adverti
Engagement With Online Media and Adverti
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237046588
CITATIONS READS
10 1,443
3 authors:
Ute Schaedel
Bertelsmann
6 PUBLICATIONS 162 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
We're working on several projects around online customer reviews. Happy to share working papers.
View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Edward C Malthouse on 12 September 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Abstract
We discuss consumer engagement with a website, provide a systematic approach to examining the types of engagement produced by specific
experiences, and show that engagement with the media context increases advertising effectiveness. Based on experiments using measurement
scales involving eight different online experiences, we advance two types of engagement with online media — Personal and Social-Interactive
Engagement. Our results show that both types are positively associated with advertising effectiveness. Moreover, Social-Interactive Engagement,
which is more uniquely characteristic of the web as a medium, is shown to affect advertising after controlling for Personal Engagement. Our
results offer online companies and advertisers new metrics and advertising strategies.
© 2009 Direct Marketing Educational Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Online advertising; Engagement; Consumer behavior; Context effects; Online media; Internet marketing
The contribution of this paper is twofold. First, we define the site (see Fig. 1). Consumer engagement with a website is a
consumer engagement with a website and its relationship to collection of experiences with the site.
online experiences. As summarized below, other work has We define an experience as a consumer's beliefs about how a
explored distinct online experiences and related concepts. This site fits into his/her life. For example, content can be engaging
article conceptualizes engagement as a second-order construct because users have a utilitarian experience with it. That is, they
that is manifested in various first-order “experience” constructs. believe that the site provides information to help them make
We theorize that our engagement construct is causally related to important decisions and accomplish something in their lives.
consumer responses to online advertising. Second, we develop Other content can be engaging because it provides users with an
measures of engagement and test our theory by evaluating intrinsically enjoyable experience, enabling them to unwind and
whether these measures are associated with consumer evalua- escape from the pressures of daily life.
tions of a banner advertisement. We close with a discussion on To be engaging, different sites need not deliver the same
how understanding engagement can help the online firms experiences. Some sites could be engaging because they provide
manage their sites and advertisers improve the effectiveness of high levels of a utilitarian experience while other sites could be
their ads. engaging because they are intrinsically enjoyable. Experiences
are not necessarily mutually exclusive and some content could
Engagement, experiences, and advertising effectiveness engender high levels of multiple experiences. It is necessary to
realize that there is more than one path to engagement and that
What is engagement? the different paths are realized by offering different experiences.
Consider, for example, the travel section of www.nytimes.com.
Most people know what “engagement” with media feels like. Some articles could engage readers by creating a utilitarian
Those who are “engaged” with, for example, a television experience, where the reader believes the articles give useful
program or website have a certain connection with it and advice about what to do and where to stay at certain destinations.
probably view or visit it often. But it is difficult to define the Other articles could be engaging because they offer intrinsic
concept of engagement beyond loose descriptions such as enjoyment. A narrative story about some travel adventure could
feeling a connection and using it often. relax readers and “transport” them to a different place and not
We begin with what engagement is not. Our conceptualiza- provide utilitarian “how-to” detail. Similarly, different con-
tion of engagement is different from others who have sumers could have different experiences with the same content.
characterized it in ways that we regard as consequences of In the language of measurement models, experiences are
engagement. Marc (1966), for example, defines engagement as first-order constructs while engagement is a second-order
“how disappointed someone would be if a magazine were no construct. We shall use the term experience whenever we
longer published.” Syndicated market research often asks refer to a specific set of consumer beliefs about a vehicle such as
whether a publication is “one of my favorites,” whether a utilitarian or intrinsic enjoyment, and the term engagement
respondent would “recommend it to a friend” or is “attentive.” whenever we refer to the overall experiences of a vehicle.
Many equate engagement exclusively with behavioral usage.
That is, they define “engaged” people as those who visit the site Online experiences
often, spend substantial time on the site, or have many page
views. The Advertising Research Foundation (ARF) gives the It follows from the above discussion that we need to
definition “media engagement is turning on a prospect to a determine the first-order experiences before we can measure
brand idea enhanced by the surrounding context” (ARF, 2006). this second-order construct of engagement. There are many
Clearly “engagement” has many different meanings. independent streams of research examining consumers'
We argue that all of the meanings discussed above are
consequences of engagement rather than engagement itself. It is
engagement with a website that causes someone to want to visit
it, download its pages, be attentive to it, recommend it to a
friend, or be disappointed if it were no longer available.
Likewise, researchers have known for years (see citations in
Introduction) that the media context can “turn on” a prospect to
some advertised brand, but again, this is a consequence of
engagement. Engagement is antecedent to outcomes such as
usage, affect, and responses to advertising.
To think about what engagement really means, let us return
to the basic notion of a sense of being connected with
something. We feel this intuition is essentially correct, but
needs elaboration to be useful. The fundamental insight is that
engagement comes from experiencing a website in a certain
way. To understand engagement we need to understand the
different experiences that consumers have in connecting with Fig. 1. Engagement and its consequences.
B.J. Calder et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 23 (2009) 321–331 323
experiences online and with media in general. While there is experienced differently than more traditional media such as
substantial overlap between the experiences posited by the television and print. This difference is often described as
different streams, unfortunately they are not entirely consistent. “leaning forward” versus “leaning backward.” The online
Certain experiences exist in some frameworks but not others. experience is thought to be more active, participatory and
Among the experiences that consistently exist in multiple interactive. The internet is also thought to be more social in
frameworks, there are often subtle differences in the way in nature because it can be used for sharing and communicating
which they are conceptualized. In some cases, multiple and it therefore breeds social engagement (Mathwick 2002;
experiences under one framework are subsumed by a single Rappaport 2007). Ruggiero (2000, p. 15) highlights the need
experience of another. to include “interactivity” in U&G framework. Previous
Uses and gratifications (U&G) theory (sometimes called an studies have tended to focus on this experience at a high
“approach” rather than a theory) provides a functionalist level or for specific applications. For example Thorbjørnsen
explanation of why people use media and has been an active et al. (2002) examined the overall amount of experience
area of research within communications since the 1940s (e.g., people have with the web but deal only with the level of
see Ruggiero 2000 for a recent survey). The U&G literature is experience and not the nature of that experience. Nambisan
vast; McQuail (1983, pp. 82–3) gives a concise summarization and Baron (2007) discuss an “interaction experience” in
that is often cited: virtual customer environments. Tremayne (2005) addresses
the meaning of “interactivity” and concludes that it can be
• “Information — finding out about relevant events and viewed either as a process of message exchange or as a
conditions in immediate surroundings, society and the world; perceptual variable. Others have studied interactivity in the
seeking advice on practical matters or opinion and decision form of word of mouth (e.g., Brown et al. 2007; Dwyer 2007;
choices; satisfying curiosity and general interest; learning, Sen and Lerman 2007). Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) and
self-education; gaining a sense of security through Sawhney et al. (2005) discuss the co-creation experience.
knowledge. It is unnecessary for purposes of this article to sort out
• Personal identity — finding reinforcement for personal differences in the ways that various frameworks have
values; finding models of behavior [sic]; identifying with conceptualized experiences because, for the purpose of
valued others (in the media); gaining insight into one's self. measuring engagement, all we need is a set of experiences
• Integration and social interaction — gaining insight into the that can serve as indicators of the engagement construct domain.
circumstances of others; social empathy; identifying with No set of indicators would be exhaustive of this domain but this
others and gaining a sense of belonging; finding a basis for is not required from a measurement point of view.1 Our
conversation and social interaction; having a substitute for approach is to develop scales for a representative set of
real-life companionship; helping to carry out social roles; experiences that parallel those noted in the literature. We shall
enabling one to connect with family, friends and society. then factor analyze the experience measures and test whether
• Entertainment — escaping, or being diverted, from they could plausibly be manifestations of a second-order
problems; relaxing; getting intrinsic cultural or aesthetic engagement construct or constructs. The above discussion
enjoyment; filling time; emotional release; sexual arousal.” indicates that websites may deliver different types of experi-
ences than traditional media, as characterized by the four
The utilitarian experience discussed above is an example of McQuail (1983) U&G aspects.
information in the U&G framework and the intrinsic enjoyment
experience is an example of entertainment. Engagement and advertising effectiveness
U&G approaches have been used in interactive marketing.
For example, Nambisan and Baron (2007) applied a variation The conceptual framework (Fig. 1) posits that engagement
of the U&G constructs to explain virtual customer environ- and experiences are antecedent to reactions to ads. We seek to
ments with four experiences: cognitive, social integrative, test this relationship as an indicator of the predictive validity
personal integrative, and hedonic. Bronner and Neijens (2006) of our measures. There has been relatively little previous
measure eight experiences that are consistent with the U&G research on the impact of the online media context on
approach: practical use, social, identification, pastime, trans- advertising. Existing studies have approached this at either a
formation, stimulation, information, and negative emotion.
1
Childers et al. (2001) discuss utilitarian and hedonic (a type of The question arises of whether to treat experiences and engagement as
“entertainment” in the U&G approach) experiences as formative or reflective. We follow Jarvis, Mackenzie, and Podsakoff's (2003)
criteria for making the decision. We treat both as reflective (a Type I second-
explanations of online shopping behavior. The same approach order factor specification in the language of Jarvis, Mackenzie, and Podsakoff).
is also followed by Fiore et al. (2005) and Cotte et al. (2006). In the case of experiences, the items are manifestations of some experience, are
Flow is another construct that has received substantial attention interchangeable, and should covary. The items we have used represent a sample
(e.g., see Hoffman and Novak 2009) and is consistent with the from the respective construct domains, e.g., there are many ways that a person
U&G approach of understanding the consumer experience with can have a utilitarian experience and different items could represent the
construct domain equally well. Thus, experiences are reflective according to the
media. Jarvis et al. framework. We also think of engagement as a reflective construct
Media engagement is particularly interesting in the case because we view experiences as manifestations of engagement (reflective)
of websites. It is commonly thought that online media are rather than as “defining characteristics” (formative).
324 B.J. Calder et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 23 (2009) 321–331
very high level or very specifically. To wit Bronner and could be used as indicators of engagement. Ideally these scales
Neijens (2006) compare the experiences of different types of should produce an acceptable fit in a measurement model and
media with the experiences of advertising content. They find, have good psychometric properties such as acceptable reliabil-
for instance, that the experience of usefulness with a site is ity and convergent and discriminant validity. We are unaware of
related to the ads on that site being experienced as useful. any previous studies of online experiences that measure such a
And Wang (2006) finds in the context of an online game that broad range of experiences with these high standards.
an online ad inviting users to play a game was more effective The present study uses the Calder–Malthouse (CM) set
than an ad that did not, suggesting that the game-ad might of media experiences (Calder and Malthouse 2004, 2005;
have benefited from the game context. Previous work has also Malthouse, Calder, and Tamhane 2007). We briefly summarize
focused specifically on the use of interactivity in online ads their methodology and argue that these experiences span the
(e.g., Ariely 2000; Chatterjee, Hoffman, and Novak 2003; engagement domain. CM conducted over 400 hour-long, in-
Pavlou and Steward 2000). Hupfer and Grey (2005) test the depth interviews with consumers about the role that specific
effect of the offer (e.g., whether there is a free sample) and websites, newspapers, magazines, and TV news programs play
user mode (e.g., goal-directed) on attitudes towards the brand in their lives. They analyzed the transcripts for common themes
and ad. and created hundreds of Likert-scale items. The items were
There are several theoretical explanations for why engage- included on surveys of website visitors, newspaper and
ment should affect reactions to advertising including affect magazine readers, and TV news viewers. Exploratory factor
transfer (e.g., Broniarczyk and Alba 1991, p. 215) and analysis identified 22 online experiences, 44 newspaper
categorization theory (Cohen and Basu 1987). Dahlén (2005) experiences, 39 magazine experiences, and 12 TV news
does a literature review of media context effects and experiences. The values of coefficient alpha suggested that
summarizes three possible theoretical rationales for why context most of the scales were reliable (some had weak reliability
should affect reactions to ads. The first is the mood because of too few items). None of the CM studies estimate
congruency–accessibility hypothesis: “The ad context makes confirmatory factor analysis models. Some experiences are
a certain mood or affect more accessible and relieves the common across media, while others are specific to a particular
processing of stimuli with similar moods or affects (p. 90).” The medium (e.g., media websites). CM also showed that their
second is the congruity principle: “the medium and the experiences are associated with usage (site usage, readership,
advertised brand converge and become more similar in and viewership) and, in the case of magazines, reactions to
consumers' minds (p. 90).” The third is that the context serves advertising.
as a cognitive prime that “activates a semantic network of In this research we had to select eight experiences from the
related material that guides attention and determines the 22 CM online ones, due to constraints on survey length and
interpretation of the ad (p. 90).” It should be noted that these respondent fatigue. Requiring our experience measures to have
explanations are not alternative explanations but rather all of an acceptable fit in a measurement model also limits the number
them are plausible mechanisms for how media context can of experiences that we can include.2 In reviewing the original 22
affect advertising. They lead us to formally hypothesize: “experiences,” we decided that some did not fit in the construct
domain because they describe the site itself rather than how the
Hypothesis 1. Engagement with the surrounding online media
site fits into the consumer's life. For example, one of the
vehicle context increases advertising effectiveness.
“experiences” was about credibility of the site and another was
about the site being easy to use. Several experiences were also
Methods and results dropped because they were specifically about the advertising on
the site.
Our methodology consisted of several steps, each of which The eight experiences and their items are displayed in Table 1.
will be discussed in this section. The first step was to select They were selected with a stratified sampling procedure from the
scales to measure experiences that span the construct domain remaining experiences so that there would be at least one from
and provide indicators of engagement. Next we executed a each of the four McQuail U&G categories (the strata) that
survey that employed the scaling measures of experiences and a characterize more traditional media, and others, such “commu-
quasi-experimental design to evaluate advertising effectiveness. nity” and “participation and socializing,” that are particularly
The survey data allowed us to evaluate the psychometric relevant to online media. We tried to avoid picking too many
properties of our experience scales and engagement by experiences from any single McQuail U&G category. For
estimating a confirmatory factor analysis measurement model example, two of the remaining experiences fit under McQuail's
for the experience scales and then a second-order factor model information category: “makes me smarter,” which is about
for engagement. The final step was to test the research keeping people up-to-date on issues that concern them, and
hypothesis that engagement increases ad effectiveness. “utilitarian,” which is more about advice and “how-to”
information. Using the flip of a coin we decided to include
Selecting experience scales utilitarian. Likewise, the original CM experiences “intrinsic
Table 2 less correlated with the first six, but moderately correlated with
Summary of confirmatory factor analysis model. the Community experience (8). Community is somewhat less
Measurement model Second-order CFA model correlated with the first six experiences. This correlation
Parameters 102 87 structure suggests that there is a higher-order factor structure
GFI .9155 .9029 generating the data.
CFI .9482 .9392 Therefore the second step in developing the measurement
NNFI .9426 .9343
model is to identify the second-order engagement factors. To do
RMSEA .0472 .0505
this we did both an exploratory and a confirmatory factor
Note. n = 5942 with 37 items.
analysis. We performed an exploratory factor analysis with a
varimax rotation on the first-order experiences and found two
eigenvalues greater than 1. The rotated factor loadings are
covariances between every pair of experiences, giving a total of provided in Table 4 and show two interpretable factors,
102 parameters. GFI, CFI, and NNFI all exceed .90, indicating hereafter called Personal Engagement and Social-Interactive
an acceptable fit. Engagement. The first six experiences from the correlation
Convergent validity was assessed with the t-values of the matrix have the largest loadings on Personal Engagement,
factor loadings, computed as the ratio of the loading to the although Community also has a cross-loading greater than .3.
standard error of the item. Convergent validity is supported Participation and Socializing as well as Community have the
when t-values reach an absolute value greater than 2. The largest loadings on Social-Interactive Engagement, but several
minimum t-value was 48.2, providing evidence in support of other experiences have sizable cross-loadings. The Utilitarian
the convergent validity of the indicators. We assess discrim- experience likely cross-loads on Social-Interactive Engagement
inant validity with the chi-square difference test. For each of because much of the advice and tips could be coming from the
the 28 pairs of experiences we estimated a separate community of users rather than from content created by
measurement model identical to the one shown in Table 2, employees of the site itself. Self-esteem likely cross-loads
except that the covariance between the pair is fixed at 1. The because contributing to an online conversation could contribute
chi-square statistics between the models were computed, and to one's self-esteem.
range from 4132 to 12,073. The differences have chi-square We then estimated a second-order confirmatory factor
distributions with 1 df, and are very highly significant, model, which is a more parsimonious model for the 37 × 37
supporting discriminant validity. covariance matrix than the measurement model for experiences.
Pearson correlations between the experiences are provided in The objective was to test whether it is plausible that the Personal
Table 3. Note that the correlations follow a pattern that suggests and Social-Interactive Engagement latent variables generate the
the possibility of second-order factors. The first six experiences observed correlation structure between the experiences and
are moderately correlated with each other, with values between items. Personal and Social-Interactive Engagement will be used
.42 and .72. Participation and Socializing (7) is substantially in the subsequent analyses of advertising effectiveness. Instead
of having 28 covariances between the experiences, we assume
that correlations between the experiences are due to two second-
Table 3 order factors. This model can represent the correlations between
Correlation matrix (treatment group only). the experiences with only 12 factor loadings shown in Table 4
Pearson correlation
above, and one additional term for the covariance between the
second-order factors. Fit statistics are also shown in Table 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
above, with CFI, GFI, and NNFI all greater than .9 suggesting a
Experience good fit. Fig. 2 shows the parameter estimates of the second-
1 Stimulation and
Inspiration
2 Social Facilitation .56
3 Temporal .51 .55 Table 4
4 Self-Esteem and Civic .65 .57 .47 Exploratory factor analysis loadings of first-order experiences.
Mindedness
Experience Factor 1 Factor 2
5 Intrinsic Enjoyment .65 .52 .62 .63
Personal Social-
6 Utilitarian .62 .52 .42 .72 .58
Engagement Interactive
7 Participation and .24 .19 .19 .29 .33 .35
Socializing Social Facilitation .768
8 Community .51 .41 .32 .53 .53 .59 .56 Temporal .753
Engagement Stimulation and Inspiration .744
9 Personal Engagement .79 .75 .78 .82 .81 .71 .32 .51 Self-Esteem and Civic .710 .375
10 Interactive .52 .43 .43 .69 .61 .67 .77 .77 .74 Mindedness
Engagement Intrinsic Enjoyment .701 .366
Advertising Utilitarian .612 .472
11 Click Intention .24 .19 .15 .25 .23 .27 .12 .23 .27 .26 Participation and Socializing .881
12 Attitude Towards Ad .30 .23 .19 .31 .29 .31 .14 .27 .34 .32 Community .361 .755
Note. All correlations are significantly different from 0 at the .0001 level. Note. Loadings less than .3 were omitted.
B.J. Calder et al. / Journal of Interactive Marketing 23 (2009) 321–331 327
order factor structure. The loadings for the 37 items were very papers while Social-Interactive Engagement is more specific to
similar to those from the measurement model above and have websites. As reflected the loadings in Fig. 2, with Personal
been omitted. Note that the second-order factor model finds a Engagement, users seek stimulation and inspiration from the
significant correlation between the two engagement latent site, they want to use the site to facilitate their interactions with
variables. In the analyses that follow, we estimate the two other people, they feel the site affirms their self-worth, they get
engagement factors using a weighted average of the experi- a sense of intrinsic enjoyment in using the site itself, they feel it
ences, with the factor loadings as weights. is useful for achieving goals, and they value input from other
Personal Engagement is manifested in experiences that are users. With Social-Interactive Engagement, users experience
similar to those that people have with newspapers and some of the same things in terms of intrinsic enjoyment,
magazines. For example, experience items such as “This site utilitarian worth, and valuing the input from the larger
makes me think of things in new ways” or “This site often gives community of users but in a way that links to a sense of
me something to talk about” could also apply to a newspaper or participating with others and socializing on the site. Thus
magazine. Social-Interactive Engagement, however, is more Social-Interactive Engagement is motivated both intrinsically
specific to websites. Items such as “I do quite a bit of socializing and extrinsically, but in this case it is the social relevance of
on this site” and “I contribute to the conversation on this site” these, rather than their personal or individual quality, that is
would not characterize a newspaper or magazine, and we did associated with the larger engagement experience. And it is the
not hear such statements in our qualitative interviews for these valuing of input from the community and sense of participating
media. While Social-Interactive Engagement is more closely with others and socializing that gives Social-Interactive
associated with the web, aspects of it can be found for other Engagement its dominant character.
media. For example, “A big reason I like this site is what I get
from other users” could also apply to the letters-to-the-editor The relationship between engagement and advertising
page of a daily newspaper. The Utilitarian experience is a effectiveness
manifestation of both forms of engagement. Service oriented
websites (e.g., bhg.com — Better Homes and Gardens) will We now test the hypothesis (H1) that engagement predicts
have a prominent utilitarian component as will user-contributed ad effectiveness. Users of the 11 media websites were
advice sites (e.g., Yahoo!Answers or chowhound.com). intercepted during their visit to the site and asked to complete
In sum, the measurement model and values of coefficient a survey. Participants answered questions about their use of,
alpha have shown that the eight experiences have been and experiences with, this website. They were then shown an
measured reliably and support the convergent and discriminant ad for orbitz.com (an online travel agency) and asked to rate
validity of the scales. The second-order analysis shows it using standard copy-testing measures and their intention to
two engagement factors, Personal Engagement and Social- click on the ad. A travel agency was used because travel is
Interactive Engagement. Personal Engagement is manifested in potentially relevant to most internet users and this category
experiences that have counterparts in magazines and news- often advertises with banner ads. We shall relate engagement
Hoffman, Donna and Thomas Novak (2009), “Flow Online: Lessons Learned Rappaport, Stephen (2007), “Lessons from Online Practice: New Advertising
and Future Prospects,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(1). Models,” Journal of Advertising Research, 47(2), 135.
Hupfer, Maureen and Alex Grey (2005), “Getting Something for Nothing: The Ruggiero, Thomas (2000), “Uses and Gratifications Theory in the 21st
Impact of a Sample Offer and User Mode on Banner Ad Response,” Journal Century,” Mass Communication and Society, 3(1), 3–37.
of Interactive Advertising, 6(1), http://jiad.org/article74. Sawhney, Mohanbir, Gianmario Verona, and Emanuela Prandelli (2005),
Jarvis, Cheryl Burke, Scott Mackenzie, and Philip Podsakoff (2003), “A Critical “Collaborating to Create: the Internet as a Platform for Customer Engagement
Review of Construct Indicators and Measurement Model Misspecification in in Product Innovation,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19(4), 4–17.
Marketing and Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30, Sen, Shahana and Dawn Lerman (2007), “Why are you telling me this? An
199–218. Examination into Negative Consumer Reviews on the Web,” Journal of
Malthouse, Edward C., Bobby J. Calder, and A.C. Tamhane (2007), “The Interactive Marketing, 21(4), 76–94.
Effects of Media Context Experience on Advertising Effectiveness,” Shankar, Venkatesh and Sridhar Balasubramanian (2009), “Mobile Marketing:
Journal of Advertising, 36(6), 7. A Synthesis and Prognosis,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(2),
Marc, Marcel (1966), “Using Readership Quality in Magazine Selection,” 118–29.
Journal of Advertising Research, 6(4), 9–13. ——— and Marie Hollinger (2007), “Online and Mobile Advertising: Current
Mathwick, Charla (2002), “Understanding the Online Consumer: A Typology of Scenario, Emerging Trends, and Future Directions,” MSI Report No. 07-
Online Relational Norms and Behavior,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 206, Marketing Science Institute.
16(1), 40. Sternthal, Brian, Alice Tybout, and Bobby Calder (1987), “Confirmatory Versus
McQuail, Denis (1983), Mass Communication Theory, an Introduction. Comparative Approaches to Theory Testing,” Journal of Consumer
London: Sage Publications. Research, 14(114).
Nambisan, Ratish and Robert Baron (2007), “Interactions in Virtual Customer Thorbjørnsen, Helge, Magne Supphellen, Herbjørn Nysveen, and Per Egil
Environments: Implications for Product Support and Customer Relationship Pederson (2002), “Building Brand Relationships Online: A Comparison of
Management,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(2), 42–62. Two Interactive Applications,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(3), 17.
Nicovich, S.G. (2005), “The Effect of Involvement on Ad Judgment in a Video Tremayne, Mark (2005), “Lessons Learned from Experiments with Interactivity
Game Environment: The Mediating Role of Presence,” Journal of on the Web,” Journal of Interactive Advertising, 5(2), http://www.jiad.org/
Interactive Advertising, 6(1). article62.
Pavlou, Paul and David Steward (2000), “Measuring the Effects and Wang, Alex (2006), “Advertising Engagement: A Driver of Message
Effectiveness of Interactive Advertising: A Research Agenda,” Journal of Involvement on Message Effects,” Journal of Advertising Research, 46(4),
Interactive Advertising, 1(1), 5. 355.
Prahalad, C.K. and Venkat Ramaswamy (2004), “Co-Creation Experiences: The Winer, Russell (2009), “New Communications Approaches in Marketing:
Next Practice in Value Creation,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), Issues and Research Directions,” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(2),
5–14. 108–17.