Lecture 1 - Intro & How Marcoms Work I: Explicit Attitudes

How do Marcom works?

 Article 1: Belch & Belch: Integrated Marcom perspective.

We often think of advertising. But it has become much more. It is much more about integrating all
marketing activities that communicate with stakeholders. And we focus on consumers. 
We can summarize best: building a strong brand. They argue that the current focus of Marcom is on
building relationships. They say that Marcom entered the relationship era. It is not about selling more,
but building sustainable relationships. Engaging people. Building trust. So Belch & Belch, argue that it
is more about positive word of mouth. Not hard sales. But it is about using Marcom to increase market
share. So in the end it is about sales. And marcom contributes to sales and market share.

Touch points
Marketeers have different ‘touch points’ to communicate with stakeholders. You can distinguish
between 4 categories of touchpoints. If we communicate with our stakeholders, then we have different
contact tools or touch points. 
1. Company Created Touchpoints
 All the planned Marcom: advertising, the website, point of purchase
displace,packaging of products. Created by the company. One way to communicate to
your consumers.
2. Intrinsic Touch Points
 All interactions between the brand and the consumer.
 Think of: sales or advice talk.
 Between the brands and the customer. 
3. Customer Initiated Touchpoints
 When the consumer starts the contact. When you have a complaint.
4. Unexpected Touchpoints
 Refers to situations in which consumers gets info that is unplanned by the company.
 Word of mouth

Contact Tools: 2 dimensions

The way they communicate they differ with the impact and the control. The ability to influence.
Advertising is fully under the control, but low impact. If you look at unexpected touch point, they have a
high impact but much more difficult. For example, Word of Mouth. Can have a lot of impact. But is
more difficult to influence this by the company. 
IMC Planning Model
There are different moments, where brand communication happens. And to have more grip on this.
They introduced the Integrated MarCom Model. You See that there are many topics. 
We will zoom in on several topics. Not at all. We use it just as a framework. 

 Article 2: De Pelsmacker et al.

I: How Marcoms Work 1: Explicit Attiudes

How doe Marketing Communications work? How does the consumer respond to and process
Marcom?
We will be thinking through which routes Marcom can have an impact. With impact we mean ->
Consumer behavior. 
The topic of today we are in the upper level of the IMC Planning Model. We will focus on: Analyzing
the communication process.

We will analyze the receiver’s response processes. 

There are many concepts, models and theories that all say something about how Marcom work. 

How Marcoms work I: Pelsmacker

[How Marcoms Work I] → [Explicit Brand Attitudes] → [Consumer Behavior]
We will look at the models described in the book of the Pelsmacker. They describe routes how
marcom can influence brand attitudes. These attitudes, how positive we are about the brand, predict
consumer behavior. All these models say something about how marketing communications can
influence our explicit brand attitudes. Reflective vs. spontaneous attitudes. These models both think
that persuasion is needed. In the third lecture we will challenge this assumption. We will discuss that
brand salience is much more important than brand persuasion. 
Attitude formation and change
Attitudes are relatively stable, but through Marcom we can change them over time. 
 Attitude toward the brand
 3 components of behavior (!!)
o Affective Component
 Feelings associated with the object
o Cognitive Component
 Knowledge, beliefs and evaluations of the object
o Behavioral Component
 The action readiness with regard to the object

They target mainly one of these components. ‘How stylish the jeans are’ they might target the affective
component. ‘You get a free gadget’ they influence this behavioral component.
It is difficult to predit how consumers will respond. You need to

Classifying models/processes
All these different models can be classified along 2 dimensions.
1. The way attitudes are formed
What attitude component is targeted? So first think about which component is targeted. 
2. The level of Elaboration likelihood of the message 
How a consumer will process the information. 
Then you will end up in one of the sections in the table. 

MAO Factors
The model that tells us something about these factors on the information processing. Is the ELM
model. When all these MAO factors are high, then consumers will have a high elaboration likelihood
and the model proposes that they will take more time to process. 

Today we talk about some of these models. 

If motivation, ability and opportunity are all high. And the cognitive attidue component is targeted. Then
there are 2 models relevant; Mutli Attibute Models & Self-generated Persuasion.

Multi Attribute Model: Theory of Planned Behavior

Under these conditions, attitudes are formed through a rational process. 
So consumers evaluate brand attributes and they calculate what should be the best brand. This is a
super rational process. 

Classical Conditioning
Classical Conditioning = In the context of advertising, pairing the brand with liked events. Besides
mere exposure, when ELM is low, the effective component is targeted. The idea of classical
conditioning can explain how MarCom work. 
Positively influencing brand attitudes, by pairing the brand with positive stimili.
The liking is transferred to the product.
Example = ‘Coca Cola’
Images of smiling people

Stimulus generalization = the conditioning effect is transferred to a similar brand name. It can be
good or bad news. When the response to one stimulus is elicited by a similar but distinct stimulus. We
advertise the snicker bar, and we are successful in the conditioning effect. Then if snicker’s has a
brand extended (with ice cream). If this ice cream elicits the same brand, the positive effect is
transferred. But that is also bad when there are copy cats.
 But the order of the pairing matters. Forward conditioning works better than back ward
conditioning. Present positive images always after the brand name. 

Explicit vs implicit brand attitudes

They focus on how marketing communication  can influence the formation of explicit attitudes. You use
a rating scale about how positive or negative you are about your brand. It is your overall evaluation of
a brand. But we don’t know what role implicit brand attitudes play. These are more spontaneous
reactions. Explicit attitudes capture a more rational process, while implicit brand attitudes step into the
more spontaneous more effective reactions towards brands. We will talk about the difference in lecture
2. That is what we will discuss in Lecture 2. 
Summary

Hoorcollege 2

Theme: How marcoms work II: Implicit attitudes

What will we discuss

The models and processes discussed in the previous lecture predominantly focus on the formation of
explicit attitudes in response to marketing communications, the idea being that
these attitudes influence subsequent purchase intentions and behavior. However, marketing
communications may also influence consumers’ implicit attitudes. We will discuss
questions such as if and when implicit attitudes contribute to the prediction of consumer behavior.

I: How do consumers process and respond to marcoms (for example advertising)

We will talk about models to understand the routes how the consumer buy stuff. We are analyzing the
communication process. The receiver's response. To select a model, we have to answer 2 questions:
what attitude component is being targeted? And: What is the likelihood of elaboration? We talk today
about implicit brand attitudes. They are different from explicit attitudes. We need to ‘persuade’ the
consumers, according to this literature. It is needed to stimulate consumer behavior. But there are also
scientists that think that convincing is overrated, we need the consumer to think about the brand at the
right moment. The memorable accessibility of the brand. That is a different stream of scholars. 

II: Implicit brand attitudes

Why are implicit brand attitudes important?

Normally explicit measures are used to get insights in the feelings of the consumer. 
 Explicit (or direct) self-report measures
o Likert or semantic differential scales  
o Heineken is: negative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 positive (for example)
    But there are some drawbacks of this method.
 Drawbacks  
o Require conscious access and willingness to retrieve attitudes  
  Consumer must be willing to
o Self-report biases (e.g., social desirability, impression management)  
 This could happen in the context of Marcom. If consumers want to give a
socially desirable answer. For example, fair trade products. 
o Tap into more elaborated thoughts rather than spontaneous reactions  
 This is the most important one
 Drawbacks restrict predictive validity of explicit attitudes
o Why? Recent theories of consumer behavior, that it is influenced by explicit but also
implicit attitudes (spontaneous). If we measure both, we get a better picture of the
drivers of the consumer behavior.

How to measure implicit brand attitudes

 Early approaches to prevent self-report biases  
o Indirect (vs. direct) self-assessments of attitudes 
o Less obviously.
 Error-choice technique is an old measure. It has been done for a long time. 
o Knowledge test: participants choose between 2 answer options  
o Both options are wrong, but either favorably or unfavorably biased for the product  
o Underlying attitude toward product influences answer  
 This is an indirect way of trying to measure brand attitudes
 For examaple = How much has the fat content of these potato chips been reduced? (real
answer = 10%) Options that they give: > 5% > 15%. If they choose 15% they have a more
positive attitude towards chips. 

 Current approaches, there are many more measures now. Because of the computers.   
o Reaction time-based techniques  
 Implicit vs. explicit measures: what is different?  What are their criteria?
o No awareness of what is being assessed  
o Assessed content not available for introspection  
 Prevents well thought-out responses  
o More difficult to fake  
 indirect measures measure true attitudes
 Capture spontaneous, gut-level responses that are often effectively toned 
o (and not necessarily endorsed by the person if asked directly
An example of the implicit measures is the Implicit Association Test (IAT).
→ Two dutch brands. They see pictures. Consumers have to respond very quick. Spontaneous
reactions towards the brands. They do several rounds.
So the difference is in the way we measure them (explicit vs implicit brand attitudes). 

Now we will look at some research of scholars who use these explicit or implicit ways of measuring
behavior. 

Brand attitudes: explicit-implicit relationship

 Can brands (marcoms) influence implicit attitudes?
o We will talk about the concept of implicit brand attitudes as the dependent variable
 What does implicit add to understanding brand attitudes? >
 Explicit-implicit brand attitudes relationship
o Implicit attitudes as DV

Now we get some examples, you don’t have to know them. 

Study of Maison et al. (2004): two yoghurt brands 

 Maison et al. (2004, Journal of Consumer Psychology)
 They researched attitudes towards two yogurt brands: Danone & Bakoma 
o Social desirability concerns? 
 If social desirability doesn’t play a part, then explicit and implicit brand
attitudes won’t differ that much. 
o Questionnaire: explicit attitudes, preference, current use 
o IAT: pictures yogurt brands, pleasant / unpleasant words 
 Results = 
o Danone (Bakoma) users more positive about Danone (Bakoma) 
 For both explicit and implicit attitudes 
o  Correlation implicit-explicit, r = .47 
 IAT can be used to measure implicit brand attitudes

Study of Vantomme: attitude towards fairtrade brand

 Attitude towards fair-trade brand
o Social desirability concerns?
 Perhaps social desirability concerns play a bigger role. They express positive
attitudes, but their actual buying behaviors can be different.
o Questionnaire: explicit attitudes, current buying behavior
o IAT: pictures fair-trade and traditional products, pleasant / unpleasant words 
 Results = 
o Explicit attitudes: overall more positive toward fair-trade 
o Implicit attitudes:
  Buyers: more positive to fair-trade 
  Non-buyers: more negative to fair-trade  
 IAT might explain intention-behavior gap

 Article 1: Gibson (2008) Study 1

Gibson: classical conditioning and implicit brand attitudes

Classical conditioning in the sense of advertising → it is about pairing the product with pleasent or
liked events. It transfers to the product. And then they are more likely to buy the products. This is a
model (low elm, affective component)
 Classical conditioning in marcoms 
o By pairing the product with pleasant, liked events, it is hoped that a bit of the liking
“rubs of” on the product and that because of this, consumers will afterwards be more
likely to buy the product > 
 o Based on Pavlov’s classical conditioning theory

 Evaluative (or classical) conditioning (EC) ⇒  brand attitudes toward mature brands (Coke and
Pepsi)  
 Builds on previous work using explicit attitude measures showing stronger EC-effect for  
o Contingency-aware participants  
 This means that they are aware of the pairing
o Novel brands 
 Conditioning seems only to be effective for novel brands
 Hypothesis according to Gibson
o EC (Classical conditioning) will alter implicit (but not explicit) attitudes for mature
brands, but only when initial attitude is neutral
 Only the implicit level
 People should not already have a really positive or negative attidue towards a
brand. 
 It can influence implicit attitudes. There should be ‘room for change’ how he
calls it.

He did a pre-test to measure their preference. Then they completed a conditioning task. Then he
measured explicit attitudes and then AIT to measure implicit atittudes. 

Results: Experiment 1
At the results you can see that also for Gibson’s experiment it is true that classical conditioning doesn’t
have an effect on explicit attitudes for mature brands. But Gibson also measured implicit attitudes! So
what are the results? Neutral participants, they are more positive about coca cola (if it was paired with
positive stimuli) and more positive about pepsi (if it was paired with positive stimuli)

Most important conclusion = EC (Classical conditioning) will alter implicit (but not explicit) attitudes for
mature brands, but only when initial attitude is neutral

 No EC-effect on explicit brand attitudes 

o Cf. no EC-effect for familiar stimuli (mature brand) > 
 Successful EC-effect on implicit brand attitudes > 
o But only for those with initial neutral brand attitude > 
 Implicit-explicit related, r = .51 > 
o No social desirability concerns
III: Do implicit brand attitudes predict consumer behavior?

 Predictive validity of implicit brand attitudes

o Implicit attitudes as IV  
    There are two different ideas about the predictive validity of implicit brand attitudes. 
 Over and above explicit (attitude) measures? → Can we improve our prediction of consumer
behavior with implicit measures?
o Perspective 1: Additive model 
 Under what circumstances do implicit measures predict consumer behavior? → when and
what kind of consumer behavior can we predict with implicit measures?
o Perspective 2: Moderator model

Additive Model
If consumer behavior is partly influenced by spontaneous processes, implicit measures should explain
unique variance over and above explicit measures

The additive model proposes if we measure both, we should be able to predict more of the consumer
behavior. But what is the evidence? There is mixed evidence. 
 Implicit adds to prediction in some (fairtrade example), but fails in other studies (yoghurt
example)
 Explicit attitudes = dominant predictor
The Moderator Model
 Under what circumstances do implicit measures predict consumer behavior? 
o I.e., how attitudes guide behavior  
 MODE model (Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999)  
o Motivation and Opportunity as DEterminants model  
 RIM (Strack & Deutsch, 2004) > Reflective-Impulsive Model

Explicit attitudes predict behavior when rational processes guide our behavior. Implicit attitudes predict
when spontaneous processes guide our behavior. So when? If people have enough resources (time,
good in exerting self-control, cognitive capacity), then explicit brand attitudes are the main predictor.
But, when they don’t have much resources (time pressure, don’t have self-control) then the idea is that
implicit attitudes are more likely to predict behavior. Both are important, they predict behavior under
different conditions. 

 Article 2: Freise, Wänke & Plessner (2006)

They illustrate the moderator perspective. They had to choose between private supermarkt labels the
AH ice tea, or the famous brand (lipton ice tea). Before implicit and explicit attitudes were measured.
Half of the participants had to choose in time pressure. The question was: whether their choice was
consistent with their explicit attitudes? When you have enough time, their choice was consistent. Even
if their implicit were different. But with time pressure, more influenced by implicit attiudes. 

 Article 3: Gibson (2008) Study 2

The second experiment of Gibson

 Replicate conditioning effects for neutral participants + product choice task 
o He added a choice task. 
 Hypotheses 
o Choice Coke/Pepsi will correspond to conditioning-procedure 
 Implicit attidues will predict brand choice
o Implicit brand attitudes will predict brand choice 
o but only under cognitive load!  
 Consumers have less resources to control their behavior
 2 (cognitive load: yes/no) x 2 (conditioning group: Coke positive, Pepsi positive) > 
 Manipulation →  cognitive load
o What did they had to do? Remember 8-digit number during choice task or not

Results
 There was no effect on explicit attitudes

The conditioning was successful. 

Low cognitive load → no conditioning load

High cognitive load → conditioning works

Do implicit attitudes predict product choice?

 Do implicit attitudes predict product choice?  
  Low cognitive load (sufficient resources)
o IAT unrelated to product choice
o Explicit attitudes predominant predictor  
 High cognitive load (low resources)
o IAT related to product choice 
o Implicit attitudes improve prediction

→ consistent with the moderator model

IV: Practical implications 

Practical implications
 Lab / artificial situations?  
o Situations are common in daily life > 
o Consumer decision making while doing secondary tasks > 
o Time pressure: shopping before closing time > 
o Self-regulatory resources vary during the day > 
 Market research  
o Implicit measures useful to  
o Capture more spontaneous evaluations  
o Measure true attitudes?  
o Detect effects unnoticed by explicit self-report attitudes > Improve prediction of
consumer behavior
Hoorcollege 3 - How Marcoms work III: Persuasion vs. brand salience

What will we discuss?

In the previous lectures on how marcoms work, we (more or less explicitly) assumed that marketing
communications need to persuade the consumer in order to positively influence their behavior. Thus,
successful advertising, for instance, should offer persuasive arguments or a unique selling proposition
that differentiates the advertised brand from its competitors. In this lecture, we will challenge these
notions by discussing research that suggests that brand salience might be more important than brand
attitudes.

I: Marketing thinking vs. Real world

Do we need meaningful differentiation?

An example
 Imagine that you are the marcoms manager for McDonald’s. Which of below consumers is a
better customer for you?
o Guido: I eat McDonald’s every day. I have never tried another hamburger, and I never
will.
o Charles: I don’t eat junk food very often, but every now and again I grab a burger.
When I do I usually get Burger King’s because it’s just around the corner – but
sometimes I go to McDonald’s.
No marketeer should expect all their customers to be like Guido – yet plenty of marketers (and
textbooks) maintain that one of the most important roles of a marketer is to get existing customers to
buy more, to love the brand and to be 100% loyal.
→ Marketeers want people to be more like Guido, but most of the customers are like Charles
This unrealistic marketing vision is also represented in these marketing funnels. These marketing
funnels are developed to be training sales people. But are they also applciable in advertising?
Marketing professionals want ‘brand love’ and ‘loyalty’. They want deep relationships with their
consumers. 

Loyal switchers
People who are 100% ‘loyals’ are the minority. We usually are ‘loyal switchers’. If you look at data
there are hardly consumers who are 100% loyals. This holds for every type of products. Also high-
involvement products. Most consumers are loyal to a number of brands. We have a fixed repertoire
from which we choose a brand. We are ‘loyal switchers’. Another thing that is important to know is that
most customers are light buyers. 

Light buyers & brand fanatics

!! Most customers are light buyers. Even the ‘100% loyals’. Buying rates follow negative binomial
distribution. The majority of the customers buy your brand only one of few times per year. The
distribution of buying behavior is very skewed. 
 Brand fanatics: Every brand has a few very loyal and heavy buyers, a few passionate
advocates  
o How important are these consumers?  
o Do brands need to strive for 100% loyalty and brand love? 
 Maybe it is more efficient to focus on the ‘light buyers’ 
 OK…..forget about brand love, but we should meaningfully differentiate our brand from the
competitor!

Differentiation according to scholars

We want to differentiate our brands from other brands. Scholars argue that differentiation is super
important! That is why we think that it is important to do it.
According to this view, we should use MARCOM to communicate how our brand is different from other
brands. Differentiation is considered to be crucial. But then this should also matter to consumers you
would say.

Perceived brand differentiation

 Differentiation = has to be perceived by customers as different and must be valued 
(meaningful value)
o Product feature or symbolic or emotional  
o Unique selling proposition (USP)  
o Reason why people buy your brand  
 If brands are really meaningfully differentiated, then …  
o Brands might attract different types of customers ⇒  brand user profiles largely
similar  
o Give them a reason to choose your brand
o Less price sensitive customers ⇒  similar across brands
 Consumers who buy nike, are similar to consumers who buy adidas. So is
there evidence for differentiation? That it works?

 Article 1: Romaniuk, Sharp & Ehrenberg (2007)

In this article the scholars try to answer the question: is there evidence that differentiation (meaningful
differentiation) actually works? 

Romaniuk et al (2007): do they have evidence for this?

 If differentiation is key reason for buying:  
o Brand buyers should be more likely to say the brand is different and /or unique  
 Methods
o Data from various markets (cars, beers, banking etc.)
o Telephone interviews (Australian), self-report questionnaires (UK)  
o First way → Pick any approach  
 Attributes (different, unique, …, …)  
 Which brands do you associate with this attribute?  
o Second way → 5-point rating scale  
 Attribute: not at all descriptive – extremely descriptive 
o Same patterns across different methods

Their results
In the results, you see that consumers don’t really notice the differentiation made by brands. 

 10% of brand buyers perceive their brand to be different or unique

 15-20% state their brand is either different or unique
  All markets follow similar pattern (see table 2)

 Similar pattern with rating scale

 Majority below midpoint (3)
o It should be above, if people notice differentiation

Conclusions
 Most buyers don’t perceive their brand to be differentiated from other brands 
o Also holds for Apple! (see table 5)  
 Exceptions – brands with functional difference?  
o Aldi (67% different)  
o Subway (50% unique)  
 Are perceptions of brand differentiation important drivers of consumer behavior?  
o Differentiate or die?! → that is overrated

Recap: marketing thinking vs. real world

 Most buyers are light buyers 
o No need to strive for 100% loyalty or brand love  
 Most consumers don’t perceive meaningful brand differentiation  
 Suggest we don’t need to convince consumers that our brand is different 
o  No persuasion (e.g., USPs) needed in marcoms?
 Consumers are busy living their lives, have many more important things to do than thinking
about brands 
o Gucci or Prada, Nike or Adidas – usually happy with either  
o Don’t spend time on really evaluating brands  
o Most buying is repeat-buying, driven by habits / convenience
→ Brand awareness and brand salience, are they more important than evaluation (= persuasion)? Is it
more about mental availability? (- Sharp, 2010) You should really look at real life data according to
Byron Sharp. How do they really behave? 

II: Persuasion (brand attitudes) vs. brand salience

  Article 2: MacDonald & Sharp (2000)

In this study they focus on low involvement situations. 

Brand Awareness
 Brand awareness is key in low-involvement situations, it influences 
o Which brands enter consideration set  
 What brand we will select!
o Selection from consideration set  
 This study: replication of Hoyer & Brown (1990) about decisions regarding repeat purchase
product
o Know the theory, reasoning, results etc with regard to brand awareness.

What did they do

 Participants made series of brand choices for orange soft drink (each trial presented 3
brands) 
o Each time participants had to select a brand. 
 Most important IV (independent variable): Brand Awareness 
o High awareness condition: 1 well-known brand, 2 unknown brands  
o No awareness condition: 3 unknown brands 
o (other IVs: researchers also varied quality and price) 
 Most important DVs (dependent variables) 
o Brand selection in high awareness condition 
o Nature choice tactic (Why did you select this brand?) 
 To get more insights in the heuristic, the decision rules 
o Number of brands sampled
 They could taste the brands

Results
 High awareness condition 
o 85.5% selected well-known brand on first trial  
o Reasons: known brand (48.3%), combination known brand + price (18.9%)  
 Low awareness condition  
o Reasons: package (34.3%), price + other (30.7%)

 Well-known brand in choice set (vs. only unknown brands)?  

o Consumers take less time to decide  
o Sample fewer other brands  
o This suggests → They care less about other product attributes (e.g., price, quality)  
 No familiar brand?  
o Consumers seem to exert more decision effort by evaluating other attributes
o They put in much more effort, they evaluate other attributes such as packaging,
ingredients and price
If there is a well-known brand, consumers need less effort to make a choice. So brand awareness is
used as a heuristic to make a choice. Brand awareness is important!
When this is high, persuasion is less important. This fits with the idea of Scholars like Byron & Sharp.
The stream that argues that it is more about the mental availability of the brands. ‘Brand salience’.
Brand salience is the ability to stand out. 

From awareness to brand salience

 MacDonald & Sharp (2000)  
o Important role of brand awareness  
o Awareness refers to recognition / recall (e.g., TOMA)  
  Brand salience 
o Salience =  ability to ‘stand out’  
o Brand salience = propensity of the brand to be thought of by buyers (i.e., ‘stand out’
from memory) in buying situations 
o Accessibility of the brand from long-term memory across buying situations
o It is more than brand awareness alone. 

Brand salience: what is it

 Brand salience ≠ brand awareness  
o TOMA: what brands come to mind when asked to recall brands within a category à
link product categories – brands  
 Top of mind awareness
 It is about a link between the product category and brands
o Brand salience is about links brand – all kinds of associations (i.e., more than only
product category as cue)  
 The brand an all kinds of associations. It is more of than just the product
category. More cues that have a link with a brand.
 Brand salience ≠ brand attitude  
o Attitude: evaluating the brand (is it a good brand?)  
 How good does the consumer think the brand is? How favorable is somebody
toward a particular brand?
o Salience: having a chance of being thought of (are you likely to notice /retrieve the
brand in that buying situation?)  
 Do you think about the brand, not what you think about it or how favorable
you are toward it
 If we talk about brand salience it is about the accesibility of the association
and not the evaluation
These terms are relevant for each other but they mean something different. 

Brand salience: what drives it?

 Quantity and quality of memory structures
o It varies as a function of quantity or quality of memory structures
 Quantity
o The more memory structures (associations) brand is linked to, the more salient the
brand  
 if there are more cues linked, then if more cues trigger the brand in your
memory. Then the brand is more salient. 
o Important because mental cues that trigger brand can vary across buying situations
 Quality
o Function of strength and relevance association  
 If the association is strong and relevant the brand becomes more salient
o Lidl is cheap (strong link because of all ads) and this is relevant to me because I’m on
a budget

Brand salience: associative network

This picture shows the idea of brand salience. 

 Article 3: Trembath, Romaniuk & Lockshin (2011)

They compare the predictive validity for brand attitudes and brand salience. What predicts the choice?
Salience or attitudes?

Persuasion (attitudes) vs. brand salience

 Trembath, Romaniuk, & Lockshin (2011)  
o Compare predictive validity brand salience vs. brand attitudes 
o  For typical high-involvement (high elaboration likelihood) product:  
 Travel destinations  
 Online quantitative survey 
o DV: intention to visit 7 destinations (cities) 
o IVs (or predictors)  
 Brand salience  
 Brand attitudes (cf. TPB: belief [attribute] * evaluation)  
 Past behavior (visits)

The research
How did they measure brand salience? You see how in this picture above. Which places come to
mind? They have to fill it in.

Results

 For each city, they see that brand salience predicted participants intention to visit the cities
 But brand awareness didn’t. 

Recap: persuasion vs. brand salience

 Persuasion approach to marcoms 
o Increase positive attitudes by linking the brand to important brand attributes (e.g.,
USP) to enhance consumer’s overall evaluation to influence brand choice 
o ‘Persuasion approach’ -> increase positive attitudes by linking positive events
o ‘Brand salience approach’ -> building and refreshing memory structures. 
 Brand salience approach to marcoms  
o Build and refresh memory structures to increase thinking about your brand across
buying situations  
 Brand salience ≠ brand awareness ≠ brand attitudes

III: Implications for marcoms

According to the literature of today we need to build brand salience. 

But how?

In order to build brand salience you should focus on distinctiveness. This relates to branding. You
should make it super easy for consumers to identify your brand.

 OK…we don’t need to persuade consumers using meaningful differentiation 

 We need to build brand salience….how?
  Focus on distinctiveness (Romaniuk et al., 2007; Sharp, 2010)  
o Cf. traditional branding: make it easy to identify brand!  
o Meaningless differentiation
 Not why! But elements without value for consumers
 Like a logo, a brand name etc.  
o Communicate distinctive brand elements  
 Examples of distinctive brand elements: 
 Colors
  Logos
 aglines
 Packaging
 Symbols
o Not why people buy brand (as in meaningful differentiation), typically of no value for
consumer  
 Brand name (always unique), but also other qualities that help
consumer to notice, recognize and recall brand – when brand is
advertised and in buying situations

Distinctive brand elements

 Distinctive elements = anything that shows people what brand a product is  
 Can be used to build, refresh or reinforce consumer memory structures  
 The stronger and fresher link elements – brand, the easier to identify and think of brand  
 Distinctive elements are unique and prevalent 
o Should not be linked to competitor 
o Majority of consumers link brand to element

Building distinctive brand elements

 Need to be learned by consumers
 Takes a lot of time
 Consistently communicate across all media and over time
o Note: ‘consistency’ in IMC-textbooks mostly relates to brand’s message and
positioning, not to visual, verbal or style of branding elements
 They talk about being consistent in the message. But not style elements. But
this literature says that you should also be consistent in your ‘brand
elements’. 

Today’s conclusions

There are many strong marketing ideas, but many are not supported by empirical data. Instead of
focussing on positive brand attitudes, there are scholars who think about brand salience as the most
important. You should communicate a reason to buy (USP), but the brand salience perspective says:
you should make sure people think of your brand across different buying situations. 

Hoorcollege 5 - Social Influencer Marketing

I: Important theories explaining influencer marketing effects

Types of social media influencers

 Social media influencer
 o Someone who build a large network of people following them and uses it, to promote
brands and products
 A social media celebrity influencer
o Someone who is well-known among consumers, because of media performance or
his profession and uses this familiarity to promote brands and products.

These influencers have large networks of followers. So they can influence a lot of people. That is why
many advertisers are using influencers to promote their brands and products. The literature indicates
that almost 75% of advertisers are using influencer marketing in their marketing mix. 

Social influence & social identity

Langner, Hennigs & Wiedmann (2013) talked about social influence and social identity. Let’s have a
look at the social identity theory. 
 Influencer marketing is rooted in social identity theory  
o What is social identity? An individual knowledge that he belongs to a social group.
These groups have norms and values. 
 Strong connection between belonging to a social group and buying behavior-> self derives
from group membership 
o The self concept, the image of an individual can be derived from belonging to a social
groups. The common values can serve as a motive to buy products. It is important to
let individuals conform to this group, to make values salient in these groups.
o Some people can increase this salience more. Who are the leaders? 
 Brands and products represent the social identity of consumers 
 Marketeers can target consumers by use of social influencers

Identification with social influencers

How can you identify an influencer? There are factors identified why specific persons are able to
influence group behavior (Langner, et. al. 2013):
 Individual capital: expertise and knowledge, involvement, mavenism 
o About a product, is essential to divine influence for an individual
o The interest of the individual in the area of products. Which motivates them to spread
information (involvement)
o Individuals who have info about a lot of products and how to shop, they like to initiate
discussions with consumers and respond to them (mavenism)
 Social capital: ego drive, independence, and Machiavellianism  
o Strong points of view and like to persuade others (ego drive)
o Enables them to think without any constraints (independence)
o Degree of power seeking, dominance seeking in an individual (Machiavellianism)
 Social leadership: personality strength, leadership abilities, leadership narcissism
o People with high personality strength, have larger social networks 

These are important drivers of social influencers. Now we will look at some models that can be used
as an introduction the article of Ying and Phuan. 

McCracken’s model of meaning transfer

Meaning transfer model. This model of meaning transfer is used to explain endorsement.
The process of influence is described. 
 Endorsers gain (cultural) meaning from their careers (e.g., TV, sport, lifestyle, status)
o An endorser brings their meaning to the add, and it is transferred to the product. And
then the meaning is transferred to the consumer.
 Meaning transfer: Meaning endorser-> Ad -> Product-> Consumer
The meaning transfer can only take place when there is a fit between the endorser and the product or
consumer. The match-up hypothesis talks about this. 

Match-up hypothesis and source credibility

Now we look at the match-up hypothesis and source credibility. These characteristics in the match-
up hypothesis is based on source credibility theory. This theory distinguishes between two types of
characteristics who are important of the perceptions of ‘fit’. 
 Attractiveness
o similarity of source and receiver 
 in lifestyle, opinions and personal trades
o familiarity 
 through exposure in the media
o likeability
 affection for this source as a result of physical appearance or behavior
 Source Credibility 
o knowledge
o experience
o trustworthiness
Based on the type of product, different source characteristics can play a role.

Main conclusions
 Relevant theories/models that may explain the the influencer marketing effects are:
o Social identity theory 
o Social capital theory  
o Meaning transfer model  
o Source credibility theory
These theories and models are important for reading the article of Jin & Phua (2014).

II: Effect social media celebrity influencers at Twitter: the role of network size and the role of
negative and positive news

 Article 1: Jin & Phua (2014)

This article introduces important theories. And effects of social influencer marketing. And social
identity theory, social capital theory and source credibility. 
We look at product engagement and buying intention. And the role of type of endorser and social
identity. They explore the impact of promoted tweets.

Experiment 1: effect of celebrity social network size and popularity

 Theoretical perspectives:  
o Social identity theory 
o Source theories  
o Social capital theory = social bridging and social bonding capital (see also slide 9)  
 This theory is used to underpin the hypotheses. 
 This claims that social relationships create social capital. Why social 
networks can offer consumers social capital.
 Social bridging = loose social connections, provide access to new
information by following these social media accounts
 Bonding social capital = social capital that makes it possible to create
trustworthy connections by following social networks. Connect to each other,
by which new information can spread. 
 The social capital can be used to determine the social credibility of these
social accounts. And mostly 3 types of information can be connected to it.
 3 sources of social network profiles to explore influence 
o self generated information = the content of the post.  
o other-generated information = the retweets and the replies to messages
o system-generated information = number of tweets, followers (the amount of
followers of an account. The people who are connected to SNS) and followees (Those
people on an account who are following other accounts.). Indicators of popularity and
influence. The indicators of social influencers (number of followers) can be effective
cues of measuring social resources (social bridging capital). 
 Can function as a indicator of popularity and source credibility
o Number of followers can be used as a peripheral cue. 
 Hypotheses = 
o H1: number of followers -> source credibility  
 Trustworthiness, physical appearance and the competence
 This credibility can be endangered by the valence of the tweets. The positive
or negative character of the tweets. It can be negatively influenced by
negative brand mentions. 
o H2: number of followers -> intention to build online friendship with celebrity  
 To construct social bridging capital. The access to new information.
 “I would like to have a friendly online chat with them” → this was how it was
measured
o H3: interaction number of followers with message valence on buying, product
involvement  
 If someone has low amount of followers (low online bridging social capital),
the credibility of the information source can be perceived as ‘low’.
 The valence of the tweet is not related on the buying intention. 
 When there is high amount of followers, the positively valenced tweets will
result in greater product involvement and buying intention (in comparison of
negatively valenced tweets). 
o H4: interaction number of followers with message valence on intention spread eWOM
(= sharing the post of an influencer)
 High followers → not necessary to spread eWOM. The valence of the tweets
will not affect the intention to spread eWOM.
 Why? Consumers think the information has already reached a lot of people. 
 Low followers → consumers motivated to pass the negative information than
positively valenced tweets. 

Manipulation: tweet

What was manipulated? 

→ Number of followers
→ Valence of tweets (positive or negative)
→ Sort of product (utilitarian vs. luxury)

Main effects: number and followers

 Main significant effect of number of followers on physical attraction, trustworthiness,
competence, and intention to build online friendship with celebrities  
 Number of followers had the largest effect on intention to build online friendship, followed by
competence, physical attractiveness and trustworthiness
o Note that the trustworthiness and attractiveness are metra dimensions that we’ve
discussed earlier about social credibility theory.  
o Building friendship → refers to bridging social capital. 

Interaction effects: product involvement, buying

Interaction effects (number of followers x valence) on product involvement, buying.

What do you see? Mainly the graph shows that there is a significant effect with number of followers
with the valence of the tweet on product involvement. When the number of followers was high, then
the positive tweets resulted in higher involvement than negative tweets. (for both wodka and water
brand). Same pattern with buying intention. The valence of the tweet is important in relation to the
number of followers. 

Interaction effect: intention to spread eWOM

Interaction effect on intention to spread eWOM

In the low followers, the negative valenced tweets resulted in higher eWOM than the positive branded
tweets. For the wodka brand and the water brand.
For the high number of followers, there was no significant difference in the intention to spread eWOM
between the positive and negative valenced tweets.
Experiment 2: effect of negative information
 Social identity theory -> identifying with people improving the own self-concept (zelfbeeld).
consumers want to identify with other people that help them to improve themselve. If
celebrities are disqualified by negative news, people can’t longer identify with them.  
 Main effect = 
o H1: type of celebrity (prosocial versus antisocial celebrity) positively affects physical
attraction, trustworthiness and competence, social identification and intention to build
online friendship  
 Interaction effect =
o H2: Significant moderation and mediation effect (only for positive tweets, not for
negative tweets). 
 How was it manipulated? They had to read a prosocial story (charities) before
exposing them to the brand related tweet. Read an antisocial story (drug
abuse) before exposing them to the brand related tweet. Negative news could
have a bad effect of the effectivity of the influencers. 

Both hypotheses were confirmed. 

Results =  
 Graph 1 → Only for the positive tweets, it was found that when a celebrity was prosocial, a
high number of followers resulted in a stronger identification than the exposure to a low
amount of followers. The effect here is for the prosocial celebrity, we discussed the number of
followers on the social identification. However, when the celebrity was anti social the number
of followers had no effect on the social identification. So only for the prosocial celebrity, the
amount of followers had an effect on social identification.
 Graph 2 → Also a mediation effect was found. The social identification on the relationship of
prosocial vs antisocial celebrity on the buying intention. A prosocial celebrity resulted in higher
social identification and in turn the social identification had a positive effect on buying
intention. 

III: Effect of social media influencers at Instagram: the mediating role of popularity and
ascribed opinion leadership

 Article 2: De Veirman, Cauberghe, and Hudders (2017)

This article looks at the role of followers. But instead of the effect of sponsored twitter messages, but
also looks at number of followers and number of followees of likeability, opinion leadership etc. 

De Veirman et al. (2017): popularity on Instagram

 Assume sequential mediation effect of popularity and ascribed opinion leadership on the
relationship: number of followers -> likeability 
o So it is a double mediation effect. By which the two factors are supposed to mediate
the relationship between the nr of followers and likeablity.
o The mechanism that can explain it.
o What type of theoretical perspectives were used?
 Bounded rationality and bandwagon effect
 People have limited capacity to evaluate social media accounts, so
they use heuristics.
 People use heuristic cues to process information
 Heuristic cues (nr of followers) to evaluate the information source and
the popularity of the IG account
 Popularity, ascribed opinion leadership, likeability: match-up
dimensions  
 Theory of bounded rationality and bandwagon heuristic as
theoretical approaches 
o Bandwagon heuristic → The popularity will positively influence the opinion leadership.
If others find a source popular, then the individual will think that the account is
populair. 
 What is more accessed? → Ratio followers- followees important: 
o Assumption 1: High number of followees: number of followers ----positive --->
likeability  
o Assumption 2: Low number of followees: number of followers ----negative --->
likeability
 The influencer need more followers than followees. If the influencer follows
multiple accounts, he can learn a lot more. So it means that the influencer has
access to new information by the following of other accounts. However, a IG
accounts that follows too many, it is not beneficial. The account can’t keep
track. You follow a lot of accounts. You can’t go through all the information.
So people may think it is a fake account. A lot of accounts are buying the
amount of followers. When you have too less followees, people could think it
is a fake account. It is hard to make assumptions of it. Because it isn’t
investigated yet. 
 This is one of the reasons Veirman makes an assumption about the ratio of
followers/followees. What does she assume? 

Stimuli of study 1
Tested model study 1: Hayes Process Module
What model got studied in study 1? The Hayes Process Module

The number of followers has a positive effect on the popularity. And popularity has a positive effect on
leadership and that has a positive effect on the likeability of the influencer.  

Interaction: number of followers and number of followees

 When number of followees was low -> a negative effect of number of followers on likeability
existed
 When number of followees was high -> no significant effect of number of followers on
likeability was present

Study 2: role of product design and number of followers

The second study was about the product divergence. Product divergence → the design of the
product. 
 Opposite social needs buying behavior  
o Need for products that other consumers buy (popularity)  
o Need for products that are unique  
 Consumers' choice -> common sense explanations (naive theories)  
o Sometimes they want to buy because they are brought by others, or they are attracted
to unique products.
 Need for uniqueness
vs.
 Need for conformity
 They use common sense explanations to evaluate Marcom messages

 Marketeers prime decision of consumer -> emphasizing specific product characteristics  

o To let people evaluate the product more positively
o What is the idea? To expose consumers to functional products, triggers naive theories
of popularity
o What is the idea? The divergent designed products, will evoke more positive attitudes
towards the brand. Marcom that focuses on divergence → Will trigger the naive
theories of exclusivity. 
 Hypotheses = 
o H3: Product divergence-> Abr  
o H4: Product divergence -> brand uniqueness -> Abr  
 Abr = Attitude towards the brand
o H5: Moderated mediation model: 
  Product divergence -> brand uniqueness -> Abr 
 moderated by type of influencer: 
 high versus moderate number of followers

Models tested: Mediation vs. Moderated Mediation

 Mediation Model (Left)

Significant!
What does this mean? A high divergency product (vs. functional product) created higher perceived
brand uniqueness and this created more positive attitudes towards the brand. 

 Moderated Mediation Model (Right)

This is a difficult model!

The outcome shows when a divergent brand is endorsed by an endorser with a moderate number of
followers, the effect of divergency on attitude towards the brand through the perceived brand
uniqueness was stronger than when a brand was endorsed by an influencer with a high number of
followers. This sounds a little bit difficult. 
Conclusion = So, it means that an influencer with a high number of followers is less effective in
endorsing a divergent brand than an influencer with a moderate number of followers. 

Today’s Conclusions
 Social influencer marketing rooted in three important theories  
o Social identity
o Source credibility
o Social capital
 Effectiveness of (celebrity) influencers is determined by network size 
o So the number of followers, but also number of followees
 Network size impacts on source credibility  
o Such as physical attraction, expertise, trustworthiness and competence
 Moderation effects of number of followers with the valence of the message, and the number of
followees  
 Sequential mediation effect of perceived popularity and ascribed opinion leadership  
 Moderated mediated model: effect of number of followers

Hoorcollege 6 - Branded video content marketing

I: Impact of different types of (online) branded video strategies 

Consumers are skipping ads, many new videoplatforms (Netflix etc.) don’t show any commercials. So
it is therefore that advertisers are looking for new forms of advertising. This is product placement,
brand placement etc.There are many different branded video strategies.

Branded video content: different shapes and forms

Branded content marketing in traditional media: Russell (2007)

Integration → of the brand information into the program content.
Whenever the brand information increases, the percentage of program content will diminish. When
there is more programm content, the amount of brand information decreases.
The degree of integration can be used to characterize different types of strategies of branded video.
1. Non integrated strategy (= implicit strategy)
 the product is embedded, without being expressed
 it plays a passive role
 A person working on an apple computer for example.
 No product information explicitly present

2. Integrated strategy
 The brand or the product is formally expressed
 The product plays a role in the scene or in the plot
 It shows appealing features 
3. Co-creation strategy
 The advertiser just puts up a billboard
 “this program is sponsored by…”

II: Brand placement characteristic effects on consumers reactions to brand placement

strategies. 

 Article 1: Van Reijmersdal, Neijens & Smit (2009)

It is a meta-study. 

Placements characteristics
 Placements characteristics influencing processing of branded content Reijmersdal et. al
(2009)
 A synthesize of 57 empirical studies  
o The number of effects were counted (mediation, moderator etc.)
 Focus on placement characteristics  
 Using vote and count procedure to analyze the effects

Placement characteristics
Let’s first have a look at the format characteristics itself.
 Format
o Journalistic <-> advertorial (= additorial + commercial content)
o Many of the native advertisements, you will probably know. Everywhere you can find
native advertisements across the newslines
  Commercialism of source
o The degree of the media source in which the brand is corporated is associated with
commercialism
o A magazine publisher can be seen as more commercial or independent
o The idea will also be transferred to the placement in the magazine
 Congruence
o This is related to the fit between the brand and the context (video etc)
o A strong link is necessary for the effective product placement
o Whenever the content fits a brand, the meaning of the video content transfers.
o If a adidas brand, in a sportsbroadcast. The ‘manliness of the sports’ can be
transferred to adidas
 Prominence
o How the brand is displayed on the screen. In a close up or a long distant shot. 
 Message length
o But also the length and the repetition of placement.
 Modality
o Execution of the placement
o The way the brands are embedded in the content (audio vs. visual)

Important theories explaining the effects of branded content

 Spill-over theory = the attention paid to programs, could spill over to the placement
o But also the evaluation!
 Conditioning = the association of a program become linked with the brand after repeated
exposure
o brands and programs are paired
o Specific features of a program (the excitement) become part of the brand schema of a
consumer (all the associations)
 Exposure theory =  people expose themselves to non-commercial sources than to
commercial ones. The audience exposes themselves to the media for editorial content.
Advertising is disliked. 
o If your brand is mentioned in a regular article, this is more believable whenever you
would read it in a more commercial article.
 Landscape model = not all information is important to comprehend the story line. Brands
place in those parts, than are central for understanding the plot. Will be processed at a higher
level. 
o Not every story line is processed on a high level
o Information that is crucial for comprehension is processed at a deeper level
 Persuasion knowledge = too much repetition can derive irritation, the audience might have
sceptical attitudes towards the product placement
 Source credibility theory = why certain articles on news websites are more readable, about
the commerciality of the source. People look at the source which is used in an article. 
o editorial vs. non-editorial content
Placement characteristics & pro

 We only look at the direct effects!

 The first column reports the number of studies which were found for the product
characteristics of the number of studies that found an effect. About the positive and negative
effects on the dependent variable → brand placement
 The second column reports all the positive effects found in studies
 The third column reports all the negative effects found in studies
 Dependent variable 1 = Attention to brand placement
o Attention is increased when...
o The attention to brand placement increased, when the placements used editorial
formats
o Also increased when brands were places in a positively evaluated magazine
o The kind of format is a important characteristic
Now let’s move to the second dependent variable
 Dependent variable 2 = Memory for brand placement
o Increased when placements were more editorial, than commercial
o The optimal length was 15 minutes, the 15 minutes placements, outperformed the 1
minute placements. 
o !! The audiovisual placement (combination voiceover with visuals, like logos) were
more effective, than audio only or visual only placements. This is called modality. 
 Dependent variable 3 = Attitudes and beliefs about brand placement
o The brand placements were more positively evaluated in editorial than commercial
content. 

Placement characteristics and memory

  When you are using an actor, the brands score higher in brand recall
 The brand memory was increased when the placement duration increased to 10 seconds
 Also the position is important, in the first half of the programme were better remembered. A
majority of the analyzed studies reported positive effect of duration
 Brand placement for expensive products resulted in higher brand recall than cheap products
 The long/closeup shots influenced also the brand recall. Prominence could be related to
repetition, but also the way that they are displayed on the screen. Like a close up shot.

Placement characteristics & attitudes and intentions, behavior

  Brand placements had more positive effects on brand attitudes than traditional advertising
 Behavior intentions were more influenced by visual only! (= This is a contrast with what we
mentioned earlier!)
 The behavior and brand choice seem to be more implicity effected than the memory of the
placement. The behavior is only influenced in movies, when there is repetition. In many of the
cases, repetition is often a moderator of the placement characteristics effect on the behavior. 

Main conclusions
 Memory for placement
o Format: editorial > commercial 
o Duration: 15 min > 1 min (Infomercials ) 
o Modality: AV > A and V
 Attitudes/beliefs about brand placement
o Format: editorial format > commercial format 
 Brand memory
o Prominence: prominent > subtle – 
o Actor: shown/mentioned by actor > not shown/mentioned by actor – 
o 10 seconds placement > placement longer than 10 seconds – 
o Position: in first half > second half – 
o Price: expensive products > cheap products

Main conclusions
 Attitudes and beliefs towards de brand – 
o Brand placements > traditional advertisement – 
o Probably repetition is moderator, > 2 exposures needed 
 Behavior intentions and behavior – 
o Format: editorial placements > commercial placement only for print and online
o Modality: audio and video > audiovisual – 
o Repetition: repetition is moderator 
 In general = 
o Memory most often affected by placement characteristics • 
o Effects of placement characteristics on brand attitudes and behavior probably
moderated by repetition

III: How simultaneous use of devices such as tablets, personal computers and smartphones
can affect the processing of branded video content.
  Article 2: Jensen, Walsh, Cobbs & Turner (2015)

In the second study they looked at → Effect of second screen use and placement modality. The
studies used a fragment of a sports broadcast. The segment of the sports programme consisted of two
type of brand placements:
 logos
 and verbal mentioning of the sponsor names (during the interviews)

3 groups: different stimuli

 Group 1 → Audiovisual. Traditional viewing experience. Watching the programme.
 Group 2 → Visual only. They looked at the logos. A broadcast with no sound. Letting people
working on a pc in an office environment. 
 Group 3 → Audio only. They were hearing the sponsor names. Distracted viewing experience.
Listening to the event, while performing tasks.

Visual and audio cues in branded content: dual coding theory

This theory is the background of the hypothesis formed in this study.

 We have two different sensory systems: verband and non verbal system. They both process
different stimuli.
 The dual coding theory = predicts that the stimulation of both of the systems is more
effective for increasing cognition than activation of one of the systems
 This also links to the first article that we had to read today who stated that → The modality of
audio visual communication is more successful
 Multimedia learning theory =
 !! Studies show that the presentation of audiovisual reduces the cognitive load. So you learn
more. Reduces the cognitive load. It increased the learning.
 Limited capacity theory = there is a ceiling of information that we can store. If audiovisual
have more resources left, for multitasking. Takes less resources.
Study 1: Effects of modality

Study 2: Effect of cues/modality and second screen use

What about the interaction effect of the modality and the second screen use?

This study showed unexpected results. The researchers expected that the second screen use didn’t
affect the brand recognition in the audiovisual condition. Because the processing requires less
cognition. But if you look at the outcome, it shows that the recognition scores did not differ from the
control group. But if you look at the brand recall scores, you see a significant effect. The outcomes are
mixed. Not a clear argumentation. 

Managerial implications
What are the managerial implications?
 Sponsors of live sport events should be advised to use audiovisual brand insertions in
broadcast to improve recall and recognition •
  Second screen use can reduce information processing of branded content, sponsors should
explore the viewing and multitasking behavior of their audiences

Hoorcollege 7 - Mediaplanning

I: Introduction of basic concepts of mediaplanning

Media plan
 Mediaplan =
o Guide for media selection requires media objectives and media strategy

 Goal media plan →  find a combination of media to communicate a message:

o In the most effective manner
o To the largest number of potential customers
o At the lowest cost
Media vehicle = A specific carrier within a medium category. Within a magazine for instance or a
Social Network profile.
Reach = How many people are exposed once to an ad for example
Coverage = Potential that might receive the message of the reach of a medium vehicle. The
percentage of people that are reached with what medium and what type of people. How many people
are within the target audience. 
Frequency = The number of times the receiver is exposed to a medium vehicle. 

→ How do you develop a media plan?

A. Market analysis →  campaign target group

 Key question is: to whom will we advertise?
 Analysis requires primary or secondary research data
o Opdracht onderzoek
o Or CBS statistics for example

B. Establishing media objectives 

 Media objectives are designed to achieve marketing and communication objectives

 For example, create awareness in the target market through: 

o Broadcast media to provide coverage of 80% of target market over six-month
period
o Reach 60% of target audience at least 3 times 
o Create a positive brand image

C. Media strategy →  criteria considered

 Media mix
 Geographic coverage and target market coverage
 Scheduling
 Reach and frequency
 Recency
 Creative aspects and mood
 Flexibility
 Determining budgets
  Continuity = You need to have a lot of budget to create continuity with you campaign. A
second strategy is 
 Fighting = Banks will not advertise in the summer holidays, because no one will buy
mortgages
 Pulsing = Continuity is maintained, but at certain times the budgets are increased. Beer
brands are more present during holiday periods

II: The processing of advertising repetition effects

How many exposures are needed for people to be reached? There is a heavy debate on that! The role
of deep and shallow processing pays a big role. That is what Nordhielm talks about.
  Article 1: Nordhielm (2002)

Advertising repetition effects (Nordhielm, 2002)

 Repetitions effect →  explained by mere exposure theory
o People tend to develop a preference for a message, because it was repeated to them.
 There is consensus on the general course of advertising/frequency repetition effects
on attitude and recall:
o For recall: a logarithmic course of effect
o For attitude: an U-inverted shaped curve

The effect of frequency can be explained by the so called two factor models, according to Nordhielm.
They assume a parabolic relationship. But she says that these models can not always explain the
effect of number of exposures and the affective response (the likeability of the message). 
→ But there is a debate about:
 The number of exposures (frequency) that maximizes consumer response 
 The validity of the two factor models (U-inverted relationship) for deep and shallow
processing (conscious versus unconscious) of information

Two models of mere exposure (Nordhielm, 2002)

She introduces two models: two factor model and the Perceptual Fluency Model.
Two factor model
 Inverted U shape relationship between exposure and affective response, two factors
habituation (gewenning) and tedium (verveling). These two factors mediate the relationship
between repetition and affective response. The first numbers result in habituation which
results into positive attitudes and too much exposure can result in tedium leads to negative
attitudes. This is called the wearout effect.
Modified two factor model
 Inverted U relationship associate habituation with positive thoughts and tedium with negative
thoughts

But the Two factor model does not fully explain → 

 Lineair effects of repetition on affective response
 Exposure-affect relationship when exposure duration is short (limited opportunity to
process)
o This is the case when banners are advertised. There are limited opportunity to
process.

So she formulated a second model → 

Perceptual Fluency / Misattribution model = when conscious processing is limited
 When people are shallow processing the message of the advertisement.
  Perceptual Fluency = The ease in which people perceive process the stimulus information.
The easiness people experience on processing information of advertising. 
 The increased processing fluency can be ascribed to the likeness.
 De MAKKELIJKHEID waarmee de boodschap verwerkt kan worden. De misvatting die
mensen hebben over de oorzaak van de stimulus. Ze kunnen daardoor denken dat het door
de kleur komt van een advertentie bijvoorbeeld. Mensen schrijven een andere oorzaak toe
aan de makkelijkheid om die boodschap te verwerken. 
 Perceptual Fluency = The makkelijkheid om de boodschap te verwerken.
 They could ascribe the processing fluency to the liking of the message but also to the
colorfulness of the message or the market share of the product. 
 People may misattribute the easiness of processing to another characteristic of the message.  
 Perceptual fluency / Misattribution model (PFM):
 Alternative model when conscious processing is limited 

Hypotheses study = 

H1: (Affective Response/Liking of the message)

 Shallow (oppervlakkige) processing: linear relationship between exposure and affective
response
 Deeply processing: U-inverted relationship between exposure and affective response

H2: (To test Misattribution)

 Shallow processing → exposure will produce non affective judgements
o Misattribution. Verkeerde inschatting van de oorzaak van die perceptual fluency.
o The exposure is not related to the liking, but related to the non affective judgement
response. Which is measured by a choice (later explained).
o Mensen schrijven een andere oorzaak toe aan de makkelijkheid van het verwerken
van de boodschap
 Deeply processing → exposure will not produce non affective judgements

H3:
 Shallow processing: exposure no impact on positive or negative thoughts 
 Deeply processing: exposure does have impact on positive or negative thoughts

Design experiment =
 The study was a 2 (level of processing: deeper, shallow) 4 (frequency of feature exposure: 0,
3, 10, 25) mixed design. 
 Level of processing was between factor and frequency was within factor by manipulating
exposure by eight different products (coffee, shampoo, and condiment (specerijen)

Stimulus material =

 Manipulation type of processing

o Non-existing products were created. Each logo were posted on a different
background.
 Shallow processing condition (paraphrased):
 In some ads subliminal product logo has been embedded, when you see it click on logo
o People could click on the shaded cubes in the background.
o They were instructed to click on the dark cubes, which indicates the subliminal logo.
They prevented them to focus on the semantic content.
o The enhance perceptual processing
 Deep processing condition (paraphrased): 
 Click on the the mouse on the benefit which appears on the screen
 The semantic content of the commercial was processed
In de twee condities die er zijn dan kun je zeggen mensen kunnen het gemak waarmee de boodschap
wordt verwerkt toeschrijven aan de liking van de boodschap, maar ook aan een andere oorzaak:
bijvoorbeeld het marktaandeel van het merk waarom het gaat. 
 Dat betekent dat je wanneer je mensen later vraagt: kies voor een product uit de producten
die voorgelegd worden, dan prime je mensen met een ander idee over dat merk (namelijk het
marktaandeel van dat merk) in tegenstelling wat je doet als je mensen vraagt (hoe je
waardeer je dit merk). Die verschillende vraagstellingen primen mensen, om een verschillende
oorzaak aan de makkelijkheid waarmee ze het verwerken dat ze die als zodanig ook ervaren. 

Results = 

The shallow processing condition a lineair effect was found

In the deeply process → Inverted U-shape was found. 
This underpins the assumption that for the two processing modes either a lineair effect could be found,
and a u-inverted relationship can be found. The two factor models can not always explain the
relationship between repetition and affective response. You need the Misattribution Model. 

Dependent variable = The Choice Test

The results show that when the processing was deeper, no relationship between repetition and the
choosing of the product was found. But when the processing was shallow there was a lineair
relationship between repetition and product choice test. What does this mean? They could also
ascribe the processing fluency to another characteristic. People could misattribute the true cause of
the enhanced processing fluency.  

Thoughts as process measures

 Dependent variable: positive thoughts (calculated by positive thoughts - negative thoughts)
 o The modified model (positive and negative thoughts are the mediator between
repetition and the affective response) can explain the exposure level and the affective
response
 Deeply processing condition: a significant quadratic (Inverted U) trend
 Shallow processing condition: non significant quadratic (Inverted U) trend

Conclusions
 Dependent on processing mode:  The Two Factor Model or Perceptual Fluency /
Misattribution model is mechanism to explain effect of repeated exposure on affective
response
o Shallow processing: Perceptual fluency / Misattribution model explains the
mechanism
o Deep processing: Two Factor Model explains the mechanism
 Shallow processing:
o Repeated exposure → enhanced processing fluency
 It is likely that the individual misattributed the true cause of the enhanced
processing fluency. 
 Misattribution likely to cause enhanced processing fluency 
 Deep processing:
 Initial exposures -> familiarity, positive affect
 More exposures → negative affect
 Both two-factor and modified two factor model explaining mechanism 

III: Effects of website ad repetition

 Article 2: McCoy et al. (2017)

Banner advertising in the online context. 

Impact ad website repetition (McCoy, Everad, Galletta, & Moddy, 2017)

 Limited research in online ad repetition
o McCoy conducted research in de online banner advertising
o Difference in the repetition effects online vs. offline
 Online users compared to TV and print users:
  they are more goal directed → ads disturb reaching this goals
 Advertisement may block the reaching of the goals → this leads to feelings of ad intrusiveness
(= opdringerigheid)
 Online context the behavior is different than offline context

How consumers react to online ads: reactance theory

 Reactance theory (Brehm, 1966) → explains reactions individuals when engagement in
behavior is restricted
o This is about situations where the freedom of behavior is restricted.
o Different reactions to the usage of advertising (this theory is used to explain those
reactions)
 Whenever users expect freedom of choice to access website → ads may be
perceived as barrier → this will feel like a loss of freedom, coercion
o People experience a lot of barriers when visiting a website
 When reactance is created → forming attitudes / behavior contrary to the
advertisement → negative response 
  H1 = This is the research model. People like more familiar objects than non familiar products.
It is expected that repeated exposure increases familiarity and in turn positive ad attitudes.
This is what H1 expects.
 H2 = H2 assumes that frequency increases the intrusiveness of the add. Repetition causes
peripheral processing, so the content is not considered anymore. 
 The idea is that it is based on that people prefer information ‘spaarzaamheid’. Repetition
violates it. Have negative reactions because repetition of an add, doesn’t provide new
information.
 H3 = Repeating of a disliked ad, will boost perceived intrusiveness. The Ad attitude is a
moderator. The liked ads provide a base for the rate of intrusiveness, while the disliked ads
will boost the intrusiveness. Extremely increase it.
 H5 = Higher level of intrusiveness will increase the recognition.

The results

It underpins all the hypothesis, except H5

Let’s look at the relationship of the moderator. 
When the ads are neither perceived as positive or negative, then the nr of exposures will slightly
increase the intrusiveness. But for the positive perceived ads, the nr of exposure decreased the
intrusiveness. When the ads are perceived as negative, the nr of exposures increases the idea of
intrusiveness. So this is confirmed. 

Conclusions research McCoy (2017)

 Exposure frequency lead to positive attitude towards the ad, higher levels of intrusiveness and
ad recognition
    → This is called the mere exposure effect
 Attitude towards the ad moderates the effect of exposure frequency on ad intrusiveness:
o Ads with negative perceptions → increased exposure leads to high levels of
intrusiveness
o Ads with positive perceptions → increased leads to lower levels of intrusiveness
 Most effective exposure numbers is 4: all ads at this level have equivalent
intrusiveness scores
o This is called Effective frequency reach
 Intrusiveness negatively affect website attitudes
 Attitude towards the website positively affects website intentions

 
Hoorcollege 8 - Mediaplanning II Mobile display advertising & synergy effects

I: Mobile display advertising in a media plan

 Article 1: Bart, 2014

Media planning
 The article of Bart looks at → The effectiveness of mobile display advertisement in a media
plan 
 It first looks at the limitations of looking at it from a mobile screen
(Bart et al., 2014, Journal of Marketing Research)
We will explore the combination of media.

Effect MDA
Many marketeers report moderate effects in case of mobile campaigns. There are many doubts about
the effectivity of MDA:
 Research literature suggests moderate effects
o Minimal information (like just a logo or a small banner text)
o Unable to report rich messages
 Technical limitations of advertisements

Mechanismen processing MDA campaigns

There is not a lot of research to interpret the effects. And the insights on how it works, can only be
based on traditional advertising models and research. This is why the research of Bart uses the ELM
model to explain the effects. The authors have an opposite attitude to these kind of ideas. It could only
work, when we talk about advertisements in the high involvement sphere. 
 Many researchers believe MDA are elaborated with low involvement and motivation and
through mere exposure effects
 Bart et al. say that:
 MDA can trigger recall and elaborative processing of stored information
→ Mobile advertisements, low involvement → works with the mere exposure effects.
MDA banners may be like a cue, for low processing. 
 MDA may affect brand attitude and purchase intention by reminding consumers of
product information already processed
→ The target group uses former campaigns about the product  as a way to form an
attitude. The MDA messages may serve as cues that prompts recall from earlier
stored information from other campaigns on other media.
 MDA exposures take place in noisy and distracting surroundings -> they can only
have effect through central processing (ELM)
 Attention for high involvement and utilitarian product is more likely and MDA works
better for this types of products
 These characteristics are mentioned underneath
 Utilitarian product → for example a car.

Product related characteristics

 Types of products associated with high processing motivation and high processing ability
 Utilitarian VS hedonic products:
o Cognitively VS sensory driven
 High involvement products (HI) VS low involvement (LI) product:
o HI > LI in thinking 
o HI > LI in relevance (= more personal relevance)
o HI > LI higher risk for buying (= you not going to decide buying a car in 2 days)
 Assumed → interaction effect of involvement and product type (utilitarian VS hedonic)
expected on a brand attitude and purchase intention

MDA campaign: design

 54 campaigns in broad industries (entertainment, health, finance etc.) in period 2007-2010
 They used a real time network in which people were exposued to the commercials.
They used 54 campaigns. 
 !! important to know: The set up of the research were exposed 20k people to the
commercials and another 20k people were not exposed.
 Real-time experiment 39,946 participants of which 19,695 exposed 1 time and 20,251 not
exposed
  Follow-up survey

MDA banner: example

Results: overall campaign effects

They used a lot of participants that were representative. The percentages of negative, no effects and
positive effects on brand attitude and intention.
 Almost 67% of all campaigns had no effect at all. This is really worrying. The doubts about
marketeers are true. So much campaigns have no effect
 Almost 17% did have positive effects. This is a devastating outcome, because you would
expect more effectiveness.

Treatment effects: Average Treatments Effect scores

  The attitudes and intention scores are shown. The most important effects are yellow.
 The delta in the table stands for the difference between the control and experimental group in
attitude and intention. It is not a number of exposures, but a dichotomy: exposed vs. non-
exposed. 
 High involvement products → higher attitudes scores with the exposed group than the non-
exposed group.
 High involvement products → higher intentions scores than in the control group

Most important effects: random effect model

  Results are consistent with the expectations
 A three way interaction effect of: exposure, product type and involvement with attitude and
intention

Conclusions
 MDA Campaigns are more likely to fail than succeed
 67% of all campaigns didn’t have any effect at all
 MDA campaigns for high involvement and utilitarian → attitude and intention: small effects on
attitude and intention
 This is important to remember
 Marketers should not expect campaigns to be extremely impactful on creating positive
attitudes and high intention scores

II: Synergy effects in amediaplan combining different media 

 Article 2: (Tang et al., 2007, International Journal of Media Management)

Combining different media cacn increase the effectivity.

Tang researched → Single source vs. multi source repetition 

Media planning: synergy effects

 Synergy effects, combining media
   
Synergy mechanism explaining synergy effects
 Forward encoding of proming (Edell & Keller, 1989)
 An ad in the first medium can give a prime for the consumer’s interest in seeing the ad
in the second medium.
 It triggers information which could be of use to interpret the information form the
second ad
 Higher processing, easier encoding of the second ad → because in the first ad
information in the first ad can be given, that gives a better context 
 Multiple source effect (Harkins & Petty, 1981)
 the advertisement based on different medium are more credible. 
 The message in two different media are seen as two seperate independent sources
→ increased persuasiveness
 Dual coding theory (see lecture Branded content marketing)
 Video and audio as a effectiveness cue for increasing the brand effects
 Additional theory to explain the effects

Media synergy and repetition effects offline media

Synergy = combined effect of two or more media is greater than the sum of their individual effects.
Can be the result of two different effects: cross media promotion effects vs. single source promotion
effect
 The effect resulting from repeated exposure to advertisements in two media is valled synergy
effect → cross media promotion effect 
→ Consumers are more persuaded, because they pay more attention to slightly different information
than the same repeated information
 Repeated exposure to advertisements in the same medium is called repetition effect (TV or
Print) → single source promotion effect

Earlier research
Earlier research showed that:
 Crossmedia promotion > Single source promotion
 People pay more attention to different information than the same repeated information
  Using different message sources strengthen information processing, source credibility

Repetition (R) and Synergy (S) conditions 

The effects of the different promos (print vs. video) were measured on variables such as the attention,
the credibility, viewing attention for the advertised tv program etc. 
The experimental stimuli: 3 news stories, 2 program promotions, 5 advertisements for video and print
versions. The study used exposure conditions. The print condition is the exposure to the print
promotion and TV commercial. The exposure condition are the TV condition, used 2 exposures to a
TV programm promotion. 

 Differences between the TT (repetition within one medium → single source) condition and
cross-media conditions (PT & TP)
o Print TV condition → PT
o TV Print condition → TP
o The sequence of the used media was reversed. This is called the multi source
condition.
o Conclusion = Significant differences between Cross-Media and Single source
promotion → Cross Media are more effective
  Differences between PP (repetition single source) condition and cross-media conditions (PT &
TP)
o Two print commercials were used for the promotion of the TV programm
o If you set them against eachother
o Conclusion = Significant differences between Cross-Media and Single source
promotion → Cross Media are more effective

 Differences between the PP & TT (repetition) condition and cross-media conditions (PT & TP)
o All the single source conditions are aggregated to one score
o All the cross media conditions are aggregated to one score
o Conclusion = Significant differences between Cross-Media and Single source
promotion → Cross Media are more effective

Main conclusions
 Cross media promotion > single source promotions
 Media plan →  in de media mix use cross-media promotion effective
 Multi source frequency → single source frequency in media plan
Media planning
 Synergy effects, device, sequence and format effects
    (Varan et al., 2013, Journal of Advertising research)

III: Synergy effects in a media plan: device, sequence and format effects 

 Article 3: Varan, 2013

Broadens the concept of synergy, by looking at the order effects of the different devices and formats
(video commercial, website banners, clickable video banners).

Synergy: multiplicative combination effect

Synergy as → 
 Multiplicative combination effect
 Combined effect of 2 media are greater than sum of individual effects of the media,
multiplicative effect (a x b) ≠ a+b (see Tang, 2007)
 Multiplicative sequence effect caused by the exposure order to message (a x b≠ b x a)
 It is different from other forms of synergy
 Showing for a video on a TV screen vs. on a mobile screen may be less or more
effective than showing it on a mobile screen first and then on a TV screen.

Research questions
RQ1: Video commercials at television set > at PCs, small audiovisual devices?
 This has to do with the sequence effect
RQ2: Possible synergy effect seen across combinations for video commercials seen across
combinations of devices (television set, a PC, and mobile phone)?
RQ3: differences in advertising format
 This has to do with the format effect

Research design
TV, PC, Ipod and Mobile Phone

Only the 4th study found significant effect on recall.

  Used 3 types of devices and used the same stimuli as the third experiment. But they changed
the format.

Experiment 4: recall across devices

 The impact was shown on recall

 !! important: The effect of the format induced the different scores on the recall

Experiment 4: Sequential synergy effects

 Different combination of devices are shown

 If you read the table of 55 recall score: the sequence of phone pc is compared to the pc
phone. So the reversed order is used to measure the effects. 
 Only significant sequence effect are for recall
 You could use the sequence of the commercials that are shown at the different screens to
vary in your media plan
 Significant multiplicative synergy effect → Recall PC-Phone > Phone-PC (so the first
sequence was more effective)

Conclusions
 Devices makes no difference to advertising effectiveness
 Showing commercials at different devices doesn’t effect the advertising effectiveness
 If you have the same video commercial and you will show it at different devices this
does not effect
 It format is the same → no sequential synergy effect
  A format effect was found
 Format effect was found for recall
 If format is not the same → sequential synergy effect was found

Implications for media planning

 First scheduling web banners at PC followed by interactive video on mobile
 A media plan that varies in formats may be more effective (e.g., interactive formats on mobile,
video on TV) 

Hoorcollege 11 - eWOM

What will we discuss?

User-generated content, such as electronic word-of-mouth (e- Wom), plays an important role in
consumer decision making. How does e-Wom differ from traditional word-of-mouth? What
motivates consumers to engage in e-Wom? And, particularly important from a marcoms-perspective
with regard to digital marketing strategies, how can we stimulate (positive) e-Wom?

IMC Audience Contact Tools

WoM is a well-known unexpected touchpoints. 

IMC Contact Tools: control vs. impact

WOM: high impact, low control/influence

We know that there are very loyal customers, but these kind of consumers are only a few. So you
should not use all your marketing budget to make them loyal. Always think about real world data. Not
every funnel is very useful.

I: WOM vs. eWOM: Why important?

Traditional WOM: definition

 Arndt (1967) gave a definition of WOM
o WOM = Oral, person-to-person communication between a receiver and a
communicator whom the receiver perceives as non-commercial
toward a brand, product, or service

3 elements of WOM
There are 3 elements
 Interpersonal Communication 
o Between people
 The content is commercial 
o (= it is about the brand, product, about advertising)
 The sender is non-commercial motivated by the receiver
We have more trust in people that we know, those who don’t have an alternate motivation.

eWOm: definition
 Henning-Thurau et al., (2004, Journal of Interactive Marketing)
        - eWOM = Any positive or negative statement made by potential, actual, or
former customers about a product or company, which is made
available to a multitude of people and institutions via the Internet
5 main elements of eWOM
1. Communicator
2. Object
3. Statement
4. Receiver (= different than WOM)
 The nature have changed
 eWOM it is not about one receiver, but about many receivers
5. Environment (= different than WOM)
 eWOM is not about f2f communication
 it is about digital communication
 Online

eWom: greater reach

These are the more important differences between traditional WOM and eWOM.

eWom: examples
 All brand-related user generated content
o Online reviews (e.g., tripadvisor, kieskeurig)
o Brand tweets
o Blog post (e.g., food or beauty bloggers)
o Facebook posts/images
o Video testimonials (e.g., product unboxing & hands on review on YouTube
o Comments
o Pins?
o Likes?

(e)WOM: Net Promotor Score (NPS)

 How likely is it that you would recommend our company/product/service to others?
People who answer with a 9/10 → ‘Promoters’ And people who score lower than 6 → ‘Detractors’.
Then you have the Net Promoter Score. 

eWom: effect on sales?

 Let’s look at the relationship between eWOM en sales.
 The studies suggest a moderate positive relationship
 Babić, Sotgiu, De Valck & Bijmolt (2016, Journal of Marketing
Research)
They did a Meta-analysis. They combined all these studies. And based on all these studies they
calculated an effect size of this relationship. 
So what was the effect between eWom ,<----> Sales?
 r = .091 (small, but there is some)
There were some Moderators indicated → the strength of this relationship depends on these other
variables. What moderators variate?

Moderators: eWOM vs. sales

 Product type: tangible vs. service
 Tastbaar product or a service
 Hedonic score: hedonic vs. utilitarian
 A perfume vs. vacuum cleaner
 Life cycle stage: new vs. mature
 It is a new or a mature product?
 Financial risk: high vs. low
 When you make a wrong brand choice, does it have a financial risk?

eWom: motives
What motivates consumers to engage in eWOM?
→ Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004), Kreis & Gottschalk (2015)
 Interactional benefit

 Venting negative feelings

Example of items to measure this = 
 I want to take revenge upon the company
 I like to get anger off my chest

 Concern for other consumers

 Platform assistance
 Example of items to measure this = 
 I believe companies are more accommodating when I publicize
the matter
 It is more convenient than writing or calling the company
 Helping the company
Example of items to measure this = 
 I am so satisfied with the company and its product that I want the
company to be successful
 Advice seeking
Example of items to measure this = 
 I expect to receive tips and support from other users

 Economic incentives

eWOM: the most important ones motives 

1. Interactional benefits
 Social benefits and extraversion / positive self-enhancement
  It is fun to communicate, to boost their self view
 Psychological benefits obtained through interaction
Example of items to measure this = 
 It is fun to communicate this way with other people in the
community
 My contributions show others I am a clever customer
  feel good when I can tell others about my buying successes

2. Concern for other consumers

Example of items to measure this = 
 I want to give others the opportunity to buy the right product

3. Economic incentives
 A strong driver of eWOM
 If they get a reward, this can introduce bias
Example of items to measure this = 
 I receive a reward for the writing

Recap: WOM - eWOM

 WOM vs. eWOM: characteristics
 Low correlation eWOM – sales, but moderators!
o Strength relationship depends on: product type, hedonic score, life
cycle stage, financial risk
 Motives eWOM
o Interactional benefits (including self-enhancement), venting negative
feelings, concern for other consumers, platform assistance, helping
the company, advice seeking, economic incentives

II: Positive eWOM: how brands can stimulate positive eWOM?

 Article 1: Eisingerich (2015)

Positive eWom: expressing offline vs. online

 Eisingerich et al. (2015)
 o Why recommend a brand face-to-face but not on Facebook?
o More or less willing to spread online than offline eWOM
o Risk perception is important in this
 Perceived risk perspective → 
o Financial risk
o Information risk (= your personal data)
o Functional risk  (= uncertainty of delivery)
o Social risk (= the most important type of risk)
Hypotheses
 H1 = greater social risk SNS-WOM decreases willingness to
provide positive WOM online vs. offline, that is why they are less willing to spread eWOM
 WOM may affect reputation built in SNS, large audience and sender
is identifiable, different ties (strong & weak in SNS) makes tailoring
message more difficult. They know who you are. They might feel stupid if you talk
about certain brands. People have greater risks.

Eisingerich et al. (2015): Study 1

Mediation effect found = Communication mode → perceived social risk → willingness to offer positive
WOM
They manipulated either online or offline. 
 Providing online WOM  was associated with perceived social risk. People were affraid to look
stupid when they gave eWOM.

Eisingerich et al. (2015): Study 2

Need for self-enhancement (= to see yourself in a positive frame). Might be a moderator. You can
show you are an expert, you can build your reputation with positive WOM. 
 Need to self-enhance might be a moderator!
 People’s desire to see themselves in a positive frame and present
themselves favorably to others. If people have a high self-enhancement need. They
don’t care about social risk. So then their intention will be the same with online vs.
offline WOM. 
 Correlation self-enhancement – positive WOM
 Signal expertise through positive WOM, maintain reputation, bolster
self-concept
 SNS (vs. offline) greater opportunity to self-enhance
 Larger audience, feedback on opinion, time to think about how to
present yourself

 H2 = self-enhancement moderates communication mode – positive WOM

 o Low self-enhancement need: positive WOM online < offline
o High self-enhancement need: positive WOM online = offline

The effect, depends on the self-enhancement need.

Eisingerich et al. (2015): Study 3

 Independent Variables
o Communication mode: offline vs. online positive WOM (within)
o Self-enhancement need: high vs. control (between)
o Salience social risk: high vs. control (between)
 Manipulation → self-enhancement
o Experimental: write about poorest academic performance. This triggers a strong need
for self-enhancement.
o Control: write about trip to grocery store
 Manipulation →  social risk
o Experimental: risk message. You are judged by what  you say and express.
o Control: no message

Results = They found support that there is a main effect on communication mode. They also found
interaction between communication mode and self-enhancement need. For participants where social
risk were super salient, they report a lower intention to give positive WOM in an online context.

Positive eWom: can we boost it?

 Eisingerich et al. (2015)
 o eWOM (on SNS) more sensitive to self-enhancement motives and
social risk perceptions than offline WOM
 How can marketers boost positive eWOM?
o Increase consumers’ self-enhancement need
o Decrease consumers’ social risk perceptions
 Other (ethical) ways of positive WOM-marketing
 The second article has a strategy to boost positive eWOM

 Article 2: Thorbjornsen (2015)

Thorbjørnsen et al. (2015)

 How does the advertisement format influence
o Future frame advertising work better than better frame advertising
 For consumers, the future is more exciting than the present
 Teaser ads (pre-announcements) ⇒ online & offline positive WOM for new products
 Future framed ads work better than →  present framed ads
 H1a: more product interest
 H1b: more product-related thoughts
 H2: more likely to stimulate positive WOM
 H3a: more elaborative WOM
 H3b: more favorable WOM

Thorbjørnsen et al. (2015)

Why? Because:
 The power of positive uncertainty
 Future is more uncertain than present
 Previous research suggest → Properties of forthcoming products are more positive
uncertain.
 We are overly optimistic about our own (uncertain) future
 We overestimate value of future products

 Consumers see future products as more

 Novel
 Interesting
 It gives consumers: Social currency
 Talking about it make consumers appear interesting to others
 Self-enhancement!

Thorbjørnsen et al. (2015): Study 1

 They did a → Field experiment of actual product launch
 It was a real experiment: Swedish designer alarm clock
 Then 40.000 subscribers received e-mail alert about new
product
 Independent Variable →  time frame e-mail headline
 Present: “Just Out: The Really Cool Wake-Up Caller”
 Future: “Coming Soon: The Really Cool Wake-Up Caller”
 Subscribers could
o Click on headline linked to web page (DV: product interest)
o Recommend it to other people (DV: # WOM) including own message
(DV: word count [elaborateness] + valence [positivity WOM])
A main effect of time frame (future frame worked better). Consumers who receive that frame showed
more CTR, number of recommendations. 

Thorbjørnsen et al. (2015): Study 2

 This was a → Lab experiment
o Mineral water and movies
 Print Ads
o Independent Variabele: time frame headline
 Present: “Out Now”
 Future: “Coming Soon”
 Procedure
o Ad exposure
o Thought-listing (DV: positive product-thoughts)
o Questionnaire (DVs: WOM intention + positivity of WOM)

Thorbjørnsen et al. (2015): conclusions

 Boosting positive online & offline WOM
 Future-oriented works better than present-oriented advertising
→ Unanswered question is: Why?
 Future associated with positive uncertainty?
 Not directly tested
     → Unanswered question is: is it for everybody? For whom?
 Self-enhancement need potential moderator?(cf. Eisingerich et al.,
2015)
It is an interesting study, but many more questions to ask.

Recap: positive eWOM

 Brands want positive (e)WOM
  Understand factors influencing positive eWOM
o Self-enhancement need, perceived social risk (Eisingerich et al.,
2015)
 Time frame teaser ads (Thorbjørnsen et al., 2015)
Conclusions
 eWOM contributes to sales (moderators!)
 Certain factors more important in online context
o Self-enhancement need, perceived social risks
- Use (and gain more) knowledge to understand how to
boost positive eWOM

Spoilers
 Offline WOM > online WOM (Fulgoni & Lipsman, 2015)

 Marketing funnel-thinking
o “Strive for loyalty and brand love, because these customers act as
unpaid ambassadors for the brand, broadcasting positive WOM”

 Realistic thinking (Sharp, 2010)

o Brand fanatics = minority
o Their spreading capacity positive WOM is limited (e.g., by # of people
they know)
 Spreading capacity also limited by degree of new information available
 New (vs. tenured) customers spread more WOM in several
categories
 Link loyalty – positive WOM (might be) overrated

Hoorcollege 12 - Bricks vs. clicks: online consumer behavior

What will we discuss

Even though online shopping has become a normal activity for many consumers, perceptions of risk
associated with online shopping still reduce consumers’ tendency to buy online. What digital marketing
strategies can we use to lower consumers’ risk
perceptions, and what other concepts are important in the
context of online consumer behavior?

How do these obstacles in the online environment influence the behavior of online consumers?

IMC Audience Contact Tools

  Company created touchpoints
o Planned Marketing Communications: like websites, advertising
o They are fully under control of the company
 Intrinsic Touchpoints
o Interactions between the consumer and the company during the buying process
o A sales conversation
 Customer Initiated Touchpoints
o When consumers contact the company, for example with complaints
 Unexpected Touchpoints
o Unplanned info about the brand that a consumer receives
o Like review sites and trip advisors
→ Today we talk about a touchpoint created by the company. The digital marketing. 

IMC Contact Tools: Control vs. Impact

The ways in which brands communicate differentiate with the relative impact and the ability to control
the various touchpoints. WOM is an unexpected touchpoint. This has a high impact, but it is difficult to
influence by the brand. Online shopping channels are an example of a planned company created
touchpoint. Perhaps it has less impact, but it is under the control of the company. That is the good
side. 

II: Risk perceptions online shopping

Risk perceptions: what is said in the literature before

  “Risk perception regarding the Internet is identified as a primary obstacle to the future growth
of e-commerce and is one of the main predictors of consumers’ decisions to shop in an online
or a conventional store” (Van Noort et al., 2007) 
o It is important because these risk perceptions are an obstacle for generating sales
and growth of a brand
  “….high abandonment rate of online transactions continues to be a concern…a major inhibitor
of online shopping is the uncertainty, or perceived risk associated with online purchasing” (Dai
et al., 2014)
o Influence how online consumers regulate their behavior

Regulatory Focus Theory

 Regulatory Focus Theory = Understanding the impact of risk perceptions on online
consumer behavior
 Made by Higgins
 It is about how people’s motivation influences goal pursuit, their behavior
 There are two general systems in which people are trying to reach their goals: prevention vs.
promotion

What does this mean? Some of the characteristics you can see in the table. We can deal with the
world in a different way. This influences how we behave. 

Regulatory focus: manipulation

In research we try to manipulate it. ‘Ask peope about their hopes and dreams’ or ‘ask about their
duties’. You can trigger a certain focus, by letting them do a writing task. You can induce it temporarily,
but it is also a trait. So some people have more of one than another. 
 Promotion focus
o Activate it → Think/write about past and current hopes, aspirations and dreams
o On their ideals than their responsibilities
o Striving for gains. You focus on the gains. 
 Prevention focus
o Activate it → Think/write about past and current duties, obligations and responsibilities
o Avoiding negative outcomes in reaching your goal. You go for safety. 

Bricks vs. clicks: risk perceptions

 Consumers associate online shopping with higher risks  
o spatial / temporal separation between consumers – web retailers 
 You can not feel the clothes you want to buy online for example 
o Correlational evidence, but is there also..
 Experimental evidence?  
 Does risky nature of online shopping influence consumers’ motivations and drives when
entering online shopping environment?  
o Online shopping →  prevention focus  
  Can influence further info processing, evaluation, and behavior
 !! You can use the Regulatory Theory to explain this. Online shopping
environment is associated with more risk, can trigger a prevention focus with
customers. So it might influence their behavior. 

Van Noort (2007): Risk perception study

This study shows that online shopping leads to more risk perceptions. 
 Imagine a situation in which you are shopping in a  
o Online OR conventional store  
o Then their risk perception was assessed
o And then the risk perception was measures
 Risk perception  
o Purchased goods and services will not meet expectations 
 Prevention focus: 2 different ways of measuring.
o Self-report: ‘I think about how I can prevent failures’ (Study 1)  
o Implicit: anagram-task with promotion OR prevention instructions (Study 2)
 this was a indirect task. 
 “You can win a point” → promotion
 “For every wrong answer you will loose a point” → prevention

The online store, score higher on risk perception and prevention focus. There was an interaction
between shopping environment and prevention/promotion instructions. 

Results
Experimental evidence that online shopping results in higher risk perceptions. If you compare online
shopping with offline shopping it creates higher risk perceptions and triggers a prevention focus. 
 Online (vs. conventional) shopping 
o Higher risk perceptions  
o Triggers prevention focus  
 Prevention focus might influence online consumer behavior  
o Attention to / processing of content online shop  
o Evaluations of online retailer  
o Online behavior  
 Do risk perceptions still play a role? How is it now adays? 

Dai et al: Risk perceptions online shopping

They differentiated between different types of risk. 
 Risk perceptions online shopping  
o Product risk
 The fear that the product doesn’t meet your expectations  
o Financial risk  
 Credit card fraud
o Privacy risk 
 Whether your personal data is safely stored
 Online shopping experience? 
o Years, frequency, money spent  
 Product category? 
 o Digital products: all product attributes can be communicated online > 
 Music, software (‘less variation in attributes’) > 
o Non-digital products: physical inspection increases knowledge attributes > 
 Apparel (e.g., clothing, shoes; ‘substantial variation in attributes’)

Risk perceptions were negatively related to purchase intention. 

Results: Dai et al. 

 Risk perceptions related to online purchase intentions  
 Online shopping experience 
o Decreases risk perceptions  
o Direct effect on online purchase intentions

How can we tackle these obstacles for online shopping? 

 Article 1: Van Noort, Kerkhof &  Fennis (2008)

Online safety cues

RQ = Do safety cues work as risk relievers?

 Regulatory focus  
o Info compatible with focus: more attention / important (= regulatory fit) 
 This is an assumption of the theory
 This information receives more attention
o What type of consumer, for whom do safety cues work best? 
 Prevention Focus Consumer!
 This is what Van Noort predicted
o Online shopping ⇒  prevention focus – avoiding losses (vs. achieving gains) (cf. Van
Noort et al., 2007)  
o Prevention focus  
 Safety cues more important; fit with preference for security and protection

What did the research look like

 2 (regulatory focus: promotion vs. prevention) x 2 (web content: safety cues vs. non-safety
cues) between subjects 
o They did two studies. The main study included more variables
  Manipulation regulatory focus  
o Promotion →  write about hopes and aspirations > 
o Prevention →  write about duties and obligations > 
 Website exposure: safety OR non-safety cues 
o Travel agency  
o Music store 
 Dependent Variabless: 
o risk perceptions (pilot study) + attitudes web site / retailer, behavioral intentions (main
study)

They were shown either safety cues or not. For the prevention focus people, there is more regulatory
fit, so that is why the safety cues work better. 

Results: risk perception

Lower risk perceptions when they were shown safety cues. They found an interaction effect. 

Results: Behavorial intentions

The effect of safety cues were only significant for people in the prevention focus. 

 Safety cues work as risk reliever and persuade consumers to shop online  
 But regulatory focus is moderator! 
 Safety cues still needed?  
o Better safe than sorry?

Recap: online risk perceptions

III: Website interactivity

 Article 2: Van Noort, Voorveld & Van Reijmersdal (2012)

Online consumer behavior: interactivity & flow

 Do interactive website features stimulate online consumers to buy your brand?
 The risk perception has a lot to do with the lack of interaction on the website.
 Interactive features
 o Store locators
o Games
o Virtual tours

Underlying mechanism
 What is the underlying mechanism behind this?
 Online Flow (= researched by Van Noort et al)
o The feeling that you are immersed in an online activity
o You forget the world around you. 
 Studies test a mediation model (Interactivity → flow → outcomes)

Online flow & dimensions

 Online flow  
o When you are completely immersed in an online activity 
o When you forget about the world around you and are only focused on the online
activity itself 
 Dimensions: dimensions of online flow
o Perceiving control over interaction  
o Extent to which attention is focused on interaction  
o Curiosity aroused by interaction 
o Experience interaction as intrinsically interesting

They test this model in the study. 

Higher levels of interactivity, more flow, and this causes positive effects on cognitive and behavioral
responses. 

Van Noort (2012): Website exposure in study 2

She did a second study. About website exposure.
Either exposure to a website with high interactivity, and low interactivity. 

Van Noort: Study 2

 Perceived interactivity 
o Used as Independent Variabele in mediation model  
 As a predictor
o This website gives me the opportunity to talk back  
o I feel that I have control over my visiting experience  
 Flow: they measured this 
o Indirect Measurement: ‘it was fun to explore the site’; ‘I was absorbed’  
o Direct Measurement: description online flow – rate experience  
 Attitudes website / brand  
o They measures stuff like this as well
 Behavioral responses 
o Positive WOM about website (referral intention) > 
o Online shopping intention > 
o Revisit intention

The Results of Study 2

They confirmed the model. What does this mean? Evidence that higher levels of website interactivity,
a higher level of online flow, and this predicted positive consumer reactions. 
 Higher levels of website interactivity induce online flow, resulting in positive cognitive (Study
1), affective, and behavioral responses (Study 2) 
o Behavioral responses means intentions  
  Effects vs. mechanism 
 Implications digital / internet strategy  
o Create optimal experience of online flow by using interactive websites

But what is optimal? How interactive should a website be?

It showed weird results. They could confirm if they looked at favorability, but when they looked at an
attitude that showed something else. 
So remember → The general picture is: the more interactive, the more positive. 

Recap: interactivity & flow

 Website interactivity ⇒ online consumer behavior  
 Online flow-explanation
o Does interactivity also decrease risk perceptions? 
o What type of risks? 
 What is optimal level of interactivity (and thus flow)? 
o Unknown – inconsistent findings  
o Potential moderators?  
Product category  
Regulatory focus