Is advertising via Snapchat the future of social media advertising?
A comparison of the effectiveness of Snapchat versus Facebook as
an advertising platform.
Rico Hoeboer 10375082
Master’s thesis Graduate School of Communication
Marijn Meijers Persuasive Communication
2 Abstract
This study gives insight in the effectiveness of Snapchat as an advertising platform. The effect of advertising via Snapchat on consumers’ brand attitude and purchase intention was
compared to the effect of advertising via Facebook and it is examined whether this effect is moderated by advertisement medium fit and is mediated by persuasion knowledge activation (PKA). An online experiment was conducted, in which 123 participants participated. The participants were randomly assigned to a condition with a Snapchat or Facebook
advertisement, which fits the medium or does not fit the medium. The results of this study indicated that advertising via Snapchat has a more positive effect on consumers’ brand attitude and purchase intention than advertising via Facebook. However, this study also indicated that the direct effect of advertising platform (Snapchat versus Facebook) on brand attitude and purchase intention is not moderated by advertisement medium fit and not mediated by PKA.
3 Introduction
Digital advertising keeps on becoming more important. In 2013 the total spending on digital ads has surpassed the total spending on advertisements in print media (ZenithOptimedia, 2013). This year, digital ad spending will for the first time ever surpass the TV ad spending in the US (eMarketer, 2016). A large amount of the total spending on digital ads is spent on ads on social media. It does not come as a surprise that Facebook, being the world’s most used social media platform with 1.86 billion monthly active users (Zephoria.com, 2017), attracts a lot of advertisers. In 2016 the total spending in ads on Facebook was 22,37 billion dollar worldwide, which is much more than other social media platforms as Twitter (2,6 billion dollar) and Snapchat (367 million dollar) (eMarketer, 2016). In sum, it can be stated that advertising on social media platforms has become a vital part of the marketer’s advertising strategy, which makes it an interesting topic to research.
Which social media platform may be best used as an advertising platform to positively affect consumers’ brand attitude and purchase intention has to be researched. Because of the amount of advertisements on Facebook, an advertising clutter may occur, which is an overload of advertisements within a certain medium (Belch & Belch, 2015). This clutter results in a decrease of the persuasive effect of the advertisements due to a lack of consumers’ attention for the advertisements, and therefore will not lead to the most positive campaign outcomes (Belch & Belch, 2015). When consumers do pay attention to the advertisements, several exposures to persuasive attempts within one medium will make consumer recognize the message sooner as an advertisement (Jurca & Madlberger, 2015). When consumers recognize the message as an advertisement, persuasion knowledge will be activated, which will lead to more critical processing of the information and may lead to resistance towards the message (Friestad & Wright, 1994).
4
tend to look at other social media platforms to optimize their campaign outcomes. An
interesting alternative for the use of Facebook as an advertising platform is Snapchat. Among young adults, aged 18 to 34, Snapchat is the third most used social media platform worldwide (Tornoe, 2015; Miller, 2014). Based on the marginal amount of advertisements on Snapchat and therefore the absence of an advertising clutter, Snapchat is an interesting social media platform to explore for marketers.
Brand communication on Snapchat is used most frequently by consumers who follow a brand on Snapchat for passing time, sharing problems, and improving social knowledge (Phua, Jin & Kim, 2017). Because of Snapchat’s interactive features, Snapchat as an
advertising platform can be used to develop intimate relationships between the consumers and the brand (Sashittal, DeMar & Jassawalla, 2016). Nevertheless, the effectiveness of Snapchat as an advertising platform has not yet been researched empirically, which will be done in this study.
According to Voorveld, Van Noort & Bronner (2016) each social media platform has its own unique characteristics and content, which leads to the social media platform being experienced in a unique way. The unique experience of the social media platform will influence how the brand communication on the SNS is experienced (Voorveld et al., 2016). Therefore, it is interesting to research the effect of the fit between the advertisement and the medium (Snapchat versus Facebook) on which the advertisement is presented, because this effect may moderate the effect of advertising via Snapchat or Facebook on brand attitude and purchase intention.
In this study the effectiveness of Snapchat versus Facebook as an advertising platform on the dependent variables brand attitude and purchase intention will be examined. This study also investigates the moderating effect of brand medium fit and the mediating effect of
5 RQ: To what extent does the effect of advertising via Snapchat versus advertising via
Facebook differ on consumers’ brand attitude and purchase intention and what is the
moderating role of advertisement medium fit and the mediating role of persuasion knowledge activation (PKA)?
Theoretical framework
Effect of advertising via Snapchat versus Facebook and mediation by PKA
As previously described in the introduction, this study focusses on the effect of advertising via Snapchat versus Facebook on the dependent variables brand attitude and purchase intention. Because Snapchat is relatively new as an advertising platform, the effectiveness of Snapchat as an advertising platform has not been researched empirically in previous studies.
In contrast, the effectiveness of Facebook as an advertising platform has been researched multiple times (e.g. Schivinski & Dabrowski, 2016; Beukeboom, Kerkhof & De Vries, 2015; Deghami & Tumer, 2015). For example, Schivinski and Dabrowski (2016) and Beukeboom et al. (2015) researched the effect of advertising via Facebook on consumers’ brand attitude. The studies showed that when a consumer is confronted with advertising on Facebook, advertising via Facebook has a positive effect on consumers’ brand attitude compared to consumers who were not (yet) confronted with advertising via Facebook
(Schivinski & Dabrowski, 2016; Beukeboom et al., 2015). In addition, the study of Deghami and Tumer (2015) showed that advertising via Facebook has a positive effect on consumers’ brand image and brand equity in comparison with consumers who are not confronted with the advertisements, which positively affects consumers’ purchase intention. According to
Schivinski and Dabrowski (2016) and Deghami and Tumer (2015) a possible explanation for the positive effects of advertising via Facebook is that advertising via Facebook can lead to
6
positive word of mouth, which is an effective tool to positively affect the brand image and brand equity (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).
However, when comparing advertising via Facebook to advertising via other SNS, not all studies found positive effects (e.g. Voorveld et al., 2016). The study of Voorveld et al. (2016) compared how SNS are experienced and how users evaluate brand communication on the different SNS. Voorveld et al. (2016) showed that each SNS is experienced in a unique way, which leads to different effects of brand communication on the different SNS.
According to Voorveld et al. (2016) consumers are not generally very negative towards brand communication on SNS. However, brand communication on Facebook, together with brand communication on YouTube, led to the least positive consumer reactions (Voorveld et al., 2016), when compared to other SNS (e.g. Instagram, Twitter).
With Snapchat being the third most used social media platform among young adults in the age of 18 to 34 (Tornoe, 2015; Miller, 2014), this study focusses on whether advertising via Snapchat should be considered as an alternative for advertising via Facebook. Because of the amount of advertisements on Facebook, an advertising clutter occurs (Belch & Belch, 2015). This leads to a less persuasive effect of the message (Belch & Belch, 2015). Therefore, there may be differences in the effectiveness of advertising via Facebook versus advertising via Snapchat, because Snapchat is less used as an advertising platform.
The possible differences in the effect of advertising via Facebook versus advertising via Snapchat can be explained by the Schema theory. According to Barlett (1932) people save and organize knowledge in schemata. Every experience or other form of information results in the activation of a scheme, which leads to the particular experience or other form of
information to be remembered in relation to the corresponding scheme (Beals, 1998). An advertisement can be seen as information, which has to be processed by consumers. To process the advertisements, consumers have developed an advertising scheme (Friestad &
7
Wright, 1994; Warlaumont, 1997). So, according to Beals (1998), when consumers are confronted with an advertisement, the advertising scheme will be activated. However, the advertising scheme is not the only scheme which is activated for processing an advertisement. According to Dahlén, Rosengren, Törn and Öhnman (2008) when consumers process an advertisement, they also rely on the brand scheme, which consists of all previous experiences and information about the brand. When confronted with an advertisement, the information about the advertised brand will be stored in the brand scheme (Dahlén et al., 2008). Because of the overload of advertisements on Facebook, it is likely that both the advertising scheme and the brand scheme will be activated when processing the advertisement.
In contrast, Snapchat is much less used as an advertising platform compared to Facebook. Consumers tend to recognise the message sooner as an advertisement when they are confronted with several exposures to persuasive attempts within one medium (Jurca & Madlberger, 2015). Therefore, it is expected that consumers’ advertising scheme is less likely to be activated when confronted with advertising via Snapchat compared to advertising via Facebook, which implicates that only the brand scheme is activated. Not activating the advertising scheme possibly leads to consumers feeling less resistance towards the
advertisement, and therefore being more persuaded by the advertisement (Fransen, Verlegh & Kirmani, 2015).
When consumers do identify the advertisement as such, consumers tend to have more unfavourable reactions towards the advertisement (Yi, 1990). This can be explained by the Persuasion Knowledge Model by Friestad and Wright (1994). According to Friestad and Wright (1994) the activation of the advertising scheme will lead to the activation of persuasion knowledge. The Persuasion Knowledge Model states that when consumers are confronted with persuasive attempts, coping mechanisms will be activated (Friestad & Wright, 1994). The coping mechanisms let consumers control the outcomes of the persuasive
8
attempts and can lead to more critical processing of the message. When consumers recognise the persuasive intent of the message they are confronted with, resistance towards the message may occur (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Consumers may even disengage from the
advertisement, which is caused by the detachment effect. According to Friestad and Wright (1994) the detachment effect makes consumers more conscious towards the message, which may lead to consumers to disengage from the message. The detachment effect will lead to the message having less persuasive power (Friestad & Wright, 1994).
It is expected that advertisements on Facebook are recognised as such, which leads to the activation of both the advertising and brand scheme. Therefore, persuasion knowledge will be activated, which may have a negative effect on the effect of advertising via Facebook brand attitude and purchase intention. Because it is expected that advertising via Snapchat only leads to the activation of the brand scheme, persuasion knowledge is less likely to be activated when consumers are confronted with advertisements on Snapchat. Consumers confronted with advertising via Snapchat will feel less resistance towards the advertisement, which leads to consumers being more persuaded by the advertisement. Therefore, it is
expected that advertising via Snapchat will lead to a more positive brand attitude compared to advertising via Facebook. According to the Theory of planned behaviour (Azjen, 1985), a more positive brand attitude leads to a higher purchase intention. The effect of advertising platform (Snapchat vs. Facebook) will, based on the Persuasion Knowledge Model, be mediated by PKA. This leads to the following hypotheses:
H1: Advertising via Snapchat has a more positive effect on consumers’ brand attitude (a) and
purchase intention (b) than advertising via Facebook.
H2: The effect of advertising via Snapchat versus advertising via Facebook on consumers’
9 Moderating effect of advertisement medium fit
Finally, this study focusses on the effect of fit between the message and the medium on the direct effect of advertising via Snapchat versus advertising via Facebook on
consumers’ brand attitude and purchase intention. According to Voorveld et al. (2016) each SNS has its’ own characteristics. The unique characteristics of each SNS lead to the SNS being experienced in a unique way, which affects how advertisements on the advertising platforms (Snapchat versus Facebook) are experienced (Voorveld et al., 2016). This can be explained by the Match-up hypothesis. According to Misra and Beatty (1990) when an endorser's relevant characteristics are consistent with relevant attributes of the brand, this match will lead to more positive campaign outcomes. The study of Till & Busler (2000) showed that when there is a match between the endorser and the endorsed product, the match leads to a more positive brand attitude and purchase intention. The Match-up hypothesis is expected to apply to the fit between advertisement and medium. According to Liu, Chou and Liao (2015) a match between the advertisement and the medium vehicle leads to the
advertisement being more effective. Therefore, it is expected that when there is a match between the medium and its’ characteristics and the advertisement, this leads to a more positive brand attitude and purchase intention than when there is no match between the medium and the advertisement.
The differences in match between the advertisement and medium (Snapchat versus Facebook) can be explained by the Uses and gratification theory (Katz, Blumler & Gurevitch, 1973). The Uses and gratification theory states that through the media users select, users satisfy their needs, which can be informational, social, and leisure related (Katz et al., 1973). In line with this, consumers select media based on the goal they want to reach (Rubin, 1986). Consumers interpret and integrate messages from different media into their daily lives, so they can best fulfil their needs (Rubin, 1986).
10
Based on a Uses and gratification theory perspective, the study of Phua et al. (2017) showed that Snapchat is used by consumers who follow a brand on Snapchat for passing time, sharing problems, and improving social knowledge. Therefore, Snapchat is seen as
comfortable, relatable to its’ users and empowering (Sashittal et al., 2016). Users feel more comfortable to use Snapchat to interact, because their post will only be visible for a maximum of ten second, compared to Facebook on which posts are publicly visible as well as the other people’s reactions towards the post (Phua et al., 2017). The public posts on Facebook result in users feeling less comfortable with sharing problems, which leads to lower involvement compared to Snapchat, which is perceived more personal and intimate (Phua et al., 2017). Therefore, Facebook can be best seen as a broadcast channel on which an individual can show his or her exciting life with other people (Sashittal et al., 2016).
Snapchat enables consumers to send a photo or video ‘snap’ and get an immediate personal response by its’ recipient (Phua et al., 2017). In line with the study of Phua et al. (2017), Sashittal et al. (2016) therefore stated that, based on Snapchat’s interactive features, Snapchat may be best used by brands to develop intimate relationships with consumers and to interact with the consumers. Both consumers and brands are able to interact on a personal level, which leads to a more intimate relationship between the consumers and the brand (Sashittal et al., 2016). Therefore, it is expected that an interactive advertisement would best fit with Snapchat.
Because Facebook is perceived less personal and intimate than Snapchat, Facebook may be best used by brands to communicate new reliable, useful information, motivate people to search for more information or to visit a store, or to keep consumers up-to-date about the product and the latest innovations (Voorveld et al., 2016). Advertising on Facebook will be perceived more useful when consumers see the advertisement as entertaining and especially informative, which will result in an increase of consumers’ purchase intention (Van Tien-Dao,
11
Nhat Hanh Le, Ming-Sung Cheng, Chao Cheng, 2014).
According to Phua et al. (2017) it is important for marketers to match the right advertisement with the right advertising platform (Snapchat versus Facebook). Consumers’ gratifications for using Snapchat or Facebook should fit the message in the advertisement (Phua et al., 2017). When the advertisement does fit the consumers’ gratification, consumers will be more engaged with the advertisement (Kim, Lee, Jo, Jung & Kang, 2015). According to Kim et al. (2015) higher ad engagement during media use will have a positive effect on brand attitude and purchase intention. Therefore, based on the uses and gratification for Snapchat (Sashittal et al., 2016; Phua et al., 2017), it is expected that an interactive
advertisement on Snapchat will have a more positive effect on brand attitude and purchase intention than an interactive advertisement on Facebook. Meanwhile, an advertisement in which consumers are motivated to buy the product has a better fit with Facebook than Snapchat according to the study of Voorveld et al. (2016). This is caused by consumers’ gratifications for Facebook, which are receiving reliable and useful information, and to fill an empty moment (Voorveld et al., 2016). When the information consumers receive keeps them up-to-date, motivates them to search for more information, or to visit a (web-) shop, the advertisement will be perceived more positive (Voorveld et al., 2016), and is therefore expected to have a more positive effect on brand attitude and purchase intention.
Because the fit between consumers’ gratifications for the advertising platform
(Snapchat vs. Facebook) and the advertisement affects the effectiveness of the advertisement, it is expected that the fit between the advertisement and the advertising platform moderates the effect of advertising via Snapchat versus advertising via Facebook on brand attitude and purchase intention. This leads to the following hypothesis:
12 H3: The effect of advertising via Snapchat versus advertising via Facebook on consumers’
brand attitude (a) and purchase intention (b) will be moderated by the fit between the advertisement and the medium.
H2ab
H3ab
H1ab
Figure 1: Conceptual Model with hypotheses
Method
Design
This study has a 2x2 between subjects design. The effect of the independent variable advertising platform (Snapchat vs. Facebook) and the moderating variable advertisement medium fit (fit vs. no fit) on the dependent variables brand attitude and purchase intention is researched in this study. This study also focusses on the mediating effect of PKA. To research these effects, an online experiment was conducted, which allows to measure the causal effects of the independent variable advertising platform, the moderating effect of advertisement
Advertising platform (Snapchat vs. Facebook) PKA Brand attitude Purchase intention Brand advertisement fit (fit vs. no fit)
13
medium fit and the mediating effect of PKA on the dependent variables brand attitude and purchase intention, with high internal validity.
Sample
The online experiment was started by 147 participants, of whom 123 completed the online experiment. All participants needed to be eighteen years old. All participants who were not eighteen years old at the time of participating in the online experiment and all participants who did not complete the online experiment are excluded from the results of this study. Of the 123 participants who met the requirements to be included in this study, 37.4% are men and 62.6% are women. The age of the participants ranged from 18 to 60 years (M = 25.41, SD = 9.35). In the sample, 0.8% of the participants’ level of education is low (Primary school), 20.3% of the participants’ level of education is mediate (High school, Intermediate vocational education), 78.9% of the participants’ level of education is high (Higher vocational education, University (Bachelor), University (Master)).
Stimulus material
The stimulus material used for this research consists of two advertisements on Snapchat and two advertisements on Facebook. An original post of Nike on Facebook was manipulated into two different posts on Facebook and two different posts on Snapchat. The original post by Nike on Facebook was chosen instead of creating completely new posts, to maintain a high level of professionality for each advertisement and to simulate a real scenario as much as possible. When finding support for the proposed effects, these effects are likely to occur in real life (Dahlén et al., 2008).
For each condition the same products of Nike were shown to the participants. To measure the moderating effect of advertisement medium fit, for each advertising platform two different posts had to be created: one advertisement that fits the medium (Snapchat
14
interactive, Facebook not interactive) and one advertisement that does not fit the medium (Snapchat not interactive, Facebook interactive) based on the gratifications for both
advertising platforms as shown in de studies of Voorveld et al. (2016) and Phua et al. (2017). In all conditions an advertisement with a wall full of Nike shoes was shown to the
participants. In each condition the same products were shown in the style of the advertising platform the advertisement was presented on. In the interactive conditions on both Snapchat and Facebook participants could see a share button and the following text: Share Your Style
With Us. Your Style. Your Way. In the not interactive conditions on both Snapchat and
Facebook, participants could see a shop button and the following text: Your Style. Your Way.
Get Your Own at NIKE.COM. The stimulus material can be seen in Appendix 1. In the
pre-test the stimulus material was pre-tested whether it is perceived by the participants as intended to.
Pre-test
To test whether the stimulus material is perceived by the participants as intended to, a pre-test was conducted. In the pre-test the difference in interactivity between the Snapchat advertisement with interactivity and the Snapchat advertisement without interactivity, and the Facebook advertisement with interactivity and the Facebook advertisement without
interactivity was tested. To test the difference in interactivity, a within subject design was used to test all four conditions. Participants were asked to look at the advertisements carefully and to fill in a survey about the interactivity of the four seen advertisements on Snapchat and Facebook. In the pre-test, sixteen people participated with a mean age of 32.60 (SD = 14.53), 56.3% were men (n = 9), 81.3% of the participants had a high level of education (University or Higher vocational education). Participants were asked to what extent they agreed with the items when looking at the Snapchat and Facebook post on a seven point scale.
The four items used for the pre-test were based on the scale for behavioural interactivity by Sohn and Choi (2014) (Appendix 2). The items like the post invites me to
15 express myself were measured on a seven point-scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). For the Facebook advertisement with no intended interactivity there was one
component, eigenvalue = 2.57. The reliability analysis showed that a reliable scale for interactivity could be constructed for the interactivity for the variable Facebook not interactive, α = 0.91. Subsequently the scale variable Facebook not interactive was constructed. The same process was repeated for the variables Facebook with interactivity (eigenvalue = 2.54, α = 0.91), Snapchat without interactivity (eigenvalue = 2.67, α = 0.93), and Snapchat with interactivity (eigenvalue = 2.60, α = 0.92). Subsequently the scale variables were constructed.
After constructing the scale variables, three paired samples t-tests were performed in which the variables Snapchat without interactivity and Snapchat with interactivity, the variables Facebook without interactivity and Facebook with interactivity, and the Snapchat advertisement with interactivity and the Facebook advertisement with interactivity were compared. The paired samples t-test showed that the Snapchat advertisement with interactivity (M = 4.54, SD = 1.53) was perceived significantly more interactive than the Snapchat advertisement without interactivity (M = 3.29, SD = 1.59), t(15) = 3.06, p = 0.008, 95% CI [-2.12, -0.38]. When comparing the Facebook advertisement with interactivity (M = 4.42, SD = 1.42) with the Facebook advertisement without interactivity (M = 3.31, SD = 1.54), the paired samples t-test showed that the Facebook advertisement with interactivity was perceived significantly more interactive than the Facebook advertisement without
interactivity, t(15) = 2.23, p = 0.042, 95% CI [-2.16, -0.05]. When comparing the Snapchat advertisement with interactivity (M = 4.54, SD = 1.53) with the Facebook advertisement with interactivity (M = 4.42, SD = 1.42), the paired samples t-test showed no significant
difference, t(15) = -0.49, p = 0.630, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.42]. Based on the results of the pre-test, no changes were made in the stimulus material.
16 Procedure
Participants for this study were recruited to participate in the online experiment due to a convenience sample. First, participants were to read the informed consent form after which they had to agree with the terms and conditions for this study. Subsequently, participants were confronted with a Snapchat homepage or a Facebook timeline, depending on which condition they were randomly assigned to. Afterwards, the participants were asked to imagine that while they are checking their friends’ Snapchat stories or posts on Facebook, they were confronted with the following Snapchat/ Facebook post, which they had to read carefully. Subsequently, they were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions, which matched the homepage they had seen. After being confronted with the stimulus material in their condition, participants were asked to answer questions about their brand attitude, purchase intention, and PKA. Afterwards, participants were asked whether they are familiar with Nike, familiar with Snapchat and familiar with Facebook and to what extent they perceive the advertisement as interactive. Finally, participants were asked to fill in their demographic variables gender, age, and level of education.
Measures
Brand attitude
The dependent variable brand attitude is measured by four items like I like the brand
Nike, based on the scale of Bergkvist and Rossiter (2009), which can be seen in Appendix 3.
Participants were asked to answer the items on a seven-point Likert scale for which value 1 was strongly disagree and value 7 strongly agree. The higher participants scored on the Likert scale, the more positive their attitude towards Nike. The performed principal component-analysis showed that there was only one component with an eigenvalue of 1 or more (eigenvalue = 3.17). This component explains for 79.18% of the total variance in brand
17
attitude. Subsequently, a reliability analysis has been performed to check whether a reliable scale out of the items used to measure brand attitude could be constructed. The reliability analysis showed a reliable scale for the variable brand attitude could be constructed, α = 0.92. Finally, the scale variable brand attitude was constructed (M = 5.54, SD = 1.08).
Purchase intention
Similar to the dependent variable brand attitude, the dependent variable purchase intention was measured by four items like I would certainly buy a product of Nike, based on the scale of Bergkvist and Rossiter (2009), which can be seen in Appendix 3. Participants were asked to answer the items on the same seven-point Likert scale as used to measure brand attitude. The performed principal component-analysis showed that there was only one
component with an eigenvalue of 1 or more, eigenvalue = 3.30. This component explains for 82.48% of the total variance in the purchase intention. The reliability analysis indicated that a reliable scale for the variable purchase intention could be constructed, α = 0.93. Finally, the scale variable purchase intention was constructed (M = 5.23, SD = 1.34).
PKA
The mediating variable PKA was measured by four items like I know the post by Nike
has strings attached, based on a scale of Bearden, Hardesty and Rose (2001), which can be
seen in Appendix 3. Participants were asked to answer the items on the same seven-point Likert scale as used for brand attitude and purchase intention. The performed principal component-analysis showed that there was only one component with an eigenvalue of 1 or more, eigenvalue = 2.65. This component explains for 66.16% of the total variance in PKA. The reliability analysis indicated that a reliable scale for the variable PKA could be
constructed, α = 0.82. Finally, the scale variable PKA was constructed (M = 4.93, SD = 1.20).
18 Results
Randomization check
To test whether the randomization of participants’ age, familiarity with Nike, familiarity with Snapchat and familiarity with Facebook worked out as intended to, four univariate ANOVAs were performed. The mean scores related to the randomization check can be seen in Appendix 4. The univariate ANOVA for age showed a non-significant effect for advertising platform (F(1,116) = 0.18, p = 0.676), advertisement medium fit (F(1,116) = 0.54,
p = 0.466), and interaction of advertising platform and advertisement medium fit (F(1,116) =
0.70, p = 0.406) on age. These results indicate that there are no significant differences in participants’ age throughout the conditions.
The univariate ANOVA for participants’ familiarity with Nike showed a
non-significant effect for advertising platform (F(1,115) = 0.08, p = 0.777), advertisement medium fit (F(1,115) = 0.08, p = 0.777), and interaction of advertising platform and advertisement medium fit (F(1,115) = 0.17, p = 0.684) on familiarity with Nike. These results indicate that there are no significant differences in participants’ familiarity with Nike throughout the conditions.
The univariate ANOVA for participants’ familiarity with Snapchat showed a non-significant effect for advertising platform (F(1,116) = 0.01, p = 0.924), advertisement medium fit (F(1,116) = 0.14, p = 0.710), and interaction of advertising platform and advertisement medium fit (F(1,116) = 0.26, p = 0.613) on familiarity with Snapchat. These results indicate that there are no significant differences in participants’ familiarity with Snapchat throughout the conditions.
The univariate ANOVA for participants’ familiarity with Facebook showed a non-significant effect of advertising platform (F(1,116) = 0.92, p = 0.338), advertisement medium fit (F(1,116) = 0.01, p = 0.921) on familiarity with Facebook. These results indicate that there
19
are no significant differences in participants’ familiarity with Facebook throughout the conditions.
Finally, to check whether the randomization of participants’ gender worked out as intended to, a Chi-square test was performed. The Chi-square test showed a non-significant effect of condition on gender, X²(3) = 6.46, p = 0.091. This result indicates that there are no significant differences in participants’ gender throughout the conditions.
Manipulation check
To test whether the stimulus material was perceived by the participants as intended to, a univariate ANOVA was performed. The univariate ANOVA showed a significant effect of advertising platform (F(1,116) = 5.02, p = 0.027) and significant interaction effect of
advertising platform and advertisement medium fit (F(1,116) = 10.67, p < 0.001) on to what extent participants perceived the post as interactive. However, advertisement fit did not have a significant effect on to what extent participants perceived the advertisement as interactive, (F(1,116) = 2.40, p = 0.124). The interactive Snapchat advertisement was perceived significantly more interactive than the not interactive Snapchat advertisement (Mdifference =
1.45, p < 0.001). However, the interactive Facebook advertisement was not perceived significantly more interactive than the not interactive Facebook advertisement (Mdifference =
0.52, p = 0.220). This may influence the results of this study.
Hypotheses testing
The effect of advertising platform on brand attitude and purchase intention
First of all H1, advertising via Snapchat has a more positive effect on consumers’ brand attitude (a) and purchase intention (b) than advertising via Facebook, was tested. Both
H1and H3 were tested by performing a MANOVA. To test H1, there had to be looked at the
20
brand attitude and purchase intention. The MANOVA showed that there is a weak significant effect of advertising platform on the dependent variables brand attitude and purchase
intention, Wilk’s lambda = 0.95, F(2,115) = 3.14, p = 0.047, η² = 0.05. Advertising platform has a significant weak effect on both brand attitude (F(1,116) = 4.48, p = 0.031, η² = 0.04) and purchase intention (F(1,116) = 5.86, p = 0.017, η² = 0.05). This implicates that
advertising via Snapchat (M = 5.80, SD = 0.78) has a more positive effect on consumers’ brand attitude than advertising via Facebook (M = 5.38, SD = 1.24). The results also implicate that advertising via Snapchat (M = 5.56, SD = 1.00) has a more positive effect on consumers’ purchase intention than advertising via Facebook (M = 4.97, SD = 1.57). Therefore, H1 is accepted.
The mediating effect of PKA
Subsequently, H2, the effect of advertising via Snapchat versus advertising via Facebook on consumers’ brand attitude (a) and purchase intention (b) will be mediated by PKA, was tested. For there to be a mediating effect, the effect between independent variable advertising platform and the dependent variables brand attitude and purchase intention, the effect between the independent variable advertising platform and the mediator PKA, and the effect between the mediator PKA and dependent variables brand attitude and purchase intention (Baron & Kenny, 1986). To test whether the effect of advertising platform on the dependent variables brand attitude and purchase intention is mediated by PKA, two mediation analyses were performed by using PROCESS Macro model 4 with 5000 bootstrap samples.
To test the mediating effect of PKA for advertising platform on the dependent variable brand attitude, the PROCESS Macro was performed. The first step was to test if advertising platform significantly predicts brand attitude. The model was significant, weak, and explained for 4% of the total variance in brand attitude, F(1,118) = 4.84, p = 0.030, R² =0.04. As were to be expected based on the result of H1, advertising platform significantly predicts brand
21
attitude, b = 0.42, t(118) = 2.20, p = 0.030. The second step was to test if advertising platform significantly predicts PKA. The model was significant, weak, and explained for 7% of the total variance in PKA, F(1,118) = 8.52, p = 0.004, R² =0.07. Advertising platform
significantly predicts PKA, b = -0.62, t(118) = -2.92, p = 0.004. This result indicates that when consumers are confronted with advertising via Facebook, consumers will have a higher PKA compared to consumers who are confronted with advertising via Snapchat. The third and final step to test if PKA mediates the effect of advertising platform on brand attitude was to test if PKA significantly predicts brand attitude. The model was significant, weak, and
explained for 6% of the total variance in brand attitude, F(2,117) = 3.90, p = 0.023, R² =0.06. The mediator PKA does not significantly predict brand attitude, b = -0.14, t(117) = -1.70, p = 0.092. Advertising platform in the same model as PKA does also not significantly predict brand attitude, b = 0.33, t(117) = 1.70, p = 0.092. The bootstrapped unstandardized indirect effect was 0.09, and the 95% confidence interval ranged from -0.01, 0.29. Thus, the indirect effect of PKA was statistically non-significant. The results of the PROCESS Macro implicate that PKA does not mediate the effect of advertising platform on brand attitude.
To test the mediating effect of PKA for the effect of advertising platform on purchase intention a second PROCESS Macro was performed. The first step was to test if advertising platform significantly predicts purchase intention. The model was significant, weak, and explained for 5% of the total variance in purchase intention, F(1,118) = 5.94, p = 0.016, R²
=0.05. As were to be expected based on the results of H1, advertising platform significantly
predicts purchase intention, b = 0.59, t(118) = 2.44, p = 0.016. The second step was to test if advertising platform significantly predicts PKA. The model was significant, weak, and explained for 7% of the total variance in PKA, F(1,118) = 8.52, p = 0.004, R² =0.07. Advertising platform significantly predicts PKA, b = -0.62, t(118) = -2.92, p = 0.004. This result indicates that when consumers are confronted with advertising via Facebook,
22
consumers will have a higher PKA compared to consumers who are confronted with advertising via Snapchat. The third and final step to test PKA mediates the effect of advertising platform on brand attitude was to test if PKA significantly predicts purchase intention. The model was weak, significant, and explained for 6% of the total variance in purchase intention, F(2,117) = 3.98, p = 0.020, R² =0.06. The mediator PKA does not significantly predict purchase intention, b = -0.15, t(117) = -1.40, p = 0.164. Advertising platform in the same model as PKA does significantly predicts purchase intention, although this effect is lessened, b = 0.50, t(117) = 2.00, p = 0.048. The bootstrapped unstandardized indirect effect was 0.09, and the 95% confidence interval ranged from -0.03, 0.29. Thus, the indirect effect of PKA was statistically non-significant. The results of the PROCESS Macro implicate that PKA does not mediate the effect of advertising platform on purchase intention.
Based on the results of both mediation analyses, it can be concluded that PKA does not mediate the effect of advertising platform on both brand attitude and purchase intention. Therefore, H2 is rejected.
The moderating effect of advertisement medium fit
Finally H3, the effect of advertising via Snapchat versus advertising via Facebook on consumers’ brand attitude (a) and purchase intention (b) will be moderated by the fit between the advertisement and the medium, was tested. The MANOVA showed that there is no significant interaction effect of advertising platform and advertisement medium fit on the dependent variables brand attitude and purchase intention, Wilk’s lambda = 1.00, F(2,115) = 0.07, p = 0.933. The effect of advertising platform on brand attitude (F(1,116) = 0.12, p = 0.731) and purchase intention (F(1,116) = 0.12, p = 0.732) is not significantly moderated by advertisement medium fit. Therefore, H3 has to be rejected. An overview of the mean scores related to H1 and H3 can be seen in Appendix 5.
23 Discussion
This study focussed on the effectiveness of advertising via Snapchat versus advertising via Facebook on consumers’ brand attitude and purchase intention, the moderating effect of brand medium fit and the mediating effect of PKA. Based on the in the theoretical framework discussed literature, it was expected that advertising via Snapchat leads to a more positive brand attitude and purchase intention than advertising via Facebook, that this effect is moderated by brand medium fit, and that the direct effect of advertising via Snapchat versus advertising via Facebook is mediated by PKA. The results of this study showed that
advertising via Snapchat significantly leads to a more positive brand attitude and purchase intention than advertising via Facebook. H1 is therefore accepted. However, the results of this study indicated that this main effect was not moderated by brand medium fit and not mediated by PKA. H2 and H3 are therefore rejected.
This study is the first empirical study that indicates that advertising via Snapchat has a more positive effect on brand attitude and purchase intention. This result was expected based on the Schema theory (Bartlett, 1932; Beals, 1998). Based on the Schema theory it was expected that advertising via Facebook will lead to the activation of both the advertising and brand scheme, because of the amount of advertisements within one medium (Jurca &
Madlberger, 2015). Because Snapchat is much less used for advertising, it was expected that the activation of the advertising scheme was less likely to be activated, which leads to only activating the brand scheme. When consumers do not identify the advertisement as such, this will lead to less unfavourable cognitive reactions (Yi, 1990), which explains the more positive effect of advertising via Snapchat versus advertising via Facebook.
Based on the Persuasion Knowledge Model by Friestad and Wright (1994), it was expected that PKA mediates the effect of advertising platform (Snapchat vs. Facebook) on brand attitude and purchase intention. Advertising via Facebook would lead to higher PKA
24
and therefore more critical processing of the advertisement, which will lead to advertising via Snapchat having a more positive on brand attitude and purchase intention than advertising via Facebook. Participants who are confronted with the advertisement on Facebook had a
significantly higher PKA, which in line with the Persuasion Knowledge Model by Friestad & Wright (1994). However, PKA did not significantly affect brand attitude and purchase intention, which was not expected. Therefore, H2 is rejected. The Persuasion Knowledge Model does give a possible explanation for the non-significant effect of PKA on brand attitude and purchase intention. According to the Persuasion Knowledge Model (Friestad & Wright, 1994), PKA can lead to a detachment effect, which implicates that the consumer detaches himself from the advertisement, which makes the advertisement lose its’ persuasive power. However, when the advertisement contains salient and relevant attributes for the consumers, PKA will not lead to resistance towards the message and will instead be accepted by the consumers (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Although advertising via Facebook does lead to a higher PKA than advertising via Snapchat, the advertisement possibly contains salient and relevant attributes, which explains the non-significant effect of PKA on brand attitude and purchase intention.
This study also focussed on the moderating effect of brand medium fit on the effect of advertising platform on brand attitude and purchase intention. Based on the Match-up
hypothesis it was expected that, when there is a match between the medium characteristics and the advertisement, the match will lead to a more positive brand attitude and purchase intention (Till & Bussler, 2000). Therefore, it was expected that based on a Uses and gratification perspective, an interactive advertisement would fit with Snapchat and a non-interactive advertisement with Facebook (Phua et al., 2017; Voorveld et al., 2016). However, no significant moderating effect was found for advertisement medium fit on the effect of advertising platform on brand attitude and purchase intention, which is not in line with the
25
study of Till & Bussler (2000) and Kim et al. (2015). This result can be explained by the results of the manipulation check. The interactive Snapchat advertisement was perceived as intended to. However, the Facebook interactive advertisement did not significantly differ from the Facebook not interactive advertisement. This flaw in the stimulus material may have influenced the results of this study regarding the moderating effect of brand medium fit on the effect of advertising platform on brand attitude and purchase intention.
In conclusion, to answer the research question, ‘To what extent does the effect of advertising via Snapchat versus advertising via Facebook differ on consumers’ brand attitude and purchase intention and what is the moderating role of advertisement medium fit and the mediating role of PKA?’, it can be stated that, based on the results of this study, advertising via Snapchat has a more positive effect on brand attitude and purchase intention compared to advertising via Facebook. However, the fit between advertisement and the medium does not moderate the effect of advertising platform on brand attitude and purchase intention and PKA does not mediate effect of advertising platform on brand attitude and purchase intention.
Limitations and Future Research
This study has several limitations. First of all the stimulus material was not perceived by the participants as intended to. The interactive Facebook advertisement did not significantly differ from the not interactive Facebook advertisement on perceived interactivity. The stimulus material may have influenced the non-significant moderating effect of brand medium fit on the effect of advertising platform on brand attitude and purchase intention. For future research, it would be interesting to research this effect to make sure whether the brand
medium fit does or does not moderate the effect of advertising platform on brand attitude and purchase intention.
Secondly, this study made use of advertisements by Nike to research the effects of advertising platform on brand attitude and purchase intention. When using a well-known
26
brand, participants tend to have strong existing attitudes towards the brand (Dahlén et al., 2008). In this study no pre-test and post-test were performed to measure the effect of advertising via Snapchat versus advertising via Facebook. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that existing attitudes and purchase intentions towards Nike have affected the results of this study. For future research, it would be interesting to perform pre-test and post-test or to use a fictive brand, so it can be concluded that the changes in brand attitude and purchase intention are the result of the causal effect of advertising via Snapchat versus advertising via Facebook.
Finally, this study did only focus on the Schema theory and PKA as underlying mechanisms of the difference in effect of advertising via Snapchat versus advertising via Facebook on consumers’ brand attitude and purchase intention. For future research it may be interesting to focus on the ‘editorial’ context the advertisement is presented in on Snapchat or Facebook. According to Moorman, Neijens, and Voorveld (2007) the way the context is perceived by consumers, may spill-over to the way to the advertisement integrated in the context. When consumers perceive the context the advertisement is presented in as negative, it is therefore more likely that the advertisement will have a less positive effect on consumers’ brand attitude and purchase intention than when consumers perceive the context as positive (Moorman et al., 2007). According to Voorveld et al. (2016) consumers mostly express negative emotions and opinions on Facebook, which may affect the effectiveness of advertising via Facebook.
Conclusion
This study contributes to the scientific research on social media advertising. This study is the first empirical study to research the effectiveness of advertising via Snapchat. The results of this study indicate that advertising via Snapchat has a more positive effect on brand attitude and purchase intention than advertising via Facebook. This main effect of advertising platform is not moderated by advertisement medium fit and not mediated by PKA. This
27
research may serve as a starting-point for further research on the effectiveness of Snapchat as an advertising platform, when the limitations of this study are taken into account. In
conclusion it can be stated that when marketers would like to positively affect consumers’ brand attitude and purchase intention, advertising via Snapchat should be preferred over advertising via Facebook. According to the results of this study, marketers should focus on the new available opportunities for advertising via Snapchat. Advertising via Snapchat might be the future of social media advertising.
28 Literature
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In Action control (pp. 11-39). Berlin, D: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bearden, W. O., Hardesty, D. M., & Rose, R. L. (2001). Consumer self-confidence: Refinements in conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Consumer
Research, 28(1), 121-134.
Beals, D. E. (1998). Reappropriating schema: Conceptions of development from Bartlett and Bakhtin. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5(1), 3-24.
Belch, G. E., & Belch M. A. (2015). Advertising and promotion: An integrated marketing communications perspective. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education
Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2009). Tailor-made single-item measures of doubly concrete constructs. International Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 607-621.
Beukeboom, C. J., Kerkhof, P., & de Vries, M. (2015). Does a Virtual Like Cause Actual Liking? How Following a Brand's Facebook Updates Enhances Brand Evaluations and Purchase Intention. Journal of Interctive Marketing, 32, 26-36.
Dahlén, M., Rosengren, S., Törn, F., & Öhman, N. (2008). Could placing ads wrong be right?: Advertising effects of thematic incongruence. Journal of Advertising, 37(3), 7-67.
Dehghani, M., & Tumer, M. (2015). A research on effectiveness of Facebook advertising on enhancing purchase intention of consumers. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 597-600.
29
eMarketer. (2016, 13 september). Us digital ad spending surpass tv this year. Geraadpleegd op 19 december, 2016, van https://www.emarketer.com/Article/US-Digital-Ad-Spending-Surpass-TV-this-Year/1014469
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of consumer research, 21(1), 1-31.
Jurca, M. A., & Madlberger, M. (2015). Ambient advertising characteristics and schema incongruity as drivers of advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 21(1), 48-64.
Kamins, M. A. (1990). An investigation into the “match-up” hypothesis in celebrity
advertising: When beauty may be only skin deep. Journal of advertising, 19(1), 4-13. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of Social Media. Business horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. The Public
Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 509-523.
Kim, J., Lee, J., Jo, S., Jung, J., & Kang, J. (2015). Magazine reading experience and advertising engagement: A uses and gratifications perspective. Journalism & Mass
Communication Quarterly, 92(1), 179-198.
Kirmani, A., & Shiv, B. (1998). Effects of source congruity on brand attitudes and beliefs: the moderating role of issue-relevant elaboration. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(1), 25-47.
Lee, S. Y., & Shen, F. (2009). Joint advertising and brand congruity: Effects on memory and attitudes. Journal of Promotion Management, 15(4), 484-498.
Liu, S. H., Chou, C. H., & Liao, H. L. (2015). An exploratory study of product placement in social media. Internet Research, 25(2), 300-316.
30
Misra, S., & Beatty, S. E. (1990). Celebrity spokesperson and brand congruence: An assessment of recall and affect. Journal of Business Research,21(2), 159-173. Moorman, M., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2007). The effects of program involvement on
commercial exposure and recall in a naturalistic setting. Journal of Advertising, 36(1), 121-137.
Phua, J., Jin, S. V., & Kim, J. J. (2017). Gratifications of using Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or Snapchat to follow brands: The moderating effect of social comparison, trust, tie strength, and network homophily on brand identification, brand engagement, brand commitment, and membership intention. Telematics and Informatics, 34(1), 412-424. Schivinski, B., & Dabrowski, D. (2016). The effect of social media communication on
consumer perceptions of brands. Journal of Marketing Communications, 22(2), 189-214.
Sashittal, H. C., DeMar, M., & Jassawalla, A. R. (2016). Building acquaintance brands via Snapchat for the college student market. Business Horizons, 59(2), 193-204. Sohn, D., & Choi, S. M. (2014). Measuring expected interactivity: Scale development and
validation. new media & society, 16(5), 856-870.
Van-Tien Dao, W., Nhat Hanh Le, A., Ming-Sung Cheng, J., & Chao Chen, D. (2014). Social media advertising value: The case of transitional economies in Southeast
Asia. International Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 271-294.
Voorveld, H. A. M., van Noort, G. Muntinga, D. G. & Bronner, F. (2016) Social media experiences and appreciation for brand communication. The differentiating role of type of platform. Paper presented at the International Conference of Research in Advertising. Ljubljana, Slovenia.
31
Warlaumont, H. G. (1997). Appropriating reality: Consumers' perceptions of
schema-inconsistent advertising. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74(1), 39-54. Yi, Y. (1990), The effects of contextual priming in print advertisements. Journal of Consumer
Research, 17(9), 215–222
ZenithOptimedia. (2016, December 12). Adspend forecasts december 2013. Retrieved from http://www.zenithmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Adspend-forecasts-December-2013-executive-summary.pdf
Zhang, J., & Mao, E. (2016). From online motivations to ad clicks and to behavioural intentions: An empirical study of consumer response to social media advertising.
32 Appendices
Appendix 1: Stimulus material
33 Condition Facebook advertisement without interactivity
34 Condition Snapchat advertisement with interactivity
35
36 Appendix 2: Pre-test
Interactivity (Sohn and Choi, 2014); 1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree
- The post invites me to modify things in the way I want. - The post invites me to influence the brand.
- The post invites me to express myself.
37 Appendix 3: Ethical approval & measures
Factsheet
Dear,
I would like to invite you to participate in this online experiment, which is conducted under the auspices of the Graduate School of Communication, a part of the University of Amsterdam.
The research you are asked to participate in is a research which focusses on different advertising platforms. You will be confronted with a post on social media. Subsequently, you will be asked several question about that particular post.
The online experiment will take about 5 minutes.
As this research is being carried out under the responsibility of the ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, I can guarantee that:
1) Your anonymity will be safeguarded, and that your personal information will not be passed on to third parties under any conditions, unless you first give your express permission for this.
2) You can refuse to participate in the research or cut short your participation without having to give a reason for doing so. You also have up to 24 hours after participating to withdraw your permission to allow your answers or data to be used in the research.
3) Participating in the research will not entail your being subjected to any appreciable risk or discomfort, the researchers will not deliberately mislead you, and you will not be exposed to any explicitly offensive material.
38
4) No later than five months after the conclusion of the research, we will be able to provide you with a research report that explains the general results of the research.
For more information about the research and the invitation to participate, you are welcome to contact the project leader Rico Hoeboer at any time via ricohoeboer@hotmail.com.
Should you have any complaints or comments about the course of the research and the procedures it involves as a consequence of your participation in this research, you can contact Ethics Committee representing ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR Secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐525 3680; ascor‐secr‐fmg@uva.nl. Any complaints or comments will be treated in the strictest confidence.
I hope that I have provided you with sufficient information. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance for your assistance with this research, which is greatly appreciated.
Kind regards,
Rico Hoeboer
Informed consent
I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research, as described in the email invitation for this study.
39
I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation in the experiment at any time.
If my research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in another way, this will be done such a way that my anonymity is completely safeguarded. My personal data will not be passed on to third parties without my express permission.
If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in future, I can contact Rico Hoeboer. Should I have any complaints about this research, I can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing the ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐ 525 3680; ascor‐secr‐fmg@uva.nl.
I agree to participate in this research
Brand attitude (Bergkvist & Rossiter, 2009); 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree
- I have a good feeling about the brand Nike. - I like the brand Nike.
- I think Nike is a pleasant brand. - I think Nike is a useful brand.
Purchase intention (Begkvist & Rossiter, 2009); 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree
- It is likely that I will buy a product of Nike. - I would certainly buy a product of Nike. - It is probable that I will buy a product of Nike.
40
- It is possible that I would buy a product of Nike.
PKA (Bearden et al., 2001); 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree
- I know the post by Nike has strings attached.
- I know the post by Nike is pressuring me to buy one of its’ products.
- I have no trouble understanding the bargaining tactics used in the post by Nike. - I can see through sales gimmicks used in the post by Nike to get me to buy one of its’
41 Appendix 4: Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations for main and interaction effect
advertising platform and advertisement medium fit on age, familiarity with Nike, familiarity with Snapchat, familiarity with Facebook
Mean scores for the effect of advertising platform and advertisement medium fit on age, familiarity with Nike, familiarity with Snapchat, and familiarity with Facebook
Advertising Platform Advertisement Fit M SD n Age Facebook No fit 24.68 6.17 31 Fit 27.32 11.77 31 Total 26.00 9.42 62 Snapchat No fit 25.38 9.06 29 Fit 25.21 9.12 29 Total 25.29 9.01 57
Familiarity with Nike
Facebook No fit 6.00 0.93 31 Fit 6.16 0.74 31 Total 6.08 0.84 62 Snapchat No fit 6.10 0.86 29 Fit 6.14 0.71 28 Total 6.12 0.78 57 Familiarity with Snapchat Facebook No fit 5.97 1.14 31 Fit 5.74 1.34 31 Total 5.85 1.24 62 Snapchat No fit 5.86 1.53 29 Fit 6.04 1.43 28 Total 5.95 1.47 57 Familiarity with Facebook Facebook No fit 6.48 0.57 31 Fit 6.52 0.57 31 Total 6.50 0.57 62 Snapchat No fit 6.34 1.08 29 Fit 6.36 1.19 28 Total 6.35 1.13 57 Note:* (p < 0.05)
42 Appendix 5: Table 2: Means and Standard Deviations for main and interaction effect
advertising platform and advertisement medium fit on brand attitude and purchase intention. Mean scores advertising platform and advertisement medium fit on brand
attitude and purchase intention
Advertising Platform Advertisement Fit M SD n Brand attitude Facebook No fit 5.36 1.16 31 Fit 5.40 1.33 31 Total* 5.38 1.24 62 Snapchat No fit 5.72 0.95 29 Fit 5.89 0.58 29 Total* 5.80 0.78 58 Total No fit 5.53 1.07 60 Fit 5.64 1.06 60 Total 5.59 1.06 120 Purchase intention Facebook No fit 4.94 1.69 31 Fit 4.99 1.46 31 Total* 4.97 1.57 62 Snapchat No fit 5.45 1.09 29 Fit 5.66 0.89 29 Total* 5.56 1.00 58 Total No fit 5.19 1.44 60 Fit 5.32 1.25 60 Total 5.25 1.35 120 Note:* (p < 0.05)
