Broadening storytelling boundaries:
A Comparison of Single Media and Cross-Media Storytelling
with Regards to Campaign Outcomes
Anna Lindpere
10857788
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Masters Program Communication Sciences
Track Persuasive Communication Supervised by Dr. H.A.M. Voorveld
Abstract
The aim of the current study is to investigate whether utilization of storytelling is more successful with single media or cross-media with regards to affective, cognitive and behavioral outcomes. Some scholars argue, that form of media and its combinations is less important than consumers product involvement level. Moreover, it has been investigated whether consumer product involvement level is influencing the campaign outcomes. Accordingly, consumer product involvement level is added as moderator.
Results of an online experiment (n = 102) showed that the utilization of single media was affecting message comprehension and recall positively, whereas cross-media resulted in lower cognitive evaluations. Moreover, we found that respondents with higher product involvement are more likely to buy and recommend advertised product, than low product involvement respondents.
Current research indicates how storytelling can be successfully implemented with single media. It offers advertisers a prospect to spend less on advertising, while getting same or better results as with cross-media campaigns. Moreover, this study is an example how important is to know whether your consumers are highly involved with the product or not. This implication enables to distract effective messages and channels from ineffective counterparts.
Introduction
Global spendings on newspaper advertising have decreased over 40 million dollars since 2007, whereas ad spendings in almost all other categories remain to grow (Global Media Report, 2013). Several studies claim that newspaper advertisements are less effective than the utilization of other media, because readers are exposed to vast number of adverts in one newspaper edition and it is difficult to trigger an effect (Naik & Peters, 2009). Simultaneously, print media still has some advantages. It allows consumers to process information at their own pace and sequences, providing the opportunity for deeper processing compared to other mediums (Dijkstra & van Raaij, 2002). Many theorists and practitioners refer that combining several mediums together could trigger a stronger effect than print only campaigns (Voorveld, Neijens & Smit, 2009; Chang & Thorson, 2004; Tang, Newton & Wang, 2007).
Literature regarding the difference of utilizing cross-media campaigns over single media campaigns remains contradictory. Cross-media combinations could have a stronger effect in comparison with television or web-only campaigns, as it leads to higher attention and credibility (Voorveld, Neijens & Smith, 2011; Chang & Thorson, 2004; Edwards & La Ferle, 2000). Nonetheless, the findings refer that print media is still more effective alone compared to cross-media campaigns that combine print with other media (Assael, 2011). Grounding on these studies, it is not clear, which of the possibilities is more effective and how indicated possibilities should be used to have biggest value for the campaign outcomes. To amplify campaign effectiveness, scholars have tested different message strategies to adjust shortcomings of different media. Storytelling is seen as one of the possibilities to enhance the media influence as it can increase brand and ad recall rates (Keller, 1993; Polyorat, Alden & Kim, 2007). Furthermore, it allows brands to show their identity while strengthening brand equity (Fog, Budtz & Yakaboylu, 2005). As people will rather remember
stories than one-message-campaigns (Woodside, Sood & Miller, 2008), producing coherent storylines about brands is becoming more popular. This study is focusing on cross-media and single media storytelling. At the same time, scholars have found that medium and the message are not the only factors influencing campaign outcomes. It has been resulted, when consumers are involved with the product they are motivated to process the message content more deeply (Maheswaran & Sternthal, 1990). Accordingly, product involvement level is used as moderator in this study. Grounding on previous studies the current paper will focus on cognitive, affective and behavioral campaign outcomes. The following research question is central to this study:
RQ: “To what extent is single source (print media) storytelling more successful
regards to affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcomes than cross-media (print media + Internet) storytelling considering the consumer involvement?”
Answering this question contributes to media research and practice, by opening a new opportunity for diversified single medium utilization. It allows to analyze if creating coherent storylines within one medium is effective or not. This study combines two concepts – storytelling advertising and single media, which have not been studied together before. Moreover, it will offer an insight, which media choices should be used with divergent involvement levels of customers
Additionally, this research holds important implications for practitioners, proposing a novel possibility for distributing advertising budget more effectively. For example in November 2014, daily newspaper in Estonia sold all their advertising space for one particular brand and first results indicate, that this method may hold a possibility to implement storytelling within one medium. Accordingly, results will hold additional value to advertisers as they gain knowledge, which campaign outcomes are influenced the most, when using
storytelling in single medium. Moreover, is it still effective when consumers product involvement is low.
Theoretical background Storytelling in advertising
In advertising, storytelling could be defined as a mental simulation, which means that when seeing a storyline, receivers think about their own actual or potential actions by making a connection between previous memories and the presented storyline (Escalas, 2004a). Accordingly, viewers tend to immerse themselves into the story and concentrate on processing the story by utilizing their own experiences. This process takes the attention from product and arguments presented, while making the storyline a focal factor for liking the ad (Lien & Chen, 2013). For example, when one sees a storytelling ad about Coca-Cola, which takes viewer to a journey, attitude towards Coca-Cola is not so important if the story itself is engaging.
Storytelling advertising is seen as entertainment as well persuasive communication, because it offers emotional pleasure, but also gives knowledge like non-storytelling adverts (Tong, Chen & Chen, 2012). Viewers, who saw storytelling advertisement, evaluate higher on self-brand connection and brand attitudes, because storytelling adverts are seen more engaging than non storytelling ones (Escalas, 2004a). This process enhances brand symbolic values and strengthens brand identity by creating a meaningful relationship between brands and their consumers (Escalas, 2004a; Heding, Knudtzen & Bjerre, 2008: 189).
Moreover, storytelling ads are seen to increase persuasion of the ad and initiate positive brand attitude. As viewers are occupied in processing the ad, their resistance towards the ad is low, because the arguments will not occur so easily (Lien & Chen, 2013). At the same time some scholars argue that it is not a storyline that will affect the product and ad
evaluation, but the effect occurs due to product involvement itself, as it will determine whether consumer will look the ad at the first place (Dijkstra & van Raaij, 2002). Possible moderating effect of product involvement will be discussed later. While storytelling is seen as a creative process, there are few factors that need to be observed: (a) format of the advertisement (b) characteristics of the storyline and (c.) media that will be used (Fog, Budtz & Yakaboylu, 2005; Escalas, 2004a; Escalas, 2004b; Lien & Chen, 2013).
Formats of storytelling advertising
Firstly, formats of storytelling advertising – visual and verbal, both have different outcomes (Escalas, 2004b; Lien & Chen, 2013). Visual storytelling means that a narrative is presented through pictures or images that hold informational value (Lien & Chen, 2013). They are easily processed and usually elicit emotional reaction. The verbal advertising format, however, requires deeper processing as viewers use their own imagination, which links with the presented story (Lien & Chen, 2013). Lien and Chen (2013) showed that verbal formats leads to better attitude towards ad and the product than visual ones. As indicated, it allows viewers to generate visuals by themselves, which will increase mental simulation. Latter provides viewer a possibility to create visual storyline in their head. For example, it has been shown that using the word “imagine” in advertisements increases positive thoughts about the product and the brand affecting purchase decision, because viewers use their own thoughts, which are generally positive (Escalas, 2004a; Mattila, 2000). At the same time, visual cues may reduce resistance more than verbal ones as visuals can absorb viewers in the story (Escalas, 2004b). Accordingly, there is no conclusive answer to the question, which form of storytelling should be used. Moreover, it has been noted that in some way all verbal storytelling ads are additionally visual, thus there is no visible line between two forms (Lien & Chen, 2011).
Four components of storytelling
Secondly, effective storytelling should consist of four components – message, conflict, character, and plot (Fog, Budtz & Yakaboylu, 2005:31). As the main purpose of storytelling in advertising is often to make a brand or product characteristics clearer and more attractive, the message of the advertisement holds important value (Fog et al., 2005: 32). There are many opinions, what constitutes as a good message. Most of the scholars agree that best messages are simple and clear (Fog et al., 2005: 32; Woodside, Sood & Miller, 2008). A message can be made active by using conflict, which is another attribute of effective storytelling. Therewith, it should be noted that in context of storytelling, conflict is not seen as a multidimensional tool but as a turning point of the story (Fog et al., 2005). For example, a well-know commercial for chocolate egg Kinder Surprise, where a kid is sad and everything seems gray, ends with a plot twist as mother gives him two Kinder Surprise eggs, which will light up the kids face. Main aim of the conflict is to engage the viewer, because conflicts often raise questions (Papadatos, 2006). It has been said that conflicts can also be seen as events with expected symbolical outcomes, like the good conquers the evil or the hero and the heroine live happily ever after (Woodside et al., 2008). Understandably, conflicts cannot occur without characters. In storytelling advertising, characters create the way for brands to enhance their symbolic value. One of the possibilities is to add the symbol of the brand as one of the characters (Fog et al., 2005). With characters, not only appearance influences the success of the story, but also emotions should be taken in consideration (Park & Lee, 2014). Good storytelling ads require a plot, which outlines the conflict, solution and characters (Fog et al., 2005). Studies have found that as commercials generally appeal to positive emotions and storytelling ad should maintain this feeling, because it increases general liking towards the ad and the product (Lien & Chen, 2011). Furthermore, usage of
certain emotions like happiness, fun, romance or sadness, could influence persuasiveness, when paired with the right products, characters and situations in plot (Park & Lee, 2014).
Media possibilities for storytelling
Thirdly, scholars agree upon that storytelling should be used with multiple media as it allows the storyline fully develop (Dena, 2004). Commonly, two multiple media concepts for storytelling are distinguished. Transmedia storytelling means that each channel is used separately, thus each channel’s specific qualities and advantages are used independently (Veglis, 2012). Cross-media storytelling, however, purpose that storyline directs the receiver from one medium to another to gain full details about the story, thus divergent media compliments one another (Veglis, 2012). With advertising, where only two or three media are used, concept cross-media storytelling should be used, as transmedia incorporates more dimensions of media (movies, television, games) (Jenkins, 2003). Often, transmedia and cross-media, are not separated by the scholars, because they hold similar characteristics by constituting as multimedia approaches (Veglis, 2012). For that reason there are not many studies specifically assessing the usage of storytelling advertising and different combinations of cross-media. Furthermore, there are no studies indicating how storytelling would interact with single media, which is one of the focuses in this research. However, there are extensive amount of studies focusing on single media and cross-media effects and their influences on campaign goals.
Literature overview of print and Internet only campaigns effectiveness
Media type should be chosen according to the objectives of advertisement. Some scholars have argued that cross-media campaigns could be more effective, but at the same time other studies have shown that there is no significant differences between cross-media
and single media campaign effectiveness (Voorveld & van Noort, 2014; Dijkstra & Raaij, 2002). There are various ways how advertising in media can be differentiated. Control over the speed and the sequence of information transfer is one of the most refined media factors. Medium might be controlled by the sender or by the receiver (Dijkstra & Raaij, 2002). In delivery media, receiver has low control over the pace of the information, which may decrease in depth message processing (Dijkstra & Raaij, 2002). At the same time, delivery media can increase recall and affective response rates, as it is using multiple sensory modes (Dijkstra, Buijtels & van Raaij, 2000; Voorveld & van Noort, 2014; Bronner & Neijens 2006). Dijkstra et al. (2000) found that for persuasion, retrieval media like Internet banners and newspaper ads are more effective then television, as people have more time for processing. For that reason print media and Internet are utilized in current study.
Sundar et al. (1998) argued that print advertisements are the most universal as viewers can process information in their own pace, which reflects on high rates for message comprehension. On the other hand, it has been resulted that although print-only ads enhance cognitive responses, they rate low on purchase decision and liking the message (Dijkstra et al., 2005). Dijkstra et al. (2005) argued that the nature of print and the Internet as retrieval media suggest that these media are superior on cognitive responses if involvement is sufficient. As mentioned before, some studies have shown that consumer involvement level holds a moderating effect, which is seen to affect message comprehension, as well other campaign outcomes (Dijkstra et al., 2005; Dijkstra & Raaij, 2002).
Although print and Internet are both retrieval media, scholars have highlighted that the main differences between Internet ads and paper ads is that Internet needs to be scrolled, whereas print ad could be processed in whole (Sundar et al., 1998). It has found that with print, readers can set aside something that obtained ones attention for later reading but on web, interesting content can easily blend in with other articles or ads (Magee, 2013).
Furthermore, with print, receiver is forced to see an ad on each page, which will increase message comprehension and brand memory, because there is more time for processing the ads (Sundar et al., 1998; Nysveen & Breivik, 2005; Magee, 2013). The contrast could have been this drastic 15 years ago, but today the lines between print and Internet are more vague. Many traditional newspapers and magazines have their daily edition in web as PDF-format of their regular paper issues, which can be read on laptop or tablet by scrolling (Ihlström, Akesson & Nordqvist, 2004; Veglis, 2012). Accordingly, advantages of Internet and newspapers may spillover to web newspapers, which enhance message comprehension for adverts. In sum, utilization of retrieval media ads allows receivers to process the information on their own pace, which will enhance message comprehension and is more persuasive then usage of delivery media (Voorveld & van Noort, 2014; Dikstra et al., 2005; Sundar et al., 1998).
Literature overview of cross-media campaigns and effectiveness
Many advertising campaigns that we encounter are cross-media campaigns, what means utilizations of multiple media (Voorveld, Neijens & Smit, 2011). Main aim of cross-media campaigns is to have synergy effect, which is obtained when the combined effect of utilized media exceeds the effect of advertising in independent media (Naik & Peters, 2009). There are two underlying processes of synergy effect. Firstly, forward encoding, which emerges when advertisement in given medium primes the consumer's interest for an ad of the same company in a second medium (Voorveld et al., 2011). Secondly, multiple source perception, which leads receiver to believe, when exposed to messages from the same advertiser distribute over to multiple media, it is thought to be from independent sources (Voorveld et al., 2011). Supportive results are found about the success of combinations of
multiple media as it resulted more positive effects, than repeating one medium regards to cognitive and affective outcomes (Tang, Newton & Wang, 2007).
It has been argued that Internet-magazines partnership could be very profitable as Internet can compensate information and feature richness, what might be missing in magazine ad (Kanso & Nelson, 2004). Correspondingly, online-offline media advertising has been researched in various studies. Chang and Thorson (2004) found that combining television and Web led to higher attention, higher perceived message credibility and positive thoughts. Dijkstra et al. (2005) showed that campaigns combining TV, print, and online advertising are more effective than internet-only campaigns regards to cognitive measures.
In sum, utilization of cross-media can give better cognitive and affective responses than repetition in single media. Simultaneously, success of the cross-media campaign depend on the combination of the media as choosing wrong channel may decrease the effectiveness of campaign outcomes.
The moderating effect of consumer involvement level
As mentioned above, consumer involvement level with the product category or with a particular brand is expected to influence campaign outcomes (Voorveld, Neijens & Smit, 2012; Dijkstra & van Raaij, 2002). Moreover, with different involvement level, divergent techniques should be used. Firstly, consumers with high product involvement process the presented information more deeply, which has positive impact on message comprehension and other cognitive responses (Wu, 2001; Dijkstra & van Raaij, 2002; Ching, Tong, Chen & Chen, 2013; Cohen & Chakravarti, 1990). Maheswaran & Sternthal (1990) resulted that when consumers are highly involved with the product, they are motivated to process the message content and they also judge the ad and the product more highly. As indicated in previous section, utilization of single media is affecting message comprehension positively, thus it is
arguable that high product involvement and utilization of single media can lead to even better message comprehension and affective outcomes. It has been found that high product involvement consumers like to see more information in their ad, as they already possess some previous experiences with the product. Therefore, retrieval media is seen highly affective for high product involvement consumers since it gives more time for processing the information (Dijkstra & Van Raaij, 2002). Contradictory, Dijkstra and Van Raaij (2002) found that high-involvement consumers in the multiple media condition rated higher on cognitive and affective responses, than high-involvement consumers in one media condition. It might be caused by the fact, that cross-media often offers lots of divergent information, which is in line with the information need that high product involvement consumers have.
Research has found that cross-media had negative effect on low-involvement consumers, as consumers might find it difficult to integrate the message of different media (Dijkstra & Van Raaij, 2002). Main concern with low product involvement consumers is their attention to the ad. It has been reasoned that when viewer does not hold any associations with the brand or a product, one may not even notice the advertisement (Dijkstra & van Raaij, 2002). Therefore, delivery media is seen more effective regards to low product involvement consumers, because it attracts the attention of uninvolved consumers and may thus induce the learning process (Dijkstra et al., 2005).
Accordingly, cross-media storytelling might increase overall evaluation of the ad for low product involvement consumers, as it is present in more than one media, but for high product involvement consumers single media storytelling might offer more as they can focus their attention on information, which they can process in their own pace. Grounding on previous results and theories on storytelling, cross-media, single media and product involvement, the following hypothesis are formulated:
H1: Respondents, who were exposed to single media condition and had high product
involvement, will have more positive results on behavioral outcomes, than low product involvement respondents in single media condition.
H2: Respondents, who were exposed to single media condition and have high product
involvement, will understand the message better, than high product involvement respondents in cross-media condition.
H3: Respondents, who were exposed to single media condition and have high product
involvement, will have higher brand recall, than high product involvement respondents in cross-media condition.
H4: Respondents, who were exposed to cross-media condition and have low product
involvement, will have higher product attitude, than low product involvement respondents in single media condition.
H5: Respondents, who were exposed to single media condition and have high product
involvement, will have higher brand attitude, than low product involvement respondents in single media condition.
Figure 1. Conceptual model
Consumer product involvement level
Campaign outcomes Cross-media storytelling
Method Design
The study employed an experiment with a single factor between-subjects design (media condition: storytelling in single media vs. cross-media storytelling). The independent variable, media, was manipulated by presenting single media storytelling to one group and the cross-media storytelling to the second group. Consumers product involvement level was measured as part of the questionnaire and two groups were made by median split. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of the media conditions.
Respondents
Participants of this study were recruited through convenience sampling by using different social media pages/groups for Dutch and foreign university students. A request for participation was posted on various Facebook pages. A total of 102 respondents participated and 75 of them were female and 27 male. All the respondents were at age of 18 – 44. Over half of the respondents were 18-24 years old (69,9%). Although there were respondents from wide variety of countries, most participants were Estonian (N=67; 65,7%) or Dutch (N=19; 18,6%).
Materials
Six advertisements used in this study were selected among several Ben & Jerry campaigns that had been used by brand in previous years. Ben & Jerry as a brand, was chosen, because their campaigns are usually well performed and fairly known. Moreover, people have mostly positive connotation towards their activities. Messages in the advertisements were altered according to storytelling theories presented earlier (Fog, Budtz & Yakaboylu, 2005; Escalas, 2004a; Escalas, 2004b). Created storyline had a message,
character, conflict and a plot. Main message of selected storyline was “Free Cone Day 2015”, which, as stated in advertisement, was on 11th of June. After developing advertisements they were placed in PDF-format of newspaper Gulf Times and as banner to Malta Today website. Gulf Times is a daily Arabic English newspaper that provides latest world news about politics, economy, sport and whether (Gulf Times, 2015). Malta Today is a popular news site in Malta. This particular newspaper and news site were chosen because presumably most of the respondents do not have any strong preconception about these publications. It has been studied that readers attitudes towards the publication can influence their purchase decision or overall attitude towards the product (Tipps, Berger & Weinberg, 2006). For creating equal conditions that are necessary for conducting an experiment, both groups saw a banner, but for single media group there was no Ben & Jerry ad on banner.
Procedure
Experiment was entirely conducted in online environment. Firstly, all participants received explanation about the general topic of the study and were asked to provide an informed consent. Half of the participants were exposed to cross-media stimuli and other half to one media stimuli. To ensure careful inspection of the materials, time limit of one minute was added for both stimuli. Shortly after seeing the campaign, respondents were asked to fill in a questionnaire about estimating campaign outcomes and product involvement. Finally, control variables and demographic characteristics were measured.
Measures
Campaign outcomes
Cognitive outcomes. To measure unaided brand recall, an open ended question was used by asking participants to type in all brands that were advertised on the newspaper or on
newspaper/webpage (Gupta & Lord, 1998). If participants did not recall any brands 0 was marked, if they recalled brand Ben & Jerry score 1 was marked. Recall rate was 89.3%, with a total of 90 naming Ben & Jerry. 11 people were unable to name any of the brands and 2 named other advertised brand than Ben & Jerry.
Affective outcomes. A four-item seven-point semantic differential scale was used to estimate participants’ attitude towards the brand, ad and product (Chang & Thorson, 2004). Respondents were asked to assess their attitudes towards brand, ad and product with four items as follows: bad/ good, uninteresting/ interesting, unappealing/ appealing, and not likeable/ likeable. Those four items were shown to belong to a single factor for attitude towards the brand (EV = 2.76, R2 = .69), attitude towards the advertisement (EV = 3.28, R2 = .82), and attitude towards the product (EV = 2.88, R2 = .72). Reliability for brand (α = .83; M = 5.43; SD = 1.18), advertisement (α = .93; M = 4.60; SD = 1.36) and product (α = .85; M = 5.65; SD = 1.18) was also high, thus all of the factors were recoded into single variable.
Message comprehension. According to study by Jeong and Hwang (2012) message comprehension was measured by using a self-reported measure of perceived message comprehension and open-ended measure of actual comprehension. Seven-point Likert scale was used for perceived message comprehension (M = 4.48; SD = 1.59) by asking respondents to indicate the extent they understood the arguments presented in ads (1-not at all; 7 – very much). For open-ended measure respondents were asked to list the arguments presented in storytelling ads. Answers were coded as either one correct argument (1), two correct arguments (2) or incorrect (0). Over half of the respondents (53.9%) could not name any arguments, but at the same time 25 of the respondents were able to remember more then one argument.
Behavioral outcomes. In this study purchase behavior was measured as behavioral outcome. A two seven-point Likert scale was used (Martensen, Grønholdt, Bendtsen, &
Jensen, 2007). Participants were asked to indicate how likely they would purchase the brand featured in ads and how likely they would recommend it to their friends (1 – very unlikely; 7 – very likely). There was a significant correlation between variables r (102) = .786, p = .000.
Product involvement
As product involvement may influence the processing intensity, two facets of consumer’s product involvement, perceived product importance, and interest were measured by using two-item seven-point semantic differential scale what has been successfully practiced in other studies (Dijkstra & Van Raaij, 2002; Dijkstra et al., 2005; Voorveld et al., 2012). The items included ‘very unimportant/very important’ and ‘very uninteresting/very interesting’. Correlation between items was high r (102) = .778, p = .000, and they were combined into single variable. Low-involvement and high-involvement respondents were split into two groups by median split (median = 4.0). Therefore, respondents, who evaluated their involvement level one a 7-point Likert scale more then 4 were high-involvement respondents and people, who marked their involvement level 4 or less were marked as low-involvement group.
Control variables and demographic characteristics
Finally, control variables and respondents demographic characteristics were measured. Control variables contained brand and campaign elements familiarity, but also questions about news outlets used in study. Each variable was measured on a one-item seven-point Likert scale (1 – not at all; 7 – very well) by asking respondents to specify how well they know the brand, the campaign, and news outlets prior to experiment. At the end of the questionnaire demographic variables, such as age, gender, education, and nationality were measured.
Results Sample
A total of 102 respondents were surveyed in this study, and randomly split into conditions of single media and cross-media. A median split (median = 4) later allowed for the participants to be classified into conditions of low product involvement and high product involvement. The final distribution is shown in table 1.
- Insert table 1 here -
Control Variables
In order to know which of the control variables should be included in the hypothesis testing, correlation to dependent variables was inspected (Table 2). Two control variables, awareness of brand Ben & Jerry and liking of ice-cream, were shown to be highly correlated to brand attitude. Liking of the ice-cream and gender were highly correlated to product attitude. Previous awareness of Ben & Jerry campaigns and liking of an ice-cream, were correlated to ad attitude. Four covariates, awareness of brand Ben & Jerry, previous knowledge about Ben & Jerry campaigns, liking of an ice-cream, and gender, were shown to be highly correlated to behavioral outcomes. Message comprehension was negatively correlated to awareness of newspaper Gulf Times and nationality. In sum, six covariates, awareness of Ben & Jerry, previous knowledge about the campaigns of Ben & Jerry, ice-cream liking, gender, awareness of newspaper Gulf Times, and nationality were included into further analysis of dependent variables.
- Insert table 2 here -
Hypothesis Testing Brand attitude
To test the effects of media conditions and product involvement on the brand attitude, ANCOVA was performed with media condition and involvement level as independent
variables, awareness of Ben & Jerry, previous knowledge about the campaigns of Ben & Jerry, ice-cream liking, gender, awareness of newspaper Gulf Times, and nationality as covariates, and brand attitude as dependent variables. Analysis showed that after controlling for the effect of covariates, there was no main effect of media condition F (1, 93) = 0.04, p = .852, involvement level F (1, 93) = 1.87, p = .175 and between media condition and involvement level F (1, 93) = 0.34, p = .559. Covariates, awareness of Ben & Jerry F (1, 93) = 7.24, p = .008 and liking of ice-cream F (1, 93) = 8.86, p = .004 had a significant effect on brand attitude. Accordingly, hypothesis 5 is not supported as there was no significant interaction between media condition and involvement level and respondents in single media condition, who had high product involvement did not have significantly higher brand attitude from respondents, who had low product involvement.
Product attitude
To test the effects of media conditions and product involvement on product attitude ANCOVA was performed with the media condition and involvement level as independent variables, awareness of Ben & Jerry, previous knowledge about the campaigns of Ben & Jerry, ice-cream liking, gender, awareness of newspaper Gulf Times, and nationality as covariates, and product attitude as dependent variables. Analysis showed that after controlling for the effect of covariates, there was no main effects of media condition F (1, 92) = 1.57, p = .213, involvement level F (1, 92) = 2.15, p = .145 and between media condition and involvement level F (1, 92) = 0.34, p = .559. Covariate, ice-cream liking F (1, 92) = 79.83, p = .000, however, was interacting with product attitude. As there was no main effects hypothesis 4 was not supported.
Behavioral outcomes
To test the effects of media conditions and product involvement on the brand and product attitude ANCOVA was performed with the media condition and involvement level as independent variables, awareness of Ben & Jerry, previous knowledge about the campaigns of Ben & Jerry, ice-cream liking, gender, awareness of newspaper Gulf Times, and nationality as covariates, and behavioral outcomes as dependent variable. Analysis showed that after controlling for the effect of covariates, there was no main effects of media condition F (1, 92) = 0.43, p = .513 and between media condition and involvement level F (1, 92) = 0.27, p = .603, whereas product involvement level F (1, 92) = 16.59, p = .000 had an effect on behavioral outcomes. Respondents, who had high product involvement evaluated behavioral outcomes higher (M = 5.66, SE = 0.17), than respondents who had low product involvement (M = 4.66, SE = 0.16). Covariate, ice-cream liking F (1, 92) = 19.04, p = .000 and awareness of Ben & Jerry F (1, 92) = 6.03, p = .016, had also an effect on the results. Further analysis showed, that there were main effects between involvement level and single media group F (1, 46) = 7.99, p = .007 and involvement level and cross-media group F (1, 41) = 6.83, p = .012. Participants in single media condition, who had low product involvement, evaluated behavioral outcomes lower (M = 4.55, SE = 0.260), than participants, who had high product involvement (M = 5.60, SE = 0.25). Accordingly, hypothesis 1 was partly supported, as there was no interaction between media condition and involvement level, but participants with high product involvement evaluated behavioral outcomes higher, than participants with low product involvement as hypothesized.
Message comprehension
To test the effects of media conditions and product involvement on message comprehension MANCOVA was performed with the media condition and involvement level
as independent variables, awareness of Ben & Jerry, previous knowledge about the campaigns of Ben & Jerry, ice-cream liking, gender, awareness of newspaper Gulf Times, and nationality as covariates, and message comprehension and arguments as dependent variables. Analysis showed that, after controlling for the effect of covariates, there was no main effects of media condition F (1,92) = 1.85, p = .178, involvement level F (1, 92) = 3.67, p = .058 and between media condition and involvement level F (1, 92) = 0.93, p = .337 for amount of arguments. There was also no effects of involvement level F (1, 92) = 0.53, p = .468 and between media condition and involvement level F (1, 92) = 0.00, p =.997, but there was a main effect of media condition F ( 1, 93) = 6.13, p = .015. Respondents in cross-media condition (M = 4.08, SE = 0.22) evaluated message comprehension lower, than respondents in single media condition (M = 4.84, SE = 0.21). For amount of argument, non of the variables had significant influence on results. As involvement level was not influencing the results of message comprehension and there was no significant interaction between amount of arguments and independent variables, hypothesis 2 was not supported.
Brand recall
For analyzing a brand recall ANCOVA was performed with the media condition and involvement level as independent variables, awareness of Ben & Jerry, previous knowledge about the campaigns of Ben & Jerry, ice-cream liking, gender, awareness of newspaper Gulf Times, and nationality as covariates, and brand recall as dependent variable. Because brand recall was measured as open question, frequencies were looked as well (see table 3). Results indicated that participants, who had high product involvement and were forced to see single media condition, recalled brand better (N = 34), then those, who had high product
involvement, but saw cross-media condition (N= 24). Further analysis showed that, after controlling for the effect of covariates, there was no main effects of involvement level F (1,
93) = 1.18 and between media and involvement level F (1,93) = 0.00, p = .985, but there was a main effect of media condition F (1,93) = 4.69, p = .033. Respondents in single media condition (M = .95, SE = 0.04) remembered brands better than respondents in cross-media condition (M = .81, SE = 0.05). Accordingly, hypothesis 3 is not supported.
- Insert table 3 here -
Conclusion – Discussion
Main aim of this study was to investigate to what extent single source storytelling is more successful, than cross-media storytelling. Storytelling advertising is seen as entertainment as well persuasive communication, as it offers pleasure, but also tries to persuade. Storytelling is seen effective, because it interacts with viewers symbolic memory, which can influence them even after seeing the ad. Although storytelling is traditionally used with cross-media, advertising space and time is expensive and it is worth investigating if storytelling could be used within one media. Accordingly, one of the focuses of this study was to evaluate, if storytelling could also work within single media and to what extent is this solution more successful compared to cross-media. This is one of the first studies about the utilization of storytelling within one media. Furthermore, advertisements used in this study were designed especially for this experiment.
Main conclusion of this study was that single media storytelling could enhance the message comprehension and brand recall, but consumers product involvement level should be considered as well. The results of this study showed that combining product involvement level and media conditions did not provide any meaningful results. At the same time, when analyzed separately, media condition and product involvement level were influencing the affective, cognitive and behavioral outcomes. Respondents under single media condition
recalled brand and messages better than respondents, who saw the cross-media stimuli. Product involvement level was affecting behavioral outcomes as respondents with high product involvement evaluated higher the possibility to recommend or buy advertised product, than participants with low product involvement, which was hypothesized by hypothesis 1.
Although, there were some significant results, only one of the hypotheses was partly supported. Firstly, drawing on studies about single and cross-media, it was presumed that respondents with high product involvement will be more affected by single media utilization than by cross-media (Dijkstra et al., 2005; Sundar et al., 1998; Dijkstra & Van Raaij, 2002). Our results indicated that although there were some differences between groups, these differences were not explainable by media conditions or product involvement, as there was no interaction for none of the independent variables. Although literature indicated that high product involvement could lead to more positive affective outcomes, this was not proven by analysis. As many studies have highlighted, channel should be chosen accordingly to product (Dijkstra et al., 2005; Voorveld et al., 2011; Tang, Newton & Wang, 2007), incorrect channel choice could be seen as one of the explanations. Studies have indicated that consumers are not seeking for extra information for low purchase risk products like ice-cream, but are liking or buying the product because of the emotion (Lin & Chen, 2006). Accordingly, delivery media might be more profitable compared to retrieval media for low purchase risk products, because viewers are not motivated to process extra information (Ahmed et al., 2004). Although, utilization of delivery media may decrease in depth message processing, it might influence the affective outcomes like brand and product attitude positively (Dijkstra & Raaij, 2002).
Alternative reason could be drawn from characteristics of the e-newspaper. Although the layout of the PDF-format newspaper in Internet is similar to paper newspaper, there are
some characteristics, which may influence the results. It has been found that with print, reader can set aside something that obtained ones attention for later reading, but interesting content can easily blend in with other articles or ads on web (Magee, 2013). As PDF-format newspaper used in this study needed to be scrolled not leafed through, it is arguable that created advertisements blended in with stories and other colorful pictures. This may decrease advertisement effectiveness on brand and product attitude. On the other hand, previous studies have resulted that for high product involvement respondents, Internet should be the best channel for advertising as they can consume as much information about the product as they want (Wu, 2001; Liu & Shrum, 2009).
Although there was no significant interaction between media condition and involvement level for behavioral outcomes, there were some results worth discussing. As indicated above, product involvement was influencing the behavioral outcomes, which has been previously concluded also by Dijkstra et al. (2005). Dijkstra et al. (2005) found that respondents with high product involvement, evaluated behavioral outcomes higher, which was also supported by current study. Thus, participants who felt highly involved with ice-cream, were more willing to buy or recommend it later. Although, some theories argue that high involvement level might not correlate purchase behavior, it does apply for low-risk products like ice-cream (Quester & Lim, 2003).
Lastly, the hypothesis about message comprehension was not supported, but there were differences among single media and cross-media groups. Respondents in the single media group had a better message comprehension, than respondents in the cross-media group. This is also in line with the study by Dijkstra & Raaij (2002), as single media is seen to enhance message comprehension. Furthermore, utilization of retrieval media might have influenced the results, because it has been argued that print advertisements are the most universal as viewers can process information in their own pace (Sundar et al., 1998).
Simultaneously, this effect did not occur in cross-media condition. However, it is notable that product involvement did not have any influence on results, which was not expected as previous studies have shown that consumers with high-involvement level tend to process message more comprehensively (Wu, 2001; Dijkstra & van Raaij, 2002; Ching, Tong, Chen & Chen, 2013; Cohen & Chakravarti, 1990). Interestingly, covariate nationality had an effect on message comprehension. This might be explained by language barrier as most of the participants were from the Netherlands or from Estonia, where English is not the first language.
Managerial Implications
This study has shown that storytelling can be used with single media on some occasions. One of the main outcomes of this study is that cross-media campaign is not more successful than single media campaign. Furthermore, storytelling can be successfully implemented with single media, which offers prospect to spend less on advertising, while resulting same or better outcomes as with cross-media campaigns. Simultaneously, media choice should be made carefully considering desired outcomes. When goal of the campaign is to make viewers memorized the brand and/or the message, utilization of single media is more suitable.
Secondly, advertisers should not think that advertising in newspapers is not profitable and cannot be interesting. As this study showed, there are novel creative ways that can be implemented for campaigns. Novel options can make advertising in newspapers interesting for readers and advertisers. Accordingly, selling all advertising space once in a while for one company can enhance readers attention to advertisements.
Lastly, this study is an example how important is to know whether the consumers are highly involved with the product or not. This knowledge can help to detect the correct message and channel for campaign. High product involvement consumers are likely to have some previous
experience with the product, thus they are willing to buy it again, whereas low product involvement consumers are more conscious and need more persuasion. As mentioned earlier, this reasoning is different for high- and low-risk products.
Limitations and future research
Although this study has some interesting results, the findings need to be interpreted with limitations in mind. Firstly, participants were forced to see the stimulus for certain amount of time and then shortly after answering the questions. Therefore, the respondents did not have the time to think about ads they saw. Furthermore, conditions of experiment were not simulating the regular environment for newspaper reading. It is worth speculating, whether newspaper reading habits of respondents could have influenced the results. For example, if one is use to read newspapers from physical papers, one could feel uncomfortable reading the paper from web as it may decrease their attention to the ads.
Secondly, choice of media should be discussed. This study used web page and online newspaper, which are both seen as retrieval media. As mentioned earlier, this could have influenced the results. It is arguable, that utilization of delivery media could have provided significant results, because ice-cream is low risk product, which might mean that people do not need longer processing time, what retrieval media offers (Cabanero, 2006; Rossiter, Percy & Donovan, 1991). Accordingly, it could be argued that changing the low involvement product to high involvement product or changing the media type could influence the results. Latter could be tested in future studies.
Finally, choice of certain website and newspaper should be discussed. Both of the channels were carefully chosen, at the same time it is possible that used publications could have been influenced the results. It has been argued that higher involvement with a
Berger & Weinberg, 2006). Thus, if more known publications have been used, outcome of the campaign might have been different, because participants had not used their resources to think about the publication. As the newspaper used in this study is from Qatar, some
participants might have some prejudices about the publication.
Future research should focus on the investigation of products that have different involvement levels, to understand if high purchase risk products need different approach. As mentioned earlier, conditions of this experiment were rather artificial as respondents read the newspaper in their devices. Same experiment could be implemented with paper newspaper, with some time in between stimulus and questionnaire. Lastly, different media options could be used as only retrieval media was applied in current paper.
Reference list
Ahmed, Z. U., Johnson, J. P., Yang, X., Fatt, C. K., Teng, H. S., & Boon, L. C. (2004). Does country of origin matter for low-involvement products? International Marketing Review,
21(1), 102-120.
Assael, H. (2011). From silos to synergy: A fifty-year review of cross-media research shows that synergy has yet to achieve its full potential. Special Issue: Journal of Advertising
Research, 51, 1–17.
Cabanero, P. C. (2006). Consumer involvement in goods and service purchase. Esic Market,
6, 76-91.
Chang, Y., & Thorson, E. (2004). Television and web advertising synergies. Journal of
Advertising, 33(2), 75–84.
Ching, R. K. H., Tong, P., Chen, J. S. & Cheng, H. Y. (2013). Narrative online advertising: Identification and its effects on attitude toward a product. Internet Research, 23(4), 414-438.
Cohen, J.B. & Chakravarti, D. (1990). Consumer psychology. Annual Review of Psychology,
41, 243-288.
Dena, C. (2004). Current state of cross media storytelling: preliminary observations for future design. Delivered at ‘Crossmedia communication in the dynamic knowledge society
networking session’, European Information Systems Technologies Event, The Hague, Netherlands, 15.
Dijkstra, M. & Raaij, W.F. (2002). Media effects by involvement under voluntary exposure: A Comparison of Television, Print and Static Internet. Journal of Euromarketing, 229-243.
Dijkstra, M., Buijtels, H.E.J.J.M. & van Raaij, W.F. (2005). Separate and joint effects of medium type on consumer responses: A comparison of television, print, and the Internet.
Journal of Business Research, 58, 377-386.
Escalas, J. E. (2004). Imagine yourself in the product: Mental simulation, narrative transportation, and persuasion. Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 37-48.
Fog, K., Budtz, C. & Yakaboylu, B. (2005). Storytelling. Branding in practice. Copenhagen, Denmark: Springer.
Gulf Times. (n.d.). About Us. Retrieved from http://www.gulf-times.com/static/aboutus
Heding, T., Knudtzen, C.F. & Bjerre, M. (2008). The Community Approach. Brand
Management (pp. 181-190). Research, Theory and Practice. London, New York: Routlege.
Ihlström, C., Akesson, M. & Nordqvist, S. (2004). Proceedings from International Council for Computer Communication: From Print to Web to e-paper - the challenge of designing the
Jenkins H. (2003). Transmedia storytelling. Technology Review.
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/ wo_jenkins011503.asp. Accessed 1. April, 2015.
Jeong, S. H. & Hwang, Y. (2012). Does Multitasking Increase or Decrease Persuasion? Effects of Multitasking on Comprehension and Counterarguing. Journal of Communication,
62(4), 571-587.
Kanso, A.M. & Nelson, R.A. (2004). Internet and magazine advertising: Integrated partnership or not? Journal of Advertising Research, 44(4), 317-326.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. The Journal of Marketing, 1-22.
Lien, N. H. & Chen, Y. L. (2013). Narrative ads: The effect of argument strength and story format. Journal of Business Research, 66, 516-122.
Liu, Y., & Shrum, L.J. (2009). A dual-process model of interactivity effects. Journal of
Advertising, 38, 53–68.
Mattila, A. S. (2000). The role of narratives in the advertising of experiential Services.
Journal of Service Research, 3, 35–45.
McKinsey & Company. (2013). Global Media Report. URL: www.mckinsey.com/client_service/media_and_entertainment
Naik, P. A., & Peters, K. (2009). A hierarchical marketing communications model of online and offline media synergies. Journal of Interactive Marketing 23(4), 288–299.
Park, M. & Lee, D.H. (2014). Effects of Storytelling in Advertising on Consumers’ Empathy.
Asia Marketing Journal, 15(4), 103-129.
Papadatos, C. (2006). The art of storytelling: How loyalty marketers can build emotional connections to their brands. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(7), 382-384.
Polyorat, K., Alden, D.L. & Kim, E.S. (2007). Impact of Narrative versus Factual Print Ad Copy on Product Evaluation: The Mediating Role of Ad Message Involvement. Psychology
& Marketing, 24(6), 539-554.
Sundar, S., Narayan. S., Obregon, R. & Uppal C. (1998). Does web advertising work? Memory for print versus online media. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly,
75(4), 822 – 835.
Tang, T., Newton, G.D. & Wang, X. (2007). Does synergy work? An examination of cross-promotion effects. International Journal on Media Management, 9(4), 127–134.
Tipps, S. W., Berger, B. D. & Weinberg, B. D. (2006). The Effect of Media Involvement on Print Advertising Effectiveness. Journal of Promotion Management, 12(2), 53-75.
Veglis, A. (2012). From Cross Media to Transmedia Reporting in Newspaper Articles. Pub
Res Q, 28, 313–324.
Voorveld, H. A. M. & Noort, G. (2014). Social Media in Advertising Campaigns. Examining the Effects on Perceived Persuasive Intent, Campaign
and Brand Responses. Journal of Creative Communication, 9(3), 253-268.
Voorveld, H. A. M., Neijens, P.C. & Smit, E. G. (2011). Opening the black box: Understanding cross-media effects. Journal of Marketing Communications, 17(2), 69–85.
Woodside, A. G., Sood, S. & Miller, K.E. (2008). When Consumers
and Brands Talk: Storytelling Theory and Research in Psychology and Marketing.
Psychology & Marketing, 25(2), 97-145.
Wu, S.I. (2001). An Experimental Study on the Relationship between Consumer Involvement and Advertising Effectiveness. Asia Pasific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 13(1), 43-56.
Appendix A
Examples of stimulus material a.) Cross-media condition
Figure 3. Example of newspaper for cross-media condition b.) Single media condition
Appendix B
Dear Sir / Madam,
With this letter, I would like to invite you to participate in a research study to be conducted under the auspices of the Graduate School of Communication, a part of the University of Amsterdam. The title of the study for which I am requesting your cooperation is
‘Effectiveness of media combinations’. In the online survey, a series of ads will be displayed. You are asked to take a look at a newspaper and fill in a questionnaire. In addition, several questions will be asked about your demographical features. The goal of this research is to analyze effectiveness of media.
The study will take about 10 minutes of your time. As this research is being carried out under the responsibility of the ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, we 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.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. If you are under age of 18, please do not participate in this study.
For more information about the research and the invitation to participate, you are welcome to contact Anna Lindpere (anna.lindpere@uva.student.nl) at any time. 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 the designated member of the 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. We hope that we have provided you with sufficient information. We would like to take this opportunity to thank you in advance for your assistance with this research, which we greatly appreciate. Kind regards,
Anna Lindpere
Q1 I understand the text presented above, and I agree to participate in the research study. m Yes (1)
m No (2)
Please look at the newspaper and the banner carefully. The content of the newspaper does not have to be read. You will be able to move to questionnaire after one minute.
Following questions are about the advertisements presented earlier. Please answer all the questions in the questionnaire.
Q2 Please indicate to what extent you agree with the arguments presented:The advertisements in the newspaper had a coherent storyline:
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Not At All:To Greate Extent (1) m m m m m m m
Q3 The presented storyline in the advertisements had a beginning, middle and the end:
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Not At All:To Greate Extent (1) m m m m m m m
Please write down all brands that were presented in the study: Q4 Ben & Jerry is:
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Very Bad:Very Good (1) m m m m m m m Very Unappealing:Very Appealing (2) m m m m m m m Very Unlikeable:Very Likeable (3) m m m m m m m Very Uninteresting:Very Interesting (4) m m m m m m m Q5 Ice-cream is: 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Very Bad:Very Good (1) m m m m m m m Very Unappealing:Very Appealing (2) m m m m m m m Very Unlikeable:Very Likeable (3) m m m m m m m Very m m m m m m m
Uninteresting:Very Interesting (4)
Q6 These advertisements are:
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Very Bad:Very Good (1) m m m m m m m Very Unappealing:Very Appealing (2) m m m m m m m Very Unlikeable:Very Likeable (3) m m m m m m m Very Uniteresting:Very Interesting (4) m m m m m m m
Q7 Please indicate to what extent you understood the arguments presented in advertisements:
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7)
Not At All:Very Much (1)
m m m m m m m
Q8The following question allows you to write down all the arguments that you remember from the advertisements. Please write down all the arguments that you can remember: Q9 Please Indicate to what extent you agree with the next statement:
Very Unlikely (1) Unlikely (2) Somewhat Unlikely (3) Undecided
(4) Somewhat Likely (5) Likely (6) Very Likely (7) I would buy products of Ben&Jerry (1) m m m m m m m I would recommend products of Ben&Jerry (2) m m m m m m m
Q10 For me the advertised product is:
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Very
Unimportant:Very Important (1)
Very
Uniteresting:Very Interesting (2)
m m m m m m m
Q11 Please indicate to what extent you were aware of Ben&Jerry prior to experiment:
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7)
Not At All:Very Much (1)
m m m m m m m
Q12 Please indicate to what extent you were aware of this campaign prior to experiment:
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7)
Not At All:Very Much (1)
m m m m m m m
Q13 Please indicate to what extent you were aware of newspaper Gulf Times prior to experiment: 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Not At All:Very Much (1) m m m m m m m
Q14Please indicate to what extent you were aware of newspaper Malta Today prior to experiment: 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Not At All:Very Much (1) m m m m m m m
Q15 Please indicate to what extent you like ice-cream:
1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7)
Not At All:Very Much (1)
m m m m m m m
Q16 Please indicate your gender: m Male (1)
m Female (2)
Q17 Please indicate your age: m Under 18 (1)
m 18-24 (2) m 25-34 (3)
m 35-44 (4) m 45-54 (5) m 55-64 (6) m Over 64 (7)
Q18 Please indicate your nationality: m Dutch (1)
m Estonian (2)
Appendix C Table 1
Distribution of the sample in the four given conditions
Involvement Total
Media condition Low-involvement High-involvement
Single media 19 35 54
Cross-media 21 27 48
Total (N = 102) 40 62 102
Table 2
Correlations of dependent variables and covariates
Brand attitude Product attitude Ad attitude Behaviora l outcomes Brands Message comprehension Awareness of Ben & Jerry Pearson Correlatio n Sig. N (102) .348* .000 .184 .066 .070 .484 .351** .000 .095 .341 .164 .101 Awareness of Ben & Jerry previous campaigns Pearson Correlatio n Sig. N (102) .176 .076 .127 .204 .222* .025 .196* .050 .151 .131 -.001 .990 Awareness of newspaper Gulf Times Pearson Correlatio n Sig. N (102) -.092 .356 -.014 .888 -.076 .450 -.079 .435 .026 .673 -.200* .045 Awareness of news outlet Malta Today Pearson Correlatio n Sig. N (102) -.001 .989 -.020 .846 -.009 .927 -.093 .353 .042 .673 -.130 .196 Liking of ice-cream Pearson Correlatio n Sig. N (102) .381** .000 .732** .000 .204* .040 .519** .000 .143 .152 .170 .089
Gender Pearson Correlatio n Sig. N (102) .191 .054 .199* .046 .060 .550 .292** .003 .057 .571 -.031 .761 Age Pearson Correlatio n Sig. N (102) -.065 .515 -.063 .537 -.128 .199 -.099 .326 -.135 .177 .022 .826 Nationality Pearson Correlatio n Sig. N (102) -.049 .629 .096 .339 -.107 .284 -.030 .769 -.070 .482 -.229* .021 Table 3
Frequencies of unaided brand recall
Involvement Media condition Answer N
Low-involvement Cross-media Don’t know Ben & Jerry
6 15
Total 21
Single media Don’t Know Ben & Jerry
2 17
Total 19
High-involvement Cross-media Don’t know Ben & Jerry
3 24
Total 27
Single media Don’t know Ben & Jerry
1 34
