M
ASTER'ST
HESISThe effectiveness of combining multiple
online communication tools
Synergy and the role of sequence
Marieke Kooiman
Student ID: 10172165
University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Communication
Research Master’s programme Communication Science
Supervisor: Hilde Voorveld
1
ABSTRACT
The aim of the current study is to examine synergy in combining multiple online
communication tools (i.e., display advertising and content-driven advertising). Additionally,
the role of sequence in affecting brand evaluation is analysed for sequential exposure and
simultaneous exposure to these online communication tools. Sequence effects are explored
and three underlying mechanisms are proposed in an attempt to explain these effects.
Memory performance is proposed as underlying mechanism for differences between
sequential exposure and simultaneous exposure. Persuasion knowledge and source credibility
are proposed as underlying mechanisms for differences between sequential exposure and the
reverse order. An experiment was conducted with exposure to a banner and sponsored blog,
either sequentially (banner – sponsored blog vs. sponsored blog – banner) or simultaneously.
Results provide evidence for synergy and sequence effects, although sequence effects are not
found within the sequential exposure format. Findings indicate greater effectiveness for the
combination of banners and sponsored blogs in a sequential exposure format rather than a
simultaneous exposure format. Sequence effects could however not be explained by the
2
SYNERGY AND THE ROLE OF SEQUENCE
“The future of digital advertising is being built on content; that’s what’s going to fund this
medium in the future,” according to O’Brien, senior manager at U.K.’s Internet Advertising
Bureau (Southern, 2015). Although content-driven advertising is gaining ground, display
advertising is still the most popular form of digital advertising with banner ads as most
commonly used (IAB NL, 2015).
Content-driven advertising is one of the many labels to define (paid) advertising that
blends with the specific form and appearance of editorial content (Robinson, 2015; Sternberg,
2013; Wojdynski & Evans, 2016). Ad blockers and progressive awareness of banners'
ineffectiveness stimulate this shift toward content-driven advertising. One important form of
advertising integrated in editorial content are so-called sponsored blogs; bloggers writing paid posts about a brand’s services and products. Sponsored blogs have become and are
expected to persist a popular venue in the digital advertising market (Jaekel, 2016; Sehl,
2013).
The promising influence of content-driven advertising along with increasing spends in
display advertising (IAB NL, 2015) is important for this study. It often occurs that a
combination of display advertising (e.g., banners) and content-driven advertising (e.g.,
sponsored blogs) is embedded in campaigns (Van den Berg, 2015). Exposure to these
different communication tools may elicit brand experiences that result in more positive brand
evaluations than the effects of repeated exposure to one single communication tool. This
assumption stems from previous literature about synergy (Chang & Thorson, 2004; Dijkstra,
Buijtels, & Van Raaij, 2005; Naik & Raman, 2003; Tang, Newton, & Wang (2007). Synergy
is defined as the greater effect compared to the sum of the individual effects. Although
synergy is examined primarily with multiple communication channels (i.e., cross-media), few
3 (e.g., advertising, publicity, content, direct marketing) (Jin, 2003; Stammerjohan, Wood,
Chang, & Thorson, 2005). However, synergy effects are not proven in a combination of
display advertising and content-driven advertising despite its increasing use in online
campaigns. Therefore, the first aim of the current study is to extend synergy research to the
specific context of banners and sponsored blogs.
Although synergy leads to more positive outcomes, these effects could be
strengthened or weakened by the sequence of exposing multiple communication tools. Prior
research assigns importance to study the role of sequential and simultaneous exposure in
investigating synergy effects (Assael, 2011; Bronner, 2006; Neijens & Voorveld, 2015), but
studies about these sequence effects remain limited, either in cross-media research (e.g.,
Voorveld, Neijens, & Smit, 2012) as multiple-tool research (e.g., Loda & Coleman, 2005).
However, it is becoming increasingly essential to gain insight into sequence effects in online
campaigns because improved marketing techniques make it possible to target and retarget
people with brand messages in a specific sequence (Lambrecht & Tucker, 2013). The second
aim therefore is to examine effects on brand evaluation of sequential exposure to a banner
and sponsored blog (i.e., exposure to different webpages) and simultaneous exposure to a
banner and sponsored blog (i.e., exposure to one webpage).
Furthermore, processes underlying sequence effects will be considered as there is no
knowledge to date about such mechanisms. First, memory performance will be examined as
underlying mechanism for differences between sequential exposure and simultaneous
exposure. In earlier studies memory performance has been related to both sequential
exposure, by explaining synergy processes improving memory performance (e.g., Voorveld,
Neijens, & Smit, 2011), as well as simultaneous exposure, by explaining limited cognitive
resources declining memory performance (e.g., Lang, 2000). Second, persuasion knowledge
4 sequential exposure and the reverse order (banner – sponsored blog vs. sponsored blog –
banner). Earlier studies suggest the importance of both mechanisms by showing that blog
performance in particular depends largely on perceptions of persuasive intent and credibility
(Colliander & Dahlén, 2011; Eisend & Küster, 2010). Thus, the third aim of the current study
is to provide a deeper understanding of the role of sequence effects on brand evaluation by
examining three underlying mechanisms. Memory performance is proposed to explain a
greater predicted effectiveness for sequential exposure compared to simultaneous exposure.
Persuasion knowledge and source credibility are proposed to explain a greater predicted
effectiveness for the sequential exposure sponsored blog – banner compared to the sequential
exposure banner – sponsored blog.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Synergy
Although synergy is already demonstrated in combining multiple communication tools (Jin,
2003; Micu & Pentina, 2015; Stammerjohan et al., 2005; Wang, 2006), it is not yet studied in
the online context of banners and sponsored blogs. Studies that explain processes underlying
synergy are discussed to argue for synergy effects in this study.
Backward retrieval is one such synergy process that is explained in cross-media
research (Edell & Keller, 1989; Neijens & Voorveld, 2015). It suggests that information
retrieval from exposure to a first communication tool is positively affected during exposure to
a second communication tool. People store information in memory after seeing the first tool
and retrieve this stored information when seeing the second tool as this tool differs from the
first tool. Retrieval does not take place, or to a lesser extent, when people are repeatedly
exposed to a brand message in the same tool. Then, people are more inclined to process the
message again. Thus, backward retrieval occurs during exposure to multiple communication
5 After exposure to multiple communication tools a brand message is stored in memory in a
more complex way, resulting in a strong, clear and accessible information network. This
process is known as encoding variability (Stammerjohan et al., 2005; Voorveld et al., 2011;
Young & Bellezza, 1982). Such an enhanced network is even more likely to occur when
communication tools have different presentation modalities, as is true for banners and blogs.
Specifically, banners are highly visual whereas blogs mainly comprise verbal information
(Micu & Pentina, 2015; Voorveld, et al., 2012). Eventually, the information network resulting
from the complex encoding process increases accessibility of information in memory.
Thus, researchers argue that improved retrieval ability and information accessibility
ensure a better evaluation of the advertised brand and, thus, explain the greater effectiveness
of exposure to multiple communication tools (i.e., synergy) compared to exposure to a single
communication tool repeatedly. To examine whether synergy is achieved in combining
banners and sponsored blogs and replicate prior findings from other contexts, the following
hypothesis is formulated:
H1: Exposure to a banner and sponsored blog will result in a more positive brand
evaluation than either (a) exposure to two times a banner or (b) exposure to
two times a sponsored blog.
Earlier empirical research on the effectiveness of sequence
Differential effects in brand evaluation as a result of sequence (i.e., sequence effects) are
found for multiple media channels (Fortin, Grimwood, & Finsterwalder, 2011; Voorveld et
al., 2012) as well as multiple communication tools (Jin, Zhao, & An, 2006; Loda & Coleman,
2005; Micu & Pentina, 2015).
Studies about sequential exposure with multiple communication tools generally show
that a better effectiveness is achieved with a sequence in which publicity is followed by
6 public relations efforts. Sponsored blogs could be the result of such efforts as these are being
made towards bloggers to cooperate and develop blog posts.
Empirical studies about simultaneous exposure are conducted in relation to media
multitasking and context effects (Chowdhury, Finn, & Olsen, 2007; Jeong & Hwang, 2012;
Segev, Wang, & Fernandes, 2014; Voorveld, 2011). From multitasking research it appears
that simultaneity challenges people’s information processing activity and, thereby, reducing
positive outcomes. However, disagreement persists about the effectiveness of simultaneity in
contextual effect research depending on the degree of congruency between the ad and the
surrounded content.
This short overview demonstrates that sequence effects on brand evaluation have to
be considered in both sequential as simultaneous exposure to multiple communication tools.
However, it remains unclear what processes underlie the differential effects caused by
sequence. Therefore, three underlying mechanisms are discussed in an attempt to
theoretically explain sequence effects.
Underlying mechanisms for the effectiveness of sequence
Memory performance
Memory performance is the first proposed underlying mechanism for explaining differential
effects between sequential and simultaneous exposure.
Synergy suggests the effectiveness of exposure to multiple communication tools
through enhanced retrieval ability (i.e., backward retrieval) and information accessibility (i.e.,
encoding variability) resulting in improved memory performance. It is this improved memory
performance that might be more plausible in sequential exposure rather than simultaneous
exposure. In simultaneous exposure, memory performance can be hindered by distraction
effects and limited cognitive resources (Bergen, Grimes, & Potter, 2006; Chowdhury et al.,
7 states that people in simultaneous exposure have to divide attention between sources to
understand and process information. Partial attention results in more difficulty to store
information and retrieve it from memory. Consequently, cognitive responses are reduced for
both simultaneously exposed sources. For sequential exposure, it is expected that the
processes of backward retrieval and encoding variability are more powerful (Voorveld et al.,
2011). People confronted with exposures that follow one another are less likely to be
distracted and are not forced to divide attention between multiple sources of the same brand
message. Brand name and brand propositions are therefore better stored in memory.
However, one could argue that distraction also occurs in sequential exposure as
banners are always shown in conjunction with other content (Chowdhury et al., 2007).
Nevertheless, it is argued that improved memory performance in sequential exposure prevails
this distraction effect because higher levels of information retrieval are found in sequential
exposure instead of simultaneous exposure (Janssens, De Pelsmacker, & Geuens, 2012). In
addition, sequential exposure to a banner with unrelated content is less likely to distract
people from the brand message than simultaneous exposure to a banner with related content
(i.e., a sponsored blog). In turn, the improved memory performance resulted from sequential
exposure, influences brand evaluation in a positive way (Keller, 1987; Voorveld et al., 2011).
Specifically, people are more likely to remember the brand and its advertised propositions
and are therefore more likely to evaluate the brand with regard to those propositions.
To examine whether sequential exposure benefit more from memory performance
than simultaneous exposure, with positive evaluations as a result, the following hypothesis is
proposed:
H2: (a) Sequential exposure to a banner and sponsored blog will result in better
memory performance than simultaneous exposure, which (b) positively affects
8
Persuasion knowledge
A second possible underlying mechanism for explaining differential effects between
sequential exposure and the reverse order is persuasion knowledge. Persuasion knowledge refers to people’s personal knowledge about goals and tactics of persuaders and about the
skills of how to deal with these goals and tactics. People need to be aware of persuasion
attempts before they can activate persuasion knowledge (i.e., Persuasion Knowledge Model)
(Friestad & Wright, 1994). Persuasion knowledge can result in more distrust toward the
content and can stimulate the use of resistance mechanisms to cope with the persuasive
intent.
In the field of brand placements (i.e., brand integration in media programming),
studies show differences in activation of persuasion knowledge between prominent and subtle
placements. Prominent placements (e.g., plot connection, frequent mentioning) are
considered as having more obvious persuasive goals than subtle placements (e.g., no plot
connection, limited mentioning). Consequently, prominent placements stimulate the
activation of persuasion knowledge more than subtle placements (Cowley & Barron, 2008;
Dens, De Pelsmacker, Wouters, & Purnawirawan, 2012; Van Reijmersdal, 2009). The
presence of differences in activation through different levels of prominence can also be
argued in the context of this study. Banners are comparable to prominent placements because
persuasive goals are obvious and sponsored blogs are comparable to subtle placements
because persuasive goals are covered. Persuasive goals in blogs are often covered by
informational or entertaining purposes (Hsu & Lin, 2008; Huang, Chou, & Lin, 2008). In
other words, people exposed to a banner are more likely to be aware of the persuasive attempt
and more inclined to use their persuasion knowledge while the opposite holds true for people
9 Although prominent and subtle brand placements are merely contrasted and not examined in
subsequent exposures, it could be argued that different sequential exposures make persuasion
knowledge more or less activated. In the sequential exposure banner – sponsored blog, the
initial exposure to a banner could prime the persuasive intent of the brand’s message making
persuasion knowledge more likely to be activated (Cowley & Barron, 2008). Activation in an
initial exposure to the message helps people recognize the persuasive intent of the sponsored
blog in a subsequent exposure. As a result of activated knowledge of persuasion tactics,
evaluations of the brand are negatively influenced (Boerman, Van Reijmersdal, & Neijens,
2012; Wei, Fisher, & Main, 2008). In the sequential exposure sponsored blog – banner,
persuasion knowledge is however less likely to be already activated in the initial exposure because of a blog’s subtle or covered persuasive intent. Persuasion knowledge could be
activated in the subsequent exposure to a banner but is expected to be less pronounced than
activation in exposure to a banner preceding a blog, as people are primed in that case.
Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed to examine sequential exposure effects
with persuasion knowledge as explaining factor:
H3: (a) Exposure to a sponsored blog followed by a banner will result in a less
pronounced activation of persuasion knowledge than exposure to a banner
followed by a sponsored blog, which (b) positively affects brand evaluation.
Source credibility
If persuasion knowledge is activated people are able to evaluate the source and that is when
source credibility comes into play (Boerman et al., 2012). Source credibility is the third
underlying mechanism proposed to explain differential effects between sequential exposure
and the reverse order.
Since banners and blogs are part of a fast and transitory online environment, people
10 (Choi & Rifon, 2002; Metzger, Flanagin, & Medders, 2010). Source credibility is one such
heuristic cue. In other words, banners and blogs are evaluated based on perceptions of
credibility. Generally, publicity (e.g., blogs) is perceived as more credible than advertising
(e.g., banners) (Johnson & Kaye, 2004; Kim, Yoon, & Lee, 2010; Micu & Pentina, 2015).
Taking this into account, exposure to a blog results in greater perceived source credibility.
Since the blog is trusted, the information is integrated into people’s thoughts and attitudes
(Stammerjohan et al., 2005). This suggests that source credibility generated from initial
exposure to a blog is more likely to retain during subsequent exposure to a banner. In turn,
trusted information resulting from credible sources such as blogs is seen as more persuasive
in terms of positive brand evaluations (Pornpitakpan, 2004). An opposite effect is expected
for the sequential exposure with a banner as initial exposure because information is less
trusted and not integrated in memory in such a way. Credibility perceptions in this particular
sequential exposure will therefore decline (Loda & Coleman, 2005).
The following hypothesis is proposed to examine the explaining role of source
credibility in sequential exposure effects:
H4: (a) Exposure to a sponsored blog followed by a banner will result in higher
levels of source credibility than exposure to a banner followed by a sponsored
blog, which (b) positively affects brand evaluation.
FIGURE 1. The three hypothesized underlying mechanisms for sequence effects1
1
H1ab is examined as verification of synergy and is therefore not included in this model.
Sequential exposure o banner – blog o blog - banner Simultaneous exposure Persuasion knowledge Source credibility Memory performance H2a H2b H3a H4a H3b H4b Brand evaluation
11
METHOD Design and participants
In this study an experiment is used to test synergy effects in combining banners and
sponsored blogs and, more importantly, to test the effectiveness of sequential and
simultaneous exposure to both communication tools. The experiment had a single factor
between-subjects design. Specifically, five conditions were employed with the following
exposures: (1) banner – sponsored blog, (2) sponsored blog – banner, (3) banner and
sponsored blog, (4) banner – banner, and (5) sponsored blog – sponsored blog. The final two
conditions served as baseline conditions to verify synergy effects.
A total of 183 participants (67.2% female) took part in this experiment with an
average age of 27.3 years (SD = 10.82). The participants were recruited via online
networking (i.e., convenience sample) and were sent an URL link that led them to the online
questionnaire. The majority of the participants was Dutch (84.7%) and had a University Bachelor’s degree (36.1%) or Master’s degree (37.7%). Participation was voluntary.
Procedure
The experiment was conducted online. First, participants were provided with minimal
required information about the study and were asked for their voluntary participation (i.e.,
informed consent). After permission, participants were told that they were being confronted
with one or more webpages and were asked to read and view the content in a conventional
manner. Participants were randomly assigned then to one of five experimental conditions.
They were exposed to twice a webpage in the sequential exposure conditions. In those
conditions with multiple communication tools, participants were either exposed to a banner
followed by a sponsored blog or a sponsored blog followed by a banner. Participants assigned
to those conditions with a single communication tool were either exposed to a banner
12 condition the banner was slightly changed the second time (i.e., minor text change) and in the
blog condition another blog post was used the second time. These changes have been made to
expose participants to varied stimuli in all sequential exposure conditions. Because banners
are always presented in combination with other content (Chowdhury et al., 2007), filler
content was included whenever participants were exposed to a banner. This filler content
comprised a news article or a page view of a weather forecast to create a natural online
viewing environment. In the simultaneous exposure condition participants were exposed to
one single webpage including a banner and sponsored blog.
Afterwards, questions were asked to measure evaluations (i.e., attitude toward the
banner, attitude toward the blog, brand attitude, and purchase intention). In addition, memory
performance, persuasion knowledge, and source credibility were measured to examine their
potential as underlying mechanisms. Finally, some general (demographic) questions were
asked and participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation.
Stimuli material
Fictitious banners and sponsored blogs were designed for a relatively new and therefore
unknown brand in the category renewable energy. The brand ‘Bio-bean’ was chosen as
renewable energy provider because it was assumed that participants had no preexisting
attitudes toward this brand that could confound results (Campbell & Keller, 2003).
Nevertheless, prior knowledge was measured to control for this. In addition, this brand was chosen to broaden the scope of the study’s population. Since people make use of energy
sources daily, the brand was assumed to be relevant for everyone.
The banners were created from text and image derived from the brand’s website. The brand’s core business, an additional brand proposition, and the name of the brand were used
as text elements. The blogs were a combination of authentic lifestyle blogs (i.e.,
13 presented Bio-bean as renewable energy provider and explained its core business as
responsible and sustainable. The brand name was mentioned a few times. The blog’s
formatting was based on regular formatting of blogs: headline, name of the blogger,
sponsorship disclosure, and most recent date above the text (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).
Measures
Dependent variables
Attitude toward the banner. Attitude toward the banner was measured by asking participants
to indicate how they evaluated the banner. Participants had to answer this question on a
three-item 7-point semantic differential scale (not very likeable – very likeable / bad – good / not
appealing – appealing) (based on Chang & Thorson, 2004; Voorveld et al., 2012). The items
loaded on one factor which proved to be reliable (EV = 2.53; R² = 84; α = .91; M = 4.04, SD
= 1.31).
Attitude toward the blog. Attitude toward the blog was measured with the same three items as
attitude toward the banner. All items loaded on one factor (EV = 2.60; R² = 87; α = .92; M =
4.54, SD = 1.15).
Brand attitude. Brand attitude was measured on a six-item 7-point semantic differential scale
by asking participants to indicate how they evaluated the brand (based on Boerman et al.,
2012; Campbell, 1995). The following items were included: ‘dislike’ – ‘like’, ‘unfavorable’ – ‘favorable’, ‘unpleasant’ – ‘pleasant’, ‘negative’ – ‘positive’, ‘poor quality’ – ‘high quality’,
and ‘bad’ – ‘good’. Items loaded on one factor (EV = 4.83; R² = 81; α = .95; M = 5.17, SD =
1.16).
Purchase intention. Purchase intention was measured with the following statements ranging
on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree): ‘I will look for Bio-bean online’,
14 provider’, and ‘I intent to use Bio-bean as energy provider’ (EV = 3.17; R² = 79; α = .91; M =
3.27, SD = 1.43) (based on Spears & Singh, 2004).
Underlying mechanisms
Memory performance. Memory performance was measured with three questions. First,
participants were asked to recall the name of the brand (i.e., brand recall). Participants were
then asked to write down everything they remembered about the brand and the related
messages (banner and/or blog) (i.e., correctly recalled elements). The number of correctly
recalled elements was used to assess the strength of participants’ memory performance.
Furthermore, it was measured to which extent participants were certain of the fact that they
had noticed specific brand propositions (i.e., certainty brand propositions). A four-item
7-point scale was used ranging from 1 (very uncertain) to 7 (very certain) (based on Dijkstra et
al., 2005). The items contained two propositions that were mentioned and two propositions
that were not mentioned (mentioned propositions: r = .18; M = 4.68, SD = 1.38).
Persuasion knowledge. Persuasion knowledge was measured with two items corresponding
the conceptual dimension of persuasion knowledge (Boerman et al., 2012). Participants were
asked to indicate to what extent they thought the banner was commercial and to what extent
they thought the banner was advertising, on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree) (r = .82; M = 5.14, SD = 1.44). The same items were asked for the blog (r =
.86; M = 4.49, SD = 1.36) (based on Van Reijmersdal et al., 2015).
Source credibility. Source credibility was measured by asking participants to rate the
credibility of the source (banner and/or blog) on a 7-point semantic differential scale with the following six items: ‘untrained’ – ‘trained’, ‘not open minded’ – ‘open minded’, ‘no expert’ –
‘expert’, ‘bad’ – ‘good’, ‘not experienced’ – ‘experienced’, and ‘not trustworthy’ –
15 The items loaded on one reliable factor (banner: EV = 3.93; R² = 66; α = .89; M = 4.62, SD =
.99; blog: EV = 3.89; R² = 65; α = .89; M = 4.74, SD = .91).
Control variables
Prior knowledge and product involvement were included as control measures because these
might have been correlated with the dependent variables (Edell & Keller, 1989; Voorveld et
al., 2012).
Prior knowledge. Prior knowledge was measured to determine whether participants had
preexisting knowledge or attitudes toward the banner, blog, and brand. Participants were
asked to indicate to what extent they agreed with the following two statements on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree): ‘I have never seen the banner of
Bio-bean before’ and ‘The banner of Bio-Bio-bean was new to me’ (based on Chang & Thorson,
2004). The same two statements were used to determine participants’ prior knowledge of the
blog and brand. All statements loaded on one reliable factor (reversed: EV = 4.70; R² = 78; α
= .94; M = 1.45, SD = .85).
Product involvement. Product involvement was measured by asking participants to indicate
how they thought about renewable energy (i.e., Bio-bean’s product). A two-item 7-point
semantic differential scale was used (very uninteresting – very interesting / very unimportant – very important) (r = .85; M = 5.19, SD = 1.44) (based on McQuarrie & Munson, 1992).
RESULTS Data analysis procedure
Prior to data analysis, the data set was screened for missing values, outliers, and erroneous
values. Respondents with missing values due to dropout were removed from the data set. Few
16 containing useful information (Orr, Sacket, & Dubois, 1991). Skewness was reduced by using
log transformations.2
The experimental conditions did not differ with respect to gender (χ²(4, N = 183) =
1.27, p = .866), age (F(4, 178) = 0.95, p = .438), nationality (χ²(56) = 67.04, p = .148), and education (χ²(24) = 26.49, p = .329). So, it was concluded that demographics were equally
distributed across conditions.
To prevent that results would be falsely attributed to the experimental conditions, it
was checked whether the dependent evaluative measures were correlated with demographic
variables and control variables. No correlations were found with demographic variables
(except for nationality3). However, prior knowledge was significantly correlated with brand
attitude (r = -0.18) and product involvement with all evaluative measures (attitude banner: r =
-0.27, attitude blog: r = -0.42, brand attitude: r = -0.55, purchase intention: r = -0.44).
It was also checked whether groups could be combined to one multiple-tool condition
and one single-tool condition to give a more comprehensive overview of the results for H1
and H2. No differences were found between the multiple-tool conditions with regard to the
evaluative measures (x1: p = .772; x2: p = .574; x3: p = .312; x4: p = .671) and underlying
mechanisms (y1: p = .820; y2: p = .185; y3: p = .691; y4: p = .946; y5: p = .496; y6: p = .626; y7:
p = .903).4 However, the single-tool conditions differed from each other (x3: p = .001; y2: p <
.001; y3: p = .004). Therefore, the multiple-tool conditions were combined into one sequential
2
Log transformations were conducted for prior knowledge and product involvement.
3 Although correlations between nationality and evaluative measures were indicated (see table 1 in Appendix A),
nationality was not included as covariate since it was already tested to be of similar influence across conditions.
4
x1 = attitude banner; x2 = attitude blog; x3 = brand attitude; x4 = purchase intention; y1 = brand recall; y2 =
correctly recalled elements; y3 = certainty brand propositions; y4 = persuasion knowledge banner; y5 =
17 exposure condition for testing H1 and H2 whereas the single-tool conditions (i.e., banner
condition and blog condition) were treated separately in testing H1.
Synergy in combining banners and sponsored blogs
The study’s first hypothesis stated that exposure to a banner and sponsored blog
(multiple-tool condition) will result in a more positive brand evaluation than either exposure to two
times a banner or two times a sponsored blog (single-tool condition). To test whether brand
evaluation is more positive in the multiple-tool condition, a univariate analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) was conducted with the conditions as independent variables and evaluative
measures as dependent variables. This analysis showed that there were no significant
differences with regard to attitude toward the banner (F(1, 105) = .927, p = .338), attitude
toward the blog (F(1, 107) = .21, p = .647), and purchase intention (F(2, 143) = 1.48, p =
.231).5 However, the analysis revealed a significant overall difference for brand attitude
between conditions (F(2, 143) = 13.13, p < .001). The post-hoc Bonferroni test showed that
there was a significant difference between the multiple-tool condition, Mbanner&blog = 5.56, SD
= 0.64, and the single-tool condition with banners, Mbanners = 4.28, SD = 1.41, but not between
the multiple-tool condition and the single-tool condition with sponsored blogs (Mblogs = 5.38,
SD = 1.34) (see table 2 in Appendix A). Thus, participants who were exposed to a banner and
sponsored blog evaluated the brand more positively than participants who were exposed to
two times a banner.
In sum, participants did not differ in attitude toward the exposed communication
tools. However, participants did have a more positive attitude toward the brand in the
multiple-tool condition than in the single-tool condition with banners. In other words,
5
The degrees of freedom for the F-tests differed since attitude toward the banner is measured in the banner condition only and attitude toward the blog is measured in the blog condition only.
18 synergy was demonstrated in combining banners and sponsored blogs in terms of brand
attitude. Therefore, H1a is partially supported and H1b is not supported.
Role of memory performance in sequential and simultaneous exposure
The second hypothesis proposed that sequential exposure to a banner and sponsored blog will
result in better memory performance than simultaneous exposure, which positively affects
brand evaluation. Memory performance as underlying mechanism was tested with the
mediator model format of Hayes’ PROCESS macro (2013). PROCESS uses an ordinary least
squares or logistic regression-based path analytic framework for estimating the direct and
indirect effect in a mediator model. Model 4 of this macro allows to uncover whether the
mediator (i.e., memory performance) played a role in the differential effect of sequential and
simultaneous exposure on brand evaluation. Bootstrap confidence intervals included in the
PROCESS allow one to make inferences regarding these indirect effects. The current study
used 1,000 bootstrap samples for the bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (BCBCIs).
So, the macro was conducted with the sequential and simultaneous exposure
conditions as independent variable, memory performance as mediator, and evaluative
measures as dependent variables. Since memory performance was measured by means of
several variables (i.e., brand recall, correctly recalled elements, certainty brand propositions),
the analysis will be discussed for each variable separately. However, before focusing on
memory performance as underlying mechanism, direct effects of exposure are discussed.
As expected, the PROCESS macro showed a significant difference for brand attitude
between the sequential exposure condition and simultaneous exposure condition (b = -0.36,
SE = 0.15, p = .016, 95% BCBCI [-0.65, -0.07]). Participants who were exposed to multiple
tools in a sequential exposure format evaluated the brand more positively (M = 5.56, SD =
0.64) than participants who were exposed to multiple tools in a simultaneous exposure format
19 found (attitude banner = 0.29, SE = 0.23, p = .221, 95% BCBCI [-0.17, 0.75]; attitude blog =
0.18, SE = 0.21, p = .384, 95% BCBCI [-0.23, 0.60]; purchase intention = 0.11, SE = 0.25, p
= .657, 95% BCBCI [-0.39, 0.62]).
Brand recall. The first measure of memory performance, brand recall, could not be tested in
Hayes’ PROCESS macro as it was a binary variable. Thus, both paths which allow for
mediation were examined individually. To test the effect of exposure on brand recall, a
logistic regression was conducted. Subsequently, an ANCOVA was used to test the other
path; the effect of brand recall on evaluative measures.
The logistic regression analysis showed a significant difference between the
sequential exposure condition and simultaneous exposure condition, Wald χ²(1) = 4.84, p =
.028. The result was however in conflict with what was hypothesized. The probability of
recalling the name of the brand was significantly lower in the sequential exposure condition
(34.7%) than in the simultaneous exposure condition (54.3%). To see whether the higher
recall resulted in a more positive brand evaluation, an ANCOVA was conducted. The
analysis revealed no significant differences. Brand evaluation of participants who did recall
the brand was not different from brand evaluation of participants who did not recall the brand
(attitude banner: F(1, 103) = 0.07, p = .793, attitude blog: F(1, 103) = 1.08, p = .302, brand
attitude: F(1, 103) = 0.362, p = .549, purchase intention: F(1, 103) = 1.23, p = .271).
Correctly recalled elements. The amount of correctly recalled elements was the second
measure for memory performance. In contrast to what was expected, the mediator models
showed no significant effects on attitude toward the banner (indirect effect = 0.01, SE = 0.04,
95% BCBCI [-0.04, 0.16]), attitude toward the blog (indirect effect = 0.00, SE = 0.03, 95%
BCBCI [-0.07, 0.06]), brand attitude (indirect effect = 0.00, SE = 0.02, 95% BCBCI [-0.04,
20
Certainty brand propositions. Third, the certainty with which participants indicated to have
noticed the brand propositions was examined. Again, no significant effects were
demonstrated for the evaluative measures: attitude toward the banner (indirect effect = 0.01,
SE = 0.03, 95% BCBCI [-0.03, 0.11]), attitude toward the blog (indirect effect = -0.01, SE =
0.04, 95% BCBCI [-0.15, 0.03]), brand attitude (indirect effect = -0.01, SE = 0.03, 95%
BCBCI [-0.10, 0.02]), and purchase intention (indirect effect = 0.00, SE = 0.03, 95% BCBCI
[-0.05, 0.07]).
Summing up, the results demonstrated that the role of memory performance is not
considered a mediating role in the effect of exposure on brand evaluation. H2 is therefore not
supported. However, there is some support, in terms of brand attitude, for the assumption that
sequential exposure to multiple communication tools is more effective than simultaneous
exposure to these tools.
Role of persuasion knowledge in sequential exposure
The third hypothesis stated that sequential exposure to a sponsored blog followed by a banner
will result in a less pronounced activation of persuasion knowledge than sequential exposure
to a banner followed by a sponsored blog, which positively affects brand evaluation. This
hypothesis was tested using Hayes’ PROCESS macro again, in which persuasion knowledge
toward the banner and persuasion knowledge toward the blog were treated as mediators. In
conflict with the hypothesis, the models indicated no significant effects on evaluative
measures. In addition to these insignificant mediation effects, no differential direct effects of
exposure sequence were found (see table 3). In other words, the sequence in which
participants were exposed to a banner and sponsored blog was irrespective of how they
evaluated the brand afterwards. This means that examination of underlying mechanisms was
21 TABLE 3. Results of Hayes’ PROCESS mediation model via persuasion knowledge
Y b S.E. pª (Boot)LLCI (Boot)ULCI
Attitude banner Directᵇ 0.08 0.28 0.779 -0.49 0.64
Indirectᵇ Banner 0.01 0.06 -0.09 0.18
Blog 0.00 0.05 -0.08 0.14
Attitude blog Directᵇ -0.17 0.22 0.456 -0.61 0.28
Indirectᵇ Banner 0.02 0.11 -0.17 0.26
Blog 0.03 0.05 -0.04 0.16
Brand attitude Directᵇ -0.15 0.13 0.262 -0.42 0.12
Indirectᵇ Banner 0.00 0.02 -0.03 0.07
Blog 0.01 0.02 -0.02 0.08
Purchase intention Directᵇ -0.16 0.30 0.594 -0.76 0.44
Indirectᵇ Banner 0.00 0.04 -0.05 0.12
Blog 0.01 0.05 -0.05 0.19
Note: Y = evaluative measures.
ª Significance level: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
ᵇ Both direct sequence effects and indirect sequence effects via persuasion knowledge of the banner and persuasion knowledge of the blog are reported.
Role of source credibility in sequential exposure
The final hypothesis predicted that exposure to a sponsored blog followed by a banner will
result in higher levels of source credibility than exposure to a banner followed by a sponsored
blog, which positively affects brand evaluation. The same analysis (i.e., PROCESS) was
conducted with source credibility toward the banner and source credibility toward the blog,
each included as mediator. The analysis showed that there were no significant effects for
22 knowledge it became already clear that direct effects were not found either. Brand evaluation
was thus similar across conditions. Therefore, H4 is also not supported.
TABLE 4. Results of Hayes’ PROCESS mediation model via source credibility
Y b S.E. pª (Boot)LLCI (Boot)ULCI
Attitude banner Directᵇ 0.18 0.25 0.476 -0.32 0.68
Indirectᵇ Banner -0.09 0.17 -0.49 0.17
Blog 0.00 0.04 -0.12 0.07
Attitude blog Directᵇ -0.15 0.22 0.491 -0.59 0.28
Indirectᵇ Banner 0.02 0.04 -0.03 0.14
Blog 0.01 0.12 -0.20 0.27
Brand attitude Directᵇ -0.12 0.13 0.333 -0.38 0.13
Indirectᵇ Banner -0.02 0.04 -0.13 0.03
Blog 0.00 0.03 -0.05 0.09
Purchase intention Directᵇ -0.12 0.29 0.680 -0.70 0.46
Indirectᵇ Banner -0.03 0.08 -0.30 0.07
Blog 0.00 0.06 -0.09 0.16
Note: Y = evaluative measures.
ª Significance level: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.
ᵇ Both direct sequence effects and indirect sequence effects via source credibility of the banner and source credibility of the blog are reported.
DISCUSSION
The current study proposes that synergy is the result of exposure to multiple communication
tools in the context of banners and sponsored blogs. Specifically, synergy is determined by
means of evaluative measures, being attitude toward the banner, attitude toward the blog,
brand attitude, and purchase intention. The results from this study validate the belief about
synergy; exposure to multiple communication tools is more effective than exposure to a
23 Next, the study proposes sequence effects for exposure to multiple communication tools.
Effects of sequential exposure are compared to simultaneous exposure and effects of the
sequential exposure banner – sponsored blog are compared to the sequential exposure
sponsored blog – banner. Findings from the first comparison indicate that exposure to
multiple communication tools is more effective when people are exposed to these tools
sequentially rather than simultaneously. For the second comparison, results imply no
differences in effectiveness. Exposure to a sponsored blog followed by a banner or exposure
to a banner followed by a sponsored blog is considered equally effective.
Finally, underlying mechanisms are proposed to understand the role of sequence in
exposure to multiple communication tools. Since sequence effects within the sequential
exposure format (banner – sponsored blog vs. sponsored blog – banner) are not present, there
is no need to provide underlying mechanisms such as persuasion knowledge and source
credibility. On the other hand, the demonstrated differential effects between sequential
exposure and simultaneous exposure require an explanation. Memory performance was
therefore examined as underlying mechanism. Findings however suggest that differences in
brand evaluation do not depend upon improved or hindered memory performance.
Thus, this study is unable to provide evidence to incorporate the underlying
mechanisms memory performance, persuasion knowledge, and source credibility in further
synergy and sequence research. Future research might examine other mechanisms to explain
sequence effects, such as (un)conscious processing. In fact, it could be argued that a more
unconscious process takes place in sequential exposure resulting in positive evaluations
without remembering the message explicitly (e.g., no brand recall) (Yoo, 2008). The less
positive evaluations in simultaneous exposure could be the result of a conscious process
24 the necessity of providing explanations for sequence effects as differences are demonstrated,
at least between sequential and simultaneous exposure.
Next to a lack of confirmatory findings, some unexpected results are revealed. The
finding that exposing people to the sponsored blog – banner sequence is as effective as
exposing people to the banner – sponsored blog sequence is in contrast to findings of earlier
sequence studies. Prior research generally shows that publicity (e.g., blogs) followed by
advertising (e.g., banners) is more effective than the reverse order (Loda & Coleman, 2005;
Micu & Pentina, 2015). The contrasting result could be explained by the fact that the type of
blog used in this study (i.e., sponsored blogs) might not be fully considered as publicity.
Although the message in the sponsored blog is endorsed by a third party, which is a
distinctive feature of publicity, the sponsorship disclosure may suggest paid advertising
(Cameron, 1994, Eisend & Küster, 2011). This could have led to a comparable evaluation of
both the banner as the blog, ruling out sequence effects.
With regard to the underlying mechanisms, it was expected that memory performance
would be determined in sequential exposure. However, the opposite holds true. In terms of
brand recall, memory performance is stronger in simultaneous exposure. In other words, by
being exposed to a brand multiple times at once the brand is better recalled than viewing the
brand multiple times sequentially. This study argued that memory performance would be
hindered in simultaneous exposure due to distraction and limited cognitive resources (Bergen
et al., 2006; Chowdhury et al., 2007; Smit et al., 2015; Voorveld, 2011). A possible
explanation for not being hindered could be related to the fact that exposure was in one
medium (i.e., online) and on one screen. Distraction effects and limited resources, on the
other hand, are derived from multitasking research into the use of multiple media or multiple
screens. An empirical study about multitasking within one medium (i.e., online) found no
25 environment was even found to be beneficial for recall (Tran, Carrillo, & Subrahmanyam,
2013). Another explanation for the unexpected higher recall in simultaneous exposure to a
banner and sponsored blog, can be found in context-related studies (Angell, Gorton, Sauer,
Bottomley, & White, 2016; Chun, Song, Hollenbeck, & Lee, 2014). One such study argues
that brand recall results in a greater effect when the message is presented in a
content-relevant website (Yaveroglua & Donthu, 2008). In the current study, the banner was
embedded in highly relevant content as it included a sponsored blog.
Limitations
Some limitations to this study should be noted. Along with limitations that come with
experimental research (e.g., forced-exposure setting, direct response), there are limitations
inherent to this study that researchers should bear in mind in follow-up studies. First, the
stimuli are self-produced and could therefore be perceived as artificial in the sense that
participants could not click on the banner to be redirected to the website or comment on the
blog post. However, it is important to include such interactive features as this characterizes
the online environment (Chung & Zhao, 2004). Second, the measurement of attitude toward
the banner and attitude toward the blog was dealt with after exposure to both communication
tools. Accurate measurement is hindered when blog-evoked responses might have overridden
banner-evoked responses or vice versa, because of measuring the attitudes at once. An
alternative suggestion would be to measure attitudes directly after the corresponding
exposure. However, in that case, participants could become more aware of the purpose of the
study. A final limitation has to do with the possibility to conduct the questionnaire either on a
desktop or mobile phone. Despite a potential confounding effect due to these different
26
Implications
As with every study, the findings of the current study have some implications for online
media research and advertising effectiveness. Although synergy is examined and confirmed
in earlier studies, this study is the first to demonstrate the effect in the context of banners and
sponsored blogs. In addition, it is the first to demonstrate sequence effects upon exposure to
these tools. Finally, underlying mechanisms are proposed and examined in a first attempt to
understand and evaluate the role of sequence. On the one hand, the study fails to provide
explanations for sequence effects, on the other hand, the study contributes to knowledge in
the field in terms that the unsupported mechanisms could be eliminated in future research.
Furthermore, a contribution is made with regard to the role of sequence in affecting
brand evaluation. The greater effect of sequential exposure to multiple communication tools
compared to simultaneous exposure to multiple communication tools implies that sequential
exposure benefits from synergy more. Synergy effects in sequential exposure can however
not be linked to backward retrieval and encoding variability – processes that underlie synergy – as that would improve memory performance, which is not demonstrated in the study. On
the contrary, simultaneous exposure results in better memory performance. A suggestion for
future research is to investigate other processes that underlie synergy (e.g., multiple source
perception) that could explain the greater advantage of sequential exposure over simultaneous
exposure. Within the sequential exposure format no sequence effects are found, although
suggested by prior studies (e.g., Loda & Coleman, 2005). Future research is needed to
investigate whether the absence of sequence effects exclusively holds true for the
combination of banners and sponsored blogs or for other online communication tools as well
(e.g., video, social media advertising).
A more methodological contribution concerns the stimuli in the single-tool
27 same medium compared to varied advertisements in multiple media. Synergy is then
attributed to the change in media exposure whereas the effect could (also) have been caused
by the change in information (identical versus varied) (Voorveld et al., 2011). This type of
false attribution is ruled out here by having varied stimuli in the single-tool conditions as well
as the multiple-tool conditions. Since synergy effects are demonstrated, the current study
provides an even stronger verification for the existence of the phenomenon.
Finally, some practical implications are discussed. Media agencies that aim to
increase recall of the brand are advised to apply a campaign with exposure to a banner and
sponsored blog on the same webpage. However, if practitioners aim at increasing evaluative
(more affective) responses, they should consider independent exposures. Independent
exposures entail banners that could be seen across several (unrelated) websites and blog posts
that could be seen across websites of relevant bloggers. This will increase the probability of
being exposed to a banner and blog sequentially.
At least, it becomes evident from this study that brands will benefit from combining
banners and sponsored blogs. It is therefore recommended to use multiple communication
tools if an online campaign is conducted.
Since it is the first study that focused on the role of sequence in this online context
and confirmatory findings fall short, future research is warranted. Suggestions are provided
and could serve as starting point in further studies. Specifically, the investigation to
(un)conscious processes as underlying mechanisms for sequence effects would be an
interesting follow-up to the current study.
REFERENCES
Angell, R., Gorton, M., Sauer, J., Bottomley, P., & White, J. (2016). Don’t distract me when I’m media multitasking: Toward a theory for raising advertising recall and
28 Assael, H. (2011). From silos to synergy: A fifty-year review of cross-media research shows
synergy has yet to achieve its full potential. Journal of Advertising Research, 51(1),
42-48.
Bergen, L., Grimes, T., & Potter, D. (2006). How attention partitions itself during
simultaneous message presentations. Human Communication Research, 31(3),
311-336.
Berlo, D. K., Lemert, J. B., & Mertz, R. J. (1969). Dimensions for evaluating the
acceptability of message sources. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 33(4), 563-576.
Boerman, S. C., Van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2012). Sponsorship disclosure:
Effects of duration on persuasion knowledge and brand responses. Journal of
Communication, 62(6), 1047-1064.
Bronner, A. E. (2006). Multimedia-synergie in reclamecampagnes [Cross-media synergy in
advertising campaigns]. Amsterdam: Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Commerciële Communicatie (SWOCC).
Cameron, G. T. (1994). Does publicity outperform advertising? An experimental test of the
third-party endorsement. Journal of Public Relations Research, 6(3), 185-207.
Campbell, M. C. (1995). When attention-getting advertising tactics elicit consumer inferences
of manipulative intent: The importance of balancing benefits and investments. Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 4(3), 225-254.
Campbell, M. C., & Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand familiarity and advertising repetition effects.
Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 292-304.
Chang, Y., & Thorson, E. (2004). Television and web advertising synergies. Journal of
29 Choi, S. M., & Rifon, N. J. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of web advertising
credibility: A study of consumer responses to banner ads. Journal of Interactive
Advertising, 3(1), 12-24.
Chowdhury, R. M. M. I., Finn, A., & Olsen, G. D. (2007). Investigating the simultaneous
presentation of advertising and television programming. Journal of Advertising, 36(3),
85-96.
Chun, K. Y., Song, J. H., Hollenbeck, C. R., & Lee, J. H. (2014). Are contextual
advertisements effective? The moderating role of complexity in banner advertising.
International Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 351-371.
Chung, H., & Zhao, X. (2004). Effects of perceived interactivity on web site preference and
memory: Role of personal motivation. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 10(1), article 7. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2004.tb00232.x
Colliander, J., & Dahlén, M. (2011). Following the fashionable friend: The power of social
media. Journal of Advertising Research, 51(1), 313-320.
Cowley, E., & Barron, C. (2008). When product placement goes wrong: The effects of
program liking and placement prominence. Journal of Advertising, 37(1), 89-98.
Dens, N., De Pelsmacker, P., Wouters, M., & Purnawirawan, N. (2012). Do you like what
you recognize? Journal of Advertising, 41(3), 35-54.
Dijkstra, M., Buijtels, H., & 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(3), 377-386.
Edell, J. A., & Keller, K. L. (1989). The information processing of coordinated media
30 Eisend, M., & Küster, F. (2010). The effectiveness of publicity versus advertising: A
meta-analytic investigation of its moderators. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
39(6), 906-921.
Fortin, D., Grimwood, S., & Finsterwalder, J. (2011). An empirical investigation into the
combined effect of sequence and multiple-media exposure on audience attitudes. In
Paper presented at the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference (ANZMAC). Perth, Australia.
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with
persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1-31.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hsu, C. L., & Lin, J. C. C. (2008). Acceptance of blog usage: The roles of technology
acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Information
Management, 45(1), 65-74.
Huang, L. S., Chou, Y. J., & Lin, C. H. (2008). The influence of reading motives on the
responses after reading blogs. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(3), 351-355.
IAB NL (2015, October 12). Online Ad Spend study 2015 H1 [PDF file]. Retrieved from
http://iab.nl/nieuws/online-ad-spend-study-2015-h1.
Jaekel, B. (2016, February 26). Emerald Nuts, Nature's Bounty tap blog popularity to drive
consumer connections [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://www.mobilemarketer.com/
cms/news/media/22334.html/.
Janssens, W., De Pelsmacker, P., & Geuens, M. (2012). Online advertising and congruency
effects: It depends on how you look at it. International Journal of Advertising, 31(3),
31 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.
Jin, H. S. (2003). Compounding consumer interest: Effects of advertising campaign publicity
on the ability to recall subsequent advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 32(4),
29-41.
Jin, H. S., & Zhao, X., & An, S. (2006). Examining effects of advertising campaign publicity
in a field study. Journal of Advertising Research, 46(2), 171-182.
Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2004). Wag the blog: How reliance on traditional media and
the internet influence credibility perceptions of weblogs among blog users.
Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(3), 622-642.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and
opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59-68.
Keller, K. L. (1987). Memory factors in advertising: The effect of advertising retrieval cues
on brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 316-333.
Kim, J., Yoon, H. J., & Lee, S. Y. (2010). Integrating advertising and publicity. Journal of
Advertising, 39(1), 97-114.
Lambrecht, A., & Tucker, C. (2013). When does retargeting work? Information specificity in
online advertising. Journal of Marketing Research, 50(5), 561-576.
Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of
Communication, 50(1), 46-70.
Liebe, U., Glenk, K., Oehlmann, M., & Meyerhoff, J. (2015). Does the use of mobile devices
(tablets and smartphones) affect survey quality and choice behaviour in web surveys?
32 Loda, M. D., & Coleman, B. C. (2005). Sequence matters: A more effective way to use
advertising and publicity. Journal of Advertising Research, 45(4), 362-372.
McQuarrie, E. F., & Munson, J. M. (1992). A revised product involvement inventory:
Improved usability and validity. In J. F. Sherry Jr. & B. Sternthal (Eds.), Advances in
Consumer Research, 19 (pp. 108-115). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer
Research.
Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to
credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 413-439.
Micu, A. C., & Pentina, I. (2015). Examining search as opposed to experience goods when
investigating synergies of internet news articles and banner ads. Internet Research,
25(3), 378-398.
Naik, P. A., & Raman, K. (2003). Understanding the impact of synergy in multimedia
communications. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(4), 375-388.
Neijens, P., & Voorveld, H. (2015). Cross-platform advertising: Current practices and issues
for the future. Journal of Advertising Research, 55(4), 362-367.
Orr, J. M., Sackett, P. R., & Dubois, C. L. Z. (1991). Outlier detection and treatment in I/O
psychology: A survey of researcher beliefs and an empirical illustration. Personnel
Psychology, 44(3), 473-486.
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243-281.
Robinson, Z. (2015, March 11). Native advertising pt. 2: Bridging the gap between content,
social & SEO [Blog post]. Retrieved from
http://www.add3.com/insights/social-
33 Segev, S., Wang, W., & Fernandes, J. (2014). The effects of ad-context congruency on
responses to advertising in blogs. International Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 17-36.
Sehl, K. (2013, October 17). Sponsored blogs: Where native advertising gets personal [Blog
post]. Retrieved from
http://sparksheet.com/sponsored-blogs-where-native-advertising-gets-personal/.
Smit, E. G., Boerman, S. C., & Van Meurs, L. (2015). The power of direct context as
revealed by eye tracking: A model tracks relative attention to competing editorial and
promotional content. Journal of Advertising Research, 55(2), 216-227.
Southern, L. (2015, October 8). The IAB UK: “Banners don’t work” [Blog post]. Retrieved
from http://digiday.com/publishers/u-k-s-iab-banners-dont-work/.
Spears, N., & Singh, S. N. (2004). Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase
intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 26(2), 53-66.
Stammerjohan, C., Wood, C. M., Chang, Y., & Thorson, E. (2005). An empirical
investigation of the interaction between publicity, advertising, and previous brand
attitudes and knowledge. Journal of Advertising, 34(4), 55-67.
Sternberg, J. (2013, April 18). Time to define native advertising [Blog post]. Retrieved from
http://digiday.com/publishers/time-to-define-native-advertising.
Sternthal, B., Dholakia, R., & Leavitt, C. (1978). The persuasive effect of source credibility:
Tests of cognitive responses. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(4), 252-260.
Tang, T., Newton, G. D., & Wang, X. (2007). Does synergy work? An examination of
cross-promotion effects. The International Journal on Media Management, 9(4), 127-134.
Tran, P., Carrillo, R., & Subrahmanyam, K. (2013). Effects of online multitasking on reading
comprehension of expository text. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial
34 Van den Berg, M. (2015, July 3). Outbound & inbound marketing: Wat is de ideale
combinatie? [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.frankwatching.com/archive/
2015/07/03/outbound-inbound-marketing-wat-is-de-ideale-combinatie.
Van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2009). Brand placement prominence: Good for memory! Bad for
attitudes? Journal of Advertising Research, 49(2), 151-153.
Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Fransen, M. L., Van Noort, G., Opree, S., Vandeberg, L., Reusch, S.,
Van Lieshout, F., & Boerman, S. C. (2015). Effects of disclosing sponsored content in
blogs: How the use of resistance strategies mediates effects on persuasion. In Paper
presented at the Etmaal van de Communicatiewetenschap. Antwerp, Belgium.
Voorveld, H. A. M. (2011). Media multitasking and the effectiveness of combining online
and radio advertising. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(6), 2200-2206.
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.
Voorveld, H. A. M., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2012). The interacting role of media
sequence and product involvement in cross-media campaigns. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 18(3), 203-216.
Wang, A. (2006). When synergy in marketing communication online enhances audience
response: The effects of varying advertising and product publicity messages. Journal
of Advertising Research, 46(2), 160-170.
Wei, M. L., Fischer, E., & Main, K. J. (2008). An examination of the effects of activating
persuasion knowledge on consumer response to brands engaging in covert marketing.
35 Wojdynski, B. W., & Evans, N. J. (2016). Going native: Effects of disclosure position and
language on the recognition and evaluation of online native advertising. Journal of
Advertising, 45(2), 157-168.
Yaveroglu, I., & Donthu, N. (2008). Advertising repetition and placement issues in online
environments. Journal of Advertising, 37(2), 31-43.
Yoo, C. Y. (2008). Unconscious processing of web advertising: Effects on implicit memory,
attitude toward the brand, and consideration set. Journal of Interactive Marketing,
22(2), 2-18.
Young, D. R., & Bellezza, F. S. (1982). Encoding variability, memory organization, and the
repetition effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
36
APPENDIX Appendix A - Tables
TABLE 1. Correlation coefficients of demographic variables and control variables Demographics Chi-square (χ²)
Attitude banner Attitude blog Brand attitude
Purchase intention Gender 12.94 11.68 25.48 16.87 Age 373.20 356.69 620.45 523.17 Nationality 149.76 169.99 606.91*** 454.99*** Education 79.50 85.46 160.83 131.03
Control variables Pearson's r
Attitude banner Attitude blog Brand attitude
Purchase intention Prior knowledge -0.02 -0.14 -0.18* 0.01 Product involvement -0.27*** -0.42*** -0.55*** -0.44***
Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001. The variables prior knowledge and product involvement are log transformed.
37 TABLE 2. Mean scores and standard deviations of all evaluative measures as function of multiple-/single-tool exposure
Multiple-tool condition Single-tool condition
Banners Sponsored blogs
(n = 72) (n = 37) (n = 39)
Attitude banner ª 4.09 (1.15) 3.64 (1.70) -
Attitude blog ª 4.51 (1.09) - 4.55 (1.36)
Brand attitude ª 5.56 (0.64) 4.28 (1.41) 5.38 (1.34)
Purchase intention ª 3.45 (1.25) 2.68 (1.61) 3.35 (1.53)
Note: Attitude toward the blog is not measured in the banner condition and attitude toward the banner is not measured in the blog condition.
38
