• No results found

Facebook users’ perceptions of pull and push : advertising on the social network

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Facebook users’ perceptions of pull and push : advertising on the social network"

Copied!
38
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

Facebook Users’ Perceptions of Pull and Push

Advertising on the Social Network

Master Thesis

Katharina Stroehm 10858377

Supervisor: Ester de Waal MSc: Persuasive Communication

25.06.2015

(2)

Abstract

Advertising on social media can be divided into push and pull. Push ads are targeted ads that automatically appear on the users newsfeed, while Pull ads are branded posts that are only shown if the user liked the brand’s Facebook page.

This study investigated if there is a difference in how users on Facebook perceive the two types in regards to invasiveness, privacy concerns, brand congruence,

informativeness, entertainment and their overall attitude towards the two. In an online survey, 163 participants recruited via Facebook, were shown examples of both and asked to evaluate them. Results indicate that pull advertising is perceived more favourable than push-advertising on all factors except entertainment and privacy concerns. Implications and limitations are discussed.

(3)

Introduction

As traditional media are loosing more and more consumers to the Internet, they are also loosing their popularity with brands (Keller, 2009). Instead, these brands follow their customers (especially the 18-34 segment) to where they think they can reach them best: social networks sites (SNS) (Taylor, Lewin &Strutton, 2011). These social network sites are seen as platforms for brands to connect with their consumers, generate exposure, strengthen the relationship between brand and consumer and provide them with important brand information (Baird &Parasnis, 2011; Heaps, 2009; Kwon& Sung, 2011, Logan, 2014).

The largest SNS is Facebook. With over 1.39 billion active users, of which 890 million log in daily, it is highly relevant for advertisers, especially if their target group is between 18 and 34 years old, which is the largest group of users (29.7%). There is a slightly larger amount of women on Facebook (53%) than men (47%) (Noyes, 2015). However, while the hype is strong and advisors urge companies to invest their advertising dollars into social media (Kruse, 2014; Wright, Khanfar, Harrington, Kizer, 2010), academic research on the effectiveness of social network advertising (SNA) is rather discouraging: Unlike with traditional media, where consumers accept advertising in exchange for entertainment, the Internet and especially SNS are seen as one’s private space (Beauchamp, 2012) where no such agreement exists (Tanyel, Stuart &Griffin, 2013; Taylor et al., 2011). Branded content in this space is perceived as intrusive and irrelevant and users are unwilling to exert cognitive resources processing it, meaning it is largely ignored (Kelly, Kerr& Drennan, 2010; Sashittal, Sriramachandramurthy & Hodis, 2012). These results present a dilemma for brands and companies. If they want to reach their customers

(4)

(especially the younger ones) they have no choice but to invest in SNA (Taylor et al., 2011); but if the customers’ attitude towards SNA is as negative as previously

portrayed, they might be wasting their money (Sashittal et al., 2012).

However, there are different types of SNA: As first proposed by Taylor et al. (2011), SNA can be divided into push- and pull-SNA. The first is shown to customers, without them having any previous affiliation with the brand (Hoy& Milne, 2010). The second is brand content that is only shown to users that have followed or liked the brand’s social media page (Logan, 2014). Existing studies on attitude towards SNA made no distinction between these two types. For brands however, it would be beneficial to know how users feel about the two types, since attitude towards the ad influences brand attitude (Gardner, 1985; MacKenzie, Lutz &Belch, 1986). If one is perceived more favourably than the other, this could provide guidance on where to focus more effort and advertising budget on.

The current study aims to address this gap with a survey comparing the two types. More specifically it aims to answer the question if there is a difference in how Facebook users between the age of 18 and 34 perceive the two types of advertising on this network. Facebook was chosen as a social network because of its size and

relevance: according to a recent report, 54% of marketers identify it as the most important network (Stelzner, 2014). Importantly, it is the only social network that has been offering the two types of advertising for a while: Facebook ads were first

introduced in 2007 and branded Facebook pages in 2008 (“A visual history”, 2014), thus users should be highly familiar with both.

Theoretical Framework Advertising on Facebook

(5)

Brands and companies have many options for advertising on Facebook. Once they have created a brand page, they can buy ads and select a target audience based on age, location, relationship status, interests and/ or friends and other metrics. The target group members then see the brands content (can be picture, text or video) on their newsfeed amongst their friends’ updates, with the note “sponsored” on the top of the post. Brands usually aim to make the content appear as similar as possible to a regular user generated post.

Facebook users also have the possibility to like the brand page. If they do so, they will receive the brands posts on their newsfeed (if the brand pays for it), similarly to the above mentioned sponsored posts. However, these posts are not marked as “sponsored” and are only shown to those users that have established a link with the brand by liking their brand page.

Both types of advertising are very similar in their appearance and content, and have thus been grouped together in previous studies (Kelly et al., 2010; Taylor et al., 2011). However, according to the model of push and pull advertising, there is an important difference: With the first type, the brand initiates contact, while in the case of the second, it is the customer. (Okazaki, Molina & Hirose, 2012). Taylor et al. (2011) were the first to apply this model to SNA, but they did not distinguish between the two types in their research, as they were only interested in attitudes towards the entire concept, not the specific types. However, this might be an important distinction to make: The attitude that consumer’s have towards an ad influences how they feel about the brand (Gardner, 1985; MacKenzie et al., 1986) and recent studies about the concept of push and pull types of mobile advertising have shown that pull advertising is perceived more favourably (e.g. Leppaniemi & Karjaluoto, 2005; Unni & Harmon,

(6)

2007). If this holds true in the realm of Facebook, brands might want to consider investing more budget in pull advertising than push advertising.

This is where the current study hopes to contribute: By comparing how the two types are perceived by Facebook users and by looking at the processes that might lead to them being perceived differently.

Attitudes towards Social Network Advertising

Facebook users seem to have a rather negative attitude towards advertising on the social network, especially college students which make up a large part of the user population. They find it to be irrelevant, uninformative and ineffective (Bannister, Kiefer & Nellums, 2013). Their Facebook newsfeed is seen as their private social space and advertising as an unwelcome intrusion (Beauchamp, 2012). However, Facebook users seem to be somewhat more in favour of pull-SNA, as they

consciously allow it into their private space (Bannister et al., 2013; Beauchamp, 2012; Chi, 2011; Lukka & James, 2014). Similar findings are expected in the current study:

H1: Users will have a more positive attitude towards pull-SNA than towards push-SNA.

If hypothesis 1 is confirmed, it will also be important to look at what factors influence attitude towards SNA and how they might be different for push- and pull-SNA. According to Taylor et al.’s (2011) model of attitude towards SNA, SNA attitudes are mainly determined by five factors: The invasiveness of it, the amount of privacy concerns it elicits, how congruent the user perceives the brand to be with his personality and how informative and entertaining it is. Examining these factors individually for each type of SNA, might provide an explanation for why one seems to be perceived more positively.

(7)

Invasiveness

When an ad is perceived as invasive, consumers are likely to get irritated with it, which in turn will lead to them ignoring or avoiding the ad and can even lead to negative attitudes towards it and the brand (Chatterjee, 2008; Jung, Shim, Jin & Khang, 2015; Truong & Simmons, 2010, Wang, Oh, Wang, 2009). Whether or not an ad is perceived as invasive, depends on the degree to which it interrupts the

consumer’s goal (Li, Edwards, Lee, 2002). Perceived goal impediment is also the main reason on the Internet for why people avoid advertising (Cho & Chenn, 2004) and Taylor et al. (2011) suggest that this effect would be even more pronounced for social networks. However, are both push- and pull-SNA perceived as equally invasive?

As the name implies, the main purpose of Social Networks are social connections: Users want to stay connected with old and current friends (Joinson, 2008), stay up-to-date on the newest happenings in their social circles (Sashittal et al., 2012) and get to know people better that they met offline (Lampe, Ellison &

Steinfield, 2007). Thus, SNS are all about forming and maintaining relationships. This extends past the conventional human relationships: SNS also provide a platform for consumer-brand relationships (McCorkindale, Distaso and Sisco, 2013). As posited by brand relationship theory, consumers can develop active bonds with their favourite brands (Fournier, 1998) and one of the main reasons why users follow brands is indeed having a positive offline connection with them (McCorkindale et al., 2013). The SNS acts as a platform to communicate with the brand (Kwon & Sung, 2011), to show their support (Bennett, 2015) and receive the newest updates (Bennett, 2015).

(8)

As a consequence, pull-SNA should be perceived as less invasive: SNSs display all the latest updates from friends and followed pages on the user’s newsfeed. It’s a collection of the most recent posts, activities and in the case of most SNS, also push-SNA. Because users are less likely to have any relationship with the brand advertised in these push-SNA ads, the ads would interfere with the primary goal of maintaining relationships and consequently be perceived as invasive. Pull-SNA on the other hand fit within this goal, as it comes from followed brands.

Another factor that influences how invasive advertising is perceived to be, is giving permission:

Users are aware that if they like a brand page, they will receive posts from this brand on their timeline (Beauchamp, 2012; Kelly et al., 2010). Thus, clicking the like button, signifies an implicit permission for the brand to expose the user to their advertising content. The resulting posts on their newsfeeds are then expected, which means they are less intrusive (Godin, 1999). This concept has been found to work successfully in e-mail marketing (Milne & Rohm ,2004; Tezinde, Smith &Murphy, 2002) and in mobile advertising (Barwise & Strong, 2002; Leppäniemi & Karjaluoto, 2005): Messages coming from senders that the consumer previously contacted and to whom he/she gave explicit permission to contact him/her are perceived positively while unsolicited messages (commonly referred to as SPAM) are invasive and irritating (Tsang, Ho, Liang, 2004). Beauchamp (2012) suggests that permission is also the reason why users perceive pull-SNA as less invasive than push-SNA. Thus:

(9)

Privacy concerns

Advertisers on social media can use the information that users provide about themselves (their age, gender, educational status, relationship status, interests) as well as previously visited websites and conducted web searches to specify their target group (Hoy & Milne, 2010; Taylor et al., 2011). Someone whose relationship status is “engaged” might thus receive bridal shop ads (Hoy & Milne, 2010) and someone who indicated surfing and skating as interests, might receive ads from sport companies (Kelly et al., 2010). Often users are aware of this practice (Roberts, 2010), especially when they receive highly personalized ads (Baek & Morimoto, 2012; Tucker, 2014). The three main concerns of users are how their private information is collected, how it will be used and that they lack control over which information is being disclosed. (Malhotra, Kim & Agarwal, 2004; Roberts, 2010). Together, these concerns have been found to irritate the user (Baek & Morimoto, 2012, Truong & Simons, 2010; Ur et al., 2012), to negatively influence the attitude towards the ad (Jung et al., 2015; Mahlangu, 2014; Taylor et al.,2011; Yaakop, Mohamed Anuar, Omar &Liaw, 2012) and even to lead to abandonment of the social network (AdReaction, 2009; Krasnova, Günther, Spiekermann, & Koroleva, 2009).

However, with content from followed brands (pull-SNA), users know that they receive it because they previously gave permission (Kelly et al., 2010), which might eliminate these concerns. Lukka and James (2014) for example, found that users don’t feel that their privacy is violated by pull-SNA but they prefer to block push-SNA from receiving their personal information.

Based on this, I expect that:

(10)

Brand Congruence

According to Aaker (1997) brands have a distinctive brand personality associated with them. The camera producer GoPro has firmly established itself as an adventurous brand (Hall, 2013), Coca-Cola stands for happiness (Leonardo, 2015) and Apple is innovative and creative (Müller, 2010). If this brand personality is perceived by a customer to closely match his or her own personality, this is referred to as high (self)-brand congruence (Sirgy et al., 1997).

Research has shown that high brand congruence leads to positive brand attitudes (e.g. Hong & Zinkhan, 1995; Moore &Homer, 2008; Parker, 2009; Swaminathan, Page & Gürhan-Canli, 2007) which in turn leads to a better attitude towards the ad (Lutz, MacKenzie &Belch, 1983). Thus, perceiving the brand to be similar to him/her will indirectly influence a consumer’s attitude towards an ad. This assumption holds for SNA as well, as Taylor et al. report (2011) and it is expected that this effect will be stronger for pull-SNA than for push-SNA:

Once someone likes a brand on Facebook, it will be publicly visible on his profile and will likely appear on his/her friend’s newsfeeds. Aware of this, users like a brand, if they feel it represents them or their ideal selves well, and would refrain from liking a brand that does not match their self-perception (Hollenbeck and Kaikati, 2012). In other words, users are likely to have a high brand congruence with the brands they follow, because they choose to follow brands that they feel are congruent with their personality.

H4: Users will have a higher level of perceived brand congruence with brands they follow than with brands advertised via push-SNA.

(11)

Entertainment and Informativeness

Entertainment and Informativeness have been found to play a big role in shaping perceptions towards advertising in general (e.g. Blanco, Blasco & Azorín, 2010; Ducoffe, 1995; Wang, Zhang, Choi & D'Eredita, 2002) as well as advertising on social networks (Saxena & Khanna, 2013; Taylor et al., 2011). In the model of SNA-attitudes their contributions are even larger than those of invasiveness, privacy concerns and brand-congruence (Taylor et al., 2011). At this point, it is unclear however if push- and pull-SNA differ in regards to how entertaining and informative they are perceived to be. While the other factors have received much attention in the area of mobile advertising, e-mail advertising and general online advertising,

entertainment value and informativeness of push- vs. pull-SNA have not yet been researched. Neither can a connection with permission or brand relationships be made.

It is thus not possible to formulate a clear hypothesis involving these two factors. To lay a foundation for future research, they will be included in the research and analysis nonetheless. To leave them out, would mean disregarding a large part of the model on which this study is based.

Method Design

To assess how users perceive both push- and pull- SNA in terms of

invasiveness, privacy concerns, brand congruence, entertainment, informativeness and overall attitude a within-subjects survey design was used. According to Charness, Gneezy and Kuhn (2012), the benefits of the within-subject design are (a) greater statistical power, (b) higher internal validity because individual differences between subjects don't confound results and (c) they match a natural setting better. Especially

(12)

the latter makes the design suitable for the current study: In a real-life setting, an individual would be exposed to both types of advertising, not only one, thus it makes sense to expose each user to both conditions.

Participants

221 participants were recruited via Facebook from the researcher’s

connections, Facebook groups (such as Respondenten gezocht) and via a snowball method. They received a link to the online survey and were informed that it was a survey about “brands on Facebook”. Due to the nature of the research question, it was essential that participants were familiar with Facebook, thus recruitment via this medium made sense. Once all incomplete responses had been excluded 163 valid responses remained and were used for the analysis. 65 (40%) of the participants were male and 98 (60%) were female, which reflects the current gender distribution of the total Facebook population: In February 2015, 53% of all Facebook users were female and 47% were male (Noyes, 2015). The average age was 24.71 years (Min= 20, Max= 37, SD=2.612). All participants had a Facebook account and used the social network for an average of 2 hours and 4.7 minutes a day (Min=10 mins, Max=510 mins, SD=94.49), which is more than the 21 minutes spent per user per day on average (Smith, 2015).

Procedure

Responses were collected via an online survey. After giving their informed consent, participants were either shown a generic example screenshot of a push ad or a pull ad from the magazine The Economist, together with a short description. About the push ad, they were told that targeted advertising appears on their newsfeed if they are part of a selected target group and that it usually contains a “sponsored” logo and a call for action, such as “Like Page” or “Join”. About the pull ad, they were told that

(13)

branded posts (pull ads) appear on their newsfeed if they follow the brand’s Facebook page. For both ads they were asked to think back to similar ads that they had

encountered on their own timeline, to emphasize that the survey was about the type of ad in general, not the specific ad shown.

Participants then filled out the invasiveness, privacy-concern, brand

congruence, entertainment, informativeness and overall attitude measures about the type of ad in question. Next, they were shown an example and description for the other type of SNA and asked to fill out the same questionnaire. The order, in which the two types were shown, was randomized for each participant to avoid order effects. Afterwards, they had to rate the importance of different reasons in the process of “liking” a brand page. Finally they were asked to indicate their age, gender and general attitude towards advertising. On the last page, participants were thanked and dismissed.

Measurements

Invasiveness. To measure to what extend participants perceive the ad as invasive, a shortened version of the attitude towards the ad (invasiveness) scale by Li, Edwards, and Lee (2002) was employed, similar to the one used by Taylor and

colleagues (2011). Participants are asked to rate on a 7-point likert scale (1=Strongly disagree, 7= Strongly agree) to what extend they agreed with the statement: “I find targeted ads/branded posts shown on Facebook…” followed by the items

“distracting”, “interfering”, “intrusive”, “ invasive” and “irritating”. The original authors report high reliability (α = .92) which was confirmed by our own findings for both push-SNA (α = .94, M = 4.81, SD = 1.35) and pull-SNA (α = .94, M = 3.87, SD = 1.36). The principal component analysis showed that all items loaded onto one factor (respectively E V= 4.01, 𝑅!  = 80.13; EV = 3.99, 𝑅!  = 79.9)

(14)

Privacy concerns. Since existing social media privacy concerns scales only assess concerns on how secure private information is perceived to be (Malhotra, et al. ,2004), a new scale had to be developed to assess privacy concerns in the context of SNA. The new scale included five items such as “Targeted ads/ branded posts are an invasion into my privacy” and “I don’t like having my online behaviour tracked and analysed for the purpose of targeted ads/ branded posts” (all items in appendix 6). It was aimed at measuring how concerned participants feel about their data being used for push- and pull- SNA. This was assessed on a 7-point likert scale (1=Strongly disagree, 7= Strongly agree). The wording was slightly adapted to the type of SNA in question.

Principal component factor analysis and the reliability analysis showed that the five items form a uni-dimensional scale and are very reliable in both the push- SNA (EV = 3.28, 𝑅!  = 65.63, α = .86, M = 5.06, SD = 1.38) and pull-SNA (EV = 3.21,

𝑅!  = 64.25, α = .86, M = 4.61, SD = 1.37) conditions. Thus it seems that this scale is

well suited to measure privacy concerns related to SNA. Higher scores represent a higher level of privacy concerns.

Brand congruence. Brand congruence was measured with the same scale that had been employed by Taylor and colleagues (2011). It incudes four items and was measured on a 5-point likert scale (see appendix 7). The principal component analysis showed that all items load onto one factor and are sufficiently reliable for Push-SNA (EV = 2.76, 𝑅!  = 68.89, α = .85, M = 2.66, SD = .77) as well as pull-SNA (EV = 2.56,

𝑅!  = 63.82 , α = .81, M = 3.33, SD = .72)

Entertainment. The entertainment scale was adapted from the entertainment scale originally used by Taylor and colleagues (2011). It includes four items

(15)

perceives a certain category of ads (here push and pull) to be. The responses were recorded on a 7-point likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree). All items combined represented a highly reliable uni-dimensional scale (push-SNA: EV = 3.51, 𝑅!  = 87.81, α = .95, M = 3.24, SD = 1.36; pull-SNA: EV = 3.36, 𝑅!  =

84.09, α = .94, M = 4.19, SD = 1.32).

Informativeness. To measure how informative participants perceived both types of SNA to be, Taylor and colleagues (2011) Informativeness scale was employed (appendix 9). It’s three items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1=Strongly disagree, 7= Strongly agree), which were them combined to form one single, reliable scale (push-SNA: EV = 2.49, 𝑅!  = 82.97, α = .90, M = 3.54, SD =

1.47; pull-SNA: EV = 2.45, 𝑅!  = 81.80, α =.89, M = 4.50, SD = 1.43).

Attitude towards the ad. The scale to measure attitude towards the ad was adapted from the one originally used Appiah (2001). In the original version, the scale contained 11 items, which for the current study were reduced to six items, to keep participant costs as low as possible. Participants are asked to rate to which extend they thought the ad is “bad/good”, “unappealing/appealing”, “negative/ positive”,

“unlikable/ likeable”, “useless/useful” and “unfavourable/favourable”. According to the principal component analysis, the items all loaded onto one single factor (push-SNA: EV = 4.52, 𝑅!  = 75.30; pull-SNA: EV = 4.47, 𝑅!  = 74.5) and formed a highly

reliable scale (push-SNA: α = .93, M = 2.61, SD = 1.12; pull-SNA: α = .93, M = 3.32, SD = .83).

General advertising attitude. The last scale of the questionnaire was used to assess how participants felt about advertising in general. It was a shortened four item version (appendix 10) of a scale originally developed by Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998). Measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1=Strongly disagree, 7= Strongly agree),

(16)

the four items formed a uni-dimensional, sufficiently reliable scale (EV = 2.36, 𝑅!  =

58.89, α = .76, M = 2.12, SD = .88).

Results Testing the attitudes towards SNA model

Taylor et al. (2011) found entertainment, informativeness and brand congruity to be positive predictors for attitude towards SNA while privacy concerns and invasiveness were found to be negative predictors. To see if their findings hold up once SNA has been divided into push- and pull-SNA, a stepwise regression analysis was run, in which the five variables were entered into the model depending on the size of their (significant) correlation with the dependent variable. This was done for both push- and pull advertising.

For push-SNA, entertainment (b*  = .34; t = 4.1, p < .001), informativeness (b*   = .25; t = 3.1, p = .002), privacy concerns (b*  = -.22; t = -3.7, p < .001) and

invasiveness (b*  = -.26; t = -.38, p < .001), together explained 73 % of the variance in scores on attitude towards push-SNA, F(4, 108) = 74.62, p < .001. Brand congruity and the control variables were not significant and were thus excluded from the model.

The results for pull-SNA were similar: Entertainment (b*    = .39; t = 5.3, p < .000), informativeness (b*  = .31; t = 4.68, p = .000), privacy concerns (b*  = .10; t = -2.0, p = .45) and invasiveness (b*  = -.25; t = -.38, p < .001) together accounted for 77% of the variance in scores on attitude towards pull-SNA, F(4, 108) = 91.1, p < .001. Brand congruity and the control variables were again excluded due to non-significance.

Control variables

Prior to testing the hypotheses, a bivariate correlation analysis of the dependent variables and control variables was conducted. The results showed that

(17)

attitude towards advertising, age, gender and time spend on Facebook all significantly correlate with at least one of the dependent variable (see table 1). As a consequence, the respective covariates will be controlled for in the subsequent analysis.

Table 1 - Covariates

Variables Gender Age FB time Aatt

Invasiveness -Push-SNA .12 .10 -.12 -.26** -Pull-SNA .14 .17* -.14 -.20* Privacy concerns -Push-SNA .14 .03 -.01 -.13 -Pull-SNA .24* .04 -.04 -.24** Brand congruence -Push-SNA -.05 .03 .10 .23** -Pull-SNA -.02 -.12 -.05 .22** Entertainment -Push-SNA -.03 .06 .17 .24** -Pull-SNA -.03 -.11 .09 .31** Informativeness -Push-SNA .01 -.01 .20* .36** -Pull-SNA -.06 -.15 .14 .40** Attitude towards -Push-SNA -.02 .02 .17 .26** -Pull-SNA -.11 -.11 .14 .32**

(18)

Hypothesis testing

Overall, participant’s attitude towards pull-SNA was rather favourable, with a mean rating of 3.20, which is above the median of 2.50. Push-SNA received a more neutral rating with a mean of 2.60 (standard deviations can be found in table 2 in the appendix).

To compare the means of push- and pull-SNA of the variables invasiveness, privacy-concerns, brand congruence, entertainment, informativeness and attitude towards SNA, initially paired t-tests were run. Pull-SNA was expected to have higher mean scores than push-SNA on brand congruence and attitude towards the ad, and lower mean scores on invasiveness and privacy concerns. Results of the paired t-test showed that this was indeed the case (see table 2 in the appendix for all means and standard deviations) and that all differences in scores were highly significant

(p<0.001 in all cases). For the variables entertainment and informativeness no specific directions were predicted but the results of the paired t-test suggest that for both, pull-SNA received significantly better mean ratings than push-pull-SNA. The paired t-test results can be found in table 3 in the appendix.

However, at this point the covariates gender, age, time spent on Facebook and advertising attitude had not been taken into account. Thus, separate repeated measure ANCOVA’s were run for each variable, including the relevant covariates where necessary. The Wilks’ Lambda multivariate test results are displayed in table 4.

Table 4 – Repeated Measures ANVOCA Wilks’

Lambda

(19)

Invasiveness 0.95 7.70 1,159 <0.001** 0.05 Privay concerns 0.99 0.46 1,158 0.500 < 0.01 Brand congruence 0.94 9.85 1,159 <0.001** 0.06 Entertainment 0.99 2.48 1,159 0.121 0.02 Informativeness 0.93 8.12 1,159 <0.001** 0.07 Attitude 0.98 4.11 1,159 0.043* 0.03

**=Significant at a=0.01, *=Significant at a=0.05

The differences between means of invasiveness, brand congruence,

informativeness and attitude towards SNA were shown to be significant. For privacy concerns and entertainment the means were no longer significantly different, once advertising attitude and gender had been controlled for. The results thus provide support for hypothesis 1, 2, and 4 which state respectively that users will have a more positive attitude towards pull-SNA than towards push-SNA, that pull-SNA is

perceived as less invasive than push-SNA and that users have a higher perceived brand congruence with pull-SNA than push-SNA. No support was found for hypothesis 3, that pull-SNA would elicit less privacy concerns than push-SNA. In terms of informativeness, pull-SNA received significantly better ratings than push-SNA, even when the respective covariates were controlled for. For entertainment however, the difference between the means was not found to be significant. The influence of attitude towards advertising

Even though the regression analysis indicated that attitude towards advertising did not add any explanatory value to the push- and pull-SNA models over and above the contribution of the main variables, the results of the bivariate correlation analysis suggests that there is a connection with attitude towards SNA. To investigate this further, a median split was performed to separate participants into two groups: Those with a positive attitude towards advertising and those with a negative attitude towards

(20)

advertising. An independent samples t-test then showed that those with a positive attitude towards advertising also had a more positive attitude towards pull-SNA(M= 3.44, SD= 0.73), than those with a negative attitude towards advertising (M = 3.04, SD = 0.85),t(159) = -3.16, p = .002, 95% CI [-0.66, -0.15]. The same conclusion can be drawn for push-SNA (positive Aad: M = 2.77, SD =0.99, negative Aad: M = 2.48, SD = 0.85), t(159) = -1.98, p = .050, 95% CI [-0.58, -0.00].

Discussion

As stated in hypothesis 1, the results indicate that Facebook users between the ages of 20 and 37 indeed have a more positive attitude towards pull-SNA than

towards push-SNA. Hypothesis 2, that pull-SNA would be perceived to be less

invasive than push-SNA, was supported as well. Participants also felt there was higher brand congruence with the brands followed than with the brands they received push-SNA from (Hypothesis 4). No support was found for hypothesis 2, which stated that pull-SNA would elicit less privacy-concerns than Push-SNA. The findings further suggest that users find pull-SNA to be more informative than push-SNA, but not necessarily more entertaining.

The results of the regression analysis are very much in line with the original model of attitude towards SNA, on which this study was based (Taylor et al., 2011). In both models, entertainment explains the largest amount of attitude towards SNA, followed by informativeness. Invasiveness and privacy-concerns have significant negative contributions. The only deviation from the original model is seen in the exclusion of brand congruence as a predictor. This might be explained by the fact that its contribution in the original model was already quite low and the characteristics of the current study (such as sample size) might not have been able to pick up on it.

(21)

Attitude towards SNA

Contrary to Sashittal et al.’s (2012), Kelly et al.’s (2010), Bannister et al.’s (2013) and Tanyel et al.’s (2013) conclusions that advertising on Facebook is perceived negatively and consequently a waste of advertising money, the current study found that it is actually perceived positively in the case of pull-SNA and neutrally in the case of push-SNA. This difference in attitude between the two types had already been suggested, but not extensively studied by Bannister et al. (2013) and Chi (2011). As Beauchamp (2013) implies, pull-SNA might be perceived more favourably because users consciously let it enter their private online space.

Invasiveness

This may also explain why in this study, pull-SNA was perceived to be less invasive than push-SNA. Similar to findings of studies on push and pull factors in e-mail and mobile advertising (Barwise & Strong, 2002; Leppäniemi & Karjaluoto, 2005; Milne & Rohm ,2004; Tezinde et al., 2002), permission seems to be an important factor for attitudes towards SNA.

Brand congruence

To my knowledge, this study is the first to show that push and pull advertising can differ in terms of perceived brand congruity. A possible explanation for this is the finding that users tend to like brands that they perceive to be congruent to them (Hollenbeck and Kaikati, 2012). This does not exclude the notion that brands of some push-SNA ads might evoke high levels of perceived brand congruence as well, but it appears that overall pull-SNA is doing so more successfully. Privacy concerns

It was expected that pull-SNA would elicit less privacy concerns since the “targeting” aspect is not present when users expect the pull-SNA posts as a result of

(22)

having followed the brands. However, in the case of this study, the means for both push- and pull-SNA indicate that users are equally concerned about their privacy with both types. Unlike other studies that found users to only be ambivalently concerned about push-SNA and the use of their private information for it (Hoy& Milne, 2010; Roberts, 2010), participants of this study seem to be rather worried about their social media privacy. It also needs to be noted that the scale that was used to measure this construct was newly developed specifically for this study and it might have measured privacy concerns differently than other studies.

Informativeness

According to the results of this study, pull-SNA is perceived to be more informative than push-SNA. Since no prior research provides any explanations for this finding, I suggest two possible underlying processes: Firstly, the effect may simply be due to the nature of pull-SNA itself: Brands strive to reach high levels of user engagement - any interaction between the user and the brand, such as liking, commenting or sharing- and studies show that one of the most effective way of doing so, is to make the pull-SNA posts informative (Cvijikj &Michahelles, 2013;

Gummerus, Liljander, Weman & Pihlström, 2012; Jahn &Kunz, 2012). Secondly, this informational factor is possibly expected by the users, who often follow brand pages exactly for this reason: To be kept up-to-date and informed (Baird& Parasnis, 2011; Hyllegard, Ogle, Yan & Reitz, 2011). It is possible that via the psychological processes of confirmation bias –the tendency to confirm existing beliefs (Nickerson, 1998)- and cognitive dissonance reduction –the tendency to adjust our beliefs to our actions to maintain cognitive consistency (Festinger, 1962)-, they actually perceive them as informative, even if they turn out to be neither (or less than expected).

(23)

General attitude towards advertising

That attitude towards advertising influenced both attitude towards push-SNA and towards pull-SNA is not surprising, especially in the light of other studies with similar findings: Advertising attitude has been shown to influence attitude towards mobile advertising (Gauzente, 2008) as well as TV and print advertising (Tan & Chia, 2007).

Limitations and recommendations for further research

The current study only investigated the perceptions of SNA on Facebook and the results might not be generalizable to other social networks. Twitter users for example may differ from Facebook users in terms of character traits and goals: They have a greater need for cognition, are more conscientiousness and their browsing behaviour is more goal-oriented and information-seeking (Hughes, Rowe, Batey & Lee, 2012). As a consequence they might find both types of SNA more distracting and annoying than Facebook users. They might also be less interested in receiving regular updates from brands via Twitter (Bennett, 2015), which suggest a more negative attitude towards pull-SNA than Facebook users. Future research could thus look at user’s perceptions of SNA on Twitter or Instagram, the two other major social networks that expose users to push-SNA as well as pull-SNA.

Furthermore, the sample only included respondents between the age of 20 and 37, which were mostly sampled from a population of university students, who spent more than the average amount of time on Facebook per day. Other user groups might perceive SNA differently overall: Lukka and James (2014) for example found that users can be organized into three different clusters. Users of the first cluster are between 35-54 years old, likely to hold a PhD, spend a medium amount of time on Facebook and usually dislike SNA. Users in the second cluster perceive SNA

(24)

negatively as well, are typically not very educated and spend very little time on Facebook. No age group was specified for this cluster. The users in the third cluster are between 25-34 years old, hold a university degree, spend a lot of time on

Facebook and perceive SNA positively, however only if it comes from brands they follow. The characteristics of the current study sample closely match the

characteristics of cluster 3. Future study should investigate if results are replicable with samples consisting of users from the two remaining clusters.

Conclusion

The findings indicate that it is not advisable to treat all types of SNA under one term when studying attitude towards SNA, as it has been suggested by Taylor et al. (2011). It is important to distinguish between posts that result from having followed a brand and posts that are targeted advertising. Overall, users have a more positive attitude towards the first, since they find it to be less invasive, more

informative and since the level of brand congruence is higher.

Previous studies have given SNA a “bad rep” by suggesting that companies waste their money if they invest in it (Sashittal et al., 2012) because users find it annoying (Bannister et al., (2013); Tanyel et al., 2013) and simply ignore it (Kelly et al., 2010). This study actually found that Facebook users had positive attitudes towards SNA, especially if it was from brands they had followed. This should be encouraging not only for brands but also Facebook itself. Instead of turning users away like in the case of Myspace (Taylor, Lewin &Strutton, 2011), SNA might even add informative value to users’ newsfeeds and be appreciated by them. However, there is a limit to the number of SNA posts that users will tolerate (McCorkindale, DiStaso & Sisco, 2013). For brands the advice is to focus more on branded posts than

(25)

on targeted ads, since the former are more welcomed by users. Content-wise, pull-SNA should aim to be informative.

(26)

References

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of marketing research, 347-356.

AdReaction (2009). Brands+ consumers+social media: What marketers should know about who’s getting social &why. Retrieved from:

http://www.slideshare.net/MillwardBrown/dynamic-logic-adreaction-what-marketers-should-know-about-whos-getting-social-why.

Appiah, O. (2001). Ethnic identification on adolescents' evaluations of advertisements. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(5), 7-22.

A visual history of Facebook advertising. Retrieved on the 14.04.2015 from:

www.sociallystacked.com/2014/05/a-visual-history-of-facebook-advertising-plus-tips-from-shortstacks-ad-manager/.

Baek, T. H., & Morimoto, M. (2012). Stay away from me. Journal of Advertising,41(1), 59-76.

Baird, C., & Parasnis, G. (2011). From social media to social customer relationship management. Strategy & Leadership, 39(5), 30-37.

Bannister, A., Kiefer, J., & Nellums, J. (2013). College students’ perceptions of and

behaviors regarding Facebook© advertising: An exploratory study. The Catalyst, 3(1), 2.

Barwise, P., & Strong, C. (2002). Permission-based mobile advertising. Journal of interactive

Marketing, 16(1), 14-24.

Beauchamp, M. B. (2012). Don’t invade my personal space: Facebook’s advertising dilemma. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 29(1), 91-96.

(27)

Bennett, S, (2015). 10 reasons why millennials follow brands on Facebook, Twitter and Pinterest. Retrieved from http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/millennials-brands-social-media/614609.

Blanco, C. F., Blasco, M. G., & Azorín, I. I. (2010). Entertainment and informativeness as precursory factors of successful mobile advertising messages. Communications of the

IBIMA, 1-11.

Chatterjee, P. (2008). Are unclicked ads wasted? Enduring effects of banner and pop-up ad exposures on brand memory and attitudes. Journal of Electronic Commerce

Research, 9(1), 51-61.

Charness, G., Gneezy, U., & Kuhn, M. A. (2012). Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 81(1), 1-8. Chi, H. H. (2011). Interactive digital advertising vs. virtual brand community: Exploratory

study of user motivation and social media marketing responses in Taiwan. Journal of

Interactive Advertising, 12(1), 44-61.

Cho, C. H., & as-, U. O. T. A. A. I. A. (2004). Why do people avoid advertising on the internet?. Journal of advertising, 33(4), 89-97.

Cvijikj, I. P., & Michahelles, F. (2013). Online engagement factors on Facebook brand pages. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 3(4), 843-861.

Ducoffe, R. H. (1995). How consumers assess the value of advertising. Journal of Current

Issues & Research in Advertising, 17(1), 1-18.

Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites.Journal of Computer‐

Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168.

Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2005). Self‐construal, reference groups, and brand meaning. Journal of consumer research, 32(3), 378-389.

(28)

Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Stanford university press. Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer

research. Journal of consumer research, 24(4), 343-353.

Gardner, M. P. (1985). Does attitude toward the ad affect brand attitude under a brand evaluation set?. Journal of Marketing Research, 192-198.

Gauzente, C. (2008, September). Attitude toward m-advertising, perceived intrusiveness, perceived ad-clutter and behavioral consequences: A preliminary study. In Database

and Expert Systems Application, 2008. DEXA'08. 19th International Workshop on (pp. 461-465). IEEE.

Godin, S. (1999). Permission marketing: Turning strangers into friends and friends into

customers. Simon and Schuster.

Gummerus, J., Liljander, V., Weman, E., & Pihlström, M. (2012). Customer engagement in a Facebook brand community. Management Research Review,35(9), 857-877.

Hall (2013). The marketer’s guide to developing a strong brand identity. Retrieved from: http://blog.hubspot.com/blog/tabid/6307/bid/34238/The-Marketer-s-Guide-to-Developing-a-Strong-Brand-Identity.aspx

Heaps, D. (2009). Twitter: Analysis of corporate reporting using social media. Corporate

Governance Advisor, 17(6), 18-22.

Hollenbeck, C. R., & Kaikati, A. M. (2012). Consumers' use of brands to reflect their actual and ideal selves on Facebook. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4), 395-405.

Hong, J. W., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1995). Self-concept and advertising effectiveness: The influence of congruency, conspicuousness, and response mode. Psychology &

(29)

Hoy, M. G., & Milne, G. (2010). Gender differences in privacy-related measures for young adult Facebook users. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10(2), 28-45.

Hughes, D. J., Rowe, M., Batey, M., & Lee, A. (2012). A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage.Computers in Human

Behavior, 28(2), 561-569.

Hyllegard, K. H., Ogle, J. P., Yan, R. N., & Reitz, A. R. (2011). An exploratory study of college students' fanning behavior on Facebook. College Student Journal, 45(3), 601. Jahn, B., & Kunz, W. (2012). How to transform consumers into fans of your brand. Journal

of Service Management, 23(3), 344-361.

Joinson, A. N. (2008, April). Looking at, looking up or keeping up with people?: motives and use of facebook. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in

Computing Systems (pp. 1027-1036). ACM.

Jung, J., Shim, S. W., Jin, H. S., & Khang, H. (2015). Factors affecting attitudes and

behavioural intention towards social networking advertising: a case of Facebook users in South Korea. International Journal of Advertising, (ahead-of-print), 1-18.

Keller, K. L. (2009). Building strong brands in a modern marketing communications environment. Journal of marketing communications, 15(2-3), 139-155.

Kelly, L., Kerr, G., & Drennan, J. (2010). Avoidance of advertising in social networking sites: The teenage perspective. Journal of Interactive Advertising,10(2), 16-27. Krasnova, H., Günther, O., Spiekermann, S., & Koroleva, K. (2009). Privacy concerns and

identity in online social networks. Identity in the Information Society, 2(1), 39-63. Kruse, K, 2014. Social Media 2014: Investment is a necessity, not a luxury. Retrieved from

http://www.krusecontrolinc.com/invest-in-social-media-necessity-luxury/ Kwon, E. S., & Sung, Y. (2011). Follow me! Global marketers’ twitter use.Journal of

(30)

Leornado, 2015. What can your Coca Cola become? Retrieved from:

http://www.johannesleonardo.com/work/what-can-your-coca-cola-become/ Leppaniemi, M., & Karjaluoto, H. (2005). Factors influencing consumers' willingness to

accept mobile advertising: a conceptual model. International Journal of Mobile

Communications, 3(3), 197-213.

Li, H., Edwards, S. M., & Lee, J. H. (2002). Measuring the intrusiveness of advertisements: Scale development and validation. Journal of advertising,31(2), 37-47.

Lukka, V., & James, P. T. (2014). Attitudes toward Facebook advertising. Journal of

management and Marketing Research, 14, 1-26.

Lutz, R. J., MacKenzie, S. B., & Belch, G. E. (1983). Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: Determinants and consequences. Advances in consumer

research, 10(1), 532-539.

Logan, K. (2014). Why isn't everyone doing it? A comparison of antecedents to following brands on Twitter and Facebook. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 14(2), 60-72. McCorkindale, T., DiStaso, M. W., & Sisco, H. F. (2013). How millennials are engaging and

building relationships with organizations on Facebook. The Journal of Social Media

in Society, 2(1).

MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of

marketing research, 130-143.

Mahlangu, H. B. (2014). The effect of product information and information privacy concerns on acceptance of Facebook advertising. Mediterranean Journal of Social

(31)

Malhotra, N. K., Kim, S. S., & Agarwal, J. (2004). Internet users' information privacy concerns (IUIPC): The construct, the scale, and a causal model.Information Systems

Research, 15(4), 336-355.

McCorkindale, T., DiStaso, M. W., & Sisco, H. F. (2013). How millennials are engaging and building relationships with organizations on Facebook. The Journal of Social Media

in Society, 2(1).

Milne, G. R., Rohm, A. J., & Bahl, S. (2004). Consumers’ protection of online privacy and identity. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 38(2), 217-232.

Moore, D. J., & Homer, P. M. (2008). Self-brand connections: The role of attitude strength and autobiographical memory primes. Journal of Business Research, 61(7), 707-714. Müller, C. (2010). Apple's approach towards innovation and creativity.

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of general psychology, 2(2), 175.

Noyes, D, 2015. The top 20 valuable Facebook statistics- Updated February 2015. Retrieved from https://zephoria.com/social-media/top-15-valuable-facebook-statistics/

Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2005). Ad skepticism: The consequences of disbelief. Journal of advertising, 34(3), 7-17.

Okazaki, S., Molina, F. J., & Hirose, M. (2012). Mobile advertising avoidance: exploring the role of ubiquity. Electronic Markets, 22(3), 169-183.

Parker, B. T. (2009). A comparison of brand personality and brand user-imagery congruence. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(3), 175-184.

Roberts, K. K. (2010). Privacy and perceptions: How Facebook advertising affects its

users. The Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications, 1(1), 24-34. Sashittal, H. C., Sriramachandramurthy, R., & Hodis, M. (2012). Targeting college students

(32)

Saxena, A., & Khanna, U. (2013). Advertising on social network sites: A structural equation modelling approach. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 17(1), 17-25. Sirgy, M. J., Grewal, D., Mangleburg, T. F., Park, J. O., Chon, K. S., Claiborne, C. B., &

Berkman, H. (1997). Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring self-image congruence. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 25(3), 229-241. Smith, C (2015). By the numbers: 200+ amazing Facebook user statistics (June 2015).

Retrieved from:http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/by-the-numbers-17-amazing-facebook-stats/

Stelzner, M.A. (2014). 2014 Social media marketing industry report. Retrieved from

http://www.socialmediaexaminer.com/SocialMediaMarketingIndustryReport2014.pdf Swaminathan, V., Page, K. L., & Gürhan-Canli, Z. (2007). “My” brand or “our” brand: The

effects of brand relationship dimensions and self-construal on brand evaluations. Journal of consumer research, 34(2), 248-259.

Tan, S. J., & Chia, L. (2007). Are we measuring the same attitude? Understanding media effects on attitude towards advertising. Marketing Theory,7(4), 353-377.

Taylor, D. G., Lewin, J. E., & Strutton, D. (2011). Friends, fans, and followers: do ads work on social networks?. Business Faculty Publications.

Tanyel, F., Stuart, E. W., & Griffin, J. (2013). Have “Millennials” Embraced Digital Advertising as They Have Embraced Digital Media?. Journal of Promotion

Management, 19(5), 652-673.

Tezinde, T., Smith, B., & Murphy, J. (2002). Getting permission: Exploring factors affecting permission marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(4), 28-36.

Truong, Y., & Simmons, G. (2010). Perceived intrusiveness in digital advertising: strategic marketing implications. Journal of Strategic Marketing,18(3), 239-256.

(33)

Tsai, W. H. S., & Men, L. R. (2013). Motivations and antecedents of consumer engagement with brand pages on social networking sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 13(2), 76-87.

Tsang, M. M., Ho, S. C., & Liang, T. P. (2004). Consumer attitudes toward mobile

advertising: An empirical study. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(3), 65-78.

Tucker, C. E. (2014). Social networks, personalized advertising, and privacy controls. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(5), 546-562.

Unni, R., & Harmon, R. (2007). Perceived effectiveness of push vs. pull mobile location based advertising. Journal of Interactive advertising, 7(2), 28-40.

Ur, B., Leon, P. G., Cranor, L. F., Shay, R., & Wang, Y. (2012, July). Smart, useful, scary, creepy: perceptions of online behavioral advertising. In proceedings of the eighth

symposium on usable privacy and security (p. 4). ACM.

Wang, T., Oh, L. B., & Wang, K. (2009, November). Antecedents and consequences of mobile advertising intrusiveness. In the 9th International Conference on Electronic

Business. Macau, China.

Wang, C., Zhang, P., Choi, R., & D'Eredita, M. (2002). Understanding consumers attitude toward advertising. AMCIS 2002 Proceedings, 158.

Wright, E., Khanfar, N. M., Harrington, C., & Kizer, L. E. (2010). The lasting effects of social media trends on advertising. Journal of Business & Economics Research

(JBER), 8(11).

Yaakop, A. Y., Mohamed Anuar, M., Omar, K., & Liaw, A. (2012, December). Consumers’ perceptions and attitudes towards advertising on Facebook in Malaysia. In World

(34)

Appendix Appendix 1: Table 2

Table 2 – Means and Standard Deviations

Mean Standard Deviation N

Invasiveness -Push-SNA 4.82 1.34 163 -Pull-SNA 3.87 1.36 163 Privacy concerns -Push-SNA 5.07 1.36 163 -Pull-SNA 4.61 1.37 163 Brand congruence -Push-SNA 2.65 0.78 163 -Pull-SNA 3.33 0.72 163 Entertainment -Push-SNA 3.22 1.36 163 -Pull-SNA 4.19 1.31 163 Informativeness -Push-SNA 3.53 1.48 163 -Pull-SNA 4.50 1.43 163 Attitude towards -Push-SNA 2.60 0.91 163 -Pull-SNA 3.20 0.82 163

(35)

Appendix 2: Table 3

Table 3 – Paired t-test results

Mean Standard Deviation 95% Confidence Interval t df Sig (2-tailed) Lower Upper Invasiveness 0.95 1.56 0.71 1.19 7.79 162 <.001 Privay concerns 0.46 1.15 0.28 0.63 5.06 162 <.001 Brand congruence -0.67 0.81 -0.80 -0.54 -10.34 162 <.001 Entertainment -0.97 1.57 -1.12 -0.73 -7.90 162 <.001 Informativeness -.97 1.49 -1.2 -0.74 -8.30 162 <.001 Attitude -0.6 0.90 -0.74 -0.46 -8.40 162 <.001

Appendix 3: Informed consent Hi,

Thank you for participating in this research! Before we begin, I’d like to tell you a bit more about this study. It is part of a research project being carried out by the ASCoR research institute, which is part of the University of Amsterdam. ASCoR conducts scientific research into media and communications in society. This particular study looks at how branded content and ads are perceived on Facebook. It will

approximately take 5-10 minutes.

I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research, as described above, and agree with the statements below:

• I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation at any time. If my

(36)

research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in another way, this will be done such a way that my anonymity is completely safeguarded.

• My personal data will not be passed on to third parties without my express permission.

• If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in the future, I can contact the researcher Katharina Stroehm:

Katharina.strohm@student.uva.nl

• Should I have any complaints about this research, I can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing the ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020-525 3680 ascorsecr-fmg@uva.nl. I hope that I have provided you with sufficient information. Thank you again for taking part in this research!

Appendix 4: Screenshot push-SNA

(37)

Appendix 6: Privacy concerns scale

1. I don’t mind if companies use my personal information to show me targeted ads / branded post.

2. Targeted ads / branded posts are an invasion into my privacy.

3. I don’t like having my online behavior tracked an analyzed for the purpose of targeted ads / branded posts.

4. I feel uncomfortable when my information is used for targeted ads/ branded posts.

5. I believe that my personal information is often misused for targeted ads / branded posts.

Appendix 7: Brand congruence scale

1. The brands advertised / the brands I follow on Facebook are generally consistent with how I see myself.

2. The brands advertised / the brands I follow on Facebook cater to people like me.

(38)

4. The typical customers of brands advertised / the brands I follow on Facebook are very much like me.

Appendix 8: Entertainment scale

1. Targeted ads / branded posts on Facebook are fun to watch or read.

2. Targeted ads / branded posts on Facebook do not just sell- they also entertain me.

3. Targeted ads / branded posts on Facebook are often amusing.

Appendix 9: Informativeness scale

1. Targeted ads / branded posts on Facebook are a valuable source of product/service information.

2. Targeted ads / branded posts on Facebook are a convenient source of product/service information

3. Targeted ads / branded posts on Facebook help keep me up to date.

Appendix 10: General advertising attitude scale 1. Advertising’s aim is to inform the consumer. 2. Advertising is generally truthful.

3. Advertising is a reliable source of information about the quality and performance of products.

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

(Magnusson and Zdravkovic, 2011) Sticking with traditional strategies and trial and error could lead to draining profitability and risk of pushing customers

In the COPE-active group as well as in the control group, none of the patient characteristics measured at baseline were correlated with change in daily physical activity over 7

In order to answer the research question ‘What is the effect of visual persuasion on image-centric social media on consumer attitude towards the brand when mediated by

in pure liquids in a linear shear field, showing that the simulations agree well with the correlation by Legendre &amp; Magnaudet (1998) at higher Reynolds

In the concern of friction reduction, the pillar (Z003) texture has the advantage over Hilbert curve and grooved channel textures in decreasing the friction force under the

The moderating variables Internet usage frequency, daily Internet usage, and product involvement are included to investigate whether they moderate the effect of

On the one hand focus will lie on the influence of highly emotional advertisements on brand attitude depending on the level of emotionality a person has and on the other hand

A new product can be introduced with the following four main brand name strategies: a completely new brand name, a new brand is introduced by the parent