“But first, a message from our sponsor”
Researching the effects of disclosures in YouTube videos amongst teenagers and young adults.
Jip Schuivens 11628553
Graduate School of Communication Master thesis: Persuasive Communication dr. E. A. van Reijmersdal
June 1, 2018 Word count: 7483
Abstract
Teenagers and young adults consume social media content the most in the Netherlands. Advertisers are aware of this social media use and have employed social influencers to promote their product, however this not always disclosed. Our research was a replication of Veenenbos (2018) and studied the effects of sponsorship disclosures on a) brand recall, b) persuasion knowledge and c) its effects on product desire, brand attitude and vlog attitude amongst teenagers and young adults. Parasocial relationship was also included to see if it has a moderating effect between persuasion knowledge on product desire, brand attitude and vlog attitude.
A vlog by the Dutch YouTuber Enzo Knol wherein he promotes the brand Iglo was used. Our experiment (N = 157) shows that disclosure prior to a video increases recognition of sponsored content and understanding of selling intent but not understanding of persuasive intent. Persuasion knowledge activation did not influence product desire, brand attitude and vlog attitude. There was a direct positive effect of disclosure on product desire. Parasocial relationship had no moderating effect, but participants had low scores on parasocial
relationship (96.2% below neutral). Understanding persuasive intent had a positive correlation with age; older participants had a higher understanding of persuasive intent than younger participants.
Our conclusion is that disclosures will help participants recognize sponsored content and understand its selling intent. Seeing a text-overlay disclosure will lead to participants experiencing more product desire. Lastly, product desire, brand attitude and vlog attitude are unaffected by persuasion knowledge and parasocial relationship.
Introduction
In 2006 YouTube was the fastest growing website (Freeman & Chapman, 2007) and as the website gained popularity so did their content creators, making it possible for the average person to become a social influencer. Advertisers started to work with social influencers to promote their product.
With the rise of social influencer advertising there came questions and concerns, which eventually led to regulations. As explained by Gotten (2016) and the Federal Trade Commission (2016) the event leading to regulations was the ‘CSGO Lotto’ scandal in 2015. The CSGO Lotto website made it possible to gamble items from the videogame “CS: GO”.
These items had no fixed monetary value but could be traded for money regardless. As such, the website was controversial as it could act as a gambling website with more lenient rules (e.g. allowing minors to gamble). CSGO Lotto was promoted by two YouTubers who
mentioned they were sponsored but did not disclose that they were the owners of the website. This led to accusations of surreptitious advertising, audience manipulation, misuse of the YouTuber-audience relationship and questions around proper disclosure on YouTube (e.g. by Commissariaat voor de Media, 2016; Commissariaat voor de Media, 2017; Federal Trade Commission, 2017).
The EU and the Netherlands began to form regulations against surreptitious advertising by YouTubers (Commissariaat voor de Media, 2016; Nederlandse Omroep Stichting, 2016a; Nederlandse Omroep Stichting, 2016b). Evidence for surreptitious
advertising was found in 75% of the videos from the twenty Dutch YouTubers (Nederlandse Omroep Stichting, 2017a). The Commissariat of the Media (2017) claim that this is
concerning as the YouTube audiences consist mainly out of minors who are more easily influenced by surreptitious advertising. However, data shows that social media, YouTube especially, tends to be used most by teenagers and young adults (Duggan & Brenner, 2012;
Lenhart, Purcell, Smith & Zickuhr, 2010; Oosterveer, 2017). Dutch teenagers and young adults are one of the groups most likely to be affected by surreptitious advertising on YouTube.
Teenagers and young adults being exposed to surreptitious advertising might lead to them unknowingly being influenced. The likelihood of being influenced is high: 94% of consumers regard social influencers as a reliable, credible source of information and 88% of all consumers trust online recommendations as much as face-to-face recommendations (Ahmad, 2017; Barker, 2015). If a YouTuber is covert in his or her sponsored messages, teenagers and young adults can regard this as reliable, trustworthy information and not realize the message has a commercial intent. It has been found that teenagers and young adults are very susceptible to persuasion messages from brands (Durrani, Godil, Baid & Sajid, 2015; Fox, Krugman, Fletcher & Fischer, 1998; Padon et al., 2018; Ross et al., 2014; Snyder, Milici, Slater, Sun & Strizhakova, 2006). It would be important for these groups to have transparency in sponsored content as this could help them resist covert persuasion attempts.
Disclosures are often used to achieve transparency in persuasive messages. Both the Commissariat of the Media and YouTubers are open to using text-overlay disclosures in YouTube videos because they believe it will lead to transparency (Commissariaat voor de Media, 2017; Nederlandse Omroep Stichting, 2017b). This is because disclosures have been found to help audiences in understanding that they are viewing sponsored content by
activating their persuasion knowledge (e.g. Boerman, van Reijmersdal & Neijens., 2012; van Reijmersdal, Boerman, Buijzen & Rozendaal, 2016a). However, the inclusion of disclosures in sponsored content might be negative for brands and YouTubers. Disclosures can lead to lower credibility of the source, more negative attitude toward the source (Colliander & Erlandsson, 2015), lower e-WOM intentions (Liljander, Gummerus & Söderlund, 2015), and more resistance to the message (van Reijmersdal et al., 2016b).
In order to achieve insight into the effects disclosures might have we will measure persuasion knowledge activation, product desire, brand attitude and vlog attitude.
Additionally, we will test the effects of disclosures on brand recall. Brands will want high product desire and a positive brand attitude as a result of the sponsored content. YouTubers are interested in their vlog being regarded positively despite the inclusion of a disclosure. Lastly, legislators want transparency, which we will measure with the activation of persuasion knowledge. High brand recall is a goal for both the advertised brand and legislators: brands want to gain brand recognition and legislators want audiences to be aware of what product is advertised.
Additionally, we included parasocial relationship into our study. Veenenbos (2018) found that parasocial relationship can influence the effect of persuasion knowledge on product desire: Children with high parasocial relationship reported no negative effect of persuasion knowledge on product desire, those with low parasocial relationship did. Teenagers and young adults are likely to experience parasocial relationships with YouTubers (Chau, 2010). There are, to the researcher’s best knowledge, no studies done researching a) the effects of disclosure for YouTube videos b) if disclosures affect the YouTuber-audience and/or brand-consumer relationship c) if disclosures affect the attitude towards the YouTube video, and d) whether the current YouTube disclosure methods are effective in achieving transparency. Our study design will test these four goals. We have conducted a replication of Veenenbos (2018) study and will recruit Dutch teenagers and young adults, as they are the majority users of social media websites. Participants will be recruited from Dutch high schools and universities.
Theoretical Framework
Effects of Disclosing Sponsorship on Persuasion Knowledge
The Persuasion Knowledge model states that people use their knowledge and
experience of previous persuasive attempts, which grows throughout their life, to either accept or reject persuasive messages (Friestad & Wright, 1994). This means that if people understand the persuasive nature of whatever they are viewing, they will evoke resistance strategies to cope with the persuasion attempt (Belch & Belch, 2010; Nelson, Wood, & Pack, 2009; Tessitore & Geuens, 2013; van Reijmersdal et al., 2016a; van Reijmersdal et al., 2016b; Wei, Fischer, & Main, 2008). Resistance strategies states that people want to preserve their
freedom of choice and do not want to be manipulated by any events that threaten this freedom (Brehm & Brehm, 1981) which means that people tend to resist recognized persuasion
attempts (Wei et al., 2008).
To research the activation of persuasion knowledge we will measure three dimensions. These dimensions are: recognition of advertisement, understanding the selling intent and understanding the persuasive intent. The selection of these three dimensions is based upon the research of Tutaj and van Reijmersdal (2012). In their study they found that, when compared to more traditional advertising (i.e. more prominent advertising), sponsored content is not easily recognized as an advertisement and that both understanding of selling intent and persuasive intent is lower. Using a disclosure might raise the persuasion knowledge dimensions and should provide insight into the effect a disclosure might have on the
persuasion knowledge dimensions. Additionally, we could avoid finding ceiling effects as the persuasion knowledge dimensions should be low for sponsored content. Lastly, their study concluded that these three dimensions are important predictors of consumer reactions. Using recognition of sponsored content, understanding of selling intent and understanding of
persuasive intent should influence product desire, brand attitude and vlog attitude and provide insight into how persuasion knowledge affects these consumer reactions.
Sponsorship disclosures have been found to help people recognize persuasive
messages and leads to persuasion knowledge activation (e.g. Boerman et al., 2012; Campbell, Mohr & Verlegh, 2012; Matthes & Naderer, 2016; van Reijmersdal, et al., 2016a). This is because disclosures explicitly inform audiences that they are watching sponsored content and communicate this clearly. In turn audiences recognize the content as a persuasion attempt which leads to audiences activating their persuasion knowledge.
Amongst teenagers, it was found that if they pay attention to the disclosure and the brand, their understanding of persuasive intent will be higher (van Reijmersdal et al., 2016a). Futhermore, van Reijmersdal et al. (2016a) found that recognition of sponsored content was already high amongst teenagers regardless of disclosure. However, in their study design they showed a disclosure during a television program which resulted in the attention of teenagers being divided. Teenagers may have difficulty with processing disclosure because of the richness of information that is being presented to them simultaneously. The van Reijmersdal et al. (2016a) study was a replication of Boerman et al. (2012) study. Boerman et al. (2012) conducted the same study amongst young adults. They found that disclosures influence recognition of sponsored content, but only if it is remembered by the participants. In both their studies attention was an important factor and could have determined whether disclosures had an effect on one or more persuasion knowledge dimensions. Because our disclosure will appear on screen prior to the video (for 10 seconds) we expect that attention will not be divided and that participants will be more influenced by the presence of a disclosure. To summarize, we expect the following:
Hypothesis 1: Sponsorship disclosures (versus no disclosure) leads to a) higher
recognition of sponsored content, b) higher understanding of selling intent and c) higher understanding of persuasive intent among teenagers and young adults.
The Effect of Disclosures on Brand Recall
Several studies found that disclosures increase brand recall because disclosures act as a prime and make the brand more salient, both amongst teenagers (Matthes & Naderer, 2016; van Reijmersdal et al., 2016a) and young adults (Matthes & Naderer, 2016; van Reijmersdal, Tutaj & Boerman, 2013). Van Reijmersdal et al. (2016a) found that those who saw a
disclosure were four times more likely to recall the brand than those who did not. We expect that our participants will report higher brand recall if they saw a disclosure prior to the video.
Hypothesis 2: Sponsorship disclosures lead to higher brand recall scores.
Effects of Persuasion Knowledge on Vlog Attitude, Brand Attitude and Product Desire
Research shows that when someone recognizes a persuasive, commercial message, regardless of the medium, they will resist more to the persuasion attempt (; activate their persuasion knowledge), and the persuasive intent of the message will be less effective because of this resistance (Brehm & Brehm, 1981; Campbell & Kirmani, 2000; Friestad & Wright, 1994; Wei et al., 2008). This process of persuasion knowledge activation and resistance make viewers more sceptical to the sponsored content and can have negative effects on brand attitude (Boerman et al., 2012; Evans, Phua, Lim & Jun, 2017; van Reijmersdal et al., 2016b) and we expect the same effect on vlog attitude. Additionally, we expect that product desire will also be negatively affected by activation of persuasion knowledge. Participants who are more resistant to the persuasive message will be less persuaded to want to buy the product. Based on previous findings in literature we expect to find the following result.
Hypotheses 3: Higher persuasion knowledge scores will lead to a) lower product
desire b) a more negative brand attitude and c) a more negative vlog attitude.
Moderating Effect of Parasocial Relationship
Audiences often build relationships with a media personality. These relationships are often one-sided as the media personality cannot possibly know every single member of the audience who is watching him or her. This type of relationship is called a parasocial
relationship. Horton & Wohl (1956) state that parasocial relationship (between audience and media personality) occurs when the presenter acknowledges the audience, maintains an informal way of speaking and is actively targeting the audience both physically as verbally. Cole & Leets (1999) posit three theories which lead to the formation of a parasocial bond. These are uncertainty reduction theory, personal construct theory and social exchange theory. Uncertainty reduction theory states that over time uncertainty decreases within a relationship and liking increases. Personal construct theory is similar, as it states that viewers of media will develop a sense of knowing media personalities and treat the parasocial relationship as a normal relationship. Thirdly, the social exchange theory expresses relationships in terms of cost and reward; a relationship cost time but fulfils social needs. A parasocial relationship can occur if the costs are (perceived to be) lower than the rewards.
For vloggers this means they have a high possibility of forming parasocial relationships with their audience. Firstly, vloggers address their audience by talking to
camera, often in an informal manner. Secondly, vlogs are often released daily or weekly. This would, over time, lead to uncertainty reduction. Furthermore, if vlogs appear frequently, and provide information about the vlogger, audiences can more easily develop a feeling of knowing the vlogger. Additionally, Auter (1992) found that the possibility of a parasocial relationship forming increases with every ‘meeting’, which is beneficial for vloggers if they
receive entertainment in return. If the entertainment value is perceived as greater than the time spent it could lead to a parasocial relationship forming. Vloggers are aware of the high
possibility of a parasocial relationship occurring between them and their audience and actively seek this out as it shapes dependency (to the vlog/vlogger) and influences buying behaviour (e.g. buying their merchandise) (Morgan, 2017).
Not only does the vlog format increase the likelihood of a parasocial relationship occurring, teenagers and young adults are already inclined to form parasocial relationships on YouTube (Chau, 2010).
We expect that persuasion knowledge influences product desire, brand attitude and vlog attitude, regardless of whether there is a disclosure. However, we expect that a high parasocial relationship will lead to participants judging the product, brand and vlog less critically. This expectation is based upon the effect of parasocial relationship found by Veenenbos (2018). This leads to the following hypotheses:
Hypotheses 4: The effect of persuasion knowledge on a) product desire, b) brand
attitude, and c) vlog attitude is moderated by parasocial relationship
Hypotheses 5: The effect of disclosures on a) product desire, b) brand attitude, c) vlog
attitude is mediated by persuasion knowledge and moderated by parasocial relationship.
Effects of Age on Persuasion Knowledge
It is debated that children, until they reach a certain age, do not have fully developed persuasion knowledge. (Rozendaal, Buijzen & Valkenburg, 2010; Rozendaal, Lapierre, van Reijmersdal & Buijzen, 2011). This is because persuasion knowledge relies on experiences with advertisements, something which children have less than adults. It is expected that at a certain age children’s knowledge will mature. Rozendaal et al. (2010) compared the
around 9-10 years old children have an adult level of advertising recognition, but at 12 do not have adult understanding of selling and persuasive intent. Their study would suggest that ‘the certain age’ [when persuasion knowledge reaches maturity] is somewhere between 12-18
year.
Even though Rozendaal et al. (2010) conducted their study with traditional media advertisements we expect that we will find a similar growth of persuasion knowledge amongst our participants who are viewing sponsored content. This is because Veenenbos (2018) found similar results for children who viewed sponsored content and because persuasion knowledge becomes greater by experience with advertisements. Lastly, we expect to find a similar growth as the proposed age of persuasion knowledge maturing could be within the age range of our participants. Ultimately, we expect that older participants will report higher persuasion knowledge scores.
Hypotheses 6: There is a positive correlation between age and a) recognition of
sponsored content b) understanding of selling intent and c) understanding of persuasion intent.
Conceptual Model
To conclude we present out conceptual model which will be researched in this study. The conceptual model is displayed in figure 1.
Figure 1. Conceptual model
Method
Sample
The sample consisted of 161 participants with an average age of 21 (M = 20.4, SD = 3.19, range: 15 - 28. 51.6% males). Participants were recruited from a Dutch high school and a Dutch university. Four participants were excluded: two were aware of the research intention and two did not correctly complete the survey. After the exclusion we have a sample of 157 participants (N = 157) consisting of high school students (n = 43) and university students (n = 114).
Procedure
Prior to the study, passive consent was obtained from schools and from the parents of participants who were under 16 years old. Active consent was given by all participants.
High school students completed the online experiment at the end of their class and university students were approached in person or via social media with the request to
participate in the online experiment. Both the high school and university students completed the survey via Qualtrics with their own device.
The video was manipulated by either showing, or not showing, a text overlay sponsorship disclosure before the video. The Qualtrics programme divided the participants randomly over the two conditions. The text disclosure condition consisted of 74 participants and 83 were in the no text disclosure condition. After a 3,5-minute video, students filled out an online survey asking them about what they saw in the video and their opinion of it. The survey measured recognition of advertised content, understanding of selling intent,
understanding of persuasive intent, parasocial relationship, product desire, brand recall, brand attitude and vlog attitude. To close the survey several demographic questions were asked.
The complete survey can be found in Appendix A.
Stimulus Material
The video used in this study was extracted from YouTube and featured a popular Dutch Youtuber named Enzo Knol. In the video Enzo Knol is promoting Iglo fish sticks in a segment of the video. In this segment Enzo Knol is mentioning the desire to eat healthier and is claiming Iglo fish sticks can help him with achieving this goal. In the video he does not mention being sponsored by Iglo. The vlog was edited from 26 minutes down to 3.5 minutes to keep the focus on the Iglo fish sticks promotion.
Text disclosure was done by featuring a white text overlay on a black background. The text disclosure filled the entire screen and was shown for 10 seconds. The screen read “Enzo Knol is paid by Iglo to advertise [Iglo] in his vlog” (Participants were shown this text in Dutch). Text overlay is one of the proposed disclosures methods provided by YouTube (YouTube Help, n.d.) and is considered appropriate by the YouTubers disclosure code and the Dutch Commissariat of the Media (Commissariaat voor de Media, 2016; Commissariaat voor de Media, 2017; Nederlandse Omroep Stichting, 2017b).
Measures
A 6-point Likert scale was used to measure the responses given by participants. The answering options were different depending on the construct. Four questions did not use the 6-point Likert scale but could be answered with “yes”, “no” or “I do not know”. The 6-point Likert scale was used to more easily compare results of the study to the results found by Veenenbos (2018).
Activation of Persuasion Knowledge
The scale of Rozendaal, Opree & Buijzen (2016) was used for the persuasion knowledge dimensions. The questions used a 6-point Likert scale with the following answering options: “1 = No, absolutely not”, “No, I don’t think so”, “No, maybe”, “Yes, maybe”, “Yes, I think so”, “6 = Yes, absolutely”.
There were two recognition of sponsored content questions, asking participant if they viewed the content as sponsored (e.g. “Is the video advertising Iglo?”). These questions had a reported Cronbach alpha coefficient of .60. The two questions were combined to a single variable portraying a participant’s mean score (M = 4.44, SD = .95).
Understanding of selling intent consisted of three questions with a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .64. An example of such a question is “Was the purpose of the video to get people to buy Iglo fish sticks?”. The three questions were combined to a single variable
portraying mean scores for each participant (M = 3.76, SD = .98).
Three questions measured the understanding of persuasive intent with a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .60. The questions asked if participants viewed the video as a tool to change one’s opinion. An example question: “Was the purpose of the video to get people to
think of Iglo as fun?”. As with the previous two variables the questions were combined to one variable based upon their mean scores (M = 4.48, SD = .84).
Parasocial Relationship
Parasocial relationship was measured by how much the participant liked or identified with Enzo Knol (e.g. “Would you want to be the same as Enzo Knol?”). There were six questions measuring the possible parasocial relationship. With exception of one question, the same 6-point Likert scale of the persuasion knowledge questions was used.
The question about how often the participant views Enzo Knol videos had the following six answering options: “1 = Never”, “Almost never”, “Sometimes”, “Often”, “Almost every day” and “6 = Every day”. Cronbach alpha was .66 for the six questions. The
questions were combined to one variable, portraying their mean score (M = 1.2, SD = .35).
Product Desire
One question was used to measure product desire. The question was “Would you like
to eat Iglo fish sticks today?” This question could be answered on the same 6-point Likert
scale used for the persuasion knowledge questions (M = 2.97, SD = 1.56).
Brand Recall
Brand recall was measured with an open-ended question asking, “What brands did you see in the video?”. Participants were shown six brand logos, of which two appeared in the video. Their answers were coded to “Did recall Iglo” and “Did not recall Iglo”. Only three (n
= 3) were incorrect in naming what brands appeared in the video.
Brand Attitude
Participants were asked to express their attitude towards the brand by filling out to what extent they agree with four statements about the Iglo brand. Two questions asked a positive attitude judgement (“Do you like Iglo?” and “Do you enjoy the taste of Iglo?”) and two asked a negative attitude judgement (“Do you think Iglo is stupid?” and “Do you dislike the taste of Iglo?”). The two negative attitude questions were mirrored to combine them with
.10, and therefor the two negative attitude questions (Cronbach alpha coefficient = .14) had to be removed (scale if items deleted = .75).
Brand attitude will be measured to what extent the participant express a positive brand attitude. The remaining two brand attitude questions were combined to one variable which portrayed a participants’ mean score on brand attitude. (M = 3.83, SD = 1.18).
Vlog Attitude
To determine the opinion participants had of the video (vlog) six questions were presented measuring to what extent they liked or disliked the vlog. Three questions were phrased in a positive manner (e.g. “Do you think the vlog was interesting?”), three in a negative manner (e.g. “Do you think the vlog was childish?”). The negative questions were
mirrored and there was a Cronbach alpha coefficient of .62. Once more, these questions were combined to a single variable which portrayed mean vlog attitude score (M = 3.27, SD = .86).
Questions could be answered on a 6-point Likert scale: “1 = not at all [funny]”, “not [funny]”, “not so [funny]”, “somewhat [funny]”, “[funny]”, “6 = very [funny]”. The word ‘funny’ is replaced with the target attitude the question presented.
Demographic and Control Variables
Participants were asked to fill out their gender, age, and education level at the end of the survey. These demographic questions were used to test if any of them could affect the results found.
Six control questions were included to determine if results could be explained by other confounding variables. These were: Familiarity with the vlogger, familiarity with the brand, viewing frequency of Enzo Knol videos, viewing frequency of YouTube videos, consumption of Iglo fish sticks and one question asking if they saw a brand in the video.
All participants were familiar with Iglo (N = 157), and the majority stated that they did see a brand in the video (n = 137).
Familiarity with the vlogger, familiarity with the brand and the question asking if they saw a brand in the video were measured with “1 = no”, “I am not sure”, “3= Yes”.Viewing frequency (of Enzo Knol and YouTube) and consumption of Iglo fish sticks were filled in by selecting how often they watch videos/eat fish sticks: “1 = Never”, “Almost never”,
“Sometimes”, “Often”, “Almost every day” and “6 = Every day”
Results Randomisation
Both conditions did not differ with respect to gender, X²(1, n = 157) = 3.3, p = .07, phi = -.16, or age, F(1, 155) = .002, p = .96. Neither were education, X²(1, n = 157) = 6.89, p = .14, Cramer’s V = .21, prior experience with Enzo Knol, X²(1, n = 157) = .85, p = .36, phi =
-.09, or viewing frequency of Enzo Knol videos, F(1, 155) = .53, p = .47, different between groups. Lastly, the groups did not differ on YouTube viewing frequency, F(1, 155) = .25, p = .62, and fish stick consumption frequency, F(1,155) = .53, p = .47. We can therefore assume that none of these variables account for the effects sponsorship disclosure might find.
The Effect of Sponsorship Disclosure on Persuasion Knowledge and Brand Recall
To test hypotheses 1a, b and c and 2 a MANOVA was done. Disclosure condition was the independent variable for the MANOVA, with persuasion knowledge dimensions and brand recall as the dependent variables. Wilks’ lambda shows there is a significant difference
between the disclosure conditions on persuasion knowledge and brand recall, Λ = .85,
F(6.51), p < .001, 𝜂2 = .15. Univariate tests show that recognition of sponsored content differs between conditions, F(1, 155) = 23.87, p < .001, 𝜂2 = .13 as well as understanding of selling
intent, F(1, 155) = 9.6, p = .002, 𝜂2 = .06. Understanding of persuasive intention did not significantly differ between the two conditions, F(1, 155) = 3.29, p = .07, 𝜂2 = .02. Table 1 shows mean scores and standard deviations for both conditions on all dependent variables.
Table 1. Means and standard deviations for Hypothesis 1 MANOVA.
Disclosure No Disclosure
M SD M SD
Recognition of sponsored content 4.80** .71 4.11** 1.03
Understanding of selling intent 4.00* .74 3.53* 1.11
Understanding of persuasive intent 4.60 .59 4.36 1.00
Brand recall 1.00 .00 .96 .19
*: significant at alpha = 0.05. **: significant at alpha = 0.001. N = 157 were familiar with Iglo.
As the comparison of mean scores in table 1 shows us, participants who received a text disclosure prior to the video recognized the video content as being sponsored more than those who did not receive the disclosure. Furthermore, the disclosure condition reported higher scores on understanding the selling intention of the video than those who did not receive the disclosure. Hypotheses 1a and 1b can be accepted.
The average persuasive intent scores were not significantly different between the two conditions, suggesting they were equally understanding of the persuasive nature of the video. Hypothesis 1c is not accepted.
Brand recall was not significantly different between the conditions, F(1,155) = 2.74, p = .10, 𝜂2 = .02). A disclosure did not lead to better brand recall compared to no disclosure. Hypothesis 2 was not accepted.
Effect of Activation of Persuasion Knowledge on Product Desire, Vlog Attitude and Brand Attitude
To test hypotheses 3a, b and c, Hayes PROCESS macro (2013) was used with persuasion knowledge dimensions and product desire, brand attitude and vlog attitude. None of the persuasion knowledge dimensions were found to have a significant correlation with product desire, brand attitude or vlog attitude. Persuasion knowledge did not affect a
participant’s desire to buy the product or their attitude towards the brand and/or vlog. Table 2
shows the variables and their correlation to product desire, brand attitude and vlog attitude. Hypothesis 3a, 3b and 3c are not accepted.
Table 2. Pearson r correlation scores and significance for persuasion knowledge and product desire
Note: No significant correlation found at alpha = 0.05
Moderated Mediation Analysis (Parasocial Relationship)
Hayes’ PROCESS macro (2013), model 14, was used in SPSS to test hypotheses 4(a, b and c) and 5(a, b and c). Dependent variables were product desire, brand attitude and vlog attitude. The independent variable was the disclosure condition, the moderator variable was the parasocial relationship score and the mediator was persuasion knowledge; recognition of sponsored content score, understanding of selling intent score and understanding of
persuasive intent score. Figure 2 shows the complete model which was tested.
Product Desire Brand attitude Vlog attitude
r P r p r p
Recognition of sponsored content -.11 .19 -.07 .42 -.11 .19
Understanding of selling intent .08 .32 .01 .88 .06 .49
Figure 2. The model tested with process macro by Hayes (2013).
No significant interaction effect of parasocial relation on the relationship of the persuasion knowledge variables (recognition of sponsored content, understanding of selling intent and understanding of persuasive intent) on product desire, brand attitude or vlog attitude was found. Parasocial relationship did not influence the relationship between
persuasion knowledge and a participant’s desire to buy the brand or their attitude towards the
brand and vlog. Table 3 shows the analysis values. Hypothesis 4a, b and c were not accepted.
Table 3. Interaction effect of parasocial relation on the relationship of persuasion knowledge on product desire, brand attitude and vlog attitude.
Product desire Brand attitude Vlog attitude
𝑏2 SE p 𝑏2 SE p 𝑏2 SE p
Recognition of sponsored content -.21 .55 .41 .65 .44 .88 -.12 .31 .70
Understanding of selling intent .30 .50 .60 .04 .48 .09 .22 .29 .45
Understanding of persuasive intent -.49 .59 .82 -.09 .40 .82 -.19 .34 .57
Note: Analysis was done with Hayes PROCESS macro (2013). No significant correlation was found at alpha = .05
No moderated mediation was found. Values of the moderated mediation analysis are shown in table 4. The results show that the effects of disclosure on product desire, brand attitude and vlog attitude is not mediated by persuasion knowledge and not moderated by
parasocial relationship. Hypothesis 5a, b and c were not accepted.
A significant direct effect was found between disclosure and product desire (𝑏𝑐 = 1.06, SE = 25, p < .001) but there was no significant direct effect between disclosure and brand attitude and/or vlog attitude (𝑏𝑐 = .40, SE = 20, p = .051; 𝑏𝑐 = .10, SE = .14, p = .50).
Participants who saw a disclosure prior to the video reported higher product desire scores than those who did not. Disclosures did not directly affect the attitude towards the brand or vlog.
Effects of Age on Persuasion Knowledge
To test hypotheses 6a, b and c correlation analyses were done. No significant correlation was found between age and both recognition of sponsored content (r = .10, p = .20) and understanding of selling intent (r = .10, p = .18). Age and understanding of
persuasive intent did have a significant correlation (r = .20, p = .01). The older a participant is the more likely they are to be aware of the persuasive intent of the video. Hypotheses 6a and 6b are not proven, but hypothesis 6c is proven.
Table 4. Hayes PROCESS values for the moderated mediation analysis with persuasion knowledge as mediator and parasocial relationship as moderator.
Product desire Brand attitude Vlog attitude
Index BootSE CI Index BootSE CI Index BootSE CI
Recognition of sponsored content .15 .35 [-.13;.18] -.04 .31 [-.63;.60] .08 .21 [-.35;.50] Understanding of selling intent -.14 .23 [-.62;.34] .04 .21 [-.38;.51] -.01 .16 [-.42;.23] Understanding of persuasive intent -.12 .19 [-.57;.22] -.01 .25 [-.36;.29] .05 .14 [-.16;.41]
Discussion
This study examined the effects of sponsorship disclosure on product desire, brand attitude, vlog attitude and whether this was mediated by persuasion knowledge (recognition of
sponsored content, understanding of selling intent and understanding of persuasive intent) and moderated by parasocial relationship. We conducted a replication of Veenenbos (2018) study, where they researched the same effects but amongst children.
To conclude, we found that disclosures lead to higher recognition of sponsored content, better understanding of selling intent and have direct positive effect on product desire. Persuasion knowledge activation did not affect product desire, vlog attitude or brand attitude.
Furthermore, no moderating effect of parasocial relationship was found.
Specifically, results show that participants who received a disclosure were better able to recognize the content as being sponsored. Furthermore, they reported higher understanding of the selling intent of the video than those who did not receive a disclosure. Understanding of persuasive intent, did not differ between conditions. Regardless of the presence of a disclosure participants were able to understand that the video was trying to influence their opinion of the brand Iglo, as reflected by their mean scores. This is not fully in line with our expectation as we expected all persuasion knowledge dimension to increase with the presence of a disclosure and contradicts Veenenbos (2018) findings who found that all persuasion knowledge
dimensions were higher for those who saw a disclosure. Combining our results with
Veenenbos (2018) we conclude that disclosures do raise recognition of sponsored content and understanding selling intent for children, teenagers and young adults.
Disclosures did not increase understanding of persuasive intent but there was a
relationship between age and understanding of persuasive intent. The correlation between age and persuasive intent was weak (r = .20) but significant. This supports previous findings
which state that persuasion knowledge matures (Rozendaal et al., 2011; Rozendaal et al., 2010) and seem to suggest that the understanding of persuasive intent continues to increase after recognition of sponsored content and understanding of selling intent have matured (Boush, Friestad & Rose, 1994; Rozendaal et al., 2010; Rozendaal et al., 2011). Veenenbos (2018) found a positive correlation between age, recognition of sponsored content and understanding of persuasive intent. Our study partially supports their result.
With respect to brand recall, we found no evidence that disclosures lead to better brand recall. Results show a ceiling effect for brand recall as only three participants did not mention that they saw Iglo in the video. This might be explained by the fact that the brand was prominently present in the video, both shown and talked about by the vlogger. Research has found that disclosures increase brand recall (Matthes & Naderer, 2016; van Reijmersdal et al., 2016a; van Reijmersdal et al., 2013) so we would have expected similar results, but we have found that if applied to familiar brands one would find ceiling effects because most participants would recall the brand.
Participants’ attitude judgement of brand, video and product desire were not
determined by if they activated persuasion knowledge or not. This contradicts Veenenbos’
(2018) results who found that recognition of sponsored content leads to lower product desire. However, we did find a positive direct effect of disclosure on product desire which was not found by Veenenbos (2018). This would suggest that the text overlay was enough to increase product desire. It is possible that those who received the disclosure paid more attention to the brand when it appeared in the video and were more occupied with whether they desired the product.
Interestingly, some studies have found that activating persuasion knowledge leads to lower brand attitude (Boerman et al., 2012; van Reijmersdal, et al., 2016; van Reijmersdal et al., 2016a; Wei et al., 2008) but Matthes & Naderer (2016) found no relationship between
persuasion knowledge and negative brand attitudes. As Matthes & Naderer (2016) explain it, this might be due to the use of well-known brands versus unfamiliar brands: Unfamiliar brands have been found be judged more negatively by persuasion knowledge, and familiar brands have been found to not be affected by the activation of persuasion knowledge. It might be that people shape their attitude towards a brand through multiple exposures (i.e. television, billboard ads, magazines, internet etcetera). People have had multiple exposures with a familiar brand, and as a result they might have shaped an attitude which is not affected by a single instance of persuasion knowledge activation. Unknown brands are more susceptible to be influenced by persuasion knowledge activation as it might be (one of) the first exposures to the brand.
The explanation for the lack of effect of persuasion knowledge on brand attitude might be applied to vlog attitude as well. Most participants were familiar with Enzo Knol (n = 137) but watch his videos rarely or never (98.1%). This would suggest that participants were previously exposed to Enzo Knol, but not through his vlogs. Because Enzo Knol is featured heavily in his vlog, it might be that the vlog attitude was influenced by their opinion of the vlogger and not by persuasion knowledge.
Another possible explanation is that the brand attitude of Iglo is influenced by taste. Participants might be more inclined to like the brand if they enjoy the taste of the product and participants who do not like the taste might be more inclined to dislike it. Taste might also determine product desire; if you do not like the taste of Iglo you might not desire it.
Lastly, parasocial relationship did not affect the relationship of persuasion knowledge on product desire, brand attitude and vlog attitude. This might be due to the low reported parasocial relationship scores by the majority (96.2% below ‘2’) of participants (M = 1.2, SD
= .35). We cannot corroborate the results found by Veenenbos (2018) who found that for children there is a negative effect of understanding selling intent on product desire, but only
for children with low parasocial relationship scores. It might be that Enzo Knol’s content is
more suited for children than for teenagers and young adults and as a result children are more inclined to experience parasocial relationship with Enzo Knol.
Practical Implication and Theoretical Implication
Disclosures are effective in informing teenage and young adults audiences that the content they are watching is sponsored. Legislators want to achieve transparency about sponsored content and text overlay disclosures are effective in achieving this. Understanding the
persuasive intention of sponsored content is not more likely when a text overlay disclosure is present. However teenage and young adult audience seem to be adept in realizing that they are being persuaded, and they continue developing this with age.
Advertisers can use disclosed sponsored content without harming their brand.
However, we also did not find any positive brand effects of sponsored content. Teenagers and young adults determine their product desire and brand attitude independently from their persuasion knowledge activation and whether a disclosure is present. Brands should keep in mind that disclosed sponsored content do lead to an increase in recognition of sponsored content and understanding of selling intent. Therefore, brands should not be covert in
disclosed sponsored content as teenagers and young adults are likely to be aware that they are watching content with the intention to sell them something.
YouTubers who are considering, or currently engaging in, sponsored content videos are not negatively affected by the inclusion of text overlay disclosure. Audiences’ attitudes
towards the video are not influenced by disclosure, activation of persuasion knowledge or parasocial relationship.
Our study is an addition to the knowledge on sponsored content, disclosure and persuasion knowledge amongst teenagers and young adults. In our study we found evidence for an increase in understanding of persuasion knowledge with age. This would suggest that
recognition of sponsored content and understanding of selling intent has matured for
teenagers and young adults but understanding of persuasive intent keeps increasing with age (most likely due to gaining more experience with advertising). Furthermore, we found that disclosures do lead to higher recognition of sponsored content and understanding of selling intent. This is supporting evidence for the relationship between disclosures and persuasion knowledge.
Limitations and Future Research
Our selection of brand may have limited our results. The product/brand (Iglo) might not lend itself to complicated attitude expression. As mentioned, taste might heavily influence the attitude participants had of the product/brand. It might be that we did not truly measure attitude but if the participant enjoys the taste of Iglo.
Due to low reliability of the brand attitude questions we could not measure negative brand attitude. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for both negative questions was .14, and for only the positive questions .77. The brand attitude measured consisted of a mean score of how much they enjoy the taste of Iglo fish sticks and if they like the brand. This means that the attitude measured is rather superficial.
To circumvent the problem we had with measuring brand attitude, future research should use a product with more (perceived) social status. Adolescents tend to self-present and socialize by using brands and products (Arnett, 1995; van Reijmersdal et al., 2016a). Buying, for example, a specific brand of shoes can be a way for one to express themselves and to let others know to which social group they belong (Arnett, 1995). A product with perceived social status might have a more complicated brand attitude expression and would be more suited for teenagers and young adults.
majority of participants knew and recalled Iglo, due to it being a familiar brand, and we found ceiling effects between disclosure and brand recall as a result. Using an unknown brand could mean that one could research the effect of disclosure on brand recall, without being affected by prior brand experience. Alternatively, using a longer video which does not explicitly highlight the advertised product/brand could make brand recall more challenging for participants which could lead to disclosures mitigating brand recall.
It would be challenging to find a brand/product that is both unfamiliar and has social status, so it might be wise to select only one for future research. Alternatively, future research could use a video with more than one brand appearing in it. One brand would be unfamiliar, the other high in social status. There would be four disclosures: one with only brand A
disclosed, one with brand B, the third with both brands disclosed and a control condition with no disclosure. This could be a way to see if there is a limit to the positive effect disclosures have on persuasion knowledge, and if the effects on product desire, brand attitude and vlog attitude are different depending on which product is disclosed.
Besides our brand selection being flawed, our selection in the vlogger could also have influenced the results. As beforementioned, the vlogger Enzo Knol is very well known amongst our participants despite them rarely or never watching his content. Enzo Knol being familiar might have meant that participants had attitudes and judgements of the vlogger before viewing the video. It might be that these attitudes and judgements were not susceptible to change by the activation of persuasion knowledge and influenced the vlog attitude. Using an unfamiliar vlogger could limit the effect prior attitudes and judgements of the vlogger might have on vlog attitude.
Lastly, our recruitment of participants was a limitation of our study. We conducted the online experiment amongst high school and university students. There was a difference in how much information they received about the study. University students received a website
link to the survey and a request to fill it out. High school students were first informed about the subject by their teacher, had a class surrounding the subject and received additional information from the researcher. This was done as it was a requirement the school had for participating in the study. Providing them with a lot of information might have resulted in them being more attentive to, and critical towards the video.
References
Ahmad, I. (2017, August 17). The evolution of social media influencers [Infographic]. Retrieved from https://www.socialmediatoday.com/social-business/evolution-social- media-influencers-infographic
Barker, S. (2015). How micro-influencers are impacting traditional marketing. Retrieved from
https://www.relevance.com/how-micro-influencers-are-impacting-traditional-
marketing/
Belch, G. E., & Belch, M. A. (2014). Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing
Communications Perspective (10th ed.). New York, United States: McGraw-Hill
Education.
Boerman, S.C., van Reijmersdal, E.A & Neijens, P.C. (2012). Zijn sponsorvermeldingen in televisieprogramma’s effectief? Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap, 40(4), 46
59.
Boush, D. M., Friestad, M., & Rose, G. (1994). Adolescent scepticism toward TV advertising and knowledge of advertiser tactics. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 165-175.
Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and
control. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: The
effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of Consumer Research 27(1), 69-83.
Campbell, M. C., Mohr, G. S., & Verlegh, P. W. J. (2013). Can disclosures lead to consumers to resist covert persuasion? The important roles of disclosure timing and type of response. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23, 482-495.
Chau, C. (2010). Youtube as a participatory culture. New Directions for Student Leadership,
2010(128), 65-74.
Colliander, J., & Erlandsson, S. (2015). The blog and the bountiful: Exploring the effects of disguised product placement on blogs that are revealed by a third party. Journal of
Marketing Communications, 21, 110-124.
Commissariaat voor de Media. (2016, November 29). Toezichtbrief 2017: tegengaan van online sluikreclame topprioriteit [Press release]. Retrieved from
https://www.cvdm.nl/nieuws/toezichtbrief-2017-tegengaan-van-online-sluikreclame
-topprioriteit/
Commissariaat voor de Media. (2017, June 28). Eerste ronde tafel over transparantie reclame in online video’s. Retrieved from https://www.cvdm.nl/nieuws/eerste-ronde-tafel
-transparantie-reclame-online-videos/
Duggan, M., & Brenner, J. (2013). The demographics of social media users. 2012(14). Washington, DC: Pew research center’s internet & American life project.
Durrani, B. A., Godil, D. I., Baig, M. U., & Sajid, S. (2015). Impact of brand image on buying behaviour among teenagers. European Scientific Journal, ESJ, 11(5).
Evans, N. J., Phua, J., Lim, J., & Jun, H. (2017). Disclosing Instagram influencer advertising: The effects of disclosure language on advertising recognition, attitudes, and
behavioural intent. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 1-12.
Fox, R. J., Krugman, D. M., Fletcher, J. E., & Fischer, P. M. (1998). Adolescents’ attention to beer and cigarette print ads and associated product warnings. Journal of Advertising,
27(3), 57-68.
Freeman, B., & Chapman, S. (2007). Is “YouTube” telling or selling you something? Tobacco
content on the YouTube video-sharing website. Tobacco control, 16(3), 207-210.
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31.
Federal Trade Commission. (2017, September 7). CSGO Lotto Owners Settle FTC’s First
Ever Complaint Against Individual Social Media Influencers [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/09/csgo-lotto owners-settle-ftcs-first-ever-complaint-against
Gotten, S. (2016, June 30). TmarTn CSGO Lotto Scandal Explained. Retrieved from https://americanbettingsite.com/tmartn-csgo-lotto-scandal-explained/
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Methodology in the social sciences. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Lenhart, A., Purcell, K., Smith, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2010). Social media & mobile internet use among teens and young adults. Millennials. Pew internet & American life project.
Liljander, V., Gummerus, J., & Söderlund, M. (2015). Young consumers’ responses to suspected covert and overt blog marketing. Internet Research, 25, 610-632.
Matthes, J., & Naderer, B. (2016). Children’s consumption behaviour in response to food product placements in movies. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14(2).
Nederlandse Omroep Stichting. (2016a, November 24). Geen reclame meer in vlogs:
YouTubers zijn blij. Retrieved from https://nos.nl/op3/artikel/2144868-geen-reclame- meer-in-vlogs-youtubers-zijn-blij.html
Nederlandse Omroep Stichting. (2017a, April 19). Jongeren onbewust overspoeld met reclame filmpjes van YouTubers. Retrieved from
https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2169128-jongeren-onbewust-overspoeld-met-reclame- in-filmpjes-van-youtubers.html
Nederlandse Omroep Stichting. (2016b, November 23). Strengere regels voor vloggers die reclame maken. Retrieved from https://nos.nl/artikel/2144728-strengere-regels-voor- vloggers-die-reclame-maken.html
Nederlandse Omroep Stichting. (2017b, November 17). YouTubers bedenken eigen regels tegen sluikreclame. Retrieved from https://nos.nl/op3/artikel/2203297-youtubers- bedenken-eigen-regels-tegen-sluikreclame.html
Nelson, M. R., Wood, M. L., & Pack, H. (2009). Increased persuasion knowledge of video news releases: Audience beliefs about news and support for source disclosure. Journal
of Mass Media Ethics, 24, 220-237.
Oosterveer, D. (2017, January 23). Social media in Nederland 2017: Instagram & Snapchat favoriet onder jongeren. Retrieved from https://www.marketingfacts.nl/
Padon, A. A., Rimal, R. N., Siegel, M., DeJong, W., Naimi, T. S., & JernFigan, D. H. (2018). Alcohol brand use of youth-appealing advertising and consumption by youth and adults. Journal of Public Health Research, 7(1).
Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Boerman, S. C., Buijzen, M., & Rozendaal, E. (2016a). This is advertising! Effects of disclosing television brand placement on adolescents. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 46(2), 328-342.
Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Fransen, M. L., van Noort, G., Opree, S. J., Vandeberg, L., Reusch, S., van Lieshout, F., & Boerman, S. C. (2016b). Effects of Disclosing Sponsored Content in Blogs. How the Use of Resistance Strategies Mediates Effects on Persuasion. SAGE Journals, 60(12), 1458-1474.
Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Tutaj, K., & Boerman, S. C. (2013). The effects of brand placement disclosures on skepticism and brand memory. Communications - The European
Journal of Communication Research, 38(2), 127-146.
Ross, C. S., Maple, E., Siegel, M., DeJong, W., Naimi, T. S., Ostroff, J., Padon, A. A., Borzekowski, D. L. G., & Jernigan, D. H. (2014). The relationship between brand specific alcohol advertising on television and brand‐specific consumption among underage youth. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 38(8), 2234
2242
Rozendaal, E., Buijzen, M., & Valkenburg, P. (2010). Comparing children's and adults' cognitive advertising competences in the Netherlands. Journal of Children and Media, 4(1), 77-89.
Rozendaal, E., Lapierre, M. A., Van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Buijzen, M. (2011). Reconsidering advertising literacy as a defense against advertising effects. Media Psychology, 14(4),
Rozendaal, E., Opree, S. J., & Buijzen, M. (2016). Development and validation of a survey instrument to measure children’s advertising literacy. Media Psychology 19(1), 72-
100.
Snyder, L. B., Milici, F. F., Slater, M., Sun, H., & Strizhakova, Y. (2006). Effects of alcohol advertising exposure on drinking among youth. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent
medicine, 160(1), 18-24.
Tessitore, T., & Geuens, M. (2013). PP for “product placement” or “puzzled public”?
International Journal of Advertising, 32, 419-442.
Tutaj, K., & van Reijmersdal, E.A. (2012). Effects of online advertising format and
persuasion knowledge on audience reactions. Journal of Marketing Communications,
18(1), 5-18.
Veenenbos, J. (2018). Er wordt reclame gemaakt in deze vlog: Een onderzoek naar de
effecten van sponsorvermeldingen in vlogs voor kinderen tussen 9 en 12 jaar (master
thesis).
Wei, M., Fischer, E., & Main, K. J. (2008). An examination of the effects of activating persuasion knowledge on consumer response to brands engaging in covert marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 27(1), 34-44.
YouTube Help. (n.d.). Betaalde productplaatsingen en aanbevelingen. Retrieved from https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/154235?hl=nl
Appendix A. Survey (Dutch).
Door verder te klikken ga je akkoord met de voorwaarden van dit onderzoek. Lees eerst onderstaande tekst voor je verder gaat.
Als je mee doet aan het onderzoek, dan krijg je eerst een Youtube filmpje te zien op de computer. Daarna worden er nog een paar vragen gesteld op de computer waarin jouw mening wordt gevraagd. Het is dus geen test hoe goed je hebt opgelet, er zijn geen goede of foute antwoorden. Nadat je de vragen hebt ingevuld ben je alweer klaar. Het onderzoek duurt in totaal ongeveer 10 minuten. Jouw antwoorden blijven geheel anoniem. Je antwoorden worden zonder naam bewaard dus ook wij weten niet wie wat heeft ingevuld. Dit betekent dat niemand zal weten wat jij geantwoord hebt op de vragen. Verder zullen je gegevens niet aan derden worden verstrekt zonder jouw toestemming.
Als je liever niet mee wil doen dan mag dat. Ook mag je tijdens het onderzoek stoppen als je dit wilt. Je hoeft geen reden op te geven waarom. Mocht je na afloop van het onderzoek beslissen dat je liever niet meedoet dan kan je tot 7 dagen na het invullen van de vragenlijst je gegevens verwijderen. Neem in dit geval contact op met de uitvoerend onderzoeker.
Wij willen je alvast bedanken voor het meedoen aan het onderzoek. Voor vragen of opmerkingen kan je de uitvoerend onderzoeker mailen (jipschuivens@gmail.com).
Mvg, Jip Schuivens Eva van Reijmersdal
o
Ik ga akkoord met de voorwaarden van het onderzoek (1)Disclosure:
Kijk eerst het filmpje voor het invullen van de vragenlijst. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szfCvBL-oLY
No disclosure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9qov-QORW8
Vond je het filmpje leuk? Helemaal niet leuk (1) Niet leuk (2) Niet zo leuk (3) Een beetje leuk (4) Leuk (5)
Heel erg leuk (6) Vond je het filmpje grappig?
Helemaal niet grappig (1) Niet grappig (2) Niet zo grappig (3) Een beetje grappig (4) Grappig (5)
Heel erg grappig (6) Vond je het filmpje stom?
Helemaal niet stom (1) Niet stom (2) Niet zo stom (3) Een beetje stom (4) Stom (5)
Heel erg stom (6) Vond je het filmpje saai?
Helemaal niet saai (1) Niet saai (2) Niet zo saai (3) Een beetje saai (4) Saai (5)
Heel erg saai (6)
Vond je het filmpje kinderachtig? Helemaal niet kinderachtig (1) Niet kinderachtig (2) Niet zo kinderachtig (3) Een beetje kinderachtig (4) Kinderachtig (5)
Heel erg kinderachtig (6) Vond je het filmpje interessant?
Helemaal niet interessant (1) Niet interessant (2) Niet zo interessant (3)
Een beetje interessant (4) Interessant (5)
Heel erg interessant (6) Het filmpje dat je zag is van Enzo Knol. Ken je Enzo Knol?
Nee (1) Weet ik niet (2) Ja (3)
Hoe vaak kijk jij filmpjes van Enzo Knol? Nooit (1)
Bijna nooit (2) Soms (3) Vaak (4) Bijna elke dag (5) Elke dag (6)
Wil je dezelfde dingen doen als Enzo Knol? Nee, zeker niet (1)
Nee, ik denk het niet (2) Nee, misschien (3) Ja, misschien (4) Ja, ik denk het wel (5) Ja, zeker weten (6) WIl je hetzelfde zijn als Enzo Knol?
Nee, zeker niet (1) Nee, ik denk het niet (2) Nee, misschien (3) Ja, misschien (4) Ja, ik denk het wel (5) Ja, zeker weten (6)
Wil je Enzo Knol graag in het echt ontmoeten? Nee, zeker niet (1)
Nee, ik denk het niet (2) Nee, misschien (3) Ja, misschien (4) Ja, ik denk het wel (5) Ja, zeker weten (6)
Zou je het jammer vinden als Enzo Knol zou stoppen met vloggen? Nee, zeker niet (1)
Nee, misschien (3) Ja, misschien (4) Ja, ik denk het wel (5) Ja, zeker weten (6)
Vind je het vervelend als Enzo Knol een fout maakt? Nee, zeker niet (1)
Nee, ik denk het niet (2) Nee, misschien (3) Ja, misschien (4) Ja, ik denk het wel (5) Ja, zeker weten (6)
Heb je een merk gezien in het filmpje? Nee (1)
Weet ik niet (2) Ja (3)
Welke van de bovenstaande merken zag je in het filmpje? Meerdere antwoorden mogelijk. Ken je het merk Iglo?
Nee (1) Weet ik niet (2) Ja (3)
Is er reclame gemaakt voor Iglo in het filmpje? Nee, zeker niet (1)
Nee, ik denk het niet (2) Nee, misschien (3) Ja, misschien (4) Ja, Ik denk het wel (5) Ja, zeker weten (6) Is het filmpje gesponsord door Iglo?
Nee, zeker niet (1) Nee, ik denk het niet (2) Nee, misschien (3) Ja, misschien (4) Ja, ik denk het wel (5) Ja, zeker weten (6)
Is het filmpje gemaakt om ervoor te zorgen dat kinderen aan hun ouders gaan vragen om Iglo vissticks te kopen? Nee, zeker niet (1)
Nee, ik denk het niet (2) Nee, misschien (3) Ja, misschien (4) Ja, ik denk het wel (5) Ja, zeker weten (6)
Is het filmpje gemaakt om ervoor te zorgen dat mensen Iglo vissticks gaan kopen? Nee, zeker niet (1)
Nee, Ik denk het niet (2) Nee, misschien (3) Ja, misschien (4) Ja, ik denk het wel (5) Ja, zeker weten (6)
Is het filmpje gemaakt om ervoor te zorgen dat jij Iglo vissticks van je eigen zakgeld gaat kopen? Nee, zeker niet (1)
Nee, ik denk het niet (2) Nee, misschien (3) Ja, misschien (4) Ja, ik denk het wel (5) Ja, zeker weten (6)
Is het filmpje gemaakt om ervoor te zorgen dat mensen Iglo vissticks leuk gaan vinden? Nee, zeker niet (1)
Nee, ik denk het niet (2) Nee, misschien (3) Ja, misschien (4) Ja, ik denk het wel (5) Ja, zeker weten (6)
Is het filmpje gemaakt om ervoor te zorgen dat mensen Iglo vissticks willen hebben? Nee, zeker niet (1)
Nee, ik denk het niet (2) Nee, misschien (3) Ja, misschien (4) Ja, ik denk het wel (5) Ja, zeker weten (6)
Is het filmpje gemaakt om ervoor te zorgen dat mensen goed over Iglo vissticks gaan denken? Nee, zeker niet (1)
Nee, ik denk het niet (2) Nee, misschien (3) Ja, misschien (4) Ja, ik denk het wel (5) Ja, zeker weten (6) Vind je Iglo vissticks leuk?
Helemaal niet leuk (1) Niet leuk (2) Niet zo leuk (3)
Een beetje leuk (4) Leuk (5)
Heel erg leuk (6) Vind je Iglo vissticks lekker?
Helemaal niet lekker (1) Niet lekker (2) Niet zo lekker (3) Een beetje lekker (4) Lekker (5)
Heel erg lekker (6) Vind je Iglo vissticks stom?
Helemaal niet stom (1) Niet stom (2) Niet zo stom (3) Een beetje stom (4) Stom (5)
Heel erg stom (6) Vind je Iglo vissticks vies?
Helemaal niet vies (1) Niet vies (2) Niet zo vies (3) Een beetje vies (4) Vies (5)
Heel erg vies (6)
Zou je vandaag graag Iglo vissticks willen eten? Nee, zeker niet (1)
Nee, ik denk het niet (2) Nee, misschien (3) Ja, misschien (4) Ja, ik denk het wel (5) Ja, zeker weten (6)
Zag je aan het begin van het filmpje een witte tekst op zwarte achtergrond? Ja (1)
Nee (2)
Hoe vaak kijk jij filmpjes op YouTube? Nooit (1)
Bijna nooit (2) Soms (3) Vaak (4)
Bijna elke dag (5) Elke dag (6)
Eet je vaak vissticks van Iglo? Nooit (1)
Bijna nooit (2) Soms (3) Vaak (4) Bijna elke dag (5) Elke dag (6) Wat is je geslacht? Man (1) Vrouw (2) Hoe oud ben je?
________________________________________________________________
Wat is je opleidingsniveau? Indien niet meer studerend, hoogst afgeronde opleidingsniveau selecteren WO Master (1) WO Bachelor (2) HBO (3) MBO (4) Middelbare school (5) Anders namelijk (6) ________________________________________________ Waar denk je dat het onderzoek over ging?
________________________________________________________________ Je bent klaar!
Heel erg bedankt voor je deelname. Klik op 'Volgende' om je antwoorden vast te leggen.
