CAN BANNER EFFECTIVENESS BE INCREASED BY RADIO ADVERTISMENTS?

(1)

CAN BANNER EFFECTIVENESS BE

INCREASED BY RADIO ADVERTISMENTS?

By

Hans Kisteman

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

Master Thesis Marketing Management

Final master thesis

(2)

Abstract

(3)

3.2 Experimental stimuli ... 24 3.3 Measures ... 25 3.3.1 Cognitive measures ... 26 3.3.2 Affective measures ... 27 3.3.3 Behavioral measures ... 27 3.4 Analysis plan ... 27 4. Results ... 28 4.1 Manipulation checks ... 28 4.2 Cognitive responses ... 28 4.3 Affective responses ... 30 4.4 Behavioral responses... 31

5. Conclusion and discussion ... 33

References ... 38

(4)

4

1. Introduction

Digital advertising is growing very fast. US advertisers spent a total of $32 billon on digital advertising in 2011. This increased to $42.3 billion in 2013. It is expected that US advertisers will spend a total of $61.4 billion on digital advertising in 2017 (Emarketer.com, 2013 I). This increase in digital advertising is mainly caused by an increase in mobile advertising expenditures. The major reason for the shift toward mobile advertising is the fact that more than half of US mobile users use a Smartphone. Moreover, users spent more and more time and money on their mobile devices. For this reason, both digital publishers and advertisers move more and more to mobile advertising. In 2017, about three quarters of the digital marketing budget will be spent on mobile marketing. The growth of mobile advertising comes at the expense of desktop advertising: it is expected that in 2014, for the first time ever, both desktop banner advertising and search advertising will decline (Emarketer.com, 2013 II). In this study, banner advertising is a commonly used term. With banner advertising is meant the advertisement on a desktop and not advertisements on mobile devices.

(5)

5

So banner advertising spendings are stagnating and the direct effect of banner advertising (measured by CTR) declines. Therefore, a relevant question for both advertisers as publishes is: How can banner ads stand out to capture the attention of Internet users and persuade them to actually click on the banner?

(6)

6

The synergy effects between the biggest traditional media (TV and print) and online advertising have been investigated extensively. However, research to the third biggest kind of traditional media, radio advertising, and online advertising is limited. Additional research is needed because of four reasons. First, radio advertising is still growing. Emarketer.com (2013 III) showed that regular air radio will reach $15.73 billion on advertising and grow to $16.13 billion in 2016. Moreover, Internet radio ad spending in the US will reach $970 million in 2013 and grow to $1.31 billion by 2016. Second, radio advertising has unique characteristics compared to TV advertising and print advertising. Whereas TV ads convey both visual and auditory stimuli and prints ads convey visual stimuli, radio ads can only convey auditory stimuli. Third, the aforementioned study of Voorveld (2011) only explored radio-online synergy effects when people are simultaneously exposed to radio advertising and online advertising. Potential radio-online synergy effects when people are subsequently exposed to both media are unknown. Fourth, Naik & Peters (2009) found cross-media synergy effects on aggregate level. This means they showed how offline channels (magazines, TV, radio and newspapers) jointly interact with online channels (banner and search) and how this affects the total media budget and online spending. Therefore, also after this study, the individual synergy effect between radio advertising and online advertising is not clear.

This study explores the synergy effect between radio advertising and banner advertising. It addresses the following research question: Do radio-online synergy effects exist in terms of

click-through intention of online banner advertisements? Looking more specifically to radio

(7)

7

affects ad attitude and brand attitude, but it is not clear whether humor affects cross-channel synergy effects. Therefore we define the second research question as: How does humor in

radio ads affects the relationship between radio-online synergies and click-through intention of online banner advertisements?

This study contributes to the literature in multiple ways. First, this is the first study that investigates radio-online synergy effects in which people are subsequently exposed to a radio advertisement and an online advertisement. Second, where most studies on cross-media synergy effects use purchase intention to measure behavioral response, this is the first study that measures click-through intention of an online banner advertisement. Click-through intention and purchase intention are two different concepts because purchase intention is merely about the intention to buy a product or service whereas click-through intention is a broader concept that includes the intention to learn more about a certain offer or product. So, one can have a high click-through intention without having a high purchase intention and vice versa. Third, this is the first study that takes humor into account when analyzing cross-media synergy effects. It has already been found that humor in radio ads affects ad attitude and brand attitude positively (Flaherty, Weinbeger & Gulas, 2004). However, it is not clear what role humor plays in cross-media advertising campaigns.

(8)

8

should incorporate radio advertising and online advertising in their campaigns. For insurance companies like OHRA, a Dutch car insurance company, that have the highest radio ad spending (Rab.com, 2013), it is especially relevant how radio ads and online ads interact because both media have the advantage of sending highly targeted messages. For example, OHRA can reach their target group by advertising on a radio station that fits to the target group, and subsequently advertise on a certain website which fits to the target group as well. Finally, advertisers can control the content of their radio advertisements. The use of humor is commonly pursued in (radio) advertising because of the belief that humorous advertising enhances brand attitudes (Gulas, McKeage, & Weinberger 2010). Consumers are far more likely to purchase and recommend favorably evaluated brands (Keller, 1993). Therefore, over 35% of radio ads is indented to be humorous. For advertisers it is relevant to know whether humor works in utilizing radio-online synergies to maximize banner effectiveness.

2. Literature review

This research explores synergy effects between radio advertising and banner advertising and analyzes the moderating role of humor in radio ads. This part first describes radio advertising and banner advertising. Subsequently, previous research and theories about synergy effects are explored and the effect of radio-online synergies on click-through intention will be discussed. Finally, the moderator humor in radio ads is described followed by a discussion how this moderator affects the relationship between radio-online synergies and click-through intention of online banner ads. The relationships between all variables are presented in a final conceptual model.

2.1 Radio advertising

(9)

9

has control of the flow of communications from the company to the consumers (Winer, 2009). The main difference between TV advertising and radio advertising is the kind of stimuli they convey. Where TV messages project both auditory and visual stimuli and audience processing consist of listening and viewing, radio messages consist of only auditory stimuli and audience processing consists of only listening (Buchholz & Smith, 1991).

Like every channel, radio advertising has its advantages and disadvantages. Wells, Burnett & Moriarty (1995) stated the most important advantage of radio advertising is that messages are highly targeted. Moreover, radio advertising has the shortest “closing period,” allowing change right up until the minute that it airs. Because of this flexibility, radio advertisements do not appear dated or redundant. Most important disadvantages of radio advertising are a lack of visuals and a passive attitude of listeners. The reason for the latter disadvantage is that radio is generally used as a “pleasant background”. These (dis)advantages are also mentioned by Keller (2013) who also adds the relative inexpensiveness as an important benefit of radio advertising.

(10)

10

optimal advertising allocation with the actual advertising allocation and found much higher spending and gross rating point (GRP) on radio in the optimal allocation. The case study suggests that, after television, the highest level of GRP should be allocated to radio.

It is clear that radio advertising is not dead. But what are the characteristics of the most effective radio advertisements? We discuss the limited literature that exists about this topic. Riebe & Dawes (2006) suggested that a low-clutter format is approximately twice as effective at generating ad recall compared to a high-clutter format. The term ‘clutter’ is defined here as a greater number of advertisements in a given time period. The authors also found that ads that were placed at the start and end of large blocks of ads were better recalled than ads in the center of such large blocks. This effect was comparatively stronger for ads at the start of a block and weaker for ads at the end of a block. Another study of Allan (2012) showed that a long lasting radio commercial (60 seconds) is significantly more effective than a short radio commercial (2 seconds) in generating unaided recall. Moreover, he found that the combination of the 2-second commercial preceding the 60-second commercial was significantly more effective in generating unaided recall than only the 60-second advertisement.

2.2 Online advertising

(11)

11

first time ever, desktop (banner) advertising expenditures will decline (Emarketer.com, 2013 II). Shankar & Hollinger (2007) distinguish two types of online advertising: intrusive and non-intrusive advertisements. Intrusive online advertisements consist of banner, pop-up, banner, skyscraper and online directory advertising. Non-intrusive advertisements consist of targeted paid search and product placement. The current study focuses on banner advertising that will be discussed in the following section.

2.2.1 Banner advertising

This part describes banner advertising and discusses how the effectiveness of banner

advertising can be assessed. This part concludes with a description of click-through intention which serves as the dependent variable in this study.

What is banner advertising

A banner advertisement is embedded in the host website and is intended to attract traffic to another website, the advertiser (Thota, Song & Biswas, 2012). Chi, Yeh & Chiou (2012, p. 49) came up with a more comprehensive definition and defined banner advertisement as “a

(12)

12 Banner advertising effectiveness

One of the most used metrics to measure the effectiveness of an online banner is click-through rate. CTR is the percentage of the total number of ad exposures that induce a surfer to actually click on a banner in response to an advertised message. The CTR can be calculated by dividing the number of clicks on a banner divided by the total number of displays of the banner (Drèze & Hussherr, 2003).

Using CTR as an indicator for banner effectiveness has several advantages. First, CTR measures a voluntary action of a consumer, for example a consumer who clicks the banner for supplementary information. Second, CTR is a reliable metric because it is totally based on facts. Finally, CTR is easy to collect and to calculate because all the necessary data is collected automatically. Therefore it is not needed to require an investigator or the willingness of an interviewee to answer certain questions. This makes CTR also a relatively cheap way to measure banner effectiveness.

There is also some debate about the appropriateness of CTR as a metric for banner effectiveness. First, CTR does not measure all aspects of advertising effectiveness and it does not cover all the objectives a company can assign to a banner advertisement. For example, CTR is not a suitable metric for a company that wants to increase their brand awareness with an online banner. Second, CTR measures only short-term effects of a banner because it only measures the direct behavior of a consumer after being exposed to a banner. It is for example possible that an internet user visit the advertisers website sometime after being exposed to the banner. (Chandon, Chtourou & Fortin, 2003; Chtourou & Chandon, 2000).

(13)

13

that a consumer will engage in a clicking behavior on advertisements. Click-through intention is used because intention is a good predictor of behavior (Ajzen, 1991) and because intention is the most feasible variable to measure in the context of this study. Click-through intention is relevant because higher intentions may lead to more clicks which, in turn, lead to more website visitors and indirectly may lead to more leads and sales.

2.3 Radio-online synergy effects

More and more advertisers adopt the integrated marketing communications perspective (IMC). Schultz (1993, p. 17) defined IMC as follows: “a concept of marketing communication planning that recognizes the added value of using a comprehensive plan to evaluate the strategic roles of a variety of communication disciplines. It combines these disciplines to provide clarity, consistency and maximum communication impact”. This means that the combined effect of multiple activities (e.g. radio and online advertising) exceeds the sum of their individual effects. Belch and Belch (1998, p. 11) defined this as the synergy effect. Chang & Thorson (2004) stated that every advertisement is usually viewed more than once. When people are repeated exposed to the same advertisement, the repetition effect arises. When people are exposed to multiple coordinated advertisements, the synergy effect arises.

(14)

14 Underlying theories why synergy effects occur

(15)

15

message because messages from independent sources are more convincing and more credible (Chang & Thorson, 2004; Dijkstra et al., 2005; Voorveld, Neijens & Smit, 2011). Finally, combining different channels results in more positive responses because of the complementarities of different channels (Dijkstra et al., 2005). In the context of the current study, radio ads and online ads may reinforce each other because radio ads convey auditory stimuli whereas banner ads convey visually stimuli. Other differences are that banners can be seen as more interactive than radio ads. When people see a banner ad, they have more control over the communication channel than when they hear a radio ad. Moreover, radio ads are able to stimulate emotional responses, whereas Internet is a more rational medium that is more suitable for conveying detailed information (Leong, Huang & Stanners 1998). Voorveld (2011) stated that when using both radio and online, the strengths of each channel can be exploited and this could result in more positive campaign effects.

Now we know the underlying theories why synergy effects occur, we analyze some concrete studies that have been done on synergy effects. Therefore, a distinction is made between within-media synergies and cross-media synergies. Within-media synergies occur between offline channels (e.g. television, print, radio) whereas cross-media synergies occur between offline channels and online channels (e.g. effect of TV on online advertising) (Naik & Peters, 2009). First, we look at within-media synergies including radio advertising. Thereafter, we look at cross-media synergies where synergy effects between traditional advertising and online advertising are described. Finally, we describe the expected effects of radio-online synergies on click-through intention.

Within-media synergies

(16)

16

repeatedly to the same TV ad and the other half to two slightly different TV ads. The study found that people pay more attention to a slightly different TV commercial than to the same repeated TV commercial. This is because people become more satiated when they are exposed to the same commercial. However, the introduction of a visually new commercial revives the interest level. Even if the approach of the ‘new’ commercial is the same. After this study, several researchers analyzed whether such effects also occur when people are exposed to different kinds of media compared to the same media. Edell & Keller (1999) demonstrated within-media synergies between TV and print. The results of this study showed that a television-print campaign led to greater processing and improved memory performance than either television or print alone. This is a within-media synergy effect because an interaction effect between two offline channels occurs. Same results were found in a study of Putrevu and Lord (2003) who found that a second exposure to a novel stimulus containing similar information leads to more attention than exposure to the same stimulus. Finally, Navarro-Bailón (2012) compared a strategic consistency-based campaign with a message repetition strategy. They found synergy effects between advertising and sponsorship. The strategically consistent messages via different communication tools resulted in more positive effects on the number and favorability of brand associations as well as in more favorable brand attitudes.

(17)

17

to a TV commercial and radio commercial. This is the opposite of simultaneously exposure when people are exposed to multiple media at the same time.

Cross-media synergies

Several studies researched synergy effects between offline media and online media. Chang & Thorson (2004) discussed television-Web synergy situations and stated that both media provide unique features that are absent in the counterpart. Using both media together can result in more attention than they could by themselves. According to their research, television-Web synergy results in higher attention, higher perceived message credibility and a greater number of positive thoughts than repeating the same message in one media. The television-web synergy effect has especially impact on the cognitive responses and relatively little impact on affective and conative responses. Dijkstra et al., (2005) found that multimedia campaigns (i.e. combining TV, print and online) are more effective in evoking cognitive responses than Internet-only campaigns. Havlena, Cardarelli & de Montigny (2007) found synergistic effects of magazines (print), TV and online advertisements. For this analysis, they used respondent level frequency analysis. Knowing respondent-level frequencies allowed them to understand if media synergy effects are really synergistic, or the result of achieving higher frequency levels among people who have been exposed to multiple media. The study showed that potential media synergies are evident among heavy media consumers in terms of advertising awareness, brand favorability and purchase intent. Voorveld et al. (2011) also investigated television-web synergies and found that people who are exposed to multiple sources (i.e. TV and online) formed more positive brand attitudes and more positive purchase intentions. This means combining TV and website commercials increases both affective and behavioral responses.

(18)

18

simultaneous exposure to banner advertising and radio advertising. The results demonstrate that people who are at the same time exposed to an online banner and radio ad show more positive affective (brand attitude) and behavioral (purchase intention) responses than people who are exposed to only one channel. However, the simultaneous exposure to both a banner ad and radio ad leads to less positive cognitive responses (lower brand recall and lower brand recognition) than exposure to only the banner ad. The major difference between the research of Voorveld and the current study is that the former analyzed the synergy effects of using both radio and online simultaneously, whereas the current study investigates the synergy effects of using both radio and online subsequently. Differences in media effectiveness between simultaneous and sequential media usage were found by Zhang, Jeong & Fishbein (2010). They found that media multitasking affects media effects negatively. More specifically, media multitasking resulted in a greater decrease in audio recognition than in visual recognition.

Based on the underlying theories of synergy effects and the discussed results of previous research, it is expected that consumers respond more positive to a campaign in which they are subsequently exposed to a radio ad and a banner ad compared to a campaign in which they are repeatedly exposed to a banner ad. Therefore we define the following hypothesis:

HI: People who are subsequently exposed to a radio advertisement and a banner advertisement show higher click-through intentions towards the banner advertisement than people who see repeatedly a banner advertisement.

2.4 Humor in (radio) advertising

(19)

19

in radio ads affects the relationship between radio-online synergies and click-through intention.

What is humor in advertising?

Humor is one of the most popular advertising techniques around the world (Elpers, Mukherjee & Hoyer, 2004). Several studies (Kellaris & Cline, 2007; Geuens & De Pelsmacker, 2002) state that humor is one of the most frequently used emotional appeals in advertising. About 35% of radio advertisements (Weinberger et al., 1995), 27% of TV advertisement and 5 % of magazine advertisements (Catanescu & Tom, 2001) have been found to be humorous. In 2007, Kellaris and Cline (2007) found that advertisers spent $43 billion annually on humorous ads.

There is a lack of consistent humor definitions in the contemporary literature. A widely accepted categorization of humor is defined by Speck (1991). In his study, he suggests there are three basic humor processes: arousal-safety, incongruity-resolution and humorous disparagement. Arousal-safety is about humor evoked by an outpouring of sentiment or good will for people that are considered as friendly, warm, cute or familiar. Arousal safety involves mostly an empathetic connection with someone who narrowly avoids a disaster. These disasters are mostly quite mundane which allows strong identification. Incongruity is the extent to which content of an advertisement differs from generally expected beliefs, attitudes and/or behaviors. For example: “Consider an ad that shows a man walking down a street who then begins to skip like a child. Since grown people are generally not expected to skip while walking, it is likely that analysts would label the sequence of behavior at least moderately incongruent with typical adult behavior (Alden, Mukherjee & Hoyer 2000). Finally, humorous disparagement is defined as humor in which one party is victimized, belittled or suffers some misfortune or act of aggression (Zillman, 1983). Typical examples of this

(20)

20

In this study, participants will be exposed to a radio ad that contains incongruity humor because this kind of humor is most appropriate to communicate through a radio ad.

What are the effects of humor in (radio) advertising?

Many studies on the effects of humor in advertisements have shown different results. Einsend (2009) analyzed the literature about the effects of humor of the past 40 years (e.g. Sternthal & Craig; 1973, Duncan, 1979; Speck, 1987; Weinberger & Gulas, 1992 and Madden & Weinberger, 1984). This meta-analysis demonstrates that humor in advertising significantly enhances attitude towards the ad, attitude towards the brand, positive affective reactions, attention and purchase intention. Humor in advertisements reduces negative affective reactions and credibility. The effect of humor on attitude towards the ad is twice as large as the effect on attitude towards the brand. Attitude towards the ad serves as a mediation effect between humor and brand attitude. Overall, the effect of humor in advertising has remained constant over the past decade.

(21)

21

a good brand, not entertaining, not useful and not novel. These residual effects emphasize the downside risk of using humor that does not work.

2.5 Moderating effect of the use of humor in radio ads

The studies of Einsend (2009) and Flaherty et al. (2004) showed that humor in advertisements increases attitude towards the ad and brand attitude. This applies to both advertisements in general as well as specifically for radio advertisements.

MacKenzie, Lutz & Belch (1986, p. 46) defined attitude towards an advertisement as “a predisposition to respond in a favorable or unfavorable manner to a particular advertising stimulus during a particular exposure occasion”. It has been shown that attitude towards an ad mediates the influence of an ad on brand attitude and purchase intention (MacKenzie et al., 1986).

According to Mitchell & Olsen (1981), brand attitude is the consumer overall evaluation of a brand. The attitude towards a brand mainly depends on a consumer his perceptions regarding a brand. Mitchell & Olsen stated that brand attitude should be useful predictors of consumers’ behavior toward a product of service. Several other studies confirm this by showing how brand attitude affects behavioral responses of consumers. Wu & Loo (2009) showed that brand attitude directly affects the consumer’s purchase intention. Goldsmith, Lafferty & Newell (2000) showed attitude towards the brand positively and directly relates to purchase intentions. Research from Suy and Yi (2006) demonstrated that a positive brand attitude also affects brand loyalty in a positive way.

(22)

22

Rice & Bennett, 1998) and it is more likely that the processing focuses on the brand message claims (Chattopadhyay, 1998). Janiszewski and Meyvis (2001) found some advantages of brands with a favorable position in the consumer’s mind: Ads are better recognized and consumers do more easily process the brand-related information in the ad.

As mentioned, humor in (radio) advertisements result in both an increased attitude towards the ad and attitude towards the brand. Given the expectation that a more positive advertisement attitude and brand attitude results in a more favorable attitude and behavior towards a subsequent advertisement of the same brand, we define the following hypothesis:

H2: Radio-online synergy effects on click-through intentions are stronger when the initial radio ad contains humor.

2.6 Conceptual model

The expected relationships between all variables are shown in figure 1 as a conceptual model.

Degree of humor in radio ad (radio ad with humor or without humor)

Degree of multi-channel usage

(Radio-Online or Online-Online) +

Click-through intention of online banner

+

(23)

23

3. Method

This chapter discusses the method of this study. First, the sample of the experiment is described followed by the design and procedure of the experiment. Thereafter, the different experimental stimuli that were used are further explained. Finally, it is described how different variables are measured and how the collected data will be analyzed.

3.1 Participants, design and procedure

The experiment was conducted through an online survey and followed a between participant design. A total of 297 people started the survey. Any data from incomplete surveys, from surveys with hoax or illogical answers, and from surveys that were filled out too quickly were deleted. At the end, a total of 153 people (63.4% male) with a mean age of 32 years (SD = 11.6) participated in this online experiment. Participants were recruited through social media (Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn). To stimulate participation, a voucher in the sum of 25 Euros was raffled among the participants. If people wanted to participate, they followed the link shared on social media. When starting the experiment, it was emphasized that people had to turn on the sound of their computer.

(24)

24

all participants filled in some questions to measure their cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses.

3.2 Experimental stimuli

This experiment makes use of existing advertisements of “OHRA Autoverzekeringen”, a Dutch car insurance company. This experiment also uses some filter ads of different Dutch brands. Table 1 shows an overview of which groups were exposed to what target advertisements and shows the sample sizes of all groups.

Table 1 Overview of the different media groups

Group # Target ad 1 Target ad 2

Group 1: R-O without humor (N= 38)

Non-humorous radio ad OHRA

Online banner ad OHRA

Group 2: R-O with humor (N=64)

Humorous radio ad OHRA Online banner ad OHRA

Group 3: O-O (N=51) Online banner ad OHRA Online banner ad OHRA

(25)

25

commercial award “RAB radio awards publieksprijs” (Radiofreak.nl, 2011). The difference in level of humor was determined by a small pre-test in which six people were asked which radio commercial they perceived as being more humorous. All persons marked the radio ad that was intended to be humorous as more humorous. Despite the difference in humor, both radio ads had the same message: at OHRA.com you can directly arrange the best car insurance with a temporarily discount of 15%.

For group 3, a situation was created in which they are driving home from work to their house. While leaving the car, they remind that they are in the market for a new car insurance because they are not happy with their current car insurance. When they enter the house, they decide to visit some website on their computer. First, they are interested in the actual weather.

Therefore, they see a screenshot of the website www.weeronline.nl where they can find the actual weather in Zwolle. The webpage contains three different ads, including the target ad of OHRA (320 * 250 px).

The second situation is for all groups the same. People are told that they are browsing the news of the day on www.telegraaf.nl. One of the news articles they are visiting is shown as a screenshot in the questionnaire. The news article is about some students who have performed a heroic act by saving the life of an elderly man. The webpage contains three different ads, including the target ad of ORHA (320 * 250 px.).

The OHRA advertisements that were used were consistent. Participants in group 3 were exposed to the same online banner in both situations. The online banner ad fitted also with the radio ad because both advertisements contained a clear call to action (“arrange your car insurance directly”) and a 15% discount.

3.3 Measures

(26)

26

click-through intention of online banner ads. In addition to this behavioral variable, also some cognitive and affective variables were measured.

3.3.1 Cognitive measures

To measure cognitive responses, both unaided recall, aided recall and recognition were measured. To avoid any bias, unaided recall was measured before aided recall and recognition (Singh & Rothschild, 1983). Unaided recall was measured by asking the participants to mention all brands of which they have seen an advertisement on the webpage of telegraaf.nl. A value of 1 was assigned to the participants who mentioned at least OHRA, and a value of 0 was assigned to participants who mentioned no brands or only other brands than OHRA. The unaided recall rate was 78.4%. Aided recall was measured in a similar way but this time participants were asked to mention all car insurance brands of which they have seen an advertisement on the webpage of telegraaf.nl. The aided recall rate was 78.4% as well.

(27)

27

3.3.2 Affective measures

Regarding affective responses, both brand attitude and ad attitude were measured. Both variables were measured with five items on a five-point semantic scale (Chang & Thorson, 2004). The items were “not interesting/interesting”, “not appealing/appealing”, “bad/good”, “not likeable/likeable” and “unsympathetic/sympathetic”. Because the survey was in Dutch, all items were translated as literary as possible to Dutch. All items were for both ad attitude (Cronbach’s alpha = .888) as brand attitude (Cronbach’s alpha = .870) internal consistent. Finally, brand attitude change was measured by asking participants how their opinion about OHRA had changed after they saw the OHRA advertisements (Wu, 2007). Participants had to answer on a five-points semantic scale ranged from “changed very positively” to “changed very negatively” (M = 3.01; SD = .466). The fact whether the respondent already knew OHRA or was already a OHRA customer was not taken into account in this study.

3.3.3 Behavioral measures

Finally, click-through intention was measured by five items on a five-point likert scale. Participants were asked if they had the tendency to click on the OHRA banner, if they would have clicked the banner if possible, if they were curious about the webpage behind the banner, if they wanted to click on the banner to get more information about the offer and if they would click an OHRA banner if they see one in the near future. Participants had to answer on a five-point likert scale ranging from “totally agree” to “totally disagree”. The items are based on Yoo, Kim & Stout (2004). All items were internal consistent (Cronbach’s alpha = .930).

3.4 Analysis plan

(28)

28

responses and behavioral responses will be explored through a one-way ANOVA and a post-hoc ANOVA (Benferroni).

4. Results

In this chapter, the results of the research are presented. First, the results of the manipulation check questions are discussed. Thereafter, the results with regard to cognitive responses, affective responses and behavioral responses are described.

4.1 Manipulation checks

To analyze whether participants really listened to the radio fragment and/or observed the webpage(s), participants had to answer some questions about the media they were exposed to. Participants who were exposed to the radio advertisement and online advertisement had to mention the topic of the news item on the radio and the topic of the online news article. Participants who were exposed to the online webpages had to mention the place where the weather forecast was about and the topic of the online news article. In group 1, 84% answered the questions correctly, in group 2 85% and in group 3 87%. When asking people why they did not gave the right answer, they mentioned that they were not attracted to the news article or were focusing on other elements of the radio fragment or web page. This means that even if a participant answered the manipulation questions wrong, his data is still relevant. For example, some respondents did remember the OHRA banner or even other advertisers, but they did not answer the manipulation check question right. In conclusion, no respondents were excluded because they did answer the manipulation questions wrong. The used questionnaire including the priming scenarios can be found in appendix B.

4.2 Cognitive responses

(29)

29

A chi-square test was used because more than two independent samples were compared and because both variables, media group and cognitive response, are categorical (nominal).

Each media group was assigned to a group number. Respondents in the R-O without humor group are assigned to a ‘1’, respondents in the R-O with humor group are assigned to a ‘2’ and finally respondents in the O-O group are assigned to a ‘3’. Within the cognitive responses we have 4 dependent variables: Unaided brand recall, aided brand recall, category cured brand recognition and brand cued recognition. All dependent variables are binary. Respondents who gave the correct answer were assigned to a ‘1’ and respondents who gave the wrong answer were assigned to a ‘0’.

There is no significant relationship found between media groups and unaided brand recall X2(2, N = 153) = 3.21, p =.201), aided brand recall X2(2, N = 153) = 3.21, p =.201) and brand

cued recognition X2(2, N = 153) = 4.269, p =.118). There was a significant relationship found

between media groups and category cued brand recognition (X2(2, N = 153) = 6.784, p

=.034). People who are repeatedly exposed to online banner ads show higher category cued brand recognition than people who are first exposed to a radio ad and subsequently to an online ad. Furthermore, people who are initially exposed to a humorous radio commercial show higher category cued brand recognition than people who are initially exposed to a non-humorous radio commercial.

(30)

30

Table 2 Effects of media conditions on cognitive responses

Dependent variable R-O without humor R-O with humor O-O

Unaided brand recall 71% 77% 86%

Aided brand recall 71% 77% 86%

Category cued brand recognition*

71%* 80%* 92%*

Brand cued recognition 74% 80% 90%

Note: Percentages indicate how many participants gave the correct answer on questions about brand recall and brand recognition.

* = Differences between groups are significant (p < .05)

4.3 Affective responses

(31)

31

Table 3 One-Way Analysis of Variance of ‘ad attitude’ by media conditions.

Source df SS MS F p

Between groups 2 2.093 1.047 1.767 .175

Within groups 135 79.085 .594

Total 137 81.178

Table 4 One-Way Analysis of Variance of ‘brand attitude’ by media conditions.

Source df SS MS F p

Between groups 2 .929 .465 1.330 .268

Total 152 53.341

Table 5 One-Way Analysis of Variance of ‘change in brand attitude’ by media conditions.

Source df SS MS F p

Between groups 2 .055 .028 .125 .882

Total 152 32.993

This test was followed by a post-hoc ANOVA (Benferroni) to get a more detailed insight in the differences between the media conditions. The results of the post-hoc ANOVA can be found in appendix B. Participants in the online-online condition show slightly more positive affective responses. However, none of the results is significant.

4.4 Behavioral responses

(32)

32

response. Within the one-way ANOVA analysis, we are especially interested in differences in click-through intention between R-O without humor and O-O (H1) and between R-O without humor and R-O with humor (H2). There are statistically significant differences between the media groups means as determined by one-way ANOVA for click-through intention (F (2, 150) = 3.760, p = .025). Table 5 shows the results of the one-way ANOVA test.

Table 6 One-Way Analysis of Variance of ‘click-through intention’ by media conditions.

Source df SS MS F p

Between groups 2 8.194 4.097 3.760 .025*

Within groups 150 163.420 1.089

Total 152 171.613

* = significant at p < .05

This test was followed by a post-hoc ANOVA (Benferroni) to get a more detailed insight in the differences between the media conditions. The results of the post-hoc ANOVA test are shown in table 6.

Table 7 Differences between media conditions in behavioral responses (Post-hoc ANOVA Benferroni)

Dependent variable Group I Group J Mean

difference (I-J) p Click-through intention R-O without humor

R-O with humor .09572 1.000

R-O without humor

O-O .54438 .048*

R-O with humor O-O .44865 .070

* = significant at p < .05

(33)

33

This means that H1 is not supported. Even more, this means that the opposite of H1 is the case. There are no significant differences between the R-O without humor and R-O with humor condition. This means that H2 is also not supported. The next chapter conclusion and discussion will give more insight in possible reasons why the hypotheses of this study are not significant.

5. Conclusion and discussion

This chapter summarizes the main results of the analysis as described in chapter 4 and assesses the hypotheses of this study. After this, the scientific contribution is discussed by putting the findings of this study in light of previous studies. Finally, the practical implications of this study, the limitations of this study and recommendations for further research are discussed.

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether people who are subsequently exposed to a radio advertisement and online banner advertisement show a higher click-through intention of the online banner advertisement than people who are repeatedly exposed to the online banner advertisement. In addition, this study also analyzed whether such synergy effects are stronger when the initial radio advertisement contains humor. In other words, does the synergy effects between radio- and online advertising outperform the repetition effect of online advertising and is the synergy effect stronger when the initial radio ad contains humor? Whereas click-through intention serves as the main dependent variable in this study, cognitive responses and affective responses were measured and reported as well.

Cognitive responses

(34)

34

found that campaigns combining multiple media gained more positive cognitive responses than campaigns using only one medium (Dijkstra et al., 2005; Chang & Thorson, 2004). The contradicting finding of the current study can be explained by the fact that these authors explored the synergy effects of visual media (TV, print) and online ads whereas this study explores synergy effects between radio (non-visual) and online ads. So the difference between this study and related studies is radio vs. TV. What are the differences and can these differences be related to the contradicting results?

Radio ads, print ads and TV ads differ very much from each other. Radio ads reach consumers only through sound while print ads reach consumers through static visual stimuli. TV ads, on the other hand, leverage sound, sight and motion. Because of the multi-sensory effects and reach of TV advertising, it is generally acknowledged that TV is the richest and most powerful advertising medium (Keller, 1998). It has been found that TV ads result in significantly more positive cognitive responses than radio ads. Edell & Keller (1989) revealed a significantly higher brand name recall among respondents exposed to a TV ad compared to a radio ad. In a related study, Bryce & Yalch (1993), found that product information presented in a TV ad results in greater brand recall and brand recognition when the information was presented pictorially rather than when spoken.

(35)

35 Affective responses

The online-online media group shows a slightly more positive ad attitude and brand attitude than the radio-online groups. However, since none of the results are significant no conclusion can be derived from these findings.

Behavioral responses

This study shows that people who are repeatedly exposed to online banner ads show more positive click-through intentions than people who are subsequently exposed to a radio ad and online banner ad. As for the cognitive responses, this finding is in contrast with several studies that found more positive behavioural responses in multichannel campaigns (Havlena et al., 2007; Naik & Peters, 2009; Voorveld et al., 2011). The main characteristic of these studies is that they combined visual media like TV and print with online advertising, whereas the current study combines auditory media (radio) with online advertising. So the contradicting results are most likely caused by the differences between radio advertising and TV- and print advertising.

As mentioned before, radio ads, print ads and TV ads differ very much. Advertising through visual media like TV and print does not only result in more positive cognitive responses, but also in more positive behavioral responses. Edell & Keller (1989) found that people who see an advertisement rather than hear an advertisement, show significantly higher purchase intentions.

(36)

36

to more positive click-through intentions of online banner ads. Finally, the results of this study indicate that the use of humor in the initial radio ad does not significantly result in higher click-through intentions of the subsequent banner ad.

Theoretical implications

This study contributes to the current literature about cross-media synergy effects in several ways. First, this is the first study that explored synergy effects between radio- and online advertising. In contrast to current studies about cross-media synergy effects, this is the first study that found more positive repetition effects than synergy effects in terms of cognitive responses and behavioral responses. Moreover, this study also analyzed possible reasons for these contradicting findings. Second, where most studies on synergy effects use purchase intention to measure behavioral response, this study used click-through intention to measure behavioral responses. Finally, this was the first study on synergy effects that took humor in account. This study shows that an initial humorous ad results in significantly higher brand recognition of the second ad. Apparently, the use of humor can affect research findings substantially. This means that researches should not only take into account the media type, but also the content of the advertisement.

Managerial implications

(37)

37

campaigns with high budgets that can generate for example 100 repeated exposures to a single customer should not stick to the results of this study. Therefore, the results of this study are especially relevant for marketing campaigns with relatively low budgets and low scopes. When you only have the resources to reach your customer a few times, it may be better to focus on just banner advertising rather than the combination of radio advertising and banner advertising.

Second, advertisers and media planners who want to increase brand recognition with small budgets can better focus solely on banner advertising rather than the combination of radio advertising and online advertising. Finally, advertisers and media planners who want to incorporate radio advertising in their strategy to increase brand recognition should consider a humorous radio advertisement. This study shows that people who hear an initial humorous radio ad show are better able to recognize the brand in the banner advertisement.

Limitations

(38)

38 Future research

Future research on radio-online synergy effects should add TV advertising or print advertising. This will give more insight into the question whether the addition of rich media will lead to more positive synergy effects. Furthermore, future research should add a radio-radio and an online-radio-radio condition to explore the repetition effect of radio-radio advertising and to see whether the order of exposure (online-radio vs. radio-online) matters.

References

Ajzen, I. 1991. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 50 (2): 179-211.

Alden, D.L., Mukherjee, A., & Hoyer, W.D. 2000. The effects of incongruity, surprise and positive moderators on perceived humor in television advertising. Journal of Advertising, 29 (2): 1-15.

Allan, D.L. 2012. Radio advertising: Blip commercials. Journal of Business Research, 65 (6): 880-881.

Belch, G.D. & Belch, M. 1998. Introduction to Advertising and Promotion: An Integrated Marketing Communications Perspective. Homewood, IL: McGraw-Hill.

Buchholz, L.M., & Smith, R.E. 1991. The role of consumer involvement in determining cognitive response to broadcast advertising. Journal of Advertising, 20 (1): 4-17.

Bloch, P.H., Ridgway, N.M., & Sherrel, D.L. 1989. Extending the Concept of Shopping: An Investigation of Browsing Activity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 17 (1): 13-21.

Bryce, W.J., & Yalch, R.F. 1993. Hearing versus seeing: a comparison of consumer learning of spoken and pictorial information in television advertising. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 15 (1): 1-20.

Catanescu, C., & Tom, G. 2001. Types of humor in television and magazine advertising. Review of Business, 22 (2): 92-95.

Chandon, J.L., Chtourou, M.S., & Fortin, D.R. 2003. Effects of configuration and exposure levels on responses to web advertisements. Journal of Advertising research New York, 43 (2): 217-229.

Chang, Y., & Thorson, E. 2004. Television and Web Advertising Synergies. Journal of Advertising, 33 (2): 75-81.

(39)

39

Chattopadhyay, A. 1998. When does comparative advertising influence brand attitude? The role of delay and market position. Psychology & Marketing, 15 (5): 461-475.

Chi, H. K., Yeh, H. R., & Chiou, C. Y. 2012. The Mediation Effect of Information Presentation Style on the Relationship between Banner Advertisements and Advertising Effectiveness. International Journal of Business and Management, 7 (14): 46-52. Chtourou, M.S., & Chandon, J.L. 2000. Impact of Motion, Picture and Size on Recall and Word of Mouth for Internet Banners. Informs internet and marketing science conference, USC Los Angeles.

Dahlén, M. 2001. Banner ads through a new lens. Journal of Advertising Research, 41 (4): 23–30.

Dahlén, M., Murray, M., & Nordenstam, S. 2004. An empirical study of perceptions of implicit meanings in World Wide Web advertisements versus print advertisements. Journal of Marketing Communications, 10 (1): 35-47.

Danaher, P.J., & Dagger, T.S. 2013. Comparing the relative effectiveness of advertising channels: A case study of a multimedia blitz campaign. Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (4): 517-534.

Dijkstra, M., Buijtels, H. E. J. J. M., & van Raaij, W. F. 2005. Separate and joint effects of medium type in consumer responses: A comparison of television, print, and the internet. Journal of Business Research, 58 (3): 377–386.

Dreze, X., & Hussherr, F.X. 2003. Internet advertising: Is anybody watching? Journal of interactive marketing, 17 (4): 8-23.

Edell, J. A., & Keller, K. L. 1989. The information processing of coordinated media campaigns. Journal of Marketing Research, 26 (2): 149–163.

Edell, J. A., & Keller, K. L. 1999. Analyzing media interactions: The effects of coordinated TV-print advertising campaigns. Cambridge, Mass.: Marketing Science Institute.

Eisend, M. 2009. A meta-analysis of humor in advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37 (2): 191-203.

Elpers, J.L.C.M.W., Mukherjee, A., & Hoyer, W.D. 2004. Humor in Television Advertising: A Moment‐to‐Moment Analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (3): 592-598.

Flaherty, K., Weinberger, M.G., & Gulas, C.S. 2004. The impact of perceived humor, product type, and humor style in radio advertising. Journal of Current Issues & Research in

Advertising, 26 (1): 25-36.

Goldsmith, R.E., Lafferty, B.A., & Newell, S.J. 2000. The impact of corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to ads and brands. Journal of Advertising, 29 (3): 43-55.

Geuens, M., & De Pelsmacker, P. 2002. The role of humor in the persuasion of individuals varying in need for cognition. Advances in Consumer Research, 29 (1): 50-56.

(40)

40

Gulas, C.S., McKeage, K.K., & Weinberger, M.G. 2010. Violence Against Males in Humorous Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 39 (4): 109-120.

Havlena, W., Cardarelli, R., & de Montigny, M. 2007. Quantifying the isolated and

synergistic effects of exposure frequency for TV, print, and internet advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 47 (3): 215-221

Jackson, S. 2011. Research methods and statistics: A critical thinking approach. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.

Janiszewski, C. & Meyvis, T. 2001. Effects of brand logo complexity, repetition, and spacing on processing fluency and judgment. Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (1): 18–32.

Kellaris, J.J., & Cline, T.W. 2007). Humor and ad memorability: on the contributions of

humor expectancy, relevancy, and need for humor. Psychology & Marketing, 24 (6): 497-509. Keller, K.L. 1993. Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57 (1): 1-22.

Leong, E. K. F., Huang, X., & Stanners, P. J. 1998. Comparing the effectiveness of web site with traditional media. Journal of Advertising Research, 38 (5): 44-51.

Keller,K.L. 2013.Strategic Brand Management. Building, Measuring, and Managing Brand Equity. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

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, 10 (1): 130-143.

Mitchell, A.A., & Olson, J.C. 1981. Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude? Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (3): 318-332 Naik, P.A., & Peters, K. 2009. A hierarchical marketing communications model of online and offline media synergies. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23 (4): 288-299.

Navarro-Bailón, M.A. 2012. Strategic consistent messages in cross-tool campaigns: effects on brand image and brand attitude. Journal of Marketing Communications, 18 (3): 189-202. Putrevu, S. & Lord, K.R. 2003. Processing Internet Communications: A Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability Framework. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 25 (1): 45-59.

Rice, B. & Bennett, R. 1998. The relationship between brand usage and advertising tracking measurements: international findings. Journal of Advertising Research, 38 (3): 58–66. Riebe, E., & Dawes, J. 2006. Recall of radio advertising in low and high advertising clutter formats. International journal of advertising, 25 (1): 71-86.

Schlosser, A. E., & Kanfer, A. 1999. Current advertising on the Internet: The benefits and usage of mixed media advertising strategies. Advertising and the world wide web, 43 (1): 41-61.

(41)

41

Shamdasani, P. N., Stanaland, A.J.S., & Tan, J. 2001. Location, location, location: Insights for advertising placement on the web. Journal of Advertising Research, 41 (4): 7-21. Shankar, V., & Hollinger, M. 2007. Online and mobile advertising: current scenario, emerging trends, and future directions. Marketing Science Institute, 20 (7): 1-44.

Singh, S. N., & Rothschild, M. L. 1983. The effect of recall on recognition: An empirical investigation of consecutive learning measures. Advances in Consumer Research, 10 (1): 271–276.

Speck, P.S. 1991. The humorous message taxonomy: A framework for the study of humorous ads. Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 13 (1-2): 1-44.

Suh, J.C., Yi, Y. 2006. When brand attitudes affect the customer satisfaction-loyalty relation: the moderating role of product involvement. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16 (2): 145-155.

Sundar, S.S., & Kalyanaram, S. 2004. Arousal, memory, and impression formation effects of animation speed in web advertising. Journal of Advertising, 33 (1): 7–17.

Sutherland, M., & Sylvester, A. K. 2000. Advertising and the mind of the consumer. St. Leonards, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Tavassoli, N.T. 1998. Language in multimedia: Interaction of spoken and written information. Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (1): 26-37.

Tellis, G.J. 1988. Advertising exposure, loyalty, and brand purchase: a two-stage model of choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (2): 134–144.

Thota, S.C., Song, J.H., & Biswas, A. 2012. Is a website known by the banner ads it hosts? Assessing forward and reciprocal spillover effects of banner ads and host websites.

International Journal of Advertising, 31 (4): 877-905.

Voorveld, H.A.M. 2011. Media multitasking and the effectiveness of combining online and radio advertising. Computers in Human Behavior, 27 (6): 2200-2206.

Voorveld, H.A.M., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E.G. 2011. Opening the black box: Understanding cross-media effects. Journal of Marketing Communications, 17 (2): 69–85.

Wakolbinger, L. M., Denk, M., & Oberecker, K. 2009. The effectiveness of combining online and print advertisements: Is the whole better than the individual parts? Journal of Advertising Research, 49 (3): 360–372.

Weinberger, M.G., Spotts, H.E., Campbell, L., & Parsons, A.L. 1995. The use and effect of humor in different advertising media. Journal of Advertising Research, 35 (3): 44-56. Wells, W., Burnett, J., & Moriarty, S. 1995. Advertising Principles and Practice. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Winer, R.S. 2009. New communications approaches in marketing: Issues and research directions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23 (2): 108-117.

(42)

42

Wu, S.I., & Lo, C.L. 2009. The influence of core-brand attitude and consumer perception on purchase intention towards extended product. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 21 (1): 174-194.

Yaveroglu, I., & Donthu, N. 2008. Advertising repetition and placement issues in on-line environments. Journal of Advertising, 37 (2): 31-44.

Yoo, C.Y., Kim, K., & Stout, P.A. 2004. Assessing the effects of animation in online banner advertising: Hierarchy of effects model. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 4 (2): 49-60. Zhang, W., Jeong, S.H., & Fishbein, M. 2010. Situational factors competing for attention: the interaction effect of multitasking and sexually explicit content on TV recognition. Journal of Media Psychology, 22 (1): 2-13.

Zilhnan, D. 1983. Disparagement humor. In McGhee, P.E., & Goldstein, J.H. Handbook of humor research (85-108). New York: Springer-Verlag

Websites

Doubleclick. 2014. Display Benchmarks Click-through rates. Retrieved June 19, 2014 from http://www.richmediagallery.com/resources/benchmarks/.

Emarketer.com. 2010. Have Click Rates Finally Stopped Declining? Retrieved March 28, 2014, from

http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Have-Click-Rates-Finally-Stopped-Declining/1008045.

Emarketer.com. 2013 (I). US Total Media Ad Spend Inches Up, Pushed by Digital. Retrieved March 27, 2014, from http://www.emarketer.com/Article/US-Total-Media-Ad-Spend-Inches-Up-Pushed-by-Digital/1010154.

Emarketer.com. 2013 (II). When Will Desktop Ad Spending Peak? Retrieved March 28, 2014, from http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Will-Desktop-Ad-Spending-Peak/1009959.

Emarketer.com. 2013 (III). Internet Radio's Audience Turns Marketer Heads. Retrieved March 4, 2014, from http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Internet-Radios-Audience-Turns-Marketer-Heads/1009652.

Emarketer.com. 2013 (IV). Traditional Media Ad Spend Dips Lower as More Dollars Shift to Digital. Retrieved March 28, 2014, from http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Traditional-Media-Ad-Spend-Dips-Lower-More-Dollars-Shift-Digital/1009727.

Emarketer.com. 2014. Advertisers Blend Digital and TV for Well-Rounded Campaigns. Retrieved March 27, 2014, from http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Advertisers-Blend-Digital-TV-Well-Rounded-Campaigns/1010670/1.

Rab.com. 2013. Top 40 National Network & Spot Advertisers: Industry. Retrieved May 20, 2014, from http://www.rab.com/public/marketingGuide/DataSheet.cfm?id=23.

(43)

43

Appendices

Appendix A Post-hoc ANOVA affective responses

Table 8 Differences between media groups in affective responses (Post-hoc ANOVA Benferroni)

Dependent variable

Group I Group J Mean

difference (I-J)

Sig.

Ad attitude R-O without humor R-O with

humor

.15481 1.000

R-O without humor O-O -.13012 1.000

R-O with humor O-O -.28492 .189

Brand attitude R-O without humor R-O with

humor

.01711 1.000

R-O without humor O-O -.15397 .678

R-O with humor O-O -.17108 .376

Change in brand attitude

R-O without humor R-O with

humor

.011 1.000

R-O without humor O-O .046 1.000

(44)

44

Appendix B Questionnaires and priming scenarios

This appendix contains the three questionnaires that were used. All questions were asked in Dutch. A translation of the priming elements that were used can be found further on in this appendix. Different group numbers are mentioned within this appendix. The corresponding group numbers are:

Group 1: Radio-Online without humor Group 2: Radio-Online with hmor Group 3: Online-Online

--- 1. Ben je een man of een vrouw?

O Man

O Vrouw

2. Wat is je leeftijd?

3. Wat is je hoogst afgeronde opleidingsniveau?

O VMBO O HAVO O VWO O MBO O HBO O Universitair O Overig

(45)

45

Priming group 1 and group 2 in Dutch:

Stel jezelf de volgende situatie voor: Het is 17:00 en je werkdag zit erop. Je stapt in je auto om naar huis te rijden.Terwijl je instapt bedenk je je dat je een nieuwe autoverzekering nodig hebt. Dit komt omdat je niet tevreden bent met je huidige autoverzekering. Respondents saw a picture of a car

dashboard to give them the feeling they are listening radio in their car. See figure 2.

Zodra je weg rijdt zet je direct de autoradio aan. Het radiofragment dat je hoort staat hieronder weergegeven. Zorg dat je geluid aan staat en klik hieronder op play om het radiofragment te beluisteren. Het fragment duurt ongeveer 1 minuut  Inhoud radiofragment: Nieuws – het weer – target ad (with humor or without humor)- filter ad.

Het is 17:30 en je bent thuis aangekomen. Je besluit nog snel even het nieuws van vandaag te bekijken. Dat doe je op Telegraaf.nl. Een van de webpagina’s die je bekijkt staat hieronder weergegeven. Lees de webpagina aandachtig door en klik onderaan de pagina op volgende. See figure 3 for the webpage

that was shown.

Priming group 1 and group 2 in English:

Imagine the following situation: It is 5 p.m. and your working day is over. You get in your car to drive home. While you are getting in your car you realize you need a new car insurance. This is because you are not satisfied with your current car insurance. Respondents saw a picture of a car dashboard to give

them the feeling they are listening radio in their car. See figure 2.

As soon as you drive away, you turn on the radio of your car. The radio clip you hear is shown below. Make sure your sound is on and click “Play” to start listening the radio clip. The clip takes about 1 minute.  Content of the radio clip: News – the weather – target ad – filter ad

It is 17.30 pm and you have arrived at home. You decide to quickly read the news of the day.

Therefore you open the website of Telegraaf.nl. One of the webpages you are viewing is shown below. Carefully read the webpage and press “next” at the bottom of the page. See figure 3 for the webpage

that was shown.

(46)

46

Figure 3: Webpage of Telegraaf.nl with OHRA banner that was shown to respondents of group 1 & 2

Priming group 3 in Dutch:

Stel jezelf de volgende situatie voor: Het is 17:30 en je rijdt met je auto van je werk terug naar huis. Eenmaal thuisgekomen stap je uit je auto en loop je naar je huis. Terwijl je uitstapt bedenk je je dat je een nieuwe autoverzekering nodig hebt. Dit komt omdat je niet tevreden bent met je huidige

autoverzekering. Respondents saw a picture of a car dashboard to give them the feeling they are

listening radio in their car. See figure 2.

Zodra je binnen bent besluit je nog even een aantal websites te bekijken op je computer. Allereerst ben je benieuwd naar het actuele weer. Daarom bezoek je Weeronline.nl. De webpagina die je bekijkt staat hieronder weergegeven. Lees de webpagina aandachtig door en klik onderaan de pagina op volgende.

See figure 4 for the webpage that was shown.

Nadat je het actuele weer bekeken hebt wil je ook nog snel even het nieuws van vandaag bekijken. Dat doe je op Telegraaf.nl. Een van de webpagina’s die je bekijkt staat hieronder weergegeven. Lees de webpagina aandachtig door en klik onderaan de pagina op volgende. See figure 3 for the webpage that

was shown.

Priming group 3 in English:

(47)

47 car insurance. Respondents saw a picture of a car dashboard to give them the feeling they are listening

radio in their car. See figure 2.

Once you are at home you decide to view some websites. First of all you are curious about the actual weather. Therefore you visit Weeronline.nl. The webpage you are viewing is shown below. Carefully read the webpage and press “next” at the bottom of the page. See figure 4 for the webpage that was

shown.

After checking the actual weather, you also want to check the news of today. Therefor you go to Telegraaf.nl. One of the webpages you are viewing is shown below. Carefully read the webpage and press “next” at the bottom of the page. See figure 3 for the webpage that was shown

Figure 4: Webpage of Weeronline.nl that was shown to respondents of group 3.

5. Je hebt zojuist een webpagina van Telegraaf.nl bekeken. Op deze webpagina stonden een aantal advertenties weergegeven. Vul hieronder alle merken in waarvan je een advertentie hebt gezien. Als je er geen gezien hebt vul je in: "geen".

6. Welke aanbieder(s) van autoverzekeringen heb je gezien op de webpagina van Telegraaf.nl? Vul hieronder alle aanbieders van autoverzekeringen in waarvan je een advertentie hebt gezien. Als je er geen gezien hebt vul je in: "geen".

(48)

48

O FBTO O ANWB O OHRA

O InShared O Ditzo O Univé

O Weet ik niet

8. Beantwoord de volgende stelling:

Op de webpagina van Telegraaf.nl heb ik een advertentie van OHRA autoverzekeringen gezien.

9. Beschrijf je algemene gevoel over de advertentie van OHRA Autoverzekeringen die werd getoond op de webpagina van Telegraaf.nl. Als je de OHRA Autoverzekeringen advertentie niet gezien hebt laat je deze vraag leeg.

Ik vind de advertentie van OHRA autoverzekeringen op de webpagina van Telegraaf.nl:

Onsympathiek O O O O O Sympathiek

Niet interessant O O O O O Interessant

Slecht O O O O O Goed

Onaantrekkelijk O O O O O Aantrekkelijk

Onaangenaam O O O O O Aangenaam

10. Beschrijf je algemene gevoel over OHRA Autoverzekeringen.

Ik vind OHRA autoverzekeringen:

Onsympathiek O O O O O Sympathiek

Niet interessant O O O O O Interessant

Slecht O O O O O Goed

Onaantrekkelijk O O O O O Aantrekkelijk

Onaangenaam O O O O O Aangenaam

Kun je aangeven in welke mate je mening over OHRA Autoverzekeringen is veranderd na het zien of horen van de OHRA Autoverzekeringen advertenties in dit onderzoek?

CAN BANNER EFFECTIVENESS BE INCREASED BY RADIO ADVERTISMENTS?