The role of online video ad placement on consumer’s irritation:
the effect on brand attitude depending on brand familiarity
Master Thesis
Student: Yoana Aleksieva, 11444258 Thesis supervisor: Dr. Frauke Mattison Thompson
Course: MSc in Business Administration – Marketing
Institution: Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam
1 ABSTRACT
The boom of digital technologies has transformed the way marketers advertise their brands. Consumers as well as businesses are shifting online due to the increased consumption of online media and the fact that Millennials are much more engaged in online media compared to the traditional channels of communication. Therefore, in-stream advertising is also extending in different online platforms and in different forms in terms of ad types. However, online advertising is characterised by the interruption of the consumer leading to a feelings of irritation. Therefore, this research examines the consumers’ irritation effect of pre-roll, mid-roll and post-mid-roll online video ads for both well-known and unknown brand and the outcome in terms of brand attitude. The results from the online experiment with 3 (ad placement: pre-roll, mid-pre-roll, and post-roll) by 2 (brand familiarity: well-known vs. unknown brand) between-subjects design revealed that in general, in-stream ads are not perceived as irritating and there is no significant difference between the three ad location formats in terms of irritation. However, brand familiarity influences consumers’ irritation in such manner that ad of an unknown brand is perceived as more irritating in comparison to an ad of a well-known brand, which is not perceived as irritating at all. Mid-roll ad of an unknown brand is perceived as the most irritating format and post-roll ad of a well-known brand, for the least irritating one. Furthermore, irritation has a negative effect on brand attitude, meaning that the higher the irritation is, the lower the brand attitude.
Brands, especially new ones that are still not very familiar to the public, must avoid starting their exposure with in-stream ads and specifically using the middle position. When it comes to well-known brands, online video advertising would not harm the brand image.
2
Statement of originality
This document is written by Student Yoana Aleksieva who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.
I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
3 Table of Contents ABSTRACT ... 1 I. Literature review ... 7 1. Irritation effects ... 8 2. Ad placement ... 9 3. Brand familiarity ... 10 4. Brand attitude ... 11
II. Theoretical framework ... 15
1. Irritation ... 15
2. Brand familiarity ... 16
3. Effects of ad irritation on brand attitude ... 18
III. Method ... 20 1. Sample ... 20 2. Procedure ... 21 3. Manipulation check ... 23 4. Measures ... 24 IV. Analysis ... 25 V. Result section... 26
1. Effect on irritation (H1, H1a, H1b, H1c)... 26
2. Irritation dependence on brand familiarity (H2, H2a, H2b, H2c) ... 28
3. Irritation effect on brand attitude (H3, H3a, H3b, H3c, H3d, H3e) ... 30
VI. Discussion... 34
1. Findings ... 35
VII. Implications ... 39
VIII. Limitations and Future Research ... 41
IX. References ... 42
4 Introduction
Although TV is still the most consumed type of media, consumers are shifting towards an ever growing online presence. Online streaming is becoming more popular among younger people and the worldwide TV consumption is continuously decreasing every year (Mander & Young, 2017). A study from comScore and YouTube showed not only that digital video is mostly consumed by Millennials, but also that it is the most preferred format. Among the 2940 respondents, 35% have chosen YouTube as their most preferable platform. Since online ads can be personalised and targeted, Millennials showed more positive attitude towards them in comparison to ads used in traditional media formats (O'Neil-Hart & Blumenstein, 2016). This is the main reason why advertisers are shifting online as well. Digital media advertising, strongly represented by online video advertising on social media platforms like YouTube, is gaining more popularity. In-stream video advertising is mainly showing a short video, similar or the same as a TV ad, in the beginning, middle or the end of an online content, e.g., YouTube media (Digital Video In-Stream Ad Format Guidelines 2016). Previous research showed that online video ads have a positive effect on consumers’ attitude toward product branding and thus, advertisers can increase brand awareness (Gunawan, 2015).
Although advertising has a positive effect on product branding, brand attitudes, purchase intention, etc., marketers must be aware that potential negative results may occur. This negative effect comes from consumers’ intrusiveness of the showed ad due to interruption of the original video (Ha, 1996; Hao Li & Lo, 2015). Digital media is much more interactive and task-oriented than traditional media and advertisers are constantly trying to increase consumer’s attention. Consumers, on the other hand, have always avoided ads but it has become more difficult with in-stream videos than it is with TV or radio advertising, where sounds and images are sometimes used as a background noise (Ha & McCann, 2008). Since consumers cannot always completely avoid ads on the Internet, they are perceived as more intrusive and irritating. A
5 study on the influence of YouTube advertisement revealed that ad irritation is the main factor that has a negative effect toward the ad value (Dehghani, Niaki, Ramezani, & Sali, 2016). Other researches also stated that an irritating advertisement can cause negative reactions and perceptions toward the advertised brand (Aaker & Bruzzone, 1985; Chakrabarty & Yelkur, 2005; Cho & as-, 2004; Hairong Li, Edwards, & Joo-Hyun, 2002; McCoy, Everard, Polak, & Galletta, 2008; Rejón-Guardia & Martínez-López, 2014).
These results are formed from detailed examination of online pre-roll ads – online video ad showed in the beginning of a video. Previous literature lacks more extensive comparison between the three ad location formats in terms of their effect on brand attitude. Since ad irritation is the most affective negative antecedent for brand attitude and purchase intention (Dehghani et al., 2016), the following study aims at revealing the difference in the level of consumers’ irritation in terms of the three location formats – pre-roll, mid-roll, and post-roll video ads and how differently do they influence consumers’ perception toward the advertised brand. Focusing on the level of the consumer’s ad irritation and its effect on brand attitude, it is also important to see if there is any difference of these effects in regard of well-known vs. unknown brands since previous studies on online video advertising have not considered brand familiarity as an antecedent of brand attitude. Brand familiarity is one of the leading factors that consumers have in mind in their perception of an advertisement. Prior experience with a brand influences consumers in such manner that they get a different image of the advertisement in comparison to when a brand is unknown and consumers lack previous experience with it (M. C. Campbell & Keller, 2003). In addition, previous literature also raised up the point that once consumers perceive a brand positively, its advertisements will not cause irritation, or at least the irritation will be so insignificant that the communication cannot harm the brand (Kusse, 2013). However, a more detailed examination is needed, in order to have a deeper
6 understanding of the relationship between ad placement, brand familiarity, irritation, and brand attitude.
The following study will contribute more extensively to the theory of online video advertising in terms of the consumer’s irritation and its effect on brand attitude. This study will also give an explanation of the relationship between ad irritation and brand familiarity and how this influences the attitude toward the brand. When it comes to the practice, managers will have a better understanding of how to minimize the negative effects of ad irritation in order to develop more effective communication on digital media platforms. The study will help marketers to know the effects of different ad locations in terms of brand familiarity, in order to achieve higher purchase rates.
The establishment of the foundations of this study begins with an examination of previous literature on ad intrusiveness and irritation, online video advertising in terms of ad placement, and brand familiarity. The literature review continues with an extensive understanding of the dependant variable – brand attitude. The review then defines an interesting gap, which the study will fill by answering the formulated research question, followed by an illustration of the expected relationships between variables shown in a conceptual model. The formed hypotheses are supported by examining the existing theory. The study continues with a research design and methodology, explaining how the experiment design was conducted as well as a discussion and implications of the results. The thesis ends with limitations and recommendations for a future research.
7 I. Literature review
Every brand aims at higher purchase intention rates. Marketers are trying to increase brand attitude because this is one of the antecedents forming consumer behaviour, the choice for a brand, or in other words, purchase intention (Spears & Singh, 2004). There are several ways in which the brand attitude can be formed. One of them is establishing strong, favourable, and unique associations in the consumer’s mind (Kevin Lane Keller, 1993). These associations can be formed through different marketing activities and communications (Kevin Lane Keller, 2016).
With the emergence of digitalization, digital and online marketing have become an essential and integral part of almost every communication program (Kevin Lane Keller, 2016). Therefore, the focus of this research is online video advertising because, as mentioned previously, this advertising format is more preferable and influencing compared to traditional media according to Millennials (O'Neil-Hart & Blumenstein, 2016). In-stream video advertising is similar to the traditional TV advertising but instead of exposing advertisements during the TV break, they are showed before, during, or after an online video. In-stream videos differ not only in placement, but also in length and user control function. Online video ads can be 5, 15, and 30 sec. format and some of them can be skipped after 5 seconds exposure. The skipping option is mostly preferable and used when consumers want to avoid the advertisement (YouTube, 2018b). C. Campbell, Mattison Thompson, Grimm, and Robson (2017) examined the ad skipping option arguing that it is directly related to consumers’ irritation. In other words, if consumers don’t feel irritated, they would not skip the ad. Thus, unskippable ads are perceived as more irritating because consumers cannot avoid the ad and are forced to watch the whole ad if they want to continue with the video content. However, with or without the skipping option, online video advertisements could be very irritating to some consumers and
8 although they lead to increased brand awareness (Gunawan, 2015), they also lead to negative perception of the ad and hence, to lower brand attitude (Dehghani et al., 2016).
1. Irritation effects
Ad intrusiveness is defined as “the degree to which advertisements in a media vehicle interrupt the flow of an editorial unit”, simply meaning that consumers’ interruption leads to ad intrusiveness (Ha, 1996). It is more likely to develop these feelings when engaging in online content because consumers are perceived to be more task-oriented when using Internet (Hairong Li et al., 2002). Goal interruption is found to be the most affective factor of ad intrusiveness in social media platforms. Although some ads may be seen as intrusive on the basis of execution, placement and content, consumers first evaluate the level of interruption (Hao Li & Lo, 2015). Studies showed that intrusiveness is directly related to feelings of irritation, which may affect the cognitive processing of the ad (Hairong Li et al., 2002; McCoy et al., 2008). Moreover, ad irritation may develop negative emotions toward the advertised brand. Previous studies examined the effects of ad irritation on the consumer’s perceptions toward the brand and found that irritation leads to negative attitude toward the ad, which on the other hand, has a negative effect toward the brand image and purchase intention (Chakrabarty & Yelkur, 2005; Dehghani et al., 2016; Hairong Li et al., 2002; McCoy et al., 2008). Dehghani et al. (2016) found that ad irritation is the strongest negative driver of ad attitude. Therefore, to achieve high-effective communication, managers should decrease the feelings of irritation.
After understanding the effects of irritation which appear from online video advertising, it is important to know when and under what conditions is the advertisement perceived as more irritating. This aids in the search for knowledge on how to control it. C. Campbell et al. (2017) found support of what makes consumers skipping ads, or in other words, what makes an online advertisement irritating when it comes to pre-roll ads. The results showed that longer ads and
9 those with specific ad and attention-getting characteristics increase skipping and hence, consumers’ irritation. This is mostly because with the help of these characteristics consumers realize that are exposed to an advertisement when they expect to see the desired video. Irritation could also differ in terms of the ad placement.
2. Ad placement
As mentioned before, online video ads can be placed in the beginning, middle or the end of a video. When watching a video, the consumer has different levels of attention paying depending on whether the video has not yet begun, is in the middle, or has ended. These different levels of anticipation and attention influence the intrusiveness of the unexpected ad. When consumers are on the middle of the video, it is perceived that they are paying the highest level of attention and because of this, mid-roll ads may lead to the highest level of intrusiveness and irritation. On the other hand, when the video is over and a post-roll ad appears, consumers may be less irritated by it because the ad does not interrupt anything and they have a choice whether to watch the video ad or not (Hao Li & Lo, 2015; Moorman, Neijens, & Smit, 2002). Although mid-roll ads may lead to higher irritation levels, they have the highest completion rate, followed by pre-roll ads, because consumers still wait for the rest of the video (Krishnan & Sitaraman, 2013). However, it is argued whether mid-roll ads have the highest level of irritation. On the one hand, consumers may be very irritated because of the interruption of an interesting and intriguing content and as mentioned earlier, interruption is the main factor of ad intrusiveness and irritation. On the other hand, consumers may be more patient toward the mid-roll ad because they are awaiting the rest of the video (Krishnan & Sitaraman, 2013). This however, may also depends on other factors such as ad and video content similarity, user control options, etc. (Hao Li & Lo, 2015), which are not the focus of this study. Hao Li & Lo (2015) examined the different positive effects of the three video ad locations and found that mid-roll ads lead to better brand name recognition because of attention interruption and higher irritation. When the
10 ad’s content is unrelated to the video content, the middle position may be useless. In contrast, in incongruent context post-roll ads may improve brand name recognition. Studies on traditional media also showed that advertisements in the middle of the TV program, in comparison with ads in the beginning or the end of the program, lead to better ad memory again because of the high levels of interruption, which attract more attention (Moorman et al., 2002). These findings are in line with a research on online advertising which showed that pop-up ads lead to better brand recall than banner ads because of the higher level of consumer’s attention (Chatterjee, 2008). Although higher levels of attention generate better brand memory and brand recall, this attention comes from the high levels of interruption. As already defined, consumer’s interruption leads to higher levels of intrusiveness and irritation, leading to negative perceptions toward the ad and the brand and to lower levels of purchase intention. In conclusion, pre-roll ads are the most common and used format, mid-roll ads have the highest completion rate but may lead to highest level of irritation and thus to negative perceptions toward the brand, and post-roll ads have the lowest level of completion because viewers are less motivated to watch them, but may be less intrusive, not harming the brand.
3. Brand familiarity
From the previous discussion, it becomes clear that online video advertising can be irritating and this may lead to the formation of a negative attitude toward the brand. This, however, is not always the case. Sometimes consumers do not perceive ads as irritating not only because they don’t interrupt their attention or don’t have ad specific characteristics (C. Campbell et al., 2017), but because consumers have already formed strong brand attitude and it cannot be changed so easily (Machleit & Wilson, 1988). Hence, brand familiarity plays an important role in the level of irritation an advertisement may lead to.
Findings showed that a consumer’s processing of an advertisement on the Internet is highly influenced by brand familiarity, meaning that the ad can be perceived differently depending on
11 whether consumers know the advertised brand and have prior experience with it or not (Cho, 1999; Dahlén, 2001; Dens & De Pelsmacker, 2010). Well-known brands with a great awareness have already built a consumer base and because of previous communication and marketing activities, consumers have already formed an attitude towards those brands. Unknown brands, on the other hand, are completely unknown to the public and every exposure is playing a big role in forming a ground attitude (Machleit & Wilson, 1988). Brand attitude is formed on the basis of every exposure of the brand and the experiences consumers have with it. Zajonc and Markus (1982) explained that repeated brand exposure affects attitude formation and change. It is easier to form brand attitude in the earlier stages of brand communication and exposure before the nodes and links in the consumers’ minds start to activate rather than to change an already formed attitude toward a brand. That is why, rebranding and repositioning is often a hard mission for marketers because consumers can’t change their associations with the brand very easily (Machleit & Wilson, 1988). Therefore, when it comes to unknown brands, the first exposure to the brand may have a higher effect on the brand attitude. In terms of ad irritation, unknown brands may be more affected than well-known brands because of the lack of established associations and attiude in comparisson with the well-known brands. In the online media content, a study on pre-roll video ads assumed that when the video ad content is about a well-known brand, consumers may not be much irritated because of a previous formed attitude toward the brand. This means that ad irritation of a well-known/familiar brand may not actually harm the brand attitude and influence the purchase intention. However, this is not yet examined in the online context, so further conclusions cannot be made (Kusse, 2013).
4. Brand attitude
The correlation of different ad positions in an online video context to the perceived consumers’ irritation and the brand familiarity criterion are discussed and examined, because, as mentioned before, they affect brand attitude.
12 Attitude towards the brand is defined as “a relatively enduring, unidimensional summary evaluation of the brand that presumably energizes behaviour” (Machleit, Allen, & Madden, 1993; Spears & Singh, 2004), which is often associated with the degree of likeability and preference of the consumers toward a specific brand (Nguyen, Melewar, & Chen, 2013). As noted before, brand attitude is formed through establishing strong, favourable and unique associations, built and managed through different marketing programs (Kevin Lane Keller, 1993, 2016). Examples of associations can be “thoughts, feelings, perceptions, beliefs, images, attitudes, experiences and behaviours” (Kevin L Keller, 2005). A study on the relationship between both attitude toward the ad and toward the brand and their effect on purchase intention indicated that brand attitude is affected by two significant factors: ad attitude and prior experience toward the brand (Machleit & Wilson, 1988). As mentioned previously, this effect between both ad- and brand attitude is found to be stronger when it comes to unknown brands because the exposed advertisement is the only source of association with the brand. In contrast, when consumers have prior experience with the brand, they have already developed a brand attitude and after the ad exposure, the attitude toward the brand is not changed (Machleit & Wilson, 1988).
Brand attitude is found to be one of the factors affecting customer-based brand equity, which on the other hand affects consumer behaviour, i.e. purchase intention (Kevin Lane Keller, 1993). The relationship between brand attitude and purchase intention was a focus of many studies (e.g., Bagozzi, 1981; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1980; Laroche, Kim, & Zhou, 1996). Purchase intention is defined as “an individual‘s conscious plan to make an effort to purchase a brand” (Spears & Singh, 2004). In their study, Spears and Singh (2004) found that brand attitude and purchase intention are correlated, meaning that consumers are not willing to buy a brand if they have a negative attitude toward it and vice versa, they are willing to make a purchase if they like the brand and have a positive experience with it. This positive relationship between brand
13 attitude and purchase intention is also confirmed by other studies in the online context (e.g., Huang, Su, Zhou, & Liu, 2013; Karson & Fisher, 2005).
There are several gaps in previous literature that are interesting for further examination. Firstly, there is a clear connection between consumer’s irritation toward an advertisement and the followed attitude toward the advertised brand. However, the literature still lacks an understanding of the difference in the level of irritation between the various online video ad locations - in the beginning, middle and at the end of the video. Therefore, the study aims at revealing whether the level of irritation differs when the advertisement is shown in different positions in the online video. Secondly, after examining if there is a difference in ad irritation with the different location formats and knowing that there is an effect between ad irritation and brand attitude, it is essential to see whether this effect differs in strength with the different ad location formats. Thirdly, previous literature has not examined the effects of ad irritation on perceptions toward the brand in terms of brand familiarity when it comes to digital media. Brand familiarity may play an important role in consumer’s minds when perceiving an advertisement as irritating because of the already established or the lack of attitude toward the advertised brand. Having these gaps in mind, the study aims at revealing how the level of consumer’s irritation differs in terms of ad placement and brand familiarity and what its effect on brand attitude is.
Based on the previous findings and the addressed gap in the literature, the following research question is proposed.
What is the consumer’s irritation effect of pre-roll, mid-roll, and post-roll online video ads on brand attitude depending on brand familiarity?
14 Sub-questions:
1. Is there a difference in the level of irritation of the different online video ads locations (pre-roll, mid-roll, and post-roll)?
2. Do the different OVA locations affect brand attitude differently?
3. How does ad irritation affect the perception of the brand in terms of well-known vs. unknown brand?
15 II. Theoretical framework
The following conceptual model is suggested (Figure 1), showing the three hypotheses, starting with the effect of different ad positions (pre-roll, mid-roll, and post-roll) and their effect on consumer’s irritation, followed by brand attitude as a dependant variable. Brand familiarity is included as a moderator, influencing the level of irritation that the advertisement causes.
Figure 1: Conceptual model
1. Irritation
In the online context, consumers are much more goal-oriented and hence, the perceived goal impediment is one of the strongest factors influencing consumers’ irritation online (Hao Li & Lo, 2015). In contrast with TV advertising where viewers expect the program breaks, when watching an online video, the appeared and unexpected advertising can come as an unpleasant surprise, which can lead to negative feelings. These negative feelings are directly related with feelings of irritation when the content of the video is appealing and interesting to the consumer (Nelson & Meyvis, 2008). As mentioned previously, in-stream videos differ in terms of their position in the online video – before, in the middle, or after the video.
16 When the video begins, viewers pay more attention as the video progresses until at a given point, the attention reaches a peak and then decreases with the ending of the video. Thus, consumers are more engaged with the video content in the middle of the video in comparison with the beginning or the end (Nelson & Meyvis, 2008). The middle position is perceived to elicit the highest levels of irritation because the highest level of attention is related to a higher goal interruption, which leads to negative feelings (Hao Li & Lo, 2015). Previous studies also found that mid-roll ads lead to greater brand recognition again because of the highest goal impediment (Cho & as-, 2004; Ritter & Cho, 2009; Speck & Elliott, 1997). Pre-roll ads are also perceived as irritating because they appear exactly when the consumer awaits the video to begin but are less irritating than mid-roll ads because the interruption is higher when the video has already began. Conversely, post-roll ads can be seen as the least irritating format because consumers already know that the video has ended, and they have the option to close the video or to watch the ad. Thus, they are perceived as less irritating than both pre-roll and mid-roll ads (Hao Li & Lo, 2015; Moorman et al., 2002). Based on this analysis, it is suggested that the most irritating format are mid-roll ads, followed by pre-roll ads and post-roll ads as the least irritating one. The following hypothesis is suggested.
H1: Online video ads lead to consumer’s irritation.
H1a: Pre-roll ads are less irritating than mid-roll ads and more irritating than post-roll ads. H1b: Mid-roll ads lead to the highest level of irritation.
H1c: Post-roll ads lead to the lowest level of irritation.
2. Brand familiarity
Brand familiarity is one of the factors affecting ad irritation and attitude toward the brand. However, it has not been studied in terms of online media. Previous researches on the effect of ad attitude and brand attitude on brand familiarity for traditional media showed that when the brand is unfamiliar to consumers, the ad is the only source of information forming the attitude
17 toward the brand (M. C. Campbell & Keller, 2003; Machleit & Wilson, 1988). This suggests that unknown brands are more likely to generate emotional feelings, e.g. feelings of irritation, than well-known brands with an already formed attitude. Machleit & Wilson (1988) also found that ad attitude has a significant effect on brand attitude but only when it comes to unknown brands. So, even if the advertisement is perceived as irritating, the brand attitude would not be/slightly changed. This is because consumers have formed a specific attitude toward the brand due to the brand’s numerious exposures during a specific period of time. These exposures include the point of purchase, TV advertismenets, branding, direct experience, and many more. These constantly repeated expereinces with the brand form strong nodes and associations in the consumers’ minds which can be hardly disrupted. So, even if the ad is irritating itself for an independent first-time viewer, the ad will not be perceived as irritating seen from the perspective of an already experienced with the brand consumer (Kevin Lane Keller, 1993, 2016). A study on brand attiudes towards well-known and unknown brands placed on movies also suggested that when the brand is not familiar and consumers don’t have prior experience and attitude towards it, they are more likely to develop positive or/and negative associations related to the placed (advertised) brand (Verhellen, Dens, & De Pelsmacker, 2016). On the grounds of these findings for traditional media, the following hypothesis is proposed.
H2: The level of irritation is dependent on brand familiarity
H2a: Ad of a well-known brand leads to lower levels of irritation than ad of an unknown brand. H2b: Mid-roll ad of an unknown brand leads to the highest level of irritation.
18 3. Effects of ad irritation on brand attitude
Previous research indicated that brand attitude is mostly influenced by the likeability of the advertisement, referred as ad attitude, so there is a positive relationship between ad attitude and brand attitude. Studies found that an unpleasant advertisement is much more likely to negatively influence the overall attitude toward the brand and thus to decrease the intent of future purchases (Laczniak & Carlson, 1989; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). Aaker and Bruzzone (1985) defined irritating advertisements as “one that is provoking, causing displeasure and momentary impatience”. Irritation is perceived to be a specific feeling to an object directly related with the attitude toward it. Therefore, irritating ads can cause negative reactions toward the brand because of these emerged feelings (Chakrabarty & Yelkur, 2005). Dehghani et al. (2016) found that from the four factors affecting attitude towards the ad (informativeness, entertainment, customization, and irritation) only irritation leads to a negative outcome. So, ad attitude and brand attitude are correlated, and ad attitude is influenced by irritation. Hence, it is suggested that the higher the level of irritation is, the lower is the brand attitude toward the advertisement. Having in mind the expected moderating effect of brand familiarity and the irritation effects of the different ad positions, this study tries to combine different ad location formats with brand familiarity. It is proposed that mid-roll ads of an unknown brand will lead to the highest levels of irritation and vice versa, post-roll ads of a well-known brand will lead to the least irritating ones.
H3: Irritation has a negative effect on brand attitude. The higher the irritation, the lower the brand attitude toward the advertised brand.
H3a: Attitude toward a brand is the highest when it is shown in a post-roll ad because of the lowest level of irritation.
H3b: Attitude toward a brand is the lowest when it is shown in a mid-roll ad because of the highest level of irritation.
19 H3c: Attitude toward a well-known brand is higher than toward an unknown brand.
H3d: Attitude toward a well-known brand shown in a post-roll ad has the lowest level of change.
H3e: Attitude toward an unknown brand shown in a mid-roll ad will be the highest level of change.
20 III. Method
For an accurate answer and analysis of the research question “What is the consumer’s irritation effect of pre-roll, mid-roll, and post-roll online video ads on brand attitude depending on brand familiarity?” a quantitative method was used since all variables could be measured. More specifically, a true experiment was designed, because this is the best way of establishing casual relationships and manipulating the independent variables (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). The participants were randomly assigned to conditions in a 3 (placement: pre-roll; mid-roll; post-roll) by 2 (brand familiarity: well-known brand; unknown brand) between-subjects design. In order to have access to more respondents, an online experiment was designed and distributed across various social media platforms. Participants were assured that the participation is anonymous and voluntary. They were not told that they will see and advertisement, in order to eliminate the anticipation effect and to be as close to a real-life situation as possible.
In order to see the change in brand attitude, if such exists, toward the both well-known and unknown brands, before watching the video participants had to answer several questions to determine their preliminary brand attitude before the ad exposure, which was compared with the brand attitude after the ad exposure.
1. Sample
According to comScore’s insights on online videos, adults prefer online video platforms to traditional TV channels. Among all generations, Millennials are with the largest percentage of preference, leading to 105% more usage of online platforms than TV (O'Neil-Hart & Blumenstein, 2016). Millennials are characterized as the first “always-connected” generation, introducing new trends and forcing the world to become more digital (Bull, 2010). Hence, in terms of sampling, Millennials (age 18 to 35) were targeted as respondents because this
21 demographic group spends more time in online media and is exposed to more online advertisements (O'Neil-Hart & Blumenstein, 2016). The study aims at exploring the differences in consumers’ perceptions in terms of brand familiarity, so to measure this, conditions vary in terms of advertisement of a well-known brand as well as of an unknown brand.
The participants were reached through social media platforms like Facebook and other communication platforms. For that reason, a convenience sampling together with snowball sampling were used to have a wider reach of respondents. The online experiment was designed in six different conditions in ‘Qualtrics’.
2. Procedure
After deciding to participate in the online survey, respondents could click to a link forwarding them to the online experiment in Qualtrics website. Afterwards, they were exposed to a text saying that this survey is part of a master thesis at University of Amsterdam assuring that participation is anonymous and voluntary. The experiment was divided into six conditions depending on the brand familiarity status (well-known; unknown) and ad placement (pre-roll, mid-roll, post-roll). Respondents exposed to the three conditions with the well-known brand were explained that the experiment consists of two parts. The first part aimed at revealing their personal preferences of several brands. It was explained that in the second part, they will see a video, after which they will answer few questions that are testing their memory. In the other three conditions with the unknown brand, respondents were part only of the second part of the experiment.
The first part of the experiment was designed to measure the preliminary attitude of the afterwards advertised brand in order to see the difference in brand attitude before and after the ad exposure. This part was only targeted at participants in the well-known brand conditions,
22 because in the case of an unknown brand, consumers don’t have a prior experience with the brand and hence the previously formed attitude is absent.
The second part of the experiment was targeted at all conditions. It began with showing a short video of around 4 minutes. The participants were assigned to one of six conditions – pre-roll ad of a well-known brand, mid-roll ad of a well-known brand, post-roll ad of a well-known brand, pre-roll ad of an unknown brand, mid-roll ad of an unknown brand, and post-roll ad of an unknown brand. After the video, they were forwarded to an online questionnaire, measuring brand familiarity, ad irritation, and brand attitude.
As mentioned earlier, consumers are much more concentrated and task-oriented when watching a video online rather than watching a TV (Hairong Li et al., 2002). In order to ensure a concentrated watching, when reading the terms and conditions of the experiment, the respondents were told that the video that they will watch is about to test their memory. Thus, they could be more into the story, re-creating a real-life situation. It is also relevant not to tell respondents what the actual purpose of the experiment is to eliminate the Hawthorne effect, which is the observation of a change in the response after the awareness of being tested (Adair, 1984). The video that was shown is a 4 min part of the American TV show “The Ellen DeGeneres Show”. Ellen DeGeneres is an American comedian but also well-known outside the U.S. Her show is in the top 20 most subscribed channels in YouTube with more than 23 million subscribers from all over the world (VidStatsX, 2017). The video content was about a game that is played by Ellen (the host) and Ted Danson (a guest). The game is about one player telling a story and the other one guessing whether the story is true or fake. In this particular episode, the guest Ted Danson has to tell three stories about whether elephants can swim, the mating habits of American bold eagle, and the origin of avocado. Afterwards, Ellen (the host) should decide whether the story is true or made up by Ted. This video is suitable for the purpose of this study, because it has an entertainment notion and it is easy to remember. The memory
23 testing questions after the video were exactly the same as those answered from Ellen in the video – “Are the stories real or made up?”, so respondents wouldn’t have a problem with recalling the answers.
During the video the participants were exposed to a non-skippable video ad with a duration of about 15 sec. This ad format is mostly used because the advertiser pays per click, which means that if a consumer doesn’t click on the advertisement, the advertiser won’t pay for the service. This format is also preferred because it generates higher revenue than other online video formats as well as higher abandonment rate because the ad cannot be skipped (YouTube, 2018a). For measuring the effect of brand familiarity as an independent variable, two different advertisements were shown as the one being of a well-known brand and the other of an unknown brand. Each of those were shown either at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of the video without having a skippable option. The two advertisements were for soft drinks as this category includes consumer goods, which participants could consider purchasing. This study examines brand attitude as dependent variable, which is an antecedent of purchase intention, so that is why this criterion was taken into consideration. The well-known soft drink was ‘Coca-Cola’ since this brand is widely familiar (TenetPartners & CoreBrand, 2017). The advertisement was part of the ‘Coca Cola Zero’ 2018 campaign. The unknown brand to the targeted group (Europeans) was chosen to be part of ‘Bickford's drinks’, which is an Australian
brand, not currently exporting to Europe ("Bickford’s Group,"). Both advertisements were similar in product category and execution, so there were fewer factors influencing the participants’ response.
3. Manipulation check
For the purpose of limiting variations in the results of the experiment, the manipulation check included additional questions after the video exposure and the story related questions. First, the participants were asked whether they have noticed an advertisement and if the answer was
24 negative, they had to end the questionnaire since they were not a subject of the experiment anymore. The second manipulation question was exposed right after the first one and it eliminated respondents who are not 100% unfamiliar with the unknown brand ‘Bickford’s drinks’.
4. Measures
The experiment included validated measurement scales of ad irritation, brand familiarity, and brand attitude.
Ad irritation was measured by five 7-point Likert items adapted by Hairong Li et al. (2002). Respondents had to complete the statement according to their opinion: “When the ad was shown, I thought it was ...”, assessing the five items irritating, phony, ridiculous, stupid and terrible to a scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree).
Brand familiarity was measured by using a 7-point Likert scale to establish whether participants know the advertised brand or not (0 = Didn’t know at all; 1 = Strongly unfamiliar to 6 = Strongly familiar). They had to answer the question: “Were you familiar with the brand Bickford's before the advertisement?”. After the manipulation check, only the respondents who marked the answer ‘Didn’t know at all’ were considered as valid.
Brand attitude prior and after ad exposure was measured by using a five-item 7-point semantic differential scale developed by Spears and Singh (2004). The statements ´Please describe you overall feelings about the advertised brand.” was shown to respondent to assess their feeling according to the five items - ‘Unappealing/appealing, bad/good, unpleasant/pleasant, unfavourable/favourable and unlikeable/likeable’.
25 IV. Analysis
The collected data with Qualtrics was transferred for analysis into SPSS Statistics software. After the document with the responses was transferred, some of the data was deleted due to manipulation check. Overall 69 responses were excluded from the data, since they didn’t match the manipulation criteria. In order for a response to be valid, the respondent must have watched the whole video, be aged between 18 and 36 years, and be totally unfamiliar with the brand Bickford’s (Familiarity = 0 – Didn’t know at all), if assigned to the unknown brand conditions. After cleaning the data (n = 194) and before starting testing the hypotheses, several analyses were conducted such as reliability and correlation analysis to see the strength of the relationships between different variables.
According to the reliability analysis, the irritation scale has high reliability, with Cronbach’s Alpha = .896. The corrected item-total correlations indicate that all the items have a good correlation with the total score of the scale (all above .30). Also, none of the items would substantially affect reliability if they were deleted.
The brand attitude scale also has high reliability, with Cronbach’s Alpha = .966. All items have a good correlation with all above .30 and also none of the items would have had an impact on the reliability if they were removed.
The correlation analysis (Table 1), including means, standard deviations and reliability, showed that there is a significant effect of the relationship between ad irritation, brand familiarity and ad attitude.
Table 1: Means, Standard deviations, Correlations
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 1. Gender 1.61 0.49 - 2. Age 2.23 0.42 -0.13 - 3. Irritation 3.81 1.52 -0.02 0.00 (-0.89) 4. Brand familiarity 1.50 0.50 -0.05 -0.07 0.23** - 5. Brand attitude 4.33 1.62 0.13 -0.10 -0.45*** -0.37*** (-0.96) Note 1: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05
26 V. Result section
In this section, the three main hypotheses with the sub-hypotheses are tested and discussed. Each hypothesis is discussed on the basis of the results of a specific analysis in SPSS. Moreover, at the end of each paragraph there is an overview of hypotheses as well as whether it’s supported, not supported, or rejected. At the end of the section, there is graph table with the outcome of the results.
1. Effect on irritation (H1, H1a, H1b, H1c)
Firstly, ANOVA analysis was conducted, which revealed that there is a statistically significant effect of the different levels of irritation F (2, 191) = 3.63, p < 0.05.
In order to test the first hypothesis, which states that online video ads in general lead to consumer’s irritation, a one-sample t-test was conducted. This test is appropriate for checking whether online video ads are irritating because it can be easily seen whether the participant scored more than the test value of four, which is the neutral response. In general, participants didn’t perceive online video ads as irritating taking into consideration the analyses of their responses (M = 3.81; SD = 1.52); t = -1.73; p = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.03]. Therefore, H1 is rejected.
H1a, H1b and H1c propose a classification of the three types of ad location formats in terms of consumer’s irritation. H1a suggests two things – 1) pre-roll ads are less irritating than mid-roll ads and 2) pre-roll ads are less irritating than posroll ads. In order to analyse this outcome, t-tests for the three different ad groups are compared: pre-roll, mid-roll, and post-roll. Since the conditions of the experiment were randomly distributed, the three ad location groups have unequal sample size. In order to be sure that homogeneity of variances in the three different ad location groups is met, a Levene’s test is conducted. F = 0.55; p = 0.58, which means that there is no homogeneity between the different conditions of ad locations. To test the differences in
27 the irritation levels for the three ad location groups (pre-roll, id-roll, and post-roll), one-way ANOVA analysis was conducted. H1a states that pre-roll ads lead to higher irritation levels (M = 3.78; SD = 1.60) than post-roll ads (M = 3.43; SD=1.43) and lower irritation levels than mid-roll ads (M = 4.15; SD = 1.46). For both well-known and unknown groups taken together, this is true but not statistically significant. Both differences between the irritation levels of pre-roll & post-roll (p = 0.4) and pre-roll & mid-roll (p = 0.33) are not statistically significant. Therefore, H1a is not supported. H1b states that mid-roll ads lead to the highest irritation level (M = 4.15; SD = 1.46) higher than both pre-roll and post-roll ads (M = 3.43; SD = 1.43); p = 0.02; 95% CI [0.09, 1.36]. As in the previous hypothesis (H1a), the difference in the irritation level of the pre-roll and mid-roll ads is not significant, but the results showed that mid-roll ads are significantly more irritating than post-roll ads. Therefore, H1b is only partly supported. H1c is also only partly supported since the respondents’ results classified post-roll ads with the least irritation levels with very low significance level compared to pre-roll ads but with higher significance level compared to mid-roll ads.
It was suggested that, in general, online video advertisements do lead to consumer’s irritation. After the analysis, the results showed that this is not true for every advertisement and it cannot be concluded that the ads lead to consumer’s irritation. However, mid-roll ads are perceived as a bit more irritating, followed by pre-roll and post-roll ads but the results don’t show the required level of significance. So H1 is rejected, H1a is not supported, and H1b and H1c are partly supported.
In conclusion, the result showed that mid-roll ads are more irritating than post-roll ads. The classification of the different ad locations is represented in the following figure:
28 Figure 2: The effect of different ad locations on consumer’s irritation
2. Irritation dependence on brand familiarity (H2, H2a, H2b, H2c)
Factorial ANOVA analysis was used, in order to test the effects between different ad location groups, brand familiarity and consumer’s irritation as well as the interaction between the two independent variables on the consumer’s irritation.
Table 2: ANOVA analysis for ad locations, brand familiarity, and consumer’s irritation
SS DF MS F ƞ² Sig. Ad location 16.82 2 8.41 3.89 0.04 0.02 Brand familiarity 23.66 1 23.66 10.94 0.055 0.001 Ad location* Brand familiarity 1.85 2 0.93 0.43 0.005 0.65 Error 406.55 188 2.16 Total 3266.04 194
Significant at the p<.05 level
From the information from the table above (Table 3) it can be seen that there was a significant main effect of Ad location on the levels of consumer’s Irritation, F(2, 188) = 3.89, p < .05, ƞ² = .04. The Tukey post-hoc tests revealed that consumer’s irritation is significant only between mid-roll ads when compared with post-roll ads (p = .02) as discussed in the previous paragraph. In order to see whether there is a homogeneity between the two brand familiarity conditions,
29 Levene’s test was conducted F = 5.63; p = 0.019. There was also a significant main effect of brand familiarity on the levels of consumer’s irritation F(1, 188) = 10.94, p < .05, ƞ² = .055 leading to the result that the level of irritation of an unknown brand (M = 4.15; SD = 1.33) is higher than the irritation of a well-known brand (M = 3.47; SD = 1.63); t = -3.21; p = 0.02; 95% CI [-1.11, -0.27]. This means that there is a direct effect between the moderator brand familiarity and the dependent variable irritation. There was a non-significant interaction effect between different ad locations and brand familiarity on the perceived consumer’s irritation F(2, 188) = 0.43, p = .65, ƞ² = .005. According to the results, H2 is not supported and H2a is supported.
Since brand familiarity is assumed to influence consumer’s irritation, H2b suggests that mid-roll ad of an unknown brand will lead to the highest level of irritation. This is assumed on the basis of H1a (Mid-roll ads lead to the highest level of irritation) and H2a (Ad of a well-known brand leads to lower levels of irritation than ad of an unknown brand.). The difference between the conditions is significant only between unknown mid-roll ad (M = 4.36; SD = 1.43) and well-known post-roll ad (M = 3.00; SD = 1.59); p = 0.005; 95% CI [-2.43, -0.28] and between unknown pre-roll ad (M = 4.23; SD = 1.34) and well-known post-roll ad (M = 3.00; SD = 1.59); p = 0.02; 95% CI [0.12, 2.33]. H2b states that mid-roll ad of an unknown brand leads to the highest level of irritation, which means that the irritation level must be higher than the level of the other conditions. The difference between the irritation level of all six conditions is not statistically significant, so H2b is not supported. Similarly, H2c states that post-roll ad of a well-known brand leads to the lowest level of irritation, meaning that the difference in the irritation level between all the conditions must be statistically significant but the results showed that it is not. Therefore, H2c is also not supported. The results are illustrated in the figure below (Figure 3).
30 Figure 3: The effect of ad locations and brand familiarity on consumer’s irritation
3. Irritation effect on brand attitude (H3, H3a, H3b, H3c, H3d, H3e)
To find the relationship between consumer’s irritation and perceived brand attitude, and OLS regression analysis was conducted. From the analysis, it can be seen that there is a negative relationship between the two variables since in every 1 point increase in the level of irritation results in a -0.483 decrease in the brand attitude scale. There is a significant relationship between irritation and brand attitude p = .000, so the null hypothesis that there is no relationship can be rejected. The y-intercept is 6.166 meaning that when irritation is 0, brand attitude is predicted to be 6.166. Irritation explains 20.6% of the variation in brand attitude (R² = 0.206). The level of irritation, b* = -0.454, t = -7.056, p < 0.00, 95% CI [-0.618, -0.348], has a significant impact on brand attitude. Therefore, H3 is supported.
H3a and H3b concern the degree of brand attitude after the shown advertisement in terms of the three types of ad location (pre-roll, mid-roll, and post-roll). H3a suggests that since there is
31 a negative relationship between irritation and brand attitude and post-roll ads are perceived as less irritating, they will have the highest degree of brand attitude among the three ad locations. Similarly, H3b suggests that mid-roll ads will have the lowest level of brand attitude. ANOVA analysis was conducted to compare the three ad location conditions. There is no significant difference between the three groups p = 0.813. However, post-roll ads (M = 4.41; SD = 1.52) show higher brand attitude than both pre-roll ads (M = 4.23; SD = 1.69) and mid-roll ads (M = 4.35; SD = 1.65) but this cannot be supported statistically in this case. Therefore, H3a is not supported and H3b is rejected since mid-roll ads don’t show the lowest level of brand attitude.
H3c states that attitude toward a well-known brand is higher than toward an unknown brand. In order to compare the two groups (well-known brand and unknown brand), an independent t-test was conducted. The attitude toward the well-known brand (M = 4.93; SD = 1.67) is significantly higher that the attitude toward the unknown brand (M = 3.72; SD = 1.33); t(192) = 5.57; p < 0.001; 95% CI [0.78, 1.63]. Accordingly, H3c is supported.
H3d and H3e are related with the change of the level of brand attitude. In order to proof that, first, it should be true that there is a change in the attitude toward the brand before and after the ad exposure. Since it is perceived that consumers cannot have attitude toward a brand which they don’t know, the change between prior brand attitude and after the ad attitude is calculated only for the well-known brand conditions. Since the prior brand attitude of an unknown brand is non-existent, it is perceived to be 4 (neutral). The independent t-test showed that the prior attitude toward the well-known brand (Coca-Cola) is overall positive (M = 5.18; SD = 1.59); t = 7.31; p < 0.001; 95% CI [0.86, 1.5] and after the advertisement the attitude remains positive (M = 4.93; SD = 1.67); t = 5.49; p < 0.001; 95% CI [0.59, 1.27]. Although the results show a negative change, it is not statistically significant p = 0.143, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.09]. H3d assumes that the change between attitudes before and after the ad exposure is the lowest in the post-roll ad condition. According to the respondents, their attitude changed with the lowest value in the
32 pre-roll ad condition instead of the post-roll ad condition. There is not a significant difference of the attitude change in different ad location conditions, F (5, 188) = 0.98, p = 0.41. Similarly to H3d, H3e suggests that attitude toward an unknown brand shown in a mid-roll ad has the highest level of change (M = 0.62; SD = 1.28). The results show that the change of brand attitude is higher in the pre-roll ad of an unknown brand condition (M = 0.14; SD = 1.38). However, the difference is not significant. Therefore, H3d and H3e are rejected. The impact of ad location on brand attitude under the influence of brand familiarity is illustrated in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Impact of ad location on brand attitude before and after ad exposure under the influence of brand familiarity
To give a brief outline of the results, after the analyses it is assumed that online video ads are not perceived as irritating. However, the difference in irritation between the ad location groups is not significant, so it cannot be assumed which type of ads are perceived as more or less irritating than others. Brand familiarity plays an important role in forming consumer’s irritation towards the ad and the results confirm that the ad of an unknown brand is perceived as more
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
pre-roll ad mid-roll ad post-roll ad
Impact of ad location on brand attitude before and after ad exposure under the influence of
brand familiarity
well-known brand after ad exposure unknown brand after ad exposure well-known brand before ad exposure unknown brand before ad exposure
33 irritating than the ad of a well-known brand and there is a significant difference between the most irritating format (mid roll ad of an unknown brand) and the least irritating format (post-roll ad of a well-known brand). Moreover, the negative effect of consumer’s irritation on brand attitude is confirmed. However, is was assumed that the higher the irritation is, the lower is the brand attitude toward the advertised brand. This assumption is rejected because, although the negative effect, it is not a mirror effect in terms of different ad groups. However, it is true that after the preliminary formed attitude of a well-known brand, unfamiliar brands have lower brand attitude. It was also assumed that the post-roll unknown ad will have the lowest level of change in comparison with the highest level which is mid-roll well-known brand. This assumption is rejected partly because the ad location effect on irritation was not supported either. All results are illustrated in Figure 5 and in the Appendix A.
34 VI. Discussion
In the age of digitalization not only consumers are shifting online, but also businesses. Although TV is still the most consumed media, its utilization decreases every year in comparison to online media. Video on-demand services appeal mostly to younger customers (18 – 36 years) who are difficult to be reached through traditional marketing (TV, prints, OOH) since they spend significantly more time online (O'Neil-Hart & Blumenstein, 2016). Therefore, with this overflow of advertisements and information, marketers are also shifting online through higher investments in online marketing. This phenomenon could be specifically observed through advertisements in social media in the forms of banners and online videos. In-stream video ads are a type of ads similar to the commercial TV ads but in the online media such as YouTube, Facebook and other content platforms. They differ in terms of ad position, depending on where the ad appears in the online video, ad length, and ad skippability (YouTube, 2018b).
However, marketers cannot just shift online without taking some factors into consideration. Consumers are much more engaging when it comes to the online content. Therefore, interfering with the consumers’ online tasks can lead to negative perception of the advertisements and hence, to negative perception of the advertised brand (Hao Li & Lo, 2015). Similarly to TV breaks, online videos also consist of at least one advertisement. Unlike TV breaks when consumers already expect that they will be exposed to a set of advertisements every 15 or 30 minutes, they are probably still not used to in-stream ads, which come as a shock and an unpleasant surprise, due to the fact that in-stream advertisements exist only for the last few years. When expecting something to happen, even an unpleasant thing, people are mentally preparing and adjusting to the situation without any hard feelings. In contrast, when watching an interesting online video and an unexpected ad appears, negative feelings may occur. These negative feelings are mostly related to consumer’s irritation of the ad (Dehghani et al., 2016).
35 Once consumers are irritated by an advertisement, they may develop a negative attitude toward the advertised brand, which can lead also to lower purchase intentions (Chakrabarty & Yelkur, 2005; Dehghani et al., 2016; Hairong Li et al., 2002; McCoy et al., 2008). In order to eliminate the levels of irritation, marketers should be aware of all the factors that drive these negative perceptions toward the ad and the brand. Brand familiarity and more specifically, prior formed brand attitude, is one of these factors influencing the irritation levels. The advertisement itself may not lead to negative emotions if consumers have already formed positive attitude toward the brand due to previous experience and exposure. However, if the brand is unknown to the consumers’ and its first exposure is irritating, consumers automatically may transfer the negative feelings of irritation of the ad to the brand, which may lead to negative brand attitude (Cho, 1999; Dahlén, 2001; Dens & De Pelsmacker, 2010; Machleit & Wilson, 1988).
This study examined the three location types of ads (pre-roll, mid-roll, and post-roll) differing in terms of brand familiarity (well-known brand and unknown brand) and how they effect consumers’ irritation and hence, brand attitude. More specifically, the research ought to answer the research question “What is the consumer’s irritation effect of pre-roll, mid-roll, and post-roll online video ads on brand attitude depending on brand familiarity?”.
1. Findings
In order to answer the research question, an online experiment was conducted in 3 (placement: pre-roll; mid-roll; post-roll) by 2 (brand familiarity: well-known brand; unknown brand) between-subjects design. The experiment aimed at revealing whether online video ads lead to consumers’ irritation and more specifically, which of the three ad location formats is more or less irritating than the others. Brand familiarity was also considered as a factor influencing consumer’s irritation. At the end, brand attitude was tested in terms of all six conditions. The experiment was designed to test the preliminary proposed hypotheses, which were developed
36 based on previous literature. Each hypothesis, whether it is supported or rejected, is discussed in the following paragraphs.
Consumers are much more engaging online than in traditional media and the negative effect of goal interruption may lead to high levels of intrusiveness and irritation (Hairong Li et al., 2002). Although previous studies found support that online video ads lead to consumers’ irritation (Hairong Li et al., 2002; McCoy et al., 2008), the results of this research were not replicated. According to the participants of the online experiment, the in-stream video ads were not irritating. There was a little difference between the two types of advertisements. The respondents perceived the ad of Coca-Cola (the well-known brand) as non-irritating and less irritating than the ad of Bickford’s (the unknown brand), which was perceived as a bit irritating. However, it cannot be concluded that, in general, in-stream video ads are irritating. H1a, H1b, and H1c concerned the classification of the different location ad types in terms of irritation levels. It was proposed that mid-roll ads lead to the highest irritation level because the ad appears in the middle of the video when the consumer pays the highest level of attention and thus, the interruption is also the highest. Similarly, post-roll ads were proposed to lead to the lowest level of irritation because the ad appears when the online video is already ended and thus the consumer is not interrupted (Hao Li & Lo, 2015; Moorman et al., 2002). The results confirmed this tendency, however, the analysis didn’t show a statistically significant difference between the three types of ads, so H1a, H1b, and H1c were not supported. H1, H1a, H1b, and H1c showed different results than expected. This may be due to two reasons: sample and type of ads. The sample size wasn’t very big with average 65 respondents per ad location condition. The second and more possible reason is the type of ad. As mentioned before, in-stream video ads differ not only on their position in the video, but also on their length and skippability option (YouTube, 2018b). For the purpose of this research, the ads were chosen to be 15sec., which is a medium length, and non-skippable. There is a possibility that this combination of ad
37 characteristics may not particularly lead to irritation. The content of the ad is also necessary to be taken into consideration. It is also likely that the chosen ads are perceived as amusing and lead to positive emotions, such that the interruption effect is harmless or non-existent.
Previous literature lacks understanding of the impact of brand familiarity on the relationship between ad location and consumers’ irritation. However, it was considered as a factor directly influencing consumers’ irritation in traditional media. When the advertised brand is unfamiliar, the advertisement is the first and only source or brand exposure and thus may lead to higher level of irritation when the ad is shown in the online video context (M. C. Campbell & Keller, 2003; Machleit & Wilson, 1988). The results of the research confirmed the direct effect of brand familiarity to consumer’s irritation, but they didn’t establish a moderation effect between the relationships of different ad locations and irritation. However, since the direct effect is existent, it was confirmed that an ad of an unknown brand is perceived as more irritating than an ad of a well-known brand (H2a). It was also confirmed that mid-roll ad of an unknown brand is perceived as the most irritating one (H2b), and conversely, a post-roll ad of a well-known brand as the least irritating one (H2c).
Brand attitude is formed by every touchpoint consumers have with the brand. In terms of advertising, attitude toward the ad is the most effective antecedent of brand attitude (Laczniak & Carlson, 1989; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989; MacKenzie et al., 1986). Ad attitude, on the other hand, is formed by consumers’ feelings of the ads such as irritation (Dehghani et al., 2016). Therefore, H3 suggests that there is a negative effect of consumer’s irritation on brand attitude. This hypothesis is supported, meaning that lower irritation leads to higher brand attitude and vice versa, higher irritation to lower brand attitude. Since the negative effect between the two variables was recognized, it was expected that brand attitude is the highest when shown is a post-roll ad (H3a) and the lowest when shown in a mid-roll ad (H3b). However, H3a and H3b were not supported due to the fact that these sub-hypotheses are based on H1b (Mid-roll ads
38 lead to the highest level of irritation) and H1c (Post-roll ads lead to the lowest level of irritation) which were also not supported. H3c suggests that attitude toward an unknown brand will be lower than those of a well-known brand. This hypothesis was based on H2, which confirmed that ad of an unknown brand is perceived as more irritating than ad of a well-known brand. As expected, H3c was supported having in mind the difference in the irritation levels between well-known and unknown brand and the confirmed negative effect between irritation and brand attitude. H3d and H3e concern the level in change in brand attitude before and after the ad exposure. In terms of the unknown brand, the preliminary attitude was considered as neutral since the brand was completely unknown. It was suggested that the greatest amount of change will be in the conditional group of ‘mid-roll ad of an unknown brand’ and the smallest amount of change in the group of ‘post-roll ad of a well-known brand’.
39 VII. Implications
The study gives an understanding of the relationship between different ad location types (pre-roll, mid-(pre-roll, and post-roll), brand familiarity, consumers’ irritation and attitude toward the advertised brand. The research tried to extend the literature in terms of the effect of brand familiarity on irritation and brand attitude in terms of online media.
When it comes to practice, the study managed to provide a new perspective on consumer’s irritation toward in-stream ads, leading to a specific level of brand attitude. The results showed that consumers perceive ads more negatively when the advertised brand is unknown to them. Therefore, marketers should be aware that starting their brand awareness campaigns with in-stream videos may lead to developing a negative brand attitude. On the other hand, the attitude toward a well-known brand can be barely changed even after an irritating ad, meaning that brands can freely be advertised in social media platforms without worrying about forming a negative brand attitude. In terms of unknown brands, the post-roll position is the least harmful one, but as mentioned previously, the difference between ad locations wasn’t significant enough, so marketers should be careful about the spillover effects when deciding to advertise a new brand with in-stream videos.
The results from the experiment revealed that if The Coca-Cola Company choses in-stream advertisement as a channel to introduce a new drink, the ad position wouldn’t matter because the brand name is very well-known and positively perceived by consumers. On the other hand, if Bickford’s, as a brand known only in Australia, decides to introduce its products in different countries and starts promoting the brand through in-stream videos, the brand might be perceived negatively because the first exposure of the brand would be an interruption of the customers’ task, which would lead to negative emotions and negative attitude toward the brand. This may lead to a situation when the same customers refuse to buy the advertised Bickford’s
