Examining digital video advertising (DVA) effectiveness

Stewart, Kristin; Kammer-Kerwick, Matt; Auchter, Allison; Koh, Hyeseung; Dunn, Mary Elizabeth; Cunningham, Isabella C. M.

doi:10.1108/ejm-11-2016-0619

Cited by 30 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, future research should consider how other factors such as personal factors, which influence behavior or external factors such as device type (Stewart et al, 2019), influence individuals' decision whether to click. As some organizations use in-app ads not only to create a direct effect but also a delayed effect (Jans et al, 2017), future research may also focus on explaining how in-app ads achieve these goals.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

In-app advertising: a two-step qualitative comparative analysis to explain clicking behavior

Mattke

Maier

Reis

et al. 2021

EJM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Individuals only click on a very small fraction of the in-app advertisements (ads) they are exposed to. Despite this fact, organizations spend generously placing in-app ads without theoretical knowledge of how the structure and the semantics of in-app ads influence individuals’ clicking behavior. This study aims to identify how the processing of structural and semantic factors leads to clicking behavior. Design/methodology/approach Based on the limited capacity theory, this paper proposes that the sequential processing of structural and semantic factors leads to clicking behavior. To mirror the sequential process, this paper applies a process-oriented configurational approach and performs a two-step qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) using 262 incidents of exposure to in-app ads. Findings The results support the proposed sequential processing and show that neither structural nor semantic factors alone lead to clicking behavior. This paper reveals four different paths of sequential processing of in-app ads that lead to clicking behavior. The results show that individuals click on non-animated in-app ads even though these are perceived as irritating or privacy-concerning. When the in-app ads are animated, individuals do only click on them when these are not irritating, privacy-concerning and personalized. Research limitations/implications Organizations can use these findings to improve their in-app ads and generate more clicks. This study recommends that organizations place in-app ads in a prominent location, design them similar to the design of the app and use bright colors. The advertising message needs to have new and relevant information in a credible and entertaining way. Depending on the degree of personalization, organizations should use different sizes of the in-app ad and only use animation if it is unlikely that the in-app ad caused irritation or privacy concerns. Practical implications Organizations can use these findings to improve their in-app ads and generate more clicks. This paper recommends that organizations place in-app ads in a prominent location, design them similar to the design of the app and with bright colors. The advertising message needs to have new and relevant information in a credible and entertaining way. Depending on the degree of personalization, organizations should use different sizes of the in-app ad and only use animation if it is unlikely that the in-app ad caused irritation or privacy concerns. Originality/value From the in-app ad perspective, this study is the first to theoretically develop and empirically show the sequential processing of structural and semantic factors of in-app ads. From the methodological perspective, this study applies an advanced configurational two-step QCA approach, which is capable of analyzing sequential processes and is new to marketing research.

show abstract

Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

In-app advertising: a two-step qualitative comparative analysis to explain clicking behavior

Mattke

Maier

Reis

et al. 2021

EJM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The stimulus material in both experiments referred to service agencies. Most studies use low‐involvement products (e.g., Swani et al, 2013), even though humor can be also used to promote high‐involvement goods (Stewart et al, 2019). Future research endeavors could focus on diverse product categories and media.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

A superiority–inferiority hypothesis on disparagement humor: The role of disposition toward ridicule

Hatzithomas

Voutsa

Boutsouki

et al. 2021

J of Consumer Behaviour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present paper adopts and substantiates a superiority-inferiority hypothesis on disparagement humor generation and appreciation. Two between-subjects (identification with a character acting as victimizer or victim) experiments address disparaging humorous advertising effectiveness, providing a novel perspective on very old questions. Perceived superiority and inferiority autonomously mediate the relationship between a disparaging advertisement and perceived humorousness. Individuals with high superiority motivation (i.e., high-katagelasticists) experience increased humorousness and an improved attitude toward the brand when they identify with a character acting as victimizer in the disparaging ad. People with a motivation to avoid inferiority (i.e., high-gelotophobes) experience reduced humorousness and lower positive attitudes toward the brand when they identify with a character who is victimized in the disparaging ad. Gelotophiles are not driven by feelings of superiority or inferiority and experience increased humorousness as well as more positive brand attitudes irrespective of the ad's victimization focus. | INTRODUCTIONA woman enjoys a Reese's Take 5 bar. Being asked by one of her colleagues, she describes the product, but to her amazement he has never heard of it. The woman scornfully asks him "have you been under a rock?" which proves to be true. As all her colleagues seem to be unaware of the well-known snack, the woman sarcastically confronts them with expressions like "were you raised by wolves?," or "you have your head stuck in the sand?" implying that the only way to not know Reese's Take 5 bar, is if these phrases are literally true.At the closing scene, an awkward looking discomfited colleague asks in resentment "none of us has heard Reese's 5, so who looks stupid now?" ending up to literally strengthen her claim.Aired in 2020, Hershey's Super Bowl commercial for Reese's Take 5, is addressing people's low awareness of the brand. Adopting a superior stance, the key character verbally abuses her colleagues for their stupid, unnatural ignorance. The creative element in the ad is disparagement humor "that disparages, belittles, debases, demeans, humiliates, or otherwise victimizes" (Zillmann, 1983, p. 85). Being often described as "idiosyncratic" humor (Weinberger, Swani, Yoon, & Gulas, 2017), it holds the capacity to instigate extreme positive and negative emotions (Weinberger & Gulas, 1992) and a feeling of superiority (Newton, Wong, & Newton, 2016). Over the past two decades, longitudinal analyses of Super Bowl humorous commercials have underlined a significant rise in the use of disparagement (Gulas,

show abstract

“…First, the present research did not consider the differences in various product types. Products are generally divided according to type: functional products and hedonic products (Stewart et al, 2019). With functional products, consumers mainly focus on cost performance, pragmatic ability, and detailed aspects.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Influence of the Inconsistent Color Presentation of the Original Price and Sale Price on Purchase Likelihood

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retailers like to use different colors to present the sale price and original price when they are presenting a promotion price. How does the inconsistent color presentation of the prices influence consumers’ purchase likelihood? The extant research does not consider this question. This article will address this question. Drawing on incongruence theory and the persuasion knowledge model (PKM), this article proposes that when the color of the sale price is inconsistent (vs. consistent) with that of the original price, consumers show less preference for the sale price. The reason is that consumers perceive the price as being less trustworthy, which leads to a lower purchase likelihood. Furthermore, this effect is affected by the brand awareness of products. Specifically, when products are less-known brands, the inconsistent (vs. consistent) colors of the sale price and original price will lead to a lower purchase likelihood. In contrast, when products are well-known brands, the inconsistent (vs. consistent) colors of the sale price and original price will lead to a high purchase likelihood. In this article, four studies are used to verify these hypotheses, and implications of theory and practice of the present research are discussed.

show abstract

Examining digital video advertising (DVA) effectiveness

Cited by 30 publications

References 64 publications

In-app advertising: a two-step qualitative comparative analysis to explain clicking behavior

In-app advertising: a two-step qualitative comparative analysis to explain clicking behavior

A superiority–inferiority hypothesis on disparagement humor: The role of disposition toward ridicule

The Influence of the Inconsistent Color Presentation of the Original Price and Sale Price on Purchase Likelihood

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About