Thin Slice Impressions: How Advertising Evaluation Depends on Exposure Duration

Abstract

This research demonstrates the importance of thin slices of information in ad and brand evaluation, with important implications for advertising research and management. Three controlled experiments, two in the behavioral lab and one in the field, with exposure durations ranging from very brief (100 msec) to very long (30 sec), demonstrate that advertising evaluation critically depends on the duration of ad exposure and on how ads convey which product and brand they promote, but in surprising ways. The experiments show that upfront ads, which instantly convey what they promote, are evaluated positively after brief but also after longer exposure durations. Mystery ads, which suspend conveying what they promote, are evaluated negatively after brief but positively after longer exposure durations. False front ads, which initially convey another identity than what they promote, are evaluated positively after brief exposures but negatively after longer exposure durations. Bayesian mediation analysis demonstrates that the feeling of knowing what the ad promotes accounts for these ad-type effects on evaluation.

The Teasing Effect: An Underappreciated Benefit of Creating and Resolving an Uncertainty

“…Exploratory behavior could be associated with the condition of discomfort due to the inadequacy of information and an optimal amount of stimulation (e.g., excitement). Elsen, Pieters, and Wedel 2016 Viewers initially responded negatively toward mystery ads, but they responded more positively over time. Litman 2005;Litman and Jimerson 2004;Litman and Silvia 2006 Curiosity represents both a negative feeling of deprivation and a positive feeling of interest.…”

The influence of advertising creativity on the effectiveness of commercial and public service advertisements: A dual‐task study

“…In contrast to “standard advertisements,” creative advertisements encapsulate “distinctiveness” or “difference” (Koslow, 2015) and involve something that is “fresh” and “meaningful” to the audience (Smith et al, 2008). Several terms have been used to describe creative advertisements, that is, mystery (Elsen et al, 2016), indirect (McQuarrie & Phillips, 2005), open (Ketelaar et al, 2008, 2010), and implicit (Radach et al, 2003; van Mulken et al, 2005); creative advertisements also usually present the relationship between the advertisement elements in a creative and indirect manner in contrast to advertisements that show the elements in direct relation to the product being advertised (Higgins et al, 2014; see also Simola et al, 2020).…”

Revealing Unconscious Consumer Reactions to Advertisements That Include Visual Metaphors. A Neurophysiological Experiment

“…Advertisers and academics have analyzed the key factors that influence effective print advertisement such as element location (Garcia et al, 2000;Girisken and Bulut, 2014), advertisement size (Pieters and Wedel, 2004), images (Gakhal and Senior, 2008;Cook et al, 2011;Bastiaansen et al, 2016;Tomaselli Fidelis et al, 2017), exposure duration (Elsen et al, 2016) and messages (Thomsen and Fulton, 2007). However, the complexity of visual images and their impact on print advertising have been poorly studied until Phillips and McQuarrie's (2004) research, which provides a significant theoretical review on aspects of visual complexity by analyzing visual rhetoric in advertising.…”