EFFECTS OF CUE TYPES ON INTERNET AD RECALL

Student researcher:

Robert Dinsmore (undergraduate)
Alejandro Hohmann (undergraduate)
Chris J. Vargo (undergraduate)
Patrick Zelenack (undergraduate)

Faculty Supervisor:

Dr. S. Shyam Sundar

This paper was based on a project as part of the “Comm 418” course.

Introduction

Internet advertising appropriation for 2007 is projected at $31.3 billion. With all of this spending on advertising, important questions arise. Are online users paying attention to these advertisements? If so, what are they paying attention to? What makes these advertisements effective or ineffective?

research question and hypothesis

For Penn State students, controlling for advertising content. What is the relationship between the types of cues (central vs. peripheral) and memory of online advertisements.

Method

Two products were selected for participants. One of the advertisements tested was for Apple iPods and the other was for Dyson vacuum cleaners. For each product, two different advertisements were used, one focusing on central cues, and the other focusing on peripheral cues. This was done by using one ad that was word based, and another that was picture based. The advertisement was then embedded into a newspaper article on a webpage so that the participant would not know they were supposed to be focusing on the ad. The webpage would automatically move forward to the questionnaire after 1 minute of time. This questionnaire was used to determine the visual stimulation and informativeness of the ad, as well as recall.

Results

The two cues focused on the nature of the advertisement, whether it was visual vs. words and what product was used (Dyson vacuum or iPod). The results indicated both variables were statistically significant with both having a p-value < .05. The 2x2 (Product x Mode) Factorial ANOVA on Advertisement Recall showed that Product had a main effect F (1,152) = 102.97, p < .01. Visual vs. Words displayed a main effect as well F (1,152) =4.38, p < .05. The interaction between the product and the visual vs. words was also significant. F (1,152) = 4.38, p < .05.

An examination of the means revealed the product’s effect on recall. On a three point scale for recall (with three being the greatest recall), the Dyson vacuum advertisement had a mean recall of 2.00 while the iPod had a mean recall of 3.00. For the iPod, participants had the highest recall of 3.00 for both the word-oriented advertisement and the visually-oriented advertisement.

Conclusions

In the study involving iPod advertisements, the results were much different than in the case of the Dyson vacuum. The ELM model was diffused to the high recognition and familiarity of the iPod brand name. The recall for iPod advertisements was not affected by the processing cues. The brand recognition for the iPod was so high that no matter which cue was involved the recall remained the same. Our correlations between central cues advertisements and advertisement effectiveness should prove as a helpful guideline in planning advertisements for college students. For example, a banner advertisement for a newer of unfamiliar product, much like the Dyson Vacuum example would be much more effective with a listing of the product’s features in the banner as opposed to an elaborate ad focusing on peripheral features. It should be noted that an advertisement that was void of all visual stimulation would most likely not be effective. The iPod did not prove to have different recall in either condition, and therefore it is an advertiser’s best interest to make the advertisement informative because there is essentially nothing to lose. An informative has a positive effect on recall when the product is of little recognition, and has the same effect on recall as visual stimulation when the product is of high recognition.

For more details regarding the study contact,

Dr. S. Shyam Sundar by e-mail at sss12@psu.edu or by telephone at (814) 865 2173

Click here to get back to the abstracts listing page.

Click here to get back to the main research page.

Media Effects Research Lab at College of Communications, Penn State University