The effects of simultaneous cross-media advertising on recall and brand attitude:

The role of involvement

Tim Smits (KULeuven - @timsmitstim)Jos Hornikx (RU Nijmegen - @joshornikx)

ICORIA2013 (ZAGREB, CROATIA)

Mere repetition vs Synergetic repetition

Extensive research Synergy = varied but integrated marcom

Results: Proven efficiency (NAIK & RAMAN, 2003; NAIK & PETERS, 2009)

Stronger effects on cognition than on attitudes (CHANG & THORSON, 2004; STAMMERJOHAN ET AL. 2005; VOORVELD, NEIJENS & SMIT, 2011)

Synergy in tools (ads-publicity) or channels (TV-radio-web-print)

Synergetic vs Simultaneous repetition

Increasing popularity of media multitasking Plausible negative effects on information processing

given the distraction

But what about ads? Possible benefits:

• Semi-conscious: Forward encoding, costly signal, … (VOORVELD, 2012)

• Peripheral: multichannel variation on roadblocking

Drawback:• Capacity distribution over channels reducing impact; distraction

interfering with dominant process (cf. ELM)

VOORVELD (2012)

Between-subjects design:web-web ; radio-radio ; web-radio

Target ad: Panasonic Plasma TV Results:

web-radio = web-web > radio-radio

No a priori advantage of multi-channel roadblocking? Potential explanation: visual dominance OR

experimental circumstances boosted message involvement, resulting in good single-channel effect

Hypotheses

H1: Repetition > Single ad exposurecf. common marketing knowledge (BERLYNE 1970; PECHMANN & STEWART 1989)

H2: Simultaneous synergy > mere repetition ONLY IF low involvement in message processing– High involvement = conceptual replication VOORVELD

(2012)

– Low involvement: perceptual roadblocking advantage

Material

2 x 3-minute presentation: web+radio Target ad (Ford) manipulation BS:

- web-radio (cross-media)- web-web (single media exact repetition)- web (single exposure)

Filler ads for all non-target ad places Order manipulation for balanced design

Visual Materials

single exposure;cross-channel repetition

single media repetition

Participants and instrumentation

N = 380 (72% female; Mage =21)

DVs:- free recall- cued recall- brand attitude Ford

Results on cued recall

H1: Repetition > Single ad exposure (F(2, 395) = 11.20, p < .001)

H2: Simultaneous synergy > mere repetition ONLY IF low involvement in message processing: (F(1, 242) = 11.18, p = .011)

Results on % free recallSimilar pattern cf. cued recall

Results on attitudes

No differences between conditions

Cross-media Single medium repetitive

Single exposure0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Low involvementHigh Involvement

Discussion

Repetition > Single ad exposure (H1) Simultaneous synergy > mere repetition under

low involvement (H2)

Further support of synergetic effects Study adds importance of involvement Study underlines importance of control

condition of single ad exposure

Discussion

Cross-media effects benefit particularly in situations of low involvement -> peripheral, perceptual “roadblocking”

No effect on brand attitudes? Cf. earlier findings OR because product was unaffordable?

Take-home message

Synergetic effects of web+radio exist, but do not overestimate them:

No effects on brand attitude Can radio commercials actually be targeted

simultaneously to banners?