Upload
others
View
5
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Contextualadvertisinginonlinecommunication:Aninvestigationofrelationshipsbetweenmultiple
contenttypesonawebpage
SusanneFranziskaWaechter
Athesissubmittedto
AucklandUniversityofTechnology
Inpartialfulfilmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeof
MasterofCommunicationStudies(MCS)
2010
SchoolofCommunicationStudies
PrimarySupervisor:GudrunFrommherz
I|P a g e
TableofContents
ListofFiguresandTables ................................................................................. III
AttestationofAuthorship................................................................................. IV
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................... V
EthicalApproval................................................................................................ VI
Abstract ........................................................................................................... VII
1. Introduction................................................................................................ 1
2. Literaturereview ........................................................................................ 5
2.1 Marketing ............................................................................................. 6
2.1.1 Internetmarketing ...................................................................... 10
2.2 AdvertisingandOnlineadvertising .................................................... 13
2.2.1 Onlineadvertising........................................................................ 16
2.2.2 Contextualadvertising................................................................. 20
2.3 Semiotics ............................................................................................ 25
2.3.1 Socialsemiotics ........................................................................... 29
2.3.2 Geosemiotics ............................................................................... 30
2.3.3 Semioticsinadvertising............................................................... 31
2.4 Multimodality ..................................................................................... 35
2.5 Conclusion .......................................................................................... 38
3. Approach .................................................................................................. 41
3.1 User‐centredandsystem‐centredapproaches .................................. 43
3.2 Structuraldescriptionoftheselectedwebpage ................................ 50
3.3 Summary ............................................................................................ 56
II|P a g e
4. Methodology ............................................................................................ 58
4.1 Research ............................................................................................. 58
4.1.1 QualitativeResearch.................................................................... 59
4.2 Designofthestudy............................................................................. 61
4.2.1 Theparticipants........................................................................... 64
4.2.2 ResearchEthics............................................................................ 65
4.3 Procedureofdataanalysis ................................................................. 67
4.4 Summary ............................................................................................ 74
5. Analysisanddiscussionofinterviewdata ................................................ 76
5.1 Participants’responsesaboutenvironmentalfactors........................ 76
5.2 Participants’responsesconcerningeditorialcontent ........................ 79
5.3 Participants’responsesconcerningadvertisements .......................... 82
5.4 Participants’responsesconcerningthewebpageand
websitetools ...................................................................................... 89
5.5 Participants’responsesconcerningrelationshipsbetween
informationmodules.......................................................................... 95
5.6 Answerstotheresearchquestions .................................................. 101
6. ResearchConclusions ............................................................................. 105
ReferenceList ................................................................................................ 111
APPENDIXI:InterviewQuestions ....................................................................... I
APPENDIXII:Interviewexamples ..................................................................... III
Participant6 ................................................................................................. III
Participant3 .................................................................................................. X
III|P a g e
ListofFiguresandTables
Figure1:SimplifiedillustrationoftheGeM‐model;owncompilation ............ 45
Figure2:Theselectedwebpagefromthewebsitewww.healthyfood.co.nz .. 51
Figure3:Informationmodulesontheselectedwebpage............................... 53
Figure4:Module‐componentsofAd1 ............................................................ 55
Figure5:Illustrationofterms.......................................................................... 56
Figure6:ShotsfromCamera1,Camera2andCamera3................................ 64
Figure7:Cardsinthecardactivity ..................................................................... I
Table1:The4P'sand4C’softheMarketingMix ............................................ 8
Table2:Exampleofthemeidentification ....................................................... 69
Table3:Developedcategoriesfordataanalysis ............................................. 72
IV|P a g e
AttestationofAuthorship
“Iherebydeclarethatthissubmissionismyownworkandthat,to
thebestofmyknowledgeandbelief,itcontainsnomaterial
previouslypublishedorwrittenbyanotherperson(exceptwhere
explicitlydefinedintheacknowledgements),normaterialwhichtoa
substantialextenthasbeensubmittedfortheawardofanyother
degreeordiplomaofauniversityorotherinstitutionofhigher
learning."
________________________
SusanneFranziskaWaechter
March2010
V|P a g e
Acknowledgements
Throughoutthisresearch,Ihavereceivedhelpandsupportfromalotofpeople.
IwishtothankmyprimarysupervisorGudrunFrommherzforalltheguidance
andsupportduringthatfascinatingandchallengingtimeinmylife.Inaddition,I
thankmysecondsupervisorRosserJohnsonforhistimeandadvicethroughout
thetwoyearsofmystudy.
IwouldliketothankmypartnerRomanMeyerforhisunlimitedsupport,
patienceandbeliefinmyabilities.Iwouldalsoliketoacknowledgeandthank
AlexChallisformakingtheenormouseffortofproofreadingmyfinaldraft.
Bigthanksalsotomyparentsfortheircontinuousandunconditionalsupport,
whereverIam.
VI|P a g e
EthicalApproval
Thisresearchhasobtainedethicalapproval09/154fromtheAucklandUniversity
ofTechnologyEthicsCommitteeon6August2009.
VII|P a g e
Abstract
Aspartofthepromotionalmix,advertisingplaysasignificantroleina
company’sororganisation’scommunicationwithitsconsumersand
stakeholders.Inordertoinformconsumersabouttheirproductsorservices,
marketersapplyavarietyofadvertisingstrategies.Oneparticularstrategyis
“contextualadvertising”,whichreferstothestrategicplacementof
advertisementsinaneditorialenvironmentwhosethemeisrelevantforthe
promotedproductorservice(Belch&Belch,2009,p.492).Alsoinadvertising
research,contextualadvertisingreceivedaconsiderableamountofattention.
Scholarshaveinvestigatedtheeffectivenessofcontextualadvertisinginonline
andofflinemedia.Researchersaswellaspractitionershaveparticularlyfocused
oncontent‐basedrelationshipsbetweenadvertisementsandthethemeofthe
editorialenvironmentinwhichtheadvertisementisplaced.Withafocuson
onlinemedia,thepresentstudyaimedtoinvestigatethiscontent‐based
relationshipbutalsotoexaminewhatothertypesofrelationshipsbetweenthe
differentcontentsonawebpagetheuserconstructs.
Advertisinghasalsobeeninvestigatedintheareaofsemiotics.Several
scholarsanalysedadvertisementsinordertorevealtheirmeaning‐affordances.A
secondinterestinthepresentstudyderivesfromsemioticstudiesandtheories,
whichemphasisetheindividual’ssignificanceinthemeaning‐makingprocessbut
alsoexcludetheindividualfromtheiranalysis.Apotentialcontradictioncouldbe
seenhereandbyinvestigatinghowusersinterpretaparticularwebpage,this
studyaimedtoexaminewhatinsightsananalysiscanprovidethatissolely
focusedonthewebpageuser.
Inordertocaptureusers’interpretationsofawebpage’scontentsandto
investigatewhattypesofrelationshipsbetweenthesecontentsusersconstruct
semi‐structuredinterviewswithsixparticipantswereconducted.The
VIII|P a g e
participantswereinvitedtolookatawebpagefromthewebsite
www.healthyfood.co.nz.Followingtheinterviews,theparticipants’responses
weretranscribed,categorisedandanalysed.
Findingsfromthestudyrevealedthatseveralparticipantsconstructed
relationshipsbetweenadvertisementsandtheeditorialcontentbasedon
content‐similaritybutalsoondesign‐similarityaswellastheirpersonal
knowledgeaboutsponsorshiprelationshipsandincome‐investment
relationships.Personalknowledgealsoappearedtobeimportantforthe
interpretationofthewebpage.Theparticipants’interpretationofthewebpage
werealsoguidedbytheirpersonalinterestinthecontents,theirindividual
contextslikesocio‐culturalbackground,experiencesandbeliefsaswellas
environmentalfactorssuchastimeandthelayoutoftheinterviewlocation.
Theresultsofthestudysupportthesignificantroleoftheindividualinthe
processofmeaningmakingandfurthercontributetoanextendedunderstanding
ofcontextualadvertising.Practicalsuggestionsfortheadvertisingareaand
futureresearchwerealsoidentified.
1. INTRODUCTION
1|P a g e
1. IntroductionThispresentresearchfollowstwomaininterests.Thefirstinterestrefersto
contextualadvertising;anadvertisingstrategythathasenjoyedconsiderable
interestinadvertisingpracticeaswellasadvertisingresearch.Contextual
advertisingreferstothestrategicplacementofanadvertisementinonlineand
offlinemediavehicles,whosethemeisrelevanttothepromotedproductor
service(Belch&Belch,2009,p.492).Forexample,anadvertisermayplacea
shampooadvertisementonabeautywebsiteoranadvertisementthatpromotes
clothinginafashionmagazine.Withthisstrategy,advertisersaimatnarrow‐
targetingtheiraudience(Belch&Belch,2009,p.492).
Inadvertisingresearch,severalscholarshaveanalysedtheeffectsof
contextualadvertisingontheaudience.Researchhasbeendoneinonline
environmentstoinvestigatehowtheaudienceperceivesanadvertisementthat
promotesthesameproductcategoryasthewebsiteinwhichitisembedded
(Cho,1999;Shamdasani,Stanaland,&Tan,2001).Inofflinemedialiketelevision
orprint,contextualadvertisinghasbeeninvestigatedforinstancewhen
advertisementandeditorialcontentdeploythesameemotionalappeals
(Anckaert,Geuens,&DePelsmaker,2002).
Wheninvestigatingorapplyingcontextualadvertising,itappearsthatmany
researchersandpractitionersfocusoncontent‐basedrelationshipsbetween
advertisementsandthethemeofthemediavehicleinwhichtheadvertisement
isembedded(e.g.Belch&Belch,2009;Cho,1999;Shamdasani,etal.,2001).
Withfocusontheonlineenvironment,itismyconcerninthepresentresearch
toexaminethiscontent‐basedrelationshipbutalsotoinvestigatewhatother
typesofrelationshipsusersofawebpageconstructbetweentheindividual
contentsonawebpage,whichIlabelinthisresearchasinformationmodules.In
thisresearch,Iunderstandthattheuserconstructsa“relationship”,whichisa
1. INTRODUCTION
2|P a g e
connectionbetweenthecontent‐types(e.g.advertisingandeditorialcontent)
placedonawebpage.
Mysecondinterestinthisresearchderivesfromstudiesandtheoriesinthe
areaofsemiotics,whichstresstheimportanceoftheindividualinthemeaning‐
makingprocessbutalsoexcludetheindividualfromtheanalysisofmeaning‐
affordancesinspecificdocuments.Thishasbeendoneforexamplewiththe
investigationofthe“hidden”meaninginadvertisementsunderconsiderationof
asemioticapproach(e.g.Beasley&Danesi,2002;Jhally,Kline,&Leiss,1990,
2004).
Icanseeinthepropositionoftheindividual’ssignificancebutthe
simultaneousexclusionoftheindividualfromtheanalysisofmeaning‐
affordancesindocumentsapotentialcontradiction.Itismyintentioninthe
presentresearchtoinvestigatewhatinsightsananalysiscanprovidethatis
solelyfocusedontheuser’sinterpretationofawebpage.Forthis,Ialsoreferto
theapproachofmultimodality,whichproposesthathumansexperience
meaningbyutilisingdifferentcommunicativemodes(Bateman,2008;Finnegan,
2002;Guo,2004;Kress&VanLeeuwen,2001;Mavers,2003;Norris,2004;Yuen,
2004)suchasgaze,spokenlanguageorbodyposture.
Inthisresearch,Idistinctbetweenanalysesthatfollowasystem‐centred
approachandthosethatarebasedonauser‐centredapproach.Withrespectto
thefocusontheonlineenvironment,thesystem‐centredapproachrefersto
studiesandtheoriesthatanalyseawebpageintermsofhowinformationis
presentedandwhatmeaning‐affordancesawebpageprovides.Theuser‐centred
approach,whichIfollowinthisstudy,focusesonthewebpagefromtheuser’s
perspectiveandhowtheuserinterpretsit.
1. INTRODUCTION
3|P a g e
Giventhepurposeofthisresearchtoexplorecontextualadvertisinginan
onlineenvironmentaswellastoinvestigatetheinsightsauser‐centredanalysis
canprovideIaddressthefollowingtworesearchquestions:
• Whattypesofrelationshipsdotheparticipantsconstructbetweenthe
informationmodulesthatareplacedonawebpageofthewebsite
www.healthyfood.co.nz?
• Howdotheparticipantsinterprettheinformationmodulesplacedona
selectedwebpagefromthewebsitewww.healthyfood.co.nz?
Inordertoinvestigatetheuser’sinterpretationsofawebpage,Iconducted
semi‐structuredinterviewswithsixparticipants,whowereinvitedtolookata
webpagefromthewebsitewww.healthyfood.co.nz.Thewebpagecontained
severaladvertisements,aneditorialarticleandseveralfunctionalcomponents,
likeamenubaroranemailbutton.Iappliedaqualitativeresearchapproachas
thisallowsmetocapturetheparticipant’ssubjectiveexperienceswiththe
webpageandenablesmetoinvestigatehowtheparticipantconstructsmeaning.
Thisthesisconsistsofsixchapters.Followingthisintroduction,Ireviewin
ChapterTwoliteratureintheareasofmarketingwithfocusonadvertising,
onlineadvertisingandcontextualadvertising;semiotics,underfurther
considerationofsocialsemiotics,geosemioticsaswellassemioticsintheareaof
advertisingresearch;andfinallymultimodality.
InChapterThree,Ioutlinetheconceptualbasisforthisstudy.Theaimofthis
chapteristointroducebasicdefinitionsandexplanationsthatderivefromthe
literaturepresentedinChapterTwo.
ChapterFourintroducesthemethodologicalapproachadoptedinthis
research.Itismyintentiontooutlinethequalitativeresearchapproachtakenin
1. INTRODUCTION
4|P a g e
thisstudyandtointroducetheresearchdesignofthisstudyaswellasethical
concerns.Ifurtherdescribethestrategyfordataanalysis.
TheactualdataanalysisispresentedanddiscussedinChapterFive.Iconclude
thischapterbyansweringthetworesearchquestions.
Finally,inChapterSix,Iprovideaconclusionofthestudy.Thisincludesa
summaryofthestudyfindingsandunderconsiderationoflimitationsinthis
study,implicationsforadvertisingpracticeaswellasforfutureresearch.
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
5|P a g e
2. LiteraturereviewThefollowingchapterreviewstheliteratureinrelevantareasofscholarship.
Theseareasare1)marketingwithfocusonadvertisingandonlineadvertising,in
particularcontextualadvertising;2)semiotics,inparticularsocialsemiotics,
geosemioticsandsemioticsinthecontextofadvertising;andfinally
3)multimodality.
Thisresearchisconcernedwiththeanalysisofawebpage,whichincludes
advertisementsaswellaseditorialcontent,fromtheuser’sperspective.Ibegin
thisreviewwithliteraturethatdescribesandexplainsmarketingasabasic
processinacompanyororganisationbecausemarketingisthewiderprocessin
whichadvertisingisusuallyplaced.Thisfurtherfocusesontheoriesandstudies
thatinvestigatewebsitesingeneralaswellasadvertisingintheonline
environment.Here,anemphasisisplacedoncontextualadvertising.
Ifurtheridentifythefieldofsemiotics,especiallysocialsemiotics(Hodge&
Kress,1988)aswellasanapproachcalledgeosemiotics(Scollon&Scollon,
2003),thesemioticsofplace.Thesignificanceofthesesemioticapproachesfor
mystudyderivesfromtheiremphasisoftheindividualinthemeaning‐making
process.Ifurtherintroduceliteraturethatisconcernedwithsemioticanalysisof
advertisementsforthisareaisgermanetotheinterestofthisstudy.
Inthefinalsectionoftheliteraturereview,Iintroducemultimodality,an
approachthatJewittandKress(2003,p.9)closelyrelatetosocialsemiotics.
Multimodalityinformsthisresearchintermsofprovidinganapproachthat
accordingtoNorris(2004,p.10)emphasisesthesignificanceofavarietyof
semioticsystems,suchascolourorbodyposture,inhumancommunication.
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
6|P a g e
Multimodalityfurthersituatestheindividualanditsmeaning‐makingprocessin
itsculturalenvironment.
2.1 Marketing
AccordingtoFrain(1994,p.1),theword“marketing”beforethe1950swas
generallyasynonymfor“selling”.Sincethe1950showever,marketingis
regardedasabroaderconceptthatnotonlyincludesselling,butalsoother
managementactivitiessuchasmarketingresearch,productdesignand
development,forecastingandplanningandrelatedfinancialfunctions(Frain,
1994,p.1).Marketinginthis‘new’senseisanorganisation‐wideapproachthat
includesprocessesandactivitiesfromalldifferentdepartmentswithinan
organisation.Frain(1994,p.1)arguesthatthechangeoffocustowardthe
customerbyalldifferentdepartmentsandactivitiesofanorganisationderives
fromtheearly1950swhenscienceandtechnologydevelopedfasterandmore
cost‐effectiveproductionprocesses.Marketsbecamemoredynamic‐people
earnedmore,livedlongerandtravelledfurtherandthereforetastes,
preferencesandfashionsbegantochangemorerapidly(Frain,1994,p.7).
Informationaboutcustomerpreferencesandneedsbegantobeconsideredin
thebeginningoftheproductioncycleratherthan,asitwasdonebefore,atthe
end,whenitwasallaboutsellingtheproducttothecustomer(Frain,1994,p.7).
AccordingtoKotlerandKeller(2006,p.6),theAmericanMarketing
Associationdefinesmarketingas
“[A]n organizational function and a set of processes for creating, communicating, anddeliveringvaluetocustomersandformanagingcustomerrelationships inwaysthatbenefittheorganizationanditsstakeholders.”
Acommonlyknownmarketingconceptisthemarketingmix.Kotler(2003)
describesthemarketingmixas“asetofmarketingtoolsthefirmusestopursue
itsmarketingobjectivesinthetargetmarket.”(Kotler,2003,p.15)The
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
7|P a g e
marketingmixincludesfourcomponents,alsoknownasthe4P’s:product,price,
place,andpromotion(Belch&Belch,2009,p.10).Anorganisationdevelops
productsaccordingtoidentifiedcustomerneeds.Theseproductsareofferedto
thecustomeratacertainpriceandarealsomadeavailablethroughparticular
distributionchannels(place).Finallytheproductispromotedinordertocreate
awarenessandinterest.Thefundamentalfunctionofmarketingistocombine
thesefourelementsintoamarketingstrategyinordertogenerateexchange
withcustomersinthemarketplace(Belch&Belch,2009,p.10).
Kotler(2003,p.17)criticisesthatthe4P’srepresentthesellersviewand
disregardsthesignificanceofthecustomerinthemarketingprocess.He
proposesthe4C’s:customersolution,customercost,convenience,and
communication.Hearguesthat“winningcompanieswillbethosethatcanmeet
customerneedseconomicallyandconvenientlyandwitheffective
communication.”(Kotler,2003,p.17)
Thefollowingtableillustratesthe4P’s,product,price,place,andpromotion,
andKotler’s(2003,p.17)4C’saswellasseveralmarketingvariables:
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
8|P a g e
Product
CustomerSolution
Price
CustomerCost
Place
Convenience
Promotion
Communication
Productvariety
Quality
Design
Features
Brandname
Packaging
Sizes
Services
Warranties
Returns
Listprice
Discounts
Allowances
Paymentperiod
Creditterms
Channels
Coverage
Assortments
Locations
Inventory
Transport
Salespromotion
Advertising
Salesforce
Publicrelations
Directmarketing
Table1:The4P'sand4C’softheMarketingMix;AdaptedfromKotler(2003,p.16)
AccordingtoKotlerandKeller(2006,p.16),amarketerstaskistostrategically
integrateandcoordinateallmarketingactivitiesforanorganisation.Aconcept
thathasbecomeincreasinglyimportantsincethe1980swithinthiscontextisthe
approachofintegratedmarketingcommunications(IMC).Thisconceptrefersto
thepracticeinmanycompaniestocoordinate“thevariouspromotional
elementsandothermarketingactivitiesthatcommunicatewithafirm’s
customers”(Belch&Belch,2009,p.11).Allmarketingactivitiesandprocesses
havetobesynchronisedinordertopresentthepromotedproductorserviceas
effectiveaspossibleforboththeconsumer(forexampleforgatheringneeded
information)aswellasthecompany(forinstancetoselltheproduct).Chaffeyet
al.(2006)describeintegratedmarketingcommunicationsas“theconceptunder
whichacompanycarefullyintegratesandco‐ordinatesitsmanycommunications
channelstodeliveraclear,consistentmessageabouttheorganisationandits
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
9|P a g e
products.”(p.357)Alldifferentcommunicationshavetobelogicallyand
effectivelyconnectedintheshort‐termaswellasinthelong‐termandall
messageshavetobemutuallysupportiveandreinforcing(Chaffey,etal.,2006,
p.357).TheoverallaimisaccordingtoBelchandBelch(2009)thecreationofa
“consistentandunifiedimagetothemarketplace”(p.11).
IMCfurtherplaysasignificantroleintheprocessofestablishingbrand
identity(Belch&Belch,2009,p.16).AbrandisaccordingtoKeller(1998,p.2)
“[...]aname,term,sign,symbol,ordesign,oracombinationofthemintendedtoidentifythegoodsandservicesofonesellerorgroupofsellersandtodifferentiatethemfromthoseofthecompetition.”
Amajorcomponentinestablishingandsustainingabrandistocreate
awarenessofthebrand(Keller,1998,p.87).Keller(1998,p.88)differentiates
betweentwoaspectsofbrandawareness:brandrecognitionandbrandrecall.
Brandrecognitionreferstothe“consumers’abilitytoconfirmpriorexposureto
thebrandwhengiventhebrandasacue”(Keller,1998,p.88).Brandrecallin
contrastoccurswhenaconsumerisabletoretrievethebrandfrommemory
whentheconsumerisexposedtoarelatedissueliketheproductcategoryora
purchasesituation(Keller,1998,p.88)
Criticsofmarketingareconcernedthatmarketingencroachesoncustomers’
righttoprivacy(Christ,2009c).Thisargumentisbasedonthefactthatinorder
tomakeimportantstrategicmarketingdecisions,marketersneedinformation
abouttheirtargetaudiences.Oftenthemostvaluableinformationisaboutthe
customers’buyingbehaviourandwhatfactorshaveaninfluenceontheir
purchasedecisions(Christ,2009c).Inordertogetthisinformationsome
marketersinvadeintotheprivatesphereofcustomers(Christ,2009c).Advanced
technologiesandsophisticatedstrategiesallowmarketerstotrackconsumers’
activitiesbothintheInternetaswellasintheofflineworld.Christ(2009c)notes
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
10|P a g e
herethat“[s]omemarketersdosousingquestionablepractices,suchasloading
trackingsoftwareontoauser’scomputer,withouttheknowledgeorpermission
oftheuser.”Offlinetrackingoccursforexamplewhenretailstoresmatchsales
transactionstoindividualshoppersforinstancewhencustomersusepurchase
cards,alsoknownasloyaltycardsordiscountcards(Christ,2009c).
2.1.1 Internetmarketing
Fisher,Jaworski,MohammedandPaddison(2004,p.4)defineInternet
marketingas
“theprocessofbuildingandmaintainingcustomer relationships throughonlineactivities tofacilitatetheexchangeofideas,products,andservicesthatsatisfythegoalsofbothparties.”
HansenandKalyanam(2007)provideanintroductiontothehistoryof
marketingintheInternet.TheyexplainthatintheearlydaysoftheInternet,
commercialinformationortransactionswereexplicitlyforbidden(Hanson&
Kalyanam,2007,p.6).ThefirstimplementationoftheInternettookplacein
1969andtilltheearly1990sitwasusedasarobustemergencymilitary
communicationnetworkandasanexperimentalcommunicationssystemwithin
theacademiccommunity(Hanson&Kalyanam,2007,p.6).Comparedto
technologystandardstoday,theearlyNetwasveryslow,difficulttouseand
expensive.Computersandmodemswereexpensivethosedaysandaccesstothe
networkwasonlypossiblethroughthesubmissionofarcanecommands.Inthe
early1990stheprohibitionofcommercialinformationwasabolishedandthe
Internetwasmadeavailabletoamuchwideraudience.Onemorefundamental
breakthroughoccurredwiththedevelopmentoftheWorldWideWeb.Nowit
waspossibletomixpictures,soundsandvideowithtextcombinedwithamuch
betterusability.Thenavigationbetweenwebpagesandsitesbecamemore
intuitiveforusers(Hanson&Kalyanam,2007,p.7).Withthespreadofthe
Internetandtheriseofthetotalnumberofusers,thecommercialuseofthe
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
11|P a g e
Internetincreased(Hanson&Kalyanam,2007,pp.10‐11).Nowadays,the
Internetisaconstantpartinthemarketingstrategyofmanyorganisations
(Hanson&Kalyanam,2007,pp.10‐11).
Theuseofthewebequipsmarketingcommunicationswithspecific
characteristicsthatdistinctitfromtraditionalmarketing.Traditionalmediasuch
asprint,TVorradioaredefinedbyChaffeyetal.(2006,p.21)aspushmedia
becauseinformationismainlyconveyedunidirectional,fromonecompanyto
manycustomers.Thewebontheotherhandisanexampleofpullmediasince
consumersusuallyvisitawebsitewhentheyhaveadefinedneedtodoso
independentlyfromtimeandgeographicallocation(Chaffey,etal.,2006,p.21).
Chaffeyetal.(2006,p.350)statethatanoftennamedandinvestigated
characteristicofthewebisitsinteractivity.Withoutchangingthemedium,asit
isnecessaryintraditionalmedia,itispossibletocreateadialogbetweenthe
companyorthewebsiteowneranditsvisitors(Chaffey,etal.,2006,p.350).
Withrespecttoonlinemarketing,thisfeatureisessentialforbuildinglong‐term
relationshipsbetweenthemarketerandthecustomer,forexamplebyproviding
feedbackorcommentopportunities(Chaffey,etal.,2006,p.350).
Withfocusonmarketinginonlineenvironments,CoyleandGould(2007)
introducetheconceptofInternetintegratedmarketingcommunications(I‐IMC)
(p.69).ThisconceptplacesthetraditionalIMC“withintheInternetplatform”as
wellas“withintheoverallpromotionalandmarketingmix.”(Coyle&Gould,
2007,p.69)Theauthorsarguethatmarketersneedtopayconsiderable
attentiontoonlinepromotionaltools,suchaswebsitesandbanner
advertisementsbecausethesetoolshavetheirownspecifications,advantages
anddisadvantagesandfurtherbecomeincreasinglyimportanttodeliver
marketingmessagestothecustomer(Coyle&Gould,2007,p.86).
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
12|P a g e
Ofparticularinterestforthepresentstudyareresearchesthatareconcerned
withhowusersperceivewebsites.Theseresearchesputthewebuserinthe
centreoftheiranalysisandprovideaninsightintothefactorsthathaveaneffect
onusers’perceptionsandinterpretationsofwebsites.
Hwang,LeeandMcMillan(2003)examinedtheeffectofthequantityof
structuralfeaturesofawebsite,likeonlinereservationtools,aswellas
perceptualfactors,suchasperceivedinteractivity,ontheuser’sattitudetoward
thewebsite.Theaimwastoinvestigatewhetherstructuralfeaturesor
perceptualfactorsarebetterpredictorsfortheusers’attitudetowardsthe
website.Theresearchersonlyfoundlittlesupportforcoherencebetweenthe
quantityofstructuralfeaturesandtheuser’sattitudetowardthewebsite(2003,
p.406).Perceptualfactorsincontrastappearedtobemoreeffectiveforthe
predictionofhowtheuserevaluatesthewebsite(2003,p.406).Basedonthese
findings,Hwangetal.(2003,p.406)emphasisethesignificanceoftheuserfor
theeffectivenessofawebsite.Further,theyconcludethatthereappearstobea
differencebetweentheuser’sperceptionofawebsiteandthewebsites
structuralappearance(2003,p.406).
Hwang,LeeandMcMillan’s(2003)propositionthatthewebsitesstructural
appearancemightbedifferentfromtheuser’sperceptionofthewebsite,is
supportedbythefindingsofLee,Lee,KimandStout’s(2004)study.Inorderto
investigatehowusersperceiveidentifiedkeycharacteristicsofwebsites,Leeet
al.(2004)basedtheirresearchona“system‐centred”analysis(p.62),namelya
web‐basedcontentanalysis,witha“user‐centred”analysis(p.63)intheformof
personalinterviews.Thefindingsoftheirresearchrevealedadifferencebetween
thefoundkeycharacteristicsofawebsite,includingthepresenceorabsenceof
specificinteractiveelements,contentanddesignelements,andtheperceptions
ofthesecharacteristicsbythewebsiteuser.
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
13|P a g e
AlsoDalal,Mishra,Patil,andSingh(2005)focusedontheuserintheir
analysis.Theyinvestigatedtheuser’semotionalperceptionofasinglewebpage
ratherthanacompletewebsite.Theauthorsproposeamodeltoinvestigateweb
user’sreactionstoawebpage.Thismodelplacestwopropositions:first,positive
andnegativefeelingsthatareevokedbythewebpagedirectlyinfluencethe
user’sevaluationofthewebpageandhisorherbehaviouralintentions(p.32).
Second,theuser’sattitudetowardthewebpage,mediatestheeffectsoffeelings
andevaluationsbasedonbehaviouralintentions(p.32).
Withfocusonhowusersnavigateonwebsites,BellmanandRossiter(2004,p.
39)introducedtheideaofawebsiteschema.Awebsiteschemaisdefinedby
BellmanandRossiter(2004,p.39)as“theconsumer’ssetofbeliefsabout
informationlocations,androutestothoselocations,foraspecificwebsite.”The
authorsarguethatthroughrepeatedvisitsofwebsites,consumersdevelopa
generalizedwebsiteschema,whichtheyrefertowhenexposedtoanewwebsite
inordertofindtheinformationtheyneed(Bellman&Rossiter,2004,p.39).
BellmanandRossiter’s(2004)notionofawebsiteschemaisrelevanttomy
researchbecauseitisanapproachthatdiscusseshowwebsiteuser’susetheir
ownexperiencesinordertoprocesstheinformationgivenonthewebsitethey
arevisiting.
2.2 AdvertisingandOnlineadvertising
Aspartofthepromotionactivitiesinthemarketingmix,advertisingplaysa
significantroleinanorganisation’scommunicationwiththetargetmarket(Belch
&Belch,2009,p.18).BelchandBelch(2009)defineadvertisingas“anypaid
formofnonpersonalcommunicationaboutanorganization,product,serviceor
ideabyanidentifiedsponsor”(p.18).BelchandBelch’s(2009)definitionclarifies
thatadvertisingtime(e.g.thetimetobroadcastaTV‐spot)orspace(e.g.the
spaceforaprintadvertisementinamagazine)hastobeboughtbythe
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
14|P a g e
advertiser.Advertisingis,accordingtotheauthors,nonpersonalbecauseit
involvesmassmedia,suchasradio,TVornewspapers,inorderto“transmita
messagetoalargegroupofindividuals”(Belch&Belch,2009,p.18).Ingeneral,
advertisingdoesnotallowanimmediatefeedbackfromthemessagerecipient
(Belch&Belch,2009,p.18;Kotler&Keller,2006,p.555).
Advertisingingeneralhasbeencriticisedinmanyways.Onecritiqueis
concernedaboutmisleadingclaimsaboutproducts.Advertisementsoften
includeclaimsthatemphasiseacertainlevelofvaluethatactuallydoesnotexist
(Belch&Belch,2004,pp.740‐741;Christ,2009a).Manycriticsfurtherbelieve
thatconsumersdonotobtainsufficientinformationabouttheproductsoroften
receiveonlyinformationthatarefavourabletotheadvertiser’sposition(Belch&
Belch,2009,pp.740‐741).
Insomecountriesseveralorganisationsandassociations,suchasthe
AdvertisingStandardsAuthority(ASA)inGreatBritain,theEuropeanFoodSafety
Authorityorotherusers’associationsandconsultativecouncils,provideacertain
levelofprotectionfrommisleadingclaimsorotherharmfulactionsbythe
marketer(Christ,2009a;Frain,1994).
OneofthemostcommonargumentsagainstadvertisingisaccordingtoChrist
(2009a)thatadvertisingcreatesratherthansatisfiesneedsandencourages
peopletopurchasegoodsandservicestheydonotneed.Defendersof
advertisingemphasisetheinformationalnatureofadvertisingandthedifficulty
todistinguishbetweendesirableinformationaladvertisingandundesired
persuasiveadvertising(Belch&Belch,2009,p.251).
Ethicalconcernsraisewhencompaniestakeadvantageofvulnerable
customerssuchaschildren,theelderly,andtheindigentforinstancebyusing
doubtfulmarketingtacticssuchaspricegougingorbypushingharmfulproducts
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
15|P a g e
(Sheth&Sisodia,2006).Particularlychildren,aregenerallyvulnerableto
advertisingbecausetheydonothavesufficientknowledgeandexperienceto
identify,understandandcriticallyassessthepurposeofsuchactivities(Belch&
Belch,2009,p.745)
Ithasbeentheconcernofnumerousresearcherstoinvestigatehowpeople
perceiveadvertising.Thisisalsoimportantforthepresentresearchsincethe
selectedwebpageinthisstudyincludesseveraladvertisements.Theresearch
questionsaimtoinvestigatehowuser’sinterpretthiswebpage’scontentsand
whattypesofrelationshipstheyconstructbetweentheadvertisementsandthe
editorialcontent.
Zaichkowksy(1994)providesanapproachthatstatesthreecategoriesof
factorsthatinfluenceaperson’sattitudetowardsanadvertisement:First,
particularspecificationsandfeaturesoftheadvertisingstimulus,second,
individualcharacterisationsofthereceiver,andthird,situationalfactors,suchas
theenvironmentatthetimeofexposure,thenatureofthemedium(forexample
newspaperorTV)aswellascharacteristicsofthemessagesource(p.59).
Ducoffe’s(1995)studycanbeassignedintoZaichkowsky’s(1994)second
category.Heintroducedtheideaofadvertisingvalue,whichhedefinedas“a
representationoftheperceivedvalueofadvertisingtoconsumers”(1995,p.1).
Inhisstudyheexaminedtheeffectoftheperceivedlevelofinformativenessand
entertainmentontheperceivedadvertisingvalue.
Amongothervariables,researchershavefurtherinvestigatedthe
effectivenessofcomparativeadvertising(Busacca,Girolamo,&Soscia,2010;
Prasad,1976),howtheaudienceprocessesnewspaperadvertising(Bogart&
Tolley,1994),theaspectoftrusttowardsadvertising(King,Reid,&Soh,2009),
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
16|P a g e
theeffectofcelebrityendorsementsinadvertisements(Lord&Putrevu,2009)or
theinfluenceofcultureonadvertisingeffectiveness(Neelankavil&Zhang,1997).
2.2.1 Onlineadvertising
Withrespecttotheonlinefocusinthisresearch,anotherimportantareais
onlineadvertising.OnlineadvertisingisaccordingtoChaffeyetal.(2006)
generallyacknowledgedtotakeplace“whenanadvertiserpaystoplace
advertisingcontentonanotherwebsite.”(p.249)
Themostwellknownformofonlineadvertisingisbanneradvertising
(Chaffey,etal.,2006,p.249).Chaffeyetal.(2006,p.251)defineabanner
advertisementas:
“Arectangulargraphicdisplayedonawebpageforthepurposesofadvertising.Itisnormallypossible to perform a clickthrough to access further information. Bannersmay be static oranimated.”
Aclickthroughoccurswhenauserclicksonabanneradvertisementtodirect
himorhertoanotherwebsitethatcontainsfurtherinformation(Chaffey,etal.,
2006,p.252).Banneradvertisementsmightbeintendedtobuildtraffictoa
specificwebsiteortoraiseawarenessforacertaincompany,productorservice
(Chaffey,etal.,2006,p.252).
AdvertisingontheInternethasbeenresearchedfrommanydifferent
perspectivesandwithavarietyoffoci.Sincetheselectedwebpageformy
researchcontainsseveralbanneradvertisements,thefollowingintroductionof
studiesfocusesonthisformofonlineadvertisements.
RodgersandThorson(2000)provideawidelyacceptedcategorisationof
studiesononlineadvertising.Theycategorisebetweenstudiesandtheoriesthat
approachfromafunctionalperspective,fromastructuralperspective,andthose
thatareconcernedaboutinformationprocessing(p.42)ontheInternet.While
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
17|P a g e
thestructuralapproachintendstoidentifyandclassifyInternetadvertisements,
thefunctionalperspectiveaimstoidentifyreasonsforInternetuse.Studieswith
focusoninformationprocessinginvestigatehowrecipientsperceiveandprocess
messagescommunicatedbyonlineadvertisements(Rodgers&Thorson,p.42).
Withreferencetofunctionalperspectives,RodgersandThorson(2000)
investigatedmotivesforInternetusage.Theydefineamotiveasan“innerdesire
toactivelyfulfilaneedorwant”(p.45)andidentifiedfourprimarycategoriesof
motives,includingresearching,communicating,surfing(e.g.entertaining),and
shopping.
Intermsofstructuralanalysis,RodgersandThorson(2000)furthercategorise
Internetadvertisementsintobanneradvertisements,interstitialsandpop‐ups,
sponsorships,hyperlinks,andwebsites.
MirandaandJu‐Pak(1998)conductedacontentanalysisof200banner
advertisementson50websites.Theyexaminedthepresenceorabsenceof
structuralfeaturessuchasadvertisingappeals,theexistenceofaheadline,as
wellasbannerandfontsize.
WithrespecttoRodgerandThorson’s(2000)informationprocessing
category,severalonlineadvertisingfeaturesandstrategiesofbanner
advertisementshavebeeninvestigated,forexampleintermsofsize,locationon
thewebpageandtheeffectofanimationontheuser.
Studiesontheeffectofbanneradvertisementsizehavefoundcontradicting
results.WhileCho(1999)aswellasLiandBukovac(1999)foundthatlarger
banneradvertisementsaremoreeffectivethansmallerbanneradvertisements,
DrézeandHussherr(2003)didnotfindsupportthatbanneradvertisementsize
hasaneffectonadvertisingeffectiveness.
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
18|P a g e
Josephson(2005)investigatedthesignificanceofanimationandlocationofa
banneradvertisementwiththehelpofeyetrackingtechnology.Thefindingsof
herstudyrevealedthatanimationwasnotimportanttoattractviewer’s
attention.Incontrast,locationappearedtoplayasignificantrole.Banner
advertisementsatthetopofthewebpageweremoreoftenviewedthanthoseat
thebottomofthewebpage(Josephson,2005,pp.75‐79).
SimilartoJosephson’s(2005)findingsconcerninganimatedbanner
advertisements,alsoDiaoandSundar(2004)didnotfindsupportfortheir
hypothesisthat“individualswhoviewanimatedbanneradswillexhibitorienting
responses”(2004,p.543).Anorientingresponseisdefinedasa“short‐term
attentionreactionevokedbycertaincategoriesofstimuli”(2004,p.539).
Josephson’s(2005)andDiaoandSundar’s(2004)findingshowevercontradict
theresultsofastudyconductedbyKim,StoutandYoo(2004)whofoundthatan
animatedbanneradvertisementgenerateshigherrecall,amorefavourable
attitudetowardstheadvertisementandahigherclick‐throughintentionthen
staticadvertisements(Kim,etal.,2004,p.56).
Donthu,Lohtia,OsmonbekovandXie(2004)investigatedtheeffectof
incentivesinbanneradvertisementonbanneradvertisementclick‐throughrates
moderatedbyadvertisement‐inducedemotionalappeals.Theresultsrevealed
thatpositiveemotionsinbanneradvertisementsenhancetheeffectivenessof
incentives,whereasbanneradvertisementswithnegativeornoemotions
seemedtobemoreeffectivewhentheadvertisementincludednoincentives
(Donthu,etal.,2004,p.35).
InadditiontoDonthuetal.(2004)alsoHand,RobinsonandWysocka(2007)
conductedastudytoinvestigatetheeffectofincentivesinbanneradvertisement
buttogetherwithsixothercreativecharacteristics,namely,bannersize,
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
19|P a g e
messagelength,animation,actionphrases,theexistenceofthecompanybrand
orlogo,andthepresenceofinformationaboutcasinogames(Hand,etal.,2007,
p.531).Theresultsrevealedthatabanneradvertisementgeneratesmoreclick‐
throughrateswhenitcontainsalongmessage,appearsinalargersizeandwhen
itdoesnotincludepromotionalincentivesbutinformationaboutcasinogames.
Incontrast,actionphrasesandthepresenceofthecompanybrand/logowere
ineffective(Hand,etal.,2007,p.537).Theresearchersfurtherfoundthatintheir
studythepresenceofanimationhadaninsignificanteffectontheclick‐through
rate,whichsupportsthestudyfindingsofJosephson(2005)andDiaoandSundar
(2004).
Hand,RobinsonandWysocka(2007,p.536)raiseoneconcern,whichlimits
theirfindingoftheeffectivenessofthebannersize.Theytestedbanner
advertisementbyplacingthemondifferentlocationsonawebpage.Through
this,theresearchersargue,theeffectofthebannersizebecameinseparable
fromtheeffectofthebannersizeslocationonthewebpage(Hand,etal.,2007,
p.536).AsJosephson(2005)pointedout,thelocationofabanneradvertisement
onawebpageplaysasignificantroleinattractingawareness.
Theintroducedresearchesononlineadvertising,especiallybanner
advertising,investigatedspecificcharacteristicsofbanneradvertisements,such
assize,animation,orlocation.However,thesestudiesdidnottakeintoaccount
potentialeffectsofabanneradvertisement’scontextinwhichitisplaced,onthe
webuser.Donthuetal.(2004)forexampleanalysedbanneradvertisements
completelydetachedfromtheenvironmentinwhichabanneradvertisement
occurs.Whetherandwhateffectsthecontextofabanneradvertisementcan
haveontheuser,hasbeeninvestigatedbythe“contextualadvertising”
approach,whichisalsoastrategyinadvertisingpracticeandanapproachI
investigateinthepresentresearch.
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
20|P a g e
2.2.2 Contextualadvertising
“Contextualadvertising”isastrategytoplaceadvertisementsonmedia
vehicles,suchasspecificwebsitesorprintmagazines,whosethemesare
relevanttothepromotedproducts(Jeong&King,2005,p.2).Advertisersapply
thisstrategyinordertonarrow‐targettheiraudiences(Belch&Belch,2009,p.2;
Jeong&King,2005).
Researchoncontextualadvertisinghasinvestigatedmanycontextualfactors
thatmayinfluenceadvertisementevaluation.Withrespecttotelevisionand
printmedia,Anckaert,dePelsmackerandGeuens(2002)focusedonemotional
appealsandinvestigatedtheimpactofcongruencybetween“adstyle”and
“contextstyle”(2002,p.50)Theterm“style”referredtoaspecificemotional
appeal,namelyhumorous,warmorrational.Further,theresearchersexamined
“contextappreciation”,whichtheydefinedas“theextenttowhichpersonsfind
aparticularcontextinterestingorboringandwouldliketoreadasimilararticle
orwatchasimilarprogramagain.”(p.51)
Intermsofcontextappreciation,theresultsoftheirexperiment(n=314)
showedthatadvertisementsembeddedinahighlyappreciatedtelevisionor
printcontextweremorefavourablyevaluated(Anckaert,etal.,2002,pp.58‐60).
Inatelevisionenvironmentadvertisementcontentrecallandbrandrecallwere
improvedwhenthecontextwaspositivelyappreciated(p.59).Thiseffectdidnot
occurinaprintenvironment(p.59).
Concerningthecongruenceofadstyleandcontextstylethemoderating
factorwasthelevelofproductinvolvement.Inlow‐involvementproduct
situations“personsexperiencetheimportanceandriskofadecisionasless
relevant,requirelessproductinformation,anddevotelessattentionto
advertisingstimuli”(Anckaert,etal.,2002,p.50).Incontrast,personswithhigh
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
21|P a g e
productcategoryinvolvementrequiremoreinformationandaremoremotivated
toprocesstheinformationpresentedinanadvertisement(p.51).
Thefindingsrevealedthatpersonsinlow‐involvementproductcategory
situationsperceivedadvertisementsplacedinacongruentmediacontextas
morelikeable(Anckaert,etal.,2002,p.58).Inhigh‐involvementproduct
categorysituations,peopleperceivedtheadvertisementasmorelikablewhen
thereisnoadstyle/contextstylecongruency(p.55).
Anckaertetal.’s(2002)findingsinhigh‐involvementproductcategory
situationssupportswhathasbeencalledthe“contrasteffect”(Anckaert,etal.,
2002,p.50;Meyers&Tybout,1997,p.1).Someresearchersfoundpositive
effectsonadvertisingeffectivenesswhenthereisincongruencebetweenthe
advertisementanditscontext(Celuch&Slama,1993;Goodstein,1993;
Jablonsky,King,&Copeland,1996;Perry,etal.,1997).Anckaertetal.(2002,p.
50)explainthisphenomenonwiththeperceptionoftheadvertisementas
innovativeandinterestingduetoitsnoveltyandunexpectedness.
ThelevelofinvolvementasitisappliedbyAnckaertetal.(2002)isanoften
discussedandresearchedphenomenon.Intheory,theElaborationLikelihood
Model(ELM)describesthe“differencesinthewaysconsumersprocessand
respondtopersuasivemessages”(Belch&Belch,2009,p.167).
TheELMpresentstwobasicroutestopersuasion,thecentralandthe
peripheralroute(Belch&Belch,2009,p.169).Whenfollowingthecentralroute,
recipientsareactivelyengagedandhighlyinvolvedinprocessingthe
communicativemessage(highinvolvement).Theyhavehighmotivationandthe
abilitytoprocessthemessage,itsargumentsandcontents.Incontrast,when
followingtheperipheralroute,themotivationandabilityisratherlowandthe
receiversarenotengagedindetailedcognitiveprocessingofthemessage(low
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
22|P a g e
involvement).Insteadofevaluatingargumentsofthemessage,therecipients
refertoperipheralcueslikeforexamplethecredibilityofacelebrityendorseror
theimageryormusicinanadvertisement(Belch&Belch,2009,p.169).
Inresearch,themoderatingeffectofinvolvementhasbeeninvestigatedin
termsofadvertising(Zaichkowsky,1994),purchasesituations(Zaichkowsky,
1994),productcategories(Anckaert,etal.,2002;Cho,1999;Dahlén,Rasch,&
Rosengren,2003;Shamdasani,etal.,2001)andmagazinearticles(Colman&
Norris,1992).Thelevelofinvolvementhasalsobeenusedinresearchesabout
contextualadvertisingintheInternet(Cho,1999;Shamdasani,etal.,2001)as
introducedinthefollowing.
WithrespecttotheonlineenvironmentJeongandKing(2005,p.3)suggest
thattheInternetprovidescertainadvantagesforcontextualadvertising.They
arguethat“websitecontextsareoftentargetedmuchmorenarrowlythanother
mediums”(Jeong&King,2005,p.3).Further,theauthorsassumethatbecause
theInternetisamoreactivemediumthanforexampleTVorprintmedia,
websiteusersoftenintentionallyvisitaspecificwebsiteandthusarealready
focusedonthethemeofthatsiteandmaypaymoreattentiontotheme‐relevant
advertisements(Jeong&King,2005,p.3).
Cho(1999,p.33)conductedanexperimentwith203undergraduatestudents
inordertoexamineseveralvariablesthatinfluencebanneradvertisement
clickthroughrates.Hisintentionwastounderstandhowpeopleprocess
advertisingontheInternet.Theexaminedvariableswerea)levelofpersonaland
productinvolvement,b)thesizeofabanneradvertisement,c)relevancy
betweenthecontentofavehicleandtheproductcategoryofabanner
advertisement,d)attitudetowardthevehicle,ande)overallattitudetoward
Webadvertising.
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
23|P a g e
Thestudyresultsshowthatinhigh‐involvementsituations,theparticipants
weremorelikelytoclickonbannerads(Cho,1999,p.43),wherebyboththesize
anddynamicanimationofbanneradvertisementsmakenodifferenceinclicking
ofbanneradvertisements(Cho,1999,p.44).Inlow‐involvementsituations,the
participantsweremorelikelytoclickonabanneradvertisementwhenithas
dynamicanimationaswellasalargersizethanaveragebanneradvertisements
(Cho,1999,p.43).
Cho(1999,p.39)alsoanalysedtheparticipant’sclickingbehaviourwhenthe
contentsoftheadvertisingvehiclewasrelevanttotheproductcategoriesofthe
banneradvertisementplacedonthevehicle.Cho’s(1999,p.44)experiment
revealedthatthebanneradvertisementwithhigherrelevancebetweenproduct
categoryandthecontentoftheadvertisingvehiclegeneratedmoreclickingon
thebanner.Further,thestudyresultsshowedthattheparticipantswhohada
morefavourableattitudetowardsthevehicleonwhichtheadvertisementwas
placed,weremorelikelytoclickthebanneradvertisementonlywhenthe
productcategoryofthebanneradvertisementwasrelevanttothecontentsof
thewebsite(Cho,1999,p.45).Finally,thoseparticipantswhohadagenerally
morefavourableattitudetowardWebadvertisinghadamorefavourable
attitudetowardabanneradvertisement(Cho,1999,p.47).
AlthoughthefindingsofCho’s(1999)experimentwerenotrepresentativeto
thegeneralpublic,thestudyremainssignificantbecauseofthewidespread
analysisofseveralvariablesthatinfluencebanneradvertisingeffectiveness.In
termsofcontextualadvertising,thefindingssupportthepropositionthatthe
relevancebetweentheproductcategoryofabanneradvertisementandthe
contentofthewebsiteonwhichtheadvertisementisplaced,isanimportant
factorforbanneradvertisingeffectiveness.
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
24|P a g e
SimilartoCho(1999)Shamdasani,StanalandandTan(2001),examinedthe
effectofrelevancebetweenwebsitecontentandtheproductcategoryinbanner
advertisements.However,intheirresearch,Shamdasanietal.(2001)
investigatedtheinterplaybetween“contentrelevance”(p.17)and“website
credibility”(p.17).Shamdasanietal.(2001,p.9)alsodifferentiatebetween
high‐involvementandlow‐involvementproducts(p.9).Theaudience’sresponse
tothebanneradvertisementsusedintheirstudy,weremeasuredbyfour
variables:a)attitudetowardthebanneradvertisement,b)attitudetowardthe
brand,c)intentiontoclickonthebanneradvertisement,andd)intentionto
purchasetheadvertisedproduct(Shamdasani,etal.,2001,p.13).
Theresultsoftheironlinesurvey(n=400)showedthatforhigh‐involvement
productsrelevancebetweenadvertisingcontentandwebsitecontentisthe
significantfactorforapositiveaudiences’responsetothebanner
advertisementsusedinthisstudy(Shamdasani,etal.,2001,p.16).The
reputationoftheadvertisementvehicle(thewebsiteonwhichthe
advertisementisplaced)enhancedtheaudiences’responseonly,whencontent
relevancewasalreadygiven(Shamdasani,etal.,2001,p.16).
Inlow‐involvementproductsituations,thecriticalfactorappearedtobethe
reputationoftheadvertisementvehicle:“Thehighestconsumerevaluationsof
thatbanneradwerefoundwhenthehostwebsitereputationwaswell
established.”(Shamdasani,etal.,2001,p.16)Contentrelevancehadalmostno
effectonevaluationswhenthereputationoftheadvertisementvehiclewas
favourable(Shamdasani,etal.,2001,p.16).
TheresultsofthisstudypartiallysupportCho’s(1999)findingsintermsof
contentrelevance.Shamdasanietal.(2001)foundacoherencebetweenwebsite
contentandtheproductcategoryinthebanneradvertisementonlyinhigh‐
involvementproductsituations.Inlow‐involvementproductsituations,the
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
25|P a g e
reputationoftheadvertisementvehiclewasmoresignificantforafavourable
evaluationofbanneradvertisements.
JeongandKing(2005,p.5)explainthepositiveeffectofcontextcongruence
onadvertisingperceptionduetothecoherenceofconsumerinterestin
advertisementsandincontext.Theyargue,“consumerinvolvementinadstends
tobeconsistentwithinterestincontextbecausegreaterinterestofcontext
carriesovertoproducehigherinvolvementinads.”(Jeong&King,2005,p.5).
JeongandKing(2005,p.21)foundintheirstudythatadvertisementswere
morefavourablyevaluatedwhentheywereplacedinancontextuallyrelevant
websiteenvironment.Theresearchersexplainedtheresultsoftheirstudywitha
contextualprimingeffect.Thewordprimingoriginatesfromthepsychology
disciplineandreferstothephenomenonthatanexposuretoanearlierstimulus
influencestheresponsetoalaterstimulus(Bao,Shao,&Rivers,2008,p.150).
Throughpriorexposure,specificschemasorconceptsaremadeaccessiblewithin
thereceiver.Theseconceptsarebasedonpreviousexperienceoftheindividual
(Bao,etal.,2008,p.150).Onceactivated,itislikelythen,thattheseconcepts
areusedtoevaluatefuturestimuli.SrullandWyer(1979,p.1669)arguethat
“[…]oncea traitconceptorschema ismademoreaccessiblebypreviouscognitiveactivity,thelikelihoodthatthesameschemawillbeusedtoencodenewinformationisincreased.“
Withrespecttotheirstudy,JeongandKing(2005,p.21)arguethat
“contextuallyrelevantcuesshouldhavebeenactivatedandbecomehighly
accessibleduringinterpretingadinformationplacedwithinthatcontext.”
2.3 Semiotics
Semioticsisafieldofstudythat“isconcernedwitheverythingthatcanbe
takenasasign”(Chandler,2002,p.2).Semioticsisanapproachthatisprincipally
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
26|P a g e
concernedwithmeaning‐makingandinvestigates“everythingthatrepresents
somethingelse”(Chandler,2002,p.2).Avarietyofsemioticbranches,theories
andresearchesdrawontheworkbythescholarsFerdinanddeSaussureand
CharlesSandersPeirce,whoarewidelyacceptedastheco‐foundingscholarsof
semiotics(Chandler,2002,p.5;Noeth,1990,p.63).
Saussure’smodelofsignsisbasedonthebasicdistinctionbetweenlanguage
(langue)andspeech(parole)(Chandler,2002,p.12;Noeth,1990,p.63).
Whereaslanguereferstothesystemofrulesandconventionsthatexist
independentlyfromtheuser,parolereferstoitsutilizationbytheuser
(Chandler,2002,p.12).Byfocusingonlinguisticsigns,suchaswords,Saussure
defineslanguageasasystemofsigns.Eachsignconsistsofasignifier,awordand
asignified,aconcept(Saussure,1983,p.66).Themeaningderivesfromthe
relationshipbetweenbothparts.Thesamesignifiercanforexamplestandfor
differentconcepts,likeinthecaseofsynonyms(Chandler,2002,p.19).This
referstoSaussure’sgeneralideathattherelationbetweensignifierandsignified
isarbitrary(Saussure,1983,p.67)orasChandler(2002,pp.25‐32)describes
Saussure’sproposition:
“In the context of natural language Saussure stressed that there is no inherent, essential,‘transparent’, self‐evident or ‘natural’ connection between the signifier and the signified –betweenthesoundortheshapeofawordandtheconcepttowhichitrefers.”
Structuralist semiotics, to which Saussure’s approach counts, is concerned
with the study of the structures of sign systems (Chandler, 2002, p. 9). This
approachofsemioticshasbeencriticisedforthestrictfocusonformalsystems
and the lack of consideration of the sign’s usage in social practices (Chandler,
2002,p.209).Chandler(2002,p.210)arguesthatitdoesnot“addressprocesses
of production, audience interpretation or authorial intentions” and disregards
the sign within the cultural, social, economic and political context (Chandler,
2002,p.210).
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
27|P a g e
IncontrasttoSaussure’s“dyadicmodel”(Chandler,2002,p.18)ofsignifier
andsignified,Peirceprovidesa“triadicmodel”(Chandler,2002,p.32;Noeth,
1990,p.42)ofthesign,whichincludesfirstly,the“representamen”thatisthe
formofthesign,secondly,the“interpretant”thatisunderstoodasthemental
effectorthought,whichisgeneratedbytherelationbetweenthe
representamenandthethirdelement,the“object”towhichthesignrefers
(Chandler,2002,p.32;Noeth,1990,pp.42‐43;Silverman,1983,p.15).The
interactionbetweenthesethreeelementsiswhatPeircecalls“semiosis”
(Chandler,2002,p.33).Themeaningofasignisnotcomprisedinthesignitself
butratherderivesfromitsinterpretationbytheuser(Chandler,2002,p.35),an
ideathataccordingtoChandler(2002)iscapturedbymanytheoristswho
emphasisethedifferencebetweencontentandmeaning.
Peircefurthermoreprovidesatypologyofsigns.Hedifferentiatesbetween
threetypesofsigns:the“symbol”,the“icon”andthe“index”(Chandler,2002,p.
36;Noeth,1990,pp.44‐45).Asymboloccurs,whenthesignformdoesnot
resemblethereferent.Theirrelationshipiscompletelyarbitraryand
conventional,whichmeansthatithastobelearnedbytheuser(Chandler,2002,
p.36;Silverman,1983,p.20).Symbolsareforexamplealphabeticalletters,
numbersorMorsecode(Chandler,2002,p.36).
Intermsofanicon,meaningisbasedontheresemblancebetweentheform
ofthesignandtowhatitrefersto(Cook,2001,pp.74‐75).Theresemblancecan
bebasedonsomemutualqualitiesorproperties,likeforexampleinaportraitor
inacartoon(Silverman,1983,p.19).
Asignisanindexwhenthe“signvehicle”(Chandler,2002,p.36),theformin
whichthesignappears,isdirectlyeitherphysicallyorcausallyconnectedwith
thereferent(Cook,2001,p.74).Therelationcanbeobservedorinferred.
Indexicalsignsareforexamplesmokethatiscausedbyfire;footprintsofa
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
28|P a g e
humanorthermometersreactontemperaturechange(Cook,2001,p.74).
Silverman(1983,pp.19‐20)arguesmoreover,thatintermsofanindexical
relation,thesignisunderstoodasbeingconnectedtotherealobjectand
thereforeitmakesthatparticularobjectconceptuallypresent.
Anotherapproachthathasbeendevelopedwithinthefieldofsemioticsisthe
distinctionbetween“denotation”and“connotation”.BarkerandGalasinsky
(2001,p.5)notethatdenotationisthedefinitionalandcommonsensemeaning
ofasign,sharedbyvirtuallyallmembersofaculture.Connotationsincontrast,
generatemeaningfromtheconnectionofthesignifierwithawider“cultural
codeofmeaning”(Barker&Galasinsky,2001,p.5).Silverman(1983,p.36)
describesaculturalcodeas
“[…]aconceptualsystemwhichisorganizedaroundkeyoppositionsandequations,inwhichatermlike“woman”isdefinedinoppositiontoatermlike“man,”andinwhicheachtermisalignedwitha clusterof symbolic attributes. In caseof “woman” those symbolic attributesmightbe“emotional,”“pliant,”and“weak,”whereasthoseassociatedwith“man”wouldbemorelikelytobe“rational,”“firm,”and“strong.”
Barthes(1994,pp.288‐289)emphasisesinhisdefinitionofculturalcodethe
societalinfluence:
“cultural code: this is the code of knowledge, or rather of human knowledges, of publicopinion,ofcultureas it istransmittedbythebook,byteachingand,moregenerally,bythewholeofsociality;thiscodehasforitsreferenceknowledgeasthebodyofruleselaboratedbysociety.”
LikeBarkerandGalasinsky(2001,p.5)andSilverman(1983,p.36)consider
culturalcodesasthebasisforconnotation.Silverman(1983,p.36)suggests,that
connotationcanonlybeexplainedunderconsiderationofa“socialfieldthatis
structuredintermsofclassinterestsandvalues”(Silverman,1983,p.29).For
Barthes,cultureisfilledwithcontradictingideologies.ThecultureinBarthes
understandingisshapedbytheideologiesofthedominantclass(Silverman,
1983,p.30).Hecallstheseideologies“myths”(Chandler,2002,p.144)andthey
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
29|P a g e
functiontonaturalisespecificvalues,attitudesandbeliefs,whichmeansthatan
ideologybecomescommonsenseandisappreciatedasnormal(Chandler,2002,
p.145):
“Their function is to [...]makedominantculturalandhistoricalvalues,attitudesandbeliefsseementirely‘natural’,‘normal’,self‐evident[...]”
Barthes(1973,p.156)himselfexplainsthata
“[m]ythdoesnotdeny things,on thecontrary, its function is to talkabout them; simply, itpurifies them, it makes them innocent, it gives them a natural and eternal justification, itgivesthemaclaritywhichisnotthatofanexplanationbutthatofastatementoffact.”
Thenotionabouttheimportanceofcultureforconnotationshowever,entails
aconsiderableproblem,asChandler(2002,p.141)andSilverman(1983,p.30)
demonstrate.Botharguethatinthiscontext,connotationrequiresanindividual
whoisinvolvedandinfluencedbyaculture,whereasdenotationassumesa
neutralreaderorviewer,onewhoisnotinfluencedbycultureoranykindof
ideology.However,asSilverman(1983,p.30)andChandler(2002,p.141)argue,
everychildthatlearnsthedenotationsisalreadypositionedinanideology.
Therefore,asChandler(2002,p.141)concludes,acleardistinctionbetween
denotationandconnotationmightbetheoreticallyuseful,forexamplefor
analyticalpurposes,butinpracticethesetwoelementsareinseparablebecause
meaningisalwayspervadedwithvaluejudgement.Inthissense,Chandler(2002,
p.143)arguesthat
“[t]herecanbenoneutral,‘literal’descriptionwhichisfreeofanevaluativeelement.”
2.3.1 Socialsemiotics
JewittandKress(2003)argueforofasocialapproachtosemiotics.“Social
semiotics”emphasisestheroleoftheindividualinthemeaning‐makingprocess
(Jewitt&Kress,2003,p.9).Theycriticisethosesemioticapproachesthatregard
peopleas“confrontedwithready‐madesystemsformakingmeaning–the
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
30|P a g e
linguisticsystemmightbetheexampleparexcellence”(Jewitt&Kress,2003,pp.
9‐10).Inthesesemioticapproaches,asJewittandKress(2003,p.10)criticise,
peopleareviewedaspassiveusersofsemioticsystemslikelanguage.Peopleuse
thesignsprovidedbythosesemioticsystemsbuttheydonotchangethem.In
contrast,asJewittandKress(2003,pp.10‐11)argue,socialsemioticsviewsthe
peopleintheirsocio‐culturalenvironment.Thesocialsemioticapproachasitis
arguedbyJewittandKress(2003,p.10),proposesthatthepeoplecontinuously
createnewsigns:
“[…]signsareviewedasconstantlynewlymade,inaprocessinwhichthesignified(whatistobemeant)isrealisedthroughthemostaptsignifier(thatwhichisavailabletogiverealisationtothatwhichistobemeant)inaspecificsocialcontext.”
Chandler(2002,pp.217‐218)followsasimilarnotionandarguesthat
meaningisconstructedwithintheindividualand“arisesonlyintheactive
processofinterpretation”(Chandler,2002,p.217).Thispointofviewincludes
theargumentthattherelationbetweensignifiedandsignifierisnotarbitrary
(Hodge&Kress,1988,pp.21‐22;Jewitt&Kress,2003,p.10)asitisclaimedby
Saussure.
AccordingtoHodgeandKress(1988,p.261)socialsemioticsfocusesonall
semioticsystemshumansapplywhentheyareengagedincommunication.The
authorsarguethatsocialsemioticsisconcernedwithhuman“semiosis”,which
are“theprocessesandeffectsoftheproductionandreproduction,reception
andcirculationofmeaninginallforms”(Hodge&Kress,1988,p.261).Further,
semioticshastoincludethestudyofculture,thesocietyandthepoliticsinall
meaning‐makingprocesses(Hodge&Kress,1988,p.18).
2.3.2 Geosemiotics
AnotherlistingthatisplacedinthewiderfieldofsocialsemioticsisScollon
andScollon’s(2003)approachofgeosemiotics.Here,theauthorsarguethatin
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
31|P a g e
ordertointerpretthemeaningsofsignsandtextsinthematerialworld,itis
necessarytoconsiderthesocialandphysicalworldinwhichthesignsandtexts
arelocated.Themainfocusofgeosemioticsisindexicalitythatrefersto“the
propertyofcontext‐dependencyofsigns”(Scollon&Scollon,2003,p.3).
AccordingtoScollonandScollon(2003,p.29)therearetwobasictypesofsigns,
iconsandsymbolsbutallsignswhethericonsorsymbolsachievetheirmeanings
throughpropertiesofindexicality(Scollon&Scollon,2003,p.29).Asign’s
meaningdependsonhowitisusedinacontextorwiththewordsofScollonand
Scollon(2003,p.29):“thesignonlyhasmeaningbecauseofwhereitisplacedin
theworld”.
Theinnovativenotionofgeosemioticsderivesfromtheintegrationofthree
mainsystemsthatoutlineanyformofsocialaction:“interactionorder”,“visual
semiotics”,and“placesemiotics”(Scollon&Scollon,2003,p.8).Whereas
interactionorderrefersto“theformsofsocialinteractionsweproducewhenwe
cometogether”(Scollon&Scollon,2003,p.212),itistheconcernofvisual
semioticstoinvestigatehowsocialrelationshipsintheworldarerepresentedin
visualimages(Scollon&Scollon,2003,p.108).Placesemioticstakesinto
account“thebuiltenvironmentinwhichsocialinteractiontakesplace”(Scollon
&Scollon,2003,p.167)andincludes“eventheweatherorregulateclimate
patternswhichcontributetothemeaningoftheplace”(Scollon&Scollon,2003,
p.214).
2.3.3 Semioticsinadvertising
AsJhally,KlineandLeiss(2004)pointout,semioticscanbeappliedto
investigate“anythinginwhichmeaningisthoughttoinhere”(p.341).AsBeasley
andDanesi(2002,pp.19‐21)andalsoNoeth(1990,p.477)outline,theareaof
advertisinghasbeenwidelyresearchedinordertoexaminemeaning‐
affordancesinadvertisements.Becauseofitsprominence,itsdiversityandits
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
32|P a g e
influenceoncultureandsociety,advertisingisseenasapopularsubjectofstudy
andasignificantgenreforsemioticanalysis(Beasley&Danesi,2002,pp.19‐20;
Cook,2001,pp.1‐3;Tanaka,2002,pp.xi‐xii).
Jhally,etal.(2004)theoreticallydiscusstheapplicationofsemioticanalysisof
advertisements.Accordingtotheauthors,theincreasinguseofvisualsin
advertising,startinginthemid‐1920,hasledtoahigherambiguityof
advertisementsintermsoftheirmeaningpotential.Meaningisaccordingto
Jhallyetal.(2004,p.342)determinedbyhowthedifferentsignsinan
advertisement’sinternalstructureareorganisedandrelatedtoeachother.
Meaningwouldalsobeinfluencedbyitsreferencetothewiderbeliefsystemin
theexternalworld(Jhally,etal.,2004,p.342).Theauthorsarguethat
advertisingreconstitutesmeaningforitsownpurposesbasedontheaudience’s
predispositions,hopes,andconcerns(Jhally,etal.,1990,p.200).Advertising
applieselementsoftheaudience’slifeandexaggerates,magnifiesand
embellishesthem(Jhally,etal.,1990,p.200).
Jhallyetal.(2004)describehowadvertisementscommunicatemeaningsfora
promotedproduct,whichtheaudiencehasnoknowledgeoforexperiencewith.
Withrespecttothesemioticdifferentiationbetweendenotationand
connotation,theauthorsarguethateverymessageconsistsoftwolevelsof
meaning:themeaningthatisplaceddirectlyonthesurfaceoftheadvertisement
(denotation)andtheonethatoccursimplicitlybelowthesurface(connotation)
(Jhally,etal.,1990,p.205),anargumentthathasalsobeenmadebyNoeth
(1990,pp.477‐478).Jhallyetal.(2004,p.343)arguethatforadvertisingto
createmeaningfortheproductitpromotes,therecipienthastoengageina
processofmeaning‐transferfromthesignsintheadvertisementtotheproduct
becausethemeaningdoesnotdirectlyoccurintheadvertisementbutratherin
therecipient.Thisprocessinvolvesthreebasicrequirements.Firstly,meaningof
onesignhastobetransferredtoanothersign(Jhally,etal.,2004,p.343).This
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
33|P a g e
can,accordingtotheauthors,occurbetweenpersonsandobjects,social
situationsandobjects,betweenobjectsandobjects,andbetweenfeelingsand
objects.Second,theaudiencecompletesthetransferofmeaning.Thisrequires
anactiveparticipationoftheaudience.Third,thefirstsignmustalreadybe
significanttotheaudience.Onlythenmeaningcanbetransferred(Jhally,etal.,
2004,p.343).Inordertoprocessthemeaningtransfer,asystemofmeaning
mustalreadyexist(1990,p.203).Jhallyetal.(1990,p.203)labelsuchasystem
as“referencesystem”.
Theideaofareferencesystemtowhichtheaudiencereferstoinorderto
processthemeaningtransferhasbeencriticisedbyTanaka(2002,pp.4‐6).He
arguesthatJhellyetal.’s(1990)argumentationisincompletebecauseitdoesnot
explainhowtheaudienceknowsanddecideswhatinformation,whichexistsin
theirreferencesystem,isrelevantforthemeaningtransfer.Tanaka(2002,pp.4‐
6)furtherarguesthattheconceptfailstoidentifythecriterionsfortheaudience
tochoosetherightinformationfromthisreferencesystem.
SimilartoJhallyetal.’s(1990)descriptionofmeaning‐transfer,Noeth(1990,
p.480)arguesthatinadvertisinganindexicalfeaturetransfertakesplace.This
means,thatinadvertisementsthepromotedproduct“isrepresentedin
contiguitytovaluableobjects,filmstars,orsimilarentitieswhosedesirable
attributesarewellknown”(Noeth,1990,p.480).Advertisersapplythisstrategy
inordertogettheirproductassociatedwiththesefavourableattitudes.
Theapplicationofsemioticsfortheanalysisofadvertisinghasalsobeen
criticised.ScholarslikeBeasleyandDanesi(2002,p.vii),Botterill,Jhally,Klein
andLeiss(2005,pp.165‐166)andalsoAnderson,DewhirstandLing(2006,p.
257),raisetheconcernthattheanalysisofmeaninginadvertisementsishighly
basedontheanalyst’sinterpretation.Thisresultsinalowerreliabilityofthe
findingsofthesemioticanalysis.Reliabilityinthissenserefersto“asufficient
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
34|P a g e
levelofagreementamonganalystsonwhatisfoundinamessage”(Botterill,et
al.,2005,pp.165‐166).
Contrary,BeasleyandDanesi(2002,p.vii)arguethatsemioticsisavaluable
methodtobecomeawareofboththevarietyofinterpretationsthatcanbe
drawnfromadvertisementsandtheexistenceofimplicitmeaningsunderneath
thesurfacelevelofanadvertisement(Beasley&Danesi,2002,p.159).Especially
concerningcommoncriticismofadvertising,likeitspromotionofconsumerism
andthe‘hidden’persuasionanditsinfluencesonattitudesanddesires(Beasley
&Danesi,2002,pp.149‐151),BeasleyandDanesi(2002,p.159)arguethata
semioticanalysiscanbesupportivetode‐mystifyadvertisingcreativityinorder
tomake“theprocessofmeaningcreationmoreaccessible”.Whentheconsumer
isawareofthehiddenmeaningsinadvertisements,heorshewillbemoreable
torepelundesirableeffectsthatthesetextsmaycause(Beasley&Danesi,2002,
p.159).
SemioticanalysishasforexamplebeusedbyMcIlwain(2007)toanalyse
meaninginapoliticaladvertisement.Heanalysedatelevisedpolitical
advertisementrunbyapoliticianintheUSintermsofthefoursignsystemsthat
occurintheadvertisement:photographs,writtenlanguage,spokenlanguage
(narration)andmovingimages(McIlwain,2007,p.169).Thestudyrevealedthat
thisadvertisementarguesagainstthepolitician’sopponentbyusingcertain
racialappealsagainst‘Afro‐Americans’(McIlwain,2007,p.189).
AnotherresearchhasbeendonebyCartyandPeppin(2001)whoconducteda
semioticanalysisofsixdrugadvertisementsthatpromoteamedicamentfor
womeninthemenopausalyears,inordertoinvestigatehowpharmaceutical
companiesdesignadvertisementstopersuadephysicianstoprescribetheir
product.Theanalysisshowedthattheadvertisementsusedstereotypicalviews
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
35|P a g e
ofwomen,whichprovidesanimageofwomanthat“undermineswomen’s
positionasautonomousdecision‐makers(Carty&Peppin,2001,p.326).
Andersonetal.(2006)conductedasemioticanalysisofatobacco
advertisement.Theauthorsarguethatasemioticanalysisshouldincludetwo
basicsteps(p.256):first,theresearcherhastoselecttheadvertisementthathas
tobeanalysedaccordingtospecificcriteria,likeforexamplethemediumin
whichtheadvertisementappears(forexamplemagazinesoronwebsites).Inthe
secondstep,theresearcheranalysesboththeadvertisementcopy(linguistics,
fontstyle,typography)andimages.Thisincludestheanalysisofdenotative
meanings,whichAndersonetal.(2006,p.256)defineas“theinitialmeaning
thatasignisdesignedtocapture”aswellastheadvertisement’simplied
meanings,whichtheydescribeasconnotativemeanings(p.256).
Theintroducedliteraturethatdiscussesanddescribestheapplicationof
semioticanalysisfortheinvestigationofthemeaninginadvertisements,havein
commonthattheyplacethedocumentormorepreciselyparticular
advertisement(s)intothecentreoftheirinvestigation.However,asthe
differentiationbetweendenotationandconnotationaswellasapproacheslike
socialsemioticsandgeosemioticspropose,themeaning‐processincludesthe
userofasignandisnotcompletelycontainedinthedocumentitself.Itismy
concerninthepresentresearchtoinvestigatewhatinformationananalysis,
whichfocusesontheuser’smeaningmakingratherthanthedocumentcan
reveal.
2.4 Multimodality
Directlyfocusedonmeaningmakingisalso“multimodality”.JewittandKress
(2003,pp.9‐10)definemultimodalityasthefieldofapplicationforsocial
semiotics.Thebasicideaofmultimodalityisthathumansexperiencemeaningby
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
36|P a g e
utilisingdifferentcommunicativemodes(Finnegan,2002)anddifferentmodes
playspecificpartsintheprocessofconstructingmeaning(Bateman,2008;Kress
&Mavers,2005;Norris,2004;VanLeeuwen,2005).
However,researchersdifferindefinitionsaswellasintheapplicationof
modes.Jewitt&Kress(2003,p.1)implythatmodesare“aregularisedorganised
setofresourcesformeaning‐making”.KressandVanLeeuwen(2001,p.21)
definemodesas“semioticresources”.
Whenpursuingamultimodalapproach,researchershavefollowedthe
propositionthatinmanycontemporarydocuments,suchasnewspapersor
websites,meaningisexpressedthroughavarietyofmodes.Caple(2008,p.131)
arguesthatamultimodaltextisatextinwhich“twoormoredifferentmeaning‐
makingsystemscombinetoproduceatextthatisonecompletesemanticunit
[…]”.Inordertoidentifythemeaning‐affordanceofadocument,researchers
focusonthedocumentandtheemployedmodes,suchaswrittenlanguageor
illustrations.Inthissense,eachmodeisapartialcarrierofmeaning(Kress&
Mavers,2005,p.172).Partialinthissensemeansthateachmodecontributesa
parttothewholeofthemeaning(Jewitt&Kress,2003,p.3).Here,thefocuslies
onthedocumentwithoutnecessarilyincludingtheuser.
Theanalysisofadocument’smeaning‐affordancehasbeenofinterestfora
numberofresearchers,andsoforvariousreasonsandareasofapplication.
Scholarsexaminedforexamplethemeaning‐affordanceofprintadvertisements
(Yuen,2004),magazines(Kress&VanLeeuwen,2001),newsstories(Caple,
2008),mindmaps(Mavers,2003)aswellasbiologytextbooks(Guo,2004).Here,
researchersexaminethepresenceofmodesinadocument(e.g.Bateman,2008;
Caple,2008;Guo,2004;Mavers,2003;Yuen,2004)andbythisindependently
fromthemeaningmaker.
Inadifferentdefinition,“modes”areunderstoodasemployedbysocialactors
inordertointeractwiththeirenvironment.Norris(2004,pp.11‐12)usesthe
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
37|P a g e
term“communicativemodes”to“emphasizetheirinteractionalcommunicative
function.”Inthissense,asocialactorusescommunicativemodeslikeproximity,
gaze,gestureorspokenlanguageinordertocommunicatewithothersocial
actorsorwithatext.Norris(2004)providesamethodologicalframeworkforthe
analysisofhumaninteractionunderconsiderationofthevarietyof
communicativemodeshumansemploy.
KressandMavers(2005,p.174)pointoutthateachmodehasaspecific
affordancewhichisbasedonitsmateriality.Themodeofgestureforexample
hasvisiblematerialitywhereasspokenlanguagehasanaudiblemateriality
(Norris,2004,p.3).Modesarealsocategorisedintermsoftheirstructure.
MaversandKress(2005,p.174)differbetween“time‐basedmodes”,likespeech
ormusicand“space‐basedmodes”,suchasimagelayoutorarchitectural
arrangements.Othermodes,likegesturearebothtime‐andspace‐based
simultaneously(Kress&Mavers,2005,p.174).
Norris(2004,p.45)distinguishesbetween“embodied”and“disembodied”
modeswherebysheemphasisesthattheboundariescanbevague.Through
embodiedmodesapersonexpresseshisorher“perceptions,thoughts,and
feelings”toanotherperson(Norris,2004,p.42).Printforexampleisembodied
whensomeoneutilisesawritinginstrumentinordertocommunicatehis
perceptions,forinstance,whenwritingashoppinglist.Printisdisembodiedin
contrastforthosewhousetheshoppinglist.Amodeisdisembodiedwhen
somethingalreadycreatedisutilisedbysomeoneforaspecificaction(Norris,
2004,p.45).
Themodes,asexperiencedbytheobserver,interactwithoneanotherand
influencetherecipients’processingofmessages.Theinterpretationthenalso
dependsontheinterpreter’splaceinthesocialandculturalworld(Kress&van
Leeuwen,2001).
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
38|P a g e
Intheirapproachofmediateddiscourseanalysis,NorrisandJones(2005b)
introducetheterm“mediationalmeans”(p.49)thatreferstotheproposition
thatallhumanactionsaremediatedthroughspecific“culturaltools”(Wertsch,
1998,p.17).Mediationalmeansare“physicalandpsychological‘objects’that
mediatebetweenagentsandtheirsocialworlds”(Norris&Jones,2005b,p.50).
Thedescribedmeansarephysicalandpsychologicalatthesametimebecause
theycarryaspecificmeaningfortheuserforwhichheorsheutilisesthemin
theirsocialpracticesbuttheyalsoexistasmaterialobjectsinthephysicalworld
(Norris&Jones,2005a,p.50).Mediationalmeanscontainspecific“affordances”
and“constrains”thatformtheirusage(Norris&Jones,2005a,p.50;Wertsch,
1998,p.39).Theusageofmediationalmeansisculturally,socially,and
historicallyshaped.However,whatausercandowiththemisnotentirely
determinedbutrathermultifunctionalandopenforcombinationswithother
mediatedmeans(Norris&Jones,2005a,p.50).
2.5 Conclusion
InthischapterIprovidedareviewoftheliteratureconcernedwiththreebasic
areasofsignificanceinthepresentresearch.Firstly,theliteraturethataddresses
marketingwithparticularfocusonadvertisingingeneral,onlineadvertisingand
contextualadvertising.Secondly,literatureconcernedwiththewiderfieldof
semiotics,especiallysocialsemiotics,geosemioticsandsemioticsappliedin
advertisingresearch.Finally,Iprovidedareviewofliteraturethatfocuseson
multimodality.
Thepresentstudyisinformedbythepresentedliteraturebutalsoaimsto
contributetothesefieldsofstudies.
Thebasicaimforthisresearchistheanalysisofaspecificwebpagefromthe
webpageuser’sperspective.Thepresentedliteratureononlineadvertising,
situatedinthewiderfieldofmarketing,providesusefulinsightsintoexisting
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
39|P a g e
researchandliteratureabouthowwebusersinterpretwebsitesthatinclude
advertisementsaswellaseditorialcontents.Contextualadvertisinghasenjoyed
considerableinterestinadvertisingpracticeaswellasadvertisingresearch.For
thisresearch,theliteratureoncontextualadvertisingprovidesthefoundation
fortheanalysisoftypesofrelationshipsbetweenadvertisingandeditorial
contentonawebpageasthewebpageuserconstructsthem.
However,intermsofcontextualadvertising,thereviewedstudiesfocusedon
congruencebetweenadvertisementsandtheircontextbasedonsimilarityin
emotionalappeals(Anckaert,etal.,2002)aswellasproductcategory(Cho,
1999;Shamdasani,etal.,2001).WiththepresentresearchIintendtoinvestigate
whatothertypesofrelationshipsareconstructedbythewebpageuser.
AsalreadyDalaletal.(2005,p.51)pointedout,mostresearchfocuseson
completewebsitesratherthansinglewebpages.Littleresearchhasbeendonein
thisarea.Withthisresearch,Ialsoaimtocontributeinfillingthisgapby
investigatingtheuser’sperceptionsofaspecificwebpage.
Mostoftheresearchesononlineadvertisingpresentedinthisliterature
reviewarebasedonaquantitativeresearchapproach(e.g.Anckaert,etal.,2002;
Bukovac&Li,1999;Cho,1999;Diao&Sundar,2004;Dréze&Hussherr,2003;
Hwang,etal.,2003;Ju‐Pak&Miranda,1998;Shamdasani,etal.,2001).Iapplyin
thepresentresearchaqualitativeresearchapproachinordertogetaninsight
intoauser’sinterpretationsofawebpagebynotonlyaskingwhattheuser
interpretsbutalsobyfocusingonhow.
Thefocalpointinthisresearchisontheusersandtheirinterpretationsof
advertisementsandtheeditorialcontentplacedonthewebpage.Forthisthe
introducedliteratureonsemioticsandmultimodalityisusefulbecauseit
providesabasicunderstandingofhowindividualsexperiencetheirworldand
2.LITERATUREREVIEW
40|P a g e
howtheseexperiencesshapetheirsocialbehaviour.Theunderstandingsinsocial
semiotics,geosemioticsandmultimodalityinformmyresearchbecausethey
emphasiseboththeindividualaswellastheindividual’senvironment,suchas
theculturalbackgroundandplace,fortheprocessofmeaningmaking.
Withthisresearch,Iattempttoprovidemoreinsightsintothemeaning‐
makingprocessesofindividuals.Meaningmakinginthepresentstudyisnotonly
basedonasingleonlineadvertisementasithasbeendoneinseveralofthe
presentedstudiesanddiscussions(e.g.Beasley&Danesi,2002;Bukovac&Li,
1999;Donthu,etal.,2004;Dréze&Hussherr,2003)butalsounderconsideration
ofthewebpagecontextinwhichonlineadvertisementsareembedded.
Iseeapotentialcriticalpointconcerningthediscussionaboutsemioticsin
advertisingthatIpresentedabove.TheintroducedauthorsJhallyetal.(1990,
2004)andBeasleyandDanesi(2002)emphasiseintheirdiscussionthatmeaning
isconstructedwithintheaudience.Factuallythough,theyfocustheirsemiotic
analysisontheadvertisementratherthantheaudience.Alsothepresented
studiesofMcIlwain(2007),CartyandPeppin(2001)andAndersonetal.(2006)
describedanalysesofmeaning‐affordancesinadvertisementswithoutincluding
theaudience.Icanseehereapotentialcontradiction.Afocalpointonthe
audiencecouldrevealinterestinginsights,whichcouldnotbebroughttothe
surfacebyananalysisofanadvertisementalone.Itismyintentioninthepresent
researchtoinvestigatethisaspect.
Inthefollowingchapter,Iwilldiscussinmoredetailhowthepresented
literatureinformsmyresearchandmyunderstandings,includingtheresearch
questionsthatguidethisstudy.
3.APPROACH
41|P a g e
3. ApproachWithreferencetothemultimodalapproach,Ifollowinthisstudythe
propositionthatmodescannotbefullyinvestigatedwithoutthesocialactor,
whoconstructsmeaning.Iunderstandthatamodedoesnotoccurona
documentbutonlywiththesocialactorwhoistheuserofthedocument.
Hereby,Iconceiveamodeashavingaparticularaffordanceforthesocialactor.
AsIwillexplaininthefollowing,thisaffordanceofamodeforasocialactoris
shapedbythecultureinwhichanindividualisinvolvedaswellasindividual
factorssuchaspersonalexperiences,knowledgeandpreferences.Iapplythis
understandingtoaparticularwebpagefromthewebsite
www.healthyfood.co.nz.Idonotattempttoinvestigatethewebpageanditsuse
ofdifferentmodesinordertoexamineitsmeaning‐affordance.Itismyconcern
toinvestigatethewebpagefromtheuser’sperspectiveandhowtheuser
interpretsthewebpage.Myaimistofindoutwhatinsightsananalysisofthe
user’sinterpretationsofawebpagecanprovide.
Byfocusingontheuser’smeaning‐makingprocessofaspecificwebpage,I
alsointendtoinvestigatewhattypesofrelationshipstheuserconstructs
betweentheadvertisementsandtheeditorialarticlethatareplacedonthe
webpageexample.Here,Iunderstand“relationship”asaconnectionbetween
thecontent‐types,andthattheuserconstructstheserelationships.Relationships
inthissensedonotoccurinthedocument.Itisratheradynamicprocessactively
shapedbytheuser.
Myinterestininvestigatingtypesofrelationshipsisbasedonanemerging
practiceinonline‐advertisingtoplaceadvertisementsonwebsitesthatsharea
similarcontent‐theme,called‘contextualadvertising’.Insuchcases,the
relationshipbetweenmultiplecontent‐types,suchasadvertisingandeditorial
article,isbasedoncontentsimilarity.Anadvertisermayplaceanadvertisement
3.APPROACH
42|P a g e
foranairlineonatravelwebsiteoranadvertisementforgolfgearonthe
websiteofagolfclub.Advertisersusecontent‐relatedadvertisinginorderto
narrow‐targettheircustomergroup(Belch&Belch,2009,p.492).Alsoin
advertisingresearch,theinvestigativefocusoftenliesoncontentsimilarity
betweenadvertisementandtheeditorialcontentofthewebsitewhile
addressingtheeffectivenessofanadvertisement(Shamdasani,etal.,2001,p.8).
Iaminterestedininvestigatingwhattypesofrelationships–especiallyother
thanthosecontent‐basedrelationshipsdeployedbytheadvertiser‐the
participantsconstructduringtheprocessesofviewing/readingthewebpage.
Myintentionforthisstudyistoinvestigatehowusersthemselvesinterpreta
webpagefromthewebsitewww.healthyfood.co.nz.Thisinvestigationincludes
ananalysisofwhatrelationships,i.e.momentaryinteractions,betweenthe
advertisementsandtheeditorialarticletheparticipantsconstruct.Iam
interestedinthisinvestigationinordertoexaminetheseveralmeanings
constructedbythereaderin“real‐time”thatmaynotbediscoveredbyanalysing
thedocumentalone.
Specifically,Iaddressthefollowingresearchquestions:
• Whattypesofrelationshipsdotheparticipantsconstructbetweenthe
informationmodulesthatareplacedonawebpageofthewebsite
www.healthyfood.co.nz?
• Howdotheparticipantsinterprettheinformationmodulesplacedona
selectedwebpagefromthewebsitewww.healthyfood.co.nz?
Inthefollowingchapter,IwilldefinespecifictermsthatIuseinthisthesisas
wellasparticularunderstandingsthatinformmyresearch.Idrawthese
3.APPROACH
43|P a g e
definitionsoftermsandtheunderstandingsfromseveralapproachesand
theoriesinthefieldsofmultimodality,socialsemioticsandgeosemiotics.Iwill
furtheroutlinetheprocessoftheanalysisofauser’sinterpretationofa
webpage.
3.1 User‐centredandsystem‐centredapproaches
Inthisresearch,Idifferentiatebetweenuser‐centredapproachesandsystem‐
centredapproaches.Thedifferencebetweenthesetwoapproachesisthatthe
systems‐centredapproachfocusesonthewebpageasamultimodaldocument
(ortext)intermsofhowitrepresentsinformationandthushowitaffords
particularmeaningswhileconstrainingothers.Theuser‐centredapproach,in
contrast,focusesonthewebpagefromtheuser’sperspectiveandhows/he
interpretsthewebpage.Inthisapproach,itistheuserwho,togetherwiththe
document,affordsandconstraintsitsmeanings,whileinthesystem‐centred
approach,itisthedocumentalonethatisrecognizedasasourceofmeaning.
Thesetwoapproacheswouldanalysethesamewebpageyetfromdifferent
perspectives.Forthedifferentiationbetweenuser‐centredandsystem‐centred
approachesIrefertotheworkofLee,Lee,KimandStout(2004,pp.62‐63),who
investigatedtheeffectivenessofonlineadvertising.Fortheirstudy,Leeetal.
(2004),combinedthesystem‐centredandtheuser‐centredapproachesinorder
toinvestigateapotentialincongruencebetween“objectivewebsite
characteristics”(Lee,etal.,2004,p.61),suchasinteractivefunctions(e.g.
presenceofasearchengineortheoptiontocontactthewebsiteowner)aswell
asdesignelements(e.g.thedeploymentofcoloursorspecificfonttypes),and
theirsubjectiveperceptionbytheparticipantsintheirstudy.Thefindingsoftheir
researchindeedrevealedadifferencebetweenthecharacteristicsfoundin
system‐centredanalyses,andthesubjective,user‐centred,perceptionsofthese
characteristics.
3.APPROACH
44|P a g e
System‐centredapproach
Inthefollowing,IwillbrieflyintroduceBateman’s(2008)Genre‐and‐
Multimodality‐model(GeM‐model)asanexampletoolforasystem‐centred
analysisofmultimodaldocuments.IidentifyBateman’s(2008)modelasa
system‐centredapproachbecauseitfocusesontheanalysisofinherent
meaning‐makingina,asBatemancallsit,“multimodaldocument”(Bateman,
2008,p.1).Byapplyinghismodel,theresearcherconcentratesontheinherent
meaningaffordanceofthedocument,forexamplewhattheusercouldinterpret.
Themeaningaffordancederivesfromwhatthedocument“objectively”contains
withoutaconsiderationoftheuser.
Bateman(2008)introducestheGeM‐modelfortheanalysisofdocuments
thatemployseveralvisually‐basedmodes,suchasimagesandtexts,inorderto
expressmeaning.Whileconcentratingonwrittendocuments,Bateman(2008,p.
1)definesa‘multimodaldocument’as“anartefactthatsimultaneouslydeploysa
varietyofvisuallybasedmodes”(Bateman,2008,p.1).Amode,inBateman’s
(2008)understanding,isachanneltopresentinformation.Withreferenceto
writtentextinamultimodaldocument,Bateman(2008,p.1)describesmodesas
follows:
“[T]extisjustonestrandinacomplexpresentationalformthatseamlesslyincorporatesvisualaspects‘around’,andsometimeseveninsteadof,thetextitself.Werefertoallthesediversevisualaspectsasmodesofinformationpresentation.”
TheGeM‐modelfacilitatestheanalysisofthedocumentonseparate‘layersof
description’(Bateman,2008,p.15).Alayerisdefinedbyaspecificfocusof
analysis.Eachlayerexaminesadocumentwithaparticularfocus,forexampleits
layoutoritsrhetoricalstructureanddescribeshowthedocumentisconstructed
inreferencetothisfocus(p.108).Batemanconcentratesonthesystematic
analysisofadocumentinorderto“revealwhatthebreadthofpossible
variationsandmeaningsmightbe”(Bateman,2008,p.107).
3.APPROACH
45|P a g e
TheGeM‐modelcontainsfivelayers(Bateman,2008,p.108):baselayer,
layoutlayer,rhetoricallayer,andnavigationlayer.Thefollowinggraphic
illustratesthedifferentlayersoftheGeM‐model:
Figure1:SimplifiedillustrationoftheGeM‐model;owncompilation
ThebaselayeroftheGeMmodel“de‐composes”(Bateman,2008,p.24)the
multimodaldocumentintoits“basicelementsphysicallypresentonapage”,
suchastextsandimages.Itisthebasisforthesubsequentlayers.
Thelayoutlayerfocusesontheperceptuallysalientlayoutpropertiesofthe
page(Bateman,2008,p.116).Thepurposeofthelayoutlayeristodescribehow
thelayoutunitsarevisuallypresented(forexampleintermsoffontcoloursor
fontsize)aswellastheirarrangementonthepageconcerningspatialproximity
andpositioningonthepage(Bateman,2008,pp.115‐116).
3.APPROACH
46|P a g e
ThethirdlayeroftheGeM‐model,therhetoricallayer,focusesonthe
identificationofsemanticcontentoftheunitsonthepage,suchasanimageand
atext.Anotherpurposeofthislayeristheidentificationof“meaning‐relations”
(Bateman,2008,p.143)betweentheseunits,forexamplewhenthetext
functionsasacaptionoftheimage(Bateman,2008,p.145).Bateman’s(2008)
propositionoftheanalysisofmeaning‐relationselucidatesthecriticalpoint
whichIintendtoinvestigateinthisresearch.Bateman(2008)aimstoanalyse
meaning‐relationsbyfocusingontheobjectsthatoccurwithinadocument.
Relationshipsbetweenelementsinadocument,asIproposeinthisresearch,are
howeverconstructedwithinthedocumentuseranddonotappearonthe
document.
ThebaseandthelayoutlayeroftheGeM‐modelfocusonthephysicaland
recognisableunitsonamultimodaldocument,whereastherhetoricallayer
concentratesonthemeaning‐relationsoftheunitsonapage.
Thenavigationbasefocusesonelementsthatsupportthereaderin
navigatingthroughthedocument(Bateman,2008,p.269).Navigationunitscan
betextelements,graphicsorotherelementsthatindicatetotheviewerwhere
particularinformationcanbefoundonthepageorwherecurrenttextcontinues.
User‐centredapproach
Auser‐centredapproach,asitisappliedinthepresentstudy,focusesonthe
meaning‐makingprocessesoftheuserofadocumentandnotthedocument
itself,asitisdonewhenfollowingasystem‐centredapproach.
InthefollowingIwilldescribethebasicunderstandingsthatinformmy
research.Iwilldefinemyunderstandingsof“context”and“sign”andexplainthe
significanceoftheuser’scontextwheninterpretingasign(seebelow)ona
webpage.
3.APPROACH
47|P a g e
Iaminvestigatingtheuser’sinterpretationofaselectedwebpage.Forthe
definitionof“interpretation”,IrefertoKressandvanLeeuwen(2001,pp.40‐41)
whotakeinterpretationas“semioticaction”.Iacceptthatinterpretationleadsto
meaninginwebpageusers;itisaformofuser‐generatedsemioticconstruction.
Thissemioticconstructionisnotnecessarilyapparenttoanyoneelseotherthan
totheusersthemselves.However,theusercanmakehisorherinterpretations
perceivabletoothersthrougharticulation.Bothinterpretationandarticulation
are,accordingtoKressandvanLeeuwen(2001,p.40),semioticactions.
Interpretationisthusaprocessofmeaningmakingthatoccursinandisdrivenby
theuser.
Whentalkingaboutsigns,IdrawonChandler’s(2002,p.141)definitionthata
signisonlyasignwhenithasaparticularmeaningforthesignuser.Iadaptfrom
semioticsthepropositionthatthemeaningofasignconsistsof“denotation”and
“connotation”.Denotationreferstothedefinitionalmeaningofasign(Chandler,
2002,p.227).Chandler(2002,p.140)namesthedenotativemeaningofasignas
the‘commonsense’meaning.Connotationreferstothesocio‐culturaland
personalmeaningofasignforasignuser(Chandler,2002,p.140).Asignalways
consistsofbothadenotativeandaconnotativemeaning(Chandler,2002,p.
140).Itistheconnotativemeaningthatmakesthemeaningdependentfromthe
signuser.
Inthisresearch,Iproposethatthewebpagemaycontainthedenotative
meaningofasignwhereastheconnotativemeaningofthatsignmaybemadeby
theuser.Thisconnotativemeaningisbasedontheuser’sexperiences,
knowledge,ideas,interestsandmotivationsaswellasdispositions.Eachuserhas
asetofmeaningsforsignsthats/heapplieswheninterpretingawebpage.Ihere
refertoScollonandScollon(2003,pp.14‐16)whoemphasisetheimportanceof
thepersonalhistoryofknowledgeandexperienceaswellasspecifichabitsand
intentionsforahuman’sactions.
3.APPROACH
48|P a g e
Thedenotativeandconnotativemeaningsaretwoinseparablepartsofthe
samesign.Thatiswhyasystem‐centredanalysismaynotfullyinvestigatethe
meaningofadocumentbecauseitseemstofocusonthedenotativemeaning
only.
IborrowfromKressandvanLeeuwen(2001,p.8),aswellasfromBurkeand
Stets(2003,p.128),theideathataninterpretationofsignsdependsonthe
user’splaceinhis/hersocialandculturalworld.WithreferencetoBurkeand
Stets(2003,p.128),eachindividualisinareciprocalrelationshipwithinthe
societys/helivesin.Theindividualinfluencesthesocietybyhisorheractions
suchascreatinggroups,organisations,networks,andinstitutions.Inturn,the
societyinfluencestheindividualthroughsharedmeaningsthatallowthe
individualtoengageinsocialinteractions.Itisculture,aspecificsetofcultural
valuesandsocialroles,knownbythememberofthesocietyassocialnorms,
thathasanimpactonanindividual’sbehaviourandattitudes(Marsh,1996,p.
20).Thesesetofvaluesarelearnedandinternalisedbythemembersofthe
culture.IobtainfromMarsh(1996,p.20)thedefinitionofcultureas“thenon‐
biologicalaspectsofhumansocieties–tothevalues,customsand[…]behaviour
thatarelearnedandinternalizedbypeopleratherthanbeinggenetically
transmittedfromonegenerationtothenext”.
Iproposethattheinterpretationofawebpagedependsontheinterpreter’s
context.ForthedefinitionofcontextIdrawonScollonandScollon’s(2003)
discussionofgeosemiotics.Geosemioticsis“thestudyofthesocialmeaningof
materialplacementofsignsanddiscoursesandofouractionsinthematerial
world”(Scollon&Scollon,2003,p.2).IfurtherrefertoZaichkowsky’s(1994,p.
59)categorisationoffactorsthatinfluenceadvertisingattitudesandadaptitto
thepurposeofthisresearch.
Itakecontextasconsistingofthreecategoriesoffactors:1)thewebpage
user’sindividualbackground,suchasspecificexperiences,knowledge,aswellas
3.APPROACH
49|P a g e
hisorherpositioninthesocio‐culturalenvironment,2)theuser’sphysicaland
spatialenvironmentatthetimeofthewebpageexposure,suchastheinteriorof
therooms/heisin,thelightingandsoundconditionsaswellasotherpeople
thatarepresent,and3)thedenotativemeaningsofthesignsthatoccuronthe
webpage,orasZaichkowsky(1994,p.59)definesit,thespecificationsofthe
stimulus.
Asalreadymentionedinthebeginningofthischapter,Iacceptmodestobe
withthesocialactorwhousesthem.Thesocialactoremploysmodeslikegaze,
postureorheadmovementunderconsiderationoftheaffordancesthesemodes
providetohimorher.“Modalaffordances”asJewittandKress(2003,p.14)call
them,arethespecificinherentqualityofamode.Eachmodehasaformalsideas
wellasasocial,culturalandhistoricalside(Jewitt&Kress,2003,p.15).Onthe
onehand,eachmodehasspecificformalcharacteristics.Gazeorbodyposture
forexamplehasvisualmaterialitywhereaslisteninghasanaudiblemateriality.
Ontheotherhand,modalaffordancesarebasedontheculturalandsocial
historyofthatmodeandhowthemodehasbeenusedbyacultureandsociety
inthepast(Jewitt&Kress,2003,pp.14‐15).Theaffordancesofmodesarenot
staticbutratherevolvewithtimethroughtheirusebythemembersofasociety
(Kress&VanLeeuwen,1996,p.40).
Socialactorsusethesemodestointerpretsigns,forexamplethosethatare
placedonawebpage.Eachsignispresentedinaspecificform,whichsuggeststo
thesocialactortheemploymentofaspecific“embodied”modetointerpretthe
sign.IreferheretoNorris’(2004,p.41)definitionof“embodied”modes,which
proposesthatasocialactorusesamodeinordertointeractwithatextora
socialactor.Withinthecontextofthisresearch,asocialactoremploysmodesin
ordertointerpretthesign.Avisualsignforinstance,whichispresentedina
specificshapewithparticularcoloursetc.suggesttotheinterpretertoemploy
3.APPROACH
50|P a g e
themodeofgaze.Verbalsignsincontrast,suggesttotheinterpretertoemploy
themodeofhearing.
3.2 Structuraldescriptionoftheselectedwebpage
InthefollowingIwillintroduceanddefinespecifictermsthatstructurally
describetheelementsthatoccuronthewebpage.Iwillalsousethesetermsto
describetheparticipant’sresponsestowardstheirinterpretationofthe
webpage.
Inthepresentresearch,Ifocusonuserinterpretationsofawebpagefromthe
websitewww.healthyfood.co.nz.Thefollowingpictureshowstheselected
webpage:
3.APPROACH
51|P a g e
Figure2:Theselectedwebpagefromthewebsitewww.healthyfood.co.nz
3.APPROACH
52|P a g e
Iproposetocalltheindividualcontentunitonthewebpageaninformation
module.Forexample,aparticularadvertisementonawebpageisone
informationmodule.Eachinformationmoduleisunique.Theselectedwebpage
containsseveralinformationmodules.Thefollowinggraphicillustrates
informationmodulesonthewebpagethatcouldbeidentifiedbythe
participants:
3.APPROACH
53|P a g e
Figure3:Informationmodulesontheselectedwebpage
3.APPROACH
54|P a g e
Therearefouradvertisementsonthewebpage.IlabelthemasAd1,Ad2,Ad3,
Ad4,andeachadvertisementisoneindividualinformationmodule.Another
informationmoduleistheeditorialarticle,consistingofawrittentextanda
picture.Afurtherinformationmoduleonthewebpageistheheadline“healthy
foodguide”.
Thewebpagealsocontainsseveralsearchbars,anavigationbaranda
numberofhyperlinkstootherpagesofthewebsite.Isummarisethesetools
underthelabel“websitetools”referringtoDjonov(2008,p.219)who
differentiatesbetweentwo“corestrandsofwebsitesections”(p.219),namely
contentandfunction.Thecontentsectionprovidesinformationthatrefersto
thewebsite’stheme,whereasfunctionalsectionspresentinformationaboutthe
website.Thewebsitetoolsonthewebpageforthisresearchcanbeassignedto
whatDjonov(2008)callsthe“functionsection”(p.219).Theyprovide
informationaboutthewebsiteandcontributetothewebsite’sfunctionality
ratherthanpresentinformationtothewebsite’sthemethatiswhyIconsider
thewebsitetoolsasoneinformationmodule.
Asingleelementofaninformationmodule,likeatextorapicture,isa
module‐component.Eachmodule‐componentformsapartofthewhole
informationmoduleandcanhavesub‐components.Thefollowinggraphic
illustratessomemodule‐componentsofAd1thatcouldbeidentifiedby
participants:
3.APPROACH
55|P a g e
Figure4:Module‐componentsofAd1
Eachinformationmodulecontainsspecificinformationcontent.The
informationcontentisthecommunicativemessageofaninformationmodule.
Eachinformationmodulefurtherbelongstoaparticularinformationtype.An
informationtypeisaspecificgenreofdocuments,suchasthegenreof
advertisingorthegenreofeditorialcontentorwebsitetools.Iamnotusingthe
term“genre”herebecausethistermisusedinconsistentlywithintheliterature.
Bhatia(1993,p.13)forexampledefines“genre”withfocusonthe
communicativepurposeofadocument,whereasBateman(2008,p.9)
concentratesontheformsofexpression,suchaslanguage,thatareemployedby
adocument.Inordertoavoidconfusions,Iusetheterminformationtype.Inthe
presentresearchthereareonlythreetypesaninformationmodulecanbelong
to:advertising,editorialcontentorwebsitetools.
AnothertermIuseinthisresearchislayout.Thelayoutis“thearrangement
[…]ofelements”onapage(West,1990,p.138).Inthisresearch,layoutis
understoodasthearrangementoftheinformationmodulesandtheirsub‐
componentsontheselectedwebpage.
3.APPROACH
56|P a g e
Thefollowingillustrationsummarisestheexplainedterms:
Figure5:Illustrationofterms
Insummary,theinformationmoduleistheindividualunitinthewebpage
selectedforthisresearch.Aninformationmoduleconsistsofspecificmodule‐
componentsandsub‐components.Eachinformationmoduleisassignedas
belongingtoaspecificinformationtype,suchasadvertising.Further,each
informationmodulecontainsacommunicativemessage,itsinformationcontent.
3.3 Summary
Thischapteraimedtooutlinethegoalsofthisstudyaswellaskey
terminologyandconceptsthatinformthisresearch.Thedescribed
understandingsanddefinitionsconstitutethebasisforthisresearch.The
foundationalaspectinthisresearchisthedifferentiationbetweenuser‐centred
3.APPROACH
57|P a g e
andsystem‐centredapproaches.Auser‐centredapproachischaracterisedbyits
focusontheuser’sinterpretationsofadocument,whichdifferentiatesitfroma
system‐centredapproachthatanalysesthedocumentitself.
Asystem‐centredapproachanalysesadocumentwithrespecttothe
denotativemeaningofasignthatoccursonthedocument.
Theformofeachsignsuggeststothesocialactorthedeploymentofaspecific
modeforitsinterpretation.Thesocialactor,whoisboth,thepersonwho
employsthemodeandfurtheraddstheconnotativemeaningtothesign,isina
systems‐centredapproachnotofconcern.Thatiswhyasystem‐centredanalysis
thatintendstoanalyseadocument’smeaning‐affordance,mightnotbeableto
fullyinvestigatemeaning.
Thegeneralaimofthisresearchistoexaminewhatmeaningsananalysisofa
webpagefromtheuser’sperspectiverevealsthatprobablycannotbediscovered
byanalysingthedocumentalone.Thisincludesalsoananalysisofwhattypesof
relationshiptheuserconstructsbetweenthedifferentinformationmodulesthat
areplacedontheselectedwebpage.Arelationshipcanforexamplebebasedon
contentsimilarityintwoormoreinformationmodules.
4.METHODOLOGY
58|P a g e
4. Methodology
Inthefollowingsection,Iwilloutlinethemethodologyandmethodsapplied
inthisresearch.Iwillbeginwithageneraldescriptionofresearch,ofqualitative
research,andthendiscussethicalconcernsthatariseduringtheresearch
process.Furthermore,Iwillintroduceandjustifythemethodschosenforthis
study.Iwillcontinuewithadescriptionofthedataanalysisprocessandfinish
thischapterwithasummary.
4.1 Research
AccordingtoLewis,SaundersandThornhill(2003,p.3),researchcanbe
definedasaprojectthatisundertakeninordertoexaminespecificphenomena
inasystematicway.Thepurposeofresearchistoincreaseknowledge(Lewis,et
al.,2003,p.3).Lewis,SaundersandThornhill(2003,p.3)stressthesignificance
ofasystematicprocedure,andthatresearchoughttobebasedonlogical
relationshipsratherthanbeliefs.AsKayroozandTrevitt(2005,p.11)argue,
researchshould“beunderstoodastheexplorationofexperiencewithinitssocial
context”.KayroozandTrevitt’s(2005,p.11)definitionofsocialcontextincludes:
• Theresearcherhimorherself,theresearcher’svalues,identity,
professionalexperienceetc.;
• Thesiteofresearchincludingtheculturalenvironment,thehistory,
specificvalues,etc.;
• Theresearchmotivation,likethenatureoftheresearch,availabilityof
funding,theinfluenceofsponsors,etc.
Lewisetal.(2003,pp.5‐7)statethataresearchprocessusuallyincludesthe
followingstages:1)theformulationandclarificationofthetopic,2)reviewing
existingliterature,3)selectingtheresearchstrategy,4)collectingthedata
4.METHODOLOGY
59|P a g e
5)analysingthegathereddataandfinally6)concludingthefindingswithina
projectreport.
4.1.1 QualitativeResearch
Qualitativeresearchfocusesonthesocialworldratherthantheworldof
nature(Liamputtong,2009,p.X).Inthissocialworld,qualitativeresearchers
studythesubjectiveexperienceofhumanbeingsaswellassocialrelations(Flick,
2006,p.11).AccordingtoFlick,KardorffandSteinke(2004,p.3),qualitative
researchclaimsto“describelife‐worlds‘fromtheinsideout’,fromthepointof
viewofthepeoplewhoparticipate”.Liamputtong(2009,p.X)arguesthatin
ordertounderstandhowpeoplebehaveintheirsocialworlds,onehasto
understandthemeaningsandinterpretationsthatthosepeopleassigntotheir
behaviour.Thequalitativeresearchapproachischaracterisedbyahighflexibility
ofstrategiesandavarietyofopportunitiestocapturesubjectiveexperiencesof
individuals.Thisallowstheresearchertoinvestigatemeaningsand
interpretationsthatpeopleassigntospecificphenomenaintheirsocialworld
(Liamputtong,2009,p.X).
Inordertocapturethecomplexityofinterpretationsandmeaningsofthe
participantsinqualitativeresearch,datacannotbecollectedinahighly
standardisedway,asitispossibleinquantitativeresearch.Quantitativeresearch
approachesarecharacterisedbyahighdegreeofstandardisationinorderto
ensureahighlevelofcomparison(Flick,2006,p.10).Forexample,questionsand
theirorderinaquestionnairearestrictlyprescribed.Inqualitativeresearch,
however,datacollectionismoreflexibleinordertocapturethecomplexityof
interpretationsandmeaningstheparticipantsbringtocertainphenomena(Flick,
2006,p.10).Datainqualitativeresearchisprincipallyinterpretiveand
concentratesonthe“who,what,when,whyandhowofcertainphenomena”
(Kayrooz&Trevitt,2005,p.110).
4.METHODOLOGY
60|P a g e
Inthepresentresearch,Iamapplyingaqualitativeresearchapproach.This
approachisappropriateforthisstudybecauseIaminvestigatinghowusers
themselvesinterpretaspecificwebpage.Myconcernistoexaminetheuser’s
subjectiveexperiencewiththewebpageandhowtheuserconstructsmeaning.A
quantitativeresearchapproach,whichrequiresthesameprocedureforeach
participant,wouldconstrainmyresearchintermsofflexibilitytoreacttothe
participants’responses.
Researchcanbeconductedinductivelyordeductively.Theinductiveapproach
assumesthathypothesesaredevelopedafterthedataiscollectedandanalysed
(Lewis,etal.,2003,p.393).Here,theresearcherintendstomakesenseofthe
datawithout“imposingpre‐existingexpectationsonthephenomenonorsetting
understudy”(Patton,1990,p.44).Hypothesesandtheoriesemergefromthe
dataandthereforerequireasufficientlevelofknowledgeoftheresearcher
abouttheresearcharea(Lewis,etal.,2003,pp.393‐394).
Thedeductiveapproachassumesthata“cleartheoreticalpositionis
developedpriortothecollectionofdata”(Lewis,etal.,2003,p.28).Thepurpose
ofdatacollectionisthentotestpreviouslydevelopedhypotheses(Lewis,etal.,
2003,p.28).Thereisadebateaboutwhetherthedeductiveapproachcanbe
appliedinqualitativeresearch.Lewisetal.(2003)quoteBrymanwho
summarisestheargumentsagainstadeductiveapproachinqualitativeresearch
asfollows(pp.388‐389):
“The prior specification of a theory tends to be disfavoured because of the possibility ofintroducingaprematureclosureontheissuestobeinvestigated,aswellasthepossibilityofthe theoretical constructs departing excessively from the views of participants in a socialsetting.”
However,Lewisetal.(2003,p.389)arguethatalthoughaqualitativeresearch
mayfollowaninductiveapproach,itcanbeadvantageoustocommencethe
researchfromatheoreticalperspectivebecauseontheonehanditlinkstheown
4.METHODOLOGY
61|P a g e
research“intotheexistingbodyofknowledge”(Lewis,etal.,2003,p.389)inthe
subjectareaoftheresearch.Ontheotherhand,referringtoexistingtheories
providestheresearcherwithaninitialanalyticalframework(Lewis,etal.,2003,
p.389).
Myresearchcontainsinductiveaswellasdeductiveelements.Itisinductive
becauseIinterpretthecollecteddatawithoutspecificpre‐existingexpectations
abouthowtheparticipantsinthisresearchwillrespond.However,asoutlinedin
thepreviouschapter,myunderstandingsareatthesametimedeductively
informedbyseveralapproachessuchasmultimodalityorsocialsemiotics.
Further,Istructuredandlabelledthecomponentsontheselectedwebpageas
informationmodules,module‐components,sub‐components,information
content,andinformationtype.Byapplyingtheseterms,Ideductivelyusethem
fortheanalysisofthecollecteddataaswellasforthediscussionofthisresearch.
Further,Iproposeadifferencebetweenuser‐centredapproachesandsystem‐
centredapproaches.Inthisresearch,Iintendtoviewthecollecteddatafroma
user‐centredperspective.InordertojustifythispropositionIrefertoexisting
literature.However,Ineitherhavepre‐definedexpectationsabouthowthe
participantsinthisresearchwillrespondnordoIintendtoverifyorfalsify
specificpre‐existinghypotheses.
4.2 Designofthestudy
Iaminterestedinthewebpageuser’ssubjectiveperspectivetowardsthe
webpage.FordatacollectionIconductsemi‐structuredinterviews.Thismeans
thattheinterviewisguidedbyacoresetofquestionsbutalsoallowsexpanding
withfurtherquestionsasneededinordertoclarifyaspectsandtoexplore
responses.Ichosesemi‐structuredinterviewsasthemostappropriatedata
collectionstrategybecausetheyallowme,theinterviewer,notonlytoget
responsesfromtheparticipantsbutalsotoaskforthereasonsfortheir
responses.Semi‐structuredinterviewsenablemetoguidetheinterviewin
4.METHODOLOGY
62|P a g e
accordancewithspecificcorequestionsbutalsoallowmetoremainopenforall
themesthatmightcomeup.Thisdatacollectionstrategyisidealtoinvestigate
whytheparticipantsrespondinacertainway.
AllinterviewstakeplaceoneatatimeinthesamesettingatAuckland
UniversityofTechnology(AUT).Theparticipantdeterminesthetimeanddayof
theinterviewwithinagiventimewindowoftwoweeks.
Theinterviewconsistsofthreeparts.Alistoftheprincipalinterview
questionsisattachedinAppendixI,andexamplesoftwocompleteinterviews
canbefoundinAppendixII.
Partonefocusesonquestionsthataimatrecallinginformationcontentonthe
webpagethattheparticipantwasinvitedtoviewatthebeginningofthe
interview.Theinterviewquestionstargettheparticipants’attitudestowardthe
webpage,whatinformationcontenttheyfindprominentandifanyofthe
informationcontentprovidedbytheinformationmodulesonthewebpageare
relevanttothem.
Inparttwooftheinterview,Iaskquestionswiththehelpofcards.AppendixI
presentsallcardsIusedinthispartoftheinterview.Theparticipantisaskedto
assigntheprovidedcardsthatdepictmodule‐componentsfromdifferent
informationmodulesonthewebpage(forexamplewordsfromtheeditorial
article,asalientcolourofanadvertisement,imageelementsetc.)tooneofthe
classesadvertising,non‐advertising,orboth.Thecardsareprovidedtothe
participantinrandomsequence.Aftereachcard,Iasktheparticipantstoexplain
theirdecision.WiththecardactivityIaimtoexaminehowtheparticipantsjustify
theirdecisiontoassignthespecificcardtooneofthecategories.Especiallywhen
theypreviouslyindicatedthattheycouldnotrememberseeingthedepicted
component.
4.METHODOLOGY
63|P a g e
Inpartthreeoftheinterview,Idiscusswiththeparticipantswhat
relationshipstheycanidentifybetweenthedifferentinformationmoduleson
thewebpage.Forthispart,theparticipantsareinvitedtolookatthewebpage
again.
Allinterviewsareaudioandvideorecorded.Atanearlierstageofthis
researchproject,itwasmyintentiontocaptureandanalysetheparticipants’
verbalaswellasnon‐verbalutterances.Asdescribedinthe“Approach”chapter,
socialactorsdeploydifferentmodesinordertointerpretsignsandIaimedto
captureandanalyseavarietyofmodestheparticipantsdeployedduringthe
interviews.Forexample,theparticipantsinmyresearchapplyseveralmodes,
includinggazetointerpretthesignsonthegivenwebpagebutalsouse,among
others,themodeofspokenlanguagetoresponsetotheinterviewquestions.To
capturethevarietyofappliedmodes,Iinstalledthreevideocameras.Onevideo
camerawasconcentratedontheparticipant’sfaceinordertocapturemodes
likegaze,headmovement,andthegeneralfacialexpression.Asecondvideo
camerawasfocusedontheparticipant’supperbodyfromtheprofileview.With
thisIaimedtocaptureforexampletheparticipant’supperbodypostureorhisor
herarmmovements.Thethirdvideocamerafocusedontheparticipantandme
astheinterviewerandcapturedthemodesweemployedinourinteractionwith
eachother.
Afterreviewingtheinterviewsitbecameapparentthattheverbaldataof
eachparticipantprovidedavarietyofin‐depthinformation.Inordertocapture
andanalysethethemesthatcameupintheinterviews,Idecidedtofocuson
verbaldataonly.Istillconsidernon‐verbaldataasasignificantsourceof
informationbutinordertocapturethecomplexityofinformationprovidedby
collectedverbaldata,achangeoffocusappearedtobenecessary.
4.METHODOLOGY
64|P a g e
Theverbaldataoftheinterviewsweretranscribedinordertoanalyse
‘utterances’inthecollecteddata.Thefollowingpicturesshowthedifferent
anglesofthevideocamerasthatcapturedtheparticipant:
Figure6:ShotsfromCamera1,Camera2andCamera3
4.2.1 Theparticipants
Forthisresearch,Iconductedinterviewswithsixparticipants.Accordingto
Patton(1990,p.184),thesamplesizeinaqualitativeresearchdependsonthe
purposeofthestudyaswellasavailabletimeandresources.Sincethisresearch
isseekingdepthinformationasmallernumberofparticipantsissufficient.This
researchdoesnotattempttoberepresentativenorintendstomakeany
generalisationsofthefindingstothewiderpublic.
Fortheinterviewsinthisresearch,Idirectlyapproachedpotential
participants,eitherbyemailorthroughpersonallycontactingthem.Seven
potentialparticipantswereapproachedfrommypersonalnetwork.Sixpersons
agreedtoparticipateandonepersondeclinedforpersonalreasons.Thesix
participantsaremembersofthegeneralpublic(20yearsandabove)inNew
Zealandwithoutconsiderationofethnicity,gender,profession,economicand
socialstatusorrace.Thesecharacteristicswerenotinvestigatedinthisresearch
andthereforenocriteriafortherecruitment.Onecriterionwashowever,that
theparticipantsmusthaveabasicInternetliteracyinordertoensurethatthey
havetheabilitytoidentifytheinformationmodulesandtheirmodule‐
componentsplacedonthewebpage.
4.METHODOLOGY
65|P a g e
Eachpotentialparticipantreceivedaninformationsheet,whichexplainedthe
purposes,theproceduresoftheinterviewandtheparticipant’srights,for
exampletherighttorefuseansweringaquestionandtherightfor
confidentiality.Priortotheinterview,eachparticipantvoluntarilysigneda
consentform,withwhichtheyconfirmedtobeinformedabouttheirrightto
withdrawfromthestudyatanytime,thepurposeoftheresearch,andthat
becauseofthevideo‐tapingoftheinterview,theiridentitycannotbekept
confidential.
4.2.2 ResearchEthics
Partoftheresearchprocessistheconsiderationofethicalissues.Ethicsrefers
totheappropriateethicaldesignoftheresearch.AccordingtoLewisetal.(2003,
pp.129‐145)ethicalissuescanoccuratallstagesoftheresearchprocess.The
appropriatenessoftheintentionsanddesignoftheresearchincludingthe
researcher’sbehaviourismeasuredagainstthebroadersocialnormsthat
indicatehowapersonoughttobehaveinaparticularsituation(Lewis,etal.,
2003,pp.129‐145).KayroozandTrevitt(2005,p.120)arguethataresearcher
mustconsidertheresponsibilitiesofandtherisksforallpeopleinvolved.
Commonethicalissuesrevolvearoundtherighttoprivacy,non‐participation,
anonymityandconfidentiality(Kayrooz&Trevitt,2005,p.120).
Duringthedesignstageoftheresearch,ethicalproblemsmightoccurwhile
approachingpotentialparticipants(Lewis,etal.,2003,p.132).FormystudyI
approachedsevenpotentialparticipants.Iputemphasisonaprivateapproach,
whichmeansIcontactedthepotentialparticipantsinprivatesothatnooutsider
wasawareofaninvolvementofthisparticipant.Ifurtherconsideredthe
participant’srighttorefuseparticipation.OnepersonIapproachedrejectedto
participateforpersonalreasons.
4.METHODOLOGY
66|P a g e
Generally,theresearcherhastoseekinformedconsentfromparticipants
abouttheirwillingnesstoparticipateandmustdeclarethepurposeandnature
oftheresearch,therequirementsoftakingpart,abouttheimplicationsoftaking
partandparticipant’srights,aswellasabouttheuseofthedatacollectedand
thewayinwhichthedatawillbereported.Thepotentialparticipanthasto
submittheconsentvoluntarily(Lewis,etal.,2003,p.132).Aspreviously
mentioned,inmystudyeachparticipanthadtosignaconsentformpriortothe
interview.
Lewisetal.(2003,p.132)claimthatduringthedatacollectionstageseveral
ethicalconcernsmayarise.Duringthisstage,theresearcherhastobeawareof
theparticipant’srightforprivacyandhastoproceedinaccordancetothe
processtheparticipanthasgivenhisorherconsentto.
Asalocationformydatacollection,Ichoseaparticularroomatauniversityin
ordertokeeptheparticipant’srighttoprivacy,whichIguaranteedinthe
informationsheettheparticipantsreceivedpriortotheinterview.
Further,atruthfulhandlingofthecollecteddatahastobemaintainedbythe
researcher.Thismeansthedatahastobecollectedaccuratelyandremovalas
wellasmakingupofdatathatmightinfluencetheresearchoutcome,is
consideredasunacceptableandunethical(Lewis,etal.,2003,p.132).
ConfidentialityandanonymityareotheraspectsthatIhadtoconsiderduring
myresearchprocess.Confidentialityreferstotheprotectionoftheparticipant’s
identity“inadditiontoanyinformationtheymayprovidethroughoutthecourse
oftheirparticipation.”(AUTEC,2010)Withinthescopeofconfidentiality,I
furtherhavetheresponsibilitytousethecollecteddataonlyforthepurposeof
thisresearch(AUTEC,2010).
Anonymityreferstotheaspectthatthesourceofthedata,theparticipant,
remainscompletelyunknownorundeclared(AUTEC,2010).Becauseofthevideo
4.METHODOLOGY
67|P a g e
andaudiotapingoftheinterviewsinthepresentresearch,itwasnotpossiblefor
meastheresearchertokeeptheparticipantanonymous.Thisaspectwasclearly
pointedoutintheconsentformtheparticipantshadtosign.
Inordertokeeptheparticipants’personaldataconfidential,Icodedthename
ofeachparticipantinallwrittendocumentationsinthisresearch,including
interviewtranscriptionsandthethesis.Inallreportsthatemergefromthis
research,participantsarelabelledasP1,P2,P3,P4,P5,andP6andwithout
revealingtheirgenderorotherpersonaldata.
Theresearcherhastoallowtheparticipantstorefuseansweringquestions
and/ortowithdrawfromtheprojectatanypointintimeoftheresearch(AUTEC,
2010).Priortoeachinterview,Imadetheparticipantawareofhisorherrightto
refusetoanswerthequestionsbutnoneoftheparticipantsmadeuseofthis
right.
Theresearcherhastoanalyseandrepresentthecollecteddatahonestly
withouteliminatingrelevantdata.Anabsenceofhonestymightdistortthe
conclusionsthatemergefromthecollectedandanalyseddataanddonot
truthfullyrepresenttheinformationdeliveredbytheparticipants(Lewis,etal.,
2003,p.139).Theaspectsofanonymityand/orconfidentialityappliedduringthe
datacollectionstagearealsovalidatthisstage(Lewis,etal.,2003,p.139).
4.3 Procedureofdataanalysis
Theanalysisofthecollecteddatainthisresearchconsistsoffivestages:1)
transcribingtheinterviews,2)repeatedreadingandnote‐takingofthetranscript
andsimultaneously3)developingfirstdraftcategoriesaboutarisingthemes,4)
identifyingoffinalcategories,and5)analysingthedata.Thesestagesofthedata
analysisprocessarenotstatic.Whilereadingandcategorisingthetranscriptsfor
example,Iamalreadyintheprocessofanalysingthembecausewhenreading
4.METHODOLOGY
68|P a g e
thetranscriptsanddevelopingcategories,Ianalysethedatawithrespecttomy
researchquestionsandbasedonthisIdecidehowtocategorisethedata.
AccordingtoSchmidt(2004,p.254),thefirststageintodataanalysisisto
transcribethecollecteddata.Thetranscriptionshavetobereadseveraltimesin
ordertoimmerseintothedataandtogetasenseoftheinterviewasawhole
(Creswell,2007,p.150).
Instagestwoandthree,Ireadthetranscriptsseveraltimes.Inorderto
organisetheinterviewdataIwritedownnotesandhighlightthemesand
thoughtstheparticipantsmentioned.Thegoalofcategorisationistocapturethe
themesthatoccurintheinterviews(Schmidt,2004,p.254)andtomakethe
complexityoftheinterviewsmanageablebyorganisingthedata(Patton,1990,p.
283).Mydevelopedcategoriesarealwaysinformedbytheinterviewdata.
AlthoughIusethesecategoriestoguidemyanalysis,Iamstillconcentratingon
theinterviewresponsesoftheparticipants.Theirresponsesaremydata.
Thereareseveralwaystodevelopandlabelcategories.Creswell(2007,p.
152)aswellasLewisetal.(2003,p.381)differentiatebetweenprefigured
categoriesthatemergefromotherstudiesortheoriesinthesamefieldof
research,andemergentcategoriesthatderivefromthecollecteddata.The
identificationofcategoriesisguidedbythepurposeandobjectivesofthe
researchproject(Lewis,etal.,2003,p.381).Inmyresearch,Idevelopthe
categoriesbasedonthecollectedinterviewdata.Thisprocedureisappropriate
becauseanapplicationofprefiguredcategoriesfromothertheoriesand
literaturewouldnarroworevendistorttheanalysis.Inordertofindouthowthe
participantsconstructmeaningofthesignsgivenonthewebpage,itisnecessary
tobeopentoeveryargumentandeverythemetheparticipanttouchesupon.
Everythemethenconstitutesonecategory.Incaseswheretwoormore
participantsmentionasimilartheme,Iconsiderassigningthemtoonecategory.
4.METHODOLOGY
69|P a g e
IadoptthreesourcesforcategorylabelsfromLewisetal.(2003,p.381):
• Labelsthatemergefromthedata;
• Labelsthatarebasedonthetermsusedbytheparticipants;
• Labelsthatcomefromtermsusedinexistingtheoriesandliterature.
ForlabellingthecategoriesIuselabelsthatemergefromthedata.The
followingtableprovidesanexampleoftheprocedureofnotetakingandthe
identificationofthemes:
Participant’sresponse Notes
“Ireadthearticle,thatwasinteresting[...]it
wasaboutcholesterolinseafoodandthere’s
goodandbadone,IheardaboutitandInever
reallyknewthedifference.”
Notes:
‐ Editorialarticleisinteresting
‐ Informationcontentofeditorialarticle
‐ Cholesterolandseafood,goodandbad
one
‐ Participantreferstopersonal
knowledgeaboutgoodandbad
cholesterol
Themes:
• Informationcontent
• Personalknowledge
• Evaluationofinformationmodule
Table2:Exampleofthemeidentification
Ifurthermoreconsideredtousethethemesoftheinterviewquestionsasan
alternativeforthedevelopmentofcategories.Indoingso,itbecameapparent
thatacategorisationbasedontheinterviewquestionsisnotsufficientbecause
4.METHODOLOGY
70|P a g e
theparticipantsoccasionallydivagatedfromtheinitialquestionand,for
example,talkedaboutpersonalmemories.Thesedivagationsdidnotrefer
directlytotheaskedquestionbutneverthelessprovideusefulinformationanda
goodinsightintotheparticipant’sthoughtsandhowtheparticipantprocesses
thesignsprovidedonthewebpage.
Schmidt(2004,p.255)mentions,thatinsemi‐structuredinterviews,
importanttextpassagesdonotalwaysoccurinthedirectcontextofthe
questions.Byrepeatedlyreadingandanalysingtheinterviews,theresearcher
canfindimportanttextpassagesthatmightnotbeinitiallyobvious(Schmidt,
2004,p.255).
Thedevelopmentandapplicationofcategoriesisanongoingandnon‐linear
process(Schmidt,2004,p.254).Duringtherepeatedreadingofeachinterview
transcript,Iconstantlyreview,changeorexpandmycategories.Somecategories
aredeletedandmergedundermoregeneraltitlesandotherscomeoutof
previouscategoriesthatbecometoodiverse.Attheendofstagefour,Iendup
withseveralmaincategories.
Thefollowingtableillustratesthedevelopedcategories.Thesecategories
consistoftheparticipants’responsesandthethemesthatcameupduringthe
interview.
4.METHODOLOGY
71|P a g e
Categories Examples
• Statementsaboutpersonalmemories,knowledgeandbeliefs
“Ihadabloodtestonceandtheywerereallysurprisedwiththelevelofcholesterol.”
• Statementsaboutcomfortduringinterview
“I’muncomfortabletosaythatinfrontofcameras”
• Statementsaboutinformationcontent
“themainbodycontainedanarticleaboutseafood,mussels,
inparticularshellfishandcholesterol”
• Statementsaboutevaluationofinformationmodulesormodule‐components
“thatparticularaddidn’treallyscreamout”
• Statementsaboutlayout
“thecontentinthemiddleandthentheadssortofsurroundedbuttheyarenotpartofthe
article,theyaresortofabove,belowandontheside”
• Statementsaboutinformationtypeadvertising
“Mostadvertisingistellingyouwhatyouneed”
• Statementsaboutinformationtypeeditorial
content
“it’slikeoneofthosepages
whereyoucanshareinformation”
• Statementsaboutinformationtypewebsitetools
“thesearchbarisattheusualplace”
• Statementsaboutsponsorship‐relationship
“theymaybejustasponsor”
4.METHODOLOGY
72|P a g e
• Statementsaboutrelationshipsbasedon
similarityininformationcontent:seafood
“byhavingtalkingaboutseafood
andhavinganadaboutseafoodthatmakessense”
• Statementsaboutrelationshipsbasedonsimilarityininformationcontent:food
“WelltheGolden[advertisement]isnotthatrelatedwithfishbutImeanit’s
stillfoodsoIguesstherelationcomesfromthere.”
• Statementsaboutrelationshipsbasedonsimilarityindesign:colour
“theMercedesonebelongstothearticlebecausethecolours
aresimilarasinthepage”
• Statementsaboutrelationshipsbasedon
similarityindesign:shape
“thosetwologoskindoflookthe
same[...]it’sroundandit’sgotstronganglesonthatso[...]Ithinkthatfitsprettyaswell”
• Statementsaboutrelationshipsbasedonbeliefaboutincomeandinvestment
“Generallypeoplewhoearnmoremoney[...]investmoremoneyintohealthyfood,then
maybemoreseafood”
• Statementsaboutnon‐relationshipsbasedondifferenceininformationcontent:processedfood
“thecrumpetsIthoughtwasoutofplacebecauseits[...]processedfood.”
• Statementsaboutnon‐relationshipsbased
ondifferenceininformationcontent:productcategoryfood
“Peoplearen’tusuallythinking
aboutcarswhentheylookatafoodwebsite”
• Statementsaboutnon‐relationshipsbased
ondifferenceininformationcontent:productcategoryseafood
“thecrumpetsisIwouldn’tsay
it’soutofplacebecauseit’sfoodwaswellbutitseemslikeit’snotremotelyseafood”
Table3:Developedcategoriesfordataanalysis
4.METHODOLOGY
73|P a g e
Thereisdisagreementbetweenresearcherswhethertocountinqualitative
researchthenumberoftimesaspecificcategoryoccursintheinterviews.
Schmidt(2004,p.257)supportsthecountingofcategories.Hearguesthat
countingprovidesinformationaboutpotentialpatternsinthedataandpossible
relationshipsbetweencategoriesthatcanbepursuedintheresearch.In
contrary,Creswell(2007,p.152)arguesthatcountingsuggeststhatallcategories
aregivenequalimportanceandthatitignorestheindividualityofeachtext
passage.Forexample,countingmightrevealthatacategoryoccursseveraltimes
butitdoesnotpointoutthatthetextpassagesmayrepresentopposingviews
(Creswell,2007,p.152).
Inmyresearch,Itestedtheusabilityofcountingintermsoftheparticipants’
responsesinthecardactivity.Here,basedonwhattheycanremember,the
participantshadtodecidewhethertoassignacarddepictingasinglemodule‐
componentoftheinformationmodules,likeawordoranimage,totheclassof
advertising,non‐advertisingorboth.Iconsideredcountingasapossibleoption
becauseitwouldallowmetodiscovertendenciesintheparticipants’answers.
However,itbecameapparentthatsuchananalysisdoesnotgivemeany
informationabouthowtheparticipantsjustifiedtheirdecisiontoassigna
specificcardtonon‐advertising,advertisingorboth.Thecountingofcategories
showedmeforexamplethatseveralparticipantsmadethesamedecisionbut
onlyanin‐depthanalysisoftheirresponsesrevealedthattheyhadverydifferent
reasonsfortheirdecisions.Thecountingrevealedforinstancethatparticipants
1,2,3,4,5,and6assignedthecardwiththelogooftheNewZealandSeafood
advertisement(Ad2)totheclassofadvertising.Thecountingshowsaveryclear
result.However,theanalysisoftherelevanttextpassagesrevealedthat
participants1,2,and6couldindeedrememberthelogofromtheadvertisement
butparticipants3,4,and5didnotrememberandbasedtheirdecisionontheir
interpretationofthesignasalogoforaspecificbrand.
4.METHODOLOGY
74|P a g e
Ingeneral,inthisresearchitisimportanttoremainopenforeverythemethe
participantsaddressandhowtheyincludethesethemesintotheir
argumentation.Itisnotimportanttoknowhowoftenaspecificthemeoccurred.
Atthefinalstage,Ianalysethedata.Asalreadymentionedearlier,the
differentstagesofthedataanalysisprocessarenotclearlydistinctive.By
developingcategoriesandapplyingthemtothedata,Iamalreadyanalysingi.e.
“makingsense”ofthedata.However,atthisstage,Iinvestigatespecificallywhat
theparticipantsdiscuss,howtheyargueandhowthedifferentcategoriesare
relatedtoeachother.Here,Iamanalyzingthedatainordertofindanswersfor
myresearchquestions.Iusethedevelopedcategoriesasaguideline.For
example,whenIintendtoanalysespecificrelationshipstheparticipants
constructed,Idrawonthecategoriesthatcontainresponsesaboutrelationships.
IthenanalysethespecificinterviewresponsesthatIassignedtothiscategory.
4.4 Summary
Thischapterintroducedresearchmethodsanddesignemployedinthisstudy.
Itoutlinedtheprocessesofdatacollectionanddataanalysis,whichbuildthe
foundationforthefollowingchapters,namelytheanalysisofthecollecteddata
andthediscussionofresults.
Thisresearchfollowsaqualitativeapproachbecauseitallowstoinvestigate
participant’sinterpretationsofawebpagefromthewebsite
www.healthyfood.co.nztheyareinvitedtolookat.Thedataiscollectedthrough
semi‐structuredinterviewsandeachofthesixinterviewsconsistsofarecall
section,acardactivityandasectionwherequestionsintermsofrelationships
betweenthedifferentinformationmodulesareasked.Allinterviewsareaudio
andvideorecordedinordertocaptureverbalaswellasnon‐verbalutterances.
Ifurtherdescribedtheprocessofdataanalysisinthisresearch.Thedata
analysisconsistsoffivebasicsteps:1)transcribingtheinterviews,2)repeated
4.METHODOLOGY
75|P a g e
readingofthetranscriptandsimultaneously3)developingdraftcategoriesabout
arisingthemes,4)developingoffinalcategories,and5)analysingthedata.
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
76|P a g e
5. AnalysisanddiscussionofinterviewdataTheintentionforthisresearchistoexaminehowtheparticipantsinthis
researchinterpretedawebpagefromthewebsitewww.healthyfood.co.nz.By
analysingthecollectedinterviewdata,thischapterseekstoexploretheseuser‐
centredinterpretationsinparticipants’responses.Dataanalysisinthischapter
includestheexaminationofhowtheparticipantsinterpretedthewebpage,and
whattypesofrelationshipsbetweendifferentinformationmodulesthe
participantsconstructed.Myinterestinexaminingrelationshipsbetweenthe
informationmodulesonthewebpageisgeneratedbytheuseandanalysisof
contextualadvertisinginadvertisingpracticeaswellasadvertisingresearch.
Further,Iwilloutlinetheparticipants’responsesconcerning1)environmental
factors,2)theirinterpretationofeditorialcontent,3)theirinterpretationof
advertisements,4)theirinterpretationoftheoverallwebpageincludingwebsite
tools,aswellas5)relationshipstheparticipantsconstructedbetweenthe
informationmodulesonthewebpage.
5.1 Participants’responsesaboutenvironmentalfactors
HallandKnapp(2002)arguethatthecommunicationenvironment,which
includesthephysicalandthespatialenvironment(Hall&Knapp,2002,p.7)as
wellastime(Hall&Knapp,2002,p.114),hasasignificanteffectonthe
communicators’perceptionsandactions.AccordingtoScollonandScollon(2003,
pp.166‐196),discoursesaresignificantlyshapedbytheplaceandtimetheyare
occurring.Aparticularplaceallowscertainactionsandlimitsothers.Alibraryis
forexampleanidealplaceforreadingbooksbutisusuallynotidealforhavinga
noisyconversationbecauseofspecificrulesthatapply.Inasportsstadiumin
contrast,everyoneiswelcometoshoutandcheerbutitmightbenottheideal
placeforreadingabookalthoughitisusuallynotforbidden.ScollonandScollon
(2003,p.169)understandthesespacesalongadimension,rangingfrom“very
closespecificationtotheneedsofparticulartypesofsocialinteractionstovery
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
77|P a g e
loose,multi‐purposespaces”(2003,p.169).Specificplaceshavespecific
meaningtothepeople(Scollon&Scollon,2003,p.175).
Inthespecificinterviewsituationsinmyresearch,theinterviewstookplacein
thepremisesofauniversity.Alreadythespaceshapestheparticipants’
expectations,behavioursandperceptions.Conductinganinterviewina
universityisdifferentthanhavingtheinterviewinacaféforexamplebecausea
universityisaninstitutionandstandsforan“official”placewhileacaféisrather
casual.Theinterviewstookplaceinasmallroomandnoonebuttheparticipant
andme,theinterviewer,werepresent.Thismakestheinterviewsituationmore
private.Inamorepublicenvironmentotherpeoplemighthavebeenpresent
whomayhavehad(consciouslyorunconsciously)aneffectontheparticipant.I
intentionallychosethispremiseinordertocaterforspecificneeds,forexample
theneedforprivacy.
P6mentionedhowthepresenceofthevideocamerasaffectedhis/her
response.P6said,“itiswrongtosaythatbutgenerallypeoplewhoearnmore
moneyalsoinvestmoremoneyintohealthyfoodandmaybemoreseafood,I’m
reallyuncomfortabletosaythatinfrontofthecameras.”Inthisparticular
situation,P6describedherunderstandingoftherelationbetweenpeople’s
financialsituationandtheirattitudetowardshealthyfoodandseafood.P6
mentionedtofeeluncomfortabletotalkaboutherattitudetowardsthistopic,
whichappearstobeverydelicatetoher.Althoughthisstatementdoesnot
revealhowthecamerasinfluencedP6’sperceptionofthewebpage,it
neverthelessindicatesthattheyhadaneffectonP6.
RespondingtothecardcontainingtheQsigninthecardactivity,P5
answered,“IhavetoputitonbothbecauseIjustdon’tknow.”Similarly,inthe
caseofthecardwiththecolourblueonit,P5said,“Ihavetoputittoboth
becauseIdon’trememberseeingit[…]”andjustifiedherbehaviourwith“it’s
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
78|P a g e
probablyabadtimeoftheday.”Withreferencetothetimeanddayofthe
interview,P5’sstatementindicatesthats/hedidnotfeelveryefficientandthat
P5’sphysicalconditionaffectedP5’sabilitytoprocesstheinformationgivenon
thewebpage.
P5’sstatementindicatesthatthetimeoftheinterviewandwiththisthetime
ofthewebpageexposureisafactorthathadaneffectonP5’sperceptionofthe
webpage.Theinterviewtookplaceat6pmonaworkingday.Duringthepicture
cardactivity,P5admittedseveraltimesthats/hecouldnotremembertheitems
depictedonthecards.
Tosumup,environmentalorlayoutfactorsliketheinterioroftheroomin
whichtheinterviewtookplaceorthelightingconditionsatthetimeofthe
interviewinfluencedtheparticipant’sinterpretationofthewebpagetosome
degreeaswellastheperceptionoftheirsurroundings.Thestatementsoftwo
participantsindicatethatthetimeoftheinterviewaswellasthepresenceofthe
threecamerashadaneffectonthem.
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
79|P a g e
5.2 Participants’responsesconcerningeditorialcontent
Allofthesixparticipantsinterpretedtheinformationcontentoftheeditorial
articletextastalkingaboutcholesterolinseafood.P1said,“themainbody
containedanarticleaboutseafood,mussels,inparticularshellfishand
cholesterol.Soitwashowmuchcholesterolisinacupofshellfishforexample.”
P2alsomentionedthattheinformationintheeditorialarticlewasnewto
him/her.P2said,“Ireadanarticleaboutcholesterolandseafood.Ifoundout
abouttwotypesofcholesterol,sothat’sgood.ThingsIdidn’tknow”.P2wenton
toexplaininmoredetailtheinformationcontentoftheeditorialarticlethats/he
identified:“inthearticleapersonisaskingaboutlevelsofcholesterolinseafood.
Ithinkhewasconcernedaboutthat.Andthenthepersonwhorepliedgavea
veryin‐depthdescriptionaboutthetwotypesofgoodandbadcholesteroland
justgeneralinformationaboutseafoodinrelationtocholesterol.Therewasalot
ofcholesterol.Thewordiseverywhere.”
P3alsomentionedbesidesthedescriptionoftheinformationcontents/he
interpreted,thequestionandanswerstyleoftheeditorialarticle:“themain
articlewaslikeaquestionandanswersession.Probablysomesubscriberora
personwhousesthiswebsiteasksthequestionaboutcholesterolinmusselsand
generallyshellfishandthenthenutritionistonthewebsitegaveananswer,
whichincludedlikeageneraldescriptionofthedifferenttypesofcholesterol.”
Itbecameapparentthatseveralparticipantsinterpretedtheinformation
contentoftheeditorialarticleastheoverallinformationcontentofthe
webpage.Whenaskedtorecallthewebpage,P1said,“themainbodycontained
anarticleaboutseafood”,P3referredtoitas“themainarticlewaslikea
questionandanswersession”,whileP5responded“itisapageheadedup
healthyfoodandthecontentwasaboutgoodcholesterolandbadcholesterol”.
Theword“main”inP1’sandP3’sresponsesindicatethatbothinterpretthe
editorialarticleasthemostsignificantinformationmoduleonthewebpage.
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
80|P a g e
ItappearsthatP1,P3andalsoP5haveahighinvolvementwiththeeditorial
article.Inthiscase,P1,P3andP5seemtohaveprocessedtheinformation
contentoftheeditorialarticleinmoredepthbecausetheyidentifieditasthe
mostsignificantinformationmodule.
Thelevelofinvolvementhasbeentheorisedbythe“ElaborationLikelihood
Model”(ELM),whichproposestworoutestopersuasion:thecentralandthe
peripheralroute(Belch&Belch,2009,p.167).WithreferencetotheELM,P1,P3
andP5appeartohavefollowedthecentralroute,whichmeansthattheywere
highlymotivatedtoprocessthemessageintheeditorialarticle.
Severalparticipantsreferredtopersonalmemoriesandknowledgewhen
interpretingandevaluatingtheinformationcontentoftheeditorialarticle.P1
andP2forexampletalkedaboutpriorknowledgeaboutseafoodandcholesterol
andhowthisknowledgeeffectedhisorherevaluationoftheinformation
content.P1said,“theconclusionofthearticlewasthatcholesterolintake
doesn’tmatterthatmuchanymore.It’sthekindoffatthatyoutaketoyourself
andIknewthatbeforebecausemymomisanurse.So,Ithought,whocareshow
muchcholesterolisinthefoodbecausethat’snotthemainfactor.Youcan
regulateitinotherways.”
P2answeredthequestionwhethertheinformationinthearticlehasaffected
herattitudetowardsfoodwith,“IlearnedsomethingIdidn’tknow,forexample
egghas200mgofcholesterol,that’shuge[…]Ieateggquiteoftencomparedto
otherfood,soitislikewowthat’salotofcholesterol[…]That’ssomethinggood
toknow.”
P6referredtoapriorexperiences/hemadewithcholesterolinorderto
explainwhythearticlewasinteresting.P6described,“it[thearticle]wasabout
cholesterolinseafoodandthereisgoodandbadone.IheardaboutitandI
neverreallyknewthedifference.[…]Ihadabloodtestonceandtheywerereally
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
81|P a g e
surprisedwiththelevelofcholesterol.Itwasreally,reallyhighbuttheysaidit’s
thegoodone.AndIwaslikeokay,aslongasit’snotbadI’mhappybutthatwas
strange.That’swhyIwasinterestedinwhatit[thearticle]istalkingabout.”
P5interpretedtheeditorialarticleaswellassomewebsitetoolsbutcouldnot
rememberanyadvertisementsplacedonthewebpage.P5saidwhenaskedwhy
s/hedidnotreadanythingbuttheeditorialarticle:“Iwas[...]sortof
concentratingonthecontentofthearticle.”P5gavearelativelydetailed
summaryoftheinformationcontentoftheeditorialarticles/heinterpreted:
“thereisanarticleaboutcholesterolinmusselsbasicallyandtherearebadand
goodcholesterolsandthatseafoodhascholesterol”.P5wenton:“thecontent
wasaboutcholesterol.Goodcholesterolandbadcholesterol,HDLandLDL,one
isgoodandoneisbad.IguesstheHDListhegoodoneandthenitsays
somethingaboutmusselsandshrimpandtheamountofcholesterolthatwasin
themusselsis25mgandtheshrimpisupto150mg,incomparisonitwasanegg,
whichhas200mg.”
ColemanandNorris(1992,p.37)foundintheirstudyofmagazine
advertisementsthat,“involvementinamagazinearticleisinverselyrelatedto
subsequentrecallandrecognitionofaccompanyingadvertisements.”Themore
theparticipantsintheirstudywereconcentratedonthepresentedarticle,the
lesstheyrememberedtheadvertisementsthatwereplacedinneardistanceto
thearticle(Colman&Norris,1992,p.44).Inthepresentresearch,P5also
justifiedhernotrememberingofanyadvertisementwithhisorher
concentrationontheeditorialarticle.ItmightbethatColemanandNorris’
(1992)findingsarealsovalidintheonlineenvironment.
Allsixparticipantsinterpretedtheeditorialarticlepictureasdepicting
musselsbutdifferedintheirreactiontoit.P1forexamplereferredagaintoher
personalexperiencewithmussels.P1said,“They[themussels]werereallyeye‐
catchingbecausewearesellingmusselsintherestaurantaswellandmyfirst
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
82|P a g e
impressionwas,arethey‘greenlipped’mussels?Notheyarenot.”P2referred
toherattitudetowardsmusselsandhowthateffectedherreactionwhens/he
sawthepicture.S/healsomentionedtherelativeprominenceofthepicture:
“ThesecondthingIsawwasthepictureofthemussels.I’mnotaverybigfanof
musselsImustsay,whichiswhyIhadlikeaughmusselskindofreaction.”
Oneparticipantfurtherreferredtothelayoutoftheeditorialarticle.P1
comparedthearrangementoftheeditorialarticle’stextandthepicturewitha
table.P1said,“[…]thearticledoesnotcontinueunderneaththepicture,thereis
simplynothingunderneaththepicture,whichmakesitalittlebitlikeatable.”
Tosumup,allsixparticipantsinterpretedtheeditorialarticle.Several
participantsreferredtotheirownexperiencestheyhavewiththeinformation
contenttheyidentifiedbutalsohowinterestingornotinterestingtheeditorial
articlewastothem.Further,someparticipantsreferredtotheirreaction
towardstheeditorialarticlepictureandhowtheyperceivedthearrangementof
theeditorialarticletextandtheeditorialarticlepicture.
5.3 Participants’responsesconcerningadvertisements
Participants1and2mentionedtheprominenceoftheredcolourofthe
woman’sdressinAd1.P2said“TheladyintheMercedesadhadareallynice
dress,Irememberthinkingniceandred”andP1said“Itookacloserlooktothis
one[theMercedesadvertisement]becauseofthedressfromthewoman,avery
brightredcolour”.
P1,P2,P3,P4,andP6rememberedAd1.Theseparticipantsappearedtohave
differentattitudestowardthebrandMercedesBenz.P1said,“Idon’tlike
Mercedes”butadmittedthat“thedress[intheadvertisement]lookedvery
good”.ThisindicatesthatthereddressmaybemorerelevanttoP1thanthecar.
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
83|P a g e
Incontrast,P2hasafavourableattitudetowardsthebrandMercedesBenz
butreferstoitslackofpracticality.P2differentiatesbetweenhis/herattitudes
towardstheadvertisement,towardsthebrand,carsingeneralandthecar’s
practicality.P2said,“I’dlovetohaveaMercedesBenzbutit’snotreallypractical
forme.So,it’slike,Ilovecarsbutthatparticularaddidn’treallyscreamout”.
P4referredtopersonalknowledgeandansweredthequestionwhetheran
advertisementonthewebpageisrelevanttohim/herwith“Ican’tafforda
Mercedes”.
P1,P2andP4havedifferentattitudestowardthebrandMercedesBenz.P2’s
responserevealedthatthereisapparentlyadifferencebetweentheimpression
oftheadvertisementandthebrandassuch.P2doesnotappeartolikeAd1but
neverthelesshasafavourableattitudetowardthebrand.Incontrast,P1does
likeaspecificmodule‐component,namelythereddress,intheadvertisement
butdoesnotlikethebrand.P4apparentlyinterpretsthebrandinAd1astoo
expensive.TheinterpretationasveryexpensiveisclearlymadebyP4because
althoughAd1namesapriceforthecar,theinterpretationasexpensiveis
incumbentuponP4.
Inthecardactivity,itbecameapparentthatallofthesixparticipantsassigned
thecardthatdepictedtheMercedesBenzlogototheclassadvertising.P1,P2,
P3,P4,P5,andP6werealsoabletoidentifythelogoasbelongingtoMercedes
Benz.P2,P4andP6directlyassignedthecardtoAd1.P2said,“It’sadvertising
becauseitwasatthetop.Yes,thegirlinthereddress.”P4similarlystated,“It’s
alogoobviously,it’sfromtheMercedesad”andalsoP6answered,“Itwason
thebanneratthetop.”
P5statedthats/hecannotrememberitasbeingplacedonthewebpagebut
assignsittotheclassofadvertising.P5said,“Thatmustbeadvertisingbecause
it’saMercedessymbolIthink”andrespondedtothequestionwhethers/he
remembersseeingitwith“No,Icannot.”ItappearsthatP5basedthedecision
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
84|P a g e
onothercriterionsthanhermemoryofthewebpage.P5clearlyidentifiedthe
logoasbelongingtotheMercedesBenzbrand.
ThefactthatP5cannotrememberAd1asoccurringonthewebpagebutis
abletoidentifytheMercedesBenzbrandwhenexposedtotheMercedesBenz
logoindicatesthatP5possessesawarenessaboutthebrandincludingitslogo.
AccordingtoKeller(1998,p.88),brandawarenessconsistsof“brand
recognition”and“brandrecall”.Brandrecognition“relatestoconsumers’ability
toconfirmpriorexposuretothebrandwhengiventhebrandasacue”(Keller,
1998,p.88).InP5’scasethismeansthatP5recognisedthebrandMercedesBenz
whens/hewasexposedtothelogobecauseP5hadalreadyexperiencedthe
brandandthelogobefore.Brandrecall“relatestoconsumers’abilitytoretrieve
thebrandfrommemory”withoutbeingexposedtothebranditselfbutrather
withaspecificproductcategory[…]orausagesituationasacue”(1998,p.88).
Keller’s(1998)definitionofbrandrecalldoesnotseemtobeapplicableinthis
case.P5couldnotrememberAd1andthisindicatesthatP5didnotidentifywhat
Keller(1998)callsa“cue”,whichwouldhaveevokedP5’smemoryofMercedes
Benz.
Ad2wasrecognisedbyP1,P2,P3,P4,andP6buttheparticipantsdifferedin
theirinterpretations.P1forexampleidentifiedthebrandnameNewZealand
Seafood,thepictureintheadvertisementaswellassomecolours:“theNew
ZealandSeafoodadvertisement,therewasblueandgreyworkedinanditlooked
verynicebecauseitlookedlikeBBQ,niceBBQ”.Byreferringtopersonal
experienceP1furtherexplainedwhythisadvertisementisinteresting:“itwas
interestingformetoseetheNewZealandSeafoodadvertisementbecausea
friendofmineisworkingonherthesis.Sheisdoingtourismandshe’sworking
onaprojectwhichcontainsseafoodandseafoodeducationrelatedtotourism
andsothiswasinterestingbecausethiswasanadvertisementwhereyouhad
thepossibilitytogetinformationabouthowNewZealandgrowsseafoodand
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
85|P a g e
aboutseafoodfarmsbecausetherewasawebsitementionedaswell.”InP1’s
case,thespecificinterestforthisadvertisementemergesfrompersonalcontext.
Here,theconnotativemeaningderivesfromP2’sindividualbackground.
P2identifiedAd2asbeingabouttheAucklandSeafoodShow,aneventP2
attendedawhileago.P2said,“TherewasabannerontherighthandsideandI
thinkitwastheAucklandSeafoodShoworsomething.[…]Ivolunteered[atthe
AucklandSeafoodShow]andIrememberjustthinkingbacktoit.Ididittogether
withanothergirl,Iforgothername,butwedidittogetherandIremember
thinkingthatwedidn’tactuallygetanyfreefoodandIwouldhavelovedtohave
someseafoodbecausethewholedayyouaresurroundedbyseafoodbutyou
don’tgetany.Yes,IrememberthinkingaboutitwhenIwaslookingatthe
seafoodad.”ItappearsthatAd2evokedP2’smemoryoftheAucklandSeafood
ShowandthatinducedP2tobelievethatthisadvertisementisaboutthatevent.
Here,theinterpretationisapparentlybasedonP2’spersonalcontext.
ThisfindingsupportsLeeetal.’s(2004)resultsthattheuser’ssubjective
perceptionofawebsitecanbedifferentfromwhatisstructurallyplacedonthe
website.WhileLeeetal.(2004)focusedintheirin‐depthinterviewsonhow
informative,interactiveandattractivetheparticipantsevaluatedthewebsite
basedonthefeaturesthatoccuronthewebsite,thefindingsofmyresearch
addstheinsightthatapparentlyalsotheinterpretationofinformationcontent
canbedifferentfromwhatstructurallyoccursonthewebpage.
WithrespecttoAd2,P3said,“thereislikeaseafoodoneontheside”andP4
stated,“therewasoneontheside,whichwassomesortofseafood”.P6also
addsherimpressionoftheadvertisement“theoneaboutseafoodwas
interesting,ifIwanttoknowaboutseafood,youcanfinditthere,sothat’scool,
ifI’minthemoodoffindingoutmoreaboutseafood[…]”
P6seemstohaveAd2evaluatedasamorerelevantsourceforinformation
aboutseafoodthantheeditorialarticle.TherearenoaspectsinP6’sstatements
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
86|P a g e
thatindicatewhys/hecametothisconclusion.ItmightbethatP6hasprevious
experiencewiththisadvertisementorthewebsiteitrefersto.Another
explanationmightbethatoneormoremodule‐componentsinAd2broughtP6
tothisconclusion.Forexample,incontrasttotheeditorialarticle,Ad2contains
anactionphrase,whichinvitestheusertoconductaspecificaction.Thespecific
actionphraseinAd2says,“ForeverythingyouneedtoknowaboutNewZealand
Seafoodvisit”.AlthoughHand,RobinsonandWysocka(2007,p.537)foundin
theirstudythattheinclusionofactionphrasesinbanneradvertisementsdonot
enhanceadvertisingeffectiveness,itmighthavebeensuccessfulinP6’scase.
P5didnotidentifythebrandofAd2,NewZealandSeafood,neitherinthe
cardactivitynorintherecallsectionoftheinterview.Inthecardactivity,P5
assignedthecardwiththeNewZealandSeafoodnametotheeditorialarticle
insteadofAd2.AccordingtoduPlessis(2005,p.136),advertisingreceivershave
to“spendtimegivingattentiontotheadvertisementinorderforthemto
rememberit.”ItappearsthatP5didnotpayattentiontoAd2.Non‐awarenessof
informationmodulesonthewebpageisclearlyuserspecificbecauseitisthe
userwhoconsciouslyorunconsciouslypaysattentiontosomething.
ThepresenceofAd3wasonlyrememberedbyP2andpartiallybyP6.P2
directlyidentifiedtheadvertiserflossie.com.P2alsomentionedforwhattarget
audienceflossie.comprovidesinformation:“flossieisforwomen.”P6
rememberedthepinkcolouroftheadvertisement:“therewasalsoapinkthing
[…]averysmallad.”
P1,P3,P4,andP5didnotrememberAd3.WhileP5didnotrefertoAd3atall,
P4said:“Ididn’treallynoticetheflossieonebefore“andP1,P3,andP6stated
(whenlookingatthewebpageagain)thattheydonotknowwhatthis
advertisementisabout.P3said:“Ididn’trememberthatflossie.com[...]butI
don’tknowwhatit’sabout”.P1said,“thesmalladvertisementfromflossie.com,
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
87|P a g e
Idon’tknowwhatitis[…]thatissosmallbesidestheNewZealandSeafood
advertisement,thatitactuallygotlostinmymind.”Here,P1explainedthatthe
smallsizeofAd3affectedP1’sabilitytorememberthisadvertisement.
Thatthesizeofabanneradvertisementhasaneffectonauser’sabilityto
recallitsupportstheresultsCho(1999,p.43)foundinhisstudy.Cho(1999,p.
43)foundthatinlow‐involvementsituations,abanneradvertisementwitha
largersizewasmorelikelytobeclickedbytheparticipantsofhisstudy.Thelevel
ofinvolvementisdefinedbyCho(1999,p.38)asthe“motivationtoprocessad
content”.Inthepresentresearch,itseemsthatP1,P3,P4,andP5wereinalow‐
involvementsituation,whichmeanstheyhadonlyalowmotivationtoprocess
theinformationcontentofAd3.Ad3occursinarelativelysmallsize.The
combinationoflow‐involvementlevelandsmallbannersizeapparentlyledto
theeffectthatthesefourparticipantsdidnotrememberAd3atall.
Anotherexplanationmightbethattheoveralllayoutofthewebpage
influencesP1’sperceptionsofsingleinformationmodules.P1referredinhis/her
statementtohis/herperceptionthatAd3issmallcomparedtoAd2,whichis
placed“besides”(P1)Ad3.ItmightoccurwhatWhite(2002)callstheprinciples
of“dominance”and“scale”.DominanceisaccordingtoWhite(2002)aprinciple
ingraphicdesignwherethesizeofoneelementismanipulatedsothatit
overwhelmsanotherelement.Scaleisalsonamedthe“relativesize”(White,
2002,p.63)ofanelementandmeansthat“readersperceiveanelementas
being‘small’or‘big’incomparisontonearbyelements”.
InthecaseofAd2andAd3,itappearsthatP1interpretedAd2asdominantin
termsofoverwhelmingAd3and,likewise,thatAd3appearedtobeparticularly
smallbecauseofAd2’slargesize.
WithrespecttoAd3,P6stated,“Ihavenoideawhatthisisabout,thatpink
flossie.com”andadds“noideawhatit[Ad3]isabout,soyoudon’tremember”.
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
88|P a g e
UnderconsiderationofKeller’s(1998)definitionofbrandawareness(see
above),itappearsthatP6didnotpossessanyknowledgeaboutthebrandorthe
producttheadvertisementpromotes.InP6’sstatements/herelatedthelackof
knowledgedirectlywithhis/herabilitytorememberAd3.Incontrast,P2was
abletorememberAd3(seeabove).P2’sstatement(“flossieisforwomen”)
furtherrevealedthatP2hassomeknowledgeaboutthisbrand.Thissupportsthe
propositionthatknowledgeisimportantforrememberingtheadvertisement
(Lee,etal.,2004,p.69).
P1,P2,P3,P4,andP6recalledAd4butdifferedintermsofelaborateness.P1
referredtothisadvertisementbynamingthewordsthatoccurinthe
advertisementaswellashows/heinterpretedagraphicthatitcontains.P1said,
“therewasanadvertisementforrecipesandgamesanditlookedlikea
pancake”.P3repeatedlynamedtheadvertisementas“thepancakeone”.
P2said,“Iremembercrumpets”,andsimilarlyP4andP6said,“theyhad[…]
thecrumpetoneinthebottom”(P4)and“Ithinkit’sacrumpetad”(P6).P6
furtheradmittedthats/hehassomeexperiencewiththatproductbutalsostates
whys/heprobablywouldn’tclickontheadvertisement:“Ilikecrumpets,Ibuyit
butIdon’tneedtoknowmoreaboutit.”
P2providedareasonwhys/hecanrememberthatadvertisement:“I
remembercrumpetsbecauseIlovecrumpets”.ThisstatementofP2
demonstratesthathis/herabilitytorememberAd4isinfluencedbypersonal
experiencesP2haswiththepromotedproduct.P2statesthats/hecan
remembertheadvertisedproductbecauses/hehasapersonalinterestinit.It
appearsthatalsoP4andP6havesomeknowledgeabouttheadvertisedproduct
becausetheycallitbyaname,“crumpets”,thatdoesnotoccurinthe
advertisementitself.
Insummary,thereappearstobeadifferencebetweentheparticipants’
responsesintermsofwhethertheycouldremembertheadvertisements,how
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
89|P a g e
theyinterpretedtheinformationcontentsandhowtheyevaluatedeach
advertisement.WhatadvertisementsandhowtheparticipantsinterpretAd1,
Ad2,Ad3andAd4appeartobedependentontheirpersonalexperiencewith
and/orknowledgeofthepromotedproductbutalsotheirindividualbackground.
ThissupportsthepropositionsofLeeetal.(2004,p.69)whoarguethatina
recallsituationofastudy,webuserstendtomentionthoseaspectsofawebsite
thataremostrelevanttothem.
5.4 Participants’responsesconcerningthewebpageandwebsitetools
Byreferringtoparticularwebsitetools,P1said,“youhadonthelefthandside
asearchbarforarticlesandyouhadtheoptiontosearchbykeywordorbya
broadertheme.[…]Therewerealsothingslikerecipes,tools,competitionand
differentsubjectsrelatedtosomenewsandarticlesandmagazines.Thewebsite
itselfwasorganisedinregistercards,theyhadhome,aboutus,competition,and
articles.”
P2alsorecognisedsomewebsitetools:“Therewasgeneralstufflikewebsite
policy,privacy,contactusanddetailsandlikeaboutusandinformationabout
thewebsite,abouthealthyfoodguide.”Theword“general”inP2’sdescription
mayindicatethatP2isfamiliarwiththesetypesofinformation.
AccordingtoBellmanandRossiter(2004),usersofawebsitehaveaspecific
websiteschema,whichtheyapplywhentheyareviewingawebsite.Theauthors
describeschemasascognitivestructuresthatguidetherecipients’information
processingbecausethey“organizeperceptionbyorganizing
expectations“(Bellman&Rossiter,2004,p.38).Awebsiteschemaisdefinedas
theuser’s“setofbeliefsaboutinformationlocations,androutestothose
locations,foraspecificwebsite”(Bellman&Rossiter,2004,p.39).Theauthors
arguethatbasedonusers’individualexperienceswithwebsitesinthepast,they
developastandardisedwebsiteschema,whichincludesgeneralexpectations
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
90|P a g e
aboutwhereandhowtofindinformationonawebsite.Theyapplythisschema
whentheyarevisitingaparticularwebsite(Bellman&Rossiter,2004,p.39).
P2’schoiceoftheterm“general”seemtosupportBellmanandRossiter’s
(2004)suggestionsofawebsiteschema.However,someparticipantsnotonly
focusedonthelocationofspecificwebsitetoolsbutalsoontheirfunction.P2for
example,appearstoapplypreviousknowledgeaboutthesetypesofwebsite
tools.Severalstatementsofotherparticipantspointinasimilardirection.P6
identifiedandremembered:“[thereis]thesignupforthenewsletteronthe
bottomandthereisalsolikeasitemapthattellsyouwhatisoneachpage[…]
andtheusualcopyrightsatthebottom.”SimilartoP2,theword“usual”inP6’s
explanationindicatesthatP6hasalreadysomeknowledgeabouttheterm
“copyrights”mostprobablyfromviewingotherwebsites.
P5comparedthearrangementonthewebpagewithwebsitess/hehasvisited
before:“alotofpagesofthewebhavethatsearchthingeitherthere[P5points
totherightsideofthewebpage]orthere[pointstotheleftsideofthewebpage]
andalsothebaracrossthetop,thathassometimesdropdownmenusandother
linksthatareconnectedtothem.”
Severalparticipantsfurtherreferredtothelayoutorthearrangementofthe
informationmodulesonthewebpage.P1said,whendescribingthewebpage
“[…]onthelefthandsidetherewasasearchbar”andwenton,“atthetop,over
thetitleofthewebsite,therewasanadvertisementforMercedesandonthe
righthandsidetherewasaseafoodadvertisement”.P4describesthe
arrangementoftheinformationmodulesonthewebpageas“[…]thecontentin
themiddleandthentheadssurroundedbuttheyarenotpartofthearticle,they
aresortofabove,belowandontheside”,whereasP3relatedthepositionof
Ad1toitsprominence:“Isawthecarone[Ad1]atthetopfirstbecauseit’sright
atthetop,Ithinkit’sthefirstthingyousee”.
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
91|P a g e
P3touchesuponcertainlayoutandreadingconventions.Accordingto
Bennett(2005)“peoplehavelearnedtolookforcertainlayoutstandardsto
organizeandprioritizeinformation.”(p.186)Inwesternculturesforexample,
peoplescanapagefromlefttorightandfromtoptobottom(Bennett,2005,p.
186;Castelhano&Rayner,2008,p.10).Documentdesignersoftenconsider
theseconventionsinorderto“havesomecontrolovertheorderinwhicha
viewerencountersascreen’scontent”(Bennett,2005,p.186).Itappearsthat
P3’sinterpretationofAd1’sprominencecausedbyitspositioningatthetopis
basedonsuchconventions.
Further,P3’sargumentationthats/hesawAd1firstbecauseitislocatedat
thetopofthewebpage,supportsthefindingsofJosephson(2005,p.78)who
foundthatbanneradvertisementsthatareplacedatthetoparemoreoften
viewedthanthosethatarelocatedatthebottom.
Whentalkingaboutthewebpage,P2referredtothequestionandanswer
styleoftheeditorialarticle.P2furthercomparedthewebpagewithother
websitess/hehasexperiencewith:“Ithinkit’slikeoneofthosewebsiteswhere
peoplepostlikeafrequentlyaskedquestionorsomethingtheywanttofindout
andthenanexpertorsomeonewithknowledgeanswersandsayswhatis
happening.”
Severalparticipantsgaveastatementconcerningtheirgeneralimpressionof
thewebpage.P1referredtotheinformationcontentaswellasthestructureof
thewebpage:“It’sprettyclearstructured[…]ThatwouldbeawebsitewhereI
wouldbrowsealittlebit,lookingforsomeinterestingarticlesorwhenIhavea
hieper[coll.forastrongdesire]forsomespecialfood,thenlookingforsome
recipes.”
P1’sstatementdoesnotonlygiveaninsightintohis/herevaluationofthe
webpage.ItfurtherprovidesaninterestingexamplefortheinfluenceofP1’s
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
92|P a g e
socio‐economicenvironmentonhim/her.P1usesinthisstatementtheword
“hieper”,whichisacolloquialwordintheGermanlanguage.Itcanbetranslated
with“havingastrongdesireforsomething”.Theinterviewwasconductedin
EnglishbutP1usesthisGermanwordinordertoexpressmeaning.Accordingto
NorrisandJones(2005a,p.5),languageisaculturaltoolandpartofthesocio‐
economicenvironmentthatisavailabletothosewhohaveaccesstothatculture.
P1’sstatementindicatesthats/hehasinsomewayaconnectiontotheGerman
culture,especiallytheGermanlanguageandthatthiscontextaffectsP1inher
responses.
P3answeredintermsofthewebpage’sevaluation:“ithasaquitenice
interface[…]Thesearchpartisdefinitelygood,andhowtheysplitupthatyou
canchoosebetweenarticlesonlyandrecipesonly,that’sgood,soyoucanmake
achoice”andalsoappliedpreviousknowledgeaboutthebrand“healthyfood
guide”:“Iknowthathealthyfoodguideisamagazine,sothat’swhytheyhave
themagazineshop.”
P6describedhis/herimpressionofthewebpageasfollows:“Itlooksreally
standard,althoughI’mnotsureabouttheMercedesadabovetheactualtitle
becausegenerallyyoudoexpectthefirstthingyouseeatthetopiswhatyouare
lookingat.Thesearchbarisattheusualplaceandsometimesarethe‘browse
articles’ontheothersidebutit’sokay.”Wordslike“standard”,“generally”and
“usual”inP6’sstatementindicateagainthats/hecomparesthiswebpagewith
otherwebsitess/hehasexperienceof.Basedontheseexperiences,P6concludes
thatthiswebpageisnotmuchdifferentfromherexpectationofa“standard”
webpagewithrespecttothearrangementofitswebsitetools,likethesearchbar
orabrowsearticlessection.
Further,P6referredtothepositionofAd1atthetop,anaspectthathasalso
beenidentifiedbyP3(seeabove).However,incontrasttoP3,P6appearedtobe
confusedabouttheplacementofAd1atthetopbecauseitdoesnotseemto
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
93|P a g e
meetP6’sexpectation.ItseemsP6expectedthegeneraltitleofthewebpageat
thetopinsteadofAd1.
Theparticipants’comparisonofthegivenwebpagewithotherwebsites
indicatesthatsomeparticipantshavepre‐existingattitudestowardsandideas
aboutthefunctionsandthestructureofseveralwebsitetools.Similartothe
descriptionsofparticularwebsitetools,severalparticipantsmadesome
statementsconcerningtheinformationtypeadvertisingaswellaseditorial
content.Especiallyinthecardactivitypre‐existingattitudesandknowledge
becameapparent.Concerningthecarddepictingtheword“Recipes”,P2
explainedwhys/hebelievesthecardbelongstobothadvertisingandnon‐
advertising:“Ithinkit’sbothbecausetherewereadvertisementsforaparticular
brandandtheytriedtogetthepeopleinterestedfortheirrecipesandtoget
theirrecipestothem.Atthesametimeit’salsonon‐advertisingbecauseit’slike
oneofthosepageswhereyoucanshareinformationlikefreerecipes.[…]Ican
rememberthatthereisanoptionwhereyoucandecidetogetrecipes.
Somethingliketoptenrecipes.”Here,P2rememberedthatthewebpage
providesinformationtogetfreerecipes.P2mentionedthatthereisadvertising
thatpromotesaspecificbrandandthattheadvertisersattempttogetthe
audienceinterested.ItseemsthatinP2’sunderstanding,advertisingingeneral
promotesaspecificbrandaswellasintendstoattracttheaudience’sattention.
P3andP4haveasimilarunderstanding.Intermsofthecardthatdepictsthe
editorialarticlepicturewiththemussels,P3said,“Itisnon‐advertisingbecause
it’snotpromotingaparticularbrandofseafood.”P3seemedtointerpretthe
pictureasnon‐advertisingbecauseitdoesnotmatchwithP3’sgeneral
understandingthatadvertisingpromotesaspecificbrand.P4answeredwhen
lookingatthecardwiththephraseNewZealandSeafood:“Iwouldsay
advertisingbecauseoftheNewZealandbeforetheseafood.It’sadvertisingfora
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
94|P a g e
specifictypeofseafood.”ItappearsthatP4hasanunderstandingofadvertising
aspromotingspecifictypesofaproduct.
Concerningthecardthatdepictedthephrase“Youneed”,somestatements
revealedfurtherattitudestowardadvertising.P3forinstance,couldnot
rememberthesewordsbutusedhis/hergeneralknowledgetodeducewhyitcan
beassignedtothespecificarticleonthepageortoadvertisingingeneral:“I
don’trememberspecificallywhereitwasbutI’msayingitcomeswithinboth
becauseitcouldjustbewithinthearticle,sayingthatyouneeddifferenttypesof
cholesteroloritcouldbeinadvertising,likeyouneedtogetthisthing.”P4
assignedthecarddirectlytotheclassadvertisingandexplained,“becauseofthe
terminology‘Youneed’.”P5hadasimilarideaandsaid,“mostadvertisingis
tellingyouwhatyouneed.”
Someparticipantsinterpretedagraphicalsignasalogoandrelateditdirectly
totheclassadvertising.P2andP4forexampleassignedthecardwiththeQsign
toadvertisingalthoughitis,infact,partoftheeditorialarticle.P2argued,“I
don’trememberseeingthatanywherebutIgowithadvertisingbecauseitlooks
likealogo”andP4said,“Idon’trememberbutIthinkit’sadvertisingbecauseit’s
alogo”.SimilarlyP5whens/hehadalookatthecard:“I’dsaythatwas
advertisingbecauseit’slikealogo.”
Itappearsthatseveralparticipantshaveaspecificideaaboutwhatan
advertisementshouldorshouldnotinclude.Aspreviouslyoutlined,several
participantsmentionedaspectslikeabrandname,alogooraspecific
terminology.Theseideasappeartobebasedontheparticipant’sexperiences
withadvertising.P5’sstatement“mostadvertisingistellingyouwhatyouneed”
isastrongindicatorforP5’sgeneralunderstandingofadvertising.
Atheoreticalapproachthatisrelatedtothesefindingsistheconceptof
“advertisingschema”(Stoltman,1991,pp.317‐318).Individualsdevelopan
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
95|P a g e
advertisingschemawhentheyarerepeatedlyandconsistentlyexposedto
advertisements,whichcontainsimilarsemantic,physicalorstructuralfeatures.
Similarlytothealreadyintroducedpropositionofawebsiteschema,an
advertisingschemacontainsspecificexpectationsandinformation,herefor
exampleaboutparticularexecutionstructuresorappeals(Stoltman,1991,pp.
317‐318)inanadvertisement.Thefindingsofthepresentresearchindicatethat
someparticipantsapplysuchanadvertisingschema.
Thefindingthattheparticipantsseemtohaveapreviousunderstandingand
specificexpectationsaboutadvertisingingeneral,canfurtherbeassignedinto
theareaofresearchthatfocusonwhatadvertisingasaspecifictypeof
informationmeanstotheaudience.Ducoffe(1995,p.1)forexampleintroduced
theterm“advertisingvalue”,whichhedefinedasa“subjectiveevaluationofthe
relativeworthorutilityofadvertisingtoconsumers”(p.1).
Tosumup,severalparticipantsreferredtothewebpageingeneralaswellas
specificwebsitetools.Websitetools,likeforexampleaprintbuttonorasearch
bar,fulfilacertainfunctionforthewebpage.Itappearsthatsomeparticipants
appliedpreviousknowledgewithotherwebsitesandadvertisementsinorderto
comparethegivenwebpageanditsinformationmoduleswiththeirexperiences.
Further,severalparticipantsreferredtothelayoutofthewebpage,whichmeans
theydescribedthearrangementoftheinformationmodulesonthewebpage.
5.5 Participants’responsesconcerningrelationshipsbetween
informationmodules
Basedontheuser‐centricfocusinthisstudy,therelationshipsbetweenthe
informationmodulesareunderstoodasconstructedbytheparticipantsandnot
asoccurringonthewebpageitself.Inthisresearchthefocusliesonthe
participant’sconstructionofrelationshipsbetweentheinformationmodules
placedontheselectedwebpage.InthefollowingIwilloutlinewhattypesof
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
96|P a g e
relationshipsbetweencertaininformationmodulestheparticipantsinthis
researchconstructed.
P1,P2,P3,P4,andP6identifiedrelationshipsbetweenseveralinformation
modulesbasedontheinformationmodules’informationcontent,more
specificallythesameproductcategory.Severalparticipantsdifferentiated
betweendifferentlevelsofproductcategory,namely“food”and“seafood”.
SomeparticipantsidentifiedarelationshipbetweenAd2andtheeditorialarticle
basedonthesameproductcategory“seafood”.
P1argued,“TheadvertisementfromtheNewZealandSeafoodisobviously
relatedwiththearticlebecausethearticleisaboutseafoodaswell.”SimilarlyP3
said,“TheNewZealandseafoodadvertisementisrelatedtothis[pointstothe
editorialarticle]becauseit’sallaboutseafood.”AlsoP4constructeda
relationshipbetweenAd2andtheeditorialarticle,“theseafoodoneobviously
matchesthecholesterolinseafoodinthearticle”aswellasP6said,“havingan
articletalkingaboutseafoodandanadaboutseafoodthatmakessense.”
P2appliedtheseafood‐basedrelationshiptoseparateAd4fromthose
informationmodulesthatcontaininformationaboutseafood:“Iwouldn’tsayit
[Ad4]isoutofplacebecause[…]it’snotremotelyseafood,soitdoesn’treally
havemuchtodowithitbutinthesametimeit’sfoodsoyoucan’treallytakeit
out.”Here,P2referredtoafurthercategorythatrelatesseveralinformation
modulestoeachother:theproductcategory“food”.P2constructsarelation
betweenAd4andthoseinformationmodulesthatcontainfood‐related
information(includingseafood).
AlsoP3stated,“Golden[Ad4]isnotthatrelatedwithseafoodbutit’sstill
foodsoIguesstherelationcomesfromthere”andsimilarlyP6identifiedthe
relationbasedonthesameproductcategory“food”andsimultaneously
questionedAd4’srelationwithseafood:“[…]readingaboutseafoodandthen
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
97|P a g e
thecrumpets?Crumpetswithseafood?Iknowit’sfood,it’srelatedbut[…]a
morebakingorbreakfastpartwouldbegood.”
Theconstructionsofrelationshipsbasedonthesameproductcategory,
supportthefindingsofCho(1999)aswellasShamdasanietal.(2001)whofound
thatcongruenceintermsofproductcategoryinadvertisementsandtheeditorial
environmentenhancesadvertisingeffectiveness.AlthoughIamnotinvestigating
advertisingeffectivenessassuch,acongruenceconcerningthesameproduct
categoryappearstobeobvioustoseveralparticipantsinthisresearch.
Thecontent‐basedcategories“food”and“seafood”thatwereidentifiedas
relatingspecificinformationmodulestoeachotherwerealsousedtoseparate
ornotrelateotherinformationmodules.P3referredtothecategoryfoodwhen
separatingAd1fromotherinformationmodules.P3stated,“Peoplearen’t
usuallythinkingaboutcarswhentheylookatafoodwebsite.”P3apparently
referredtohis/herownunderstandingaboutwhatusersmightexpectwhen
visitingaparticularwebsiteandappliedthisunderstandingontothegiven
webpage.
Further,Ad3wasinterpretedasnotrelatedtootherinformationmoduleson
thewebpage.P1said,“thesmalladvertisementfromflossie.com[…]Iguessit’s
notrelatedtothewebsite”andP2stated,”theyallhaveakindofgoodflowwith
eachother,exceptforflossiebecauseflossieisoneofthethingsonewould
maybefindonthewebsiteforthefashionweekorthewomen’sweeklywebsite.
Imeansomethingverywomenoriented.”P2referredtoownknowledgeabout
flossie.comandthatitissomething‘womanoriented’.P2furtherassumeson
whattypeofwebsiteavisitorwouldratherexpectAd3.
Inadditiontotheinterpretationofinformationmodulesasnotrelated
becausetheydonotcontaininformationaboutseafoodandfood,P4referredto
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
98|P a g e
differencesconcerningtheproductionprocess.P4usedtheaspectofprocessed
foodtoseparateAd4fromotherinformationmodules:“thecrumpetsIthought
wasoutofplacebecauseit’sprocessedfood.”
P2recognisedavisualsimilaritybetweenthelogoofAd1andthelogoofAd2.
P2said,“thosetwologos[P2pointstotheAd1logoandthentotheAd2logo]
kindoflookthesame.They’reroundbutalsohavestrongangles.”Itseemsthat
relationshipsbetweenthedifferentinformationmoduleswerealsoidentifiedon
thebasisoftheinformationmodules’design.Equallytotheidentifiedrelations
basedontheinformationcontent,visualsimilaritywasapparentlyanimportant
aspect.
P4relatedAd1tocertainwebsitetoolsonthewebpage.P4said,“the
Mercedesadrelatestothewebpagebecausethecoloursaresimilarasinthe
page[…]yougotthegreybarinthetopofthepageandyougotthesame
coloursinthead.”Similarly,P1identifiedcolourasarelatingaspectbutreferred
toAd2.P1furthermentionedtheeffectthissimilarityhastohis/herimpression
ofthewebpage:“ThecolouroftheNewZealandSeafoodadvertisementis
similartothecoloursusedforthewebsiteitself,theblueisrepeating,thegreyis
repeatingandthatactuallybindsitmoreintothewebsite,makesitabitmore
fittingin.”InthiscaseitbecomesapparentthatP4andP1constructeda
relationshipbasedoncolour‐similarity.
ThethemeofcoloursimilarityalsocameupintheinterviewswithP3andP6.
P3said:”Thiscolourdoesn’tstandoutenoughformetorememberthat’sthe
thing.Imeanokay,ImightconnectthemwhenI’mlookingatthisbutIwouldn’t
rememberitafter.”Withinthediscussionofcoloursintheinterviews,P6
answeredthequestionwhethers/heseesarelationshipbasedoncolour
similaritywith,“Isupposeifthereissomethingreallyobvious,likebrightpinkin
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
99|P a g e
thenavigationandit’sthesamebrightpinkthere,thenitwouldjumpoutandlet
methinkthemtogetherbutotherwise,no.”
InP3andP6’scasetheprominenceofthecolourappearstobeasignificant
aspectforconstructingcolour‐basedrelationshipsbetweeninformation
modules.P3arguedthats/hewouldconstructacolour‐basedrelationship
betweeninformationmodulesbutwouldnotrememberitwhenthecoloursare
notprominentenough.P6arguedthats/hewouldnotconstructarelationshipat
allwhencolour‐prominenceisnotgiven.EspeciallyP6’sargumentcontradicts
thestatementsofP4andP1,whobothconstructedacolour‐basedrelationship
betweeninformationmodulesonthewebpage.
Thecontent‐basedrelationshipsaswellasthedesign‐basedrelationships
(basedonshapeandcolour)outlinedsofararebothbasedonsimilarity.Some
participantsconstructedcontent‐basedrelationshipsbasedonthesimilarityin
termsoftheproductcategoriesseafoodandfood.Concerningdesign‐based
relationships,theparticipantsconstructedrelationshipsbasedonsimilarcolours
orshapes.
Intheareaofgraphicdesign,similarityisusedasastylisticelementtocreate
“unity”,whichBennett(2005,p.179)explainsastheorganisationofalltheparts
ofadocumentintoacompletewhole.Thismeans,that“alldifferentpartsofthe
designshouldlookasiftheybelongtogether.”(Bennett,2005,p.179)
White(2002,p.5)providesanevolutionaryexplanationfortheindividual’s
considerationofsimilarity.Hearguesthatthesearchforsimilarityaswellas
differencesinadocumentisahumaninstinctforsurvivalthatevolved
throughouthumanevolution.White(2002,p.5)explainsthisphenomenonas
follows:
“As humans evolved, an important attribute we acquired was the ability to see potentialdangersaroundus,toseedifferencesinoursurroundings.Anythingthatmovedirregularlyorwas a different colour or texture was worthy of our attention. After all, it might eat us.Noticing differences became an evolutionary advantage for humans. As a result, whenwe
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
100|P a g e
modernhumans lookataprinteddocumentoramonitorscreen,oureyes instinctivelyandsubconsciouslylookforsimilaritiesanddifferencesamongtheelementsused.”
P6appliedageneralunderstandingabouttherelationshipbetweenthe
financialsituationofaperson,healthyfood/seafood,andthepricerangeofacar
likeMercedesBenz.P6said“thefirstthingI’mthinkingis,whyisaMercedesad
therebutIsuppose[…]generallypeoplewhoearnmoremoneyalsoinvestmore
moneyintohealthyfoodandmaybemoreseafood[…]”.ItappearsthatP6
believesapersonwhohasmoremoneyavailablemightbeinterestedinacarlike
MercedesBenzaswellasinhealthyfoodand,inparticular,seafood.P6applied
thisunderstandinginordertoconstructarelationshipbetweenAd1andthe
generaltopicofthewebpageP6identified,namelyhealthyfoodandseafood.
Apartfromcontent‐basedanddesign‐basedrelationships,itappearsthat
someparticipantsfurtherconstructedrelationshipsbasedonspecific
characteristicstheyattributetotheinformationmodulesoronknowledgethey
haveaboutspecifictypesofrelationships.
P2identifiedaspecifictypeofrelationbetweenAd1andthewebpagein
general.P2said,“theMercedesBenzdon’treallygowiththewholeconceptof
thewebpagebuttheymaybeasponsororso.”P2’sstatementrevealsthats/he
hasacertainunderstandingofsponsorship‐relations.Theexistingconditionson
thewebpage,forinstanceintermsofdesignortheinformationcontent,
apparentlymatchesherunderstandingofsponsorshipasaspecifictypeof
relationatleastinsofar,thatP2considersittoberelevanthere.
Thefindingsofthedataanalysisinthischapterconstitutethebasisforthe
followingsectioninwhichIwillattempttoanswertheresearchquestions.
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
101|P a g e
5.6 Answerstotheresearchquestions
Intheprecedingsections,Ireportedtheinterviewanalysisprocedure,the
resultsofthedataanalysisaswellasadiscussionofthefindings.Thisallowsme
nowtorespondtothetworesearchquestionsinthisstudy.WiththisIfurther
provideasummaryofthefindings.
ResearchQuestionOne
Whattypesofrelationshipsdotheparticipantsconstructbetweenthe
informationmodulesthatareplacedonawebpageofthewebsite
www.healthyfood.co.nz?
Theinterviewsaimedtoinvestigatewhattypesofrelationshipsbetweenthe
informationmodulesonthewebpagetheparticipantsconstruct.Thedata
analysisrevealedthatrelationshipsbetweentheinformationmoduleswere
constructedbasedonacombinationofinterpretationsofinformationcontent,
designandpersonalknowledge.
Thetypesofrelationshipsconstructedbytheparticipantsare:
• Content‐basedrelationships
• Design‐basedrelationships
• Personal‐Knowledge‐basedrelationships
Itbecameapparentthattheaspectofsimilarityisanimportantfactorfor
someparticipantsfortheconstructionofrelationships.Severalparticipants
constructedarelationshipbetweeninformationmodulesbasedonanaspect
theyidentifiedinallinvolvedinformationmodules,likeaparticularproduct
categoryoracolour.Someparticipantsfurtherusedthesameaspecttoseparate
thoseinformationmodulesthatdonotcontainthisaspect.Forexample,several
participantsidentifiedacontent‐basedrelationshipbetweenthoseinformation
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
102|P a g e
modulesthatrefertothesameproductcategoryseafood.Incontrast,insome
casesparticipantsexplicitlymentionedthattheycouldnotidentifyarelationship
betweenparticularinformationmodulesbecausetheydonotcontainany
informationaboutseafood.Itwasalsomentionedbysomeparticipantsthatthey
didnotconstructcolour‐basedrelationshipsbecauseofthemissingprominence
ofparticularcolours.
Thefindingsconcerningcontent‐basedrelationships,supportthestudy
resultsofCho(1999)aswellasShamdasanietal.(2001).Bothauthorsfounda
positiveeffectofcongruencebetweentheproduct‐categoryinthecontentof
theadvertisementsandthecontentofthewebsiteinwhichtheadvertisements
wereembeddedin,onthewebsiteuser’sperceptionoftheadvertisement.
Inthepresentresearch,severalparticipantsconstructedrelationships
betweentheinformationmodulesthatarenotbasedontheinformation
modules’appearanceorcontentbutratheronpersonalknowledge.P2identified
sponsorshipasapotentialrelationshipbetweenAd1andthewebpage.
AccordingtoChaffey(2006,p.390),sponsorship‐relationsonwebsitesusually
containspecificvisualindicatorslike“Sponsoredby”,“Poweredby”or“In
associationwith”.Theselectedwebpageforthisresearchdoesnotcontainsuch
phrasesthatindicateasponsorshiprelation.Thissponsorship‐relationshipis
basedonP5’sknowledgeofthistypeofrelationshipandthereforeuser‐centred.
Finally,inordertoexplainaprobablerelationshipbetweenAd1andthe
editorialarticle,P6referredtoherpersonalbeliefaboutaconnectionbetweena
person’sincomeandtheperson’sattitudetowardshealthyfoodandseafood.
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
103|P a g e
ResearchQuestionTwo
Howdotheparticipantsinterprettheinformationmodulesplacedona
selectedwebpagefromthewebsitewww.healthyfood.co.nz?
Thedataanalysisrevealedthatfortheinterpretationofthewebpageandits
informationmodules,severalparticipantsreferredtoownexperiences,
knowledgeandattitudes.P2forexampleidentifiedAd2asbeingaboutanevent
s/heonceattended,P1foundAd2veryinterestingbecauseherfriendwritesa
thesisaboutasimilartopicandP6wasinterestedintheeditorialarticlebecause
s/hehasaspecificmedicalexperiencewithcholesterol,theinformationcontent
P6identified.Further,socio‐economicinfluencesbecameapparentwhenP1for
exampleusedtheword“hieper”,averyspecificwordfromherowncultural
background.Theseexampleselucidatetheimportanceoftheindividualandthe
individual’spersonalbackgroundinthemeaning‐makingprocess.
Further,theuser‐centredapproachIfollowedinthisresearchrevealedthat
someoftheparticipantsappearedtohavepreviousattitudesandexpectations
towardstheinformationtypeadvertising,anaspectthatStoltman(1991)calls
“advertisingschema”.Insummary,severalparticipantsmentionedthat
advertisementsoftencontainalogo,promoteaspecifictypeofaproductand
makeareferencetowhattherecipientneeds.
Fortheinterpretationofthewebpage,someparticipantscomparedthegiven
webpagewithotherwebsitestheyhaveexperienced.Termslike“general”,
“usual”and“standard”insomeofparticipants’responsesindicatethatthey
usedtheirexperiencewithotherwebsitesasareference.Underconsiderationof
BellmanandRossiter(2004)itseemsthattheseparticipantsappliedawebsite
schematheyhave,whichincludesexpectationsaboutwhereandhowtofind
informationonawebsite(p.39)orinthiscaseasinglewebpage.
5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION
104|P a g e
Someeffectsofenvironmentalfactorssuchastheplaceoftheinterviewas
wellastimewhenexposedtothewebpagewerefurtherunveiled.Thesefactors
areclearlyuserspecific,alsobecauseitcouldbeshownthattheresponsesto
environmentalfactorswereuniquetoeveryparticipant.Althoughallinterviews
tookplaceinthesamebuildinginthesameroomandwiththebasicallysame
roomlayout,eachinterviewdifferedonlyintimeanddateandintermsofthe
soundsoutsidetheroom.Despitethesamenessoftheinterviewsituation,each
participantreacteddifferentlytotheenvironmentalconditionsthatoccurredat
thetimeoftheinterview.P5mentionedforexamplewhateffectthelatetimeof
thedayhadonP5’sabilitytointerpretthewebpageandP6mentionedthe
cameraswhens/hetalkedabouthisorherattitudetowardaspecifictopic.This
supportsKnappandHall’s(2002)aswellasScollonandScollon’s(2003)
discussionaboutthesignificanceoftheenvironment,forexampletimeand
location,inwhichcommunicationtakesplace.
Itcanbearguedthatinordertoanalysethewebpage’smeaning‐affordance,
itappearsthatauser‐centredanalysiscanprovideusefulinsightsintothe
participant’sinterpretationsofthewebpage.Thestatementsofthesix
participantsinthisresearchrevealedhowtheyinterpretedthewebpageand
whattypesofrelationshipsbetweentheinformationmodulestheyconstructed.
Alsothevarietyandtypesofrelationshipssupportstheusefulnessofauser‐
centredapproach.Auser‐centredanalysis,inadditiontoasystem‐centred
analysisofthewebpage,mightbepromisingtofindouthowthewebpage,
includingitsadvertisementsaswellastheeditorialcontent,isexperiencedand
interpretedbythewebpageuser.
6.RESEARCHCONCLUSIONS
105|P a g e
6. ResearchConclusionsTheobjectiveofthisstudywastoexaminehowparticipantsinthisresearch
interpretawebpagefromthewebsitewww.healthyfood.co.nz.InthisresearchI
followedthepropositionthatthepersonwhointerpretsthewebpage
significantlydeterminesthemeaningofawebpageanditscontents.Myinterest
inthisresearchtopicderivedfromseveralapproachesintheareaof
multimodality,semioticsaswellasadvertisingresearch.Researchthat
emphasisestheimportanceoftheindividualintheprocessofmeaningmaking
butneverthelessanalysesthemeaning‐affordanceofadocumentwithout
includingananalysisofthedocumentuser’sinteractionswiththewebsite
appearsincomplete.Apotentialcontradictioncouldbeseenhereanditwasmy
intentioninthisresearchtoinvestigatewhatinsightsananalysiswithfocuson
theuserofadocumentcanprovide.
Inmymethodologicalapproach,Idifferentiatedbetweensystem‐centredand
user‐centredperspectives.Asystem‐centredapproachanalysesthemeaning‐
affordanceofadocumentbasedontheobjectsitcontains,whereasauser‐
centredapproachanalysesadocumentfromtheuser’sperspective.Inthe
presentstudy,Iconductedauser‐centredanalysisofthestatedwebpage.My
concernwastoanalysehowtheparticipantsinterpretthegivenwebpageand
whatthisuser‐centredanalysiscanreveal.Withrespecttothenotionof
contextualadvertising,thisstudyfurtherincludedtheinvestigationofwhat
typesofrelationshipsbetweentheinformationmodulesonthewebpagethe
participantsconstruct.
6.RESEARCHCONCLUSIONS
106|P a g e
Thisstudywasbasedontworesearchquestions:
• Whattypesofrelationshipsdotheparticipantsconstructbetweenthe
informationmodulesthatareplacedonawebpageofthewebsite
www.healthyfood.co.nz?
• Howdotheparticipantsinterprettheinformationmodulesplacedona
selectedwebpagefromthewebsitewww.healthyfood.co.nz?
Thisstudywasinformedbyconceptsfromthefieldofmultimodalityaswellas
semiotics,especiallysocialsemioticsandgeosemioticsthatemphasisethe
significanceoftheenvironmentandthereal‐timesituation(context)ofasocial
action.Furthermore,literatureandresearchonadvertisingandcontextual
advertisinginformedmyresearch.
Inordertoanswertheresearchquestions,Iadoptedaqualitativeresearch
approachtocapturetheparticipants’subjectiveexperiencesandinterpretations
oftheselectedwebpage.Iconductedsemi‐structuredinterviewswithsix
participants.Theparticipants’responsesweretranscribed,categorizedand
analysedguidedbythetworesearchquestions.
Thefindingsoftheuser‐centredanalysisinthisresearch,providesanumber
ofinsightsintotheprocessofmeaning‐makingwithineachparticipantwhen
interpretingtheselectedwebpage.Thestudyresultsillustratehowseveral
participantsusedpersonalknowledge,experienceandbeliefstomakesenseof
theinformationprovidedbythewebpage.Inaddition,Idemonstratedinthe
pastsectionsthatinterpretationofthegivenwebpagewasguidedbythe
personalinterestofeachparticipantinthecommunicativemessageofeach
informationmodule.Resultsfromthisinvestigationfurtherimplythatthe
physicalenvironmentatthetimeofwebpageexposurehadaninfluenceonthe
6.RESEARCHCONCLUSIONS
107|P a g e
interpretationprocessoftheparticipant.Theseresultssupportapproachesof
socialsemioticsandmultimodalitythatemphasisetheindividualinthemeaning‐
makingprocess,anditalsosupportsapproachesofgeosemioticsthatfurther
stressthesignificanceoftimeandplacefortheinterpretationofsigns.
Theresearchunveiledseveraltypesofrelationshipsbetweentheinformation
modulesonthewebpagethatwereconstructedbytheparticipants.Withinthis
context,thefindingsindicatethatpersonalbeliefsandknowledgeplaya
significantrole.Thesponsorship‐relationshipandtheincome‐investment‐
relationshipthatwereconstructedbysomeparticipantselucidatethisaspect.
Severalparticipantsinthepresentstudyconstructedarelationshipbetween
informationmodulesbasedonthesameproductcategory.Withthis,theresults
seemtosupportstudiesthatverifiedtheeffectivenessofcontextualadvertising
basedonsimilarityconcerningthecontentofanadvertisementandthecontent
ofthewebsiteitisembeddedin.Further,thisresearchexpandedtheworkof
previousresearchintheareaofcontextualadvertising.Thefindingsofthe
presentinvestigationindicatedthatalsosimilaritybasedondesign,especially
concerningshapeandcolour,playedaroleinconstructingrelationshipsbetween
advertisementsandnon‐advertisingcontentplacedonthewebpage.This
providesusefulimplicationsforonlineadvertisingpractice,namelynotonlyto
focusoncontent‐congruencebutalsotoadaptthedesignofonline
advertisements,especiallybanneradvertisements,tothedesignofthewebsite
onwhichtheadvertisementisplaced.Congruenceintermsofshapesoflogos
andcoloursingeneralappearedtobesignificantforsomeparticipantsto
constructrelationshipsbetweentheinformationmodulesonthewebpage.
However,someparticipants’responsesalsoindicatethattheprominenceof
colouronthewebpageisimportantfortheconstructionofrelationshipsbased
oncolour‐similarity.Futureresearchthatinvestigatesthesignificanceofcolour
prominenceintheareaofcontextualadvertisingwouldbeofbenefit.
6.RESEARCHCONCLUSIONS
108|P a g e
Iconcludethattheresearchshowedthatauser‐centredanalysisofthe
webpagedoesprovideasignificantinsightintothemeaningprocessesofthe
participants.Inadditiontoasystem‐centredanalysisofthewebpage,auser‐
centredanalysisoftheparticipants’interpretationsappearstoprovidea
thoroughunderstandingofmeaning‐affordancesofthewebpageincombination
withsubjectivemeaningsconstructedbythewebpageusers.Auser‐centred
analysisseemstocaptureseveralpersonalcharacteristicsthatareimportantfor
theinterpretationofcontentandthemeaning‐makingprocess.
Withrespecttothesemioticanalysisofadvertisementsonwebsites,Ifurther
concludethatitappearstobeusefultoexamineadvertisementswithinthe
websitecontextinwhichtheyareembeddedin.Thefindingsofthisstudy
demonstratethattheparticipantsconstructedseveraltypesofrelationships
betweenadvertisementsandtheeditorialcontent.Thissuggeststhatthe
websitecontextoftheadvertisementsplayedasignificantroleforthe
participant’sevaluationofhowtheadvertisement‘fitsin’thewebpage.
Thereareseverallimitationsthatframetheresultsofthisresearch.Forthe
presentstudy,Iinvitedtheparticipantstolookataparticularwebpage.The
selectedwebpageisarealwebpage,recordedataparticulartimeonaparticular
day.Althoughtherearenoindicationsintheparticipants’responses,itis
possiblethatoneormoreparticipantshadbeenexposedtoeitherthewebpage
ortheembeddedadvertisementsbefore.Insuchacase,thepriorexposure
mighthavehadaninfluenceonthestudyresultsbecausetheparticipantmay
havehadpriorknowledgeaboutorattitudestowardparticularinformation
modules.
Toavoidthispotentialeffect,itmightbeofbenefitforfutureresearchinthis
areatocreateawebpageforthepurposeofthestudy.Currentwebdesign
standardsmightbetakenintoaccountinordertomaintainasenseofreality.
6.RESEARCHCONCLUSIONS
109|P a g e
Anotherlimitationofthestudyisconcernedwiththeartificialsettingofthe
interviews.Ineachinterview,Iinvitedtheparticipantstocarefullylookatthe
webpage.Inareal‐livesituationtheparticipantsmighthavehadexaminedthe
webpagedifferently.AccordingtoDrezeandHussherr(2003)thereisonlya50%
chancethatawebsitevisitorlooksatabanneradvertisementonawebpage.The
resultsinanon‐artificialsettingmighthavebeendifferent.
Further,inordertosatisfyethicalstandardsofresearch,theparticipants
receivedaninformationsheet,whichdescribedthepurposeandtheprocedure
ofthestudy.Althoughnointerviewquestionswererevealedtotheparticipants
priortheinterview,itmightbepossiblethattheinformationalreadyprovidedby
theinformationsheetinfluencedtheparticipantsintheirawarenessofspecific
characteristicsonthewebpageandthismighthavehadaneffectontheir
interpretationsofthewebpageaswellastheirinterviewresponses.
ForfutureresearchIalsosuggesttolookingatinterpretationsofawebpage
withalargernumberofparticipantsinordertogetamoredetailedinsightinto
meaning‐makingprocessesandtheconstructionsofrelationshipsbetween
advertisementsandeditorialcontent.Myresearchwaslimitedtoaverysmall
numberofparticipantsanditwasthereforenotpossibletogeneralisethe
findings.
Further,mydataanalysiswaslimitedtotheverbalresponsesofthe
participants.However,individualscommunicatethroughavarietyofmodes
(Norris,2004,p.12),suchasheadmovements,facialexpressionsandbody
posture.Anintegratedanalysisofnon‐verbalutteranceswouldhaveprovideda
deeperinsightintotheparticipants’interactionswithme,theinterviewer,the
webpagetheywereinvitedtolookat,aswellastheirphysicalenvironment.For
example,theeffectofenvironmentalfactors,suchasthepresenceofthevideo
camerasduringtheinterviews,mighthavebeenbetterrevealedbyincludingan
analysisoftheparticipants’non‐verbalutterances.Isuggestforfutureresearch
6.RESEARCHCONCLUSIONS
110|P a g e
onuser’sinterpretationsofawebpagethatananalysisofbothverbalaswellas
non‐verbaldatawouldprovidevaluableinformation.
Ihavefurtherfoundindicationsinthestudyresultsthatthelevelof
involvementmightbeamoderatingvariablethatdeterminestowhatextendthe
findingsoftheuser‐centredanalysiswouldconcurwithfindingsofasystem‐
centredanalysis.Itmightbethathighinvolvementwiththeinformationmodules
onthewebpageleadtohigherelaborationoftheinformationprovidedand
thereforetoahighercongruenceoftheparticipant’sinterpretationsofthe
informationprovidedbythewebpageandwhatisstructurallypresentonthe
webpage.Isuggestthataninvestigationastothesignificanceoflevelsof
involvementwithinthiscontextwouldbeofbenefit.
REFERENCELIST
111|P a g e
ReferenceList
aAnckaert,P.,Geuens,M.,&DePelsmaker,P.(2002).Mediacontextand
advertisingeffectiveness:Theroleofcontextappreciationandcontext/adsimilarity.JournalofAdvertising,31(2),49‐61.
Anderson,J.,Dewhirst,T.,&Ling,P.M.(2006).Everydocumentandpicturetellsastory:Usinginternalcorporatedocumentreviews,semiotics,andcontentanalysistoassesstobaccoadvertising.TobControl,15,254‐261.
AUTEC.(2010).EthicsKnowledgeBase.Retrieved12thMarch,2010,fromhttp://www.aut.ac.nz/research/research‐ethics/ethics?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHAlM0ElMkYlMkZpbnRvdWNoLmF1dC5hYy5ueiUyRmludG91Y2glMkZFdGhpY3MlMkZrbm93bGVkZ2VfYmFzZSUyRmtiX3N1Yi5waHAlM0ZhcnRpY2xlaWQlM0Q1OCZhbGw9MQ%3D%3D
REFERENCELIST
112|P a g e
b
Bao,Y.,Shao,A.T.,&Rivers,D.(2008).Creatingnewbrandnames:effectsofrelevance,connotation,andpronunciation.Journalofadvertisingresearch,March,148‐162.
Barker,C.,&Galasinsky,D.(2001).Culturalstudiesanddiscourseanalysis.London:SagePublications.
Barthes,R.(1973).Mythodologies.London:Paladin.
Barthes,R.(1994).Thesemioticchallenge(R.Howard,Trans.).Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Bateman,J.A.(2008).Multimodalityandgenre:Afoundationforthesystematicanalysisofmultimodaldocuments.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan.
Bathia,V.K.(1993).Analysinggenre:Languageuseinprofessionalsettings.London:LongmanGroupUKLimited.
Beasley,R.,&Danesi,M.(2002).Persuasivesigns:Thesemioticsofadvertising.NewYork:MoutondeGruyter.
Belch,G.E.,&Belch,M.A.(2004).Advertisingandpromotion:Anintegratedmarketingcommunicationsperspective(6thed.).NewYork:McGrawHill.
Belch,G.E.,&Belch,M.A.(2009).Advertisingandpromotion:Anintegratedmarketingcommunicationsperspective.(8thed.).NewYork:McGraw‐Hill.
Bellman,S.,&Rossiter,J.R.(2004).Thewebsiteschema.Journalofinteractiveadvertising,4(2),1‐1.
Bennett,J.G.(2005).Designfundamentalsfornewmedia.NewYork:ThomsonDelmarLearning.
REFERENCELIST
113|P a g e
Bogart,L.,&Tolley,S.B.(1994).Howreadersprocessnewspaperadvertising.InT.C.Brock,E.M.Clark&D.W.Stewart(Eds.),Attention,attitude,andaffectinresponsetoadvertising(pp.69‐78).NewJersey:LawrenceErlbaum.
Botterill,J.,Jhally,S.,Kline,W.,&Leiss,W.(2005).Socialcommunicationinadvertising:Consumptioninthemediatedmarketplace(3rded.).London:Routledge.
Bukovac,J.L.,&Li,H.(1999).Cognitiveimpactofbanneradcharacteristics:Anexperiementalstudy.JournalismandMassCommunicationQuarterly,76(2),341‐353.
Burke,P.J.,&Stets,J.E.(2003).Asociologicalapproachtoselfandidentity.InM.R.Leary&J.P.Tangney(Eds.),Handbookofselfandidentity(pp.128‐175).London:TheGuilfordPress.
Busacca,B.,Girolamo,S.,&Soscia,I.(2010).Theeffectofcomparativeadvertisingonconsumerperceptions:Similarityordifferentiation?JournalofBusinessandPsychology,25(1),109‐118.
REFERENCELIST
114|P a g e
c
Caple,H.(2008).Intermodalrelationsinimagenuclearnewsstories.InL.Unsworth(Ed.),Multimodalsemiotics:Functionalanalysisincontextsofeducation(pp.123‐138).London:Continuum.
Carty,E.,&Peppin,P.(2001).Semiotics,stereotypes,andwomen'shealth:Signifyinginequalityindrugadvertising.CanadianJournalofWomenandtheLaw,13(2),326‐360.
Castelhano,M.S.,&Rayner,K.(2008).Eyemovementsduringreading,sceneperception,visualsearch,andwhilelookingatprintadvertisements.InR.Pieters&M.Wedel(Eds.),Visualmarketing:Fromattentiontoaction(pp.9‐43).NewYork:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Celuch,K.G.,&Slama,M.(1993).Programcontentandadvertisingeffectiveness:Atestofthecongruityhypothesisforcognitiveandaffectivesourcesofinvolvement.PsychologyandMarketing,10(4),285‐299.
Chaffey,D.,Ellis‐Chadwick,F.,Johnston,K.,&Mayer,R.(2006).Internetmarketing:Strategy,implementationandpractice(3rded.).Harlow,England:FinancialTimes/PrenticeHall.
Chandler,D.(2002).Semiotics:Thebasics.NewYork:Routledge.
Cho,C.‐H.(1999).HowadvertisingworksontheWWW:ModifiedelaborationlikelihoodmodelJournalofCurrentIssuesandResearchinAdvertising,21(1),33‐50.
Christ,P.(2009a).Retrieved21October,2009,fromhttp://www.knowthis.com/principles‐of‐marketing‐tutorials/what‐is‐marketing/criticisms‐part‐1/
Christ,P.(2009c).Retrieved21.October,2009,fromhttp://www.knowthis.com/principles‐of‐marketing‐tutorials/what‐is‐marketing/criticisms‐part‐3/
Colman,A.M.,&Norris,C.E.(1992).Contexteffectsonrecallandrecognitionofmagazineadvertisements.JournalofAdvertising,21(3),37‐46.
REFERENCELIST
115|P a g e
Cook,G.(2001).Thediscourseofadvertising.NewYork:Routledge.
Coyle,J.R.,&Gould,S.J.(2007).Internetintegratedmarketingcommunications(I‐IMC):Theoryandpractice.InD.W.Schumann&E.Thorson(Eds.),Internetadvertising:Theoryandresearch.NewJersey:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Creswell,J.W.(2007).Qualitativeinquiryandresearchdesign:Choosingamongfiveapproaches(2nded.).London:SagePublicationsLtd.
REFERENCELIST
116|P a g e
d
Dahlén,M.,Rasch,A.,&Rosengren,S.(2003).Loveatfirstsite?Astudyofwebsiteadvertisingeffectiveness.JournalofAdvertisingResearch,March,25‐33.
Dalal,N.,Mishra,S.,Patil,V.H.,&Singh,S.N.(2005).Acommunicationsviewofwebpageperception.JournalofCurrentIssuesandResearchinAdvertising,27(1),31‐52.
Diao,F.,&Sundar,S.S.(2004).Orientingresponseandmemoryforwebadvertisements:Exploringeffectsofpop‐upwindowandanimation.CommunicationResearch,31(5),537‐567.
Djonov,E.(2008).Children'swebsitestructureandnavigation.InL.Unsworth(Ed.),Multimodalsemiotics:Functionalanalysisincontextsofeducation(pp.216‐236).NewYork:ContinuumInternationalPublishingGroup.
Donthu,N.,Lohtia,R.,Osmonbekov,T.,&Xie,T.(2004).Emotionalappealandincentiveofferinginbanneradvertisement.JournalofInteractiveAdvertising,4(2),30‐37.
Dréze,X.,&Hussherr,F.‐X.(2003).Internetadvertising:Isanybodywatching?JournalofInteractiveMarketing,17(4),8‐23.
DuPlessis,E.(2005).Theadvertisedmind:Groundbreakinginsightsintohowourbrainsrespondtoadvertising.London:KoganPage.
Ducoffe,R.H.(1995).Howconsumersassessthevalueofadvertising.JournalofCurrentIssuesandResearchinAdvertising,17(1),1‐18.
REFERENCELIST
117|P a g e
f
Finnegan,R.(2002).Communicating:Themultiplemodesofhumaninterconnection.London:Routledge.
Fisher,R.J.,Jaworski,B.J.,Mohammed,R.A.,&Paddison,G.J.(2004).Internetmarketing:Buildingadvantageinanetworkedeconomy(2nded.).NewYork:TheMcGraw‐HillCompanies,Inc.
Flick,U.(2006).Anintroductiontoqualitativeresearch(3rded.).London:SagePublications.
Flick,U.,Kardorff,E.,&Steinke,I.(2004).Whatisqualitativeresearch?Anintroductiontothefield.InU.Flick,E.Kardorff&I.Steinke(Eds.),Acompaniontoqualitativeresearch(pp.3‐13).London:SagePublications.
Frain,J.(1994).Introductiontomarketing(3rded.).London:PitmanPublishing.
REFERENCELIST
118|P a g e
g
Goodstein,R.C.(1993).Category‐basedapplicationsandextensionsinadvertising:Motivatingmoreextensiveadprocessing.Journalofconsumerresearch,20(June),87‐99.
Guo,L.(2004).Multimodalityinabiologytextbook.InK.L.O'Halloran(Ed.),Multimodaldiscourseanalysis:Systemicfunctionalperspectives(pp.196‐219).London:Continuum.
REFERENCELIST
119|P a g e
h
Hall,J.A.,&Knapp,M.L.(2002).Nonverbalcommunicationinhumaninteraction(5thed.).Australia,US:WadsworthThomsonLearning.
Hand,C.,Robinson,H.,&Wysocka,A.(2007).Internetadvertisingeffectiveness:Theeffectofdesignonclick‐throughratesforbannerads.InternationalJournalofAdvertising,26(4),527‐541.
Hanson,W.,&Kalyanam,K.(2007).Internetmarketingandecommerce.Australia,MasonOH:ThomsonSouth‐Western.
Hodge,R.,&Kress,G.(1988).Socialsemiotics.NewYork:CornellUniversityPress.
Hwang,J.‐S.,Lee,G.,&McMillan,S.J.(2003).Effectsofstructuralandperceptualfactorsonattitudestowardthewebsite.JournalofAdvertisingResearch,December,400‐409.
REFERENCELIST
120|P a g e
j
Jablonsky,P.M.,King,C.M.,&Copeland,G.A.(1996.Effectsofhumorousanddistressingprogramcontextontheappealofeffectivenessofhumorouspoliticaladvertisements.Paperpresentedatthemeetingofthe1996SouthernStatescommunicationAssociationMeeting,Memphis,Tennessee.
Jeong,Y.,&King,C.(2005.Impactsofwebsitecontextrelevanceonbanneradvertisementeffectiveness.PaperpresentedatthemeetingoftheInternationalCommunicationAssociation,AnnualMeeting,NewYork.
Jewitt,C.,&Kress,G.(2003).Introduction.InC.Jewitt&G.Kress(Eds.),MultimodalLiteracy(pp.1‐18).NewYork:PeterLangPublishing.
Jhally,S.,Kline,W.,&Leiss,W.(1990).Socialcommunicationinadvertising:Persons,productsandimagesofwellbeing(2nded.).London:Routledge.
Jhally,S.,Kline,W.,&Leiss,W.(2004).Semiologyandthestudyofadvertising.InC.Seale(Ed.),Socialresearchmethods:Areader(pp.341‐344).NewYork:Routledge.
Josephson,S.(2005).EyetrackingmethodologyandtheInternet.InG.Barbatsis,K.Kenney,S.Moriarty&K.Smith(Eds.),Handbookofvisualcommunication:Theory,methods,andmedia(pp.63‐80).NewJersey:LawrenceErlbaum.
Ju‐Pak,K.H.,&Miranda,B.(1998.Acontentanalysisofbanneradvertisements:Potentialmotivatingfeatures.PaperpresentedatthemeetingoftheConferenceoftheAssociationforEducationinJournalismandMassCommunication,Baltimore.
REFERENCELIST
121|P a g e
k
Kayrooz,C.,&Trevitt,C.(2005).Researchinorganisationsandcommunities:Talesfromtherealworld.CrowsNest,NSW:Allen&Unwin.
Keller,K.L.(1998).Strategicbrandmanagement:Building,measuring,andmanagingbrandequity.NewJersey:PrenticeHall.
Kim,K.,Stout,P.A.,&Yoo,C.Y.(2004).Assessingtheeffectsofanimationinonlinebanneradvertising:Hierarchyofeffectsmodel.JournalofInteractiveAdvertising,4(2),49‐60.
King,K.W.,Reid,L.N.,&Soh,H.(2009).Measuringtrustinadvertising.JournalofAdvertising,38(2),83‐103.
Kotler,P.(2003).Marketingmanagement(11thed.).NewJersey:PrenticeHall.
Kotler,P.,&Keller,K.L.(2006).Marketingmanagement(12thed.).NewJersey:PearsonPrenticeHall.
Kress,G.,&Mavers,D.(2005).Socialsemioticsandmultimodaltexts.InC.Lewin&B.Somekh(Eds.),Researchmethodsinthesocialsciences(pp.172‐179).London:SagePublications.
Kress,G.,&VanLeeuwen,T.(1996).Readingimages:Thegrammarofvisualdesign.London,
NewYork
Kress,G.,&VanLeeuwen,T.(2001).Multimodaldiscourse:Themodesandmediaofcontemporarycommunication.London:HodderArnold.
REFERENCELIST
122|P a g e
l
Lee,S.‐J.,Lee,W.‐N.,Kim,H.,&Stout,P.A.(2004).Acomparisonofobjectivecharacteristicsanduserperceptionofwebsites.Journalofinteractiveadvertising,4(2),4‐4.
Lewis,P.,Saunders,M.,&Thornhill,A.(2003).Researchmethodsforbusinessstudents(3rded.).London:PrenticeHall.
Liamputtong,P.(2009).Qualitativeresearchmethods(3rded.).Melbourne:OxfordUniversityPress.
Lord,K.R.,&Putrevu,S.(2009).Informationalandtransformationalresponsestocelebrityendorsements.JournalofCurrentIssuesandResearchinAdvertising,31(1),1‐13.
REFERENCELIST
123|P a g e
m
Marsh,I.(1996).Makingsenseofsociety:Anintroductiontosociology.London:Longman.
Mavers,D.(2003).Communicatingmeaningsthroughimagecomposition,spatialarrangementandlinksinprimaryschoolstudentmindmaps.InC.Jewitt&G.Kress(Eds.),Multimodalliteracy(pp.19‐33).NewYork:PeterLangPublishing.
McIlwain,C.D.(2007).Race,pigskin,andpolitics:Asemioticanalysisofracialimagesinpoliticaladvertising.Semiotica,1671(4),169‐191.
Meyers,L.,J.,,&Tybout,A.M.(1997).Contexteffectsatencodingandjudgementinconsumptionsettings:Theroleofcognitiveresources.Journalofconsumerresearch,24(1),1‐14.
REFERENCELIST
124|P a g e
n
Neelankavil,J.P.,&Zhang,Y.(1997).TheinfluenceofcultureonadvertisingeffectivenessinChinaandtheUSA.EuropeanJournalofMarketing,31(1/2),134‐149.
Noeth,W.(1990).Handbookofsemiotics.BloomingtonandIndianapolis:IndianaUniversitypress.
Norris,S.(2004).Analyzingmultimodalinteraction:Amethodologicalframework.London,
NewYork:Routledge.
Norris,S.,&Jones,R.H.(2005a).Discourseasaction/discourseinaction.InS.Norris&R.H.Jones(Eds.),Discourseinaction:Introducingmediateddiscourseanalysis.(pp.3‐14).Abingdon,Oxon,
NewYork:Routledge.
Norris,S.,&Jones,R.H.(2005b).Introducingmediationalmeans/culturaltools.InS.Norris&R.H.Jones(Eds.),Discourseinaction:Introducingmediateddiscourseanalysis.(pp.49‐51).Abington,Oxon,
NewYork:Routledge.
REFERENCELIST
125|P a g e
p
Patton,M.Q.(1990).Qualitativeevaluationandresearchmethods(2nded.).London:SagePublicationsInc.
Perry,S.D.,Jenzowsky,S.A.,King,C.M.,Yi,H.,Hester,J.B.,&Gartenschlaeger,J.(1997).Usinghumorousprogramsasavehicleforhumorouscommercials.JournalofCommunication,47,20‐39.
Prasad,V.K.(1976).Communications‐effecivenessofcomparativeadvertising:Alaboratoryanalysis.Journalofconsumerresearch,12,240‐244.
REFERENCELIST
126|P a g e
r
Rodgers,S.,&Thorson,E.(2000).Theinteractiveadvertisingmodel:Howusersperceiveandprocessonlineads.Journalofinteractiveadvertising,1(1),42‐61.
REFERENCELIST
127|P a g e
s
Saussure,F.(1983).Courseingenerallinguistics(R.Harris,Trans.).London:Duckworth.
Schmidt,C.(2004).Theanalysisofsemi‐structuredinterviews.InU.Flick,E.Kardoff&I.Steinke(Eds.),Acompaniontoqualitativeresearch.London:SagePublicationsLtd.
Scollon,R.,&Scollon,S.W.(2003).Discoursesinplace:Languageinthematerialworld.London:Routledge.
Shamdasani,P.N.,Stanaland,A.J.S.,&Tan,J.(2001).Location,location,location:Insightsforadvertisingplacementontheweb.Journalofadvertisingresearch,July/August,7‐21.
Sheth,J.N.,&Sisodia,F.S.(2006).Introduction:Doesmarketingneedreform?InJ.N.Sheth&R.S.Sisodia(Eds.),Doesmarketingneedreform?Freshperspectivesonthefuture.(pp.3‐12).NewYork:M.E.Sharpe.
Silverman,K.(1983).Thesubjectofsemiotics.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Srull,T.K.,&WyerJr.,R.S.(1979).Theroleofcategoryaccessibilityintheinterpretationofinformationaboutpersons:Somedeterminantsandimplications.Journalofpersonalityandsocialpsychology,37(10),1660‐1672.
Stoltman,J.J.(1991).Advertisingeffectiveness:Theroleofadvertisingschemas.InT.L.Childers(Ed.),MarketingTheoryandApplications(Vol.2,pp.317‐318).Chicago,IL:AmericanMarketingAssociation.
REFERENCELIST
128|P a g e
t
Tanaka,K.(2002).Advertisinglanguage:ApragmaticapproachtoadvertisementsinBritainandJapan.NewYork:Routledge.
REFERENCELIST
129|P a g e
vVanLeeuwen,T.(2005).Multimodality,genreanddesign.InS.Norris&R.H.
Jones(Eds.),Discourseinaction:Introducingmediateddiscourseanalysis(pp.73‐94).Abington,Oxon,NewYork:Routledge.
REFERENCELIST
130|P a g e
w
Wertsch,J.V.(1998).Mindasaction.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
West,S.(1990).Workingwithstyle:Traditionalandmodernapproachestolayoutandtypography.NewYork:Watson‐Guptill.
White,A.W.(2002).Theelementsofgraphicdesign.NewYork:AllworthPress.
REFERENCELIST
131|P a g e
y
Yuen,C.Y.(2004).Theconstrualofideationalmeaninginprintadvertisements.InK.L.O'Halloran(Ed.),Multimodaldiscourseanalysis:Systemicfunctionalperspectives(pp.164‐195).London:Continuum.
REFERENCELIST
132|P a g e
z
Zaichkowsky,J.L.(1994).Thepersonalinvolvementinventory:Reduction,revision,andapplicationtoadvertising.JournalofAdvertising,23(4),59‐70.
APPENDIXI
I|P a g e
APPENDIXI:InterviewQuestions
Part one
Without looking on the screen:
• Can you please describe what you have seen? • What was your impression of this webpage? Was anything prominent? • Was any content on the webpage relevant to you? • Were any of the advertisements relevant to you?
Part two: Card activity
• Please decide whether the word, the colour or the picture on this card belongs to an advertisement or the informational content of the website.
Figure7:Cardsinthecardactivity
APPENDIXI
II|P a g e
Part three
After card activity and with looking on the webpage again:
• Do you see any relationships between the contents on the webpage? • Why do you relate these contents with each other?
APPENDIXII
III|P a g e
APPENDIXII:Interviewexamples
Participant6
I:Iwantyoutolookatthewebpageascarefulaspossible.Readeverythingyoucan
find.Takeasmuchtimeasyouneed.
[Participantlooksonscreen]
P:Cool,IthinkI’mdone.
I:Canyoupleasedescribewhatyou’veseen.
P:IcanremembertheMercedesadatthetopandthenextthingIsawwasthe
pictureofthemussels,sothat’sthenextthingthatcaughtmyeyeandtherewas
somethingontherighthandsidesomecookingonaBBQandthereisanicononthe
righthandside,Ihavenoideawhatitisabout,itispinkandatthebottomthereisI,I
thinkit’sacrumpetadorsomething.AndthosearealltheimagesIcanremember.
I:Wasthereanytext?
P:Yeah,sothereistheusualmainnavigationatthetopandthesearchthingand
plusitsayssomethingonthecarad,didn’tpayattentiontoit,somethingsomething,
andthereistheusualsearchbox,andIreadthecontent,thatwasinteresting.
I:Whatwasitabout?
P:Aboutcholesterolinseafoodandthere’sgoodandbadone,causeIheardaboutit
andIneverreallyknew,thedifference.Iknowthere’salotaboutseafoodand
cholesterolbutIchosenottopaytoomuchattentiontoit.Justfocusedontheparts
thatarelowinfatcausemostseafoodisverylowinfat.Itwasaninterestingarticle.
APPENDIXII
IV|P a g e
I:Wasitrelevanttoyou?
P:BecauseIjustknowIhadabloodtestonceandtheywerereallysurprisedwiththe
levelofcholesterol.Itwasreally,reallyhigh,buttheysaidit’sthegoodone.So,you
knownotthebadoneyou’refine,you’regoodcholesterolwasreallyhigh,I’mlike,okay
aslongasit’snotbadI’mhappybutthatwasstrange.Thatwasreallyhighandyes,so
that’swhyitwasrelevant,Isuppose.That’swhyIwasinterestedinwhatitistalking
about.Someadsontherighthandsidesaysomethingaboutseafoodandtherewasthis
ad,crumpetIthinkandsomethingaboutsomegames,they’reusuallyquitelame,no
offensebutthey’regenerallylame/laughs/It’sjustclickthereandthenjustclick
somethingandthereis,Iknowyoucansignupforthenewsletterandthen,thiswason
thebottomandit’salsoallthiskindoflikeasitemapthink,tellyouwhatisoneach
pagewhichiskindofcoolbecauseIwaswonderingwhattoolisabout.Causeonthe
main,navigationitsaidtools,sodownthereyeahokaythatmakessense,causeitsaid
aboutsomeBMIcalculatorandblablablaandusualcopyrightsbutatthebottom,Ithink
Imissedcoupleofthingsbutanyway/laughs/
I:Yousaidyouremembersomeadvertisements,weretheyrelevanttoyou?Whatdo
youthink?
P:ThefirstoneistheMercedes,that’sthefirstthingInoticedandabouttheprice
range,soeventhoughIwaslookingforacarkindofbutyeahnoandtheoneaboutthe
seafoodwasinterestingifIwanttoknowaboutseafood,youcanfindoutthere,so,
that’scoolyeahifI’minthemoodoffindingoutmoreaboutseafood,dependsonwhy
I’monawebsitecausesometimesI’mlookingforsomeplacestobuyitordon’tknow,
andtherewasapinkthingabout,therewasareallysmallad,noideawhatitisabout,so
Iwouldn’tprobablyhaveclickedonitunlessI’mreallybored/laughs/andthecrumpet
adis,Ithinkit’scrumpetanyway,andprobablywouldn’thaveclickedonitcauseIlike
crumpet,IbuyitbutIdon’tneedtoknowanymoreaboutit.That’sthethreeads,four
adsIcanremember.
APPENDIXII
V|P a g e
I:Nowwecometothepicturecardactivity.Iwillgiveyousomecardsandtheydepict
somethingandyoupleasedecidewhetheritbelongstonon‐advertising,advertisingor
both.
/readscard:“Youneed”/
P:Oh.
/putscardtoboth/
I:Why?
P:BecauseIthinkinthecontentitmighthavesaidyouneedthistypeofcholesterol
whatever,andalsoit’sIthinkontheblue,theoneontheBBQitsayssomethingabout
everythingyouneedtoknowaboutseafoodorsomethinglikethat.I’mnothundred
percentsurebutthat’swhatIcanremember.
[readscard:Picmussels]
P:Thatwasthecontent.
[putscardtonon‐advertising]
I:Canyourememberit?
P:Yeah,itwasrightnexttothetitle,youknow,rightnexttothebeginningofthe
articleaboutseafoodonthequestion,yeah.
[readscard:“NewZealandSeafood”]
P:Mmmhhnotsure….Iknowtheblueadvertisingittalkedaboutawebsitebutby
defaultIrelateittoNewZealandseafoodjust,butIcouldbewrong,causeIdon’tknow
APPENDIXII
VI|P a g e
ifit’sawebsite.co.nzor.com,yes,IwouldjustassumeasNewZealandseafood,Ibe
attemptedtoputitthere/pointstoadvertising/andbutcanIjustputittoboth?
I:Ofcourse.
/putscardtoboth/
P:Justbecause,also,talkaboutmusselsandbydefaultIliveinNewZealandI
assumethisisaNewZealandwebsiteandmussel,yeah,commoninNewZealand.
/readscard:ColourYellow/
/putscardtoadvertising/
P:Ahaaa,crumpet/laughs/
/readscard:NZSeafoodsign/
/putscardtoadvertisement/
P:Na,Ithinkthat’sonthead,ontherighthandsidead,Ithink.
/readscard:Mercedessign/
/putscardtoadvertisement/
P:Thiskindof,it…wasonthebanner.
/readscard:Colourblue/
/putscardtonon‐advertising/
APPENDIXII
VII|P a g e
P:IthinkthatispartofthewebsiteandfacecolourIthinkcausetheadvertisementis
moretodarkblue.It’swhatIremember.
/readscard:Q/
P:ThatIdon’tknow.Reallydon’tknow.
I:Whenyoucan’tdecidewherewoulditmakesensetoyou?
P:Ifirst,firstthinkcomeintomindisthequality,trademarkorsomething,youknow
somethingabout,foodquality.Soitwouldprobablyappearinthe,advertising.
Probably.
/putscardtoadvertising/
/readscard:PicBBQ/
/putscardtoadvertising/
P:Irememberthatone.Thisisontherighthandside.
/readscard:ColourGrey/
/putscardtoadvertisement/
P:Ithink,IassociatethatwiththeMercedesad,that’swhyIputitthere.
/readscard:“Recipes”/
/putscardtonon‐advertising/
P:Justnavigations,partofthebar,atthetopandatthebottom.
APPENDIXII
VIII|P a g e
/readscard:“Cholesterol”/
/putscardtonon‐advertising/
P:Content.
[Participantlooksonthescreenagain]
P:Ahhhyesit’sfocussingontheblue,Ithoughtsit’stheMercedes,causethinkofthe
blue….Ididn’tpayattentiontothebackgroundcolourofthat.
P:OhtheQ,ahthequestions,ahcontent…Youknow,sometimestheygotthis,but
notquitewithfood,thisismoreNewZealandmadeproducts,youhaveaquality
trademark…Ihavenoideawhatthisisabout,thatpinkflossie.com…Okay,yeah….andso
therecipe,IjustrememberitdowntherecauseIhadaquicklookdownthere.New
ZealandSeafood?Ahsothere…Youneed?
I:It’sintheflossie.com
P:Okay,noIjusthadaquickreadandI’mlikenoideawhatitisabout,soyoudon’t
remember.
I:Whenyouhavealookonthatpagenowandthedifferentcontenttypeslike
advertisementandthearticle,whatdoyouthinkwhichcontentsarerelated?
P:Well,thefirstthingI’mthinkingiswhythereisaMercedesadtherebutIsuppose
maybe…okay,itiswrongtosaythat,generallypeoplewhoearnmoneyalsoinvestmore
moneyintohealthyfoodandmaybemoreseafood.ButI’muncomfortabletosaythatin
frontofcameras.Butbytalkingaboutseafoodandhavingadseafoodthatmakessense.
Butit’skindoflike,readingaboutseafoodyumandthenlikecrumpets?Crumpetwith
seafood?Iknowit’sfood,it’srelatedbutyoukindoflike…amorebakingorbreakfast
partwouldbegood.
APPENDIXII
IX|P a g e
I:Andintermsofnotcontentrelation,doyouseeanyrelationships?
P:ItlooksreallystandardalthoughI’mnotsureabouttheMercedesadabovethe
actualtitleoftheadthatI’mnotsure,causegenerallyyoudoexpectto,thefirstthing
youseeatthetopiswhatareyoulookingat.So,thatissomethingIfeelanyway.Then
I’m,Imeanthesearchbarisattheusualplace…sometimesIwouldex,ahthatdepends
onthesiteI’vebeen,sometimeswiththebrowsearticlesontheothersidebutit’sokay.
I:Andwouldyouforexamplerelatecontentswhentheyhavethesamecolour?
P:No,notinthiscase.Ithinkforexample,Ididn’tevenregisterthatasbeingwith
thatadwhatIcouldrememberistheblue,theturquoisecolourso…nodidn’tpay
attentiontothenavigationcolour.Isupposeifthereissomethingreallyobviouslike
brightpinkinthenavigationandit’sthesamebrightpink,there,thenitwouldjumpout
andletmethinktogetherbutotherwise,no.
APPENDIXII
X|P a g e
Participant3
I:Iwantyoutohavealookonthewebpage.Lookatitascarefulaspossible,read
everythingyoucanfind.Takeasmuchtimeasyouneed.
[Participantlooksonthescreen]
I:Canyoupleasedescribewhatyouhaveseenonthewebsite?Whatwasitabout?
P:So,itwasthehealthyfoodwebsite.Thereisanarticleaboutcholesterolinmussels
basicallyandthattherearebadandgoodcholesterolsandtothatwellIguessseafood
hascholesterol,it’snotbadforyoubasically.Theyhadanadatthetop,theMercedes
one,oneonthesidewhichwassomesortofseafoodthingandthecrumpetonedown
inthebottomandthenIguessis,hadthetheyouknowwebsitenameandsidebarand
linksdowninthebottomandthatsortofthing.
I:Wasthearticlerelevanttoyou?
P:SortofIguess,ImeanIdidn’tknowthatthereischolesterolinseafoodbutnow
thatI’mknowingit,soitdoesn’tchangeanythinganywaybecauseit’snotbad
cholesterol.Butmaybeif,ifitwasbadcholesterolthenmaybeyesitwouldberelevant.
I:Wereanyoftheadvertisementsrelevanttoyou?
P:Notreally.Ican’taffordaMercedes,Idon’treallyeatcrumpetsandthatsortof
things.Ican’treallyrememberthetheonethatwasaboutseafoodsoitcan’tbe
relevant.
I:Wasthereanythingsalientforyouonthewebsite?
P:Iguessthehealthyfoodlogoinsortoflikepretty…prettygoodandeyecatching.I
meanithasnicecolourscheme.
I:Iwouldliketodothepicturecardactivitynow.
APPENDIXII
XI|P a g e
P:Okay.
I:IgiveyousomecardswithsomepicturesonitandIwantyoutodecidewhetherit
belongstonon‐advertisingoradvertisingorbothandashortdescriptionwhyyou
decidedthatway.
P:Okay.
[readscard:PicBBQ]
P:Iguessitgoesinboth.Imeanitcouldbeusedtoadvertisesomesortofseafood
likewhateverisonthekebabstherebutitcouldalsobeusedforsomesortofrecipeor
apicturetogowithsomethinglikethatwhichthenyouknowjustinamagazineor
something.
I:Canyourememberit?
P:NoIcan’t/laughs/
/participantputscardtoboth/
[readscard:PicNZSeafoodsign]
P:Again,Ican’trememberbutIwouldsayadvertisingjustcauseoftheshapeof,it
lookslikealogo.
/putscardtoadvertising/
[readscard:Colourgrey]
P:Iwouldgofornon‐advertisingasisacolour.
/putscardtonon‐advertising/
APPENDIXII
XII|P a g e
I:Doyourememberit?
P:No.No.Imeanit’sjustacolour.
[readscard:PicMercedesBenz]
/putscardtoadvertising/
P:It’salogoobviously,it’sfromtheMercedesad.
[readscard:ColourBlue]
P:Again,Iwouldhavetosaynon‐advertisingforthesamereasonsastheotherone.
/putscardtonon‐advertising/
I:Whydoyouthinkit’snon‐advertising?
P:Justbecauseit’sacolourandIwouldn’tsaytohaveanythingassociatedwithitin
mymind.
[readscard:“NewZealandseafood”]
/putscardtoadvertising/
P:IwouldsayadvertisingjustbecauseoftheNewZealandbeforetheseafood,it’s
advertisinglikeaspecifictypeofseafood.
[readscard:“Youneed”]
/putscardtoadvertising/
P:Again,thisisadvertisingbecauseoftheterminologylikeYouneed
APPENDIXII
XIII|P a g e
I:Canyourememberit?
P:Ihaveabadmemory.
[readscard:Q]
P:Idon’tremember.Ithinkit’sadvertisingbecauseit’salogo.
/putscardtoadvertising/
[readscard:Picmussels]
P:That,Irememberanditwasjustpartoftherecipessoit’slikenotadvertising.
/putscardtonon‐advertising/
I:Wheredoyouthinkonthepagewasit?
P:It’satatatthetopsomewhereIthinkjustwheretheytalkaboutmussels,likenear
thatquestion.
[readscard:“Recipes”]
P:Recipes,Igowithnon‐advertisingcause,Imeanitcouldhavebeenoneofthelinks
onthesidewhichistalkingaboutrecipes.
/putscardtonon‐advertising/
[readscard:ColourYellow]
P:Again,thishastodothesamethingastheothersforthesamereasons.
/putscardtonon‐advertising/
APPENDIXII
XIV|P a g e
[readscard:“cholesterol”]
P:Cholesterol,Igowithnon‐advertisingbecauseofthe,asapartoftherecipe.
/putscardtonon‐advertising/
P:Imeannotrecipe,the…article,sorry.
[looksonthescreen]
P:Isee.Soallthosecoloursweresortofsomeads.
I:Whenyoulookonthewebpagewhatcontentslikeadvertisingandthearticleor
anythingelsebelongstogether?
P:Well,yeah,theseafoodoneobviouslymatchesthecholesterolinseafood.Iguess
youcouldsaytheMercedesonebelongstothearticlecausethecoloursaresimilarasin
thepage.
I:Whatdoyoumeanwithpage?
P:Well,causeyougotthegreyandthegreybarinthetopandyougotthatsortof
thingsamecoloursintheadandthecrumpetsIthoughtwasoutofplacebecauseit’s
crumpetsandit’sprocessedfood.AhmIdidn’treallynoticedtheflossieonebefore.
I:Yes,it’sprettysmall.
I:Doyouseeanythingthatseparatesthecontenttypeslikethearticleandthenon‐
advertisingfromeachother?
P:It’sjust,Iguesswheretheyareplaced.Getthecontentinthemiddleandthenthe
adssortofsurroundedbuttheyarenotpartofthearticle,theyaresortofabove,below
andontheside.