Do animated banner ads hurt websites? The moderating roles of website loyalty and need for cognition.
Thota, Sweta Chaturvedi ; Song, Ji Hee ; Larsen, Val 等
INTRODUCTION
Imagine that you are searching for some useful information on a
website when you cannot help but notice several banner ads. The banner
ads incorporate animation that winks and jumps, and they rotate, with
each new ad successively replacing the one that went before on the
banner. Exposure to this kind of animated banner ads is common for
consumers experience multiple animated banner ads on websites. Past
research has shown that consumers were irritated when they were forced
to view intrusive pop-up ads (Edwards, Li & Lee 2002) and
successfully avoided these by installing pop-up blockers, which led to
the demise of pop-up ads. However, since banner ads appear on the same
page as the website that consumers visit and since there is no available
tool to block them, consumers are often forced to view one or more
animated banner ads on a website.
Thus, the following question arises: If consumers hate banner ads,
why do marketers use them and why do web sites agree to host them? Since
consumers have come to ignore such ads and do not click on them because
distractive banner ads take away from the user experience, click through
rates have shrunk to .5% (Yaveroglu & Donthu 2008). However, recent
research which studied 139 online ad campaigns by merging data from its
panel of U.S. internet users with shopper data shows that banner
advertising, despite a lack of clicks, had a significant positive impact
on the advertiser (Klaassen 2009, Fulgoni 2008). Specifically, visits to
the advertiser's website increased by at least 46% over a month,
the probability of making a query using the advertised brand name
increased by 38%, and the online purchases for the advertised brand
increased by 27%.
Past research on forced exposure to rich media and animation in
Internet advertising is divided on the issue of consumer evaluations of
banner ads. Yoo and Kim (2005) show that animated banner ads produce
negative cognitive and emotional effects on consumers. Contrastingly,
another stream of research shows that consumers' repeated exposure
to banner ads results in ad liking and consequent effectiveness because
of mere exposure effect (Fang, Singh & Ahluwalia 2007). Similarly,
another study shows that consumers' highest forced exposure to
banner ads leads to favorable attitudes toward the ad, the advertised
brand and intentions to purchase the brand (Cho, Lee & Tharp 2001).
Past research is not only divided on consumer evaluations of banner
ads and brands featured in such ads, it is silent on the spill-over
effects of consumer perceptions on websites that host such ads and
intentions to return to the website. Since website managers must attend
to the attitude effects of ads not only on advertised brands (which pay
for a listing) but also on the website itself since the website, too, is
a product with its own brand equity, it becomes imperative--both
managerially and theoretically--to understand the effect of animated
banner advertising on consumers' attitudes toward the host website
as well as toward the featured brands. The purpose of this research is
to explore the effects of banner ads on perceptions of host websites and
on brands featured in such ads.
The paper is structured as follows. First, a study is conducted to
determine consumers' reactions to animated banner ads on websites.
Next, a subsequent study incorporates the results of the first study,
along with existing theory, and presents and tests a model of the
effects of animated banner ads. The results are then discussed and
suggestions for future research on banner advertising are offered.
Consistent with the view of methodological pluralism, this research
combines content analysis following a qualitative study with
quantitative research utilizing MANOVA, t-tests, and regression to
provide a detailed and analysis of the issue.
FIRST STUDY
The objectives of the initial study were to explore consumers'
overall feelings and reactions to animated banner ads on websites.
Consistent with past research, (cf. Bitner et al. 1990, Reynolds et al.
2006), we followed the critical incidence method. This technique has
been found to be useful in collecting direct observations from consumers
when a deep understanding is needed to describe a phenomenon (Gremler
2004). Subjects were asked to think about and report their overall
evaluations regarding their encounters with animated banner ads,
websites that host such ads, and brands advertised in such ads.
Exploratory interviews were conducted for three weeks by ninety three
undergraduate business students. The interviewers were given an
interview guide with detailed instructions and further trained to
administer the interviews in a manner consistent with the objectives of
the study. Two trained graduate students then analyzed the transcribed
interviews using content analysis procedures, a data driven technique
for assessing the emerging themes of a narrative text. (cf. Spiggle
1994).
Responses to each question were sorted and categorized into overall
themes. First, the coders independently analyzed all interviews to
identify reoccurring comments on subjects' perceptions of banner
ads, websites that host banner ads, and brands featured in such ads.
Next, the coders reexamined the responses for each question to identify
the frequency of theme occurrence. A list of themes and their
corresponding frequencies can be found in Table 1, which indicates that
animated banner ads are perceived negatively, most respondents finding
them to be distractive. Several respondents also reported that banner
ads are a waste of time because they lead to irrelevant sites. A few
respondents were less negative, indicating that they were used to banner
ads ("Banner ads are just a part of using the Internet") and
that animated banner ads have value for the website and are an
acceptable quid pro quo ("The website is a valuable tool for me so
I don't mind glancing at a few banner ads when navigating through
it").
When asked about their perceptions of websites that carried banner
ads, respondents indicated that they would be skeptical of websites that
host animated banner ads ("If a website allows such annoying ads
(that could be misleading most times), I would feel skeptical about the
website and question its credibility"). Respondents also said that
they prefer to avoid future visits to such websites ("I would hate
to return to a website that hosts irritating animated ads"). A few
respondents indicated that they are indifferent to banner ads and ignore
them. Finally, the coders also noted respondents' negative
evaluations of brands that are advertised in banner ads. Brands that
engage in this form of advertising are perceived as lower quality and
cheap. It is interesting to note that respondents tended to believe that
reputable brands do not engage in annoying and distractive advertising.
The results of this first study indicate that exposure to animated
banner ads results in skepticism and negative overall feelings toward
websites that host the ads. Particularly interesting is the fact that
the negative schema about banner ads is transferred to evaluations of
host website and brands that feature in such ads. The findings of the
first study are shown in Table 1, which summarizes the themes and
frequencies. Overall, Study 1 revealed that subjects have strong
feelings (mostly negative) about banner advertising.
CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
Results from the first study and additional theoretical
insights--discussed in the following Sections--are utilized to
conceptualize the basic model for our second study. It is important to
note that the first study utilized the critical incidence method and
results could not be explored in the context of a particular website.
Assessments of consumers' loyalty toward a website are needed to
clearly distinguish between different explanations and results that are
likely to be obtained when consumers' evaluations of websites,
banner ads, and advertised brands are considered. Additionally, we
suggest that individuals' need for cognition (NFC) is likely to
influence responses to banner ads since individuals higher in NFC engage
in more effortful processing, motivated search, and are, in general,
more curious and involved than low NFC individuals. They may, thus, be
more likely to respond one way or the other when exposed to animated
banner ads. Thus, in the second study we hypothesized that loyalty
toward a website and NFC influence consumers' skepticism toward the
website, which in turn, subsequently influences their attitudes toward
the website, brand, and intentions to revisit the website.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Banner Ad Effects on Website and Brand Attitudes in Goal-Directed
Consumers
A banner ad is generally 468 x 60 pixels in size and is a section
of other elements of the webpage in which it is displayed. Conventional
banner ads were initially designed as static billboards and represented
the traditional print ad format online. Web pundits debated the
effectiveness of banner ads and predicted their demise because of
declining click-through rates (0.5% on average) (IAB 2001 and IAB 2004).
Advertisers started using rich media--banner ads that contain moving
images and graphics and above all, sounds to combat the decreasing
click-through rates and enhance presentation of the message.
In contrast to users of print, radio, and television media who are
passive targets, ninety-six percent of Internet users are goal-directed
"active manipulators of content" and expect web pages to have
appropriate links to relevant material (Gallagher 2001; Morrison,
Pirolli & Card 2001). Goal-directed consumers are more focused
(Bagozzi & Dholakia 1999; Huffman and Houston 1993) and engage in
the classification of information encountered as relevant or irrelevant
with respect to their search goals (Meyvis & Janiszewski 2002;
Ratneshwar, Pechmann & Shocker 1996; Barsalou 1983).
Being goal-directed, internet users are likely to classify animated
banner ads as a distraction and irrelevant to their search goals and
evaluate the ads and websites that carry them unfavorably. Equity theory
(see Adams 1965; Walster, Walster & Berscheid 1978) suggests that
goal-directed internet users will compare their inputs (effort and time
spent in searching for relevant and useful information) and outcomes
(inefficient search due to slow loading web pages). Since banner ads
make the web run slower, they increase the probability that website
visitors will evaluate the website negatively because their inputs
overbalance their outcomes (Campbell 1995; Oliver & Swan 1989).
Thus, Internet users may view rich media banner ads unfavorably because
of the increased time and effort required for processing sought after
information. We therefore hypothesize:
H1a: Consumers' attitude toward a website will decrease when
they are exposed to an animated banner ad on the website.
H1b: Consumers' attitude toward a brand will decrease if they
are exposed to a banner ad for that brand.
Schemer schema (Wright 1985) and psychological reactance (Brehm
1966; Brehm & Brehm 1981) may explain consumer skepticism in
response to animated banner ads on websites. According to schemer
schema, consumers believe that advertisers and marketers use tricky
persuasion tactics in an attempt to influence their judgment. Given that
ninety-six percent of Internet users engage in goal-directed information
search and seek relevant information on the Internet (Morrison, Pirolli
& Card 2001), consumers should attempt to cope with and resist such
persuasion attempts. They are likely to invoke as a defense mechanisms
the schemer schema with respect to internet advertising and websites.
That is, they may develop beliefs about strategies and tactics employed
by advertisers and marketers to persuade them. Because animated banner
ads are forced on consumers, distract them from their search, and cannot
be blocked, the schemer schema with respect to animated banner ads is
posited to be instrumental in generating skepticism about websites that
feature such ads and subject consumers to these advertising tactics.
Conceivable insights into consumers' schema of animated banner
ads include (a) marketers and advertisers, through distraction, flashy
animation, and moving images, often attempt to entice the customer to
click on such images to make sales on products or cross-sell their other
products, sign up for additional offers and, most dangerously, extract
personal information to build their databases (Knowledge@Wharton 2003;
Elgin 2006); and (b) companies like Gator, through pop-up ads (and now
through banner ads) are known to surreptitiously load consumer tracking
software, e.g., Adware and Spyware, onto consumers' computers that
can trace their every click and including personal and financial account
information (Elgin 2006; Tedeschi, 2006). Therefore, consumers are
likely to develop a schemer schema about websites that host animated
banner ads and will become skeptical of websites that associate and
collaborate with such ads, resulting in overall negative attitudes
toward websites and brands advertised in such banner ads.
Psychological resistance explains consumers' change in
behavior when persuasion and coercion attempts intrude upon and threaten
their freedom (Brehm 1966; Brehm & Brehm 1981). When advertisers
restrict consumers' expected freedom, consumers will attempt to
restore their freedom. Thus, when consumers are forcibly exposed to
banner ads that blink and flash, distracting them from the contents of
the webpage they want to focus on, they could react defensively by
thinking such things as "I don't want to see these
ads--advertisers know that since I cannot close this ad, I will be
forced to see it" or "These advertisers are trying too hard to
persuade me," or "Why does this website allow such ads?"
Thus, the schemer schema and psychological resistance could lead website
visitors to become skeptical about such advertising on websites.
While resistance and the schemer schema may cause website visitors
to respond skeptically to banner advertising, these effects may be
attenuated by the degree of consumers' loyalty to a website that
carries banner ads. Consumers who are loyal to a website may be
empathetic toward the website and reason that the website needs to host
animated banner ads to survive financially, especially if website access
is offered to consumers for free. Accordingly, consumer who are loyal to
a website may be less skeptical in the face of banner ads because they
highly value the content of the website..
In contrast, consumers who are not loyal to a website may form a
schema against the website because it allows distractive and annoying
animated banner ads. Specifically, they may argue that reputable and
reliable websites are not likely to allow banner ads, because a click on
such ads could compromise security. Based on their prior experiences
with pop-up ads, consumers may understand that clicking on banner ads
could load undesirable programs such as Spyware onto their computers.
Moreover, banner ads disrupt the "flow"--"the state
characterized by a seamless sequence of responses, intrinsically
enjoyable, accompanied by a loss of self-consciousness and
self-reinforcing" (Hoffman & Novak 1996, p. 57)--of consumers
because of slow download times and overall slowing the loading of web
pages. Consumers who are less loyal to a website are likely to feel that
actual contents of the website are less important than the frustration
caused by banner ads, resulting in their decreased intentions to visit
the website in the future. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2: Website loyalty has an effect on consumers' responses to
animated banner ads with loyal consumer being (a) less skeptical of
website content, (b) more favorable toward the website, (c) more
favorable toward advertised brands, and (d) more likely to revisit the
website in spite of the presence of rich content banner advertising.
It is posited that a variation in responses to banner ads is also
likely to be a function of the consumers' need for cognition (NFC).
NFC is an individual difference variable that potentially affects a
person's motivation to process a persuasive communication.
Individuals with a high need for cognition (HNFC) engage in elaborative
processing and evaluate information more thoroughly than their low need
for cognition (LNFC) counterparts (Cacioppo, Petty & Kao 1984). In
accordance with this finding, it is stressed that since HNFC consumers
have a chronic tendency to indulge in issue-relevant thinking, they are
more (vs. less) likely than their LNFC counterparts to engage in
cognitive elaboration when they are exposed to distractive banner ads
while visiting a website.
An individual who is not loyal to a website and has a high NFC may
be more skeptical of websites that allow banner ads than a non-loyal low
NFC individual. Specifically, when consumers are not loyal to a website
and visit the website to seek certain information, HNFC consumers are
more likely to (a) elaborate and question the motives behind the
appearance of banner ads on the website, (b) perceive banner ads on the
website as more intrusive and contrary to their goals, leading them to
become more skeptical, (c) develop unfavorable attitudes toward the
website and the brand advertised, and (d) not intend to return to the
website.
Contrastingly, if consumers are loyal to a website, they are likely
to be favorably predisposed and empathetic enough toward the website to
argue for website's need for revenue generation from banner ads.
Consequently, website-loyal HNFC and LNFC consumers are not likely to
question the appearance and intrusiveness of banner ads. Hence, loyal
HNFC and LNFC consumers may not differ as much in their evaluations of a
website as non-loyal HNFC and LNFC consumers do. In other words, NFC may
moderate the impact of consumers' loyalty toward the website on
their skepticism and, consequently, on their attitudes toward the
website, the brand advertised, and intentions to revisit the website.
Hence, the following is proposed:
H3: NFC moderates the effect of website loyalty on consumers'
skepticism toward the website, their attitudes toward the website, and
their likelihood of revisiting the website in the future when exposed to
banner ads. NFC will have a greater differentiating effect on (a) the
skepticism, (b) website attitude, (c) brand attitude, and (d) intentions
to revisit the site when consumers are not loyal than when they are.
As discussed earlier, consumers' schemer schema about annoying
banner ads makes them skeptical toward websites that feature such ads
and makes them likely to transfer to their negative attitudes to the
website, brands advertised in banner ads, and intentions to visit
websites in the future. Therefore, it is proposed that skepticism
mediates the effect of website loyalty and NFC on consumers'
attitudes and revisit intentions. Zillmann's (1978) excitation
transfer theory provides a theoretical explanation for the transfer of
skepticism toward the website to the brand in the banner ad and to
intentions to revisit the website.
Excitation transfer theory states that individuals often experience
difficulties interpreting the causes of their own physiological state.
Therefore, residual arousal such as feelings or emotions experienced
upon exposure to a preceding stimulus is capable of being transferred to
subsequent or adjacent unrelated behaviors or experiences just because
of their proximity in sequence. Further, such arousal is mostly
nonspecific (Zillmann 1978) and, therefore, an individual's
residual arousal from a preceding situation X may be transferred to a
subsequent situation Y to intensify the response in situation Y. In
support of this theory, Fennis and Bakker (2001) found that effects of
irritation previously elicited by a disliked ad carried over to another
unrelated ad and brand in that pod of ads..
Further, Thota and Biswas (2009) found that irritation experienced
by consumers in response to unrelated product offers in a cross
promotion context was transferred to their subsequent attitudes toward
the advertiser, the focal brand, and their intentions to purchase the
focal brand. We suggest that skepticism generated in consumers upon
exposure to banner ads is likely to be intense enough to produce a quota
of 'residual skepticism' that might transfer to and adversely
influence attitudes toward the brand advertised in the banner ad and
intentions to revisit the website. We therefore hypothesize:
H4: Skepticism mediates the effect of website loyalty and NFC on
consumers' attitudes toward (a) the website, (b) the advertised
brand in the banner ad, and (c) intentions to revisit the website.
METHOD
The objective of this study was to assess subjects' responses
when they are exposed to animated banner ads on a website. Specifically,
our aim is to examine the effects of consumers' NFC and loyalty to
a website on their skepticism and attitudes toward the host website, on
the brand advertised, and on intentions to revisit the website. Because
the independent variables of NFC and loyalty toward the website must be
measured rather than manipulated variables, the study required selection
of a website that is familiar to subjects and that elicited a
preexisting degree of loyalty that could be measured.
The website www.ratemyprofessor was used in the study because
students frequently visited it and often encountered banner ads on the
website. A pretest indicated that all students had visited the website
at least once in the past (n = 37) to rate their professors and seek
guidance on which professors they should seek out when registering for
new classes. It was important that students not have extremely negative
initial perceptions of the website. Since the focus of this study is to
examine whether animated banner ads on websites attenuate subjects'
evaluations of websites, selecting a website that is already perceived
as negative would defeat the purpose of the study and lead to confounds
due to prior negative perceptions. A second pretest ascertained that the
website was not disliked by subjects (mean = 3.55 out of 5; n = 43).
Upon selecting the website, the researchers visited the website to see
whether an animated banner ad appeared after the web page loads.
During the time of the study, two rotating animated banner ads for
Apple iPod + iTunes were featured on the website. To make the study
realistic, browsers on computers were set up to display a full size (468
x 60 pixels) banner ad for the Apple iPod + iTunes ad rotated with the
second Apple iPod + iTunes ad on the www.ratemyprofessor website. Since
both independent variables--loyalty toward the website and NFC--were
measured variables rather than treatment variables, no difference in
treatment conditions was required. Therefore, the website was kept
constant for all subjects.
One hundred and twenty four undergraduate students, who did not
participate in the pretests, received course credit for participating in
the study. The study was conducted in two stages. In the first stage,
subjects indicated their attitudes toward the website
www.ratemyprofessor.com and the Apple iPod + iTunes brand. They answered
questions on the schemer schema and psychological reactance followed by
an eighteen item NFC scale developed by Cacioppo, Petty, and Kao (1984).
Subjects were asked to return after two weeks to earn course credit for
another supposedly unrelated study. Subjects were misled on this point
so that they would not try to remember their evaluations of the Apple
iPod + iTunes brand or of the website).
Responses on the key dependent variables were taken independently
of their exposure to the website and animated banner ads to eliminate
demand artifacts and hypothesis guessing by subjects. After two weeks,
subjects participated in the second part of the study in a computer lab.
They were instructed to view the ratemyprofessor.com website which was
found on the "Favorites" menu of their computers and then
respond to a questionnaire which contained the key dependent measures of
attitudes toward the website, the iPod brand in the banner ads,
skepticism toward the website, and their revisit intentions with respect
to the website. After the study was completed, participants were thanked
and dismissed.
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
Loyalty toward the website was measured by adapting an existing
scale (Pritchard, Havitz & Howard 1999). Subjects reported their
loyalty toward the website on four items (1 = strongly disagree and 7 =
strongly agree). The items were "It would be difficult to change my
beliefs about the website," "Even if close friends recommended
another website, I would not change my preference for the website,"
"I consider myself loyal to the website," and "The
website www.ratemyprofessor.com would be my first choice when looking at
professors' ratings." The reliability of the scale was
satisfactory and all items had satisfactory factor loadings and met the
criterion for construct validity (Nunnally 1978).
An eighteen-item scale developed by Cacioppo, Petty, and Kao (1984)
was used to measure subjects' NFC. Subjects responded to statements
on five-point Likert scales (where 1 = "Strongly disagree; 5 =
"Strongly Agree"). The reliability for the scale was
satisfactory at <x = .86. A median split was conducted to divide the
subjects into HNFC and LNFC groups based on their NFC score. Subjects
were classified as LNFC if their NFC scores fell in the range 1 through
3.10 and as HNFC if their NFC scores were in the range 3.11 through 5.
DEPENDENT VARIABLES
Skepticism toward the website was measured by adapting the scales
used in past research (Mohr, Eroglu & Ellen 1998; Obermiller &
Spangenberg 1998). Skepticism was measured on four seven-point Likert
scales after exposure to the banner ad on the website. Subjects rated
the website/themselves on the following items: "true,"
"exaggerated," "intended to mislead," and "do
not believe the claims on the website." The reliability of this
scale was satisfactory, [varies] = .91. A principal components analysis
showed that the skepticism factor accounted for about eighty one percent
of the variance among the intercorrelations of the four items. As seen
in Table 2, all items met the criterion for acceptable construct
validity having factor loading of at least .60 (Nunnally 1978)
Attitudes toward the Website, Brand in the Ad, and Website Revisit
Intentions
As mentioned earlier, subjects were asked to indicate their
attitudes toward the website and the brand advertised in the banner ad
both before and after they were exposed to the banner ad on the website.
Subjects' intentions to revisit the website were measured only
after they were exposed to the banner ad on the website because we
wanted to measure whether seeing a banner ad on the website influenced
their intentions to revisit the website. Subjects' attitudes toward
the website and brand were measured by adapting a scale proposed by
Mackenzie and Lutz (1989). Subjects indicated their attitude toward the
website on five seven-point scales (bad/good, unfavorable/favorable,
negative/positive, unappealing/appealing, and unattractive/attractive).
Subjects' attitude toward the Apple iPod brand was measured on the
same five seven-point scales. Higher scores on the items represent more
favorable attitudes. Coefficients <x for this five-item measure,
assessing subjects' attitudes toward the website, before and after
exposure to the banner ad, were .95 and .97, respectively. Reliability
for subjects' attitudes toward the brand, before and after exposure
to the banner ad, was satisfactory at .96 and .97.
Finally, subjects' revisit intentions were measured with three
seven-point Likert scales (e.g., "I will probably not visit this
website again," "I will use this website much less in
future," and "If possible, I will probably switch to another
website in the future," (where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 =
strongly agree). Coefficient [varies] for this measure was .87.
Principal components analyses were conducted for the dependent variables
of skepticism, attitudes toward the website and the brand, and
intentions to revisit the website to ensure that items for each
construct met the criterion of having a factor loading of at least .60
on their respective constructs (Nunnally 1978). Results of confirmatory
factor analysis reveal that all of the items used met this condition for
their constructs. All of the dependent constructs exhibited satisfactory
intercorrelations between their respective variables--skepticism--81.6
percent; attitude toward the website--90.43 percent; attitude toward the
brand--88.57 percent; and intention intentions to revisit the
website--79.91 percent (see Table 2).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A central assumption in this paper is that most consumers have
prior experiences with animated banner ads on websites. This assumption
was validated because all subjects (n = 124) reported that they had
previously encountered animated banner ads on websites. The study also
assumes that subjects possess a schemer schema and believe that
advertisers and marketers use persuasion tactics that trick consumers
and influence their judgment. Subjects' responses to questions on
the schemer schema in the first stage of the study revealed that (a)
they are skeptical of websites that feature banner ads (mean = 5.43,
standard deviation = 1.76 where 1= strongly disagree and 7 = strongly
agree), and (b) marketers and advertisers, through distraction, flashy
animation, and moving images, often attempt to entice customer to click
on the images to achieve their sales goals, cross-sell, or extract
information to build their databases (mean = 6.14, standard deviation
1.63).
Finally, we tested the assumption of psychological reactance by a
single item question regarding the extent to which they perceived
animated banner ads as coercive and unfair. Results show that subjects
felt that animated website banner ads are coercive and unfair (mean =
6.03, standard deviation = 1.07). These results indicate that the
assumptions about subjects' schemer schemas with respect to
animated banner ads were valid.
The first set of assumptions in this paper is that consumers who
are loyal to a website are likely to (a) perceive that the website is
relevant to them and is considerably more important than their
frustration due to banner ads on the website, and (b) have sympathy
toward the website and defend the presence of banner ads on the website.
To check the assumption higher website relevance for loyal consumers,
subjects responded to two seven-point scales that measured the extent to
which www.ratemyprofessor.com was relevant to them and the degree to
which contents of the website were more important to them than the
frustration due to banner ads. An average of these two scales was used
to determine whether website loyal and non-loyal consumers differed in
the perceived relevance of the website. Results of an independent
samples t-test show that website-loyal consumers perceived that the
website to be more relevant ([mean.sub.WEB NONLOYAL] = 4.12,
[mean.sub.WEB LOYAL] = 6.43; t = 6.54, p < .001).
The second assumption check was conducted to validate whether
subjects loyal to the website indeed had more sympathy toward the
website than those who were not loyal. Subjects were asked the degree to
which they agreed (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) with these
two statements: "Websites like www.ratemyprofessor.com have
connections with such banner ads that employ various marketing gimmicks
such as collect information and build databases" and "I
sympathize with the website www.ratemyprofessor.com because the website
had to find a way to make money when they provide their free, valuable
service to me." Subjects' responses on the first scale were
recoded and an average of subjects' responses on these two
statements was taken to assess subjects' overall sympathy for the
website. Results of an independent samples t-test were in line with our
assumption and indicate that loyal consumers showed more sympathy for
the website than non-loyal consumers ([mean.sub.WEB NONLOYAL] = 3.43,
[mean.sub.WEB LOYAL] = 4.30; t = 4.53, p < .001).
TESTS OF HYPOTHESES
H1a posited that consumers' attitudes toward the website are
likely to decrease after they are exposed to a banner ad on the website.
H1b posited that subjects' attitudes toward the brand in the banner
ad are likely to decrease after they are exposed to the brand advertised
in the banner ad. Two paired samples t-tests were conducted to test H1a
and H1b. Consistent with H1a, the t-test revealed that subjects'
attitude toward the website decreased after they were exposed to the
banner ad ([mean.sub.PRE-ATTITUDE,WEBSITE] = 5.49,
[mean.sub.POST-ATTITUDE,WEBSITE] = 4.24, t = 14.07, p < .01). A
paired sample t-test likewise indicated that subjects attitude toward
the Apple iPod + iTunes brand decreased ([mean.sub.PRE-ATTITUDE,BRAND] =
5.69, [mean.sub.POST-ATTITUDE,BRAND] = 4.61, t = 12.61, p < .001).
Hence, H1a and H1b were supported.
A MANOVA was conducted to test H2, which posited that website
loyalty influences consumers' responses to banner ads, with greater
skepticism and decreased attitudes toward the website and the brand and
lower intentions to revisit the website when consumers are less loyal to
the website. As shown in Table 3, the MANOVA revealed a significant main
effect of subjects' loyalty toward the website (F = 11.231, p =
.000, [[eta].sup.2] = .335).
Consistent with H2, results show that a banner ad on the website
resulted in (a) greater skepticism in consumers who are not loyal to the
website ([mean.sub.WEB NON LOYAL SKEPTICISM]= 5.625, [mean.sub.WEB LOYAL
SKEPTICISM] = 3.404, mean difference = 2.221, p < .01,
[[eta].sub.H2a.sup.2] = .082), (b) a less favorable attitude toward the
website in non-loyal than in loyal consumers ([mean.sub.WEB NON LOYAL
WEBSITE] = 3.292, [mean.sub.WEB LOYAL WEBSITE] = 5.118, mean difference
= 1.826, p < .01, [[eta].sub.H2b.sup.2] = .322), (c) a less favorable
attitude toward the brand in non-loyal than in loyal consumers
([mean.sub.WEB NON LOYAL BRAND] = 4.402, [mean.sub.WEB LOYAL BRAND] =
4.963, mean difference = .561, p < .05, [[eta].sub.H2c.sup.2] =
.031), and (d) lower website revisit intentions for non loyal consumers
([mean.sub.WEB NON LOYAL REVISIT] = 3.803, [mean.sub.WEB LOYAL REVISIT]
= 6.153, mean difference = 2.350, p < .05, [[eta].sub.H2d.sup.2] =
.200) (see Table 4). Hence, H2a, H2b, H2c and H2d were all supported.
It is important to note that although the main effect of website
loyalty on subjects' attitude toward the brand in the banner ad
(H2c) was significant, the effect size was low ([[eta].sup.2.sub.H2c] =
.031) compared to the effect sizes of the influence of website loyalty
on attitude toward the website (n2H2b = .322), intentions to revisit the
website ([[eta].sup.2.sub.H2a] = .200) and skepticism
([[eta].sup.2.sub.H2a] = .082). Thus, the explanatory power of website
loyalty on attitudes toward the brand was low when compared to effects
on attitudes toward the website and revisit intentions and skepticism.
Website non-loyal consumers' attitudes toward a website that
allows a banner ad are most attenuated (explanatory power
[[eta].sub.WEBSITE.sup.2] = .322), followed by their intentions to
revisit the website (explanatory power [[eta].sup.2.sub.REVISIT] = .200)
and skepticism ([[eta].sup.2.sub.SKEPTICISM] = .082). That is, when a
website allows banner ads, it is the overall perception of the website
that suffers the most attenuation, followed by consumers'
intentions to revisit the website, then by their skepticism toward the
website. It is likely that if a brand is extremely favorable in
consumers' minds and is a favorite--such as the Apple iPod + iTunes
brand used in the study--then the placement of such a brand in banner
ads does not substantially attenuate consumers' attitudes toward
the brand.
H3 states that NFC moderates the effect of consumers' website
loyalty on skepticism, website attitudes, brand attitudes, and revisit
intentions. This hypothesis was tested by a MANOVA. As indicated in
Table 3, there was a significant interaction between NFC and
subjects' website loyalty (F = 3.137, p = .029, [[eta].sup.2] =
.095). The significant multivariate interaction effect was attributable
to the three dependent variables: skepticism (F = 3.854, p = .045,
[[eta].sup.2] = .042), website attitude (F = 4.297, p = .041,
[[eta].sup.2] = .048) and revisit intentions (F = 5.330, p = .023,
[[eta].sup.2] = .055) but not to brand attitude (F = .965, p = .328,
[[eta].sup.2] =. 010).
As noted earlier, the effect of website loyalty on brand attitude
was low ([[eta].sup.2.sub.BRAND] = .031). It is likely that this effect
was so small that moderation by NFC led to insignificant results. Thus,
while the brands in animated banner ads may suffer, consumers do not
penalize the brand as much as the website that featured the ad.
Consumers who differ in their NFC do not penalize the brand differently.
But website loyalty has a significant impact (mean difference = .561,
[[eta].sup.2.sub.BRAND] = 031, p < .05) on consumers' brand
evaluations and this impact is not contingent on NFC, as proposed in H3c
([h.sub.BRAND.sup.2] =. 010, p >.05). While results for H3c were not
significant, these results point are interesting. If a brand is
well-liked by consumers, undesirable placement in a banner ad does
little to tarnish brand attitudes. A plot of the interaction between the
effects of NFC and website loyalty on brand attitude can be seen in
Figure 2.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
For testing H3a, H3b and H3d, four independent samples t-tests were
conducted to compare whether a significant difference in means exists
for HNFC and LNFC consumers across website loyal and website non-loyal
consumers. As predicted in H3a, for HNFC consumers, banner ads on the
website resulted in greater skepticism when consumers were less website
loyal than when they were more website loyal ([mean.sub.LOW WEBSITE
LOYALTY] = 5.310 vs. [mean.sub.HiGH WEBSITE LOYALTY] = 4. 367; t = 2.11,
mean difference = .94, p < .05) (see Table 5 for means). In contrast,
banner ads on the website did not result in a significant difference in
skepticism between loyal/non-loyal LNFC consumers ([mean.sub.LOW WEBSITE
LOYALTY] = 4.333 vs. [mean.sub.HIGH WEBSITE LOYALTY] =4.545; t = .53,
mean difference = .21, p > .05) (see Table 5 for means). In sum,
while HNFC consumers showed a difference in their skepticism levels when
they were less loyal versus more loyal, this difference was not
significant for LNFC consumers. A plot of the interaction between NFC
and website loyalty for subjects' skepticism can be seen in Figure
3. These results support H3a.
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
Also, consistent with H3b, banner ads on the website resulted in
less favorable attitudes toward the website for less loyal than for more
loyal HNFC consumers ([mean.sub.LOW WEBSITE LOYALTY] = 2.704 vs.
[mean.sub.HiGH WEBSITE LOYALTY] =5.094; t = 6.34, mean difference =
2.39, p < .01) (see Table 5 for means). While banner ads resulted in
less favorable attitudes toward the website for less loyal than for
loyal HNFC consumers, this difference was less than the one observed for
HNFC consumers ([mean.sub.LOW WEBSITE LOYALTY] = 4.000 vs.
[mean.sub.HIGH WEBSITE LOYALTY] = 5.212; 3.11, mean difference = 1.21, p
< .01) (see Table 5 for means). A plot of the interaction between NFC
and website loyalty for subjects' attitudes toward the website can
be seen in Figure 4. Hence, H3b is supported.
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
Similarly, the hypothesized moderation by NFC on the effects of
website loyalty for subjects' revisit intentions was analyzed to
test H3d. The effect of website loyalty on subjects' revisit
intentions was found to be greater for HNFC consumers ([mean.sub.LOW
WEBSITE LOYALTY] = 4.080 vs. [mean.sub.HIGH WEBSITE LOYALTY] = 6.176; t
= 4.41, mean difference = 2.09, p < .01) than for LNFC consumers
([mean.sub.LOW WEBSITE LOYALTY] = 5.444 vs. [mean.sub.HIGH WEBSITE
LOYALTY] =6.191; t = 2.49, mean difference = .74, p < .05) (see Table
5 for means). A plot of this interaction for consumers' revisit
intentions can be seen in Figure 5. Hence, H3d was supported.
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
As posited in H4, skepticism mediates the effect of website loyalty
and NFC on consumers' attitudes toward the website, the brand
featured in the banner ad, and on their intentions to revisit the
website. In accordance with the two step approach advocated by Baron and
Kenny (1986), a 2 (high vs. low loyalty) x 2 (high vs. low NFC) MANOVA
with consumers' attitudes toward the website, the brand, and
revisit intentions as dependent variables, followed by a MANCOVA with
skepticism as the covariate was conducted to test for the mediation
effects of skepticism. The MANCOVA revealed that the prior significant
moderating effects of NFC relating to the impact of website loyalty on
consumers' attitudes toward the website and revisit intentions (F =
3.137, p < .05, [h.sup.2] = .095) that confirmed H3 (see Table 3)
were no longer significant (F = 2.232, p > .05, [h.sup.2] = .054;
attitude toward the website: F = 2.856, p > .05, [h.sup.2] = .056;
revisit intentions: F = 3.562, p > .05, [h.sup.2] = .032) (See Table
6). Thus, results show that skepticism completely mediated the effects
of website loyalty and NFC on consumers' attitudes toward the
website, the brand, and revisit intentions. Hence H4a and H4c were
supported. Since the interactive effect of website loyalty and NFC on
consumers' attitude toward the brand was not significant as
discussed in H4c, mediation by skepticism cannot be tested. Hence, H4b
is not supported.
In sum, this study revealed that exposure to banner ads on websites
generates skepticism and this result is contingent on consumers'
website loyalty. Loyal consumers were less skeptical of banner ads,
possessed more favorable attitudes toward the website, and exhibited
greater intentions to revisit the website than subjects who were less
loyal. This study also showed that NFC moderates the effect of website
loyalty on the dependent variables. The results further highlight the
role of skepticism and demonstrate that skepticism mediates the
moderating effect of NFC and consumers' website loyalty on
consumers' attitudes and revisit intentions.
OVERALL DISCUSSION AND CONTRIBUTIONS
This paper examines consumer perceptions of animated banner ads on
websites. An initial study and a follow on study were conducted to
investigate this under-researched and interesting topic. This paper
identifies and examines consumers' reactions to animated banner ad
encounters on websites both qualitatively and quantitatively. The first
exploratory study identified broad thematic concerns of consumers with
banner advertising: the skepticism and negative feelings consumers have
toward websites that host these ads.
The second study established that consumers' skepticism toward
websites that host animated banner ads is a function of their loyalty
toward the website. The study further shows that NFC moderates the
effect of website loyalty on consumers' skepticism and attitudes
toward the website and likelihood of revisiting the website. Findings
suggest that NFC does not moderate the effect of website loyalty on
attitudes toward the advertised brand. The brand featured in the banner
ad was not as damaged because of its placement in the ad.
Results of the second study support excitation transfer theory as
the mechanism underlying the transfer of skepticism from the host
website to consumers' attitudes toward the website, the brand, and
revisit intentions. Specifically, the study demonstrates that
consumers' skepticism toward the website that hosted the banner ad
was intense enough to result in a strong quota of residual skepticism
and it was this residual skepticism that resulted in consumers'
decreased attitudes toward the website, the brand, and revisit
intentions.
Assumption checks extend support for the premise that consumers
possess schemer schema about banner ads, which has been shaped by their
prior experiences. Further, consumers perceive animated banner ads to be
coercive and unfair and exhibit psychological reactance. Combined, these
two studies contribute to and enhance our understanding of
consumers' feelings about banner ads, the effect of banner ads on
host websites, on brands featured therein, and on the likelihood that
consumers will return to the site.
Overall, the empirical results make our research hypotheses more
interesting because they suggest that the website may damage its own
equity by running the ads. Strategically speaking, the finding that
banner ads affect website revisit intentions might pose a threat to
websites. If website traffic declines, they won't have anything to
sell. So websites are put in an impasse--while banner ads are their main
or only way to make money, our data show the banner ads actually harm
the website and may reduce future traffic. A possible solution (and one
that could be explored in future research) is whether enhancing the
relevance of the banner ad could reduce negative effects on the website,
i.e., if the banner ad reflected the content of the page the person was
visiting, the negative effects on website equity would probably be
lower. Double Click and Google have tried to do that kind of targeting
and it may be the solution to the conflict between the need for revenue
(and thus ads) and the need to avoid damaging site equity.
MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
From a managerial standpoint, this paper suggests that consumer
skepticism toward the host website that follows their viewing of banner
ads may have undesirable consequences. Because consumers possess a
schemer schema about banner ads and think the ads are forced upon them
(psychological reactance), they become skeptical of websites that
feature banner ads and view featured brands negatively. This finding
holds negative implications for websites that feature banner ads.
Further, because Internet users are primarily goal-directed and are
skeptical of websites that host animated banner ads, it is the websites
that stand to lose the most by hosting animated banner advertising. The
potential for future damage to such websites is real for the ads
negatively impact intensions to return to the website. This study also
helps shed light on the effectiveness of banner ads. As websites and
advertisers debate the effectiveness of banner ads with websites
contending for exposure based metrics, such as impressions and
advertisers argue for better evidence of the performance of their ads
via click-through rates, websites need to factor in the huge long-term
costs of hosting animated banner ads, i.e., the possible damage to the
website's overall reputation. Websites may find their associations
with banner advertising profitable in the short run but not the long
run. Finally, since consumer responses such as skepticism are slow to
decay from their memory and continue to shape their attitudes and
intentions over long periods of time, websites and advertisers must make
a conscious effort to identify and avoid stimuli and contexts likely to
elicit negative responses.
This study also offers insights for advertisers with regards to the
effects of banner advertising. Advertisers may believe that animated
banner ads are an inexpensive way to showcase their brand, increase
brand familiarity, and increase awareness as consumers are likely to
click-through the banner ads or may simply be exposed to each banner ad
(Fang, Singh & Ahluwahlia 2007). While the current study shows that
a well-liked brand such as Apple iPod + iTunes does not suffer greatly
from its placement in an animated banner ad, brands that are not as
popular may suffer from their placements in banner ads. Overall, these
findings suggest that if consumers' reactions to advertising are
defensive and skeptical, it may be ineffective for advertisers and
websites to force consumers to view their ads.
This study has limitations. First, the study did not assess the
effect of different kinds and sizes of banner ads or the effect of
varying number of banner ads on a website. Nor did it study the effect
of different kinds of animation in banner ads such as blinking,
flashing, or videos with sounds. Future research should also examine
whether the brand equity of well regarded websites has a positive effect
on perceptions of banner ads run on the website. Cognitive dissonance
theories suggest that an attitude equilibrium will be struck. Thus,
future research should attempt to answer a question of great managerial
importance for website owners: are there ad targeting strategies that
can diminish damage to website equity from hosting banner ads. For
example, if the advertised product is very much related to the content
of the website or of the story that is being read, would this diminish
negative responses to the ad and the website?
The bottom line question posed by this study is whether banner ads
should be used given that they are likely to evoke negative responses
and that the advertised brand is likely to suffer because of its
association with the banner ad. Is there any benefit from banner
advertising and should any brand advertise via animated banner ads? This
study strongly suggests that the answer to both questions may be
"no!"
REFERENCES
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Second Edition), (pp.
267-299). New York: Academic Press.
Bagozzi, R. P. & Dholakia, U. (1999). Goal setting and goal
striving in consumer behavior. Journal of Marketing, 63 (October),
19-32.
Baron, R. & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182
Barsalou, L.W. (1983). Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition, 11
(May), 211-227.
Bitner, M.J., Booms, B. H. & Tetrault, M.S. (1990). The Service
Encounter: Diagnosing Favorable and Unfavorable Incidents. Journal of
Marketing, 54 (January), 71-84.
Brehm, J.W. 1966. A Theory of Psychological Reactance. New York:
Academic Press.
Brehm, S.S. & Brehm, J.W. (1981), Psychological Reactance: A
Theory of Freedom and Control, New York: Academic Press.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. E. (1984). The
efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 48, 306-307.
Campbell, M. C. (1995). When attention-getting advertising tactics
elicit consumer inferences of manipulative intent: the importance of
balancing benefits and investments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4,
225-254, (3).
Cho, C., Lee, J. & Tharp M. (2001). Different Forced-Exposure
Levels to Banner Advertisements, Journal of Advertising Research, 41(4),
45-56,.
Cho, Chang-Hoan and Hongsik John Cheon (2004), "Why Do People
Avoid Advertising On the Internet?" Journal of Advertising, 33
(Winter), 89 -97.
Dahlen, M. (2001). Banner advertisements through a new lens.
Journal of Advertising Research, 41(4), 23-30.
Edwards, S., M., Li, H., & Lee, J. (2002). Forced Exposure and
Psychological Reactance: Antecedents and Consequences of the Perceived
Intrusiveness of Pop-Up Ads. Journal of Advertising, 31 (Fall), 83-95.
Elgin, B. (2006). The plot to hijack your computer. Business Week.
(July 17), 40-48.
Fang, X., Singh, S. & Ahluwalia, R. (2007). An Examination of
Different Explanations of Mere Exposure effect. Journal of Consumer
Research, 34(1), 97-103.
Fennis, B. M. & Bakker, A. B. (2001). Stay tuned--we will be
back right after these messages: need to evaluate moderates the transfer
of irritation in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 30 (Fall), 15-25.
Fulgoni, Gian M., (2008), "Whither the Click? ComScore Brand
Metrix Norms Prove 'View-Thru' Value of Online
Advertising," Retrieved June 23, 2009 from
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2008/11/
Value_of_Online_Advertising.
Gallagher, K., Foster, K.D. & Parsons, J. (2001). The medium is
not the message: advertising effectiveness and content evaluation in
print and on the web. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(4), 57-70.
Gremler, Dwayne D. (2004). The Critical Incident Technique in
Service Research. Journal of Service Research, 7 (August), 65-89.
Hoffman, D. & Novak, T. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia
computer-mediated environments: conceptual foundations. Journal of
Marketing. 60(3), 50-68.
Huffman, C. & Houston, M. J. (1993). Goal-oriented experiences
and the development of knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research, 20
(September), 190-207.
IAB (2007), INTERNET ADVERTISING REVENUES SOAR AGAIN, NEAR $5
BILLION IN Q1 07. Retrieved from
http://www.iab.net/news/pr_2007_06_06.asp.
IAB (2004), IAB/PWC Release Final Full-Year 2003 Internet Ad
Revenue Figures. Retrieved July 3 from
http://www.iab.net/news/pr_2004_4_21.asp.
IAB (2001), "Rich Media Guidelines (version 1). Retrieved July
4, 2007 from http://www.iab.net/standards/richmedia/version1.asp
Klaassen, Abbey (2009), "Why the Click Is the Wrong Metric for
Online Ads: Mere Mouse Move Can't Measure Influence; That's
Good News for Publishers," Adage Industry Events. Retrieved June
23, 2009 from http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=134787.
Knowledge@Wharton (August 12, 2003). Retrieved December 11, 2006
from http://www.inc.com/articles/2003/08/popup.html.
MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of
the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising
pretest context. Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 48-65.
Manchanda, P., Dube, J.P., Goh, K.Y. & Chintagunta, P. (2006).
The Effects of Banner Advertising on Consumer Interpurchase Times and
Expenditures in Digital Environments. Journal of Marketing Research, 43
(February), 98-108
Meyvis, T. & Janiszewski, C. (2002). Consumers' beliefs
about product benefits: the effect of obviously irrelevant product
information. Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (March), 618-635.
Mohr, L. A., Eroglu, D. & Ellen, P. S. (1998). The development
and testing of a measure of skepticism toward environmental claims in
marketers' communications. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 32(1),
30-55.
Morrison, J. B., Pirolli, P. & Card, S. K. (2001). A taxonomic
analysis of what world wide web activities significantly impact
people's decisions and actions. Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems. Retrieved December 11, 2006 from
http://www2.parc.com/istl/projects/uir/publications/items/UIR-2000-17-
MorrisonCHI2001-WebTaxonomy.pdf, 163-164.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: Mc-Graw Hill.
Oliver, R. L. & Swan, J. E. (1989). Consumer perceptions of
interpersonal equity and satisfaction in transactions: a field survey
approach. Journal ofMarketing, 53 (April), 21-35.
Obermiller, C. & Spangenberg, E.R. (1998). Development of a
scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 159-186.
Ratneshwar, S., Pechmann, C & Shocker, A.D. (1996).
Goal-derived categories and the antecedents of across-category
consideration. Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (December), 240-250.
Reynolds, K.E., Folse, J.A.G. & Jones, M.E. (2006). Search
Regret: Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Retailing, 82(4)
339-348.
Sherman, L. & J. Deighton (2001). Banner advertising: Measuring
effectiveness and optimizing placement. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 15(2), 60-64.
Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data
in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (December),
491-503.
Tedseschi, B. (April 3, 2006). Every click you make, they'll
be watching you. Retrieved December 11, 2006 from
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/03/business/
03ecom.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=9e55aeacf695c33a&ex=1301716800.
Thota, Sweta Chaturvedi and Abhijit Biswas (2009), "I Want to
Buy the Advertised Product Only! An Examination of the Effects of
Additional Product Offers on Consumer Irritation in a Cross Promotion
Context," Journal of Advertising, 38 (Spring), 123-136,
Walster, E., Walster G.W. & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity:
theory and research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Warren, S. (2001). Winners and Losers. Wall Street Journal, April
23.
Yoo, C.Y. & Him K. (2005). Processing of Animation in Online
Banner Advertising: The Roles of Cognitive and Emotional Responses.
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18 (autumn), 18-33.
Zillmann, D. (1978). Attribution and misattribution of excitatory
reactions. In J.H. Harvey, W. Ickes & R. F. Kidd (eds.). New
Directions in Attribution Research, New York: Wiley, 2. 335-368.
Sweta Chaturvedi Thota, University of San Francisco
Ji Hee Song, University of Seoul
Val Larsen, James Madison University
Table 1: Study One Interviews: Emergent Themes,
Frequency of Occurrence, and Examples
Frequency of
Theme Occurrence Examples
Banner Ad Evaluations
Distractive 88 Banner ads are very distractive.
I cannot concentrate on website
content when there are animated
banner ads.
These ads keep flashing all the
time and you end up looking at them
even when you don't want to!
Animated banner ads are the worst.
I sometimes scream when they keep
flash and move annoyingly on my
screen!
Hate 82 I hate banner ads--they keep
flashing annoyingly at you.
These are really irritating and
make me skeptical of such ads and
brands.
Waste of time 90 I followed a banner ad once and it
took me to all sorts of irrelevant
sites and I wasted a lot of time.
Are you serious? Waste of my time!
Chasing banner ads is very boring
and takes very long.
Neutral 14 Animated banner ads are just a part
of using the internet.
Host Website Evaluations
Skeptical 86 I feel skeptical about websites
that host such shady ads.
If a website allows such annoying
ads (that could be misleading most
times), I feel skeptical about the
website and question its
credibility.
Revisit Intention 78 I would hate to return to a website
that hosts irritating animated ads.
I would not return to such a
website if I really don't have to.
Such websites are a pain--I try to
not return to them if I can avoid
them in the future.
Brand Evaluations
Image 89 If brands advertise in such a cheap
manner, they ought to be really
cheap.
Only low brands are seen in such
ads--well known reputable brands
such as Apple iPod would never
advertise in banner ads.
Table 2: Reliability and CFA Statistics for the Dependent Variables
Total Variance
Explained by
Items--
Dependent Variable Alpha Cumulative %
Loyalty toward 0.84 81.7
the website
Skepticism toward 0.91 81.6
the website
Attitude Toward 0.92 90.43
the Website
Attitude Toward 0.96 88.57
the Brand
Revisit Intentions 0.87 79.91
Toward the website
Confirmatory
Factor
Dependent Variable Items Loadings
Loyalty toward Difficult to change beliefs 0.856
the website about the website
Will not change preference 0.793
toward the website
Loyal toward the website 0.814
Website would be first choice 0.805
Skepticism toward Claims on the website as true 0.883
the website
Claims on the website as 0.831
exaggerated
Claims on the website as 0.754
intended to mislead
Do not believe claims on the 0.798
website
Attitude Toward Unfavorable 0.92
the Website
Negative 0.919
Bad 0.938
Unattractive 0.876
Unappealing 0.868
Attitude Toward Unfavorable 0.918
the Brand
Negative 0.925
Bad 0.919
Unattractive 0.848
Unappealing 0.818
Revisit Intentions Not visit the website 0.806
Toward the website
Use the website less 0.834
Switch to another website 0.757
Table 3: The Effects of Website Loyalty (Low vs. High) and Need
for Cognition (LNFC vs. HNFC) on consumers' skepticism toward
banner ads, attitudes toward the website, the brand featured in
the banner ad and intentions to revisit the website
Sources MANOVA ANOVA
Main Effect
Effects Wilks' Size F-value Sig. d.f. Skepticism
NFC 0.855 0.145 3.765 0.007 1 1.775 -0.186
Website 0.665 0.335 11.231 0 1 1.483 -0.226
Loyalty
Interaction 0.905 0.095 3.137 0.029 1 3.854 (.045)
Website
Loyalty *
NFC
Residual 92
Sources ANOVA
Main [A.sub. [A.sub.br] Revisit
Effects website] Intentions
NFC 6.191 (.015) 0.965 -0.328 5.577 (.020)
Website 40.1860 7.204 (.009) 5.577 (.020)
Loyalty
Interaction 4.297 (.041) .965 (.328) 5.33 -0.023
Website
Loyalty *
NFC
Residual
[A.sub.website]: implies attitude toward the website; [A.sub.br]:
implies attitude toward the brand featured in the banner ad;
Revisit Intentions: implies revisit intentions toward the website
Table 4: Means for the Effect of Consumers' Website Loyalty
(Loyal vs. Non-Loyal) on skepticism toward banner ads, attitudes
toward the website, the brand featured in the banner ad and
intentions to revisit the website
Variables: Website Loyalty
Low High
Skepticism 5.625 (.62) (a) 3.404 (.78) (a)
[A.sub.website] 3.292 (1.43) (a) 5.118 (1.22) (a)
[A.sub.br] 4.402 (1.61) (a) 4.963 (1.53) (a)
Revisit Intentions 3.803 (1.65) (a) 6.153 (1.00) (a)
Standard deviations are provided in parentheses; [alpha] = p < .01
[A.sub.website]: implies attitude toward the website; [A.sub.br]:
implies attitude toward the brand featured in the banner ad;
Revisit Intentions: implies revisit intentions toward the website
Table 5: Means
Variables: Website Non-Loyal Consumers
LNFC HNFC
[A.sub.website] 4.000 (1.37) (a) 2.704(1.44) (a)
[A.sub.br] 3.742(1.58) (a) 4.544 (1.55) (a)
Revisit Intentions 5.444 (1.086) (a) 4.080 (2.09) (a)
Variables: Website Loyal Consumers
LNFC HNFC
[A.sub.website] 5.212 (1.41) 5.094 (1.00)
[A.sub.br] 4.903 (1.60) 5.082 (1.054)
Revisit Intentions 6.191 (1.04) 6.176 (.92)
Standard deviations are provided in parentheses; [alpha] = p < .01
[A.sub.website]: attitude toward the website; [A.sub.br]:
attitude toward the brand featured in the banner ad; Revisit
Intentions: revisit intentions toward the website
Table 6: Skepticism as a Mediator of the Effects of Website Loyalty
(Low vs. High) and Need for Cognition (LNFC vs. HNFC) on Attitudes
toward the website, the Brand Offered featured in the Banner Ad and
Intentions to Revisit the Website
Sources: MANCOVA
Effect
Main Effects Wilks' Size F-value Sig.
NFC 0.872 0.128 4.363 0
Website Loyalty 0.675 0.325 14.266 0
Covariate 0.963 0.037 1.152 0.33
Skepticism
Interaction Website 0.921 0.054 2.232 0.09
Loyalty * NFC
Residual
Sources: ANCOVA
[A.sub. Revisit
Main Effects d.f. website] [A.sub.br] Intentions
NFC 1 5.239 (.02) 2.543 -0.11 4.525 -0.03
Website Loyalty 1 37.7750 6.711 (.01) 21.741 (.00)
Covariate 1 1.846 (.17) .233 (.63) 2.96 -0.08
Skepticism
Interaction Website 1 2.856 (.09) 1.112 (.29) 3.562 (.07)
Loyalty * NFC
Residual 89
[A.sub.website]: implies attitude toward the website; [A.sub.br]:
implies attitude toward the brand featured in the banner ad;
Revisit Intentions: implies revisit intentions toward the website
