1. UC Aug 2000 “ Now You See It, Now You Don't: Empirical Findings From An Experiment On The Mere Exposure Effect Of A Web-based Advertisement ” David R FORTIN et Ming O WONG Department of Management University of Canterbury, New Zealand

2. UC Aug 2000 About the Authors David is Senior Lecturer at the University of Canterbury, Nouvelle- Zélande and director of the “Web-L@b Consumer Research Project” Ming Wong is a doctoral student at the University of Canterbury, N-Z www.mang.canterbury.ac.nz/weblab

3. UC Aug 2000 Agenda Effects of Web Advertising Conceptual Model Methodology Results Discussion

4. UC Aug 2000 Introduction: Online Ads

5. UC Aug 2000 Advertising Effects Attitude Measures Behavioral measures (click-throughs) Residual Effects

6. UC Aug 2000 Mere Exposure Effects “Mere repeated exposure of the individual to a stimulus is a sufficient condition for the enhancement of his attitude toward it...” (Zajonc 1968, p.1)

7. UC Aug 2000 Mere Exposure Effects and Advertising Positive preferences can be generated independently of conscious processing (Shapiro, Machinnis & Heckler 1997; Thjomoe & Olson 1997; Janiszweski 1988, 1990, 1993; Hawkins & Hoch 1992)

8. UC Aug 2000 Mere Exposure Effects and Advertising Research in a Web context (Chtourou et Chandon 2000; Drèze et Hussher 1999; Mandel et Jackson 1999)

9. UC Aug 2000 Mere Exposure and Banner Ad: A Conceptual Model Mere Exposure Affect Vividness Ad Position Familiarity Competitive Interference + - + + +

10. UC Aug 2000 Ad/ Brand Familiarity H1: The positive relationship between mere exposure and affect toward the ad (brand) will become weaker with increasing ad (brand) familiarity.

11. UC Aug 2000 Intensity of Competitive Interference H2: The positive relationship between mere exposure and affect toward the ad (brand) will become stronger with increasing intensity of competitive interference.

12. UC Aug 2000 Vividness H3: The positive relationship between mere exposure and affect toward the ad (brand) will become stronger with increasing level of vividness of the ad. (Fortin et Dholakia, 2001 JBR)

13. UC Aug 2000 Ad Position H4: The positive relationship between mere exposure and affect toward brand name depicted in a web-based ad will become stronger with the proper position of the ad (right to pictorial information or to the left of written or verbal information). Dax (1836) Bogen 1969; Iaccino 1993; Springer and Deutsch 1981; Hellige 1993

14. UC Aug 2000 Methodology Factorial Design 2 X 3 X 2 2 levels of Vividness (lo, hi) 3 exposure levels (1, 3 ou 5) 2 levels of Position (correct, incorrect) 12 experimental conditions

15. UC Aug 2000 Dependent Variables Non-aided recall Aided recall Brand Familiarity (Aad) 11 items (Batra and Ahtola 1990) (Abrand) 4 items MacKenzie and Lutz (1989) Purchase Intent (Pconsid) 3 items Raman (1996)

16. UC Aug 2000 Covariate Variables Attitude toward web ads (6 items) Involvement with movies (5 items) adapted from Srinivasan and Ratchford (1991) Involvement with weight loss (5 items) adapted from Lichtenstein, Netemeyer and Burton (1990) Web Expertise (1 item)

17. UC Aug 2000 Experimental Approach (continue) Realistic web site environment –banner ad imbedded in editorial news-type content Recruiting participants –randomly directed to one of the 19 experimental cells –exposed to multiple pages of text & news –participating in online questionnaire

18. UC Aug 2000 Procedure Fictitious site about the movie and entertainment industry Participants recruited by e-mail –assigned randomly to one of 12 conditions –exposed to all pages of the site –directed to a questionnaire post-facto

19. UC Aug 2000 Results 2 interactions sig VIV x POS et VIV x POS x EXP (disordinal) no covariate effect

20. UC Aug 2000 Results 2 interactions sig VIV x POS et VIV x POS x EXP (disordinal) no covariate effect

21. UC Aug 2000 Results 2 interactions sig VIV x POS et VIV x POS x EXP (disordinal) no covariate effect

22. UC Aug 2000 Results 2 interactions sig EXP x VIV et EXP x POS (disordinal) 2 covar. Banatt et INVwl

23. UC Aug 2000 Results 2 interactions sig EXP x VIV et EXP x POS (disordinal) 2 covar. Banatt et INVwl

24. UC Aug 2000 Results Flin=3.54, p=.03 (trend analysis)

25. UC Aug 2000 Discussion H1, H2, H3 partially supported. Non-aided recall appears to be a function of exposure and vividness brand familiarity increases with exposure only if the ad position is correct and the message is low in vividness” Aad declines with exposure except if the message is in the proper position and “low vividness”

26. UC Aug 2000 Discussion Abrand does not seem to be affected by treatments Pconsid increases with exposure only when message is “low vividness”

27. UC Aug 2000 Conclusion “mere exposure” effect seems supported Ad position within content impacts on brand familiarity and Aad

28. UC Aug 2000 Future Directions Replication with brief exposures but on a repeated basis with longitudinal tracking (email for example) Ads with and without textual content