A first step in unraveling synced advertising effectiveness

References

• Assael, H. 2011. From silos to synergy: A fifty-year review of cross-media research shows synergy has yet to achieve its full potential. Journal of Advertising Research 51, no. 1: 42–58. doi:10.2501/JAR-51-1-042-058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batra, R., and M.L. Ray. 1986. Situational effects of advertising repetition: The moderating influence of motivation, ability, and opportunity to respond. Journal of Consumer Research 12, no. 4: 432–45. http://www.jstor.org/stable/254303. doi:10.1086/208528
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellman, S., J.A. Robinson, B. Wooley, and D. Varan. 2017. The effects of social TV on television advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Communications 23, no. 1: 73–91. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0085-2014. doi:10.1080/13527266.2014.921637
   Google Scholar
• Bleier, A., and M. Eisenbeiss. 2015. The importance of trust for personalized online advertising. Journal of Retailing 91, no. 3: 390–409. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2015.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boerman, S.C., S. Kruikemeier, and F.J. Zuiderveen Borgesius. 2017. Online behavioral advertising: A literature review and research agenda. Journal of Advertising 46, no. 3: 363–76. doi:10.1080/00913367.2017.1339368
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bol, N., T. Dienlin, S. Kruikemeier, M. Sax, S.C. Boerman, J. Strycharz, N. Helberger, and C.H. de Vreese. 2018. Understanding the effects of personalization as a privacy calculus: Analyzing Self-Disclosure across health, news, and commerce contexts†. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 23, no. 6: 370–88. doi:10.1093/jcmc/zmy020
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brasel, S.A., and J. Gips. 2011. Media multitasking behavior: Concurrent television and computer usage. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking 14, no. 9: 527–34. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0350
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buhrmester, M., T. Kwang, and S.D. Gosling. 2011. Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science : A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science 6, no. 1: 3–5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cacioppo, J.T., and R.E. Petty. 1989. Effects of message repetition on argument processing, recall, and persuasion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 10, no. 1: 3–12. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1001_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang, Y., and E. Thorson. 2004. Television and web advertising synergies. Journal of Advertising 33, no. 2: 75–84. doi:10.1080/00913367.2004.10639161
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clifford, S., and J. Jerit. 2014. Is there a cost to convenience? An experimental comparison of data quality in laboratory and online studies. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1, 120–131. doi:10.1017/xps.2014.5
   Google Scholar
• Crites, S.L., L.R. Fabrigar, and R.E. Petty. 1994. Measuring the affective and cognitive properties of attitudes: Conceptual and methodological issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20, no. 6: 619–34. doi:10.1177/0146167294206001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijkstra, M., H. Buijtels, and W. F. Van Raaij. 2005. Separate and joint effects of medium type on consumer responses: A comparison of television, print, and the internet. Journal of Business Research 58, no. 3: 377–386.
   Google Scholar
• Duff, B.R.L., and C.M. Segijn. 2019. Advertising in a media multitasking era: Considerations and future directions. Journal of Advertising 48, no. 1: 27–37. doi:10.1080/00913367.2019.1585306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edell, J.A., and K.L. Keller. 1989. The information processing of coordinated media campaigns. Journal of Marketing Research 26, no. 2: 149–63. doi:10.1177/002224378902600202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• eMarketer. 2018. Mobile advertising is expected to surpass TV Ad spending. https://www.emarketer.com/content/mobile-advertising-is-expected-to-surpass-tv-ad-spending.
   Google Scholar
• Federal Trade Commission. 2013. Mobile privacy disclosures: Building trust through transparency. www.ftc.gov/os/2013/02/130201mobileprivacyreport.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Garaus, M., U. Wagner, and A.-M. Bäck. 2017. The effect of media multitasking on advertising message effectiveness. Psychology & Marketing 34, no. 2: 138–56. doi:10.1002/mar.20980
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geuens, M., and P. De Pelsmacker. 2017. Planning and conducting experimental advertising research and questionnaire design. Journal of Advertising 46, no. 1: 83–100. doi:10.1080/00913367.2016.1225233
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibson, L.D. 1996. What can one TV exposure do? Journal of Advertising Research 36, no. 2: 9–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harkins, S.G., and R.E. Petty. 1981a. Effects of source magnification of cognitive effort on attitudes: An information-processing view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40, no. 3: 401–13. US: American Psychological Association: doi:10.1037/0022-3514.40.3.401
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harkins, S.G., and R.E. Petty. 1981b. The multiple source effect in persuasion: The effects of distraction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 7, no. 4: 627–35. doi:10.1177/014616728174019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoeck, L., and M. Spann. 2020. An experimental analysis of the effectiveness of Multi-Screen advertising. Journal of Interactive Marketing 50: 81–99. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2020.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jeong, S.-H., and Y. Hwang. 2016. Media multitasking effects on cognitive vs. attitudinal outcomes: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research 42, no. 4: 599–618. doi:10.1111/hcre.12089
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kantrowitz, A. 2014. Look at your phone during TV ads? Expect to see the same messages there. http://adage.com/article/digital/wpp-s-xaxis-sync-tv-mobile-ads/292758/.
   Google Scholar
• Kazakova, S., V. Cauberghe, L. Hudders, and C. Labyt. 2016. The impact of media multitasking on the cognitive and attitudinal responses to television commercials: The moderating role of type of advertising appeal. Journal of Advertising 45, no. 4: 403–16. doi:10.1080/00913367.2016.1183244
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kees, J., C. Berry, S. Burton, and K. Sheehan. 2017. An analysis of data quality: Professional panels, student subject pools, and Amazon’s Mechanical Turk AU - Kees. Journal of Advertising 46, no. 1: 141–55. doi:10.1080/00913367.2016.1269304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krugman, H.E. 1972. Why three exposures may be enough. Journal of Advertising Research 12, no. 6: 11–4.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang, A., and J. Chrzan. 2015. Media multitasking. Good, bad, or ugly? Annals of the International Communication Association 39, no. 1: 99–330. doi:10.1080/23808985.2015.11679173
   Google Scholar
• Meade, A.W., and S.B. Craig. 2012. Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods 17, no. 3: 437–55. doi:10.1037/a0028085
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyvis, T., and S.M.J. Van Osselaer. 2018. Increasing the power of your study by increasing the effect size. Journal of Consumer Research 44, no. 5: 1157–73. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucx110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naik, P.A., and K. Peters. 2009. A hierarchical marketing communications model of online and offline media synergies. Journal of Interactive Marketing 23, no. 4: 288–99. doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2009.07.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naik, P.A., and K. Raman. 2003. Understanding the impact of synergy in multimedia communications. Journal of Marketing Research 40, no. 4: 375–88. doi:10.1509/jmkr.40.4.375.19385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen. 2018. Juggling act: Audiences have more media at their disposal and are using them simulatenously. https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/news/2018/juggling-act-audiences-have-more-media-at-their-disposal-and-are-using-them-simultaneously.html.
   Google Scholar
• Oppenheimer, D.M., T. Meyvis, and N. Davidenko. 2009. Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45, no. 4: 867–72. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pechmann, C., and D.W. Stewart. 1988. Advertising repetition: A critical review of wearin and wearout. Current Issues and Research in Advertising 11, no. 1–2: 285–329.
   Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. 2018. Mobile fact sheet. http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/.
   Google Scholar
• Phelan, C., C. Lampe, and P. Resnick. 2016. It’s creepy, but it doesn’t bother me. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 5240–5251. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Rodriguez Garzon, S., and B. Deva. 2014. Geofencing 2.0: Taking location-based notifications to the next level. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing, 921–932. UbiComp ‘14. New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, S., and M. Eisend. 2015. Advertising repetition: A meta-analysis on effective frequency in advertising. Journal of Advertising 44, no. 4: 415–28. doi:10.1080/00913367.2015.1018460
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segijn, C.M. 2019. A new mobile data driven message strategy called synced advertising: Conceptualization, implications, and future directions. Annals of the International Communication Association 43, no. 1: 58–77. doi:10.1080/23808985.2019.1576020
   Google Scholar
• Segijn, C.M., and M. Eisend. 2019. A Meta-Analysis into multiscreening and advertising effectiveness: Direct effects, moderators, and underlying mechanisms. Journal of Advertising 48, no. 3: 313–32. doi:10.1080/00913367.2019.1604009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segijn, C.M., H.A.M. Voorveld, and E.G. Smit. 2017. How related multiscreening could positively affect advertising outcomes. Journal of Advertising 46, no. 4: 455–72. doi:10.1080/00913367.2017.1372233
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Segijn, C. M. and van Ooijen, I. (2020). Perceptions of techniques used to personalize messages across media in real time. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23. no 5, 329-337. doi:10.1089/cyber.2019.0682
   Google Scholar
• Smit, E.G., G. Van Noort, and H.A.M. Voorveld. 2014. Understanding online behavioural advertising: User knowledge, privacy concerns and online coping behaviour in Europe. Computers in Human Behavior 32: 15–22. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.11.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stammerjohan, C., C.M. Wood, Y. Chang, E. Thorson. 2005. An empirical investigation of the interaction between publicity, advertising, and previous brand attitudes and knowledge. Journal of Advertising 34, no. 4: 55–67.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Statista. 2017. Digital (finally) killed the TV star. https://www.statista.com/chart/12136/worldwide-digital-and-tv-ad-spending/
   Google Scholar
• Statista. 2019. Mobile set to outpce desktop ad spending by 2022. https://www.statista.com/chart/19792/global-mobile-ad-spending-distribution-by-platform/
   Google Scholar
• Tellis, G. 1997. Effective frequency: One exposure or three factors? Journal of Advertising Research 37, no. 4: 75–80.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tene, O., and J. Polonetsky. 2014. A theory of creepy: Technology, privacy, and shifting social norms. Yale Journal of Law and Technology 16, no. 1: 59–102.
   Google Scholar
• Unnava, H.R., and R.E. Burnkrant. 1991. Effects of repeating varied ad executions or Brand name memory. Journal of Marketing Research 28, no. 4: 406–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Cauwenberge, A., G. Schaap, and R. van Roy. 2014. TV no longer commands our full attention: Effets of Second-Screen viewing and task relevance on cognitive load and learning from news. Computers in Human Behavior 38: 100–9. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Doorn, J., and J.C. Hoekstra. 2013. Customization of online advertising: The role of intrusiveness. Marketing Letters 24, no. 4: 339–51. doi:10.1007/s11002-012-9222-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vandeberg, L., J. M. J. Murre, H. A. M. Voorveld, and E. G. Smit. 2015. Dissociating explicit and implicit effects of cross-media advertising. International Journal of Advertising. Advanced online publication.
   Google Scholar
• Voorveld, H.A.M. 2011. Media multitasking and the effectiveness of combining online and radio advertising. Computers in Human Behavior 27, no. 6: 2200–6. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.06.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voorveld, H.A.M., P.C. Neijens, and E.G. Smit. 2011. Opening the black box: Understanding cross-media effects. Journal of Marketing Communications 17, no. 2: 69–85. doi:10.1080/13527260903160460
   Google Scholar
• Voorveld, H.A.M., and S.M.F. Valkenburg. 2015. The fit factor: The role of fit between ads in understanding Cross-Media synergy. Journal of Advertising 44, no. 3: 185–95. doi:10.1080/00913367.2014.977472
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, Z., P. David, J. Srivastava, S. Powers, C. Brady, J. D’Angelo, and J. Moreland. 2012. Behavioral performance and visual attention in communication multitasking: A comparison between instant messaging and online voice chat. Computers in Human Behavior 28, no. 3: 968–75. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.12.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yaveroglu, I., and N. Donthu. 2008. Advertising repetition and placement issues in on-Line environments. Journal of Advertising 37, no. 2: 31–43. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367370203
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoon, S., Y.K. Choi, and S. Song. 2011. When intrusive can be likable. Journal of Advertising 40, no. 2: 63–75. doi:10.2753/JOA0091-3367400205
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar