A Comparison of Three Interactive Television AD Formats

REFERENCES

• Adelaar, Thomas, Susan Chang, Karen M. Lancendorfer, Byoungkwan Lee, and Mariko Morimoto (2003), “Effects of Media Formats on Emotions and Impulse Buying Intent,” Journal of Information Technology, 18 (December), 247-266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arango, Tim (2008), “Cable Firms Join Forces to Attract Focused Ads,” The New York Times, March 10, C1.
   Google Scholar
• Ariely, Dan (2000), “Controlling the Information Flow: Effects on Consumers’ Decision Making and Preferences,” Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (September), 233-248.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellman, Steven, Grace Pribudi, and Duane Varan (2004), “The Impact of Adding Interactivity to Television Advertising on Elaboration, Recall and Persuasion,” in Proceedings of the 2004 Australia and New Zealand Academy of Management Conference (ANZMAC 2004), Jim Wiley and Peter Thirkell, eds., Wellington, New Zealand: ANZMAC.
   Google Scholar
• Bezjian-Avery, Alexa, Bobby Calder, and Dawn Iacobucci (1998), “New Media Interactive Advertising vs. Traditional Advertising,” Journal of Advertising Research, 38 (July/August), 23-32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bone, Paula Fitzgerald and Pam Scholder Ellen (1992), “The Generation and Consequences of Communication-Evoked Imagery,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (June), 93-104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brasel S. Adam and James Gips (2008), “Breaking Through Fast-Forwarding: Brand Information and Visual Attention,” Journal of Marketing, 72 (November), 31-48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, Gordon (1985), “Tracking Studies and Sales Effects: A U.K. Perspective,” Journal of Advertising Research, 25 (February/March), 52-64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, Steven P. and Douglas M. Stayman (1992), “Antecedents and Consequences of Attitude toward the Ad: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (June), 34-51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bucy, Erik P. (2004), “The Interactivity Paradox: Closer to the News but Confused,” in Media Access: Social and Psychological Dimensions of New Technology Use, Erik P. Bucy and John E. Newhagen, eds., Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 47-72.
   Google Scholar
• Bucy, Erik P. and Chen-Chao Tao (2007), “The Mediated Moderation Model of Interactivity,” Media Psychology, 9 (3), 647-672.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, John T. and Richard E. Petty (1979), “Effects of Message Repetition and Position on Cognitive Response, Recall, and Persuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (1), 97-106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, Margaret C. and Kevin Lane Keller (2003), “Brand Familiarity and Advertising Repetition Effects,” Journal of Consumer Research, 30 (September), 292-304.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cassell, Michael M., Christine Jackson, and Brian Cheuvront (1998), “Health Communication on the Internet: An Effective Channel for Health Behavior Change?” Journal of Health Communication, 3 (1), 71-79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cauberghe, Verolien and Patrick De Pelsmacker (2006), “Opportunities and Thresholds for Advertising on Interactive Digital TV: A View from Advertising Professionals,” Journal of Interactive Advertising, 7 (Fall), 25-40,http://jiad.org/article84.
   Google Scholar
• Cauberghe, Verolien and Patrick De Pelsmacker (2008a), “The Impact of Banners on Digital Television: The Role of Program Interactivity and Product Involvement,” CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11 (February), 91-94.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cauberghe, Verolien and Patrick De Pelsmacker (2008b), “The Advertising Impact of an Interactive TV Program on the Recall of an Embedded Commercial,” Journal of Advertising Research, 48 (September), 352-362.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cauberghe, Verolien and Patrick De Pelsmacker (2008c), “The Effectiveness of Telescopic TV Ads Delivered via Interactive Digital TV: The Impact of the Amount of Information and the Level of Interactivity on Brand Responses,” in New Trends in Advertising Research, Franciso Costa Pereira, Jorge Verissimo, and Peter Nijens, eds., Lisbon, Portugal: Silabo.
   Google Scholar
• Celsi, Richard L. and Jerry C. Olson (1988), “The Role of Involvement in Attention and Comprehension Processes,” Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (September), 210-224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chattopadhyay, Amitava and Prakash Nedungadi (1992), “Does Attitude toward the Ad Endure? The Moderating Effects of Attention and Delay,” Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (June), 26-33.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, Jacob (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Eastman, Susan Tyler, Gregory D. Newton, and Paul D. Bolls (2003), “How Promotional Content Changes Ratings: The Impact of Appeals, Humor, and Presentation,” Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31 (August), 238-59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ehrenberg, Andrew, Neil Barnard, and John Scriven (1997), “Differentiation or Salience,” Journal of Advertising Research, 37 (November/December), 7-14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fogg, B.J. (2003). Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do. Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, Meryl Paula (1985), “Does Attitude Toward the Ad Affect Brand Attitude Under a Brand Evaluation Set?” Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (May), 192-98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greene, William H. (2008), Econometric Analysis, 6th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Greenwald, Anthony G. and Clark Leavitt (1984), “Audience Involvement in Advertising: Four Levels,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11 (June), 581-592.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harmon, Amy (2003), “TiVo Plans to Sell Information on Customers’ Viewing Habits,” The New York Times, June 2, C.8.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey, Bill (2004), “Better Television Audience Measurement through the Research Integration of Set-Top Box Data. Phase Two,” in WAM-Worldwide Audience Measurement 2004-Television, Conference Proceedings. Amsterdam/New York: ESOMAR/ARF.
   Google Scholar
• Hofstede, Geert (1980), Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Hollis, Nigel (2005), “Ten Years of Learning on How Online Advertising Builds Brands,” Journal of Advertising Research, 45 (June), 255-268.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Janiszewski, Chris (1998), “The Influence of Display Characteristics on Visual Exploratory Search Behavior,” Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (December), 290-301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen, Jens F. (2005), “Interactive Television: New Genres, New Format, New Content,” in Proceedings of the Second Australasian Conference on Interactive Entertainment, ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Vol. 123. Sydney, Australia: Creativity & Cognition Studios Press, 89-96.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, Grace J., Gordon C. Bruner II, and Anand Kumar (2006), “Interactivity and Its Facets Revisited: Theory and Empirical Test,” Journal of Advertising, 35 (Winter), 35-52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, Kimberly S. (2006), “Touch That Dial Interactive Ads Urge TV Viewers to Simply Click Remote and Buy,” Denver Post, October 4, C.1.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, John Philip (1997), “What Does Effective Frequency Mean in 1997?” Journal of Advertising Research, 37 (July/August), 14-20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juster, F. Thomas (1966), “Consumer Buying Intentions and Purchase Probability: An Experiment in Survey Design,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 61 (315, September), 658-696.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz, Helen (2007), The Media Handbook: A Complete Guide to Advertising, Media Selection Planning, Research, and Buying, 3rd ed., Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Krugman, Herbert E. (1972), “Why Three Exposures May Be Enough,” Journal of Advertising Research, 12 (December), 11-14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang, Annie (2000), “The Limited Capacity Model of Mediated Message Processing,” Journal of Communication, 50 (Winter), 46-70.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, Shalom and Israel D. Nebenzahl (2006), “Programme Involvement and Interactive Behaviour in Interactive Television,” International Journal of Advertising, 25 (3), 309-332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, Shalom and Israel D. Nebenzahl (2008), “The Influence of Product Involvement on Consumers’ Interactive Processes in Interactive Television,” Marketing Letters, 19 (March), 65-77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, Yuping (2003), “Developing a Scale to Measure the Interactivity of Websites,” Journal of Advertising Research, 43 (June), 207-216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, Yuping and L. J. Shrum (2002), “What Is Interactivity and Is It Always a Good Thing? Implications of Definition, Person, and Situation for the Influence of Interactivity on Advertising Effectiveness,” Journal of Advertising, 31 (Winter), 53-64.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, Yuping and L. J. Shrum (2009), “A Dual-Process Model of Interactivity Effects,” Journal of Advertising, 38 (Summer), 53-68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loughney, Mark, Martin Eichholz, and Michelle Hagger. (2008), “Exploring the Effectiveness of Advertising in the ABC.com Full Episode Player,” Journal of Advertising Research, 48 (September), 320-328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lustria, Mia Liza A. (2007), “Can Interactivity Make a Difference? Effects of Interactivity on the Comprehension of and Attitudes Toward Online Health Content,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58 (April), 766-776.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacInnis, Deborah J., Christine Moorman, and Bernard J. Jaworski (1991), “Enhancing and Measuring Consumers’ Motivation, Opportunity, and Ability to Process Brand Information From Ads,” Journal of Marketing, 55 (October), 32-53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacKenzie, Scott B. and Richard J. Lutz (1989), “An Empirical Examination of the Structural Antecedents of Attitude Toward the Ad in an Advertising Pretesting Context,” Journal of Marketing, 53 (April), 48-65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manly, Lorne (2006), “Your TV Would Like a Word With You,” The New York Times, November 19, 2.1
   Google Scholar
• Marcus, Claudio (2008), “Reinvention of TV Advertising,” in Kellogg on Advertising & Media, Bobby J. Calder, ed., Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 84-122.
   Google Scholar
• Mathwick, Charla and Edward Rigdon (2004), “Play, Flow, and the Online Search Experience,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (September), 324-332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McLachlan, Rhys (2009), “There is Still Mileage Left in Interactive TV Advertising,” Admap, 44 (February, 502), 28-29.
   Google Scholar
• Mittal, Banwari (1995), “A Comparative Analysis of Four Scales of Consumer Involvement,” Psychology & Marketing, 12 (October), 663-82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naples, Michael J. (1997), “Effective Frequency-Then and Now,” Journal of Advertising Research, 37 (July/August), 7-13.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nasco, Suzanne Altobello and Gordon C. Bruner II (2007), “Perceptions and Recall of Advertising Content Presented on Mobile Handheld Devices,” Journal of Interactive Advertising, 7 (Spring), http://jiad.org/article93.
   Google Scholar
• Pechmann, Cornelia and Gabriel Esteban (1993), “Persuasion Processes Associated With Direct Comparative and Noncomparative Advertising and Implications for Advertising Effectiveness,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2 (4), 403-432.
   Google Scholar
• Perrien, Jean, Christian Dussart, and Françoise Paul (1985), “Advertisers and the Factual Content of Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 14 (1), 30-35.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrecca, Laura (2008), “Interactive Ads Are Clicking With Viewers,” USA Today, July 7, B1.
   Google Scholar
• Petty, Richard E., John T. Cacioppo, and David Schumann (1983), “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (September), 135-146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, Richard E., David W. Schumann, Steven A. Richman, and Alan J. Strathman (1993), “Positive Mood and Persuasion: Different Roles for Affect Under High- and Low-Elaboration Conditions,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64 (1), 5-20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rafaeli, Sheizaf and Yaron Ariel (2007), “Assessing Interactivity in Computer-Mediated Research,” in The Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology, Adam N. Joinson, Katelyn Y.A. McKenna, Tom Postmes, and Ulf-Dietrich Reips, eds., Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 71-88.
   Google Scholar
• Ravaja, Niklas (2004), “Effects of Image Motion on a Small Screen on Emotion, Attention, and Memory: Moving-Face Versus Static-Face Newscaster,” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48 (March), 108-133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reading, Nicholas, Steven Bellman, Duane Varan, and Hume Winzar (2006), “Effectiveness of Telescopic Advertisements Delivered via Personal Video Recorders,” Journal of Advertising Research, 46 (June), 217-27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richins, Marsha L. and Peter H. Bloch (1986), “After the New Wears Off: The Temporal Context of Product Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (September), 280-285.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, Everett M. (1986), Communication Technology: The New Media in Society, New York: The Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rossiter, John R. and Larry Percy (1997), Advertising Communications and Promotion Management, 2nd ed., New York: McGraw-Hills.
   Google Scholar
• Rothschild, Michael L. (1979), “Advertising Strategies for High and Low Involvement Situations,” in Attitude Research Plays for High Stakes, J. C. Maloney and B. Silverman, eds., Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association, 74-93.
   Google Scholar
• Schaffer, Lemuel C. and Michael J. Hannafin (1986), “The Effects of Progressive Interactivity on Learning From Interactive Video,” Educational Communication and Technology, 34 (Summer), 89-96.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schechner, Sam and Vishesh Kumar (2009), “Cable Firms Look to Offer TV Programs Online,” The Wall Street Journal, February 20, B1.
   Google Scholar
• Schreiber, Michael (2008), “Making TV a Two-Way Street: Changing Viewer Engagement Through Interaction,” in Kellogg on Advertising & Media, Bobby J. Calder, ed., Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 37-55.
   Google Scholar
• Schweda, Anika, Steven Bellman, and Duane Varan (2005), “Country Differences in Technology Experience: The Effect of Teletext on iTV Adoption in the United Kingdom,” in Proceedings of the 2005 Australia and New Zealand Academy of Management Conference (ANZMAC 2005), Sharon Purchase, ed., Perth, Australia: ANZMAC, 297-302.
   Google Scholar
• Sicilia, Maria, Salvador Ruiz, and Jose L. Munuera (2005), “Effects of Interactivity in a Web Site: The Moderating Effect of Need for Cognition,” Journal of Advertising, 34 (Fall), 31-45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh, Mandeep, Siva K. Balasubramanian, and Goutam Chakraborty (2000), “A Comparative Analysis of Three Communication Formats: Advertising, Infomercial, and Direct Experience,” Journal of Advertising, 29 (Winter), 59-75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh, Surendra N. and Catherine A. Cole (1993), “The Effects of Length, Content, and Repetition on Television Commercial Effectiveness,” Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (February), 91-104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sky Media (2009), “Interactive Products and Costs,” http://www.skymedia.co.uk/Advertising/TV/products-and-costs.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Sohn, Dongyoung, Cunhyeong Ci, and Byung-Kwan Lee (2007), “The Moderating Effects of Expectation on the Patterns of the Interactivity-Attitude Relationship,” Journal of Advertising, 36 (Fall), 109-119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sohn, Dongyoung and Byung-Kwan Lee (2005), “Dimensions of Interactivity: Differential Effects of Social and Psychological Factors,” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10 (3), http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue3/sohn.html.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song, Ji Hee and George M. Zinkhan (2008), “Determinants of Perceived Web Site Interactivity,” Journal of Marketing, 72 (March), 99-113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundar S. Shyam, Sriram Kalyanaraman, and Justin Brown (2003), “Explicating Web Site Interactivity: Impression Formation Effects in Political Campaign Sites,” Communication Research, 30 (February), 30-59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sundar S. Shyam and Jinhee Kim (2005), “Interactivity and Persuasion: Influencing Attitudes with Information and Involvement,” Journal of Interactive Advertising, 5 (Spring), http://jiad.org/article59.
   Google Scholar
• Terry W. Scott (2005), “Serial Position Effects in Recall of Television Commercials,” Journal of General Psychology, 132 (2), 151-163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tremayne, Mark (2005), “Lessons Learned from Experiments with Interactivity on the Web,” Journal of Interactive Advertising, 5 (Spring), http://jiad.org/article62.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, Guohua (2005), “The Mediating Role of Perceived Interactivity in the Effect of Actual Interactivity on Attitude toward the Website,” Journal of Interactive Advertising, 5 (Spring), http://jiad.org/article61.
   Google Scholar
• Yang, Shu-Chen, Wan-Chiao Hung, Kai Sung, and Cheng-Kiang Farn (2006), “Investigating Initial Trust Toward E-Tailers from the Elaboration Likelihood Model Perspective,” Psychology & Marketing, 23 (May), 429-445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yeung, Alexander Seeshing, Putai Jin, and John Sweller (1997), “Cognitive Load and Learner Expertise: Split-Attention and Redundancy Effects in Reading with Explanatory Notes,” Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23 (January), 1-21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne (1985), “Measuring the Involvement Construct,” Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (December), 341-352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zajonc, Robert B. (1968), “Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9 (June), 1-27.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar