Advertorials; an effective or destructive marketing practice? : The effect of advertorial deception on irritation, credibility, and attitude, both for the advertiser and the advertising medium

(1)

The effect of advertorial deception on irritation, credibility, and attitude, both for the advertiser and advertising medium

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Introduction ... 9

1.1 Introductory ... 9

1.2 Problem discussion ... 11

1.3 Purpose ... 11

1.3.1 Fulfillment of purpose ... 11

1.3.2 Structure of research questions ... 12

1.3.3 Research question structure ... 13

1.4 Perspective ... 13 1.5 Delimitations ... 13 1.6 Methodology ... 14 1.7 Structure of thesis ... 14 1.7.1 Introduction ... 14 1.7.2 Background ... 14 1.7.3 Frame of Reference ... 14 1.7.4 Method ... 14 1.7.5 Empirical Material ... 14 1.7.6 Analysis ... 15 1.7.7 Conclusion ... 15 1.7.8 Disussion ... 15

2 Background ... 16

2.1 The development of news advertising ... 16

2.2 Emerging threats change conditions ... 16

2.3 Increased interest in the web ... 17

2.4 Online advertising on a decrease ... 17

2.5 Free news; was it a mistake? ... 18

2.6 A need for resolution ... 18

2.7 Advertorials, part of a sustainable solution? ... 18

3 Frame of reference ... 19

3.1 Advertorials and research ... 19

3.1.1 Popular advertising format ... 19

3.1.2 Yet subtle and non-intrusive ... 19

3.2 Online context: differences and issues ... 20

3.2.1 Characteristics of online advertising ... 20

3.2.2 Specific effects of the online context ... 21

3.3 Deceptive advertising and recognition ... 22

3.4 Credibility ... 24

3.4.1 Operational definition ... 24

3.4.2 What constitutes credibility ... 24

3.4.3 Hovland’s model of attribution of credibility ... 24

3.4.4 Aftonbladet and Volvo in Hovland’s model ... 25

3.4.5 News credibility ... 26

3.4.6 The effects of using advertorials ... 27

3.4.7 Brand credibility ... 28

3.5 Irritation ... 28

(7)

3.5.2 What is irritating? ... 28

3.6 Consumer attitude and behavior ... 29

3.6.1 Attitude toward brand ... 29

3.6.2 Advertising avoidance ... 30

3.6.2.1 Rising phenomenon ... 30

3.6.2.2 Reasons for advertising avoidance ... 31

3.6.3 Likeliness to return to site ... 31

3.7 Consumer view on advertorials ... 31

3.8 Summary of hypotheses ... 32

4 Method ... 34

4.1 Research perspective ... 34

4.1.1 Nature of purpose ... 34

4.1.2 Multi method approach ... 34

4.2 Primary data ... 35 4.2.1 Pilot test ... 35 4.2.2 Experiment ... 35 4.2.2.1 Design ... 35 4.2.2.2 The treatment ... 37 4.2.2.3 Multiple-group experiment ... 38

4.2.2.4 Preparations for the experiment ... 38

4.2.2.5 Measuring deceptiveness of advertorials ... 38

4.2.2.6 Suggested guidelines for disguise content analysis ... 38

4.2.3 Questionnaire ... 40

4.2.3.1 How to formulate questions ... 40

4.2.3.2 Types of questions used ... 40

4.2.3.3 How to write questions ... 41

4.2.3.4 On coding of questions ... 41

4.2.3.5 Selection of sample ... 43

4.2.3.6 Data requirements table ... 44

4.2.3.7 Scale measurements ... 45

4.2.3.8 Construction of hypotheses ... 45

4.2.3.9 Execution of experiment ... 45

4.2.4 Interviews ... 45

4.2.4.1 Complementary embedded study ... 45

4.2.4.2 Semi structured interviews ... 45

4.2.4.3 Considerations when performing interviews ... 46

4.3 Secondary data ... 47

4.3.1 Adopted scales ... 47

4.3.2 Search words ... 47

4.3.2.1 On Google scholar ... 47

4.3.2.2 Scholarly Journals and Periodicalsfrom e-JULIA ... 47

4.4 Data analysis ... 48

4.4.1 Method of analysis ... 48

4.4.1.1 Summing up the sample ... 48

4.4.1.2 Codebook ... 49

4.4.1.3 Compound variables: summing up the constructs ... 51

4.5 Validity ... 51

4.5.2 Internal validity ... 51

4.5.3 External validity & generalisability ... 51

4.5.4 Construct validity ... 52

4.5.4.1 Summary of Cronbach alpha for all constructs ... 52

(8)

4.6 Reliability ... 53

4.6.2 Observer error and observer bias ... 53

4.6.3 Subject/Participant error ... 53

4.6.4 Subject/Participant bias ... 54

5 Empirical findings ... 55

5.1 Proposed changes for hypotheses ... 55

5.2 Mean values for hypotheses ... 55

5.3 Test for normality ... 55

5.4 Hypothesis testing ... 55

5.4.1 Choice of statistical method ... 55

5.4.2 Kruskal-Wallis test ... 56

5.4.2.1 Result ... 56

5.4.3 One-way between groups ANOVA test ... 56

5.4.3.1 Result ... 56

5.4.4 Hypotheses for Volvo ... 57

5.4.4.1 Hypothesis 1: Perceived expertise of Volvo ... 57

5.4.4.2 Hypothesis 2: Perceived trustworthiness of Volvo ... 57

5.4.4.3 Hypothesis 3: Irritation with Volvo ... 57

5.4.4.4 Hypothesis 4: Brand attitude towards Volvo ... 57

5.4.4.5 Hypothesis 5: Advertising avoidance for Volvo ... 58

5.4.5 Hypotheses for Aftonbladet.se ... 58

5.4.5.1 Hypothesis 6: Perceived expertise of Aftonbladet.se ... 58

5.4.5.2 Hypothesis 7: Perceived trustworthiness of Aftonbladet.se ... 58

5.4.5.3 Hypothesis 8: Irritation with Aftonbladet.se ... 58

5.4.5.4 Hypothesis 9: Brand attitude towards Aftonbladet.se... 59

5.4.5.5 Hypothesis 10: Likeliness to return to Aftonbladet.se ... 59

5.4.6 Hypothesis regarding the aspects of the advertorial ... 59

5.4.6.1 Hypothesis 11: Advertising recognition ... 59

5.4.7 Summarizing results of hypotheses ... 60

5.5 Hierarchical multiple regression ... 60

5.5.1 Summary of measurements ... 60

5.5.2 Volvo ... 61

5.5.2.1 Attitude towards Volvo ... 61

5.5.2.2 Advertising avoidance of Volvo ... 61

5.5.3 Aftonbladet.se ... 62

5.5.3.1 Attitude towards Aftonbladet.se ... 62

5.5.3.2 Likeliness to return to Aftonbladet.se ... 62

5.6 Other grouping variables in the Kruskal-Wallis test ... 63

5.6.1 Grouping variable: Recognition of advert by participant ... 63

5.6.2 Grouping variable: Sex of respondent ... 63

5.7 Summary of interviews ... 63

6 Analysis... 66

6.1 Credibility ... 66

6.2 Irritation ... 68

6.3 Consequences on brand attitudes & consumer behavior ... 68

6.3.1 Brand attitudes... 68

6.3.2 Consumer behavior ... 69

6.4 Recognition ... 70

6.5 View on the use of advertorials and its ethical concerns ... 71

(9)

7 Conclusion ... 74

8 Discussion ... 77

8.1 Research quality and methods ... 77

8.2 Future research suggestions ... 77

8.2.1 Alternative 9 group research design ... 77

8.2.2 Examine advertorials from a brand alliance perspective ... 78

8.2.3 Advertiser consistency ... 78

8.2.4 Removing bias by making a fake news site ... 78

9 Bibliography ... 79

10 Appendix ... 86

10.1 Mock up advertorials ... 86 10.1.1Low deception... 86 10.1.2Medium deception ... 87 10.1.3High deception ... 88

10.2 Study log of the pilot test ... 89

10.3 Questionnaire - Swedish version ... 90

10.3.1Aftonbladet.se ... 90

10.3.2Volvo ... 91

10.4 Questionnaire - English version ... 93

10.4.1Aftonbladet.se ... 93

10.4.2Volvo ... 94

10.5 Irritation measures ... 96

10.6 Credibility measure ... 97

10.7 Interview guide - Swedish ... 98

10.8 Interview guide - English ... 98

10.9 Interview summary ... 99

10.10 SPSS outputs ... 103

10.10.1 Test for normality ... 103

10.10.2 Result from one-way between groups ANOVA test.... 104

10.10.3 Homogeneity of variance ... 104

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(p. 39)

(26)

(27)

(28)

(29)

  

(30)

  

(31)

(32)

(2004)

(33)

(34)

(35)

(36)

(37)

  

(38)

(39)

(2007)

(40)

(41)

(2007)

(Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2007, citing Dillman, 2000)      (2007)

(42)

(A. Santos, 1999) (Cronbach, 1951)

(A. Santos, 1999; George & Mallery, 2003; Bland & Altman, 1997)

(George & Mallery, 2003)

(43)

(2004)

(Batra & Ahtola, 1990) 

 

(2000)

(44)

  

(45)

(46)

(47)

     

(48)

(1996) (1995)

(49)

     

(50)

(51)

(52)

(Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2007)

(53)

(54)

(2007)

(55)

(56)

(57)

(58)

(59)

(60)

(61)

(62)

(63)

(64)

(65)

(66)

(67)

(68)

(69)

(70)

(71)

(72)

(73)

(74)

(75)

(76)

(77)

(78)

(79)

(80)

(81)

(82)

(83)

(84)

(85)

(86)

(87)

(88)

(89)

(90)

(91)

(92)

(93)

(94)

(95)

(96)

(97)

(98)

      

(99)

(100)

(101)

(102)

(103)

(104)

(105)

(106)