Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
com
Abstract
We discuss consumer engagement with a website, provide a systematic approach to examining the types of engagement produced by specific
experiences, and show that engagement with the media context increases advertising effectiveness. Based on experiments using measurement
scales involving eight different online experiences, we advance two types of engagement with online media Personal and Social-Interactive
Engagement. Our results show that both types are positively associated with advertising effectiveness. Moreover, Social-Interactive Engagement,
which is more uniquely characteristic of the web as a medium, is shown to affect advertising after controlling for Personal Engagement. Our
results offer online companies and advertisers new metrics and advertising strategies.
2009 Direct Marketing Educational Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Online advertising; Engagement; Consumer behavior; Context effects; Online media; Internet marketing
Introduction
Media provide a context for advertising that may affect
consumer responses to advertising. Many studies have
investigated possible media context effects. The most general
conclusion is that when consumers are highly engaged with a
media vehicle they can be more responsive to advertising (e.g.,
Aaker and Brown 1972; Bronner and Neijens 2006; Coulter,
1998; Cunningham, Hall, and Young 2006; DePelsmacker,
Geuens, and Anckaert 2002; Feltham and Arnold 1994;
Gallagher, Foster, and Parsons 2001; Nicovich, 2005; Wang,
2006). While this conclusion is not surprising, media buyers do
not consider consumer engagement with a media vehicle in
their decisions, except in secondary, ad-hoc ways. For example,
the price of print advertising is determined by circulation, the
location of the ad within the publication and characteristics of
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: calder@northwestern.edu (B.J. Calder),
ecm@northwestern.edu (E.C. Malthouse),
u.schaedel@hamburgmediaschool.com (U. Schaedel).
1094-9968/$ - see front matter 2009 Direct Marketing Educational Foundation, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2009.07.002
322
323
324
2
Hatcher (1994, p. 260) recommends using a maximum of 2030 indicator
variables in a measurement model and we will use 37.
Item
Stand.
loading
.85
.84
.78
.79
.71
.85
.85
.81
325
.85
.83
Survey methodology
.84
.80
.86
.85
.76
.75
.88
.83
.85
.82
.65
.71
.81
.83
.76
.81
.74
.86
.77
.82
.78
.84
.85
.59
.80
.73
.66
3
The sites are about.com, Washingtonpost.com, PalmBeachPost.com,
Reuters.com, DallasNews.com, Projo.com, King5.com, AZFamily.com,
WFAA.com, KHOU.com, and PE.com.
326
Table 2
Summary of confirmatory factor analysis model.
Parameters
GFI
CFI
NNFI
RMSEA
Measurement model
102
.9155
.9482
.9426
.0472
87
.9029
.9392
.9343
.0505
Table 3
Correlation matrix (treatment group only).
Pearson correlation
1
Experience
1 Stimulation and
Inspiration
2 Social Facilitation
3 Temporal
4 Self-Esteem and Civic
Mindedness
5 Intrinsic Enjoyment
6 Utilitarian
7 Participation and
Socializing
8 Community
Engagement
9 Personal Engagement
10 Interactive
Engagement
Advertising
11 Click Intention
12 Attitude Towards Ad
10
.56
.51 .55
.65 .57 .47
.65 .52 .62 .63
.62 .52 .42 .72 .58
.24 .19 .19 .29 .33 .35
.51 .41 .32 .53 .53 .59 .56
.79 .75 .78 .82 .81 .71 .32 .51
.52 .43 .43 .69 .61 .67 .77 .77 .74
.24 .19 .15 .25 .23 .27 .12 .23 .27 .26
.30 .23 .19 .31 .29 .31 .14 .27 .34 .32
Note. All correlations are significantly different from 0 at the .0001 level.
less correlated with the first six, but moderately correlated with
the Community experience (8). Community is somewhat less
correlated with the first six experiences. This correlation
structure suggests that there is a higher-order factor structure
generating the data.
Therefore the second step in developing the measurement
model is to identify the second-order engagement factors. To do
this we did both an exploratory and a confirmatory factor
analysis. We performed an exploratory factor analysis with a
varimax rotation on the first-order experiences and found two
eigenvalues greater than 1. The rotated factor loadings are
provided in Table 4 and show two interpretable factors,
hereafter called Personal Engagement and Social-Interactive
Engagement. The first six experiences from the correlation
matrix have the largest loadings on Personal Engagement,
although Community also has a cross-loading greater than .3.
Participation and Socializing as well as Community have the
largest loadings on Social-Interactive Engagement, but several
other experiences have sizable cross-loadings. The Utilitarian
experience likely cross-loads on Social-Interactive Engagement
because much of the advice and tips could be coming from the
community of users rather than from content created by
employees of the site itself. Self-esteem likely cross-loads
because contributing to an online conversation could contribute
to one's self-esteem.
We then estimated a second-order confirmatory factor
model, which is a more parsimonious model for the 37 37
covariance matrix than the measurement model for experiences.
The objective was to test whether it is plausible that the Personal
and Social-Interactive Engagement latent variables generate the
observed correlation structure between the experiences and
items. Personal and Social-Interactive Engagement will be used
in the subsequent analyses of advertising effectiveness. Instead
of having 28 covariances between the experiences, we assume
that correlations between the experiences are due to two secondorder factors. This model can represent the correlations between
the experiences with only 12 factor loadings shown in Table 4
above, and one additional term for the covariance between the
second-order factors. Fit statistics are also shown in Table 2
above, with CFI, GFI, and NNFI all greater than .9 suggesting a
good fit. Fig. 2 shows the parameter estimates of the second-
Table 4
Exploratory factor analysis loadings of first-order experiences.
Experience
Factor 1
Personal
Engagement
Factor 2
SocialInteractive
Social Facilitation
Temporal
Stimulation and Inspiration
Self-Esteem and Civic
Mindedness
Intrinsic Enjoyment
Utilitarian
Participation and Socializing
Community
.768
.753
.744
.710
.375
.701
.612
.361
.366
.472
.881
.755
order factor structure. The loadings for the 37 items were very
similar to those from the measurement model above and have
been omitted. Note that the second-order factor model finds a
significant correlation between the two engagement latent
variables. In the analyses that follow, we estimate the two
engagement factors using a weighted average of the experiences, with the factor loadings as weights.
Personal Engagement is manifested in experiences that are
similar to those that people have with newspapers and
magazines. For example, experience items such as This site
makes me think of things in new ways or This site often gives
me something to talk about could also apply to a newspaper or
magazine. Social-Interactive Engagement, however, is more
specific to websites. Items such as I do quite a bit of socializing
on this site and I contribute to the conversation on this site
would not characterize a newspaper or magazine, and we did
not hear such statements in our qualitative interviews for these
media. While Social-Interactive Engagement is more closely
associated with the web, aspects of it can be found for other
media. For example, A big reason I like this site is what I get
from other users could also apply to the letters-to-the-editor
page of a daily newspaper. The Utilitarian experience is a
manifestation of both forms of engagement. Service oriented
websites (e.g., bhg.com Better Homes and Gardens) will
have a prominent utilitarian component as will user-contributed
advice sites (e.g., Yahoo!Answers or chowhound.com).
In sum, the measurement model and values of coefficient
alpha have shown that the eight experiences have been
measured reliably and support the convergent and discriminant
validity of the scales. The second-order analysis shows
two engagement factors, Personal Engagement and SocialInteractive Engagement. Personal Engagement is manifested in
experiences that have counterparts in magazines and news-
327
328
Table 5
Estimates from separate models including context-free control group.
Experience
Attitude
toward ad
Intention to
click
.63
.42
.32
.61
.56
.62
.60
.29
.81
.90
.16
.11
.09
.27
.06
.15
.12
.18
.20
.23
.67
.44
.32
.62
.60
.68
.67
.35
.85
.99
.19
.12
.08
.27
.04
.16
.15
.21
.20
.27
Personal
engagement
Social-Interactive
Engagement
Online travel
agency use
Attitude
towards ad
Intention to
click
.536 (.033)
.443 (.039)
.106 (.006)
.479 (.043)
.590 (.050)
.244 (.008)
6
The experience slopes for the control group (b3 + g) are also significantly
different from 0, which could be due to any of the threats to internal validity
mentioned above or to the method of recruiting subjects used in this study
(members of the control group were also intercepted from the sites under study
and some may not have completely understood that they were to answer
questions about sites in general rather than the one from which they were
recruited).
7
It could also be tempting to include all 8 experiences in a single regression
model, but such a model is theoretically questionable because there is no
correct model (i.e., set of experiences included as predictor variables, which
are sampled from the construct domain) and all inference on slope coefficients
will be suspect. If experiences are manifestations of high-order engagement
constructs the experience measures will be correlated (creating multicollinearity), and must share in explaining the dependent variables. Thus the experience
effect sizes will depend on the size of the sample from the construct domain.
For example, with a sample of 4 experiences, each experience will have the
opportunity to explain more of the dependent variable than with a sample of 8.
Multicollinearity suggests that the magnitude of the slopes will also be highly
sensitive to the particular sample of experiences drawn.
329
330
References
Aaker, David and P.K. Brown (1972), Evaluating Vehicle Source Effects,
Journal of Advertising Research, 12(4), 11.
ARF, (2006). Engagement. Retrieved 23 July, 2007, www.thearf.org/research/
engagement.html.
Ariely, Dan (2000), Controlling the Information Flow: Effects on Consumers'
Decision Making and Preferences, Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2),
233.
Bearden, William and Richard Netemeyer (1999), Handbook of Marketing
Scales: Multi-Item Measures for Marketing and Consumer Behaviour
Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Broniarczyk, Susan and Joseph Alba (1991), The Importance of the Brand in
Brand Extension, Journal of Marketing Research, XXXI, 21428.
Bronner, Fred and Peter Neijens (2006), Audience Experiences of Media
Context and Embedded Advertising: A Comparison of Eight Media,
International Journal of Market Research, 48(1), 81.
Brown, Jo, Amanda Broderick, and Nick Lee (2007), Word of Mouth
Communication Within Online Communities: Conceptualizing the Online
Social Network, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(3), 220.
Calder, Bobby and Edward C. Malthouse (2005), Experiential Engagement with
Online Content Web Sites and the Impact of Cross-Media Usage,
Proceedings of 12th Worldwide Readership Research Symposium, Prague,
October.
and Edward C. Malthouse (2004), Qualitative Media Measures:
Newspaper Experiences, The International Journal on Media Management,
6(1/2), 123.
, Lynn Phillips, and Alice Tybout (1983), Beyond External Validity,
Journal of Consumer Research, 10(1), 112.
Chatterjee, P., Donna L. Hoffman, and Thomas P. Novak (2003), Modeling the
Clickstream: Implications for Web-Based Advertising Efforts, Marketing
Science, 22(4), 520.
Childers, Terry, Christopher Carr, Joann Peck, and Stephen Carson (2001),
Hedonic and Utilitarian Motivations for Online Retailing Shopping
Behavior, Journal of Retailing, 77, 51135.
Cho, Chang-Hoan and Hongsik John Cheon (2004), Why do People Avoid
Advertising on the Internet?, Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 8997.
Cohen, Joel and Kunal Basu (1987), Alternative Models of Categorization:
Toward a Contingent Processing Framework, Journal of Consumer
Research, 13, 45572.
Cotte, June, Tilottama Chowdhury, S. Ratneshwar, and Lisa Ricci (2006),
Pleasure or Utility? Time Planning Style and Web Usage Behaviors,
Journal of Interactive Marketing, 20(1), 4557.
Coulter, Keith (1998), The Effects of Affective Responses to Media Context on
Advertising Evaluations, Journal of Advertising, 27(4), 41.
Cunningham, Todd, Amy Shea Hall, and Charles Young (2006), The
Advertising Magnifier Effect: An Mtv Study, Journal of Advertising
Research, 4, 46.
Dahln, Micael (2005), The Medium as a Contextual Cue: Effects of Creative
Media Choice, Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 89.
DePelsmacker, Patrick, Maggie Geuens, and P. Anckaert (2002), Media
Context and Advertising Effectiveness: The Role of Context Appreciation
and Context/Ad Similarity, Journal of Advertising, 31(2), 49.
Dwyer, Paul (2007), Measuring the Value of Electronic Word of Mouth and its
Impact in Consumer Communities, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21
(2), 6379.
Feltham, Tammie and Stephen Arnold (1994), Program Involvement and Ad/
Program Consistency as Moderators of Program Context Effects, Journal
of Consumer Psychology, 3(1), 51.
Fiore, Ann Marie, Jihyun Kim, and Hyun-Hwa Lee (2005), Effect of Image
Interactivity Technology on Consumer Responses Toward the Online
Retailer, Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19(3), 3853.
Gallagher, Katheine, K. Dale Foster, and Jeffrey Parsons (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.
Hatcher, Larry (1994), A Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS System
for Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Cary, NC: SAS
Institute.
331