Final Online Advertising Project For Dr. Barnes

Final Online
Advertising
Project for Dr.
Barnes
Report completed by Andrew Goff for MKT 443-002
There are seven sections:
Section 1: Explanation of Constructs
Section 2: Descriptives
Section 3: Factor Analysis
Section 4: Reliability
Section 5: Analysis of Variance
Section 6: Conclusion
Section 7: What I Would Change If I Were Doing This Project Again
1
Section 1: Explanation of Constructs
 Trust in company: a person’s attitude toward a company with an emphasis on the degree
to which the company is considered trustworthy. (Verhoef, Franses, and Hoekstra, 2002)
 Visual Appeal: the extent to which a person perceives a stimulus to be aesthetically
pleasing with the emphasis on its visual aspects. (Cox and Cox, 2002)
 Persuasiveness of the Advertisement: the degree to which a person believes a particular
advertisement is believable. (Chang, 2003)
 Purchase Intention Toward Product in the Ad: a person’s attitude about a certain website
with a slight emphasis on the cognitive aspect of the attitude. (Sundar and Kalyanaraman,
2004)
 Curiosity About the Product: the degree to which a consumer is motivated to seek out
more information regarding a certain product. (Menon and Soman, 2002)
 Relevance of the Information: the extent to which some product information to which a
consumer has been exposed is viewed as being helpful in making a product evaluation.
(Gürhan-Canli and Maheswaran, 2000)
 Attitude Toward Website (Safety): The degree to which a person believes that privacy
and financial transactions are adequately protected by a website. (Wolfinbarger and Gilly,
2003)
 Usefulness of the Object (Online Advertisements): the extent to which a person views the
usage of something as helping to improve one’s efficiency and effectiveness. (Nysveen,
Pederson and Thorbjørnsen, 2005)
 Brand Prominence: The degree to which a person believes that for a certain product,
different brands are easy to distinguish, primarily due to the conspicuousness of their
brand names. (DelVecchio and Smith, 2005)
 Attitude Towards Product: A consumer’s opinion of a product and inclination to use it.
(Ziamou and Ratneshwar, 2003)
Section 2: Descriptives
Changes made:
 Added an index column.
 Deleted columns V2 – V5.
 Deleted completely blank responses.
 Cleaned data:
o Removed responses: 9, 14, 22, 24, 28, 31, 32, 38, 41, 54, 67
2
Table 1: Descriptives for how long ago they saw an online ad
Value Frequency Percent
Less than a week ago 41 93.2
Less than a month ago 1 2.3
Over a month ago 2 4.5
Total 44 100
Table 2: Descriptives for if they purchased from the last online ad they saw
Yes 4 9.1
No 40 90.9
Total 44 100
Table 3: Descriptives for trust 1

Neither agree nor
3 6.8
disagree
Somewhat agree 21 47.7
Strongly agree 20 45.5
Total 44 100

Strongly disagree 1 2.3
Somewhat disagree 2 4.5
Neither agree nor
9 20.5
disagree
Strongly agree 11 25
Total 44 100
3
Neither agree nor
2 4.5
disagree
Total 44 100
Table 6: Descriptives for visual appeal 1

1 1 2.3
2 5 11.4
3 14 31.8
4 17 38.6
5 7 15.9
Total 44 100

1 3 6.8
2 2 4.5
3 10 22.7
4 17 38.6
5 12 27.3
Total 44 100

1 3 6.8
2 10 22.7
3 10 22.7
4 14 31.8
5 7 15.9
Total 44 100
4
1 2 4.5
2 6 13.6
3 20 45.5
4 10 22.7
5 6 13.6
Total 44 100
Table 10: Descriptives for persuasiveness 1

1 2 4.5
2 5 11.4
3 16 36.4
4 12 27.3
5 9 20.5
Total 44 100

1 1 2.3
3 13 29.5
4 14 31.8
5 16 36.4
Total 44 100

3 9 20.5
4 17 38.6
5 18 40.9
Total 44 100
5
Table 13: Descriptives for purchase intention 1
Definitely not 3 6.8
Probably not 11 25
Might or might not 6 13.6
Probably yes 18 40.9
Definitely yes 6 13.6
Total 44 100

Definitely not 2 4.5
Probably not 9 20.5
Probably yes 22 50
Total 44 100

Total 44 100

Probably not 1 2.3
Total 44 100
6
Probably not 4 9.1
Total 44 100
Table 18: Descriptives for curiosity 1

Not at all 7 15.9
A little 13 29.5
A moderate amount 14 31.8
A lot 5 11.4
A great deal 5 11.4
Total 44 100

Not at all 6 13.6
A little 10 22.7
A lot 5 11.4
A great deal 6 13.6
Total 44 100

Not at all 4 9.1
A little 10 22.7
A lot 3 6.8
A great deal 7 15.9
Total 44 100
7
Not at all 4 9.1
A little 6 13.6
A lot 7 15.9
A great deal 11 25
Total 44 100
Table 22: Descriptives for relevance 1

1 2 4.5
2 1 2.3
3 5 11.4
4 4 9.1
5 11 25
6 11 25
7 10 22.7
Total 44 100

1 2 4.5
2 3 6.8
3 7 15.9
4 5 11.4
5 10 22.7
6 8 18.2
7 9 20.5
Total 44 100
8
1 3 6.8
2 3 6.8
3 6 13.6
4 8 18.2
5 9 20.5
6 8 18.2
7 7 15.9
Total 44 100
Table 25: Descriptives for web safety 1

Disagree 8 18.2
Neither agree nor
9 20.5
disagree
Agree 3 6.8
Total 44 100

Disagree 1 2.3
Neither agree nor
4 9.1
disagree
Agree 10 22.7
Total 44 100
9
Disagree 2 4.5
Neither agree nor
5 11.4
disagree
Agree 7 15.9
Total 44 100
Table 28: Descriptives for usefulness 1

Disagree 10 22.7
Neither 9 20.5
Agree 6 13.6
Total 44 100

Disagree 4 9.1
Neither 7 15.9
Agree 6 13.6
Total 44 100
10
Disagree 9 20.5
Neither 11 25
Somewhat agree 11 25
Agree 3 6.8
Total 44 100

Disagree 6 13.6
Neither 7 15.9
Agree 6 13.6
Total 44 100
Table 32: Descriptives for brand prominence 1

Neither agree nor
6 13.6
disagree
Agree 8 18.2
Total 44 100
11
Disagree 1 2.3
Neither agree nor
4 9.1
disagree
Somewhat agree 22 50
Agree 9 20.5
Total 44 100

Neither agree nor
7 15.9
disagree
Agree 12 27.3
Total 44 100
Table 35: Descriptives for attitude toward product 1

1 2 4.5
2 3 6.8
3 5 11.4
4 3 6.8
5 4 9.1
6 7 15.9
7 11 25
8 4 9.1
9 5 11.4
Total 44 100
12
1 2 4.5
2 4 9.1
3 2 4.5
4 5 11.4
5 1 2.3
6 6 13.6
7 12 27.3
8 8 18.2
9 4 9.1
Total 44 100

1 4 9.1
2 4 9.1
3 8 18.2
4 2 4.5
5 6 13.6
6 7 15.9
7 7 15.9
8 3 6.8
9 3 6.8
Total 44 100
Table 38: Descriptives for how often they shop

Daily 3 6.8
4-6 times a week 4 9.1
2-3 times a week 11 25
Once a week 15 34.1
Less than once a week 9 20.5
Never 2 4.5
Total 44 100
13
Table 39: Descriptives for if they have adblock
Yes 17 38.6
No 27 61.4
Total 44 100
Table 40: Descriptives for age

Age Frequency Percent
23 2 4.5
24 2 4.5
25 1 2.3
26 1 2.3
27 2 4.5
28 2 4.5
31 2 4.5
32 2 4.5
34 1 2.3
35 5 11.4
36 1 2.3
42 1 2.3
43 1 2.3
44 3 6.8
47 1 2.3
48 2 4.5
49 4 9.1
50 2 4.5
52 1 2.3
54 1 2.3
55 2 4.5
59 1 2.3
65 1 2.3
68 1 2.3
73 1 2.3
86 1 2.3
Total 44 100
14
Table 41: Descriptives for if they have a shopping membership
Yes 29 65.9
No 15 34.1
Total 44 100
Table 42: Descriptives for income

Income Frequency Percent
Less than $25,000 6 13.6
$25,000-$50,000 14 31.8
$50,000-$75,000 12 27.3
$75,000-$100,000 7 15.9
$100,000-$150,000 4 9.1
$150,000-$200,000 1 2.3
Total 44 100
Table 43: Descriptives for education

Education Frequency Percent
Less than high school 1 2.3
High school graduate 3 6.8
Some college 9 20.5
2 year degree 10 22.7
4 year degree 14 31.8
Professional degree 6 13.6
Doctorate 1 2.3
Total 44 100
15
Section 3: Factor Analysis
Table 44: Factor analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Trust_1 0.78
Trust_3 0.92
Intention_3 0.92
Intention_4 0.91
Intention_5 0.71
Brand_prominence_3 0.90
Web_safety_1 0.78
Web_safety_3 0.97
Usefulness_1 0.91
Usefulness2_R 0.86
Usefulness_3 0.94
Usefulness_4 0.90
Persuasiveness_1 0.82
Curiosity_4 0.75
Curiosity_5 0.70
Changes Made:
 Do not use Trust_2, 1 and 3 cover reliability of the company but 2 is more about the
service.
 Do not use Intention_1, it is not as opinionated as the rest.
 Do not use attitude toward product, attitude toward product construct items load with
usefulness.
 Do not use visual appeal construct, loads with intention and persuasiveness.
 Only use Curiosity_4 and 5, they represent construct best.
 Use single item Persuasiveness_1 and Brand_prominence_3 to include more constructs.
 Do not use relevance construct, loads with usefulness constructs.
 Do not use Web_safety_2, loads with curiosity constructs .
16
Section 4: Reliability
Table 45: Descriptives chart
Factor Mean Standard Squared Alpha
Loading Deviation Multiple Alpha if item
Correlation deleted
Trust_1 .78 4.39 .62 .39 --
.77
Trust_3 .93 4.39 .69 .39 --
Intention3 .94 4.20 .63 .76 .87
Intention_4 .91 4.09 .77 .80 .91 .81
Intention_5 .74 3.98 .95 .64 .92
Brand_Prominence_3 .90 5.2 1.23 -- -- --
Web safety_1 .80 3.91 1.52 .45 --
.80
Web_safey_3 .97 4.05 1.63 .45 --
Usefulness_1 .91 3.61 1.65 .78 .93
Usefulness_2R .87 4.11 1.63 .67 .94
.94
Usefulness_3 .94 3.70 1.50 .83 .91
Usefulness_4 .90 3.98 1.68 .78 .91
Persuasiveness_1 .84 3.48 1.01 -- -- --
Curiosity_4 .75 2.98 1.15 .38 --
7.6
Curiosity_5 .77 3.34 1.26 .38 --
Changes Made:
 Take out Curiosity_4 for reliability issues.
Table 46: Final factor analysis

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Trust_1 0.78
Trust_3 0.92
Intention_3 0.92
Intention_4 0.91
Intention_5 0.71
Brand_prominence_3 0.90
Web_safety_1 0.78
Web_safety_3 0.97
Usefulness_1 0.91
Usefulness2_R 0.86
Usefulness_3 0.94
Usefulness_4 0.90
Persuasiveness_1 0.82
Curiosity_5 0.70
17
Section 5: Analysis of Variance
1. Descriptives of recoded variables
2. Analysis of variance between variables
3. CIT
Descriptives
Table 47: Descriptives for trust average

3 2 4.5
3.5 3 6.8
4 15 34.1
4.5 7 15.9
5 17 38.6
Total 44 100
Table 48: Descriptives for purchase intention average

2.33 1 2.3
2.67 1 2.3
3 3 6.8
3.33 4 9.1
3.67 5 11.4
4 14 31.8
4.33 1 2.3
4.67 3 6.8
5 12 27.3
Total 44 100
18
Table 49: Descriptives for web safety average

1 1 2.3
1.5 3 6.8
2 3 6.8
2.5 3 6.8
3 3 6.8
3.5 4 9.1
4 7 15.9
4.5 3 6.8
5 10 22.7
5.5 3 6.8
6 3 6.8
7 1 2.3
Total 44 100
19
Table 50: Descriptives for usefulness average

1 2 4.5
1.25 1 2.3
1.5 1 2.3
2 4 9.1
2.25 1 2.3
2.5 1 2.3
2.75 1 2.3
3 4 9.1
3.25 2 4.5
3.5 2 4.5
3.75 1 2.3
4 3 6.8
4.25 2 4.5
4.5 2 4.5
4.75 4 9.1
5 4 9.1
5.25 1 2.3
5.5 5 11.4
5.75 1 2.3
6 1 2.3
7 1 2.3
Total 44 100
Table 51: Descriptives for high/medium/low age

Low Age 15 34.1
Medium Age 14 31.8
High Age 15 34.1
Total 44 100
Table 52: Descriptives for high/low income

Low Income 20 45.5
High Income 24 54.5
Total 44 100
20
Table 53: Descriptives for high/low education

Low Education 23 52.3
High Education 21 47.7
Total 44 100
Table 54: Descriptives for high/low relevance

Low Relevance 20 45.5
High Relevance 24 54.5
Total 44 100
Table 55: Descriptives for high/low shopping frequency

1 18 40.9
2 26 59.1
Total 44 100
Table 56: Descriptives for high/low visual appeal

1 24 54.5
2 20 45.5
Total 44 100
21
Analysis of variance between variables
Hypothesis 1: People who are older, will be more trusting.
Table 57: ANOVA
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 2.495 2 1.247 4.112 0.024
Within Groups 12.437 41 0.303
Total 14.932 43
Table 58: Descriptives for trust across age

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Std. Std. Lower Upper
N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound Minimum Maximum
Low Age 15 4.1333 0.44186 0.11409 3.8886 4.378 3.5 5
Medium Age 14 4.3214 0.63872 0.17071 3.9526 4.6902 3 5
High Age 15 4.7 0.56061 0.14475 4.3895 5.0105 3 5
Total 44 4.3864 0.58928 0.08884 4.2072 4.5655 3 5
Table 59: Symbolic Benefits Mean

Tukey HSD a,b
Subset for alpha = 0.05
Age_HML N 1 2
Low Age 15 4.1333
Medium Age 14 4.3214 4.3214
High Age 15 4.7
Sig. 0.628 0.163
The hypothesis is supported. The data suggests that there is a relationship between trust and age
(p < .05). The high age is significantly more trusting than the low age, however the medium age
loads with both low and high suggesting they are split between the two, which is expected.
22
Hypothesis 2: People who are younger, will have greater purchase intention.
Table 60: ANOVA

Between Groups 2.433 2 1.216 2.428 0.101
Total 22.97 43
Table 61: Descriptives for purchase intention across age

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low Age 15 3.7778 0.80343 0.20745 3.3329 4.2227 2.33 5
Medium Age 14 4.1667 0.67621 0.18073 3.7762 4.5571 3 5
High Age 15 4.3333 0.62994 0.16265 3.9845 4.6822 3 5
Total 44 4.0909 0.73088 0.11018 3.8687 4.3131 2.33 5

Tukey HSD a,b
Age_HML N 1
Low Age 15 3.7778
Medium Age 14 4.1667
High Age 15 4.3333
Sig. 0.097
The hypothesis is not supported. The data suggests that there is not a relationship between
purchase intention and age (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the age groups is not
significant.
23
Hypothesis 3: People who are older, will have greater expectations for brand prominence
Table 63: ANOVA

Between Groups 2.097 2 1.049 0.682 0.511
Total 65.159 43
Table 64: Descriptives for brand prominence across age

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low Age 15 5.2 1.474 0.38 4.38 6.02 1 7
Medium Age 14 4.93 0.997 0.267 4.35 5.5 3 7
High Age 15 5.47 1.187 0.307 4.81 6.12 3 7
Total 44 5.2 1.231 0.186 4.83 5.58 1 7

Tukey HSD a,b
Age_HML N 1
Low Age 15 4.93
Medium Age 14 5.2
High Age 15 5.47
Sig. 0.475
expectations of brand prominence and age (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the age
groups is not significant.
24
Hypothesis 4: People who are older, will have believe they are safer on the web.
Table 66: ANOVA

Between Groups 0.478 2 0.239 0.111 0.895
Total 88.977 43
Table 67: Descriptives for web safety across age

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low Age 15 4.0667 1.52206 0.39299 3.2238 4.9096 1 7
Medium Age 14 4.0357 1.51231 0.40418 3.1625 4.9089 1.5 6
High Age 15 3.8333 1.37148 0.35411 3.0738 4.5928 1.5 6
Total 44 3.9773 1.43848 0.21686 3.5399 4.4146 1 7

Tukey HSD a,b
Age_HML N 1
Low Age 15 3.8333
Medium Age 14 4.0357
High Age 15 4.0667
Sig. 0.903
The hypothesis is not supported. The data suggests that there is not a relationship between web
safety and age (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the age groups is not significant.
Hypothesis 5: People who are older, will find online ads more useful.
Table 69: ANOVA

Between Groups 24.515 2 12.257 7.113 0.002
Total 95.165 43
25
Table 70: Descriptives for usefulness across age
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low Age 15 3 1.12599 0.29073 2.3764 3.6236 1 4.75
Medium Age 14 3.75 1.35519 0.36219 2.9675 4.5325 1.5 5.75
High Age 15 4.8 1.43987 0.37177 4.0026 5.5974 1 7
Total 44 3.8523 1.48766 0.22427 3.4 4.3046 1 7

Tukey HSD a,b
Age_HML N 1 2
Low Age 15 3
Medium Age 14 3.75 3.75
High Age 15 4.8
Sig. 0.28 0.089
The hypothesis is supported. The data suggests that there is a relationship between usefulness
and age (p < .05). The high age finds online ads significantly more useful than the low age,
however the medium age loads with both low and high suggesting they are split between the two,
which is expected.
Hypothesis 6: People who are older, will find online ads more persuasive.
Table 72: ANOVA

Between Groups 0.349 2 0.174 0.141 0.869
Total 50.977 43
26
Table 73: Descriptives for persuasiveness across age
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low Age 15 3.4 1.121 0.289 2.78 4.02 1 5
Medium Age 14 3.43 1.284 0.343 2.69 4.17 1 5
High Age 15 3.6 0.91 0.235 3.1 4.1 2 5
Total 44 3.48 1.089 0.164 3.15 3.81 1 5

Tukey HSD a,b
Age_HML N 1
Low Age 15 3.4
Medium Age 14 3.43
High Age 15 3.6
Sig. 0.878
persuasiveness and age (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the age groups is not
significant.
Hypothesis 7: People who are older, will be more curious of online ads.
Table 75: ANOVA

Between Groups 12.839 2 6.419 4.781 0.014
Total 67.886 43
27
Table 76: Descriptives for curiosity across age
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low Age 15 2.8 1.265 0.327 2.1 3.5 1 5
Medium Age 14 3.14 1.231 0.329 2.43 3.85 1 5
High Age 15 4.07 0.961 0.248 3.53 4.6 3 5
Total 44 3.34 1.256 0.189 2.96 3.72 1 5

Tukey HSD a,b
Age_HML N 1 2
Low Age 15 2.8
Medium Age 14 3.14 3.14
High Age 15 4.07
Sig. 0.705 0.091
The hypothesis is supported. The data suggests that there is a relationship between curiosity and
age (p < .05). The high age is more curious of online ads than the low age, however the medium
age loads with both low and high suggesting they are split between the two, which is expected.
Hypothesis 8: People with lower income, will be more trusting.

Table 78: ANOVA

Between Groups 0.007 1 0.007 0.019 0.89
Total 14.932 43
28
Table 79: Descriptives for trust across income
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low Income 20 4.4 0.59824 0.13377 4.12 4.68 3 5
High Income 24 4.375 0.59436 0.12132 4.124 4.626 3 5
Total 44 4.3864 0.58928 0.08884 4.2072 4.5655 3 5
The hypothesis is not supported. The data suggests that there is not a relationship between trust
and income (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the income groups is not significant.
Hypothesis 9: People with higher income, will have greater purchase intention.
Table 80: ANOVA

Between Groups 0.202 1 0.202 0.373 0.545
Total 22.97 43
Table 81: Descriptives for purchase intention across income

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low Income 20 4.0167 0.8055 0.18012 3.6397 4.3937 2.33 5
High Income 24 4.1528 0.67372 0.13752 3.8683 4.4373 3 5
Total 44 4.0909 0.73088 0.11018 3.8687 4.3131 2.33 5
purchase intention and income (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the income groups
is not significant.
29
Hypothesis 10: People with lower income, will have greater expectations of brand prominence.
Table 82: ANOVA

Between Groups 0.076 1 0.076 0.049 0.826
Total 65.159 43
Table 83: Descriptives for brand prominence across income

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low Income 20 5.25 1.118 0.25 4.73 5.77 3 7
High Income 24 5.17 1.341 0.274 4.6 5.73 1 7
Total 44 5.2 1.231 0.186 4.83 5.58 1 7
expectations of brand prominence and income (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the
income groups is not significant.
Hypothesis 11: People with lower income, will believe they are safer on the web.
Table 84: ANOVA

Between Groups 0.594 1 0.594 0.282 0.598
Total 88.977 43
Table 85: Descriptives for web safety across income

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low Income 20 3.85 1.46987 0.32867 3.1621 4.5379 1 7
High Income 24 4.0833 1.43456 0.29283 3.4776 4.6891 1.5 6
Total 44 3.9773 1.43848 0.21686 3.5399 4.4146 1 7
30
safety and income (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the income groups is not
significant.
Hypothesis 12: People with higher income, will find online ads more useful.
Table 86: ANOVA

Between Groups 0.996 1 0.996 0.444 0.509
Total 95.165 43
Table 87: Descriptives for usefulness across income

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low Income 20 3.6875 1.69145 0.37822 2.8959 4.4791 1 7
High Income 24 3.9896 1.31562 0.26855 3.434 4.5451 1.5 6
Total 44 3.8523 1.48766 0.22427 3.4 4.3046 1 7
usefulness and income (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the income groups is not
significant.
Hypothesis 13: People with lower income, will find online ads more persuasive.
Table 88: ANOVA

Between Groups 1.152 1 1.152 0.971 0.33
Total 50.977 43
31
Table 89: Descriptives for persuasiveness across income
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low Income 20 3.3 1.129 0.252 2.77 3.83 1 5
High Income 24 3.63 1.056 0.215 3.18 4.07 1 5
Total 44 3.48 1.089 0.164 3.15 3.81 1 5
persuasiveness and income (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the income groups is
not significant.
Hypothesis 14: People with higher income, will be more curious of online ads.
Table 90: ANOVA

Between Groups 0.436 1 0.436 0.272 0.605
Total 67.886 43
Table 91: Descriptives for curiosity across income

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low Income 20 3.45 1.191 0.266 2.89 4.01 1 5
High Income 24 3.25 1.327 0.271 2.69 3.81 1 5
Total 44 3.34 1.256 0.189 2.96 3.72 1 5
curiosity and income (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the income groups is not
significant.
32
Hypothesis 15: People with lower education, will be more trusting.
Table 92: ANOVA

Between Groups 0.034 1 0.034 0.097 0.757
Total 14.932 43
Table 93: Descriptives for trust across education

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low
Education 23 4.413 0.57706 0.12033 4.1635 4.6626 3 5
High
Education 21 4.3571 0.61528 0.13427 4.0771 4.6372 3 5
Total 44 4.3864 0.58928 0.08884 4.2072 4.5655 3 5
and education (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the education groups is not
significant.
Hypothesis 16: People with higher education, will have greater purchase intention.
Table 94: ANOVA

Between Groups 0.03 1 0.03 0.055 0.815
Total 22.97 43
33
Table 95: Descriptives for purchase intention across education
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low
Education 23 4.1159 0.79524 0.16582 3.7721 4.4598 2.33 5
High
Education 21 4.0635 0.67181 0.1466 3.7577 4.3693 3 5
Total 44 4.0909 0.73088 0.11018 3.8687 4.3131 2.33 5
purchase intention and education (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the education
Hypothesis 17: People with lower education, will have greater expectations of brand
prominence.
Table 95: ANOVA

Between Groups 3.61 1 3.61 2.464 0.124
Total 65.159 43
Table 96: Descriptives for brand prominence across education

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low
Education 23 5.48 0.947 0.198 5.07 5.89 4 7
High
Education 21 4.9 1.446 0.316 4.25 5.56 1 7
Total 44 5.2 1.231 0.186 4.83 5.58 1 7
The hypothesis is not supported. The data suggests that there is not a relationship between brand
prominence and education (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the education groups is
not significant.
34
Hypothesis 18: People with lower education, will feel safer on the web.
Table 97: ANOVA

Between Groups 0.199 1 0.199 0.094 0.761
Total 88.977 43
Table 98: Descriptives for web safety across education

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low
Education 23 3.913 1.35388 0.2823 3.3276 4.4985 1 6
High
Education 21 4.0476 1.55648 0.33965 3.3391 4.7561 1.5 7
Total 44 3.9773 1.43848 0.21686 3.5399 4.4146 1 7
safety and education (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the education groups is not
significant.
Hypothesis 19: People with lower education, will find online ads more useful.
Table 99: ANOVA

Between Groups 14.572 1 14.572 7.594 0.009
Total 95.165 43
35
Table 100: Descriptives for usefulness across education
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low
Education 23 4.4022 1.16711 0.24336 3.8975 4.9069 1 5.5
High
Education 21 3.25 1.59099 0.34718 2.5258 3.9742 1 7
Total 44 3.8523 1.48766 0.22427 3.4 4.3046 1 7
The hypothesis is supported. The data suggests that there is a relationship between usefulness
and education (p < .05). Those with low education find, significantly, online ads more useful
than those with high education.
Hypothesis 20: People with lower education, will find online ads more persuasive.
Table 101: ANOVA

Between Groups 1.474 1 1.474 1.251 0.27
Total 50.977 43
Table 102: Descriptives for persuasiveness across education

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low
Education 23 3.65 1.191 0.248 3.14 4.17 1 5
High
Education 21 3.29 0.956 0.209 2.85 3.72 1 5
Total 44 3.48 1.089 0.164 3.15 3.81 1 5
persuasiveness and education (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the education groups
is not significant.
36
Hypothesis 21: People with lower education, are more curious of online ads.
Table 103: ANOVA

Between Groups 4.669 1 4.669 3.102 0.085
Total 67.886 43
Table 104: Descriptives for curiosity across education

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low
Education 23 3.65 1.191 0.248 3.14 4.17 1 5
High
Education 21 3 1.265 0.276 2.42 3.58 1 5
Total 44 3.34 1.256 0.189 2.96 3.72 1 5
curiosity and education (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the education groups is not
significant.
Hypothesis 22: People who shop online more often, are more trusting.
Table 105: ANOVA

Between Groups 0.019 1 0.019 0.055 0.816
Total 14.932 43
37
Table 106: Descriptives for trust across online shopping frequency
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Frequent
Shoppers 18 4.3611 0.68181 0.1607 4.0221 4.7002 3 5
Infrequent
Shoppers 26 4.4038 0.52951 0.10385 4.19 4.6177 3 5
Total 44 4.3864 0.58928 0.08884 4.2072 4.5655 3 5
and online shopping frequency (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the groups is not
significant.
Hypothesis 23: People who shop online more often, have greater purchase intention.
Table 107: ANOVA

Between Groups 0.16 1 0.16 0.294 0.591
Total 22.97 43
Table 108: Descriptives for purchase intention across online shopping frequency
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Frequent
Shoppers 18 4.0185 0.796 0.18762 3.6227 4.4144 2.33 5
Infrequent
Shoppers 26 4.141 0.69393 0.13609 3.8607 4.4213 2.67 5
Total 44 4.0909 0.73088 0.11018 3.8687 4.3131 2.33 5
purchase intention and online shopping frequency (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst
the groups is not significant.
38
Hypothesis 24: People who shop online more often, have greater expectations of brand
prominence.
Table 109: ANOVA

Between Groups 1.274 1 1.274 0.838 0.365
Total 65.159 43
Table 110: Descriptives for brand prominence across online shopping frequency
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Frequent
Shoppers 18 5 1.572 0.37 4.22 5.78 1 7
Infrequent
Shoppers 26 5.35 0.936 0.183 4.97 5.72 4 7
Total 44 5.2 1.231 0.186 4.83 5.58 1 7
prominence and online shopping frequency (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the
Hypothesis 25: People who shop online more often, feel safer on the web.
Table 111: ANOVA

Between Groups 4.084 1 4.084 2.021 0.163
Total 88.977 43
39
Table 112: Descriptives for web safety across online shopping frequency
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Frequent
Shoppers 18 3.6111 1.41998 0.33469 2.905 4.3172 1.5 6
Infrequent
Shoppers 26 4.2308 1.42289 0.27905 3.6561 4.8055 1 7
Total 44 3.9773 1.43848 0.21686 3.5399 4.4146 1 7
safety and online shopping frequency (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the groups is
not significant.
Hypothesis 26: People who shop online more often, fine online ads more useful.
Table 113: ANOVA

Between Groups 0.411 1 0.411 0.182 0.672
Total 95.165 43
Table 114: Descriptives for usefulness across online shopping frequency

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Frequent
Shoppers 18 3.7361 1.51092 0.35613 2.9847 4.4875 1 5.75
Infrequent
Shoppers 26 3.9327 1.49592 0.29337 3.3285 4.5369 1 7
Total 44 3.8523 1.48766 0.22427 3.4 4.3046 1 7
usefulness and online shopping frequency (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the
40
Hypothesis 27: People who shop online more often, find online ads more persuasive.
Table 115: ANOVA

Between Groups 0.033 1 0.033 0.027 0.87
Total 50.977 43
Table 116: Descriptives for persuasiveness across online shopping frequency

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Frequent
Shoppers 18 3.44 1.149 0.271 2.87 4.02 1 5
Infrequent
Shoppers 26 3.5 1.068 0.209 3.07 3.93 2 5
Total 44 3.48 1.089 0.164 3.15 3.81 1 5
persuasiveness and online shopping frequency (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the
Hypothesis 28: People who shop online more often, are more curious of online ads.
Table 117: ANOVA

Between Groups 1.609 1 1.609 1.019 0.318
Total 67.886 43
41
Table 118: Descriptives for curiosity across online shopping frequency
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Frequent
Shoppers 18 3.11 1.367 0.322 2.43 3.79 1 5
Infrequent
Shoppers 26 3.5 1.175 0.23 3.03 3.97 1 5
Total 44 3.34 1.256 0.189 2.96 3.72 1 5
curiosity and online shopping frequency (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the groups
is not significant.
Hypothesis 29: The more relevant an ad is to someone, the more trusting they are.
Table 119: ANOVA

Between Groups 2.048 1 2.048 6.678 0.013
Total 14.932 43
Table 120: Descriptives for trust across relevance

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low
Relevance 20 4.15 0.63037 0.14096 3.855 4.445 3 5
High
Relevance 24 4.5833 0.48154 0.09829 4.38 4.7867 3.5 5
Total 44 4.3864 0.58928 0.08884 4.2072 4.5655 3 5
The hypothesis is supported. The data suggests that there is a relationship between trust and
relevance (p < .05). Those who find an ad relevant are significantly more likely to be trusting.
42
Hypothesis 30: The more relevant an ad is to someone, the greater their purchase intention.
Table 121: ANOVA

Between Groups 4.261 1 4.261 9.567 0.004
Total 22.97 43
Table 122: Descriptives for purchase intention across relevance

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low
Relevance 20 3.75 0.6743 0.15078 3.4344 4.0656 2.33 5
High
Relevance 24 4.375 0.66167 0.13506 4.0956 4.6544 3 5
Total 44 4.0909 0.73088 0.11018 3.8687 4.3131 2.33 5
The hypothesis is supported. The data suggests that there is a relationship between purchase
intention and relevance (p < .05). Those who find an ad relevant are significantly more likely to
have intentions to purchase.
Hypothesis 31: The more relevant an ad is to someone, the greater their expectations of brand
prominence.
Table 123: ANOVA

Between Groups 0.401 1 0.401 0.26 0.613
Total 65.159 43
43
Table 124: Descriptives for brand prominence across relevance
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low
Relevance 20 5.1 1.021 0.228 4.62 5.58 3 7
High
Relevance 24 5.29 1.398 0.285 4.7 5.88 1 7
Total 44 5.2 1.231 0.186 4.83 5.58 1 7
prominence and relevance (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the groups is not
significant.
Hypothesis 32: The more relevant an ad is to someone, the safer they feel on the web.
Table 125: ANOVA

Between Groups 5.219 1 5.219 2.617 0.113
Total 88.977 43
Table 126: Descriptives for web safety across relevance

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low
Relevance 20 3.6 1.3436 0.30044 2.9712 4.2288 1 6
High
Relevance 24 4.2917 1.46641 0.29933 3.6725 4.9109 1.5 7
Total 44 3.9773 1.43848 0.21686 3.5399 4.4146 1 7
safety and relevance (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the groups is not significant.
44
Hypothesis 33: The more relevant an ad is to someone, the more useful they find it.
Table 127: ANOVA

Between Groups 3.079 1 3.079 1.404 0.243
Total 95.165 43
Table 128: Descriptives for usefulness across relevance

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low
Relevance 20 3.5625 1.58711 0.35489 2.8197 4.3053 1 7
High
Relevance 24 4.0938 1.38668 0.28306 3.5082 4.6793 1 6
Total 44 3.8523 1.48766 0.22427 3.4 4.3046 1 7
usefulness and relevance (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the groups is not
significant.
Hypothesis 34: The more relevant an ad is to someone, the more persuasive they find it.
Table 129: ANOVA
Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 12.219 1 12.219 13.241 0.001
Total 50.977 43
45
Table 130: Descriptives for persuasiveness across relevance
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low
Relevance 20 2.9 0.718 0.161 2.56 3.24 1 4
High
Relevance 24 3.96 1.122 0.229 3.48 4.43 1 5
Total 44 3.48 1.089 0.164 3.15 3.81 1 5
The hypothesis is supported. The data suggests that there is a relationship between
persuasiveness and relevance (p < .05). Those who find an ad relevant also find it significantly
more persuasive.
Hypothesis 35: The more relevant an ad is to someone, the more curious they are about it.
Table 131: ANOVA

Between Groups 17.503 1 17.503 14.591 0
Total 67.886 43
Table 132: Descriptives for curiosity across relevance

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low
Relevance 20 2.65 0.988 0.221 2.19 3.11 1 5
High
Relevance 24 3.92 1.176 0.24 3.42 4.41 1 5
Total 44 3.34 1.256 0.189 2.96 3.72 1 5
relevance (p < .05). Those who find an ad relevant are also significantly more curious.
46
Hypothesis 36: The more visually appealing an ad is to someone, the more trusting they are.
Table 133: ANOVA

Between Groups 0.288 1 0.288 0.826 0.369
Total 14.932 43
Table 134: Descriptives for trust across visual appeal

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low Appeal 24 4.3125 0.62228 0.12702 4.0497 4.5753 3 5
High Appeal 20 4.475 0.54952 0.12288 4.2178 4.7322 3 5
Total 44 4.3864 0.58928 0.08884 4.2072 4.5655 3 5
and visual appeal (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the groups is not significant.
Hypothesis 37: The more visually appealing an ad is to someone, the greater their purchase
intention.
Table 135: ANOVA
Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 4.728 1 4.728 10.886 0.002
Total 22.97 43
Table 136: Descriptives for purchase intention across visual appeal

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low Appeal 24 3.7917 0.73434 0.1499 3.4816 4.1018 2.33 5
High Appeal 20 4.45 0.55436 0.12396 4.1906 4.7094 3.33 5
Total 44 4.0909 0.73088 0.11018 3.8687 4.3131 2.33 5
47
The hypothesis is supported. The data suggests that there is a relationship between purchase
intention and visual appeal (p < .05). Those who find an ad more visually appealing are also
significantly more likely to have intentions to purchase.
Hypothesis 38: The more visually appealing an ad is to someone, the greater their expectations
of brand prominence.
Table 137: ANOVA

Between Groups 2.209 1 2.209 1.474 0.232
Total 65.159 43
Table 138: Descriptives for brand prominence across visual appeal

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low Appeal 24 5 1.474 0.301 4.38 5.62 1 7
High Appeal 20 5.45 0.826 0.185 5.06 5.84 4 7
Total 44 5.2 1.231 0.186 4.83 5.58 1 7
prominence and visual appeal (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the groups is not
significant.
Hypothesis 39: The more visually appealing an ad is to someone, the safer they feel on the web.
Table 139: ANOVA

Between Groups 14.219 1 14.219 7.988 0.007
Total 88.977 43
48
Table 140: Descriptives for web safety across visual appeal
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low Appeal 24 3.4583 1.41357 0.28854 2.8614 4.0552 1 6
High Appeal 20 4.6 1.23117 0.2753 4.0238 5.1762 2 7
Total 44 3.9773 1.43848 0.21686 3.5399 4.4146 1 7
The hypothesis is supported. The data suggests that there is a relationship between web safety
and visual appeal (p < .05). Those who find an ad more visually appealing also feel significantly
safer on the web.
Hypothesis 40: The more visually appealing an ad is to someone, the more useful they find it.
Table 141: ANOVA

Between Groups 0.941 1 0.941 0.42 0.521
Total 95.165 43
Table 142: Descriptives for usefulness across visual appeal

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low Appeal 24 3.7188 1.69127 0.34523 3.0046 4.4329 1 7
High Appeal 20 4.0125 1.22333 0.27355 3.44 4.585 1.25 5.5
Total 44 3.8523 1.48766 0.22427 3.4 4.3046 1 7
usefulness and visual appeal (p > .05). The numerical difference amongst the groups is not
significant.
49
Hypothesis 41: The more visually appealing an ad is to someone, the more persuasive they find
it.
Table 143: ANOVA
Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 10.019 1 10.019 10.274 0.003
Total 50.977 43
Table 144: Descriptives for persuasiveness across visual appeal

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low Appeal 24 3.04 0.999 0.204 2.62 3.46 1 5
High Appeal 20 4 0.973 0.218 3.54 4.46 2 5
Total 44 3.48 1.089 0.164 3.15 3.81 1 5
The hypothesis is supported. The data suggests that there is a relationship between
persuasiveness and visual appeal (p < .05). Those who find an ad more visually appealing also
find it significantly more persuasive.
Hypothesis 42: The more visually appealing an ad is to someone, the more curious they are
about it.
Table 145: ANOVA
Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 13.603 1 13.603 10.525 0.002
Total 67.886 43
50
Table 146: Descriptives for curiosity across visual appeal
95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Low Appeal 24 2.83 1.308 0.267 2.28 3.39 1 5
High Appeal 20 3.95 0.887 0.198 3.53 4.37 3 5
Total 44 3.34 1.256 0.189 2.96 3.72 1 5
visual appeal (p < .05). Those who find an ad more visually appealing are also significantly
more curious about it.
Critical incident technique

Table 147: CIT
Category #/% Criteria
The physical appearance of the ad or any
sound/music the advertisement plays.
Audio/Visual 13 (44.83%)
Key words/phrases include: looked, sounded,
music, icon, logo
Offerings of a deal or new product.
Promotion 7 (24.14%)
Key words/phrases include: new, deal, sale,
discount
Pops up, gets in the way, or knows consumer
history.
Intrusive 4 (13.79%)
Key words/phrases include: pop up, history,
recent search
Explicitly a numerical price.
Price 3 (10.34%)
Key words/phrases include: dollar signs, price,
cost
Relating to something funny in the advertisement.
Humor 2 (6.89%)
Key words/phrases include: entertaining, funny,
laugh
51
Section 6: Conclusion
Usage
Online advertising is one of the most popular ways to advertise in modern times. Most internet
users see online ads very often. Table 1 shows that 93% of people who took the survey saw an
online ad within the past week, however table 2 shows that 90% of people did not purchase a
product from that ad. This doesn’t mean that online advertising is worthless. The reach of
online advertising is valuable on its own, regardless of the immediate sales it produces. It’s all
about spreading awareness and familiarizing consumers with your brand or product. Even those
who use an ad blocker still see ads very often. According to table 39, 38% of survey takers use
an ad blocker, but the percent of people from table 1 is still 93%.
Key points:
 Online advertising reaches almost every online user
 Online advertising spreads awareness, it does not automatically create sales
 Ad blockers do not prevent users from seeing ads
Age
Hypotheses 1, 5, and 7 dealt with age as a variable. It found that higher ages are more trusting
(tables 57-59), find online advertising to be more useful (tables 69-71), and are more curious of
online ads (tables 75-77). This indicates that older consumers are a good market for online
advertising. Typically, people believe that the younger generations are online more, and while
this may be true, this data suggests that it’s actually the older generations that should be targeted
by online advertisements. If a company’s target market is typically older, online advertising
would be a good avenue to pursue. If a company’s target market is younger, it may take extra
work on online ads to achieve the same results.
Key points:
 Higher ages are more trusting, find online ads more useful, and are more curious of
online ads than lower ages
 Companies with older target markets should pursue online advertising
Education
Tables 99 and 100 from hypothesis 19 show that those with lower education find online ads to be
more useful. This suggests that companies with target markets that contain lower educated
consumers can utilize online advertising to help guide those consumers.
Relevance
Relevance of an online advertisement is one of its most important factors according to
hypotheses 29, 30, 34, and 35. If the ad is relevant it will be more persuasive (tables 129-130),
the consumer will be more trusting (tables 119-120) and curious (tables 131-132), and they will
have greater purchase intention (tables 121-122). Purchase intention is really the main goal of
online advertising, any aspect that can increase it is vital to an ad. Ads that are relevant to a
consumer are going to pique their interest and are more likely to result in a purchase, whether
that purchase be immediate or in the future.
52
Key points:
 Relevance is extremely important in online advertising
 Relevance increases trust, curiosity, and purchase intention
 Relevant ads are more persuasive
Visual appeal
The visual appeal of an online advertisement is really what draws people in initially, and what
people remember afterwards. Like relevance it increases purchase intention (tables 135-136),
persuasiveness (tables 143-144), and curiosity (tables 145-146). Something interesting from the
data about visual appeal is that it also increases web safety (tables 139-140). This means that if
an ad is more visually appealing, viewers actually feel safer on the website that they’re viewing
it on. This is especially important if the ad requires further navigation throughout the website,
the consumer will feel more comfortable doing so. Table 147 shows important categories
obtained from the open ended responses of the survey. The question asked the respondent what
they remembered about the last advertisement they saw. The most common factor was
audio/visual, almost 45% of respondents noted that audio/visual was what they remembered
about the ad. Not only does visual appeal create curiosity to begin with, it creates a memorable
ad.
Key points:
 Visual appeal is another extremely important factor, if not the most important
 Visual appeal increases curiosity, web safety, and purchase intention
 Visually appealing ads are more persuasive
Section 7: What I Would Change If I Were Doing This Project Again

 Use a different style of survey, I wouldn’t show an advertisement, I would keep the
questions general
 Come up with more usage questions to run constructs across
 Find more constructs, the ones I used were good, but I think adding more or replacing
some would find more information
 Larger sample would be more interesting
 Make my open ended more specific, I wanted positive answers but got a lot of negative
ones
 Ask more than one open ended question, they provide very rich data I would be interested
in seeing what I could discover
 Explore other sources of respondents, or even survey multiple sources and compare them
Overall, I don’t think there is a whole lot I would change, mostly I would just add things or
consider alternatives. I really enjoyed this project and I found it very interesting, if I had to do it
again I think I would want to narrow my initial research goal from online advertising to online
advertising for a specific company or industry. It would be more challenging but after doing this
one I think it would be far more interesting to explore.
53

Final Online Advertising Project For Dr. Barnes

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Final Online Advertising Project For Dr. Barnes

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Final Online

Table 3: Descriptives for trust 1

Table 4: Descriptives for trust 2

Table 6: Descriptives for visual appeal 1

Table 7: Descriptives for visual appeal 2

Table 8: Descriptives for visual appeal 3

Table 10: Descriptives for persuasiveness 1

Table 11: Descriptives for persuasiveness 2

Table 12: Descriptives for persuasiveness 3

Table 14: Descriptives for purchase intention 2

Table 15: Descriptives for purchase intention 3

Table 16: Descriptives for purchase intention 4

Table 18: Descriptives for curiosity 1

Table 19: Descriptives for curiosity 2

Table 20: Descriptives for curiosity 4

Table 22: Descriptives for relevance 1

Table 23: Descriptives for relevance 2

Table 25: Descriptives for web safety 1

Table 26: Descriptives for web safety 2

Table 28: Descriptives for usefulness 1

Table 29: Descriptives for usefulness 2

Table 31: Descriptives for usefulness 4

Table 32: Descriptives for brand prominence 1

Table 34: Descriptives for brand prominence 3

Table 35: Descriptives for attitude toward product 1

Table 37: Descriptives for attitude toward product 3

Table 38: Descriptives for how often they shop

Table 40: Descriptives for age

Table 42: Descriptives for income

Table 43: Descriptives for education

Table 46: Final factor analysis

Value Frequency Percent

Table 48: Descriptives for purchase intention average

Value Frequency Percent

Value Frequency Percent

Value Frequency Percent

Table 51: Descriptives for high/medium/low age

Value Frequency Percent

Value Frequency Percent

Value Frequency Percent

Table 54: Descriptives for high/low relevance

Value Frequency Percent

Table 55: Descriptives for high/low shopping frequency

Value Frequency Percent

Table 56: Descriptives for high/low visual appeal

Value Frequency Percent

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Table 58: Descriptives for trust across age

Table 59: Symbolic Benefits Mean

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Table 61: Descriptives for purchase intention across age

Table 62: Symbolic Benefits Mean

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Table 64: Descriptives for brand prominence across age

Table 65: Symbolic Benefits Mean

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Table 67: Descriptives for web safety across age

Table 68: Symbolic Benefits Mean

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Table 71: Symbolic Benefits Mean

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Table 74: Symbolic Benefits Mean

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.