Consumer marketing
Samenvatting artikelen
Master marketing
Period 1
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
,• Barasch, A., G. Zauberman, and K. Diehl (2018), “How the Intention to Share Can
Undermine Enjoyment: Photo-Taking Goals and Evaluation of Experiences,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 44(6), 1220–37.
• Castañ o, R., M. Sujan, M. Kacker, and H. Sujan (2008), "Managing Consumer
Uncertainty in the Adoption of New Products: Temporal Distance and Mental
Simulation," Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (3), 320-336.
• Diehl, K. and C. Poynor (2010), "Great expectations?! Assortment size,
expectations, and satisfaction," Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (2), 312-322.
• Eelen, J., P. Ozturan and P. W. J. Verlegh (2017), “The Differential Impact of Brand
loyalty on Traditional and Online Word of Mouth: The Moderating Roles of Self-
Brand Connection and the Desire to Help the Brand,” International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 34(4), 872-891.
• Elsen, M., R. Pieters and M. Wedel (2016), “Thin Slice Impressions: How
Advertising Evaluation Depends on Exposure Duration,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 53(4), 563-579.
• Goodman, J. K., and Irmak, C (2013), “Having Versus Consuming: Failure to
Estimate Usage Frequency Makes Consumers Prefer Multifeature Products”
Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (1), 44-54.
• Kristofferson, K., K. White, and J. Peloza (2014), “The Nature of Slaktivism: How
the Social Observability of an Initial Act of Token Support Affects Subsequent
Prosocial Action,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (6), 1149-1166.
• Ma, Z., Z. Yang, and M. Mourali (2014), “Consumer Adoption of New Products:
Independent Versus Interdependent Self-Perspectives,” Journal of Marketing, 78
(2), 101-117.
• Palmeira, M. M., and J. Srivastava (2013), “Free Offer ≠ Cheap Product: A Selective
Accessibility Account on the Valuation of Free Offers,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 40(4), 644-656.
• Shampanier, K., N. Mazar, and D. Ariely (2007), “Zero as a Special Price: The True
Value of Free Products,” Marketing Science, 26 (6), 742-757.
• Verhellen, Y., J. Eelen, N. Dens, and P. De Pelsmacker (2016), “The Short- and
Long- term Impact of Brand Placement in an Advertiser-Funded TV Program on
Viewers’ Attitudes Towards the Sponsor brand and Its Main Competitor,”
International Journal of Advertising, 35 (6), 932-948.
• Watson, G., J. Beck, C. Henderson and R. W. Palmatier (2015), “Building,
Measuring, and Profiting from Customer Loyalty,” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 43 (6), 790-825.
• Whillans, A. V., E. W. Dunn, P. Smeets, R. Bekkers, M. I. Norton (2017), “Buying
Time Promotes Happiness,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 114
(32), 8523-8527.
, Elsen, M., Pieters, R., & Wedel, M. (2016). Thin slice impressions: how advertising
evaluation depends on exposure duration
Abstract:
This research demonstrates the importance of thin slices of information in ad and brand
evaluation, with important implications for advertising research and management.
Advertising evaluation critically depends on the duration of ad exposure and on how ads
convey which product and brand they promote, but in surprising ways.
- Upfront ads (instantly convey what they promote) are evaluated positively after
brief, but also after longer exposure durations
- Mystery ads (suspend conveying what they promote) are evaluated negatively
after brief, but positively after longer exposure durations.
- False front ads (initially convey another identity than what they promote) are
evaluated positively after brief exposures but negatively after longer exposure
durations
Introduction:
People see a lot of brands during the day, which they categorize in their environment.
Knowing an ad’s identity is functional for consumers because it helps them determine
whether the ad is personally relevant, and thus whether it requires more attention to its
message. This fast process and ad identification are still largely unknown. This study is
the first one categorizing in three categories; upfront, mystery, false front.
Identification and evaluation:
- Upfront ads
o Typical for the category that they advertise
o Immediately convey their identity, since they are similar to other ads in
the same category and dissimilar from ads in other categories
- Mystery ads:
o Atypical for the category that they advertise
o They are dissimilar from other ads in the same category, but also
dissimilar from ads in the other categories. They contain indirect or
delayed signals of their true identity, which prevents consumers from
immediately matching the ad with preexisting ad schemas or memory
templates.
- False front ads:
o Atypical for the category that they advertise. However, they are atypical in
that they are similar to ads in a different category than their own. They
hide behind the ‘front’ of another category. False front ads require
consumers to make a ‘’schema witch’’.
Ad identification:
Whereas details about the ad message may dominate information processing after a
long exposure, ad identification is paramount when consumers rely on thin slices of
information after a brief exposure. We predict that subjective knowledge about the
identity of upfront ads is high and calibrated, after both brief and longer exposures.
, This is different for mystery ads and false front ads. After brief exposures, the feeling
and accuracy of knowing the true identity of mystery ads is low. Longer exposure
durations help improve the feeling and accuracy of knowing the identity of mystery ads
and these eventually coverage to the same high levels as for upfront ads. After long
exposures, the initial identity is revealed to be false when the ads convey their true
identity, and subjective knowledge become calibrated.
Ad evaluation:
After a brief exposure, upfront and false front ads should be evaluated more positively
than mystery ads, and after a long exposure, upfront and mystery ads should be
evaluated more positively than false front ads.
- We predict that the evaluation of upfront ads remains mostly at the initial high
level, although we do not rule out that it might eventually fall after very long
exposure.
- We predict that the evaluation of mystery ads improves after long exposures,
eventually reaching and perhaps exceeding the evaluation of upfront ads.
- We predict that the evaluation of false front ads deteriorates from its initially
high level after longer exposure durations
Discussion:
- Upfront ads immediately convey what they promote. Upfront ads retained their
positive evaluation after longer exposures of up to 30 sec, which improved even
further under conditions of long self-controlled exposure durations.
- Mystery ads require longer exposure durations to convey what they promote.
These ads were evaluated least positively after 100-msec exposures, but their
evaluation improved after longer exposures
- False front ads which initially convey a different identity than their true one,
were evaluated more positively than mystery ads after a brief exposure of 100
mscec, but their evaluation systematically deteriorated after longer exposures.
After 2 sec, these ads were already evaluated the least positively.
Samenvatting artikelen
Master marketing
Period 1
Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam
,• Barasch, A., G. Zauberman, and K. Diehl (2018), “How the Intention to Share Can
Undermine Enjoyment: Photo-Taking Goals and Evaluation of Experiences,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 44(6), 1220–37.
• Castañ o, R., M. Sujan, M. Kacker, and H. Sujan (2008), "Managing Consumer
Uncertainty in the Adoption of New Products: Temporal Distance and Mental
Simulation," Journal of Marketing Research, 45 (3), 320-336.
• Diehl, K. and C. Poynor (2010), "Great expectations?! Assortment size,
expectations, and satisfaction," Journal of Marketing Research, 47 (2), 312-322.
• Eelen, J., P. Ozturan and P. W. J. Verlegh (2017), “The Differential Impact of Brand
loyalty on Traditional and Online Word of Mouth: The Moderating Roles of Self-
Brand Connection and the Desire to Help the Brand,” International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 34(4), 872-891.
• Elsen, M., R. Pieters and M. Wedel (2016), “Thin Slice Impressions: How
Advertising Evaluation Depends on Exposure Duration,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 53(4), 563-579.
• Goodman, J. K., and Irmak, C (2013), “Having Versus Consuming: Failure to
Estimate Usage Frequency Makes Consumers Prefer Multifeature Products”
Journal of Marketing Research, 50 (1), 44-54.
• Kristofferson, K., K. White, and J. Peloza (2014), “The Nature of Slaktivism: How
the Social Observability of an Initial Act of Token Support Affects Subsequent
Prosocial Action,” Journal of Consumer Research, 40 (6), 1149-1166.
• Ma, Z., Z. Yang, and M. Mourali (2014), “Consumer Adoption of New Products:
Independent Versus Interdependent Self-Perspectives,” Journal of Marketing, 78
(2), 101-117.
• Palmeira, M. M., and J. Srivastava (2013), “Free Offer ≠ Cheap Product: A Selective
Accessibility Account on the Valuation of Free Offers,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 40(4), 644-656.
• Shampanier, K., N. Mazar, and D. Ariely (2007), “Zero as a Special Price: The True
Value of Free Products,” Marketing Science, 26 (6), 742-757.
• Verhellen, Y., J. Eelen, N. Dens, and P. De Pelsmacker (2016), “The Short- and
Long- term Impact of Brand Placement in an Advertiser-Funded TV Program on
Viewers’ Attitudes Towards the Sponsor brand and Its Main Competitor,”
International Journal of Advertising, 35 (6), 932-948.
• Watson, G., J. Beck, C. Henderson and R. W. Palmatier (2015), “Building,
Measuring, and Profiting from Customer Loyalty,” Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 43 (6), 790-825.
• Whillans, A. V., E. W. Dunn, P. Smeets, R. Bekkers, M. I. Norton (2017), “Buying
Time Promotes Happiness,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 114
(32), 8523-8527.
, Elsen, M., Pieters, R., & Wedel, M. (2016). Thin slice impressions: how advertising
evaluation depends on exposure duration
Abstract:
This research demonstrates the importance of thin slices of information in ad and brand
evaluation, with important implications for advertising research and management.
Advertising evaluation critically depends on the duration of ad exposure and on how ads
convey which product and brand they promote, but in surprising ways.
- Upfront ads (instantly convey what they promote) are evaluated positively after
brief, but also after longer exposure durations
- Mystery ads (suspend conveying what they promote) are evaluated negatively
after brief, but positively after longer exposure durations.
- False front ads (initially convey another identity than what they promote) are
evaluated positively after brief exposures but negatively after longer exposure
durations
Introduction:
People see a lot of brands during the day, which they categorize in their environment.
Knowing an ad’s identity is functional for consumers because it helps them determine
whether the ad is personally relevant, and thus whether it requires more attention to its
message. This fast process and ad identification are still largely unknown. This study is
the first one categorizing in three categories; upfront, mystery, false front.
Identification and evaluation:
- Upfront ads
o Typical for the category that they advertise
o Immediately convey their identity, since they are similar to other ads in
the same category and dissimilar from ads in other categories
- Mystery ads:
o Atypical for the category that they advertise
o They are dissimilar from other ads in the same category, but also
dissimilar from ads in the other categories. They contain indirect or
delayed signals of their true identity, which prevents consumers from
immediately matching the ad with preexisting ad schemas or memory
templates.
- False front ads:
o Atypical for the category that they advertise. However, they are atypical in
that they are similar to ads in a different category than their own. They
hide behind the ‘front’ of another category. False front ads require
consumers to make a ‘’schema witch’’.
Ad identification:
Whereas details about the ad message may dominate information processing after a
long exposure, ad identification is paramount when consumers rely on thin slices of
information after a brief exposure. We predict that subjective knowledge about the
identity of upfront ads is high and calibrated, after both brief and longer exposures.
, This is different for mystery ads and false front ads. After brief exposures, the feeling
and accuracy of knowing the true identity of mystery ads is low. Longer exposure
durations help improve the feeling and accuracy of knowing the identity of mystery ads
and these eventually coverage to the same high levels as for upfront ads. After long
exposures, the initial identity is revealed to be false when the ads convey their true
identity, and subjective knowledge become calibrated.
Ad evaluation:
After a brief exposure, upfront and false front ads should be evaluated more positively
than mystery ads, and after a long exposure, upfront and mystery ads should be
evaluated more positively than false front ads.
- We predict that the evaluation of upfront ads remains mostly at the initial high
level, although we do not rule out that it might eventually fall after very long
exposure.
- We predict that the evaluation of mystery ads improves after long exposures,
eventually reaching and perhaps exceeding the evaluation of upfront ads.
- We predict that the evaluation of false front ads deteriorates from its initially
high level after longer exposure durations
Discussion:
- Upfront ads immediately convey what they promote. Upfront ads retained their
positive evaluation after longer exposures of up to 30 sec, which improved even
further under conditions of long self-controlled exposure durations.
- Mystery ads require longer exposure durations to convey what they promote.
These ads were evaluated least positively after 100-msec exposures, but their
evaluation improved after longer exposures
- False front ads which initially convey a different identity than their true one,
were evaluated more positively than mystery ads after a brief exposure of 100
mscec, but their evaluation systematically deteriorated after longer exposures.
After 2 sec, these ads were already evaluated the least positively.
