Summary Marketing Communication and the Consumer MSc
Communicatiewetenschap
Content
Bart, Y., Stephen, A.T., & Sarvary, M. (2014). Which products are best suited to mobile
advertising? A field study of mobile display advertising effects on consumer attitudes and
intentions. Journal of Marketing Research, 51, 270-285. doi: 10.1509/jmr.13.0503.
Belch, G.E., & Belch, M.A. (2015, Chapter 1). An introduction to integrated marketing
communications. In G.E. Belch, & M.A. Belch (Eds.), Advertising and promotion: An
integrated marketing communications perspective, 10, 3-39. New York: McGraw-Hill
Education.
Belch, G.E., & Belch, M.A. (2015, Chapter 10). Media planning and strategy. In G.E.
Belch, & M.A. Belch (Eds.), Advertising and promotion: An integrated marketing
communications perspective, 10, 337-371. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
De Pelsmacker, P., Geuens, M., & Van Den Bergh, J. (2013, Chapter 3). How marketing
communications work. In P. De Pelsmacker, M. Geuens, & J. Van Den Bergh (Eds.),
Marketing communications: A European perspective, 5, 72-119. Harlow: Pearson.
De Veirman, M., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2017). Marketing through Instagram
influencers: the impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand attitude.
International Journal of Advertising, 36(5), 798-828. doi: 10.1080/02650487.2017.1348035
Eisingerich, A.B., Chun, H.H., Liu, Y., Jia, H., & Bell, S.J. (2015). Why recommend a brand
face-to-face but not on Facebook? How word-of-mouth on online social sites differs from
traditional word-of-mouth. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25, 1, 120-128. doi:
10.1016/j.jcps.2014.05.004
Friese, M., Wänke, M., & Plessner, H. (2006). Implicit consumer preferences and their
influence on product choice. Psychology & Marketing, 23, 727-740. doi:
10.1002/mar.20126
Gibson, B. (2008). Can evaluative conditioning change attitudes toward mature brands?
New evidence from the implicit association test. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 178-
188. doi: 10.1086/527341
Jensen, J.A., Walsh, P., Cobbs, J., & Turner, B.A. (2015). The effects of second screen use
on sponsor brand awareness: A dual coding theory perspective. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 32, 71-84. doi: 10.1108/JCM-02-2014-0861
Jin, S. A., & Phua, J. J. (2014). Following celebrities’ tweets about brands: The impact of
twitter-based electronic word-of-mouth on consumers’ source credibility perception, buying
intention, and social identification with celebrities. Journal of Advertising, 43(2), 181-195.
1
,MacDonald, E.K., & Sharp, B. (2000). Brand awareness effects on consumer decision
making for a common, repeat purchase product: A replication. Journal of Business
Research, 48, 5-15. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(98)00070-8
McCoy, S., Everard, A., Galletta, D. F., & Moody, G. D. (2017). Here we go again! The
impact of website ad repetition on recall, intrusiveness, attitudes, and site revisit
intentions. Information & Management, 54(1), 14-24. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2016.03.005
Nordhielm, C. L. (2002). The Influence of level of processing on advertising repetition
Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 371-382. doi: 10.1086/344428
Romaniuk, J., Sharp, B., & Ehrenberg, A. (2007). Evidence concerning the importance of
perceived brand differentiation. Australasian Marketing Journal, 15, 42-54. doi:
10.1016/S1441-3582(07)70042-3
Tang, T., Newton, G.D., & Wang, X. (2007). Does synergy work? An examination of cross-
promotion effects. The International Journal on Media Management, 9, 127-134.
Thorbjørnsen, H., Ketelaar, P., Van ‘t Riet, J., & Dahlén, M. (2015). How do teaser
advertisements boost word of mouth about new products? For consumers, the future is more
exciting than the present. Journal of Advertising Research, 55, 73-80. doi:
10.2501/JAR-55-1-073-080
Trembath, R., Romaniuk, J., & Lockshin, L. (2011). Building the destination brand: An
empirical comparison of two approaches. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 28, 804-
816. doi: 10.1080/10548408.2011.623038
Van Noort, G., Kerkhof, P., & Fennis, B.M. (2008). The persuasiveness of online safety
cues: The impact of prevention focus compatibility of web content on consumers’ risk
perceptions, attitudes, and intentions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22, 58-72. doi:
10.1002/dir.20121
Van Noort, G., Voorveld, H.A.M., & Van Reijmersdal, E.A. (2012). Interactivity in brand
web sites: Cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses explained by consumers’ online
flow experience. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26, 223-234. doi:
10.1016/j.intmar.2011.11.002
Van Reijmersdal, E., Neijens, P., & Smit, E.G. (2009). A new branch of advertising:
Reviewing factors that influence reactions to product placement. Journal of Advertising
Research, 49, 429-449. doi: 10.2501/S0021849909091065
Varan, D., Murphy, J., Hofacker, C.F., Robinson, J.A., Potter, R.F., & Bellman, S. (2013).
What works best when combining television sets, pcs, tablets, or mobile phones? How
synergies across devices result from cross-device effects and cross-format synergies. Journal
of Advertising Research, 53, 212-220.
2
,De Pelsmacker, Geuens & Van den Bergh (2013): How marketing
communications work (H3)
Introduction
Factors that have an impact on a consumer’s response to a communications message:
- Consumer goals
- Characteristics of product type
- Situation consumer is in
- Involvement in the product category
- Social, psychological, or cultural factors
Hierarchy-of-effects models
Hierarchy-of-effects models:
- Assumes that things have to happen in a certain order
- Earlier effects form necessary conditions in order for the later effects to occur
- Three different stages consumers go through when responding to marcom:
1. Cognitive (thinking):
Consumers engage in mental processes = lead to awareness and
knowledge of the brand communicated
Consumers become aware and gather information continuously and
effortlessly
2. Affective (feeling):
Emotional or feeling responses occur = associated with the advertised
brand and attitudes towards the brand are formed
Only formed when the need for an evaluation arises
3. Conative (doing):
Undertaking actions with respect to the advertised brand
Low-involvement hierarchy-of-effects model:
- Consumers might buy the product and decide afterwards how they feel about it
- Cognitive conative affective
Experiential hierarchy-of-effects model:
- Consumers’ affective responses towards a product lead them to buy it
- Affective conative cognitive
Foot-Cone-Belding (FCB) grid:
- Four different situations are distinguished (based on two dimensions):
o High-low involvement:
Involvement = the importance people attach to a product or a buying
decision, extent to which one must think it over, level of perceived risk
with an inadequate brand choice
o Think-feel dimension:
Continuum reflecting the extent to which a decision is made on a
cognitive or an affective basis
- Model:
3
, Rossiter-Percy grid:
- Alternative to FCB grid
- Classifies products and buying decisions in four categories:
o High-low involvement
o Transformational buying motives:
Positive motivations = sensory gratification, social approval,
intellectual stimulation
Block 2 and 4 from the above model
o Informational buying motives:
Reducing or reversing negative motivations = solving/avoiding a
problem, normal depletion
Block 1 and 3 from the above model
Advantage of hierarchy-of-effects models:
- Incorporate most important contribution = recognition of the importance of brand
awareness
- They consider brand awareness as prerequisite for brand attitude formation
- They correctly assume that affective responses cannot be formed or that a purchase
cannot take place without having an awareness of the brand
Top-of-mind awareness (TOMA):
- Indicates which brand is most salient within a product category
- Reflects the first brand that comes to mind when thinking of a particular product
category
- Top of mind brands = more likely to be purchased
- De meeste bedrijven proberen TOMA te bereiken
Shortcomings of hierarchy-of-effects models:
- Empirical support for the fact that consumers go through each stage is still lacking
o No significant relations have been studies between recall and attitudes
- Hierarchy models do not allow interactions between different stages = is very unlikely
Attitude formation and change
Attitude:
- A person’s overall evaluation of an object, product, person, organization, ad, etc.
- Attitude towards a particular brand (ab):
4
Communicatiewetenschap
Content
Bart, Y., Stephen, A.T., & Sarvary, M. (2014). Which products are best suited to mobile
advertising? A field study of mobile display advertising effects on consumer attitudes and
intentions. Journal of Marketing Research, 51, 270-285. doi: 10.1509/jmr.13.0503.
Belch, G.E., & Belch, M.A. (2015, Chapter 1). An introduction to integrated marketing
communications. In G.E. Belch, & M.A. Belch (Eds.), Advertising and promotion: An
integrated marketing communications perspective, 10, 3-39. New York: McGraw-Hill
Education.
Belch, G.E., & Belch, M.A. (2015, Chapter 10). Media planning and strategy. In G.E.
Belch, & M.A. Belch (Eds.), Advertising and promotion: An integrated marketing
communications perspective, 10, 337-371. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
De Pelsmacker, P., Geuens, M., & Van Den Bergh, J. (2013, Chapter 3). How marketing
communications work. In P. De Pelsmacker, M. Geuens, & J. Van Den Bergh (Eds.),
Marketing communications: A European perspective, 5, 72-119. Harlow: Pearson.
De Veirman, M., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2017). Marketing through Instagram
influencers: the impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand attitude.
International Journal of Advertising, 36(5), 798-828. doi: 10.1080/02650487.2017.1348035
Eisingerich, A.B., Chun, H.H., Liu, Y., Jia, H., & Bell, S.J. (2015). Why recommend a brand
face-to-face but not on Facebook? How word-of-mouth on online social sites differs from
traditional word-of-mouth. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25, 1, 120-128. doi:
10.1016/j.jcps.2014.05.004
Friese, M., Wänke, M., & Plessner, H. (2006). Implicit consumer preferences and their
influence on product choice. Psychology & Marketing, 23, 727-740. doi:
10.1002/mar.20126
Gibson, B. (2008). Can evaluative conditioning change attitudes toward mature brands?
New evidence from the implicit association test. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 178-
188. doi: 10.1086/527341
Jensen, J.A., Walsh, P., Cobbs, J., & Turner, B.A. (2015). The effects of second screen use
on sponsor brand awareness: A dual coding theory perspective. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 32, 71-84. doi: 10.1108/JCM-02-2014-0861
Jin, S. A., & Phua, J. J. (2014). Following celebrities’ tweets about brands: The impact of
twitter-based electronic word-of-mouth on consumers’ source credibility perception, buying
intention, and social identification with celebrities. Journal of Advertising, 43(2), 181-195.
1
,MacDonald, E.K., & Sharp, B. (2000). Brand awareness effects on consumer decision
making for a common, repeat purchase product: A replication. Journal of Business
Research, 48, 5-15. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(98)00070-8
McCoy, S., Everard, A., Galletta, D. F., & Moody, G. D. (2017). Here we go again! The
impact of website ad repetition on recall, intrusiveness, attitudes, and site revisit
intentions. Information & Management, 54(1), 14-24. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2016.03.005
Nordhielm, C. L. (2002). The Influence of level of processing on advertising repetition
Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 371-382. doi: 10.1086/344428
Romaniuk, J., Sharp, B., & Ehrenberg, A. (2007). Evidence concerning the importance of
perceived brand differentiation. Australasian Marketing Journal, 15, 42-54. doi:
10.1016/S1441-3582(07)70042-3
Tang, T., Newton, G.D., & Wang, X. (2007). Does synergy work? An examination of cross-
promotion effects. The International Journal on Media Management, 9, 127-134.
Thorbjørnsen, H., Ketelaar, P., Van ‘t Riet, J., & Dahlén, M. (2015). How do teaser
advertisements boost word of mouth about new products? For consumers, the future is more
exciting than the present. Journal of Advertising Research, 55, 73-80. doi:
10.2501/JAR-55-1-073-080
Trembath, R., Romaniuk, J., & Lockshin, L. (2011). Building the destination brand: An
empirical comparison of two approaches. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 28, 804-
816. doi: 10.1080/10548408.2011.623038
Van Noort, G., Kerkhof, P., & Fennis, B.M. (2008). The persuasiveness of online safety
cues: The impact of prevention focus compatibility of web content on consumers’ risk
perceptions, attitudes, and intentions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22, 58-72. doi:
10.1002/dir.20121
Van Noort, G., Voorveld, H.A.M., & Van Reijmersdal, E.A. (2012). Interactivity in brand
web sites: Cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses explained by consumers’ online
flow experience. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26, 223-234. doi:
10.1016/j.intmar.2011.11.002
Van Reijmersdal, E., Neijens, P., & Smit, E.G. (2009). A new branch of advertising:
Reviewing factors that influence reactions to product placement. Journal of Advertising
Research, 49, 429-449. doi: 10.2501/S0021849909091065
Varan, D., Murphy, J., Hofacker, C.F., Robinson, J.A., Potter, R.F., & Bellman, S. (2013).
What works best when combining television sets, pcs, tablets, or mobile phones? How
synergies across devices result from cross-device effects and cross-format synergies. Journal
of Advertising Research, 53, 212-220.
2
,De Pelsmacker, Geuens & Van den Bergh (2013): How marketing
communications work (H3)
Introduction
Factors that have an impact on a consumer’s response to a communications message:
- Consumer goals
- Characteristics of product type
- Situation consumer is in
- Involvement in the product category
- Social, psychological, or cultural factors
Hierarchy-of-effects models
Hierarchy-of-effects models:
- Assumes that things have to happen in a certain order
- Earlier effects form necessary conditions in order for the later effects to occur
- Three different stages consumers go through when responding to marcom:
1. Cognitive (thinking):
Consumers engage in mental processes = lead to awareness and
knowledge of the brand communicated
Consumers become aware and gather information continuously and
effortlessly
2. Affective (feeling):
Emotional or feeling responses occur = associated with the advertised
brand and attitudes towards the brand are formed
Only formed when the need for an evaluation arises
3. Conative (doing):
Undertaking actions with respect to the advertised brand
Low-involvement hierarchy-of-effects model:
- Consumers might buy the product and decide afterwards how they feel about it
- Cognitive conative affective
Experiential hierarchy-of-effects model:
- Consumers’ affective responses towards a product lead them to buy it
- Affective conative cognitive
Foot-Cone-Belding (FCB) grid:
- Four different situations are distinguished (based on two dimensions):
o High-low involvement:
Involvement = the importance people attach to a product or a buying
decision, extent to which one must think it over, level of perceived risk
with an inadequate brand choice
o Think-feel dimension:
Continuum reflecting the extent to which a decision is made on a
cognitive or an affective basis
- Model:
3
, Rossiter-Percy grid:
- Alternative to FCB grid
- Classifies products and buying decisions in four categories:
o High-low involvement
o Transformational buying motives:
Positive motivations = sensory gratification, social approval,
intellectual stimulation
Block 2 and 4 from the above model
o Informational buying motives:
Reducing or reversing negative motivations = solving/avoiding a
problem, normal depletion
Block 1 and 3 from the above model
Advantage of hierarchy-of-effects models:
- Incorporate most important contribution = recognition of the importance of brand
awareness
- They consider brand awareness as prerequisite for brand attitude formation
- They correctly assume that affective responses cannot be formed or that a purchase
cannot take place without having an awareness of the brand
Top-of-mind awareness (TOMA):
- Indicates which brand is most salient within a product category
- Reflects the first brand that comes to mind when thinking of a particular product
category
- Top of mind brands = more likely to be purchased
- De meeste bedrijven proberen TOMA te bereiken
Shortcomings of hierarchy-of-effects models:
- Empirical support for the fact that consumers go through each stage is still lacking
o No significant relations have been studies between recall and attitudes
- Hierarchy models do not allow interactions between different stages = is very unlikely
Attitude formation and change
Attitude:
- A person’s overall evaluation of an object, product, person, organization, ad, etc.
- Attitude towards a particular brand (ab):
4
