International Journal of Marketing and Business Communication

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Consumer Perceptions of Brand Mention in Magazines by Level of Involvement


Affiliations
1 Professor Emeritus, Marketing, Bryant University, United States
2 Associate Professor, Marketing, Bryant University, United States
3 Professor, Marketing, Bryant University, United States
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Consumer perceptions of different methods of information delivery in magazines were studied. Three information delivery methods (advertisements, advertorials, editorials) and two types of consumer products (high involvement, low involvement) were used to evaluate reader perceptions of selling intent, source credibility, and purchase intention. Significant differences between high and low involvement products and between editorials, advertorials, and advertisements in perceived selling intent, perceived credibility, and purchase intention were found. Gender and prior knowledge of the product were also significant. Implications for marketers and policy-makers are also discussed.

Keywords

Product Involvement, Brand Mention, Consumer Behavior, Advertisements, Product Placement.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Attaran, S., Notarantonio, E. M., & Quigley, C. J. (2015). Consumer perceptions of credibility and selling intent among advertisements, advertorials, and editorials: A persuasion knowledge model approach. Journal of Promotion Management, 21(6), 703.

  • Avery, R. J., & Ferraro, R. (2000). Verismilitude or advertising? Brand appearances on prime-time television. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 34(2), 217-244.

  • Balasubramanian, S. K. (1994). Beyond advertising and publicity: Hybrid messages and public. Journal of Advertising, 23(4).

  • Cameron, G. T. (1994). Does publicity outperform advertising? An experimental test of the third-party endorsement. Journal of Public Relations Research, 6(3), 185-207.

  • Cameron, G. T., & Curtin, P. A. (1995). Tracing sources of information pollution: A survey and experimental test of print media’s labeling policy for feature advertising. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(1), 178.

  • Chaiken, S., & Durairaj, M. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 460.

  • Dix, S., & Phau, I. (2009). Spotting the disguises and masquerades: Revisiting the boundary between editorial and advertising. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 27(3), 413-427.

  • Eisend, M. (2006). Two-sided advertising: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(2), 187-198.

  • Eisend, M., & Küster, F. (2011). The effectiveness of publicity versus advertising: A meta-analytic investigation of its moderators. Academy of Marketing Science Journal, 39(6), 906-921.

  • Elliott, M. T., & Speck, P. S. (1998). Consumer perceptions of advertising clutter and its impact across various Media. Journal of Advertising Research, 38(1), 29-41. ProQuest. Web. 4 Mar. 2017.

  • Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 21(1), 1-31.

  • Goodlad, N., Eadie, D. R., Kinnin, H., & Marti, R. (1997). Advertorial: Creative solution or last resort? International Journal of Advertising, 16(2), 73-84.

  • Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1995). Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

  • Jasper, C. R., & Ouellette, S. J. (1994). Consumers’ perception of risk and the purchase of apparel from catalogs. Journal of Direct Marketing, 8(2), 23.

  • Kamins, M. A., & Assael, H. (1987, February). Two-sided versus one-sided appeals: a cognitive perspective on argumentation, source derogation, and the effect of disconfirming trial on belief change. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 29-39.

  • Kaufman, L. (1984). How effective are advertorials? Marketing & Media Decisions, 19(3), 70.

  • Kim, B.-H., Pasadeos, Y., & Barban, A. (2001). On the deceptive effectiveness of labeled and unlabeled advertorial formats. Mass Communication & Society, 4(3), 265-281.

  • Kim, M., & Lennon, S. J. (2000). Television shopping for apparel in the United States: Effects of perceived amount of information on perceived risks and purchase intention. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 28(3), 301-330.

  • Nan, X. (2013). Perceived source credibility and advertising persuasiveness: An investigation of moderators and psychological processes. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 34(2), 195.

  • Newell, S. J., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2001). The development of a scale to measure perceived corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 52(3), 235-247.

  • Ngamvichaikit, A., & Beise-Zee, R. (2014. Customer preference for decision authority in credence services.

  • Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, 24(3), 274-299

  • Notarantonio, E., & Quigley, C. (2009). The Effectiveness of a buzz marketing approach compared to traditional advertising: An exploration. Journal of Promotion Management, 15, 455-464.

  • Lawlor, M.-A., & Prothero, A. (2008). Exploring children’s understanding of television advertising - Beyond the advertiser’s perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 42(11), 1203-1223.

  • Lee, M., & Faber, R. J. (2007). Effects of product placement in on-line games on brand memory. Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 75-90.

  • Lord, K. R., & Putrevu, S. (1993). Advertising and publicity: An information processing perspective. Journal of Economic Psychology, 14(1), 57.

  • Lord, K. R., & Putrevu, S. (1998). Communicating in print: A comparison of consumer responses to different promotional formats. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 20(2), 1-18.

  • McGinnies, E., & Ward, C. D. (1980). Better liked than right: Trustworthiness and expertise as factors in credibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6(3), 467-472.

  • Moore, J. J., & Rodgers, S. L. (2005). An examination of advertising credibility and skepticism in five different media using the persuasion knowledge model. American Academy of Advertising.

  • Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 159-186.

  • Ohanian, R. (1991). The impact of celebrity spokespersons’ perceived image on consumers’ intention to purchase. Journal of Advertising Research, 31(1), 46-54.

  • Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and Persuasion-Classic and Contemporary Approaches. Dubuque, IA: W.C. Brown Co. Publishers.

  • Rinallo, D., & Basuroy, S. (2009). Does advertising spending influence media coverage of the advertiser? Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 33.

  • Robinson, A., Ozanne, L., & Cohen, D. A. (2002). An Exploratory Examination of Advertorials. ANZMAC 2000: Conference Proceedings, Melbourne, Victoria, 2-4.

  • Rotfield, H. J., & Parsons, P. R. (1989). Self-regulations and magazine advertising. Journal of Advertising, 18(4), 33-40.

  • Shin, D.-H., & Kim, J. K. (2011). Alcohol product placements and the third-person effect. Television & New Media, 12(5), 412-440.

  • Stapel, J. (1994). Observations: A brief observation about likability and interestingness of advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 34(2), 79.

  • Sternthal, B., Dholakia, R., & Leavitt, C. (1978), “The persuasive effect of source credibility: tests of cognitive response. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(4), 252.

  • Till, B. D., & Busler, M. (2000). The match-up hypothesis: Physical attractiveness, expertise, and the role of fit on brand attitude, Purchase Intent and Brand Beliefs. Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 1-13

  • Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2010). Customer magazines: Effects of commerciality on readers’ reactions. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 32(1), 59.

  • Verhellen, Y., Oates, C., Pelsmacker, P. D., & Dens, N. (2014). Children’s responses to traditional versus hybrid advertising formats: The moderating role of persuasion knowledge. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37(2), 235-255.

  • Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341.


Abstract Views: 276

PDF Views: 1




  • Consumer Perceptions of Brand Mention in Magazines by Level of Involvement

Abstract Views: 276  |  PDF Views: 1

Authors

Charles J. Quigley
Professor Emeritus, Marketing, Bryant University, United States
Sharmin Attaran
Associate Professor, Marketing, Bryant University, United States
Elaine M. Notarantonio
Professor, Marketing, Bryant University, United States

Abstract


Consumer perceptions of different methods of information delivery in magazines were studied. Three information delivery methods (advertisements, advertorials, editorials) and two types of consumer products (high involvement, low involvement) were used to evaluate reader perceptions of selling intent, source credibility, and purchase intention. Significant differences between high and low involvement products and between editorials, advertorials, and advertisements in perceived selling intent, perceived credibility, and purchase intention were found. Gender and prior knowledge of the product were also significant. Implications for marketers and policy-makers are also discussed.

Keywords


Product Involvement, Brand Mention, Consumer Behavior, Advertisements, Product Placement.

References