See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233154876

Effects of online advertising format and persuasion knowledge

on audience reactions

Article in Journal of Marketing Communications · February 2012

DOI: 10.1080/13527266.2011.620765

CITATIONS READS

268 8,038

2 authors:

Karolina Tutaj Eva A. van Reijmersdal

University of Amsterdam University of Amsterdam
2 PUBLICATIONS 329 CITATIONS 112 PUBLICATIONS 7,007 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Eva A. van Reijmersdal on 10 February 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ], [Eva van Reijmersdal]
On: 07 February 2012, At: 04:14
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Marketing Communications

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmc20

Effects of online advertising format

and persuasion knowledge on audience
reactions
a a
Karolina Tutaj & Eva A. van Reijmersdal
a
Amsterdam School of Communication Research ASCoR, University
of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Available online: 19 Jan 2012

To cite this article: Karolina Tutaj & Eva A. van Reijmersdal (2012): Effects of online advertising
format and persuasion knowledge on audience reactions, Journal of Marketing Communications,
18:1, 5-18

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2011.620765

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Journal of Marketing Communications
Vol. 18, No. 1, February 2012, 5–18

Effects of online advertising format and persuasion knowledge on

audience reactions
Karolina Tutaj and Eva A. van Reijmersdal*
Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ], [Eva van Reijmersdal] at 04:14 07 February 2012

Amsterdam School of Communication Research ASCoR, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam,

The Netherlands

In an experiment (N ¼ 99), effects of subtle and prominent online advertising formats,

respectively sponsored content and banner ads, on audience reactions toward the
advertisement are tested. In addition, the role of several persuasion knowledge
elements such as understanding of persuasive intent and ad skepticism in processing
online advertising formats is investigated. Results show that participants find the
sponsored content more informative, more amusing, and less irritating than the banner
ad. With respect to persuasion knowledge, recognition of the advertising format,
understanding of persuasive intent, and ad skepticism are higher for banner ads than for
sponsored content. Furthermore, ad skepticism seems to be strongly related to
perceived advertising value. These new findings show that persuasion knowledge plays
a role in the appreciation of subtle and prominent online advertising formats.
Keywords: online advertising format; persuasion knowledge; perceived advertising
value; ad skepticism; Internet advertising

Since the rise of the Internet in the early 1990s, advertisers have found various ways to
promote their products and services through online advertising. According to a recent
study by the Interactive Advertising Bureau Europe (2010), the European Internet
advertising market has grown up to 14.7 billion euros in 2009, with the US market worth a
total of 16.3 billion euros in the same year. Internet advertising accounts for almost 20% of
the total ad expenditure in Europe, with almost a third dedicated to display ads
(e.g. banners), and about two-thirds consisting of paid search (e.g. Google search) and
classified/directory ads (Interactive Advertising Bureau Europe 2010). Online advertising
has been in constant evolution over the past two decades, with dramatic changes in the use
of different online advertising formats. For example, the use of banner ads has declined
from 56% in 1998 to 21% in 2003 (Li and Leckenby 2007); however, this format still
continues to be one of the most prominent types of online advertising (Hyland 2000). Next
to banner ads, other major online advertising formats include pop-ups, interstitials,
floating ads, skyscrapers, sponsorships, hypertext links (Burns and Lutz 2006; Rodgers
and Thorson 2000), rich media (Li and Leckenby 2007), paid keyword search listings,
advergames, and mobile advertising (Faber, Lee, and Nan 2004).
For advertisers, online campaign decisions are complicated by the wide variety of ad
formats and advertisers’ weak knowledge base regarding their effects (Burns and Lutz
2006). Often it is suggested that advertisers should choose the ‘right’ format, but this

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1352-7266 print/ISSN 1466-4445 online

q 2012 Taylor & Francis
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2011.620765
http://www.tandfonline.com
 6 K. Tutaj and E.A. van Reijmersdal

suggestion is useless without good comprehension of format effects. On the one hand,
Internet advertising can bring benefits to both advertisers and Internet users, by reaching
the target group and providing the consumer with quick and accurate information about
products, services, business, and so on (Becker-Olsen 2003). On the other hand, Internet
advertising has also been found to be annoying and intrusive (Cho and Cheon 2004).
Exposure to online ads can therefore lead to negative effects, such as negative attitude
toward the website or brand (Zhang and Kim 2008). How the audience reacts to online
Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ], [Eva van Reijmersdal] at 04:14 07 February 2012

advertising and how online advertising affects the audience are thus of great interest to
researchers, marketers, designers, and even policy makers.
Furthermore, it is relevant to understand how consumers process, understand, and
recognize different online advertising formats – in particular now that the boundaries of
editorial and commercial content are blurring (Van Reijmersdal, Neijens, and Smit 2005).
A growing body of research has been devoted to areas of content that are not traditionally
viewed as advertising, such as sponsorships and brand placement (Faber et al. 2004;
Van Reijmersdal, Neijens, and Smit 2009). These advertising formats often contain hidden
persuasion attempts and are not immediately recognized as advertising by the consumer
(Van Reijmersdal 2009). Following this development, online advertising formats also
differ in their proportion of editorial and commercial content: integrated ad formats, such
as sponsorships, are regarded as subtle forms of online advertising and distinct commercial
ads, such as banners and pop-ups, represent a more prominent format (Becker-Olsen 2003;
Hyland 2000). Sponsored content on the Internet can take many different forms, some of
them more identifiable as advertising, others more disguised. It is particularly important to
study these different online formats, because information on the Internet can be dubious or
difficult to appraise (Flanagin and Metzger 2000). In this study, the effects of subtle versus
prominent online ad formats, respectively sponsored content and banner advertising, on
audience reactions are examined.
In addition, several elements of persuasion knowledge are included in this study. The
theoretical concept of persuasion knowledge encompasses a broad range of competences –
all related to what extent people ‘understand’ advertising in general and more specifically
the persuasive nature of advertising. Different conceptualizations have been used in the
literature and empirical studies, varying from advertising literacy (Livingstone and Helsper
2006), persuasion knowledge (Friestad and Wright 1994), understanding the persuasive or
selling intent (Lawlor and Prothero 2008), recognition of commercial content (Bijmolt,
Claassen, and Brus 1998; Rozendaal, Buijzen, and Valkenburg 2010), advertising
skepticism (Obermiller, Spangenberg, and MacLachlan 2005), and advertising avoidance
(Cho and Cheon 2004). However, so far no consensus has been reached on what exactly
defines persuasion knowledge.
The aim of this study is twofold. First, to examine how subtle and prominent formats of
online advertising affect audience’s reactions toward the ad. Second, by using and
comparing several persuasion knowledge measures, more insight into the general concept
of persuasion knowledge is gained, developing a theoretical understanding of how these
components relate to each other. This exploration is also of interest for persuasion
knowledge measurements in other media. Moreover, what is novel in this study is the
integration of format effects on attitude of the consumer with persuasion knowledge
processes – something that has been lacking profoundly in previous studies about the
effectiveness of online advertising formats (Li and Leckenby 2007) and in persuasion
knowledge studies (Rozendaal et al. 2010). The main research question is as follows: What
are the audience reactions to subtle and prominent advertising formats on the Internet and
what role does persuasion knowledge play in processing these formats?
 Journal of Marketing Communications 7

Literature on online advertising formats

Over the years online advertising has evolved and changed drastically, from simple
advertising formats like electronic mailing lists in the early 1990s (Li and Leckenby 2007),
the well-known banner ads, pop-ups, and interstitials, to sophisticated interactive, 3D
visualizations and advergames (Faber et al. 2004). Since there has been some controversy
about effectiveness of banner advertising, advertisers have been looking for new ways to
promote their products and brands on the Internet (Becker-Olsen 2003). One alternative to
Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ], [Eva van Reijmersdal] at 04:14 07 February 2012

banner advertising is the integration of commercial content into editorial content, which is
widely known as brand or product placement (Van Reijmersdal, Neijens, and Smit 2007),
or also referred to as sponsored content.
Nowadays different formats of Internet advertising are available, varying from subtle
to more prominent advertising formats (Becker-Olsen 2003). Many types of websites, such
as news sites, blogs, and social networking sites, contain sponsored content. As mentioned
earlier, sponsored content integrates a commercial message into editorial content, making
it more subtle, whereas the banner ad is a distinct commercial message with a clearly
identifiable source, making it more prominent. There is some evidence that sponsored
content is more memorable than comparable advertisement placement in print
(e.g. Cameron 1994), ‘making it desirable for advertisers to masquerade their commercial
messages as editorial content’ (Kim, Pasadeos, and Barban 2001, p. 269).
Thus, the nature of the format may influence the responses to online advertising (Burns
and Lutz 2006). Several empirical studies in traditional media, specifically print, have
tested the effects of format on recall, recognition, and appreciation of the advertisements
(Cameron 1994; Cameron and Curtis 1995; Kim et al. 2001; Lord and Putrevu 1998;
Van Reijmersdal et al. 2005). In these studies, ad format has proven to have an influence
on brand-related reactions, with subtle formats showing more positive reactions toward the
ad compared to prominent formats. It seems that readers pay more attention to editorial
content than to advertisements (Cameron 1994), simply because they are less motivated to
read commercial messages (Van Reijmersdal et al. 2005). A similar relationship between
the amount of editorial versus commercial content and audience reactions is examined
here for online ad formats. Audience responses to banner advertisements and sponsored
content found on fictional web communities were examined by Becker-Olsen (2003). This
study revealed that sponsored content is an effective format to enhance positive reactions
toward the advertiser; however, it did not fully examine processing differences across
these advertising formats. So why is editorial content more appreciated than commercial
content? One possible explanation for this effect of format is source credibility (Cameron
1994; Choi and Rifon 2002). Consumers are skeptical toward advertising because of the
biased source and the advertiser’s aim to persuade the consumer. Therefore, the reader is
less motivated to read commercial content compared to editorial content. This could be
particularly relevant for different formats on the Internet, since the source of content found
on websites is more difficult to evaluate compared to traditional media sources (Flanagin
and Metzger 2000).
With regard to audience reactions, attitude toward the ad is a widely used concept for
measuring the effectiveness of all kinds of advertisements, both offline and online
advertising. Smit (1999) argues that attitude toward advertising consists of three beliefs:
information, amusement, and irritation. Ducoffe and Curlo (2000) discuss another
concept, advertising value, which is directly related to attitude toward the ad and
consists of the same three factors: informativeness, entertainment, and irritation.
Advertising value is defined as ‘a representation of the perceived value of advertising to
 8 K. Tutaj and E.A. van Reijmersdal

consumers’ (Ducoffe 1995, p. 1). Results from previous empirical research suggest that
advertorials in print are found to be more amusing, more informative, and less irritating
compared to regular advertisements (Van Reijmersdal et al. 2005). As discussed earlier,
the proportion of editorial content in the ad format and consumer’s information
processing are possible explanations for this effect. Since sponsored content on the
Internet is also integrated into editorial content and banner ads are pure commercial
messages, the following hypothesis is formulated to test the effect of format on attitude
Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ], [Eva van Reijmersdal] at 04:14 07 February 2012

toward the ad:

H1: Sponsored content is perceived as (a) more informative, (b) more amusing, and
(c) less irritating, compared to the banner advertising format.
From previous studies, it is not entirely clear how people process the different formats
of online advertising in terms of recognizing and understanding the different types of ads
(e.g. Burns and Lutz 2006). Therefore, in addition to studying the effects of formats on
audience reactions, persuasion knowledge with regard to online advertisements is
examined.

Literature on persuasion knowledge

As discussed earlier, there is not one particular definition or operationalization of the overall
concept of persuasion knowledge. In addition, most previous studies have focused on
children’s persuasion knowledge. Age and cognitive development of children with regard to
dealing with advertising has been examined multiple times (Bijmolt et al. 1998; Boush,
Friestad, and Rose 1994; Brucks, Armstrong, and Goldberg 1988; Buijzen 2007; Lawlor and
Prothero 2008; Martin 1997; Oates, Blades, and Gunter 2002). However, not much is known
about differences in adults’ persuasion knowledge (Rozendaal et al. 2010).
Up to now, there has been a lack of integration between persuasion knowledge studies
and research on advertising effects. The question is to what extent persuasion knowledge
competences affect audience reactions to advertising. The main assumption is that the
more ‘knowledge’ you have, the less susceptible you will be to the persuasive message
and, thus, the better you are able to resist commercial persuasion attempts. This relation
between advertising competences and their effects is widely taken for granted but has
rarely been tested (Livingstone and Helsper 2006; Rozendaal et al. 2010).
Moreover, a large number of persuasion knowledge studies have focused on traditional
TV advertising (e.g. Bijmolt et al. 1998; Boush et al. 1994; Derbaix and Pecheux 2003;
Lawlor and Prothero 2008; Pine and Veasey 2003; Oates et al. 2002). Even though it is
perhaps still one of the most predominant forms of advertising that we are exposed to
everyday, it is also a very prominent and recognizable form of advertising. With the rise of
the Internet, new advertiser’s practices are rapidly increasing their exposure to Internet
users (Becker-Olsen 2003). These relatively new forms of advertising are challenging the
way that we understand and process advertising. According to Flanagin and Metzger
(2000), it is more difficult for consumers to evaluate the information on the Internet,
compared to traditional media, due to the constant evolving nature of the Internet,
resemblance of multiple media, scarcity of explicit editorial policies, and many types of
information available. Thus, for consumers it is also more difficult to identify the source of
online content and evaluate its credibility. In short, ‘developing Internet [advertising]
literacy can be problematic’ (Flanagin and Metzger 2000, p. 517). Measuring online
persuasion knowledge will bring more insight into consumers’ processing of subtle and
prominent formats of advertising on the Internet.
 Journal of Marketing Communications 9

Measurement of singular persuasion knowledge dimensions has been developed and

tested in multiple studies, for example, scale validation of ad skepticism (Obermiller and
Spangenberg 1998), scale development to assess children’s attitude toward TV advertising
(Derbaix and Pecheux 2003), a reliability short test for children’s attitude toward TV
advertising (Rossiter 1977), and a measurement instrument developed for Internet ad
avoidance (Cho and Cheon 2004). Based on extensive literature review (Tutaj 2009;
Rozendaal 2010), different elements and conceptualizations of persuasion knowledge, as
Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ], [Eva van Reijmersdal] at 04:14 07 February 2012

well as persuasion knowledge measures, are taken together in this study. These include
recognition of advertising (i.e. distinguishing advertising content from editorial content)
(Bijmolt et al. 1998; Rozendaal et al. 2010), understanding of persuasive and selling intent
(Lawlor and Prothero 2008), and ad skepticism (Obermiller and Spangenberg 1998).
One of the aims of this study is to examine how persuasion knowledge plays a role in
the effects of online advertising format on perceived advertising value (PAV). The
question is whether the way that people look at or understand advertising on the Internet
affects their processing of information (i.e. processing of different online advertising
formats). Thus, in what way does persuasion knowledge influence the way people think
about the advertisement? In previous studies, it has been argued that different advertising
formats are processed differently, due to various levels of cognitive elaboration (Becker-
Olsen 2003) or task performance (Zhang and Kim 2008), and also because of the
proportion of editorial versus commercial content and the extent to which readers
appreciate the content (Cameron 1994; Kim et al. 2001; Lord and Putrevu 1998; Van
Reijmersdal et al. 2005; Van Reijmersdal, Neijens and Smit 2010). More explicit
advertising formats, such as banner ad, are expected to activate persuasion knowledge
more easily than subtle formats such as sponsored content, because the persuasive intent
and the source of the first are more obvious (Nebenzahl and Jaffe 1998). To test the
influence of advertising format on the activation of persuasion knowledge the following
hypothesis is formulated:
H2: The banner ad format activates more persuasion knowledge: (a) more
recognition of format, (b) more understanding of persuasive and selling intent,
and (c) more ad skepticism, compared to the sponsored content.
The Persuasion Knowledge Model by Friestad and Wright (1994) is based on the
assumption that consumers use their persuasion knowledge to cope with commercial
persuasion attempts (i.e. advertisements), and thus in their overall appreciation and
attitude formation of the topic (i.e. advertised product or brand). Results from a study by
Obermiller et al. (2005) support the idea that more skeptical consumers like advertising
less. To test the relation between persuasion knowledge and perceived advertising value,
the following hypothesis is formulated:
H3: Perceived advertising value is lower when (a) the online ad format is
recognized, (b) the persuasive and selling intent is understood, and (c) ad
skepticism is higher.
Finally, to explore the relations between the elements that underlie the concept of
persuasion knowledge, the following research question is set out:
RQ1: How do different persuasion knowledge dimensions relate to each other?
In the literature, various additional consumer-related characteristics are found to affect the
way that people react to advertising. Therefore, several additional control variables need to
be considered with regard to online advertising format effectiveness – first, the use of
 10 K. Tutaj and E.A. van Reijmersdal

Internet. Previous web experience can educate the heavier web user, which would make
him or her more resistant to persuasion encounters. One would then expect persuasion
knowledge to be positively correlated with web experience (Mallinckrodt and Mizerski
2007). Another possible influence is the involvement of the consumer. Results from a
previous study indicate that effects of format on several consumer responses such as aided
recall and recognition are at least partially moderated by audience involvement (Lord and
Putrevu 1998). In this experiment these particular relations are not tested, but random
Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ], [Eva van Reijmersdal] at 04:14 07 February 2012

assignment to conditions with regard to different levels of web experience and

involvement is checked for.

Method
Participants
A total of 99 students between 18 and 31 years of age (M ¼ 23.72, SD ¼ 2.54, 54%
female) participated in this research. Data were collected in several university cafeterias.
Students were asked for their participation in return for a light snack.

Procedure
During the experiment, participants were asked to look at a print screen of a well-known
Dutch news website: NU.nl, which stayed on the screen for 40 seconds before subsequent
questions were asked. The webpage in the print screen displayed a fictional news article
situated in the Tech/Gadgets section about tablet computers. In addition, a banner ad was
shown next to the article or sponsored content about the iPad. The iPad is a tablet computer
designed and marketed by Apple. During data collection, the iPad was not officially
released in the Netherlands yet; however, a lot of media attention and Internet coverage
could be found in previous months (e.g. Kuepers 2010; Van Hoek 2010). The choice for a
technological gadget such as the iPad was based on previous pretests conducted among
students (Becker-Olsen 2003), which demonstrated that such products are appealing to
most of them.

Design and stimuli

The design is a randomized between-subjects design with three experimental conditions:
banner advertising, sponsored content, and the control condition, which did not contain
brand advertising. The first condition contained an informational news article about
tablet computers (no brands mentioned) and a banner advertisement of the iPad on
the right side of the screen. The banner included the logo of Apple, a photo of the iPad
and some textual content with technical specifications, and two click-buttons for ‘more
information’ and ‘order now.’ The second condition consisted of an informational
news article with integrated sponsored content. As Becker-Olsen (2003) mentioned,
sponsored content usually includes a tag line of an author’s name (of the news article)
followed by the company icon of the related company. For this experiment, the
sponsored condition included a tag line at the top of the article, just below the headline,
which stated: ‘q NU.nl Tech editorial staff in cooperation with Apple,’ and next to it the
logo of Apple was displayed. A neutral banner was displayed at the same position as the
iPad banner in condition 1. The third condition served as the control condition and
included the same informational news article as in the banner condition and the same
neutral banner as in condition 2. This banner was an original banner taken from the news
 Journal of Marketing Communications 11

Table 1. Experimental design with stimuli material.

Condition Banner Article

Banner advertisement iPad/Apple (including logo of Tablet computers (no brands
Apple and photo of iPad) mentioned, photo of unknown
tablet computer)
Sponsored content Klikjevoordeel.nl (neutral, Tablet computers with multiple
no brands mentioned) references to Apple and iPad
Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ], [Eva van Reijmersdal] at 04:14 07 February 2012

(including logo of Apple and

photo of iPad)
Control condition Klikjevoordeel.nl (neutral, Tablet computers (no brands
no brands mentioned) mentioned, photo of unknown
tablet computer)
Note: The blocks marked in gray are the two distinct advertising formats: banner ad and sponsored content.

website where no explicit brand is mentioned; the banner refers only to a promotional
website (Klikjevoordeel.nl) where you can get discount for computers, TVs, holidays,
and cars. Both banners (banner in condition 1 and banner in conditions 2 and 3)
contained similar colors and a comparable amount of text, photos, and click-buttons.
Also both types of banners and both articles did have a thematic match
(technology/computers). The sponsored content item and the banner were as similar
as possible with regard to graphics and colors. An overview of the stimuli used in the
different experimental conditions can be found in Table 1.

Measures
Perceived advertising value. Following previous research (Smit 1999; Ducoffe and Curlo
2000), perceived advertising value of the format was measured with seven items covering
three beliefs on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
‘Information value’ was measured with three statements: The ad ‘gives me useful
information about special offers,’ ‘gives me new ideas about products,’ and ‘gives me
useful information about specific products’ (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ 0.74, M ¼ 3.24,
SD ¼ 1.37). Scale items were averaged to create a single measure of the information
dimension of perceived ad value. ‘Amusement value’ was measured with two statements:
‘I think the ad is funny’ and ‘I think the ad is amusing’ (r ¼ 0.59, p , 0.001). Scale items
were averaged to create a single measure of the amusement dimension of perceived ad
value (M ¼ 2.48, SD ¼ 1.32). ‘Irritation value’ was measured with two statements:
‘I think the ad is irritating’ and ‘The ad seems implausible’ (r ¼ 0.45, p , 0.001).
Average scores were taken together to form a measure of the irritation dimension of
perceived ad value (M ¼ 3.86, SD ¼ 1.51).
Advertising recognition. Recognition of the ad (i.e. distinction between the ad and
other elements of the webpage) was measured by asking the participant right after seeing
the webpage whether they had encountered any form of advertising. Open answers
were coded differently per condition as the ad format differed. In both the banner and
the control condition, recognition was coded 1 (mentioned banner or advertisement) and
0 (not mentioned banner). In the sponsored content condition, recognition was coded
1 (mentioned sponsored content) and 0 (not mentioned sponsored content) with overall
M ¼ 0.71, SD ¼ 0.46.
 12 K. Tutaj and E.A. van Reijmersdal

Understanding of persuasive and selling intent. The understanding of the

advertisement’s intent was measured with six items (Rozendaal et al. 2010). Two items
referring to selling intent: (1) ‘The aim of this banner/text is to sell products/services’ and
(2) ‘The aim of this banner/text is to stimulate the sales of products/services’; two items
referring to persuasive intent: (3) ‘The aim of this banner/text is to influence your opinion’
and (4) ‘The aim of this banner/text is to make people like certain products/services’; and
two filler items referring to the informational intent of the advertising format: (5) ‘The aim
Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ], [Eva van Reijmersdal] at 04:14 07 February 2012

of this banner/text is to give information about products/services’ and (6) ‘The aim of this
banner/text is to let people know more about the products/services.’ All six items were
measured on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Factor
analysis showed that the four items referring to persuasive and selling intent loaded on one
factor (EV ¼ 2.89, R 2 ¼ 0.48) and the two filler items loaded on a second factor
(EV ¼ 1.52, R 2 ¼ 0.25). After reliability analysis, mean scores for persuasive and selling
intent items were taken to create a single measure of ‘Understanding persuasive and
selling intent’ (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ 0.84, M ¼ 5.16, SD ¼ 1.33).
Advertising skepticism. Skepticism toward advertising was measured with an
adapted scale originally developed by Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998), which
includes nine items with regard to truthful, believable, and informative content of the ad
seen during the experiment; for example: ‘We can depend on getting the truth from this
banner/text,’ ‘This banner/text is a reliable source of information about the quality and
performance of the product,’ and ‘I feel I have been accurately informed after viewing
this banner/text,’ on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
To make correct interpretation of the skepticism scores easier the scale was reversed for
all nine items, so that a higher score in skepticism indeed means being more skeptical.
Factor analysis showed that all nine items loaded on one factor (EV ¼ 5.96,
R 2 ¼ 0.66). Subsequently, mean scores were calculated (Cronbach’s alpha ¼ 0.94,
M ¼ 4.64, SD ¼ 1.30).
Control variables. Web experience was measured with three different open
questions: ‘How many days per week on average do you use the Internet?’, ‘How many
hours per day on a week day (Monday – Friday) do you use the Internet?’, and ‘How
many hours per day on a weekend day (Saturday and Sunday) do you use the Internet?’
An average number of hours per week was calculated to represent the participant’s web
experience (M ¼ 23.65, SD ¼ 12.81). Brand use and product possession were measured
for Apple (M ¼ 0.51, SD ¼ 0.50), iPad (M ¼ 0.01, SD ¼ 0.10), iPhone (M ¼ 0.16,
SD ¼ 0.37), and tablet computers in general (M ¼ 0.05, SD ¼ 0.22) with response
categories 1 (yes) and 0 (no). Familiarity with the website NU.nl (M ¼ 0.96,
SD ¼ 0.20) on a scale ranging from 1 ( familiar) to 0 (not familiar) and frequency of
website use (M ¼ 3.63, SD ¼ 1.39) with response categories 1 (never), 2 ( few times a
year), 3 ( few times a month), 4 ( few times a week), and 5 (daily) were also assessed. In
addition, to measure attention, participants were asked how attentive they had looked at
the webpage, on a scale ranging from 1 (not attentive) to 7 (very attentive) and how
extensively they had examined the webpage, on a scale ranging from 1 (not extensively)
to 7 (very extensively). Correlation between these two items was significant, r ¼ 0.69,
p , 0.001, and therefore item scores were averaged to create a single measure of
‘Attention’ (M ¼ 4.42, SD ¼ 1.60). Involvement with the webpage was assessed with
three items: ‘I got into it,’ ‘I got carried away,’ and ‘I forgot everything around me’
(Cronbach’s alpha ¼ 0.86, M ¼ 3.13, SD ¼ 1.32), on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Basic demographics included age, gender, and level of
education.
 Journal of Marketing Communications 13

Results
Confound check
To see whether the random assignment to the different groups was successful, ANOVA
analyses for each control variable as dependent variable and the three conditions as
between-subjects factor was conducted. Results showed that the conditions did not differ
significantly with respect to demographic characteristics: age, F(2, 98) ¼ 0.355,
p ¼ 0.70, gender, F(2, 98) ¼ 0.04, p ¼ 0.96, and education, F(2, 98) ¼ 0.31,
Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ], [Eva van Reijmersdal] at 04:14 07 February 2012

p ¼ 0.74, nor with respect to other control variables including web experience, F(2,
98) ¼ 0.66, p ¼ 0.52, brand use Apple, F(2, 98) ¼ 2.76, p ¼ 0.76, product use iPad,
F(2, 98) ¼ 1.00, p ¼ 0.37, product use iPhone, F(2, 98) ¼ 1.19, p ¼ 0.31, attention, F(2,
98) ¼ 0.71, p ¼ 0.49, involvement, F(2, 98) ¼ 0.14, p ¼ 0.87, familiarity with the
website, F(2, 98) ¼ 0.25, p ¼ 0.78, and frequency of website use, F(2, 98) ¼ 0.50,
p ¼ 0.61. This means that any differences between the groups cannot be attributed to
differences in these variables but are likely to be the result of the manipulation.

Effects of format
Perceived advertising value. To examine the effects of format on the perceived advertising
value, a MANOVA was performed, including each of the three beliefs that together
constitute the overall perceived advertising value of the format (i.e. either value of the
banner ad in condition 1 or value of the sponsored item in condition 2). Results show an
overall effect of format on perceived advertising value, F(3, 62) ¼ 7.29, p , 0.001, and
three main effects for information (F(1, 65) ¼ 9.78, p , 0.01.), amusement (F(1,
65) ¼ 10.34, p , 0.01), and irritation (F(1, 65) ¼ 13.83, p , 0.001). As shown in
Table 2, this means that exposure to the banner ad results in a lower informational and
amusement value, compared to exposure to the sponsored content. In addition, people
seem to find the banner ad a far more irritating format than the sponsored content item.
Overall, the sponsored content format scores higher on information and amusement and
lower on irritation, therefore indicating a more positive perceived advertising value. Thus,
Hypothesis 1 is confirmed.
Persuasion knowledge elements. To test whether people recognize one advertising
format better than the other, logistic regression with the first two conditions as a
categorical predictor was performed. Results show that format indeed has a significant

Table 2. Perceived advertising value (PAV) and persuasion knowledge as a function of online
advertising format.
Format
Dependent variable Banner ad Sponsored content
PAV: information1 3.14 (1.43)a 4.10 (1.03)b
PAV: amusement1 2.17 (1.32)a 3.18 (1.24)b
PAV: irritation2 4.23 (1.61)a 2.92 (1.21)b
Recognition3 0.82 (0.39)a 0.55 (0.51)b
Understanding intent4 5.23 (1.28)a 4.72 (1.16)b
Ad skepticism5 5.21 (1.13)a 3.70 (1.13)b
Note: Means scores with standard deviations are given within parentheses. Means in the same row with a different
superscript differ significantly from each other at p , 0.05. 1 Scale ranging from 1 (very negative) to 7 (very
positive). 2 Scale ranging from 1 (not irritating at all) to 7 (very much irritating). 3 Dichotomous variable with 0
(no recognition of format) and 1 (recognition of format). 4 Scale ranging from 1 (no understanding of intent at all)
to 7 (very good understanding of intent). 5 Scale ranging from 1 (not skeptical at all) to 7 (very much skeptical).
 14 K. Tutaj and E.A. van Reijmersdal

Table 3. Correlation matrix PAV and persuasion knowledge dimensions.

PAV PAV Recognize Understand

amusement irritation format intent Skepticism
PAV information 0.68** 2 0.35** 0.03 0.06 2 0.67**
PAV amusement 2 0.29** 2 0.04 2 0.01 2 0.56**
PAV irritation 0.21* 0.40** 0.32**
Recognize format 0.32** 2 0.06
Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ], [Eva van Reijmersdal] at 04:14 07 February 2012

Understand intent 0.06

Note: *Correlation is significant, p , 0.05; **Correlation is significant, p , 0.01.

effect on recognition – 2LL ¼ 7.41, Nagelkerke R 2 ¼ 0.12, Chi2 (2) ¼ 5.80, p , 0.05.
As shown in Table 2, recognition, or in other words distinguishing the advertising format
from the rest of the website, was significantly higher when the banner ad was presented
than when the brand appeared as sponsored content in the news item.
For effects of advertising format on understanding intent and ad skepticism, ANOVA
analyses were conducted, showing a marginally significant effect on understanding intent,
F(1, 65) ¼ 2.86, p , 0.10, with the sponsored content format scoring lower on
understanding than the banner ad format (see Table 2). Apparently, participants have a
better understanding of the persuasive and selling intent of banners compared to the
sponsored item. In addition, there was a significant effect of advertising format on
advertising skepticism, F(1, 65) ¼ 29.19, p , 0.001. The ad format indeed seems to
trigger different levels of ad skepticism, with the sponsored content format scoring
significantly lower than the banner ad. Overall, it seems that people are less skeptical toward
sponsored content than they are toward banner ads. Thus, Hypothesis 2 is confirmed.
To test Hypothesis 3 and answer research question 1, bivariate correlations between
the different dimensions of persuasion knowledge and the advertising value factors were
calculated. In Table 3, the Pearson correlation coefficients and significance levels are
presented. Logically, the three beliefs of perceived advertising value have significant
correlations among each other, p , 0.01, and also advertising skepticism is negatively
correlated with the two positive beliefs: information r ¼ –0.67, p , 0.001, amusement
r ¼ –0.56, p , 0.001, and positively correlated with irritation r ¼ 0.32, p , 0.001.
This means in practice that the more positive one perceives the advertising value; the less
skeptical one is toward the ad and vice versa. Thus, Hypothesis 3c is confirmed. Also
understanding and recognition correlate significantly with irritation, respectively
r ¼ 0.40, p , 0.001 and r ¼ 0.21, p , 0.05, meaning that the more someone
understands the persuasive and selling intent of the ad, or recognizes the format as
advertising, the more irritation is evoked by the ad. Thus, Hypotheses 3a and 3b are partly
confirmed (only for the irritation value element).
With regard to the persuasion knowledge dimensions, understanding of persuasive and
selling intent is positively correlated with recognition of the ad format, r ¼ 0.32,
p , 0.001, which means that the more the people understand the intent of the
advertisement, the better they will be able to recognize the format as advertising or vice
versa. Ad skepticism is not related to understanding of the intent nor to recognition of the
format as advertising.

Discussion
The aim of this study is twofold. First, the effects of subtle and prominent online
advertising formats on attitudinal audience reactions are examined. As sponsored content
 Journal of Marketing Communications 15

is emerging in online advertising, it provides advertisers an alternative to the use of

commercial banner ads. Second, the role of several persuasion knowledge dimensions in
processing the two online advertising formats is investigated. A total of three different
persuasion knowledge measures are compared and related to each other, as well as to the
perceived advertising value, in order to gain more theoretical insight into the
conceptualization of persuasion knowledge.
This study shows that online advertising format, respectively sponsored content versus
Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ], [Eva van Reijmersdal] at 04:14 07 February 2012

banner advertising, does affect perceived advertising value: the subtle sponsored content
item was found to be more informative, more amusing, and less irritating than the
prominent banner ad. Internet users seem to enjoy reading sponsored content more than
encountering banner ads on informational websites. This result is in line with previous
studies of advertising formats in traditional media (Cameron 1994; Lord and Putrevu
1998; Van Reijmersdal et al. 2005).
Subsequently, experimental conditions did activate different levels of the several
persuasion knowledge dimensions, indicating that this ‘knowledge’ works differently for
subtle and prominent online ad formats. First, recognition of the ad, or distinguishing the
commercial content from the rest of the webpage, was significantly higher for the banner
condition, indicating that people recognize banners more easily as advertising than
sponsored content. This result is in line with Cameron’s (1994) study of print ad formats.
Related to the previous finding, the understanding of persuasive and selling intent is also
lower for the sponsored content item than for the banner ad. Apparently, participants have
a better understanding of the advertiser’s intent in a more prominent than a subtle online ad
format. These two persuasion knowledge dimensions, recognition and understanding, also
show a positive correlation, which means that the better the consumers recognize the
format, the more they also understand the persuasive intent of the ad or vice versa. With
regard to online advertising, recognition and understanding are perhaps even more
important predictors for consumer reactions than for advertising in traditional media, since
identifying the source of online content and evaluating its credibility could be more
difficult (Flanagin and Metzger 2000).
In addition, understanding and irritation value are positively correlated with each
other, meaning that the better a person understands the persuasive and selling intent of the
advertiser, the more irritated he or she will be. Overall, this implies that recognition,
understanding, and irritation are related to each other and work differently for subtle and
prominent formats. Integrating advertising into editorial content is less irritating for the
consumer and at the same time beneficial for the advertiser.
Furthermore, ad skepticism differs for subtle and prominent online ad formats.
Participants were significantly more skeptical toward banners than sponsored content.
This could be explained by the fact that banners are distinct commercial messages, with
clear persuasive intent, whereas in sponsored content this intent is more disguised. In
general, people like reading editorial content more than commercial content, as previous
studies have shown (e.g. Van Reijmersdal et al. 2005). With regard to perceived
advertising value, skepticism is correlated with all three beliefs. Apparently, a negative
perceived advertising value is strongly associated with advertising skepticism.
Not all people are equally aware, understanding, or skeptical, of different advertising
formats; thus, we need to consider these persuasion knowledge dimensions when
examining advertising effectiveness in the future. Since examination of the way in which
we process advertising formats has been lacking in previous advertising studies (Li and
Leckenby 2007), this experiment shows that more research integrating advertising effects
on audience reactions with persuasion knowledge processes is needed.
 16 K. Tutaj and E.A. van Reijmersdal

Future research
Some recommendations for future research would be to investigate mediating or
moderating effects of involvement and web experience, next to persuasion knowledge,
since previous advertising effectiveness studies have found significant results in these
directions (e.g. Lord and Putrevu 1998; Mallinckrodt and Mizerski 2007). Moreover, the
effects of other online advertising formats, such as pop-ups, advergames, and promotional
websites, on audience reactions should be tested, in order to provide marketers and policy
Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ], [Eva van Reijmersdal] at 04:14 07 February 2012

makers with more evidence for format effectiveness and to assemble guidelines on when
to choose which format. Additionally, in order to make forced exposure to the website
more natural and similar to a real-life online advertising experience, the stimuli should be
presented on a clickable, interactive website. With respect to theoretical development of
the concept of persuasion knowledge, additional research is in place. Now that we know
which elements of persuasion knowledge relate to each other, a subsequent step would be
to construct and validate an overall measurement scale for persuasion knowledge. This
could be done by means of structural equation modeling. Finally, brand recall and brand
attitude should be tested and the effects of format should be compared for multiple brands
and product types to enhance generalizability of the findings.

Practical implications
Differences in processing of online advertising formats and the effect of persuasion
knowledge on advertising value have practical implications. Marketers should be aware of
what the objectives of the ad are and subsequently how to integrate these objectives within
the right format, or a combination of both (Becker-Olsen 2003). Overall, people have more
positive attitudes toward sponsored content than toward banner ads. They think these
formats are more informative, amusing, less irritating, and less skeptical toward sponsored
content. This increases the chance of attention for the ads and is likely to result in more
positive brand attitudes as well (Becker-Olsen 2003; Zhang and Kim 2008).

Notes on contributors
Karolina Tutaj graduated Cum Laude from the Research Master Communication Science at the
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Her master’s thesis focused on advertising literacy and
online advertising formats.
Eva A. van Reijmersdal is postdoctoral researcher and assistant professor of commercial
communication in the Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) at the University
of Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Her research focuses on the effects of brand placement in various
media. She has authored or coauthored many chapters in books and articles in renowned journals
such as Psychology and Marketing, Journal of Advertising Research, International Journal of
Advertising, Computers in Human Behavior, and Communication Theory. She has received several
awards from ICA, NCA, and the International Conference of Research in Advertising (ICORIA) for
her research.

References
Becker-Olsen, K.L. 2003. And now, a word from our sponsor: A look at the effects of sponsored
content and banner advertising. Journal of Advertising 32, no. 2: 17– 32.
Bijmolt, T.H.A., W. Claassen, and B. Brus. 1998. Children’s understanding of TV advertising:
Effects of age, gender, and parental influence. Journal of Consumer Policy 21: 171– 94.
Boush, D.M., M. Friestad, and G.M. Rose. 1994. Adolescent skepticism toward TV advertising and
knowledge of advertiser tactics. The Journal of Consumer Research 21: 165– 75.
 Journal of Marketing Communications 17

Brucks, M., G.M. Armstrong, and M.E. Goldberg. 1988. Children’s use of cognitive defenses against
television advertising: A cognitive response approach. The Journal of Consumer Research 14:
471– 82.
Buijzen, M. 2007. Reducing children’s susceptibility to commercials: Mechanisms of factual and
evaluative advertising interventions. Media Psychology 9: 411– 30.
Burns, K.S., and R.J. Lutz. 2006. The function of format: Consumer responses to six online
advertising formats. Journal of Advertising 35: 53 – 63.
Cameron, G.T. 1994. Does publicity outperform advertising? An experimental test of the third-party
endorsement. Journal of Public Relations Research 6, no. 3: 185– 207.
Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ], [Eva van Reijmersdal] at 04:14 07 February 2012

Cameron, G.T., and P.A. Curtin. 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: 178–89.
Cho, C.-H., and H.J. Cheon. 2004. Why do people avoid advertising on the Internet? Journal of
Advertising 33, no. 4: 89 – 97.
Choi, S.M., and N.J. Rifon. 2002. Antecedents and consequences of web advertising credibility: A
study of consumer response to banner ads. Journal of Interactive Advertising 3, no. 1: 12 – 24.
Derbaix, C., and C. Pecheux. 2003. A new scale to assess children’s attitude toward TV advertising.
Journal of Advertising Research 43: 390– 9.
Ducoffe, R.H. 1995. How consumers assess the value of advertising? Journal of Current Issues and
Research in Advertising 17, no. 1: 1 – 18.
Ducoffe, R.H., and E. Curlo. 2000. Advertising value and advertising processing. Journal of
Marketing Communications 6: 247– 62.
Faber, R.J., M. Lee, and X. Nan. 2004. Advertising and the consumer information environment
online. American Behavioral Scientist 48: 447– 66.
Flanagin, A.J., and M.J. Metzger. 2000. Perceptions of Internet information credibility. Journalism
and Mass Communication Quarterly 77, no. 3: 515–40.
Friestad, M., and P. Wright. 1994. The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with
persuasion attempts. The Journal of Consumer Research 21: 1 – 31.
Hyland, T. 2000. Why Internet Advertising? Internet Advertising Bureau, Retrieved June 26, 2010,
from: http://www.iab.net/advertise/content/adcontent.html.
Interactive Advertising Bureau Europe. 2010. Europe’s online ad market continues to grow despite
the recession, Retrieved July 28, 2010, from: http://www.iabeurope.eu/news/europes-onli
ne-ad-market-continues-to-grow-despite-the-recession.aspx.
Kim, B.-H., Y. Pasadeos, and A. Barban. 2001. On the deceptive effectiveness of labeled and
unlabeled advertorial formats. Mass Communication and Society 4: 265– 81.
Kuepers, H. 2010. iPad Nederland pas in juli, Stylecowboys. Retrieved May 19, 2010, from http://
www.stylecowboys.nl/Computer/987.
Lawlor, M.-A., and A. Prothero. 2008. Exploring children’s understanding of television advertising –
beyond the advertiser’s perspective. European Journal of Marketing 42: 1203– 23.
Li, H., and J.D. Leckenby. 2007. Examining the effectiveness of Internet advertising formats. In
Internet advertising: Theory and research, ed. D.W. Schumann and E. Thorson, 203– 24. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Livingstone, S., and E.J. Helsper. 2006. Does advertising literacy mediate the effects of advertising
on children? A critical examination of two linked research literatures in relation to obesity and
food choice. Journal of Communication 56: 560– 84.
Lord, K.R., and S. Putrevu. 1998. Communicating in print: A comparison of consumer responses to
different promotional formats. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising 20, no. 2:
1 – 18.
Mallinckrodt, V., and D. Mizerski. 2007. The effects of playing an advergame on young children’s
perceptions, preferences, and requests. Journal of Advertising 36, no. 2: 87 – 100.
Martin, M.C. 1997. Children’s understanding of the intent of advertising: A meta-analysis. Journal
of Public Policy and Marketing 16: 205– 16.
Nebenzahl, I.D., and E.D. Jaffe. 1998. Ethical dimensions of advertising executions. Journal of
Business Ethics 17: 805– 15.
Oates, C., M. Blades, and B. Gunter. 2002. Children and television advertising: When do they
understand persuasive intent? Journal of Consumer Behaviour 1: 238– 45.
Obermiller, C., and E.R. Spangenberg. 1998. Development of a scale to measure consumer
skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology 7: 159– 86.
 18 K. Tutaj and E.A. van Reijmersdal

Obermiller, C., E. Spangenberg, and D.L. MacLachlan. 2005. Ad skepticism: The consequences of
disbelief. Journal of Advertising 34, no. 3: 7 – 17.
Pine, K.J., and T. Veasey. 2003. Conceptualising and assessing young children’s knowledge of
television advertising within a framework of implicit and explicit knowledge. Journal of
Marketing Management 19: 459– 73.
Rodgers, S., and E. Thorson. 2000. The interactive advertising model: How users perceive and
process online ads. Journal of Interactive Advertising 1: 42 – 61.
Rossiter, J.R. 1977. Reliability of a short test measuring children’s attitudes toward TV commercials.
The Journal of Consumer Research 3: 179– 84.
Downloaded by [UVA Universiteitsbibliotheek SZ], [Eva van Reijmersdal] at 04:14 07 February 2012

Rozendaal, E. 2010. Measurement instrument advertising literacy. Unpublished raw data.

Rozendaal, E., M. Buijzen, and P. Valkenburg. 2010. Comparing children’s and adults’ cognitive
advertising competences in the Netherlands. Journal of Children and Media 4: 77 – 89.
Smit, E.G. 1999. Mass media advertising: Information or wallpaper? Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis
Publishers.
Tutaj, K. 2009. An overview of advertising literacy measures. Unpublished raw data.
Van Hoek, C. 2010. iPad niet voor juli verkrijgbaar in Nederland, Retrieved, 19 May 2010, from:
http://www.nu.nl/gadgets/2242805/ipad-niet-juli-verkrijgbaar-in-nederland.html.
Van Reijmersdal, E.A. 2009. Brand placement prominence: Good for memory! bad for attitudes?
Journal of Advertising Research 49: 151– 3.
Van Reijmersdal, E.A., P.C. Neijens, and E.G. Smit. 2005. Readers’ reactions to mixtures of
advertising and editorial content in magazines. Journal of Current Issues and Research in
Advertising 27: 39 – 53.
Van Reijmersdal, E.A., P.C. Neijens, and E.G. Smit. 2007. Effects of TV brand placement on brand
image. Psychology & Marketing 24: 403 –20.
Van Reijmersdal, E.A., P.C. Neijens, and E.G. Smit. 2009. A new branch of advertising: Reviewing
factors that influence reactions to product placement. Journal of Advertising Research 49:
429– 49.
Van Reijmersdal, E.A., P.C. Neijens, and E.G. Smit. 2010. Customer magazines: Effects of
commerciality on readers’ reactions. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising 32:
59 – 67.
Zhang, P., and Y. Kim. 2008. Web advertising: What do we know about its acceptance and impacts?
A meta-analysis of the literature. Paper presented at the Pacific Asia Conference on Information
Systems, Suzhou, China.

View publication stats