Web Appendix A: Field Observation of Viral Ads

Transcription

1 47 Valuable Virality Ezgi Akpinar Jonah Berger Web Appendix A: Field Observation of Viral Ads INSTRUCTIONS FOR CODING APPEAL TYPE Some ads use an emotional appeal, where the ad is designed to appeal to the receiver s emotions by using drama, mood, music and other emotion-eliciting strategies. They use warm appeals, or an emotionally drama versus lecture format, contain pleasant pictures, contain likeable music and sources. In contrast, some ads use an informational appeal, where the ad is designed to appeal to the rationality of the receiver by using objective information describing a brand s attributes or benefits. They use brand-differentiating message, a benefit appeal, an attribute appeal, factual versus feeling appeal, and large number of message arguments. Please rate the ads based on how they relate to these two appeals (1 = informational, 7 = emotional). You can use any number on the 7-point scale. INSTRUCTIONS FOR CODING BRAND INTEGRALNESS In some ads the brand is integral to the advertisement s narrative (story), while in others the brand is not integral. For example, in Coca Cola Happiness, the brand is clearly related to the story and part of it, so you might score it a 6 or 7.

2 48 In contrast, in Cadbury EyeBrow Dance ad where two kids do eyebrow dancing does not have much to do with Cadbury (the chocolate brand). Cadbury could be replaced with almost any other product in the narrative, so you might score it a 1 or 2. Please rate the ads based on how integral the brand is to the narrative (1 = not at all integral, 7 = very integral). You can use any number on the 7-point scale. INSTRUCTIONS FOR CODING BRAND PRESENCE Brand Duration. Please record in which second of the video a brand appears (it can appear on the product package, isolated) in one current block (t_start) and disappears (t_end). The difference between t_start and t_end is the total time (duration) in seconds that a brand has appeared in one current block. Please record the duration (e.g., duration_1, duration_2) for each time a brand appears in the video. Brand Size. For each time a brand appears (it can appear on the product package, isolated), indicate the size of the brand in any visual form on the screen. In order to measure, brand size, use the longest width and height. You can use softwares such as Pixelstick in order to measure the brand size. You can indicate the size (e.g., size_1) in inches (height x width). Total Brand Presence. In order to compute total brand presence for each ad, relative duration was calculated by dividing each duration (e.g., duration_1) by the ad length (e.g., duration_total) and relative size was calculated by diving each brand size (size_1) by the screen size (size_total). Next, for each time brand was shown, brand presence was calculated by multiplying relative brand duration and relative brand size. Finally, for each ad, total brand presence was calculated by summing brand presence measure for each time brand was shown.

3 49 MULTI-COLLINEARITY CHECKS In order to check whether there is a potential multi-collinearity problem, we first check Variance Inflation Factors (VIFs) for each independent variable. The VIF values are all well below 10 and the tolerance statistics are above.2 (Table A2), which suggests that there is little evidence for troubling multi-collinearity (Field 2014). Next, we examine the correlations between our variables. We find appeal/humor pair (r =.51, p <.001) that has correlations that has a higher value than 0.5, which requires further checks. Second, we conduct a principal component analysis and examine whether these variables have large proportions of their variances explained by the same factor. Not surprisingly, appeal and humor load on the same factor (with loadings.83 and.84). Thus, we drop humor variable in our analyses and keep appeal variable, which is one of our key theoretical constructs. Thus, we guard against any potential multi-collinearity problem.

4 50 Table A1: Relationship Between Brand Integralness and Shares for Different Types of Ad Appeals Appeal Coefficient of Brand Integralness Std. Error Lower %95 CI Upper %95 CI Chi- Square More Informative More Emotional Notes: Mean The table displays the results from floodlight analysis testing the effect of brand integralness on shares at each point of ad appeal with confidence intervals. Ad appeal is measured on a continuum, 1 representing more informative and 7 representing more emotional ads. Sig. Table A2: Collinearity Diagnostics Variance Tolerance Variable Inflation Factors Appeal Type Ad characteristics Ad length English versus local Humor Presence of celebrity Product and brand characteristics Brand presence Type of good Involvement Interbrand top Global-local brand Facebook likes

5 51 Variable Table A3: Estimation Results of Ad Appeal On Shares Including Controls Coefficient 95% Confidence Interval Ad Appeal.25** (.13,.37) Ad characteristics Ad length.21 (-.045,.46) English versus local -.16 (-.62, 29) Presence of celebrity 1.96** (1.38, 2.58) Product and brand characteristics Brand presence -7.95** ( ) Experience.50 (-.14, 1.15) Credence -3.04** (-4.4, -1.66) Involvement (-.24,.22) Interbrand top ** (-1.13, -.23) Global brand -.84** (-1.67, -.011) Facebook likes.22** (.13,.31) Notes: The table displays the results from regression testing the effect of ad appeal on shares, including the control variables (ad length, language of the ad, presence of celebrity, brand presence, product type, product involvement, presence among the top 100 Interbrand list, global versus local brands and number of Facebook likes). Ad appeal is measured on a continuum, 1 representing more informative and 7 representing more emotional ads. **Significant at the 5% level (i.e., 95% confidence interval does not overlap 0). Table A4: Relationship Between Brand Integralness and Shares for Different Types of Ad Appeals Including Controls More Informative More Emotional Appeal Coefficient of Brand Integralness Std. Error Lower %95 CI Upper %95 CI Chi- Square Notes: The table displays the results from floodlight analysis testing the effect of brand integralness on shares at each point of ad appeal with confidence intervals. Ad appeal is measured on a continuum, 1 representing more informative and 7 representing more emotional ads. Sig Mean

6 52 Web Appendix B: Study 2- Actual Sharing Table B: Stimuli Used in Study 2 Ad Type Emotional Integral Emotional Not Integral Informative Foam City Human Slingshot Pure and Naturals Hand Soap Human Slingshot Foam City Fashion at the Pool Swimwear The stimuli are available in the following links: Hand Soap, Emotional Integral: Hand Soap, Emotional Not Integral: Hand Soap, Informative: Swimwear, Emotional Integral: Swimwear, Emotional Not Integral: Swimwear, Informative:

7 53 PRETEST ON AD APPEAL MANIPULATION Participants (N= 149) were shown one of the six ads and used 7-point Likert scales (adapted from Yoo and MacInnis 2005) to rate it on emotionality ( this ad appeals to my emotions, this ad creates a mood, α =.78) and informationality ( this ad is informative ). As expected, compared to the informative ads (M = 4.11), the emotional integral ads (M = 4.79; F(1, 100) = 4.12, p <.05) and emotional not integral ads (M = 4.76; F(1, 93) = 4.41, p <.04) were both rated higher as more emotional. Further, informative ads (M = 4.56) were rated as more informational compared to emotional integral ads (M = 3.64; F(1, 100) = 6.28, p <.02) and emotional not integral ads (M = 3.68; F(1, 93) = 5.68, p <.02). PRETEST ON BRAND INTEGRALNESS MANIPULATION Participants (N = 149) were shown one of the six ads and rated it on brand integralness ( The product is clearly related to the ad, The product is integral part of the ad, α =.90). Emotional integral ads (M = 4.65) and informative ads (M = 5.06) were rated as more brand integral than emotional not integral ads (M = 3.76, F(1, 99) = 5.95, p <.01 and F(1, 83) = 13.15, p <.001 respectively. PRETEST ON AD EVALUATIONS Participants (N = 149) were shown one of the six ads and rated it on ad evaluation. The emotional integral ads (M= 5.28) and emotional not integral ads (M = 5.00) were evaluated equally, (F (1,147) =.83, p =.36), and emotional integral ads were evaluated more favorably than informative ads (M = 4.38; F (1,147) = 8.57, p =.004). This casts doubt on the possibility that any differences in brand evaluations can be attributed to the videos used.

8 54 PRETEST ON AD ARGUMENT STRENGTH Below is a rough cut of an ad. We would like you to watch the ad below and rate it based on its argument strength. For example, if the ad talks about any specific features of a product (e.g., this pen is styled for writing), you can consider such content as an argument. While watching the ad, you might also think "this brand makes me feel fun", "this product is creative". Consider such content as also arguments even though they are not explicitly stated in the ad. If the arguments are weak (e.g., this pen writes legibly with only an occasional skip), you can give 1 or 2. If the arguments are strong (e.g., ultra smooth, skip free, precision writing pen), you can give 6 or 7. Please consider giving any number between 1 and 7 (1= very weak, 7 = very strong). The ads did not differ on argument strength (F <.8, p >.4). This casts doubt on the possibility that any differences between the ads can be attributed to the argument strength.