Displacement and Reinforcement Effects of The Internet and Other Media As Sources of Advertising Information

Displacement and Reinforcement Effects
of the Internet and Other Media as Sources

of Advertising Information
JAMES C. TSAO This study measured to what extent consumers used the internet to displace or
University of
reinforce the use of other media as sources of advertising information. The sample
Wisconsin-Oshkosh
Tsao@Uwosh.edu was 2,032 households from 5,031 households randomly selected from a midwestern
state. The results showed that although internet advertising provided many unique
STANLEY D. SIBLEY
University of
features, it has not displaced most media as sources of advertising information. Many
Wisconsin-Oshkosh consumers found that internet advertising was a complementary medium based on
Sibleys@northnet.net
their favorable attitudes or frequent use of other media advertising. The research also
indicated that the reinforcement effects will be likely more evident for the future use
of internet advertising associated with the use of billboards, direct mail, magazines,
and television. However, the displacement effects may continue to occur for the future
use of internet advertising associated with the future use of free community papers
and weekly paid papers as advertising sources.
INTRODUCTION When new communication technology emerged,

The explosive growth of the internet has offered a researchers have always been interested in study-
revolutionary platform as an informational chan- ing the effects of media displacement (Kayany
nel affecting the use of other media by consumers. and Yelsma, 2000). For example, when radio
Internet users now spend more time on the web was a new medium, the concern was that radio
during daytime than viewing television or tuning would someday replace newspapers as the dom-
to a radio (Dawidowska, 2002; Geller, 2002). A inant medium. Later, television was analyzed
U.S. Census Bureau survey indicated that 36 per- under a similar spotlight due to its potential
cent of Americans use the internet as a source of to replace radio as the most popular broadcast
advertising information, while 39 percent of inter- medium. Based on the past history of these
net users bought products online (Loechner, 2002). media, it could be assumed that the internet
More importantly, internet users has continued to might have the potential to affect the use of
grow at a rate of two million new users per other mass media because of its interactive
month (Loechner, 2002). Although the current ex- and diverse features. More importantly, what
penditures for online advertising represented only are the displacement/reinforcement effects of the
2 percent of all advertising budgets, internet usage internet as a source of advertising information
now accounted for 15 percent of the average Ameri- relative to other media? Unfortunately, research
can’s media consumption time (Taylor, 2002). Ac- has not provided answers to this question be-
cording to these figures, it would be reasonable to cause previous studies focused on the displace-
speculate that the internet may have the potential ment effect of the internet on mass media in
to displace other mass media as an information general or the effect on consumers’ search for
source. news.
126 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2004 DOI: 10.1017/S0021849904040073

INTERNET ADVERTISING AND MEDIA DISPLACEMENT
Problem statement ond school supported a complementary time spent in television viewing. The Pew
In this study, the research problem was to relationship (increase-increase). However, Internet and American Life Project also
what extent consumers use the internet to there was the third perspective for the reported a similar finding indicating that
displace or reinforce the use of other media as effects of media displacement, which was one-fourth of internet users felt their on-
sources of advertising information. The me- to include the “functional equivalence or line use came at the expense of TV view-
dia compared with the internet in the similarity” of media to interpret the dis- ing time (Fetto, 2002a). Another study
study included billboards, daily news- placement effects. found that the internet had replaced the
papers, direct mail, in-store advertising telephone as a communication tool for
sheets, magazines, radio, free community Bioecological theory of the niche more than half of teenagers when they
papers, television, and weekly paid news- These schools of thought originated from contacted their families and friends (Fetto,
papers (weekly newspapers hereafter). the same concept of the bioecological theory 2002b).
of the niche (Dimmick and Rothenbuhler,
Significance of the study 1984). The theory of the niche was devel- Increase-increase effects
This study has significance for two rea- oped by ecologists to study “how popu- The bioecological theory of the niche also
sons. The media industry has been under- lations compete and coexist with limited indicated that when two populations co-
going transitional changes due to the resources in an ecological community” exist to share the limited resources, both
convergence between new communica- (Dimmick and Rothenbuhler, 1984, p. 105). populations might be making necessary
tion technology and existing media. Ca- The premise was that resources available adjustments and compromises to con-
ble television, computer, and telephone to the human community were limited. If tinue their survival in the same commu-
have been converging as an integrative two populations fought for the same as- nity (Hawley, 1968). Under the coexisting
media combination. This convergence has sets in a resources-limited environment, circumstances, the rules of the game may
brought up many unknown factors that the superior group may force the other not result in a zero-sum relationship be-
might result in conflicts or might be com- into a substandard position within the tween the new and old media. Instead,
plementary with the use of traditional community. In other words, the dominant the process may be increase-increase for
media. Next, advertising represented the group may displace the other group by both parties to succeed (Dimmick and
lifeline of commercial media. It was pre- forcing them to leave the community, may Rothenbuhler, 1984; Kayany and Yelsma,
dicted that the internet in combination eliminate the other group altogether, may 2000). For example, Stempel, Hargrove,
with other media might expand market- encapsulate the weaker group into the and Bernt (2000) compared media usage
ing opportunities for advertisers (Russell dominant group, or may exist in a super- of internet users versus nonusers. Their
and Lane, 2002; Taylor, 2002). Therefore, it ordinate and subordinate hierarchy. findings indicated that internet users are
has become important to understand the more likely than nonusers to be regular
dimensions of internet users’ perceptions Increase-decrease effects newspaper readers and radio news listen-
and preference relative to the use of dif- The theory of the niche can be applied to ers. Evidently, the online medium and
ferent media before a multimedia strategy media ecology. The amount of time avail- traditional media were coexisting by shar-
was developed. able for media use is limited for most ing the same audience pool.
audiences. Therefore, it was quite logical
LITERATURE REVIEW ON MEDIA to assume that the hours spent on a new Functional displacement or
RELATIONSHIPS medium would reduce or displace the reinforcement
Many studies on media displacements time consumed for existing media. Sim- The third perspective, functional equiva-
have been completed in the past; yet the ply put, the expectation was an increase- lence of media, was examined based on
findings have been both contradictory and decrease relationship between the new and what functions that could be displaced by
complex. The conflicting findings yielded old media when the displacement effects new media over existing media (Dimmick
three different schools of thought (Kay- occurred (Kayany and Yelsma, 2000). For and Rothenbuhler, 1984). Cable television
any and Yelsma, 2000). One school fea- example, Lee and Kuo (2002) studied the and the VCR were alternatives to broad-
tured a symmetrical relationship (increase- displacement effect of the internet on chil- cast television because they fulfilled the
decrease) for audience use between the dren’s media use and concluded that an same functions of relaxation and entertain-
new and existing media, while the sec- increase in online media time reduced the ment (Perse and Courtright, 1993), and
March 2004 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 127

watching videos was also a behavioral that consumers go through a series of and extension of the functional benefit.
replacement for viewing movies at the behavioral stages from attention, to be- For example, people who enjoyed reading
theater (Lin, 1993). On the other hand, the liefs, to attitudes, to intentions, and to newspapers might also be fond of news
internet was found to be a functional al- behaviors. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) fo- magazines because of the function of in-
ternative to television for entertainment, cused on intentions as a function of atti- formation surveillance and insight pro-
passing time, relaxation, social inter- tudes and the social environment. These vided by both media. In contrast, a viewer
action, and just information (Ferguson and rather simple models failed to encompass may show a more favorable attitude to-
Perse, 2000). Nevertheless, the motives for the complexity of the consumer decision ward television than radio due to the
internet use were weakly correlated with processes incorporating beliefs, attitudes, audio-visual experience presented on tele-
the users’ motives for television exposure intentions, and behaviors and the direc- vision that is missing with radio. One
(Lin, 1999). tionality of the stages. For example, not could argue that people may not neces-
all consumers will pass through all stages, sarily hold favorable or unfavorable atti-
Value of studying media displacement and some consumers will skip stages or tudes toward different media when they
and reinforcement even reverse some of them depending on use the media for situational reasons. How-
The studies on media displacement of- the situation, consumer experiences, and ever, opinions and attitudes toward me-
fered practical values to advertising pro- involvement. The Foote, Cone, and Beld- dia performance can be described as
fessionals. For example, learning whether ing grid is one attempt to analyze the complex, enduring, subtle, and function-
the increase-increase or increase-decrease decision stages in four different sequences ally related (McQuail, 1994). The effects
effects existed between two or more media depending on the mental state and in- of attitudes toward the media and sub-
enables advertising professionals to eval- volvement of the consumer (Vaughn, 1980, sequent influence on the attitudes toward
uate and choose the right media while 1986). Nevertheless, attitudes and usage advertising in the media cannot be under-
eliminating the one(s) that would be less behaviors were included in the study to estimated. A key assumption in the theory
effective in their media plan. An under- help explain current and future media of uses and gratifications was that audi-
standing of the increase-increase or increase- displacement or media synergies based ences have individual needs (i.e., cogni-
decrease effects could help advertising on the hierarchical model of advertising tive, affective, interactive, etc.) motivating
executives develop a cross-media package effects. Consumer attitudes would be theo- them to be in favor of one medium over
that more cost-effectively achieves the ad- rized as predictors of intentions and be- another one when making a choice for
vertising objectives. Furthermore, it should haviors in the high-involvement case. It media use. Attitudes toward media, there-
help media planners to pay closer atten- was expected that the consumers using fore, were developed in the selecting pro-
tion to the specific objectives of the adver- the media as sources of advertising were cess (Severin and Tankard, 1988).
tising campaign and media strategy before primarily active information seekers to In the case of the internet, research in-
selecting the most effective media that solve their purchasing problems. The con- dicated that online shoppers have more
would meet the functional needs of the me- ceptual framework is diagrammed in Fig- positive attitudes toward internet direct
dia audience. ure 1, followed by the explanations of the marketing than nononline shoppers (Don-
hypotheses and research questions. thu and Garcia, 1999; Leong, Huang, and
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ON Stanners, 1998). Furthermore, consumer
ATTITUDES AND USAGE OF MEDIA Attitudes toward the internet motives for internet subscriptions were
ADVERTISING and other media related to the motives for using a tradi-
The current study was focused on the Attitudes are clustered in relevant groups tional medium, television, because of the
relationship of internet advertising with toward some object. The users of a me- similar functions offered by both media
other media advertising regarding the ef- dium should have attitudes not only to- (Lin, 1999). Yet, over 50 percent of inter-
fects of media displacement or reinforce- ward the medium but also toward other net users agreed that internet advertising
ment. Preston (1982) has identified several media that may provide the same func- was more informative than television com-
models of the hierarchy of effects to ex- tions. These attitudinal interactions should mercials (Dawidowska, 2002). Moreover,
plain the stages that consumers go through play a pivotal role in consumers’ deci- internet shoppers showed a more positive
in the decision-making process. The How- sions on which media to displace with attitude toward advertising than noninter-
ard and Sheth (1969) model suggested other media or to reinforce for overlap net shoppers (Donthu and Garcia, 1999).
128 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2004

Figure 1 Conceptualized Models Explaining the Displacement and Reinforcement Effects

between the Internet and Other Media Advertising
Therefore, the first null hypothesis and Usage of internet advertising and features of direct response, informative
the follow-up question were: attitudes toward other media advertising content, and sales leads (Leong, Huang,
The use of one medium as a source of and Stanners, 1998). The expectation was
Null H1: The relationship between the advertising might be related to the per- that positive attitudes toward direct mail
attitudes toward internet ad- son’s attitudes toward another advertis- were closely related to the use of the
vertising and the attitudes ing medium. For example, people liking internet. Furthermore, the attitude-use in-
toward other mass media weekly newspapers for advertising infor- teraction between television and the inter-
as sources of advertising in- mation might develop frequent reader- net supported this point because research
formation would show no ship of free community papers as an revealed that a motive for television use,
differences. advertising source because these papers personal identity, was a significant predic-
not only focus on advertising but are free tor for the likely adoption of online ser-
RQ1: What media attitudes for ad- and usually delivered to the home. The vices (Lin, 1999).
vertising would help explain internet medium has been evaluated as Therefore, the second null hypothesis
the attitudes toward internet functionally closer than any other media and the follow-up research question
advertising? to direct mail because it also offered the were:

Null H2: The relationship between the tive and negative relationships for the plain the forecasted use of in-
usage of internet advertis- internet use with television viewing (Fer- ternet advertising in the next
ing and the attitudes toward guson and Perse, 2000; Lee and Kuo, five years?
other mass media as sources 2002), newspaper reading (Kayany and
of advertising information in Yelsma, 2000; Stempel, Hargrove, and METHODOLOGY
the past four weeks would Bernt, 2000), radio listening (Stempel, Har-
show no differences. grove, and Bernt, 2000), and telephone Operational definitions of the variables
usage (Kayany and Yelsma, 2000). The effects of media displacement were
RQ2: What media attitudes for adver-
More recent examples involving the measured based on the data collected for
tising would help explain the
internet as a key player supported the a series of independent and dependent
use of internet advertising?
cross-media relationship with television variables.
and print advertising. One was a Pepsi Independent variables included the
Usage of the internet and other media as Cola advertising campaign using the in- following:
sources of advertising information ternet in combination with television
Based on experiences, problem-solving be- commercials that generated 415,000 TV • attitudes toward different media as
haviors, and learning, the consumer would viewers to visit the designated website sources of advertising information
be expected to engage in similar, related within just four days (Taylor, 2002). • usage rate of different media for
behaviors for a specific activity. In search- Another example occurred when VISA advertising
ing for information to make a purchas- found that not only were sports fans nat- • forecasted usage of different media for
ing decision, the consumer may use urally passionate TV viewers, but they advertising information
advertising from several media. If two or were spending a lot of time online. VISA
more media were complementary to each was able to generate the high level of Dependent variables include the
other, the cross-media connection could brand awareness by providing a cross- following:
successfully expand the advertising effec- media package combining television and
tiveness of the media strategy. Well- print with internet advertising (Hays, 2002). • attitudes toward internet advertising
known brands, such as American Express, Although both cases were anecdotal, these • usage rate of internet advertising
Campbell’s soup, Coca-Cola, Hallmark, campaigns along with previous studies • forecasted usage of internet advertising
Kodak, Nike, Saturn, etc., have success- suggested that the relationship between
fully used an effective mixture of differ- internet and other media usage should be Attitudes toward media advertising. Re-
ent media advertising (Aaker, 1996). further explored. spondents were asked to evaluate 10 me-
Empirical evidence supported this strat- Therefore, the set of null hypothesis dia that provided them with advertising
egy. For example, the use of the Yellow and research questions were: information on products or services. These
Pages in combination with radio, televi- media included billboards, daily news-
sion, or newspaper advertisements im- Null H3: The relationship between the papers, direct mail, free community pa-
proved the reach and influence of a media usage of internet advertis- pers, in-store advertising sheets, internet,
plan because the exposure to one media ing and the usage of other magazines, radio, television, and weekly
message effectively enhanced the impact mass media as sources of newspapers. A 5-point Likert-type scale,
of another media advertisement (Fletcher, advertising information in including “Very Poor,” “Poor,” “Good,”
1991). However, a precondition to make the past four weeks would “Very Good,” and “Excellent,” with five
the cross-media package effective was that show no differences. denoting “Excellent” was used. As some
consumer usage between both media must other attitudinal research with consumers
RQ3: If a difference(s) was (were)
be identified. In this regard, it was im- (Allen and Madden, 1985; Prasad and
found, what media usage for ad-
portant to learn whether the media dis- Smith, 1994), the scale did not have a
vertising would help to explain
placement or reinforcement relationship midpoint scale item for the evaluation;
the use of internet advertising?
existed before making the cross-media de- however, a separate category of “Didn’t
cisions. Studies on media displacement RQ4: What forecasted media usage Use” during the past four weeks was pro-
found that there was a mixture of posi- for advertising will help ex- vided for responses but was excluded from

the data analyses. The Cronbach’s alpha “very high” usage, and 64 percent of the sion analyses, and logistic regression analy-
of the overall responses was .79. 1,960 respondents “Didn’t Use” internet ses. The t-tests included the Bonferroni
The distribution of the responses for advertising. The mean was 2.42 for users, adjustment for multiple comparisons of
the attitudes toward internet advertising and the standard deviation was 1.16. The the same dependent variable to protect
were 4 percent for “very poor,” 10 percent responses to the usage of internet adver- from increased probabilities of Type I er-
for “poor,” 20 percent for “good,” 8 per- tising were further collapsed into two cat- rors (Everitt, 1998). The dependent vari-
cent for “very good,” and 3 percent for egories of 694 users and 1,224 nonusers. ables, except for the forecasted usage of
“excellent,” and 55 percent of 1,960 re- The nonusers were coded 0, and the users internet advertising, were recoded into
spondents “Didn’t Use” internet advertis- were coded 1. dichotomous values to be analyzed in the
ing at all. The midpoint of the scale based The decision to collapse the measure- logistic regression models.
on modal responses was “good” or 3.0. ment for the dependent variables into two The rationale for using logistic regres-
The mean was 2.92, while the standard categories was based on the desire to re- sion was based on the nature of the data
deviation was 1.01. The responses in the search key differences between the major for attitudes and usage with 17 of the 20
dependent variable were collapsed into a break of usage and nonusage, which also variables having curvilinear patterns of
2-point scale (Very Poor/Poor versus allowed for maintaining consistency with the data with the middle point having
Good/Very Good/Excellent). The former previous studies on internet usage and modal scores. The exceptions were one
was coded 0 and the latter 1. shopping. Stempel, Hargrove, and Bernt relationship for attitudes toward weekly
The groups allowed for the test of neg- (2000) grouped the respondents of their papers and two relationships for the usage
ative versus positive attitudes toward in- study into internet users and nonusers to of billboards and the internet. For atti-
ternet advertising. In addition, it provided analyze the relationship between regular tudes, weekly papers had a 2 percent dif-
the opportunity to understand more clearly media use and internet use. Donthu and ference in favor of a higher evaluation
the associations and differences by dichot- Garcia (1999) studied the attitudes, char- than the middle point; for usage, bill-
omizing the dependent variable on a ma- acteristics, and motives of internet shop- boards and internet advertising had vir-
jor difference. Further, it allowed for pers versus nonshoppers. Both studies, as tually the same percentage responses (i.e.,
consistency between the attitudinal vari- well as the current research, analyzed be- 1 percent difference or less) for three of
able and the usage variable for the analy- haviors and attitudes between two differ- the scaled items. It was easier to find the
ses. The group with unfavorable attitudes ent types of respondents. key relationships when the curvilinear data
included 266 respondents, while the group were converted to linear. As Pampel (2000,
with favorable attitudes had 584 subjects. Forecasted usage of media advertising. p. 18) stated, “logistic regression . . . [is a]
The forecasted usage of the 10 media as regression on a dependent variable that
Usage of media advertising. Respon- the sources of advertising information in transforms nonlinear relationships into lin-
dents were asked to rate how often in the the next five years was measured by ask- ear relationships.” Additionally, the choice
last four weeks they believed that they ing for their expectations on a 5-point of this method was consistent with other
used the same 10 media sources for ad- scale with choices of “Big Increase,” “Some research using a bivariate dependent vari-
vertising information. The responses were Increase,” “No Change,” “Some Decrease,” able and scaled independent variables
measured by frequency of usage, includ- and “Big Decrease.” Cronbach’s alpha of (Denham, 2002; Honeycutt and Cantrill,
ing “Very Low,” “Low,” “Some,” “High,” the responses was .82. The forecasted usage 1991; Menard, 2002; Pampel, 2000). If the
and “Very High” on a 5-point scale with of internet advertising in the next five null hypothesis were rejected, regression
“Very High” denoting a 5 and with a years was measured as the dependent analyses were chosen to explore further
separate category for “Didn’t Use” dur- variable on the same 5-point scale as the the dependent variables and different
ing the past four weeks. The Cronbach’s nine other media. The mean was 3.30, predictors.
alpha of the overall responses was .81. and the standard deviation was 1.07.
The distribution of the responses for Pretests and materials
usage of internet advertising was 10 per- Statistical analyses The questionnaire was extensively pre-
cent, respectively, for “very low” and “low” The data were analyzed using the Statis- tested with individuals and small focus
usage, 11 percent for “some” usage, 4 tical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). groups representing a variety of back-
percent for “high” usage, 2 percent for Analyses included t-tests, linear regres- grounds. The respondents read the cover

letter, completed the questionnaire, and Over 67 percent of the respondents were rejected. There were differences in the
then discussed the materials. The discus- married; nearly 8 percent were living with relationship between the attitudes to-
sion focused on effectiveness of the cover a friend(s), and 25 percent were living ward internet advertising and the atti-
letter, clarity of instructions, clarity of alone or with parents. More than 66 per- tudes toward other mass media as sources
wording item by item, time for complet- cent of the respondents attended or grad- of advertising information.
ing the questionnaire, ease of responding uated from colleges; 28 percent graduated
to the scales, and any omissions. from high school. Nearly 58 percent of RQ1: What media attitudes for adver-
The survey materials included a pre- the respondents were full-time employed, tising would explain the attitudes
questionnaire notification postcard, the 12 percent were part-time workers, 26 per- toward internet advertising?
mailing package consisting of a cover let- cent were retirees/homemakers, 3 per- Because the first null hypothesis was
ter, questionnaire, postage-paid business cent were students, and 2 percent were rejected, the investigation turned to what
reply envelope, one-dollar incentive, and unemployed. As for personal income, 4 media attitudes for advertising sources
a follow-up reminder postcard. These ma- percent made $100,000 or above; another would contribute to explaining the atti-
terials were pretested in one county in the 4 percent earned $75,000–$99,999; 14 per- tudes toward internet advertising in a lo-
sampled state with 100 randomly drawn cent made $50,000–$74,999; nearly 40 per- gistic regression analysis. Again, the
names from the telephone book. The pre- cent made $25,000–$49,999; nearly 21 dependent variable was the respondents’
test resulted in a 41 percent return rate of percent earned $15,000–$24,999; and 17 attitudes toward internet advertising di-
usable questionnaires by the cutoff date, percent made below $15,000. vided into the two groups: favorable and
indicating that the mailing package was unfavorable. The logistic regression analy-
providing sufficient motivation for a suf- RESULTS sis in Table 2 showed that attitudes to-
ficient number of recipients to complete ward billboards ( b 5 .30, p , .005), direct
and return the questionnaire. Null H1: The relationship between the mail ( b 5 .71, p , .001), magazine adver-
attitudes toward internet ad- tising ( b 5 .29, p , .05), and radio com-
Sampling plan vertising and the attitudes mercials ( b 5 .31, p , .05) were significant
The sampling plan was a random selec- toward other mass media predictors for internet attitudes. The odds
tion of 5,031 households from a midwest- as sources of advertising in- ratios indicated that when holding other
ern state. A list broker supplied the mailing formation would show no variables constant, the more favorable their
list for the survey. The mailing package difference. attitudes toward billboards, magazine ad-
was sent to the sample in June 2001. The vertising, and radio commercials, the more
gross returns of the questionnaire were T-tests with the Bonferroni adjust- likely the consumers were in favor of
2,032 with a 40.4 percent return rate. Of ments in Table 1 indicated that the group internet advertising. The odd ratio also
this total, 72 respondents were dropped favorable toward internet advertising has indicated that the more favorable their
from further analysis because these ques- a higher positive score toward all of the attitudes toward direct mail, the consum-
tionnaires were too incomplete to analyze media than the group unfavorable to- ers were twice as likely relative to the
or because they arrived after data analy- ward internet advertising. The differ- each of the significant predictors to have
sis had started. ences between the two groups were highly positive attitudes toward internet adver-
significant for all of the media advertis- tising. Other media were not significant
Sample demographics ing, including billboards (df 5 762, t 5 predictors in the equation.
The demographics of the sample were 26.76), daily newspapers (df 5 716, t 5
summarized as follows. The average age 24.85), direct mail (df 5 772, t 5 210.15), Null H2: The relationship between the
of the respondents was 49 years old. Fifty- free community papers (df 5 758, t 5 usage of internet advertis-
one percent of 1,960 respondents were 24.05), in-store advertising sheets (df 5 ing and the attitudes to-
male, while 49 percent were female. The 792, t 5 23.67), magazines (df 5 749, ward other mass media as
gender representations were consistent t 5 26.06), radio (df 5 776, t 5 26.64), sources of advertising infor-
with the Census 2000 population data for television (df 5 820, t 5 24.11), and mation in the past four
the sampled state. Nearly 44 percent of weekly newspapers (df 5 772, t 5 23.20). weeks would show no
households had one or more children. Therefore, the Null Hypothesis H1 was difference.

TABLE 1 (Null H1)

The Relationship between Attitudes toward Internet Advertising and Other Media Advertising
Measure for
Media Advertising Attitudes N Mean SD t df Sig. (2-tailed)
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Billboards Unfavorable 249 2.37 0.85 −6.76 762 p < .001
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Favorable 515 2.82 0.89
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Daily paid newspapers Unfavorable 238 3.1 0.97 −4.85 716 p < .001
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Favorable 480 3.45 0.87
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Direct mail Unfavorable 248 2.42 0.96 −10.15 772 p < .001
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Favorable 526 3.13 0.88
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Free community papers Unfavorable 243 3.3 0.97 −4.05 758 p < .001
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Favorable 517 3.59 0.88
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
In-store advertising sheets Unfavorable 251 3.04 0.99 −3.67 792 p < .001
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Favorable 543 3.31 0.96
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Magazines Unfavorable 234 2.89 0.84 −6.06 749 p < .001
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Favorable 517 3.26 0.74
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Radio Unfavorable 249 2.82 0.9 −6.64 776 p < .001
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Favorable 529 3.25 0.79
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Television Unfavorable 257 3.29 0.97 −4.11 820 p < .001
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Favorable 565 3.56 0.83
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Weekly paid newspapers Unfavorable 245 3.46 1.02 −3.20 772 p < .001
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Favorable 529 3.69 0.89
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
T-tests in Table 3 revealed two direc- papers (df 5 1,653, t 5 3.54, p , .001), RQ2: What media attitudes for adver-
tions emerging from the relationship free community papers (df 5 1,661, t 5 tising would help explain the
between internet users and nonusers. In- 3.18, p , .001), and in-store advertising use of internet advertising?
ternet users expressed higher positive at- sheets (df 5 1,650, t 5 2.88, p , .005).
titudes than nonusers toward radio (df 5 The attitudes toward magazines were the Table 4 presented the results of logistic
1,545, t 5 22.95, p , .005), television only measures that yielded no statistical regression analysis. The dependent vari-
(df 5 1,726, t 5 24.13, p , .001), direct significances between internet users and able was the usage of internet advertising
mail (df 5 1,416, t 5 22.04, p , .05), and nonusers. Based on the results, most of recoded into the dichotomous groups—
billboards (df 5 1,407, t 5 23.71, p , Null Hypothesis H2 was rejected. With users versus nonusers—while the inde-
.001) for advertising information. In con- only the exception of magazine advertis- pendent variables were the attitudes
trast, noninternet users were more favor- ing, there were significant differences be- toward different media advertising. The
able than users toward print media for tween internet users and nonusers with results showed that attitudes toward ad-
advertising such as daily newspapers (df 5 respect to their attitudes toward different vertising in four media could explain the
1,435, t 5 2.52, p , .05), weekly news- media for advertising. usage of internet advertising. These media

TABLE 2 (RQ1) included direct mail, free community pa-

pers, television, and weekly newspapers.
Attitudes toward Internet Advertising Explained by Attitudes
The increasing usage of internet advertis-
toward Other Media in Logistic Regression Analysis ing was positively associated with atti-
Predictor b Wald Chi-square df Sig. Odds Ratio tudes toward direct mail ( b 5 .23, p ,
.............................................................................................................................................................
.001) and television ( b 5 .23, p , .001),
Billboards 0.30 6.75 1 p < .005 1.35
............................................................................................................................................................. yet it was negatively related to attitudes
Direct mail 0.71 40.41 1 p < .001 2.03
............................................................................................................................................................. toward free community papers ( b 5 2.25,
Magazines 0.29 4.85 1 p < .05 1.33 p , .001) and weekly newspapers ( b 5
.............................................................................................................................................................
2.17, p , .05). Attitudes toward other
Radio 0.31 5.98 1 p < .05 1.36
............................................................................................................................................................. media were not significant predictors of
Chi-square 5 103.17, df 5 4, N 5 629, p , .001, percentage correct 5 73.1. the usage of internet advertising in the
TABLE 3 (Null H2)

The Relationship between the Usage of Internet Advertising and Attitudes toward
Other Media Advertising
Usage of Internet
Media Advertising Advertising N Mean SD t df Sig. (2-tailed)
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Billboards Noninternet users 794 2.51 0.9 −3.71 1,407 p < .001
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Internet users 615 2.69 0.9
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Daily paid newspapers Noninternet users 867 3.48 0.88 2.52 1,435 p < .05
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Direct mail Noninternet users 801 2.84 0.97 −2.04 1,416 p < .05
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Free community papers Noninternet users 1,045 3.64 0.88 3.18 1,661 p < .001
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
In-store advertising sheets Noninternet users 1,017 3.36 0.92 2.88 1,650 p < .005
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Magazines Noninternet users 843 3.15 0.81 −0.53 1,439 n.s.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Radio Noninternet users 931 3.03 0.83 −2.95 1,545 p < .005
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Television Noninternet users 1,065 3.32 0.89 −4.13 1,726 p < .001
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Weekly paid newspapers Noninternet users 1,038 3.75 0.87 3.54 1,653 p < .001
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

TABLE 4 (RQ2) they used internet advertising. However,

the more frequently the consumer read
The Usage of Internet Advertising Explained by Attitudes
weekly papers, the less likely they would
toward Other Media as Advertising Sources in Logistic use internet advertising. Other media as
Regression Analysis advertising sources were not significant
predictors in the regression model.
Predictor b Wald Chi-square df Sig. Odds Ratio
.............................................................................................................................................................
Direct mail 0.23 11.05 1 p < .001 1.25
............................................................................................................................................................. RQ4: What forecasted media usage
Free community papers −0.25 10.29 1 p < .001 0.78
............................................................................................................................................................. for advertising would explain
Television 0.23 10.49 1 p < .001 1.26 the forecasted use of internet
.............................................................................................................................................................
advertising in the next five
Weekly paid newspapers −0.17 4.64 1 p < .05 0.85
............................................................................................................................................................. years?
Chi-square 5 41.67, df 5 4, N 5 1,150, p , .001, percentage correct 5 55.0
A multiple linear regression analysis in

Table 7 revealed that the model signifi-
regression analysis. The odds ratios for 1,449, t 5 2.74, p , .005), free community cantly contributed to identifying some of
direct mail and television as sources of papers (df 5 1,590, t 5 3.47, p , .001), the predictors for the forecasted usage of
advertising information suggested that in-store advertising sheets (df 5 1,596, t 5 internet advertising in the next five years
when holding other variables constant, 2.94, p , .005), and weekly newspapers [F(1,687) 5 83.09, p , .001]. The results
the more favorable attitudes toward the (df 5 1,568, t 5 3.91, p , .001) for adver- also showed that the forecasted usage of
advertising in these media, the more likely tising information. The readership of di- seven media as advertising sources were
the consumer would use internet adver- rect mail was the only measure statistically included in the equation except for daily
tising. In contrast, the more favorable at- insignificant between internet users and newspapers and in-store advertising sheets.
titudes toward free community papers and nonusers. Given only one exception, most All of the seven predictors were statisti-
weekly papers, the less likely the con- of null H3 was rejected. cally significant except radio as margin-
sumer would use internet advertising. ally significant (t 5 1.83, p , .07). An
RQ3: What media usage for advertis- increasingly forecasted usage of internet
Null H3: The relationship between the ing would help to explain the advertising was predicted by an increas-
usage of the internet and use of internet advertising? ingly forecasted usage of billboards (t 5
the usage of other mass me- 4.92, p , .001), direct mail (t 5 5.11, p ,
dia as sources of advertis- The logistic regression analysis in Table 6 .001), magazines (t 5 13.71, p , .001), and
ing information in the past indicated that three media as the sources television (t 5 3.15, p , .005). In contrast,
four weeks would show no of advertising information could contrib- an increasing use of internet advertising
difference. ute in predicting the use of internet ad- was associated with a decreasing use of
vertising in the last four weeks. These free community papers (t 5 23.90, p ,
T-tests in Table 5 revealed that internet media were billboards, television, and .001) and weekly newspapers (t 5 22.23,
users were more likely than nonusers to weekly newspapers. The increasing use p , .05) in the next five years.
be the viewers of billboards (df 5 925, t 5 of internet advertising was predicted by
24.34, p , .001), radio (df 5 1,352, t 5 the increasing use of billboards ( b 5 .30,
DISCUSSION
23.09, p , .005), and television (df 5 p , .001) and television commercials ( b 5
1,537, t 5 25.38, p , .001), and readers of .27, p , .001) and the decreasing use of
magazines (df 5 1,222, t 5 23.46, p , weekly newspapers ( b 5 2.37, p , .001). Relationship between internet and other
.001) in the past four weeks. However, The odds ratios for billboards and televi- media advertising
noninternet users were more likely than sion commercials indicated that the more Those consumers with more favorable at-
users in the past four weeks to read print frequently the consumer used billboards titudes toward internet advertising also
media including daily newspapers (df 5 and television commercials, the more likely had more favorable attitudes toward the

TABLE 5 (Null H3)

The Relationship between the Usage of Internet Advertising and Usage
of Other Media Advertising
Usage of Internet
Media Advertising Advertising N Mean SD t df Sig. (2-tailed)
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Billboards Noninternet users 439 1.95 0.95 −4.34 925 p < .001
Internet users 488 2.23 1
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Daily paid newspapers Noninternet users 871 3.28 1.13 2.74 1,449 p < .005
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Direct mail Noninternet users 681 2.52 1.09 0.48 1,284 n.s.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Free community papers Noninternet users 974 3.36 1.08 3.47 1,590 p < .001
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
In-store advertising sheets Noninternet users 976 3.28 1.07 2.94 1,596 p < .005
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Magazines Noninternet users 620 2.37 1.01 −3.46 1,222 p < .001
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Radio Noninternet users 758 2.59 1.02 −3.09 1,352 p < .005
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Television Noninternet users 896 2.78 1.07 −5.38 1,537 p < .001
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Weekly paid newspapers Noninternet users 966 3.5 1.1 3.91 1,568 p < .001
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
other media for advertising information

TABLE 6 (RQ3) in Table 8. This finding suggested that
The Usage of Internet Advertising Explained by Other Media there seems to be a particular group, say
Usage as Advertising Sources in Logistic Regression Analysis Internet Favorites, not rejecting any other
advertising media, at least at the attitudi-
Predictor b Wald Chi-square df Sig. Odds Ratio nal level. These favorable attitudes might
.............................................................................................................................................................
Billboards 0.30 12.96 1 p < .001 1.34 lead to the effect of media reinforcement.
.............................................................................................................................................................
Internet Favorites, more so than other
Television 0.27 11.61 1 p < .001 1.32
............................................................................................................................................................. groups, may have a higher socioeconomic
Weekly paid newspapers −0.37 26.51 1 p < .001 0.69
............................................................................................................................................................. status and may be more eager to seek
Chi-square 5 54.28, df 5 3, N 5 818, p , .05, percentage correct 5 54.5 shopping information from different me-

TABLE 7 (RQ4) sumers who are frequently exposed to

billboards were also far more likely to be
Forecasted Usage of Internet Advertising Explained by
internet users when compared to the na-
Forecasted Usage of Media as Advertising Sources in tional average.
Multiple Linear Regression Analysis Most findings in Table 8 on the fre-
quency between the use of the internet
Predictor B b t Sig.
............................................................................................................................................................. and other media as advertising sources in
Billboards 0.17 0.12 4.92 p < .001
............................................................................................................................................................. the past four weeks were rather consis-
Direct mail 0.16 0.13 5.11 p < .001 tent with the finding for the relationship
.............................................................................................................................................................
between internet use and media attitudes.
Free community papers −0.14 −0.11 −3.90 p < .001
............................................................................................................................................................. This consistency reinforced the pragmatic
Magazines 0.45 0.34 13.71 p < .001
............................................................................................................................................................. validity of the study. However, findings
Radio 0.06 0.05 1.83 p < .07
............................................................................................................................................................. on direct mail and magazine advertising
Television 0.11 0.08 3.15 p < .005 were different between the two behav-
.............................................................................................................................................................
ioral measurements. In Table 3, users of
Weekly paid papers −0.07 −0.06 −2.23 p < .05
............................................................................................................................................................. internet advertising had more favorable
R 5 .51, R-Square 5 .26, df 5 1,687, F 5 83.09, p , .001 attitudes toward direct mail than non-
users of internet advertising. Interest-
ingly, the attitudinal contrast was not
transformed into the behavioral dimen-
dia. This finding was consistent with the cess was similar on the desired result of sion. Table 5 showed that there was no
study by Donthu and Garcia (1999) who first needing to call for audience attention significant difference for the usage of di-
found that internet shoppers had a more within a short period of time. The percep- rect mail between users and nonusers of
positive attitude toward advertising than tual process of users of internet advertis- internet advertising. This result was sup-
nonshoppers. Nonetheless, a halo effect ing should be also similar to the perceptual ported by the study of Laroche, Pons, and
might be working across the perceptions process of users of television advertising Turmel (2002) who made a cross-cultural
of liking a combination of media sources due to the functional similarity of the two comparison of direct mail receptivity. They
for advertising information. media. found that the responses of English-
Internet users and nonusers have dif- The reason why billboards turned out speaking Canadians to direct mail were
ferent attitudes toward media advertis- to be one of the favorable media for in- more driven by the cognitive dimension,
ing. Table 8 showed that internet users ternet users was an interesting finding. It rather than the affective dimension, that
had favorable attitudes toward the use of has been speculated that internet adver- led to the usage of direct mail. This result
billboards, direct mail, and electronic me- tising, especially the banner advertise- meant that the usage of direct mail was
dia, while nonusers were mostly in favor ment, was perceived to be more like a not influenced by the favorable/unfavor-
of print advertising media. This finding billboard than traditional advertising able attitudes toward the medium for
was not surprising because internet ad- (Grimes, 1999). While surfing the net, in- English-speaking Canadians. In contrast,
vertising is functionally similar to elec- ternet users were exposed to online ad- the behavioral responses of French-
tronic media and direct mail in terms of vertisements featuring short headlines and speaking Canadians to direct mail were
entertainment and information value (Fer- graphic simplicity to billboards for brand more driven by the affective dimension.
guson and Perse, 2000; Leong, Huang, awareness and reinforcement (Russell and In other words, cultural variations seemed
and Stanners, 1998). Moreover, the rich Lane, 2002). As such, internet users seemed to be one of the factors that needed to be
and streaming features on the internet to accept billboards as a viable medium considered when interpreting the relation-
make this medium more closely resemble for reminder information for planning or ship between the usage and attitudes to-
what television and radio offer to the online shopping. This speculation was sup- ward direct mail.
audience/listener than other traditional ported by Bouvard and Noel (2001) who Table 8 suggested that there was not a
media. For both internet advertising and studied the role of outdoor advertising in significant relationship between internet
television commercials, the advertising pro- the media mix. They found that the con- users and nonusers on their attitudes to-

TABLE 8 ment or reinforcement with internet

advertising.
Summarized Results of the Relationship of Internet
The media advertising showing re-
Advertising with Other Media Advertising inforcement effects were billboards, direct
Relationship with Internet Advertising mail, magazines, radio, and television. The
.............................................................................................................................
findings were consistent with the previ-
Media Attitudes– Media Attitudes– Media Use–
ous studies on the positive associations of
Internet Attitudes Internet Use Internet Use
the internet with direct mail (Leong,
Media Advertising (Null H1) (Null H2) (Null H3)
............................................................................................................................................................. Huang, and Stanners, 1998), radio (Stem-
Billboards II a Ub Uc
............................................................................................................................................................. pel, Hargrove, and Bernt, 2000), and tele-
Daily paid newspapers II NU d
NU e vision (Lin, 1999). Based on attitudes and
.............................................................................................................................................................
usage, the reinforcement effects sug-
Direct mail II U —
............................................................................................................................................................. gested that the companies with a cross-
Free community papers II NU NU
............................................................................................................................................................. media strategy of these media were correct
In-store advertising sheets II NU NU
............................................................................................................................................................. in reaching these consumers (Aaker, 1996;
Magazines II — U Hays, 2002; Taylor, 2002). However, al-
.............................................................................................................................................................
though radio advertising in many cases
Radio II U U
............................................................................................................................................................. was successfully related to internet adver-
Television II U U
............................................................................................................................................................. tising, the current study revealed that the
Weekly newspapers II NU NU reinforcement effect between radio and
.............................................................................................................................................................
a
internet advertising only existed at the
II: Consumers with more positive attitudes toward internet advertising show more favorable attitudes toward each ad-
vertising medium than those consumers who do not like internet advertising. attitudinal level. Therefore, in future ap-
b
U: The users of internet advertising show more favorable attitude than nonusers toward the medium as an advertising plications planners should be cautious if
source.
c
U: The users of internet advertising are more likely than nonusers to use the medium as a source of advertising in the
both the internet and radio were to be
past four weeks. included in the cross-media strategy.
d
NU: The nonusers of internet advertising show more favorable attitudes than users toward the medium as a source of
Billboard advertising had the reinforce-
advertising.
e
NU: The nonusers of internet advertising are more likely than users to use the medium as a source of advertising in ment effect on internet advertising at three
the past four weeks. different levels, including attitudes to-
ward internet advertisements, internet
usage in the past four weeks, and the
forecasted usage of internet advertising.
Some possible reasons were given previ-
ward magazine advertising. However, a Effects of media ously on the positive association between
significant relationship emerged when the displacement/reinforcement the two media, yet more research needs
usage of magazine advertising in the past Table 9 summarized the effects of displace- to be conducted to reveal the causes for
four weeks was measured. Internet users ment or reinforcement measured between this finding.
were a little more likely to be magazine other media and internet advertising at Magazine advertising showed the re-
readers or subscribers than nonusers. This four different levels. Several media mea- inforcement effect at two different levels.
result might be caused from differences sured in the study had a reinforcement If consumers liked magazine advertising,
between the two groups on personal char- effect (increase-increase) with internet ad- they were more likely to be in favor of
acteristics of socioeconomic status, age, or vertising. In contrast, the displacement internet advertising. If consumers increas-
educational background. It could also be effects (increase-decrease) occurred only ingly used magazines as a source of ad-
related to psychological differences be- in the relationship of free community pa- vertising information, they might
tween the two groups in the need for pers and weekly papers with internet increasingly use internet advertising in
information or in situational differences advertising. The daily newspapers and the next five years. In the hierarchy of
such as time available to find advertising in-store advertising were the only media effects model, the expectation was that
information on products and services. revealing no significant effects of displace- some people with favorable attitudes may

TABLE 9
Summarized Results of Regression Analyses
Effects of Media Displacement/Reinforcement
....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Media Attitudes r Media Attitudes r In the Past Four Weeks Forecasted Media
Internet Attitudes Internet Use Media Use r Internet Use Use r Internet Use
Media Advertising (RQ1) (RQ2) (RQ3) (RQ4)
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Billboards Increase-increase Increase-increase Increase-increase
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Daily paid newspapers
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Direct mail Increase-increase Increase-increase Increase-increase
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Free community papers Increase-decrease Increase-decrease
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
In-store advertising sheets
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Magazines Increase-increase Increase-increase
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Radio Increase-increase
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Television Increase-increase Increase-increase Increase-increase
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Weekly newspapers Increase-decrease Increase-decrease Increase-decrease
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Increase-increase: The effect of media reinforcement is identified between the two media as sources of advertising.
Increase-decrease: The effect of media displacement is identified between the two media as sources of advertising.
have intentions to use the internet even to indicate that a complex relationship cations were published weekly or biweekly.
though they were not using it. Therefore, existed between magazine readership and The instant speed of information transmis-
it was not surprising to find that favor- internet usage for advertising information. sion through the internet has posed a ma-
able attitudes toward magazine advertis- Displacement effects (increase-decrease) jor threat to these publications as consumers
ing and the recent use of magazine were found in the relationship of internet move from a print orientation to an elec-
advertising were not related to current advertising with free community papers and tronic orientation. Readers no longer have
usage of internet advertising. This seemed weekly newspapers. Most of these publi- to wait for weekly or biweekly delivery of
advertisements and news when they can
easily search and download the informa-
tion from the internet at any time. This find-
ing was supported by previous research
(Mediapost, 2002, 2003) showing that con-
Displacement effects (increase-decrease) were found in sumers were increasingly using the inter-
net to search for product information for
the relationship of internet advertising with free commu- big-ticket items, such as cars, computers,
and major appliances. The increasing usage
nity papers and weekly newspapers. . . .The instant speed of internet advertising was especially evi-
dent in metropolitan areas where weekly
of information transmission through the internet has posed newspapers and free community papers
were losing their market share to those me-
a major threat to these publications as consumers move dia that offered more timely delivery of ad-
vertising and news information (Coulson,
from a print orientation to an electronic orientation. Lacy, and Wilson, 2001).

Limitations of the research and future . . . many consumers found that internet advertising was
research directions
This research project has several limita- an alternative medium complementary to their favorable
tions and some interesting research oppor-
tunities. First, this study was representative attitude or frequent use of other media advertising.
but from only one midwestern state.
One way to broaden the study and to
ascertain whether the findings can be
confirmed in other geographical regions Fifth, the current study only analyzed roughly the time devoted to the medium
would be to expand the study to other consumers’ attitudes toward media ad- but not necessarily to the advertising in
states in the United States. Second, the vertising, the frequency of usage for me- the medium. If correct, the new data would
attitudinal measurement in this research dia advertising, and a demographic profile. provide evidence of the increase-increase
project was a 5-point Likert-type scale Research in the next phase could include or increase-decrease effects between inter-
without a scaled middle point. The attitu- the analysis of socioeconomic and psy- net and other media advertising that might
dinal analysis could be deepened by in- chographic data and the examination of have occurred.
cluding both types of scales with and the uses and gratifications of media in
without a scaled midpoint to compare the order to develop a multidimensional CONCLUSIONS
two types of scales on differences, if model for the effects of displacement and Although internet advertising has pro-
any. Third, the possibility of a halo effect reinforcement. vided many unique features, it has not
may have existed in the consumer re- Sixth, the relationship between internet displaced most media as advertising
sponses to the attitude measures. Al- advertising and specific advertising in sources. This finding, in fact, supported
though previous research supported the broadcast and print media has not been the study of Napoli and Ewing (2001) and
current finding, the positive attitudes of fully answered in the current study. Al- the speculation of Russell and Lane (2002)
internet users toward other media should though both radio and television are who suggested that internet advertising
be further investigated on whether the electronic media, why should television serves a “complementary rather than com-
finding was indeed accurate and why or advertising have demonstrated a strong petitive role.” In other words, many con-
really from a halo effect. effect of reinforcement, while radio com- sumers found that internet advertising was
Fourth, the current study was very en- mercials revealed no effects at most an alternative medium complementary to
couraging because it found significant re- levels? The relationship between daily their favorable attitude or frequent use of
sults for almost all of the relationships newspapers and internet advertising can other media advertising. The research also
measured in the study. The results partic- be another research area to explore. The suggested that the reinforcement effects
ularly for attitudes toward other media current study found no effects of displace- will be likely more evident for the future
and internet usage for advertising infor- ment or reinforcement; yet, because of use of internet advertising associated with
mation had statistically significant mean contradictory speculations between the two the use of billboards, direct mail, maga-
differences in 9 of the 10 relationships but media, additional study might lead to use- zines, and television. However, the dis-
demonstrated relatively small differences ful findings to both industries. placement effects may continue to occur
for advertising planning. These few small Seventh, the current and forecasted for the future use of internet advertising
differences still may raise a pragmatic con- usage of media advertising was based on associated with the future use of free com-
cern of so what. However, one can argue perceptions of frequency and expecta- munity papers and weekly papers as ad-
that small differences in means may still tions of use, respectively. The analysis vertising sources.
result in an important influence later on could be extended by incorporating time- ................................................................................................
sales due to the size of the market for based measures to determine if consum- JAMES C. TSAO is an associate professor and chair-
many products and services. Longitudi- ers could provide an accurate assessment man of the Department of Journalism at the Univer-
nal research tracking the changes of the of the amount of time devoted to the sity of Wisconsin Oshkosh. His research interests
predictor variables with the dependent advertising regardless of the source. In include international advertising, internet advertising,
variables, including sales, could investi- this research project, the position was taken and free community papers. His studies have been
gate this expected sales effect. that consumers might be able to estimate published in several journals.

................................................................................................
Everitt, B. S. The Cambridge Dictionary of Sta- Howard, J. A., and J. N. Sheth. The Theory of
STANLEY D. SIBLEY is a professor of marketing at the
tistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Buyer Behavior. New York: Wiley Publishing,
University of Wisconsin Oshkosh. He has published in
Press, 1998. 1969.
the Journal of Marketing, the Journal of Retailing, and
other leading journals. He is a cofounder of Multi-
Kayany, J. M., and P. Yelsma. “Displacement
Ferguson, D. A., and E. M. Perse. “The World
media Market Research Associates.
Effects of Online Media in the Socio-Technical
Wide Web as a Functional Alternative to Tele-
Contexts of Households.” Journal of Broadcast-
vision.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic
ing and Electronic Media 44, 2 (2000): 215–29.
Media 44, 2 (2000): 155–74.
REFERENCES
Laroche, M., F. Pons, and A. Turmel. “A
Fetto, J. “Internet Interest Dips.” American De- Cross-Cultural Comparison of Direct Mail Re-
Aaker, D. Building Strong Brands. New York:
mographics, June 2002a. ceptivity.” Journal of International Consumer Mar-
Free Press, 1996.
keting 14, 4 (2002): 5–24.
Fetto, J. “Teen Chatters.” American Demograph-

Allen, C. T., and T. J. Madden. “A Closer
ics, June 2002b. Lee, W., and C. Y. Kuo. “Internet and Displace-
Look at Classical Conditioning.” Journal of Con-
ment Effect: Children’s Media Use and Activ-
sumer Research 12, 3 (1985): 301–15.
ities in Singapore.” Journal of Computer-
Fishbein, M., and I. Ajzen. Belief, Attitude,
Mediated Communication (USA) 9, 2 (2002):
Intention and Behaviors: An Introduction to Theory
Bouvard, P., and J. Noel. The Arbitron Outdoor [Online journal ^http://www.ascusc.org/jcmc/
and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Study: Outdoor Media Consumers and Their Cru- vol7/issue2/&].
Publishing Company, 1975.
cial Role in the Media Mix. [Online study: ^http://
www.Arbitron.com/downloads/outdoorstudy. Leong, E. K. F., X. Huang, and P. Stanners.
pdf/&], 2001. Fletcher, A. Target Marketing through the Yel- “Comparing the Effectiveness of the Web Site
low Pages. Yellow Pages Publishers Association, with Traditional Media.” Journal of Advertising
1991. Research 38, 5 (1998): 44–49.
Coulson, D., S. Lacy, and J. Wilson. “Weekly
Newspapers—Solid Industry with Many Vari-
Lin, C. A. “Exploring the Role of VCR Use in
ations.” Newspaper Research Journal 22, 3 (2001): Geller, M. “Off to a Start.” MediaPost’s Media,
the Emerging Home Entertainment Culture.”
16–29. February 2002.
Journalism Quarterly 70, 4 (1993): 833–42.
Dawidowska, K. “Surfing 9-to-5.” American De- Grimes, M. “Online Advertising Boot Camp: –——. “Online-Service Adoption Likelihood.”
mographics May 2002. Take No Prisoners.” iMarketing News, August Journal of Advertising Research 39, 2 (1999): 79–89.
1999.
Denham, B. E. “Advanced Categorical Statis- Loechner, J. “Behind the Numbers: Internet
tics: Issues and Applications in Communica- Hawley, A. H. “Human Ecology.” In Inter- Use.” MediaPost’s Media, March 2002.
tion Research.” Journal of Communication 51, 1 national Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, D. L.
(2002): 162–76. Sills, ed. New York: Macmillan, 1968. McQuail, D. Mass Communication Theory. Lon-
don: Sage Publications, 1994.
Dimmick, J., and E. Rothenbuhler. “The Hays, S. “Byting Back.” MediaPost’s Media, April
Mediapost. “Top Traditional Advertisers Use
Theory of the Niche: Quantifying Competition 2002.
Non-Standard Ad Dimensions on the Inter-
among Media Industries.” Journal of Communi-
net,” April 15, 2003: [URL: http://www.
cation 34, 1 (1984): 103–19.
Honeycutt, J. M., and J. G. Cantrill. “Using mediapost.com/research/cfmr_briefArchive.
Expectations of Relational Actions to Predict cfm?s5201960], retrieved June 9, 2003.
Donthu, N., and A. Garcia. “The Internet Number of Intimate Relationships: Don Juan
Shopper.” Journal of Advertising Research 39, 3 and Romeo Unmasked.” Communication Re- Mediapost. “US Online Consumer Spending
(1999): 52–58. ports 44, 1 (1991): 14–21. Hits a New High,” July 31, 2002: [URL: http://

www . mediapost . com / research / cfmr _ brief Environment.” Human Communication Research Stempel, G. H., T. Hargrove, and J. P. Bernt.
Archive.cfm?s5176802], retrieved June 9, 2003. 19, 4 (1993): 485–503. “Relation of Growth of Use of the Internet to
Changes in Media Use from 1995 to 1999.”
Prasad, V. K., and L. J. Smith. “Television Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly
Menard, S. Applied Logistic Regression Analysis.
Commercials in Violent Programming: An Ex- 77, 1 (2000): 71–79.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2002.
perimental Evaluation of Their Effects on Chil-
dren.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
Taylor, C. P. “Cross-Media: Traditional Adver-
Napoli, J., and M. T. Ewing. “The Net Gener- 22, 4 (1994): 340–51.
tisers Taking Baby Steps Online.” MediaPost’s
ation: An Analysis of Lifestyles, Attitudes, and
Media, March 2002.
Media Habits.” Journal of International Con- Preston, I. L. “The Association Model of the
sumer Marketing 13, 1 (2001): 21–33. Advertising Communication Process.” Journal
of Advertising 11, 2 (1982): 3–15.
Vaughn, R. “How Advertising Works: A Plan-
Pampel, F. C. Logistic Regression: A Primer. Thou- ning Model.” Journal of Advertising Research 20,
Russell, J. T., and W. R. Lane. Principles of
sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2000. 5 (1980): 27–33.
Advertising. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall, 2002.
Perse, E. M., and J. A. Courtright. “Norma- –——. “How Advertising Works: A Planning
tive Images of Communication Media: Mass Severin, W. J., and J. W. Tankard, Jr. Commu- Model Revisited.” Journal of Advertising Re-
and Interpersonal Channels in the New Media nication Theories. New York: Longman, 1988. search 26, 1 (1986): 57–66.

Displacement and Reinforcement Effects of The Internet and Other Media As Sources of Advertising Information

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Displacement and Reinforcement Effects of The Internet and Other Media As Sources of Advertising Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Displacement and Reinforcement Effects

of the Internet and Other Media as Sources

INTRODUCTION When new communication technology emerged,

126 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2004 DOI: 10.1017/S0021849904040073

March 2004 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 127

128 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2004

Figure 1 Conceptualized Models Explaining the Displacement and Reinforcement Effects

March 2004 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 129

130 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2004

March 2004 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 131

132 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2004

TABLE 1 (Null H1)

March 2004 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 133

TABLE 2 (RQ1) included direct mail, free community pa-

TABLE 3 (Null H2)

134 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2004

TABLE 4 (RQ2) they used internet advertising. However,

A multiple linear regression analysis in

March 2004 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 135

TABLE 5 (Null H3)

other media for advertising information

136 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2004

TABLE 7 (RQ4) sumers who are frequently exposed to

March 2004 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 137

TABLE 8 ment or reinforcement with internet

138 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2004

March 2004 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 139

140 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2004

Fetto, J. “Teen Chatters.” American Demograph-

Denham, B. E. “Advanced Categorical Statis- Loechner, J. “Behind the Numbers: Internet

March 2004 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH 141

142 JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING RESEARCH March 2004

You might also like