LA EDUCACIÓN COMO MEDIO PARA LA RESOCIALIZACIÓN: ARGUMENTOS A

6.1.1 Advertisement Message Characteristics

According to advertising literature, there are three classes of advertisement message characteristics, namely message structure, message content and message appeal. Message structure concerns the order in which message points should be presented. Message content refers to the vocabulary, writing style and words used in the message or the linguistic and grammatical structure of sentences. Message appeal is about constructing the ad’s message to appeal to the receiver’s moral principles, emotions, or intellect.

The last class, message appeal, was chosen to be implemented in paid search advertisement form. In line with Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) theory (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986), three ad cues were selected to appeal to the receiver depending on its stage in the sales funnel and level of product knowledge. These ad cues are source expertise, argument quality and a two-sided argument. The cues were implemented in paid search ads by means of varying the levels of three ad attributes, as described in chapter 4.1.4.

6.1.2 The Alignment of ELM Theory

The Elaboration Likelihood Model captures distinct levels of processing of which the determinants could be aligned to the moderating variables of this specific study. Both people’s motivation and ability to process an advertisement message determine the route to persuasion in the ELM. When people are motivated and have the ability to process they have a high level of involvement and will follow a central route to processing. When people are not motivated or do not have the ability to process they have a low level of involvement and will follow a peripheral route to processing. Motivation and ability was linked to consumer’s position in the sales funnel and their level of category knowledge respectively in chapter 3.3. Ability to process an advertisement message rises with the level of product knowledge and motivation to process an advertisement message rises with consumer’s movement through the sales funnel.

6.1.3 Ad Cue Effectiveness

The results from chapter 5 showed that the different ad cues have a different effectiveness. Overall, consumers click on a paid search advertisement more when this advertisement contains an argument quality cue. This finding did not confirm initial expectations. The argument quality cue was designed as a central cue. A central cue is persuasive for consumers with a high level of involvement, who actively seek and process product-relevant information by considering the pros and cons of the product and attending to product-relevant arguments and attributes. This cue was present in an ad when the level of product feature 1 (one of the ad attributes) was ‘excellent’. For a DSLR Camera, a part of the ad read: ‘ten x superzoom’ and for running shoes, a part of the ad read ‘max. stability’.

According to ELM theory, people will only attend to or read these arguments when they have a high level of involvement. However, a dominant part of the respondent sample was placed in a level of low involvement (early stage of the sales funnel or low product knowledge). A peripheral cue was therefore expected to be most effective overall, as this cue is persuasive for consumers with a low level of involvement.

The source expertise cue was designed as a peripheral cue. This cue was present in a DSLR ad reading ‘approved by prof. photographers’ and in a running shoes ad reading ‘approved by professional athletes’. These lines should have served as ‘heuristic’ cues, allowing the consumer with a low level of involvement to derive inferences regarding brand benefits, quality, or attributes (based on superficial ad analysis). As this source expertise cue did not show a direct effect, and the argument quality cue did, a discussion was raised in chapter 5.4 about whether the central and peripheral cues were effectively designed.

6.1.4 Discussion on Cue Design

Assuming that the manipulation of sales funnel stages and product knowledge levels was effective and that the combination of these variables indeed correspond to different levels of involvement (chapter 3.3), a peripheral cue should show a direct effect in the probability of clicking on an ad.

As the argument quality cue is the only cue showing a direct effect, this cue could have served as a peripheral cue instead of a central cue. On a more intuitive level, this idea also seems to make sense. A peripheral cue should allow people with low involvement to draw inferences about the product advertised without scrutinizing the content of a message. When scanning the ads in appendix 7.2, the varying levels of product feature 1, captured directly in the beginning of the second ad line, could form a simple positive or negative cue from which respondents could quickly draw their conclusions. In contrast, the source expertise cue captured in the first line of the ads, requires respondents to

read the content of the message more carefully. Furthermore, an approval from an expert source could have functioned as an argument quality (central) cue, increasing the strength of the argument for buying the product (or at least clicking on the ad).

In the next paragraph, which will conclude on the results of the moderating effects, I will therefore come back to this issue and conclude on the effects from both scenarios (1. Argument quality as central cue and source expertise as peripheral cue, 2. Source expertise as central cue and argument quality as peripheral cue).

6.1.5 Moderating Effects

The results from chapter 5 showed significant interaction effects between the ad cues, sales funnel stages and product knowledge levels. This proves that the effectiveness of paid search ad cues is indeed dependent on consumer’s product knowledge and their position in the sales funnel.

Support could be found for the effectiveness of a two-sided argument cue on highly involved people. Derogating the brand on an attribute of minor importance (a two-sided argument cue) is namely only effective for people in a late stage of the sales funnel with high product knowledge; they are more likely to click when the applicable attribute level is low.

The direction of the effects of the argument quality and source expertise cue did not confirm initial expectations, when assuming that these ad cues functioned as intended (argument quality cue as central cue and source expertise cue as peripheral cue).

People with a high (low) level of involvement were expected to be more sensitive to a central (peripheral) cue. A high level of involvement is characterized by both a person’s motivation (sales funnel stage) and ability (product knowledge) to process an ad. If motivation is high but ability is lacking, the person should be forced to rely on peripheral cues (source expertise) in order to evaluate the message. The results however showed that the source expertise cue is most effective for people in later stages of the sales funnel with high product knowledge. In addition, the argument quality cue showed to be more effective for people in a beginning stage of the sales funnel with high product knowledge. At last, interaction effects were only found between all three variables. No interaction effects were found between the ad cues and sales funnel stages or between the ad cues and product knowledge levels. This means that people in different stages of the sales funnel do not react differently towards the ad cues and that people with low product knowledge do not react differently towards the ad cues compared to people with high product knowledge. It should have been the case that people in an early stage of the sales funnel (lacking motivation) or with low product knowledge (lacking ability) are more sensitive to the source expertise cue.

When assuming that the source expertise cue functioned as a central cue and the argument quality cue as peripheral cue instead, support could actually be found for the expected direction of the interaction between the ad cues, sales funnel stages and product knowledge levels. People with high product knowledge in later stages of the sales funnel are then indeed more sensitive to the part of the ad that captures a central cue (argument quality in the form of approval from an expert source). In addition, people with high product knowledge in an early stage of the sales funnel are then indeed more sensitive to the part of the ad that captures a peripheral cue (an excellent performance level of product feature 1).

The applicability of the Elaboration Likelihood Model in a paid search advertising context remains only partially proven in the latter scenario; support is found for the cues’ effects amongst people

with a high level of knowledge (high ability), but no support could be found for the effectiveness of a peripheral cue for people with a low level of product knowledge (low ability).

In a final conclusion to the research question, this study found that (1) advertisement message characteristics (in the form of ad cues) have an effect on paid search advertising effectiveness and that (2) this relationship is dependent on consumers’ product knowledge and position in the sales funnel. When assuming that the source expertise cue functioned as a central cue and the argument quality cue as peripheral cue, support could be found for the (partial) applicability of the Elaboration Likelihood Model in a paid search advertising context. The implications of these findings will be addressed next.