Investigating the Simultaneous Presentation of Advertising and Television Programming

An empirical investigation was conducted to evaluate the simultaneous presentation of advertising and television programming. This format was compared to the sequential presentation format in terms of ad-avoidance intention, generation of cognitive responses, and brand evaluations. Results indicate that the simultaneous presentation format reduces ad-zapping intentions. However, the distraction effect of the simultaneous viewing of the program leads to a reduction of the dominant cognitive response generated by the advertising message. Compared to sequential presentation, simultaneous presentation of advertising and programming reduces support arguments and brand evaluations for relatively strong messages, but not for relatively weak messages.

[1]  Kenneth R. Lord,et al.  Product Placement in Movies: The Effect of Prominence and Mode on Audience Recall , 1998 .

[2]  Fred S. Zufryden,et al.  Zapping and its impact on brand purchase behavior , 1993 .

[3]  S. Moriarty,et al.  Commercial Breaks: A Viewing Behavior Study , 1994 .

[4]  Gary F. Soldow,et al.  Response to commercials as a function of program context. , 1981 .

[5]  F. Craik,et al.  The effects of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes in human memory. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[6]  Amitava Chattopadhyay,et al.  To Zap Or Not to Zap: a Study of the Determinants of Channel Switching During Commercials , 1998 .

[7]  Peter Wright.  Message-Evoked Thoughts: Persuasion Research Using Thought Verbalizations , 1980 .

[8]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement , 1983 .

[9]  Jennings Bryant,et al.  The Effect of Positioning a Message within Differentially Cognitively Involving Portions of a Television Segment on Recall of the Message , 1978 .

[10]  Richard J. Lutz,et al.  The Role of Argument Quality in the Elaboration Likelihood Model , 1988 .

[11]  Peter J. Danaher,et al.  WHAT HAPPENS TO TELEVISION RATINGS DURING COMMERCIAL BREAKS , 1995 .

[12]  Myra A. Fernandes,et al.  Divided attention and memory: evidence of substantial interference effects at retrieval and encoding. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[13]  Michael T. Elliott,et al.  Predictors of Advertising Avoidance in Print and Broadcast Media , 1997 .

[14]  Sharmistha Law,et al.  I'll Have What She's Having: Gauging the Impact of Product Placements on Viewers , 2000 .

[15]  Keith S. Coulter.  The Effects of Affective Responses to Media Context on Advertising Evaluations , 1998 .

[16]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[17]  D. T. Regan,et al.  Distraction and attitude change: A resolution , 1973 .

[18]  Robert S. Baron,et al.  Distraction Can Enhance or Reduce Yielding to Propaganda: Thought Disruption Versus Effort Justification , 1976 .

[19]  A. Paivio.  Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach , 1986 .

[20]  Alan C.B. Tse,et al.  Zapping Behavior during Commercial Breaks , 2001, Journal of Advertising Research.

[21]  H L KOCH,et al.  Harvey A. Carr, 1873-1954. , 1955, Psychological review.

[22]  Scott B. MacKenzie,et al.  Context is Key: The Effect of Program-Induced Mood on Thoughts about the Ad , 1998 .

[23]  B. Sternthal,et al.  The Effects of Program Involvement and Ease of Message Counterarguing on Advertising Persuasiveness , 1992 .

[24]  Curtis P. Haugtvedt,et al.  Interactive Effects of Presentation Modality and Message-Generated Imagery on Recall of Advertising Information , 1996 .

[25]  H A Simon,et al.  How Big Is a Chunk? , 1974, Science.