نگرش نسبت به آگهی ویروسی : گسترش مدل های تبلیغات سنتی به تبلیغات تعاملی

As a form of advertising, viral video (VV) advertising is distinct in that its communication medium is the social connections between individuals instead of formal media. After viewing VV advertising, people are engaged in two independent but interrelated processes, i.e., video sharing and embedded brand information processing. Previous research has not examined the interaction between the two processes. This study expands on the mediation of attitude toward the advertisement model proposed by MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch (1986). Experimental results from three viral video advertisements show that attitude toward the VV advertisement is the major factor affecting video sharing, but attitude toward the brand also has a significant impact on sharing activity. Affect transfer hypothesis (ATH) and its extended models are optimal in explaining viral video advertising, which is different from prior research on non-viral advertising that suggests dual mediation hypothesis as the optimal explanatory theory.

With the explosive growth of social media (e.g., YouTube and Facebook) in recent years, viral video (VV) advertising, which involves video-based messages released through interactive, network-based channels, has been used by companies to disseminate their product and brand information. A survey by the Association of National Advertisers (ANA) showed that half of marketers used VV advertising for marketing purposes in 2009 (McCollum 2009), and this usage reached 70% in 2010 according to another survey (Web Video Marketing Council, Flimp Media and ExactTarget 2010). In spite of rapid adoption of the VV advertising by advertisers, how VV advertising accomplishes desired advertising effects remains unclear to academic researchers and practitioners. VV advertising stands in contrast to mass media advertising (such as television advertising) in that it is delivered in an interactive, Web-based environment characterized by viewer pull and control rather than sponsor push. Interesting video content and embedded brand information are two critical components of VV advertising that differ from traditional TV advertising (Carlin, 2007 and Hinz et al., 2011). Interesting content enhances the possibility of video sharing, or the formation of sharing intention (SI) (Huang, Lin, and Lin 2009), while embedded brand information affects the marketing effectiveness of VV advertising, especially the formation of brand attitudes (Ab). Thus both the viewer's reaction to the video and to the embedded brand are important for understanding the ultimate effects of a viral video advertisement. Because of this, questions worthy of systematic investigation arise. What effects emerge when processing of video content occurs simultaneously with the processing of brand information embedded in the video? How are sharing intention and the formation of brand attitudes interrelated?

This study examines MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch (1986) IIH, ATH, RMH, and DMH models within the VV advertising viewing context. Contrary to previous work stating that the DMH provides a better fit for the data than the other three, our findings show that the ATH model best represents the attitude formation process related to VV advertising. In this ATH model, Av has a significant effect on Ab directly, but it has no significant effect on Cb and PI. Specifically, the significant Av → Ab linkage suggests that when consumers are exposed to VV advertising, a peripheral route to persuasion will occur. Affect transfer from liking the video to favoring the brand will also occur. Furthermore, the non-significant Av → Cb linkage demonstrates that, when viewing the viral video, consumers focus their attention on the video content rather than the brand. The non-significant Av → PI linkage indicates that people treat the video as interesting content rather than as an advertisement. In other words, psychologically, people separate video content from the product, and eventually viral video advertisement fails to function as a purchasing persuader. As a result, Av fails to have a significant direct influence on PI. Generally, people are more focused on the story than on product information. As pointed out by MacKenzie, Lutz, and Belch (1986), “audience members respond less to the content of a persuasive message than to factors incidental to the content” (p 132). This situation therefore validates the affect transfer model.