8/8/2019 Kelly_S3 S1 P1

1/7

1

Advertising avoidance in the online social networking environment

Louise Kelly, Queensland University of Technology

Abstract

This exploratory study uses qualitative research methods to investigate advertising avoidancein the online social networking environment. Focus group studies and in-depth interviewswere conducted with a sample group consisting of male and female teenagers. A revisedmodel of advertising avoidance is presented, which suggests that advertising in the onlinesocial networking environment is more likely to be avoided if the consumer has anexpectation of a negative experience, if the advertising is not relevant to the consumer, if theconsumer is sceptical towards the advertising message or if the consumer is sceptical towardsthe advertising medium.

Introduction

Since its introduction four years ago, the growth of online social networking sites has been both rapid and dramatic and has changed the purpose and the functionality of the internet(Vogt and Knapman 2008). The potential to reach consumers directly in their privateenvironment has meant that marketers are keen to advertise in this new mode of communication (Boyd and Ellison 2007).

There is considerable academic research into advertising on the internet (Grant 2005; Ko,Cho and Roberts 2005; La Ferle, Edwards and Lee 2000; Namiranian 2006; Rappaport2007). However, owing to the rapid growth in the area of online social networking sitesover a very short period of time, there is limited academic research published in the area of online social networking sites as an advertising medium (Boyd and Ellison 2007). Withadvertising expenditure in this new media expected to reach $1.2 billion in 2008 (Sinclair 2008), it is important that advertising practioners understand the attitudes and perceptionsthat teenagers have towards advertising in their online social networking sites. If theadvertising on these sites is being avoided, then advertisers need to fully understand thereasons behind this avoidance in order to develop strategies to ensure that their messageeffectively reaches their target market. Advertising avoidance includes all actions bymedia users that differentially reduce their exposure to ad content (Speck and Elliott

1997). Consumers are able to avoid advertising by cognitive, behavioural and mechanicalmeans (Speck and Elliott 1997).

Literature Review

The process by which individuals approach social networking and communication hassignificantly changed since the introduction of online social networking and personal webspaces such as MySpace and Facebook (Lee and Conroy 2005). These online socialnetworking sites are funded by the selling of advertising specifically targeted to theindividual as well as the selling of statistical data collected from the profiles of the site users(Barnes 2006). More importantly, the financial viability of these online sites depends upon

the faith that advertisers have in the effectiveness of the media as well as the positive perceptions of those viewing the ads. Advertisers are demonstrating their confidence by

8/8/2019 Kelly_S3 S1 P1

2/7

8/8/2019 Kelly_S3 S1 P1

3/7

3

Proposition 3: Teenagers avoid advertisements on online social networking sites if theyhave had negative experiences with previous online advertisements.

Methodology

An exploratory qualitative study into the perceptions advertising in the online socialnetworking environment was undertaken, using a multi- method approach. Focus groups andin-depth interviews were conducted with a sample group consisting of teenagers aged from 13years to 17 years. This group was considered appropriate as they are heavy users of onlinesocial networking sites with 70% of teenage girls and 50% of teenage boys having a Myspacesite (Media and Communications in Australian Families 2007).

Focus groups were conducted in the exploration stage of the study in order to gain insight intothe issue of perception of advertising in the online social networking environment. Four focus groups of six participants were conducted using a non probability sampling strategy.The focus groups, which lasted one hour, consisted of semi structured questions designed togain the participants views regarding online social networking sites and advertising (Polonskyand Waller 2005; Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill 2003). The audio tapes were transcribed andanalysed with major themes and subthemes identified (Garrison, Pierce, Monroe, Sasser,Shaffer and Blalock 1999; Saunders et al. 2003).

The second form of qualitative research used in the study, was a series of eight in-depthinterviews. The interviews were used to gain deeper insight into the issues identified in thefocus groups (Cooper and Schindler 2006; Hair, Babin, Money and Samouel 2003; Davis1997). Again open ended semi structured questions were developed to encourage flow of information (Mason 2000). The interview participants had all used Facebook and had hadan online networking site for over one year. The interviews were also audio taped andtranscribed for analysis. The use of multi-method research design of this study providesqualitative data from different sources which in turn adds rigor to the research (Sekaran2000).

Findings

The results of this study showed that teenagers have very high levels of avoiding advertisingon online social networking sites. The participants felt the advertisements were not relevant

to them. They also did not trust advertising messages in the online social networkingenvironment and did not find them credible. These findings are supported by Johnson andKaye (1998) who suggest that advertising has less credibility when it is viewed in a mediumthat isnt perceived as being trustworthy. The participants felt very sceptical towardsadvertising in the online social networking sites and avoided them either by ignoring it or deleting the message without reading. Advertising avoidance due to scepticism is supported

by Obermiller, Spangenberg and MacLachlan (2005) who argue that consumers are notmotivated to process information when they are sceptical about the message.

Cho and Cheons (2004) research into advertising avoidance on the internet outlines thetheoretical model that suggests that consumers exercise advertising avoidance because of the

perception that the advertising may disrupt their time online because of a perception that thereis too much advertising clutter online and finally because the consumer has had prior

8/8/2019 Kelly_S3 S1 P1

4/7

4

negative experiences with advertising online. Teenagers in this study did not feel that theadvertisements disrupted their time online (Proposition 1) nor did they believe that there wastoo much advertising clutter online (Proposition 2). Whilst the participants did not like theadvertisements that surprised them and popped up on screen, they did not feel that theseadvertisements disrupted their time online.

Our study shows that the teenagers notice advertisements that provide entertainment such asgames; however they use these games without any intention of accepting the potential prizes.They were not prepared to disclose personal information to the company that supplied thegame to collect the prizes. They had a fear that if they did provide personal details theywould then be inundated with advertising messages. Most had heard of a situation where thishad happened to someone else.

The participants in the study were distrustful of the information and motivations behind theadvertising online. Most of them had heard of people who had negative experiences such asgetting a computer virus or receiving incorrect information and were therefore reluctant toclick onto any advertising. This supports in part Cho and Cheons (2004) theory thatconsumers avoid advertising because of previous negative experiences, however in this studymost of the participants had not personally had a negative experience but knew someone whohad (Proposition 3).

Analysis of this studys primary and secondary research has resulted in a revised model of advertising avoidance in the online social networking environment. This model consists of four antecedents to advertising avoidance in the online social networking environment asoutlined in Figure 1. These antecedents are:1. Expectation of negative experiences with advertisements in the online social networking

environment. This expectation can be as a result of prior negative experiences or expectation of negative experiences due to word of mouth by others.

2. Perception of relevance of advertising message if the advertising message is not of interest or of relevance to the receiver of the message, then the information is likely not to

be processed.3. Scepticism of advertising message claims if consumers are sceptical of the claims

made by the advertisement (perception that they are not reliable or valid) then they arelikely to ignore the message and potentially disregard other messages in this medium.

4. Scepticism of online social networking sites as a credible advertising medium consumers do not trust the information gained from online social networking sites. They

believe that online social networking sites lack commercial credibility and understand that

there is little policing of advertising claims in this medium.

This model would suggest that if one or more of the antecedents are present then theadvertising message is likely to be avoided. The avoidance of the advertising message may

be cognitive (ignoring the message) or behavioural (deleting the message without reading it).This model is of importance to both academics and practitioners as it provides a starting pointto understand why advertising in the online social networking environment is not assuccessful as originally anticipated. By understanding the reasons why advertising is beingavoided, strategies can be developed to lessen the possibility of avoidance.

Figure 1 Model of advertising avoidance in the online social networking environment

8/8/2019 Kelly_S3 S1 P1

5/7

5

Conclusion

This study has presented a revised model of advertising avoidance in the online socialnetworking environment. This model of advertising avoidance suggests that advertising inthe online social networking environment is more likely to be avoided if the consumer has anexpectation of a negative experience as a result of clicking on the advertising, if theadvertising is not relevant to the consumer, if the consumer is sceptical towards theadvertising message and finally if the consumer is sceptical towards the advertising medium.

Prior Experience

Word of Mouth

Cognitive

Expectation of Negative experience

Relevance of Advertising Message

Scepticism of Advertising Message

AdvertisingAvoidance

BehaviouralScepticism of Online

social networking as aAdvertising medium

8/8/2019 Kelly_S3 S1 P1

6/7

6

References

Barnes, S. B. 2006. A Privacy Paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday , 11 (9).

Boyd, D. M. and N. B. Ellison. 2007. Social Network Sites: Definition, History andScholarship. In Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication .

Cho, C.-H. and H. J. Cheon. 2004. WHY DO PEOPLE AVOID ADVERTISING ON THEINTERNET? Journal of Advertising , 33 (4): 89.

Cooper, D. R. and P. Schindler. 2006. Business Research Methods . 9th ed. New York:McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Davis, J. J. 1997. Advertising Research: Theory and Practice . Upper Saddle River, USA:Prentice Hall.

Garrison, M. B. E., S. H. Pierce, P. A. Monroe, D. D. Sasser, A. C. Shaffer and L. B. Blalock.1999. Focus Group Discussions: Three Examples from family and consumer science research.

Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal , 27: 428 - 450.

Grant, I. C. 2005. Young Peoples' Relationships with Online Marketing Practices: AnIntrusion Too Far? Journal of Marketing Management , 21 (5/6): 607-623.

Hair, J., B. Babin, A. Money and P. Samouel. 2003. Essentials of business research methods . New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Ingram, A. 2006. The challenge of ad avoidance. Admap Magazine , May (472).

Johnson, T. J. and B. K. Kaye. 1998. Cruising Is Believing?: Comparing Internet andTraditional Sources on Media Credibility Measures. Journalism and Mass CommunicationQuarterly , 75 (2): 325.

Ko, H., C.-H. Cho and M. D. Roberts. 2005. Internet Uses and Gratifications. Journal of Advertising 34 (2): 57-59.

La Ferle, C., S. M. Edwards and W.-N. Lee. 2000. Teens' use of Traditional Media and theInternet. Journal of Advertising Research , 40 (3).

Lee, C., K. C. and D. Conroy, M. . 2005. Socialisation through Consumption: Teenagers andthe Internet. Australasian Marketing Journal , 13 (1): 8.

Mason, J. 2000. Qualitative Researching . London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Media and Communications in Australian Families 2007. edited by A. C. a. M. Authority.

Namiranian, L. 2006. Brand Engagement - Teenagaers and their brands in emerging markets.

In Esomar Annual Congress . London: Esomar Research.

8/8/2019 Kelly_S3 S1 P1

7/7

7

Obermiller, C., E. Spangenberg and D. MacLachlan. 2005. AD SKEPTICISM. Journal of Advertising , 34 (3): 7.

Polonsky, M. J. and D. Waller. 2005. Designing and managing a Research Project: A Business student's Guide . Thousand Oaks USA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Rappaport, S. D. 2007. Lessons from Online Practice: New Advertising Models. Journal of Advertising Research (June): 135- 141.

Saunders, M., P. Lewis and A. Thornhill. 2003. Research Methods for Business Students . 3ed. Essex Prentice Hall.

Sekaran, U. 2000. Applied Business Research : A Skill Building Approach. : . USA: JohnWiley and Sons.

Sinclair, L. 2008. Facebook aims to expand social advertising share. The Australian

Speck, P. S. and M. T. Elliott. 1997. Predictors of advertising avoidance in print and broadcast media. Journal of Advertising , 26 (3): 61.

Vogt, C. and S. Knapman. 2008. The anatomy of social networks. Market Leader , Spring(40).