CG/3D Advertising

Animation, motion graphics and 3D Advertising are a few of the unique innovational features of rich media advertising, carrying moving images and graphics to simplify or enhance the presentation of persuasive messages.  Motion is often considered to be a critical component of animated banner ads, and researchers studying motion effects have suggested that motion elicits responses while interactive 3D advertising technologies provide customers with an easy and convenient method of interacting with and appraising real-life products from the comfort of their home computer.

 

 

 

In the subsequent section, how the effects of animation in banner ads are related to each stage of the traditional hierarchy of effects model will be explored, and furthermore, we will propose the hypotheses for empirical tests based on the discussion.

Source: http://jiad.org/article49

Hypothesis 1: Effect of Animation on Attention.

Hypothesis 1 stated that subjects exposed to animated banner ads would pay more attention to the ad than those exposed to static ads. Consistent with the hypothesis, the analysis revealed a significant main effect of animation on individuals’ attention ( Symbolanimation = 3.83, S.D. = .96, vs. Symbolstatic = 3.06, S.D. = 1.16, F (1, 46) = 6.60, p < .05). Therefore, the subjects exposed to animated banner ads paid more attention to the ad than those exposed to static ads.

Table 3. Effect of Animation and Product Involvement
on Recall (Logistic Regression)

Effect of Animation and Product Involvement on Recall

** p < .05
*** p < .01

Table 4. Effect of Animation and Product Involvement on

Recognition (Logistic Regression)
Effect of Animation and Product Involvement on Recognition* p < .10
** p < .05
*** p < .01 Hypothesis 2: Effect of Animation on Memory. Hypothesis 2 expected that subjects exposed to animated banner ads would have better recall and recognition of the target ad (i.e., ebooks.com) than those exposed to static ads. The model assessing the probability of recall was statistically significant (χ2df=3 =16.06, p < .01), but not for recognition (χ2df=3 =5.26, p = .15). The results of logistic regressions showed a significant effect of animation on ad recall (b = -7.81, Wald χ2 = 9.15, p < .01). Therefore, the results indicated that the subjects exposed to animated banner ads had better ad recall than those exposed to static ads, while there was no significant effect of animation on ad recognition (b = -1.54, Wald χ2 = .63, p = .43) over static ads. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was partially supported.

Hypothesis 3: Effect of Animation on Aad.

Hypothesis 3 predicted a positive effect of animation on Aad. Consistent with the hypothesis, the results showed a significant main effect of animated banner ads on Aad over static ads (Symbolanimation = 4.24, S.D = 1.07, vs. Symbolstatic = 3.42, S.D = 1.19, F (1, 46) = 6.87, p < .05). Therefore, subjects exposed to animated banner ads had more favorable Aad than those exposed to static ads, supporting Hypothesis 3.

Hypothesis 4: Effect of Animation on Click-Through Intention.

Hypothesis 4 expected that those exposed to animated banner ads would have higher click-through intention than those exposed to static ads. As shown in Table 2, consistent with the hypothesis, the results showed the significant main effect of animation on click-through intention (Symbolanimation = 4.07, S.D = 1.45, vs. Symbolstatic = 3.26, S.D = .96, F (1, 46) = 5.46, p < .05). Thus, subjects exposed to animated banner ads had higher click-through intention than those exposed to static ads.The results supported Hypothesis 4.

Hypothesis 5a: Moderating Effect of Involvement on Attention.

Hypothesis 5a predicted that the level of product involvement moderates the effects of animation on attention. The results showed an insignificant Animation Level x Involvement interaction effect, F (1, 46) = 1.60, p = .21. However, we found a significant main effect of product involvement (Symbolhigh-involvement = 3.78, S.D = 1.05, vs. Symbollow-involvement = 3.11, S.D = 1.12, F (1, 46) = 4.88, p < .05), which indicated that the level of product involvement affects an individual’s attention independently. Therefore, Hypothesis 5a was rejected at the p = .05 probability level.

Hypothesis 5b: Moderating Effect of Involvement on Memory.

Hypothesis 5b predicted that the level of product involvement moderates the effects of animation on memory. The analyses of logistic regressions revealed a significant interaction between animation level and product involvement on ad recall (b = -4.35, Wald χ2 = 8.19, p < .05), but not for an interaction effect on recognition (b = -1.64, Wald χ2 = 1.41, p = .24). The results showed a significant moderating effect of involvement on ad recall, indicating that the impact of animation on ad recall was greater under high (χ2 = 4.89, p < .05) rather than low involvement2 = 3.95, p < .10). However, we were not able to find any moderating effect of involvement on ad recognition. Therefore, Hypothesis 5b was partially supported.

Hypothesis 5c: Moderating Effect of Involvement on Aad.

Hypothesis 5c expected that the level of product involvement moderates the effects of animation on Aad. Consistent with the hypothesis, the results revealed a significant interaction effect between animation level and product involvement (F (1, 46) = 4.57, p < .05), indicating that animation had a significant impact on Aad only under high involvement (t (24) = 2.97, p < .01), but not under low involvement (t (24) = .43, p =.68). Therefore, Hypothesis 5c is strongly supported. However, there was no main effect of product involvement on Aad (Symbolhigh-involvement = 4.07, S.D. = 1.24, vs. Symbollow-involvement = 3.59, S.D. = 1.12, F (1, 46) = 2.14, p = .15).

Hypothesis 5d: Moderating Effect of Involvement on Click-Through Intention.

Hypothesis 5d predicted that the level of product involvement moderates the effects of animation on click-through intention. The results showed a marginally significant interaction effect between animation level and product involvement (F = 3.09, p < .10), indicating that animation had a marginally significant impact on click-through intention under high involvement (t (24) = 1.76, p <.10), but not under low involvement (t (24) = .56, p = .58). There was no main effect of product involvement on click-through intention (Symbolhigh-involvement = 3.87, S.D. = 1.43, vs. Symbollow-involvement = 3.46, S.D. = 1.11, F = 1.24, p = .27). Therefore, marginal support for Hypothesis 5d was found.