A Tale of Two Sources in Native Advertising

Abstract

In the strategic communication field, native advertising has been hailed as the next big trend. However, this type of marketing technique may negatively affect the perceptions of brands as well as media outlets that provide such content due to its obscurity of persuasive intent and ambiguity of the content source. The current study examined these issues by conducting a 2 (priming: presence vs. absence) × 2 (media credibility: high vs. low) × 2 (corporate credibility: high vs. low) factorial between-subjects experiment. A total of 500 participants recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk completed the online experiment. Findings suggested that priming of native advertising information would significantly improve users’ ad recognition and change their content perception. In addition, a series of three-way interaction effects suggested that the interaction between the two types of source credibility (media and corporate) tend to work as a function of priming of native advertising information, which could completely change individuals’ perception of the ad content and evaluation of the media source in the future, but not their future corporate evaluation. Important theoretical as well as practical implications have also been discussed in this article.

Keywords

native advertising advertising recognition persuasive intent media source credibility corporate credibility priming

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Berlo

D. K.

(1960). The process of communication: An introduction to theory and practice. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Chariton

(2015, October 12). BuzzFeed launches native political video ads for 2016 campaign. Retrieved from http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/BuzzFeed-Launches-Native-Political-Video-Ads-for-6566192.php

Cho

Huh

Faber

R. J.

(2014). The influence of sender trust and advertiser trust on multistage effects of viral advertising. Journal of Advertising, 43, 100-114. doi:10.1080/00913367.2013.811707

Choi

S. M.

Rifon

N. J.

(2002). Antecedents and consequences of web advertising credibility: A study of consumer response to banner ads. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 3(1), 12-24. doi:10.1080/15252019.2002.10722064

Dvorkin

(2013, July 22). Inside Forbes: It’s fight night. PR firms take on Ad agencies over native advertising. Forbes Business. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/lewisdvorkin/2013/07/22/inside-forbes-its-fight-night-pr-firms-take-on-ad-agencies-over-native-advertising/

Eagly

A. H.

Wood

Chaiken

(1978). Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 424-435. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.36.4.424

Eastin

M. S.

Daugherty

Burns

N. M.

(2011). Handbook of research on digital media and advertising: User generated content consumption. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.

Federal Trade Commission. (2013). Blurred lines: Advertising or content? An FTC workshop on native advertising. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events-calendar/2013/12/blurred-lines-advertising-or-content-ftc-workshop-native

Federal Trade Commission. (2015). Enforcement policy statement on deceptively formatted advertisements. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/896923/151222deceptiveenforcement.pdf

10.

Flanagin

Metzger

(2007). The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media & Society, 9, 319-342. doi:10.1177/1461444807075015

11.

Fombrun

C. J.

(1996). Reputation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

12.

Friestad

Wright

(1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 1-31. doi:10.1086/209380

13.

Jung

(2014). The effects of source cues on online news perception. Computers in Human Behavior, 38, 358-367. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.044

14.

Goldsmith

Laffery

Newell

(2002). The impact of corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands. Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 43-54. doi:10.1080/00913367.2000.10673616

15.

Greer

J. D.

(2003). Evaluating the credibility of online information: A test of source and advertising influence. Mass Communication and Society, 6, 11-28. doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0601_3

16.

Hass

R. G.

(1981). Effects of source characteristics on cognitive response and persuasion. In Petty

R. E.

Ostrom

T. M.

Brock

T. C.

(Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (pp. 141-172). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

17.

Hastie

Park

(1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review, 93, 258-268. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.3.258

18.

Hovland

C. I.

Weiss

(1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650. doi:10.1086/266350

19.

Iyengar

Kinder

D. R.

(1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

20.

Keller

K. L.

(1998). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring and managing brand equity. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

21.

Kim

B. H.

Pasadeos

Barban

(2001). On the deceptive effectiveness of labeled and unlabeled advertorial formats. Mass Communication and Society, 4, 265-281. doi:10.1207/S15327825MCS0403_02

22.

Lafferty

B. A.

Goldsmith

R. E.

(1999). Corporate credibility’s role in consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions when a high versus a low credibility endorser is used in the ad. Journal of Business Research, 44, 109-116. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(98)00002-2

23.

Lazauskas

(2015, September 8). Study: Article or ad? When it comes to native, no one knows. Contently. Retrieved from https://contently.com/strategist/2015/09/08/article-or-ad-when-it-comes-to-native-no-one-knows/

24.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lutz

R. J.

(1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 48-65. doi:10.2307/1251413

25.

Moses

(2012, November 5). Do native ads work? Survey asks consumers what they think of the format. Adweek. Retrieved from http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/do-native-ads-work-144990

26.

Nelson

M. R.

Wood

M. L. M.

Paek

(2009). Increased persuasion knowledge of video news releases: Audience beliefs about news and support for source disclosure. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 24, 220-237. doi:10.1080/08900520903332626

27.

Pornpitakpan

(2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility : A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 243-281. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x

28.

Reinhard

Messner

Sporer

S. L.

(2006). Explicit persuasive intent and its impact on success at persuasion: The determining roles of attractiveness and likeableness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16, 249-259. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1603_7

29.

Reuters Institute. (2015). Readers feel deceived over sponsored content, posing significant risk to damage to the reputation of digital publishers: New research. Retrieved from https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Reuters%20Institute%20Digital%20News%20Report%202015%20Sponsored%20Content%20Press%20Release.pdf

30.

Roskos-Ewoldsen

D. R.

Fazio

R. H.

(1992). The accessibility of source likability as a determinant of persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 19-25. doi:10.1177/0146167292181004

31.

Sass

(2015, December 31). Consumers can’t tell native ads from editorial content. Publishers Daily, MediaPost. Retrieved from http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/265789/consumers-cant-tell-native-ads-from-editorial-con.html

32.

Schemer

(2012). Reinforcing spirals of negative affects and selective attention to advertising in a political campaign. Communication Research, 39, 413-434. doi:10.1177/0093650211427141

33.

Sharethrough. (2015). Native advertising, explained: Cannes edition. Retrieved from https://www.sharethrough.com/nativeadvertising/

34.

Sundar

S. S.

Nass

(2001). Conceptualizing sources in online news. Journal of Communication, 51, 52-72.

35.

Warshaw

P. R.

(1978). Application of selective attention theory to television advertising displays. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 366-372. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.63.3.366

36.

Wegert

(2015a, February 12). Will readers ever trust native advertising? Contently. Retrieved from https://contently.com/strategist/2015/02/12/can-publishers-convince-consumers-to-trust-native-advertising/

37.

Wegert

(2015b, March 27). Why The New York Times sponsored content is going toe-to-toe with its editorial. Contently. Retrieved from https://contently.com/strategist/2015/03/27/why-the-new-york-times-sponsored-content-is-going-toe-to-toe-with-its-editorial/

38.

Wilson

E. J.

Sherrell

D. L.

(1993). Source effects in communication and persuasion research: A meta-analysis of effect size. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21, 101-112. doi:10.1007/BF02894421

39.

Wojdynski

B. W.

(in press). Native advertising: Engagement, deception, and implications for theory. In Brown

Jones

V. K.

Wang

B. M.

(Eds.), The new advertising: Branding, content and consumer relationships in a data-driven, social media era. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger/ABC Clio.

40.

Wojdynski

B. W.

Evans

N. J.

(2016). Going native: Effects of disclosure position and language on the recognition and evaluation of online native advertising. Journal of Advertising, 45, 157-168.

41.

(1990). Cognitive and affective priming effects of the context for print advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 19(2), 40-48. doi:10.1080/00913367.1990.10673186