Journal of the Korea Convergence Society (한국융합학회논문지)

Korea Convergence Society (한국융합학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Persuasive Effects Depending on the Type of Creative Ads in Social Media and User Sensitivity and Empathy

SNS 미디어의 크리에이티브 유형과 사용자의 민감성 및 공감적 이해에 따른 설득 효과

  • Kim, Jae-Young (Dept.of Advertising and Public Relations, Namseoul University)
  • 김재영 (남서울대학교 광고홍보학과)
  • Received : 2022.05.02
  • Accepted : 2022.05.20
  • Published : 2022.05.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the difference in advertising effect of visual rhetoric type of Facebook ads depending on the user sensitivity and level of empathy. The experiment was designed as a between-subjects factorial design (visual rhetoric type) × 2 (brand sensitivity) × 2 (level of empathic understanding). The results of the experiment performed to analyze the strategies of Facebook ads for ads effectiveness can be summarized as follows: a three-way interaction effect for persuasive effects was found among the type of visual rhetoric, brand sensitivity, and empathic understanding for both types of visual rhetoric. Breaking down it by type of rhetoric, no interacting effect was observed between brand sensitivity and empathic understanding levels for the visual simile ads in most of the dependent variables. For the visual metaphor ads, however, the brand sensitivity and empathic understanding levels were found to have interaction effect in all dependent variables.

본 연구는 사용자의 민감성과 공감적 이해 수준에 따른 페이스북 광고의 시각적 수사유형에 대한 효과를 분석하는데 그 목적이 있다. 피험자간 요인설계(시각적 수사유형)×2(브랜드 민감성)×2(공감적 이해도)로 설계하였다. 페이스북 광고의 광고효과를 실험을 통해 분석한 결과는 다음과 같다. 페이스 북 광고의 두 가지 유형에서 동일하게 시각적 수사, 브랜드 민감도, 공감적 이해에서 3원 상호작용 효과가 나타났다. 시각적 수사 유형의 경우, 시각적 직유 광고에 대한 브랜드 민감도와 공감적 이해도 간에 상호작용 효과가 나타나지 않았다. 그러나 시각적 은유 광고의 경우 브랜드 민감도와 공감적 이해도가 모든 종속변수에서 상호작용 효과가 있는 것으로 나타났다.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Funding for this paper was provided by Namseoul University year 2022.

References

  1. S. H. An & E. A. Lim. (2006). The influence of metaphors and product type on brand personality perception and attributes. Journal of Advertising, 6(2), 39-53. DOI: 10.1080/00913367.2006.10639226.
  2. L. Gkiouzepas & M. K. Hogg. (2011). Articulating a new framework for visual metaphors in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 40(1), 103-20. DOI : 10.2753/JOA0091-336740010.
  3. M. V. Mulken, A. V. Hooft & U. Nederstigt (2014). Finding the tipping point:visual metaphor and conceptual complexity in Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 43(4), 333-43. DOI :10.1080/00913367.2014.920283.
  4. M. Brettel, J. C. Reich, J. M. Gavilanes & T. C. Flatten. (2015). What drives advertising success on facebook? An advertising-effectiveness model. Journal of Advertising Research, 55(2), 162-75. DOI : 10.2501/JAR-55-2-162-175.
  5. E. Musonera & J. M. Weber. Analysis of marketing strategies in the social media: Facebook case analysis. Journal of Marketing Development & Competitiveness, 12(1), 10-27.
  6. Y. R. Seo, X. Z. Li, Y. K. Choi & S. K. Yoon, (2018). Narrative transportation and paratextual features of social media in viral advertising. Journal of Advertising, 47(1), 83-95. DOI : 10.1080/00913367.2017.1405752.
  7. J. M. Jung, S. W. Shim, H. S. Jin & H. K. Khang (2016). Factors affecting attitudes and behavioral intention towards social networking advertising: A case of Facebook users in South Korea. International Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 248-265. DOI : 10.1080/02650487.2015.1014777.
  8. R. Casidy, M. W. Nyadzayo, M. Mohan & B. Brown. (2018). The relative influence of functional versus imagery beliefs on brand sensitivity in B2B professional services. Industrial Marketing Management, 72, 26-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2018.01.021
  9. R. Casidy. (2012). Discovering consumer personality clusters in prestige sensitivity and fashion consciousness context. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 24(4), 291-9. DOI : 10.1080/08961530.2012.728506.
  10. S. R. Lee, P. W. Karen & Jr W. T. Ross. (2014). I'm moral, but I won't help you: the distinct roles of empathy and justice in donations. Journal of Consumer Research. 41(3), 678-96. DOI : 10.1086/677226.
  11. L. J. Youngvorst & S. M. Jones. (2017). The influence of cognitive complexity, empathy, and mindfulness on person-centered message evaluations. Communication Quarterly, 65(5), 549-64. DOI : 10.1080/01463373.2017.1301508.
  12. L. Bergkvist, D. Eiderback & M. Palombo. (2012). The brand communication effects of using a headline to prompt the key benefit in Ads with pictorial metaphors. Journal of Advertising, 41(2), 67-76. DOI : 10.2753/JOA0091-3367410205.
  13. B. J. Phillips & E. F. McQuarrie. Impact of advertising metaphor on consumer belief. Journal of Advertising, 38(1), 46-61. DOI : 10.2753/JOA0091-3367380104.
  14. M. Parackal, S. Parackal, S. Eusebius & D. Mather D. The use of facebook advertising for communicating public health messages: a campaign against drinking during pregnancy in New Zealand. JMIR Public Health And Surveillance, 3(3), 49-67. DOI : 10.2196/publichealth.7032.
  15. W. C. Rodgers & K. C. Schneider. An empirical evaluation of the kapferer-laurent consumer involvement profile scale. Psychology & Marketing, 10(4), 333-45. DOI : 10.1002/mar.4220100407.
  16. K. W. Chan, C. K. Yim & S. K. Lam. (2010). Is customer participation in value creation a double-edged sword? Evidence from professional financial services across cultures. Journal of Marketing, 74(3), 48-64. DOI : 10.1509/jmkg.74.3.048.