Do users look at banner ads on Facebook?

Do users look at bannerads on Facebook?

Ana Margarida BarretoNew University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal

Abstract

Purpose – The main purpose of this study was to determine whether users of the online socialnetwork site, Facebook, actually look at the ads displayed (briefly, to test the existence of thephenomenon known as “banner blindness” in this website), thus ascertaining the effectiveness of paidadvertising, and comparing it with the number of friends’ recommendations seen.

Design/methodology/approach – In order to achieve this goal, an experiment using eye-trackingtechnology was administered to a total of 20 participants from a major university in the USA, followedby a questionnaire.

Findings – Findings show that online ads attract less attention levels than friends’ recommendations.A possible explanation for this phenomenon may be related to the fact that ads on Facebook are outsideof the F-shaped visual pattern range, causing a state of “banner blindness”. Results also show thatstatistically there is no difference in ads seen and clicked between women and men.

Research limitations/implications – The sample type (undergraduate and graduate students)and the sample size (20 participants) inhibit the generalization of the findings to other populations.

Practical implications – The paper includes implications for the development of an effective onlineadvertising campaign, as well as some proposed conceptualizations of the terms social network siteand advertising, which can be used as platforms for discussion or as standards for future definitions.

Originality/value – This study fulfils some identified needs to study advertising effectivenessbased on empirical data and to assess banner blindness in other contexts, representative of currentinternet users’ habits.

Keywords Banner blindness, Online advertising, Social network sites, Eye tracking, Advertising,Advertising effectiveness, Social media

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionThe rapid growth of online advertising expenditures is expected to put onlineadvertising ahead of other traditional media, especially printed newspapers andmagazines (eMarketer, 2012). Consequently, the internet has become a preferred mediafor marketing and advertisements. For example, according to a recent study by“eMarketer”, US online ad expenditures are expected to continue to grow, after reachingnearly $40 billion in 2012[1].

However, the effectiveness of internet advertising remains a controversial issue. Forinstance, continuously decreasing rates of click-through[2] banner ads raise a questionregarding internet advertising effectiveness.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7122.htm

This experiment was conducted at the Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austinand the author would like to thank the assistance of the professors Sharon Strover, director of theDigital Media Program, and UT-Austin Portugal Program, and Zenzi Griffin, director of thelaboratory in the UT Department of Psychology. Additionally, the author hereby thanksProfessor Donald R. Lehmann for his insightful comments, and the volunteers who agreed toparticipate in this research.

Received 13 March 2012Revised 11 January 2012

13 February 201326 February 2013

12 March 201321 March 2013

Accepted 4 April 2013

Journal of Research in InteractiveMarketing

Vol. 7 No. 2, 2013pp. 119-139

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited2040-7122

DOI 10.1108/JRIM-Mar-2012-0013

Banner adson Facebook

119

For an ad to work, the consumer must notice it, react to it, and even visit the web siteassociated with the ad. In other words, when an ad is embedded within a medium,whether online or offline, it is expected to be able to monetize the associated costs byattracting people’s attention. Due to several studies with different findings, doubts haveemerged in regard to whether users actually see ads. The majority of studies addressingthis question are based on indirect evidence, such as direct memory tests (Pagendarmand Schaumburg, 2001) or self-reporting measures (Cho and Hongsik, 2004). Due to thelack of objective and unbiased criteria in these empirical observations, ad awareness andmemorization remains ambiguous. As a result, the focus of internet advertising researchhas shifted from consumers’ attitudes to overall advertising effectiveness (Ha, 2008).

Following this need for further empirical and objective observations capable ofassessing the effectiveness of advertising, this study aims to determine whether users ofthe online social network site (SNS) Facebook actually look at the ads displayed, andexamine the existence of the “banner blindness” phenomenon in this web site. Furthermore,besides ascertaining the effectiveness of paid advertising, the current study also comparesit with the number of friends’ recommendations seen (earned advertising).

Consequently, the present paper is structured as follows: first, it presents aconceptual framework integrating the topics of attention issues on the internet, thebanner blindness theory, SNS and online advertising. Second, the problem is defined andthe proposed hypotheses are described. Third, the methods chosen and used in thisstudy are explained and justified, followed by a description of the experimental process,and the participating sample. Fourth, the results are presented, specifically the numberof banner ads displayed and seen, and the number of recommendations seen and clicked,both presented according to gender differences. Normality, correlation and Levene’stests are then applied to the collected data. Fifth, the findings are discussed with regardto the testing of the hypotheses. Sixth, research limitations are identified, and severalfuture research directions are discussed. Finally, this paper concludes with a summaryof the findings and their implications.

State of the artAttention issues on the internetThe concept of attention is perceived as a limited variable as regard its use, sinceattention can be selective, voluntary or involuntary and, in some cases, unpredictable.Nevertheless, recent studies have succeeded in establishing relations between theattention variable and other variables. For instances, it is known that the amount ofattention paid to the contents of a web page varies from page to page (Wang and Day,2007), that this amount is directly related to the performance of mental activities(Kahneman, 1973), and that information-seeking behavior changes according to theuser’s gender (Lorigo et al., 2006).

Based on the selective attention and elaboration likelihood model (ELM) theories,Hsieh and Chen (2011) suggested that viewing content with different information typesrequire different mental resources and cognitive abilities. In other words, browsing ofthe main content should have an influence on whether the user pays more or lessattention to that webpage’s advertisement. News and forum-oriented web sites havemostly text-based content, which constitutes a much heavier mental workload, thereforedemanding more human mental resources. This diverts attention to text-reading tasks,to the direct detriment of other distracters on a web page. In contrast, photo and

JRIM7,2

120

video-sharing web sites are evidently more image-oriented, which require less mentalresources. Hence the viewer’s attention on banner advertising will be stronger.

A correlation was also found between the positive evaluation of an ad and the increasedattention the ad receives (Maughan et al., 2007), i.e. the higher the interest in anadvertisement, the greater the attention the ad receives from the user. This attention ismanifested by an increased number of fixations[3], as well as fixations of increasedduration. In this sense, and according to the findings of Pagendarm and Schaumburg (2001),low click-through rates (CTR) are simply due to a lack of interest in what is being advertised.

The way the site is visualized also influences the attention given to constituentelements of the medium (in this case, the web site). According to the “scanpath” theory(Noton and Stark, 1971a, b), people memorize and repeat the route taken during the firstreading. This “scanpath” is difficult to control because it varies from person to person.

According to Lorigo et al. (2006), there are differences between men and women’s“scanpaths”. The findings show that the former tend to be more linear in regard to howthey see the results; moreover, men also look at more results than women.

Furthermore, it is also well known that there is a tendency to view web pages in anF-shaped format, i.e. two horizontal stripes followed by a vertical stripe, from top to bottom.This important conclusion was obtained by a usability study conducted by the NielsenNorman Group, in 2006 (Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox, 2006), which involved 232 participants.

Banner blindness theoryIn early 1994, the world saw a proliferation of banners – digital advertising formatsthe size of a box, ranging from a small box (88 £ 31 px), to a large box (300 £ 600 px).These banners, in some cases abusive and aggressive, were developed to spark theattention of internet users and route them, via a click, to the web site of the advertisedorganization. As a result, the user gained knowledge about a product or service, andmore visits were generated in the organization’s web site.

Later, following discussions about the effectiveness of banner ads, and taking intoconsideration users’ reactions to them, Benway and Lane (1998) suggested that internetusers defend themselves from this kind of unsolicited advertising through a kind ofself-induced blindness, referred to as “banner blindness”.

According to their web site’s usability study findings, the most obvious, colorfuland animated banner adverts, previously considered more likely to be viewed on a webpage, are the ones that are ignored. This phenomenon seems to contradict thelong-believed theory that in order to make something visually salient, it should standout and be prominent.

The concept of “banner blindness”, though influenced by the banner phenomenon,is not restricted to advertising banners. In the general discussion of Benway and Lane’s(1998) paper, the author states that the scope of the phenomenon of ignoring salientitems while searching for a specific item may go beyond advertising.

Over the years, other authors expressing varied perspectives (Bachofer, 1998;Bayles, 2000; Hervert et al., 2011) have suggested that the “banner blindness” theorydoes not occur in the real world, since these formats are actually seen by users whenbrowsing web sites.

In order to test whether banner blindness actually occurs, several empiricalexperiments, using different methodologies, were conducted all over the world. Let usconsider, for example, the following investigations.


121

In their usability studies, Benway and Lane (1998) asked participants to findinformation on a specific web page. In the first experiment, the answer could be found byselecting a banner, while in the second experiment the answer was inside a box that wasshaped like a banner. The results showed that participants had difficulty finding theanswer (because they were avoiding the information contained in banners) and that, insome cases, “banner blindness” occurred. Therefore, the study supported the idea that“banner blindness” can also occur with text items that do not look like advertisements.

In 2003, Xavier Dreze and Francois-Xavier Hussherr conducted a large-scale survey ofinternet users’ recall, recognition and awareness of banner advertising. The resultsshowed that users (n ¼ 49) watched less than 50 percent of the ads displayed. Dreze andHussherr advocated that the participants not only did not see the ads, but actually avoidedthem. The possible explanations suggested are based on the expected location of the ad,and on the fact that peripheral vision allows for recognition of objects located outside thearea of attention. In other words, this capability, coupled with the fact that the traditionaldimensions of a web ad are known, allows users to recognize an advertisement, even ifthey do not see it directly and, therefore, avoid it if that is the intention.

Burke et al. (2005) have also shown in their eye-tracking experiments that peoplerarely look directly at banners and reveal low recall for banner content:

Participants in the present studies had an overriding incentive not to look at banners, and noamount of banner manipulation increased their pull. Longer exposure time, animation, andthe presence of images did not make the task-irrelevant ads more conspicuous. Connectingadvertising to viewers’ goals may make ads more successful (p. 443).

On the other hand, there are studies that contradict these results and theirexplanations. For instance, Bachofer (1998) found high recognition rates of the presenceof banners in his experiment using an eye-tracking device and asking participants(n ¼ 71) to navigate several pages of a German online magazine that contained bannerads. Bayles (2000) also found high levels of recognition and remembrance of bannersin his experiments: 74 percent of the 35 participants recognized the two banners presentin the experiment.

Likewise, the results obtained by the market research firm COBUS in their onlinesurvey conducted among 1,178 German users, reveal that the most appealing bannersattract users’ attention (Leest, 1996; Belz, 1997). According to this study, only 25 percentof participants indicated that banners were annoying, and only one-third of theinterviewees were able to ignore them.

In 2005, the distributor of eye-tracking technology in Spain, Alt64 Digital (EspanhaAlt64 Digital e Asociacion para la Investigacion de Medios de Comunicacion, 2005),and the Asociacion para la Investigacion de Medios de Comunicacion examined howusers perceive Spanish news sites and concluded that more than half of theparticipants (n ¼ 17) saw the exposed ads.

In a more recent study, conducted by Hervert et al. (2011), 82 percent of theparticipants fixated on at least one of the four banners while visiting the web pages.However, when the first banner was presented and participants were not warned thatbanners would be encountered, fixation duration on the first banner increased,compared to when the banner had been preceded by another banner.

Another study showed that people not only see the ads, but are also influenced bythe ads’ content (Briggs and Hollis, 1997). Furthermore, studies indicate that peoplenotice ads, but dislike them; thus, site credibility suffers (Fogg et al., 2001).

JRIM7,2

122

Furthermore, Hervert et al. (2011) found in their banner blindness study that82 percent of participants fixated on at least one of the four banners during the webpage visit, and that participants could more efficiently identify brand names whenthey were congruent with editorial content.

According to Pagendarm and Heike (2006), this diversity of results is due to the factthat there are different types of navigation behavior that lead to different visual behavior:“aimless browsing”, “associative browsing” (Tergan, 1995) or “undirected browsing”(Kuhlen, 1991) versus “goal directed searching” or “search browsing” (Cove and Walsh,1988). In the case of a direct search for information, the user’s attention is directed to thecontent expected to contain relevant information relating to the specific search. Theunderlying process has a top-down direction and is guided by cognitive schemata thatplay an important role in the direction of visual attention, since these schemata structurethe information processing and help the user anticipate what information needs to bevoluntarily selected (Neisser, 1979). In contrast, according to Prinz (1992), in regard toassociative browsing tasks, users are guided by the appearance of web page features andthe attention follows a bottom-up method. In other words, initially, a stimulus attracts theattention of the user unwittingly, after which, voluntary attention is directed to thatstimulus. Hence, and as an example, the results obtained by Bachofer (1998) and Benwayand Lane (1998) cannot be compared, as the employed methodologies are not the same.

In this study, the hypothesis is that the banner blindness phenomenon does, in fact,exist (whether it happens with all displayed ads or just a few). Banner blindness can bedescribed as a defense mechanism, based on the user’s peripheral vision and pastexperience. This phenomenon is expressed in the form of user avoidance, and based onthe preconception that the information is not interesting or relevant, regardless ofwhether or not it is in the format of an ad or if it looks like commercial information.A factor that supports this theory is the recognized phenomenon of visual-spatialattention, by which attention to particular aspects of the environment may lead toimproved processing of the attended stimuli. This improved processing, however,comes at the expense of the processing of other information presented simultaneously(Helmholtz, 1896). Another factor is the so-called “cocktail party effect”, described asthe ability to focus one’s listening attention on a single speaker, among a cacophony ofconversations and background noises (Handel, 1989). Both of these examples reflectselective attention mechanisms used in cognitive psychology studies.

In this sense, if we consider banner blindness as the result of a physiological andpsychological defense mechanism, then it is expected not to be restricted to a particularmedium (in this case, the internet), thus occurring in other forms of communication oradvertising channels, such as the printed word or TV. Hence, it would be more accurateto speak of “advertising blindness”, rather than “banner blindness”.

Some researchers state that the location of banner advertisements on a web pagemay be a critical factor in the occurrence of banner blindness (Albert, 2002; Benwayand Lane, 1998; Burke et al., 2005; Granka et al., 2006; Mosconi et al., 2008). Althoughthese observations are valid for first-time users browsing in a particular webpage,memory – whether consciously or unconsciously – would also play a major role onsubsequent visits in avoiding these ad areas defined as irrelevant (Hervert et al., 2011).Indeed, Lapa (2007) suggests that internet users rapidly apprehend the structure of awebpage, allowing for discrimination between useful information and avoidableinformation, such as unwanted ad banners.


123

Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that advertising effectiveness is not onlydependent on ad location but, above all, on the type of approach used, since pastresearch has shown that even when a banner is noticed, recognition levels are notsatisfactory. For example, Fox et al. (2009) found with the support of eye-trackingtechnology that ads located above the page content received significantly morefixations, but not increased recognition.

This does not necessarily mean that people do not like ads, or that banner ads are nolonger effective, in general. It means that lower ad effectiveness may simply be theresult of employing obsolete ad strategies, and that there is not one single designformat that can solve or prevent the occurrence of banner blindness, since each website should be considered as an unique case.

In conclusion, significant arguments exist to support the notion that users avoidunwanted internet ads and that banner blindness occur, as a result (Benway and Lane,1998; Dreze and Hussherr, 2003; Burke et al., 2005). However, the mechanism behindthis phenomenon is still not completely understood, though it is clearly not inherentlypassive, as it involves a learning process related to how to avoid ads, especially whenthese ads are not customized to the target user. Hence, internet ad effectiveness is notmerely a simple function of “cosmetic” properties, but rather the result of a uniquedichotomy between the user and the ad. In other words, each web site is graphicallycomposed in a unique way: all of the site’s components such as videos, sound, images,size and fonts serve to influence its effectiveness.

Social network sitesConsidering the diverse results surrounding banner effectiveness, it becomes quiteclear that further research is needed concerning banner blindness. Because theinsertion of banner ads does not occur only in web search engine pages or corporatepages, alternative contexts representative of current internet users’ habits should alsobe considered, such as online SNS.

While the term “social network” refers to the concept of a network comprised ofinterconnected nodes, the expressions “social networking site”, “social networksite” or even “social network service” refer to the online software that came alongwith the popular Web 2.0, allowing individuals to interact with their socialnetwork in an online environment. The first term – “social network” – is naturallythe predecessor of the others (social networks have always existed, along withhuman civilization). However, nowadays the term is often used to express thesecond phenomenon – the “SNS”. In this paper, the term “SNS” will be used toexpress the previously described web-based services for the same reasons statedby Boyd and Ellison (2007, p. 211):

“Networking” emphasizes relationship initiation, often between strangers. While networkingis possible on these sites, it is not the primary practice on many of them, nor is it whatdifferentiates them from other forms of computer-mediated communication (CMC).

Currently, many definitions for SNS can be found. According to Boyd and Ellison(2007), they are:

[. . .] web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profilewithin a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection,and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system.The nature and nomenclature of these connections may vary from site to site.

JRIM7,2

124

In the opinion of Lenhart and Madden (2007), SNS provide an effective and powerfulchannel for individuals to create a visible personal profile, build a personal network,and develop and maintain social relationships. Stenger and Coutant (2009) expandedBoyd and Ellison’s definition of SNS, stating that SNS are not focused on anyparticular activity, thus distinguishing SNS from online communities.

Based on Boyd’s article, intended for submission in the Journal ofComputer-Mediated Communication[4], Stroud (2008) identifies a checklist of thebuilding blocks that constitute social network functionality:

(1) Profiles described as pages that enable individuals to describe themselvesthrough rich content. The profiles can be private (only available to approvedpeople), public (available to anybody) or a combination of the two.

(2) Contact networks: users can identify others, who are also registered on the site,with whom they can and want to communicate.

(3) Messaging: for the registered members, it may even serve as a substitute foremail.

(4) Content sharing.

(5) Add-value content: SNS partner with content and widget providers to enrichusers’ profiles.

The presented definitions focus on the role of SNS as social communication platformsbetween members of a common social network, and neglect the increasing use fromorganizations to communicate and engage with their target. Therefore, a morecomplete definition of SNS is suggested: web-based services with three main functions:personal, social and, in some cases, “infomercial”.

The personal function is justified by the fact that SNS are web-based services in regardto profiles, a form of individual (or, infrequent, group) home page, which offers a descriptionof each member. These networks serve as self-expression areas, allowing users to produce,publish and share content on their personal pages; thus the private becomes public.

Second, SNS have a social function, acting as spaces where members interact andexchange content (text, images and video) with other members of their personalnetwork, helping them to create or support a desired self-image. Moreover, these sitesalso allow users to enlarge their social network with new weak ties and offer anopportunity for them to strengthen existing ties (whether weak or strong). As the veryname indicates, the purpose of these digital platforms is to bridge the social networkgap, i.e. the relational ties among actors in the virtual world.

Finally, due to the increasing interest and participation of private and publicorganizations in SNS, they can also be described as a new type of “infomercial” medium,where brands share information with users (whether they are consumers/clients or not)who have previously accepted the brands into their social network, enabling directcontact. The word “infomercial” – a combination of the words “information” and“commercial” – is not new and was originally applied in television advertising, referringto any presentation attempting to promote a point of view. The use of SNS by brandsaims to promote their brand equity – the question of whether this method of using SNSis done properly or if it really works remains unanswered. Additionally, in some SNSthe commercial characteristic is rather evident, allowing for the posting of paidadvertisements.


125

Since its inception, SNS such as Facebook, MySpace and LinkedIn have become digitalspaces capable of attracting millions of users in various age groups on a worldwidescale (Boyd and Ellison, 2007; Lenhart and Madden, 2007), due to the fact that they arerelatively easy to use and enjoyable (Pinho and Soares, 2011). Lorenzo-Romero et al. (2011)have also predicted that perceived usefulness of SNS have a direct impact on intentionto use them, and an indirect impact through attitude. Another conclusion drawn fromtheir study is that ease of use has a negative influence on perceived risk, althoughperceived risk is not a significant determinant of how useful SNS are perceived.

The applications and features of these types of web sites have changed the wayinternet users communicate and interact with members of their social networks. Thishas led to meaningful changes in the media landscape (Cooke and Buckley, 2008), andthe burgeoning of a new form of computer-mediated communication around the worldconnected by internet, where the many-to-many communication model prevails.

Being aware of the advertising potential of these sites, SNS managers invest in thedevelopment of various advertising formats, facilitating the role of marketers in moreeffectively reaching their target audiences and implementing advertising campaigns.This decision has enjoyed a predictable, positive reaction regarding communicationprofessionals, considering the shift of part of the advertising budgets to these newmedia. Nevertheless, doubts concerning the effectiveness of paid participation ofbrands in these types of web sites still remain.

Online advertisingWith the advance of the internet, advertising adds the digital medium to the traditionallist of used media (print, TV and radio). Through online advertising, “advertiserscommunicate, interact with, and persuade online users in order to position a brand,which allows a company to promote both consumer awareness and preference in acustomized and personalized way, and decrease the time needed to make a buyingdecision” (Hanafizadeh and Behboudi, 2012, p. 22).

Nevertheless, it is worth noticing that online advertising has not replaced traditionaladvertising, as both methods are complementary. Nevertheless, online advertising hascompelled the traditional advertising concept to adapt to the challenges of the newtechnology and redefine the length of its scope and methods, as has happened over theyears whenever a technological advancement impacted the advertising world. In otherwords, the internet has changed the way both consumers and advertisers perceiveand experience advertising, in the sense that it has created a unique opportunity forcustomized and personalized interaction between both parties. This was a timelychange, which occurred during a period when advertising had long been criticized bysociety for being misleading, bad, intrusive and annoying (Forrester Research, 2006).

Furthermore, the Nielsen Report on Global Trust in Advertising and BrandMessages from April 2012 shows that all forms of paid advertising (TV, print, digitalor radio) showed a gap in the “trust factor”, with a majority of respondents reportingthat they do not trust advertising (regardless of which type) much or at all. Without theelement of trust, any advertising campaign’s effectiveness is jeopardized. On theother hand, “recommendations from people I know” scored highest on trust, with92 percent of consumers trusting this source completely or somewhat. Owned media,such as brand web sites, scored higher than paid advertising, but lower than socialrecommendations.

JRIM7,2

126

Therefore, these findings stress how advertising, as we know it, should bere-conceptualized and adapted to the new times, which does not necessarily mean thattraditionally paid advertising will cease to exist. The key question should be as follows:how can advertisers recover the element of trust, in order to achieve effectiveness?Recommendation or earned advertising may be the answer.

By adding a social component to their ads, advertisers could transfer the feelings oftrust from a friend to the promoted message, thus legitimizing the ad. The ad couldalso benefit from the exerted social pressure accrued from the influence applied by apeer group, thus encouraging individuals to change their attitudes, values, orbehaviors in order to conform to group norms.

Earned advertising has a tendency to “go viral” on the internet (or in an offline context)and generate word of mouth, thus reaching thousands of potential consumers at noadditional cost, by virtue of the brand or company’s presence, product, or services. Hence,the earned advertisement process requires an extra effort to create awareness and, aboveall, to engage the audience. For this to happen, getting people’s attention is not enough.Advertisers will have to more actively engage, listen and understand their target.Moreover, they will have to realize that relationships are not static, but are constantlychanging; advertisers need to keep working on these relationships. In this way,well-executed and well-coordinated paid advertising can become social and consequentlyearned, whenever customers become the communication channel of a message.

Consequently, the old AIDA principle (attention, interest, desire, action) (Lewis,1993) has become insufficient nowadays, especially in online advertising. To beeffective, advertising should not only capture people’s attention (which impliesinterest), but also remain in their memory (be it short or long-term memory). Inaddition, advertising must also be able to change attitudes, based on trust. Finally,advertising should lead to action, not only in relation to buying behavior, but also asregards social engagement in a scalable way.

Many definitions of advertising have been put forward over the last decades – yet,none of these definitions has found a consensus among academics and practitioners. Forinstance, according to Bovee and Arens (1992, p. 7), “[. . .] advertising is the non-personalcommunication of information usually paid for and usually persuasive in nature aboutproducts, services or ideas by identified sponsors through the various media”. However,Richards and Curran (2002), with the support of 14 advertising experts, definedadvertising as a “[. . .] paid, mediated form of communication from an identifiable source,designed to persuade the receiver to take some action, now or in the future” (p. 74).

Considering the evolution of the brand-consumer relation, and the above-mentionedconsequences, a new conceptualization of advertising is needed – as a persuasive formof communication, personal or non-personal, not necessarily spread by the advertiser,though identifiable, and having or not having an ad format. This means that thetraditional advertising one-to-many pattern gives way to the many-to-many pattern, aswell as the one-to-one communication direction.

Problem definitionThe exponential investment in online advertising and the disappointing results of CTRhave led to shifting the spotlight from consumers’ attitudes to advertising effectiveness(Ha, 2008). Yet, there is still much that needs to be understood. Therefore, the articleattempts to specifically address advertising effectiveness as it applies to SNS.


127

SNS were created with the purpose of favoring social interactions, rather thanbecoming advertising platforms. For this reason, SNS users are expected to avoidinformation that is not related to their main objectives (the sharing and receiving ofinformation with and from their social network), which includes online advertisements.

For advertisers, SNS are desired online places that bring together many usersfrom around the world. Like any other mass media (such as TV, radio or the press),SNS can be used as advertisement platforms. However, SNS are not mass media,although the type of information they transfer can be the same – information andentertainment-oriented. The key difference is that in traditional mass media the sourceof information is impersonal. This raises the chances of the target’s willingness to readadvertisements, because the source is also informal. On the other hand, informationshared in the SNS is essentially personal and the source of information belongs to theuser’s social network.

Consequently, it is hypothesized that banner ads are the kind of information thatusers do not look for when they visit these online web sites, reacting to these ads withbanner blindness, since there is no ad congruency with the rest of the content.

For this reason, instead of investing in paid advertising, companies should invest in“earned advertising”, by identifying key consumers, such as influencers, and try toconvert them into brand ambassadors, thus generating free organic publicity. Therefore,this study attempts to prove that regarding SNS, the key word for companies when itcomes to advertising effectiveness is social influence, rather than advertising:

H1. Online ads attract less attention levels than friends’ recommendations in SNS.

SNS are entertainment web sites composed mainly of short messages, photo and videocontent, requiring less cognitive resources and therefore favoring viewers’ attention onbanner ads. Nevertheless, it is predicted that SNS will attract low attention rates,reinforcing the occurrence of the banner blindness phenomenon. This is most likelydue to ads on the SNS Facebook being displayed outside the F-shaped pattern range,a finding discovered in the ability test conducted by the Nielsen Norman Group:

H2. Since ads on Facebook are outside the F-shaped zone, low levels of attention toads are predicted, reinforcing the occurrence of banner blindness.

Hoffman (2008) advocates that female online behavior is more focused on relationshipsthan the online behavior of men. In other words, women spend more time on SNS than men(with the exception of the popular business SNS LinkedIn), busying themselves withbuilding relationships with existing and new friends. Furthermore, Lorigo et al.’s (2006)study on information-seeking behavior shows a change in accordance with user gender.

Considering these two findings, one can expect that men and women will visuallybehave differently on the Facebook page. This difference in attention distribution isexpected to ultimately impact banner visualization. Specifically, women are expectedto focus more on the content published by their social network members than onbanner ads, in relation to men, since women are expected to engage more with thecontent displayed by their social network members. This hypothesis is also supportedby the Jumptap (2011) report in the context of mobile advertising, which states thatwomen have CTR of 0.31 percent, whereas men have CTRs of around 0.64 percent.A different study from Kenshoo Social and Resolution Media (2012), entitled “Socialmedia insights: men are cheap”, analyzed 65 billion Facebook ad impressions and

JRIM7,2

128

20 million ad clicks over a period of 12 months, and concluded that men are exposedto and click on more Facebook ads:

H3. Women are expected to see fewer banners ads than men on SNS.

MethodologyEye-trackingAccording to the hypothesis of “strong eye-mind”, there is a connection consistent enoughto draw objective conclusions about the cognitive processes that generate eye fixations. Inother words, an eye movement is accompanied by a shift of attention (Shepherd et al.,1986), and the fixation duration could be a good indicator of the amount of attention that ispaid to the object (Hollingworth and Henderson, 1998; Pieters and Wedel, 2004).Consequently, the measurement of eye movements is an unavoidable tool for examiningthe focus of attention towards a certain ad and the duration of its processing (Hervet et al.,2011). For this reason, the current research used an eye-tracking technology, specificallyEyelink 1000, which allowed for the tracking and recording of eye movements.

Many prior studies that analyzed the effectiveness of banner ads did not analyzeeye movements. Instead, these studies were based on memory test performances orself-report procedures. As a result, attention was possibly paid to ads or participantsactually saw them but, by the end of the experiment, participants could not remember theads’ content. Thus, by using eye-tracking technology to measure users’ attentionresearchers get a better picture of what actually happens in reality, instead of basing theirconclusions on retrospective think-aloud or the self-reported measures of fallible memories.

An eye-tracker works by directing a halogen light (which projects infrared light) ontothe participant’s eye. Reflections of light from the participant’s eye are then translatedby a computer into eye position coordinates. There are no risks or discomfort associatedwith the use of this technology, since this light level is comparable to what the eye wouldreceive on a sunny day.

FacebookThe chosen web page for this experiment was the SNS Facebook, due to its increasingpopularity (on December 31, 2011, Facebook users worldwide totalled 799,092,160 – datafrom: www.internetworldstats.com/). In this web site, users create personal profiles withphotos and lists of interests. In addition, users can also exchange private and publicmessages with their social network. Data visualization can be confined to confirmeddirect friends or expanded to include other Facebook members outside the personalnetwork. The top two most-visited pages in this site are “The Wall” – a space dedicated touser profiles, which allows users and friends to post messages; and the “News Feed”, whereposts can be seen each time they are placed on the “The Wall” of social network members.The presence of paid advertising is confined to the right side of the web page, in a verticalcolumn format.

According to Webtrends (2011), the average click-through rate for Facebook adsin 2009 was 0.063 percent compared to 0.051 percent in 2010. The cost per click was$0.27 and $0.49 for those periods, respectively.

Experimental descriptionThe experiment had an average duration of up to 15 minutes per participant. Duringthis period, 10 minutes were spent on calibration and actual experimentation, while the


129

remaining 5 minutes were spent on answering a questionnaire to collect demographicinformation and consumption habits of the users on the analyzed web site.

Initially, participants were asked to interact with their Facebook accounts as theywould usually do, for 2 minutes. Next, they were asked to look for any brand of theirchoice on the site page and freely interact with it, for a period of one-and-a-halfminutes. Next, users were invited to interact with the Nike sports brand page, withinthe SNS, for one-and-a-half minutes. This page was selected due to the fact that it hadseveral videos and photo contents requiring less cognitive resources from users.At that time, before the introduction of Facebook Timeline, users could also findbanner ads from other companies while browsing this page. Finally, users answered aquestionnaire about the usage habits of the Facebook page.

The dependent variable in this experiment was the subjects’ attention to banneradvertisements. Viewing duration typically includes various fixations and may includea relatively small amount of time of saccades between fixations. Fixations refers to thetime in which the eyes are relatively fixed, absorbing or “decoding” the information,with an average duration of 218 milliseconds and a range of 66-416 milliseconds.On the other hand, saccades are an eye movement that occurs between fixations,typically lasting between 20 and 35 milliseconds: with only one minute of observation,it is possible to get sufficient information about the user’s visual behavior on theweb site.

It was decided to shorten the experiment time, since participants’ habits onFacebook are, in general, characterized by many daily short visits. Furthermore, byhaving a limited time period, participants were expected to prioritize their contentvisualization.

ParticipantsA total of 20 participants were used (ten female and ten male), all students of theUniversity of Texas at Austin, aged between 19 and 55 years, with an average age of27 years old. The participants’ anonymity was assured during data collection by usingID numbers, rather than names, for identification purposes. Survey responses wereequally anonymous.

Regarding the site consumption patterns of the selected sample, it is noteworthythat 60 percent of the participants reported using Facebook for more than three years,75 percent said they visit the site every day and 50 percent said they spend less than15 minutes on the site each time they log on.

ResultsEye-tracking experimentsAmong the 20 participants, 746 banner ads were encountered, but only 140 ads wereactually viewed. This means that an average of 37 ads were displayed per sessions,only seven of which were intentionally observed by each participant (�x ¼ 7 ands ¼ 4.4). The female group saw a total of 67 ads, which represents 21.5 percent of thebanners displayed. The male group saw 73 ads, representing 16.7 percent of thebanners displayed. The statistical estimators of ad-related variables from female andmale datasets are displayed in Tables I and II.

In the first stage of this research, where participants navigated either on theirpersonal page, called “The Wall”, or on the “News Feed” page, they encountered

JRIM7,2

130

254 banners, of which only 65 were seen and only 10 percent of participants (male andfemale) actually clicked on a banner and entered the advertised web page.

In this same phase, 60 recommendations published in the members’ pages of theSNS were observed (32 by females and 28 by males), as users read all the posts displayedat the top and the middle of the “News Feed” page, whether they were recommendationsor not. What changed from post to post was the amount of attention, expressed by theduration of the user’s viewing time. In contrast, five recommendations “posts”, containingcontent promoting an organization or brand published by social network members onthe “News Feed” page, were clicked on (Table III).

In the second and third stages, participants had to perform search-browsing tasks.In other words, participants were asked to look for any brand of their choice andengage with the webpage; next they were asked to visit the official Nike sports brandpage. During this time participants were exposed to 30 ads, but only one ad wasviewed.

To verify the normal distribution of the variables (ads displayed and ads seen)among the study participants, the Shapiro-Wilk test was applied, revealing thatthe results were normally distributed: the displayed ads variable had ap ¼ 0.596 . a ¼ 0.05, and the ads seen variable had a p ¼ 0.545 . a ¼ 0.05.

A Pearson correlation was computed to determine whether a relation exists betweenboth variables. The results show that there is a positive, but small correlation, betweenads displayed and ads seen (viewed), which is not statistically significant (r ¼ 0.18,p . 0.05).

Hypotheses testsThe number of clicks made for advertisements published in the form of peerrecommendations was more than double, compared to ads posted on the advertisingspace. This is not surprising, given that participants read all the posts displayed at thetop and middle of the “News Feed” page, whether they were recommendations or not.

Variable Subjects Mean SD Min. Max.

Ads displayed 10 43.5 12.06694 26 67Ads seen 10 7.3 3.368151 2 12

Table I.Statistical estimators

of ad-related variablesfrom female datasets

Variable Subjects Mean SD Min. Max.

Ads displayed 10 31.1 12. 60908 15 51Ads seen 10 6.7 5.498485 0 16

Table II.Statistical estimators

of ad-related variablesfrom male datasets

Variable Obs. Total Mean SD Min. Max.

Recommendations seen 20 60 3 3.111946 0 10Recommendations clicked 20 5 0.25 0.5501196 0 2

Table III.Descriptive statistics

of the variablesrecommendations seen

and clicked by bothgenders


131

On the other hand, the percentage of ads seen by participants on this web site was small(21.5 percent of the ads seen by females and 16.7 percent seen by males), generatingmuch less attention than friends’ recommendations, and thus supporting H1.

Confirmation of low levels of banner ad visualizations also supports H2 –specifically, that the fact that banner ads on the Facebook web site are outside therange of the F-shaped zone may lead to the occurrence of banner blindness, andconsequently, to low levels of attention to ads. Furthermore, the location of the bannerson the site in question (at the top of the page, on the right side) was a significantprediction of viewing. This supports the theory of Dreze and Hussherr (2003) about therole of peripheral vision in avoiding banners and banner blindness.

Short-term banners are usually within the user’s field of observation, but as the userscrolls downs the page, the ads are no longer in the viewing area, which may alsocontribute to their non-visualization. Given the effects of the proliferation of traditionalmedia ads on consumer’ ad avoidance (Zanot, 1984), the large number of banner ads inthe same SNS may also be responsible for their minimized effectiveness.

Based on these findings, one can also conclude that the overall effectiveness ofadvertising displayed on this SNS during the experiment was weak. It is alsoimportant to note that the success or failure of an advertisement is not solely due to itscharacteristics, even when the type of navigation is characterized by a lack of definedobjectives (aimless browsing).

The survey findings also support the lack of interest towards ads by users.When asked about their opinions on ads appearing on the web page, 65 percent ofparticipants expressed an attitude of indifference, which may explain the fact that30 percent said they do not click on ads. Nevertheless, 37 percent of users said theyclick on banners that catch their attention, even when they are not looking for aparticular product or service.

Overall, online ads attract less attention than friends’ recommendations onFacebook and information in the form of a recommendation by social networkmembers seems to generate more interest in users (and is perceived as more credible).Therefore, personal recommendations are more likely to be observed than commercialads. Furthermore, banner ads are more likely to be ignored through the phenomenon ofbanner blindness because they do not appear in users’ visual “scanpath”.

Concerning H3, the findings reveal that women viewed more ads (a total of21.5 percent of the displayed banners), than men (who saw a total of 16.7 percent ofthe displayed banners). A possible explanation for this finding is related toneuroscience findings explaining the fact that women have wider peripheralvision than men do. In other words, women can see accurately, up close, about 458from the middle of their faces, both side to side, as well as up and down (Peaseand Pease, 2000). It should also be noted that although women saw more ads thanmen, the number of ads clicked by women was equal to the number of ads clickedby men.

In order to analyze the data according to gender, a cross tabulation test was used totest the relation between the number of ads seen and not seen by gender (Tables IV),the number of ads clicked and not clicked by gender (Tables V) using the followingformula:

X2 ¼X ðobserved 2 expectedÞ2

Expected

JRIM7,2

132

The result was x2 ¼ 2.67. Since the 0.05 “cutoff” for a significant x2 with one degree offreedom is 3.84, it can be concluded that the difference is not significant. Therefore,we cannot reject the null hypothesis, which means that there is no association betweenthe number of ads seen and gender. In addition, the p-value ( p ¼ 0.101) strengthens thisconclusion.

The result was x2 ¼ 0.441. Since the 0.05 “cutoff” for a significant x2 with onedegree of freedom is 3.84, it can be concluded that the difference is significant. Onceagain, we cannot reject the null hypothesis, which means that there is no associationbetween the number of ads clicked and gender. The p-value is 0.811.

Therefore, although neuroscience can explain why women have a wider visual areathan men, allowing them to see more ads, statistically there is no difference in ads seenand clicked between women and men.

Finally, the large number of banners displayed during the experiment can beexplained by the fact that each time the user goes to a different page within the site, thead’s location changes or is replaced by another ad, which displays each ad for only ashort period of time (Table VI).

Limitations and suggestionsAs with all studies, the current one has some limitations that should be considered.First of all, the sample type (undergraduate and graduate students) and the samplesize (20 participants) inhibit the generalization of the findings to other populations.For further validation of the findings, it is necessary to include a larger (n . 100) andnon-student sample. Second, it was not possible to determine with precision how manyfriends’ recommendations appeared during the experimental period, since users do notcheck all their friends’ profile pages, and “The Wall” page does not display all of theshared information. Besides, at some point users stop scrolling down the Wall page,and automatically stop reading the information made public. Consequently, it is notpossible to determine the exact percentage of recommendations read regarding theirtotal number.

Ads seen Ads not seen

FemaleCount 73 362Expected 81.6 353.4MaleCount 67 244Expected 58.4 252.6

Table IV.x 2-tests of ads seen and

not seen by gender

Ads clicked Ads not clicked

FemaleCount 1 434Expected 1.17 433.83MaleCount 1 310Expected 0.84 310.17

Table V.x 2-tests of ads clicked

and not clicked by gender


133

When this experiment was conducted, social advertisements (ads that are targetedbased on underlying social networks) on Facebook did not yet exist. Therefore, itwould be interesting to analyze the effectiveness of this type of ads on users’ attentionusing eye-tracking technology, and compare the results with posted recommendations.Another suggestion would be to use a survey to assess and compare the notorietylevels between banner ads and friends’ recommendations.

According to the previously mentioned theoretical explanations, during navigationwithout concrete objectives, it is expected that the participants’ attention will beattracted by ads’ features (graphic and/or content). Thus, an appealing ad (in regard toverbal and/or visual communication) is expected to attract users’ attention. However,these research findings revealed that the success or failure of an advertisement is notmerely due to its characteristics, at least in the SNS context. Future research is neededto more clearly this hypothesis.

In conclusion, in order to complement this study, further analysis of visual attentionmeasures is suggested, namely the duration of attention and of saccades’ (rapid eyemovement) inter and intra elements (Pieters et al., 1999), supported by eye-trackingtechnology.

Conclusions and implicationsIn this specific experiment, the capacity of users to recall banners was not tested, as inthe studies of Bachofer (1998) and Bayles (2000), but rather whether userswould actually see the ads that appeared on a specific popular SNS. These resultswere then compared with the number of friends’ recommendations seen by theparticipants.

This research study revealed that in the SNS context, the indirect promotion of aproduct or service through the elements of a participant’s social network increases theinterest (and, hence, the views) more effectively than via banner advertising. Besides,it was concluded that gender does not have an impact on the percentage of banner adsseen on SNS. In addition, the ads displayed on the SNS Facebook have a highprobability of obtaining low profitability rates, since they compete with several ads in

Hypotheses Results

H1. Online ads attract less attention levels thanfriends’ recommendations in SNS

The hypothesis was supported, since thepercentage of ads seen by participants on this website was small (21.5 percent by female users and16.7 percent by male users), attracting lessattention levels than friends’ recommendations

H2. Since ads on Facebook are outside the rangeof the F-shaped zone, low levels of attention forads are predicted, reinforcing the occurrence ofbanner blindness

The hypothesis was supported, as the percentageof ads seen by participants on this web site wassmall (21.5 percent by female users and 16.7percent by male users)

H3. Women are expected to see fewer banners adsthan men on SNS

The hypothesis was not supported, since althoughwomen viewed more ads (a total of 21.5 percent ofbanners displayed), than men (who saw a total of16.7 percent of banners displayed), statisticallythere is no difference in ads seen and clickedbetween women and men

Table VI.Relation betweenhypotheses, methodsand results

JRIM7,2

134

the same space, are present for only a short period of time and, given their predictablelocation, are likely to be ignored by social network users through the so-calledphenomenon of banner blindness.

The first implications that can be drawn from the present work are that theproposed conceptualizations of the terms SNS and advertising can be used as platformsof discussion or as standards for future definitions.

Moreover, this study provides an opportunity to contribute to a greater knowledgeof experiences based on the use of eye-tracking technology applied to advertising andcommunication.

From a managerial point of view, this study is expected to help brand managers andadvertisers to guideline their strategic campaigns concerning the use of this type ofweb site, which is very popular nowadays. In this sense, a few guiding principles aresuggested.

An ad that is not observed by the target does not receive any attention and,consequently, cannot arouse interest, which means that it did not achieve its objective.In order for a social media campaign focused on popular SNS to be successful, it iscrucial that companies know their target population and engage it. To make this happen,companies must be customer-focused, by promoting relationships and engaging theirtarget in bidirectional conversations (one-to-one communications), which requires timetogether with creative, useful or interesting advertisements/content that promotescalable word of mouth.

Another important managerial implication taken from this article is the evidencethat brands need to rethink their online advertising strategy. Recommendationsor earned advertising should be the focus of an online campaign, specifically in aSNS. By adding a social component to their ads, advertisers could transfer thefeelings of trust from a friend to the promoted message, thus legitimizing the ad.When using social media, the focus should not be on a “campaign mentality”,which leads to the perception that social media is nothing more than anotheradvertising platform. Instead, the optimal focus will target the ability to createexperiences for consumers, thus adding value to the brand, and engaging in strategicand long-term thinking.

Furthermore, it is important to mention that women influence 91 percent of allhome purchases (Silverstein and Sayre, 2009), value word of mouth more than menand, as a result, engage in more of this type of communication[5]. Taking this intoaccount, women should be perceived as the most powerful brand ambassadors.Bearing in mind the current study findings – that statistically there is no differencein ads seen and clicked between women and men – marketers should find alternativeways to engage with women in online social networks. This would be betteraccomplished through bidirectional conversations and less via unidirectionalmethods, such as ads.

Finally, at the beginning of February 2013, Facebook began testing ads on “NewsFeed” page of non-fans of the advertised ad in the format of Page Post ads – a unitcalled “Suggested Page”, avoiding the traditional banner area on the same page. Thisfact strengthens the argument that banner ads on Facebook are not sufficientlyeffective, due to their predictable location, and possible marketers have already noticedthis problem. Moreover, the addition of this feature also strengthens the argumentthat users pay much more attention to the News Feed area, where they find their


135

friends’ posts. This new move from the Facebook team to keep attracting advertisersraises some questions: will user experience be negatively affected (although these adsseem to be targeted to the user using standard Facebook capabilities, such as user’slocation and number of Facebook friends who liked the advertised page)? If so whatwill the impact be? And finally, will these page post ads be efficient once users get usedto them?

Even more recently, Facebook has tried to address the issue of advertisingeffectiveness by testing different banner sizes based on connectedness: “News Feed”ads coming from brands that users or their friends have liked will show up in largeboxes; ads coming from pages that neither users nor their friends have liked will showup in smaller boxes. Once again, Facebook aims to draw users’ attention towards ads,in this case by manipulating the ads’ features. However, it is hypothesized that even ifthe predictable location effect does not impact users’ attention to banners, once they getused to the sizes change of the different banners, this factor (unless it is extreme) willhave only a minimal impact, at best.

Notes

1. www.public.site2.mirror2.phi.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?R¼1008783

2. One index of the effectiveness of a banner ad is its click-through rate, a percentage calculatedby dividing the number of times a banner ad appears on a site by the number of times the adis clicked on.

3. Fixations describe the moment when the eyes are relatively fixed, assimilating or“decoding” the information, lasting an average of 218 milliseconds with a range of 66-416milliseconds.

4. A work-in-progress introduction to the JCMC special issue on Social Network Sites by DanahBoyd and Nicole Ellison, available at: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

5. Keller Fay’s Talktrack, 2012.

References

Albert, W. (2002), “Do web users actually look at ads? A case study of banner ads andeye-tracking technology”, Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference of the UsabilityProfessionals’ Association, Orlando, Florida.

Bachofer, M. (1998), Die Stern Bibliothek: Wie wirkt Werbung im Web?, Grunerþ Jahr, Hamburg.

Bayles, M. (2000), “Just how ‘blind’ are we to advertising banners on the web?”, Usability News,Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 520-541.

Belz, C. (1997), “Ins Netz gegangen? Neue Studien: Formen und Akzeptanz vonInternet-Werbung”, Media-Spectrum: Kommentare, Analysen, Meinungen, Vol. 6,pp. 26-27.

Benway, J.P. and Lane, D.M. (1998), “Banner blindness: web searchers often miss “obvious”links”, Internetworking: Internet Technical Group Newsletter, Vol. 1 No. 3, available at:www.internettg.org/newsletter/dec98/banner_blindness.html

Bovee, C.L. and Arens, W.F. (1992), Contemporary Advertising, Irwin, Homewood, IL.

Boyd, D.M. and Ellison, N.B. (2007), “Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship”,Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 210-230.

Briggs, R. and Hollis, N. (1997), “Advertising on the web: is there response before click-through?”,Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 33-35.

JRIM7,2

136

Burke, M., Hornof, A., Nilsen, E. and Gorman, N. (2005), “High-cost banner blindness: adsincrease perceived workload, hinder visual search, and are forgotten”, ACM Transactionson Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 423-445.

Cho, C.-H. and Hongsik, J.C. (2004), “Why do people avoid advertising on the internet?”, Journal ofAdvertising, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 89-97.

Cooke, M. and Buckley, N. (2008), “Web 2.0, social networks and the future of market research”,International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 267-292.

Cove, J.F. and Walsh, B.C. (1988), “Online text retrieval via browsing”, Information Processing& Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 31-37.

Dreze, X. and Hussherr, F. (2003), “Internet advertising: is anybody watching?”, Journal ofInteractive Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 8-23.

eMarketer (2012), available at: www.emarketer.com/Article/US-Online-Advertising-Spending-Surpass-Print-2012/1008783

Espanha Alt64 Digital e Asociacion para la Investigacion de Medios de Comunicacion (2005),Estudio Eyetrack Medios Espana – Analisis del comportamiento visual de los internautas yla efectividad de la publicidad online, available at: www.alt64.com/tobiiftp/Eyetracking_Media_Espana.pdf

Fogg, B.J., Marshall, J., Laraki, O., Osipovich, A., Varma, C., Fang, N., Paul, J., Rangnekar, A.,Shon, J., Swani, P. and Treinen, M. (2001), “What makes web sites credible? A report on alarge quantitative study”, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors inComputing Systems, Seattle, WA, April, ACM Press, New York, NY, pp. 61-68.

Forrester Research (2006), “Consumers love to hate advertising”, Forrester Research,Cambridge, MA.

Fox, D., Smith, A. and Chaparro, B.S. (2009), “Optimizing presentation of Adsense ads withinblogs”, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 53rd Annual Meeting,San Antonio, Texas, HFES, pp. 463-467.

Granka, L., Hembrooke, H. and Gay, G. (2006), “Location location location: viewing patterns onWWW pages”, Proceedings of the 2006 Symposium on Eye-Tracking Research andApplications, ACM Press, San Diego, CA, p. 43.

Ha, L. (2008), “Online advertising research in advertising journals: a review”, Journal of CurrentIssues & Research in Advertising, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 31-48.

Hanafizadeh, P. and Behboudi, M. (2012), Online Advertising and Promotion: ModernTechnologies for Marketing, IGI Global, Hershey, PA.

Handel, S. (1989), Listening: An Introduction to the Perception of Auditory Events, MIT Press,Cambridge, MA.

Helmholtz, H.v. (1896), Handbuch der Physiologischen Optik, Hamburg und Leipzig, Voss,pp. 604-605, Dritter Abschnitt, Zweite Auflage.

Hervert, G., Guerard, K., Tremblay, S. and Chtourou, M.S. (2011), “Is banner blindness genuine?Eye tracking internet text advertising”, Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 5,pp. 708-716.

Hoffman, A. (2008), “The social media gender gap”, Business Week, May 19, available at: www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2008/tc20080516_580743.htm (accessedJanuary 22, 2009).

Hollingworth, A. and Henderson, J.M. (1998), “Does consistent scene context facilitate objectperception?”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 127, pp. 398-415.

Hsieh, Y.C. and Chen, K.H. (2011), “How different information types affect viewer’s attention oninternet advertising”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 935-945.


137

Jakob Nielsen’s Alertbox (2006), “F-shaped pattern for reading web content”, April 17, availableat: www.useit.com/alertbox/reading_pattern.html

Kahneman, D. (1973), Attention and Effort, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Kenshoo Social and Resolution Media (2012), “Social Media Insights: Men Are Cheap”, KenshooSocial and Resolution Media, Tel-Aviv.

Kuhlen, R. (1991), Hypertext. Ein nicht-lineares Medium zwischen Buch und Wissensbank,Springer, Berlin.

Lapa, C. (2007), “Using eye tracking to understand banner blindness and improve websitedesign”, Rochester Institute of Technology, Digital Media Library, available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1850/4768

Leest, U. (1996), “Werbewahrnehmung und Werbeakzeptanz im Internet”, Planung & Analyse,Vol. 6, pp. 24-25.

Lenhart, A. and Madden, M. (2007), “Teens, privacy, & online social networks”, Pew Internet andAmerican Life Project Report, Washington, DC, available at: www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2007/Teens-Privacy-and-Online-Social-Networks.aspx (accessed July 30).

Lewis, St.E. (1993), “Catch-line and argument”, The Book-Keeper, Vol. 15, February, p. 124.

Lorenzo-Romero, C., Constantinides, E. and Marıa-del-Carmen, A.-d.-A. (2011), “Consumeradoption of social networking sites: implications for theory and practice”, Journal ofResearch in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 170-188.

Lorigo, L., Pan, B., Hembrooke, H., Joachims, T., Granka, L. and Gay, G. (2006), “The influence oftask and gender on search and evaluation behavior using Google”, Journal InformationProcessing & Management: An International Journal, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 1123-1131.

Maughan, L., Gutnikov, S. and Stevens, R. (2007), “Like more, look more. Look more, like more:the evidence from eye-tracking”, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 335-342.

Mosconi, M., Porta, M. and Ravarelli, A. (2008), “On-line newspapers and multimedia content: aneye-tracking study”, Proceedings of the 26th Annual ACM International Conference onDesign of Communication, ACM Press, Lisbon, pp. 55-64.

Neisser, U. (1979), Kognition und Wirklichkeit: Prinzipien und Implikationen der kognitivenPsychologie, Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart.

Noton, D. and Stark, L.W. (1971a), “Eye movements and visual perception”, Scientific American,Vol. 224 No. 6, pp. 34-43.

Noton, D. and Stark, L.W. (1971b), “Scanpaths in eye movements during pattern perception”,Science, Vol. 171, pp. 308-311.

Pagendarm, M. and Heike, S. (2006), “Why are users banner-blind? The impact of navigationstyle on the perception of web banners”, Journal of Digital Information, Vol. 2 No. 1,available at: http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/index.php/jodi/article/viewArticle/36/38

Pease, A. and Pease, B. (2000), Why Men Don’t Listen and Women Can’t Read Maps: How We’reDifferent and What to Do About It, Welcome Rain Publishers, New York, NY.

Pieters, R. and Wedel, M. (2004), “Attention capture and transfer in advertising: brand, pictorialand text size effects”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 68 No. 2, pp. 36-50.

Pieters, R., Rosbergen, E. and Wedel, M. (1999), “Visual attention to repeated print advertising:a test of scanpath theory”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 424-438.

Pinho, J.C.M. and Soares, A.M. (2011), “Examining the technology acceptance model in theadoption of social networks”, Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, Vol. 5 No. 2,pp. 116-129.

JRIM7,2

138

Prinz, W. (1992), “Wahrnehmung”, in Spada, H. (Ed.), Lehrbuch Allgemeine Psychologie, Huber,Bern.

Richards, J. and Curran, C.M. (2002), “Oracles on advertising: searching for a definition”, Journalof Advertising, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 63-77.

Shepherd, M., Findlay, J. and Hockey, R. (1986), “The relationship between eye movements andspatial attention”, The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: HumanExperimental Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 475-491.

Silverstein, M.J. and Sayre, K. (2009), “The female economy”, Harvard Business Review,September.

Stenger, T. and Coutant, A. (2009), “Social network sites (SNS): do they match? Definitions andmethods for social sciences and marketing research”, paper presented at Sunbelt XXIX,Annual Conference of the INSNA, San Diego, CA.

Stroud, D. (2008), “Social networking: an age-neutral commodity – social networking becomes amature web application”, Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, Vol. 9,pp. 278-292.

Tergan, S.O. (1995), “Hypertext und Hypermedia: Konzeptionen, Lernmoglichkeiten,Lernprobleme”, in Issing, L.J. and Klimsa, P. (Eds), Information und Lernen mitMultimedia, Psychologie Verlags Union, Weinheim.

Wang, J.-C. and Day, R.-F. (2007), “The effects of attention inertia on advertisements on theWWW”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 23, pp. 1390-1407.

Zanot, E.J. (1984), “Public attitude towards advertising: the American experience”, InternationalJournal of Advertising, Vol. 3, January, pp. 3-15.

Further reading

Eriksen, C.W. and Yei-Yu, Y. (1985), “Allocation of attention in the visual field”, Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 583-597.

Josephson, S. and Holmes, M.E. (2002), “Attention to repeated images on the world-wide web:another look at scanpath theory”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers,Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 539-548.

Owens, J.W., Chaparro, B.S. and Palmer, E.M. (2011), “Text advertising blindness: the newbanner blindness?”, Journal of Usability Studies, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 172-197.

About the authorAna Margarida Barreto is a PhD finalist from New University of Lisbon, Portugal, and currentlya Visiting Scholar at Columbia Business School. Her research interests include online advertisingeffectiveness, social network dynamics and word-of-mouth. Ana Margarida Barreto can becontacted at: [email protected]


139

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Documents

Do users look at banner ads on Facebook?