ࡱ> SURcY jbjbjWW N==me]&&& 0 &@ LT$DfT :  8  @P8P$' ! @ ! !    B ! 8   @<@|@!   3>N  7)S Interactive advertising: Patterns of use and effectiveness Kirsten Risden, Mary Czerwinski, Stephanie Worley, Lynda Hamilton, Joe Kubiniec Microsoft One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 USA +1 425 703 4882 marycz@microsoft.com Hunter Hoffman1, Nancy Mickel2 Elizabeth Loftus3 Human Interface Technology Laboratory1 Department of Psychology2, 3 University of Washington Seattle, WA, 98195-2142 +1 206 616-1496 hunter@hitl.washington.edu ABSTRACT The number of people exploring the World Wide Web is growing dramatically. Many companies are interested in the potential of advertising on the web, but there is little research to guide their decision. The present study demonstrates the concept of a corporate sponsored website as a promising direction for web advertisers. Advertisements for products targeting 10-14 year-olds were presented as web games and inserted into a prototype website. For example, in one ad, players scored points by actively steering toward the advertised product with their web video-game car, while dodging undesirable obstacles on the road (sound effects included). For comparison, subjects also watched a TV ad for the same product embedded in a TV program. One day later, tests showed that web ads positively influenced how easily the advertised brand came to mind compared to TV ads and compared to no-ad controls. The effectiveness of interactive web ads for influencing consumers memory in this preliminary study suggests that it merits more attention as a potentially viable medium for advertising. Factors that could contribute to the advantage for web ads are discussed. Keywords Interactive Ads, TV, World-Wide Web, Engagement, User Interface Design INTRODUCTION The number of Americans using the World Wide Web continues to grow at an astounding rate. While only 9.4% of US households were online in 1995, 45% of all U.S. households are projected to have web access by the year 2002 [4]. A few companies are already profiting from this trend but many US companies are just beginning to explore the best way to capitalize on this new medium. Web advertising is one attractive option that many companies are considering. While the amount of money being invested in web advertising is presently modest and exploratory, spending is projected to grow dramatically as the number of users increases. Jupiter [4] projects that 10 billion dollars will be invested annually in web advertising by the year 2002, up dramatically from the 37 million spent in 1997. Despite these projections, many companies are wondering whether advertising on the web can actually be effective and, if so, how to make it as effective as possible. This includes not only the companies whose products are advertised but also the companies whose web sites display the ads. Most web advertising currently involves banner ads; usually a rectangular graphic set at the top or bottom of a web page. These are commonly found at the gateways to the web (e.g., default start pages for browsers such as Microsofts Internet Explorer or Netscapes Navigator, as well as so-called portal sites such as Yahoo and Excite) and presently account for 80% of all advertising revenue [3]. Although passive exposure to a banner has its own influence [2, 4], banners are often limited in how creative they can be and in the amount of information they can convey on their own. As a result, the actual purpose of many banners is to entice users to click through to the advertised companys website where they interact directly with the product information. However, getting a large number of viewers to a single website is difficult and in some ways counter to the goals of the companies that house the ads. Only 3%-13% of the visitors to a website [9] click into a banner, and those that do may not ever come back to the website that hosted the ad. This of course runs counter to the desires of the ad-hosting company. Recently, researchers and advertisers have proposed corporate sponsorship of web sites, modeled after corporate sponsorship of popular TV programs. In this alternative approach, a companys ad is displayed in several places on the hosting site. Some of these ads are actually undisguised entertainment attractions designed to be fun. Users click the ad to interact directly with product information (i.e., they are taken to another web page within the hosting site for the interaction). When users are finished interacting with product information, an exit button takes them back to the originating page of the sponsored website. This benefits both the company sponsoring the website and the company that owns the website being sponsored. The hope is that there is a greater chance that users will click through to the product information, but less of a chance that users will click away from the hosting website when they do so. The present study demonstrates the viability of this concept for product sponsorship of a website targeted at 10 to 14 year-olds. Advertisements for products that are popular with this age group were inserted into a prototype website. Users could click through a small banner icon to interact with the product information. In keeping with the nature of the website itself, the product information was presented as a game. Despite the benefits of sponsorship such as those described above, advertisers may still wonder whether web advertising can be effective when deciding where to spend their advertising dollars. This study also addresses that question by comparing the effects of web and television advertising on subjects brand awareness and product choice behavior. There is a great deal of psychological evidence to suggest that the interactivity afforded by web-based advertising is likely to result in superior memory for products advertised in this way. According to educational technologists, interaction facilitates learning and memory for visual information [1, 7]. Furthermore, a recent study demonstrated better understanding and memory for an activity when children performed the activity themselves, as opposed to observing or hearing a narration of the activity [6]. To the extent that superior understanding and memory for ad content underlies product awareness and product choice, interactive, web advertising should be more effective than traditional methods of advertising, such as television. However, to our knowledge, ours is the first controlled laboratory study to directly investigate the effects of interactive, web-based advertising in comparison to other advertising mediums. In this study, subjects watched a traditional TV ad as a commercial in a popular half-hour TV show. In another condition of the study, they also visited an interactive website with several age-appropriate activities. On the home page, subjects could choose from 4 activities, or they could click on a small icon, which encouraged them to play the ad game when they hovered or rolled over it with their mouse. These ad games were based loosely on the message expressed in the television ad counterpart. For example, a TV ad that involved driving was turned into an interactive web game where players scored points by actively steering toward the advertised product with their car, while dodging undesirable obstacles on the road (sound were included). One day later, we measured the influence of these same television and web ads on brand awareness, as well as product choice. We predicted that interactive ads would influence brand awareness and product choice more than TV ads or a no ad control condition. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Subjects The subjects were 70 individuals aged 12-13 years old. Approximately half of the subjects were female and half of the subjects were male. They were recruited from the Microsoft subject pool, and only subjects with intermediate computer skills were selected to participate. All participants received a gratuity of one computer game software package per day of participation. Design & Materials The pool of critical items included two fruit drinks, Fruitopia and Snapple, and two candy bars, Twix and Kit-Kat. On Day 1 every subject was exposed to one fruit drink ad and one candy bar ad, with one of the critical items shown via TV and the other critical item presented via the website (based on random assignment). Put another way, each subject saw only one ad from each product category. One ad was presented on the web and one on the TV (e.g., Fruitopia TV-Twix Web was possible, but Fruitopia TV-Snapple web was not). The web ads conveyed the same message as their television counterparts, but enabled active interaction with the product information. We manipulated which ad was conveyed in which medium, which medium occurred first, and also the order of tasks on Day 2. Procedure On Day 1 of the study, subjects came in groups of three to a room located at the Microsoft headquarters. They were given a preliminary overview of the research. Informed consent was gathered, and subjects were told their computer screens would be videotaped. Subjects were told that in anticipation of the convergence of TV and the World Wide Web in the future (e.g., MSNBC); we were trying to figure out the best way to combine them. Then subjects engaged in a two-part session involving both TV and web use. If subjects were assigned to view television first, they read some instructions telling them that they were about to watch a TV program and they would be asked some questions about it. They were explicitly told that while watching the TV material they could laugh but they could not talk with one another. Then they watched a 30-minute video, which included a Seinfeld episode, with TV ads interspersed within the episode. The ads were placed midway and at the end of the Seinfeld episode. Except for a critical TV ad about either a fruit drink or a candy bar, the other ads were for network promotion rather than product promotion. The critical ad appeared only once and was always 30 seconds in length. If subjects were assigned to the web ad condition first, they instead began by reading instructions telling them that they were about to explore a website for kids their age. They were explicitly told that they should not look at each others screens or talk to one another and that they would be told to stop after 30 min. Then they spent 30 min. exploring an area for 10 to 14 year-olds on The Microsoft Network. They were not allowed to go to other places on the Web. Web ads were available at all times during this 30-minute session, and could be accessed by clicking on an animated anchor icon. An animated anchor consisted of an icon representing the product. When subjects rolled over the icon, it animated, and displayed instructions (e.g., Click here for the Fruitopia game.) An audio segment representing the product also played when subjects rolled over the anchor. In addition to the advertisement, four online games and activities were accessible within the area for subjects to interact with. In the web condition, subjects were free to explore the web ad, and/or any of the 4 web activities (non-ads) on the site, for any length of time they chose, going back and forth between them at will. Approximately half the subjects viewed the TV episode first, followed by use of the web site, and half used the website first and then got the TV episode. After the TV and website experiences, subjects were given a partial debriefing, and asked to return the next day. Subjects thought the next session was a completely different study, as it was carried out in a different building and had a different title in their correspondence. To enhance this perception, a different experimenter administered the second session to help disguise the true purpose of the experiment (the true purpose of Day 2 was to test the influence of the ads experienced on Day 1). On Day 2, the new experimenter greeted the subject and gave the cover story that Microsoft was interested in the subjects help in designing products that would appeal to kids their age. Then they engaged in a two-part session. If they were assigned to do the brand awareness task first, they were given a booklet of 8 pages, each with its own category heading at the top, and five spaces for responding. The categories were Name of Clothing Stores, Insects, Brands of Candy Bars, Colors, Brands of Toothpaste, Parts of a Building, Brands of Fruit Drinks, and Vegetables. Subjects were asked to write down the first 5 items for each category that they could think of, in the order that the items came to mind. Examples were given to clarify the instructions. Brands of fruit drinks and brands of candy bars were the two target categories. The other brand categories were fillers used to reduce the saliency of the target categories and disguise the intended purpose of the study. The positions of the critical categories, fruit drinks and candy bars, were counterbalanced to occur in either the 3rd or 7th positions. If subjects were assigned to do the product choice task first, they were taken to a small equipment room one at a time, under the impression that they were getting a snack to take to a snack room for a short break. They were shown a table with five candy bars in front, and four fruit drinks in back. The right-left serial position of the products was randomized for each subject. Subjects were told they could take one drink and one candy bar. They did so individually, as the only one in the choice room, with their back to the experimenter. After the subject had been taken to a third room, the experimenter returned and recorded which products the subject had taken. Subjects who began with the brand awareness task, next did the product choice task. Subjects who began with the product choice task next did the brand awareness task. At the end of this session, subjects answered an open-ended question inquiring what they thought the experimenters were trying to figure out (encouraging them to guess if necessary). They filled out some other forms not relevant to the present study, were fully debriefed, and given a gratuity. RESULTS Use of Interactive Web Ads One initial analysis concerns whether and to what extent the subjects in the web phase of Day 1 were exposed to the critical ads. To determine this, we first eliminated from all analyses five subjects who revealed that they had detected the purpose of the study and realized that Day 2 was testing the influence of Day 1 activities. This left 65 subjects in the experimental groups who participated in both days of the study. The mean number of times that the ad anchor was rolled over, the mean number of times the ad anchor was clicked and the mean length of time spent interacting with the ad content was calculated for these 65 subjects and is shown in Table 1. The finding that 89% of the subjects visited the ad at least once compares very favorably to banner ads which have reported rates of users clicking into them of only between 3 and 13% [9]. Moreover, subjects had comparatively frequent and lengthy exposure to the product information, both in terms of the number of times they received the effects of rolling over the anchor, the number of times they interacted with the ad content, and the length of time they spent in such interactions. Thus, it appears that the model of web advertising used in this study is an effective way to expose users to advertising content. Rates of interactive ad use (standard deviations in parentheses)Percentage of subjects who visited the ad at least once.89%Average number of anchor rollovers per session.4.79 (2.56)Average number of visits to an ad per session.2.10 (1.47)Average length of visit in minutes (excludes subjects who did not go in at all.)3.33 (2.99)Table 1. Measures of interactive ad use. Brand Awareness Data The first comparison of interest is whether experiencing an ad, either via TV or on the web, influenced the extent to which the product being advertised came to mind in response to the product category label (e.g., fruit drinks). We calculated the proportion of subjects who mentioned the critical product on Day 2, for each of the exposure conditions from Day 1. These calculations were made only for the 35 subjects who had the brand awareness task first because a significant effect of test order was found, (F (1, 101) = 12.63, p < .001, MSE = .22). Subjects who participated in the product choice task first were more likely to name an advertised product as a category member in the brand awareness task. To ensure that product choice did not contaminate brand awareness, only data from children who did the brand awareness task before the product choice task were included in subsequent analysis of the brand awareness data. Since each advertised item (e.g., Fruitopia) had an unadvertised counterpart (e.g., Snapple), the proportion of subjects who mentioned the unadvertised products could also be calculated as a within-subject control condition for the brand awareness measure. This gave baseline rates, (e.g., the proportion of subjects who would have thought of Snapple even without any Day 1 advertising). The mean proportion of subjects mentioning the critical item in each condition is shown in Figure 1. Figure 1. Effects of web advertising, television advertising, and no advertising at all. Subjects were significantly more likely to mention a product advertised interactively than a product advertised on TV (Cochran's Q = 4.00, p< .05, two tailed). Subjects were also significantly more likely to mention a product advertised interactively than a comparable product that was not advertised at all in the study (Cochran's Q = 5.40, p < .05, two-tailed). Product Choice Data The likelihood of choosing the advertised product for a snack was no different for interactive web ads vs. TV ads. Kids chose the product advertised interactively 22% of the time and the product advertised on television 23% of the time. These rates did not differ significantly and were very close to the chance probability of choosing the advertised products (chance calculated as an average over drinks (1/4) and candy bars (1/5) was 22.5%) CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK This study demonstrates the viability of a "sponsorship" model of web advertising and indicates that interactive web ads can influence children's memory for advertised products more effectively than TV ads, and more effectively than no ads. The subjects in this study interacted with product information extensively. As a result, the brand names of products advertised interactively were more prominent in subjects memories than if they had not used the web advertisements. The effectiveness of interactive web advertising for influencing consumers awareness of products in this preliminary study suggests that it merits more attention as a potentially viable medium for advertising. No significant advantage was observed with regard tot he product choice measure used in this study; however, this has traditionally been a less sensitive measure of ad effectiveness (Rust, Personal communication). This is because it is more difficult to control all the variables affecting behaviors like product choice. Packaging, subjects prior experience with the brand, what they are feeling like at the time the data are collected and a range of other variables act on the behavior, create noise, and make it more difficult to detect underlying patterns. A larger sample size may be required to reveal effects of interactive advertising on product choice behavior. Initial Hypotheses The logical next question to ask is why the interactive web ads were so effective? If we could understand what the critical factors for success in an interactive ad are, we would be able to replicate success repeatedly in our ad designs on the web. In this section of the report, we discuss our initial hypotheses about what made these interactive ads effective, describe further analyses that could provide more definitive answers, and point to possibilities for studies that could provide further information about effective ad design. There are several factors that likely influenced the effectiveness of the interactive web ads used in this study. The opportunity for high rates of exposure to the ad content afforded by the sponsorship model, both through roll over and clicking through to the actual ad content, was undoubtedly critical to the effectiveness of the ads. When we initially piloted the ads, none of the subjects clicked into them! We subsequently changed the anchors to be obviously "clickable", to set up expectations for fun, and to use highly directive language (e.g., "Click here for the Snapple game!"). These changes resulted in the currently reported rate of 89% of the children clicking into the ads and should be adopted by designers looking to effectively get children into ad content. The frequency and length of time the subjects spent interacting with the content is also likely to have contributed to the effectiveness of the ads. However, although one clear advantage of web ads over TV ads is that subjects can spend more time in them, sheer amount of exposure is unlikely to be what distinguishes effective web ads from ineffective web ads. To explore this, initial analyses examined the number of times subjects rolled over the ad anchor and the total number of minutes of exposure to ad content. These results indicated that there was no difference in ad exposure between subjects who remembered the web ad and subjects who did not. This is consistent with the finding [6] that the number of times an event is directly experienced has little effect on childrens recall of the event. In contrast, the structure of the information (e.g., whether the relationships between parts of the event make for a coherent whole) tends to be of critical importance to childrens ability to recall an event [8]. This suggests that more fine-grained analyses that take a qualitative look at how our subjects used the interactive ad content, what they remembered about the ads themselves, and how those factors related to brand awareness may provide better information about the kinds of design features that make these ads effective. Analysis of the video tapes of subjects using the ads and analysis of free and cued recall data that were also collected at the end of the Day 2 activities can be used to determine what was most salient about the ads. The results of these analyses may help guide the design of effective interactive ads for the Web. Further Studies We had many initial questions about interactive advertising that were tabled in favor of the issues we chose to focus on for this research. One question we had at the outset was whether the effectiveness of interactive advertising would depend on the age of the user. Another interesting question regarded the effectiveness of interactive advertising across repeated exposures. Several well-known psychological findings suggest that the factors that influence effectiveness may change over repeated experience with ads. Finally, it seems likely that advertisements presented in different kinds of media will interact. For example, although pitted against one another in the present study, TV ads and interactive web ads will likely work synergistically in the real world. The influence of a web ad would likely be enhanced by subsequent exposure to TV ads, and TV ads may be more engaging after interacting with a complementary web ad. The best way to use interactive and TV ads conjointly for maximal effectiveness is an additional question that should be explored in further research. Corporate investment in empirical research on the fundamentals of web advertising will accelerate the maturation of this potentially influential medium. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We would like to thank Kevin Larson for his assistance with preparing this paper in the format for a CHI submission and Amy Tsai for her help running subjects. Thanks to George Robertson for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. We would also like to thank Ellen Gasca, and the usability test coordinators, as well as the participants in this study, for their time and efforts in scheduling repeat visits to the lab for this research. REFERENCES Anderson, J.R., Corbett, A.T., Koedinger, K.R., & Pelletier, R. (1996). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University Unpublished manuscript. Briggs, R., and Hollis, N. (1997). Advertising on the Web: Is there response before click through? Journal of Advertising Research, March/April 33-45. Jupiter report cited by Cyberatlas, (1997).  HYPERLINK http://www.cyberatlas.com/advertising.html http://www.cyberatlas.com/advertising.html. Jupiter (1997). The 1997 Online Kids Report. Jupiter Communications, NY., http:// HYPERLINK http://www.up.com www.jup.com. Maddox, L.W., and Mehta, D. (1997). The role and effect of web addresses in advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, March/April, 47-59. Murachver, T., Pipe, M., Gordon, R., Owens, J.L., and Fivush, R. (1996). Do, show and tell: Childrens event memories acquired through direct experience, observation and stories, Child Development, 67, 3029-3044. Psotka, J. (1995). Immersive tutoring systems: Virtual reality and education and training. Available as an HTML document from  HYPERLINK http://www.hitl.washington.edu] http://www.hitl.washington.edu Van den Broek, P. (In press). Discovering the cement of the universe: The development of event comprehension from childhood to adulthood. In P. van den Broek, P. Bauer, & T. Bourg (Eds.) Developmental spans in event comprehension and representation: Bridging fictional and actual events. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Voight, J. Beyond the banner. Wired, December, 1996.  Note that this test was performed on the data from all 70 of the experimental subjects plus 38 pilot subjects that only participated in the Day 2 activities. PAGE \# "'Page: '#' '" Page: 1 I vote to take this out of the abstract since, a) this measure is less sensitive, and b) we spend little time on it in the paper.  EMBED Excel.Sheet.8  =>?W[\K L S ~ !!!H#[#n&x&))337279999:::":0:D:ĻĘyyyyyyyy 6B*hnH CJOJQJWC&CJOJQJWOJQJ5B*CJOJQJhnH B*OJQJhnH  jUmHj0J<U B*hnH hnH H*B*CJH*hnH B*CJhnH 5B*CJhnH  5CJH*5B*CJH*hnH 5CJ/;<=?\uT ] Ux$$x$$$xx;<=?\uT ] U!!!H#[#n&x&|(E+026G:u;{wsoke ' t  i )    3    Y           O     f                  &!!!H#[#n&x&|(E+026G:u;};; ExEƀC&x x xD:G:u;};C=@@@A&B'BDFDGDRDSD\D_DDDDEE#E8EGEmEEEEFFIIlKKPPS\\aakc|ddddddddeeejB*UhnH  B*hnH jB*UhnH B*OJQJhnH j0JB*UhnH  >*B*hnH  6B*hnH 56CJOJQJjB*UmHB*h CJOJQJOJQJ B*hnH :u;};;@@@@@@@@"A&A'AWAcAdAAAAAAA'B*0BeePf%gm$H & F xEƀiY.H & F xEƀiY.H & F xEƀiY.%gg/idieifigihiiijikilimijjjjjj$x & F xH & F xEƀiY.j&j(j)j1j2j3jjjjjjjjĿ jUj7 UVmH j0JUjHhoYHUmH jUHhoYH0JHhoYH jjj$ &P/ =!8"8#8$%' 0&P/ =!8"8#8$% P+ 0&P/ =!8"8#8$% P ' 0&P/ =!8"8#8$% # 0&P/ =!8"8#8$%`!{FfZ̰Xv;-xݘOh\El&DRbPkmE&BKRhvl$M&6,T R+P[KAPD\^BXa{mbspgg~͟6])B{%sN5 eJG<m sؓ?}f٬177's?DikkSKuww7^yf~g500vޭYSCeqKߪKOOAj0`AJJA ĠE ,8&1lHP %_I9:h0`ht`1bA k Xp E&M,X4F ,A ,8,8,>6 ~@ mC\hS:i4оGĽEqgɃgdɁ ,8M_ǁt`A; :8[Rm@#t|J t`5OCi[Zzj6 Fm0j}QCgxe\){UN-iZo* +3!iܞzy=GH(Giy?P^ 2,?ԫ_ɃS^ ;u#ox'nw.,*ݥF+nSHeld\wrm8jQP6E_5 Z︜٨Gm>j5+5{sei-Y^[)3ZVon'IS#2Q׺̷4?Mz3q~7QX!r?hOH6 ~@ mC\hS:i4оGĽEqgɃgdɁ ,8M_ǁt`A; :8[Rm@#t|J t`5OCi[Zzj6 Fm0j}QCgxe\){UN-iZo* +3!iܞzy=GH(Giy?P^ 2,?ԫ_ɃS^ ;u#ox'nw.,*ݥF+nSHeld\wrm8jQP6E_5 Z︜٨Gm>j5+5{sei-Y^[)3ZVon'IS#2Q׺̷4?Mz3q~7QX!r?hOH?@ABCDEFGHIKLMNOPQTbXYZ[\]^_`aefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry  FLS &)SV Data JWordDocument NObjectPool`D)S &)S_935390992 F`D)SPL)SOle PRINTW0CompObjf  !"#$& FMicrosoft Excel WorksheetBiff8Excel.Sheet.89qOh+'0@H`x kirsten risdenkirsten risdenMicrosoft Excel@1^*@fמ)      ' """)))UUUMMMBBB999|PP3f333f3333f3ffffff3f̙3ff333f333333333f33333333f33f3ff3f3f3f3333f33̙33333f333333f3333f3ffffff3f33ff3f3f3f3fff3ffffffffff3ffff̙fff3fffff3fff333f3f3ff3ff33f̙̙3̙ff̙̙̙3f̙3f333f3333f3ffffff3f̙3f3f3f333f3333f3ffffff3f̙3f3ffffffffff!___www45'  Arial-----------Arial-------------"Systemn-'-  "-- !! "---'--- ---'--- NK++ NT+TN+N+NO+ON---'--- ---'--- !!---'--- OO+---'--- ^?+ "- - $]]$dTTddT$---'--- OO+---'---  "-O+ +-++TT+++OO++N++NN------'--- 9 2 YBrand Awareness0%))04%%)%%%----'--- ---'--- ----'---   2 0% 2 0.1%% 2 50.2%% 2 0.3%% 2 0.4%% 2 00.5%%---'--- ---'---  2 Jk Interactive%%%""% 2 JTV)- 2 JINo0%2  Advertising-%"%"%%---'--- ------'--- ~s 2  Type of Ad)%)%)0)----'--- --------'--- ?d Arial- 2 w Proportion-Arial-2 5 of Children Who -Arial- 2 ' Remember Ad-----'--- ---'---  - !!--'  '  'ObjInfo Workbookdo[SummaryInformation( DocumentSummaryInformation8  A\pkirsten risden Ba=fGT=)j<X@"1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1QTahoma1QTahoma1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial1Arial"$"#,##0_);\("$"#,##0\)!"$"#,##0_);[Red]\("$"#,##0\)""$"#,##0.00_);\("$"#,##0.00\)'""$"#,##0.00_);[Red]\("$"#,##0.00\)7*2_("$"* #,##0_);_("$"* \(#,##0\);_("$"* "-"_);_(@_).))_(* #,##0_);_(* \(#,##0\);_(* "-"_);_(@_)?,:_("$"* #,##0.00_);_("$"* \(#,##0.00\);_("$"* "-"??_);_(@_)6+1_(* #,##0.00_);_(* \(#,##0.00\);_(* "-"??_);_(@_)                + ) , *       A    ` Chart1JaddataZR  3  @@  9TVGenderS#Memory versus Choice FirstExp versus ControlAd Mention Tvad Mention IntAdMention Complement IntAdMention Compliment of TvadChoose IntProd Choose TVProd # of VisitsAve. Length of VisitTotal Length Exposure12.08 as outlier InteractiveNo Advertising 9u NI bbPbF04IL04I0bPPbf7`xbIr0FIbbFI;0;0%PP`IS0bt00bT0^n00b 00Ԣ0bbb0b`Ibtb0bI0bPercent0] IIbΝ0\b0ZT0_T0=l0Te0T0T|?b 0|)2b0b@NJT0e0YT0L0b@@b|0Pb~0BT0`btbbu0(1T0bbbb|0bZbb00bZ 0Z0bE 0O00  AMHP LaserJet 5MP (Copy 2)@gXX@MSUDNHP LaserJet 5MP;d "dXX??3` >+ ` >+ ` >+` >+@3d23 M NM4 3QQ ;QQQ ;PPQ3_4E4D $% M 3O&Q4$% M 3O&Q4FAu 3O-5 3 b#M43*??{Gz?#M! M4% 2 :M3O?& Q  Type of Ad'4% MZ3O3_& Q R'Proportion of Children Who Remember Ad'43" 44% -TGM03Og& Q "Brand Awareness'44e Interactive TV%No Advertisinge۶m۶m??$I$I?e> $I  A  dMbP?_*+%MHP LaserJet 5MP@gXX@MSUDNHP LaserJet 5MP;d "dXX??U} } $} } } } } } } } } } m!Memory versus Choice FirstaT0bbbb  I`   e`e=eWIbIbbPbP                f@?@??? @@k@@f @?@??"@@`h@H@f?"@?@??$@@g@w@Z$@??@&@ Z?&@??@?(@ f(@??@?*@@h@@f?9@?@?4@ @@q@@@f?:@?@???5@@ j@T@Z ;@?@????6@  f ?<@?@@?7@@@&@ f =@?@@?8@@ r@0@ f ?@?@@??9@@m@}@ f @@?@@??:@@d@~@ Z@@?@@?;@ f?A@??@??<@?@@f?A@??@???=@?h@h@Z?B@??@>@ fG@?@@?C@?0w@0w@fG@?@@??C@@Ё@@fH@?@@D@@ j@ z@fH@??@?D@@@[@@k@fI@??@??E@?`q@`q@fI@??@E@@v@@f?Q@?@@J@@n@@fQ@?@@J@@@@fR@?@@??K@?r@r@fR@?@@?K@@]@ v@f@S@?@@?L@?@@fS@?@@??L@@p@@f?S@??@??M@@`i@@f?T@??@?M@@d@@Dxlxxxxjljjjjjjjjjjjjj T0!b"b#$%'(b)b*+I`,-./e0`123e=4e5W6789Ib:;<Ib=bP>b?Pf ?@T@??@N@@g@#@f!?@U@?@????O@@q@Ё@f"?U@?@???P@?8@8@f#?U@?@????@P@@w@@$#$.@F %#^#$@$ %#^#$@$ %#^#$ @$ %# ^#$ @$ %# ^#$  @% %# ^$ % %۶m۶m?$ D$# %$I$I?% D$# %?% D$# % $I$I?% D$ # % __?% D$ # % AA?% D$ #% f'??@@???????@m@h@f(?@@@?????@@h@`@f)?@@?@????@@`j@`z@f*@@?@????@?`h@`h@f+?@@?@????@@m@h@f,?*@@@@?,@?0@0@f-?,@@@@.@?v@v@f.?.@@@@??0@@o@@f/3@@@@?????1@@@{@p@f0?4@@@@2@@`c@@f15@@@@??3@@@n@@f2B@@@??@@j@z@f3C@@@???@@@p@@f4?D@@?@?@@@`o@`@Z5?D@@?@????A@ 5f6?E@@?@???A@?A@A@f7?E@@@@???B@@@b@`{@f8F@@@@?B@@`u@@Z9J@@@@??F@ 9f:J@@@@??F@?P@P@f;K@@@@???G@@p@؈@Z<?K@@@@?G@ <f=?L@@@@???H@?z@z@f>?M@@@@??H@@@b@`{@f??M@@@@???I@?e@e@BXjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjljjjljjljj@T0AbBbCDEFGbHbIJI`KLMNeO`PQRe=SeTWUVWXIbYZ[Ib\bP]b_PZ@?N@@@@???I@ @fA?T@@?@??N@?l@l@ZB?T@@?@?O@ BNCV@@@????? C fDV@@@?????P@@@~@@@E E Q@@@@F#Fn۶m6G@G %E#FI$I$:@F %E#F333333:@F %E#F I$I$:@F %E #F ++4@F %E #F ::7@G %E F @Q@@q@@G Gm۶m?[ DFA Gڛٛ?G DFA GϘ&?G DFA G ڛٛ?G DF A G `Bp?G DF A G :?F DF AG H H Q@ HI I R@?`i@`i@J J @R@@Y@y@K K R@?s@s@L L R@?h@h@M M S@?{@{@N N @S@ NO O S@?s@s@ P P P P  P S@@d@t@Q۶m۶m?~ Q4@Q$I$I? Q  Q T@?@W@@W@R R @T@@R@b@S S T@@@`@@p@T T T@@h@x@U U U@@X@h@V V @U@?@@W W U@@pq@p@X X U@ XY Y V@@@l@@|@Z Z @V@@o@Ї@[ #[ 000000@[ %Z B#[ .7@\ %ZB#[ Cei@\ %ZB\ #\P?[ %[B #\,UА@[ %[B ] ]]_ _ P@? @ @B XljldjD"FDDDDDFD\d888888:88h2`T0` Q@?@@6 (  x  6IXPP? Fx]4@I kvP %<&kirsten risden: Females = 0 Males = 1<Q%atxx  6IXPP? hx]4@IL kvPX I<Jkirsten risden: Memory Dominance task first = 1 Product Choice first = 2 <Q1I)wxx  6IXPP? x]4@I kvPX =<>kirsten risden: 1 = Fruitopia 2= Snapple 3 = Twix 4 = KitKat <Q=Detxx  6(IXPP? U)x]4@(I kvPX Y<Zkirsten risden: Mention Interactive ad product = 1 Not mention Interactive Ad Product = 0<Q}Y09Lxx  6P6IXPP?  x]4@P6ID kvPX e<fkirsten risden: Mention complement of interactive ad = 1 Not mention complement of interactive ad = 0<Qexx  66IXPP?   [x]4@6I kvPX 5<6kirsten risden: Mention Tvad = 1 Not Mention Tvad = 0<Q5xx  6(IXPP?  )x]4@(I kvPX Q<Rkirsten risden: Mention complement of Tvad = 1 Non mention complement of Tvad = 0<QhQxx  6IXPP?  Ux]4@I< kvPX -<.kirsten risden: Total # times entered ad page<Q-xx   6IXPP? bx]4 @I kvPX ><?kirsten risden: Average length of stay in minutes over entries<Q>xx   6TIXPP? ,`x]4 @TI kvPX 6<7kirsten risden: Total length of exposure to ad content<Q6xp   6NMM?GT] `4  A"4??3` >+ ` >+ ` >+` >+3d23 M NM4 3QQ ;QQQ ;PPQ3_4E4D $% M 3O&Q4$% M 3O&Q4FAp 3Of = 3 b#M43*??{Gz?#M! M4% 3 8M3O?& Q  Type of Ad'4% kMZ3O$o& Q J#Percent of Children Who Remember Ad'43" 44% NM03Or& Q $Memory Dominance'44eee   kirsten risdenkirsten risdenkirsten risdenkirsten risdenkirsten risden kirsten risden kirsten risden kirsten risden kirsten risden kirsten risden>?@PPQ ՜.+,D՜.+,, PXh px MSFTCh  addataChart1  WorksheetsCharts 6> _PID_GUIDAN{82A6C6A4-954E-11D0-BD50-00AA00A719E6}1TableSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8`CompObj%jOh+'0   < H T `lt|%!PS-Adobe-3.0!PSEnd User Computing Servicesnd  Normal.dotm kirstenrtm2rsMicrosoft Word 8.0S@@2C@@S@@SS՜.+,D՜.+,@ hp  MSFTw*f %!PS-Adobe-3.0 Title (RZ _PID_GUID _PID_HLINKSAN{1672BF01-1E39-11D1-920D-00A0C9044EFC}Ad'[!http://www.hitl.washington.edu]/.0http://www.up.com/;}+http://www.cyberatlas.com/advertising.html  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q [,@,Normal $PmH J@J Heading 1 $(5CJKHOJQJkH'*@* Heading 2CJ,!, Heading 356N@N Heading 4$@& 5B*CJOJQJhnH L@L Heading 5$@&5B*OJQJWC&hnH 0@0 Heading 6$@&5:@: Heading 7$@&B*CJhnH <A@<Default Paragraph Font8&@8Footnote ReferenceH*(O(Author5CJFOF Paper-Title $x5CJ$OJQJkH'0O"0 AffiliationsCJ6@26 Footnote Text pBBulleth & Fp>ThR Referencesh & F>T.2b2Header$ !6Br6 Body Text $5CJ$DPD Body Text 2$  B*hnH <Q@< Body Text 3B*OJQJhnH 6'@6Comment ReferenceCJ,@, Comment Text(U@( Hyperlink>*B*8V@8FollowedHyperlink>*B* F@ffmaryczKfm=felef"Kx"=q.9(r3<.DLX%cdfeleftD:ejj6:@C;Unknownkirsten risdenmarycz`a?aaaacccfXXX"!t:/X2${FfZ̰XvƊb$g祣ION @&(  H  C A ?<  # AB S  ?<fH 4&p 4 _Hlt398605927 _935390992cff@cff<<<<<<??CCCCGG7J7JVVdedemeff2ffffff<<<<<<??CCCCGG7J7JBaCapaaaadedemeff2ffffffkirsten risden=C:\My Work\My Documents\Projects\Advertising\chi98adfinal.docKevlar3C:\win95\TEMP\AutoRecovery save of chi98adfinal.asdKevlarC:\win95\TEMP\chi98adfinal.docKevlar3C:\WIN95\Profiles\a-kevlar\Desktop\chi98adfinal.dockirsten risden!C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\chi98adfinal_.dockirsten risden"C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\chi98adfinal__.docKevlar3C:\WIN95\Profiles\a-kevlar\Desktop\chi98adfinal.docKevlar3C:\WIN95\Profiles\a-kevlar\Desktop\chi98adfinal.docmarycz1C:\WINNT\Profiles\marycz\Desktop\chi98adfinal.dockirstenrC\\RESEARCH\ROOT\Web\Internal\http\Research\ui\KirstenR\chi98a~1.doc 8l P~cd iJ  4>e?: J xY +e n3 f tEv *@p.hh.hh. hhOJQJo(.hho(.hh.hh. hhOJQJo(hh. *8l n3 f*JiJ xY+etEvd4>e?* @h hOJQJo(* @ OJQJo( @\\RESEARCH\1bMailCopyDNe00:winspoolHP LaserJet 5Si/5Si MX PS\\RESEARCH\1bMailCopyDW odXLetterPRIV''''0 \\RESEARCH\1bMailCopyDW odXLetterPRIV''''0 * f@@GTimes New Roman5Symbol3& Arial3TIMES;& HELVETICA?5 Courier New"hDD2&DD2&SfS*!0dfde%!PS-Adobe-3.0End User Computing Serviceskirstenr