Fast Food Television Advertisement Formats

7/28/2019 Fast Food Television Advertisement Formats

1/155

FAST FOOD TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENT FORMATS:COMM UNICATING WITH THE CUSTOMER EFFECT IVELY

byFANG-YI LIN, B.S .

A THESISIN

RESTAURANT, HOTEL, AND INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENTS ubm i t t e d t o t he G r a dua t e F a c u l t yof Texas Tech Univers i ty in

Par t i a l Fu l f i l lment oft he R e qu i r e m e n t s f o rthe Degree ofMASTER OF SCIENCE

Approved

C o- C ha i r pe r s on o f t he C om m i t t e e

C o- C ha i r pe r s on o f t he C om m i t t e e

A c c e p t e d

D e a n ot t he G r a dua t e SchoolMay, 2000


2/155

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my parents, Su-Lin Lin and Su-Hsia Chiu, and my brother,Kaung-Yu Lin, for their support and encouragement. I am grateful to my com mitteechair. Dr. Shane C. Blum, for giving generously of his time and advice. I would like tothank Dr. Tim H. D odd for making available himself to m e, and Dr. Keith F. Johnson forhis thoughtful critiques of this study.

I would like to thank Dr. Sharon A. Myers for her English wrhing instruction;however, the responsibility for the content in this paper is exclusively mine. I would liketo thank Dr. Sabrina M. Neeley , Dr. Joe Bob H ester, and my com mittee, for identifyingadvertisement formats for the purpose of this study. My thanks to the Restaurant, Hotel,& Institutional Management program at Texas Tech Univershy for research funding. Iwould like to thank my relatives and friends for their support.

I am glad that I made the decision to study in the Unhed States. I haveexperienced and learnedfromthis culture and hs scholastic atmosphere. I am pleasedthat this experience has become a part of my life.

11


3/155


4/155

IV. METHODOLOGY 18Pretest 19

Sampling 19Instruments 19

Stimuli 19Questionnau*e 21

Warm-Up Questions 21Main Questions 21Demographic and Behavior Questions 22

Execution/Design 23Data Treatment 25

Main Test 25Sampling 26

Population and Sample 26Umt of Analysis 26

Method of Sample Selection 26Sample Size 27

Limhations 27Instrument 27Execution and Design 28Data Treatment 29

Initial Analysis 29Research Question One 30

iv


5/155

Hypothesis One 30Hjqjothesis Two 31

Research Question Two 31Hypothesis One 31Additional Discussion 32

V. RESULTS 33Sample Profiles 33

Demographic Variables 34Behavioral Variables 35

Television Advertisement 37Warm-Up C iestions 37Television Advertisement Format 38

Television Advertisement Format Effectiveness 39Television Advertisement Format and Purchase Intentions 40

Research C^estion One 41Television Advertisement Format Preferences 41Demographic Differences in Format Preference 42

Gender 42Marital Status 44Race 44

ANOVA 44t-test 45

Age 46


6/155


7/155

Brand, Format, and Purchase Intention 61Correlations among Brand, Format, and Purchase Intention 62Chi-Square Test of Brand, Format, and Purchase Intention 64

VI. CONCLUSIONS 66Summary 66

Research Question One 66Hypothesis One 67Hypothesis Two 67

Research Question Two 67H5q30thesis One 68

Implications 69Use Segmentation Information 69Establishment of Business Image and Individual Purchase Motivation 70Consideration of Brand and Format Effects 70

Limitations 71Suggestions for Future Research 71

REFERENCES 73APPENDICES 77

A. Fast food hamburger telev ision advertisement format questionnaire 77B. Coding sheet 81C. Frequency and percentage of the values o f television advertisement, hamburger,and hamburger television advertisements 85D. Mean, mode, and standard deviation o f the response to fast food hamburgertelevision advertisement formats in relation to television advertisementeffectiveness and purchase intention 87

vii


8/155

E. Frequencies and percentages for song-and-dance format, narrative format,special-effects format, slice-of-life format, and testimonial format in televisionadvertisement effectiveness 89F. Frequencies and percentages for song-and-dance format, narrative format,

special-effects format, slice-of-life format, and testimonial format in relationto purchase intention 95G. Frequencies and percentages for song-and-dance format, narrative format,special-effects format, slice-of-life format, and testimonial format in relationto purchase intention 97H. Significant elements in format by gender t-tests and fiiU t-test tables for

special-effects format and slice-of-life format by gender 99I. Significant elements in format by race AN OV A and t-tests 103J. Significant elements in format by age t-tests 106K. Significant elements in format by academic major t-tests 108L. Significant elements in format by money spending on fast food AN OV A and t-tests 110M. Significant elements in format by television usagefrequencyANO VA andt-tests 114N. Significant elements in format by hamburger consumption freq uen cyAN OV A and t-tests 117O. Significant elements in format by preference in hamburger restaurantANOVA 119P. Significant elements in format by preference in hamburger restaurant t-test 126Q. The most preferred hamburger telev ision advertisement format and significantly

different responses to purchase intention question in relation to each testedrestaurant 130R. Significantly different elem ents in format preference in relation to purchaseintention for each restaurant AN OV A 133S. Significantly different elem ents in format preference in relation to purchaseintention for each restaurant t-test 137T. Chi-Squu-e tests o f purchase intention in relation to brand and format effects... 140

viii


9/155

ABSTRACT

Fast food hamburger restaurants spend m illions of dollars on televisionadvertisements each year. Whether an advertisement's message is effectivelycommunicated to a target market and whether or not the message is acted upon by theviewer are of interest. The purpose of this study is to examine customers' favoriteformats in hamburger television advertisements in order to assist com panies in effectivelycommunicating whh theu- target audiences and in motivating those audiences to purchaseproducts. The research was conducted with co llege students in a laboratory setting. Thesubjects v iewed hamburger television advertisements and responded to a questionnaire.The major findings o f the study are as follows: (1) the college students most preferred thespecial-effects format in advertisement for hamburgers; (2) the testimonial format intelevision advertisement for hamburgers appears to motivate the college students'hamburger purchase intentions; and (3) brand and advertising format both appear toinfluence the colleg e students' hamburger purchase decision making.

IX


10/155

LIST OF TABLES

1. Respondent demographic characteristics 342. Respondent behavioral characteristics 353. Preference for fast food hamburger restaurant 364. Means, modes, and standard deviations of warm-up questions 385. Overall results of mean comparison of five television advertisement formats intelevision advertisement effectiveness 396. Overall results of mean comparison o f five te levision advertisement formats in

relation to purchase intention 407. Preference for fast food hamburger television advertisement format 418. Significantly different elements in format by gender t-test 439. ANOVA and t-test significantly different elements in format by race 45

10. AN OV A and t-test significantly different elements in format by age 4711. AN OV A and t-test significantly different elements in format by academic major 4812. AN OV A and t-test significantly different elements in format according to moneyspending on fast food 5013. t-test significantly different elements in format according to television usagefrequency 5114. ANOVA and t-test significantly different elements in format by hamburgerconsumption frequency 5215. ANOVA significantly different elements in format by hamburger restaurantpreference 5516. t-test significantly different elements in format by hamburger restaurant preference 5617. ANO VA significantly different elements among the m ost preferred hamburgertelevision advertisement formats and purchase intentions for each restaurant 58


11/155

18. AN OV A significantly different elements in format preference in relation topurchase intention for each restaurant 6019. t-test significantly different elements in format preference in relation to purchaseintention for each restaurant 6120 . Correlation betw een fast food restaurant preference and advertisement formats 6221 . Correlations betw een fast food restaurant preference and purchase intentions 6322. Correlations between format and purchase intentions 6423 . Significantly different responses to purchase intention question on brand andformat effects according to chi-square tests 6524 . Frequency and percentage of the values of te levision advertisement, hamburger,and hamburger television advertisements 8625 . Mean, mode, and standard deviation of the response to fast food hamburgertelevision advertisement formats in relation to television advertisementeffectiveness and purchase intention 8826 . Frequencies and percentages for song-and-dance format, narrative format,special-effects format, sHce-of-life format, and testimonial format in televisionadvertisement effectiveness 9027 . Frequencies and percentages for song-and-dance format, narrative format,special-effects format, slice-of-life format, and testimonial format in relation topurchase intention 9628 . Frequencies and percentages for song-and-dance format, narrative format,special-effects format, slice-of-life format, and testimonial format in relation topurchase intention 9829 . Significant elements in format by gender t-tests (with means, mean differences,and standard deviations) and full t-test tables for special-effects format and

slice-of-Hfe format by gender 10030. Significant elements in format by race ANOV A and t-tests (with means andstandard deviations) 10431 . Significant elements in format by age t-tests (with means and standard deviations) 10732 . Significant elements in format by academic major t-tests (with means andstandard deviations) 109

XI


12/155

33 . Significant elements in format by money spending on fast food ANOVA andt-tests (w ith means and standard deviations) I l l34 . Significant elements in format by television usagefrequencyAN OV A and t-tests(with means and standard deviations) 11535 . Significant elements in format by hamburger consumption frequenc y ANO VAand t-tests (with means and standard deviations) 11836. Significant elements in format by preference in hamburger restaurant ANOVA(with means and standard deviations) 12037. Significant elements in format by preference in hamburger restaurant t-test (withmeans and standard deviations) 12738. The most preferred hamburger television advertisement format and significantlydifferent responses to purchase intention question in relation to each testedrestaurant (ANO VA ) 13139. Significantly different elements in format preference in relation to purchaseintention for each restaurant AN OV A (with means and standard deviations) 13440 . Significantly different elements in format preference in relation to purchaseintention for each restaurant t-test (with means and standard deviations) 13841. Chi-squire tests of purchase intention in relation to brand and format effects 141

X l l


13/155


14/155

CHAPTER IINTRODUCTION

Com panies spend considerable resources using advertising to deliver theirproduct/service messages to the public. In daily life, people are exposed to thousands ofadvertising m essages. These m essages attempt to attract their audiences' attention andmotivate their purchase behaviors. The need to dehver effective advertisements whichcan stimulate purchase intentions of target audiences is strong in every market.

Fast food dominates the hosphality industry. Food Marketing Review (1998)reported that fast food restaurants made $83 billion in sales (approximately 45% of salesfor the entire hospitality industry) in 1997. Appropriate marketing strategies that will aidin continually increasing sales are important for the fast food industry. According toChristopher (19 86 , p. 32), fast food chains emerged as a major television advertisingspending category in 1985, showing that the fast food industry ranks televisionadvertising as an important marketing strategy.

Liddle (1999) reported in Nation's Restaurant News Annual Top 100 that thesandwich (hamburger) segment w as continuing to occupy the majority position (with42.15% of the market) in the top 100 market share in the year 1998. Moreover, the Top100 Megabrands 1998 issue oi Advertising Age (1999) showed two fast food hamburgerchains in the top ten companies in terms of amount spent on advertising. McDonald'swas the fifth major brand on this Hst, spending $530.7 million of a $571.7 million totaladvertising budget on television advertisement. Burger King was number ten on the list,spending $380.4 million on television advertising from a total advertising budget of


15/155


16/155


17/155

CHAPTER nREVIEW OF LITERATURE

To contribute to the knowledge about advertisement formats, this study identifiesdifferent te levision advertisement formats which effectively connect products tocustomers. In this chapter, two types of relevant literature are discussed to provide abackground. First, the condhion of the fast food industry is described. This is followedby a discussion o f marketing strategy in advertising. Second, the study focuses ondifferent advertisement formats and presents related studies.

Fast Food Industry and AdvertisingFast food advertising is a product of the fast food industry hself Since fast food

is the tested product category in this study, the fast food industry's background isdiscussed first . Then, the role advertising plays in fast food marketing strategies isdescribed.

The Fast Food IndustryFast food restaurants were established in the late 1940s and have been described

as having inflexible menus both in the United State and Europe (Powers, 1995; Dittmer& Griffin, 1997; Davis, Lockwood, & Stone, 1998). Powers (1995) mentioned that the100 largest restaurant chains control almost half of all fast food restaurants. The recipefor fast food success includes a high degree of standardization and a theme. Thepromotion techniques most widely used in fast food operations are colorful logo designswhich represent the food and the service, and also advertising, which enables customersto remember the image that has been presented (Davis, Lockwood, & Stone, 1998).

4


18/155

Focusing on fast food customers, Davis, Lockw ood, and Stone (1998) and Khan(1992) have suggested that young to middle-aged groups and college students might bethe prime targets. Zuber (1998) noted the current m dustry target trend by reportingWendy's spokesman's announcement that the mostfrequentfast food customers are 18 to34 years old, and all quick-service businesses are trying to reach them. Targeting thatmain consumption group with effective promotion techniques is important for the growthof the fast food industry.

Peter and O lson (1998) stated that the development of an effective promotionstrategy, such as an advertisement, begins w ith an analysis of the relationship betweenconsum ers and the products or brands of interest. The relationship of fast food productsand consumers can be described by using the Foote, Cone & Belding (FCB) grid. TheFCB model was created by the Foote, Cone & Belding advertising agency; this modelanalyzes consumer-product relationships and develops appropriate promotional strategies(Vaughn, 1980). In order to understand the FCB model, the term involvement has to bedefined. As explained by Peter and Olson (1998) , involvement is the degree of personalrelevance a product, brand, object, or behavior has for a consumer (p. 516). In the FCBplanning model, food and household products are categorized in a low involvement andthinking grid; this means that in this category, consumers react in a model o f do-learn-feel. In other words, by verifying the poshion o f fast food products, marketers have toremind thek customers of the product/service information; thus, customer behavior w illbe effectively motivated. Figure 1 displays a summary of the FCB model.


19/155


20/155

on consumers, h is necessary to know about the comm unication process. The processbegins w hen consum ers are exposed to the promotion information. Then they mustattend to promotion comm unication and comprehend hs meaning. Finally, the resuhingknow ledge, meanings, and beliefs about the promotion may be integrated with otherknow ledge to create brand attitudes which inform purchase decisions.

Moreover, Biel and Bridgwater (1990) found that people who liked a commerciala lot were twice as likely to be persuaded by it as the people who simply feh neutraltowards the commercial. Tellis (1998) and Belch and Be lch (19 93) created theElaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) presented by Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann,which can explain the persuasion process. The basic premise of the ELM m odel is thatwhen people have both the motivation and abilhy to evaluate a message, their likelihoodof elaboration will be high. In that status, people look for and respond to good reasons infavor of the m essage; this form of persuasion is called the central route. If people lackeither the m otivation or the ability, they are more Ukely to respond to cues associatedwhh the message; this form is called the peripheral route. These tw o routes function tomake persuasive communication effective. In Figure 2, the ELM model is presentedshowing the relationship o f these two routes, and how individual involvement is neededfor an effective advertisement.


21/155

Cential route to persuasion

High involvementwith product ormessage

AttentionFocus on"central"product-relatedinformation

ComprehensionDeeper thoughtsabout productattributes andconsequencesMore elaboration

PersuasionProduct beliefsTBrand attitudeTPurchase intention

Exposure topersuasivecommunication(ad)Peripheral route to persuasion

Low involvementwith product ormessage

AttentionFocus on"peripheral"non-productinformation

ComprehensionShallow thoughtsabout non-productinformationLow elaboration

PersuasionNon-product beliefsTAttitude toward the adTBrand attitudeTPurchase intention

Figure 2: Two routes to persuasion in the ELM in Petty, R., Cacioppo, J., & Schumann,D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: Themoderating role o f involvement. Journal of Consumer Research. 10 (Sep .), 135-146. (reproduced from A rens,1999. P. 133.)

There are four different approaches to classifying advertising: medium approach,target audience approach, geographic area approach, and purpose approach. Abbey(1993) and Burnett and Moriarty (1998) adopted the medium approach to classifyingadvertising, and television advertising (broadcast advertising) is one o f the classificationsunder this approach. Christopher (1986) indicated that fast food chains emerged as amajor televis ion advertising spending category in 1985. The fast food industry considerstelevision advertising an important marketing strategy. As mentioned in the introduction.

8


22/155

fast food ham burger chains have spent a great deal of money on television advertisementpromotion. Each hamburger chain has adopted different television formats designed toattract different targets. Addhionally, Knigman (1965) stated that television is a low-involvement medium, consumers exposed to repeated commercial messages have subtlechanges in their knowledge structures. These changes do not resuh in consumer attitudechange, but relate to recall of a brand name, advertisement them e, or slogan.

Advertisement Formats and Related StudiesIn current advertisement related research, the format of advertisements has been

placed in an important poshion. Sawyer (1995) listed ten steps for creating an effectiveadvertisement: two of the steps in this list concerned the advertisement format - usingcelebrities and using children and animals. Aab, Johnson, and Lohtia (1995) determinedthat providing information is essential for an effective advertisement. The followingdiscussion focuses on the topic of advertisement formats and related studies.

As shown in Figure 3 , the Execution Spectrum, developed by Hank Seiden(1990), displays 24 execution formats rating their stylesfromfiivolous o serious, forboth print and electronic advertising. The Execution Spectrum provides a basicunderstanding of the advertisement format. Studies (Abbey, 1993; Arens, 1999; Burnett& Moriarty, 1998; Davis, 1997; Tellis, 1998) have discussed advertisement formats orbroadcast advertisement formats but have not specifically focused on televisionadvertisement formats. However, Nelson (1994) stated that television advertisementformats fall into the following categories: the narrative, the slice-of-life, the testimonial,the announcer, the song-and-dance, the demonstration, and the special-effects


23/155

commercial. Thus, this present study discussed each o f Nelson 's formats and studiesconcerning each format.

iEai

pk"BO

a 00W

Iu^W2

1ci3^

.stia!

u

12

1 t -H

03

Oaa sN so

5 5

aII

A "

a1cI

,o

OciCO

aCO

o

I 24

I

oI2U

Frivolous SeriousSource: Seiden, K (1990), Advertising pure and simple. The New Edition: New York: AMACOM (reproduced fromArens, 1999, p. 394)Figure 3: The Execution Spectrum

The NarrativeThe narrative advertisement typically uses a story to introduce a problem, then

show s how the use o f a particular product can solve the problem (N elson , 1994). Nelsonnoted that the narrative format can be told in live-action photography or in animation.Frequently, the story is exaggerated and fiinny as h continues. Studies (Padgett & Allen ,1997; Belch & Belch, 1994; Peracchio & M eyers-Levy, 1997) show that the narrativeadvertisements emphasize content characters, actions, and settings drawing on comm oncultural stories, that they associate symbolic m eanings whh the brand, and they conveypersuasive m essages. In other words, the narrative advertisement attempts to m aximizepersuasion by actively drawing the customers into the advertisement and captures themwith the investment of a considerable amount of effort in processing the advertisementcontent.

10


24/155

The Slice-of-LifeArens (1999) defined the slice-of-life commercials simply as those which

dramatized real-life situations. Nelson (1994) provided a clear explanation of the slice -of-life spots. Slice-of-life is another form of television advertisement which presentspeople's daily problems. The advertisement demonstrates how the product can solveproblems. Maynard (1998) conducted a study that focused on slice-of-life. This studydiscussed a persuasive drama in Japanese television advertisements. Maynard found thatadvertising offers a cuhural system or cuhurally defined semiotic sym bol clusters. Thesymbolic activhy expresses realhy and structures experience. Maynard noted that theactivity makes the intelligibility possible.

The Testimonial and the AnnouncerThe formats of the testimonial and the announcer contain similar characteristics

and can be discussed together. Ne lson (1994) explained that the testimonial format usescelebrities or ordinary people to tell audiences their product preferences in order toinfluence audience attitude toward the product. Ne lson (1994) noted that the announcerformat differsfi'omthe testimonial format in that the announcer, famous or otherwise,tells the audiences w hy they should try a product or a service. If the announcer is we llknown, the com mercial takes on m ore of the characteristic quality o f the testimonial.Specifically, a testimonial commercial clams product usage, and an announcercommercial only urge usage because of product attributes.

Arens (1999) pointed out that celebrities are often used in testimonialadvertisements. Most of the research in the testimonial category that tests advertisingeffectiveness (Chawla, Dave, & Barr, 1994; McCracken, 1989; Kam ins, Brand, Hoeke, &

11


25/155


26/155


27/155

CHAPTER mRESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Different television advertisement format designs have been studied separately.Peracchio and Meyers-Levy (1997) showed that narrative advertisements conveypersuasive messages to customers. Maynard (1998) showed persuasive evidence thataudiences respond to television advertisements in the slice-of-life format. O' Mahonyand Meenaghan (19 98), and Ohanian (1991) found that using celebrities inadvertisements has a positive impact on customer purchase intentions. Gom (19 82)noted that music in advertisements directly affects product preferences. Arens (1999)realized that the customer receives the advertisement's message better when ademonstration format is used. Each of the foregoing advertisement formats has a positiveinfluence in linking the product to the customers.

The present study was designed to consider the formats used in fast foodtelevision advertisements and to analyze the differences among them based ondemographic and behavioral variables. The research questions in this study are describedfirst , and then each question is followed by the basic hypotheses proposed to answer thequestions. A researchfi^amework s displayed and a definition section follows at the endof this chapter.RQJ: Which advertisement formats (the narrative, the slice-of-life, the

testimonial/announcer, the song-and-dance, the demonstration, or the special-effectscomm ercial) have the most influence on customer preferences?

14


28/155

H ,: Individuals' preferences for fast food hamburger television advertisements willdiffer according to demographic variables (gender, marital status, race, age, andacademic major).

H j : Individuals' preferences for fast food hamburger television advertisements w illdiffer according to behavioral variables (money spent on fast food, te levisionusagefi"equency, hamburger consumptionfi-equency,and preference on fastfood restaurant).

RQ 2: D oe s the most preferred format provide the strongest motivation in customers'purchase intentions?

H,: Individuals' purchase intentions will be different based on the fast foodhamburger television formats they prefer.

Demographic variablesGenderMarital statusRaceAgeMajor

Beiiaviora] variablesMone y spending on fast foodTelevision usage frequencyHamburger oonsunqition frequencyPreference on fast food restaurant

X/

Advertisement formatsThe narrativeTh e sUoe-of-lifeTh e testimonial/announoerThe song-and-danceThe demonstrationThe special-effects commercial

Figure 4: Study design

15


29/155

DefinitionsIn this section, the terms that used in this paper are defined as follow s.

1. Dem ographic variables: Dem ographic segmentation is an approach to segm enting amarket (Kardes, 1999). For this study, the demographic variables o f gender, age, race,income, major, marital status, and current household size will be used.

2. Behavioral variables: Behavioral segmentation is another approach to segmenting amarket. It invo lves segmenting on the basis of usage situation or usage fi-equen cy(Kardes, 1999). Fortius study, the behavioral variables of television usage freq uen cyand hamburger purchasefrequencywill be used.

3. Advertisement format: Size, shape, and appearance of an advertisement orpublication.

a. The narrative: The narrative advertisement often uses a story toexpress a problem, then shows how the use of a particular product cansolve the problem. It can be told in live-action photography or inanimation. Frequently, the story is exaggerated and funny as hcontinues.

b. The slice-of-life: Slice-of-life is another form of televisionadvertisement w hich presents people daily problems. Theadvertisement introduces how the product can solve the problem.

c. The testimonial/anouncer: The testimonial format uses celebrities orordinary people to tell audiences their product preferences in order toinfluence audience atthude toward the product. The announcer formatdiffers from the testimonial format in that the announcer, famous or

16


30/155

otherwise, tells the audiences why they should try a product or aservice.

d. The song-and-dance: Advertisers try to express a joyous musical showin thirty seconds or less to form the song-and-dance advertisements.

e. The demonstration: The demonstration format shows productcreation, product comparison, or product usage.

f The special-effects commercial: special-effects advertising is made byusing special production skills, such as frozen action. (Adapted fromNelson, 1994, pp.275-280)

4. Purchase intention: A decision plan or intention to buy a particular product or brand(Peter & Olson, 1998).

17


31/155

CHAPTER IVMETHODOLOGY

This study was designed to identify the most effective fast food hamburgertelevision advertisement formats used to communicate with customers. The studyconsisted of a survey in an experimental design. The research setting was in a laboratoryand the subjects were asked to give their responses by viewing television comm ercialsand filling out a questionnaire. The study of "The Importance of Likeabilhy as aMeasure of Television Advertising Effectiveness," presented by Leather, McKechnie,and Amirkhanian (1994) was a survey study in an experimental setting. Their studycontained two stages: the pretest, the first stage, was designed to test the instruments -the comm ercials and the questionnaire - for use in stage two. The main test, the secondstage, used a ranked scale which w as completed by each subject after the selectedadvertisements w ere viewed . LaBarbera, Weingard, and Yorkston (1998) used a similartreatment design for their print advertisement study.

The rationale for two treatments in the advertisement related studies (Leather,McKechnie, & Amirkhanian, 1994; LaBarbera, Weingard, & Yorkson, 1998) is that thepretest evaluates the validity o f the instrument. Based on the purpose of studies,researchers want to determine if an instrument is appropriate to gather subject responses.The present study also had a pretest and a main test design, in accordance whh previousresearch.

18


32/155

PretestA pretest was conducted first to discover whether the research instrument was

adequately designed for this study. The following discussion explains the sampleselection , the instruments, the study execution and design, and the data treatment.

SamplingAs noted in the Iherature review section, Davis, Lockwood, and Stone (1998) and

Khan (1992) proposed that colleg e students might be one o f the targets for the fast foodindustry. The population for the present study consisted of colle ge students. Relatedstudies (Homer & Yoon, 1992; Leather, McKechnie & Amirkhanian, 1994; LaBarbera,Weingard, & Yorkston, 1998) used between ten and thirty subjects in pretests.

Twenty-four college students were recruited for this study's pretest and werevolunteer subjects. Wimmer and Dom inick (1999) pointed out that the use of volunteersubjects may significantly bias the results o f a study, giving the data an unknown quantityof error. The pretest step for this research was to assess the instruments for any changesneeded to eliminate research bias and error.

InstrumentsThe instruments used for this study include a set o f fast food hamburger telev ision

advertisement stimuli and a questionnaire. The stimuli and questionnaire are discussedseparately.

StimuliThis study focused on fast food hamburger television advertisements and

television advertisement formats. The researcher videotaped current telev ision

19


33/155

advertisements, and established a library of current fast food hamburger televisionadvertisements. The advertisements were selected based on format design. According toNelson (1994), television advertisements fall into in the following categories: thenarrative, the slice-of-life, the testimonial/announcer, the song-and-dance, thedemonstration, and the special-effects commercial. Accordingly, each advertisement w asclassified based on its fit to one of those formats.

A total of nineteen fast food hamburger television advertisements were taped asan advertisement database from November 1999 to January 2000. Five professors, threefrom the Advertising Department and twofrom he Restaurant, Hotel, & InsthutionalManagement program at Texas Tech University, evaluated the advertisements andidentified the formats. An advertisement format evaluation sheet was developed to selectthe fast food ham burger television advertisement formats. The evaluation sheetcontained a brief description of Nelson 's (1994) formats followed by a list ofadvertisement databases for the professors to check the advertisement formats.

The available advertisements w ere then grouped into five different televisionformats according to Ne lson's definhions (1994). The demonstration format was notincluded in the database. A total of five fast food hamburger television advertisementswere ultimately chosen for this study. The grouped television advertisements weredouble-checked by the panels to make sure the required formats were unanimouslyidentified and included. These five advertisements were randomly taped into three setsfor eliminating b ias in testing.

20


34/155

Ouestionnau-eThe questionnaire was constructed in three parts: a series o f warm-up questions, a

main question section, and a series of demog^aphic^ehavioral questions.

Warm-Up QuestionsThe questionnaire began w ith seventeen five-point bipolar rating scale warm-up

questions asking the subjects their general opinions about television advertisements(questions one to fifteen), fast food (question sixteen), and fast food televisionadvertisements (question seventeen). Thefirstfifteenquestions were adopted fromDu coffe e's scale (1995) which tested customers' value in advertising. To ensure validity,five of fifteen questions were presented in a negative way in contrast to the originalquestions.

Main Q uestionsIn the main question section, the bipolar scales were drawnfromexisting reaction

profiles (Leather, McKechnie, & Amirkhanian, 1994). The questions in this sectionfocused on effective television advertisement formats which communicate withcustomers efficiently. Leather, McKechnie and Amirkhanian (1994) noted that thecommercial in general, the way the product is comm unicated, and the way the m essage isput across were the factors to interpret for a general measure o f an televisionadvertisement's comm unicative effectiveness. For validhy considerations, three of thequestions in this part were asked in a negative way which differed from the way theoriginal questions were asked. Additionally, according to the purpose of study, fourquestions addressed customer purchase intentions. The purchase intention questionswere examined by two professors to ensure the vahdhy issue. Thus, a total of four sets of

21


35/155

questions were included in the main question section, which contained eighteenquestions.

This study adopted Leather, McK echnie and Amirkhanian's (1994) scale fordesigning the first three sets of the main questions. The fu-st set of main questionscontained ten dimensions relating to the commercial in general. The second set wasconstructed along two dimensions concerning the way the product is communicated, andthe thh-d set was constructed along two dimensions relative to the way the message isreceived by the viewers. The scale developed in Leather, McK echnie and Amu-khanian'sstudy (1994) proved to have high reliability. The fourth set of the main questions wasfollow ed by four questions to determine customer purchase intentions.

Demographic and Behavior QuestionsThe last part of the questionnaire asked demographic and behavioral questions.

Kardes (1999) showed that segmentation could be established on four different baseswith dem ographic and behavioral bases being tw o of the four. For this study, fivedemographic variables, which are gender, marital status, race, and age, were selectedfrom Kardes' list. Academ ic major was added in study's demographic variables forcollecting more relevance information from respondents. Thus, there were fivedemographic variables used in the study. The behavioral variables were the money spenton fast food, thefrequencyof television viewing , and thefrequencyof eatinghamburgers. Finally, the last question was designed to ask the subjects to rank five fastfood hamburger restaurants based on their preferences of the restaurants. Hardee's, oneof the five fast food restaurant in this study, was not available in Lubbock butrespondents m ight be familiar from exposure in their lives or other cities.

22


36/155

The warm-up questions were summarized to present subjects' general opinionsabout televis ion advertising, fast food, and fast food television advertising. The fu-stthree sets o f the main questions and demographic/behavioral questions were designed toanswer the first research question. The last set of the main question section anddemographic^ehavioral questions addressed the second research question. Thequestionnaire is found in Appendix A.

Execution/DesignThe fu-st step of the study was videotaping available fast food hamburger

television advertisements. This information was used to develop the questionnaire. Foreach advertisement format addressed in the study, a representative advertisement wasselected to be shown to the study subjects. Five panels evaluated each advertisementformat from the database. The available advertisements were grouped based on theirformats. Five o f the six types of television advertisement format were included. Thepanels confirmed each advertisement format again to ensure validity of identification ofthe formats. Then, the researcher selected one advertisement from each of the fivegroups for the study instrument. The questionnaire was developed simultaneously. Thepresent study used individual as the unit of analysis. To protect the subjects, the researchinstrument w as approved by the Human Subjects Research Governing C omm ittee. Theirapproval was received on February 11, 2000.

The pretest of the study was conducted in the Mass Communications Departmentin Texas Tech Univershy. A Mass Communications professor was asked to cooperatewhh the study. The professor helped recruh subjects. A room was arranged for playingthe advertisements using a VCR. Two groups of twelve volunteers each, participated in

23


37/155

the pretest on February 11, 2000. The subjects were debriefed prior to the start of thetreatment. A three-page questionnau-e, which included a page of warm-up questions, apage o f main questions, and a page of demographic^ehavioral questions, was given tothe subjects to respond to the selected advertisement. The completed questionnaires werethen collected and analyzed, and the subjects were told the purpose o f the study at the endof the treatment. Based on the testing resuhs, changes were made to the instruments foruse in the main test. The execution flow chart is shown in Figure 5.

1/5V i d e o t a p e t h e f a s t f o o d h a m b u r g e r

a d v e r t i s e m e n t s t o e s t a b l i s h t h e d a t a b a s e1/17 I

12/ 15D e v e l o p q u e s t i o n n a i r e b a s e d o nt he pur pose o f t he s t udy

1/21

S e l ec t and eva l ua t e ava i l ab l e f a s t f oodh a m b u r g e r a d v e r t i s e m e n t s ; e a c h f o r m a ts h o u l d b e r e p r e s e n t e d b y a n a d v e r t i s e m e n t .P r o f e s s i o n a l l y d o u b l e - c h e c k t h e s e l e c t e da d v e r t i s e m e n t s

2/2 P r i n t ques t i onna i r e s

2/ 11 H u m a n S u b j e c t s Researcli G o v e r n i n g Conunittee a p p r o v a l2/ 11 2 m ^A r r a n g e t h e r o o m f o r t r e a t m e n t R e c r u i t s u b j e c t sI , 12/ 13 ^C o n d u c t tr e a t m e n t a n d c o U a te r e s p o n s e sI/1 3Anafyze t h e r e s p o n s e s a n d m a k ea n y c h a n g e s n e e d e d

Figure 5: Performance evaluation and review technique chart for the pretest

According to the pretest results, the comments and changes can be generalized asfollow s: the warm-up question section wa s clear and there was no need to change h. Inthe main question section , question three, four, nine, thirteen, sixteen, and seventeen wereexplained to ensure the meaning of these questions was understandable. The term

24


38/155

watchable in question three was comprehendible to the subjects; the subjects saidwatchable means that the film includes qualhies for them to watch. For question four,most subjects said the term bright m eans the color of the film w as light. Cêstion nine -This advertisement communicates benefit - was clear to the subjects; the subjects said thebenefit could be that the food product is tasty or the product was low priced. The termcredible in question thirteen w as interpreted to mean that the product is o f good qualhyand also that the restaurant is credible to the subjects. For question sixteen andseventeen, the subjects said to change the word 'purchase' to 'buy', so the questionswould be easier to answer. Finally, in the demogâphicêhavioral question section, thesubjects said the way the ethnic question was posed was not racist; in addition, thesubjects said it was easier for them to answer the age question if the question: How oldare you? were asked. The subjects also suggested that it is better to ask about fast foodspending over a two-w eek period. For the testing stimuli, the research has to ensure thatall the stimuli are hamburger advertisements, and to not include sandwichadvertisements.

Data TreatmentAt the pretest stage, the data collected is used only for evaluating the research

instruments. N o statistical analysis is necessary in the pretest stage.

Main TestAfter the pretest, the next step was to proofread the instrument to see if any

changes were needed; then the main test was conducted. The main test was designed toassist in answering research questions and testing hypotheses.

25


39/155

SamplingAccording to Fletcher and Bow ers (1988) , sampling has been repeatedly shown to

a valid procedure if planned and executed carefiilly. In order to address the samplingissue, this study first defined the sample to be extractedfromthe population. The unit ofanalysis was also defined. The method of sample selection, the size o f the sample, andthe expected margin of error in the given sample were described. Finally, the limhationsof this sam ple were presented.

Population and SampleSelecting the sample is important for research. This study used college students

as its research subjects for these two reasons: (1 ) convenience; (2) college studentsrepresent a major market segment for the fast food industry (Davis, Lockw ood, & Stone,1998; Khan, 1992).

Unit of AnalysisOnce the population is defined, the method, sample size, and expected sample

error should be considered. Follow ing is an explanation of the sample selection method,as well as a description o f the expected sample size.

Method of Sample SelectionThere are two types of sampling: probabilhy and non-probability. This study

used non-probability sampling. Using an availability sample, the study collectedexploratory data to identify fast food hamburger television advertisement formats thatcomm unicate with customers effectively. In addition, the study considered time andfinancial constraints.

26


40/155

Sample SizeAccording to Dav is (199 7), sample sizes in non-probabilhy research are

determined based on different forms of judgement. Dav is noted that the best method fordetermining non-probabilhy sample size is in response to analytical need. It isrecommended that the total number of individuals or observations in major studysubgroups total at least 100 while there should be a minimum of twenty to fiftyindividuals in minor analytical groups. The total number of observations for this studywas set at total 150 (Margin of error = 4.08).

LimitationsThe study used a non-probability sampling method to select subjects. According

to Wimmer and Dominick (199 9), D avis (1997), and Fletcher and Bowers (1988), thelimitations o f non-probabilhy sampling are that the samples contain unknown quanthiesof error. Availabilhy samples may not represent the population and therefore have noexternal validity, and convenience samples are only for exploratory research or for quick,non-generalizable information relevant to a specific research need. Since the purpose ofthis study is to explore topic information, non-probabilhy sampling is appropriate forselecting the samples.

InstrumentUsing the established instrumentsfromthe pretest, the main test included three

sets of five fast food hamburger television advertisements and a seven-pagequestionnaire. The questionnah-e included one-page of warm-up questions, five pages ofmain questions, and one page of demographic/behavioral questions. Five fast foodhamburger television advertisements were taped randomly in three sets, and the five

27


41/155

pages of main questions were in the same format to gather subject responses for each offive advertisements.

The Likert scale was anchored by (1 ) Strongly Disagree and (5) Strongly A gree.The coding sheet can be seen in Appendix B. The statistics packages used wereMicrosoft Excel and SPSS (Statistic Package for the Social Sciences).

Execution and DesignThe execution at the main test stage began whh gettmg permission to conduct the

treatment. After permission w as granted by two professors from the Restaurant, Hotel, &Institutional M anagement program, the treatment was started. The main test wasconducted from February 14, 200 0 to February 16, 2000.

A subject introduction was given by the researcher and the subjects were asked toparticipate in the study voluntarily. The main test procedure was as follow s: First, thesubjects were asked to fill out the one-page warm-up questions only. Then, the subjectswere asked to fill out a questionnaire after v iewing each of five selected advertisements.Finally, the subjects were asked to fill out one page o f demographic/behavioral questions.After the completed questionnah-es were collected, the researcher told the subjects thepurpose of the study and thanked them for their participation.

There were a total of 172 subjects participating in this study, and no repeatedsubject was included. Tw elve questionnaires were ehher incomplete or the respondentsgave the same answer to every question. Thus, one hundred and sixty questionnau-es(Margin of error = 3.95 ) were completed and could be used. The researcher then codedthe data, conducted data analysis, and made conclusions (Figure 6).

28


42/155

2 / 1 6O e t p e r m i s s i o n t o c o n d u c tt r e a t m e n t1 2 / 2 0

2 / 2 4

2 / 1 6C o n d u c t t r e a t m e n ta n d c o l l e c t d a t a1TC o d e1IA n a l y z e d a t a

2 / 2 7NVrite u p r e s u l t s a n d a n a l y s i s

Figure 6: Performance evaluation and review technique chart for the main test

Data TreatmentThefirsttwo question sets o f the questionnaire (warm-up questions and main

questions) collected ordinal level data wh ile the third question set of the questionnaire(demographic/behavioral questions) collected nominal data. Thefirsttwo sets ofquestions were designed in a Likert scale format (ordinal data), but were treated asinterval level data when comparing the differences between the groups. The meansshowed the integrated contribution of the groups' responses; thus, by comparing groupmeans the integrated results can be compared. A total of 116 questions were in thequestionnaire. Data analysis precludes are addressed as follows.

Initial A nalysisThe firs t part of the main test data treatment addressed the sample's

demographic^ehavioral profile. Means, modes, standard deviations, and freq uen cieswere used to describe the characteristics o f the study sample. The second part of the datatreatment presented the resuhs of the warm-up questions and the resuhs o f the mainquestions. Means, modes, standard deviations, andfrequencieswere also calculated forthese variables. In addhion, overall resuhs of the mean comparison of the five television

29


43/155

advertisement formats and the television advertisement effectiveness were tabulated.

Research Question OneIn order to address the first research question (Which hamburger television

advertisement format most influenced customer preference?), h is necessary to know theindividuals' format preferences. Based on Leather, McKechnie, and Amirkhanian'smodel (1994 ), a total of twenty-two items were developed for measuring televisionadvertisement effectiveness. In the present study, the subjects answered these twenty-two items five tim es, once for each of the five tested formats. By adding these twenty-two items for each format, five scores were created for each individual. By ranking thesefive scores for each individual, the individuals' format preferences can be determined inorder to address the firs t research question.

Hypothesis OneUnder the first research question, hypothesis one w as constructed to examine the

format preference differences based on demographic variables. Then, t-tests wereconducted, to compare the differences between the m ales and females and the differencesbetween single and married people. AN OV A was used to compare the group differencesamong age, race, and academic major. In addhion, age, race, and academic majorvariables were rearranged for t-tests. The middle point was used for age in order todivide the subjects into two groups. In the case o f race and academic major, the subjectswere grouped into C aucasian and non-Caucasian and Restaurant, Hotel, & InstitutionalManagement majors and non-RHIM majors. Then, t-tests were used to test the groupdifference on format preference.

30


44/155

Hypothesis Tw oThe second hjqjothesis addressed format preference differences based upon

behavioral variables. The behavioral variables include money spent on fast foodpurchases, hamburger consumptionfrequency,television usagefrequency,andpreference for fast food restaurant. AN OV A w as used to test the format preferencedifferences among these behavioral variables. Moreover, using the middle point o f theamount of money spent on fast food, the m iddle point in the hamburger consumptionfrequency variable, and in the television usage frequencyvariable, the subjects wererearranged into two groups. The differences between the groups were examined by usingt-tests. In the case o f preference of fast food restaurants, the subjects were grouped intothose who liked a restaurant the best and those who do not like a restaurant the best.Then, t-tests were conducted for testing the group differences in format preference.

Research Question TwoThe second research question was constructed to answer: 'T)oes the mostpreferred format provide the strongest motivation in customers' purchase intentions?"In order to address this research question, AN OV A was conducted for the purchaseintention questions based on the most preferred format for each individual.

Hypothesis OneBoth ANOVA and t-tests were used to address this hypothesis. Using the format

preference information, each individual had different preferences (most favored to leastfavored) for the five tested formats. AN OV A was used to compare the differentpreferences for each format against the purchase intention questions. After the subjects

31


45/155

were grouped into divisions of those who liked the format the best and who did not, t-tests were conducted to examine the group differences based upon purchase intentionquestions.

Additional DiscussionTo clarify the relationship among restaurant (brand), advertisement format, and

purchase intention, correlations were conducted. In addition, chi-square tests were usedto test the brand effect and advertisement format effect on individuals' purchaseintention.

32


46/155


47/155

Demographic VariablesA total of 160 college students participated in this study. The subjects of the

study were m ade up of almost equal numbers of females (53.75%) and m ales (47.25% )with an average age o f 21.78. More than 95% of the subjects were single andapproximately 90% were Caucasians. In addhion, 151 subjects of the total of 160 wereRestaurant, Hotel, & Insthutional Management majors (Table 1).Table 1: Respondent demographic characteristics

Frecpiency Percent Frequency PercentGender Ethnic backgroundMaleFemale

MaritalstatusSingleMarried

7486160

1537160

46.3053.80100.00

95.604.40100.00

African-Amencan/BlackAsian/Pacific RimCaucasian/WhiteHispanic/LatinoOther

5314381160

3.101.9089.405.00.60100.00

Age18192021222324252627283032353645

320244339107

160

1.9012.5015.0026.9024.406.304.403.10.60.60.601.30.60.60.60.60100.00

Academic majorRestaurant, Hotel,&InstitiitionalManagementExercise and Sports ScienceTelecommunicationBusinessSpanishRecreation and LeisureSCTvicesBroadcast journalismComm unication Study

151

3

160

94.40

.60.601.90.60.60

.60.60100.00

Total 160 100.00 Total 160 100.00The average age of the subjects:21.79The standard deviation of the age: 3.21

34


48/155


49/155

According to the information in Table 3, 56.30% of the subjects ranked Wendy'sas their most favored or favored fast food hamburger restaurant. In addhion, about 45%of the respondents ranked Whataburger and McDonald's as their favored or m ost favoredfast food hamburger restaurants; 44.40% of the subjects said Burger King was theirfavored or most favored fast food hamburger restaurant. How ever, only 7.60% of therespondents reported Hardee's as their favored or most favored fast food hamburgerrestaurant. The reason for this could be that there is no Hardee's in Lubbock. Comparingthe mean scores of the subject preferences across five fast food hamburger restaurants,the favorite fast food hamburger restaurant for the college students was W endy's,followed by McDonald's and Whataburger, Burger King, and Hardee's.Table 3 : Preference for fast food hamburger restaurant

Burger King Hardee's McDonald's Wendy's WhataburgerFrequency (%)M o s t favored (5 ) 30(18.80%) 2(1.30%) 38(23.80%) 50(31.30%) 38(23.80%)

F a v o r e d ( 4 ) 40(25.oo%) 1 0 (6 .3 0 % ) 3 4 ( 2 1 .3 0 % ) 4 0 ( 2 5 .0 0 % ) 3 4 ( 2 1 .3 0 % )N e u t r a l ( 3 ) 3 7 (23.10%) 15 (9.40%) 30(18.80%) 47(29.40%) 29(18.10%)

Les s fevored (2 ) 30(18.80%) 36(22.50%) 38(23.80%) 17(10.60%) 40(25.00%)L e a s t f a v o r e d ( 1 ) 2 2 ( 1 3 . 8 0 % ) 9 6 ( 6 0 . o o % ) 19 ( 1 1 . 9 0 % ) 5 ( 3 . 1 0 % ) is ( 1 1 . 3 0 % )

MeanModeS t d . Deviation

CountMissmgTotal

3.164

1.32159

1

160

1.661

.97159

1

160

3.215&21.36159

1

160

3.725

1.12159

1

160

3.212

1.36159

1

160

36


50/155

Television AdvertisementThis segment presents the college students' perceptions of values concerning

televis ion advertisements and their responses to questions about television advertisementformats and purchase intentions. First, the warm-up question resuhs were tabulated(Table 5). In Table 5, findin gs concerning the subjects' perceptions of the value o ftelevision, the subjects' perceptions of hamburgers, and the subjects' perceptions o ftelevision advertisements are presented. Second, thefindingsconcerning theeffectiveness of the f ive different formats on television advertisement and on purchaseintentions are addressed.

Warm-Up QuestionsThe results of respondents' values in regard to television advertisements,

hamburgers, and hamburger television advertisements are arranged as follows. Theresults in means, modes and standard deviations are discussed in this section. Thefrequency and percentage information are displayed in Appendix C.

The f ive dim ensions, are 'advertising value', 'advertising information', 'advertisingentertainment', 'advertising deceptiveness', and 'advertising irritation', in the model formeasuring people's perceptions of television advertisement values. All five dimensionscontain three elements. Fourteen of fifteen elements drew neutral or 'agree' answers inthe study. The only element that the subjects did not agree with was the statement:Advertisements insuh people's intelligence.

The dimension which scored the highest was advertising value (4.29). This scorewas higher than the scores in the other three dimensions. This is shown in Table 4. Thesubjects tended to disagree or g ive neutral responses to the statements: "Advertising is

37


51/155

enjoyable," and "Advertisements are lies." Most of the college students said they likedhamburgers, but they did not particularly like or dislike hamburger televisionadvertisements (Table 4).Table 4: Means, m odes, and standard deviations o f warm-up questions

Mean Mode SDTelevision advertisement value

Hamburgers

Advotising valueValuableUsefulImportantAdvertising informationProviding timely informationProviding information whoi neededProviding rdevant informationAdvertising entolainmentEntertainingEnjoyablePleasingAdvertising deceptivaiessDeoqrtiveLiesImportant facts are left outAdvertising irritationIrritatingInsult people's intelligenceToo much advatising

Likeability of ham burgersLikeability of hamburga-television advertisemoit

4.29

3.59

3.49

3J7

3.28

3.993.10

4.384.294.19

3.793.453.54

3.753.253.46

3.682.693.74

3.352.673.82

544

444

434

434

42443

.82.63.72

.74.86.73

.76.86.71

.76.78.73

.79.83.821.03.75Total numbCT of subjects 160

Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, A gree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

Television Advertisement FormatFive fast food hamburger television advertisement formats were tested in the

present study. Findings about the formats are presented in this section. The resuhs ofmeasuring telev ision advertisement effectiveness in relation to the formats are discussedfirst. Then, the resuhs about the formats and purchase intentions fo llow.

38


52/155


53/155


54/155


55/155


56/155

format, the special-effects format, and the slice-of-life format. According to the resultspresented Table 8, the male college students tended to have more poshive responses thanthe female college students to two narrative format elements: 'interesting' (t=2.63,df^l58, p


57/155


58/155

Afiican-Americans scored higher in several song-and-dance elements than did otherethnic groups. According to the information in Table 9 and Appendix I, African-Am ericans reported that the song-and-dance format w as interesting, watchable, exching ,and relevant to the viewer. On the other hand, the Caucasian group scored lowest on thesame song-and-dance elements.

t-test

As can be seen in Table 9 and Appendix I, the significant differences between theCaucasian group and the non-Caucasian group arefi"omtheu- song-and-dance andtestimonial format responses. The non-Caucasian group scored higher preferences thanthe Caucasian group on the elements: interesting, watchable, bright, attention grabbing,amusing, exciting, relevant to viewer, and intriguing in song-and-dance format, and onthe element: relevant toviewer in testimonial format.Table 9: ANOVA and t-test significantly different elements in format by race

df= 4/155 (ANOVA)df= 158 (t-test)Total number of subjects: 160.

ANOVASong-and-dance format

Interesting bWatchable ^^b

Amusing oExciting b

Relevant to viewe r ^^ bIntriguing o

t-testSong-and-dance format

Interesting ^ nWatchable n

Bright ^^ nAttention grabbing n

Exciting nRelevant to viewo- ^^n

Intriguing n

Testimonial formatRelevant to viewer n

* p


59/155

AgeTo investigate group differences in preferences according to age, both ANOVA

and a t-test were used. Detailed resuhs o f the original information are presented by usingANOVA. The t-tests are used after re-grouping the age groups into tw o groups and thencomparing the group differences. The break-even point for this re-grouping is the age onthe fiftieth percentile, which is age 21. Therefore, the subjects who are age 21 or youngerand the subjects who are older than age 21 are the two new groups for running t-tests.

ANOVAThere are fifteen groups in the age variable. The total numbers of people for each

age group were not similar. The significant results could not properly represent the truedifferences among the groups. How ever, several o f the groups consisted of just one ortwo respondents, the results are not presented.

t-testThe element 'relevant to product' in the special-effect format is the only

significantly different item in terms of format preference for the re-grouping. Thesubjects who were older than 21 years scored higher in the element 'relevant to product'in the special-effects format than did the subjects who were 21 years old or younger (t=-3 .07 ,df=158,p


60/155


61/155

Table 11: The t-test significantly different elements in format by academic majort-test

Narrative formatExciting ^ r

Intriguing r

df= 158 (t-test)Total subjects: 160.

Slice-of-life formatRelevant to viewer r

Communicates benefits rCredible ^ rMemorable r

Testimonial formatBright ^ r

Intriguing ^ r

* p


62/155

ANOVAThe differences occur in subjects' responses to song-and-dance format and slice-

of-life format. As show n in Table 12 , the significant differences between these twentygroups are in the elements: 'interesting', 'intriguing', and 'memorable' in song-and-danceformat, and on the e lements: 'interesting', 'watchable', 'attention grabbing', and 'relevant toproduct' in slice-o f-life format. Detailed information about these differences can be seenin Appendix L. There were several groups which only had one person, and therefore,these resuhs may not properly present real differences among the groups,.

t-testDifferences between the two groups in the subjects' responses to the sUce-of-life

format can be observed in Table 12. The subjects who spend an average $20 or less onfast food in two we eks have more positive responses than the other group on theelements: 'interesting', 'watchable', 'bright', 'attention grabbing', and 'memorable' in theslice-of-life format. The groups responses on the elements: 'interesting' (t=2 .59, df=158,p


63/155


64/155

the groups wa s unlike. The resuhs could be biased by a single response. In other words,several television usage groups only included one person, and h is not proper to comparea person's response to a group's responses.

t-testWhen the raw data is re-grouped, the results from t-tests are different from the

resuhs in the previous ANOVA findings. In the t-tests, the significantly differentelements arefi'om he subjects' responses to the narrative format and the testimonialformat. Basically, the people who watch television more than 2.5 hours a daydemonstrate more positive reaction than people who watch television 2.5 hours or less aday on 'amusing' and 'credible' in the narrative format and on 'clever', 'attention grabbing','amusing', and 'original' in testimonial format (Table 13).Table 13: t-test significantly different elements in format according to television usagefi-equency

ANOVASpecial-effects format Slice-of-life formatCommunicates benefits * Attention grabbing **

Amusing *Intriguing *

t-testNarrative format Testimonial format

Amusing m Clever mCredible m Attention grabbing m

Amusing mOriginal ^^ m

df= 16/140 (ANOV A)df= 155 (t-test)Total number of subjects: 160.

* p


65/155

used to run the raw data in order to see the original group differences. After dividing theraw data into two by using the m iddle point, t-tests were conducted to compare the groupdifferences.

ANOVAThe resuhs of ANOVA showed significantly different responses, which are

presented in Table 14 and Appendix N . Several elements in the narrative format andtestimonial format that the subject responded to showed significant differences. Thesefind ings may not truly represent the groups' differences; however, this information canserve as an inhial look at the raw data.

t-testIn general, the subjects w ho frequently purchase hamburgers (more than once a

we ek) score higher than the non-fi-equent hamburger purchasers (once or less a week) onthe elements: 'relevant to viewer' and 'intriguing' in the song-and-dance format, and onelements: 'interesting', 'relevant to viewer', and 'memorable' in the testimonial format(Table 14 and Appendix N).Table 14: ANOVA and t-test significantly different elements in format by hamburgerconsumption frequency

ANOVANarrative format Testimonial format

Memorable * Interesting *Amusing *

Relevant to viewa- **

t-testSong-and-dance format

Relevant to viewer ^ mIntriguing ^ m

Testimonial formatInteresting m

Relevant to viewer mMemorable m

df= 11/147 (ANOVA)df= 157 (t-test)Total number of subjects: 159.* p


66/155


67/155

The significantly different responses to questions showing preference for Wendy'swere 'watchable', 'exching', and 'memorable' in the special-effects format, and on theelement 'credible' in the testimonial format; in those cases, the people w ho rankedWendy's as then- favored restaurant had higher mean scores than other groups.

People who indicated Whataburger as their most favored restaurant had morepositive reactions than other groups on the elements: 'watchable' and 'intriguing' in theslice-of-life format, and on almost all the elements in the testimonial format. Thetestimonial format used in the present study was produced by the Whataburgercorporation. On the other hand, people who ranked Whataburger as their least favoredhamburger restaurant gave higher scores than other groups on several elements in thesong-and-dance format and narrative format.

54


68/155

Table 15: AN OVA significantly different elements in format by hamburger restaurantpreferenceANOVA

Burger KingSong-and-dance

Interesting 4Clever 4

Watchable 3Attention grabbing 4

Exciting 4 Relevant to viewe r 5Credible 2

TestimonialCredible 4*

df= 4/154 (ANOVA)Total number of subjects:

Hardee'sSpecial-effects

Watchable 2*Amusing 4Credible 2

Shce-of-lifeInteresting 2*

Bright 2*Commonicates 2

benefits *Original 2 Intriguing 2

TestimonialRelevant to product **

5

159. 1=

McDonald'sSong-and-dance

Exciting 5*Memorable 3

Special-effectsMemorable 3

least favored answer group

Wendy'sSpecial-effects

Watchable 4Exciting 4*Memorable 4

TestimonialCredible ]*

WhataburgerSong-and-dance

Interesting 1Watchable 1

Exciting 1*

NarrativeIntriguing 1

Slice-of-lifeWatchable 3Intriguing 3*

TestimonialClever 3

Watchable 3Bright 3*Attention grabbing 3*Amusing 3

Exciting 3* Relevant to viewer 3*Intriguing 3*


69/155


70/155


71/155


72/155


73/155


74/155


75/155


76/155


77/155


78/155


79/155


80/155

Hvpothesis OneThe male colle ge students responded more poshively to the narrative format;

special-effec ts and slice-of-life formats were more desirable to the females. The song-and-dance format was more appealing to the non-Caucasians, especially the A fiican-Americans.

Hvpothesis Tw oThe students who spent an average of $20 or less on fast food over two weeks

preferred the slice-of-life format more than the students who spent more on fast food.'Amusing' was the element that was considered the most enticing in advertisementformats by the subjects who watched 2.5 hours of television a day. The people whopurchased hamburgers more than once a week had poshive reactions to the testimonialformat. The college students who liked Burger King, McD onald's, and Wendy's gavemore poshive responses to the song-and-dance format and the special-effects format.The s lice-of-life format and testimonial format were more appealing to the subjects wholiked Whataburger, but not the song-and-dance format or the narrative format. Thestudents who did not like Hardee's liked the song-and-dance format, the special-effectsformat, and the slice-of-life format.

Research Question TwoThe testimonial format is the one of the fiv e formats that would most Hkely

motivate the co llege students in their purchase intentions.

67


81/155


82/155


83/155


84/155


85/155


86/155


87/155


88/155


89/155


90/155


91/155


92/155


93/155


94/155


95/155


96/155


97/155


98/155


99/155


100/155


101/155

Table 25: Mean, mode, and standard deviation of the response to fast food hamburgertelevision advertisement formats in relation to television advertisementeffectiveness and purchase intention

Television advertisement effectivenessCommo-cial in geno^lStimulatingInterestingClevo-WatchableB r i ^Attention grabbingAmusingExcitingGeneral rdevanoeRelevant to view a-Communicate s benefitsRelevant to product

The way th e product is communicatedSituation dynamismOriginal

ExcitingIntriguingAttention grabbingAmusingContext relevanceRelevant to viewa -Relevant to productThe way the message is put acrossCredibleMemorableIntriguingAmusingB r i ^

Song*andMean(Mode)

2.652.66 2.682.47 (2)2.81 (2)2.54(2)2.78 (4)3.10(4)2.59 (2)2.45 (2)2.602.28 (2)2.68 (2)2.83 (4)

2.66 2.703.06 (4)2.45 (2)2.29 (2)3.10(4)2.59 (2)2.562.28 (2)2.83 (4)

2.642.68 (3)2.84 (2)2.29 (2)2.59 (2)2.78 (4)

-dance NarrativeSD

1.141.211.181.251.181.160.981.071.241.28

1.100.980.991.181.161.071.28

1.041.140.991.161.25

Mean(Mode)2.772.79 2.872.57(2)3.00 (4)3.36 (4)3.01 (2)2.87 (2)2.74 (2)2.58 (2)2.602.31 (2)2.42 (2)3.08 (4)

2.76 2.783.17(4)2.58 (2)2.55 (2)2.87 (2)2.74 (2)2.702.31 (2)3.08 (4)

2.772.86 (2)2.69 (2)2.55 (2)2.74 (2)3.01 (2)

SD

0.980.960.950.910.983.400.890.891.041.21

1.000.890.810.983.400.891.21

0.920.960.813.400.91

Special-effectsMean(Mode)

3.493.45 3.763.71 (4)3.66 (4)3.94 (4)3.94 (4)3.79 (4)3.86 (4)3.43 (4)2.852.99 (3)2.89 (2)2.66 (2)

3.42 3.663.78 (4)3.43 (4)3.45 (4)3.79 (4)3.86 (4)2.832.99 (3)2.66 (2)

3.603.38 (4)3.36 (4)3.45 (4)3.86 (4)3.94 (4)

SD

0.920.950.720.730.930.860.991.091.051.10

0.880.990.920.930.861.091.10

0.891.100.920.860.73

Slice-of-lifeMean(Mode)

2.943.01 2.962.98 (4)3.08 (4)3.35 (4)3.17(4)2.84 (2)2.68 (2)2.64 (2)3.133.07 (4)3.26 (4)3.05 (4)

2.87 2.803.10(4)2.64 (2)2.72 (2)2.84 (2)2.68 (2)3.063.07 (4)3.05 (4)

2.943.39 (4)2.72 (2)2.72 (2)2.68 (2)3.17(4)

SD

1.071.000.930.941.010.950.920.931.081.09

0.980.920.861.010.950.931.09

0.880.950.860.950.94

TestimonialMean(Mode)

2.993.1532.972.98 (2)3.04 (2)3.41(4)3.06 (4)2.98 (2)2.71 (2)2.58 (2)3.583.07 (4)3.55 (4)4.11(4)

3.05 2.843.21 (4)2.58 (2)2.74 (2)2.98 (2)2.71 (2)3.593.07 (4)

4.11(4)2.953.37 (4)2.87 (2)2.74 (2)2.71 (2)3.06 (2)

SD

0.951.000.880.921.010.950.870.971.060.74

1.010.870.921.010.950.970.74

0.881.000.920.950.92

Purdiase intention 2J 3 2.53 2.61 2.91 3.13The ad makes the subject want the 2.06 (2) 0.92 2.56(2 ) 1.06 2.40(2 ) 0.95 2.77(2) 1.01 3.08(4) 1.14burgerWillingto buy the burger after watching 2.4 8(2 ) 1.12 2.6 1(2 ) 1.07 2.66 (2) 1.09 3.02 (4) 1.07 3.2 8(4 ) 1.07the adWillingto eat the burgo-afta-watching 2.5 8(2 ) 1.10 2.6 8(2 ) 1.11 2.7 7(2 ) 1.09 3.0 6(4 ) 1.08 3.2 6(4 ) 1.09the adWillingto make next purchase after 2.2 1(2 ) 0.96 2.2 8(2 ) 0.95 2.63 (2) 1.06 2.8 1(2 ) 1.04 2.9 0(2 ) 1.04watching thead

Total number of subjects = 160Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3 , Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

88


102/155


103/155


104/155


105/155


106/155


107/155

Table 26. Continued

Testimonial format (Whataburger)Frequency and percentageTelevision ad vertisem ent effectiveness

Commercial in generalStimulatingInterestingCleverWatchableBrightAttention grabbingAmusingExcitingGeneral relevanceRelevant to viewerCommunicate s benefitsRelevant to product

The way the product is com municatedSituation dynamismOriginalExcitingIntriguingAttention grabbingAmusingContext relevanceRelevant to viewerRelevant to productThe way the message is put acrossCredibleMemorableIntriguingAmusingBright

Total number of subjects =160

StronglyDisagree (1)

6 (3.8%)5(3.1%)4 (2.5%)1 (0.6%)3 (2.9%)8 (5.0%)6 (3.8%)6 (3.8%)4 (2.5%)2(1.3%)

4 (2.5%)6 (3.8%)6 (3.8%)3 (2.9%)8 (5.0%)6 (3.8%)2(1.3%)

5(3.1%)6 (3.8%)6 (3.8%)8 (5.0%)1 (0.6%)

Strongly Disagree = 1,

Disagree (2) Neutral (3)

51(31.3%)57 (35.6%)25(15.6%)54 (33.8%)64 (40.0%)73 (45.6%)88 (55.0%)46 (28.8%)30(18.8%)5 (3.1%)

43 (26.9%)88 (55.0%)71 (44.4%)64 (40.0%)73 (45.6%)46 (28.8%)5 (3.1%)

22 (13.8%)68 (42.5%)71 (44.4%)73 (45.6%)54 (33.8%)

48 (30.0%)30(18.8%)37(23.1%)46 (28.8%)36 (22.5%)40 (25.0%)36 (22.5%)45(28.1%)27 (16.9%)8 (5.0%)

42 (26.3%)36 (22.5%)45(28.1%)36 (22.5%)40 (25.0%)45(28.1%)8 (5.0%)

48 (30.0%)32 (20.0%)45 (28.1%)40 (25.0%)46 (28.8%)

Agree (4)

50(31.3%)63 (39.4%)89 (55.6%)53(33.1%)47 (29.4%)35 (21.9%)28 (17.5%)57 (35.6%)72 (45.0%)103 (64.4%)

58 (36.3%)28 (17.5%)34(21.3%)47 (29.4%)35 (21.9%)57 (35.6%)103 (64.4%)

79 (49.4%)49 (30.6%)34(21.3%)35 (21.9%)53(33.1%)

StronglyAgree (5)

5(3.1%)5(3.1%)5(3.1%)6 (3.8%)10 (6.3%)4 (2.5%)2(1.3%)6 (3.8%)

27 (16.9%)42 (26.3%)

13 (8.1%)2(1.3%)4 (2.5%)10 (6.3%)4 (2.5%)6 (3.8%)42 (26.3%)

6 (3.8%)5(3.1%)4 (2.5%)4 (2.5%)6 (3.8%)

Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

94


108/155


109/155


110/155


111/155


112/155


113/155


114/155


115/155


116/155


117/155


118/155


119/155


120/155


121/155


122/155


123/155


124/155


125/155


126/155

Table 33. Continued.

Slice-of-life format (Wendy's)ANOVA (money) -df= 20/139 money N Mean SD iis.Relevant to p roduct S .0.00$ 3.00S 4.00S 5.00$ 7.00S 10.00$ 13.00$ 15.00$ 20.00$ 25.00S 30.00$ 35.00$ 40.00$ 50.00S 60.00$ 70.00$ 75.00

S 80.00S 100.00S 120.00S 140.00

42192

(2.50%)(1.25%)(0.63%)(5.63%)(1.25%)25(15.63%)5 (3.13%)19(11.88%)35(21.88%)101128102131811

(6.25%)(6.88%)(1.25%)(5.00%)(6.25%)(1.25%)(0.63%)(1.88%)(0.63%)(5.00%)(0.63%)(0.63%)

3.503.004.003.002.002.682.003.263.373.603.363.003.252.202.003.002.002.003.633.002.00

1.291.410.870.001.070.001.191.000.970.921.411.161.031.411.000.92

1.87 0.02*

Total numb er of samples = 160Strongly D isagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral =

Slice-of-life format (Wencfy's)t-test (money)-df= 158 Money N Mean

= 3 , Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

SD t-value Sig.InterestingWatdiableBri^tAttention g rabbingMemorable

Total numbtf of samples = 160

20 or lessmore than 2020 or lessmore than 2020 or lessmore than 2020 or lessmore than 2020 or lessmore than 20

102(63.75%)58 (36.25%)102 (63.75%)58 (36.25%)102 (63.75%)58 (36.25%)102 (63.75%)58 (36.25%)102 (63.75%)58 (36.25%)

3.142.693.503.093.292.952.982.602.842.50

1.001.140.841.030.910.960.951.060.970.88

2.592.752.272.312.22

0.01**0.01**0.02*0.02*0.03*

Strongly D isagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, A gree = 4, Strongly A gree = 5 *p,0.05, *p


127/155


128/155


129/155


Slice-of-life format (Wendy's)AN O VA (TV) - df = 16/140 hours N Mean SD -SJLIntriguing 0.000.250.300.501.001.502.002.503.003.504.004.505.006.007.008.0010.00

2116218373233176911252

3.503.003.003.172.862.002.572.332.522.672.653.002.782.454.503.403.50

0.71

0.410.910.530.900.580.731.150.860.890.830.820.710.550.71Total number of subjects = 157

1.90 0.02'

Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3 , Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5Narrative format (Hardee's)

t-test (tv watch) - df = 155AmusingCredible

Total numba- of subjects = 157

TV N Mean SD t-value2.3 hours or lessmore than 2.5 hours2.3 hours or lessmore than 2.5 hours

79 (44.38%)81 (55.62%)79 (44.38%)81 (55.62%)

2.342.632.673.04

0.930.860.870.93

-2.03-2.57

^Sig_0.04*

o.orStrongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Naitral = 3 , Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5Testimonial format (Whataburger)

t-test (tv watching) - df = 155 TV N Mean SD t-value Sig.CleverAttention grabbingAmusingOriginal

Total number of subjects = 157

2.5 hours or lessmore than 2.5 hours2.5 hours or lessmore than 2.5 hours2.5 hours or lessmore than 2.5 hours2.5 hours or lessmore than 2.5 hours

79 (44.38%)81 (55.62%)79 (44.38%)81 (55.62%)79 (44.38%)81 (55.62%)79 (44.38%)81 (55.62%)

2.823.252.813.152.532.893.003.41

1.000.970.981.030.930.941.010.97

-2.73-2.14-2.42-2.60

O.or0.03"0.02'0.01**

Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4 , Strongly Agree = 5 *p,0.05, **p


130/155


131/155


132/155


133/155


134/155


135/155


136/155


Preference for McD onald'sSong-and-dance format (Burger King)ANOVA-df= 4/154 N Mean SD Sig.Exciting

Memorable

Total number of subjects =

Most favoriteFavoriteNeutralLess favoriteLeast favoriteMost favoriteFavoriteNeutralLess favoriteLeast favorite= 159

38 (23.90%)34(21.38%)31 (19.50%)37 (23.27%)19(11.95%)38 (23.90%)34(21.38%)31(19.50%)37 (23.27%)19(11.95%)

2.822.322.552.112.423.342.622.552.623.16

1.090.941.060.740.901.021.041.061.161.30

2.80 0.03'

3.61 0.01

Special-effects format (McDonald's)ANOVA-df= 4/154 N Mean SD Si^miorable Most fav(iteFavoriteNeutralLess favoriteLeast favoriteTotal numba* of subjects = 159

38 (23.90%)34(21.38%)31 (19.50%)37 (23.27%)19(11.95%)

3.953.033.423.033.26

0.841.001.091.211.10

4.83 0.00'

Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2 , Neutral = 3, A gree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5Preference for Wendy'sSpecial-effects format (McDonald's)ANOVA-df= 4/154 N Mean SD iis.

Watchable Most favorite 50(31 .45% ) 3.86 0.70 3.57Favorite 40(2 5.16 % ) 4.23 0.48Neutral 47(29.56% ) 3.94 0.70Less favorite 17(10.69 % ) 3.76 0.83Least favorite 5 (3.14%) 3.20 1.30Exciting M

Fast Food Television Advertisement Formats

Documents

Transcript of Fast Food Television Advertisement Formats