SURVEY OF INTERNET USERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD INTERNET...

SURVEY OF INTERNET USERS’

ATTITUDES TOWARD INTERNET

ADVERTISING

A n n E . S c h l o s s e rS h a r o n S h a v i t tA l a i n a K a n f e r

f

A B S T R A C TMany have speculated about the current state of Internetadvertising (IA), how it compares to advertising in general (GA),and its implications for traditional marketing models and practices.Although many estimates exist regarding who uses the Internet aswell as guidelines about how best to design IA, little is knownabout Internet users’ attitudes toward IA, much less whatcharacterizes these attitudes. To test this, a national sample of over400 participants with at least some exposure to the Internet wassurveyed. The results revealed no majority opinion of IA:approximately a third of respondents liked, disliked, and feltneutrally toward IA, respectively. A regression analysis indicated thatenjoyment of looking at Internet advertisements, its informativeness,and its utility for making behavioral (purchasing) decisions

© 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and

Direct Marketing Educational Foundation, Inc.

CCC 1094-9968/99/030034-21

f

JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING

VOLUME 13 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 1999

34

ANN E. SCHLOSSER is AssistantProfessor of Marketing and E-Commerce at the Owen GraduateSchool of Management, VanderbiltUnivesity. Her research interestsinclude consumer behavior andbrand management in interactivemarketplaces such as the Internet,attitude structure and function, andthe effects of situational variableson consumers’ cognitive andaffective product responses.

SHARON SHAVITT is associateprofessor in the department ofadvertising at the Unviersity ofIllinois at Urbana-Champaign. Dr.Shavitt has served on the board ofthe Society for ConsumerPsychology and is co-editor ofPersuasion: Psychological Insights andPerspectives (1994, Allyn & Bacon).Her research on attitude functions,cognitive responses, and culturaldifferences in advertisingpersuasion has appeared in Journalof Consumer Psychology, Journal ofAdvertising, Journal of AdvertisingResearch, and numerous social-psychological journals and books.

ALAINA KANFER is with theNational Center forSupercomputing Applications,University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign.

contributed to participants’ attitudes toward IA.Enjoyment of looking at IA contributed the mostto attitudes toward IA, yet at the same timeappears to be one of IA’s weakest features. Inorder to assess whether attitudes toward andperceptions of IA might reflect attitudes towardadvertising in general by this demographic group,rather than attitudes toward IA per se, responseswere compared to those of a demographicallyweighted-to-match national sample of over 1,000who answered similar questions in regard toadvertising in general. The results indicate thatmore respondents found IA to be informativeand trustworthy than a demographically similarsample found GA. Even though the attitudes andperceptions of IA and GA were significantlydifferent, the structure of GA and IA attitudeswas the same. Implications for the design of IAare discussed.

The Internet as a marketing medium offersmany unique challenges to marketers. To assistmarketers in their venture on-line, comparisonsand contrasts to existing marketing theory havebeen used to build a conceptual understandingof the current state of the Internet and its im-plications for consumer transactions (cf., Hoff-man and Novak, 1996a; Hoffman, Novak andChatterjee, 1995; Schlosser and Kanfer, forth-coming). To further understand the commer-cial possibilities of the Internet, several internetusage surveys have been conducted to docu-ment consumers’ behavior online (the most no-table being GVU, 1999 and the HERMESproject by Gupta, 1995; see Hoffman, Kalsbeek,and Novak, 1996, for a review). Yet, in terms ofassessing the commercial effectiveness of theInternet and the value of Internet advertising,most research has concentrated upon the com-pany’s rather than consumers’ point of view(Berthon, Pitt, and Watson, 1996). As a result,many decisions regarding Internet advertising(IA) are being made with relatively little specific

knowledge about consumers’ attitudes towardIA and how the structure of these IA attitudescompare to the structure of attitudes towardadvertising in traditional media. The aim of thecurrent research is to examine consumers’ per-ceptions and judgments of IA.

Consumers’ attitudes toward advertising havebeen considered important to track becausethey likely influence consumers’ exposure, at-tention, and reaction to individual ads (cf. Al-witt and Prabhakar, 1992) through a variety ofcognitive and affective processes (Lutz, 1985).One fundamental difference between Internetand traditional advertising is the degree towhich the consumer versus the company hascontrol over advertising exposure. With tradi-tional advertising, consumers play a relativelyinactive role in exposure. Advertisements inter-rupt or intercept consumers’ attention to otherinformation (e.g, a television program, a radioshow, or traffic signs). In essence, advertise-ments are “pushed” at them. With many formsof IA, however, the consumer has a great deal ofcontrol over advertising exposure. The com-pany may request the consumers’ attention(e.g., through banner ads on others’ Web sitesor through hyperlinks), but it is up to the con-sumer to seek additional commercial content.Consumers can select whether, when, and howmuch commercial content they wish to view.That is, consumers “pull” for electronic adver-tising content. Because IA exposure is largelyunder the consumer’s volition, it is particularlyimportant to understand the valence and struc-ture of one important driver of advertising ex-posure: attitudes toward IA.

WHAT IS IA?According to consumers, IA includes manyforms of commercial content—from electronicadvertisements that are similar to traditionaladvertisements (e.g., billboards, banner ads) toformats that are different from traditional ad-vertisements, such as corporate Web sites (Du-coffe, 1996). Thus, it appears that there areidiosyncratic differences in consumers’ percep-tions of what constitutes IA such that any spe-cific definition of IA is likely to be a bad fit for

A T T I T U D E S T O W A R D I N T E R N E T A D V E R T I S I N G

JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING ● VOLUME 13 / NUMBER 3 / SUMMER 1999

35

measuring IA perceptions. Because the goal ofthe present research is to assess consumer per-ceptions of IA, IA is described broadly as anyform of commercial content available on theInternet that is designed by businesses to in-form consumers about a product or service.Hence, IA can be delivered via any channel(e.g., video clip, print or audio), in any form(e.g., an e-mail message or an interactivegame), and provide information at any degreeof depth (e.g, a corporate logo or an officialWeb site).

BACKGROUND ON IADespite the limited understanding of how con-sumers judge IA, there has been substantialcommercial growth on the Internet of manyforms of advertising, resulting in an estimated1996 revenue of $301 million, with a projectedgrowth to $7.7 billion by 2002 (Jupiter Commu-nications, 1997). Indeed, spending on IA to-taled an estimated $129 million in the first quar-ter of 1997 (Cyberatlas, 1997), with anestimated 92% increase in IA spending for top25 industries during the first quarter of 1998(Cyberatlas, 1998). In addition to anticipatingthe monetary growth of the Internet, the major-ity of on-line businesses believe the Internet ishere to stay and will generate sales in the future(Grant Thorton, 1997). Furthermore, the adop-tion curve for the Internet is quite steep, espe-cially in comparison to other media introducedin this century (radio, television, cable; MorganStanley Technology research cited in InternetAdvertising Bureau, 1997). Thus, as many havepredicted, investment in IA is likely to escalateinto the billions as we enter the next millen-nium (cf. Cyberatlas, 1997).

Studies of consumers’ reactions to IA typi-cally have quantified customers’ judgments ofWeb sites in terms of consumers’ behavioraltraces at the site (i.e., counting the number of“clicks” and “hits” [cf. Berthon, Pitt, andWatson, 1996]). These measures have beenshown to both overestimate and underestimatethe number of visitors and exposures, however(cf. Internet Advertising Bureau, 1997; Ripha-gen and Kanfer, 1997). Moreover, the indirect

nature of these methods makes it difficult toascertain the meaning behind the results (e.g.,whether clicking on a link was an accident orintended behavior, and whether the loaded sitesatisfied the consumer’s expectations).

Coinciding with the growth in IA, there hasbeen a plethora of guidelines about how to bestreach and persuade the consumer market withthe Internet (see, for review, Schlosser and Kan-fer, 1999a). Many of these recommendationshave been based upon assumptions (ratherthan actual assessments) of how consumers re-act to IA relative to GA. Relatively little is knownabout how consumers judge Internet advertis-ing and which components make up these atti-tudes.

ATTITUDES TOWARDS ADVERTISING INGENERALPublic attitudes toward advertising in generalhave long been a focus of research (see Mittal,1994; O’Donohoe, 1995; Pollay and Mittal,1993; Zanot, 1984; Zanot, 1984 for reviews).According to Zanot (1981, 1984), the first large-scale, national surveys of public opinion aboutadvertising date back to the 1950s and 1960s(Bauer and Greyser, 1968; Gallup, 1959). Manyrecent studies have also been conducted (e.g.,Alwitt and Prabhakar, 1992; Alwitt and Prab-haker, 1994; Andrews, 1989; Mittal, 1994; Mueh-ling, 1987; O’Donohoe, 1995; Reid and Soley,1982; Sandage and Leckenby, 1980; Shavitt,Lowrey and Haefner, 1998) but most of thesehave been more focused upon investigating thestructure of advertising attitudes rather than thegeneralizability of overall attitude favorability.

Although the studies on advertising attitudeshave varied widely in the types of samples usedand the data collection methods employed, theyhave focused upon many of the same dimen-sions of judgment. Respondents typically havebeen asked not only about their overall atti-tudes toward advertisememts but also their per-ceptions of advertising’s trustworthiness, offen-siveness, informativeness, entertainment value,and effect on product prices and value, as wellas attitudes toward regulatory issues.

J O U R N A L O F I N T E R A C T I V E M A R K E T I N G


36

Early surveys of advertising attitudes yieldedsomewhat favorable, albeit mixed, results. Gal-lup (1959) found that a majority of their re-spondents generally liked advertising and thatmost of those respondents liked it because theyfelt it was informative. They also found that amajority of respondents preferred advertisedproducts over unadvertised products, althoughmost also felt that advertising increased the costof things they buy. Bauer and Greyser (1968)found that more people held favorable attitudestoward advertising than unfavorable attitudesand that a majority of respondents felt advertis-ing was essential. Still, a majority of their re-spondents felt that advertisements were mis-leading and that they resulted in higher prices.

Zanot (1981, 1984) argued that, beginning inthe 1970s, attitudes toward advertising were be-coming increasingly negative. For example,Harris and Associates (1976) found that a ma-jority of respondents felt that most or all oftelevision advertising was seriously misleadingand favored a new federal government agencyfor consumer advocacy. More recent studieshave generally focused on attitude structureand, thus, have used smaller and less nationallyrepresentative sampling frames to investigatespecific hypotheses. These results have typicallyprovided a rather unfavorable assessment ofpublic attitudes toward advertising (e.g., Alwittand Prabhaker, 1992; Alwitt and Prabhaker,1994; Andrews, 1989; Mittal, 1994; but seeShavitt et al., 1998, for a more favorable pictureof public sentiment from a large, national sam-ple). Although some of these studies have pro-vided information about attitudes toward adver-tising in a particular medium (e.g., television:Alwitt and Prabhaker, 1992; Alwitt and Prab-haker, 1994; Mittal, 1994), none of them specif-ically addresses attitudes toward advertising onthe Internet.

CONSUMER RESPONSE TO INTERNETADVERTISINGMost of the direct-response measures adminis-tered to consumers have assessed consumers’perceptions and usage of the Internet and its

services. For instance, research has exploredconsumers’ attitudes toward on-line services(Miller, 1996) and purchasing online (Gupta,1995; GVU, 1999); Web usage (Gupta, 1995;GVU, 1999; Hammonds, 1997; Hoffman, Kals-beek and Novak, 1996) and recall of the sitesvisited (Diaz, Hammond and McWilliam, 1996);actions taken toward intrustive advertising orSPAM (GVU, 1999); effect of banner ads onbrand judgments (Briggs and Hollis, 1997); at-titudes toward Internet advertising policies(Gordon and De Lima-Turner, forthcoming);and awareness of the Internet itself (Fawcett,1995). Yet, relatively less is known about con-sumers’ evaluations of IA specifically.

In an important exception, Mehta and Siva-das (1995) assessed Internet user’s attitudes to-ward advertising on newsgroups and throughe-mail. They found that consumers held nega-tive attitudes toward newsgroup and e-mail ad-vertising, even when the message was directlyrelevant to the special interests of the group.However, their sample was limited to those whoposted messages to the group. Those whomerely read messages were not included in thesample. As a result, it is possible that theseunfavorable attitudes are due to this vocal sam-ple’s perception that they are competing withelectronic advertisements for the group’s atten-tion. In addition, attitudes toward newsgroup/e-mail advertising may not generalize to allforms of IA, including less intrusive ads (such asWeb sites). Consequently, it is unclear whetherthe results would generalize to the entire Inter-net population’s attitudes toward IA in its manyforms.

Another notable exception is research con-ducted by Ducoffe (1996) studying the anteced-ents of consumer’s attitudes toward Web adver-tising. It was found that a sample of 318 businessexecutives in New York City perceived Web ad-vertising to be generally informative and enter-taining, although more informative than enter-taining. This is consistent with findingsregarding people’s perceptions of the Web ingeneral (Diaz et al., 1996). Furthermore, in con-trast to attitudinal findings toward e-mail adver-tising (Mehta and Sivadas, 1995), the inter-viewed executives found Web advertising to be



37

useful, valuable and important. Although theseprevious findings on attitudes toward e-mail andWeb advertising shed light upon the Internetpopulation’s attitudes toward specific types ofIA, a larger and more representative sample aswell as an examination of IA in general wouldbe useful. Indeed, both Ducoffe (1996) andMehta and Sivadas (1995) call for broader sam-pling frames.

Understanding the factors that underlie IA at-titudes would also be important for both theorydevelopment and applied goals. Ducoffe demon-strated that entertainment, informativeness, andirritation influenced attitudes toward Web adver-tising. The idea that affective (entertainment, ir-ritation) and cognitive (informativeness) experi-ences with Web advertising contribute to people’sjudgments of Web advertising is consistent withother attitudinal models such as the tripartite the-ory of attitudes. Yet the tripartite theory proposesa third factor, behavioral experiences, which maycontribute to people’s attitudes (Katz and Stot-land, 1959; Rosenberg and Hovland, 1960; seeEagly and Chaiken, 1993, for a theoretical andhistorical overview of this model). Hence, theutility of IA for making decisions (a behavioralexperience) may also drive people’s attitudestoward IA.

Some have assumed that the underlyingstructure of IA attitudes reflects the structure ofattitudes toward advertising in general (Du-coffe, 1995; Eighmey, 1997). Yet it is also plau-sible that the unique characteristics of the In-ternet might cause the underlying structure ofattitudes toward IA and GA to differ. For in-stance, because it is used primarily as an infor-mation-providing medium (see Schlosser andKanfer, 1999), IA might elicit attitudes that aremostly comprised of cognitive factors—espe-cially in comparison with attitudes toward ad-vertising in general. Such variations have impli-cations for how practitioners alter Internet ads(as opposed to traditional advertising) in orderto improve IA attitudes. Thus, one goal of thepresent research is to determine which dimen-sions underlie (and to what degree they explainvariance in) attitudes toward IA.

INTERNET USER DEMOGRAPHICS ANDCONSUMER RESPONSE TOWARD IADespite the lack of consistency across reports ofthe Internet population’s demographic profile,there appears to be consensus that the Internetpopulation is predominantly male, young, well-educated, and affluent (for a longitudinal studyof Internet user demographics beginning in1994, see GVU, 1999). Such demographic char-acteristics also appear to affect attitudes towardadvertising. That is, previous research has dem-onstrated that gender, age (Shavitt, et al.,1998), education and income (Alwitt and Prab-haker, 1992; Shavitt et al., 1998) impact con-sumers’ judgments of and beliefs about adver-tising. For instance, according to a recentsurvey, better-educated, wealthier consumershold less favorable attitudes toward advertisingthan less-educated, lower-income consumers do(Shavitt, et al., 1998). Based on demographicsalone, this would suggest that the Internet pop-ulation would judge advertising (in general andon the Internet) relatively unfavorably.

In order to gauge whether attitudes towardIA can be attributed to the unique demographicprofile of Internet users rather than advertisingon the Internet per se, IA judgments will becompared to the GA judgments of a sampleweighted to match the demographics of theInternet respondents. If the results are due tothe demographic composition of Internet usersrather than how IA is uniquely perceived rela-tive to traditional advertising, then the judg-ments and perceptions of IA and GA should besimilar across these demographically matchedsamples.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVESThe objectives of the present research are toaddress three questions: (1) What are consum-ers’ attitudes toward IA? (2) How does this com-pare to a demographically similar samples’ per-ceptions of advertising in general? and (3)Which dimensions underlie and to what degreedo they contribute to IA attitudes? We addressthese issues with a large and representative (ofan Internet population) national sample.



38

METHODOLOGY

Sampling ProceduresThe survey was conducted in the summer of1996. Two nationally representative sampleswere drawn from a list balanced by estimatedtelephone households. The survey was con-ducted via a computer-assisted telephone inter-viewing (CATI) system. Prospective respon-dents were called back up to three times if theycould not be reached initially. CATI technologyprovides a number of advantages in survey datacollection, enabling the use of randomly or-dered questions and complex skip patterns inthe survey protocol (Sudman and Bradburn,1982).

Prospective respondents were screened forage and for media usage. Only those betweenthe ages of 18 and 64 were surveyed. The sam-ples were screened for their Internet access andusage. Prospective respondents in Sample 1 (N5 201) were included if they indicated that theypersonally had access to and used the Internetor World Wide Web. In order to assure a sub-stantial representation of regular Internet users,prospective respondents in Sample 2 (N 5 201)were included only if they further indicated thatthey frequently or regularly used the Internet orWeb. Because there were no significant differ-ences between the two samples in terms of howoften they look at IA, how often they have usedthe computer in the week prior to the surveyand whether they subscribe to an online service(all ts , 1.10, n.s.), the two samples were com-bined for all analyses (N 5 402).

While all respondents reported having accessto and using the Internet, prospective respon-dents were not screened based on reported ex-posure to Internet ads. Thus, some survey re-spondents reported never looking at IA (12% ofthe sample).

Survey ContentRespondents were queried about their IA-re-lated attitudes, their media exposure patterns,and their demographic classifications. Thequestions asked of the two samples were identi-cal with the exception that respondents in Sam-

ple 2, after being screened for their Internetusage, were asked two additional questionsabout which browsers and search engines theyuse.

The attitudinal questions were next, andwere prefaced with a statement defining thetypes of advertising to which the questions re-ferred. The statement read:

This is a survey of your thoughts and feelingsabout the advertisements you encounter everyday. Many of these advertisements include adsyou might see on the Internet or World WideWeb when you use a computer. When we askyou about ’advertising’ in this survey, we areonly referring to what you see in these elec-tronic ads on the Internet, and not to any otherforms of advertising.

Following this statement were 17 attitudinalquestions. The first asked respondents abouttheir overall evaluation of IA. The rest asked fortheir views about: (1) the enjoyment and theindignity they associate with IA, (2) the trust-worthiness or usefulness of IA content, (3) IAeffects on product prices and product value,and (4) the regulation of IA. The items coveredseveral of the evaluative dimensions addressedin previous research, and the content of manyof these items was adapted from previously pub-lished surveys (see especially Bauer and Grey-ser, 1968). In an attempt to tap personal atti-tudes toward and confidence in IA, most of theattitudinal questions were worded to emphasizepersonal experiences with and reactions to IA.Thus, respondents were asked, for example, toconsider how confident they generally feel us-ing IA information to make a purchase deci-sion, or how often they have felt misled by IA.

The 17 attitudinal questions began with aquery about respondents’ overall IA attitude ina two-part question (asking whether they gener-ally like or dislike IA, and then assessing thedegree of liking/disliking). After this two-partquestion came a block of nine attitudinal ques-tions which were in five-point Likert-type format(strongly agree/disagree). The order of thesenine items was randomized. The wording of sixitems was varied to be either favorable or unfa-vorable toward IA (e.g., “In general, I feel that I



39

can [cannot] trust Internet advertising”). Re-spondents heard only one version of theseitems. From item to item the favorable/unfavor-able versions were selected randomly. Analysesindicated that question version had only a slighteffect on responses (see Note 1 in Appendix).Thus, responses on the dual-version items werecollapsed after recoding in the direction of fa-vorable attitudes toward IA.

Sample for Attitudes Toward IAIn order to match the GA sample to the IAsample according to pertinent IA demographiccharacteristics, we begin by examining the rep-resentativeness of our IA sample relative toother survey’s demographic profiles of Internetusers, looking in particular at demographic vari-ables shown in previous research to influenceattitudes toward advertising (see Shavitt et al.,

1998). The demographics of the current sampleare consistent with the demographics of otherInternet studies: the sample predominantlycomprises young, white, male adults who arewell educated and of high socioeconomic status(see Table 1 for the demographics of the cur-rent sample). Before describing more specifi-cally the sample’s representativeness, it is im-portant to note the difficulty in preciselyassessing the representativeness of an Internetsample due to the lack of consensus across In-ternet reports about the exact demographics ofthe Internet population (cf. Cyberatlas, 1997;Layton and Kanfer, 1996). Hence, in additionto evaluating the representativeness of this sam-ple with the range of demographic estimatesprovided by other studies of who is on the In-ternet, we also took into account (1) the timingof these studies in relation to ours and (2) the

T A B L E 1Sample Demographic by Exposure to Internet Advertising

How Often Look at Internet Advertising

Never

Less ThanOnce aMonth

Once aMonth

SeveralTimes aMonth Once a Week

SeveralTimes a

Week Every Day Total

GenderMale 18 (37.5%) 7 (30.4%) 23 (41.8%) 14 (30%) 46 (62.2%) 63 (67%) 45 (71.4%) 216 (54.4%)Female 30 (62.5%) 16 (69.6%) 32 (58.2%) 26 (65%) 28 (37.8%) 31 (33%) 18 (28.6%) 181 (45.6%)

Age18–24 4 (8.3%) 5 (21.7%) 15 (27.3%) 7 (17.5%) 20 (27%) 19 (20.2%) 10 (16.1%) 80 (20.2%)25–34 10 (20.8%) 7 (30.4%) 16 (29.1%) 18 (45%) 23 (31.1%) 27 (28.7%) 20 (32.3%) 121 (30.6%)35–44 14 (29.2%) 8 (34.8%) 11 (20%) 9 (22.5%) 14 (18.9%) 29 (30.9%) 19 (30.6%) 104 (26.3%)45–54 11 (22.9%) 2 (8.7%) 6 (10.9%) 5 (12.5%) 14 (18.9%) 12 (12.8%) 10 (16.1%) 60 (15.2%)55–64 9 (18.8%) 1 (4.3%) 7 (12.7%) 1 (2.5%) 3 (4.1%) 7 (7.4%) 3 (4.8%) 31 (7.8%)

EducationLess than high

school 1 (2.2%) 1 (4.3%) 2 (3.6%) 0 1 (1.4%) 5 (5.3%) 1 (1.6%) 11 (2.8%)High school

graduate 5 (10.9%) 2 (8.7%) 11 (20%) 4 (10%) 9 (12.2%) 15 (16%) 7 (11.1%) 53 (13.4%)Some college 11 (23.9%) 6 (26.1%) 9 (16.4%) 9 (22.5%) 26 (35.1%) 26 (27.7%) 12 (19%) 99 (25.1%)College graduate 15 (32.6%) 5 (21.7%) 19 (34.5%) 17 (42.5%) 20 (27%) 32 (34%) 23 (36.5%) 131 (33.2%)Postgraduate 14 (30.4%) 9 (39.1%) 14 (25.5%) 10 (25%) 18 (24.3%) 16 (17%) 20 (31.7%) 101 (25.6%)

IncomeLess than $15,000 0 1 (4.5%) 2 (4.1%) 3 (8.1%) 8 (12.5%) 2 (2.4%) 1 (1.8%) 17 (4.9%)$15,000–$24,999 1 (2.9%) 3 (13.6%) 6 (12.2%) 3 (8.1%) 6 (9.4%) 6 (7.3%) 4 (7.1%) 29 (8.4%)$25,000–$34,999 9 (25.7%) 3 (13.6%) 9 (18.4%) 7 (18.9%) 10 (15.6%) 13 (15.9%) 8 (14.3%) 59 (17.1%)$35,000–$49,999 7 (20.0%) 8 (36.4%) 8 (16.3%) 8 (21.6%) 11 (17.2%) 16 (19.5%) 8 (14.3%) 66 (19.1%)$50,000–$74,999 9 (25.7%) 5 (22.7%) 15 (32.7%) 7 (18.9%) 15 (23.4%) 26 (31.7%) 19 (33.9%) 97 (28.1%)$75,000–$99,999 2 (5.7%) 1 (4.5%) 5 (10.2%) 7 (18.9%) 5 (7.8%) 11 (13.4%) 8 (14.3%) 39 (11.3%)More than $100,000 7 (20%) 1 (4.5%) 3 (6.1%) 2 (5.4%) 9 (14.1%) 8 (9.8%) 8 (14.3%) 38 (11%)



40

effect of Internet usage on demographic esti-mates. The results indicate that the sample de-mographics are quite similar to those of otherstudies of Internet demographics.

With regard to the proportion of males versusfemales on the Internet, internet studies con-ducted from 1995 to 1997 suggest that 30-45% ofInternet users are female (Cyberatlas, 1997; Lay-ton and Kanfer, 1996). In our sample, 45.6% ofrespondents were female—an estimate similar tothat obtained in a study conducted around thesame time (45%, IntelliQuest, 1996). Some haveargued that the difference in reported propor-tions of females using the Internet may be due todiffering definitions of a user: That is, samples ofactive users have lower proportions of females(30%–35%), whereas samples of more casual us-ers have higher proportions (401%) of females(GVU, 1999). Our data support this postulate:examining exclusively those who look at IA severaltimes a week or more (i.e., active Internet users),only 31% are female. Indeed, the proportion offemales to males increases as the frequency ofexposure to IA decreases, suggesting that Internetexperience/exposure plays an important role inthe female-to-male ratio of one’s sample (see Ta-ble 1).

In past Internet demographic studies, the av-erage age of Internet users has ranged between32 and 35 years old, with this average age of theInternet population increasing over time (GVU,1999). In addition to the problems cited foranalyzing the representativeness of genderacross studies, difficulties in comparing agesacross studies is compounded by the problemthat many studies group respondents into dif-ferent age brackets. Comparing the current sur-vey to one using similar age brackets (the Inter-net user sample of the 1997 American InternetUser Survey by FIND/SVP Inc. Emerging Tech-nologies Research Group, 1997), we find thatthe percentage of respondents within these agebrackets are quite similar. In the current sam-ple, approximately 8% of the sample is over theage of 55 compared to the 1997 American In-ternet User Survey’s sample of 9%; 41.5% of thecurrent sample is 35–54 years old compared to43%; and 50.8% of the current sample is 18–34years old compared to 48%.

At the time of the current survey, the Internetpopulation was also very well educated and af-fluent. The majority of Internet users had ob-tained a college degree (56.1% according toGVU, 1999; 64% according to Nielsen MediaResearch, see Layton and Kanfer, 1996) and, onaverage, earned over $50,000 yearly (GVU,1999; Layton and Kanfer, 1996). The educationlevel of the current sample is similar: 58.8% ofrespondents had obtained their college degree.Furthermore, the percent of individuals earn-ing $50,000 or more (50.4%) is similar to Inter-net demographics information collected at asimilar time (48.1% earning over $50,000[GVU, 1999]). With regard to race, the vastmajority of the Internet population is white,both in this sample (84%) and in other studiesconducted at a similar time (87%; see Laytonand Kanfer, 1996).

Gender, age, education, income, and raceare the primary demographic variables used byInternet usage surveys to describe and assess theapproximate representativeness of an Internetsample (cf. FIND/SVP, 1997; GVU, 1999; Hoff-man, et al., 1996). Thus, the present Internetsample is demographically comparable to infor-mation emerging from other Internet demo-graphic and usage surveys.

Sample for Attitudes toward GATo compare the present sample’s attitudes to-ward IA with a demographically similar popula-tion’s attitudes towards advertising in general(GA), a data set of 1,004 participants nation-wide answering questions about GA was com-pared to the present IA data set (for a descrip-tion of the GA sample, see Shavitt, et al., 1998).Respondents in the GA sample answered thesame questions using the same formats as didthe IA sample, but the prefatory instructionsindicated that the questions referred to ads inall media (television, print, radio, Internet,etc.). To draw comparisons between the IA andGA samples, it was necessary to identify andmatch the samples along the demographic vari-ables influencing attitudes towards advertising.Because gender, age and education have beenshown to influence attitudes towards advertisingin general (see Shavitt, et al., 1998), the general



41

advertising sample was weighted along thesedemographics to match the IA sample (see Ap-pendix, Note 2). Hereafter, references to a de-mographically matched sample refer to thissample whose data were weighted to match thedemographics of the IA sample.

RESULTS

Responses to Attitudinal ItemsRespondents’ overall impressions of Internetadvertising were assessed with the question, “Ingeneral, do you like or dislike Internet advertis-ing?” The results indicated that respondents areapproximately equally divided in their percep-tions of IA: 38% liked IA, 35% disliked IA, and28% felt neutrally towards it. Hence, there islittle consensus among those who have had atleast some Internet experience about evalua-tions of IA. See Table 2 for results for all attitu-dinal items.

To examine whether the attitudinal resultsmight be due to the demographic characteris-tics of the Internet population rather than IAitself, responses toward IA were compared to ademographically matched sample’s responsestoward advertising in general (GA). From thiscomparison, we found that a higher proportionof participants liked GA (46%) and fewer dis-liked GA (25%) compared to those who evalu-ated IA. It appears, therefore, that significantlyfewer respondents liked IA than a demograph-ically similar sample liked GA (x2 5 16.02, p, .0001). This contrasts previous speculationthat IA would be judged as more valuable(thereby, more likeable) than GA (Ducoffe,1995). Possible reasons why proportionallyfewer people liked IA than liked GA are dis-cussed in the section, “Variables Contributingto IA Attitudes.”

To assess the relationship of the remaining16 IA items with overall attitudes toward IA, therelatedness of these items was analyzed usingprincipal components factor analysis (with vari-max rotation) and hierarchical cluster analysisusing the centroid method. Both analysesyielded the same 5 factors: (1) advertising utility(informative, entertaining, useful for making

decisions); (2) indignity; (3) trust; (4) priceperceptions; and (5) regulation. The results foreach item within each factor (for both the IAand weighted GA sample) are described belowand in Table 2. How these items contribute torespondents’ IA attitudes follow.

Advertising utility. The first factor consisted ofitems related to the value or effectiveness ofadvertising in meeting consumers’ needs.—thatis, how informative and entertaining the adver-tising is and how useful it is for making pur-chase decisions. Indeed, informativeness andentertainment have been identified as positivelycontributing to the perceived value of IA andadvertising in general (cf. Ducoffe, 1995; Du-coffe, 1996; Eighmey, 1997). The informationalitem loading on this factor was, “Most Internetadvertising is informative.” The majority of par-ticipants agreed either somewhat or stronglythat IA is informative (62%). However, they didnot hold such a favorable view of IA’s enjoyable-ness. In response to the entertainment item, “ Ilike to look at most of the advertisements on theInternet that I am exposed to,” nearly half ofthe respondents disagreed either somewhat orstrongly (49%; see Note 3 in Appendix). Only alittle over a third enjoyed looking at IA (38%).

This demographic group does not find alladvertising to be informative yet unentertain-ing. Compared to respondents’ perceptions ofIA, a higher proportion of a demographicallymatched sample found GA to be uninformative(31% vs. 19%). Furthermore, among these de-mographically matched samples, significantlyfewer respondents enjoyed looking at IA thanGA (38% vs. 50%). Thus, it appears that withinthis demographic group, IA is perceived as in-formative but not entertaining, especially incomparison to advertising in general.

One of the behavioral (purchase) items was“How often do you use information from Inter-net advertising to help you make your purchasedecisions?” That is, how often they have used IAinformation to make purchases either online oroffline (in stores, mail order, etc.). Only a thirdreported using IA information to make a pur-chase decision—a small percentage comparedto a demographically matched sample’s usage



42

T A B L E 2Internet Users’ Attitudes Toward IA: Comparison with a Demographically Matched Sample’s Attitudes Toward GA

Attitude

Like Neutral Dislike x2 (p-value)

In general, do you like or dislike advertising?Sample with IA question version 38% 28% 35% 16.02 (p 5 .000)Sample1 with GA question version 46% 29% 25%

Advertising Utility

Agree Neutral Disagree x2 (p-value)

Most advertising is informativeSample with IA question version 62% 19% 19% 33.38 (p 5 .000)Sample1 with GA question version 59% 10% 31%

I like to look at most advertisementsthat I am exposed to

Sample with IA question version 38% 13% 49% 18.44 (p 5 .000)Sample1 with GA question version 50% 13% 38%

Sometimes/Often Never/Seldom

How often do you use advertising tohelp make your purchasedecisions?

Sample with IA question version 33% 67% 132.49 (p 5 .000)Sample1 with GA question version 67% 33%

Somewhat/Very Not at All/Not Very

In general, how confident do yougenerally feel using informationyou see in an ad to make apurchase decision?


Indignity

Disagree Neutral Agree x2 (p-value)

Most advertising insults my intelligenceSample with IA question version 54% 22% 24% 62.75 (p 5 .000)Sample1 with GA question version 46% 15% 39%


How often do you feel offended byadvertisements?

Sample with IA question version 29% 71% 2.55 (p 5 .000)



43


Sample1 with GA questionversion 48% 52%

How often have you felt misled byadvertisements?

Sample with IA question version 33% 67% 135.66 (p 5 .000)Sample1 with GA question

version 67% 33%

Trust


In general, I feel I can trustadvertising


* Products that I have used usuallylive up to the promises ofquality and performance madein their advertisements


Somewhat/Very Not at All/Not Very

How comfortable are you aboutpurchasing an item directlythrough an address or phonenumber in an advertisement—for example, by using a 1-800number?


Price Perceptions


* In general, advertising results inlower prices for the products Ibuy


* I usually get better value for mymoney in advertised brands ofproducts than in unadvertisedbrands

Sample with IA question version 22% 50% 28% 144.09 (p5.000)Sample1 with GA question version 35% 19% 47%



44

T A B L E 2Continued

Increases No Effect Decreases

What effect do you think advertisinghas on the prices of advertisedproducts?


Regulation


* I think the government shouldput less effort into regulatingthe content of advertising I see


* Advertising regulation should bedone by the advertisingindustry through its memberassociations rather than by thegovernment


Too Much Just Right Too Little

How do you feel about the amountof regulation which thegovernment currently places onadvertising


Note: The GA (general advertising) question versions are those given in the table. The IA question versions are the same but in regard toInternet advertising rather than advertising in general.1 This sample is weighted to match the demographics of the Internet sample and as such do not represent Internet users per se.* These were dual version items. Half of the participants were asked the question phrased favorably toward advertising, while the other halfwere asked the question phrased unfavorably toward advertising.Underlined percentages are those pairwise comparisons (between the two samples) that are significantly different at p , .05.The chi-square results represent whether the samples differed in how people responded to the question. The top and bottom two boxes ofthe 5-point Likert-type items were collapsed into agree and disagree respectively for analysis of those questions involving statements ofagreement.



45

T A B L E 2Continued

of advertising in general to make a purchasedecision (33% vs. 67%). It is unlikely that theperceived informativeness of IA contributes tothis lack of using IA for purchasing decisions.Indeed, as previously mentioned, a high per-centage of respondents (62%) found IA to beinformative. Nor does confidence in using IA tomake a purchase decision appear to be imped-ing consumers’ usage of IA for purchase deci-sions. In response to the other behavioral item,“In general, how confident do you generallyfeel about using information you see in an In-ternet ad to make a purchase decision?” 70% ofthe Internet sample responded that they feltsomewhat or very confident about using IA.Perhaps instead, there is a lack of opportunityto directly use information from the Internet tomake a purchase decision (e.g., a lack of salesannouncements, store locators, price listings onthe Internet [see Schlosser and Kanfer, 1999a).

In sum, over half of internet users find IAinformative and are at least somewhat confidentin using the information for purchase decisions.The weakest aspects of IA’s utility are its abilityto deliver entertainment and to encourage pur-chase.

Indignity. Overall, relatively few respondentsfelt insulted, offended, and misled by IA. Again,this is not a global view of advertising by thisdemographic group: fewer felt indignant to-ward IA than a demographically similar samplefelt about GA. For instance, only a quarter ofparticipants (24%) agreed that “Most Internetadvertising insults my intelligence” compared tonearly half of respondents who agreed that GAinsults their intelligence (46%). In addition,few felt at least sometimes offended (29%) ormisled by IA (33%), whereas nearly half ormore of a demographically similar sample felt atleast sometimes offended (48%) or misled byGA (67%). This is consistent with Ducoffe’s(1996) speculation that IA would be less irritat-ing than GA because the interactivity of IA al-lows consumers to tailor the ad to meet theirindividual needs. Because consumers are incontrol of the IA viewed, they may perceive theself-selected IA to be appropriate for them—

essentially, less insulting, offensive, and mis-leading.

Trust. In addition to confidence in using IA tomake a purchase decision, more participantsfelt they could generally trust IA than felt theycould not trust IA (48% vs. 31%; see Note 4 inAppendix). In fact, a higher percentage feltthey could trust IA than liked IA (38%). Thiscontrasts with a demographically similar sam-ple’s views of GA: whereas only 31% felt IAcould not be trusted, 50% felt that GA could notbe trusted. In fact, nearly a third of GA respon-dents (31%) felt that the products they use“usually fail to live up to the promises of qualityand performance made in [general] advertise-ments.” Only 12% of IA respondents agreedthat the products they use generally fail to liveup to IA promises. This small percentage, how-ever, is likely due to consumers’ lack of experi-ence (or association) between IA and their pur-chase behavior. Indeed, over half (51%)neither agreed nor disagreed with this state-ment.

To test whether actual experience in using IAto make purchasing decisions affected consum-ers’ responses to this question, the responses ofthose who reported they had (at least seldom)used IA to make a purchase decision (n 5 283)were compared to those who reported they hadnever used IA to make a purchase decision (n5 119). The results indicated that most of thosewho have never used IA neither agreed nor dis-agreed that the products they use live up to IApromises (75% compared to 41% who have usedIA; see Table 3). Thus, lack of experience appearsto partly account for the neutral responses. Ofthose with some experience using IA, moreagreed that the products live up to IA promises(45%) than disagreed (13%).

Consistent with the findings for trustworthi-ness, 42% of the IA sample reported feelingsomewhat or very comfortable purchasing anitem directly through an address or phonenumber in an Internet ad compared to only34% of a demographically similar sample feel-ing comfortable about purchasing through anaddress or phone number available in GA (seeTable 2). Overall, therefore, it appears that the



46

Internet population finds IA to provide rela-tively trustworthy information.

Price Perceptions. For advertising in general,advertising is perceived to increase productprices, a view that the public appears to haveheld for decades (e.g., see Bauer and Greyser,1968; Gallup, 1959). This persistent and com-monly-held perception is likely due to consum-ers’ (1) awareness that advertising is expensiveand/or (2) experience in price comparisonsbetween advertised and unadvertised brands. Itis unlikely to be due to the perception thatadvertised brands are of higher quality—only35% of the GA sample agreed that they getbetter value in advertised brands.

The responses for Internet advertising, how-ever, were quite different. Most did not perceiveIA to increase prices. In fact, 35% stated that IAhas no effect on the prices of products they buyand 34% stated that IA lowers prices of theproducts they buy. The relatively high percent-age of neutral responses again may be due tolack of experience in using IA to make purchasedecisions. Indeed, comparing those who haveversus have not used IA to make a purchasedecision (see Table 3), half of those who havenever used IA neither agreed nor disagreed thatIA lowers product prices (50%). Surprisingly,43% of those who have used IA believe it lowersprices for the products they have purchased.

When asked whether IA in general increases,

T A B L E 3Effect of Experience Using IA to Make Purchase Decisions on Perceptions of IA

Promises and Product Prices


* Products that I have usedusually live up to thepromises of quality andperformance made in theirInternet advertisments

Never used IA 18% 75% 8%Have used IA 45% 41% 13% 37.95 (p5.000)

* In general, Internet advertisingresults in lower prices forthe products I buy


* I usually get better value formy money in brandsadvertised on the Internetthan in unadvertised brands


Increases No Effect Decreases

What effect do you thinkInternet advertising has on theprices of advertised products?


* Dual version items.



47

decreases or has no effect on product prices,the majority of the sample said that IA has noeffect (56%, see Table 2). This was true for boththose who have and have never used IA to makea purchase decision (55% and 59% respectively,see Table 3). This may appear contradictory tothe previously mentioned agreement that “Ingeneral, [IA] results in lower prices for theproducts I buy.” However, it may be due to thedifference in focus between “products I buy”and products in general. For instance, perhapsrespondents have used IA primarily to find theleast expensive product. Or perhaps wordingthe question in terms of “products I buy” mayhave triggered thoughts about their own profi-ciency in using the Internet to locate good bar-gains. Respondents may believe that the Inter-net, if used effectively, can result in lower prices.However, they may believe that IA itself doesnot necessarily have any impact on productprices. Overall (and in sharp contrast to percep-tions of GA), consumers do not feel that IAincreases product prices.

In terms of value, half of the respondentsneither agreed nor disagreed that they get bet-ter value in brands advertised on the Internetthan unadvertised brands (see Table 2). Notsurprisingly, this was especially true amongthose who have never used IA to make a pur-chase decision (61%; see Table 3). Yet, evenamong those who have used IA to make a pur-chase decision, more responded neutrally(46%) than agreed (25%) or disagreed (29%).This common neutral response may be due toconsumers’ lack of awareness of whether thebrands they have purchased are also advertisedon the Internet.

Regulation. The majority of the IA sample(60%) wanted less government regulation ofthe IA that they view (vs. 28% wanting more).Most felt that IA regulation should be done bythe advertising industry (67%; 55% felt thesame way about GA regulation). The findingthat most IA respondents wanted less govern-ment involvement in IA regulation is particu-larly noteworthy given the results of a demo-graphically similar sample: there was a leaningtoward more government regulation of the GA

content respondents themselves viewed ratherthan less (48% vs. 39% respectively).

The majority view that industry (rather thangovernment) should regulate IA content maybe due to media coverage centering around theCommunications Decency Act. During the timeof this survey, respondents may have been ex-posed to the black Web pages with blue rib-bons—indicators of people’s protests againstthe government’s regulation of Internet con-tent. Yet, sentiment against government regula-tion of IA seems to apply mainly to ads thatrespondents themselves view; when rating gov-ernment regulation of IA in general terms, mostrespondents were satisfied (54% say the amountof government regulation is just right).

Variables Contributing to AttitudesToward IA

The previous section was devoted to examiningrespondents’ impressions of specific aspects ofIA, and as such, focused upon the pattern ofresults within each questionnaire item acrossindividuals. In this section, the relation betweenthe different questionnaire items within individ-uals is examined.

In order to examine which factors contrib-uted to respondents’ judgments of IA, the itemswithin each of the five factors were averagedand then regressed on overall IA attitudes (i.e.,the degree to which respondents liked or dis-liked IA) using stepwise regression procedures.The results indicated that 43% of the variancein overall IA attitudes could be explained by theadvertising utility factor alone. The next rele-vant factor, the indignity factor, led to an addi-tional 2% explanation of the variance (R2 5 .45with the advertising utility and indignity factorsin the model). With all of the factors in themodel, an additional 4% of the variance wasexplained beyond what the advertising utilityfactor could explain (R2 5 .47), indicating thatthe advertising utility factor alone accountedfor much of the variance in overall IA attitudes.

To examine which specific items contributed(and to what degree contributed) to respon-dents’ IA attitudes, the 16 attitudinal items wereseparately regressed on overall attitudes towardsIA using stepwise regression procedures. The



48

results indicated that 42% of the variance inattitudes toward IA could be accounted for byresponses to three of the four items in the ad-vertising utility factor: how informative IA is(standardized b 5 .23), how enjoyable it is tolook at (standardized b 5 .38), and how often itis used to make a purchase decision (standard-ized b 5 .22). Entering additional items into theregression model explained little incrementalvariance (5%) in attitudes toward IA (R2 5 .47when the probability of F-to-enter at .05 wasreached). Hence, even when the questionnaireitems were entered separately into the regres-sion equation (rather than aggregated intotheir respective factor and then regressed), themajority of the advertising utility items contrib-uted most to IA attitudes. More importantly, theenjoyment item contributed most to IA atti-tudes and the behavioral item contributednearly equally to the informativeness item. How-ever, recall that the enjoyment and behavioralratings are those on which IA is suffering (seeTable 2), suggesting that these are areas inwhich IA needs to be particularly improved.

To assess the structure of a demographicallysimilar sample’s overall attitudes toward GA, the5 factors were regressed on GA attitudes usingstepwise regression procedures. Like IA atti-tudes, the advertising utility factor explainedthe majority of variance in attitudes toward GA(R2 5 .33), with the indignity factor contribut-ing an additional 3% explanation in variance(R2 5 .36). Entering all of the factors into theregression model contributed little beyondwhat these two factors could explain (R2 5 .38with all variables in the model). Also like atti-tudes toward IA, when all 16 attitudinal itemswere regressed on overall GA attitudes, re-sponses to three of the four items in the adver-tising utility factor accounted for much of thevariance (R2 5 .35). Similar to the relativeweightings of IA attitudes, how enjoyable re-spondents found GA to look at had the highestweighting in respondents’ attitudes toward GA(standardized b 5 .38). Respondents’ ratings ofhow informative GA is (standardized b 5 .20),and how often it is used to make a purchasedecision (standardized b 5 .19) were similarlyweighted. Overall, it appears that the structure

and relative weightings of the factors influenc-ing attitudes toward GA and IA are similar.

DISCUSSIONA representative sample of Internet users (ac-cording to recent demographic estimates) an-swered questions centering around five themesin addition to overall attitudes toward IA: (1)advertising utility, (2) feelings of indignity to-ward advertising, (3) trust of advertising, (4)advertising’s effect on product prices and (5)advertising regulation. The results suggest thatInternet users’ perceptions of IA are generallypositive. Although Internet users were equallydivided in the favorability of their IA attitudes,over half found IA informative, were not in-sulted by IA, and felt confident in using IA forpurchase decisions. Furthermore, of those withexperience using IA for purchase decisions,more appeared to be satisfied than dissatisfiedwith IA: over 40% believed that products livedup to the IA promises and that IA lowers productprices (less than 30% of respondents dis-agreed).

Given these favorable responses, it may seemsurprising that so few (38%) reported an overallfavorable attitude toward IA. One might pro-pose that this demographic group (young,highly educated and affluent males) may have ageneral dislike of advertising, both on the In-ternet and in traditional forms. Indeed, recentresearch would support this notion with regardsto traditional advertising (cf. Alwitt and Prab-hakar, 1992; Shavitt et al., 1998). However, com-parisons of the IA sample with a sample whoanswered the same questions in regards to ad-vertising in general (and whose data wereweighted to match the demographics of the IAsample) yielded significant differences in atti-tudes and perceptions of IA versus GA. Al-though fewer respondents liked IA than a de-mographically matched sample liked GA, forseveral specific, key dimensions, perceptions ofIA were more favorable than perceptions of GA.For instance, fewer respondents felt indignanttoward IA or felt that IA was untrustworthy com-pared to respondents’ perceptions of GA. More-over, contrasting the common perception that



49

advertising increases product prices, few peoplefelt that IA increases product prices. Still, de-spite these favorable impressions, fewer Inter-net users liked IA than a demographically sim-ilar sample liked GA. This does not imply thatInternet users perceive GA and IA differentlybut that samples demographically characteristicof the Internet population (a higher proportionof well-educated, young, affluent males than thenational average) perceive GA and IA differ-ently. That is, the unique demographic charac-teristics of Internet users cannot account for thenature of their attitudes toward IA.

In order to gauge the components contribut-ing to attitudes toward IA, a stepwise regressionanalysis was conducted. The results indicatedthat consumers’ IA attitudes were largely com-prised of perceptions regarding the informa-tional, entertainment, and behavioral utility ofadvertising (i.e., the advertising utility factor).This is consistent with theorizing that informa-tion and entertainment are crucial to advertis-ing effectiveness from the consumer’s point ofview (Ducoffe, 1995; Ducoffe, 1996; Eighmey,1997). By drawing upon the tripartite theory ofattitudes (Katz and Stotland, 1959; Rosenbergand Hovland, 1960), it was further proposedthat behavioral utility would also be related toattitudes toward advertising. Supporting this no-tion, the perceived utility of advertising for mak-ing purchase decisions (behavior) was found tobe a significant predictor of overall attitudestoward IA.

Although IA attitudes may be considered“new” relative to GA attitudes, the results indi-cated that the structure of attitudes toward IA isthe same as that for GA attitudes. The consis-tency in attitudinal structure in these samplessupports recent speculation that traditional as-sessments of advertising effectiveness (i.e., theinformation and entertainment value) wouldapply to advertising on the Web (Ducoffe, 1995;Eighmey, 1997). However, not only do theserespondents appear to judge IA and GA adver-tising by the same criteria, but also these criteriahave a relatively similar influence on attitudestoward IA and GA. In the case of both IA andGA, entertainment contributed more to adver-tising attitudes than the informativeness or be-

havioral utility of advertising did. Hence, enter-tainment appears to figure prominently in theserespondents’ attitudes toward traditional andInternet advertising.

Despite the similar structure of attitudes to-ward both IA and GA, the favorability of thoseattitudes differed: fewer participants liked IAthan GA. This does not appear to be due toperceptions of the informativeness as much asthe entertainment value of IA. In comparisonwith GA, a similar proportion of respondentsfound IA to be informative but fewer found it tobe entertaining. Indeed, current commercialWeb sites appear to include features that wouldallow users to benefit from the informationrichness of the medium while ignoring thosefeatures that would engage the consumer (e.g.,role-playing and interactivity, Schlosser andKanfer, 1999a). Moreover, enjoyment associ-ated with the advertisement contributes most toconsumers’ attitudes toward IA (and GA), sug-gesting that on-line businesses should invest increating sites that consumers enjoy visiting, justas they invest in creating traditional advertise-ments that are enjoyable.

This is not to suggest that Internet advertise-ments should include more features that havebeen found to be entertaining in the mass me-dia (e.g., attractive visuals, humor), but ratherfeatures that have been found to be entertain-ing on the Internet. Such features include thoseunique to the Internet such as interactive prod-uct demonstrations (Schlosser and Kanfer,1999b).

Contributing nearly as much as perceived in-formativeness to IA attitudes is the perceived be-havioral (purchasing) utility of advertising. Cur-rently most consumers report that they rarely ifever use IA to make a purchase decision, in spiteof the consensus among Internet users that IA isinformative and relatively trustworthy for makingpurchasing decisions. Perhaps few people ac-knowledge using IA to make offline purchasingdecisions (e.g., via phone or at a local store) be-cause the relation between IA and purchasing isless clear than the relation between GA and off-line purchasing. Compounding this problem maybe the fact that most commercial Web sites lackfeatures that would facilitate online and offline



50

purchasing, such as a store locator or 800-numberlisted online (see Schlosser and Kanfer, 1999a).

It is perhaps not surprising that price andregulation perceptions contributed little tooverall advertising attitudes—this replicates pre-vious GA findings from a sample representativeof the U.S. population as a whole (Shavitt et al.,1998). What is somewhat surprising is that trustand indignity (affective variables) contributedso little to IA (and GA) attitudes. It is possiblethat the advertising utility items already cap-tured the effect of trust and indignity on atti-tudes toward advertising. For instance, trust islikely reflected in usage of advertising to make apurchase decision (the behavioral utility of ad-vertising). Indeed, reported usage of IA formaking purchase decisions was related to theitems within the trust factor (.24 , r , .27).However, none of the items within the advertis-ing utility factor were consistently related to allof the indignity items, suggesting that the effectof the indignity items on advertising attitudeswas not entirely accounted for by the advertis-ing utility factor.

Another possibility is that this highly edu-cated sample has relatively complex schemas foradvertising, comprising perceptions of advertis-ing at different levels of specificity. Conse-quently, the different question items may havetapped attitudes at these different levels. Whenasked for their overall attitudes toward advertis-ing and their responses toward the advertisingutility items, respondents may have answered interms of their perceptions of IA or GA gener-ally. However, the indignity and trust questionsmay have activated specific advertising exem-plars or instances in which they felt advertisinginsulted them or tested their trust. As a result,the advertising utility items may have beenmore predictive of attitudes toward IA and GAoverall, whereas the indignity and trust factorsmay have been more reflective of attitudes to-ward specific IA and GA campaigns.

It appears that there is significant commer-cial potential for IA to facilitate sales transac-tions. Indeed, in terms of trusting the commer-cial content, more people feel comfortablepurchasing from a phone number listed in anInternet advertisement than a demographically

similar sample felt about purchasing from anumber listed in advertising in general. As men-tioned earlier in the discussion, more of thosewho have used IA to make a purchase decisionhad favorable rather than unfavorable impres-sions of IA’s effects on product quality andprices for the products they purchased (.40%vs. ,30%). Of those with no experience usingIA, most held a neutral stance regarding IA’seffect on product quality and prices, which con-trasts the common perception that traditionaladvertising increases product prices. At the timeof the survey, therefore, it appeared that a size-able proportion of Internet users have confi-dence in the content of IA and in making pur-chases based on that content, or at least arewilling to give IA the benefit of the doubt, es-pecially compared to the number of peoplewith confidence in GA.

In addition, the results are consistent withprevious speculation that the interactive, “pull”nature of IA makes it less irritating to consum-ers than the “push” nature of GA (Ducoffe,1996). Compared to a demographically similarsample’s perceptions of GA, fewer respondentsfelt insulted, offended, and misled by IA. Per-haps because Internet consumers play an activerole in selecting the advertisements they view,they feel that the advertising content is moreappropriate and suitable to their needs. Indeed,in the dawn of Internet marketing, it was pro-posed that Internet users would accept com-mercial content only if it was requested ratherthan intruded upon their attention (Hawkins,1994). This would suggest that efforts to employa push technology to IA (Andrews, 1989; Bank,1996) might increase consumers’ feelings of dis-content toward IA.

CONCLUDING REMARKAudience members play an active role in ad-

vertising exposure on the Internet. In additionthe potential clash between Internet cultureand marketing goals creates a situation whereconsumers may respond more negatively to IAthan to GA. (Schlosser and Kanfer, forthcom-ing) Therefore, it is important to understandthe structure and favorability of their attitudes



51

toward IA. This paper builds upon previous IAresearch (Ducoffe, 1996; Mehta and Sivadas,1995) in addressing this topic and like previousresearch, serves as a building block in our un-derstanding of consumer response in an onlinecommercial environment. However, becauseU.S. Internet demographics are constantlychanging in the direction of reflecting the gen-eral U.S. demographics (GVU, 1999), more sur-veys will be needed to assess attitudes and thestructure of attitudes in this changing popula-tion.

APPENDIX: NOTES ON THE TEXT

1. For four of the six questions, there wereno significant differences between re-sponses to the question worded favorablyversus unfavorably toward advertising, x2

, 5.65, p . .05. The question wordingaffected participants’ responses to theperceived effect of advertising on pricesfor the products they buy (x2 5 15.39, p, .0001) and the amount of effort thegovernment should put into regulatingthe IA they view. For the latter item,however, there was little difference in thepattern of results: the majority of respon-dents agreed that the governmentshould put less effort into regulating ad-vertising content that they view (53%and 68%). For the former item, questionwording affected the pattern of results.When the question was worded favorablytowards IA (it lowers product prices),44% of respondents agreed and 31% re-sponded neutrally. When the questionwas worded unfavorably towards IA (itincreases product prices), 25% perceivedIA to decrease prices and 40% re-sponded neutrally. It is possible thatquestion wording influenced partici-pants’ responses regarding prices ofproducts they buy because consumersmay not believe strongly that IA increases(or decreases) prices. Indeed, questionwording strongly influenced responses ofthose within the sample who reportednever using IA to make a purchase deci-

sion (n 5 119; x2 5 15.43, p , .0001).For those who have had some experienceusing IA to make a purchase decision (n5 283), the pattern of results appearedto be less affected by question wording(x2 5 9.09, p , .05). In contrast, GA iscommonly perceived to increase productprices. Indeed, in a sample representa-tive of the U.S. population, questionwording had little effect on consumers’perceptions of the effect of GA on prod-uct prices (Shavitt et al., 1998).

2. Although there were also income andrace differences in attitudes toward ad-vertising in general, there were notenough individuals per cell in the 2 (gen-der) 3 3 (age) 3 2 (education) 3 2 (income)3 2 (race) demographic breakdown toweight the sample according to all fivedemographic variables. More specifi-cally, there were not enough non-whiteparticipants within each cell to weightthe samples by race (white/non-white).Furthermore, education and incomewere highly correlated, resulting in someof the income 3 education cells beingnearly empty. Analyses were conductedweighting for gender, age and either ed-ucation or income. The results werenearly identical between the weightingsfor education and for income. Becauseseveral respondents refused to divulgesalary information, the results of the sam-ple weighted by gender, age, and educa-tion are reported here.

3. The “like to look at” question in the GAquestionnaire tapped the entertainmentvalue of GA and for comparability is usedin the IA questionnaire similarly to assessthe entertainment value of IA. While theterm is relatively broad and may be inter-preted as a utility factor, the correlationbetween this item and reported usage ofIA for making purchase decisions is r5 .39, suggesting that the entertainmentitem is distinct from “behaviorial utility.”

4. One might expect parents to be particu-larly distrustful of IA given media cover-



52

age regarding the suitability of Internetcontent for children (cf. Miller, 1997)and the inability of computer programsto effectively shield children from inap-propriate Internet content (Consumer Re-ports, 1997). Interestingly, however, therewere no differences in reported level oftrust in IA between those respondentswith versus without young children.

REFERENCES

Alwitt, L. F., & Prabhakar, P. R. (1992). Functional andBelief Dimensions of Attitudes to Television Adver-tising. Journal of Advertising Research, 32(5), 30–42.

Alwitt, L. F. & Prabhaker, P. R. (1994). Identifying whodislikes television advertising: Not by demographicsalone. Journal of Advertising Research, 34 (6), 17–29.

Andrews, J. C. (1989). The Dimensionality of BeliefsToward Advertising in General. Journal of Advertis-ing, 18(1), 26–35.

Andrews, W. (1997). On Wall Street’s IPO Short List:Point Cast and Marimba. Web Week, 3(8), 34–36.

Bank, D. (1996). How the Net Is Becoming More LikeTelevision to Draw Advertisers. Wall Street Journal,A1.

Bauer, R. A., & Greyser, S. A. (1968). Advertising inAmerica: The Consumer View. Boston: Harvard Uni-versity, Graduate School of Business Administration,Division of Research.

Berthon, P., Pitt, L. F., & Watson, R. T. (1996). TheWorld Wide Web as an Advertising Medium: Towardan Understanding of Conversion Efficiency. Journalof Advertising Research, 43–54.

Briggs, R. & Hollis, N. (1997). Advertising on the Web:Is There Response Before Click-Through? Journal ofAdvertising Research, 37, 33–45.

Consumer Reports (1997). Guarding Young Web-Surf-ers: Don’t Count on Special Software to Protect Kid’sPrivacy, 17.

Cyberatlas (1997). Advertising. http://cyberatlas.com/advertising.html

Cyberatlas (1998). Sharp Rise in Online Ad Spending:Computer Industry Leads Way. http://cyberatlas.in-ternet.com/segments/advertising/ad_spending-.html

Diaz, A., Hammond, K., & McWilliam, G. (1996). AStudy of Web Use and Attitudes Amongst Novices,Moderate Users and Heavy Users, working paper no.

96-806, Centre for Marketing, London BusinessSchool.

Ducoffe, R. (1995). How Consumers Assess the Value ofAdvertising. Journal of Current Issues and Researchin Advertising, 17(1), 1–18.

Ducoffe, R. H. (1996). Advertising Value and Advertis-ing on the Web. Journal of Advertising Research,21–35.

Eagly, A.H. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology ofAttitudes. Hartcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Eighmey, J. (1997, May–June). Profiling User Re-sponses to Commercial Web Sites. Journal of Adver-tising Research, 37, 59–66.

Fawcett, A. W. (1995, October). Interactive AwarenessGrowing. Advertising Age, 66, 20.

FIND/SVP Inc. Emerging Technologies Group (1997).The 1997 American Internet User Survey: RealitiesBeyond the Hype, http://etrg.findsvp.com/inter-net/findf.html

Gordon, M. E. & De Lima-Turner, K. (forthcoming).Consumer Attitudes Toward Internet Advertising: ASocial Contract Approach. International MarketingReview.

Grant Thorton LLP (1997, Jan. 2). Midsize U.S. Man-ufacturers Have Yet to Feel the Internet’s Impact,and Some Doubt They Will, Reveals Grant ThortonStudy. http://www.gt.com/gtonline/mandist/gt-sam/netnr.html

Gupta, S. (1995). HERMES: A Research Project on theCommercial Uses of the World Wide Web. http://www.umich.edu/s̃gupta/hermes

GVU (1999). GVU’s WWW User Surveys. http://www.c-c.gatech.edu/gvu/user_surveys.

Hammonds, K. H. (1997). Who’s Doing What On-Line.http://www.businessweek.com/1997/18/b352514.htm.

Hawkins, D. T. (1994, March). Electronic Advertising:On Online Information Systems. Online, 26–39.

Hoffman, D. L., Kalsbeek, W. D. & Novak, T. P. (1996).Internet and Web Use in the United States: Baselinesfor Commercial Development. Special Section on“Internet in the Home.” Communications of theACM. 39, 36–46.

Hoffman, D. L. & Novak, T. P. (1996a). A New Market-ing Paradigm for Electronic Commerce. The Infor-mation Society, 13, 43–54.

Hoffman, D. L. & Novak, T. P. (1996b). Marketing inHypermedia Computer-Mediated Environments: Con-ceptual Foundations. Journal of Marketing, 60, 50–68.

Hoffman, D. L., Novak, T. P., & Chatterjee, P. (1995).Commercial Scenarios for the Web: Opportunitiesand Challenges. Journal of Computer-Mediated



53

Communication, 1(3), [on-line]. Available: http://jcmc.huji.ac.il/vol1/issue3/hoffman.html.

Intelliquest (1996) http://www.intelliquest.com.Internet Advertising Bureau (1997). Online Advertis-

ing Effectiveness Study, [on-line]. http://www.mbin-teractive.com/site/iab/study.html.

Jupiter Communications (1997). Jupiter Model DefinesOnline Ad/Direct Marketing Convergence [on-line]. http://www.jup.com/jupiter/release/aug97/online.shtml.

Katz, D. & Stotland, E. (1959). A Preliminary Statementto a Theory of Attitude Structure and Change. In S.Kock (Ed.), Psychology: A Study of a Science vol. 3),423–475.

Layton, J. & Kanfer, A. (1996). Summary of InternetSurveys, [on-line]. http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/edu/trg/survey/.

Lutz, R. J. (1985). Affective and cognitive antecedentsof attitude toward the ad: A conceptual framework.In L.F. Alwitt & A.A. Mitchell (Eds.), PsychologicalProcesses and Advertising Effects: Theory, Research,and Application. Hillsboro, NJ: Erlbaum.

Mehta, R. & Sivadas, E. (1995). Direct Marketing on theInternet: An Empirical Assessment of Consumer At-titudes. Journal of Direct Marketing, 9 (3), 21–32.

Miller, C. (1996, October). Studies: Consumer On-LineInterest Leveling Off. Marketing News, 30, 7. [Au:Please cite C. Miller ref in text.]

Miller, L. (1997). Parents Ask: Will Internet SafeguardsGo Far Enough? USA Today, 1–2A.

Mittal, B. (1994). Public Assessment of TV Advertising:Faint Praise and Harsh Criticism. Journal of Adver-tising Research, 35–53.

Muehling, D. D. (1987). An Investigation of FactorsUnderlying Attitude-Toward-Advertising-in-General.Journal of Advertising, 16(1), 32–40.

O’Donohoe, S. (1995). Attitudes to Advertising: A Re-view of British and American Research. Interna-tional Journal of Advertising, 14, 245–261.

Pollay, R. W. & Mittal, B. (1993). Here’s the Beef:Factors, Determinants, and Segments in ConsumerCriticism of Advertising. Journal of Marketing,57(3), 99–114.

Reid, L. N. & Soley, L. C. (1982). Generalized andPersonalized Attitudes Toward Advertising’s Social

and Economic Effects. Journal of Advertising, 11(3),3–7.

Riphagen, J. & Kanfer, A. (1997). In Search of theElusive User: Gathering Information on Web ServerAccess. http://www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/edu/trg/web-stats/

Rosenberg, M. J. & Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive,Affective and Behavioral Components of Attitudes.In C. I. Hovland & M.J. Rosenberg (Eds.), AttitudeOrganization and Change: An Analysis of Consis-tency Among Attitude Components. New Haven,CT: Yale University Press, pp. 1–14).

Sandage, C. H. & Leckenby, J. D. (1980). Student Atti-tudes Toward Advertising: Institution vs. Instrument.Journal of Advertising 9(2), 29–32.

Schlosser, A. & Kanfer, A. (forthcoming). Culture clashin Internet marketing. In M. J. Shaw, R. Blanning, T.Strader & A. Whinston (Eds.), Handbook on Elec-tronic Commerce. Springer Verlag.

Schlosser, A., and Kanfer, A. (1999a). Current advertis-ing on the Internet: The benefits and usage ofmixed-media advertising strategies. In D. Schumann& E. Thorson (Eds.), Advertising and the WorldWide Web. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-ates, pp. 41–60.

Schlosser, A. & Kanfer, A. (1999). Commercial web siteand brand impressions as a function of task goal andsite features, working paper.

Shavitt, S., Lowrey, P. M. & Haefner, J. E. (1998, July/August). Public Attitudes Toward Advertising: MoreFavorable Than You Might Think. Journal of Adver-tising Research, 7–22.

Study of Public Attitudes Toward Advertising, A (1959).Princeton, NJ: Gallup Organization, Inc.

Sudman, S. & Bradburn, N.M. (1982). Asking Ques-tions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Zanot, E. J. (1981). Public Attitudes Toward Advertis-ing. In H. Keith Hunt (Ed.) Advertising in a NewAge—AAA Proceedings. Provo, UT: American Acad-emy of Advertising.

Zanot, E. J. (1984). Public Attitudes Toward Advertis-ing: The American Experience.

International Journal of Advertising, 3, 3–15.



54

SURVEY OF INTERNET USERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD INTERNET...

Documents

Transcript of SURVEY OF INTERNET USERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD INTERNET...