Contextualadvertisinginonlinecommunication:Aninvestigationofrelationshipsbetweenmultiple

contenttypesonawebpage

SusanneFranziskaWaechter

Athesissubmittedto

AucklandUniversityofTechnology

Inpartialfulfilmentoftherequirementsforthedegreeof

MasterofCommunicationStudies(MCS)

2010

SchoolofCommunicationStudies

PrimarySupervisor:GudrunFrommherz

I|P a g e

TableofContents

ListofFiguresandTables ................................................................................. III

AttestationofAuthorship................................................................................. IV

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................... V

EthicalApproval................................................................................................ VI

Abstract ........................................................................................................... VII

1. Introduction................................................................................................ 1

2. Literaturereview ........................................................................................ 5

2.1 Marketing ............................................................................................. 6

2.1.1 Internetmarketing ...................................................................... 10

2.2 AdvertisingandOnlineadvertising .................................................... 13

2.2.1 Onlineadvertising........................................................................ 16

2.2.2 Contextualadvertising................................................................. 20

2.3 Semiotics ............................................................................................ 25

2.3.1 Socialsemiotics ........................................................................... 29

2.3.2 Geosemiotics ............................................................................... 30

2.3.3 Semioticsinadvertising............................................................... 31

2.4 Multimodality ..................................................................................... 35

2.5 Conclusion .......................................................................................... 38

3. Approach .................................................................................................. 41

3.1 User‐centredandsystem‐centredapproaches .................................. 43

3.2 Structuraldescriptionoftheselectedwebpage ................................ 50

3.3 Summary ............................................................................................ 56

II|P a g e

4. Methodology ............................................................................................ 58

4.1 Research ............................................................................................. 58

4.1.1 QualitativeResearch.................................................................... 59

4.2 Designofthestudy............................................................................. 61

4.2.1 Theparticipants........................................................................... 64

4.2.2 ResearchEthics............................................................................ 65

4.3 Procedureofdataanalysis ................................................................. 67

4.4 Summary ............................................................................................ 74

5. Analysisanddiscussionofinterviewdata ................................................ 76

5.1 Participants’responsesaboutenvironmentalfactors........................ 76

5.2 Participants’responsesconcerningeditorialcontent ........................ 79

5.3 Participants’responsesconcerningadvertisements .......................... 82

5.4 Participants’responsesconcerningthewebpageand

websitetools ...................................................................................... 89

5.5 Participants’responsesconcerningrelationshipsbetween

informationmodules.......................................................................... 95

5.6 Answerstotheresearchquestions .................................................. 101

6. ResearchConclusions ............................................................................. 105

ReferenceList ................................................................................................ 111

APPENDIXI:InterviewQuestions ....................................................................... I

APPENDIXII:Interviewexamples ..................................................................... III

Participant6 ................................................................................................. III

Participant3 .................................................................................................. X

III|P a g e

ListofFiguresandTables

Figure1:SimplifiedillustrationoftheGeM‐model;owncompilation ............ 45

Figure2:Theselectedwebpagefromthewebsitewww.healthyfood.co.nz .. 51

Figure3:Informationmodulesontheselectedwebpage............................... 53

Figure4:Module‐componentsofAd1 ............................................................ 55

Figure5:Illustrationofterms.......................................................................... 56

Figure6:ShotsfromCamera1,Camera2andCamera3................................ 64

Figure7:Cardsinthecardactivity ..................................................................... I

Table1:The4P'sand4C’softheMarketingMix ............................................ 8

Table2:Exampleofthemeidentification ....................................................... 69

Table3:Developedcategoriesfordataanalysis ............................................. 72

IV|P a g e

AttestationofAuthorship

“Iherebydeclarethatthissubmissionismyownworkandthat,to

thebestofmyknowledgeandbelief,itcontainsnomaterial

previouslypublishedorwrittenbyanotherperson(exceptwhere

explicitlydefinedintheacknowledgements),normaterialwhichtoa

substantialextenthasbeensubmittedfortheawardofanyother

degreeordiplomaofauniversityorotherinstitutionofhigher

learning."

________________________

SusanneFranziskaWaechter

March2010

V|P a g e

Acknowledgements

Throughoutthisresearch,Ihavereceivedhelpandsupportfromalotofpeople.

IwishtothankmyprimarysupervisorGudrunFrommherzforalltheguidance

andsupportduringthatfascinatingandchallengingtimeinmylife.Inaddition,I

thankmysecondsupervisorRosserJohnsonforhistimeandadvicethroughout

thetwoyearsofmystudy.

IwouldliketothankmypartnerRomanMeyerforhisunlimitedsupport,

patienceandbeliefinmyabilities.Iwouldalsoliketoacknowledgeandthank

AlexChallisformakingtheenormouseffortofproofreadingmyfinaldraft.

Bigthanksalsotomyparentsfortheircontinuousandunconditionalsupport,

whereverIam.

VI|P a g e

EthicalApproval

Thisresearchhasobtainedethicalapproval09/154fromtheAucklandUniversity

ofTechnologyEthicsCommitteeon6August2009.

VII|P a g e

Abstract

Aspartofthepromotionalmix,advertisingplaysasignificantroleina

company’sororganisation’scommunicationwithitsconsumersand

stakeholders.Inordertoinformconsumersabouttheirproductsorservices,

marketersapplyavarietyofadvertisingstrategies.Oneparticularstrategyis

“contextualadvertising”,whichreferstothestrategicplacementof

advertisementsinaneditorialenvironmentwhosethemeisrelevantforthe

promotedproductorservice(Belch&Belch,2009,p.492).Alsoinadvertising

research,contextualadvertisingreceivedaconsiderableamountofattention.

Scholarshaveinvestigatedtheeffectivenessofcontextualadvertisinginonline

andofflinemedia.Researchersaswellaspractitionershaveparticularlyfocused

oncontent‐basedrelationshipsbetweenadvertisementsandthethemeofthe

editorialenvironmentinwhichtheadvertisementisplaced.Withafocuson

onlinemedia,thepresentstudyaimedtoinvestigatethiscontent‐based

relationshipbutalsotoexaminewhatothertypesofrelationshipsbetweenthe

differentcontentsonawebpagetheuserconstructs.

Advertisinghasalsobeeninvestigatedintheareaofsemiotics.Several

scholarsanalysedadvertisementsinordertorevealtheirmeaning‐affordances.A

secondinterestinthepresentstudyderivesfromsemioticstudiesandtheories,

whichemphasisetheindividual’ssignificanceinthemeaning‐makingprocessbut

alsoexcludetheindividualfromtheiranalysis.Apotentialcontradictioncouldbe

seenhereandbyinvestigatinghowusersinterpretaparticularwebpage,this

studyaimedtoexaminewhatinsightsananalysiscanprovidethatissolely

focusedonthewebpageuser.

Inordertocaptureusers’interpretationsofawebpage’scontentsandto

investigatewhattypesofrelationshipsbetweenthesecontentsusersconstruct

semi‐structuredinterviewswithsixparticipantswereconducted.The

VIII|P a g e

participantswereinvitedtolookatawebpagefromthewebsite

www.healthyfood.co.nz.Followingtheinterviews,theparticipants’responses

weretranscribed,categorisedandanalysed.

Findingsfromthestudyrevealedthatseveralparticipantsconstructed

relationshipsbetweenadvertisementsandtheeditorialcontentbasedon

content‐similaritybutalsoondesign‐similarityaswellastheirpersonal

knowledgeaboutsponsorshiprelationshipsandincome‐investment

relationships.Personalknowledgealsoappearedtobeimportantforthe

interpretationofthewebpage.Theparticipants’interpretationofthewebpage

werealsoguidedbytheirpersonalinterestinthecontents,theirindividual

contextslikesocio‐culturalbackground,experiencesandbeliefsaswellas

environmentalfactorssuchastimeandthelayoutoftheinterviewlocation.

Theresultsofthestudysupportthesignificantroleoftheindividualinthe

processofmeaningmakingandfurthercontributetoanextendedunderstanding

ofcontextualadvertising.Practicalsuggestionsfortheadvertisingareaand

futureresearchwerealsoidentified.

1. INTRODUCTION

1|P a g e

1. IntroductionThispresentresearchfollowstwomaininterests.Thefirstinterestrefersto

contextualadvertising;anadvertisingstrategythathasenjoyedconsiderable

interestinadvertisingpracticeaswellasadvertisingresearch.Contextual

advertisingreferstothestrategicplacementofanadvertisementinonlineand

offlinemediavehicles,whosethemeisrelevanttothepromotedproductor

service(Belch&Belch,2009,p.492).Forexample,anadvertisermayplacea

shampooadvertisementonabeautywebsiteoranadvertisementthatpromotes

clothinginafashionmagazine.Withthisstrategy,advertisersaimatnarrow‐

targetingtheiraudience(Belch&Belch,2009,p.492).

Inadvertisingresearch,severalscholarshaveanalysedtheeffectsof

contextualadvertisingontheaudience.Researchhasbeendoneinonline

environmentstoinvestigatehowtheaudienceperceivesanadvertisementthat

promotesthesameproductcategoryasthewebsiteinwhichitisembedded

(Cho,1999;Shamdasani,Stanaland,&Tan,2001).Inofflinemedialiketelevision

orprint,contextualadvertisinghasbeeninvestigatedforinstancewhen

advertisementandeditorialcontentdeploythesameemotionalappeals

(Anckaert,Geuens,&DePelsmaker,2002).

Wheninvestigatingorapplyingcontextualadvertising,itappearsthatmany

researchersandpractitionersfocusoncontent‐basedrelationshipsbetween

advertisementsandthethemeofthemediavehicleinwhichtheadvertisement

isembedded(e.g.Belch&Belch,2009;Cho,1999;Shamdasani,etal.,2001).

Withfocusontheonlineenvironment,itismyconcerninthepresentresearch

toexaminethiscontent‐basedrelationshipbutalsotoinvestigatewhatother

typesofrelationshipsusersofawebpageconstructbetweentheindividual

contentsonawebpage,whichIlabelinthisresearchasinformationmodules.In

thisresearch,Iunderstandthattheuserconstructsa“relationship”,whichisa

1. INTRODUCTION

2|P a g e

connectionbetweenthecontent‐types(e.g.advertisingandeditorialcontent)

placedonawebpage.

Mysecondinterestinthisresearchderivesfromstudiesandtheoriesinthe

areaofsemiotics,whichstresstheimportanceoftheindividualinthemeaning‐

makingprocessbutalsoexcludetheindividualfromtheanalysisofmeaning‐

affordancesinspecificdocuments.Thishasbeendoneforexamplewiththe

investigationofthe“hidden”meaninginadvertisementsunderconsiderationof

asemioticapproach(e.g.Beasley&Danesi,2002;Jhally,Kline,&Leiss,1990,

2004).

Icanseeinthepropositionoftheindividual’ssignificancebutthe

simultaneousexclusionoftheindividualfromtheanalysisofmeaning‐

affordancesindocumentsapotentialcontradiction.Itismyintentioninthe

presentresearchtoinvestigatewhatinsightsananalysiscanprovidethatis

solelyfocusedontheuser’sinterpretationofawebpage.Forthis,Ialsoreferto

theapproachofmultimodality,whichproposesthathumansexperience

meaningbyutilisingdifferentcommunicativemodes(Bateman,2008;Finnegan,

2002;Guo,2004;Kress&VanLeeuwen,2001;Mavers,2003;Norris,2004;Yuen,

2004)suchasgaze,spokenlanguageorbodyposture.

Inthisresearch,Idistinctbetweenanalysesthatfollowasystem‐centred

approachandthosethatarebasedonauser‐centredapproach.Withrespectto

thefocusontheonlineenvironment,thesystem‐centredapproachrefersto

studiesandtheoriesthatanalyseawebpageintermsofhowinformationis

presentedandwhatmeaning‐affordancesawebpageprovides.Theuser‐centred

approach,whichIfollowinthisstudy,focusesonthewebpagefromtheuser’s

perspectiveandhowtheuserinterpretsit.

1. INTRODUCTION

3|P a g e

Giventhepurposeofthisresearchtoexplorecontextualadvertisinginan

onlineenvironmentaswellastoinvestigatetheinsightsauser‐centredanalysis

canprovideIaddressthefollowingtworesearchquestions:

• Whattypesofrelationshipsdotheparticipantsconstructbetweenthe

informationmodulesthatareplacedonawebpageofthewebsite

www.healthyfood.co.nz?

• Howdotheparticipantsinterprettheinformationmodulesplacedona

selectedwebpagefromthewebsitewww.healthyfood.co.nz?

Inordertoinvestigatetheuser’sinterpretationsofawebpage,Iconducted

semi‐structuredinterviewswithsixparticipants,whowereinvitedtolookata

webpagefromthewebsitewww.healthyfood.co.nz.Thewebpagecontained

severaladvertisements,aneditorialarticleandseveralfunctionalcomponents,

likeamenubaroranemailbutton.Iappliedaqualitativeresearchapproachas

thisallowsmetocapturetheparticipant’ssubjectiveexperienceswiththe

webpageandenablesmetoinvestigatehowtheparticipantconstructsmeaning.

Thisthesisconsistsofsixchapters.Followingthisintroduction,Ireviewin

ChapterTwoliteratureintheareasofmarketingwithfocusonadvertising,

onlineadvertisingandcontextualadvertising;semiotics,underfurther

considerationofsocialsemiotics,geosemioticsaswellassemioticsintheareaof

advertisingresearch;andfinallymultimodality.

InChapterThree,Ioutlinetheconceptualbasisforthisstudy.Theaimofthis

chapteristointroducebasicdefinitionsandexplanationsthatderivefromthe

literaturepresentedinChapterTwo.

ChapterFourintroducesthemethodologicalapproachadoptedinthis

research.Itismyintentiontooutlinethequalitativeresearchapproachtakenin

1. INTRODUCTION

4|P a g e

thisstudyandtointroducetheresearchdesignofthisstudyaswellasethical

concerns.Ifurtherdescribethestrategyfordataanalysis.

TheactualdataanalysisispresentedanddiscussedinChapterFive.Iconclude

thischapterbyansweringthetworesearchquestions.

Finally,inChapterSix,Iprovideaconclusionofthestudy.Thisincludesa

summaryofthestudyfindingsandunderconsiderationoflimitationsinthis

study,implicationsforadvertisingpracticeaswellasforfutureresearch.

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

5|P a g e

2. LiteraturereviewThefollowingchapterreviewstheliteratureinrelevantareasofscholarship.

Theseareasare1)marketingwithfocusonadvertisingandonlineadvertising,in

particularcontextualadvertising;2)semiotics,inparticularsocialsemiotics,

geosemioticsandsemioticsinthecontextofadvertising;andfinally

3)multimodality.

Thisresearchisconcernedwiththeanalysisofawebpage,whichincludes

advertisementsaswellaseditorialcontent,fromtheuser’sperspective.Ibegin

thisreviewwithliteraturethatdescribesandexplainsmarketingasabasic

processinacompanyororganisationbecausemarketingisthewiderprocessin

whichadvertisingisusuallyplaced.Thisfurtherfocusesontheoriesandstudies

thatinvestigatewebsitesingeneralaswellasadvertisingintheonline

environment.Here,anemphasisisplacedoncontextualadvertising.

Ifurtheridentifythefieldofsemiotics,especiallysocialsemiotics(Hodge&

Kress,1988)aswellasanapproachcalledgeosemiotics(Scollon&Scollon,

2003),thesemioticsofplace.Thesignificanceofthesesemioticapproachesfor

mystudyderivesfromtheiremphasisoftheindividualinthemeaning‐making

process.Ifurtherintroduceliteraturethatisconcernedwithsemioticanalysisof

advertisementsforthisareaisgermanetotheinterestofthisstudy.

Inthefinalsectionoftheliteraturereview,Iintroducemultimodality,an

approachthatJewittandKress(2003,p.9)closelyrelatetosocialsemiotics.

Multimodalityinformsthisresearchintermsofprovidinganapproachthat

accordingtoNorris(2004,p.10)emphasisesthesignificanceofavarietyof

semioticsystems,suchascolourorbodyposture,inhumancommunication.

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

6|P a g e

Multimodalityfurthersituatestheindividualanditsmeaning‐makingprocessin

itsculturalenvironment.

2.1 Marketing

AccordingtoFrain(1994,p.1),theword“marketing”beforethe1950swas

generallyasynonymfor“selling”.Sincethe1950showever,marketingis

regardedasabroaderconceptthatnotonlyincludesselling,butalsoother

managementactivitiessuchasmarketingresearch,productdesignand

development,forecastingandplanningandrelatedfinancialfunctions(Frain,

1994,p.1).Marketinginthis‘new’senseisanorganisation‐wideapproachthat

includesprocessesandactivitiesfromalldifferentdepartmentswithinan

organisation.Frain(1994,p.1)arguesthatthechangeoffocustowardthe

customerbyalldifferentdepartmentsandactivitiesofanorganisationderives

fromtheearly1950swhenscienceandtechnologydevelopedfasterandmore

cost‐effectiveproductionprocesses.Marketsbecamemoredynamic‐people

earnedmore,livedlongerandtravelledfurtherandthereforetastes,

preferencesandfashionsbegantochangemorerapidly(Frain,1994,p.7).

Informationaboutcustomerpreferencesandneedsbegantobeconsideredin

thebeginningoftheproductioncycleratherthan,asitwasdonebefore,atthe

end,whenitwasallaboutsellingtheproducttothecustomer(Frain,1994,p.7).

AccordingtoKotlerandKeller(2006,p.6),theAmericanMarketing

Associationdefinesmarketingas

“[A]n organizational function and a set of processes for creating, communicating, anddeliveringvaluetocustomersandformanagingcustomerrelationships inwaysthatbenefittheorganizationanditsstakeholders.”

Acommonlyknownmarketingconceptisthemarketingmix.Kotler(2003)

describesthemarketingmixas“asetofmarketingtoolsthefirmusestopursue

itsmarketingobjectivesinthetargetmarket.”(Kotler,2003,p.15)The

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

7|P a g e

marketingmixincludesfourcomponents,alsoknownasthe4P’s:product,price,

place,andpromotion(Belch&Belch,2009,p.10).Anorganisationdevelops

productsaccordingtoidentifiedcustomerneeds.Theseproductsareofferedto

thecustomeratacertainpriceandarealsomadeavailablethroughparticular

distributionchannels(place).Finallytheproductispromotedinordertocreate

awarenessandinterest.Thefundamentalfunctionofmarketingistocombine

thesefourelementsintoamarketingstrategyinordertogenerateexchange

withcustomersinthemarketplace(Belch&Belch,2009,p.10).

Kotler(2003,p.17)criticisesthatthe4P’srepresentthesellersviewand

disregardsthesignificanceofthecustomerinthemarketingprocess.He

proposesthe4C’s:customersolution,customercost,convenience,and

communication.Hearguesthat“winningcompanieswillbethosethatcanmeet

customerneedseconomicallyandconvenientlyandwitheffective

communication.”(Kotler,2003,p.17)

Thefollowingtableillustratesthe4P’s,product,price,place,andpromotion,

andKotler’s(2003,p.17)4C’saswellasseveralmarketingvariables:

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

8|P a g e

Product

CustomerSolution

Price

CustomerCost

Place

Convenience

Promotion

Communication

Productvariety

Quality

Design

Features

Brandname

Packaging

Sizes

Services

Warranties

Returns

Listprice

Discounts

Allowances

Paymentperiod

Creditterms

Channels

Coverage

Assortments

Locations

Inventory

Transport

Salespromotion

Advertising

Salesforce

Publicrelations

Directmarketing

Table1:The4P'sand4C’softheMarketingMix;AdaptedfromKotler(2003,p.16)

AccordingtoKotlerandKeller(2006,p.16),amarketerstaskistostrategically

integrateandcoordinateallmarketingactivitiesforanorganisation.Aconcept

thathasbecomeincreasinglyimportantsincethe1980swithinthiscontextisthe

approachofintegratedmarketingcommunications(IMC).Thisconceptrefersto

thepracticeinmanycompaniestocoordinate“thevariouspromotional

elementsandothermarketingactivitiesthatcommunicatewithafirm’s

customers”(Belch&Belch,2009,p.11).Allmarketingactivitiesandprocesses

havetobesynchronisedinordertopresentthepromotedproductorserviceas

effectiveaspossibleforboththeconsumer(forexampleforgatheringneeded

information)aswellasthecompany(forinstancetoselltheproduct).Chaffeyet

al.(2006)describeintegratedmarketingcommunicationsas“theconceptunder

whichacompanycarefullyintegratesandco‐ordinatesitsmanycommunications

channelstodeliveraclear,consistentmessageabouttheorganisationandits

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

9|P a g e

products.”(p.357)Alldifferentcommunicationshavetobelogicallyand

effectivelyconnectedintheshort‐termaswellasinthelong‐termandall

messageshavetobemutuallysupportiveandreinforcing(Chaffey,etal.,2006,

p.357).TheoverallaimisaccordingtoBelchandBelch(2009)thecreationofa

“consistentandunifiedimagetothemarketplace”(p.11).

IMCfurtherplaysasignificantroleintheprocessofestablishingbrand

identity(Belch&Belch,2009,p.16).AbrandisaccordingtoKeller(1998,p.2)

“[...]aname,term,sign,symbol,ordesign,oracombinationofthemintendedtoidentifythegoodsandservicesofonesellerorgroupofsellersandtodifferentiatethemfromthoseofthecompetition.”

Amajorcomponentinestablishingandsustainingabrandistocreate

awarenessofthebrand(Keller,1998,p.87).Keller(1998,p.88)differentiates

betweentwoaspectsofbrandawareness:brandrecognitionandbrandrecall.

Brandrecognitionreferstothe“consumers’abilitytoconfirmpriorexposureto

thebrandwhengiventhebrandasacue”(Keller,1998,p.88).Brandrecallin

contrastoccurswhenaconsumerisabletoretrievethebrandfrommemory

whentheconsumerisexposedtoarelatedissueliketheproductcategoryora

purchasesituation(Keller,1998,p.88)

Criticsofmarketingareconcernedthatmarketingencroachesoncustomers’

righttoprivacy(Christ,2009c).Thisargumentisbasedonthefactthatinorder

tomakeimportantstrategicmarketingdecisions,marketersneedinformation

abouttheirtargetaudiences.Oftenthemostvaluableinformationisaboutthe

customers’buyingbehaviourandwhatfactorshaveaninfluenceontheir

purchasedecisions(Christ,2009c).Inordertogetthisinformationsome

marketersinvadeintotheprivatesphereofcustomers(Christ,2009c).Advanced

technologiesandsophisticatedstrategiesallowmarketerstotrackconsumers’

activitiesbothintheInternetaswellasintheofflineworld.Christ(2009c)notes

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

10|P a g e

herethat“[s]omemarketersdosousingquestionablepractices,suchasloading

trackingsoftwareontoauser’scomputer,withouttheknowledgeorpermission

oftheuser.”Offlinetrackingoccursforexamplewhenretailstoresmatchsales

transactionstoindividualshoppersforinstancewhencustomersusepurchase

cards,alsoknownasloyaltycardsordiscountcards(Christ,2009c).

2.1.1 Internetmarketing

Fisher,Jaworski,MohammedandPaddison(2004,p.4)defineInternet

marketingas

“theprocessofbuildingandmaintainingcustomer relationships throughonlineactivities tofacilitatetheexchangeofideas,products,andservicesthatsatisfythegoalsofbothparties.”

HansenandKalyanam(2007)provideanintroductiontothehistoryof

marketingintheInternet.TheyexplainthatintheearlydaysoftheInternet,

commercialinformationortransactionswereexplicitlyforbidden(Hanson&

Kalyanam,2007,p.6).ThefirstimplementationoftheInternettookplacein

1969andtilltheearly1990sitwasusedasarobustemergencymilitary

communicationnetworkandasanexperimentalcommunicationssystemwithin

theacademiccommunity(Hanson&Kalyanam,2007,p.6).Comparedto

technologystandardstoday,theearlyNetwasveryslow,difficulttouseand

expensive.Computersandmodemswereexpensivethosedaysandaccesstothe

networkwasonlypossiblethroughthesubmissionofarcanecommands.Inthe

early1990stheprohibitionofcommercialinformationwasabolishedandthe

Internetwasmadeavailabletoamuchwideraudience.Onemorefundamental

breakthroughoccurredwiththedevelopmentoftheWorldWideWeb.Nowit

waspossibletomixpictures,soundsandvideowithtextcombinedwithamuch

betterusability.Thenavigationbetweenwebpagesandsitesbecamemore

intuitiveforusers(Hanson&Kalyanam,2007,p.7).Withthespreadofthe

Internetandtheriseofthetotalnumberofusers,thecommercialuseofthe

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

11|P a g e

Internetincreased(Hanson&Kalyanam,2007,pp.10‐11).Nowadays,the

Internetisaconstantpartinthemarketingstrategyofmanyorganisations

(Hanson&Kalyanam,2007,pp.10‐11).

Theuseofthewebequipsmarketingcommunicationswithspecific

characteristicsthatdistinctitfromtraditionalmarketing.Traditionalmediasuch

asprint,TVorradioaredefinedbyChaffeyetal.(2006,p.21)aspushmedia

becauseinformationismainlyconveyedunidirectional,fromonecompanyto

manycustomers.Thewebontheotherhandisanexampleofpullmediasince

consumersusuallyvisitawebsitewhentheyhaveadefinedneedtodoso

independentlyfromtimeandgeographicallocation(Chaffey,etal.,2006,p.21).

Chaffeyetal.(2006,p.350)statethatanoftennamedandinvestigated

characteristicofthewebisitsinteractivity.Withoutchangingthemedium,asit

isnecessaryintraditionalmedia,itispossibletocreateadialogbetweenthe

companyorthewebsiteowneranditsvisitors(Chaffey,etal.,2006,p.350).

Withrespecttoonlinemarketing,thisfeatureisessentialforbuildinglong‐term

relationshipsbetweenthemarketerandthecustomer,forexamplebyproviding

feedbackorcommentopportunities(Chaffey,etal.,2006,p.350).

Withfocusonmarketinginonlineenvironments,CoyleandGould(2007)

introducetheconceptofInternetintegratedmarketingcommunications(I‐IMC)

(p.69).ThisconceptplacesthetraditionalIMC“withintheInternetplatform”as

wellas“withintheoverallpromotionalandmarketingmix.”(Coyle&Gould,

2007,p.69)Theauthorsarguethatmarketersneedtopayconsiderable

attentiontoonlinepromotionaltools,suchaswebsitesandbanner

advertisementsbecausethesetoolshavetheirownspecifications,advantages

anddisadvantagesandfurtherbecomeincreasinglyimportanttodeliver

marketingmessagestothecustomer(Coyle&Gould,2007,p.86).

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

12|P a g e

Ofparticularinterestforthepresentstudyareresearchesthatareconcerned

withhowusersperceivewebsites.Theseresearchesputthewebuserinthe

centreoftheiranalysisandprovideaninsightintothefactorsthathaveaneffect

onusers’perceptionsandinterpretationsofwebsites.

Hwang,LeeandMcMillan(2003)examinedtheeffectofthequantityof

structuralfeaturesofawebsite,likeonlinereservationtools,aswellas

perceptualfactors,suchasperceivedinteractivity,ontheuser’sattitudetoward

thewebsite.Theaimwastoinvestigatewhetherstructuralfeaturesor

perceptualfactorsarebetterpredictorsfortheusers’attitudetowardsthe

website.Theresearchersonlyfoundlittlesupportforcoherencebetweenthe

quantityofstructuralfeaturesandtheuser’sattitudetowardthewebsite(2003,

p.406).Perceptualfactorsincontrastappearedtobemoreeffectiveforthe

predictionofhowtheuserevaluatesthewebsite(2003,p.406).Basedonthese

findings,Hwangetal.(2003,p.406)emphasisethesignificanceoftheuserfor

theeffectivenessofawebsite.Further,theyconcludethatthereappearstobea

differencebetweentheuser’sperceptionofawebsiteandthewebsites

structuralappearance(2003,p.406).

Hwang,LeeandMcMillan’s(2003)propositionthatthewebsitesstructural

appearancemightbedifferentfromtheuser’sperceptionofthewebsite,is

supportedbythefindingsofLee,Lee,KimandStout’s(2004)study.Inorderto

investigatehowusersperceiveidentifiedkeycharacteristicsofwebsites,Leeet

al.(2004)basedtheirresearchona“system‐centred”analysis(p.62),namelya

web‐basedcontentanalysis,witha“user‐centred”analysis(p.63)intheformof

personalinterviews.Thefindingsoftheirresearchrevealedadifferencebetween

thefoundkeycharacteristicsofawebsite,includingthepresenceorabsenceof

specificinteractiveelements,contentanddesignelements,andtheperceptions

ofthesecharacteristicsbythewebsiteuser.

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

13|P a g e

AlsoDalal,Mishra,Patil,andSingh(2005)focusedontheuserintheir

analysis.Theyinvestigatedtheuser’semotionalperceptionofasinglewebpage

ratherthanacompletewebsite.Theauthorsproposeamodeltoinvestigateweb

user’sreactionstoawebpage.Thismodelplacestwopropositions:first,positive

andnegativefeelingsthatareevokedbythewebpagedirectlyinfluencethe

user’sevaluationofthewebpageandhisorherbehaviouralintentions(p.32).

Second,theuser’sattitudetowardthewebpage,mediatestheeffectsoffeelings

andevaluationsbasedonbehaviouralintentions(p.32).

Withfocusonhowusersnavigateonwebsites,BellmanandRossiter(2004,p.

39)introducedtheideaofawebsiteschema.Awebsiteschemaisdefinedby

BellmanandRossiter(2004,p.39)as“theconsumer’ssetofbeliefsabout

informationlocations,androutestothoselocations,foraspecificwebsite.”The

authorsarguethatthroughrepeatedvisitsofwebsites,consumersdevelopa

generalizedwebsiteschema,whichtheyrefertowhenexposedtoanewwebsite

inordertofindtheinformationtheyneed(Bellman&Rossiter,2004,p.39).

BellmanandRossiter’s(2004)notionofawebsiteschemaisrelevanttomy

researchbecauseitisanapproachthatdiscusseshowwebsiteuser’susetheir

ownexperiencesinordertoprocesstheinformationgivenonthewebsitethey

arevisiting.

2.2 AdvertisingandOnlineadvertising

Aspartofthepromotionactivitiesinthemarketingmix,advertisingplaysa

significantroleinanorganisation’scommunicationwiththetargetmarket(Belch

&Belch,2009,p.18).BelchandBelch(2009)defineadvertisingas“anypaid

formofnonpersonalcommunicationaboutanorganization,product,serviceor

ideabyanidentifiedsponsor”(p.18).BelchandBelch’s(2009)definitionclarifies

thatadvertisingtime(e.g.thetimetobroadcastaTV‐spot)orspace(e.g.the

spaceforaprintadvertisementinamagazine)hastobeboughtbythe

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

14|P a g e

advertiser.Advertisingis,accordingtotheauthors,nonpersonalbecauseit

involvesmassmedia,suchasradio,TVornewspapers,inorderto“transmita

messagetoalargegroupofindividuals”(Belch&Belch,2009,p.18).Ingeneral,

advertisingdoesnotallowanimmediatefeedbackfromthemessagerecipient

(Belch&Belch,2009,p.18;Kotler&Keller,2006,p.555).

Advertisingingeneralhasbeencriticisedinmanyways.Onecritiqueis

concernedaboutmisleadingclaimsaboutproducts.Advertisementsoften

includeclaimsthatemphasiseacertainlevelofvaluethatactuallydoesnotexist

(Belch&Belch,2004,pp.740‐741;Christ,2009a).Manycriticsfurtherbelieve

thatconsumersdonotobtainsufficientinformationabouttheproductsoroften

receiveonlyinformationthatarefavourabletotheadvertiser’sposition(Belch&

Belch,2009,pp.740‐741).

Insomecountriesseveralorganisationsandassociations,suchasthe

AdvertisingStandardsAuthority(ASA)inGreatBritain,theEuropeanFoodSafety

Authorityorotherusers’associationsandconsultativecouncils,provideacertain

levelofprotectionfrommisleadingclaimsorotherharmfulactionsbythe

marketer(Christ,2009a;Frain,1994).

OneofthemostcommonargumentsagainstadvertisingisaccordingtoChrist

(2009a)thatadvertisingcreatesratherthansatisfiesneedsandencourages

peopletopurchasegoodsandservicestheydonotneed.Defendersof

advertisingemphasisetheinformationalnatureofadvertisingandthedifficulty

todistinguishbetweendesirableinformationaladvertisingandundesired

persuasiveadvertising(Belch&Belch,2009,p.251).

Ethicalconcernsraisewhencompaniestakeadvantageofvulnerable

customerssuchaschildren,theelderly,andtheindigentforinstancebyusing

doubtfulmarketingtacticssuchaspricegougingorbypushingharmfulproducts

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

15|P a g e

(Sheth&Sisodia,2006).Particularlychildren,aregenerallyvulnerableto

advertisingbecausetheydonothavesufficientknowledgeandexperienceto

identify,understandandcriticallyassessthepurposeofsuchactivities(Belch&

Belch,2009,p.745)

Ithasbeentheconcernofnumerousresearcherstoinvestigatehowpeople

perceiveadvertising.Thisisalsoimportantforthepresentresearchsincethe

selectedwebpageinthisstudyincludesseveraladvertisements.Theresearch

questionsaimtoinvestigatehowuser’sinterpretthiswebpage’scontentsand

whattypesofrelationshipstheyconstructbetweentheadvertisementsandthe

editorialcontent.

Zaichkowksy(1994)providesanapproachthatstatesthreecategoriesof

factorsthatinfluenceaperson’sattitudetowardsanadvertisement:First,

particularspecificationsandfeaturesoftheadvertisingstimulus,second,

individualcharacterisationsofthereceiver,andthird,situationalfactors,suchas

theenvironmentatthetimeofexposure,thenatureofthemedium(forexample

newspaperorTV)aswellascharacteristicsofthemessagesource(p.59).

Ducoffe’s(1995)studycanbeassignedintoZaichkowsky’s(1994)second

category.Heintroducedtheideaofadvertisingvalue,whichhedefinedas“a

representationoftheperceivedvalueofadvertisingtoconsumers”(1995,p.1).

Inhisstudyheexaminedtheeffectoftheperceivedlevelofinformativenessand

entertainmentontheperceivedadvertisingvalue.

Amongothervariables,researchershavefurtherinvestigatedthe

effectivenessofcomparativeadvertising(Busacca,Girolamo,&Soscia,2010;

Prasad,1976),howtheaudienceprocessesnewspaperadvertising(Bogart&

Tolley,1994),theaspectoftrusttowardsadvertising(King,Reid,&Soh,2009),

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

16|P a g e

theeffectofcelebrityendorsementsinadvertisements(Lord&Putrevu,2009)or

theinfluenceofcultureonadvertisingeffectiveness(Neelankavil&Zhang,1997).

2.2.1 Onlineadvertising

Withrespecttotheonlinefocusinthisresearch,anotherimportantareais

onlineadvertising.OnlineadvertisingisaccordingtoChaffeyetal.(2006)

generallyacknowledgedtotakeplace“whenanadvertiserpaystoplace

advertisingcontentonanotherwebsite.”(p.249)

Themostwellknownformofonlineadvertisingisbanneradvertising

(Chaffey,etal.,2006,p.249).Chaffeyetal.(2006,p.251)defineabanner

advertisementas:

“Arectangulargraphicdisplayedonawebpageforthepurposesofadvertising.Itisnormallypossible to perform a clickthrough to access further information. Bannersmay be static oranimated.”

Aclickthroughoccurswhenauserclicksonabanneradvertisementtodirect

himorhertoanotherwebsitethatcontainsfurtherinformation(Chaffey,etal.,

2006,p.252).Banneradvertisementsmightbeintendedtobuildtraffictoa

specificwebsiteortoraiseawarenessforacertaincompany,productorservice

(Chaffey,etal.,2006,p.252).

AdvertisingontheInternethasbeenresearchedfrommanydifferent

perspectivesandwithavarietyoffoci.Sincetheselectedwebpageformy

researchcontainsseveralbanneradvertisements,thefollowingintroductionof

studiesfocusesonthisformofonlineadvertisements.

RodgersandThorson(2000)provideawidelyacceptedcategorisationof

studiesononlineadvertising.Theycategorisebetweenstudiesandtheoriesthat

approachfromafunctionalperspective,fromastructuralperspective,andthose

thatareconcernedaboutinformationprocessing(p.42)ontheInternet.While

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

17|P a g e

thestructuralapproachintendstoidentifyandclassifyInternetadvertisements,

thefunctionalperspectiveaimstoidentifyreasonsforInternetuse.Studieswith

focusoninformationprocessinginvestigatehowrecipientsperceiveandprocess

messagescommunicatedbyonlineadvertisements(Rodgers&Thorson,p.42).

Withreferencetofunctionalperspectives,RodgersandThorson(2000)

investigatedmotivesforInternetusage.Theydefineamotiveasan“innerdesire

toactivelyfulfilaneedorwant”(p.45)andidentifiedfourprimarycategoriesof

motives,includingresearching,communicating,surfing(e.g.entertaining),and

shopping.

Intermsofstructuralanalysis,RodgersandThorson(2000)furthercategorise

Internetadvertisementsintobanneradvertisements,interstitialsandpop‐ups,

sponsorships,hyperlinks,andwebsites.

MirandaandJu‐Pak(1998)conductedacontentanalysisof200banner

advertisementson50websites.Theyexaminedthepresenceorabsenceof

structuralfeaturessuchasadvertisingappeals,theexistenceofaheadline,as

wellasbannerandfontsize.

WithrespecttoRodgerandThorson’s(2000)informationprocessing

category,severalonlineadvertisingfeaturesandstrategiesofbanner

advertisementshavebeeninvestigated,forexampleintermsofsize,locationon

thewebpageandtheeffectofanimationontheuser.

Studiesontheeffectofbanneradvertisementsizehavefoundcontradicting

results.WhileCho(1999)aswellasLiandBukovac(1999)foundthatlarger

banneradvertisementsaremoreeffectivethansmallerbanneradvertisements,

DrézeandHussherr(2003)didnotfindsupportthatbanneradvertisementsize

hasaneffectonadvertisingeffectiveness.

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

18|P a g e

Josephson(2005)investigatedthesignificanceofanimationandlocationofa

banneradvertisementwiththehelpofeyetrackingtechnology.Thefindingsof

herstudyrevealedthatanimationwasnotimportanttoattractviewer’s

attention.Incontrast,locationappearedtoplayasignificantrole.Banner

advertisementsatthetopofthewebpageweremoreoftenviewedthanthoseat

thebottomofthewebpage(Josephson,2005,pp.75‐79).

SimilartoJosephson’s(2005)findingsconcerninganimatedbanner

advertisements,alsoDiaoandSundar(2004)didnotfindsupportfortheir

hypothesisthat“individualswhoviewanimatedbanneradswillexhibitorienting

responses”(2004,p.543).Anorientingresponseisdefinedasa“short‐term

attentionreactionevokedbycertaincategoriesofstimuli”(2004,p.539).

Josephson’s(2005)andDiaoandSundar’s(2004)findingshowevercontradict

theresultsofastudyconductedbyKim,StoutandYoo(2004)whofoundthatan

animatedbanneradvertisementgenerateshigherrecall,amorefavourable

attitudetowardstheadvertisementandahigherclick‐throughintentionthen

staticadvertisements(Kim,etal.,2004,p.56).

Donthu,Lohtia,OsmonbekovandXie(2004)investigatedtheeffectof

incentivesinbanneradvertisementonbanneradvertisementclick‐throughrates

moderatedbyadvertisement‐inducedemotionalappeals.Theresultsrevealed

thatpositiveemotionsinbanneradvertisementsenhancetheeffectivenessof

incentives,whereasbanneradvertisementswithnegativeornoemotions

seemedtobemoreeffectivewhentheadvertisementincludednoincentives

(Donthu,etal.,2004,p.35).

InadditiontoDonthuetal.(2004)alsoHand,RobinsonandWysocka(2007)

conductedastudytoinvestigatetheeffectofincentivesinbanneradvertisement

buttogetherwithsixothercreativecharacteristics,namely,bannersize,

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

19|P a g e

messagelength,animation,actionphrases,theexistenceofthecompanybrand

orlogo,andthepresenceofinformationaboutcasinogames(Hand,etal.,2007,

p.531).Theresultsrevealedthatabanneradvertisementgeneratesmoreclick‐

throughrateswhenitcontainsalongmessage,appearsinalargersizeandwhen

itdoesnotincludepromotionalincentivesbutinformationaboutcasinogames.

Incontrast,actionphrasesandthepresenceofthecompanybrand/logowere

ineffective(Hand,etal.,2007,p.537).Theresearchersfurtherfoundthatintheir

studythepresenceofanimationhadaninsignificanteffectontheclick‐through

rate,whichsupportsthestudyfindingsofJosephson(2005)andDiaoandSundar

(2004).

Hand,RobinsonandWysocka(2007,p.536)raiseoneconcern,whichlimits

theirfindingoftheeffectivenessofthebannersize.Theytestedbanner

advertisementbyplacingthemondifferentlocationsonawebpage.Through

this,theresearchersargue,theeffectofthebannersizebecameinseparable

fromtheeffectofthebannersizeslocationonthewebpage(Hand,etal.,2007,

p.536).AsJosephson(2005)pointedout,thelocationofabanneradvertisement

onawebpageplaysasignificantroleinattractingawareness.

Theintroducedresearchesononlineadvertising,especiallybanner

advertising,investigatedspecificcharacteristicsofbanneradvertisements,such

assize,animation,orlocation.However,thesestudiesdidnottakeintoaccount

potentialeffectsofabanneradvertisement’scontextinwhichitisplaced,onthe

webuser.Donthuetal.(2004)forexampleanalysedbanneradvertisements

completelydetachedfromtheenvironmentinwhichabanneradvertisement

occurs.Whetherandwhateffectsthecontextofabanneradvertisementcan

haveontheuser,hasbeeninvestigatedbythe“contextualadvertising”

approach,whichisalsoastrategyinadvertisingpracticeandanapproachI

investigateinthepresentresearch.

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

20|P a g e

2.2.2 Contextualadvertising

“Contextualadvertising”isastrategytoplaceadvertisementsonmedia

vehicles,suchasspecificwebsitesorprintmagazines,whosethemesare

relevanttothepromotedproducts(Jeong&King,2005,p.2).Advertisersapply

thisstrategyinordertonarrow‐targettheiraudiences(Belch&Belch,2009,p.2;

Jeong&King,2005).

Researchoncontextualadvertisinghasinvestigatedmanycontextualfactors

thatmayinfluenceadvertisementevaluation.Withrespecttotelevisionand

printmedia,Anckaert,dePelsmackerandGeuens(2002)focusedonemotional

appealsandinvestigatedtheimpactofcongruencybetween“adstyle”and

“contextstyle”(2002,p.50)Theterm“style”referredtoaspecificemotional

appeal,namelyhumorous,warmorrational.Further,theresearchersexamined

“contextappreciation”,whichtheydefinedas“theextenttowhichpersonsfind

aparticularcontextinterestingorboringandwouldliketoreadasimilararticle

orwatchasimilarprogramagain.”(p.51)

Intermsofcontextappreciation,theresultsoftheirexperiment(n=314)

showedthatadvertisementsembeddedinahighlyappreciatedtelevisionor

printcontextweremorefavourablyevaluated(Anckaert,etal.,2002,pp.58‐60).

Inatelevisionenvironmentadvertisementcontentrecallandbrandrecallwere

improvedwhenthecontextwaspositivelyappreciated(p.59).Thiseffectdidnot

occurinaprintenvironment(p.59).

Concerningthecongruenceofadstyleandcontextstylethemoderating

factorwasthelevelofproductinvolvement.Inlow‐involvementproduct

situations“personsexperiencetheimportanceandriskofadecisionasless

relevant,requirelessproductinformation,anddevotelessattentionto

advertisingstimuli”(Anckaert,etal.,2002,p.50).Incontrast,personswithhigh

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

21|P a g e

productcategoryinvolvementrequiremoreinformationandaremoremotivated

toprocesstheinformationpresentedinanadvertisement(p.51).

Thefindingsrevealedthatpersonsinlow‐involvementproductcategory

situationsperceivedadvertisementsplacedinacongruentmediacontextas

morelikeable(Anckaert,etal.,2002,p.58).Inhigh‐involvementproduct

categorysituations,peopleperceivedtheadvertisementasmorelikablewhen

thereisnoadstyle/contextstylecongruency(p.55).

Anckaertetal.’s(2002)findingsinhigh‐involvementproductcategory

situationssupportswhathasbeencalledthe“contrasteffect”(Anckaert,etal.,

2002,p.50;Meyers&Tybout,1997,p.1).Someresearchersfoundpositive

effectsonadvertisingeffectivenesswhenthereisincongruencebetweenthe

advertisementanditscontext(Celuch&Slama,1993;Goodstein,1993;

Jablonsky,King,&Copeland,1996;Perry,etal.,1997).Anckaertetal.(2002,p.

50)explainthisphenomenonwiththeperceptionoftheadvertisementas

innovativeandinterestingduetoitsnoveltyandunexpectedness.

ThelevelofinvolvementasitisappliedbyAnckaertetal.(2002)isanoften

discussedandresearchedphenomenon.Intheory,theElaborationLikelihood

Model(ELM)describesthe“differencesinthewaysconsumersprocessand

respondtopersuasivemessages”(Belch&Belch,2009,p.167).

TheELMpresentstwobasicroutestopersuasion,thecentralandthe

peripheralroute(Belch&Belch,2009,p.169).Whenfollowingthecentralroute,

recipientsareactivelyengagedandhighlyinvolvedinprocessingthe

communicativemessage(highinvolvement).Theyhavehighmotivationandthe

abilitytoprocessthemessage,itsargumentsandcontents.Incontrast,when

followingtheperipheralroute,themotivationandabilityisratherlowandthe

receiversarenotengagedindetailedcognitiveprocessingofthemessage(low

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

22|P a g e

involvement).Insteadofevaluatingargumentsofthemessage,therecipients

refertoperipheralcueslikeforexamplethecredibilityofacelebrityendorseror

theimageryormusicinanadvertisement(Belch&Belch,2009,p.169).

Inresearch,themoderatingeffectofinvolvementhasbeeninvestigatedin

termsofadvertising(Zaichkowsky,1994),purchasesituations(Zaichkowsky,

1994),productcategories(Anckaert,etal.,2002;Cho,1999;Dahlén,Rasch,&

Rosengren,2003;Shamdasani,etal.,2001)andmagazinearticles(Colman&

Norris,1992).Thelevelofinvolvementhasalsobeenusedinresearchesabout

contextualadvertisingintheInternet(Cho,1999;Shamdasani,etal.,2001)as

introducedinthefollowing.

WithrespecttotheonlineenvironmentJeongandKing(2005,p.3)suggest

thattheInternetprovidescertainadvantagesforcontextualadvertising.They

arguethat“websitecontextsareoftentargetedmuchmorenarrowlythanother

mediums”(Jeong&King,2005,p.3).Further,theauthorsassumethatbecause

theInternetisamoreactivemediumthanforexampleTVorprintmedia,

websiteusersoftenintentionallyvisitaspecificwebsiteandthusarealready

focusedonthethemeofthatsiteandmaypaymoreattentiontotheme‐relevant

advertisements(Jeong&King,2005,p.3).

Cho(1999,p.33)conductedanexperimentwith203undergraduatestudents

inordertoexamineseveralvariablesthatinfluencebanneradvertisement

clickthroughrates.Hisintentionwastounderstandhowpeopleprocess

advertisingontheInternet.Theexaminedvariableswerea)levelofpersonaland

productinvolvement,b)thesizeofabanneradvertisement,c)relevancy

betweenthecontentofavehicleandtheproductcategoryofabanner

advertisement,d)attitudetowardthevehicle,ande)overallattitudetoward

Webadvertising.

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

23|P a g e

Thestudyresultsshowthatinhigh‐involvementsituations,theparticipants

weremorelikelytoclickonbannerads(Cho,1999,p.43),wherebyboththesize

anddynamicanimationofbanneradvertisementsmakenodifferenceinclicking

ofbanneradvertisements(Cho,1999,p.44).Inlow‐involvementsituations,the

participantsweremorelikelytoclickonabanneradvertisementwhenithas

dynamicanimationaswellasalargersizethanaveragebanneradvertisements

(Cho,1999,p.43).

Cho(1999,p.39)alsoanalysedtheparticipant’sclickingbehaviourwhenthe

contentsoftheadvertisingvehiclewasrelevanttotheproductcategoriesofthe

banneradvertisementplacedonthevehicle.Cho’s(1999,p.44)experiment

revealedthatthebanneradvertisementwithhigherrelevancebetweenproduct

categoryandthecontentoftheadvertisingvehiclegeneratedmoreclickingon

thebanner.Further,thestudyresultsshowedthattheparticipantswhohada

morefavourableattitudetowardsthevehicleonwhichtheadvertisementwas

placed,weremorelikelytoclickthebanneradvertisementonlywhenthe

productcategoryofthebanneradvertisementwasrelevanttothecontentsof

thewebsite(Cho,1999,p.45).Finally,thoseparticipantswhohadagenerally

morefavourableattitudetowardWebadvertisinghadamorefavourable

attitudetowardabanneradvertisement(Cho,1999,p.47).

AlthoughthefindingsofCho’s(1999)experimentwerenotrepresentativeto

thegeneralpublic,thestudyremainssignificantbecauseofthewidespread

analysisofseveralvariablesthatinfluencebanneradvertisingeffectiveness.In

termsofcontextualadvertising,thefindingssupportthepropositionthatthe

relevancebetweentheproductcategoryofabanneradvertisementandthe

contentofthewebsiteonwhichtheadvertisementisplaced,isanimportant

factorforbanneradvertisingeffectiveness.

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

24|P a g e

SimilartoCho(1999)Shamdasani,StanalandandTan(2001),examinedthe

effectofrelevancebetweenwebsitecontentandtheproductcategoryinbanner

advertisements.However,intheirresearch,Shamdasanietal.(2001)

investigatedtheinterplaybetween“contentrelevance”(p.17)and“website

credibility”(p.17).Shamdasanietal.(2001,p.9)alsodifferentiatebetween

high‐involvementandlow‐involvementproducts(p.9).Theaudience’sresponse

tothebanneradvertisementsusedintheirstudy,weremeasuredbyfour

variables:a)attitudetowardthebanneradvertisement,b)attitudetowardthe

brand,c)intentiontoclickonthebanneradvertisement,andd)intentionto

purchasetheadvertisedproduct(Shamdasani,etal.,2001,p.13).

Theresultsoftheironlinesurvey(n=400)showedthatforhigh‐involvement

productsrelevancebetweenadvertisingcontentandwebsitecontentisthe

significantfactorforapositiveaudiences’responsetothebanner

advertisementsusedinthisstudy(Shamdasani,etal.,2001,p.16).The

reputationoftheadvertisementvehicle(thewebsiteonwhichthe

advertisementisplaced)enhancedtheaudiences’responseonly,whencontent

relevancewasalreadygiven(Shamdasani,etal.,2001,p.16).

Inlow‐involvementproductsituations,thecriticalfactorappearedtobethe

reputationoftheadvertisementvehicle:“Thehighestconsumerevaluationsof

thatbanneradwerefoundwhenthehostwebsitereputationwaswell

established.”(Shamdasani,etal.,2001,p.16)Contentrelevancehadalmostno

effectonevaluationswhenthereputationoftheadvertisementvehiclewas

favourable(Shamdasani,etal.,2001,p.16).

TheresultsofthisstudypartiallysupportCho’s(1999)findingsintermsof

contentrelevance.Shamdasanietal.(2001)foundacoherencebetweenwebsite

contentandtheproductcategoryinthebanneradvertisementonlyinhigh‐

involvementproductsituations.Inlow‐involvementproductsituations,the

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

25|P a g e

reputationoftheadvertisementvehiclewasmoresignificantforafavourable

evaluationofbanneradvertisements.

JeongandKing(2005,p.5)explainthepositiveeffectofcontextcongruence

onadvertisingperceptionduetothecoherenceofconsumerinterestin

advertisementsandincontext.Theyargue,“consumerinvolvementinadstends

tobeconsistentwithinterestincontextbecausegreaterinterestofcontext

carriesovertoproducehigherinvolvementinads.”(Jeong&King,2005,p.5).

JeongandKing(2005,p.21)foundintheirstudythatadvertisementswere

morefavourablyevaluatedwhentheywereplacedinancontextuallyrelevant

websiteenvironment.Theresearchersexplainedtheresultsoftheirstudywitha

contextualprimingeffect.Thewordprimingoriginatesfromthepsychology

disciplineandreferstothephenomenonthatanexposuretoanearlierstimulus

influencestheresponsetoalaterstimulus(Bao,Shao,&Rivers,2008,p.150).

Throughpriorexposure,specificschemasorconceptsaremadeaccessiblewithin

thereceiver.Theseconceptsarebasedonpreviousexperienceoftheindividual

(Bao,etal.,2008,p.150).Onceactivated,itislikelythen,thattheseconcepts

areusedtoevaluatefuturestimuli.SrullandWyer(1979,p.1669)arguethat

“[…]oncea traitconceptorschema ismademoreaccessiblebypreviouscognitiveactivity,thelikelihoodthatthesameschemawillbeusedtoencodenewinformationisincreased.“

Withrespecttotheirstudy,JeongandKing(2005,p.21)arguethat

“contextuallyrelevantcuesshouldhavebeenactivatedandbecomehighly

accessibleduringinterpretingadinformationplacedwithinthatcontext.”

2.3 Semiotics

Semioticsisafieldofstudythat“isconcernedwitheverythingthatcanbe

takenasasign”(Chandler,2002,p.2).Semioticsisanapproachthatisprincipally

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

26|P a g e

concernedwithmeaning‐makingandinvestigates“everythingthatrepresents

somethingelse”(Chandler,2002,p.2).Avarietyofsemioticbranches,theories

andresearchesdrawontheworkbythescholarsFerdinanddeSaussureand

CharlesSandersPeirce,whoarewidelyacceptedastheco‐foundingscholarsof

semiotics(Chandler,2002,p.5;Noeth,1990,p.63).

Saussure’smodelofsignsisbasedonthebasicdistinctionbetweenlanguage

(langue)andspeech(parole)(Chandler,2002,p.12;Noeth,1990,p.63).

Whereaslanguereferstothesystemofrulesandconventionsthatexist

independentlyfromtheuser,parolereferstoitsutilizationbytheuser

(Chandler,2002,p.12).Byfocusingonlinguisticsigns,suchaswords,Saussure

defineslanguageasasystemofsigns.Eachsignconsistsofasignifier,awordand

asignified,aconcept(Saussure,1983,p.66).Themeaningderivesfromthe

relationshipbetweenbothparts.Thesamesignifiercanforexamplestandfor

differentconcepts,likeinthecaseofsynonyms(Chandler,2002,p.19).This

referstoSaussure’sgeneralideathattherelationbetweensignifierandsignified

isarbitrary(Saussure,1983,p.67)orasChandler(2002,pp.25‐32)describes

Saussure’sproposition:

“In the context of natural language Saussure stressed that there is no inherent, essential,‘transparent’, self‐evident or ‘natural’ connection between the signifier and the signified –betweenthesoundortheshapeofawordandtheconcepttowhichitrefers.”

Structuralist semiotics, to which Saussure’s approach counts, is concerned

with the study of the structures of sign systems (Chandler, 2002, p. 9). This

approachofsemioticshasbeencriticisedforthestrictfocusonformalsystems

and the lack of consideration of the sign’s usage in social practices (Chandler,

2002,p.209).Chandler(2002,p.210)arguesthatitdoesnot“addressprocesses

of production, audience interpretation or authorial intentions” and disregards

the sign within the cultural, social, economic and political context (Chandler,

2002,p.210).

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

27|P a g e

IncontrasttoSaussure’s“dyadicmodel”(Chandler,2002,p.18)ofsignifier

andsignified,Peirceprovidesa“triadicmodel”(Chandler,2002,p.32;Noeth,

1990,p.42)ofthesign,whichincludesfirstly,the“representamen”thatisthe

formofthesign,secondly,the“interpretant”thatisunderstoodasthemental

effectorthought,whichisgeneratedbytherelationbetweenthe

representamenandthethirdelement,the“object”towhichthesignrefers

(Chandler,2002,p.32;Noeth,1990,pp.42‐43;Silverman,1983,p.15).The

interactionbetweenthesethreeelementsiswhatPeircecalls“semiosis”

(Chandler,2002,p.33).Themeaningofasignisnotcomprisedinthesignitself

butratherderivesfromitsinterpretationbytheuser(Chandler,2002,p.35),an

ideathataccordingtoChandler(2002)iscapturedbymanytheoristswho

emphasisethedifferencebetweencontentandmeaning.

Peircefurthermoreprovidesatypologyofsigns.Hedifferentiatesbetween

threetypesofsigns:the“symbol”,the“icon”andthe“index”(Chandler,2002,p.

36;Noeth,1990,pp.44‐45).Asymboloccurs,whenthesignformdoesnot

resemblethereferent.Theirrelationshipiscompletelyarbitraryand

conventional,whichmeansthatithastobelearnedbytheuser(Chandler,2002,

p.36;Silverman,1983,p.20).Symbolsareforexamplealphabeticalletters,

numbersorMorsecode(Chandler,2002,p.36).

Intermsofanicon,meaningisbasedontheresemblancebetweentheform

ofthesignandtowhatitrefersto(Cook,2001,pp.74‐75).Theresemblancecan

bebasedonsomemutualqualitiesorproperties,likeforexampleinaportraitor

inacartoon(Silverman,1983,p.19).

Asignisanindexwhenthe“signvehicle”(Chandler,2002,p.36),theformin

whichthesignappears,isdirectlyeitherphysicallyorcausallyconnectedwith

thereferent(Cook,2001,p.74).Therelationcanbeobservedorinferred.

Indexicalsignsareforexamplesmokethatiscausedbyfire;footprintsofa

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

28|P a g e

humanorthermometersreactontemperaturechange(Cook,2001,p.74).

Silverman(1983,pp.19‐20)arguesmoreover,thatintermsofanindexical

relation,thesignisunderstoodasbeingconnectedtotherealobjectand

thereforeitmakesthatparticularobjectconceptuallypresent.

Anotherapproachthathasbeendevelopedwithinthefieldofsemioticsisthe

distinctionbetween“denotation”and“connotation”.BarkerandGalasinsky

(2001,p.5)notethatdenotationisthedefinitionalandcommonsensemeaning

ofasign,sharedbyvirtuallyallmembersofaculture.Connotationsincontrast,

generatemeaningfromtheconnectionofthesignifierwithawider“cultural

codeofmeaning”(Barker&Galasinsky,2001,p.5).Silverman(1983,p.36)

describesaculturalcodeas

“[…]aconceptualsystemwhichisorganizedaroundkeyoppositionsandequations,inwhichatermlike“woman”isdefinedinoppositiontoatermlike“man,”andinwhicheachtermisalignedwitha clusterof symbolic attributes. In caseof “woman” those symbolic attributesmightbe“emotional,”“pliant,”and“weak,”whereasthoseassociatedwith“man”wouldbemorelikelytobe“rational,”“firm,”and“strong.”

Barthes(1994,pp.288‐289)emphasisesinhisdefinitionofculturalcodethe

societalinfluence:

“cultural code: this is the code of knowledge, or rather of human knowledges, of publicopinion,ofcultureas it istransmittedbythebook,byteachingand,moregenerally,bythewholeofsociality;thiscodehasforitsreferenceknowledgeasthebodyofruleselaboratedbysociety.”

LikeBarkerandGalasinsky(2001,p.5)andSilverman(1983,p.36)consider

culturalcodesasthebasisforconnotation.Silverman(1983,p.36)suggests,that

connotationcanonlybeexplainedunderconsiderationofa“socialfieldthatis

structuredintermsofclassinterestsandvalues”(Silverman,1983,p.29).For

Barthes,cultureisfilledwithcontradictingideologies.ThecultureinBarthes

understandingisshapedbytheideologiesofthedominantclass(Silverman,

1983,p.30).Hecallstheseideologies“myths”(Chandler,2002,p.144)andthey

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

29|P a g e

functiontonaturalisespecificvalues,attitudesandbeliefs,whichmeansthatan

ideologybecomescommonsenseandisappreciatedasnormal(Chandler,2002,

p.145):

“Their function is to [...]makedominantculturalandhistoricalvalues,attitudesandbeliefsseementirely‘natural’,‘normal’,self‐evident[...]”

Barthes(1973,p.156)himselfexplainsthata

“[m]ythdoesnotdeny things,on thecontrary, its function is to talkabout them; simply, itpurifies them, it makes them innocent, it gives them a natural and eternal justification, itgivesthemaclaritywhichisnotthatofanexplanationbutthatofastatementoffact.”

Thenotionabouttheimportanceofcultureforconnotationshowever,entails

aconsiderableproblem,asChandler(2002,p.141)andSilverman(1983,p.30)

demonstrate.Botharguethatinthiscontext,connotationrequiresanindividual

whoisinvolvedandinfluencedbyaculture,whereasdenotationassumesa

neutralreaderorviewer,onewhoisnotinfluencedbycultureoranykindof

ideology.However,asSilverman(1983,p.30)andChandler(2002,p.141)argue,

everychildthatlearnsthedenotationsisalreadypositionedinanideology.

Therefore,asChandler(2002,p.141)concludes,acleardistinctionbetween

denotationandconnotationmightbetheoreticallyuseful,forexamplefor

analyticalpurposes,butinpracticethesetwoelementsareinseparablebecause

meaningisalwayspervadedwithvaluejudgement.Inthissense,Chandler(2002,

p.143)arguesthat

“[t]herecanbenoneutral,‘literal’descriptionwhichisfreeofanevaluativeelement.”

2.3.1 Socialsemiotics

JewittandKress(2003)argueforofasocialapproachtosemiotics.“Social

semiotics”emphasisestheroleoftheindividualinthemeaning‐makingprocess

(Jewitt&Kress,2003,p.9).Theycriticisethosesemioticapproachesthatregard

peopleas“confrontedwithready‐madesystemsformakingmeaning–the

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

30|P a g e

linguisticsystemmightbetheexampleparexcellence”(Jewitt&Kress,2003,pp.

9‐10).Inthesesemioticapproaches,asJewittandKress(2003,p.10)criticise,

peopleareviewedaspassiveusersofsemioticsystemslikelanguage.Peopleuse

thesignsprovidedbythosesemioticsystemsbuttheydonotchangethem.In

contrast,asJewittandKress(2003,pp.10‐11)argue,socialsemioticsviewsthe

peopleintheirsocio‐culturalenvironment.Thesocialsemioticapproachasitis

arguedbyJewittandKress(2003,p.10),proposesthatthepeoplecontinuously

createnewsigns:

“[…]signsareviewedasconstantlynewlymade,inaprocessinwhichthesignified(whatistobemeant)isrealisedthroughthemostaptsignifier(thatwhichisavailabletogiverealisationtothatwhichistobemeant)inaspecificsocialcontext.”

Chandler(2002,pp.217‐218)followsasimilarnotionandarguesthat

meaningisconstructedwithintheindividualand“arisesonlyintheactive

processofinterpretation”(Chandler,2002,p.217).Thispointofviewincludes

theargumentthattherelationbetweensignifiedandsignifierisnotarbitrary

(Hodge&Kress,1988,pp.21‐22;Jewitt&Kress,2003,p.10)asitisclaimedby

Saussure.

AccordingtoHodgeandKress(1988,p.261)socialsemioticsfocusesonall

semioticsystemshumansapplywhentheyareengagedincommunication.The

authorsarguethatsocialsemioticsisconcernedwithhuman“semiosis”,which

are“theprocessesandeffectsoftheproductionandreproduction,reception

andcirculationofmeaninginallforms”(Hodge&Kress,1988,p.261).Further,

semioticshastoincludethestudyofculture,thesocietyandthepoliticsinall

meaning‐makingprocesses(Hodge&Kress,1988,p.18).

2.3.2 Geosemiotics

AnotherlistingthatisplacedinthewiderfieldofsocialsemioticsisScollon

andScollon’s(2003)approachofgeosemiotics.Here,theauthorsarguethatin

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

31|P a g e

ordertointerpretthemeaningsofsignsandtextsinthematerialworld,itis

necessarytoconsiderthesocialandphysicalworldinwhichthesignsandtexts

arelocated.Themainfocusofgeosemioticsisindexicalitythatrefersto“the

propertyofcontext‐dependencyofsigns”(Scollon&Scollon,2003,p.3).

AccordingtoScollonandScollon(2003,p.29)therearetwobasictypesofsigns,

iconsandsymbolsbutallsignswhethericonsorsymbolsachievetheirmeanings

throughpropertiesofindexicality(Scollon&Scollon,2003,p.29).Asign’s

meaningdependsonhowitisusedinacontextorwiththewordsofScollonand

Scollon(2003,p.29):“thesignonlyhasmeaningbecauseofwhereitisplacedin

theworld”.

Theinnovativenotionofgeosemioticsderivesfromtheintegrationofthree

mainsystemsthatoutlineanyformofsocialaction:“interactionorder”,“visual

semiotics”,and“placesemiotics”(Scollon&Scollon,2003,p.8).Whereas

interactionorderrefersto“theformsofsocialinteractionsweproducewhenwe

cometogether”(Scollon&Scollon,2003,p.212),itistheconcernofvisual

semioticstoinvestigatehowsocialrelationshipsintheworldarerepresentedin

visualimages(Scollon&Scollon,2003,p.108).Placesemioticstakesinto

account“thebuiltenvironmentinwhichsocialinteractiontakesplace”(Scollon

&Scollon,2003,p.167)andincludes“eventheweatherorregulateclimate

patternswhichcontributetothemeaningoftheplace”(Scollon&Scollon,2003,

p.214).

2.3.3 Semioticsinadvertising

AsJhally,KlineandLeiss(2004)pointout,semioticscanbeappliedto

investigate“anythinginwhichmeaningisthoughttoinhere”(p.341).AsBeasley

andDanesi(2002,pp.19‐21)andalsoNoeth(1990,p.477)outline,theareaof

advertisinghasbeenwidelyresearchedinordertoexaminemeaning‐

affordancesinadvertisements.Becauseofitsprominence,itsdiversityandits

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

32|P a g e

influenceoncultureandsociety,advertisingisseenasapopularsubjectofstudy

andasignificantgenreforsemioticanalysis(Beasley&Danesi,2002,pp.19‐20;

Cook,2001,pp.1‐3;Tanaka,2002,pp.xi‐xii).

Jhally,etal.(2004)theoreticallydiscusstheapplicationofsemioticanalysisof

advertisements.Accordingtotheauthors,theincreasinguseofvisualsin

advertising,startinginthemid‐1920,hasledtoahigherambiguityof

advertisementsintermsoftheirmeaningpotential.Meaningisaccordingto

Jhallyetal.(2004,p.342)determinedbyhowthedifferentsignsinan

advertisement’sinternalstructureareorganisedandrelatedtoeachother.

Meaningwouldalsobeinfluencedbyitsreferencetothewiderbeliefsystemin

theexternalworld(Jhally,etal.,2004,p.342).Theauthorsarguethat

advertisingreconstitutesmeaningforitsownpurposesbasedontheaudience’s

predispositions,hopes,andconcerns(Jhally,etal.,1990,p.200).Advertising

applieselementsoftheaudience’slifeandexaggerates,magnifiesand

embellishesthem(Jhally,etal.,1990,p.200).

Jhallyetal.(2004)describehowadvertisementscommunicatemeaningsfora

promotedproduct,whichtheaudiencehasnoknowledgeoforexperiencewith.

Withrespecttothesemioticdifferentiationbetweendenotationand

connotation,theauthorsarguethateverymessageconsistsoftwolevelsof

meaning:themeaningthatisplaceddirectlyonthesurfaceoftheadvertisement

(denotation)andtheonethatoccursimplicitlybelowthesurface(connotation)

(Jhally,etal.,1990,p.205),anargumentthathasalsobeenmadebyNoeth

(1990,pp.477‐478).Jhallyetal.(2004,p.343)arguethatforadvertisingto

createmeaningfortheproductitpromotes,therecipienthastoengageina

processofmeaning‐transferfromthesignsintheadvertisementtotheproduct

becausethemeaningdoesnotdirectlyoccurintheadvertisementbutratherin

therecipient.Thisprocessinvolvesthreebasicrequirements.Firstly,meaningof

onesignhastobetransferredtoanothersign(Jhally,etal.,2004,p.343).This

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

33|P a g e

can,accordingtotheauthors,occurbetweenpersonsandobjects,social

situationsandobjects,betweenobjectsandobjects,andbetweenfeelingsand

objects.Second,theaudiencecompletesthetransferofmeaning.Thisrequires

anactiveparticipationoftheaudience.Third,thefirstsignmustalreadybe

significanttotheaudience.Onlythenmeaningcanbetransferred(Jhally,etal.,

2004,p.343).Inordertoprocessthemeaningtransfer,asystemofmeaning

mustalreadyexist(1990,p.203).Jhallyetal.(1990,p.203)labelsuchasystem

as“referencesystem”.

Theideaofareferencesystemtowhichtheaudiencereferstoinorderto

processthemeaningtransferhasbeencriticisedbyTanaka(2002,pp.4‐6).He

arguesthatJhellyetal.’s(1990)argumentationisincompletebecauseitdoesnot

explainhowtheaudienceknowsanddecideswhatinformation,whichexistsin

theirreferencesystem,isrelevantforthemeaningtransfer.Tanaka(2002,pp.4‐

6)furtherarguesthattheconceptfailstoidentifythecriterionsfortheaudience

tochoosetherightinformationfromthisreferencesystem.

SimilartoJhallyetal.’s(1990)descriptionofmeaning‐transfer,Noeth(1990,

p.480)arguesthatinadvertisinganindexicalfeaturetransfertakesplace.This

means,thatinadvertisementsthepromotedproduct“isrepresentedin

contiguitytovaluableobjects,filmstars,orsimilarentitieswhosedesirable

attributesarewellknown”(Noeth,1990,p.480).Advertisersapplythisstrategy

inordertogettheirproductassociatedwiththesefavourableattitudes.

Theapplicationofsemioticsfortheanalysisofadvertisinghasalsobeen

criticised.ScholarslikeBeasleyandDanesi(2002,p.vii),Botterill,Jhally,Klein

andLeiss(2005,pp.165‐166)andalsoAnderson,DewhirstandLing(2006,p.

257),raisetheconcernthattheanalysisofmeaninginadvertisementsishighly

basedontheanalyst’sinterpretation.Thisresultsinalowerreliabilityofthe

findingsofthesemioticanalysis.Reliabilityinthissenserefersto“asufficient

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

34|P a g e

levelofagreementamonganalystsonwhatisfoundinamessage”(Botterill,et

al.,2005,pp.165‐166).

Contrary,BeasleyandDanesi(2002,p.vii)arguethatsemioticsisavaluable

methodtobecomeawareofboththevarietyofinterpretationsthatcanbe

drawnfromadvertisementsandtheexistenceofimplicitmeaningsunderneath

thesurfacelevelofanadvertisement(Beasley&Danesi,2002,p.159).Especially

concerningcommoncriticismofadvertising,likeitspromotionofconsumerism

andthe‘hidden’persuasionanditsinfluencesonattitudesanddesires(Beasley

&Danesi,2002,pp.149‐151),BeasleyandDanesi(2002,p.159)arguethata

semioticanalysiscanbesupportivetode‐mystifyadvertisingcreativityinorder

tomake“theprocessofmeaningcreationmoreaccessible”.Whentheconsumer

isawareofthehiddenmeaningsinadvertisements,heorshewillbemoreable

torepelundesirableeffectsthatthesetextsmaycause(Beasley&Danesi,2002,

p.159).

SemioticanalysishasforexamplebeusedbyMcIlwain(2007)toanalyse

meaninginapoliticaladvertisement.Heanalysedatelevisedpolitical

advertisementrunbyapoliticianintheUSintermsofthefoursignsystemsthat

occurintheadvertisement:photographs,writtenlanguage,spokenlanguage

(narration)andmovingimages(McIlwain,2007,p.169).Thestudyrevealedthat

thisadvertisementarguesagainstthepolitician’sopponentbyusingcertain

racialappealsagainst‘Afro‐Americans’(McIlwain,2007,p.189).

AnotherresearchhasbeendonebyCartyandPeppin(2001)whoconducteda

semioticanalysisofsixdrugadvertisementsthatpromoteamedicamentfor

womeninthemenopausalyears,inordertoinvestigatehowpharmaceutical

companiesdesignadvertisementstopersuadephysicianstoprescribetheir

product.Theanalysisshowedthattheadvertisementsusedstereotypicalviews

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

35|P a g e

ofwomen,whichprovidesanimageofwomanthat“undermineswomen’s

positionasautonomousdecision‐makers(Carty&Peppin,2001,p.326).

Andersonetal.(2006)conductedasemioticanalysisofatobacco

advertisement.Theauthorsarguethatasemioticanalysisshouldincludetwo

basicsteps(p.256):first,theresearcherhastoselecttheadvertisementthathas

tobeanalysedaccordingtospecificcriteria,likeforexamplethemediumin

whichtheadvertisementappears(forexamplemagazinesoronwebsites).Inthe

secondstep,theresearcheranalysesboththeadvertisementcopy(linguistics,

fontstyle,typography)andimages.Thisincludestheanalysisofdenotative

meanings,whichAndersonetal.(2006,p.256)defineas“theinitialmeaning

thatasignisdesignedtocapture”aswellastheadvertisement’simplied

meanings,whichtheydescribeasconnotativemeanings(p.256).

Theintroducedliteraturethatdiscussesanddescribestheapplicationof

semioticanalysisfortheinvestigationofthemeaninginadvertisements,havein

commonthattheyplacethedocumentormorepreciselyparticular

advertisement(s)intothecentreoftheirinvestigation.However,asthe

differentiationbetweendenotationandconnotationaswellasapproacheslike

socialsemioticsandgeosemioticspropose,themeaning‐processincludesthe

userofasignandisnotcompletelycontainedinthedocumentitself.Itismy

concerninthepresentresearchtoinvestigatewhatinformationananalysis,

whichfocusesontheuser’smeaningmakingratherthanthedocumentcan

reveal.

2.4 Multimodality

Directlyfocusedonmeaningmakingisalso“multimodality”.JewittandKress

(2003,pp.9‐10)definemultimodalityasthefieldofapplicationforsocial

semiotics.Thebasicideaofmultimodalityisthathumansexperiencemeaningby

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

36|P a g e

utilisingdifferentcommunicativemodes(Finnegan,2002)anddifferentmodes

playspecificpartsintheprocessofconstructingmeaning(Bateman,2008;Kress

&Mavers,2005;Norris,2004;VanLeeuwen,2005).

However,researchersdifferindefinitionsaswellasintheapplicationof

modes.Jewitt&Kress(2003,p.1)implythatmodesare“aregularisedorganised

setofresourcesformeaning‐making”.KressandVanLeeuwen(2001,p.21)

definemodesas“semioticresources”.

Whenpursuingamultimodalapproach,researchershavefollowedthe

propositionthatinmanycontemporarydocuments,suchasnewspapersor

websites,meaningisexpressedthroughavarietyofmodes.Caple(2008,p.131)

arguesthatamultimodaltextisatextinwhich“twoormoredifferentmeaning‐

makingsystemscombinetoproduceatextthatisonecompletesemanticunit

[…]”.Inordertoidentifythemeaning‐affordanceofadocument,researchers

focusonthedocumentandtheemployedmodes,suchaswrittenlanguageor

illustrations.Inthissense,eachmodeisapartialcarrierofmeaning(Kress&

Mavers,2005,p.172).Partialinthissensemeansthateachmodecontributesa

parttothewholeofthemeaning(Jewitt&Kress,2003,p.3).Here,thefocuslies

onthedocumentwithoutnecessarilyincludingtheuser.

Theanalysisofadocument’smeaning‐affordancehasbeenofinterestfora

numberofresearchers,andsoforvariousreasonsandareasofapplication.

Scholarsexaminedforexamplethemeaning‐affordanceofprintadvertisements

(Yuen,2004),magazines(Kress&VanLeeuwen,2001),newsstories(Caple,

2008),mindmaps(Mavers,2003)aswellasbiologytextbooks(Guo,2004).Here,

researchersexaminethepresenceofmodesinadocument(e.g.Bateman,2008;

Caple,2008;Guo,2004;Mavers,2003;Yuen,2004)andbythisindependently

fromthemeaningmaker.

Inadifferentdefinition,“modes”areunderstoodasemployedbysocialactors

inordertointeractwiththeirenvironment.Norris(2004,pp.11‐12)usesthe

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

37|P a g e

term“communicativemodes”to“emphasizetheirinteractionalcommunicative

function.”Inthissense,asocialactorusescommunicativemodeslikeproximity,

gaze,gestureorspokenlanguageinordertocommunicatewithothersocial

actorsorwithatext.Norris(2004)providesamethodologicalframeworkforthe

analysisofhumaninteractionunderconsiderationofthevarietyof

communicativemodeshumansemploy.

KressandMavers(2005,p.174)pointoutthateachmodehasaspecific

affordancewhichisbasedonitsmateriality.Themodeofgestureforexample

hasvisiblematerialitywhereasspokenlanguagehasanaudiblemateriality

(Norris,2004,p.3).Modesarealsocategorisedintermsoftheirstructure.

MaversandKress(2005,p.174)differbetween“time‐basedmodes”,likespeech

ormusicand“space‐basedmodes”,suchasimagelayoutorarchitectural

arrangements.Othermodes,likegesturearebothtime‐andspace‐based

simultaneously(Kress&Mavers,2005,p.174).

Norris(2004,p.45)distinguishesbetween“embodied”and“disembodied”

modeswherebysheemphasisesthattheboundariescanbevague.Through

embodiedmodesapersonexpresseshisorher“perceptions,thoughts,and

feelings”toanotherperson(Norris,2004,p.42).Printforexampleisembodied

whensomeoneutilisesawritinginstrumentinordertocommunicatehis

perceptions,forinstance,whenwritingashoppinglist.Printisdisembodiedin

contrastforthosewhousetheshoppinglist.Amodeisdisembodiedwhen

somethingalreadycreatedisutilisedbysomeoneforaspecificaction(Norris,

2004,p.45).

Themodes,asexperiencedbytheobserver,interactwithoneanotherand

influencetherecipients’processingofmessages.Theinterpretationthenalso

dependsontheinterpreter’splaceinthesocialandculturalworld(Kress&van

Leeuwen,2001).

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

38|P a g e

Intheirapproachofmediateddiscourseanalysis,NorrisandJones(2005b)

introducetheterm“mediationalmeans”(p.49)thatreferstotheproposition

thatallhumanactionsaremediatedthroughspecific“culturaltools”(Wertsch,

1998,p.17).Mediationalmeansare“physicalandpsychological‘objects’that

mediatebetweenagentsandtheirsocialworlds”(Norris&Jones,2005b,p.50).

Thedescribedmeansarephysicalandpsychologicalatthesametimebecause

theycarryaspecificmeaningfortheuserforwhichheorsheutilisesthemin

theirsocialpracticesbuttheyalsoexistasmaterialobjectsinthephysicalworld

(Norris&Jones,2005a,p.50).Mediationalmeanscontainspecific“affordances”

and“constrains”thatformtheirusage(Norris&Jones,2005a,p.50;Wertsch,

1998,p.39).Theusageofmediationalmeansisculturally,socially,and

historicallyshaped.However,whatausercandowiththemisnotentirely

determinedbutrathermultifunctionalandopenforcombinationswithother

mediatedmeans(Norris&Jones,2005a,p.50).

2.5 Conclusion

InthischapterIprovidedareviewoftheliteratureconcernedwiththreebasic

areasofsignificanceinthepresentresearch.Firstly,theliteraturethataddresses

marketingwithparticularfocusonadvertisingingeneral,onlineadvertisingand

contextualadvertising.Secondly,literatureconcernedwiththewiderfieldof

semiotics,especiallysocialsemiotics,geosemioticsandsemioticsappliedin

advertisingresearch.Finally,Iprovidedareviewofliteraturethatfocuseson

multimodality.

Thepresentstudyisinformedbythepresentedliteraturebutalsoaimsto

contributetothesefieldsofstudies.

Thebasicaimforthisresearchistheanalysisofaspecificwebpagefromthe

webpageuser’sperspective.Thepresentedliteratureononlineadvertising,

situatedinthewiderfieldofmarketing,providesusefulinsightsintoexisting

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

39|P a g e

researchandliteratureabouthowwebusersinterpretwebsitesthatinclude

advertisementsaswellaseditorialcontents.Contextualadvertisinghasenjoyed

considerableinterestinadvertisingpracticeaswellasadvertisingresearch.For

thisresearch,theliteratureoncontextualadvertisingprovidesthefoundation

fortheanalysisoftypesofrelationshipsbetweenadvertisingandeditorial

contentonawebpageasthewebpageuserconstructsthem.

However,intermsofcontextualadvertising,thereviewedstudiesfocusedon

congruencebetweenadvertisementsandtheircontextbasedonsimilarityin

emotionalappeals(Anckaert,etal.,2002)aswellasproductcategory(Cho,

1999;Shamdasani,etal.,2001).WiththepresentresearchIintendtoinvestigate

whatothertypesofrelationshipsareconstructedbythewebpageuser.

AsalreadyDalaletal.(2005,p.51)pointedout,mostresearchfocuseson

completewebsitesratherthansinglewebpages.Littleresearchhasbeendonein

thisarea.Withthisresearch,Ialsoaimtocontributeinfillingthisgapby

investigatingtheuser’sperceptionsofaspecificwebpage.

Mostoftheresearchesononlineadvertisingpresentedinthisliterature

reviewarebasedonaquantitativeresearchapproach(e.g.Anckaert,etal.,2002;

Bukovac&Li,1999;Cho,1999;Diao&Sundar,2004;Dréze&Hussherr,2003;

Hwang,etal.,2003;Ju‐Pak&Miranda,1998;Shamdasani,etal.,2001).Iapplyin

thepresentresearchaqualitativeresearchapproachinordertogetaninsight

intoauser’sinterpretationsofawebpagebynotonlyaskingwhattheuser

interpretsbutalsobyfocusingonhow.

Thefocalpointinthisresearchisontheusersandtheirinterpretationsof

advertisementsandtheeditorialcontentplacedonthewebpage.Forthisthe

introducedliteratureonsemioticsandmultimodalityisusefulbecauseit

providesabasicunderstandingofhowindividualsexperiencetheirworldand

2.LITERATUREREVIEW

40|P a g e

howtheseexperiencesshapetheirsocialbehaviour.Theunderstandingsinsocial

semiotics,geosemioticsandmultimodalityinformmyresearchbecausethey

emphasiseboththeindividualaswellastheindividual’senvironment,suchas

theculturalbackgroundandplace,fortheprocessofmeaningmaking.

Withthisresearch,Iattempttoprovidemoreinsightsintothemeaning‐

makingprocessesofindividuals.Meaningmakinginthepresentstudyisnotonly

basedonasingleonlineadvertisementasithasbeendoneinseveralofthe

presentedstudiesanddiscussions(e.g.Beasley&Danesi,2002;Bukovac&Li,

1999;Donthu,etal.,2004;Dréze&Hussherr,2003)butalsounderconsideration

ofthewebpagecontextinwhichonlineadvertisementsareembedded.

Iseeapotentialcriticalpointconcerningthediscussionaboutsemioticsin

advertisingthatIpresentedabove.TheintroducedauthorsJhallyetal.(1990,

2004)andBeasleyandDanesi(2002)emphasiseintheirdiscussionthatmeaning

isconstructedwithintheaudience.Factuallythough,theyfocustheirsemiotic

analysisontheadvertisementratherthantheaudience.Alsothepresented

studiesofMcIlwain(2007),CartyandPeppin(2001)andAndersonetal.(2006)

describedanalysesofmeaning‐affordancesinadvertisementswithoutincluding

theaudience.Icanseehereapotentialcontradiction.Afocalpointonthe

audiencecouldrevealinterestinginsights,whichcouldnotbebroughttothe

surfacebyananalysisofanadvertisementalone.Itismyintentioninthepresent

researchtoinvestigatethisaspect.

Inthefollowingchapter,Iwilldiscussinmoredetailhowthepresented

literatureinformsmyresearchandmyunderstandings,includingtheresearch

questionsthatguidethisstudy.

3.APPROACH

41|P a g e

3. ApproachWithreferencetothemultimodalapproach,Ifollowinthisstudythe

propositionthatmodescannotbefullyinvestigatedwithoutthesocialactor,

whoconstructsmeaning.Iunderstandthatamodedoesnotoccurona

documentbutonlywiththesocialactorwhoistheuserofthedocument.

Hereby,Iconceiveamodeashavingaparticularaffordanceforthesocialactor.

AsIwillexplaininthefollowing,thisaffordanceofamodeforasocialactoris

shapedbythecultureinwhichanindividualisinvolvedaswellasindividual

factorssuchaspersonalexperiences,knowledgeandpreferences.Iapplythis

understandingtoaparticularwebpagefromthewebsite

www.healthyfood.co.nz.Idonotattempttoinvestigatethewebpageanditsuse

ofdifferentmodesinordertoexamineitsmeaning‐affordance.Itismyconcern

toinvestigatethewebpagefromtheuser’sperspectiveandhowtheuser

interpretsthewebpage.Myaimistofindoutwhatinsightsananalysisofthe

user’sinterpretationsofawebpagecanprovide.

Byfocusingontheuser’smeaning‐makingprocessofaspecificwebpage,I

alsointendtoinvestigatewhattypesofrelationshipstheuserconstructs

betweentheadvertisementsandtheeditorialarticlethatareplacedonthe

webpageexample.Here,Iunderstand“relationship”asaconnectionbetween

thecontent‐types,andthattheuserconstructstheserelationships.Relationships

inthissensedonotoccurinthedocument.Itisratheradynamicprocessactively

shapedbytheuser.

Myinterestininvestigatingtypesofrelationshipsisbasedonanemerging

practiceinonline‐advertisingtoplaceadvertisementsonwebsitesthatsharea

similarcontent‐theme,called‘contextualadvertising’.Insuchcases,the

relationshipbetweenmultiplecontent‐types,suchasadvertisingandeditorial

article,isbasedoncontentsimilarity.Anadvertisermayplaceanadvertisement

3.APPROACH

42|P a g e

foranairlineonatravelwebsiteoranadvertisementforgolfgearonthe

websiteofagolfclub.Advertisersusecontent‐relatedadvertisinginorderto

narrow‐targettheircustomergroup(Belch&Belch,2009,p.492).Alsoin

advertisingresearch,theinvestigativefocusoftenliesoncontentsimilarity

betweenadvertisementandtheeditorialcontentofthewebsitewhile

addressingtheeffectivenessofanadvertisement(Shamdasani,etal.,2001,p.8).

Iaminterestedininvestigatingwhattypesofrelationships–especiallyother

thanthosecontent‐basedrelationshipsdeployedbytheadvertiser‐the

participantsconstructduringtheprocessesofviewing/readingthewebpage.

Myintentionforthisstudyistoinvestigatehowusersthemselvesinterpreta

webpagefromthewebsitewww.healthyfood.co.nz.Thisinvestigationincludes

ananalysisofwhatrelationships,i.e.momentaryinteractions,betweenthe

advertisementsandtheeditorialarticletheparticipantsconstruct.Iam

interestedinthisinvestigationinordertoexaminetheseveralmeanings

constructedbythereaderin“real‐time”thatmaynotbediscoveredbyanalysing

thedocumentalone.

Specifically,Iaddressthefollowingresearchquestions:

• Whattypesofrelationshipsdotheparticipantsconstructbetweenthe

informationmodulesthatareplacedonawebpageofthewebsite

www.healthyfood.co.nz?

• Howdotheparticipantsinterprettheinformationmodulesplacedona

selectedwebpagefromthewebsitewww.healthyfood.co.nz?

Inthefollowingchapter,IwilldefinespecifictermsthatIuseinthisthesisas

wellasparticularunderstandingsthatinformmyresearch.Idrawthese

3.APPROACH

43|P a g e

definitionsoftermsandtheunderstandingsfromseveralapproachesand

theoriesinthefieldsofmultimodality,socialsemioticsandgeosemiotics.Iwill

furtheroutlinetheprocessoftheanalysisofauser’sinterpretationofa

webpage.

3.1 User‐centredandsystem‐centredapproaches

Inthisresearch,Idifferentiatebetweenuser‐centredapproachesandsystem‐

centredapproaches.Thedifferencebetweenthesetwoapproachesisthatthe

systems‐centredapproachfocusesonthewebpageasamultimodaldocument

(ortext)intermsofhowitrepresentsinformationandthushowitaffords

particularmeaningswhileconstrainingothers.Theuser‐centredapproach,in

contrast,focusesonthewebpagefromtheuser’sperspectiveandhows/he

interpretsthewebpage.Inthisapproach,itistheuserwho,togetherwiththe

document,affordsandconstraintsitsmeanings,whileinthesystem‐centred

approach,itisthedocumentalonethatisrecognizedasasourceofmeaning.

Thesetwoapproacheswouldanalysethesamewebpageyetfromdifferent

perspectives.Forthedifferentiationbetweenuser‐centredandsystem‐centred

approachesIrefertotheworkofLee,Lee,KimandStout(2004,pp.62‐63),who

investigatedtheeffectivenessofonlineadvertising.Fortheirstudy,Leeetal.

(2004),combinedthesystem‐centredandtheuser‐centredapproachesinorder

toinvestigateapotentialincongruencebetween“objectivewebsite

characteristics”(Lee,etal.,2004,p.61),suchasinteractivefunctions(e.g.

presenceofasearchengineortheoptiontocontactthewebsiteowner)aswell

asdesignelements(e.g.thedeploymentofcoloursorspecificfonttypes),and

theirsubjectiveperceptionbytheparticipantsintheirstudy.Thefindingsoftheir

researchindeedrevealedadifferencebetweenthecharacteristicsfoundin

system‐centredanalyses,andthesubjective,user‐centred,perceptionsofthese

characteristics.

3.APPROACH

44|P a g e

System‐centredapproach

Inthefollowing,IwillbrieflyintroduceBateman’s(2008)Genre‐and‐

Multimodality‐model(GeM‐model)asanexampletoolforasystem‐centred

analysisofmultimodaldocuments.IidentifyBateman’s(2008)modelasa

system‐centredapproachbecauseitfocusesontheanalysisofinherent

meaning‐makingina,asBatemancallsit,“multimodaldocument”(Bateman,

2008,p.1).Byapplyinghismodel,theresearcherconcentratesontheinherent

meaningaffordanceofthedocument,forexamplewhattheusercouldinterpret.

Themeaningaffordancederivesfromwhatthedocument“objectively”contains

withoutaconsiderationoftheuser.

Bateman(2008)introducestheGeM‐modelfortheanalysisofdocuments

thatemployseveralvisually‐basedmodes,suchasimagesandtexts,inorderto

expressmeaning.Whileconcentratingonwrittendocuments,Bateman(2008,p.

1)definesa‘multimodaldocument’as“anartefactthatsimultaneouslydeploysa

varietyofvisuallybasedmodes”(Bateman,2008,p.1).Amode,inBateman’s

(2008)understanding,isachanneltopresentinformation.Withreferenceto

writtentextinamultimodaldocument,Bateman(2008,p.1)describesmodesas

follows:

“[T]extisjustonestrandinacomplexpresentationalformthatseamlesslyincorporatesvisualaspects‘around’,andsometimeseveninsteadof,thetextitself.Werefertoallthesediversevisualaspectsasmodesofinformationpresentation.”

TheGeM‐modelfacilitatestheanalysisofthedocumentonseparate‘layersof

description’(Bateman,2008,p.15).Alayerisdefinedbyaspecificfocusof

analysis.Eachlayerexaminesadocumentwithaparticularfocus,forexampleits

layoutoritsrhetoricalstructureanddescribeshowthedocumentisconstructed

inreferencetothisfocus(p.108).Batemanconcentratesonthesystematic

analysisofadocumentinorderto“revealwhatthebreadthofpossible

variationsandmeaningsmightbe”(Bateman,2008,p.107).

3.APPROACH

45|P a g e

TheGeM‐modelcontainsfivelayers(Bateman,2008,p.108):baselayer,

layoutlayer,rhetoricallayer,andnavigationlayer.Thefollowinggraphic

illustratesthedifferentlayersoftheGeM‐model:

Figure1:SimplifiedillustrationoftheGeM‐model;owncompilation

ThebaselayeroftheGeMmodel“de‐composes”(Bateman,2008,p.24)the

multimodaldocumentintoits“basicelementsphysicallypresentonapage”,

suchastextsandimages.Itisthebasisforthesubsequentlayers.

Thelayoutlayerfocusesontheperceptuallysalientlayoutpropertiesofthe

page(Bateman,2008,p.116).Thepurposeofthelayoutlayeristodescribehow

thelayoutunitsarevisuallypresented(forexampleintermsoffontcoloursor

fontsize)aswellastheirarrangementonthepageconcerningspatialproximity

andpositioningonthepage(Bateman,2008,pp.115‐116).

3.APPROACH

46|P a g e

ThethirdlayeroftheGeM‐model,therhetoricallayer,focusesonthe

identificationofsemanticcontentoftheunitsonthepage,suchasanimageand

atext.Anotherpurposeofthislayeristheidentificationof“meaning‐relations”

(Bateman,2008,p.143)betweentheseunits,forexamplewhenthetext

functionsasacaptionoftheimage(Bateman,2008,p.145).Bateman’s(2008)

propositionoftheanalysisofmeaning‐relationselucidatesthecriticalpoint

whichIintendtoinvestigateinthisresearch.Bateman(2008)aimstoanalyse

meaning‐relationsbyfocusingontheobjectsthatoccurwithinadocument.

Relationshipsbetweenelementsinadocument,asIproposeinthisresearch,are

howeverconstructedwithinthedocumentuseranddonotappearonthe

document.

ThebaseandthelayoutlayeroftheGeM‐modelfocusonthephysicaland

recognisableunitsonamultimodaldocument,whereastherhetoricallayer

concentratesonthemeaning‐relationsoftheunitsonapage.

Thenavigationbasefocusesonelementsthatsupportthereaderin

navigatingthroughthedocument(Bateman,2008,p.269).Navigationunitscan

betextelements,graphicsorotherelementsthatindicatetotheviewerwhere

particularinformationcanbefoundonthepageorwherecurrenttextcontinues.

User‐centredapproach

Auser‐centredapproach,asitisappliedinthepresentstudy,focusesonthe

meaning‐makingprocessesoftheuserofadocumentandnotthedocument

itself,asitisdonewhenfollowingasystem‐centredapproach.

InthefollowingIwilldescribethebasicunderstandingsthatinformmy

research.Iwilldefinemyunderstandingsof“context”and“sign”andexplainthe

significanceoftheuser’scontextwheninterpretingasign(seebelow)ona

webpage.

3.APPROACH

47|P a g e

Iaminvestigatingtheuser’sinterpretationofaselectedwebpage.Forthe

definitionof“interpretation”,IrefertoKressandvanLeeuwen(2001,pp.40‐41)

whotakeinterpretationas“semioticaction”.Iacceptthatinterpretationleadsto

meaninginwebpageusers;itisaformofuser‐generatedsemioticconstruction.

Thissemioticconstructionisnotnecessarilyapparenttoanyoneelseotherthan

totheusersthemselves.However,theusercanmakehisorherinterpretations

perceivabletoothersthrougharticulation.Bothinterpretationandarticulation

are,accordingtoKressandvanLeeuwen(2001,p.40),semioticactions.

Interpretationisthusaprocessofmeaningmakingthatoccursinandisdrivenby

theuser.

Whentalkingaboutsigns,IdrawonChandler’s(2002,p.141)definitionthata

signisonlyasignwhenithasaparticularmeaningforthesignuser.Iadaptfrom

semioticsthepropositionthatthemeaningofasignconsistsof“denotation”and

“connotation”.Denotationreferstothedefinitionalmeaningofasign(Chandler,

2002,p.227).Chandler(2002,p.140)namesthedenotativemeaningofasignas

the‘commonsense’meaning.Connotationreferstothesocio‐culturaland

personalmeaningofasignforasignuser(Chandler,2002,p.140).Asignalways

consistsofbothadenotativeandaconnotativemeaning(Chandler,2002,p.

140).Itistheconnotativemeaningthatmakesthemeaningdependentfromthe

signuser.

Inthisresearch,Iproposethatthewebpagemaycontainthedenotative

meaningofasignwhereastheconnotativemeaningofthatsignmaybemadeby

theuser.Thisconnotativemeaningisbasedontheuser’sexperiences,

knowledge,ideas,interestsandmotivationsaswellasdispositions.Eachuserhas

asetofmeaningsforsignsthats/heapplieswheninterpretingawebpage.Ihere

refertoScollonandScollon(2003,pp.14‐16)whoemphasisetheimportanceof

thepersonalhistoryofknowledgeandexperienceaswellasspecifichabitsand

intentionsforahuman’sactions.

3.APPROACH

48|P a g e

Thedenotativeandconnotativemeaningsaretwoinseparablepartsofthe

samesign.Thatiswhyasystem‐centredanalysismaynotfullyinvestigatethe

meaningofadocumentbecauseitseemstofocusonthedenotativemeaning

only.

IborrowfromKressandvanLeeuwen(2001,p.8),aswellasfromBurkeand

Stets(2003,p.128),theideathataninterpretationofsignsdependsonthe

user’splaceinhis/hersocialandculturalworld.WithreferencetoBurkeand

Stets(2003,p.128),eachindividualisinareciprocalrelationshipwithinthe

societys/helivesin.Theindividualinfluencesthesocietybyhisorheractions

suchascreatinggroups,organisations,networks,andinstitutions.Inturn,the

societyinfluencestheindividualthroughsharedmeaningsthatallowthe

individualtoengageinsocialinteractions.Itisculture,aspecificsetofcultural

valuesandsocialroles,knownbythememberofthesocietyassocialnorms,

thathasanimpactonanindividual’sbehaviourandattitudes(Marsh,1996,p.

20).Thesesetofvaluesarelearnedandinternalisedbythemembersofthe

culture.IobtainfromMarsh(1996,p.20)thedefinitionofcultureas“thenon‐

biologicalaspectsofhumansocieties–tothevalues,customsand[…]behaviour

thatarelearnedandinternalizedbypeopleratherthanbeinggenetically

transmittedfromonegenerationtothenext”.

Iproposethattheinterpretationofawebpagedependsontheinterpreter’s

context.ForthedefinitionofcontextIdrawonScollonandScollon’s(2003)

discussionofgeosemiotics.Geosemioticsis“thestudyofthesocialmeaningof

materialplacementofsignsanddiscoursesandofouractionsinthematerial

world”(Scollon&Scollon,2003,p.2).IfurtherrefertoZaichkowsky’s(1994,p.

59)categorisationoffactorsthatinfluenceadvertisingattitudesandadaptitto

thepurposeofthisresearch.

Itakecontextasconsistingofthreecategoriesoffactors:1)thewebpage

user’sindividualbackground,suchasspecificexperiences,knowledge,aswellas

3.APPROACH

49|P a g e

hisorherpositioninthesocio‐culturalenvironment,2)theuser’sphysicaland

spatialenvironmentatthetimeofthewebpageexposure,suchastheinteriorof

therooms/heisin,thelightingandsoundconditionsaswellasotherpeople

thatarepresent,and3)thedenotativemeaningsofthesignsthatoccuronthe

webpage,orasZaichkowsky(1994,p.59)definesit,thespecificationsofthe

stimulus.

Asalreadymentionedinthebeginningofthischapter,Iacceptmodestobe

withthesocialactorwhousesthem.Thesocialactoremploysmodeslikegaze,

postureorheadmovementunderconsiderationoftheaffordancesthesemodes

providetohimorher.“Modalaffordances”asJewittandKress(2003,p.14)call

them,arethespecificinherentqualityofamode.Eachmodehasaformalsideas

wellasasocial,culturalandhistoricalside(Jewitt&Kress,2003,p.15).Onthe

onehand,eachmodehasspecificformalcharacteristics.Gazeorbodyposture

forexamplehasvisualmaterialitywhereaslisteninghasanaudiblemateriality.

Ontheotherhand,modalaffordancesarebasedontheculturalandsocial

historyofthatmodeandhowthemodehasbeenusedbyacultureandsociety

inthepast(Jewitt&Kress,2003,pp.14‐15).Theaffordancesofmodesarenot

staticbutratherevolvewithtimethroughtheirusebythemembersofasociety

(Kress&VanLeeuwen,1996,p.40).

Socialactorsusethesemodestointerpretsigns,forexamplethosethatare

placedonawebpage.Eachsignispresentedinaspecificform,whichsuggeststo

thesocialactortheemploymentofaspecific“embodied”modetointerpretthe

sign.IreferheretoNorris’(2004,p.41)definitionof“embodied”modes,which

proposesthatasocialactorusesamodeinordertointeractwithatextora

socialactor.Withinthecontextofthisresearch,asocialactoremploysmodesin

ordertointerpretthesign.Avisualsignforinstance,whichispresentedina

specificshapewithparticularcoloursetc.suggesttotheinterpretertoemploy

3.APPROACH

50|P a g e

themodeofgaze.Verbalsignsincontrast,suggesttotheinterpretertoemploy

themodeofhearing.

3.2 Structuraldescriptionoftheselectedwebpage

InthefollowingIwillintroduceanddefinespecifictermsthatstructurally

describetheelementsthatoccuronthewebpage.Iwillalsousethesetermsto

describetheparticipant’sresponsestowardstheirinterpretationofthe

webpage.

Inthepresentresearch,Ifocusonuserinterpretationsofawebpagefromthe

websitewww.healthyfood.co.nz.Thefollowingpictureshowstheselected

webpage:

3.APPROACH

51|P a g e

Figure2:Theselectedwebpagefromthewebsitewww.healthyfood.co.nz

3.APPROACH

52|P a g e

Iproposetocalltheindividualcontentunitonthewebpageaninformation

module.Forexample,aparticularadvertisementonawebpageisone

informationmodule.Eachinformationmoduleisunique.Theselectedwebpage

containsseveralinformationmodules.Thefollowinggraphicillustrates

informationmodulesonthewebpagethatcouldbeidentifiedbythe

participants:

3.APPROACH

53|P a g e

Figure3:Informationmodulesontheselectedwebpage

3.APPROACH

54|P a g e

Therearefouradvertisementsonthewebpage.IlabelthemasAd1,Ad2,Ad3,

Ad4,andeachadvertisementisoneindividualinformationmodule.Another

informationmoduleistheeditorialarticle,consistingofawrittentextanda

picture.Afurtherinformationmoduleonthewebpageistheheadline“healthy

foodguide”.

Thewebpagealsocontainsseveralsearchbars,anavigationbaranda

numberofhyperlinkstootherpagesofthewebsite.Isummarisethesetools

underthelabel“websitetools”referringtoDjonov(2008,p.219)who

differentiatesbetweentwo“corestrandsofwebsitesections”(p.219),namely

contentandfunction.Thecontentsectionprovidesinformationthatrefersto

thewebsite’stheme,whereasfunctionalsectionspresentinformationaboutthe

website.Thewebsitetoolsonthewebpageforthisresearchcanbeassignedto

whatDjonov(2008)callsthe“functionsection”(p.219).Theyprovide

informationaboutthewebsiteandcontributetothewebsite’sfunctionality

ratherthanpresentinformationtothewebsite’sthemethatiswhyIconsider

thewebsitetoolsasoneinformationmodule.

Asingleelementofaninformationmodule,likeatextorapicture,isa

module‐component.Eachmodule‐componentformsapartofthewhole

informationmoduleandcanhavesub‐components.Thefollowinggraphic

illustratessomemodule‐componentsofAd1thatcouldbeidentifiedby

participants:

3.APPROACH

55|P a g e

Figure4:Module‐componentsofAd1

Eachinformationmodulecontainsspecificinformationcontent.The

informationcontentisthecommunicativemessageofaninformationmodule.

Eachinformationmodulefurtherbelongstoaparticularinformationtype.An

informationtypeisaspecificgenreofdocuments,suchasthegenreof

advertisingorthegenreofeditorialcontentorwebsitetools.Iamnotusingthe

term“genre”herebecausethistermisusedinconsistentlywithintheliterature.

Bhatia(1993,p.13)forexampledefines“genre”withfocusonthe

communicativepurposeofadocument,whereasBateman(2008,p.9)

concentratesontheformsofexpression,suchaslanguage,thatareemployedby

adocument.Inordertoavoidconfusions,Iusetheterminformationtype.Inthe

presentresearchthereareonlythreetypesaninformationmodulecanbelong

to:advertising,editorialcontentorwebsitetools.

AnothertermIuseinthisresearchislayout.Thelayoutis“thearrangement

[…]ofelements”onapage(West,1990,p.138).Inthisresearch,layoutis

understoodasthearrangementoftheinformationmodulesandtheirsub‐

componentsontheselectedwebpage.

3.APPROACH

56|P a g e

Thefollowingillustrationsummarisestheexplainedterms:

Figure5:Illustrationofterms

Insummary,theinformationmoduleistheindividualunitinthewebpage

selectedforthisresearch.Aninformationmoduleconsistsofspecificmodule‐

componentsandsub‐components.Eachinformationmoduleisassignedas

belongingtoaspecificinformationtype,suchasadvertising.Further,each

informationmodulecontainsacommunicativemessage,itsinformationcontent.

3.3 Summary

Thischapteraimedtooutlinethegoalsofthisstudyaswellaskey

terminologyandconceptsthatinformthisresearch.Thedescribed

understandingsanddefinitionsconstitutethebasisforthisresearch.The

foundationalaspectinthisresearchisthedifferentiationbetweenuser‐centred

3.APPROACH

57|P a g e

andsystem‐centredapproaches.Auser‐centredapproachischaracterisedbyits

focusontheuser’sinterpretationsofadocument,whichdifferentiatesitfroma

system‐centredapproachthatanalysesthedocumentitself.

Asystem‐centredapproachanalysesadocumentwithrespecttothe

denotativemeaningofasignthatoccursonthedocument.

Theformofeachsignsuggeststothesocialactorthedeploymentofaspecific

modeforitsinterpretation.Thesocialactor,whoisboth,thepersonwho

employsthemodeandfurtheraddstheconnotativemeaningtothesign,isina

systems‐centredapproachnotofconcern.Thatiswhyasystem‐centredanalysis

thatintendstoanalyseadocument’smeaning‐affordance,mightnotbeableto

fullyinvestigatemeaning.

Thegeneralaimofthisresearchistoexaminewhatmeaningsananalysisofa

webpagefromtheuser’sperspectiverevealsthatprobablycannotbediscovered

byanalysingthedocumentalone.Thisincludesalsoananalysisofwhattypesof

relationshiptheuserconstructsbetweenthedifferentinformationmodulesthat

areplacedontheselectedwebpage.Arelationshipcanforexamplebebasedon

contentsimilarityintwoormoreinformationmodules.

4.METHODOLOGY

58|P a g e

4. Methodology

Inthefollowingsection,Iwilloutlinethemethodologyandmethodsapplied

inthisresearch.Iwillbeginwithageneraldescriptionofresearch,ofqualitative

research,andthendiscussethicalconcernsthatariseduringtheresearch

process.Furthermore,Iwillintroduceandjustifythemethodschosenforthis

study.Iwillcontinuewithadescriptionofthedataanalysisprocessandfinish

thischapterwithasummary.

4.1 Research

AccordingtoLewis,SaundersandThornhill(2003,p.3),researchcanbe

definedasaprojectthatisundertakeninordertoexaminespecificphenomena

inasystematicway.Thepurposeofresearchistoincreaseknowledge(Lewis,et

al.,2003,p.3).Lewis,SaundersandThornhill(2003,p.3)stressthesignificance

ofasystematicprocedure,andthatresearchoughttobebasedonlogical

relationshipsratherthanbeliefs.AsKayroozandTrevitt(2005,p.11)argue,

researchshould“beunderstoodastheexplorationofexperiencewithinitssocial

context”.KayroozandTrevitt’s(2005,p.11)definitionofsocialcontextincludes:

• Theresearcherhimorherself,theresearcher’svalues,identity,

professionalexperienceetc.;

• Thesiteofresearchincludingtheculturalenvironment,thehistory,

specificvalues,etc.;

• Theresearchmotivation,likethenatureoftheresearch,availabilityof

funding,theinfluenceofsponsors,etc.

Lewisetal.(2003,pp.5‐7)statethataresearchprocessusuallyincludesthe

followingstages:1)theformulationandclarificationofthetopic,2)reviewing

existingliterature,3)selectingtheresearchstrategy,4)collectingthedata

4.METHODOLOGY

59|P a g e

5)analysingthegathereddataandfinally6)concludingthefindingswithina

projectreport.

4.1.1 QualitativeResearch

Qualitativeresearchfocusesonthesocialworldratherthantheworldof

nature(Liamputtong,2009,p.X).Inthissocialworld,qualitativeresearchers

studythesubjectiveexperienceofhumanbeingsaswellassocialrelations(Flick,

2006,p.11).AccordingtoFlick,KardorffandSteinke(2004,p.3),qualitative

researchclaimsto“describelife‐worlds‘fromtheinsideout’,fromthepointof

viewofthepeoplewhoparticipate”.Liamputtong(2009,p.X)arguesthatin

ordertounderstandhowpeoplebehaveintheirsocialworlds,onehasto

understandthemeaningsandinterpretationsthatthosepeopleassigntotheir

behaviour.Thequalitativeresearchapproachischaracterisedbyahighflexibility

ofstrategiesandavarietyofopportunitiestocapturesubjectiveexperiencesof

individuals.Thisallowstheresearchertoinvestigatemeaningsand

interpretationsthatpeopleassigntospecificphenomenaintheirsocialworld

(Liamputtong,2009,p.X).

Inordertocapturethecomplexityofinterpretationsandmeaningsofthe

participantsinqualitativeresearch,datacannotbecollectedinahighly

standardisedway,asitispossibleinquantitativeresearch.Quantitativeresearch

approachesarecharacterisedbyahighdegreeofstandardisationinorderto

ensureahighlevelofcomparison(Flick,2006,p.10).Forexample,questionsand

theirorderinaquestionnairearestrictlyprescribed.Inqualitativeresearch,

however,datacollectionismoreflexibleinordertocapturethecomplexityof

interpretationsandmeaningstheparticipantsbringtocertainphenomena(Flick,

2006,p.10).Datainqualitativeresearchisprincipallyinterpretiveand

concentratesonthe“who,what,when,whyandhowofcertainphenomena”

(Kayrooz&Trevitt,2005,p.110).

4.METHODOLOGY

60|P a g e

Inthepresentresearch,Iamapplyingaqualitativeresearchapproach.This

approachisappropriateforthisstudybecauseIaminvestigatinghowusers

themselvesinterpretaspecificwebpage.Myconcernistoexaminetheuser’s

subjectiveexperiencewiththewebpageandhowtheuserconstructsmeaning.A

quantitativeresearchapproach,whichrequiresthesameprocedureforeach

participant,wouldconstrainmyresearchintermsofflexibilitytoreacttothe

participants’responses.

Researchcanbeconductedinductivelyordeductively.Theinductiveapproach

assumesthathypothesesaredevelopedafterthedataiscollectedandanalysed

(Lewis,etal.,2003,p.393).Here,theresearcherintendstomakesenseofthe

datawithout“imposingpre‐existingexpectationsonthephenomenonorsetting

understudy”(Patton,1990,p.44).Hypothesesandtheoriesemergefromthe

dataandthereforerequireasufficientlevelofknowledgeoftheresearcher

abouttheresearcharea(Lewis,etal.,2003,pp.393‐394).

Thedeductiveapproachassumesthata“cleartheoreticalpositionis

developedpriortothecollectionofdata”(Lewis,etal.,2003,p.28).Thepurpose

ofdatacollectionisthentotestpreviouslydevelopedhypotheses(Lewis,etal.,

2003,p.28).Thereisadebateaboutwhetherthedeductiveapproachcanbe

appliedinqualitativeresearch.Lewisetal.(2003)quoteBrymanwho

summarisestheargumentsagainstadeductiveapproachinqualitativeresearch

asfollows(pp.388‐389):

“The prior specification of a theory tends to be disfavoured because of the possibility ofintroducingaprematureclosureontheissuestobeinvestigated,aswellasthepossibilityofthe theoretical constructs departing excessively from the views of participants in a socialsetting.”

However,Lewisetal.(2003,p.389)arguethatalthoughaqualitativeresearch

mayfollowaninductiveapproach,itcanbeadvantageoustocommencethe

researchfromatheoreticalperspectivebecauseontheonehanditlinkstheown

4.METHODOLOGY

61|P a g e

research“intotheexistingbodyofknowledge”(Lewis,etal.,2003,p.389)inthe

subjectareaoftheresearch.Ontheotherhand,referringtoexistingtheories

providestheresearcherwithaninitialanalyticalframework(Lewis,etal.,2003,

p.389).

Myresearchcontainsinductiveaswellasdeductiveelements.Itisinductive

becauseIinterpretthecollecteddatawithoutspecificpre‐existingexpectations

abouthowtheparticipantsinthisresearchwillrespond.However,asoutlinedin

thepreviouschapter,myunderstandingsareatthesametimedeductively

informedbyseveralapproachessuchasmultimodalityorsocialsemiotics.

Further,Istructuredandlabelledthecomponentsontheselectedwebpageas

informationmodules,module‐components,sub‐components,information

content,andinformationtype.Byapplyingtheseterms,Ideductivelyusethem

fortheanalysisofthecollecteddataaswellasforthediscussionofthisresearch.

Further,Iproposeadifferencebetweenuser‐centredapproachesandsystem‐

centredapproaches.Inthisresearch,Iintendtoviewthecollecteddatafroma

user‐centredperspective.InordertojustifythispropositionIrefertoexisting

literature.However,Ineitherhavepre‐definedexpectationsabouthowthe

participantsinthisresearchwillrespondnordoIintendtoverifyorfalsify

specificpre‐existinghypotheses.

4.2 Designofthestudy

Iaminterestedinthewebpageuser’ssubjectiveperspectivetowardsthe

webpage.FordatacollectionIconductsemi‐structuredinterviews.Thismeans

thattheinterviewisguidedbyacoresetofquestionsbutalsoallowsexpanding

withfurtherquestionsasneededinordertoclarifyaspectsandtoexplore

responses.Ichosesemi‐structuredinterviewsasthemostappropriatedata

collectionstrategybecausetheyallowme,theinterviewer,notonlytoget

responsesfromtheparticipantsbutalsotoaskforthereasonsfortheir

responses.Semi‐structuredinterviewsenablemetoguidetheinterviewin

4.METHODOLOGY

62|P a g e

accordancewithspecificcorequestionsbutalsoallowmetoremainopenforall

themesthatmightcomeup.Thisdatacollectionstrategyisidealtoinvestigate

whytheparticipantsrespondinacertainway.

AllinterviewstakeplaceoneatatimeinthesamesettingatAuckland

UniversityofTechnology(AUT).Theparticipantdeterminesthetimeanddayof

theinterviewwithinagiventimewindowoftwoweeks.

Theinterviewconsistsofthreeparts.Alistoftheprincipalinterview

questionsisattachedinAppendixI,andexamplesoftwocompleteinterviews

canbefoundinAppendixII.

Partonefocusesonquestionsthataimatrecallinginformationcontentonthe

webpagethattheparticipantwasinvitedtoviewatthebeginningofthe

interview.Theinterviewquestionstargettheparticipants’attitudestowardthe

webpage,whatinformationcontenttheyfindprominentandifanyofthe

informationcontentprovidedbytheinformationmodulesonthewebpageare

relevanttothem.

Inparttwooftheinterview,Iaskquestionswiththehelpofcards.AppendixI

presentsallcardsIusedinthispartoftheinterview.Theparticipantisaskedto

assigntheprovidedcardsthatdepictmodule‐componentsfromdifferent

informationmodulesonthewebpage(forexamplewordsfromtheeditorial

article,asalientcolourofanadvertisement,imageelementsetc.)tooneofthe

classesadvertising,non‐advertising,orboth.Thecardsareprovidedtothe

participantinrandomsequence.Aftereachcard,Iasktheparticipantstoexplain

theirdecision.WiththecardactivityIaimtoexaminehowtheparticipantsjustify

theirdecisiontoassignthespecificcardtooneofthecategories.Especiallywhen

theypreviouslyindicatedthattheycouldnotrememberseeingthedepicted

component.

4.METHODOLOGY

63|P a g e

Inpartthreeoftheinterview,Idiscusswiththeparticipantswhat

relationshipstheycanidentifybetweenthedifferentinformationmoduleson

thewebpage.Forthispart,theparticipantsareinvitedtolookatthewebpage

again.

Allinterviewsareaudioandvideorecorded.Atanearlierstageofthis

researchproject,itwasmyintentiontocaptureandanalysetheparticipants’

verbalaswellasnon‐verbalutterances.Asdescribedinthe“Approach”chapter,

socialactorsdeploydifferentmodesinordertointerpretsignsandIaimedto

captureandanalyseavarietyofmodestheparticipantsdeployedduringthe

interviews.Forexample,theparticipantsinmyresearchapplyseveralmodes,

includinggazetointerpretthesignsonthegivenwebpagebutalsouse,among

others,themodeofspokenlanguagetoresponsetotheinterviewquestions.To

capturethevarietyofappliedmodes,Iinstalledthreevideocameras.Onevideo

camerawasconcentratedontheparticipant’sfaceinordertocapturemodes

likegaze,headmovement,andthegeneralfacialexpression.Asecondvideo

camerawasfocusedontheparticipant’supperbodyfromtheprofileview.With

thisIaimedtocaptureforexampletheparticipant’supperbodypostureorhisor

herarmmovements.Thethirdvideocamerafocusedontheparticipantandme

astheinterviewerandcapturedthemodesweemployedinourinteractionwith

eachother.

Afterreviewingtheinterviewsitbecameapparentthattheverbaldataof

eachparticipantprovidedavarietyofin‐depthinformation.Inordertocapture

andanalysethethemesthatcameupintheinterviews,Idecidedtofocuson

verbaldataonly.Istillconsidernon‐verbaldataasasignificantsourceof

informationbutinordertocapturethecomplexityofinformationprovidedby

collectedverbaldata,achangeoffocusappearedtobenecessary.

4.METHODOLOGY

64|P a g e

Theverbaldataoftheinterviewsweretranscribedinordertoanalyse

‘utterances’inthecollecteddata.Thefollowingpicturesshowthedifferent

anglesofthevideocamerasthatcapturedtheparticipant:

Figure6:ShotsfromCamera1,Camera2andCamera3

4.2.1 Theparticipants

Forthisresearch,Iconductedinterviewswithsixparticipants.Accordingto

Patton(1990,p.184),thesamplesizeinaqualitativeresearchdependsonthe

purposeofthestudyaswellasavailabletimeandresources.Sincethisresearch

isseekingdepthinformationasmallernumberofparticipantsissufficient.This

researchdoesnotattempttoberepresentativenorintendstomakeany

generalisationsofthefindingstothewiderpublic.

Fortheinterviewsinthisresearch,Idirectlyapproachedpotential

participants,eitherbyemailorthroughpersonallycontactingthem.Seven

potentialparticipantswereapproachedfrommypersonalnetwork.Sixpersons

agreedtoparticipateandonepersondeclinedforpersonalreasons.Thesix

participantsaremembersofthegeneralpublic(20yearsandabove)inNew

Zealandwithoutconsiderationofethnicity,gender,profession,economicand

socialstatusorrace.Thesecharacteristicswerenotinvestigatedinthisresearch

andthereforenocriteriafortherecruitment.Onecriterionwashowever,that

theparticipantsmusthaveabasicInternetliteracyinordertoensurethatthey

havetheabilitytoidentifytheinformationmodulesandtheirmodule‐

componentsplacedonthewebpage.

4.METHODOLOGY

65|P a g e

Eachpotentialparticipantreceivedaninformationsheet,whichexplainedthe

purposes,theproceduresoftheinterviewandtheparticipant’srights,for

exampletherighttorefuseansweringaquestionandtherightfor

confidentiality.Priortotheinterview,eachparticipantvoluntarilysigneda

consentform,withwhichtheyconfirmedtobeinformedabouttheirrightto

withdrawfromthestudyatanytime,thepurposeoftheresearch,andthat

becauseofthevideo‐tapingoftheinterview,theiridentitycannotbekept

confidential.

4.2.2 ResearchEthics

Partoftheresearchprocessistheconsiderationofethicalissues.Ethicsrefers

totheappropriateethicaldesignoftheresearch.AccordingtoLewisetal.(2003,

pp.129‐145)ethicalissuescanoccuratallstagesoftheresearchprocess.The

appropriatenessoftheintentionsanddesignoftheresearchincludingthe

researcher’sbehaviourismeasuredagainstthebroadersocialnormsthat

indicatehowapersonoughttobehaveinaparticularsituation(Lewis,etal.,

2003,pp.129‐145).KayroozandTrevitt(2005,p.120)arguethataresearcher

mustconsidertheresponsibilitiesofandtherisksforallpeopleinvolved.

Commonethicalissuesrevolvearoundtherighttoprivacy,non‐participation,

anonymityandconfidentiality(Kayrooz&Trevitt,2005,p.120).

Duringthedesignstageoftheresearch,ethicalproblemsmightoccurwhile

approachingpotentialparticipants(Lewis,etal.,2003,p.132).FormystudyI

approachedsevenpotentialparticipants.Iputemphasisonaprivateapproach,

whichmeansIcontactedthepotentialparticipantsinprivatesothatnooutsider

wasawareofaninvolvementofthisparticipant.Ifurtherconsideredthe

participant’srighttorefuseparticipation.OnepersonIapproachedrejectedto

participateforpersonalreasons.

4.METHODOLOGY

66|P a g e

Generally,theresearcherhastoseekinformedconsentfromparticipants

abouttheirwillingnesstoparticipateandmustdeclarethepurposeandnature

oftheresearch,therequirementsoftakingpart,abouttheimplicationsoftaking

partandparticipant’srights,aswellasabouttheuseofthedatacollectedand

thewayinwhichthedatawillbereported.Thepotentialparticipanthasto

submittheconsentvoluntarily(Lewis,etal.,2003,p.132).Aspreviously

mentioned,inmystudyeachparticipanthadtosignaconsentformpriortothe

interview.

Lewisetal.(2003,p.132)claimthatduringthedatacollectionstageseveral

ethicalconcernsmayarise.Duringthisstage,theresearcherhastobeawareof

theparticipant’srightforprivacyandhastoproceedinaccordancetothe

processtheparticipanthasgivenhisorherconsentto.

Asalocationformydatacollection,Ichoseaparticularroomatauniversityin

ordertokeeptheparticipant’srighttoprivacy,whichIguaranteedinthe

informationsheettheparticipantsreceivedpriortotheinterview.

Further,atruthfulhandlingofthecollecteddatahastobemaintainedbythe

researcher.Thismeansthedatahastobecollectedaccuratelyandremovalas

wellasmakingupofdatathatmightinfluencetheresearchoutcome,is

consideredasunacceptableandunethical(Lewis,etal.,2003,p.132).

ConfidentialityandanonymityareotheraspectsthatIhadtoconsiderduring

myresearchprocess.Confidentialityreferstotheprotectionoftheparticipant’s

identity“inadditiontoanyinformationtheymayprovidethroughoutthecourse

oftheirparticipation.”(AUTEC,2010)Withinthescopeofconfidentiality,I

furtherhavetheresponsibilitytousethecollecteddataonlyforthepurposeof

thisresearch(AUTEC,2010).

Anonymityreferstotheaspectthatthesourceofthedata,theparticipant,

remainscompletelyunknownorundeclared(AUTEC,2010).Becauseofthevideo

4.METHODOLOGY

67|P a g e

andaudiotapingoftheinterviewsinthepresentresearch,itwasnotpossiblefor

meastheresearchertokeeptheparticipantanonymous.Thisaspectwasclearly

pointedoutintheconsentformtheparticipantshadtosign.

Inordertokeeptheparticipants’personaldataconfidential,Icodedthename

ofeachparticipantinallwrittendocumentationsinthisresearch,including

interviewtranscriptionsandthethesis.Inallreportsthatemergefromthis

research,participantsarelabelledasP1,P2,P3,P4,P5,andP6andwithout

revealingtheirgenderorotherpersonaldata.

Theresearcherhastoallowtheparticipantstorefuseansweringquestions

and/ortowithdrawfromtheprojectatanypointintimeoftheresearch(AUTEC,

2010).Priortoeachinterview,Imadetheparticipantawareofhisorherrightto

refusetoanswerthequestionsbutnoneoftheparticipantsmadeuseofthis

right.

Theresearcherhastoanalyseandrepresentthecollecteddatahonestly

withouteliminatingrelevantdata.Anabsenceofhonestymightdistortthe

conclusionsthatemergefromthecollectedandanalyseddataanddonot

truthfullyrepresenttheinformationdeliveredbytheparticipants(Lewis,etal.,

2003,p.139).Theaspectsofanonymityand/orconfidentialityappliedduringthe

datacollectionstagearealsovalidatthisstage(Lewis,etal.,2003,p.139).

4.3 Procedureofdataanalysis

Theanalysisofthecollecteddatainthisresearchconsistsoffivestages:1)

transcribingtheinterviews,2)repeatedreadingandnote‐takingofthetranscript

andsimultaneously3)developingfirstdraftcategoriesaboutarisingthemes,4)

identifyingoffinalcategories,and5)analysingthedata.Thesestagesofthedata

analysisprocessarenotstatic.Whilereadingandcategorisingthetranscriptsfor

example,Iamalreadyintheprocessofanalysingthembecausewhenreading

4.METHODOLOGY

68|P a g e

thetranscriptsanddevelopingcategories,Ianalysethedatawithrespecttomy

researchquestionsandbasedonthisIdecidehowtocategorisethedata.

AccordingtoSchmidt(2004,p.254),thefirststageintodataanalysisisto

transcribethecollecteddata.Thetranscriptionshavetobereadseveraltimesin

ordertoimmerseintothedataandtogetasenseoftheinterviewasawhole

(Creswell,2007,p.150).

Instagestwoandthree,Ireadthetranscriptsseveraltimes.Inorderto

organisetheinterviewdataIwritedownnotesandhighlightthemesand

thoughtstheparticipantsmentioned.Thegoalofcategorisationistocapturethe

themesthatoccurintheinterviews(Schmidt,2004,p.254)andtomakethe

complexityoftheinterviewsmanageablebyorganisingthedata(Patton,1990,p.

283).Mydevelopedcategoriesarealwaysinformedbytheinterviewdata.

AlthoughIusethesecategoriestoguidemyanalysis,Iamstillconcentratingon

theinterviewresponsesoftheparticipants.Theirresponsesaremydata.

Thereareseveralwaystodevelopandlabelcategories.Creswell(2007,p.

152)aswellasLewisetal.(2003,p.381)differentiatebetweenprefigured

categoriesthatemergefromotherstudiesortheoriesinthesamefieldof

research,andemergentcategoriesthatderivefromthecollecteddata.The

identificationofcategoriesisguidedbythepurposeandobjectivesofthe

researchproject(Lewis,etal.,2003,p.381).Inmyresearch,Idevelopthe

categoriesbasedonthecollectedinterviewdata.Thisprocedureisappropriate

becauseanapplicationofprefiguredcategoriesfromothertheoriesand

literaturewouldnarroworevendistorttheanalysis.Inordertofindouthowthe

participantsconstructmeaningofthesignsgivenonthewebpage,itisnecessary

tobeopentoeveryargumentandeverythemetheparticipanttouchesupon.

Everythemethenconstitutesonecategory.Incaseswheretwoormore

participantsmentionasimilartheme,Iconsiderassigningthemtoonecategory.

4.METHODOLOGY

69|P a g e

IadoptthreesourcesforcategorylabelsfromLewisetal.(2003,p.381):

• Labelsthatemergefromthedata;

• Labelsthatarebasedonthetermsusedbytheparticipants;

• Labelsthatcomefromtermsusedinexistingtheoriesandliterature.

ForlabellingthecategoriesIuselabelsthatemergefromthedata.The

followingtableprovidesanexampleoftheprocedureofnotetakingandthe

identificationofthemes:

Participant’sresponse Notes

“Ireadthearticle,thatwasinteresting[...]it

wasaboutcholesterolinseafoodandthere’s

goodandbadone,IheardaboutitandInever

reallyknewthedifference.”

Notes:

‐ Editorialarticleisinteresting

‐ Informationcontentofeditorialarticle

‐ Cholesterolandseafood,goodandbad

one

‐ Participantreferstopersonal

knowledgeaboutgoodandbad

cholesterol

Themes:

• Informationcontent

• Personalknowledge

• Evaluationofinformationmodule

Table2:Exampleofthemeidentification

Ifurthermoreconsideredtousethethemesoftheinterviewquestionsasan

alternativeforthedevelopmentofcategories.Indoingso,itbecameapparent

thatacategorisationbasedontheinterviewquestionsisnotsufficientbecause

4.METHODOLOGY

70|P a g e

theparticipantsoccasionallydivagatedfromtheinitialquestionand,for

example,talkedaboutpersonalmemories.Thesedivagationsdidnotrefer

directlytotheaskedquestionbutneverthelessprovideusefulinformationanda

goodinsightintotheparticipant’sthoughtsandhowtheparticipantprocesses

thesignsprovidedonthewebpage.

Schmidt(2004,p.255)mentions,thatinsemi‐structuredinterviews,

importanttextpassagesdonotalwaysoccurinthedirectcontextofthe

questions.Byrepeatedlyreadingandanalysingtheinterviews,theresearcher

canfindimportanttextpassagesthatmightnotbeinitiallyobvious(Schmidt,

2004,p.255).

Thedevelopmentandapplicationofcategoriesisanongoingandnon‐linear

process(Schmidt,2004,p.254).Duringtherepeatedreadingofeachinterview

transcript,Iconstantlyreview,changeorexpandmycategories.Somecategories

aredeletedandmergedundermoregeneraltitlesandotherscomeoutof

previouscategoriesthatbecometoodiverse.Attheendofstagefour,Iendup

withseveralmaincategories.

Thefollowingtableillustratesthedevelopedcategories.Thesecategories

consistoftheparticipants’responsesandthethemesthatcameupduringthe

interview.

4.METHODOLOGY

71|P a g e

Categories Examples

• Statementsaboutpersonalmemories,knowledgeandbeliefs

“Ihadabloodtestonceandtheywerereallysurprisedwiththelevelofcholesterol.”

• Statementsaboutcomfortduringinterview

“I’muncomfortabletosaythatinfrontofcameras”

• Statementsaboutinformationcontent

“themainbodycontainedanarticleaboutseafood,mussels,

inparticularshellfishandcholesterol”

• Statementsaboutevaluationofinformationmodulesormodule‐components

“thatparticularaddidn’treallyscreamout”

• Statementsaboutlayout

“thecontentinthemiddleandthentheadssortofsurroundedbuttheyarenotpartofthe

article,theyaresortofabove,belowandontheside”

• Statementsaboutinformationtypeadvertising

“Mostadvertisingistellingyouwhatyouneed”

• Statementsaboutinformationtypeeditorial

content

“it’slikeoneofthosepages

whereyoucanshareinformation”

• Statementsaboutinformationtypewebsitetools

“thesearchbarisattheusualplace”

• Statementsaboutsponsorship‐relationship

“theymaybejustasponsor”

4.METHODOLOGY

72|P a g e

• Statementsaboutrelationshipsbasedon

similarityininformationcontent:seafood

“byhavingtalkingaboutseafood

andhavinganadaboutseafoodthatmakessense”

• Statementsaboutrelationshipsbasedonsimilarityininformationcontent:food

“WelltheGolden[advertisement]isnotthatrelatedwithfishbutImeanit’s

stillfoodsoIguesstherelationcomesfromthere.”

• Statementsaboutrelationshipsbasedonsimilarityindesign:colour

“theMercedesonebelongstothearticlebecausethecolours

aresimilarasinthepage”

• Statementsaboutrelationshipsbasedon

similarityindesign:shape

“thosetwologoskindoflookthe

same[...]it’sroundandit’sgotstronganglesonthatso[...]Ithinkthatfitsprettyaswell”

• Statementsaboutrelationshipsbasedonbeliefaboutincomeandinvestment

“Generallypeoplewhoearnmoremoney[...]investmoremoneyintohealthyfood,then

maybemoreseafood”

• Statementsaboutnon‐relationshipsbasedondifferenceininformationcontent:processedfood

“thecrumpetsIthoughtwasoutofplacebecauseits[...]processedfood.”

• Statementsaboutnon‐relationshipsbased

ondifferenceininformationcontent:productcategoryfood

“Peoplearen’tusuallythinking

aboutcarswhentheylookatafoodwebsite”

• Statementsaboutnon‐relationshipsbased

ondifferenceininformationcontent:productcategoryseafood

“thecrumpetsisIwouldn’tsay

it’soutofplacebecauseit’sfoodwaswellbutitseemslikeit’snotremotelyseafood”

Table3:Developedcategoriesfordataanalysis

4.METHODOLOGY

73|P a g e

Thereisdisagreementbetweenresearcherswhethertocountinqualitative

researchthenumberoftimesaspecificcategoryoccursintheinterviews.

Schmidt(2004,p.257)supportsthecountingofcategories.Hearguesthat

countingprovidesinformationaboutpotentialpatternsinthedataandpossible

relationshipsbetweencategoriesthatcanbepursuedintheresearch.In

contrary,Creswell(2007,p.152)arguesthatcountingsuggeststhatallcategories

aregivenequalimportanceandthatitignorestheindividualityofeachtext

passage.Forexample,countingmightrevealthatacategoryoccursseveraltimes

butitdoesnotpointoutthatthetextpassagesmayrepresentopposingviews

(Creswell,2007,p.152).

Inmyresearch,Itestedtheusabilityofcountingintermsoftheparticipants’

responsesinthecardactivity.Here,basedonwhattheycanremember,the

participantshadtodecidewhethertoassignacarddepictingasinglemodule‐

componentoftheinformationmodules,likeawordoranimage,totheclassof

advertising,non‐advertisingorboth.Iconsideredcountingasapossibleoption

becauseitwouldallowmetodiscovertendenciesintheparticipants’answers.

However,itbecameapparentthatsuchananalysisdoesnotgivemeany

informationabouthowtheparticipantsjustifiedtheirdecisiontoassigna

specificcardtonon‐advertising,advertisingorboth.Thecountingofcategories

showedmeforexamplethatseveralparticipantsmadethesamedecisionbut

onlyanin‐depthanalysisoftheirresponsesrevealedthattheyhadverydifferent

reasonsfortheirdecisions.Thecountingrevealedforinstancethatparticipants

1,2,3,4,5,and6assignedthecardwiththelogooftheNewZealandSeafood

advertisement(Ad2)totheclassofadvertising.Thecountingshowsaveryclear

result.However,theanalysisoftherelevanttextpassagesrevealedthat

participants1,2,and6couldindeedrememberthelogofromtheadvertisement

butparticipants3,4,and5didnotrememberandbasedtheirdecisionontheir

interpretationofthesignasalogoforaspecificbrand.

4.METHODOLOGY

74|P a g e

Ingeneral,inthisresearchitisimportanttoremainopenforeverythemethe

participantsaddressandhowtheyincludethesethemesintotheir

argumentation.Itisnotimportanttoknowhowoftenaspecificthemeoccurred.

Atthefinalstage,Ianalysethedata.Asalreadymentionedearlier,the

differentstagesofthedataanalysisprocessarenotclearlydistinctive.By

developingcategoriesandapplyingthemtothedata,Iamalreadyanalysingi.e.

“makingsense”ofthedata.However,atthisstage,Iinvestigatespecificallywhat

theparticipantsdiscuss,howtheyargueandhowthedifferentcategoriesare

relatedtoeachother.Here,Iamanalyzingthedatainordertofindanswersfor

myresearchquestions.Iusethedevelopedcategoriesasaguideline.For

example,whenIintendtoanalysespecificrelationshipstheparticipants

constructed,Idrawonthecategoriesthatcontainresponsesaboutrelationships.

IthenanalysethespecificinterviewresponsesthatIassignedtothiscategory.

4.4 Summary

Thischapterintroducedresearchmethodsanddesignemployedinthisstudy.

Itoutlinedtheprocessesofdatacollectionanddataanalysis,whichbuildthe

foundationforthefollowingchapters,namelytheanalysisofthecollecteddata

andthediscussionofresults.

Thisresearchfollowsaqualitativeapproachbecauseitallowstoinvestigate

participant’sinterpretationsofawebpagefromthewebsite

www.healthyfood.co.nztheyareinvitedtolookat.Thedataiscollectedthrough

semi‐structuredinterviewsandeachofthesixinterviewsconsistsofarecall

section,acardactivityandasectionwherequestionsintermsofrelationships

betweenthedifferentinformationmodulesareasked.Allinterviewsareaudio

andvideorecordedinordertocaptureverbalaswellasnon‐verbalutterances.

Ifurtherdescribedtheprocessofdataanalysisinthisresearch.Thedata

analysisconsistsoffivebasicsteps:1)transcribingtheinterviews,2)repeated

4.METHODOLOGY

75|P a g e

readingofthetranscriptandsimultaneously3)developingdraftcategoriesabout

arisingthemes,4)developingoffinalcategories,and5)analysingthedata.

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

76|P a g e

5. AnalysisanddiscussionofinterviewdataTheintentionforthisresearchistoexaminehowtheparticipantsinthis

researchinterpretedawebpagefromthewebsitewww.healthyfood.co.nz.By

analysingthecollectedinterviewdata,thischapterseekstoexploretheseuser‐

centredinterpretationsinparticipants’responses.Dataanalysisinthischapter

includestheexaminationofhowtheparticipantsinterpretedthewebpage,and

whattypesofrelationshipsbetweendifferentinformationmodulesthe

participantsconstructed.Myinterestinexaminingrelationshipsbetweenthe

informationmodulesonthewebpageisgeneratedbytheuseandanalysisof

contextualadvertisinginadvertisingpracticeaswellasadvertisingresearch.

Further,Iwilloutlinetheparticipants’responsesconcerning1)environmental

factors,2)theirinterpretationofeditorialcontent,3)theirinterpretationof

advertisements,4)theirinterpretationoftheoverallwebpageincludingwebsite

tools,aswellas5)relationshipstheparticipantsconstructedbetweenthe

informationmodulesonthewebpage.

5.1 Participants’responsesaboutenvironmentalfactors

HallandKnapp(2002)arguethatthecommunicationenvironment,which

includesthephysicalandthespatialenvironment(Hall&Knapp,2002,p.7)as

wellastime(Hall&Knapp,2002,p.114),hasasignificanteffectonthe

communicators’perceptionsandactions.AccordingtoScollonandScollon(2003,

pp.166‐196),discoursesaresignificantlyshapedbytheplaceandtimetheyare

occurring.Aparticularplaceallowscertainactionsandlimitsothers.Alibraryis

forexampleanidealplaceforreadingbooksbutisusuallynotidealforhavinga

noisyconversationbecauseofspecificrulesthatapply.Inasportsstadiumin

contrast,everyoneiswelcometoshoutandcheerbutitmightbenottheideal

placeforreadingabookalthoughitisusuallynotforbidden.ScollonandScollon

(2003,p.169)understandthesespacesalongadimension,rangingfrom“very

closespecificationtotheneedsofparticulartypesofsocialinteractionstovery

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

77|P a g e

loose,multi‐purposespaces”(2003,p.169).Specificplaceshavespecific

meaningtothepeople(Scollon&Scollon,2003,p.175).

Inthespecificinterviewsituationsinmyresearch,theinterviewstookplacein

thepremisesofauniversity.Alreadythespaceshapestheparticipants’

expectations,behavioursandperceptions.Conductinganinterviewina

universityisdifferentthanhavingtheinterviewinacaféforexamplebecausea

universityisaninstitutionandstandsforan“official”placewhileacaféisrather

casual.Theinterviewstookplaceinasmallroomandnoonebuttheparticipant

andme,theinterviewer,werepresent.Thismakestheinterviewsituationmore

private.Inamorepublicenvironmentotherpeoplemighthavebeenpresent

whomayhavehad(consciouslyorunconsciously)aneffectontheparticipant.I

intentionallychosethispremiseinordertocaterforspecificneeds,forexample

theneedforprivacy.

P6mentionedhowthepresenceofthevideocamerasaffectedhis/her

response.P6said,“itiswrongtosaythatbutgenerallypeoplewhoearnmore

moneyalsoinvestmoremoneyintohealthyfoodandmaybemoreseafood,I’m

reallyuncomfortabletosaythatinfrontofthecameras.”Inthisparticular

situation,P6describedherunderstandingoftherelationbetweenpeople’s

financialsituationandtheirattitudetowardshealthyfoodandseafood.P6

mentionedtofeeluncomfortabletotalkaboutherattitudetowardsthistopic,

whichappearstobeverydelicatetoher.Althoughthisstatementdoesnot

revealhowthecamerasinfluencedP6’sperceptionofthewebpage,it

neverthelessindicatesthattheyhadaneffectonP6.

RespondingtothecardcontainingtheQsigninthecardactivity,P5

answered,“IhavetoputitonbothbecauseIjustdon’tknow.”Similarly,inthe

caseofthecardwiththecolourblueonit,P5said,“Ihavetoputittoboth

becauseIdon’trememberseeingit[…]”andjustifiedherbehaviourwith“it’s

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

78|P a g e

probablyabadtimeoftheday.”Withreferencetothetimeanddayofthe

interview,P5’sstatementindicatesthats/hedidnotfeelveryefficientandthat

P5’sphysicalconditionaffectedP5’sabilitytoprocesstheinformationgivenon

thewebpage.

P5’sstatementindicatesthatthetimeoftheinterviewandwiththisthetime

ofthewebpageexposureisafactorthathadaneffectonP5’sperceptionofthe

webpage.Theinterviewtookplaceat6pmonaworkingday.Duringthepicture

cardactivity,P5admittedseveraltimesthats/hecouldnotremembertheitems

depictedonthecards.

Tosumup,environmentalorlayoutfactorsliketheinterioroftheroomin

whichtheinterviewtookplaceorthelightingconditionsatthetimeofthe

interviewinfluencedtheparticipant’sinterpretationofthewebpagetosome

degreeaswellastheperceptionoftheirsurroundings.Thestatementsoftwo

participantsindicatethatthetimeoftheinterviewaswellasthepresenceofthe

threecamerashadaneffectonthem.

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

79|P a g e

5.2 Participants’responsesconcerningeditorialcontent

Allofthesixparticipantsinterpretedtheinformationcontentoftheeditorial

articletextastalkingaboutcholesterolinseafood.P1said,“themainbody

containedanarticleaboutseafood,mussels,inparticularshellfishand

cholesterol.Soitwashowmuchcholesterolisinacupofshellfishforexample.”

P2alsomentionedthattheinformationintheeditorialarticlewasnewto

him/her.P2said,“Ireadanarticleaboutcholesterolandseafood.Ifoundout

abouttwotypesofcholesterol,sothat’sgood.ThingsIdidn’tknow”.P2wenton

toexplaininmoredetailtheinformationcontentoftheeditorialarticlethats/he

identified:“inthearticleapersonisaskingaboutlevelsofcholesterolinseafood.

Ithinkhewasconcernedaboutthat.Andthenthepersonwhorepliedgavea

veryin‐depthdescriptionaboutthetwotypesofgoodandbadcholesteroland

justgeneralinformationaboutseafoodinrelationtocholesterol.Therewasalot

ofcholesterol.Thewordiseverywhere.”

P3alsomentionedbesidesthedescriptionoftheinformationcontents/he

interpreted,thequestionandanswerstyleoftheeditorialarticle:“themain

articlewaslikeaquestionandanswersession.Probablysomesubscriberora

personwhousesthiswebsiteasksthequestionaboutcholesterolinmusselsand

generallyshellfishandthenthenutritionistonthewebsitegaveananswer,

whichincludedlikeageneraldescriptionofthedifferenttypesofcholesterol.”

Itbecameapparentthatseveralparticipantsinterpretedtheinformation

contentoftheeditorialarticleastheoverallinformationcontentofthe

webpage.Whenaskedtorecallthewebpage,P1said,“themainbodycontained

anarticleaboutseafood”,P3referredtoitas“themainarticlewaslikea

questionandanswersession”,whileP5responded“itisapageheadedup

healthyfoodandthecontentwasaboutgoodcholesterolandbadcholesterol”.

Theword“main”inP1’sandP3’sresponsesindicatethatbothinterpretthe

editorialarticleasthemostsignificantinformationmoduleonthewebpage.

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

80|P a g e

ItappearsthatP1,P3andalsoP5haveahighinvolvementwiththeeditorial

article.Inthiscase,P1,P3andP5seemtohaveprocessedtheinformation

contentoftheeditorialarticleinmoredepthbecausetheyidentifieditasthe

mostsignificantinformationmodule.

Thelevelofinvolvementhasbeentheorisedbythe“ElaborationLikelihood

Model”(ELM),whichproposestworoutestopersuasion:thecentralandthe

peripheralroute(Belch&Belch,2009,p.167).WithreferencetotheELM,P1,P3

andP5appeartohavefollowedthecentralroute,whichmeansthattheywere

highlymotivatedtoprocessthemessageintheeditorialarticle.

Severalparticipantsreferredtopersonalmemoriesandknowledgewhen

interpretingandevaluatingtheinformationcontentoftheeditorialarticle.P1

andP2forexampletalkedaboutpriorknowledgeaboutseafoodandcholesterol

andhowthisknowledgeeffectedhisorherevaluationoftheinformation

content.P1said,“theconclusionofthearticlewasthatcholesterolintake

doesn’tmatterthatmuchanymore.It’sthekindoffatthatyoutaketoyourself

andIknewthatbeforebecausemymomisanurse.So,Ithought,whocareshow

muchcholesterolisinthefoodbecausethat’snotthemainfactor.Youcan

regulateitinotherways.”

P2answeredthequestionwhethertheinformationinthearticlehasaffected

herattitudetowardsfoodwith,“IlearnedsomethingIdidn’tknow,forexample

egghas200mgofcholesterol,that’shuge[…]Ieateggquiteoftencomparedto

otherfood,soitislikewowthat’salotofcholesterol[…]That’ssomethinggood

toknow.”

P6referredtoapriorexperiences/hemadewithcholesterolinorderto

explainwhythearticlewasinteresting.P6described,“it[thearticle]wasabout

cholesterolinseafoodandthereisgoodandbadone.IheardaboutitandI

neverreallyknewthedifference.[…]Ihadabloodtestonceandtheywerereally

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

81|P a g e

surprisedwiththelevelofcholesterol.Itwasreally,reallyhighbuttheysaidit’s

thegoodone.AndIwaslikeokay,aslongasit’snotbadI’mhappybutthatwas

strange.That’swhyIwasinterestedinwhatit[thearticle]istalkingabout.”

P5interpretedtheeditorialarticleaswellassomewebsitetoolsbutcouldnot

rememberanyadvertisementsplacedonthewebpage.P5saidwhenaskedwhy

s/hedidnotreadanythingbuttheeditorialarticle:“Iwas[...]sortof

concentratingonthecontentofthearticle.”P5gavearelativelydetailed

summaryoftheinformationcontentoftheeditorialarticles/heinterpreted:

“thereisanarticleaboutcholesterolinmusselsbasicallyandtherearebadand

goodcholesterolsandthatseafoodhascholesterol”.P5wenton:“thecontent

wasaboutcholesterol.Goodcholesterolandbadcholesterol,HDLandLDL,one

isgoodandoneisbad.IguesstheHDListhegoodoneandthenitsays

somethingaboutmusselsandshrimpandtheamountofcholesterolthatwasin

themusselsis25mgandtheshrimpisupto150mg,incomparisonitwasanegg,

whichhas200mg.”

ColemanandNorris(1992,p.37)foundintheirstudyofmagazine

advertisementsthat,“involvementinamagazinearticleisinverselyrelatedto

subsequentrecallandrecognitionofaccompanyingadvertisements.”Themore

theparticipantsintheirstudywereconcentratedonthepresentedarticle,the

lesstheyrememberedtheadvertisementsthatwereplacedinneardistanceto

thearticle(Colman&Norris,1992,p.44).Inthepresentresearch,P5also

justifiedhernotrememberingofanyadvertisementwithhisorher

concentrationontheeditorialarticle.ItmightbethatColemanandNorris’

(1992)findingsarealsovalidintheonlineenvironment.

Allsixparticipantsinterpretedtheeditorialarticlepictureasdepicting

musselsbutdifferedintheirreactiontoit.P1forexamplereferredagaintoher

personalexperiencewithmussels.P1said,“They[themussels]werereallyeye‐

catchingbecausewearesellingmusselsintherestaurantaswellandmyfirst

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

82|P a g e

impressionwas,arethey‘greenlipped’mussels?Notheyarenot.”P2referred

toherattitudetowardsmusselsandhowthateffectedherreactionwhens/he

sawthepicture.S/healsomentionedtherelativeprominenceofthepicture:

“ThesecondthingIsawwasthepictureofthemussels.I’mnotaverybigfanof

musselsImustsay,whichiswhyIhadlikeaughmusselskindofreaction.”

Oneparticipantfurtherreferredtothelayoutoftheeditorialarticle.P1

comparedthearrangementoftheeditorialarticle’stextandthepicturewitha

table.P1said,“[…]thearticledoesnotcontinueunderneaththepicture,thereis

simplynothingunderneaththepicture,whichmakesitalittlebitlikeatable.”

Tosumup,allsixparticipantsinterpretedtheeditorialarticle.Several

participantsreferredtotheirownexperiencestheyhavewiththeinformation

contenttheyidentifiedbutalsohowinterestingornotinterestingtheeditorial

articlewastothem.Further,someparticipantsreferredtotheirreaction

towardstheeditorialarticlepictureandhowtheyperceivedthearrangementof

theeditorialarticletextandtheeditorialarticlepicture.

5.3 Participants’responsesconcerningadvertisements

Participants1and2mentionedtheprominenceoftheredcolourofthe

woman’sdressinAd1.P2said“TheladyintheMercedesadhadareallynice

dress,Irememberthinkingniceandred”andP1said“Itookacloserlooktothis

one[theMercedesadvertisement]becauseofthedressfromthewoman,avery

brightredcolour”.

P1,P2,P3,P4,andP6rememberedAd1.Theseparticipantsappearedtohave

differentattitudestowardthebrandMercedesBenz.P1said,“Idon’tlike

Mercedes”butadmittedthat“thedress[intheadvertisement]lookedvery

good”.ThisindicatesthatthereddressmaybemorerelevanttoP1thanthecar.

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

83|P a g e

Incontrast,P2hasafavourableattitudetowardsthebrandMercedesBenz

butreferstoitslackofpracticality.P2differentiatesbetweenhis/herattitudes

towardstheadvertisement,towardsthebrand,carsingeneralandthecar’s

practicality.P2said,“I’dlovetohaveaMercedesBenzbutit’snotreallypractical

forme.So,it’slike,Ilovecarsbutthatparticularaddidn’treallyscreamout”.

P4referredtopersonalknowledgeandansweredthequestionwhetheran

advertisementonthewebpageisrelevanttohim/herwith“Ican’tafforda

Mercedes”.

P1,P2andP4havedifferentattitudestowardthebrandMercedesBenz.P2’s

responserevealedthatthereisapparentlyadifferencebetweentheimpression

oftheadvertisementandthebrandassuch.P2doesnotappeartolikeAd1but

neverthelesshasafavourableattitudetowardthebrand.Incontrast,P1does

likeaspecificmodule‐component,namelythereddress,intheadvertisement

butdoesnotlikethebrand.P4apparentlyinterpretsthebrandinAd1astoo

expensive.TheinterpretationasveryexpensiveisclearlymadebyP4because

althoughAd1namesapriceforthecar,theinterpretationasexpensiveis

incumbentuponP4.

Inthecardactivity,itbecameapparentthatallofthesixparticipantsassigned

thecardthatdepictedtheMercedesBenzlogototheclassadvertising.P1,P2,

P3,P4,P5,andP6werealsoabletoidentifythelogoasbelongingtoMercedes

Benz.P2,P4andP6directlyassignedthecardtoAd1.P2said,“It’sadvertising

becauseitwasatthetop.Yes,thegirlinthereddress.”P4similarlystated,“It’s

alogoobviously,it’sfromtheMercedesad”andalsoP6answered,“Itwason

thebanneratthetop.”

P5statedthats/hecannotrememberitasbeingplacedonthewebpagebut

assignsittotheclassofadvertising.P5said,“Thatmustbeadvertisingbecause

it’saMercedessymbolIthink”andrespondedtothequestionwhethers/he

remembersseeingitwith“No,Icannot.”ItappearsthatP5basedthedecision

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

84|P a g e

onothercriterionsthanhermemoryofthewebpage.P5clearlyidentifiedthe

logoasbelongingtotheMercedesBenzbrand.

ThefactthatP5cannotrememberAd1asoccurringonthewebpagebutis

abletoidentifytheMercedesBenzbrandwhenexposedtotheMercedesBenz

logoindicatesthatP5possessesawarenessaboutthebrandincludingitslogo.

AccordingtoKeller(1998,p.88),brandawarenessconsistsof“brand

recognition”and“brandrecall”.Brandrecognition“relatestoconsumers’ability

toconfirmpriorexposuretothebrandwhengiventhebrandasacue”(Keller,

1998,p.88).InP5’scasethismeansthatP5recognisedthebrandMercedesBenz

whens/hewasexposedtothelogobecauseP5hadalreadyexperiencedthe

brandandthelogobefore.Brandrecall“relatestoconsumers’abilitytoretrieve

thebrandfrommemory”withoutbeingexposedtothebranditselfbutrather

withaspecificproductcategory[…]orausagesituationasacue”(1998,p.88).

Keller’s(1998)definitionofbrandrecalldoesnotseemtobeapplicableinthis

case.P5couldnotrememberAd1andthisindicatesthatP5didnotidentifywhat

Keller(1998)callsa“cue”,whichwouldhaveevokedP5’smemoryofMercedes

Benz.

Ad2wasrecognisedbyP1,P2,P3,P4,andP6buttheparticipantsdifferedin

theirinterpretations.P1forexampleidentifiedthebrandnameNewZealand

Seafood,thepictureintheadvertisementaswellassomecolours:“theNew

ZealandSeafoodadvertisement,therewasblueandgreyworkedinanditlooked

verynicebecauseitlookedlikeBBQ,niceBBQ”.Byreferringtopersonal

experienceP1furtherexplainedwhythisadvertisementisinteresting:“itwas

interestingformetoseetheNewZealandSeafoodadvertisementbecausea

friendofmineisworkingonherthesis.Sheisdoingtourismandshe’sworking

onaprojectwhichcontainsseafoodandseafoodeducationrelatedtotourism

andsothiswasinterestingbecausethiswasanadvertisementwhereyouhad

thepossibilitytogetinformationabouthowNewZealandgrowsseafoodand

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

85|P a g e

aboutseafoodfarmsbecausetherewasawebsitementionedaswell.”InP1’s

case,thespecificinterestforthisadvertisementemergesfrompersonalcontext.

Here,theconnotativemeaningderivesfromP2’sindividualbackground.

P2identifiedAd2asbeingabouttheAucklandSeafoodShow,aneventP2

attendedawhileago.P2said,“TherewasabannerontherighthandsideandI

thinkitwastheAucklandSeafoodShoworsomething.[…]Ivolunteered[atthe

AucklandSeafoodShow]andIrememberjustthinkingbacktoit.Ididittogether

withanothergirl,Iforgothername,butwedidittogetherandIremember

thinkingthatwedidn’tactuallygetanyfreefoodandIwouldhavelovedtohave

someseafoodbecausethewholedayyouaresurroundedbyseafoodbutyou

don’tgetany.Yes,IrememberthinkingaboutitwhenIwaslookingatthe

seafoodad.”ItappearsthatAd2evokedP2’smemoryoftheAucklandSeafood

ShowandthatinducedP2tobelievethatthisadvertisementisaboutthatevent.

Here,theinterpretationisapparentlybasedonP2’spersonalcontext.

ThisfindingsupportsLeeetal.’s(2004)resultsthattheuser’ssubjective

perceptionofawebsitecanbedifferentfromwhatisstructurallyplacedonthe

website.WhileLeeetal.(2004)focusedintheirin‐depthinterviewsonhow

informative,interactiveandattractivetheparticipantsevaluatedthewebsite

basedonthefeaturesthatoccuronthewebsite,thefindingsofmyresearch

addstheinsightthatapparentlyalsotheinterpretationofinformationcontent

canbedifferentfromwhatstructurallyoccursonthewebpage.

WithrespecttoAd2,P3said,“thereislikeaseafoodoneontheside”andP4

stated,“therewasoneontheside,whichwassomesortofseafood”.P6also

addsherimpressionoftheadvertisement“theoneaboutseafoodwas

interesting,ifIwanttoknowaboutseafood,youcanfinditthere,sothat’scool,

ifI’minthemoodoffindingoutmoreaboutseafood[…]”

P6seemstohaveAd2evaluatedasamorerelevantsourceforinformation

aboutseafoodthantheeditorialarticle.TherearenoaspectsinP6’sstatements

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

86|P a g e

thatindicatewhys/hecametothisconclusion.ItmightbethatP6hasprevious

experiencewiththisadvertisementorthewebsiteitrefersto.Another

explanationmightbethatoneormoremodule‐componentsinAd2broughtP6

tothisconclusion.Forexample,incontrasttotheeditorialarticle,Ad2contains

anactionphrase,whichinvitestheusertoconductaspecificaction.Thespecific

actionphraseinAd2says,“ForeverythingyouneedtoknowaboutNewZealand

Seafoodvisit”.AlthoughHand,RobinsonandWysocka(2007,p.537)foundin

theirstudythattheinclusionofactionphrasesinbanneradvertisementsdonot

enhanceadvertisingeffectiveness,itmighthavebeensuccessfulinP6’scase.

P5didnotidentifythebrandofAd2,NewZealandSeafood,neitherinthe

cardactivitynorintherecallsectionoftheinterview.Inthecardactivity,P5

assignedthecardwiththeNewZealandSeafoodnametotheeditorialarticle

insteadofAd2.AccordingtoduPlessis(2005,p.136),advertisingreceivershave

to“spendtimegivingattentiontotheadvertisementinorderforthemto

rememberit.”ItappearsthatP5didnotpayattentiontoAd2.Non‐awarenessof

informationmodulesonthewebpageisclearlyuserspecificbecauseitisthe

userwhoconsciouslyorunconsciouslypaysattentiontosomething.

ThepresenceofAd3wasonlyrememberedbyP2andpartiallybyP6.P2

directlyidentifiedtheadvertiserflossie.com.P2alsomentionedforwhattarget

audienceflossie.comprovidesinformation:“flossieisforwomen.”P6

rememberedthepinkcolouroftheadvertisement:“therewasalsoapinkthing

[…]averysmallad.”

P1,P3,P4,andP5didnotrememberAd3.WhileP5didnotrefertoAd3atall,

P4said:“Ididn’treallynoticetheflossieonebefore“andP1,P3,andP6stated

(whenlookingatthewebpageagain)thattheydonotknowwhatthis

advertisementisabout.P3said:“Ididn’trememberthatflossie.com[...]butI

don’tknowwhatit’sabout”.P1said,“thesmalladvertisementfromflossie.com,

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

87|P a g e

Idon’tknowwhatitis[…]thatissosmallbesidestheNewZealandSeafood

advertisement,thatitactuallygotlostinmymind.”Here,P1explainedthatthe

smallsizeofAd3affectedP1’sabilitytorememberthisadvertisement.

Thatthesizeofabanneradvertisementhasaneffectonauser’sabilityto

recallitsupportstheresultsCho(1999,p.43)foundinhisstudy.Cho(1999,p.

43)foundthatinlow‐involvementsituations,abanneradvertisementwitha

largersizewasmorelikelytobeclickedbytheparticipantsofhisstudy.Thelevel

ofinvolvementisdefinedbyCho(1999,p.38)asthe“motivationtoprocessad

content”.Inthepresentresearch,itseemsthatP1,P3,P4,andP5wereinalow‐

involvementsituation,whichmeanstheyhadonlyalowmotivationtoprocess

theinformationcontentofAd3.Ad3occursinarelativelysmallsize.The

combinationoflow‐involvementlevelandsmallbannersizeapparentlyledto

theeffectthatthesefourparticipantsdidnotrememberAd3atall.

Anotherexplanationmightbethattheoveralllayoutofthewebpage

influencesP1’sperceptionsofsingleinformationmodules.P1referredinhis/her

statementtohis/herperceptionthatAd3issmallcomparedtoAd2,whichis

placed“besides”(P1)Ad3.ItmightoccurwhatWhite(2002)callstheprinciples

of“dominance”and“scale”.DominanceisaccordingtoWhite(2002)aprinciple

ingraphicdesignwherethesizeofoneelementismanipulatedsothatit

overwhelmsanotherelement.Scaleisalsonamedthe“relativesize”(White,

2002,p.63)ofanelementandmeansthat“readersperceiveanelementas

being‘small’or‘big’incomparisontonearbyelements”.

InthecaseofAd2andAd3,itappearsthatP1interpretedAd2asdominantin

termsofoverwhelmingAd3and,likewise,thatAd3appearedtobeparticularly

smallbecauseofAd2’slargesize.

WithrespecttoAd3,P6stated,“Ihavenoideawhatthisisabout,thatpink

flossie.com”andadds“noideawhatit[Ad3]isabout,soyoudon’tremember”.

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

88|P a g e

UnderconsiderationofKeller’s(1998)definitionofbrandawareness(see

above),itappearsthatP6didnotpossessanyknowledgeaboutthebrandorthe

producttheadvertisementpromotes.InP6’sstatements/herelatedthelackof

knowledgedirectlywithhis/herabilitytorememberAd3.Incontrast,P2was

abletorememberAd3(seeabove).P2’sstatement(“flossieisforwomen”)

furtherrevealedthatP2hassomeknowledgeaboutthisbrand.Thissupportsthe

propositionthatknowledgeisimportantforrememberingtheadvertisement

(Lee,etal.,2004,p.69).

P1,P2,P3,P4,andP6recalledAd4butdifferedintermsofelaborateness.P1

referredtothisadvertisementbynamingthewordsthatoccurinthe

advertisementaswellashows/heinterpretedagraphicthatitcontains.P1said,

“therewasanadvertisementforrecipesandgamesanditlookedlikea

pancake”.P3repeatedlynamedtheadvertisementas“thepancakeone”.

P2said,“Iremembercrumpets”,andsimilarlyP4andP6said,“theyhad[…]

thecrumpetoneinthebottom”(P4)and“Ithinkit’sacrumpetad”(P6).P6

furtheradmittedthats/hehassomeexperiencewiththatproductbutalsostates

whys/heprobablywouldn’tclickontheadvertisement:“Ilikecrumpets,Ibuyit

butIdon’tneedtoknowmoreaboutit.”

P2providedareasonwhys/hecanrememberthatadvertisement:“I

remembercrumpetsbecauseIlovecrumpets”.ThisstatementofP2

demonstratesthathis/herabilitytorememberAd4isinfluencedbypersonal

experiencesP2haswiththepromotedproduct.P2statesthats/hecan

remembertheadvertisedproductbecauses/hehasapersonalinterestinit.It

appearsthatalsoP4andP6havesomeknowledgeabouttheadvertisedproduct

becausetheycallitbyaname,“crumpets”,thatdoesnotoccurinthe

advertisementitself.

Insummary,thereappearstobeadifferencebetweentheparticipants’

responsesintermsofwhethertheycouldremembertheadvertisements,how

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

89|P a g e

theyinterpretedtheinformationcontentsandhowtheyevaluatedeach

advertisement.WhatadvertisementsandhowtheparticipantsinterpretAd1,

Ad2,Ad3andAd4appeartobedependentontheirpersonalexperiencewith

and/orknowledgeofthepromotedproductbutalsotheirindividualbackground.

ThissupportsthepropositionsofLeeetal.(2004,p.69)whoarguethatina

recallsituationofastudy,webuserstendtomentionthoseaspectsofawebsite

thataremostrelevanttothem.

5.4 Participants’responsesconcerningthewebpageandwebsitetools

Byreferringtoparticularwebsitetools,P1said,“youhadonthelefthandside

asearchbarforarticlesandyouhadtheoptiontosearchbykeywordorbya

broadertheme.[…]Therewerealsothingslikerecipes,tools,competitionand

differentsubjectsrelatedtosomenewsandarticlesandmagazines.Thewebsite

itselfwasorganisedinregistercards,theyhadhome,aboutus,competition,and

articles.”

P2alsorecognisedsomewebsitetools:“Therewasgeneralstufflikewebsite

policy,privacy,contactusanddetailsandlikeaboutusandinformationabout

thewebsite,abouthealthyfoodguide.”Theword“general”inP2’sdescription

mayindicatethatP2isfamiliarwiththesetypesofinformation.

AccordingtoBellmanandRossiter(2004),usersofawebsitehaveaspecific

websiteschema,whichtheyapplywhentheyareviewingawebsite.Theauthors

describeschemasascognitivestructuresthatguidetherecipients’information

processingbecausethey“organizeperceptionbyorganizing

expectations“(Bellman&Rossiter,2004,p.38).Awebsiteschemaisdefinedas

theuser’s“setofbeliefsaboutinformationlocations,androutestothose

locations,foraspecificwebsite”(Bellman&Rossiter,2004,p.39).Theauthors

arguethatbasedonusers’individualexperienceswithwebsitesinthepast,they

developastandardisedwebsiteschema,whichincludesgeneralexpectations

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

90|P a g e

aboutwhereandhowtofindinformationonawebsite.Theyapplythisschema

whentheyarevisitingaparticularwebsite(Bellman&Rossiter,2004,p.39).

P2’schoiceoftheterm“general”seemtosupportBellmanandRossiter’s

(2004)suggestionsofawebsiteschema.However,someparticipantsnotonly

focusedonthelocationofspecificwebsitetoolsbutalsoontheirfunction.P2for

example,appearstoapplypreviousknowledgeaboutthesetypesofwebsite

tools.Severalstatementsofotherparticipantspointinasimilardirection.P6

identifiedandremembered:“[thereis]thesignupforthenewsletteronthe

bottomandthereisalsolikeasitemapthattellsyouwhatisoneachpage[…]

andtheusualcopyrightsatthebottom.”SimilartoP2,theword“usual”inP6’s

explanationindicatesthatP6hasalreadysomeknowledgeabouttheterm

“copyrights”mostprobablyfromviewingotherwebsites.

P5comparedthearrangementonthewebpagewithwebsitess/hehasvisited

before:“alotofpagesofthewebhavethatsearchthingeitherthere[P5points

totherightsideofthewebpage]orthere[pointstotheleftsideofthewebpage]

andalsothebaracrossthetop,thathassometimesdropdownmenusandother

linksthatareconnectedtothem.”

Severalparticipantsfurtherreferredtothelayoutorthearrangementofthe

informationmodulesonthewebpage.P1said,whendescribingthewebpage

“[…]onthelefthandsidetherewasasearchbar”andwenton,“atthetop,over

thetitleofthewebsite,therewasanadvertisementforMercedesandonthe

righthandsidetherewasaseafoodadvertisement”.P4describesthe

arrangementoftheinformationmodulesonthewebpageas“[…]thecontentin

themiddleandthentheadssurroundedbuttheyarenotpartofthearticle,they

aresortofabove,belowandontheside”,whereasP3relatedthepositionof

Ad1toitsprominence:“Isawthecarone[Ad1]atthetopfirstbecauseit’sright

atthetop,Ithinkit’sthefirstthingyousee”.

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

91|P a g e

P3touchesuponcertainlayoutandreadingconventions.Accordingto

Bennett(2005)“peoplehavelearnedtolookforcertainlayoutstandardsto

organizeandprioritizeinformation.”(p.186)Inwesternculturesforexample,

peoplescanapagefromlefttorightandfromtoptobottom(Bennett,2005,p.

186;Castelhano&Rayner,2008,p.10).Documentdesignersoftenconsider

theseconventionsinorderto“havesomecontrolovertheorderinwhicha

viewerencountersascreen’scontent”(Bennett,2005,p.186).Itappearsthat

P3’sinterpretationofAd1’sprominencecausedbyitspositioningatthetopis

basedonsuchconventions.

Further,P3’sargumentationthats/hesawAd1firstbecauseitislocatedat

thetopofthewebpage,supportsthefindingsofJosephson(2005,p.78)who

foundthatbanneradvertisementsthatareplacedatthetoparemoreoften

viewedthanthosethatarelocatedatthebottom.

Whentalkingaboutthewebpage,P2referredtothequestionandanswer

styleoftheeditorialarticle.P2furthercomparedthewebpagewithother

websitess/hehasexperiencewith:“Ithinkit’slikeoneofthosewebsiteswhere

peoplepostlikeafrequentlyaskedquestionorsomethingtheywanttofindout

andthenanexpertorsomeonewithknowledgeanswersandsayswhatis

happening.”

Severalparticipantsgaveastatementconcerningtheirgeneralimpressionof

thewebpage.P1referredtotheinformationcontentaswellasthestructureof

thewebpage:“It’sprettyclearstructured[…]ThatwouldbeawebsitewhereI

wouldbrowsealittlebit,lookingforsomeinterestingarticlesorwhenIhavea

hieper[coll.forastrongdesire]forsomespecialfood,thenlookingforsome

recipes.”

P1’sstatementdoesnotonlygiveaninsightintohis/herevaluationofthe

webpage.ItfurtherprovidesaninterestingexamplefortheinfluenceofP1’s

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

92|P a g e

socio‐economicenvironmentonhim/her.P1usesinthisstatementtheword

“hieper”,whichisacolloquialwordintheGermanlanguage.Itcanbetranslated

with“havingastrongdesireforsomething”.Theinterviewwasconductedin

EnglishbutP1usesthisGermanwordinordertoexpressmeaning.Accordingto

NorrisandJones(2005a,p.5),languageisaculturaltoolandpartofthesocio‐

economicenvironmentthatisavailabletothosewhohaveaccesstothatculture.

P1’sstatementindicatesthats/hehasinsomewayaconnectiontotheGerman

culture,especiallytheGermanlanguageandthatthiscontextaffectsP1inher

responses.

P3answeredintermsofthewebpage’sevaluation:“ithasaquitenice

interface[…]Thesearchpartisdefinitelygood,andhowtheysplitupthatyou

canchoosebetweenarticlesonlyandrecipesonly,that’sgood,soyoucanmake

achoice”andalsoappliedpreviousknowledgeaboutthebrand“healthyfood

guide”:“Iknowthathealthyfoodguideisamagazine,sothat’swhytheyhave

themagazineshop.”

P6describedhis/herimpressionofthewebpageasfollows:“Itlooksreally

standard,althoughI’mnotsureabouttheMercedesadabovetheactualtitle

becausegenerallyyoudoexpectthefirstthingyouseeatthetopiswhatyouare

lookingat.Thesearchbarisattheusualplaceandsometimesarethe‘browse

articles’ontheothersidebutit’sokay.”Wordslike“standard”,“generally”and

“usual”inP6’sstatementindicateagainthats/hecomparesthiswebpagewith

otherwebsitess/hehasexperienceof.Basedontheseexperiences,P6concludes

thatthiswebpageisnotmuchdifferentfromherexpectationofa“standard”

webpagewithrespecttothearrangementofitswebsitetools,likethesearchbar

orabrowsearticlessection.

Further,P6referredtothepositionofAd1atthetop,anaspectthathasalso

beenidentifiedbyP3(seeabove).However,incontrasttoP3,P6appearedtobe

confusedabouttheplacementofAd1atthetopbecauseitdoesnotseemto

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

93|P a g e

meetP6’sexpectation.ItseemsP6expectedthegeneraltitleofthewebpageat

thetopinsteadofAd1.

Theparticipants’comparisonofthegivenwebpagewithotherwebsites

indicatesthatsomeparticipantshavepre‐existingattitudestowardsandideas

aboutthefunctionsandthestructureofseveralwebsitetools.Similartothe

descriptionsofparticularwebsitetools,severalparticipantsmadesome

statementsconcerningtheinformationtypeadvertisingaswellaseditorial

content.Especiallyinthecardactivitypre‐existingattitudesandknowledge

becameapparent.Concerningthecarddepictingtheword“Recipes”,P2

explainedwhys/hebelievesthecardbelongstobothadvertisingandnon‐

advertising:“Ithinkit’sbothbecausetherewereadvertisementsforaparticular

brandandtheytriedtogetthepeopleinterestedfortheirrecipesandtoget

theirrecipestothem.Atthesametimeit’salsonon‐advertisingbecauseit’slike

oneofthosepageswhereyoucanshareinformationlikefreerecipes.[…]Ican

rememberthatthereisanoptionwhereyoucandecidetogetrecipes.

Somethingliketoptenrecipes.”Here,P2rememberedthatthewebpage

providesinformationtogetfreerecipes.P2mentionedthatthereisadvertising

thatpromotesaspecificbrandandthattheadvertisersattempttogetthe

audienceinterested.ItseemsthatinP2’sunderstanding,advertisingingeneral

promotesaspecificbrandaswellasintendstoattracttheaudience’sattention.

P3andP4haveasimilarunderstanding.Intermsofthecardthatdepictsthe

editorialarticlepicturewiththemussels,P3said,“Itisnon‐advertisingbecause

it’snotpromotingaparticularbrandofseafood.”P3seemedtointerpretthe

pictureasnon‐advertisingbecauseitdoesnotmatchwithP3’sgeneral

understandingthatadvertisingpromotesaspecificbrand.P4answeredwhen

lookingatthecardwiththephraseNewZealandSeafood:“Iwouldsay

advertisingbecauseoftheNewZealandbeforetheseafood.It’sadvertisingfora

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

94|P a g e

specifictypeofseafood.”ItappearsthatP4hasanunderstandingofadvertising

aspromotingspecifictypesofaproduct.

Concerningthecardthatdepictedthephrase“Youneed”,somestatements

revealedfurtherattitudestowardadvertising.P3forinstance,couldnot

rememberthesewordsbutusedhis/hergeneralknowledgetodeducewhyitcan

beassignedtothespecificarticleonthepageortoadvertisingingeneral:“I

don’trememberspecificallywhereitwasbutI’msayingitcomeswithinboth

becauseitcouldjustbewithinthearticle,sayingthatyouneeddifferenttypesof

cholesteroloritcouldbeinadvertising,likeyouneedtogetthisthing.”P4

assignedthecarddirectlytotheclassadvertisingandexplained,“becauseofthe

terminology‘Youneed’.”P5hadasimilarideaandsaid,“mostadvertisingis

tellingyouwhatyouneed.”

Someparticipantsinterpretedagraphicalsignasalogoandrelateditdirectly

totheclassadvertising.P2andP4forexampleassignedthecardwiththeQsign

toadvertisingalthoughitis,infact,partoftheeditorialarticle.P2argued,“I

don’trememberseeingthatanywherebutIgowithadvertisingbecauseitlooks

likealogo”andP4said,“Idon’trememberbutIthinkit’sadvertisingbecauseit’s

alogo”.SimilarlyP5whens/hehadalookatthecard:“I’dsaythatwas

advertisingbecauseit’slikealogo.”

Itappearsthatseveralparticipantshaveaspecificideaaboutwhatan

advertisementshouldorshouldnotinclude.Aspreviouslyoutlined,several

participantsmentionedaspectslikeabrandname,alogooraspecific

terminology.Theseideasappeartobebasedontheparticipant’sexperiences

withadvertising.P5’sstatement“mostadvertisingistellingyouwhatyouneed”

isastrongindicatorforP5’sgeneralunderstandingofadvertising.

Atheoreticalapproachthatisrelatedtothesefindingsistheconceptof

“advertisingschema”(Stoltman,1991,pp.317‐318).Individualsdevelopan

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

95|P a g e

advertisingschemawhentheyarerepeatedlyandconsistentlyexposedto

advertisements,whichcontainsimilarsemantic,physicalorstructuralfeatures.

Similarlytothealreadyintroducedpropositionofawebsiteschema,an

advertisingschemacontainsspecificexpectationsandinformation,herefor

exampleaboutparticularexecutionstructuresorappeals(Stoltman,1991,pp.

317‐318)inanadvertisement.Thefindingsofthepresentresearchindicatethat

someparticipantsapplysuchanadvertisingschema.

Thefindingthattheparticipantsseemtohaveapreviousunderstandingand

specificexpectationsaboutadvertisingingeneral,canfurtherbeassignedinto

theareaofresearchthatfocusonwhatadvertisingasaspecifictypeof

informationmeanstotheaudience.Ducoffe(1995,p.1)forexampleintroduced

theterm“advertisingvalue”,whichhedefinedasa“subjectiveevaluationofthe

relativeworthorutilityofadvertisingtoconsumers”(p.1).

Tosumup,severalparticipantsreferredtothewebpageingeneralaswellas

specificwebsitetools.Websitetools,likeforexampleaprintbuttonorasearch

bar,fulfilacertainfunctionforthewebpage.Itappearsthatsomeparticipants

appliedpreviousknowledgewithotherwebsitesandadvertisementsinorderto

comparethegivenwebpageanditsinformationmoduleswiththeirexperiences.

Further,severalparticipantsreferredtothelayoutofthewebpage,whichmeans

theydescribedthearrangementoftheinformationmodulesonthewebpage.

5.5 Participants’responsesconcerningrelationshipsbetween

informationmodules

Basedontheuser‐centricfocusinthisstudy,therelationshipsbetweenthe

informationmodulesareunderstoodasconstructedbytheparticipantsandnot

asoccurringonthewebpageitself.Inthisresearchthefocusliesonthe

participant’sconstructionofrelationshipsbetweentheinformationmodules

placedontheselectedwebpage.InthefollowingIwilloutlinewhattypesof

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

96|P a g e

relationshipsbetweencertaininformationmodulestheparticipantsinthis

researchconstructed.

P1,P2,P3,P4,andP6identifiedrelationshipsbetweenseveralinformation

modulesbasedontheinformationmodules’informationcontent,more

specificallythesameproductcategory.Severalparticipantsdifferentiated

betweendifferentlevelsofproductcategory,namely“food”and“seafood”.

SomeparticipantsidentifiedarelationshipbetweenAd2andtheeditorialarticle

basedonthesameproductcategory“seafood”.

P1argued,“TheadvertisementfromtheNewZealandSeafoodisobviously

relatedwiththearticlebecausethearticleisaboutseafoodaswell.”SimilarlyP3

said,“TheNewZealandseafoodadvertisementisrelatedtothis[pointstothe

editorialarticle]becauseit’sallaboutseafood.”AlsoP4constructeda

relationshipbetweenAd2andtheeditorialarticle,“theseafoodoneobviously

matchesthecholesterolinseafoodinthearticle”aswellasP6said,“havingan

articletalkingaboutseafoodandanadaboutseafoodthatmakessense.”

P2appliedtheseafood‐basedrelationshiptoseparateAd4fromthose

informationmodulesthatcontaininformationaboutseafood:“Iwouldn’tsayit

[Ad4]isoutofplacebecause[…]it’snotremotelyseafood,soitdoesn’treally

havemuchtodowithitbutinthesametimeit’sfoodsoyoucan’treallytakeit

out.”Here,P2referredtoafurthercategorythatrelatesseveralinformation

modulestoeachother:theproductcategory“food”.P2constructsarelation

betweenAd4andthoseinformationmodulesthatcontainfood‐related

information(includingseafood).

AlsoP3stated,“Golden[Ad4]isnotthatrelatedwithseafoodbutit’sstill

foodsoIguesstherelationcomesfromthere”andsimilarlyP6identifiedthe

relationbasedonthesameproductcategory“food”andsimultaneously

questionedAd4’srelationwithseafood:“[…]readingaboutseafoodandthen

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

97|P a g e

thecrumpets?Crumpetswithseafood?Iknowit’sfood,it’srelatedbut[…]a

morebakingorbreakfastpartwouldbegood.”

Theconstructionsofrelationshipsbasedonthesameproductcategory,

supportthefindingsofCho(1999)aswellasShamdasanietal.(2001)whofound

thatcongruenceintermsofproductcategoryinadvertisementsandtheeditorial

environmentenhancesadvertisingeffectiveness.AlthoughIamnotinvestigating

advertisingeffectivenessassuch,acongruenceconcerningthesameproduct

categoryappearstobeobvioustoseveralparticipantsinthisresearch.

Thecontent‐basedcategories“food”and“seafood”thatwereidentifiedas

relatingspecificinformationmodulestoeachotherwerealsousedtoseparate

ornotrelateotherinformationmodules.P3referredtothecategoryfoodwhen

separatingAd1fromotherinformationmodules.P3stated,“Peoplearen’t

usuallythinkingaboutcarswhentheylookatafoodwebsite.”P3apparently

referredtohis/herownunderstandingaboutwhatusersmightexpectwhen

visitingaparticularwebsiteandappliedthisunderstandingontothegiven

webpage.

Further,Ad3wasinterpretedasnotrelatedtootherinformationmoduleson

thewebpage.P1said,“thesmalladvertisementfromflossie.com[…]Iguessit’s

notrelatedtothewebsite”andP2stated,”theyallhaveakindofgoodflowwith

eachother,exceptforflossiebecauseflossieisoneofthethingsonewould

maybefindonthewebsiteforthefashionweekorthewomen’sweeklywebsite.

Imeansomethingverywomenoriented.”P2referredtoownknowledgeabout

flossie.comandthatitissomething‘womanoriented’.P2furtherassumeson

whattypeofwebsiteavisitorwouldratherexpectAd3.

Inadditiontotheinterpretationofinformationmodulesasnotrelated

becausetheydonotcontaininformationaboutseafoodandfood,P4referredto

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

98|P a g e

differencesconcerningtheproductionprocess.P4usedtheaspectofprocessed

foodtoseparateAd4fromotherinformationmodules:“thecrumpetsIthought

wasoutofplacebecauseit’sprocessedfood.”

P2recognisedavisualsimilaritybetweenthelogoofAd1andthelogoofAd2.

P2said,“thosetwologos[P2pointstotheAd1logoandthentotheAd2logo]

kindoflookthesame.They’reroundbutalsohavestrongangles.”Itseemsthat

relationshipsbetweenthedifferentinformationmoduleswerealsoidentifiedon

thebasisoftheinformationmodules’design.Equallytotheidentifiedrelations

basedontheinformationcontent,visualsimilaritywasapparentlyanimportant

aspect.

P4relatedAd1tocertainwebsitetoolsonthewebpage.P4said,“the

Mercedesadrelatestothewebpagebecausethecoloursaresimilarasinthe

page[…]yougotthegreybarinthetopofthepageandyougotthesame

coloursinthead.”Similarly,P1identifiedcolourasarelatingaspectbutreferred

toAd2.P1furthermentionedtheeffectthissimilarityhastohis/herimpression

ofthewebpage:“ThecolouroftheNewZealandSeafoodadvertisementis

similartothecoloursusedforthewebsiteitself,theblueisrepeating,thegreyis

repeatingandthatactuallybindsitmoreintothewebsite,makesitabitmore

fittingin.”InthiscaseitbecomesapparentthatP4andP1constructeda

relationshipbasedoncolour‐similarity.

ThethemeofcoloursimilarityalsocameupintheinterviewswithP3andP6.

P3said:”Thiscolourdoesn’tstandoutenoughformetorememberthat’sthe

thing.Imeanokay,ImightconnectthemwhenI’mlookingatthisbutIwouldn’t

rememberitafter.”Withinthediscussionofcoloursintheinterviews,P6

answeredthequestionwhethers/heseesarelationshipbasedoncolour

similaritywith,“Isupposeifthereissomethingreallyobvious,likebrightpinkin

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

99|P a g e

thenavigationandit’sthesamebrightpinkthere,thenitwouldjumpoutandlet

methinkthemtogetherbutotherwise,no.”

InP3andP6’scasetheprominenceofthecolourappearstobeasignificant

aspectforconstructingcolour‐basedrelationshipsbetweeninformation

modules.P3arguedthats/hewouldconstructacolour‐basedrelationship

betweeninformationmodulesbutwouldnotrememberitwhenthecoloursare

notprominentenough.P6arguedthats/hewouldnotconstructarelationshipat

allwhencolour‐prominenceisnotgiven.EspeciallyP6’sargumentcontradicts

thestatementsofP4andP1,whobothconstructedacolour‐basedrelationship

betweeninformationmodulesonthewebpage.

Thecontent‐basedrelationshipsaswellasthedesign‐basedrelationships

(basedonshapeandcolour)outlinedsofararebothbasedonsimilarity.Some

participantsconstructedcontent‐basedrelationshipsbasedonthesimilarityin

termsoftheproductcategoriesseafoodandfood.Concerningdesign‐based

relationships,theparticipantsconstructedrelationshipsbasedonsimilarcolours

orshapes.

Intheareaofgraphicdesign,similarityisusedasastylisticelementtocreate

“unity”,whichBennett(2005,p.179)explainsastheorganisationofalltheparts

ofadocumentintoacompletewhole.Thismeans,that“alldifferentpartsofthe

designshouldlookasiftheybelongtogether.”(Bennett,2005,p.179)

White(2002,p.5)providesanevolutionaryexplanationfortheindividual’s

considerationofsimilarity.Hearguesthatthesearchforsimilarityaswellas

differencesinadocumentisahumaninstinctforsurvivalthatevolved

throughouthumanevolution.White(2002,p.5)explainsthisphenomenonas

follows:

“As humans evolved, an important attribute we acquired was the ability to see potentialdangersaroundus,toseedifferencesinoursurroundings.Anythingthatmovedirregularlyorwas a different colour or texture was worthy of our attention. After all, it might eat us.Noticing differences became an evolutionary advantage for humans. As a result, whenwe

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

100|P a g e

modernhumans lookataprinteddocumentoramonitorscreen,oureyes instinctivelyandsubconsciouslylookforsimilaritiesanddifferencesamongtheelementsused.”

P6appliedageneralunderstandingabouttherelationshipbetweenthe

financialsituationofaperson,healthyfood/seafood,andthepricerangeofacar

likeMercedesBenz.P6said“thefirstthingI’mthinkingis,whyisaMercedesad

therebutIsuppose[…]generallypeoplewhoearnmoremoneyalsoinvestmore

moneyintohealthyfoodandmaybemoreseafood[…]”.ItappearsthatP6

believesapersonwhohasmoremoneyavailablemightbeinterestedinacarlike

MercedesBenzaswellasinhealthyfoodand,inparticular,seafood.P6applied

thisunderstandinginordertoconstructarelationshipbetweenAd1andthe

generaltopicofthewebpageP6identified,namelyhealthyfoodandseafood.

Apartfromcontent‐basedanddesign‐basedrelationships,itappearsthat

someparticipantsfurtherconstructedrelationshipsbasedonspecific

characteristicstheyattributetotheinformationmodulesoronknowledgethey

haveaboutspecifictypesofrelationships.

P2identifiedaspecifictypeofrelationbetweenAd1andthewebpagein

general.P2said,“theMercedesBenzdon’treallygowiththewholeconceptof

thewebpagebuttheymaybeasponsororso.”P2’sstatementrevealsthats/he

hasacertainunderstandingofsponsorship‐relations.Theexistingconditionson

thewebpage,forinstanceintermsofdesignortheinformationcontent,

apparentlymatchesherunderstandingofsponsorshipasaspecifictypeof

relationatleastinsofar,thatP2considersittoberelevanthere.

Thefindingsofthedataanalysisinthischapterconstitutethebasisforthe

followingsectioninwhichIwillattempttoanswertheresearchquestions.

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

101|P a g e

5.6 Answerstotheresearchquestions

Intheprecedingsections,Ireportedtheinterviewanalysisprocedure,the

resultsofthedataanalysisaswellasadiscussionofthefindings.Thisallowsme

nowtorespondtothetworesearchquestionsinthisstudy.WiththisIfurther

provideasummaryofthefindings.

ResearchQuestionOne

Whattypesofrelationshipsdotheparticipantsconstructbetweenthe

informationmodulesthatareplacedonawebpageofthewebsite

www.healthyfood.co.nz?

Theinterviewsaimedtoinvestigatewhattypesofrelationshipsbetweenthe

informationmodulesonthewebpagetheparticipantsconstruct.Thedata

analysisrevealedthatrelationshipsbetweentheinformationmoduleswere

constructedbasedonacombinationofinterpretationsofinformationcontent,

designandpersonalknowledge.

Thetypesofrelationshipsconstructedbytheparticipantsare:

• Content‐basedrelationships

• Design‐basedrelationships

• Personal‐Knowledge‐basedrelationships

Itbecameapparentthattheaspectofsimilarityisanimportantfactorfor

someparticipantsfortheconstructionofrelationships.Severalparticipants

constructedarelationshipbetweeninformationmodulesbasedonanaspect

theyidentifiedinallinvolvedinformationmodules,likeaparticularproduct

categoryoracolour.Someparticipantsfurtherusedthesameaspecttoseparate

thoseinformationmodulesthatdonotcontainthisaspect.Forexample,several

participantsidentifiedacontent‐basedrelationshipbetweenthoseinformation

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

102|P a g e

modulesthatrefertothesameproductcategoryseafood.Incontrast,insome

casesparticipantsexplicitlymentionedthattheycouldnotidentifyarelationship

betweenparticularinformationmodulesbecausetheydonotcontainany

informationaboutseafood.Itwasalsomentionedbysomeparticipantsthatthey

didnotconstructcolour‐basedrelationshipsbecauseofthemissingprominence

ofparticularcolours.

Thefindingsconcerningcontent‐basedrelationships,supportthestudy

resultsofCho(1999)aswellasShamdasanietal.(2001).Bothauthorsfounda

positiveeffectofcongruencebetweentheproduct‐categoryinthecontentof

theadvertisementsandthecontentofthewebsiteinwhichtheadvertisements

wereembeddedin,onthewebsiteuser’sperceptionoftheadvertisement.

Inthepresentresearch,severalparticipantsconstructedrelationships

betweentheinformationmodulesthatarenotbasedontheinformation

modules’appearanceorcontentbutratheronpersonalknowledge.P2identified

sponsorshipasapotentialrelationshipbetweenAd1andthewebpage.

AccordingtoChaffey(2006,p.390),sponsorship‐relationsonwebsitesusually

containspecificvisualindicatorslike“Sponsoredby”,“Poweredby”or“In

associationwith”.Theselectedwebpageforthisresearchdoesnotcontainsuch

phrasesthatindicateasponsorshiprelation.Thissponsorship‐relationshipis

basedonP5’sknowledgeofthistypeofrelationshipandthereforeuser‐centred.

Finally,inordertoexplainaprobablerelationshipbetweenAd1andthe

editorialarticle,P6referredtoherpersonalbeliefaboutaconnectionbetweena

person’sincomeandtheperson’sattitudetowardshealthyfoodandseafood.

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

103|P a g e

ResearchQuestionTwo

Howdotheparticipantsinterprettheinformationmodulesplacedona

selectedwebpagefromthewebsitewww.healthyfood.co.nz?

Thedataanalysisrevealedthatfortheinterpretationofthewebpageandits

informationmodules,severalparticipantsreferredtoownexperiences,

knowledgeandattitudes.P2forexampleidentifiedAd2asbeingaboutanevent

s/heonceattended,P1foundAd2veryinterestingbecauseherfriendwritesa

thesisaboutasimilartopicandP6wasinterestedintheeditorialarticlebecause

s/hehasaspecificmedicalexperiencewithcholesterol,theinformationcontent

P6identified.Further,socio‐economicinfluencesbecameapparentwhenP1for

exampleusedtheword“hieper”,averyspecificwordfromherowncultural

background.Theseexampleselucidatetheimportanceoftheindividualandthe

individual’spersonalbackgroundinthemeaning‐makingprocess.

Further,theuser‐centredapproachIfollowedinthisresearchrevealedthat

someoftheparticipantsappearedtohavepreviousattitudesandexpectations

towardstheinformationtypeadvertising,anaspectthatStoltman(1991)calls

“advertisingschema”.Insummary,severalparticipantsmentionedthat

advertisementsoftencontainalogo,promoteaspecifictypeofaproductand

makeareferencetowhattherecipientneeds.

Fortheinterpretationofthewebpage,someparticipantscomparedthegiven

webpagewithotherwebsitestheyhaveexperienced.Termslike“general”,

“usual”and“standard”insomeofparticipants’responsesindicatethatthey

usedtheirexperiencewithotherwebsitesasareference.Underconsiderationof

BellmanandRossiter(2004)itseemsthattheseparticipantsappliedawebsite

schematheyhave,whichincludesexpectationsaboutwhereandhowtofind

informationonawebsite(p.39)orinthiscaseasinglewebpage.

5.ANALYSISANDDISCUSSION

104|P a g e

Someeffectsofenvironmentalfactorssuchastheplaceoftheinterviewas

wellastimewhenexposedtothewebpagewerefurtherunveiled.Thesefactors

areclearlyuserspecific,alsobecauseitcouldbeshownthattheresponsesto

environmentalfactorswereuniquetoeveryparticipant.Althoughallinterviews

tookplaceinthesamebuildinginthesameroomandwiththebasicallysame

roomlayout,eachinterviewdifferedonlyintimeanddateandintermsofthe

soundsoutsidetheroom.Despitethesamenessoftheinterviewsituation,each

participantreacteddifferentlytotheenvironmentalconditionsthatoccurredat

thetimeoftheinterview.P5mentionedforexamplewhateffectthelatetimeof

thedayhadonP5’sabilitytointerpretthewebpageandP6mentionedthe

cameraswhens/hetalkedabouthisorherattitudetowardaspecifictopic.This

supportsKnappandHall’s(2002)aswellasScollonandScollon’s(2003)

discussionaboutthesignificanceoftheenvironment,forexampletimeand

location,inwhichcommunicationtakesplace.

Itcanbearguedthatinordertoanalysethewebpage’smeaning‐affordance,

itappearsthatauser‐centredanalysiscanprovideusefulinsightsintothe

participant’sinterpretationsofthewebpage.Thestatementsofthesix

participantsinthisresearchrevealedhowtheyinterpretedthewebpageand

whattypesofrelationshipsbetweentheinformationmodulestheyconstructed.

Alsothevarietyandtypesofrelationshipssupportstheusefulnessofauser‐

centredapproach.Auser‐centredanalysis,inadditiontoasystem‐centred

analysisofthewebpage,mightbepromisingtofindouthowthewebpage,

includingitsadvertisementsaswellastheeditorialcontent,isexperiencedand

interpretedbythewebpageuser.

6.RESEARCHCONCLUSIONS

105|P a g e

6. ResearchConclusionsTheobjectiveofthisstudywastoexaminehowparticipantsinthisresearch

interpretawebpagefromthewebsitewww.healthyfood.co.nz.InthisresearchI

followedthepropositionthatthepersonwhointerpretsthewebpage

significantlydeterminesthemeaningofawebpageanditscontents.Myinterest

inthisresearchtopicderivedfromseveralapproachesintheareaof

multimodality,semioticsaswellasadvertisingresearch.Researchthat

emphasisestheimportanceoftheindividualintheprocessofmeaningmaking

butneverthelessanalysesthemeaning‐affordanceofadocumentwithout

includingananalysisofthedocumentuser’sinteractionswiththewebsite

appearsincomplete.Apotentialcontradictioncouldbeseenhereanditwasmy

intentioninthisresearchtoinvestigatewhatinsightsananalysiswithfocuson

theuserofadocumentcanprovide.

Inmymethodologicalapproach,Idifferentiatedbetweensystem‐centredand

user‐centredperspectives.Asystem‐centredapproachanalysesthemeaning‐

affordanceofadocumentbasedontheobjectsitcontains,whereasauser‐

centredapproachanalysesadocumentfromtheuser’sperspective.Inthe

presentstudy,Iconductedauser‐centredanalysisofthestatedwebpage.My

concernwastoanalysehowtheparticipantsinterpretthegivenwebpageand

whatthisuser‐centredanalysiscanreveal.Withrespecttothenotionof

contextualadvertising,thisstudyfurtherincludedtheinvestigationofwhat

typesofrelationshipsbetweentheinformationmodulesonthewebpagethe

participantsconstruct.

6.RESEARCHCONCLUSIONS

106|P a g e

Thisstudywasbasedontworesearchquestions:

• Whattypesofrelationshipsdotheparticipantsconstructbetweenthe

informationmodulesthatareplacedonawebpageofthewebsite

www.healthyfood.co.nz?

• Howdotheparticipantsinterprettheinformationmodulesplacedona

selectedwebpagefromthewebsitewww.healthyfood.co.nz?

Thisstudywasinformedbyconceptsfromthefieldofmultimodalityaswellas

semiotics,especiallysocialsemioticsandgeosemioticsthatemphasisethe

significanceoftheenvironmentandthereal‐timesituation(context)ofasocial

action.Furthermore,literatureandresearchonadvertisingandcontextual

advertisinginformedmyresearch.

Inordertoanswertheresearchquestions,Iadoptedaqualitativeresearch

approachtocapturetheparticipants’subjectiveexperiencesandinterpretations

oftheselectedwebpage.Iconductedsemi‐structuredinterviewswithsix

participants.Theparticipants’responsesweretranscribed,categorizedand

analysedguidedbythetworesearchquestions.

Thefindingsoftheuser‐centredanalysisinthisresearch,providesanumber

ofinsightsintotheprocessofmeaning‐makingwithineachparticipantwhen

interpretingtheselectedwebpage.Thestudyresultsillustratehowseveral

participantsusedpersonalknowledge,experienceandbeliefstomakesenseof

theinformationprovidedbythewebpage.Inaddition,Idemonstratedinthe

pastsectionsthatinterpretationofthegivenwebpagewasguidedbythe

personalinterestofeachparticipantinthecommunicativemessageofeach

informationmodule.Resultsfromthisinvestigationfurtherimplythatthe

physicalenvironmentatthetimeofwebpageexposurehadaninfluenceonthe

6.RESEARCHCONCLUSIONS

107|P a g e

interpretationprocessoftheparticipant.Theseresultssupportapproachesof

socialsemioticsandmultimodalitythatemphasisetheindividualinthemeaning‐

makingprocess,anditalsosupportsapproachesofgeosemioticsthatfurther

stressthesignificanceoftimeandplacefortheinterpretationofsigns.

Theresearchunveiledseveraltypesofrelationshipsbetweentheinformation

modulesonthewebpagethatwereconstructedbytheparticipants.Withinthis

context,thefindingsindicatethatpersonalbeliefsandknowledgeplaya

significantrole.Thesponsorship‐relationshipandtheincome‐investment‐

relationshipthatwereconstructedbysomeparticipantselucidatethisaspect.

Severalparticipantsinthepresentstudyconstructedarelationshipbetween

informationmodulesbasedonthesameproductcategory.Withthis,theresults

seemtosupportstudiesthatverifiedtheeffectivenessofcontextualadvertising

basedonsimilarityconcerningthecontentofanadvertisementandthecontent

ofthewebsiteitisembeddedin.Further,thisresearchexpandedtheworkof

previousresearchintheareaofcontextualadvertising.Thefindingsofthe

presentinvestigationindicatedthatalsosimilaritybasedondesign,especially

concerningshapeandcolour,playedaroleinconstructingrelationshipsbetween

advertisementsandnon‐advertisingcontentplacedonthewebpage.This

providesusefulimplicationsforonlineadvertisingpractice,namelynotonlyto

focusoncontent‐congruencebutalsotoadaptthedesignofonline

advertisements,especiallybanneradvertisements,tothedesignofthewebsite

onwhichtheadvertisementisplaced.Congruenceintermsofshapesoflogos

andcoloursingeneralappearedtobesignificantforsomeparticipantsto

constructrelationshipsbetweentheinformationmodulesonthewebpage.

However,someparticipants’responsesalsoindicatethattheprominenceof

colouronthewebpageisimportantfortheconstructionofrelationshipsbased

oncolour‐similarity.Futureresearchthatinvestigatesthesignificanceofcolour

prominenceintheareaofcontextualadvertisingwouldbeofbenefit.

6.RESEARCHCONCLUSIONS

108|P a g e

Iconcludethattheresearchshowedthatauser‐centredanalysisofthe

webpagedoesprovideasignificantinsightintothemeaningprocessesofthe

participants.Inadditiontoasystem‐centredanalysisofthewebpage,auser‐

centredanalysisoftheparticipants’interpretationsappearstoprovidea

thoroughunderstandingofmeaning‐affordancesofthewebpageincombination

withsubjectivemeaningsconstructedbythewebpageusers.Auser‐centred

analysisseemstocaptureseveralpersonalcharacteristicsthatareimportantfor

theinterpretationofcontentandthemeaning‐makingprocess.

Withrespecttothesemioticanalysisofadvertisementsonwebsites,Ifurther

concludethatitappearstobeusefultoexamineadvertisementswithinthe

websitecontextinwhichtheyareembeddedin.Thefindingsofthisstudy

demonstratethattheparticipantsconstructedseveraltypesofrelationships

betweenadvertisementsandtheeditorialcontent.Thissuggeststhatthe

websitecontextoftheadvertisementsplayedasignificantroleforthe

participant’sevaluationofhowtheadvertisement‘fitsin’thewebpage.

Thereareseverallimitationsthatframetheresultsofthisresearch.Forthe

presentstudy,Iinvitedtheparticipantstolookataparticularwebpage.The

selectedwebpageisarealwebpage,recordedataparticulartimeonaparticular

day.Althoughtherearenoindicationsintheparticipants’responses,itis

possiblethatoneormoreparticipantshadbeenexposedtoeitherthewebpage

ortheembeddedadvertisementsbefore.Insuchacase,thepriorexposure

mighthavehadaninfluenceonthestudyresultsbecausetheparticipantmay

havehadpriorknowledgeaboutorattitudestowardparticularinformation

modules.

Toavoidthispotentialeffect,itmightbeofbenefitforfutureresearchinthis

areatocreateawebpageforthepurposeofthestudy.Currentwebdesign

standardsmightbetakenintoaccountinordertomaintainasenseofreality.

6.RESEARCHCONCLUSIONS

109|P a g e

Anotherlimitationofthestudyisconcernedwiththeartificialsettingofthe

interviews.Ineachinterview,Iinvitedtheparticipantstocarefullylookatthe

webpage.Inareal‐livesituationtheparticipantsmighthavehadexaminedthe

webpagedifferently.AccordingtoDrezeandHussherr(2003)thereisonlya50%

chancethatawebsitevisitorlooksatabanneradvertisementonawebpage.The

resultsinanon‐artificialsettingmighthavebeendifferent.

Further,inordertosatisfyethicalstandardsofresearch,theparticipants

receivedaninformationsheet,whichdescribedthepurposeandtheprocedure

ofthestudy.Althoughnointerviewquestionswererevealedtotheparticipants

priortheinterview,itmightbepossiblethattheinformationalreadyprovidedby

theinformationsheetinfluencedtheparticipantsintheirawarenessofspecific

characteristicsonthewebpageandthismighthavehadaneffectontheir

interpretationsofthewebpageaswellastheirinterviewresponses.

ForfutureresearchIalsosuggesttolookingatinterpretationsofawebpage

withalargernumberofparticipantsinordertogetamoredetailedinsightinto

meaning‐makingprocessesandtheconstructionsofrelationshipsbetween

advertisementsandeditorialcontent.Myresearchwaslimitedtoaverysmall

numberofparticipantsanditwasthereforenotpossibletogeneralisethe

findings.

Further,mydataanalysiswaslimitedtotheverbalresponsesofthe

participants.However,individualscommunicatethroughavarietyofmodes

(Norris,2004,p.12),suchasheadmovements,facialexpressionsandbody

posture.Anintegratedanalysisofnon‐verbalutteranceswouldhaveprovideda

deeperinsightintotheparticipants’interactionswithme,theinterviewer,the

webpagetheywereinvitedtolookat,aswellastheirphysicalenvironment.For

example,theeffectofenvironmentalfactors,suchasthepresenceofthevideo

camerasduringtheinterviews,mighthavebeenbetterrevealedbyincludingan

analysisoftheparticipants’non‐verbalutterances.Isuggestforfutureresearch

6.RESEARCHCONCLUSIONS

110|P a g e

onuser’sinterpretationsofawebpagethatananalysisofbothverbalaswellas

non‐verbaldatawouldprovidevaluableinformation.

Ihavefurtherfoundindicationsinthestudyresultsthatthelevelof

involvementmightbeamoderatingvariablethatdeterminestowhatextendthe

findingsoftheuser‐centredanalysiswouldconcurwithfindingsofasystem‐

centredanalysis.Itmightbethathighinvolvementwiththeinformationmodules

onthewebpageleadtohigherelaborationoftheinformationprovidedand

thereforetoahighercongruenceoftheparticipant’sinterpretationsofthe

informationprovidedbythewebpageandwhatisstructurallypresentonthe

webpage.Isuggestthataninvestigationastothesignificanceoflevelsof

involvementwithinthiscontextwouldbeofbenefit.

REFERENCELIST

111|P a g e

ReferenceList

aAnckaert,P.,Geuens,M.,&DePelsmaker,P.(2002).Mediacontextand

advertisingeffectiveness:Theroleofcontextappreciationandcontext/adsimilarity.JournalofAdvertising,31(2),49‐61.

Anderson,J.,Dewhirst,T.,&Ling,P.M.(2006).Everydocumentandpicturetellsastory:Usinginternalcorporatedocumentreviews,semiotics,andcontentanalysistoassesstobaccoadvertising.TobControl,15,254‐261.

AUTEC.(2010).EthicsKnowledgeBase.Retrieved12thMarch,2010,fromhttp://www.aut.ac.nz/research/research‐ethics/ethics?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHAlM0ElMkYlMkZpbnRvdWNoLmF1dC5hYy5ueiUyRmludG91Y2glMkZFdGhpY3MlMkZrbm93bGVkZ2VfYmFzZSUyRmtiX3N1Yi5waHAlM0ZhcnRpY2xlaWQlM0Q1OCZhbGw9MQ%3D%3D

REFERENCELIST

112|P a g e

b

Bao,Y.,Shao,A.T.,&Rivers,D.(2008).Creatingnewbrandnames:effectsofrelevance,connotation,andpronunciation.Journalofadvertisingresearch,March,148‐162.

Barker,C.,&Galasinsky,D.(2001).Culturalstudiesanddiscourseanalysis.London:SagePublications.

Barthes,R.(1973).Mythodologies.London:Paladin.

Barthes,R.(1994).Thesemioticchallenge(R.Howard,Trans.).Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Bateman,J.A.(2008).Multimodalityandgenre:Afoundationforthesystematicanalysisofmultimodaldocuments.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan.

Bathia,V.K.(1993).Analysinggenre:Languageuseinprofessionalsettings.London:LongmanGroupUKLimited.

Beasley,R.,&Danesi,M.(2002).Persuasivesigns:Thesemioticsofadvertising.NewYork:MoutondeGruyter.

Belch,G.E.,&Belch,M.A.(2004).Advertisingandpromotion:Anintegratedmarketingcommunicationsperspective(6thed.).NewYork:McGrawHill.

Belch,G.E.,&Belch,M.A.(2009).Advertisingandpromotion:Anintegratedmarketingcommunicationsperspective.(8thed.).NewYork:McGraw‐Hill.

Bellman,S.,&Rossiter,J.R.(2004).Thewebsiteschema.Journalofinteractiveadvertising,4(2),1‐1.

Bennett,J.G.(2005).Designfundamentalsfornewmedia.NewYork:ThomsonDelmarLearning.

REFERENCELIST

113|P a g e

Bogart,L.,&Tolley,S.B.(1994).Howreadersprocessnewspaperadvertising.InT.C.Brock,E.M.Clark&D.W.Stewart(Eds.),Attention,attitude,andaffectinresponsetoadvertising(pp.69‐78).NewJersey:LawrenceErlbaum.

Botterill,J.,Jhally,S.,Kline,W.,&Leiss,W.(2005).Socialcommunicationinadvertising:Consumptioninthemediatedmarketplace(3rded.).London:Routledge.

Bukovac,J.L.,&Li,H.(1999).Cognitiveimpactofbanneradcharacteristics:Anexperiementalstudy.JournalismandMassCommunicationQuarterly,76(2),341‐353.

Burke,P.J.,&Stets,J.E.(2003).Asociologicalapproachtoselfandidentity.InM.R.Leary&J.P.Tangney(Eds.),Handbookofselfandidentity(pp.128‐175).London:TheGuilfordPress.

Busacca,B.,Girolamo,S.,&Soscia,I.(2010).Theeffectofcomparativeadvertisingonconsumerperceptions:Similarityordifferentiation?JournalofBusinessandPsychology,25(1),109‐118.

REFERENCELIST

114|P a g e

c

Caple,H.(2008).Intermodalrelationsinimagenuclearnewsstories.InL.Unsworth(Ed.),Multimodalsemiotics:Functionalanalysisincontextsofeducation(pp.123‐138).London:Continuum.

Carty,E.,&Peppin,P.(2001).Semiotics,stereotypes,andwomen'shealth:Signifyinginequalityindrugadvertising.CanadianJournalofWomenandtheLaw,13(2),326‐360.

Castelhano,M.S.,&Rayner,K.(2008).Eyemovementsduringreading,sceneperception,visualsearch,andwhilelookingatprintadvertisements.InR.Pieters&M.Wedel(Eds.),Visualmarketing:Fromattentiontoaction(pp.9‐43).NewYork:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Celuch,K.G.,&Slama,M.(1993).Programcontentandadvertisingeffectiveness:Atestofthecongruityhypothesisforcognitiveandaffectivesourcesofinvolvement.PsychologyandMarketing,10(4),285‐299.

Chaffey,D.,Ellis‐Chadwick,F.,Johnston,K.,&Mayer,R.(2006).Internetmarketing:Strategy,implementationandpractice(3rded.).Harlow,England:FinancialTimes/PrenticeHall.

Chandler,D.(2002).Semiotics:Thebasics.NewYork:Routledge.

Cho,C.‐H.(1999).HowadvertisingworksontheWWW:ModifiedelaborationlikelihoodmodelJournalofCurrentIssuesandResearchinAdvertising,21(1),33‐50.

Christ,P.(2009a).Retrieved21October,2009,fromhttp://www.knowthis.com/principles‐of‐marketing‐tutorials/what‐is‐marketing/criticisms‐part‐1/

Christ,P.(2009c).Retrieved21.October,2009,fromhttp://www.knowthis.com/principles‐of‐marketing‐tutorials/what‐is‐marketing/criticisms‐part‐3/

Colman,A.M.,&Norris,C.E.(1992).Contexteffectsonrecallandrecognitionofmagazineadvertisements.JournalofAdvertising,21(3),37‐46.

REFERENCELIST

115|P a g e

Cook,G.(2001).Thediscourseofadvertising.NewYork:Routledge.

Coyle,J.R.,&Gould,S.J.(2007).Internetintegratedmarketingcommunications(I‐IMC):Theoryandpractice.InD.W.Schumann&E.Thorson(Eds.),Internetadvertising:Theoryandresearch.NewJersey:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.

Creswell,J.W.(2007).Qualitativeinquiryandresearchdesign:Choosingamongfiveapproaches(2nded.).London:SagePublicationsLtd.

REFERENCELIST

116|P a g e

d

Dahlén,M.,Rasch,A.,&Rosengren,S.(2003).Loveatfirstsite?Astudyofwebsiteadvertisingeffectiveness.JournalofAdvertisingResearch,March,25‐33.

Dalal,N.,Mishra,S.,Patil,V.H.,&Singh,S.N.(2005).Acommunicationsviewofwebpageperception.JournalofCurrentIssuesandResearchinAdvertising,27(1),31‐52.

Diao,F.,&Sundar,S.S.(2004).Orientingresponseandmemoryforwebadvertisements:Exploringeffectsofpop‐upwindowandanimation.CommunicationResearch,31(5),537‐567.

Djonov,E.(2008).Children'swebsitestructureandnavigation.InL.Unsworth(Ed.),Multimodalsemiotics:Functionalanalysisincontextsofeducation(pp.216‐236).NewYork:ContinuumInternationalPublishingGroup.

Donthu,N.,Lohtia,R.,Osmonbekov,T.,&Xie,T.(2004).Emotionalappealandincentiveofferinginbanneradvertisement.JournalofInteractiveAdvertising,4(2),30‐37.

Dréze,X.,&Hussherr,F.‐X.(2003).Internetadvertising:Isanybodywatching?JournalofInteractiveMarketing,17(4),8‐23.

DuPlessis,E.(2005).Theadvertisedmind:Ground­breakinginsightsintohowourbrainsrespondtoadvertising.London:KoganPage.

Ducoffe,R.H.(1995).Howconsumersassessthevalueofadvertising.JournalofCurrentIssuesandResearchinAdvertising,17(1),1‐18.

REFERENCELIST

117|P a g e

f

Finnegan,R.(2002).Communicating:Themultiplemodesofhumaninterconnection.London:Routledge.

Fisher,R.J.,Jaworski,B.J.,Mohammed,R.A.,&Paddison,G.J.(2004).Internetmarketing:Buildingadvantageinanetworkedeconomy(2nded.).NewYork:TheMcGraw‐HillCompanies,Inc.

Flick,U.(2006).Anintroductiontoqualitativeresearch(3rded.).London:SagePublications.

Flick,U.,Kardorff,E.,&Steinke,I.(2004).Whatisqualitativeresearch?Anintroductiontothefield.InU.Flick,E.Kardorff&I.Steinke(Eds.),Acompaniontoqualitativeresearch(pp.3‐13).London:SagePublications.

Frain,J.(1994).Introductiontomarketing(3rded.).London:PitmanPublishing.

REFERENCELIST

118|P a g e

g

Goodstein,R.C.(1993).Category‐basedapplicationsandextensionsinadvertising:Motivatingmoreextensiveadprocessing.Journalofconsumerresearch,20(June),87‐99.

Guo,L.(2004).Multimodalityinabiologytextbook.InK.L.O'Halloran(Ed.),Multimodaldiscourseanalysis:Systemicfunctionalperspectives(pp.196‐219).London:Continuum.

REFERENCELIST

119|P a g e

h

Hall,J.A.,&Knapp,M.L.(2002).Nonverbalcommunicationinhumaninteraction(5thed.).Australia,US:WadsworthThomsonLearning.

Hand,C.,Robinson,H.,&Wysocka,A.(2007).Internetadvertisingeffectiveness:Theeffectofdesignonclick‐throughratesforbannerads.InternationalJournalofAdvertising,26(4),527‐541.

Hanson,W.,&Kalyanam,K.(2007).Internetmarketingande­commerce.Australia,MasonOH:ThomsonSouth‐Western.

Hodge,R.,&Kress,G.(1988).Socialsemiotics.NewYork:CornellUniversityPress.

Hwang,J.‐S.,Lee,G.,&McMillan,S.J.(2003).Effectsofstructuralandperceptualfactorsonattitudestowardthewebsite.JournalofAdvertisingResearch,December,400‐409.

REFERENCELIST

120|P a g e

j

Jablonsky,P.M.,King,C.M.,&Copeland,G.A.(1996.Effectsofhumorousanddistressingprogramcontextontheappealofeffectivenessofhumorouspoliticaladvertisements.Paperpresentedatthemeetingofthe1996SouthernStatescommunicationAssociationMeeting,Memphis,Tennessee.

Jeong,Y.,&King,C.(2005.Impactsofwebsitecontextrelevanceonbanneradvertisementeffectiveness.PaperpresentedatthemeetingoftheInternationalCommunicationAssociation,AnnualMeeting,NewYork.

Jewitt,C.,&Kress,G.(2003).Introduction.InC.Jewitt&G.Kress(Eds.),MultimodalLiteracy(pp.1‐18).NewYork:PeterLangPublishing.

Jhally,S.,Kline,W.,&Leiss,W.(1990).Socialcommunicationinadvertising:Persons,productsandimagesofwell­being(2nded.).London:Routledge.

Jhally,S.,Kline,W.,&Leiss,W.(2004).Semiologyandthestudyofadvertising.InC.Seale(Ed.),Socialresearchmethods:Areader(pp.341‐344).NewYork:Routledge.

Josephson,S.(2005).EyetrackingmethodologyandtheInternet.InG.Barbatsis,K.Kenney,S.Moriarty&K.Smith(Eds.),Handbookofvisualcommunication:Theory,methods,andmedia(pp.63‐80).NewJersey:LawrenceErlbaum.

Ju‐Pak,K.H.,&Miranda,B.(1998.Acontentanalysisofbanneradvertisements:Potentialmotivatingfeatures.PaperpresentedatthemeetingoftheConferenceoftheAssociationforEducationinJournalismandMassCommunication,Baltimore.

REFERENCELIST

121|P a g e

k

Kayrooz,C.,&Trevitt,C.(2005).Researchinorganisationsandcommunities:Talesfromtherealworld.CrowsNest,NSW:Allen&Unwin.

Keller,K.L.(1998).Strategicbrandmanagement:Building,measuring,andmanagingbrandequity.NewJersey:PrenticeHall.

Kim,K.,Stout,P.A.,&Yoo,C.Y.(2004).Assessingtheeffectsofanimationinonlinebanneradvertising:Hierarchyofeffectsmodel.JournalofInteractiveAdvertising,4(2),49‐60.

King,K.W.,Reid,L.N.,&Soh,H.(2009).Measuringtrustinadvertising.JournalofAdvertising,38(2),83‐103.

Kotler,P.(2003).Marketingmanagement(11thed.).NewJersey:PrenticeHall.

Kotler,P.,&Keller,K.L.(2006).Marketingmanagement(12thed.).NewJersey:PearsonPrenticeHall.

Kress,G.,&Mavers,D.(2005).Socialsemioticsandmultimodaltexts.InC.Lewin&B.Somekh(Eds.),Researchmethodsinthesocialsciences(pp.172‐179).London:SagePublications.

Kress,G.,&VanLeeuwen,T.(1996).Readingimages:Thegrammarofvisualdesign.London,

NewYork

Kress,G.,&VanLeeuwen,T.(2001).Multimodaldiscourse:Themodesandmediaofcontemporarycommunication.London:HodderArnold.

REFERENCELIST

122|P a g e

l

Lee,S.‐J.,Lee,W.‐N.,Kim,H.,&Stout,P.A.(2004).Acomparisonofobjectivecharacteristicsanduserperceptionofwebsites.Journalofinteractiveadvertising,4(2),4‐4.

Lewis,P.,Saunders,M.,&Thornhill,A.(2003).Researchmethodsforbusinessstudents(3rded.).London:PrenticeHall.

Liamputtong,P.(2009).Qualitativeresearchmethods(3rded.).Melbourne:OxfordUniversityPress.

Lord,K.R.,&Putrevu,S.(2009).Informationalandtransformationalresponsestocelebrityendorsements.JournalofCurrentIssuesandResearchinAdvertising,31(1),1‐13.

REFERENCELIST

123|P a g e

m

Marsh,I.(1996).Makingsenseofsociety:Anintroductiontosociology.London:Longman.

Mavers,D.(2003).Communicatingmeaningsthroughimagecomposition,spatialarrangementandlinksinprimaryschoolstudentmindmaps.InC.Jewitt&G.Kress(Eds.),Multimodalliteracy(pp.19‐33).NewYork:PeterLangPublishing.

McIlwain,C.D.(2007).Race,pigskin,andpolitics:Asemioticanalysisofracialimagesinpoliticaladvertising.Semiotica,167­1(4),169‐191.

Meyers,L.,J.,,&Tybout,A.M.(1997).Contexteffectsatencodingandjudgementinconsumptionsettings:Theroleofcognitiveresources.Journalofconsumerresearch,24(1),1‐14.

REFERENCELIST

124|P a g e

n

Neelankavil,J.P.,&Zhang,Y.(1997).TheinfluenceofcultureonadvertisingeffectivenessinChinaandtheUSA.EuropeanJournalofMarketing,31(1/2),134‐149.

Noeth,W.(1990).Handbookofsemiotics.BloomingtonandIndianapolis:IndianaUniversitypress.

Norris,S.(2004).Analyzingmultimodalinteraction:Amethodologicalframework.London,

NewYork:Routledge.

Norris,S.,&Jones,R.H.(2005a).Discourseasaction/discourseinaction.InS.Norris&R.H.Jones(Eds.),Discourseinaction:Introducingmediateddiscourseanalysis.(pp.3‐14).Abingdon,Oxon,

NewYork:Routledge.

Norris,S.,&Jones,R.H.(2005b).Introducingmediationalmeans/culturaltools.InS.Norris&R.H.Jones(Eds.),Discourseinaction:Introducingmediateddiscourseanalysis.(pp.49‐51).Abington,Oxon,

NewYork:Routledge.

REFERENCELIST

125|P a g e

p

Patton,M.Q.(1990).Qualitativeevaluationandresearchmethods(2nded.).London:SagePublicationsInc.

Perry,S.D.,Jenzowsky,S.A.,King,C.M.,Yi,H.,Hester,J.B.,&Gartenschlaeger,J.(1997).Usinghumorousprogramsasavehicleforhumorouscommercials.JournalofCommunication,47,20‐39.

Prasad,V.K.(1976).Communications‐effecivenessofcomparativeadvertising:Alaboratoryanalysis.Journalofconsumerresearch,12,240‐244.

REFERENCELIST

126|P a g e

r

Rodgers,S.,&Thorson,E.(2000).Theinteractiveadvertisingmodel:Howusersperceiveandprocessonlineads.Journalofinteractiveadvertising,1(1),42‐61.

REFERENCELIST

127|P a g e

s

Saussure,F.(1983).Courseingenerallinguistics(R.Harris,Trans.).London:Duckworth.

Schmidt,C.(2004).Theanalysisofsemi‐structuredinterviews.InU.Flick,E.Kardoff&I.Steinke(Eds.),Acompaniontoqualitativeresearch.London:SagePublicationsLtd.

Scollon,R.,&Scollon,S.W.(2003).Discoursesinplace:Languageinthematerialworld.London:Routledge.

Shamdasani,P.N.,Stanaland,A.J.S.,&Tan,J.(2001).Location,location,location:Insightsforadvertisingplacementontheweb.Journalofadvertisingresearch,July/August,7‐21.

Sheth,J.N.,&Sisodia,F.S.(2006).Introduction:Doesmarketingneedreform?InJ.N.Sheth&R.S.Sisodia(Eds.),Doesmarketingneedreform?Freshperspectivesonthefuture.(pp.3‐12).NewYork:M.E.Sharpe.

Silverman,K.(1983).Thesubjectofsemiotics.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Srull,T.K.,&WyerJr.,R.S.(1979).Theroleofcategoryaccessibilityintheinterpretationofinformationaboutpersons:Somedeterminantsandimplications.Journalofpersonalityandsocialpsychology,37(10),1660‐1672.

Stoltman,J.J.(1991).Advertisingeffectiveness:Theroleofadvertisingschemas.InT.L.Childers(Ed.),MarketingTheoryandApplications(Vol.2,pp.317‐318).Chicago,IL:AmericanMarketingAssociation.

REFERENCELIST

128|P a g e

t

Tanaka,K.(2002).Advertisinglanguage:ApragmaticapproachtoadvertisementsinBritainandJapan.NewYork:Routledge.

REFERENCELIST

129|P a g e

vVanLeeuwen,T.(2005).Multimodality,genreanddesign.InS.Norris&R.H.

Jones(Eds.),Discourseinaction:Introducingmediateddiscourseanalysis(pp.73‐94).Abington,Oxon,NewYork:Routledge.

REFERENCELIST

130|P a g e

w

Wertsch,J.V.(1998).Mindasaction.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

West,S.(1990).Workingwithstyle:Traditionalandmodernapproachestolayoutandtypography.NewYork:Watson‐Guptill.

White,A.W.(2002).Theelementsofgraphicdesign.NewYork:AllworthPress.

REFERENCELIST

131|P a g e

y

Yuen,C.Y.(2004).Theconstrualofideationalmeaninginprintadvertisements.InK.L.O'Halloran(Ed.),Multimodaldiscourseanalysis:Systemic­functionalperspectives(pp.164‐195).London:Continuum.

REFERENCELIST

132|P a g e

z

Zaichkowsky,J.L.(1994).Thepersonalinvolvementinventory:Reduction,revision,andapplicationtoadvertising.JournalofAdvertising,23(4),59‐70.

APPENDIXI

I|P a g e

APPENDIXI:InterviewQuestions

Part one

Without looking on the screen:

• Can you please describe what you have seen? • What was your impression of this webpage? Was anything prominent? • Was any content on the webpage relevant to you? • Were any of the advertisements relevant to you?

Part two: Card activity

• Please decide whether the word, the colour or the picture on this card belongs to an advertisement or the informational content of the website.

Figure7:Cardsinthecardactivity

APPENDIXI

II|P a g e

Part three

After card activity and with looking on the webpage again:

• Do you see any relationships between the contents on the webpage? • Why do you relate these contents with each other?

APPENDIXII

III|P a g e

APPENDIXII:Interviewexamples

Participant6

I:Iwantyoutolookatthewebpageascarefulaspossible.Readeverythingyoucan

find.Takeasmuchtimeasyouneed.

[Participantlooksonscreen]

P:Cool,IthinkI’mdone.

I:Canyoupleasedescribewhatyou’veseen.

P:IcanremembertheMercedesadatthetopandthenextthingIsawwasthe

pictureofthemussels,sothat’sthenextthingthatcaughtmyeyeandtherewas

somethingontherighthandsidesomecookingonaBBQandthereisanicononthe

righthandside,Ihavenoideawhatitisabout,itispinkandatthebottomthereisI,I

thinkit’sacrumpetadorsomething.AndthosearealltheimagesIcanremember.

I:Wasthereanytext?

P:Yeah,sothereistheusualmainnavigationatthetopandthesearchthingand

plusitsayssomethingonthecarad,didn’tpayattentiontoit,somethingsomething,

andthereistheusualsearchbox,andIreadthecontent,thatwasinteresting.

I:Whatwasitabout?

P:Aboutcholesterolinseafoodandthere’sgoodandbadone,causeIheardaboutit

andIneverreallyknew,thedifference.Iknowthere’salotaboutseafoodand

cholesterolbutIchosenottopaytoomuchattentiontoit.Justfocusedontheparts

thatarelowinfatcausemostseafoodisverylowinfat.Itwasaninterestingarticle.

APPENDIXII

IV|P a g e

I:Wasitrelevanttoyou?

P:BecauseIjustknowIhadabloodtestonceandtheywerereallysurprisedwiththe

levelofcholesterol.Itwasreally,reallyhigh,buttheysaidit’sthegoodone.So,you

knownotthebadoneyou’refine,you’regoodcholesterolwasreallyhigh,I’mlike,okay

aslongasit’snotbadI’mhappybutthatwasstrange.Thatwasreallyhighandyes,so

that’swhyitwasrelevant,Isuppose.That’swhyIwasinterestedinwhatitistalking

about.Someadsontherighthandsidesaysomethingaboutseafoodandtherewasthis

ad,crumpetIthinkandsomethingaboutsomegames,they’reusuallyquitelame,no

offensebutthey’regenerallylame/laughs/It’sjustclickthereandthenjustclick

somethingandthereis,Iknowyoucansignupforthenewsletterandthen,thiswason

thebottomandit’salsoallthiskindoflikeasitemapthink,tellyouwhatisoneach

pagewhichiskindofcoolbecauseIwaswonderingwhattoolisabout.Causeonthe

main,navigationitsaidtools,sodownthereyeahokaythatmakessense,causeitsaid

aboutsomeBMIcalculatorandblablablaandusualcopyrightsbutatthebottom,Ithink

Imissedcoupleofthingsbutanyway/laughs/

I:Yousaidyouremembersomeadvertisements,weretheyrelevanttoyou?Whatdo

youthink?

P:ThefirstoneistheMercedes,that’sthefirstthingInoticedandabouttheprice

range,soeventhoughIwaslookingforacarkindofbutyeahnoandtheoneaboutthe

seafoodwasinterestingifIwanttoknowaboutseafood,youcanfindoutthere,so,

that’scoolyeahifI’minthemoodoffindingoutmoreaboutseafood,dependsonwhy

I’monawebsitecausesometimesI’mlookingforsomeplacestobuyitordon’tknow,

andtherewasapinkthingabout,therewasareallysmallad,noideawhatitisabout,so

Iwouldn’tprobablyhaveclickedonitunlessI’mreallybored/laughs/andthecrumpet

adis,Ithinkit’scrumpetanyway,andprobablywouldn’thaveclickedonitcauseIlike

crumpet,IbuyitbutIdon’tneedtoknowanymoreaboutit.That’sthethreeads,four

adsIcanremember.

APPENDIXII

V|P a g e

I:Nowwecometothepicturecardactivity.Iwillgiveyousomecardsandtheydepict

somethingandyoupleasedecidewhetheritbelongstonon‐advertising,advertisingor

both.

/readscard:“Youneed”/

P:Oh.

/putscardtoboth/

I:Why?

P:BecauseIthinkinthecontentitmighthavesaidyouneedthistypeofcholesterol

whatever,andalsoit’sIthinkontheblue,theoneontheBBQitsayssomethingabout

everythingyouneedtoknowaboutseafoodorsomethinglikethat.I’mnothundred

percentsurebutthat’swhatIcanremember.

[readscard:Picmussels]

P:Thatwasthecontent.

[putscardtonon‐advertising]

I:Canyourememberit?

P:Yeah,itwasrightnexttothetitle,youknow,rightnexttothebeginningofthe

articleaboutseafoodonthequestion,yeah.

[readscard:“NewZealandSeafood”]

P:Mmmhhnotsure….Iknowtheblueadvertisingittalkedaboutawebsitebutby

defaultIrelateittoNewZealandseafoodjust,butIcouldbewrong,causeIdon’tknow

APPENDIXII

VI|P a g e

ifit’sawebsite.co.nzor.com,yes,IwouldjustassumeasNewZealandseafood,Ibe

attemptedtoputitthere/pointstoadvertising/andbutcanIjustputittoboth?

I:Ofcourse.

/putscardtoboth/

P:Justbecause,also,talkaboutmusselsandbydefaultIliveinNewZealandI

assumethisisaNewZealandwebsiteandmussel,yeah,commoninNewZealand.

/readscard:ColourYellow/

/putscardtoadvertising/

P:Ahaaa,crumpet/laughs/

/readscard:NZSeafoodsign/

/putscardtoadvertisement/

P:Na,Ithinkthat’sonthead,ontherighthandsidead,Ithink.

/readscard:Mercedessign/

/putscardtoadvertisement/

P:Thiskindof,it…wasonthebanner.

/readscard:Colourblue/

/putscardtonon‐advertising/

APPENDIXII

VII|P a g e

P:IthinkthatispartofthewebsiteandfacecolourIthinkcausetheadvertisementis

moretodarkblue.It’swhatIremember.

/readscard:Q/

P:ThatIdon’tknow.Reallydon’tknow.

I:Whenyoucan’tdecidewherewoulditmakesensetoyou?

P:Ifirst,firstthinkcomeintomindisthequality,trademarkorsomething,youknow

somethingabout,foodquality.Soitwouldprobablyappearinthe,advertising.

Probably.

/putscardtoadvertising/

/readscard:PicBBQ/

/putscardtoadvertising/

P:Irememberthatone.Thisisontherighthandside.

/readscard:ColourGrey/

/putscardtoadvertisement/

P:Ithink,IassociatethatwiththeMercedesad,that’swhyIputitthere.

/readscard:“Recipes”/

/putscardtonon‐advertising/

P:Justnavigations,partofthebar,atthetopandatthebottom.

APPENDIXII

VIII|P a g e

/readscard:“Cholesterol”/

/putscardtonon‐advertising/

P:Content.

[Participantlooksonthescreenagain]

P:Ahhhyesit’sfocussingontheblue,Ithoughtsit’stheMercedes,causethinkofthe

blue….Ididn’tpayattentiontothebackgroundcolourofthat.

P:OhtheQ,ahthequestions,ahcontent…Youknow,sometimestheygotthis,but

notquitewithfood,thisismoreNewZealandmadeproducts,youhaveaquality

trademark…Ihavenoideawhatthisisabout,thatpinkflossie.com…Okay,yeah….andso

therecipe,IjustrememberitdowntherecauseIhadaquicklookdownthere.New

ZealandSeafood?Ahsothere…Youneed?

I:It’sintheflossie.com

P:Okay,noIjusthadaquickreadandI’mlikenoideawhatitisabout,soyoudon’t

remember.

I:Whenyouhavealookonthatpagenowandthedifferentcontenttypeslike

advertisementandthearticle,whatdoyouthinkwhichcontentsarerelated?

P:Well,thefirstthingI’mthinkingiswhythereisaMercedesadtherebutIsuppose

maybe…okay,itiswrongtosaythat,generallypeoplewhoearnmoneyalsoinvestmore

moneyintohealthyfoodandmaybemoreseafood.ButI’muncomfortabletosaythatin

frontofcameras.Butbytalkingaboutseafoodandhavingadseafoodthatmakessense.

Butit’skindoflike,readingaboutseafoodyumandthenlikecrumpets?Crumpetwith

seafood?Iknowit’sfood,it’srelatedbutyoukindoflike…amorebakingorbreakfast

partwouldbegood.

APPENDIXII

IX|P a g e

I:Andintermsofnotcontentrelation,doyouseeanyrelationships?

P:ItlooksreallystandardalthoughI’mnotsureabouttheMercedesadabovethe

actualtitleoftheadthatI’mnotsure,causegenerallyyoudoexpectto,thefirstthing

youseeatthetopiswhatareyoulookingat.So,thatissomethingIfeelanyway.Then

I’m,Imeanthesearchbarisattheusualplace…sometimesIwouldex,ahthatdepends

onthesiteI’vebeen,sometimeswiththebrowsearticlesontheothersidebutit’sokay.

I:Andwouldyouforexamplerelatecontentswhentheyhavethesamecolour?

P:No,notinthiscase.Ithinkforexample,Ididn’tevenregisterthatasbeingwith

thatadwhatIcouldrememberistheblue,theturquoisecolourso…nodidn’tpay

attentiontothenavigationcolour.Isupposeifthereissomethingreallyobviouslike

brightpinkinthenavigationandit’sthesamebrightpink,there,thenitwouldjumpout

andletmethinktogetherbutotherwise,no.

APPENDIXII

X|P a g e

Participant3

I:Iwantyoutohavealookonthewebpage.Lookatitascarefulaspossible,read

everythingyoucanfind.Takeasmuchtimeasyouneed.

[Participantlooksonthescreen]

I:Canyoupleasedescribewhatyouhaveseenonthewebsite?Whatwasitabout?

P:So,itwasthehealthyfoodwebsite.Thereisanarticleaboutcholesterolinmussels

basicallyandthattherearebadandgoodcholesterolsandtothatwellIguessseafood

hascholesterol,it’snotbadforyoubasically.Theyhadanadatthetop,theMercedes

one,oneonthesidewhichwassomesortofseafoodthingandthecrumpetonedown

inthebottomandthenIguessis,hadthetheyouknowwebsitenameandsidebarand

linksdowninthebottomandthatsortofthing.

I:Wasthearticlerelevanttoyou?

P:SortofIguess,ImeanIdidn’tknowthatthereischolesterolinseafoodbutnow

thatI’mknowingit,soitdoesn’tchangeanythinganywaybecauseit’snotbad

cholesterol.Butmaybeif,ifitwasbadcholesterolthenmaybeyesitwouldberelevant.

I:Wereanyoftheadvertisementsrelevanttoyou?

P:Notreally.Ican’taffordaMercedes,Idon’treallyeatcrumpetsandthatsortof

things.Ican’treallyrememberthetheonethatwasaboutseafoodsoitcan’tbe

relevant.

I:Wasthereanythingsalientforyouonthewebsite?

P:Iguessthehealthyfoodlogoinsortoflikepretty…prettygoodandeyecatching.I

meanithasnicecolourscheme.

I:Iwouldliketodothepicturecardactivitynow.

APPENDIXII

XI|P a g e

P:Okay.

I:IgiveyousomecardswithsomepicturesonitandIwantyoutodecidewhetherit

belongstonon‐advertisingoradvertisingorbothandashortdescriptionwhyyou

decidedthatway.

P:Okay.

[readscard:PicBBQ]

P:Iguessitgoesinboth.Imeanitcouldbeusedtoadvertisesomesortofseafood

likewhateverisonthekebabstherebutitcouldalsobeusedforsomesortofrecipeor

apicturetogowithsomethinglikethatwhichthenyouknowjustinamagazineor

something.

I:Canyourememberit?

P:NoIcan’t/laughs/

/participantputscardtoboth/

[readscard:PicNZSeafoodsign]

P:Again,Ican’trememberbutIwouldsayadvertisingjustcauseoftheshapeof,it

lookslikealogo.

/putscardtoadvertising/

[readscard:Colourgrey]

P:Iwouldgofornon‐advertisingasisacolour.

/putscardtonon‐advertising/

APPENDIXII

XII|P a g e

I:Doyourememberit?

P:No.No.Imeanit’sjustacolour.

[readscard:PicMercedesBenz]

/putscardtoadvertising/

P:It’salogoobviously,it’sfromtheMercedesad.

[readscard:ColourBlue]

P:Again,Iwouldhavetosaynon‐advertisingforthesamereasonsastheotherone.

/putscardtonon‐advertising/

I:Whydoyouthinkit’snon‐advertising?

P:Justbecauseit’sacolourandIwouldn’tsaytohaveanythingassociatedwithitin

mymind.

[readscard:“NewZealandseafood”]

/putscardtoadvertising/

P:IwouldsayadvertisingjustbecauseoftheNewZealandbeforetheseafood,it’s

advertisinglikeaspecifictypeofseafood.

[readscard:“Youneed”]

/putscardtoadvertising/

P:Again,thisisadvertisingbecauseoftheterminologylikeYouneed

APPENDIXII

XIII|P a g e

I:Canyourememberit?

P:Ihaveabadmemory.

[readscard:Q]

P:Idon’tremember.Ithinkit’sadvertisingbecauseit’salogo.

/putscardtoadvertising/

[readscard:Picmussels]

P:That,Irememberanditwasjustpartoftherecipessoit’slikenotadvertising.

/putscardtonon‐advertising/

I:Wheredoyouthinkonthepagewasit?

P:It’satatatthetopsomewhereIthinkjustwheretheytalkaboutmussels,likenear

thatquestion.

[readscard:“Recipes”]

P:Recipes,Igowithnon‐advertisingcause,Imeanitcouldhavebeenoneofthelinks

onthesidewhichistalkingaboutrecipes.

/putscardtonon‐advertising/

[readscard:ColourYellow]

P:Again,thishastodothesamethingastheothersforthesamereasons.

/putscardtonon‐advertising/

APPENDIXII

XIV|P a g e

[readscard:“cholesterol”]

P:Cholesterol,Igowithnon‐advertisingbecauseofthe,asapartoftherecipe.

/putscardtonon‐advertising/

P:Imeannotrecipe,the…article,sorry.

[looksonthescreen]

P:Isee.Soallthosecoloursweresortofsomeads.

I:Whenyoulookonthewebpagewhatcontentslikeadvertisingandthearticleor

anythingelsebelongstogether?

P:Well,yeah,theseafoodoneobviouslymatchesthecholesterolinseafood.Iguess

youcouldsaytheMercedesonebelongstothearticlecausethecoloursaresimilarasin

thepage.

I:Whatdoyoumeanwithpage?

P:Well,causeyougotthegreyandthegreybarinthetopandyougotthatsortof

thingsamecoloursintheadandthecrumpetsIthoughtwasoutofplacebecauseit’s

crumpetsandit’sprocessedfood.AhmIdidn’treallynoticedtheflossieonebefore.

I:Yes,it’sprettysmall.

I:Doyouseeanythingthatseparatesthecontenttypeslikethearticleandthenon‐

advertisingfromeachother?

P:It’sjust,Iguesswheretheyareplaced.Getthecontentinthemiddleandthenthe

adssortofsurroundedbuttheyarenotpartofthearticle,theyaresortofabove,below

andontheside.