Thesis

Recommendations

Info

Results 87 brand is likely the reason why the revisits are relatively low compared to the other brands with a count of 13. The dwell time amounted to 1312,5 milliseconds. Fig. 29 Audiovisual product placement (Red Bull) - AOI KPIs Source: experiment 1, 2015, n = 80 A particular aim of this part of the research was to test the difference in attention between product preferences. In order to test this difference, an ANOVA test was conducted. The section below provides an overview of the results for each product category tested. The ANOVA test firstly assumes normally distributed data. In order to test this assumption, a Shapiro-Wilk test was conducted for each data set per product category. At α values lower than , the null hypothesis was rejected for all product categories, concluding the data were not normally distributed. A Box-Cox transformation was therefore applied to the data sets of these product categories. Conducting the Shapiro-Wilk test on these transformed data set accepted the null hypothesis at α values higher than ,, concluding the transformed data are normally distributed. A second assumption of the ANOVA test regards the homogeneity, where population variances are presumed to be equal. In order to test this assumption, Levenes Test for Equality of Variances was conducted for each data set per product category. At α values higher than , the null hypothesis could not be rejected, concluding the data are homogeneous, see table 28. Tab. 28 Levenes Test: dwell time and product preference Statistic Sig. Heineken 0.700 0.503 Apple 0.471 0.498 Red Bull 3.087 0.058
88 Results Source: experiment 1, 2015, n = 80 The null hypothesis of the ANOVA test stated: H0: There is no significant difference in dwell time between product preferences However, at an α value higher than .05, the null hypothesis could not be rejected for any of the product categories, see table 29. The null hypothesis is therefore accepted, stating that there is no significant difference in dwell time between product preferences. Tab. 29 ANOVA test between groups: dwell time and product preference Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Heineken 398.883 2 199.441 2.105 0.136 Apple 19.519 2 9.759 0.073 0.930 Red Bull 17.601 2 8.800 2.041 0.144 Source: experiment 1, 2015, n = 80 5.3 Differences in effects between exposure and non-exposure to product placement 5.3.1 Brand recall Regarding brand recall, only the data measured regarding the 6 brands which were part of the research scope were of relevance. The control group were not subjected to these brands and therefore brand recall measures for this group were not relevant to this part of the research. However, under otherwise identical research conditions and instructions, the control group felt incited to recall brands which were not part of this research scope, but which might or might not have been present in the stimuli presented to them. Though this information was recorded, it was of no relevance to this research and thus omitted. Figure 30 displays therefore the selfreported brand recall only of the experiment group. It indicates how often a brand was recalled and how often it wasnt in absolute numbers. Table 30 summarizes the results both in absolute number as in percentage of the total sample.
Page 1 and 2:
The Effects of Product Placement on
Page 4:
I would firstly and foremost like t
Page 8:
Abstract VAN WICHELEN, Steven. The
Page 11 and 12:
4.3 Self-reported effects of produc
Page 13 and 14:
12 Introduction x
Page 15 and 16:
14 Objectives 2 Objectives The gene
Page 17 and 18:
16 Literature Survey 3 Literature S
Page 19 and 20:
18 Literature Survey through brand
Page 21 and 22:
20 Literature Survey Fig. 2 Sub-dim
Page 23 and 24:
22 Literature Survey bring about gr
Page 25 and 26:
24 Literature Survey 3.2.2 Product
Page 27 and 28:
26 Literature Survey only (AUD) and
Page 29 and 30:
28 Literature Survey Apéria and Ge
Page 31 and 32:
30 Literature Survey and the charac
Page 33 and 34:
32 Literature Survey Tab. 1 Alignme
Page 35 and 36:
34 Literature Survey and experience
Page 37 and 38: 36 Literature Survey Fig. 7 A model
Page 39 and 40: 38 Literature Survey (words, object
Page 41 and 42: 40 Literature Survey affective comp
Page 43 and 44: 42 Methods and materials 4 Methods
Page 45 and 46: 44 Methods and materials can stand
Page 47 and 48: 46 Methods and materials moderator,
Page 49 and 50: 48 Methods and materials 4.3 Self-r
Page 51 and 52: 50 Methods and materials As the aim
Page 53 and 54: 52 Methods and materials Before exp
Page 55 and 56: 54 Methods and materials and its ca
Page 57 and 58: 56 Methods and materials fer across
Page 59: 58 Methods and materials The second
Page 64 and 65: Results 63 Overall, brand recall wa
Page 66 and 67: Results 65 indicating a medium to l
Page 68 and 69: Results 67 To assess the level of s
Page 70 and 71: Results 69 Tab. 18 Crosstabulation:
Page 72 and 73: Results 71 20 15 10 5 0 15 14 9 5 0
Page 74 and 75: Results 73 Audiovisual types of pro
Page 76 and 77: Results 75 Tab. 23 Crosstabulation:
Page 78 and 79: Results 77 and 60%. The amount of s
Page 80 and 81: Results 79 Tab. 27 Product placemen
Page 82 and 83: Results 81 Fig. 21 Visual product p
Page 84 and 85: Results 83 24. With 32 subjects ind
Page 86 and 87: Results 85 Fig. 26 Audiovisual prod
Page 90 and 91: Results 89 Starbucks 15 14 Red Bull
Page 92 and 93: Results 91 Starbucks 2.66 2.96 Red
Page 94 and 95: Results 93 The results regarding th
Page 96 and 97: Results 95 became less descriptive.
Page 98 and 99: Results 97 Red Bull (control group)
Page 100 and 101: Results 99 Starbucks 2.85 2.86 Red
Page 102 and 103: Results 101 to evoking and recallin
Page 104 and 105: Results 103 influence. It does not
Page 106 and 107: Discussion 105 Regarding product pr
Page 108 and 109: Discussion 107 (Kotler, 2012) in th
Page 110 and 111: Benefits of the thesis 109 • Mana
Page 112 and 113: Conclusion 111 evoke brand recall t
Page 114 and 115: References 113 9 References Aaker,
Page 116 and 117: References 115 Cacioppo, J. )., & P
Page 118 and 119: References 117 Ferrier, M. (2014, J
Page 120 and 121: References 119 Kahneman, D. (1973).
Page 122 and 123: References 121 McGuire, William J.
Page 124 and 125: References 123 Rossiter, J. R. (199
Page 126 and 127: References 125 Wiles, M. A., & Dani
Page 128 and 129: List of tables 127 Tab. 22 Intervie
Page 130 and 131: List of figures 129 Fig. 23 Visual
Page 132 and 133: Appendix 131 B Questionnaire interv
Page 134 and 135: Appendix 133 7. Which of the follow
Page 136 and 137: Appendix 135 Name Surname Gender Ag
Page 138 and 139:
Appendix 137
Page 140 and 141:
Appendix 139
Page 142 and 143:
Appendix 141
Page 144 and 145:
Appendix 143
Page 146 and 147:
Appendix 145
Page 148 and 149:
Appendix 147
Page 150 and 151:
Appendix 149
Page 152 and 153:
Appendix 151
Page 154 and 155:
Appendix 153
Page 156 and 157:
Appendix 155
Page 158 and 159:
Appendix 157
Page 160 and 161:
Appendix 159
Page 162 and 163:
Appendix 161
Page 164 and 165:
Appendix 163
Page 166 and 167:
Appendix 165
Page 168 and 169:
Appendix 167
show all

Thesis

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?