Research on Socially Enabled TV Advertising

Research on Socially Enabled TV
Advertising
Clyde Zhang, Sarah Cui, Jeanne Zhou
ADV582 - December 6, 2014 
SOCIALLY ENABLED TV ADVERTISING 1

INTRODUCTION
How many digital devices do you have? According to the 2014 Nielsen Digital
Consumer Report, Americans now own four digital devices on average, and the average U.S.
consumer spends 60 hours a week consuming content across devices. The proliferation of
digital devices and platforms contributes to the media revolution and blurring traditional
media definitions.
As a result, consumers’ media habits are changing. Nowadays, watching TV while
simultaneously using a smartphone, laptop or tablet is on the verge of becoming a majority
behavior worldwide. A survey of 55,000 people by the research consultancy TNS shows that
56% of Americans engage in another digital activity when they are watching TV. The rapid
adoption of a second screen has transformed the traditional TV watching experience. Instead
of only watching TV, audiences now are enhancing their viewing experience by actively
surfing the Web, engaging with social networks and shopping online while they are watching
TV. Especially, this “multitasking” behavior is fostering a surge of real-time social media
conversation between friends, fans and online communities.
Facing this new trend of media usage, advertisers want to introduce socially enabled
TV advertising to communicate with their target audiences. In this way, audiences could be
actively interacting with ads and co-creating advertising content. To get a better
understanding of how audiences think about this new form of advertising, we conducted in-
depth interviews in this research.
The first part of this report closely examines audiences’ TV watching behaviors, social
media uses and the ways that they engage with media. Then we give our analysis of primary
data in detail and provide three key findings: Bonding Facilitator, Reciprocal Interaction and
Hashtag Marketing. Finally, our recommendations will be offered about what could be done
to further improve the engagement and the effectiveness of socially enabled TV advertising.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The Changing Behavior of TV Watching
Some say, Apple has changed the landscape of how
people interact with media and internet with its
innovative tablet. TV is no longer the only channel for
people to consume media content. In the past, TV was the
entertainment center for families, where people gather
around to dine and converse with each other after work or
school.
Nowadays, however, each family member has their own screen, e.g. a tablet or
smartphone, and the traditional activity of TV watching took on a new face. People still
watch TV together but they interact with their own media devices quite frequently, and
sometimes they even retreat to their own space to watch their second screen.
According to a 2014 research by Ericsson,
15000 people were interviewed, aging 16 - 59
online across 15 countries. It shows that
mobile devices is making up an increasing
share of TV and video viewing. 72% use
mobile devices at least weekly for video
viewing. What’s more, 75% of interviewees
multitasking while watching TV and 25%
watch multiple videos at the same time.
They say "The way people view their choices is increasingly moving away from one that is
based around TV schedules and a single domestic device, to one where the source is chosen
based on what is available and best suited a given situation. It is now common for different
content sources to be used in speciﬁc situations – for example watching an episode from a
Netﬂix series at lunch, but viewing YouTube while on the bus.”

Multitask and Multi-screen
In general, Multitasking is usually related to lower efficiency and lower task
performance (Pilotta and Schulz 2005). Multitasking is also closely related to lack of self
control as well. Since people are more and more frequently engaged in using multiple screens
and devices, it is necessary to look into the behavior and its influence on how consumers
perceive media and advertising differently.
Using social media while watching TV is seen across all age groups. In 2011, only 19
percent of those aged 55–59 engaged in multitasking every week. Today, this number has
increased to 37 percent. A lot of people us social media to find out more about the content
they are watching, while almost 1 in 3 will discuss what they are currently viewing over
social networks or chats.(IAB,2013)
Currently, there are different views about media multitasking, and the key
disagreement is whether human can process complex tasks at the same time or they are
simply switching their attention between these tasks. Some researches show when engaged
in media multitasking, consumers are likely to assign one medium as primary (foreground)
while the other as secondary (background), which simultaneous processing of separate
media forms is possible in some form. (Badhi,2010)However, according to IAB’s article
“Screens, what are people doing and why” , it states that “Multitasking” is a misnomer and
explains the way it works on human brain. Since it is a sequential processor, it is unable to
pay attention to two tasks at the same time. When people engage in concurrent multitasking,
they are unable to accomplish the tasks properly.

Social Networking and beyond
The key function of social network is to provides an
online communication platform which enables users to
share information about themselves, while connecting to
others (Boyd & Ellison, 2007). The online networking is
superior to face-to-face social networks in which
connections not previously possible between individuals
were made possible (Haythornthwaite, 2005). Studies
about Facebook found that staying in touch with friends
is one of the key reasons for using the it (Ellison,
Steinﬁeld, & Lampe, 2007).
Social networks is seemed as a convenient and efﬁcient way to reinforce relationships
and to share information quickly with many individuals. In February 2010, an estimated 17
million people in the United States used Twitter (Webster, 2010). Because of this trend,
traditional medias start to realize the importance of online community and communication as
an extra channel to deliver information, particularly as a support mechanism, and as a tool to
differentiate themselves from others. (Chan-Olmsted & Ha, 2004)
Since social networking is a way of interpersonally communication, previous research
suggests that motivations for conversation vary. Media exposure can prompt interpersonal
communication when "content affects perceptions of the personal utility and value of
interacting with others on a topic or changes perceptions of one’s conversational
abilities”(Southwell et al, 2007). Media content provides people with information that they
feel compelled to share with others and affect their perception about what kind of topic they
can engage with.

Multi-screen for advertisers, opportunity or threat?
When consumers choose to multitask with different media, this new context presents not
only threats, but also new opportunities to creatively deliver persuasive messages. As of fall
2009, more than 580 television stations and networks had a Twitter presence (Greer et al,
2011).The emergence of online media offers traditional television stations opportunities to
provide their views more information and portal to communicate with, enhancing their
interactivity. The present study focuses on the extent to which stations take advantage of a
new media technology to promote and brand the station, as well as to interact and connect
with viewers.

According to media life, ever
since the increasing use of second
screen, the consumer attention war is
even more fierce, with consumers
being overly exposed to too much
media messages every day, ad
avoidance has became a way out for
consumers to filter out information
they don’t need, which could be a
potential crisis for advertisers. What’s
more, consumers engage in media multitasking more and more frequently, switching
between two screens or watching two screen at the same time seemingly should have a
detrimental effect on the their performance and memory or either screen.

A lot of research agencies and scholars have noticed the phenomena of media
multitasking and looked into this rising trend. Voorveld (2011) was the first to experimentally
study the effect of media multitasking on advertising effectiveness, focusing on the
combination of online and radio advertising. As expected, diminished cognitive processing
during media multitasking resulted in lower rates of recall and recognition for advertising
stimuli. However, combining online and radio ads led to more positive affective and
behavioral responses compared to using a single medium.

METHODOLOGY
The main goal of our research is to understand how consumers feel about socially
enabled TV advertising and deep meanings behind that. To explore this complex, new-raising
topic, a combination of primary and secondary research should be employed in our research.
Primary Research
We collected first-hand data regarding to this topic through one-on-one in-depth
interviews. Before that, all of our research team members participated in the IRB training
programs and took online courses related to human study. After studying and taking related
tests, we obtained our certifications for participating in this qualitative research. Meanwhile,
our instructor Prof. Nelson submitted the application of our research on social media and
Television advertising, and later we received the approval letter from the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Institutional Review Board (IRB).
After then, we did our secondary research and got prepared for conducting the one-on-
one interview. Based on the research questions the clients mentioned in the brief, we
developed a completed interview guide with detailed questions. Considered that
interviewees might not fully understand the concept of socially enabled TV advertising
(because it’s totally new), we picked up four commercials of this sorts as examples to show
them during the interview (i.e., Sprint #SuperDad, CrystalLight #tinywin, Giggy and
Honda). Compared to an abstract concept, interviewees would be more likely to give their
comments on specific commercials and share their thoughts with us.
Thirteen one-on-one interviews were conducted within two weeks and each of them was
recorded by interviewers. Our interviewees consisted of eleven females and two males. Some
of them had been parents while some were still college students. They were all given $10 gift
card for their participations. All interviews were required to be completed within thirty
minutes.
After that, thirteen transcripts with total 124 pages were made by our research team and
shared with all team members. Then, we coded all of transcripts and generated consumer
insights based on our coding works. Having further analyzed the primary data, we got some
interesting findings referring to individual consumers’ experience of interacting with socially

enabled advertising, their habits of TV watching, their social media uses, and their attitudes
towards socially enabled TV advertising. The primary research eventually led us to find
overarching themes as well as new insights.
Secondary Research
Before we headed to conduct the interviews, we also did secondary research to help
ourselves get a better understanding of the topic. Specifically, we reviewed 12 academic
articles and 8 industry articles that related to the topic of socially enabled TV advertising.
These secondary data that consisted of important academic studies and recent marketing
research provided us with background knowledge and information, covering multitasking,
audience’s online/TV-watching behavior, social media uses and TV watching trend.
Also, reviewing secondary data allowed us to see a big picture of consumers’ behavior
change. Previous academic research provided with valid theories that helped us get a better
understanding of the “two-screens” phenomenon from different perspectives while industry
articles revealed the current trends as well as those hot topics concerned by advertising
industry.
It is worth to mention that the analysis of secondary data helps directing our primary
research in two ways: first of all, it offers us some theoretical frameworks that could guide
our later work; also, it inspired us to explore those potential factors that could affect
consumers’ perception and participation of socially enabled TV advertising. Based on these
new thoughts, we generated additional interview questions that complemented to existed
five research questions in order to get a deep understanding of two essential parts: why
consumers liked/disliked this sort of ads and what attracted them to participate in these ads.
As it turned out, our secondary research, which offered an effective guideline to our primary
research, eventually helped us gain new and deep consumer insights.
The Validity of Our Methodology
After completing both primary and secondary research, we found that some findings
generated from our primary data conformed to those statistic results presented in industry

and academic articles. In a sense, this conformance veriﬁed the reliability of our primary data
and the validity of our research method.
KEY FINDINGS
Our analysis yielded three themes. The ﬁrst one was Reciprocal Interaction, which was
interpreted both brands’ rewards and feedbacks are incentives for people to share their
information on social media; the second is Bonding Facilitator, representing a new model of
family communication based on social network; the third is Hashtag Marketing that use
social events to engage target audiences through social media. Themes and sub-themes are
presented in detail below.
Reciprocal
Interaction
Bonding
Facilitator
Hashtag
Marketing

FINDING 1: Reciprocal Interaction
Consumers would like to participate in socially enabled TV advertisements if they
are given attractive INCENTIVES or REWARDS.
“I’m certainly not going to send a picture of mine into Crystal
Light for no reason.”
“People might not post something related to these ads
without getting anything in return.“
“I remember like that all my friends were hashtag it on tweeter
because you can win 10 thousand dollars. A bunch of my
friends was retweeting.”
“As long as there’s an incentive, I think people will be more
willing to do it.”
John
Novia
Katie
Crystal

Incentives Theory
We do things for different reasons. While sometimes we are motivated to act by internal
desires, at other times our behaviors are driven by an offer of external rewards, such as a job
promotion, grade, money, new clothes or candy.
In contrast with other theories that suggest we are pushed into action by internal drives
(such as the drive-reduction theory of motivation, arousal theory, and instinct theory),
incentive theory instead suggests that we are pulled into action by outside incentives.
According to Hockenbury, ”Incentive theories proposed that behavior is motivated by the
"pull" of external goals, such as rewards, money, or recognition”(2003). Some researcher
further interpreted the concept of incentives by pointing out that people are pulled toward
behaviors that offer positive incentives and pushed away from behaviors associated with
negative incentives (Bernstein, 2011).
❖ Three Types of Incentives
Clark and Wilson (1961) classified incentives as three types: material incentives,
solidary incentives and purposive incentives. Material incentives, also known as utilitarian
incentives, are those tangible rewards like wages, fringe benefits and patronage. Solidary
incentives are intangible rewards from the act of association, which includes sociability,
status, identification. Purposive incentives are also intangible rewards, but it is more related
to goal-oriented situations.
Material incentives are usually employed by advertisers to engage consumers in
advertising campaigns. Specifically, they offer some material rewards (e.g., coupons, money
or appealing discounts) to attract people to share advertising messages with others through
social media.

Tangible and Intangible Incentives
Having analyzed our primary data, we ﬁnd that audiences are mainly driven to
participate in advertising campaigns by two types of incentives: tangible incentives and
intangible incentives. While tangible incentives include some material rewards, such as
coupons, free samples, prize, gift cards, intangible incentives provide consumers with
psychological satisfactions.
Tangible Incentives
Insight 1: Coupons, free samples and prizes are effective incentives that could
get audiences participate in advertisements.
Implication 1: Offering compelling material rewards in socially enabled TV
advertisements would be an effective way to engage more audiences.
“I feel like prize is an incentive that will mostly get people to participate. If I
see these ads on TV, and if you like us on Facebook and you'll win a prize,
and I'm convenient on my phone, I would do that because I think maybe I'll
get prizes.”
“If there was some reward or beneﬁt for you, or say like you tweeted
something out and they like sent you a sample or something like that...I
would totally do it.”
“If they really give something, like coupons or gift cards, people are probably
willing to do that. I mean, someone may do it for fun, but I think they could
get more people do that if they give something in return.”
“I have done it once. And that was about Toyota. I just had to hash tag on
Facebook. Something that I’m thinking for and they will give me a free stuff,
a Lollapalooza.”
Katie
Jennie
Crystal
Lucy

Intangible Incentives
Insight 2: Audiences would like to participate in advertising campaigns that
offer them opportunities to show their competences.
Implication 2: Socially enabled TV advertising can engage audiences in terms
of holding contests or competitions on social media.
“There was an incentive for people to hash tag. Like there was a contest, so
people will be more willing to hash tag.”
“There is one more way I use social media with TV that I realized, is, like,
walking dead. Sometimes they have social media driven contest, like tweet
particular hostage to participate the contest. I do that too.”
“They’re using it to get a contest going. They want you to enter the contest via
the social media. It looks like they’re trying to get people to make that a
better use of social media they could have like a contest.“
Lucy
Cherry
John

Intangible Incentives
Insight 3: Audiences have positive feelings about seeing their messages and
themselves on television.
Implication 3: Socially enabled TV advertising provides a compelling
incentive for audiences—an opportunity of being on national TV.
“It looks like they’re trying to get people to make that a better use of social
media they could have like a contest. Like when you get a picture of your dog
on TV.”
“I'll feel very happy. I would share it on Facebook of that one just like, hey
guys look it's my friends' stuff and it got on TV. I would feel very proud of my
friend.”
“That would be interesting, I’ll stay and watch, maybe share them as well.“
“He (My son) would love. He would ﬁnd that as a big positive…I know he
would really be into that (being on TV in an ad). I’m ﬁne with that. I think it’d
be kinda funny.”
“Aw. I think I would call the person (whose posts or photo on TV) probably,
like "Hey! I just saw on TV!" and that could be a good initiator of a long
conversation.”
“If they(friends/family members) had a positive opinion (on TV ads), I would
watch that. I wouldn’t change the channel if they were on TV. And if it was
like involving some campaigns or hash tag campaigns, I would
participate.” (I12)
John
Amy
Ida
John
Patrick
Lucy

Feedbacks as incentives
Most participants had experiences that interacted with brands or TV shows through
social media. Based on the analysis of interview transcripts, we found that feedback played
an important role in driving them to interact with brands, advertising and other people. First
of all, the platform that social media has created facilitates getting immediate responses and
feedbacks from others. The real-time responses work as an incentive that encourages people
to share more information with others. Also, audiences would like to actively interact with
brands/advertisements if they received positive, interpersonal feedbacks from them.
Positive Feedback
Insight 1: Positive feedbacks from brands/advertisements make audiences feel
more connected toward those brands and advertisements. Thus, they are willing to
retweet (spread out) advertising messages and actively engage in ad campaigns.
“I’d say it’s positive feedback that makes you likely to do it more.”
“If I post something and have picture and I saw they were using it, I ‘ll
deﬁnitely think that is really cool and I would probably be more
attracted to that. If I was just like walking and watch the brands and I
don’t know anything about that I would be like ‘Oh this brand does
something for me.’ I’ll feel more connected towards them.”
“I'll feel very proud of myself. Yeah, cause they (ads) liked it so much
and it's actually on TV. So yeah, I'll be happy if my posts get on TV.”
John
Penny
Amy

Interpersonal Feedback
Insight 2: Audiences often generate positive attitude toward those brands/TV
shows that offer them interpersonal feedbacks.
“It’s interesting that they’re actually going back through and reading
it…again being the skeptic, I wonder if they’re doing it on their own or
whether the show is having them do it. It was funny because I showed
my youngest son; he though it was very cool. Then my daughter, she
thought it very cool. I think it encourages it (tweeting behavior).”
Immediate Feedback
Insight 3: Real-time responses from others encourage audiences to share more
on social media.
“I do like real time better. I ﬁnd it more interesting. The nice thing about
Twitter is that the response is instantaneous. I’ll tweet something out
and I’ll get 5 likes or 2 retweets pretty quickly. Instagram and the other
stuff, the immediate feedback’s not there.”
Implication:
Instead of using traditional one-way communication, socially enabled TV advertising
can create a two-way communication between brands and audiences. Beyond that,
the platform it creates in social media will also encourage audiences to interact with
each other. While it’s difﬁcult to provide consumers with interpersonal and immediate
feedbacks, brands can create a platform that facilitates communication among target
audiences through socially enabled TV advertising.
John
John

FINDING 2: Family/Social Bondings
A new model of family communication in multiscreen environment
We are in era of multi-screens. Mature development and highly availability of
multi screen technology and products has endowed people more freedom in choosing
and using media. Most of our media time today is spent in front of a screen—
computer, smartphone, tablet and TV. We not only have more access to media, but also
usually don’t focus on a single media and move between multiple devices to
accomplish our goals.
According to the market research conducted by Google in partnership with
Sterling Brands and Ipsos in 2012, 90% people in the US use multiple screens
sequentially. TV no longer commands our full attention, as it has become one of the
most common devices that are used simultaneously with other screens.
Presence of the multi-screen technology product can also affect family life and
family dynamics. An interesting example is the appearance of highly media-related
phrases such as “computer widow”, which refers to a wife whose husband has
become a computer addict, spending a great deal of time with the computer.
Another example is that the family area is one of the most frequent locations for
multi-screen viewing (Russell Jago, et al, 2011). Family members on one side no longer
need to focus on the same media content even though lack of interest, they can now
enjoy their interested programs on handheld consoles and laptops; on the other, they
enjoy the atmosphere being companied by families.
Based on all research results above and with constant analysis with the interview
transcripts, we decide to mainly work on two themes about multi-screen technology
and usage’ inﬂuence on family members communication habits. One of participants
spoke quite well of what we are actually interested in. He mentioned that he watched
TV with his wife, “then I have a daughter who’s a freshman in high school, and then a
son in 7th grade and a son in 5th grade. We make it a family event.” As explained
earlier, coding procedure the transcripts were mainly divided into three parts of media
usage, ads watching and appraisal and attitude towards social media engaged TV
commercials. It is found in all parts that participants talked about family, family
members or their relationships. It seems that although social media are isolating

people in daily life in reality, it is building up such a bond on a data and screen based
space, that is, on social media.
Families’ changing TV watching behaviors
Insight 1: Participants were natural and glad when talked about watching TV
with family members.
“Sometimes I will watch it with a friend but I prefer to watch it on my own,
but if I do watch it with someone it will most likely be my brother, because he
follows it too.”
“I watch it with my mom, my dad, and my brother. Just my family.”
“I watched them with my husband and my daughter. But my daughter is too
little, she is only three months, so she doesn’t even know what’s going on
anyway.”
Jennie
Amy
Penny

Families’ changing TV watching behaviors
Insight 2: People don’t split TV watching behaviors with using another screen
such as laptop, tablets or smartphone, no matter whether they watched TV with
family members or alone. But based on the data we have had at hand it is difficult to
figure out whether there exists correlation between whether watching TV with family
members and probability or frequency in logging into social media. From transcripts
of those whom have mentioned using social media while watching TV, they
remembered interacting more with friends or unknowns instead of with family
members.
“I would actually tweet about that. Or if it’s like something huge happened I
would move it to Facebook… If I tweet like ‘Oh I’m excited for the show to
premiere’ or something, like someone, they favorite it or tweet back, it’ll be a
friend of mine that I didn’t know who watches the show.—It’s a way of like
finding a little community of people who watch that show with you.” (#1,
usually watched alone)
“Twitter. Twitter is the only one that I really use. Both of those shows use a
lot of hash tags during their program as well. (watched with family)
“It’s kind of funny because it’s kind of like you’re having a conversation
with people about the show that you don’t know, or are all over
world.” (watched TV in apartment and Netflix at home)
“I’d say generally I have access to social media while watching TV I wouldn’t
necessarily actively use it all the time but it’ll be open or just like I would
have it on my phone next to me or something and I’ll check notifications when
I get them…. I think most of the time it’s just chatting with people on Facebook. So
using that while…someone just on messenger while watching a show.”
Jennie
John
Patrick
Sunny

New model of family communication based on social media
Social media’s effect on our ability to interact and communicate is visible
throughout all areas of society. There has been a shift in the way we communicate;
rather than face-to-face interaction, we’re tending to prefer mediated communication.
Studies have shown that people actually are becoming more social and more
interactive with others, but the style of that communication has changed so that we’re
not meeting face-to-face as often as we used to (Maura Keller, 2013).
Family communication based on social media
Insight 1: Instead of jeopardizing communication between family members,
social media provides a new platform or method for families interacting frequently
and regularly. People are aware that the way families communicate has changed, but
they are ﬁne and getting used to it. Some express appreciation to such a platform to
increase family connection.
“It wasn’t ever like oh we were sitting there and we were like ‘Hey I’m gonna
watch Scandal,’ it was like we tweeted about it or like something or like
Facebook…. Because so I watch the episodes alone, I feel the need to share like
a moment with someone, like ‘Oh my gosh this is so cool, like I need to share it
with somebody’, and there’s nobody there to share it with, so I’ll go share it to
Twitter or something.
“And like the example (the commercial of Sprint) they showed was, it was like
a guy who was the father and he is uniformed and he was meeting with his
family, so there was a strong effect on the audience. It is kind of like, not only does
the product connect to you and your family or also showing personal stories of how
we are connecting people.”
Jennie
Beth

Insight 2: Children are aware that their relationship with parents in real life also
exists on social media platform. They select what to “tell” to parents on social media
the same way as in real life conversations.
“yeah, yeah, my dad is on Facebook and for me most of my family are not on
my Facebook but I have my antes and stuff like that. But my friends they are
like have grandparents on Facebook. Their parents, uncles, ante like everybody,
I don’t know. I’m glad my parent, both parents are on Facebook. I follow them and
let them follow me, but I block my dad”.
Insight 3: Social media can also stimulate communication between families.
“Yeah, Umm, trying to remember, I know I have done it a few times at least,
umm, my daughter and I , we did talk about there was a vine contest ,movie
competition, because it is for teenagers, and I said I will help you , we will
plan it out, we will do it, but i can’t think of anything of particular, like there is
a brand, marketing kind of thing.”
“I ﬁnd with Survivor, my daughter has watched a lot more Survivor episodes
that I have and people who watch Survivor and use social media will make
references to prior seasons and I’m like, ‘All right, what does this
mean?’ (Laughs). It’s fun engaging with my daughter. She’s a teenage girl and she
doesn’t engage with me much. It’s fun because she’ll explain to me why a joke is
funny or give me that historical context.”
Grace
Cherry
John

FINDING 3: High Use of Social Media during Social Events
People’s high activity in social media during social events
During coding and analyzing the transcripts, we found that the relationship between
people’s ignorance towards social media engaged ads and their voluntary participation in
media or social events gradually looming above. On one hand, participants showed higher
activity to produce content on social media during social event. On the other, such content
are more event-oriented than advertisement-oriented. Both ﬁndings propose practical
implications for advertisement, and will be illustrated in following part.
High activity in social media during social events
Insight 1: When there were public events like live football games or running
competitions live on TV, people behaved more actively in talking about TV program
on social media. Several participants particularly remembered their social media
activities during watching live events.
“Especially when we watch the Superbowl. And you say something about that.
But it’s usually or maybe when you watch a TV show and you know that
everybody’s watching that night, like season ﬁnale or something, you say
something like ‘I like it.’”
“That happens to me, especially when I am watching soccer, cause usually jam
not hanging out with people who watch soccer, there is one time, when for the
world cup, I am Germany fan, except jam an united states fan, so we found a
German restaurant, I posted a couple picture from the event, but i wasn’t on
twitter discussing the game, I was just more there to enjoy the atmosphere, you
know, watch the game and stuff so, so while I check twitter once a while is more
about, what’s happening there with other people around.”
Beth
Cherry

“The Amazing Race was Friday. They had…there’s eight teams left and there’s
one team that I very much dislike and they had this thing called a U-Turn,
which makes them do two tasks instead of just one. One of them was like
Uturnthedentist (I’m assuming he means a hashtag), which was the team that I
didn’t particularly like. It was funny when I searched for Amazing Race there were
several very similar to that. And other times somebody would say something funny
that I agreed with and I would retweet it as well. Like if they ﬂash one [hashtag] up,
I’ll look it up and see what people are saying and see if I agree or disagree.(agreement)
Or I might root for my team as well. Like College Sweet Hearts is one of my teams so
I may tweet #gocollegesweethearts.”
Insight 2: The content produced during social event was more topic-oriented
instead of ad-oriented. Even though audience did talk about the ad, they focused more
on topics inside ads instead of the ad itself.

“Like during the Superbowl, there are a lot of advertisements. And many
people post about them or participate in whatever they see. Because their
advertisements are really interesting at that period of time. I think in that
situation, a lot of people would do it. Like one starts to do that and others
would quickly follow.”
John
Crystal

Insight 3: Two findings above suggest that advertisement connects itself with TV
program, especially when there are social events. Actually some brands have already
taken this into practice. As is said by one of the participants below.
“Actually often times depends on the themes of the episode, I'll notice the
commercials are related. Like on some episodes, where one of the characters
has a baby, a lot of the commercials are like, regarding babies. I don't know
if that's intentional or not, but I notice that a lot. And also, during episodes
when there's also like festivities and food, there will be like, "oh hey, we can plan
your wedding!" or like, "we can mail you gift cards" or like these... postcards to your
friends to invite them to this party or whatever. The themes, I noticed tend to be
related.”
Implication:
Further concern is only how to make such a connection tighter and more naturally. In
fact, TV program content not only influences people’s activity on social media, but
audience’s perception of the advertised brand. In Potter et al.’s (2000) experiment, it
investigated and confirmed the impact of emotional television programming on
viewer’s processing of a persuasive ad message. Other experiments also showed that
congruency between context-induced and ad-evoked feelings would produce more
positive ad and brand evaluations (Tine and Maggie, 2006). For advertisement,
therefore, to connect with social event in both content and emotion might be a solution
for better social media branding and promotion.
Rachael

QUOTES
❖ Bernstein, D. A. (2011). Essentials of psychology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
❖ Clark, P. B. & Wilson, J. Q. (1961). Incentive system: A theory of organization.
Administrative Science Quarterly 6, 129-166.Maura Keller (2013). Social work today. Social
Media and Interpersonal Communication, 13(3), p10.
❖ Faseur, T., & Geuens, M. (2006). Different positive feelings leading to different ad
evaluations: The case of coziness, excitement, and romance. Journal of Advertising, 35(4),
129-142.
❖ Franzoi, S. L. (2011). Psychology: A discovery experience. Mason, OH: South-
Western,Cengage Learning.
❖ Hefzallah, I. M. (2004). The new educational technologies and learning: Empowering
teachers to teach and students to learn in the information age. Charles C Thomas Publisher.
❖ Hockenbury, D. H. & Hockenbury, S. E. (2003). Psychology. New York: Worth
Publishers
❖ Jago, R., Sebire, S. J., Gorely, T., Cillero, I. H., & Biddle, S. J. (2011). I'm on it 24/7 at the
moment": a qualitative examination of multi-screen viewing behaviors among UK 10–11 year olds.
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act, 8, 85.
❖ Potter, R. F., LaTour, M. S., Braun-LaTour, K. A., & Reichert, T. (2006). The impact of
program context on motivational system activation and subsequent effects on processing a fear
appeal. Journal of Advertising, 35(3), 67-80.Maura Keller (2013). Social work today. Social
Media and Interpersonal Communication, 13(3), p10.
❖ Ericsson, (2013). TV and media - identifying the needs of tomorrow’s video consumers.
❖ Pilotta, J. J. & Schultz, D. (2005). Simultaneous Media Experience and Synesthesia.
Journal of Advertising Research, March, 19-26.
❖ IAB,(2012).
Screens-‐what
are
people
doing
…
and
why
?


❖ Fleura Bardhi, Andrew J. Rohm ,Fareena Sultan(2010). Tuning in and tuning out : media
multitasking among young consumers. Journal of Consumer Behvaior, 9(316-332)
❖ Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects.
Information. Communication & Society, 8(2), 125–147.
❖ Ellison, N. B., Steinﬁeld, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The beneﬁts of Facebook ‘‘friends:’’
Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer
Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168.
❖ Ha, L., & Chan-Olmsted, S. M. (2004). Cross-media use in electronic media: The role of
cable television Web sites in cable television network branding and viewership. Journal of
Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48(4), 620–645.
❖ Brian G. Southwell, Marco C. Yzer (2007). The role of interpersonal communication in
mass media campaigns. Communication Yearbook, 432-433
❖ Clark F. Greer, Douglas A.Ferguson (2011). Using Twitter for promotion and branding: a
content analysis of local television Twitter sites. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media,
55:2,198-214
❖ Voorveld, H. (2011). Media multitasking and the effectiveness of combining online and
radio advertising, Computers in human behavior, 27 (6), 2200-2206.

Research on Socially Enabled TV Advertising

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (19)

Destacado

Destacado (9)

Similar a Research on Socially Enabled TV Advertising

Similar a Research on Socially Enabled TV Advertising (20)

Último

Último (20)

Research on Socially Enabled TV Advertising