Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The processing of native advertising compared to banner advertising: an eye-tracking experiment

  • Published:
Electronic Commerce Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper aims to better understand the effect of visual attention on the processing of banner and native advertisements on Facebook and consequently on brand recognition and brand attitude. Using an eye-tracking experiment (N = 90), we show that a native advertisement attracts more and longer visual attention (i.e., total fixation duration, fixation count, and average visit duration) compared to a banner advertisement. Moreover, we show that longer visual attention (i.e., total fixation duration and average visit duration) increases persuasion knowledge and the recognition of an advertisement, which in turn leads to better brand recognition. Second, we show that neither conceptual persuasion knowledge nor critical processing mediates the effect of visual attention on brand attitude.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Statista Inc. (2021). Number of global network users 2017–2025. https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/. Accessed 7 April, 2021

  2. BroadbandSearch (2020). Average Time Spent Daily on Social Media (Latest 2020 Data). https://www.broadbandsearch.net/blog/average-daily-time-on-social-media. Accessed 7 April, 2021

  3. Kwon, E. S., & Sung, Y. (2011). Follow Me! global marketers’ twitter use. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 12(1), 4–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Statista Inc. (2018). Percentage of U.S. population with a social media profile from 2008 to 2018. https://www.statista.com/statistics/273476/percentage-of-us-population-with-a-social-network-profile/. Accessed 11 July, 2018

  5. Nelson-Field, K., Riebe, E., & Sharp, B. (2013). More mutter about clutter: Extending empirical generalizations to Facebook. Journal of Advertising Research, 53(2), 186–191. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-53-2-186-191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ku, Y.-C., Chu, T.-H., & Tseng, C.-H. (2013). Gratifications for using CMC technologies: A comparison among sns, IM, E-mail. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 226–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Segijn, C. M., Voorveld, H. A. M., Vandeberg, L., & Smit, E. G. (2017). The battle of the screens: Unraveling attention allocation and memory effects when multiscreening. Human Communications Research, 43(2), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Beuckels, E., Hudders, L., Cauberghe, V., Bombeke, K., Durnez, W., & Morton, J. (2021). To fit in or to stand out? An eye-tracking study investigating online banner effectiveness in a media multitasking context. Journal of Advertising. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2020.1870053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Pfiffelmann, J., Dens, N., & Soulez, S. (2020). Personalized advertisements with integration of names and photograph: An eye-tracking experiment. Journal of Business Research, 111, 196–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 46–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Boerman, S. C., van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2014). Effects of sponsorship disclosure timing on the processing of sponsored content: A study on the effectiveness of European disclosure regulations. Psychology and Marketing, 31(3), 214–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Boerman, S. C., van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2015). Using eye tracking to understand the effects of brand placement disclosure types in television programs. Journal of Advertising, 44(3), 196–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Tutaj, K., & van Reijmersdal, E. (2012). Effect of online advertising format and persuasion knowledge on audience reactions. Journal of Marketing Communications, 18(1), 5–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wojdynski, B. W. (2016). The deceptiveness of sponsored news articles: How readers recognize and perceive native advertising. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(1), 1475–1491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang, K.-Y., Shih, E., & Peracchio, L. A. (2013). How banner ads can be effective. International Journal of Advertising, 32(1), 121–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Internet Advertising Bureau (2013). The Native Advertising Playbook. https://www.iab.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/IAB-Native-Advertising-Playbook2.pdf

  17. de Pelsmacker, P., & Neijens, P. (2012). New advertising formats: How persuasion knowledge affects consumer responses. Journal of Marketing Communications, 18(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Panic, K., Cauberghe, V., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2013). Comparing TV ads and advergames targeting children: The impact of persuasion knowledge on behavioral responses. Journal of Advertising, 42(2–3), 264–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Avramova, Y. R., De Pelsmacker, P., & Dens, N. (2018). How reading in a foreign vs. native language moderated the impact of repetition-induced brand placement prominence on placement responses. Journal of Brand Management, 25(6), 500–518. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-018-0103-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Orquin, J. L., & Holmqvist, K. (2018). Threats to the validity of eye-movement research in psychology. Behavioral Research Methods, 50(4), 1645–1656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Huttler, K., Hautz, J., Dennhardt, S., & Füller, J. (2013). The impact of user interactions in social media on brand awareness and purchase intention: The case of MINI on Facebook. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 22(5/6), 342–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Faircloth, J. B., Capella, L. M., & Alford, B. L. (2001). The effect of brand attitude and brand image on brand equity. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(3), 61–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Benway, J. P., & Lane, M. (1998). Banner blindness: The irony of attention grabbing on the World Wide Web. In The human factors and ergonomics society 42nd meeting, Chicago, IL, 1998 (pp. 463–467).

  24. Drèze, X., & Hussherr, F.-X. (2003). Internet advertising: is anybody watching? Journal of Interactive Marketing, 17(4), 8–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Nielsen, J. (2007). Banner Blindness: The original eyetracking research. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/banner-blindness-original-eyetracking/. Accessed 28 June 2018

  26. Pernice, K. (2018). Banner blindness revisited: Users dodge ads on mobile and desktop. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/banner-blindness-old-and-new-findings/. Accessed 28 June 2018

  27. Hervet, G., Guérard, K., Tremblay, S., & Chtourou, M. S. (2011). Is banner blindness genuine? Eye tracking internet text advertising. Applied Cognitive Pychology, 25(5), 708–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Tobii, A. B. (2016). Users' manual Tobii Studio.

  29. Orquin, J., & Mueller Loose, S. (2013). Attention and choice: A review on eye movements in decision making. Acta Psychologica, 144(1), 190–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Glaholt, M. G., & Reingold, E. M. (2011). Eye movement monitoring as a process tracing methodology in decision making research. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology and Economics, 4(2), 125–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wang, Q., Yang, S., Liu, M., Cao, Z., & Ma, Q. (2014). An eye-tracking study of website complexity from cognitive load perspective. Decision Support Systems, 62, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2014.02.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bojko, A. (2013). Eye tracking the user experience: A practical guide to research. Rosenfeld Media.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Pieters, R., & Warlop, L. (1999). Visual attention during brand choice: The impact of time pressure and task motivation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 16(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Teichert, T. A., & Schöntag, K. (2010). Exploring consumer knowledge structures using associative network analysis. Psychology and Marketing, 27(4), 369–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Verhellen, Y., Dens, N., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2013). Consumer responses to brands placed in Youtube Movies: The effect of prominence and endorser expertise. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 14(4), 287–303.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: how people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). London: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Buijzen, M., Van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Owen, L. H. (2010). Introducing the PCMC model: An investigative framework for young people’s processing of commercialized media content. Communication Theory, 20(4), 427–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Lou, C., Tan, S.-S., & Chen, X. (2019). Investigating consumer engagement with influencer- vs Brand-promoted ads: The roles of source and disclosure. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 19(3), 169–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Gibson, B., Redker, C., & Zimmerman, I. (2013). Conscious and nonconscious effects of product placement: brand recall and active persuasion knowledge affect brand attitudes and brand self-identification differently. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 3(1), 19–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Evans, N. J., & Park, D. (2015). Rethinking the persuasion knowledge model: schematic antecedents and associative outcomes of persuasion knowledge activation for covert advertising. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 36(2), 157–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Wentzel, D., Tomczak, T., & Herrman, A. (2010). The moderating effect of manipulative intent and cognitive resources on the evaluation of narrative ads. Psychology and Marketing, 27(5), 510–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Sagarin, B. J., Cialdina, R. B., Rice, W. E., & Serna, S. B. (2002). Dispelling the illusion of invulnerability: The motivations and mechanisms of resistance to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 526–541. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.3.526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wei, M.-L., Fischer, E., & Main, K. J. (2008). An examination of the effects of activating persuasion knowledge on consumer response to brands engaging in covert marketing. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 27(1), 34–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Boerman, S. C., van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2012). Sponsorship disclosure: effects of duration on persuasion knowledge and brand responses. Journal of Communication, 62(6), 1047–1064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Daems, K., De Pelsmacker, P., & Moons, I. (2019). The effect of ad integration and interactivity on young teenagers’ memory brand attitude and personal data sharing. Computers in Human Behavior, 99, 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.05.031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 69–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Miron, A. M., & Brehm, J. W. (2006). Reactance theory—40 years later. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 37(1), 9–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Verhellen, Y., Dens, N., & de Pelsmacker, P. (2016). Do I know you? How brand familiarity and perceived fit affect consumers’ attitudes towards brands placed in movies. Marketing Letters, 27(3), 461–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Avramova, Y. R., De Pelsmacker, P., & Dens, N. (2017). Brand placement repetition in a fictional text. International Journal of Advertising, 36(1), 38–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Avramova, Y., Dens, N., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2018). Brand placement in fiction: The role of stylistic devices in placement effects on attitude towards familiar and unfamiliar brands. InAmerican academy of advertising 2018 annual conference, New York.

  53. Facebook Inc. (2021). Facebook Ads Guide. https://www.facebook.com/business/ads-guide/image. Accessed 06 August, 2021.

  54. Kim, S., Haley, E., & Koo, G.-Y. (2009). Comparison of the paths from consumer involvement types to ad responses to corporate advertising and product advertising. Journal of Advertising, 38(3), 67–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Campbell, C., & Evans, N. J. (2018). The Role of a companion banner and sponsorship transparency in recognizing and evaluating article-style native advertising. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 43, 17–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2018.02.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Vermeir, I., Kazakova, S., Tessitore, T., Cauberghe, V., & Slabbinck, H. (2014). Impact of flow on recognition of and attitudes towards in-game brand placements. International Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 785–810. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-33-4-785-810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Chun, K. Y., Song, J. H., Hollenbeck, C. R., & Lee, J.-H. (2014). Are contextual advertisements effective? International Journal of Advertising, 33(2), 351–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 175–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Geuens, M., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2017). Planning and conducting experimental advertising research and questionnaire design. Journal of Advertising, 46(1), 83–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach, methodology in the social sciences (Vol. 1). The Guildford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Becker-Olsen, K. L. (2003). And now, a word from our sponsor—A look at the effects of sponsored content and banner advertising. Journal of Advertising, 32(2), 17–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Maslowska, E., Segijn, C., Vakeel, K. A., & Viswanathan, V. (2020). How consumers attend to online reviews: An eye-tracking and network analysis approach. International Journal of Advertising, 39(2), 282–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Smink, A. R., van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Boerman, S. C. (2017). Effects of brand placement disclosures: An eye-tracking study into the effects of disclosures and the moderating role of brand familiarity. In V. Zabkar & M. Eisend (Eds.), Advances in advertising research VIII. European advertising academy (pp. 85–96). Springer Gabler.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  64. Campbell, C., & Marks, L. (2015). Good native advertising isn’t a secret. Business Horizons, 58(6), 599–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Federal Trade Commission (2015). FTC Issues Enforcement Policy Statement Addressing "Native" Advertising and Deceptively Formatted Advertisements. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2015/12/ftc-issues-enforcement-policy-statement-addressing-native. Accessed 26 March 2021

  66. Dens, N., Purnawirawan, N., & Wouters, M. (2012). Do you like what you recognize? The effects of brand placement prominence and movie plot connection on brand attitude as mediated by recognition. Journal of Advertising, 41(3), 35–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Boerman, S. C., van Reijmersdal, E. A., Rozendaal, E., & Dima, A. L. (2018). Development of the persuasion knowledge scales of sponsored content (PKS-SC). International Journal of Advertising, 37(5), 671–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Freya De Keyzer

    Present address: Leuven School for Mass Communication Research, Faculty of Social Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing, Faculty of Business and Economics, University of Antwerp, Antwerpen, Belgium

    Freya De Keyzer & Patrick De Pelsmacker

  2. Antwerp Management School, Antwerpen, Belgium

    Nathalie Dens

  3. Department of Marketing, Innovation and Organisation, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent Univerisity, Ghent, Belgium

    Patrick De Pelsmacker

Authors
  1. Freya De Keyzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nathalie Dens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patrick De Pelsmacker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Freya De Keyzer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

De Keyzer, F., Dens, N. & De Pelsmacker, P. The processing of native advertising compared to banner advertising: an eye-tracking experiment. Electron Commer Res 23, 1921–1940 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-021-09523-7

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-021-09523-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation