FAST FOOD TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENT FORMATS: COMMUNICATING WITH THE CUSTOMER EFFECTIVELY by FANG-YI LIN, B.S.

A THESIS IN RESTAURANT, HOTEL, AND INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE

Approved

Co-Chairperson of the Committee

Co-Chairperson of the Committee

Accepted

Dean ot the Graduate School May, 2000

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my parents, Su-Lin Lin and Su-Hsia Chiu, and my brother, Kaung-Yu Lin, for their support and encouragement. I am grateful to my committee chair. Dr. Shane C. Blum, for giving generously of his time and advice. I would like to thank Dr. Tim H. Dodd for making available himself to me, and Dr. Keith F. Johnson for his thoughtful critiques of this study. I would like to thank Dr. Sharon A. Myers for her English wrhing instruction; however, the responsibility for the content in this paper is exclusively mine. I would like to thank Dr. Sabrina M. Neeley, Dr. Joe Bob Hester, and my committee, for identifying advertisement formats for the purpose of this study. My thanks to the Restaurant, Hotel, & Institutional Management program at Texas Tech Univershy for research funding. I would like to thank my relatives and friends for their support. I am glad that I made the decision to study in the Unhed States. I have experienced and learnedfromthis culture and hs scholastic atmosphere. I am pleased that this experience has become a part of my life.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ABSTRACT LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER L INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study IL REVIEW OF LITERATURE Fast Food Industry and Advertising The Fast Food Industry Marketing Strategy in Advertising Advertisement Formats and Related Studies The Narrative The Slice-of^Life The Testimonial and the Announcer The Song-and-Dance The Demonstration and the Special-Effects Commercial m. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES Definitions

" ix x xiii

1 2 2 4 4 4 6 9 10 11 11 12 13 14 16

ill

IV. METHODOLOGY Pretest Sampling Instruments Stimuli Questionnau*e Warm-Up Questions Main Questions Demographic and Behavior Questions Execution/Design Data Treatment Main Test Sampling Population and Sample Umt of Analysis Method of Sample Selection Sample Size Limhations Instrument Execution and Design Data Treatment Initial Analysis Research Question One

18 19 19 19 19 21 21 21 22 23 25 25 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 28 29 29 30

iv

Hypothesis One Hjqjothesis Two Research Question Two Hypothesis One Additional Discussion V. RESULTS Sample Profiles Demographic Variables Behavioral Variables Television Advertisement Warm-Up C^iestions Television Advertisement Format Television Advertisement Format Effectiveness Television Advertisement Format and Purchase Intentions Research C^estion One Television Advertisement Format Preferences Demographic Differences in Format Preference Gender Marital Status Race ANOVA t-test Age

30 31 31 31 32 33 33 34 35 37 37 38 39 40 41 41 42 42 44 44 44 45 46

ANOVA t-test Academic Major ANOVA t-test Behavioral Differences in Format Preference Money Spending on Fast Food ANOVA t-test Television Usage Frequency ANOVA t-test Hamburger Consumption Frequency ANOVA t-test Preference for Fast Food Hamburger Restaurant ANOVA in Hamburger Restaurant Preference Hamburger Restaurant Preference t-test Research C^estion Two The Most Preferred Format and Purchase Intentions Purchase Intention Differences in Format Preference ANOVA of Purchase Intention in Relation to Format Preference Purchase Intention in Relation to Format Preference t-test

46 46 47 47 47 48 48 49 49 50 50 51 51 52 52 53 53 55 57 57 58 59 60

vi

Brand, Format, and Purchase Intention Correlations among Brand, Format, and Purchase Intention Chi-Square Test of Brand, Format, and Purchase Intention VI. CONCLUSIONS Summary Research Question One Hypothesis One Hypothesis Two Research Question Two H5q30thesis One Implications Use Segmentation Information Establishment of Business Image and Individual Purchase Motivation Consideration of Brand and Format Effects Limitations Suggestions for Future Research REFERENCES APPENDICES A. Fast food hamburger television advertisement format questionnaire B. Coding sheet

61 62 64 66 66 66 67 67 67 68 69 69 70 70 71 71 73 77 77 81

C. Frequency and percentage of the values of television advertisement, hamburger, and hamburger television advertisements 85 D. Mean, mode, and standard deviation of the response to fast food hamburger television advertisement formats in relation to television advertisement effectiveness and purchase intention vii

87

E. Frequencies and percentages for song-and-dance format, narrative format, special-effects format, slice-of-life format, and testimonial format in television advertisement effectiveness 89 F. Frequencies and percentages for song-and-dance format, narrative format, special-effects format, slice-of-life format, and testimonial format in relation to purchase intention G. Frequencies and percentages for song-and-dance format, narrative format, special-effects format, slice-of-life format, and testimonial format in relation to purchase intention H. Significant elements in format by gender t-tests and fiiU t-test tables for special-effects format and slice-of-life format by gender I. Significant elements in format by race ANOVA and t-tests J. Significant elements in format by age t-tests 99 103 106

95

97

K. Significant elements in format by academic major t-tests 108 L. Significant elements in format by money spending on fast food ANOVA and ttests 110 M. Significant elements in format by television usagefrequencyANOVA and t-tests N. Significant elements in format by hamburger consumption frequency ANOVA and t-tests O. Significant elements in format by preference in hamburger restaurant ANOVA P. Significant elements in format by preference in hamburger restaurant t-test

114

117

119 126

Q. The most preferred hamburger television advertisement format and significantly different responses to purchase intention question in relation to each tested restaurant 130 R. Significantly different elements in format preference in relation to purchase intention for each restaurant ANOVA S. Significantly different elements in format preference in relation to purchase intention for each restaurant t-test

133

137

T. Chi-Squu-e tests of purchase intention in relation to brand and format effects... 140 viii

ABSTRACT

Fast food hamburger restaurants spend millions of dollars on television advertisements each year. Whether an advertisement's message is effectively communicated to a target market and whether or not the message is acted upon by the viewer are of interest. The purpose of this study is to examine customers' favorite formats in hamburger television advertisements in order to assist companies in effectively communicating whh theu- target audiences and in motivating those audiences to purchase products. The research was conducted with college students in a laboratory setting. The subjects viewed hamburger television advertisements and responded to a questionnaire. The major findings of the study are as follows: (1) the college students most preferred the special-effects format in advertisement for hamburgers; (2) the testimonial format in television advertisement for hamburgers appears to motivate the college students' hamburger purchase intentions; and (3) brand and advertising format both appear to influence the college students' hamburger purchase decision making.

IX

LIST OF TABLES

1. Respondent demographic characteristics 2. Respondent behavioral characteristics 3. Preference for fast food hamburger restaurant 4. Means, modes, and standard deviations of warm-up questions 5. Overall results of mean comparison of five television advertisement formats in television advertisement effectiveness 6. Overall results of mean comparison of five television advertisement formats in relation to purchase intention 7. Preference for fast food hamburger television advertisement format 8. Significantly different elements in format by gender t-test 9. ANOVA and t-test significantly different elements in format by race 10. ANOVA and t-test significantly different elements in format by age 11. ANOVA and t-test significantly different elements in format by academic major 12. ANOVA and t-test significantly different elements in format according to money spending on fast food 13. t-test significantly different elements in format according to television usage frequency 14. ANOVA and t-test significantly different elements in format by hamburger consumption frequency 15. ANOVA significantly different elements in format by hamburger restaurant preference

34 35 36 38

39

40 41 43 45 47 48

50

51

52

55

16. t-test significantly different elements in format by hamburger restaurant preference 56 17. ANOVA significantly different elements among the most preferred hamburger television advertisement formats and purchase intentions for each restaurant

58

18. ANOVA significantly different elements in format preference in relation to purchase intention for each restaurant 19. t-test significantly different elements in format preference in relation to purchase intention for each restaurant 20. Correlation between fast food restaurant preference and advertisement formats 21. Correlations between fast food restaurant preference and purchase intentions 22. Correlations between format and purchase intentions 23. Significantly different responses to purchase intention question on brand and format effects according to chi-square tests 24. Frequency and percentage of the values of television advertisement, hamburger, and hamburger television advertisements 25. Mean, mode, and standard deviation of the response to fast food hamburger television advertisement formats in relation to television advertisement effectiveness and purchase intention 26. Frequencies and percentages for song-and-dance format, narrative format, special-effects format, sHce-of-life format, and testimonial format in television advertisement effectiveness 27. Frequencies and percentages for song-and-dance format, narrative format, special-effects format, slice-of-life format, and testimonial format in relation to purchase intention 28. Frequencies and percentages for song-and-dance format, narrative format, special-effects format, slice-of-life format, and testimonial format in relation to purchase intention 29. Significant elements in format by gender t-tests (with means, mean differences, and standard deviations) and full t-test tables for special-effects format and slice-of-Hfe format by gender 30. Significant elements in format by race ANOVA and t-tests (with means and standard deviations)

60

61 62 63 64

65

86

88

90

96

98

100

104

31. Significant elements in format by age t-tests (with means and standard deviations) 107 32. Significant elements in format by academic major t-tests (with means and standard deviations)
XI

109

33. Significant elements in format by money spending on fast food ANOVA and t-tests (with means and standard deviations)

Ill

34. Significant elements in format by television usagefrequencyANOVA and t-tests (with means and standard deviations) 115 35. Significant elements in format by hamburger consumption frequency ANOVA and t-tests (with means and standard deviations) 36. Significant elements in format by preference in hamburger restaurant ANOVA (with means and standard deviations)

118

120

37. Significant elements in format by preference in hamburger restaurant t-test (with means and standard deviations) 127 38. The most preferred hamburger television advertisement format and significantly different responses to purchase intention question in relation to each tested restaurant (ANOVA) 131 39. Significantly different elements in format preference in relation to purchase intention for each restaurant ANOVA (with means and standard deviations) 40. Significantly different elements in format preference in relation to purchase intention for each restaurant t-test (with means and standard deviations) 41. Chi-squire tests of purchase intention in relation to brand and format effects

134

138 141

Xll

LIST OF FIGURES

1. The FCB model 2. Two routes to persuasion 3. The Execution Spectrum 4. Study design 5. Performance evaluation and review technique chart for the pretest 6. Performance evaluation and review technique chart for the main test

6 8 10 15 24 29

xiu

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

Companies spend considerable resources using advertising to deliver their product/service messages to the public. In daily life, people are exposed to thousands of advertising messages. These messages attempt to attract their audiences' attention and motivate their purchase behaviors. The need to dehver effective advertisements which can stimulate purchase intentions of target audiences is strong in every market. Fast food dominates the hosphality industry. Food Marketing Review (1998) reported that fast food restaurants made $83 billion in sales (approximately 45% of sales for the entire hospitality industry) in 1997. Appropriate marketing strategies that will aid in continually increasing sales are important for the fast food industry. According to Christopher (1986, p. 32), fast food chains emerged as a major television advertising spending category in 1985, showing that the fast food industry ranks television advertising as an important marketing strategy. Liddle (1999) reported in Nation's Restaurant News Annual Top 100 that the sandwich (hamburger) segment was continuing to occupy the majority position (with 42.15% of the market) in the top 100 market share in the year 1998. Moreover, the Top 100 Megabrands 1998 issue oi Advertising Age (1999) showed two fast food hamburger chains in the top ten companies in terms of amount spent on advertising. McDonald's was the fifth major brand on this Hst, spending $530.7 million of a $571.7 million total advertising budget on television advertisement. Burger King was number ten on the list, spending $380.4 million on television advertising from a total advertising budget of

$407.5 million in 1998. This monetary focus on television advertising has forged a fierce hamburger battle. Statement of the Problem As noted by Hume (1985), McDonald's has gradually increased hs television advertisement spending and has regularly used celebrities for advertising and promotions. Burger King Corporation (1999) announced that the company will use humor and live action vignettes in hs newest broadcast advertisement to show how the company goes to great lengths to deliver great tasting food just the way the customer wants it. According to the same announcement. Burger King Corporation reported that its current 'Tood and Music" campaign featuring more than 175 songsfromthe 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, will cease. Fast food hamburger chains are looking for the ideal television advertisement format to win the hamburger battle. Purpose of the Study There are two motivations behind this study. First, hamburger chains have huge budgets planned for television advertisements, and have worked on making the advertisements enticing. This study will attempt to identify customers' favorite television advertisement formats, such as those using cartoons or celebrities, to see how they get their messages across. Second, as Kavanoor, Grewal, and Blodgett (1997) noted, many quantitative investigations studying the effects of advertising formats on consumer reactions have been undertaken during the last thirty years. Nevertheless, format effects are not clear. The purpose of this study is to examine favorite formats in hamburger television advertisements in order to assist companies in effectively communicating whh their 2

target audiences and to motivate those audiences to purchase products. The research questions that this study addressed are: (1) what is the most preferred hamburger television advertisement format for college students and whither or not there are differences in individuals' format preferences based on demographic and behavioral variables, (2) does the college students' purchase intentions motivate by their most preferred format and are there differences in individuals' purchase intentions based on the format they preferred. The study design and research questions and research hypotheses are addressed in Chapter HI.

CHAPTER n REVIEW OF LITERATURE

To contribute to the knowledge about advertisement formats, this study identifies different television advertisement formats which effectively connect products to customers. In this chapter, two types of relevant literature are discussed to provide a background. First, the condhion of the fast food industry is described. This is followed by a discussion of marketing strategy in advertising. Second, the study focuses on different advertisement formats and presents related studies. Fast Food Industry and Advertising Fast food advertising is a product of the fast food industry hself Since fast food is the tested product category in this study, the fast food industry's background is discussed first. Then, the role advertising plays in fast food marketing strategies is described. The Fast Food Industry Fast food restaurants were established in the late 1940s and have been described as having inflexible menus both in the United State and Europe (Powers, 1995; Dittmer & Griffin, 1997; Davis, Lockwood, & Stone, 1998). Powers (1995) mentioned that the 100 largest restaurant chains control almost half of all fast food restaurants. The recipe for fast food success includes a high degree of standardization and a theme. The promotion techniques most widely used in fast food operations are colorful logo designs which represent the food and the service, and also advertising, which enables customers to remember the image that has been presented (Davis, Lockwood, & Stone, 1998). 4

Focusing on fast food customers, Davis, Lockwood, and Stone (1998) and Khan (1992) have suggested that young to middle-aged groups and college students might be the prime targets. Zuber (1998) noted the current mdustry target trend by reporting Wendy's spokesman's announcement that the mostfrequentfast food customers are 18 to 34 years old, and all quick-service businesses are trying to reach them. Targeting that main consumption group with effective promotion techniques is important for the growth of the fast food industry. Peter and Olson (1998) stated that the development of an effective promotion strategy, such as an advertisement, begins with an analysis of the relationship between consumers and the products or brands of interest. The relationship of fast food products and consumers can be described by using the Foote, Cone & Belding (FCB) grid. The FCB model was created by the Foote, Cone & Belding advertising agency; this model analyzes consumer-product relationships and develops appropriate promotional strategies (Vaughn, 1980). In order to understand the FCB model, the term involvement has to be defined. As explained by Peter and Olson (1998), involvement is the degree of personal relevance a product, brand, object, or behavior has for a consumer (p. 516). In the FCB planning model, food and household products are categorized in a low involvement and thinking grid; this means that in this category, consumers react in a model of do-learnfeel. In other words, by verifying the poshion of fast food products, marketers have to remind thek customers of the product/service information; thus, customer behavior will be effectively motivated. Figure 1 displays a summary of the FCB model.

Thmking
High involvement

Feeling

Information (thinking) Model: think-feel-do Products: car, house Creative: demonstration, specific details

Affective (thinking) Model: feel-think-do Products: jewelry, cosmetics Creative: execution impact

Low involvement Habit formation (doing) Model: do-think-feel Products: liquor, household hems Creative: remmder

Self-satisfection (reacting) Model: do-feel-think Products: cigarettes, liquor, candy. gum Creative: attention

Figure 1: The FCB model in Lavidge, R. & Steiner, G. (1961). A Model for Predictive Measurement of Advertising Effectiveness. Journal of Marketing. October. 5962. (reproducedfromBurnett and Moriarty, 1998. P. 109.)

Marketing Strategy in Advertising Today there are more interactions between advertisers and consumers than there were in the past. Telecommunications have played an especially important role. Advertising can be seen as a part of peoples' everyday lives because advertising influences the behaviors and attitudes of the general public. Kavanoor, Grewal, and Blodgett (1997) showed that many consumers depend on information cues in making their purchase decisions. These information cues typically consist of product related attributes highlighted in advertising or on packaging. Advertising is a tool of communication in marketing strategies; using advertising was Burnett and Moriarty's (1998) primary suggestion for industries. Arens (1999) also showed that advertising can play an important role in helping a business succeed. Peter and Olson (1999) noted that all promotions, such as advertisements, are experienced by consumers as information in the environment. To understand the effects of promotions 6

on consumers, h is necessary to know about the communication process. The process begins when consumers are exposed to the promotion information. Then they must attend to promotion communication and comprehend hs meaning. Finally, the resuhing knowledge, meanings, and beliefs about the promotion may be integrated with other knowledge to create brand attitudes which inform purchase decisions. Moreover, Biel and Bridgwater (1990) found that people who liked a commercial a lot were twice as likely to be persuaded by it as the people who simply feh neutral towards the commercial. Tellis (1998) and Belch and Belch (1993) created the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) presented by Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann, which can explain the persuasion process. The basic premise of the ELM model is that when people have both the motivation and abilhy to evaluate a message, their likelihood of elaboration will be high. In that status, people look for and respond to good reasons in favor of the message; this form of persuasion is called the central route. If people lack either the motivation or the ability, they are more Ukely to respond to cues associated whh the message; this form is called the peripheral route. These two routes function to make persuasive communication effective. In Figure 2, the ELM model is presented showing the relationship of these two routes, and how individual involvement is needed for an effective advertisement.

Cential route to persuasion Attention High involvement with product or message Focus on "central" product-related information Comprehension Deeper thoughts about product attributes and consequences More elaboration Persuasion Product beliefs

T
Brand attitude T Purchase intention

Exposure to persuasive communication (ad) Peripheral route to persuasion Attention Low involvement with product or message Focus on "peripheral" non-product information Comprehension Shallow thoughts about nonproduct information Low elaboration Persuasion Non-product beliefs

T
Attitude toward the ad T Brand attitude T Purchase intention

Figure 2: Two routes to persuasion in the ELM in Petty, R., Cacioppo, J., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research. 10 (Sep.), 135146. (reproduced from Arens,1999. P. 133.)

There are four different approaches to classifying advertising: medium approach, target audience approach, geographic area approach, and purpose approach. Abbey (1993) and Burnett and Moriarty (1998) adopted the medium approach to classifying advertising, and television advertising (broadcast advertising) is one of the classifications under this approach. Christopher (1986) indicated that fast food chains emerged as a major television advertising spending category in 1985. The fast food industry considers television advertising an important marketing strategy. As mentioned in the introduction. 8

fast food hamburger chains have spent a great deal of money on television advertisement promotion. Each hamburger chain has adopted different television formats designed to attract different targets. Addhionally, Knigman (1965) stated that television is a lowinvolvement medium, consumers exposed to repeated commercial messages have subtle changes in their knowledge structures. These changes do not resuh in consumer attitude change, but relate to recall of a brand name, advertisement theme, or slogan. Advertisement Formats and Related Studies In current advertisement related research, the format of advertisements has been placed in an important poshion. Sawyer (1995) listed ten steps for creating an effective advertisement: two of the steps in this list concerned the advertisement format - using celebrities and using children and animals. Aab, Johnson, and Lohtia (1995) determined that providing information is essential for an effective advertisement. The following discussion focuses on the topic of advertisement formats and related studies. As shown in Figure 3, the Execution Spectrum, developed by Hank Seiden (1990), displays 24 execution formats rating their stylesfromfiivolousto serious, for both print and electronic advertising. The Execution Spectrum provides a basic understanding of the advertisement format. Studies (Abbey, 1993; Arens, 1999; Burnett & Moriarty, 1998; Davis, 1997; Tellis, 1998) have discussed advertisement formats or broadcast advertisement formats but have not specifically focused on television advertisement formats. However, Nelson (1994) stated that television advertisement formats fall into the following categories: the narrative, the slice-of-life, the testimonial, the announcer, the song-and-dance, the demonstration, and the special-effects

commercial. Thus, this present study discussed each of Nelson's formats and studies concerning each format.

.s ti
a
a

a
u
O a as N

I a

CO

CO

I
u ^
W2

1
,
c

i
pk

"BO

00

1
c
i3^

1
2

1
t-H

s
55

I
A"

4^

03

I
2
U

Frivolous Serious Source: Seiden, K (1990), Advertising pure and simple. The New Edition: New York: AMACOM (reproduced from Arens, 1999, p. 394)

Figure 3: The Execution Spectrum

The Narrative The narrative advertisement typically uses a story to introduce a problem, then shows how the use of a particular product can solve the problem (Nelson, 1994). Nelson noted that the narrative format can be told in live-action photography or in animation. Frequently, the story is exaggerated and fiinny as h continues. Studies (Padgett & Allen, 1997; Belch & Belch, 1994; Peracchio & Meyers-Levy, 1997) show that the narrative advertisements emphasize content characters, actions, and settings drawing on common cultural stories, that they associate symbolic meanings whh the brand, and they convey persuasive messages. In other words, the narrative advertisement attempts to maximize persuasion by actively drawing the customers into the advertisement and captures them with the investment of a considerable amount of effort in processing the advertisement content. 10

The Slice-of-Life Arens (1999) defined the slice-of-life commercials simply as those which dramatized real-life situations. Nelson (1994) provided a clear explanation of the sliceof-life spots. Slice-of-life is another form of television advertisement which presents people's daily problems. The advertisement demonstrates how the product can solve problems. Maynard (1998) conducted a study that focused on slice-of-life. This study discussed a persuasive drama in Japanese television advertisements. Maynard found that advertising offers a cuhural system or cuhurally defined semiotic symbol clusters. The symbolic activhy expresses realhy and structures experience. Maynard noted that the activity makes the intelligibility possible. The Testimonial and the Announcer The formats of the testimonial and the announcer contain similar characteristics and can be discussed together. Nelson (1994) explained that the testimonial format uses celebrities or ordinary people to tell audiences their product preferences in order to influence audience attitude toward the product. Nelson (1994) noted that the announcer format differsfi'omthe testimonial format in that the announcer, famous or otherwise, tells the audiences why they should try a product or a service. If the announcer is well known, the commercial takes on more of the characteristic quality of the testimonial. Specifically, a testimonial commercial clams product usage, and an announcer commercial only urge usage because of product attributes. Arens (1999) pointed out that celebrities are often used in testimonial advertisements. Most of the research in the testimonial category that tests advertising effectiveness (Chawla, Dave, & Barr, 1994; McCracken, 1989; Kamins, Brand, Hoeke, & 11

Moe, 1989; Ohanian, 1990, 1991; O' Mahony & Meenaghan, 1998) discusses the impact of celebrities in advertisements. These celebrity studies have demonstrated positive influence on customer attitudes and behaviors. Specifically, a product that was introduced by a celebrity was found to be strongly linked to motivating consumption. For example, Ohanian (1990, 1991) developed a scale to measure celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness and found that celebrities' perceived expertise dkectly influences customers' purchase intentions. The Song-and-Dance Using the song-and-dance format, the advertiser produces a joyous musical show in thirty seconds or less (Nelson, 1994). Pepsi-Cola's use of a little girl singing and dancing in their television advertisement is an example of the song-and-dance format. Nelson noted that the fiill-fledged television song-and-dance advertisement is not used fi^equently today because the company has to spend more money to produce this particular format. Current music related research (Park & Young, 1986; (jom, 1982, Olsen, 1994) has examined background music on brand attitude, the effects of advertisement music on choice behavior, and the use of silence in advertisements. Resuhs of the current research show that music has a facilhative effect on brand attitude and directly affects product preferences. Silence was shown to generate viewer attention. The trend of using music in the fast food industry advertisements has been welcomed; however. Burger King Corporation (1999) recently announced that its Food and Music Campaign, which has been used sporadically since the 1950s, will soon be silenced.

12

The Demonstration and the Special-Effects Commercial The demonstration format shows product creation, product comparison, or product usage (Nelson, 1994). Many hamburger chain television advertisements show how hamburger sandwiches are made. These advertisements place emphasis on demonstrating the cooking process to attract their customers. As Arens (1999) noted, the demonstration convinces an audience better and faster than a spoken message. Nelson (1994) explained that the special-effects format is produced by using unusual angles, fades,fi-ozenaction, or some other special effects (Nelson, 1994). Research studies in this particular advertisement format cannot be found; thus, information cannot be presented.

13

CHAPTER m RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES

Different television advertisement format designs have been studied separately. Peracchio and Meyers-Levy (1997) showed that narrative advertisements convey persuasive messages to customers. Maynard (1998) showed persuasive evidence that audiences respond to television advertisements in the slice-of-life format. O' Mahony and Meenaghan (1998), and Ohanian (1991) found that using celebrities in advertisements has a positive impact on customer purchase intentions. Gom (1982) noted that music in advertisements directly affects product preferences. Arens (1999) realized that the customer receives the advertisement's message better when a demonstration format is used. Each of the foregoing advertisement formats has a positive influence in linking the product to the customers. The present study was designed to consider the formats used in fast food television advertisements and to analyze the differences among them based on demographic and behavioral variables. The research questions in this study are described first, and then each question is followed by the basic hypotheses proposed to answer the questions. A researchfi^ameworkis displayed and a definition section follows at the end of this chapter. RQ J: Which advertisement formats (the narrative, the slice-of-life, the testimonial/announcer, the song-and-dance, the demonstration, or the special-effects commercial) have the most influence on customer preferences?

14

H,: Individuals' preferences for fast food hamburger television advertisements will differ according to demographic variables (gender, marital status, race, age, and academic major). Hj: Individuals' preferences for fast food hamburger television advertisements will differ according to behavioral variables (money spent on fast food, television usagefi"equency,hamburger consumptionfi-equency,and preference on fast food restaurant). RQ 2: Does the most preferred format provide the strongest motivation in customers' purchase intentions? H,: Individuals' purchase intentions will be different based on the fast food hamburger television formats they prefer.

Demographic variables
Gender Marital status Race Age Major

Advertisement formats
The narrative The sUoe-of-life The testimonial/announoer The song-and-dance The demonstration The special-effects commercial

Beiiaviora] variables
Money spending on fast food / Television usage frequency Hamburger oonsunqition frequency Preference on fast food restaurant

Figure 4: Study design

15

Definitions In this section, the terms that used in this paper are defined as follows. 1. Demographic variables: Demographic segmentation is an approach to segmenting a market (Kardes, 1999). For this study, the demographic variables of gender, age, race, income, major, marital status, and current household size will be used. 2. Behavioral variables: Behavioral segmentation is another approach to segmenting a market. It involves segmenting on the basis of usage situation or usage fi-equency (Kardes, 1999). Fortius study, the behavioral variables of television usage frequency and hamburger purchasefrequencywill be used. 3. Advertisement format: Size, shape, and appearance of an advertisement or publication. a. The narrative: The narrative advertisement often uses a story to express a problem, then shows how the use of a particular product can solve the problem. It can be told in live-action photography or in animation. Frequently, the story is exaggerated and funny as h continues. b. The slice-of-life: Slice-of-life is another form of television advertisement which presents people daily problems. The advertisement introduces how the product can solve the problem. c. The testimonial/anouncer: The testimonial format uses celebrities or ordinary people to tell audiences their product preferences in order to influence audience atthude toward the product. The announcer format differs from the testimonial format in that the announcer, famous or 16

otherwise, tells the audiences why they should try a product or a service. d. The song-and-dance: Advertisers try to express a joyous musical show in thirty seconds or less to form the song-and-dance advertisements. e. The demonstration: The demonstration format shows product creation, product comparison, or product usage. f The special-effects commercial: special-effects advertising is made by using special production skills, such as frozen action. (Adapted from Nelson, 1994, pp.275-280) 4. Purchase intention: A decision plan or intention to buy a particular product or brand (Peter & Olson, 1998).

17

CHAPTER IV METHODOLOGY

This study was designed to identify the most effective fast food hamburger television advertisement formats used to communicate with customers. The study consisted of a survey in an experimental design. The research setting was in a laboratory and the subjects were asked to give their responses by viewing television commercials and filling out a questionnaire. The study of "The Importance of Likeabilhy as a Measure of Television Advertising Effectiveness," presented by Leather, McKechnie, and Amirkhanian (1994) was a survey study in an experimental setting. Their study contained two stages: the pretest, the first stage, was designed to test the instruments the commercials and the questionnaire - for use in stage two. The main test, the second stage, used a ranked scale which was completed by each subject after the selected advertisements were viewed. LaBarbera, Weingard, and Yorkston (1998) used a similar treatment design for their print advertisement study. The rationale for two treatments in the advertisement related studies (Leather, McKechnie, & Amirkhanian, 1994; LaBarbera, Weingard, & Yorkson, 1998) is that the pretest evaluates the validity of the instrument. Based on the purpose of studies, researchers want to determine if an instrument is appropriate to gather subject responses. The present study also had a pretest and a main test design, in accordance whh previous research.

18

Pretest A pretest was conducted first to discover whether the research instrument was adequately designed for this study. The following discussion explains the sample selection, the instruments, the study execution and design, and the data treatment. Sampling As noted in the Iherature review section, Davis, Lockwood, and Stone (1998) and Khan (1992) proposed that college students might be one of the targets for the fast food industry. The population for the present study consisted of college students. Related studies (Homer & Yoon, 1992; Leather, McKechnie & Amirkhanian, 1994; LaBarbera, Weingard, & Yorkston, 1998) used between ten and thirty subjects in pretests. Twenty-four college students were recruited for this study's pretest and were volunteer subjects. Wimmer and Dominick (1999) pointed out that the use of volunteer subjects may significantly bias the results of a study, giving the data an unknown quantity of error. The pretest step for this research was to assess the instruments for any changes needed to eliminate research bias and error. Instruments The instruments used for this study include a set of fast food hamburger television advertisement stimuli and a questionnaire. The stimuli and questionnaire are discussed separately. Stimuli This study focused on fast food hamburger television advertisements and television advertisement formats. The researcher videotaped current television

19

advertisements, and established a library of current fast food hamburger television advertisements. The advertisements were selected based on format design. According to Nelson (1994), television advertisements fall into in the following categories: the narrative, the slice-of-life, the testimonial/announcer, the song-and-dance, the demonstration, and the special-effects commercial. Accordingly, each advertisement was classified based on its fit to one of those formats. A total of nineteen fast food hamburger television advertisements were taped as an advertisement database from November 1999 to January 2000. Five professors, three from the Advertising Department and twofromthe Restaurant, Hotel, & Insthutional Management program at Texas Tech University, evaluated the advertisements and identified the formats. An advertisement format evaluation sheet was developed to select the fast food hamburger television advertisement formats. The evaluation sheet contained a brief description of Nelson's (1994) formats followed by a list of advertisement databases for the professors to check the advertisement formats. The available advertisements were then grouped into five different television formats according to Nelson's definhions (1994). The demonstration format was not included in the database. A total of five fast food hamburger television advertisements were ultimately chosen for this study. The grouped television advertisements were double-checked by the panels to make sure the required formats were unanimously identified and included. These five advertisements were randomly taped into three sets for eliminating bias in testing.

20

Ouestionnau-e The questionnaire was constructed in three parts: a series of warm-up questions, a main question section, and a series of demog^aphic^ehavioral questions. Warm-Up Questions The questionnaire began with seventeen five-point bipolar rating scale warm-up questions asking the subjects their general opinions about television advertisements (questions one to fifteen), fast food (question sixteen), and fast food television advertisements (question seventeen). Thefirstfifteenquestions were adopted from Ducoffee's scale (1995) which tested customers' value in advertising. To ensure validity, five of fifteen questions were presented in a negative way in contrast to the original questions. Main Questions In the main question section, the bipolar scales were drawnfromexisting reaction profiles (Leather, McKechnie, & Amirkhanian, 1994). The questions in this section focused on effective television advertisement formats which communicate with customers efficiently. Leather, McKechnie and Amirkhanian (1994) noted that the commercial in general, the way the product is communicated, and the way the message is put across were the factors to interpret for a general measure of an television advertisement's communicative effectiveness. For validhy considerations, three of the questions in this part were asked in a negative way which differed from the way the original questions were asked. Additionally, according to the purpose of study, four questions addressed customer purchase intentions. The purchase intention questions were examined by two professors to ensure the vahdhy issue. Thus, a total of four sets of 21

questions were included in the main question section, which contained eighteen questions. This study adopted Leather, McKechnie and Amirkhanian's (1994) scale for designing the first three sets of the main questions. The fu-st set of main questions contained ten dimensions relating to the commercial in general. The second set was constructed along two dimensions concerning the way the product is communicated, and the thh-d set was constructed along two dimensions relative to the way the message is received by the viewers. The scale developed in Leather, McKechnie and Amu-khanian's study (1994) proved to have high reliability. The fourth set of the main questions was followed by four questions to determine customer purchase intentions. Demographic and Behavior Questions The last part of the questionnaire asked demographic and behavioral questions. Kardes (1999) showed that segmentation could be established on four different bases with demographic and behavioral bases being two of the four. For this study, five demographic variables, which are gender, marital status, race, and age, were selected from Kardes' list. Academic major was added in study's demographic variables for collecting more relevance information from respondents. Thus, there were five demographic variables used in the study. The behavioral variables were the money spent on fast food, thefrequencyof television viewing, and thefrequencyof eating hamburgers. Finally, the last question was designed to ask the subjects to rank five fast food hamburger restaurants based on their preferences of the restaurants. Hardee's, one of the five fast food restaurant in this study, was not available in Lubbock but respondents might be familiar from exposure in their lives or other cities. 22

The warm-up questions were summarized to present subjects' general opinions about television advertising, fast food, and fast food television advertising. The fu-st three sets of the main questions and demographic/behavioral questions were designed to answer the first research question. The last set of the main question section and demographic^ehavioral questions addressed the second research question. The questionnaire is found in Appendix A.

Execution/Design The fu-st step of the study was videotaping available fast food hamburger television advertisements. This information was used to develop the questionnaire. For each advertisement format addressed in the study, a representative advertisement was selected to be shown to the study subjects. Five panels evaluated each advertisement format from the database. The available advertisements were grouped based on their formats. Five of the six types of television advertisement format were included. The panels confirmed each advertisement format again to ensure validity of identification of the formats. Then, the researcher selected one advertisement from each of the five groups for the study instrument. The questionnaire was developed simultaneously. The present study used individual as the unit of analysis. To protect the subjects, the research instrument was approved by the Human Subjects Research Governing Committee. Their approval was received on February 11, 2000. The pretest of the study was conducted in the Mass Communications Department in Texas Tech Univershy. A Mass Communications professor was asked to cooperate whh the study. The professor helped recruh subjects. A room was arranged for playing the advertisements using a VCR. Two groups of twelve volunteers each, participated in
23

the pretest on February 11, 2000. The subjects were debriefed prior to the start of the treatment. A three-page questionnau-e, which included a page of warm-up questions, a page of main questions, and a page of demographic^ehavioral questions, was given to the subjects to respond to the selected advertisement. The completed questionnaires were then collected and analyzed, and the subjects were told the purpose of the study at the end of the treatment. Based on the testing resuhs, changes were made to the instruments for use in the main test. The execution flow chart is shown in Figure 5.
1/5 Videotape the fast food hamburger advertisements to establish the database 1/17 Select and evaluate available fast food hamburger advertisements; each format should b e represented by an advertisement. 2/2 Print questionnaires 12/15

Develop questionnaire based on the purpose of the study

1/21 Professionally double-check the selected advertisements

2/11 H u m a n Subjects Researcli Governing Conunittee approval 2/11 2m ^ Arrange the room for treatment Recruit subjects

,
2/13 ^ Conduct treatment and coUate responses 2/13 Anafyze the responses and make any changes needed

Figure 5: Performance evaluation and review technique chart for the pretest

According to the pretest results, the comments and changes can be generalized as follows: the warm-up question section was clear and there was no need to change h. In the main question section, question three, four, nine, thirteen, sixteen, and seventeen were explained to ensure the meaning of these questions was understandable. The term

24

watchable in question three was comprehendible to the subjects; the subjects said watchable means that the film includes qualhies for them to watch. For question four, most subjects said the term bright means the color of the film was light. C^estion nine This advertisement communicates benefit - was clear to the subjects; the subjects said the benefit could be that the food product is tasty or the product was low priced. The term credible in question thirteen was interpreted to mean that the product is of good qualhy and also that the restaurant is credible to the subjects. For question sixteen and seventeen, the subjects said to change the word 'purchase' to 'buy', so the questions would be easier to answer. Finally, in the demog^aphic^ehavioral question section, the subjects said the way the ethnic question was posed was not racist; in addition, the subjects said it was easier for them to answer the age question if the question: How old are you? were asked. The subjects also suggested that it is better to ask about fast food spending over a two-week period. For the testing stimuli, the research has to ensure that all the stimuli are hamburger advertisements, and to not include sandwich advertisements. Data Treatment At the pretest stage, the data collected is used only for evaluating the research instruments. No statistical analysis is necessary in the pretest stage. Main Test After the pretest, the next step was to proofread the instrument to see if any changes were needed; then the main test was conducted. The main test was designed to assist in answering research questions and testing hypotheses.

25

Sampling According to Fletcher and Bowers (1988), sampling has been repeatedly shown to a valid procedure if planned and executed carefiilly. In order to address the sampling issue, this study first defined the sample to be extractedfromthe population. The unit of analysis was also defined. The method of sample selection, the size of the sample, and the expected margin of error in the given sample were described. Finally, the limhations of this sample were presented. Population and Sample Selecting the sample is important for research. This study used college students as its research subjects for these two reasons: (1) convenience; (2) college students represent a major market segment for the fast food industry (Davis, Lockwood, & Stone, 1998; Khan, 1992). Unit of Analysis Once the population is defined, the method, sample size, and expected sample error should be considered. Following is an explanation of the sample selection method, as well as a description of the expected sample size. Method of Sample Selection There are two types of sampling: probabilhy and non-probability. This study used non-probability sampling. Using an availability sample, the study collected exploratory data to identify fast food hamburger television advertisement formats that communicate with customers effectively. In addition, the study considered time and financial constraints. 26

Sample Size According to Davis (1997), sample sizes in non-probabilhy research are determined based on different forms of judgement. Davis noted that the best method for determining non-probabilhy sample size is in response to analytical need. It is recommended that the total number of individuals or observations in major study subgroups total at least 100 while there should be a minimum of twenty to fifty individuals in minor analytical groups. The total number of observations for this study was set at total 150 (Margin of error = 4.08).

Limitations The study used a non-probability sampling method to select subjects. According to Wimmer and Dominick (1999), Davis (1997), and Fletcher and Bowers (1988), the limitations of non-probabilhy sampling are that the samples contain unknown quanthies of error. Availabilhy samples may not represent the population and therefore have no external validity, and convenience samples are only for exploratory research or for quick, non-generalizable information relevant to a specific research need. Since the purpose of this study is to explore topic information, non-probabilhy sampling is appropriate for selecting the samples. Instrument Using the established instrumentsfromthe pretest, the main test included three sets of five fast food hamburger television advertisements and a seven-page questionnaire. The questionnah-e included one-page of warm-up questions, five pages of main questions, and one page of demographic/behavioral questions. Five fast food hamburger television advertisements were taped randomly in three sets, and the five 27

pages of main questions were in the same format to gather subject responses for each of five advertisements. The Likert scale was anchored by (1) Strongly Disagree and (5) Strongly Agree. The coding sheet can be seen in Appendix B. The statistics packages used were Microsoft Excel and SPSS (Statistic Package for the Social Sciences). Execution and Design The execution at the main test stage began whh gettmg permission to conduct the treatment. After permission was granted by two professors from the Restaurant, Hotel, & Institutional Management program, the treatment was started. The main test was conducted from February 14, 2000 to February 16, 2000. A subject introduction was given by the researcher and the subjects were asked to participate in the study voluntarily. The main test procedure was as follows: First, the subjects were asked to fill out the one-page warm-up questions only. Then, the subjects were asked to fill out a questionnaire after viewing each of five selected advertisements. Finally, the subjects were asked to fill out one page of demographic/behavioral questions. After the completed questionnah-es were collected, the researcher told the subjects the purpose of the study and thanked them for their participation. There were a total of 172 subjects participating in this study, and no repeated subject was included. Twelve questionnaires were ehher incomplete or the respondents gave the same answer to every question. Thus, one hundred and sixty questionnau-es (Margin of error = 3.95) were completed and could be used. The researcher then coded the data, conducted data analysis, and made conclusions (Figure 6).

28

2/16 Oet permission to conduct treatment 1 2/20 2/24

T Code 1

2/16 Conduct treatment and collect data 1

Analyze data 2/27 NVrite u p r e s u l t s a n d a n a l y s i s

Figure 6: Performance evaluation and review technique chart for the main test

Data Treatment Thefirsttwo question sets of the questionnaire (warm-up questions and main questions) collected ordinal level data while the third question set of the questionnaire (demographic/behavioral questions) collected nominal data. Thefirsttwo sets of questions were designed in a Likert scale format (ordinal data), but were treated as interval level data when comparing the differences between the groups. The means showed the integrated contribution of the groups' responses; thus, by comparing group means the integrated results can be compared. A total of 116 questions were in the questionnaire. Data analysis precludes are addressed as follows. Initial Analysis The first part of the main test data treatment addressed the sample's demographic^ehavioral profile. Means, modes, standard deviations, and frequencies were used to describe the characteristics of the study sample. The second part of the data treatment presented the resuhs of the warm-up questions and the resuhs of the main questions. Means, modes, standard deviations, andfrequencieswere also calculated for these variables. In addhion, overall resuhs of the mean comparison of the five television 29

advertisement formats and the television advertisement effectiveness were tabulated. Research Question One In order to address the first research question (Which hamburger television advertisement format most influenced customer preference?), h is necessary to know the individuals' format preferences. Based on Leather, McKechnie, and Amirkhanian's model (1994), a total of twenty-two items were developed for measuring television advertisement effectiveness. In the present study, the subjects answered these twentytwo items five times, once for each of the five tested formats. By adding these twentytwo items for each format, five scores were created for each individual. By ranking these five scores for each individual, the individuals' format preferences can be determined in order to address the first research question. Hypothesis One Under the first research question, hypothesis one was constructed to examine the format preference differences based on demographic variables. Then, t-tests were conducted, to compare the differences between the males and females and the differences between single and married people. ANOVA was used to compare the group differences among age, race, and academic major. In addhion, age, race, and academic major variables were rearranged for t-tests. The middle point was used for age in order to divide the subjects into two groups. In the case of race and academic major, the subjects were grouped into Caucasian and non-Caucasian and Restaurant, Hotel, & Institutional Management majors and non-RHIM majors. Then, t-tests were used to test the group difference on format preference.

30

Hypothesis Two The second hjqjothesis addressed format preference differences based upon behavioral variables. The behavioral variables include money spent on fast food purchases, hamburger consumptionfrequency,television usagefrequency,and preference for fast food restaurant. ANOVA was used to test the format preference differences among these behavioral variables. Moreover, using the middle point of the amount of money spent on fast food, the middle point in the hamburger consumption frequency variable, and in the television usagefrequencyvariable, the subjects were rearranged into two groups. The differences between the groups were examined by using t-tests. In the case of preference of fast food restaurants, the subjects were grouped into those who liked a restaurant the best and those who do not like a restaurant the best. Then, t-tests were conducted for testing the group differences in format preference. Research Question Two The second research question was constructed to answer: 'T)oes the most preferred format provide the strongest motivation in customers' purchase intentions?" In order to address this research question, ANOVA was conducted for the purchase intention questions based on the most preferred format for each individual. Hypothesis One Both ANOVA and t-tests were used to address this hypothesis. Using the format preference information, each individual had different preferences (most favored to least favored) for the five tested formats. ANOVA was used to compare the different preferences for each format against the purchase intention questions. After the subjects 31

were grouped into divisions of those who liked the format the best and who did not, ttests were conducted to examine the group differences based upon purchase intention questions. Additional Discussion To clarify the relationship among restaurant (brand), advertisement format, and purchase intention, correlations were conducted. In addition, chi-square tests were used to test the brand effect and advertisement format effect on individuals' purchase intention.

32

CHAPTER V RESULTS

In this chapter, the resuhs of the study are tabulated and interpreted in the following way. First, there is an imtial look at the sample profiles, which includes demographic and behavioral variables. These are described by using means, standard deviations, frequencies, and percentages. Second, warm-up questions and the main questions concerning five different television advertisement format effectiveness, and purchase intentions, are presented by using means, modes, standard deviations, frequencies, and percentages. Third, to address the first research question, the main questions concerning advertisement formats and the demographic/behavioral questions are investigated by using t-tests and ANOVA. Fourth, to address the second research question, the questions about advertising formats and purchase intentions are investigated using the results of t-tests and ANOVA; the questions about individuals' favorite restaurant, favorite format, and purchase intentions are investigated by conducting correlations and chi-squire tests. Sample Profiles Sample profiles are of the demographic and behavioral variables of the study samples. The demographic variables include gender, marital status, race, age, and academic major. The behavioral variables include money spending on fast food, television usagefrequency,hamburger consumptionfrequency,and preference for fast food restaurant.

33

Demographic Variables A total of 160 college students participated in this study. The subjects of the study were made up of almost equal numbers of females (53.75%) and males (47.25%) with an average age of 21.78. More than 95% of the subjects were single and approximately 90% were Caucasians. In addhion, 151 subjects of the total of 160 were Restaurant, Hotel, & Insthutional Management majors (Table 1). Table 1: Respondent demographic characteristics
Frecpiency Gender
Male Female 74 86 160 46.30 53.80 100.00

Percent Ethnic background

African-Amen can/Black Asian/Pacific Rim Caucasian/White Hispanic/Latino Other

Frequency
5 3 143 8 1 160

Percent
3.10 1.90 89.40 5.00 .60 100.00

Marital status
Single Married 153 7 160 95.60 4.40 100.00

Age
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 30 32 35 36 45 3 20 24 43 39 10 7 1.90 12.50 15.00 26.90 24.40 6.30 4.40 3.10 .60 .60 .60 1.30 .60 .60 .60 .60 100.00 100.00

Academic major
Restaurant, Hotel, &Institiitional Management Exercise and Sports Science Telecommunication Business Spanish Recreation and Leisure SCTvices Broadcast journalism Communication Study 151 94.40

.60 .60 1.90 .60 .60 .60 .60 100.00

160

160

Total

160

Total

160

100.00

The average age of the subjects:21.79 The standard deviation of the age: 3.21

34

Behavioral Variables The subjects reported spending $27.46 on fast food every two weeks and eating a hamburger at least once a week. In addhion, the respondents said that they spend almost three hours a day watching television (Table 2). Table 2: Respondent behavioral characteristics
Money spent on fast food
$ 0 3 4 5 7 10 13 15 20 25 30 35 40 50 60 70 75 80 100 120 140
Frequency 4 2 1 9 2 25 5 19 35 10 11 2 8 10 2 1 3 1 8 1 1 Percent 2.50 1.25 0.63 5.63 1.25 15.63 3.13 11.88 21.88 6.25 6.88 1.25 5.00 6.25 1.25 0.63 1.88 0.63 5.00 0.63 0.63 100.00 hours

Daily TV watching
Frequency PCTcent 1.25 0.63 0.63 3.75 13.13 5.00 23.13 1.88 14.38 1.88 10.63 3.75 5.63 6.88 1.25 3.13 1.25 98.13 1.88

Hamburger consumption
Number of burger Frequency Pa-cent 12.50 6.25 33.13 6.25 16.88 1.25 13.75 0.63 5.00 1.25 1.88 0.63 99.38 0.63

0
0.25

0.3 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 6 7 8 10

2 1 1 6 21 8 37 3 23 3 17 6 9 11 2 5 2

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 7

20 10 53 10 27 2 22 1 8 2 3 1

Total Missing

159 1

Total Missing

157 3

Total

160

Count

160

100.00

160

100.00

160

100.00

Minimum Maximum Mean Amount of money spent on fast food in a two-week period Frequency of hamburger consumption in an average week Daily number of hours watching TV

Std Deviation 25.95 1.29 2.01

0 0 0

140.00 7.00 10.00

27.46 1.66 3.04

160 159 157

35

According to the information in Table 3, 56.30% of the subjects ranked Wendy's as their most favored or favored fast food hamburger restaurant. In addhion, about 45% of the respondents ranked Whataburger and McDonald's as their favored or most favored fast food hamburger restaurants; 44.40% of the subjects said Burger King was their favored or most favored fast food hamburger restaurant. However, only 7.60% of the respondents reported Hardee's as their favored or most favored fast food hamburger restaurant. The reason for this could be that there is no Hardee's in Lubbock. Comparing the mean scores of the subject preferences across five fast food hamburger restaurants, the favorite fast food hamburger restaurant for the college students was Wendy's, followed by McDonald's and Whataburger, Burger King, and Hardee's. Table 3: Preference for fast food hamburger restaurant Burger King Frequency (%)
Most favored (5) 30(18.80%) 2(1.30%) 38(23.80%) 50(31.30%) 38(23.80%)

Hardee's

McDonald's

Wendy's

Whataburger

Favored (4)
Neutral (3) L e s s fevored ( 2 )

40(25.oo%)
37 (23.10%) 30(18.80%)

10(6.30%)
15 (9.40%) 36(22.50%)

34(21.30%)
30(18.80%) 38(23.80%)

40(25.00%)
47(29.40%) 17(10.60%)

34(21.30%)
29(18.10%) 40(25.00%)

Least favored (1) Mean Mode Std. Deviation Count Missmg Total

22(13.80%)
3.16 4 1.32 159 1

96(60.oo%)
1.66 1 .97 159 1

19 (11.90%)
3.21 5&2 1.36 159 1

5(3.10%)
3.72 5 1.12 159 1

is (11.30%)
3.21 2 1.36 159 1

160

160

160

160

160

36

Television Advertisement This segment presents the college students' perceptions of values concerning television advertisements and their responses to questions about television advertisement formats and purchase intentions. First, the warm-up question resuhs were tabulated (Table 5). In Table 5, findings concerning the subjects' perceptions of the value of television, the subjects' perceptions of hamburgers, and the subjects' perceptions of television advertisements are presented. Second, thefindingsconcerning the effectiveness of the five different formats on television advertisement and on purchase intentions are addressed.

Warm-Up Questions The results of respondents' values in regard to television advertisements, hamburgers, and hamburger television advertisements are arranged as follows. The results in means, modes and standard deviations are discussed in this section. The frequency and percentage information are displayed in Appendix C. The five dimensions, are 'advertising value', 'advertising information', 'advertising entertainment', 'advertising deceptiveness', and 'advertising irritation', in the model for measuring people's perceptions of television advertisement values. All five dimensions contain three elements. Fourteen of fifteen elements drew neutral or 'agree' answers in the study. The only element that the subjects did not agree with was the statement: Advertisements insuh people's intelligence. The dimension which scored the highest was advertising value (4.29). This score was higher than the scores in the other three dimensions. This is shown in Table 4. The subjects tended to disagree or give neutral responses to the statements: "Advertising is 37

enjoyable," and "Advertisements are lies." Most of the college students said they liked hamburgers, but they did not particularly like or dislike hamburger television advertisements (Table 4). Table 4: Means, modes, and standard deviations of warm-up questions
Mean Television advertisement value Advotising value Valuable Useful Important Advertising information Providing timely information Providing information whoi needed Providing rdevant information Advertising entolainment Entertaining Enjoyable Pleasing Advertising deceptivaiess Deoqrtive Lies Important facts are left out Advertising irritation Irritating Insult people's intelligence Too much advatising Hamburgers Likeability of hamburgers 4.29 4.38 4.29 4.19 3.59 3.79 3.45 3.54 3.49 3.75 3.25 3.46 3J7 3.68 2.69 3.74 3.28 3.35 2.67 3.82 3.99 4 2 4 4 .79 .83 .82 1.03 4 3 4 .76 .78 .73 4 3 4 .76 .86 .71 4 4 4 .74 .86 .73 5 4 4 .82 .63 .72 Mode SD

.75 3 Likeability of hamburga-television advertisemoit 3.10 Total numbCT of subjects 160 Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

Television Advertisement Format Five fast food hamburger television advertisement formats were tested in the present study. Findings about the formats are presented in this section. The resuhs of measuring television advertisement effectiveness in relation to the formats are discussed first. Then, the resuhs about the formats and purchase intentions follow.

38

Television Advertisement Format Effectiveness A mean comparison table that displays the overall findings of the college students' responses to the effectiveness of the formats is show in Table 5. The subjects reported that the special-effects format was the most effective hamburger television advertisement, while the song-and-dance format was the least effective one. Table 5: Overall results of mean comparison of five television advertisement formats in television advertisement effectiveness
Mean coinjarison of five television advertisement formats (song-and-dance, narrative, ^ecial-efTect, slice-of-life, testimonial) Lowest mean Highest mean Special-effects Song-and-dance Special-efTects Song-and-dance Special-effects Song-and-dance Special-effects Song-and-dance Special-effects Song-and-dance Special-effects Song-and-dance Special-effects Song-and-dance Special-effects Slice-of-life Special-effects Song-and-dance Special-effects Song-and-dance SHce-of-life Song-and-dance; narrative Slice-of-Ufe; Testimonial Song-and-dance Testimonial Narrative Testimonial Special-effects Special-effects Song-and-dance Special-effects Song-and-dance Special-effects Song-and-dance Special-effects Song-and-dance Special-effects Song-and-dance Special-effects Shce-of-life Special-effects Song-and-dance SUce-of-life Song-and-dance Slice-of-Hfe; Testimonial Song-and-dance Testimonial Special-effects Special-effects Song-and-dance Slice-of-life Song-and-dance Special-effects Narrative Special-effects Song-and-dance Special-effects Song-and-dance Special-effects Song-and-dance

Television advertisement effectiveness Commercial in general stimulating Interesting Clever Watdiable Bright Attention grabbing Amusing Exciting General relevance Relevant to viewaConmiunicate s benefits Relevant to product The way the product is conununicated Situation dynamism Original Exciting Intriguing Attrition grabbing Amusing Context relevance Relevant to viewaRelevant to product The way the message is put across Credible Memorable Intriguing Amusing Bri^ Total number of subjects 160 The model of television advertisement effectiveness is adoptedfi-omLeather, McKechnie, & Amirkhanian (1994)

Specifically, the special-effects format was the most stimulating, original, exching, intriguing, attention grabbing, amusing, and memorable. The testimonial format was highest in 'context relevance'. On the other hand, the college students reported that 39

the song-and-dance format was the least effective in presenting commercial messages in general. Appendix D provides additional information about the means, modes, and standard deviations for Table 5. Subjects' responses in format effectiveness are arranged in Appendix E using frequencies and percentages. Television Advertisement Format and Purchase Intentions Purchase intention questions are examined in the reliability test with an alpha value of 0.93. This means that the purchase intention questions are highly related in the study. In this segment, a mean comparison table (Table 6) shows information about the way formats motivate subject purchase intentions. Additional information about means, modes, and standard deviations for Table 6 is provided in Appendix F. Table 6: Overall results of mean comparison of five television advertisement formats in relation to purchase intention
Purchase intention The ad makes the subject want the burger Willingto buy the burger afto* watchingthe ad Willingto eat the burga" afto- watchingthe ad Willingto make next purdiase after watchingthe ad Total number of subjects =160 Reliability test: on purchase intoition items N=160, Alpha = 0.93 Lowest mean Song-and-dance Song-and-dance Song-and-dance Song-and-dance Song-and-dance Higjiest mean Testimonial Testimonial Testimonial Testimonial Testimonial

Concerning the issue of the five formats and subjects' purchase intentions, the college students said the testimonial format was the one of the five that would most likely motivate their purchase intentions. The students indicated that the song-and-dance format has the weakest ability of the five to motivate their purchase intentions.

40

Research Question One In order to answer the fu-st research question (Which hamburger television advertisement format most influenced customer preference?), the subjects' responses are presented. Under the first research question, there are two research hypotheses. One concerns the demographic differences in format preferences. The second concerns the behavioral differences in relation to format preferences.

Television Advertisement Format Preferences Leather, McKechnie, and Amirkhanian (1994) developed a total of twenty-two items for measuring television advertisement effectiveness. In the present study, the subjects answered these twenty-two hems five times for the five tested formats. By adding these twenty-two hems for each format, five scores resuhed for each individual. Table 7 records the frequency of these five scores. Table 7: Preference for fast food hamburger television advertisement format
< 5ong-and-dance

Narrative

Special-effects

Shce-of-life

Testimonial

Frequency (%)
Most favored (5) Favored (4) Neutral (3) Less favored (2) Least favored (1) 9 (5.63%) 28 (17.50%) 24(15.00%) 35 (21.88%) 64 (40.00%) 2.27 1 1.30 160 13 (8.13%) 17 (10.63%) 35(21.88%) 44 (27.50%) 51 (31.88%) 2.36 1 1.26 160 81 (50.63%) 40 (25.00%) 18(11.25%) 10 (6.25%) 11 (6.88%) 4.06 5 1.22 160 17(10.63%) 34(21.25%) 52 (32.50%) 32 (20.00%) 25(15.63%) 2.91 3 1.21 160 33 (20.63%) 36 (22.50%) 42 (26.25%) 30(18.75%) 19(11.88%) 3.21 3 1.30 160

Mean Mode Std. Deviation

Total

Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

41

According to the mean scores (Table 7), the special-effects format is the college students' most favored format for presenting hamburgers in television advertising. This preference was followed by the testimonial, slice-of-life, narrative, and song-and-dance formats. About 75% of the respondents said that the special-effects format was their favored or most favored format, but only 20-40% of the respondents had the same reactions to other formats. A chi-square test was conducted to examine the differences between the 'most favored format' and *not most favored format' of five formats' frequency information. The resuhs of the chi-square test show that h is statistically significant that the special-effects format was preferred or most preferred by most subjects more often than the other formats in presenting hamburgers in television advertisements {x^ - ^^03,dF = 4,p < .01). Even though the special-effects format was the one of the five that the college students liked the best for presenting hamburgers in television advertising, the students reported that the testimonial format was the best of the five in providing context relevance and general relevance in the commercial, and the slice-of-life format was more credible than the other four formats (Appendix G). Demographic Differences in Format Preference In the present study there are five demographic variables: gender, marital status, race, age, and academic major. Each variable will be discussed individually to address the format preference differences between groups. Gender The format preference differences between males and females were measured using a t-test. The resuhs are displayed in Table 8 and Appendix H. There are differences between the responses in males and females in preferences for the narrative 42

format, the special-effects format, and the slice-of-life format. According to the results presented Table 8, the male college students tended to have more poshive responses than the female college students to two narrative format elements: 'interesting' (t=2.63, df^l58, p<.01) and 'communicates benefits' (t=2.65, df=158, p<.01). However, both males and females responded 'disagree' or 'neutral' for these two elements. Table 8: Significantly different elements in format by gender t-test
Narrative format
Interesting ^^ m Communicates benefits ^^ m

Special-effects format
Interesting /

Shce-of-life format
Interesting ^^ / Clever ^f Watchable ^^ / Bright ^^f Attention grabbing ^^ / Exciting ^^ / Relevant to viewer Credible ^f /

Clever ^^ / Watchable ^^ / Bright ^^f Attention grabbing /

Exciting ^^ / Communicates benefits /

Original ^^f Intriguing ^^ / Memorable /

df = 158 Total number of subjects: 160.

* p<0.05 **p<0.01 m = males have higher mean score than females / = females have higher mean score than males

On the other hand, the female college students had more positive reactions than the male college students in response to the special-effects format and slice-of-life format questions. In general, in the responses to the special-effects format, the females scored higher than the males in the dimension of stimulation, on situation dynamism in the dimension of how the product is communicated, and in the dimension of the way the message is put across. In slice-of-life format responses, the females gave higher scores than males on the dimension of stimulation.

43

Marital Status According to the results of t-tests, there is no statistically significant difference in format preferences between the single and married groups. More than 95% of the subjects were single. The difference between the total number of people in the married group and the total number of people in the single group was too extreme to permit comparison. Race The ethnic background question includes five selections for the subjects to choose from. The five selections are African-American/Black, Asian/Pacific Rim, CaucasianAVhhe, Hispanic/Latino, and other. Two types of test were conducted to investigate the differences in format preference between the groups. First, raw data were used to run ANOVA to present detailed information about the groups' differences. Second, the raw data was reorganized into two groups: Caucasians and non-Caucasians; t-tests were used to compare the differences between these two groups. The reason for this re-grouping was that the number of people in the original groups were too modal; almost 90% of the subjects were Caucasians and about 10% of the subjects were from other ethnic backgrounds. ANOVA ANOVA was conducted for comparing differences among five ethnic groups. The difference among the total number of people in each group was unlike; thus, significant resuhs could not be generalized. However, several interesting resuhs were found and these findings are presented as follows. Song-and-dance is the format about which the subjects have significantly different responses among ethnic groups. The 44

Afiican-Americans scored higher in several song-and-dance elements than did other ethnic groups. According to the information in Table 9 and Appendix I, AfricanAmericans reported that the song-and-dance format was interesting, watchable, exching, and relevant to the viewer. On the other hand, the Caucasian group scored lowest on the same song-and-dance elements.

t-test

As can be seen in Table 9 and Appendix I, the significant differences between the Caucasian group and the non-Caucasian group arefi"omtheu- song-and-dance and testimonial format responses. The non-Caucasian group scored higher preferences than the Caucasian group on the elements: interesting, watchable, bright, attention grabbing, amusing, exciting, relevant to viewer, and intriguing in song-and-dance format, and on the element: relevant to viewer in testimonial format. Table 9: ANOVA and t-test significantly different elements in format by race ANOVA
Song-and-dance format
Interesting b

t-test
Song-and-dance format
Interesting ^^ n Watchable n

Testimonial format
Relevant to viewer n

Watchable ^^b Amusing Exciting o b

Bright ^^ n Attention grabbing Exciting n n

Relevant to viewer ^^ b Intriguing o

Relevant to viewo- ^^n Intriguing n

* p<0.05 df= 4/155 (ANOVA) df= 158 (t-test) Total number of subjects: 160.
fxO.Ol

b = African-American/Blacks have higher mean score than other ethnic groups o = other ethnic group has higher mean score than other ethnic groups n = non-Caucasian group has higher mean score than Caucasian group

45

Age To investigate group differences in preferences according to age, both ANOVA and a t-test were used. Detailed resuhs of the original information are presented by using ANOVA. The t-tests are used after re-grouping the age groups into two groups and then comparing the group differences. The break-even point for this re-grouping is the age on the fiftieth percentile, which is age 21. Therefore, the subjects who are age 21 or younger and the subjects who are older than age 21 are the two new groups for running t-tests. ANOVA There are fifteen groups in the age variable. The total numbers of people for each age group were not similar. The significant results could not properly represent the true differences among the groups. However, several of the groups consisted of just one or two respondents, the results are not presented. t-test The element 'relevant to product' in the special-effect format is the only significantly different item in terms of format preference for the re-grouping. The subjects who were older than 21 years scored higher in the element 'relevant to product' in the special-effects format than did the subjects who were 21 years old or younger (t=3.07,df=158,p<01).

46

Table 10: The t-test significantly different elements in format by age t-test Special-effects format
Relevant to product o

df= 158 (t-test) Total number of subjects: 160.

* p<0.05 **p<0.01 o = age older than 21 group has higher mean score than other age groups

Academic Major The differences according to subjects' academic majors are presented by using the resuhs of ANOVA and t-tests. The ANOVA was conducted for running the raw data, and the t-test for re-grouping data (Restaurant, Hotel, & Institutional Management majors and non-RHIM majors). ANOVA Even though several significant differences resulted, the findings of the format preference based on academic major cannot be generalized. The reason for this was that the difference among the total number of people in each academic major group was unlike. Therefore, the resuhs of ANOVA are not presented here because of small numbers in several of the groups. t-test The subjects in the RHIM major tended to score higher than the non-RHIM majors on the elements: 'exciting' and 'intriguing' in narrative format, on the elements: 'relevant to viewer', 'communicates benefits', 'credible', and 'memorable' in slice-of-life, and on the elements: 'bright' and 'intriguing' in testimonial format (Table 11 and Appendix K). 47

Table 11: The t-test significantly different elements in format by academic major
Narrative format
Exciting ^ r Intriguing r

t-test Slice-of-life format

Relevant to viewer Communicates benefits r r

Testimonial format
Bright ^ r Intriguing ^^ r

Credible ^^ r Memorable r

df= 158 (t-test) Total subjects: 160.

* p<0.05 **p<0.01 r = RHIM major group has higher mean score than non-RHIM major group

Behavioral Differences in Format Preference The behavioral variables in the study are money spent on fast food, television usagefi"equency,hamburger consumptionfi*equency,and preference for fast food hamburger restaurants. Each variable will be discussed separately to address the differences in format preference between the groups. Money Spending on Fast Food There are twenty groups in the raw data for the 'money spent on fast food' variable. ANOVA was used for testing the differences among these groups. Detailed information on the ANOVA resuhs is in Appendix L. To test the differences, t-tests were conducted by selecting a middle point for re-grouping the raw data. The break-even point is on the fiftieth percentile, which represents people who spend an average of $20 on fast food in two weeks. In other words, the subjects who spend an average of $20 or less on fast food in two weeks are arranged in one group and the subjects who spend more than an average of $20 on fast food in two weeks are in the other group.

48

ANOVA The differences occur in subjects' responses to song-and-dance format and sliceof-life format. As shown in Table 12, the significant differences between these twenty groups are in the elements: 'interesting', 'intriguing', and 'memorable' in song-and-dance format, and on the elements: 'interesting', 'watchable', 'attention grabbing', and 'relevant to product' in slice-of-life format. Detailed information about these differences can be seen in Appendix L. There were several groups which only had one person, and therefore, these resuhs may not properly present real differences among the groups,. t-test Differences between the two groups in the subjects' responses to the sUce-of-life format can be observed in Table 12. The subjects who spend an average $20 or less on fast food in two weeks have more positive responses than the other group on the elements: 'interesting', 'watchable', 'bright', 'attention grabbing', and 'memorable' in the slice-of-life format. The groups responses on the elements: 'interesting' (t=2.59, df=158, p<.01) and 'watchable' (t=2.75, df=158, p<.01) are significantly different.

49

Table 12: ANOVA and t-test significantly different elements in format according to money spending on fast food ANOVA
Song-and-dance format
Interesting * Intriguing * Memorable *

t-test
Shce-of-life format
Interesting * Watchable

Shce-of-life format
Interesting /

Watchable ^^ / Bright ^/

Attention grabbing * Relevant to product *

Attention grabbing ^ / Memorable /

df= 20/139 (ANOVA) df = 158 (t-test) Total subjects: 160.

* p<0.05 **p<0.01 / =tiiegroup: people >\iio spend an average of $20 or less on fast food in two weeks has higher mean score than the group spending more than an average of $20 on fast food in two weeks Additional information is in Appendix L

Television Usage Frequency The middle point of daily television usagefi*equencywas 2.5 hours, and the range of daily television usage wasfi'om0 to 10 hours a day. There are sixteen groups in the raw data. The ANOVA was used for comparing the differences among these sixteen groups. Then, by using the middle point to divide the raw data into two new groups, ttests were conducted to examine their differences. ANOVA Sixteen groups are included in the daily television usage frequency variable. Table 13 provides the resuhs of ANOVA for a basic look at the significantly different elements in the special-effects format and slice-of-life format. The groups responded differently to the element: 'communicates benefits' in special-effects format, and on the elements: 'attention grabbing', 'amusing', and 'intriguing' in slice-of-life format. Detailed information is displayed in Appendix M, and this information may not appropriate to be generalized. The reason for this is that the difference of total number of people among 50

the groups was unlike. The resuhs could be biased by a single response. In other words, several television usage groups only included one person, and h is not proper to compare a person's response to a group's responses.

t-test When the raw data is re-grouped, the results from t-tests are different from the resuhs in the previous ANOVA findings. In the t-tests, the significantly different elements arefi'omthe subjects' responses to the narrative format and the testimonial format. Basically, the people who watch television more than 2.5 hours a day demonstrate more positive reaction than people who watch television 2.5 hours or less a day on 'amusing' and 'credible' in the narrative format and on 'clever', 'attention grabbing', 'amusing', and 'original' in testimonial format (Table 13). Table 13: t-test significantly different elements in format according to television usage fi-equency ANOVA
Special-effects format
Communicates benefits *

t-test
Narrative format
Amusing Credible m m

Slice-of-life format
Attention grabbing ** Amusing * Intriguing *

Testimonial format
Clever Attention grabbing Amusing m m m

Original ^^ m

df= 16/140 (ANOVA) df= 155 (t-test) Total number of subjects: 160.

* p<0.05 **p<0.01 m = the group: people vAio watch television more than 2.5 hours a day has higher mean score tlian the group: people who watch television 2.5 hours or less a day Additional information is in Appendix M.

Hamburger Consumption Frequencv The frequency of weekly hamburger consumption ranges from 0 to 7. Half of the subjects reported that they purchased hamburgers once or less a week. ANOVA was

51

used to run the raw data in order to see the original group differences. After dividing the raw data into two by using the middle point, t-tests were conducted to compare the group differences. ANOVA The resuhs of ANOVA showed significantly different responses, which are presented in Table 14 and Appendix N. Several elements in the narrative format and testimonial format that the subject responded to showed significant differences. These findings may not truly represent the groups' differences; however, this information can serve as an inhial look at the raw data. t-test In general, the subjects who frequently purchase hamburgers (more than once a week) score higher than the non-fi-equent hamburger purchasers (once or less a week) on the elements: 'relevant to viewer' and 'intriguing' in the song-and-dance format, and on elements: 'interesting', 'relevant to viewer', and 'memorable' in the testimonial format (Table 14 and Appendix N). Table 14: ANOVA and t-test significantly different elements in format by hamburger consumption frequency ANOVA
Narrative format
Memorable *

t-test
Song-and-dance format
Relevant to viewer ^ m Intriguing ^^ m

Testimonial format
Interesting * Amusing * Relevant to viewa- **

Testimonial format
Interesting Relevant to viewer Memorable m m m

df= 11/147 (ANOVA) df= 157 (t-test) Total number of subjects: 159.

* p<0.05 *p<0.01 m = the group: people >\iio purchase burger more than once a week has higher mean score than the group: people who purchase burger once or less a week Additional information is in Appendix N.

52

Preference for Fast Food Hamburger Restaurant ANOVA and t-tests were conducted to examine the format preference differences in hamburger restaurant preference. First, by using the hamburger restaurant ranking information, each of five hamburger restaurants were given five different responses (l=least favored to 5=most favored). ANOVA was conducted examine differences in format preference based on different degree of preference for a restaurant. Then, t-tests were used to test the group differences in format preference by re-grouping the subjects based on whether the subjects liked the restaurant best or not in the case of each restaurant. ANOVA in Hamburger Restaurant Preference Table 15 is a summary of the significantly different format preference responses in relation to hamburger restaurant preference. Detailed information is displayed in Appendix O. According to the information in Table 15, the subjects who indicated Burger King as their favored restaurant had more positive responses than other groups on several song-and-dance format elements and an element in the testimonial format. The song-and-dance advertisement used in the present study was produced by Burger King Corporation. The subjects who chose Hardee's as their less favored hamburger restaurant gave higher scores than other groups on two elements in the special-effects format, and on five elements in the slice-of-life format. The significant differences in relation to McDonald's were the 'exching' element in the song-and-dance format and on the 'memorable' element on both the song-and-dance and the special-effect formats.

53

The significantly different responses to questions showing preference for Wendy's were 'watchable', 'exching', and 'memorable' in the special-effects format, and on the element 'credible' in the testimonial format; in those cases, the people who ranked Wendy's as then- favored restaurant had higher mean scores than other groups. People who indicated Whataburger as their most favored restaurant had more positive reactions than other groups on the elements: 'watchable' and 'intriguing' in the slice-of-life format, and on almost all the elements in the testimonial format. The testimonial format used in the present study was produced by the Whataburger corporation. On the other hand, people who ranked Whataburger as their least favored hamburger restaurant gave higher scores than other groups on several elements in the song-and-dance format and narrative format.

54

Table 15: ANOVA significantly different elements in format by hamburger restaurant preference ANOVA
Burger King Song-and-dance
Interesting Clever Watchable Attention grabbing Exciting Relevant to viewer Credible 5 2 4 3 4 4 4

Hardee's Special-effects
Watchable * Amusing Credible 2 4 2

McDonald's Song-and-dance
Exciting * Memorable 3 5

Wendy's Special-effects
Watchable Exciting * Memorable 4 4 4

Whataburger Song-and-dance
Interesting Watchable Exciting * 1 1 1

Special-effects Shce-of-life
Interesting * Bright * Commonicates 2 benefits * Original 2 Intriguing 2 2 2 Memorable 3

Testimonial
Credible * ]

Narrative
Intriguing 1

Slice-of-life
Watchable Intriguing * 3 3

Testimonial
Credible * 4

Testimonial
Relevant to product ** 5

Testimonial
Clever Watchable Bright * Attention grabbing * Amusing Exciting * Relevant to viewer * Intriguing Memorable *<* 3 * 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

df= 4/154 (ANOVA) Total number of subjects: 159.

Additional information is in Appendix O.

* p<0.05 p<0.01 1= least favored answer group has higher mean score than other groups
2= less favored answer group has higher mean score than other groups 3= neutral answer group has higher mean score than other groups 4= favored answer group has higher mean score than other groups 5= most favored answer group has higher mean score than other groups

Hamburger Restaurant Preference t-test There is no statistical difference in format preference between the groups who liked Burger King the best and who did not. The college students who did not like

55

several elements in the song-and-dance format, the special-effects format, and the testimonial or the slice-of-life format. The subjects who liked Whataburger the best scored higher on the testimonial format than the people who did not like Whataburger the best (Table 16 and Appendix P). Table 16: t-test significantly different elements in format by hamburger restaurant preference
t-test
Burger King None Hardee's Song-and-dance
Bright * Relevant to viewer Original * n Memorable * n Exciting * b b Amusing * n

McDonald's Song-and-dance
Interesting b

Wencfy's Song-and-dance
Interesting n n

Whataburger Shce-of-life
Watchable
0

Special-effects
Watchable Bright Attention grabbing * n * Orignial ^ Intriguing * Amusing n

Special-effects
Amusing * Memorable * b b

Special-effects
Memorable * n

Testimonial
Clever Watchable b b b b * b b Relevant to viewer b b b * b Original Intriguing Meimrable

Testimonial Slice-of-life
Watchable Watchable Amusing n Relevant to viewer n *

Bright Attention grabbing Amusing Exciting

Testimonial Slice-of-life
Interesting * Bright Communicates benefits * Original * Intriguing n n ^ n Interesting * n

df= 157 (t-test) Total number of subjects: 159. Additional information is in Appendix P.

p<0.05 p<0.01 b= beheving the restaurant is the best group has higher mean score than the other groups n= not believing the restaurant is the best group has higher mean score than the other groups

56

Research Ouestion Two Research question two asks if the most preferred format provides the strongest motivation in customers' purchase intentions. Using the format ranking information from Table 7, the findings of the most preferred format and purchase intentions can be discussed. A hypothesis was developed under the second research question to address the differences in individuals' purchase intentions based on format preferences. ANOVA and t-tests were conducted to address this hypothesis. Finally the relationships among brand, format, and purchase intention are discussed in order to clarify the brand effect and advertisement format effect on individuals' purchase intentions. The Most Preferred Format and Purchase Intentions Individuals' most preferred format is shown in Table 17. The second research question is addressed using this information and conducting ANOVA on purchase intention questions. Table 7 presents the resuhs of ANOVA of individuals' most preferred format and their responses to purchase intention questions. According to the information in Table 17 and Appendix Q, h is statistically significant that the subjects who ranked song-and-dance as their most preferred format are more likely to eat a hamburger in Burger King or in Wendy's after watching the advertisement (F=3.89, df=4/148, p<.01). The subjects who preferred the special-effects format the most were more likely motivated by the advertisement for the burger in McDonald's than the people who preferred the other formats (F=2.45, df=4/148, p<.05). The respondents who preferred the slice-of-life format the most were more willing to buy the burger in Wendy's after watching the advertisement (F=3.36, df=4/148, p<.01). College students whose most preferred format was the testimonial were more likely to be 57

motivated by the advertisement for the burger, and were more likely to buy and eat the burger in Whataburger after watching the advertisement. The subjects who most preferred the format of the testimonial were more likely to be motivated by the advertisement for the burger, and more likely to make their next purchase in Wendy's after watching the testimonial advertisement. Table 17: ANOVA significantly different elements among the most preferred hamburger television advertisement formats and purchase intentions for each restaurant The most preferred hamburger television advertisement format
ANOVA - df = 4/148
Purchase intention The ad makes the subject want the burger Willingto buy the burger after watchingthe ad Willingto eat the burger after watdiingthe ad Willingto make next purdiase after watching the ad SD . . . SE T SL SD 7 T T T .

Restaurant

Burger King Hardee's McDonald's Wendy's Whatabuger

Tctol number of samples = 1 5 4 Tested formats: song-and-dance (SD), narrative (N), special-effects (SE), slice-of-hfe (SL), testimonial (T) The producer for the tested formats: SD (BUI^CT King), N (Hardee's), SE (McDonald's), SL (Wendy's), T (Whataburger) SD^ song-and-dance, the most preferred format groi^, has higher mean score than other groups SE= special-effects, the most prefored format group, has hi^er mean score than other groups SL= slice-of-life, the most preferred format group, has higher mean score than other groups T= testimonial, the most preferred format group, has hi^er mean score than ctho' groups *p,0.05, *p<0.01

Purchase Intention Differences in Format Preference In this segment, ANOVA and t-tests were conducted to address differences in purchase intentions according to format preference. First, the resuhs of ANOVA are presented to compare different format preference degree groups' responses to purchase intention questions for each format across five restaurants. Second, the differences in purchase intention responses between the people who like the format the best and the people who do not are discussed for each format in relation to each restaurant.

58

ANOVA of Purchase Intention in Relation to Format Preference Responses show five different reactions (5= most favored to l=least favored) on each format in Table 7. The differences in format preference in relation to purchase intention questions for each restaurant can be found. The resuhs are in Table 18 and Appendix R. According to the information in Table 18 and Appendix R, the subjects who have a poshive preference for the song-and-dance format (for Burger King restaurant) respond more positively to all four purchase intention questions under Burger King and the first two purchase intention questions under Wendy's. The subjects who indicated narrative as their favored format (for Hardee's restaurant) responded more poshively on all four purchase intention questions under Hardee's. People who liked the special-effects format (for McDonald's restaurant) were more motivated by the ad for McDonald's burger and were more willing to make their next purchase at Wendy's. People who liked the sliceof-life format (for Wendy's restaurant) showed more positive purchase intentions towards Wendy's and Whataburger products. Additionally, people who liked the testimonial format (for Whataburger restaurant) showed more positive purchase intentions toward Whataburger products. On the other hand, people who didn't like the testimonial format showed more positive purchase intentions toward Burger King products.

59

Table 18: ANOVA significantly different elements in format preference in relation to purchase intention for each restaurant
Format preference ANOVA - df = 4/148
Purchase intention The ad makes the subject want the burgo**^^ **^i ^^N4
^^5

Restaurant Burger King Hardee's McDonald's Wendy's Whataburger

**^05

^ 3 **^'

Willingto buy the burger after watdiing the ad

^N4

^SD5 ^SL2

^SL2

Willingto eat the burger afto* watdiing the ad

SD5

^N4

^SL3

^SL3

Willingto make next purchase after watdiing thiead

^^SD4

^N4

^^SE4

^^SD5

Total number of samples = 154 Tested formats: song-and-dance (SD), narrative (N), special-effects (SE), slice-of-life (SL), testimonial (T) The producer for the tested formats: SD (Burger King), N (Hardee's), SE (McDonald's), SL (Wendy's), T (Whataburger) Format preference groups: 5=most favored, 4=favored, 3=Tieiutral, 2=less favored, l=least favored *p,0.05, *p<0.01

Purchase Intention in Relation to Format Preference t-test Table 19 shows the resuhs of the t-test. The resuhs show there are significant differences between the people who like the format the best and those who do not on purchase intention questions for each restaurant. These findings are presented in Table 19 and Appendix S. Table 19 and Appendix S show that the responses to questions about subjects' purchase intentions tend to match the format and hs restaurant. For example, people were more willing to buy and eat Burger King's burgers after watching the song-anddance format Burger King presented. Subjects were motivated by the special-effects format for McDonald's burgers when they indicated McDonald's special-effects format was the best format of the five. The subjects who did not rank the special-effects format 60

the best tended to express more poshive purchase intentions toward Wendy's (slice-oflife format) and Whataburger (testimonial format) restaurants. Table 19: t-test significantly different elements in format preference in relation to purchase intention for each restaurant Format preference
t-test df= 158
Purdiase intention SE.b
^ ^

Restaurant

Burger King Hardee's McDonald's Wendy's Whatabuger

The ad makes the subject want the burger

SDJ)

SE.n
TJb

Willingto buy the burger after watchingthe ad

SE.n

SE.n ^^SLJ)

SE.n

TJ>
Willingto eat the burger after watchingthe ad SD.b SE.n SE.n

TJ>
SE.n

^^SE.n
^^SLJb

Ti>

Willingto make next purchase after watchingthe ad

N.n

SEJ>

Ti)

Total number of subjects = 158 Tested formats: song-and-dance (SD), narrative (N), special-effects (SE), slice-of-life (SL), testimonial (T) The producer for the tested formats: SD (Burger King), N (Hardee's), SE (McDonald's), SL (Wendy's), T (Whataburger) Groups: b= the best format; n = not the best format *p,0.05, *p<0.01

Brand, Format, and Purchase Intention According to the findings of the present study, individuals' purchase intentions may be influenced by brand, by advertisement format, or both. This section is addressed to the question of whether or not there are relationships among brand, advertisement format and individuals' purchase intentions. First, correlations among brand, format, and purchase intentions are presented. Second, the resuhs of a chi-square test conducted to examine the relationships among brand, format, and purchase intention are discussed.

61

Correlations among Brand. Format, and Purchase Intention Table 20 is a correlation table between fast food restaurant (brand) and advertisement format. There is a relationship between advertisement format and hs restaurant. People who liked the restaurant also liked the advertisement format that the restaurant company produced. However, the Pearson correlation values for this data set are not high; the highest value in this case is 0.25 on the correlation between the testimonial format and Whataburger restaurant. Table 20: Correlation between fast food restaurant preference and advertisement formats
Favored hamburger restaurant Restaurant - Burger King Pearson Correlation Sig. (24ailed) N Song-andNarrative dance format format (Burga-King) (Hardee's) 0.17 0.03 159 0.00 0.98 159 SpecialSlice-of-Ufe effects format format (McDonald's) (Wendy's) -0.12 0.15 159 -0.13 0.10 159 Testimonial format (Whataburger) 0.02 0.81 159

Restaurant - Hardee's

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-Uiled) N

-0.11 0.16 159 0.15 0.05 159

'0.21 0.01 159 -0.07 0.36 159

-0.07 0.35 159 0.13 0.10 159

-0.09 0.25 159 -0.05 0.51 159

0.02 0.85 159

Restaurant - McDonald's

Pearson Correlation Sig. (24ailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

-0.13 0.11 159 -0.18 0.02 159

Restaurant - Wendy's

-0.10 0.23 159 -0.16 0.04 159

-0.02 0.77 159 -0.05 0.50 159

0.12 0.12 159 -0.07 0.39 159

0.20 0.01 159

Restaurant - Whataburger

0.09 0.27 159

0.25 0.00 159

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Table 21 shows correlations among fast food restaurants and individual purchase intentions. There is a poshive relationship between fast food restaurants and purchase intentions. There is also a poshive correlation between advertisement formats and purchase intention (Table 22). The Pearson correlation values between advertisement 62

format and purchase intention are higher than the Pearson correlation values between restaurant and purchase intention. Table 21: Correlations between fast food restaurant preference and purchase intentions
Favored hamburger restaurant Restaurant - Burger King Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Purchase intention m Burger King 0.20 0.01 159 Purchase intention in Hardee's 0.02 0.79 159 Purdiase intention in McDonald's -0.08 0.29 159 Purchase intention m Wendy's -0.10 0.20 159 Purchase intention m Whataburgo0.02 0.84 159

Restaurant - Hardee's

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

-0.13 0.10 159 0.10 0.21 159

0.26 0.00 159

-0.08 0.29 159

-0.05 0.51 159

-0.14 0.07 159 -0.14 0.09 159

Restaurant - McDonald's

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

-0.15 0.06 159

0.13 0.10 159

-0.06 0.45 159

Restaurant - Wendy's

Pearson Correlation Sig. (24ailed) N

-0.07 0.36 159

-0.03 0.74 159

0.16 0.04 159

0.24 0.00 159

-0.14 0.08 159 0.34 0.00 159

Restaurant - Whataburger

Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N

-0.14 0.08 159

-0.03 0.69 159

-0.12 0.12 159

0.00 0.98 159

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

63

Table 22: Correlations between format and purchase intention

Favored hamburger TV ad format Song-and-dance format Burger King Purchase intention in Burgp'King Pearson Coirdation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-taiied) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 0.33 0.00 160 -0.02 0.80 160 -0.09 0.25 160 -0.21 0.01 160 -0.01 0.88 160 Purdiase intention in Hardee's -0.07 0.40 160 0.39 0.00 160 -0.24 0.00 160 0.00 1.00 160 -0.10 0.19 160 Purdiase intention m McDonald's -0.20 0.01 160 -0.06 0.45 160 0.32 0.00 160 0.08 0.31 160 -0.12 0.14 160 Purchase intention m Wendy's -0.24 0.00 160 -0.02 0.81 160 -0.04 0.61 160 0.40 0.00 160 -0.05 0.53 160 Purchase intention in Whataburger -0.22 0.01 160 -0.13 0.11 160 -0.20 0.01 160 0.03 0.75 160 0.57 0.00 160

Narrative format - Hardee's

Special-effects format McDonald's

Slice-of-life format Wendy's

Testimonial format Whataburger

Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Chi-Square Test of Brand. Format, and Purchase Intention Both brand and advertisement format are correlated with individuals' purchase intentions. A chi-square test was conducted to clarify brand effect and format effect on purchase intention. The raw data are rearranged for this treatment. The rearrangement is presented as follows. Fkst, format ranking information was used. Then, the people who scored favored and most favored answers were grouped in a 'liked commercial' group and the people who gave other answers were grouped in the 'did not like commercial' group. Second, the restaurant ranking information was used. Then, the people who gave answers of'favored' and 'most favored' for the restaurant were grouped and people who gave another answer were grouped into the 'not favored' restaurant group. Finally, the

64

subjects who marked their purchase intention answer 'agree' or 'strongly agree' were selected for a chi-square test. Table 23: Significantly different responses to purchase intention question on brand and format effects according to chi-sqube tests Purchase intention in Whataburger
t-test -df= (2-1X2-1) WiUingto buy the burger after watchingthe ad Likedad Did not like ad Liked brand 22 19 Did not likedbrand t-value 15 33 4.57 Sig. 0.05^

Even though the brand and advertisement format may influence individuals' purchase intentions, the resultsfi'omthe chi-square test show that only one item was significantly different in peoples' responses (Table 23 and Appendix T). According to the result of the chi-square in Table 23, h is statistically significant that people who were willing to buy Whataburger's burgers after watchmg a testimonial format advertisement either liked the testimonial format and Whataburger restaurant or did not like the testimonial format and Whataburger restaurant. In addhion, the testimonial format was the most purchase motivating format for the college students. Therefore, h can be seen that peoples' purchase intentions were motivated by ehher the format and the restaurant or neither the format nor the restaurant.

65

CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS

The study findings are discussed in this section. First, a summary of the study resuhs are presented. Then, the implications and the limhations of the study are discussed. Finally, several suggestions are made for future research. Summary One hundred and sixty college students participated in this study. The subjects were made up of 52.75% females and 42.25% males of an average age of 21.78. Almost 90% of the subjects were single Caucasians and a Restaurant, Hotel, & Institutional Management major. The college students reported spending an average of $27.46 on fast food every two weeks and eating a hamburger at least once a week. In addhion, these students reported watching an average three hours of television every day. Wendy's is the restaurant that the college students liked the best for purchasing hamburgers. Generally, the students gave neutral or agree responses on television advertisement perceptions of advertising value, information, entertainment, deceptiveness, and urhation. Addhionally, most college students in the sample like hamburgers and do not particularly like or dislike hamburger television advertisements. Research Question One The subjects reported that the special-effects format is the one of the five that is the most effective in presenting hamburgers in television advertisements, and the format of song-and-dance was the least effective of the five. 66

Hvpothesis One The male college students responded more poshively to the narrative format; special-effects and slice-of-life formats were more desirable to the females. The songand-dance format was more appealing to the non-Caucasians, especially the AfiicanAmericans. Hvpothesis Two The students who spent an average of $20 or less on fast food over two weeks preferred the slice-of-life format more than the students who spent more on fast food. 'Amusing' was the element that was considered the most enticing in advertisement formats by the subjects who watched 2.5 hours of television a day. The people who purchased hamburgers more than once a week had poshive reactions to the testimonial format. The college students who liked Burger King, McDonald's, and Wendy's gave more poshive responses to the song-and-dance format and the special-effects format. The slice-of-life format and testimonial format were more appealing to the subjects who liked Whataburger, but not the song-and-dance format or the narrative format. The students who did not like Hardee's liked the song-and-dance format, the special-effects format, and the slice-of-life format.

Research Question Two The testimonial format is the one of the five formats that would most Hkely motivate the college students in their purchase intentions.

67

Hvpothesis One The subjects who ranked song-and-dance as then- most preferred format were more likely to eat a hamburger in Burger King and in Wendy's after watching these advertisements. The subjects who preferred the special-effects format the most were more likely to be motivated by the advertisement for the burger in McDonald's. The respondents who preferred the slice-of-life format the most were more willing to buy a burger in Wendy's after watching the advertisement. The college students whose most preferred format was the testimonial were more likely to be motivated by the advertisement for the burger, and were more likely to buy and eat the burger in Whataburger after watching the advertisement. The subjects who most preferred the testimonial format were more likely to be motivated by the advertisement for the burger, and are were likely make their next purchase in Wendy's after watching the advertisement. The subjects who expressed positive preferences for the song-and-dance format tended to have poshive purchase intentions toward Burger King and Wendy's. The narrative format worked on peoples' purchase intentions for Hardee's. People who liked the special-effects format were more motivated by the advertisement for McDonald's burger and were more willing to make then- next purchase at Wendy's. People who liked the slice-of-life format expressed more poshive purchase intentions toward Wendy's and Whataburger products. People who liked the testhnonial format expressed more poshive purchase intentions toward Whataburger products; on the other hand, people who did not like the testimonial format expressed more poshive purchase intentions toward Burger King's products. The college students' purchase intentions appeared to be influenced by

68

brands and advertisement formats. When the subjects answered the questions, they tended to link the format and the restaurant represented by the format. Implications The purpose of the study was to examine favorite formats in hamburger television advertisements in order to assist companies in effectively communicating whh their target audiences and to motivating those audiences to purchase products. The main findings of the study are as follows. College students appear to prefer the special-effects format for presenting hamburgers in television advertisements. The testimonial format in television advertisement seems to motivate college students' purchase intentions on hamburgers more than other formats. Implications of the study are presented in the following paragraphs which discuss use segmentation information, establishment of business image and individual purchase motivation, in relation to brand and format effects. Use Segmentation Information Format preferences differ according to different demographic/behavioral groups. For example, the song-and-dance format is more desirable to African-Americans than to other ethnic groups. Even though the sample size of the African-Americans category consisted of only five subjects in the study, this finding may be a consideration for restaurants in designing marketing strategies based on different ethnic groups. Female college students liked special-effects and slice-of-life format more than male college students; male college students preferred the narrative format. This information may help companies attract different segment groups.

69

Different formats may work better for certain hamburger restaurants in motivating more consumption. For example, the subjects who ranked song-and-dance as theu^ most preferred format were more likely to eat a hamburger in Burger King and Wendy's after watching the advertisement. Hamburger restaurants may consider this information in the development of their marketing strategies to target consumption groups. Establishment of Business Image and Individual Purchase Motivation According to the college students' responses, the most preferred format and the most purchase-motivating format were different. Hamburger restaurants may use the most preferred television advertisement format (special-effects) to deliver their business image and product information. Therefore, the messages may be processed more carefiilly by the audiences because the message presentation is delivered in the way the audiences prefer the most. Thus, hamburger restaurants may successfially deliver their product information and may reinforce the audiences' perceptions of the restaurants using special-effects format. The most motivating format in terms of purchase intentions was the testimonial. The testimonial format can be targeted to attract havy hamburger users since this format influenced purchase intentions the most. However, hamburger restaurants may benefit from the resuhs of using both formats. Consideration of Brand and Format Effects Hamburger businesses keep growing based on repeat customers and on customers' increasing consumption frequencies. Brand and television advertisement format affect individuals' purchase intentions. However, h is hard to distinguish whether or not the brand effect is more important than the format effect for customer shopping in hamburger restaurants. 70

With ever-increasing competition, it is becoming more important for hamburger restaurants to know then- customers. The establishment of a good business image and effective conmiunication whh customers are necessary. In addhion, effective communication may contribute positively to brand images and may influence individuals' purchase behaviors. Limhations There are several limhations in the present study. First, the study uses a convenience sample. Therefore, the results cannot be generalized to a larger population and the study may contain unknown errors. Additionally, the study formats cannot be generalized to all television advertisement formats. Second, several tested groups had an uneven number of subjects; thus, comparison of resuhsfromthese groups may not truly represent group differences. Third, each study subject had to answer 116 questions in a questionnaire. The questions may have been too much for the subjects so that some of the subjects did not complete the questionnaire or reacted negatively to the questionnaire. Moreover, the subjects may have felt tired or hungry after watching five television advertisements, but three sets of random taping stimuli were used to reduce these biases. Fourth, the demonstration format is not investigated in this study. However, not all television advertisement formats are appropriate to present hamburgers. The demonstration format is rarely to be used for presenting hamburgers.

Suggestions for Future Research There are three suggestions forfiitureresearch. First, related studies may expand the sample size, use random samples, and use all six television advertisement formats for better generalization. Second, the issue of brand effect and format effect on individuals' 71

purchase intentions might need more clarification. Future research may address format and brand effect on purchase intentions. Third,fiitureresearch may focus on different segments to address the same topic for exploring new markets.

72

REFERENCES

Aab, L., Johnson, W. J., & Lohtia, R. (1995). Building relationship through advertising. Marketing Management. 4(1). 32-38 Abbey, J. K. (1993). Hospitalhy sales and advertising. (2"^ ed.). East Lansing, Michigan: American Hotel & Motel Association. AdvertisingAge: 1999 - Ad age dataplace: top markets: US [Electronic data tape]. Available: http://adage.com/dataplace/topmarkets/us.html Arens, W. F. (1999). Contemporary advertising. (7^ ed). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Biel, L., & Bridgwater, C. A. (1990). Attributes of likable television commercials. Journal of Advertising Research. June/Julv. 38-44. Burger King Corporation. (1999). Live action, new logo take center stage. [Electric data tape]. Available: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/990804/fl_burger_l .html Burnett, J., & Moriarty, S. (1998). Introduction to marketing communications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentices-Hall, Inc. Belch, A. J., & Belch, V. D. (1994). The narrative paradigm as a perspective for improving ethical evaluations of advertisement. Journal of Advertising. 23(3). 3141. Chawla, S. K., Dave, D. S., & Barr, P. B. (1994). Role of physical attractiveness in endorsement: an empirical study. Journal of Professional Services Marketing. 10(2), 203-215. Christopher, M. (1986). Fast food TV's hunger for ad dollars. Advertising Age. 57(15). 32. Davis, J. J. (1997). Advertising research: Theorv and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Davis, B., Lockwood, A., & Stone, S. (1998). Food and Beverage Management. (3"* ed). Stoneham, MA:Butterworth-Heinemann. Dittmer, P. R., & Griffin, G. G. (1997). Dimensions of the hosphalitv industrv : An introduction. (2"^ ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Ducoflfe, R. H. (1995). How customers assess the value of advertising. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising. 17(1), 1-18.
73

Fletcher, A. D., & Bowers, T. A. (1988). Fundamentals of advertising research. (3^*^ ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Food Marketing Review: 1998 Foodservice Sales, by Industry Segment [Electronic data tape]. (1999). Gallo, A. E.: ERS, Food Markets Branch [Producer and Distributor]. Gom, G. J. (1982). The effect of music in advertising on choice behavior: a classical condhioning approach. Journal of Marketing. 46(4). 94-101. Homer, P. M., & Yoon, S. G. (1992). Messageframingand the interrelationships among ad-based feelings, affect, and cognition. Journal of Advertising. 21(1), 19-33. Hume, S. (1985). Fast-food "Dinosaur" on attack: from celebs to McSnack, Mac's Back. Advertising Age. 56(5). 3,67-68 Kamins, M. A., Brand, M. J., Hoeke, S. A., & Moe, J C. (1989). Two-sided versus onesided celebrity endorsements: the impact on advertising effectiveness and credibility. Journal of Advertising. 18(2). 4-10. Kardes, F. R. (1999). Consumer behavior: Managerial decision making. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman, Inc. Kavanoor, S., Grewal, D., & Blodgett. J. (1997). Ads promoting OTC Medications: the effect of ad format and credibility on belief, attitudes, and purchase intentions. Journal of Business Research. 40.219-227 Khan, M. A. (1992). Restaurantfranchising.New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Krugman, H. E. (1965). The impact of television advertising: learning whhout involvement. Public Opinion Ouarteriv. 29(3). 349-356. La Barbera, P., Weingard, P., & Yorkson, E. A. (1998). Matching the message to the mind: advertising imagery and consumer processing styles. Journal of Advertising Research. Sep./Oct.. 29-42. Leather, P., McKechnie, S., & Amirkhanian, M. (1994). The importance of likeability as a measure of television advertising effectiveness. International Journal of Advertising. 13. 265-280. Liddle, A. (1999). NRN Top 100 - overview. Nation's Restaurant News. 33(4). Maynard, M. L. (1998). "Slice-of-life": a persuasive mini drama in Japanese television advertising. Communication Abstracts. 21(6), 131-142

74

McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement process. Journal of Consumer Research. 16 Dec, 310-321. Nelson, R. P. (1994). The design of advertising. (7^ ed). Dubuque, Iowa: WCB Brown & Benchmark. Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising. 19(3). 39-52. Ohanian, R. (1991). The impact of celebrity spokespersons' perceived image on consumers' intention to purchase. Journal of Advertising Research. 31(2). 46-54. Olsen, G. D. (1994). Observations: the sounds of slice:fiinctionsand use of silence in television advertising. Journal of Advertising Research. 34(5). 89-95. O' Mahony, S., & Meenaghan, T. (1998). The impact of celebrity endorsements on consumers. Irish Marketing Review-Dublin. 10(2). 15-24. Padgett, D. & Allen, D. (1997). Communicating experiences: a narrative approach to creating service brand image. Journal of Advertising. 26(4). 49-62. Park, C. W., & Young, M. (1986). Consumer response to television commercials: the impact of involvement background music on brand attitude formation. Journal of Marketing Research. 23 Feb, 11-24. Peracchio, L. A., Meyers-Levy, J. (1997). Evaluating persuasion-enhancing techniques from a resource-matching perspective. Journal of Consumer Research. 24 Sep., 187-191. Peter, J. P., & Olson, J. C. (1998). Consumer behavior and marketing strategy. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill. Powers, T. (1995). Introduction to management in the hosphalhy industry. (5^ ed.) New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sawyer, P. W. (1995). Ads that win vs. ads that work. American Demographics. Mar/Apr. 4-10. Tellis, G. J. (1998). Advertising and sales promotion strategv. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley Longman, Inc. TuU, D. S., & Hawkins, D. I. (1990). Marketing research: Measurement and method. (5^ ed.)._New York: MacMillian Publish Company.

75

Vaughn, R. (1980). How advertising works: A planning model. Journal of Advertising Research. 20(5). 27-33. Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (1999). Mass media research. (6*^ ed). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Zuber, A. (1998). Highlighting NHL sponsorship is goal of new Wendy's campaign. Nation's Restaurant News. 35(2). 14.

76

APPENDDC A FAST FOOD HAMBURGER TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENT FORMAT QUESTIONNAIRE

77

FAST FOOD HAMBURGER TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENT FORMAT QUESTIONNAIRE

Instructions: The following statements are about your opinion of TV advertising. Please answer each statement by circling if you STRONGLY DISAGREE, DISAGREE, are NEUTRAL, AGREE or STRONGLY AGREE whh the statement.
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree strongly agree

1. TV advertising is not valuable. 2. 3. TV advertising is useful. TV advertising is not important.

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D

N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA

4. TV advertising provides timely information on products. 5. TV advertisements tell people about products when they need the information. 6. TV advertisements supply relevant information on products. 7. TV advertisements are entertaming. 8. TV advertisements are enjoyable. 9. TV advertisements are not pleasing 10. TV advertisements are not deceptive. 11. TV advertisements are lies. 12. Facts about products are left out of TV advertisements. 13. TV advertismg is not uritatmg. 14. Advertisements insult people's mtelligence. 15. There is too much TV advertising. 16. I Uke hamburgers. 17. I like hamburger TV advertisements.

78

Instructions: Keeping in mind the commercial you have just seen, please answer each of the following statements by circling if you STRONGLY DISAGREE, DISAGREE, are NEUTRAL, AGREE or STRONGLY AGREE whh the statement.
strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strrai^y agree

1. This advertisement is interesting 2. 3. This advertisement is not clever. This advertisement is watchable.

SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD

D D D D D D D D D

N N N N N N N N N

A A A A A A A A A

SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA SA

4. This advertisement is bright. 5. This advertisement is attention grabbing 6. This advertisement is amusing 7. This advertisement is not exciting 8. This advertisement has relevance to me. 9. This advertisement communicates product benefits. 10. This advertisement is relevant to the hamburger. 11. This advertisement is original. 12. This advertisement is intriguing. 13. This advertisement is credible. 14. This advertisement is not memorable. 15. This advertisement makes me want this hamburger. 16. After watchmg this advertisement I would be willing to buy a hamburgerfromthis restaurant. 17. After watching this advertisement I would be willing to eat a hamburgerfromthis restaurant. 18. After watching this advertisement I am more likely to go to this restaiuant for my next fast food purchase.

SD
SD SD SD SD SD

D
D D D D D

N
N N N N N A A A A A

SA
SA SA SA SA SA

SD

SA

SD

SA

SD

SA

79

Instructions The following questions are for classification purposes only; all answers are confidential and completely anonymous. 1. What is your gender? ^Male ^Female 2. What is your marital status? Single ^Married 3. Which of the following categories best fits your ethnic background? African-American/Black ^Asian/Pacific Rim Caucasian/White ^Hispanic/Latino _Other 4. How old are you? 5. Approximately how much on average do you spend on fast food every 2 weeks?
$

6. My TTU academic major is: 7. How many times a week do you eat hamburgers at a fast food restaurant? 8. Approximately how many hours of television do you watch on an average day? 9. Please rank the following fast food hamburger restaurants from 1= MOST FAVORITE to 5 = LEAST FAVORITE: Burger King Hardee's McDonalds Wendy's Whataburger

80

APPENDDC B CODING SHEET

81

CODING SHEET

Instructions: The following statements are about your opinion of TV advertising. Please answer each statement by circling if you STRONGLY DISAGREE, DISAGREE, are NEUTRAL, AGREE OR STRONGLY AGREE with the statement.
Strongly disagree Disagree! Neutral Agree strongly agree

1. TV advertising is not valuable. 2. TV advertising is useftil. 3. TV advertising is not important. 4. TV advertismg provides timely information on products. 5. TV advertisements tell people about products when they need the informatioa 6. TV advertisements supply relevant information on products. 7. TV advertisements are entertaining. 8. TV advertisements are enjoyable. 9. TV advertisements are not pleasing 10. TV advertisements are not deceptive. 11. TV advertisements are hes. 12. Facts about products are left out of TV advertisements. 13. TV advertising is not irritating. 14. Advertisements insult people's mteUigence. 15. There is too much TV advertismg. 16. I Uke hamburgers. 17. I Uke hamburger TV advertisements.

SD(5;) SD(i;) SD(5;) sD(i:) sD(i:) SD(i;) SD(i;) SD(i;1 SD(5;) SD(5;) SD(1J) SD(1^) SD(5:) SD(1]I SD(i;1

D(4;1 D(2]1 D(4] D(2)) D(2)1 D(2)1 D(2]1 D(2)1 D(4]1 D(4]> D(2) 1 D(2) D(4]1 D(2]) D(2]1 D(2]1 D(2;1

N(3;) N(3;) N(3;) N(3J )

N(3:1 N(3]1 N(3]) N(3]1 N(3;1

A(2;) A(431 A(2]1 A(4]1 A(4) A(4) A(4) A(4) A(2)1 A(2) A(4) 1 A(4)1 A(2]1 A(4)I A(4]1 A(4:) A(4;)

SA(1) SA(5) SA(1) SA(5) SA(5) SA(5) SA(5) SA(5) SA(1) SA(1) SA(5) SA(5) SA(1) SA(5) SA(5) SA(5) SA(5)

N(3)1
N(3])

N(3]1
N(3;)

N(3; 1 N(3;) N(3;) N(3;)

SD(r ) SD(r )

82

Instructions: Keeping in mind the commercial you have just seen, please answer each of the following statements by circling if you STRONGLY DISAGREE, DISAGREE, are NEUTRAL, AGREE OR STRONGLY AGREE with the statement.
strong disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

1. This advertisement is interesting 2. This advertisement is not clever. 3. This advertisement is watchable. 4. This advertisement is bright. 5. This advertisement is attention grabbing 6. This advertisement is amusing 7. This advertisement is not exciting 8. This advertisement has relevance to me. 9. This advertisement communicates benefits. 10. This advertisement is relevant to the hamburger. 11. This advertisement is original. 12. This advertisement is intriguing. 13. This advertisement is credible. 14. This advertisement is not memorable. 15. This advertisement makes me want this hamburger. 16. After watching this advertisement I would be willing to purchase a hamburgerfromthis restaurant. 17. After watching this advertisement I would be willing to eat a hamburgerfromthis restaurant. 18. After watching this advertisement I am more likely to go to this restaurant for my next fast food purchase.

SD(1) SD(5) SD(1) SD(1) SD(1) SD(1) SD(5) SD(1) SD(1) SD(1) SD(1) SD(1) SD(1) SD(5) SD(1) SD(1)

D(2) D(4) D(2) D(2) D(2) D(2) D(4) D(2) D(2) D(2) D(2) D(2) D(2) D(4) D(2) D(2)

N(3) N(3) N(3) N(3) N(3) N(3) N(3) N(3) N(3) N(3) N(3) N(3) N(3) N(3) N(3) N(3)

A(4) A(2) A(4) A(4) A(4) A(4) A(2) A(4) A(4) A(4) A(4) A(4) A(4) A(2) A(4) A(4)

SA(5) SA(1) SA(5) SA(5) SA(5) SA(5) SA(1) SA(5) SA(5) SA(5) SA(5) SA(5) SA(5) SA(1) SA(5)

SA(5)

SD(1)

D(2)

N(3)

A(4)

SA(5)

SD(1)

D(2)

N(3)

A(4)

SA(5)

83

Instructions The following questions are for classification purposes only; all answers are confidential and completely anonymous. 1. What is your gender? _Male (0) ^Female (1) 2. What is your marhal status? _Single (0) ^Married (1) 3. Which of the following categories best fits your ethnic background? African-American/Black (0) Caucasian/White (1) ^Hispanic/Latino (2) Asian/Pacific Rim (3) _Other (4) 4. How old are you? 5. Approximately how much on average do you spend on fast food every 2 weeks?
$

6. My TTU academic major is: 7. How many times a week do you eat hamburgers at a fast food restaurant? 8. Approximately how many hours of television do you watch on an average day? 9. Please rank the following fast food hamburger restaurants from 1= MOST FAVORITE to 5 = LEAST FAVORITE: Burger King McDonalds Sonic Wendy's Whataburger

84

APPENDIX C FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE OF THE VALUES OF TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENT, HAMBURGER, AND HAMBURGER TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENTS

85

Table 24: Frequency and percentage of the values of television advertisement, hamburger, and hamburger television advertisements
Television advertisement value Advertising value
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

Frequency (%)

Valuable
2 (1.30%) 6 (3.70%) 4 (2.50%) 65 (40.60%) 83(51.90%)

Useful
1 (0.60%) 1 (0.60%) 6 (3.70%) 95 (59.40%) 57 (35.60%)

Important 2 (1.30%) 2 (1.30%) 11 (6.90%) 94 (58.80%) 51(31.90%)

Advertising information
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

Providing timely Providing Providing relevant information information when information needed
0 (0.00%) 11 (6.90%) 31(19.40%) 99(61.90%) 19(11.90%) 2 (1.30%) 24(15.00%) 44 (27.50%) 81 (50.60%) 9 (5.60%) 3 (1.90%) 11 (6.90%) 45(28.10%) 98(61.30%) 3 (1.90%)

Advertising entertainment
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

Entertaining 1 (0.60%) 9 (5.60%) 38 (23.80%) 93(58.10%) 19(11.90%)

Enjoyable 3 (1.90%) 25(15.60%) 71 (44.40%) 51(31.90%) 10 (6.30%)

Pleasing
0 (0.00%) 15 (9.40%) 61 (38.10%) 79 (49.40%) 5 (3.10%)

Advertising deceptiveness
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

Deceptive 1 (0.60%) 10 (6.30%) 44 (27.50%) 90 (56.30%) 15 (9.40%)

Lie
7 (4.40%) 59 (36.90%) 72 (45.00%) 21(13.10%) 1 (0.60%)

Important facts are left out

1 (0.60%) 8 (5.00%) 39 (24.40%) 96 (60.00%) 16(10.00%) Too much advertising 0 (0.00%) 14 (8.80%) 28 (17.50%) 91 (56.90%) 27 (16.90%)

Advertising irritation
Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

Irritating 0 (0.00%) 25(15.60%) 60 (37.50%) 69(43.10%) 6 (3.80%)

Insult people's intelligence

5 (3.10%) 74 (46.30%) 51(31.90%) 29(18.10%) 1 (0.60%)

Hamburger & Hamburger television advertisement

Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

Likeability of hamburger
9 (5.60%) 8 (5.00%) 8 (5.00%) 87 (54.40%) 48 (30.00%)

Likeability of hamburger
television advertisement 3 (1.90%) 27 (26.90%) 83(51.90%) 45(28.10%) 2 (1.30%)

Total

160

86

APPENDDC D MEAN, MODE, AND STANDARD DEVL\TION OF THE RESPONSE TO FAST FOOD HAMBURGER TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENT FORMATS IN RELATION TO TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENT EFFECTIVENESS AND PURCHASE INTENTION

87

Table 25: Mean, mode, and standard deviation of the response to fast food hamburger television advertisement formats in relation to television advertisement effectiveness and purchase intention
Song*and-dance Mean (Mode) Television advertisement effectiveness 2.65 Commo-cial in geno^l 2.66 Stimulating 2.68 Interesting 2.47 (2) Clevo2.81 (2) Watchable 2.54(2) Bri^ 2.78 (4) Attention grabbing 3.10(4) Amusing 2.59 (2) Exciting 2.45 (2) General rdevanoe 2.60 Relevant to viewa2.28 (2) Communicate s benefits 2.68 (2) Relevant to product 2.83 (4) SD Narrative Mean (Mode) 2.77 2.79 2.87 2.57(2) 3.00 (4) 3.36 (4) 3.01 (2) 2.87 (2) 2.74 (2) 2.58 (2) 2.60 2.31 (2) 2.42 (2) 3.08 (4) SD Special-effects Mean (Mode) 3.49 3.45 3.76 3.71 (4) 3.66 (4) 3.94 (4) 3.94 (4) 3.79 (4) 3.86 (4) 3.43 (4) 2.85 2.99 (3) 2.89 (2) 2.66 (2) SD Slice-of-life Mean (Mode) 2.94 3.01 2.96 2.98 (4) 3.08 (4) 3.35 (4) 3.17(4) 2.84 (2) 2.68 (2) 2.64 (2) 3.13 3.07 (4) 3.26 (4) 3.05 (4) 2.87 2.80 3.10(4) 2.64 (2) 2.72 (2) 2.84 (2) 2.68 (2) 3.06 3.07 (4) 3.05 (4) 2.94 3.39 (4) 2.72 (2) 2.72 (2) 2.68 (2) 3.17(4) 0.98 0.92 0.86 1.01 0.95 SD Testimonial Mean (Mode) 2.99 3.153 2.97 2.98 (2) 3.04 (2) 3.41(4) 3.06 (4) 2.98 (2) 2.71 (2) 2.58 (2) 3.58 3.07 (4) 3.55 (4) 4.11(4) 3.05 2.84 3.21 (4) 2.58 (2) 2.74 (2) 2.98 (2) 2.71 (2) 3.59 0.93 3.07 (4) 1.09 4.11(4) 2.95 3.37 (4) 2.87 (2) 2.74 (2) 2.71 (2) 3.06 (2) 1.01 0.87 0.92 1.01 0.95 0.97 0.74 SD

1.14 1.21 1.18 1.25 1.18 1.16 0.98 1.07 1.24 1.28

0.98 0.96 0.95 0.91 0.98 3.40 0.89 0.89 1.04 1.21

0.92 0.95 0.72 0.73 0.93 0.86 0.99 1.09 1.05 1.10

1.07 1.00 0.93 0.94 1.01 0.95 0.92 0.93 1.08 1.09

0.95 1.00 0.88 0.92 1.01 0.95 0.87 0.97 1.06 0.74

The way the product is communicated 2.66 2.76 3.42 Situation dynamism 2.70 2.78 3.66 Original 3.06 (4) 1.10 3.17(4) 1.00 3.78 (4) 0.88 Exciting 2.45 (2) 0.98 2.58 (2) 0.89 3.43 (4) 0.99 Intriguing 2.29 (2) 0.99 2.55 (2) 0.81 3.45 (4) 0.92 Attention grabbing 3.10(4) 1.18 2.87 (2) 0.98 3.79 (4) 0.93 Amusing 2.59 (2) 1.16 2.74 (2) 3.40 3.86 (4) 0.86 Context relevance 2.56 2.70 2.83 Relevant to viewa2.28 (2) 1.07 2.31 (2) 0.89 2.99 (3) 1.09 Relevant to product 2.83 (4) 1.28 3.08 (4) 1.21 2.66 (2) 1.10 The way the message is put across Credible Memorable Intriguing Amusing Bri^ 2.64 2.68 (3) 2.84 (2) 2.29 (2) 2.59 (2) 2.78 (4) 2.77 2.86 (2) 2.69 (2) 2.55 (2) 2.74 (2) 3.01 (2) 3.60 3.38 (4) 3.36 (4) 3.45 (4) 3.86 (4) 3.94 (4)

1.04 1.14 0.99 1.16 1.25

0.92 0.96 0.81 3.40 0.91

0.89 1.10 0.92 0.86 0.73

0.88 0.95 0.86 0.95 0.94

0.88 1.00 0.92 0.95 0.92

Purdiase intention 2J3 The ad makes the subject want the 2.06(2) burger Willingto buy the burger after watching 2.48(2) the ad Willingto eat the burgo-afta-watching 2.58(2) the ad Willingto make next purchase after 2.21(2) watching the ad Total number of subjects = 160

2.53 0.92 2.56(2) 1.12 2.61(2) 1.10 2.68(2)

2.61 2.91 1.06 2.40(2) 0.95 2.77(2) 1.07 2.66(2) 1.11 2.77(2) 1.09 3.02(4) 1.09 3.06(4) 1.06 2.81(2)

3.13 1.01 3.08(4) 1.07 3.28(4) 1.08 3.26(4) 1.04 2.90(2)

1.14 1.07 1.09 1.04

0.96 2.28(2) 0.95 2.63(2)

Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

88

APPENDIX E FREQUENCIES AND PERCENTAGES FOR SONG-AND-DANCE FORMAT, NARRATIVE FORMAT, SPECIAL-EFFECTS FORMAT, SLICE-OF-LIFE FORMAT, AND TESTIMONIAL FORMAT IN TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENT EFFECTIVENESS

89

Table 26: Frequencies and percentages for song-and-dance format, narrative format, special-effects format, slice-of-life format, and testimonial format in television advertisement effectiveness
Song-and-dance format (Burger King) Strongly Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Frequency and percentage Disagree (1) Agree (5) Television advertisement effectiveness Commercial in general Stimulating Interesting Clever Watchable Bright Attention grabbing Amusing Exciting General relevance Relevant to viewer Commimicates benefits Relevant to product The way the product is communicated Situation dynamism Original Exciting Intriguing Attention grabbing Amusing Context relevance Relevant to viewer Relevant to product The way the message is put across Credible Memorable Intriguing Amusing Bright Total number of subjects =160
strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

33 (20.6%) 22 (13.8%) 33 (20.6%) 30(18.8%) 20 (12.5%) 30 (18.8%) 22 (13.8%) 41 (25.6%) 33 (20.6%) 31 (19.4%)

65 (40.6%) 57 (25.6%) 57 (35.6%) 46 (28.8%) 36 (22.5%) 59 (39.6%) 77(48.1%) 64 (40,0%) 47 (29.4%) 43 (26.9%)

20 (12.5%) 23 (14.4%) 27(16.9%) 25 (15.6%) 20 (12.5%) 21 (13.1%) 29(18.1%)

38 (23.8%) 46 (28.8%) 36 (22.5%) 48 (30.0%) 76 (47.5%) 46 (28.8%) 31 (19.4%)

4(2.5%) 12 (7.5%) 7 (4.4%) 11(6.9%) 8 (5.0%) 4 (2.5%) 1 (0.6%) 4 (2.5%) 9 (5.6%) 11 (6.9%)

29(18.1%) 22 (13.8%) 27 (16.9%) 44 (27.5%) 19(11.9%) 56 (35.0%)

15 (9.4%) 22 (13.8%) 34(21.3%) 20 (12.5%) 30 (18.8%) 41 (25.6%) 41 (25.6%)

41 (25.6%) 77(48.1%) 71 (44.4%) 36 (22.5%) 59 (39.6%) 64 (40,0%) 64 (40,0%)

30(18.8%) 29(18.1%) 31 (19.4%) 20 (12.5%) 21 (13.1%)

68 (42.5%) 31 (19.4%) 22 (13.8%) 76 (47.5%) 46 (28.8%)

6 (3.8%) 1 (0.6%) 2 (1.3%) 8 (5.0%) 4 (2.5%) 4 (2.5%) 4 (2.5%)

29(18.1%) 22 (13.8%) 29(18.1%) 22 (13.8%)

27(16.9%) 14 (8.8%) 34(21.3%) 30(18.8%) 30(18.8%)

37(23.1%) 64 (40.0%) 71 (44.4%) 59 (39.6%) 46 (28.8%)

57 (35.6%) 26 (16.3%) 31 (19.4%) 21 (13.1%) 25(15.6%)

38 (23.8%) 1 (0.6%) 45(28.1%) 11(6.9%) 22 (13.8%) 2(1.3%) 46 (28.8%) 4 (2.5%) 48 (30.0%) 11 (6.9%)

90

Table 26. Continued

Narrative format (Hardee's) Frequency and percentage Television advertisement effectiveness Commercial in general Stimulating Interesting Clever Watchable Bright Attention grabbing Amusing Exciting General relevance Relevant to viewer Communicate s benefits Relevant to product The way the product is communicated Situation dynamism Original Exciting Intriguing Attention grabbing Amusing Context relevance Relevant to viewer Relevant to product The way the message is put across Credible Memorable Intriguing Amusing Bright Total number of subjects =160

Strongly Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (1) Agree (5)

17 (10.6%) 5(3.1%) 6 (3.8%) 2(1.3%) 7 (4.4%) 12 (7.5%) 8 (5.0%) 23 (14.4%) 25 (15.6%) 18(11.3%)

72 (45.0%) 54 (33.8%) 33 (20.6%) 55 (34.4%) 63 (39.4%) 89 (55.6%) 86 (53.8%) 85 (51.3%) 81 (20.0%) 44 (27.5%)

36 (22.5%) 41 (25.6%) 22 (13.8%) 48 (30.0%) 39 (24.4%) 30(18.8%) 33 (20.6%)

33 (20.6%) 56 (35.0%) 96 (60.0%) 50(31.3%) 46 (28.8%) 26(1.3%) 32 (20.0%)

2 (1.3%) 4(2.5%) 3(1.9%) 5(3.1%) 5(3.1%) 1 (0.6%) 1 (0.6%) 2(1.3%) 3 (1.9%) 13(8.1%)

33 (20.6%) 17(10.6%) 19(11.9%) 32 (20.0%) 18(11.3%) 67(41.9%)

6 (3.8%) 8 (5.0%) 9 (5.6%) 7 (4.4%) 12 (7.5%) 23 (14.4%) 18(11.3%)

44 (27.5%) 86 (53.8%) 77(48.1%) 63 (39.4%) 89 (55.6%) 85(51.3%) 44 (27.5%)

34(21.3%) 33 (20.6%) 52 (32.5%) 39 (24.4%) 30(18.8%)

69(43.1%) 32 (20.0%) 21 (13.1%) 46 (28.8%) 26(1.3%)

7 (4.4%) 1 (0.6%) 1 (0.6%) 5(3.1%) 1 (0.6%) 2(1.3%) 13(8.1%)

33 (20.6%) 17(10.6%) 18(11.3%) 67(41.9%)

8(1.5%) 7 (4.4%) 9 (5.6%) 7 (4.4%) 12 (7.5%)

54 (33.8%) 82(51.3%) 77(48.1%) 63 (39.4%) 89 (55.6%)

53(33.1%) 28 (17.5%) 52 (32.5%) 39 (24.4%) 30(18.8%)

43 (26.9%) 40 (25.0%) 21 (13.1%) 46 (28.8%) 26(1.3%)

2(1.3%) 3(1.9%) 1 (0.6%) 5(3.1%) 1 (0.6%)

Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

91

Table 26. Continued

Special-effects format (McDonald's) Frequency and percentage Television advertisement effectiveness Commercial in general Stimulating Interesting Clever Watchable Bright Attention grabbing Amusing Exciting General relevance Relevant to viewer Communicate s benefits Relevant to product The way the product is communicated Situation dynamism Original Exciting Intriguing Attention grabbing Amusing Context relevance Relevant to viewer Relevant to product The way the message is put across Credible Memorable Intriguing Amusing Bright Total number of subjects = 160

Strongly Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (1) Agree (5)

2 (1.3%) 4 (2.5%) 1 (0.6%) 1 (0.6%) 2(1.3%) 1 (0.6%) 4 (2.5%) 12 (7.5%) 10 (6.3%) 20 (12.5%)

22 (13.8%) 24 (15.0%) 8 (5.0%) 5(3.1%) 17(10.6%) 15 (9.4%) 32 (20.0%) 45(28.1%) 60 (37.5%) 68 (42.5%)

20(12.5%) 12 (7.5%) 16 (10.0%) 27 (16.9%) 26 (16.3%) 20(12.5%) 31 (19.4%) 50(31.3%) 35(21.9%) 22 (13.8%)

93(58.1%) 103 (64.4%) 110(68.8%) 97 (60.6%) 83(51.9%) 93(58.1%) 78 (48.8%) 39 (24.4%) 48 (30.0%) 46 (28.8%)

23 (14.4%) 17(10.6%) 25 (15.6%) 30 (28.8%) 32 (20.0%) 31 (19.4%) 15(9.4%) 14 (8.8%) 7 (4.4%) 4 (2.5%)

3 (1.9%) 4 (2.5%) 2(1.3%) 2 (1.3%) 1 (0.6%) 12 (7.5%) 20(12.5%)

15(9.4%) 32 (20.0%) 26 (16.3%) 17(10.6%) 15(9.4%) 45(28.1%) 68 (42.5%)

20 (12.5%) 31 (19.4%) 46 (28.8%) 26 (16.3%) 20(12.5%) 50(31.3%) 22 (13.8%)

98(61.3%) 78 (48.8%) 70 (43.8%) 83(51.9%) 93(58.1%) 39 (24.4%) 46 (28.8%)

24(15.0%) 15 (9.4%) 16 (10.0%) 32 (20.0%) 31 (19.4%) 14(8.8%) 4 (2.5%)

2(1.3%) 6 (3.8%) 2(1.3%) 1 (0.6%) 1 (0.6%)

25(15.6%) 38 (23.8%) 22 (13.8%) 15 (9.4%) 5(3.1%)

56 (35.0%) 30(18.8%) 20 (12.5%) 20 (12.5%) 27(16.9%)

64 (40.0%) 65 (40.6%) 93(58.1%) 93(58.1%) 97 (60.6%)

13 (8.1%) 21 (13.1%) 23 (14.4%) 31(19.4%) 30 (28.8%)

Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

92

Table 26. Continued

SUce>of-Ufe format (Wendy's) Frequency and percentage Television advertisement effectiveness Commercial in general Stimulating Interesting Clever Watchable Bright Attention grabbing Amusing Exciting General relevance Relevant to viewer Communicate s benefits Relevant to product The way the product is communicated Situation dynamism Original Exciting Intriguing Attention grabbing Amusing Context relevance Relevant to viewer Relevant to product The way the message is put across Credible Memorable Intriguing Amusing Bright Total number of subjects =160

Strongly Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (1) Agree (5)

14(8.8%) 7 (4.4%) 5(3.1%) 4(2.5%) 9 (5.6%) 12 (7.5%) 9 (5.6%) 5(3.1%) 8 (5.0%) 8 (5.0%)

48 (30.0%) 46 (28.8%) 32 (20.0%) 42 (26.3%) 63 (39.4%) 68 (42.5%) 79 (49.4%) 43 (26.9%) 39 (24.4%) 57 (35.6%)

29(18.1%) 66(41.3%) 41 (25.6%) 59 (36.9%) 29(18.1%) 90 (56.3%) 42 (26.3%) 67(41.9%) 37(23.1%) 46 (28.8%) 41 (25.6%) 37(23.1%) 34(21.3%) 37(23.1%) 53(33.1%) 30 (18.8%) 23 (14.4%) 54 (33.8%) 69(43.1%) 63 (39.4%)

3 (1.9%) 7 (4.4%) 4 (2.5%) 5(3.1%) 5(3.1%) 2 (1.3%) 1 (0.6%) 5(3.1%) 14(8.8%) 9 (5.6%)

6 (3.8%) 9 (5.6%) 7 (4.4%) 9 (5.6%) 12 (7.5%) 5(3.1%) 8 (5.0%)

47 (29.4%) 79 (49.4%) 65 (40.6%) 63 (39.4%) 68 (42.5%) 43 (26.9%) 57 (35.6%)

36 (22.5%) 34(21.3%) 56 (35.0%) 37(23.1%) 41 (25.6%) 53(33.1%) 23 (14.4%)

67(41.9%) 37(23.1%) 30(18.8%) 46 (28.8%) 37(23.1%) 54 (33.8%) 63 (39.4%)

4 (5.0%) 1 (0.6%) 2(1.3%) 5(3.1%) 2(1.3%) 5(3.1%) 9 (5.6%)

2(1.3%) 8 (5.0%) 7 (4.4%) 12 (7.5%) 4 (2.5%)

30 (18.8%) 74 (46.3%) 65 (40.6%) 68 (42.5%) 42 (26.3%)

38 (23.8%) 36 (22.5%) 56 (35.0%) 41 (25.6%) 42 (26.3%)

84 (52.5%) 39 (24.4%) 30(18.8%) 37(23.1%) 67(41.9%)

6 (3.8%) 3(1.9%) 2(1.3%) 2(1.3%) 5(3.1%)

Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

93

Table 26. Continued

Testimonial format (Whataburger) Frequency and percentage Television advertisement effectiveness Commercial in general Stimulating Interesting Clever Watchable Bright Attention grabbing Amusing Exciting General relevance Relevant to viewer Communicate s benefits Relevant to product The way the product is communicated Situation dynamism Original Exciting Intriguing Attention grabbing Amusing Context relevance Relevant to viewer Relevant to product The way the message is put across Credible Memorable Intriguing Amusing Bright Total number of subjects =160

Strongly Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (1) Agree (5)

6 (3.8%) 5(3.1%) 4 (2.5%) 1 (0.6%) 3 (2.9%) 8 (5.0%) 6 (3.8%) 6 (3.8%) 4 (2.5%) 2(1.3%)

51(31.3%) 57 (35.6%) 25(15.6%) 54 (33.8%) 64 (40.0%) 73 (45.6%) 88 (55.0%) 46 (28.8%) 30(18.8%) 5 (3.1%)

48 (30.0%) 50(31.3%) 30(18.8%) 63 (39.4%) 37(23.1%) 89 (55.6%) 46 (28.8%) 53(33.1%) 36 (22.5%) 47 (29.4%) 40 (25.0%) 35 (21.9%) 36 (22.5%) 28 (17.5%) 45(28.1%) 57 (35.6%) 27 (16.9%) 72 (45.0%) 8 (5.0%) 103 (64.4%)

5(3.1%) 5(3.1%) 5(3.1%) 6 (3.8%) 10 (6.3%) 4 (2.5%) 2(1.3%) 6 (3.8%) 27 (16.9%) 42 (26.3%)

4 (2.5%) 6 (3.8%) 6 (3.8%) 3 (2.9%) 8 (5.0%) 6 (3.8%) 2(1.3%)

43 (26.9%) 88 (55.0%) 71 (44.4%) 64 (40.0%) 73 (45.6%) 46 (28.8%) 5 (3.1%)

42 (26.3%) 36 (22.5%) 45(28.1%) 36 (22.5%) 40 (25.0%)

58 (36.3%) 28 (17.5%) 34(21.3%) 47 (29.4%) 35 (21.9%)

13 (8.1%) 2(1.3%) 4 (2.5%) 10 (6.3%) 4 (2.5%)

45(28.1%) 57 (35.6%) 6 (3.8%) 8 (5.0%) 103 (64.4%) 42 (26.3%)

5(3.1%) 6 (3.8%) 6 (3.8%) 8 (5.0%) 1 (0.6%)

22 (13.8%) 68 (42.5%) 71 (44.4%) 73 (45.6%) 54 (33.8%)

48 (30.0%) 32 (20.0%) 45 (28.1%) 40 (25.0%) 46 (28.8%)

79 (49.4%) 49 (30.6%) 34(21.3%) 35 (21.9%) 53(33.1%)

6 (3.8%) 5(3.1%) 4 (2.5%) 4 (2.5%) 6 (3.8%)

Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

94

APPENDIX F FREQUENCIES AND PERCENTAGES FOR SONG-AND-DANCE FORMAT, NARRATIVE FORMAT, SPECIAL-EFFECTS FORMAT, SLICE-OF-LIFE FORMAT, AND TESTIMONIAL FORMAT IN RELATION TO PURCHASE INTENTION

95

Table 27: Frequencies and percentages for song-and-dance format, narrative format. Special-effects format, slice-of-life format, and testimonial format in relation to purchase intention

Frequency and percentage

Purchase intention Song-and-dance format The ad makes the subjea want the burger Willingto buy the burger after watchingthe ad Willing to eat the burgo-after watdiing the ad Willingto make next purchase afto-watchingthe ad Purchase intention Narrative format The ad makes the subject want the burger Willingto buy the burger after watdiing the ad Willing to eat the burgo-after watdiing the ad Willing to make next purdiase after watching the ad Purchase intention Special-effects format The ad makes the subject want the burgs' Willingto buy the burger after watchingthe ad Willingto eat the burger after watching the ad Willing to make next purchase afto- watching the ad Purchase intention Slice-of-life format The ad makes the subject want the burger Willingto buy the burger after watchingthe ad Willingto eat the burga* after watching the ad Willingto make next purchase afta- watchingthe ad Purchase intention Testimonial format The ad makes the subject want the burger Willingto buy the burger after watchingthe ad Willingto eat the burgo* after watchingthe ad Willingto make next purchase after watchingthe ad Total number of subjects = 160

Strongly Disagree (2) Neutral (3) Agree (4) Strongly Disagree (1) Agree (5)
42(26.3%) 33(20.6%) 29(18.1%) 36(22.5%) 84(52.5%) 59(36.9%) 56(35.0%) 77(48.1%) 18(11.3%) 14(8.8%) 30(18.8%) 34(21.3%) 31(19.4%) 42(26.3%) 25(15.6%) 21(13.1%) 2(1.3%) 4(2.5%) 2(1.3%) 1(0.6%)

20(12.5%) 23(14.4%) 24(15.0%) 29(18.1%)

73(45.6%) 60(35.7%) 55(34.4%) 80(50.0%)

32(20.0%) 28(17.5%) 38(23.8%) 34(21.3%) 35(21.9%) 41(25.6%) 34(21.3%) 12 (7.5%)

7(4.4%) 5(3.1%) 5(3.1%) 5(3.1%)

23 (14.4%) 22 (13.8%) 21 (13.1%) 21 (13.1%)

75 (46.9%) 59 (36.9%) 49 (30.6%) 62 (38.8%)

42 (26.3%) 15 (9.4%) 36 (22.5%) 37(23.1%) 42 (26.3%) 42 (26.3%) 39 (24.4%) 32 (20.0%)

5(3.1%) 6 (3.8%) 6 (3.8%) 6 (3.8%)

11(6.9%) 10 (6.3%) 10 (6.3%) 12 (7.5%)

64 (40.0%) 52 (32.5%) 50(31.3%) 58 (36.3%)

43 (26.9%) 31 (19.4%) 30(18.8%) 49 (30.6%)

7 (4.4%) 35(21.9%) 59 (36.9%) 8 (5.0%) 61 (38.1%) 9 (5.6%) 31 (19.4%) 10 (6.3%)

13(8.1%) 10 (6.3%) 10 (6.3%) 13(8.1%)

46 (28.8%) 35(21.9%) 37(23.1%) 49 (30.6%)

29(18.1%) 26 (16.3%) 26 (16.3%) 45(28.1%)

60 (37.5%) 12 (7.5%) 79 (49.4%) 10 (6.3%) 75 (46.9%) 12 (7.5%) 47 (29.4%) 6 (3.8%)

Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

96

APPENDIX G FREQUENCIES AND PERCENTAGES FOR SONG-AND-DANCE FORMAT, NARRATIVE FORMAT, SPECIAL-EFFECTS FORMAT, SLICE-OF-LIFE FORMAT, AND TESTIMONIAL FORMAT IN RELATION TO PURCHASE INTENTION

97

Table 28: Frequencies and Chi-square tests on television advertisement effectiveness by song-and-dance format, narrative format, special-effects format, slice-of-life format, and testimonial format in the positive response group
Frequency and Chi-square test df=4 Television advertisement effectiveness Commercial in general Stimulating Interesting Clever Watchable Bright Attention grabbing Amusing Exciting General relevance Relevant to viewer Communicate s benefits Relevant to product The way the product is communicated Situation dynamism Original Exciting Intriguing Attention grabbing Amusing Context relevance Relevant to viewer Relevant to product The way the message is put across Credible Memorable Intriguing Amusing Bright Total number of subjects = 160
Positive response: subjects who have format preference re^onses on answas 'favored' or 'most favored' Song-and- Narrative dance SpecialefTects Slice-of- TestimcMiial life

x'

Sig.

42 58 43 59 84 50 32 26 53 67

35 60 99 55 51 27 33 19 35 80

116 120 135 127 115 124 93 53 55 50

69 66 94 72 51 39 38 59 83 72

55 68 94 59 57 39 30 63 99 145

65.19 35.85 46.26 48.70 43.28 108.94 63.96 36.73 40.37 64.24

P<.01 P<.01 P<.01 P<.01 P<.01 P<.01 P<.01 P<.01 P<.01 P<.01

74 32 24 84 50 26 26

76 33 22 51 27 19 80

122 93 86 115 124 53 50

71 38 32 51 39 59 72

71 30 38 57 39 63 145

23.42 63.96 68.40 43.28 108.94 36.73 106.69

P<.01 P<.01 P<.01 P<.01 P<.01 P<.01 P<.01

39 56 24 50 59

45 43 22 51 27

77 86 116 124 127

90 42 32 39 72

85 54 38 39 59

33.05 22.58 134.03 85.10 77.57

P<.01 P<.01 P<.01 P<.01 P<.01

98

APPENDIX H SIGNIFICANT ELEMENTS IN FORMAT BY GENDER T-TESTS AND FULL T-TEST TABLES FOR SPECIAL-EFFECTS FORMAT AND SLICE-OF-LIFE FORMAT BY GENDER

99

Table 29: Significant elements in format by gender t-tests (with means, mean differences, and standard deviations) and full t-test tables for special-effects format and slice-of-life format by gender
Narrative format (Hardee's)
t-test (gender) -df=158 Interesting Communicates benefits

Gender
Male Female Male Female

N
74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%)

Mean
2.78 2.38 2.65 2.22

Meandif
0.40 0.43

SD
0.94 0.97 1.04 1.00

t-value
2.63 2.65

Sig.
0.01** 0.01**

Special-effects format (McDonald's)

t-test (gaider) -df=158 Interesting Clever Watchable Bright Attenticm grabbing Amusing Exciting Communicates benefits Original Intriguing Memorable

Gender
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

N
74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%)

Mean
3.47 3.91 3.36 3.91 3.69 4.15 3.69 4.15 3.45 4.08 3.59 4.09 3.20 3.62 2.69 3.06 3.58 3.95 3.26 3.62 3.12 3.56

Meandif
-0.44 -0.55 -0.46 -0.46 -0.63 -0.50 -0.42 -0.37 -0.37 -0.36 -0.44

SD
1.06 0.73 1.04 0.78 0.78 0.58 0.78 0.62 1.00 0.75 0.92 0.73 1.02 0.94 1.03 1.03 0.95 0.78 0.92 0.90 1.08 1.07

t-value
-3.04 -3.76 -4.29 -4.18 -4.58 -3.82 -2.67 -2.25 -2.72 -2.50 -2.56

Sig.
0.00** 0.00** 0.00** 0.00** 0.00** 0.00** 0.01** 0.03* 0.01** 0.01** 0.01 **

Slice-of-life format (Wendy's)

t-test (gender) -df=158 Into-esting Clever Watchable Bri^ Attention grabbing Exciting Relevant to viewer Credible Total number of subjects = 160 *P,0.05,, **p<0.01 Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4,, Strongly Agree = 5

Gender
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

N
74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%)

Mean
2.69 3.22 2.91 3.23 3.14 3.53 2.97 3.34 2.62 3.03 2.45 2.80 2.86 3.24 3.24 3.51

Meandif
-0.53 -0.32 -0.39 -0.37 -0.41 -0.35 -0.38 -0.27

SD
1.05 1.03 1.01 0.98 0.94 0.89 0.94 0.92 0.93 1.03 0.85 0.96 0.96 0.87 0.87 0.86

t-value
-3.23 -2.08 -2.76 -2.48 -2.64 -2.48 -2.63 -1.95

Sig.
0.00** 0.04* 0.01** 0.01** 0.01** 0.01 0.01** 0.05*

100

Table 29. Continued.

Special-effects format (McDonald's)

t-test (gender) -df=158 Television advertisement effectiveness Commercial in general Stimulating Interesting Clever Watchable Bright Attention grabbing Amusing Exciting relevance Relevant to viewer Communicates benefits Relevant to product The way the product is communicated Situation dynamism Original Exciting hitriguing Attention grabbing Amusing Context relevance Relevant to viewer Relevant to product The way the message is put across Credible Memorable Intriguing Amusing Bri^ Total number of subjects = 160 p,0.05, p<0.01 Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

Gender

Mean

SD

t-value

Sig.

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%)

3.47 3.91 3.36 3.91 3.69 4.15 3.69 4.15 3.45 4.08 3.59 4.09 3.20 3.62 2.82 3.13 2.69 3.06 2.50 2.80 3.58 3.95 3.20 3.62 3.26 3.62 3.45 4.08 3.59 4.09 2.82 3.13 2.50 2.80 3.30 3.45 3.12 3.56 3.26 3.62 3.60 4.09 3.69 4.15

1.06 0.73 1.04 0.78 0.78 0.58 0.78 0.62 1.00 0.75 0.92 0.73 1.02 0.94 1.08 1.08 1.03 1.03 1.09 1.09 0.95 0.78 1.02 0.94 0.92 0.90 1.00 0.75 0.92 0.73 1.08 1.08 1.09 1.09 0.93 0.85 1.08 1.07 0.92 0.90 0.92 0.73 0.78 0.62

-3.04 -3.76 -4.29 -4.18 -4.58 -3.82 -2.67 -1.77 -2.25 -1.75

0.00** 0.00** 0.00** 0.00** 0.00** 0.00** 0.01** 0.08 0.03* 0.08

-2.72 -2.67 -2.50 -4.58 -3.82 -1.77 -1.75

0.01** 0.01** 0.01** 0.00** 0.00** 0.08 0.08 0.27 0.01 0.01** 0.00** 0.00**

-1.11 -2.56 -2.50 -3.82 -4.18

101

Table 29. Continued.

Slice-of-life fonnat (Wendy's)

t-test (gender) -df=158 Television advertisement effectiveness Commercial in general Stimulating Interesting Clever Watdiable Bright Attrition grabbing Amusing Exciting General relevance Relevant to viewer Communicate s benefits Relevant to product The way the product is communicated Situation dynamism Original Exciting Intriguing Attention grabbing Amusing Context relevance Relevant to viewer Relevant to product The way the message is put aa-oss Credible Memorable Intriguing Amusing Bri^ Total number of subjects = 160 *P,,0.05, **p<0.01 Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

Gender

Mean

SD

t-value

Sig.

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%) 74 (46.25%) 86 (53.75%)

2.69 3.22 2.91 3.23 3.14 3.53 2.97 3.34 2.62 3.03 2.55 2.79 2.45 2.80 2.86 3.24 3.10 3.40 2.99 3.10 3.00 3.19 2.45 2.80 2.60 2.83 2.62 3.03 2.55 2.79 2.86 3.24 2.99 3.10 3.24 3.51 2.62 2.80 2.60 2.83 2.55 2.79 2.97 3.34

1.05 1.03 1.01 0.98 0.94 0.89 0.94 0.92 0.93 1.03 0.89 1.00 0.85 0.96 0.96 0.87 1.05 1.09 1.08 1.10 0.99 0.96 0.85 0.96 0.81 0.90 0.93 1.03 0.89 1.00 0.96 0.87 1.08 1.10 0.87 0.86 0.92 0.98 0.81 0.90 0.89 1.00 0.94 0.92

-3.23 -2.08 -2.76 -2.48 -2.64 -1.57 -2.48 -2.63 -1.84 -0.68

0.00** 0.04* 0.01** 0.01** 0.01** 0.12 0.01** 0.01** 0.07 0.49

-1.20 -2.48 -1.70 -2.64 -1.57 -2.63 -0.68

0.23 0.01** 0.09 0.01** 0.12 0.01** 0.49

-1.95 -1.20 -1.70 -1.57 -2.48

0.05* 0.23 0.09 0.12 0.01**

102

APPENDIX I SIGNIFICANT ELEMENTS IN FORMAT BY RACE ANOVA AND t-TESTS

103

Table 30: Significant elements in format by race ANOVA and t-tests (with means and Standard deviations)
Song-and-dance fonnat (Burger King) ANOVA (race) -df= 4/155 Race
Interesting

Mean

SD

Afiican-American/Black 5 (3.13%) 4.20 0.45 5.13 0.00** Asian/Pacific Rim 3 (1.88%) 3.67 0.58 Caucasian/White 143 (89.38%) 2.36 1.10 Hispanic/Latino 8 (5.00%) 2.75 1.16 other 1 (0.61%) 4.00 Watchable Afi-ican-American/Black 5 (3.13%) 4.20 0.84 3.65 0.01** Asian/Pacific Rim 3 (1.88%) 3.33 0.58 Caucasian/White 143 (89.38%) 2.45 1.16 Hispanic/Latino 8 (5.00%) 2.63 1.06 Other 1 (0.61%) 4.00 Amusing Afiican-American/Black 5 (3.13%) 3.80 1.30 2.61 0.04* Asian/Pacific Rim 3 (1.88%) 3.67 0.58 Caucasian/White 143 (89.38%) 2.52 1.14 Hispanic/Latino 8 (5.00%) 2.63 1.06 other 1 (0.61%) 4.00 Exciting African-American/Bladc 5 (3.13%) 4.00 0.71 5.07 0.00** Asian/Pacific Rim 3 (1.88%) 3.33 0.58 Caucasian/White 143 (89.38%) 2.35 0.94 Hispanic/Latino 8 (5.00%) 2.88 0.83 Otha1 (0.61%) 3.00 Relevant to viewer Afiican-American/Blade 5 (3.13%) 4.00 0.71 5.29 0.00** Asian/Pacific Rim 3 (1.88%) 3.67 0.58 Caucasian/White 143 (89.38%) 2.20 1.04 Hispanic/Latino 8 (5.00%) 2.13 0.64 other 1 (0.61%) 2.00 Intriguing African-American/Black 5 (3.13%) 3.60 0.55 3.33 0.01** Asian/Pacific Rim 3 (1.88%) 2.67 0.58 Caucasian/White 143 (89.38%) 2.23 0.98 Hispanic/Latino 8 (5.00%) 2.25 0.89 Otho1 (0.61%) 4.00 Total number of subjects =160 strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

104

Table 30. Continued.

Song-and-dance format (Burger King) t-test (race^ .df=158 Race

Interesting Watchable Bri^it Attention grabbing Amusing Exciting Relevant to viewer Intriguing Caucasian/White Non-Caucasian Caucasian/Wh ite Non-Caucasian Caucasian/White Non-Caucasian Caucasian/White Non-Caucasian Caucasian/White Non-Caucasian Caucasian/White Non-Caucasian Caucasian/White Non-Caucasian Caucasian/White Non-Caucasian

N
143 (89.37%) 17(10.63%) 143 (89.37%) 17(10.63%) 143 (89.37%) 17(10.63%) 143 (89.37%) 17 (10.63%) 143 (89.37%) 17 (10.63%) 143 (89.37%) 17(10.63%) 143 (89.37%) 17 (10.63%) 143 (89.37%) 17 (10.63%)

Mean
2.36 3.41 2.45 3.29 2.69 3.53 3.03 3.71 2.52 3.24 2.35 3.29 2.20 2.94 2.23 2.82

SD
1.10 1.06 1.16 1.10 1.25 1.01 1.21 0.69 1.14 1.15 0.94 0.85 1.04 1.09 0.98 0.95

t-value
-3.76 -2.85 -2.67 -2.26 -2.45 -3.94 -2.77 -2.36

Sig.
0.00** 0.01** 0.01** 0.02* 0.02* 0.00** 0.01 ** 0.02*

Testimonial format (Whataburger)

t-test (race^ - df = 158 Relevant to viewaTotal numbo- of subjects = 160 *p,0.05, **p<0.01 Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4,1 Strongly Agree = 5

Race

Mean
3.01 3.59

SD
0.98 0.80

t-value
-2.36

Sig.
0.02*

Caucasian/White 143 (89.37%) Non-Caucasian 17 (10.63%)

105

APPENDIX J SIGNIFICANT ELEMENTS IN FORMAT BY AGE t-TESTS

106

Table 31: Significant elements in format by age t-tests (with means and standard deviations)
Special-efTects format (McDonald's)
t-test (age)-df= 158 Relevant to product Total number of subjects = 160 *p,0.05, **p<0.01 Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5 Age 21 or younger order than 21 N 90(56.25%) 70 (43.75%)

Mean
2.43 2.96

SD
1.03 1.12

t-value
-3.07

Sig.
0.00**

107

APPENDIX K SIGNIFICANT ELEMENTS IN FORMAT BY ACADEMIC MAJOR t-TESTS

108

Table 32: Significant elements in format by academic major t-tests (with means and standard deviations)
Narrative fonnat (Hardee's)
t-test (major) -df= 158 Exciting Intriguing

Major
RHIM major Non-RHIM RHIM major Non-RHIM

N
151 (94.36%) 9 (5.64%) 151 (94.36%) 9 (5.64%)

Mean
2.61 2.00 2.58 2.00

SD
0.89 0.50 0.82 0.50

t-value
2.02 2.11

Sig. 0.04* 0.04*

Slice-of-life format (Wencfy's)

t-test (major) -df= 158 Relevant to viewaCommunicate s boiefits Credible Memorable

Major
RHIM major Non-RHIM RHIM major Non-RHIM RHIM major Non-RHIM RHIM major Non-RHIM

N
151 (94.36%) 9 (5.64%) 151(94.36%) 9 (5.64%) 151 (94.36%) 9 (5.64%) 151 (94.36%) 9 (5.64%)

Mean
3.11 2.44 3.30 2.56 3.43 2.67 2.77 1.89

SD
0.91 1.01 1.06 1.13 0.84 1.12 0.96 0.33

t-value
2.11 2.04 2.59 2.74

Sig.
0.04* 0.04* 0.01** 0.01**

Testimonial format (Whataburger)

t-test (major) -df= 158

Major
RHIM major Non-RHIM RHIM major Non-RHIM

N
151 (94.36%) 9 (5.64%) 151 (94.36%) 9 (5.64%)

Mean
3.09 2.44 2.79 2.00

SD
0.92 0.73 0.92 0.50

t-value
2.08 2.54

Sig.
0.04* 0.01**

Bri^
Intriguing Total number of subjects = 160

*p,0.05, **p<0.01 Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

109

APPENDIX L SIGNIFICANT ELEMENTS IN FORMAT BY MONEY SPENDING ON FAST FOOD ANOVA AND t-TESTS

110

Table 33: Significant elements in format by money spending on fast food ANOVA and ttests (with means and standard deviations)
Song-and-dance format (Burger King) ANOVA (money)-df= 20/139 money
Interesting
S .0.00 $ 0.00 S 3.00 S 4.00 $ 5.00 $ 7.00 S 10.00 S 13.00 $ 15.00 S 20.00 $ 25.00 $ 30.00 $ 35.00 S 40.00 $ 50.00 S 60.00 $ 70.00 $ 75.00 S 80.00 $ 100.00 S 120.00 $ 140.00 S .0.00 $ 0.00 S 3.00 $ 4.00 $ 5.00 $ 7.00 S 10.00 $ 13.00 $ 15.00 $ 20.00 $ 25.00 $ 30.00 $ 35.00 S 40.00 $ 50.00 S 60.00 $ 70.00 $ 75.00 S SO.OO $ 100.00 $ 120.00 S 140.00 S $ .0.00 0.00 $ 3.00 S 4.00 $ 5.00 $ 7.00 S 10.00 $ 13.00 $ 15.00 S 20.00 $ 25.00 S 30.00 $ 35.00 $ 40.00 $ 50.00 S 60.00 $ 70.00 $ 75.00 S 80.00 $ 100.00 $ 120.00 S 140.00

N
(2.50%) 4 (2.30%) 2 (1.25%) 1 (0.63%) 9 (5.63%) 2 (1.25%) 25(15.63%) 5 (3.13%) 19(11.88%) 35(21.88%) 10 (6.25%) 11 (6.88%) 2 (1.25%) 8 (5.00%) 10 (6.25%) 2 (1.25%) 1 (0.63%) 3 (1.88%) 1 (0.63%) 8 (5.00%) 1 (0.63%) 1 (0.63%) 4 (2.50%) (2.50%) 4 2 (1.25%) 1 (0.63%) 9 (5.63%) 2 (1.25%) 25 (15.63%) 5 (3.13%) 19(11.88%) 35(21.88%) 10 (6.25%) 11 (6.88%) 2 (1.25%) 8 (5.00%) 10 (6.25%) 2 (1.25%) 1 (0.63%) 3 (1.88%) 1 (0.63%) 8 (5.00%) 1 (0.63%) 1 (0.63%) 4 4 (2.50%) (2.50%) 2 (1.25%) 1 (0.63%) 9 (5.63%) 2 (1.25%) 25(15.63%) 5 (3.13%) 19(11.88%) 35(21.88%) 10 (6.25%) 11 (6.88%) 2 (1.25%) 8 (5.00%) 10 (6.25%) 2 (1.25%) 1 (0.63%) 3 (1.88%) 1 (0.63%) 8 (5.00%) 1 (0.63%) 1 (0.63%)

Mean
2.00 4.00 2.00 3.00 3.00 2.40 2.60 2.32 2.74 2.00 2.36 4.50 2.50 1.50 1.50 4.00 2.00 4.00 2.75 1.00 1.00 2.75 2.75 3.00 1.00 2.33 2.00 1.96 2.20 2.32 2.51 2.30 2.64 3.50 2.25 1.50 1.50 3.00 1.33 4.00 2.88 2.00 1.00 3.75 3.75 3.00 2.00 3.67 4.00 2.80 3.20 2.58 2.89 2.00 3.36 3.00 2.63 2.10 4.50 2.00 1.33 4.00 2.88 4.00 4.00

SD
2.00 2.00 0.00 1.32 1.41 1.04 1.34 1.11 1.01 1.15 1.03 0.71 1.07 0.53 0.71 1.00 1.04

F
1.91

Sig.
0.02"

Intriguing

1.71 1.71 1.41 1.22 0.00 0.79 1.10 1.16 0.95 0.67 1.03 0.71 0.89 0.71 0.71 0.58 0.64

1.68

0.04

Memorable

1.50 1.50 1.41 1.00 0.00 1.15 1.10 1.02 0.99 0.47 1.03 2.83 1.30 0.88 0.71 0.58 1.25

2.12

0.01**

Total number of samples =160 *p,0.05, **p<0.01 Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

111

Table 33. Continued.

Slice-of-life format (Wen<fy's)

ANOVA (money) -df= 20/139 Into'esting

mons'L
S $ S $ $ S S $ S $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ S $ $ $ $ $ S $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ S $ S $ $ S S $ S $ S $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ S S S $ .0.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 7.00 10.00 13.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 75.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 .0.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 7.00 10.00 13.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 75.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 .0.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 7.00 10.00 13.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 75.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00

N
4 (2.50%) 2 (1.25%) 1 (0.63%) 9 (5.63%) 2 (1.25%) 25(15.63%) 5 (3.13%) 19(11.88%) 35(21.88%) 10 (6.25%) 11 (6.88%) 2 (1.25%) 8 (5.00%) 10 (6.25%) 2 (1.25%) 1 (0.63%) 3 (1.88%) 1 (0.63%) 8 (5.00%) 1 (0.63%) 1 (0.63%) 4 (2.50%) 2 (1.25%) 1 (0.63%) 9 (5.63%) 2 (1.25%) 25(15.63%) 5 (3.13%) 19(11.88%) 35(21.88%) 10 (6.25%) 11 (6.88%) 2 (1.25%) 8 (5.00%) 10 (6.25%) 2 (1.25%) 1 (0.63%) 3 (1.88%) 1 (0.63%) 8 (5.00%) 1 (0.63%) 1 (0.63%) 4 (2.50%) 2 (1.25%) 1 (0.63%) 9 (5.63%) 2 (1.25%) 25 (15.63%) 5 (3.13%) 19(11.88%) 35 (21.88%) 10 (6.25%) 11 (6.88%) 2 (1.25%) 8 (5.00%) 10 (6.25%) 2 (1.25%) 1 (0.63%) 3 (1.88%) 1 (0.63%) 8 (5.00%) 1 (0.63%) 1 (0.63%)

Mean
2.25 4.00 4.00 3.11 3.00 2.92 2.80 3.21 3.34 3.10 3.09 2.50 3.25 2.10 1.50 4.00 1.67 2.00 2.63 3.00 1.00 3.00 4.00 4.00 3.67 4.00 3.48 2.00 3.53 3.66 3.40 3.27 2.50 3.38 2.80 3.00 4.00 2.00 2.00 3.25 3.00 2.00 3.50 4.00 3.00 3.33 3.50 2.76 2.00 2.89 3.09 3.20 2.64 1.50 3.13 2.20 2.00 4.00 1.67 2.00 2.50 3.00 2.00

SD
0.96 0.00 1.05 1.41 1.12 1.10 0.85 0.94 1.10 0.83 2.12 1.39 1.10 0.71 0.58 0.92 1.76

^
0.03"

Watdiable

0.82 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.77 0.80 0.84 0.90 2.12 1.06 1.32 1.41 1.00 0.71

2.05

0.01 **

Attrition grabbing

1.00 0.00 0.87 0.71 1.05 0.00 0.81 0.98 1.03 1.03 0.71 1.46 0.79 1.41 0.58 0.76

1.77

0.03*

Total number of samples = 160 Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5 *p,0.05, **p<0.01

112

Table 33. Continued.

Slice-of-life format (Wendy's)

ANOVA (money) -df= 20/139 Relevant to product

money
S $ S S $ S $ $ $ $ S $ $ $ S $ $ S S S S .0.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 7.00 10.00 13.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 75.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00

N
4 (2.50%) 2 (1.25%) 1 (0.63%) 9 (5.63%) 2 (1.25%) 25(15.63%) 5 (3.13%) 19(11.88%) 35(21.88%) 10 (6.25%) 11 (6.88%) 2 (1.25%) 8 (5.00%) 10 (6.25%) 2 (1.25%) 1 (0.63%) 3 (1.88%) 1 (0.63%) 8 (5.00%) 1 (0.63%) 1 (0.63%)

Mean
3.50 3.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 2.68 2.00 3.26 3.37 3.60 3.36 3.00 3.25 2.20 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.63 3.00 2.00

SD
1.29 1.41 0.87 0.00 1.07 0.00 1.19 1.00 0.97 0.92 1.41 1.16 1.03 1.41 1.00 0.92

1.87

iis. 0.02*

Total number of samples = 160 Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

Slice-of-life format (Wencfy's) t-test (money)-df= 158

Interesting Watdiable Bri^t Attention grabbing Memorable Total numbtf of samples = 160

Money
20 or less more than 20 20 or less more than 20 20 or less more than 20 20 or less more than 20 20 or less more than 20

N
102(63.75%) 58 (36.25%) 102 (63.75%) 58 (36.25%) 102 (63.75%) 58 (36.25%) 102 (63.75%) 58 (36.25%) 102 (63.75%) 58 (36.25%)

Mean
3.14 2.69 3.50 3.09 3.29 2.95 2.98 2.60 2.84 2.50

SD
1.00 1.14 0.84 1.03 0.91 0.96 0.95 1.06 0.97 0.88

t-value
2.59 2.75 2.27 2.31 2.22

Sig.
0.01** 0.01** 0.02* 0.02* 0.03*

*p,0.05, *p<0.01 Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

113

APPENDIX M SIGNIFICANT ELEMENTS IN FORMAT BY TELEVISION USAGE FREQUENCY ANOVA AND t-TESTS

114

Table 34: Significant elements in format by television usage frequency ANOVA and ttests (with means and standard deviations)
Special-effects format (McDonald's)
ANOVA (TV) -df= 16/140 Communicates benefits

hours
0.00 0.25 0.30 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 10.00 hours 0.00 0.25 0.30 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 10.00 0.00 0.25 0.30 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 10.00

N
2 1 1 6 21 8 37 3 23 3 17 6 9 11 2 5 2

Mean
3.00 2.00 4.00 3.50 3.33 3.00 2.49 3.00 3.17 2.67 2.53 2.67 2.22 3.00 4.00 3.40 4.00

SD
1.41 0.55 1.06 0.93 0.93 1.73 1.03 1.15 0.87 1.51 0.67 1.26 0.00 1.14 0.00 1.79

^ 0.04*

Slice-of-life format (Wencfy's)

ANOVA (TV) - df = 16/140 Attention grabbing

N
2 1 1 6 21 8 37 3 23 3 17 6 9 11 2 5 2 2 1 1 6 21 8 37 3 23 3 17 6 9 11 2 5 2

Mean
3.50 2.00 5.00 3.33 3.00 2.25 2.95 2.33 2.43 2.33 2.88 2.67 3.33 2.18 4.50 3.00 4.00 2.50 2.00 4.00 3.00 2.81 2.13 2.57 2.00 2.52 2.67 2.94 2.50 2.89 2.18 4.50 3.60 2.50

SD
0.71 0.52 1.10 0.71 1.05 1.53 0.84 0.58 0.86 0.82 1.12 0.87 0.71 0.71 0.00 0.71 2.25

Si^ 0.0 r

Amusing

1.72

0.05'

0.89 1.12 0.83 0.93 1.00 0.79 1.15 1.09 0.55 0.93 0.75 0.71 0.55 0.71

Total numba- of subjects = 157 strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5 ^ *p,0.05, **p<0.01

115

Table 34. Continued.

Slice-of-life format (Wendy's)

ANOVA (TV) - df = 16/140 Intriguing

hours
0.00 0.25 0.30 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 10.00

N
2 1 1 6 21 8 37 3 23 3 17 6 9 11 2 5 2

Mean
3.50 3.00 3.00 3.17 2.86 2.00 2.57 2.33 2.52 2.67 2.65 3.00 2.78 2.45 4.50 3.40 3.50

SD
0.71 0.41 0.91 0.53 0.90 0.58 0.73 1.15 0.86 0.89 0.83 0.82 0.71 0.55 0.71 1.90

-SJL
0.02'

Total number of subjects = 157 Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

Narrative format (Hardee's)

t-test (tv watch) - df = 155 Amusing Credible

TV
2.3 hours or less more than 2.5 hours 2.3 hours or less more than 2.5 hours

N
79 (44.38%) 81 (55.62%) 79 (44.38%) 81 (55.62%)

Mean
2.34 2.63 2.67 3.04

SD
0.93 0.86 0.87 0.93

t-value
-2.03

^Sig_
0.04*

-2.57

o.or

Total numba- of subjects = 157 Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Naitral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

Testimonial format (Whataburger)

t-test (tv watching) - df = 155 Clever Attention grabbing Amusing Original Total number of subjects = 157 TV
2.5 hours or less more than 2.5 hours 2.5 hours or less more than 2.5 hours 2.5 hours or less more than 2.5 hours 2.5 hours or less more than 2.5 hours

N
79 (44.38%) 81 (55.62%) 79 (44.38%) 81 (55.62%) 79 (44.38%) 81 (55.62%) 79 (44.38%) 81 (55.62%)

Mean
2.82 3.25 2.81 3.15 2.53 2.89 3.00 3.41

SD
1.00 0.97 0.98 1.03 0.93 0.94 1.01 0.97

t-value
-2.73

Sig. O.or
0.03" 0.02'

-2.14
-2.42

-2.60

0.01**

*p,0.05, **p<0.01 Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

116

APPENDDC N SIGNIFICANT ELEMENTS IN FORMAT BY HAMBURGER CONSUMPTION FREQUENCY ANOVA AND t-TESTS

117

Table 35: Significant elements in format by hamburger consumptionfrequencyANOVA and t-tests (with means and standard deviations)
Narrative format (Hardee's)
ANOVA (burger) - df = 11/147 Memorable Number of burger 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 7.0 Numbo- of burgg 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 7.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 7.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 7.0

N
20 10 53 10 27 2 22 1 8 2 3 1

Mean
2.35 1.90 2.83 2.70 2.78 4.00 2.55 2.00 3.00 2.00 3.67 3.00

SD
1.09 0.32 1.01 0.82 0.97 0.00 0.74 0.93 0.00 0.58
2.00

Sig.
0.01

Testimonial format (Whataburger)

ANOVA (burger) - df = 11/147 Interesting

N
20 10 53 10 27 2 22 1 8 2 3 1 20 10 53 10 27 2 22 1 8 2 3 1 20 10 53 10 27 2 22 1 8 2 3 1

Mean
2.95 2.80 2.77 3.10 3.63 2.50 2.91 2.00 3.13 3.00 2.33 2.00 2.30 2.50 2.79 2.70 3.26 2.50 2.55 1.00 2.63 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.45 2.40 2.55 2.60 2.96 2.50 2.50 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.67 2.00

SD
1.05 0.79 0.95 0.74 0.88 0.71 1.02 0.83 0.00 0.58 0.98 0.71 0.93 0.82 1.10 0.71 0.80 0.74 0.00 1.00 0.76 0.52 0.87 0.84 0.98 0.71 1.01 0.76 0.00 1.15 2.26 1.90 1.90

Sig.
0.04*

Amusing

0.04"

Relevant to viewa-

O.or

Total numba- of subjects = 159 Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5 *p,0.0S, **p<0.01

118

Table 35. Continued.

Song-and-dance format (McDonald's) t-test (hanburger) -df=157 Consumption frequency

Relevant to viewer Intriguing once or less more than once once or less more than once

Mean
2.05 2.52 2.14 2.45

SD
0.94 1.15 0.99 0.98

t-value
-2.85 -1.99

Sig.
0.01** 0.05-

83(51.88%) 77 (48.22%) 83(51.88%) 77 (48.22%)

Total number of subjects = 159 Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strcmgly Agree = 5

Testimonial format (Whataburger) t-test (hamburger) - df = 157 Consumption frequency

Interesting Relevant to viewer Memorable Total number of subjects = 1579 once or less more than once once or less more than once once or less more than once

Mean
2.82 3.16 2.82 3.34 2.72 3.03

SD
0.95 0.93 0.96 0.91 0.94 1.04

t-value
-2.26 -3.49 1.94

.Sig.
0.03" 0.00'

83 (51.88%) 77(48.22%) 83(51.88%) 77 (48.22%) 83(51.88%) 77 (48.22%)

0.05"

p,0.05, *p<0.01 strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

119

APPENDIX O SIGNIFICANT ELEMENTS IN FORMAT BY PREFERENCE IN HAMBURGER RESTAURANT ANOVA

120

Table 36: Significant elements in format by preference in hamburger restaurant ANOVA (with means and standard deviations)
Preference for Burger King Song-and-dance format (Burger King) ANOVA-df= 4/154 N Mean
Interesting Most favorite Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite ClevoMost favorite Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Watchable Most favorite Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Attention grabbing Most favorite Favorite Neutral Less favOTite Least favorite Exciting Most favorite Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Most favorite Relevant to viewaFavorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Most favorite Credible Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite = 159 Total number of subjects = 31(19.50%) 40(25.16%) 37(23.17%) 29(18.24%) 22 (13.84%) 31(19.50%) 40(25.16%) 37(23.17%) 29(18.24%) 22(13.84%) 31(19.50%) 40(25.16%) 37(23.17%) 29(18.24%) 22 (13.84%) 31(19.50%) 40(25.16%) 37(23.17%) 29(18.24%) 22(13.84%) 31(19.50%) 40(25.16%) 37(23.17%) 29(18.24%) 22(13.84%) 31(19.50%) 40(25.16%) 37(23.17%) 29(18.24%) 22(13.84%) 31(19.50%) 40(25.16%) 37(23.17%) 29(18.24%) 22 (13.84%) 2.61 2.80 2.38 2.52 1.73 2.45 3.23 2.97 2.45 2.77 2.84 2.75 2.38 2.66 1.86 3.16 3.38 3.05 3.24 2.41 2.48 2.85 2.32 2.38 1.95 2.52 2.48 2.05 2.45 1.64 2.81 2.85 2.57 2.90 2.09

SD
1.15 1.26 1.09 0.99 0.88 1.09 1.25 1.09 0.99 1.54 1.16 1.33 1.01 1.08 1.08 1.13 1.17 1.22 0.99 1.30 0.96 1.08 0.82 0.78 1.09 1.06 1.09 0.88 1.24 0.79 0.98 1.10 0.93 1.08 0.97 3.58

Sv^ o.oor

2.79

0.03'

3.02

0.02'

2.65

0.04*

3.49

O.or

3.53

O.or

2.68

0.03'

Testimonial format (Whataburger)

ANOVA -df= 4/154 Credible Most favorite Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Total number of subjects = 159 N 31(19.50%) 40(25.16%) 37(23.17%) 29(18.24%) 22(13.84%)

Mean
3.13 3.68 3.14 3.52 3.32

SD
0.88 0.76 0.95 0.83 0.89
2.77

Sil
0.03

SU-ongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5 *p,0.05, **p<0.01

121

Table 36. Continued.

Preference for Hardee^s Special-effects format (McDonald's)

ANOVA-df= 4/154 Watchable

N
2 ( 1.26%) 10 (6.29%) 15 (9.43%) 36 (22.64%) 96 (60.38%) 2 ( 1.26%) 10 (6.29%) 15 (9.43%) 36 (22.64%) 96 (60.38%) 2 ( 1.26%) 10 (6.29%) 15 (9.43%) 36 (22.64%) 96 (60.38%)

Mean
2.50 3.80 3.73 4.03 3.99 2.00 4.00 3.73 3.92 3.91 4.00 3.00 2.60 3.58 3.47

SD
2.12 0.63 0.88 0.65 0.66 1.41 0.47 1.10 0.84 0.80 1.41 0.67 0.91 0.87 0.83 2.82

Sig.
0.03"

Most favorite Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Amusing Most favorite Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Credible Most favorite Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Total number of subjects = = 159

2.78

0.03*

4.74

0.00'

Slice-of-life format (Wencfy's)

ANOVA-df= 4/154 Interesting

N
2(1.26%) 10 (6.29%) 15 (9.43%) 36(22.64%) 96(60.38%) 2(1.26%) 10 (6.29%) 15 (9.43%) 36(22.64%) 96(60.38%) 2(1.26%) 10 (6.29%) 15 (9.43%) 36(22.64%) 96(60.38%) 2(1.26%) 10 (6.29%) 15 (9.43%) 36(22.64%) 96(60.38%) 2(1.26%) 10 (6.29%) 15 (9.43%) 36(22.64%) 96(60.38%)

Mean
1.50 2.80 2.60 3.31 2.96 1.50 3.10 2.80 3.36 3.20 1.50 3.00 2.93 3.53 3.27 1.50 3.30 2.53 3.36 3.09 1.50 2.50 2.07 3.06 2.73

SD
0.71 1.14 1.18 1.01 1.05 0.71 0.88 1.08 0.96 0.89 0.71 1.05 1.03 1.03 1.08 0.71 0.95 1.06 0.99 0.92 0.71 0.71 0.88 0.75 0.84 2.41

Most favorite Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Most favorite Bright Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Most favorite Communicates benefits Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Most favorite Original Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Most favorite Intriguing Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Total number of subjects = 159

0.05'

2.66

0.03'

2.46

0.05"

3.55

0.01'

5.21

0.00'

Testimonial format (Whataburger)

ANOVA-df= 4/154 Relevant to product

N
2 (1.26%) 10 (6.29%) 15 (9.43%) 36 (22.64%) 96 (60.38%)

Mean
5.00 3.90 4.53 4.28 4.00

SD
0.00 0.32 0.52 0.61 0.79
3.40

Most favorite Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Total number of subjects = = 159

O.or

Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5 *p,0.05, **p<0.01

122

Table 36. Continued.

Preference for McDonald's Song-and-dance format (Burger King) ANOVA-df= 4/154 N Mean
Exciting Most favorite Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Memorable Most favorite Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Total number of subjects = = 159 38 (23.90%) 34(21.38%) 31 (19.50%) 37 (23.27%) 19(11.95%) 38 (23.90%) 34(21.38%) 31(19.50%) 37 (23.27%) 19(11.95%) 2.82 2.32 2.55 2.11 2.42 3.34 2.62 2.55 2.62 3.16

SD
1.09 0.94 1.06 0.74 0.90 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.16 1.30 2.80

Sig.
0.03'

3.61

0.01

Special-effects format (McDonald's)

ANOVA-df= 4/154 miorable

N
38 (23.90%) 34(21.38%) 31 (19.50%) 37 (23.27%) 19(11.95%)

Mean
3.95 3.03 3.42 3.03 3.26

SD
0.84 1.00 1.09 1.21 1.10 4.83

Si^
0.00'

Most fav(ite Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Total numba* of subjects = 159

Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

Preference for Wendy's Special-effects format (McDonald's)

ANOVA-df= 4/154 Watchable Most favorite Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Exciting Most favorite Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Memorable Most favorite Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Total number of subjects = 159 N 50(31.45%) 40(25.16%) 47(29.56%) 17(10.69%) 5 (3.14%) 50(31.45%) 40(25.16%) 47(29.56%) 17(10.69%) 5 (3.14%) 50(31.45%) 40(25.16%) 47(29.56%) 17(10.69%) 5 (3.14%)

Mean
3.86 4.23 3.94 3.76 3.20 3.32 3.88 3.26 3.47 2.60 3.02 3.68 3.47 3.59 2.20

SD
0.70 0.48 0.70 0.83 1.30 1.11 0.69 0.99 0.87 1.14 1.12 1.02 1.04 1.00 1.10 3.57

iis.
O.or

3.65

0.01'

4.00

0.00'

Testimonial format (Whataburger)

ANOVA-df= 4/154 Credible

N
50(31.45%) 40(25.16%) 47(29.56%) 17(10.69%) 5 (3.14%)

Mean
3.22 3.20 3.45 3.76 4.00

SD
0.91 0.94 0.80 0.75 0.71 2.39

Sig.
0.05"

Most favorite Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Total number of subjects = 159

Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5 *p,0.05, **p<0.01

123

Table 36. Continued.

Preference for Whataburger Song-and-dance fonnat (Burger King) ANOVA-df= 4/154 N Mean
Most favorite Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Watchable Most favorite Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Exciting Most favorite Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Total number of subjects = = 159 Interesting 38 (23.90%) 35 (22.01%) 29(18.24%) 40(25.16%) 17(10.69%) 38 (23.90%) 35 (22.01%) 29(18.24%) 40(25.16%) 17(10.69%) 38 (23.90%) 35 (22.01%) 29(18.24%) 40(25.16%) 17(10.69%) 2.32 2.31 2.34 2.50 3.24 2.50 2.40 2.28 2.53 3.41 2.34 2.20 2.21 2.65 3.12

SD
1.14 1.08 1.04 1.20 1.09 1.18 1.06 1.16 1.22 1.06 0.88 0.83 0.82 1.12 1.05
2.43

Sig.
0.05"

2.97

0.02'

3.78

O.or

Narrative format (Hardee's)

ANOVA-df= 4/154 riguing

N
38 (23.90%) 35 (22.01%) 29(18.24%) 40(25.16%) 17 (10.69%)

Mean
2.53 2.49 2.41 2.50 3.12

Most favorite Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Total number of subjects = 159

SD 0.80 0.74 0.82 0.82 0.86

.Sis.
2.44

0.05-

Slice-of-life fonnat (Wencfy's)

ANOVA-df= 4/154 Watdiable

N
38 (23.90%) 35 (22.01%) 29(18.24%) 40(25.16%) 17 (10.69%) 38 (23.90%) 35 (22.01%) 29 (18.24%) 40(25.16%) 17(10.69%)

Mean
3.66 3.34 3.31 3.00 3.59 2.92 2.71 2.79 2.38 2.88

SD
0.67 0.97 1.07 0.96 0.87 0.88 0.86 0.86 0.74 0.93 2.84

Sig.
0.03'

Most favorite Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Intriguing Most favorite Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Total number of subjects 159

2.41

0.05'

Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5 *p,0.05, **p<0.01

124

Table 36. Continued.

Preference for Whataburger Testimonial fonnat (Whataburger)

ANOVA-df= 4/154 Clever

Mean

SD

Watchable

Bri^

Most favorite 38 (23.90%) 3.53 0.95 0.00** 5.05 Favorite 35 (22.01%) 3.11 1.05 Neutral 29(18.24%) 2.66 0.94 Less favorite 40(25.16%) 2.70 0.88 Least favorite 17 (10.69%) 3.18 0.95 Most favorite 38 (23.90%) 3.79 0.66 4.66 0.00** Favorite 35 (22.01%) 3.63 0.77 Neutral 29(18.24%) 3.07 1.00 Less favorite 40(25.16%) 3.20 0.85 Least favorite 17(10.69%) 3.18 1.01 Most favorite 38 (23.90%) 3.42 1.00 2.92 0/02* Favorite 35 (22.01%) 3.11 0.90 Neutral 29(18.24%) 2.86 0.92 Less favorite 40(25.16%) 2.78 0.80 Least favorite 17(10.69%) 3.06 0.83 strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5 *p,0.05. **p<0.01

Preference for Whataburger Testimonial format (Whataburger)

ANOVA-df= 4/154 Attention grabbing

N
38 (23.90%) 35 (22.01%) 29(18.24%) 40(25.16%) 17 (10.69%) 38 (23.90%) 35 (22.01%) 29(18.24%) 40(25.16%) 17 (10.69%) 38 (23.90%) 35 (22.01%) 29 (18.24%) 40(25.16%) 17(10.69%) 38 (23.90%) 35 (22.01%) 29(18.24%) 40(25.16%) 17(10.69%) 38 (23.90%) 35 (22.01%) 29(18.24%) 40(25.16%) 17 (10.69%) 38 (23.90%) 35 (22.01%) 29(18.24%) 40(25.16%) 17 (10.69%)

Mean
3.39 2.97 2.76 2.73 3.00 3.16 2.46 2.41 2.63 2.94 3.11 2.51 2.34 2.25 2.65 3.61 3.09 2.79 2.90 2.71 3.05 2.89 2.41 2.45 2.94 3.16 3.06 2.41 2.70 2.94

SD
1.05 0.86 1.12 0.93 1.00 1.03 0.85 0.95 0.77 1.03 0.89 0.78 0.86 0.67 0.93 0.86 1.04 0.98 0.84 0.99 0.93 0.93 0.82 0.88 0.83 1.10 1.00 0.87 0.91 0.90

F
2.69

Sig.
0.03*

Most favorite Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Amusing Most favorite Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Most favorite Exciting Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Most favorite Relevant to viewaFavorite Naitral Less favorite Least favorite Most favorite Intriguing Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Most favorite Memorable Favorite Neutral Less favorite Least favorite Total number of subjects = = 159

4.06

0.00**

6.27

0.00

4.76

0.00**

3.68

0.01

3.08

0.02*

Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5 *p,0.05 . **p<0.01

125

APPENDIX P SIGNIFICANT ELEMENTS IN FORMAT BY PREFERENCE IN HAMBURGER RESTAURANT t-TEST

126

Table 37: Significant elements in format by preference in hamburger restaurant t-test (with means and standard deviations)
Preference for Hardee's Song-and-dance format (Burger King) t-test -df=i57 (jToups Mean N
Bright Relevant to viewer Original Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best 158(98.75%) 2 (1.25%) 158(98.75%) 2(1.25%) 158(98.75%) 2(1.25%) 2.80 1.00 2.25 4.00 3.08 1.50

SD
1.25 0.00 1.05 1.41 1.09 0.71

t-value
2.03 -2.33 2.03

Sig.
0.04* 0.02* 0.04*

Total number of subjects = 159 strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

Special-effects format (McDonald's)

t-test -df=157 Watchable Groups Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best

N
158(98.75%) 2(1.25%) 158(98.75%) 2 (1.25%) 158(98.75%) 2 (1.25%) 158(98.75%) 2(1.25%) 158(98.75%) 2(1.25%) 158(98.75%) 2(1.25%)

Mean
3.96 2.50 3.96 2.50 3.80 2.50 3.89 2.00 3.80 2.50 3.47 2.00

SD
0.68 2.12 0.70 2.12 0.91 2.12 0.83 1.41 0.86 2.12 0.91 1.41

t-value
2.93 2.85 1.99 3.18 2.09 2.26

s^
0.00** 0.00** 0.05* 0.00** 0.04* 0.02*

Bri^
Attention grabbing Amusing Original Intriguing

Total number of subjects = 159 strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

Slice-of-life format (Wendy's)

t-test -df=157 Interesting Bri^ Communicate s benefits Original Intriguing Total number of subjects =159 Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5 *p,0.05, **p<0.01

(jroups
Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best

N
158(98.75%) 2(1.25%) 158(98.75%) 2(1.25%) 158(98.75%) 2(1.25%) 158(98.75%) 2(1.25%) 158(98.75%) 2(1.25%)

Mean
2.99 1.50 3.19 1.50 3.28 1.50 3.12 1.50 2.73 1.50

SD
1.06 0.71 0.92 0.71 1.07 0.71 0.97 0.71 0.86 0.71

t-value
1.98 2.57 2.36 2.36 2.03

0.05* 0.01** 0.02* 0.02* 0.04*

127

Table 37. Continued.

Preference in Hardee's
Song-and-dance format (Burger King)
t-test .df=157 Interesting Exciting Memorable

Groups
Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best

N
122 (76.25%) 38 (23.75%) 122 (76.25%) 38 (23.75%) 122 (76.25%) 38 (23.75%) 122(76.25%) 38 (23.75%) 122 (76.25%) 38 (23.75%) 122 (76.25%) 38 (23.75%) 122 (76.25%) 38 (23.75%)

Mean
2.36 2.82 2.34 2.82 2.69 3.34 3.79 4.11 3.17 3.95 3.43 3.08 3.07 2.68

SD
1.08 1.27 0.91 1.09 1.13 1.02 0.91 0.61 1.10 0.84 0.91 0.97 0.94 0.96

t-value
-2.18 -2.70 -3.19

Sig. 0.03* 0.01** 0.00**

Special-effects format (McDonald's)

Amusing Memorable -2.02 -3.98 0.05* 0.00**

Slice-of-life format (Wen^'s)

Watchable 2.07 0.04*

Testimonial format (Whataburger)

Interesting 2.22 0.03* Total numba- of subjects = 159 Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3,, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

Preference for Wendy's Song-and-dance format (Burger King]1

t-test -df=157 Interesting Amusing

Groups
Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best

N
110(68.75%) 50(31.25%) 110(68.75%) 50(31.25%) 110(68.75%) 50(31.25%) 110(68.75%) 50(31.25%) 110(68.75%) 50(31.25%) 110(68.75%) 50(31.25%)

Mean
2.59 2.20 2.75 2.26 3.51 3.02 3.53 3.16 2.85 2.42 3.17 2.84

SD
1.19 0.97 1.18 1.05 1.06 1.12 0.82 0.96 0.97 0.84 0.98 0.93

t-value
2.03 2.49

Sig. 0.04* 0.01**

Special-effects format (McDonald's)

Memorable 2.67 0.01**

Testimonial format (Whataburger)

Whatchable Amusing Relevant to viewer Total number of subjects = 159 Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5 *p,0.05, **p<0.01 2.49 2.68 2.03 0.01** 0.01** 0.04*

128

Table 37. Continued.

Preference for Whataburger Slice-of-life format (Wendy's)

t-test -df= 157 Whatchable

Groups
Not the best The best

N
122 (76.25%) 38 (23.75%)

Mean
3.25 3.66

SD
0.98 0.67

t-value
-2.36

Sig. 0.02**

Testimonial format (Whataburger)

t-test -df=157 Clever Whatchable

Groups
Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the be^ The best

N
122 (76.25%) 38 (23.75%) 122 (76.25%) 38 (23.75%) 122 (76.25%) 38 (23.75%) 122 (76.25%) 38 (23.75%) 122 (76.25%) 38 (23.75%) 122 (76.25%) 38 (23.75%) 122 (76.25%) 38 (23.75%) 122 (76.25%) 38 (23.75%) 122 (76.25%) 38 (23.75%) 122 (76.25%) 38 (23.75%)

Mean
2.89 3.53 3.30 3.79 2.94 3.42 2.85 3.39 2.57 3.16 2.41 3.11 2.90 3.61 3.11 3.53 2.65 3.05 2.78 3.16

SD
0.97 0.95 0.91 0.66 0.87 1.00 0.97 1.05 0.88 1.03 0.79 0.89 0.95 0.86 0.99 1.01 0.90 0.93 0.95 1.10

t-value
-3.57 -3.11 -2.86 -2.95 -3.43 -4.59 -4.08 -2.27 -2.41 -2.07

Sig. 0.00** 0.00** 0.00** 0.00** 0.00** 0.00** 0.00** 0.02* 0.02* 0.04*

Bri^
Attention grabbing Amusing Exciting Relevant to viewer Original Intriguing Memorable Total numba- of subjects =159

Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5 *p,0.05, **p<0.01

129

APPENDIX Q THE MOST PREFERRED HAMBURGER TELEVISION ADVERTISEMENT FORMAT AND SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT RESPONSES TO PURCHASE INTENTION QUESTION IN RELATION TO EACH TESTED RESTAURANT

130

Table 38: The most preferred hamburger television advertisement format and significantly different responses to purchase intention question in relation to each tested restaurant (ANOVA)
The most preferred hamburger television advertisement fonnat Restaurant - Burger King
ANOVA-df= 4/148 Purchase intention Willingto eat the burger afto- watchingthe ad Song-and-dance Narrative Special-effects Slice-of-life Testimonial Song-and-dance Narrative Special-effects Shce-of-Ufe Testimonial Song-and-dance NanaUve Special-effects Slice-of-life Testimonial Song-and-dance Narrative Special-effects Slice-of-life Testimonial Song-and-dance Narrative Special-effects Slice-of-life Testimonial Song-and-dance Narrative Special-efifects Slice-of-life Testimonial N Mean SD F Sig.

9 (5.88%) 13 (8.50%) 81 (52.94%) 17(11.11%) 33 (21.57%) 9 (5.88%) 13 (8.50%) 81 (52.94%) 17(11.11%) 33 (21.57%) 9 (5.88%) 13 (8.50%) 81(52.94%) 17(11.11%) 33(21.57%) 9 (5.88%) 13 (8.50%) 81(52.94%) 17(11.11%) 33(21.57%) 9 (5.88%) 13 (8.50%) 81(52.94%) 17(11.11%) 33(21.57%) 9 (5.88%) 13 (8.50%) 81(52.94%) 17(11.11%) 33(21.57%)

3.56 2.62 2.38 2.24 2.94 2.00 2.08 2.62 2.29 2.18 2.56 2.54 2.57 3.53 2.97 3.22 2.77 2.81 3.65 3.33 3.56 2.62 2.81 3.53 3.48 2.67 2.54 2.68 3.53 2.91

1.01 1.19 1.06 1.20 0.97 1.00 0.76 0.97 1.05 0.77 0.88 0.78 0.96 1.18 1.02 0.97 0.83 1.06 1.06 1.05 1.01 0.87 1.05 1.12 1.00 0.71 0.88 1.00 1.07 1.07

3.98

0.00**

Restaurant - McDonald's
The ad makes the subject want the burger 2.45 0.05-

Restaurant - Wench's
The ad makes the subject want the burger 4.03 0.00*

Willingto buy the burger after watchingthe ad

3.36

0.01**

Willingto eat the burger after watchingthe ad

4.53

0.00**

Willingto make next purdiase aft watchingthe ad

2.92

0.02*

Total number of subjects = 154 Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Naitral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

131

Table 38. Continued.

The most preferred hamburger television advertisement format Restaurant - Whataburger

A N O V A - d f = 4/148 Purchase intention Willingto buy the burger after watchingthe ad Song-and-dance Narrative Special-efifects Shce-of-life Testimonial Song-and-dance Narrative Special-efifects Slice-of-Hfe Testimonial

N
9 (5.88%) 13 (8.50%) 81 (52.94%) 17(11.11%) 33 (21.57%) 9 (5.88%) 13 (8.50%) 81 (52.94%) 17(11.11%) 33(21.57%)

Mean
3.67 2.69 3.06 3.35 4.00 3.78 2.77 2.99 3.35 4.09

SD
1.00 1.11 1.06 1.06 0.61 1.09 0.93 1.04 1.06 0.68 6.92

0.00**

Willing to eat the burger after watching the ad

9.10

0.00**

Total number of subjects = 154 Strongly Disagree = 1, Disagree = 2, Neutral = 3, Agree = 4, Strongly Agree = 5

132

APPENDIX R SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT ELEMENTS IN FORMAT PREFERENCE IN RELATION TO PURCHASE INTENTION FOR EACH RESTAURANT ANOVA

133

Table39: Significantly different elements in format preference in relation to purchase intention for each restaurant ANOVA (with means and standard deviations)
Song-and-dance format (Burger King)
ANOVA -df= 4/155 Purchase intention - Burger King The ad makes the subject want the burger

N
9 (5.23%) 28 (17.50%) 24 (15.00%) 35(21.88%) 64(31.99%) 9 (5.23%) 28 (17.50%) 24 (15.00%) 35 (21.88%) 64(31.99%) 9 (5.23%) 28 (17.50%) 24(15.00%) 35 (21.88%) 64(31.99%) 9 (5.23%) 28 (17.50%) 24(15.00%) 35 (21.88%) 64(31.99%) 9 (5.23%) 28 (17.50%) 24(15.00%) 35 (21.88%) 64(31.99%)

Mean
2.56 2.64 2.21 2.14 1.64 3.33 3.00 2.46 2.80 1.97 3.56 2.96 2.46 2.91 2.13 2.56 2.68 2.17 2.49 1.83 3.09 3.08 2.58 2.46 3.00

SD
0.88 0.99 1.06 0.69 0.74 1.00 1.02 1.22 1.02 0.96 1.01 1.04 1.14 0.89 1.05 0.88 1.06 0.87 0.89 0.86 1.03 0.92 1.06 1.04 1.00

F
8.39

Sig.
0.00**

Most favored Favored Neutral Less favored Least favored Willingto buy the biu-ger after watchingthe ad Most favored Favored Neutral Less favored Least favored Willingto eat the burger after watchingthe ad Most &vored Favored Neutral Less favored Least favored Willingto make next purchase after watching the ad Most favored Favored Neutral Less favored Least favored Purdiase intention - WhataburgoWillingto make next purchase after watchingthe ad Most fevored Favored Neutral Less favored Least favored

8.16

0.00**

7.19

0.00**

5.85

0.00**

2.78

0.03*

Song-and-dance format (Burger King)

ANOVA -df= 4/155 Purchase intention - Hardee's The ad makes the subject want the burgs'

Mean

SD

Sig.

Most favored 13 (8.13%) 3.08 1.04 5.07 0.00** Favored 17(10.63%) 3.29 1.05 Neutral 35(21.88%) 2.71 1.05 Less favored 44 (27.50%) 2.36 1.04 Least favored 51(31.86%) 2.24 0.93 Most favored 13 (8.13%) 2.77 1.09 2.96 0.02* Willingto buy the burger after watdiing the ad Favored 17(10.63%) 3.18 1.19 Neutral 35 (21.88%) 2.86 1.06 Less favored 44 (27.50%) 2.50 1.02 Least favored 51 (31.86%) 2.31 0.99 Most fav('ed 13 (8.13%) 2.77 1.09 2.62 0.04* Willingto eat the burger after watchingthe ad Favored 17(10.63%) 3.24 1.15 Neutral 35 (21.88%) 2.94 1.06 Less favored 44 (27.50%) 2.50 1.07 Least favored 51 (31.86%) 2.43 1.10 0.96 2.51 0.04* Willingto make next purchase after watchmg the ad Most favored 13 (8.13%) 2.38 Favored 17(10.63%) 2.82 1.07 Neutral 35 (21.88%) 2.34 0.97 Less favored 44 (27.50%) 2.27 1.00 Least favored 51 (31.86%) 2.02 0.79 Total number of subjects =160 = 4, Most favored = 5 Least favored = 1, Less favwed = 2, Neutral = 3, Favored =

134

Table 39. Continued.

Special-effects format (McDonald's)

ANOVA -df= 4/155 Purchase intention - McDonald's The ad makes the subjed want the burger N Most favored Favored Neutral Less favored Least favored Most favored Favored Neutral Less favored Least favored Most favored Favored Neutral Less favored Least favored Most favored Favored Neutral Less favored Least favored Most favored Favored Neutral Less favored Least favored Most favored Favored Neutral Less favored Least favored Most favored Favored Neutral Less favored Least favored 81 (50.63%) 40 (25.00%) 18(11.25%) 10 (6.25%) 11 (6.87%) 81 (50.63%) 40 (25.00%) 18(11.25%) 10 (6.25%) 11 (6.87%) 81 (50.63%) 40 (25.00%) 18(11.25%) 10 (6.25%) 11 (6.87%) 81 (50.63%) 40 (25.00%) 18(11.25%) 10 (6.25%) 11 (6.87%) 81 (50.63%) 40 (25.00%) 18(11.25%) 10 (6.25%) 11 (6.87%) 81 (50.63%) 40 (25.00%) 18(11.25%) 10 (6.25%) 11 (6.87%) 81 (50.63%) 40 (25.00%) 18(11.25%) 10 (6.25%) 11 (6.87%) N

Mean
2.62 2.35 2.11 1.80 2.00 2.57 3.03 3.28 2.60 2.64 2.81 3.25 3.56 2.90 2.91 2.81 3.43 3.61 2.80 2.82 2.79 3.23 3.67 3.60 3.18 3.06 3.50 3.78 3.40 3.09 2.99 3.50 3.83 3.60 3.18 Mean

SD
0.97 0.98 0.96 0.42 0.63 0.96 1.05 1.13 0.70 0.92 1.06 1.01 1.04 1.10 1.14 1.05 0.98 1.04 1.03 1.25 1.15 1.05 1.03 0.97 1.17 1.06 0.93 0.88 1.51 1.14 1.04 1.09 0.92 1.26 1.08 SD

.F 3.13

Sig_ 0.02*

Purchase intention - Wendy's The ad makes the subject want the burger

2.82

0.03*

Willingto buy the burger afto- watchingthe ad

2.47

0.05*

Willingto eat the burger after watchingthe ad

3.88

0.00**

Purdiase intention - WhataburgCT The ad makes the subject want the burger

3.43

0.01**

Willingto buy the burger after watdiing the ad

2.44

0.05*

Willingto eat the burger after watching the ad

3.45

0.01**

Slice-of-life (Wendy's)
ANOVA -df= 4/155 Purdiase intention - Wendy's The ad makes the subject want the burgoF Sig. Most favored 17(10.23%) 3.53 1.18 5.00 0.00** Favored 34(21.25%) 2.97 1.00 Neutral 52 (32.50%) 2.75 0.90 Less favored 32 (20.00%) 2.56 1.01 Least favored 25 (16.02%) 2.28 0.79 Most favored 17 (10.23%) 3.65 1.06 2.56 0.04* Willingto buy the burger after watchingthe ad 1.22 Favored 34(21.25%) 3.09 Noitral 52 (32.50%) 2.98 0.96 Less favored 32 (20.00%) 3.00 1.11 Least favored 25 (16.02%) 2.60 0.91 Willingto make next purdiase after watching the ad Most favored 17 (10.23%) 3.53 1.07 5.02 0.00** Favored 34(21.25%) 3.12 1.09 Neutral 52 (32.50%) 2.71 0.96 Less favored 32 (20.00%) 2.63 1.04 Least favored 25 (16.02%) 2.32 0.75 Total number of subjects = 160 Least favored = 1, Less favored = 2, Neutral = 3, Favored = 4, Most favored = 5

135

Table 39. Continued.

Testimonial format (Whataburger)

ANOVA -df= 4/155 Purchase intention - Burger King The ad makes the subject want the burger

Mean

SD
0.98 0.72 0.63 1.10 0.96 1.13 1.06 1.04 1.19 0.97 0.97 1.15 0.99 1.19 0.94 0.90 0.89 0.86 1.09 0.95 1.05 1.04 1.11 1.02 1.02 1.00 1.04 1.12 1.02 1.02 0.64 1.04 1.24 0.97 0.84 0.61 1.11 1.12 1.05 0.93 0.68 1.05 1.09 1.05 1.05 0.99 1.05 1.07 0.86 0.84

F
5.53

Sig. 0.00**

Most favored 33 (20.63%) 2.27 Favored 36 (22.50%) 1.67 Neutral 42 (26.25%) 1.81 Less favored 30 (18.75%) 2.37 Least favored 19 (11.87%) 2.53 Willingto buy the burger afta- watdiing the ad Most favored 33 (20.63%) 2.73 Favored 36 (22.50%) 1.97 Neutral 42 (26.25%) 2.45 Less favored 30 (18.75%) 2.57 Least favored 19 (11.87%) 2.95 Willingto eat the burger after watdiing the ad Most favored 33 (20.63%) 2.94 Favored 36 (22.50%) 2.06 Neutral 42 (26.25%) 2.45 Less favored 30 (18.75%) 2.63 Least favored 19 (11.87%) 3.11 Willingto make next purdiase afto* watchingthe ad Most favored 33 (20.63%) 2.39 Favored 36 (22.50%) 1.81 Neutral 42 (26.25%) 2.12 Less favored 30 (18.75%) 2.33 Least favored 19 (11.87%) 2.68 Purdiase intention - Wendy's Willingto buy the burger after watchingthe ad Most favored 33 (20.63%) 3.33 Favored 36 (22.50%) 2.69 Neutral 42 (26.25%) 2.88 ' Less favored 30 (18.75%) 3.00 Least favored 19 (11.87%) 3.42 Most favored 33 (20.63%) 3.48 Willing to eat the burga- afto- watching the ad Favored 36 (22.50%) 2.67 Naitral 42 (26.25%) 2.90 Less favored 30 (18.75%) 3.00 Least favored 19 (11.87%) 3.47 Purdiase intention - Whataburger The ad makes the subject want the burgoMost favored 33 (20.63%) 4.03 Favored 36 (22.50%) 3.33 Neutral 42 (26.25%) 2.71 Less favored 30 (18.75%) 2.60 Least favored 19 (11.87%) 2.47 Most favored 33 (20.63%) 4.00 Willingto buy the burgo" afto- watdiing the ad Favored 36 (22.50%) 3.42 Neutral 42 (26.25%) 3.02 Less favored 30 (18.75%) 3.00 Least favored 19 (11.87%) 2.74 Most favored 33 (20.63%) 4.09 Willingto eat the burgo- after watchingthe ad Favored 36 (22.50%) 3.39 42 (26.25%) 2.98 Neutral Less favored 30 (18.75%) 2.93 Least favored 19 (11.87%) 2.74 Willingto make next purchase after watchingthe ad Most favored 33 (20.63%) 3.36 Favored 36 (22.50%) 3.22 Neutral 42 (26.25%) 2.69 30 (18.75%) 2.57 Less favored Least favored 19 (11.87%) 2.47 Total number of subjects =160 Least favored = 1, Less favored = 2, Neutral = 3,

3.34

0.01**

4.52

0.00**

3.48

0.01**

2.46

0.05*

3.61

0.01**

13.03

0.00**

7.20

0.00**

8.86

0.00**

5.00

0.00**

Favored = = 4, Most favored = 5

136

APPENDIX S SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT ELEMENTS IN FORMAT PREFERENCE IN RELATION TO PURCHASE INTENTION FOR EACH RESTAURANT t-TEST

137

Table 40: Significantly different elements in format preference in relation to purchase intention for each restaurant t-test (with means and standard deviations)
Favored fonnat on Song-and-dance format (Burger King)
t-test -df=158

N
Not the best The best Not the best The best

Mean

SD
1.10 1.00 1.08 1.01

t-value
-2.39 -2.81

Sig.

Burger King
Purchase intention WilUngto buy the burger after watchingthe ad Willingto eat the burger after watdiing the ad 151 (94.38%) 2.43 9 (5.62%) 3.33 151 (94.38%) 2.52 9 (5.62%) 3.56 0.02* 0.01**

Favored format on narrative format (Hardee's)

t-test -df=158

N
Not the best The best 147(91.88%) 13X8.12%)

Mean
3.33 2.69

SD
1.05 1.11

t-value
2.07

Sig.

Whataburger
Purchase intention Willingto buy the burger after watchingthe ad 0.04*

Favored format on special-effects format (McDonald's]1

t-test -df=158

N
Not the best The best Not the best The best 79 (49.38%) 81 (50.62%) 79 (49.38%) 81 (50.62%)

Mean
2.58 2.38 2.77 2.38

SD
1.15 1.08 1.12 1.06

t-value
1.13 2.26

Sig.

Burger King
Purchase intention Willingto buy the burger after watchingthe ad Willing to eat the burger after watdiing the ad 0.26 0.02*

Hardee's
Purchase intention Willingto buy the burger after watdiing the ad Willingto eat the burger after watchingthe ad Not the best The best Not the best The best 79 (49.38%) 81 (50.62%) 79 (49.38%) 81 (50.62%) 2.81 2.42 2.85 2.51 1.06 1.05 1.13 1.06 2.34 1.97 0.02* 0.05*

McDonald's
Purchase intenticm The ad makes the subjea want the burger Willingto make next purchase after watchingthe ad Not the best The best Not the best The best 79 (49.38%) 81 (50.62%) 79 (49.38%) 81 (50.62%) 2.18 2.62 2.46 2.79 0.89 0.97 1.02 1.08 -2.99 -2.01 0.00** 0.05*

Wencfy's
Purchase intention The ad makes the subjea want the burger Willingto buy the burger after watdiing the ad Willingto eat the burger after watdiing the ad Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best 79 (49.38%) 81 (50.62%) 79 (49.38%) 81 (50.62%) 79 (49.38%) 81 (50.62%) 2.97 2.57 3.23 2.81 3.30 2.81 1.03 0.96 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.05 2.59 2.47 2.92 0.01** 0.01** 0.00**

Whataburger
Purdiase intention The ad makes the subjea want the burger Willing to buy the burger after watdiing the ad Willingto eat the burger afto* watdiing the ad Total number of subjeds = 160 Least favored = 1, Less favored = 2, Neutral = 3, Favored = 4, Most favored = 5 Not the best The best Not the best The best Not the best The best 79 (49.38%) 81 (50.62%) 79 (49.38%) 81 (50.62%) 79 (49.38%) 81 (50.62%) 3.37 2.79 3.49 3.06 3.54 2.99 1.05 1.15 1.04 1.06 1.07 1.04 3.31 2.60 3.33 0.00** 0.01** 0.00**

138

Table 40. Continued.

Favored format on slice-of-life format (Wendy's)

t-test -df=158

N
143 (89.38%) 17(10.62%) 143 (89.38%) 17(10.62%) 143 (89.38%) 17(10.62%)

Mean
2.68 3.53 2.94 3.65 2.72 3.53

SD
0.95 1.18 1.05 1.06 1.00 1.07

t-value
-3.39 -2.60 -3.12

Sig.

Wendy's
Purchase intention The ad makes the subjea want the burger Not the best The best Willingto buy the burgo- after watchingthe ad Not the best The best Willingto make next purchase after watching the ad Not the best The best t-test -df=158 0.00** 0.01 ** 0.00**

Favored format on testimonial format i[Whataburger) N

Not the best The best 127 (79.38%) 33 (20.62%)

Mean
2.48 2.94

SD
1.12 0.97

t-value
-2.16

Sig. 0.03*

Burger King
Willingto eat the burger after watching the ad

Wendy's
Willingto eat the burgo- after watchingthe ad Not the best The best 127 (79.38%) 33 (20.62%) 2.94 3.48 1.08 1.00 -2.60 0.01**

Whataburger
The ad makes the subjed want the burger Not the best 127 (79.38%) 2.83 1.11 -5.99 0.00 The best 33 (20.62%) 4.03 0.64 Willingto buy the burger after watchingthe ad Not the best 127 (79.38%) 3.09 1.08 -4.64 0.00** The best 33 (20.62%) 4.00 0.61 Willingto eat the burger after watdiing the ad Not the best 127(79.38%) 3.05 1.08 -5.30 0.00** The best 33 (20.62%) 4.09 0.68 Willingto make next purchase afto- watchingth ead Not the best 127(79.38%) 2.78 1.02 -2.96 0.00** The best 33 (20.62%) 3.36 0.99 Total number of subjeas = 160 Least favored = 1, Less favored = 2, Neutral = 3, Favored = 4, Most favored = 5

139

APPENDIX T CHI-SQUIRE TESTS OF PURCHASE INTENTION IN RELATION TO BRAND AND FORMAT EFFECTS

140

Table 41: Chi-squire tests of purchase intention in relation to brand and format effects Purchase intention in Burger King
t-test - df = (2-1X2-1) The ad makes the subjea want the burger Likedbrand 3 3 14 6 17 7 5 5 Liked brand 19 12 22 12 29 12 10 5 Liked brand 1 10 2 16 3 18 2 13 Likedbrand 7 4 16 6 19 6 7 4 Liked brand 14 17 22 19 19 20 9 12 No liked brand 5 5 9 9 10 10 7 7 Did not like brand
2 2 3 2 3 2 0 2

t-value 0.00 1.59 2.00 0.32

Sig. 1.00 0.32 0.22 0.68

Likedad Did not like ad Willingto buy the burger after watchingthe ad Likedad Did not like ad Willingto eat the burger after watchingthe ad Likedad Did not Uke ad Willingto make next purchase after watching the ad Likedad Did not like ad

Purchase intention in Hardee's

t-test -df= (2-1X2-1) The ad makes the subjea want the burger t-vzilue 0.19
0.03 0.24 3.24

Sig. 1.00 1.00 0.63 0.15

Likedad Did not like ad Willingto buy the burger after watchingthe ad Likedad Did not like ad Willingto eat the burger after watching the ad Likedad Did not like ad Willingto make next purchase after watchingthe ad Likedad Did not like ad t-test -df= (2-1X2-1) The ad makes the subjed want the burgo-

Purchase intention in McDonald's

Did not like brand 1 8 4 21 5 22 4 19 Did not like brand 11 20 23 22 24 21 11 19 Did not like brand 10 31 15 33 16 32 10 22 Likedad Did not like ad Likedad Willingto buy the burger after watchingthe ad Did not like ad Likedad Willing to eat the burger after watching the ad Did not like ad Willingto make next purchase after watchingthe ad Likedad Did not like ad t-value 0.02 0.21 0.15 0.11 Sig. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Purchase intention in Wendy's

t-test - df = (2-1X2-1) The ad makes the subjea want the burger Likedad Did not like ad Willingto buy the burger after watdiing the ad Likedad Did not like ad Willingto eat the burger after watchingthe ad Likedad Did not like ad Willingto make next purchase after watchingthe ad Likedad Did not like ad t-value 2.63 2.84 3.49 2.38 Sig. 0.16 0.21 0.22 0.24

Purchase intention in Whataburger

t-test -df= (2-1X2-1) The ad makes the subjed want the burgo* Likedad Did not like ad Likedad Willingto buy the burger after watchingthe ad Did not like ad Likedad Willingto eat the burger afto watchingthe ad Did not like ad Willingto make next purdiase after watching the ad Likedad Did not like ad

t-value 3.43 4.57 2.78 0.74

Sig. 0.08 0.05* 0.12 0.56

141

PERMISSION TO COPY

In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master's degree at Texas Tech University or Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, I agree that the Library and my major department shall make it freely available for research purposes. Permission to copy this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Director of the Library or my major professor. It is understood that any copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my further written permission and that any user may be liable for copyright infringement.

Agree (Permission is granted.)

Student's Signature

Date

Disagree (Permission is not granted.)

Student's Signature

Date