Skip to main content

From consumer response to active consumer: Measuring the effectiveness of interactive media

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science volume 30, pages 376–396 (2002)Cite this article

Abstract

Traditional measures of the effectiveness of marketing communications suggest a specific process by which marketing actions influence consumers. This article offers a broader philosophical perspective on measuring the effectiveness of marketing communications that focuses on interaction as the unit of analysis, rather than the behavior of either the marketer or the consumer. Structuration theory is discussed and offered as a viable foundation for the identification, selection, and evaluation of new measures of effectiveness in an interactive context among active, goal-driven consumers and marketers. Structuration theory focuses on the emergency and evolution of the structure of interaction, which is posited as a critical factor in devising, selecting, and evaluating new measures of the effectiveness of marketing communications. This view broadens the potential set of measures of effectiveness of interactive marketing communications, implying alternative meanings for measures under different interaction structures and combinations of goal states.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

References

  • Alba, Joseph, John Lynch, Barton Weitz, Chris Janiszewski, Richard Lutz, Alan Sawyer, and Stacey Wood. 1997. “Interactive Home Shopping: Consumer, Retailer, and Manufacture Incentives to Participate in Electronic Marketplaces.”Journal of Marketing 61 (July): 38–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, Bruce and J. B. Crant. 2000. “Dyadic Communication Relationships in Organizations: An Attribution/Expectancy Approach.”Organization Science 11 (6): 648–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barsalou, Lawrence W. 1982. “Context-Independent and Context-Dependent Information in Concepts.”Memory & Cognition 10:82–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1983. “Ad Hoc Categories.”Memory and Cognition 11 (May): 211–227.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1985. “Ideals, Central Tendency, and Frequency of Instantiation as Determinants of Graded Structure in Categories.”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 11 (4): 629–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1991. “Deriving Categories to Achieve Goals.” InThe Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and theory, Vol. 27. Ed. G. H. Bower. New York: Academic Press, 1–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1992. “Frames, Concepts, and Conceptual Fields.” InFrames, Fields, and Contracts: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organization. Eds. E. Kittay and A. Lehrer. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 21–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bettman, James R. 1979.An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bezjian-Avery, A. and B. Calder. 1988. “New Media Interactive Advertising vs. Traditional Advertising.”Journal of Advertising Research 38 (94) Retrieved from http://search.epnet.com

  • Borden, Neil H. 1942.The Economic Effects of Advertising. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Broussard, Gerard. 2000. “How Advertising Frequency Can Work to Build Online Advertising Effectiveness.”International Journal of Market Research 42 (4): 439–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, Gordon, II and Anand Kumar. 2000. “Web Commercials, and Advertising Hierarchy-of-Effects.”Journal of Advertising Research, January–April, 35–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgoon, Judee K., J. A. Bonito, B. Bengtsson, A. Ramirez, R E. Dunbar, and N. Miczo. 2000. “Testing the Interactivity Model: Communication Processes, Partner Assessments, and the Quality of Collaborative Work.”Journal of Management Information Systems 16 (3): 33–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, Raymond R. and Thomas K. Srull 1988. “Competitive Interference and Consumer Memory for Advertising.”Journal of Consumer Research 15 (June): 55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, R. N. 1928.An Account of the Principles of Measurement and Calculations. London: Longmans. Green.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannon, Hugh M. 2001. “Addressing New Media With Conventional Media Planning.”Journal of Interactive Research 1 (2). Retrieved from www.jiad.org.

  • Chancellor, Edward. 1999.Devil Take the Hindmost: A History of Financial Speculation. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, P., D. L. Hoffman, and T. P. Novak. 2000. “Modeling the Clickstream: Implications for Web-Based Advertising Efforts.” Working paper. Retrieved from http://www2000.ogsm. vanderbilt.edu/papers/clickstream/clickstream.html.

  • Child, Martin. 2001. “Online Ads Should Be Judged by the Right Benchmarks.”Marketing 12 (March): 33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhircu, Alina and Robert J. Kauffman. 1999. “Strategies for Internet Middlemen in the Intermediation/Disintermediation/ Reintermediation Cycle.”Electronic Markets 9 (2). Retrieved from http://www.electronicmarkets.org/netacademy/publications.nsf/all_pk/1344

  • Coyle, J. 1997. “The Effects of Progressive Levels of Interactivity and Vividness in On-line Advertising on Attitude-Behavior Consistency.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Missouri, Columbia.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1999. “Advertising in an Interactive Environment: A Research Agenda.” InAdvertising and the World Wide Web Eds. D. W. Schumann and E. Thorson. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 197–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, B. 1990. “The Fifth Medium.”American Demographics 12:24–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis, G. and M. S. Poole. 1994. “Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory.”Organization Science 5 (2): 121–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drèze, Xavier and Francois-Xavier Hussherr. 1999. “Internet Advertising: Is Anybody Watching?” Working Paper. Department of Marketing, Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California.

  • Duncan, Tom and S. E. Moriarty 1998. “A Communication-Based Marketing Model for Managing Relationships.”Journal of Marketing 62 (April): 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganesan, S. 1994. “Determinants of Long-Term Orientation in Buyer-Seller Relationships.”Journal of Marketing 58: 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, Joan A. 1971. “Seven Brands in Seven Days.”Journal of Advertising Research 11 (5): 15–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. 1979.Central Problems in Social Theory: Action, Structure, and Contradiction in Social Analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1984.The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structure. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilder, George. 1994.Life After Television: the coming Transformation of American Life. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, Heather and Ben Elgin. 2001. “Doe-Ads Have a Future?.”Business Week 3716:46–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, Donna L. and Tom P. Novak. 1996. “Marketing in Hypermedia Computer-Mediated Environments: Conceptual Foundations.”Journal of Marketing 60:50–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huffman, Cynthia and Michael Houston. 1993. “Goal-Oriented Experiences and the Development of Knowledge.”Journal of Consumer Research 20 (September): 190–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Internet Advertising Bureau. 1997.IAB Internet Advertising Report 1997. Retrieved from http://www.iab.net.

  • Jones, Oswald, Tim Edwards and Martin Beckinsale. 2000. “Technology Management in a Mature Firm: Structuration Theory and the Innovation Process.”Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 12 (2): 161–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, Ralph L. 1999. “The Value of Internet Commerce to the Customer.”Management Science 45 (April): 533–542.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leckenby, J. D. and H. Li. 2000. “From the Editors: Why We Need theJournal of Interactive Advertising.”Journal of Interactive Advertising 1 (1). Retrieved from www.jiad.org.

  • Leornar-Barton, Dorothy. 1988. “Implementation as a Mutual Adaptation of Technology and Organization.”Research Policy 17 (5):251–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leong, Elaine K. F., Xueli Huang and P.-J. Stanners. 1998. “Comparing the Effectiveness of the Website With Traditional Media.”Journal of Advertising Research. September–October, 44–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodish, Leonard M., Magid Abraham, Stuart Kalmenson, Jeanne Livelsberger, Beth Lubetkin, Bruce Richardson, and Mary Ellen Stevens. 1995a.“How Advertising Works: A Meta-Analysis of 389 Real World Split Cable TV Advertising Experiments.”Journal of Marketing Research 32 (May): 125–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —,—,—,—,—,—,—. 1995b. “A Summary of Fifty-Five In-Market Experimental Estimates of the Long-Term Effects of Advertising.”Marketing Science 14:G133-G140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lombard M. and J. Snyder-Duch 2001. “Interactive Advertising and Presence: A Framework.”Journal of Interactive Research 1 (2). Retrieved from www.jiad.org

  • Lucking-Reiley, D. and D. E. Spulber. 2001. “Business-to-Business Electronic Commerce.”Journal of Economic Perspectives 15:55–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, John G. and Dan Ariely. 2000. “Wine Online: Search Costs and Competition on Price, Quality, and Distribution.”Marketing Science 19 (1): 83–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacInnis, D. J. and B. J. Jaworski. 1989. “Information Processing From Advertisements: Toward an Integrative Framework.”Journal of Marketing 53 (4): 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majchrzak, Ann, Ronald E. Rice, A. Malhotra, N. King, and S. Ba. 2000. “Technology Adaptation: The Case of a Computer Supported InterOrganizational Virtual Team.”MIS Quarterly 17 (December): 569–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M. L. and D. Robey. 1988. “Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research.”Management Science 15 (5): 583–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, Ingrid and David W. Stewart. 2001. “The Dimensionality of Measures of Product Similarity Under Goal-Congruent and Goal-Incongruent Conditions.”Journal of Marketing Research 38 (November): 471–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maznevski, M. L. and K. M. Chudoba. 2000. “Bridging Space Over Time: Global Virtual Team Dynamics and Effectiveness.”Organization Science 11 (5): 473–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, George L. and Douglas L. Medin. 1985. “The Role of Theories in Conceptual Coherence.”Psychological Review 92 (July): 289–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, Phillip. 1970. “Information and Consumer Behavior.”Journal of Political Economy 78:311–329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —. 1974. “Advertising as Information.”Journal of Political Economy 82:729–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Novak, T. P., D. L. Hoffman, and Y.-F. Yung. 2000. “Measuring the Customer Experience in Online Environments: A Structural Modeling Approach.”Marketing Science 19 (1): 22–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh, K. W., C. H. Cho, and J. D. Leckenby. 1999. “A Comparative Analysis of Korean and U.S. Web Advertising.” Paper presented at the American Academy of Advertising Conference, March, Albuquerque, NM.

  • Orlikowski, Wanda J. 1992. “The Duality of Technology:Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organizations.”Organization Science 3 (3): 398–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1996. “Improvising, Organizational Transformation Over Time: A Situated Change Perspective.”Information Systems Research 7 (1): 63–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and C. S. Iacono. 2000 “The Truth Is Not Out There: An Enacted View of the ‘Digital Economy.’” InThe Digital Economy. Eds. E. Brynjolsson and B. Kahin. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, C. W. and Daniel Smith. 1989. “Product-Level Choice: A Top-Down and Bottom-Up Process?.”Journal of Consumer Research 16 (December): 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paustian, Chuck. 2001. “Better Products Through Virtual Customers.”Sloan Management Review 42 (3): 14–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pavlou, Paul A. and David W. Stewart. 2000. “Measuring the Effects and Effectiveness of Interactive Advertising: A Research Agenda.”Journal of Interactive Advertising 1 (1). Retrieved from http://www.jiad.org

  • Pavlou, Paul A. and David W. Stewart. 2001. “Interactive Advertising: A New Conceptual Framework for Integrating Elements of the Marketing Mix.” Paper presented at the 2001 Academy of Marketing Science Conference, june, San Diego, CA.

  • Pechmann, Connie and David W. Stewart. 1988. “Advertising Repetition: A Critical Review of Wearin and Wearout.”Current Issues and Research in Advertising pp. 285–330.

  • ——. 1990. “The Role of Comparative Advertising: Documenting Its Effects on Attention, Recall, and Purchase Intentions.”Journal of Consumer Research 17 (September): 180–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — and —. 1991. “The Effect of Comparative Advertising on Sales of Low, Moderate, and High Share Brands.”Journal of Advertising Research 31 (December–January): 47–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pervin, Lawrence. 1983. “The Stasis and Flow of Behavior: Toward a Theory of Goals.” InNebraska Symposium on Motivation. Ed. M. M. Page. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, William T. 1973. “Feedback: Beyond Behaviorism.”Science, January 26, pp. 351–356.

  • —. 1978. “Quantitative Analysis of Purposive Systems: Some Spadework at the Foundations of Scientific Psychology.”Psychological Review 85:417–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Punj, Girish N. and David W. Stewart. 1983. “An Interaction Framework of Consumer Decision Processes.”Journal of Consumer Research 10 (September): 181–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riedman, Patricia. 2001. “Poor Rich Media.”Advertising Age 72 (6): 26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers, Shelly and Esther Thorson. 2000. “The Interactive Advertising Model: How Users Perceive and Process Online Ads.”Journal of Interactive Research 1 (1). Retrieved from www.jiad.org

  • Salancik, Gerald R. and Jeffrey Pfeffer. 1978. “A Social Information Processing Approach to Job Attitude and Task Design.”Administrative Sciences Quarterly 23 (June): 224–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarason, Y. 2000. “A Model of Organizational Transformation: The Incorporation of Organizational Identity Into a Structuration Theory Framework.”Academy of Management Journal, pp. 47–51.

  • Snyder, M. and N. Cantor. 1998. “Understanding Personality and Social Behavior: A Functionalist Strategy.” InThe Handbook of Social Psychology. Eds. D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Firsk, and G. Lindzey. New York: Oxford University Press, 635–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, S. S.. 1951. “Mathematics, Measurement and Psycholophysics” InHandbook of Experimental Psychology Ed. S. S. Stevens. New York: John Wiley, 1–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, Julie S., Gordon C. Bruner II, and Anand Kumar. 2000. “Webpage Background and Viewer Attitude.”Journal of Advertising Research, January–April, 29–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, David W. 1989. “Measures, Methods, and Models of Advertising Response Over Time.”Journal of Advertising Research 29 (June–July): 54–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1994. “How Advertising Works in Mature Markets.”American Demographics 16 (September): 40–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1999. “Advertising Wearout: What and How You Measure Matters.”Journal of Advertising Research 39 (September–October): 39–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, Kenneth Farmer, and Charles Stannard. 1990. “Music as a Recognition Cue in Advertising Tracking Studies.”Journal of Advertising Research 30 (August–September): 39–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and David H. Furse., 1984. “Analysis of the Impact of Executional Factors on Advertising Performance.”Journal of Advertising Research 24 (December–January): 23–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and —. 1985. “The Effects of Television Advertising Execution on Recall, Comprehension, and Persuasion.”Psychology and Marketing 2 (4): 135–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — and —. 1986.Effective Television Advertising: A Study of 1000 Commercials. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • —,—, and R. Kozak. 1983. “A Descriptive Analysis of Commercial Copytesting Services.”Current Issues and Research in Advertising 6: 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and Sid Hecker. 1988.Nonverbal Communication in Advertising. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and Scott Koslow. 1989. “Executional Factors and Advertising Effectiveness: A Replication.”Journal of Advertising 18 (3): 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, Paul A. Pavlou, and Scott Ward. 2002. “Media Influences on Marketing Communications.” InMedia Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. Rev ed. Eds. Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillmann. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 353–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • —, Connie Pechmann, Srinivasan Ratneshwar, Jon Stroud, and Beverley Bryant. 1985. “Methodological and Theoretical Foundations of Advertising Copy Testing: A Review.”Current Issues and Research in Advertising 1: 1–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and Girish Punj. 1998. “The Effects of Using a Nonverbal (Musical) Cue on Recall and Playback of Television Advertising: Implications for Advertising Models.”Journal of Business Research 42 (May): 39–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — and Scott Ward. 1994. “Media Effects on Advertising.” InMedia Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. Eds. J. Bryant and D. Zillman. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 315–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • — and Qin Zhao. 2000. “Internet Marketing, Business Models, and Public Policy.”Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 19 (Fall): 287–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundar, S. S., S. Narayan, R. Obregon, and C. Uppal. 1998. “Does Web Advertising Work? Memory for Print vs. Online Media?”J & MC Quarterly 75 (4): 822–835.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppes, Patrick. 1977. “The Structure of Theories and the Analysis of Data.” InThe Structure of Scientific Theories., Ed. Frederick Suppes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 268–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, Terry. 2000. “Online Advertising: Money to Burn.”Internetweek 832: 57–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sydow, Jorg and Arnold Windeler. 1998. “Organizing and Evaluating Interfirm Networks: A Structurationist Perspective on Network Processes and Effectiveness.”Organization Science 9 (3): 265–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeff, R. L. and B. Aroson. 1999.Advertising on the Internet. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Southern California, California, USA

    David W. Stewart & Paul A. Pavlou

Authors
  1. David W. Stewart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paul A. Pavlou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

David W. Stewart is the Robert E. Brooker Professor of Marketing and the deputy dean of the Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California. He is also the immediate past editor of theJournal of Marketing. His research has examined a wide range of issues, including marketing strategy, the analysis of markets, consumer information search and decision making, effectiveness of marketing communications, and methodological approaches to the analysis of marketing data.

Paul A. Pavlou is a Ph.D. candidate of information systems at the Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California. His research focuses on business-to-business and business-to-consumer electronic commerce, new product development, institutional trust, interactive marketing, communications, and e-government. He has more than 25 publications in journals, books, and refereed conference proceedings. His research has appeared (or scheduled to appear) inMIS Quarterly, Electronic Markets, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Journal of Logistics Information Management, andJournal of Interactive Advertising, among others. He has recently won the Best Interactive Paper Award at the 2002 Academy of Management Conference.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stewart, D.W., Pavlou, P.A. From consumer response to active consumer: Measuring the effectiveness of interactive media. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 30, 376–396 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1177/009207002236912

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009207002236912

Keywords

  • Structuration Theory
  • Purchase Intention
  • Traditional Measure
  • Consumer Response
  • Traditional Medium