Ценность «рассказывающей» анимации на веб-сайте для брендов: реакция потребителей в гедонистическом и утилитарном контекстах потребления

Цель настоящего исследования – изучить влияние использования «рассказывающей» анимации на сайте продукта на поведение посетителей сайта и потенциальных покупателей в двух контекстах потребления: гедонистическом и утилитарном. Практическая польза выводов, полученных в рамках исследования, состоит в определении параметров поведения потребителей, на которые влияет данный тип анимации, и определении необходимости использования анимации на сайте продукта в целом, а также понимании в каком контексте потребления она будет иметь наибольший эффект.
Согласно исследованиям, анимация – один из факторов интерактивности веб-сайта. Как правило, чем выше уровень интерактивности сайта, тем лучше реакция потребителя. Однако, в силах ли «рассказывающая анимация» в отдельности значимо повлиять на восприятие?
Данное исследование с помощью экспериментального метода доказывает, что использование данного типа анимации значительно улучшает состояние потока, в которое погружается пользователь, а также увеличивает эффект сарафанного радио. В то же время сайты продуктов, потребляемых для удовольствия, в значительной степени выигрывают от того, что человек воспринимает анимацию сайта как «рассказывающую историю» в сравнении с сайтами продуктов утилитарного характера.

1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………………………..7 1.1. Relevance of the study…………………………………………………………………………………………….7
1.2. Research gap………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8
1.3. Research questions …………………………………………………………………………………………………8
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ………………………………………………………………………………………………9 2.1. Discussion on Interactivity and Perceived Interactivity of a Website…………………………….9
2.2. Perceived Interactivity & Online Flow…………………………………………………………………….12 2.3. Website Animation as an Interactivity Tool……………………………………………………………..13 2.4. Hedonic and utilitarian consumption purposes of a website ……………………………………….14 2.5. Word-of-mouth effects created by animation……………………………………………………………15 2.6. Research hypotheses……………………………………………………………………………………………..19
3. RESEARCH MODEL AND METHODOLOGY ……………………………………………………………21 3.1. Research methodology ………………………………………………………………………………………….21
3.2. Pretest. Selection of product categories……………………………………………………………………21 3.2.1 Pretest Design…………………………………………………………………………………………………21 3.2.2. Pretest Analysis ……………………………………………………………………………………………..24
3.3. Experiment ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….28 3.3.1. Method………………………………………………………………………………………………………….28 3.3.2. Data collection……………………………………………………………………………………………….34 3.3.3. Experiment design ………………………………………………………………………………………….34
4. RESULTS………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….38 4.1. Socio-demographic description of the group ……………………………………………………………38
4.1.1. Sex and age……………………………………………………………………………………………………38 4.1.2. Education………………………………………………………………………………………………………38 4.1.3. Geography …………………………………………………………………………………………………….39
4.2. Experiment analysis……………………………………………………………………………………………..39 5
4.2.1. Scale reliability tests……………………………………………………………………………………….39 4.2.2. Animation perception check…………………………………………………………………………….41 4.2.3. Multi-factor analysis……………………………………………………………………………………….45 4.2.4. Analyzing the differences between static and animated versions ………………………….46 4.2.4. Analyzing the differences between hedonic and utilitarian animated versions………..50
4.3. Verification of the research hypotheses……………………………………………………………………52
5. DISCUSSION…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….54 5.1. Main findings……………………………………………………………………………………………………….54
5.2. Theoretical contributions……………………………………………………………………………………….54 5.3. Managerial implications ………………………………………………………………………………………..55 5.4. Limitations and directions for future research…………………………………………………………..56
REFERENCES ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………58 Academic Literature in English…………………………………………………………………………………….58
Professional Literature and Market Analytics…………………………………………………………………60
APPENDICES ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….61 Appendix 1 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..61
Appendix 2 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..62 Appendix 3 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..63 Appendix 4 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..64

1. Adaval, R. (2001). Sometimes it Just Feels Right: The Differential Weighting of Affect- Consistent and Affect-Inconsistent Product Information. Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (April), 1-18.
2. Alba, J.W. & Williams, E.F. (2013). Pleasure Principles: A Review of Research on Hedonic Consumption. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23 (January), 2-18.
3. Anderson, E. W. (1998). Customer Satisfaction and Word of Mouth. Journal of Service Research, 1(1), 5–17.
4. Arndt, J. (1967). Word of mouth advertising: A review of the literature. Advertising Research Foundation.
5. Buchanan, R., &; Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. Design Issues, 8(1), 80.
6. Chou, T. J., & Ting, C. C. (2003). The role of flow experience in cyber-game addiction. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 6 (6), 663-675.
7. Davis, M. S., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1977). Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: The Experience of Play in Work and Games. Contemporary Sociology, 6(2), 197.
8. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132.
9. Dhar, R., & Wertenbroch, K. (2000). Consumer choice between hedonic and utilitarian goods. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(1), 60–71.
10. Gao, L., Bai, X., & Park, A (2017). Understanding sustained participation in virtual travel communities from the perspectives of IS success model and flow theory. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 41 (4), 475–509.
11. Hogan, J.E., Lemon, K.N. & Libai, B. (2004). Quantifying the ripple: word-of-mouth and advertising strategies of competing durable good producers. Marketing Science, 7(4), 356-67.
12.Hoffman, D.L., Novak, T.P. (1996). Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated
environments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing 60 (3), 50–68.
13. Hong, W., Thong, J. Y., & Tam, K. Y. (2004). Does Animation Attract Online Users’ Attention? The Effects of Flash on Information Search Performance and Perceptions.
Information Systems Research, 15(1), 60-86.
14. Huang, L.-T., Chiu, C.-A., Sung, K., & Farn, C.-K. (2011). A Comparative Study on the Flow Experience in Web-Based and Text-Based Interaction Environments. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(1-2), 3–11.
15. Kashdan, T. B., & Steger, M. F. (2007). Curiosity and pathways to well-being and meaning in life: Traits, states, and everyday behaviors. Motivation and Emotion, 31(3), 159–173.
16. Keller, E. & Libai B. (2009). A Holistic Approach to the Measurement of WOM. Presentation at ESOMAR Worldwide Media Measurement Conference, Stockholm (May 4–6).
17. King, R. A., Racherla, P., & Bush, V. D. (2014). What we know and don’t know about online word-of-mouth: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(3), 167–183.
18. Kivetz, R., & Zheng, Y. (2017). The effects of promotions on hedonic versus utilitarian purchases. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(1), 59-68.
19. Kronrod, A., & Danziger, S. (2013). Wii Will Rock You! The Use and Effect of Figurative Language in Consumer Reviews of Hedonic and Utilitarian Consumption. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(4), 726-739.
20. Lim, W. M. (2017). Untangling the relationships between consumer characteristics, shopping values, and behavioral intention in online group buying. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 25(7), 547–566.
21.Litman, J. (2005). Curiosity and the pleasures of learning: Wanting and liking new information. Cognition & Emotion, 19 (6), 793-814.
22. Liu, Y., & Shrum, L. J. (2002). What is Interactivity and is it Always Such a Good Thing? Implications of Definition, Person, and Situation for the Influence of Interactivity on Advertising Effectiveness. Journal of Advertising, 31(4), 53-64.
23. McMillan, S. J., Hwang, J., & Lee, G. (2003). Effects Of Structural And Perceptual Factors On Attitudes Toward The Website. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(4), 400-409.
24. Noort, G. V., Voorveld, H. A., & Reijmersdal, E. A. (2012). Interactivity in Brand Web Sites: Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Responses Explained by Consumers’ Online Flow Experience. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(4), 223-234.
25. Reichheld, F. and Sasser, W.J. (1990). Zero defections: quality comes to services. Harvard Business Review, September/October, 105-111.
26. Schlienger, C., Conversy, S., Chatty, S., Anquetil, M., & Mertz, C. (2007). Improving users’ comprehension of changes with animation and sound: An empirical assessment. IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 207-220, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
59

27. Sicilia, M., Ruiz, S., & Munuera, J. L. (2005). Effects of Interactivity in a Web Site: The Moderating Effect of Need for Cognition. Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 31-44.
28. Snowden, R. J., & Freeman, T. C. (2004). The visual perception of motion. Current Biology, 14(19), 28-31.
29.Song, Ji H. and George M. Zinkhan (2008). Determinants of Perceived Web Site Interactivity. Journal of Marketing, 72, 2, 99-113.
30.Trusov, M., Bucklin, R.E. and Pauwels, K. (2009). Effects of word-of-mouth versus traditional marketing: findings from an internet social networking site. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 (5), 90-102.
31. Wu, G. (2006). Conceptualizing and Measuring the Perceived Interactivity of Websites. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 28(1), 87-104.
32. Yang, F., & Shen, F. (2019). Involvement without Knowledge Gain: A Meta-Analysis of the Cognitive Effects of Website Interactivity. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 63(2), 211-230.
33. Yimiao Chen, Fangyi Liu, Cheng‐Hsi Fang, Tom M.Y. Lin. (2013). Understanding the effectiveness of word‐of‐mouth: an elasticity perspective. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 7(1), 57-76.