1
Marketingcommunicatie & De Consument (MCC)
samenvatting compleet
Hoorcollege 1.
Hoorcollege 2.
Artikel 1: Friese, M., Wänke, M., & Plessner, H. (2006). Implicit consumer preferences and their
influence on product choice. Psychology & Marketing, 23, 727-740. doi: 10.1002/mar.20126.
Artikel 2: Gibson, B. (2008). Can evaluative conditioning change attitudes toward mature brands?
New evidence from the implicit association test. Journal of Consumer Research, 35, 178-188. doi:
10.1086/52734.
Hoorcollege 3.
Artikel 1: Romaniuk, J., Sharp, B., & Ehrenberg, A. (2007). Evidence concerning the importance of
perceived brand differentiation. Australasian Marketing Journal, 15, 42-54.
doi: 10.1016/S1441-3582(07)70042-3
Artikel 2: MacDonald, E.K., & Sharp, B. (2000). Brand awareness effects on consumer decision making
for a common, repeat purchase product: A replication. Journal of Business Research, 48, 5-15. doi:
10.1016/S0148-2963(98)00070-8
Artikel 3: Trembath, R., Romaniuk, J., & Lockshin, L. (2011). Building the destination brand: An
empirical comparison of two approaches. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 28, 804-816. doi:
10.1080/10548408.2011.623038
Hoorcollege 4.
Artikel 1: Belch, G.E., & Belch, M.A. (2015, Chapter 1). An introduction to integrated marketing
communications. In G.E. Belch, & M.A. Belch (Eds.), Advertising and promotion: An integrated
marketing communications perspective (10th ed., pp. 3-39). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
Hoorcollege 5.
Artikel 1: De Veirman, M., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2017). Marketing through Instagram
influencers: the impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand attitude. International
Journal of Advertising, 36(5), 798-828. doi: 10.1080/02650487.2017.1348035
Artikel 2: Jin, S. A., & Phua, J. J. (2014). Following celebrities’ tweets about brands: The impact of
twitter-based electronic word-of-mouth on consumers’ source credibility perception, buying
intention, and social identification with celebrities. Journal of Advertising, 43(2), 181-195.
Hoorcollege 6.
Artikel 1: Jensen, J.A., Walsh, P., Cobbs, J., & Turner, B.A. (2015). The effects of second screen use on
sponsor brand awareness: A dual coding theory perspective. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 32,
71-84. doi: 10.1108/JCM-02-2014-0861
Artikel 2: Van Reijmersdal, E., Neijens, P., & Smit, E.G. (2009). A new branch of advertising:
Reviewing factors that influence reactions to product placement. Journal of Advertising Research, 49,
429-449. doi: 10.2501/S0021849909091065
Hoorcollege 7.
Artikel 1: Belch, G.E., & Belch, M.A. (2015, Chapter 10). Media planning and strategy. In G.E. Belch,
& M.A. Belch (Eds.), Advertising and promotion: An integrated marketing communications
perspective (10th ed., pp. 337-371). New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
, 2
Artikel 2: McCoy, S., Everard, A., Galletta, D. F., & Moody, G. D. (2017). Here we go again! The
impact of website ad repetition on recall, intrusiveness, attitudes, and site revisit intentions.
Information & Management, 54(1), 14-24. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2016.03.005
Artikel 3: Nordhielm, C. L. (2002). The Influence of level of processing on advertising repetition
Effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 371-382. doi: 10.1086/344428
Hoorcollege 8.
Hoorcollege 9.
Hoorcollege 10.
Artikel 1: Varan, D., Murphy, J., Hofacker, C.F., Robinson, J.A., Potter, R.F., & Bellman, S. (2013).
What works best when combining television sets, pcs, tablets, or mobile phones? How synergies across
devices result from cross-device effects and cross-format synergies. Journal of Advertising Research,
53, 212-220.
Artikel 2: Tang, T., Newton, G.D., & Wang, X. (2007). Does synergy work? An examination of
cross-promotion effects. The International Journal on Media Management, 9, 127-134.
Artikel 3: Bart, Y., Stephen, A.T., & Sarvary, M. (2014). Which products are best suited to mobile
advertising? A field study of mobile display advertising effects on consumer attitudes and intentions.
Journal of Marketing Research, 51, 270-285. doi: 10.1509/jmr.13.0503.
Hoorcollege 11.
Artikel 1: Eisingerich, A.B., Chun, H.H., Liu, Y., Jia, H., & Bell, S.J. (2015). Why recommend a brand
face-to-face but not on Facebook? How word-of-mouth on online social sites differs from traditional
word-of-mouth. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25, 1, 120-128.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2014.05.004
Artikel 2: Thorbjørnsen, H., Ketelaar, P., Van ‘t Riet, J., & Dahlén, M. (2015). How do teaser
advertisements boost word of mouth about new products? For consumers, the future is more exciting
than the present. Journal of Advertising Research, 55, 73-80. doi: 10.2501/JAR-55-1-073-080
Hoorcollege 12.
Artikel 1: Van Noort, G., Kerkhof, P., & Fennis, B.M. (2008). The persuasiveness of online safety cues:
The impact of prevention focus compatibility of web content on consumers’ risk perceptions, attitudes,
and intentions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 22, 58-72. doi: 10.1002/dir.20121
Artikel 2: Van Noort, G., Voorveld, H.A.M., & Van Reijmersdal, E.A. (2012). Interactivity in brand
websites: Cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses explained by consumers’ online flow
experience. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26, 223-234.
doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2011.11.002
belangrijke term
hoofdonderwerp
begrippen
, 3
Hoorcollege 1.
How marcoms work: explicit attitudes // Guido van Koningsbruggen
Aim of the lecture:
In this lecture, we will provide you with an overview of different attitude formation and change
models that shed light on how consumers might process marketing communications.
Integrated Marketing Communications (IMC), evolution:
❖ for many years, advertising via mass media → this was the most dominant form of
marketing communications
❖ in the 1980’s, new disciplines arrived, e.g. PR, direct marketing & sales promotion
➢ since the 1980s, marketing communications, now a form of intergrated
disciplines (so, a combination of all forms of communication in marketing)
➢ A synergy of disciplines were found to play a different role in Return of
Investment (ROI) → the benefits of combining them was found
❖ IMC (integrated marketing communications) can also be described as a strategic business
process to plan, develop, execute and evaluate brand communication programs
➢ het is een addettief model, geen statisch model → er kwam behoefte om alle
onderdelen op te nemen in de marketingstrategie
➢ alle communicatie onderdelen werden geevalueerd om te bepalen wat de meest
effectieve manier was om de doelgroep te bereiken, ofwel: to identify the most
effective ways of communication
➢ big picture on building strong brands & combining every sort of media type
➢ enabling marketers to create a consistent and unified image
The focus is now on building relationships (Belch&Belch) instead of selling or persuading. It’s
about creating loyalty and building trust for example. But let’s not forget that in the end,
everything is about selling.
IMC Audience Contact Tools / Touch Points
4 main ones;
1. company created (planned marketing communications, advertising, websites, packaging
etc) → door een organisatie gecreerde touchpoints zoals communicatie via eigen website
of social media accounts
2. intrinsic (all interactions between brand and consumers) → de contactmomenten die
consumenten hebben in het sales proces zoals contact met de verkoper/het personeel.
Hier heb je weinig controle over
3. customer-initiated (consumer starts the contact, by filing a complaint for example) →
contacten die klanten hebben met klantenservice via telefoon of social media accounts
bijvoorbeeld, goed te managen
, 4
4. unexpected (word of mouth, unplanned, reviews) → meest gevaarlijk voor een merk
omdat het hierbij veelal gaat om user generated content (UGC), als niet goed gemanaged
wordt kan het desastreus zijn (goed managen door unplanned communication
touchpoints als review websites en word-of-mouth (WoM)
Contact Points: control vs. impact
These can be ranked on a scale of relative impact and ability to control/influence. For example,
the company created touch points score high on control but low on impact. The unexpected
scores low on control but high on impact:
❖ Planned company related touch-points → veel controle maar niet veel impact
❖ Unexpected touch-points → veel impact maar moeilijk te controleren
How Marcoms work I: Explicit Attitudes
When talking about impact, we’re talking about consumer behaviour.
Today we’re going to focus on how consumers process and respond to marcoms.
Attitudes, formation and change:
Attitude towards brand is how much a person likes or dislikes a brand. They are quite stable.
→ als mensen een positieve attitude hebben tegenover jouw merk, is het waarschijnlijker
dat ze kiezen voor jouw merk. Merkattitudes zijn relatief stabiel, maar kunnen
veranderen in verloop van tijd. Attitudes positiever maken is dan ook een doel van
marketing communicatie
There are 3 attitude components:
1. Affective (feelings associated with object)
→ gevoelens die consumenten hebben met een bepaald product
2. Cognitive (Knowledge, beliefs and evaluations of object)
→ kennis, overtuigen, evaluaties van het merk of product
3. Behavioral (Action, readiness with object)
→ intentie, bereidheid van consumenten om het product te verkrijgen
Explicit vs Implicit (we need to persuade)
Explicit brand attitudes: not spontaneous
Implicit brand attitudes: spontaneous
Explicit brand attitude + implicit attitude + persuasion vs. brand salience = consumer behaviour
How do consumers process and respond to marcoms?
There is not one single model or theory that can predict how consumers react, which is why
there are so many. However, based on the literature we can filter the options.
All models can be classified into two dimensions:
