如果被唬弄了你會怎樣？探討唬弄式網路廣告之效果

What Would You Do If You Were Tricked? Examining the Effects Trick Banners

10.6656/MR.2004.23.3.CHI.53

郭貞(Cheng Kuo)；張卿卿(Ching-Ching Chang)

網路廣告 ； 唬弄式廣告 ； 網路行銷 ； 感官刺激需求 ； 幽默感 ； banner ad ； trick banner ； internet marketing ； sensation seeking ； sense of humor

管理評論

23卷3期（2004 / 07 / 01）

53 - 70

繁體中文

許多網路行銷人員喜歡採用唬弄式廣告來提升其橫幅廣告點選率。網路上的唬弄式廣告通常是在文案或視覺表現上，偽裝成視窗操作或網頁瀏覽機制等花招以吸引網友點閱，然後將網友引入另一個商業網站。但是高點選率不等於優良點選質，許多受到愚弄的網友會快速離開該廣告所連結的網站，甚至產生反感。本研究與大型入口網站合作經由用線上實驗方式，測試不同形式的唬弄式廣告的效果，同時探討三種不同型式的唬弄式網路廣告對於具有不同個人特質的點選者是否會產生不同的效果。共計有1378位網友參加本研究。經過變異量分析後，我們有以下之發現：雖然遊戲式廣告的趣味性高，但與控制組的非唬弄式廣告相比較，並不能顯著提昇瀏覽者對廣告本身以及對廣告所連結網站的喜好程度，它唯一產生的正面效果是增加瀏覽者對產品的訊息需求。仿電腦功能式的廣告會造成瀏覽者的反感，並降低他們對於廣告本身以及對廣告所連結網站的喜好程度。仿表單形式的廣告造成瀏覽者對網頁內容期待的落差，因失諧未得解困而產生負面情緒，降低他們對於廣告本身以及對廣告所連結網站的喜好程度。

Many online marketing practitioners love to increase the click through rate of banners ads with trick banners. Trick banners are banners that fool the user to click on them by disguising themselves as an ordinary application window or a site navigation method. A high CRT rate doesn't equate a good quality of exposure. A user may leave the site quickly when he realizes that he is fooled, or he may even feel negatively toward the designated site. This study attempts to examine the effects of three types of trick banners, meanwhile take into consideration some of the individual's personality traits. With the collaboration of a large portal site on Taiwan, 1378 internet users participated in our online quasi-experiment. Our findings indicate that users felt the game-play banner more interesting but didn't lead to a more favorable attitude toward the ad itself and to the destination web site, it could only enhance information need for the product. Both the fake application window banner and the fake navigation banner aroused negative feelings among the users and developed a less favorable attitude toward the ad itself and the connected web site.

1. 郭貞、張卿卿(2003)。贈獎誘因、品牌差異、個人感官刺激需求對網路廣告效果之影響－一個線準上實驗。管理評論，22(4)，81-100。
   連結：
2. Breen, R. B.,Zucherman, M.(1999).Chasing` in Gambling Behavior: Personality and Cognitive Determinants.Personality and Individual Differences,27(6),1097-1111.
3. Marketing news
4. Affiliate Wire
5. Heckler, S. E.,Children, T. L.(1992).The Role of Expectance and Relevancy in Memory for Verbal and Visual Information: What is Incongruence?.Journal of Consumer Research,18,475-492.
6. Holbrook, R. W.,Chestnut, T. A.,Olivia, T. A.,Greenleaf, E. A.(1984).Play as a Consumption Experience: The Roles of Emotions, Performance, and Personality in the Enjoyment of Games.Journal of Consumer Research,11,728-739.
7. Li, H.(1998).What Makes Users Click on a Banner Ad: Two Field Experimental Studies of Banner Ad Size, Type and Incentive.
8. MacKenzie, S. B.,Lutz, R. J.,Belch, G. E.(1986).The Role of Attitude toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing Explanations.Journal of Marketing Research,23,130-143.
9. Martin, R. A.(1998).The Sense of Humor: Explorations of a Personality Characteristic.New York:Mouton de Gruyter.
10. McDaniel, S. R.(2000).An Examination of Demographic, Lifestyle and Personality Influences on Consumer Preferences for Participating in Promotional Games.Advances in Consumer Research,28,19.
11. Mitchell, A. A.,Olson, J. C.(1981).Are Product Attribute Beliefs the Only Mediator of Advertising Effects on Brand Attitude.Journal of Marketing Research,18,318-332.
12. Niccolai, James(2002).Update: Lawsuit Targets `Deceptive` Banner Ads.IDG News Service\San Francisco Bureau.
13. Piondexter, P. M.(1999).Xers and Boomers: Are They that Different in their Relationship to Web Advertising.Paper presented at the 1999 annual conference of American Academy of Advertising.
14. Richman, Dan(2002).Seattle Post-Intelligence.
15. Rodgers, S.,Sheldon, K.(1999).The Web Motivation Inventory: Reasons for Using the Web and Their Correlates
16. Speck, P. S.(1991).Current Issue & Research and Advertising.The Division of Research Michigan Business School, The University of Michigan.
17. Spotts, H. E.,Weinberger, M. G.,Parsona, A. L.(1997).Assessing the Use and Impact of Humor on Advertising Effectiveness: a Contingency Approach.Journal of Advertising,26(3),15-32.
18. Steward, D. M.,Furse, D. H.(1986).Effective Television Advertising.Lexington, MA:D. C. Heath and Company, Chicago.
19. Thompson, David(1996).Do They Need a `Trick` to Make Us Click?.
20. Thompson, David(1999).Editor & Publisher.
21. Thorson, J. A.,Powell, F. C.,Sarmany-Schuller, Ivan,Hampes, W. P.(1997).Psychological Health and Sense of Humor.Journal of Clinical Psychology,53(6),605-619.
22. Weinberger, M. G.,Gulas, C. S.(1992).The Impact of Humor in Advertising: a Review.Journal of advertising,11(4),33-59.
23. Wolfang, A. K.(1988).Gambling as a Function of Gender and Sensation Seeking.Journal of Gambling Behavior,4(2),71-77.
24. Zuckerman, M.(1994).Behavioral Expressions and Biosocial Bases of Sensation Seeking.New York:Cambridge University Press.
25. 李佳玲(1997)。私立文化大學商學院國際企業管理研究所。
26. 林俊毅(1997)。0與1 Byte科技雜誌。
27. 徐雍閔(1998)。國立中央大學資訊管理研究所。
28. 耿慶瑞(1999)。國立政治大學企管研究所。
29. 許峻偉(1998)。國立台灣科技大學管理研究所資訊管理學程。
30. 陳俊琪(2000)。私立長庚大學管理學研究所。
31. 黃馨瑤(2000)。國立政治大學資訊管理所。
32. 中時電子報

1. 董維、梁榮達、張瑞觀(2009)。由周邊路徑效果探討特定網路廣告態度形成：人機互動、情緒及一般網路廣告態度。電子商務學報，11(1)，143-172。
2. 郭貞、郭貞(2005)。影響網路算命行為因素與動機之探討：找尋網路算命行為之動力心理模式。新聞學研究，85，141-182。
3. 錢曉慧、張曼玲(2012)。迷之認同感之階層模式的建立：人格特質對於迷之認同感的影響。管理實務與理論研究，6(1)，59-81。
4. 楊運秀、張云榕、汪志堅(2018)。從消費者抗拒探討行動廣告的惱怒與規避。行銷科學學報，14(1)，71-94。
5. (2003)。社會學對媒體閱聽人研究之啟示。中華傳播學刊，4，79-107。