Economic Growth and Advertising Expenditures in Different Media in Different Countries Richard van der Wurff and Piet Bakker, Robert G. Picard, Journal of Media Economics, 21:28-52, 2008
Purpose
It explores the relationships between economic growth (GDP) and advertising expenditures for different media in 21 industrialized countries (all long-time member states of the OECD)
Hypotheses
H1: Advertising intensity (a) increases in time and is higher in countries where (b) the primary sector is less important, (c) the secondary and tertiary sectors are more important, (d) a smaller share of production is exported, and (e) per capita GDP is higher.
H2: Advertising intensity of a single medium (a) is not influenced by the advertising intensity of other media and varies (b) in times as well as with (c) per capita GDP.
H3: The responsiveness of advertising expenditures to changes in GDP is higher for print media (newspapers, magazines) and outdoor advertising than for electronic media (television, radio, and cinema).
H4: The responsiveness of advertising expenditures to changes in GDP is higher in countries where (a) newspapers have a larger share in total advertising expenditures, and (b) advertising intensity is higher.
Results
· Advertising intensity varies considerably across time and countries.
· Newspaper advertising expenditures depend more strongly on economic development.
· GDP predicts ad spending better in countries where newspapers are an important advertising medium.
· GDP predicts ad spending better in countries where a larger proportion of GDP is spent on advertising.
The remaining questions
The weak tie between literature and its actual analysis.
· The authors mentioned the previous findings of the principle of relative constancy and unique
events influencing advertising expenditures; however, they did not analyze directly in this study.
· Regarding the intermedia competition, they considered the potential power of the Internet
Advertising; however, it was not analyzed directly in the study.
· For the first hypothesis, the authors did not mention clearly the influence of the manufactures variables
No clear explanation
· How do we define the long-term and short-term?
· How do we define economic declines and upturns? Any indicators to differentiate or standardize the periods?
· No clear analysis of the intermedia competition; why some media are more seriously affected by economic downtowns than others? The authors are more likely to find the answers from the previous research not their findings.
· What is “advertising cultures”? Does the advertising intensity or expenditures determine the advertising culture? Any factors?
· So….what..? why did we get that results? No explanation.
Showing posts with label research critique. Show all posts
Showing posts with label research critique. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Incidental exposure to online news
The article I reviewed is “Accidentally Informed: Incidental News Exposure on the World Wide Web” from 2001 Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly.
This article argued that even though acquiring current affairs information is rarely a primary goal for people to use Internet, the prevalence of news on the web provides opportunities for people to encounter news in an incidental way. Therefore, the article assumed that “the frequency of web use will be positively associated with incidental exposure to news on the web” (H1). In addition, the article pointed out the goals people have for surfing the web could impact incidental exposure from the uses and gratifications perspective leading to the first research questions: “Do different uses of the Web result in differences in incidental exposure news?” Then, the second hypothesis “Incidental exposure to news on the Web will be positively associated with knowledge of current events.” was proposed.
This article mentioned in the literature review that more news are published online right now due to the popularity of portal sites and the information services provided by search engines. Since the online news is getting more and more, it would be obvious to see that people are more likely to expose to online news unintentionally. For the research question, it is also quite obvious that different purpose of using the Internet can lead to different patterns of using the Internet. I couldn’t help but wonder what exactly the “differences in incidental exposure news” is. It seems pretty vague to me. Lastly, when previous literature indicates that learning can be active or passive, it seems clear that the more online news people expose to (whether intentional or unintentional), the more knowledge of current events people would have.
The measure of knowledge here is an issue (Similar to SungWoo mentioned). Surveys relevant to the present research questions were taken in Autumn (21 through 31 Octobor) 1996, Spring (24 April through 11 May) 1998, and Autumn (26 October through 1 December) 1998. I would think that participants who took the survey later (for example the one took the survey on Dec. 1st comparing to the one did it on Oct. 26), might have more knowledge in terms of current events because people’s knowledge of current events is accumulated and they can acquire those information from different media.
In addition, this article mentions that the Internet is often an addition to rather than a replacement of traditional media, so the authors believe that web use will increase incidental learning about current events in part because of the complementary nature of contemporary media. I would consider that for certain groups such as young adults, the Internet might be a replacement of traditional media. Also, the incidental online news exposure was measured by a self-reported yes/no questions which is not persuasive to me. There should be a better way to measure people’s attention to information when the contents and media are competing with each other under the condition of information surplus.
Similar to Sandra’s feeling, I wonder if it is because I am not familiar with or interested in some area, I couldn’t get the meaning of those hypotheses or research questions. Would it be possible that those hypotheses or research questions which seem meaningless or boring to us might be important for theory testing or theory building?
This article argued that even though acquiring current affairs information is rarely a primary goal for people to use Internet, the prevalence of news on the web provides opportunities for people to encounter news in an incidental way. Therefore, the article assumed that “the frequency of web use will be positively associated with incidental exposure to news on the web” (H1). In addition, the article pointed out the goals people have for surfing the web could impact incidental exposure from the uses and gratifications perspective leading to the first research questions: “Do different uses of the Web result in differences in incidental exposure news?” Then, the second hypothesis “Incidental exposure to news on the Web will be positively associated with knowledge of current events.” was proposed.
This article mentioned in the literature review that more news are published online right now due to the popularity of portal sites and the information services provided by search engines. Since the online news is getting more and more, it would be obvious to see that people are more likely to expose to online news unintentionally. For the research question, it is also quite obvious that different purpose of using the Internet can lead to different patterns of using the Internet. I couldn’t help but wonder what exactly the “differences in incidental exposure news” is. It seems pretty vague to me. Lastly, when previous literature indicates that learning can be active or passive, it seems clear that the more online news people expose to (whether intentional or unintentional), the more knowledge of current events people would have.
The measure of knowledge here is an issue (Similar to SungWoo mentioned). Surveys relevant to the present research questions were taken in Autumn (21 through 31 Octobor) 1996, Spring (24 April through 11 May) 1998, and Autumn (26 October through 1 December) 1998. I would think that participants who took the survey later (for example the one took the survey on Dec. 1st comparing to the one did it on Oct. 26), might have more knowledge in terms of current events because people’s knowledge of current events is accumulated and they can acquire those information from different media.
In addition, this article mentions that the Internet is often an addition to rather than a replacement of traditional media, so the authors believe that web use will increase incidental learning about current events in part because of the complementary nature of contemporary media. I would consider that for certain groups such as young adults, the Internet might be a replacement of traditional media. Also, the incidental online news exposure was measured by a self-reported yes/no questions which is not persuasive to me. There should be a better way to measure people’s attention to information when the contents and media are competing with each other under the condition of information surplus.
Similar to Sandra’s feeling, I wonder if it is because I am not familiar with or interested in some area, I couldn’t get the meaning of those hypotheses or research questions. Would it be possible that those hypotheses or research questions which seem meaningless or boring to us might be important for theory testing or theory building?
Monday, September 28, 2009
How do you measure knowledge in new media environment?
Measurement of knowledge is an important issue in media effect studies. It is a tricky problem we have learned. In surveys, typical questionnaires are the name of vice president, identifying policy stance with the party, job title of US chief justice and so on. Based on this scale, pundits argued that the public is too ignorant to sustain a healthy democracy. And they said the public is getting dumber and dumber.
Markus Prior of Princeton Univ. and Arthur Lupia of Michigan Univ. challenged this conventional way of knowledge measures. 2008. Money, Time, and Political Knowledge: Distinguishing Quick Recall and Political Learning Skills. American Journal of Political Science, 52 (1): 169–183.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lupia/Papers/Prior_Lupia_AJPS_2008.pdf
Theory: Knowledge is not only about recall. It is also a learning or searching skill. In cognitive psychology distinction is made between a kind of memory known as “declarative memory” and rule based “procedural memory.”
Method: Experiment that treat monetary reward and 24 hour searching period. Four group. 1 minute and no pay. 1minute and pay. 24hours and no pay. 24 hour and pay.
Null Hypothesis #1: Providing an incentive for correctly answering knowledge questions
will not affect the likelihood of offering a correct answer.
#2: Even if giving respondents extra time increases the number of correct answers, the change will be uninteresting: it will be constant across respondents or simply amplify differences between strong and weak performers.
Result : Null Hypotheses are rejected. The treatments increased the number of correct answers by 11–24%. Findings imply that conventional knowledge measures confound respondents’ recall of political facts with variation in their motivation to exert effort during survey interviews
Criticism
-Wrong calculation. Reported percent increase, rather than increase in percentage.
-Political learning skills indicate only a potential for making more informed choices.
-This study was not received well. But is it not the concept of political learning skill, or procedural memory included in the concept of political knowledge, since people are linked and searching for information on the web?
Markus Prior of Princeton Univ. and Arthur Lupia of Michigan Univ. challenged this conventional way of knowledge measures. 2008. Money, Time, and Political Knowledge: Distinguishing Quick Recall and Political Learning Skills. American Journal of Political Science, 52 (1): 169–183.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lupia/Papers/Prior_Lupia_AJPS_2008.pdf
Theory: Knowledge is not only about recall. It is also a learning or searching skill. In cognitive psychology distinction is made between a kind of memory known as “declarative memory” and rule based “procedural memory.”
Method: Experiment that treat monetary reward and 24 hour searching period. Four group. 1 minute and no pay. 1minute and pay. 24hours and no pay. 24 hour and pay.
Null Hypothesis #1: Providing an incentive for correctly answering knowledge questions
will not affect the likelihood of offering a correct answer.
#2: Even if giving respondents extra time increases the number of correct answers, the change will be uninteresting: it will be constant across respondents or simply amplify differences between strong and weak performers.
Result : Null Hypotheses are rejected. The treatments increased the number of correct answers by 11–24%. Findings imply that conventional knowledge measures confound respondents’ recall of political facts with variation in their motivation to exert effort during survey interviews
Criticism
-Wrong calculation. Reported percent increase, rather than increase in percentage.
-Political learning skills indicate only a potential for making more informed choices.
-This study was not received well. But is it not the concept of political learning skill, or procedural memory included in the concept of political knowledge, since people are linked and searching for information on the web?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)