When Advertisements Look Like Products:

The Impacts of Content Reproducibility

Abstract

Contrary to the phenomena predicted by advertising research relevant to the elaboration likelihood model, content ads emphasizing non-message elements possess the potential to attract consumers with high elaboration likelihood. This research aims to address the following two questions: (1) why do such consumers develop favorable attitudes toward content ads depicting non-message elements? and (2) do their attitudes toward content ads result in product consumption? In proposing the hypotheses, the current research introduces the novel concept of content reproducibility, defined as the degree to which an ad authentically reflects the original product content. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that when the elaboration likelihood is high, consumers form more favorable attitudes toward ads with content reproducibility than toward those without it. This is because elements reproducing content (e.g., characters, storylines, settings, colors, and music) in an ad can serve as arguments. Study 2 indicates that when the elaboration likelihood is high, content reproducibility positively influences purchasing intentions. Our findings theoretically contribute to the literature on the elaboration likelihood model, the content business, and the marketing mix. Additionally, this research offers managerial insights to assist marketers in enhancing ad attitudes and purchasing intentions.

Translated Abstract

精緻化見込みモデルに関する広告研究が予測する現象と異なり，非メッセージ要素を強調したコンテンツ広告は，精緻化見込みの高い消費者を魅了する潜在性を秘めている。本研究は，（1）そのような消費者はなぜ非メッセージ要素を描写するコンテンツ広告に好意的な態度を形成するか，（2）彼らのコンテンツ広告態度は製品の消費を喚起するかという2つの問いに解答する。仮説を提唱する際に導入するのが，コンテンツ再現性（オリジナルの製品コンテンツを広告が忠実に反映する程度）という新概念である。スタディ1～2においては，コンテンツ再現性を高める広告要素（例えば，キャラクター・物語・設定・色彩・音楽）は論拠として機能するがゆえに，精緻化見込みが高い場合，コンテンツを再現しない広告より再現する広告に対して，消費者が好意的な態度を形成することを示す。スタディ2においては，精緻化見込みが高い場合，コンテンツ再現性が購買意図に正の影響を及ぼすことを示す。本研究は，精緻化見込みモデル・コンテンツビジネス・マーケティングミックスに関する既存研究に学術的貢献を果たすだけでなく，広告態度と購買意図を高めるための実務的洞察も提示する。

I.  Introduction

In 2021, the ads for the comic “Jujutsu Kaisen” were placed on the walls and pillars of Shibuya Station, which was the setting of its original storyline. These ads vividly depicted the main characters in narrative scenes, effectively recreating the work (Hirai, 2021). A similar noteworthy case is the ad for the animated TV program “Pokémon: Go for Pokémon Master” displayed at Shinjuku Station in 2023. The video ad revisited impressive scenes previously broadcast, featuring the original characters (Oricon News, 2023). In both instances, numerous fans were strongly attracted to the ads that included elements of the advertised content, such as characters, storylines, and settings.

These recent examples suggest that content ads possess the potential to influence viewers to develop favorable ad attitudes and actively consume the advertised products. One of the representative frameworks suitable for understanding this phenomenon is the elaboration likelihood model (ELM; Petty & Briñol, 2012; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Petty et al., 1983), which can explain how consumers form attitudes toward ads and engage in associated behaviors. According to advertising research relevant to the ELM, consumers with low elaboration likelihood attend to non-message elements, while those with high elaboration likelihood allocate considerable cognitive resources to verbal messages (Kerr et al., 2015; MacInnis et al., 2002; Schumann et al., 2012; Tellis, 2004).

Notably, the two cases above imply that content ads emphasizing non-message elements (e.g., characters, storylines, and settings) attract consumers who may be enthusiastic fans with high elaboration likelihood. However, previous advertising studies on the ELM have not explained why consumers with high elaboration likelihood develop favorable attitudes toward content ads depicting non-message elements. A related research question also arises: do their attitudes toward content ads result in product consumption? This research aims to address these issues.

The current research introduces the novel concept of content reproducibility, defined as the degree to which an ad authentically reflects the original product content. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that when the elaboration likelihood is high, consumers form more favorable attitudes toward ads with content reproducibility than toward those without it. This is because elements reproducing content (e.g., characters, storylines, settings, colors, and music) in an ad can serve as arguments. Study 2 indicates that when the elaboration likelihood is high, content reproducibility positively influences purchasing intentions.

This research makes contributions in four ways. First, we refine the theoretical explanations offered by ELM studies in both advertising and psychology. Second, we update the findings of the content business research by shedding light on the mechanisms under which consumers form attitudes toward content ads and engage in associated behaviors. Third, we complement the traditional idea of the marketing mix by arguing that the boundary between “product” and “promotion” may blur or vanish from the consumers’ standpoint. Finally, we offer managerial insights to assist marketers in enhancing the ad attitudes and purchasing intentions of their target audiences.

II.  Theoretical background

1.  Advertising in the content business

Content refers to “information distributed in various media and expressed by moving/still images, sounds, texts, and programs” (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, 2023, p. 4). As implied by this definition, diverse content categories exist, including animation, movies, dramas, comics, music, novels, news, and games. A common property shared by them is the ability to transform or repackage original content across different media. For instance, even after a symphony performance ends in a concert hall, musical scores can be published, and another orchestra can record their rendition (Caves, 2000, pp. 8–9, 271).

While existing research has delved into the uniqueness of content industries (Arai et al., 2004; Caves, 2000; Kawashima, 2020; Lampel & Germain, 2016), relatively few studies closely examined advertising in the content business. Yamakawa and Arai (2011) argued that consumers not only perceive content ads as commercial messages sent by marketers but also enjoy viewing such ads. Nevertheless, their study did not explore how and when the latter phenomenon occurs.

2.  Elaboration likelihood model

As mentioned in the introduction, this research employs the ELM as a theoretical framework. While the ELM can be applied to diverse phenomena including marketing, information systems, politics, religion, psychotherapy, education, and day-to-day social interactions (Petty & Briñol, 2012; Srivastava & Saini, 2022), we focus on the mechanisms under which consumers develop ad attitudes and engage in associated behaviors. The fundamental implication of the ELM is that different appeals are effective for different audiences depending on their elaboration likelihood, defined as the probability of product-relevant thinking occurring (Petty et al., 1983). This level is determined by how motivated and able consumers are to scrutinize arguments (i.e., information relevant to the true merits of the advertised product). Motivation reflects the strength of consumers’ conscious intentions to process ads, whereas ability represents the extent to which consumers are capable of elaborating on ads (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).

When consumers lack the motivation and/or ability to scrutinize arguments (i.e., when the elaboration likelihood is low), they do not engage in extensive cognitive processing and merely attend to non-argument elements that are easily processed, called peripheral cues. When consumers possess the motivation and ability to scrutinize arguments (i.e., when the elaboration likelihood is high), they allocate considerable cognitive resources to arguments. These two contrasting mechanisms are referred to as the peripheral route and the central route, respectively. Under each route, if consumers perceive focal information as cogent and persuasive (/weak and specious), they develop favorable (/unfavorable) attitudes toward ads (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Petty et al., 1983). According to advertising research, peripheral cues include endorsers’ attractiveness/credibility, music, humor, and drama, while arguments are equated with verbal messages (Kerr et al., 2015; Kwon & Nayakankuppam, 2015; MacInnis et al., 2002; Schumann et al., 2012; Tellis, 2004). Furthermore, ad attitudes formed via the central route, as opposed to the peripheral route, are more predictive of behaviors, more enduring, and more resistant to counterarguments. This is because only the former route involves the thoughtful consideration and integration of product-relevant information (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).

As reviewed above, previous advertising studies on the ELM argued that consumers with high elaboration likelihood form ad attitudes based on verbal messages as arguments. Thus, our research questions remain unexplored: (1) why do such consumers develop favorable attitudes toward content ads depicting non-message elements? and (2) do their attitudes toward content ads result in product consumption?

III.  Hypotheses

1.  Conceptual nature of content reproducibility

This research introduces content reproducibility (i.e., the degree to which an ad authentically reflects the original product content). For example, some comic ads emphasize the release date and volume number, diminishing content reproducibility. In contrast, other comic ads successfully reproduce product content by explicitly borrowing elements from the original work, such as characters (sometimes with dialogues) in narrative scenes, storylines, settings, and colors. Content reproducibility can also be heightened by displaying ads in locations where the original story unfolds (e.g., ads for “Jujutsu Kaisen” in Shibuya). Regarding ads promoting animated programs and movies, consumers may perceive a high level of content reproducibility when ads utilize the same music as the original content or include moving images, as opposed to still images.

These elements reproducing content in an ad may prompt consumers to perceive the ad as if it were the actual product. In other words, the boundary between the product and the ad blurs or vanishes from the consumers’ standpoint. This notion complements the traditional idea of the marketing mix (McCarthy, 1975), which implicitly focuses on non-content products and differentiates between the concepts of “product” and “promotion” from the marketers’ perspective.

Before deriving the hypotheses from the ELM, it is essential to clarify whether elements reproducing content (e.g., characters, storylines, settings, colors, and music) function as peripheral cues or arguments. If we were to adhere to prior advertising research that treated verbal messages as arguments and other stimuli as peripheral cues (Kerr et al., 2015; Kwon & Nayakankuppam, 2015; MacInnis et al., 2002; Schumann et al., 2012; Tellis, 2004), elements reproducing content would be included in the latter category. However, arguments originally refer to “bits of information contained in a communication that are relevant to a person’s subjective determination of the true merits of an advocated position” (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986, p. 16). Elements reproducing content can emphasize the product’s true merits and thus should be included in the scope of the definition above. Therefore, we conclude that elements reproducing content play dual roles as both peripheral cues and arguments. This conclusion aligns with the ELM’s original idea that non-message factors can be central to the true merits, such as the physical attractiveness of endorsers for a shampoo brand (Petty & Briñol, 2012; Petty & Cacioppo, 1981, 1986; Petty et al., 1983).

2.  The impacts on ad attitudes and consumption intentions

The following part assumes that elements reproducing content are perceived to be cogent and persuasive. According to the ELM (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Petty et al., 1983), consumers with low elaboration likelihood do not engage in extensive cognitive processing and merely attend to peripheral cues. Elements reproducing content can be easily processed without much cognitive effort and thus serve as peripheral cues for such consumers. Contrarily, consumers with high elaboration likelihood allocate considerable cognitive resources to the quality of arguments. Elements reproducing content can emphasize the product’s true merits and thus serve as arguments for such consumers. Therefore, consumers with either high or low elaboration likelihood are likely to prefer ads with content reproducibility over those without it. Accordingly, we propose the following hypotheses:

H1a. When the elaboration likelihood is low, consumers form more favorable attitudes toward ads with content reproducibility than toward those without it.

H1b. When the elaboration likelihood is high, consumers form more favorable attitudes toward ads with content reproducibility than toward those without it.

The ELM implies that ad attitudes lead to associated behaviors only when the elaboration likelihood is high (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Petty et al., 1983). Thus, content reproducibility positively impacts the intentions to view a free product (e.g., animated TV programs) and purchase a paid product (e.g., animated movies), as well as ad attitudes only when the elaboration likelihood is high. Based on this discussion, we develop the following hypothesis:

H2. Consumers strongly intend to consume products featured in ads with content reproducibility more than those without it only when the elaboration likelihood is high.

IV.  Study 1: Content reproducibility in the context of a free product

1.  Method

(1)  Stimuli

Study 1 aimed to investigate how content reproducibility affects ad attitude and viewing intention in the context of a free product. We used authentic ads to naturally elicit consumer responses. This study designated animated TV programs as the condition with content reproducibility and news TV programs as the condition without content reproducibility. Major brands in these two categories were selected based on several reports on TV program ratings and popularity to ensure that the elaboration likelihood of some participants would be genuinely high. The number of brands per category was set to three to mitigate the effects of factors specific to a single brand.

Online banner ads were prepared for the six brands currently on the air. All ads in both categories incorporated broadcasting date and time information along with the brand logo. The animated program ads depicted the main characters in narrative scenes, providing content reproducibility. In contrast, the news program ads only portrayed background designs irrelevant to the program’s content, ensuring the absence of content reproducibility.

(2)  Design and sample

This study employed a one-way between-subjects design (content reproducibility: presence vs. absence), wherein the individual differences in elaboration likelihood were directly measured. A Japanese professional research firm assisted in recruiting 133 participants who passed an attention check involving the selection of a specific answer (Bleier & Eisenbeiss, 2015). The participants were diverse in age, with 34.6% in their 30s, 24.8% in their 40s, and 40.6% in their 50s; 49.6% were men. This distribution was selected because the experimental ads primarily targeted consumers within these age groups.

(3)  Procedure

In the online experiment, participants were randomly assigned to either the reproducibility group or the non-reproducibility group (n=67 vs. n=66). To minimize the effects of demand characteristics, participants were provided with a fictitious purpose; the experiment aimed to collect opinions about animated or news programs. In the reproducibility (/non-reproducibility) group, participants were then asked to select an animated (/news) TV program that they were aware of from a list of three options. Subsequently, participants viewed an online banner ad for the chosen brand as they would in their daily lives. Following the completion of the questionnaire containing the hypothesized variables and a covariate, the experiment ended with debriefing the participants.

(4)  Measurement

Due to the absence of an existing measurement for content reproducibility, each original item was developed on a seven-point Likert scale: (1) elements reproducing the animated/news TV program were included in the ad and (2) the ad contained elements reproducing the animated/news TV program. These items demonstrated favorable reliability and validity (α=0.94, CR=0.94, AVE=0.94). Elaboration likelihood was operationalized in terms of processing motivation and brand familiarity as an ability variable. Processing motivation was measured using each item on a seven-point Likert scale: (1) I had a strong desire to examine the ad, (2) I was highly motivated to read the ad, (3) I really wanted to understand the ad, and (4) I was very interested in the ad (Smith et al., 2007; α=0.96, CR=0.96, AVE=0.85). Brand familiarity was assessed through seven-point SD items anchored by (1) unfamiliar–familiar, (2) inexperienced–experienced, and (3) not knowledgeable–knowledgeable (Machleit et al., 1993; α=0.85, CR=0.87, AVE=0.70).

Ad attitude was measured using each item on a seven-point SD scale: (1) bad–good, (2) unpleasant–pleasant, (3) unfavorable–favorable, and (4) unlikable–likable (Smith et al., 2007; α=0.96, CR=0.96, AVE=0.85). This study revised the question from Yang and Smith (2009) to evaluate the change in the intention to view a free product: compared to before participating in this experiment, did the probability of viewing the program increase? Each item was answered on a seven-point SD scale: (1) very unlikely–very likely, (2) very impossible–very possible, and (3) very improbable–very probable (α=0.97, CR=0.97, AVE=0.92). To control the effects of prior experiences with the experimental ad, the number of ad views was directly assessed: how many times had you seen the ad before participating in this experiment?

These multiple items were averaged to compute an index for each variable. Table 1 summarizes the descriptive statistics and correlations of the variables used in the analysis. A correlation coefficient with an asterisk indicates significance at the 0.05 level. The diagonal represents the square root of the AVE.

Table 1

Descriptive statistics and correlations in Study 1

2.  Results

(1)  Manipulation check

The mean score of content reproducibility was higher in the animated program condition (M=5.65, SD=1.53) than in news program condition (M=2.92, SD=1.49; t [131]=10.50, p<0.01, Cohen’s d=1.81). Participants who scored above the medians for both processing motivation and brand familiarity were assigned to the high elaboration group, while the others were assigned to the low elaboration group (n=55 vs. n=78). The MANOVA results indicated that the mean scores were higher in the former than in the latter for processing motivation (M=5.52, SD=0.71 vs. M=3.54, SD=1.28; F [1, 131]=108.48, p<0.01, η_p²=0.45) and brand familiarity (M=4.40, SD=0.81 vs. M=2.21, SD=1.10; F [1, 131]=158.83, p<0.01, η_p²=0.55).

(2)  Hypothesis testing

This study conducted a MANCOVA with content reproducibility and elaboration likelihood as the independent variables, the number of ad views as the covariate, and ad attitude and viewing intention as the dependent variables. The interaction effect between content reproducibility and elaboration likelihood was nonsignificant (Wilks’ λ=0.99, F [2, 127]=0.07, p=0.93, η_p²=0.00), while the main effect of content reproducibility was significant (Wilks’ λ=0.88, F [2, 127]=8.78, p<0.01, η_p²=0.12).

As shown in Figure 1, when the elaboration likelihood was low, the estimated marginal mean (EMM) of ad attitude was higher in the presence of content reproducibility (M=4.00, SE=0.21) than in the absence (M=3.36, SE=0.18). A similar pattern was observed when the elaboration likelihood was high (M=5.08, SE=0.20 vs. M=4.28, SE=0.27). In the univariate analysis of ad attitude, the interaction effect between content reproducibility and elaboration likelihood was nonsignificant (F [1, 128]=0.14, p=0.71, η_p²=0.00), while the main effect of content reproducibility was significant (F [1, 128]=11.28, p<0.01, η_p²=0.08). Therefore, Hypotheses 1a and 1b were supported. Note that the simple main effects of content reproducibility were significant when the elaboration likelihood was low (F [1, 128]=5.58, p=0.02, η_p²=0.04) and high (F [1, 128]=5.78, p=0.02, η_p²=0.04).

Figure 1

The estimated marginal means in Study 1

Note: CR is the abbreviation for content reproducibility. The error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

When the elaboration likelihood was low, the EMM of viewing intention did not differ between in the absence and presence of content reproducibility (M=2.86, SE=0.20 vs. M=2.73, SE=0.24). A similar pattern was observed when the elaboration likelihood was high (M=4.60, SE=0.31 vs. M=4.55, SE=0.23). In the univariate analysis of viewing intention, both the interaction effect between content reproducibility and elaboration likelihood (F [1, 128]=0.02, p=0.88, η_p²=0.00) and the main effect of content reproducibility (F [1, 128]=0.13, p=0.72, η_p²=0.00) were nonsignificant. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was not supported.

(3)  Discussion

The results indicated that content reproducibility positively influenced attitudes toward ads when the elaboration likelihood was low and high, supporting Hypotheses 1a and 1b. The pattern of increase in ad attitude was quite similar in the high and low elaboration conditions. Contrastingly, the results did not reveal a positive impact of content reproducibility on viewing intention when the elaboration likelihood was high (Hypothesis 2). Consumers can easily access regularly broadcast TV programs without incurring any monetary costs. Thus, for participants with high motivation and ability, their viewing intention may have reached such a high level that further enhancement would be difficult to achieve.

Although Study 1 used a free product (e.g., animated TV programs) in the experiment, Study 2 examined a paid product (e.g., animated movies) to explore the effect of content reproducibility on purchasing intention.

V.  Study 2: Content reproducibility in the context of a paid product

1.  Method

Study 2 aimed to examine the effects of content reproducibility on ad attitude and purchasing intention in the context of a paid product. The method employed in this study mirrored that of Study 1, with only four specific modifications. First, the experimental categories were animated movies and membership news sites (i.e., the reproducibility condition and the non-reproducibility condition). The experimental ads in both categories incorporated the brand logo. The animated movie ads depicted the main characters in narrative scenes, providing content reproducibility. Contrarily, news site ads only portrayed background designs irrelevant to the product, ensuring the absence of content reproducibility. All products were priced between 1480 and 1980 JPY, thereby controlling the price effects on purchasing intentions to some extent.

Second, a Japanese professional research firm facilitated the recruitment of 122 participants who successfully passed an attention check (37.7% in their 30s, 32.0% in their 40s, and 30.3% in their 50s; 45.1% were men). None of them had participated in Study 1. The participants were randomly assigned to either the reproducibility group or the non-reproducibility group (n=60 vs. n=62).

Third, this study revised the question from Smith et al. (2007) to evaluate the change in purchasing intention: compared to before participating in this experiment, did the probability of purchasing the movie ticket (paying the first monthly fee for the news site) increase? Each item was answered on a seven-point SD scale: (1) very unlikely–very likely, (2) very impossible–very possible, and (3) very improbable–very probable (α=0.97, CR=0.97, AVE=0.92).

Finally, we assessed the reliability and validity of multiple items used in Study 2: content reproducibility (α=0.95, CR=0.95, AVE=0.95), processing motivation (α=0.79, CR=0.87, AVE=0.67), brand familiarity (α=0.93, CR=0.93, AVE=0.82), and ad attitude (α=0.96, CR=0.96, AVE=0.87). These multiple items were averaged to compute an index for each variable. Table 2 summarizes the descriptive statistics and correlations of the variables used in the analysis. A correlation coefficient with an asterisk indicates significance at the 0.05 level. The diagonal represents the square root of the AVE.

Table 2

Descriptive statistics and correlations in Study 2

2.  Results

(1)  Manipulation check

The mean score of content reproducibility was higher in the animated movie condition (M=4.58, SD=1.92) than in the news site condition (M=2.79, SD=1.48; t [120]=5.76, p<0.01, Cohen’s d=1.04). Participants who scored above the medians for both processing motivation and brand familiarity were assigned to the high elaboration group, while the others were assigned to the low elaboration group (n=51 vs. n=71). The MANOVA results indicated that the mean scores were higher in the former than in the latter for processing motivation (M=4.95, SD=0.77 vs. M=3.29, SD=1.07; F [1, 120]=89.84, p<0.01, η_p²=0.43) and brand familiarity (M=4.57, SD=1.07 vs. M=1.92, SD=1.04; F [1, 120]=187.44, p<0.01, η_p²=0.61).

(2)  Hypothesis testing

This study conducted a MANCOVA with content reproducibility and elaboration likelihood as the independent variables, the number of ad views as the covariate, and ad attitude and purchasing intention as the dependent variables. The interaction effect between content reproducibility and elaboration likelihood was nonsignificant (Wilks’ λ=0.96, F [2, 116]=2.60, p=0.08, η_p²=0.04), while the main effect of content reproducibility was significant (Wilks’ λ=0.90, F [2, 116]=6.48, p<0.01, η_p²=0.10).

As shown in Figure 2, when the elaboration likelihood was low, the estimated marginal mean (EMM) of ad attitude was higher in the presence of content reproducibility (M=3.83, SE=0.27) than in the absence (M=2.87, SE=0.19). A similar pattern was observed when the elaboration likelihood was high (M=5.03, SE=0.22 vs. M=4.09, SE=0.36). According to the univariate analysis of ad attitude, the interaction effect between content reproducibility and elaboration likelihood was nonsignificant (F [1, 117]=0.00, p=0.99, η_p²=0.00), while the main effect of content reproducibility was significant (F [1, 117]=12.98, p<0.01, η_p²=0.10). Therefore, Hypotheses 1a and 1b were supported. Note that the simple main effects of content reproducibility were significant when the elaboration likelihood was low (F [1, 117]=8.33, p<0.01, η_p²=0.07) and high (F [1, 117]=5.08, p=0.03, η_p²=0.04).

Figure 2

The estimated marginal means in Study 2

Note: CR is the abbreviation for content reproducibility. The error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.

When the elaboration likelihood was low, the EMM of purchasing intention did not differ between in the absence and presence of content reproducibility (M=2.29, SE=0.22 vs. M=2.20, SE=0.30). When the elaboration likelihood was high, the EMM of purchasing intention was higher in the presence of content reproducibility (M=3.68, SE=0.24) than in the absence (M=2.53, SE=0.40). In the univariate analysis of purchasing intention, the interaction effect between content reproducibility and elaboration likelihood was significant (F [1, 117]=4.25, p=0.04, η_p²=0.04). The simple main effects of content reproducibility were nonsignificant when the elaboration likelihood was low (F [1, 117]=0.06, p=0.81, η_p²=0.00), but significant when the elaboration likelihood was high (F [1, 117]=6.09, p=0.02, η_p²=0.05). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was supported.

(3)  Discussion

Study 2 successfully replicated Hypotheses 1a and 1b, suggesting that the positive impact of content reproducibility on ad attitude remained robust across different types of products and ads. Additionally, this study supported Hypothesis 2, aligning with the ELM: ad attitudes formed via the central route, as opposed to the peripheral route, are more predictive of purchasing intention.

VI.  General discussion

1.  Theoretical implications

The current research contributes to ELM studies in both advertising and psychology by refining theoretical explanations. Specifically, the advertising literature has treated only verbal messages as arguments (Kerr et al., 2015; Kwon & Nayakankuppam, 2015; MacInnis et al., 2002; Schumann et al., 2012; Tellis, 2004). Therefore, the following two questions have remained unexplored: (1) why do consumers with high elaboration likelihood develop favorable attitudes toward content ads depicting non-message elements? and (2) do their attitudes toward content ads result in product consumption? To address these issues, we assert that non-message elements reproducing content can be central to the true merits of the advertised products and thus serve as arguments for consumers with high elaboration likelihood. By conceptualizing elements reproducing content as a novel type of non-message factors central to the true merits of an attitude object, we complement the psychological literature that advocated the ELM and applied it to advertising contexts (Petty & Briñol, 2012; Petty & Cacioppo, 1981, 1986; Petty et al., 1983).

Furthermore, this research contributes to updating the findings of the content business research. Previous studies have not focused on the mechanisms under which consumers form attitudes toward content ads and engage in associated behaviors (Arai et al., 2004; Caves, 2000; Kawashima, 2020; Lampel & Germain, 2016; Yamakawa & Arai, 2011). Our work represents a small but significant step toward bridging the gap between content business and consumer attitude formation.

Finally, we propose that the boundary between “product” and “promotion” may blur or vanish from the consumers’ standpoint by emphasizing the potential for consumers to perceive a content ad as if it were an actual product. Although not empirically tested in this research, this idea contributes to the literature on the marketing mix (McCarthy, 1975), which implicitly focuses on non-content products and differentiates between the concepts of “product” and “promotion” from the marketers’ perspective.

2.  Managerial implications

When marketers attempt to reach audiences with high elaboration likelihood (i.e., with high processing motivation and ability), elements reproducing content in an ad are likely to enhance both ad attitudes and purchasing intentions. When marketers target audiences with low elaboration likelihood (i.e., with low processing motivation and/or ability), these elements are likely to increase their ad attitudes.

In the real world, some news ads may have limited content reproducibility in terms that they include only broadcasting date and time information, the program logo, and, at most, the program’s announcers. However, the video ads for Asahi Shimbun Digital are recent notable examples in this content category. These ads effectively portrayed dramatizations recounting actual reports that were originally featured in articles. While most ads for comics utilize elements that reproduce product content (e.g., Jujutsu Kaisen), certain ads emphasize the release date and volume number. Marketers in this category should be vigilant about content reproducibility to avoid the latter types.

3.  Limitations

Although individual and situational differences are likely to exist in the importance of each element reproducing content, this research does not account for this variation. For example, some consumers may perceive animated characters as essential for content reproducibility, while others may prioritize storylines more. It is imperative to further explore how differently each element contributes to content reproducibility.

In the experiments, we used animated works in the reproducibility conditions and news programs/sites in the non-reproducibility conditions. This led to the challenge of not being able to strictly control factors specific to each category (e.g., hedonic vs. utilitarian values). Additional experiments are required that (1) compare news ads with content reproducibility and animated ads without content reproducibility or (2) fix a single category when comparing the presence and absence of content reproducibility.

Finally, when assigning participants to the high and low elaboration likelihood conditions, it was necessary to check whether the results could be replicated by directly manipulating elaboration likelihood (e.g., Petty et al., 1983) rather than using a median split.

4.  Future research directions

The literature on categorization defines typicality as “the degree to which an item is perceived to represent a category” (Loken & Ward, 1990, p. 112). It may be hypothesized that an ad incorporating elements reproducing content is typical in both the “promotion” and “product” categories (McCarthy, 1975). Through empirical testing of this proposition, future research can demonstrate whether consumers perceive an ad reproducing content as an actual product.

Future research can also explore other phenomena beyond ad attitudes and viewing/purchasing intentions. According to the cases outlined in the introduction, some audiences captured commemorative photographs/videos, shared them on social networking sites, and even shed tears (Hirai, 2021; Oricon News, 2023). Therefore, when an ad highly reproduces the original content, consumers may experience intense emotional states and be driven to generate positive word-of-mouth, thereby increasing recipients’ intentions to visit the location where the ad is displayed.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank Professor Akinori Ono for his insightful comments. We would also like to thank the reviewers for their constructive suggestions. This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI under Grant Number 23K12564 and Support for Pioneering Research Initiated by the Next Generation under Grant Number MKHQ2241.

Ryosuke Takeuchi

Ryosuke Takeuchi is Senior Assistant Professor of Marketing at the School of Commerce, Meiji University. He received a Ph.D. in Business and Commerce from Keio University in 2019. His areas of expertise are advertising and consumer behavior.

Jue Wang

Jue Wang is Ph.D. student at the Graduate School of Business and Commerce of Keio University and works as a lecturer at Josai University. She received an M.A. in Business and Commerce from Keio University in 2022. Her areas of expertise are advertising and consumer behavior.

Data Availability

The datasets generated and analyzed in this article are openly available in J-STAGE Data at

• 1) Content reproducibility and related variables in the context of a free product

• 2) Content reproducibility and related variables in the context of a paid product

References

• Arai, N., Fukuda, T., & Yamakawa, S. (2004). Content marketing: Monogatari gata shouhin no shijyou housoku wo saguru. Dobunkan Shuppan. (In Japanese)
•  Bleier,  A., &  Eisenbeiss,  M. (2015). The importance of trust for personalized online advertising. Journal of Retailing, 91(3), 390–409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.04.001
• Caves, R. E. (2000). Creative industries: Contracts between art and commerce. Harvard University Press.
• Hirai, K. (2021). Manga no sekai wo onaji kuukan de saigen suru OOH. Hansoku Kaigi, June. https://mag.sendenkaigi.com/hansoku/202106/activation-tool/021578.php (January 13, 2024). (In Japanese)
• Kawashima, N. (2020). Content sangyou ron: Bunka souzou no keizai, hou, and management (2nd edition). Minerva-shobo. (In Japanese)
•  Kerr,  G.,  Schultz,  D. E.,  Kitchen,  P. J.,  Mulhern,  F. J., &  Beede,  P. (2015). Does traditional advertising theory apply to the digital world? A replication analysis questions the relevance of the elaboration likelihood model. Journal of Advertising Research, 55(4), 390–400. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2015-001
•  Kwon,  J., &  Nayakankuppam,  D. (2015). Strength without elaboration: The role of implicit self-theories in forming and accessing attitudes. Journal of Consumer Research, 42(2), 316–339. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucv019
•  Lampel,  J., &  Germain,  O. (2016). Creative industries as hubs of new organizational and business practices. Journal of Business Research, 69(7), 2327–2333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.001
•  Loken,  B., &  Ward,  J. (1990). Alternative approaches to understanding the determinants of typicality. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1086/208542
•  Machleit,  K. A.,  Allen,  C. T., &  Madden,  T. J. (1993). The mature brand and brand interest: An alternative consequence of ad-evoked affect. Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 72–82. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252220
•  MacInnis,  D. J.,  Rao,  A. G., &  Weiss,  A. M. (2002). Assessing when increased media weight of real-world advertisements helps sales. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(4), 391–407. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.39.4.391.19118
• McCarthy, E. J. (1975). Basic marketing: A managerial approach (5th edition). Richard D. Irwin.
• Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. (2023). Digital content hakusyo 2023. Digital Content Association of Japan. (In Japanese)
• Oricon News. (2023). Pokemon saisyuukai ni muketa eizou ga Shinjuku eki de houei. Oricon News. https://www.oricon.co.jp/news/2271365/full/ (August 27, 2023). (In Japanese)
• Petty, R. E., & Briñol, P. (2012). The elaboration likelihood model. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.). Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 224–245). Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n12
•  Petty,  R. E., &  Cacioppo,  J. T. (1981). Issue involvement as a moderator of the effects on attitude of advertising content and context. Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 20–24.
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer-Verlag.
•  Petty,  R. E.,  Cacioppo,  J. T., &  Schumann,  D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1086/208954
• Schumann, D. W., Kotowski, M. R., Ahn, H., & Haugtvedt, C. P. (2012). The elaboration likelihood model: A 30-year review. In S. Rogers, & E. Thorson (Eds.). Advertising theory (pp. 51–68). Routledge.
•  Smith,  R. E.,  MacKenzie,  S. B.,  Yang,  X.,  Buchholz,  L. M., &  Darley,  W. K. (2007). Modeling the determinants and effects of creativity in advertising. Marketing Science, 26(6), 819–833. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1070.0272
•  Srivastava,  M., &  Saini,  G. K. (2022). A bibliometric analysis of the elaboration likelihood model (ELM). Journal of Consumer Marketing, 39(7), 726–743. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-12-2021-5049
• Tellis, G. J. (2004). Effective advertising: Understanding when, how, and why advertising works. Sage Publications.
• Yamakawa, S., & Arai, N. (2011). Content ga brand wo tsukuru: Bunka no communication ga umu kanousei. Dobunkan Shuppan. (In Japanese)
•  Yang,  X., &  Smith,  R. E. (2009). Beyond attention effects: Modeling the persuasive and emotional effects of advertising creativity. Marketing Science, 28(5), 935–949. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1080.0460