10.2 Econometric Approach

10.2.1 Product Placements

(Fossen and Schweidel 2019a) Measuring the Impact of Product Placement with Brand-Related Social Media Conversations and Website Traffic

  • Investigation of relationship between product placement in TV programs and social media activity/website traffic for featured brand

  • Study uses data on nearly 3,000 product placements for 99 brands from fall 2015 television season

  • Results show that prominent product placements, especially verbal placements, lead to increases in online conversations and web traffic

  • Decreasing returns observed at high levels of prominence

  • Most placement modalities not enhanced by TV advertising in close proximity to placement activities.

10.2.2 Deceptive Advertising

Regulatory reports of deceptive advertising have negative impact on stock market performance, but brand reputation can mitigate this negative effect (Wiles et al. 2010)

(A. Rao 2022)

  • Fake news advertising are those that “mimics the format of its surrounding news content in both digital and print media, promotional segments aired on news programs without disclousre to the public.” (p. 534)

  • Research question: What happens when the fake news ad path is shutdown?

  • Data:

    • Browsing data: comScore

    • Purchase data: Ripoff Report, Complaints Board

    • Ad spend: Neilsen AdSpend data

    • keep only first visits.

  • Total site visits = organic visits + fake news ad referrals + regular ad referrals.

\[ \begin{aligned} Q_{merchant} &= Q_{org} + Q_{fn} + Q_{reg} \\ Q_{org} &= \alpha_{org} + \gamma_1^{fn} Ad_{fn} + \gamma_1^{reg} Ad_{reg} \\ Q_{fn} &= \alpha_{fn} Ad_{fn} + \gamma_2^{reg} Ad_{reg} I(Ad_{fn} > 0) \\ Q_{reg} &= \alpha_{reg} Ad_{reg} + \gamma_3^{fn} Ad_{fn} I(Ad_{reg} > 0) \end{aligned} \]

where

  • \(fn\) = fake news

  • \(reg\) = regular advertising

  • \(Q\) = demand

  • \(\alpha\) = direct effect

  • \(\gamma\) = spillover effect

  • Two effects of interest of fake news

    • Treatment Effect: directly to \(Q_{fn}\), spillover to organic searchers \(\gamma_1^{fn}\) or regular ad referrals \(\gamma_3^{fn}\)

    • Selection Effect: In the absence of fake news, use other channels (substitution effect), 2 segments

      • Those who will use other channels (e.g., regular)

      • Those who will stop

      • In the presence of fake news,

  • Results

    • Fake news ads and regular ads are substitutes (i.e., increase in regular ad referrals after FTC shutdown)

    • Probability of a merchant receiving a complaint declines by 8% after the FTC shutdown (somewhat mechanistically)

    • The selection effect is small (i.e., substitution to the regard ad channel is dominated by the decline in organic demand + fake news ad referrals)

    • Supply side: no change in spend, duration and impressions from the customers, or new fake news ad campaigns from merchants.

  • Robustness

    • Negative publicity (from the press) does not explain visits reduction.

    • Google might change algorithm because of the FTC shutdown. Hard to know. Hence, claim that the measured decline is the upper bound of the true impact of the FTC regulations.

    • Might consider using logistic regression in rare events data here (G. King and Zeng 2001) (but this is a borderline case since they have 95% 0, whereas rare events are usually 99% 0).

10.2.3 Advertising Effects

A. Mitra and Lynch, Jr. (1995)

  • Advertising affect price elasticity via:

    • the size of consideration set

    • the relative strength of preference

Anand and Shachar (2011)

  • Horizontal differentiation: “advertisement (informational role) decreases the consumer’s probability of not choosing her best alternative by approximately 10%.”

(Gopinath, Chintagunta, and Venkataraman 2013) Blogs and Advertising on Movie Performance

  • Objective:

    • Examine how pre- and postrelease blog activity and advertising affect the box office performance of 75 movies across 208 U.S. geographic markets.
  • Factors in Consideration:

    • Blog Volume: Quantity of blog discussions.

    • Blog Valence: Sentiment orientation of blogs.

    • Advertising: Promotional efforts by studios.

  • Demographics:

    • Market differences are attributed to variations in demographic characteristics which influence access to, exposure to, and response to blogs.
  • Time Phases:

    1. Prerelease Factors: Influence on opening day box office performance.

    2. Postrelease Factors: Impact on box office performance one month after release.

  • Methodology:

    • Use of instrumental variables to account for potential confounders in measurement.
  • Key Findings:

    1. Heterogeneity in Effects: Differences are found across consumer and firm-generated media and across various markets. Variations are influenced by demographics like gender, income, race, and age.

    2. Release Day Impact: Prerelease blog volume and advertising have the most pronounced effect on opening day performance.

    3. Postrelease Impact: Performance a month post-release is influenced by postrelease blog sentiment and advertising.

    4. Variation in Elasticities: Greater variance exists in advertising and postrelease blog valence than in prerelease blog volume across markets.

    5. Most Responsive Markets: 20 markets are identified as having the highest sensitivities to advertising, prerelease blog volume, and postrelease blog valence.

    6. Market Classification: Markets are classified based on their responsiveness to these factors, aiding studios in targeting for limited release strategies.

    7. Overlap Analysis: Studios, at first release, only cater to 53% of the most responsive advertising markets and 44% of the most responsive prerelease blog volume markets, suggesting room for optimization in their limited release strategies.

  • Implications:

    • Movie studios can greatly benefit from understanding market sensitivities to blogs and advertising.

    • Given the clear impact of both pre- and postrelease blog activity, studios should consider integrating them into their promotional strategies.

    • A more nuanced approach to market targeting can help studios maximize their box office returns, especially in limited release scenarios.

Lewis and Reiley (2014)

(Gopinath, Thomas, and Krishnamurthi 2014) Impact of Online Word of Mouth vs. Advertising on Firm Performance

  • Objective:

    • Analyze the comparative significance of consumer-generated online word of mouth (OWOM) and advertising on firm performance over time post-product launch.
  • OWOM Distinctions:

    • Volume: Total quantity of conversations.

    • Valence: Specific sentiment orientation.

      • Attribute-oriented: Focus on product features.

      • Emotion-oriented: Relates to feelings or experiences.

      • Recommendation-oriented: Direct suggestions or endorsements.

  • Advertising Content Classifications:

    • Attribute Advertising: Rational, feature-based messages.

    • Emotion Advertising: Affective, sentiment-focused messages.

  • Analytical Approach:

    • Utilized a Dynamic Hierarchical Linear Model (DHLM).

    • Benchmarked DHLM against dynamic linear model, vector autoregressive model, and a generalized Bass model.

    • Addressed potential endogeneity concerns in key metrics.

  • Key Insights:

    1. OWOM’s Direct Impact: Only the valence of recommendation-based OWOM directly affects sales, emphasizing that not all OWOM types are equally influential.

    2. Time Factor: The influence of recommendation OWOM increases with time, while the impact of both attribute and emotion advertising wanes.

    3. Ad Message Wear-out: Rational messages (attribute-oriented) exhibit faster wear-out than emotion-oriented advertisements.

    4. Volume vs. Content: The overall volume of OWOM doesn’t significantly impact sales. Instead, the sentiment or “what people say” is more crucial than sheer quantity or “how much people say”.

    5. OWOM Valence Dynamics: Initially, recommendation OWOM is influenced by attribute valence. As the product ages, emotion valence becomes dominant.

  • Brands Classification:

    • Based on the research outcomes, brands can be categorized as:

      • Consumer Driven: Where OWOM is the dominant influencer.

      • Firm Driven: Where advertising efforts are more impactful.

  • Implication:

    • Brands need to be aware of the evolving nature of OWOM and adjust their advertising strategies accordingly, emphasizing the kind of message being communicated over mere volume.

Draganska, Hartmann, and Stanglein (2013)

N. Sahni, Zou, and Chintagunta (2014)

Hoban and Bucklin (2015)

Stephens-Davidowitz, Varian, and Smith (2017)

W. R. Hartmann and Klapper (2018)

(Fossen and Schweidel 2017) Advertising Effect on WOM

  • Research focuses on the link between TV advertising and online word-of-mouth (WOM).

  • Concept introduced: “social TV” (joint TV program consumption and social media activity).

  • Goals:

    • Determine how TV ads affect online WOM about brands and programs.

    • Identify what boosts or hinders viewer engagement in social TV.

  • Data used:

    • TV advertising instances.

    • Minute-by-minute social media mentions.

  • Key findings:

    • TV ads influence online WOM for the brand and the program.

    • Most talked-about programs online aren’t always best for brand engagement.

    • Specific brand, ad, and program traits can promote or deter social TV engagement.

(Fossen and Schweidel 2019b) Social TV,Advertising, and Sales

  • Television viewers often engage in media-multitasking, especially using another screen.

  • “Social TV” is defined as simultaneous TV viewing and social media discussions about the program.

  • While social TV can increase audience engagement, it might also divert attention from ads.

  • Central research question: Are “social shows” (programs with high social TV activity) beneficial for advertisers?

  • Study examines:

    • Connection between TV advertising, social TV, online traffic, and online sales.

    • Impact of program-related online discussions on online shopping for advertisers during the show.

  • Key findings:

    • Ads in programs with higher social TV activity lead to greater online shopping engagement.

    • Ad responsiveness is influenced by the ad’s mood.

    • Affective ads, especially funny and emotional ones, drive the most online shopping activity.

(Lu et al. 2022) Frenemies: Corporate Advertising Under Common Ownership

  • Ownership structure impacts corporate advertising expenditures.

  • Mutual fund mergers serve as an exogenous shock to ownership structure.

  • Competing firms with common institutional blockholders experience reduced advertising spending.

  • Reduction is more likely in industries with higher competition and advertising intensity.

  • Greater common ownership and concentrated institutional ownership intensify the effect.

  • Firms located in the same state show a stronger impact on advertising strategy.

(Fossen et al. 2022) Political advertising effectiveness

  • Objective: Understand the connection between TV political ad content and ad effectiveness, focusing on message slant and alignment with primary campaign messaging.

  • Metrics Evaluated:

    1. Online word-of-mouth (WOM)

    2. Voter preference (via daily polls)

  • Dataset: 2016 presidential election.

  • Key Insights:

    1. Centrist Messages: Ads with a more moderate tone correlate with increased online WOM and voter preference for the respective candidate.

    2. Consistency: Ads mirroring the candidate's primary-election messages associate with gains in online WOM and voter preference.

    3. Temporal Significance of Consistency: Ad messaging consistency is crucial in the early campaign phase (before October).

    4. Post-Primary Messaging Strategy: While moderation post-primary might benefit candidates, abandoning primary messaging early in the general election can be detrimental.

  • Implication on Extreme Messaging:

    • Despite its growing popularity, extremist political advertising may harm candidate WOM and preference.

(Jindal and Slotegraaf 2023) Impact of Marketing Investments on Bankruptcy Spillovers:

  • Objective:

    • Examine how a firm’s marketing investments, specifically in advertising and R&D, influence the spillover effects when a competitor faces bankruptcy.
  • Context:

    • While the relationship between marketing investments and a firm’s own bankruptcy is well-studied, little is known about how these investments affect spillover outcomes from a rival’s bankruptcy.
  • Key Findings:

    1. Contrasting Effects: In the realm of bankruptcy spillovers, the typical positive impacts of advertising and R&D can manifest differently—both positively and negatively.

    2. Advertising:

      • Industry Growth as a Moderator:

        • In low-growth industries, advertising tends to decrease a firm’s stock return when a competitor files for bankruptcy.

        • Conversely, in high-growth industries, advertising can increase a firm’s stock return under similar circumstances.

    3. R&D:

      • Industry Concentration as a Moderator:

        • In low-concentration industries, R&D investments decrease a firm’s stock return when a rival goes bankrupt.

        • However, in high-concentration industries, R&D can enhance the firm’s stock return.

    4. Advertising in High-Concentration Industries: Advertising exerts a more potent impact on stock returns in industries that have higher concentration.

10.2.4 Estimation of Advertising Effects

Shapiro (2016)

Blake and Coey (2014)

Lewis and Rao (2015)

Lewis, Rao, and Reiley (2011)

Guitart and Stremersch (2021)

10.2.5 Spillovers

Kitts et al. (2014)

Joo et al. (2014)

N. S. Sahni (2016)

S. Yang and Ghose (2010)

Ghose and Todri-Adamopoulos (2016)

Oliver J. Rutz and Bucklin (2011)

(Fossen, Mallapragada, and De 2021) Spillover Effects of Political Ads on TV

  • Context: Concerns about the influence of political TV ads on viewers’ responses to subsequent advertisements.

  • Objective: Examine how political TV ads impact:

    • Subsequent ad viewership.

    • Online conversations about subsequent ads.

  • Data Source:

    • 849 national political TV ads from the 2016 election.
  • Methodology:

    • Quasi-experimental design to assess the impact of a political ad on the following ad.
  • Core Findings:

    • Political ads lead to positive spillover effects.

    • Ads after a political ad see an 89% reduction in audience decline, reaching a larger audience.

    • A 3% increase in positive online chatter is observed for ads airing after political ads.

  • Contribution:

    • Fills the gap in advertising research regarding ad-to-ad spillover effects.

    • Offers insights into the influence of political messages on consumers.

(Ghosh Dastidar, Sunder, and Shah 2023) Societal Spillovers of TV Advertising

  • Research Question: Can TV advertising influence societal outcomes, especially beyond typical marketing results like sales and brand awareness?

  • Context: Analyzing the effect of TV advertising during the COVID-19 pandemic.

  • Data Source:

    • Daily advertising and mobility data.

    • 2,194 counties across 204 designated market areas in the U.S.

  • Methodology:

    • Used a border identification strategy to leverage discontinuities across TV markets.
  • Key Findings:

    • TV ads with COVID-19 narratives positively affect social distancing behaviors.

    • Effects are 11 times larger in counties without government interventions (e.g., mask mandates, shelter-in-place) compared to those with interventions.

    • Overall effect of government ads on social distancing is nonsignificant, but:

      • Effect is negative with policy interventions.

      • Effect is positive without policy interventions.

  • Robustness: Findings are consistent across different model specifications, variable definitions, and data considerations.

  • Implications:

    • TV ads, particularly from brands, can have spillover effects during significant public crises.

    • Brand-sponsored TV ads can compensate for the absence of local government policies.

    • Advertising can potentially enhance public health outcomes and promote societal well-being.

10.2.6 Attribution of Advertising Effects

Simonson et al. (2001)

Lambrecht and Tucker (2013)

H. (Alice). Li and Kannan (2014)

Blake, Nosko, and Tadelis (2015)

Zantedeschi, Feit, and Bradlow (2017)

(Fossen and Bleier 2021) Online Program Engagement and Audience Size During Television Ads

  • Research topic: Connection between television viewers’ online program engagement (OPE) and the audience size during ads of those programs.

  • Data source:

    • 8417 ad instances.

    • OPE activity metrics (Twitter mentions about the program).

    • Audience size during the advertisements.

  • Core findings:

    • Increase in OPE volume and positive deviations from an episode’s average OPE before an ad are associated with a larger ad audience size.

    • OPE is indicative of viewers’ program involvement, which reduces their likelihood to change channels during ads.

    • Positive OPE deviations result in larger ad audiences, especially for the initial ads in a commercial break.

  • Implication: TV networks and advertisers can enhance ad audience size by strategically placing ads during “social episodes” (high OPE volume) and “social moments” (positive OPE deviations).

10.2.7 Advertising Content

L. Xu et al. (2014)

T. Teixeira, Picard, and el Kaliouby (2014)

Tucker (2015)

Liaukonyte, Teixeira, and Wilbur (2015)

A. Rao and Wang (2015)

Sudhir, Roy, and Cherian (2016)

10.2.8 Consumer Demand for Ads

Goldstein et al. (2014)

Wilbur (2016)

Tuchman, Nair, and Gardete (2017)

References

Anand, Bharat N., and Ron Shachar. 2011. “Advertising, the Matchmaker.” The RAND Journal of Economics 42 (2): 205–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2011.00131.x.
Blake, Thomas, and Dominic Coey. 2014. “Why Marketplace Experimentation Is Harder Than It Seems: The Role of Test-Control Interference.” In Proceedings of the Fifteenth ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, 567–82.
Blake, Thomas, Chris Nosko, and Steven Tadelis. 2015. “Consumer Heterogeneity and Paid Search Effectiveness: A Large-Scale Field Experiment.” Econometrica 83 (1): 155–74. https://doi.org/10.3982/ecta12423.
Draganska, Michaela, Wesley R. Hartmann, and Gena Stanglein. 2013. “Internet Versus Television Advertising: A Brand-Building Comparison.” Journal of Marketing Research 51 (5): 578–90. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0124.
Fossen, Beth L, and Alexander Bleier. 2021. “Online Program Engagement and Audience Size During Television Ads.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 49: 743–61.
Fossen, Beth L, Donggwan Kim, David A Schweidel, and Raphael Thomadsen. 2022. “The Role of Slant and Message Consistency in Political Advertising Effectiveness: Evidence from the 2016 Presidential Election.” Quantitative Marketing and Economics 20 (1): 1–37.
Fossen, Beth L, Girish Mallapragada, and Anwesha De. 2021. “Impact of Political Television Advertisements on Viewers’ Response to Subsequent Advertisements.” Marketing Science 40 (2): 305–24.
Fossen, Beth L, and David A Schweidel. 2017. “Television Advertising and Online Word-of-Mouth: An Empirical Investigation of Social TV Activity.” Marketing Science 36 (1): 105–23.
———. 2019a. “Measuring the Impact of Product Placement with Brand-Related Social Media Conversations and Website Traffic.” Marketing Science 38 (3): 481–99.
———. 2019b. “Social TV, Advertising, and Sales: Are Social Shows Good for Advertisers?” Marketing Science 38 (2): 274–95.
Ghose, Anindya, and Vilma Todri-Adamopoulos. 2016. “Toward a Digital Attribution Model: Measuring the Impact of Display Advertising on Online Consumer Behavior.” MIS Quarterly 40 (4): 889–910. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2016/40.4.05.
Ghosh Dastidar, Ayan, Sarang Sunder, and Denish Shah. 2023. “Societal Spillovers of TV Advertising: Social Distancing During a Public Health Crisis.” Journal of Marketing 87 (3): 337–58.
Goldstein, Daniel G., Siddharth Suri, R. Preston McAfee, Matthew Ekstrand-Abueg, and Fernando Diaz. 2014. “The Economic and Cognitive Costs of Annoying Display Advertisements.” Journal of Marketing Research 51 (6): 742–52. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0439.
Gopinath, Shyam, Pradeep K Chintagunta, and Sriram Venkataraman. 2013. “Blogs, Advertising, and Local-Market Movie Box Office Performance.” Management Science 59 (12): 2635–54.
Gopinath, Shyam, Jacquelyn S Thomas, and Lakshman Krishnamurthi. 2014. “Investigating the Relationship Between the Content of Online Word of Mouth, Advertising, and Brand Performance.” Marketing Science 33 (2): 241–58.
Guitart, Ivan A, and Stefan Stremersch. 2021. “The Impact of Informational and Emotional Television Ad Content on Online Search and Sales.” Journal of Marketing Research 58 (2): 299–320.
Hartmann, Wesley R., and Daniel Klapper. 2018. “Super Bowl Ads.” Marketing Science 37 (1): 78–96. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2017.1055.
Hoban, Paul R., and Randolph E. Bucklin. 2015. “Effects of Internet Display Advertising in the Purchase Funnel: Model-Based Insights from a Randomized Field Experiment.” Journal of Marketing Research 52 (3): 375–93. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0277.
Jindal, Niket, and Rebecca J Slotegraaf. 2023. “Effects of Advertising and r&d on Spillovers from a Rival’s Bankruptcy.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1–21.
Joo, Mingyu, Kenneth C. Wilbur, Bo Cowgill, and Yi Zhu. 2014. “Television Advertising and Online Search.” Management Science 60 (1): 56–73. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2013.1741.
King, Gary, and Langche Zeng. 2001. “Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data.” Political Analysis 9 (2): 137–63.
Kitts, Brendan, Michael Bardaro, Dyng Au, Al Lee, Sawin Lee, Jon Borchardt, Craig Schwartz, John Sobieski, and John Wadsworth-Drake. 2014. “Can Television Advertising Impact Be Measured on the Web? Web Spike Response as a Possible Conversion Tracking System for Television.” In Proceedings of the Eighth International Workshop on Data Mining for Online Advertising, 1–9.
Lambrecht, Anja, and Catherine Tucker. 2013. “When Does Retargeting Work? Information Specificity in Online Advertising.” Journal of Marketing Research 50 (5): 561–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224371305000508.
Lewis, Randall A., and Justin M. Rao. 2015. “The Unfavorable Economics of Measuring the Returns to Advertising .” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 130 (4): 1941–73. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjv023.
Lewis, Randall A., Justin M. Rao, and David H. Reiley. 2011. “The 20th International Conference.” In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/1963405.1963431.
Lewis, Randall A., and David H. Reiley. 2014. “Online Ads and Offline Sales: Measuring the Effect of Retail Advertising via a Controlled Experiment on Yahoo!” Quantitative Marketing and Economics 12 (3): 235–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11129-014-9146-6.
Li, Hongshuang (Alice), and P.K. Kannan. 2014. “Attributing Conversions in a Multichannel Online Marketing Environment: An Empirical Model and a Field Experiment.” Journal of Marketing Research 51 (1): 40–56. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0050.
Liaukonyte, Jura, Thales Teixeira, and Kenneth C. Wilbur. 2015. “Television Advertising and Online Shopping.” Marketing Science 34 (3): 311–30. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2014.0899.
Lu, Ruichang, Qiaowei Shen, Tenghui Wang, and Xiaojun Zhang. 2022. “Frenemies: Corporate Advertising Under Common Ownership.” Management Science 68 (6): 4645–69.
Mitra, Anusree, and John G. Lynch, Jr. 1995. “Toward a Reconciliation of Market Power and Information Theories of Advertising Effects on Price Elasticity.” Journal of Consumer Research 21 (4): 644. https://doi.org/10.1086/209425.
Rao, Anita. 2022. “Deceptive Claims Using Fake News Advertising: The Impact on Consumers.” Journal of Marketing Research 59 (3): 534–54.
Rao, Anita, and Emily Yucai Wang. 2015. “Demand for ’Healthy’ Products: False Claims in Advertising.” SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2559980.
Rutz, Oliver J., and Randolph E. Bucklin. 2011. “From Generic to Branded: A Model of Spillover in Paid Search Advertising.” Journal of Marketing Research 48 (1): 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.1.87.
Sahni, Navdeep S. 2016. “Advertising Spillovers: Evidence from Online Field Experiments and Implications for Returns on Advertising.” Journal of Marketing Research 53 (4): 459–78. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.14.0274.
Sahni, Navdeep, Dan Zou, and Pradeep K. Chintagunta. 2014. “Effects of Targeted Promotions: Evidence from Field Experiments.” SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2530290.
Shapiro, Bradley. 2016. “Positive Spillovers and Free Riding in Advertising of Prescription Pharmaceuticals: The Case of Antidepressants.” SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2477877.
Simonson, Itamar, Ziv Carmon, Ravi Dhar, Aimee Drolet, and Stephen M. Nowlis. 2001. “Consumer Research: In Search of Identity.” Annual Review of Psychology 52 (1): 249–75. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.249.
Stephens-Davidowitz, Seth, Hal Varian, and Michael D. Smith. 2017. “Super Returns to Super Bowl Ads?” Quantitative Marketing and Economics 15 (1): 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11129-016-9179-0.
Sudhir, K., Subroto Roy, and Mathew Cherian. 2016. “Do Sympathy Biases Induce Charitable Giving? The Effects of Advertising Content.” Marketing Science 35 (6): 849–69. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2016.0989.
Teixeira, Thales, Rosalind Picard, and Rana el Kaliouby. 2014. “Why, When, and How Much to Entertain Consumers in Advertisements? A Web-Based Facial Tracking Field Study.” Marketing Science 33 (6): 809–27. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2014.0854.
Tuchman, Anna E., Harikesh S. Nair, and Pedro M. Gardete. 2017. “Television Ad-Skipping, Consumption Complementarities and the Consumer Demand for Advertising.” Quantitative Marketing and Economics 16 (2): 111–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11129-017-9192-y.
———. 2015. “The Reach and Persuasiveness of Viral Video Ads.” Marketing Science 34 (2): 281–96. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.2014.0874.
Wilbur, Kenneth C. 2016. “Advertising Content and Television Advertising Avoidance.” Journal of Media Economics 29 (2): 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/08997764.2016.1170022.
Wiles, Michael A., Shailendra P. Jain, Saurabh Mishra, and Charles Lindsey. 2010. “Stock Market Response to Regulatory Reports of Deceptive Advertising: The Moderating Effect of Omission Bias and Firm Reputation.” Marketing Science 29 (5): 828–45. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1100.0562.
Xu, Linli, Kenneth C. Wilbur, S. Siddarth, and Jorge M. Silva-Risso. 2014. “Price Advertising by Manufacturers and Dealers.” Management Science 60 (11): 2816–34. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.1969.
Yang, Sha, and Anindya Ghose. 2010. “Analyzing the Relationship Between Organic and Sponsored Search Advertising: Positive, Negative, or Zero Interdependence?” Marketing Science 29 (4): 602–23. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1090.0552.
Zantedeschi, Daniel, Eleanor McDonnell Feit, and Eric T. Bradlow. 2017. “Measuring Multichannel Advertising Response.” Management Science 63 (8): 2706–28. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2016.2451.