All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Visual Strategies in U.S. and Chinese TV Ads
Unformatted Document Text:  14 along, while 32% of all Chinese ads (64 out of 200) demonstrated a visual story. The difference (see Table 2) in this category was significant, 2 (1) = 8.82, p < .001. Results supported H1a. H1b was also confirmed that U.S. ads used more comparisons than Chinese commercials. However, the raw numbers were small. There were only four Chinese ads using comparison appeals, while fourteen US ads took this strategy, 2 (1) = 6.87, p < .05 (see Table 2). It should be pointed out that among the four Chinese ads using the comparison appeal, none of them named their competitors. Two of them used self- comparisons, highlighting the improvements of the new version over the old version of product. The other two compared themselves with anonymous products. The US ads, however, sometimes openly disparaged their competitors by name. H1c proposed that the brand acknowledgement in U.S. ads would be earlier than in Chinese ads. Results (Table 2) lent credence to the hypothesis, 2 (2) = 25.84, p < .001. 46.5% of US ads presented brand name images or symbols in the first one-third of the commercials, 25% in the second one-third, and 25.1% in the last one-third. The numbers for Chinese ads were 33.5% in the first one-third, 15.5% in the second one-third, and 51% in the last respectively. US advertisers were inclined to introduce their brands as early as possible (see bar chart in Appendix 1). H1d stated that pacing of U.S. ads was faster than Chinese ads. The difference was not statistically significant. We calculated the average time for each shot appearing on screen, and the results revealed that the shots in US ads lasted longer than shots in Chinese ads (in US case, M = 2.02; in Chinese case, M = 1.66). This means the pace of US ads is actually slower than Chinese ads.

Authors: Xue, Fei., Zhou, Shuhua. and Zhou, Peiqin.
first   previous   Page 14 of 29   next   last



background image
14
along, while 32% of all Chinese ads (64 out of 200) demonstrated a visual story. The
difference (see Table 2) in this category was significant,
2
(1)
= 8.82, p < .001. Results
supported H1a.
H1b was also confirmed that U.S. ads used more comparisons than Chinese
commercials. However, the raw numbers were small. There were only four Chinese ads
using comparison appeals, while fourteen US ads took this strategy,
2
(1)
= 6.87, p < .05
(see Table 2). It should be pointed out that among the four Chinese ads using the
comparison appeal, none of them named their competitors. Two of them used self-
comparisons, highlighting the improvements of the new version over the old version of
product. The other two compared themselves with anonymous products. The US ads,
however, sometimes openly disparaged their competitors by name.
H1c proposed that the brand acknowledgement in U.S. ads would be earlier than
in Chinese ads. Results (Table 2) lent credence to the hypothesis,
2
(2)
= 25.84, p <
.001. 46.5% of US ads presented brand name images or symbols in the first one-third of
the commercials, 25% in the second one-third, and 25.1% in the last one-third. The
numbers for Chinese ads were 33.5% in the first one-third, 15.5% in the second one-third,
and 51% in the last respectively. US advertisers were inclined to introduce their brands as
early as possible (see bar chart in Appendix 1).
H1d stated that pacing of U.S. ads was faster than Chinese ads. The difference
was not statistically significant. We calculated the average time for each shot appearing
on screen, and the results revealed that the shots in US ads lasted longer than shots in
Chinese ads (in US case, M = 2.02; in Chinese case, M = 1.66). This means the pace of
US ads is actually slower than Chinese ads.


Convention
All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 14 of 29   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.