Teixeira, Wedel, and Pieters (2010) ask how branding activity and attention shape moment-to-moment decisions to zap a television commercial.

Eye tracking on 31 commercials, for nearly 2,000 participants, shows that dispersed attention strongly predicts avoidance. A brand placed in the center of the screen promotes avoidance. Brand size does not. Pulsing the brand, while holding total brand exposure constant, decreases commercial avoidance.

Method

A dynamic probit model, estimated with Markov chain Monte Carlo, links branding activity and focused versus dispersed attention to zapping. Calibration uses avoidance data and eye tracking on 31 commercials for nearly 2,000 participants. The authors then optimize branding activity inside the sample and test brand pulsing in numerical simulations and in a controlled experiment that compares regular commercials with edited ones.

Main findings

  • Dispersion predicts the zap. Simple metrics of attention dispersion strongly predict avoidance.
  • Center placement costs more than size. A central on-screen brand position promotes commercial avoidance. Brand size does not.
  • Pulsing beats a steady brand. Keeping total brand exposure constant and pulsing it decreases commercial avoidance. Simulations and a controlled experiment with edited commercials both show the benefit.

Why this is in the Darwin index

This is the timing paper beside Teixeira, Wedel, and Pieters (2012) on joy and surprise, and Teixeira, Picard, and el Kaliouby (2014) on how much entertainment to use. It is the published case for pulsing the brand instead of leaving it on screen.

Source of record: doi:10.1287/mksc.1100.0567.