![]() ![]() This is a pressing problem because digital communication is increasingly carried out on mobile devices (Van Rijn, 2018), where complex visual presentations are particularly detrimental because of limited screen size (Zhou, Tian, Mo, & Fei, 2020). The simultaneous processing of these elements by consumers requires distinct cognitive resources, overtaxing processing abilities so that clutter perceptions take over in guiding perceptions and behavior. Instead of benefiting from enriching their message, companies may unintentionally hamper processing and hence communication effectiveness when combining several very different types of visual elements. This research proposes that, while employing animations or pictographs alone can be beneficial, using them simultaneously may be counterproductive because the design elements in focus can have distinct and potentially countervailing effects through their effects on complexity perceptions, especially perceived enrichment (i.e., bringing new features into a message) and clutter (i.e., interrupting the processing flow of a message). To stand out in a crowded digital environment, marketing managers might be inclined to include multiple visual elements in their digital messages. Although some visual design elements have received attention in the marketing literature (e.g., Das et al., 2019, Li et al., 2019, Luangrath et al., 2017), the implications of using visual elements in digital business communication are understudied (Sample et al., 2020, Steinhoff et al., 2019). In the business world, Dell, for instance, reports that including a GIF in an email campaign lifted click-through rates by 42% and revenues by 109% (Banko, 2014). Within emails, the use of animated GIFs and emojis increased dramatically by 90% and 775%, respectively, from 2015 to 2016 (Finn, 2017). This type of communication commonly includes animations such as GIFs (Graphics Interchange Format images, i.e., frames of an image shown in succession to give the impression of animation) and pictographs such as emojis (i.e., small icons or symbols conveying ideas, actions, or emotions). Spurred on by advances in technology that facilitate richer communication, marketers increasingly make use of ever more intricate visual design elements in their digital communication. Finally, in two further online studies, we seek to establish whether the proposed mechanisms depend on the number of visuals or the types of pictographs employed. We elaborate on the processing of the text and visual elements from this field experiment in two lab experiments, including an eye-tracking study. In a large-scale randomized field experiment in cooperation with a mobile app company, we find that including animations (GIFs) and pictographs (emojis) together damages message outcomes (increasing unsubscriptions) and downstream outcomes (reducing in-app time) compared with what happens when these elements are deployed separately. ![]() ![]() This interplay may not only undermine message outcomes but even spill over to downstream behavioral outcomes. As they enrich a message in unique ways, processing these different types of visual design elements requires distinct cognitive resources such that, when combined, clutter perceptions dominate the recipient’s perceptions and behaviors, thus paradoxically offsetting their positive effects. Animations and pictographs enhance digital communication, essentially through increased perceptions of enrichment, but these elements also raise perceptions of clutter. While both elements can be beneficial in exchanges with their customers, we propose that combining them can have negative effects on communication effectiveness. Companies are increasingly including innovative visual design elements such as animations and pictographs in digital communication. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |