Consumer Perception of Modern and Traditional Forms of Advertising

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Individual points within the review have been appropriately revised. The article can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

We checked the English. Thank you very much for the review.

Reviewer 2 Report

First, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this paper. The paper needs major modifications:

 

1. The introduction does not adequately justify the gap existing in the literature and the need for the study.

2. There is no theoretical background. It is not clear which theory is the basis or foundation of the study and which hypotheses could be derived from a selected theory. Two additional questions: a) both in the introduction and in the theoretical part, some references are made to sustainability but the relationship between social media advertisements and sustainability is not justified; and b) the theoretical background only refers to advertising on the internet and social network but the study includes traditional forms of advertising that should be studied.

3. The methodology and method used need further development: the structure of the questionnaire is not explained when it was carried out, etc.

3. The analyses and the discussion are very poor. Further developments are required.

4. The literature must be expanded, refreshed, and upgraded.

 

The paper has potential, but it is necessary to make the suggested modifications for its possible publication.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions for improvement. We read them carefully and took them into account when editing our manuscript.

1. The research gap was justified and filled in lines 90 to 129.  All changes were marked in green.
2. In Introduction and theoretical part, we have removed some references regarding sustainability. We have also added information about traditional forms of advertising to the Theoretical Background section. It is in lines 140 to 169. All changes were marked in green.
3. We obtained data using a questionnaire distributed in the Slovak Republic from January to May 2020. This information was found in the article (lines 344 and 345). We have added additional information regarding the structure of the questionnaire (lines 364-381). All changes were marked in green.
4. We expanded and supplemented the analysis and discussion. All changes were marked in green. Lines 446-450, 469-473, 498-508, 549-551, 572-582, 596-599, 609, 636-643, 676-684.
5. Literature has been expanded, refreshed, and upgraded. All changes were marked in green.

Thank you for your review.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank the authors for their efforts to improve the article, but some problems remain. First, the title of the article makes us think that the advertising on social networks will be dealt with in a definite and indisputable way, but neither the study nor the conclusions go in that direction. That is why it would be necessary to reorder both the title and the objective of the work.

 

Secondly, regarding the questionnaire, in my previous review I express the need of further development in the methodology and method part. Nothing has been included from the creation of the questionnaire and the pretest phase. Further development is needed at this point.

 

Greetings.

Author Response

Thanks very much for the additional comments that helped improve the original version of the manuscript. We accepted the comments and incorporated them as follows:

We've changed the title of the article. Lines 2-3, changes are marked in blue.
We have modified the goals in the abstract and in the introduction. Lines 12-13 and 115-118. Changes are marked in blue.
We have added information about the creation of the questionnaire. Lines 344-348. Changes are marked in blue.

Thank you for your review.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is ready to be published.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Unfortunately, this paper is not a journal quality, so I must reject it for further review.

For improvements, please see the comments below.

 

Research Problem

The author(s) should clearly indicate the importance of the research goals and provide research gaps. The grounds/theoretical explanations regarding research problems are not provided. Also, a research gap should be clearly indicated in the introduction.

 

Literature

A theoretical review should focus on addressing/supporting research problems.For instance, how 5 Psychological tactics are related to the research problems. If it is related, please explain the link between 5 psychological tactics (page 3, line 115) and research problems.

 

Method

Specific procedures in conducting research are not clearly delineated. For instance, the author(s) should provide survey items and how the survey items were selected. Also, a 3-point scale is not frequently used in measuring consumer behavior. The author(s) can consider using a 7-point Likert scale.

 

Conclusion/Implications

This study findings do not offer many implications to the existing literature as well as advertisers/marketing communications practitioners. We acknowledge the important role of social media marketing in modern marketing, also the importance of selecting the appropriate media type for delivering a message to the target audience as well as to interact with them. Also, the study does not approach an old problem in a new and creative way.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with the significant topic of marketing communication. However, there is not any connection to sustainability. It is necessary to emphasize properly the relevance of the paper with sustainability (Introduction part).

What is the connection with the Journal? What is on "Sustainability" in your paper?

The idea of sustainability is not in the abstract, not in the title, not at the keywords.

The other parts (Theoretical Background, Discussion and Conclusion, etc.) have to include the idea of sustainability as well.

Please, add the connection of your results and suggestions with the theory of sustainability.

More literature on sustainability needs to be added.

It is not beneficial to cite so many literary sources in one sentence - Line: 67, 68. Several specialized articles conduct a survey on the influence of various forms of advertising on consumer behaviour and decision-making or deal with the analysis of individual social networks [2,5,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21].

The paper should contain the entire results of Wilcoxon test and Mann-Whitney test (for all kinds of media). The results are now incomplete. Readers have no opportunity to get acquainted with the overall results of statistical tests now. Mote precise discussion of results is needed. The connection with sustainability is missing.

Additional revision of English would be beneficial. For example, line 433: networks affects them in a great extent, many perceived advertising oversaturation on social - affect (affects); many (a lot of)