Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
IJSREM68082
Volume:
10 |
10 |
Oct 2026
Pages:
1-11
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.
BBA
KLEF
BBA
KLEF
Consumers now meet brands on social media, search engines, video platforms, e-mail and mobile alerts, but many firms still choose where to spend their advertising money without clear evidence. This study looks at how ad engagement, trust, brand awareness and offer attractiveness relate to consumers’ intention to buy after seeing digital ads, and whether the likelihood of buying differs across four digital channels. A structured online questionnaire was filled in by 49 respondents. After screening, 46 complete responses were analysed using descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s alpha, correlation, the Friedman test, multiple linear regression and the Kruskal–Wallis test. Average scores for all five measures were close to the neutral mid-point of 3 on a 5-point scale. The likelihood of buying did not differ significantly across the four channels, χ²(3, N = 46) = 5.65, p = .130, although e-mail / SMS / app alerts had the highest average (3.00). The regression model was significant and explained 77.3% of the variation in purchase intention, F(4, 41) = 34.94, p < .001. Offer attractiveness (β = .61) and ad engagement (β = .62) were the strongest predictors. Purchase intention did not differ by income group. Because the sample is small and the predictors overlap strongly, the findings should be treated as exploratory. They suggest that attractive offers and engaging content matter more than the choice of channel alone.
KEYWORDS
This study looked at how engagement, trust, awareness and offers relate to the intention to buy after seeing digital ads, and whether the likelihood of buying differs across four digital channels. Using 46 usable survey responses, it found that respondents were neutral on average, that the four channels did not differ significantly, and that income did not matter. The four attitudes together explained 77% of the variation in purchase intention, and offer attractiveness and ad engagement stood out as the strongest individual predictors. For businesses, the message is to focus on strong offers and engaging content, and to test channels instead of assuming one is best. Because of the small sample and overlapping predictors, these findings should be confirmed with a larger and more varied sample.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. Chaffey, D., & Ellis-Chadwick, F. (2019). Digital Marketing: Strategy, Implementation and Practice (7th ed.). Pearson. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Court, D., Elzinga, D., Mulder, S., & Vetvik, O. J. (2009). The consumer decision journey. McKinsey Quarterly, June. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. De Veirman, M., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2017). Marketing through Instagram influencers: The impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand attitude. International Journal of Advertising, 36(5), 798–828. Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307–319. Ducoffe, R. H. (1996). Advertising value and advertising on the web. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(5), 21–35. Dwivedi, Y. K., Ismagilova, E., Hughes, D. L., et al. (2021). Setting the future of digital and social media marketing research: Perspectives and research propositions. International Journal of Information Management, 59, 102168. Friedman, M. (1937). The use of ranks to avoid the assumption of normality implicit in the analysis of variance. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 32(200), 675–701.
Publication Date
10/19/2026
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
1
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
5
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...