Cited by 360Digital Marketing and Social MediaConsumer Market Behavior and PricingMarketing and Advertising Strategies

From Generic to Branded: A Model of Spillover in Paid Search Advertising

Open access
Rutz, Oliver J., Bucklin, Randolph E.·2011·Journal of Marketing Research

Abstract

In Internet paid search advertising, marketers pay for search engines to serve text advertisements in response to keyword searches that are generic (e.g., “hotels”) or branded (e.g., “Hilton Hotels”). Although standalone metrics usually show that generic keywords have higher apparent costs to the advertiser than branded keywords, generic search may create a spillover effect on subsequent branded search. Building on the Nerlove–Arrow advertising framework, the authors propose a dynamic linear model to capture the potential spillover from generic to branded paid search. In the model, generic search advertisements serve to expose users to information about the brand's ability to meet their needs, raising awareness that the brand is relevant to the search. In turn, this can induce additional future search activity for keywords that include the brand name. Using a Bayesian estimation approach, the authors apply the model to data from a paid search campaign for a major lodging chain. The results show that generic search activity positively affects future branded search activity through awareness of relevance. However, branded search does not affect generic search, demonstrating that the spillover is asymmetric. The findings have implications for understanding search behavior on the Internet and the management of paid search advertising.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1509/jmkr.48.1.87

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Internet search and social media activities are higher during the week than on weekends.

    “This is in line with previous research that showed Internet search and social media activities are higher during the week than on weekends (De Vries, Gensler, and Leeflang 2012; Rutz and Bucklin 2011).”

    From Influencer Marketing on Instagram: Empirical Research on Social Media Engagement with Sponsored Posts (2022) · cites this paper as Rutz and Bucklin 2011

    The “Indicator variables for day of week and month” section reports lower weekend search activity, with a negative Saturday effect and a positive Monday effect. The “Test for Reverse Spillover” section likewise describes a steep drop in search activity beginning Friday. These passages support the Internet-search portion of the claim, but not the social-media portion. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Social media activities and engagement might vary between weekend and weekdays.

    “First, social media activities and engagement might vary between weekend and weekdays.”

    From Influencer Marketing on Instagram: Empirical Research on Social Media Engagement with Sponsored Posts (2022) · cites this paper as Rutz and Bucklin 2011

    The paper’s “Indicator variables for day of week and month” section reports lower weekend search activity, with negative Saturday and positive Monday effects. This supports a weekday–weekend difference in paid-search activity, but the paper does not establish that social media activity or engagement varies in the same way. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Bass, Frank, Norris Bruce, Sumit Majundar and B.P.S. Murthi (2007), "A Dynamic Bayesian Model of the Advertising-Sales Relationship," Marketing Science, 26(2), 179-195.
  2. Bradlow, Eric T. and David C. Schmittlein (2000), "The Little Engines that Could: Modeling the Performance of World Wide Web Search Engines," Marketing Science, 19 (1), 43-62.
  3. Chatterjee, Patrali, Donna L. Hoffman, and Thomas P. Novak (2003), "Modeling the Clickstream," Marketing Science, 22 (4), 520-541.
  4. Cho, Chang-Hoan and Hongsik J. Cheon (2004), "Why do People avoid Advertising on the Internet?," Journal of Advertising, 33 (4), 89-97.
  5. Danaher, Peter and Guy Mullarkey (2003), "Factors Affecting Online Advertising Recall: A Study of Students," Journal of Advertising Research, 43 (3), 252-267.
  6. Dreze, Xavier and Francois-Xavier Hussherr (2004), "Internet Advertising: Is Anybody Watching?," Journal of Interactive Marketing, 17 (4), 8-23.
  7. Edelman, Benjamin, Michael Ostrovsky, and Michael Schwarz (2007), "Internet Advertising and the Generalized Second Price Auction," American Economic Review, 97 (1), 373-399.
  8. Johnson, Eric J., Wendy Moe, Peter Fader, Steven Bellman, and Gerald L. Lohse (2004), "On the Depth and the Dynamics of Online Search Behavior," Management Science, 50 (3), 299-308.
  9. Manchanda, Puneet, Jean-Pierre Dubé, Khim Yong Goh, and Pradeep K. Chintagunta (2006), "The Effects of Banner Advertising on Internet Purchasing," Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (1), 98-108.
  10. Moore, Robert, Claire Allison Stammerjohan, and Robin Coulter (2005), "Banner Advertiser- Web Site Congruity and Color Effects on Attention and Attitudes," Journal of Advertising, 34 (2), 71-84.
  11. Naik, Prasad A., Murali K. Mantrala, and Alan G. Sawyer (1998), "Planning Media Schedules in the Presence of Dynamic Advertising Quality," Marketing Science, 17 (3), 214-235.
  12. Nerlove, Marc and Kenneth J. Arrow (1962), "Optimal Advertising Policy under Dynamic Conditions," Economica, 29 (114), 129-142.
  13. Novak, Thomas P. and Donna L. Hoffman (2000), "Advertising and Pricing Models for the Web," in Internet Publishing and Beyond, Cambridge: MIT Press.
  14. Telang, Rahul, Peter Boatwright, and Tridas Mukhopadhyay (2004), "A Mixture Model for Internet Search Engine Visits," Journal of Marketing Research, 41 (2), 206-214.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rutz, O. J., & Bucklin, R. E.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
  • Rutz, Oliver J.
  • Bucklin, Randolph E.
Venue
Journal of Marketing Research
Published
2011-02
Volume
48
Issue
1
Pages
87-102
ISSN
  • 0022-2437 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-7193
OpenAlex
W2179252414
Cited by
360
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 20
FWCI
105.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Marketing Research (publishedVersion)
  • Faculty Digital Archive (New York University Florence) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Marketing and Social Media
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Market Behavior and Pricing
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Marketing and Advertising Strategies
Keywords
search engine advertising, spillover effects, brand awareness, search behavior, hotel industry

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review