4.5 Demographic Variables
While demographics did play a role in reactions to the pitch videos,
they did so across both the organic and synthetic categories.
That is to say, the data suggests that demographic categories observed
for, including age, household income, and technology adoption style did
yield significantly different results across effectiveness and brand
impression categories. Different age groups, for example, perceive the
effectiveness of the videos differently. Notably, older age groups,
particularly those in the 45 to 60 range, tend to give higher
effectiveness and brand impression ratings. Similarly, household income
significantly affects the overall effectiveness ratings, with a
strikingly low p-value of 8.15e-09. Higher income groups tend to rate
the videos more favorably in both effectiveness and brand impression
categories, possibly due to differences in educational background,
exposure to similar content, or even increasing opportunities to
consider brand investment potentials as their own income growth has
opened more of those opportunities.
The analysis of the impact of technology adoption levels on overall
effectiveness ratings reveals a statistically significant difference, as
indicated by a p-value of 3.55e-05. This finding suggests that
individuals’ attitudes and behaviors towards technology adoption are
closely linked to how they perceive and rate the effectiveness of the
videos. Those who identify as ”Innovators” or ”Early Adopters” tend to
rate the videos more favorably, reflecting a potential correlation
between a propensity for early technology adoption and a positive
reception to the content of the videos. There was not a statistical
significance across adoption categories relative to brand impression,
however. This suggests that the medium of video had little, if nothing,
to do with this correlation. Instead, it is conceivable that this
reflects a broader correlation amongst the attitudes needed to adopt a
new piece of technology before its fully vetted by the public and the
attitudes needed to adopt a new business proposal before it has proven
fully viable.
In contrast, gender does not show a statistically significant impact on
the overall effectiveness ratings, with a p-value of 0.117, but there is
a marginal difference in brand impression with a p-value of 0.0460. Male
respondents, on average, rated the brand’s competence, trustworthiness,
and likeability slightly higher than female respondents.
However, while these findings are informative and may prove useful for
future study, the data collected in this study indicates that while
these demographic factors play a role in the favorability of the video’s
pitch, they do so uniformly across organic and synthetic videos. The
same impact by age, income, and technology adoption persists regardless
of which spokesperson was seen. While income level increase was
correlated with an increased rating, for example, that increase happened
for both organic and synthetic spokesperson pitches. This suggests that
for synthetic avatars are not uniquely perceived differently based on
the participant’s age, gender, income status, or tech adoption
tendencies.
The gender of the spokesperson/avatar did not have a statistically
significant impact on any of the composite averages or individual
questions asked (see Table 6). This was true for the all respondents,
for just those viewing synthetic videos, and for just those viewing
organic videos. This suggests that future studies may achieve equivalent
results with a 1x1 method instead of a 2x2 method.