Audience Response to Product Placements

This article was downloaded by: [Indian Institute of Management Bangalore]On: 25 October 2013, At: 09:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of AdvertisingPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujoa20

Audience Response to Product Placements: An IntegrativeFramework and Future Research AgendaSiva K. Balasubramanian a , James A. Karrh b & Hemant Patwardhan ca College of Business and Administration, Southern Illinois University, Carbondaleb Mountain Valley Spring Company, Hot Springs National Park, Arkansasc College of Business Administration, Winthrop UniversityPublished online: 04 Mar 2013.

To cite this article: Siva K. Balasubramanian , James A. Karrh & Hemant Patwardhan (2006) Audience Response to Product Placements:An Integrative Framework and Future Research Agenda, Journal of Advertising, 35:3, 115-141, DOI: 10.2753/JOA0091-3367350308

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367350308

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in thepublications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions andviews expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primarysources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with,in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujoa20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.2753/JOA0091-3367350308

http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367350308

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

AUDIENCE RESPONSE TO PRODUCT PLACEMENTS

An Integrative Framework and Future Research Agenda

Siva K. Balasubramanian, James A. Karrh, and Hemant Patwardhan

ABSTRACT: This study comprehensively reviews the literature on product placements to develop an integrative conceptual model that captures how such messages generate audience outcomes. The model depicts four components: execution/stimulus factors (e.g., program type, execution flexibility, opportunity to process, placement modality, placement priming); individual-specific factors (e.g., brand familiarity, judgment of placement fit, attitudes toward placements, involvement/connectedness with program); processing depth (degree of conscious processing); and message outcomes that reflect placement effectiveness. The execution and individual factors influence processing depth (portrayed as a high–low continuum), which in turn impacts message outcomes. The outcomes are organized around the hierarchy-of-effects model into three broad categories: cognition (e.g., memory-related measures such as recognition and recall); affect (e.g., attitudes); and conation (e.g., purchase intention, purchase behavior). This study integrates potential main and interaction effects among model variables to advance a series of theoretical propositions. It also offers an extensive research agenda of conceptual and empirical issues that future work can address.

The volume and sophistication of product (or brand) place-ments have grown impressively and rapidly, easily outpacing research efforts in the field (Tiwsakul and Hackley 2005). The extant literature on placements is just over a decade old (Rus-sell and Stern 2006), is relatively sparse, and presents other special challenges and opportunities. For example, consider this literature vis-à-vis the hierarchy-of-effects (HoE) model, which temporally orders message outcomes into three broad classes—cognition, affect, and conation–that respectively cor-respond to consumers’ mental stages for awareness/understand-ing, interest/liking, and purchase intention/buying a product (see Barry 1987; Barry and Howard 1990). Most placement studies are preoccupied with cognitive effects; progressively fewer addressing affective or conative outcomes, in that order. Moreover, results from quantitative and qualitative analyses in this area often differ markedly, both from one another and from practitioners’ assumptions. Therefore, it is worthwhile

Siva K. Balasubramanian (Ph.D., State University of New York at Buffalo) is a Henry J. Rehn Professor of Marketing, College of Business and Administration, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale.

James A. Karrh (Ph.D., University of Florida) is chief marketing officer at Mountain Valley Spring Company, Hot Springs National Park, Arkansas.

Hemant Patwardhan (Ph.D., Southern Illinois University) is an assistant professor of marketing, College of Business Administration, Winthrop University.

Journal of Advertising, vol. 35, no. 3 (Fall 2006), pp. 115–141.© 2006 American Academy of Advertising. All rights reserved.

ISSN 0091-3367 / 2006 $9.50 + 0.00DOI 10.2753/JOA0091-3367350308

to develop a conceptual framework that sheds light on how placements work. This study presents an integrative model that incorporates a full range of stimulus- and individual-level variables along with multiple outcomes from placements. Presentation of our model development includes a review of processes that explain how placements generate specific types of audience outcomes. We also offer several research proposi-tions for future study.

Brands now play well-defined and well-integrated roles with respect to editorial content in various media. Writers, directors, set designers, and other creative professionals often use brands as tools to communicate specific meanings to audi-ences. Within a movie or television show, brands often lend verisimilitude to a drama, help set its time period, or convey characters’ personality traits. More commonly, however, those brand appearances represent deliberate promotional efforts that are reinforced by formal agreements between marketers and the creators/managers of editorial content. The latter case illustrates product (or brand) placement, which is the paid inclusion of branded products or brand identifiers through audio and/or visual means within mass media programs (Karrh 1998). A product placement is a prominent example of a hybrid message, or a paid attempt to influence audiences that does not identify the sponsor (Balasubramanian 1994). Both “brand placement” and “product placement” have gained currency in the literature; we use them interchangeably.

Product placements have had a long and bumpy history (Galician and Bourdeau 2004). During the 1920s through the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3

116 The Journal of Advertising

early 1930s, their growth was sporadic and uncertain—two themes that also characterized the content of, and reaction to, Hollywood’s 1931 film It Pays to Advertise. By depicting mov-iemakers’ eagerness to showcase products to reduce production costs during the Depression, this movie attracted negative publicity about the surrender of media content to commercial interests (Brett 1995). Following a lengthy dormant period, a variety of factors (the diminishing role of movie studios, the emergence of independent producers, and location-based movie production) catalyzed the rebirth of placements dur-ing the late 1960s–70s (Balasubramanian 1994; Brett 1995; Segrave 2004). Growth spurts during the 1980s and 1990s propelled placements into a practice that now boasts over 1,000 brand marketers and an industry of placement profes-sionals (Galician 2004; Karrh, McKee, and Pardun 2003). In the United States, television placements grew by a staggering 46% in 2004, while the market value of placements across all media amounted to $3.5 billion, including barter and gratis placements (Economist 2005b; Marketing Management 2005). The latter figure is expected to grow to $4.2 billion in 2005. Paid placements account for 29% of this value. Internation-ally, the regulatory barriers against placements are beginning to disappear. For example, the European Commission plans to alter current laws to make product placements acceptable (Economist 2005b).

The placement of Reese’s Pieces candy in the 1982 block-buster film E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial significantly energized both Hollywood and marketers. Once Hershey management attributed a 65% increase in Reese’s Pieces sales to this place-ment (Reed 1989), other marketers saw the benefits of tying brands to popular programs and stars. The aggressive pursuit of these benefits created prominent roles for brands in fea-ture films (D’Orio 1999), cable television (Fitzgerald 2002), broadcast television (Vagnoni 2001), popular novels (Nelson 2004), music CDs/videos (Maclean’s 2005), computer/video games (Nelson, Keum, and Yaros 2004), blogs (Maclean’s 2005), and even live shows, including Broadway musicals (Elliott 2005; Matthews 2005). Reality television shows (such as The Apprentice) significantly enlarged opportunities for brand placement because their stories and format typically rely on a brand and its sponsor (Atkinson 2004). Other factors driving this popularity trend include consumers’ resistance toward ads (e.g., zipping, zapping, DVRs), fragmentation of traditional media, and marketers’ growing enchantment with nontraditional media. A new service (www.mediamatchmaker.com) even attempts to remove the guesswork and serendipity that characterize placements arranged by traditional product placement agencies (Edwards 2005). For a fee, this service facilitates real-time matches of sponsors’ preferences on place-ments (e.g., production dates, media, budget size, and genre) with features outlined by movie/television producers (e.g., show details, sponsorship needs).

Although product placements have registered impressive growth, our understanding of consumers’ responses to such messages has not fully evolved. First, academic research on placements is mostly laboratory-based, whereas practitioners favor field research; however, placement effects are difficult to test in both lab and field settings. In lab settings, researchers often cannot replicate the movie-watching experience as eas-ily as, say, exposure to print ads. Some experimental studies rely on brief-duration stimuli (e.g., movie clips lasting 5 to 15 minutes) that fail to capture all the nuances of the movie experience. Qualitatively, recall measures for a placement in a short movie segment are not comparable to similar measures after exposure to the entire movie. Moreover, the use of preexisting stimuli diminishes experimental control by introducing noise. The theater methodology pioneered in Russell (2002) is a notable departure because it uses (1) full-length stimuli that are amenable to experimental manipulation, and (2) natural experimental settings. In field settings, it is difficult to disentangle the impact of a specific tool in the integrated marketing communications (IMC) arsenal, such as placement or sponsorship (Cornwell and Maignan 1998), when the goal of IMC is to seamlessly combine such tools.

Second, inferences about placements often do not converge across empirical studies (which report qualified impact on memory for relevant brands), practitioner sentiments (oc-casional claims of marketplace success from placements), or qualitative inquiries (which reveal complex meanings ascribed by audiences). Perceptual differences between practitioners and academic researchers may stem from subjectivity and prob-lematic measures. Practitioners often evaluate film placements with a positive bias, even declaring success when a brand is merely shown, mentioned, or paired with a likable character (Karrh 1995; Karrh, McKee, and Pardun 2003; Pardun and McKee 1999). They also may rely on performance indices (e.g., CinemaScore) whose reliability information is unknown (Law and Braun-LaTour 2004). Qualitative evidence from depth interviews, focus groups, and interpretive studies (DeLorme and Reid 1999; Gould and Gupta 2006; La Pastina 2001) showcase insightful themes about program viewing (e.g., appreciating realism; noticing the familiar; the referencing process that captures consumers’ relationships with a program’s genre, its embedded characters, and placed products) and indi-vidual consumption (e.g., using information to develop one’s identity/aspirations and to make related purchase decisions; change and discomfort; belonging and security). Unfortu-nately, the bulk of empirical research on placements does not reflect these themes (for notable exceptions, see Russell and Stern 2006; Stern, Russell, and Russell 2005). These points underscore the need for an integrative model framework to understand placement effects. In the present study, we address this research gap.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3

Fall 2006 117

FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS

Our framework is captured in a figure and several tables. Fig-ure 1 summarizes the proposed model with four components: execution (setting) variables, individual-level variables, depth of placement processing, and placement effects or outcomes. Table 1 lists representative studies that focus on relations among the antecedent factors and outcomes in Figure 1. Table 2 summarizes interaction effects among variables that are directly or indirectly related to model constructs. For ease of presentation, these interactions are not discussed in sequential order but appear in various sections as appropriate. Table 3 provides a capsule summary of all propositions related to the model development process.

Overall, this presentation strategy offers two advantages. First, it helps identify gaps in conceptual and empirical re-search that future studies may address (see the last column in Table 1). Given the sparseness of the placement literature, our model draws on developments in related research areas (see italicized items in Tables 1 and 2). Second, it facilitates integrative insights on processes that encourage one type of placement outcome over others. For example, by acknowledg-ing the dissociated pattern of results between outcomes tied to implicit memory or explicit memory domains, we account for nonconvergent findings on brand recall/persuasion effects in placement research (see Law and Braun-LaTour 2004).

Table 4 documents and integrates this and other dissocia-tions that are germane to placement contexts. Our model de-velopment endeavor also avoids the impact of methodological flaws. Researchers such as Babin and Carder (1996a, 1996b) and Avery and Ferraro (2000) have recognized method-based limitations in some placement studies (e.g., lack of control groups; small, nonrandom samples; single-exposure design; using short film clips instead of the entire movie or program). In response, our model and tables rely heavily on studies that avoid these limitations.

We organize this paper as follows. The next three sections develop research propositions related to three model compo-nents (execution/stimulus variables, individual factors, and processing depth) that collectively shape a placement’s impact on the fourth model component: outcome variables. The re-maining sections discuss the full range of outcomes shown in Figure 1 (which are divided into cognitive, affective, and cona-tive classes per the HoE model), derive managerial implications and insights from our propositions, and offer useful directions for future research. Our study has three goals: to summarize the available placement literature, to integrate its findings in a manner that advances our understanding of product place-ment, and to showcase new avenues for research.

Overall, our propositions restrict focus to variable relation-ships that have conceptual/empirical support in the placement literature or allied fields such as advertising or psychology. For

FIGURE 1 The Proposed Model Framework

Processing Type/Context/ Setting Less conscious, Moderately conscious, Highly conscious (implicit v. explicit memory implications for recall and choice) •

Execution Factors (Stimuli-based) • Program type/program-induced mood • Execution flexibility • Opportunity to process the placement • Placement modality • Priming of brand appearance • Type and amount of brand information

presented • Strength of link between brand/product and

(a) story character, (b) editorial content/story, (c) vehicle and (d) medium

Individual-Difference Factors • Familiarity/ethicality(strength of link

between brand/product and individual), • Judgment of placement fit, appropriateness,

relatedness—strength of link between individual and (a) story character, (b) editorial content/story, (c) vehicle, and (d) medium

• Skepticism toward advertising • Attitude toward placement in general • Program involvement/program

connectedness/Motivation to process brand information

Effect(s) from Placement • Brand typicality/incidence (Cognition) • Placement recognition (Cognition) • Brand salience (Cognition) • Placement recall (Cognition) • Brand portrayal rating (Affect) • Identification with story character, traits (Affect) • Identification with brand/imitation (Affect) • Brand attitude (Affect) • Purchase intention (Conation) • Brand choice (Conation) • Brand usage behavior (Conation)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3

118 The Journal of AdvertisingT

AB

LE

1S

umm

ary

of M

ode

l-R

elat

ed L

iter

atur

e

Rep

rese

ntat

ive

plac

emen

t/no

npla

cem

ent

st

udie

s (O

Vs)

Dir

ecti

ons

for

futu

re

plac

emen

t re

sear

ch

Sti

mul

us/e

xecu

tio

n fa

cto

rs

A.

Prog

ram

typ

e/pr

ogra

m-in

duce

d m

ood

Gol

dber

g an

d G

orn

1982

(cho

ice)

Usi

ng m

oods

to

stra

tegi

cally

enh

ance

out

com

es

B.Ex

ecut

ion

flexi

bilit

yC

ompa

re v

irtu

al/r

etro

spec

tive/

on-li

ne p

lace

men

ts

C.

Opp

ortu

nity

to

proc

ess

the

plac

emen

tBr

enna

n, D

ubas

, and

Bab

in 1

999

(rec

ogni

tion)

Ex

plor

e m

ore

oper

atio

naliz

atio

ns: p

ace,

rep

etiti

on

D.

Mod

ality

: Aud

io/v

isua

l/Aud

iovi

sual

Gup

ta a

nd L

ord

1998

(re

call)

Expl

ore

othe

r se

nses

(e.

g., s

mel

l)

E. P

rim

ing

the

plac

ed b

rand

Benn

ett,

Peco

tich,

and

Put

revu

199

9 (b

rand

rec

all)

Prim

ed v

ersu

s no

npri

med

pla

cem

ents

F. Ty

pe a

nd a

mou

nt o

f inf

orm

atio

n pr

ovid

edG

oldb

erg

and

Gor

n 19

82 (c

hoice

)In

form

atio

nal v

ersu

s tr

ansf

orm

atio

nal p

lace

men

ts

G.

Link

bet

wee

n pl

aced

bra

nd/p

rodu

ct a

nd

a. st

ory

char

acte

rR

usse

ll an

d St

ern

2006

(br

and

attit

ude)

;Ex

plor

e lik

abili

ty, c

eleb

rity

sta

tus

Ave

ry a

nd F

erra

ro 2

000

(bra

nd p

ortr

ayal

rat

ing)

;

Mor

ton

and

Frie

dman

200

2 (a

ttitu

de, b

rand

usa

ge

beh

avio

r)

b. e

dito

rial

con

tent

/sto

ryR

usse

ll 20

02 (

bran

d at

titud

e)Im

pact

of d

iffer

ent

prog

ram

gen

res

c. ve

hicl

eG

ould

and

Gup

ta 2

006

(qua

litat

ive

insi

ghts

)Im

pact

of d

iffer

ent

plac

emen

t ve

hicl

es

d. m

ediu

mN

elso

n 20

02 (

reca

ll—co

mpu

ter/

vide

o ga

mes

)Im

pact

of d

iffer

ent

med

ia t

ypes

Indi

vidu

al fa

cto

rs

H.

Bran

d fa

mili

arity

/pro

duct

eth

ical

ityN

elso

n 20

02 (

reca

ll); G

upta

and

Gou

ld 1

997

Valid

ate

mer

e ex

posu

re e

ffect

perc

eptio

ns, i

.e.,

the

link

betw

een

plac

ed (

acce

ptab

ility

); K

arrh

199

4 (s

alie

nce)

Rep

licat

ion

acro

ss m

ore

prod

uct

cate

gori

es/

bran

d/pr

oduc

t an

d th

e in

divi

dual

ind

ivid

ual t

raits

; im

pact

on

bran

d id

entifi

catio

n

I. P

lace

men

t “fit

” be

twee

n th

e in

divi

dual

and

a. st

ory

char

acte

rR

usse

ll 20

02; R

usse

ll an

d St

ern

2006

(at

titud

e)C

usto

miz

atio

n/pe

rson

aliz

atio

n of

mes

sage

s

b. e

dito

rial

con

tent

/sto

ryG

ould

and

Gup

ta 2

006

(qua

litat

ive

insi

ghts

)M

essa

ge s

egm

enta

tion

issu

es

c. ve

hicl

eG

ould

and

Gup

ta 2

006

(qua

litat

ive

insi

ghts

)D

oes

vehi

cle

pref

eren

ce im

pact

out

com

es?

d. m

ediu

mN

elso

n 20

02 (

reca

ll); N

elso

n, K

eum

, and

Yar

os 2

004

Inte

ract

ivity

; col

labo

ratio

n; fa

ke p

lace

men

ts

(p

urch

ase

inte

ntio

n)

J.Sk

eptic

ism

tow

ard

adve

rtis

ing

Gup

ta, B

alas

ubra

man

ian,

and

Kla

ssen

200

0 (a

ttitu

de)

Impa

ct o

n ou

tcom

e va

riab

les

K.

Att

itude

tow

ard

plac

emen

t, ot

her

mes

sage

typ

esG

ould

, Gup

ta, a

nd G

rabn

er-K

räut

er 2

000

(att

itude

)M

oder

atio

n/m

edia

tion

effe

cts

L.In

volv

emen

t/co

nnec

tedn

ess

with

pro

gram

/mot

ivat

ion

to

proc

ess

bran

d in

form

atio

nN

elso

n 20

02 (

reca

ll); R

usse

ll an

d St

ern

2006

(at

titud

e)

Bake

r an

d C

raw

ford

199

5M

oder

atio

n/m

edia

tion

effe

cts

Co

ntex

t fa

cto

rs

M.

Less

con

scio

us v

ersu

s co

nsci

ous

proc

essi

ngLa

w a

nd B

raun

200

0 (c

hoic

e)Bl

atan

t pl

acem

ents

; per

sona

lly r

elev

ant

plac

emen

ts;

im

pact

of c

ovie

win

g be

havi

ors

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3

Fall 2006 119

Eff

ecti

vene

ss (

out

com

e) v

aria

bles

1.Br

and

typi

calit

y/in

ciden

ce (

Cog

nitio

n)M

arke

t sh

are

perc

eptio

ns; c

ateg

ory

excl

usiv

ity

2.Br

and

salie

nce/

reco

gniti

on (

Cog

nitio

n)

3.Pl

acem

ent

reca

ll (C

ogni

tion)

4.Br

and

port

raya

l rat

ing

(Affe

ct)

Ef

fect

ive

bran

d–st

ory

char

acte

r lin

kage

s

5. I

dent

ifica

tion

with

bra

nd (

Affe

ct)

Mod

elin

g be

havi

or

6. B

rand

att

itude

(A

ffect

)

7. P

urch

ase

inte

ntio

n (C

onat

ion)

Plac

emen

t sa

tura

tion;

cat

egor

y ex

clus

ivity

8. B

rand

cho

ice

(Con

atio

n)Im

plic

atio

ns fo

r M

eani

ng T

rans

fer

Mod

el

9. B

rand

usa

ge b

ehav

ior

(Con

atio

n)M

odel

ing/

imita

tive

beha

vior

Not

es: F

acto

rs/s

tudi

es t

hat

do n

ot fo

cus

on p

lace

men

ts a

re in

ital

ics;

out

com

e va

riab

les

(OV

s) a

re in

par

enth

eses

.

TA

BL

E 2

Inte

ract

ion

Eff

ects

Ref

eren

ceK

ey in

depe

nden

t fa

cto

rs/d

epen

dent

var

iabl

esF

indi

ngs

Aut

y an

d Le

wis

(2

004a

, 200

4b)

Des

ign

fact

ors:

prio

r ex

posu

re t

o m

ovie

pla

cem

ent,

pres

ence

or

abse

nce

o

f a r

emin

der

abou

t pl

acem

ent.

Of c

hild

ren

who

had

see

n th

e m

ovie

pla

cem

ent

earl

ier,

thos

e su

bjec

ted

to a

re

min

der

bran

d ex

posu

re w

ere

mor

e lik

ely

to c

hoos

e th

e pl

aced

bra

nd t

han

thos

e w

ho d

id n

ot g

et t

he r

emin

der

expo

sure

.D

epen

dent

var

iabl

e: c

hoic

e.

Bren

nan,

Dub

as,

and

Babi

n (1

999)

Des

ign

fact

ors:

plac

emen

t ty

pe (

crea

tive,

on-

set)

and

exp

osur

e tim

e

(co

ntin

uous

var

iabl

e).

Inte

ract

ion

effe

ct s

uch

that

exp

osur

e tim

e ha

d a

posi

tive

impa

ct o

n vi

ewer

re

cogn

ition

for

on-s

et p

lace

men

ts, b

ut n

ot fo

r cr

eativ

e pl

acem

ents

.O

n-se

t pl

acem

ents

are

tho

se w

here

in t

he p

lace

d br

and

is a

maj

or fo

cus

of

the

sce

ne o

r is

end

orse

d by

a m

ajor

act

or. C

reat

ive

plac

emen

ts a

re t

hose

w

here

in t

he p

lace

d br

and

is in

the

bac

kgro

und

of t

he s

cene

.

Dep

ende

nt v

aria

ble:

bra

nd r

ecog

nitio

n.

Chan

g (2

002)

Des

ign

fact

ors:

prod

uct

invo

lvem

ent,

affe

ctiv

e (m

ood)

sta

tes,

and

self-

c

ongr

uenc

y (c

ongr

uenc

e of

par

ticip

ants

’ sel

f-con

cept

s w

ith t

he a

d m

essa

ge).

Inte

ract

ion

effe

cts

sugg

est

that

for

low

pro

duct

invo

lvem

ent

situ

atio

ns,

part

icip

ants

in a

pos

itive

moo

d st

ate

rely

on

self-

cong

ruen

cy t

o fo

rm b

rand

an

d ad

att

itude

s; pa

rtic

ipan

ts in

a n

egat

ive

moo

d st

ate

did

not

rely

on

self-

cong

ruen

cy in

thi

s m

anne

r.

Dep

ende

nt v

aria

ble:

att

itude

s.Fo

r hi

gh p

rodu

ct in

volv

emen

t co

ntex

ts, p

artic

ipan

ts d

id n

ot r

ely

on s

elf-

cong

ruen

cy, i

rres

pect

ive

of w

heth

er t

he m

ood

stat

e w

as p

ositi

ve o

r ne

gativ

e.

(con

tinue

s)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3


d’A

stou

s an

d C

hart

ier

(200

0)D

esig

n fa

ctor

s: pr

omin

ence

(hi

gh, l

ow),

inte

grat

ion

of p

lace

men

t w

ith m

ovie

s

cene

(hi

gh, l

ow),

man

ifest

ness

or

obvi

ousn

ess

of t

he p

lace

men

t (h

igh,

low

),

pri

ncip

al a

ctor

(pr

esen

t, ab

sent

).

1. T

he h

ighe

r th

e de

gree

of i

nteg

ratio

n of

a p

lace

men

t w

ithin

a m

ovie

sce

ne,

(a)

the

high

er t

he li

king

of t

he p

lace

men

t, bu

t (b

) th

e lo

wer

its

reca

ll.

2. T

he im

pact

of p

rom

inen

ce o

n re

call

is n

egat

ive

and

stro

nger

whe

n in

tegr

atio

n is

low

, com

pare

d w

ith w

hen

inte

grat

ion

is h

igh.

Dep

ende

nt v

aria

bles

: lik

ing,

perc

eive

d un

acce

ptab

ility

of p

lace

men

t, re

call,

and

r

ecog

nitio

n.3.

The

impa

ct o

f pro

min

ence

on

reca

ll is

neg

ativ

e an

d st

rong

er fo

r po

pula

r m

ovie

s as

opp

osed

to

mov

ies

that

are

less

pop

ular

.

4.M

anife

stne

ss h

as a

gre

ater

impa

ct o

n lik

ing

whe

n th

e in

tegr

atio

n of

pl

acem

ents

was

hig

h as

opp

osed

to

low

.

5. M

anife

stne

ss in

crea

sed

unac

cept

abili

ty o

f pla

cem

ents

whe

n in

tegr

atio

n w

as

low

as

oppo

sed

to h

igh.

6. P

rom

inen

ce h

ad a

hig

her

impa

ct o

n lik

ing

whe

n th

e pr

inci

pal a

ctor

was

pr

esen

t as

opp

osed

to

whe

n th

is a

ctor

was

abs

ent.

Gol

dber

g an

d G

orn

(198

7)D

esig

n fa

ctor

s: te

levi

sion

pro

gram

(ha

ppy,

sad)

as

betw

een-

subj

ects

fact

or;

com

mer

cial

(em

otio

nal,

info

rmat

iona

l) as

with

in-s

ubje

cts

fact

or.

Sign

ifica

nt t

elev

isio

n pr

ogra

m ×

com

mer

cial

inte

ract

ion

such

tha

t th

e pr

ogra

m

effe

ct o

n th

e vi

ewer

s’ fe

lt m

ood

was

gre

ater

for

thos

e w

atch

ing

emot

iona

l co

mm

erci

als

than

for

thos

e w

atch

ing

info

rmat

iona

l com

mer

cial

s.D

epen

dent

var

iabl

es: f

elt

moo

d, p

erce

ived

com

mer

cial

effe

ctiv

enes

s, in

tent

ion

to p

urch

ase.

Gou

ld, G

upta

, and

G

rabn

er-K

räut

er

(200

0)

Des

ign

fact

ors:

coun

try

(Uni

ted

Stat

es, F

ranc

e, A

ustr

ia),

sex

(mal

e, fe

mal

e),

mov

ie (

freq

uent

mov

ie w

atch

er, n

ot a

freq

uent

mov

ie w

atch

er),

and

prod

uct

(eth

ical

ly c

harg

ed, n

ot e

thic

ally

cha

rged

).

1. P

rodu

ct ×

sex

—M

ales

wer

e m

ore

acce

ptin

g of

eth

ical

ly c

harg

ed p

rodu

cts

than

wer

e fe

mal

es.

Dep

ende

nt v

aria

ble:

acc

epta

bilit

y of

pla

cem

ents

.2.

Pro

duct

× m

ovie

—Fr

eque

nt m

ovie

wat

cher

s w

ere

mor

e ac

cept

ing

of

ethi

cally

cha

rged

pla

cem

ents

tha

n w

ere

less

freq

uent

mov

ie w

atch

ers;

no

diffe

renc

e fo

r pr

oduc

ts t

hat

wer

e no

t et

hica

lly c

harg

ed.

Gup

ta a

nd G

ould

(1

997)

Des

ign

fact

ors:

sex,

freq

uenc

y of

mov

ie w

atch

ing,

and

prod

uct

cate

gory

.Pr

oduc

t ×

sex

inte

ract

ion

sugg

ests

tha

t m

en a

re m

ore

likel

y to

acc

ept

plac

emen

ts in

volv

ing

ciga

rett

es, a

lcoh

ol, a

nd g

uns

than

are

wom

en.

Dep

ende

nt v

aria

ble:

acc

epta

bilit

y of

mov

ie p

lace

men

ts.

How

ard

and

Barr

y (1

994)

Des

ign

fact

ors:

argu

men

t in

the

ad

(str

ong,

wea

k), m

ood

(pos

itive

, neu

tral

), m

ood

them

atic

con

grue

nce

(pro

duct

con

grue

nt o

r in

cong

ruen

t w

ith

indu

ced

moo

d th

eme)

.

Und

er m

ood

them

atic

inco

ngru

ence

, pos

itive

moo

d de

crea

sed

attit

udes

to

war

d th

e pr

oduc

t by

dec

reas

ing

the

proc

essi

ng o

f ad

info

rmat

ion.

Und

er

moo

d th

emat

ic c

ongr

uenc

e, p

ositi

ve m

ood

incr

ease

d at

titud

es t

owar

d th

e pr

oduc

t by

incr

easi

ng t

he p

roce

ssin

g of

ad

info

rmat

ion.

Moo

d co

ngru

ence

was

man

ipul

ated

to

be in

cong

ruen

t (u

sing

a s

port

s st

imul

us

follo

wed

by

expo

sure

to

a ca

sual

sho

e or

cas

ual s

hort

s ad

) or

con

grue

nt

(usi

ng a

spo

rts

stim

ulus

follo

wed

by

expo

sure

to

an a

thle

tic s

hoe

or a

thle

tic

shor

ts a

d).

Res

ults

indi

cate

tha

t th

e im

pact

of p

ositi

ve m

oods

on

attit

udes

dep

ends

on

the

rel

atio

n be

twee

n ho

w t

he m

ood

was

man

ipul

ated

and

the

top

ical

co

ntex

t in

whi

ch t

he m

ood

effe

cts

are

exam

ined

.

Dep

ende

nt v

aria

ble:

att

itude

tow

ard

the

prod

uct.

TA

BL

E 2

(co

ntin

ued

)

Ref

eren

ce

Key

inde

pend

ent

fact

ors

/dep

ende

nt v

aria

bles

Fin

ding

s

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3

Fall 2006 121

Kirm

ani a

nd S

hiv

(199

8)D

esig

n fa

ctor

s: is

sue-

rele

vant

ela

bora

tion

(hig

h, lo

w),

sour

ce c

ongr

uity

(hi

gh,

low

).In

tera

ctio

n ef

fect

suc

h th

at:

(a)

unde

r hi

gh is

sue-

rele

vant

ela

bora

tion,

sou

rce

cong

ruity

enh

ance

d br

and

attit

ude

(b)

unde

r lo

w is

sue-

rele

vant

ela

bora

tion,

sou

rce

cong

ruity

had

litt

le o

r no

im

pact

on

bran

d at

titud

eIs

sue-

rele

vant

ela

bora

tion

is h

igh

whe

n co

nsum

ers

evok

e th

e ce

ntra

l/sy

stem

atic

rou

te t

o pe

rsua

sion

by

care

fully

pro

cess

ing

impo

rtan

t cu

es in

th

e st

imul

i (e.

g., f

ocus

on

the

bran

d), a

nd lo

w w

hen

they

rel

y on

per

iphe

ral

cues

/heu

rist

ic p

roce

ssin

g (e

.g.,

focu

s on

the

ad)

.

Sour

ce c

ongr

uity

cap

ture

s th

e de

gree

of m

atch

bet

wee

n pe

rcep

tions

(of

a

bran

d en

dors

er)

and

attr

ibut

es a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith t

he b

rand

.

Dep

ende

nt v

aria

ble:

bra

nd a

ttitu

de.

McK

echn

ie a

nd

Zho

u (2

003)

Des

ign

fact

ors:

freq

uenc

y of

mov

ie w

atch

ing

(hig

h, lo

w),

prod

uct

cate

gory

ty

pes

(eth

ical

ly c

harg

ed p

rodu

cts,

othe

r pr

oduc

ts),

coun

try

(Chi

na, U

nite

d St

ates

).

Sign

ifica

nt g

ende

r ×

prod

uct

inte

ract

ion

such

tha

t U

.S. m

ales

acc

epte

d et

hica

lly c

harg

ed p

rodu

cts

in p

lace

men

ts m

ore

than

did

U.S

. fem

ales

. In

tera

ctio

n no

t su

ppor

ted

in C

hina

.

Dep

ende

nt v

aria

ble:

per

ceiv

ed a

ccep

tabi

lity

of p

lace

men

ts.

Rus

sell

(200

2)D

esig

n fa

ctor

s: pl

ot c

onne

ctio

n (h

igh

bran

d co

ntri

butio

n to

sto

ry, l

ow b

rand

co

ntri

butio

n to

sto

ry)

and

mod

ality

(vi

sual

, aud

io)

as w

ithin

-sub

ject

fact

ors.

Mod

ality

× p

lot

conn

ectio

n in

tera

ctio

n su

ch t

hat:

(a)

inco

ngru

ous

plac

emen

ts w

ere

bett

er r

emem

bere

d in

the

vis

ual

cond

ition

, bu

t no

t in

the

aud

itory

con

ditio

n, a

nd

(b)

cong

ruou

s pl

acem

ents

wer

e m

ore

pers

uasi

ve t

han

inco

ngru

ous

ones

.

Con

gruo

us p

lace

men

ts d

efine

d as

hig

h-pl

ot c

onne

ctio

n/au

dio

or lo

w-p

lot

conn

ectio

n/vi

sual

pla

cem

ents

; inc

ongr

uous

pla

cem

ents

defi

ned

as h

igh-

plot

co

nnec

tion/

visu

al o

r lo

w-p

lot

conn

ectio

n/au

dio.

Dep

ende

nt v

aria

bles

: rec

all,

pers

uasi

on.

Seng

upta

, Goo

dste

in,

and

Boni

nger

(19

97)

Des

ign

fact

ors:

invo

lvem

ent

(low

, hig

h), t

ime,

cue

typ

e (c

entr

al, p

erip

hera

l).Tw

o-w

ay in

tera

ctio

n of

tim

e an

d cu

e ty

pe w

as s

igni

fican

t in

low

-invo

lvem

ent

cond

ition

s. C

ue r

elat

edne

ss e

nhan

ces

attit

ude

pers

iste

nce

in lo

w-

invo

lvem

ent

cond

ition

s, w

here

as a

ttitu

de p

ersi

sten

ce w

as lo

w in

the

cas

e of

un

rela

ted

cues

. In

high

-invo

lvem

ent

cond

ition

s, no

inte

ract

ion

betw

een

cue

rela

tedn

ess

and

time

was

obs

erve

d.

Dep

ende

nt v

aria

ble:

att

itude

per

sist

ence

.

Not

e: R

efer

ence

s in

ital

ics

indi

cate

stu

dies

tha

t do

not

focu

s on

pla

cem

ents

.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3


Proposition Description

Proposition 1a: Interaction:

Under negative program–induced moods, congruent placements produce better cognitive outcomes thanincongruent placements.

Under positive program–induced moods, incongruent placements produce better cognitive outcomes than congruent placements.

Proposition 1b: Interaction:

Under negative program–induced moods, placements produce better cognitive outcomes than ads.

Under positive program–induced moods, ads produce better cognitive outcomes than placements.

Proposition 1c: Positive (negative) emotion–laden programs produce positive (negative) mood spillover effects that increase (decrease) affective outcomes, that is, attitudes.

Proposition 1d: Mood-thematic congruent (incongruent) placements are more (less) likely to facilitate program-induced mood spillover effects for affective outcomes, that is, attitudes.

Proposition 1e: Interaction:

Placements (ads) are more (less) likely to facilitate program-induced mood spillover effects on affective outcomes, that is, attitudes. Under negative program–induced moods, placements are more likely to decrease attitudes than ads. Under positive program–induced moods, placements are more likely to increase attitudes than ads.

Proposition 2: As the execution flexibility associated with a product placement increases, its impact increases with regard to all message outcomes.

Proposition 3a: As a placement’s prominence increases, viewers can better differentiate the brand from other program stimuli, thereby increasing cognitive outcomes, that is, recall.

Proposition 3b: As a placement’s exposure duration increases, viewers can better process the brand’s appearance or audio mention, thereby increasing cognitive outcomes, that is, recall.

Proposition 4a: Dual-mode placements generate better cognitive outcomes (i.e., recall) than single-mode placements.

Proposition 4b: With respect to cognitive outcomes (i.e., recall), dual-mode placements generate a stronger impact than verbal-only placements, which, in turn, produce a stronger impact than visual-only placements.

Proposition 5a: Primed placements produce better cognitive outcomes (i.e., recall) than nonprimed placements.

Proposition 5b: Unprimed or media-primed placements produce better affective outcomes than ad-primed placements.

Proposition 6a: Increasing brand information in a placement is likely to increase cognitive outcomes (i.e., recall).

Proposition 6b: Increasing brand information in placements is likely to decrease both affective and conative outcomes.

Proposition 6c: Placements are more similar to transformational ads than to informational ads.

Proposition 6d: Placements are more similar to drama ads (which are processed empathetically) than to argument ads (which are processed evaluatively).

Proposition 7a: The stronger the association between the placed brand and a story character, the higher the elaboration of the placed brand, which thereby increases cognitive outcomes.

Proposition 7b: The stronger the positive (negative) association between the placed brand and a story character/editorial content/vehicle/medium, the higher (lower) the impact on affective outcomes.

Proposition 8a: Unfamiliar brands are more likely to increase cognitive outcomes (i.e., recall) than familiar brands.

Proposition 8b: Audiences are less (more) likely to use unfamiliar (familiar) brands for inferences about characters/story that increase affective/conative outcomes.

Proposition 9a: In general, incongruent placements produce higher cognitive outcomes (i.e., recall) than congruent placements.

Proposition 9b: In general, congruent placements yield higher affective outcomes than incongruent placements.

Proposition 10: The higher the skepticism toward advertising, the lower the impact of placements on affective outcomes.

Proposition 11a: Ads (placements) have low (high) levels of both disguise and obtrusiveness; ads (placements) identify (do not identify) brand sponsors; both ads and placements are paid for. Assuming identical message content, an ad may produce lower affective outcomes than a placement.

Proposition 11b: The higher the attitude toward placements, the higher the affective outcomes toward the placed brand.

Proposition 11c: Consumers in all cultures/countries find placements for ethically charged products less acceptable than those for ethically neutral products.

TABLE 3Summary of Propositions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3

Fall 2006 123

Proposition 11d: American consumers are more accepting of placements than their counterparts in other countries.

Proposition 12a: As a viewer’s program involvement increases (decreases), cognitive outcomes such as recall of (a) brands in ads decreases (increases) and of (b) brands in placements increases (decreases).

Proposition 12b: The higher the connectedness to a program, the higher the message outcomes for placements embedded in the program.

Proposition 13: Motivation to process brands for self-presentational purposes influences cognitive outcomes (i.e., attention and processing) for brand placements.

Proposition 14a: Unconscious processing of placements (e.g., visual-only or screen placements that appear in the background) relates to implicit memory, and enhances affective and conative outcomes more than cognitive outcomes.

Proposition 14b: Conscious processing of placements (e.g., high level of plot centrality for the placed brand) relates to explicit memory, and enhances cognitive outcomes (e.g., recall) more than affective or conative outcomes.

TABLE 4Dissociations Among Outcomes, Related Propositions, Processes/Mechanisms/Strategies and Variables/Stimuli

Processes/mechanisms/ Outcomes

Proposition(s) strategies (proposition) Variables/stimuli Cognitive Affective Conative

1a and 1e Central processing/mood-thematic congruence (1a)

Program-induced negative (positive) mood

increases (decreases)

Mood spillover effect/mood-thematic congruence (1e)

Program-induced negative (positive) mood

decreases (increases)

5a and 5b Contextual priming (5a) Ad-primed (unprimed) placement


Kelley’s discounting principle (5b) Ad-primed (unprimed) placement


6a and 6b Informational emphasis (6a) Increased information on placed brand

increases

Informational emphasis (6b) Increased information on placed brand

decreases decreases

8a and 8b Familiarity effect/Von Restorff effect (8a) Unfamiliar (familiar) brand


Symbolic information/meaning transfer/inference (8b)

Unfamiliar (familiar) brand



14a and 14b Implicit memory (14a) Unconscious processing

decreases or no effect

increases increases

Explicit memory (14b) Conscious processing

increases decreases or no effect

decreases or no effect

this reason, most of our propositions do not address all three HoE outcome classes presented in Figure 1, nor do they ad-dress all variables within a given outcome class. Furthermore, since most placements appear in movies or television shows, our work is germane to brand appearances in these media. Several sections of this research (e.g., execution flexibility) also generalize to other media, however.

EXECUTION (SETTING) VARIABLES

Most placement studies showcase one or more execution vari-ables under the control of the sponsor or program creator. We synthesize these variables into: program type/program-induced mood, execution flexibility, opportunity to process the place-ment, placement modality, placement priming, type/amount

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3


of brand-relevant information provided, and strength of as-sociations between the placed brand and program characters/message/vehicle/medium.

Program Type/Program-Induced Mood

Aylesworth and MacKenzie (1998) provide helpful guidance on the implications of central versus peripheral processing of ad messages for cognitive outcomes. They assert that a negative program–induced mood does not induce central processing of an ad that accompanies the program. This is because the nega-tive mood triggers problem solving (i.e., central processing) that is directed at the source of the negative mood (i.e., the program). The focused deployment of processing resources on program content (instead of ad content) diminishes the likeli-hood that information in the ad is adequately processed. In contrast, positive program–induced moods encourage central processing of an ad that accompanies the program. Note the difference between the ad in the Aylesworth and MacKenzie study (where brand content accompanies, but is distinct from, editorial content) and a product placement (where a brand message is embedded within, and therefore not distinct from, edi-torial content; that is, placements are better integrated with editorial content than ads, in a manner analogous to congruent placements being more integrated with editorial content than incongruent placements). Findings from the Aylesworth and MacKenzie study, when extended to the placement context, imply that the impact of program-induced mood on message processing depends on the valence of the mood and the degree to which the placement is congruent with editorial content. More specifically, the pattern of impact on cognitive outcomes for a brand in a product placement is the opposite of that for a brand featured in an ad, that is, it is accentuated (diminished) under negative (positive) program–induced moods. Furthermore, in-congruent or loosely integrated placements yield effects similar to ads. This yields two interaction propositions:

Proposition 1a: Under negative program–induced moods, congruent placements produce better cognitive outcomes than incongruent placements. Conversely, under positive program–induced moods, incongruent placements produce better cognitive outcomes than congruent placements.

Proposition 1b: Under negative program–induced moods, placements produce better cognitive outcomes than ads. Conversely, under positive program–induced moods, ads produce better cognitive outcomes than placements.

We next consider affective outcomes. Petty et al. (1993) exposed individuals to a persuasive message after inducing a positive or neutral mood. They found that a positive mood led to more positive attitudes toward the message advocacy. Field studies and experiments also show that variations in the

affective quality of a recently viewed film evoke different levels and types of empathy (Davis et al. 1987). Forgas and Moylan (1987) found that participants who viewed a happy film were more likely to make positive, lenient, or optimistic judgments, when compared to those who watched a sad or aggressive film. Furthermore, Goldberg and Gorn (1987) report that television programs coded as happier in tone produce happier moods and greater perceived ad effectiveness among viewers. These results are also consistent with Mayer, McCormick, and Strong (1995), Sedikides (1992), and the affect transfer from program to placed product (Russell 1998). Because programs that embed placements may vary along a positive–negative emotion continuum, this program-type variable will influence the valence of attitudes toward placements. That is, positive (negative) emotion-laden programs are likely to trigger posi-tive (negative) attitudinal spillover effects for placements.

Proposition 1c: Positive (negative) emotion-laden programs produce positive (negative) mood spillover effects that increase (decrease) affective outcomes, that is, attitudes.

Goldberg and Gorn (1987) found a television program × commercial interaction, such that the program effect on viewers’ mood was higher for those exposed to emotional ads (as opposed to informational ads). Another interesting interac-tion effect emerged in a study by Howard and Barry (1994) that manipulated mood to be either congruent (positive mood induced with a sports story, followed by exposure to an ad for athletic shoe/athletic shorts) or incongruent (positive mood induced with a sports story, followed by exposure to an ad for casual shoe/casual shorts). Under mood-thematic congruence (incongruence), positive mood increased (decreased) attitudes toward the advertised product. Results indicate that the im-pact of positive moods on attitudes depends on how mood is manipulated and the context in which the mood effects are considered.

Note that the program that carries a given placement is often carefully selected to facilitate mood spillover effects that encourage a positive predisposition toward the placed brand. Therefore, the higher the mood-thematic congruence between a placement and the program in which it is embedded, the higher the likelihood of program-induced mood spillover ef-fects on attitudes.

Proposition 1d: Mood-thematic congruent (incongruent) placements are more (less) likely to facilitate program-induced mood spillover effects for affective outcomes, that is, attitudes.

Note that programs containing placements are usually stories with a predominance of emotional (rather than infor-mational) content. Furthermore, placements are embedded within the program, as opposed to ads, which are merely juxtaposed with program content. For these reasons, place-ments may engender program-induced mood spillover effects

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3

Fall 2006 125

on attitudinal outcomes more readily than ads. An interaction proposition follows:

Proposition 1e: Placements (ads) are more (less) likely to facilitate program-induced mood spillover effects on affective outcomes, that is, attitudes. Under negative program–induced mood, placements are more likely to decrease attitudes than ads. Under positive program–induced mood, placements are more likely to increase attitudes than ads.

Execution Flexibility

Advances in digital technologies facilitate flexible execution settings for brand placements. The emergence of virtual placements (e.g., brand messages digitally added during telecast of a sports program that live-event audiences are not exposed to), retrospective placements (e.g., digitally embed-ding brands or messages in a movie after its release), and on-line placements (e.g., real-time on-line delivery/updating of customized placements while individuals play Internet-based video games) is particularly noteworthy because they gener-ate opportunities and outcomes that are more effective than traditional placements.

Hey (2002) recounts an early virtual placement during Super Bowl XXXV, when the U.S. television audience witnessed the debut of the First Down Line with no commercial message, but the same line was accompanied by FedEx logos in German telecasts and Pizza Pizza logos in Canadian telecasts. A good example of retrospective placement is a previously nonexistent Wells Fargo billboard that was digitally inserted after an epi-sode of UPN’s science fiction show Seven Days was produced (Hey 2002). On-line placements hold immense potential for customizing placement messages, as evidenced by Dodge’s Race the Pros advergame, which allows players to experience its brand of automobiles in a hyperrealistic simulation. According to The Economist (2005a), this game periodically uploads real NASCAR race times into the computer-controlled cars, and features a track dotted with virtual billboards of auto dealerships located near the player (who must enter a zip code to participate). The abil-ity to insert placements in on-line game environments allows sponsors and game publishers to customize/update messages, and to assess their impact in real time. From an execution standpoint, on-line 3D Gaming facilitates virtual, direct, or nonscripted brand experiences in product placement episodes (Economist 2005a; Grigorovici and Constantin 2004).

These emergent technologies enhance execution flexibility in powerful ways, and impact all message outcomes positively. Indeed, they add two advantages not previously linked to place-ments, that is, the ability to customize/personalize messages and assess message impact in real time. They also remove two disadvantages associated with traditional placements: (1) the risk of poor box-office performance of the movie that embeds place-

ments, and (2) sponsors’ inability to plan in advance for placement opportunities (see Balasubramanian 1994). In sum, the enhanced execution flexibility evident in the examples described transforms brand placement into a very desirable option for sponsors, for it allows for a risk-free message that accommodates one-to-one segmentation, real-time audience impact assessment, and advance planning and development (Wenner 2004).

Proposition 2: As the execution flexibility associated with a product placement increases, its impact increases with regard to all message outcomes.

Opportunity to Process the Placement

This construct captures the extent to which circumstances at brand exposure are favorable to brand processing (MacInnis and Jaworski 1989; MacInnis, Moorman, and Jaworski 1991). This is influenced by both a placement’s prominence and the duration of its exposure.

Gupta and Lord (1998) found that prominent placements (e.g., a brand shown by itself in the foreground, with longer exposure time) generated higher brand recall than more subtle placements. Others (Schneider and Cornwell 2005) have rep-licated this. Brennan, Dubas, and Babin (1999) differentiated the prominence of “on-set” placements (those that were paired with a character or were conspicuously displayed) from “creative” placements (those appearing in the background). They report that on-set placements generate greater brand recognition. Furthermore, exposure duration positively influenced brand recognition, but only for prominent/on-set placements.

Proposition 3a: As a placement’s prominence increases, viewers can better differentiate the brand from other program stimuli, thereby increasing cognitive outcomes, that is, recall.

Proposition 3b: As a placement’s exposure duration increases, viewers can better process the brand’s appearance or audio mention, thereby increasing cognitive outcomes, that is, recall.

Placement Modality

To accommodate memory-based research findings, Paivio’s Dual Coding framework presents two coding systems: a verbal system for language information and a nonverbal analog to pro-cess imagery information (Paivio 1983, 1986). Russell (1998) posits that plot placements (i.e., dual-mode placements with both visual and verbal components) influence brand memory more than single-mode placements, that is, either visual-only screen placements or verbal-only script placements. This ratio-nale is consistent with Paivio’s Coding Redundancy hypothesis, which posits that “increased availability of both codes increases the probability of item recall because the response can be re-trieved from either code” (Paivio 1979, p. 297).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3


The Coding Redundancy hypothesis has empirical support in product placement contexts. Both unaided recall and recog-nition performance of a combined visual-plus-verbal message is significantly higher than that of stand-alone visual infor-mation such as logos (Brennan and Babin 2004; Sabherwal, Pokrywczynski, and Griffin 1994). In addition, Gupta and Lord (1998) found that an audio mention of a brand (without accompanying visual depiction) produced better recall perfor-mance than a visual placement (without audio reinforcement). Taken together, these studies suggest the following dominance hierarchy in memory effects: visual-verbal combination, fol-lowed by verbal-only and visual-only placements.

Proposition 4a: Dual-mode placements generate better cognitive outcomes (i.e., recall) than single-mode placements.

Proposition 4b: With respect to cognitive outcomes (i.e., recall), dual-mode placements generate a stronger impact than verbal-only placements, which, in turn, produce a stronger impact than visual-only placements.

Placement Priming

Given the close cooperation between brand sponsors and the managers of editorial media content, informed audience members may actually expect placements in media content. A few sponsors deliberately widen/enhance this expectancy by referencing their placements in traditional ads. The goal here is to prompt viewers to look for their placed brand in a particular movie or a television show. Such targeted program-related advertising serves as a prime for brand placements, as might a viewer’s memory of past consumption experiences or ad exposures (DeLorme and Reid 1999). For example, BMW management promoted the appearance of its Z3 Roadster in GoldenEye with dealer promotions, special events, and ads both before and after the film’s release (Fournier and Dolan 1997).

Research indicates that objects toward which people hold highly accessible attitudes may attract more attention (Ros-kos-Ewoldsen and Fazio 1992). Similarly, movie viewers who were shown a list of brands placed therein outperformed a control group on brand recall (Bennett, Pecotich, and Putrevu 1999). Consistent with these studies, we propose that priming increases attention to, and recall of, a placed brand.

Proposition 5a: Primed placements produce better cognitive outcomes (i.e., recall) than nonprimed placements.

Are there circumstances that increase the impact of priming on affective outcomes? In general, contextual priming increases the likelihood that individuals will subsequently interpret persuasive information in terms of primed attributes, with a consequent effect on brand evaluations (Yi 1990). Consider two potential priming sources in the BMW example: a me-

dia prime (a nonpartisan message such as a media story that alerts readers about the appearance of Z3 in GoldenEye) and an ad prime (a partisan communication such as a BMW ad that conveys the same information). The nonpartisan source is a useful baseline anchor in the following argument: the process of placement priming with the BMW ad encourages a more confident attribution of commercial intent behind the place-ment than, say, when the priming is implemented via a media story or when there is no priming at all. Following attribution theory and Kelley’s discounting principle (for a related discus-sion on placement context, see Balasubramanian 1994), it is likely that, compared to viewers either primed with a media story or not primed at all, those primed with the BMW ad are more likely to discount the persuasive message. Perceptions of message source bias may engender more counterargumentation and resistance in the ad-primed state than in the media-primed or unprimed states. Groenendyk and Valentino (2002) either exposed participants to one of two ads (a negatively toned Sierra Club issue ad that was widely broadcast during the 2000 presi-dential election, and a candidate ad that was an edited version of the issue ad depicting Al Gore as the sponsor) or presented no ad at all. The issue ad held greater credibility and persuasive power than the candidate ad because “candidates are generally viewed as being motivated primarily by electoral incentives, whereas interest groups are most likely to be seen as invested in a particular issue” (Groenendyk and Valentino 2002, p. 300). More important, these authors tested whether the issue ad is a more powerful prime than the candidate ad in boosting environmental concerns while evaluating the relevant target (George Bush). Results indicated that the impact of Bush’s environmental record as a criterion in his overall evaluation was quite small among participants who were exposed to the Gore ad, but this impact was greatly enhanced among participants who saw the issue ad. By way of relating these findings to the BMW example, note that the candidate ad, the issue ad, and George Bush are respective analogs for the partisan ad prime, the nonpartisan media prime, and the placed product (Z3 Roadster). We therefore posit:

Proposition 5b: Unprimed or media-primed placements produce better affective outcomes than ad-primed placements.

Amount and Type of Brand Information Presented

Generally, a feature-rich, meaningful, and personally relevant stimulus attracts greater attention, thereby influencing cognitive outcomes such as recall. But placement messages differ from ads in that they do not contain a substantial amount of brand-related information (Russell 1998). Most placements do not describe brand information because audience expectations differ sharply between placements and ads. In placement episodes, the brand is of secondary importance, even if information about it adds mean-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3

Fall 2006 127

ing and value to the story. In contrast, the brand is the primary object of focus in ads, with an audience mind-set that expects brand-related information. Increasing brand-information con-tent within a placement (ad) is inconsistent (consistent) with this expectation, and therefore more (less) likely to encourage attention toward the brand. If placements contain substantial product information, audience attention may be distracted away from the media story, thereby increasing the processing effort devoted to such placements. In sum, more “informative” place-ments may increase cognitive outcomes (e.g., recall).

Messages with substantial product information cannot qualify as congruent placements that blend seamlessly with editorial content. Moreover, “informative” placements may irritate audiences by undermining the media story they seek to follow, thereby diminishing the affective and conative out-comes that sponsors seek for the placed brand.

Proposition 6a: Increasing brand information in a placement is likely to increase cognitive outcomes (e.g., recall).

Proposition 6b: Increasing brand information in placements is likely to decrease both affective and conative outcomes.

We extend related discussion in Gardner (1994), Puto and Wells (1984), and Russell (1998) to propose that place-ments are more similar to transformational ads (soft/indirect messages that portray the significance or meaning of product consumption) than informational ads (hard-hitting/direct messages that provide factual, verifiable, and detailed product information). Somewhat analogously, Deighton, Romer, and McQueen (1989) characterize argument and drama as anchors of a dramatization continuum for ads (an argument involves a narrator whose message lacks both plot and character; it be-comes a story with the introduction of these two elements; the story evolves into a drama when the narrator is removed). An argument (drama) appeals to objectivity (subjectivity) and is processed evaluatively (empathetically). Placements resemble drama ads more than argument ads.

Proposition 6c: Placements are more similar to transformational ads than to informational ads.

Proposition 6d: Placements are more similar to drama ads (which are processed empathetically) than to argument ads (which are processed evaluatively).

Strength of the Link Between Brand and Story Character/Editorial Content/Vehicle/Medium

Execution factors may strengthen the association of the placed brand with one or more story characters. A stronger association is likely to increase brand-related cognitive elaboration (Blox-ham 1998; d’Astous and Seguin 1999; Russell 2002), thereby

enhancing cognitive outcomes. For advertising contexts, Kir-mani and Shiv (1998) show that increased congruity between a brand and the message source (i.e., the endorser) improves brand attitudes, especially when issue-relevant elaboration is high. More recently, Russell and Stern (2006) applied genre theory to study the role of characters and products in the per-suasion process for sitcom placements. Individuals’ attitudes toward placed products were influenced by the story character’s attitudes toward the same products (this finding was qualified by viewers’ attachment to the story character).

Conceptually, the spirit of these findings easily extends to links between the placed brand and (1) editorial content/story (Bloxham 1998; Russell, Norman, and Heckler 2004a, 2004b), (2) vehicle (Gould and Gupta 2006; La Pastina 2001), or (3) medium (Avery and Ferraro 2000; Ferraro and Avery 2000; Moorman, Neijens, and Smit 2002). For example, the scenery surrounding a placed brand may be carefully crafted to generate a consistent and supportive impression (DeLorme and Reid 1999). Professionals responsible for creative elements of soap operas use settings and fashion that reinforce a stereotypical upper middle class image that is appropriate for many placed products (Neumann, Cassata, and Skill 1983). In the film Out of Africa, consumption symbolism was used to enrich both the plot and its characters (Holbrook and Grayson 1986).

To the extent that a film placement represents an implied endorsement, the fit between the brand and the endorser/character is important. In advertising contexts, the endorser’s effectiveness improves as such fit increases. Higher perceived congruence between a spokesperson and the endorsed brand increases the spokesperson’s believability/attractiveness, en-hances brand attitude (Kamins and Gupta 1994), and improves affect transfer from the spokesperson to the brand (Misra and Beatty 1990), in the spirit of McCracken (1989).

Proposition 7a: The stronger the association between the placed brand and a story character, the higher the elaboration of the placed brand, which thereby increases cognitive outcomes.

Proposition 7b: The stronger the positive (negative) association between the placed brand and a story character/editorial content/vehicle/medium, the higher (the lower) the impact on affective outcomes.

INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL VARIABLES

Published research on placements emphasizes execution char-acteristics more than audience characteristics. Many studies include demographics (e.g., Baker and Crawford 1995), despite their inability to explain much of the variance in measures of placement effectiveness. In this category, we consider in-dividual-level variables that may or may not characterize a unique relation to the program and placement.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3


Several individual-level variables in our models influence the perceived effectiveness of placements: prior familiarity with the brand; judgments about the “fit” of the individual with the story character/editorial content/vehicle/medium; skepti-cism toward advertising; attitudes toward placements/other message types; and program involvement/program connected-ness/motivation to process brand information.

Prior Familiarity with the Placed Brand

A robust phenomenon called the Von Restorff effect (Wallace 1965), or the isolation effect (Huang, Scale, and McIntyre 1976), may influence the recall of product placements (Bala-subramanian 1994). A key tenet of this phenomenon is that since unfamiliar or unexpected stimuli are incongruent with prior expectations, they attract greater attention and produce superior cognitive outcomes (e.g., recall) than familiar stimuli. In a recent study of placements in computer/video games, Nel-son (2002) found evidence that brands that are less familiar to participants (new brands or those that are atypical of brands generally found in games) demonstrated recall superiority.

Proposition 8a: Unfamiliar brands are more likely to increase cognitive outcomes (i.e., recall) than familiar brands.

Although unfamiliar brands generate more immediate atten-tion, familiar brands facilitate identification with characters in the program. In other words, placements involving familiar brands are more diagnostic to viewers in terms of quickly understanding complex meanings in program content. This view is compatible with research suggesting that individuals skew their use of trait information about others toward behaviors or symbols that are easily understood (Beike and Sherman 1994). McCracken’s (1989) Meaning Transfer Model also supports this premise strongly. McCracken’s model explicitly focuses on a dual-staged transfer of meaning from the celebrity endorser to the product, and from the product to the consumer. Both stages showcase the role of familiarity in facilitating effective communications with audi-ences. The preceding discussion explains filmmakers’ preferences for well-known brands in placement contexts.

Proposition 8b: Audiences are less (more) likely to use unfamiliar (familiar) brands for inferences about characters/stories that increase affective/conative outcomes.

Judgments of “Fit”

The importance of fit in placement contexts is acknowledged by both movie viewers (DeLorme and Reid 1999) and place-ment practitioners (Karrh 1995; Karrh, McKee, and Pardun 2003). This term needs careful definition, however, to avoid overlap with perceived relatedness of cues to product category (see Sengupta, Goodstein, and Boninger 1997).

Perceived fit may embed individual-level judgments about product, medium, communicator, and message dimensions (Balasubramanian 1994; Bhatnagar, Aksoy, and Malkoc 2004). Russell (2002) investigated the impact of fit, or congruence, between modality (visual or auditory) and brand/plot con-nection (high, low) in placements on memory and persuasion measures. Incongruence (i.e., higher-plot visual placements or lower-plot audio placements) between these factors improved memory performance, whereas congruence (i.e., lower-plot visual placements or higher-plot audio placements) increased persuasion. The congruency/incongruency literature sheds light on this dissociation or nonlinear memory–attitude rela-tion (Russell 2002). Incongruence triggers greater cognitive elaboration, whereby the placement message becomes more memorable. At the same time, such elaboration adversely impacts attitude by encouraging questions about the brand’s appearance in the medium, and if the brand placement is perceived as objectionable, these questions prompt resistance toward the message and counterargumentation. In general, congruence may be compatible with the peripheral route to persuasion (Petty and Cacioppo 1986; Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983) because placements are natural, they at-tract no counterargumentation, and they are more likely to produce positive affective outcomes (d’Astous and Chartier 2000). Two propositions follow (note that the interaction presented in Proposition 1a qualifies, rather than contradicts, Proposition 9a below).

Proposition 9a: In general, incongruent placements produce higher cognitive outcomes (i.e., recall) than congruent placements.

Proposition 9b: In general, congruent placements yield higher affective outcomes than incongruent placements.

Skepticism Toward Advertising

Skepticism, a defense mechanism triggered when a message recipient is presented with information that strains credibility, involves the suspension of belief. Skepticism toward advertis-ing increases when audiences acquire a more refined knowledge of advertisers’ tactics and persuasive intent (Boush, Friestad, and Rose 1994). In general, skepticism toward advertising lowers attitudes toward both ads and placements. Signifi-cantly, Gupta, Balasubramanian, and Klassen (2000) found a strong correspondence between attitudes toward advertising and attitudes toward placements. In their study, respondents who were more positively disposed toward advertising also held significantly more positive attitudes toward placements. Conversely, respondents who were less positively disposed to-ward advertising also held significantly less positive attitudes toward placements. We therefore posit:

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3

Fall 2006 129

Proposition 10: The higher the skepticism toward advertising, the lower the impact of placements on affective outcomes.

Attitudes Toward Placements in General

The ethicality framework (Nebenzahl and Jaffe 1998) associ-ates ads (placements) with low (high) levels of both disguise and obtrusiveness. According to these authors, a message is highly disguised when it is paid for and the sponsor is not identified, in a manner similar to hybrid messages (Balasu-bramanian 1994) where the sponsor’s benefit-mix is high in terms of increased message control, message believability, and message impact. Obtrusive messages are those that are secondary to the main stimulus perceived by an audience. Overall, this framework predicts that ads (placements) with similar messages may yield lower (higher) evaluations or af-fective outcomes.

Over the past decade, the ethical acceptability of place-ments has attracted considerable media and research at-tention, especially regarding the prevalence of smoking or drinking behaviors in feature films. Given the potential for widespread disagreement about the acceptable or “proper” use of product placements, it follows that viewers’ perceptions of placement ethics should influence their responses to specific brand appearances in media programs. Although early surveys (e.g., Nebenzahl and Secunda 1993) found that only a small proportion of respondents object to placements on ethical grounds, subsequent work suggests a more pronounced senti-ment against placements in certain ethically charged product categories. In a survey of American college students, Gupta and Gould (1997) found that placements in ethically charged categories such as alcohol, guns, and tobacco products were less acceptable to respondents than placements in ethically neutral categories. Other researchers have investigated the link between placements and attitudes toward tobacco products (e.g., Gibson and Maurer 2000; Pechmann and Shih 1999). Nevertheless, Gupta, Balasubramanian, and Klassen (2000) show that respondent groups that are negatively predisposed toward both advertising and placements do not discriminate between ethically charged and ethically neutral products.

Other studies (Gould, Gupta, and Grabner-Kräuter 2000; Gupta and Gould 1997; McKechnie and Zhou 2003) show that U.S. males are more accepting of placements involving ethi-cally charged products. In addition, frequent movie watchers accept placements of ethically charged products more readily than infrequent movie watchers, but no such difference is evident for placements of ethically neutral products (Gould, Gupta, and Grabner-Kräuter 2000). Available evidence also suggests that these gender and frequency effects are not robust across cultures/nations. A comparison of young viewers in the United States and Singapore found Singaporeans to be more concerned with placement ethics and more supportive of gov-

ernment restrictions on the use of placements (Karrh, Frith, and Callison 2001). Similarly, Chinese consumers view place-ments as less acceptable than do their American counterparts (McKechnie and Zhou 2003). Research that compared audi-ences in the United States, Austria, and France reaffirmed this result: Americans accepted product placement more readily, and were more likely to report purchase intentions toward placed brands (Gould, Gupta, and Grabner-Kräuter 2000). Likely reasons for this include a U.S. regulatory environment that is less restrictive of advertising than is the case in other nations and historical-cultural differences as captured in Hofstede’s (1991, 2001) cross-national studies. Recent work focusing on other countries/cultures (Brennan, Rosenberger, and Hementera 2004; La Pastina 2001) further affirms these findings and the generalizations presented in Propositions 11c and 11d below.

Proposition 11a: Ads (placements) have low (high) levels of both disguise and obtrusiveness; ads (placements) identify (do not identify) brand sponsors; both ads and placements are paid for. Assuming identical message content, an ad may produce lower affective outcomes than a placement.

Proposition 11b: The higher the attitude toward placements, the higher the affective outcomes toward the placed brand.

Proposition 11c: Consumers in all cultures/countries find placements for ethically charged products less acceptable than those for ethically neutral products.

Proposition 11d: American consumers are more accepting of placements than their counterparts in other countries.

Involvement/Connectedness with Program/Motivation to Process Brand Information

Viewers’ involvement with a program’s content influences the effectiveness of its embedded placements (Bhatnagar, Aksoy, and Malkoc 2004). As one example, program involve-ment with a computer game increased short-term recall of placed brands (Nelson 2002). In ad contexts, however, very high levels of program-evoked arousal are counterproductive; indeed, they may inhibit recall of brands in such situations (Newell, Henderson, and Wu 2001). Note that ads (and the brands they contain) only accompany the program, whereas placements are embedded within it. As viewers’ involvement with the program increases (decreases), their recall of brands in ads accompanying the program will likely decrease (increase), while their recall of brands embedded in the program will likely increase (decrease).

Proposition 12a: As a viewer’s program involvement increases (decreases), cognitive outcomes such as recall of (1) brands

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3


in ads decreases (increases) and of (2) brands in placements increases (decreases).

Program connectedness is a more comprehensive and far-reaching construct than program involvement. Program connectedness is relevant when a viewer’s relationship with a program extends beyond the exposure experience into his or her personal and social life (Russell 1998; Russell, Norman, and Heckler 2004a, 2004b; Russell and Puto 1999; Russell and Stern 2006). In such instances, the program exerts a far greater influence than one might expect under high program involvement. This influence may find expression through adoration or imitation of program characters, social groups that facilitate interactions with other program fans, or rituals constructed around the viewing experience (Russell 1998).

A high level of program connectedness is analogous to a high-immersion experience. For example, Grigorovici and Constantin (2004) assert that structural features of Immersive Virtual Environment in 3D Gaming (high immersion, pres-ence) increase users’ affective engagement with the stimuli/environment and their embedded placement messages. Indi-viduals with a high degree of connectedness to a program are likely to view it frequently, pay greater attention to it, and imitate behaviors drawn from its episodes. Furthermore, they may not necessarily perceive any commercial intent behind brand usage in the program.

Proposition 12b: The higher the connectedness to a program, the higher the message outcomes for placements embedded in the program.

Many viewers use placed brands to validate their existing identity and purchasing patterns (DeLorme and Reid 1999). Others may be motivated to process brand appearances as a means to enhance their identities.

Individuals may use a particular brand in a given situation to enact a desired social identity (as opposed to a global self ). Generally, the more important a social identity is to one’s sense of self, the more one will perceive as desirable the brand that displays or reinforces that identity. The marketplace, including media programs, provides opportunities to learn and adopt such identities (Kleine, Kleine, and Kernan 1993). However, individuals need not evaluate themselves in a dramaturgical fashion for such behavioral editing to occur (Messinger, Samp-son, and Towne 1990). Nor does this process of identifying with brands ever end. Indeed, identification goals represent a self-defining and ongoing process (Wicklund and Gollwitzer 1982). Most people maintain at least a minimal level of mo-tivation to process information about symbols that may help them express their desired identities.

Motivational antecedents influence whether/how brands are processed as identity cues (MacInnis and Jaworski 1989). For example, impression motivation is an important antecedent. It

captures the degree to which people are motivated to control how others see them (Leary and Kowalski 1990). Three central factors determine impression motivation: the goal relevance of the impressions, the value of desired outcomes from the impression, and the discrepancy between desired and current social image. Overall, an individual’s impression motivation and related choices (e.g., which impression to make and how to accomplish this) are influenced by the need to align social image with desirable prototypes (Leary 1989). Note that these prototypes may symbolize an ideal self that, in turn, is influenced by media content (Hirschman and Thompson 1997; Hoffner and Cantor 1991). Based on these findings from impression management and media research, we propose that a viewer’s motivation to scan the media environment for brands (that are likely to help him or her express a desired image) is an important individual-level determinant of place-ment processing.

Proposition 13: Motivation to process brands for self-presentational purposes influences cognitive outcomes (i.e., attention and processing) for brand placements.

PROCESSING DEPTH

Our model assumes that execution- and individual-level variables influence the viewer’s processing of a given product placement. Labeled as “processing depth,” this model compo-nent ranges across a low/high consciousness continuum with important implications for the explicit versus implicit memory dichotomy in both advertising (Duke and Carlson 1993; Lee 2002; Shapiro 1999; Shapiro, MacInnis, and Heckler 1997) and placement contexts (Auty and Lewis 2004a, 2004b; Law and Braun 2000; Law and Braun-LaTour 2004).

Explicit memory is tapped by direct tests such as recall/recognition performance. These tasks entail an intentional effort to access and retrieve information from a previous stimulus exposure event (Krishnan and Chakravarti 1999; Shapiro and Krishnan 2001). In contrast, implicit memory is evident in indirect tests (e.g., sentence completion, word association, projective tests) where consumers do not use con-scious memory retrieval (Duke and Carlson 1993; Krishnan and Chakravarti 1999). That is, retrieval of implicit memory occurs automatically.

Implicit memory is often characterized by a response bias that increases the likelihood that information from a recent stimulus exposure (e.g., an ad) will be used to perform a subse-quent task (e.g., purchase) without conscious retrieval or even awareness of prior exposure to that information (Lee 2002). This bias may manifest itself as increased preference for infor-mation from the exposure episode. Consider, for example, the perceptual fluency phenomenon whereby feature-level analysis (e.g., shape, color) of a product during incidental ad exposure

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3

Fall 2006 131

creates a memory trace that facilitates feature-level processing during a subsequent product exposure occasion. Specifically, the “previously seen stimulus appears familiar, and absent a successful search of memory to attribute this familiarity to the prior exposure episode, the familiarity is attributed to a prefer-ence for the stimulus” (Shapiro and Krishnan 2001, p. 2). In contrast, the notion of conceptual fluency involves semantic-level analysis (e.g., meaning) of a product during incidental ad exposure, such that the likelihood of its subsequent inclusion in an individual’s consideration set is increased.

Measures of explicit memory remain the exclusive focus for most research studies on advertising (Shapiro and Krishnan 2001) and placements (Law and Braun-La Tour 2004). Recent studies in the advertising field (Lee 2002; Shapiro 1999; Sha-piro and Krishnan 2001) seek to mitigate this imbalance. For example, Shapiro (1999) offers evidence indicating that the response bias during incidental ad exposure stems from uncon-scious influences. That is, advertised products were more likely to be included in the consideration set even when participants actively tried to avoid choosing such products. Shapiro and Krishnan (2001) found that implicit memory performance is not impaired despite divided attention during ad exposure, or a lengthy delay between ad exposure and test event.

Similar studies in the placement domain (Auty and Lewis 2004a, 2004b; Law and Braun 2000) showcase key differ-ences between, and related implications of, the explicit versus implicit memory dichotomy. They suggest that the ability of placements to enhance recall and choice performance is mediated by distinct mechanisms. Although Law and Braun (2000) found that placements improved overall performance on recall/recognition and choice tasks, empirically observed disassociations point to different rationales for these improve-ments. The centrality of the product to the plot, for example, was instrumental in enhancing recall performance, but played no role with regard to choice performance. Similarly, seen-only (or visual) placements were least recalled, but influenced choice the most. It is useful to note that Russell’s (2002) study explores interaction effects between these two factors, using memory and persuasion as dependent measures. In sum, the key implication here is that a sponsor may tailor the level of congruence or modality choice depending on whether a placement’s campaign emphasizes recognition/recall or at-titudinal impact.

Even if most placements are processed at relatively low levels of consciousness, they may retain the ability to gener-ate marketplace impact in terms of affective and conative outcomes. For example, brand attitudes were found to persist over time even under low-involvement processing (Sengupta, Goodstein, and Boninger 1997) if the cues and product category were highly related. Even unconsciously processed stimuli in advertising may produce negatively or positively valenced affective responses (Aylesworth, Goodstein, and

Kalra 1999). Shapiro, MacInnis, and Heckler (1997) assert that incidental exposure to a product depicted in a persuasive message increases the likelihood of its inclusion in a consider-ation set, even when participants lack explicit memory for the ads. This phenomenon appears quite robust (it was replicated across two product categories, in memory-based and stimulus-based consideration set formation contexts, and in familiar and unfamiliar buying situations).

Proposition 14a: Unconscious processing of placements (e.g., visual-only or screen placements that appear in the background) relates to implicit memory and enhances affective and conative outcomes more than cognitive outcomes.

Proposition 14b: Conscious processing of placements (e.g., high level of plot centrality of the placed brand) relates to explicit memory and enhances cognitive outcomes (e.g., recall) more than affective or conative outcomes.

EFFECTS

This section organizes outcome variables around the three broad classes of the HoE model: cognitive, affective, and conative.

Cognitive Outcomes

Judgments About the Placed Brand’s Typicality/Incidence

Even processing that entails relatively low levels of conscious-ness may influence consumers’ judgments about brand typical-ity, such as perceived market share. A placement could serve as a vivid and simple exemplar (Zillmann 1999) that skews perceptions of a brand’s marketplace presence. In research related to the cultivation effect, O’Guinn and Shrum (1997) found that the amount of television viewing affects judgments about the prevalence of products and behaviors linked to an affluent lifestyle. Relevant information was more accessible for heavy viewers than light ones. As Table 1 indicates, outcomes such as brand typicality and brand incidence await research in placement contexts.

Memory for Brands and Placements

Studies show that placements generate short-term memory ef-fects, as measured through recognition, salience, or recall (Babin and Carder 1996a; Baker and Crawford 1995; Gupta and Lord 1998; Johnstone and Dodd 2000; Karrh 1994; Nelson 2002; Sabherwal, Pokrywczynski, and Griffin 1994). As discussed earlier, these measures from the explicit-memory domain are popular among practitioners to gauge placement effectiveness (Karrh 1995; Karrh, McKee, and Pardun 2003). When brand placements operate less consciously, however, in the manner

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3


that Krugman (1965) suggests low-involvement ads work, recall measures are inadequate; measures that tap into implicit memory processes are vital in such contexts. This is because consumers cannot verbalize thoughts about issues they are not consciously aware of, or for which they lack a proper vocabulary (Synott 1991). Furthermore, insights from depth interviews and focus groups (DeLorme and Reid 1999) suggest that both frequent and infrequent movie viewers can express complex and durable interpretations of deeply processed placements. In short, viewers may retain long-term memories of certain placements, but only for those placements that prompted more conscious processing during exposure. Therefore, recognition, salience, or recall measures are more appropriate for placements that elicit moderate to high levels of conscious processing.

Affective Outcomes

Brand Portrayal Rating

Two studies (Avery and Ferraro 2000; Ferraro and Avery 2000) describe a rating scale to assess the degree to which a brand was favorably portrayed in a given placement. This portrayal rat-ing is then used as a dependent variable in regression analyses with several execution characteristics as independent variables. This line of inquiry holds considerable promise to assess the relative impact of other variables in our model.

Identification with Brand

Affective responses such as empathy may arise even at low levels of conscious processing. Empathy and emotional identification processes are common to almost all placements. Hackley and Tiwsakul (2006) examine the role of entertainment marketing in facilitating consumers’ self-concepts and identity formation through brand exposure. Russell (1998) asserts that empathetic identification is “the main ingredient of product placement’s ef-fectiveness” (p. 359). Empathy for characters paired with placed brands has emerged as a key theme in some studies (Deighton, Romer, and McQueen 1989; DeLorme and Reid 1999). The process by which consumers identify with placement messages deserves greater research scrutiny, however. A few interpretive studies (Gould and Gupta 2006; Hirschman and Thompson 1997; Stern and Russell 2004) suggest both affective (attitudinal) and conative (acquisitive) overtones. Hirschman and Thompson (1997, p. 53) characterize identification as a way for consumers to negotiate “their self-perceptions and personal goals in relation to the idealized images presented in the mass media.”

To the extent that brand identification is modeled by actors/characters in placement contexts, it can be learned. Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory posits that individuals acquire new response tendencies through modeling and imitative behaviors. Media programs may encourage such behaviors when program

attributes are positive and simple, and when they help viewers achieve relevant goals (Tan 1986). Brands fill the bill, as they are socially visible, accessible, and easily understood in our consumer society. Audiences may respond to media characters with a desire to behave like the character (Hoffner and Cantor 1991). This desire is fulfilled in part by using the brand(s) that the character uses. However, full imitative behavior (usage of placed brand) requires this brand to be visible during the place-ment episode, and accessible to viewers after that.

A related effect is the use of placed brands to present spe-cific and desirable images to others. According to Schlenker (1980), people shape self-relevant information through an “association principle,” linking themselves with desirable im-ages and symbols and avoiding associations with undesirable ones. In such a case, the desire is not to completely imitate a program character, but rather to appropriate a limited set of traits from the character. For example, a viewer who believed Tom Cruise’s character in Top Gun was “cool,” and that the Ray-Ban sunglasses he used in the movie exemplified this characteristic, might desire those sunglasses. By appropriat-ing the brand, the viewer establishes an association with the desired trait without having to adopt other aspects of the Tom Cruise persona. Such a result is more likely when the viewer processes the brand information consciously, and elaborates about that brand’s utility in self-presentation.

Brand Attitudes

Empirical results are somewhat mixed with regard to the ef-fect of placements on brand attitudes. As one example, Karrh (1994) found no changes in evaluations of placed brands, even when those brands were made more memorable. Conversely, Russell (2002) found positive attitude change even when recognition of a placed brand was low.

Low to moderate levels of conscious processing may produce the greatest impact of a placement on brand attitudes. At very high levels of processing, consumers may embellish the brand information presented with idiosyncratic interpretations about how the brand satisfies their own identity-expressive needs (MacInnis and Jaworski 1989), or they may mentally construct benefits or uses not shown in the placement (Alba and Hutchinson 1987). The latter generates a rich and person-alized context for processing placements, but sponsors do not control this context because viewers combine the placement with personal information and goals.

Conative Outcomes

Purchase Intention

Few studies have found a significant effect on purchase inten-tions from placement exposure. In a study of 43 college-aged

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3

Fall 2006 133

participants who viewed Wayne’s World in its entirety, reported purchase intention for placed brands was 16% higher than for brands previously identified as “favorites” by participants (Baker and Crawford 1995). While marketers claim that some placements increased sales significantly, more sensitive measures might shed light on the rationales underlying this performance.

Brand Choice

As discussed earlier, the factors most likely to influence choice are independent from those that are especially effective in the explicit memory domain. Incidental advertising exposures, even in the absence of explicit memory for those exposures, can increase the likelihood that the brand in question is in-cluded in consideration sets (Shapiro, MacInnis, and Heckler 1997). Nedungadi (1990) demonstrated that the likelihood of choosing a given brand may increase following recent ex-posure to that brand, even when affective outcomes such as brand preference remain unchanged. For these reasons, choice appears to be an appropriate and desirable dependent measure for a wide range of placements.

Brand Usage Behavior

Morton and Friedman (2002) break new ground by extend-ing research focus to viewers’ usage behavior with respect to placed products. In their study, a set of beliefs about movie placements (especially those linked to the portrayal of the placed product in a movie) emerged as useful predictors of product usage behavior.

DISCUSSION, KEY ISSUES, AND FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA

This study offers a comprehensive model framework to plan, predict, and evaluate the impact of product placements. We sought to integrate and build on the extant product place-ment literature, despite its sparseness and other challenges. We also drew on allied research areas such as advertising and psychology to identify factors that contribute to placement effectiveness, and to explain disparities among published studies. Finally, we summarize the research propositions that benchmark and consolidate what we know about placements, and offer broad directions for future research.

Benchmarking and Consolidating What We Know

Marketers have successfully shaped the images presented through popular cultural vehicles, often by using those ve-hicles as sales tools (Solomon and Englis 1994). Consumers appear more willing to accept brand images in media that were

once deemed “commercial-free.” Surveys of young Americans consistently show that product placement is acceptable to them (Gould, Gupta, and Grabner-Kräuter 2000). Historical evidence of such acceptance stems from the increasing use of brand names in popular writing such as plays, songs, news-papers, and magazines since World War II (Friedman 1991). More important, such acceptance will likely continue into the future as emergent digital communication technologies present new opportunities to tailor or customize placements. Recently, Sheehan and Guo (2005) investigated the unique effects of product assimilation (when placed brands actually become the star of the show). This trend toward greater brand integration within programming appears inevitable as technology empow-ers viewers with options (e.g., TiVo) to avoid ads.

Our model’s four components (as shown in Figure 1) pro-vide a simple basis to organize the body of knowledge in the placement literature. It is clear that this young field has ac-cumulated much knowledge in the form of main effects (see Table 1) and a few interaction effects (see Table 2).

Focus on Dissociations

A key contribution of Table 4 is to benchmark and consolidate the existing body of knowledge about the psychological/com-municational processes that explain how placements work. It is a formidable challenge for sponsors to design and execute successful placement campaigns. Typically, placement cam-paigns seek multiple desirable outcomes (e.g., prespecified cognitive, affective, and conative outcomes in terms of the HoE model framework), but it is a challenge to accomplish those outcomes with certain strategies. In other words, research has often showcased instances of “dissociation” whereby a given communication process or strategy may yield stellar results on one outcome variable while underperforming on other HoE outcome classes. In developing Propositions 14a and 14b, for example, we reviewed research findings to highlight the dis-sociation between recall and attitudinal outcomes on the one hand, and choice effects on the other. This imbalance stems from different mechanisms that govern the explicit versus implicit memory dichotomy.

Each row of Table 4 summarizes a different dissociation and its related propositions, processes, and impact on each of the three HoE performance outcome classes. This table offers valuable guidance to sponsors and researchers by alerting them to placement strategies that may not yield desirable results on all three HoE outcome classes. In a nutshell, it delineates the outcome trade-offs associated with pursuing different placement campaign strategies and reinforces the value of developing specific goals around each placement campaign. Greater understanding and knowledge of dissociations and related processes is likely to empower sponsors to develop or structure placement stimuli to achieve specific outcomes.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3


Overall, the purpose of Table 4 is to emphasize that the psychological processes underlying placements are funda-mentally complex, and that they may influence variables in different HoE outcome classes in different ways. This serves to sensitize researchers and placement sponsors against unrealistic assumptions that a given placement strategy (and its underly-ing processes) will deliver desirable results on all three HoE outcome classes. Any such assumption is incorrect for all the dissociations listed in Table 4.

Typical Versus “Home-Run” Placements

As discussed next, our model is appropriate for both “typical” placements and “home-run” placements (i.e., placements that yield spectacular performance results).

Our framework accommodates typical product placements that are relatively brief, visual in character (visual placements constitute the majority according to Avery and Ferraro 2000), involve familiar brands, and are crafted to fit with the story (thereby channeling viewers’ attention in a direction that a writer or director would prefer). In such cases, given earlier discussions regarding implicit versus explicit memory, we predict that low levels of viewer processing may yield mild and short-term effects on cognitive outcomes, and strong/long-lasting effects on affective and conative outcomes. For sponsors, conative effects are clearly more important.

The preceding points are significant because they differ sharply from practitioners’ bias toward measures of explicit memory for evaluating placement performance (Law and Braun 2000; Law and Braun-La Tour 2004). Perhaps because of this bias, the industry’s conception of what constitutes value in placements is somewhat skewed. That is, the pricing structure for placements disproportionately emphasizes performance on measures of explicit memory. For example, Walt Disney Company, which considered visual (or on-screen) placements less valuable than other types, priced a placement episode with visual, visual + brand-name mention, and actual product use content at $20,000, $40,000, and $60,000, respectively (Magiera 1990).

Therefore, recent research findings (e.g., Law and Braun 2000; Nedungadi 1990; Shapiro 1999; Shapiro, MacInnis, and Heckler 1997) that link incidental/unconscious stimuli exposure to desirable affective and conative outcomes should prompt placement practitioners to reassess how they value visual placements. This is a very significant issue for movie studios/producers because the bulk of placements are visual in character (with obvious revenue implications) and work well in incidental- or unconscious-exposure environments.

While the preceding discussion is oriented around “typical” placements, our framework also helps clarify factors that must be in place for the relatively rare “home-run” placements that marketers can and do accomplish. For example, in one well-

reported case, BMW generated great sales success from placing its Z3 Roadster in the James Bond film GoldenEye (Fournier and Dolan 1997). This placement met the criteria for extensive processing presented in our model: The car appeared in both verbal and visual modes for relatively long periods; the car was woven into the program plot; the car’s appearance in the film (as the “new” James Bond vehicle) was widely publicized and advertised prior to the film’s release; the car was paired with the lead character; there was a high degree of audience connectedness to the James Bond film series; the car related well with the James Bond character. While acknowledging the potential negative fallout from the use of commercially primed placements in this example (i.e., BMW launched an IMC campaign that primed the placement via traditional ads), we note that the deleterious effects of commercial prim-ing were likely mitigated by media priming because of widespread media coverage devoted to this placement (our proposition predicts that media-primed placements produce beneficial affective outcomes as compared with commercially primed placements). The media attention/priming of this placement was motivated by the momentous scale of this placement (according to Stewart-Allen, it generated over $100 million worth of audience exposure). Finally, we note that other blockbuster placements (such as the appearance of the then-new brand Reese’s Pieces in E.T.) also satisfy many of the preceding criteria.

Directions for Future Research

Tables 1 through 4 highlight an elaborate research agenda on placements that is directly related to our model framework. Several additional issues for future research that are indirectly related to our model framework are discussed next, and are summarized in Tables 5 and 6.

Economic Worth of Placements

The following fundamental question faces placement practi-tioners, suppliers (i.e., media, including movie studios/pro-ducers), and sponsors: What is the economic worth of specific placements? Roberts (2004) summarized recent efforts at three independent firms to assess the economic value of placements to potential sponsors. Nielsen’s Place*Views software tracks descriptive variables about audiovisual placements: the number of episodes, the shows involved, whether the brand appeared in the background or foreground, brand exposure duration, the story character in the placement, and placement content (valence, etc.). Using such information, iTVX helps potential sponsors assess the value of a placement. Finally, IAG’s service focuses on the audience’s ability to recall placed brands in specific shows. Efforts to value placement episodes should be informed by rationales advanced in our model.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3

Fall 2006 135

Research That Extends Operationalizations and Contexts

Table 1 highlights research opportunities to extend operation-alizations of specific constructs in previous empirical work. For example, researchers have studied the opportunity-to-process-placement construct in our model with proxy variables such as placement prominence or exposure duration. Other opera-tionalizations worthy of research include repetition frequency for placement episodes within a movie, and the pace at which the brand message is disseminated therein.

Because most placement studies are highly context-driven (e.g., they focus on a single stimulus or a specific audience type), there is a need to extend them to newer contexts/cul-tures/nations. Also, most placement studies focus on the in-dividual as the unit of analysis for exposure, processing, and outcomes. Unfortunately, this precludes assessment of the role of coviewing behaviors in shaping placement outcomes (such behaviors are those that are exhibited during shared viewing experiences). For example, does a given placement generate a different impact on an individual depending on where the exposure occurs (e.g., at home or in a theater)?

Finally, the bulk of our model development work depended on the advertising literature to advance propositions. Future research needs to delineate the boundary conditions that limit/preclude the extension of advertising-based insights into product placement contexts. With respect to our model framework, several interactions featured in Table 2 have not been empirically tested in placement contexts (e.g., Chang 2002 investigates some of our model factors in advertising

contexts), so they present new research opportunities. This table focuses only on published work; many interactions among our model variables await research.

Comparative Studies

First, researchers should compare placements with other types of messages. For example, Table 5 is a by-product of the model development process that delineates the similarities and dif-ferences between ads and placements. Empirical comparisons of ads and placements, along the lines of studies that compare ads with other message types (e.g., Singh, Balasubramanian, and Chakraborty 2000) are needed. Recently, Roehm, Roehm, and Boone (2004) compared placements with plugs (both are hybrid messages).

Second, research could compare specific types of placements. For example, Tiwsakul and Hackley (2005) investigated noninte-grated product placements (i.e., brands presented in the beginning or end of a program without any integration into its content). After controlling for information content, it may be useful to compare nonintegrated versus integrated placements on several performance measures. Given the growing array of placement types, other comparisons that await research inquiry include vir-tual versus retrospective versus on-line placements; primed versus nonprimed placements; informational versus transformational placements; and ordinary versus customized, collaborative, blatant, fake, and exclusive placements (see Table 6 for definitions).

Finally, future studies might compare the performance of identical placements across program genres (e.g., game shows

TABLE 5Key Similarities and Differences Between Ads and Placements

Ads Placements

SimilaritiesAds are paid for. Placements are paid for.Skepticism toward ads adversely affects processing of ads. Skepticism toward ads adversely affects processing of placements.Aad is positively related to Aplacement. Aplacement is positively related to Aad.

DifferencesMessage accompanies, and is therefore distinct from, editorial content.

Message is embedded in, and is therefore not distinct from, editorial content.

Ads accommodate mood spillover effects from program to message.

Placements facilitate mood spillover effects better than ads.

Ads can range over the informational/transformational continuum.

Placements are more transformational than informational.

Ads can range over the argument/drama continuum. Placements are closer to drama than to arguments.Informational/argument ads are processed evaluatively. Placements are more likely to be processed empathetically.Ads are characterized by low levels of disguise and obtrusiveness.

Placements have high levels of disguise and obtrusiveness.

Ads identify the sponsor. Placements do not identify the sponsor.Ad-specific regulations exist. Placement-specific regulations do not exist.

Notes: Aad = attitude toward the ad; Aplacement = attitude toward the placement.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3


versus reality shows versus sitcoms), media types (e.g., movie versus television versus radio versus on-line; see Nelson and McLeod 2005), and media vehicles (e.g., The Price Is Right versus Wheel of Fortune; see Gould and Gupta 2006).

Placement Saturation Studies

Despite their obvious importance to practitioners and spon-sors, researchers have not explored questions such as: What is the saturation point for product placements (in terms of the

number of episodes, product categories, or brands included) in, say, a movie? What is the optimal number of repetitive placements within a movie that avoids audience perceptions of saturation for a specific brand? Does category exclusivity (the absence of competing brands) increase the economic worth of a placement? Do exclusive placements (no other placed brand from any category) increase such worth? What levels of exposure time and prominence would cause a placement to be perceived as blatant, with the concomitant prospect of irritating the target audience?

TABLE 6Additional Topics for Future Research

Key topics Research questions

Economic worth of placements What is the economic worth of a placement?

Research that extends operationalizations/contexts What are the implications of new operationalizations for old constructs? Does the impact of placements change depending on whether the exposure

occurs in individual (home/video iPod) or group (theater) settings? What boundary conditions limit extension of advertising insights to

placements?

Comparative studies Compare placements with other types of messages (e.g., ads). Compare various types of placements after controlling for information

content: nonintegrated versus integrated placements, ordinary placements versus customized, collaborative, blatant, fake, and exclusive placements. (By way of definition, ordinary placements feature real brands, but these brands are imposed on audience members in a way similar to mass advertising; customized placements rely on technology and a participant’s input to adapt or tailor the message to his or her context; collaborative placements are analogous to mass customization, where a firm and its customer collaborate to design and produce a customized product [e.g., an auto racing on-line game may allow individuals to choose both a brand-name race car and the logos displayed on its exterior during the game]; blatant placements involve excessive prominence or exposure duration, which irritates audiences; fake placements involve fictitious brand names that present a research opportunity to assess the added-value and realism that actual brands contribute to a movie. Finally, exclusive placements go significantly beyond integrating brands into a script; examples include movies such as Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle, which feature the brand name in the title, thereby elevating it to a vital story element.)

Compare the impact of identical placements embedded in different program genres, media types, and media vehicles.

Placement saturation studies What is the saturation point for product placements (in terms of the number of episodes, product categories, or brands included) in, say, a movie?

What is the optimal number of repetitive placements within a movie that avoids audience perceptions of saturation for a specific brand?

Does category exclusivity (the absence of competing brands) increase the economic worth of a placement?

Do exclusive placements (no other placed brand from any category) increase such worth?

What levels of exposure time and prominence render a placement blatant (i.e., likely to irritate audiences)?

Supply-side perspective What processes, assumptions, and goals do creative personnel use to combine brands with actors, characters, and story lines in placement contexts?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3

Fall 2006 137

Supply-Side Perspective on Placements

Another element missing in placement research is a formal analysis of the goals/assumptions of program creators about human nature as portrayed through novels, plays, programs, and cinema (Turow 1978; Wells and Anderson 1996). Future research should examine the processes that creative profes-sionals use to combine brands with actors, characters, and story lines.

*****

In conclusion, we reiterate the growing significance of place-ments in terms of both marketing budgets and audience im-pact. We also emphasize the desirability of future research on long-term effects of placements, because extant work is focused around their short-term effects (McCarty 2004).

REFERENCES

Alba, Joseph W., and J. Wesley Hutchinson (1987), “Dimen-sions of Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (March), 411–454.

Atkinson, Claire (2004), “It’s the Marketer’s ‘Apprentice,’” Ad-vertising Age, 75 (35), 1.

Auty, Susan, and Charlie Lewis (2004a), “Exploring Children’s Choice: The Reminder Effect of Product Placement,” Psy-chology and Marketing, 21 (9), 697–713.

———, and ——— (2004b), “The ‘Delicious Paradox’: Pre-conscious Processing of Product Placements by Children,” in The Psychology of Entertainment Media, L. J. Shrum, ed., Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 117–135.

Avery, Rosemary J., and Rosellina Ferraro (2000), “Verisimilitude or Advertising? Brand Appearances on Prime-Time Televi-sion,” Journal of Consumer Affairs, 34 (2), 217–244.

Aylesworth, Andrew B., Ronald C. Goodstein, and Ajay Kalra (1999), “Effect of Archetypal Embeds on Feelings: An In-direct Route to Affecting Attitudes?” Journal of Advertising, 28 (3), 73–81.

———, and Scott B. MacKenzie (1998), “Context Is Key: The Effect of Program-Induced Mood on Thoughts About the Ad,” Journal of Advertising, 27 (2), 17–31.

Babin, Laurie A., and Sheri Thompson Carder (1996a), “Viewers’ Recognition of Brands Placed Within a Film,” International Journal of Advertising, 15 (2), 140–151.

———, and ——— (1996b), “Advertising via the Box Office? Is Product Placement Effective?” Journal of Promotion Man-agement, 3 (1/2), 31–51.

Baker, Michael J., and Hazel A. Crawford (1995), “Product Place-ment,” working paper no. 95 (2), Department of Marketing, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland.

Balasubramanian, Siva K. (1994), “Beyond Advertising and Pub-licity: Hybrid Messages and Public Policy Issues,” Journal of Advertising, 23 (December), 29–46.

Bandura, Albert (1977), Social Learning Theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Barry, Thomas F. (1987), “The Development of the Hierarchy

of Effects: An Historical Perspective,” Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 10 (2), 251–295.

———, and Daniel J. Howard (1990), “A Review and Critique of the Hierarchy of Effects in Advertising,” International Journal of Advertising, 9 (2), 121–135.

Beike, Denise R., and Steven J. Sherman (1994), “Social Infer-ence: Inductions, Deductions, and Analogies,” in Handbook of Social Cognition, 2nd ed., vol. 1, Robert S. Wyer, Jr., and Thomas K. Srull, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 209–285.

Bennett, Michelle, Anthony Pecotich, and Sanjay Putrevu (1999), “The Influence of Warnings on Product Placements,” in Eu-ropean Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 4, Bernard Dubois, Tina Lowry, L. J. Shrum, and Marc Venhuele, eds., Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 193–200.

Bhatnagar, Namita, Lerzan Aksoy, and Selin A. Malkoc (2004), “Embedding Brands Within Media Content: The Impact of Message, Media, and Consumer Characteristics on Placement Efficiency,” in The Psychology of Entertainment Media, L. J. Shrum, ed., Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 99–116.

Bloxham, M. (1998), “Brand Affinity and Television Programme Sponsorship,” International Journal of Advertising, 17 (1), 89–98.

Boush, David M., Marian Friestad, and Gregory M. Rose (1994), “Adolescent Skepticism Toward TV Advertising and Knowledge of Advertiser Tactics,” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June), 165–175.

Brennan, Ian, and Laurie A. Babin (2004), “Brand Placement Recognition: The Influence of Presentation Mode and Brand Familiarity,” Journal of Promotion Management, 10 (1/2), 185–202.

———, Khalid M. Dubas, and Laurie A. Babin (1999), “The Influence of Product-Placement Type and Exposure Time on Product-Placement Recognition,” International Journal of Advertising, 18 (3), 323–337.

Brennan, Stacey, Philip J. Rosenberger III, and Veronica Hemen-tera (2004), “Product Placements in Movies: An Australian Consumer Perspective on Their Ethicality and Acceptabil-ity,” Marketing Bulletin, 15, 1–16.

Brett, Steven Joseph (1995), “The Shrinking Screen: The Increas-ing Intersection of Hollywood Film and Television Program-ming,” Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University.

Chang, Chingching (2002), “Self-Congruency as a Cue in Dif-ferent Advertising-Processing Contexts,” Communication Research, 29 (5), 503–536.

Cornwell, T. Bettina, and Isabelle Maignan (1998), “An Interna-tional Review of Sponsorship Research,” Journal of Advertis-ing, 27 (1), 1–21.

d’Astous, Alain, and Francis Chartier (2000), “A Study of Factors Affecting Consumer Evaluations and Memory of Product Placements in Movies,” Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 22 (2), 31–40.

———, Alain, and Nathalie Seguin (1999), “Consumer Reac-tions to Product Placement Strategies in Television Sponsor-ship,” European Journal of Marketing, 33 (9/10), 896–910.

Davis, Mark H., Jay G. Hull, Richard D. Young, and Gregory

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3


G. Warren (1987), “Emotional Reactions to Dramatic Film Stimuli: The Influence of Cognitive and Emotional Empathy,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (1), 126–133.

Deighton, John, Daniel Romer, and Josh McQueen (1989), “Using Drama to Persuade,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (December), 335–343.

DeLorme, Denise E., and Leonard N. Reid (1999), “Moviegoers’ Experiences and Interpretations of Brands in Films Revis-ited,” Journal of Advertising, 28 (2), 71–95.

D’Orio, Wayne (1999), “Clothes Make the Teen,” American De-mographics, 21 (3), 34–37.

Duke, Charles R., and Les Carlson (1993), “A Conceptual Ap-proach to Alternative Memory Measures for Advertising Effectiveness,” Journal of Current Issues and Research in Ad-vertising, 15 (2), 1–14.

Economist (2005a), “And Now, a Game from Our Sponsor” (June 11), 3.

——— (2005b), “Lights, Camera, Brands” (October 19), 61–62.

Edwards, Jim (2005), “Web Site Seeks to Link Marketers and Producers,” Brandweek (November 14), 8.

Elliott, Stuart (2005), “On Broadway, Ads Now Get to Play Cameo Roles,” New York Times (April 22).

Ferraro, Rosellina, and Rosemary J. Avery (2000), “Brand Ap-pearances on Prime-Time Television,” Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 22 (2), 1–15.

Fitzgerald, Kate (2002), “Eager Sponsors Raise the Ante,” Ad-vertising Age (June 10), 18.

Forgas, Joseph P., and Stephanie Moylan (1987), “After the Mov-ies: Transient Mood and Social Judgments,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13 (4), 467–477.

Fournier, Susan, and Robert J. Dolan (1997), “Launching the BMW Z3 Roadster,” Case No. N9-597-002, Harvard Busi-ness School Publishing.

Friedman, Monroe (1991), A “Brand” New Language, New York: Greenwood Press.

Galician, Mary-Lou (2004), “Product Placements in the Mass Media: Unholy Marketing Marriages or Realistic Story- Telling Portrayals, Unethical Advertising Messages or Use-ful Communication Practices?” Journal of Promotion Manage-ment, 10 (1/2), 1–8.

———, and Peter G. Bourdeau (2004), “The Evolution of Prod-uct Placements in Hollywood Cinema: Embedding High-Involvement ‘Heroic’ Brand Images,” Journal of Promotion Management, 10 (1/2), 15–36.

Gardner, Meryl P. (1994), “Responses to Emotional and Informa-tional Appeals: The Moderating Role of Context-Induced Mood States,” in Attention, Attitude, and Affect in Response to Advertising, Eddie M. Clark, Timothy C. Brock, and David W. Stewart, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gibson, Bryan, and John Maurer (2000), “Cigarette Smoking in the Movies: The Influence of Product Placement on At-titudes Toward Smoking and Smokers,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30 (7), 1457–1473.

Goldberg, Marvin E., and Gerald J. Gorn (1987), “Happy and Sad TV Programs: How They Affect Reactions to Commercials,” Journal of Consumer Research, 14 (December), 387–403.

Gould, Stephen J., and Pola B. Gupta (2006), “‘Come on Down’: How Consumers View Game Shows and the Products Placed in Them,” Journal of Advertising, 35 (1), 65–81.

———, ———, and Sonja Grabner-Kräuter (2000), “Product Placements in Movies: A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Aus-trian, French, and American Consumers’ Attitudes Toward This Emerging International Promotional Medium,” Journal of Advertising, 29 (4), 41–58.

Grigorovici, Dan M., and Corina D. Constantin (2004), “Experi-encing Interactive Advertising Beyond Rich Media: Impacts of Ad Type and Presence on Brand Effectiveness in 3D Gam-ing Immersive Virtual Environments,” Journal of Interactive Advertising, 5 (1), www.jiad.org/vol5/no1/grigorovici/index .htm (accessed June 26, 2006).

Groenendyk, Eric W., and Nicholas A. Valentino (2002), “Of Dark Clouds and Silver Linings: Effects of Exposure to Issue Versus Candidate Advertising on Persuasion, Information Retention, and Issue Salience,” Communication Research, 29 (3), 295–319.

Gupta, Pola B., Siva K. Balasubramanian, and Michael Klassen (2000), “Viewers’ Evaluations of Product Placements in Movies: Public Policy Issues and Managerial Implications,” Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 22 (2), 41–52.

———, and Stephen J. Gould (1997), “Consumers’ Perceptions of the Ethics and Acceptability of Product Placements in Mov-ies: Product Category and Individual Differences,” Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 19 (1), 37–50.

———, and Kenneth R. Lord (1998), “Product Placement in Movies: The Effect of Prominence and Mode on Audience Recall,” Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 20 (1), 47–59.

Hackley, Christopher, and Rungpaka Tiwsakul (2006), “En-tertainment Marketing and Experiential Consumption,” Journal of Marketing Communications, 12 (1), 63–75.

Hey, Damian Ward (2002), “Virtual Product Placement,” Televi-sion Quarterly, 32 (4), 24–29.

Hirschman, Elizabeth C., and Craig J. Thompson (1997), “Why Media Matter: Toward a Richer Understanding of Con-sumers’ Relationships with Advertising and Mass Media,” Journal of Advertising, 26 (1), 43–60.

Hoffner, Cynthia, and Joanne Cantor (1991), “Perceiving and Responding to Mass Media Characters,” in Responding to the Screen, Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillmann, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 63–101.

Hofstede, Geert (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, London: McGraw-Hill.

——— (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behav-iors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Holbrook, Morris B., and Mark W. Grayson (1986), “The Se-miology of Cinematic Consumption: Symbolic Consumer Behavior in Out of Africa,” Journal of Consumer Research, 13 (December), 374–381.

Howard, Daniel L., and Thomas E. Barry (1994), “The Role of Thematic Congruence Between a Mood-Inducing Event and an Advertised Product in Determining the Effects of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3

Fall 2006 139

Mood on Brand Attitudes,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 3 (1), 1–27.

Huang, I-Ning, Joan Scale, and Robert McIntyre (1976), “The Von Restorff Isolation Effect in Response and Serial Order Learning,” Journal of General Psychology, 94 (2), 153–165.

Johnstone, Emma, and Christopher A. Dodd (2000), “Place-ments as Mediators of Brand Salience Within a UK Cin-ema Audience,” Journal of Marketing Communications, 6 (3), 141–158.

Kamins, Michael A., and Kamal Gupta (1994), “Congruence Between Spokesperson and Product Type: A Matchup Hypothesis Perspective,” Psychology and Marketing, 11 (6), 569–586.

Karrh, James A. (1994), “Effects of Brand Placements in Feature Films,” in Proceedings of the 1994 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, Karen Whitehill King, ed., Athens, GA: American Academy of Advertising, 90–96.

——— (1995), “Brand Placements in Feature Films: The Prac-titioners’ View,” in Proceedings of the 1995 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising, Charles S. Madden, ed., Waco, TX: Hankamer School of Business, Baylor Univer-sity, 182–188.

——— (1998), “Brand Placement: A Review,” Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 20 (2), 31–49.

———, Katherine T. Frith, and Coy Callison (2001), “Audience Attitudes Toward Brand (Product) Placement: Singapore and the United States,” International Journal of Advertising, 20 (1), 3–24.

———, Kathy Brittain McKee, and Carol J. Pardun (2003), “Practitioners’ Evolving Views on Product Placement Effec-tiveness,” Journal of Advertising Research, 43 (2), 138–149.

Kirmani, Amna, and Baba Shiv (1998), “Effects of Source Con-gruity on Brand Attitudes and Beliefs: The Moderating Role of Issue-Relevant Elaboration,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7 (1), 25–47.

Kleine, Robert E., III, Susan Schultz Kleine, and Jerome B. Kernan (1993), “Mundane Consumption and the Self: A Social-Identity Perspective,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2 (3), 209–235.

Krishnan, H. Shanker, and Dipankar Chakravarti (1999), “Mem-ory Measures for Pretesting Advertisements: An Integrative Conceptual Framework and a Diagnostic Template,” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8 (1), 1–37.

Krugman, Herbert E. (1965), “The Impact of Television Ad-vertising: Learning Without Involvement,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 29 (Fall), 349–356.

La Pastina, Antonio C. (2001), “Product Placement in Brazil-ian Prime Time Television: The Case of the Reception of a Telenovela,” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 45 (Fall), 541–557.

Law, Sharmistha, and Kathryn A. Braun (2000), “I’ll Have What She’s Having: Gauging the Impact of Product Placements on Viewers,” Psychology and Marketing, 17 (12), 1059–1075.

———, and Kathryn A. Braun-LaTour (2004), “Product Place-ments: How to Measure Their Impact,” in The Psychology of Entertainment Media, L. J. Shrum, ed., Mahwah, NJ: Law-rence Erlbaum, 63–78.

Leary, Mark R. (1989), “Self-Presentational Processes in Leader-ship Emergence and Effectiveness,” in Impression Management in the Organization, Robert A. Giacalone and Paul Rosenfeld, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 343–361.

———, and Robin M. Kowalski (1990), “Impression Manage-ment: A Literature Review and Two-Component Model,” Psychological Bulletin, 107 (1), 34–47.

Lee, Angela Y. (2002), “Effects of Implicit Memory on Memory-Based Versus Stimulus-Based Brand Choice,” Journal of Marketing Research, 39 (4), 440–454.

MacInnis, Deborah J., and Bernard J. Jaworski (1989), “Informa-tion Processing from Advertisements: Toward an Integrative Framework,” Journal of Marketing, 53 (October), 1–23.

———, Christine Moorman, and Bernard J. Jaworski (1991), “Enhancing and Measuring Consumers’ Motivation, Op-portunity, and Ability to Process Brand Information from Ads,” Journal of Marketing, 55 (October), 32–53.

Maclean’s (2005), “Product Placement Beyond TV” (February 21), 33.

Magiera, Marcy (1990), “Disney Plugs Up New Film,” Advertising Age (October 15), 8.

Marketing Management (2005), “As Seen on TV,” 14 (3).Matthews, Robert G. (2005), “London Stage Hosts U.S. Market-

ers,” Wall Street Journal (February 18), B3.Mayer, John D., Laura J. McCormick, and Sara E. Strong (1995),

“Mood-Congruent Memory and Natural Mood: New Evidence,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21 (7), 736–746.

McCarty, John A. (2004), “Product Placement: The Nature of the Practice and Potential Avenues of Inquiry,” in The Psychol-ogy of Entertainment Media, L. J. Shrum, ed., Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 45–62.

McCracken, Grant (1989), “Who Is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Foundations of the Endorsement Process,” Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (3), 310–321.

McKechnie, Sally A., and Jia Zhou (2003), “Product Place-ment in Movies: A Comparison of Chinese and American Consumers’ Attitudes,” International Journal of Advertising, 22 (3), 349–374.

Messinger, Sheldon E., Harold Sampson, and Robert D. Towne (1990), “Life as Theater: Some Notes on the Dramaturgic Approach to Social Reality,” in Life as Theater, Dennis Brissett and Charles Edgley, eds., New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 73–84.

Misra, Shekhar, and Sharon E. Beatty (1990), “Celebrity Spokes-person and Brand Congruence: An Assessment of Recall and Affect,” Journal of Business Research, 21 (2), 159–173.

Moorman, Marjolein, Peter C. Neijens, and Edith G. Smit (2002), “The Effects of Magazine-Induced Psychological Responses and Thematic Congruence on Memory and Attitude Toward the Ad in a Real-Life Setting,” Journal of Advertising, 31 (4), 27–40.

Morton, Cynthia R., and Meredith Friedman (2002), “‘I Saw It in the Movies’: Exploring the Link Between Product Placement Beliefs and Reported Usage Behavior,” Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 24 (2), 33–40.

Nebenzahl, Israel D., and Eugene D. Jaffe (1998), “Ethical

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3


Dimensions of Advertising Executions,” Journal of Business Ethics, 17 (7), 805–815.

———, and Eugene Secunda (1993), “Consumers’ Attitudes Toward Product Placements in Movies,” International Journal of Advertising, 12 (1), 1–11.

Nedungadi, Prakash (1990), “Recall and Consumer Consideration Sets: Influencing Choice Without Altering Brand Evaluations,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (December), 263–276.

Nelson, Michelle R. (2002), “Recall of Brand Placements in Computer/Video Games,” Journal of Advertising Research, 42 (March/April), 80–92.

—————, Heejo Keum, and Ronald A. Yaros (2004), “Ad-vertainment or Adcreep? Game Players’ Attitudes Toward Advertising and Product Placements in Computer Games,” Journal of Interactive Advertising, 5 (1), http://jiad.org/vol5/no1/nelson/index.htm (accessed June 26, 2006).

—————, and Laurie Ellis McLeod (2005), “Adolescent Brand Consciousness and Product Placements: Awareness, Liking and Perceived Effects on Self and Others,” International Jour-nal of Consumer Studies, 29 (6), 515–528.

Nelson, Richard Alan (2004), “The Bulgari Connection: A Novel Form of Product Placement,” Journal of Promotion Manage-ment, 10 (1/2), 203–212.

Neumann, Deborah, Mary Cassata, and Thomas Skill (1983), “Setting the Mood: Soap Opera Settings and Fashions,” in Life on Daytime Television: Tuning-In American Serial Drama, Mary Cassata and Thomas Skill, eds., Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 125–135.

Newell, Stephen J., Kenneth V. Henderson, and Bob T. Wu (2001), “The Effects of Pleasure and Arousal on Recall of Advertisements During the Super Bowl,” Psychology and Marketing, 18 (11), 1135–1153.

O’Guinn, Thomas C., and L. J. Shrum (1997), “The Role of Tele-vision in the Construction of Consumer Reality,” Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (March), 278–294.

Paivio, Allan (1979), Imagery and Verbal Processes, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

——— (1983), “The Empirical Case for Dual Coding,” in Im-agery, Memory and Cognition, John C. Yuille, ed., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

——— (1986), Mental Representations: A Dual Coding Approach, New York: Oxford University Press.

Pardun, Carol J., and Kathy McKee (1999), “Product Placements as Public Relations: An Exploratory Study of the Role of the Public Relations Firm,” Public Relations Review, 25 (4), 481–493.

Pechmann, Cornelia, and Chuan-Fong Shih (1999), “Smoking Scenes in Movies and Antismoking Advertisements Before Movies,” Journal of Marketing, 63 (3), 1–13.

Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo (1986), “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion,” in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 19, Leonard Berkowitz, ed., New York: Academic Press, 123–205.

———, ———, and David Schumann (1983), “Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Mod-erating Role of Involvement,” Journal of Consumer Research, 10 (September), 135–146.

———, Steven A. Richman, David W. Schumann, and Alan J. Strathman (1993), “Positive Mood and Persuasion: Dif-ferent Roles for Affect Under High- and Low-Elaboration Conditions,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64 (1), 5–20.

Puto, Christopher P., and William D. Wells (1984), “Informational and Transformational Advertising: The Differential Effects of Time,” Advances in Consumer Research, 11 (1), 638–643.

Reed, J.D. (1989), “Plugging Away in Hollywood” Time (Janu-ary 2), 102.

Roberts, Johnny L. (2004), “TV’s New Brand of Stars,” Newsweek (November 22).

Roehm, Michelle L., Harper A. Roehm, Jr., and Derrick S. Boone (2004), “Plugs Versus Placements: A Comparison of Alter-natives for Within-Program Brand Exposure,” Psychology and Marketing, 21 (1), 17–28.

Roskos-Ewoldsen, David R., and Russell H. Fazio (1992), “On the Orienting Value of Attitudes: Attitude Accessibility as a Determinant of an Object’s Attraction of Visual Attention,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63 (2), 198–211.

Russell, Cristel A. (1998), “Toward a Framework of Product Placement: Theoretical Propositions,” in Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 25, Joseph W. Alba and J. Wesley Hutchinson, eds., Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 357–362.

——— (2002), “Investigating the Effectiveness of Product Place-ment in Television Shows: The Role of Modality and Plot Connection Congruence on Brand Memory and Attitude,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (December), 306–318.

———, Andrew T. Norman, and Susan E. Heckler (2004a), “People and ‘Their’ Television Shows: An Overview of Television Connectedness,” in The Psychology of Entertainment Media, L. J. Shrum, ed., Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 275–290.

———, ———, and ——— (2004b), “The Consumption of Television Programming: Development and Validation of the Connectedness Scale,” Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (2), 150–161.

———, and Christopher P. Puto (1999), “Rethinking Televi-sion Audience Measures: An Exploration into the Construct of Audience Connectedness,” Marketing Letters, 10 (4), 393–407.

———, and Barbara B. Stern (2006), “Consumers, Characters, and Products: A Balance Model of Sitcom Product Place-ment Effects,” Journal of Advertising, 35 (1), 7–21.

Sabherwal, Shonall, Jim Pokrywczynski, and Robert Griffin (1994), “Brand Recall for Product Placements in Motion Pictures: A Memory-Based Perspective,” paper presented at the 1994 Conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Atlanta, GA.

Schlenker, Barry (1980), Impression Management, Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Schneider, Lars-Peter, and T. Bettina Cornwell (2005), “Cashing in on Crashes via Brand Placement in Computer Games,” International Journal of Advertising, 24 (3), 321–343.

Segrave, Kerry (2004), Product Placement in Hollywood Films: A History, Jefferson, NC: MacFarland.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3

Fall 2006 141

Sengupta, Jaideep, Ronald C. Goodstein, and David S. Boninger (1997), “All Cues Are Not Created Equal: Obtaining At-titude Persistence Under Low-Involvement Conditions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 23 (March), 351–361.

Shapiro, Stewart (1999), “When an Ad’s Influence Is Beyond Our Conscious Control: Perceptual and Conceptual Fluency Effects Caused by Incidental Exposure,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (1), 16–36.

———, and H. Shanker Krishnan (2001), “Memory-Based Measures for Assessing Advertising Effects: A Comparison of Explicit and Implicit Memory Effects,” Journal of Adver-tising, 30 (3), 1–13.

———, Deborah J. MacInnis, and Susan E. Heckler (1997), “The Effects of Incidental Ad Exposure on the Formation of Consid-eration Sets,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (1), 94–104.

Sheehan, Kim Bartel, and Aibing Guo (2005), “‘Leaving on a (Branded) Jet Plane’: An Exploration of Audience Attitudes Towards Product Assimilation in Television Content,” Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 27 (1), 79–91.

Singh, Mandeep, Siva K. Balasubramanian, and Goutam Chakraborty (2000), “A Comparative Analysis of Three Communication Formats: Advertising, Infomercial, and Direct Experience,” Journal of Advertising, 29 (4), 59–75.

Solomon, Michael R., and Basil G. Englis (1994), “Reality En-gineering: Blurring the Boundaries Between Commercial Signification and Popular Culture,” Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 16 (2), 1–17.

Stern, Barbara, and Cristel A. Russell (2004), “Consumer Re-sponses to Product Placement in Television Sitcoms: Genre, Sex, and Consumption,” Consumption, Markets, and Culture, 7 (4), 371–394.

———, ———, and Dale W. Russell (2005), “Vulnerable Women on Screen and at Home: Soap Opera Consumption,” Journal of Macromarketing, 25 (2), 222–225.

Stewart-Allen, Allyson L. (1999), “Product Placement Helps Sell Brand,” Marketing News, 33 (4), 8.

Synott, Anthony (1991), “A Sociology of Smell,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 28 (1), 437–459.

Tan, Alexis S. (1986), “Social Learning of Aggression from Tele-vision,” in Perspectives on Media Effects, Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillmann, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 41–55.

Tiwsakul, Rungpaka, and Chris Hackley (2005), “Explicit, Non-integrated Product Placement in British Television Programmes,” International Journal of Advertising, 24 (1), 95–111.

Turow, Joseph (1978), “Casting for TV Parts: The Anatomy of Social Typing,” Journal of Communication, 28 (4), 18–24.

Vagnoni, Anthony (2001), “Radical Departure,” Advertising Age (June 25), 14.

Wallace, William P. (1965), “Review of the Historical, Empirical, and Theoretical Status of the Von Restorff Phenomenon,” Psychological Bulletin, 63 (6), 410–424.

Wells, William D., and Cheri L. Anderson (1996), “Fictional Materialism,” in Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 23, Kim Corfman and John G. Lynch, eds., Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 120–126.

Wenner, Lawrence A. (2004), “On the Ethics of Product Place-ment in Media Entertainment,” Journal of Promotion Manage-ment, 10 (1/2), 101–132.

Wicklund, Robert A., and Peter M. Gollwitzer (1982), Symbolic Self-Completion, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Yi, Youjae (1990), “The Effects of Contextual Priming in Print Advertisements,” Journal of Consumer Research, 17 (Septem-ber), 215–222.

Zillmann, Dolf (1999), “Exemplification Theory: Judging the Whole by Some of Its Parts,” Media Psychology, 1 (1), 69–94.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Indi

an I

nstit

ute

of M

anag

emen

t Ban

galo

re]

at 0

9:45

25

Oct

ober

201

3

Documents

Audience Response to Product Placements