You are on page 1of 9

The Efficacy of Brand-Execution Tactics in TV Advertising, Brand Piacements, and internet Advertising

I
JENNI ROMANIUK Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science University of South Australia I Jenni@l\/larketingScience. iipfo

This article examines brand-execution tactics in television, internet video advertising, and in brand placement within TV programs. Multiple studies provide evidence that showing the brand early and oftenand having at least one verbal mentionenhances brand recall. By contrast, the evidence is mixed for verbal frequency, and there is not support for the brand simply being present for a iong time. A review of current practice across a variety of media finds considerable scope for improvement in brand execution.

INTRODUCTION

Across all theories of advertising, there is a consistent theme: For the exposure to have any consequent effect in the future, the viewer needs to know which brand is being advertised. It is crucial, therefore, for viewers of an advertisement to register the brand name in their memory as a part of their exposure to that advertisement. The key mechanism for communicating the brand is direct branding execution, which is how the brand name is presented throughout an advertisement. This execution (the focus of this article) consists of an advertisement's mode, its timing, and its structure all of which can help a brand name "cut through" other media clutter and be noticed by viewers. Despite this acknowledged importance, evidence abounds that the branding execution often fails to capture the viewers' attention, even if they notice an advertisement's creative content. Correct brand identification from viewers with verified advertisement exposure is about 40 percent (Franzen, 1994; Rossiter and Bellman, 2005). In
other words, more than half of those who remember seeing an advertisement fail to register the brand name

itself noticed. The viewer either does not remember any brand at all, or cites a competing brand.
Why single out branding execution?

Branding is the only element of the advertisement that is not optional. It is what differentiates the creative piece as an advertisement, rather than a short movie. Consumers can rarely act immediately on their advertising exposure. For at least a period of time, therefore, the advertisement needs to appropriately register some sort of brand identity in buyer memory to ensure that traces of it can be recalled in a buying situation.
Topic reievance

and that a considerable amount of advertising exposures are wasted due to ineffective branding execution. Ineffective branding execution occurs when the presentation of a brand name within an advertisement is insufficient in getting the brand name DOI:| 10.2501/S0021849909090187

Audience fragmentation means that marketers may need to spend more to reach different pockets of potential consumers in order to reach a wide audience. Advertisers need to maximize the chance of sales effectiveness from every exposure. This fragmentation is driven by the presence of new media (the internet, social networking, word of mouth) as well as alternative mechanisms in old media (i.e., brand placements within TV programs). This article has two primary objectives: To bring together the knowledge of the impact of branding execution on advertising effectiveness in order to identify the empirically generalized findings. June 2 0 0 9 JDUROHL OF l1DU[RTISinG RESEIIRCH 1 4 3

EFFICACY OF BRAND-EXECUTION TACTICS

EMPIRICAL GENERALIZATION
The number of times a brand visually appears in a video advertisement is correlated with higher correct identification of that brand within the advertisement.

date, or when the vast weight of evidence favors a particular finding. The report's two primary dependent variables are:

To compare traditional and new media in their performance on these execution tactics in order to identify key areas for improvement across both new and old media.
BRANDING EXECUTION EFFECTIVENESS: CURRENT EMPIRICAL GENERALIZATIONS

This article focuses on quantifiable, objective measures of branding execution, not subjective metrics such as the brand's role in creative-concept development. With a strict emphasis on empirical generalizations, the research focuses on execution elements that have been investigated in multiple studies. Specifically: Visual frequency: How many times is the brand visually represented? Verbal frequency: How many times is the brand mentioned?

Total brand exposures: How often is the brand referenced, regardless of mode? Duration of brand: For what period of time is the brand in front of the viewer? Early branding: Does the brand appear early in the advertisement? Dual mode: Does the advertisement include both visual and verbal brandingexecution elements? This research includes both paid-media television advertising as well as brand placement within programming. Although there has been some research into how brand placement performs in the context of movies, TV is the medium that has been the primary focus of research into branding execution. Empirical generalizations are drawn when there is either consistency across the studies conducted to

Brand recall: Can someone remember the brand advertising? Advertising persuasion: Did the advertisement increase the likelihood of the viewer buying the brand?

The discussion is focused on the relationship between brand-execution tactics and these two advertising-exposure outcomes.

EXECUTION ELEMENTS Visual frequency

The evidence for the influence of visual frequency on recall is strong (Romaniuk, 2008 [2 studies]; Scott and Craig-Lees, 2006; Stewart and Furse, 1986). The empirical result is generalized across pretest and experimental situations as well as forced exposure and natural viewing environments (see Table 1). There are two studies that did not find a positive relationship.

TABLE 1

Visual Frequency
study Stewart and Furse ' (1986) Stewart and Koslow (1989) Romaniuk (2008) study 1 Stimuli 1,059 advertisements for 356 brandsmost 30 s 1,017 advertisements most 30 s 143 advertisements for 100 brands30 and 15 s Romaniuk (2008) study 2 Scott and Craig-Lees (2006) 17 advertisements for 17 brands30 s Brand placements Single exposure in home study Experimental design Number of times the brand name/logo on screen Number of times the brand is present throughout the program Placement is present once versus more than once within program. Unprompted recall of advertisement and brand Recall of placement Positive Context Forced exposure/pretest environment Replication of Stewart and Furse Interviews postexposure as part of normal viewing Independent Variabje Number of times the brand name/logo on screen Number of times the brand name/logo on screen Number of times the brand name/logo on screen Dependent Variable Related recall Nature of Relatlonsh|p Positive

Related recall

None

Execution prompted advertising recall and brand recall

Positive

Positive

Romaniuk and Lock (2008)

21 placements for 21 brands

Telephone interviews post in home viewing

Day after recall of placement

None

1 4 4 JOURIIHL orflDUERTISlOGREBEHRCH June 2 0 0 g

EFFICACY OF BRAND-EXECUTiON TACTICS

Ln contrast, there is little evidence to support that visual frequency has a positive relationship with persuasion, with no relationship found for the two studies conducted to date (Stewart and Furse, 1986; Stewart and Koslow, 1989). EGla: Visual brand frequency is related to recall. EGlb: Visual brand frequency is not linked to advertising persuasion.
I I

bal frequency may be effective in helping the brand cut through during a pretest, but is unable to cut through in an environment such as the family home. There is, again, no link with persuasion in the two studies conducted to date. The weakness with the research to date, therefore, is that it holds only in pretest environments. This makes it difficult to claim an empirically generalized result from studies to date. And there is no empirically generalized result for the relationship between verbal frequency and recall. EG2: Verbal brand frequency is not linked to advertising persuasion.

Verbal frequency

Three studies using pretest samples (Stewart and Furse, 1986; Stewart and Koslow, 1989; Walker and von Gonten, 1989) show a positive link between verbal frequency and recall of the brand (see Table 2), as does the one study in brand placement (Romaniuk and Lock, 2008). The advertising: studies drawing from samples watching, television in their natural viewing environment, however, do not show a positive relationship between verbal branding, frequency and brand recall (Romaniuk, 2008 [2 studies]). This suggests that ver-

viewing, and pretests. It has also held over studies including both 15- and 30-s advertisement lengths and for both brand placements and advertising. In two recent studies, however, the relationship between total frequency and brand recall was weaker than the relationship between visual frequency and brand recall (Romaniuk, 2008 [2 studies]). Further testing, therefore, is needed to determine the value of saying the brand name over showing it visually. Again, there is very little evidence of any relationship with persuasion in three of the four studies (Stanton and Burke, 1998 [2 studies]; Stewart and Furse, 1986; Stewart and Koslow, 1989). EG3a: There is a positive relationship between the total frequency of brand occurrences and recall, but this needs further testing to separate out visual frequency effects. EG3b: There is no relationship between total frequency of brand occurrences and advertising persuasion.

Total frequency

There is a consistent empirical generalization that the frequency with which the brand occurs is related to advertising/ brand recall across the five studies (see Table 3) (Romaniuk, 2008 [2 studies]; Romaniuk and Lock, 2008; Stanton and Burke, 1998 [2 studies]). This relationship has held in three different advertising exposure environments: home natural viewing environments, experimental in-home

TABLE 2 Ve|rbal Frequency


study
Stevyart and Furse (1986) Stewart and Kosiov* (1989) Romaniui< (2008) study 1 Romaniuk (2008) study 2
I I

.?*'..v.!i
1,059 advertisements for 356 brandsmost 30 s 1,017 advertisements most 30 s 143 advertisements for 100 brands30 and 15 s 17 advertisements for 17 brands30 s

.9"?.*??.*
Forced exposure/pretest environment Replication of Stewart and Furse interviews postexposure as part of normai viewing Singie exposure in home study Number of times the brand name/logo on screen Number of times the brand name/iogo on screen Number of times the brand name/iogo or screen Number of times the brand name/iogo on screen Reiated recaii Positive

Reiated recaii

Positive

Execution prompted advertising None recaii and brand recaii Unprompted recaii of advertisement and brand Reiated recaii None

Waii<er and von Gonten ... (1?89) Romaniul< and Lock (2008) '

750 advertisements 30 s 2 1 piacements for 2 1 brands

Pretest environment

Number of times the brand is mentioned in the audio

Positive

Teiephone interviews post in Piacement is present once home viewing versus more than once within program.

Day after recaii of placement

Positive

'

June 2 0 0 9 JOURnHL OF HDUERTISinG HESEHRCH 1 4 5

EFFICACY OF BRAND-EXECUTION TACTICS

TABLE 3 Total Brand Frequency


Nature of Study Romaniuk (2008) study 1 Stimuli 143 advertisements for 100 brands30 and 15 s 17 advertisements for 17 brands30 s Context Interviews postexposure as part of normai viewing Independent Variable Number of times the brand is present throughout the advertisement Number of times the brand is present throughout the advertisement Dichotomous variabiepresent if the brand is mentioned three times or more Dichotomous variablepresent if the brand is mentioned three times or more Placement is present once versus more than once within program. Dependent Variable Execution prompted advertising recaii and brand recaii Relationship Positive

Romaniuk (2008) study 2

Singie exposure in home study

Unprompted recaii of advertisement and brand

Positive

Stanton and Burke (1998)

Average of 380 advertisements 15 s

Forced exposure/pretest environment

Recall

Positive

Stanton and Burke (1998)

Average of 221 advertisements 30 s

Forced exposure/pretest environment

Recaii

Positive

Romaniuk and Lock (2008)

21 placements for 21 brands

Teiephone interviews post in home viewing

"

Day after recaii of placement

Positive

TABLE 4 Dual Mode


Study Romaniuk (2008) Stimuli 143 advertisements for 100 brands30 and 15 s Six placements in movies Context Interviews postexposure as part of normal viewing Experimental design, forced exposure on excerpt of movie shown College students watching the movies in a theaterlike environment independent Variable Dual versus single mode (both visual and verbal tested) Prominent visual and auditory brand exposures Dependent Variable Execution prompted advertising recall and brand recall Nature of Relatlonsiiip Dual mode higher than both

Gupta and Lord (1998)

Recall

If visual was prominent, then the auditory mention did not add benefit,

Brennan and Babin (2004)

Differences between two paired for length brand placements in two Rocky films Two videos with different placements

Dual versus visual only

Recognition

Dual mode higher than visual only

Law and Braun (2000)

Experimental design watching 10 min excerpt from Seinfeia Telephone interviews post in home viewing

Dual mode versus single mode (visual and verbal)

Recall and recognition of the brand name

Duai mode stronger than either single mode

Romaniuk and Lock (2008)

21 placements for 21 brands

Dual mode versus single mode (visual and verbal)

Day after recall of placement

Dual mode is stronger.

Duration

In most studies (see Table 4), there is no observed relationship between duration and recall in pretest, experimen-

tal, and real-world conditions. The one exceptionin which a brand placement that lasted more than 10 s was associated positively with brand

recall (Romaniuk and Lock, 2008). There is no relationship with persuasion across the two studies that have tested for this.

1 4 6 JouRneL or HDUERTISIRG RESEHRCH June 200g

EFFICACY OF BRAND-EXECUTION TACTICS

EG4a: There is no relationship between the duration of branding and recall. EG4b: There is no relationship be' tween the duration of brandI ing and advertising persuasion.
I

EG5b : There is no relationship between early presence of the brand and advertising persuasion.
Dual mode

OVERALL SUMMARY

Early branding

The weight of evidence favors early branding> with five out of eight studies showing a positive relationship between early branding and recall (see Table 5). There was no evidence in three of four studies that early branding is linked to higher persuasion, the exception being 30-s executions cited in Stanton and Burke (1998).
Conclusion I

All five studies that have tested the impact of dual mode (visual and verbal branding) have found it to be more effective in stimulating recall than singlemode execution (see Table 6). This empirical generalization holds in forced and natural-viewing environments, experimental designs, and pretests. It also generalizes across advertisements and placements. No tests of the relationship between dual-mode execution and persuasion could be found.
Conclusion

G5a: There is a positive relationship between early presence of the brand and recall.

EG6:

There is a positive relationship between dual mode branding execution and recall.

There is more to branding than simply showing the brand, so it is not surprising that there is not 100 percent consistency across studies for any execution elements. There often was, however, overwhelming evidence in a particular direction. One generalization across all studies was the finding that branding execution is not linked to persuasion. In hindsight, this is probably not surprising, given the primary role that branding execution plays in identifying the brand. The consistency of these results across all execution elements suggests that we should not expect our branding execution to persuade viewers. Two studies stood out with some results that were out of sync with the other studies. Consistent in both was the conversion of independent variables from continuous to dichotomous in structure

TABLE 5 Early Branding


study Stewart and Furse (1986) Stewart and Koslow (1989) Romaniuk (2008) study 1 ! Romaniuk (2008) study 2 i Stanton and Burke (1998) Stanton and Burke (1998) Stimuli 1,059 advertisements for 356 brandsmost 30 s 1,017 advertisements most 30 s 143 advertisements for 100 brands30 and 15 s , 17 advertisements for 17 brands30 s Average of 380 advertisements15 s Average of 221 advertisements30 s 9.!?*?.^^. Forced exposure/pretest environment Replication of Stewart and Furse .'"^P^".^?.'?.* y^'.'^^.' Time in seconds untii brand name identified Time in seconds until brand name identified PP..l!?f?.* V?'!^!?) Reiated recall ^ i } ? . .?i ! ? . ! ? . ? ! l p Positive

Related recall

Positive

Interviews postexposure as Time in seconds until brand part of normal viewing name identified

Execution prompted advertising Positive recall and brand recall

Single exposure in home study Forced exposure/pretest environmerit Forced exposure/pretest environment Pretest environment

Time in seconds until brand name identified Dichotomous variableif the brand is in first 5 s

Unprompted recall of advertising and brand Recall

Positive

None

Dichotomous variableif brand Recall is in first 5 s Dichotomous variablepresent if brand is mentioned in ''.'.?.!.? ^ Related recall

None

i
Walker and von Gonten 750 advertisements (1989) 30 s ;
I

Positive

Fazio, Herr, and Powell (1992)

2 1 commercials, 9 mystery Experimentundergraduate Whether the brand name was ones with the brand students present at the beginning name deliberately late or the end

Response time latency of linking brand name to category

Negative for unfamiliar brands

June 2 0 0 9 JDURnflL OF HDUERTISIIIG RESEHRCH 1 4 7

EFFICACY OF BRAND-EXECUTION TACTICS

TABLE 6

Duration
study Stewart and Furse (1986) Stimuli 1,059 advertisements for 356 brandsmost 30 s Context Forced exposure/pretest environment Independent Variable Length of time the brand is present throughout the advertisement Length of time the brand is present throughout the advertisement Length of time the brand is present throughout the advertisement Length of time the brand is present throughout the advertisement Length of time manipuiated extended final pack shot Placement is 10 s or longer. Dependent Variable Related recall Nature of Relationship None

Stewart and Koslow (1989)

1,017 advertisements most 30 s

Replication of Stewart and Furse

Related recall

None

Romaniuk (2008) study 1

143 advertisements for 100 brands30 and 15 s

interviews postexposure as part of normai viewing

Execution prompted advertising recall and brand recall

None

Romaniuk (2008) study 2

17 advertisements for 17 brands30 s

Singie exposure in home study

unprompted recall of advertisement and brand Brand name recall

None

Stout and Burda

2 x 2 design

Experimentuniversity students Teiephone interviews post in home viewing

None

Romaniuk and Lock (2008)

21 piacements for 21 brands

Day after recall of placement

Positive

(Romaniuk and Lock, 2008; Stanton and Burke, 1998). This condition requires establishment of a cut-off pointa decision that may lead to lost information and, therefore, make the variable less sensitive. The introduction of a cut-off point may explain the contradictory findings, but more research is needed to test why the two studies produced different results.

EXAMINING CURRENT PRACTICE

We now document the branding execution from approximately 1,500 U.S. primetime television advertisements, 2,000 U.S. television program placements, and 100 video-based internet advertisements (see Table 7). To be considered comparable to television advertising and brand placements, internet advertisements were chosen that had to have a moving component within the advertisement. In all cases, multiple coders coded execution elements. The TV spots and placements came from U.S. prime-time TV in 2006, and the internet advertisements were accessed in

2008. Results are shown by execution element across product categories. The television advertisements were 15 and 30 s in length only, with the exception of television-program promotions, which ranged from 5 to 60 s. The brand placements were in shows that were predominantly 30 or 60 min in length and multiple brand placements for the same brand within the same show were combined to represent a single brand placement. The internet advertisements ranged from 5 to 150 s. In the case of continuously looping advertisements, a point that represented the start of the message was taken as the start of the advertisement.

ward an understanding of what makes for "better branding." There is strong evidence to support: visual brand frequency; early brand presence; dual-mode branding. Particularly in real-world settings, there is mixed evidence regarding verbal frequency and, by extension, total frequency. There is very little evidence to support duration as an effective execution
strategymore branding does not mean more

DISCUSSION

This article shows that there is empirically generalizable knowledge in the area of branding execution. Importantly, some execution tactics are more effective than others. This knowledge may help move marketers out of a "more branding" to-

effective branding. Importantly, there is a consistency across all studies in the effects of branding executionmore specifically, that it works more effectively on brand memories, rather than persuasion. An examination of current practice revealed that a large number of current television advertisements did not exhibit "best practice" in terms of these branding principles. It also highlights that new media are not using this knowledge and.

1 4 8 JDURnflL or nDUERTISIflG RESEflRCH June 2 0 0 9

EFFICACY OF BRAND-EXECUTION TACTICS

TABLE 7 Current Brand Execution Practice across Media


TV Measure Visual frequency^ Verbal frequency" Total brand frequency'^ Dual mode (visual and verbal)" Duration Early presence' Number of times brand is shown. Number of times brand is spoken. Number of times brand is shown or spoken. Percent with brand executed In both modes. Number of seconds brand is present. Percent where brand is present in first one-third. Advertisements 3.4 2.2 5.5 90% 10 59% Placements 1.5 1.4 2.9 17% 12 46% Internet Advertisements 1.9 0.1 1.9 4% 13 73%

"On average, a brand is shozon 3.4 limes per television advertisement, or about once every 10 s in a standard 30-s spot. For placements and internet advertisements, however, Ihe average visual frequencies were 1.5 and 1.9, respectively. ''On the verbal-presence side, television advertisements and brand placements look very similar. Vie verbal frequency for internet advertisements, however, is much lower. 'Television outperforms the other media in terms of total brand frequency. Brand placements are the next best performers and internet advertisements have the lowest frequency. ''Thel results for dual mode show television advertisements as the most effective medium for building brand recognition. Most brand placements within TV programs were either just visual or ust verbal. For television advertisements, absence of dual mode typically meant absence ofa verbal mention of tlie brand. The lack of use of verbal branding by internet advertisements meant very few were dual mode. 'On 'average, there is not much difference in the time a brand is exposed in any of the three media. Each one averages about 10 s. Internet advertisements (average 73 percent) outperform other advertisements in relation to early branding. Internet advertisements tend to feature the brand on the first frame and then keep it as a relatively static element for the rest of the advertisement.

therefore, are malting the same kind of execution mistakes. These failings point to the potential for gains to be made in advertising effectiveness if more advertisers knew aboutand implementedthe empirical generalizations about branding execution that already exist.

FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA

Based on the findings to date, and marketing practice, the key priorities for research are as follows:
I

More studies devoted to branding execution as a stand-alone element with the objective of making the brand name salient. A separate stream of research would encourage researchers to focus specifically on what drives effective branding executionan examination that purposefully would avoid the distraction of other advertising creative elements. More real-world studies. Most of the work to date has been in forced-

exposure environments, either under pretest conditions or in experimental design. Knowing what we do about advertising avoidance (Paech, Riebe, and Sharp, 2003) and passive viewing of television (Krugman, Cameron, and White, 1995), real-world studies that take into account these viewer-related factors could help develop robust empirical generalizations. It is important to ensure we take into account that the processing of advertising involves both the characteristics of advertising and the viewing environment. Studies should incorporate the viewing environment, therefore, and allow for the consideration of advertising-avoidance behavior. Clearer quantification of results. Most studies report effects, but do not clearly quantify the results, making it difficult to establish quantifiable benchmarks that can become guidelines for advertising practice. For example, future research would be served quantifying the effects of each visual exposure and examining

the conditions that produced more positive results. Further, understanding the nature of the relationship with continuous variables is important when identifying norms for practice. Knowing if the relationship is linear or curvilinear is important. And, in the case of a curve, it is important to identify the opportunities for maximum gains and the points where diminishing returns begin. Studies into the effects of branding execution within internet advertisements are needed to see if the same findings hold in this medium. The consumption of internet advertising is different from TV: it tends to be a more focused activity, but it also takes place in a cluttered page-viewing environment that is very different from television. Further research needs to identify what characteristics can help ensure that the brand name breaks through this clutter. Studies into other forms of branding, such as the use of distinctive elements (taglines, logos, symbols, celebrities, etc.)

June 2 0 0 9 JOURflHL OF HDUERTISinG RESEHRCH 1 4 9

EFFICACY OF BRAND-EXECUTION TACTICS

There is very little evidence to support duration as an effective execution strategymore branding does

tisements." Ehrenberg-Bass Institute Working Paper, 2008.

ROMANIUK, JENNI, and CRAIG LOCK. "The Re-

not mean more effective branding.


to identify the brand name. Research is needed to identify the extent to which these elements can replace direct branding execution. The best use of these elements in different media is yet important area for future research. Given the documented deficits in the current practice in brand execution, it seems that there is considerable scope for better branding in advertising.
Memory: The Case of Mystery Ads." Journal of

call of Brand Placements with Television Shows." Ehrenberg-Bass Institute Working Paper, 2008.

ROSSITER, JOHN R., and STEVEN BELLMAN. Mar-

Consumer Psychology 1, 1 (1992): 1-13.

keting Communications: Theory and Applications. Frenchs Forest, U.K.: Pearson Education, 2005.

FRANZEN, G . Advertising Effectiveness: Findings from Empirical Research. Henley-on-Thames, U.K.: NTC Publications, 1994.
SCOTT, JANE, and MARGARET CRAIG-LEES. "Op-

timizing Success: Product Placement Quality and Its Effect on Recall." In In-Film Advertising:

GUPTA, POLA B., and KENNETH R. LORD. "Prod-

Brand Positioning Strategy, P. Kanchan, ed. India: IC-FAI Business School, 2006.

uct Placement in Movies: The Effect of Prominence and Mode on Audience Recall." Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising 20, 1 (1998): 47-59.

STANTON, JOHN L., and JEFFREY BURKE. "Com-

parative Effectiveness of Executional Elements in TV Advertising 15 versus 30 Second Com-

JENNI ROMANIUK, an associate professor at the University of South Australia, heads the Brand Equity Research Group at the Ehrenberg-Bass institute for iVIarketing Science. Her areas of expertise are brand equity tracking, brand saiience, advertising effectiveness, and word of mouth. KRUGMAN, DEAN M . , GLEN T. CAMERON, and CANDACE MCKEARNEY WHITE. "Visual Atten-

mercials." Journal of Advertising Research 38, 6 (1998): 7-13.

tion to Programming and Commercials: The Use of In-Home Observations." Journal of Advertising 24, 1 (1995): 1-12.
STEWART, DAVID W . , and DAVID H . FURSE. Ef-

fective Television Advertising: A Study of 1000 Commercials. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1986.

LAW,

SHARMISTHA, and KATHRYN A. BRAUN.

REFERENCES

"I'll Have What She's Having: Gauging the Impact of Product Placements on Viewers."

, and S. KOSLOW. "Executional Factors and Advertising Effectiveness: A Replication." Journal of Advertising 18, 3 (1989): 21-32.

BRENNAN, IAN, and LAURIE A. BABIN. "Brand

Psychology and Marketing 17,12 (2000): 1059-75.

Placement Recognition: The Influence of Presentation Mode and Brand Familiarity." In Handbook of Product Placement in the Mass Media, Mary-Lou Galacian, ed. Hawthorne, NJ: The Hawthorne Press, Inc., 2004.
PAECH, SAMANTHA, ERICA RIEBE, and BYRON STOUT, PATRICIA A., and BENEDICTA L. BURDA.

SHARP. "What Do People Do in Advertisement Breaks?" Australia and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference. Adelaide: University of South Australia, 2003.

"Zipped Commercials: Are They Effective?" Journal of Advertising 18, 4 (1989): 23-32.

WALKER, DAVID, and MIGHAEL F. VON GONTEN.

FAZIO, RUSSELL H . , PAUL M . HERR, and M A R THA C. POWELL. "On the Development and ROMANIUK, JENNI. "The Effectiveness of Brand-

"Explaining Related Recall Outcomes: New Answers from a Better Model." Journal of Advertising Research 29, 3 (1989): 11-21.

Strength of Category-Brand Associations in

ing Execution Tactics within Television Adver-

1 5 0 JOURIL or RDUERTISinG RESEHRCH June 2 0 0 9