Balasubramanian2006 PDF

Audience Response to Product Placements: An Integrative Framework and Future Research
Agenda
Author(s): Siva K. Balasubramanian, James A. Karrh and Hemant Patwardhan
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of Advertising, Vol. 35, No. 3 (Fall, 2006), pp. 115-141
Published by: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20460744 .
Accessed: 16/02/2013 09:41
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
M.E. Sharpe, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Advertising.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

All use subject to JSTOR 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/stimulusfactors(e.g., program type,execution flexibility,opportunity toprocess,placementmodality, 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); andmessage outcomes that
reflectplacement effectiveness.The execution and individual factorsinfluenceprocessing depth (portrayedas a high-low
continuum), which in turn impacts message outcomes. The outcomes are organized around the hierarchy-of-effects
model into threebroad 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 integratespotentialmain and interaction
effectsamong model variables to advance a seriesof theoreticalpropositions. It also offersan extensive researchagenda of
conceptual and empirical issues that futurework can address.
The volume and sophistication of product (orbrand)place to develop a conceptualframework thatsheds lighton how
ments havegrownimpressively and rapidly, easilyoutpacing placementswork.This studypresentsan integrative model
researchefforts in thefield(TiwsakulandHackley 2005). The thatincorporatesa fullrangeofstimulus-and individual-level
extantliterature on placementsis justovera decadeold (Rus variablesalongwith multiple outcomes fromplacements.
sell and Stern2006), is relativelysparse,and presentsother Presentationof ourmodel developmentincludesa reviewof
specialchallengesand opportunities. For example,consider processesthatexplainhowplacementsgeneratespecifictypes
thisliterature vis-a-visthehierarchy-of-effects (HoE)model, ofaudienceoutcomes. We also offerseveralresearch proposi
which temporally ordersmessage outcomesintothreebroad tionsforfuturestudy.
classes-cognition,affect, andconation-thatrespectively cor Brands now playwell-definedand well-integratedroles
respondtoconsumers' mental stagesforawareness/understand with respectto editorialcontentinvariousmedia.Writers,
ing,interest/liking, andpurchaseintention/buying a product directors,setdesigners,and othercreativeprofessionalsoften
(seeBarry1987; BarryandHoward 1990).Most placement usebrandsas toolstocommunicatespecific meanings toaudi
studies are preoccupied with cognitive effects; progressively ences.Within amovie or televisionshow,brandsoftenlend
fewer addressingaffective or conativeoutcomes,in thatorder. verisimilitudetoa drama,help set its timeperiod,or convey
Moreover,resultsfromquantitativeand qualitativeanalyses characters' personalitytraits.
More commonly, however,those
in thisareaoftendiffer markedly,both fromone anotherand brand appearancesrepresent deliberatepromotionalefforts
frompractitioners' assumptions. Therefore,it isworthwhile thatare reinforcedby formalagreementsbetweenmarketers
and thecreators/managers The lattercase
ofeditorialcontent.
Siva K. Balasubramanian (Ph.D., State University ofNew York illustrates
product (or brand) placement,which is thepaid
at Buffalo) is a Henry J. Rehn Professor ofMarketing, College inclusionof branded products or brand identifiersthrough
of Business and Administration, Southern Illinois University at audio and/or visual means within mass media programs (Karrh
Carbondale. 1998).A productplacementisa prominent exampleofa hybrid
James A. Karrh (Ph.D., University of Florida) is chiefmarketing message, or a paid attemptto influence
audiencesthatdoes
officeratMountain Valley Spring Company, Hot Springs National thesponsor(Balasubramanian
not identify 1994).Both "brand
Park, Arkansas. placement"and "productplacement"havegainedcurrencyin
Hemant Patwardhan (Ph.D., Southern Illinois University) is an theliterature;we use theminterchangeably.
assistantprofessorofmarketing, College ofBusiness Administration, Productplacementshave had a long and bumpyhistory
Winthrop University. (GalicianandBourdeau2004).During the1920s throughthe
vol. 35, no. 3 (Fall 2006), pp. 115-141.
JournalofAdvertising,
C) 2006 AmericanAcademy ofAdvertising.All rightsreserved.
ISSN 0091-3367 /2006 $9.50 + 0.00
DOI 10.2753/JOA0091-3367350308

116 The Jolrnal ofAdvertising
early1930s, theirgrowthwas sporadicand uncertain-two Althoughproductplacementshave registeredimpressive

themesthatalso characterizedthecontentof,and reactionto, growth,our understandingof consumers'responsesto such
Hollywood's 1931 filmItPays toAdvertise.
By depictingmov messages has not fullyevolved.First,academic researchon
iemakers'eagernesstoshowcaseproductstoreduceproduction placementsismostly laboratory-based, whereaspractitioners
costsduring theDepression, thismovie attractednegative favorfieldresearch;
however, placementeffects aredifficultto
publicityabout thesurrenderofmedia contenttocommercial testinboth laband fieldsettings.In lab settings,researchers
(Brett1995). Followinga lengthydormantperiod,
interests oftencannotreplicatethemovie-watchingexperienceas eas
a varietyof factors(thediminishingroleofmovie studios, ilyas, say,exposuretoprintads. Some experimentalstudies
theemergenceof independent producers,and location-based relyon brief-durationstimuli(e.g.,movie clips lasting5 to
movie production)catalyzedthe rebirthof placementsdur 15 minutes) that fail to capture all the nuances of themovie
ing thelate1960s-70s (Balasubramanian1994; Brett 1995; experience.Qualitatively, recallmeasures fora placement
Segrave2004). Growth spurtsduring the 1980s and 1990s in a shortmovie segment are not comparable to similar
propelledplacements into a practice thatnow boasts over measures afterexposureto theentiremovie.Moreover, the
1,000 brandmarketersand an industry ofplacementprofes use of preexistingstimulidiminishesexperimentalcontrol
sionals (Galician 2004; Karrh, McKee, and Pardun 2003). In by introducingnoise. The theater methodologypioneered
theUnited States,television
placementsgrewbya staggering in Russell (2002) is a notable departurebecause it uses
46% in 2004, while themarket value of placements across all (1) full-lengthstimuli thatare amenable to experimental
media amountedto$3.5 billion, includingbarterand gratis manipulation, and (2) natural experimentalsettings. In
placements(Economist
2005b; Marketing Management 2005). fieldsettings,it is difficultto disentangle the impactof a
The latter figure is expected to grow to $4.2 billion in 2005. specifictool in the integrated marketing communications
Paid placementsaccountfor29% of thisvalue. Internation (IMC) arsenal,such as placementor sponsorship(Cornwell
ally,theregulatorybarriersagainstplacementsarebeginning and Maignan 1998), when the goal of IMC is to seamlessly
to disappear.For example, theEuropeanCommissionplans combine such tools.
to alter current laws tomake product placements acceptable Second, inferences aboutplacementsoftendo notconverge
(Economist
2005b). acrossempiricalstudies (which reportqualified impacton
The placementofReese's Pieces candyin the1982 block memory forrelevantbrands),practitionersentiments(oc
busterfilmE. T: TheExtra-Terrestrial
significantly
energized casionalclaimsofmarketplacesuccessfromplacements),or
bothHollywood andmarketers. Once Hersheymanagement qualitativeinquiries(whichrevealcomplexmeaningsascribed
attributed a 65 % increase inReese's Pieces sales to this place byaudiences).Perceptualdifferences and
betweenpractitioners
ment (Reed 1989), other marketers saw the benefits of tying academic researchers may stem fromsubjectivityand prob
brands to popular programs and stars. The aggressive pursuit lematicmeasures.Practitionersoftenevaluatefilmplacements
of thesebenefitscreatedprominentrolesforbrands in fea with a positive bias, even declaring success when a brand is
turefilms(D'Orio 1999), cable television(Fitzgerald2002), merely shown, mentioned, or paired with a likable character
broadcasttelevision(Vagnoni2001), popularnovels(Nelson (Karrh 1995; Karrh, McKee, and Pardun 2003; Pardun and
2004), music CDs/videos (Maclean's2005), computer/video McKee 1999).They alsomay relyonperformance indices(e.g.,
games (Nelson,Keum, and Yaros 2004), blogs (Maclean's CinemaScore)whose reliabilityinformation isunknown(Law
2005), and even live shows, includingBroadwaymusicals and Braun-LaTour2004). Qualitative evidence fromdepth
(Elliott 2005; Matthews 2005). Reality televisionshows interviews, focusgroups,and interpretive studies(DeLorme
(such as TheApprentice)significantly enlargedopportunities and Reid 1999; Gould and Gupta 2006; La Pastina 2001)
forbrand placement because their stories and format typically showcase insightfulthemesabout programviewing (e.g.,
relyon a brandand itssponsor(Atkinson2004). Other factors appreciatingrealism;noticing the familiar;the referencing
driving thispopularitytrendincludeconsumers'resistance processthatcapturesconsumers'relationships with a program's
towardads (e.g., zipping,zapping,DVRs), fragmentation of genre,itsembeddedcharacters, andplacedproducts)and indi
traditionalmedia, andmarketers'growingenchantment with vidual consumption(e.g.,using information todevelopone's
nontraditionalmedia.A new service(www.mediamatchmaker. identity/aspirations and tomake relatedpurchasedecisions;
com) evenattemptsto removetheguessworkand serendipity change and discomfort;belonging and security). Unfortu
thatcharacterizeplacementsarrangedby traditional product nately,thebulk ofempiricalresearch on placementsdoes not
placementagencies (Edwards2005). For a fee,this service reflectthesethemes(fornotableexceptions,seeRussell and
facilitates
real-timematchesofsponsors'preferences on place Stern2006; Stern,Russell, andRussell 2005). These points
ments (e.g.,productiondates,media, budget size,and genre) underscoretheneed foran integrative model framework to
with featuresoutlined bymovie/television producers(e.g., understand placementeffects. In thepresentstudy,we address
showdetails,sponsorship needs). thisresearch gap.

Fall2006 117
FIGURE 1
The Proposed Model Framework
Execution Factors (Stimuli-based)

. Programtype/program-induced mood
. Executionflexibility
. Opportunity toprocess theplacement
. Placementmodality
. Priming of brand appearance
. Typeand amount ofbrandinformation Effect(s)fromPlacement
presented . Brand typicality/incidence (Cognition)
. Strength of linkbetween brand/productand Processing . Placementrecognition (Cognition)
(a) storycharacter,(b)editorial Type/Context/ . Brand salience (Cognition)
content/story, (c) vehicleand (d)medium Setting . Placementrecall (Cognition)
Brand portrayal rating (Affect)
Less conscious, _
Moderately consious, Identification with story character, traits (Affect)
Moderatelyconscious, . Identification
withbrand/imitation (Affect)
Factors
Individual-Difference conscious
(Highly . Brandattitude (Affect)
*Familiarity/ethicality(strength
of link v.explicit . Purchase intention (Conation)
me(implicit
between and individual),
brand/product memoryimplications . Brand choice (Conation)
*Judgment ofplacement
fit,appropriateness, forrecalland choice) . Brandusagebehavior (Conation)
of linkbetween
relatedness-strength
individual and (a) story character, (b)
editorialcontent/story,
(c) vehicle,and (d)
medium
* Skepticism toward advertising
*Attitudetoward
placementingeneral
*Programinvolvement/program
toprocessbrand
connectedness/Motivation
information
FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS Table 4 documentsand integrates thisand otherdissocia

tionsthataregermanetoplacementcontexts. Our model de
Our framework iscapturedina figure and severaltables.Fig velopmentendeavoralso avoids theimpactofmethodological
ure 1 summarizestheproposed modelwith fourcomponents: flaws.ResearcherssuchasBabin andCarder (1996a, 1996b)
execution(setting)variables,individual-level variables,depth andAveryandFerraro(2000) have recognized method-based
ofplacementprocessing,and placementeffects or outcomes. limitationsin someplacementstudies(e.g., lackof control
Table 1 lists representative studies that focuson relations groups; small,nonrandomsamples;single-exposure design;
amongtheantecedentfactors andoutcomesinFigure 1.Table using shortfilmclips insteadof theentire movie orprogram).
2 summarizesinteractioneffectsamong variables thatare In response, ourmodel and tablesrelyheavilyon studiesthat
directlyor indirectly relatedtomodel constructs. For ease of avoid theselimitations.
presentation, theseinteractions arenotdiscussedinsequential We organizethispaperas follows. The nextthreesections
orderbut appear invarioussectionsas appropriate. Table 3 develop research propositionsrelatedto three model compo
providesa capsulesummary of all propositionsrelatedto the nents (execution/stimulus variables,individualfactors,and
model developmentprocess. processing depth) thatcollectivelyshapea placement'simpact
Overall, thispresentationstrategyofferstwoadvantages. on thefourth model component:outcomevariables.The re
First, it helps identify gaps in conceptualand empiricalre maining sectionsdiscuss thefullrangeofoutcomesshownin
searchthatfuturestudiesmay address(see the lastcolumn Figure 1 (whicharedividedintocognitive,affective, and cona
inTable 1).Given thesparseness of theplacementliterature, tiveclassesper theHoE model),derive managerialimplications
ourmodel drawson developmentsin relatedresearchareas and insightsfromourpropositions, and offer usefuldirections
(see italicized items in Tables 1 and 2). Second, it facilitates forfutureresearch. Our studyhas threegoals: to summarize
integrativeinsightson processesthatencourageone typeof theavailableplacementliterature, to integrateitsfindingsin
placementoutcomeoverothers.Forexample,byacknowledg amanner thatadvancesour understanding ofproductplace
ing thedissociatedpatternof resultsbetweenoutcomestied ment, and to showcase new avenues for research.
to implicit memoryor explicitmemorydomains,we account Overall,ourpropositionsrestrict focustovariablerelation
fornonconvergent findings on brand recall/persuasion effects shipsthathaveconceptual/empirical supportin theplacement
inplacementresearch(seeLaw andBraun-LaTour2004). literatureorallied fieldssuchas advertisingorpsychology. For

I118 Thejournal ofAdvertisi'ng
t!
0 0 (1)
E
E
v 'i
-~~~~~~~~~~ -
w u V) - oE~~~~~~~~~~J()(
c CZ CCZ~E
u~~~~~
C*~~~~~~. Q .1 U -a'.->
CZE
0 (1 . U 0
C
0 U
U (1 )
O)4 ~ o E ~ U)(1)~~~t
~~OU)
- > r ' E Cd I- 44 . 0L 1
Oc1 0 CE1 E() 0 0 0N
> ~~~~~~~~~~
4-'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L. L (1)
L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L
4U.1)(
Q .-o E 4 W 0 Cd coE . M E
E O E O' 0w-
0(1) E 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2 0 0 0~~~~~~~~~~0 Ej + (A' C C
4--)*j + j3 V E o e 0-4'0
E
M bO E0u
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
u
0.00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0.0.00.~
U
c~~~~~~~x-( C'~ 0o
EEE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ (1) ~ ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4
~ ~
u
U-~~~~~
~~~~> -~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~ (1 0 0~E uu
(1) o I- 0 L C'0 CA In oLM
0 X X x~* 0 0(1M > > U) CZ
EtE
v4) C ~~~~~~ C C uLU U L-L
CC - L- 0 - .~4-' ) Cg
L ~~~~~~~~~~~~ C~~~~~C
E 0. C .~ - 0o a C).0
r- (A
L- 4-J~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4C C ~
0C1C
~ ~ C
-J (L 0 - 04- %
0-ON C
(% 0 :3 &2 E0 )- A, 0V
- 0% Aj 0 0 U M4
1-1 C M ~ ~ ~ (1 ~
C ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)CU
~~~~~~~~~~~~+
0 E) >- 0 - Co 0.-E 0
co O '-- C) (1) ((1.

CO -0 0* M C L C 0 C
C , a r
0, O;0MC> a0 C
- Cc
E ~~~~~~~~~~
4-' E C C .0~~~~0 .CU 4'U 0&-
M ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4~C~C
I.- (~~~~~~~
U ~~~~~ .0 ~~~~~~ 0 +) (( U)
4-) L
4-'- ()
0. 0 C~ ~ 0 (1) c 4
41) CC4 >0 C
C 0~0.' a 0 L ~ uC> > 0' M )U
> >~~~~~ L~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~0.0 0 aU 0 M c
C d 0 C> E C> CZ M M 4-'
4 t --
4) b1 C5 E
C 0 -'c C E- C U U)
E 4 j 4- -(1 - L C u- 0 1
~~ 0~ 0 C U) ~ '> E -~ C U C (1) (1) 0.
4) 0 :3 : * L 1 >E3*~w 5

'a -c
L Ca w
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ U) _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0
-
0
Jr0
a)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a
u, LO0
Ca ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0 ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~
-o
a) a)- 0 U) U)Ca~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ca-C~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CaU 0 C L -0a a)
a) 0. CZaL.
zL -o0
o
Cau OCa C a)
E) E-0 0
*- '
a)-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o-
~0 0
~CL->
LE
C
L 0 ~~~~~~~~ -= X Ew
0 a)
Ca~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~w0 ).04
a) CC
-~~
~~ ~~
0a).
_~~~~~~~~~~~~~ UC
>L ~~~4J
0
LU)LLCa 4.
-
Ca
L a) U) E0a
U)~~~~~~~~~L 'o C
u
-c
Ca L 0~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~cEELwE
~~~~
C.- C a)a) *C00
+j
C0~
)4J
L -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a) CU
4-i >~ C Ea
Ja)a-C >
u o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
u 0 a).0. w
>
w0 Z -~~~~~~U .-- :
-0 C u C
U.O c
4- ci4- L C U U
a)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ U
C a)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ec -
0 C C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
a)U_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
o L E0
a) ~~~~~~~J (UA) 0 UUCa
4- ~~~~~~~~~t E CZ'i~
Ca 4) E 4- 0
C a)C a-E o C
0.4
o ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ 0 0
d L. >~~I a
U> 0 C
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Ca~~~+ 0Ca
Ca u~~~ ~~~~~~~~CL ~~~0 0
Ca ' >.. U).:*
=DU
L 0
4). 0U U o
4v-o -
C -'C 4
-U
C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C
C ~~~~ 0-v > ~~~~~~~~~ Ca 4
~~~~~~U .2. CUC

C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~E
Ca~~ 0 ~~~~<< 0 C~~~~~~~~~~ ~ -v
~ -~0-4
U4 ~ ~ CC~-LC Cu
E~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ M0'
C UU bOO C a)0a) a)UC~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C r
CL~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L 'o-Ua) a
Ca ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-)uE :
-w C C Ca 4) ;~~~~~~~~~:io
U~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0 o4):
~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~ C- 4) C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0u
0 c~~a) CZ I- I E sCc
4-J o >~~< (Ca U

120 Thejournal ofAdvertisi'ng
E
4-) 0
(3) 0 0 M 4-J
0 L- 14-J -0 %6.- (A
Q- 0 0 s- -a
S
0 co 2 O to 0
to
u 0 04J -C E C -CU 3: *j
o c 4-) 0 0
0 m 4-1 co rJ 4-J
E C co (A -0
4-i 29
co et 0 0
0
4-J
c 0
4-J CA CZ co
u E cd o CZ
'a c: 4j C 4i _r_
4-J 4-J wS- V) tv 0
o m 4J c
E CZ
CA 0 0 a) E
0
o
Co
V)
4-j V, tv E CU O
tv 0- m V) U a) U - c 0
OD CA" %1.- &- E
4-j L- -C -0
VW C c > > 0 0 E
00 c c I
-..e 0 'o 4-J .4-JL.
S
C V) O) u 4-J
E c u 0 0 0 E 0 'r-i
tv
0 -0 0
mE co 0 > Cb4 0 E 0 tv
U CZ 4-) V) L- > a
W -C 4-J E U " CA
0
CZ 4.j u 0 M 4-J
OL c x 4-J CO 0
4-i
4-J-rw c c ow E 'On o
> Q- uuCZ E c 4-i *j
CZ -1 "
S- w
L-
u ?:
O U u
L. a.
o E E c u
tv
CL 0
co C I- - 0
O E -C = E c w E C 0
0 c -C
4-J
c E o &- co
a) -W +j u u
0 -C w o
co m
0 Z
-C
w E
E u to = +j
E 0 Co
-a -a
CZ C 4-) u obP
Tj
0&- 2 0 > CZ =3 CZ
0 0 u
4-J a. 0 W co > 04i -a =
-C M o - 0. x 0 C >
0 0 0.
0
V) V)o o >-VI 0
2J:L-u u
C 4
0) c0 -u
-C +J
C 00.ia. C 41 'x
_C 0_ --
V) C C
Mcd td 4-J 0; x 0 U
C C uCZ
V)-C
-z x u a) x C(D-a o E 00>,-C4-?= (1) -0
u
>,
C
u4J
-C
E E 0
W C C W
0 CDE E S- M x
4-J
+j a) 0) > u 0
u
(D cr-: a) m 0L. :E L- ct -0
0 a
- CA
4-JC",j
4-j 0 Co m 0 u E 2 C +j u
-0 m o 0
E a- in'. -E ti-E o 4-J 0 C 0
2 a- W 0 u
lo? Lfi ,6 i7i
CD 0 75
L: C E
0 o 0 0+j W 4-J
v 4-J 7;
u
tW L
In Cd 0 0
LU 4-J u +j 4-J u 0
4-) C (D 0 C C &-= V)
J 4-J 0) W 0
E u E
to &
E u 0
T x
4J
tv
O Tj u 4-J W M
I- (A a) E =
C W &- 0
0 0 <
E
E M
to C 0 U
u C
- L. 0
m w - CZ
0 0
x
4i Co C 0L- 0 0
0 E 4-i u
0 M
-0 1-
0 C = 0 0
lat 4-i u 0
-6 0
o C4-i
E E
Z;l Cd
V) E&- -C 0
U o 04-J
0 aM -
0 +-, u u 4-JW
4J co 2 C: M =- u -E co 0 (D
-0
C cd 4-i AJ
C C -?e 0 C > 0
4--l
u
C
la co O Z-5 0 C CZ M
4J C E c E
M 0 a) 'A
0 E
x u -r- W?: 0 4-i
0 u 4J
E u CL) X In
L4 O 0 M 'A =; M M L4 CZ 0 M
> S- > > 0 >
O,4.j-C Mu 04-) U 0 0+j > 0 Ea) 0
+j 0 ia.
u -C C
4J C =M 4--)
u +j
C u -C E b4
C CZ C4-J
CZ ..-..o,
%1..- -Fd 0 .- a) u M a) ,M 4-.1'V CZ
(L C L. - 0
-0
lu C M
C 0 0 C
E 0
0 M 0
U 0 0 'O

Fall 2006 121
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rO c
C C.
-C U'
0) C ~~~~ . ~ 0)
~~~~CZ
~~O bo 0)
CO~~~~coM
C C
0 0 (AC~~~~~~~+j4
E (A
U U 44-' C
0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
E c 0 -C
0)U 0)~~~~~~~~~.
U ..E+J4
U) U) -5E
00 L~~~~~~~0.U ? -
C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o I
C C ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0)~~~~~C
co .0 3
? 0)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)C
0
61 0 X ~~~
0. 2 C0- C 0)CO=
0-
- 0 CLZ
U ~~~~C 0)0)4.' U~~~~~~~~C'r
0)bo4J
~~~~C ~~~O0 C O 0 ~~~J0~~C~~
j 0
2E 4-3
CO~tU0 0)
C -C CU
40 L
L'~~~~~~L U 0).CCLW
bOUC0 a- -p C
0)CO u u 0 X
> 4J0
U 4.U La~~W C E )
4-'
CO U UL U.0U
C4.L0
C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C _~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C~
0) C0~~~
:E C L-LU Ot
WC L.
L-000C
C U C 0
+-'CO U
?4-) 0- 0
0 U
u0)i3000
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0)UU0
CCCC
00
U~~~~~~~4"2 ?-' 4E
U) OC4.J ~~~.0 4- .
E a- Cd~~- .0)0
0 0 E~. CO C 00 E)
o E C%0 0 *-)
4 = 0- C- CCIO-t 4
4-C*M '- 0c0 -C U
J C
-vE0) 40- C4 C- ~~~~~~~~~~~0
0 WU -00 oC
CO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~C U CO? .,A
0 ~
U0)C 'O > 0-
CW= 00U +'C ?
Vi a; M ++OJ i .0' - o C
L-o0 0-C C
o (A CZ MC- U OC-0 0
C CU CE ~
M = W Q 0) CC U)+ C
CO .CC~~~"~~-t M aU U '.-t*J 0 CO
0) .?00~~~~hfl 0)~~~, 0~~~ CO C0V )
C ~~ ~ oE Ci)4-'0 0-~~~~E
0) .2
CO '-'0-~~~~~~~~~~~C CAC c
0) 4V C >- > CC C0) U
L ~~0-~~U) ~~ 1- C~~~ 0) CZ0 . U) -0
0) COZ 0 ~
?0U~~~~~~~~~~ 0-CC
.
C-
)C 0-
- +J +jL
'r
L- >,,,
_A CO -
4-) . C? - C~"
)
4-?'.-- w O a-
L C U) OA 0 U) a.' o(A 0A >
CO. A,=- =u Ln 2C w W 0-CCo
a 00
U) C] - CD 4- '
0

122 TheJournal ofAdvertising
TABLE 3
Summary of Propositions
Proposition Description
Proposition Ia: Interaction:

Under negativeprogram-inducedmoods, congruentplacements produce better cognitiveoutcomes than
incongruentplacements.
Under positiveprogram-inducedmoods, incongruentplacements produce better cognitiveoutcomes than
congruentplacements.
Proposition Ib: Interaction:
Under negativeprogram-inducedmoods, placements produce better cognitiveoutcomes thanads.
Under positive program-inducedmoods, ads produce better cognitiveoutcomes thanplacements.
Proposition Ic: Positive (negative)emotion-laden programsproduce positive (negative)mood spillovereffectsthat increase
(decrease) affectiveoutcomes, that is,attitudes.
Proposition Id: Mood-thematic congruent (incongruent)placements are more (less) likelyto facilitateprogram-inducedmood
spillovereffectsforaffectiveoutcomes, that is,attitudes.
Proposition Ie: Interaction:
Placements (ads) aremore (less) likelyto facilitateprogram-inducedmood spillovereffectson affectiveoutcomes,
that is,attitudes.Under negativeprogram-inducedmoods, placements are more likelyto decrease attitudes than
ads.Under positiveprogram-inducedmoods, placements are more likelyto increaseattitudes thanads.
Proposition 2: associated with a product placement increases,its impact increaseswith regardto all
As the execution flexibility
message outcomes.
Proposition 3a: As a placement'sprominence increases,viewers can better differentiatethe brand fromother program stimuli,
therebyincreasingcognitiveoutcomes, that is,recall.
Proposition 3b: As a placement's exposure duration increases,viewers can better process the brand's appearance or audio mention,
therebyincreasingcognitiveoutcomes, that is,recall.
Proposition 4a: Dual-mode placements generate better cognitiveoutcomes (i.e., recall) than single-modeplacements.
Proposition 4b: With respect to cognitiveoutcomes (i.e., recall),dual-mode placementsgenerate a stronger impactthanverbal-only
placements,which, inturn,produce a stronger impactthanvisual-onlyplacements.
Proposition 5a: Primed placements produce better cognitiveoutcomes (i.e., recall) thannonprimedplacements.
Proposition 5b: Unprimed or media-primed placements produce better affectiveoutcomes thanad-primedplacements.
Proposition 6a: Increasingbrand informationina placement is likelyto increase cognitiveoutcomes (i.e., recall).
Proposition 6b: Increasingbrand informationinplacements is likelyto decrease both affectiveand conative outcomes.
Proposition 6c: ads than to informational
Placements aremore similarto transformational ads.
Proposition 6d: Placements aremore similarto drama ads (whichare processed empathetically)than to argumentads (whichare
processed evaluatively).
Proposition 7a: The strongerthe association between the placed brand and a storycharacter,the higherthe elaboration of the
placed brand,which therebyincreases cognitiveoutcomes.
Proposition 7b: The strongerthe positive (negative)association between the placed brand and a story character/editorialcontent/
the higher (lower) the impacton affectiveoutcomes.
vehicle/medium,
Proposition 8a: Unfamiliarbrands are more likelyto increasecognitiveoutcomes (i.e., recall) than familiarbrands.
Proposition 8b: Audiences are less (more) likelyto use unfamiliar(familiar)brands for inferencesabout characters/storythat
outcomes.
increase affective/conative
Proposition 9a: Ingeneral, incongruentplacements produce highercognitiveoutcomes (i.e., recall) thancongruentplacements.
Proposition 9b: Ingeneral,congruentplacements yieldhigheraffectiveoutcomes than incongruentplacements.
Proposition I10: The higherthe skepticismtoward advertising,the lower the impactof placements on affectiveoutcomes.
Proposition I Ila: (do not identify)
Ads (placements) have low (high) levelsof both disguise and obtrusiveness;ads (placements) identify
brand sponsors; both ads and placements are paid for.Assuming identicalmessage content,an ad may produce lower
affectiveoutcomes than a placement.
Proposition I Ib: The higherthe attitude toward placements,the higherthe affectiveoutcomes toward the placed brand.
Proposition I Ic: Consumers inall cultures/countriesfindplacements forethicallycharged products less acceptable than those for
ethicallyneutralproducts.

Fall 2006 123
Proposition I Id: American consumers aremore acceptingof placements thantheircounterparts inother countries.
Proposition 12a: As a viewer's program involvementincreases (decreases), cognitiveoutcomes such as recallof (a) brands inads
decreases (increases) and of (b) brands inplacements increases (decreases).
Proposition 12b: The higherthe connectedness to a program,the higherthemessage outcomes forplacements embedded inthe
program.
Proposition 13: purposes influencescognitiveoutcomes (i.e.,attentionand
Motivation to process brands forself-presentational
processing) forbrand placements.
Proposition 14a: Unconscious processingof placements (e.g.,visual-onlyor screen placements thatappear inthe background) relates
memory,and enhances affectiveand conativeoutcomes more thancognitiveoutcomes.
to implicit
Proposition 14b: Conscious processingof placements (e.g.,high levelof plot centralityfor the placed brand) relates to explicit
memory,and enhances cognitiveoutcomes (e.g.,recall)more thanaffectiveor conativeoutcomes.
TABLE 4
Dissociations Among Outcomes, Related Propositions,Processes/Mechanisms/StrategiesandVariables/Stimuli
Processes/mechanisms/ Outcomes
Proposition(s) strategies (proposition) Variables/stimuli Cognitive Affective Conative
la and le Central processing/mood-thematic Program-induced increases

congruence (I a) negative (positive) (decreases)
mood
Mood spillovereffect/mood-thematic Program-induced decreases
congruence (I e) negative (positive) (increases)
mood
5a and 5b Contextual priming(5a) Ad-primed increases
(unprimed) (decreases)
placement
Kelley's discountingprinciple (5b) Ad-primed decreases
(unprimed) (increases)
placement
6a and 6b Informational
emphasis (6a) Increased increases
informationon
placed brand
Informational
emphasis (6b) Increased decreases decreases
informationon
placed brand
8a and 8b Familiarity
effectNonRestorffeffect(8a) Unfamiliar(familiar) increases
brand (decreases)
transfer/
Symbolic information/meaning Unfamiliar(familiar) decreases decreases
inference(8b) brand (increases) (increases)
14a and 14b Implicit
memory (14a) Unconscious decreases or increases increases
processing no effect
Explicitmemory (I 4b) Conscious increases decreases or decreases or
processing no effect no effect
thisreason,most ofourpropositionsdo not addressall three EXECUTION (SETTING) VARIABLES

HoE outcomeclassespresentedinFigure 1, nordo theyad
within a givenoutcomeclass.Furthermore, Most placementstudiesshowcaseone ormore executionvari
dressall variables
sincemost placementsappear inmovies or televisionshows, ablesunderthecontrolof thesponsororprogramcreator.
We
our work is germane to brand appearances in these media. these
synthesize variablesinto:
program type/program-induced
Several sectionsof this research(e.g., executionflexibility) mood, executionflexibility,
opportunitytoprocesstheplace
also generalizetoothermedia, however. ment,placementmodality,placementpriming,type/amount

124 ThejJolrnal ofAdvertising
of brand-relevant information provided,and strengthof as affectivequalityofa recently viewedfilmevokedifferent levels

sociationsbetweentheplaced brandand programcharacters/ and typesofempathy(Davis et al. 1987). ForgasandMoylan
message/vehicle/medium. (1987) foundthatparticipants who vieweda happyfilm were
more likelytomake positive,lenient, oroptimisticjudgments,
ProgramType/Program-InducedMood when compared to those who watched a sad or aggressive
film.Furthermore, Goldberg and Gorn (1987) reportthat
AylesworthandMacKenzie (1998) providehelpfulguidance televisionprogramscoded as happierin toneproducehappier
on theimplications of centralversusperipheralprocessingof moods and greaterperceivedad effectiveness amongviewers.
admessagesforcognitiveoutcomes.Theyassertthata negative These resultsarealso consistent withMayer,McCormick,and
program-induced mood doesnot inducecentralprocessingof Strong(1995), Sedikides(1992), and theaffecttransfer from
an ad thataccompaniestheprogram.This isbecause thenega programtoplacedproduct(Russell1998). Because programs
tivemood triggers problemsolving(i.e., centralprocessing) thatembed placementsmay varyalong a positive-negative
thatis directedat thesourceof thenegativemood (i.e., the emotioncontinuum,thisprogram-type variablewill influence
program).The focuseddeployment ofprocessingresources on thevalenceof attitudestowardplacements.That is,positive
programcontent(insteadofad content)diminishesthelikeli (negative)emotion-laden programsare likelyto trigger posi
hood that information in thead is adequatelyprocessed.In tive(negative)attitudinalspillovereffectsforplacements.
contrast, positiveprogram-induced moods encouragecentral
Proposition 1c: Positive(negative)emotion-laden programs
processingof an ad thataccompaniestheprogram.Note the
producepositive(negative) moodspillover thatincrease
effects
difference betweenthead in theAylesworthandMacKenzie
(decrease)
affectiveoutcomes,thatis,attitudes.
study (wherebrand contentaccompanies, but is distinctfrom,
editorialcontent)and a productplacement(wherea brand Goldberg and Gorn (1987) founda televisionprogram
message is embedded within,and therefore notdistinct from, edi x commercialinteraction, such that theprogrameffecton
torialcontent;thatis,placementsarebetterintegrated with viewers'mood was higherforthoseexposed toemotionalads
editorial content than ads, in amanner analogous to congruent (asopposed to informational ads).Anotherinteresting interac
placementsbeing more integratedwith editorial content than tion effect
emerged in a study by Howard and Barry (1994)
incongruent placements).FindingsfromtheAylesworthand that manipulatedmood tobe eithercongruent(positive mood
MacKenzie study, when extendedto theplacementcontext, inducedwith a sportsstory, followedby exposuretoan ad for
implythattheimpactofprogram-induced mood onmessage athleticshoe/athletic shorts)or incongruent(positivemood
processing dependson thevalenceof themood and thedegreeto inducedwith a sportsstory,followedby exposuretoan ad for
which theplacementiscongruent with editorialcontent. More casual shoe/casualshorts). Undermood-thematiccongruence
specifically,thepatternof impacton cognitiveoutcomesfora (incongruence), positivemood increased(decreased)attitudes
brand in a product placement is the opposite of that fora brand towardtheadvertisedproduct.Results indicatethatthe im
featured in an ad, that is, it is accentuated (diminished) under pact of positive moods on attitudes depends on how mood is
negative(positive)program-induced in
moods. Furthermore, manipulated and the context in which the mood effects are
congruentor looselyintegrated
placements
yieldeffects
similar considered.
toads.This yieldstwo interaction
propositions: Note that the program that carries a given placement is
selectedtofacilitate
oftencarefully that
mood spillovereffects
Propositionla: Under negative
program-induced moods,
encouragea positivepredispositiontowardtheplaced brand.
congruent producebetter
placements outcomes
cognitive than
Therefore,thehigherthemood-thematiccongruence between
incongruent Conversely,
placements. underpositive
program
a placement and the program in which it is embedded, the
induced
moods,incongruent produce
placements bettercognitive
higherthelikelihoodofprogram-induced
mood spilloveref
outcomes
thancongruent
placements.
fectson attitudes.
Proposition1b: Under negative
program-inducedmoods, Proposition1d: Mood-thematiccongruent (incongruent)
placements
producebetter outcomes
cognitive thanads.Conversely, aremore(less)likelytofacilitate
placements program-induced
underpositive
program-induced moods,ads producebetter moodspillover
effects
foraffectiveoutcomes,thatis,attitudes.
cognitive
outcomesthanplacements.
Note thatprogramscontainingplacementsare usually
We next consideraffective outcomes.Pettyet al. (1993) stories
with a predominanceof emotional(ratherthaninfor
exposed individuals to a persuasivemessage afterinducing mational) content.Furthermore,placementsare embedded
a positiveor neutralmood. They foundthata positivemood within theprogram,as opposed to ads,which aremerely
led tomore positiveattitudestowardthemessage advocacy. juxtaposedwith programcontent.For thesereasons,place
Field studiesand experiments also showthatvariationsin the mentsmay engenderprogram-induced mood spillovereffects

Fall 2006 125
on attitudinaloutcomes more readilythanads.An interaction ments,and (2) sponsors' toplan inadvancefor

inability placement
propositionfollows: opportunities(seeBalasubramanian 1994). Insum,theenhanced
execution evidentintheexamples
flexibility describedtransforms
Proposition le: Placements (ads) aremore(less) likelyto brand placement intoa verydesirableoption forsponsors,for
facilitate
program-induced moodspillover onaffective
effects itallowsfora risk-freemessage thataccommodates one-to-one
outcomes,thatis,attitudes.
Undernegativeprogram-induced segmentation, real-timeaudienceimpact assessment,andadvance
mood, placementsaremorelikelytodecrease
attitudesthanads. planninganddevelopment (Wenner2004).
Underpositive program-induced mood,placementsaremore
Proposition2: As theexecutionflexibility witha
associated
likelytoincrease thanads.
attitudes
product placement increases, with regard
its impactincreases
toall message outcomes.
Execution Flexibility
Advances indigital technologiesfacilitateflexibleexecution Opportunity toProcess thePlacement

settingsforbrand placements.The emergenceof virtual
This constructcapturestheextenttowhich circumstances at
placements (e.g., brandmessages digitally added during
brandexposureare favorableto brandprocessing(Maclnnis
telecastof a sportsprogramthatlive-event audiencesarenot
andJaworski 1989;Maclnnis,Moorman,andJaworski 1991).
exposedto),retrospective placements(e.g.,digitallyembed
This is influenced byboth a placement'sprominenceand the
ding brandsormessages inamovie afteritsrelease),and on
durationof itsexposure.
lineplacements(e.g., real-timeon-linedelivery/updating of
Gupta andLord (1998) foundthatprominentplacements
customizedplacements while individuals play Internet-based
(e.g., a brandshownby itselfin theforeground, with longer
video games) isparticularly noteworthy because theygener
exposuretime)generatedhigherbrandrecallthan more subtle
ate opportunitiesand outcomesthataremore effectivethan
placements. Others (Schneider andCornwell2005) have rep
traditional placements.
licatedthis.Brennan,Dubas, andBabin (1999) differentiated
Hey (2002) recounts an earlyvirtualplacementduringSuper
theprominence of "on-set"placements(thosethatwerepaired
BowlXXXV, when theU.S. television audiencewitnessedthe
with a character orwereconspicuously displayed)from"creative"
debut of theFirstDown Linewith no commercial message,
placements(thoseappearingin thebackground). They report
but the same linewas accompanied by FedEx logos inGerman
thaton-setplacementsgenerategreaterbrand recognition.
telecasts and Pizza Pizza logos in Canadian telecasts. A good
Furthermore, exposuredurationpositivelyinfluenced brand
exampleof retrospective placementisa previously nonexistent
recognition, but only forprominent/on-set placements.
Wells Fargobillboardthatwas digitallyinserted afteran epi
sodeofUPN's sciencefictionshowSeven Days was produced Proposition 3a: As a placement's
prominence viewers
increases,
(Hey 2002). On-line placementshold immensepotentialfor canbetter differentiatethebrandfrom other
program stimuli,
customizing placement messages,as evidencedbyDodge's Race therebyincreasing cognitiveoutcomes,thatis,recall.
the Prosadvergame, whichallowsplayerstoexperienceitsbrand
ofautomobilesina hyperrealistic simulation. AccordingtoThe Proposition 3b:As a placement's exposuredurationincreases,
Economist (2005a),thisgameperiodically uploadsrealNASCAR viewers can betterprocess the brand's appearance or audio
racetimesintothecomputer-controlled cars,andfeatures a track mention, thereby increasingcognitive
outcomes, thatis,recall.
dottedwith virtualbillboardsofautodealershipslocatednear
the player (who must enter a zip code to participate). The abil
PlacementModality
placementsinon-linegame environments
ityto insert allows
sponsorsand game publisherstocustomize/update
messages, Paivio's
To accommodatememory-basedresearchfindings,
and to assess their impact in real time. From an execution Dual Coding framework a verbal
presentstwocodingsystems:
standpoint,on-line3D Gaming facilitates virtual,direct,or system for language information and a nonverbal analog to pro
nonscriptedbrandexperiencesinproductplacementepisodes (Paivio1983, 1986). Russell (1998)
cess imageryinformation
2005a; GrigoroviciandConstantin2004).
(Economist posits that plot placements (i.e., dual-mode placements with
These emergenttechnologies enhanceexecutionflexibility both visual and verbal components) influence brand memory
inpowerful all
ways,and impact messageoutcomespositively. more thansingle-mode placements,thatis,eithervisual-only
Indeed,theyadd twoadvantages notpreviously linkedtoplace screenplacementsorverbal-only This ratio
scriptplacements.
ments, thatis, theabilityto customize/personalize
messages withPaivio'sCodingRedundancyhypothesis,
nale isconsistent
and assess message impact in real time. They also remove two whichpositsthat"increased ofbothcodes increases
availability
associated
disadvantages placements:(1) therisk
with traditional theprobabilityof itemrecallbecause theresponsecan be re
ofpoorbox-office
performance of themovie thatembedsplace trievedfromeithercode" (Paivio1979, p. 297).

126 Thejournal ofAdvertising
The CodingRedundancyhypothesis has empiricalsupport dia prime (a nonpartisan message such as a media story that
inproductplacementcontexts. Both unaidedrecalland recog alertsreadersabout theappearanceofZ3 inGoldenEye)
and an
nitionperformance of a combinedvisual-plus-verbal
message ad prime (a partisan communication such as a BMW ad that
is significantly
higher thanthatof stand-alonevisual infor conveysthe same information).The nonpartisansource is a
mation such as logos (Brennanand Babin 2004; Sabherwal, usefulbaselineanchorin thefollowingargument:theprocess
Pokrywczynski, andGriffin1994). In addition,Gupta and ofplacementprimingwith theBMW ad encouragesa more
Lord (1998) foundthatan audiomentionof a brand(without confidentattribution
of commercialintentbehind theplace
accompanying visualdepiction)producedbetterrecallperfor ment than,say,when theprimingis implemented via amedia
mance thana visualplacement(withoutaudio reinforcement). storyorwhen thereisnoprimingat all. Followingattribution
Taken together, thesestudiessuggestthefollowingdominance theoryandKelley'sdiscountingprinciple(fora relateddiscus
hierarchyinmemoryeffects: visual-verbalcombination,fol sionon placementcontext,seeBalasubramanian1994), it is
lowedbyverbal-onlyand visual-onlyplacements. likelythat,comparedtoviewerseitherprimedwith amedia
story or not primed at all, those primed with theBMW ad are
Proposition
4a: Dual-modeplacements better
generate cognitive more likelytodiscountthepersuasivemessage.Perceptionsof
outcomes
(i.e., recall)thansingle-mode
placements. message sourcebiasmay engendermorecounterargumentation
and resistance
in thead-primedstatethanin themedia-primed
Proposition
4b:With respect
tocognitive
outcomes
(i.e.,recall), or unprimedstates.GroenendykandValentino (2002) either
dual-modeplacements a stronger
generate impactthanverbal
exposedparticipantstooneof twoads (anegativelytonedSierra
only which,inturn,
placements, a stronger
produce impactthan
Club issue ad thatwas widely broadcast during the 2000 presi
visual-only
placements.
dential election, and a candidate ad thatwas an edited version
of the issue ad depicting Al Gore as the sponsor) or presented
Placement Priming no ad at all.The issuead heldgreatercredibility
andpersuasive
power than the candidate ad because "candidates are generally
Given the close cooperationbetween brand sponsorsand
viewed as beingmotivatedprimarilyby electoralincentives,
themanagersof editorialmedia content,informed
audience
whereas interest
groupsaremost likelytobe seenas invested
membersmay actuallyexpectplacementsinmedia content.
in a particularissue" (GroenendykandValentino 2002, p.
A fewsponsorsdeliberately widen/enhancethisexpectancy
300).More important, theseauthorstested
whetherthe issue
by referencing their placements in traditional ads. The goal
ad is amore powerful prime than the candidate ad in boosting
here is to prompt viewers to look for their placed brand in a
environmentalconcernswhile evaluatingthe relevanttarget
movie or a televisionshow.Such targeted
particular program
(GeorgeBush). Results indicatedthat the impactofBush's
relatedadvertisingservesas a prime forbrandplacements,as
environmental record as a criterion in his overall evaluation was
might a viewer's
memoryofpast consumptionexperiences or
quite small among participants who were exposed to theGore
ad exposures(DeLormeandReid 1999). For example,BMW
ad, but this impact was greatly enhanced among participants
management promoted the appearance of its Z3 Roadster in
who saw the issue ad. By way of relating these findings to the
with dealerpromotions,
GoldenEye specialevents,and adsboth
BMW example, note that the candidate ad, the issue ad, and
before and after the film's release (Fournier and Dolan 1997).
George Bush are respective analogs for the partisan ad prime,
Research indicatesthatobjects toward
which people hold
thenonpartisanmedia prime, and theplaced product (Z3
highlyaccessibleattitudesmay attract
more attention(Ros
Roadster).We therefore
posit:
kos-EwoldsenandFazio 1992). Similarly,
movie viewerswho
were shown a list of brands placed therein outperformed a 5 b:Unprimed
Proposition ormedia-primedplacements
produce
controlgroupon brandrecall(Bennett, Pecotich,andPutrevu better outcomes
affective thanad-primed
placements.
1999).Consistent
with thesestudies,we proposethatpriming
increases
attentionto,and recallof,a placed brand.
Amount and Type of Brand InformationPresented
5a: Primedplacements
Proposition producebetter
cognitive
(i.e.,
outcomes recall)
thannonprimedplacements. Generally,a feature-rich,
meaningful,and personallyrelevant
stimulusattracts
greaterattention,
thereby
influencingcognitive
Are therecircumstancesthatincreasetheimpactofpriming outcomessuchas recall.
But placementmessagesdiffer fromads
on affective
outcomes?Ingeneral,contextualprimingincreases in thatthey
do notcontaina substantial
amountofbrand-related
the likelihoodthat individualswill subsequentlyinterpret information (Russell1998).Most placementsdo notdescribe
persuasiveinformationin termsofprimedattributes,with a brandinformation becauseaudienceexpectationsdiffersharply
consequenteffecton brand evaluations(Yi 1990). Consider betweenplacements andads. Inplacementepisodes,thebrandis
twopotentialprimingsourcesin theBMW example:a me ofsecondary importance,evenifinformation
aboutitaddsmean

Fall 2006 127
ing and value to the story. In contrast, the brand is the primary enhancingcognitiveoutcomes.Foradvertising contexts,Kir
objectof focusinads,with an audiencemind-setthatexpects mani andShiv (1998) showthatincreased congruity between
brand-related information. Increasing brand-information con a brandand themessage source(i.e., theendorser)improves
tentwithin a placement(ad) is inconsistent (consistent)with brandattitudes,especially when issue-relevant elaborationis
thisexpectation, and therefore more (less) likelytoencourage high.More recently, Russell and Stern(2006) appliedgenre
attentiontowardthebrand.Ifplacementscontainsubstantial theoryto studytheroleofcharacters andproductsin theper
productinformation, audienceattention may be distracted away suasionprocessforsitcomplacements.Individuals'attitudes
fromthemedia story, therebyincreasing theprocessingeffort toward placedproducts were influenced by thestorycharacter's
devotedtosuchplacements.In sum,more "informative" place attitudestowardthesameproducts (this finding was qualified
mentsmay increase cognitiveoutcomes(e.g., recall). byviewers'attachmentto thestorycharacter).
Messages with substantialproduct information cannot Conceptually,thespiritof thesefindings easilyextendsto
qualifyas congruentplacementsthatblend seamlessly with linksbetweentheplacedbrandand (1) editorialcontent/story
editorialcontent.Moreover, "informative" placementsmay (Bloxham1998;Russell,Norman,andHeckler2004a, 2004b),
irritate audiencesbyunderminingthemedia storytheyseek (2) vehicle(Gould andGupta 2006; La Pastina2001), or (3)
tofollow,thereby diminishingtheaffective and conativeout medium (Averyand Ferraro2000; FerraroandAvery2000;
comes thatsponsorsseekfortheplaced brand. Moorman,Neijens, andSmit2002). For example,thescenery
surrounding a placedbrandmay be carefully craftedtogenerate
Proposition 6a: Increasing brandinformation ina placement a consistentand supportiveimpression (DeLorme and Reid
is likelytoincreasecognitiveoutcomes (e.g.,recall). 1999). Professionalsresponsibleforcreativeelementsof soap
operasuse settingsand fashionthatreinforce a stereotypical
Proposition 6b: Increasingbrandinformation inplacements is that is manyplaced
uppermiddle class image appropriatefor
likelytodecreasebothaffective and conative outcomes.
products(Neumann,Cassata,andSkill 1983). In thefilm Out
We extend relateddiscussion inGardner (1994), Puto of Africa,consumption symbolism was used toenrich both the
plot and itscharacters(Holbrook and Grayson 1986).
andWells (1984), andRussell (1998) topropose thatplace
ments aremore similarto transformational ads (soft/indirect To the extent thata film placement represents an implied
messages thatportraythesignificance ormeaningofproduct endorsement, the fitbetween the brand and the endorser/
ads (hard-hitting/direct characteris important. In advertising contexts,theendorser's
consumption)than informational
anddetailedproduct effectiveness improves as such fitincreases.Higher perceived
messages thatprovidefactual, verifiable,
information). Somewhatanalogously, Deighton,Romer,and congruence between a spokesperson and the endorsedbrand
McQueen (1989) characterize argumentanddramaas anchors increasesthe spokesperson's believability/attractiveness,en
of a dramatization continuumforads (an argumentinvolves hances brand attitude(Kamins and Gupta 1994), and improves
a narrator whose message lacks both plot and character; it be
affecttransfer fromthespokesperson to thebrand(Misraand
comesa story with theintroduction of thesetwoelements;the Beatty 1990), in thespiritofMcCracken (1989).
story evolves into a drama when the narrator is removed). An
theassociation
7a: The stronger
Proposition between
the
placed
and is
argument(drama)appeals toobjectivity(subjectivity)
brand and a storycharacter,thehigher theelaboration of the
Placements
processedevaluatively(empathetically). resemble
increases
whichthereby
placedbrand, outcomes.
cognitive
drama ads more than argument ads.
aremoresimilartotransformational
6c:Placements
Proposition 7b:The stronger
Proposition the association
positive(negative)
ads thantoinformational
ads. betweentheplaced brandand a storycharacter/editorial
thehigher(thelower)theimpact
content/vehicle/medium, on
aremoresimilartodramaads
6d: Placements
Proposition outcomes.
affective
(whichareprocessed thantoargument
empathetically) ads
(whichareprocessed
evaluatively). INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL VARIABLES
on placementsemphasizesexecutionchar
Publishedresearch
Strength of the Link Between Brand and Story
Character/EditorialContent/Vehicle/Medium more thanaudiencecharacteristics.
acteristics Many studies
includedemographics(e.g.,BakerandCrawford1995),despite
Executionfactors theassociationof theplaced
may strengthen their inability to explain much of the variance in measures
brand with one ormore story characters. A stronger association of placementeffectiveness. we considerin
In thiscategory,
is likelyto increase cognitiveelaboration(Blox
brand-related dividual-levelvariables thatmay ormay not characterizea
ham 1998; d'AstousandSeguin 1999; Russell 2002), thereby unique relationto theprogramandplacement.

128 The Journal ofAdvertising
Several individual-level
variablesinourmodels influence Perceivedfit
may embed individual-level judgmentsabout
theperceivedeffectiveness
ofplacements:
priorfamiliarity
with product,medium, communicator, andmessage dimensions
thebrand; judgmentsabout the"fit"of the individualwith (Balasubramanian 1994;Bhatnagar, Aksoy,andMalkoc 2004).
thestorycharacter/editorial
content/vehicle/medium;
skepti Russell (2002) investigatedthe impactof fit,or congruence,
cism towardadvertising;attitudestowardplacements/other betweenmodality (visualor auditory)and brand/plotcon
message types;andprograminvolvement/program connected nection(high,low) inplacementsonmemoryandpersuasion
ness/motivation toprocessbrand information. measures.Incongruence (i.e.,higher-plot
visualplacementsor
lower-plot audioplacements)betweenthesefactorsimproved
Prior Familiaritywith thePlaced Brand memoryperformance, whereas congruence(i.e., lower-plot
visualplacementsorhigher-plot audioplacements)increased
A robustphenomenoncalled theVon Restorffeffect(Wallace persuasion.The congruency/incongruency literaturesheds
1965), or the isolationeffect(Huang, Scale, andMcIntyre lighton thisdissociationornonlinear memory-attituderela
1976),may influencetherecallofproductplacements(Bala tion(Russell2002). Incongruencetriggers greatercognitive
subramanian 1994). A key tenet of this phenomenon is that elaboration,wherebytheplacementmessage becomesmore
since unfamiliar or unexpected stimuli are incongruent with memorable. At the same time, such elaboration adversely
priorexpectations,theyattractgreaterattentionandproduce impactsattitudeby encouragingquestionsabout thebrand's
superior
cognitiveoutcomes(e.g.,recall)thanfamiliar
stimuli. appearance in the medium, and if the brand placement is
In a recent study of placements in computer/video games, Nel perceivedas objectionable,thesequestionspromptresistance
son (2002) found evidence that brands that are less familiar to towardthemessage and counterargumentation. In general,
participants (new brands or those that are atypical of brands congruence may be compatible with the peripheral route to
generallyfoundingames)demonstratedrecallsuperiority. persuasion(PettyandCacioppo 1986; Petty,Cacioppo, and
Schumann 1983) because placements are natural, they at
8a: Unfamiliarbrandsaremorelikelytoincrease
Proposition
tract no counterargumentation, and they are more likely to
outcomes
cognitive (i.e., recall)thanfamiliarbrands.
producepositiveaffectiveoutcomes (d'Astousand Chartier
Althoughunfamiliar
brandsgenerate
more immediate
atten 2000). Two propositionsfollow (note that the interaction
tion, familiarbrands facilitate identificationwith characters in the presentedinPropositionla qualifies,ratherthancontradicts,
program. In other words, placements involving familiar brands Proposition9a below).
aremore diagnostic to viewers in termsof quickly understanding
complex meanings in program content. This view is compatible 9a: In general,incongruent
Proposition placements produce
with research suggesting that individuals skew their use of trait highercognitiveoutcomes(i. e., recall) than congruent
information about others toward behaviors or symbols that are placements.
easilyunderstood
(BeikeandSherman1994).McCracken's(1989)
Meaning TransferModel also supports this premise strongly. Proposition
9h: In general,
congruent
placements
yieldhigher
McCracken's model explicitly focuses on a dual-staged transfer outcomes
affective thanincongruent
placements.
ofmeaning from the celebrity endorser to theproduct, and from
the product to the consumer. Both stages showcase the role of SkepticismToward Advertising
familiarity in facilitating effective communications with audi
ences.The preceding
discussionexplainsfilmmakers'
preferences Skepticism, a defense mechanism triggered when a message
forwell-known brands in placement contexts. recipient ispresented with information that strains credibility,
involvesthesuspensionofbelief.Skepticismtowardadvertis
Proposition8b: Audiencesare less (more)likelyto use ing increaseswhen audiences acquire amore refinedknowledge
unfamiliar(familiar)brandsforinferences
aboutcharacters! of advertisers' tactics and persuasive intent (Boush, Friestad,
stories
thatincrease outcomes.
affective/conative and Rose 1994). In general, skepticism toward advertising
lowers attitudes toward both ads and placements. Signifi
Judgmentsof "Fit" cantly,Gupta, Balasubramanian, and Klassen (2000) found a
strong correspondence between attitudes toward advertising
The importance of fitinplacementcontextsisacknowledged and attitudestowardplacements.In theirstudy,respondents
bybothmovie viewers(DeLormeandReid 1999) and place who weremore positivelydisposed towardadvertisingalso
ment practitioners(Karrh1995; Karrh,McKee, and Pardun held significantly
more positiveattitudestowardplacements.
2003). This termneeds carefuldefinition,
however,to avoid Conversely,respondents whowere lesspositivelydisposed to
overlapwith perceivedrelatedness
ofcues toproductcategory ward advertisingalso held significantly
lesspositiveattitudes
(seeSengupta,Goodstein,andBoninger1997). towardplacements. We therefore posit:

Fall 2006 129
10: Thehighertheskepticism
Proposition advertising,
toward ernmentrestrictions on theuse ofplacements(Karrh,Frith,
thelowertheimpact onaffective
ofplacements outcomes. Chineseconsumers
andCallison 2001). Similarly, viewplace
ments as lessacceptablethando theirAmericancounterparts
Attitudes Toward Placements inGeneral (McKechnieand Zhou 2003). Research thatcomparedaudi
encesin theUnited States,Austria,andFrancereaffirmed this
The ethicalityframework (Nebenzahland Jaffe1998) associ Americansacceptedproductplacement
result: more readily,and
ates ads (placements)with low (high) levelsofbothdisguise weremore likelyto reportpurchaseintentions towardplaced
and obtrusiveness. According to theseauthors,a message is brands (Gould,Gupta, andGrabner-Krauter 2000). Likely
highlydisguisedwhen it is paid forand the sponsoris not reasonsforthisincludea U.S. regulatory environment thatis
identified, in a manner similarto hybridmessages (Balasu ofadvertisingthanis thecase inothernations
lessrestrictive
bramanian1994) where thesponsor'sbenefit-mixishigh in differences
and historical-cultural as capturedinHofstede's
termsof increased message control,message believability, studies.Recentwork focusing
(1991, 2001) cross-national on
andmessage impact.Obtrusivemessages are thosethatare othercountries/cultures
(Brennan,Rosenberger,andHementera
secondaryto themain stimulusperceivedby an audience. 2004; La Pastina2001) further affirmsthesefindingsand the
Overall, thisframework predictsthatads (placements) with generalizationspresentedinPropositions1lc and 1ld below.
similarmessagesmay yield lower(higher)evaluationsor af
fective outcomes. 1 a: Ads (placements)
Proposition have low(high)levelsof
Over thepast decade, theethicalacceptabilityof place bothdisguise
and obtrusiveness;
ads (placements) (do
identify
ments has attractedconsiderablemedia and researchat notidentify)
brandsponsors;bothadsandplacementsarepaid
tention,especiallyregardingtheprevalenceof smokingor for.Assumingidentical
messagecontent,an ad mayproduce
drinkingbehaviorsin featurefilms.Given thepotentialfor lower outcomes
affective thana placement.
widespreaddisagreement about theacceptableor "proper"use
ofproductplacements,it followsthatviewers'perceptionsof 11b:Thehigher
Proposition theattitude the
towardplacements,
placementethicsshould influencetheirresponsesto specific outcomes
highertheaffective towardtheplacedbrand.
brandappearancesinmedia programs. Althoughearlysurveys
(e.g.,Nebenzahl and Secunda 1993) foundthatonly a small 11 c: Consumersin all cultureslcountries
Proposition find
proportionof respondents object to placementson ethical forethically
placements charged
products than
lessacceptable
grounds,subsequent work suggestsamore pronouncedsenti those neutral
forethically products.
ment againstplacementsincertainethicallychargedproduct
categories.In a surveyofAmericancollege students, Gupta Proposition aremoreaccepting
11d:Americanconsumers of
andGould (1997) foundthatplacementsinethicallycharged thantheir
placements inother
counterparts countries.
categoriessuch as alcohol,guns, and tobaccoproductswere
lessacceptableto respondentsthanplacementsin ethically Involvement/Connectednesswith Program/Motivation
neutralcategories.Other researchers thelink
have investigated toProcess Brand Information
between placements and attitudes toward tobacco products
(e.g.,Gibson andMaurer 2000; Pechmannand Shih 1999). Viewers' involvement with a program'scontent influences
Nevertheless, Gupta, Balasubramanian, and Klassen (2000) the effectiveness
of its embedded placements (Bhatnagar,
showthatrespondent groups thatarenegativelypredisposed Aksoy,andMalkoc 2004). As one example,programinvolve
towardbothadvertising and placementsdo notdiscriminate ment with a computergame increasedshort-term recallof
betweenethicallychargedand ethicallyneutralproducts. placed brands (Nelson 2002). In ad contexts,
however, very
Other studies(Gould,Gupta, andGrabner-Kraiuter2000; high levelsofprogram-evoked arousalarecounterproductive;
Gupta and Gould 1997; McKechnie and Zhou 2003) show that indeed,theymay inhibitrecallof brands in such situations
U.S. males are more accepting of placements involving ethi (Newell, Henderson, and Wu 2001). Note that ads (and the
callychargedproducts.In addition,frequentmoviewatchers brands they contain) only accompany the program, whereas
acceptplacementsof ethicallychargedproductsmore readily placementsareembeddedwithin it.As viewers'involvement
movie watchers,but no such differenceis
than infrequent with theprogramincreases(decreases),theirrecallof brands
evident placementsof ethicallyneutralproducts(Gould,
for inadsaccompanying will likelydecrease(increase),
theprogram
Gupta, andGrabner-Krauter 2000). Available evidencealso in theprogram
while theirrecallofbrandsembedded will likely
suggeststhatthesegenderand frequencyeffectsarenot robust increase(decrease).
A comparison
acrosscultures/nations. ofyoungviewersin the
United Statesand SingaporefoundSingaporeansto bemore 12a: As a viewer's
Proposition programinvolvement increases
concernedwith placementethicsandmore supportive ofgov (decreases),
cognitive suchas recallof (1) brands
outcomes

130 TheJournal
ofAdvertising
inads decreases
(increases)
and of (2) brandsinplacements capturesthedegree towhich people aremotivated tocontrol
increases
(decreases). howotherssee them(LearyandKowalski 1990). Threecentral
factors determineimpression motivation: thegoal relevance
Program connectedness is a more comprehensiveand of the impressions,thevalue of desiredoutcomes fromthe
far-reaching
constructthanprograminvolvement. Program impression, and thediscrepancy betweendesiredand current
connectednessis relevant
when a viewer'srelationship with a social image.Overall, an individual'simpression
motivation
programextendsbeyondtheexposureexperienceintohis or and relatedchoices(e.g.,which impressiontomake and how
herpersonaland social life(Russell 1998; Russell,Norman, toaccomplishthis)are influenced by theneed toalign social
andHeckler 2004a, 2004b; Russell and Puto 1999; Russell
imagewith desirableprototypes(Leary1989). Note that
and Stern 2006). In such instances, the program exerts a far
theseprototypes may symbolizean ideal self that,in turn,
greaterinfluence
thanonemight expectunderhighprogram is influencedbymedia content(Hirschmanand Thompson
involvement. This influencemay findexpressionthrough 1997; Hoffnerand Cantor 1991). Based on thesefindings
adorationor imitationof programcharacters,socialgroups fromimpression managementandmedia research, we propose
that facilitate interactions with other program fans, or rituals
thata viewer'smotivationto scan themedia environment for
constructed
aroundtheviewingexperience(Russell1998). brands (that are likely to help him or her express a desired
A high level of program connectedness is analogous to a
image)isan importantindividual-level
determinant
ofplace
high-immersionexperience.For example,Grigorovici and ment processing.
Constantin (2004) assert that structural features of Immersive
Virtual Environment in 3D Gaming (high immersion, pres Proposition13: Motivation toprocessbrandsfor self
ence) increaseusers'affective with thestimuli/
engagement presentational
purposesinfluences
cognitive
outcomes(i.e.,
environment and their embedded placement messages. Indi attention
andprocessing)
forbrandplacements.
viduals with a high degree of connectedness to a program are
likely to view it frequently, pay greater attention to it, and
imitatebehaviorsdrawnfromitsepisodes.Furthermore,they PROCESSING DEPTH
may not necessarilyperceiveany commercialintentbehind Our model assumes that execution- and individual-level
brand usage in the program.
variablesinfluencetheviewer'sprocessingof a givenproduct
Proposition12b: The highertheconnectedness
toa program, placement.Labeled as "processing
depth,"thismodel compo
thehigherthe
messageoutcomesforplacements
embeddedin the nent rangesacrossa low/high consciousnesscontinuum with
program. importantimplicationsfortheexplicitversusimplicit
memory
dichotomyinboth advertising(Duke andCarlson 1993; Lee
Many viewers use placed brands to validate their existing 2002; Shapiro 1999; Shapiro,Maclnnis, andHeckler 1997)
identityand purchasingpatterns(DeLormeandReid 1999). and placementcontexts(AutyandLewis 2004a, 2004b; Law
Others may be motivated to process brand appearances as a and Braun 2000; Law and Braun-LaTour 2004).
means to enhance their identities. Explicitmemory is tappedby direct testssuch as recall/
Individuals may use a particular brand in a given situation recognitionperformance.
These tasksentail an intentional
to enact a desired social identity (as opposed to a global self). effort to access and retrieve information from a previous
Generally, themore important a social identity is to one's sense stimulusexposureevent (Krishnanand Chakravarti1999;
of self, themore one will perceive as desirable the brand that Shapiro and Krishnan 2001). In contrast, implicit memory
displays or reinforces that identity.The marketplace, including is evident in indirecttests(e.g., sentencecompletion,word
media programs, provides opportunities to learn and adopt association,projectivetests)whereconsumersdo notuse con
such identities(Kleine,Kleine, andKernan 1993). However, scious memory retrieval (Duke and Carlson 1993; Krishnan
individuals need not evaluate themselves in a dramaturgical andChakravarti1999). That is,retrievalof implicit
memory
fashion for such behavioral editing to occur (Messinger, Samp occursautomatically.
son, and Towne 1990). Nor does this process of identifying Implicitmemory isoftencharacterized by a responsebias
with brands ever end. Indeed, identification goals represent a that increasesthe likelihoodthat information
froma recent
and ongoingprocess(WicklundandGollwitzer
self-defining stimulus exposure (e.g., an ad) will be used to perform a subse
1982). Most people maintain at least a minimal level ofmo quent task(e.g.,purchase)withoutconsciousretrieval oreven
tivationtoprocessinformation about symbolsthatmay help awarenessof priorexposureto that information (Lee 2002).
themexpresstheirdesiredidentities. This biasmaymanifestitselfas increased preference forinfor
Motivationalantecedentsinfluencewhether/howbrandsare mation fromtheexposureepisode.Consider,forexample,the
processedas identitycues (MacInnisandJaworski1989). For perceptualfluency phenomenon wherebyfeature-levelanalysis
example,impressionmotivationisan importantantecedent.It (e.g., shape,color)of a productduringincidentalad exposure

Fall 2006 131
createsamemorytracethatfacilitates feature-level
processing Kalra 1999). Shapiro,Maclnnis, andHeckler (1997) assert
duringa subsequentproductexposureoccasion.Specifically, thatincidentalexposuretoa productdepictedina persuasive
the"previouslyseen stimulusappearsfamiliar, and absenta message increasesthelikelihoodof itsinclusionina consider
successfulsearchofmemorytoattributethisfamiliarity to the ationset,evenwhen participantslackexplicitmemoryforthe
priorexposureepisode,thefamiliarity isattributedtoa prefer ads.This phenomenonappearsquite robust(itwas replicated
ence forthestimulus"(ShapiroandKrishnan2001, p. 2). In acrosstwoproductcategories,inmemory-based and stimulus
contrast,thenotionofconceptualfluencyinvolvessemantic basedconsiderationsetformation contexts,and infamiliarand
levelanalysis(e.g.,meaning)ofa productduringincidental ad unfamiliarbuyingsituations).
exposure,suchthatthelikelihoodof itssubsequentinclusion
Proposition14a: Unconscious
processing
ofplacements(e.g.,
inan individual'sconsideration set is increased.
orscreen
visual-only thatappearinthebackground)
placements
Measuresofexplicit memoryremaintheexclusivefocusfor
relatestoimplicit
memoryand enhances
affective
and conative
most researchstudieson advertising(ShapiroandKrishnan
outcomesmorethancognitive
outcomes.
2001) andplacements(LawandBraun-LaTour2004). Recent
studiesin theadvertisingfield(Lee2002; Shapiro1999; Sha Proposition14b:Conscious
processing
ofplacements(e.g.,high
piroandKrishnan2001) seektomitigate thisimbalance.For levelofplotcentrality
of theplacedbrand)relatestoexplicit
example,Shapiro (1999) offersevidenceindicatingthat the memory and enhances outcomes
cognitive morethan
(e.g.,recall)
response biasduringincidental ad exposurestemsfrom uncon orconative
affective outcomes.
sciousinfluences. That is,advertisedproducts weremore likely
tobe includedin theconsideration setevenwhenparticipants
EFFECTS
activelytriedto avoid choosingsuchproducts.Shapiroand
Krishnan(2001) foundthatimplicit memoryperformance is This sectionorganizesoutcomevariablesaround the three
not impaireddespitedividedattentionduringad exposure,or broad classes of theHoE model: cognitive,affective,and
a lengthy delaybetweenad exposureand testevent. conative.
Similarstudiesin theplacementdomain (AutyandLewis
2004a, 2004b; Law and Braun 2000) showcasekey differ
CognitiveOutcomes
encesbetween,and relatedimplications of,theexplicitversus
implicitmemorydichotomy. They suggest that theability
AboutthePlacedBrand'sTypicalitylIncidence
Judgments
of placementsto enhance recalland choice performanceis
mediated bydistinctmechanisms.AlthoughLaw andBraun Evenprocessingthatentailsrelativelylow levelsofconscious
(2000) foundthatplacementsimprovedoverallperformance nessmay influenceconsumers'judgments aboutbrandtypical
on recall/recognition and choice tasks,empiricallyobserved ity,suchas perceivedmarket share.A placementcould serve
disassociations point todifferentrationalesfortheseimprove as a vivid and simple exemplar (Zillmann 1999) that skews
ments.The centrality of theproductto theplot, forexample, perceptions of a brand's marketplace presence. In research
was instrumental inenhancingrecallperformance, butplayed relatedto thecultivationeffect,
O'Guinn and Shrum(1997)
no rolewith regardto choiceperformance. Similarly,seen foundthattheamountof television viewingaffects
judgments
only(orvisual)placements were leastrecalled,but influenced about the prevalence of products and behaviors linked to an
choicethemost. It isusefultonote thatRussell's (2002) study affluent Relevantinformation
lifestyle. wasmore accessiblefor
exploresinteraction betweenthesetwo factors,
effects using heavyviewersthanlightones.As Table 1 indicates,
outcomes
memoryand persuasionas dependentmeasures. In sum, the such as brand typicality and brand incidence await research
key implication here is that a sponsor may tailor the level inplacementcontexts.
of congruenceormodality choice dependingon whethera
placement'scampaign emphasizesrecognition/recallor at Memory forBrands and Placements
titudinalimpact.
Even ifmost placementsare processedat relativelylow Studies show that placements generate short-termmemory ef
levelsof consciousness,they
may retaintheabilitytogener asmeasuredthrough
fects, recognition, or recall(Babin
salience,
ate marketplace impact in terms of affective and conative and Carder 1996a; Baker and Crawford 1995; Gupta and Lord
outcomes.For example,brandattitudeswere foundtopersist andDodd 2000; Karrh 1994;Nelson 2002;
1998; Johnstone
overtimeevenunderlow-involvement processing(Sengupta, andGriffin1994). As discussed
Sabherwal,Pokrywczynski,
Goodstein, and Boninger 1997) if the cues and product earlier, these measures from the explicit-memory domain are
categorywere highly related.Even unconsciouslyprocessed popularamongpractitionerstogaugeplacementeffectiveness
stimuli in advertising
may producenegativelyor positively (Karrh1995;Karrh,McKee, andPardun2003).When brand
valenced affectiveresponses(Aylesworth,Goodstein, and placementsoperatelessconsciously,
however,in themanner

thatKrugman (1965) suggestslow-involvement ads work, attributesarepositiveand simple,andwhen theyhelpviewers

recall
measuresare inadequate;
measuresthattap intoimplicit achieverelevant goals (Tan 1986). Brands fillthebill, as they
memoryprocessesarevital in suchcontexts.This is because are sociallyvisible, accessible,and easilyunderstoodin our
consumers
cannotverbalizethoughts about issuestheyarenot consumersociety. Audiencesmay respondtomedia characters
consciously aware of, or forwhich they lack a proper vocabulary with a desiretobehave likethecharacter(Hoffner andCantor
(Synott1991). Furthermore, insightsfromdepth interviews 1991).This desireisfulfilled inpartbyusing thebrand(s)that
and focus groups (DeLorme and Reid 1999) suggest that both thecharacter uses.However, fullimitativebehavior(usageof
frequentand infrequent movie viewerscan expresscomplex placedbrand)requiresthisbrandtobe visibleduringtheplace
and durable interpretations of deeplyprocessedplacements. ment episode,and accessibletoviewersafterthat.
In short,viewersmay retainlong-term memoriesof certain A relatedeffectis theuse ofplaced brands topresentspe
placements, butonlyforthoseplacementsthatprompted more cificand desirableimagestoothers.According toSchlenker
consciousprocessingduringexposure.Therefore, recognition, (1980), people shape self-relevant information throughan
salience, or recallmeasures aremore appropriate forplacements "associationprinciple,"linkingthemselves with desirableim
thatelicitmoderate tohigh levelsof consciousprocessing. ages and symbolsand avoidingassociations with undesirable
ones. In such a case, the desire is not to completely imitate a
AffectiveOutcomes programcharacter,
but rathertoappropriatea limitedsetof
traitsfromthecharacter.
For example,a viewerwho believed
Tom Cruise's character in Top Gun was "cool," and that the
BrandPortrayal
Rating
Ray-Ban sunglasseshe used in themovie exemplifiedthis
Two studies (Avery and Ferraro 2000; Ferraro and Avery 2000) characteristic,
might desire thosesunglasses.By appropriat
describe a rating scale to assess the degree towhich a brand was ing thebrand,theviewerestablishesan associationwith the
favorably portrayed in a given placement. This portrayal rat desired traitwithout having to adopt other aspects of the Tom
ing is then used as a dependent variable in regression analyses Cruise persona. Such a result ismore likely when the viewer
with severalexecutioncharacteristics
as independent
variables. processesthebrand information consciously,and elaborates
This lineof inquiryholds considerablepromiseto assess the about thatbrand'sutilityin self-presentation.
relative impact of other variables in our model.
BrandAttitudes
withBrand
Identification
Empirical results are somewhat mixed with regard to the ef
Affective responses such as empathy may arise even at low levels fect of placements on brand attitudes. As one example, Karrh
of conscious processing. Empathy and emotional identification (1994) foundno changesinevaluationsofplacedbrands,even
processes are common to almost all placements. Hackley and when thosebrandsweremade morememorable.Conversely,
Tiwsakul(2006) examinetheroleofentertainment marketing Russell (2002) foundpositive attitude change evenwhen
in facilitating
consumers'self-concepts
and identity formation recognition of a placed brand was low.
through brandexposure.
Russell (1998) assertsthatempathetic Low tomoderatelevelsofconsciousprocessing
may produce
identification is "themain ingredient of product placement's ef the greatest impact of a placement on brand attitudes. At
fectiveness" (p. 359). Empathy forcharacters paired with placed veryhigh levelsofprocessing,consumers
may embellishthe
brands has emerged as a key theme in some studies (Deighton, brandinformation with idiosyncratic
presented interpretations
Romer, and McQueen 1989; DeLorme and Reid 1999). The about how thebrand satisfiestheirown identity-expressive
processbywhich consumersidentify
with placement
messages needs (Maclnnisand Jaworski1989), or theymaymentally
deserves greater research scrutiny, however. A few interpretive construct benefits or uses not shown in the placement (Alba
studies (Gould and Gupta 2006; Hirschman and Thompson and Hutchinson 1987). The latter generates a rich and person
1997;SternandRussell2004) suggestbothaffective
(attitudinal) alized contextforprocessingplacements,but sponsorsdo not
and conative (acquisitive) overtones. Hirschman and Thompson controlthiscontextbecauseviewerscombine theplacement
(1997, p. 5 3) characterize identification as a way forconsumers with personalinformation and goals.
tonegotiate"theirself-perceptions
andpersonalgoals inrelation
to theidealizedimagespresentedin themassmedia." Conative Outcomes
To theextentthatbrandidentificationismodeled byactors!
charactersinplacementcontexts,itcan be learned.Bandura's PurchaseIntention
(1977) sociallearningtheory
positsthatindividuals
acquirenew
responsetendencies through
modelingand imitativebehaviors. Few studieshave founda significant
effect
on purchaseinten
Media programs may encouragesuchbehaviors whenprogram tionsfromplacementexposure.In a studyof43 college-aged

Fall 2006 133
participantswho viewedWayne's Worldin itsentirety, reported oncedeemed"commercial-free." SurveysofyoungAmericans

purchaseintentionforplaced brandswas 16% higher than consistentlyshow thatproductplacement is acceptable to
forbrandspreviouslyidentified as "favorites"byparticipants them(Gould,Gupta, andGrabner-Krauter 2000). Historical
(Baker and Crawford1995). While marketersclaim that evidenceof suchacceptancestemsfromthe increasing use of
someplacementsincreasedsales significantly, more sensitive brand names in popular writing such as plays, songs, news
measuresmight shed lighton therationalesunderlyingthis papers,andmagazines since WorldWar II (Friedman1991).
performance. More important, suchacceptance will likelycontinueintothe
future asemergent digitalcommunication technologies present
BrandChoice new opportunitiesto tailoror customize placements. Recently,
SheehanandGuo (2005) investigatedtheunique effectsof
As discussedearlier,thefactors most likelyto influence choice productassimilation(whenplacedbrandsactuallybecomethe
are independent fromthosethatareespeciallyeffective in the starof theshow).This trendtowardgreaterbrandintegration
explicitmemorydomain. Incidentaladvertisingexposures, withinprogramming appearsinevitable as technology empow
even in theabsenceof explicitmemory forthoseexposures, ersviewers with options(e.g.,TiVo) toavoid ads.
can increase the likelihood that the brand in question is in Our model's fourcomponents(as showninFigure 1) pro
cluded inconsideration sets(Shapiro,
Maclnnis, andHeckler vide a simplebasis toorganizethebodyofknowledgein the
1997). Nedungadi (1990) demonstratedthatthe likelihood placementliterature. It is clear thatthisyoung fieldhas ac
of choosinga givenbrandmay increasefollowingrecentex cumulatedmuch knowledgein theformofmain effects(see
posure to that brand, even when affective outcomes such as Table 1) and a fewinteraction effects(seeTable 2).
brandpreference remainunchanged.For these reasons,choice
appearstobe an appropriate anddesirabledependent measure
FocusonDissociations
forawide rangeofplacements.
A keycontribution ofTable 4 is tobenchmark and consolidate
BrandUsageBehavior the existingbody of knowledge about the psychological/com
municationalprocessesthatexplainhowplacements work. It
Morton and Friedman(2002) breaknew groundby extend is a formidable challengeforsponsorstodesign and execute
ing researchfocustoviewers'usage behaviorwith respectto successfulplacementcampaigns.Typically,placementcam
placed products.In theirstudy,a setof beliefsaboutmovie paigns seekmultiple desirableoutcomes (e.g., prespecified
placements(especiallythose linked to theportrayalof the cognitive, andconativeoutcomesinterms
affective, of theHoE
placed product in a movie) emergedas usefulpredictorsof model framework), but it is a challengetoaccomplishthose
productusage behavior. outcomeswith certainstrategies.In otherwords, research has
oftenshowcasedinstancesof "dissociation" wherebya given
DISCUSSION, KEY ISSUES, AND communication processor strategy may yieldstellarresultson
FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA one outcomevariablewhile underperforming on otherHoE
outcomeclasses.In developingPropositions14a and 14b, for
This studyoffers a comprehensive model framework toplan, example,we reviewedresearchfindingstohighlightthedis
predict,and evaluatethe impactofproductplacements. We sociationbetweenrecalland attitudinaloutcomeson theone
sought to integrate and build on the extant product place hand, and choiceeffects on theother.This imbalancestems
ment literature, despite its sparsenessand otherchallenges. fromdifferent mechanisms thatgovern theexplicitversus
We also drew on allied research areas such as advertising and implicit memorydichotomy.
psychologyto identifyfactorsthatcontributeto placement Each rowof Table 4 summarizesa different dissociation
effectiveness, and to explain disparitiesamong published and itsrelatedpropositions, processes,and impacton eachof
studies.Finally,we summarizetheresearch propositionsthat thethree HoE performance outcomeclasses.This tableoffers
benchmarkand consolidate whatwe knowaboutplacements, valuableguidancetosponsors and researchers byalertingthem
and offer broaddirectionsforfutureresearch. toplacementstrategiesthatmay not yield desirableresults
on all threeHoE outcome classes. In a nutshell, it delineates
theoutcome trade-offs associatedwith pursuingdifferent
Benchmarking and ConsolidatingWhat We Know
placementcampaign strategiesand reinforcesthevalue of
Marketers have successfullyshaped the imagespresented developingspecificgoals aroundeach placementcampaign.
throughpopular culturalvehicles,oftenby using thoseve Greater understandingand knowledgeof dissociationsand
hicles as sales tools(Solomonand Englis 1994). Consumers relatedprocessesis likelytoempowersponsorstodevelopor
appearmorewilling toacceptbrandimagesinmedia thatwere structureplacementstimulitoachievespecificoutcomes.

Overall, thepurposeofTable 4 is to emphasizethat the reported case,BMW generated greatsalessuccessfromplacing

psychologicalprocessesunderlyingplacementsare funda itsZ3 Roadster in theJamesBond filmGoldenEye(Fournier
mentallycomplex,and thattheymay influence variablesin andDolan 1997).This placement met thecriteriaforextensive
HoE outcomeclassesindifferent
different ways.This servesto processingpresentedinourmodel: The carappeared inboth
sensitizeresearchers
andplacementsponsors againstunrealistic verbal and visualmodes forrelativelylongperiods; the car
assumptionsthata givenplacementstrategy(and itsunderly was woven intotheprogramplot; thecar'sappearancein the
ingprocesses)will deliverdesirableresultson all threeHoE film(as the"new"JamesBond vehicle)was widelypublicized
outcomeclasses.Any suchassumptionis incorrect forall the and advertisedprior to the film'srelease;thecarwas paired
dissociationslistedinTable 4. with the lead character;therewas a high degreeof audience
connectednessto theJamesBond filmseries;thecar related
TypicalVersus"Home-Run"
Placements well with theJamesBond character. While acknowledging
thepotentialnegativefalloutfromtheuse of commercially
As discussednext,ourmodel isappropriateforboth "typical" primedplacementsin thisexample (i.e.,BMW launchedan
placementsand "home-run" placements(i.e.,placementsthat IMC campaign thatprimed theplacementvia traditional
yield spectacular performance results). ads),we note thatthedeleteriouseffectsofcommercialprim
Our framework accommodatestypicalproductplacements ingwere likelymitigated bymedia priming because of
thatare relatively brief,visual incharacter(visualplacements widespreadmedia coveragedevoted to thisplacement (our
constitutethemajorityaccordingtoAveryandFerraro2000), propositionpredictsthatmedia-primedplacementsproduce
involvefamiliarbrands,and are craftedto fitwith thestory outcomesas comparedwith commercially
beneficialaffective
(therebychannelingviewers'attentionin a directionthata primed placements).The media attention/priming of this
writeror directorwould prefer).In such cases,given earlier placementwas motivated by themomentous scale of this
discussions regardingimplicitversusexplicitmemory,we placement (according to Stewart-Allen,it generatedover
predict that low levelsof viewerprocessingmay yieldmild $100 million worth of audienceexposure).Finally,we note
and short-term effectson cognitiveoutcomes,and strong/long thatotherblockbusterplacements(suchas theappearanceof
lastingeffectson affective andconativeoutcomes.For sponsors, the then-newbrandReese's Pieces inE. T) also satisfymany
conativeeffects areclearly more important. of theprecedingcriteria.
The precedingpoints are significant because theydiffer
sharplyfrompractitioners' bias toward measures of explicit Directions forFutureResearch
memoryforevaluating placementperformance (LawandBraun
2000; Law andBraun-LaTour 2004). Perhapsbecauseof this Tables 1 through
4 highlightan elaborateresearch agendaon
bias, the industry's conceptionofwhat constitutesvalue in placementsthat isdirectlyrelatedtoourmodel framework.
placementsissomewhatskewed.That is,thepricingstructure Severaladditionalissuesforfutureresearchthatare indirectly
forplacementsdisproportionately emphasizesperformance relatedto ourmodel framework are discussednext,and are
onmeasuresof explicitmemory.For example, Walt Disney summarized in Tables 5 and 6.
Company,which consideredvisual (oron-screen)placements
lessvaluable thanother types,priced a placementepisode EconomicWorth of Placements
with visual,visual + brand-name mention,andactualproduct
use contentat $20,000, $40,000, and $60,000, respectively The followingfundamental question facesplacementpracti
(Magiera1990). tioners,suppliers(i.e.,media, includingmovie studios/pro
Therefore,recentresearchfindings(e.g., Law and Braun ducers),and sponsors:What is theeconomicworthof specific
2000; Nedungadi 1990; Shapiro 1999; Shapiro,Maclnnis, placements? Roberts(2004) summarizedrecentefforts at three
andHeckler 1997) thatlink incidental/unconscious stimuli independentfirmstoassesstheeconomicvalueofplacements
exposuretodesirableaffective and conativeoutcomesshould topotentialsponsors. Nielsen's Place*Views softwaretracks
promptplacementpractitionersto reassesshow theyvalue descriptivevariablesaboutaudiovisualplacements:thenumber
visual placements.This is a verysignificantissue formovie of episodes,theshowsinvolved, whetherthebrandappeared
studios/producers becausethebulkofplacementsarevisual in in thebackgroundor foreground, brand exposureduration,
character(withobvious revenueimplications)andworkwell thestorycharacterin theplacement,and placementcontent
inincidental-or unconscious-exposure environments. (valence,etc.).Using such information, iTVX helpspotential
While theprecedingdiscussionisorientedaround"typical" sponsorsassessthevalueof a placement.Finally,IAG's service
placements,our framework alsohelpsclarifyfactorsthatmust focuseson theaudience'sability to recallplaced brands in
be inplace fortherelatively rare"home-run" placementsthat specificshows.Effortstovalue placementepisodesshouldbe
marketerscan and do accomplish.For example,inonewell informed by rationalesadvancedinourmodel.

Fall 2006 135
TABLE 5
Key Similarities and Differences Between Ads and Placements
Ads Placements
Similarities
Ads are paid for. Placements are paid for.
Skepticismtoward ads adverselyaffectsprocessingof ads. Skepticismtoward ads adverselyaffectsprocessingof placements.
Aadispositivelyrelated to Aplacement' ispositivelyrelated to Aad'
Aplacement
Differences
Message accompanies,and is thereforedistinctfrom,editorial Message isembedded in,and is thereforenot distinctfrom,
content. editorialcontent.
Ads accommodate mood spillovereffectsfromprogramto mood spillovereffectsbetter thanads.
Placements facilitate
message.
Ads can rangeover the informational/transformational Placements are more transformational
than informational.
continuum.
Ads can rangeover the argument/drama continuum. Placements are closer to drama thanto arguments.
Informational/argumentads are processed evaluatively. Placements aremore likelyto be processed empathetically.
Ads are characterizedby low levelsof disguise and Placements have high levelsof disguise and obtrusiveness.
obtrusiveness.
the sponsor.
Ads identify Placements do not identify
the sponsor.
Ad-specific regulationsexist. Placement-specificregulationsdo not exist.
Notes:Aad= attitudetowardthead; Aplacement

= attitude towardtheplacement.
That Extends
Research andContexts
Operationalizations contexts),so theypresentnew researchopportunities.
This
onlyonpublishedwork;many interactions
tablefocuses among
Table 1highlightsresearch opportunitiestoextendoperation ourmodel variablesawait research.
alizationsof specific
constructs work.For
inpreviousempirical
example,researchers havestudiedtheopportunity-to-process
Comparative
Studies
placementconstructinourmodel with proxyvariablessuch
as placementprominenceor exposureduration.Other opera First,researchersshouldcompareplacements with othertypes
tionalizationsworthyof researchincluderepetitionfrequency ofmessages.Forexample,Table 5 isa by-product of themodel
forplacementepisodeswithin amovie, and thepace atwhich developmentprocessthatdelineatesthesimilarities and dif
thebrandmessage isdisseminatedtherein. ferencesbetweenads andplacements.Empiricalcomparisons
Becausemost placementstudiesarehighlycontext-driven ofads andplacements,along thelinesofstudiesthatcompare
(e.g., theyfocuson a single stimulusor a specificaudience adswith othermessage types(e.g.,Singh,Balasubramanian,
type),thereis a need to extendthemto newercontexts/cul andChakraborty 2000) areneeded.Recently, Roehm,Roehm,
tures/nations.Also,most placementstudiesfocuson the in andBoone (2004) comparedplacements with plugs (bothare
dividual as theunit of analysisforexposure,processing,and hybridmessages).
outcomes. Unfortunately, thisprecludesassessmentof therole Second,research couldcomparespecifictypesofplacements.
ofcoviewingbehaviorsinshapingplacementoutcomes(such Forexample, TiwsakulandHackley(2005) investigated noninte
behaviorsare thosethatareexhibitedduringsharedviewing gratedproduct placements (i.e.,brands
presented inthebeginning
experiences).For example,does a given placementgenerate or end of a program withoutany integration intoitscontent).
a differentimpacton an individualdependingonwhere the Aftercontrolling forinformation content,itmay be usefulto
exposure occurs (e.g., at home or in a theater)? comparenonintegrated versusintegratedplacements on several
Finally,thebulkofourmodel development workdepended performance measures.Given thegrowingarrayofplacement
on theadvertisingliteraturetoadvancepropositions.Future types,othercomparisons thatawaitresearch inquiryincludevir
researchneeds to delineate the boundaryconditions that tualversusretrospective
versuson-lineplacements; primedversus
limit/precludethe extensionof advertising-basedinsights nonprimed placements;informational versustransformational
intoproductplacementcontexts. With respecttoourmodel placements; andordinaryversuscustomized,collaborative,blatant,
framework, severalinteractionsfeaturedinTable 2 have not fake,andexclusive placements(seeTable 6 fordefinitions).
been empiricallytestedin placementcontexts(e.g.,Chang Finally,futurestudiesmight comparetheperformance of
2002 investigatessomeof ourmodel factorsin advertising identicalplacementsacrossprogramgenres(e.g.,game shows

TABLE 6
Additional Topics for Future Research
Key topics Research questions
Economicworth of placements What is the economic worth of a placement?
Research thatextends operationalizations/contexts What are the implicationsof new operationalizations forold constructs?
Does the impactof placements change dependingon whether the exposure
occurs in individual(home/video iPod) or group (theater) settings?
What boundary conditions limitextension of advertisinginsightsto
placements?
Comparative studies Compare placementswith other typesofmessages (e.g.,ads).

Compare various typesof placements aftercontrollingfor information
content:nonintegratedversus integratedplacements,ordinaryplacements
versus customized,collaborative,blatant,fake,and exclusive placements. (By
way of definition,ordinaryplacements featurereal brands,but these brands
are imposedon audience members ina way similarto mass advertising;
customized placements relyon technologyand a participant'sinputto adapt
or tailor themessage to hisor her context; collaborative placements are
analogous to mass customization, where a firmand itscustomer collaborate
to design and produce a customized product [e.g.,an auto racingon-line
game may allow individualsto choose both a brand-name race car and the
logos displayedon itsexterior duringthe game]; blatantplacements involve
excessive prominence or exposure duration,which irritatesaudiences; fake
placements involvefictitiousbrand names thatpresent a research
opportunityto assess the added-value and realismthatactual brands
contribute to a movie. Finally, exclusive placements go significantly
beyond
integratingbrands intoa script;examples includemovies such as Harold and
KumarGo to White Castle,which featurethe brand name inthe title,thereby
elevating itto a vital story element.)
Compare the impactof identicalplacements embedded indifferent program
genres,media types,and media vehicles.
Placement saturationstudies What is the saturationpoint forproduct placements (in termsof the number
of episodes, product categories,or brands included) in,say,a movie?
What is the optimal numberof repetitiveplacementswithin a movie that
avoids audience perceptions of saturationfora specificbrand?
Does category exclusivity(the absence of competingbrands) increase the
economic worth of a placement?
Do exclusive placements (no other placed brand fromany category) increase
suchworth?
What levelsof exposure timeand prominence render a placement blatant
(i.e., likelyto irritateaudiences)?
Supply-sideperspective What processes, assumptions,and goals do creativepersonnel use to combine

brandswith actors, characters,and story lines inplacement contexts?
media types(e.g.,movie
versusrealityshowsversussitcoms), numberof episodes,productcategories,or brands included)
versustelevisionversusradioversuson-line; seeNelson and in, say,a movie?What is theoptimal numberof repetitive
McLeod 2005), and media vehicles (e.g., The Price Is Right placementswithin amovie thatavoidsaudienceperceptions
versus Wheel of Fortune; see Gould and Gupta 2006). of saturationfora specificbrand?Does categoryexclusivity
(theabsenceofcompetingbrands)increasetheeconomic worth
of a placement?Do exclusiveplacements (no otherplaced
Placement
Saturation
Studies
brand fromany category)increasesuchworth?What levels
and spon
Despite theirobvious importancetopractitioners of exposuretimeand prominence would cause a placement
sors, researchers have not explored questions such as:What is to be perceivedas blatant,with theconcomitantprospectof
the saturation point forproduct placements (in terms of the irritatingthetargetaudience?

Fall 2006 137
Supply-Side onPlacements
Perspective of Effects: An Historical Perspective," Current Issues and
Research inAdvertising, 10 (2), 251-295.
Anotherelementmissing inplacementresearchis a formal -, and Daniel J.Howard (1990), "A Review and Critique
analysisof thegoals/assumptions
of programcreatorsabout of the Hierarchy of Effects in Advertising," International
humannatureas portrayedthroughnovels,plays,programs, Journal ofAdvertising, 9 (2), 121?135.
and cinema(Turow1978;Wells andAnderson1996). Future Beike, Denise R., and Steven J. Sherman (1994), "Social Infer
ence:
researchshouldexamine theprocessesthatcreativeprofes Inductions, Deductions, and Analogies," inHandbook
sionalsuse to combinebrandswith actors,characters,and ofSocial Cognition, 2nd ed., vol. 1,Robert S.Wyer, Jr., and
Thomas K. Srull, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
storylines.
209-285.
Bennett,Michelle, Anthony Pecotich, and Sanjay Putrevu (1999),
"The Influence ofWarnings on Product in Eu
In conclusion,
we reiteratethegrowingsignificanceofplace Placements,"
ropean Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 4, Bernard Dubois,

ments in termsofbothmarketingbudgetsand audience im
Tina Lowry, L. J. Shrum, and Marc Venhuele, eds., Provo,
pact.We also emphasizethedesirability
of futureresearch
on UT: Association forConsumer Research, 193-200.
long-term ofplacements,
effects becauseextantwork isfocused
Bhatnagar, Namita, Lerzan Aksoy, and Selin A. Malkoc (2004),
aroundtheirshort-term effects(McCarty2004). "Embedding Brands Within Media Content: The Impact
of Message, Media, and Consumer Characteristics on
Placement Efficiency," in The Psychology ofEntertainment

REFERENCES
Media, L. J. Shrum, ed., Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
Alba, JosephW., and J.Wesley Hutchinson (1987), "Dimen 99-116.
sions of Consumer Expertise," Journal of Consumer Research, Bloxham, M. (1998), "BrandAffinity and Television Programme
"
13 (March), 411-454. Sponsorship, InternationalJournal ofAdvertising, 17(1),
Atkinson, Claire (2004), "It's theMarketer's 'Apprentice,'" Ad 89-98.
Age, 75 (35), 1.
vertising Boush, David M., Marian Friestad, and Gregory M. Rose
Auty, Susan, and Charlie Lewis (2004a), "Exploring Children's (1994), "Adolescent Skepticism Toward TV Advertising
Choice: The Reminder Effect of Product Placement," Psy and Knowledge ofAdvertiser Tactics," Journal ofConsumer
chologyand Marketing, 21 (9), 697-713. Research, 21 (June), 165-175.
-, and-(2004b), "The 'Delicious Paradox': Pre Brennan, Ian, and Laurie A. Babin (2004), "Brand Placement
conscious Processing of Product Placements by Children," Recognition: The Influence ofPresentationMode and Brand
in The PsychologyofEntertainment Media, L. J. Shrum, ed., Familiarity," Journal ofPromotionManagement, 10(1/2),
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 117-135. 185-202.
Avery,Rosemary J., and Rosellina Ferraro (2000), "Verisimilitude -, Khalid M. Dubas, and Laurie A. Babin (1999), "The
orAdvertising? Brand Appearances on Prime-Time Televi Influence of Product-Placement Type and Exposure Time
sion,"Journal ofConsumerAffairs, 34 (2), 217-244. on Product-Placement
Recognition," International Journal
Ay worth, Andrew B., Ronald C. Goodstein, and A jayKalra
les ofAdvertising, 18 (3), 323-337.
(1999), "EffectofArchetypal Embeds on Feelings: An In Brennan, Stacey, Philip J.Rosenberger III, and Veronica Hemen
direct Route toAffecting Attitudes?" Journal ofAdvertising, tera (2004), "Product Placements inMovies: An Australian
28 (3), 73-81. Consumer Perspective on Their Ethicality and Acceptabil
-, and Scott B. MacKenzie (1998), "Context Is Key: The ity," Marketing Bulletin, 15, 1?16.
Effect of Program-Induced Mood on Thoughts About the Brett, Steven Joseph (1995), "The Shrinking Screen: The Increas
Ad," Journal ofAdvertising, 27 (2), 17-31. ing IntersectionofHollywood Film and Television Program
Babin, Laurie A., and Sheri Thompson Carder (1996a), "Viewers' ming," Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University.
Recognition ofBrands Placed Within a Film," International Chang, Chingching (2002), "Self-Congruency as a Cue inDif
Journal ofAdvertising, 15 (2), 140-151. ferent Advertising-Processing Contexts," Communication
-, and-(1996b), "Advertising via the Box Office? Research, 29 (5), 503-536.

Is Product Placement Effective?"Journal ofPromotionMan Cornwell, T. Bettina, and Isabelle Maignan (1998), "An Interna
agement,3(1/2), 31-51. tional Review of Sponsorship Research," Journal ofAdvertis
Baker,Michael J., and Hazel A. Crawford (1995), "Product Place ing, 27 (1), 1-21.
ment," working paper no. 95 (2),Department ofMarketing, d'Astous, Alain, and Francis Chartier (2000), "A Study of Factors
University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland. Affecting Consumer Evaluations and Memory of Product
Balasubramanian, Siva K. (1994), "Beyond Advertising and Pub Placements inMovies, "Journal ofCurrent Issues and Research
licity:Hybrid Messages and Public Policy Issues" Journal inAdvertising, 22 (2), 31-40.
ofAdvertising, 23 (December), 29-46. -, Alain, and Nathalie Seguin (1999), "Consumer Reac
Bandura, Albert (1977), Social Learning Theory,Englewood Cliffs, tions toProduct Placement Strategies inTelevision Sponsor
NJ: Prentice-Hall. ship," EuropeanJournal ofMarketing, 33 (9/10), 896-910.
Barry, Thomas F. (1987), "The Development of the Hierarchy Davis, Mark H., JayG. Hull, Richard D. Young, and Gregory

G. Warren (1987), "Emotional Reactions toDramatic Film Gould, Stephen J., and Pola B. Gupta (2006), "'Come on Down':
Stimuli: The InfluenceofCognitive and Emotional Empathy," How Consumers View Game Shows and the Products Placed
Journal ofPersonalityand Social Psychology,52(1), 126-133. inThem," Journal ofAdvertising, 35 (1), 65-81.
Deighton, John, Daniel Romer, and Josh McQueen (1989), -,-, and Sonja Grabner-Kr?uter (2000), "Product
"Using Drama to Persuade,"

Journal of Consumer Research, Placements inMovies: A Cross-Cultural Analysis ofAus
16 (December), 335-343. trian, French, and American Consumers' Attitudes Toward
DeLorme, Denise E., and Leonard N. Reid (1999), "Moviegoers' This Emerging International Promotional Medium,"Journal
Experiences and Interpretations of Brands in Films Revis ofAdvertising, 29 (4), 41-58.
ited, "Journal ofAdvertising, 28 (2), 71-95. Grigorovici, Dan M., and Corina D. Constantin (2004), "Experi
D'Orio, Wayne (1999), "Clothes Make the Teen," AmericanDe encing InteractiveAdvertising Beyond Rich Media: Impacts
mographics,21 (3), 34-37. ofAd Type and Presence on Brand Effectiveness in 3D Gam
"
Duke, Charles R., and Les Carlson (1993), "A Conceptual Ap ing Immersive Virtual Environments, Journal ofInteractive
proach to Alternative Memory Measures forAdvertising Advertising, 5 (1), www.jiad.org/vol5/nol/grigorovici/index
Effectiveness," Journal of Current Issues and Research in Ad .htm (accessed June 26, 2006).
vertising,15 (2), 1-14. Groenendyk, Eric W., and Nicholas A. Valentino (2002), "Of
Economist (2005a), "AndNow, a Game fromOur Sponsor" (June Dark Clouds and Silver Linings: Effects ofExposure to Issue
11), 3. Versus Candidate Advertising on Persuasion, Information
-(2005b), "Lights, Camera, Brands" (October 19), Retention, and Issue Salience," Communication Research, 29
61-62. (3), 295-319.
Edwards, Jim (2005), "Web Site Seeks to Link Marketers and Gupta, Pola B., Siva K. Balasubramanian, and Michael Klassen
Producers," Brandweek (November 14), 8. (2000), "Viewers' Evaluations in

of Product Placements
Elliott, Stuart (2005), "On Broadway, Ads Now Get to Play Movies: Public Policy Issues andManagerial Implications,"
Cameo Roles," New York Times (April 22). Journal ofCurrent Issues and Research inAdvertising, 22 (2),
Ferraro, Rosellina, and Rosemary J. Avery (2000), "Brand Ap 41-52.
pearances on Prime-Time Television" Journal ofCurrent Issues -, and Stephen J.Gould (1997), "Consumers' Perceptions of
and Research inAdvertising, 22 (2), 1-15. theEthics and Acceptability of Product Placements inMov
Fitzgerald, Kate (2002), "Eager Sponsors Raise theAnte," Ad ies: Product Category and Individual Differences "Journal of
Age (June 10),
vertising 18. Current Issuesand Research inAdvertising, 19 (1), 37?50.
Forgas, Joseph P., and Stephanie Moylan (1987), "After theMov -, and Kenneth R. Lord (1998), "Product Placement in
ies:Transient Mood and Social Judgments," Personalityand Movies: The Effect of Prominence and Mode on Audience
Social PsychologyBulletin, 13 (4), 467-477. Recall, "Journal ofCurrent Issuesand Research inAdvertising,
Fournier, Susan, and Robert J. Dolan (1997), "Launching the 20(1), 47-59.
BMW Z3 Roadster," Case No. N9-597-002, Harvard Busi Hackley, Christopher, and Rungpaka Tiwsakul (2006), "En
ness School Publishing. tertainment Marketing and Experiential Consumption,"
Friedman, Monroe (1991), A "Brand"New Language, New York: Journal ofMarketing Communications, 12 (1), 63-75.
Greenwood Press. Hey, Dami?n Ward (2002), "Virtual Product Placement," Televi
Galician, Mary-Lou (2004), "Product Placements in the Mass sionQuarterly, 32 (4), 24-29.
Media: Unholy Marketing Marriages or Realistic Story Hirschman, Elizabeth C, and Craig J. Thompson (1997), "Why
Telling Portrayals,Unethical Advertising Messages orUse Media Matter: Toward a Richer Understanding of Con
ful Communication Practices?" Journal ofPromotion Manage sumers' with and Mass Media,"
Relationships Advertising
ment, 10 (1/2), 1-8. Journal ofAdvertising, 26 (1), 43?60.
-, and Peter G. Bourdeau (2004), "The Evolution of Prod Hoffner, Cynthia, and Joanne Cantor (1991), "Perceiving and
uct Placements inHollywood Cinema: Embedding High Responding toMass Media Characters," inResponding to the
Involvement 'Heroic' Brand Images" Journal of Promotion Screen,Jennings Bryant and Dolf Zillmann, eds., Hillsdale,
Management, 10(1/2), 15-36. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 63-101.
Gardner, Meryl P. (1994), "Responses to Emotional and Informa Hofstede, Geert (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Softwareofthe
tional Appeals: The Moderating Role of Context-Induced Mind, London: McGraw-Hill.
Mood States," inAttention,Attitude, and Affect inResponse to -(2001), Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behav
Advertising,Eddie M. Clark, Timothy C. Brock, and David iors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, Thousand
W. Stewart, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gibson, Bryan, and John Maurer (2000), "Cigarette Smoking Holbrook, Morris B., and Mark W. Grayson (1986), "The Se
in theMovies: The Influence of Product Placement on At miology of Cinematic Consumption: Symbolic Consumer
titudes Toward Smoking and Smokers," Journal ofApplied Behavior in Out of Africa," Journal ofConsumer Research,
Social Psychology,30(7), 1457-1473. 13 (December), 374-381.
Goldberg, Marvin E., and Gerald J.Gorn (1987), "Happy and Sad Howard, Daniel L., and Thomas E. Barry (1994), "The Role of
TV Programs: How They AffectReactions toCommercials," Thematic Congruence Between a
Mood-Inducing Event
Journal ofConsumerResearch, 14 (December), 387-403. and an Advertised Product inDetermining the Effects of

Fall 2006 139
Mood on Brand Attitudes," Journal ofConsumerPsychology, Leary,Mark R. (1989), "Self-Presentational Processes in Leader
3 (1), 1-27. ship Emergence and Effectiveness," in Impression
Management
Huang, I-Ning, Joan Scale, and Robert Mclntyre (1976), "The in theOrganization,Robert A. Giacalone and Paul Rosenfeld,
Von Restorff Isolation Effect inResponse and Serial Order eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 343-361.
Learning," Journal ofGeneral Psychology,94(2), 153-165. -, and Robin M. Kowalski (1990), "Impression Manage
Johnstone, Emma, and Christopher A. Dodd (2000), "Place ment: A Literature Review and Two-Component Model,"
ments as Mediators of Brand Salience Within a UK Cin PsychologicalBulletin, 107 (1), 34-47.
ema Audience" Journal ofMarketing Communications,6 (3), Lee, Angela Y. (2002), "Effectsof Implicit Memory onMemory
141-158. Based Versus Stimulus-Based Brand Choice," Journal of
Kamins, Michael A., and Kamal Gupta (1994), "Congruence Marketing Research, 39 (4), 440-454.
Between Spokesperson and Product Type: A Matchup Maclnnis, Deborah J., and Bernard J. Jaworski (1989), "Informa
Hypothesis Perspective," Psychologyand Marketing, 11 (6), tionProcessing fromAdvertisements: Toward an Integrative
"
569-586. Framework, Journal ofMarketing, 53 (October), 1-23.
Karrh, James A. (1994), "EffectsofBrand Placements in Feature -, Christine Moorman, and Bernard J. Jaworski (1991),
Films," in Proceedingsof the 1994 Conferenceof theAmerican "Enhancing and Measuring Consumers' Motivation, Op
Academy ofAdvertising,Karen Whitehill King, ed., Athens, portunity, and Ability to Process Brand Information from
"
GA: American Academy ofAdvertising, 90-96. Ads, Journal ofMarketing, 5 5 (October) ,32-53.
-(1995), "Brand Placements in Feature Films: The Prac Maclean's (2005), "Product Placement Beyond TV" (February
titioners' View," in Proceedings of the 1995 Conferenceof the 21), 33.
American Academy ofAdvertising, Charles S. Madden, ed., Magiera, Marcy (1990), "Disney Plugs Up New Film," Advertising
Waco, TX: Hankamer School of Business, Baylor Univer A^ (October 15), 8.
sity, 182-188. Marketing Management (2005), "As Seen on TV," 14 (3).
-(1998), "Brand Placement: A Review,"Journal ofCurrent Matthews, Robert G. (2005), "London Stage Hosts U.S. Market
Issuesand Research inAdvertising, 20 (2), 31-49. ers,"Wall Street
Journal (February 18), B3.
-, Katherine T Frith, and Coy Callison (2001), "Audience Mayer, JohnD., Laura J.McCormick, and Sara E. Strong (1995),
Attitudes Toward Brand (Product) Placement: Singapore "Mood-Congruent Memory and Natural Mood: New
and theUnited States," InternationalJournal ofAdvertising, Evidence," Personalityand Social PsychologyBulletin, 21 (7),
20 (1), 3-24. 736-746.
-, Kathy Brittain McKee, and Carol J. Pardun (2003), McCarty, JohnA. (2004), "Product Placement: The Nature of the
"Practitioners' Evolving Views on Product Placement Effec Practice and Potential Avenues of Inquiry," inThe Psychol
"
tiveness, Journal ofAdvertisingResearch,43 (2), 138-149. ogy ofEntertainmentMedia, L. J. Shrum, ed., Mahwah, NJ:
Kirmani, Amna, and Baba Shiv (1998), "Effectsof Source Con Lawrence Erlbaum, 45-62.
gruity on Brand Attitudes and Beliefs: The Moderating McCracken, Grant (1989), "Who Is the Celebrity Endorser?
Role of Issue-Relevant Elaboration," Journal ofConsumer Cultural Foundations of the Endorsement Process," J ournal
Psychology,7 (1), 25-47. ofConsumerResearch, 16 (3 ), 310-3 21.
Kleine, Robert E., Ill, Susan Schultz Kleine, and Jerome B. McKechnie, Sally A., and Jia Zhou (2003), "Product Place
Kernan (1993), "Mundane Consumption and the Self: A ment inMovies: A Comparison of Chinese and American
Social-Identity Perspective," Journal ofConsumerPsychology, Consumers' Attitudes," InternationalJournal ofAdvertising,
2 (3), 209-235. 22 (3), 349-374.
Krishnan, H. Shanker, and Dipankar Chakravarti (1999), "Mem Messinger, Sheldon E., Harold Sampson, and Robert D. Towne
ory Measures for Pretesting Advertisements: An Integrative (1990), "Life as Theater: Some Notes on theDramaturgic
Conceptual Framework and a Diagnostic Template,"Journal Approach to Social Reality," in Life as Theater, Dennis
ofConsumerPsychology,8(1), 1-37. Brissett and Charles Edgley, eds., New York: Aldine de
Krugman, Herbert E. (1965), "The Impact of Television Ad Gruyter, 73-84.
vertising: Learning Without Involvement," Public Opinion Misra, Shekhar, and Sharon E. Beatty (1990), "Celebrity Spokes
Quarterly, 29 (Fall), 349-356. person
"
and Brand
Congruence: An Assessment of Recall and
La Pastina, Antonio C. (2001), "Product Placement in Brazil Affect, Journal ofBusiness Research, 21 (2), 159-173.
ian Prime Time Television: The Case of the Reception of Moorman, Marjolein, Peter C. Neijens, and Edith G. Smit (2002),
a Telenovela," Journal ofBroadcasting and ElectronicMedia, "The Effects ofMagazine-Induced Psychological Responses
45 (Fall), 541-557. and Thematic Congruence onMemory and Attitude Toward
Law, Sharmistha, and Kathryn A. Braun (2000), "I'll Have What the Ad in a Real-Life Setting," Journal ofAdvertising, 31
She'sHaving: Gauging the Impact ofProduct Placements on (4), 27-40.
Viewers," Psychologyand Marketing, 17 (12), 1059-1075. Morton, Cynthia R., andMeredith Friedman (2002), "1 Saw It in
-, and Kathryn A. Braun-LaTour (2004), "Product Place theMovies': Exploring theLink Between Product Placement
ments: How toMeasure Their Impact," inThe Psychologyof Beliefs and Reported Usage Behavior," Journal ofCurrent
Entertainment Media, L. J. Shrum, ed., Mahwah, NJ: Law Issuesand Research inAdvertising, 24 (2), 33-40.
rence Erlbaum, 63-78. Nebenzahl, Israel D., and Eugene D. Jaffe (1998), "Ethical

140 The JoulrnalofAdvertising
Dimensions ofAdvertising Executions," Journal ofBusiness-, Steven A. Richman, David W. Schumann, and Alan
Ethics, 17(7), 805-815. J. Strathman (1993), "Positive Mood and Persuasion: Dif
-, and Eugene Secunda (1993), "Consumers' Attitudes ferentRoles forAffect Under High- and Low-Elaboration
Toward Product Placements inMovies," International Journal Conditions," Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology,
ofA dverusing, 12(1), 1-11. 64(1), 5-20.
Nedungadi, Prakash (1990), "Recall and Consumer Consideration Puto, Christopher P., andWilliam D. Wells (1984), "Informational
Sets: InfluencingChoiceWithout Altering Brand Evaluations," and TransformationalAdvertising: The Differential Effectsof
Journal ofConsumerResearch, 17 (December), 263?276. Time," Advances inConsumerResearch, 11 (1), 638?643.
Nelson, Michelle R. (2002), "Recall of Brand Placements in Reed, J.D. (1989), "Plugging Away inHollywood" Time (Janu
Computer/Video Games," Journal ofAdvertising Research, ary 2), 102.
42 (March/April), 80-92. Roberts, Johnny L. (2004), "TV's New Brand of Stars,"Newsweek
-,Heejo Keum, and Ronald A. Yaros (2004), "Ad (November 22).
vertainment or Adcreep? Game Players' Attitudes Toward Roehm, Michelle L., Harper A. Roehm, Jr., and Derrick S. Boone
Advertising and Product Placements in Computer Games," (2004), "Plugs Versus Placements: A Comparison ofAlter
Journal of InteractiveAdvertising, 5 (1), http://jiad.org/vol5/ natives forWithin-Program Brand Exposure," Psychology
no 1 /nelson/index.htm (accessed June 26, 2006). and Marketing, 21 (1), 17-28.
-, and Laurie Ellis McLeod (2005), "Adolescent Brand Roskos-Ewoldsen, David R., and Russell H. Fazio (1992), "On
Consciousness and Product Placements: Awareness, Liking theOrienting Value ofAttitudes: Attitude Accessibility as a
and Perceived Effects on Self and Others," International
J our Determinant of an Object's Attraction of Visual Attention,"
nal ofConsumerStudies, 29 (6), 515-528. Journal ofPersonalityand Social Psychology,63 (2), 198-211.
Nelson, Richard Alan (2004), "The Bulgari Connection: A Novel Russell, Cristel A. (1998), "Toward a Framework of Product
Form of Product Placement" Journal of Promotion Manage Placement: Theoretical Propositions," in Advances in
ment, 10(1/2), 203-212. ConsumerResearch, vol. 25, JosephW. Alba and J.Wesley
Neumann, Deborah, Mary Cassata, and Thomas Skill (1983), Hutchinson, eds., Provo, UT: Association for Consumer
"Setting theMood: Soap Opera Settings and Fashions," in Research, 357-362.

Life onDaytime Television:Tuning-In American Serial Drama, -(2002), "Investigating theEffectiveness ofProduct Place
Mary Cassata and Thomas Skill, eds.,Norwood, NJ: Ablex, ment inTelevision Shows: The Role ofModality and Plot
125-135. Connection on Brand and Attitude,"
Congruence Memory
Newell, Stephen J., Kenneth V. Henderson, and Bob T. Wu Journal ofConsumerResearch, 29 (December), 306?318.
(2001), "The Effects of Pleasure and Arousal on Recall of-, Andrew T. Norman, and Susan E. Heckler (2004a),
Advertisements During the Super Bowl," Psychologyand "People and 'Their' Television Shows: An Overview of
Marketing, 18(11), 1135-1153. Television Connectedness," inThe PsychologyofEntertainment
O'Guinn, Thomas C, and L. J. Shrum (1997), "The Role ofTele Media, L. J. Shrum, ed., Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
vision in theConstruction ofConsumer Reality, "Journal of 275-290.
ConsumerResearch, 23 (March), 278-294. -?-5 and-(2004b), "The Consumption of
Paivio, Allan (1979), Imageryand Verbal Processes,Hillsdale, NJ: Television Programming: Development and Validation
Lawrence Erlbaum. of the Connectedness Scale" Journal of Consumer Research,
-(1983), "The Empirical Case forDual Coding," in Im 31(2), 150-161.
agery, Memory and Cognition, John C. Yuille, ed., Hillsdale, -, and Christopher P. Puto (1999), "Rethinking Televi
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. sion Audience Measures: An into the Construct
Exploration
-(1986), Mental Representations:A Dual Coding Approach, of Audience Connectedness," Marketing Letters, 10 (4),
New York: Oxford University Press. 393-407.
Pardun, Carol J., and Kathy McKee (1999), "Product Placements -, and Barbara B. Stern (2006), "Consumers, Characters,
as Public Relations: An Exploratory Study of the Role of and Products: A Balance Model of Sitcom Product Place
the Public Relations Firm," Public Relations Review, 25 (4), ment Effects,"Journal ofAdvertising, 35 (1), 7-21.
481-493. Sabherwal, Shonall, Jim Pokrywczynski, and Robert Griffin
Pechmann, Cornelia, and Chuan-Fong Shih (1999), "Smoking (1994), "Brand Recall for Product Placements inMotion
Scenes inMovies and Antismoking Advertisements Before Pictures: A Memory-Based
Perspective," paper presented
Movies," Journal ofMarketing, 63 (3), 1-13. at the 1994 Conference of theAssociation forEducation in
Petty,Richard E., and JohnT Cacioppo (1986), "The Elaboration Journalism and Mass Communication, Atlanta, GA.
Likelihood Model ofPersuasion," inAdvances inExperimental Management, Belmont, CA:
Schlenker, Barry (1980), Impression
Social Psychology, vol. 19, Leonard Berkowitz, ed., New York: Brooks/Cole.
Academic Press, 123-205. Schneider, Lars-Peter, and T. Bettina Cornwell (2005), "Cashing
-, -, and David Schumann (1983), "Central and in on Crashes via Brand Placement in Computer Games,"
Peripheral Routes toAdvertising Effectiveness: The Mod InternationalJournal ofAdvertising, 24 (3), 321-343.
erating Role of Involvement, "Journal of Consumer Research, Segrave, Kerry (2004), Product Placement inHollywood Films: A
10 (September), 135-146. History, Jefferson,NC: MacFarland.

Fall 2006 141
Sengupta, Jaideep, Ronald C. Goodstein, and David S. Boninger Stewart-Allen, Allyson L. (1999), "Product Placement Helps Sell
(1997), "All Cues Are Not Created Equal: Obtaining At Brand," Marketing News, 33 (4), 8.
titude Persistence Under Low-Involvement Conditions," Synott,Anthony (1991), "A Sociology of Smell," Canadian Review
Journal ofConsumerResearch, 23 (March), 351-361. ofSociologyand Anthropology,28 (1), 437-459
Shapiro, Stewart (1999), "When an Ad's Influence Is Beyond Tan, Alexis S. (1986), "Social Learning ofAggression fromTele
Our Conscious Control: Perceptual and Conceptual Fluency vision," in PerspectivesonMedia Effects,Jennings Bryant and
EffectsCaused by Incidental Exposure," Journal ofConsumer Dolf Zillmann, eds., Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,
Research, 26(1), 16-36. 41-55.
-, and H. Shanker Krishnan(2001), "Memory-Based Tiwsakul, Rungpaka, and Chris Hackley (2005), "Explicit,
Measures forAssessing Advertising Effects:A Comparison Non-integrated Product Placement in British Television
of Explicit and Implicit Memory Effects, "Journal ofAdver Programmes," InternationalJournal ofAdvertising, 24(1),
tising,30(3), 1-13. 95-111.
-, Deborah J.Maclnnis, and Susan E. Heckler (1997), "The Turow, Joseph (1978), "Casting forTV Parts: The Anatomy of
Effectsof IncidentalAd Exposure on theFormation ofConsid Social Typing" Journal ofCommunication,28 (4), 18-24.
eration Sets" Journal ofConsumerResearch,24 (1), 94-104. Vagnoni, Anthony (2001), "Radical Departure," AdvertisingAge
Sheehan, Kim Bartel, and Aibing Guo (2005), '"Leaving on a Qune 25), 14.
(Branded) Jet Plane': An Exploration ofAudience Attitudes Wallace, William P. (1965), "Review of theHistorical, Empirical,
Towards Product Assimilation inTelevision Content,"Journal and Theoretical Status of theVon Restorff Phenomenon,"
ofCurrent Issuesand Research inAdvertising,27 (1), 79-91. PsychologicalBulletin, 63 (6), 410-424.
Singh, Mandeep, Siva K. Balasubramanian, and Goutam Wells, William D., and Ch?ri L. Anderson (1996), "Fictional
Chakraborty (2000), "A Comparative Analysis of Three Materialism," in Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 23, Kim
Communication Formats: Advertising, Infomercial, and Corfman and JohnG. Lynch, eds., Provo, UT: Association for
Direct Experience," Journal ofAdvertising, 29 (4), 59-75. Consumer Research, 120-126.
Solomon, Michael R., and Basil G. Englis (1994), "Reality En Wenner, Lawrence A. (2004), "On the Ethics of Product Place
gineering: Blurring the Boundaries Between Commercial ment inMedia Entertainment, "Journal ofPromotion
Manage
Signification and Popular Culture, "Journal ofCurrent Issues ment, 10(1/2), 101-132.
and Research inAdvertising, 16(2), 1-17. Wicklund, Robert A., and PeterM. Gollwitzer (1982), Symbolic
Stern, Barbara, and Cristel A. Russell (2004), "Consumer Re Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
S elf-Completion,
sponses to Product Placement inTelevision Sitcoms: Genre, Yi, Youjae (1990), "The Effects of Contextual Priming in Print
Sex, and Consumption," Consumption, Markets, and Culture, Advertisements," Journal ofConsumerResearch, 17 (Septem
7(4), 371-394. ber), 215-222.
-,-, and Dale W. Russell (2005), "Vulnerable Zillmann, Dolf (1999), "Exemplification Theory: Judging
Women on Screen and atHome: Soap Opera Consumption," theWhole by Some of Its Parts," Media Psychology,1 (1),
Journal ofMacromarketing, 25 (2), 222-225. 69-94.


Balasubramanian2006 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Balasubramanian2006 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Audience Response to Product Placements: An Integrative Framework and Future Research

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

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

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

early1930s, theirgrowthwas sporadicand uncertain-two Althoughproductplacementshave registeredimpressive

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

Execution Factors (Stimuli-based)

FRAMEWORK AND RESEARCH PROPOSITIONS Table 4 documentsand integrates thisand otherdissocia

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

co O '-- C) (1) ((1.

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

~~~~~~U .2. CUC

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

Proposition Ia: Interaction:

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

la and le Central processing/mood-thematic Program-induced increases

thisreason,most ofourpropositionsdo not addressall three EXECUTION (SETTING) VARIABLES

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

of brand-relevant information provided,and strengthof as affectivequalityofa recently viewedfilmevokedifferent levels

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

on attitudinaloutcomes more readilythanads.An interaction ments,and (2) sponsors' toplan inadvancefor

Advances indigital technologiesfacilitateflexibleexecution Opportunity toProcess thePlacement

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

thatKrugman (1965) suggestslow-involvement ads work, attributesarepositiveand simple,andwhen theyhelpviewers

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

participantswho viewedWayne's Worldin itsentirety, reported oncedeemed"commercial-free." SurveysofyoungAmericans

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

Overall, thepurposeofTable 4 is to emphasizethat the reported case,BMW generated greatsalessuccessfromplacing

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

Notes:Aad= attitudetowardthead; Aplacement

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

Key topics Research questions

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

Comparative studies Compare placementswith other typesofmessages (e.g.,ads).

Supply-sideperspective What processes, assumptions,and goals do creativepersonnel use to combine

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

ropean Advances in Consumer Research, vol. 4, Bernard Dubois,

Placement Efficiency," in The Psychology ofEntertainment

-, and-(1996b), "Advertising via the Box Office? Research, 29 (5), 503-536.

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

"Using Drama to Persuade,"

Producers," Brandweek (November 14), 8. (2000), "Viewers' Evaluations in

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

"Setting theMood: Soap Opera Settings and Fashions," in Research, 357-362.

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

This content downloaded on Sat, 16 Feb 2013 09:41:18 AM

You might also like