Effects of Television

Brand Placement on
Brand Image
Eva A. van Reijmersdal, Peter C. Neijens, and Edith G. Smit
University of Amsterdam

ABSTRACT

A survey as well as an experiment was conducted to study the effects

of television brand placement on brand image. The studies showed
that the integration of a brand into the editorial content of a pro-
gram had a significant effect on brand image: As people watched
more episodes, the brand image became more in agreement with the
program image. These results confirm the applicability of learning
and human associative memory theories to brand placement.
Another important finding is that brand memory and brand image
were not related. Thus, brand image became more positive regard-
less of viewers’ memory of the brand placements, which implies that
brand image was implicitly affected. This has important theoretical
implications for the understanding of the working of brand place-
ment. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Brand placement, the intentional incorporation of a brand into editorial

content, is a fast-growing practice in today’s television programming
(Law & Braun, 2000). It is even predicted that within three or four
television seasons, as much as 75 percent of all prime time scripted shows
on U.S. television will include some element of brand placement (Consoli,
2004). Brand placement offers advertisers a potentially successful alter-
native to traditional advertising because the advertiser’s message is inte-
grated within the editorial content, which avoids the problem of consumers
avoiding commercials (Roehm, Roehm, & Boone, 2004). Furthermore, the

Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 24(5): 403–420 (May 2007)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com)
© 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20166
403
brands are placed in advantageous, natural, and credible contexts that
offer advertisers a unique opportunity to add favorable associations to
their brands (Karrh, 1998).
Although a considerable number of studies on brand placement have
been conducted, the effects on brand image remained unstudied. This is
very surprising, because image change is often mentioned as one of the
benefits of brand placement for advertisers (DeLorme & Reid, 1999;
Karrh, 1998). Knowledge of the effects on brand image is not only use-
ful for advertisers but also is needed to build a theoretical framework of
the working of brand placement. The hypotheses in the present research
are based on both psychological and advertising theories, which explain
the mechanisms that underlie effects of mixing advertising with edito-
rial content. Thus, the present study focused on brand image and seeks
to explain possible effects by human associative memory theory.
Another important variable in the effects of persuasive messages is
repetition (Krugman, 1972; Zajonc, 1968, 2001; Zielske, 1959). Because
brand placements are forms of persuasive messages, repetition is likely
to play a role in placement effects as well. No studies, however, have
focused on the effects of frequency of exposure to brand placements. There-
fore, exposure frequency was also examined. In sum, the effects of repeated
exposure to brand placement on brand image were studied.

LITERATURE ON BRAND IMAGE

Effects of brand placement on brand image, the perceptions of a brand

as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory (Keller,
1993, p. 3), are still unstudied. To make predictions about the effects of
brand placement on brand image, the literature on two other effects was
studied, namely, of brand placement on brand attitude and of sponsor-
ship on brand image. First, brand attitudes—overall positive or nega-
tive evaluations of brands—and brand images can both be classified
as brand associations (Keller, 1993); therefore, studies into the effects on
brand attitude indicate the effects that brand placement might have
on brand image. With respect to the findings on brand attitudes, two
studies found positive effects (Russell, 2002; Weaver & Oliver, 2000).
They showed that associations with the editorial content could be trans-
ferred to the integrated brands. In her experiment on brand placements
in television series, Russell (2002) found that confrontation with brand
placements that were mentioned and connected to the plot or placements
that were visual and not connected to the plot resulted in positive brand
attitude change. In their experiment on effectiveness of brand place-
ments within the sitcom Seinfeld, Weaver and Oliver (2000) found that
participants with a positive attitude toward the program had more favor-
able attitudes toward a brand that was prominently placed than people
with less favorable attitudes toward the program. However, Vollmers
(1995) showed that exposure to a fragment of the movie Lassie did not
404 REIJMERSDAL, NEIJENS, AND SMIT
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
affect children’s attitudes toward the embedded brands. Several exper-
iments conducted by Stuart, Shimp, and Engle (1987) showed that pair-
ing brands with positively valenced pictures resulted in specific brand
attitude change. The evaluation of the pictures influenced the evaluation
of the brands.
Second, effects on brand image have been studied in research on spon-
sorship. Comparable effects may hold for brand placement. Therefore,
the literature on sponsorship was examined. In an experiment in which
they used advertisements for sponsored sports events, Gwinner and
Eaton (1999) showed that the image of the event transferred to the image
of the brand. D’Astous and Bitz (1995) found a positive effect of event
sponsoring on perceived improvement of the sponsor’s image, with respon-
dents saying they thought a certain sponsorship would improve the spon-
sor’s image. In focus groups, Meenaghan (2001a; 2001b) also found that
specific image aspects of the event were transferred to the sponsor,
depending on the type of sponsorship. Javalgi, Traylor, Gross, and Lamp-
mann (1994) did not show uniform positive results: Event sponsorship
enhanced a company’s image if the sponsor had a positive image before
the sponsorship, but degraded it if the sponsor image was negative prior
to the sponsoring.
These effects on brand image can be explained by the human associa-
tive memory (HAM) theory of Anderson and Bauer (1973; Van Osselaer &
Janiszewski, 2001). This theory focuses on changes in specific associations
and evaluations. HAM theory states that associations are connected to
each other through networks. Associations are strengthened when two
stimuli are presented together. This results in a learning process in which
specific associations, such as product benefits (tasty or healthy), are
connected to brands. In the case of brand placement, the brand and the
program are the stimuli that are paired, and subsequently the associa-
tions with the program and the brand become linked in the brain
(Russell, 1998). HAM theory states that repetition is needed for the link
between the associations to establish (Van Osselaer & Janiszewski, 2001).
Repeated exposure to the brand and the program in an integrated for-
mat might, therefore, affect brand image. The following hypothesis was
formulated:

H1: (Repeated) exposure to brand placements in a television program

leads to brand images that reflect the image of the program.

Although exposure is expected to influence brand image, it is unknown

whether memory of the exposure is needed for the effect to occur. As the
brand is integrated into the editorial content, brand placement is consid-
ered to be a subtle form of advertising that might affect the viewer via
implicit processing. Studies by both Law and Braun (2000; 2004) and Auty
and Lewis (2004a; 2004b) showed that effects of brand placement could be
established without memory of the placement. Law and Braun (2000)
demonstrated that people could not remember having seen certain brands

BRAND PLACEMENT EFFECTS 405

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
in a television show, but they did prefer these brands in implicit choice
tests. Especially the more subtle placements influenced brand choice, even
though they were least recalled. In an experiment with children, Auty and
Lewis (2004b) also showed that brand preference was influenced by
repeated exposure to brand placements, regardless of recall of the
placement. These studies show that effects on brand choice are not medi-
ated by brand memory and that both implicit and explicit learning are
affected by brand placements. Implicit learning, on the one hand, refers
to situations in which people learn without consciously remembering
the learning situation (Krishnan & Shapiro, 1996; Schacter, 1987); for
example, they do not recall or recognize the brand as being placed in the
program. Explicit learning, on the other hand, occurs when people are aware
of the learning situation and memorize that situation. As the effects on
brand image have not been studied before, it is unknown whether mem-
ory is needed for these effects to occur or not. Therefore, the following
research proposition was formulated:

RP1: Brand memory is not related to brand image.

STUDY DESIGN

Two studies, a survey and an experiment, were conducted to examine

the effects of exposure frequency on brand image and to investigate the
role of memory. Both studies focused on effects of brand placement in an
informational television program named Je Echte Leeftijd ( Your Real
Age), in which a number of advertisers participated. All advertisers were
linked to health, the main theme of the program. The present research
focused on Slim-Fast (meal replacements), because this was the only
brand that appeared in four episodes and because the brand was inte-
grated into the editorial content. The program included reports created
around the brand in which a dietician working for Slim-Fast explained
how to lose weight by using Slim-Fast meal replacements.

STUDY 1: SURVEY

Method
Respondents. Respondents were encouraged to visit the survey Web
pages by posting links on the official Web site of the program and two
Web sites of the University of Amsterdam. A total of 655 respondents
completed (part of) the online questionnaire, of which 50.9% were non-
viewers and 49.1% were viewers of the program. Mean age was 33, and
74.8% of the respondents were female, which is a reflection of the view-
ers. A total of 44.2% of the respondents had a college degree or higher.

406 REIJMERSDAL, NEIJENS, AND SMIT

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
As the questionnaire was available only online, respondents that did
not have access to the Internet were not included in the sample. How-
ever, this is not a serious problem because 83% of the Dutch population
has access to the Internet (CBS, 2006) and because the television pro-
gram is built around an online test.

Materials
The program Je Echte Leeftijd ( Your Real Age) was broadcast on the
Dutch commercial channel RTL4. The program focused on people’s “real
age,” which is based on their medical history, relationships, nutrition,
and on the internal and external care of their bodies. During the pro-
gram, viewers were encouraged to visit the program’s Web site and have
their real ages calculated by filling out a questionnaire about their
lifestyle. In each of the seven episodes, two celebrities were present in the
studio who talked about their lifestyle and what they did to keep their
bodies young. The celebrities did not endorse the branded products. Each
episode also included special reports on general issues such as sports or
cholesterol levels.

Measures
To measure the presence of the brand placements, a content analysis was
performed. Two trained coders analyzed all episodes and coded brand
names, length in seconds, and modality (visual, audio or audiovisual,
and used or not). Inter-coder reliability was perfect for the vast major-
ity (80%) of the variables that were coded (Cohen’s Kappa ⫽ 1.00) and
good for the other 20% of the variables (Cohen’s Kappa ⬎ .78). Pearson’s
correlation coefficient showed that the coding of duration in seconds
was very reliable (Pearson’s r ⫽ .97, p ⬍ .001). In case of disagree-
ment, discussions between the coders led to perfect agreement on all
variables. Table A1 in the appendix presents the characteristics of the
placements.

Exposure Frequency. Exposure frequency was measured by asking

respondents to indicate which particular episodes they had watched.
To facilitate respondents’ recollection, the answer options included the date
on which the episode was broadcast and the guests that were present in
that episode. The content analysis showed in which episode Slim-Fast
appeared and, therefore, the exposure frequency for each respondent
could be determined. Exposure frequency was not normally distributed
(Skewness ⬎ 1; Kurtosis ⬎ 3), thus exposure had to be divided in three cate-
gories to conduct the analyses. The new categories were “zero,” meaning
no episodes seen, “one,” and “two or more” episodes seen (Skewness ⫽
1.32; Kurtosis ⫽ .475).

BRAND PLACEMENT EFFECTS 407

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Brand Memory. Based on previous research, recognition was measured
by asking people to mark the brand they had seen in the program, using
a list of brands of which some appeared in the program and some did
not (Gupta & Lord, 1998; Russell, 2002). The recognition rate was 16.3%.

Brand and Program Image. Brand image was measured on a scale

ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree), with three statements
“I think Slim-Fast is . . .” each completed with a different attribute, namely
“healthy,” “fit,” and “energetic.” These attributes were based on the objec-
tives of the advertiser with respect to brand image and on the program
concept as formulated by the producers. Principal component analysis
with varimax rotation showed that these image items all loaded on one
factor (EV ⫽ 2.48; R2 ⫽ .83; Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .89). Mean scores for
this factor, named “vigorous,” were used in the analyses. Program image
was measured in exactly the same way using the statement “I think Your
Real Age is . . .” Principal component analyses with varimax rotation,
showed that these image items all loaded on one factor as well (EV ⫽ 2.10;
R2 ⫽ .70; Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .78). As intended by the producers, the pro-
gram was perceived as vigorous (M ⫽ 3.48, SD ⫽ .72). Because 77.5% of
the respondents scored between 3 and 4 on the scale, the program image
was considered to be a constant.

Background Variables. Some background variables that might explain

effects of exposure frequency were included in the research. First, respon-
dents were asked to answer questions about their age, level of educa-
tion, and gender. Research has shown that women, young people, and
lower-educated viewers watch more programs in which brand placement
appears than men, older people, and higher-educated viewers (Neijens &
Smit, 2003). DeLorme and Reid (1999) also found that age had a nega-
tive effect on the appreciation of brand placement. Thus, people who are
frequently exposed to brand placement might differ with respect to age,
gender, or level of education, which could account for effects on brand
image or brand memory.
Attitude toward brand placement was measured by asking respon-
dents to indicate their overall attitude toward brand placement within
the program on a scale ranging from 1 (very negative) to 5 (very positive)
(M ⫽ 2.83, SD ⫽ .83). Gupta and Gould (1997) found that the frequency
of seeing movies was related to attitudes toward the acceptability of
brand placement. Neijens and Smit (2003) also showed that frequent
viewers of programs that include brand placement exhibited more positive
beliefs and more positive attitudes toward brand placement. Thus, atti-
tude toward brand placement could be related to exposure frequency
and attitude toward brand placement might also affect brand image and
should therefore be controlled for. Furthermore, brand use was measured,
as brand image is strongly influenced by a person’s usage and own expe-
riences with a brand (Castleberry & Ehrenberg, 1990). How often people
408 REIJMERSDAL, NEIJENS, AND SMIT
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
watch episodes including placements for a particular brand may be
related to brand use; therefore, this variable was controlled for. Brand use
was measured by the question “How often do you use Slim-Fast?” on a
scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (daily) (M ⫽ 1.29, SD ⫽ .92).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Brand Image
To test H1, GLM univariate analysis with the image factor “vigorous”
as dependent variable and exposure as a fixed factor was conducted.
There was a significant main effect of exposure frequency on brand image.
As predicted, the brand image of people who watched more than two
episodes of the program was more in agreement with the program image
(M ⫽ 3.48, SD ⫽ .72). Table 1 shows that the image of Slim-Fast is more
vigorous for viewers who watched two or more episodes than for non-
viewers. Thus, effects on brand image occurred after two or more exposures.

Relation Between Brand Memory and Brand Image

To investigate RP1, GLM univariate analysis, with brand image as
dependent variable and memory as a fixed factor, was conducted. As
expected, based on previous research, there was no effect of brand memory
on brand image. Thus, respondents that recognized Slim-Fast as a brand
they had seen in the program did not have different images of this
brand than respondents that did not recognize it. This means that brand
memory did not play a role in the effects on brand image.

Controlling for Alternative Explanations

To control for alternative explanations, the relationships between expo-
sure frequency and attitude toward brand placement, brand use, age,
education, and gender were examined. There were no significant relation-
ships between exposure frequency and these variables, meaning that the
effect of exposure frequency on brand image cannot be explained by these
control variables.

Table 1. Means for Brand Image after Different Exposure Frequencies.

Exposure

Zero One Two⫹ F

Vigorous
Slim-Fast 2.44a (.88) 2.48ab (.78) 2.80b (.87) F(1, 473) ⫽ 3.92*
Note: Standard deviations between parentheses; *p ⬍ .05; means with a different superscript in the
same row differ significantly at the .05 level in Tukey post hoc test; Two⫹ means exposure to two or
more episodes.

BRAND PLACEMENT EFFECTS 409

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 In conclusion, the results showed that brand placement had an effect
on brand image: People who had watched two or more episodes perceived
Slim-Fast as more vigorous than people who had watched zero episodes
or one episode. This effect held when controlled for age, level of educa-
tion, gender, attitude toward brand placement, and brand use. Further-
more, the present study gave insight into the role of memory in the effects
on brand image. Memory was not related to brand image. So, without
consciously remembering having seen the brand placements, exposure to
the brand placements did affect brand image.
The natural viewing situation (unforced exposure and no anticipation
of the research activities) is a major advantage of the survey design with
respect to the external validity. The survey design, however, leaves three
questions unanswered. First, the nature of the study did not allow a pre-
measure, which could have given more insight into the process of image
change as a consequence of exposure to brand placement. Second, the
natural viewing situation made it impossible to measure the exact expo-
sure duration in an unobtrusive and valid way. Third, it could be that
the effect on “vigorous” reflects changes in the favorable evaluation of the
brand regardless of the program image. Thus, it is possible that the view-
ers’ brand evaluations became more positive because they were con-
fronted with the brand, regardless of the context in which this happened.
This would mean that associations that were not related to the program
might have changed as well. To overcome the limitations of the survey
design and to study the role of the program image, an experiment was
designed.

STUDY 2: EXPERIMENT

The second study had three main purposes. The first purpose was to
replicate the results of the survey while controlling for viewing motives
that might affect exposure frequency, such as interest in health issues.
Therefore, respondents were randomly assigned to conditions in the
experiment and H1 was tested again. Second, the experiment was
designed to allow a within-subjects comparison of the effect of exposure
frequency. A pretest made it possible to measure and compare the brand
image before and after exposure and this gave insight into the causality
of effects. A control group, which was not exposed to the program, allowed
to control for influences within subjects other than the treatment. The
third purpose was to examine the effects on brand image found in Study 1
in more detail. The change in brand image might reflect an overall pos-
itive change in brand evaluation regardless of the context in which the
brand appeared. This reasoning is based on mere exposure theory. Vast
literature on this theory shows that repeated exposure to an object leads
to increased positive affect or reduced negative affect toward that object
(Harmon-Jones & Allen, 2001; Zajonc, 1968, 2001). These effects cannot

410 REIJMERSDAL, NEIJENS, AND SMIT

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
be explained by memory and have even proved to be more pronounced
when obtained under subliminal conditions than when subjects are aware
of the repeated exposure (Zajonc, 2001). In the survey, the exposure was
not subliminal, but the recognition rate was rather low and unrelated to
effects on brand image, which might point to mere exposure effects.
To study this alternative explanation, brand attitude was included in the
experiment. In addition, brand image aspects that were not related to
the program image were measured. If mere exposure theory explains the
effects on brand image, these components should be positively influenced
as well. To see which theory explains the effects on brand image, the
following research propositions were formulated:

RP2: (Repeated) exposure to brand placement does not affect brand

image aspects that are not related to the program image.

RP3: (Repeated) exposure to brand placement does not affect brand

attitudes.

METHOD

Materials
Three fragments of approximately 25 minutes each were selected to
manipulate exposure frequency. The fragments were natural parts of
three episodes of the program Je Echte Leeftijd (Your Real Age), and each
fragment included the same number and type of placements. These place-
ments were items of approximately four minutes in which a dietician
working for Slim-Fast explained how to lose weight by using meal replace-
ments. Table A1 in the appendix presents a description of the placements.

Respondents and Procedure

A total of 139 undergraduates of two Dutch universities participated in
the experiment in return for a gift voucher. Most respondents were female
(77.7%) and the average age was 23. Respondents were first invited via
e-mail to participate in a research on brands by filling out a question-
naire about five different brands, including Slim-Fast, which was a cover
for the pretest that measured brand image. Then the respondents were
asked whether they wanted to participate in a research masked as a study
on evaluations of television programs. Those who had signed up to par-
ticipate in the research were randomly assigned to one of four conditions:
one, two, or three exposures, or no exposures (control group).
After two weeks, CD-ROMs or videotapes with the fragments of the
program were sent to the respondents. After watching the program, they
were asked to evaluate the presenter, the guests, and the program’s topics

BRAND PLACEMENT EFFECTS 411

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
in an online questionnaire to stimulate the respondents to watch the
entire episode. After a week, the next episode or a link to an online ques-
tionnaire about the brand placements was sent to the respondents,
depending on the condition to which they were assigned. Respondents
were not informed about the real purpose of the research, and questions
about brand placements and Slim-Fast were not posed until the respon-
dents had watched all their episodes to avoid the possibility that they
would pay extra attention to the brands in the program. The control
group was asked to fill out a questionnaire about Slim-Fast after three
weeks. In the weeks before, they filled out fake questionnaires about
other television programs and about financial services. Thus, each group
had to fill out one questionnaire every week, and depending on the con-
dition, they had to watch one, two, or three episodes of the program, one
each week.

Measures
Control Measures. The respondents were explicitly told that it was
important to watch the entire episode, and after each episode they were
asked to indicate how much of the particular episode they had watched
on a scale ranging from 1 (almost nothing) to 5 (everything) (M ⫽ 4.83,
SD ⫽ .42). They were also asked how attentively they had watched the
program on a scale ranging from 1 (absolutely not attentive) to 5 (very
attentive) (M ⫽ 3.89, SD ⫽ .51). Two respondents were excluded from
the analyses because they had watched less than half an episode.

Brand Measures. Brand recognition was measured as in Study 1.

Respondents were asked to indicate their overall attitude toward the
brand on a scale ranging from 1 (very negative) to 5 (very positive). Brand
image was measured in both the pre- and posttests with the same three
items as in Study 1. To see if these items loaded on the same factor as in
the survey, a principle component analysis was conducted. This analysis
yielded one factor “vigorous” that proved to be reliable (Pretest, EV ⫽
1.94; R2 ⫽ .65; Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .73; Posttest EV ⫽ 2.05; R2 ⫽ .68;
Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .75). Two extra attributes, namely “proud” and “unre-
liable,” were added to examine whether aspects that did not directly cor-
respond to the program image were influenced as well. To test the effect
on brand image, the scores on the separate items “energetic,” “healthy,”
“fit,” “proud,” and “unreliable” were included in the analyses.

Program Measures. Program image was measured using the same

attributes as used for brand image. As expected, the program was per-
ceived as energetic (M ⫽ 3.43, SD ⫽ .90), healthy (M ⫽ 3.82, SD ⫽ .82),
and fit (M ⫽ 3.70, SD ⫽ .86). These items all loaded on one factor that
proved to be reliable (EV ⫽ 2.01; R2 ⫽ .67; Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .74;
M ⫽ 3.65, SD ⫽ .70). As expected, the program was not perceived as

412 REIJMERSDAL, NEIJENS, AND SMIT

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
proud (M ⫽ 2.85, SD ⫽ .83) or unreliable (M ⫽ 2.43, SD ⫽ .83). Respondents
were asked to indicate their overall attitude toward the program on a scale
ranging from 1 (very negative) to 5 (very positive) (M ⫽ 3.22; SD ⫽ .83).

Background Variables. Brand use (M ⫽ 1.31; SD ⫽ .74), attitude toward

brand placement (M ⫽ 3.08; SD ⫽ .69), gender, and age were measured
as in Study 1. Involvement with personal health was measured using
four items. The first item, “I am interested in health,” measured on a
scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), is based on
the enduring involvement index that Bloch, Sherrell and Ridgeway (1986)
developed for products. Three more statements were added to measure
involvement with personal health: “I am interested in articles on health,”
“I am interested in television programs on health,” and “My health is
important to me.” These items were also measured on a scale ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). One “Interest in Health” vari-
able was constructed by computing the means on these items, after prin-
ciple component analysis yielded one factor that proved to be reliable
(EV ⫽ 2.35; R2 ⫽ .59; Cronbach’s alpha ⫽ .75; M ⫽ 3.82, SD ⫽ .59).

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Randomization and Test Effects

The control and experimental groups did not differ from each other with
respect to gender, age, brand use, attitude toward brand placement, and
interest in health ( p ⬎ .05). This means that differences between the
groups regarding brand image, brand attitude, or brand recognition can-
not be caused by differences in these background variables. With respect
to the effect variables brand image, brand attitude, and brand use, the
control group, which was not exposed to the program, did not show
significant differences between pretest and posttest ( p ⬎ .05). Thus, any
differences between pretest and posttest in the experimental groups are
a result of watching the program.

Brand Image
To examine the effect of exposure on brand image, GLM repeated meas-
ures analysis with pre-measure versus post-measure as within-subjects
variable, exposure frequency as between-subjects factor, and the image
items as dependent variables was conducted. As H1 predicted, this analy-
sis showed a main effect of exposure to brand placement on “healthy.”
Mean scores and F ratios of the univariate main effects on brand image
are presented in Table 2. After exposure to the program, the scores on
brand image became more in agreement with the scores on program
image (M ⫽ 3.82, SD ⫽ .82): The brand was seen as more healthy. Thus,

BRAND PLACEMENT EFFECTS 413

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 Table 2. Means for the Brand Image and Brand
Attitude in Pre- and Post-Measures.

Measure

Pre- Post- F(1, 82)

Healthy 2.62 (.98) 2.83 (.87) 4.49*

Fit 2.86 (.94) 2.87 (.81) .01
Energetic 2.73 (.81) 2.68 (.86) .16
Proud 2.61 (.79) 2.48 (.88) 1.95
Unreliable 3.07 (.72) 3.06 (.91) .01
Brand attitude 2.52 (.77) 2.53 (.73) .02
Note: Standard deviations between parentheses; *p ⬍ .05.

H1 is supported. This effect occurred after one exposure. There was no

interaction effect between pre- versus post-measures and frequency,
which means that one exposure was enough to change brand image. With
respect to RP2, the analysis showed that the image components that did
not correspond to the program image were not affected. As expected
based on HAM theory, only the specific image aspect that was related to
the program image was influenced.
To examine RP3, GLM repeated measures analysis was conducted
with the pre-measure versus the post-measure of brand attitude as
within-subjects variable and exposure frequency as a factor. This analy-
sis showed no effect of exposure or exposure frequency on brand atti-
tudes (see Table 2). Thus, the alternative explanation provided by mere
exposure theory does not hold: Specific image aspects were influenced as
predicted by H1, instead of overall positive brand evaluations.

Effects of Brand Memory on Image

With respect to memory, the results showed that Slim-Fast was recognized
by 42.5% of the respondents who saw the program. To examine RP1,
GLM repeated measures analyses were conducted with pre-measures
versus post-measures of brand image items as within-subjects variable
and recognition as a factor. As proposed, there were no main effects or
interaction effects. Thus, the effect on brand image was not mediated
by brand memory: Recognition did not lead to a more positive or nega-
tive brand image. There were also no effects of brand memory on brand
attitude.
In conclusion, the experiment showed that exposure to brand placement
affects specific program-related image aspects: Slim-Fast was seen as
healthier after exposure, while other image aspects and brand attitude
were not affected. These results show that mere exposure does not explain
the effects on brand image. The brand image changed in the direction of the
program image. Finally, the experiment showed that memory did not
affect brand image or brand attitude. Thus, regardless of memory of the
placements brand image changed.
414 REIJMERSDAL, NEIJENS, AND SMIT
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
GENERAL CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

The aim of these studies was to get insight into the effects of exposure
to brand placements in television programs on brand image and to gain
insight into the processes that underlie these effects. Furthermore, the
relationship between memory and brand image was examined.
An important finding from both studies is that brand placement affects
brand image. The present studies showed that the brand image changed
in the direction of the program. As effects on brand image have not been
studied before, this adds significant knowledge to the working of brand
placement. These findings build on the results found in sponsorship
research: Not only does pairing a brand with an event affect brand image,
but placing a brand within a television program does so as well. The
survey showed that exposure frequency is an important variable in affect-
ing the brand image. Two or more exposures were needed to change
brand image. This implies that there is a threshold for affecting images
in natural viewing situations. The experiment did not show effects of
exposure frequency: The exposure per se was enough to influence brand
image. Higher attention levels in the experiment might explain this
difference between the experiment and the survey. As opposed to the
survey, the respondents were asked to watch the episodes attentively in
the experiment.
The study also showed that image components that were not associated
with the program were not affected, and neither was brand attitude. Thus,
the pairing of the brand with the program had effects that could not be
explained by a general liking of the brand, as might be expected based on
mere exposure theory (Zajonc, 1968, 2001). This means that placing a
brand in a television program can result in very specific image change. The
program image is the determinant of the effects on the brand image.
The relationship between memory and image was examined in both
studies. The research showed that memory was not related to brand
image. Thus, respondents who remembered seeing the brand did not have
a different image of that brand than respondents who could not remem-
ber seeing the brand. These results are in line with those of Law and
Braun (2000) and Auty and Lewis (2004a; 2004b), who showed that brand
placement effects on brand choice were unrelated to memory. The results
also indicate that brand image is influenced implicitly, which means that
image is influenced without explicit memory of the exposure. Many stud-
ies into the working of implicit and explicit memory have shown that
these two types of memory are unrelated (for an overview, see Schacter,
1987). These findings have some important implications for the knowl-
edge of brand placements. They support the idea that brand image and
brand memory are processed differently. This is in agreement with the
evolving view that different measures are needed to estimate effects of
brand placements (Law & Braun, 2000). Future research may provide
more insight into the effects of brand placement on both implicit and
explicit memory.
BRAND PLACEMENT EFFECTS 415
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 Although the present studies showed effects of brand placements that
have not been shown before, caution has to be exercised in generalizing
these results to all brand placements for three reasons. First, the stud-
ies focused on one brand with specific characteristics. Future research is
needed to see if the effects found on brand image also occur for other
products and which brand characteristics might play a role in these
effects.
Second, as mentioned before, Slim-Fast was highly integrated into the
“story” of the program. The brand was not just prominently placed in
the studio, but it was subtly integrated into the editorial content of the
program. Integration of brands, as opposed to placement of brands, is
becoming more and more popular (Wenner, 2004), as advertisers demand
more influence over the portrayal of their brands. The present research
showed that integration into editorial content affects brand image. The
nature of the placements might also explain why no effects on brand
attitude were found while Weaver and Oliver (2000) did find such effects;
their effects on brand attitude held for prominently placed brands, not
for subtly placed ones. Russell (2002) found effects of brands that were
mentioned and connected to the plot and of brands that were visually por-
trayed and not connected to the plot. She did not show effects on brand
attitudes of brands that were highly integrated and visually portrayed.
The placements in the present study were highly integrated, visual
and subtle. Thus, the fact that the present study did not find effects on
brand attitude is in line with the results of both Weaver and Oliver (2000)
and Russell (2002). Further research on brand integration is needed to
fully understand its effects. Future research may also show if and how
different levels of integration affect brand image and brand attitudes.
Third, the present studies focused on a brand in one context that
was perceived as healthy. Research on context effects on advertising
and on mixtures of advertising and editorial content in print has shown
that different contexts have different effects on attitudes toward adver-
tising and toward brand placement (Moorman, Neijens, & Smit, 2005;
Van Reijmersdal, Neijens, & Smit, 2005). Future research might give
more insight into the effects of placing the same brand in different con-
texts.1 For example, a brand placement could be incorporated into a
program that is perceived as very healthy and the same placement could
be incorporated in a program that is perceived as unhealthy to compare
effects of these different contexts.
The effects on brand image that were found in the present studies
might extend to the product category of meal replacements: The per-
suasive nature of the program might have changed not only the image
of the placed brand but also viewers’ image of meal replacements in gen-
eral. Future research might shed light on the scope of the effects of brand
placement on the product categories to which the placed brands belong.

1
The authors thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion for future research.

416 REIJMERSDAL, NEIJENS, AND SMIT

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Moreover, other brands in the same product category might benefit from
the portrayal of Slim-Fast in the program as well. Therefore, future
research might show possible effects of brand placement on other brands
in the same product category.2
Even though the effects on brand image do not offer new insights to
learning theories, they do suggest a new area to which these theories
are applicable. The results indicate that HAM and learning theory apply
to brand placement. As expected, based on HAM theory (Anderson &
Bower, 1973), the evaluation of the program affected the evaluation of the
brand: The brand image became more like the program image. The asso-
ciation between the brand and the program became stronger when people
were exposed to the brand within the program more than once.
The effects on brand image found in this study are promising because
the creation of images is a long-term process. The research showed that
exposure to brand placement, even only three times in a real-life setting
and one time in an experimental setting, was able to change the brand
image into the direction of the program. Repeated brand placements are
recommended when the advertiser’s objective is brand image change.
Brand placement seems to be an effective marketing communication
tool for influencing brand images. Previous research has already demon-
strated that brand placement influences brand memory and brand atti-
tudes; additionally, the present research showed that frequency of
exposure to brand placements also affects brand image. Brand place-
ment offers advertisers a successful alternative to traditional advertis-
ing in these times of overload and advertising avoidance. The present
research showed that the program image played an important role in
the changes in brand image, implying that advertisers should make a
well-defined choice for a program that conveys the desired image before
they decide to get involved.

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. R., & Bower, G. H. (1973). Human associative memory. New York:
Halstead.
Auty, S., & Lewis, C. (2004a). The “delicious paradox”: Preconscious processing
of product placement by children. In L. J. Shrum (Ed.), The psychology of
entertainment media: Blurring the lines between entertainment and persuasion
(pp. 117–133). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Auty, S., & Lewis, C. (2004b). Exploring children’s choice: The reminder effect op
product placement. Psychology & Marketing, 21, 697–713.
Bloch, P. H., Sherrell, D. L., & Ridgeway, N. M. (1986). Consumer search: An
extended framework. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 119–126.
Castleberry, S. B., & Ehrenberg, A. S. C. (1990). Brand usage: A factor in consumer
beliefs. Marketing Research, 2, 14–20.

2
The authors thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion for future research.

BRAND PLACEMENT EFFECTS 417

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
CBS. (2006). E-mail en chatten populairste internetactiviteiten [e-mail and chat
most popular on the Internet]. Retrieved March 6 2006, from http://www.
cbs.nl/nr/exeres/5D629109-4E7F-48E1-A2A5-CD3CD88EFFD1.htm
Consoli, J. (2004). Product placement put in the game. Mediaweek, 14, 4–5.
D’Astous, A., & Bitz, P. (1995). Consumer evaluations of sponsorship programmes.
European Journal of Marketing, 29, 6–17.
DeLorme, D. E., & Reid, L. N. (1999). Moviegoers’ experiences and interpreta-
tions of brands in films revisited. Journal of Advertising, 28, 71–95.
Gupta, P. B., & Gould, S. J. (1997). Consumers’ perceptions of the ethics and
acceptability of product placements in movies: Product category and individ-
ual differences. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 19,
37–50.
Gupta, P. B., & Lord, K. R. (1998). Product placements in movies: The effect of
prominence and mode on audience recall. Journal of Current Issues and
Research in Advertising, 20, 47–59.
Gwinner, K., & Eaton, J. (1999). Building brand image through event sponsor-
ship: The role of image transfer. Journal of Advertising, 28, 47–59.
Harmon-Jones, E., & Allen, J. J. B. (2001). The role of affect in the mere expo-
sure effect: Evidence from psychophysiological and individual differences
approaches. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 889–898.
Javalgi, R. G., Traylor, M. B., Gross, A. C., & Lampman, E. (1994). Awareness
of sponsorship and corporate image: An empirical investigation. Journal of
Advertising, 23, 47–58.
Karrh, J. A. (1998). Brand placements: A review. Journal of Current Issues and
Research in Advertising, 20, 31–49.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based
brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 75, 1–22.
Krishnan, H. S., & Shapiro, S. (1996). Comparing implicit and explicit memory
for brand names from advertising. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Applied, 2, 147–163.
Krugman, H. E. (1972). Why three exposures may be enough. Journal of Adver-
tising Research, 12, 11–14.
Law, S., & Braun, K. A. (2000). I’ll have what she’s having: Gauging the
impact of product placements on viewers. Psychology & Marketing, 17,
1059–1075.
Law, S., & Braun, K. A. (2004). Product placements: How to measure their impact?
In L. J. Shrum (Ed.), The psychology of entertainment media: Blurring the lines
between entertainment and persuasion (pp. 63–78). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Meenaghan, T. (2001a). Sponsorship and advertising: a comparison of consumer
perceptions. Psychology & Marketing, 18, 191–215.
Meenaghan, T. (2001b). Understanding sponsorship effects. Psychology &
Marketing, 18, 95–122.
Moorman, M., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2005). The effects of program responses
on the processing of commercials placed at various positions in the program
and the block. Journal of Advertising Research (March), 49–59.
Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2003). Audience reactions towards non-spot adver-
tising: Influence of viewer and program characteristics. In F. Hansen &
L. B. Christensen (Eds.), Branding and advertising (pp. 266–283). Copenhagen:
Copenhagen Business School Press.

418 REIJMERSDAL, NEIJENS, AND SMIT

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Roehm, M. L., Roehm, H. A. J., & Boone, D. S. (2004). Plugs versus placements:
A comparison of alternatives for within-program brand exposure. Psychology &
Marketing, 21, 17–28.
Russell, C. A. (1998). Toward a framework of product placement: Theoretical
propositions. Advances in Consumer Research, 25, 357–362.
Russell, C. A. (2002). Investigating the effectiveness of product placements in
television shows: The role of modality and plot connection congruence on
brand memory and attitude. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 306–318.
Schacter, D. L. (1987). Implicit memory: History and current status. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 501–518.
Stuart, E. W., Shimp, T. A., & Engle, R. W. (1987). Classical conditioning of con-
sumer attitudes: Four experiments in an advertising context. Journal of
Consumer Research, 14, 334–349.
Van Osselaer, S. M. J., & Janiszewski, C. (2001). Two ways of learning brand
associations. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 202–223.
Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2005). Readers’ reactions
to mixtures of advertising and editorial content in magazines. Journal of
Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 27, 39–53.
Vollmers, S. M. (1995). The impact on children of brand and product placements
in films. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University, U.S.
Weaver, D. T., & Oliver, M. B. (2000). Television programs and advertising:
Measuring the effectiveness of product placements within Seinfeld. Paper
presented at the Annual Conference of the International Communication
Association, Acapulco, Mexico.
Wenner, L. A. (2004). On the ethics of product placement in media entertainment.
Journal of Promotion Management, 10, 101–132.
Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposures. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 9, 1–27.
Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Direc-
tions in Psychological Science, 10, 224–228.
Zielske, H. A. (1959). The remembering and forgetting of advertising. Journal of
Marketing, 23, 239–243.

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their
very useful comments on previous versions of this article. They also thank Cristel
Russell for her remarks on a previous version of the article. The authors are
grateful to Advance Interactive and IdtV for placing a link to the survey on the
program’s Web site.

Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Eva A. Reijmersdal,

Assistant Professor in the Amsterdam School of Communications Research Uni-
versity of Amsterdam, The Netherlands (E.A.vanReijmersdal@uva.nl).

BRAND PLACEMENT EFFECTS 419

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
APPENDIX

Table A1. Brand Placements of Slim-Fast.

Brand Name
Episode Length or Product Modality Description

2 120* Brand name Visual A dietician working for Slim-

5 180*
6 180*
7 300
Note: Placements marked with an asterisk (*) were also used in the experiment.
(7 seconds) Fast talks about the advan-
tages of losing weight by
eating meal replacements
(no need to skip meals).
Brand name Visual A dietician working for Slim-
(8 seconds) Fast tells that by consuming
two meal replacements, you
get all necessary ingredients
to stay healthy but still lose
weight.
Brand name Visual A dietician working for Slim-
(3 seconds) Fast tells about consuming
meal replacements as a
healthy way of losing weight.
Product Visual Report on eating healthy
and used shows a group of friends eat-
ing Slim-Fast bars. A dieti-
cian working for Slim-Fast
tells about losing weight by
using meal replacements.

420 REIJMERSDAL, NEIJENS, AND SMIT

Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar