The Behavioral Effects of Negative

Product Placements in Movies

Ignacio Redondo
Universidad Autónoma de Madrid

ABSTRACT

No previous studies have examined how negative brand placements influence consumer behavior.
According to this study’s theoretical framework and empirical results, the effectiveness of these
placements varies with the type of negativity—that is, either intrinsically or extrinsically connected
to the brand. Based on the elaboration likelihood model, an intrinsically (extrinsically) negative
placement will be very (barely) relevant to the viewers who, having (lacking) enough motivation, will
process the information through the central (peripheral) route of persuasion. Under the central
route, a careful consideration of the intrinsically negative information will discourage the viewers
from consuming the brand, especially when they perceive the movie content as being realistic. Under
the peripheral route, the extrinsically negative information will not be strong enough to discourage
the brand users from consuming the product but will stimulate the brand nonusers to consume it,
especially when these people like the movie and have a positive attitude to advertising. The
hypothesized effects were confirmed in an experiment with 1103 moviegoers that viewed the film
Good Bye, Lenin! under natural conditions in Santiago, Chile. To isolate the influence of two brand
placements (Burger King with intrinsic negativity and Coca-Cola with extrinsic negativity), the
participants were randomly assigned to two groups, each one of which viewed the movie with only
one of the two placements (the other had been removed).  C 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

According to the director of Good Bye, Lenin!, nei-
ther Coca-Cola nor Burger King wanted to appear in
his movie given its negative context, but after some
changes to the plot were made and some monetary com-
pensation proposed, both companies ended up agreeing
to the filmmaker’s final proposal (Fernández-Santos,
2003). This case shows what little understanding of the
behavioral effects of negative placements both filmmak-
ers and advertisers had at the time. Of course, the most
common practice is that (1) brands be favorably por-
trayed in films and (2) the sponsors pay either money
or in kind to help finance the movie (Lehu, 2007, pp.
70–71). But at times scripts require brands to appear
in negative contexts that sponsors instinctively reject
for fear of having their product’s image damaged. This
was the case with Good Bye, Lenin!, whose story un-
folds in East Berlin shortly after the fall of the Berlin
Wall, a period in German history when the arrival of the
new capitalist order, symbolized by both Coca-Cola and
Burger King, was received with a mix of both enthusi-
asm and frustration. The filmmakers and advertisers
involved in this case ended up regarding the agree-
ment’s conditions as satisfactory to all parties. How-
ever, the present study suggests the reasoning behind
the deal was at least partially flawed: Coca-Cola ben-
efited from its placement, for which it had to pay the
producer, while Burger King’s image was harmed by its
placement, so it ought not to have been authorized by
the company.
Coca-Cola has also, as a result of filmmaker initia-
tives, been placed in other movies with an antibrand
role in the script. In The Gods Must Be Crazy (1980),
for example, an African tribe that is completely isolated
from the modern world comes across an empty Coca-
Cola bottle just thrown from a plane high above without
(amazingly) shattering on impact. The tribe’s members,
utterly perplexed by the sudden appearance of such a
strange object, conclude it must have been sent by the
gods. But the arrival of the bottle, which represents the
civilized world, then brings all kinds of unprecedented
social problems for the tribe (e.g., greed, envy, and vio-
lence). In Natural Born Killers (1994), a movie inspired
by real events, a couple go on a murderous rampage,
killing passers-by just for the thrill. The media enthu-
siastically devote much coverage to the exploits of these
two serial killers, turning them into heroes in the eyes
of many television viewers. These macabre television
broadcasts are interrupted by occasional commercial
breaks featuring incongruously upbeat Coca-Cola ads,
suggesting Coke is callously indifferent to the suffer-
ings of others.
In other instances, advertisers make deals on posi-
tive placements, but their brands end up being placed in
negative conditions by filmmakers. This conflict arises

Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 29(8): 622–635 (August 2012)

View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar

C 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20548

622
because advertisers want to place their brands in very
attractive conditions (as in conventional advertising),
whereas filmmakers want to place them in more re-
alistic and/or narratively coherent situations (at times
not very beneficial and perhaps even damaging to the
brand) arising naturally out of the script and/or related
production demands. For example, the pest extermina-
tion company Orkin reportedly paid $20,000 for a place-
ment in Pacific Heights (1990) and eventually sued 20th
Century Fox for breach of contract after its brand was
portrayed as ineffective in ridding a cockroach infes-
tation in the protagonists’ house (Segrave, 2004, pp.
192–193).
Regardless of how negative brand placements origi-
nate, the crucial issue involves understanding the con-
ditions under which these placements have an effect
on brand sales. Law and Brown (2000) called for re-
search on this unexplored topic, but it has still only
been dealt with in Schemer, Matthes, Wirth, and Tex-
tor’s (2008) study, which focused on the effects on con-
sumer attitudes. Therefore, the current study breaks
new ground by revealing how negative placements in-
fluence consumer behavior. According to this study’s
conclusions, a placement like that of Orkin featured in
Pacific Heights is expected to reduce brand sales be-
cause the product is placed in an intrinsically negative
way—that is, the company does not achieve the goal
for which it is contracted. By contrast, a placement like
that of Coca-Cola in The Gods Must Be Crazy is ex-
pected to increase brand sales because the negativity is
extrinsic—that is, the brand is used merely as a symbol
of the civilized world that the movie criticizes.
These conclusions are supported by both a solid theo-
retical background and strong empirical results: (1) the
theoretical background consists of an original combina-
tion of models and trends, which are widely accepted
in the fields of psychology and marketing, and (2) the
experiment’s characteristics give the results high levels
of internal and external validity. To verify true causal
relationships (internal validity), the influence of each
placement was isolated and tested using an experiment
with a control group and only a posttest measurement.
To produce generalizable results (external validity), the
experiment was conducted under natural conditions,
and the participants matched the typical demographic
profile of moviegoers.
The conclusions also have relevant theoretical and
practical implications. In relation to theory (1) the
framework of the elaboration likelihood model is very
helpful to understand the role of negativity (intrin-
sic vs. extrinsic), and (2) the perceived realism of the
movie emerges as a promising predictor of product
placement effectiveness. From a practical standpoint,
the behavioral effects observed in this experiment
may help practitioners make decisions in an industry
where product placement effectiveness is usually as-
sessed through measures of memory (Russell & Belch,
2005), despite that a placement’s recall is regarded
as uncorrelated with its behavioral effect (Law &
Braun, 2000).
NEGATIVE MOVIE PLACEMENTS’ EFFECTS
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Negative Stimuli
The literature in psychology presents a well-
documented tendency for positive and negative stim-
uli to produce asymmetric effects. Compared to posi-
tively valenced stimuli, negatively valenced stimuli of
the same type have a greater power to attract attention
(Graziano, Brothen, & Berscheid, 1980; Pratto & John,
1991), receive more extensive and elaborate cognitive
processing (Abele, 1985; Fiske, 1980), and carry more
weight in impression formation (e.g., Anderson, 1965;
Vonk, 1996).
In the domain of marketing, consumers are more
susceptible to negative information about product at-
tributes than to positive information (Ahluwalia, 2002;
Mizerski, 1982). Consumers are also disproportion-
ately influenced by negative publicity (Ahluwalia,
Burnkrant, & Unnava, 2000) and negative word-of-
mouth (Herr, Kardes, & Kim, 1991). But in the field
of product placement, the positive–negative asymme-
try effect has not yet been researched, though nega-
tive placements are nevertheless expected to demand
more attention and thought than positive placements
because the former are much less frequent than the
latter—rarity seems to be a factor that makes negative
stimuli more potent (Fiske, 1980).
The specific processing of negative placements can
be understood within the elaboration likelihood model,
which provides an appropriate framework for the
routes of persuasion in advertising in general (Tellis,
2004, pp. 112–115) and in negative advertising in par-
ticular (James & Hensel, 1991).
Elaboration Likelihood Model
The elaboration likelihood model is a general frame-
work outlined by Petty and Cacioppo (1986) for
understanding the basic processes underlying the ef-
fectiveness of persuasive communication. This model
postulates that persuasion can occur at any point along
an elaboration continuum, which represents the degree
to which a person is able and motivated to thought-
fully process, or elaborate upon, the relevant infor-
mation presented in persuasive communication. This
continuum ranges between a high elaboration that fol-
lows the so-called central route of persuasion, and a
low elaboration that follows the so-called peripheral
route of persuasion. Through the central route, peo-
ple carefully scrutinize the issue-relevant information
presented, whereas through the peripheral route, peo-
ple tend to minimize their cognitive efforts and focus
on background cues such as emotional stimuli and en-
dorsements.
The level of elaboration depends on a receiver’s mo-
tivation and ability to evaluate the message presented.
The central route processing occurs when the receiver
is both able and motivated to carefully consider the
623
message, whereas the peripheral route processing oc-
curs when at least one of these two conditions does
not hold. Ability may be impeded by the effects of dis-
tractions on cognitive capacities, message complexity,
lack of prior knowledge, etc. Motivation is primarily
determined by personal relevance—that is, the degree
of involvement with an issue that has potential conse-
quences for the receiver (Apsler & Sears, 1968). If the
number, magnitude, or duration of consequences is im-
portant to the receiver, he/she will be more motivated
to think over the issue-relevant information presented.
In the case of negative placements, the unfavorable
information presented can be intrinsic (extrinsic) to
the brand thus generating relevant (irrelevant) conse-
quences for the consumer, who will thus have (lack)
enough motivation and process the information via the
central (peripheral) route of persuasion.
Factors Specific for Each Type
of Processing
Consistent with the elaboration likelihood model, the
type of processing dictates the type of factors reinforc-
ing negative placement effectiveness. Under intrinsic
negativity, viewers focus on the essential aspects of the
message and carefully consider to what degree the neg-
ative brand information has an impact on them. In this
central processing, the perceived reality of the movie’s
content plays a crucial role by reinforcing the persua-
siveness of the negative brand information. Under ex-
trinsic negativity, viewers do not focus on the innocu-
ous negative information but on the tangential aspects
of the message. In this peripheral processing, product
placement effectiveness is reinforced by lateral factors
such as the movie’s appeal, attitude to advertising, and
attitude to product placement.
Perceived reality of the movie’s content is the degree
to which viewers believe that the portrayal of charac-
ters, experiences, and settings are true to life. If the
viewers do not perceive the portrayal as being realis-
tic, then the movie content will have no more than a
negligible impact on their real lives. By contrast, if the
viewers consider the portrayal to be realistic, they are
more likely to imitate the social and consumption be-
havior shown in the movie. Many viewers reportedly
go to the movies not only for entertainment but also
to learn more about human relationships (McQuail,
1983, pp. 82–83). The symbolic modeling provided by
movie characters is both an influential source of so-
cial learning (Bandura, 1977, pp. 39–40) as well as a
powerful agent of consumer socialization (O’Guinn &
Shrum, 1997), both for children/adolescents (Churchill
& Moschis, 1979; von Feilitzen & Linné, 1975) and
adults (Kozinets, 2001; Shrum, Wyer, & O’Guinn,
1998). In addition, the more the viewers “parasocially
interact” with movie characters, the more they will
model their own personal consumption on the charac-
ters’ displayed behavior (Russell, Norman, & Heckler,
2004; Russell & Stern, 2006). The term “parasocial in-
teraction” was introduced by Horton and Wohl (1956)
624
to express the type of pseudo-relationship that audi-
ence members may illusorily develop with mass media
personalities, to which they feel personally attached. To
complete the argument, the users’ perceived reality of a
medium content and their parasocial interaction with
the characters portrayed are strongly related (Perse,
1990; Rubin, Perse, & Powell, 1985).
The movie’s appeal is the degree to which view-
ers find the vehicle for the brand placement pleasant,
attractive, or satisfactory. Stimulus context is widely
recognized as a potentially influential factor in the
receivers’ response (Bevan, 1968). In the realm of ad-
vertising, there is strong evidence that a liking for the
ad’s vehicle may have a congruent influence on user
evaluation of the advertised brand (Cohen, Pham, &
Andrade, 2008). This effect has been found in con-
ventional vehicles, such as television programs (Coul-
ter, 1998; Gunter, Furnham, & Beeson, 1997; Murry,
Lastovicka, & Singh, 1992), magazines (Malthouse &
Calder, 2010; Moorman, Neijens, & Smit, 2002), and
radio programs (Lord, Lee, & Sauer, 1994), in which
ads are clearly differentiated and separated from the
medium content. Although still unexplored, the vehicle
effect could be stronger when brands appear completely
integrated into the medium content, as is characteristic
of product placement.
Attitude to advertising is the way consumers think
and feel about advertising in general, making them
likely to react to specific advertising stimuli, either in
a favorable or unfavorable manner. This attitude is an
overall impression that outlines the consumers’ precon-
ceived opinions about the role of advertising, some of
which improve that impression (e.g., “Advertising pro-
vides valuable information” or “Stimulates economic ac-
tivity”), others of which worsen it (e.g., “Advertising in-
trudes into the mass media content” or “Promotes unde-
sirable values”) (Nan, 2006; Pollay & Mittal, 1993). The
attitude to advertising in general has a direct impact
on the attitudinal and behavioral responses to specific
ads (Donthu, Cherian, & Bhargava, 1993; Mehta, 2000).
Likewise, the attitude to product placement, whose de-
termining factors have also been identified (DeLorme
& Reid, 1999; Nebenzahl & Secunda, 1993), has a pos-
itive effect on specific placements’ persuasiveness (de
Gregorio & Sung, 2010; Morton & Friedman, 2002)
and thus is a potentially appropriate variable for the
present study. However, the attitude to product place-
ment is not used here for two reasons. The first and
most important one is that many consumers have not
developed a well-defined attitude to product placement,
which is a marketing technique much less familiar than
conventional advertising. Note that in order to deal
with this problem, the questionnaires of some prod-
uct placement studies begin by explaining what this
technique consists of (e.g., Gupta & Gould, 1997; Mor-
ton & Friedman, 2002; Schmoll, Hafer, Hilt, & Reilly,
2006). The second reason concerns the evidence that
attitude to advertising and attitude to product place-
ment have a very strong positive correlation (Gupta,
Balasubramanian, & Klassen, 2000; Gupta & Gould,
REDONDO
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
1997), which makes these two variables somewhat in-
terchangeable.
HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
Since negative stimuli have a greater capacity than pos-
itive stimuli to attract attention and generate thought-
ful responses (Abele, 1985; Fiske, 1980; Graziano,
Brothen, & Berscheid, 1980; Pratto & John, 1991),
and given that they are much rarer in the field of
product placement, negative placements are thus ex-
pected to produce higher levels of attention and thought
than positive placements. If the negative content is in-
trinsically related to the placed brand (e.g., it deals
with poor quality, technical problems, or potentially
harmful health consequences), this content will have
a practical and meaningful relevance for viewers,
thus strongly motivating them to carefully consider
the issue-relevant information (Apsler & Sears, 1968).
With high levels of motivation, and assuming they pos-
sess sufficient ability, the viewers are expected to care-
fully scrutinize the negative information through the
central route of persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).
Following a careful weighing of the potential negative
consequences of consuming the placed brand, viewers
are likely to acquire a less favorable attitude to the
brand. Since attitude changes frequently lead to behav-
ior changes (Kahle & Berman, 1979), especially when
attitude has a practical relevance to behavior (Ajzen
& Fishbein, 1980, pp. 160–165; Kim & Hunter, 1993;
O’Keefe, 1990, pp. 191–193), the deterioration of atti-
tude to the brand is expected to lead to a reduction in
the brand demand.
H1: An intrinsically negative placement of a brand
within a movie prompts a decrease in viewer
brand consumption.
Under the central route, the viewers actively focus
on the message’s essential aspects, such as the plau-
sibility of a brand’s intrinsically negative information.
Whether or not such information seems plausible to the
viewers, not only depends on the logic of arguments, but
also on the viewers’ willingness to believe. The more
trusting the viewers are with the movie’s depiction of
reality, the more likely they will consider the negative
brand information plausible. The information that is
considered plausible by viewers is the sort that will be
more able to model their consumption behavior (Rus-
sell, Norman, & Heckler, 2004; Russell & Stern, 2006).
Therefore, the viewers’ perceived reality of the movie’s
content presumably strengthens the effect of a place-
ment’s intrinsically negative information.
H2: The perceived reality of the movie’s content
reinforces the decrease in viewer brand con-
sumption that is due to an intrinsically nega-
tive brand placement.
NEGATIVE MOVIE PLACEMENTS’ EFFECTS
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
An extrinsically negative placement (in which, e.g.,
the brand’s image is diminished by social stereotypes
or common prejudices) is also expected to produce high
levels of attention and elaboration. However, since the
negative content is only tangentially related to the
brand, such information will likely have no potential
harmful implications for the viewers. Consequently,
the viewers will not be motivated to thoughtfully pro-
cess the placement-relevant information, but instead
will focus on nonessential aspects through the periph-
eral route of persuasion (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). The
effect of an extrinsically negative placement can be un-
derstood by considering separately the reaction of users
and nonusers of the brand. In the case of the former,
the tangentially negative information will not be sub-
stantial enough to cause the users’ attitude to the brand
to worsen and thus stop using it. In the case of the lat-
ter, the atypical, nondamaging placement will pique the
nonusers’ curiosity and increase their levels of famil-
iarity, interest, and attitude to the brand. Since behav-
ior generally changes with attitude (Kahle & Berman,
1979; Kim & Hunter, 1993), specifically after periph-
eral persuasion (Miniard, Sirdeshmukh, & Innis, 1992),
the attitude improvement will make some nonusers
start using the brand. As a result, such a product
placement is expected to increase the number of brand
users.
H3: An extrinsically negative placement of a
brand within a movie prompts an increase in
viewer brand consumption.
Under the peripheral route, the viewers focus on
contextual factors such as the appeal of the movie in
which the brand is placed. Consistent with the congru-
ent effect of the ad’s vehicle appeal on brand evaluation
(Cohen, Pham, & Andrade, 2008), the more appealing
the movie, the more favorable the viewers’ reaction to
the brand placed. Although not yet explored, this ef-
fect is expected to be stronger than in conventional ad-
vertising due to the brand’s complete integration into
the movie content. Therefore, movie appeal is hypothe-
sized to strengthen the effect of an extrinsically nega-
tive placement.
H4: The movie’s appeal reinforces the increase in
brand consumption that is due to the extrin-
sically negative brand placement.
Attitude to advertising is another tangential fac-
tor that supposedly influences the persuasiveness of
a placement processed via the peripheral route. The
more favorable attitude to advertising viewers have,
the greater their susceptibility to specific conventional
ads (Donthu, Cherian, & Bhargava, 1993; Mehta, 2000).
Since the same relationship presumably holds in the
realm of product placement, attitude to advertising is
thus also expected to tangentially reinforce an extrin-
sically negative placement’s effect.
625
 H5: Viewer attitude to advertising reinforces the
increase in brand consumption that is due to
the extrinsically negative brand placement.
METHODOLOGY
Experiment Design
The experiment involved isolating the effect of two dif-
ferent brands placed in the movie Good Bye, Lenin!
(Burger King with intrinsic negativity and Coca-Cola
with extrinsic negativity). The participants were ran-
domly assigned to two groups, each one of which was
to view the movie with only one brand placement (the
other had been removed). Each group also served as a
control group to the other. The participants viewed the
film under natural conditions and then responded to a
questionnaire, at the end of which they had to choose
between Burger King and McDonald’s as well as be-
tween Coca-Cola and Pepsi.
Although no optimal experimental design exists (for
a complete comparison, see Campbell & Stanley, 1963),
the chosen one (with a control group and only posttest
measurement) is particularly appropriate for two rea-
sons. First, this design is capable of controlling for fac-
tors threatening internal validity as well as avoiding
one particularly dangerous threat against external va-
lidity, which consists of a potential interaction between
a pretest and the treatment, in which the questioning
before the showing may alter the viewer’s susceptibil-
ity to the brand placement. Second, this design offers a
very convenient ease of conducting the experiment and
statistical analysis.
The type of participants, the sample size, and the
experiment’s environment were organized so that the
greatest external validity possible was attained. In
most experiments on product placement effectiveness
(e.g., Auty & Lewis, 2004; Homer, 2009; Law & Braun,
2000; Mallinckrodt & Mizerski, 2007; Russell, 2002;
Schemer et al., 2008), the participants were university
or grammar/secondary students. The type of partici-
pant defined in the present research however is more
appropriate because he/she is not limited to someone
in a term of study or enrolled in an educational in-
stitution. Indeed, the participants in this experiment
match the typical demographic profile of the general
moviegoing public. With respect to the sample size, in
most previous experiments only a few hundred sub-
jects participated, while in this experiment 1103 indi-
viduals took part. Logically, this sample’s broadness al-
lows for a statistical analysis with less uncertainty due
to possible sampling biases. Furthermore, previous ex-
perimental conditions have almost never been natural
because the experiments have typically taken place in
laboratories, computer classrooms, conference rooms,
and other venues associated with educational institu-
tions. In these types of surroundings, the subjects do not
behave the same as they do in those normally associ-
626
ated with product placements. To avoid this limitation,
the experiment faithfully reproduces the normal condi-
tions, as detailed in the following section, in which the
public sees the brand placements in movies.
Organization and Execution of Fieldwork
The movie Good Bye, Lenin! was shown as part of a
program of community activities the Universidad de
Tarapacá organizes every year in Santiago, Chile. This
program includes, among other things, the screening of
a different movie each Friday in a comfortable theater
(735 seats, 22 × 8 m screen) in the Chilean capital’s
downtown area. Each movie is shown twice a day, in
the late afternoon and evening, with schedules depend-
ing on the movie’s length. The attending public does
not have to pay, nor is required to be affiliated with the
university. Since this open activity is advertised widely,
the typical audience member profile is similar to that
of those who normally attend Santiago’s downtown the-
aters.
Good Bye, Lenin!’s screening was advertised in the
usual media (trailers, posters, and radio ads) so that it
would not be considered any sort of “special” event. The
trailer was shown just before the three Friday screen-
ings that preceded the experiment (March 27, April 3,
and April 10, 2009). The trailer shown was the movie’s
official one, but with the original’s brief Coca-Cola ap-
pearance removed, as it might have distorted the ex-
periment’s results. The movie’s official poster (with an
overlaid white band announcing the screening’s place
and schedule) was placed in various bustling sections
inside the Universidad de Tarapacá’s building and on
a public bulletin board in the local metro stop. The
radio ads were broadcast on one of Santiago’s very
popular stations, Infinita, on which the Universidad
de Tarapacá broadcasts a half-hour-long weekly show
that provides information about its ongoing activities.
The show’s hosts announced the screening of Good Bye,
Lenin! throughout the three weeks leading up to the
screening.
The show tickets were booked and then picked up
in the usual manner: An interested party reserved (a)
ticket/s (one for him/herself as well as for any compan-
ion/s) by phoning a number attended by a university
employee during normal office hours and then picked
it/them up at the theater box office. In the case of Good
Bye, Lenin!, the spectators had to be randomly assigned
to one of the two available screenings (at 17:00 and at
20:00), each one of which had been designated to one
of the two experimental groups. The person in charge
of managing the telephone reservations alternately as-
signed the first and second screenings based on the or-
der in which the call was received. In order for the caller
to consider only the assigned screening, the order taker
would reply bluntly, “I only have seats in the . . . (as-
signed session). Would you like to make a reservation
for this session?” As it happened, no one requested a
REDONDO
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
change of screening. At this point the caller reserved the
ticket(s) for the assigned screening with his/her name.
Good Bye, Lenin! was shown on April 17, 2009. The
version without the Coca-Cola placement was screened
at 17:00 before an audience of 569, and the version
without the Burger King placement at 20:00 before 541
viewers. As soon as each movie ended, the lights were
turned on, and someone appeared in front of the audi-
ence and introduced himself as a university staff mem-
ber conducting research. He then asked the audience
members to fill out a brief survey and also said that,
as a show of his appreciation, they would be able to
choose from among several gifts to be distributed upon
exiting. In the meantime, 10 assistants handed out a
folder containing a questionnaire and pen to each audi-
ence member. These assistants had been instructed on
how to deal with any doubts or questions survey tak-
ers might have had. They then proceeded to collect the
surveys as the people finished.
None of the attendees refused to fill out the sur-
vey, and only seven questionnaires had to be eliminated
for double responses or missing values. The eager will-
ingness observed among participants appears to have
been motivated by three factors: (1) The Universidad’s
screening had been free; (2) the survey consisted of a
few relatively easy questions; and (3) the gifts handed
out at the exit proved to be an effective motivation.
At the end of the questionnaire, the respondents
were asked to pick out three gifts, each one chosen from
between one of the following sets of two alternatives: A
cold can of Pepsi or Coca-Cola; a Post It pad or a 20 cm
long ruler; and a gift certificate for either a Burger King
or a McDonald’s hamburger. This procedure was con-
sistent with other experiments (e.g., Allen & Madden,
1985; Gorn, 1982) that have measured the influence of
advertising stimuli on the choice between two alterna-
tive gifts. There is also another consistent experiment
in the scarce literature on product placement-induced
behavior: Auty and Lewis (2004) measured how chil-
dren chose between cans of Coke and Pepsi after watch-
ing a sequence of Home Alone (1990) that contained a
Pepsi placement.
Upon exiting the room, the audience members took
their gifts from among five separate tables adorned
with the Universidad de Tarapacá’s emblem. At each
table were two persons in charge of taking and then
placing the gifts selected by each participant in a bag.
This logistical setup allowed for an easy distribution of
gifts and also ensured that the first screening’s specta-
tors would not mix in with those of the second one.
Movie and Placement Characteristics
Good Bye, Lenin! (2003) is a German movie that gar-
nered much acclaim from European critics and was
also well-received by European audiences. According to
http://www.boxofficemojo.com, it grossed $41,451,777
in Germany but only $54,008 in Chile, where it was
shown in only a few theaters. As such, the movie was
NEGATIVE MOVIE PLACEMENTS’ EFFECTS
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
barely known in the country where this experiment
took place.
Good Bye, Lenin! tells the story of an East Berlin
family that witnessed firsthand the historic events that
unfolded in Germany up to and after the fall of the
Berlin Wall (November 1989). In this context, the ar-
rival and rapid expansion of Coca-Cola and Burger King
in East Germany are portrayed as paradigmatic of a
new capitalist system completely at odds with the old
communist order. But the movie intentionally avoids
any Manichean view of either capitalism or commu-
nism by showing both the advantages and disadvan-
tages of each economic system. With respect to the
socioeconomic changes, the movie (1) praises the re-
covery of some individual freedoms, the reunification
of Germany, and the new opportunity to buy west-
ern consumer brands, while at the same time (2) criti-
cizes the rampant lay-offs, the inability to achieve eco-
nomic development goals, and the spread of a more indi-
vidualistic mentality characterized by widespread con-
sumerism and self-centeredness. The general reaction
to the sudden, dramatic changes is also ambivalent-–
the movie shows a wide array of characters whose pref-
erences range from unreserved enthusiasm for the new
order to nostalgia for the old one.
The prominent placements of Coca-Cola and Burger
King are naturally connected to the plot, as detailed
in Appendix 1. Cola-Cola appears at five different mo-
ments throughout the movie, for a total of three min-
utes, and Burger King appears five times for a total of
almost three and a half minutes. Both Coca-Cola and
Burger King are portrayed with certain negative con-
notations quite uncommon for typical product place-
ments, but the type of negativity varies significantly
from one brand to the other. The negativity of the
Coca-Cola placement has an extrinsic and merely ide-
ological source: The unfavorable view of this company
arises from its association with capitalism-–one amus-
ing scene shows, for example, that the most nostalgic
character is entirely willing to accept Coca-Cola once
she is convinced its unique formula was discovered in
the former East Germany. By contrast, the negativity
of the Burger King placement is intrinsically connected
to the brand: The movie mocks the brand’s marketing,
suggests its food is harmful to people’s health, and por-
trays the kind of work offered there as routine and me-
nial. Appendix 2 gives more details about the negativity
difference between the placements.
Variable Definition
The choice of Burger King (OPTBURGER) and the
choice of Coca-Cola (OPTCOKE) were defined as the de-
pendent variables. Both OPTBURGER and OPTCOKE
were coded 1 if the participant opted for the relevant
brand and 0 otherwise.
Eight independent variables were defined: The
Burger King placement (BURGERPLACE), the Coca-
Cola placement (COKEPLACE), the perceived reality of
627
the film’s content (PERREALFILM), the attitude to ad-
vertising (ATTIADVER), the movie appeal (MOVIEAP-
PEAL), the sex (SEX), the age (AGE), and the educa-
tion (EDUCATION). Even though the effects of the last
three demographics had not been hypothesized, they
were introduced for exploratory purposes.
BURGERPLACE and COKEPLACE were coded 1 if
the movie viewed by the participant contained the rel-
evant placement and 0 otherwise. Note that these two
opposite variables were kept separate so as to facilitate
interpretation.
PERREALFILM was constructed by averaging the
responses to three survey items used in previous stud-
ies (Anderson, 2005; Perse, 1990; Rubin, 1981; Rubin,
Perse, & Powell, 1985): “Movies let me see how other
people really live,” “Movies let me feel what happens
in other places as if I was really there,” and “One
of my motives for viewing movies is that I want to
learn about human relationships.” These items were
measured using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly
disagree and 7 = strongly agree). Likewise, ATTIAD-
VER was constructed by averaging three other items
used in previous research (Gupta, Balasubramanian,
& Klassen, 2000; La Ferle & Lee, 2002; Nan, 2006; Pol-
lay & Mittal, 1993): “I hate watching ads on television,”
“Advertising promotes undesirable values in our soci-
ety,” and “While watching a TV program, I frequently
flip channels to escape watching ads.” Since these were
negative items, their values in this 7-point scale were
recoded by interchanging 1 and 7, 2 and 6, and 3
and 5. The reliability or internal consistency of these
multi-item scales was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha,
which equaled 0.725 for PERREALFILM and 0.612 for
ATTIADVER.
Consistent with Bressoud and Lehu (2008) and
Vorderer, Knobloch, and Schramm (2001), MOVIEAP-
PEAL was defined as the participant’s overall impres-
sion of the movie (“How did you find the movie in gen-
eral?”) using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very bad and 5
= very good).
In relation to demographics, SEX was coded as 1 for
males and 2 for females; AGE was measured through a
five-category ordinal scale (1 = under 21, 2 = 21–30, 3 =
31–40, 4 = 41–50, and 5 = over 50); and EDUCATION
was defined by highest degree earned and was coded
into four ordinal categories (1 = none, 2 = primary, 3 =
secondary, and 4 = tertiary).
RESULTS
None of the participants had to be invalidated for re-
porting having previously viewed Good Bye, Lenin!, a
situation which could have distorted the experiment’s
results. The final sample consisted of 1103 subjects (640
males and 463 females) with the following age distri-
bution: 23% under 21 years old, 36.7% from 21 to 30
years old, 23.8% from 31 to 40 years old, 11.2% from
41 to 50 years old, and 5.3% over 50 years old. So this
sample consists of a wide range of age groups capa-
628
ble of representing the actual diversity of moviegoers,
which would otherwise not be included in an all-student
sample.
The collected data were analyzed through logistic
regression, which is a technique similar to multiple
regression but appropriate for dichotomous dependent
variables. Logistic regression has some very convenient
properties for the present study. This technique does
not have strict assumptions such as multivariate nor-
mality and equal variance–covariance matrices across
groups, and its tests are straightforward, robust, and
easy to interpret (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson,
2010, p. 413). Coefficients are interpreted in a similar
way to those of multiple regressions: The sign of logis-
tic coefficient (B) indicates the direction of the relation-
ship, and the Wald statistic is used to assess the signif-
icance of each logistic coefficient. The software PASW
Statistics 18 was used to perform the calculations.
Two logistic regression models were developed
through a forward stepwise procedure. The first
(second) model represents the effectiveness of the
Burger King (Coca-Cola) placement by including
OPTBURGER (OPTCOKE) as the dependent vari-
able and BURGERPLACE (COKEPLACE), PERREAL-
FILM, MOVIEAPPEAL, ATTIADVER, SEX, AGE, and
EDUCATION as candidates for the independent vari-
ables.
At each step, the candidate variable with the highest
score statistic was selected to enter the model, whose
improvement was measured through the chi-square
test for the change in the log likelihood value (com-
parable to the overall F-test in multiple regression).
The stepwise procedure stopped when none of the re-
maining variables reached the significance threshold
for entry (p < 0.05).
As resultant factors, the first model included BURG-
ERPLACE and PERREALFILM, while the second one
included ATTIADVER, COKEPLACE, and MOVIEAP-
PEAL (both lists in entry order). These final factor lists
have two relevant consequences. First, the central (pe-
ripheral) processing of an intrinsically (extrinsically)
negative placement is not affected by tangential (es-
sential) factors, as proposed in the theoretical frame-
work. Second, the explored demographics do not have a
significant impact on negative placement effectiveness,
regardless of the type of negativity.
The results for the effectiveness of the Burger King
placement are shown in Table 1. Since a significantly
negative coefficient is observed for BURGERPLACE
(B = –0.811, Wald = 41.821, p < 0.01), the intrinsi-
cally negative placement prompted a decrease in brand
consumption, as predicted by H1. Likewise, the sig-
nificantly negative coefficient of PERREALFILM (B =
–0.145, Wald = 6.833, p < 0.01) indicates that the
perceived reality of the movie’s content reinforced the
decrease in brand consumption, which confirms H2.
The overall model fit was assessed using two types of
measurements. First, the Cox and Snell R2 and the
Nagelkerke R2 (both interpretable as the R2 coeffi-
cient in multiple regression) equaled 0.047 and 0.063,
REDONDO
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Table 1. Logistic Regression Results for the Burger King Placement.
B SE Wald df Significant p-Value Exp(B)

Variables in the Equation

BURGERPLACE − 0.811 0.125 41.821 1 0.000 0.444
PERREALFILM − 0.145 0.056 6.833 1 0.009 0.865
Constant 0.751 0.267 7.940 1 0.005 2.120
Pseudo R2 Measures
Cox and Snell R2 0.047
Nagelkerke R2 0.063
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test
χ2 df Significant p-Value
8.313 8 0.403

respectively, indicating that the model accounts for LIMITATIONS

a very low percentage of the variation in the choice
of Burger King. Second, the Hosmer and Lemeshow
test, which measures the divergence between the ac-
tual and predicted values of the dependent variable,
equaled a nonsignificant value (p = 0.403), indicat-
ing an acceptable level of predictive accuracy. Note
that, if the research objective had been to build a well-
fitted model instead of testing the hypotheses, the vari-
ables with greater influence on brand choice (e.g., the
habit of using it) would have been included in the
model.
The results for the effectiveness of the Coca-Cola
placement appear in Table 2. Because of the signifi-
cantly positive coefficient of COKEPLACE (B = 0.631,
Wald = 18.459, p < 0.01), the extrinsically negative
placement prompted an increase in brand consumption,
as predicted in H3. Similarly, the significantly posi-
tive coefficients of MOVIEAPPEAL (B = 0.200, Wald =
6.978, p < 0.01) and ATTIADVER (B = 0.295, Wald =
20.395, p < 0.01) reveal that both movie appeal and at-
titude to advertising reinforced the increase in brand
consumption, thus confirming H4 and H5. Concern-
ing the overall model fit, the variables in the equa-
tion account for a very low percentage of the varia-
tion in the choice of Coca-Cola (Cox and Snell R2 =
0.043 and Nagelkerke R2 = 0.065), but the Hosmer and
Lemeshow test indicates that the model fit is acceptable
(p = 0.145).
There are four limitations to this experiment. The most
important one is the lack of control over participants’
possible reactions to the instruments used in the ex-
periment. After the movie’s screening, the attendees
were asked to participate in a survey, an unexpected
(to them) situation that could have caused an unknown
number of them to lack spontaneity in their answers.
Moreover, an indeterminate number of participants
could have detected a connection between the treat-
ment (a brand placement in the movie) and the ex-
periment’s aim (to measure the effectiveness of that
placement). The grasping of this connection could have
led them to not behave naturally—for example, by re-
sponding with excessive interest/indifference or by say-
ing what would supposedly have pleased/displeased
the experimenter. These possible reactions do actu-
ally threaten the validity of any experimental design
(Campbell & Stanley, 1963). The relative advantage of
this experiment design lies in its avoiding adverse reac-
tions to a pretest (which did not exist) and to the assig-
nation to the experimental groups (which remained un-
noticed by the participants).
Second, as in other experiments (e.g., Allen & Mad-
den, 1985; Auty & Lewis, 2004; Gorn, 1982), the depen-
dent variable did not measure the normal consumption
of the brand but rather the choice of this brand over an-
other alternative, when the products were handed out

Table 2. Logistic Regression Results for the Coca-Cola Placement.

B SE Wald df Significant p-Value Exp(B)

Variables in the Equation

COKEPLACE 0.631 0.147 18.459 1 0.000 1.880
MOVIEAPPEAL 0.200 0.076 6.978 1 0.008 1.221
ATTIADVER 0.295 0.065 20.395 1 0.000 1.343
Constant − 1.037 0.390 7.074 1 0.008 0.354
Pseudo R2 Measures
Cox and Snell R2 0.043
Nagelkerke R2 0.065
Hosmer and Lemeshow Test
χ2 df Significant p-Value
12.147 8 0.145

NEGATIVE MOVIE PLACEMENTS’ EFFECTS 629

Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
for free as a form of compensation for participating in
the study. That the brand was given out free of charge,
that there was a choice only between two brands, and
that the time and place of consumption were not the
habitual ones, are conditions that would require ad-
ditional caution and consideration when extrapolating
the results to real-world consumption behavior. Had it
been feasible, it would have been more appropriate to
measure the variation in brand consumption in ordi-
nary conditions in which the public decides what and
how much to consume.
Third, the potential generalizability of this study’s
results remains unknown. Are the obtained results lim-
ited only to Chile, or can they be generalized for the
whole world or substantially extrapolated to any cul-
ture by adapting some variables? It is not possible to
respond to these questions at this point because the
research on negative placement effectiveness is just be-
ginning. Even though the solid theoretical framework
proposed here enjoys a high degree of generalizability
that is confirmed by much empirical evidence from a
great variety of cultures, the application of this the-
oretical framework to negative brand placements has
barely started.
The fourth concerns the reliability of the multi-item
scales used to measure the attitude to advertising and
the perception of how realistic a movie is. Each one
of these variables was defined using three items used
in previous research, and the combination’s reliability
was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha. It is generally rec-
ommended that this coefficient be greater than 0.7, or
in exploratory research, greater than 0.6 (Hair et al.,
2010, p. 125). The scale’s reliability was sufficient with
respect to the perceived reality of the movie (α = 0.725),
but turned out wanting with respect to attitude to ad-
vertising (α = 0.612).
DISCUSSION
Conclusions
Despite the aforementioned limitations, this experi-
ment’s design leads to a high degree of internal va-
lidity in the isolation and testing of the hypothesized
causal relationships. At the same time, the faithful
recreation of the normal conditions in which moviegoers
watch the films strengthens the generalizability of the
results. Unlike the vast majority of published experi-
ments on product placement (Van Reijmersdal, Neijens,
& Smit, 2009), the participants matched the typical de-
mographic profile of moviegoers and were shown a reg-
ular film in a theater normally used for public screen-
ings. These natural conditions generate considerably
more reliable evidence than that generated by artificial
experimental conditions, which can make viewers pay
unusually great attention to the stimuli, thus leading
them react in a nonspontaneous way (Van Reijmersdal,
Neijens, & Smit, 2007).
630
The five hypothesized effects, supported by widely
accepted models and strong evidence, were confirmed.
First, an intrinsically negative brand placement caused
a decrease in viewer brand consumption because, ac-
cording to the elaboration likelihood model (Petty &
Cacioppo, 1986), a significant number of participants
avoided the brand as a result of a careful examina-
tion of the consumption risks through the central route
of persuasion. Second, the intrinsically negative place-
ment effect was reinforced by a central factor, the per-
ceived degree of reality of the movie’s content, which
facilitated the internalization of the pejorative prod-
uct information and the consequent reaction against
the brand—in the way parasocial interaction facili-
tates modeling personal consumption on movie charac-
ters’ consumption (Russell, Norman, & Heckler, 2004;
Russell & Stern, 2006). Third, an extrinsically neg-
ative placement caused an increase in viewer brand
consumption because (1) consistent with Petty and
Cacioppo (1986), the participants processed the tan-
gentially negative information through the peripheral
route of persuasion, and (2) the atypical, nondamaging
placement stimulated nonusers to consume the brand
without preventing regular users of the brand from do-
ing likewise. Fourth, the extrinsically negative place-
ment effect was reinforced by a peripheral factor, the
movie appeal, which congruently influenced the view-
ers’ reaction to the brand placed—as the appeal of a con-
ventional ad’s vehicle may have a congruent impact on
the brand evaluation (Cohen, Pham, & Andrade, 2008).
Fifth, the extrinsically negative placement effect was
also reinforced by another peripheral factor, the view-
ers’ attitude to advertising, which directly influenced
their susceptibility to brand placements-–as is normal
with respect to conventional ads (Donthu, Cherian, &
Bhargava, 1993; Mehta, 2000).
Managerial Implications
As the practice of placing brands in movies has grown,
so have an increasing number of studies appeared deal-
ing with the effectiveness of this advertising technique
on consumer memory, attitude, and behavior. Ironi-
cally, the influence on behavior (crucial from a mar-
keting perspective) is the least researched area in the
literature (Van Reijmersdal, Neijens, & Smit, 2009),
while the impact on memory is the effectiveness mea-
surement most widely used by practitioners (Russell
& Belch, 2005). Notice that the procedure for design-
ing and executing placements according to their effec-
tiveness on memory is not consistent with empirical
evidence: Prominent placements, though more mem-
orable, do not have much influence on consumption,
while subtle placements, though less memorable, have
nonetheless a greater impact on consumption (Law
and Brown, 2000). Hence, this practice may be lead-
ing managers to design and execute placements that
have strong effect on memory but little if any on behav-
ior. So, this study’s conclusions may help practitioners
REDONDO
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
manage negative brand placements more skillfully so
as to be able to avoid potential drops in sales as well as
to take advantage of their potential benefits.
Advertisers should strongly resist any intrinsically
negative appearance of their brands in movies such as
the placement of Burger King in Good Bye, Lenin! or
that of Orkin in Pacific Heights. Because this type of
placement makes a significant percentage of viewers
avoid the placed brand, the advertisers may suffer a
considerable reduction in sales. Moreover, the influ-
ence of these placements stays active for an unlim-
ited time because the movie can be viewed multiple
times in the successive phases of exhibition (theaters,
home video, and television broadcasts). Therefore, since
a filmmaker is most likely unable to provide a sufficient
indemnity to compensate for the real loss of sales, few
cases of intrinsically negative placements are expected.
Advertisers and filmmakers should also overcome
their prejudices against extrinsically negative brand
appearances such as the placements of Coca-Cola in
Good Bye, Lenin! and The Gods Must Be Crazy. Ac-
cording to practitioners’ views, the most important im-
plementation factor of a product placement (with a no-
table difference over the second most important one) is
that the brand be portrayed in a favorable light (Karrh,
McKee, & Pardun, 2003). In contrast to these views,
negativity indeed does turn out to be a powerful ally of
advertisers when it is merely extrinsic to the product.
In this situation, the placement negativity not only does
not damage the brand but also stimulates familiarity
with and interest in it as well. As a result, an extrin-
sically negative product placement may meaningfully
increase the brand’s sales. Note that negativity is al-
ready successfully used in the realm of politics, where
candidates take advantage of negative news coverage
to build the familiarity needed to win elections (Bur-
den, 2002). The evidence found in the present study
suggests that practitioners should start dealing with
the extrinsically negative product placements in the
same way they deal with conventional positive ones.
So, if this approach were to spread in the advertising
industry, a significant increase in the number of extrin-
sically negative product placements would be expected.
Lastly, since the beneficial effect of an extrinsically neg-
ative brand placement is reinforced by the movie’s ap-
peal, advertisers should select potentially highly rated
movies for placing their brands.
Theoretical Implications
The effectiveness of negative product placements is still
a relatively unexplored topic. This study reveals the key
role played by the type of negativity: The difference
between intrinsically negative placements (in which
the pejorative element arises from the product itself)
and extrinsically negative placements (in which the pe-
jorative element is tangential or not inherent to the
product) gives rise to entirely divergent effects. This
study also proposes an original theoretical framework,
NEGATIVE MOVIE PLACEMENTS’ EFFECTS
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
on which all the observed effects depend logically. The
elaboration likelihood model provides the backbone of
the framework for understanding how intrinsic (extrin-
sic) negativity is processed through the central (periph-
eral) route of persuasion. Consistent with the elabora-
tion likelihood model, the type of processing determines
the type of factors reinforcing negativity effectiveness-
–that is, the effect of central processing is reinforced
by a central factor (the perceived reality of the movie’s
content), while the effect of peripheral processing is re-
inforced by two peripheral factors (the attitude toward
advertising and the movie appeal). The perceived re-
ality of the movie’s content is a relevant and promis-
ing variable that has never been used in the research
on product placement effectiveness (Van Reijmersdal,
Neijens, & Smit, 2009).
Future Avenues of Research
It would be interesting to establish the point at which
current results can be extrapolated to different types
of spectators, surroundings, placements, etc. For ex-
ample, the study of the same phenomenon in other
countries would offer a useful generalizability and
would allow for identifying potential differences among
cultures. Likewise, the use of television series and
videogames would help reach a fuller understanding
of the effectiveness of negative placements. Moreover,
the differentiation among types of placements (more or
less prominent, longer or shorter, etc.) would allow for
a more comprehensive representation of reality. By the
same token, if the dependent variable were defined as
the spontaneous purchase of the product (instead of the
choice between brands at the end of the experiment),
the results could be even more relevant.
Apart from broadening the results’ generalizability
with new empirical evidence, it is necessary to have a
deeper understanding of the stages through which the
spectator passes, from the moment of exposure to the
placement to the moment the brand is either accepted
or rejected: Initial interest in the placement resulting
from its negativity, a period of intense processing of the
information, weighing of the brand’s negative aspects
followed by an integral evaluation, deterioration (im-
provement) of the attitude to the brand, and finally a
reduction (increase) in brand consumption.
An entirely unexplored area of research consists of
measuring the durations of negative placements’ ef-
fects. This study has examined the immediate effects,
just after the movie’s screening. In normal conditions,
a certain amount of time lapses from the initial expo-
sure to the placement to any eventual consumption of
the product. Since the effects of advertising predictably
fade with time, the rate at which the effects from neg-
ative placements diminish would have to be studied
and, should it be necessary, the exact time when they
finally disappear would have to be established. It is
worthwhile to remember that the effects of advertising
631
stimuli are more (less) lasting when the central (pe-
ripheral) route is used (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986).
Another avenue of research, with great prospects for
both the business and academic worlds, lies in the cre-
ation of a scale for measuring the negativity of place-
ments. In this study such negativity was defined al-
ternately as either extrinsic or intrinsic, a dichotomy
that turned out to be advantageous given the theoret-
ical framework used as well as the experiment itself.
Nevertheless, in reality there is a continuum between
intrinsic and extrinsic negativity that ought to be rep-
resented by a corresponding variable. Additionally, the
gradation from intrinsic to extrinsic is not the only di-
mension that should be considered in measuring neg-
ativity. A very important aspect not included in this
study is the association of the brand with antisocial
characters. For example, in Pulp Fiction (1994) John
Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson play two ruthless, al-
beit hip, criminals who casually suggest they prefer
McDonald’s to Burger King and Pepsi to Coke. The in-
corporation of these kinds of associations could very
much broaden the definition of negativity and its appli-
cability in various existing situations.
Finally, it would also be very worthwhile to study
the effects of negative product portrayals in film docu-
mentaries, which have by definition real characters and
stories. A notable example dealing with the fast food in-
dustry is Super Size Me (2004), which offered a harsh
and scathing critique of the McDonald’s chain by reveal-
ing all the harmful health effects of eating McDonald’s.
The effectiveness of these documentaries on consumer
behavior is still completely unexplored and represents
yet another promising research opportunity.
REFERENCES
Abele, A. (1985). Thinking about thinking: Causal, evaluative,
and finalistic cognitions about social situations. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 315–332.
Ahluwalia, R. (2002). How prevalent is the negativity effect in
consumer environments? Journal of Consumer Research,
29, 270–279.
Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. (2000). Con-
sumer response to negative publicity: The moderating role
of commitment. Journal of Marketing Research, 37, 203–
214.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and
predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
Allen, C. T., & Madden, T. J. (1985). A closer look at classical
conditioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 301–315.
Anderson, N. H. (1965). Averaging versus adding as a
stimulus-combination rule in impression formation. Jour-
nal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 394–400.
Anderson, T. L. (2005). Relationships among Internet atti-
tudes, Internet use, romantic beliefs, and perceptions of
online romantic relationships. CyberPsychology and Be-
havior, 8, 521–531.
Apsler, R., & Sears, D. O. (1968). Warning, personal involve-
ment, and attitude change. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology, 9, 162–166.
632
Auty, S., & Lewis, C. (2004). Exploring children’s choice: The
reminder effect of product placement. Psychology and Mar-
keting, 21, 697–713.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bevan W. (1968). The contextual basis of behavior. American
Psychologist, 23, 701–714.
Bressoud, E., & Lehu, J.-M. (2008). Product placement in
movies: Questioning the effectiveness according to the spec-
tator’s viewing conditions. In F. C. Pereira, J. Verı́ssimo, &
P. Neijens (Eds.), New trends in advertising research (pp.
145–163). Lisboa: Sı́labo.
Burden, B. C. (2002). When bad press is good news: The
surprising benefits of negative campaign coverage. The
Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 7, 76–
89.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and
quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand
McNally College Publishing Company.
Churchill, G. A., Jr., & Moschis, G. P. (1979). Television and
interpersonal influences on adolescent consumer learning.
Journal of Consumer Research, 6, 23–35.
Cohen, J. B., Pham, M. T., & Andrade, E. B. (2008). The nature
and role of affect in consumer behavior. In C. P. Haugtvedt,
P. Herr, & F. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of consumer psy-
chology (pp. 297–348), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Coulter, K. S. (1998). The effects of affective responses to me-
dia context on advertising evaluations. Journal of Adver-
tising, 27, 41–51.
de Gregorio, F., & Sung, Y. (2010). Understanding attitudes
toward and behaviors in response to product placement: A
consumer socialization framework. Journal of Advertising,
39, 83–96.
DeLorme, D. E., & Reid, L. N. (1999). Moviegoers’ experiences
and interpretations of brands in films revisited. Journal of
Advertising, 28, 71–95.
Donthu, N., Cherian, J., & Bhargava, M. (1993). Factors influ-
encing recall of outdoor advertising. Journal of Advertising
Research, 33, 64–72.
Fernández-Santos, E. (2003, December 3). Entrevista a
Wolfgang Becker, director de Good Bye, Lenin! [Interview
with Wolfgang Becker, director of Good Bye, Lenin!]. El
Paı́s, p. 38 (in Spanish). Retrieved May 24, 2012, from
http://elpais.com/diario/2003/12/08/espectaculos/10708380-
06˙850215.html.
Fiske, S. T. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception:
The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 889–906.
Gorn, G. J. (1982). The effects of music in advertising on
choice behavior: A classical conditioning approach. Journal
of Marketing, 46, pp. 94–101.
Graziano, W. G., Brothen, T., & Berscheid, E. (1980). Atten-
tion, attraction, and individual differences in reaction to
criticism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38,
193–202.
Gunter, B., Furnham, A., & Beeson, C. (1997). Recall of tele-
vision advertisements as a function of program evaluation.
Journal of Psychology, 131, 541–553.
Gupta, P. B., & Gould, S. J. (1997). Consumers’ perceptions of
the ethics and acceptability of product placement in movies:
Product category an individual differences. Journal of Cur-
rent Issues and Research in Advertising, 19, 37–50.
Gupta, P. B., Balasubramanian, S. K., & Klassen, M. L. (2000).
Viewers’ evaluations of product placements in movies:
Public policy issues and managerial implications. Journal
REDONDO
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
 of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 22, 41–
52.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R.
E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective
(7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of word-
of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion:
An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 17, 454–462.
Homer, P. M. (2009). Product placements: The impact of place-
ment type and repetition on attitude. Journal of Advertis-
ing, 38, 21–31.
Horton, D., & Wohl, R. R. (1956). Mass communication and
parasocial interaction: Observations on intimacy at a dis-
tance. Psychiatry, 19, 215–229.
James, K. E., & Hensel, P. J. (1991). Negative advertising:
The malicious strain of comparative advertising. Journal
of Advertising, 20, 53–69.
Kahle, L. R., & Berman, J. J. (1979). Attitudes cause behav-
iors: A cross-lagged panel analysis. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 37, 315–321.
Karrh, J. A., McKee, K. B., & Pardun, C. J. (2003). Practi-
tioners’ evolving views on product placement effectiveness.
Journal of Advertising Research, 43, 138–149.
Kim, M.-S., & Hunter, J. E. (1993). Attitude-behavior rela-
tions: A meta-analysis of attitudinal relevance and topic.
Journal of Communication, 43, 101–142.
Kozinets, R. V. (2001). “Utopian enterprise: Articulating the
meanings of Star Trek’s culture of consumption”. Journal
of Consumer Research, 28, 67–88.
La Ferle, C., & Lee, W. (2002). Attitudes toward advertising:
A comparative study of consumers in China, Taiwan, South
Korea, and the United States. Journal of International Con-
sumer Marketing, 15, 5–23.
Law, S., & Braun, K. A. (2000). I’ll have what she’s having:
Gauging the impact of product placements on viewers. Psy-
chology and Marketing, 17, 1059–1075.
Lehu, J.-M. (2007). Branded entertainment: Product place-
ment and brand strategy in the entertainment business.
London: Kogan Page.
Lord, K. R., Lee, M.-S., & Sauer, P. L. (1994), Program context
antecedents of attitude toward radio commercials. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22, 3–15.
Mallinckrodt, V., & Mizerski, D. (2007). The effects of playing
an advergame on young children’s perceptions, preferences,
and requests. Journal of Advertising, 36, 87–100.
Malthouse, E. C., & Calder, B. J. (2010). Media placement ver-
sus advertising execution. International Journal of Market
Research, 52, 217–230.
McQuail, D. (1983). Mass communication theory: An introduc-
tion. London: Sage Publications.
Mehta, A. (2000). Advertising attitudes and advertising effec-
tiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 40, 67–72.
Miniard, P. W., Sirdeshmukh, D., & Innis, D. E. (1992). Pe-
ripheral persuasion and brand choice. Journal of Consumer
Research, 19, 226–239.
Mizerski, R. W. (1982). An attribution explanation of the dis-
proportionate influence of unfavorable information. Jour-
nal of Consumer Research, 9, 301–310.
Moorman, M., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2002). The effects
of magazine-induced psychological responses and thematic
congruence on memory and attitude toward the ad in a
real-life setting. Journal of Advertising, 31, 27–40.
Morton, C. R., & Friedman, M. (2002). “I saw it in the movies”:
Exploring the link between product placement beliefs and
NEGATIVE MOVIE PLACEMENTS’ EFFECTS
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
reported usage behavior. Journal of Current Issues and
Research in Advertising, 24, 33–40.
Murry, J. P., Jr., Lastovicka, J. L., & Singh, S. N. (1992).
Feeling and liking responses to television programs: An
examination of two explanations for media-context effects.
Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 441–451.
Nan, X. (2006). Perceptual predictors of global attitude toward
advertising: An investigation of both generalized and per-
sonalized beliefs. Journal of Current Issues and Research
in Advertising, 28, 31–44.
Nebenzahl, I. D., & Secunda, E. (1993). Consumers’ attitudes
toward product placement in movies. International Journal
of Advertising, 12, 1–11.
O’Guinn, T. C., & Shrum, L. J. (1997). The role of television in
the construction of consumer reality. Journal of Consumer
Research, 23, 278–294.
O’Keefe, D. J. (1990). Persuasion: Theory and research. New-
bury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Perse, E. M. (1990). Media involvement and local news effects.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 34, 17–36.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and per-
suasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Pollay, R. W., & Mittal, B. (1993). Here’s the beef: Factors,
determinants, and segments in consumer criticism of ad-
vertising. Journal of Marketing, 57, 99–114.
Pratto, F., & John, O. P. (1991). Automatic vigilance: The
attention-grabbing power of negative social information.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 380–391.
Rubin, A. M. (1981). An examination of television viewing mo-
tivations. Communication Research, 8, 141–165.
Rubin, A. M., Perse, E. M., & Powell, R. (1985). Loneliness,
parasocial interaction, and local television news viewing.
Human Communication Research, 12, 155–180.
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.
Russell, C. A., & Belch, M. (2005). A managerial investigation
into the product placement industry. Journal of Advertising
Research, 45, 73–92.
Russell, C. A., & Stern, B. B. (2006). Consumers, characters,
and products: A balance model of sitcom product placement
effects. Journal of Advertising, 35, 7–21.
Russell, C. A., Norman, A. T., & Heckler, S. E. (2004). The
consumption of television programming: Development and
validation of the connectedness scale. Journal of Consumer
Research, 31, 150–161.
Schemer, C., Matthes, J., Wirth, W., & Textor, S. (2008). Does
“Passing the Courvoisier” always pay off? Positive and neg-
ative evaluative conditioning effects of brand placements
in music videos. Psychology & Marketing, 25, 923–943.
Schmoll, N. M., Hafer, J., Hilt, M., & Reilly, H. (2006). Baby
boomers’ attitudes towards Product Placements. Journal of
Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 28, 33–53.
Segrave, K. (2004). Product placement in Hollywood films: A
history. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Shrum, L. J., Wyer, R. S., Jr., & O’Guinn, T. C. (1998).
The effects of television consumption on social percep-
tions: The use of priming procedures to investigate psy-
chological processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 24,
447–458.
Tellis, G. J. (2004). Effective advertising: Understanding
when, how, and why advertising works. Thousand Oaks:
Sage Publications.
633
Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2007).
Effects of television brand placement on brand image. Psy-
chology and Marketing, 24, 403–420.
Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2009).
A new branch of advertising: Reviewing factors that influ-
ence reactions to product placement. Journal of Advertising
Research, 49, 429–449.
von Feilitzen, C., & Linné, O. (1975). The effects of televi-
sion on children and adolescents: Identifying with televi-
sion characters. Journal of Communication, 4, 51–55.
Vonk, R. (1996). Negativity and potency effects in impression
formation. European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 851–
865.
Vorderer, P., Knobloch, S., & Schramm, H. (2001). Does enter-
tainment suffer from interactivity? The impact of watching
an interactive TV movie on viewers’ experience of enter-
tainment. Media Psychology, 3, 343–363.
The author is very grateful to Jorge Bernal Peralta (Ph.D.
at Universidad Autonóma de Madrid, Spain, and Professor of
Marketing at Universidad de Tarapacá, Chile) for his crucial
support in conducting the experiment.
Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to: Igna-
cio Redondo, Departamento de Marketing, Facultad de Cien-
cias Económicas y Empresariales, Universidad Autónoma de
Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain (ignacio.redondo@uam.es).
APPENDIX 1
Plot Summary of Good Bye, Lenin!
Good Bye, Lenin! tells the tragicomic story of an East
Berlin family-–Alex, his mother Christiane, and his sis-
ter Ariane-–around the time of the fall of the Wall. In
the opening, Alex recounts how in 1978 his father fled
to West Germany along with his West German lover
and how Christiane managed to get over her husband’s
abandonment by converting into a fervent partisan of
the Communist Party. The story then picks up in Oc-
tober 1989, when the then German Democratic Repub-
lic (East Germany or “DDR” in German) is celebrat-
ing its 40th anniversary. During a protest demanding
more personal freedoms, Alex is beaten and detained
by the police. When his mother sees him, she suffers a
heart attack and falls into a prolonged coma that keeps
her unconscious throughout all the succeeding historic
changes in Germany: President Erich Honecker’s res-
ignation, the spread of protests, the fall of the Berlin
Wall, the first democratic elections, the unification, etc.
Capitalism begins to be introduced into the DDR, a
process symbolized by the rapid growth and spread of
Coca-Cola. The family too is affected by these external
changes. Ariane leaves her university studies to work
at Burger King and soon moves in with the franchise
manager. The shop where Alex works has to close down,
but soon he gets a new opportunity to install satellite
antennas along with Denis, a very creative mate who
dreams of making movies.
Then after eight months Christiane comes out of her
coma but cannot remember why she had been hospital-
634
ized. The doctor lets Alex and Ariane know that their
mother could suffer another heart attack—this time
fatal—if she were to experience any sort of distress or
shock. So Alex, ever mindful of his mother’s unfailing
loyalty to the former DDR, decides to keep her from
finding out about East Germany’s collapse. He takes
her back home so that she can continue her conva-
lescence in an isolated room, safely sheltered from all
the changes taking place outside. The television, which
Alex secretly controls from a VCR in an adjacent room,
shows only old programs from the former DDR. Since
the old DDR food brands are no longer sold, Alex has
to buy the new supermarket brands and serve them
in the old packages. Then one day, during a birthday
party Alex has organized for Christiane, she is suddenly
dumbstruck after inadvertently catching a glimpse of
a gigantic Coca-Cola billboard on a nearby building.
To explain this inconceivable scene, Alex loads into the
VCR an old DDR news bulletin (recorded with the help
of his creative colleague Denis), in which Coca-Cola’s al-
leged “communist origins” are revealed. Further ahead
in the movie, Ariane tells Alex about how she came
across her father when, without recognizing her, he or-
dered some menus at the Burger King drive-through
window.
APPENDIX 2
Negativity Difference Between the
Coca-Cola and Burger King Placements
The Coca-Cola and Burger King placements signif-
icantly differ in the way the host movie portrays the
following three company aspects: Their brand promo-
tion, the products’ potential effects, and the nature of
the work performed within the companies.
With respect to product promotion, Coca-Cola’s ad-
vertising is depicted from a neutral perspective, while
Burger King employees’ face-to-face interaction with
customers is shown in a negative light. The Coca-Cola
ads consist of just the exhortation “Drink” (“Trink” in
the original German) beside the distinctive calligraphy
of “Coca-Cola” over the usual red background. In the
movie’s story, these ads only indicate that Coca-Cola
is advertising around the area, without revealing any-
thing that would cast light on the ad’s actual content or
suitability. By contrast, the rather formal send-off, “En-
joy your meal and thank you for choosing Burger King,”
is not objectively presented as warm and heartfelt, but
rather as perfunctory and routine. (It is repeated up to
four times.) Alex even makes fun of his sister by wryly
imitating the dull monotone and disingenuous smile
with which Burger King employees hand off the meal
and send the customer off.
With reference to the products’ possible effects, the
movie does not show any harmful health effects of Coca-
Cola, but does suggest eating Burger King can lead to
obesity. This last insinuation is made by Alex just after
he finds out his father went to Burger King without
even bothering to get out of his car. Alex then imagines
REDONDO
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
his father as a super obese man, who compulsively eats
huge hamburgers, a “bad” eating habit compatible with
(ironically enough) his high standard of living.
In relation to the nature of the work performed
within the companies, there is no criticism of Coca-
Cola but there is some leveled at Burger King. Ar-
iane’s decision to drop out of university to work at
Burger King is spoken about pejoratively on two
NEGATIVE MOVIE PLACEMENTS’ EFFECTS
Psychology and Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
occasions. This exposition suggests that working at this
company requires no strenuous and focused training
and is no more than a means of making some quick
cash. Over and over again, it is shown that a job at
Burger King involves little more that keeping one’s uni-
form crisp and clean and sticking to the company’s strict
sales protocols. A short but no less belittling description
of the franchise’s manager is simply “greasy.”
635
Copyright of Psychology & Marketing is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.