Exploring the impact of brand placement

repetition on the effectiveness of

umbrella branding
Davit Davtyan
Department of Marketing, Parker College of Business, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, Georgia, USA, and
Armen Tashchian
Department of Marketing and Professional Sales, Coles College of Business, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, Georgia, USA

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to compare and contrast the effectiveness of single- and dual-product repetition strategies in the brand placement
context. The study also aims to explore the number of repetitions needed for achieving maximum impact on brand memory (i.e. recall and
recognition) and brand attitudes.
Design/methodology/approach – The proposed hypotheses and research questions were tested using a quasi-experimental approach. Participants
watched a block of eight videos containing four different levels comprising one, three, five and seven repetitions of products belonging to the same
umbrella brand. Subsequently, participants completed a questionnaire designed to measure brand memory and brand attitudes.
Findings – Results indicate that dual-product brand placements could elicit higher levels of brand recall than that of single-product brand
placements at moderate and high levels of repetition (i.e. five and seven). Moreover, at a high level of repetition (i.e. seven repetitions), the brand
attitudes of consumers exposed to dual-product brand placements are significantly higher when product categories are dissimilar.
Originality/value – Consumers are increasingly exposed to multiple products of the same umbrella brands when watching various video
content. However, prior research has not examined the effects of brand placement repetition in the umbrella branding context. This study is the first
attempt at combining research streams on umbrella branding and brand placements and comparing the effects of repetitive exposure to single- and
dual-product brand placements on consumers’ memory and brand attitudes.
Keywords Umbrella branding, Brand attitudes, Memory effects, Brand placements, Advertising repetition
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction Brand placements can be found not only in movies and TV

Umbrella branding, the use of the same brand name for several
products (i.e. complements, substitutes or independent
products) developed by the company, is a popular strategy in
modern business practice (Keller et al., 2020; Mikl os-Thal,
2012; Sebri and Zaccour, 2017). Prior research has
demonstrated that umbrella branding can help manufacturers
reduce marketing costs and the risk of introducing new
products, improve productivity and even alleviate moral hazard
(Aaker, 1990; Erdem and Sun, 2002; Hakenes and Peitz, 2008;
Rasmusen, 2016). Thus, seeing a parallel promotion of several
products of the same brand not only through traditional
promotion means (e.g. television and radio commercials and
print ads) but also through alternative promotional methods,
such as brand placements, is common.
The practice of brand placements, the insertion of brand
identifiers into editorial content, has gained popularity during
the past two decades (Avramova et al., 2021; Guo et al., 2019).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1061-0421.htm
shows but also in popular music (Craig et al., 2017), music
videos (Davtyan et al., 2020), video games (Martí-Parreño
et al., 2017), YouTube videos (Schwemmer and Ziewiecki,
2018) and even in novels (Avramova et al., 2017). As mass
media programming is becoming flooded with brand
placements, seeing how the characters in a show or movie use
various products belonging to the same umbrella brand is
common. For example, numerous Apple products (e.g.
smartphones, laptops and mp3 players) were featured in 58 of
the top 100 movies of the US box office in 2019 and some of
these movies contained placements of multiple products of the
brand (Concave Brand Tracking, 2020). Such proliferation of
brand placements has raised questions about the advantages
and drawbacks of consumers’ repetitive exposure to the same
brands across various media content (Davtyan et al., 2020).
Existing studies on this topic have primarily focused on
investigating the effects of repetitive exposure to single
products (Avramova et al., 2017; Martí-Parreño et al., 2017)
and prior research has not examined the impact of repetitive
exposure to several products of the same brand. Thus, it is not
clear whether any synergies exist when jointly promoting

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Received 28 February 2021
31/7 (2022) 1077–1090 Revised 28 June 2021
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421] 8 November 2021
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-02-2021-3381] Accepted 15 February 2022

1077
 Exploring the impact of brand placement repetition
Davit Davtyan and Armen Tashchian
multiple products belonging to the same umbrella brand or the
impacts of this strategy on the effectiveness of brand placement
repetition.
The current study addresses this literature gap by comparing
the effectiveness of single- and dual-product repetition
strategies in the brand placement context. Specifically, two
experiments were conducted to compare consumers’ cognitive
(i.e. brand recall and recognition) and affective (i.e. brand
attitudes) responses to exposure to various frequencies of brand
placements for single versus dual products across a series of
music videos. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the
first attempt at exploring umbrella branding in the context of
brand-placement repetitions. Thus, insights gained from this
study could have substantial practical importance, as they will
allow marketing managers to increase their promotional
strategies’ effectiveness.
2. Umbrella branding and brand placement
repetition
Umbrella branding, also known as family branding (Keller
et al., 2020), brand leveraging (Lane, 2000), brand stretching
(Pepall and Richards, 2002) and brand extension (Völckner
and Sattler, 2006), is widely used by modern multiproduct
firms (Rasmusen, 2016; Sebri and Zaccour, 2017). The main
premise of umbrella branding is that when consumers are
uncertain about a certain product’s attributes, they may make
inferences about them based on their experience with another
product of the same brand (Erdem et al., 2006; Mikl os-Thal,
2012). Thus, when executed properly, umbrella branding can
provide numerous benefits for brand owners. Specifically,
umbrella branding can help reduce risks associated with
consumer uncertainty, decrease the costs of new product
introductions and improve their chances of survival (Aaker and
Keller, 1990; Cabral, 2009; Völckner and Sattler, 2006;
Wernerfelt, 1988).
Past research has shown that properly designed promotional
campaigns could positively contribute to brand extension
success (Völckner and Sattler, 2006). For example, Martínez
et al. (2009) showed that when the introduction of the brand
extension is supported by advertising, either for the parent
brand or the extension, the parent brand’s image has a stronger
impact on attitudes toward the extension. Another study by Dens
and De Pelsmacker (2016) demonstrated that the type of
advertising strategy (elaborational vs relational) could moderate
the effects of perceived fit on attitudes and evaluations of brand
extension. Particularly, using elaborational advertising reduces
the negative impact of fit on attitudes toward a brand extension
and this reduction is stronger for high-quality brands.
While the effects of advertising on umbrella branding are
partially researched in the traditional advertising context, no
studies have explored these effects in the brand placement
context. This lack of research is surprising, as top brands, such
as Sony, Apple and Samsung, are saturating modern movies,
TV programs and music videos with a variety of products.
Therefore, consumers are often exposed to multiple products
of a single brand within one viewing session (Concave Brand
Tracking, 2020; Davtyan et al., 2020).
In the context of video episodes, several studies have
explored the effects of repetitive exposure to brand placements,
1078
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 31 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1077–1090
brand placement repetition, on consumer responses. For
example, Homer (2009) examined the effects of brand
placement repetition within the same program and found that
when the frequency of exposures to subtle brand placements
increases from a low (one exposure) to a moderate level (three
exposures), brand attitudes remain the same. In contrast,
repeated exposure (three exposures) to prominent brand
placements within the same program had a negative effect on
brand attitudes. In another study, Matthes et al. (2012) did not
find any negative effects of repetition on brand liking, even after
30 exposures. In a recent paper, Davtyan et al. (2020)
demonstrated that while the relationship between repetition
and memory follows a logarithmic course, a curvilinear
(inverted U-shape) relationship exists between repetition and
brand attitudes.
To date, the effects of repetitive exposure to multiple
products representing one umbrella brand have not been
studied. Addressing this research gap is important, as featuring
several products of one umbrella brand may have a different
impact on consumers than showing one product several times.
For instance, the former strategy may better disguise the
commercial intent of brand placements and consequently
increase the effectiveness of the promotional campaign
(d’Astous and Chartier, 2000; Friestad and Wright, 1994). In
contrast, repetitive exposure to the same product may
unreasonably increase the overall prominence of the brand and
trigger consumers’ reactance to the persuasion (Marchand
et al., 2015).
To test the effects of multiproduct brand placements, the
first study investigates how the repetition of two products
belonging to the same umbrella brand impacts consumer
memory and brand attitudes as compared to the same number
of exposures to a single product repetition.
3. Study 1
One of the primary goals of promotional campaigns is to
stimulate brand choice (Brettel et al., 2015; Danaher, 2017;
Tellis, 2004; Vakratsas and Ambler, 1999). Keller (1993)
proposed that brand awareness and brand image are the two
main components of brand knowledge affecting an individual’s
selection of the brand (see also Esch et al., 2006). Percy and
Rossiter (1992, p. 264) defined brand awareness as a “buyer’s
ability to identify a brand within a category in sufficient detail to
make a purchase” and argue that it is composed of brand recall,
an individual’s ability to evoke the brand from memory when
facing a specific need, and brand recognition, an individual’s
ability to verify prior exposure to a provided brand (Keller,
1993; Singh et al., 1988). Brand image is defined as an
individual’s perception of the brand through brand associations
(Keller, 1993). An essential determinant of brand associations
is brand attitude, which is defined as individuals’ beliefs and
evaluations of the brand and are known to influence
consumers’ behavior (Vakratsas and Ambler, 1999; Keller,
1993; Keller and Swaminathan, 2020).
Thus, examining the effects of brand placement repetition on
brand awareness (e.g. brand recall and recognition) and brand
image (e.g. brand attitudes) is important as a high level of
awareness and a strong brand image should lead to a product
being selected by consumers (Keller, 1993). In fact, changes in
 Exploring the impact of brand placement repetition
Davit Davtyan and Armen Tashchian
brand recall, recognition and brand attitudes are commonly
used to determine brand placement effectiveness, both in
academic research (Boerman et al., 2021; Chan, 2012; Eagle
and Dahl, 2018) and industry (Gistri and Corciolani, 2020;
Karrh et al., 2003).
3.1 Brand memory effects
The effects of stimulus repetition on memory have been
extensively researched in the advertising literature and stimulus
repetition is known to positively affect brand memory (Schmidt
and Eisend, 2015). However, studies investigating this
question in the brand placement context have focused on the
repetition of single product brand placements and have
reported inconsistent findings. Cauberghe and De Pelsmacker
(2010) tested the effects of brand placement repetition on
brand recall and found that a high level of game repetition (four
repetitions) does not improve brand recall over a low level of
repetition (two repetitions). In contrast, Davtyan et al. (2020)
showed that recall and recognition could be improved by
repetitive exposure to prominent brand placements in music
videos. However, after three to five repetitions, a ceiling effect
may be achieved and further repetitions would not be as
effective.
According to the human associative memory model, memory
can be modeled as a system of interconnected nodes
representing units of information (Anderson, 1983; Kononova
et al., 2020; Teichert and Schöntag, 2010). After exposure to a
stimulus, individuals create associations and connect this new
information through various paths (encoding) with information
already existing in their memory (Schacter, 2008). The
repetition of the stimulus results in more intensive elaborative
rehearsal, which increases the number and strength of
associations and helps to transfer the information from short-
term to long-term memory (Yoo et al., 2009).
According to encoding variability theory, the context in
which information is learned serves as a cue and can affect the
successful retrieval of this information (Benjamin and Tullis,
2010; Melton, 1970) and certain context variables (i.e.
execution of the message) can influence the strength of
the repetition effect (Schumann et al., 1990; Unnava and
Burnkrant, 1991; Yaveroglu and Donthu, 2008). Specifically,
Unnava and Burnkrant (1991) demonstrated that varied ad
repetition enhances brand memory better than exposures to the
same version of an ad. Similarly, Yaveroglu and Donthu (2008)
showed that in a non-competitive online environment, repeated
exposure to varied ad executions better heightens brand recall.
Based on the encoding variability hypothesis, variation in the
execution of the message increases the number of paths used in
the process of encoding and leads to a broader memory
network than repetition of the same message (Appleton-Knapp
et al., 2005; Chang and Thorson, 2004; Vandeberg et al.,
2015). Consequently, consumers are able to retrieve the
message easier at a later point in time, as the likelihood of such
retrieval is directly related to the number of paths used to
encode the information (Fuentes et al., 1994). Therefore, when
viewers are exposed to several products representing the same
brand, the brand information may be encoded through
multiple paths, resulting in better brand memory than a single
product repetition condition. Based on these arguments, the
following hypotheses and research questions were proposed:
1079
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 31 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1077–1090
H1. Repetitive exposure to brand placements will increase
the level of brand recall more in the case of repetition of
two products representing one umbrella brand than in
the case of the same number of repetitions of one
product.
RQ1. How many repetitions are necessary for this effect to
occur for brand recall?
H2. Repetitive exposure to brand placements will increase
the level of brand recognition more in the case of
repetition of two products representing one umbrella
brand than in the case of the same number of
repetitions of one product.
RQ2. How many repetitions are necessary for this effect to
occur for brand recognition?
3.2 Brand attitude effects
A change in brand attitude is another metric used to evaluate
the effectiveness of brand placements (Avramova et al., 2021;
Balasubramanian et al., 2014). The perceptual fluency model is
a frequently used framework for explaining the effects of ad
repetition on brand attitudes (Bornstein and D’Agostino,
1992). The model posits that prior exposure to a stimulus
increases perceptual fluency by which participants process
consecutive exposures to the same stimulus. Thus, positive
attitudinal responses will increase with the number of exposures if
participants misattribute the increased fluency of information
processing to the stimulus. In contrast, feelings of fluency
associated with that stimulus are discounted and the amount of
fluency misattributed to brand liking is reduced when recognition
of the previously presented stimulus is above the chance
threshold.
According to Nordhielm (2002), the perceptual fluency
model is suitable for studying repeated exposures to short and
unpersuasive stimuli. Thus, it can be deduced that when
participants are exposed to a brand placement, the persuasive
intent of which is not obvious, they may act consistent with the
predictions of the perceptual fluency model. As such, initial
exposure to a brand placement might positively affect the
fluency of processing and consequently increase brand attitude.
However, excessive repetition of brand placements during a
short period might irritate consumers and decrease brand liking
(Homer, 2009; Van Reijmersdal, 2009). Consistent with these
arguments, Davtyan et al. (2020) demonstrated that exposure
to brand placements initially increases the attitude toward the
brand; however, after a certain number of exposures, the wear-
out effect occurs and additional exposures negatively affect
brand attitudes.
Prior research has shown that varied execution strategies
could minimize the negative effects associated with excessive
repetition of the same message (Kim, 2018; Schumann et al.,
1990). For example, Kim (2018) demonstrated that repetition
of varied ads is perceived as less intrusive and irritating and
influences ad attitudes more positively than the repetition of the
same version of the ad (see also Schumann et al., 1990).
Moreover, the attitudes of consumers exposed to varied ads are
more persistent over time than the attitudes of those exposed to
the same version of the ad (Haugtvedt et al., 1994).
 Exploring the impact of brand placement repetition
Davit Davtyan and Armen Tashchian
The primary advantage of brand placements over traditional
advertisements is the concealed nature of their persuasive
motives (Bhatnagar et al., 2004). However, excessive repetition
makes brand placements more visible and can reveal their true
intent (Homer, 2009). When consumers recognize the
commercial intent of brand placements, they activate their
“shields” and produce counterarguments to resist the
persuasion attempt (Brehm and Brehm, 2013; Friestad and
Wright, 1994). This behavior negatively affects brand attitudes
(Cowley and Barron, 2008). However, featuring different
products of the same brand might better conceal the persuasive
intent and alleviate consumers’ reactance, which would result
in a higher brand attitude than repeated exposure to the same
brand placement. Based on this line of reasoning, the following
hypothesis and research question were offered:
H3. Repetitive exposure to brand placements will increase
the level of brand attitudes more in the case of
repetition of two products representing one umbrella
brand than in the case of the same number of
repetitions of one product.
RQ3. How many repetitions are necessary for this effect to
occur for brand attitudes?
3.3 Method
The proposed hypotheses and research questions were tested
using a quasi-natural experiment. The following sections
provide a comprehensive review of the sample, procedures,
stimuli development and measures used in the study.
3.3.1 Participants and procedure
Participants for the study were recruited from various
undergraduate business and advertising classes at a major
southwestern university in the USA. The initial sample of 767
participants was reduced to 639 by excluding participants who
indicated familiarity with the selected music videos. Afterward,
participants were given access to a Qualtrics questionnaire
hyperlink to participate in the study. The majority (98%) of
respondents were in the 18–24 age group, with 67% self-
reporting as female. The sample was predominantly Caucasian
(52%), followed by Hispanic Americans (26%), Asian
Americans (13%), African Americans (5%), Pacific Islanders
(1%) and others (3%).
To reduce demand bias effects, respondents were told that
they were participating in a study to evaluate music videos.
After signing the informed consent form and answering several
demographic questions, participants were randomly assigned
to one of the 12 experimental groups and watched a specific
version of the stimulus. The number of participants in each
group ranged from 49 to 55. Each group watched a total of
eight videos, and depending on the group, participants were
exposed to a different number of brand placements tested in
this study. After watching the videos, respondents completed a
questionnaire designed to measure their recall, recognition and
attitudes toward brands featured in the videos. The completion
time for the survey varied between 39 and 48 min. The median
completion time was about 43 min, which was close to an
average YouTube session (Omnicore, 2020).
1080
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 31 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1077–1090
3.3.2 Stimuli development
In the past, brand placement researchers often used short
movie episodes or edited versions of television programs as
stimuli in their studies. Although such tactics simplify the
research process, they negatively affect the external validity of
the experiments (Davtyan et al., 2016). To avoid artificial
shortening of video episodes and ensure a more natural viewing
experience, the present study used music videos to study the
repetition effects of brand placements. Four to five minutes
duration of music videos makes them a convenient medium for
studying the repetition of brand placements (Davtyan et al.,
2020). In addition, many modern music videos that are popular
among young consumer groups contain brand references
(Sanchez-Olmos and Castell o-Martínez, 2020).
When creating the stimuli for the present study, a list of the
most visible brand placements in music videos was generated
based on information provided by the Web portal (www.
productplacementblog.com) and Concave Brand Tracking.
The product placement Web portal features more than 39,000
product placement examples, and Concave Brand Tracking is a
market research company specializing in tracking and analyzing
brand placements.
The top two product categories that are featured in music
videos and are reasonable for students to purchase are sports
clothing (e.g. Nike, Adidas, Air Jordan) and electronics (e.g.
Beats, Apple, Samsung). Based on the recommendations of
Krishen and Sirgy (2016), all non-gender-neutral brands were
excluded from further consideration to avoid possible gender
effects. As most sports apparel brands primarily targeted male
viewers, this product category was excluded and the list was
narrowed to electronic brands. From the remaining brands,
Beats was selected as the focal brand for the current study.
Beats is the most visible umbrella brand and is featured in more
than 30 music videos.
From the list of music videos that contained Beats brand, 19
music videos were selected that featured either Beats
headphones or earphones. Past research shows that the level of
brand placement prominence and likeability of videos might
affect consumers’ evaluations of the brands (Cowley and
Barron, 2008; Dens et al., 2012; Verhellen et al., 2013).
Therefore, the selected videos were pretested to ensure that the
brands had comparable visibility and likeability scores. Based
on the results of the pretest, the original list of 19 music videos
was shortened to 16 videos. From the final list, 14 randomly
selected videos were used to create the various stimuli for this
study: seven videos containing product placements of Beats
headphones and seven containing product placements of Beats
earphones. The selected videos contained visual placements of
Beats headphones or Beats earphones with an average brand
exposure of 2–3 s.
Brand placement repetition frequencies were selected based
on recommendations from prior studies that categorized
repetitions below three as low-frequency and above three as
high-frequency conditions (Cauberghe and De Pelsmacker,
2010; Homer, 2009). According to Omnicore (2020), an
average YouTube session lasts about 40 min, which is equal to
the length of about eight music videos. Thus, it was decided to
manipulate exposure frequencies in the current study as one,
three, five and seven exposures.
 Exploring the impact of brand placement repetition
Davit Davtyan and Armen Tashchian
The stimuli created for each treatment group contained eight
music videos. The focal products (Beats headphones or
earphones) were placed in one, three, five or seven videos with
seven, five, three or one filler videos, respectively, as shown in
Table 1. Four conditions for different levels of brand placement
repetition (one, three, five and seven) were created for Beats
headphones, Beats earphones and dual-product condition
(Beats headphones and earphones). For example, participants
in Group 2 watched eight music videos, three of which
contained placement of Beats headphones, while the other five
were filler videos. The filler music videos did not contain
the placement of the focal brand; however, their qualities were
similar to those of the focal brand. To avoid order biases, the
sequences of the focal and filler videos in each treatment block
were randomized.
3.3.3 Measures
The dependent measures used in the present study were
adopted from previously published studies in peer-reviewed
marketing and advertising journals. Where appropriate, the
scales used have a Cronbach’s alpha of over 0.80 for the current
sample, indicating good internal consistency.
Recall was defined as whether participants could correctly
name the brand shown during the music videos without
external clues or aids. For the present study, the following
question was asked: “please indicate all brands that you recall
having seen while watching the music videos.” Recall was
coded for the target brand only (i.e. Beats) using a dichotomous
scale (unaided recall = 1, no unaided recall = 0).
Recognition refers to whether participants could select a
certain brand from a list of brands and indicate whether they
have seen it during the music videos. The question asked was,
“thinking about the music videos that you’ve just watched,
please indicate if you remember seeing any of the following
brands.” The response was coded on a dichotomous scale
(brand recognition = 1, no brand recognition = 0).
Brand attitude was conceptualized as consumers’ overall
evaluation of a brand and measured using the modified
Maheswaran and Sternthal (1990) brand attitude scale. A six-
item, seven-point semantic differential scale was used to
measure a consumer’s attitude toward the brand. Sample items
include “good–bad,” “a product I will try–a product I will not
try” and “as good as competing brands–not as good as
competing brands.” Responses to the six semantic differential
Table 1 Sample size and brand placement repetition for research groups (Study 1)
Group number Product
Group 1 (n = 55) Headphones
Group 2 (n = 55) Headphones
Group 3 (n = 54) Headphones
Group 4 (n = 54) Headphones
Group 5 (n = 52) Earphones
Group 6 (n = 53) Earphones
Group 7 (n = 52) Earphones
Group 8 (n = 52) Earphones
Group 9 (n = 54) Headphones or earphones
Group 10 (n = 49) Headphones and earphones
Group 11 (n = 54) Headphones and earphones
Group 12 (n = 55) Headphones and earphones
1081
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 31 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1077–1090
items were summed as an overall measure of the attitude
toward the brand. For the present study, this scale had a
Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91, indicating excellent reliability.
Brand repetition was defined as the number of times
respondents were exposed to the placement of the focal brand.
The current study manipulated brand repetition at four levels:
one, three, five and seven.
3.4 Results
3.4.1 Analysis of memory effects
H1 proposed that the effects of brand placement repetition on
brand recall would be higher in the case of consumers’ exposure
to two products of the same brand compared to the same
number of repetitions of only one product. To address H1, a
logistic regression analysis was conducted to ascertain the
effects of product strategy (i.e. single- or dual-product, IV) and
brand repetition frequency (IV) on the likelihood that
participants correctly recall the focal brand (DV). Given their
categorical nature, both independent variables were dummy-
coded. The seven-repetition frequency condition and dual-
product condition were used as reference groups. The logistic
regression model was statistically significant [ x 2(5) = 75.04,
p < 0.05] and classified 66.2% of cases correctly. The
examination of Wald statistics indicated that both repetition
frequency [Wald x 2(3) = 59.82, p < 0.05] and product strategy
[Wald x 2(2) = 5.05, p < 0.05] significantly contributed to the
prediction of brand recall. Examination of the Exp(B) values
indicates that odds to recall the focal brand are 0.64 and 0.63
times lower for individuals exposed to headphones only or
earphones only than that of dual-product condition (i.e.
headphones and earphones). These results support H1.
Subsequently, a follow-up Chi-square analysis was conducted
to address RQ1. Results of the analysis demonstrated that only
respondents exposed to a high level of brand placement repetition
(seven repetitions) were likely to recall the brand when exposed
to two different products of the same brand (see Table 2).
Specifically, only 51.9% and 48.1% of respondents exposed to
seven repetitions of Beats headphones or Beats earphones,
respectively, recalled the brand. In contrast, over 70% of
respondents had correct recall when exposed to dual-product
repetition (Beats headphones and earphones). These results
provide an answer to RQ1.
Brand placement [filler video(s)]
One video [seven videos]
Three videos [five videos]
Five videos [three videos]
Seven videos [one video]
One video [seven videos]
Three videos [five videos]
Five videos [three videos]
Seven videos [one video]
One video [seven videos]
Three videos [five videos]
Five videos [three videos]
Seven videos [one video]
 Exploring the impact of brand placement repetition Journal of Product & Brand Management
Davit Davtyan and Armen Tashchian Volume 31 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1077–1090

Table 2 Comparison of memory measures for different exposure levels (Study 1)

Percent recall Percent recognition
No. of Headphones Chi-square Headphones Chi-square
repetitions Headphones Earphones and earphones value Headphones Earphones and earphones value
One 16.4a 13.5a 14.8a 0.18 67.3a 65.4a 66.7a 0.04
Three 32.7a 32.1a 34.7a 0.08 76.4a 73.6a 79.6a 0.51
Five 44.4a 38.5a 50.5a 1.43 81.5a 80.8a 87.0a 0.89
Seven 51.9a 48.1a 70.90b 6.62 87.0a 86.5a 90.9a 0.56
Notes: Each subscript letter denotes a subset of product categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the 0.05 level;  p < 0.05

H2 proposed that the repetition of two products of the same brand
will elicit higher brand recognition than repetitions of single
products individually. Similar to the above, the logistic regression
model included product strategy and product repetition
frequency as independent variables and brand recognition as the
dependent variable. Results indicated that the logistic regression
model was statistically significant [x 2(5) = 26.59, p < 0.05] and
correctly classified 78.6% of cases. However, an examination of
the corresponding Wald statistics indicated that the product
strategy variable did not contribute to the prediction of brand
recognition [Wald x 2(2) = 1.35, p >0.05]. Follow-up Chi-square
analysis results showed that recognition was not different in
single-product and dual-product conditions across all repetition
levels (Table 2), thus rejecting H2. Based on these findings, the
consideration of RQ2 was not meaningful.
3.4.2 Analysis of attitude effects
H3 proposes that repetitive exposure to brand placements will
increase brand attitudes more in the case of repetition of two
products representing one umbrella brand than in the case of
repetition of one product. To test this hypothesis, a two-way
between-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
conducted to compare the effect of brand placement repetition
(one, three, five and seven repetitions) and product type (Beats
headphones, Beats earphones and dual-product condition) on
brand attitudes. The main effect for repetition was significant,
indicating that brand attitude is higher for higher levels of brand
placement repetition [F(3,627) = 11.56, p < 0.05]. The main
effect of product type was not significant, suggesting that brand
attitudes were not significantly different for all three product types
[F(2,627) = 0.17, p > 0.05] (see Table 3). The interaction effect
Table 3 Mean and (standard deviation) of brand attitudes for different
product and repetition conditions (Study 1)
Product No. of repetitions
Beats headphones One
Three
Five
Seven
Beats earphones One
Three
Five
Seven
Dual-product condition One
(headphones 1 earphones) Three
Five
Seven
between repetition and product type was also not significant [F
(6,627) = 0.06, p > 0.05]. Thus, H3 was rejected and RQ3 was
not meaningful in this context.
4. Study 2
Study 1 aimed to compare the effectiveness of the dual-product
and single-product repetition strategies in improving brand
memory and attitudes. Analysis of data showed that the dual-
product strategy elicited higher recall than the single-product
strategy, but only after several repetitions. No significant
difference was detected at the lower (below seven) levels
of repetition. Furthermore, contrary to our predictions,
participants showed similar levels of brand recognition when
exposed to single- and dual-product conditions. The data
revealed that after three repetitions, the recognition scores were
relatively high (between 76% and 80%) and a possible ceiling
effect occurred, limiting the effectiveness of further repetitions.
A possible explanation for these results might be that the
focal products (headphones and earphones) used in Study 1
were functionally similar; thus, memory structures for these
products partially overlapped (Burke and Srull, 1988; Warlop
et al., 2005). For these types of products, exposure to dual-
product conditions might not result in a considerably different
encoding than exposure to single-product conditions and
differences become significant only at a higher frequency of
repetitions. We hypothesize that the effect registered in Study 1
can be amplified and occur at a lower frequency of repetitions if
the focal products are dissimilar, as dissimilarity will lead to
higher variability of encoding (Singh et al., 1995). Thus, the
following hypotheses and research questions were proposed:
H4. Repetitive exposure to brand placements will increase
the level of brand recall more in the case of repetition of
Mean (SD) two dissimilar products representing one umbrella
brand than in the case of the same number of
4.57 (1.22) repetitions of one product.
5.24 (1.17)
5.17 (1.23) RQ4. How many repetitions are necessary for this effect to
4.84 (1.14) occur for brand recall?
4.47 (1.27)
5.18 (1.17) H5. Repetitive exposure to brand placements will increase
5.22 (1.12) the level of brand recognition more in the case of
4.87 (1.15) repetition for two dissimilar products representing one
4.61 (1.27) umbrella brand than in the case of the same number of
5.26 (1.03) repetitions of one product.
5.23 (1.04)
4.91 (1.34) RQ5. How many repetitions are necessary for this effect to
occur for brand recognition?

1082
 Exploring the impact of brand placement repetition
Davit Davtyan and Armen Tashchian
Additionally, in Study 1, no significant differences in brand
attitudes were found between single- and dual-product
conditions for the four different repetition levels. Based on
propositions of the categorization theory, when exposed to
functionally similar products, consumers might use the same
category schema to evaluate them and consequently attribute
both products to the same product category (Fiske, 1982;
Loken et al., 2008). Thus, the similarity between selected
products might eliminate the suggested differences in brand
attitudes between single- and dual-product conditions, as
repetition might result in the assimilation of new information
while not altering existing mental schema (Salinas and Pérez,
2009; Park et al., 1993). This is consistent with the theory of
pragmatic information (von Weizsäcker, 1974), which suggests
that when individuals are exposed to information with a high
degree of redundancy, the communication impact on brand
image is nominal, as they are involved in confirming existing
knowledge and no brand dynamization occurs (Arnhold, 2010;
Burmann et al., 2017). However, the results might be different
if focal products represent completely different product
categories. In this case, instead of using category-based
processing, consumers might engage in piecemeal processing
and evaluate the products separately (Park and Kim, 2001).
Hence, we propose the following hypotheses and research
questions:
H6. Repetitive exposure to brand placements will increase
the level of brand attitudes more in the case of
repetition of two dissimilar products representing one
umbrella brand than in the case of the same number of
repetitions of one product.
RQ6. How many repetitions are necessary for this effect to
occur for brand attitudes?
4.1 Method
4.1.1 Participants and procedure
The proposed hypotheses and research questions were tested
using a quasi-natural experiment following the same
procedures used for Study 1. Two weeks after the initial data
collection, the second phase of data collection was conducted
using a non-duplicative group of students from the same panel.
A total of 456 new participants were recruited for Study 2.
Table 4 Sample size and Brand placement repetition for research groups (study 2)
Group number Product
Group 1 (n = 55) Headphones
Group 2 (n = 55) Headphones
Group 3 (n = 54) Headphones
Group 4 (n = 54) Headphones
Group 13 (n = 54) Speaker
Group 14 (n = 51) Speaker
Group 15 (n = 53) Speaker
Group 16 (n = 51) Speaker
Group 17 (n = 54) Headphones or speaker
Group 18 (n = 53) Headphones and speaker
Group 19 (n = 54) Headphones and speaker
Group 20 (n = 52) Headphones and speaker
1083
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 31 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1077–1090
A total of 34 individuals were removed from the sample as they
were familiar with the selected music videos. The remaining
422 participants were randomly assigned to one of eight new
experimental groups. The number of participants in each group
varied from 51 to 54. The majority of respondents (96%) were
in the 18–24 age group, with 69% being female. The ethnic
breakdown of respondents was similar to the percentages
reported in Study 1.
Respondents were given access to a Qualtrics questionnaire
hyperlink to participate in the study and were told that they
were to evaluate several music videos. Similar to Study 1,
respondents in each of the eight groups watched a total of eight
videos with different numbers of brand placements, as shown in
Table 4. The median completion time for the survey was
43 min.
4.1.2 Stimuli development
When creating stimuli for Study 2, the brand placement Web
portal database (www.productplacementblog.com) was used to
identify brand placements for different products belonging to
the Beats umbrella brand. From the list, Beats speakers was
selected as a focal product for the second study. This product
has been featured frequently in music videos targeted toward
students and it represents a different product category from
Beats’ signature headphones. Seven music videos containing
Beats speakers were randomly selected from a list of 15 videos
using procedures similar to those used in Study 1. To address
the H4–H6 and RQ4–RQ6 proposed in Study 2, the first four
groups from Study 1 (Groups 1–4) were compared with the
eight new groups recruited for Study 2 (Groups 13–20).
4.2 Results
4.2.1 Analysis of memory effects
H4 proposed a higher recall for dual-product exposure over
single exposure conditions. To address this hypothesis, a
logistic regression analysis was conducted to test the effects of
product strategy (i.e. single- or dual-product, IV) and brand
repetition frequency (IV) on the likelihood that participants
correctly recall the focal brand (DV). The seven-repetition
frequency condition and dual-product condition were used as
reference groups. The logistic regression model was statistically
significant [ x 2(5) = 90.04, p < 0.05] and classified 66.9% of
cases correctly. The examination of Wald statistics indicated
Brand placement [filler video(s)]
One video [seven videos]
Three videos [five videos]
Five videos [three videos]
Seven videos [one video]
One video [seven videos]
Three videos [five videos]
Five videos [three videos]
Seven videos [one video]
One video [seven videos]
Three videos [five videos]
Five videos [three videos]
Seven videos [one video]
 Exploring the impact of brand placement repetition Journal of Product & Brand Management
Davit Davtyan and Armen Tashchian Volume 31 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1077–1090

that both repetition frequency [Wald x 2(3) = 67.92, p < 0.05) Table 6 Mean and (standard deviation) of brand attitudes for different
and product strategy [Wald x 2(2) = 11.12, p < 0.05] product and repetition conditions (Study 2)
significantly contributed to the prediction of brand recall. Product No. of repetitions Mean (SD)
Examination of the Exp(B) values indicates that odds to recall
the focal brand are 0.55 and 0.53 times lower for individuals Beats headphones One 4.57 (1.22)
exposed to headphones only or speakers only than that of dual- Three 5.24 (1.17)
product condition (i.e. headphones and speakers), thus Five 5.17 (1.23)
supporting H4. Seven 4.84 (1.14)
A follow-up Chi-square analysis was conducted to address Beats speakers One 4.68 (1.31)
Three 5.16 (1.27)
RQ4. The results indicate that a significant effect is achieved
Five 5.25 (1.04)
beginning with five repetitions (see Table 5). Specifically, only
Seven 4.80 (1.14)
44.4% and 45.3% of respondents exposed to five repetitions of
Dual-product condition One 4.59 (1.30)
Beats headphones or Beats speakers, respectively, recalled the
(headphones 1 speakers) Three 5.18 (1.16)
brand. In contrast, 64.8% of respondents had correct recall
Five 5.44 (1.01)
when exposed to dual-product repetition (Beats headphones Seven 5.66 (1.25)
and speakers).
H5 stated that exposure to combined product conditions
elicits higher brand recognition than repetitive exposure to product type on brand attitude was found [F(6,628) = 2.33,
single brand placements. The logistic regression model, p < 0.05].
including product repetition frequency and product strategy as Post hoc analysis using least significant difference (LSD)
independent variables and brand recognition as the dependent procedure revealed that at a higher level of repetition (seven
variable, was statistically significant [ x 2(5) = 24.56, p < 0.05] repetitions), participants exposed to dual-product repetitions
and correctly classified 78.8% of cases. However, an had significantly higher levels of brand attitudes than those
examination of the corresponding Wald statistics indicated that exposed to single-product repetitions (see Figure 1). The visual
the product strategy variable did not contribute to the examination of Figure 1 suggests that the effects of repetition of
prediction of brand recognition [Wald x 2(2) = 0.79, p > 0.05]. single-product conditions on brand attitudes show an inverted
Follow-up Chi-square analysis results showed that recognition U-curve relationship, while the same effect for dual-product
was not different in single-product and dual-product exposures is linear in the tested range of repetitions.
conditions across all repetition levels (Table 5). Thus, H5 was
not supported and RQ5 cannot be addressed. 5. Discussion
4.2.2 Analysis of attitude effects For the past several decades, umbrella branding has been
H6 stated that exposure to a dual-product condition of brand successfully used by various organizations to reduce marketing
placements would result in higher attitude levels than repetitive risks and increase brand promotion efficiency. Recently, with
exposure to single brands. A 4  3 between-subjects ANOVA the increasing popularity of brand placements in mass media
was conducted to test this hypothesis, where brand placement (Avramova et al., 2021; Guo et al., 2019; Russell, 2019), several
repetition (one, three, five and seven repetitions) and product products representing a single brand are commonly featured in
type (Beats headphones, Beats speakers and dual-product movies, television programs or other video content (Concave
condition) were the two independent variables. Brand attitude Brand Tracking, 2020). The current study explored the effects
was the dependent variable. of repetitive exposure to two products belonging to the same
The main effect for repetition was significant, indicating that umbrella brand versus those of repetitive exposure to single
brand attitude was higher for higher levels of brand placement products. The results of two separate experiments showed that,
repetition [F(3,628) = 10.91, p < 0.05] (see Table 6). The under certain conditions, the utilization of umbrella branding
analysis yielded no significant main effect for product type, and brand placements together could provide positive
suggesting that brand attitudes are similar for all three product synergistic effects. Specifically, at high levels (around seven) of
conditions, F(2,628) = 2.80, p > 0.05. However, a significant repetition, exposure to two products of one umbrella brand
interaction effect between brand placement repetition and elicited significantly higher brand recall than the same

Table 5 Comparison of memory measures for different exposure levels (Study 2)

Percent recall Percent recognition
No. of Headphones Chi-square Headphones Chi-square
repetitions Headphones Speaker and speaker value Headphones Speaker and speaker value
One 16.4a 14.8a 16.7a 0.08 67.3a 64.8a 68.5a 0.17
Three 32.7a 31.4a 39.6a 0.91 76.4a 78.4a 79.2a 0.14
Five 44.4a 45.3a 64.8b 6.73 81.5a 79.2a 85.2a 0.65
Seven 51.9a 51.0a 75.0b 8.32 87.0a 88.2a 90.4a 0.29
Notes: Each subscript letter denotes a subset of product categories whose column proportions do not differ significantly from each other at the 0.05 level;  p < 0.05

1084
 Exploring the impact of brand placement repetition
Davit Davtyan and Armen Tashchian
Figure 1 Effects of brand placement repetition on brand attitudes
frequency of exposures to single products. Additionally, as
shown in Study 2, this effect could be achieved earlier (after five
repetitions) if products represent dissimilar product categories.
Contrary to our predictions, recognition levels elicited by
single- and dual-product repetitions were not significantly
different in this research. A possible explanation of these
findings might be the fact that as “recognition is more sensible
to learning” (Singh et al., 1988, p. 78), about three exposures to
prominent brand placements are enough to achieve a ceiling
level and further exposures do not affect the recognition levels
significantly (Davtyan et al., 2020). Thus, for companies
seeking to enhance recognition of their umbrella brands, the
repetitive featuring of one of their products should be sufficient
to achieve optimal levels of brand recognition.
According to Sung et al. (2009), by featuring real brands
within mass media programming, producers can increase the
realism of the scene. However, excessive brand placements
might be perceived as unnatural and a detraction from
consumers’ viewing experience. This, in turn, may negatively
affect evaluations of both the brand and the medium in which it
was placed (Meyer et al., 2016). In fact, Homer (2009) posits
that exposure to prominent brand placements within one video
episode might negatively affect brand attitudes. In contrast, the
present study demonstrates that at high levels of repetition, a
dual-product strategy could help mitigate the possible negative
effects of brand placement repetition. However, based on the
findings of Study 2, this effect holds only when the focal
product categories are dissimilar.
Prior studies on umbrella branding suggest that a good fit
between brand extension and parent brand positively affects the
success of the extension (Aaker and Keller, 1990; Völckner and
Sattler, 2006). This study suggests that when the level of fit
between the products is high (e.g. earphones and headphones),
consumers might not perceive brand placements of such
products as different. Consequently, no increase in brand
attitudes could be achieved when implementing a dual-product
1085
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 31 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1077–1090
versus single-product strategy. However, when the level of fit
between the two focal products is moderate (e.g. headphones
and speakers), as in Study 2, the dual-product strategy is more
beneficial in heightening brand attitudes. These findings are
consistent with the newness confirmation model of von
Weizsäcker (1974), which shows that a moderate fit between
incoming and existing brand information helps to maximize the
communication impact of the promotional campaign
(Burmann et al., 2017; Picot et al., 2008).
5.1 Theoretical contributions
Our study is the first attempt at combining research streams on
umbrella branding and brand placements and makes several
important contributions to the existing knowledge in these
fields. First, our results broaden the understanding of brand
placement repetition as a complex, multifaceted phenomenon,
the effectiveness of which depends not only on the frequency of
repetition but also on other factors, such as the number of
products used. Specifically, for the first time in brand
placement literature, we introduce the concept of dual-product
brand placement and demonstrate that repetition of such brand
placements could have different effects on consumers than
repetition of single product placements.
Second, this study contributes to the literature on repetition-
variation strategies (Huang, 2020; Schumann et al., 1990;
Wilson et al., 2021; Yaveroglu and Donthu, 2008; Yoo et al.,
2009) by repositioning them in the brand placement context.
Prior studies on traditional advertising suggest that repetitive
exposure to the same ad could increase boredom, thus reducing
the overall persuasiveness of advertising (Campbell and Keller,
2003; Schmidt and Eisend, 2015; Schumann et al., 1990). To
overcome this negative effect, it has been suggested that ads
should have different variations (Chang, 2009; Huang, 2020).
In the brand placement context, variation strategies can be
achieved either by repetitive exposure to the same brand placed
across different video episodes (single-product strategy) or by
 Exploring the impact of brand placement repetition
Davit Davtyan and Armen Tashchian
showing different products of the same brand (dual-product
strategy). The current study is the first to compare and contrast
the effects of these two strategies on brand memory and
attitudes. In addition, our analysis demonstrates that using the
repetition-variations strategy in the context of brand
placements makes it possible to enhance brand attitudes. This
finding is different from the findings of prior studies that mostly
explored repetitions of single-product placements and did not
find any positive effects of repetition on brand attitudes
(Homer, 2009; Matthes et al., 2012).
Finally, the results of this study contribute to our
understanding of how promotional support affects the
effectiveness of umbrella branding. Previous research
demonstrated the existence of the positive spillover effect from
promotions of the extension on the attitudes and choice of the
parent brand (Balachander and Ghose, 2003; Ye et al., 2020)
and that high fit between the parent brand and the extension
improves this spillover effect (Lane and Fastoso, 2016). Also,
according to Martínez et al. (2009), brand extensions benefit
from being similar to parent brands, as the level of fit between
them positively affects attitudes toward the extension (Pina
et al., 2013). In contrast to this popular belief, our findings
suggest that during joint promotions through brand
placements, better results might be achieved in cases of a
moderate stretch of the extension from the parent brand.
5.2 Managerial implications
Important managerial implications of this research include the
findings that the dual-product strategy has advantages over the
single-product strategy in eliciting brand recall, but not brand
recognition. Depending on the type of product or purchase
environment, brand recognition could be enough to influence
brand choice and marketers could equally benefit from single-
and dual-product brand placements. For example, for low-
involvement products, for which purchase decisions are usually
made in stores, brand recognition might be sufficient for the
purchase, as buyers are exposed to various cues (e.g. brand
name and packaging) that stimulate their brand memory
(Keller and Swaminathan, 2020; Lardinoit and Derbaix, 2001;
Lerman and Garbarino, 2002). However, when buyers make
purchase decisions by retrieving information from memory
without observing brand names or other brand identifiers
(e.g. shopping from home, selecting services), top-of-mind
awareness is vital for brand selection and brand recall becomes
more important than brand recognition (Keller and
Swaminathan, 2020; Khurram et al., 2018; Shamsollahi et al.,
2017). Thus, it is suggested that marketing managers and
brand owners consider using dual-product brand placements
when marketing high-involvement products, brands with loyal
customer bases or service brands.
Furthermore, past brand placement studies suggest that
marketing practitioners have to choose between improving
brand memory and enhancing brand attitudes. Strategies that
improve memory are believed to negatively affect attitudes
(Cowley and Barron, 2008; Neale and Corkindale, 2021; Van
Reijmersdal, 2009). For example, Neale and Corkindale
(2021) recommend that managers of well-known brands avoid
brand placement strategies (e.g. repetition) that aim to build
brand exposure, as excessive exposure could negatively affect
these brands. In contrast, our findings suggest that these
1086
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 31 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1077–1090
negative effects can be mitigated or delayed in the case of dual-
product promotions. Thus, marketers do not need to choose
between boosting brand recall or heightening brand attitudes,
as it is possible achieving both high brand recall and positive
brand attitudes simultaneously by using a dual-product
strategy.
5.3 Limitations and future research
A number of limitations could have influenced our results and
the generalizability of our findings. In this section, we discuss
these limitations and suggest avenues for future research.
The current study examined the effects of the repetition of
three specific product categories (headphones, earphones and
speakers) of one umbrella brand (Beats) set in a specific context
(music videos) through quasi-natural experiments. Thus, all of
the findings should be considered through the prism of these
settings. To increase the generalizability of the results, further
research is needed to replicate these studies using various
umbrella brands, product categories representing different
levels of fit and other media (e.g. movies, TV shows) through
field experiments. Moreover, as binge-watching TV shows is
becoming a common phenomenon and modern content
producers such as Netflix and Amazon release several episodes
of their shows simultaneously, testing the effects of brand
placement repetition under conditions when viewers watch
hours of programming back-to-back might be useful.
Furthermore, this study focused on the short-term effects of
brand placements by taking measurements shortly after
exposure, thus ignoring the long-term effects of brand
placements (Verhellen et al., 2016). It is unlikely that people
shop for advertised products immediately after watching a show
or viewing a music video on YouTube. As both recall and
recognition tend to decrease over time (Singh et al., 1988) and
measurement delay influences the effectiveness of advertising
strategies (Singh et al., 1995), future research should examine
the effects of multiproduct brand placements across several
time points (e.g. days, weeks) to enhance our understanding of
the effects of time-delayed measurements.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1990), “Brand extensions: the good, the bad and
the ugly”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 47-56.
Aaker, D.A. and Keller, K.L. (1990), “Consumer evaluations
of Brand extensions”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1,
pp. 27-41.
Anderson, J.R. (1983), “A spreading activation theory of
memory”, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 261-295.
Appleton-Knapp, S.L., Bjork, R.A. and Wickens, T.D. (2005),
“Examining the spacing effect in advertising: encoding
variability, retrieval processes and their interaction”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 266-276.
Arnhold, U. (2010), User Generated Branding: Integrating User
Generated Content into Brand Management, Springer Science &
Business Media, Springer Gabler Research, Bremen.
Avramova, Y.R., De Pelsmacker, P. and Dens, N. (2017),
“Brand placement repetition in a fictional text”, International
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 38-59.
 Exploring the impact of brand placement repetition
Davit Davtyan and Armen Tashchian
Avramova, Y.R., Dens, N. and De Pelsmacker, P. (2021),
“Brand placement across media: the interaction of
placement modality and frequency in film versus text”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 128, pp. 20-30.
Balachander, S. and Ghose, S. (2003), “Reciprocal spillover
effects: a strategic benefit of brand extensions”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 4-13.
Balasubramanian, S.K., Patwardhan, H., Pillai, D. and Coker,
K.K. (2014), “Modeling attitude constructs in movie
product placements”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 516-531.
Benjamin, A.S. and Tullis, J. (2010), “What makes distributed
practice effective?”, Cognitive Psychology, Vol. 61 No. 3,
pp. 228-247.
Bhatnagar, N., Aksoy, L. and Malkoc, S.A. (2004),
“Embedding brands within media content: the impact of
message, media and consumer characteristics on placement
efficacy”, in Shrum, L.J. (Ed.), The Psychology of
Entertainment Media, Erlbaum Psych Press, New York, NY,
pp. 110-127.
Boerman, S.C., Tessitore, T. and Müller, C.M. (2021),
“Long-term effects of brand placement disclosure on
persuasion knowledge and brand responses”, International
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 26-48.
Bornstein, R.F. and D’Agostino, P.R. (1992), “Stimulus
recognition and the mere exposure effect”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 545-552.
Brehm, S.S. and Brehm, J.W. (2013), Psychological Reactance:
A Theory of Freedom and Control, Academic Press, New York,
NY.
Brettel, M., Reich, J.C., Gavilanes, J.M. and Flatten, T.C.
(2015), “What drives advertising success on Facebook? An
advertising-effectiveness model: measuring the effects on
sales of ‘likes’ and other social-network stimuli”, Journal of
Advertising Research, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 162-175.
Burke, R.R. and Srull, T.K. (1988), “Competitive interference
and consumer memory for advertising”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 55-68.
Burmann, C., Riley, N.M., Halaszovich, T. and Schade, M.
(2017), Identity-Based Brand Management, Springer Gabler,
Wiesbaden.
Cabral, L.M. (2009), “Umbrella branding with imperfect
observability and moral hazard”, International Journal of
Industrial Organization, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 206-213.
Campbell, M.C. and Keller, K.L. (2003), “Brand familiarity
and advertising repetition effects”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 292-304.
Cauberghe, V. and De Pelsmacker, P. (2010), “Advergames”,
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 5-18.
Chan, F.F.Y. (2012), “Product placement and its
effectiveness: a systematic review and propositions for future
research”, The Marketing Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 39-60.
Chang, C. (2009), “Repetition variation strategies for narrative
advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 51-66.
Chang, Y. and Thorson, E. (2004), “Television and web
advertising synergies”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 33 No. 2,
pp. 75-84.
Concave Brand Tracking (2020), “Top 10 product placement
brands in 2019 movies”, available at: https://concavebt.com/
1087
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 31 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1077–1090
top-10-product-placement-brands-in-2019-movies/ (accessed
12 February 2021).
Cowley, E. and Barron, C. (2008), “When product placement
goes wrong: the effects of program liking and placement
prominence”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 37 No. 1,
pp. 89-98.
Craig, C., Flynn, M.A. and Holody, K.J. (2017), “Name
dropping and product mentions: branding in popular music
lyrics”, Journal of Promotion Management, Vol. 23 No. 2,
pp. 258-276.
Danaher, P.J. (2017), “Advertising effectiveness and media
exposure”, in Wierenga, B. and van der Lans, R. (Eds),
Handbook of Marketing Decision Models, 2nd ed., Springer,
Cham, pp. 463-481.
d’Astous, A. and Chartier, F. (2000), “A study of factors
affecting consumer evaluations and memory of product
placements in movies”, Journal of Current Issues & Research in
Advertising, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 31-40.
Davtyan, D., Stewart, K. and Cunningham, I. (2016),
“Comparing brand placements and advertisements on brand
recall and recognition”, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 56 No. 3, pp. 299-310.
Davtyan, D., Cunningham, I. and Tashchian, A. (2020),
“Effectiveness of brand placements in music videos on
viewers’ brand memory, brand attitude and behavioral
intentions”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 55 No. 2,
pp. 420-443.
Dens, N. and De Pelsmacker, P. (2016), “Does poor fit always
lead to negative evaluations? Extension advertising and
perceived brand quality”, International Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 465-485.
Dens, N., De Pelsmacker, P., Wouters, M. and Purnawirawan,
N. (2012), “Do you like what you recognize?”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 35-54.
Eagle, L. and Dahl, S. (2018), “Product placement in old and
new media: examining the evidence for concern”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 147 No. 3, pp. 605-618.
Erdem, T. and Sun, B. (2002), “An empirical investigation of
the spillover effects of advertising and sales promotions in
umbrella branding”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 39
No. 4, pp. 408-420.
Erdem, T., Swait, J. and Valenzuela, A. (2006), “Brands as
signals: a cross-country validation study”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 34-49.
Esch, F.R., Langner, T., Schmitt, B.H. and Geus, P. (2006),
“Are brands forever? How brand knowledge and
relationships affect current and future purchases”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 98-105.
Fiske, S.T. (1982), “Schema-triggered affect: applications to
social perception”, in Clarke, M.S. and Fiske, S.T. (Eds),
Affect and Cognition: 17th Annual Carnegie Mellon Symposium
on Cognition, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp. 55-78.
Friestad, M. and Wright, P. (1994), “The persuasion
knowledge model: how people cope with persuasion
attempts”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 1-31.
Fuentes, L.J., Carmona, E., Agis, I.F. and Catena, A. (1994),
“The role of the anterior attention system in semantic
processing of both foveal and parafoveal words”, Journal of
Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 17-25.
 Exploring the impact of brand placement repetition
Davit Davtyan and Armen Tashchian
Gistri, G. and Corciolani, M. (2020), “Towards a better
understanding of practitioners’ ideas about product
placement: an empirical analysis in the Italian context”,
Italian Journal of Marketing, Vol. 2020 No. 4, pp. 261-288.
Guo, F., Ye, G., Hudders, L., Lv, W., Li, M. and Duffy, V.G.
(2019), “Product placement in mass media: a review and
bibliometric analysis”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 48 No. 2,
pp. 215-231.
Hakenes, H. and Peitz, M. (2008), “Umbrella branding and
the provision of quality”, International Journal of Industrial
Organization, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 546-556.
Haugtvedt, C.P., Schumann, D.W., Schneier, W.L. and
Warren, W.L. (1994), “Advertising repetition and variation
strategies: implications for understanding attitude strength”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 176-189.
Homer, P.M. (2009), “Product placements: the impact of
placement type and repetition on attitude”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 21-32.
Huang, G. (2020), “Platform variation and content variation
on social media: a dual-route model of cognitive and
experiential effects”, Journal of Promotion Management,
Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 396-433.
Karrh, J.A., McKee, K.B. and Pardun, C.J. (2003),
“Practitioners’ evolving views on product placement
effectiveness”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 43 No. 2,
pp. 138-149.
Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring and
managing customer-based brand equity”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Keller, K.L. and Swaminathan, V. (2020), Strategic Brand
Management: building, Measuring and Managing Brand
Equity, Pearson, Harlow.
Keller, K.O., Geyskens, I. and Dekimpe, M.G. (2020),
“Opening the umbrella: the effects of rebranding multiple
category-specific private-label brands to one umbrella
Brand”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 57 No. 4,
pp. 677-694.
Khurram, M., Qadeer, F. and Sheeraz, M. (2018), “The role of
brand recall, brand recognition and price consciousness in
understanding actual purchase”, Journal of Research in Social
Sciences, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 219-241.
Kim, N.Y. (2018), “The effect of ad customization and ad
variation on internet users’ perceptions of forced multiple
advertising exposures and attitudes”, Journal of Interactive
Advertising, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 15-27.
Kononova, A., Kim, W., Joo, E. and Lynch, K. (2020), “Click,
click, ad: the proportion of relevant (vs. irrelevant) ads
matters when advertising within paginated online content”,
International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 39 No. 7,
pp. 1031-1058.
Krishen, A.S. and Sirgy, M.J. (2016), “Identifying with the
brand placed in music videos makes me like the brand”,
Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, Vol. 37
No. 1, pp. 45-58.
Lane, V.R. (2000), “The impact of ad repetition and ad content
on consumer perceptions of incongruent extensions”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 80-91.
Lane, V.R. and Fastoso, F. (2016), “The impact of repeated ad
exposure on spillover from low fit extensions to a global
1088
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 31 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1077–1090
brand”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 33 No. 2,
pp. 298-318.
Lardinoit, T. and Derbaix, C. (2001), “Sponsorship and recall
of sponsors”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 2,
pp. 167-190.
Lerman, D. and Garbarino, E. (2002), “Recall and recognition
of brand names: a comparison of word and non-word
name types”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 19 Nos 7/8,
pp. 621-639.
Loken, B., Barsalou, L.W. and Joiner, C. (2008),
“Categorization theory and research in consumer
psychology: category representation and category-based
inference”, in Haugtvedt, C.P., Kardes, F., Herr, P. (Eds),
Handbook of Consumer Psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 133-165.
Maheswaran, D. and Sternthal, B. (1990), “The effects of
knowledge, motivation and type of message on ad processing
and product judgments”, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 66-73.
Marchand, A., Hennig-Thurau, T. and Best, S. (2015),
“When James bond shows off his omega: does product
placement affect its media host?”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 49 Nos 9/10, pp. 1666-1685.
Martínez, E., Montaner, T. and Pina, J.M. (2009), “Brand
extension feedback: the role of advertising”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 305-313.
Martí-Parreño, J., Bermejo-Berros, J. and Aldas-Manzano, J.
(2017), “Product placement in video games: the effect of
brand familiarity and repetition on consumers’ memory”,
Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 38, pp. 55-63.
Matthes, J., Wirth, W., Schemer, C. and Pachoud, N. (2012),
“Tiptoe or tackle? the role of product placement prominence
and program involvement for the mere exposure effect”,
Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, Vol. 33
No. 2, pp. 129-145.
Melton, A.W. (1970), “The situation with respect to the
spacing of repetitions and memory”, Journal of Verbal
Learning and Verbal Behavior, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 596-606.
Meyer, J., Song, R. and Ha, K. (2016), “The effect of product
placements on the evaluation of movies”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 50 Nos 3/4, pp. 530-549.
Miklos-Thal, J. (2012), “Linking reputations through umbrella
branding”, Quantitative Marketing and Economics, Vol. 10
No. 3, pp. 335-374.
Neale, M. and Corkindale, D. (2021), “Make product
placement work for you: get less exposure”, Business
Horizons, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 149-157.
Nordhielm, C.L. (2002), “The influence of level of processing
on advertising repetition effects”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 371-382.
Omnicore (2020), “YouTube by the numbers: stats,
demographics and fun facts”, available at: www.
omnicoreagency.com/youtube-statistics (accessed 12 February
2021).
Park, C.W., McCarthy, M.S. and Milberg, S.J. (1993), “The
effects of direct and associative brand extension strategies on
consumer response to brand extensions”, ACR North
American Advances, Vol. 20, pp. 28-33.
Park, J.W. and Kim, K.H. (2001), “Role of consumer
relationships with a brand in brand extensions: some
 Exploring the impact of brand placement repetition
Davit Davtyan and Armen Tashchian
exploratory findings”, ACR North American Advances,
Vol. 28, pp. 179-185.
Pepall, L.M. and Richards, D.J. (2002), “The simple
economics of brand stretching”, The Journal of Business,
Vol. 75 No. 3, pp. 535-552.
Percy, L. and Rossiter, J.R. (1992), “A model of brand
awareness and brand attitude advertising strategies”,
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 263-274.
Picot, A., Wigand, R. and Reichwald, R. (2008), Information,
Organization and Management, Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg.
Pina, J.M., Riley, F.D.O. and Lomax, W. (2013),
“Generalizing spillover effects of goods and service brand
extensions: a meta-analysis approach”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 66 No. 9, pp. 1411-1419.
Rasmusen, E.B. (2016), “Leveraging of reputation through
umbrella branding: the implications for market structure”,
Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Vol. 25 No. 2,
pp. 261-273.
Russell, C.A. (2019), “Expanding the agenda of research on
product placement: a commercial inter text”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 38-48.
Salinas, E.M. and Pérez, J.M.P. (2009), “Modeling the brand
extensions’ influence on brand image”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 50-60.
Sanchez-Olmos, C. and Castell o-Martínez, A. (2020), “Brand
placement in music videos: artists, brands and products
appearances in the billboard hot 100 from 2003 to 2016”,
Journal of Promotion Management, Vol. 26 No. 6,
pp. 874-892.
Schacter, D.L. (2008), Searching for Memory: The Brain, the
Mind and the Past, Basic Books, New York, NY.
Schmidt, S. and Eisend, M. (2015), “Advertising repetition: a
meta-analysis on effective frequency in advertising”, Journal
of Advertising, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 415-428.
Schumann, D.W., Petty, R.E. and Clemons, D.S. (1990),
“Predicting the effectiveness of different strategies of
advertising variation: a test of the repetition-variation
hypotheses”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 192-202.
Schwemmer, C. and Ziewiecki, S. (2018), “Social media
sellout: the increasing role of product promotion on
YouTube”, Social Media1 Society, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 1-20.
Sebri, M. and Zaccour, G. (2017), “Estimating umbrella-
branding spillovers: a retailer perspective”, European Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 51 Nos 9/10, pp. 1695-1712.
Shamsollahi, A., Amirshahi, M. and Ghaffari, F. (2017),
“Brand name recall: a study of the effects of word types,
processing and involvement levels”, Journal of Marketing
Communications, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 240-259.
Singh, S.N., Rothschild, M.L. and Churchill, G.A. Jr. (1988),
“Recognition versus recall as measures of television
commercial forgetting”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 72-80.
Singh, S.N., Linville, D. and Sukhdial, A. (1995), “Enhancing
the efficacy of split thirty-second television commercials: an
encoding variability application”, Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 13-23.
Sung, Y., De Gregorio, F. and Jung, J. (2009), “Non-student
consumer attitudes towards product placement: implications
1089
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 31 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1077–1090
for public policy and advertisers”, International Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 257-285.
Teichert, T.A. and Schöntag, K. (2010), “Exploring consumer
knowledge structures using associative network analysis”,
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 369-398.
Tellis, G. (2004), Effective Advertising: Understanding When,
How and Why Advertising Works, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Unnava, H.R. and Burnkrant, R.E. (1991), “Effects of
repeating varied ad executions on brand name memory”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 406-416.
Vakratsas, D. and Ambler, T. (1999), “How advertising works:
what do we really know?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63
No. 1, pp. 26-43.
Van Reijmersdal, E.A. (2009), “Brand placement prominence:
good for memory! Bad for attitudes?”, Journal of Advertising
Research, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 151-153.
Vandeberg, L., Murre, J.M., Voorveld, H.A. and Smit, E.G.
(2015), “Dissociating explicit and implicit effects of cross-
media advertising”, International Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 744-764.
Verhellen, Y., Dens, N. and De Pelsmacker, P. (2013),
“Consumer responses to brands placed in YouTube
movies: the effect of prominence and endorser expertise”,
Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 287-303.
Verhellen, Y., Eelen, J., Dens, N. and De Pelsmacker, P. (2016),
“The short-and long-term impact of brand placement in an
advertiser-funded TV program on viewers’ attitudes toward
the sponsor brand and its main competitor”, International
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 932-948.
Völckner, F. and Sattler, H. (2006), “Drivers of brand
extension success”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 2,
pp. 18-34.
von Weizsäcker, E. (1974), “Erstmaligkeit und bestätigung als
komponente der pragmatischen information”, in von
Weizsäcker, E. (Eds), Offene Systeme I. Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart,
pp. 82-113.
Warlop, L., Ratneshwar, S. and Van Osselaer, S.M. (2005),
“Distinctive brand cues and memory for product
consumption experiences”, International Journal of Research
in Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 27-44.
Wernerfelt, B. (1988), “Umbrella branding as a signal of new
product quality: an example of signaling by posting a bond”,
The RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 458-466.
Wilson, R.T., Lohmeier, J.H., Lustick, D.S. and Chen, R.F.
(2021), “Using transit advertising to improve public
engagement with social issues”, International Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 783-809.
Yaveroglu, I. and Donthu, N. (2008), “Advertising repetition
and placement issues in on-line environments”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 31-44.
Ye, S., Wu, L. and Paek, S. (2020), “Examining the step-up
brand extensions of budget hotels: the reciprocal spillover
effects”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 61 No. 2,
pp. 154-169.
Yoo, C., Bang, H.K. and Kim, Y. (2009), “The effects of a
consistent ad series on consumer evaluations: a test of the
repetition–variation hypothesis in a South Korean context”,
International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 105-123.
 Exploring the impact of brand placement repetition
Davit Davtyan and Armen Tashchian
About the authors
Davit Davtyan is an Assistant Professor of Marketing in the
Parker College of Business, Georgia Southern University,
USA. His research focus is on brand placements, measuring
the effectiveness of advertising campaigns and diffusion of
innovation. Dr Davtyan has published in the European
Journal of Marketing, Journal of Advertising Research
and Journal of Business Research. Davit Davtyan is the
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
1090
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 31 · Number 7 · 2022 · 1077–1090
corresponding author and can be contacted at: morntwins@
gmail.com
Armen Tashchian is Professor of Marketing in the Coles
College of Business at Kennesaw State University, USA. He
has published in numerous academic journals, including
Journal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of
Academy of Marketing Science and Journal of Business Research,
among others.