This article was downloaded by: [Ryerson University]On: 01 December 2014, At: 09:54Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Current Issues & Research in AdvertisingPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujci20

A Study of Factors Affecting Consumer Evaluations andMemory of Product Placements in MoviesAlain D'Astous Ph.D. a b & Francis Chartier M.Sc. c da University of Florida , USAb HEC-Montreal , Montreal , Canadac University of Sherbrooked Standard Life Portfolio Management , CanadaPublished online: 08 May 2012.

To cite this article: Alain D'Astous Ph.D. & Francis Chartier M.Sc. (2000) A Study of Factors Affecting Consumer Evaluationsand Memory of Product Placements in Movies, Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 22:2, 31-40, DOI:10.1080/10641734.2000.10505106

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2000.10505106

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

A Study of Factors Affecting Consumer Evaluations and Memo y of Product Placements in Movies

Alain d'Astous and Francis Chartier

An important issue for afirm wishing to invest in a product placement is deciding how its product or brand is going to be presented within the movie. Accordingly, the objective of this research study is to examine the impact of objective and subjective characteristics of product placements on consumer evaluations and memo y. A sample of 103 moviegoers viewed and reacted to 18 product placements fakenfrom 11 diflerent movies. After a one-weekdelay, they were contacted and asked to recall the products and brands they had seen. Based on the results, it appears that the eflectiveness of product placement as a communication strategy must be gauged against the specific objectives of decision makers.

There is growing marketing literature on the topic of product placement either in television programs (d'Astous and %guin 1999) or in movies (Babin and Calder 1996; Brennan, Dubas and Babin 1999; Gupta and Gould 1997; Gupta and Lord 1998; Nebenzahl and Secunda 1993). A product placement is the inclusion of a product, a brand name or the name of a firm in a movie or in a television program for promotional pur- poses. The objective of this communication strategy is to increase consumer awareness and hopefully have a positive impact on consumer preference and intention to buy. Because of the proliferation of advertisements and the consequent difficulty in getting commercial messages to reach and influence potential customers, product placement appears as an interesting alterna- tive to traditional marketing communication tools.

The present research study is concerned with prod- uct placement in movies, which so far has attracted the most attention from marketing researchers. After discussing the reasons why marketers are getting ina-eas- ingly interestdin product placement in movies and briefly reviewing the research literature on this topic, we develop some research hypotheses and present the results of an empirid study where these hypotheses are tested.

Background Discussion There seem to be three main reasons why marketers

consider product placement in movies as an interest-

Alaind'Astous (Ph.D.,Universityof Florida) isProfessor of Market- ing at HEC-Montreal, Montreal, Canada. Frands Chartier (M.Sc., University of Sherbrooke) is a Marketing Specialist at Standard Life Portfolio Management, Canada. The authors would like to thank Francis Leblanc for his help during the first phase of this research and the reviewers for their many helpful comments.

ing communication strategy (Br6e 1996). First, watch- ing a movie is a high attention and involving activity. The particular exposure context associated with mov- ies in theaters (lights off, minimal noise and distrac- tion possibilities, large screen, difficulty in moving around, no zapping) is bound to lead to a high level of consumer attention as opposed to, say, listening to television. In addition, movie goers expend some significant effort (choosing a movie, driving to the theater, finding a parking place, staying in line, find- ing a seat) and money (transportation, parking, tick- ets) in order to go to a movie and are therefore quite involved during the show. Second, successful movies attract large audiences. A blockbuster movie like Ter- minator IZ for instance has been seen by millions of people, and this does not include video purchases and rentals, and eventual television broadcasts. There- fore, from a strict cost per viewer point of view, a product placement in a movie is a real bargain. Fi- nally, product placement represents a natural, non- aggressive, non-persuasive way of promoting a brand or a firm. Hence, it may lead to less counterarguing and "internal zapping" from consumers.

Research on product placement in movies is not abundant (for a recent review, see Karrh 1998). Some studies have focused on examining whether consumer brand awareness significantly increases after seeing a movie containing one or more product placements (Babin and Carder 1996; Gupta and Lord 1998; Karrh 1994; Vollmers and Mizerski 1994). The results of these studies indicate that product placement is effec- tive in increasing brand awareness, although consumer

]oicnral of Current Issues and Research irr Adwrtisirtg, Volume 22, Number 2 (Fall 2000).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rye

rson

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:54

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14

32 Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising

confusion is quite common (e.g. believing having seen a placement of Coca-Cola when there was none). Re- viewing the research literature and their own find- ings, Babin and Carder (1996) conclude that while product placement significantly increases brand rec- ognition, it is marginally efficient from the point of

Other studies have been concerned with ethical is- sues. In their seminal research, Nebenzahl and Se- cunda (1993) found that consumer attitudes toward product placements are generally quite positive. How- ever, some people oppose this form of marketing com- munication on ethical grounds, arguing that place- ments resemble subliminal advertising and should therefore be banned. Gupta and Gould (1997) found that the perceived unacceptability of product place- ments depends on the nature of the product. Product placements involving such ethically charged prod- ucts as cigarettes, alcoholic beverages and firearms, are perceived as significantly less acceptable than placements of ordinary consumer products.

Previous research on product placement in movies has two major limitations. First, it has focused princi- pally on brand awareness and has neglected to look at consumer reactions toward placements. When con- sumer reactions toward product placements are con- sidered, attention usually focuses on product place- ment in general (e.g. “In my opinion, product place- ment is - and should be -” -Nebenzahl and Secunda 1993) rather than on specific placements (“What do you think of this product placement?”). Pechmann and Shih (1999) have looked at consumer reactions (happiness/sadness, boredom/excitement) toward movie scenes depicting smoking (a type of product placement), but their interest centered on the level of arousal elicited by movie scenes rather than on how smoking (or cigarettes) was actually placed in the various scenes that they used as stimuli. Aided and unaided recall of brands placed in movies pro- vide useful measures of the impact of product place- ment, but it is important to study also how movie goers actually react to placements in movies. Second, studies have ignored how the characteristics of prod- uct placements impact differently on consumer reac- tions and memory. An important issue for a firm wishing to invest in a product placement is deciding how its product or brand is going to be presented within the movie. For instance, should the principal actor be present or is it sufficient to simply show the brand name? Should the placement be prominent or in background? Should the placement stand out of the movie scene or should it be well integrated within it? We need to know about the effects of such differ-

. view of brand recall.

ent product placement strategies on movie goers’ evaluations and memory.

Preliminary Study The objectives of the preliminary study were (1) to

uncover the semantics used by consumers when they encounter or think about product placements in mov- ies, (2) to identify the features that can be used to distinguish placements in general, and (3) to come up with specific research hypotheses concerning the re- lationships between placement characteristics and con- sumer reactions.

Product Placement Stimuli The first step of the study consisted of setting up a

sample of product placements. The sampling frame included 19 judgmentally selected well-known mov- ies subjectively grouped into three categories: action/ adventure (6 movies), drama (6 movies) and comedy (7 movies). The 19 movies were watched entirely and all product placements were noted. Each placement was classified according to one of three product types: common repeat purchase product (e.g., soft drink), less frequently bought consumer good or durable (e.g., clothing, car), and service (e.g., restaurant). A total of 191 product placements were identified. The largest number of placements was found in the comedy/ repeat purchase product group (n=44) and the lowest number in the action/service group (n=6). The final sample of product placements was constructed by randomly selecting 5 placements per movie type/ product type group, i.e., 45 product placements in all.

The next step of the study consisted of extracting the placements from the movies and assembling them on videotape. The organization on the videotape was done by product type: 15 product placements of com- mon repeat purchase products followed by 15 place- ments of durables and 15 placements of services. Each presentation of product placement on the videotape followed the same format: (1) placement number, from 1 to 45 (5 seconds), (2) title of the movie and short description of the scene (10 seconds), (3) black screen (5 seconds), (4) movie scene including the placement (1 to 10 seconds), and (5) black screen (5 seconds).

The 45 placements were watched by two judges who coded them jointly on six dimensions: visibility of the product or brand in the scene (placement in front/in background), mention of the brand by one or more actors (yes/no), length (short=l to 3 seconds, medium=4 to 6 seconds, long=7 to 10 seconds), place- ment subtlety (subtle/manifest), principal actor uses

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rye

rson

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:54

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Fall 2OOO 33

Table 1 List of Terms Associated with Product Placements (in alphabetical order)

Aggressive Obvious Amusing Original Attention Getting Passive Bad Taste Brand is Clearly Presented Shocking Couldn't Miss It Dishonest Subtle Dynamic Touches Me Efficient Unacceptable Excellent Unintended Has No Place Immoral Ingenious Well Placed Looks Like an Ad

Related to the Film Context

Should be Forbidden

Unrelated to the Scene Well Integrated in the Movie

the product (yes/no), and principal actor is present (yes/no). Subtlety/manifestness was judged in a sub- jective manner and reflected the extent to which it was clear that the brand was included in the movie scene for promotion purpose. Upon completing the task, it was found that there were an approximately equal number of subtle and manifest placements in the sample. This factor was used as a basis for defin- ing pairs of placements to serve as stimuli in the sub- sequent qualitative interviews with consumers.

Consumer Semantics Eleven consumers participated in the next phase of

the study. All were university students with an inter- est in cinema. Three pairs of placements were used as stimuli during each interview. There were thus 33 different pairs of stimuli defined using the 45 original placements. Each pair included a subtle and a mani- fest placement presented in a random order. The participants had to watch the first placement of a pair and answer a series of questions aimed at inducing the perceptual dimensions used during the viewing (What was the product? What did you think? How would you describe this placement? etc.). This task was repeated with the second placement of the pair. Next, they watched both placements in sequence and answered questions aimed at uncovering the perceived differences and similarities between them (On which aspects are the placements similar? On which aspects are they different?). The whole procedure was re- peated with the other two pairs of placements.

The participants' answers were transcribed and con- tent analyzed. Six main categories emerged from this analysis: (1) subtlety (eg., "You couldn't miss it"), (2)

length (e.g., "The second one is longer"), (3) integra- tion within the movie scene (e.g., "It's a nice way to get noticed ... it fits well in the scene"), (4) personal judgment (e.g., "I prefer the second placement"), (5) brand awareness ("I saw Apple computers"), and (6) mention of the brand ("They don't show the product, but the brand name is mentioned twice"). Ninety-six different terms were taken directly from respondents' transcripts. Twenty-four additional terms were added to this initial set to represent other dimensions that, upon surveying the literature on product placements, were deemed to be relevant (e.g., immoral, dynamic). The 120 terms were either descriptive (e.g., couldn't see the brand, well integrated) or evaluative (e.g., pleasant, shocking).

In order to reduce the list of terms, 12 university students showing some interest in cinema were asked to express their propensity of using each term to de- scribe or react to a product placement on a seven- point bipolar scale (I would certainly not use it/I would certainly use it). Eliminating those terms ob- taining a mean rating lower than 5 reduced the list to 31. To further reduce the number of terms, whenever two terms were strongly redundant (e.g., excellent, very good), the one with the lowest propensity of use mean was eliminated. This resulted in a final list of 27 terms presented in Table 1.

Research Hypotheses The preliminary study allowed the identification of

several product placement descriptors that can be di- vided into two groups: objective (e.g., length) and subjective (e.g., subtlety). Based on previous research findings and some results out of the preliminary study,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rye

rson

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:54

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14

34 Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising

it is possible to put forward some general research hypotheses regarding the impact of some of these descriptors on consumer evaluations and memory.

In general, one expects that highly visible stimuli be remembered more easily. Gupta and Lord (1998) found that prominent placements are better recalled and recognized than subtle ones. The first research hypothesis is based on these observations.

HI: The more prominent a product placement in a movie, the better it will be remem- bered by consumers.

Marketing professionals working in the area of prod- uct placement seem to believe that a good placement is one where the product comes naturally in the movie: “the appearance of a product will be successful inas- much as it melts into the story and the moment” (BrCe 1996, p. 70, citing the president of Film MCdia Con- sultant, a French communication agency that special- izes in product placements in movies). d’Astous and SCguin (1999) found that consumers better evaluate product placements within television programs when the product is clearly related to the contents of the program. Extending this result to product placements in movies, it is expected that consumers will appreci- ate well-integrated placements. Well-integrated place- ments may however be more difficult to dissociate from the movie scene (the figure and ground effect) and, as a consequence, less likely to be remembered.

y: The better the integration of a product placement in a movie scene, the more con- sumers will like it, but the less they will remember it.

The impact of associating a product with a movie star has not been specifically examined by researchers who have worked on the topic of product placement, al- though the phenomenon of celebrity endorsing is a sub- ject that has interested many consumer researchers (see McCracken 1989). Classical conditioning theory pre- dicts that associating a placement with a positively evalu- ated stimulus, such as a movie star, should have a posi- tive impact on consumer reactions. In the case of prod- uct placements, the impact of associating the product with a movie star may be even greater because viewers are not particularly engaged in product-relevant think- ing (Petty, Unnava and Strathman 1991).

I-$ Product placements in which the princi- pal actor is present will be better liked and remembered than product place- ments in which it is not.

Nebenzahl and Secunda (1993) reported that al- though consumers have positive opinions of product placements in general, they do not necessarily think that it is a good thing from a moral point of view (see

also Gupta and Gould 1997). Becoming aware of an influence attempt may lead viewers to question the acceptability of a placement. In the preliminary study, it was found that consumers perceived manifest place- ments more favorably. It is therefore proposed that:

H,: The more a product placement in a movie is perceived as manifest, the more con- sumers will like it, but the more it will be judged as immoral.

Main Study

Method Stimuli. The goal of the main study was to assess

the impact of objective and subjective characteristics of product placements on consumer evaluations and memory. To accomplish this goal, the sample of prod- uct placements had to be reduced to make the evalua- tion task easier. Product placements that featured the same brand were discarded as well as movie scenes containing more than one placement. Also, place- ments that were judged by participants in the pre- liminary study as difficult to notice or ambiguous were discarded. The reduced sample comprises 18 placements as shown in Table 2.

As can be seen in Table 2, some movies were used more than once to compose the stimulus set (e.g., Foiwst Gump, Happy Gilmore). However, this was not considered a major threat to validity in view of the fact that measures of consumer reactions would focus on brand placements and not on movies.

Measures and Data Collection. The participants were recruited among students in a mid-size North Ameri- can university. Because data collection was particu- larly taxing on respondents (the task took 60 minutes to complete on average), sampling was done on a vol- untary basis, the only requirement being the expression of some interest in cinema. A total of 103 students accepted to participate in the study. The use of a stu- dent sample was deemed acceptable since university students belong to the group age (18-24 years old) that is more likely than average to go to the movies at least once a month in North America (Dortch 1996).

The data were collected individually or in small groups (2 or 3 people). The 18 product placements were presented in a random order as defined by a table of random permutations (Cochran and Cox 1957). After viewing each placement, the respondents had to rate it using 27 agree/disagree seven-point bipolar scales constructed with the terms uncovered in the preliminary study (Table 1). After having viewed and rated the 18 placements, they answered ques-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rye

rson

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:54

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Fall 2000 35

Table 2 Product Placements Used in the Main Study

Movie Type Action/adventure Drama Comedy

Product Type

Repeat Purchase

Durable

Service

Fuji film (Total Recall)

Coke (Lethal Weapon 3)

BMW (Golden Eye)

Sony Trinitron (Total Recall)

Arizona University

Delta Airlines (Lethal Weapon 3)

(Speed)

Budweiser (She's the One)

Dr. Pepper (Forrest Gump)

Apple Computers (Forrest Gump)

GMC (Perfect Alibr)

U-Haul (Perfect Alibi)

Air France (Perfect Alibi)

Time Magazine (Sister Act 2)

Pepsi (Happy Gilmore)

Ford Mustang (Vegas Vacations)

Scrabble (The Journal)

AT&T (Happy Gilmore)

Subway (Happy Gilmore)

tions dealing with movie going (number of times a year) and spending, movie renting as well as trait measures (cinema expertise, attitude toward product placements in movies) and demographics.

Approximately one week later and without prior warning, the respondents were contacted by telephone to obtain two measures of memory: spontaneous re- call ("What products or brands do you recall having seen?") followed by a measure of recognition ("For each of the following products or brands, please tell me if you remember having seen them"). The list included all the products and brands presented as well as five well known brands not presented. Six of the 103 respondents could not be reached to complete the memory task.

Results Sample Description. Respondents are 103 under-

graduate students in business administration who are in majority women (68%). The sample age varies between 18 and 25 years with a mean of 21. On aver- age, they go to the movies 26 times and spend about 150 dollars on movie admissions a year. This latter figure which is more than the average annual spend- ing on movie admissions in North America (Dortch 1996) can be explained by the presence of a movie theater on campus.

Definition of Variables. The scale data were subjected to a maximum likelihood factor analysis with varimax

rotation. Four factors emerged (eigenvalue>l and scree test) explaining 66.1 percent of the total vari- ance. Seven items loaded highly (average load- ing=0.81) on the first factor: shocking, immoral, ag- gressive, unacceptable, bad taste, should be forbid- den and dishonest, which was interpreted as "unacceptability" of the placement. Eight items loaded highly (average loading=0.74) on the second factor: efficient, touches me, excellent, ingenious, dynamic, original and amusing, which was interpreted as "ap- preciation" of the placement. Seven items loaded highly (average absolute loading=0.67) on the third factor: subtle* (* means a negative loading ), unin- tended*, looks like an ad, obvious, couldn't miss it, brand is clearly presented and attention getting, which was interpreted as "manifestness" of the placement. Four items loaded highly (average absolute load- ing=0.68) on the last factor: unrelated to the scene*, well integrated in the movie, well placed and related to the film context, which was interpreted as "integra- tion" of the placement within the movie. One term (has no place) did not load clearly on any of the four factors and was therefore discarded from further analysis. Taking the mean of the corresponding items created four variables. Cronbach's alpha is equal to 0.93 for the appreciation additive variable, 0.91 for unacceptability, 0.87 for manifestness, and 0.82 for integration.

In order to see whether the uncovered factor struc- ture was stable across product placements, a maxi-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rye

rson

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:54

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14

36 Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising

mum likelihood factor analysis was conducted for each placement separately (18 factor analyses in all). Although sample size was reduced considerably (n=103 observations for each analysis), the analyses provided a rough check on factor stability. In gen- eral, the pattern of loadings after rotation was fairly similar across the 18 factor analysis results and was consistent with the factor structure obtained on the basis of the entire data set.

Objective Descriptors. The 18 placements were coded using six objective descriptors: visibility of the prod- uct or brand in the scene (front/background), men- tion of the brand by principal actor (yes/no), mention of the brand by a secondary actor (yes/no), presence of the principal actor in the scene (yes/no), use of the product by the principal actor (yes/no), and length of the placement (in seconds).

Movie Popuhrity. Since the popularity of a movie may have an effect on the evaluation and memoriza- tion of product placements within that movie, it was deemed necessary to control that variable. A ques- tionnaire was therefore administered to a sample of 73 students having the same characteristics as respondents participating in the main study. Respondents were asked if they had seen each of the 11 movies in which the placements were contained, how much they liked it (seven-point scale: not at all/very much) and how much impact it had on them (seven-point scale: none/a great deal). The latter two scales were transformed to a 0-1 range and a popularity index was computed by taking the mean of the two transformed scales plus the binary (0, 1) “saw the movie” variable. Cronbach‘s alpha of the movie popularity index is equal to 0.84.

Regression Models. Four regression models were con- structed to analyze the data. Initially, the objective descriptors (visibility, mention by principal actor, men- tion by secondary actor, presence of the principal ac- tor, use of the product by principal actor and length), the subjective descriptors (manifestness and integra- tion) and the movie popularity index were consid- ered as a set of independent variables. An examina- tion of the data revealed that brand visibility and length of the placement were strongly correlated (r=0.46). The visibility measure was therefore transformed to a 1-9 range (same range as length) and an index of promi- nence was created by adding length to the transformed visibility variable and computing the mean. In addi- tion, since only three of the 18 placement stimuli in- cluded mentions of the brand by the actors and only one included the use of the product by an actor, these objective descriptors were dropped. Presence of the principal actor in the placement was retained since it was observed in half of the placement stimuli.

The first regression model (Model 1) expresses the appreciation of the placement (LIKE) as a function of prominence, manifestness, integration, presence of the principal actor, movie popularity as well as all double interactions between the independent variables. The second regression model (Model 2) includes perceived unacceptability of the placement (UNACCEPT) as the dependent variable with the same independent vari- ables as in Model 1. The third model (Model 3) is a logistic regression model taking the recall binary mea- sure (RECALL) as dependent variable with the same independent variables as in the preceding models plus the appreciation and unacceptability of the placement as two additional independent variables. The fourth model (Model 4) is also a logistic regression model taking the recognition measure (RECOGN) as the de- pendent variable and the same independent variables as in the previous logistic regression model. As rec- ommended by Neter, Wasserman and Kutner (1985), the independent variables were expressed as devia- tions from their mean in order to attenuate the inher- ent multicollinearity associated with regression mod- els with interactions terms. The estimation of the four regression models was accomplished in a stepwise fashion in order to identify the best predictor vari- ables. In order to control for guessing, an index repre- senting the number of falsely recognized brands (maxi- mum=5) was computed for each respondent and in- cluded as an additional independent variable in Model 4 (index mean=0.65, std. dev.=0.83). Since this had no impact on the logistic regression results, the index was dropped from Model 4.

The results of the regression analyses are displayed in Table 3. As can be seen, all four regression models are statistically significant (p<O.OOl). In the next sec- tions, the regression results are first discussed in the context of the research hypotheses followed by a pre- sentation of the other results of interest.

Test of HI. The first hypothesis predicts a positive impact of product placement prominence on consumer memory. The results presented in Table 3 shows that although prominence enhances recognition memory significantly (Wald statistic=27.77, p<O.OOl), it has a significant negative impact on recall (Wald statis- tie56.01, p<O.OOl). The effect of prominence on re- call must be qualified since prominence interacts sig- nificantly with integration and with movie popular- ity. In order to understand the nature of these inter- actions, the relationship between prominence and impact was estimated at low and high levels of inte- gration and movie popularity (using a median split on integration). The results showed that the impact of prominence is negative and stronger when integra-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rye

rson

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:54

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Fall 2000 37

Table 3 Results of the Stepwise Regression and Logistic Regression Analyses'

Dependent Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 (LIKE) (UNACCEPT) (RECALL) (RECOGN)

Prominence (A) -0.1 9- (56.01)

0.14- (27.77) 0.1 6" (9.33)

(7.59) -0.16"

0.73" (30.90)

Manifestness (B) 0.38- (21.28) 0.42-

(23.1 3) 0.25" (5.04)

0.05" (3.91) -0.1 5"

(-1 1.02) Integration (C) -0.1 9-

0.50" (1 2.92)

(1 7.06) - 0.21 -

(1 5.39)

Presence of principal actor (D)

Movie popularity index (E) Appreciation (LIKE) 0.13'

(4.57) -0.38" (30.65)

Unacceptability (UNACCEPT)

A x C

A x D

0.04' (4.06)

0.08" (4.79)

-0.04" (-3.1 6)

A X E -0.40" (8.02) - B x C 0.05"

(4.71) -0.04" (-4.1 6)

R2 0.41 0.09 0.10 0.1 1 F statistic 258.25" 44.38" - - Percent correct classification - X2 - - 113.46" 124.23"

- 77.20 % 80.50 %

Only statistically significant regression coefficients are shown; t and Waid statistics in parentheses. p<o.o5, " p<o.o1, - p<o.001

.. tion is lows = -0.19, Wald statistic=32.33, peO.001)

than when it is high 6 = -0.15, Wald statistic=18.87, pcO.001). As for the prominence x movie popularity interaction, the results showed that the impact of prominence on recall is negative and stronger with more popular movies p = -0.25, Wald statistic=59.69,

peO.001) than with less popular movies p = -0.11, Wald statistic=10.85, peO.001).

Previous studies on product placement have shown that the recognition of brands is generally higher than recall (see Babin and Carder 1996). This is also the case in the present study where the recognition rate of the placements is 74.6% as compared to a recall rate of

A

A

A

21.3%. However, the observation of a negative im- pact of prominence on recall and a positive impact on recognition is somewhat surprising. One possible ex- planation for these ambivalent results may be found in the specific task performed by the participants in this study. Because they had to watch the placement in each movie scene, the respondents may have pro- cessed the less prominent placements to a greater ex- tent than would have been the case in a normal view- ing situation. This would have resulted in a greater number of associative links in long term memory and better recall. The memory advantage would have disappeared when they were given the product or brand name as a memory cue (recognition). In situa- tions where consumers are not specifically told to pay

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rye

rson

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:54

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14

38 Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising

attention to placements, prominence has been shown to increase recall (Gupta and Lord 1998).

The significant prominence x integration interac- tion shows that the integration of the placement in the movie slightly attenuated the negative impact of prominence. Respondents were probably more at- tentive to better integrated placements, though this was not sufficient to offset the negative effect of promi- nence. Similarly, they may have paid less attention to placements in scenes of highly popular movies, which would explain the more important negative impact of prominence on recall in these situations.

Test 423,. As predicted by the second research hy- pothesis, the degree of integration of a placement within a movie scene has a positive impact on con- sumer liking (t=23.13, pcO.001) and a negative impact on consumer recall (Wald statistic=12.92, pcO.001) and recognition (Wald Statistic=7.59, pcO.01). In addition, well integrated placements are significantly less likely to be perceived as unacceptable (t=-11.02, pc0.001). Test of H3. The third research hypothesis posits that

the presence of the principal actor in a product place- ment has a positive impact on consumer evaluation and memory. The results presented in Table 3 support this prediction. When the principal actor is present during the placement, consumer appreciation of the placement is significantly enhanced (t=5.04, pcO.001) as are the measuresof recall (Wald statistic=17.06, pcO.001) and recognition (Wald statistic=30.90, pcO.001).

Test ofH,. The last research hypothesis predicts that manifest placements are more appreciated by consum- ers but are perceived as more unacceptable than subtle placements. The regression results support these pre- dictions. The manifestness measure is positively asso- ciated with both placement appreciation (t=21.28, pcO.001) and unacceptability (t=3.91, pc0.001). The sta- tistically significant manifestness x integration interac- tions were examined by looking at the effects of manifestness on both liking and unacceptability at low and high levels of integration. The results show that manifestness has a greater impact on liking when place- ments are better integrated (p =0.49, t=18.97, pcO.001)

than when they are less integrated (p = 0.30, t=10.93,

p<O.001). With regards to the unacceptability depen- dent variable, the impact of manifestness is positive and significant in the case of less integrated placements

(p = O.W, t=3.83, pcO.001) and not significant when place- ments are better integrated. Thus, it appears that the effects of manifestness and integration are reinforced when they are combined. It can be noted also that

n

n

n

greater manifestness leads to better recognition memory (Wald statistic=9.33, pcO.01).

Other Results. Other interesting results can be noted. First, appreciation of a product placement has a posi- tive and statistically significant impact on recall (Wald statistic=15.39, pcO.001) and on recognition (Wald sta- tistic=4.57, pc0.05). Second, unacceptability of a prod- uct placement has no impact on recall but is nega- tively related to consumer recognition (Wald statis- tic=30.65, pc0.001). Finally, the results presented in Table 3 show that the prominence x presence of the principal actor interaction is significant in Model 1 (LIKE) and in Model 2 (UNACCEPT). An examina- tion of the effect of prominence conditional upon the presence/absence of the principal actor reveals that prominence has a greater impact on liking and unacceptability when the principal actor is present in the placement (p =0.19, t=9.91, pcO.001; p = -0.05, t=-3.95,

pcO.001, respectively) than when he/she is absent

(p =0.15, t=9,97, pc0.000; p = -0.01, t=- 1.07, not signifi-

cant, respectively).

A n

n A

Discussion

Overall, this study brings some interesting results concerning the effects of different product placement strategies on consumer evaluations and memory. Some characteristics of placements have positive ef- fects, some have negative effects, and some have both negative and positive effects.

On the positive side, consumer memory of a place- ment is enhanced when the principal actor is present and when the placement is positively evaluated. Con- sumer evaluations of placements are more positive when the principal actor is present, when the place- ment is manifest and when it is well integrated in the movie scene. On the negative side, consumer memory declines when a placement is judged as unacceptable (recognition only) and when it is well integrated in the movie scene.

Other product placement characteristics appear to have ambivalent effects. Thus, while the prominence of the placement significantly enhances recognition memory, it has a negative effect on recall. Manifest placements are better liked than subtle placements but they are also perceived to be more unacceptable. The degree of perceived integration of the placement in the movie scene is positively linked to liking and negatively linked to perceived unacceptability, but it also has a negative impact on memory.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rye

rson

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:54

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14

Fall 2000 39

The results of this study indicate that objective and subjective characteristics of product placements have multiple effects on consumers. Consequently, as it is the case in advertising, the effectiveness of the prod- uct placement as a communication strategy must be gauged against the specific objectives of decision-mak- ers. If the most important objective is to increase brand awareness, then decision-makers should seri- ously consider using positively evaluated and promi- nent placements. The impact of prominence on rec- ognition has been confirmed in other studies (Brennan, Dubas and Babin 1999; Gupta and Lord 1998) and it looks like a robust finding. Placements in which the principal actor is present are also likely to increase brand awareness. If the most important objective is to enhance consumer attitudes toward the placement, then decision-makers should look for well-integrated placements. This result has been also reported in the case of product placements in television programs (d’Astous and Seguin 1999). It is also important to note that the positive effect of integration on con- sumer attitudes significantly increases when the prin- cipal actor is present. If both objectives (brand aware- ness and positive attitudes) are important, then hav- ing the principal actor present in the placement ap- pears to be a safe strategy.

Conclusion The results of this study are of interest to product

placement researchers and practitioners. First, a quali- tative study has permitted to uncover some basic di- mensions that consumers use to describe and evalu- ate product placements in movies as well as the spe- cific terms that they employ in doing so. Although in need of further validation, these dimensions repre- sent a useful starting point to conceptualize how con- sumers think about and react to product placements. Second, the research has contributed to increase our understanding of how different characteristics of prod- uct placement impact on consumer evaluation and memory. Even though the regression analyses show a complex pattern of effects, clear implications for practice can be derived.

One should keep in mind however the limitations of this study. Respondents knew they were partici- pating in a research study on product placements. Accordingly, they certainly paid more attention to the placements than they would have in a natural movie- viewing situation. One consequence of this is that product placements that would normally get unno- ticed may have got more processing because they are less readily perceived. This of course may have had

an impact on respondents’ appreciation and memory. As mentioned previously, this could explain why prominence of the placement had a significant nega- tive effect on consumer recall in this study. There- fore, this study should be replicated using a natural viewing environment where the participants are not aware of the researcher’s intentions.

This issue of subject awareness is an interesting one because it raises the important question: does knowl- edge that an influence attempt is made influence how the message is processed? Friestad and Wright (1994) argue that people naturally develop what they call “persuasion knowledge”, i.e., more or less elaborate mental representations of marketers’ persuasion tac- tics, and that this knowledge may impact on con- sumer information processing. For instance, being aware that a persuasion attempt is made is likely to lead to counterarguing, message rejection and/or message scrutiny. Consumers exposed to traditional forms of marketing communication (e.g., advertising) are generally aware of persuasive intent and this aware- ness probably contributes to developing their persua- sion knowledge. In the case of product placements however, awareness is likely to be low for most people. Does that mean that persuasion knowledge with re- spect to product placements is less developed? And, if this is the case, what are the consequences with regard to message processing? These are interesting and important issues for future research in this area.

A second limitation of this study concerns the fact that the product placement stimuli were presented outside of the movie context. Viewing several place- ments in isolation is quite an artificial situation and it is not clear that the effects observed in this research would be replicated in a real movie-viewing context. A third limitation concerns the obtainment of memory measures after respondents had processed the infor- mation contained in the placement stimuli and were asked to provide descriptive and evaluative judg- ments. It is conceivable that this task improved re- spondents’ memory. However, this would not cause a generalization problem if memory improvement did not interact with the observed effects. As a fourth limitation, the results presented in this article are based on a limited number of product placements and mov- ies. In addition, the movies chosen to identify and select the product placements used in the study were judgmentally sampled and are probably not repre- sentative of movies in general. Future studies should be conducted using a probabilistic sample of movies with different product placement stimuli. Finally, it is important to note that this research study is correla- tional. Therefore, the characteristics of the placements

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rye

rson

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:54

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14

40 Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising

were not orthogonal to each other. To better isolate their impact on consumer reactions and memory, fu- ture research shoddbe done in an experimental setting.

References Anderson, John R (1990), Cognitiw Psychology and Its Implications,

Third Edition, New York W.H. Freeman and Company. Babin, Laurie and Shed T. Carder (19%), "Viewer's Recognition of

Brands Placed Within a Film," InternatiDnalJoumnl of Adwrtis- ing, 15 (April), 140-151.

Brk, J d l (1996), "Le placement de produit dans les films : une communication originale," DhXons Marketing, 8 (May-Au- gust), 65-74.

Brennan, Ian, Khalid M. Dubas and Laurie A. Babm (1999), "The Influence of Product-Placement Type & Exposure Time on Product-Placement Recognition," International Journal of Ad- wrtising, 18 (March), 323-337.

Cochran, Williim G. and Gertrude M. Cox (1957), Experimental Designs, Second Edition, New York John Wiley & Sons.

d'Astous, Alain and Nathalie Seguin (1999), "Consumer Reactions to Product Placement Strategies in Television Sponsorship," EuropnJournal of Marketing, 33 (9/10), 896-910.

Dortch, Shannon (1996), "Going to the movies," American Demo- graphics, 18 (December), 22-23.

Friestad, Marian and Peter Wright (1994), "The Persuasion Knowl- edge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts," Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (June), 1-31.

Gupta, Pola B. and Stephen J. Gould (1997), "Consumers' Percep tions of the Ethics and Acceptability of Product Placements in Movies: Product Category and Individual Differences," Journal of Current Issues and Research in Adwrtising, 19 (Spring), 37-50.

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

Karrh, James A. (1994), "Effects of Brand Placements in Motion Pictures," in Proceedings of the 2994 Conference of the American AcademyofAdmtising, Karen W. King, ed., Athens, G A Ameri- can Academy of Advertising, 90-96.

(1998), "Brand Placement: A Review," Journal of Current Issues and Research in Adwrtising, 20 (Fall), 31-49.

McCradcen, Grant, "Who Is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Foun- dations of the Endorsement Process," Journal of Consumer Re- search, 16 (December), 310-321.

Nebenzahl, Israel D. and Eugene Secunda (1993), "Consumers' At- titudes Toward Product Placement in Movies," International Jozirital of Advertising, (January), 1-11.

Neter, John, William Wasserman and Michael H. Kutner (1985), Applied Linear Statistical Models, Second Edition, Homewood, I L Irwin.

Pechmann, Cornelia and Chuan-Fong Shih (1999), "Smoking Scenes in Movies and Antismoking Advertisements Before Movies: Effects on Youth," Journal of Marketing, 63 (July), 1-13.

Petty, Richard E., Rao Unnava and Alan J. Strathman (1991), "Theo- ries of Attitude Change," in Handbook of Consumer Behavior, Thomas S . Robertson and Harold H. Kassarjian, eds., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 241-280.

Vollmers, Stacy and Richard Muerski (1994), "A Review and In- vestigation Into the Effectiveness of Product Placements in Films," in Proceedings of the 1994 Conference of the American Academy of Aduertising, Karen W. King, ed., Athens, G A Ameri- can Academy of Advertising, 97-102.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Rye

rson

Uni

vers

ity]

at 0

9:54

01

Dec

embe

r 20

14

本文献由“学霸图书馆-文献云下载”收集自网络，仅供学习交流使用。

学霸图书馆（www.xuebalib.com）是一个“整合众多图书馆数据库资源，

提供一站式文献检索和下载服务”的24 小时在线不限IP

图书馆。

图书馆致力于便利、促进学习与科研，提供最强文献下载服务。

图书馆导航：

图书馆首页 文献云下载 图书馆入口 外文数据库大全 疑难文献辅助工具