Factors influencing audience reactions to brand placement

Placement characteristics like placement commerciality, modality and prominence, have a strong impact on audience reactions to product placement. Audience characteristics, such as attitudes and beliefs about brand placement, advertising, and media, also play a major role in shaping audience reactions to brand placement.

More attention was paid to Internet and print placements when the placement had an editorial rather than a commercial format and brand placements received more attention than advertising (Becker-Olsen, 2003; Kim, Pasadeos, and Barban, 2001; Lord and Putrevu, 1998; Van Reijmersdal et al, 2005). Attention also increased when brands were placed in a magazine that was positively evaluated by its readers (Van Reijmersdal et al., 2005).

Placement memory also increased when multiple brand placement formats, such as articles, advertorials, and coupons, were combined or when placement formats were more editorial than commercial (Cameron and Curtin, 1995; Kim et al., 2001; Lord and Putrevu, 1998; Singh, Balasubramanian, and Chakraborty, 2000).

With respect to placement length, no conclusion can be drawn because non-significant effects occurred just as often as significant effects (Singh et al., 2000) but brand placement memory was optimal when the placement (infomercial) lasted 15 minutes (Singh et al., 2000). Placements of 15 minutes outperform 1-minute placements, probably because longer placements leave more room for repetition. Repetition enhances the potential for processing the information and for capturing the placement in memory (Roehm, Roehm, and Boone, 2004) but too much repetition might backfire because of lack of viewer motivation to process the message, resulting in less placement memory (Singh et al., 2000).

With respect to modality, the placements that mentioned and showed the product (audiovisual) led to better placement memory than only visual or only audio placements (Gupta and Lord, 1998; Law and Braun, 2000). The difference between audio placements and visual placements was less obvious. Some studies showed no difference between these modalities, while others did show differences but with mixed results (Gupta and Lord, 1998; Law and Braun, 2000; Lord and Putrevu, 1998). Effects of placement modality are caused by differences in the processing of visual and audio cues. Dual coding theory holds that audio cues are encoded as verbal codes, whereas visual cues are encoded as mental pictures (I. Brennan and Babin, 2004; Law and Braun, 2000; Lord and Putrevu, 1998). Audiovisual cues are likely to be encoded in both ways, which increases the chance of retrieving the placement from memory.

Placement evaluations were not affected by the commerciality of its source (D'Astous and Chartier, 2000; Salmon, Reid, Pokrywczynski, and Willett, 1985), nor by objective measures of prominence. However, evaluations were negatively related to perceptions of prominence (D'Astous and Chartier, 2000). The higher the perceived prominence of a placement, the more negative the placement attitudes and beliefs. Congruence between brand and context was investigated in only one study on television and showed mixed results (D'Astous and Seguin, 1999). Effects of prominence on evaluations, however, were not always positive (Cowley and Barron, 2008; Matthes et al., 2007). These dissociative effects of prominence can be explained activation of persuasion knowledge and cognitive defenses against persuasion (Friestad and Wright, 1999; Russell, 2002; Wright, Friestad, and Boush, 2005). The literature on brand placement in audiovisual media (film, television, and games) has shown that placement prominence is positively related to brand memory (Babin and Carder, 1996; Brennan, Dubas, and Babin, 1999; Cowley and Barron, 2008; D'Astous and Chartier, 2000; Gupta and Lord, 1998; Law and Braun, 2000; Lee and Faber, 2007; Nelson, 2002; Schneider and Cornwell, 2005; Yang and Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2007).

Although brand placement prominence has positive effects on memory, under specific circumstances it can have negative effects on brand attitudes (Cowley and Barron, 2008; Matthes, Schemer, and Wirth, 2007). One study, in fact, demonstrated that prominent brand placement (i.e., repeatedly placed brands) resulted in high memory scores, but in negative brand attitudes for viewers who showed awareness of the deliberate brand placement and had low involvement with the program (Matthes, Schemer, and Wirth, 2007). By contrast, prominence did have a positive effect on brand attitudes of viewers who were highly involved with what they were watching, but had little awareness of a deliberate brand placement and little brand memory. Another survey showed that prominence had a negative effect on brand attitudes of viewers who liked the program and a positive effect on viewers who were not as supportive of the programming (Cowley and Barron, 2008). Such dissociative effects of prominence can be explained: a prominent placement is more deeply processed and that leads to increased memory. But, in some cases, a prominent placement also may activate awareness of deliberate brand placement and cognitive defenses against persuasion (Friestad and Wright, 1999; Nairn and Fine, 2008; Russell, 2002; Wright, Friestad, and Boush, 2005).

When they encounter prominent brand placement, casual viewers or people who do not like what they are watching may realize that the brand is present only for reasons of persuasion-a response that may trigger such cognitive defenses as creating counterarguments (Friestad and Wright, 1994; Russell, 2002). As a result, these viewers remember the brand, but do not like it. In sum, the effects of prominence on brand memory are straightforward and positive. But, the effects of prominence on brand attitude depend on audience involvement with and approval of the medium vehicle and on the audience's awareness of the brand placement.

Audiences can also be influenced without awareness of the placement. With respect to brand choice, several studies demonstrated that adults' and children's brand preferences changed after seeing brand placement, regardless of their memory of the brand placement (Auty and Lewis, 2004; Law and Braun, 2000; Yang and Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2007).

With respect to brand attitudes, a brand's placement had a positive effect on brand image and attitude, even when people did not remember seeing the brand (Matthes. Schemer, and Wirth, 2007; van Reijmersdal, Neijens, and Smit, 2007). In other words, without explicit memory of brand placement, effects on brand associations, brand preference, and brand choice can occur-a phenomenon known as implicit (or low-attention) processing (Heath, 2000; Schacter, 1987). Implicit processes seem to play an important role for brand placement, however, because brands are integrated into editorial content (Law and Braun, 2004; Russell, 1998, 2002; van Reijmersdal, Neijens, and Smit, 2007). Especially when brands are subtly placed, implicit processing is likely to be activated because attention is drawn to the editorial content or story line, and not to the brand itself (Schneider and Cornwell, 2005; Zack, 2006).

Traditional explicit-effect measures (for instance, brand recall and recognition) do not show the full effects of brand placement. Whereas previously one would have concluded that brand placement was not effective when there was no explicit memory of the placement, these insights show that audience responses still may be influenced by brand placement.

Audience and Exposure Characteristics: Brand placement evaluations were not related to audience age or sex (Nelson and McLeod, 2005; Ong, 2004). Audience evaluations of advertising in general and of the specific medium vehicle in which the brand was placed were positively related to brand placement evaluations (Gupta, Balasubramanian, and Klassen, 2000; Herandez, Chapa, Minor, Maldonado, and Barranzuela, 2004; Van Reijmersdal et al., 2005). It was also found that attitudes toward advertising moderated the effects of beliefs toward brand placement on attitude towards brand placement (Gupta et al., 2000). The effects of brand consciousness as a trait of viewers showed mixed results (Nelson and Devenathan, 2006).

The effects of involvement with the medium vehicle in which brands were placed were mainly positive (Nicovich, 2005), showed positive effects of involvement on beliefs about placements in games (Lord and Putrevu, 1998) and showed that involvement resulted in more positive beliefs toward advertorials in newspapers but only when viewers were intrinsically involved and not when involvement was manipulated in the study.

Factors Influencing Concerns about Brand Placement

Audience has a lot of concerns about brand placement, for example, beliefs about the acceptance, credibility, need for restrictions, and ethics of brand placement.

Placement Characteristics: This involves concerns about placements in magazines and newscasts. The more editorial the placement, the fewer were the concerns about their credibility and acceptance (Owen and Karrh, 1996; Van Reijmersdal et al, 2005). Positive beliefs about the media in which the brands are placed and positive attitudes toward brand placement in general resulted in fewer concerns (S. Brennan et al., 2004; Gould et al., 2000; Gupta and Gould, 1997; Nicovich, 2005; Van Reijmersdal et al, 2005). The effects of general attitudes toward TV advertising were inconclusive (S. Brennan et al., 2004; Gould et al., 2000; Gupta et al., 2000; Gupta and Gould, 1997).

The effects of product type focused on differences between ethically charged products, such as alcohol and cigarettes, and neutral products. In general, people showed fewer concerns about placing neutral products in films (S. Brennan, Rosenberger, and Hementera, 2004). These effects were moderated by sex. Men were more accepting of ethically charged products than women, but both genders were equally accepting of placing neutral products (Gould, Gupta, and Grabner-Kräuter, 2000; Gupta and Gould, 1997; McKechnie and Zhou, 2003). Even though female students displayed slightly greater concern for the placement of ethically charged product types, but still the response was largely positive in the aggregate (Brennan, Rosenberger, and Hementera 2004; Gould, Gupta, and Grabner-Kraüter 2000; Gupta and Gould 1997; however, see Nelson and McLeod 2005's finding of no gender differences in adolescents' liking or awareness of placements). It has also been found that although males exhibit less positive attitudes, they report engaging in more placement-related behaviors than women. Perhaps this indicates that although evincing less concern over placement in general, the practice itself does not have sufficient impact on women as to result in as much behavioral activity as it does among males.

The aforementioned Nelson and McLeod (2005) study was also the only one to report perceptual differences by ethnicity, finding that adolescents "of color" (a combination category consisting of African-American, Asian, Hispanic, and other non-Caucasian ethnicities) were more aware of, and evinced greater liking for, product placements. With regard to age, DeLorme and Reid's (1999) in-depth interviews showed that older consumers were more concerned about the manipulative power of placements than younger interviewees and expressed broadly greater distrust of the practice. Level of education was found to be inversely related with placement attitudes, and the oldest age group (55+) showed the least positive perceptions of the practice. However, in contrast with the findings of Alwitt and Prabhaker (1992) and Shavitt, Lowrey, and Haefner (1998), no statistically significant differences by income levels were found.

Audiences were more concerned about prominent brand placements in movies than about less prominent placements (D'Astous and Chartier, 2000). With respect to placements in television programs, the effects of prominence were opposite (D'Astous and Chartier, 2000). Implicit placements led to more concerns than explicit, prominent placements. This effect was moderated by type of program.

Audience Characteristics: Demographics influenced children's concerns about brand placement. Older children (six- to eight-year-olds), boys, and children from families with higher socioeconomic status more often thought that brand placements in online games had commercial motives, such as increasing sales (Mallinckrodt and Mizerski, 2007). Web experience did not influence this insight (Mallinckrodt and Mizerski).

Effects of involvement with the medium vehicle have been studied only for games. Nicovich (2005) showed that when the effect of realism was taken into account, the effect of involvement on the credibility of brand placements in a game diminished or was no longer significant. Not involvement, per se, but its influence on the perception, of realism affected the credibility of placements. Effects of movie-viewing frequency on brand placement concerns were moderated by product type. Ethically charged products were generally more accepted by people who watched more movies.

With respect to nationality, Americans were more accepting of brand placement than Chinese or Singaporean students (Karrh, Frith, and Callison, 2001; McKechnie and Zhou, 2003). Hudson, Hudson, and Peloza (2008) showed that Canadian and British parents did not hold different beliefs about brands placed in movies aimed at children. These results seem to point to differences in brand placement concerns between Asian and Western people.

Factors Influencing Brand Memory

Medium and Placement Characteristics: Movie popularity, was found to have no effect on memory for the brands placed in that movie (D'Astous and Chartier, 2000). Brand memory did increase when an actor mentioned brands or showed them or when brands were prominently placed (Babin and Carder, 1996; Brennan, Dubas, and Babin, 1999; Gupta and Lord, 1998; Law and Braun, 2000; Schneider and Cornwell, 2005).

Effects of format on brand memory were moderated by prominence; subtle brand placements scored worse than advertising, but prominent placements scored better on product and brand recall and equally on message recall (Gupta and Lord, 1998). Brand memory increased when placement duration increased to 10 seconds. For longer placements, no increase in memory was shown (Brennan et al., 1999). Brennan et al. (1999) propose that the longer the exposure time, the greater the opportunity to see the placement. Although they do not provide an explanation for the ceiling effects after 10 seconds of exposure, it is likely that every viewer has had the opportunity to see the placement in 10 seconds and that thereafter no additional recall can be accomplished.

Effects of modality were non-significant just as often as they were significant (I. Brennan and Babin, 2004; I. Brennan et al, 1999; Gupta and Lord, 1998; Law and Braun, 2000). Russell (2002) showed that modality interacted with plot connection. When visual placements were connected to the plot, they scored better on brand recall than when they were not connected to the plot, because viewers did not expect visual placements to be connected to the plot. This incongruence of plot connection and modality is surprising to viewers, which leads to increased placement processing resulting in more brand memory (Russell, 2002).

Gupta and Gould (2007) studied the effects of the position of brand placement within a game show. They showed that brands appearing in the first half of the program were better remembered than brands placed in the second half of the program. Primacy effects explain these results. In other words, viewers pay more attention to information they receive first than to information presented at the end. Their research also showed that the price of the placed brands positively affects brand memory (Gupta and Gould, 2007). They argue that viewers are more involved with expensive products, which leads to better brand memory.

Audience and Exposure Characteristics

Unaided brand memory was not affected by age (six- to seven-year-olds versus 11-to 12-year-olds), but when cues were used to measure memory, younger children did need more cues to recall brands placed in a movie (Auty and Lewis, 2004b). Brand memory was better when the audience held positive beliefs about brand placements (D'Astous and Chartier, 2000; Grigorovici and Constantin, 2004). Beliefs about the medium (television program or game) was studied only three times and had mixed results on brand memory (Cowley and Barron, 2008; Nelson, Yaros, and Keum, 2006.)

With respect to experience with the medium, it was expected that experienced gamers would show better brand memory, because they would have more mental capacity left to concentrate on the brands in the game (Chaney, Lin, and Chaney, 2004; Schneider and Cornwell, 2005). The evidence, however, was mixed. Schneider and Cornwell showed positive effects of experience with a racing game on brand memory, but Chaney et al. (2004) showed no effects for a first-person shooter game. Perhaps this difference is caused by the type of game. Experienced gamers might have more attention for billboards around a racing track, as racing is easy for them. In a first-person shooter game, however, experience might make it easier to move or shoot, but the gamer still has to focus on aggressors to avoid being killed. This might leave less capacity for attention to and storage of brand placement in the game.

Effects of involvement on brand memory were studied for games and once for movies (Grigorovici and Constantin, 2004; Nelson and Devenathan, 2006). Grigorovici and Constantin showed that high levels of involvement led to lower recall of brands placed in a simple game. Nelson et al. (2006) showed that people who played a racing game recalled fewer brands than people who watched someone else playing. This implies that highly involved gamers do not have mental capacity left to process brands placed in the content, resulting in less brand memory (Grigorovici and Constantin).

Yang and Roskos-Ewoldsen (2007) and Yang, Roskos-Ewoldsen, Dinu, and Arpan, (2006) showed that exposure to game and movie brand placements resulted in better scores on word fragment completion tasks. This means that brand placement has both explicit and implicit memory effects.

Effects on Brand Attitudes and Beliefs

Placement Characteristics: Brand placements have more positive effects on brand evaluations than traditional advertising (format effect). For example, sponsored content on a Web site led to more positive brand beliefs than banner ads (Becker-Olsen, 2003; Singh et al, 2000). The effects of commerciality of the source, prominence, and message length were mixed even within studies and, therefore, no conclusion about the influence of these characteristics can be drawn (Cowley and Barron, 2008; Lee and Faber, 2007; Matthes, Schemer, and Wirth, 2007; Salmon et al., 1985; Singh et al., 2000).

Audience Characteristics: Age and beliefs about brand placement did not affect brand attitudes (Mallinckrodt and Mizerski, 2007). Brand placement memory did not affect brand attitude or beliefs; Van Reijmersdal, Neijens, and Smit (2007) showed that brand beliefs were affected by exposure to brand placement in a television program even though viewers could not remember seeing the placement. This implies that brand beliefs were implicitly affected. Positive effects of attitude toward the medium (game) on brand attitude held only for real brands or brands that were thematically congruent with the game and not for fictitious or incongruent brands (Nelson et al., 2006; Wise, Bolls, Kim, Venkataraman, and Meyer, 2008).

The majority of the effects of involvement on brand evaluations were moderated by product type or by type of involvement (enduring versus situational involvement) (Grigorovici and Constantin, 2004; Lord and Putrevu, 1998). These effects, however, were not uniform within studies and were not explained. Therefore, no conclusion about the effects of involvement on brand attitudes and beliefs can be drawn from the literature.

Exposure Characteristics: The majority of the effects of exposure on brand attitudes and beliefs were non-significant or moderated by brand use (Barthel Sheehan and Guo, 2005). Directly after exposure to a reality television program about an airline, only non-users held more positive beliefs about the brand than before exposure. After four weeks, users' brand beliefs were more positive than immediately after exposure. With respect to repetition, Van Reijmersdal et al. (2007) showed that the image of brands placed in a television program changed but only after two or more exposures. They state that repetition is needed for brand effects to occur.

Effects on Intention and Behavior

Placement Characteristics: Behavioral intentions, such as intention to purchase or to revisit a Web site, were more positive after exposure to placements that were more editorial than to placements that were more commercial (Becker-Olsen, 2003; Singh et al., 2000). These results were shown for placements in print and on Web sites. Behavior and intentions were more affected by visual or audio placements than by audiovisual placements (Law and Braun, 2000; Lord and Putrevu, 1998). Both placement length and commerciality of the source had mixed effects on behaviors and intentions (Reid, Soley, and Vanden Bergh, 1981; Salmon et al., 1985; Singh et al., 2000). Therefore, no conclusions about the effects of length or source of placements on behavior and intentions can be drawn.

Audience Characteristics: Purchase intentions and reported purchase were positively influenced by positive beliefs about brand placements in games and films (Gould et al., 2000; Morton and Friedman, 2002; Nelson, Keum, and Yaros, 2004). Interestingly, brand choice was not related to placement memory (Law and Braun, 2000). Brand choice seems to be implicitly affected by brand placement, namely, without memory for the placement. With respect to nationality, reported purchases as a consequence of seeing brand placements in film were not different for French, Austrian, or American students (Gould et al., 2000).

Exposure Characteristics. Law and Braun (2000) and Auty and Lewis (2004b) showed that participants who were exposed to a movie or television program that included brand placement more often chose the placed product in a choice test than those who were not exposed to brand placements. In addition, Auty and Lewis (2004b) showed that behavior was affected only when the participants had seen the movie before. Thus, placement repetition was a condition for effects on brand choice.

Theories on Effects of Placement Characteristics

Intentional exposure theory predicts the effects of commerciality of the placement on attention and memory. This theory states that audiences primarily expose themselves to media for the editorial content rather than for the advertising (Gupta and Lord, 1998; Van Reijmersdal et al., 2005). When brands are integrated into editorial content, they profit from the attention that is paid to the editorial content. As a consequence, brand placements in editorial formats, as opposed to more commercial formats, gain more attention and are better remembered (Cameron and Curtin, 1995; Kim et al., 2001; Lord and Putrevu, 1998; Van Reijmersdal et al., 2005).

In addition, the integration of the brand into the plot or story line of the editorial content is effective (Roehm et al., 2004; Russell, 2002; Slater, 2002; Yang and Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2007). These effects are explained by aesthetics and narrative theories and the landscape model. These theories explain that when the brand is related to the plot, both the involvement with the narrative and the memorial representation of the story facilitate brand placement persuasion (Cupchik, 2001; Slater, 2002; Slater and Rouner, 2002; Yang and Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2007).

Source-credibility theory proposes that placements that are more editorial than commercial are perceived as more credible. On the one hand, commercial content is not perceived as credible because audiences know that advertisers have the aim to persuade and to increase sales. Alternatively, editorial content is created by journalists who are supposed to be more objective and unbiased. This perception makes audiences more skeptical about commercial content than about editorial content, resulting in more negative attitudes to placements that are commercial, and to less positive brand-related behavioral intentions (Becker-Olsen, 2003; Kim et al., 2001; Lord and Putrevu, 1998).

Persuasion knowledge theory explains effects of brand placement prominence. Prominence has positive effects on some outcomes but negative effects on others. On the one hand, prominent placements lead to better memory than subtle placements (e.g., Babin and Carder, 1996; I. Brennan et al., 1999; Schneider and Corn-well, 2005). Furthermore, the audience starts thinking about the reasons for the brand's presence when brands are prominently placed (Matthes et al., 2007; Russell, 2002), which can activate the audience's knowledge about persuasion techniques and influence attempts. People's persuasion knowledge can make them realize that the brand is placed for commercial reasons. This might lead to counter-arguing and skeptical attitudes toward the placement (Balasubramanian et al., 2006; Matthes et al., 2007). Similarly, the effect of placement length is predicted to be negative; when placements are too long, they are perceived as intrusive and distracting from the media experience (Herandez et al., 2004).

Theories on Audience and Medium Characteristics

Both brand placement and advertising research have shown that the medium context in which brands are placed plays an important role in processing and effects. Several theories explain these context effects on audience reactions: for example, spillover theory, halo theory, conditioning theory, and human associative memory theory.

The spillover theory holds that attention paid to programs or games spills over to the surrounding ads or embedded placements (Grigorovici and Constantin, 2004; Van Reijmersdal et al., 2005). The evaluation of the media vehicle can also spill over to brand placement, which can be classified as a halo effect or conditioning. Conditioning means that the associations with one object (program or actor) become linked to another object (brand) after repeated exposure to a combination of the objects (De Houwer, Thomas, and Baeyens, 2001; Johnstone and Dodd, 2000; Mackintosh, 1983; Russell, 1998). Conditioning is mainly associated with neutral objects (e.g., new or unknown brands). However, a related theory, human associative memory, refers to all kinds of objects (Van Osselaer and Janiszewski, 2001). This theory holds that associations are linked via networks. Associations are strengthened when two stimuli are presented together, leading to a learning process in which specific associations with the context are connected to brands. For brand placement, this means that the brand and the program are paired, and subsequently the associations with the program and the brand become linked in the brain (D'Astous and Chartier, 2000; Russell, 1998). As a consequence, brand evaluations can change in the direction of context evaluations (Van Reijmersdal et al., 2007).

Research on advertising effects has shown that involvement with the medium vehicle mainly has positive effects on message processing when studied in a real life setting (Lloyd and Clancy, 1991; Moorman, Neijens, and Smit, 2007). The rationale behind this effect is that people who are involved with the context are "glued" to the screen also when the commercial break starts. However, it is also proposed that too much involvement with the context leaves no mental capacity for processing commercials (Norris and Colman, 1992; Tavas-soli, Schultz, and Fitzsimons, 1995). This "negative school" proposes that highly involved audiences continue to process the context when commercials appear, resulting in lower memory of commercials (Norris and Colman, 1992; Pavelchak, Antil, and Munch, 1988). Involvement might have different effects on advertising than on brand placement because the latter is an integral part of the medium vehicle. Attention and mental capacity have to be divided between the placement and the context at the same time, which seems to lead to negative effects of involvement on placement processing (Nelson et al., 2006).

Similarly, the user context (e.g., experience with a game in which brands are placed) is hypothesized to influence the available capacity for brand placement processing. Because experienced gamers do not need all their mental capacity to play games, they have mental capacity left to notice and process brand placements. This results in better brand memory (Chaney et al., 2004; Schneider and Cornwell, 2005). However, when the game demands full attention (e.g., to avoid being shot in a first-person shooter game), experience does not have a positive effect on memory (Chaney et al.). Effects of medium experience might be different for ads than for placements as well, probably because gamers are exposed to the game and the placement at the same time, whereas traditional advertising is always separate from the editorial content.

Theories on Exposure Characteristics

The amount of attention that a user devotes to brand placement is important for its processing. Explicit processing, on the one hand, occurs when conscious attention is paid to the information. This process creates memories that are linked to the learning situation and that can be intentionally retrieved. Implicit processing, on the other hand, enables people to acquire brand information passively and automatically at low levels of attention. Retrieval from implicit memory occurs automatically, without awareness of retrieval, and without reference to the learning situation (Schacter, 1987). Thus, without remembering seeing the placement, implicit effects can still occur. One of the processes behind this effect is "mere exposure" (Auty and Lewis, 2004b; Grigorovici and Constantin, 2004; Zajonc, 1968, 2001). Repeated exposure to brand placement under low levels of attention can be enough to create a sense of familiarity with the brand. Because people tend to like familiar objects, the exposure can result in positive brand attitudes and even brand preference without placement memory (Auty and Lewis, 2004a, 2004b; Law and Braun, 2000; Zajonc, 1968).