• No results found

The persuasion of product placements : an experiment on the effect of types of product placement on brand attitude and program liking

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "The persuasion of product placements : an experiment on the effect of types of product placement on brand attitude and program liking"

Copied!
44
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

The Persuasion of Product Placements.

An experiment on the effect of types of product placement on brand attitude and program liking.

Master Thesis Robin Alkemade Student Number: 10877762

Graduate School of Communication Master’s program Communication Science

Persuasive Communication Track Dr. E. de Waal

(2)

2 Table of contents

Abstract...3

Introduction...4

Theoretical framework...8

Product placement and brand attitude...9

Product placement and persuasion knowledge...12

Program liking and brand attitude...15

Product placement and program liking...16

Method...17 Participants...17 Stimulus material...18 The design...19 The procedure...19 Measures. ...21 Results...23

Product placements, brand attitude and persuasion knowledge...24

Product placement and brand attitude ...25

Program liking and product placement ...26

Discussion ... ... ...27

Product placement and brand attitude... ...27

The mediating effect of persuasion knowledge...28

Program liking ...29

Implications... ...30

Conclusion... ...30

References...34

(3)

3 Abstract

Product placement is a frequently used type of advertising which is used in order to persuade the consumers of the brand or product that is placed within the program while avoiding the skepticism that consumers experience towards traditional advertising. The subject of product placement has been researched by many researchers in order to find the effect that it has on the consumers and the products or brands. However the effect that the product placement has on the show in which the product appears has yet to be researched. Therefore this experiment explores the relationship between two different types of product placements, prominent and background, and their effect on brand attitude and the effect on program liking. Additional, this study considers the mediating effect of persuasion knowledge. The online experiment with 122 participants that was conducted was used to analyze these relationships. Results showed no significant effects for any of the relationships a part from the mediating role of persuasion knowledge on the relationship between product placement and brand attitude. This paper contributes to product placement research by analyzing the relationship between

different types of product placement and the effect on brand attitude and program liking. Furthermore the results contribute useful insights for marketers and those involved in television programming.

Keywords: prominent product placements, background product placements, brand attitude, program liking, persuasion knowledge, persuasive advertising.

(4)

4 Introduction

The use of product placements has increased over the last decade due to its control over the message while at the same time overcoming skepticism towards advertisements (Karrh, McKee & Pardun, 2003). Furthermore, a product placement overcomes the clutter of an advertisement block and is therefore seen as superior over traditional advertising (Wenner, 2004). This is due to the fact that consumers usually do not have the same negative judgments as they have towards traditional advertising since they do not view the product placement as actual advertisement (Gupta & Gould, 1997). This makes product placement a preferable option of advertising over traditional advertising, due to its sponsored content without necessarily being viewed as advertisement (De Gregorio & Sung, 2010). Therefore it could indicate that the persuasive intent of a product placement is not necessarily noticed by the viewer and therefore product placement is not automatically seen as an obtrusive or pesky advertisement (Autey & Lewis, 2004).

Without even realizing it, consumers are exposed to multiple product placements while watching their favourite shows. Some products are placed in television shows due to their significance for the show, for example when a character is driving the shot would require the use of a car regardless of the brand, though certain brands are specifically placed in shows in order to persuade the audience (Tiwsakul, Hackely & Szmigin, 2005). Regardless of the reason of the placement, the products have different effects on the audience (Shrum, 2012). The consumer can be persuaded by the product placement due to their affinity to the program and its characters. Therefore the viewer could create positive feelings towards the product and the brand of the product that is placed in the show (Russel, 2002). When the consumer has a high liking of the program and its characters, likeability will transfer into the products displayed in the program. This is called the trade-off effect, which indicates the liking of the show spilling over to the liking of the product (Russel 2002; Stern and Stern, 2006). However

(5)

5 the consumer’s attitude could also be negatively influenced for example when the product placement is too obvious and therefore causes irritation and annoyance amongst the viewers (La Ferle & Edwards, 2006). It appears that the viewer’s knowledge on persuasion is growing which could indicate different views of the audience on the placed products in programs and thereby less effective effects of product placements (Cowly & Barron, 2008). Researchers are therefore still in debate on whether the positive or negative effects of product placement are more compelling than traditional advertising, hence the significance of studying the effects of product placements (DeLorme and Reid 1999; Gupta and Gould 1997 and Karrh, Frith, and Callison 2001).

With the increasing use of product placements, many researchers have been investigating the different types of product placements, such as story-line placements, prominent placements and subtle placements, and their effect on the consumers attitude in order to find the most effective use of product placements (Gupta & Gould, 1997; Babin & Carder, 1996; Hudson & Hudson, 2006; and Law & Braun-LaTour, 2004). Hence, different types of product placements have been defined. They consist of the single viewing of a product, the mentioning of the brand in a story line, or the appearance of visible logos or products being integrated in the plotline (Shrum, 2012). These different types of product placements can be defined in two main types, which are the two types of placements that will be used for this research. The first one is prominent product placement; this is a type of placement that is integrated in the story line and multiple viewings. The second type is background placements which can be defined in shots of the brand or product in the background of the scene. These two placements are chosen due to their frequent use in television shows (Shrum, 2012). Therefore findings regarding these two different placements will useful for future research and marketers and the debate on the possible negative and positive influences of product placement. The results of this research will not only enhance

(6)

6 the understanding of effective product placements, but they will also be useful for marketers since the effectiveness of product placements can still be maximized (La Ferle & Edwards, 2006). The significance of this study for the field of product placement is further explained in the next segment of the introduction.

In order to research the effectiveness of product placement, this paper analyzes a well-discussed example of product placement, which will be divided in to the two different types of product placements. The example that is used in this experiment is the product placement of the iPad in Season 1, Episode 19 of Modern Family, which is so obvious that viewers came to speculate on how much Apple paid Modern Family to advertise. The writers of the ABC show wrote an entire episode around the iPad in order to create a more natural product placement, which had an adverse effect (Savage, 2010). The episode, which revolves around one of the main characters wishing an iPad for his birthday, was hugely discussed amongst viewers and researchers on product placements. Negative social media messages followed regarding the television show, and even though Modern Family had not been paid by Apple, the viewers were still affected by this product placement (Mikołajczyk, 2015). Interestingly though, these negative opinions regarding the television show did not diminish its popularity due to the fact that the show is still running and currently on its seventh season with rumors of an eighth season (When-Will.Net, 2015). Therefore this example is used for this experiment in order to illustrate what kind of an influence such a widely discussed product placement had on the viewers. Especially due to the fact that it not only seemed to have an effect on Apple but also on the show Modern Family. Hence in order to research whether the product

placement had an influence on the brand, or on the television show, this research will focus on brand attitude and program liking. These dependent variables were chosen due to the fact that these are useful variables for evaluating the success of a placed product since it indicates

(7)

7 whether the attitude towards the brand or program yielded positive or negative attitudes (d'Astous & Seguin, 1999).

In order to build upon existing research of product placement, this experiment will investigate possible positive or negative effects of two different types of product placement on the viewer’s brand attitude. As previously mentioned, the attitude towards the brand of the placed product was chosen due to the fact that it is a useful variable to indicate the

effectiveness of the product placement (d’Astous & Sequin, 199). Since numerous researchers have taken different views upon the effect of product placement on a viewer’s attitude

towards the advertised brand, either positively or negatively (Boerman, Reijmersdal & Neijens, 2012; De Gregori, & Sung, 2010; Ferraro & Avery, 2000; Friestad & Wright, 1994; Karrh, Frith & Callison, 2001; La Ferle & Edwards, 2006; McKechnie & Zhou, 2003; Russel, 2002 and Shrum, 2012) this research will serve to knowledge of product placement on brand attitude in relation to product placement. indicate the importance of studying the subject more in-depth. Therefore it is important that the experiment that is performed in this study

researches the relationship between the two different types of product placements and brand attitude since it provides arguments for a relationship that is still debatable in current

literature. Moreover these different results increase the importance of marketers and

companies to carefully consider the type of placement of a product in a television show since it is suggested that it would have significant effects on the viewers. Thus this experiment will enrich research on the effectiveness of product placements which will be beneficial for researchers and marketers who are trying to effectively promote products and brands.

When looking into the effect of product placements on brand attitude, previous research has indicated the importance of the growing knowledge of consumers on types of advertising (Friestad & Wright, 1994). This type of knowledge amongst consumers is called persuasion knowledge, which indicates that consumers are aware of the persuasive intent of

(8)

8 different types of advertising and thus the persuasive intent of product placements (van

Reijmersdal, 2009). Therefore this research will look at persuasion knowledge and its possible influence on the relationship between product placements and brand attitude. Since studies have established that this could influence the attitude that the viewer has towards a brand (Friestad & Wright, 1994; Matthes, Schemer & Wirth, W., 2007 and van Reijmersdal, 2009).

Furthermore, to enhance the knowledge of the effectiveness of product placement, this experiment will look into the effect of program liking before and after exposure of a product placement. Previous research on product placements only investigated program liking as a factor which influences the effect that the product placement has on the viewer, therefore in light of the discussion with regards to the Modern Family example, it would be interesting to research whether program liking will change after being exposed to a certain type of product placement (Cowley & Barron, 2008; Edwards, Li & Lee, 2002; Nelson & McLeod, 2005 and Russel, 2002). These results will not only enrich research on product placements, this will also create knowledge for the producer’s of television programs with regards to the effect of product placement on their program. Since existing literature on product placement does not provide any insights on how television show’s should incorporate product placements in their shows and what type of effect this could have on the viewer’s with regards to possible

enhanced or diminished liking of the program (Cowley & Barron, 2008). In order to

investigate this subject, the research question of this paper was formed: “Is there a difference in the effect of prominent and background placements on brand attitude and program liking and does persuasion knowledge influence this effect?”

Theoretical framework

This paper examines two different types of product placements and their influence on the viewer’s brand attitude and program liking. Furthermore the relationship of the product

(9)

9 placement and brand attitude is viewed upon with the persuasion knowledge of the viewer as a mediator. Firstly the relationship between the two forms of product placement, prominent and background, will be discussed which will be followed by the relationship with the influence of the mediator. Secondly the relationship between brand attitude and program liking with regards to product placement is analyzed. This is followed by the discussion of program liking and the influence of the product placements.

Product placement and brand attitude

Product placement is defined as the advertising of brand related products or names into existing media content in order to create persuasive intention (Russel, 2002). In order to research the effect of product placement, this paper takes into account two different types of product placements. The background placement, is the product placement that will only appear in the back of the scene or is just mentioned by a character. The prominent placement is the product placement that is integrated in the storyline with multiple shots of the product (Russel, 1998).

Research on product placement has indicated an effect on brand attitude which could be seen in the results of the study done by Mackay, Ewing, Newton & Windisch (2009) who researched product placement and brand attitudes in computer games. Their results suggested that exposure to brands in games can increase a positive attitude towards that brand for

consumers whose attitude towards that brand was considered low. However there are different types of research on the different types of product placement, such as prominent and

background, and the effect on brand attitude which suggest divergent results on the relationship (d’Astous & Seguin, 1999; Cowley & Barron, 2008; Gupta & Lord, 1998; Homer, 2009; Russel, 2002 and Matthes, Schemer & Wirth, 2007).

(10)

10 on the consumers’ brand attitude. Such as the research done by Gupta & Lord (1998) who found results in their study on product placement in movies that indicate that prominent placements, explicit mentions of the product in the script, performed better than subtle

product placements. Or the study done by Russel (2002) that measured brand attitude changes that resulted from exposure to product placement, which provided evidence that product placement in the plot, thus prominent placements, can have a positive effect on brand attitude, as long as it fits within the storyline. Hence prominent placements can have a positive effect on brand attitude as long as the placement is not out of place in relation to the show.

Research done by d’Astous & Seguin (1999) indicated that consumers are more affected by prominent placements than subtle placements; however the consumers also found prominent placements to be unacceptable. Therefore the attitude of the consumers in their research towards subtle placements and prominent placements was not perceived as positive. These researchers all indicate that prominent product placements can have a positive effect, as long as they fit within the placed story. Thereby stating that as long as the placement fits within the movie or television show, and thus does not feel out of place with regards to the storyline or type of show, prominent placements can have a better effect than subtle placements.

However there are other studies on product placements that found an opposite effect. For example the research by Cowly & Barron (2008) found that subtle placements, which are similar to background placements, have a more positive effect on brand attitude compared to prominent placements. Their study indicated the negative impact of product placements by exposing their participants to prominent and background low placements. The results

indicated that viewers exposed to high prominent placements reported lower brand attitudes. This is explained by the fact that subtle placements cause fewer disturbances in the program and therefore create less annoyance to the viewers while prominent placements are more

(11)

11 glaring to the viewers and create an irritating effect amongst most of them. The latter leads to a diminished attitude towards the brand due to the fact that viewers develop an annoyance towards the brand.

These results are supported by the research of Homer (2009) who studied the placement and repetition effects of product placement which provided evidence that brand attitudes decreased when the viewer was exposed to a repetition of prominent placements compared to subtle background placements. These results were also in line with the results found by Matthes, Schemer & Wirth (2007) who also indicated a negative brand attitude of prominent brand placements when the viewers of the program indicated a high awareness of the placed brand and thus felt irritated by the product placements. These researchers

concluded the negative impact of prominent placements by stating that these have a negative impact due to the obvious appearance of an advertisement (Cowley & Barron, 2008; Homer, 2009 and Matthes, Schemer & Wirth, 2007), which is an opposite effect from earlier

researchers whom backed theories that stated that prominent placements have a more positive effect (d’Astous & Seguin, 1999; Gupta & Lord, 1998 and Russel, 2002).

The different results that were found while studying the same relationship, the impact of product placement on brand attitude, indicate the relevance of the first hypothesis. The first hypothesis was created in order to provide a better understanding of the current relationship between the two different product placements, background and prominent, and their effect on brand attitude.

Hypothesis 1: “Background product placements have a more positive effect on brand attitude compared to prominent placements”.

This hypothesis indicates the possible negative impact of prominent placements on brand attitude which can be explained by irritation of the appearance of products in television shows (van Reijmersdal, 2009). Even though the background placement is less visible,

(12)

12 viewers can be more positively influenced by the background product placement due to their subtlety (Shrum, 2012).

Product placement and persuasion knowledge

When looking at the effect of product placement, either prominent or background, one can see that when consumers are aware of these placements that they could also be aware of the persuasive intent of these placements (Friestad & Wright, 1994). This is called persuasion knowledge and indicates that consumers have knowledge of persuasion of advertisements, such as product placement. Therefore when looking at the relationship between product placement and brand attitude, one needs to consider the mediating effect that persuasion knowledge has on this relationship (van Reijmersdal, 2009). One could see how viewers can identify product placements within television shows due to their appearance on the screen which creates awareness of deliberate product placements or the selling attempt of the brand which can activate resistance against persuasion (van Reijmersdal, 2009). Therefore viewers who are resisting towards the brand’s selling attempt could develop negative opinions towards this brand (Shrum, 2012). Thus persuasion knowledge will be researched as a mediator within this research since studies have established that this could influence the attitude that the viewer has towards a brand (Friestad & Wright, 1994; Matthes, Schemer & Wirth, W., 2007 and van Reijmersdal, 2009).

Due to the fact that viewers can be aware of the persuasion of product placement, the persuasion knowledge model is taken into consideration within this research (Matthes et. al., 2007). According to Friestad & Wright (1994), people are able to develop awareness and knowledge towards the influence of a message which helps them to confront the persuasion. Therefore when viewers view the product placement as a form of persuasion, they will start to

(13)

13 react and resist towards this persuasion. With regards to the two different types of product placement, background and prominent, one could see that a background placement has a more discreet quality compared to prominent product placement. Thus what used to be the

advantage of product placement over normal advertising, which is that viewers could be unaware of the persuasive or hidden intent of the product (Cowly & Barron, 2008) could now be a downfall for the advantages of product placement due to the viewers’ persuasion

knowledge. Therefore when viewers are feeling mislead by those hidden and persuasive intents, this advantage turns into a disadvantage. Hence, persuasion knowledge could work as a mediator for this research due to the fact that it could facilitate negative attitudinal reactions towards the product placement (van Reijmersdal, 2009).

When consumers are better able to recognize the persuasive attempt of a placement, the resistance towards this persuasion will be greater (Shrum, 2012). Consumers with high persuasion knowledge could see the practice of product placement as deviant which could lead to negative attitudes towards the product that is placed (Wenner, 2004). Therefore the background placements that were hypothesized to have a more positive effect compared to prominent placement, would have a more negative effect compared to prominent placements when persuasion knowledge is considered as a mediating effect. This is due to the fact that the background placements are better hidden in a television show thereby increasing the feelings of betrayal that consumers experience towards the product placement and thus increasing persuasion knowledge compared to the obvious prominent placements. Thereby creating a mediating relationship of type of product placement on persuasion knowledge, since

background product placements and prominent product placements are differing in effect on persuasion knowledge (Gibby, 2013). Due to the fact that background product placement could be increasing the viewer’s irritation towards the advertisement due to its hidden attempt which therefore could increase the viewer’s persuasion knowledge (Fitch, 2009).

(14)

14 Furthermore, one could assume that a prominent placement has a better effect on attitude since the consumer does not feel as manipulated compared to the exposure of a background placement. Hence persuasion knowledge could be a mediator since type of product placement has an influence on persuasion knowledge and high persuasion knowledge would indicate that viewers are aware of the persuasion, which would decrease their attitude towards the product (van Reijmersdal, 2009).

Based on previous research, the expectation regarding the relationship between product placements and brand attitude is that a background placement will create a more positive brand attitude compared to a prominent placement (Cowley & Barron, 2008; Homer, 2009 and Matthes, Schemer & Wirth, 2007). However when considering the mediating effect of persuasion knowledge, one can identify the hidden persuasive intent of the background placement which could indicate a more negative brand attitude compared to the prominent placement. Thus the following hypotheses was created:

Hypothesis 2: “Background prominent placements activate awareness of the persuasive intent of the product more than a prominent placement and consequently have a more

negative effect on brand attitude.

This hypothesis investigates the possible negative impact of type of product placement between the mediator persuasion knowledge, and the negative impact of the mediator

persuasion knowledge on the relationship between background product placements on brand attitude. This will be useful in extending the literature on product placements since more consumers are developing persuasion knowledge and thus brands need to take into

consideration the consumer’s persuasion knowledge when using product placement in order to promote their brand (Shrum, 2012).

(15)

15 Program liking and brand attitude

Program liking is the attitude or the overall evaluation that a viewer has of a program (Schumann, 1986). When the viewer is interested in a television program, the interruption of the program such as the appearance of an obtrusive product placement will be more

significant. Therefore the interruption of a product placement in a television show will be more obvious for a viewer who has a high program liking compared to viewers who

experience a low program liking towards the program (Edwards, Li & Lee, 2002). The viewer will realize that a brand has been placed into the program which will cause irritation since their program is interrupted, thereby creating a disappointed feeling towards the brand (Friestad & Wright, 1994).

One could see how a prominent placement would experience more of this effect compared to a background placement. This is supported by the findings of Cowley & Barron (2008) who suggested that the exposure of prominent product placements has a negative effect on consumers with a high liking of a program due to the fact that they feel betrayed by the program. By conducting an experiment they found evidence for the fact that prominent placements and low program liking have a better effect on brand attitude compared to high program liking. Research done by Murry Jr, Lastovicka & Singh (1992) indicated that placing an advertisement such as product placement in a program with high liking, this placement can experience a similar attitudinal responses towards that product. Therefore one could say that viewers with a high program liking transfer their attitude from the program over towards the product that is placed within that program, as long as the placement is in the background of the content. When comparing background placements and prominent placements, background placements appear to be more salient due to their hidden appearance in the program (Russel, 2002). Thus confirming that background placements are better able to create a positive brand attitude when the consumer has a high program liking. Based on the findings regarding the

(16)

16 relationship between product placements and brand attitude, the following hypothesis was developed:

Hypothesis 3:“Viewers with a high program liking will experience a better brand attitude when exposed to background placements compared to prominent placements”. This hypothesis was formed based on the notion that background product placements would lead to less interference of the program and would be considered more salient towards the context. Therefore the high program liking would be more easily transferred towards the attitude towards a product placement that is in the background compared to a prominent placement (Nelson & McLeod, 2005).

Product placement and program liking

One aspect of program liking that has yet to be investigated is whether program liking diminishes after the exposure of a product placement. Thus this study will try and fill this gap by researching the difference in program liking before and after the exposure of either a prominent or background placement. Previous research has indicated that prominent

placements have a negative effect on program liking (Cowley & Barron, 2008). This could be explained due to a viewer’s interest in the program, which is disturbed by a misleading product placement (Russell, 2002). Therefore one could suggest that prominent product placements could have a negative effect on the viewer’s program liking, which could cause their program liking to diminish after being exposed to a prominent product placement in their program.

Cowley & Barron (2008) suggest that a high liking viewer is not positively influenced by a prominent product placement. Therefore one could suggest that the viewer’s liking towards the program shifts after exposure to a prominent product placement, due to the

(17)

17 irritating experience of the exposure of a prominent product placement. This is in line with the research done by van Reijmersdal et al. (2012) regarding children’s responses towards

advergames. They found that brand prominence in advergames affects the attitudes towards the brand and game negatively.

The fact that the research of Cowley & Barron (2008) and Reijmersdal et al. (2012) is more recent and actually investigates the effect of product placement is reason to believe that program liking will in fact suffer from prominent product placements. Especially considering the fact that the previously mentioned researchers who researched program liking and

advertisements had not even encountered product placement since this is a subject that did not exist at the time. Therefore the following hypothesis was formulated on the relationship between product placement and program liking:

Hypothesis 4 “Viewers who are exposed to a prominent placement compared to a background placement experience a negative shift in their liking of the program after exposure”.

This hypothesis was formed in order to investigate the effects of exposure of prominent and background product placements on program liking. It is suggested that prominent product placements will influence program liking negatively (Cowly & Barron, 2008 and Reijmersdal et al. 2012). This would indicate that prominent product placements would be less favorable for the television show itself to use, as it diminishes the viewers’ liking towards the show.

Method Participants

The type of sampling used to gather the participants was convenience and snowball sampling. Due to the fact that the participants were required to be familiar with Modern Family, the experiment was shared amongst various social media websites and e-mail in order to reach

(18)

18 people who possess the characteristics of the target audience (Teddlie and Yu, 2007). The experiment was also shared on several Modern Family fan pages in order to ensure that Modern Family fans took part in the experiment. The survey was also forwarded by some of the researchers friends whom forwarded the survey to their friends. In order to increase validity, adults of different ages were approached (Kam, Wilking & Zechmeister 2007).

139 people started the survey of which 122 participants were eligible to participate in this experiment. This is due to the fact that 122 participants (36 males and 86 females) indicated that they were familiar with Modern Family which was essential to the experiment since only people who know Modern Family are able to describe the liking of the show (Majerol, 2011). The participants age was between 18 and 67 years with a mean age of 22,5 years. The education of the participants varied between highest education being middle school, undergraduates and university.

Stimulus material

A common belief when it comes to product placement is that the product needs to be known to its viewers in order for the trade-off effects of the liking of the program towards the liking of the product to be effective (Karrh, McKee & Pardun, 2003). Therefore the product shown in the clips needs to be a known product for the consumers, which is why the use of the Apple placements in Modern Family is useful for this research. The use of Apple as the placed product is also useful due to the fact that it was one in the top 5 placed brands in 2010 (Majerol, 2011). Therefore the significance of the results in the differences in brand attitude towards Apple and liking of the show is high due to its great use in television shows which increases the interest of the outcomes by practitioners and marketers. Even though Apple does not pay for their products to be placed in television shows, numerous shows still use their

(19)

19 products. Therefore the use of Apple products in a television show is a frequent factor in television shows nowadays (Mikołajczyk, 2015).

The prominent and background placements are clips from Season 1, Episode 19 of the Modern Family episode. This episode is scripted around the iPad of which a new edition is released on one of the main character’s birthdays. This character, Phil, decides that he wants one for his birthday after which his wife goes to some trouble getting him one (Savage, 2010). The episode ends with Phil blowing out the virtual candles of a birthday cake on the iPad (Axon, 2010).

The background placement clip contains viewings of the brand and has one mention of the brand. The prominent placement clip contains multiple viewings of the brand and the product and a character talking about its features. The characteristics of the differences of placement in the clips are similar to the definition of the different types of product placement given by Russell (1998) and therefore efficient in measuring the differences in effect of the two different types of product placement.

The design

The experiment was performed through the use of a between-subjects one factor design, where all participants were exposed to the factor of product placement, half of the participants to a background placement and the other half to a prominent placement (Greenwald, 1976). Through the use of an online survey containing the product placement clips and the questionnaire, the participants were able to perform the experiment online on their computers.

The procedure

(20)

20 exposure of the clip. The product placement factor was manipulated in order to produce a prominent and background product placement of the Apple product, the iPad. The two clips are approximately 3 minutes in order to incorporate the product placements and to distract the participants so that they might have forgotten their answers given before exposure.

The measures of program liking were also asked before and after exposure of the type of product placement. The questions regarding the program liking were placed at the very beginning and at the very end of the survey. The evaluation of the program liking after the exposure was the last item of the survey due to the fact that participants were required to be uninfluenced by their previous answers since this could affect their answers.

Furthermore, the experiment used a cover story in order to prevent the participants from discovering the goal of the experiment (Gupta & Lord, 1998). The participants were told that the experiment was about Modern Family, therefore no specifications as to what the goal of research is were given. They were told also that there are no wrong answers and that they should answer the first thing that comes to mind, in order to prevent them from over-thinking the questions. All of which served the purpose of preventing the participant from in

discovering the objective of the experiment and diminishing the significance of the results.

Participants also responded to background questions and distraction questions (see Appendix A). The background questions covered the participant’s age, gender and highest education. The distraction questions, which are used to create the notion that the experiment goal was the actual television show, were placed after the clips in the survey and contained questions regarding specifics of the clip, whose birthday was being celebrated in the episode, what was Phil wearing and how many kids do Phil and Claire have. Due to the fact that these questions were merely asked as a form of distraction the results of these questions were not measured.

(21)

21 Measures

Independent variable. The conceptual model consists out of one independent variable product placement, which is measured through two different types of product placements, background and prominent placement. Furthermore the conceptual model

consists out of two different dependent variables which are brand attitude and program liking. The mediator for this research is the persuasion knowledge of the participants.

Dependent variables. The dependent variables of this experiment are brand attitude and program liking. Brand attitude is measured through the construct scale developed by Madden, Allen and Twible (1988). Their construct contains five-item 7-point scale items such as pleasant/unpleasant, bad/good and unlikeable/likeable. The participants were asked to fill in these scale items for 9 different brands, however only the results of the Apple outcomes after the exposure is used in the experiment. In order to see if these items could be loaded in the same factor, a principle component analysis was conducted. Through this analysis, the factor was proven to be reliable (EV = 4.31; R2 = .86, Cronbach’s alpha =.96). Thereby concluding that all the items measured the same factor which caused the creation of the variable BrandAttitude.

The dependent variable program liking is measured through the five-item program liking scale, which was created by Murry, Lastovicka and Singh (1992). The participants answered questions on a seven-point scale from “disagree strongly” to “agree strongly”. The program liking scale contained 5 items such as “There is something about this program that appeals to me” of which two of the items were reversed in order to prevent response bias (Pallant, 2013). Program liking was measured before and after exposure in order to measure a shift. Both program liking variables contained negatively coded items; the scale for these items was reversed after which the items were recoded. In order to see if these items load on the same factor, a principle component analysis was conducted. The analysis indicated that for

(22)

22 the variable ProgramLikingBefore, one factor was proven to be reliable (EV =3.62, R2 = .72, Cronbach’s alpha =.90). If the item ‘I prefer to watch other shows’ was deleted, the reliability would increase a little (Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted = .902). However since the

difference was so little, the decision was made to load the item on the factor, thereby indicating that all the items measure the same factor resulting in the creation of the variable

ProgramLikingBefore.

The principal component analysis for ProgramLikingAfter indicated that the factor was reliable (EV =3.38, R2 = .68, Cronbach’s alpha =.86). If ‘I prefer to watch other show’ was deleted (Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted = .909) the reliability would increase. However since existing scales were used, reliability was still very high and the difference between reliability so little, the decision was made to still load the item on the factor, thereby creating the item ProgramLikingAfter.

Mediator. The mediator persuasion knowledge is measured through the use of two scales developed by Boerman, Reijmersdal & Neijens (2012). The first is an item that required the participants to indicate on a 7-point scale (1= strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree) to what extent the use of the iPad was advertising (M=5, SD=1.61) which indicated high persuasion knowledge amongst the participants. This measured the conceptual persuasive knowledge of the viewer regarding the iPad being featured in the episode.

The participants’ critical feelings towards the advertisement were tested through 5 attributes on the footage of the Apple product in the clips such as “honest”, “trustworthy” and “biased”. This variable only included the participants whom noticed the Apple placement. Three of these items were coded negatively and were therefore reversed in order to perform a principal component analysis. The 5 items were loaded into one factor after which the items ‘biased’ and ‘not credible’ were deleted in order to improve the reliability. The principal component analysis of the 3 remaining items ‘honest’, ‘trustworthy’ and ‘convincing’

(23)

23 revealed high reliability of the factor (EV =2.27, R2 = .76, Cronbach’s alpha =.84) which resulted in the creation of the variable PersuasionKnowledge attitudinal.

Control measurement. The experiment contained a control measurement in order to test whether participants noticed the footage of the Apple product, the iPad in the clips. Analysis of these results indicated that 25.4% of the participants did not notice any brands, 70.5% noticed the Apple footage and 4.1% of the participants indicated they noticed other brands such as Nintendo, Uggs or Oreo. In order to compare the control measurement with regards to the type of exposure, other products were coded as 0 while Apple was coded as 1. When comparing the group (N=57) that was exposed to the background placement (M = 1, SD = 0) it was apparent that the group (N=64) exposed to the prominent placement (M = 1.02, SD = 0.13) noticed the brand Apple slightly more. Due to the fact that the participants could have noticed the Apple placement unconsciously, the comparing of the two exposure groups is still useful since it could still indicate an unconscious effect.

Results

The 122 participants in this experiment were 29.5% male (N=36) and 70.5% female (N=86) with an average age of 22,5 years (SD=0.72). The highest finished education amongst the participants differed greatly since 21.3% finished high school, 10.7% finished MBO or also known as Community College, 47.5% finished their Bachelor’s and 15.6% got their Master’s degree. The participants were either exposed to a prominent or background placement.

The randomization check was run in order to test whether the randomization created equal experimental groups in terms of participants’ age, gender and educational level. A one-way ANOVA was performed in order to test whether the groups differed significantly in means with regards to age, F(3, 118) = .36, p = .780, η2 = .03, results indicate no significance.

(24)

24 The age for the prominent group (M = 22.8 , SD = .80) was slightly higher compared to the background group (M = 21.9, SD = .65). Cross tabulation analysis indicated no significant differences between the two conditions and gender χ2 (1, n = 122) = 1.31, p = .251. The outcome was coded with males being coded as 1 and females coded as 2. The group who was exposed to the background placements contained more men (M = 1.66, SD = .48) compared to the group who was exposed to the prominent placements (M = 1.75, SD = .44). The cross tabulation analysis was also performed to indicate whether there was a difference between the two conditions and education levels, these were insignificant χ2 (5, n = 122) = 2.95, p = .708. The education level of the prominent group (M = 3.70, SD = 1.10) was slightly higher

compared to the background placements group (M = 3.57, SD = 1.19). This was visible due to the fact that the education levels were coded from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest education level and 5 the highest. In conclusion, the randomization check indicated that the

randomization of the two conditions had succeeded. Therefore there was no need to control for age, gender or education.

Product placements, brand attitude and persuasion knowledge

In order to test whether background placements have a more positive effect on brand attitude compared to prominent placement, a one-way analysis of variances was performed. The results indicated that there were no significant differences in the scores of brand attitude F(1,118) = .99, p = .32, partial eta squared = .008. Therefore brand attitude did not have a significantly greater positive effect in background placements (M = 29.52, SD = 6.05) compared to prominent placements (M = 28.09, SD = 5.92).

The relationship between product placement and brand attitude was measured with a mediation of persuasion knowledge in a regression model. The regression model with brand attitude as a dependent variable and attitudinal persuasion knowledge, conceptual persuasion

(25)

25 knowledge and type of product placement as independent variables is significant F(3, 118) = 4.56, p = .005, with an R2 of .10. This indicates a very moderate effect of a 10 per cent variation in brand attitude, which can be explained by product placement, attitudinal persuasion knowledge and conceptual persuasion knowledge. The independent variable product placement, b* = -.091, t = -1.000, p = .320, and persuasion knowledge attitudinal, b* = .171, t = 1.853, p = 0.066, has an insignificant effect on brand attitude while persuasion knowledge conceptual, b* = -.298, t = -3.241, p = 0.002, has a significant moderately strong association with brand attitude. Thus only conceptual persuasion knowledge indicates a significant predictor for brand attitude, product placement and attitudinal persuasion knowledge are insignificant.

Attitudinal persuasion knowledge is measured with a 7-point scale for which 1 means strongly disagree and 7 is strongly agree. Conceptual persuasion knowledge is measured through 3 items scaled with a 7-point Likert scale where a higher score indicates higher knowledge of persuasion knowledge. Since only conceptual persuasion knowledge indicated a significant effect, the results indicate a significant decrease in brand attitude with .392 when participants indicated a point extra negative conceptual persuasion knowledge. Although the relationship between brand attitude and background placements (M = 29.52, SD = 6.05) and prominent placements (M = 28.09, SD = 5.92) is not significant, the decrease in brand attitude between these types of placements can be explained by the mediating effect of conceptual persuasion knowledge.

Program liking and brand attitude

The third hypotheses researches the relationship between product placements and brand attitude, with the moderating role of program liking. Therefore an ANOVA was used in order to analyze the moderating effect of program liking. The interaction effect between

(26)

26 program liking and brand attitude is not statistically significant F(1, 25) = .524, p = .971. The main effect of product placement type on brand attitude is also insignificant F(1, 25) = 1.126, p = .385. Therefore exposure to either a prominent or background placement does not differ in effect with regards to the relationship between program liking and brand attitude.

The brand attitude of the group that was exposed to a background placement (M=25.19, SD=8.12) is a bit higher compared to the group of participants exposed to the prominent placement (M=23.93, SD=7.06). Even though the difference is not statistically significant and program liking does not have a significant moderating effect on this

relationship, the brand attitude of the group exposed to the background placement is slightly higher compared to the prominent placement.

Program liking and product placement

The fourth and last hypothesis states that viewers who are exposed to a prominent placement experience a negative shift in program liking compared to viewers who are

exposed to a background placement. In order to investigate this relationship a Paired Samples T-test was performed that measured the differences in program liking before and after

exposure. The relationship between ProgramLikingBefore and type of placements so background placement (M=25.19, SD=8.12) and prominent placement (M=23.93, SD=7.06) appeared to be insignificant t (122) = 0.90, p = .37. As well as the relationship between ProgramLikingAfter and type of placements so background placement (M=25., SD=8.00) and prominent placement (M=23.18., SD=6.89) who results are insignificant t (122) = 1.40, p = .17. Therefore the results indicated that participants did not experience a significant shift in program liking after exposure to a product placement.

(27)

27 Discussion

This study researched the relationship between different types of product placement and their effect on brand attitude and program liking. The aim was to build upon the existing research on product placement. Furthermore this research aimed to provide data for marketers and production companies in order to find the best combination of product placement for brands and television shows. Due to the fact that it is a relatively underdeveloped area of research, the results from this study contribute to in-depth product placement research and the effect on attitude towards the brand and the liking of the program. The main question of this study regarded these issues and concerned the effects of different types of product placements on brand attitude and show liking, with possible influence from the viewer’s persuasion knowledge.

Product placement and brand attitude

The results of the experiment did not support the hypothesized effect of different types of product placements influencing the attitude towards the brand, which is supported by the fact that only 70.5% of the participants noticed a brand placement by Apple. Even though the prominent product placement group indicated seeing the Apple brand slightly more compared to the background placement group, there were still a high number of participants who were not even aware of the brand exposure. This could be explained due to the fact that the viewers are so involved with the story that they can become oblivious to the product placements in the television show. Hence measuring a difference in brand attitude proved to be difficult.

Therefore the first hypothesis “Background product placements have a more positive effect on brand attitude compared to prominent placements” could not be validated based on this experiment.

(28)

28 considered overdone and annoying by the viewers while background product placements would be viewed as subtle and therefore less annoying which would therefore not have the same negative effect on the viewers (Russel, 2002; Cowley & Barron, 2008 and Homer, 2009). Although this outcome could be the result of the type of experiment and the type of product placements used, due to the fact that this research did not find any evidence to suggest that background placements have a more positive effect on brand attitude due to their subtlety (Cowley & Barron, 2008), one therefore has to conclude that based on the manipulation of the types of product placement in this research, there is no significant relationship between type of placement and brand attitude.

The mediating effect of persuasion knowledge

Even though results indicate that viewers are not influenced by prominent product placements or background product placements with regards to their brand attitude, the experiment does suggest that viewers are influenced by conceptual persuasion knowledge when looking at the relationship between type of product placement and brand attitude. The analysis indicates that conceptual persuasion knowledge, the participants critical feelings towards the advertisement, has a mediating effect on the relationship between type of product placement and brand attitude. Participants who identified higher persuasion knowledge on the conceptual persuasion knowledge scale decreased in brand attitude.

The expected negative effect of the background product placement on persuasion knowledge is less effective since some participants did not even notice the product placement and therefore could not indicate their persuasion knowledge. Furthermore, this experiment supports the theories that suggest that the participants who are able to recognize the product placement and its persuasive attempt experience a higher resistance towards this persuasion, which results in negative brand attitudes (van Reijmersdal, 2009; Shrum, 2012 and Wenner,

(29)

29 2004). The insignificant effect of type of product placement and brand attitude suggests that marketers are able to use either prominent or background product placements while

promoting a brand, since it has no significant impact on the brand attitude of the program’s viewers. However when considering an audience that is known for having high persuasion knowledge, marketers are advised to use background placements since the data suggests that prominent product placements have a negative effect on persuasion knowledge which could lead to a negative evaluation of the product placement. Thus the promotion of a brand through product placements would benefit from background product placements when the viewers of the program possess high persuasion knowledge.

Program liking

The analysis of the results of the experiment indicated that the hypothesized effect of viewers with a high program liking experience a better brand attitude when exposed to background placements compared to prominent placement was not supported by the results. Research done by Edwards, Li & Lee (2002) suggested that interruption of a television

program with a product placement would be more visible to a viewer who is involved with the program, or one who has a high program liking. The viewer’s will produce disappointed feeling towards the brand when their program is interrupted (Friestad & Wright, 1994). The research by Cowley & Barron (2008) and Russell (2002) also suggested that viewers with a high liking would feel betrayed by the product placement. Hence the creation of hypothesis 3 which was not supported by the results from the experiment. This suggests that marketers do not have to consider the viewer’s liking towards a program. The data indicates that advertising companies are able to use either prominent or background product placements while

promoting a brand, since it has no significant impact on the brand attitude of the program’s viewers.

(30)

30 The fourth and final hypothesis suggested that viewers who were exposed to a

prominent placement compared to a background placement would experience a negative shift in their program liking (Cowly & Barron, 2008 and Reijmersdal et al. 2012). The results indicate that this hypothesis is not supported by the results from the experiment. This could be due to the short amount of time viewers had within the experiment to contemplate their

program liking. Even though distraction questions were asked and, besides fulfilling their product placement purpose, the clips provided amusing entertainment, the viewers could be influenced by the lack of time thinking over their possible change in program liking.

The hypothesis was not supported by the data gathered from the experiment; thus recommendations on managerial implications with regards to program liking and prominent and background product placements based on this research is that the two different types of product placements do not influence program liking. However future research on prominent and background placements with regards to their influence on brand attitude, moderated by the viewer’s program liking could focus more in-depth on this difference due to the fact that the Modern Family Apple product placement was a well-debated subject amongst viewers (Mikołajczyk, 2015). The debates indicated that fans were feeling disappointed by their show which suggests an effect in their feelings towards the show. This provides reason for more in-depth research with regards to the influence that product placement has on the viewer’s perception of the program in which the product is placed.

Implications

One of the limitations of this research is that the product placement was based on existing footage of Modern Family. This resembles the limitation of Law and Braun (2000) whom also indicated that it was not possible to get the same identical clip of the show with the two different types of product placements. Therefore results could be different when investigating

(31)

31 the exact same clips only differing in type of product placement. Future research on types of product placements could focus on the exact same clips, differing only in product placement, in order to find significant results that could give suggestions to marketers and production companies.

Another aspect that comes with investigating real programs is that the viewers are familiar with the program which could mean they are influenced by other aspects of the program besides the exposure of the product placement (Tiwsakul, Hackley & Szmigin, 2005). When investigating a television show there is an appearance of other uncontrolled factors, which could for example be the distraction of the strong liking of an actor. Such an affinity could indicate that the viewer did not pay attention to the product placements. Other uncontrolled factors could be the strength of the plot or even distractions that do not appear on the screen such as a doorbell, phone or chatter (Law and Braun, 2000).

The findings from the experiment are subject to the limitations of a small-scale study. Hence the results are limited to product placement research on the specific clips chosen with regards to prominent and background placement. Further research on different clips of

prominent and background placement with regards to brand attitude and program liking could indicate different results due to different forms of measurement from the independent

variable. For example by investigating different television shows that vary in genre,

researching multiple types of product placements instead of just two in order to indicate more specific results or an experiment in which more than one product is placed to investigate differences when participants are exposed to multiple brands. Therefore more in-depth research on types of product placement and the effect on brand attitude and the attitude of the viewer’s towards the program could give more specific insight to how these relationships work.

(32)

32 and second measurement of program liking. Even though the participants were distracted with questions and the entertainment of the clip, a 7-day waiting period would give them time to thoroughly think about the exposure which could result in different outcomes. Research could also focus on different group exposures and thus include a group that is primed with

persuasion knowledge in order to see how this would affect the relationship between product placement, brand attitude and program liking.

Conclusion

To conclude, this experiment tried to fill the gap in product placement knowledge by exploring two different types of product placements, prominent and background, and research their effect on brand attitude and program liking. Furthermore, a mediating effect of

persuasion knowledge on the relationship between product placement type and brand attitude was analyzed. Even though the results did not indicate significant outcomes for the

relationship between brand attitude and type of product placement, the mediating effect of persuasion knowledge did find significance in the results. Hence the experiment found that conceptual persuasion knowledge, which can be identified as the participant’s critical feelings towards the Apple placement, has a more negative effect for prominent product placements compared to background product placements and the relationship with brand attitude. The analysis also indicated that program liking did not have a moderating effect on the

relationship between type of product placement and brand attitude. Furthermore, the analysis of program liking before and after exposure did not reach significance, which indicates that viewers were not influenced by the exposure of a prominent or background with regards to their program liking.

The significant result of the mediating effect of the critical feelings that the

(33)

33 between prominent product placements compared to background placements on brand attitude suggest implications for future research and marketers. Hence product placement

advertisements need to be considered regarding the type of placement and the persuasion knowledge of the viewers in order to improve the effectiveness of the placements effect on the viewers brand attitude.

(34)

34 References

Auty, S., & Lewis, C. (2004). Exploring children's choice: The reminder effect of product placement. Psychology & Marketing, 21(9), 697-713.

Axon, S. (2010) "iPad Gets Half-Hour of Product Placement on Modern Family.” Web log post. Mashable. Apr. 2010. Web. 15 Apr. 2010.

Babin, L. A., & Carder, S. T. (1996). Viewers' recognition of brands placed within a film. International journal of advertising, 15(2), 140-151.

Balasubramanian, S. K., Karrh, J. A., & Patwardhan, H. (2006). Audience response to product placements: An integrative framework and future research agenda. Journal of

advertising, 35(3), 115-141.

Boerman, S. C., Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2012). Sponsorship disclosure: Effects of duration on persuasion knowledge and brand responses. .Journal of

communication, 62(6), 1047- 1064.

Cowley, E., & Barron, C. (2008). When product placement goes wrong: The effects of program liking and placement prominence. Journal of Advertising,37(1), 89-98. Coulter, K. S. (1998). The effects of affective responses to media context on advertising

evaluations. Journal of Advertising, 27(4), 41-51.

d'Astous, A., & Seguin, N. (1999). Consumer reactions to product placement strategies in television sponsorship. European journal of Marketing, 33(9/10), 896-910.

DeLorme, D. E., & Reid, L. N. (1999). Moviegoers' experiences and interpretations of brands in films revisited. Journal of advertising, 28(2), 71-95.

Edwards, S. M., Li, H., & Lee, J. H. (2002). Forced exposure and psychological reactance: Antecedents and consequences of the perceived intrusiveness of pop-up ads. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 83-95.

(35)

35 Ferraro, R., & Avery, R. J. (2000). Brand appearances on prime-time television.Journal of

Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 22(2), 1-15.

Fitch, S. (2009). Product placement and the effects of persuasion knowledge. Honors Projects in Marketing, 4.

Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of consumer research, 1-31.

De Gregorio, F., & Sung, Y. (2010). Understanding attitudes toward and behaviors in response to product placement. Journal of Advertising, 39(1), 83-96.

Gibby, H. S. (2013). The Influence of Persuasion Knowledge on Visual Attention to Product Placements (Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University).

Gunawardena, T. (2013). When subtle is the most effective. An analysis of product placement effectiveness in multitasking environments (Doctoral dissertation, Auckland

University of Technology).

Gupta, P. B., & Gould, S. J. (1997). Consumers' perceptions of the ethics and acceptability of product placements in movies: Product category and individual differences. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 19(1), 37-50.

Gupta, P. B., & Lord, K. R. (1998). Product placement in movies: The effect of prominence and mode on audience recall. Journal of Current Issues & Research in

Advertising, 20(1), 47-59.

Greenwald, A. (1976). Within-subjects designs: To use or not to use?.Psychological Bulletin, 83(2), 314.

Homer, P. M. (2009). Product placements. Journal of Advertising, 38(3), 21-32.

Hudson, S., & Hudson, D. (2006). Branded entertainment: a new advertising technique or product placement in disguise?. Journal of Marketing Management, 22(5-6), 489-504.

(36)

36 Karrh, J. A. (1994). Effects of brand placements in motion pictures. In Proceedings of the

1994 Conference of the American Academy of Advertising (pp. 90-96). Athens, GA: American Academy of Advertising.

Karrh, J., McKee, K., & Pardun, C. (2003). Practitioners' evolving views on product placement effectiveness. Journal of advertising research,43(02), 138-149.

Karrh, J. A., Frith, K. T., & Callison, C. (2001). Audience attitudes towards brand (product) placement: Singapore and the United States. International Journal of

Advertising, 20(1), 3-24.

Kam, C. D., Wilking, J. R., & Zechmeister, E. J. (2007). Beyond the “narrow data base”: Another convenience sample for experimental research. Political Behavior, 29(4), 415-440.

Law, S., & Braun-LaTour, K. A. (2004). Product placements: How to measure their impact. The psychology of entertainment media: Blurring the lines between entertainment and persuasion, 63-78.

La Ferle, C., & Edwards, S. M. (2006). Product placement: How brands appear on television. Journal of Advertising, 35(4), 65-86.

Mackay, T., Ewing, M., Newton, F., & Windisch, L. (2009). The effect of product placement in computer games on brand attitude and recall.International Journal of

advertising, 28(3), 423-438.

Madden, T. J., Allen, C. T., & Twible, J. L. (1988). Attitude toward the Ad: An Assessment of Diverse Measurement Indices under Different Processing" Sets". Journal of marketing research, 242-252.

(37)

37 Matthes, J., Schemer, C., & Wirth, W. (2007). More than meets the eye: Investigating the

hidden impact of brand placements in television magazines. International Journal of Advertising, 26(4), 477-503.

McKechnie, S. A., & Zhou, J. (2003). Product placement in movies: a comparison of Chinese and American consumers’ attitudes. International Journal of Advertising, 22(3), 349-374.

Mikołajczyk, A. (2015). Product placement in brand promotion. Współczesna Gospodarka, 6(2), 11-19.

Morton, C. R., & Friedman, M. (2002). “I Saw it in the Movies”: Exploring the Link between Product Placement Beliefs and Reported Usage Behavior.Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 24(2), 33-40.

Murry Jr, J. P., Lastovicka, J. L., & Singh, S. N. (1992). Feeling and liking responses to television programs: An examination of two explanations for media-context effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 441-451.

Nelson, M. R., & McLeod, L. E. (2005). Adolescent brand consciousness and product placements: awareness, liking and perceived effects on self and others. International Journal of consumer studies, 29(6), 515-528.

Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Van Reijmersdal, E. (2009). Brand placement prominence: good for memory! Bad for attitudes?. Journal of Advertising Research, 49(2), 151.

Russell, C. (1998), Toward a Framework of Product Placement: Theoretical Propositions. Advances in Consumer Re-search, Vol. 25, ed. Joseph W. Alba and J. Wesley Hutchinson, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 14(1), 357–362.

(38)

38 Russel, C. (2002). Investigating the effectiveness of product placements in television shows:

The role of modality and plot connection congruence on brand memory and attitude. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 306-318.

Savage, S. (2010). Junior Mints and Their Bigger Than Bite-Size Role in Complicating Product Placement Assumptions.

Schumann, D. W. (1986),"Program Impact on Attitude Toward TV Commercials," in Proceedings of the Division of Costumer Psychology, Joel G. Saegert, ed., Washington, DC: American Psychological Association,67-73.

Shrum, L. J. (Ed.). (2012). The psychology of entertainment media: Blurring the lines between entertainment and persuasion. Taylor & Francis.

Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling a typology with examples. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(1), 77-100.

Tiwsakul, R., Hackley, C., & Szmigin, I. (2005). Explicit, non-integrated product placement in British television programmes. International Journal of Advertising, 24(1), 95-111. Wenner, L. A. (2004). On the ethics of product placement in media entertainment. Journal of

Promotion Management, 10(1-2), 101-132.

Williams, K., Petrosky, A., Hernandez, E., & Page, R. (2011). Product placement effectiveness: revisited and renewed. Journal of Management and Marketing Research, 7(1), 1-24.

When-Will.Net (2015) "Modern Family Is Yet to Be Renewed for Season 8." When-Will.Net. When- Will.Net, Retrieved: Web. 11 Jan. 2015. <http://when-will.net/tv-series/2149-will-modern- family-come-back-for-season-8-release-date.html>

(39)

39 Appendix A

Q2 Dear participant, Thank you for taking the time to participate in this experiment. The subject of this experiment is the television show Modern Family, therefore only people who are familiar with this television show are able to participate. If you are not familiar with this television show, please do not participate in this experiment. The experiment will take approximately 6 minutes in which you will be required to answer questions regarding different topics. Please make sure to answer every question, there are no wrong answers! :) If you have any questions regarding this experiment or any suggestions, feel free to contact me on the following e-mail address: robinalkemade@live.nl Thank you in advance!

Q4 Please read the following instructions: I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research, as described in the email invitation for this study. I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation in the experiment at any time. If my research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in another way, this will be done such a way that my anonymity is completely safeguarded. My personal data will not be passed on to third parties without my express

permission. If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in future, I can contact Robin Alkemade via the e-mail robinalkemade@live.nl Should I have any complaints about this research, I can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing the ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐ 525 3680; ascor‐secr‐fmg@uva.nl.

 I understand the text presented above, and I agree to participate in the experiment. (1)

Q6 Please indicate if you know about or if you have watched an episode of Modern Family:  Yes. (1)

 No. (2)

If No. Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

The purpose of this study was to investigate the moderating effect of industry regulations on the relationship between corporate social performance (CSP) and corporate

En ik denk dat het gewoon voor leerkrachten heel belangrijk is om Het Sinterklaasjournaal zelf ook goed te volgen en, daar heb ik mezelf ook weleens op betrapt, maar ik weet

In this paper, our main contribution is that we present combinations of measurements for error modeling that can be used to estimate the quality of arbitrary GNSS receivers

In a previous study, we showed that healthy people were able to control an active trunk support using four different control interfaces (based on joystick, force on feet, force

Tabel 6.14 rapporteer die getal studente wat onderskeidelik kontakklasse, en vakansieskole bygewoon het per GOS-program en modules, en wat gedurende Oktober 2009

With the collapse of the diamond market, the number of blacks employed declined from 6 666 in 1928/1929 to 811 in 1932 and workers began to stream back to the

In the concern of friction reduction, the pillar (Z003) texture has the advantage over Hilbert curve and grooved channel textures in decreasing the friction force under the

(upper row 1), coiled-coil formation in the B-loop (blue) enables HA extension and insertion of the fusion peptide into the cell membrane (c1), followed by foldback of the hinge