Brand placement : subtle or prominent?

(1)

!

Bachelor!Thesis!Amsterdam!Business!School!

!

subtle!or!prominent?!

! ! ! ! ! !

Author: Jort Wildschut Student ID: 5977185

Supervisor: drs. ing. A.C.J. Meulemans

(2)

Abstract

Creating online content that will go viral holds many minds. Companies have been using numerous forms of entertainment to place their brand, but brands are no longer just being placed: they are becoming part of the entertainment. However, relatively few studies focus on the effect of brand prominence on the willingness to share this content. Several dimensions of the model framework of Balasubramanian et al. were adopted to study factors that trigger the willingness of sharing online branded images: ‘opportunity to process the placement’,

‘memory for brand and placements’, ‘identification with brand’, ‘persuasive intent’ and ‘gender’. Brand prominence has a positive effect on brand recall, identification with a brand has a positive effect on an individual’s forwarding intentions, and gender has a significant moderating effect on the effect of brand prominence on willingness to share. Therefore, online advertising agencies are advised to study their target group; females tend to forward images with subtle brand placement, while males tend to forward those with prominent brand placement.

(3)

1. Introduction

Twenty-four million views in the first forty-eight hours (Dodds, 2014). A dream of many brands and advertising agencies. In this context the ‘First Kiss’ video was an enormous online success. As it turned out, this video of twenty strangers kissing for the first time was not exactly what it seemed to be. WREN, an American clothing company, was the company behind this video. Viewers felt betrayed, because they did not expect the video to be an advertisement. Numerous viewers expressed their negative feelings about the video on social media (Dodds, 2014). This is one of the downsides of ‘viral marketing’. Where brands want to turn every consumer in “an involuntary salesperson” (Moore, 2003) it often leads to “expensive and often deliberately amateur looking commercials that are exponentially more

likely to fail than to succeed” (Nalty, 2010, p. 10).

Brands have been using many forms of entertainment to place their brand. Starting with brand placement in movies (Gupta & Lord, 1998) to fully adopting the role of program producer by creating their own entertainment (Karh, McKee, and Pardrun, 2003). Hudson and Hudson (2006) confirm this by stating that brands are no longer just being placed but

becoming part of the entertainment. The question is how much a brand can be woven into the entertainment so that viewers remain seeing it as entertainment and not as an advertisement. Ephron (2003, p. 20) summarizes this problem: “The infuriating paradox of brand placement

is that if you notice it, it is bad. But if you don’t notice it, it is worthless. It is such a narrow line that either the viewer or the advertiser feels betrayed”. How bad will it be if viewers are

noticing the brand?

There are several studies to the different factors that might influence online content going viral and intentions to forward this content. Berger and Milkman (2012) took a psychological approach and researched why certain online content (e.g., advertisements, videos, news articles) are more viral than others. They found that content that evokes high-arousal positive

(4)

or negative (anger or anxiety) emotions is more likely to go viral than content that evokes low-arousal, or deactivating, emotions (e.g., sadness). While Ho, & Dempsey (2010) found that “Internet users, who are more individualistic and/or more altruistic, tend to forward more online content than others”. Eckler & Bolls (2011) studied how the emotional tone (pleasant, unpleasant) of viral video ads affects forwarding intentions. Their results indicate that pleasant emotional tone elicits the strongest intention to forward. The effects were weaker for coactive tone and weakest for negative emotional tone.

However, little research has been done to examine the effect of brand placement on the intention to forward this online content.

The main purpose of this study is to examine whether brand prominence influences recipients’ intentions to forward an online image.

Several dimensions of the model framework of Balasubramanian, Karrh and Patwardhan (2006) were adopted to study factors that trigger the willingness of sharing online branded images. Prior literature related to these factors and different dimensions of the model will be discussed. After the hypotheses are defined, the results of this experimental study will be described. Finally, the study will be concluded by discussing the results, the limitations, and implications for further research.

!

! !

(5)

2. Theoretical Framework

The structure of this research was based on various concepts and theories. This theoretical framework will show from which point of view the research was set-up. Firstly, the features of brand placement that are based on the model of Balasubramanian et al. (2006) will be described. Secondly, the conceptual framework will be illustrated which is partly based on the original model of Balasubramanian et al. (2006). Finally, hypotheses will be developed using the conceptual framework to deconstruct the main question in order to facilitate the implementation of the research.

2.1 Brand placement

According to Balasubramanian et al. (2006), the effect of brand placement works according to the ‘brand placement model’. “This integrative model incorporates a variety of stimulus-

and individual-level variables along with multiple outcomes from placements”. Brand

placement and product placement are often used interchangeably in academic articles (Karrh, 1998). Many prefer brand placement since it involves a brand and not only a product which represents the essence of the action (Balasubramanian et al., 2006; Karrh, 1998) In addition, Balasubramanian (1994) defines brand placement as “as a combination of advertising and

publicity designed to influence the audience by unobtrusively inserting branded products in entertainment programs such that the viewer is unlikely to be aware of the persuasive intent.”

While Karrh (1998) elaborates on brand placement that it “is included, through audio and/or

visual means, as part of a mass media program in return for some consideration for the advertiser.” In this research the definition of Karrh (1998) will be used.

Gupta and Lord (1998) describe two characteristics of brand placement: the mode of

presentation and its level of prominence. The mode of presentation can be (1) visual only; (2) audio only or (3) combined audio-visual. In this research the visual mode of presentation will

(6)

be discussed since this study focuses on online images. Gupta and Lord (1998) define the brand placement’s level of prominence as “the extent to which the product placement

possesses characteristics designed to make it a central focus of audience attention.”

Prominent placements are “those in which the brand is made highly visible by virtue of size

and/or position on the screen or its centrality to the action in the scene” (Gupta & Lord,

1998). In addition, Gupta and Lord (1998) state that “subtle placements are those in which

the brand is not shown prominently (e.g., small in size, a background prop outside of the main field of visual focus, lost in an array of multiple products or objects, low time of

exposure).” In this research ‘subtle placements’ are defined as placements in which the brand

is creatively integrated in the image (e.g. not highly visible) This definition is based on Brennan, Dubas, and Babin (1999) who describe subtle placements as ‘creative placements’ and define them as placements “that are appearing in the background”.

2.2 Brand placement model concepts

According to Balasubramanian et al. (2006), the concepts relevant for brand placement include ‘execution (setting) variables’, ‘individual-level variables’, ‘depth of placement processing’, and ‘placement effects or outcomes’. These concepts are integrated in the model of Balasubramanian et al. (2006) which is shown in Figure 1. This model is used in order to “explain how placements generate specific types of audience outcomes”. Explicitly: this model describes the effects of brand placement on individuals’ outcomes, which is specified as ‘willingness to share’ in this research.

(7)

Figure 1. Model framework (Balasubramanian et al., 2006)

The first component of the framework comprises ‘execution factors (stimuli-based)’ which includes the opportunity to process the placement. The second component of the framework involves ‘individual difference factors’ that is described as “individual-level variables may

or may not characterize a unique relation to the program and placement” (Balasubramanian

et al., 2006). Individual-level variables may comprise the prior familiarity with the brand and therefore the characteristics of the individual who watches the content or the motivation. Since this research focuses on one target group, the component ‘individual-level variables’ will be excluded from the final conceptual framework. Thirdly, the model indicates the ‘processing type/context/setting’ component. The fourth component describes the ‘effect(s) from placement’.

(8)

2.3 Balasubramanian’s model applied to this research

In order to answer to the main research question the model of Balasubramanian et al. (2006) is transformed. The model now focuses only on the components that are applicable in this research (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Model framework

2.3.1 Execution factors

The ‘execution factors’ will comprise the concept ‘opportunity to process the placement’. Opportunity to process the placement is influenced by placement’s prominence and the length of its exposure (Balasubramanian et al., 2006). In this research, the focuses will be on online images. The duration of the exposure will be the same for every image. In other words: only placement’s prominence (i.e. prominent/subtle placement) will be taken into account. Previous studies discovered that prominent placements produced higher brand recall and recognition than multiple subtle placements (Brennan et al., 1999; Gupta & Lord, 1998; Law & Braun, 2000). When a brand placement is too prominent the placement may have negative consequences (Campbell, 1995), such as irritation (Ha, 1996) and counter arguing (Friestad & Wright, 1994).

(9)

2.3.2 Effects from placement

The component ‘effects from placement’ includes the concept ‘memory for brand and placements’, ‘identification with brand’ and ‘persuasive intent’.

Memory for brands and placements

‘Memory for brands and placements’ can be sub-divided in ‘brand recall’ and ‘brand recognition’. Karrh et al. (2003) claim that “amongst brand placement practitioners,

measuring placement’s effectiveness is still a rough-and-ready art, but unaided recall and brand recognition are the two most popular means of assessing placements”.

Brand recognition is described as the ability of a consumer to remember if (s)he has seen the brand before (Aaker, 1996, p. 10) and is usually measured using a technique in which respondents have to choose from a list the brands they recognize (Gupta & Lord, 1998). According to Aaker (1996, p. 11), a brand is said to be recalled if “the brand name is able to

be correctly retrieved from memory without any mention of product class or other brand names.”

Identification with brand

According to Balasubramanian et al. (2006), the ‘identification with brand’ concept also can be seen as ‘social identification’. Russell (1998) proclaims that social identification is “the

main ingredient of product placement’s effectiveness”. Various authors define ’social

identification’ as a person’s need to belong to a certain group or organization (Bhattacharya, Rao & Glynn, 1995; Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Consequently, brand identification can be seen as a form of social identification in which “the person defines him- or herself in a particular

brand” (Bhattacharya et al., 1995). When there is identification with a brand, a consumer will

(10)

herself in terms of the organization(s) of which he or she is a member" (Mael & Ashforth,

1992). Explicitly, when brand identification occurs a consumer will differentiate that brand from other brands.

Persuasive intent

The last concept of ‘effect(s) of brand placement’ is ‘persuasive intent’. As mentioned earlier (2.3.1) it is possible that brand prominence has a negative effect on consumers’ viewing experience. Friestad and Wright (1994) propose the Persuasion Knowledge Model (PKM) to describe persuasion intent in advertisements and the reaction of consumers on that intent. According to Roberts (1982), the persuasive intent of advertising arises when:

“(1) the source of the message has other interests and perspectives than those of the receiver; (2) the source intends to persuade; (3) persuasive messages are biased; and (4) biased messages demand different interpretive strategies than unbiased messages”.

Based on the PKM, Cowley and Barron (2008) find that a prominent placement triggers a consumer’s persuasion knowledge. If a consumer recognizes that (s)he is being persuaded by a branded image, (s)he may detach her/himself from the advertisement (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Specifically, “if the placement is pulled from the background (subtle), to the

foreground (prominent), then prominent placements may interrupt the viewer’s suspension of disbelief” (Cowley & Barron, 2008).

2.3.3 Forwarding intentions

The third component will focus on the concept ‘forwarding intentions’. Lin, Wu, Liao and Liu

(2006) define forwarding intentions as consumers who receive content and eventually take initiative to forward this content to third parties. The forwarding of online content is by many referred as electronic word of mouth (eWOM) (Hinz, Skiera, Barrot & Becker, 2011;

(11)

Hsieh, Hsieh & Tang, 2012). eWOM is defined by Hennig!Thurau, Gwinner, Walsh and Gremler (2004) as “any positive or negative statement made by potential, actual, or former

customers about a product or company, which is made available to a multitude of people and institutions via the internet”.

2.4 Gender

According to Putrevu (2001) gender is one of the most common types of segmentation used in marketing studies. Yang, Hsu and Tan (2010) show that there are differences in sharing behavior between female and male online video users. “Female users’ intention is strongly

influenced by usefulness and social norms, while male users’ intention is strongly influenced by interpersonal norms” (Yang et al., 2010).

2.5 Hypotheses

Based on the model of Balasubramanian et al. (2006) the following hypotheses were developed:

H1a When the brand is placed prominently less respondents are willing to share the image. H1b The effect of brand prominence on willingness to share is moderated by gender.

H2 When the brand is placed prominently more respondents will be able to recall the brand.

H3 When the brand is placed prominently more respondents will be able to recognize the brand.

H4 When the brand is placed prominently then the respondents’ identification with the brand will be high.

(12)

H5 When the brand is placed prominently the respondents awareness of persuasive intent will be high.

H6a There is a positive effect of brand recall on willingness to share with a subtle placement.

H6b There is a positive effect of brand recognition on willingness to share with a subtle placement.

H6c There is a positive effect of identification with brand on willingness to share with a subtle placement.

H6d There is a negative effect of persuasive intent on willingness to share with a subtle placement.

(13)

3. Methodology

3.1 Introduction

In this section the method of this research will be discussed. It describes how the hypotheses are tested. First the experimental stimuli will be described. Next the selection of the research method, the dependent and control factors will be discussed. This chapter will be concluded with a description of the experimental procedure. The main purpose of this study is to examine whether brand prominence influence recipients’ intentions to forward an online image. Therefore this report comprises research towards the relationships between the independent factor (i.e., ‘brand prominence’) and dependent factors (i.e., ‘brand recall’, ‘brand recognition’,’ identification with the brand’, ‘persuasive intent’ and ‘willingness to share’) proposed in the hypotheses.

3.2 Experimental stimuli

Four images, that were uploaded on the company’s social network in 2013 and 2014, were edited to create eight different images. The four brand are part of three Dutch companies (KLM Royal Dutch Airlines by Air France-KLM Group; Jillz by Heineken N.V.; Heineken beer by Heineken N.V.: Chocomel by FrieslandCampina) operation in international markets. This resulted in two images with prominently placed and two images with subtly placed brands for each group. Explicitly, group 1 received image A and image C with a prominently placed brand and image B and image D with a subtly placed brand. Group 2 received the same images but with reversed brand prominence (i.e. image A and image C subtle

placement; image B and image D prominent placement). Adobe Photoshop was used to edit the images professionally (see figure 3). Brand size was consistent with other online images from these companies. The prominent and subtle categories were corroborated by comments of two advertising industry experts. Both experts have more than 20 years’ experience in the

(14)

advertising industry. The experts viewed the images and responded to the following questions (Cowley & Barron, 2008)

1. Please rate the likelihood that a client would believe the placement would be noticed by consumers (use 100 points to indicate likelihood, i.e., 0 = no chance, 100 = guaranteed). 2. Please select two words to describe each of the placements.

3. What are the risks associated with each of the placements?

The experts stated that the prominent placements (A=40,50; B=60,80; C=75,90; D=90,100) would be much more likely to be noticed than the subtle placements (A=20,30; B=20,20; C=10,15; D=5,10). Since the images are the same for prominent en subtle placement the judges indicated that they thought the prominent placements would be easier to notice and that the subtle placements would possibly cause confusion when the consumer does not recognize the brand. Words such as ‘prominent’ and ‘clear’ were used to describe the prominent placements, whereas words such as ‘subtle’ and ‘creative’ were used to describe subtle placements.

Images group 1 (image A & C prom) Images group 2 (images B & D prom) Figure 3.

(15)

3.3 Measures

3.3.1 Dependent factors

The brand recall and recognition questions were based on the research of Gupta and Lord (1998) and were measured with the following questions:

(1) Have you seen any brands while watching the previous images? Please enter below the brands that you remember (it is possible that there were multiple brands);

(2) Which of the following brands have you seen in the previous images? The respondents now have to choose from a list of twenty brands. Brand identification was measured on a six-item, seven-point Likert scale (1 being ‘strongly agree’, 7 ’strongly disagree’), originally developed by Mael and Ashforth (1992). Examples of questions are “I am interested in what others think about this brand” and “When someone praises this brand, it feels like a personal compliment.”

The awareness of persuasive intent measure related to the level of intent expressed by the image: three items assessed the commercial motives the respondent perceived in the image (Cowley & Barron, 2008; Friestad & Wright, 1994). An example of this measurement was “This image is trying to sell a specific product or a specific brand to me.” Persuasive intent was measured on a three-item, seven-point Likert scale (1 being ’strongly agree’, 7 ’strongly disagree’). Participants’ willingness to pass along the image is measured with three items that were adapted from the measurement of viral marketing campaigns (Chiu, Hsieh, Kao, & Lee, 2007), including “I will share this video with my friends through the internet.” Respondents rated their agreement with the items seven-point Likert scales (1 being “strongly agree,” 7 “strongly disagree”).

(16)

3.3.2 Control factors

In order to determine whether demographic factors such as age, gender and education had an impact on the effects of brand placements, these variables were included as independent or control variables. The number of hours per week that a respondent is online and the number of images per week that are forwarded by this person were also included as a control variable.

3.3.3 Experimental procedure

The experiment was performed online in a time span of one week. The online approach was chosen because of the ease of distributing the survey. A link to the survey was placed on Facebook and flyers with the link to the survey were handed out in the library of the

University of Amsterdam. After receiving instructions, respondents were randomly allocated to either group 1 or group 2. Both groups started with four images on their screen (Figure 3). Text above the images described when and where the images were put online and described the text that was accompanying the online image. After going to the next page a series of questions were asked about the images. There was no possibility to go retrieve the previous page. When questions were asked about the individual images the images were shown again, one by one. All respondents voluntarily participated in this study. In total 204 participant completed the survey; the sample demographics appear in Table 1.

(17)

Table 1. Sample profile (N = 204)

!

Item Demographics Sample Percentage

(%) Gender Male Female 112 92 54.9 45.1 Age Under 20 20-29 30-39 Over 40 6 179 18 1 3.0 87,6 8,9 0,5 Education MAVO HAVO VWO MBO HBO WO 1 5 22 2 27 147 0,5 2,5 10,7 1,0 13,2 72,1

(18)

4. Results

Hypotheses 1a and 1b

The Cronbach’s alphas in the three dependent variables (for all four images) were greater than 0.725 (see table 2). To verify the proposed hypotheses 1a and 1b, a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with prominence as a within subjects variable, gender as a between subjects variable, the control variables age, frequency of image sharing, and frequency of branded images sharing all as covariates and willingness to share as a dependent variable. There is no significant prominence effect, i.e. the willingness to share score with subtle brand placement does not significantly differ from willingness to share score with prominent brand placement (F=(1,199)=1.115, p=0.292, η2 =0.006). Therefore, the hypothesis 1a is rejected (see table 3).

With respect to H1b, there is a significant interaction between brand prominence and gender (F=(1,199)=4.709, p=0.031, η2 =0.023), i.e. the willingness to share for males is higher when the brands are prominently placed than when the brands are placed subtly. While female respondents are less willing to share an image when a brand is prominently placed and more willing to share an image when a brand is placed subtly. Therefore, hypothesis 1b is accepted (see figure 4 and Table 4).

Cronbach’s alpha

Item Image A Image B Image C Image D

Prom Sub Prom Sub Prom Sub Prom Sub

Willingness to share 0.893 0,830 0.900 0.913 0.886 0.900 0.905 0.930 Identification with brand 0.909 0.847 0.875 0.928 0.926 0.899 0.924 0.943 Persuasive intent 0.776 0.785 0.904 0.888 0.725 0.887 0.788 0.850 Table 2.

(19)

Mean(sd) Mean(sd) F (η2)

Item Subtle Prominent

Willingness to share 4.668(0.089) 4.704(0.087) 1.115(0.006) Brand recall 0.398(0.028) 0.666(0.26) 3.077†(0.015) Brand recognition 0.502(0,027) 0.777(0.23) 1.853(0.009) Identification with brand 5.532(0.085) 5.502(0.089) 0.704(0.001) Persuasive intent 2.910(0.074) 2.545(0.077) 0.855(0.004) † 0,05<p<0,1 Table 3.

Figure 4. Interaction effect

Gender Prominence Mean SD

Male Subtle 4.558 0.120

Prominent 4.809 0.118

Female Subtle 4.748 0.132

Prominent 4.599 0.130

(20)

Hypothesis 2

To verify the proposed hypothesis 2, again a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with prominence as a within subjects variable, control variable gender as a between subjects variable, the control variable age as a covariate and brand recall as a dependent variable. There is marginally significant prominence effect, i.e. the recall score with subtle brand placement is marginally significantly smaller than the recall with prominent brand placement (F=(1,199)=3.077, p=0.081, η2 =0.015). The η2 points to a weak effect. Therefore, the

hypothesis 2 is accepted with some caution (see table 3).

Hypothesis 3

To verify the proposed hypothesis 3, again a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with prominence as a within subjects variable, control variable gender as a between subjects variable, the control variable age as a covariate and brand recognition as a dependent variable. There is no significant prominence effect, i.e. the recognition score with subtle brand placement is not significantly smaller than the recognition score with prominent brand placement (F=(1,199)=1.853, p=0.175, η2 _{=0.009). Therefore, the hypothesis 3 rejected (see}

table 3).

Hypothesis 4

To verify the proposed hypothesis 4, again a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with prominence as a within subjects variable, control variable gender as a between subjects variable, the control variable age as a covariate and identification with brand as a dependent variable. There is no significant prominence effect, i.e. the identification with brand score with subtle brand placement is not significantly smaller than the identification with brand score with prominent brand placement (F=(1,199)=0.145, p=0.704, η2 = 0.001). Therefore,

(21)

the hypothesis 4 rejected (see table 3).

Hypothesis 5

To verify the proposed hypothesis 5, again a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with prominence as a within subjects variable, control variable gender as a between subjects variable, the control variable age as a covariate and persuasive intent as a dependent variable. There is no significant prominence effect, i.e. the persuasive intent with subtle brand

placement is not significantly larger than the persuasive intent with prominent brand

placement (F=(1,199)=0.855, p=0.356, η2 =0.004). Therefore, the hypothesis 5 rejected (see table 3).

Hypothesis 6a-6d

The hypotheses 6a – 6d were tested with a multiple regression model with WSsub as dependent variable and brand recall, brand recognition, identification with brand and

persuasive intent as independent variables. With regards to the assumptions of the regression analysis: after inspection of the histogram of the standardized residuals and the normal P-Pplot, it can be concluded that the residuals (1) are normally distributed, the scatter plot of the standardized residuals on the predicted values shows that the residuals are (2)

homoscedastic and (3) the model is linear, the Durban Watson score tells us (4) the residuals are independent and the VIF-scores lead to the conclusion that there is no multicollinearity (see appendix A). The model as a whole explains 7.2 percent of the variance and is

significant (F=(4,199)=3.844, p=0.005). According to the individual effects: Brand recall has no significant effect on willingness to share with subtle brand placement (Beta=0.071, t(199)=0.615, p=0.539). So, H6a is rejected. Brand recognition has no significant effect on willingness to share with subtle brand placement (Beta=0.109, t(199)=0.957, p=0.340).

(22)

Therefore, hypothesis 6b is rejected. Identification with brand has a significant effect on willingness to share with subtle brand placement (Beta=0.247, t(199)=3.476, p=0.001). As a result, hypothesis 6c is accepted. Persuasive intent has no significant effect on willingness to share with subtle brand placement (Beta=-0.48, t(199)=-0.679, p=0.498). Therefore,

hypothesis6d is rejected (see table 5).

Beta

Item WSsub WSprom

Brand recall 0.071 0.024

Brand recognition 0.109 0.030

Identification with brand 0.247** 0.310***

Persuasive intent -0.048 -0.059 R2 F 0,072† 3.844 0.112 6.282*** † p=0.05, *p<0.05, **p<0,01, ***p<0.001 Table 5. !

(23)

5. Discussion and implications

In order to answer to the main research question the model of Balasubramanian et al. (2006) was transformed into a new model. We relied on research related to brand prominence (Karrh, 1998), memory for brands (Aaker, 1996; Gupta & Lord, 1998), brand identification (Mael & Ashforth, 1992), persuasive intent (Friestad and Wright, 1994), gender (Yang et al., 2010), and willingness to share (Lin et al., 2006) as a theoretical foundation. The research model was designed to try to answer the research question: what is the effect of brand prominence in online images on the individual’s willingness to share?

As indicated in the results section, a significant moderating effect by the independent variable gender on the effect of brand prominence on willingness to share, was found (H1b).

This means that female respondents are less willing to share an image when a brand is

prominently placed and more willing to share an image when a brand is placed subtly. In

contrast, for male respondents the reversed is true. They are more willing to share an image when a brand is prominently placed and less willing to share an image when a brand is placed subtly. As mentioned by Yang et al. (2010) females’ forwarding intention are strongly

influenced by usefulness and social norms, while those of males are strongly influenced by interpersonal norms. A possible explanation for the moderation effect is that female

respondents perceive an image with a prominent brand placement as less useful than an image with a subtle placement. While male respondents are strongly influenced by

interpersonal norms and might want to make sure their friends and colleagues understand the link between the image and the brand. Furthermore research in this field is highly

recommended.

The second finding was a marginally significant prominence effect on brand recall (H2). This implies that the recall score with subtle brand placement is significantly smaller than the recall score with prominent brand placement. This confirms the results of previous studies

(24)

(Gupta & Lord, 1998; Karrh, 1998).

The third finding shows a significant effect of identification with a brand on an individual’s forwarding intentions for both subtle and prominent placements (H6c). This shows that when a respondent defines him- or herself in a particular brand (Bhattacharya et al., 1995) they will be more likely to share an image of this brand. People who feel like belonging to a brand tend to have more intentions to forward their images.

No significant evidence was found for H1a. This suggests that neither a prominent nor a subtle brand placement has an effect on an individual’s forwarding intentions. This can be explained by the fact that respondents tend to forward the images of the companies to which they feeling of belonging. It is possible that an identification with a brand is more important than the brand prominence in an image.

Unlike the findings of Brennan et al. (1999) and Gupta and Lord (1998) no positive effect of brand prominence was found on brand recognition (H3). This may be explained as a result of the research design. The respondents had to look to four images at once. It is possible that the respondents focused on the images they (dis)liked the most and hardly paid any attention to the other images. A suggestion for further research would be to show the images one by one for a predetermined amount of time. This way, it will be more likely every image will get equal attention.

Furthermore, there is no statistically significant evidence that prominently brand placement has a positive effect on identification with the brand (H4). However, there are no studies that prove the contrary.

Where Cowley and Barron (2008) and Hsieh et al. (2012) showed that a prominent

placement triggers a consumer’s persuasion knowledge, this study does not find statistically significant evidence for their finding. In other words, there is no prove that if the brand is placed prominently the respondents’ awareness of persuasive intent will be high (H5). There

(25)

is also proof for the effect of persuasive intent on willingness to share (H6d). The research design might explain this finding. Both respondent groups were shown four images: two with prominent and two with subtle brand placement. This implies there was a brand in every image. It is possible that the persuasive intent of these images –subtle or prominent brand placement- are considered as equal by the respondents. A suggestion for further research would be to add images without any brand prominence. In this way, it might be easier for the respondent to make a distinction between the degrees of persuasive intent.

For the last two hypotheses (H6a and H6b) also no statistically significant evidence was found. This is possible because of the research design. The respondents first got to see four images at once and had to answer questions to test their brand recall and recognition. Then the saw all images one by one and, after each image, were asked questions to see whether they were willing to share the images. In this way they could make a decision on every image and not just the ones they recalled and/or recognized. A suggestion for further research would be to only show the images at the beginning of the survey.

In addition, it was unclear whether the respondents completed the survey via their mobile phone or computer. On a mobile phone, the images will appear much smaller and therefore, the brand –subtle or prominent- will be harder to notice. It is possible that this would have a major influence on many factors. Therefore, it would be better for further research to make sure that every respondent completes the survey on a computer.

There is a significant moderating effect of gender on the effect of brand prominence on willingness to share. Therefore, online advertising agencies are advised to study their target group; females tend to forward images with subtle brand placement and males those with prominent brand placement.

(26)

References

Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands, New York: The Free Press.

Balasubramanian, S. K. (1994). Beyond advertising and publicity: Hybrid messages and public policy issues. Journal of advertising, 23(4), 29-46.

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.

Berger, J., & Milkman, K. L. (2012). What makes online content viral? Journal of Marketing

Research, 49(2), 192-205.

Bhattacharya, C. B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M. A. (1995). Understanding the bond of identification: An investigation of its correlates among art museum members. The Journal of Marketing, 46-57. Brennan, I., Dubas, K. M., & Babin, L. A. (1999). “The Influence of Product-Placement Type and Exposure Time on Product-Placement Recognition,” International Journal of Advertising, 18(3), 323– 337.

Campbell, M. C. (1995). When Attention-Getting Advertising Tactics Elicit Consumer Inferences of Manipulative Intent: The Importance of Balancing Benefits and Investments, Journal of Consumer

Psychology, 4(3), 225–254.

Chiu, H.-C., Hsieh, Y.-C., Kao, Y.-H., & Lee, M. (2007). The determinants of email receivers’ disseminating behaviors on the Internet. Journal of Advertising Research, 47(4), 524–534.

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.

Dodds, E. (2014, March 12). Why That ‘First Kiss’ Video Now Feels Like A Bad First Date. Retrieved August 25, 2014, from http://time.com/21332/why-that-first-kiss-video-now-feels-like-a-bad-first-date/

Eckler, P., & Bolls, P. (2011). Spreading the virus: emotional tone of viral advertising and its effect on forwarding intentions and attitudes. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 11(2), 1-11.

Ephron, E. (2003). The Paradox of Product Placement. Mediaweek, 13(22)

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

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.

Ha, L. (1996). “Advertising Clutter in Consumer Magazines: Dimensions and Effects,” Journal of

(27)

Hennig!Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D. D. (2004). Electronic word!of!mouth via consumer!opinion platforms: What motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the

Internet? Journal of interactive marketing, 18(1), 38-52.

Hinz, O., Skiera, B., Barrot, C., & Becker, J. U. (2011). Seeding strategies for viral marketing: an empirical comparison. Journal of Marketing, 75(6), 55-71.

Ho, J. Y., & Dempsey, M. (2010). Viral marketing: Motivations to forward online content. Journal of

Business Research, 63(9), 1000-1006.

Hsieh, J. K., Hsieh, Y. C., & Tang, Y. C. (2012). Exploring the disseminating behaviors of eWOM marketing: persuasion in online video. Electronic Commerce Research, 12(2), 201-224.

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.

Karrh, J. A. (1998). Brand placement: A review. Journal of Current Issues & Research in

Advertising, 20(2), 31-49.

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

Law, S., & Braun, K. A. (2000). “‘I’ll Have What She’s Having: Gauging the Impact of Product Placements on Viewers,” Psychology and Marketing, 17(12), 1059–1075.

Lin, T. M., Wu, H. H., Liao, C. W., & Liu, T. H. (2006). Why are some e-mails forwarded and others not? Internet Research, 16(1), 81-93.

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103-123. Moore, R. E. (2003). From genericide to viral marketing: on ‘brand’. Language &

Communication, 23(3), 331-357.

Nalty, K. (2010). Beyond viral: How to attract customers, promote your brand, and make money with

online video (Vol. 6). John Wiley & Sons.

Putrevu, S. (2001). Exploring the origins and information processing differences between men and women: Implications for advertisers. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 10(1), 1-14.

Roberts, D. (1982). Children and commercials: Issues, evidence, interventions. Prevention in Human

Services, 2(2), 19–35.

Russell, C. A. (1998). Toward a framework of product placement: theoretical propositions. Advances

in consumer research, 15(25), 357-362.

Yang, C., Hsu, Y. C., & Tan, S. (2010). Predicting the determinants of users' intentions for using YouTube to share video: moderating gender effects. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social

(28)

Appendix

Appendix A.

(29)

8/8/2014 Qualtrics Survey Software

Welcome

Please read the following information carefully: Dear participant,

Thank you for participation in this research. This research is about online images. First you will see four images. The text above the images will tell you which event the images are linked to, and when and how they were placed online. Take your time to read the information. You will then receive a questionnaire about these images. There are no right or wrong answers. The answers will be kept confidential and processed anonymously.

Completing the questionnaire will take approximately 7 minutes. Jort Wildschut

jort_w@hotmail.com

Default Question Block 2

Image A: "Riemen vast... We gaan los! #spannend #NEDARG"

09-07-2014 on Facebook before the start of the FIFA World Cup semi-finals between The Netherlands and Argentina.

Image B: "De vakantieperiode komt er weer aan!"

10-07-2014 on Facebook during the Dutch summer.

Image C: "9x brons, 7x zilver en 8 keer goud.... #OS2014"

23-02-2014 on Twitter after the Olympic Games in Sotsji 2014.

Image D: "Laat je snor staan. #movember"

(30)

8/8/2014 Qualtrics Survey Software Image A Image B Image C Image D None

These page timer metrics will not be displayed to the recipient. First Click: 0 seconds.

Last Click: 0 seconds. Page Submit: 0 seconds. Click Count: 0 clicks.

Which image caught your attention most?

(31)

8/8/2014 Qualtrics Survey Software Negative reason, namely

I don’t know No Yes, namely I don't know M&Ms Snickers Amstel Coca Cola L'Oreal Chocomel Philips Douwe Egberts KLM Lipton Nivea Heineken Koopmans Bavaria Transavia Lu Jillz Dell KNVB Dove None

Was there a brand in this image?

Have you seen any brands while watching the previous images?

Please enter all the brands that you remember below (it is possible that there were multiple brands)

Which of the following brands have you seen in the previous images? (multiple answers are possible)

You will now see the images again, one by one. After each image some questions will be asked. When answering the questions, try to see the images as if they are topical (actueel).

(32)

8/8/2014 Qualtrics Survey Software The following questions will be about image A.

"Riemen vast... We gaan los! #spannend #NEDARG"

Image A Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree I think this image is worth

sharing with others

I will recommend this image

to others

I will share this image with my friends through the internet

Image A Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree This image was made based

on commercial intent

This image is an advertisement that is marketing a specific product

This image is trying to sell a

(33)

The following questions will be about image B. "De vakantieperiode komt er weer aan!"

Image B Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree I think this image is worth

sharing with others

to others

I will share this image to my friends through the internet

Image B Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree This image was made based

(34)

8/8/2014 Qualtrics Survey Software specific product or a specific

brand to me

The following questions will be about the image C. "9x brons, 7x zilver en 8 keer goud.... #OS2014"

Image C Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree I think this image is worth

sharing with others

to others

Image C Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree This image was made based

(35)

8/8/2014 Qualtrics Survey Software This image is trying to sell a

specific product or a specific brand to me

The following questions will be about the image D. "Laat je snor staan. #movember"

Image D Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree I think this image is worth

sharing with others

to others

Image D Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree This image was made based

(36)

8/8/2014 Qualtrics Survey Software marketing a specific product

This image is trying to sell a specific product or a specific brand to me

The next two questions will be about online images in general.

Online images in general

Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree I think this is an effective way

of marketing

What will be the most important reason for you to share images like these? (please write down a few keywords)

You will now see the logo of four different brands, one by one. Please answer the following questions about the brand. KLM Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree The successes of this brand

are my successes

I am interested in what others

think about this brand

When someone praises this brand, it feels like a personal compliment

When I talk about this brand, I usually say “we” rather than “they”

If a story in the media criticized the brand, I would feel embarrassed

When someone criticizes this brand, it feels like a personal insult

(37)

8/8/2014 Qualtrics Survey Software Jillz Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree The successes of this brand

are my successes

When someone criticizes this brand, it feels like a personal insult Heineken Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree The successes of this brand

are my successes

When someone criticizes this

(38)

Less than 1 hour a day Between 1 and 2 hours a day Between 2 and 3 hours a day Between 3 and 4 hours a day More than 4 hours a day

Facebook Twitter Instagram WhatsApp Google + Vine Youtube Tumblr Chocomel Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree The successes of this brand

are my successes

These last questions will be about your internet usage in general

What would be an estimation of your internet usage a day?

(39)

8/8/2014 Qualtrics Survey Software LinkedIn

Vimeo Flickr

None of these

Never

At least once a day At least once a week At least once a month

Never

Male Female VMBO HAVO VWO MBO HBO WO Other, namely

With what frequency do you share images with other people?

With what frequency do you share branded images (images made by or commissioned by a brand) with other people?

What is your gender?

What is your age?

What is the highest education you have completed?

You've reach the end of this questionnaire. To complete the questionnaire, click “next page”. Thank you for your cooperation!

(The images shown might an edited version of the original image. Once this study is completed, the images will be removed.)

(40)

Image A: "Riemen vast... We gaan los! #spannend #NEDARG"

09-07-2014 on Facebook before the start of the FIFA World Cup semi-finals between The Netherlands and Argentina.

Image B: "De vakantieperiode komt er weer aan!"

10-07-2014 on Facebook during the Dutch summer.

Image C: "9x brons, 7x zilver en 8 keer goud.... #OS2014"

23-02-2014 on Twitter after the Olympic Games in Sotsji 2014.

Image D: "Laat je snor staan. #movember"

10-11-2013 on Facebook during Movember.

(41)

8/8/2014 Qualtrics Survey Software Image A Image B Image C Image D None

Positive reason, namely

Negative reason, namely I don’t know No Yes, namely I don't know M&Ms Snickers Amstel Coca Cola L'Oreal Chocomel Philips Douwe Egberts KLM Lipton Nivea Heineken

Page Submit: 0 seconds. Click Count: 0 clicks.

Which image caught your attention most?

Was this for a positive or negative reason?

Was there a brand in this image?

Have you seen any brands while watching the previous images?

Please enter all the brands that you remember below (it is possible that there were multiple brands)

(42)

8/8/2014 Qualtrics Survey Software Bavaria Transavia Lu Jillz Dell KNVB Dove None

You will now see the images again, one by one. After each image some questions will be asked. When answering the questions, try to see the images as if they are topical (actueel).

The following questions will be about image A. "Riemen vast... We gaan los! #spannend #NEDARG"

Image A Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree I think this image is worth

(43)

to others

Image A Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree This image was made based

The following questions will be about image B. "De vakantieperiode komt er weer aan!"

Image B Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree

(44)

8/8/2014 Qualtrics Survey Software sharing with others

to others

I will share this image with my friends through the internet

Image B Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree This image was made based

The following questions will be about the image C. "9x brons, 7x zilver en 8 keer goud.... #OS2014"

Image C

(45)

8/8/2014 Qualtrics Survey Software I think this image is worth

sharing with others

to others

Image C Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree This image was made based

The following questions will be about the image D. "Laat je snor staan. #movember"

(46)

Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree

I think this image is worth

sharing with others

to others

Image D Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree This image was made based

The next two questions will be about online images in general.

Online images in general

Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree I think this is an effective way

of marketing

What will be the most important reason for you to share images like these? (please write down a few keywords)

You will now see the logo of four different brands, one by one. Please answer the following questions about the brand. KLM Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree

(47)

8/8/2014 Qualtrics Survey Software I am interested in what others

When someone criticizes this brand, it feels like a personal insult Jillz Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree The successes of this brand

are my successes

Heineken

Strongly Somewhat

Neither

(48)

Less than 1 hour a day Between 1 and 2 hours a day Between 2 and 3 hours a day Between 3 and 4 hours a day The successes of this brand

are my successes

When someone criticizes this brand, it feels like a personal insult Chocomel Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree This brand’s successes are

my successes

These last questions will be about your internet usage in general

(49)

8/8/2014 Qualtrics Survey Software Facebook Twitter Instagram WhatsApp Google + Vine Youtube Tumblr Pinterest LinkedIn Vimeo Flickr

None of these

Never

Male Female

VMBO HAVO VWO

Which of the following social media/apps/websites do you use? (multiple answers are possible)

With what frequency do you share images with other people?

With what frequency do you share branded images (images made by or commissioned by a brand) with other people?

What is your gender?

What is your age?

(50)

8/8/2014 Qualtrics Survey Software HBO

WO

Other, namely

You've reach the end of this questionnaire. To complete the questionnaire, click “next page”. Thank you for your cooperation!

(The images shown might an edited version of the original image. Once this study is completed, the images will be removed.)