Implicit and explicit effects of brand placement disclosures : an eye tracking study into the effects of disclosures and the role of brand familiarity

IMPLICIT

'

AND

'

EXPLICIT

'

EFFECTS

'

OF

'

BRAND

'

PLACEMENT

'

DISCLOSURES'

A

'

!

Graduate School of Communication Research Master Communication Science Name: Anne Roos Smink

Student ID: 6128149 Date: May 15, 2014

Supervisor: Dr. E. A. van Reijmerdal !

ABSTRACT

Recent regulations in the EU have forced TV channels to include a disclosure when the program contains sponsored content. This study examines whether brand placement disclosures are effective to inform the viewer about the persuasive intent of subtle brand placements, how brand responses are affected via implicit and explicit measures and whether brand familiarity moderates these relations. An experiment (n = 171) with eye tracking shows that merely seeing a brand placement disclosure is not effective. Only when the disclosure is explicitly recalled, it increases visual attention to the brand placement, persuasion knowledge and eventually brand memory. The brand placement disclosure did not affect implicit or explicit brand attitude, neither did brand familiarity moderate these effects. However, a brand placement from a familiar brand led to more visual attention, is easier recognized as advertising and had a higher brand memory score, compared to a brand placement from an unfamiliar brand. Moreover, a disclosure was more effective in making the participant aware of the perceived persuasive intent of the brand placement from the familiar brand compared to the unfamiliar brand. The findings of this study can be useful for both legislators and advertisers, as the results indicate that for subtle brand placements, disclosures can be especially effective for familiar brands to increase persuasion knowledge, provided that the viewer recalls the disclosure. Moreover, a brand placement disclosure can enhance brand memory, whereas brand evaluations remain unaffected.

Implicit and Explicit Effects of Brand Placement Disclosures:

An Eye Tracking Study into the Effects of Disclosures and the Role of Brand Familiarity

Recent developments as advertising clutter and increased aversion towards commercials have led to an increased popularity of brand placements, the practice where brands are incorporated into a movies, television programs, radio shows or games to unobtrusively reach the customer (Bennett, Pecotich, & Putrevu, 1999; Cain, 2011; Glass, 2007; Van Reijmersdal, Neijens, & Smit, 2007; Wei, Fischer & Main, 2008). However, due to its unobtrusive nature, concerns have been raised about the legitimacy of brand placements (Kuhn, Hume, & Love, 2010). Therefore, recent regulations have been implemented in the European Union to force inclusion of brand placement disclosures on television (Boerman, van Reijmersdal & Neijens, 2012a). In the US the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) also proposed more strict rules regarding paid product placements, but these have not been implemented yet (Lee, Kim, & King, 2012). Brand placement disclosures should make the viewer aware of the persuasive attempts of the brand placement (Van Reijmersdal, Tutaj & Boerman, 2013) and enable them to distinguish this form of advertising from the editorial content (Cain, 2011). Yet, this begs the question whether the brand placement disclosure actually causes such an effect. Therefore, this study will focus on the effectiveness of brand placement disclosures.

Previous research has already shown that brand placement disclosures can increase persuasion knowledge and brand memory and can have negative effects on brand attitude under specific conditions (Bennett et al., 1999; Boerman et al., 2012a; Campbell, Mohr, & Verlegh, 2013). Moreover, different timings, durations and types of disclosures have been studied (Boerman et al, 2012a; Boerman, Van Reijmersdal, & Neijens, 2014; Boerman, Van Reijmersdal, & Neijens, under review; Campbell et al., 2013). In the current study, effects of

brand placement disclosures on persuasion knowledge and brand measures will also be examined. However, this study will extend previous research in several ways.

First of all, instead of the more salient, prominent placements used in previous disclosure research, the current study will examine whether disclosures are also effective in stimulating persuasion knowledge for more subtle, background placements. Second, most research thus far has focused on explicit measures of brand placement effects (Law & Braun, 2000). However, several researchers claim that in certain conditions, brand placements are processed unconsciously and can have implicit effects (Law & Braun, 2000; Redker, Gibson, & Zimmerman, 2013; Van Reijmersdal, 2009). In the current study, two implicit measures are used. A Single Target Implicit Association Test is used to measure implicit brand attitude. Previous brand placement studies have found a general positive effect on implicit brand attitude (Redker et al., 2013; Gibson, Redker, & Zimmerman, 2013). Second, eye tracking is used to measure visual attention to both the disclosure and the brand placement. A study from Boerman et al. (under review) showed that visual attention to the disclosure and brand placement are important mediators in activating persuasion knowledge for several types of disclosures. This study extends previous research by comparing those who have seen and those who have not seen a disclosure, to examine whether merely seeing the disclosure is also sufficient to establish an effect or that explicit recall of the disclosure is a precondition, as has been found in previous research (Boerman, Van Reijmersdal, & Neijens, 2012b).

In addition to the implicit and explicit effects of brand placement disclosures, the moderating role of brand familiarity is explored. No studies to date have focused on the moderating role of brand familiarity in brand placement disclosure effects. Due to their higher attitude accessibility, familiar brands are better at attracting attention and are easier memorized than unfamiliar brands (Fazio, Powell, & Williams, 1998 Brennan & Babin, 2004;

Nelson, Yaros, & Keum, 2006; Wei et al., 2008). Therefore, familiar brands could further strengthen disclosure effects.

The current study can be of value for legislators to explore whether brand placement disclosures are also effective in evoking its intended effects for subtle placements from familiar and unfamiliar brands. Additionally, for advertisers this study can provide insights whether including disclosures prior to a subtle brand placement negatively or positively influences the brand, both implicitly and explicitly and for both familiar and unfamiliar brands.

Altogether, the aims of the current study are twofold. The first aim is to study effects of brand placement disclosures on implicit and explicit brand measures, as mediated by visual attention for the brand placement and persuasion knowledge. Second, the moderating role of brand familiarity in these relations will be explored in further detail.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Processing Brand Placement Disclosures

Brand placement disclosures are needed to inform viewers about the persuasive intention of including brand placements (Van Reijmersdal, Tutaj, & Boerman, 2013). Inclusion of a brand placement disclosure in a TV program, compared to showing no disclosure, is expected to lead to differential effects as a result of the way the brand placement is processed. According to theories about processing of persuasive messages, awareness of the message and motivation are needed to systematically process a persuasion attempt (Petty, Cacioppo, Strathmann, & Priester, 2005). When a brand placement disclosure is shown, the viewer is made aware of a persuasive attempt, stimulating the viewer to think about the sponsored content more elaborately than when no disclosure is shown (Boerman et al., 2012b). Thus, viewers that see a disclosure are more likely to follow systematic persuasion

processing (Buijzen, Van Reijmersdal, & Owen, 2010), characterized by high motivation and

ability to process the persuasive content (Petty et al., 2005). However, when a subtle placement is processed with no prior exposure to a disclosure, viewers are more likely to follow the route of automatic persuasion processing (Buijzen et al., 2010), because awareness of the persuasive attempt and motivation to process the commercial content are low. The more systematic processing versus more automatic processing of the brand placement is expected to differently affect visual attention to the brand placement, persuasion knowledge, brand memory and implicit and explicit brand attitude.

The Role of Visual Attention in Activating Persuasion Knowledge

The activation of persuasion knowledge is the ultimate goal of a brand placement disclosure. According to the Persuasion Knowledge Model from Friestad and Wright (1994), consumers build knowledge about persuasion to learn how to cope with commercial messages. When consumers are aware of such a persuasive attempt, persuasion knowledge is activated and a change of meaning can take place, causing a critical reaction to a persuasive message. In this study, two forms of persuasion knowledge are distinguished: recognition of advertising and the perceived persuasive intent. Recognition of advertising measures to what extent the commercial content can be distinguished from the TV program (Rozendaal, Buijzen, & Valkenburg, 2010). Perceived persuasive intent is a more advanced version of persuasion knowledge, measuring to which extent individuals are aware of the commercial intention of a message (Rozendaal et al., 2010).

For prominent brand placements, studies have shown that a disclosure in a TV program indeed leads to heightened forms of persuasion knowledge (Boerman et al., 2012a; Boerman et al., 2014; Boerman et al., under review). The activation of persuasion knowledge follows two phases. First of all, exposure to a brand placement disclosure in a TV program has been found to activate persuasion knowledge in the form of a higher recognition of

advertising (Boerman et al., 2012a; Boerman et al., 2014; Boerman et al., under review). Second, the higher recognition of the brand placement as advertising led to more critical processing of the placement (Boerman et al., 2014) and higher attitudinal persuasion knowledge (Boerman et al., 2012a). With regard to subtle brand placements, the effects of disclosures on persuasion knowledge have not been studied previously. Campbell et al. (2013) only studied the effect of disclosures for subtle brand placements on several brand measures and argue that persuasion knowledge is responsible for the effects, but this is not actually measured. Nonetheless, when taking visual attention to the brand placement into account, similar effects for subtle brand placements can be predicted.

Visual attention, as measured with an eye-tracking device, is an implicit measure that corresponds to the fixations a person has on an object (Pieters & Warlop, 1999). According to Pieters and Warlop (1999), visual attention is a two-stage process. The first stage involves creating an abstract representation of an object. More visual attention to the object leads to the second stage, where more cognitive processing takes place and existing associations in memory are used to identify the object (Pieters & Warlop, 1999). As it is assumed that subtle brand placements are rather processed automatically (Buijzen et al., 2010), viewers are more likely to remain in the first stage of visual attention. However, as a brand placement disclosure makes the viewer aware that the program contains product placement, this can prime the viewer to pay more attention to the placement (Boerman et al., 2012a). Hence, disclosures can motivate viewers to reach the second stage of visual attention, enabling the viewer to process the brand placement more extensively and eventually activate persuasion knowledge (Boerman et al., 2012). Such an indirect effect on recognition of advertising, via visual attention to the brand placement has already been found in a previous eye tracking study for a prominent placement (Boerman et al., under review). Hence, for subtle brand placements, it is also expected that the effect of the disclosure on recognition of advertising

and perceived persuasive intent is mediated by visual attention to the brand placement. Similar to the studies from Boerman et al. (2012a; 2014) persuasion knowledge is activated in two phases, by first affecting recognition of advertising, followed by the perceived persuasive intent.

H1: Exposure to a brand placement with a disclosure will lead to a higher recognition of advertising and perceived persuasive intent than exposure to a brand placement without a disclosure; this effect is mediated by visual attention to the brand placement. Brand Memory

Because a brand placement disclosure emphasizes the presence of a brand within a TV program, brand memory is expected to improve as a result of seeing the disclosure. Including disclosures in a movie or a TV program have previously been found to increase brand memory (Bennett et al., 1999; Boerman et al., 2012a Van Reijmersdal et al., 2013). Conversely, Campbell et al. (2013) show the opposite effect for a subtle brand placement. Presence of a disclosure in a TV program led respondents to correct their response for the inferred persuasive effect of the subtle brand placement, resulting in lower top of mind recall (Campbell et al., 2013). However, this is a general measure of brand awareness, whereas in this study, brand memory is directly related to the brand placement.

Even though the current study also examines subtle placements, including a disclosure is still expected to lead to a higher brand memory. Following the same reasoning as for visual attention to the brand placement, the longer a person fixates on an object, the more cognitive processing takes place and the higher the chance that an object is memorized (Just & Carpenter, 1980; Petty et al., 2005). As a brand placement disclosure is expected to motivate viewers to attend to the subtle brand placement and elaborate on it more extensively then when no disclosure is shown, the increased visual attention and persuasion knowledge can consequently enhance brand memory. Boerman et al. (under review) previously showed that

visual attention to the placement and persuasion knowledge enhance brand memory. Hence, it is hypothesized that the enhancing effect of disclosure on brand memory is mediated by visual attention to the brand placement, recognition of advertising and perceived persuasive intent.

H2: Exposure to a brand placement with a disclosure will lead to higher brand memory than exposure to a brand placement without a disclosure; this effect is mediated by visual attention to the brand placement, recognition of advertising and the perceived persuasive intent.

Implicit and Explicit Brand Attitude

In the current study, a distinction is made between implicit and explicit brand attitude. Gawronski and Bodenhausen (2006) propose the associative-propositional evaluation (APE) model to account for the different processes underlying the formation of implicit and explicit attitudes. An implicit attitude is formed through an unconscious, unintentional process, whereby existing and new associations are activated when confronted with a stimulus, resulting in an associative evaluation (Gawronski and Bodenhausen, 2006). The formation of an explicit attitude follows a propositional, conscious process, in which all relevant propositional information is considered and an evaluation is based on the perceived validity of this information. Rydell, McConnell, Mackie, & Strain (2006) found that implicit attitudes are primarily based on subliminal information, whereas explicit attitudes mostly depend upon consciously available information.

Since disclosures are believed to activate persuasion knowledge (Boerman et al., 2012a; Campbell et al. 2013) the processing of brand placements along with a disclosure is expected to follow a more elaborate process, which can influence explicit brand attitude. As disclosures are used to make viewers aware of persuasive attempts, this should be apparent in a mitigated explicit brand attitude. In several studies, such an altered effect has been found, but only in specific conditions (Boerman et al., 2012a; Campbell et al., 2013; Gibson et al.,

2013; Matthes et al., 2007; Wei et al., 2008). According to a study from Campbell et al. (2013) only disclosures shown after exposure to a subtle brand placement (as opposed to pre-exposure disclosures) lead to an altered, more negative brand attitude. Boerman et al. (2012a) and Matthes et al. (2007) also found a decrease in brand attitude after exposure to a brand placement when persuasion knowledge was activated. Similarly, activating persuasion knowledge by mentioning a brand paid to be in a radio show resulted in more negative brand evaluations than when no mention was made (Wei et al., 2008). Gibson et al. (2013) primed persuasion knowledge before exposure to a brand placement and also discovered a more negative effect on explicit brand attitude, but only when recall of the brand was taken into account. Contrary to the previous studies, the study from Dekker and van Reijmersdal (2013) showed that adding a simple or a more sophisticated disclosure when exposed to in-program celebrity endorsement of a product did not cause a difference in brand attitude. However, this is a different type of brand placement as analyzed in the current study. Thus following the previous findings and theory, inclusion of a placement disclosure is assumed to activate persuasion knowledge, leading to propositional processing. Consequently, a more negative attitude is expected when a disclosure is shown prior to the brand placement.

H3: Exposure to a brand placement with a disclosure will lead to a more negative explicit brand attitude than exposure to a brand placement without a disclosure; this effect is mediated by visual attention to the brand placement, recognition of advertising and the perceived persuasive intent.

When exposed to a subtle brand placement, processing is believed to follow an unconscious, associative process (Redker et al., 2013), which could affect implicit brand attitude. The subtle brand placement serves as the subliminal information used to form the implicit brand attitude. As exposure to a disclosure is believed to motivate a systematic processing of the content (Boerman et al., 2012b), this information is consciously available.

Because implicit attitudes are more likely to be based upon subliminal information, implicit attitude is assumed to be unaffected by exposure to a disclosure. Consequently, mere exposure to the background brand placement is expected to lead to a more positive implicit brand attitude, regardless of whether or not a disclosure is included.

In a study from Redker et al. (2013) positive effects on implicit attitude were found as a result of exposure to subtle brand placements in movies, but only for respondents that loved the movie genre, and who previously held a neutral brand attitude. Similarly, Glass (2007) found a more positive implicit brand attitude for brands featured in a game, than brands not featured in the game. Gibson et al. (2013) also found a more positive effect on implicit brand attitude for both subtle and prominent brand placements, when comparing respondents that did or did not recall the brand. However, when respondents were primed with persuasion knowledge before exposure to a brand placement, this did not lead to a different implicit brand attitude than when persuasion knowledge was not primed (Gibson et al., 2013). Priming of persuasion knowledge is comparable to priming persuasion knowledge by exposure to a brand placement disclosure. Thus, in accordance with previous results, no difference is expected between the group exposed to a disclosure and the group not exposed to a disclosure. Only a general positive effect of exposure to a brand placement on implicit brand attitude is expected.

H4: Exposure to a brand placement with or without a disclosure will lead to a more positive implicit brand attitude.

Moderating Effect of Brand Familiarity

Brand familiarity is considered a possible moderator in the effects of brand placement disclosures. Differences between familiar and unfamiliar brands in attitude accessibility can explain moderating effects on implicit and explicit brand responses. Attitude accessibility is determined by the strength of the association between an object and an individual’s evaluation

of this object available in memory (Fazio et al., 1998). Attitude accessibility is visualized as a non-attitude/attitude continuum, meaning that, when there is no memory of a prior evaluation of an object there is a non-attitude. Moving along the continuum, the associations become stronger, resulting in a strong, easily memorized attitude at the other side of the continuum (Fazio et al., 1998). Thus, the stronger the association, the higher the attitude accessibility in memory is. For a familiar brand, consumers have different types of associations in memory based on previous experiences with the brand. In comparison, for an unfamiliar brand, consumers have no previous experience with the brand, thus there are no associations in memory on which to rely when exposed to the brand (Campbell & Keller, 2003). Therefore, for a familiar brand, a person has a relatively highly accessible attitude, whereas for an unfamiliar brand, a person has low attitude accessibility.

First of all, differences in attitude accessibility between familiar and unfamiliar brands can affect the amount of visual attention a person has for the brand placement. For example, Roskos-Ewoldsen and Fazio (1992) found that objects, to which people hold an accessible attitude, attracted more visual attention than other objects. Likewise, a study from Fazio et al. (1998) shows that objects were chosen more often when attitude accessibility was high, than when attitude accessibility was low. These studies show that observation of an object can automatically activate an attitude from memory and subsequently attract attention (Fazio et al., 1998; Roskos-Ewoldsen & Fazio, 1992). Even though these studies have not used an actual attention measure, it is expected that attention for the brand placement will follow the same route. Thus, because of the higher attitude accessibility for a familiar brand, it is expected that a familiar brand will attract more visual attention to the brand placement than for the brand placement from an unfamiliar brand.

Second, because familiar brands are more ‘attitude-evoking’ they are more likely of being consciously processed, than unfamiliar brands (Nelson et al., 2006). The more visual

attention to the brand placement, the higher the chance that the viewer will arrive at the second stage of visual attention, characterized by a more elaborate processing of the content (Pieters & Warlop, 1999). Consequently, the higher attention and deeper processing of the familiar brand placement can lead to a higher recognition of advertising and consequently a higher perceived persuasive intent, compared to unfamiliar brands.

Third, as a brand placement disclosure has been argued to enhance visual attention to the brand placement and activate persuasion knowledge, disclosures and brand familiarity are expected to interact with each other and subsequently lead to a strengthened effect on visual attention and persuasion knowledge. This moderating effect of brand familiarity can eventually evoke a stronger brand memory and brand attitude.

Concerning brand memory, previous studies already found that brand placements from familiar brands in movies, games and on the radio are more easily memorized than brand placements from unfamiliar brands (Brennan & Babin, 2004; Nelson et al., 2006; Wei et al., 2008). Therefore, it is expected that the mediated effect of a brand placement disclosure on brand memory is stronger for familiar brands, than for unfamiliar brands.

With regard to explicit brand attitude, it was hypothesized that disclosures would negatively affect brand attitude via visual attention to the brand placement and persuasion knowledge. As previously elaborated, familiar brands can further enhance visual attention and persuasion knowledge and thereby strengthen effects on explicit brand attitude. Mau, Silberer, and Constien (2008) studied brand placements in games and found that brand attitude was indeed more negative when exposed to a brand placement from a familiar brand compared to an unfamiliar brand. In this study, the hypothesized negative mediation effect of the brand placement disclosure on explicit brand attitude is therefore expected to be even stronger for the familiar brand than for the unfamiliar brand.

For implicit brand attitude, only a general positive effect of exposure to the brand placement was expected, regardless of seeing or not seeing a disclosure. Brand familiarity is also expected to moderate this effect, however, in the opposite direction as explicit brand attitude. As people have no previous associations with an unfamiliar brand, the placement serves as the subliminal information used to form an implicit attitude (Rydell et al., 2006). Because people already have existing associations with a familiar brand, the associations from a familiar brand are not as easily influenced by a placement as unfamiliar brands (Campbell & Keller, 2003). Therefore, the hypothesized positive effect on implicit attitude is expected to be even more positive for the unfamiliar brand than for the familiar brand. Conclusively, this leads to the hypotheses as outlined next.

H5a: The mediation effect of brand placement disclosures on brand memory via visual attention to the brand placement, recognition of advertising and perceived persuasive intent is moderated by brand familiarity; the mediation effect is stronger for familiar brands than for unfamiliar brands.

H5b: The mediation effect of brand placement disclosures on explicit brand attitude via visual attention to the brand placement, recognition of advertising and perceived persuasive intent is moderated by brand familiarity; the mediation effect is stronger for familiar brands than for unfamiliar brands.

H5c: The positive effect of exposure to a brand placement on implicit brand attitude will be stronger for the unfamiliar brand than for the familiar brand.

Recall of the Disclosure

A last addition to the theoretical framework as outlined above is the notion of explicit recall of the brand placement disclosure. In the hypotheses outlined above, a comparison is made between people that have seen, or have not seen a brand placement disclosure. However, in the study from Boerman et al. (2012b) explicit recall of the disclosure was

needed to find an effect of the disclosure. For example, Boerman et al (2012b) found that exposure to the disclosure, without explicitly recalling the disclosure, did not affect persuasion knowledge. Only when participants recalled the disclosure an effect was established. Moreover, in the study of Campbell et al. (2007), only participants that recalled the disclosure were included in the disclosure condition. Thus, the effects found in the study were only apparent when comparing the group that where not exposed to a disclosure, to those that recalled seeing a disclosure.

The use of an eye-tracking device in the current study enables the comparison of merely seeing the disclosure versus not seeing a disclosure. Yet, of additional interest is whether the explicit recall of the disclosure leads to a different effect than only seeing the disclosure. Therefore, in the analyses of the hypotheses a second comparison is made between those who have not seen the disclosure, to those who have seen the disclosure but do not recall the disclosure and those who have both seen and recalled the disclosure.

METHOD Participants

An experiment was conducted with a 2 (disclosure or no disclosure) by 2 (familiar versus non-familiar brand) between-subjects factorial design. A total of 202 participants took part in the study (68% women, 93% students aged between 18 and 48, M = 22.49, SD = 4.01). All participants were exposed to a shortened episode of a TV program, where they were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. Participants that had suspicions that the TV program was manipulated were excluded, leading to a final sample of 171 participants distributed over the four conditions: the groups exposed to a disclosure and a brand placement from either a familiar (N = 66) or an unfamiliar brand (N = 44) and the groups only exposed to a placement from a familiar (N = 32) or an unfamiliar brand (N = 29).

Procedure

Participants were recruited through posters at a large Dutch university or they could make an appointment to participate via an online system. Upon arrival at the university laboratory, participants were asked to read an information sheet about the study and to sign an informed consent. Participants were told they were participating in a study into Dutch television series and their eye movements would be measured via an eye tracker when watching a TV program. Then, the participants were brought to a separate room where they were seated behind a screen to watch the TV program, while their eye movements were registered using a SMI RED eye tracker with a gaze sample rate of 120 Hz per second. Before watching the program, the eye tracker was calibrated for each participant. Then, while exposed to the episode, visual attention to the disclosure and the brand placement was measured.

After exposure to the stimulus material, participants were asked to perform several tasks on a computer in a cubicle. They first performed the Single Target Implicit Association Test (ST-IAT) in Inquisit (Millisecond software, 2012) to measure implicit brand attitude (Bluemke, & Friese, 2008). Next, participants were asked to fill in the online questionnaire, including the explicit measures concerning the program, the brand, persuasion knowledge and finally some demographical questions. After participants finished the questionnaire, they were thanked for their participations and could choose to receive €7,50 for their participation or one research credit. The total study lasted approximately 45 minutes.

Stimulus material

All participants were exposed to a shortened episode of Dutch TV series Divorce that lasted 9 minutes and 3 seconds. The episode revolves around three newly divorced men living together in a house. The episode was manipulated in two ways. First of all, in two conditions, a brand placement disclosure was edited into the fragment. The disclosure stated “This

program contains product placement” in combination with a PP-logo (Product Placement), following the standard disclosure currently used in several countries in the EU (Boerman et al., under review). Conform current practice on TV, the disclosure was shown at the beginning of the program, a few seconds after the opening leader ends and was visible for 6 seconds in the upper right corner of the screen.

Second, the episode was manipulated by replacing the brand placement with a familiar or an unfamiliar brand using Adobe Premiere Pro. The chips brand Doritos was chosen as the familiar brand, and Mexi-Snax, a comparable foreign chips brand, was chosen as the unfamiliar brand. The chips brands were chosen because they fitted into the scenery of the episode and are comparable in terms of products. The brands were placed in two different scenes during the episode. The first scene showed the three men at home eating pizza on the couch. On the table, a small Doritos or Mexi-Snax chips product was visible for 6 seconds. The second scene shows the two men standing at the bar, where the brand logo is visible in the background on a light bar for 24 seconds in total. Two examples of the brand placement can be found in Figure 1 and 2.

< PLACE FIGURE 1 AND FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE >

Measures

Visual attention to disclosure and brand placement. To measure visual attention to the disclosure and the brand placement, three Areas of Interest (AOIs) were created, using SMI BeGaze software. One AOI was created for the disclosure and two for the brand placement (one for the chips bag and one for the brand logo). Visual attention was exported using the total fixation time in milliseconds inside the AOI. To adjust skewness of the attention measures, log functions were used to obtain a normal distribution. Visual attention for the disclosure was exported using the total fixation inside the disclosure AOI (M = .72, SD = .63). For the brand placement, the fixation time on the chips bag and the brand logo

were added to create the variable measuring visual attention to the brand placement (M = 2.84, SD = 3.18). Furthermore, two dummy variables were created, measuring whether or not the participant fixated at least once (one fixation equals 80 milliseconds) on the disclosure or brand placement. For the disclosure, 83% of the participants showed at least one fixation (in the disclosure condition) and 46% fixated at least once on the brand placement.

Persuasion knowledge. The first measure of persuasion knowledge, recognition of advertising, was measured with one statement measuring if participants agreed with the statement “The program I just watched contained advertising” on a 7-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree (Boerman et al., 2012a; M = 4.75, SD = 1.91). Perceived persuasive intent was measured with three statements on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), asking whether participants agreed with the statement, “Showing Doritos/Mexi-Snax in Divorce is done to…”, followed by: “influence me”, “sell me Doritos/Mexi-Snax” and “make me like Doritos/Mexi-Snax”. To create a single measure of perceived persuasive intent mean scores were calculated (EV = 1.96, R2 _{= 0.65; Cronbach’s} alpha = .73; M = 5.81, SD = .92).

Brand memory. Brand memory was measured by asking participants if they recalled seeing any brands in the episode from Divorce they just watched (yes/no), with an open entry option when they answered “yes” to indicate which brand(s) they saw. All open answers were coded as 1 when they indicated they saw either Doritos or Mexi-Snax in the corresponding conditions, answering “no” or a wrong open ended answer was coded as 0 (no). In total, 30% recalled the right brand.

Explicit brand attitude. Explicit brand attitude was measured by asking respondents “What do you think of the brand Doritos/Mexi-Snax?” on five 7-point semantic differential scales: Unpleasant/ pleasant, dislike/like, unfavorable/favorable, unappealing/appealing, and uninteresting/ interesting. The brand attitude scale is similar to the previously used brand

attitude scale from Campbell et al. (2013), but adjusted for purposes of this study so that the items correspond to the positive and negative words used for the Single Target IAT. The average of the five items forms the brand attitude scale, with a higher score corresponding to a more positive evaluation of the brand (EV = 3.84, R2 = 76.76; Cronbach’s alpha = .92; M = 4.48, SD = 1.23).

Implicit brand attitude. Implicit brand attitude was measured using a Single Target Implicit Association Test (ST-IAT). A Single Target IAT measures implicit attitude towards a single category (Bluemke, & Friese, 2008), instead of using a counter category, as is the case with normal IAT (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). The Single Target IAT method has proven to be a reliable alternative to the traditional IAT (Bluemke, & Friese, 2008). Participants had to categorize words and pictures into either the positive or the negative category by pressing the A and L key on the keyboard. The participants had to perform five blocks, from which the first one was a practice block with 20 trials. Participants were instructed to categorize the pictures as fast and accurately as possible. Five positive pictures (happy smiley, heart, thumbs up, smiling child, sun), five negative pictures (sad smiley, broken heart, thumbs down, crying child, cloud with rain and thunder), five positive words (pleasant, nice, interesting, attractive, tasty), and five negative words (unpleasant, stupid, uninteresting, unattractive, dirty) were shown in randomized order. A single word or picture appeared in the middle of the screen, with the categories (positive and negative) in the right and left corner, corresponding to the A and L key.

After the practice block, participants had to categorize the Doritos brand with the negative and the positive category first and then do the same for the Mexi-Snax brand, or the other way around. Now, the trial not only included positive and negative words and pictures, but also the brand name, two pictures of the brand logo and two pictures of a product with the brand logo on it. In one block, participants had to categorize Doritos using the same key

(L-key) as for the positive category, in the other block Doritos had to be categorized using the same key (A-key) as for the negative category. The same accounts for the two Mexi-Snax blocks. In all four experimental blocks, participants had to categorize 40 trials of words and pictures. The order of both the brands (Doritos/Mexi-Snax) that had to be categorized and the category (positive/negative) to which it had to be categorized were randomized across participants to prevent order effects.

In the Single Target IAT it is assumed that when an attitude to an object is positive, response latency should be faster when it has to be categorized with the positive category and slower when it has to be categorized with the negative category (Bluemke, & Friese, 2008). To obtain an implicit brand measure, the mean log-latencies of the positive brand block were subtracted from the mean log latencies of the negative brand block. Response latencies faster than 300 milliseconds and slower than 3000 milliseconds and false responses were coded as missing (Bluemke, & Friese, 2008; Greenwald, Nosek & Banaji, 2003). Before calculating the implicit brand attitude, log transformations were performed. This method follows the widely used D-algorithm method developed by Greenwald et al. (1998). A positive score corresponds to a positive implicit brand attitude, whereas a negative score indicates a negative implicit brand attitude (M = -.02, SD = .16).

Manipulation check and control variables. First of all, brand familiarity was measured to check if the manipulation of brand familiarity succeeded. Respondents were asked “To what extent are you familiar with the brand Doritos/Mexi-Snax?” on a 7-point semantic differential from completely unfamiliar to completely familiar (M = 3.43, SD = 2.67). Second, several program measures were used as control variables. Participants were asked whether they already were familiar with the TV series Divorce (0 = no, 1 = yes; 62% yes) and if yes, how many episodes they watched from the twelve episodes that were broadcasted on TV (M = 3.32, SD = 4.36). Also, participants were asked whether they had

already seen the episode before participating in the study (13% yes). Additionally, attention to the program was measured by asking respondents how attentively they had watched the program on a 7-point scale from absolutely not attentive to very attentive (M = 6.04, SD = .90). Lastly, program attitude was measured by asking participants to what extent they found the episode of Divorce good, negative (reversed) and nice on a 7-point scale. The average on the three items measured program attitude (EV = 2.05, R2 = 68.35; Cronbach’s alpha = 75M = 5.27, SD = 1.11).

Third, disclosure recall was measured as a control measure for the respondents in the conditions where a brand placement disclosure was shown. Participants were asked whether or not they saw a disclosure and a logo that informed about advertising (product placement) in the episode from Divorce (1 = yes, 2 = no, 3 = don’t know). This variable was recoded into a dichotomous variable (1 = yes, 0 = no/don’t know) with 49% of the participants that recalled seeing a disclosure.

RESULTS

Before analysing the data, it was checked whether all participants in the disclosure conditions indeed saw the disclosure, otherwise there is no difference between the no disclosure and the disclosure condition. The eye tracking data revealed that 15 participants did not see the disclosure, therefore, these participants were assigned to the no disclosure condition. In all analyses, two comparisons are made. First, a comparison is made between the group that was exposed to the disclosure and the group not exposed to the disclosure (including those who did not see the disclosure). In the second analysis, the group that saw the disclosure is divided by explicit recall of the disclosure. This enables an additional comparison between the group that saw the disclosure but did not recall it (n = 44) with the

group that both saw and recalled the disclosure (n = 47) and those who have not seen a disclosure (n = 80).

Control Variables and Manipulation Check

First, chi square tests and one-way analysis of variance were used to check whether the experimental groups differed on the control variables. Background variables age, F(3, 167) = 0.25, p = 0.859, and gender, χ² (3) = 2.76, p = 0.430, showed no significant differences between the four experimental groups. Furthermore, no differences were found on the program measures. Watch frequency, F(3, 167) = 0.10, p = 0.961, attitude towards the program, F(3, 167) = 0.56, p = 0.640, attention to the episode, F(3, 167) = 2.04, p = 0.110, episode familiarity, χ² (3) = 0.14, p = 0.986, and program familiarity, χ² (3) = 3.00, p = 0.391, did not differ between the four conditions. Therefore, the control variables are not further included in the analyses.

Lastly, a manipulation check for brand familiarity showed that Doritos is indeed perceived as more familiar (M = 6.45, SD = 0.09) than the unfamiliar brand Mexi-Snax (M = 1.22, SD = 0.10; t (112) = -38.19, p < 0.001). The manipulation of brand familiarity was successful.

Mediation Effects

To analyse the mediated effects of disclosure on persuasion knowledge, brand memory, explicit brand attitude and implicit brand attitude four serial multiple mediation models were tested for each of the dependent variables. The PROCESS tool, developed by Hayes (2012), was used to calculate direct and indirect effects of the mediation model. Second, bootstrapping was used with 10.000 samples to obtain bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (BCBCI). If the confidence interval does not include zero, the indirect effect can be considered as significantly different from zero on a 0.05 significance level (Hayes, 2012).

First of all, for each dependent variable a serial multiple mediation model is employed, comparing the group that saw a disclosure with the group that did not see a disclosure. Additionally, a second comparison is made to analyse differences between the group not exposed to a disclosure, the group that saw a disclosure without recalling the disclosure and the group that both saw and recalled the disclosure. Dummy variables for each group were created to employ three additional models. In every model, one dummy variable was selected as independent variable, the second dummy as a covariate and the remaining category automatically functioned as the reference category. By employing three separate serial mediation models, the three groups can be compared in terms of direct and indirect effects on the brand measures.

It was expected that seeing a disclosure would lead to a higher recognition of advertising and perceived persuasive intent (H1), via visual attention to the brand placement, and consequently to a higher brand memory (H2) and a more negative explicit brand attitude (H3), compared to not seeing a disclosure. With regard to implicit brand attitude only a general positive effect on implicit brand attitude was expected, regardless of seeing or not seeing a disclosure (H4).

Seeing the disclosure. For the first comparison, visual attention to the disclosure is taken into account by comparing the group that saw a disclosure to the group that did not see a disclosure. As can be seen in Table 1, the model showed no significant indirect effect of seeing the disclosure on perceived persuasive intent, via visual attention to the placement and recognition of advertising. Similarly, Table 2 shows that none of the indirect effects on brand memory and brand attitude are significant. Against expectations, the group that saw disclosure does not show a higher brand memory or more negative explicit brand attitude as a result of visual attention to the placement or persuasion knowledge, compared to the group that saw no disclosure.

However, as suspected, seeing a disclosure does not differently affect implicit brand attitude compared to not seeing a disclosure. Rather, it was expected that seeing the brand placement would lead to a general positive effect on implicit brand attitude, regardless of exposure to a disclosure. To find support for hypothesis 4, implicit brand attitude from the participants that saw the brand placement were compared to those that did not see the brand placement. An ANOVA shows that seeing the brand placement (M = -0.02, SD = 0.17) does not lead to a more positive implicit brand attitude than when the brand placement is not seen, M = -0.01, SD = 0.15, F(1, 169) = 0.26, p = 0.610, η2 = 0.00. Thus, there is no general positive effect of exposure to the brand placement on implicit brand attitude. Hence, hypotheses 1 to 4 are not supported when comparing the group that saw a disclosure to those that did not.

< PLACE FIGURE 3 AND TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE >

Recalling the disclosure. A second comparison, taking recall of the disclosure into account, can give more insights into the effects of brand placement disclosures. The results of the serial multiple mediation models with the dummy variables for not seeing the disclosure, seeing and recalling the disclosure or only seeing the disclosure show indirect effects on the perceived persuasive intent and brand memory.

First of all, there is an indirect effect via recognition of advertising on perceived persuasive intent (see indirect effect 1 in Table 1). The group that saw and recalled the disclosure has a higher perceived persuasive intent, compared to the group that did not see a disclosure (Indirect effect = 0.13, boot SE = 0.13, 95% BCBCI [0.022, 0.308]) and the group that only saw a disclosure but did not recall it (Indirect effect = 0.21, boot SE = 0.11, 95% BCBCI [0.033, 0.465]).

Additionally, small indirect effects were found when visual attention was added as a second mediator (see indirect effect 2 in Table 1). Similarly, the group that saw and recalled

the disclosure has a higher perceived persuasive intent compared to the group that did not see a disclosure (Indirect effect = 0.03, boot SE = 0.02, 95% BCBCI [0.006, 0.104]) or the group that only saw the disclosure (Indirect effect = 0.05, boot SE = 0.03, 95% BCBCI [0.011, 0.146]). When participants have seen and recalled the disclosure, participants have a higher recognition of advertising and consequently a higher perceived persuasive intent, compared to participants that have not seen a disclosure or participants that only have seen the disclosure. This effect is partly mediated by visual attention to the brand placement.

However, the indirect effect found on perceived persuasive intent, does not further enhance brand recall when comparing the groups that only saw the disclosure with those who saw and recalled the disclosure and those who did not see a disclosure. Nevertheless, an indirect effect on brand recall is found via visual attention to the brand placement and recognition of advertising (see Table 2). Compared to the group that did not see a disclosure, the group that saw and recalled the disclosure has more attention for the brand placement, resulting in a higher recognition of advertising and consequently a higher brand memory (Indirect effect = 0.46, SE = 0.28, 95% BCBCI [0.122, 1.154]). An even stronger indirect effect is found when comparing the group that saw and recalled the disclosure to the group that only saw the disclosure but did not explicitly recall the disclosure (Indirect effect = 0.73, SE = 0.39, 95% BCBCI [0.248, 1.684]).

Conclusively, the higher recognition of advertising via visual attention to the brand placement is further enhancing brand recall for the group that saw and explicitly recalled the brand placement disclosure. Against expectations, perceived persuasive intent does not mediate the effect on brand memory. Thus, on the condition that the disclosure is recalled, hypothesis 1 and 2 are partly supported.

With regard to brand attitude, none of the effects on both implicit and explicit brand attitude are significant when making a distinction between the groups seeing and recalling the

disclosure, seeing but not recalling the disclosure and seeing no disclosure (see Table 2). Again, hypothesis 3 and 4 are not supported.

< PLACE TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE >

Moderated Effect Of Brand Familiarity

To test the moderation effect of brand familiarity, mediated moderation models are employed to analyse the effects of the brand placement disclosure on the brand measures, moderated by brand familiarity. Again, the PROCESS tool from Hayes (2012) is used to calculate all before mentioned models again, but now with brand familiarity included as moderator. Again, two comparisons are made, resulting in four separate models.

For brand recall and explicit brand attitude, the interaction effects between the disclosure and brand familiarity on the mediators can give insights into the possible moderating role of brand familiarity. It was expected that the interaction of the brand placement disclosure with brand familiarity would lead to enhanced visual attention to the brand placement, recognition of advertising and perceived persuasive intent. Consequently, this was hypothesized to lead to a stronger effect on both brand memory (H5a) and explicit brand attitude (H5b). Regarding implicit brand attitude, it was hypothesized that the positive effect on implicit brand attitude would be stronger for the unfamiliar brand than for the familiar brand (H5c).

Seeing the disclosure. For the first comparison, none of the interaction effects of the disclosure (seen versus not seen) with brand familiarity on visual attention to the brand placement, recognition of advertising and perceived persuasive intent are significant, neither do they lead to a stronger effect on brand memory or explicit brand attitude (see Table 3). With regard to implicit brand attitude, an ANOVA shows that implicit brand attitude is not more positive for the unfamiliar brand than the familiar brand, F(3, 167) = 0.69, p = 0.409, η2 = 0.00, neither is there an interaction between seeing or not seeing the brand placement and

brand familiarity, F(3, 167) = 0.32, p = 0.574, η2 = 0.00. When comparing those who saw and those who did not see a disclosure, hypotheses 5a, 5b and 5c are not supported.

However, some interesting direct effects of brand familiarity are found in the expected direction, as can be seen in Table 3. Compared to the unfamiliar brand, the familiar brand attracts more visual attention to the placement (b = 1.06, p < 0.05) and causes a higher recognition of advertising (b = 1.11, p < 0.001). Also, brand memory is higher for the familiar brand, than for the unfamiliar brand (b = 2.07, p < 0.001). While these effects are in the expected direction, brand familiarity does not moderate the previously found effects of the brand placement disclosure.

Recalling the disclosure. A second comparison is made, dividing the group that has seen the disclosure by those who have or have not explicitly recalled the disclosure. As shown in Table 3, the interaction effects on visual attention to the brand placement and recognition of advertising remain non significant. However, the combination of a brand placement disclosure with a familiar brand leads to an enhanced effect on the perceived persuasive intent (b = 0.63, p < 0.05) when comparing the group that has both seen and recalled the disclosure with the group that has not seen a disclosure or the group that has only seen the disclosure but does not recall it. A plot of the interaction effect shows that the perceived persuasive intent is on an equal level for the familiar and unfamiliar brand when no disclosure is shown, but inclusion of a disclosure leads to a much higher perceived persuasive intent for the familiar brand, compared to the unfamiliar brand. Nevertheless, it was previously found that the perceived persuasive intent does not further affect brand memory and explicit brand attitude, so the discovered interaction effect does not provide support for the hypotheses. Hence, hypotheses 5a, 5b and 5c remain unsupported.

DISCUSSION

This study’s first aim was to examine the implicit and explicit effects of brand placement disclosures. First of all, results from the study show an important condition for brand placement disclosures effectiveness. The disclosure is only effective when viewers explicitly remember the disclosure. Eye tracking data revealed that merely seeing the disclosure is not enough to establish an effect. When the brand placement disclosure is both seen and explicitly recalled, the brand placement disclosure enables the viewer to recognize the brand placement as advertising and consequently make them aware of the persuasive intent of the brand placement. These results are in accordance with the study from Boerman et al. (2012b), who also found that explicit recall of the disclosure was needed in order to activate persuasion knowledge. Additionally, the disclosure functioned as a prime and increased visual attention to the brand placement. The enhanced visual attention was partly mediating the effects found on recognition of advertising and the perceived persuasive intent. Research from Boerman et al. (under review) also shows that visual attention to the brand placement mediates the relation between the disclosure and persuasion knowledge.

Furthermore, seeing and recalling the disclosure indirectly led to a higher brand memory, via visual attention to the brand placement and recognition of advertising. Even though the perceived persuasive intent indirectly increased as a result of consciously memorizing the disclosure, this did not further enhance brand memory. However, when the brand placement is acknowledged as advertising, brand memory increases. Previous studies also found a higher brand memory when exposed to a brand placement disclosure (Boerman et al., 2012a; Boerman et al., under review, Van Reijmersdal et al., 2013), and a mediated effect of persuasion knowledge on brand memory (Boerman et al., under review). However, in a study that used general brand awareness as a measure of memory (Campbell et al., 2013), showing a brand placement disclosure led to a decrease in brand memory, as participants

corrected for the inferred influence of the disclosure. Hence, current effects only proof that brand memory directly related to the brand placement (recall of the brand in the TV program) is enhanced as a result of memorizing the disclosure.

Contrary to previous research, no implicit or explicit effects were found on brand attitude. Previous studies mostly found a negative effect on explicit brand attitude after seeing a brand placement disclosure (Boerman et al., 2012a; Boerman et al., under review; Campbell et al., 2013; Gibson et al., 2013; Matthes et al., 2007; Wei, Fischer & Main, 2008), but only under specific conditions. For example, some of the studies that found a negative effect on explicit brand attitude used a prominent brand placement (Matthes et al., 2007) or even a brand integrated program (Boerman et al., 2012a). Gibson et al. (2013) only found this effect when the brand was recalled, and in the study of Campbell et al. (2013) the effect only became apparent when the disclosure was shown after the brand placement. In the current study, a subtle brand placement was used and the disclosure was only shown prior to the brand placement, which can be the cause of the lack of an effect on explicit brand attitude. In line with the findings in this study, Redker et al. (2013) also found no effect on explicit brand attitude after participants were exposed to a subtle brand placement. However, participants were not exposed to a disclosure in that study. Apparently, showing a disclosure prior to exposure to the subtle brand placement activates a more elaborate processing, resulting in higher persuasion knowledge and brand memory, but this does not affect the explicit brand attitude.

As the study also aimed to examine implicit effects of brand placements, implicit brand attitude was measured via a Single Target IAT. As theorized, subtle placements are more likely processed unconsciously (Redker et al., 2013), which has led to a more positive implicit attitude in previous studies (Gibson et al., 2013; Glass, 2007; Redker et al., 2013). In this study, no effect on implicit brand attitude was found. Both Gibson et al. (2013) and

Redker et al. (2013) only found a positive implicit attitude for participants that held a neutral explicit attitude prior to the study. As the current study did not take prior attitude into account, this could be the reason for the lack of an effect on implicit brand attitude.

The secondary aim of the study was to examine the moderating role of brand familiarity on the effectiveness of brand placement disclosures. Even though brand familiarity influences brand placement effects, no moderating effects were found that eventually led to a strengthening effect on brand memory or brand attitude. However, brand familiarity does moderate the effect of disclosures on the perceived persuasive intent. When the disclosure was explicitly recalled, it was more effective in making the participant aware of the perceived persuasive intent of the brand placement from the familiar brand compared to the unfamiliar brand. Moreover, familiar brands did attract more attention to the brand placement, were better recognized as advertising and easier memorized. This is in line with previous studies, that also found that objects with higher attitude accessibility, corresponding to a familiar brand, are better at attracting attention (Fazio et al., 1998; Roskos-Ewoldsen & Fazio, 1992). Moreover, several studies show higher brand memory for familiar brands, compared to unfamiliar brands (Brennan & Babin, 2004; Nelson et al., 2006; Wei et al., 2008).

Conclusively, brand familiarity does not moderate the effects of brand placement disclosures on brand memory and brand attitude. Nevertheless, brand placements from familiar brands do show a higher effectiveness in terms of visual attention to the placement and brand memory. However, they are also more easily recognized as advertising and in combination with a disclosure, the perceived persuasive intent of a brand placement from a familiar brand is higher.

Notwithstanding the previously discussed results, the study has three important limitations that have to be kept in mind when assessing the results. First of all, current results only apply to subtle, background placements with a brand placement disclosure combining

text and logo shown in the beginning of a TV series. For prominent placements or other disclosure types, results can be different, as already has been elaborated on above. Second, brand memory was only measured after participants performed the Single Target IAT. Therefore, participants could have been primed with the brand, which could have enhanced effects on brand memory. This is partly corrected by analyzing the eye tracking data, that could register who fixated on the brand placement and who did not. Third, brand familiarity of the brand placements was manipulated by editing the brand into the TV fragment. This has led some of the participants to have suspicions about the authenticity of the scenes. In order to prevent this from affecting the results, participants that expressed this in the study were left out of the analysis.

The limitation of the manipulation of brand familiarity directly points to possibilities for future research. As this was the first study to focus on the moderating role of brand familiarity in brand placement disclosure effects, additional research can give more insights into the role of brand familiarity and examine whether effects found in this study are comparable when using real brand placements. Moreover, future studies could look into the moderating role of brand familiarity in disclosure effects by comparing subtle and prominent placements. Whereas subtle placements are more likely to be processed unconsciously, prominent placements are processed more elaborately (Law & Braun, 2000). Therefore, it would be of interest to see whether the effects found in this study also hold for prominent placements.

A second direction for future studies is exploring the implicit processes underlying brand placement effects more in the future. Even though no effects on implicit attitude were found in the current study, previous studies have found that evaluative conditioning is an important factor in affecting implicit brand attitudes (Redker et al., 2013; Waiguny, Nelson, & Marko, 2013). Associations with the content can be transferred to the brand via associative

processing (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006). The positive or negative associations the viewer has with the media content the persuasive message is imbedded influence implicit brand attitude and can interact with brand familiarity. For example, Waiguny et al. (2013) found that negative content in advergames influenced implicit attitude of unfamiliar brands, whereas familiar brands were unaffected by the negative content. These relations would be interesting to examine with regard to brand placements on TV or in movies.

Third, it would be of great relevance to study disclosures in combination with TV billboards/sponsorships. It is a common practice to show a TV billboard prior to a program containing brand placement from the same brand as included in the program. However, no study yet has looked into the effects of showing a TV billboard before exposed to a program with brand placements, neither has this been studied in combination with brand placement disclosures. Previous studies have only compared billboards to spot advertising (Olson & Thjømøe, 2012) or to other types of brand placements (d’Astous & Séguin, 1999). As billboards explicitly point out the program sponsorship of the brand, they could further enhance brand memory, persuasion knowledge and perhaps brand attitude. Therefore, additional research could look into the effects of brand placement disclosures combined with TV billboards.

The current study has several theoretical implications. First of all, by using eye tracking this study provides proof for the previously made assumption that elaborate processing of the disclosure is needed to have the intended effect of activating persuasion knowledge (Boerman et al., 2012b). As the current study showed, merely seeing the disclosure was not enough to establish this effect, but viewers have to be consciously aware of the disclosure. Thus, provided that the viewer memorizes the disclosure, this study shows that disclosures can also be an effective tool for warning the viewer for the persuasive intent of subtle brand placements, as shown by the increase in the recognition of advertising and

perceived persuasive intent. Moreover, this study was the first to show that for subtle brand placements, brand familiarity does not seem to moderate the relation between disclosures and brand memory and attitude. However, the study did show that disclosures are more effective in making the viewer aware of the persuasive intent of the brand placement for familiar brands than for unfamiliar brands.

In addition to its theoretical implications, the current study can offer interesting insights for legislators and advertisers. The current study showed that the primary aim of a brand placement disclosure to enable the viewer to distinguish the brand placement as a form of advertising and making them aware of the persuasive intent also works with regard to subtle brand placements. However, legislators should take into account that disclosures are more effective in activating persuasion knowledge for familiar brands. Second, a sufficient amount of attention is needed for the disclosure in order to be effective. Thus, a suggestion for improvement is to make the disclosure more salient to the viewer.

Lastly, the current study showed that advertisers do not have to be concerned about the inclusion of disclosures when using subtle brand placements. The disclosure used in the current study does not have negative effects for the brand. Moreover, inclusion of a disclosure in a TV program even enhanced brand memory. Therefore, the current study gives proof that subtle brand placements can be a great tool to stimulate brand memory. Even though the subtle placement in this study did not affect brand attitude, they could be preferred over prominent placements, as these sometimes induce a negative brand attitude. However, when advertisers aim to stimulate more positive evaluations of the brand, subtle brand placements do not proof to be of considerable value. With regard to brand familiarity, brand placements from familiar brands have the advantage of attracting more attention and improving brand memory. Even though familiar brands are also more easily recognized as advertising compared to unfamiliar brands, this does not negatively influence the brand.

REFERENCES

Boerman, S. C., van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2012a). Sponsorship disclosure: effects of duration on persuasion knowledge and brand responses. Journal of Communication, 62(6), 1047–1064. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01677.x

Boerman, S. C., Reijmersdal, E. A. van, & Neijens, P. C. (2012b). Zijn sponsorvermeldingen in televisieprogramma’s effectief? Tijdschrift Voor Communicatiewetenschap, 40(4), 46–59. Boerman, S. C., van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2014). Effects of sponsorship disclosure

timing on the processing of sponsored content: a study on the effectiveness of European disclosure regulations: Effects of sponsorship disclosure timing. Psychology & Marketing,

31(3), 214–224. doi:10.1002/mar.20688

Boerman, S. C., van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (under review). Using eye tracking to understand the effects of brand placement disclosure types in television programs. Brennan, I., & Babin, L. A. (2004). Brand placement recognition. Journal of Promotion

Management, 10(1-2), 185–202. doi:10.1300/J057v10n01_13

Buijzen, M., Van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Owen, L. H. (2010). Introducing the PCMC model: An investigative framework for young people’s processing of commercialized media content.

Communication Theory, 20(4), 427–450. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01370.x

Cain, R. M. (2011). Embedded Advertising on Television: Disclosure, Deception, and Free Speech Rights. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(2), 226–238. doi:10.1509/jppm.30.2.226 Campbell, M. C., & Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand familiarity and advertising repetition effects. Journal

of Consumer Research, 30(2), 292–304. doi:10.1086/jcr.2003.30.issue-2

Campbell, M. C., Mohr, G. S., & Verlegh, P. W. J. (2007). Effects of product placement and sponsorship disclosure: A flexible correction approach. In International Conference on

Research in Advertising, Lisbon, Portugal.

Campbell, M. C., Mohr, G. S., & Verlegh, P. W. J. (2013). Can disclosures lead consumers to resist covert persuasion? The important roles of disclosure timing and type of response. Journal of