Product placements going creative
The effects of creativity and prominence of product placements on consumer
responses and the mediating role of persuasion knowledge and reactance
Laura Helmich
Master’s Thesis 30-06-2017
Graduate School of Communication Persuasive Communication
Abstract
Product placement is the purposeful and paid inclusion of brands in media content, aiming to influence the audience without explicit promotion of the brand. This study investigated two dimensions of product placement, that is different types of product placement (i.e., creative versus traditional) and the prominence of a placement (i.e., high prominence versus low prominence). Their main and interaction effects on the consumer responses brand recall, brand attitude and purchase intention were studied in an online conducted experiment (N = 211). Furthermore, the possible underlying factors of persuasion knowledge and reactance and their mediating role within this process were analyzed.
The results of this study show that a prominent placement has a more positive impact on brand recall compared to a subtle placement and that this effect is more pronounced for the traditional placement than the creative placement. Additionally, results show no difference with respect to brand attitude elicited. However, a difference between placements on purchase intention was found. Specifically, a creative placement has a more positive effect on purchase intention compared to a traditional placement, but this was not moderated by prominence. Lastly, persuasion knowledge and reactance do not seem to mediate any relationship between type of placement and consumer outcomes.
Overall, as this study is the first step into researching the effects of creative
placements, it contributes to our understanding of creative product placement and its impact on consumer responses brand recall, brand attitude and purchase intention. The results provide theoretical and practical implications for the brands that wish to implement this relatively new persuasion technique.
Introduction
Imagine sitting on the couch, relaxing and watching your favourite television show Gossip
Girl. You are enjoying yourself and have your full attention for the adventures of your
beloved characters. In today’s episode, ‘Summer, Kind of Wonderful’, the series’ star Serena Van Der Woodsen and all the other Upper East Side’s rich kids are attending a White Party and having a blast. Suddenly, you see Jenny Humphry ordering a bottle of Vitamin Water – something she has never drunk or even mentioned before. When taking a closer look, you notice that everyone at the party is holding one of these coloured bottles and that they are even standing around in the background of all the scenes. Does this make you thirsty for a Vitamin Water, or does this irritate you?
Products like Vitamin Water do not appear in television shows by accident. Different brands may catch our attention, since there is an abundance of product placement throughout television shows. Product placement is defined as “the paid inclusion of branded products or
brand identifiers, through audio and/or visual means, within mass media programming”
(Karrh, 1998, p. 33). In other words, it is the purposeful and paid inclusion of commercial content such as products and brand identifiers in editorial media content (Russell & Belch, 2005; Van Reijmersdal, Neijens, & Smit, 2007; Yang & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2007).
This inclusion of products in return for money exists in movies and television shows - a persuasion technique that is as old as the movie and television industry itself (Dens, De Pelsmacker, Wouters, & Purnawirawan, 2012) - but also in other entertainment products such as video games and online content in blogs (Yang & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2007; Marchand, Hennig-Thurau & Best, 2015; Liu, Chou, & Liao, 2015). Product placements aim to influence the audience without explicit promotion of the brand (Marchand, Hennig-Thurau & Best, 2015) and try to increase a positive attitude towards that brand (Cowley & Barron, 2008). Brands are increasingly using this type of sponsored content (Boerman, Van
Reijmersdal, & Neijens, 2012), since traditional commercials no longer seem to be an effective way to reach potential consumers. Consumers have become used to traditional advertising; constructing mental shortcuts to deal with it and mentally activating a so-called advertising schema, which results in scepticism and a more negative attitude towards the advertisement (Dahlén & Edenius, 2007).
Product placement has a lot of advantages compared to traditional advertising (Cowley & Barron, 2008). Over the last years, a thorough and still growing body of research has
appeared, showing the effectiveness of placements. Not only can placements cut through the commercial clutter (Gupta & Lord, 1998), they also provide an effective way of creating positive brand attitude resulting from a more subtle way of advertising. Because of this subtlety, placements are less likely to be recognised as persuasive attempts (Matthes, Schemer, & Wirth, 2007; Boerman et al., 2012). When the persuasive attempt is not
recognized, consumers will be less likely to counter argue, making them more receptive for the message (Russell, 2002; Wei, Fischer, & Main, 2008). In this way, placements can circumvent reactance that may result from more explicit forms of advertising
(Balasubramanian, Karrh, & Patwardhan, 2006).
Despite the fact that product placements lead to more positive effects than traditional advertisements (Van Reijmersdal, Neijens & Smit, 2009), the aforementioned advantage of circumventing reactance has slightly diminished in recent years. Placements are now
occurring in every media platform (Liu, et al., 2015) and consumers encounter them more often than before. This proliferation of placements possibly makes consumer more aware of product placements. Besides consumers becoming more conscious of placements, it seems as if consumers’ knowledge about the marketing purposes of product placements is increasing as well. Research suggests that this activated persuasion knowledge about placements can lead to counter-arguing, subsequently leading to a negative attitude towards the brand
(Balasubramanian, et al., 2006; Matthes, et al., 2007; Boerman, et al., 2012). When the audience realises the commercial intent of the placement and notice that the brand is placed for persuasion reasons (Wei, et al., 2008), the audience tends to show increased resistance towards the persuasion attempt and reject the placement (Van Reijmersdal, et al., 2009).
Thus, marketers need to look for new ways to effectively use this persuasion
technique. Research shows that people with a positive attitude towards a product placement, have a more favourable attitude towards the brand (Weaver & Oliver, 2000). Therefore, is important to investigate whether there is a way to reach consumers through forms of product placement that are evaluated positively.
Recent developments in the advertising world show that brands need to become more creative and innovating in their advertising strategy to effectively reach consumers. Creativity is now believed to be necessary for an advertisement to be effective and to create a more favorable brand attitude (Smith & Yang, 2004; El-Murad & West, 2004; Ang, Leong, Lee & Lou, 2014). Examples of these new or more creative ways of advertising include: Creative Media Advertising (Dahlén, 2005), the use of rhetorical figures (Dahlén, 2009) and
implementations of different metaphors (McQuarrie & Mick, 1996). Not only does using creativity in advertising increase the attention of the consumer, it also enhances the
motivation to process the advertisement (Smith & Yang, 2004). Further, and perhaps most importantly, it has proven to be more persuasive (El-Murad & West, 2003; Dahlén, 2009). In similar fashion, brands seem to have picked up the abovementioned developments and try to make their placements more creative. New ways of placing their products have emerged and an example of this also comes from the television show Gossip Girl. An Apple laptop device was used by one of the main characters, but instead of showing the Apple logo, a basket of apples was placed in front of the laptop, subtly hinting at the fact that an Apple laptop device was used (see Figure 1).
Figure 1. Creative product placement of Apple in Gossip Girl
Whether this creative form of product placement may enhance its effects on brand attitude compared to traditional forms of placement has not yet been empirically tested. Therefore, the overall purpose of this study is to examine the difference between creative and traditional product placements.
More traditional forms of product placement can vary in how prominent the placement is, ranging from a product used throughout the whole episode (i.e., high prominence) to a product in the background of a scene (i.e., low prominence; Yang & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2007). The effects of product placement prominence, either subtle or rather explicit, have been extensively researched and show that more prominent product placements are less effective than less prominent product placements and lead to less favourable brand attitudes (Matthes et al., 2007; Cowley & Barron, 2008; Van Rijmersdal, 2009; Marchand et al., 2015).
The negative effect of prominence can be explained by the activation reactance towards the persuasive message that is a result of the activation of persuasion knowledge
is more likely to be conscious of the brand presence (Matthes, et al., 2007; Russell, 2002). While these effects have been found for traditional forms of placement, the question remains whether this also appears to be the case for creative forms of placement. After all, there exists a great paradox for product placement; when it is noticed, it is bad, but when it remains unnoticed, it turns out worthless (Liu, et al., 2015). This especially applies to creative placements, since they try to promote a brand in a more implicit way and need more focus and attention from the viewers to notice and understand them. It is possible that they affect brand attitude in a more positive way when they are prominently placed.
By considering the aspects of creativity, prominence and the process of reactance, this
study distinguishes itself from previous studies and contributes to the existing literature. The current study will contribute by filling the research gaps about creative placements and their effect on consumer outcomes and the results of this study can help marketers to create a form of product placement that will have the most positive effects on consumers. Both advertisers and academics need to better understand how consumers are influenced by this new and unique type of creative product placement and the conditions under which this is effective.
The aim of this research is therefore to examine how creative product placement influences brand recall, brand attitude and purchase intention and the role of prominence of the placement within this process. Furthermore, this study attempts to provide additional insights into how persuasion knowledge and reactance play a mediating role in this process. An experiment will be conducted to answer the following research question: How does
creative versus traditional product placement affect brand recall, brand attitude and purchase intention, is this influenced by prominence and do persuasion knowledge and reactance play a mediating role in this?
Theoretical Background
Persuasion Knowledge Model and Reactance Theory
By optimizing the blurring lines between advertising and entertainment, targeting the audience unobtrusively, product placements can influence consumers without explicit
promotion (Russell & Belch, 2005; Marchand, et al., 2015) resulting in consumers being less resistant to persuasion (Balasubramanian, et al., 2006; Boerman, et al., 2012).
The resistance that is generally provoked by advertising can be explained by the Persuasion Knowledge Model (PKM) as proposed by Friestad and Wright (1994). This model states that consumers gain persuasion knowledge about persuasive messages throughout their life, about how, when and why a message is intended to influence them. Consumers use this knowledge in order to cope with persuasive attempts. The PKM points out that people need to be aware of a persuasion attempt in order to activate their knowledge and decide how to cope with the attempt (Friestad & Wright, 1994; Cowley & Barron, 2008; Boerman, et al., 2012). When the persuasive intent of a message is clear to consumers, persuasion knowledge and consumers’ alertness against persuasion increases, which helps them to confront the persuasion and react in a certain way (Friestad & Wright, 1994; Russell, 2002;
Balasubramanian, et al., 2006). For example, when a brand is explicitly shown, the consumer will be more aware of the advertisement form causing an activation of persuasion knowledge (Wei, et al., 2008). Persuasion knowledge is not inherently bad but rather part of a network which links the activation of brand schemas to coping mechanisms, an individual’s cognitive and physical actions during persuasion (Friestad & Wright, 1994). For instance, when people encounter an advertisement, they realise that a persuasion attempt is present which activates their persuasion knowledge. This knowledge is then used to interpret, evaluate and respond to the persuasion attempts of that brand (Marchand, et al., 2015) thereby potentially deciding to reject the advertisement and not to buy the product.
The study by Boerman and colleagues (2012) shows that the realization of commercial motives in a message, the activation of persuasion knowledge, leads to more critical attitudes. More specifically, knowing the persuasive intent of a message can serve as a cue to develop counterarguments towards the message which lowers the brand attitude (Lee, 2010; Campbell, 1995).
This effect can be explained by Brehm’s Reactance Theory (1966), which was
developed as an explanation for the reactions that people experience as a result of losing their freedom. This reactance is a reaction to messages that threaten behavioural freedoms and occurs when people feel that they are pressured to accept a certain attitude (Brehm, 1966). Brehm’s theory suggests that awareness about persuasion can make people more critical towards persuasive messages and can cause resistance (Brehm, 1966). Because the advertisement can be a potential threat to freedom, which consumers try to restore, they will more strongly embrace the attitude that is threatened (Brehm, 1966) and become sceptical towards the advertisement (Van Reijmersdal, 2009). Not only will these people try to restore their freedom, but the perceived attractiveness of the lost or threatened option will increase (Brehm, 1966), resulting in consumers even choosing the brand opposite of the one used in the persuasive message. This is called the boomerang effect, a condition producing the opposite effect to that desired (Burgoon, Alvaro, Grandpre, & Voulodakis, 2002).
Persuasion knowledge and reactance towards product placement
Research suggests that, like traditional advertising, activated persuasion knowledge about product placements can lead to counter-arguing as well, subsequently leading to a negative attitude towards the brand (Balasubramanian, et al., 2006; Matthes, et al., 2007; Wei, et al., 2008; Lee, 2010; Dens, et al., 2012).
often encountering, it is not surprising that awareness about placements appears to increase. Research has shown that when viewers encounter a prominent product placement, they quickly realize the brand is only present for persuasion reasons (Van Reijmersdal, 2009; Cowley & Barron, 2008). Viewers then tend to counter argue the persuasion attempt like they do with traditional advertisements, since they do not like to be persuaded (Boerman, et al., 2012; Russell, 2002). Furthermore, when persuasion knowledge is activated through a
placement, it leads to the interruption of a consumers viewing experience (Friestad & Wright, 1994). This interruption is expected to cause negative feelings, which can consequently negatively impact people’s behaviour and attitudes (Cowley & Barron, 2008; Boerman, et al., 2012).
According to Brehm (1966), the activation of reactance may mediate the
persuasiveness of messages. Likewise, persuasion knowledge may mediate the effect of the product placement on brand attitude (Boerman, et al., 2012; Dens, et al., 2012). As persuasion knowledge regarding product placement seems to be growing (Wei, et al., 2008), it seems as though new types of product placement are needed that evoke less reactance towards the placement.
Creativity in advertising
In advertising, creativity seems key. Creativity, that is ‘newness’, originality and innovation, is referred to as the most important determinant of advertising effectiveness (El-Murad & West, 2003; El-Murad & West, 2004; Smith & Yang, 2004; Ang, et al., 2014). Creativity means that previously existing concepts about a brand or product are presented in a new and unique way, different from audience expectations (Dahlén, 2009).
Creative ways of advertising like Creative Media Advertising (CMA), a technique in which a medium is creatively chosen to communicate the message (Dahlén, Friberg &
Nilsson, 2009) or the use of rhetorical figures (Dahlén, 2009) and metaphors (McQuarrie & Mick, 1996), have proven to be very effective in increasing persuasion and achieving a more positive brand attitude compared to traditional advertising. Furthermore, creativity enhances consumer-perceived brand value and higher purchase intention (Dahlén, Granlund, &
Grenros, 2009). These out of the ordinary, original and unexpected types of messages (Ang, et al., 2014), increase the motivation to process the advertisement (Smith & Yang, 2004;
Dahlén, 2009). Favourable attitudes also occur because creative ways of advertising are less seen as persuasive attempts (Dahlén & Edenius, 2007), thus possibly raising less reactance.
Creativity in product placement
This phenomenon of advertising creativity has recently been picked up in the domain of product placement as well. Nowadays, product placement strategies have expanded from just showing the product to a more refined type of brand placement. Normally, advertisements can contain a lot of brand related and informational elements (Smith & Yang, 2004) and usually, product placements too, display a product where the brand name is clearly visible.
However, a placement does not necessarily need to be a specific product with a big logo on it, such as the example from the introduction where an Apple was placed in the television show Gossip Girl (see Figure 1). With such a creative, indirect approach, the brand is primed instead of explicitly communicated, which provokes fewer unfavourable cognitive responses like resistance than a direct approach (Dahlén, 2005). Generally, exposure to the brand name or logo in product placement increases the accessibility of the brand that is stored in memory and makes the brand more noticeable (Balasubramanian, et al., 2006; Dens, et al., 2012).Yet, such explicit product placements appear to irritate consumers in two ways. First, it tends to undermine the media story they try to follow, which results in a less positive brand attitude (Balasubramanian, et al., 2006). Second, it can activate persuasion knowledge more
easily, causing more reactance (Dens, et al., 2012).
Research indeed shows that consumers are sceptical of placements where the brand is too obvious, not only because of their distracting nature but also because they have become overly blatant (Lyons, 2013). Creative forms of product placement could redress this.
Compared to traditional placements, creative placements will less likely have a negative effect on persuasion knowledge and reactance.
Solving the puzzle
In general, people like surprises and new things, thus creativity in placements too, will likely produce more favourable cognitive and affective responses and more desirable brand
responses than traditional placements (Smith & Yang, 2004). Research namely shows that creativity, bringing the brand to attention in an unexpected way but giving a relevant cue for the brand, creates ambiguity and requires consumers to de-code and add pieces to solve the puzzle (Dahlén, 2009). It is more challenging for the audience to decode and interpret a placement through such a product placement puzzle (Smith & Yang, 2004) but above all, solving such a puzzle will make the viewer feel good (McQuarrie & Mick, 1996).
Other creative advertising methods such as CMA, rhetoric and metaphors have already proven this effect (McQuarrie & Mick, 1996; Van Enschot, et al., 2006; Dahlén, 2009). When the audience encounters a creative advertisement, they are happy to start puzzling and try to recognize the brand or understand the message. This puzzle evokes two things: it produces enjoyment, because it is pleasant to process something creative (Van Enschot, et al., 2006), and it brings a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction to consumers when they succeed to solve that creative puzzle (Dahlén, 2009). Understanding what the meaning of the puzzle is also brings more acceptance towards the persuasive intent. Research about CMA, which includes solving a puzzle as well, shows that creativity can counter reactance and persuasion
knowledge since the persuasive intent is perceived to be lower (Dahlén & Edenius, 2007). Moreover, the satisfaction about the advertisement understanding has a positive effect on attitude: when consumers unravel the meaning of the advertisement, they evaluate the brand more positively (Van Enschot, et al., 2006). Thus, successfully interpreting a creative placement could lead to more processing pleasure, lower reactance and an increased brand attitude.
However, creative placements can easily be overlooked by viewers since their hidden nature makes them more difficult to recognise (Matthes, et al., 2007). Consumers really need to devote their attention to creative placements. After all, only those who recognize the brand and actually succeed to give meaning to the placement can express a more positive attitude toward that brand (Dens, et al., 2012).
Product placement prominence
The prominence of a product placement is defined as how noticeable a brand is represented and to which extent it is a central focus of the audience’s attention (Dens, et al., 2012). There are different ways in which a product placement can be made the central focus of an audience (Gupta & Lord, 1998) and a distinction can be made between prominent and more subtle forms of placement (Marchand, et al., 2015).
A placement’s prominence has consistently shown to have a positive impact on the recall and brand memory of the placed brand; more prominent placements generate higher brand recall than subtle brand placements (e.g. Brennan, Dubas & Babin, 1999; D’Astous & Chartier, 2000; Van Reijmersdal, et al., 2009; Bressoud, Lehu & Russell, 2010). A more prominent placement is processed more deeply, attracts more attention and is therefore remembered more easily (Van Reijmersdal, 2009).
improvement in brand attitude, because the memory-attitude relationship is not necessarily linear (Russell, 2002). Research shows that prominent placements lead to less favourable brand attitudes compared to less prominent placements (Matthes et al., 2007; Van Rijmersdal, 2009; Marchand et al., 2015). Brand attitude has been found to be higher for subtly placed brands (Dens, et al., 2012; Lyons, 2013), because they appear more natural and do not lead to irritation (Russell, 2002; Cowley & Barron, 2008). Besides the negative effect on brand attitude, the prominence of a placement can also have a negative effect on brand-related behaviour such as purchase intention (Van Reijmersdal, et al., 2009).
Subtly placed brands make counter-arguing less likely because viewers do not recognise the persuasive attempt (Matthes, et al., 2007). When a placement is prominent, the activation of persuasion knowledge and reactance are more likely to occur (Russell, 2002; Friestad & Wright, 1994) making the consumers aware of the placement’s persuasive intention (Cowley & Barron, 2008). Consumers will think of reasons why the brand is present, activating persuasion knowledge and reactance, invoking a more negative brand attitude (Matthes, et al., 2007; Russell, 2002). Thus, following the existing literature and theories, it is expected that prominence of traditional product placements have a positive effect on recall and negative effect on brand attitude and purchase intention.
However, while these negative effects of prominence on brand attitude and purchase intention have been found for traditional forms of placement, the question remains whether this also applies to creative forms of placement. Creative placements try to promote a brand in a more implicit way and need more focus from the audience to notice and understand them. They need to be highly prominent so the consumers understand they need to start puzzling to unravel the meaning of the placement and understand which brand is present. Further, a creative placement is processed with enjoyment and can counter persuasion knowledge and reactance (Dahlén & Edenius, 2007). Thus, the prominence will not necessarily lead to the
same negative effects that occur with traditional placements. It is expected that a more favourable brand attitude and higher purchase intention is evoked when creative placements are prominently placed.
Hence, based on the existing theories, the followinghypotheses are proposed:
H1. A prominent product placement has a more positive effect on brand recall than a
subtle product placement and this effect is more pronounced when the placement is traditional, compared to creative.
H2. A traditional low prominent product placement has a more positive effect on
brand attitude (H2a) and purchase intention (H2b) than a creative low prominent product placement, but a creative high prominent product placement has a more positive effect on brand attitude (H2a) and purchase intention (H2b) than a traditional high prominent product placement.
H3. This effect of placement type on brand attitude and purchase intention is mediated
by persuasion knowledge (H3a) and reactance (H3b).
Method
Design and participants
This experiment employed a 2 (type of placement: creative versus traditional) x 2 (prominence of placement: high versus low prominence) between-subjects design.
Participants were approached via social media and personal communication during a period of ten days. A total of 213 participants took part in this experiment. One person guessed the
exact purpose of the study and was removed from the sample before analysis, together with one outlier.
The average age of the participants (N = 211) was 23.25 years (SD = 2.81) and 56.90 percent was female (N = 120). The majority completed or are currently completing higher education, namely 74.40 percent (N = 157). Almost 60 percent (59.80 percent, N = 126) reads blogs once a month or once a week, and only 11 participants read blogs everyday (5.20 %). Seventy-four participants never read blogs (34.90 %).
Procedure
To conduct the online experiment, Qualtrics was used. After participants opened the link to the experiment, they were welcomed to the study and presented with a cover story about bloggers who keep online diaries about their lives, which was used to avoid exposing the real purpose of the study. Then, they were presented with the informed consent form, in which they were among other things informed about participant anonymity and the fact that
participation did not involve any significant risks and were asked to agree with participation in the experiment. Once they agreed to participate, the participants were asked some general questions about age, gender, educational level and the amount of time they usually spend reading blogs in daily life. Next, they were informed that they would see a blogpost from Lot, a girl that keeps an online diary in which she writes what happens in her life and about the things she likes. It was stressed they should look at this post quite attentively, since questions about this post would be asked.
The next page showed the blogpost. Participants were randomly exposed to one of the four blogs, representing the creative high prominent, creative low prominent, traditional high prominent and traditional low prominent placements. Subsequently, participants proceeded to the questionnaire. They were told that there were no wrong answers and that all the answers
should reflect the participants’ true opinion. Filler questions about the attitude towards the blog and intention to re-visit the blog were asked to stay in line with the cover story.
Afterwards, they were asked to answer several questions pertaining to brand recall, brand attitude, purchase intention, persuasion knowledge and reactance. The experiment concluded by asking if the participants found the way in which the supermarket Dirk was promoted creative or uncreative and obvious or not obvious, how they thought Dirk was promoted and what they thought the purpose of the study was. Finally, participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation in this study.
Pre-test
The blogpost in the experiment consists of a story about a cosy picnic and a photo of people enjoying this picnic with products from a certain supermarket. Before developing the
experimental stimuli, a pre-test with 23 participants, mostly female (N = 18), with an average age of 22.85 (SD = 2.65) was conducted to test which Dutch supermarket was evaluated most neutrally. It is important that the supermarket used in the main experiment would be evaluated neutral, because a neutral attitude is more likely to be altered compared to an explicit and strong brand attitude (Gibson, 2008). The supermarket that would be evaluated most neutrally would be chosen for the stimuli materials; the pictures with placement that would be shown in the blogpost.
The supermarkets that were part of this pre-test were Aldi, Jumbo, Marqt, Albert Heijn, Dirk van den Broek, Plus, Spar and Lidl. Although Plus also scored quite neutral, the supermarket Dirk was chosen for the main experiment, since it scored most neutral in attitude towards the supermarket (M = 3.65, SD = 1.55) and intention to visit (M = 4.00, SD = 1.64) (see Appendix A).
Stimuli
The stimulus material used in the experiment includes a blogpost from Lot with a story about her day and a picture of herself with two friends. All the participants were exposed to the same identical story. The picture at the beginning of the blogpost was the only thing that was different across the four conditions. The picture either contained a creative or traditional product placement that was placed prominently or subtly.
As stated before, the supermarket Dirk was chosen as the placed brand in the picture of this experiment. For the picture, a real-life situation was created where three friends, Sas, Lot and Dirk, were having a picnic in a park. The big red and very recognizable shopper of supermarket Dirk is the object that was used for the brand placement. It is easy to associate the supermarket Dirk with the shopper, since no other Dutch supermarket uses the red colour in their shopper which makes it very noticeable for the brand.
The prominence of the product placement was manipulated by either placing one of the friends, Dirk, in the foreground or in the background of the picture, while holding the shopper. In the traditional product placement condition, he was holding the Dirk shopper with the Dirk logo on it. For the creative product placement, Dirk was wearing a name tag with his name on it and the logo was removed from the bag. This way, participants could solve the puzzle of the creative product placement by seeing the Dirk name tag and looking at the red shopper that was held by him. The stimuli can be found in Appendix B.
Measures
Recall. Brand recall was measured by asking participants if they recalled seeing any brands in
the blogpost. If they answered yes, they could fill out which brand. Brand recall was coded 2 (mentioned Dirk) and 1 (did not mention Dirk) (Boerman, et al., 2012). Out of the 211 participants, almost half correctly reported recalling the brand Dirk (N = 96).
Brand attitude. Brand attitude was measured using six 7-points differential scales
(Boerman, et al., 2012; Spears & Singh, 2004). Participants could indicate whether they evaluated the supermarket Dirk as good/bad, positive/negative, pleasant/unpleasant, nice/not nice, appealing/not appealing and good quality/poor quality. The PCA and reliability analyses indicated that one reliable scale could be constructed from the six items (EV = 4.43, R² = 73.78, α = .93, M = 3.88, SD = .96). The mean score of the six items was used as a measurement for brand attitude, with lower scores reflecting a higher attitude.
Purchase intention. Purchase intention was measured using four 7-point differential
scales (Spears & Singh, 2004). Participants could indicate whether they would definitely/never visit the supermarket Dirk, had very high/low purchase interest, high
intention/low intention to buy groceries there and would probably/probably not buy groceries there. The PCA and reliability analyses indicated that one reliable scale could be constructed from the four items (EV = 3.52, R² = 87.96, α = .95, M = 4.19, SD = 1.49). The mean score of the four items was used as a measurement for purchase intention, with lower scores reflecting higher purchase intention.
Persuasion knowledge. Persuasion knowledge was measured using four 7-points
bipolar scales (Matthes, et al., 2007; Van Noort, et al., 2012), asking participants whether they agreed or disagreed (1 = totally disagree – 7 = totally agree) with the statements: ‘This blogpost is made to persuade me’, ‘Brands were given the opportunity to participate in the blogpost’, ‘There was too much advertising in the blogpost’ and ‘I found the brand
appearances in the blogpost annoying’. The PCA and reliability analyses indicated that one reliable scale could be constructed from the four items (EV = 2.33, R² = 58.46, α = .76, M = 3.08, SD = 1.27). The mean score of the four items was used as a measurement for persuasion knowledge, with lower scores reflecting a lower degree of persuasion knowledge.
disagree – 7 = totally agree) asking about perceived threat to choice: ‘The message
threatened my freedom to choose’, ‘The message tried to make a decision for me’ and ‘The message tried to manipulate me’ and negative cognitions (cognitive reactance output): ‘While I was looking at the blogpost, I was sceptical about what was being said’, ‘While I was looking at the blogpost, I was critical about what was being said’ and ‘While I was looking at the blogpost, I thought of points against what was being said’ (Gardner & Leshner, 2016). The PCA and reliability analyses indicated that one reliable scale could be constructed from the six items (EV = 3.76, R² = 62.58, α = .88, M = 2.83, SD = 1.34). Since cognitive reactance output is usually the outcome of perceived threat of choice, this is not surprising. The mean score of the six items was used as a measurement for reactance, with lower scores reflecting a lower degree of reactance.
Prominence. To check if the participants perceived the product placement as
prominent or subtle, they were asked to indicate on a 7-point scale (1 = very obvious – 7 = not
obvious at all) how they evaluated the way the supermarket Dirk was brought to their
attention.
Creativity. To check whether the participants perceived the product placement as
creative or traditional, they were asked to indicate on a 7-point scale (1 = very creative – 7 =
not creative at all) how they evaluated the way the supermarket Dirk was brought to their
attention.
Demographic and control variables. To check for other interfering variables, general
demographical questions were asked about gender, age and completed or current education level as well as the amount of time they usually spend reading blogs in daily life (1 = never,
Results
Randomization
To check if random assignment to conditions was successful, first, a two-way ANOVA with creativity and prominence as the independent variables and age as dependent variable was conducted. There was no main effect of creativity, F(1, 207) = 1.86, p = .174, η² = .01, nor for prominence, F(1, 207) = .36, p = .552, η² = .002, nor an interaction effect between both, F(1, 206) = 1.45, p = .230, η² = .01. This indicates that no differences existed between conditions on age. Then, to check the distribution between conditions for gender, educational level and time spent reading blogs, Chi-square tests were conducted. There were no differences between the four conditions in educational level X²(9, N = 211) = 3.78 p = .925, or gender
X²(3, N = 211) = 1.84, p = .606. There were also no differences between the four conditions in
amount of time spent reading blogs X²(9, N = 211) = 9.20, p = .419.
Based on these analyses, it is assumed that randomization was successful and that the participants were equally distributed across the four conditions. Therefore, the demographic and control variables were not used as Covariates in further analyses to control outcome effects for.
Manipulation checks
Prominence. To check if the manipulation of the factor prominence was successful, a
two-way ANOVA with high and low prominence and creative and traditional placement as the independent variables and perception of prominence as the dependent variable was conducted. There was, as expected, a significant main effect of prominence, F(1, 207) = 6.60, p = .011, η²
= .031. The participants who were exposed to a subtle product placement (N = 110)
considered this as a less obvious way to bring the supermarket Dirk to the attention (M = 4.54,
= 3.91, SD = 1.73). There was also a significant main effect for creativity, F(1, 207) = 25.44,
p < .001, η² = .11, participants who were exposed to the traditional placement considered the placement more obvious (M = 3.68, SD = 1.79) compared to the participants exposed to the creative placement (M = 4.85, SD = 1.58). This indicates that the type of placement has an effect on the perceived prominence as well. However, no significant interaction effect was found F(1,207) = 1.03, p = .311, η² = .01.
Creativity. To check if manipulation of the factor creativity was successful, another
two-way ANOVA with traditional and creative placement and high and low prominence as the independent variables and perception of creativity as the dependent variable was
conducted. There was, as expected, a significant main effect of creativity, F(1, 207) = 6.38, p = .012, η² = .03. The participants (N = 100) who were exposed to a creative product placement indeed considered this as a more creative way to bring the supermarket Dirk to attention (M = 3.65, SD = 1.59) compared to the participants who were exposed to a traditional product placement (M = 4.25, SD = 1.83). There was no significant main effect of prominence, F(1, 207) = 3.32, p = .070, η² = .02 and no significant interaction effect, F(1, 207) = .05 , p = .828, η² = .00. Thus, we can assume that the manipulation of creativity was successful.
Effect of creativity and prominence on brand recall
To check whether creativity and prominence have an effect on brand recall, a Chi-Square test in Crosstabs was used. The hypothesis suggested that a prominent product placement has a more positive effect on brand recall than a subtle placement and that a traditional placement would have a more pronounced positive effect when prominently placed, compared to a creative placement.
Indeed, there is a significant difference between the four conditions and their impact on brand recall, X²(3) = 60.74, p < .001. In total, 55 out of the 101 participants (54.56%) who
saw the prominent placement recalled the brand Dirk, opposed to 41 out of the 110
participants (37.27%) who were exposed to the low prominent placement. Thus, prominence has a positive effect on brand recall. Furthermore, this effect seems more pronounced for the traditional placement: 44 out of the 54 participants (81.48%) who saw the traditional high prominent placement recalled the brand Dirk, opposed to 11 out of the 47 participants (23.40%) who were exposed to the creative high prominent placement.
Hence, prominence positively influences brand recall and this effect is more pronounced when the placement is traditional. Thus, the first hypothesis is accepted.
Effect of creativity and prominence on brand attitude
A two-way ANOVA was performed to test Hypothesis 2a, that a traditional low prominent product placement has a more positive effect on brand attitude than a creative low prominent product placement, but a creative high prominent product placement has a more positive effect on brand attitude than a traditional high prominent product placement.
As expected, no main effect of type of placement was found F(1, 207) = .13, p = .718, η² = .001. The creative placement (M = 3.85, SD = 1.07) did not have a different effect on brand attitude than the traditional placement (M = 3.90, SD = .85). There was also no significant main effect for prominence, F(1, 207) = .001, p = .975, η² = .00. The prominent placement (M = 3.87, SD = .91) did not have a different effect on brand attitude than the subtle placement (M = 3.88, SD = 1.01).
Furthermore, contrary to expectations, no interaction effect was found, F(1, 207) = 1.00, p = .317, η² = .005 (see Table 1). This means that the effect of traditional versus creative placement on brand attitude is not moderated by prominence, no interaction effect was found and therefore hypothesis 2a must be rejected.
Table 1
Means and standard deviations(in parentheses) for interaction of placement type and prominence on brand attitude*
Placement type Prominence
High Low
Creative 3.91 (.97) 3.79 (1.15)
Traditional 3.83 (.85) 3.97 (.86)
Note. *1 = high brand attitude, 7 = low brand attitude
Effect of creativity and prominence on purchase intention
To examine hypothesis 2b, that states that a traditional low prominent placement has a more positive effect on purchase intention than a creative low prominent placement, but a creative high prominent placement has a more positive effect purchase intention than a traditional high prominent placement, another two-way ANOVA was conducted.
Indeed, as expected, there was no significant main effect for prominence, F(1, 207) = .002, p = .964, η² = .00. A prominent placement (M = 4.19, SD = 1.44) did not have a
different effect on purchase intention than a subtle placement (M = 4.19, SD = 1.54).
However, the main effect for creativity was marginally significant, F(1, 207) = 3.46, p = .059, η² = .02, with creative placements (M = 3.98, SD = 1.49) having a more positive effect on purchase intention than traditional placements (M = 4.38, SD = 1.47).
Yet, contrary to expectations, no interaction effect was found, F(1, 207) = 1.75, p = .205, η² = .01 (see Table 2). This means that the effect of traditional versus creative placement on purchase intention is not moderated by prominence, no interaction effect was found and therefore hypothesis 2b must be rejected.
Table 2
Means and standard deviations (in parentheses) for interaction of placement type and prominence on purchase intention*
Placement type Prominence
High Low
Creative 4.14 (1.31) 3.85 (1.62)
Traditional 4.25 (1.54) 4.50 (1.40)
Note. *1 = high purchase intention, 7 = low purchase intention
Moderated mediation effect of persuasion knowledge on brand attitude and purchase intention
To test whether the effect of creativity on brand attitude and purchase intention is moderated by prominence and mediated by persuasion knowledge, a moderated mediation analysis is conducted. PROCESS Procedure for SPSS, written by Andrew F. Hayes (2013), Model 7 with 5000 bootstraps was used. In Figure 2, the diagram of one of the expected moderated mediation relationships is explained.
Figure 2. Diagram of moderated mediation relationship of creativity on brand attitude with prominence as
moderator and persuasion knowledge as mediator
The diagram depicts two moderated relationships, one from creativity to persuasion knowledge (X M) and the other from creativity to brand attitude (X Y, which was tested in the second hypothesis). Both relationships are diagrammed as moderated by prominence (W). In addition, there is an indirect effect of creativity on attitude through persuasion knowledge, depicted (X M Y). Thus, persuasion knowledge is believed to mediate the effects on brand attitude, dependent on the prominence. Furthermore, the same moderated mediation effect is expected for purchase intention.
Firstly, creativity is not significantly predicting brand attitude, b = .03, SE = .14, p = .843, 95% CI[-.25, .30]. Still, creativity is marginally predicting purchase intention, b = .40, SE = .20, p = .059, 95% CI[-.02, .81] as was tested in the second hypothesis. This means that a creative placement leads to a higher purchase intention (M = 3.98, SD = 1.49) compared to a traditional placement (M = 4.38, SD = 1.47).
Also, creativity is significantly predicting persuasion knowledge, b = .45, SE = .17, p = .008, 95% CI[.12, .79 ]. A creative placement leads to a lower level of persuasion
knowledge (M = 2.85, SD = 1.19) compared to a traditional placement (M = 3.29, SD = 1.31). Prominence is not significantly predicting persuasion knowledge, b = -.25 SE = .17 p = .143, 95% CI[-.58, .08].
Furthermore, the interaction between prominence and creativity is significantly predicting persuasion knowledge, b = -1.02, SE = .34, p = .003, 95% CI[-1.69, -.35]. A prominent creative placement (M = 2.71, SD = 1.09) evokes less persuasion knowledge compared to a prominent traditional placement (M = 3.67, SD = 1.40). These results indicate that a creative placement evokes less persuasion knowledge than a traditional placement and that the effect of creativity on persuasion knowledge is moderated by prominence.
However, persuasion knowledge is not significantly predicting brand attitude.07, p = .322, 95% CI[-.06, .19] nor purchase intention, b = -.02, SE = .09, p = .842, 95% CI[-.20, .17].
Hence, the fact that persuasion knowledge is activated, does not have an effect on brand attitude or purchase intention for both creative placements and traditional placements.
Table 3
Regression results for the moderated mediation model of creativity on brand attitude and purchase intention via persuasion knowledge with prominence as moderator in the relationship between creativity and reactance
Predictor b SE t p BC 5000 BOOT
Persuasion knowledge (mediator) LL95 UL95
Constant 3.07 .08 36.22 .000 2.90 3.23
Creativity .45 .17 2.69 .008 .12 .79
Prominence -.25 .17 -1.47 .143 -.59 .08
Creativity x prominence -1.02 .34 -3.01 .003 -1.69 -.35
Brand attitude (dependent variable 1)
Constant 3.68 .20 18.02 .000 3.28 4.08
Persuasion knowledge .07 .07 .99 .322 -.06 .19
Creativity .03 .14 .20 .843 -.25 .30
Purchase intention (dependent variable 2)
Constant 4.25 .31 13.62 .000 3.64 4.87
Persuasion knowledge -.02 .09 -.20 .843 -.20 .17
Creativity .40 .21 1.90 .059 -.02 .81
Conditional effects of creativity on brand attitude when prominence is low or high
Mediator Prominence Bootstrap indirect effect Bootstrap SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
PK -.52 (low) .06 .07 -.05 .21
PK .48 (high) -.001 .02 -.06 .03
Conditional effects of creativity on purchase intention when prominence is low or high
Mediator Prominence Bootstrap indirect effect Bootstrap SE Boot LLCI Boot ULCI
PK -.52 (low) -.02 .09 -.21 .16
Table 3 illustrates the regression results for the moderated mediation model of creativity on brand attitude and purchase intention via persuasion knowledge with prominence as
moderator. The results indicate that the conditional effects of creativity on brand attitude and purchase intention with persuasion knowledge as a mediator do not differ when prominence is low or high. This means that persuasion knowledge does not have any effect as a moderated mediator. Thus, there is no moderated mediation for persuasion knowledge and hypothesis 3a is rejected.
Moderated mediation effect of reactance on brand attitude and purchase intention
To test whether the effect of creativity on brand attitude and purchase intention is moderated by prominence and mediated by reactance (Hypothesis 3b), another moderated mediation analysis is conducted using Model 7 with 5000 bootstraps in PROCESS Procedure for SPSS (Hayes, 2013).
As stated before, creativity does not significantly predict brand attitude but it marginally significantly predicts purchase intention. Also, creativity significantly predicts reactance , b = .38, SE = .18, p = .040, 95% CI[.02, .74]. A creative placement leads to less reactance (M = 2.63, SD = 1.35) than a traditional placement (M = 3.00, SD = 1.31).
Furthermore, prominence does not significantly predict reactance, b = -.28, SE = .18, p = .125, 95% CI[-.64, .08]. The interaction between creativity and prominence is marginally significantly predicting reactance, b = -.69, SE = .36, p = .059, 95% CI[-1.41, .02]. A creative high prominent placement leads to less reactance (M = 2.58, SD = 1.21) compared to a
traditional high prominent placement (M = 3.32, SD = 1.32).
These results indicate that creativity predicts reactance, which means a creative placement evokes less reactance than a traditional placement. Also, the effect of creativity on reactance is marginally moderated by prominence.
However, reactance is not significantly predicting brand attitude, b = .05, SE = .05, t = .95, p = .34, nor purchase intention, b = -.02, SE = .08, t = -.31, p = .758. So, the fact that reactance occurs, does not have an effect on brand attitude or purchase intention.
Furthermore, to check whether the whole model can be accepted, the effects of reactance as a mediator of creativity on brand attitude and purchase intention was
investigated. There is no effect of reactance as a mediator on brand attitude, b = -.04, SE = .05, 95% CI[-.18, .03], nor is there an effect of reactance as a mediator on purchase intention,
b = .02, SE = .06, 95% CI[-.08, .17]. The table in Appendix C illustrates the regression results
for the moderated mediation model of creativity on brand attitude via reactance with
prominence as moderator. The conditional effects of creativity on brand attitude and purchase intention with reactance as a mediator do not differ when prominence is low or high. This means that reactance does not have any effect as moderated mediator. Concluding, there is no moderated mediation for reactance and hypothesis 3b is rejected.
Discussion
This study was the first to examine the effects of creativity of product placements on brand recall, brand attitude and purchase intention. Additionally, it was investigated whether effects of creative versus traditional placement were dependent on the prominence of the placement and if effects could be explained by the mediators persuasion knowledge or reactance. Results show that a prominent placement has a more positive effect on brand recall compared to a subtle placement. Furthermore, this effect is more pronounced when the placement is traditional compared to creative. Moreover, there was no effect of type of placement on brand attitude. For purchase intention, there was a marginally main effect of creativity with creative placements evoking higher purchase intention compared to traditional placements. The prominence of the placement did not moderate this effect. Additionally,
creativity is predicting persuasion knowledge and reactance: a creative placement leads to less persuasion knowledge and reactance than a traditional placement. However, persuasion knowledge and reactance do not mediate the effects of creativity on brand attitude and purchase intention.
Based on existing literature (e.g. Gupta & Lord, 1998; Cowley & Barron, 2008), it was predicted that a prominent product placement would have a more positive impact on brand recall compared to a subtle placement and the results of this present study are in line with these earlier findings. This understanding adds to the existing knowledge that indeed, a placements’ prominence is important for raising brand recall. However, results also give insight about the fact that creative placements are less recalled than traditional placements.
For future research, it would be interesting to investigate whether different forms of creativity could have more impact on brand recall, through for example a creative placement where the brand is recognized easier. Among others, Dens and colleagues (2012) argue that exposure to a brand name or logo in a placement increases accessibility of the brand stored in memory. A creative way of advertising such as CMA, where the brand name is clearly visible but it is the medium that makes it creative, implicitly communicating the message of the brand (Dahlén & Edenius, 2007; Dahlén, 2009), could be used as a new inspiration for creative placements. In this way, placements could still be more innovating and original than traditional placements but possibly evoke higher brand recall.
In addition, this study examined the effects of creativity and prominence on brand attitude and purchase intention. Following existing studies on creativity in advertising (e.g. El-Murad & West, 2003; El-Murad & West, 2004; Smith & Yang, 2004), it was predicted that a prominent creative placement would have a more positive effect on brand attitude and purchase intention compared to a prominent traditional placement. However, if the traditional and creative placements are compared when subtly placed, the opposite effect was assumed.
This interaction effect was expected because firstly, research shows that subtly placed traditional placements have a less negative effect on brand attitude compared to prominent placements (Matthes et al., 2007; Van Rijmersdal, 2009). Secondly, a creative placement is quite implicit and the brand is primed instead of explicitly communicated (Dahlén, 2005). Such an indirect approach needs more focus and attention from the viewers to notice and understand the placement, while traditional advertising is processed almost automatically (McQuarrie & Mick, 1996; Van Enschot, et al., 2006). For consumers to unravel the creative placements’ puzzle and for the placement to have its positive effects on consumer outcomes, it needs to be prominently placed.
Opposed to previous research (Smith & Yang, 2004; Dahlén & Edenius, 2007; Dahlén, 2009), no effect of creativity was found on brand attitude. This could be due to the fact that in the creative placement condition, out of the 100 participants, only 19 explicitly recalled to have seen the brand Dirk. Even though higher brand recall does not necessarily improve brand attitude (Russell, 2002), it is important that consumers at least understand which brand was placed in the creative placement, for the placement to have impact on consumer outcomes.
Another explanation for the lack of effect of creativity on brand attitude is the brand choice in this experiment. Studies namely show that high brand reputation provides the brand with a favourable first hearing and consequently its creative advertising receives greater impact (Dahlén, et al., 2009). In this study, a neutrally evaluated brand was chosen because a neutral attitude is more likely to be altered compared to an explicit and strong brand attitude (Gibson, 2008). Yet, it seems that creativity has a stronger positive effect on brands that already have a high brand reputation. A suggestion for future research is to investigate whether other more positively evaluated brands could benefit more from creative product placement and its effect on brand attitude in comparison to neutrally evaluated brands.
Although there was no effect of creativity on brand attitude, a creative placement did show a positive effect on purchase intention compared to a traditional placement, which is consistent with prior research about creativity in advertising (Smith & Yang, 2004). Yet, prominence did not seem to moderate this.
A possible explanation for the non-occurring interaction effect of creativity and prominence is the manipulation of the stimuli. Even though the prominent placement was perceived to be more prominent, there was also a main effect for creativity on perceived prominence. This means that participants who were exposed to a traditional placement considered it more obvious compared to participants exposed to a creative placement.
Although subtlety is what creative placements are praised for, the manipulation checks of the present study show that less subtlety in creative placements is necessary since the creative placement is perceived as less obvious already, even without the moderating effect of prominence. The manipulation of the prominence probably did not sufficiently catch the attention of the participants.
Therefore, for future research, a different manipulation of prominence is
recommended to make the creative placement less difficult to recognise (Matthes, et al., 2007). This way, consumers can succeed to give meaning to the placement, subsequently leading to a more positive attitude toward the brand (Dens, et al., 2012). The place on the screen is not the only way to manipulate prominence, it has also been operationalized as the integration into the plot, duration on screen and modality (visual/audio) (e.g. Russel & Belch, 2005; Cowley & Barron, 2008;; Bressoud, et al., 2010; Marchand et al., 2015). Especially a placement’s mode (visual, audio and audio-visual) could be an interesting way to
operationalize prominence as a moderator for creativity (Brennan, et al., 2009) and could show more effects of creativity on brand attitude, because it makes the creative placement less subtle.
Finally, based on the Persuasion Knowledge Model (Friestad & Wright, 1994) and Reactance Theory (Brehm, 1966) it was proposed that the effects of creativity and
prominence on brand attitude and purchase intention could be explained by the mediating effect of persuasion knowledge and reactance.
In line with past research (Dahlén, 2005), a creative placement provokes fewer unfavourable cognitive responses than a traditional placement. More specifically, a creative placement provokes less persuasion knowledge and reactance than a traditional placement. However, as opposed to previous research (Friestad & Wright, 1994, Van Reijmersdal et al., 2012; Boerman, et al., 2012), persuasion knowledge and reactance did not predict brand attitude and purchase intention. In other words, the activation of persuasion knowledge or reactance did not lead to different brand attitudes or purchase intentions.
An explanation for this is that the creative placement in the experiment has characteristics that resemble supraliminal priming (e.g. the subtlety, trying to reach the unconscious mind to influence consumers; Nelson, 2008). Supraliminal priming is the activation of mental representations to influence a consumer’s behavior such as purchase intention, delivered through a stimulus such as product placement (Minas, Poor, Dennis, & Bartelt, 2016). The fact that persuasion knowledge and reactance did not mediate the effect of creativity could be because consumers do not always have access to their conscious thoughts and can be persuaded by supraliminal messages without their knowledge (Nelson, 2008). Consumers can be consciously aware of the priming but not the intent behind the prime and may not realize that they are being persuaded by supraliminal persuasion attempts, or think they can control the influence (Nelson, 2008). Moreover, previous research on supraliminal priming states that even if consumers are aware of the persuasive intent, it can still influence their behavior (Minas et al., 2016).
lead to lower brand attitude and purchase intention. Hence, the fact that persuasion knowledge and reactance is activated, does not need to have impact on consumer outcomes. There might be other mediators that are more suitable for explaining the effects of type of placement on brand attitude and purchase intention. As mentioned before, creative advertising produces more favourable cognitive and affective responses and more desirable brand responses than traditional advertising (Smith & Yang, 2004). Emotions that have been attributed to
processing creative advertising are generallypositive: processing pleasure and enjoyment (Van Enschot, et al., 2006), satisfaction (Dahlén, 2009), engagement and involvement (Smith & Yang, 2004),feeling good (McQuarrie & Mick, 1996) and more upbeat feelings (Ang, et al., 2007).
The effects of creativity on brand evaluations are more likely to be the result of the positive feelings towards a placement instead of the absence of negative feelings such as reactance. Since research shows that people with a positive attitude towards a product placement have a more favourable attitude towards the brand (Weaver & Oliver, 2000), the aforementioned positive feelings could be better predictors of consumer outcomes than the negative feelings and should be investigated as mediators in future research, possibly finding more significant mediating effects.
Conclusion
This study has a number of implications, which are useful for academics and practitioners to better understand the phenomenon of creative product placement and giving more insight to those who wish to implement this relatively new strategy. For brand recall, traditional
placement seems to still be the most effective. However, the results show that creativity has a substantial persuasive potential and could have a positive impact on purchase intention. Furthermore, persuasion knowledge or reactance do not mediate the effects of creative
placements on brand attitude or purchase intention and more research is necessary to
investigate whether there are other mediators that are more suitable for predicting consumer outcomes.
For marketers, the results of this study implicate that if expanding brand awareness and creating more brand recall is the main objective, traditional placements are advised. However, if increasing purchase intention is priority, the more innovative and surprising creative placement is more suitable to achieve that goal.
Literature
Ang, S. H., Leong, S. M., Lee, Y. H., & Lou, S. L. (2014). Necessary but not
sufficient: Beyond novelty in advertising creativity. Journal of Marketing Communications,
20(3), pp. 214-230
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), pp. 115-141
Boerman, S. C., Van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2012). Sponsorship Disclosure: Effects of Duration on Persuasion Knowledge and Brand Responses. Journal of
Communication 62, pp. 1047-1064
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.
Brennan, I., Dubas, K. M., & Babin, L. A. (1999). The influence of product-placement type & exposure time on product-placement recognition. International Journal of Advertising,
18(3), pp. 323-337
Bressoud, E., Lehu, J., & Russell, C. A. (2010). The Product Well Placed. The Relative Impact of Placement and Audience Characteristics on Placement Recall. Journal of
Advertising Research, 50(4), pp. 374-385
Burgoon, M., Alvaro, E., Grandpre, J., & Voulodakis, M. (2002). Revisiting the Theory of Psychological Reactance. Communicating Threats to Attitudinal Freedom. The
Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice, Chapter 12. SAGE
Publications, Inc.
Campbell, M. C. (1995). When Attention-Getting Advertising Tactics Elicit Consumer Inferences of Manipulative Intent: The Importance of Balancing Benefits and Investments.
Cowley, E., & Barron, C. (2008). When Product Placement Goes Wrong: The Effects of Program Liking and Placement Prominence. Journal of Advertising, 37(1), pp. 89-98 Dahlén, M. (2005). The Medium As A Contextual Cue: Effects of Creative Media Choice. Journal of Advertising, 34(3), pp. 89-98
Dahlén, M. (2009). A Rethorical Question: What is the Impact of Non-traditional Media for Low- and High-Reputation Brands? Journal of Current Issues & Research in
Advertising, 31(2), pp. 13-23
Dahlén, M., & Edenius, M. (2007). When is Advertising Advertising? Comparing Responses to Non-Traditional and Traditional Advertising Media. Journal of Current Issues
& Research in Advertising, 29(1), pp. 33-42
Dahlén, M., Friberg, L., & Nilsson, E. (2009). Long Live Creative Media Choice.
Journal of Advertising, 38(2), pp. 121-129
Dahlén, M., Grandlund, A., & Grenros, M. (2009). The consumer-perceived value of non-traditional media: effects or brand reputation, appropriateness and expense. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 26(3), pp. 155-163
D’Astous, A., & Chartier, F. (2000). A Study of Factors Affecting Consumer Evaluations and Memory of Product Placements in Movies. Journal of Current Issues &
Research in Advertising, 22(2), pp. 31-40
Dens, N., De Pelsmacker, P., Wouters, M., & Purnawirawan, N. (2012). Do you like What you Recognize? Journal of Advertising, 41(3), pp. 35-54
El-Murad, J., & West, D. C. (2003). Risk and Creativity in Advertising. Journal of
Marketing Management, 19(5), pp. 657-673
El-Murad, J., & West, D. C. (2004). The Definition and Measurement of Creativity: What Do We Know? Journal of Advertising Research, 44(2), pp. 188-201
Cope with Persuasion Attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 1-31 Gibson, B. (2008). Can Evaluative Conditioning Change Attitudes toward Mature Brands? New Evidence from the Implicit Association Test. Journal Of Consumer Research, Vol. 35, pp. 178-197
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), pp. 47-59
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process
Analysis. A Regression-Based Approach. The Guilford Press.
Karrh, J. A. (1998). Effects of brand placements in motion pictures. Proceedings of the
1994 American Academy of Advertising, pp. 90-96
Lee, S. Y. (2010). Ad-induced affect: The effects of forewarning, affect intensity and prior brand attitude. Journal of Marketing Communications, 16(4), pp. 225-237
Liu, S., Chou, C., & Liao, H. (2015). An exploratory study of produc8t placement in social media. Internet Research, 25(2), pp. 300-316
Lyons, K. R. (2013). Examining Implicit Memory as a Measure of Effectiveness for
Product Placement of High and Low Prominence (Dissertation). Texas Tech University,
Texas.
Matthes, J., Schemer, C., & Wirth, W. (2007). More than meets the eye. International
Journal of Advertising, 26(4), pp. 477-503
McQuarrie, E. F., & Mick, D. G. (1996). Figures of Rhetoric in Advertising Language.
Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), pp. 424-438
Minas, R. K., Poor, M., Dennis, A. R., & Bartelt, V. L. (2016). A prime a day keeps calories away: The effects of supraliminal priming on food consumption and the moderating role of gender and eating restraint. Appetite, Vol. 105, pp. 494-499
Nelson, M. R. (2008). “The Hidden Persuaders”: Then and Now. Journal of
Advertising, 37(1), pp. 113-126
Russell, C. A. (2002). Investigating the Effectiveness of Product Placements in
Television Shows: The Role of Modality and Plot Connection Congruence on Brand Memory and Attitude. Journal Of Consumer Research, Vol. 29, pp. 306- 318
Russell, C. A., & Belch, M. (2005). A Managerial Investigation into the Product Placement Industry. Journal of Advertising Research, 45(1), pp. 73-92
Smith, R. E., & Yang, X. (2004). Toward a general theory of creativity in advertising: Examining the role of divergence. Marketing Theory, 4(1-2), pp. 31-58
Van Reijmersdal, E. (2009). Brand Placement Prominence: Good for Memory! Bad for Attitudes? Journal of Advertising Research, 49(2), pp. 151-153
Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2007). Effects of Television Brand Placement on Brand Image. Psychology & Marketing, 24(5), pp. 403-420
Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2009). A New Branch of Advertising. Reviewing Factors That Influence Reactions to Product Placement. Journal of
Advertising Research, 49(4), pp. 429-449
Wei, M., Fischer, E., & Main, K. J. (2008). An Examination of the Effects of Activating Persuasion Knwoledge on Consumer Response to Brands Engaging in Covert Marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 27(1), pp. 34-44
Yang, M., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (2007). The Effectiveness of Brand Placements in the Movies: Levels of Placements, Explicit and Implicit Memory, and Brand-Choice Behavior. Journal of Communication, 57(3), pp. 460-489
Appendix A. Pre-test outcomes for attitude and purchase intention
Attitude* Purchase intention**
Supermarket Mean (M) Sdt. Deviation (SD) Mean (M) Std. Deviation (SD)
Aldi 4.87 1.70 5.00 1.62 Jumbo 2.73 1.89 2.61 1.88 Marqt 2.61 1.69 2.96 1.85 Albert Heijn 2.05 1.92 1.83 1.76 Dirk 3.65 1.55 4.00 1.64 Plus 4.09 1.77 4.70 1.65 Spar 4.83 1.49 5.00 1.47 Lidl 4.83 1.79 4.83 1.79
Appendix B. Stimuli
