PARODY AND PERSUASION
Potential effects of parody product placement on viewing audiences
Jason Caesar Teetz
Presented to the faculty of the University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Communication
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Master’s thesis 02.02.2018
Abstract
This study set out to assess whether alternating types of product placement, namely
regular product placement and more blatant, humorous parody product placement
would have different effects on consumers’ brand attitude and brand liking. As well
as whether levels of understanding of persuasive intent of sponsored content and
skepticism towards it would mediate these effects. Participants (N = 190) to an online
experiment were shown movie clips that portrayed either an instance of regular or
parody product placement. The research found no significant effects of product
placement types on brand attitude or brand recall, and also no mediating effect of
persuasion knowledge. Despite preexisting research suggesting links between the
concepts of product placement, humor, persuasion knowledge, brand attitude and
brand recall, this study did not garner any support for our assumptions. This may be
due to limitations in the research design and conduction, or may be due to a different
combination of effects than was expected. Humor may not have distraught enough
from the prominence and obvious nature of the persuasion attempt of parody product
Parody and Persuasion
Nowadays, product placements can be found in a vast amount of movies, and expenditures are continuing to grow (Wennekers, Vandeberg, Zoon, & Van
Reijmersdal, 2016). Be it main characters using digital devices from a certain brand, driving a specific brand car, or simply going to a given store and buying products. Among this vast amount of product placements, which are the ones that stand out in that they are memorable and stick with an audience?
Arguably, one of those memorable instances can be found in Mike Myers’ 1992 comedy Wayne’s World. In Wayne’s World (1992) exists a scene in which the two protagonists very explicitly proclaim their disdain for ‘selling out’ and becoming corporate shills. Doing so, however, the protagonists are all the while very obviously and in a vastly over-stylized manner holding different brand products into the camera and overacting their enjoyment of said products (see Figure 1).
Product placement has been broadly researched in the past decades (e.g. Balasubramanian, 1994; Balasubramanian, Karrh, & Patwardhan, 2006; Gibson, Redker, & Zimmerman, 2014; Rovella, Geringer, & Sanchez, 2015; Williams & Petrosky, 2011), leaving us with a good understanding of how it works and how audiences are affected, for instance in their brand attitudes and recall. Similarly, the benefits of humor in advertising have been laid bare by a multitude of studies (see: Eisend, 2009). Their combination, as in the situation of Wayne’s World (1992), has yet to be researched in a meaningful manner though.
Product placement, in general, has the effect of taking away the clearly
discernable commercial intent, as viewers are not realizing per se that they are subject
to advertisement, while being exposed to advertising, nonetheless (Ferraro & Avery,
2000; Gupta & Lord, 1998). Adding to this, product placement has an especially large
effect when the implementation of the product is logical within the overall plot
(Rovella et al., 2015), due to the reality enhancement of the product within the
respective world (Russell, 2002). A scene like the one described above clearly breaks
coherence within the story in order to make a distinct joke that is easily discernible.
How does parody product placement, meaning the satirical and blatant
appraisal of a product or brand, differ from regular product placement, with respect to
its effects on viewers? Regular product placement that seamlessly blends into the
surrounding context of the editorial content that it is in, is defined by being
unobtrusive and becoming a natural part of its world (Ferraro & Avery, 2000; Gupta
& Lord, 1998; Russell, 2002). Parody product placement, on the other hand, enters a
meta-level where surrounding coherence is broken in order to directly advertise to the
audience. By poking fun at product placement and advertising within editorial
It has long been understood that humorous advertisements are likely to make a
different impression on the viewer than a commercial that seeks to be plain and
factual instead (Weinberger & Gulas, 1992). On multiple occasions, it has been
shown that the use of humor in advertisements has a positive effect on the attention
that is being paid to that advertisement, as well as positive effects on the attitude
towards the brand being advertised (e.g. Eisend, 2009; Weinberger & Gulas, 1992).
Parody, as a form of humor, can often portray something more of a
countercultural meaning, actively proclaiming controversy and arguably even
grandstanding against ‘the commercial message of capitalism’ (Jean, 2011). This,
therefore, takes an even grander step away from the commercial intent that
advertising and product placement exude, rendering parody product placement a stark
contrast to regular product placement.
Persuasion knowledge may be more easily activated by the front and center
appeal of parody product placement, or it may be subdued by the satirical approach of
parody product placement. On one hand, parody product placement is far less veiled
than regular product placement. On the other, it appears to be ridiculing the general
practice of sponsored content. In research from 2017, Boerman, Van Reijmersdal,
Rozendaal, and Dima distinguish 9 components of persuasion knowledge. Two of
these are intent and skepticism, referring to an understanding of the commercial and
persuasive intent of sponsored content, and a general tendency of showing disbelief
towards sponsored content, respectively (Boerman, Reijmersdal, Rozendaal, & Dima,
2017). The aforementioned overtness of parody product placement may differently
impact the understanding of intent than regular product placement. At the same time,
the humor and self-awareness of parody product placement may avoid skepticism that
The question guiding this research, therefore, goes as follows:
“What are the effects of different types of product placements (regular product
placement vs. parody product placement) on viewers’ brand attitudes and brand recall in movies, and are these effects mediated by an understanding for the intent of product placement, as well as skepticism towards it?”
Theoretical Framework Parody product placement
Product placement, also commonly referred to as sponsored content (Boerman et al.,
2017), brand placement (Wennekers et al., 2016) or entertainment marketing (Rovella
et al., 2015), describes the implementation of commercial content in non-commercial
settings (Williams & Petrosky, 2011). Consisting of both a verbal and an auditory
aspect has proven the most effective, but product placements also commonly make
use of only one of the two (Russell, 1998). Regular product placement aims to avoid
activation of counter-arguing and skepticism on behalf of the viewer, as may occur
when audiences are faced with obviously branded, commercial content that has an
easily distinguishable persuasive intent (Gillespie & Joireman, 2016; Obermiller &
Spangenberg, 1998). Another issue for advertisers is that consumers often can easily
avoid being subjected to regular advertisements by switching television channels or,
with the rise of on-demand capabilities (e.g. recording content, streaming content),
simply skipping advertisements (Bellman, Schweda, & Varan, 2010; Rovella et al.,
2015). Product placement, on the other hand, is ingrained in editorial content in such a
way that viewers cannot really avoid exposure (Rovella et al., 2015).
As product placement does not explicitly identify its sponsor or a persuasive
potential to go over unnoticed, subconsciously affecting viewers (Ferraro & Avery,
2000; Gupta & Lord, 1998; Russell, 2002) without activating coping mechanisms
(Friestad & Wright, 1994). Product placements, in general, are constructed so that
they blend in with the surrounding media, which can lead to a spillover effect
(Balasubramanian et al., 2006) that has viewers’ positive attitudes of the medium
color their attitude towards placed brands or products (Gupta & Gould, 1997). This
positive effect of product placement may also be related to balance theory, which
describes how when a given person (A) likes another person (B), who in turn likes a
product (X), then A is likely to feel more positive towards X, as well (Cartwright &
Harary, 1956). In other words, when our favorite character uses a given product (i.e.
indicating a probable liking or preference), we will tend to think positively about that
product, too.
Research has shown that product placement can positively affect brand
attitude, as well as brand recall. As mentioned above, Gupta and Gould (1997) found
that viewers’ brand attitudes could be positively impacted by means of the brands
being placed in the context of movies that the viewers enjoy. Furthermore, the effect
of product placement is also enhanced when the product is implemented in the plot or
scene in a logical manner (Rovella et al., 2015), due to the effect of reality
enhancement (Russell, 2002).
Existing research, however, has mainly focused on regular product placement,
as opposed to the newly suggested parody product placement. As previously outlined,
parody product placement starkly contrasts regular product placement’s subtlety.
Parody product placement combines product placement with humor and a brazen
Having established that product placement has many positive effects on things
such as brand attitude and brand recall, the question arises what works best. Existing
research has not definitively established whether prominence of commerciality of
product placement in movies are to be judged as good or bad things (Van
Reijmersdal, Neijens, & Smit, 2009). On one hand, product placement largely
benefits from being subversive, unobtrusive, and thereby subconsciously affecting
viewers, as opposed to them immediately discerning a persuasion attempt (Ferraro &
Avery, 2000). On the other hand, placing a brand more prominently has been shown
to leave more lasting impressions in terms of processing what is portrayed (Rovella et
al., 2015).
Building on existing research, we propose that humor, as is employed in
parody product placement, may be utilized in a way that could increase the positive
effects of product placement on brand attitude and recall. While claims that humor
could positively impact the effects of commercials were debated early on, we now
generally accept that humor can have positive consequences, on brand attitude, for
example (Eisend, 2009).
Not only can humor significantly enhance brand attitude of subjected
individuals (Eisend, 2009; Weinberger & Gulas, 1992); generally, humorous scenes
have been proven to elicit more positive brand attitudes in individuals (Jin & Villegas,
2007). Rovella, Geringer, and Sanchez (2015) also found that information processing
is improved when subjected individuals are in a positive mood, as can be induced by
humor (Szabo, 2003). Based on the aforementioned findings, we propose that the
aspect of humor in parody product placement will contribute to the positive effects of
H1: Parody product placement will have a more positive effect on brand
attitude than regular product placement.
While regular product placement has products or brands subtly woven into the
fabric of a given medium, parody product placement makes an effort to humorously,
as well as bold and loudly advertise in a parodist way. More specifically, parody
product placement makes a point of having characters break structural coherence of a
scene to advertise a product to the viewer. Research has found that the audio-visual
mention of products in movies positively affects brand recall (Van Reijmersdal,
Neijens, & Smit, 2009). Van Reijmersdal, Neijens and Smit (2009) also found that
main characters interacting with a brand or product on screen, positively impacted
brand memory in viewers. Similarly, Gupta and Lord (1998) found that prominent
product placements resulted in higher levels of brand recall than subtle product
placements or regular advertisements.
Studies have found that humor has a positive effect on viewers’ attention
(Duncan, 1979; Weinberger & Gulas, 1992) and, more specifically, outperforms
non-humor conditions (Weinberger & Gulas, 1992). Related to these findings, subjects
that are experiencing positive moods while they are faced with commercial messages
tend to show increased levels of information processing and resulting brand recall
(Rovella et al., 2015). Already as early as 1979, research by Calvin Duncan found that
humor in commercial content can enhance attention and subsequent memory
(Duncan, 1979). Moreover, it was found that parody in advertising can elicit positive
brand recall (Jean, 2011). For parody product placement, we assume this will further
induced by more prominent product placements. Building on the findings described
above, we arrive at the second hypothesis:
H2: Parody product placement will have a more positive on brand recall than
regular product placement.
Parody product placement and the activation of persuasion knowledge
As we outlined previously, we assume that parody product placement will outperform
regular product placements that are lacking a humorous appeal, with respect to brand
attitude and recall. However, the increased prominence of the persuasive attempt of
the parody product placements also means a diversion from the usual case of being
relatively indistinguishable from the surrounding editorial content. This is of
importance, in that subversive product placement can avoid activating viewers
persuasion knowledge and potentially resulting measures of counter-arguing (Ferraro
& Avery, 2000).
Advertising, in essence, is a means of persuasion. The advertiser (agent)
formulates and dispatches a message that aims to persuade the consumer (target) to
perform a given action, such as buying a product. In due time, however, consumers
learn from their experiences, leading them to develop persuasion knowledge. This, in
turn, enables the consumers to assess persuasion attempts as such, and to potentially
enact coping mechanisms (Friestad & Wright, 1994).
When consumers can discern that the content being viewed is of commercial
nature, hence understanding there is a persuasive intent, they are more likely to
encounter it with skepticism, their persuasion knowledge having been activated
MacLachlan, 2005). Central aspects of parody product placement, as outlined above,
are visual and auditory prominence, manifested as an emphatic persuasive attempt
directed at the viewer, which would then lead to an increased understanding of the
intent.
As we have established previously, obvious commercial motivations of
product placement are less acceptable to consumers (Gupta & Gould, 1997) and
product placement, specifically, garners much of its effect from being subversive
(Ferraro & Avery, 2000; Gupta & Lord, 1998; Russell, 2002). In line with this, the
humorous nature is likely to activate higher levels of attention (Duncan, 1979;
Weinberger & Gulas, 1992), which in turn is likely to contribute to a heightened
understanding of intent. With respect to consumers’ understanding of the fact that
there is a persuasive intent to a message that they are receiving, we propose that
parody product placement will more easily activate that understanding than regular
product placement would. We therefore suggest the following hypothesis:
H3: Parody product placement will have a more negative effect on
understanding of a message’s persuasive intent than regular product
placement.
Humor in advertising, while heightening attentiveness (Duncan, 1979;
Weinberger & Gulas, 1992), is also known to distract the consumer from potential
brand negativity (Strick, Holland, van Baaren, & van Knippenberg, 2012). Therefore,
we believe that parody product placement differently affect consumers’ general
distraction of parody product placement may divert consumers from directly realizing
and attending to a persuasion attempt (Strick et al., 2012; Wennekers et al., 2016).
Consumers with high levels of persuasion knowledge are likely to have more
critical opinion of advertisements and persuasive attempts on them, making their
brand attitude less positively affected by regular product placement (Wennekers et al.,
2016). Parody product placement, however, may circumvent the critical assessing to
some extent. Parody works by poking fun at the central characteristics of something
(Zinkhan & Johnson, 1994), such as the concept of product placement in this case.
Sylvie Jean (2011) even goes so far as stating that parody may somewhat be defined
by an anti-commercial theme. In other words, parody product placement might throw
viewers off, in the sense that the humorous and overly noticeable means by which it
operates have viewers not assess it as a serious persuasive attempt. This, in turn,
would minimize the likelihood of strongly activated skepticism. On the basis of these
assumptions, we propose the following hypothesis:
H4: Parody product placement will have a less positive effect on viewers being
generally skeptical of a persuasion attempt than regular product placement.
Understanding of intent and skepticism as mediators
Taking into account the argumentations portrayed above, we presume that the
understanding of the persuasive and commercial intent of sponsored content, as well
as a general skepticism regarding sponsored content, will mediate the effects of
product placement types on consumers’ brand attitude and brand recall.
As described, parody product placement is thought to affect brand attitude and
the effects of product placement types will have different impacts on the
understanding of persuasive intent and skepticism of commercial content. Both
skepticism and understanding of intent, as persuasion knowledge components,
mediate the effects that product placement type has on brand attitude and brand recall
(Gupta & Gould, 1997; Obermiller et al., 2005; Russell, 2002). Therefore, we suggest
the following hypotheses:
H5: The effect of product placement type on brand attitude is mediated by
understanding of (H5a), and skepticism towards persuasive intent (H5b) of a
message.
H6: The effect of product placement type on brand recall is mediated by
understanding of (H6a), and skepticism towards persuasive intent (H6b) of a
message.
Figure 2. Conceptual model.
Design
This study was conducted as a one factor, between-subjects design, comparing two
levels of product placement type (regular and parody product placement). For each of
those levels, there were two conditions, one each from the movie Happy Gilmore
(1996) and Return of the Killer Tomatoes (1988). In other words, each movie featured
a scene of regular product placement, as well as parody product placement. Overall,
there were four individual conditions, which participants were randomly assigned to.
The dependent variables were brand attitude and brand recall. Additionally,
two mediator variables were made use of, namely understanding of persuasive intent
of sponsored content and skepticism towards sponsored content.
Participants
In total, 301 responses were recorded; however, 111 cases were incomplete
and hence excluded, resulting in a final N = 190 complete, valid cases. Most of the
incomplete cases had participants discontinue their participation, without any
explanation, after having seen the stimulus material. The average age of participants
was 29.69 years (SD = 11.08), of which 60.0% were female and of which 81.7% had
completed a bachelor’s degree or higher level of education. The sample is a
convenience sample, in order to assure that the aimed-at amount of participants could
be achieved within the timely constraints of the thesis period. Participants were
acquired via social media, e-mail, and specialized channels for survey distribution
(e.g. SurveyTandem). The study aimed to assume a distribution similar to the overall
population, attempting a more or less equal distribution in terms of participants’
gender. Furthermore, the main body of the sample is made up of students, which is
of young, highly educated, and media-savvy adults that are likely to be well in touch
with popular culture and, hence, are more likely to comprehend humor (Mak &
Carpenter, 2007).
Procedure
As this study was performed as an online experiment in Qualtrics, the participants
conducted the study on their respective private computers and other digital devices.
The procedure for the online experiment went as follows: First, participants
were subjected to an introduction and had to give their informed consent. Second,
each participant was randomly assigned to one of the four video stimuli. The four
conditions were Return of the Killer Tomatoes (1988) regular product placement (n =
50), Return of the Killer Tomatoes (1988) parody product placement (n = 48), Happy
Gilmore (1996) regular product placement (n = 48), and Happy Gilmore (1996)
parody product placement (n = 44). Next, brand attitude was measured, followed by
measurements for conceptual and evaluative persuasion knowledge, and free brand
recall. Then, a three-question manipulation check was posed, as well as multiple
control variables being conducted. Finally, participants were asked to specify their
demographics, before being de-briefed and given the opportunity to leave a comment,
if they so wished.
Materials
Participants were shown one of four movie clips (two from Return of the Killer
Tomatoes [1988] and Happy Gilmore [1996] each), which were 1 minute and 40
seconds in length to assure the viewers had some context to facilitate better
regular product placement or parody product placement. In other words, an regular
product placement and parody product placement example were taken from each of
the movies. The clips were taken from movies that both fall into the genre of comedy
and focused on male protagonists. In the regular product placement materials, the
protagonists were faced with (emotional) challenges in scenes that briefly mentioned
the respective brands and showed them on screen. More specifically, in both instances
the branded items were not the center of visual attention of the scene and were in
focus for just a few seconds. The movie clips for the parody product placement
condition had the protagonists explicitly advertise the respective products, while they
were shown on screen for an extended duration. Specifically, the parody product
placement materials had the protagonists clearly mention the brand in a way devoid of
necessary or cohesive connection to the greater, overarching plotline, as well as the
addressee being the audience.
The stimulus materials from Return of the Killer Tomatoes (1988) centered on
the brand “Honda”, while the clips from Happy Gilmore (1996) focused on the brand
“Subway”. In order to assure relative comparability, the RPP stimulus from Return of
the Killer Tomatoes (1988) was edited so that the brand was not merely shown in the
clip, but also was mentioned acoustically. The clip was edited to include an audio
recording mentioning the brand (“Honda, take me away!”) that was recorded
separately and engineered to blend naturally into the scene (i.e. the volume of the
recording was matched to the distance at which the speaking character was in the
scene, getting more quiet as he moved further away). Exemplary stills from both of
the movie clips can be found in the appendix, giving an insight into the visual
Measures Brand attitude.
The first dependent variable, brand attitude, was measured by means of a seven point
scale, with the question “I think of [Brand] (brand) as...” holding six items for each
inquired brand: unappealing/appealing, bad/good, unpleasant/pleasant,
unfavorable/favorable, unlikable/likable, and negative/positive. The six items are a
combination of the items used in previous research conducted by Spears & Singh
(2004) and Jin & Villegas (2007). A factor analysis revealed that all items loaded onto
one factor for the Brand recall of “Honda” (Eigenvalue = 4.84, EV: 80.60%, α = .95,
M = 4.41, SD = 1.09), as well as “Subway” (Eigenvalue = 5.06, EV: 84.38%, α = .96, M = 4.27, SD = 1.49) indicating strong correlations. For both of the brands, mean
score variables were created in SPSS. Means and standard deviations for all central
variable can be found in Table 1.
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, and percentages for the central variables, as
per the two conditions.
Regular Product Placement Parody Product Placement
Brand Attitude (Honda) 4.45 (1.14) a 4.37 (1.04) a
Brand Attitude (Subway) 4.26 (1.50) a 4.28 (1.50) a
Brand Recall 63.3% a 59.8% a
Understanding of persuasive intent 5.93 (1.13) a 5.86 (1.10) a
Skepticism of sponsored content 3.68 (1.14) a 3.65 (1.17) a
Note. Mean values and percentages of correct recall, respectively. Standard deviation is in brackets. 1 = low, 7 =
Brand recall.
The second dependent variable, brand recall, was measured as free recall, with
participants being asked whether they recalled any brand(s) from the movie clip. If a
participant replied “Yes” (72.6%), a new question appeared “What brand(s) do you
recall seeing in the movie clip?”, followed by a free entry box. The responses given
were automatically coded in Excel, with no answer (38.7% recalled no brand) being
coded as 0, and a correct mention of Honda or Subway (61.3% correct recall) being
coded as 1.
Persuasion knowledge.
Persuasion knowledge was measured by means of select questions from the
Persuasion Knowledge Scale of Sponsored Content (PKS-SC) (Boerman et al., 2017).
The PKS-SC measures conceptual and evaluative persuasion knowledge using a total
of nine components. For this study, one component of the conceptual persuasion
knowledge measures (understanding of persuasive intent) and one component from
the evaluative persuasion knowledge measures (skepticism) were selected each, on
the basis of their relevance to this study.
Of the conceptual persuasion knowledge items, understanding of persuasive
intent of sponsored content was used for this study, which was measured on a seven
point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree – 7 = strongly agree). The selected question,
“Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements. The
reason brands are mentioned or shown in movies is to...”, measured six items
(…stimulate people to want the advertised brand, …encourage people to buy the
attention to the brand, …make people remember the brand). All six items loaded onto
one factor (Eigenvalue = 4.28, EV: 71.30%, α = .92, M = 5.90, SD = 1.11). The
individual variables were then recoded into one measure of understanding of intent.
For the measuring of evaluative persuasion knowledge, skepticism towards
sponsored content was posed that was measured on a seven point scale. The question,
“Brands sometimes pay the producers of a movie to show their brand within the
movie. What is your opinion about this? I think that showing brands (for which the
brand has paid) in movies is...”, held five items: dishonest/honest, not
trustworthy/trustworthy, incredible/credible, not truthful/truthful, and insincere/sincere. The five items of this variable all loaded onto one factor
(Eigenvalue = 3.51, EV: 70.18%, α = .89, M = 3.62, SD = 1.15), with Cronbach’s
alpha being high enough for a reliable scale to be developed, and were hence
combined into one measure of skepticism.
Control Variables.
Multiple control variables were set up as part of the experiment in order to control for
potential alternative explanations. First, on separate seven point scales, ranging from
1 (extremely positive) to 7 (extremely negative), participants were asked to indicate
their feelings towards Adam Sandler (M = 3.74, SD = 1.61) and George Clooney (M =
2.50, SD = 1.05). Second, it was inquired how often participants watch feature-length
movies on a scale with five items (1 = 3 or more times per week, 2 = 1-2 times per
week, 3 = Once every two weeks, 4 = Once per month, 5 = Less than once per month), M = 2.90, SD = 1.03. Then, participants were asked how attentively they had followed
the stimulus material via a seven-point scale (1 = very attentively – 7 = not attentively;
material previously (84.2% had not seen the movie previously). Finally, a number of
demographic questions were asked; age, gender, level of education, and English
proficiency were assessed.
Results Randomization
Respondents of the four conditions were assigned to either a regular product
placement or parody product placement condition, respondents of the two regular and
parody product placement conditions were later combined into one group each. The
two groups of the experiment did not differ significantly with respect to age, F
(1,188) = 1.97, p = .162, gender χ2 (1) = 2.02, p = .155, education χ2 (5) = 4.61, p =
.465, or English proficiency, χ2 (2) = 3.48, p = .176. Neither, did they differ
significantly for their liking of Adam Sandler, χ2 (18) = 17.38, p = .497, and George
Clooney, χ2 (12) = 7.97, p = .787, as well as the frequency that the participants
watched movies, χ2 (12) = 9.87, p = .627, or the attention they indicated they had paid
to the stimulus material they were shown, χ2 (18) = 22.40, p = .215. Participants did,
however, differ significantly with respect to whether they had see the movie from
which the stimulus clip was taken, χ2 (3) = 25.02, p < .005, with 14.2% of
participants in the Happy Gilmore (1996) condition having seen the movie, while only
1.6% of participants in the alternate condition had seen Return of the Killer Tomatoes
(1988). This is likely to be explained by the fact that Happy Gilmore (1996) is
arguably far less of a niche movie, having been rated on IMDb.com by 169.213 users
(Happy Gilmore, 2018), as opposed to Return of the Killer Tomatoes (1988) which
Product placement type effects
To determine whether H1 held up to scrutiny, a one-way ANCOVA was run. The first
ANCOVA was conducted to determine whether there was a significant difference
between the regular product placement (n = 98) and parody product placement
conditions (n = 92) on brand attitude towards the brand that the participant had seen
in their condition’s stimulus material (M = 4.43, SD = 1.27), when controlled for
whether they were familiar with the movie prior to the experiment. No significant
effect of product placement types on brand attitude was found, after controlling for
whether the movie had been seen, F (1,187) = .31, p = .579.
H2 posed that PARODY PRODUCT PLACEMENT would have a greater
effect on participants’ brand recall than RPP. A Chi-square test was conducted to
compare the frequency of the brand shown in the stimulus material being correctly
recalled by the participants. The results showed no significant interaction of the two
variables, χ2Total (1) = .24, p = .622. When controlling the effect for whether
participants had seen the movie prior to the research, the results were also
insignificant. Participants in the parody product placement condition were not
significantly more likely correctly recall the brand they saw (63.3%) than they were in
the regular product placement condition (59.8%). In total, that amounts to 32.6%
valid recall in the regular product placement condition, as opposed to 28.9% in the
parody product placement condition.
Parody product placement, understanding of intent, and skepticism
In order to determine whether there were any significant results for hypotheses three
through six mediation analyses were conducted. The output of mediation analyses in
Figure 3. Mediation model.
On the basis of the analysis conducted, we could not determine any significant
direct effect of product placement type on participants’ level of understanding of
persuasive intent, controlling for whether a movie had been seen prior to participation
in the study, b = .07, p = .676. Therefore, hypothesis 3 was rejected.
Further, the analysis of a direct effect of product placement type on skepticism
towards sponsored content, again controlling for potential effects of participants
having seen the movie from their stimulus material before, did also not result in a
significant direct effect, b = -.12, p = .477. As with the previous analysis, these results
also had us reject the hypothesis (H4).
Regarding the actual mediation of the effect of product placement type on
brand attitude, by understanding of persuasive intent, we could not find any
significant regression of product placement type with brand attitude (c), b = .11, p =
.560. Second, the regression of product placement type with understanding of
persuasive intent of sponsored content (a), also did not result in any significant
outcome for H5a, b = -.07, p = .676. Similarly, the regression of product placement
type with skepticism of sponsored content (a) for H5b, also did not result in any
for H5a, understanding of persuasive intent, was not significant with respect to
participants’ brand attitude, b = .08, p = .343. However, the mediator for H5b,
skepticism towards product placements (b), did result in a significant effect, b = .28, p
< .001. Finally, the indirect effects of product placement type on brand attitude were
insignificant for both mediator variables. H5a showed no significant results for an
indirect effect of product placement type on brand attitude (c’), via understanding of
persuasive intent, F (3,186) = .52, p = .666, R2 = .00. However, we did find a
significant indirect effect of product placement type on brand attitude, as mediated by
skepticism towards sponsored content (c’) for H5b,F (3,186) = 4.46, p = .005, R2 =
.07.
Next, we looked at the effect of product placement type on brand recall, as
mediated by respondents’ understanding of persuasive intents of sponsored content
(H6a) and their skepticism towards it (H6b). For this analysis, we conducted a linear
regression. The analysis did not result in any direct effect of product placement type
on understanding of intent (a) for H6a, b = -.07, p = .676, or on skepticism towards
sponsored content (a) for H6b, b = -.12, p = .477. The outcome for the second step of
H6a, the effect of understanding of persuasive intent on brand recall (b), warranted no significant results, b = .04, p = .757. The same went for H6b’s direct effect of
skepticism of product placement on brand recall, b = -.20, p = .133. Lastly, neither of
the indirect effects measured in H6a and H6b showed any significance. The indirect
effect of product placement type on brand recall, as mediated by understanding
persuasive intent (c’), b = -.15, p = .617, and as mediated per skepticism (c’), b = -.18,
p = .556, garnered insignificant results. A listing of the results for the mediation
Table 1. Mediation: Results from PROCESS output, testing the effects of product
placement types (X) on brand attitude (Y1) and brand recall (Y1), mediated by persuasion knowledge intent (M1) and persuasion knowledge skepticism (M2).
Note. Controlled for movie familiarity. a, b, c and c’ are unstandardized b-coefficients. Standard error
is in brackets. BCAB – Bias corrected and accelerated bootstrap-interval.
* p < .001
Conclusion & Discussion Conclusion.
This study was conducted to consider the notion of different types of product
placements, namely regular product placement and parody product placement, and
whether these might have alternating effects on brand attitude and brand recall. The
effects of product placement on brand attitude and recall had previously been
established (Gupta & Gould, 1997; Van Reijmersdal et al., 2009). Based on literature
that added that humor can have positive effects on brand attitude and recall (Eisend,
2009), assumptions were made that parody product placement may have more
a b c c’ Indirect Effect [95% BCAB] Intent Brand Attitude -.07 (.16) .08 (.08) .10 (.18) .11 (.19) -.01 (.02) [-.08, .02] Brand Recall -.07 (.16) .28 (.08) -.15 (.30) -.00 (.00) [-.00, .00] Skepticism Brand Attitude -.12 (.17) .28 (.08)* .14 (.18) .10 (.18) -.03 (.05) [-.15, .05] Brand Recall -.12 (.17) -.20 (.13) -.18 (.30) .00 (.00) [-.00, .00]
positive effects on brand attitude and recall, than regular product placements.
However, these assumptions could not be substantiated by means of this research.
Existing research had indicated that product placement could positively affect
brand attitude (Gupta & Gould, 1997; Lacroix & Martin, 2013) and that this effect
could be further increased when the placement was especially prominent (Wennekers
et al., 2016). Furthermore, we assumed that this effect may work in combination with
the established positive effect that humor has on brand attitude (Eisend, 2009;
Weinberger & Gulas, 1992). This study was not able to find any significantly
different effects of regular and parody product placement on brand attitude. This may
be due to the fact that the attention-grabbing nature of parody product placement
could have activated viewers’ realizations of ongoing persuasion attempts. Also, the
humor might have increased their liking for the jokes in a given scene, not however
for the brands within them.
Similarly, the second hypothesis guiding this study assumed a similar positive
impact of product placement and humor on brand recall. Prior research had shown
that (humorous) movies may induce positive moods (Jin & Villegas, 2007) and
increase attention (Weinberger & Gulas, 1992), and that these, in turn, can positively
affect brand recall (Rovella et al., 2015). In line with the elaboration likelihood model
of Petty and Cacioppo (1986), we assumed that heightened attention, due to the front
and center nature of parody product placement, would increase brand recall.
Contrarily, our analysis showed that the two types of product placement did not
significantly differ in their effects on brand recall. Here, the distracting effect of
humor that Stick et al. (2012) found could potentially have also distraught viewers
What we did find is that regular product placement and parody product
placement did not differ significantly with respect to their effects on consumers’
brand attitudes or their brand recall. Similarly, we did not find that alternating types
of product placements had any significant effects on the levels of understanding of
persuasive intent of sponsored content and the skepticism towards that content. The
results of our analyses could also not substantiate any significant mediation of product
placement types on brand attitude, as mediated by the understanding of persuasive
intent of product placements. Likewise, there was also no mediated effect of product
placement types on brand recall, via understanding of intent or the skepticism towards
sponsored content. However, we did find that there was a significant effect of product
placement types on brand attitude as mediated by skepticism towards sponsored
content.
Most of the results of this study did not confirm the assumptions that were
made previously. Despite our reading of the literature that humor might aide parody
product placement in such a way that it would have more positive effects on brand
attitude and brand liking, the hypotheses had to be rejected on the basis of the
analyses’ results. While we postulated that humor and a bold approach on behalf of
parody product placement may in unison have positive impacts, benefits gained by
humor and satirical farce may have been nullified by heightened activation of
persuasion knowledge.
Our study did find that product placement type had an indirect effect on brand
attitude via skepticism towards sponsored content. As we argued in our theoretical
framework, humor can have a distracting effect on viewing audiences. This means
that the satirical approach of parody product placement was able to subdue the
negatively affect their brand attitudes. Instead of seeing the product placement as a
skeptically viewed persuasive attempt, the comical aspect had them value it as
comedy, rather than a brand’s attempt on them.
Overall, our research found that making use of parody product placement, as
opposed to regular product placements, does not vary strongly in its effects.
Advertisers aren’t wrong to rely on regular product placements, but parody product
placements also do not lessen the effects of sponsored content. Moreover, effects on
brand attitude can actually be impacted more positively by parody product placement
in the face of some forms of persuasion knowledge, i.e. skepticism. The theoretical
implications of this study are inconclusive, but allude to a possibility of humorous
iterations of product placement holding potential for future research.
Limitations & Suggestions for future research
This research does include a number of limitations that may have impacted the results
that were established by it. Firstly, while the movie clips that were chosen as the
stimulus materials were examples taken from actual movies, making them more real,
they did differ from one another on a number of factors. The scenes were selected to
be similar to one another, but the plot, settings and actors did not compare exactly, as
they might have if the clips had been created specifically for this study. While Van
Reijmersdal et al. (2009) suggest that choosing actual movie clips, in order to increase
external validity, clips crafted for this research could have further limited any
discrepancies between the conditions. In line with the previous point, the movies also
were not released in particularly close temporal proximity, with 8 years separating
Carpenter, 2007), the large divide between the releases may affect participants
understanding of the humor that was applied.
Second, humor is a subjective concept, meaning that the movie clips that were
chosen for the parody product placement condition may not have had the same effect
on all participants, with some of them potentially not finding the clips amusing or at
least not more amusing than the clips in the alternative condition. Future research may
make use of more diverse movie clips that play on a wider range of humor, thereby
minimizing the potential for a lack of appreciation for the humor affecting results.
Similarly, a broader, more heterogeneous sample might also render greater impacts.
Another limitation is that participants of the experiment did not experience the
movie clips as regular viewers of the respective movies may have. Participants in this
study partook in the experiment via their personal digital devices (e.g. laptop or
mobile phone) and were only shown the short clips from the movies, as opposed to
regular viewers that would likely be watching the entire films and, hence, be getting
an entirely different context and experience. These things detract from how viewing
audiences would usually be affected and perhaps enjoyed/valued the movie clips they
were shown. Going into a movie viewing with the mindset of wanting to enjoy a
comedy is likely to garner different perceptions and, hence, different results than
viewing these clips as a part of partaking in an experiment.
Finally, with a mean age of 29 years and 81.7% of participants having
completed a bachelor’s degree or higher level of education, the sample is not
representative of a broader population. Therefore, the results are to be understood as
being limited to their scope of meaning. On the basis of the previously established
understanding that highly educated and younger individuals are more comprehensive
skewed results into too strong of an effect, as opposed to what might be expected
from a sample more representative of the broader population.
Given these limitations, future research in the matter should aim to find a
broader array of stimuli, potentially being created especially for the research at hand,
so that the differences between the clips can be minimized. This also would open up
the possibilities towards having products of the same level of involvement.
Furthermore, future research could change the external condition in such a way that
participants are less likely to be watching the movie clips and, generally, partaking in
the experiment in a myriad of different surroundings. Finally, a larger and more
homogenous sample would surely add to the overall possibility of generalizing any
References
Balasubramanian, S. K. (1994). Beyond Advertising and Publicity: Hybrid Messages
and Public Policy Issues. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 29–46. doi:
10.1080/00913367.1943.10673457
Balasubramanian, S. K., Karrh, J. A., & Patwardhan, H. (2006). Audience Response
to Product Placements: An Integrative Framework and Future Research Agenda.
Journal of Advertising, 35(3), 115–141. doi: 10.2753/JOA0091-3367350308
Bellman, S., Schweda, A., & Varan, D. (2010). The Residual Impact of Avoided
Television Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 39(1), 67–82. doi:
10.2753/JOA0091-3367390105
Boerman, S. C., Reijmersdal, E. A. Van, Rozendaal, E., & Dima, A. L. (2017).
Development of the Persuasion Knowledge Scales of Sponsored Content
(PKS-SC).
Cartwright, D., & Harary, F. (1956). Structural balance: a generalization of Heider’s
theory. Psychological Review, 63(5), 277–293. doi: 10.1037/h0046049
Duncan, C. P. (1979). Humor in advertising: A behavioral perspective. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 7(4), 285–306. doi: 10.1007/BF02729680
Eisend, M. (2009). A meta-analysis of humor in advertising. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 37(2), 191–203. doi: 10.1007/s11747-008-0096-y
Ferraro, R., & Avery, R. J. (2000). Brand Appearances on Prime-Time Television.
Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 22(2), 1–15. doi:
10.1080/10641734.2000.10505104
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People
Cope with Persuasion Attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1. doi:
Gibson, B., Redker, C., & Zimmerman, I. (2014). Conscious and nonconscious effects
of product placement: Brand recall and active persuasion knowledge affect brand
attitudes and brand self-identification differently. Psychology of Popular Media
Culture, 3(1), 19–37. doi: 10.1037/a0032594
Gillespie, B., & Joireman, J. (2016). The Role of Consumer Narrative Enjoyment and
Persuasion Awareness in Product Placement Advertising. American Behavioral
Scientist, 60(12), 1510–1528. doi: 10.1177/0002764216660136
Gupta, P. B., & Gould, S. J. (1997). Consumers’ perceptions of the ethics and
acceptability of product placements in movies: Product category and individual
differences. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 19(1), 37–
50. doi: 10.1080/10641734.1997.10505056
Gupta, P. B., & Lord, K. R. (1998). Product Placement in Movies: The Effect of
Prominence and Mode on Audience Recall. Journal of Current Issues &
Research in Advertising, 20(1), 47–59. doi: 10.1080/10641734.1998.10505076
Jean, S. (2011). Brand parody: a communication strategy to attack a competitor.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(1), 19–26. doi:
10.1108/07363761111101912
Jin, C., & Villegas, J. (2007). The effect of the placement of the product in film:
Consumers’ emotional responses to humorous stimuli and prior brand
evaluation. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing,
15(4), 244–255. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jt.5750049
Lacroix, K., & Martin, N. (2013). How people react to product placement: A
comparative study between normal product placement and non-ethical prodcut
placement.
Brand Memory: A Perspective of the Limited-Capacity Model of Attention.
Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 75–90. doi: 10.2753/JOA0091-3367360406
Mak, W., & Carpenter, B. D. (2007). Humor comprehension in older adults. Journal
of the International Neuropsychological Society : JINS, 13(4), 606–14. doi:
10.1017/S1355617707070750
Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2005). Ad Skepticism: The
Consequences of Disbelief. Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 7–17. doi:
10.1080/00913367.2005.10639199
Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a Scale to Measure
Consumer Skepticism Toward Advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
7(2), 159–186. doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp0702_03
Rovella, M., Geringer, S. D., & Sanchez, R. (2015). Viewer Perception of Product
Placement in Comedic Movies. American Journal of Management, 15(1), 36–49.
Russell, C. A. (1998). Toward a Framework of Product Placement: Theoretical
Positions. Advances in Consumer Research, 25(1), 357–362. doi:
10.1049/el.-20010457
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, 29(3), 306–318.
doi: 10.1086/344432
Strick, M., Holland, R. W., van Baaren, R. B., & van Knippenberg, A. (2012). Those
who laugh are defenseless: How humor breaks resistance to influence. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(2), 213–223. doi: 10.1037/a0028534
Szabo, A. (2003). The Acute Effects of Humor and Exercise on Mood and Anxiety.
10.1080/00222216.2003.11949988
Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Neijens, P., & Smit, E. G. (2009). A New Branch of
Advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 49(4), 429–449. doi:
10.2501/S0021849909091065
Weinberger, M. G., & Gulas, C. S. (1992). The Impact of Humor in Advertising: A
Review. Journal of Advertising, 21(4), 35–59. doi:
10.1080/00913367.1992.10673384
Wennekers, A. M., Vandeberg, L., Zoon, K., & van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2016).
Distinguishing Implicit from Explicit Brand Attitudes in Brand Placement
Research. In M. Eisend, T. Langner, & S. Okazaki (Eds.), Advances in
Advertising Research (Vol. VI) (pp. 253–267). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien
Wiesbaden. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-10558-7_20
Williams, K., & Petrosky, A. (2011). Product placement effectiveness: revisited and
renewed. Journal of Management & Marketing Research, 6491(May), 1–24. doi:
10.1300/J057v10n01
Zinkhan, G. M., & Johnson, M. (1994). The use of parody in advertising. Journal of
Advertising, 23(3), 3–8. Retrieved from
Appendix A Stimuli
Still from Happy Gilmore (1996), Regular product placement condition
Still from Return of the Killer Tomatoes (1988), Regular product placement condition
Appendix B Questionnaire
Start of Block: Informed Consent
Dear participant,
I would like to invite you to participate in an online experiment that is conducted
under the auspices of the Graduate School of Communication, a part of the University
of Amsterdam. The subject of the study is ‘the effect of hybrid movie clips' and is
conducted to get a better idea of how people react to hybrid movie clips, consisting of
editorial and commercial content. We kindly ask you to watch a video and
subsequently answer several questions. This experiment will take approximately 10
minutes to complete.
You will be asked to watch a video and answer some questions about the video you
watched. The survey ends with some demographical questions.
We ask you to participate only if you are at least 18 years old.
As this research is being carried out under the responsibility of the ASCoR,
University of Amsterdam, we can guarantee that:
1) Your anonymity will be safeguarded, and that your personal information will not
be passed on to third parties under any conditions, unless you first give your express
permission for this.
2) You can refuse to participate in the research or cut short your participation without
having to give a reason for doing so.
3) Participating in the research will not entail your being subjected to any appreciable
risk or discomfort, the researchers will not deliberately mislead you, and you will not
4) No later than five months after the conclusion of the research, we will be able to
provide you with a research report that explains the general results of the research.
For more information about the research and the invitation to participate, you are
welcome to contact the project leader Jason C. Teetz at any time (jc.teetz@gmx.de).
Should you have any complaints or comments about the course of the research and
the procedures it involves as a consequence of your participation in this research, you
can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing ASCoR, at
the following address: ASCoR Secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of
Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐525 3680; ascor‐secr‐
fmg@uva.nl.
Any complaints or comments will be treated in the strictest confidence.
We hope that we have provided you with sufficient information. We would like to
take this opportunity to thank you in advance for your assistance with this research,
which we greatly appreciate.
Kind regards,
Jason C. Teetz
Page Break
I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and
method of the research, as described in introduction for this study.
I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I
retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so.
I am aware that I may halt my participation in the experiment at any time.
If my research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in
express permission.
If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in
future, I can contact Jason C. Teetz. Should I have any complaints about this research,
I can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing the
ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics Committee, University
of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐ 525 3680; ascor‐secr‐
fmg@uva.nl.
o
I consent, begin the study (1)o
I do not consent, I do not wish to participate (2)End of Block: Informed Consent
Start of Block: Stimulus Return of the Killer Tomatoes RPP
Please take the time to view this movie clip intently and in its entirety before you
move on to the next question.
End of Block: Stimulus Return of the Killer Tomatoes RPP
Start of Block: Stimulus2 Return of the Killer Tomatoes PPP
Please take the time to view this movie clip intently and in its entirety before you
move on to the next question.
End of Block: Stimulus2 Return of the Killer Tomatoes PPP
Please take the time to view this movie clip intently and in its entirety before you
move on to the next question.
End of Block: Stimulus3 Happy Gilmore RPP
Start of Block: Stimulus4 Happy Gilmore PPP
Please take the time to view this movie clip intently and in its entirety before you
move on to the next question.
End of Block: Stimulus4 Happy Gilmore PPP
Start of Block: Brand Attitude
I think of Honda (brand) as...
1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) unappealing (1)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
appealing bad (2)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
good unpleasant (3)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
pleasant unfavorable (4)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
favorable unlikable (5)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
likable positive (6)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
negative Page BreakI think of Pepsi (brand) as... 1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) unappealing (1)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
appealing bad (2)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
good unpleasant (3)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
pleasant unfavorable (4)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
favorable unlikable (5)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
likable positive (6)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
negative Page BreakI think of Burger King (brand) as... 1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) unappealing (1)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
appealing bad (2)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
good unpleasant (3)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
pleasant unfavorable (4)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
favorable unlikable (5)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
likable positive (6)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
negative Page BreakI think of Coca Cola (brand) as... 1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) unappealing (1)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
appealing bad (2)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
good unpleasant (3)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
pleasant unfavorable (4)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
favorable unlikable (5)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
likable positive (6)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
negative Page BreakI think of Toyota (brand) as... 1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) unappealing (1)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
appealing bad (2)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
good unpleasant (3)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
pleasant unfavorable (4)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
favorable unlikable (5)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
likable positive (6)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
negative Page BreakI think of Subway (brand) as... 1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) unappealing (1)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
appealing bad (2)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
good unpleasant (3)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
pleasant unfavorable (4)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
favorable unlikable (5)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
likable positive (6)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
negativeEnd of Block: Brand Attitude
Start of Block: Conceptual Persuasion Knowledge
After having watched the movie clip, please answer the following questions.
Did you see any advertising in the clip?
o
Yes. (1)o
No. (2)Display This Question:
If After having watched the movie clip, please answer the following questions. Did you see any adver... = Yes.
You indicated that you saw advertising in the movie clip.
Can you please briefly describe what this advertising looked like?
________________________________________________________________
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements.
The reason brands are mentioned or shown in movies is to...
Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) … stimulate people to want the advertised brand. (1)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
… encourage people to buy the brand. (2)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
… sell products. (3)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
… make people think positively about the brand. (4)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
… attract attention to the brand. (5)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
… make people remember the brand. (6)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Page BreakTo what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements: Strongly disagree (1) Disagree (2) Somewhat disagree (3) Neither agree nor disagree (4) Somewhat agree (5) Agree (6) Strongly agree (7) Seeing brands in a movie influences me. (1)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Seeing brands in a movie influences me without me realizing it. (2)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
I have bought a brand or product after I had seen it in a movie. (3)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
I liked a brand more after seeing it in a movie. (4)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
I know certain brands because I have seen them in a movie. (5)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
End of Block: Conceptual Persuasion Knowledge
Brands sometimes pay the producers of a movie to show their brand within the movie.
What is your opinion about this?
I think that showing brands (for which the brand has paid) in movie is ...
1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) dishonest (1)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
honest not trutsworthy (2)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
trustworthy incredible (3)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
credible not truthful (4)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
truthful insincere (5)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
sincereI think that showing brands (for which the brand has paid) in movies is:
1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) inappropriate (1)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
appropriate unacceptable (2)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
acceptable wrong (3)o
o
o
o
o
o
o
rightbad taste (4)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
good tasteundesirable
(5)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
desirableunfair (6)
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
fairillegitimate
Display This Question:
If Happy Gilmore (RPP condition) Is Displayed Or Happy Gilmore (PPP condition) Is Displayed
Sometimes brands are shown in movies. For instance, in Happy Gilmore (1996).
I think that showing brands in movies is:
1 (0) 2 (1) 3 (2) 4 (3) 5 (4) 6 (5) negative (1)
