Brand integration: A successful tool to generate
positive consumer responses?
An experimental study into the effects of brand integration on brand attitude and
behavioral intention, and the mediating role of persuasion knowledge
Master’s Thesis
Student: Priscilla Zandbergen Student number: 10210156
Master track: Persuasive Communication Graduate School of Communication Master’s program Communication Science University of Amsterdam
2
Abstract
This study examined how brand integration in a TV series influences consumer responses (i.e. brand attitude and behavioral intention) through conceptual and attitudinal persuasion
knowledge. By conducting an online experiment (N = 168) the effects of high brand
integration and low brand integration were compared, using clips of the American TV series
The Big Bang Theory. Results showed that brand integration level does not have an effect on
brand attitude and behavioral intention. At the same time, conceptual persuasion knowledge and attitudinal persuasion knowledge did not explain these expected effects. Hence, brand integration level does not have an effect on the activation of both conceptual and attitudinal persuasion knowledge and consequently does not affect consumer responses. Although the hypotheses were not confirmed, this study has other interesting outcomes that deserve
attention in future research. Other suggestions for future research and limitations of this study are further discussed in the last section of this thesis.
3
Introduction
Worldwide an estimated 10.6 billion US dollars were spent on product placement in 2014 according to a report from PQ Media (‘Global product placement spending’, 2016). This is an astonishing amount of money and it is predicted that by the time it is 2018 the expenditures on this advertising strategy are even higher (‘Global product placement spending’, 2016). The use of paid placements is showing an upward trend and these numbers demonstrate that brand placement is a popular advertising strategy. Brand placement is referred to as the inclusion of branded products within media programming (Karrh, 1998) with the intention to influence consumers’ attitudes and behaviors (Newell, Salmon, & Chang, 2006).
Brand integration is seen as an important characteristic of a brand placement and refers to the integration of the brand into the story (Russel, 2002) where the brand is being
integrated throughout the program content (Belch & Belch, 2014). The use of a brand placement, and thus brand integration, is considered to be successful when exposure to the brand leads to favorable attitudes and behavioral intentions of viewers (Lehu & Bressoud, 2009). The direct effect of brand integration on brand attitude is examined in previous research, showing that high brand integration results in a more positive evaluation of the brand compared to low brand integration. However, the underlying process that may cause this effect still needs to be investigated. Based on the Persuasion Knowledge Model, previous researchers (Russel, 2002; Bhatnagar, Aksoy, & Malkoc, 2004; Dens, De Pelsmacker,
Wouters, & Purnawirawan, 2012) have made speculations about the influence of brand integration on brand attitude through persuasion knowledge. At the same time, the empirical research to prove these statements is lacking and therefore the mediating role of persuasion knowledge is examined in this study.
In addition, a brand placement in general has a positive effect on behavioral intention (Gould, Gupta, & Grabner-Krauter, 2000; Yang & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2007). However, this
4
effect may vary as a function of brand integration since brand placement characteristics can have a differential impact on consumer responses. Furthermore, the underlying process of persuasion knowledge may explain the effect of brand integration on behavioral intention just like is expected with brand attitude.
Hence, in this study the effects of brand integration on brand attitude and behavioral intention are examined. Furthermore it studies to what extent these effects are mediated by persuasion knowledge. The following research question is formulated:
To what extent does brand integration have an effect on brand attitude and behavioral intention, and are these effects mediated by persuasion knowledge?
The present study is relevant because it examines the underlying process of persuasion knowledge which is suggested in previous literature for brand attitude, but has not been examined yet. Moreover, the effect of brand placement characteristics on consumers’ behavioral intention is not so extensively examined in previous studies. Brand integration is seen as an important dimension of brand placement (Russel, 2002) and examining both direct and indirect effect of brand integration on behavioral intention through persuasion knowledge therefore contributes to scientific knowledge.
In addition, for marketers it is relevant to know whether the use of integrated brand placements is effective. It is essential to know if high integrated placements lead to more positive brand attitudes and behavioral intentions than low integrated placements. The underlying process of persuasion knowledge is also relevant information for practitioners in the field. When persuasion knowledge is activated, resulting in the recognition and
understanding of the persuasive intent, and activation of critical feelings, viewers get resistant. Marketers can use insights from this study to find ways to reduce this resistance and increase brand attitudes and behavioral intentions.
5
Theoretical framework Brand integration
Brands can be placed in media content in many different ways. Russel (1998) distinguishes three dimensions of brand placement characteristics in her Tripartite Typology. The first two dimensions, the visual appearance of the brand on screen and the verbal mention of the brand, refer to the modality of the brand placement (Russel, 1998). These two dimensions, which can be combined in a scene of a movie or program, are defined as the prominence of the brand placement (Gupta & Lord, 1998; Dens et al., 2012). Prominence refers to the extent to which the brand is noticeable in a movie or program and if the brand is a central focus of audience attention (Cowley & Barron, 2008). The third dimension, which stands apart from
prominence, refers to the degree to which the brand is integrated into the storyline (Russel, 1998) and is considered an import characteristic of a brand placement (Russel, 2002). Brand integration means that the brand is being integrated throughout the program content (Belch & Belch, 2014) and refers to the involvement of the brand in the storyline and the interaction of the brand with the main character(s) (Russel, 2002).
Low versus high. The literature distinguishes between low brand integration and high brand integration. Low brand integration could be defined as a brand that is placed in media content but which is not integrated into the storyline (Tiwsakul, Hackley, & Szmigin, 2005). The brand does not contribute much to the story and there is little or no interaction of the brand with the main character(s) (Russel, 2002). An example of low brand integration is in multiple episodes of the American sitcom Two and a Half Men. The main characters Alan and Charlie are having general conversations (in the kitchen, or on the couch, or on the balcony) and meanwhile Charlie is drinking a beer from the German brand Radeberger. The beer brand is visible on screen, but does not play a central role in these clips. Neither Charlie, nor Alan
6
verbally mentions Radeberger and the bottle of beer does not contribute much to the story. The beer brand is placed within the media content, but is not connected to the storyline.
High brand integration refers to the integration of the brand into the program content (Russel, 1998) where the brand takes an important place in the storyline or becomes a part of the plot (Russel, 2002; Tiwsakul et al., 2005). The brand plays a central role, is present in the foreground and is congruent with the storyline (Tiwsakul et al., 2005; Russel, 2002), and the main characters are involved with the placed brand (Russel, 2002). High integrated brands are part of the story and are therefore considered as closely related (Russel, 2002) and fitting to the plot (Dens et al., 2012). An example of high brand integration is in the episode ‘Game Changer’ of the American docucomedy Modern Family, where much of the show was
devoted to the father’s request for an iPad from Apple. On the day of the father’s birthday the iPad was launched, however the wife had some difficulties managing to get one. The whole episode was about finding a suitable iPad and in the end the family finally obtained one; the father got an iPad from Apple for his birthday. This example shows that a brand can be highly integrated into a storyline and is intertwined with the program content.
Consumer responses
Attitude toward the brand. Brand attitude is an important consumer response (Fransen & Van den Putte, 2012) and can be defined as the overall evaluation of a brand (Keller, 2003). Russel (2002) stressed that the way a brand is integrated into the storyline is an important characteristic of a brand placement since it can determine how a brand is
evaluated (Russel, 2002). Brand integration ‘significantly influences viewers’ attention to and attitude toward the placed brand’ (Dens et al., 2012, p. 36). High integrated brands are woven throughout the storyline and are perceived as part of the plot (Russel, 2002). The brand placement has a natural appearance (Russel, 2002) and is congruent with the storyline (Dens et al., 2012). Consequently, attention is drawn to the storyline instead of to the brand itself
7
(Van Reijmersdal, 2009). Due to the embedded nature of high integrated brands and the low level of attention these placements draw it is less likely the brand is perceived as persuasive (Russel, 2002; Dens et al., 2012; Verhellen, Dens, & De Pelsmacker, 2015). When a brand placement is not considered as an attempt to persuade, than a positive change in brand attitude will occur (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Low brand integration, contrary to high brand
integration, has a weak connection to the storyline and is therefore seen as unnatural (Russel, 2002), and incongruent with the plot (Dens et al., 2012). Such low integrated placements draw attention and are perceived as persuasive (Russel, 2002) since they are placed in the storyline for commercial motives (Dens et al., 2012). Due to its unnatural appearance and weak
connection to the story, a low integrated brand is more likely to be perceived as persuasive (Russel, 2002; Dens et al., 2012; Verhellen et al., 2015). When a brand placement is perceived as persuasive, then a negative change in brand attitude will occur (Friestad & Wright, 1994).
Behavioral intention. With behavioral intention, which is seen as an important consumer response (Fransen & Van den Putte, 2012), a similar effect can be expected to occur. Behavioral intention refers to the influence brand placements have on viewers’
purchase and usage intentions (Hudson, Hudson, & Peloza, 2008). It is argued that the extent to which a brand placement is considered in terms of its persuasive intent can affect viewers’ behavioral intention (Friestad & Wright, 1994), such that a low degree of perceived
persuasiveness will result in a positive change in behavioral intention and a high degree of perceived persuasiveness will result in a negative change in behavioral intention (Friestad & Wright, 1994). A high integrated brand is characterized by its low level of attention and is therefore less likely to be perceived as persuasive (Russel, 2002; Dens et al., 2012), and consequently positively affects behavioral intention (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Low brand integration is characterized by its high level of attention and is therefore more likely to be
8
perceived as persuasive (Russel, 2002; Dens et al., 2012) resulting in a negative change in behavioral intention (Friestad & Wright, 1994).
At the same time, research showed that prominence as a brand placement
characteristic influences viewers’ intention to purchase and use the placed brand, such that subtle placements result in higher purchase intentions compared to prominent placements (Law & Brown, 2000; Lyons, 2013). This is explained in previous research because subtle placements draw less attention since they have a background position and consequently viewers are less likely to consider the placement as persuasive. As a result, the brand is processed positively resulting in a higher purchase intention (Cowley & Barron, 2008; Van Reijmersdal, 2009). Prominent placements, however, draw more attention due to their
presence in the foreground. As a result, the brand placement is more likely to be perceived as an attempt to persuade and processed negatively resulting in a lower purchase intention (Cowley & Barron, 2008; Van Reijmersdal, 2009). Given that high brand integration draws less attention, as with subtle placements (Dens et al., 2012) and low brand integration draws more attention, as with prominent placements (Dens et al., 2012), it can be argued that high brand integration also positively effects behavioral intention compared to low brand
integration.
Furthermore, a previous study showed that behavioral intentions are high when consumers have a positive brand attitude and when consumers evaluate a brand negative their behavioral intentions are low (Yang & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2007). Hence, the attitude toward the brand, and consumers’ intention to purchase and use the brand, are interrelated (Lu, Chang, & Chang, 2014). This relation can be explained by the Theory of Planned Behavior (Ajzen, 1991) that assumes that attitudes are predictors of the intention to behavior. Since research showed that high integrated brand placements lead to a positive brand attitude and low integrated brand placements result in a negative brand attitude (Russel, 2002; Dens et al.,
9
2012, Verhellen et al., 2015) it can be assumed in the present study that high brand integration indeed results in a high behavioral intention compared to low brand integration.
According to the literature discussed, it can be hypothesized that high integrated brand placements have a positive effect on viewers’ brand attitude and behavioral intention
compared to low integrated brand placements (See Figure 1.). The following hypothesis is formulated:
H1: A high (low) integrated brand placement has a) a positive (negative) effect on brand
attitude and b) a positive (negative) effect on behavioral intention.
Persuasion knowledge
Persuasion Knowledge Model. A theory that could explain the underlying process of why high brand integration results in positive brand attitudes and high behavioral intentions compared to low brand integration is the Persuasion Knowledge Model (Friestad & Wright, 1994). This model was developed to describe how individuals develop knowledge about persuasion (i.e. persuasion knowledge). Friestad and Wright (1994) argue that through persuasion knowledge brand attitudes and behavioral intentions can be affected. Persuasion knowledge refers to the recognition of advertising, the analyzing, interpreting and evaluating of persuasive attempts, and the execution of tactics how to cope with these persuasive attempts (Friestad & Wright, 1994; Lee, Choi, Quilliam, & Cole, 2009). The cognitive process of recognizing advertising and understanding the persuasive attempt, selling attempt and the tactics that are used is known as conceptual persuasion knowledge (Rozendaal, LaPierre, Van Reijmersdal, & Buijzen, 2011). Besides using conceptual persuasion knowledge, attitudinal persuasion knowledge can be activated (Rozendaal et al., 2011; Boerman, Neijens, & Van Reijmersdal, 2012). Due to the embedded nature of brand
integration individuals are less motivated to process the brand placement elaborately and may make use of their emotions as a response to the placement. This attitudinal dimension contains
10
critical feelings toward a persuasive attempt, thus critical attitudes about honesty,
trustworthiness and credibility of the use of branded products (Rozendaal et al., 2011). Hence, it is important to take conceptual persuasion knowledge, as well as attitudinal persuasion knowledge into account in examining the effect of persuasion knowledge (Boerman et al., 2012).
Brand attitude & behavioral intention. It is argued in previous literature that high brand integration draws less attention compared to low brand integration because the brand is integrated into the storyline (Russel, 2002; Dens et al., 2012). The brand plays a central and natural role, and becomes part of the plot (Russel, 2002). Consequently, the brand placement is perceived as less persuasive (Russel, 2002; Dens et al., 2012). In other words, brands that integrate well with the storyline are less likely to raise suspicion of advertising motives (Bhatnagar et al., 2004). Attention is drawn to the storyline and not to the brand itself and its persuasive attempt (Van Reijmersdal, 2009). According to the Persuasion Knowledge Model (Friestad & Wright, 1994) it can be argued that high brand integration results in lower
persuasion knowledge than low brand integration. With high brand integration it is less likely viewers recognize and understand the persuasive attempt of the brand placement (Friestad & Wright, 1994), and use their emotions as a critical defense (Rozendaal et al., 2011). Viewers’ persuasion knowledge is not activated and as a result the brand is not perceived as persuasive. Previous studies have already argued that indeed when a brand placement draws less attention viewers do not recognize the advertising motives and do not cope with the persuasive
attempts (Bhatnagar et al., 2004; Van Reijmersdal, 2009; Dens et al., 2012). A low integrated brand placement, however, draws more attention and consequently viewers recognize and understand the persuasive intent of the brand placement (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Viewers activate their persuasion knowledge and the brand is perceived as persuasive (Bhatnagar et al., 2004; Russel, 2002; Dens et al., 2012).
11
Friestad and Wright (1994) argue that the extent to which a brand placement is perceived as persuasive can affect viewers’ brand attitude and behavioral intention. In other words, the degree of persuasion knowledge determines how viewers evaluate the placed brand and form behavioral intentions (Friestad & Wright, 1994). The less a brand placement is considered as persuasive, or put differently the less persuasion knowledge one has, the more positively the brand will be processed resulting in a positive brand attitude and a high
behavioral intention (Friestad & Wright, 1994). At the same time, the more a brand placement is perceived as persuasive, in other words the more persuasion knowledge one has, the more negatively the brand will be processed resulting in a negative brand attitude and a low behavioral intention (Friestad & Wright, 1994).
Hence, high brand integration draws less attention and consequently persuasion
knowledge is less likely to be activated and used to criticize the brand placement resulting in a positive change in brand attitude and behavioral intention (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Low brand integration draws more attention and as a result persuasion knowledge is more likely to be activated and used as a critical defense resulting in a negative change in brand attitude and behavioral intention (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Matthes, Schemer and Wirth (2007) argued that indeed when a brand placement draws less attention it is less likely viewers are feeling disturbed by the brand placement. As a result, it is less likely viewers consider the brand placement as an attempt to persuade them and persuasion knowledge will not be used to criticize the brand placement. It is less likely viewers resist the persuasive attempt resulting in positive brand responses (Matthes et al., 2007).
According to the Persuasion Knowledge Model (Friestad & Wright, 1994) and the literature discussed it can be hypothesized that high integrated brand placements lead to less activated conceptual and attitudinal persuasion knowledge resulting in a positive brand
12
attitude and a high behavioral intention compared to low integrated brand placements (See Figure 1.). The following hypotheses are formulated:
H2: A high (low) integrated brand placement has a) a positive (negative) effect on
brand attitude and b) a positive (negative) effect on behavioral intention, and these effects are mediated by conceptual persuasion knowledge, such that high (low) brand integration leads to less (more) activated conceptual persuasion knowledge which result in a positive
(negative) brand attitude and a high (low) behavioral intention.
H3: A high (low) integrated brand placement has a) a positive (negative) effect on
brand attitude and b) a positive (negative) effect on behavioral intention, and these effects are mediated by attitudinal persuasion knowledge, such that high (low) brand integration leads to less activated (more) attitudinal persuasion knowledge which result in a positive (negative) brand attitude and a high (low) behavioral intention.
Method Design
This study made use of an online experiment. Within the experiment a one factorial (brand integration: low x high) between-subjects experimental design was used. Participants in the first condition watched a short clip which contained high brand integration (n = 87, 51.8%) and participants in the second condition watched a short clip which contained low brand integration (n = 81, 48.2%).
Sample
In total 236 individuals participated in the experiment, however, 68 participants did not completed the survey fully and were therefore removed from the data file. In total 168 participants (N = 168) between 18 and 57 years old (Mage = 26.14, SD = 8.32, 67.9% female)
were included in the analyses. The majority of the sample had a Dutch nationality (n = 154, 91.7%) and most participants had a university degree (n = 72, 42.9%). The majority indicated
13
to be a student (n = 91, 54.2%) and of this number most individuals studied communication (n = 32, 35.2%).
Via convenience sampling the participants were recruited for the online experiment. A link to the survey was posted on Facebook and was sent to the network of the researcher by e-mail. Via a snowball method (‘t Hart, Boeije, & Hox, 2009) the link to the online survey was shared and sent forward by participants to other people of whom they thought were willing to participate.
Procedure
Before the actual experiment started participants were informed about the nature of the study and gave permission for their participation in the online experiment. Informed consent is required in order to meet the ethical standards of scientific research. Participants were told they were going to watch a short clip of the TV series The Big Bang Theory after which they were asked to answer some questions related to this clip. Participants were randomly
assignment to one of the two clips and could only click through to the next page after seventy seconds to make sure that they watched the clip fully. After exposure to the clip participants first answered several questions about their attitude toward the clip, their attitude toward the TV series in general and their memory of the placed brand. Then questions were asked about participants’ brand attitude and behavioral intention, and their conceptual and attitudinal persuasion knowledge. Next several questions related to background variables were addressed such as brand familiarity, brand usage, attitude toward the use of brand placement in the clip and attitude toward the main character. To check whether the manipulation was successful participants were also asked to answer some questions about the integration level of the placement. Finally, participants were asked to answer some general questions related to demographic characteristics after which they were thanked for their participation.
14
Stimulus material
According to Chan (2016) the genre comedy contains a lot of brand placements since brands are easier placed when the content contains entertaining elements. Hence, it was
decided to choose a TV series with comedy as genre in the present experiment. Two clips were selected from the TV series The Big Bang Theory, an American sitcom, since this is a popular TV series for the general public (‘About The Big Bang Theory’, n.d.).
To measure the presence of integrated brand placements, a content analysis was performed. The researcher analyzed a few episodes of The Big Bang Theory. Every verbal mention and/or visual appearance of a brand was considered a brand placement. For each placement the level of brand integration was coded by the researcher with five items that were used as a guideline to classify if the placement was low or high integrated. The five items were: ‘The brand/product plays an important role in the story’, ‘Without references to the brand/product the story would have been different’, ‘The brand/product is connected to the story’, ‘The brand is involved in the action’ and ‘The brand/product is in contact with the main character’ (Russel, 2002; Lehu & Bressoud, 2009). Each item could be answered on a scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. Higher scores correspond to a higher level of brand integration, whereas lower scores correspond to a lower level of brand integration.
After the content analysis was performed two clips were selected to present as
stimulus material for the two conditions; a clip with low brand integration and a clip with high brand integration. Because stimulus material that only differs on brand integration does not exist, the researcher tried to keep all other factors as equal as possible. Hence, it was decided to select clips where at least the same product/brand was integrated (i.e. Siri, the voice-controlled personal assistant from Apple) and where the same main character interacted with the product/brand (i.e. Raj). Moreover, both clips lasted 1:15 minutes and contained an audio
15
(visual) placement. However, the context of the clips was different and in the low brand integration clip two other characters were involved in the storyline. The frequency, as well as the duration of the placed brand differed in both clips. In the clip with low brand integration Raj showed his new mobile phone to Howard and the two were very excited to peel the plastic of. Sheldon was also in the same room, but was not really involved and talked about his own interests. At the end of the clip Raj checked out the voice recognition Siri, which was verbally mentioned one time and visually on screen two times owing to subtitles. Raj interacted with Siri for ten seconds. In the high brand integration clip Raj sat on the couch in his living room. The entire clip was about Raj having a conversation with Siri, which was verbally mentioned three times and visually on screen one time due to subtitles. Raj’s interaction with Siri lasted the whole clip, thus lasted for 1:15 minutes.
Pre-test
To ensure a clear difference between the two clips between low brand integration and high brand integration a pre-test was conducted among a separate sample of which the participants did not take part in the actual experiment (N = 20, Mage = 25.7, SD = 7.46, 80% female).
Based on a five item measurement (Russel, 2002; Lehu & Bressoud, 2009) with a scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree participants had to determine whether the brand placement in the clip (i.e. Siri) was high or low integrated. The five items were: (1) ‘Siri plays an important role in the story’, (2) ‘Without references to Siri the story would have been different’, (3) ‘Siri is connected to the story’, (4) ‘Siri is involved in the action’ and (5) ‘The main character Raj highly interacts with Siri’. Mean scores were taken as a measure of brand integration level (Cronbach’s alpha = .73, M = 6.68, SD = .38).
Participants watched both clips and indicated that in the low brand integration clip Siri indeed played a neutral role (M = 3.93, SD = .79) compared to the clip where Siri was high
16
integrated (M = 6.68, SD = .38), t (19) = 14.13, p < .001. Hence, there was a significant difference between the two clips with regard to brand integration.
Measures
Manipulation check. To test whether the manipulation of brand integration was successful the same five items of Russel (2002) and Lehu and Bressoud (2009) that were used in the pre-test were proposed to the participants. Mean scores were taken as a measure of brand integration level (Cronbach’s alpha = .85, M = 4.85, SD = 1.20).
Brand attitude. Brand attitude was measured via a six item 7-point semantic differential scale (Bruner, 2009). The statement was ‘In the clip you just saw the main character Raj talked about Siri, the voice-controlled personal assistant from Apple. What is your opinion about Siri?’ The six items were: (1) bad-good, (2) negative-positive, (3) dislikable-likable, (4) unpleasant-pleasant, (5) low quality-high quality and (6) unfavorable-favorable. Means were calculated for brand attitude (Cronbach’s alpha = .92, M = 4.74, SD = 1.01).
Behavioral intention. Behavioral intention was measured via a 7-point semantic differential scale with four items (Spears & Singh, 2004) among which ‘I will never use Siri’ – ‘I will definitely use Siri’. The original scale measures purchase intention, however, Siri is an application that is a part of several Apple devices and therefore usage intention was more appropriate in this study. Mean scores were taken as a measure of behavioral intention (Cronbach’s alpha = .95, M = 3.54, SD = 1.56).
Persuasion knowledge. Conceptual persuasion knowledge was measured with four items on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree. One of the items was ‘The clip I have just been exposed to contained advertising’ (Van Noort, Antheunis, & Van Reijmersdal, 2012; Boerman et al., 2012). The first two items measured the ‘recognition’ of the persuasive attempt and the last two items measured the ‘understanding’ of
17
the persuasive attempt. Means were calculated for conceptual persuasion knowledge (Cronbach’s alpha = .82, M = 4.51, SD = 1.18).
Attitudinal persuasion knowledge was measured by the statement ‘The mention of Siri in the clip is in my opinion’ 1) honest (reversed), 2) trustworthy (reversed), 3) convincing (reversed), 4) biased and 5) not credible via a 7-point Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree (Boerman et al., 2012). Attitudinal persuasion knowledge was formed by the recoded items ‘honest’, ‘trustworthy’, and ‘convincing’ since those three items ensured the highest reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = .75, M = 3.69, SD = 1.00). The items ‘biased’ and ‘not credible’ were therefore deleted. Higher scores indicate higher attitudinal persuasion knowledge, while lower scores indicate lower attitudinal persuasion knowledge.
Control variables. Brand recall was measured by asking the participants if they remembered seeing a brand (or its service) in the clip with the two response options ‘No’ (0) and ‘Yes, that is …’ (1) (Van Reijmersdal, Neijens, & Smit, 2007). Brand recognition was measured by asking the participants to mark the brand (or its service) they had seen in the clip by using a list of two brands and two services of those brands of which only one service appeared in the clip. Also the response option ‘None of the above’ was given (Van
Reijmersdal et al., 2007). Both Apple and Siri were coded as correct since Siri is a service on Apple products (54.8% correctly recalled, and 91.7% correctly recognized Apple of Siri).
Program liking can influence viewers’ attitude toward brands that are placed within the storyline (Lehu & Bressoud, 2008). Therefore the general attitude toward the TV series and the attitude toward the clip were controlled for. Attitude toward the TV series was
measured via four items on a 7-point semantic differential scale among which ‘I find The Big Bang Theory bad’ – ‘I find The Big Bang Theory good’ (D’Astous & Touil, 1999). Means were calculated for attitude toward the TV series (Cronbach’s alpha = .96, M = 4.81, SD = 1.65). Attitude toward the clip was measured via the item ‘What is your overall attitude
18
toward the clip you just saw?’ on a scale ranging from (1) very negative to (7) very positive (Van Reijmersal et al., 2007). Mean scores were taken as a measure of attitude toward the clip (M = 5.45, SD = 1.12).
Moreover, viewers form an attitude of a placed brand depending on their already existing knowledge, for example how familiar they are with the embedded brand (Verhellen et al., 2015). Therefore brand familiarity was controlled for. Brand familiarity was measured via the two questions ‘To what extend are you familiar with Siri?’ and ‘To what extend do you think you know Siri?’ on a 7-point semantic differential scale ranging from, respectively, (1) completely unfamiliar to (7) completely familiar and (1) I do not know Siri at all to (7) I know Siri very well (Brennan & Babin, 2004). The two items correlated strongly together and the correlation was significant (r = .77, p < .001, M = 4.08, SD = 1.79).
At the same time, when people use particular brands and have experiences with a brand then this can influence the attitude toward the brand (Castleberry & Ehrenberg, 1990). Therefore brand usage was controlled for. The usage of Siri was measured by the question ‘How often do you use Siri on Apple products?’ on a 7- point scale ranging from (1) never to (7) daily (Van Reijmersdal et al., 2007). Mean scores were calculated (M = 2.13, SD = 1.59).
In addition, people who frequently watch programs with brand placements in it have more positive attitudes toward brand placement (Neijens & Smit, 2003) and therefore the attitude toward the use of brand placement was controlled for. The attitude toward the use of brand placement in the clip was measured on a 7-point scale ranging from (1) very negative to (7) very positive. The item was ‘What is your overall attitude toward the use of Siri in this TV series? (Van Reijmersdal et al., 2007). Means were calculated (M = 4.58, SD = 1.02).
Furthermore, when favorite characters in movies or TV series are using a certain brand it makes viewers want to purchase and use that brand too (Belch & Belch, 2014). Source association can therefore play an important role in the effectiveness of brand placement and
19
was controlled for in this study. The attitude toward the character was measured via the item ‘What is your overall attitude toward the character Raj, who used Siri in the clip you just saw?’ on a 7-point scale ranging from (1) very negative to (7) very positive (Van Reijmersdal et al., 2007). Mean scores were taken as a measure of the attitude toward the character (M = 4.95, SD = 1.40).
Results Randomization and manipulation check
The two conditions did not differ with respect to gender, age, educational level, being a student yes or no, field of study, and nationality. There were also no differences between conditions in brand recall, brand recognition, attitude toward the TV series, and attitude toward the clip. Moreover, no differences existed between the conditions with respect to brand familiarity, brand usage, and attitude toward the character (See Table 1.). The conditions, however, did differ for attitude toward the use of brand placement in the clip, F (1, 167) = 5.82, p = .017, which also correlated with the dependent variables brand attitude, r = .34, p < .001, and behavioral intention, r = .27, p < .001, and was therefore used as a covariate.
To check whether the manipulation of brand integration was successful, participants were asked to indicate to what extent the brand placement (i.e. Siri) was integrated into the clip. An independent samples t-test showed that participants in the ‘high brand integration’ condition indicated that Siri played a more important role (M = 5.29, SD = 1.09) compared to participants in the ‘low brand integration’ condition (M = 4.40, SD = 1.13), t (166) = 5.21, p < .001. Hence, there was a significant difference between the two groups in perceived brand integration.
20
Direct effects
An one-way ANCOVA with brand integration as the independent variable, brand attitude and behavioral intention as the dependent variables, and attitude toward the use of brand placement in the clip as covariate showed no significant effect of brand integration level on brand attitude, F (1, 165) = .00, p = .988, or behavioral intention, F (1, 165) = .16, p = .687. Participants who watched the clip with low brand integration scored equally high on brand attitude and behavioral intention as participants who watched the clip with high brand integration (See Table 2.). Hence, brand integration level does not influence brand attitude or behavioral intention, rejecting H1a and H1b.
Indirect effects
To test H2a/b and H3a/b the PROCESS MACRO (model 4) of Hayes (2013) was used. This macro method estimates path coefficients in a mediator model and generates 95% bootstrap confidence intervals for both direct and indirect effects of brand integration on brand attitude and behavioral intention through conceptual and attitudinal persuasion knowledge. This method used 1,000 bootstrapped samples to estimate the bias corrected and accelerated confidence intervals (BCACI).
Conceptual persuasion knowledge. The results showed that brand integration level did not have a significant effect on conceptual persuasion knowledge (b = .01, p = .939). Participants exposed to the clip with low brand integration scored equally high on conceptual persuasion knowledge as participants exposed to the clip with high brand integration (See Table 2.). Moreover, conceptual persuasion knowledge did not have a significant effect on brand attitude (b = .06, p = .359) or behavioral intention (b = .13, p = .203). Results showed no significant indirect effect for brand attitude (indirect effect = .00, SE = .02, 95% BCACI [-.03, .05]) or behavioral intention (indirect effect = .00, SE = [-.03, 95% BCACI [-.05, .08]). This means that brand integration level does not influence conceptual persuasion knowledge
21
and consequently does not affect brand attitude or behavioral intention, rejecting H2a and H2b.
Attitudinal persuasion knowledge. With regard to attitudinal persuasion knowledge, results showed that brand integration level did not have a significant effect on attitudinal persuasion knowledge (b = -.25, p = .100). Participants who watched the clip with low brand integration scored about as high as participants who watched the clip with high brand
integration on attitudinal persuasion knowledge (See Table 2.). However, attitudinal
persuasion knowledge did have a significant negative effect on brand attitude (b = -.18, p = .023), but had no significant effect on behavioral intention (b = -.20, p = .109). Results showed no significant indirect effect for brand attitude (indirect effect = .04, SE = .04, 95% BCACI [-.00, .13]) or behavioral intention (indirect effect = .05, SE = .05, 95% BCACI [-.01, .20]). Hence, brand integration level does not influence attitudinal persuasion knowledge and consequently does not affect brand attitude or behavioral intention. This means that H3a and H3b were not supported.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to investigate whether high brand integration generates more positive consumer responses (i.e. brand attitude and behavioral intention) compared to low brand integration. Moreover, the role of conceptual and attitudinal persuasion knowledge in this process was examined in this study.
In contrast to the expectations, this study showed that the level of brand integration does not have an effect on the consumer responses brand attitude and behavioral intention. High brand integration resulted in an equally high brand attitude as low brand integration, and the same effect applies for behavioral intention. These results are in conflict with the studies of Russel (2002) and Dens et al. (2012) that indicated that high integrated brands resulted in a more positive brand attitude than low integrated brands due to their embedded nature. An
22
explanation could be that in the present study the difference in brand integration was quite small. The scores of brand integration level of participants who watched the clip with high brand integration and participants who watched the clip with low brand integration were close to each other. A small difference in brand integration may have resulted in quite a small difference in brand attitude and behavioral intention in the present study. In the studies of Russel (2002) and Dens et al. (2012) the difference between brand integration was clearer. Russel (2002) made use of self-created scenes with actors to develop the stimulus material. Due to this, the level of brand integration could be well manipulated. Also Dens et al. (2012) made use of well-trained coders in determining the integration level of the placed brand. The stimulus material that Russel (2002) and Dens et al. (2012) used lasted considerably longer than the 1:15 minutes of the stimulus material in the present study. Because of this, viewers can determine more clearly if a brand is highly embedded in the story or not.
In addition, this study showed that conceptual persuasion knowledge and attitudinal persuasion knowledge do not play a role in explaining the expected effect of brand integration level on brand attitude and behavioral intention. The level of brand integration does not have an effect on the activation of both conceptual, and attitudinal persuasion knowledge. High brand integration and low brand integration resulted in equal conceptual persuasion
knowledge and attitudinal persuasion knowledge. These results are in conflict with previous literature (Bhatnagar et al., 2004; Van Reijmersdal, 2009; Dens et al., 2012) since it has been argued that high brand integration draws attention to the storyline instead of to the brand itself. Consequently, it is less likely cognitive knowledge and emotions are activated and used as a critical defense, and affect consumer responses. The opposite effect is expected to occur for low brand integration (Bhatnagar et al., 2004; Van Reijmersdal, 2009; Dens et al., 2012). Hence, previous studies have argued that the level of brand integration determines to what extent persuasion knowledge is activated. An explanation for the fact that no effect was found
23
for brand integration level on the activation of conceptual persuasion knowledge and attitudinal persuasion knowledge could be because there was a small difference in brand integration in the present study. A small difference in brand integration could be the cause of quite small differences in persuasion knowledge between viewers. Another reason for similar outcomes on persuasion knowledge could be that sitcoms, like The Big Bang Theory, are known for their commonly use of brand placements (Chan, 2016). This could explain why both brand placements resulted in equal conceptual persuasion knowledge and attitudinal persuasion knowledge. When a brand is placed in The Big Bang Theory, regardless of integration level, viewers may automatically activate persuasion knowledge.
To answer the research question of this study, it can be concluded that high brand integration does not generate more positive consumer responses compared to low brand integration. Thus, the level of brand integration does not make a difference. Both conceptual, and attitudinal persuasion knowledge do not explain the expected effect that brand integration have on brand attitude and behavioral intention.
Limitations and future research
One of the limitations of this study is that there was quite a high dropout rate among
participants. This would probably not have been the case if the experiment was conducted in a laboratory, where it is less likely participants will quit while conducting the online
experiment, and possible uncontrolled factors could have been controlled for. Distractions while watching the clip and filling out the survey, like the internet, the smartphone of participants and the presence of other company for example could have had an influence. Participants may not have payed serious attention to the clip and may not have answered honestly to the questions. Moreover, an existing American TV series was used to present as stimulus material. Therefore it was not possible that the two selected clips from The Big Bang
24
Theory were identical. Results could be different when the exact same clips, which only differ
in brand integration level, are investigated.
Furthermore, the small difference in brand integration may explain why no effects were found on brand attitude and behavioral intention, and why conceptual persuasion knowledge and attitudinal persuasion knowledge did not explain the expected effect. A suggestion for future research is therefore to create stimulus material where there is a clearer difference in brand integration level, by making use of well-trained coders or a not already existing TV series for example. Another advice for future research is to give a short
explanation to the participants of what brand integration entails when determining the integration level of the placement, thus when the manipulation is being checked. Since the same items were used in the present study as in previous literature (Russel, 2002; Dens et al., 2012; Lehu & Bressoud, 2009) to measure brand integration this could not have resulted in a big difference. To make it clear for participants what brand integration means and for them to make a good distinction between high and low brand integration, an explanation would have made it easier for participants to answer as objectively as possible. This could have resulted in a larger difference in brand integration in the present study and may have caused different effects, and is therefore useful to take into account for future research.
Another limitation is that the present study did not take into account the prominence of the brand placement. A high integrated brand can both be subtle and prominently placed, as can a low integrated brand both be subtle and prominently placed. However, in this study both brand placements were prominently placed. Research showed that when a brand is high integrated it leads to a positive brand attitude and that a subtle placement reinforces this positive effect compared to a prominent placement (Dens et al., 2012). A low integrated brand results in a negative brand attitude and a prominent placement reinforces this negative effect compared to a subtle placement (Dens et al., 2012). This could explain why the high
25
integrated brand was evaluated quite positive instead of very positive since a prominent placement reduces the positive effect high brand integration have on brand attitude.
Moreover, this study showed that placing a brand into a TV series, regardless of integration level of the placement, resulted in quite a positive evaluation of the brand. With regard to behavioral intention, this study showed that a brand placement in general resulted in a less positive behavioral intention. However, since these effects were not hypothesized, and thus not tested, no actual conclusions can be made. The same goes for the effect on persuasion knowledge. This study showed that a brand placement in general, regardless of integration level, resulted in higher conceptual persuasion knowledge compared to attitudinal persuasion knowledge. Hence, exposure to a placement activates cognitive knowledge sooner than critical feelings toward the brand are formed. Viewers have not much critical feelings and negative emotions toward the brand placement, but rather have cognitive knowledge about the recognition and its purpose. In order to draw solid conclusions about the effect a brand
placement in general has on the consumer responses brand attitude and behavioral intention, and conceptual persuasion knowledge and attitudinal persuasion knowledge, future research should be conducted using a control group that will not be exposed to a brand placement. Implications
Notwithstanding the limitations, this study has its practical implications. Results showed that brand integration level does not have an effect on brand attitude and behavioral intention. In other words, it does not matter whether a brand is high integrated, and thus plays a central role in the storyline and becomes part of the plot, or low integrated, and thus has an unnatural appearance and weak connection to the storyline. For marketers this is useful information. Highly integrating a brand into editorial content is more difficult and takes more effort than when a brand is low integrated. According to the present study this effort does not need to be made since low brand integration and high brand integration lead to equal
26
consumer responses. In the decision-making process of marketers whether to use brand placement as an advertising strategy they do not have to consider whether the placement should be low or high integrated.
With regard to the underlying process of persuasion knowledge, brand integration level does not have an effect on the activation of conceptual, and attitudinal persuasion knowledge. This means that brand integration level does not make a difference. Practitioners in the field do not have to take into account whether a brand should be low or high integrated because it may lead to more (or less) resistance due to (non) activated persuasion knowledge. High integrated brands and low integrated brands resulted in equal persuasion knowledge.
Moreover, although no significant indirect was found of brand integration level on brand attitude via attitudinal persuasion knowledge, this study showed that more attitudinal persuasion knowledge resulted in a less positive brand attitude. This result is in line with Friestad and Wright (1994) who argue that the more persuasion knowledge one has the more viewers get resistant and consequently negatively affects brand attitude. Marketers can use insights from this study to find ways to reduce viewers’ attitudinal persuasion knowledge and consequently their resistance, and increase brand attitudes.
At the same time, both brand placements where prominently placed, regardless of integration level. Despite the insignificant direct effects, mean scores showed that both brand placements have quite a positive effect on the attitude toward a brand. Hence, it can be concluded that prominence is an important characteristic when using brand placements and that brand integration is not a determining factor. Insights from this study could be useful for brand managers. They should focus at the prominence of the placement and not to which extent the brand is integrated into the storyline.
27
References
‘t Hart, H., Boeije, H., & Hox, J. (2009). Onderzoeksmethoden (8e druk). Den Haag: Boom Lemma uitgevers.
About The Big Bang Theory. (n.d.). Retrieved May 31, 2016, from http://the-big-bang
theory.com/about/
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50, 179 – 211.
Belch, G. E. & Belch, M. A. (2014). Advertising and promotion: An integrated marketing
communications perspective (Global edition, 10th edition). McGraw−Hill.
Bhatnagar, N., Aksoy, L., & Malkoc, S. A. (2004). Embedding brands within media content: The impact of message, media, and consumer characteristics on placement efficiency. In: The Psychology of Entertainment Media: Blurring the Lines Between
Entertainment and Persuasion (Eds), L. J. Shrum, ed., Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum, 99 – 116.
Brennan, I. & Babin, L. A. (2004). Brand placement recognition. Journal of Promotion
Management, 10(1-2), 185 – 202.
Bruner, G. C. I. (2009). Marketing scales handbook. A compilation of multi-item measures for consumer behavior & advertising research (5th ed.). Carbondale, IL: GCBII Productions.
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, 1047 – 1064.
Castleberry, S. B. & Ehrenberg, A. S. C. (1990). Brand usage: A factor in consumer beliefs.
Marketing Research, 2, 14 – 20.
28
films. Journal of Promotion Management, 22(1), 107 – 121.
Cowley, E. & Barron, C. (2008). When product placement goes wrong: The effects of program liking and placement prominence. Journal of Advertising, 37(1), 89 – 98. D’Astous, A. & Touil, N. (1999). Consumers evaluations of movies on the basis of critics’
judgements. Psychology & Marketing, 16(8), 677 – 694.
Dens, N., De Pelsmacker, P., Wouters, M., & Purnawirawan, N. (2012). Do you like what you recognize? Journal of Advertising, 41(3), 35 – 54.
Fransen, M. & Van den Putte, B. (2012). Persuasieve Communicatie. Pearson Education Limited. ISBN: 9781781346273.
Friestad, M. & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1 – 31.
Global product placement spending. (2016). Retrieved March 11, 2016, from
http://www.statista.com/statistics/261454/global-product-placement-spending/ Gould, S. J., Gupta, B. P., & Grabner-Krauter, S. (2000). Product placements in movies: A
cross cultural analysis of Austrian, French and American consumers’ attitudes toward this emerging, international promotional medium. Journal of Advertising, 29(4), 41 – 58.
Gupta, P. B. & Lord, K. R. (1998). Product placement in movies: The effect of prominence and mode on audience recall. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising,
20(1), 47 – 59.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Hudson, S., Hudson, D., & Peloza, J. (2008). Meet the parents: A parent’s perspective on product placement in children’s films. Journal of Business Ethics, 80, 289 – 304. Karrh, J. A. (1998). Brand placement: A review. Journal of Current Issues & Research in
29
Advertising, 20(2), 31 – 49.
Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand Synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowledge. Journal
of Consumer Research, 29, 595 – 600.
Law, S. & Brown, K. A. (2000). I’ll have what she is having: Cauging the impact of product placements on viewers. Psychology and Marketing, 17(12), 1059 – 1075.
Lee, M., Choi, Y., Quilliam, E. T., & Cole, R. T. (2009). Playing with food: Content analysis of food advergames. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 43(1), 129 – 154.
Lehu, J. M. & Bressoud, E. (2008). Effectiveness of brand placement: New insights about viewers. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1083 – 1090.
Lehu, J. M. & Bressoud, E. (2009). Recall of brand placement in movies: Interactions between prominence and plot connection in real conditions of exposure. Recherche et
Applications en Marketing, 24, 7 – 26.
Lu, L. C., Chang, W. P., & Chang, H. H. (2014). Consumer attitudes toward blogger’s sponsored recommendations and purchase intention: The effect of sponsorship type, product type, and brand awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 258 – 266. Lyons, K. R. (2013). Examining implicit memory as a measure of effectiveness for product
placement of high and low prominence. Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University. Matthes, J., Schemer, C., & Wirth, W. (2007). More than meets the eye: Investigating the
hidden impact of brand placements in television magazines. International Journal of
Advertising, 26(4), 477 – 503.
Neijens, P. C. & Smit, E. G. (2003). Audience reactions towards non-spot advertising: Influence of viewer and program characteristics. In F. Hansen & L. B. Christensen (Eds.), Branding and advertising (pp. 266–283). Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.
30
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(4), 575 – 594.
Rozendaal, E., Lapierre, M. A., Van Reijmersdal, E. A., & Buijzen, M. (2011). Reconsidering advertising literacy as a defense against advertising effects. Media Psychology, 14(4), 333 – 354.
Russell, C. A. (1998). Toward a framework of product placement: Theoretical propositions.
Advances in Consumer Research, 25, 357 – 362.
Russel, 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, 306 – 318.
Spears, N. & Singh, S. N. (2004). Measuring attitude towards the brand and purchase intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertisement, 26(2), 53 – 66. Tiwsakul, R., Hackley, C., & Szmigin, I. (2005). Explicit, non-integrated product placement
in British television programmes. International Journal of Advertising, 24(1), 95 – 111.
Van Noort, G., Antheunis, M. L., & Van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2012). Social connections and the persuasiveness of viral campaigns in social network sites: Persuasive intent as the underlying mechanism. Journal of Marketing Communications, 18(1), 39 – 53. Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2007). Effects of television brand
placement on brand image. Psychology & Marketing, 24(5), 403 – 420.
Van Reijmersdal, E. (2009). Brand placement prominence: Good for memory! Bad for attitudes? Journal of Advertising Research, 151 – 153.
Verhellen, Y., Dens, N., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2015). Do I know you? How brand familiarity and perceived fit affect consumers’ attitudes toward brands placed in movies.
Marketing Letters, 1 – 11.
31
movies: Levels of placements, explicit and implicit memory, and brand-choice behavior. Journal of Communication, 57, 469 – 489.
32
Appendix Conceptual model
The conceptual model in figure 1 schematically represents the relationships between the independent and dependent variables. The independent variable brand integration has an effect on brand attitude and behavioral intention, which are the dependent variables. The effect on these consumer responses is mediated by the underlying process of conceptual
persuasion knowledge and attitudinal persuasion knowledge.
33
Tables
Table 1. Randomization control variables.
X2 F p Df Variable Gender .00 - .991 1 Age - 2.22 .138 1, 167 Educational level - 2.56 .112 1, 167 Student yes/no .94 - .333 1 Field of study .05 - .822 1 Nationality .02 - .889 1 Brand recall .18 - .674 1 Brand recognition .18 - .675 1 Attitude TV series - .23 .636 1, 167 Attitude clip - .19 .664 1, 167 Brand familiarity - 2.17 .143 1, 167 Brand usage - .44 .506 1, 167 Attitude character - 1.39 .240 1, 167
34
Table 2. Mean scores direct effect of brand integration on brand attitude, behavioral intention, conceptual PK and attitudinal PK.
Brand integration Low High M (SD) M (SD) Variable Brand attitude 4.68 1.11 4.81 .92 Behavioral intention 3.42 1.58 3.67 1.54 Conceptual PK 4.52 1.19 4.50 1.19 Attitudinal PK 3.61 0.92 3.77 1.06 PK = Persuasion Knowledge
35
Questionnaire Dear participant,
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this experiment. This experiment is conducted in the light of my Master Thesis for the Master Persuasive Communication at the University of Amsterdam.
The experiment is about the television series The Big Bang Theory and therefore you are exposed to a short clip of this television show. Afterwards you are asked to answer some questions related to this clip. Please note that there are no wrong answers. Only participants from the age of 18 are allowed to participate. The experiment will take approximately 5 - 10 minutes.
I hope to have informed you sufficiently with the above and want to thank you in advance for participating in this study.
Sincerely,
Priscilla Zandbergen
Please read the following instructions. If you agree with the following, please accept the agreements below and the experiment will start.
- I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research.
- I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the right to withdraw my consent (within 24 hours after participation), without having
36
to give a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation in the experiment at any time.
- If my research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in another way, this will be done such a way that my anonymity is completely safeguarded. My personal data will not be passed on to third parties without my express permission.
If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in the future, I can contact Priscilla Zandbergen via the e-mail address priscilla.zandbergen@student.uva.nl. Should I have any complaints about this research, I can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing the ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‐ 525 3680; ascor‐secr‐fmg@uva.nl. Confidentiality of my complaint is hereby guaranteed.
o I understand the above text and agree to participate in the study
You are first going to watch a short clip of the American television series The Big Bang
Theory. Make sure you watch this clip carefully and with full attention. Afterwards you can
click through to the next page and you will be asked to answer some questions. Please note that it is important to put your volume on, since you are going to watch a video with audio!
37
[EXPOSURE TO CLIP]
Answer the following statement:
What is your overall attitude toward the clip you just saw?
Very negative (1) - Very positive (7)
Answer the following statements about the television series in general: I find The Big Bang Theory bad (1) - I find The Big Bang Theory good (7)
I would rather not watch The Big Bang Theory (1) - I would rather watch The Big Bang
Theory (7)
I would not recommend The Big Bang Theory to others (1) - I would recommend The Big
Bang Theory to others (7)
The Big Bang Theory does not interest me (1) - The Big Bang Theory does interest me (7)
Did the clip you just saw include a brand (or its service)? o No
38
Do you recognize one of the following brands (or its service) to be seen/heard in the clip? o Samsung
o Siri o S Voice o Apple
o None of the above
In the clip you just saw the main character Raj talked about Siri, the voice-controlled personal assistant from Apple. What is your opinion about Siri?
Bad (1) - (7) Good
Negative (1) - (7) Positive Dislikable (1) - (7) Likable Unpleasant (1) - (7) Pleasant Low quality (1) - (7) High quality Unfavorable (1) - (7) Favorable
Answer the following statements:
I will never use Siri (1) - I will definitely use Siri (7)
39
I have a very low interest of using Siri (1) - I have a very high interest of using Siri (7)
I will probably not use Siri (1) - I will probably use Siri (7)
Indicate to what extend you agree with the following statements about the clip you just saw: 1) The clip I have just been exposed to contained advertising
2) The use of Siri in the clip was a form of advertising
3) The clip I have just been exposed to is meant to persuade me 4) Siri (Apple) has paid to be shown in the episode
Strongly disagree (1) - Strongly agree (7)
Answer the following statement:
‘The mention of Siri in the clip is in my opinion’: 1) Honest 2) Trustworthy 3) Convincing 4) Biased 5) Not credible
Strongly disagree (1) - Strongly agree (7)
Answer the following statements:
40
Completely unfamiliar (1) - Completely familiar (7)
To what extent do you think you know Siri?
I do not know Siri at all (1) - I know Siri very well (7)
Answer the following statement:
How often do you use Siri on Apple products? Never (1) - Daily (7)
Answer the following statements:
What is your overall attitude toward the use of Siri in this TV series?
Very negative (1) - Very positive (7)
What is your overall attitude toward the character Raj, who used Siri in the clip you just saw?
Very negative (1) - Very positive (7)
Indicate for the following statements to what extent you agree (1) Siri plays an important role in the story
(2) Without references to Siri the story would have been different (3) Siri is connected to the story
41
(4) Siri is involved in the action
(5) The main character Raj highly interacts with Siri
Strongly disagree (1) - Strongly agree (7)
Finally, I would like you to answer some general questions.
What is your gender? o Male
o Female
What is your age? __
What is your highest completed educational level? o Primary education
o Secondary education (VMBO/HAVO/VWO) o MBO (Intermediate vocational education) o HBO (Higher vocational education) o WO (University)
42
You are almost done! This is the last question (do not forget to click through to the next page!)
Are you a student?
If yes, please fill in your field of study.
o No
o Yes, my field of study is __
This is the end of the online experiment. Thank you for participating in this survey. Please click through to the next page (bottom right) so that your answers will be recorded! If you have any questions or comments regarding this experiment, please do not hesitate to contact me at any time via priscilla.zandbergen@student.uva.nl.
43
Stimulus material
The clip with low brand integration
