Master’s Thesis
Upstream Persuasion with Reverse Product Placement
The effectiveness of fictional brand placements in triggering consumers’ purchase intention and the important role played by placement prominence and persuasion knowledge
Valérie Heimann Student Number: 11809302
Friday 29th June 2018
Graduate School of Communication – University of Amsterdam Master’s Program Communication Science
Supervised by Dr. Stefan Bernritter Academic Year 2017-2018
Abstract
This study contributes to the existing research in the broad product placement field by investigating the effectiveness of a more recent practice, better known as reverse product placement. Described as the deliberate integration in an entertained context of a fictional brand not yet produced nor launched in the real-world market, this latest technique represents an innovative and potentially highly profitable strategy at the disposal of marketers, worthy thus of further examination. Building on the Persuasion Knowledge Model, the roles of brand type and placement prominence in the efficacy of the reverse product placement tactic were investigated. In addition, the mediating role of consumers’ persuasion knowledge was examined. To test these predictions, an online experiment with a 2 (brand type: existing vs. fictional) x 2 (placement prominence: high vs. low) between-subjects design was conducted among 251 participants. Results indicate that neither brand type, nor placement prominence or the interaction between the two influence consumers’ purchase intention or PK. However, some control variables such as brand attitude, brand recall and brand familiarity exercise a positive influence on the dependent variable, whereas brand recall and TV shows enthusiasm impact consumers’ PK in a positive and negative way, respectively. The outcomes of the study provide new insights into the reverse product placement tactic and draw attention to important managerial implications for those companies willing to test it in the near future.
Introduction
Over the past few years the advertising industry has witnessed a huge proliferation of the product placement practice, described as the integration of brands or branded products by means of audio and/or visual aid within mass media programs (Karrh, 1998), so as to intentionally blur the lines between advertising and editorial content (Van Reijmersdal, Neijens, & Smit, 2007). In today’s extremely fragmented and oversaturated advertising landscape, these hybrid advertisements (Balasubramanian, 1994) represent a valid alternative to traditional advertising. Thanks to their hidden persuasive nature (Bhatnagar, Aksoy, & Malkoc, 2004), critical message processing and reactance towards them is low, leading to their wide acceptance and subconscious persuasion among viewers (Boerman, Van Reijmersdal, & Neijens, 2012; D’Astous & Chartier, 2000).
Because of its fast expansion, however, the chance that consumers recognize this tactic as a persuasive stratagem has exponentially increased (Cowley & Barron, 2008). Since previous studies consistently assessed that people have the tendency to resist persuasive attacks when they perceive them as such (Boerman et al., 2012), the high effectiveness of the product placement strategy can soon be put in jeopardy. Together with the endless new opportunities offered by progresses in immersive and virtual environments, this consideration has contributed to the spread of a new persuasive technique known as reverse product placement, whereby a non-existing product or brand promoted in an entertainment context will be manufactured and commercialized in the real world only at a later stage (Muzellec, Lynn, & Lambkin, 2012; Patwardhan & Patwardhan, 2016).
Since the reverse product placement tactic is relatively new and has involved only few brands so far, both the persuasive aim perceived by the consumers and their skepticism towards this
strategy should be much lower, compared to other advertising formats. These so-called Protobrands, described as virtually initiated brands not yet made tangible in the real world, represent hence a brand potential. A few examples are represented by The Bubba Gump Shrimp Co., an operating chain of seafood restaurants, first introduced in the movie Forrest Gump; the Duff Beer, whose commercialization in the real world was triggered by The Simpsons’ success; the Bertie Bott’s
Every Flavor Beans, a candy initially presented in Harry Potter’s books and successively produced
by Cap Candy; and Marty McFly’s self-lacing shoes from the film Back to the Future, later launched on the market by Nike (Muzellec et al., 2012; Patwardhan & Patwardhan, 2016).
As a response to the mentioned benefits, the new trend of planned reverse placement has recently emerged, whereby marketers consciously incorporate a fictional brand in an entertainment medium, e.g. TV series, movies, games etc., in order to prompt interest in the item before its release (Muzellec et al., 2012). This expedient offers them a precious testing opportunity, that reduce both their new product development (NPD) costs and their time-to-market, while improving the fit between their offerings and the audience’s needs (Patwardhan & Patwardhan, 2016).
However, despite the huge acknowledged potential of this innovative tactic, research focusing on the functionality of fictional and virtual brands is lacking (Muzellec, Kanitz, & Lynn, 2013; Muzellec et al., 2012). In fact, although some research has recently demonstrated the effectiveness of the reverse product placement technique, showing how fictitious products or brands promoted in an entertained context can be successfully ‘defictionalised’ in the real world for the benefit of the brand owner, only few studies have empirically investigated the effect this new expedient might exert on consumers’ attitudes and intentions (Patwardhan & Patwardhan, 2016).
Based on the consideration that pre-existing attitudes towards real and non-existing brands are highly likely to differ and can thus trigger two totally distinct consumer journeys, this study extends the current research by analyzing how consumers’ purchase intention is differently influenced by either an existing or a fictional brand, comparing therefore directly the effects a classic and a reverse product placement can exercise on viewers’ intentions. The impact of brand type on consumers’ persuasion knowledge is further examined, providing important theoretical contributions to the Persuasion Knowledge Model.
Previous studies have repeatedly proved the assumption according to which not all brand placements are effective to the same degree (McCarty, 2004). Among all factors that can exercise an influence on consumers’ perception of fictional and existing brands, respectively, placed in an
entertainment medium, the placement prominence in particular, which represents the brand’s noticeability in the fictional world (Dens, De Pelsmacker, Wouters, & Purnawirawan, 2012), holds the greatest fascination for research. Since this construct has been previously proved to exert a strong influence on viewers’ reactions (Van Reijmersdal, Neijens, & Smit, 2009), differences in the effect of various product placement strategies might be partly explained by this factor.
Numerous studies have enriched the academic research on placement prominence with regard to existing brands, proving that prominent placements principally help brand recall but hinder positive brand attitudes (e.g. Cowley & Barron, 2008; Russell, 2002). However, the dilemma that concerns this variable persists for fictional brands: on the one hand, a subtle placement can be evaluated as attractive by practitioners because of its hidden persuasive intent, which diminishes counter-arguing (D’Astous & Chartier, 2000); at the same time, however, a less overt brand placement runs the risk of being overlooked by receivers (Matthes, Schemer, & Wirth, 2007).
The present research contributes therefore to the existing state of knowledge on the reverse product placement topic by analyzing the possible moderating effect of placement prominence on the aforementioned relationships between brand type, consumers’ persuasion knowledge and their purchase intention. Given the critical role these hybrid advertisements play in today’s advertising landscape, it is extremely relevant, both in terms of theoretical and practical implications, to figure out under which conditions placements work best (Cowley & Barron, 2008).
The aim of this study is thus to investigate the effectiveness of fictional (versus existing) brands integration within entertainment contexts in enhancing consumers’ purchase intention, the moderating role placement prominence can play in this relationship and the possible mediating effect exercised by consumers’ persuasion knowledge.
Theoretical Framework
The incorporation of products into noncommercial media content has been put to use by companies for more than 50 years (Yang & Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2007) and is considered a
fast-
growing trend, especially in today’s television context (Law & Braun, 2000). By means of this popular expedient, brands are mostly integrated in noncommercial contexts such as movies, TV programs, radio shows, music videos, computer games, blogs and also Broadway musicals
(Balasubramanian, Karrh, & Patwardhan, 2006; D’Hooge, Hudders, & Cauberghe, 2017; Fransen, Verlegh, Kirmani, & Smit, 2015), where viewers cannot avoid the exposure to placements without missing out on the media content (Avery & Ferraro, 2000).
That being said, individuals process these hybrid advertisements differently, when either an existing or a fictitious brand is integrated into an entertained context. In fact, when confronted with a fictional brand placement, viewers tend to rely on a cognitive clue presented by the entertainment medium in order to evaluate the promoted brand, a process called assimilation (Dahlén, Friberg, & Nilsson, 2009). Since consumers cannot gain real experience with the non-existing label, the only way for them to infer the product’s quality is to rely on its representation within the TV program. Previous studies demonstrated that the perceived quality provided by the placement ultimately influenced purchase intention (Muzellec et al., 2013). Conversely, in the real brands context, viewers do not resort to a cognitive prime to build brand representations, since they already nurture such associations (Dahlén et al., 2009), considered stable and hard to change (Dens et al., 2012).
Additionally, whilst existing brand placements have been consistently proved as particularly powerful in lending realism to the media content they are embedded in (Yang & Roskos Ewoldson, 2007), fictional brand integrations have been recognized by recent research as highly effective in capturing viewers’ emotional attachment and imagination, a construct that leads individuals to build even stronger and special associations with the placed product (Muzellec et al., 2013).
Persuasion Knowledge Model (PKM)
This difference in effect can further be explained by means of the Persuasion Knowledge Model (PKM) developed by Friestad and Wright (1994). According to this model, individuals develop personal knowledge about marketers’ tactics over time and use it to understand how, when,
and why they intend to persuade them. This understanding consists of three dimensions: persuasion knowledge, namely the apprehension of the persuasive tactics implemented by a sender; agent knowledge, which describes the assumptions made about the intentions of a persuasive agent, such as a marketer or an advertiser; and topic knowledge, which refers to the beliefs about the message’s topic, that is, a product, brand or service that is being promoted. When consumers activate their PK in response to a persuasive attempt and consequently conceive the persuasive purpose behind an agent’s message, a ‘change of meaning’ occurs, whereby receivers respond to the persuasion attempt by properly adjusting the sense they attribute to it. This can often result in the individuals disengaging from the current interaction with the content, drawing inferences of a commercial nature about the message, and/or discrediting the spokesperson’s statement.
PK Activation in the Traditional Product Placement Field
Previous research has repeatedly confirmed the supposition according to which individuals tend to resist persuasion episodes when they discern them as such (Boerman et al., 2012). In the classic product placement field, many studies have proved this trend by examining the effect of a sponsorship disclosure on receivers’ responses (e.g. Campbell, Mohr, & Verlegh, 2013; Van Reijmersdal et al., 2016). The findings consistently demonstrated that revealing the presence of sponsored content within an entertainment context first activates the viewers’ conceptual PK, which enables them to clearly distinguish the advertised stimuli from the media content. Because of the resulting increased attention to the branded content, higher rates of brand memory are often
registered. However, these positive side effects are obscured by the activation of a second construct, commonly referred to as attitudinal PK, which indicates the feelings expressed by a receiver
towards the message (Boerman et al., 2012). As a matter of fact, in response to a disclosure, distrust and skepticism with regard to the content arise, leading to more critical reactions and increased counter-arguing (Matthes et al., 2007), which in the end result in less favorable attitudes towards the embedded brand (Wei, Fisher, & Main, 2008), and thus in diminished persuasion.
However, a disclosure is not the only way to trigger people’s awareness of a persuasion attempt. In fact, Friestad and Wright (1994) claim that PK evolves over time and, as recipients become more familiar with a persuasive tactic, their evaluation of it progresses as well. In today’s society, the widespread adoption of the product placement technique has impressively increased the likelihood of consumers perceiving the commercial intent behind it (Cowley & Barron, 2008). As a consequence, the consumers’ deeper persuasive understanding of this less intrusive and hybrid tactic leads to the creation of unfavorable brand evaluations and therefore to weakened persuasion. PK Activation in the Reverse Product Placement Field
Since the new practice of reverse product placement has only been implemented in a few cases to date, consumers’ PK in response to this recent strategy has most probably not become very strong yet, compared to the one that might be activated by means of classic brand placement. In particular, one of the three types of knowledge that build the PK as a whole, namely the topic knowledge, or beliefs about a specific product or brand, is expected to be quite low or even absent in the specific case of the reverse product placement process, as the brand exists only in the
entertainment context and is not available in the real world (Patwardhan & Patwardhan, 2016). This lack of information is critical, given the fact that topic knowledge is considered extremely helpful in questioning the claims of the message’s agent (Friestad & Wright, 1994). As a consequence of the consumers’ inability to perceive the manipulative intent behind such arrangements, a more positive effect of these placements on the recipients’ brand attitude (Patwardhan & Patwardhan, 2016) and consequently on their purchase intention (Muzellec et al., 2013) is highly plausible. Based on these considerations, the following hypotheses are formulated:
H1: The placement of a fictional brand in a TV show scene will result in greater consumers’
purchase intention, compared to the placement of an existing brand within the same context.
Placement Prominence: A Moderating Effect?
Both aforementioned direct and indirect effects of brand type on consumers’ purchase intention are hypothesized here to be moderated by placement prominence, described as the extent to which a brand is made visible in an entertained context and possesses characteristics that make it the center of the receivers’ attention. This variable can assume an either high or low level, whereby the former describes a prominent placement where the brand is placed central and thus positioned in the scene’s foreground, whereas the latter indicates a subtle placement in which the brand fills the scene’s background (e.g. Dens et al., 2012; Gupta & Lord, 1998).
In the classic product placement domain, the high placement prominence has been assessed by many researchers as a double-edged sword; on the one hand, a prominent existing brand placement can be considered a helpful tool to trigger cognitive outcomes such as strong brand recognition and recall (e.g. D’Astous & Chartier, 2000; Dens et al., 2012), because of the clearer distinction between the embedded brand and the media content (Gupta & Lord, 1998). On the other hand, however, due to the fact that these noticeable arrangements are usually perceived as less realistic, more distracting and/or disruptive (Cowley & Barron, 2008), they have been proved to negatively influence affective constructs like brand attitudes and conative variables as purchase intention (e.g. Law & Braun, 2000; Russell, 2002; Van Reijmersdal, 2009).
An underlying explanation for this effect can be found in Friestad and Wright’s (1994) PKM. Based on this model, it can be posited that, in the case of an existing brand, a prominent placement is highly likely to activate viewers’ PK, providing them with the ability to critically scrutinize the message. When confronted with a noticeable arrangement of a real label, consumers are more inclined to reflect upon the suitability of the brand integration in relation to its manipulative purpose (Cowley & Barron, 2008) and thus uncover the commercial intent behind it (Van Reijmersdal et al., 2009; Wei et al., 2008). A ‘change of meaning’ is then elicited, whereby the placement no longer serves the realism of the entertainment context and causes counter-arguing and irritation towards the content (Dens et al., 2012; Matthes et al., 2007). As a result, brand attitudes deteriorate (Russell,
2002) and the overall effectiveness of the placement may be weakened.
In the case of a fictional brand, however, the placement does not have to satisfy any requirements of realism. For this reason, in this scenario the brand is no longer considered in relation to its functional purpose, but with regard to its integration within the setting of the story (Dens et al., 2012). As a consequence, a prominent placement of a fictitious brand in fictional circumstances will enhance a high perceived fit of the label with the context of the story, making it thus appear as a so-called congruous arrangement, which is generally evaluated by the audience as highly acceptable and natural (Russell, 2002). This results in a positive impact on consumers’ brand attitude (Gillespie, Muehling, & Kareklas, 2018) and purchase intention (Muzellec et al., 2013).
In this context, the placement is considered as congruent and processed positively thanks to the absence of consumers’ topic knowledge, which results from the commercial unavailability of the fictitious construct. This consideration discourages individuals to engage in a careful
examination of the reasons for the brand presence in the entertainment medium, thereby rendering the activation of their PK unlikely (Campbell & Kirmani, 2000). As the audience’s recognition rate of the message’s manipulative purpose remains low (Patwardhan & Patwardhan, 2016), the
exposure to a blatant brand placement results in little counter-arguing expressed by the receivers (Dens et al., 2012) and consequently in highly favorable consumers’ brand evaluations (Gillespie et al., 2018) and purchase intention (Muzellec et al., 2013).
With regard to a subtle placement, this type of arrangement has been proved to enhance affective and conative outcomes such as brand attitude and brand choice when a real brand is promoted. This is mainly due to the unobtrusive nature of this brand incorporation style, which triggers less feelings of disturbance during the audience’s viewing experience. Due to the fact that it is usually less available to the audience’s visual perception, this placement is therefore less likely to activate their PK. The persuasive intent behind the real brand positioning remains thus hidden, avoiding the creation of unfavorable outcomes in terms of brand attitudes and purchase intentions (Friestad & Wright, 1994).
Instead, when it comes to a fictitious brand, this low-key promotion can easily backfire. As a matter of fact, previous studies claimed that the unique and atypical character of a non-existing label may quickly attract the viewers’ attention, prompting them to process the placement
meticulously (Nelson, Yaros & Keum, 2006). As a result, the arrangement of a non-real brand in the background of a fictitious scene might not completely live up to the audience’s expectations of a congruous placement and subsequently lead to the deterioration of their attitudes towards the
promoted construct, as well as their buying intention. The perception of a suspicious toned-down fictional brand integration in a highly fictional context can, in fact, enhance the activation of the viewers’ PK and lead them to question the real reasons for the incorporation of the brand (Friestad & Wright, 1994). Based on these considerations, the following hypotheses are proposed (see Fig.1):
H3: The effect of brand type on purchase intention is moderated by placement prominence, whereby
a subtle existing brand placement will result in greater purchase intention than a subtle fictional brand placement, but a prominent fictional brand placement will result in greater purchase intention than a prominent existing brand placement.
H4: The effect of brand type on PK is moderated by placement prominence, whereby a prominent
existing brand placement will result in greater PK than a prominent fictional brand placement, but a subtle fictional brand placement will result in greater PK than a subtle existing brand placement.
Fig. 1. Conceptual model of the study
Method Design & Participants
In order to test the hypotheses, this study employed an online experiment with a 2 (brand type: existing vs. fictional) x 2 (placement prominence: high vs. low) between-subjects design. A convenient sample was recruited, whereby participants were approached through both social media and interpersonal communication among the researcher’s network within the time frame of 7 days and later randomly assigned to one of four study conditions.
In total, 256 individuals participated in the research study, 5 of whom did not meet the criteria for the target group, since they were older than 35, and were therefore excluded from the final sample. The ultimate number of respondents were thus (N = 251). The participants were on average 24 years old (M = 24.23, SD = 2.70) and 64.5% of them were female (N = 162). The majority of the respondents (52.6 %) indicated a Bachelor degree as their highest received diploma (N = 132) and 57.4% of the sample came from Switzerland (N = 144). Additionally, more than half of the
Fictional brand vs. existing brand High placement prominence vs. low placement prominence H1 H3 Purchase intention Persuasion knowledge H2 H4 H2
participants (N = 136) described themselves as TV shows enthusiasts and 31.1% (N = 78) of the respondents watched TV shows daily.
Procedure
The experiment was conducted by means of a Qualtrics survey. Participants were first welcomed and thanked for their participation in the research project. In order to safeguard the real purpose of the study, they were told that the researcher was interested in their TV shows
consumption behavior. Participants were then presented with an informed consent form and asked to agree to participate in the experiment. After that, in line with the cover story, respondents were asked some questions concerning their TV shows consumption and watching frequency. At this point, individuals were evenly and randomly assigned to one of the four study conditions and exposed to the research stimuli. They were expressly asked to carefully look at a picture portraying a scene from a TV show, before continuing with the survey.
After the exposure, responses regarding participants’ purchase intention, PK, brand attitude, brand recall and brand familiarity were collected. Next, to test for a successful manipulation, questions about placement prominence and perception of the brand’s existing or fictional nature were presented. The participants’ evaluation of the TV show was then asked as a filler question, in order to protect the cover story of the study. Finally, demographic data such as gender, age,
nationality and highest educational level was collected. At this point, the participants were thanked for taking part in the research study.
Stimuli
The stimulus material employed in the online experiment is represented by the screenshot of a scene from the TV show New Girl, which portrays three of the main characters, namely Jess,
Winston and Coach, sitting together on a couch. Considering the participants’ characteristics, namely mainly female students between 22 and 35 years old, a recent comedic and ‘girly’ TV show with a realistic setting was preferred. The four study conditions embedded a placement of either an
existing or a fictional brand, integrated more or less prominently in the picture.
For the aim of the study, the fictional brand Let’s Potato Chips was chosen, as not yet
produced in the real world and repeatedly placed in the aforementioned TV show. In fact, repeated exposure to the fictional brand is essential for the viewers to elaborate a new label and develop an attitude towards it (Muzellec et al., 2012). Moreover, this fictional brand represents a low
involvement consumer good, which reflects the perfect category for a good brand placement within an entertained context. The label Lay’s Potato Chips, available in the real world, was chosen as the existing corresponding brand, because of the undeniable similarities between the two in terms of font, colors and package.
The placement prominence was then manipulated with regard to the brand’s visibility, namely whether the brand is placed in the foreground or in the background of the TV show’s scene.
Participants in the high placement prominence condition were therefore exposed to a scene’s screenshot, whereby the package of either Lay’s or Let’s Potato Chips was placed on the main table in the center of the picture and therefore positioned in the foreground of the scene. Individuals belonging to the low placement prominence condition, instead, were asked to pay attention to the same scene’s screenshot, whereby this time the package of either Lay’s or Let’s Potato Chips was situated on a small bowl, located on a shelf in the background of the scene (see Appendix). Pre-test
After the development of the stimulus material for the online experiment, a pre-test with 23 participants, who were on average 24 years old (M = 24.04, SD = 3.13), mainly female (N = 17) and Swiss (N = 7) was conducted, in order to check if the manipulation of both the placement
prominence and the brand type variables was successful. Two independent sample t-tests indicated that the placement in the high placement prominence condition was perceived as significantly more prominent (M = 4.98, SD = 2.09) than the one in the low placement prominence condition (M = 3.48, SD = 1.67), t (21) =1.91, p = .035, 95% CI [-0.14, 3.13], and that participants in the existing
brand condition evaluated the brand significantly higher as existing (M = 6.56, SD = 0.53) than participants in the fictional brand condition (M = 3.71, SD = 1.44), t (18) = 6.73, p < .001, 95% CI [1.95, 3.73].
Measures
Dependent variable
Purchase intention. This variable assesses the consumers’ wish to buy the brand after the
exposure to the TV show scene. The construct was measured by asking participants to indicate to what extent they agreed with the following 3 items: “I would like to try X potato chips”, “I would actively seek out X potato chips”, “I would become a loyal customer of X potato chips” on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; Muzellec et al., 2013). The scale was proved reliable (M = 2.66, SD = 1.29, α = .84).
Mediator
Persuasion knowledge. Participants were asked to rate their agreement with the statement:
“The brand X has been placed in the scene because it paid to be integrated in the TV show” on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; Wei et al., 2008).
Control variables
TV shows enthusiasm. To check if experience with the entertainment world might influence
the proposed effects, participants were asked to respond to the following question: “Do you consider yourself a TV show enthusiast?” The answers were coded 0 (= No) and 1 (= Yes).
TV shows watching frequency. In order to preserve the cover story of the research,
participants were asked how often they watch TV shows in general and the TV program New Girl in particular, by means of the following scale: 1 = daily, 2 = weekly, 3 = twice or three times a
Program liking. For the same reason, participants’ evaluation of the TV show New Girl was
collected by means of 4 items (good vs. bad, pleasant vs. unpleasant, appealing vs. unappealing, likable vs. unlikable) and a 7-point Likert scale. The scale was proved reliable (M = 4.75, SD = 1.48, α = .98).
Brand attitude. Since previous studies consistently demonstrated that consumers’ purchase
intention highly correlates with their brand attitude (e.g. Muzellec et al., 2013), this construct was measured as well. It indicates the consumers’ evaluation of the brand and was operationalized by means of 6 items (good vs. bad, pleasant vs. unpleasant, favorable vs. unfavorable, appealing vs. unappealing, likable vs. unlikable, positive vs. negative) on a 7-point Likert scale (D’Hooge et al., 2017). The items were proved to build a reliable scale (M = 4.34, SD = 1.06, α = .94).
Brand recall. To control if the recollection of the presented brand correlates with the
dependent variable, brand recall was measured by asking participants to write down the brand of the potato chips placed somewhere in the picture they just saw. The answers were coded 0 (=
participant did not mention Lay’s/Let’s) and 1 (= participant did mention Lay’s/Let’s).
Brand familiarity. Since familiarity with a brand is considered a necessary requirement for
the classic as well as for the most recent reverse product placement strategy to operate properly (Low & Lamb, 2000; Muzellec et al., 2012), this variable was included in the study. To test the different pre-existing attitudes towards the labels, participants were presented a list of potato chips’ brands (e.g. Pringles, Lay’s, etc.) and asked to check the names of the ones they were familiar with. Manipulation checks
Brand type. In order to check if the manipulation of the independent variable has worked as
intended, respondents were asked for their perception of the brand type by agreeing with the statement “Brand X is an existing potato chips’ brand, which can be bought in many shops worldwide” on a scale from 1 (= strongly disagree) to 7 (= strongly agree).
Placement prominence. The effectiveness of the moderator’s manipulation was checked by
means of the following 4 items: “I saw the brand X in the front of the picture”, “I saw the brand X immediately, when looking at the picture”, “I saw the brand X placed prominently in the picture” and “I saw the brand X clearly in the picture” on a scale from 1 (= strongly disagree) to 7 (=
strongly agree; D’Hooge et al., 2017). The items were proved to build a reliable scale (M = 4.08, SD = 1.84, α = .91).
Results Randomization Checks
To check if participants had been equally distributed across the four conditions based on their demographic characteristics, chi-square tests were conducted with experimental condition (existing vs. fictional brand and prominent vs. subtle placement) as nominal independent variable and gender, education and nationality as either nominal or ordinal dependent variable. The results indicated a significant difference throughout the conditions only for participants’ gender, χ2 (3, N = 251) = 9.17, p = .027, V = .19. Since the percentage of male and female differed across the four groups, the variable gender was used as a covariate in the following analyses. A non-significant difference across the four conditions was found for participants’ education level, χ2 (12, N = 251) = 19.64, p = .074, and nationality, χ2 (99, N = 251) = 104.10, p = .343, V = .37.
To check if participants had been equally randomized over the four conditions based on their age, a one-way analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was conducted with experimental condition
(existing vs. fictional brand and prominent vs. subtle placement) as independent nominal variable and age as dependent interval variable. The results revealed that the participants’ age did not significantly differ across the four conditions, F(3, 247) = .97, p = .409. The randomization here was therefore successful.
Manipulation Checks
t-tests were conducted with experimental condition (existing vs. fictional brand and prominent vs. subtle placement) as independent nominal variable and perception of either brand type or placement prominence as interval dependent variable. The results showed that participants in the prominent placement condition perceived the placement as significantly more prominent (M = 4.53, SD = 1.73) than participants in the subtle placement condition (M = 3.66, SD = 1.85), t(249) = 3.87, p < .001, 95% CI [0.43, 1.32]. Furthermore, participants in the existing brand condition evaluated the brand they had been exposed to as significantly more existing (M = 5.64, SD = 1.21) than
participants in the fictional brand condition (M = 4.07, SD = 1.28), t(249) = 10.00, p < .001, 95% CI [1.26, 1.88]. Both manipulations were therefore successful.
Additional Explorative Analysis
In order to check if control variables correlate with the purchase intention dimension, several bivariate correlations were conducted. Results showed a significant moderate correlation with the dependent variable for both brand recall, r = .37, p < .001 and brand attitude, r = .36, p < .001 and a small significant one for brand familiarity, r = .19, p = .003 and TV shows enthusiasm, r = .14, p = .024. These four variables were therefore included as covariates in the subsequent analyses as well. Main Analyses
Hypothesis 1 predicted that the placement of a fictional brand in a TV show scene will result in greater consumers’ purchase intention, compared to an existing brand placement within the same context. Hypothesis 3 posited that this is especially the case when the fictional brand is prominently placed in a TV show scene, compared to the situation when it is subtly placed, whereas the exact opposite occurs for an existing brand. To test these two hypotheses a two-way analysis of
covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted.
Contrary to expectations, no significant main effect for brand type was found, F(1, 247) = 3.66, p = .057. The placement of a fictional brand in a TV show scene did not exercise a different influence on consumers’ purchase intention (M = 2.59, SD = 1.34) than the placement of an existing
brand within the same context (M = 2.75, SD = 1.25). Hypothesis 1 must therefore be rejected. Moreover, no significant main effect for placement prominence was detected, F(1, 247) = 3.05, p = .082 and no significant interaction effect was reported either, F(1, 247) = 1.05, p = .307. Hypothesis 3 must therefore be rejected as well. Nevertheless, both brand attitude F(1, 247) = 22.77, p < .001, η2 = .086 and brand recall F(1, 247) = 17.47, p < .001, η2 = .067 exercised a significant effect on the dependent variable. The implications of these outcomes are discussed in the subsequent section.
To test hypothesis 2 and hypothesis 4, which claimed that the effect of brand type on purchase intention is mediated by participants’ PK and that the effect of brand type on PK is moderated by placement prominence, a moderated mediation analysis was conducted by means of PROCESS Model 8 for SPSS, developed by Hayes (2013).
The results of the analysis firstly show that, as already demonstrated by means of the previous two-way ANCOVA, brand type did not significantly affect purchase intention, b = .31, SE = .16, p = .057, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.63], neither did placement prominence, b = -.25, SE = .15, p = .103, 95% CI 0.54, 0.05], or the interaction effect between the two, b = -.29, SE = .29, p = .320, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.28]. Finally, both brand attitude, b = .34, SE = .07, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.20, 0.48] and brand recall b = .71, SE = .18, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.35, 1.07] influenced purchase intention.
Contrary to expectations, brand type did not significantly predict PK either, b = -.04, SE = .19, p = .839, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.33], nor did placement prominence, b = -.25, SE = .17, p = .140, 95% CI [0.59, 0.08], or the interaction effect between brand type and placement prominence, b = -.11, SE = .33, p = .750, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.55]. Ultimately, PK also did not significantly predict purchase intention, b = .08, SE = .06, p = .154, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.19]. Hence, the results of the moderated mediation analysis show that placement prominence and PK did not qualify as moderator and mediator, respectively; hypothesis 2 and 4 must thus be rejected.
It is noteworthy, however, that TV shows enthusiasm exercised an influence on PK, b = -.35,
SE = .17, p = .039, 95% CI [-0.68, -0.02] and so did brand recall, b = .61, SE = .21, p = .004, 95%
activated. Conversely, the result of participants recalling the placed brand is the activation of their PK in response to the brand placement. The implications of these findings are discussed below.
Discussion & Conclusion Theoretical Contributions
This study contributed to the current research on the effectiveness of the most recent reverse product placement practice, by analyzing the influence a fictional (versus an existing) brand placement within a TV show scene may exercise on viewers’ purchase intention. The moderating effect of placement prominence and the mediating role played by individuals’ PK on the proposed relationship have been further examined.
Against all the odds, findings firstly demonstrated that the placement of a fictional brand in a TV show scene did not result in greater purchase intention, compared to the integration of an existing brand into the same context. Although not significant, the reverse pattern seemed indeed to be true. Since brand recall was reported to play a strong positive influence on the dependent
variable, a possible explanation for this result can be found in the fact that only 24 participants exposed to the fictional brand condition did recall it, as opposed to the high remembering rate shown by individuals belonging to the existing brand condition (N = 80). For this reason, the present study provides thus further support to the school of thought according to which brand recall is considered a necessary condition for viewers to develop positive attitudes and buying intentions towards the placed brand (Law & Braun-LaTour, 2004).
Additionally, the present study uncovered a positive correlation between brand familiarity and purchase intention. This consideration might help to provide a further explanation to the
aforementioned finding; in fact, only few participants declared they were familiar with the fictional brand (N = 10), whereas most of them evaluated the existing brand as well-known (N = 140). This is surprising, given the fact that the majority of the respondents asserted their familiarity with either the TV show New Girl or with one of the several programs listed where the fictional brand made
numerous appearances throughout the seasons. Nevertheless, this finding enriches the current state of research by confirming that greater brand attitude and behavioral intention result from the exposure to highly familiar brands (Tam, 2008). Finally, the present study strengthens the present knowledge on the topic, by confirming how brand attitude strongly predicts purchase intention (e.g. Muzellec et al., 2013).
Regarding the moderating role hypothesized for the placement prominence, findings indicated that this construct did not exercise a significant effect on participants’ purchase intention nor did its interaction with brand type. A possible explanation for this result could be found in the lack of a clear high prominence element in the prominent placement context, caused in particular by the shortage of reinforcements to this experimental condition by means of auditive brand mentioning or plot-connected brand integration, such as when a character is portrayed using the placed product. Although participants did perceive the prominent placement as such, the lack of the aforementioned elements in the fictional prominent brand condition could have hindered the viewers’ perception of a strong fit between the fictional label and the fictitious entertained context, hypothesized to
ultimately influence their purchase intention in a positive way (Russell, 2002).
Conversely, in the context of a real brand integrated prominently, this fact could have resulted in the individuals’ perception of a low-degree-intrusiveness of the blatant brand placement. Their viewing experience was therefore not disrupted by the brand integration (Cowley & Barron, 2008), and their purchase intention consequently not negatively affected. Furthermore, practitioners
usually track back the negative influence a prominent real brand placement exercises on consumers’ purchase intention to the activation of their PK that it provokes (e.g. Wei et al, 2008); however, no significant correlation between placement prominence and PK was found in this study.
As far as participants’ PK is concerned, study results indicated that neither brand type, nor placement prominence or the interaction between the two affected this construct. As in the case of placement prominence, this outcome could be due to the high similarity between the conditions, conveyed by the high resemblance of the two placed items in terms of brand names and packaging.
It is indeed highly likely that participants exposed to the fictional brand condition simply perceived it as a new variant of the real label and not as an independent non-existing brand. The hypothesized mediator did not ultimately influence the dimension of purchase intention either. This null-effect could be explained by the perceived appropriateness of the covert marketing tactic implemented in the study. It has indeed been proved that, in situations where viewers perceived it as fair for the company to pay to have its product or brand integrated in a movie or TV show, the hypothesized negative effect played by PK on brand evaluation could be attenuated (Wei et al., 2008). In further support of this conjecture, in Isaac & Grayson’s empirical research (2017) the product placement strategy has been considered by participants as a credible persuasive tactic.
Despite the nonsignificant effect found, some interesting insights are gained when examining the control variables, which enrich in particular the Persuasion Knowledge Model with important theoretical implications. Firstly, brand recall was assessed to influence PK positively, supporting previous assumptions according to which individuals often perceive that they can be persuaded more strongly by brands they recall (Nelson et al., 2006). In addition, TV shows enthusiasm
negatively affects this construct: the more enthusiastic the participant was about TV shows, the less he or she realized the persuasive intent behind the brand placement. Previous studies have
supported the assumption that the more prior experience viewers gained with a format, the stronger they would feel narrative transportation when exposed to it (Slater, Rouner, & Long, 2006). Greater transportation into the narrative, described as the process whereby individuals feel absorbed by the entertained context, was finally consistently proved to reduce critical thoughts (Van Laer, De Ruyter, Visconti, & Wetzels, 2013) and thus render their PK activation less likely.
Limitations & Future Research
A first limitation of this study concerns the creation of the stimuli. First of all, both brands have been placed in the TV show scene by means of a basic Photoshop program, a process which does not always guarantee the high authenticity level required from empirical research. Besides this
aspect, participants were subsequently exposed to a screenshot of the TV show scene only, instead of the full episode. This fact may have influenced constructs like transportation into the narrative or parasocial interactions with the characters, usually provided by audiovisual material (Moyer-Gusé, 2008). For this reason, future research should put extra effort into the creation of the stimuli, in order to make them appear as realistic as possible.
Furthermore, with respect to the previous elaboration on the viewers’ familiarity with a fictional brand as an important requirement for the reverse product placement practice to work successfully, it is recommended to replicate the study with additional fictional brands more familiar to the audience. An expansion of the product category regarding healthier and higher-involvement products is suggested as well, given that potato chips could be perceived as an unhealthy and low involvement item. Additionally, it would be interesting to examine if the absence of pattern
discovered in this study between brand type and consumers’ purchase intention might be disproved in the context of fictional product placements promoted by existing brands. A few examples can be represented by new flavored drinks labeled Coca Cola or make up items marked NIVEA.
Concerning the lack of significant effects exerted by placement prominence on consumers’ purchase intention revealed by the analyses, avenues for future research are proposed, whereby further forms of highly noticeable brand placements are being investigated. Some examples of such expedients go by the name of tie-in, plot-connected placements, used-by-character arrangements or auditive brand integration and can represent not only different levels of obtrusiveness to the
viewing experience and perceived fit between the placed label and the entertained context, but also consequent unalike effects on consumers’ buying intentions.
Moreover, given the discovered lack of influence exercised by brand type and placement prominence on PK, future research should take additional factors into account, that can have a potential impact on this construct. One such dimension is represented by advertising disclosures, which have already been proved to successfully activate viewers’ PK in multiple circumstances (e.g. Boerman et al., 2012; Campbell et al., 2013). It would then be interesting to investigate if such
warnings might initiate the same process in the reverse product placement context and eventually foster consumers’ purchase intention.
Last but not least, since PK has been conceptualized as a constantly evolving construct, which develops over the years through experiences with various persuasion attempts (Friestad & Wright, 1994) and correlates with constructs such as age and education (Kirmani & Campbell, 2004), broader target groups in terms of age, educational level and previous exposures to product
placement episodes should be addressed in future studies. Because of its convenient nature and an observed majority of Swiss, young and highly educated respondents, the sample of this study is indeed not representative for the rest of the population.
Managerial Implications
As far as the implications for marketers are concerned, the present study clearly suggests practitioners in the reverse product placement field to always make sure that their brand-new label makes its way through the audience by means of several strategic placements within a fictional context before its launch in the real world. For this innovative practice to work properly, at the moment of its promotion on the market, the brand should have reached the state of an easily recognizable and highly remembered label in the consumers’ mind.
Regarding the placement prominence, this research seems to advise marketers willing to engage in the reverse product placement strategy to address particular attention to the different types of prominent brand placements at their disposal: when not emphasized enough, in fact, a fictitious brand integration can easily result in a null-effect on the viewers’ behavioral intentions. This could then mean excessive unnecessary investment of money and time for the company and a wasted opportunity for a good first launch of a new brand.
Finally, as this study proved that TV shows enthusiasm can reduce viewers’ perception of the persuasive purpose of a placed brand, practitioners in the reverse product placement field are advised to look for this specific target when launching their fictitious brand, by incorporating the
label in later episodes of a TV program, to the point where the viewer begins to experience enthusiasm for the format.
By shedding light on several important aspects of the practice, this study contributed to the current scientific literature on the most recent and interesting tactic of reverse product placement, an extremely innovative addition to the practitioners’ portfolio, meriting further investigation.
Literature
Avery, R. J., & Ferraro, R. (2000). Verisimilitude or advertising? Brand appearances on prime-time television. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 34(2), 217–244.
Balasubramanian, S. K. (1994). Beyond advertising and publicity: Hybrid messages and public policy issues. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 29–46.
Balasubramanian, S. K., Karrh, J. A., & Patwardhan, H. (2006). Audience response to product placements. An integrative framework and future research Agenda. Journal of Advertising,
35(3), 115-141.
Bhatnagar, N., Aksoy, L., & Malkoc, S. A. (2004). Embedding brands within media content: The impact of message, media, and consumer characteristics on placement efficacy. In L. J. Shrum (Ed.), The Psychology of Entertainment Media: Blurring the Lines between Entertainment and
Persuasion (pp. 99–116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
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.
Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of consumer
Campbell, M. C., Mohr, G. S., & Verlegh, P. W. (2013). Can disclosures lead consumers to resist covert persuasion? The important roles of disclosure timing and type of response. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 23(4), 483-495.
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.
Dahlén, M., Friberg, L., & Nilsson, E. (2009). Long live creative media choice. Journal of
Advertising, 38(2), 121-129.
D’Astous, A., & Chartier, F. (2000). A study of factors affecting consumer evaluations and memory of product placements in movies. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 22(2), 31-40.
Dens, N., De Pelsmacker, P., Wouters, M., & Purnawirawan, N. (2012). Do you like what you recognize? Journal of Advertising, 41(3), 35-54.
D’Hooge, S. C., Hudders, L., & Cauberghe, V. (2017). Direct evaluative conditioning in brand placement. The impact of scene valence and prominence on brand placement repetition effects.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 16(5), 452-462.
Fransen, M. L., Verlegh, P. W. J., Kirmani, A., & Smit, E. G. (2015). A typology of consumer strategies for resisting advertising, and a review of mechanisms for countering them.
International Journal of Advertising, 34(1), 6-16.
Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31.
Gillespie, B., Muehling, D. D., & Kareklas, I. (2018). Fitting product placements. Affective fit and cognitive fit as determinants of consumer evaluations of placed brands. Journal of Business
Research, 82, 90-102.
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. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. A
regression-based approach. The Guilford Press.
Isaac, M. S., & Grayson, K. (2017). Beyond skepticism: Can accessing persuasion knowledge bolster credibility? Journal of Consumer Research, 43(6), 895-912.
Karrh, J. A. (1998). Brand placement: A review. Journal of Current Issues & Research in
Advertising, 20(2), 31-49.
Kirmani, A., & Campbell, M. C. (2004). Goal seeker and persuasion sentry: How consumer targets respond to interpersonal marketing persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(3), 573–582. Law, S., & Braun, K. A. (2000). I’ll have what she’s having: Gauging the impact of product
placements on viewers. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 1059–1075.
Law, S. & Braun-LaTour, K. A. (2004). Product placements: how to measure their impact. In L. J. Shrum (Ed.), The Psychology of Entertainment Media: Blurring the Lines between
Entertainment and Persuasion (pp. 63–78). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Low, G. S. & Lamb, C. W. (2000). The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations.
Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(6), 350–368.
Matthes, J., Schemer, C., & Wirth, W. (2007). More than meets the eye. International Journal of
Advertising, 26(4), 477-503.
McCarty, J. A. (2004). Product placement: The nature of the practice and potential avenues of inquiry. In L. J. Shrum (Ed.), The Psychology of Entertainment Media: Blurring the Lines
between Entertainment and Persuasion (pp. 45-61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Moyer-Gusé, E. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment-education messages. Communication Theory, 18(3), 407-425.
Muzellec, L., Kanitz, C., & Lynn, T. (2013). Fancy a coffee with Friends in ‘Central Perk’?
International Journal of Advertising, 32(3), 399-417.
Muzellec, L., Lynn, T., & Lambkin, M. (2012). Branding in fictional and virtual environments. Introducing a new conceptual domain and research agenda. European Journal of Marketing,
46(6), 811 – 826.
Nelson, M. R., Yaros, R. A., & Keum, H. (2006). Examining the influence of telepresence on spectator and player processing of real and fictitious brands in a computer game. Journal of
Advertising, 35(4), 87-99.
Patwardhan, H., & Patwardhan, P. (2016.) When fiction becomes fact. Effect of reverse product placement on consumer attitudes. Journal of Promotion Management, 22(3), 349-369. 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, 306- 318.
Slater, M. D., Rouner, D., & Long, M. (2006). Television dramas and support for controversial public policies: Effects and mechanisms. Journal of Communication, 56(2), 235-252. Tam, J. L. (2008). Brand familiarity: Its effects on satisfaction evaluations. Journal of Services
Marketing, 22(1), 3-12.
Van Laer, T., De Ruyter, K., Visconti, L. M., & Wetzels, M. (2013). The extended transportation-imagery model: A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of consumers' narrative transportation. Journal of Consumer research, 40(5), 797-817.
Van Reijmersdal, E. (2009). Brand placement prominence. Good for memory! Bad for attitudes?
Journal of Advertising Research, 49(2), 151-153.
Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Fransen, M. L., Van Noort, G., Opree, S. J., Vandeberg, L., Reusch, S., .... Boerman, S. C. (2016). Effects of disclosing sponsored content in blogs: How the use of
resistance strategies mediates effects on persuasion. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(12), 1458-1474.
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. A., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2009). A new branch of advertising. Reviewing factors that influence reactions to product placement. Journal of Advertising
Research, 49(4), 429-449.
Wei, M., Fischer, E., & Main, K. J. (2008). An examination of the effects of activating persuasion knowledge on consumer response to brands engaging in covert marketing. Journal of Public
Policy & Marketing, 27(1), 34-44.
Yang, M., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R. (2007). The effectiveness of brand placements in the movies. Levels of placements, explicit and implicit memory, and brand-choice behavior. Journal of
Appendix Stimuli Material
Figure 1. High prominence placement of the existing brand Lay’s Potato Chips
Figure 3. High prominence placement of the fictional brand Let’s Potato Chips
