Exploring product placement
effectiveness in comics:
How placement prominence affects brand recall
Tim Wilmer
10067434
´Master´s Thesis´
Graduate School of Communication
Master´s program Communication Science
Dr. Daan Muntinga
1
Abstract
Product placement is a form of advertising that has been used in movies and television shows for a long time, but lags behind for other media. Due to their different modality and audience, comic books seem an interesting opportunity for product placement as well. As research into the effectiveness of placing advertisements in comics remains unexplored, this study
examines how the prominence of a prominent product placement in comics affects its effectiveness, and how this relationship is influenced by brand familiarity. A 2 (prominence: prominent vs. subtle) * 2 (familiarity: familiar vs. unfamiliar) factorial design is used to investigate these effects. Results indicate that when advertisers aim to increase consumers’ recall of the brand, a prominent product placement is more suitable than a subtle placement. Furthermore, when a product is prominently placed, familiar brands elicit more recall than unfamiliar brands. The prominence of a product placement does not appear to affect consumers’ persuasion knowledge, and prominence does not affect consumers’ attitude towards the placed brand and purchase intentions. As this study is the first step into researching the effects of product placements in comics, it contributes to a better understanding of consumer effects on embedded advertisements in comics.
2
Introduction
Product placements have been used in television programs and movies for a long time and in recent years this strategy seems to work out for other media as well (Olsen & Lanseng, 2012). Examples include computer games (e.g. Mountain Dew in Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker; Glass, 2007), music (e.g. Pass the Courvoisier by Busta Rhymes), musicals (e.g. Harmel Foods Spam meat cans in Spamalot), literature and text (e.g. the book The Bulgari
Connection; Nelson, 2004) and comics, such as the prominent featuring of a Pontiac Solstice
sports car in DC Comics’ comic book series Rush City. The incorporation of product
placement in comics is not surprising. Authors and publishers are trying to find new ways to generate revenue with the decreasing sell of printed text-based media. To plug a product or brand name in a text or comic is relative easy and at low cost, which makes it a potentially cost-effective strategy.
Product placement is a form of advertisement where the product or message is directly embedded in the editorial content, unlike traditional forms of advertisement where products and brands are presented with a separate and distinct format from the editorial content. Due to the difference with traditional advertisement, product placement is not always identified as a persuasive attempt of advertisers which makes it more difficult for consumers to recognize and defend themselves upon it (Storm & Stoller, 2014). Recognizing advertisements is important for consumers to protect themselves against some else’s attempt to limit or change one’s choices (Knowles & Linn, 2004).
Although a lot of empirical research has examined product placement in the movies and TV shows, studies of product placement’s effectiveness in comics is scarce (Storm & Stoller, 2014). This is surprising since DC and Marvel (the comic industry’s two giants that hold 70% of the comic market share in the U.S.) have been incorporating product placement in their comics since 2006. The U.S. comic book market was worth about $870 million in
3 2013 and companies such as DaimlerChrysler, Nike and General Motors have already signed contracts to be incorporated in comics (Reid, 2014).
Previous findings of product placements’ effectiveness in television and movies are not fully applicable to product placements’ effectiveness in comics due to differences in modality and pacing (Russell & Stern, 2006). Therefore, research on this topic is also scientifically important. The aim of this study is to provide a first understanding of the mechanisms underlying product placement’s effectiveness in comics. We do so by investigating how brand prominence and brand familiarity, which have been shown to be important factors in other product placement contexts, play a role in these effects. First, extant literature is reviewed, leading to specific expectations with regard to comics’ effectiveness as a product placement outlet. Second, an elaboration of the results of the experiment that was carried out in order to measure the effects. The end entails a conclusion and discussion on how the findings relate to the literature on effects of product placement in comics.
Theoretical background
How Modality Explains Consumer Reactions
Products placement’s effectiveness on consumer behavior and judgments can be different when used in comics compared with other media such as TV shows and movies. Although there are differences between comics and word-based texts as well: comics are less complex to understand than word-based texts because the words are complemented and made easier to understand by using pictures. In this way comics are seen as a simplified version of word-based texts and can increase comprehension (Houts, Doak, Doak & Loscalzo, 2006; Jacobs, 2007).
Previous research which contained different modalities state that verbal placements are being processed more deeply than word-based texts because they carry more meaning which
4 will lead to a higher integration into the cognitive structure of the consumer (Russel, 2002). Other research contradicts this statement and state that a text-based product placement has the same benefits of a verbal placement (Olsen & Lanseng, 2012). They state that from young age, children learn to read and are encouraged to read aloud. These spoken words become internalized into our “inner voice” when we grow up. As a text is being read, these words are spoken out loud in their head. This makes verbal placements (e.g. TV placements) similar to text-based placements (e.g. comics) and likely to produce the same effects. This is in line with research towards the effects of audio-visual and visual only placements. No significant
advantage was found of audio visual over visual only placements when a product placement was placed prominent (Gupta & Lord, 1998).
Comics, however, are a medium where the reader is encouraged to a high degree of participation to decipher meaning between images and need much more conscious interaction than TV shows and movies. Readers get invited to participate in the creation of movement, weight, sound, depth and time because these varying dimensions have to become reality. Viewers of TV shows and movies already experience these dimensions created by the producers. The experiences of characters within the comic are shared with the reader which creates a common reality of interaction (Mehaffey, 2010).
Another difference between TV shows/movies and comics/novels is the pacing of the viewer or reader. A broadcast medium such as television decides the moment and speed of information transfer. This is defined as external pacing (Moorman, Neijens & Smit, 2002). Contrary in print media as comics, readers can define their speed and moment themselves, which is defined as internal pacing. Pacing may influence the state of mind of the reader and in which the product in the comic is experienced because of the control a person has over the exposure. In print media, a person can control its exposure time to the placement, unlike in
5 broadcast media where the exposure is set. Due to these differences, effects found for
television cannot be fully transferred to printed media as comics.
Product Placements’ changing character
Since product placement increased its presence in other media channels than only television and movies, its definition changed with it. Balasubramanian (1994, p. 29) defined product placement as “a paid product message aimed at influencing movie (or television) audiences via the planned and unobtrusive entry of a branded product into a movie (or television program)”. It is a combination of publicity and advertising to influence the audience with its unobtrusive entry of a commercial message in entertainment programs in such way that the audience is not aware of the persuasive intent. Product placement is unobtrusive because it is part of an entertainment vehicle where the focus is not on the placement, compared to an advertisement where the focus of the advertisement is the product or brand. Thus, the persuasive intent is perceived less obvious for consumers.
However, product placements are not always unobtrusive, so the definition of
Balasubramanian (1994) can be too constraining (Mehaffey, 2010). A product can be placed prominent in the placement, making it more obtrusive. Additionally, product placement is finding its way into many other forms of media channels which makes it important to create a definition that doesn’t exclude present or possible future channels in which product placement can appear (Olsen & Lanseng, 2012). Reasoning accordingly, this study will use a definition based on Russell and Belch (2005, p.74) who define product placement simply as “the purposeful incorporation of a brand into an entertainment vehicle”. An entertainment vehicle can be any form of commercial communication and has the intention of influencing consumer attitude or behavior.
6
How Placement Prominence May Affect Placement Efficacy
The prominence of a product placement is closely connected to the ease in which the product can be included into a comic and therefore it is relevant to the amount a marketer has to pay to reach its audience (Gupta & Lord, 1998). The decision of a marketer to what extend the product placement will be prominent lies in the tradeoff between the cost of the marketer and the desired effect of the placement. Research into the influence of prominent placements in comics is not yet available so a marketer has no knowledge to what extent a strategy is
dependent on the benefits of prominence. Therefore, a study like this is needed to establish the extent to which a marketer needs to purchase costly prominent placements or can reach its effect with more subtle placements.
Authors have operationalized and discussed prominence as the size of the logo or product, centrality of the logo or product in the screen, centrality and/or integration of the logo or product into the plot, duration of the logo or product on the screen, number of mentions of the logo or product and/or modality (Auty & Lewis, 2004; Cowley & Barron, 2008; Gupta & Lord, 1998; Law & Braun, 2000; Russel, 2002). Placements in which the brand is not shown prominently are subtle placements (e.g. a background prop outside of the visual focus or main field, small in size, low time of exposure or lost in an array of multiple objects)(Nelson & Waiguny, 2012). Because comics are a visual only modality, this study will use a modified version where prominence is seen as the combination of the size of the logo and the numbers of mentions in the comic.
Prominence has consistently been found to be an important determinant of memory performance. Prominent placements have a better chance of being processed and
subsequently, prominently placed brands are better recalled than subtly placed brands (Babin & Carder, 1996; Gupta & Lord, 1998; Gibson, Redker & Zimmerman, 2014; Van
7 positive effects on memory, it can have negative effects on brand attitude (Van Reijmersdal, 2009). Matthes, Schemer and Wirth (2007) investigated brand prominence in which the brands differed in the amount of times they were repeated. Their results showed higher scores on memory and negative scores on brand attitude for prominent placements. A similar effect was found in the study investigated by Cowley and Barron (2008). Prominent placed brands had a positive attitude effect on viewers who were not as supportive with the program but a negative effect on viewers who liked the program. These prominence effects can be
explained; prominently placed brands are more deeply processed which leads to an increase in the memory. Therefore, it is expected that prominently placed brands are better recalled than subtly placed brands but at the same time are less liked than subtly placed brands.
H1: A prominently placed brand in a comic is better recalled than a subtly placed
brand.
H2: The brand attitude of a prominently placed brand in a comic will be lower than
the brand attitude of a subtly placed brand.
In some cases, however, prominent placements may elicit awareness of product placement and activate defenses against persuasion (Friestad & Wright, 1999; Russel, 2002). Viewers who realize the brand is presented in the editorial content specifically to persuade them to buy products can create negative attitudes toward the placed brand. This awareness can not only be harmful for the brand attitude, also other behavioral intentions as purchase intentions will be less (Williams, Petrosky, Hernandez, & Page, 2011). For example, when viewers
encounter a brand repeatedly incorporated in a plot of a comic, they will remember it better but might think of a persuasive intent and create negative attitudes towards the brand and will be less inclined to buy the brands products.
8
H3: The purchase intentions of a prominently placed brand in a comic will be lower
than the purchase intentions of a subtly placed brand.
The mediating role of persuasion knowledge
The Persuasion Knowledge Model (PKM) (Friestad & Wright, 1974) asserts that in their lifetime people develop knowledge about how, when and why a message is intended to influence them in order to ‘cope’ with persuasive attempts. Because prominently placed brands are more likely to be recognized, it is also more likely that this will evoke consumers’ awareness that the placed brand has the intention to influence them (Friestad & Wright, 1974).
Previous studies investigated the PKM where consumers were exposed to a sales agent and wherein the mere presence of a sales agent already activated the persuasion knowledge (Campbell & Kirmani, 2000). Product placement in comics is different in which a consumer reads a comic as a form of entertainment. Since product placements in comics are rare, people are not used to product placement there and therefore do not activate their persuasion
knowledge. One perceived advantage of product placement is that consumers presented to a context and stimulus which is created to be an entertaining experience does not activate their marketplace-related social intelligence and therefore leaving their experience unguided by that knowledge (Wright, 2002). In fact, the advantage of product placement over other forms of advertisement can be found in the placements hidden motive of persuasion. Many
marketers perceive this as a mechanism in which brands can be promoted under the consumers’ radar (Cowley & Barron, 2008).
Persuasion knowledge is not always activated; it will only be available for activation when consumers belief that they are being intentionally persuaded by a message. When consumers perceive a message to have a persuasive intent they change the interpretations of the message and other actions of persuasive agents. This is called the change of meaning
9
principle, where viewers may “disengage somewhat from the ongoing interaction, draw
inferences of some sort, get distracted from the message… or discount what the spokeperson says” (Friestad & Wright, 1994, p.13). For example, when a product or brand is pushed from the background to the foreground and made more prominent, it may cause a changing in meaning for the viewer. This changing in meaning may result in a reactant consumer, whose attitude towards the advertised brand and intentions to the brand are substantially lowered (Campbell & Kirmani, 2000). This is in line with Cowley and Barron’s (2008) study, which showed that exposure to prominent placements also triggered persuasion knowledge, which in turn positively affected brand memory, but also negatively affected consumers’ attitudes toward the placed brand. Thus, the prominence of the placements may cause an increase in explicit memory and can be accompanied by the activation of persuasion knowledge resulting in a decrease of the brand attitude and purchase intention. Therefore, the following hypotheses are drawn:
H4: Prominently placed brands will elicit higher persuasion knowledge than subtly
placed brands.
H5a: Persuasion knowledge positively mediates the effect of prominence on recall. A
prominent placed brand will activate higher persuasion knowledge which will in turn
lead to a higher recall than a subtly placed brand.
H5b: Persuasion knowledge negatively mediates the effect of prominence on brand
attitude. A prominent placed brand will activate higher persuasion knowledge which
will in turn lead to a lower brand attitude than a subtly placed brand.
H5c: Persuasion knowledge negatively mediates the effect of prominence on purchase
intention. A prominent placed brand will activate higher persuasion knowledge which
10
The moderating role of brand familiarity
Because today’s consumers are exposed to thousands of advertisements, there is limited capacity to pay attention to and elaborate on all ad information. They use marketplace information to process information and construct interferences about brand characteristics (Johar & Pham, 1999). Therefore, consumers are more selective on where the attention and processing to advertisements and information is set on. Familiar brands are more accessible in memory because they exhibit stronger associations with their product categories. It is
therefore easier to pay attention to familiar brands compared with unfamiliar brands (Lee & Sternthal, 1999). Keller (1987) explained this effect with his research regarding memory networks by advertising exposure. Consumers retrieve information more easily when a little cue of advertisement is stored in their memory. Familiar brands are more likely to produce stronger links in the ad memory trace so when a consumer would be exposed by an
advertisement, he or she should be able to retrieve information more easily. Thus, familiar brands have a higher likelihood of being recalled than unfamiliar brands. Therefore, consumers might be willing to assign more attention to brand information or products in comics with familiar brands, subsequently resulting in a better recall.
H6a: The effect of prominent placements on recall is moderated by brand familiarity.
When a placed brand is familiar, prominent placements will elicit higher scores on
recall than an unfamiliar brand placement.
Consumers process information more extensive from comics with familiar brands which could enhance consumers’ cognitive process and can eventually evoke more awareness of a persuasive intent. When they become aware of the persuasive intent consumers can create counterarguments as a result from the triggered defenses. This is in line with previous studies of brand familiarity where judgments of familiar brands were less affected by product
11 placement than judgments of unfamiliar brands (Storm & Stoller, 2014). Hence, the following hypothesis is drawn:
H6b: The effect of prominent product placement on persuasion knowledge is
moderated by brand familiarity. When a placed brand is familiar, prominent
placements will score higher on persuasion knowledge than an unfamiliar brand
placement. H6b H6a H1 H5a H2 H4 H3 H5b H5c
Fig. 1 Research model of prominence effects, brand familiarity and persuasion knowledge
Method
Research design
An online experiment was employed to test the hypothesized relationships in a controlled setting. A 2 (prominence: prominent vs. subtle) x 2 (brand familiarity: familiar brand vs. unfamiliar brand) between—subjects factorial design was used to analyze the effects of product placement in comics. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of four conditions
Brand prominence Brand Attitude Purchase Intention Recall Persuasion knowledge Brand Familiarity
12 (see Table 1). Inspired by an existing comic taken from a magazine in the Netherlands, four versions of a comic were designed by a professional photo shopper. This comic originates from the youth magazine Tsjakka, which is integrated in a monthly magazine named
Boodschappen (Dutch for ‘groceries’) published by Vomar, a Dutch chain of low-end
supermarkets, with a circulation of two million copies (Ko la, 2014). The comic used was suitable for this study because it already showed a form of product placement and thus was easy to adopt for this study’s purposes.
Table 1 – overview of conditions
Prominent Subtle
Familiar Condition 1: N =108 Condition 2: N = 108 Unfamiliar Condition 3: N = 101 Condition 4: N = 92
Respondents and procedure
Respondents for this study were collected via a convenience sample using the researcher’s social network which increased by using snowballing method. The contacts in the network of the researcher were contacted via a message including a link to the online experiment. People that received the invitation to participate were asked to share the message of the researcher among their social network in order to gain more respondents. In total, 409 people
participated in the experiment. Their age ranged between 12 and 58 years (M = 24.88, SD = 7.4) and 55% were male. Almost half of the respondents went to Higher Vocational Education or higher.
The cover story of the questionnaire mentioned the study was about attitudes of comics. After reading the comic, the respondents were referred directly to the questionnaire.
13 This questionnaire started with some questions concerning the content of the comic itself, followed with questions for the study.
Development of stimuli
The comic in this research is taken from the magazine Tsjakka (p.17) in number nine of ‘Boodschappen’ in 2014 (Ko la, 2014). In the comic, with the title Ko La, is a boy that wants to earn money with the goal to buy cola. He stands in front of the supermarket with an electronic rocking horse for children. When a mother tries to take her child from the
electronic rocking horse, the child resists because he wants to play on. The boy obtained from this moment the idea of making money with a real horse and asks money in return for a ride on his horse. In the last frame of the comic he buys a bottle of First Choice cola (Vomar’s private label brand of cola) with the money he has subsequently earned.
A pretest was carried out to test the manipulation of prominence. The prominence of the brands in the comic was manipulated in Adobe Photoshop by a professional photographer in the amount of time the brand was situated in the strip and the differentiated visibility in the comic. To create a condition with prominent placements, the brand was shown visibly in the forefront of the comic and appeared four times, the most possible in the comic on plausible situations. When the prominence in the conditions faded and turned into more subtle product placements, the brand was shown only in the background of the comic and only one time. The participants were contacted via Facebook with a link to the online experiment. In total, 52 people participated in the experiment and were randomly assigned to one of the conditions. Participants in the pretest were asked to answer three different questions to indicate on a five point semantic differential scale the extent to which they thought the brand was present in the comic (not at all—very, not noticeable—noticeable, irritating—liked it). After deleting the third question, the Chronbachs’ alpha was sufficient (α = .77, M = 3.22, SD = .92). A t-test showed that the comic with three appearances on the foreground rated significantly higher on
14 being prominent (Mprominence = 3.81 SD = 0.82)than the comic with one appearance in the
background (Mprominence= 2.83, SD = 0.29, t (52) = -3.32, p < .01). The manipulation of
prominence is therefore successful.
Placement operationalization
One or three target placements existed in each comic page, depending on the prominence of the placement (see Appendix B). On each page, the placements occurred in the seventhframe for subtle placements and on the seventh, eighth and ninth frame for prominent placements. The placements were created to investigate the effects of different levels of prominence. Prominent placement has been operationalized with a variety of variables, as seen in previous prominent placement studies (Cowley & Barron, 2013). Product placement can vary in the congruency with the plot (Russel, 2002), can be audio or audiovisual (Gupta & Lord, 1998; Roehm, Roehm & Boone, 2004; Russel, 2002), and can be mentioned more than once or are seen on the screen for multiple seconds (Cowley & Barron, 2013; Gupta & Lord, 1998; Roehm et al., 2004). This research is aimed at creating very prominent placements and very subtle placements for a comic. Because it is a modality that can only be visual, the
audiovisual characteristics do not count for these types of placements. The very prominent placements were created to be mentioned more than once and are seen on multiple frames. The very subtle placements were created to be seen on the background of one frame.
Measures
Recall
To measure brand recall the following question is asked; ‘Which of the following brands do you recognize from the comic you just have seen?’ (Lammers & Van Reijmersdal, 2013; Lee & Faber, 2007). The participants could choose from five brands from the same product category, cola. Besides the names of the brands were images placed of the brand (Dr. Pepper,
15 First Choice, Pepsi, Coca Cola and RC Cola). When participants chose the right brand, this answer was coded with the value 1. If they choose the wrong brand, this answer was coded with the value 0 (M = 0.38, SD = 0.49). The following questions about the comic itself were added in the questionnaire as a filler task. These questions were built around the main measure of interest to ensure that participants did not guessed that brand placement was a primary concern of the study (e.g., “How expensive was the horse riding?”, “What was the color of the shirt of the boy?”, “What kind of instrument played the boy on the first episodes of the comic?”).
Brand attitude
Brand attitude was measured with five items on a seven point semantic differential taken from previous research (Lammers & Van Reijmersdal, 2013; Matthes, Schemer & Wirth, 2007). Participants were asked to indicate to which extent the following attributes apply to the brands: stupid – fun, negative – positive, unpleasant – pleasant, uninteresting – interesting, unattractive – attractive, difficult – easy, boring – exciting. All items loaded onto one factor (EV = 4.68, R2 = .67) and were thus computed to form a sufficiently reliable scale
(Cronbach’s α = 0.91, M = 4.11, SD = 1.16).
Purchase intention
Purchase intention was measured by asking the participants to indicate how likely he or she would buy the certain brand on a single 7-point Likert-scale (one = not likely, seven = very
likely) (M = 3.04, SD = 1.82) (Chu, Choi & Song, 2005).
Persuasion knowledge
To measure conceptual persuasion knowledge, participants were asked to indicate on a seven point scale (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree) to what extent the comic was an
16 advertisement (M = 3.77, SD = 1.99) (Boerman, Van Reijmersdal & Neijens, 2012).
To measure evaluative persuasion knowledge, participants were asked to what extent they thought the comic was honest, persuasive, reliable, prejudiced, unbelievable (Boerman, et al, 2012; Ohanian, 1990). After recoding the items, factor analysis (Principal Component Analysis with varimax rotation) showed that the five items yielded two factors instead of the expected one. The first factor, containing the first three items, is called ‘reliable’ and forms a reliable scale (EV = 2.06, R2 = .41, Cronbach’s α = .70). These variables were computed (M = 3.14, SD = .76). The second factor, comprising the items prejudices and unbelievable, is not taken into the research. These items seem not to measure the persuasion knowledge aimed to measure in this research. Since a comic is fiction, it is assumed participants thought the placement was unbelievable. The first three items measure persuasion knowledge of the participants and form a reliable scale, therefore the last two items were not taken into the research.
Brand Familiarity
Brand familiarity is measured with two items on a seven point semantic differential scale taken from Brennan and Babin (2004). Respondents could indicate to what extent they thought they were familiar with the brand (not familiar/ familiar) and to what extent they thought they know the brand (I don’t know it/ I know it very well). The reliability of the items were calculated and the means of these items are taken as measure for brand familiarity (Cronbach’s α = .96, M = 4.54, SD = 2.36).
Results
Controlling alternative explanations
A correlation analysis is conducted to determine whether there is coherence between the control and the dependent variables (see Appendix A, table 4). Spearman correlation is
17 examined for dichotomous variables and the Pearson correlation coefficient for interval, ratio and normally divided variables. There are three significant correlations between the control and the dependent variables. Gender is taken into the analyses of brand attitude (r = .15, p = .002) as covariate and education is taken into the analyses of persuasion knowledge (r = .17, p = .001) and brand familiarity (r = .18, p = <.001) to control if these variables disrupt any effects.
Main effects of brand prominence
To test the direct effect of brand prominence on recall, a logistic regression analysis was conducted with prominence as dichotomous independent variable and recall as dichotomous dependent variable. The results show a significant effect of prominence on recall (-2LL = 473.68, Nagelkerke R2 = .21, χ2 (0) = 70.09, p < .001). This means that participants are more likely to recall the brand after being exposed to a prominent placement in a comic than after being exposed to a subtle placement (b = 1.815, p <.001). Therefore, the first hypothesis is accepted.
An ANOVA was conducted to test the second and fourth hypothesis using prominence (prominent versus subtle placement) as independent variable and purchase intention and persuasion knowledge as dependent variables. The analysis showed no significant effect of brand prominence on persuasion knowledge, F (1, 407) = 2.79, p = 0.095, eta2 = 0.01 and purchase intention, F (1, 407) = 0.484, p = 0.487, eta2 = 0.00. An ANCOVA tested the third hypothesis using prominence as independent variable and brand attitude as dependent variable, controlling for education. No significant effect of prominence on brand attitude has been found, F (1, 407) = 0.807, p = 0.369, eta2 = 0.00. Thus, people who were exposed to a prominent product placement did not score substantially higher on brand attitude, persuasion knowledge or purchase intention than people who were exposed to a subtle product placement in the comic (see table 2). Therefore these hypotheses must be rejected.
18 Table 2
Effect of prominence on brand attitude, purchase intention and persuasion knowledge
Prominent Subtle
Brand attitude 4.16 (1.21) 4.05 (1.09)
Purchase intention 3.11 (1.89) 2.98 (1.75) Persuasion knowledge 3.08 (.76) 3.2 (.75) Note. Mean scores are shown with standard deviations in parentheses.
Mediating effects of persuasion knowledge
A mediation analyses using PROCESS (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) was executed to test the mediation effects for the three dependent variables with brand prominence as independent variable and persuasion knowledge as mediator. This method calculates the coefficients of different paths in the mediation model (number 4) and calculates the indirect effect of persuasion knowledge by means of 5000 bootstrap samples. Education was taken into the analysis as a control group for persuasion knowledge.
When recall is taken as dependent variable, the mediation analysis shows no significant mediation effect of persuasion knowledge. Although results show a significant direct effect of prominence on recall (b = 1.80, p < .001), persuasion knowledge seems not to be a mediator for the effect of brand prominence on recall (indirect effect= .02, SE = .03, 95% BCACI [-.009, .107]). H5a must therefore be rejected. Furthermore, the analysis shows no significant effect between prominence and brand attitude (b = .14, p = .209) and hence there was no indirect or mediation effect (indirect effect= -.03, SE = .02, 95% BCACI [−.093, .001]). Therefore, H5b must be rejected. The same effects have been found for H5c when purchase intention is taken as dependent variable into the mediation analysis. Results showed no significant effect of prominence on purchase intention (b = .19, p = .280) and hence there was no indirect or mediation effect (indirect effect= -.06, SE = .04, 95% BCACI [−.159,
19 .002]). Therefore, H5c must be rejected. Thus, persuasion knowledge does not mediate the effect of prominence on recall, brand attitude, and purchase intention. Prominently placed brands do not activate a higher persuasion knowledge which in turn, does not lead to a higher recall, lower brand attitude and lower purchase intention than subtly placed brands
Moderating effects of brand familiarity
A two-factor analysis of variance was carried out to assess the effect of exposure to a brand placement in a comic, in conjunction with the effect of brand familiarity. Since age correlated with brand familiarity it is taken into the analysis as control variable. When analyzing the hypothesis that the effect of prominent product placement on persuasion knowledge is
moderated by brand familiarity, no significant moderation effect is found, F (1, 409) = .650, p = .421, eta = .02. Thus, when a placed brand is familiar, prominent placements (M prominent =
3.08 SD = .76) will not score higher on persuasion knowledge than subtle brand placements (M subtle = 3.20, SD = .75). Age seems not to have a significant effect on this moderation. H6a
must be rejected
A significant moderation effect is found on recall of the placed brand when brand familiarity is taken into account, F (1, 409) = 6.78, p = 0.009, eta = .02. People who are exposed to a comic with a familiar brand will have a higher recall of the brand when a group has seen a prominent placed brand in the comic (M prominent =.74, SD = .44), than people who
were exposed to a comic with a subtly placed brand (M subtle = .23, SD = .42), these effects are
shown graphically in figure 2. It seems as the difference of familiar and unfamiliar is greater for prominent placements than for subtle placements. In the subtle condition, the distinction between familiar and unfamiliar seems less important. Age seems not to have a significant effect on this moderation. Therefore, h6b is accepted.
20 Table 3
Results of a two-factor analysis of variance (N = 409).
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p eta
Prom 15.74 1 15.74 85.60 < .001 0.17 Brandfam 4.87 1 4.87 26.49 <.001 0.06 Prom * Brandfam 1.26 1 1.26 6.87 .009 0.02 Age .20 1 .20 1.12 .291 .00 Error 74.47 405 .18 Total 156.00 409
Fig. 2 Interaction effects of prominence and brand familiarity on recall of the brand
Conclusion and discussion
The aim of this study was to compare prominent and subtle product placements in comics. Specifically, this research compared to what extend prominent and subtle product placements in comics differed in impact on consumers’ recall of the placed brand, its brand attitude and its purchase intention. Additionally, the moderating role of brand familiarity and the
mediating role of persuasion knowledge were examined. An online experiment followed by a questionnaire was conducted for this purpose. The results of this study show that prominent
21 product placements in comics exhibit a higher degree of recall of the placed brand than subtly product placement. A main effect of prominence on brand attitude and purchase intention is not found and results do not substantiate the expected mediating effect of persuasion
knowledge on recall, brand attitude and purchase intention. Brand familiarity has not been able to moderate the relationship between prominence and persuasion knowledge. However, brand familiarity does moderate the effect between prominent product placements and recall. A familiar brand elicits higher recall with prominently placed brands than with subtly placed brands.
Importance of prominence
First, it is examined whether the type of prominence influences consumers’ recall of the brand placed in a comic. Results show that when a consumer reads a comic where a brand is placed prominently, consumers will recall this brand more than when the brand is shown in a more subtle way. These findings fits well with earlier research where prominent placements has been found to be an important determinant for memory performance and get a better chance to being processed (Bressoud, Lehu & Russel, 2010; Gibson, Redker & Zimmerman, 2014). This research confirms these findings in the context of comics. Because prominent placed brands are more visible, they are more deeply processed which leads to an increasing
memory. This explains the findings that prominent placed brands in the comic lead to a better recall of the brand than subtly placed brands.
Furthermore it is examined whether prominence has an effect on persuasion knowledge, brand attitude and purchase intention. This research has not been able to substantiate any such effects. Prominently product placements in comics do not exhibit a higher degree of brand attitude or purchase intention than subtly placed brands in comics. Also, persuasion knowledge will not be used more by consumers when they are exposed to a prominent product placement in a comic than a subtle placed product. The effect in which
22 prominent placements would lead to a better visibility and therefore would lead to a higher awareness of being an advertisement (Russel, 2002) does not account for product placements in comics. This can be explained by the fact that comics are a medium where the reader is encouraged to a high degree of participation to decipher meaning between images. Print media as comics gives readers the control to define their own speed of processing the information of the comic and its placements. Earlier research shows effects in which involvement and a higher amount of processing placements can increase or decrease recall and brand attitude (Matthes, Schemer & Wirth, 2007). When a person reads the comic with a high involvement, they see the placement which will leave explicit memory traces of the placement. These explicit memory traces will turn in negative evaluations towards the brand. Therefore the prominence of a placement does not need to be an important determinant of brand attitude, purchase intention and persuasion knowledge. Both prominent and subtle placed brands can be noticed by a reader equally which eliminates the different effects.
Additionally, the stimuli used in the research consisted of a one-page comic which would be too short for narrative engagement. Narrative engagement can in turn lead to judgments or intentions towards the placed brand (Moyer-Gusé & Nabi, 2008). Narrative engagement refers to the extent to which someone is principally involved in the story of the comic instead of someone’s current environment. Examples of narrative engagement like
parasocial interaction or wishful identification can reduce resistance and counter arguing and
influence judgments about placements. In these examples, people wish to be like the character in the story or they feel as if they have a connection with the characters. Because of the short comic used in the research, people could not have the opportunity to create a narrative engagement with the story and therefore were less inclined to create judgments or behavioral intentions towards the brand.
23
Mediating role of persuasion knowledge
Secondly, the mediating role of persuasion knowledge has been examined of brand
prominence on recall, brand attitude and purchase intention. The results show no mediated effect of persuasion knowledge on recall, brand attitude and purchase intention which is not in line with the expectations of the research based on the PKM (Friestad & Wright, 1994). One perspective which can be an explanation why the results does not substantiate the expected effects is the perceived advantage of product placement. Consumers do not activate their marketplace-related social intelligence because they are exposed to a context and stimulus which is created to be an entertaining experience. When this intelligence is not activated, their experience will be left unguided by that knowledge (Wright, 2002). Some participants
mentioned they had not seen the product placement. Thus, when consumers are not aware of the persuasive intent of the comic due to its entertaining experience, they do not activate their persuasion knowledge in return.
Additionally, comics are a different modality compared to earlier research which studied placements on television and movies. In comics, a person can control its exposure time to the placement, unlike in movies and television where the time of exposure is set (Moorman, Neijens & Smit, 2002). Controlling the time of exposure can influence the amount of capacity for processing the placement information. When a placement is processed with high capacity, it leaves explicit traces which in turn lead to more negative evaluations of the placement (Cowley & Barron, 2008). A significant missing prominence effect can exist because comics give people the ability to control their time of processing the placements. When consumers process both placements as advertisements and are aware the placement, there will be no significant differences in its effectiveness. A higher amount of processing can also be created by being part of a research. When people are aware they are being part of a research, they could pay a higher amount of attention to the comic than they normally would
24 do. This can make the different effects of prominently placed brands and subtly placed brands disappear. Therefore, this research didn’t examine enough the amount a consumer processes and give attention to placements.
Moderating role of brand familiarity
Finally, brand familiarity was proposed to moderate the impact of prominence on persuasion knowledge and recall. The expectation that a familiar brand would affect the recall of the brand, regardless of whether it was prominent or subtle, is confirmed. A product placement in a comic with a familiar brand generates more recall of the placed brand than an unfamiliar brand. People will exhibit the highest recall when a product placement in a comic is familiar and prominent, the lowest recall will be an outcome of a subtle unfamiliar product placement in a comic. This is in line with research of Brennan and Babin (2004) where results showed greater memory inforcement of prominent placed familiar brands than those of subtle product placements with unfamiliar brands.
However, the moderating effect of brand familiarity between prominence and persuasion knowledge has not been found significant. Familiar brands would evoke more awareness of a persuasive intent because they would be recognized earlier and therefore would receive more attention (Storm & Stoller, 2014). A reason why this effect didn’t occurred can be in the nature comic’s modality. Just like earlier mentioned, comics give the reader the ability to control their pacing of the comic and therefore control the amount of processing a comic. When the placement is already perceived as an advertisement, it does not matter if the product represents a familiar brand or an unfamiliar brand. It is presumable this can have had an impact on the results of the study.
25
Practical implications
The use of product placement in comics represents an exciting and new field, ripe for study by both practitioners and academics. With this developing channel through which brands can connect with consumers come many questions regarding its effectiveness on consumers’ behavioral, cognitive and affective reactions. This research is a first step to clarify some answers regarding these questions toward product placement in comics.
The present results show brands can use prominent product placement in comic books to produce higher amounts of recall of the brand. Especially when brands are already familiar in the eye of the consumer, they should embrace this kind of placement in their marketing activities. In addition, this research shows prominent placements in comics do not have a different effect on brand attitude or purchase intention compared with subtle placements in comics. Even as persuasion knowledge, this didn’t differ between prominent placements and subtle placements.
Since brands as Dodge, Nike, Chrysler and Pontiac have signed pacts to insert product placement in comics (Steinberg, 2006), they will be curious to the effectiveness of these pacts. Both DC and Marvel, the two industry’s giants of comic books, have been promoting some of their titles to come in contact with one of the most elusive audiences of Madison Avenue: guys in their twenties (Miller, 2011). Dino Bernacchi, advertising manager of Pontiac, even mentions this audience as the kind that is harder and harder to connect with (Steinberg, 2006). Young adult males are hard to reach and known to be wary of traditional advertisements, especially when they become a distraction of their entertainment. This research had an
average age of 25 years and gives some answers to the effectiveness of the brands’ pacts with the comic industry. Companies can use this information when constructing their marketing plan and activities to ascertain the desired effects.
26
Limitations and future research
The present study is not without limitations. This was the first study which examined product placement effects in comics. Comics are a different modality than TV shows and movies where earlier research of product placement is mostly examined on. Modality differences can explain the different results of this study compared to previous studies. Future research can put a greater emphasis on the different variables which can influence modality differences such as the pacing and amount of placement processing. These variables can furthermore be examined through different modalities and compared to give an answer to the question if these modality variables have a different effect on consumer attitude, behavior and memory in comics.
Second, the limited condition of the comic used in the experimental design of one page does not seem to elicit enough narrative engagement for consumers to make a
connection with the story. A comic book with multiple pages, where the placements of DC and Marvel will appear in, seems more likely to evoke narrative processing by which an individual becomes immersed in a story. A reader loses track of the real world due to the experiences he or she unfolds in the story. When consumers are drawn into the comic, they feel more compassion with the characters in the comic books. Therefore, placements can influence judgments about the brand when they come in contact with the characters (Green & Brock, 2000). This narrative processing can not only influence judgments about the brand, it also reduces reactance towards persuasion (Moyer-Gusé & Nabi, 2008). Future research can focus more on comic books consisting of multiple pages where the consumer will be
immersed in the story. Asking readers about the extent to which they forget their setting while reading the story and felt present in the environment they were reading can give a better understanding of the narrative processing effects on product placement in comic books. Third, this study did not take involvement or peoples’ amount of processing the
27 placement into the research. Earlier research showed that involvement and the amount a person processes an ad can lead to different effects of prominent and subtle product placement. Future research can incorporate this variable into the study to get a better
understanding of its effects in comics. In order to eliminate any effects that can be assigned to being part of a research, it is recommendable to create an environment that is natural to a person’s reading environment.
Even though companies already use product placement in comics, questions concerning its effectiveness remains unexplored. This study suggests that familiar and prominent product placements in comics can have a strong influence on the recall of the brands. Of course, not all questions are hereby answered. Not only questions to its effectiveness are important, it is also important to understand the view of consumers on product placement in comics. Therefore, questions regarding consumer evaluation, interaction, and reaction of such placements are still to explore on this novel channel of product placement.
28
Literature
Auty, S. & Lewis, C. (2004). Exploring children's choice: The reminder effect of product placement. Psychology & Marketing, 21(9), 697-713.
Babin, L. A. & Carder, S. T. (1996). Viewers' recognition of brands placed within a film. International journal of advertising, 15, 140-151.
Balasubramanian, S. K. (1994). Beyond advertising and publicity: Hybrid messages and public policy issues. Journal of Advertising, 23, 29–46.
Boerman, S. C., Reijmersdal, E. A. & Neijens, P. C. (2012). Sponsorship disclosure: Effects of duration on persuasion knowledge and brand responses. Journal of
Communication, 62(6), 1047-1064.
Brennan, I. (2008). Brand placement in novels: A test of the generation effect. International
Journal of Advertising: The Quarterly Review of Marketing Communications.
Brennan, I. & Babin, L. A. (2004). Brand placement recognition: The influence of
presentation mode and brand familiarity. Journal of Promotion Management, 10(1-2), 185-202.
Brennan, I., Dubas, K. M. & Babin, L. A. (1999). The influence of product-placement type & exposure time on product-placement recognition. International Journal of
Advertising, 18, 323-338.
Bressoud, E., Lehu, J. M. & Russell, C. A. (2010). The product well placed the relative impact of placement and audience characteristics on placement recall. Journal of
29 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 Research, 27(1), 69-83.
Chu, W., Choi, B. & Song, M. R. (2005). The role of on-line retailer brand and infomediary reputation in increasing consumer purchase intention. International Journal of
Electronic Commerce, 9(3), 115-127.
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.
Friestad, M. & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of consumer research, 1-31.
Gibson, B., Redker, C. & Zimmerman, I. (2014). Conscious and nonconscious effects of product placement: Brand recall and active persuasion knowledge affect brand attitudes and brand self-identification differently. Psychology of Popular Media
Culture, 3(1), 19.
Glass, Z. (2007). The effectiveness of product placement in video games. Journal of
Interactive Advertising, 8(1), 24 – 32.
Green, M. C. & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 701–721.
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
30 Houts, P. S., Doak, C. C., Doak, L. G. & Loscalzo, M. J. (2006). The role of pictures in
improving health communication: a review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient education and counseling, 61(2), 173-190.
Jacobs, D. (2007). More than words: Comics as a means of teaching multiple literacies. English Journal, 19-25.
Johar,G.V. & Pham, M.T. (1999).Relatedness, prominence, and constructive sponsor identification. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 299-312.
Keller, K. L. (1987). Memory factors in advertising: The effect of advertising retrieval cues on brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3), 316– 333.
Knowles, E. S. & Linn, J. A. (2004). The importance of resistance to persuasion. In E. S. Knowles & J. A. Linn (Eds.), Resistance and Persuasion. (pp.3-9) Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ko La (2014, September). Tsjakka ,p. 17. In: Boodschappen (2014, September). http://www.tsjakka.nl/nl/app/8065/759537/tsjakka_09_2014_ts0914_strip_.htm
Lammers, N. & van Reijmersdal, E. A. (2013). De invloeden van waarschuwingen voor advergames en stemming op merkherkenning en merkattitude. Tijdschrift voor
Communicatiewetenschap, 41(2), 184-200.
Law, S. & Braun, K. A. (2000). I’ll have what she’s having: Gauging the impact of product
placements on viewers.
Lee, M. & Faber, R. J. (2007). Effects of product placement in on-line games on brand memory: A perspective of the limited-capacity model of attention. Journal of
31 Lee, Y. H. & Mason, C. (1999). Responses to information incongruency in advertising: The
role of expectancy, relevancy, and humor. Journal of consumer research, 26(2), 156-169.
Lee, A. Y. & Sternthal, B. (1999). The effects of positive mood on memory. Journal of
Consumer Research, 26(2), 115-127.
Matthes, J., Schemer, C. & Wirth, W. (2007). More than meets the eye. International Journal
of Advertising, 26(4), 477-503.
Mehaffey, K. (2010). Product Placement in Comics: A Qualitative Study of Attitudes of
Comic Book Readers (Doctoral dissertation). University of Florida.
Miller, M. J. (2011). Splat! Biff! Nike! Product placement comes to the comics. Retrieved January 4, 2015 from http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/2011/06/17/Product-Placement-Comes-to-Comics.aspx
Moyer-Gusé, E. & Nabi, R.L. (2008). Toward a theory of entertainment persuasion: Explaining the persuasive effects of entertainment education messages.
Communication Theory, 18, 407-425.
Moorman, M., Neijens, P. C. & Smit, E. G. (2002). The effects of magazine-induced
psychological responses and thematic congruence on memory and attitude toward the ad in a real-life setting. Journal of Advertising, 31(4), 27-40.
Nelson, M.R. & Waiguny, M.K. (2012). Psychological processing of in-game advertising and advergaming: Branded entertainment or entertaining persuasion?. The psychology
of entertainment media: Blurring the lines between entertainment and persuasion,
32 Nelson, R. A. (2004). The Bulgari Connection: A novel form of product placement. Journal
of Promotion Management, 10(1-2), 203-212.
Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers' perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of advertising, 39-52.
Olsen, L. E. & Lanseng, E. J. (2012). Brands in texts: Attitudinal effects of brand placements in narrative fiction. Journal of Brand Management, 19(8), 702-711.
Reid, C. (2014). Comics, Graphic Novels Market Hit $870 Million in 2013. Retrieved January 3, 2015 from
http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry- news/comics/article/63319-comics-graphic-novels-market-hit-870-million-in-2013.html
Roehm, M. L., Roehm, H. A. & Boone, D. S. (2004). Plugs versus placements: A comparison of alternatives for within‐program brand exposure. Psychology & Marketing, 21(1),
17-28.
Russell, C. A. (2002). Investigating the effectiveness of product placements in television shows: The role of modality and plot connection congruence on brand memory and attitude. Journal of consumer research, 29(3), 306-318.
Russell, C. A., & Belch, M. (2005). A managerial investigation into the product placement industry. Journal of Advertising Research, 45(01), 73-92.
Russell, C. A. & Stern, B. B. (2006). Consumers, characters, and products: A balance model of sitcom product placement effects. Journal of Advertising, 35(1), 7-21.
Steinberg, B. (2006). Look -- Up in the Sky! Product Placement! Retrieved January 4, 2015 from http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB114532350031828284
33 Storm, B. C. & Stoller, E. (2014). Exposure to product placement in text can influence
consumer judgments. Applied Cognitive Psychology.
Van Reijmersdal, E. (2009). Brand placement prominence: good for memory! Bad for attitudes?. Journal of Advertising Research, 49(2), 151-153.
Van Reijmersdal, E., Neijens, P. & 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.
Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Rozendaal, E. & Buijzen, M. (2012). Effects of prominence, involvement, and persuasion knowledge on children's cognitive and affective responses to advergames. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 26(1), 33-42.
Williams, K., Petrosky, A., Hernandez, E. & Page, R. (2011). Product placement effectiveness: revisited and renewed. Journal of management and marketing
research, 7(2), 1-24.
Wright, P. (2002). Marketplace metacognition and social intelligence. Journal of Consumer
34
Appendix A
Table 4
Descriptive statistics and correlations
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 Age 24.92 7.38 1.000 2 Gender 1.45 .49 -.027 1.000 3 Education 1.95 .83 .188** -.027 1.000 4 Brand familiarity .53 .49 .150* -.051 .042 1.000 5 Persuasion Knowledge 3.14 .76 .063 -.011 .166** -.002 1.000 6 Brand attitude 4.11 1.16 .022 -.057 .176** .242** .181** 1.000 7 Recall .38 .49 .078 -.022 -.078 .218** -.104* .200** 1.000 8 Prominence .51 .50 .045 .049 -.019 -.023 -.085 .029 .406** 1.000 * p < .05 ** p < .01
35
Appendix B
Comics used as stimuli
36 Comic 2: Unfamiliar brand (First Choice) prominent product placement
37 Comic 3: Familiar brand (Coca Cola) subtle product placement
38 Comic 4: Familiar brand (Coca Cola) prominent product placement.
39
Appendix C
Questionnaire
Je krijgt nu een korte strip te zien over het jongetje Ko La. Als de strip niet direct verschijnt, wacht dan 30 seconden tot hij in beeld komt. Lees de strip zoals je dit altijd zou doen bij een strip. Als je klaar bent met lezen, klik dan rechts onderin op >>.
Onderdeel 1
Je krijgt nu een aantal vragen voorgelegd over de strip die je zojuist hebt gelezen om te controleren of je het goed hebt gelezen
1. Hoe duur was het paardje rijden? o 50 cent
o 1 euro o 2 euro
2. Wat was de kleur van het shirt van de hoofdrolspeler? o Geel
o Blauw o Groen
3. Wat voor instrument bespeelde het jongetje aan het begin van de strip? o Viool
o Trommel o Gitaar
Onderdeel 2
Je krijgt nu een aantal vragen over het merk in de strip.
4. Welk merk heb je in de strip voorbij zien komen? Indien je geen merk voorbij hebt zien komen vul je "geen" in.
………..
5. Welke van de onderstaande merken heb je in de strip voorbij zien komen?
40 o
o
o
o
o Ik heb geen merk voorbij zien komen
6. In hoeverre ken je het merk dat in de strip voor kwam? Het merk is voor mij erg
onbekend
O O O O O O O Het merk is voor mij erg bekend
Ik ken het merk niet O O O O O O O Ik ken het merk
Onderdeel 3
Nu volgen een aantal vragen over je mening, antwoord zo eerlijk mogelijk, er zijn geen goede of slechte antwoorden mogelijk
7. Ik vind het merk
Stom O O O O O O O Leuk Negatief O O O O O O O Positief Onaangenaam O O O O O O O Aangenaam Oninteressant O O O O O O O Interessant Onaantrekkelijk O O O O O O O Aantrekkelijk Moeilijk O O O O O O O Makkelijk Saai O O O O O O O Spannend
8. Hoe waarschijnlijk is het dat je het product dat in de advertentie werd getoond zult kopen, ongeacht of je het nodig hebt of niet?
41 9. In hoeverre denk je dat deze strip een advertentie was?
Geen advertentie O O O O O O O Wel advertentie
10. In hoeverre vond je de strip van Ko La
Helemaal niet niet Geen mening wel Helemaal wel
Eerlijk O O O O O Betrouwbaar O O O O O Overtuigend O O O O O Bevooroordeeld O O O O O Ongeloofwaardig O O O O O Onderdeel 4.
De laatste vragen gaan over demografische informatie. Als je dit hebt ingevuld, klik dan op de pijltjes rechtsonderin (>>).
11. Wat is je geslacht? o Man
o Vrouw
12. Wat is je hoogst genoten niveau van opleiding? o WO o VWO/HBO o HAVO/MBO o VMBO o Lager onderwijs 13. Wat is je leeftijd? ………
