recall of brand placement in movies: interactions … and plot connection in real conditions of...

INTRODUCTION

Product placements in movies have considerablyevolved in both nature and volume in recent years(Bressoud and Lehu, 2008; Donaton, 2004; Gupta

and Gould, 2007). This has been due to increaseddemand on the part of a movie industry in search ofnew models (Eliashberg, Elberse and Leenders,2006), as well as advertisers (PQ Media, 2007;Russell and Belch, 2005). The latter are faced withthe erosion of the traditional media audience and itsfragmentation, making it more difficult to establish a

Recherche et Applications en Marketing, vol. 24, n° 1/2009

Recall of Brand Placement in Movies: Interactions betweenProminence and Plot Connection in Real Conditions of Exposure

Jean-Marc Lehu

Associate Professor University of Paris 1

PRISM interdisciplinary research centre in management

Étienne Bressoud

Associate Professor University of Paris 8

LED Dionysian economics laboratory

The authors sincerely thank the Journal’s four reviewers for their significant contribution to the positioning and structure of the current versionof this article. They can be contacted at the following e-mail addresses:[email protected] ; [email protected]

R E S E A R C H

ABSTRACT

A product placement can be characterized by its prominence and its plot connection. This research scrutinizes the interactionbetween these two elements in the context of the consumer perceptual process. The results of a survey based on 32,662 exposuresto brand placements in DVD movies showed that prominent and plot connected placements lead to better brand recall (sponta-neous day-after recall) than prominent placements that are not plot connected, and that the latter leads to better brand recall thanplot connected placements that are not prominent. The brands appearing in non prominent and non plot connected placements arethe worst recalled.

Key words: Product placement, brand, recall, movie, video.

03•Lehu, Bressoud(GB) 1/09/09 14:43 Page 7

useful contact with the target (Blondé and Roozen,2007; Deloitte, 2005; Kishore, 2003; Tse and Lee,2001). They have discovered, or rediscovered, viabrand and product placements in movies, a means ofcommunication which is generally well accepted bythe public (Gould, Gupta and Grabner-Kraüter, 2000;Mckechnie and Zhou, 2003; Nebenzahl and Secunda,1993) and which solicits or reinforces recall of thebrand or product (Law and Braun, 2000; Vollmersand Mizerski, 1994). Balasubramanian dubbed thistechnique “hybrid” in 1994, particularly because itattempts to influence the viewer by displaying thebrand in a non-commercial medium. Product place-ment has already been researched extensively (Karrh,1998; McKechnie and Zhou, 2003; Russel andBelch, 2005) in studies that have focused on one ormore of the placement’s characteristics, in particular itsprominence (Gupta and Lord, 1998; Russell, 1998,2002; Steortz, 1987) and plot connection (d’Astousand Chartier, 2000; Fontaine, 2002a, 2002b; Russell,1998, 2002).

This study aspires to complete the results of pre-vious research concerning these two key characteristicsof brand placements in real conditions of exposure.The aim is to study the effects of interaction betweenprominence and plot connection on spontaneousrecall of the brand placed in the movie. These effectswere observed among home video audiences whochose their film freely and watched it in normalconditions in the privacy of their homes without kno-wing that they would be questioned the followingday. The results obtained were intrinsically limitedby the survey protocol, which favored natural vie-wing conditions over control of exposure.Furthermore, this study concerns several films andwas administered over several months, on differentdays and at different times and in different videostores in order to achieve a highly diversified group ofrespondents and avoid a negative halo effect(Rosenzweig, 2008).

BRAND PLACEMENTS IN MOVIES

The terms brand placement and product place-ment are often used interchangeably (Fontaine,2006). It is therefore necessary to specify the definitionretained for this study before presenting the characte-ristics of a placement.

Definition

While the placement implies a contract between abrand and the movie’s producers, this is not alwaysthe case. When a contract does exist, there are threepossible forms. Placement on the screen can be a ser-vice paid for by the brand. It can also be an exchangein which the brand provides products and/or logistic orfinancial support in exchange for presence in themovie, in a form that remains to be determined.Finally, a more marginal practice consists in free pro-duct placement. In this case, the brand provides certainproducts free of charge which will not necessarily beidentifiable on the screen (PQ Media, 2005), butmentioned in the credits at the end of the movie. Twoother cases exist outside the framework of a contract.Sometimes, the brand is simply required in thescreenplay or by the director, without a placementcontract, and occasionally, a brand may appear for-tuitously in a shot.

In the end, whatever the form, the relationshipbetween the product and movie producer systemati-cally involves the brand. This is why this study usesthe term brand placement, which is limited to “thepresence in a movie of a brand name or a producteasily identified as belonging to a given brand”(Fontaine, 2006). This presence can consist in theappearance of the brand in a scene and/or the men-tion of its name in dialogues (Brée, 1996; Karrh,1998).

Characteristics of brand placements

The literature on brand placements converges toindentify two major descriptive characteristics: pro-minence and plot connection.

Jean-Marc Lehu, Étienne Bressoud8


Prominence is defined by Fontaine as “the capacityof the brand to attract the spectator’s attention”(2001). This capacity can be linked to, among otherelements, the size and duration of the placement onthe screen (d’Astous and Chartier, 2000; Fontaine,2002a; Gupta and Lord, 1998), the number of timesthe brand appears in a scene (Bressoud, Lehu andRussell, 2008), as well as its location on the screen(Gupta and Lord, 1998; Lehu, 2005a). Plot connec-tion is defined as the degree to which the brand isassociated with the film’s scenario (Russell, 2002) orthe connection between the product and the scenario(Russell, 1998). This translates into involvement ofthe brand in the story (d’Astous and Chartier, 2000;Fontaine, 2002a, 2002b; Russell, 2002), or contactwith one of the movie’s main characters (Fontaine,2002a, 2002b; Russell, 2002). This variable is close tothe concept of centrality, proposed by Fontaine(2002b), and conceptualized by the role of the pro-duct in the intrigue, or for the character. It has alsobeen referred to as “plot placement” (Dalli, 2003;Galician and Bourdeau, 2004; Russell, 1998, 2002).

A more objective criterion used to qualify brandplacements is worth underlining. This concerns itsaudiovisual nature (Gupta and Lord, 1998; Law andBrawn, 2000; Russell, 1998). Prominence of the pla-cement is linked to its audiovisual character. Thus, anaudiovisual placement is by definition prominent,since the brand benefits from a dual presence during asingle exposure; it is both seen and mentioned. Theaudiovisual nature of a placement and its prominenceare therefore correlated.

Different measurements of advertising effectiveness

An advertisement can have a communicationseffect or sales effect, depending on whether its goal isto communicate or trigger a purchase (Dunn et al.,1990). Its effectiveness can be measured by manyindicators (Kammoun, 2008), such as product and/orbrand recall, contribution to improved brand image,referencing by distributors or corollary sales(Blackston, 2000; Henderson Britt, 1969; Krugman,1977; Meyers-Levy and Malaviya, 1999). On a com-parable level, the effectiveness of a placement in amovie is a variable notion depending on the author.As in advertising, effectiveness depends, in the end, onthe goal the advertiser assigns to the placement.

A placement can be used to introduce a newproduct or brand (Russell and Belch, 2005). It can be ameans of maintaining brand recall, but it can also beused to convey an image (Pardun and McKee, 1999).Finally, in certain cases, we can also speak of effecti-veness when a placement succeeds in producing afavorable attitude (Fontaine, 2006) or behavior (pur-chase) in the spectator who has been exposed to it(Daugherty and Gangadharbatla, 2005; Stewart-Allen, 1999).

Persuasion and brand placements

Formation of attitudes and behaviors involves apersuasion process that includes perception andmemorization as prerequisites in the framework ofthe classic decision-making process (Engel,Blackwell and Miniard, 1990). However, by mobili-zing the Persuasion Knowledge Model (Friestad andWright, 1994, 1995), research by Cowley and Barron(2008) has demonstrated that the mechanisms requiredfor processing a persuasive message are not necessa-rily activated in the context of brand placements intelevision series, a fortiori when the placements areprominent. As soon as the individual is aware of thenature and purpose of a placement, he is quick toadopt a negative attitude, with possible repercussionsof a similar nature on his behavior (Campbell andKirmani, 2000). However, Wei, Fischer and Main(2008) have demonstrated that perceptions of efforts topersuade do not necessarily lead to negative reactionsby the individual exposed. This is particularly truewhen familiarity with the brand is strong and theindividual decodes the tactic as appropriate for thecontext. Concerning brand placements in movies,this information raises the question examined by theEuropean legislature in 2007 as to whether or not thespectator should be informed a priori of the place-ments to which he is exposed (Campbell, Mohr andVerlegh, 2007).

The central role of recall

Besides persuasion, memorization is also a pos-sible goal of advertising messages (Falcy, 1993).Spontaneous recall, when the consumer can cite thebrands seen in a film without additional prompting,

Recall of Brand Placement in Movies: Interactions between Prominence and Plot Connection in Real Conditions of Exposure 9


is frequently used and recommended as a way of eva-luating brand placements in research (Karrh, BrittainMcKee and Pardun, 2003). Like many studies focusingon this indicator (cf. Appendices A1 and A2), thetwelve experts from the Entertainment Resources &Marketing Association (ERMA)1 questioned by mailfor this study confirm that the most common objectiveis brand recall. Three types of recall soliciting explicitmemories coexist in the context of brand placements(Fontaine, 2002a, 2002b). The first is spontaneousrecall, which we have defined above. The secondtype is prompted recall, when the consumer citesbrands seen with the help of product categories presentin the movie. The third type is recognition when theconsumer cites brands seen with the help of a list.Prompted recall and recognition are not easily acces-sible, since the use of a list of brands or products isrequired. However, spontaneous recall is measuredquickly and easily with a simple open-ended ques-tion. For all these reasons, concerning the importanceand accessibility of spontaneous recall, the latter hasbeen selected to measure the effectiveness of brandplacements within this study.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK:THE PERCEPTUAL PROCESS

Factoring in attitude as a variable of a placement’seffectiveness would involve broadening the conceptualframework to include persuasion, from actual perceptionto the shaping of attitudes. The measurement of effecti-veness selected for this study is spontaneous recall andnot attitude. This is why the conceptual frameworkfocuses on perception and memorization of the place-ment rather than persuasion. Recall of a brand place-ment involves memory and remains upstream from theshaping of attitudes (Engel, Blackwell and Miniard,1990) and persuasion.

Perception of brand placements

Exposure activates perception through the detec-tion of sensory stimuli (Darpy and Volle, 2007).Attention is partially conditioned by the nature of thestimulus. Several studies of persuasive communica-tion have revealed, for example, that the large size ofthe stimulus encourages visual attention (Hendon,1973; Pieters and Wedel, 2004) and its very perception(Filser, 1993). This can be applied directly to brandplacements. Attention is also heightened by promi-nence (Gupta and Lord, 1998; Russel, 2002) and plotconnection (d’Astous and Chartier, 2000; Fontaine,2002b; Lindstrom, 2008, p. 51).

While stimuli must exceed a certain sensory thre-shold for the individual to perceive them, subliminalperception remains an exception (Rosen and Singh,1992). Literally meaning “below the threshold”, itseffects do not concern memorization, but beliefs, pre-ferences or behaviors (Droulers, 2000; Theus, 2006).However, several studies emphasize that the treat-ment process of the information encountered in theparticular case of subliminal exposure does not allowadvertisers to influence attitudes or behavior(Greenwald, 1992; Greenwald et al., 1991; Pratkanisand Aronson, 1992). Brand placements in moviescould correspond to subliminal stimuli as defined byGrégory (1993) when they “appear for such a dura-tion or intensity that more than 50% of viewers arenot aware of them while they are indeed received viathe nervous system”. Thus, only 33% of 30,000American consumers questioned in 2005 stated thatthey had noticed the brands of products used inmovies (Engel, 2005). A more technical aspect canbe added to complete the definition of subliminalmessages: in a movie, a visual subliminal message isintroduced by the insertion of a 25th image, in additionto the 24 images per second, or by tachistoscopicflashes (Grégory, 1993). We shall retain this aspect ofthe definition, which enables a real distinction bet-ween subliminal messages and brand placements.Indeed, in most cases, brands placed in movies donot use either of these techniques (25th image ortachistoscopic flashes). Thus, brand placements cannotbe assimilated to subliminal messages.

Acceptance of the message refers to acceptabilityof brand placements. The latter is considered enter-taining and well accepted by the general public(Anzai, 2003; Nebenzahl and Secunda, 1993;


1. The ERMA is an American trade association of product placementprofessionals consisting of placement agencies, film studios, andproduction companies. It is regularly solicited in the context ofacademic research (Karrh, Brittain McKee and Pardun, 2003;Nelson, 2004).


Tiwsakul and Hackley, 2005). Overall, studiesconcerning the acceptability of brand placements inmovies show that the audience not only tolerates, buteven appreciates, the approach (Gupta and Gould1997; Lehu, 2006). Acceptability tends to vary,however, according to the spectator’s age (DeLormeand Reid, 1999) and assiduity (Gupta and Gould,1997). Beyond the individual characteristics of themoviegoer, those of the placement are equally impor-tant, since plot connection guarantees acceptability(d’Astous and Chartier, 2000; DeLorme, Reid andZimmer, 1994; Nebenzahl and Secunda, 1993).

Memorization of the brands placed

The final phase in the perceptual process is reten-tion, which leads to memorization (Bagozzi and Silk,1983; McGuire, 1976). There are several levels ofmemorization: sensory storage, short-term and long-term memory (Krugman, 1965; McGaugh, 1966).During sensory storage, either information does notretain attention and is lost, or it retains attention and isstored in short-term memory (Chapman, McCraryand Chapman, 1978). The processing capacity of thelatter is limited, notably in the working memoryspace (Mayer and Moreno, 1998). It enables compre-hension and acceptance of the message. Retention isreserved for long-term memory, which in theory isunlimited (Baddeley, 1997). Hence, the interest inmeasuring recall the day after exposure, since thistheoretically enables us to ensure that the perceptualprocess has resulted in long-term memorization(Costley, Das and Brucks, 1997).

Long-term memory involves implicit or explicitmemorization processes (Whittlesea and Price, 2001;Law and Braun-La Tour, 2004). Implicit memoryinvolves unconscious retention of the perceived sti-mulus, while for explicit memory this process inconscious (Jolibert and Didellon-Carsana, 2000).Unconscious retention in memory can itself be cau-sed by non-conscious exposure to the stimulus(Lewicki, 1986). Explicit memorization can be mea-sured by recall or recognition, while implicit memori-zation is revealed when an individual exposed to abrand name is capable of reading or spelling it morequickly than an individual who has not been exposed(Fontaine, 2002a). Implicit memorization hasbecome increasingly important in persuasive adverti-

sing, creating a special field of research (Schumacherand Helmig, 2007). However, it is used less oftenthan explicit memory to measure the effectiveness ofbrand placements.

Several studies have demonstrated the impact ofexplicit memory on plot-connected placements(Fontaine, 2002b; Ong and Meri, 1994) as well asprominent ones (Fontaine, 2002a; Gupta and Lord,1998). Depending on the measurement selected forbrand placement recall, the impact of the placementdiffers. The tables presented in Appendices A1 andA2 contain a summary of the main research work lin-king the effectiveness of brand placements – measuredusing spontaneous recall, prompted recall or recogni-tion – to prominence and plot connection.Intervening in the level of prominence and plotconnection of a brand placement, its audiovisualnature is particularly important in the context ofmemorization. This is notably the case of the DualCoding Model (Paivio, 1978), which suggests that astimulus is memorized via a double coding process(visual and verbal) that creates a network of associa-tions much broader than simple coding, whethervisual or verbal. This facilitates restitution.

RESEARCH ORIENTATIONS AND HYPOTHESES

The objective of this study is based on the need tomore clearly identify the effect the interaction bet-ween prominence and plot connection of brand pla-cements has on memorization in the context of realexposure. This translates into hypotheses founded onthe conceptual framework outlined in the previoussections.

Research objective

Prominence and plot connection are recognizeddescriptive characteristics of brand placements. Theyinfluence the entire perceptual process associatedwith this means of brand communication. The effects



of a single brand placement characteristic havealready been confirmed by many studies, eventhough contradictions persist. The effects of interactionhave been revealed by certain authors, who haveassociated prominence and plot connection(d’Astous and Chartier, 2000; Fontaine, 2006). Theseinteractions were studied in experimental settingsand not in real exposure conditions. These experi-ments were based on film excerpts (d’Astous andChartier, 2000) or short films (Fontaine, 2006) moreoften than not watched by students in a captive envi-ronment (d’Astous and Chartier, 2000; Fontaine,2002a, 2002b; Gupta and Lord, 1998; Russell, 2002;Van der Waldt, Du Toit and Redelinghuys, 2007).The limitations of the validity of these viewingconditions have been identified (Peterson, 2001).Measurement of recall or recognition was performedimmediately after exposure (Fontaine, 2002a, 2002b;Gupta and Lord, 1998; Russell, 2002) or by phoneapproximately one week later (d’Astous andChartier, 2000). The brand placement was inserted inoriginal short films (Fontaine, 2002a, 2002b; Russell,2002), or the study used excerpts from real movies(d’Astous and Chartier, 2000; Garza and Callison,2005; Gupta and Lord, 1998). These conditionsenable researchers to control the means of executingbrand placements. However, they also influencememorization of the placement by focusing attentionon the excerpt from the movie. This occurs evenwhen the authors have gone to great lengths to makesure the individuals whose responses are studiedhave no idea what the experiment is about. Someauthors (Van der Waldt, Du Toit and Redelinghuys,2007) go as far as recommending reproducing theirwork with “real movies” (sic).

This is why the goal of this study is to perceivehow the interaction of prominence and plot connectionof a placement influence memorization of the brandplaced in the context of real exposure. This meanshighlighting the role of interactions between thesetwo key characteristics of the placement in memoriza-tion of the message by spectators who have seen themovie in conditions that are as close as possible toreal life. Spontaneous recall was measured exclusi-vely the day after exposure in real conditions chosenby the viewer. The medium was always a movie cho-sen freely by the respondent and viewed in its enti-rety. The respondent was never informed at any timethat he was taking part in a study. This research

favors taking into account the complexity of brandplacements and consequently privileges normalconditions of exposure and administration of a ques-tionnaire to partially limit the halo effect(Rosenzweig, 2008). It contributes elements of exter-nal validity (Alford and Engelland, 2004; Evrard,Pras and Roux, 2003) to previous studies. However,we remain aware of the limits of internal validityinherent in the impossibility of testing all thevariables linked to exposure, as is the case for anyexperimental design.

Hierarchy of prominence and integration

Needless to say, attention and perception are kee-ner if the stimulus is stronger (Bundesen, 1990; Lee,2002). The size of the brand name or product on thescreen is one of the components of prominence(Fontaine, 2002a; Gupta and Lord, 1998) and also akey factor in a placement’s effectiveness (Karrh etal., 2003). Besides size, Gupta and Lord (1998) havehighlighted the importance of prominence according toseveral other variables (cf. Appendix A1) and haveconcluded that the most prominent placements gene-rate a greater number of memories.

The Persuasion Knowledge Model shows thatexposure to a brand is not processed as efficiently ifthe individual is not aware of being exposed, since hedoes not allocate the resources required to processthe message. By diminishing awareness of exposure toa persuasive message, since the branded product isblended into the film, plot connection can workagainst a placement. Furthermore, this is confirmedby d’Astous and Chartier (2000) who show thatstrong plot connection reduces memorization, parti-cularly when it is measured through spontaneousrecall. However, this conclusion is not shared by allresearch on plot connection (cf. Appendix A2), espe-cially since plot connection encourages acceptability(DeLorme, Reid and Zimmer, 1994).

This is why, without assuming that plot connec-tion reduces recall, it is possible to suppose that pro-minence, whose impact is unanimously recognized,should produce better recall than plot connection. Inher preliminary results, Fontaine (2002a) suggeststhat the prominent placement used in her experimentgenerated more spontaneous memories than a centralor plot-connected placement. Indeed, in her research



experiment, a bottle of Adelscott brand beer was pro-minently placed and not connected to the plot. It wasspontaneously cited by 51.9% of respondents whilethe same brand, when presented in a plot-connectedplacement, rather than being placed prominently, wascited only 35.6% of the time.

These various studies confirm the fact that promi-nent and plot-connected placements generate morememories, but they do not clearly establish theirinteractions. Moreover, prominence should achievehigher rates of recall than plot connection. We pro-pose to verify this by examining the following hypo-theses in a context with high external validity.

H.1: A prominent and plot connected placementgenerates more spontaneous recall than a promi-nent placement that is not connected to the plot.

H.2: A prominent placement that is not connec-ted to the plot generates more spontaneous recallthan a placement that is connected to the plot butnot prominent.

H.3: A placement that is not prominent butconnected to the plot generates more spontaneousrecall than a placement that is neither prominentnor connected to the plot.

These hypotheses are summarized in Figure 1.The four types of placement made possible by

combining these two characteristics, prominence andplot connection, are also ranked against each other interms of spontaneous recall.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This section details implementation of the study. Inparticular, it presents the films selected and describeshow data were collected from the sample. Methodsof measurement and analysis are also described.

Research media

Shooting dedicated short films allows controlover how brand placements are executed. The choiceof working with real feature length movies is cohe-rent with the idea of exposure in real, natural condi-tions, close to actually watching a film in a movietheater, as well as consideration of real placements.The data required to validate our research hypotheseswere collected using 11 movies recently released invideo format at the time of the study (Men in Black II,Minority Report, Analyze That, The Banger Sisters,Sweet Home Alabama, Austin Powers inGoldmember, Johnny English, Intolerable Cruelty,Mr. Deeds, Hardball and Paycheck), and watched byrespondents on rented DVDs in the privacy of theirown homes without being informed that they would beasked to answer a questionnaire the following day.

The choice of American movies is justified bytheir leading position on the French video market atthe time the data were collected, between 2003 and2005. They represented 55% of DVD sales volume inFrance in 2003 and 69% in value (CNC, 2005a).Moreover, American movies are globally more profi-table than French films during their second life invideo format. For the same box office results,American movies are more often published and sold invideo format than their French equivalents (CNC,2005b). Finally, since American legislation is one ofthe most flexible in terms of product placements, ithas enabled this form of communication to thrive(Schejter, 2004; Tiwsakul and Hackley, 2005). Thesemovies are therefore more suitable for this type ofresearch experiment. Among the movies selected,nine were comedies and two were science fiction(classification according to the French movie websitewww.allocine.fr). In 2007, product placements incomedies were analyzed by Jin and Villegas ascapable of soliciting positive emotional responsesfrom consumers. The type of movie – comedy orscience fiction – is integrated here as a controlvariable, as it can influence effectiveness of the place-ment, just as the type of television program in which a


H.1 H.2 H.3Prominent Prominent Non-prominent Non-prominent

Plot-connected>

Non-connected > Plot-connected > Non-connected

Figure 1. – Research hypotheses


placement is inserted can influence consumer res-ponses (Dambron, 1991; Garza and Callison, 2005;Russell and Stern, 2006).

After viewing several recent movies available forrental, the ones finally selected for the study werethose in which the placements were clearly descri-bable and most of the brands placed were perceptibleonly once (which enabled us to specifically link viewerrecall to characteristics of the placement concerned).Of the 156 placements recorded in the 11 movies,only 98 concerning 98 brands that appear only once ineach movie were retained for our analysis.

The sample

Respondents were video viewers who freelychose one of the 11 movies selected in one of threevideo rental outlets in the Paris region, the field forour study. The questionnaire was administered whenthey returned the DVD, the day after they had wat-ched it. Compared to a movie seen in a theater,DVDs make it easier to collect data and record theway placements are executed in order to define theircharacteristics. All individuals returning DVDs ofone of the movies selected for the study in one of thethree video rental outlets were systematically askedto answer the questionnaire. They were asked to takepart in a study on the movie they had just returned,without being told that it was about brand place-ments. A total of 3,532 individuals, or more than 300per movie, agreed to participate. Each individual wasasked about only one film in order to limit the testingeffect (Evrard, Pras and Roux, 2003), which coulddiminish the already fragile internal validity linked to afield study in real exposure conditions. Due to thecharacteristics of the video outlets selected, theirneighborhood location and the interest of theresearch topic, only six individuals refused to takepart in the study, saying they had no time.Participation of video store owners enabled us toconduct the study inside the outlet, which facilitatedcontact with potential respondents. This particularlyhigh response rate is also due to the fact the question-naire was quite short. However, this also meant thatidentification variables were not measured, otherthan genre, which was recorded by the interviewer.The questionnaire was administered via face-to-faceCAPI (Computer Assisted Personal Interview) bet-

ween 2003 and 2005 on different days of the weekand during different time slots during the businesshours of the video outlet. The choice of working in areal exposure setting, and not in a laboratory,involves important limitations in the way the sample isselected. In a real setting, individuals decide bythemselves which film they want. It is therefore tric-kier to define a sample according to quotas than in astudy where selected individuals view specificexcerpts of movies containing the placements stu-died. Therefore, our study concerns an ad hoc sampleof 51.42% men and 48.58% women. This does notlimit the significance of our results, since theyconcern, all other individual characteristics aside,spectators of movies from the population studied.The sample’s large size also enables generalizationof the results obtained.

Since, for a long time, numerous studies havedemonstrated that repetition improves recall ofadvertising messages (Batra and Ray, 1986; Belch,1982; Ehrenberg, 1974), a control variable linked tothe respondent was created by asking if he or she hadalready seen the movie in a theater. This was done toensure neutrality of the media, notably concerning asecond exposure to the movie.

Data collection

Spontaneous recall is the measurement of choicefor placement effectiveness (Galician, 2004; Karrh,1995; Karrh et al., 2003; Lehu, 2005b; Nelson andDevathan, 2006; Turcotte, 1995). Even thoughMackie and Asuncion (1990) consider recall a weakindicator of persuasion, it is still a variable that needsto be studied alongside the attitudinal effect, whilebearing in mind that maximizing recall does not syste-matically maximize persuasion (Russell, 2002). Inkeeping with a conceptual framework based on theperceptual process, while excluding persuasion, wechose to focus on spontaneous recall the followingday (SDAR – Spontaneous Day After Recall) as ameasurement tool of brand placement effectiveness.

Spontaneous day after recall: This variable wasmeasured with an open-ended question inviting therespondent to spontaneously cite brands he or sheremembered seeing and/or hearing about in a movie.At the same time, the video store computer systemenabled us to ensure that the DVD had not been rented



by the respondent for more than 24 hours, thus gua-ranteeing coherent measurement of SDAR.Individuals who did not abide by these rental condi-tions were not counted in the 3,532 respondents.

Thus, SDAR of a brand placement by the viewer isa binary qualitative variable counted as “yes” if theindividual spontaneously recalls having seen thebrand and can cite its name, or “no” if this is not thecase.

Prominence: Prominence was coded by two aca-demic experts in brand placements who viewed all98 placements in the study. Coding was performedseparately and then discussed to achieve convergencein the event of an initial disagreement. The place-ments were coded according to two modalities, “pro-minent” and “non-prominent”, bearing in mind pre-vious conceptualizations of this variable (cf. Table 1).A placement is considered prominent if it covers alarge area of the screen, is present for a long time inthe shot, if no other brand is present at the same timeand/or it is in the center of the picture.

These conceptualizations are particularly suitedto visual placements. The coding of exclusivelyaudio placements is more difficult. In the latter case,the definition of prominence, i.e., the capacity toattract attention (Fontaine, 2001), was predominant.This particularly concerned conditions of hearing thebrand, or an audio equivalent of the area occupied by avisual, and the audio or visual presence of otherbrands. For example, the mention of the American

MTV cable channel in a song interpreted in themovie Austin Powers in Goldmember was virtuallyinaudible. Listening conditions were marred by inter-ference and the fact the brand name was not dis-tinctly pronounced, but sung instead. On the otherhand, the explanation of what a Game Boy is by WillSmith, star of the movie Men in Black 2, monopo-lizes the viewer’s attention. The brand is the subject ofan exchange between the actors, its name is clearlypronounced several times and no other brand is presentat the same time.

Plot connection: Plot connection of a brand pla-cement was subject to the same dual coding proce-dure as prominence. The previous conceptualizationsof plot connection (cf. Table 2) also helped theexperts define whether a placement was “connected”or not. A placement is connected if the product isinvolved in the action and/or is in contact with themain character (Galician and Bourdeau, 2004;Lindstrom, 2008).

The importance of time in the plot of MinorityReport makes the close-up of the main character’sBvlgari watch, worn by Tom Cruise, perfectly legiti-mate. Linked to the action and in contact with themale lead, this placement is considered plot-connected.Just like the audio placement of Game Boy in Men inBlack 2, described above, the brand is mentioned bythe hero during a specific scene and is used to des-cribe the ship’s wheel of the vessel he is steering. Onthe other hand, the off-hand mention of Air France


Variables selected for coding

Sources Authors

Space occupied Product sizeFontaine, 2002a

by the brandGupta and Lord, 1998

Scale of product shot Fontaine, 2002aVisibility d’Astous and Chartier, 2000

Other brandsPresence of other more

present simultaneouslyprominent brands

Fontaine, 2002a

Multiple simultaneous placements Gupta and Lord, 1998

Duration brand Duration brand is displayedFontaine, 2002a

is displayedGupta and Lord, 1998

Placement time d’Astous and Chartier, 2000

Brand location Position Gupta and Lord, 1998

Table 1. – Conceptualization of prominence


by the gangsters in Analyze That was considered irre-levant by the two experts as the brand was not cited bythe star of the movie and was not linked to the othercharacters, the time, place or the story itself.

Table 3 shows the number of placements with dif-ferent possible combinations of these two modalitiesand characteristics, or 2 x 2 combinations. The numberof placements corresponds to those indentified aspresenting a specific combination by the experts incharge of coding: 98 placements were judged accor-ding to these two characteristics, or 196 evaluations.Twenty-one evaluations, or 11%, were subject to dis-cussion before reaching a final agreement that satisfiedboth experts. The number of observations corres-ponds to the number of video viewers questioned onplacements for one combination.

Table 3 confirms that collecting observations inthe field limits control of the research model for the 98placements corresponding to the 2 x 2 combinationsrecorded. Even if the experiment plan is complete,non-prominent and plot-connected placements arerare. A laboratory experiment plan would haveenabled us to balance the different types of place-ment. In the case of our survey in the field, theresearch model is complete, but the number of place-ments observed in each case is not balanced.

Processing the statistics

By collecting data concerning brand placementsin 11 movies, with an average of nine brands each,from 320 video viewers on average per film, thesample created from the dataset includes 32,662

observations. Each of these observations represents aviewer exposed to a brand that he has either memori-zed or not. The variables associated with these obser-vations are those linked to the brand placement, suchas its characteristics, prominence and plot connec-tion, the type of movie (control variable), nationality ofthe brand (control variable) and the number of brandsplaced in the movie (control variable). These observa-tions also include variables linked to the video vie-wer such as SDAR and whether or not he or she hadseen the movie before in a theater (control variable).

A logit model with interaction effects enabled us,in an initial phase, to validate the explanatory characterof the variables selected for recall of the brand pla-ced. Several explanatory variables were qualitativeand were allocated a regression coefficient for eachmodality. Through construction, the sum of the coeffi-cients allocated to the modalities of the variable isnull. These variables are control variables, specifiedabove, and the interaction effects resulting from the 2 x2 combinations of prominence and plot connection.A hypothesis is confirmed when the standardizedcoefficients (beta) of the regression are ranked accor-ding to the assumed direction of the hypothesis andtheir difference is significant after a Wald test. Theorder of these coefficients reflects the rating of thespontaneous recollection. The rating is the probabi-lity of occurrence of the event divided by the probabi-lity of its non-occurrence. In this case, it is the proba-bility of spontaneous recall of the brand placementover the probability of not recalling it. The higher thecoefficient, the higher the rating of the spontaneousrecollection and therefore the higher the probabilityof recollection.


Variables selected for coding

Sources Authors

Product involved

Role of the product in the intrigue; Fontaine, 2002a, 2002b ;

in the action

Role of the product in the situation Ong and Meri, 1994

Brand in the actionOng and Meri, 1994 ;Russell, 2002

Related to the context of the movie d’Astous and Chartier, 2000

Product in contactRole of the product for the character;

with the main characterType of character associated with the product

Fontaine, 2002a, 2002b

Character identified with the brand Russell, 2002

Table 2. – Conceptualization of plot connection


RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Descriptive statistics of the database used are pre-sented before the results concerning the confirmationof our hypotheses.

Preliminary results

The rate of spontaneous recall was 4.2%. Thismeans that out of 32,662 observations, only 1,382correspond to a memorized exposure. The number ofbrands considered ranged from four to 22 per movie,with an average of 12 per movie. Statistically, 86.7%were international brands; 15% of respondents hadalready seen the movie in a theater before renting theDVD; 39.8% of the 98 placements studied were pro-minent and 32.6% were plot-connected.

A logit regression with interaction effects was runto modelize SDAR of the brand placed. A test ofindependence between the main explanatoryvariables – prominence and plot connection –enabled us to conclude that there was a statistical linkbetween them (Chi-square test, p < 5%). This is why,to avoid multicollinearity, simple effects of each ofthese correlated variables were not included in thelogit regression. Only their interaction was introdu-ced in the model.

By evaluating the impact of their exclusion fromthe model, the type 3 analysis (cf. Table 4), equiva-lent to an ANCOVA variance analysis, enabled us toconfirm the contribution of each variable selected forSDAR. These control variables had indeed playedtheir role. The significativity of interaction betweenprominence and plot connection authorizes the studyof recall according to the four modalities defined by

crossing two values for prominence with two for plotconnection, in keeping with our hypotheses.

Mcfadden’s R2 equals 0.182, attesting to thegoodness of fit of the data with the model defined bythe logit regression.

Hierarchy of prominence and integration

Table 5 presents the beta coefficients of the logitregression and their significativity.

First, we should note that the control variable“genre” had a significant effect, but the opposite ofwhat was expected. Comedy does not promote spon-taneous recall more than science fiction.

Hypothesis H.1 is confirmed. The standardizedcoefficient of interaction between prominence andplot connection (β = 0.353) is greater (comparisontest; p < 0.01) than that obtained for interaction bet-ween prominence and absence of plot integration (β = 0.255). A prominent and plot-connected place-ment generates more spontaneous recollections than aprominent placement that is not connected to theplot. Similarly, hypothesis H.2 is confirmed. This is acentral hypothesis because it attributes a more impor-tant role to prominence than plot connection in spon-taneous recall of the brand placed. A prominent place-ment that is not connected to the plot (β = 0.255)triggers more spontaneous memories (comparisontest; p < 0.01) than a placement that is not prominentbut connected to the plot (β = – 0.175). Therefore, if itis not possible to create a placement that is both pro-minent and plot-connected, it is better to favor pro-minence over plot connection. Finally, hypothesisH.3 is also confirmed. Connection of the brand to theplot improves recall when the placement is not promi-nent. A placement that is not prominent but connectedto the plot (β = – 0.175) triggers more spontaneous


Prominence Plot connection Number of placements Number of observations

Prominent Plot-connected 25 8,159Prominent Non-connected 14 4,488Non-prominent Plot-connected 7 2,498Non-prominent Non-connected 52 17,517

Total 98 32,662

Table 3. – Characteristics of the placements studied


memories (comparison test; p < 0.01) than a place-ment that is neither prominent nor connected to theplot (β = – 0.433). The different values of each brandplacement’s characteristics are organized accordingto the proposed hierarchy. To sum up, a prominentand plot-connected placement is more easily recalledthan a prominent placement that is not connected tothe plot, which, however, is more easily recalled than anon-prominent and plot-connected placement, whichstill achieves better results than a non-prominent andnon-connected placement. Adding simple effects ofprominence and plot connection to the interactioneffect in the logit regression results in the sameconclusion.

The importance of prominent placements and, to amore limited degree, plot-connected placements,confers nomological validity to the variables “promi-nence” and “plot connection” as they were measuredthrough dual coding. The link with recall corres-ponds to results from previous studies (Batra andAhtola, 1990; Evrard, Pras and Roux, 2003). Thismeans that the expected link between the theoretical

constructs and an observable variable has beenconfirmed (Cronbach and Meehl, 1955).

Limitations and avenues for future research

Not all the characteristics of a placement weretaken into account in this study, which has focusedon prominence and plot connection. While certaincontrol variables have been integrated, others areabsent from this research such as, for example, repu-tation or brand image before the placement. Thisindicator is not readily available and would requireeither collecting additional data or making anapproximation based on sales levels before release ofthe movie featuring the brand placement. However, abrand’s reputation can encourage recall of its pre-sence in a movie (Brennan and Babin, 2004).

The approach chosen for collecting data, in thefield rather than in an experimental setting, has limita-tions that reduce the internal validity of the study.The first is a selection bias, or a lack of control over


Table 4. – Type 3 analysis of the logit regression

Variable d.f. Chi-square (Wald) Significativity

Number of brands placed in the movie 1 516.648 < 0.01American vs. International brand 1 345.814 < 0.01Movie seen in theater 1 2737.053 < 0.01Genre 1 380.423 < 0.01Prominence × Plot connection 3 3872.543 < 0.01

Table 5. – Standardized coefficients of the logit regression

Variable Chi-square (Wald) Pr > Chi-square Bêta

Number of brands placed in the movie 516.648 < 0.01 – 0.183International brand 345.814 < 0.01 0.143American brand 345.814 < 0.01 – 0.143Movie seen in theater – no 2737.053 < 0.01 – 0.338Movie seen in theater – yes 2737.053 < 0.01 0.338Genre – Comedy 380.423 < 0.01 – 0.152Genre – Science fiction 380.423 < 0.01 0.152Prominent × Plot-connected 2335.947 < 0.01 0.353Prominent × Non-connected 724.508 < 0.01 0.255Non-prominent × Plot-connected 210.144 < 0.01 – 0.175Non-prominent × Non-connected 1701.074 < 0.01 – 0.433


the sample (Jolibert and Jourdan, 2006), since eachperson returning a DVD was systematically questionedin order to have a large number of respondents.Individual characteristics were not established apriori in an effort to achieve representativity andthese were not collected in order to shorten the ques-tionnaire. It is therefore impossible to appreciaterepresentativity bias of the sample compared to aparent sample of French video audiences, or to adjustfor it. Moreover, since the samples were not paired,viewers subject to one type of placement were notsimilar to those who were not exposed to the sametype of placement. This limits explanation of recallby type of placement, since this was not the only factorthat varied. There is also a history effect (Séville,2006); events external to the study were even lesscontrolled since the field survey took place over atwo-year period. However, stretching the study overtwo years enabled us to partially reduce the haloeffect (Rosenzweig, 2008) even though collection ofdata for each film was voluntarily limited to approxi-mately three months after the DVD release. Finally,another limitation of the field study was the impossi-bility of controlling execution of the placement andconditions of exposure. Similarly, coding placementswas sometimes tricky, especially audio placements,even if the dual coding procedure tended to reducesubjectivity. The use of “real” movies also forced us touse the brands present in them without being able todesign an ad hoc research model, notably in the formof an experiment plan. In the end, this limitation waspartially compensated by the advantage of having themovies viewed in real conditions. This contextualfactor bolsters the external validity of the study(Calder et al., 1982). In moderating the arguments ofWiner (1999) in favor of systematically enhancingexternal validity, Lynch (1999) warns against a hastygeneralization based on external validity alone. In thecase of this study, we consider it first and foremost as acomplementary component of validity, along withprevious research, in keeping with our objective.

Beyond these limitations, establishing a percen-tage of SDAR at only 4.2% raises several questions.Indeed, studies on product placements agree that thistechnique enables good recall of brands (Karrh,Brittain McKee and Pardun, 2003; Russell andBelch, 2005), which is not the case here. This diffe-rence can be understood when we note that previousstudies, performed in an experimental setting, often

concerned prominent placements. When this was notthe case, the subject was often exposed to an excerptfrom a movie, in a laboratory, and his recollectionwas generally measured immediately after exposure.Compared to these experimental conditions, allowingcontrol of measurements and the research model, ourstudy in the field in real conditions focused on sponta-neous recall the day after exposure and, 60% of thetime, non-prominent placements. These differencescontribute to explaining the low average rate obser-ved for SDAR. An interesting area for further studywould be to compare the data collected in real set-tings and data collected after exposure in a laboratoryto excerpts from the same movies with the same pla-cements.

Our study measures spontaneous recall of a brandplacement as an indicator of its effectiveness.Prompted recall was not measured, which is a limita-tion in the study of perception and memorization.Furthermore, the response mechanisms called intoplay according to the characteristics of the placementare not the same, depending on whether the recollec-tion involves vision or hearing. Different areas of thebrain are solicited by visual and audio stimuli(Bushara et al., 1999), which supposes information iscoded differently (Paivio, 1978). Hence, using asingle indicator for different response systems has itslimitations, particularly concerning the external vali-dity of this study (Lynch, 1982). It was voluntarilylimited to the perceptual process that results inmemorization, or not, according to McGuire’s model(1976). Other models introduce, in particular, indivi-dual involvement (Petty and Cacioppo, 1979), whichwould be interesting to develop in complementarystudies applied to brand placements in movies.Furthermore, recall does not systematically trigger apurchase. This behavioral measure of a product place-ment’s effectiveness (Lehu, 2006; Russell and Belch,2005) is not always the primary objective of theadvertiser. However, sharp increases in sales unde-niably caused by a brand placement are legendaryand inspire advertisers, such as the Ray Ban sun-glasses worn by Tom Cruise in Risky Business(1985), whose annual sales jumped from 18,000units to 360,000 (Freeman, 2007). Omega witnessedsales of its Seamaster watch grow 40% after ador-ning the wrist of Pierce Brosnan in GoldenEye(Stewart-Allen, 1999). More recently, Batman’s suitin The Dark Knight (2007) created unprecedented



commercial interest in the Precious Collectionsbrand of men’s underwear (Emling, 2008). Changes inbehavior are easy to measure by a global spike insales, especially when it is exceptional: a 4,000%increase in sales of Etch A Sketch toys, consideredobsolete, after appearing in the movie Toy Story in1995 (Lehu, 2006). This effect is more difficult todemonstrate when it is discrete. In the case of fast-moving consumer goods, we could compare resultsof distributor panel data side by side with ticket salesfor a movie theater in the same shopping area. Wecould get an aggregated view of effectiveness, inbehavioral terms, of a brand placement. The sameobjective, but with an individual approach, could bepursued for television broadcasts, by comparingaudience measurement tools and analysis of consu-mer panel data. Household consumption could belinked to movies seen at home during the previousdays. This type of analytical tool has already beenused to demonstrate the complementarity of televi-sion advertising and direct marketing campaigns(Battais, 2003).

While our study focuses exclusively on characte-ristics of brand placements in movies, variables lin-ked to the audience could be added, in addition to thecontrol variable used, which concern the home videoviewer. We can also mention the perceivedcongruence between the placement and the media(Edwards, Li and Lee, 2002; Moore, Stammerjohanand Coulter, 2005; Russel, 2002). Finally, in ourstudy the viewer could have seen a movie for the firsttime at home or could have seen it in a theater first,which raises the question of how movies are watchedat home and the viewer’s experience (Hackley andTiwsakul, 2006; Lehu and Bressoud, 2008). Privateviewing conditions vary from one home to another,while those in a theater are rather uniform for theentire audience. Moreover, there are potentially moresources of distraction in a private home than in amovie theater (McKechnie and Zhou, 2003).Research on the spectator could also be completed bya study of intrapersonal characteristics (Fontaine,2002a; Morton and Friedman, 2002).

CONCLUSION

This study has focused on analyzing the characte-ristics of a brand placement in movies, through anapplication to DVDs. By founding this work on realfeature films, viewed in a natural setting and asample of 32,662 observations, this study has confir-med the role of the main characteristics of brand pla-cement in movies in terms of recall by home videoviewers of the brands placed. Contrary to the recom-mendations of Lindstrom (2008), the results demons-trate the interest of favoring prominence over plotconnection, which remains, however, an importantcharacteristic of brand placements.

These results are far from constituting a finalepisode in the analysis of brand and/or product place-ments in movies. Evolutions in communication andmedia almost naturally encourage the developmentof this new form of infiltration by brands, whichaspire to continue transmitting their messages, whileadapting to a new technical and sociocultural envi-ronment (Nelson, 2008). This article contributes toconfirming the growing, and clearly legitimate, interestof advertisers in brand placements today. It alsoconfirms their technical potential, providing theircharacteristics are completely mastered, mastery thatmust also be devoted to the ethical use of this commu-nications technique (Brennan, Rosenberger andHementera, 2004; Gupta and Gould, 1997; Hudsonand Hudson, 2006), in order to avoid negativeaudience reactions (Hackley, Tiwsakul and Preuss,2008; Krider, 2006; Schmoll et al., 2006)

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

Alford B.L. and Engelland B.T. (2004), Measurement vali-dation in marketing research: a review and commen-tary, Journal of Business Research, 57, 2, 95-97.

Anzai Y. (2003), The perception of Japanese university stu-dents concerning product placement in Hollywoodmovies, The Economic Journal of Takasaki CityUniversity of Economics, 46, 3, 107-116.



Baddeley A. (1997), Human memory: theory and practice(revised edition), London, Psychology Press.

Bagozzi R.P. and Silk A.J. (1983), Recall, recognition, andthe measurement of memory for print advertisement,Marketing Science, 2, 2, 95-134.

Balasubramanian S.K. (1994), Beyond advertising andpublicity: hybrid messages and public policy issues,Journal of Advertising, 23, 4, 29-46.

Batra R. and Athola O.T. (1990), Measuring the hedonicand utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes,Marketing Letters, 2, 2, 159-170.

Batra R. and Ray M. (1986), Situational effects of adverti-sing: the moderating influence of motivation, abilityand opportunity to respond, Journal of ConsumerResearch, 12, 4, 432-445.

Battais L. (2003), L’efficacité des actions de marketingdirect sur les marchés de grande consommation : l’ex-périence BehaviorScan en France et en Allemagne,Décisions Marketing, 30, 63-75.

Belch G.E. (1982), The effects of television commercialrepetition on cognitive response and message accep-tance, Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 1, 56-65.

Blackston M. (2000), Pay attention! This advertising iseffective, Admap, March.

Blondé K. and Roozen I. (2007), An explorative study testingthe effectiveness of product placement compared to 30-second commercials, paper presented at the Congrès desTendances Marketing Paris-Venice, Paris, 26-27 January.

Brée J. (1996), Le placement de produits dans les films :une communication originale, Décisions Marketing, 8,65-74.

Brennan I. and Babin L.A. (2004), Brand placement reco-gnition: the influence of presentation mode and brandfamiliarity, Journal of Promotion Management, 10,1/2, 185-202.

Brennan S., Rosenberger III P.J. and Hementera V. (2004),Product placements in movies, an Australian consumerperspective and their ethicality and acceptability,Marketing Bulletin, 15, 1, 1-16.

Bressoud E. and Lehu J.-M. (2008), Le placement demarques dans les films. Panorama, modalités d’exécu-tion et efficacité, La Revue des Sciences de Gestion,233, 101-114.

Bressoud E., Lehu J.-M. and Russell C. (2008), Integratingplacement and audience characteristics to assess therecall of product placements in film: findings from afield study, paper presented at the 7th InternationalConference “Research in Advertising” (ICORIA),Antwerp, Belgium, 27-28 June.

Bundesen C. (1990), A theory of visual attention,Psychological Review, 97, 4, 523-547.

Bushara K.O., Weeks R.A., Ishii K., Catalan M.J., Tian B.,Rauschecker J.P. and Hallett M. (1999), Modality-speci-fic frontal and parietal areas for auditory and visualspatial localization in humans, Nature Neuroscience, 2,8, 759-766.

Calder B.J., Phillips L.W. and Tybout A.M. (1982) Theconcept of external validity, Journal of ConsumerResearch, 9, 3, 240-244.

Campbell M.C. and Kirmani A. (2000), Consumers’ use ofpersuasion knowledge: the effects of accessibility andcognitive capacity on perceptions of an influenceagent, Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 1, 69-83.

Campbell M.C., Mohr G.S. and Verlegh P. (2007),Examining effects of product placement and sponsor-ship disclosure: a flexible correction approach, paperpresented at La Londe Seminar in MarketingCommunications and Consumer Behavior, La Londe,5-8 June.

Chapman R.M., McCrary J.W. and Chapman J.A. (1978),Short-term memory: the “storage”component of humanbrain responses predicts recall, Science, 202, 4373,1211-1214.

CNC (2005a), Le marché du cinéma en vidéo, CNC Info, ledossier du CNC, Spécial Vidéo, n° 293, March.

CNC (2005b), De la salle à la vidéo, CNC Info, le dossier duCNC, Spécial Vidéo, n° 293, March.

Costley C.L., Das S. and Brucks M. (1997), Presentationmedium and spontaneous imaging effects on consumermemory, Journal of Consumer Psychology, 6, 3, 211-231.

Cowley E. and Barron C. (2008), When product placementgoes wrong. The effects of program liking and place-ment proeminence, Journal of Advertising, 37, 1, 89-98.

Cronbach L.J. and Meehl P.E. (1955), Construct validity inpsychological tests, Psychological Bulletin, 52, 4, 281-302.

d’Astous A. and Chartier F. (2000), A study of factorsaffecting consumer evaluations and memory of productplacements in movies, Journal of Current Issues andResearch in Advertising, 22, 2, 31-40.

Dalli D. (2003), Il product placement cinematografico:oltre la pubblicità?, paper presented at the 3rd Congrèsdes Tendances Marketing, Venice, 18-29 November.

Dambron P. (1991), Sponsoring et politique de marketing,Paris, Éditions d’Organisation.

Darpy D. and Volle P. (2007), Comportement du consom-mateur, concepts et outils, Paris, Dunod.

Daugherty T. and Gangadharbatla H. (2005), A comparisonof consumers’ responses to traditional advertising andproduct placement strategies: implications for adverti-sers, paper presented at AMA Winter Educators’ confe-rence, San Antonio, TX, 11-14 February.

Deloitte (2005), TMT Trends: predictions, 2005: a focus onthe media sector, Paul Lee (Ed.), Cabinet DeloitteTouche Tohmatsu, United States, Netherlands, Hong-Kong.

DeLorme D.E. and Reid L.N. (1999), Moviegoers’ expe-riences and interpretations of brands in films revisited,Journal of Advertising, 28, 2, 72-95.

DeLorme D.E., Reid L.N. and Zimmer M.R. (1994),Brands in films: young moviegoers’ experiences and interpretations, paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Academy ofAdvertising.

Donaton S. (2004), Madison & Vine, New York, NY,Editions Advertising Age McGraw-Hill.



Droulers O. (2000), Perception subliminale: une expéri-mentation sur le processus d’activation sémantique desmarques, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 15, 4,43-59.

Dunn S.W., Barban A.M., Krugman D.M. and Reid L.N.(1990), Advertising: its role in modern marketing (7th

edition), New York, NY, The Dryden Press (Holt,Rinehart and Winston).

Edwards S.M., Li H. and Lee J.H. (2002), Forced exposureand psychological reactance: antecedents and conse-quences of the perceived intrusiveness of pop-up ads,Journal of Advertising, 31, 3, 83-96.

Ehrenberg A.S.C. (1974), Repetitive advertising and theconsumer, Journal of Advertising Research, 14, 2, 25-34.

Eliashberg J., Elberse A. and Leenders M. (2006), Themotion picture industry: critical issues in practice, cur-rent research, and new research directions, MarketingScience, 25, 6, 638-661.

Emling S. (2008), Men in tights, for real, The WashingtonTimes, September 3rd.

Engel B. (2005), Spring 2005 national consumer studies,Florida, Simons Market Research.

Engel J.F., Blackwell R.D. and Miniard P.W. (1990),Consumer behavior (6th edition), Chicago, DrydenPress.

Evrard Y., Pras B. and Roux E. (2003), Market, Études etrecherches en marketing (3rd edition), Paris, Dunod.

Falcy S. (1993), Pour une approche individuelle des pro-cessus de persuasion publicitaire, Recherche etApplications en Marketing, 8, 3, 45-63.

Filser M. (1993), Le comportement du consommateur,Paris, Dalloz.

Fontaine I. (2001), Le placement de marques dans les films :apports du cadre théorique de la mémoire implicite etproposition d’une méthodologie, working paper 287,April, DMSP Research Centre, University of Paris IXDauphine.

Fontaine I. (2002a), Étude des réponses mémorielles etattitudinales des spectateurs exposés aux placements demarques dans les films, Doctoral dissertation,University of Paris IX Dauphine.

Fontaine I. (2002b), Impact persuasif du rôle accordé auxmarques au sein de supports non publicitaires: le cas duplacement de marques dans les films, Proceedings ofthe 18th Congrès de l’Association Française duMarketing, Lille, 23-24 May, 177-200.

Fontaine I. (2006), Étude du changement d’attitude pourles marques placées dans les films : persuasion ou effetd’exposition ?, Recherche et Applications enMarketing, 21, 1, 1-18.

Freeman H. (2007), And the Oscar goes to... a suitcase?,The Guardian, November 23rd.

Friestad M. and Wright P. (1994), The persuasion know-ledge model: how people cope with persuasionattempts, Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 1, 1-31.

Friestad M. and Wright P. (1995), The persuasion know-ledge model: lay people’s and research’s beliefs aboutthe psychology of persuasion, Journal of ConsumerResearch, 22, 1, 62-74.

Galician M.L. (2004), A rising independent filmmakerargues for product placement: an interview withSamuel A. Turcotte, Journal of PromotionManagement, 10, 1/2, 223-226.

Galician M.L. and Bourdeau P.G. (2004), The evolution ofproduct placements in Hollywood cinema: embeddinghigh-involvement “heroic” brand image, Journal ofPromotion Management, 10, 1/2, 15-36.

Garza S.D. and Callison C. (2005), The influence of moviegenre on audience reaction to product placement, paperpresented at the Association for Education inJournalism and Mass Communication Conference,Advertising Division, 9-13 August, San Antonio, TX.

Gould S.J., Gupta P.B. and Grabner-Kraüter S. (2000),Product placements in movies: a cross-cultural analysisof Austrian, French and American consumers’ attitudestoward this emerging, international promotionalmedium, Journal of Advertising, 29, 4, 41-58.

Grégory P. (1993), Notes sur la persuasion subliminale :quelques acquis de la recherche marketing pour éclairerun mythe, Recherche et Applications en Marketing, 8, 3,79-93.

Greenwald A.G. (1992), New look 3: unconscious cogni-tion reclaimed, American Psychologist, 47, 6, 766-779.

Greenwald A.G., Spangenberg E.R., Pratkanis A.R. andEskenazi J. (1991), Double-blind tests of subliminalself-help audio tapes, Psychological Science, 2, 2, 119-122.

Gupta P.B and Gould S.J. (1997), Consumers’ perceptions ofthe ethics and acceptability of product placements inmovies: product category and individual differences,Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising,19, 1, 37-50.

Gupta P.B and Gould S.J. (2007), Recall of products placedas prizes versus commercials in game show, Journal ofCurrent Issues and Research in Advertising, 20, 1, 43-53.

Gupta P.B. and Lord K.R. (1998), Product placement inmovies: the effect of prominence and mode onaudience recall, Journal of Current Issues andResearch in Advertising, 20, 1, 48-59.

Hackley C. and Tiwsakul R.A. (2006), Entertainment mar-keting and experiential consumption, Journal ofMarketing Communications, 12, 1, 63-75.

Hackley C., Tiwsakul R.A. and Preuss L. (2008), An ethicalevaluation of product placement: a deceptive practice?,Business Ethics: A European Review, 17, 2, 109-120.

Henderson Britt S. (1969), Are so-called successful adverti-sing campaigns really successful?, Journal ofAdvertising Research, 9, 2, 3-9.

Hendon D.W. (1973), How mechanical factors affect adperception, Journal of Advertising Research, 13, 4, 39-45.

Hudson S. and Hudson D. (2006), Branded entertainment: anew advertising technique or product placement in dis-guise?, Journal of Marketing Management, 22, 5/6,489-504.

Jin C. and Villegas J. (2007), The effect of the placement ofthe product in film: consumers’ emotional responses tohumorous stimuli and prior brand evaluation, Journal



of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing,15, 4, 244-255.

Jolibert A. and Didellon-Carsana L. (2000), La mesure nonhiérarchique de la structure mémorielle des connais-sances, Décisions Marketing, 21, 89-97.

Jolibert A. and Jourdan P. (2006), Marketing Research:méthodes de recherche et d’études en marketing, Paris,Dunod, 158.

Kammoun M. (2008), Efficacité de la publicité, un état del’art, La Revue des Sciences de Gestion, 229, 111-119.

Karrh J.A. (1995), Brand placements in feature films: thepractitioners’ view, in C. S. Madden (Ed.), Proceedingsof the American Academy of Advertising, HankamerUniversity of Baylor, School of Business, Waco, TX,182-188.

Karrh J.A. (1998), Brand placement: a review, Journal ofCurrent Issues and Research in Advertising, 20, 2, 31-49.

Karrh J.A., Brittain McKee K. and Pardun C.J. (2003),Practitioners’ evolving views on product placementeffectiveness, Journal of Advertising Research, 43, 2,138-149.

Kishore A. (2003), The death of the 30-second commer-cial, August, rapport du Yankee Group Media &Entertainment Strategies, Boston, MA.

Krider R.E. (2006), Research opportunities at the movies,Marketing Science, 25, 6, 662-664.

Krugman H.E. (1965), The impact of television adverti-sing: learning without involvement, The PublicOpinion Quaterly, 29, 3, 349-356.

Krugman H.E. (1977), Memory without recall, exposurewithout perception, Journal of Advertising Research,17, 4, 7-12.

Law S. and Braun K. (2000), I’ll have what she’s having:gauging the impact of product placements on viewers,Psychology & Marketing, 17, 12, 1059-1075.

Law S. and Braun-La Tour K.A. (2004), Product place-ment: how to measure their impact, in L.J. Shrum(Ed.), The psychology of entertainment, LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 63-78.

Lee A.Y. (2002), Effects of implicit memory on memory-based versus stimulus-based brand choice, Journal ofMarketing Research, 39, 4, 440-454.

Lehu J.-M. and Bressoud E. (2008), Effectiveness of brandplacement: new insights about viewers, Journal ofBusiness Research, 61, 10, 1083-1090.

Lehu J.-M. (2005a), Le placement de marques au cinéma,proposition de la localisation du placement à l’écrancomme nouveau facteur d’efficacité potentielle,Décisions Marketing, 37, 17-31.

Lehu J.-M. (2005b), Le placement de produits au cinéma:Hiérarchie des critères d’utilisation ou hiérarchie desétapes? Une étude exploratoire qualitative auprèsd’agents professionnels anglo-saxons, paper presented atthe 4th Congrès des Tendances marketing, Paris, 21-22January.

Lehu J.-M. (2006), La publicité est dans le film, Paris, Édi-tions d’Organisation.

Lindstrom M. (2008), buy.ology, New York, NY,Doubleday.

Liu S.S. and Stout P.A. (1987), Effects of message modalityand appeal on advertising acceptance, Psychology &Marketing, 4, 3, 167-187.

Lewicki P. (1986), Nonconscious social information pro-cessing, Orlando, Academic Press.

Lynch J.G. Jr. (1982), On the external validity of experi-ments in consumer research, Journal of ConsumerResearch, 9, 3, 225-239.

Lynch J.G. Jr. (1999), Theory and external validity, Journalof the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 3, 367-376.

Mackie D.E. and Asuncion A.G. (1990), On-line andmemory-based modification of attitudes: determinantsof message recall-attitude change correspondence,Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1, 5-16.

Mayer R.E. and Moreno R. (1998), A split-attention effect inmultimedia learning: evidence for dual processing sys-tems in working memory, Journal of EducationalPsychology, 90, 2, 312-320.

McGaugh J.L. (1966), Time-dependent processes inmemory storage, Science, 153, 1351-1358.

McGuire W.J. (1976), Some internal psychological factorsinfluencing consumer choice, Journal of ConsumerResearch, 2, 4, 302-319.

McKechnie S.A. and Zhou J. (2003), Product placement inmovies: a comparison of Chinese and American consu-mers’ attitudes, International Journal of Advertising,22, 3, 349-374.

Meyers-Levy J. and Malaviya P. (1999), Consumers’ pro-cessing of persuasive advertisements: an integrativeframework of persuasion theories, Journal ofMarketing, 63, 4, 45-60.

Moore R.S., Stammerjohan C.A. and Coulter R.A. (2005),Banner advertiser-website context congruity and coloreffects on attention and attitudes, Journal ofAdvertising, 34, 2, 71-84.

Morton C.R. and Friedman M. (2002), “I saw it in the movies”: exploring the link between product pla-cement beliefs and reported usage behavior, Journal ofCurrent Issues and Research in Advertising, 24, 2,33-40.

Nebenzahl I.D. and Secunda E. (1993), Consumer’s atti-tudes toward product placement in movies,International Journal of Advertising, 12, 1, 1-11.

Nelson R.A. (2004), A product placement resource guide:Recommended Publications and Websites, Journal ofPromotion Management, 10, 1/2, 259-267.

Nelson M.R. (2008), The hidden persuaders: then and now,Journal of Advertising, 37, 1, 113-126.

Nelson M.R. and Devathan N. (2006), Brand placementsBollywood style, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 5, 3,211-221.

Ong B.S. and Meri D. (1994), Should product placement inmovies be banned?, Journal of PromotionManagement, 2, 2/4, 159-175.

Paivio A. (1978), A dual coding approach to perception andcognition, in H.I. Pick and E. Saltzman (Eds.), Modes ofperceiving and processing information, Hillsdale, NJ,Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 39-51.



Pardun C.J. and McKee K.B. (1999), Product placementsas public relations: an exploratory study of the role of thepublic relations firm, Public Relations Reviews, 25, 4,481-493.

Peterson R.A. (2001), On the use of college students insocial science research: insights from a second-ordermeta-analysis, Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 3,450-61.

Petty R.E. and Cacioppo J.T. (1979), Issue-involvementcan increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing mes-sage-relevant cognitive responses, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 37, 10, 1915-1926.

Pieters R. and Wedel M. (2004), Attention capture andtransfer in advertising: brand, pictorial, and text-sizeeffects, Journal of Marketing, 68, 2, 36-50.

PQ Media (2005), Product placement spending in media2005 – History, analysis & forecast, 1974 to 2009,Stamford, CT, PQ Media LLC.

PQ Media (2007), PQ Media market analysis finds globalproduct placement spending grew 37% in 2006,Stamford, CT, PQ Media LLC, March.

Pratkanis A.R. and Aronson E. (1992), The age of propa-ganda: the everyday use and abuse of persuasion, NewYork, WH Freeman.

Rosen D.L. and Singh S.N. (1992), An investigation of thesubliminal embed effect on multiple measures ofadvertising, Psychology & Marketing, 9, 2, 157-173.

Rosenzweig P. (2008), Common errors in marketingresearch – and how to fix them, Marketing Research,20, 3, 6-12.

Russell C.A. (1998), Toward a framework of product place-ment: theoretical propositions, Advances in ConsumerResearch, 25, 1, 357-362.

Russell C.A. (2002), Investigating the effectiveness of pro-duct placements in television shows: the role of modalityand plot connection congruence on brand memory andattitude, Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 3, 306-318.

Russell C.A. and Belch M. (2005), A managerial investiga-tion into the product placement industry, Journal ofAdvertising Research, 45, 1, 73-92.

Russell C.A. and Stern B.B. (2006), Consumers, charac-ters, and products, Journal of Advertising, 35, 1, 7-21.

Schejter A.M. (2004), Product placement as an internationalpractice: moral, legal, regulatory and trade implica-tions, paper presented at the 32nd AnnualTelecommunications Policy and Research Conference,October, The National Center for Technology and theLaw, George Mason University School of Law,Arligton, VA.

Schmoll N.M., Hafer J., Hilt M. and Reilly H. (2006),Baby boomers’ attitudes towards product placements,Journal of Current Issues and research in Advertising,28, 2, 33-53.

Schumacher P. and Helmig B. (2007), The effect of execu-tional variables of product placement on conscious andnon-conscious brand processing and its consequenceson brand evaluation, paper presented at the 36th

European Marketing Academy Conference, Reykjavik,22-25 May.

Steortz E.M. (1987), The cost efficiency and communicationeffects associated with brand name exposure withinmotion pictures, Master’s thesis, West VirginiaUniversity, Morgantown, WV.

Séville M. (2006), Doit-on renoncer à l’expérimentation enstratégie ?, paper presented at the 15th ConférenceInternationale de Management Stratégique (AIMS),Annecy – Geneva, 13-16 June.

Stewart-Allen A.L. (1999), Product placement helps sellbrand, Marketing News, 3, 8, 15 February.

Theus K.T. (2006), Subliminal advertising and the psycho-logy of processing unconscious stimuli: review ofresearch, Psychology & Marketing, 11, 3, 271-290.

Tiwsakul R. and Hackley C. (2005), Ethics and regulation ofcontemporary marketing communication practices: anexploration of the perceptions of UK-based consumerstowards the ethical issues raised by product placement inBritish TV shows, working paper, SoM05502, Schoolof Management, Royal Holloway, University ofLondon, Egham, Surrey.

Tse A.C.B. and Lee R.P.W. (2001), Zapping behaviorduring commercial breaks, Journal of AdvertisingResearch, 41, 3, 25-29.

Turcotte S.A. (1995), Gimme a Bud! The feature film pro-duct placement industry, Master’s thesis, University ofTexas at Austin, TX.

Van der Waldt D.L.R., Du Toit L.S. and Redelinghuys R.(2007), Does branded product placement in filmenhance realism and product recognition by consu-mers?, African Journal of Business Management, 1, 2,19-25.

Vollmers S. and Mizerski R. (1994), A review and investiga-tion into the effectiveness of product placements infilms, in K.W. King (Ed.), Proceedings of the AmericanAcademy of Advertising, Athens, GA, 97-102.

Wei M.-L., Fischer E. and Main K.J. (2008), An examinationof the effects of activating persuasion knowledge onconsumer response to brands engaging in covert mar-keting, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 27, 1,34-44.

Whittlesea B.W.A. and Price J.R. (2001), Implicit/explicitmemory versus analytic/nonanalytic processing:rethinking the mere exposure effect, Memory &Cognition, 29, 2, 234-246.

Winer R.S. (1999), Experimentation in the 21st century:the importance of external validity, Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science, 27, 3, 349-358.



Recall of Brand Placement in Movies: Interactions between Prominence and Plot Connection in Real Conditions of Exposure 25A

ppen

dix

A1.

– B

rand

rec

all a

nd p

rom

inen

ce o

f br

and

plac

emen

ts in

mov

ies

Con

cept

ualiz

atio

n

Va

riab

les

expl

aine

d R

esul

ts

Met

hod

Aut

hors

Dur

atio

n of

exp

osur

e R

ecog

nitio

n A

udio

visu

al a

nd

prom

inen

t>vi

sual

an

d pr

omin

ent

N =

98

stud

ents

(m

ovie

1 =

54,

mov

ie 2

=

44)

Ent

ire

mov

ie (

in c

lass

) C

ompa

riso

n of

test

sub

ject

s –M

cNem

ar te

st

Bre

nnan

and

Bab

in,

2004

Cum

ulat

ive

dura

tion

of e

xpos

ure;

pla

cem

ent a

t th

e ce

nter

of

the

scre

en; p

lace

men

t siz

e Sp

onta

neou

s re

call

Stro

ng

prom

inen

ce>

wea

k pr

omin

ence

N =

32,

662

obse

rvat

ions

E

ntir

e m

ovie

s (D

VD

s vi

ewed

at h

ome)

L

ogis

tic r

egre

ssio

n

Bre

ssou

d, L

ehu

and

Rus

sell,

200

8

Vis

ibili

ty; p

lace

men

t tim

e Sp

onta

neou

s re

call

Rec

ogni

tion

Stro

ng

prom

inen

ce>

wea

k pr

omin

ence

Im

pact

of

nega

tive

prom

inen

ce a

nd

stro

ng p

rom

inen

ce if

w

eak

plot

co

nnec

tion

N =

103

stu

dent

s E

xcer

pts

from

mov

ies

Rec

all m

easu

red

by p

hone

on

e w

eek

late

r L

ogis

tic r

egre

ssio

n w

ith

inte

ract

ions

d’A

stou

s an

d C

hart

ier,

200

0

Dis

tinct

ive

char

acte

r of

the

prod

uct;

type

of

visu

al p

rese

nce;

sca

le o

f th

e pr

oduc

t sho

t; de

pth

of f

ield

; mov

emen

t; le

ngth

of

disp

lay;

deg

ree

of

visu

aliz

atio

n; b

rand

vis

ibili

ty; b

rand

col

or;

Num

ber

of it

ems

with

the

sam

e br

and

in th

e sh

ot; P

rese

nce

of o

ther

pro

min

ent b

rand

s

Spon

tane

ous

reca

ll Pr

ompt

ed r

ecal

l R

ecog

nitio

n

Stro

ng

prom

inen

ce>

wea

k pr

omin

ence

N =

378

stu

dent

s Sh

ort m

ovie

L

ogis

tic r

egre

ssio

n Fo

ntai

ne, 2

002a

Cri

teri

a of

Gup

ta a

nd L

ord

(199

8)

Spon

tane

ous

reca

ll R

ecog

nitio

n

Stro

ng

prom

inen

ce>

wea

k

N =

200

stu

dent

s E

xcer

pts

from

dif

fere

nt

type

s of

mov

ie

Gar

za a

nd C

allis

on,

2005

prom

inen

ce

A

NO

VA

, SN

K te

st

Prom

inen

t: vi

sibl

e in

siz

e an

d/or

pos

ition

, par

t of

the

intr

igue

N

on-p

rom

inen

t: sm

all s

ize,

in th

e ba

ckgr

ound

, m

ultip

le s

imul

tane

ous

plac

emen

ts, s

hort

ex

posu

re ti

me

Spon

tane

ous

reca

ll Pr

ompt

ed r

ecal

l

Stro

ng

prom

inen

ce>

wea

k pr

omin

ence

N =

274

stu

dent

s

Exc

erpt

s fr

om m

ovie

s C

ompa

riso

n of

test

sub

ject

s-C

hi-s

quar

e te

st

Gup

ta a

nd L

ord,

19

98

Prom

inen

t: vi

sibl

e du

e to

siz

e an

d po

sitio

n, in

an

impo

rtan

t sce

ne o

f th

e m

ovie

N

on-p

rom

inen

t: sh

ort d

ispl

ay ti

me,

in th

e ba

ckgr

ound

, not

men

tione

d or

ally

Rec

ogni

tion

Stro

ng

prom

inen

ce>

wea

k pr

omin

ence

N =

220

stu

dent

s V

ideo

exc

erpt

s fr

om m

ovie

s an

d te

levi

sion

sho

ws

Wilc

oxon

sig

ned-

rank

test

Van

der

Wal

dt, D

u To

it an

d R

edel

ingh

uys,

200

7


Jean-Marc Lehu, Étienne Bressoud26A

ppen

dix

A2.

– B

rand

rec

all a

nd p

lot c

onne

ctio

n of

bra

nd p

lace

men

ts in

mov

ies

Con

cept

ualiz

atio

n

Va

riab

les

expl

aine

d R

esul

ts

Met

hod

Aut

hors

5-po

int p

lot c

onne

ctio

n le

vel:

dual

-cod

ing

Spon

tane

ous

reca

ll St

rong

plo

t co

nnec

tion>

wea

k pl

ot c

onne

ctio

n

N =

32,

662

obse

rvat

ions

E

ntir

e m

ovie

s (D

VD

s vi

ewed

at h

ome)

L

ogis

tic r

egre

ssio

n

Bre

ssou

d, L

ehu

and

Rus

sell,

200

8

Plac

emen

t lin

ked

to th

e sc

ene;

ful

ly in

tegr

ated

in

the

mov

ie; w

ell p

lace

d; r

elat

ed to

the

cont

ext o

f th

e m

ovie

; obv

ious

The

nat

ure

of p

lot c

onne

ctio

n is

pro

vide

d by

the

view

er (

Lik

ert s

cale

and

fac

tor

anal

ysis

)

Spon

tane

ous

reca

ll R

ecog

nitio

n

Stro

ng p

lot

conn

ectio

n<w

eak

plot

con

nect

ion

N =

103

E

xcer

pts

from

mov

ies

Rec

all a

nd r

ecog

nitio

n m

easu

red

by p

hone

one

w

eek

late

r L

ogis

tic r

egre

ssio

n w

ith

inte

ract

ions

d’A

stou

s an

d C

hart

ier,

200

0

Rol

e of

the

prod

uct i

n th

e in

trig

ue; r

ole

of th

e pr

oduc

t for

the

char

acte

r; ty

pe o

f ch

arac

ter

asso

ciat

ed w

ith th

e pr

oduc

t; vi

sual

izat

ion

of th

e pr

oduc

t by

the

acto

r; e

mot

iona

l rea

ctio

n tr

igge

red

by th

e pr

oduc

t

Spon

tane

ous

reca

ll Pr

ompt

ed r

ecal

l R

ecog

nitio

n

Stro

ng p

lot

conn

ectio

n>w

eak

plot

con

nect

ion

N =

232

stu

dent

s Sh

ort m

ovie

L

ogis

tic r

egre

ssio

n Fo

ntai

ne, 2

002b

Bra

nd p

layi

ng a

rol

e in

the

scen

ario

Sp

onta

neou

s re

call

Stro

ng p

lot

conn

ectio

n>w

eak

plot

con

nect

ion

N =

74

Two

rea

l mov

ies

show

n in

a

thea

ter

The

ater

exi

t int

ervi

ews

M

eans

test

s

Ong

and

Mer

i, 19

94

Wea

k pl

ot c

onne

ctio

n: o

ff-h

and

men

tion

of th

e br

and

or s

hort

app

eara

nce

Stro

ng p

lot c

onne

ctio

n: c

hara

cter

iden

tifie

d w

ith

the

bran

d or

bra

nd in

volv

ed in

the

actio

n

Rec

ogni

tion

Con

nect

ed

visu

al>

non-

conn

ecte

d vi

sual

Pl

ot c

onne

ctio

n do

es

not a

ffec

t aud

io

plac

emen

ts

N =

150

stu

dent

s O

rigi

nal s

hort

mov

ie

AN

OV

A w

ith in

tera

ctio

n

Rus

sell,

200

2


Copyright of Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition) is the property of AFM c/o ESCP-EAP

and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright

holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

recall of brand placement in movies: interactions … and plot connection in real conditions of...

Documents