simon hudson david hudson branded entertainment

5/28/2018 Simon Hudson David Hudson Branded Entertainment

Journal of Marketing Managem ent 2006, 22, 489-504Simon Hudson^and D avid Hudson^

HaskayneSchoolof BusinessUn iversity of Calgary eicesterBusiness SchoolDe Montfort University

Branded Entertainment: A NewAdvertising Technique orProduct Placement in D isguise?In the last few decades product placement hasmatured and become more sophisticated.Branded products are no longer just placed ;they are woven into entertainment contentmaking a stronger emotional connection withthe consumer. Tlie outcome is a concept theadvertising industry is calling brandedentertainment a convergen ce of advertising andentertainment. This article considers whetlier ornot brand ed entertainment is a nezo techniqueor just another form of product place men t. Bytracking the evolution of product placement andfrom an analysis of the tivo concepts it issuggested that branded entertainment is a newterm to describe a more contemporarysophisticated use of product placement. Aconceptual framezvork for understanding thevarious forms of product placem ent is presentedand this highlights the key influences on theeffectiveness of this fast-grotving ma rketingphenomenon. The important managemetit issuesrelated to product placement are considered;issues related to mea sureme nt control andethics. The article then concludes withreconunen dations for further research.

Key words: produ ct placement, brande d entertainment, advertising

^ Correspondence: Dr Simon Hudson, Associate Professor, Haskayne School ofBusiness, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta,Ca nada , T2N 1N4, Tel: +1 403) 220 8738, Fax: +1 403) 282 0095, E-mail:simon. hudso n@h askayne.u calgarxf.ca^ Dr David H udso n, Principal Lecturer, Depa rtmen t of Marketing, Leicester


Business School, De Montfort University, Bosworth House, The Gateway, Leicester,

490 Simon H udson and David H uds onIntroductionSeveral researchers have indicated the importance of product placement asan additional element of the promo tional mix, and there is a grow ing b ody ofresearch concerning its practice. However, academics have yet toconceptualise branded entertainment and document its impact on themarketing landscape. This is surprising, given the level of interest in thesubject area within the industry. In 2005 alone, there were no less than 251unique articles on the subject of branded entertainment or branded contentpublished in the ma rketing and media trade ma gazines Business SourcePremier 2005; Proquest 2005). This article opens the dialogue on brandedentertainment, and begins by showing how product placement as a practice,and by definition, has evolved over the years. A conceptual framework ispresented, with the difference between pure product placement and brandedentertainment illustrated by using a continuum that expresses the level ofbrand integration with the storyline or plot. The key influences on theeffectiveness of product placement and branded entertainment are thenhighlighted and discussed. The important management issues related tobranded entertainment are considered, issues related to measurement,control, and ethics. The effectiveness of brand ed ente rtainm ent is a prim e sitefor theoretical development and the conceptual model presented in thearticle identifies many research opportunities. The article therefore concludeswith recommendations for further research.The volution of Product PlacementThe origins of product placement can be traced back to the start of motionpictures itself in the 1890s where Lever Brothers secured the placement oftheir branded soaps in some of the earliest films made. Certainly from the1930s onwards film producers and brand owners actively engaged inproduct placement deals. Buick, for example, had a 10 picture deal withWarner Brothers in the 1930s and US tobacco companies often paid moviestars to endorse their brands. The advent of television in the 1950s gavebrand ow ners anothe r avenue for prod uct placement deals. Early TVprograms were often sponsored by and named after brands, like Vie olgatComedy Hour and Kraft Television Vieatre and within these programmespresenters would often promote the virtues of the brands. From the early1930s until the 1980s, barter-style arrangements were in operation, wherebythe brand owner would provide free props to the production set and often


Branded Entertainment 491and movie makers. The former would benefit from brand exposure and thelatter would obtain much needed financial support and gain a level ofauthenticity in the prod uction.The m ore recent 'wa ve ' of prod uct placement began in 1982, wh en Reese'sPieces were used to lure a lumbering little alien out of hiding in the film E TThe placement proved profitable for the candy's manufacturers, Hershey,who saw a 65% rise in sales following the film's release. Ever since, theplacement of products in movies and television has become an importantelement of consumer marketing programs and has seen considerable growthin the last 10 years (Kaikati and Kaikati 2004). Spending on this type ofm arke ting reached a record 4.25 billion in 2005,an increase of 22.8% fromthe 3.46 bilUon spent in 2004 (PQ Media 2005). This grow th ha s be eninfluenced by the growth of the entertainment industry. Traditionally,advertising wa s placed adjacent to entertainm ent in order to capitalise on theaudiences the entertainment attracted. However, over the last few decades,the entertainment industry has proliferated and entertainment is nowdistributed and consumed through a variety of media. These changes haveopened the door to integrated advertising, with marketers reaUsing thatcommunications via product placement can be an effective part of thepromotional mix. This type of integrated product placement has beenlabelled 'branded entertainment' by the industry and can be illustrated as aconvergence betw een adve rtising and entertainm ent (see Figure 1).

Figure 1 Branded Entertainment: The Convergence of Advertising andEntertainment


492 Simon Hu dson and David Hu dsongrowing consumer resistance to advertising and new technologies that allowpeople to avoid w atching com mercials. For the entertairunent indus try, a keyobjective behind using product placement is financial (Russell and Belciv2005). Production budgets have shrunk to a point where productioncompanies are increasingly forced to look to alternative funds for funding.Product placement also offers a level of authenticity for producers by addingrealism to film or television programs (Johnstone and Dodd, 2000).Product Placement and randed Entertainment Defin edDefirutions of product placement, like its practice, have changed over theyears. An early definition that is often used is the one by Balasubramanian(1991), who defined it as the planned entries of products into movies ortelevision shows that may influence viewers product beliefs and/orbehaviours favourably. Since then there have been a number of definitionsfrom different scholars. One key change in these definitions is theacknowledgment that product placement occurs in media other than tilm ortelevision. H ow ever , m ore significantly, since d A stou s and Segun (1999)attempted to classify different types of product placement, scholars haveused the word integ ratio n in their definitions. As for definitions of brand edentertainment, in the UK the Branded Content Marketing Association(BCMA 2005) defines it as where advertisers createordistribute entertainmencommunicatewiththeircustomers. In the US it is defined by the Association oNational Advertisers (ANA 2005) as the integration of a product within anappropriate context . If the academ ic definitions of pro du ct placem ent fromthe last five years or so are compared to these definitions of brandedentertainment, there is a clear overlap between the two, with integrationbeing a comm on theme. It wo uld ap pear that the advertising industry hascreated a new term to define the more contemporary use of productplacement.

For the purposes of this article, branded entertainment is defined astheintegration of advertising into entertainment content, whereb y brands are embedd edinto storylines ofa film, television program , or other entertainment medium . Thisinvolves co -creation and collaboration between entertainment, med ia and brands.Examples of brands creating entertainment are Coca-Cola, BMW, and Ford,who have adopted the role of program producer (Karrh, McKee and Pardun2003).Also, specialist agencies like 1^ App roach in Hollywood have been setup to assist advertisers in creating their own media productions. Others, likeThe WB, have created special prog ram s throu gh which ad vertisers can pick a


Branded Entertainment 493The Institutionalisation of Branded EntertainmentDespite confusion over terminology, it is clear that branded entertainment isan estabUshed advertising technique and an indication of its growingimportance can be seen in the increasing institutionalisation of brandedentertainment in recent years. In 1991 the Entertainment Resources andMarketing Association (ERMA) was formed to represent the corporationsand agencies providing entertainment resources to the filmed entertainmentcommunity. In 2003, the BCMA was launched to provide a forum foradvertising and entertainment professionals and organisations who areinvolved in creating branded entertainment. In the last few years all themajor global marketing communications agency groups have set updedicated brand entertainment divisions. These include Omnicom's MediaGroup, IPG's Magna Global, WPP Group's Mindshare, Publicis Groupe'sStarcom, Interpublic Group's Initiative and Aegis Group's Carat Americas.Branded entertainment has become a key method for multinational agenciesto pen etra te certain countrie s like China, India, the Philippin es, and Africa.

These changes in agency structures and the services they offer have comeat a time when some of the worlds leading advertisers are questioning thefuture of the traditional advertising model. In the last few years some of thew orld 's leading brand advertisers, such as Procter Gam ble and Coca-Colahave called on agency and media owners to think differently about howbrands might connect with consumers in the future. Steven Heyer, Coca-Cola's president and chief operating officer, said in 2003 that he was movingaway from advertising spots and traditional product placement towards ideas tliat bring entertainment value to our bra nds, and ideas tliat integrate ourbrands into entertainment (Aitchison 2004).The Product Placement Branded Entertainment ContinuumThe difference between pure product placement and branded entertainmentcan be illustrated by way of a continuum that expresses the level of brandintegration with the storyline or plot. Figure 2 is an illustration of thiscontinu um along with the key influences on pr odu ct placem ent effectiveness(discussed in the next section). At one end of the continuum with no brandintegration, there is passive product placement, such as the prominentdepiction of the Coca Cola name in the program American Idol. Suchplacements are less effective than other types of placement (Gupta and Lord1998). At the other end of the continuum, the product is integrated into thestoryline for the progr am or film. An episode of the CTC dram a The leventh


494 Simon H udso n and David H uds onplacement. In the past, advertisers sough t to place prod ucts in shows as soonas they became hits. Now, advertising deals are happening alongside thecreative development. Programming sponsored by and produced for singleadvertisers offers them benefits like exclusivity, reduced clutter and theability to incorporate products into scenes in ways that do not seem blatantor contrived (Elliott 2006).Branded entertainment coincides with the rise of reality television, wherea lack of scripts and a focus on real w orld situation s lend them selves to theintegration of products and brand names. Colgate-Palmolive for example,provided a $50,000 budget for each team on the reality show Vie pprenticewhose task it was to launch Crest's latest flavoured toothpaste. Brandedentertainment is now commonplace in reality shows and is seeping intoscripted shows, where products are woven in during series development(Romano 2004). Branded entertainment in video games is also becomingmore prevalent. It is predicted that more than one-third of productplacement in video games by 2009 will be in the form of 'advergaming,'where advertisers create a game around a product rather than place theirbrands within a well-known title (Financial Post 2005).Key Influences on Product Placement EffectivenessA review of the academic and practitioner literature related to the variousforms of product placement suggests that there are certain key factors thatinfluence the effectiveness of these marketing initiatives (see Figure 2).Media UsedThe product placement phenomenon is penetrating every form of media.Friedman (1991), for example, has documented the wide use of brand namesto create hum our in pop ular w ritings such as novels, plays, songs,and mass-circulation newspapers and magazines. Marketers are also using the Internetto place products. Many websites have branded computer games, cartoons,and free graphics or offer branded animations available to download.Similarly, BMW has expanded the boundaries of advertising formats on theweb where their short films featuring BMW automobiles are the attraction,not an advertising distraction (Urbach et al. 2004). Movies are now litteredwith product placement. Will Smith's recent film itch contained no fewerthan 52 featured brands including Altoids, Fritos, Citibank and Yogamagazine. But nowhere has this practice become more prevalent orcontrove rsial than on television. A recent ANA su rvey revealed that 85% ofmarketers who participated in branded entertainment used commercial TV


randed Entertainment 95

S5

SC13CoU

c

1.s

T

SiS m


496 Simon H udson and David H udso nHowever, several differences among the types of media must beconsidered. For exam ple, the adv antag es of brand placement in video gam esover other media include its capacity to increase involvement due to thereception context (active versus passive), its ability to target specificconsumer markets, and its longer shelf-life (Nelson 2002). Placementdecisions ultimately depend on the advertiser's marketing goals. For anadvertiser trying to reach an international market, films may be the bestoption. A typical movie with international distribution can now reach overone hundred million consumers as it moves from box office, to video/DVDto TV. Advertisers with more tactical objectives prefer television. TV offers avariety of options for placement: daytime or primetime, broadcast, cable, or

syndication; comedy, drama, reality or game shows.Brand CharacteristicsSome brands lend themselves more to placement than others. In a surveyof marketers' attitudes toward branded entertainment half of therespondents who did not participate said it was because their brands did notlend themselves to meaningful integration (ANA 2004). Many traditionalbusiness-to-business marketers express littie interest in brand placement inTV or films, whereas fast-moving -consum er-good m anufacturers like Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Procter Gam ble, Nike Inc. and Motorola Inc. are m uch mo reactive. It has also been suggested that brand placement only works forestablished brand names that are easily identifiable (Ephron 2003). However,some research suggests that novel or atypical brands will get more noticefrom viewers (Karrh 1998), a theory supported by the number of new brandslike 'Junior Mints' and 'Snickers' launched as a result of placements in the TVsitcom Seinfeld O ther research suggests that ethically-charged prod ucts, suchas alcohol, cigarettes, and guns, are perceived by consumers as lessacceptable than others (Gupta and Gou ld 1997).Supporting Prom otional ctivitySome believe that it is impossible to achieve a call to action unless there isa promotional campaign around the brand integration (Sauer, 2005). Firmsthat buy advertising time are increasingly including product placements intheir advertising deals with networks. For example, Havas SA's MPG media-buying arm placed Tyson Foods Inc's chicken nuggets on an episode ofStillStatuiingon CBS, as part of an airtime p ackage that included tradition alcommercials as well as a sponsorship deal (Vranica 2004a). According toNo rm M arshall, President of NM A Entertainmen t M arketing, you canachieve reach and aw areness w ith brand ed integration, but it is impossible to


Branded Entertainmen t 497Successful placement and marketing campaigns include the James Bondlaunch of BMW s Z3, Jeep s sup po rt of the movie Sahara and Mattel spartnership w ith the Cartoon N etwork.Consum er Attitudes to Product Placem entPrior research in this area indicates that consumers have a positive viewtowards product placement and it seems to increase brand loyalty byvalidating the purchase decisions of the consumer (Nebenzahl and Secunda1993). Research also suggests that brand placement can have greater impactwith consumers than is typically found with comparable advertisingexposures (Karrh et a l 2003). Ho w ever the re are demogra phic a nd cross-cultural differences in consum er respo nses to brand placement. For examp le,studies show that viewers aged 15-34 exhibit a high tolerance for thecommunication method, and are more likely to notice it than other agegro up s (Hall 2004). There are also geographical differences in respon ses tobrand placement. European movie watchers object more than NorthAmericans to brand placement (Hall 2004), but there is a general acceptanceof brand placement in Asia-Pacific (McKechnie and Zhou 2003).Placement CharacteristicsSome researchers have examined the different types of brand placementsand how audiences process them. They agree on a hierarchy of memoryeffects according to placement modality of a visual-verbal combination,followed by a verbal only and then visual-only placements (Russell 2002;Karrh et al. 2003). When and how products are woven into the story line canbe more important for effectiveness than the number of viewers (Friedman2003). Research suggests that memory of the placement is likely to be higherif the placement is meaningful and that there is a connection with the plot(Russell 2002). Many product placement professionals believe that the bestplacem ents are subtle ones, and the seamiessness of the produ ct placemen t isan important factor in judging its success (Cowlett 2000). Other researchershave found that recaU and recognition are better for prominently placedproducts rather than those simply appearing in the background (Gupta andLord 1998). For television, the link between sponsor and program is veryimportant for brand recall. The stronger the Unk, the greater the impact willbe on the sponso r s image and the attitudes tow ards the sponsor itself(Tiwsakul et al. 2005; d Astou s a nd Segu n 1999). In add ition, how a pro du ctis used a nd by w hom is imp ortant (Morton and Friedm an 2002). Characterson the screen that share brand use with viewers can contribute to therelationship between audiences and characters (DeLorme et al. 1994), and


498 Simon Hu dson and David H uds onegulationsAlthough brand placement is prevalent in the US, stricter regulationsmake it less common in other parts of the world. All broadcasters in theEuropean Union are forced to adhere to the European Commission's TVWithout Frontiers Legislation. This is only the minimum requirement -nations can also impose additional restrictions. In France, for example, brandplacement on television is illegal. In the UK, producers and broadcasterscannot take inducements as regulators attempt to enforce clear distinctionsbetween programming and advertising. And in Italy, laws that ban'surreptitious advertising' look unkindly on product placement. In Asiahowever, less rigid regulations have allowed branded entertainment todevelop rapidly, with India, China, New Zealand, Australia, and thePhilippines leading the pack. There is the possibility that regulations willeffect the future growth of branded entertainment. However, such laws arem ore likely to be relaxed than get stricter.Key Management Issues Related To Product Placement And BrandedEntertainmenteasurement

The measurement of brand placement has been the subject of muchdiscussion. Just like advertising, the effectiveness of brand placement as acommunications strategy must be gauged against the specific objectives ofdecision-makers (d'Astous and Chartier 2000). Academics suggest thatmessage impact should be assessed at recall, persuasion, and behaviourallevels (Balasubramanian 1994). Amongst brand placement practitioners,measuring placement's effectiveness is still a rough-and-ready art, butunaided recall and brand recognition are the two most popular means ofassessing placem ents (Karrh et al. 2003). Nielson M edia Research has recen tlyestablished a product placement measurement service and tracking system.In its first full season, the system ranked Coca-Cola as the champion ofproduct inclusions, with products or mentions appearing 2,260 times,followed by Nike apparel products which appeared 1,048 times (Atkinson2004). Two New York-based companies. Intermedia Advertising Group andItvx, have also developed product placement measuring tools to measurerecall and strategic fit.

How ever, there are still some critics that question the h igh investm ent thatbranded entertainment requires. Certainly, entertainment costs areescalating. Even the cheapest channel on multi-charmel TV demands apro gra m m ing b ud ge t of 30,000 an hou r (Reid, 2004). BMW recently


Branded Entertainment 499larger communications budgets, it is critical that a more formalised model beestabUshed to allow accountability.ControlMarketers have far less control over most brand placement efforts thanthey have with traditional advertising (Kaikati and Kaikati 2004).Advertisers' representatives, accustomed to buying time in specific slots andfilling them with commercials over which they had complete control, arenow faced with dealing directly with HoUywood's creative talent. Controlover content is not something Hollywood will surrender lightly, even if it isable to. If the plot takes a wrong turn, or the subject matter is inappropriate,the brand exposure can backfire. Reebok, for example, filed a breach ofcontract suit in 1996 against TriStar Pictures in connection with the movieJerry M aguire Under an agreement, Reebok asked for a full-length TVcommercial for the brand to be part of the movie. The commercial waseventually cut from the final film, but a scene in which a character shoutedobscenities at Reebok remained. The two sides eventually settled out ofcourt.

In order to have more control over placements, an increasing number ofmarketers are creating entertainment themselves. Already, Coca-Cola,General M otors, JetBlue Airw ays, Meow Mix, Pepsi-Cola, Procter Gam ble,Unilever, BMW, and Ford, have adopted the role of program producer(EUiott, 2006). Others, like The WB, have created special programs throughwhich advertisers can pick a scripted show and become the exclusiveproduct-integration partner of that show. And recently, Sony Pictures re-edited an existing series episode of The King of ueensto add a productplacement, incorporating a plug for Dr. SchoU's Massaging Gel Insoles(Lafayette 2004). This means that any cu rren t or p ast series could in theory bere-edited to add other placem ents in the future.Ethical IssuesFinally, brand managers have to consider emerging ethical and legalissues (Karrh et al. 2001). Research has confirmed that consumers areconcerned about the 'subliminal' effects of brand placement (Tiwsakul et al.2005). Others fear that brand placement's influence on the content of moviesand television will seep into news magazines, where editorial content is seenby many as inviolate. Critics also claim that the trend of emb edd ing prod uctsinto songs is an invasion of music lovers' privacy, and some have expressedconcerns over the loss of artistic freedom resulting from the increased use ofbrands in video games (Nelson 2002). Concern has been cited for product


500 Simon Hu dson and David Hu dsonDespite these concerns, the future for branded entertainment lookspositive, and spending on brand placements is expected to continue tooutpace that of traditional advertising (PQMedia 2005). Some marketingexecutives predict that within three to four TV seasons, up to 75% of allscripted, prime-time network shows in the US will include products orservices paid for by advertisers (George 2005). Brand placement in videogam es will contin ue to grow , rising to abou t 800-million in 2009 from nearly 120-million in 2004 (Financial Post 2005). Placement in magazines is alsolikely to become more prevalent. Business-to-business marketers will havethe most desire for product placements in print, specifically in tradepublications, whe re m ost of their marketing com mun ication is focused.

uture ResearchThe effectiveness of branded entertainment is a prime site for theoreticaldevelopment, and the conceptual model presented in this article identifiesmany research opportunities. Both qualitative and quantitative studies havea role to play in such research. To begin with, much empirical research in thisarea fails to distinguish between the various brand placement techniques,such as those proposed by d'Astous and Segun (1999). Previous studies havegenerally ignored how the characteristics of brand placements impact

differently on consu me r reactions and m em ory. Such research w ould be ofgreat benetit to a firm wishing to invest in branded entertainment whendeciding how its product or brand is going to be presented. There is also ageneral failure to differentiate between media vehicles. Future researchshould explore and compare consumers' reactions to product placementacross different types of media. For example, how consumers will react to theincreased use of branded entertainment in magazines is unknown (Fine2004).Another area that should be investigated is consumers' degree ofacceptance and attitude toward branded entertainment in different productcategories. Such research should be conducted using larger, more diversesamples (rather than just students) and could measure important variablessuch as the impact of prior familiarity with the brand or the effectiveness ofsupporting promotional activity. The interest in the implementation ofglobally integrated marketing communications strategy has raised the issueof how consumers in different cultures perceive, and form attitudes towards,branded entertainment. More cross-cultural research is needed therefore togenerate deeper knowledge of the diverse factors that might impact theeffectiveness of branded entertainment.


Branded Entertainm ent 501Nebenzahl and Jaffe (1998) propose that product placement is the leastethical of all forms of advertising since it is both high on source concealmentand obtrusiveness. Future research should include the influence of brandedentertainment on vulnerable groups, as well as consumer responses to theplacement of ethically charged products. In particular there have been callsfor more research that focuses on the influence of product placement onchildren (Tiwsakul et al., 2005).

Finally, as mentioned previously, there is a need to determine whetherconsumer response to branded placements will change over time. Asbranded entertainment becomes an increasingly pervasive form of marketingcommunication, it may lose its novelty and become subject to the clutter thathas characterised advertising over the last few decades. It will require themonitoring of the effectiveness of the strategy over time to determinewhether and how such developments come to affect viewer attention, recalland attitude. As one critic has observed, tlie infuriatingparadox ofproductplacement is that if you notice it, it is bad. But if you don't notice it, it is worthless.It is such a narroio line thai either the vieioer or the advertiser feels betrayed(Ephron2003,p. 20).ReferencesAitchison, Jim (2004), M aking The Move From Com mercials to Content,

MediaAsia,18 June, p p. 23-24.Ano n (2005), Adve rtising in Video Gam es Forecast N ea r US$2.5BW orldw ide by 2010, FinancialPost 15 April, pp . FP3.Association of National A dve rtisers (2005), AN A Survey Fin ds Majority ofTV Ad vertisers are Participating in Branded E ntertainment Projects, atht tp: / /w w w .a na .ne t/n ew s/ (accessed 13 April 2005).d'A stou s, Alain, and Segun, Na thalie (1999), Co nsu m er Reactions toProdu ct Placement Strategies in Television Spon sor ship /'European JournalofMarketing Vol.33,No . 9/10 , p p. 896-910.d'A stou s, Alain, and Cha rtier, Francis (2000), A Stud y of Factors AffectingConsumer Evaluations and Memory of Product Placements in Movies,Journal of Current Issues in Advertising, V o l 22, No . 2, pp . 31-40.Atkin son, Claire (2004), N ielson Plum bs Pro duc t Placement, AdvertisingAge, V ol 75, No. 37, pp . 47.Avery, Rosemary ]., and F erraro, Rosellina (2000), Verisimilitude orAdvertising? Brand Appearances on Prime-Time Television, Journal ofConsumerAffairs,V ol 34, No. 2, p p. 217-45.


Publicity: Vie

502 Simon Hu dson and David Hu dsonpp .29-47.Branded Content Marketing Association (BCMA) (2005), athttp://www.thebcma.info (accessed1July 2005).Cow lett, M ary (2000), M ake it Into the Mo vies, Marketing, 17 August, pp.29.DeLorm e, Denise E., Reid, Leonard N ., and Zim mer, M ary R. (1994), Bra ndsin Films: Young M oviegoers' Experiences an d Interpretations, pap erpresented at the 1994 Cor\ference of the American Academy ofAd vertising, Tuscon, Arizona.Ephron, Erwin (2003), The Paradox of Prod uct Place m ent/'Mediaweek, Vol13,No . 22, pp . 20.

Elliott, Stua rt (2006), Advertisers No w W ant To Be Direc tors, Too, NewYorkTimes, 17 Ap ril, at:ht tp : // ww w.iht .com/articles/2006/ 04 /17 /business/ brand.php(accessed 19 April 2006).Fine, Jon (2004), M ags & Vine. As Brand ed E ntertain m ent M oves toMagazines, a New Debate Erupts, Advertising Age, 12 April, 2004, athttp://w ww .com m ercialalert.org (accessed 15 May 2006).Friedman, Monroe (1991), A Brand Neio Language. New York: GreenwoodPress.Friedman , W ayne (2003), Intermedia M easures Product Placem ents,TelevisionWeek,V ol 2, N o. 50, pp . 4.Friestad, M arian, and W right, Peter (1995), The Persu asion Kn ow ledgeModel: How People Cope With Persuasion Attempts, Journalof ConsumeResearch,Vol.11 ,pp . 927-38.George, Lianne (2005), Is Kiefer Su therland Trying to Sell You So m ething ?Macleans,Vol. 118, No. 8, pp . 30-6.Gup ta, Pola B., and G ould , Stephen J. (1997), Con su m ers ' Perception s of theEthics and Acceptability of product Placement in Movies: ProductCategory and Individual Differences, JournalofCurrent IssuesandReseainAdvertising,Vol. 19, No . 1, pp . 37-50.Gup ta, Pola B., an d Lord, Ken neth R. (1998), Pro du ct Placem ent in Mo vies:The Effect of Prominence and Mode on Audience Recall, Journal ofCurrent Issues and Research inAdvertising,Vol. 20, p p . 47-59.Halliday, Jean., and Graser, Marc (2005), BMW A ban don s Madison Vine,dvertisingAge,Vol. 76, No. 4, p p . 10.Ha ll, Emm a (2004), Young Con sum ers Receptive to Movie ProductPlacement, dvertisingAge,Vol. 75, No.13,p p. 8.Johnstone, Emm a., and D odd, Christopher A. (2000), Placemen ts as


Branded Entertainm ent 503Reach Consumers Surreptitiously, California Management Review, Vol. 46,N o.4, pp . 6-22.Karrh, Jam es A. (1995), Brand Placeme nts in Fe ature Films: ThePractitione r's View, In Proceedings of the Conference of the Am erican cademyofAdvertising Waco, TX, pp . 182-188.Karrh, Jam es A. (1998), W hy (Some) Brand P lacements are Effective:Insights From Impression M anagem ent R esearch, in D.D. M uehling (ed.).Proceedings ofthe Conference oftheAcademy ofAdvertising PuUman, WA:Am erican A cademy of A dvertising, pp . 306.Karrh, James.A., McKee, Kathy B.,and P ard un , Carol J. (2003), Practitione rs'Evolving Views on Product Placement Effectiveness, Journal ofAdvertising Research, V ol 43,p p . 138-49.Kipnes, Jill, and N ew m an , Melinda (2005), M aking B rands Viable ,Billboard V ol 117, No. 6, pp . 6-8.Lafayette, Jon (2004), Reo pening the Door to Pro duc t P lac em en t/'TelevisionWeek Vol.23,No . 37, pp . 2.M cKechnie, Sally A., and Zho u, Jia (2003), Pro duc t P lacement in Movies: AComparison of Chinese and American Consumers' Attitudes/ 'International JournalofAdvertising V o l 22, pp . 349-74.M orton, Cy nthia R., and F riedm an, M ered ith (2002), I Saw it in The Movies:Exploring the Link Between Product Placement Beliefs and ReportedUsage Behaviour, JournalofCurrent IssuesandResearchinAdvertising V ol24,N o. 2, pp . 33-40.Ne benzahl, Israel D., and Secunda, Eugene (1993), Co nsu m ers' A ttitudesToward Product Placement in Movies/ 'International Journalof Advertising,V o l l2 ,N o . l , p p . 1-11.N eb en za hl Israel D., and Jaffe, Eugene D., (1998), Ethical Dime nsions ofAdvertising Executions, JournalofBusiness Ethics, Vol. 17, N o. 7, pp . 805-815.N elson, MicheUe R. (2002), Recall of Brand Placem ents in C om pu te r/V id eoGames, Journalof Advertising Research,V ol 42, N o. 2, p p. 80-92.PQmedia (2005), Produc t Placem ent Spending in M edia 2005, March, PQMedia LLC.Reid, Alasdair (2004), Are Adv ertisers TV Channels On The U p? Campaign,15 October, pp . 12.Ro mano, AlUson (2004), The New Script for Pro duc t P lacem ent,Broadcasting&Cable,V ol 134, N o. 4, pp . 13.

Russell Cristel A. (2002), Investigating the Effectiveness of Produ ctPlacements in Television Shows: The Role of Modality and Plot


504 Simon H udso n and David H udsoninto the Product Placement Industry, Joum al of Advertising Research Vo45,N o. 1, pp . 73-92.Sauer, A dam (2005), Pro du ct Placement: M aking the Most of a Close-U p, athttp://ww w .brand chaT uiel.com (accessed 15 May 2006).Tiw saku l, Ru ngpa ka, Hackley, Chris, and Isabelle Szmigin (2005), Explicit,Non-Integrated Product Placement in British Television Programmes/'International Journal of Advertising Vol . 24 , N o. l , pp . 95-111.Urbach, Ronald R., Garbu s, M artin, and Johnston, James L. (2004), Bran dNa me s in Entertainment: The Trend, and the Controversy, Grow s, athttp://Iibrary .findlaw .com /200 4/ (accessed 15 Novem ber 2005).Vranica, Suz ann e (2004a), Prod uct-Placem ent Sheds its Cozy Trap ping s,Wall treetJournal 23 September, p p. B l.Vranica, Suzan ne (2004b), A Ro adm ap to the Landscape of P rodu ctPlacement Today, Wall treetJournal 29 September, pp . 1.

About the AuthorsSimon Hu dson Ph.D. M .B.A. B.A. D ip.M. is an associate professor in theHaskayne School of Business at tiie University of Calgary in Canada. He hasheld previous academic positions at Universities in the U.K., and has alsoworked as a visiting professor in Austria, Switzerland, Fiji, New Zealand,Spain, the U.S., and Australia. Prior to wo rking in academ ia. Dr. H udso nspent several years working in the tourism industry in Europe, and nowconsults for the industry in Alberta and British Columbia. The marketing oftourism is the focus of his research, and his work has resulted in over 30refereed joumal articles and three books: Marketing for Tourism andHospitality: A C anadian Perspective Snow Business a n d Sport and AdventureTourism.David Hudson Ph.D. M.B.A. B.A. Dip.M. is a principal lecturer inm ark eting at De Montfort Un iversity in England. Prior to joining academiahe worked as a marketing practitioner for several companies in the traveland tourism industry. David's main teaching area is in advertising andmarketing communications at both postgraduate and undergraduate level,and he has taught at universities in the UK, Europe, the USA and south-eastAsia. His main focus of research has been in the areas of sports marketingand marketing communications, and has worked with governing bodies suchas FIFA, The Premier League and The Football League. He has made severalcontributions to academic texts and has presented at a number of

simon hudson david hudson branded entertainment

Documents