Advertisement

Marketing Letters

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 461–471 | Cite as

Do I know you? How brand familiarity and perceived fit affect consumers’ attitudes towards brands placed in movies

  • Yann Verhellen
  • Nathalie Dens
  • Patrick De Pelsmacker
Article

Abstract

The present study uses Associative Network Theory to construct a model that explains effects of brand placement in movies. Based on a field experiment (n = 167), we investigate the effects of plot connection and prominence on brand attitude, as well as the mediating role of brand-movie fit and the moderating role of brand familiarity. Results show that more closely connecting a brand to the plot of a movie positively impacts brand attitude by increasing the perceived fit between the brand and the movie. Brand familiarity moderates the effect of the interaction between a placement’s plot connection and prominence on brand attitude. When brand familiarity is high, there is no significant effect of plot connection on brand attitude, nor is this effect moderated by the prominence of the placement. However, when brand familiarity is low, both prominently and subtly connecting the brand to the plot of the movie positively influences brand attitude. More importantly, the effect of plot connection is significantly stronger when an unfamiliar brand is prominently placed, than when it is subtly placed.

Keywords

Brand placement Associative Network Theory Brand familiarity Perceived fit Plot connection Prominence 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Flemish Agency for Innovation Through Science and Technology (IWT Vlaanderen).

References

  1. Balasubramanian, S. K., Karrh, J. A., & Patwardhan, H. (2006). Audience response to product placements: an integrative framework and future research agenda. Journal of Advertising, 35(3), 115–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cowley, E., & Barron, C. (2008). When product placement goes wrong: the effects of program liking and placement prominence. Journal of Advertising, 37(1), 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Deighton, J., Romer, D., & McQueen, J. (1989). Using drama to persuade. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 335–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dens, N., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2010). Advertising for extensions: moderating effects of extension type, advertising strategy, and product category involvement on extension evaluation. Marketing Letters, 21(2), 175–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dens, N., De Pelsmacker, P., Wouters, M., & Purnawirawan, N. (2012). Do you like what you recognize? The effects of brand placement prominence and movie plot connection on brand attitude as mediated by recognition. Journal of Advertising, 41(3), 35–53.Google Scholar
  6. Ferraro, R., & Avery, R. J. (2000). Brand appearances on prime-time television. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 22(2), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Finn, B., & Roediger, H. L. I. (2013). Interfering effects of retrieval in learning new information. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 39(6), 1665–1681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: how people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: an integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 692–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hayes AF (2008) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. Guilford PressGoogle Scholar
  11. Homer, P. M. (2009). Product placements: the impact of placement type and repetition on attitude. Journal of Advertising, 38(3), 21–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Janssens W, De Pelsmacker P, Wijnen K, Van Kenhove P (2008) Marketing research with SPSS. Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  13. La Ferle, C., & Edwards, S. M. (2006). Product placement: how brands appear on television. Journal of Advertising, 35(4), 65–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lehu, J.-M., & Bressoud, E. (2008). Effectiveness of brand placement: new insights about viewers. Journal of Business Research, 61(10), 1083–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Perreault, W. D., Jr., & Leigh, L. E. (1989). Reliability of nominal data based on qualitative judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(2), 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Russell, C. A. (2002). Investigating the effectiveness of product placements in television shows: the role of modality and plot connection congruence on brand memory and attitude. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 306–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Russell, C. A., & Stern, B. B. (2006). Consumers, characters, and products: a balance model of sitcom product placement effects. Journal of Advertising, 35(1), 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Neijens, P., & Smit, E. (2007). Effects of Television brand placement on brand image. Psychology and Marketing, 24(5), 403–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Webb, P. H. (1979). Consumer initial processing in a difficult media environment. Journal of Consumer Research, 6(3), 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yann Verhellen
    • 1
  • Nathalie Dens
    • 1
  • Patrick De Pelsmacker
    • 1
  1. 1.Marketing Department, Faculty of Applied EconomicsUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpenBelgium

Personalised recommendations