Hudson 2013

This article was downloaded by: [Florida Atlantic University]
On: 17 November 2014, At: 12:45

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Food Products Marketing

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wfpm20
Measuring the Impact of Product

Placement on Children Using Digital
Brand Integration
a b
Simon Hudson & Charlene Elliott
a
University of South Carolina , Columbia , South Carolina , USA
b
University of Calgary , Alberta , Canada
Published online: 20 Jun 2013.
To cite this article: Simon Hudson & Charlene Elliott (2013) Measuring the Impact of Product
Placement on Children Using Digital Brand Integration, Journal of Food Products Marketing, 19:3,
176-200, DOI: 10.1080/10454446.2013.724370
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2013.724370
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Journal of Food Products Marketing, 19:176–200, 2013
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1045-4446 print/1540-4102 online
DOI: 10.1080/10454446.2013.724370
Measuring the Impact of Product Placement

on Children Using Digital Brand Integration
SIMON HUDSON
University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA
CHARLENE ELLIOTT
Downloaded by [Florida Atlantic University] at 12:45 17 November 2014
University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Recent marketing literature has called for more research that

focuses on the influence of new media on children and, specifi-
cally, the use of product placement. The objective of this study was
to analyze the impact of food and beverage product placements on
children of different ages. Using an experimental approach, groups
of children viewed the same television program, but with either
healthy products or unhealthy brands digitally inserted. A detailed
survey then measured aided and unaided recall and immediate
choice behavior. In total, 225 children from two schools took part
in the experiment. The results indicated strong recall for the prod-
ucts placed, especially for the unhealthy products, and particularly
among older children. However, the placements had only a modest
influence on immediate behavior, with regression analysis suggest-
ing that the packaging was more significant in influencing choice.
Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
KEYWORDS product placement, digital brand integration, adver-

tising to children, food and beverage
INTRODUCTION
Product placement has been defined as the planned entry of products into
movies or television shows that may influence viewers’ product beliefs
and/or behaviors favorably (Balasubramanian, 1994). Sometimes referred to
Address correspondence to Simon Hudson, Director and Endowed Chair, Center of

Economic Excellence in Tourism and Economic Development, College of Hospitality,
Retail, and Sport Management, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208. E-mail:
shudson@hrsm.sc.edu
176
Measuring the Impact of Product Placement on Children 177
as brand placement, the practice has emerged as one of the fastest-growing

segments of the advertising market (Elliot, 2005; Hudson & Hudson, 2006).
Paid product placement spending was worth $7.39 billion globally in 2011,
an increase of 9.8% on 2010 (PQ Media, 2012).
In the last few decades, product placement has also become very sophis-
ticated. Products are placed or embedded, woven into storylines of shows,
films, songs, novels, and games, which presumably makes a stronger emo-
tional connection with the consumer than traditional product placement
(Romano, 2004). In the past, advertisers sought to place products in shows as
soon as they became hits. Now, advertising deals happen alongside the cre-
ative development (Duffy, 2005), a practice that has been labeled as branded
entertainment (Hudson & Hudson, 2006). Companies such as Walmart and
Procter & Gamble are even creating their own television programs in order
to have more control of the placement of their products (Vranica & Brown,
2010). According to PQ Media, spending on branded entertainment reached
a total of $24.63 billion in 2009, and it is expected to grow another 9.2% by
2014 (PQ Media, 2010).
Alongside this growth and increasing sophistication have been rising
concerns about the ethics of product placement. Research has confirmed that
consumers are concerned about the “subliminal” effect of product placement
(Tiwsakul, Hackley, & Szmigin, 2005). Others fear that product placement’s
influence on the content of movies and television will seep into news mag-
azines, where editorial content is seen by many as inviolate. Critics also
claim that the trend of embedding products into songs is an invasion of
music lovers’ privacy, and critics have articulated concerns over loss of
artistic freedom resulting from the increased use of brands in video games
(Nelson, 2002). Concern has been voiced over product placements of eth-
ically charged products (guns, alcohol, and tobacco, for example), while
others question the appropriateness of allowing brands to be associated with
video games that exhibit excessive violence (Gupta & Lord, 1998; Gibson &
Maurer, 2000).
Particularly contentious is the use of product placement in children’s
programming (Hudson, Hudson, & Peloza, 2008; Avery & Ferraro, 2000).
Such tactics are becoming increasingly common; consequently, there have
been calls for more research that focuses on the influence of product place-
ment on children (American Psychological Association, 2004; Moore, 2004;
Tiwsakul et al., 2005). This study answers those calls and seeks to understand
in more detail the immediate impact of food and beverage product place-
ments on children of different ages. According to a recent review of product
placement research, there is a critical need to develop a more refined and
detailed understanding of how consumers, beyond the traditional college
student sample, respond to product placement (Gregorio & Sung, 2010).
This article seeks to fill a gap in the literature pertaining to the issue of
product placement and children. It discusses the literature related to product
178 S. Hudson and C. Elliott
placement and advertising to children, details the methods used to measure

the influence of product placement in this experiment, and presents the
results and implications derived from the research.
PRODUCT PLACEMENT
The origins of product placement can be found in the 1930s, when U.S.
tobacco companies paid movie stars and sporting heroes to endorse their
brands. In the 1950s, in the first days of television, Bing Crosby would open
his radio show by literally singing the praises of Chesterfield cigarettes; televi-
sion shows had names such as Texaco Star Theater and The Colgate Comedy
Hour. A second wave of product placement emerged in 1982, when Reese’s

Pieces were used to lure a lumbering little alien out of hiding in the film E.T.
This placement proved profitable for the candy’s manufacturer, Hershey,
who saw a 65% rise in sales following the film’s release (Higgins, 1985). Ever
since, the placement of products in movies and television has become an
important element of consumer marketing programs.
Spurred by the diminishing effectiveness of television advertising and
other traditional techniques, product placement has seen considerable
growth in recent years (Kaikati & Kaikati, 2004). For advertisers, it is one way
of combating unprecedented audience fragmentation and new technologies
that allow people to zap through commercials. Consumers are increasingly
refusing to abide commercial interruptions and are demanding a choice
in the timing, placement, and quantity of advertising they are exposed to.
Studies show that people with personal video recorders (PVRs) such as TiVo
use them to skip 92% of the ads (George, 2005). However, these same peo-
ple recall strategic product placement four times as much as paid commercial
messages, suggesting that product placement can be far more effective than
30-second TV commercials.
Another reason for the development of product placement is the growth
of the entertainment industry. Traditionally, advertising was placed adjacent
to entertainment in order to capitalize on the audiences the entertainment
attracted. However, over the last decade, the entertainment industry has pro-
liferated, and entertainment is now distributed and consumed online, by
mobile phones, on television, or in cinemas. These changes have opened
the door to integrated advertising. Marketers realize that communications via
branded entertainment can be more sophisticated, more targeted, and more
widely seen than traditional advertising methods.
Research indicates that consumers have a positive view toward prod-
uct placement (Nebenzahl & Secunda, 1993), and it seems to increase brand
loyalty by validating the purchase decisions of the consumer (Hart, 2003).
However, as mentioned, there are ethical concerns over its use as a market-
ing tool—and the main concern centers on the issue of deception. Product
placements are not labeled as advertisements and therefore may be viewed

as “hidden but paid” messages (Balasubramanian, 1994), and some con-
sumers are concerned about the “subliminal” effect of product placement
(Tiwsakul et al., 2005). Commercial Alert, an Oregon advocacy group, calls
embedded advertising “an affront to basic honesty” and petitioned the U.S.
Federal Trade Commission (unsuccessfully) to regulate product placement,
suggesting that shows be required to insert pop-up notifications to alert
viewers to prearranged product placements (Carter, 2003).
New technology also fuels ethical dilemmas by blurring the line between
commercial messages and entertainment. Products are now being added to
scenes in order to target a particular market. Sony Pictures, for example,
re-edited an existing episode of the series The King of Queens to add a prod-
uct placement, incorporating a plug for Dr. Scholl’s Massaging Gel Insoles
(Lafayette, 2004). The process is called digital brand integration, and com-
panies can place a product into a show, virtually any size, in almost any
location (Cobb, 2006). Critics believe this takes advantage of unsuspecting
viewers because they might not realize that the products were not originally
part of the scene during filming but were added to target a specific viewing
audience (Morton & Friedman, 2002).
THE INFLUENCE OF PRODUCT PLACEMENT ON CHILDREN
Children in North America are heavy television viewers; consequently,

they are exposed to an ever-growing number of advertising messages
(McDonough, 2009). Advertisers are increasingly targeting children and
youth for three core reasons. First is the potential exposure—the typical
North American child takes in about 38 hours of commercial media every
week and sees between 20 and 30 ads per hour (Laczniak & Palan, 2004).
Regarding television food advertising in particular, a recent U.S. study esti-
mated that children aged two to seven view an average of 12 televised food
commercials per day, while children eight to twelve see, on average, 21 per
day—which culminates in over 7,600 food advertisements per year (Gantz
et al., 2007).
The second (closely related) reason for targeting children is economic.
Children represent an important consumer segment, with an estimated
$80 billion in aggregate income and the ability to influence an additional
$225 billion in spending by their parents (Berg, 2008). Finally, there is the
race to establish brand loyalty (Walsh & Gentile, 2002). Companies realize
that brand loyalty established at an early age may reap significant economic
rewards over a child’s lifetime (McNeal, 1987). Research has shown that there
is considerable advantage to acquainting children with brand names, even
if the products in question are ones children will neither purchase, nor be
interested in, until later in life (Ellis, Holmes, & Wright, 2010).
Growth in marketing efforts directed toward the young has been accom-
panied by an upsurge in the use of psychological knowledge and research
to more effectively market products to children. Specialist conferences now
advise industry players on how to develop sections of the children’s mar-
ket and on how to manipulate the child’s influence over parents—known in
marketing circles as either pester power or the nag factor. This, in turn, has
prompted concerns over the ethics of such research. Children are viewed
as a special market segment because of their lack of experience and still-
developing cognitive skills. With some exceptions, the primary goals of
marketing and advertising to children exclude notions of child welfare. For
example, the tobacco industry has, historically, employed the techniques
of persuasion to influence children to adopt an addictive, dangerous habit.
Food marketers, too, are routinely chastised for promoting foods of poor
nutritional value to children (Harris et al., 2009). A recent study of the preva-
lence of food and beverage brands in movies found that a large number
of movies targeted to children featured product placements, with the major-
ity of placements being for energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods and drinks
(Sutherland et al., 2010).
A fundamental criticism of advertising to children revolves around
the issue of fairness (Treise et al., 1994) and the fact that children are
less able to evaluate commercial persuasion (Kunkel, 1988; Jeffery, 2006).
Numerous studies have documented that children under eight years of age
are developmentally unable to understand advertising intent and instead
accept advertising claims as factual (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1995).
Even after that age, youngsters may recognize that commercials intend to
sell, but they do not necessarily understand that commercials are biased
messages that warrant some degree of skepticism (American Psychological
Association, 2004; Jeffery, 2006).
Thomas Barry (1980) was one of the first to focus on deception in
children’s advertising, using theory from psychology to support his con-
tention that children are simply more susceptible to deceptive messages. He
referred to the work of Piaget (1970), who claimed that children do not have
the formal operational skills to logically test principles. They are, therefore,
more susceptible to deceptive messages from all sources. Moore comments
that to evaluate advertising, children must be able to distinguish between
commercial and non-commercial content (Moore, 2004). However, product
placement troubles this; Moore affirms that it makes the task of discriminating
between an advertisement and entertainment much more difficult.
Few studies have looked at the influence of product placement on chil-
dren. Auty and Lewis (2004), in a study similar to this one, exposed children
to two different scenes from the film Home Alone, one containing an explicit
Pepsi product placement and the other without any placements. They found
that those who had seen the branded clip were significantly more likely to
choose Pepsi when given a choice of drink. A more recent industry study
found that 40% of children aged 8 to 18 say that they try to buy products
they have seen on TV or in the movies, with those aged 8 to 12 most likely
to agree (53%) (Harris, 2006).
Although the advertising industry acknowledges the potentially harm-
ful effects of advertising on child audiences, it generally balks at calls for it
to take responsibility for such unintentional effects (Haefner, 1991). Product
placement practitioners argue that the placement of brands in children’s pro-
gramming is very limited—and, certainly, there is less product placement
in children’s television than film (Beck, 2001). However, they know that
children watch programs intended for other target audiences and are thus
exposed to advertising intended for those audiences. It has been argued that
unintended exposure to these advertisements may have powerful extended
effects on child viewers’ role expectations, values, and worldviews (Haefner,

1991; Avery & Ferraro, 2000). Examples of products aimed at children that
are placed in films include Zero Skateboards in A Cinderella Story, Etch-a-
Sketch in Elf , Beanie Babies in Agent Cody Banks 2, and Sony products in
Freaky Friday. PepsiCo put $3 million into the soccer movie Gracie, with the
film opening with a shot of PepsiCo’s sports drink, Gatorade, sitting on the
hood of a car (Munoz, 2007).
Some researchers have suggested that advertising geared toward
children—which largely consists of ads for sugary cereals, candy, and fast-
food restaurants—may be contributing to the increase in childhood obesity
by promoting unhealthy foods (Halford et al., 2007; Datamonitor, 2002; Story
& French, 2004; Jeffery, 2008; Harris et al., 2009). Others have documented
how child-oriented food marketing reorients children’s perception of what
“healthy” food entails (Elliott, 2009a). In the past 35 years, the percentage
of obese children in Canada (the geographical focus of this study) has more
than doubled, swelling to over 500,000 children (Deveau, 2006). According
to the latest Standing Committee on Health Report, titled Healthy Weights
for Healthy Kids, over 26% of Canadian children are currently overweight
or obese (House of Commons Canada, 2007). In the U.S., childhood obe-
sity rates have tripled over the past three decades, with nearly one third of
children now overweight or obese. Studies have equally shown that children
who are overweight are more likely to become overweight or obese adults
(Lutfiyya et al., 2008), which makes the marketing of food to children an
important area of inquiry.
OBJECTIVES
The general objective of this study was to fill a research gap in the litera-
ture when it comes to understanding the impact of product placement on
children. Specific objectives were to analyze the placement of food and bev-
erage products on the immediate food and beverage choices of children of
various ages; to measure and assess the cognitive and behavioral response
to these food and beverage product placements; and to provide relevant pol-
icy recommendations pertaining to product placement in terms of children’s
preferences and awareness of advertising intent in relation to age.
METHOD
How to “measure” product placement has been the subject of much dis-
cussion, since many marketers want to know the return on investment for
money spent on placements. As with advertising, the effectiveness of product
placement as a communications strategy must be gauged against the specific
objectives of decision-makers (d’Astous & Chartier, 2000). Certain academics

suggest that message impact should be assessed at recall, persuasion, and
behavioral levels (Balasubramanian, 1994). Among product placement prac-
titioners, unaided recall and brand recognition are the two most popular
means of assessing placements, although the tracking of subsequent related
sales or the measurement of trade or general press coverage are methods
growing in use (Karrh, McKee, & Pardun, 2003).
This study employed experimental methods, since they have been used
successfully in previous product placement research (McDonnell & Drennan,
2010; Russell, 2002; McKechnie & Zhou, 2003; Gupta & Lord, 1998). Based
on Auty and Lewis (2004), children of different ages were exposed to
a 20-minute section of a popular television show that typically contains
a number of product placements. Ethics clearance was obtained by the
researchers, and two schools from a major metropolitan city in Canada took
part in the research in exchange for a donation to their school libraries.
Child-respondents were divided into groups, and each group saw the same
television clip but with different (digitally inserted) placements of various
types of food and beverages. All groups were shown a clip from Pop Idol—
the British equivalent of American Idol. Pop Idol was selected because the
children are familiar with the format of the show (in light of the popularity
and audience base of American Idol) but do not know the exact players and
do not have preconceived expectations about the “proper” product place-
ment (e.g., the ubiquitous and prominent Coke promotions in American
Idol). American Idol has millions of child viewers, and in 2008 branded
content in the show jumped 19%. The first 28 episodes of 2008 included
4,151 product placements (Sullivan, 2008).
In the experimental design, Groups 1 (7–8 years old) and 2 (11–12 years
old) viewed the 20-minute segment in which various foods and drinks were
digitally inserted into the program (Table 1). In the first sitting, Groups 1a and
2a viewed a 20-minute segment in which various “healthier” choices (Milk
2 Go, Black Diamond Cheestrings, Yoplait tubes, and Dole fruit cups) were
digitally inserted. In separate sittings, Groups 1b and 2b viewed the same
TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics by Product Placement Group
Group
No Product Unhealthy Product Healthy Product

Grade Placement Placement Placement
3rd (7) 20.0% (15) 42.9% (13) 37.1%

4th (7) 25.9% (16) 59.3% (4) 14.8%
7th (25) 15.3% (84) 51.5% (54) 33.1%
20-minute segment but with different “unhealthy” products digitally inserted.

Digital inserts of Pepsi, Betty Crocker’s Fruit Gushers, Reese’s Pieces, and
Frito-Lay Cheetos were strategically placed throughout the show. Finally,

Groups 1c and 2c, the control groups, viewed the same 20-minute segment
but with no product placements. Unaided recall was measured by asking
children after exposure if they could recall any brands, sponsors, or advertis-
ing messages in the program. Aided recall was measured by asking children
if they recognized any brands shown to them (pictures were provided).
Although not strictly subliminal, product placements may not be con-
sciously encoded even by those who are cognitively capable of doing so
(Auty & Lewis, 2004). This makes it important to measure the influence
of product placement on behavior independent of recall measures. All the
children were therefore offered a selection of beverages and snacks from
the exact same range of products. This provided insight into the degree to
which such placements impacted children’s immediate snack choices. (For
instance, children from Group 1a and 2a might be more likely to select milk
and Yoplait as a snack, whereas children from Group 1b and 2b might opt
for Pepsi and Cheetos.) The inclusion of Coke—a popular, competing cola
product—as one of the drink selections ensured that the study was not sim-
ply measuring children’s preference for sugary soda over milk. Water was
also included as an alternative to soda and milk. Similarly, two extra snacks
that were not placed in the show—Smarties and Nature Valley oat bars—
were included in the selection. Children were invited over to the snack table
one at a time to select their beverage and food product; this was a deliberate
research design choice so that the children were not influenced by the selec-
tions of their peers. Children then completed a questionnaire (with the help
of the researchers when necessary), which asked specific questions about
their recollection, observation, and impressions of the show.
The scale format used came from a combination of two techniques,
the smiley face method (Pine & Veasey, 2003) and the graphic scale,
both commonly used in research with children. The individual scale items
were adopted from a number of sources. For the attitudes toward the
show, items were adopted from Russell (2002). For the snack and drink
items, measures from two sources were combined: four from Dixon et al.
(2007) and three from Russell (2002). Following Gibson and Maurer (2000),
participants were also asked if they had tried the product in the past.
To measure the quantity of television watched, the approach taken by
Dixon et al. (2007) was simplified to just four categories (morning/after
school/evening/weekend).
Multivariate analysis (logistic regressions) was used for detailed analysis
of the data. This statistical method enables one to predict the outcome of a
dependent variable—in this case, the drink and snack the child chose—with
not one, but many independent variables. The independent variables com-
prised a number of aspects pertaining to the snack: whether the children
have it regularly and how often, whether they think of it as a treat, whether
they like the packaging, their attitudes toward the particular snack, their
attitudes toward the show, their television viewing habits, and, of course,
whether or not they remember seeing the drink or snack during the show.
The advantage of applying regression analysis is that one can see what inde-
pendent variables have a significant impact on the dependent variable, as
well as the strength of that impact while accounting for or isolating the
effects of the other independent variables (i.e., holding them constant).
RESULTS
A total of 225 children from two schools took part in the experiment:
163 Grade 7 students (aged 10–12) and 62 students from Grades 3 and 4
(aged 7–9). The gender split was fairly even, with 107 girls and 118 boys.
Fifty-one percent of the sample viewed the segment with unhealthy prod-
uct placements, 32% saw the show with healthy products inserted, and the
remainder were the control group, watching a segment with no placements
at all.
Initially, the children were asked to list any snacks or drinks that they
saw in the show in order to measure unaided recall. Memory was stronger
for the unhealthy products, with 71.3% remembering Pepsi, 58.3% recall-
ing Reese’s Pieces, 54.8% recalling Fruit Gushers, and 49.6% remembering
Cheetos. Interestingly, 20.9% of children recalled seeing Coca-Cola in the
show, even though the product was absent. Unaided recall for the health-
ier products was not as strong (Milk 2 Go, 69%; Yoplait tubes, 29.6%;
Cheestrings, 24%; and Dole fruit cups, 12.7%).
Table 2 shows the results of the aided recall and indicates that the
children exposed to product placements clearly recognized the products
placed in the show they viewed. For example, of the children who saw
the unhealthy segment, 90% remembered seeing Pepsi, 70% saw the Fruit
Gushers, 75% saw the Cheetos, and 67% recalled seeing Reese’s Pieces.
Of those who saw the healthy segment, memory of placements was high
for the drink placement (90% for Milk 2 Go), but lower for the snacks (26%
TABLE 2 Product Placement Recall (Aided)
Group

Placement Placement Placement
Did you see this product Yes No Yes No Yes No

during the show?
(#) % (#) % (#) % (#) % (#) % (#) %
Milk 2 Go (2) 5.1 (37) 94.9 (26) 23.6 (84) 76.4 (62) 89.9 (7) 10.1
Coca-Cola (3) 7.9 (35) 92.1 (49) 45.4 (59) 54.6 (8) 11.6 (61) 88.4
Water (7) 18.9 (30) 81.1 (19) 17.3 (91) 82.7 (18) 26.1 (51) 73.9
Pepsi (3) 7.9 (35) 92.1 (102) 90.3 (11) 9.7 (7) 10.9 (57) 89.1
Fruit Gushers (1) 2.6 (37) 97.4 (75) 69.4 (33) 30.6 (11) 16.7 (55) 83.3
Granola Bar — (38) 100.0 (14) 12.4 (99) 87.6 (7) 10.3 (61) 89.7
Cheetos (1) 2.6 (37) 97.4 (83) 74.8 (28) 25.2 (18) 25.4 (53) 74.6
Dole (2) 5.3 (36) 94.7 (7) 6.3 (104) 93.7 (17) 26.3 (48) 73.8
Reese’s Pieces (2) 5.1 (37) 94.9 (76) 67.3 (37) 32.7 (3) 4.3 (67) 95.7
Smarties (2) 5.6 (34) 94.4 (32) 28.6 (80) 71.4 (4) 5.7 (66) 94.3
Cheestrings — (38) 100.0 (20) 18.3 (89) 81.7 (18) 27.3 (48) 72.7
Yoplait Tubes — (38) 100.0 (11) 10.2 97 (89.8) (25) 37.9 (41) 62.1
remembered Dole fruit cups, 27% recalled Cheestrings, and 38% recalled
Yoplait tubes).
Further analysis revealed that a significantly higher percentage of older
children recalled the product placements. On average, 96% of children aged
10–12 recalled placement of the drinks, 74% remembered the unhealthy
snacks, and 31% the healthier snacks. For the younger children, memory
was weaker, with 72% recalling placement of the drinks, 58% remembering
the unhealthy snacks, and 29% the healthier snacks. Once again, a large per-
centage (45%) of the children viewing the unhealthy segment recalled seeing
Coca-Cola in the show, even though it wasn’t there.
The choice of snacks and drinks the children selected after viewing the
program suggests that product placement had very little influence on imme-
diate behavior for respondents as a whole (see Table 3). The majority of
children chose Pepsi or Coke along with a packet of Fruit Gushers, regard-
less of the segment they watched. The only placement that possibly had an
influence on behavior was Cheetos; twice as many children who had been
exposed to the Cheetos placement chose that snack. Further breakdown of
results between the two age groups showed a few significant differences.
Of the younger children, 64% of those exposed to Fruit Gushers chose that
snack as opposed to only 46% who had not seen the snack in the show.
Further, 33% of that age group who had viewed the unhealthy segment
chose Pepsi as their drink compared to only 17% who saw the healthy seg-
ment. Children who viewed the healthy segment were more likely to choose
Milk 2 Go. Of the older groups who had viewed the unhealthy products,
12% chose Reese’s Pieces compared to only 4% who had not been exposed
TABLE 3 Choice of Snacks and Drinks
Group

Placement Placement Placement
Fruit Gushers (17) 44.7 (63) 56.2 (48) 69.6

Reese’s Pieces (1) 2.6 (10) 8.9 (2) 2.9
Smarties (2) 5.3 (7) 6.2 (3) 4.3
Yoplait Tubes (3) 7.9 (3) 2.7 (2) 2.9
Dole Peaches (1) 2.6 (5) 4.5 (3) 4.3
Cheestrings (3) 7.9 (23) 20.5 (2) 2.9
Cheetos (11) 28.2 (23) 20.5 (8) 11.6
Granola Bar — (1) 0.9 (1) 1.4
Coca-Cola (8) 20.5 (38) 33.3 (28) 40.0
Pure Life Water (11) 28.2 (13) 11.4 (7) 10.0

Pepsi (13) 33.3 (37) 32.5 (23) 32.9
Milk 2 Go (7) 17.9 (26) 22.8 (12) 17.1
to the product. Similarly, 21% of the older children viewing Cheetos chose
that snack, whereas only 9% of viewers of the healthier segment chose that
snack.
In terms of television viewing habits, over 90% of the children watched
television during the week, with no differences between the age groups.
When asked if they liked the show, children in the control group were the
least likely to say they enjoyed it (mean of 4.41 out of 7) compared to
those in the unhealthy product placement group (m = 4.99) and the healthy
product placement group (m = 4.64). Only 38 of the children indicated that
they knew what product placement was, but when asked to give a definition,
only 22 gave a reasonably accurate definition.
The coefficients in the models portrayed in Tables 4 and 5 represent
the probability of a child choosing a particular snack or drink. According to
Table 5 (Milk 2 Go), the log-odds of a child who liked the product’s pack-
age the best to choose the product increases by 2.72 when compared to the
children who liked other products’ packages the best. Following the conver-
sion of log-odds into log-ratios, the odds of choosing Milk 2 Go, as opposed
to choosing another drink, by children who like the milk’s package the
best, increases by a factor of .07 (or about 7%) when compared to children
who liked packages of other products the best. The measures of proba-
bility presented in log-odds in those tables can be converted to log-ratios,
which simplifies the interpretation of the coefficients. Table 6 represents the
log-ratios for the models in Tables 4 and 5. Regressions were not possible
for Yoplait Tubes, Dole fruit cups, Cheestrings, Nature Valley oat bars, and
water, due to extremely low variation in the dependent variable. In other
words, there were not enough children who chose the particular snack or
drink.
TABLE 4 Regression Coefficients of Snack Choice
Fruit Gushers Reese’s Pieces Smarties Cheetos
166 165 192 181
Snack/Drink N Coeff. (SE) Coeff. (SE) Coeff. (SE) Coeff. (SE)
Constant 2.59 (6.93) −107.67 (24182.89) −67.88 (42243.54) −18.86 (25934.03)

Group Participation
NPP (ref.) — — — — —
UPP .94 (.99) −18.55 (5583.96) .71 (1.38) −.34 (.77)
HPP 1.33 (.94) −20.10 (5583.96) .56 (1.39) 1.81 (.79)∗∗
Demographics
Grade
3rd (ref.) — — — — —
4th 1.48 (1.70) 4.77 (10874.05) −15.62 (6171.51) −.95 (1.33)
187
7th −1.72 (2.96) −2.35 (5848.26) −10.61 (6171.52) .16 (2.68)
Age .28 (.72) 4.31 (2.21)∗ 1.34 (1.91) .21 (.64)
Sex −.83 (.56) 1.81 (1.42) −.38 (.92) .94 (.52)∗
Views on the Snack
Do you regularly have this snack? 1.34 (.75)∗ .16 (1.36) −.61 (1.29) .66 (.72)
How often do you have this .04 (.26) −.15 (.47) −.71 (.55) .07 (.24)
snack?
Would you say this snack is a .65 (.74) −.17 (1.79) −.69 (1.33) −.30 (.61)
treat?
Likes the package (of snack of 2.87 (.71)∗∗∗ 4.1 (1.70)∗∗ 2.48 (1.03)∗∗ 2.63 (.69)∗∗∗
choice) the best
Do you think this snack is fun? 1.20 (.42)∗∗∗ .39 (.55) −.36 (.41) −.37 (.31)
Have you seen this snack before? 7.53 (2.94)∗∗ −3.67 (21175.89) −2.89 (40969.73) −17.44 (25934.03)
Have you tried this snack before? 1.07 (1.92) −2.88 (11347.98) −3.00 (40969.73) −.85 (1.75)
Do you think this snack looks −.53 (.32)∗ −.80 (.74) .38 (.68) .16 (.33)
yummy?
(Continued)
TABLE 4 (Continued)
Fruit Gushers Reese’s Pieces Smarties Cheetos
166 165 192 181
Snack/Drink N Coeff. (SE) Coeff. (SE) Coeff. (SE) Coeff. (SE)
Do you like this snack? 4.64 (1.43)∗∗∗ −18.92 (4980.50) −17.46 (7939.57) 1.48 (1.10)
Do you think this snack is −.18 (.18) .63 (.41) .29 (.25) .16 (.18)
healthy?
Did you see this snack during 1.37 (.73)∗ −2.40 (2.45) −1.58 (1.30) −1.28 (.67)∗
the show?
Opinions About the Show
Did you like the show? .37 (.33) .52 (.70) −.84 (.67) .003 (.37)
Did you think the show was .22 (.34) −1.28 (.75)∗ .87 (.59) .23 (.36)
good?
188
TV Viewing Habits
Do you watch television on −5.70 (2.12)∗∗∗ 3.72 (2.99) −15.60 (6398.25) .40 (1.34)
weekdays?
Do you watch TV before school? 1.63 (.63)∗∗∗ −2.56 (1.50)∗ .49 (1.05) .44 (.53)
Do you watch TV after school? 6.69 (2.42)∗∗∗ −21.51 (6057.57) −13.97 (5611.39) 3.05 (1.50)∗∗
Do you watch TV on weekends? .66 (1.38) −22.56 (7363.97) −16.18 (7649.85) −2.64 (1.41)∗
Knowledge of What Is Product
Placement
Do you know what product 1.85 (.70)∗∗∗ −.47 (1.08) .29 (1.57) .99 (.10)
placement is?
Model Chi-Square 109.72∗∗∗ 48.1∗∗∗ 39.10∗∗ 56.38∗∗∗
−2 Log Likelihood 110.67 37.88 45.17 129.65
Nagelkerke R Square .66 .62 .52 .42
∗∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗ p < .05; ∗ p < .10.
TABLE 5 Regression Coefficients of Drink Choice
Coke Pepsi Milk 2 Go
182 172 163
Snack/Drink N Coeff. (SE) Coeff. (SE) Coeff. (SE)
Constant −11.36 (7.69) 16.84 (9.41)∗ 2.95 (20.74)

Group Participation
NPP (ref.) — — — —
UPP −.84 (.65) −1.10 (1.02) .66 (1.01)
HPP −.63 (.65) −.16 (.65) .74 (1.59)
Demographics
Grade
3rd (ref.) — — — —
4th .82 (1.16) −.42 (1.31) −.23 (4.90)
189
7th 3.31 (2.37) −5.92 (3.18)∗ −6.78 (6.25)
Age .86 (.58) −1.57 (.74)∗∗ −1.16 (1.52)
Sex .16 (.44) −.50 (.49) −.55 (.75)
Views on the Snack
Do you regularly have this drink? .63 (.58) −.69 (.67) .96 (1.01)
How often do you have this drink? −.58 (.23)∗∗ −.11 (.25) .78 (.44)∗
Would you say this drink is a treat? .55 (.45) 1.26 (.50)∗∗ −4.53 (1.24)∗∗∗
Likes the package (of drink of choice) the 1.91 (.46)∗∗∗ 2.09 (.49)∗∗∗ 2.72 (.97)∗∗∗
best
Do you think this drink is fun? .60 (.22)∗∗∗ .36 (.27) −.91 (.34)
Have you seen this drink before? 21.46 (40192.97) .02 (29492.20) 18.13 (25594.27)
Have you tried this drink before? −1.15 (3.36) 18.13 (17319.68) 2.42 (1.87)
Do you think this drink looks yummy? .44 (.26)∗ .74 (.32)∗∗ 1.31 (1.31)∗∗∗
Do you like this drink? 1.26 (1.08) 1.63 (1.39) 20.96 (4900.57)
Do you think this drink is healthy? .22 (.13)∗ .07 (.15) .78 (.34)∗∗
Did you see this drink during the show? .25 (.51) −1.78 (.91)∗ −.95 (1.21)
(Continued)
TABLE 5 (Continued)
Coke Pepsi Milk 2 Go
182 172 163
Snack/Drink N Coeff. (SE) Coeff. (SE) Coeff. (SE)

Did you like the show? −.57 (.29)∗ .52 (.28)∗ .61 (.60)
Did you think the show was good? .56 (.30)∗ −.28 (.29) −.18 (.54)
TV Viewing Habits
190
Do you watch television on weekdays? .01 (.87) −.13 (.90) −6.80 (2.23)∗∗∗
Do you watch TV before school? .60 (.47) −.58 (.51) .07 (.76)
Do you watch TV after school? 1.12 (.85) −.84 (.80) 3.76 (1.84)∗∗
Do you watch TV on weekends? −.86 (.85) −1.00 (1.02) 4.42 (2.42)∗
Knowledge of What Is Product Placement
Do you know what product placement is? .68 (.53) −1.96 (.73)∗∗∗ −1.48 (.93)
∗∗∗ ∗∗∗ ∗∗∗
Model Chi-Square 71.13 72.10 93.59
−2 Log Likelihood 160.69 149.09 73.35
Nagelkerke R Square .45 .47 .68
∗∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗ p < .05; ∗ p < .10.
TABLE 6 Coefficients of Effects Predictor Variables on Snack/Drink Choice From the Logistic Analysis (Presented in Log-Ratios)
Fruit Reese’s Smarties Cheetos Coke Pepsi Milk

Gushers Pieces
Coeff. Coeff. Coeff. Coeff. Coeff. Coeff. Coeff.
Constant .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00∗ 19.09

Group Participation
NPP (ref.) — — — — — — —
UPP .39 .00 2.03 .71 .43 .33 1.94
HPP .27 .00 1.74 6.12∗∗ .53 .85 2.09
Demographics
Grade
3rd (ref.) — — — — — — —
4th .23 118.40 .00 .39 2.26 .66 .80
191
7th 5.60 1.00 .00 1.18 27.26 .003∗ .00
Age 1.32 74.48∗ 3.82 1.23 2.37 .21∗∗ .32
Sex .44 6.10 .68 2.56∗ 1.18 .61 .46
Views on the Snack
Do you regularly have this snack/drink? 3.80∗ 1.17 .54 .52 .53 1.98 .38
How often do you have this snack/drink? 1.04 .86 .49 1.08 1.79∗∗ .90 2.19∗
Would you say this snack/drink is a treat? 1.92 .844 .50 1.35 .58 .28∗∗ 92.61∗∗∗
Likes the package (of snack/drink of 17.56∗∗∗ 60.35∗∗ 11.89∗∗ .07∗∗∗ .15∗∗∗ .12∗∗∗ .07∗∗∗
choice) the best
Do you think this snack/drink is fun? 3.33∗∗∗ 1.48 .70 1.45 1.83∗∗∗ .70 .40∗∗∗
Have you seen this snack/drink before? 1859.83∗∗ .03 .05 .00 .00 .98 .00
Have you tried this snack/drink before? .34 .06 .05 2.33 3.16 .00 .09
Do you think this snack/drink looks .59∗ .45 1.47 .85 .65∗ 2.09∗∗ 3.71
yummy?
Do you like this snack/drink? .01∗∗∗ .00 .00 .23 .28 .20 .00
(Continued)
TABLE 6 (Continued)
Fruit Reese’s Smarties Cheetos Coke Pepsi Milk

Gushers Pieces
Coeff. Coeff. Coeff. Coeff. Coeff. Coeff. Coeff.
Do you think this snack/drink is healthy? .83 1.88 1.34 .86 1.24∗ 1.08 2.17∗∗
Did you see this snack/drink during the 3.92∗ .09 .21 3.60∗ .78 5.91∗ 2.59
show?
Did you like the show? .69 .40 2.31 1.00 1.77∗ .60∗ .55
192
Did you think the show was good? .80 3.59 .42 .79 .57∗ 1.32 1.20
TV Viewing Habits
Do you watch television on weekdays? .00∗∗ 41.31 1.63 .67 .99 1.14 895.41∗∗∗
Do you watch TV before school? 5.12∗∗∗ .08∗ .00 .64 .55 1.78 1.07
Do you watch TV after school? 800.93∗∗∗ .00 .00 .05∗∗ .33 2.31 1.07
Do you watch TV on weekends? 1.94 .00 .00 14.00∗ 2.37 2.70 .02∗∗
.01∗
Knowledge of What Is Product Placement
Do you know what product placement is? 6.33∗∗∗ .63 1.34 .37 .51 7.12∗∗∗ 4.39
∗∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗ p < .05; ∗ p < .10.
The regression analysis shows that the strongest predictor variable in

all the models is whether the children like the packaging of the product of
their choice the best (significant in all the models), followed by whether the
children think the snack or drink of their choice is fun (significant in 3 models
out of 7), and whether they think the snack or drink of their choice looks
yummy (significant in 3 models out of 7).
Further, each model explains between 42% and 68% of variation in the
dependent variable through the independent variables in the models, as por-
trayed by the Nagelkerke R square values. This is a rather high percentage,
considering that only a few variables “survived” the analysis, or remained
statistically significant at the end of the analysis. In other words, looking at
the model of Milk 2 Go and its Nagelkerke R square value, 68% of the varia-
tion in the dependent variable (whether or not the child chose the drink) is
explained by 7 factors: how often do the children have the drink (positive);
whether they think it’s a treat (negative); liking the package of the drink the
best (positive); whether the children thought the drink looks yummy (posi-
tive); whether they think the drink is healthy (positive); whether they watch
TV on weekdays (negative); whether they watch TV after school (positive);
and whether they watch TV on weekends (positive).
DISCUSSION
It is clear from the results that recall of placements was very high, espe-
cially for the unhealthy brands. This could be due to the theory of brand
equity. Research has shown that consumers’ motivation and ability to pro-
cess a product placement increases when the placement is for a strong,
familiar brand rather than a weak, unfamiliar brand (Wiles & Danielova,
2009; Lindstrom, 2008). Although the healthy brands in this experiment are
not unfamiliar, they do not receive the same kind of advertising exposure as
brands such as Pepsi and Reese’s Pieces. It was interesting to see that 45%
of the children viewing the unhealthy segment recalled seeing Coca-Cola in
the show, even though the product wasn’t there. Once again, this could be
because of the sheer strength of, and the amount of exposure to, the Coke
brand.
However, recall of the “phantom” Coca-Cola might also be due to the
very prominent Coke placements in American Idol, the version of the show
that the children are familiar with. This might suggest what we would label a
product placement echo effect: when children recalled seeing the well-known
judge Simon Cowell on Pop Idol, they recalled a Coke placement based on
memory. (Coca-Cola spends over $26 million annually to have their brand
featured in American Idol [Lindstrom, 2008].)
Brand recall was also significantly higher for older children. This could
be because they are more “brand aware,” and certainly supports the research
referenced earlier suggesting that there is an advantage to acquainting chil-

dren with brand names early in life in order to establish loyalty (McNeal,
1987; Ellis, Holmes, & Wright, 2010). These results also lend support to
the theory that older children are strongly influenced by product placement
(Laczniak & Palan, 2004; Harris, 2006). However, it should be noted that
even if children did not recall the brands, the placements could still have
affected consumer behavior processes such as brand consideration (Auty &
Lewis, 2004).
Contrary to Auty and Lewis’s (2004) findings, placement had only a mod-
est influence on immediate behavior. Several possible explanations for this
exist. Children could have viewed the post-television segment snack selec-
tion as a “treating” opportunity, choosing products that they rarely get at
home. A high percentage of children claimed that this was the case. Further,
even though the children were invited over to the snack table one at a time
to select their beverage and food product (so that the choices were individ-
ual choices), it remains possible that the snack choices of the first children
invited to the table influenced the choices of subsequent children. The influ-
ence of peers as reference groups on consumption-oriented decision-making
is well documented (Singh, Chao, & Kwon, 2006). But again, the choices of
drink and snack could well be because they are simply stronger brands with
attractive packages to which children are exposed on a daily basis. Coca-
Cola and Pepsi both spend about $3 billion a year to advertise their products
worldwide. PepsiCo spent $74.6 million in the U.S. alone in 2008 to advertise
Pepsi (Elliot, 2010).
The regression analysis showed that the strongest predictor variable was
whether or not the children like the packaging of the product, followed by
whether the children think the snack or drink of their choice is fun. This
is not surprising, particularly given the food industry’s emphasis on “fun”
when promoting food to children (Elliott, 2008a; Elliott, 2009b). The idea of
“fun” has become a dominant trope in children’s food marketing and is used
to signal the desirability of foodstuffs to children (Elliott, 2010; Harris et al.,
2009).
Perhaps the most remarkable finding was that the children in the control
group—those who saw no product placement—were least likely to enjoy the
show. This lends support to prior investigations of attitudes toward product
placement that have revealed generally positive perceptions of the prac-
tice (Gregorio & Sung, 2010). Young people, in particular, have favorable
attitudes toward the practice (Hall, 2004; Lewis, 2005).
IMPLICATIONS
Initial findings from the study have significant implications for both adver-
tisers and public policy officials. Advertisers will be interested to see that
recall—both aided and unaided—of products placed was strong, and it was
highest among older children and highest for the unhealthy snacks. This sup-
ports previous research that shows that recall of product placements is high
(Wiles & Danielova, 2009; Lindstrom, 2008). The limited available research
suggests that product placements are especially potent in their effects on chil-
dren and adolescents, and the results of this study support that contention.
Food marketers are aware that mere exposure to brands in childhood will
make for more fluent recognition of those brand names in adulthood that
will persist through to old age (Ellis et al., 2010). Although they claim that
their television programs with product placements are not directly targeted
at children, advertisers know that children are watching and also that they
become aware of brands at a very early age (Hite & Hite, 1995; Linn &
Novosat, 2008).
The results of the study may also have important implications for policy
makers. In Canada, policies related to product placement are quite vague,
although the Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children states that “no chil-
dren’s advertising may employ any device or technique that attempts to
transmit messages below the threshold of normal awareness” (Advertising
Standards Canada, 2004). Although this study does not suggest a direct
“media effect,” it draws attention to the need for considering both the ethical
dimensions of this type of marketing and the ways that product placement
might impact preferences over time.
Public health officials who have the health of children as a priority
may be concerned that even though children were exposed to healthier
product placements and given healthy snack options, the majority chose
foods of poor nutritional quality. Previous research has shown that expo-
sure to advertisements increases food intake in children (Halford et al.,
2007), so it is fair to presume that product placement has the same effect.
Such officials may benefit from this research by seeing how they can pro-
mote better health and welfare for children. One could argue that these
groups should use product placement to promote healthy behavior—a form
of “prosocial” marketing (Schiller, 2005). However, in light of the research
documenting that product placement unfairly manipulates children, it seems
problematic to suggest that public health officials should urge “healthy”
brand marketers to adopt product placement. From an ethical standpoint,
either marketing to children is manipulative or it is not. It is not less
manipulative because the product is milk instead of cola. From a health
standpoint, however, it seems necessary for some “healthy food” messages
to also find a voice among the appeals that promote high-sugar/high-fat
products on commercial television. The challenge of this, from a regula-
tory standpoint, is to ensure that the “healthy” foods promoted are, in fact,
healthy and not merely framed as “healthier” by the food industry (Elliott,
2008b).
CONCLUSIONS
Limitations of this study need to be acknowledged. The respondents were

from just one city in one country, so the results may not be applicable
to other populations. In fact, more cross-cultural research is needed to
generate deeper knowledge of the diverse factors that might impact the
effectiveness of product placement. The interest in the implementation of
globally integrated marketing communications strategies will require a more
widespread knowledge of how consumers in different cultures perceive,
and form attitudes toward, product placement. Another limitation is that this
study focused on the impact of product placements in just one medium—
television. In previous research related to product placement, there has been
a general failure to differentiate among media vehicles, so future research

should explore and compare children’s responses to product placement
across different types of media. Product placement in video games and
music, for example, is becoming more and more prevalent, so future studies
could measure the effects of such practices. A third limitation of the study
is that the research was conducted in a lab setting, and this cannot repli-
cate the television-watching experience at home. A survey instrument may
also be problematic in capturing the subtle differences between implicit and
explicit placements.
Despite these limitations, this is the first study to use digital brand
integration to understand the impact of product placements on consumers.
Results indicated a strong recall for product placement, particularly among
older children, but placements had only a modest influence on immedi-
ate behavior. Although this study, like others before it, revealed a generally
favorable attitude toward the practice, as product placement becomes an
increasingly pervasive form of marketing communication, it may lose its nov-
elty and become subject to the clutter that has characterized advertising over
the last few decades. It will require the monitoring of the effectiveness of the
strategy over time to determine whether and how such developments come
to affect viewer attention, recall, and attitude.
REFERENCES
Advertising Standards Canada (2004). The broadcast code for advertising to children.
The Canadian Association of Broadcasters, April.
American Academy of Pediatrics (1995). Children, adolescents, and advertising:
Committee on Communications, American Academy of Pediatrics. Pediatrics
95, 295–297.
American Psychological Association (2004). Report of the APA task force on advertis-
ing and children. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
d’Astous, A., & Chartier, F. (2000). A study of factors affecting consumer evaluations
and memory of product placements in movies. Journal of Current Issues and
Research in Advertising 22(2), 31–40.
Auty, S., & Lewis, C. (2004). Exploring children’s choice: The reminder effect of
product placement. Psychology & Marketing 21(9), 699–716.
Avery, R. J., & Ferraro, R. (2000). Verisimilitude or advertising? Brand appearances
on prime-time television. Journal of Consumer Affairs 34(2), 217–245.
Balasubramanian, S. K. (1994). Beyond advertising and publicity: Hybrid messages
and public policy issues. Journal of Advertising 23(4), 29–47.
Barry, T. E. (1980). A framework for ascertaining deception in children’s advertising.
Journal of Advertising 9(1), 11–18.
Beck, J. (2001, March 1). Product placement gaining promo weight. Kidscreen
Magazine, 13.
Berg, C. (2008). Kids and consumerism. Western Parent 13(4), 5.

Carter, B. (2003). Industry fights back on product placement. New York Times,
November 14. Retrieved May 21, 2013 from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/
14/business/media/14adde.html
Cobb, J. (2006). Product placement goes digital, gets lucrative. CNBC News. Retrieved
September 30, 2010 from www.msnbc.msn.com.
Datamonitor (2002, September 30). Childhood obesity: How obesity is shaping the U.S.
food and beverage markets. Market Research Report. York: Author.
Deveau, S. (2006, June 2). Mars drops ads aimed at very young. National Post, FP2.
Dixon, H. G., Scully, M. L., Wakefield, M. A., White, V. M., & Crawford, D. A. (2007).
The effects of television advertisements for junk food versus nutritious food on
children’s food attitudes and preferences. Social Science and Medicine 65(7),
1311–1323.
Duffy, J. (2005, March 30). Well placed: Rappers are being invited by McDonald’s
to drop the words “Big Mac” into songs, while some British TV looks
set to follow cinema by allowing brands to feature in shows. BBC News
Magazine. Retrieved September 30, 2010 from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/
uk_news/magazine/4391955.stm.
Elliot, S. (2005, March 29). More products get roles in shows, and marketers wonder
if they’re getting their money’s worth. The New York Times, C3.
Elliot, S. (2010, January 31). Pepsi invites the public to do good. New York Times.
Retrieved September 30, 2010 from www.nytimes.com.
Elliott, C. (2008a). Marketing fun food: A profile and analysis of supermarket food
messages targeted at children. Canadian Public Policy 34(2), 259–274.
Elliott, C. (2008b). Taste rules!: Food marketing, food law and childhood obesity
in Canada. Cuizine: The Journal of Canadian Food Cultures 1(1). Retrieved
September 30, 2010 from http://cuizine.mcgill.ca.
Elliott, C. (2009a). “Healthy food looks serious”: How children interpret packaged
food products. Canadian Journal of Communication 34(3), 359–380.
Elliott, C. (2009b). Entertaining eats: Children’s “fun food” and the transformation of
the domestic foodscape. Material Culture Review, 70, 34–42.
Elliott, C. (2010). Eatertainment and the reclassification of children’s food. Food,
Culture & Society 13(4), 539–553.
Ellis, A. W., Holmes, S. J., & Wright R. L. (2010). Age of acquisition and the recog-
nition of brand names: On the importance of being early. Journal of Consumer
Psychology 20, 43–52.
Gantz, W., Schwartz, N., Angelini, J. R., & Rideout, V. (2007). Food for thought:
Television food advertising to children in the United States. Menlo Park, CA:
Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved September 30, 2010 from http://www.kff.
org/entmedia/upload/7618.pdf.
George, L. (2005). Is Kiefer Sutherland trying to sell you something? Maclean’s
118(8), 30–36.
Gibson, B., & Maurer, J. (2000). Cigarette smoking in movies: The influence of prod-
uct placement on attitudes toward smoking and smokers. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology 30, 1457–1473.
Gregorio, F. de & Sung, Y. (2010). Understanding attitudes toward and behavior in
response to product placement. Journal of Advertising 39(1), 83–96.

Gupta, P. B., & Lord, K. R. (1998). Product placement in movies: The effect of promi-
nence and mode on audience recall. Journal of Current Issues and Research in
Advertising 20, 47–59.
Haefner, M. J. (1991). Ethical problems of advertising to children. Journal of Mass
Media Ethics 6(2), 83–92.
Halford, J. C. G., Boyland, E. J., Highes, G., Oliveira, L. P., & Dovey, T. M. (2007).
Beyond-brand effect of television (TV) food advertisements/commercials on
caloric intake and food choice of 5–7-year-old children. Appetite 49, 263–267.
Hall, E. (2004). Young consumers receptive to movie product placement. Advertising
Age 75(13), 8.
Harris, M. (2006, August 25). Marketers, friends have ear of youth. National Post,
FP7.
Harris, J. L., Pomeranz, J. L., Lobstein, T., & Brownell, K. D. (2009). A crisis in the
marketplace: How food marketing contributes to childhood obesity and what
can be done. Annual Review of Public Health 30, 211–225.
Hart, P. J. (2003). Product placement for dummies. Marketing Magazine 108(17), 17.
Higgins, K. T. (1985). There’s gold in silver screen product plugs. Advertising Age,
19(21), 6.
Hite, C. F., & Hite, R. E. (1995). Reliance on brand by young children. Journal of
Market Research Society 37, 185–193.
House of Commons Canada (2007). Healthy weights for healthy kids. Report of the
Standing Committee on Health. Rob Merrifield, MP (Chair). Ottawa. Retrieved
September 30, 2010 from http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePublication.
aspx?SourceId=199309.
Hudson, S. & Hudson, D. (2006). Branded entertainment: A new advertising tech-
nique, or product placement in disguise? Journal of Marketing Management
22(5–6), 489–504.
Hudson, S., Hudson, D., & Peloza, J. (2008). Meet the parents: A parents’ perspective
on product placement in children’s programming. Journal of Business Ethics
80(2), 289–304.
Jeffery, B. (2006). The Supreme Court of Canada’s appraisal of the 1980 ban on
advertising to children in Québec: Implications for “misleading” advertising
elsewhere. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 39(1), 321–360.
Jeffery, B. (2008). Exhorting Gen-XS to XL, cheating at child’s play: Their health,
our laws. In J. Greenberg & C. Elliott (Eds.), Communication in question:
Competing perspectives on controversial issues in communication studies (pp.
69–80). Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson Education.
Kaikati, A. M., & Kaikati, J. G. (2004). Stealth marketing: How to reach consumers
surreptitiously. California Management Review 46(4), 6–22.
Karrh, J. A., McKee, K. B., & Pardun, C. J. (2003). Practitioners’ evolving views
on product placement effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research 43(2),
138–149.
Kunkel, D. (1988). The evolution of children’s television regulatory policy. Journal
of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 31, 367–389.
Laczniak, R. N., & Palan, K. M. (2004). Under the influence. Marketing Research,
(Spring), 16(1), 35–39.
Lafayette, J. (2004). Reopening the door to product placement. TelevisionWeek

23(37), 2.
Lewis, N. (2005, January 1). Video games lucrative target for advertisers. Calgary
Herald, D1.
Lindstrom, M. (2008). Buyology: Truth and lies about why we buy. New York: Crown
Publishing.
Linn, S., & Novosat, C. L. (2008). Calories for sale: Food marketing to children in the
twenty-first century. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science 615, 133–155.
Lutfiyya, M. N., Garcia, R., Dankwa, C. M., Young, T., & Lipsky, S. (2008). Overweight
and obese prevalence rates in African and Hispanic children: An analysis of
data from the 2003–2004 National Survey of Children’s Health. The Journal of
the American Board of Family Medicine 21(3), 191–199.
McDonnell, J., & Drennan, J. (2010). Virtual product placement as a new approach to
measure effectiveness of placements. Journal of Promotion Management 16(1),
25–38.
McDonough, P. (2009, October 26). TV viewing among kids at an eight-year
high. Neilson Wire. Retrieved September 30, 2010 from http://blog.nielsen.com/
nielsenwire/media_entertainment/tv-viewing-among-kids-at-an-eight-year-high.
McKechnie, S. A., & Zhou, J. (2003). Product placement in movies: A compari-
son of Chinese and American consumers’ attitudes. International Journal of
Advertising 22, 349–374.
McNeal, J. J. (1987). Children as consumers: Insights and implication. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Moore, E. S. (2004). Children and the changing world of advertising. Journal of
Business Ethics 52(2), 161–167.
Morton, C. R., & Friedman, M. (2002). I saw it in the movies: Exploring the link
between product placement beliefs and reported usage behavior. Journal of
Current Issues and Research in Advertising 24(2), 33–40.
Munoz, L. (2007). Advertiser cash flows to indie film projects. Los Angeles Times,
June 1. Retrieved May 21, 2013 from http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jun/01/
business/fi-dove1
Nebenzahl, I. D., & Secunda, E. (1993). Consumers’ attitudes toward product
placement in movies. International Journal of Advertising 12(1), 1–11.
Nelson, M. R. (2002). Recall of brand placements in computer/video games. Journal

of Advertising Research 42(2), 80–92.
Piaget, J. (1970). The stages of the intellectual development of the child. In P. H.
Mussen (Ed.), Readings in child development and psychology. New York: Harper
and Row.
Pine, K., & Veasey, T. (2003). Conceptualising and assessing young children’s knowl-
edge of television advertising within a framework of implicit and explicit
knowledge. Journal of Marketing Management, Special Issue: Marketing to
Children 19(3–4), 459.
PQ Media (2010). Global branded entertainment marketing forecast 2010–2014.
Stamford, CT: Author.
PQ Media (2012). PQ Media global product placement spending forecast 2012–2016.
Stamford, CT: Author.
Romano, A. (2004). The new script for product placement. Broadcasting & Cable
134(4), 13.
Russell, C. A. (2002). Investigating the effectiveness of product placement in tele-
vision shows: The role of modality and plot connection congruence on brand
memory and attitude. Journal of Consumer Research 29(3), 306–318.
Schiller, G. (2005, March 23). Public service advocates find new roles in Hollywood.
Entertainment News Wire. Retrieved September 30, 2010 from http://www.
allbusiness.com.
Singh, N., Chao, M.C.H., & Kwon, I-W. G. (2006). A multivariate statistical approach
to socialization and consumer activities of young adults: A cross-cultural study
of ethnic groups in America. Marketing Management Journal 16(2), 67–80.
Story, M., & French, S. (2004). Food advertising and marketing directed at children
and adolescents in the U.S. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity 1(3), 1–17.
Sullivan, L. (2008, June 20). FCC is urged to clamp down on product placement.
Marketing Daily. Retrieved May 21, 2013 from http://www.mediapost.com/
publications/article/85040/#axzz2UJEFNfnE.
Sutherland, L. A., MacKenzie, T., Purvis, L. A., & Dalton, M. (2010). Prevalence of
food and beverage brands in movies: 1996–2005. Pediatrics 125, 468–474.
Tiwsakul, R., Hackley, C., & Szmigin, I. (2005). Explicit, non-integrated prod-
uct placement in British television programmes. International Journal of
Advertising 24(1), 95–111.
Treise, D., Weigold, M. F., Conna, J., & Garrison, H. (1994). Ethics in advertising:
Ideological correlates of consumer perceptions. Journal of Advertising 23(3),
695–743.
Vranica, S., & Brown, E. (2010, February 11). Giants ally to promote family TV. Wall
Street Journal, B5.
Walsh, D., & Gentile D. A. (2002). Slipping under the radar: Advertising and the
mind. In L. Riley & I. Obot (Eds.), Drinking it in: Alcohol marketing and young
people (pp. 1–19). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
Wiles, M. A., & Danielova, A. (2009). The worth of product placement in successful
films: An event study analysis. Journal of Marketing 73(4), 44–63.

Hudson 2013

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hudson 2013

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Florida Atlantic University]

On: 17 November 2014, At: 12:45

Journal of Food Products Marketing

Measuring the Impact of Product

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10454446.2013.724370

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Measuring the Impact of Product Placement

University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Recent marketing literature has called for more research that

KEYWORDS product placement, digital brand integration, adver-

Address correspondence to Simon Hudson, Director and Endowed Chair, Center of

as brand placement, the practice has emerged as one of the fastest-growing

placement and advertising to children, details the methods used to measure

Hour. A second wave of product placement emerged in 1982, when Reese’s

placements are not labeled as advertisements and therefore may be viewed

THE INFLUENCE OF PRODUCT PLACEMENT ON CHILDREN

Children in North America are heavy television viewers; consequently,

effects on child viewers’ role expectations, values, and worldviews (Haefner,

objectives of decision-makers (d’Astous & Chartier, 2000). Certain academics

TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics by Product Placement Group

No Product Unhealthy Product Healthy Product

3rd (7) 20.0% (15) 42.9% (13) 37.1%

20-minute segment but with different “unhealthy” products digitally inserted.

Frito-Lay Cheetos were strategically placed throughout the show. Finally,

TABLE 2 Product Placement Recall (Aided)

No Product Unhealthy Product Healthy Product

Did you see this product Yes No Yes No Yes No

TABLE 3 Choice of Snacks and Drinks

No Product Unhealthy Product Healthy Product

Fruit Gushers (17) 44.7 (63) 56.2 (48) 69.6

Pure Life Water (11) 28.2 (13) 11.4 (7) 10.0

TABLE 4 Regression Coefficients of Snack Choice

Fruit Gushers Reese’s Pieces Smarties Cheetos

166 165 192 181

Snack/Drink N Coeff. (SE) Coeff. (SE) Coeff. (SE) Coeff. (SE)

Constant 2.59 (6.93) −107.67 (24182.89) −67.88 (42243.54) −18.86 (25934.03)

Fruit Gushers Reese’s Pieces Smarties Cheetos

166 165 192 181

Snack/Drink N Coeff. (SE) Coeff. (SE) Coeff. (SE) Coeff. (SE)

TABLE 5 Regression Coefficients of Drink Choice

Coke Pepsi Milk 2 Go

182 172 163

Snack/Drink N Coeff. (SE) Coeff. (SE) Coeff. (SE)

Constant −11.36 (7.69) 16.84 (9.41)∗ 2.95 (20.74)

Coke Pepsi Milk 2 Go

182 172 163

Snack/Drink N Coeff. (SE) Coeff. (SE) Coeff. (SE)

Opinions About the Show

Fruit Reese’s Smarties Cheetos Coke Pepsi Milk

Coeff. Coeff. Coeff. Coeff. Coeff. Coeff. Coeff.

Constant .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00∗ 19.09

Fruit Reese’s Smarties Cheetos Coke Pepsi Milk

Coeff. Coeff. Coeff. Coeff. Coeff. Coeff. Coeff.

The regression analysis shows that the strongest predictor variable in

referenced earlier suggesting that there is an advantage to acquainting chil-

Limitations of this study need to be acknowledged. The respondents were

a general failure to differentiate among media vehicles, so future research

Berg, C. (2008). Kids and consumerism. Western Parent 13(4), 5.

response to product placement. Journal of Advertising 39(1), 83–96.

Lafayette, J. (2004). Reopening the door to product placement. TelevisionWeek

Nelson, M. R. (2002). Recall of brand placements in computer/video games. Journal

You might also like