The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0309-0566.htm

EJM
55,2 Effectiveness of brand placements
in music videos on viewers’ brand
memory, brand attitude and
420 behavioral intentions
Received 25 August 2019 Davit Davtyan
Revised 17 April 2020
5 July 2020
Department of Management and Accountancy,
Accepted 10 July 2020 University of North Carolina Asheville, Asheville, North Carolina, USA
Isabella Cunningham
Stan Richards School of Advertising and Public Relations,
The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA, and
Armen Tashchian
Department of Marketing and Professional Sales, Kennesaw State University,
Kennesaw, Georgia, USA

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to investigate the effects of brand placement repetition in music videos on
consumers’ memory, brand attitudes and behavioral intentions, as well as, explores the effective frequency
needed to achieve optimal advertising impact.
Design/methodology/approach – The proposed hypotheses and research questions were tested using
an experimental approach. Participants watched a block of music videos containing various levels of brand
placement repetitions. Afterward, participants completed a questionnaire designed to measure memory,
brand attitudes and behavioral intentions.
Findings – At low levels (below 4–5 exposures), the repetition of a brand placement has a positive effect on
brand memory, brand attitudes, intentions to buy and to recommend the brand to others. However, further
increases in repetition had detrimental effects on brand attitudes and purchase intentions, but not on memory
measures. Additionally, the effects of brand placement repetition on brand attitudes and memory measures
were moderated by respondents’ brand familiarity.
Research limitations/implications – The effects of brand placements were measured through explicit
tests that refer to the placement event. Researchers are encouraged to test suggested propositions by using
implicit tests.
Practical implications – The results of this study can serve as guidance for marketing practitioners on
optimal ways to integrate their brands into the contents of mass media programming.
Originality/value – Despite the increasing usage of music videos in marketing promotions, limited
scholarship explores the effects of placing consumer brands in this promising medium. Current research
addresses this gap and contributes both to brand placement literature and scholarship on advertising repetition.
Keywords Advertising effectiveness, Brand familiarity, Advertising repetition, Brand placement,
Music videos
Paper type Research paper

European Journal of Marketing

Vol. 55 No. 2, 2021
pp. 420-443
Introduction
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0309-0566
The effect of advertising repetition on consumers is one of the central issues in advertising
DOI 10.1108/EJM-08-2019-0670 research. Specifically, determining the optimal number of exposures to a stimulus needed for
effective persuasion has been the focus of marketing researchers for several decades now Brand
(Krugman, 1965; Mitchell and Olson, 1977; Cacioppo and Petty, 1979; Alpert et al., 1983; placements in
Nordhielm, 2002). Apart from the obvious theoretical interest, finding the number of
exposures to achieve certain consumer responses, also has important practical implications.
music videos
Given the high costs of media buys, intensive product competition and an abundance of
media options, it is important to find the most effective ad frequency to achieve the
maximum advertising response. The right frequency of exposures is of critical importance
in designing efficient promotional campaigns. The issue of repetition is even more 421
imperative because modern advertisers have to increase the frequency of their messages to
counter the decreasing ratings across all media (Simulmedia, 2017). Although a significant
body of research exists on traditional advertising formats such as TV commercials and print
ads (Schmidt and Eisend, 2015; Campbell and Keller, 2003), there is limited scholarship on
the effects of repetition of nontraditional advertising forms such as brand placements in
music videos.
Over the past century, brand placements have developed into a mature, multi-billion-
dollar industry with its own rules and distinct players. Research has shown brand
placements not only showcase how brands are being used in their natural settings but might
also help to heighten the brand memory of target consumers. Such placements elevate
consumer’s positive brand attitudes and even influence their behavior (Davtyan and
Cunningham, 2017; Uribe, 2016; Williams et al., 2011).
One of the main advantages of brand placements over traditional commercials is that the
commercial intent of brand placements is less obvious (van Reijmersdal, 2011). As such,
viewers are less likely to activate their persuasion knowledge and adjust their behavior
when being exposed to brand placements (Cowley and Barron, 2008; Davtyan and
Cunningham, 2017; Dens et al., 2012). This effect might be even stronger in the context of
music videos, a fast-growing media for brand placements, which experienced considerable
growth during the past decade (PQ Media, 2018). Brands placed in music videos are
evaluated by viewers as more authentic compared to placements in scripted TV programs
and films featuring fictional characters (Burkhalter et al., 2017). Thus, the effect of repetition
on the various outcomes of brand placements in music videos, and their effective frequencies
might be different from that of traditional advertising or brand placements in other media.
Furthermore, as music videos are shorter in length as compared to movies or television
programs, it is possible to expose viewers to multiple placements of the same brand across
several episodes within one viewing session. This is an important consideration because a
repetitive exposure to a brand placement within one video episode or a short piece of
narrative, might reveal the commercial intent of the placement and consequently attenuates
its effectiveness.
Several researchers have suggested that advertising for familiar brands may not work in
the same way as advertising for unfamiliar brands (Campbell and Keller, 2003; Delgado-
Ballester et al., 2012; Rhee and Jung, 2019). Additionally, other studies have examined the
effect of brand familiarity on advert repetition in the context of television, internet and
magazine advertising (Campbell and Keller, 2003; Dahlen, 2001; Cox and Cox, 1988).
However, only two studies have examined brand familiarity in the context of brand
placements in fictional text and video games (Avramova et al., 2017; Martí-Parreño et al.,
2017). To our knowledge, no research has tested this effect in the context of brand
placements in music videos.
The present study is designed to test whether repeated exposure to a brand placed in
music videos can result in positive effects on consumers. Unlike past studies on brand
placement repetition that studied repetition only within one video episode or one piece of
EJM narrative (Homer, 2009; Avramova et al., 2017), this study examines the effects of repetition
55,2 across several different videos and investigates the effective frequency needed to achieve the
optimal advertising impact. Additionally, in contrast to prior research that is mostly
focused on one or two measures of brand placement effectiveness, the present study
investigates all traditional measures of brand placement effectiveness. These include
unaided recall, aided recall, recognition, attitude toward the brand and purchase
422 intention, as well as word-of-mouth (WOM) intention, the last of which has been used in
the context of traditional and online advertising (Kang et al., 2020; De Keyzer et al.,
2017), but has not yet been thoroughly investigated in the context of brand placements.
Finally, this research examines the possibility that brand familiarity might moderate
the relationship between brand placement repetition, brand memory and brand
attitudes.

Brand placements in music videos

The modern advertising landscape is becoming ever more complex. High levels of
media segmentation, increasing ad clutter, the adoption of applications that allow
viewers to skip ads and rising costs, have had a negative effect on the efficiency of
traditional advertising methods (Guo et al., 2019; Williams et al., 2011;
Balasubramanian et al., 2006). As such, contemporary marketers are in search of more
cost-effective channels for their promotions and the inclusion of brands in the content
of mass media programing. This practice is known as brand placement and has
become a popular promotional format (Russell, 2019; Gillespie et al., 2018). According
to Jones (2015), brand placements in music videos yield among the highest returns on
investment in the entertainment marketing industry.
Avery and Ferraro (2000) suggest that music videos create strong symbolic
environments and the insertion of brands in such settings has a great potential to influence
the behavior of viewers. The integration of a brand into a music video of a positively
evaluated artist might heighten evaluations of the brand, as excitement associated with
music video transfers to objects presented in the video (Schemer et al., 2008).
The number of views of popular music videos usually reaches several hundred million
viewers, if not billions. Although there appears to be a huge potential for placing brands in
music videos, very few studies have examined the effectiveness of brand placements in this
medium (for exceptions, see Krishen and Sirgy, 2016; Schemer et al., 2008). However, with
the emergence of online video sharing platforms such as YouTube and Vevo, music videos
are gaining in popularity. According to Edmond (2014), advances in digital technologies
have allowed music bands to produce their own videos and distribute them outside of
traditional networks at a lower cost. Distribution of music videos through online channels
makes it easier for viewers to access the content and share it with their peers. Greater access
to music videos results in higher levels of exposure, thereby making them a viable vehicle
for exposing viewers to brand placements. Such benefits are particularly important for
younger consumer groups.
In fact, about half of all modern rap music videos contain some brand references (Martin
and McCracken, 2001). According to PQ Media (2018), the placement of brands in music
videos experienced double-digit growth over the past several years. This is mainly because
of the increasing popularity of music video uploads on YouTube, which is turning into a
multi-billion-dollar industry. Given these advantages, it is not surprising that many
contemporary marketers consider brand placements in music videos as a viable alternate in
their promotional mix. Music videos are a promising medium for placing consumer brands
and will be used in this research as a setting to study the effect of repetition on brand Brand
placements. placements in
music videos
Repetition of brand placements
Several authors have called for more research on the effects of repeated exposures to brand
placements; however, surprisingly, very few scholarly works exist on this particular issue
(Avramova et al., 2017; Martí-Parreño et al., 2017; Balasubramanian et al., 2006) and the
available findings are far from being generalizable. For example, Cauberghe and De
423
Pelsmacker (2010) investigated the effects of brand placement repetition in advergames, and
posit that high level of game repetition does not improve brand recall, but has a negative
effect on brand attitude. By contrast, Martí-Parreño et al. (2017) found a positive effect of
brand repetition in video games on brand recall and recognition. Avramova et al. (2017)
examined the repetition of brand placements in a fictional narrative and conclude that
repetition only influences attitudes toward unfamiliar brands. While useful, these findings
are not directly applicable to brand placements in videos, given the contextual differences.
Homer (2009) examined the effects of brand placement repetition within the same
program. The results indicated that when the number of exposures to subtle brand
placements increases from a low (one exposure) to a moderate level (three exposures), brand
attitudes remain the same. By contrast, repeated exposure (three exposures) to prominent
brand placements within the same program, have a negative effect on brand attitudes. In
another study, Matthes et al. (2012) did not find any negative effects due to the repetition of
prominent brand placements on brand liking, even after 30 exposures. These are the only
two studies that have been conducted in the context of videos.
Surprisingly, there are no studies that investigate the effects of brand placement
repetition in music videos. This is despite the fact that brand placement in music videos has
a number of advantages over such placement in other media. Generally, music videos are
shorter than most movies or television programs, and as such, consumers are likely to watch
more of music videos, as opposed to movies or television shows (Burkhalter et al., 2017).
During any given session, consumers will watch several music videos, creating the
opportunity for repeated exposures to a placed brand. According to Unnava and Burnkrant
(1991), exposure to different ads for the same brand significantly increases the effectiveness
of advertising, when compared to subjects’ exposure to the same version of the ad. In a
similar vein, it is logical to assume that featuring a brand across several music videos might
be more effective than repetition within a single video episode. Specifically, previous studies
have primarily manipulated the number of brand placements within one video episode,
artificially increasing or decreasing the number of exposures. By contrast, the present study
aims to investigate the effects of repeated exposure to the same brand throughout several
music videos and to identify the number of exposures needed to maximize the consumer’s
brand recall, attitudes and behavioral intentions.

Hypothesis development
Prior research on brand placements was mainly focused on cognitive (i.e. recall and
recognition), attitudinal (i.e. brand attitude) and behavioral (i.e. purchase intention)
measures of placement effectiveness (Williams et al., 2011; Balasubramanian et al., 2006). In
fact, according to Karrh, McKee and Pardun (2003), marketing practitioners commonly use
these three groups of measures to evaluate the effectiveness of brand placements. Thus,
depending on its specific execution, as well as certain brand and context factors, brand
placement can affect cognition, attitudes, as well as the behavior of certain consumer
segments.
EJM Memory measures
55,2 There is significant agreement among researchers about the effects of stimulus repetition on
memory for traditional advertising formats. Burke and Srull (1988) show that in case of the
absence of ads for competing brands, repetition positively affects recall. Zielske (1959)
claims that concentrated repetition of a stimulus heighten recall, while spaced exposure
leads to a moderate increase in recall, but with a longer-lasting effect. In the same vein,
424 Yaveroglu and Donthu (2008) demonstrate that the repetition of banner advertising, in
varying online environments, leads to higher brand recall. According to Schmidt and Eisend
(2015), the effects of repetition on the recall can be explained by the stimulus-reaction theory.
After exposure to a new stimulus, individuals create associations and link this new
information with the information that already exists in their memory. Repetition of the
stimulus increases the number of existing associations and as a result, respondents retrieve
information easier, resulting in higher recall (Fuentes et al., 1994). Furthermore, several
studies found that when subjects are being exposed to repetitive advertisements, they recall
information better as repetition increases the redundancy of the information, which, in turn,
positively affects learning (Pechmann and Stewart, 1988; Rethans et al., 1986). Overall, it can
be concluded that the repetition of a stimulus heightens brand memory. Additionally, it is
logical that such an increase cannot continue indefinitely and at a certain point the effects of
repetition will reach a plateau.
There are varied opinions as to the number of exposures needed to maximize brand
memory (Schmidt and Eisend, 2015). In his review, Tellis (2004) separates the existing
research into two competing schools of thought. The first group consists of the minimalists,
who believe that one to three exposers are enough. The second group represents the
repetitions, who argue that more than three repetitions are needed. While the meta-analysis
conducted by Schmidt and Eisend (2015) found support for the existence of the second
group, the discussion on this topic is far from being settled.
Among the few studies that tested the effects of brand placement repetition on brand recall,
Cauberghe and De Pelsmacker (2010) found that a high level of game repetition (four repetitions)
does not improve brand recall over a low level of repetition (two repetitions). However, this effect
could be different in the context of brand placements in music videos. The combination of songs
with imagery in music videos presents sensory-rich environments, and according to the limited
capacity model (Lang, 2000), under such conditions, consumers cannot heed to every stimulus
they are being exposed to. They may, therefore, for a period of time, focus only on a particular
stimulus, which they perceive as more important (e.g. music), while simultaneously ignoring
other stimuli (e.g. brand placement). Thus, for brand placements in music videos, a higher level of
repetition (compared to placements in advergames or traditional advertisements) might be
required to achieve the ceiling effect. Based on previous discussions, the following hypotheses
and research questions are offered:

H1. Initial exposures to brand placements in music videos will increase the level of
a) unaided brand recall, b) aided brand recall and c) brand recognition; however, after a
certain number of exposures, additional exposures will not affect brand memory.
RQ1. What is the required number of exposures to brand placements in music videos to
reach a ceiling effect for a) unaided recall, b) aided recall and c) recognition?

Attitudinal measures
Changes in brand attitudes are another major indicator used to assess the effectiveness of
advertising campaigns. Currently, there are two dominant approaches to the study of the
effects of ad repetition on attitudinal outcomes (i.e. brand attitude). The first approach is Brand
based on the modified two-factor theory offered by Cacioppo and Petty (1979). The theory placements in
states that in case of exposure to a stimulus, two opposing psychological processes are being
activated: positive habituation and tedium. The attitudinal response toward a stimulus
music videos
depends on the number of positive and negative thoughts that are generated as a result of
this exposure. Initial repetitions increase positive habituation, as they create more positive
thoughts and as a consequence, the attitudinal response is more positive. However, with
further repetitions, subjects might feel irritated and bored and tedium dominates. At this 425
point, every subsequent exposure to the stimulus has a negative effect on the attitudinal
response. So, the relationship between attitudinal response and number of exposures follows
an inverted U-shape curve.
The second framework rests on the perceptual fluency model (Bornstein and D’Agostino,
1994), which states that prior exposure to a stimulus increases the perceptual fluency by
which subjects process consecutive exposures to the same stimulus. As a result, subjects
might misattribute the increased fluency of information processing to the stimulus and
positive attitudinal response will increase with the number of exposures. According to
Nordhielm (2002), the perceptual fluency model is more appropriate for studying repeated
exposures to short and not persuasive stimuli. Following this line of reasoning, it can be
suggested that when exposed to brand placements in music videos, the persuasive intent of
which is not obvious, subjects might act in line with the predictions of the perceptual fluency
model. However, repeated exposures to brand placements during a short period of time
might cannibalize the “subtleness” of persuasive intent, and consumers might activate their
defensive mechanisms and process these messages more critically as compared to situations
when the persuasive intent is not obvious (Friestad and Wright, 1994). Additionally, for
many viewers (especially young individuals), music videos are an important source of
information about society and culture. They learn about trends, lifestyles and consumerism
based on the content they see on the screen (Burkhalter et al., 2017). Hence, it is reasonable to
assume that consumers will evaluate the semantic content of such stimuli conceptually and
under such conditions, the two-factor theory is applicable (Nordhielm, 2002). Thus, the
following hypothesis and research question are suggested:

H2. Initial exposures to brand placements in music videos will increase the attitude
toward the brand; however, after a certain number of exposures, additional
exposures will negatively affect brand attitudes.
RQ2. What is the required number of exposures to brand placements in music videos to
reach the highest level of attitudes toward the brand?

Behavioral measures
Scholarly works that address the effects of ad repetition on consumer behavior (e.g.
purchase or WOM intentions) are limited and results are contradictory. Findings of the
experiments conducted by Belch (1982) and Mitchell and Olson (1977) suggest that purchase
intentions are not affected by the level of advertising exposure. In contrast, Sawyer (1973)
claims that repeating supportive advertising is more likely to affect the purchase intentions
of current users of the brand, rather than that of nonusers. Furthermore, Ray and Sawyer
(1971), argue that the repetition of soft-sell adverts increases purchase intentions, while the
repetition of hard-sell ads does not. As brand placements in music videos can be regarded as
soft-sell advertising (Hitchon et al., 1994), it is only logical to suggest that repeated exposure
to brand placements might positively affect purchase intentions. On the other hand, as
EJM excessive repetition of an ad might be perceived by consumers as a signal of inferior quality
55,2 of the advertised product (Kirmani, 1997), the following hypotheses and research questions
are offered:

H3. Initial exposures to brand placements in music videos will increase purchase
intention of the brand; however, after a certain number of exposures, additional
exposures will negatively affect purchase intentions.
426
RQ3. What is the required number of exposures to brand placements in music videos to
reach the highest level of purchase intention for the brand?
H4. Initial exposures to brand placements in music videos will increase the WOM
intention of the viewers; however, after a certain number of exposures, additional
exposures will negatively affect the predisposition of subjects to engage in WOM.
RQ4. What is the required number of exposures to brand placements in music videos to
reach the highest level of viewers’ WOM?

Effects of brand familiarity

According to Lang (2000), when consumers are exposed to a stimulus, they store
the message by creating associations between new and existing information. The more
associations an individual creates for a piece of information, the better it is stored in the
memory and the easier it is to retrieve it later. For familiar brands, people already have
various associations stored in the memory; thus, in case of exposure to such brands, it will
be easier to link the incoming information with the existing associative network (Campbell
and Keller, 2003). For less familiar brands, the existing associations are limited; thus, the
information will be less thoroughly stored in the memory and might not be retrieved later
(Lang, 2000).
In the context of brand placements, well-known brands can be recalled even when they
are displayed in the background of a scene (Gupta and Lord, 1998), as they attract more
visual attention (Fazio et al., 1989). However, viewers might not pay attention to similar
placements of less familiar brands, and higher levels of brand placement repetition might be
needed to elicit brand memory. For example, for well-known brands such as Coca-Cola, one
exposure to the bottle might be enough to recognize the brand, while for less known brands
more exposures might be needed for viewers to detect the brand. Considering these
arguments, it is hypothesized that:

H5. The effect of brand placement repetition in music videos on a) unaided recall,
b) aided recall and c) recognition is moderated by the individual’s familiarity with a
brand. Specifically, the repetition of brand placements has a stronger effect on
unaided recall, aided recall and recognition for individuals with moderate to high
levels of brand familiarity.
As consumers have certain associations regarding attributes of a familiar brand, they are
likely to store new information about it under the brand’s existing node. As a result,
consumers should follow “less extensive, more confirmation-based processing” by
confirming existing brand attitudes (Campbell and Keller, 2003, p. 293). In a similar vein, it
can be speculated that exposure to a familiar brand in a music video will follow the “under
the radar” of viewers, delaying the wear-out effect.
By contrast, when individuals are exposed to a novel stimulus, they attempt to learn and
evaluate the received information (Sujan, 1985). Thus, when consumers are exposed to a less
familiar brand in a music video, they are more likely to process the brand information more Brand
deliberately to learn about the featured brand and form impressions. Under such conditions, placements in
the repeated exposure to the brand might reveal the commercial intent of the brand
placement, thus activating early wear-out. Considering these conflicting arguments, the
music videos
following exploratory hypothesis is proposed:

H6. The effect of brand placement repetition in music videos on brand attitudes is
moderated by the individual’s familiarity with a brand. 427
The following section presents the methodology and design of the study.

Methodology
The proposed hypotheses and research questions were tested using an experimental
approach. The following sections provide a comprehensive review of the sample, the
procedures, stimuli development and measures used in the study.

Sample and procedure

In total, 576 subjects were recruited from various undergraduate classes at a major
southwestern university in the USA and were asked to participate in the study. After
excluding subjects who were familiar with the selected stimuli (music videos), 484
respondents were retained. The study subjects were given access to a qualtrics
questionnaire hyperlink.
Of the respondents, 61% were female and 96% were in the 18–24 age range. Participants
are self-reported as Caucasian (58%), Hispanic American (19%), Asian American (18%),
African American (3%) and other (2%). Further, 3% of the participants stated that they
watched music videos every day, 14% watched music videos several times per week, 15%
at least once a week, 21% several times per month and the remaining 31% once a month.
The selection of the convenience sample of undergraduate students for this research is
justified by three main factors. First, according to Peterson and Merunka (2014, p. 1036), it is
appropriate to use college students as research subjects if “they represent a population of
interest.” In fact, based on the findings of the 2015 Music Fan report produced by Vevo,
millennials are the main audience of music videos. Moreover, music videos are the third
most popular video content watched by millennials online, which is important because this
consumer group prefers streaming over traditional platforms such as television (Statista,
2015). Second, college students represent a homogenous group in terms of age and
education. This homogeneity decreases variability in measurements, thus increases the
overall validity of the research (Lynch, 1982). Finally, many researchers claim that
millennials are going to become the largest and the most influential consumer group in US
history (Fromm and Garton, 2013). Thus, studying their response to nontraditional
advertising forms such as brand placements might provide interesting insights into their
future behaviors.
To control for demand biases, the respondents were told that they were participating in a
study to evaluate the quality of music videos (Schemer et al., 2008). After signing the
informed consent form, subjects were randomly assigned to one of five groups (a control
group and four treatment groups (Table 1) and were asked to watch a total of eight music
videos of 4 min each.
Depending on the group, subjects were exposed to a different number of placements of
the brand tested in this research. There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) between
groups in terms of five demographic variables (gender, age, ethnicity, income and
EJM education). After watching the music videos, respondents were asked to complete a
55,2 questionnaire designed to measure their recall and recognition and the attitudinal and
behavioral effects of the brand placements.

Stimuli development
When creating the stimuli, recommendations from prior studies were taken into
428 consideration. A list of the most visible brand placements in top music videos of 2014 was
created, based on information provided by Concave Brand Tracking. Concave Brand
Tracking is a company that tracks the appearance of brands in various forms of
entertainment (e.g. movies, TV programs, music videos).
The product categories of selected brands vary from fashion clothing (e.g. Versace and
Chanel) and sports apparel (e.g. Adidas, Air Jordan and Nike) to cars (e.g. Chevrolet, Cadillac
and Rolls-Royce) and electronics (e.g. Beats, Apple and Samsung). Based on
recommendations by Alpert et al. (1983), only brands that might reasonably be purchased
by students were selected for further consideration, thus automobiles and expensive fashion
brands were excluded from the list. Additionally, following the arguments of Krishen and
Sirgy (2016), to avoid an artificial gender effect, brands that were not gender-neutral were
excluded as well. Specifically, as most of the existing placements of sport clothing brands
were targeting male consumers, they were excluded from final consideration. These filters
narrow the original list of products to brands of electronic products that are gender-neutral
and within the budget constraints of undergraduate students. In 2014, the most visible
brand of electronic products that appeared in music videos was Beats, which was present in
38 music videos and had high logo visibility (Concave Brand Tracking, 2015). As such, beats
was selected as the focal brand for the present research.
From the list of 38 music videos that contain placements of the Beats brand, only those
that appeared in the Billboard Top 100 list were selected for the creation of the stimuli. This
was done to ensure that the chosen videos were comparable in quality. Additionally, videos
that had a nonstandard length and were either too short (below 3 min) or too long (above 5
and a half min) were excluded. Previous studies suggest that the prominence of brand
placements and the likeability of videos where brands are being placed, affect the
effectiveness of brand placements (Verhellen et al., 2013; Dens et al., 2012; Cowley and
Barron, 2008). Thus, to control for the effects of these variables, the remaining 11 videos
were pretested on a sample of 27 respondents to ensure similar likeability of the videos and
comparable prominence of the placements. As a result, the list was narrowed down to eight
videos (Table 2).
Several prior studies on brand placements considered one to three repetitions as a low-
frequency condition, and above three repetitions as a high-frequency condition (Homer,
2009; Cauberghe and De Pelsmacker, 2010). As such, it was decided to manipulate exposure
frequencies as one, three, five and seven exposures. Moreover, given that an average
YouTube session lasts about 40 min (which is close to the length of eight music videos),

Group Number Brand placement repetition

Table 1.
Control Group (n = 102) No exposure
Sample size and Group 1 (n = 96) One exposure
brand placement Group 2 (n = 94) Three exposures
repetition for Group 3 (n = 96) Five exposures
research groups Group 4 (n = 96) Seven exposures
 Mean (SD)
Artist/Title # 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Likeability Prominence

Ciara/Dance Like We’re Making Love 1 0.59 0.11 0.45 0.64 0.42 0.92 0.59
1.58 0.95 5.56* 4.00 (1.14) 3.96 (0.97)
Jidenna ft. Kendrick Lamar/Classic Man 2 0.12
0.47
0.17 0.11
0.16 0.41 0.00
2.38* 0.42 5.26* 3.96 (1.19) 3.81 (0.87)
Prince Royce/Back it Up 3 0.73 0.61 0.32 0.53 0.30 0.80 0.47
1.68 0.83 5.32* 3.74 (1.46) 3.93 (1.00)
Ed Sheeran/Don’t 4 0.98 0.86 0.26 0.27 0.00 0.57 0.17
2.28* 0.59 5.67* 3.63 (1.60) 3.85 (0.81)
Pia Mia ft. Chris Brown/Do it Again 5 1.26 1.12 1.35 0.10
0.25 0.27
0.11
2.18* 0.28 4.43* 3.59 (1.24) 3.78 (1.09)
Dej Loaf ft. Big Sean/Buck Up 6 0.69 0.57 0.00
0.25
0.38 0.54 0.16
2.09* 0.56 5.19* 3.74 (1.60) 3.85 (0.94)
Dierks Bently/Drunk on a Plane 7
0.32
0.43
0.95
1.17
1.45
0.91
0.41
2.48* 0.00 4.09* 4.11 (1.39) 3.70 (1.10)
Kid Ink and Chris Brown/Show Meb 8 4.28* 4.04* 2.92* 2.44* 2.75* 2.73* 4.13* 2.36* 0.42 4.41* 2.74 (1.02) 3.81 (0.88)
b
Ed Sheeran/Sing 9 0.36 0.22
0.43
0.69
0.94
0.40 0.65
4.00* 2.59* 8.41* 3.89 (1.09) 4.33 (0.73)
Brantley Gilbert/Bottoms Upc 10 1.17 1.04 0.38 0.09 0.00 0.36 1.36
2.53* 1.27 4.28* 3.59 (1.42) 3.70 (1.03)
Rixton/Me and My Broken Heartb 11
0.09
0.21 1.39
1.01 1.28
0.73 0.22
4.04*
0.43
1.18 4.03 (1.31) 2.66 (0.73)
a
Notes: *p < 0.05, Upper diagonal values represent prominence t-values. Lower diagonal values represent likeability t-values, bEliminated video due to different
likeability and prominence mean values, cRandomly dropped the video from the final set

t-values of pairwise
Table 2.
placements in

429
music videos
Brand

pre-test videosa
prominence of the 11
likeability and
comparisons for
EJM increasing the number of exposures above seven during one session might be impractical
55,2 (Omnicore, 2020). Finally, one of the selected videos was randomly dropped and the
remaining seven videos were used for the creation of the final stimuli. All chosen videos
contain visual placements of Beats headphones with an average brand exposure between 2
and 3 sec.
The stimulus created for each treatment group contained eight music videos. The focal
430 brand was placed in none to seven videos as shown in Table 2. For example, subjects in
Group 3 watched eight videos of which five videos contained a placement of the focal brand
and the remaining three videos were filler videos. The quality of videos containing the focal
brand placement and that of the filler videos was comparable, as the filler videos were
randomly selected from the same list of top 100 Billboard clips and had similar likeability
scores. Participants assigned to the control group watched a block of eight filler videos. To
avoid order biases, the sequence of videos in the block was randomized. The filler videos did
not contain the placement of the focal brand. Finally, to avoid possible noise effects that
might be caused by prior exposure to the selected music videos, all respondents who were
familiar with the selected music videos were excluded from the study.

Measures
All scales used in the research were adopted from published studies in peer-reviewed
marketing journals. All scales have a Cronbach’s alpha of over 0.80, indicating good internal
consistency of the scales (Table 3).
Unaided recall was defined as whether a participant was able to correctly name the brand
shown during the program or commercial break without any external clues or aids.
Specifically, the question asked, “please indicate all brands that you recall having seen while
watching the music videos.” The unaided recall was subsequently recoded for the target
brand only (i.e. beats) using a dichotomous item (unaided recall = 1, no unaided recall = 0).
Aided recall was defined as whether a participant was able to correctly name the brand
after he/she was prompted with the corresponding product category. Specifically, the
question asked, “please indicate all headphone brand(s) that you recall having seen while
watching the music videos.” The aided recall was subsequently recoded using a
dichotomous item (aided recall = 1, no aided recall = 0). To eliminate false recall, collected
scores were adjusted according to the procedure suggested by Brennan and Babin (2004).
Specifically, aided recall results were decreased by the percentage of respondents who
recalled seeing the focal brand after watching music videos that did not feature it.
Recognition referred to whether a participant was able to select a certain brand from a list
of other brands and indicated having seen it during the program or commercial break. In
particular, the question asked was: “thinking about the music videos that you’ve just
watched, please indicate if you remember seeing any of the following brands.” It was
recoded then with a dichotomous item (recognition = 1, no recognition = 0). To eliminate
false recognition, collected scores were adjusted according to the procedure suggested by
Brennan and Babin (2004).

Table 3. Scale name No. of items No. of scale points Mean SD Cronbach’s alpha
Means, standard Attitude toward the brand 6 7 4.91 0.82 0.93
deviations and Purchase intention 3 7 4.01 1.06 0.86
reliabilities of scale WOM intention 6 6 3.65 0.74 0.94
items Brand familiarity 3 5 3.54 0.64 0.84
Attitude toward the brand was conceptualized as consumers’ overall evaluation of a Brand
brand and was measured using the modified Maheswaran and Sternthal (1990) brand placements in
attitude scale. A six-item, seven-point semantic differential scale was used to measure a
consumer’s attitude toward the brand. Sample items include “good-bad,” “a product I
music videos
will try – a product I will not try” and “as good as competing brands- not as good as
competing brands.”
Purchase intention was defined as the inclination of a consumer to buy a product of a
particular brand. It was measured using Baker and Churchill (1977) purchase intention
431
scale. Three 7-point Likert-type items anchored by 7 (yes, definitely) to 1 (no, definitely no),
were used to measure the intention of the respondent to purchase a brand. Measures
included the items “I would buy the product if I happened to see it in a store,” “I would
actively seek out the product in-store to buy it” and “would you actively seek out Beats
headphones in-store to buy it.”
WOM intention was defined as the extent to which a consumer speaks well about the
advertised product and expresses willingness to recommend it to others. It was measured
using the modified Price and Arnould (1999) WOM intentions scale. Six seven-point Likert-
type items anchored by 7 (yes, definitely) to 1 (definitely not), were used to measure the
intention to recommend the Beats brand. Measures included items such as “I would
recommend the Beats headphones to others,” “I would say positive things about the Beats
headphones to other people” and “I would write about Beats on my social networking sites.”
Brand repetition was defined as the number of times a respondent was exposed to the
placement of the focal brand and ranged from zero (control group) to seven.
Brand familiarity was defined as the number of brand-related experiences that
consumers have accumulated (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987). Brand familiarity was measured
using the Steenkamp et al. (2003) brand familiarity scale. A three-item, the five-point
semantic differential scale was used to assess the familiarity of respondents with the focal
brand. Example items include “this brand is very unfamiliar to me – this brand is very
familiar to me” and “I’m not at all knowledgeable about this brand – I’m very knowledgeable
about this brand.”

Data analysis and results

Given the dichotomous nature of the dependent variable, logistic regression analysis was
conducted to address hypotheses H1a, H1b and H1c. Multiple regressions analysis was
conducted to test the effects of repetition on brand attitudes, purchase intentions and WOM
intentions.

Analysis of memory effects

H1a, H1b and H1c proposed that as the number of exposures to brand placement increases,
the level of unaided recall and aided recall and recognition would increase accordingly. A
logistic regression analysis was conducted to predict different memory measures using
repetition as a predictor and brand familiarity as a moderator. The logistic regression
analysis included the simple effect and interaction effect hypotheses. The interaction
hypotheses were tested by including the dependent variable, the moderator variable and the
interaction (Baron and Kenny, 1986). To avoid potentially high multicollinearity with the
interaction term, the variables were centered and an interaction term between the repetition
and the attitude toward the brand was created.
Examination of Wald statistics indicated that repetition significantly contributed to
the prediction of all three memory measures. The measures are as follows: unaided recall
EJM (B = 0.18, Wald x 2(1) = 14.48, p <0.05), aided recall (B = 0.34, Wald x 2(1) = 14.03, p <0.05) and
55,2 recognition (B = 0.41, Wald x 2(1) = 14.32, p <0.05). These results are presented in Table 4.
Examination of the Exp (B) value for unaided recall indicates that when repetition is
raised by one unit the odds ratio is 1.21 times larger, and therefore respondents who have a
brand familiarity equal to the sample mean, are 1.21 times more likely to recall the brand
name without any hint (unaided recall). Similarly, when repetition is raised by one unit,
432 respondents who have brand familiarity equal to the sample mean, are 1.41 times more
likely to correctly recall the brand name with the given product category (aided recall) and
1.51 times more likely to recognize the brand. Results also revealed a significant interaction
effect between repetition and brand familiarity for all three memory measures (supporting
H5a, H5b and H5c), encouraging further examination to test the direction of the effects.
To explore the nature of the interaction effects, the spotlight analyzes were conducted
following the recommendations of Spiller et al. (2013). All spotlight analyzes were conducted
using PROCESS macro for SPSS developed by Hayes (2017). The results of the analyzes are
provided in Table 5. These results show that effects of repetition on unaided recall, aided
recall and recognition are higher for individuals who indicated moderate to high (equal or 1
standard deviation above the mean) levels of brand familiarity.
The results of the analyzes suggest a linear effect of repetition on both recall and
recognition measures, for the selected interval of repetitions. As such, it is not possible to
directly test RQ1a – RQ1c. However, a visual analysis of the repetition effects on memory
(Figures 1, 2 and 3) and the pairwise comparison of the results (Table 6) suggests the
possibility of a logarithmic relationship between repetition and learning/memory at
the higher levels of repetition (i.e. above 5). In fact, analysis of the Figures 1–3 implies that
the influence of repetition on memory decreases at high levels of repetition. Specifically, for
unaided recall, there is a significant drop in the effectiveness of repetition after five
exposures. For aided recall and recognition, the ceiling effect may be achieved after three
repetitions, as around 90% of the respondents recognized the focal brand or recalled it after
the appropriate hint. Overall, these results support H1a, H1b and H1c.

Analysis of attitudinal and behavioral measures

H2, H3 and H4 suggest that while initial exposures positively affect brand attitudes,
purchase intentions and WOM intentions; higher levels of exposure have a negative effect
on these measures. To test these nonlinear effects, a hierarchical regression analysis was
conducted to test the two models. The first model includes a linear term for the relationship
between the exposure level and the dependent variables. In the second model, a quadratic
term for the dependent variables was added. Table 6 illustrates the results of the
hierarchical regression analysis.

Coefficients Unaided recall Aided recall Recognition

Repetition (A) 0.18 (0.05)a 0.34 (0.09) 0.41 (0.11)

Brand familiarity (B) 0.25 (0.12) 0.71 (0.17) 0.63 (0.19)
C=A*B 0.12 (0.05) 0.32 (0.08) 0.22 (0.08)
Table 4. Wald A/B/C 14.48*/2.68/4.62* 14.03*/16.05*/15.01* 14.32*/11.47*/6.18*
Exp (B) – A/B/C 1.21/1.28/1.12 1.41/2.02/1.37 1.57/1.87/1.25
Logistic regression Nagellkerke R2 0.13 0.27 0.20
analysis of repetition Chi-square 38.01* 66.48* 42.89*
on brand placement
recall and recognition Note: aValues in parentheses represent the standard errors, *p < 0.05
Initially, only the repetition variable was included in the analysis (Model 1). Results confirm Brand
that brand placement repetition accounts for a significant amount of variance in brand placements in
attitudes (F (1, 482) = 4.90, p < 0.05), purchase intentions (F (1,482) = 7.28, p < 0.05) and
WOM intentions (F (1,154) = 5.92, p < 0.05). Next, the quadratic term was added to the
music videos
regression model (Model 2). The results show that the quadratic term of repetition accounted
for a significant incremental proportion of the variance for brand attitudes (DF (1, 481) =
4.72, p < 0.05) and purchase intentions (DF (1, 481) = 4.45, p < 0.05), but not for WOM
intentions. These results suggest that the effect of brand placement repetition on brand 433
attitudes and purchase intentions has an inverted-U shape. In contrast, repetition has a
linear effect on WOM intentions. Table 8 summarizes the descriptive statistics for different
repetition conditions for brand attitudes, purchase intentions and WOM intentions. An
examination of the brand placement repetition means suggests an inverted-U shape curve
for brand attitudes and purchase intentions and a linear monotonic relationship between
repetition and WOM intentions.
To address RQ4 and RQ5 and determine the number of exposures needed to achieve
maximum levels of brand attitudes and purchase intentions, the first derivatives of the
corresponding equations was set to zero. Computations suggest that maximum value for
brand attitudes and purchase intentions can be achieved after four to five exposures. Given
the linear relationship between brand placement repetition and WOM intentions, it is not
possible to assess the maximum of WOM intentions and as such RQ6 cannot be addressed
statistically or visually in this research.
H6 predicts that brand familiarity would moderate the relationship between brand
attitude and repetition. To test this hypothesis, we introduced the relevant quadratic-by-
linear interaction (repetition2 x familiarity) in Model 3 shown in Table 7. Consistent with H6,

Brand familiarity Effect Standard error Z-value p

Table 5.
Mean
1 SD 0.08/0.08/0.20 0.07/0.07/0.08 1.13/1.18/2.39 > 0.05 Spotlight analysis for
Mean 0.19/0.37/0.41 0.05/0.09/0.11 3.81/4.03/3.78 < 0.05 unaided recall, aided
Mean þ 1 SD 0.30/0.66/0.62 0.07/0.15/0.17 4.15/4.33/3.61 < 0.05 recall and recognition

Pairwise
comparisons Unaided recall (%) Chi-square Aided recall (%) Chi-square Recognition (%) Chi-square

1 repetition vs 24.0 4.56** 71.9 3.34* 79.2 2.90*

3 repetitions 38.3 83.0 88.3
1 repetition vs 24.0 13.96** 71.9 6.18** 79.2 3.95**
5 repetitions 50.0 86.5 89.6
1 repetition vs 24.0 20.83*** 71.9 9.67** 79.2 6.02**
7 repetitions 56.2 89.6 91.7
3 repetitions vs 38.3 2.63 83.0 0.45 88.3 0.01
5 repetitions 50.0 86.5 89.6
3 repetitions vs 38.3 6.14** 83.0 1.75 88.3 0.59 Table 6.
7 repetitions 56.2 89.6 91.7
5 repetitions vs 50.0 0.75 86.5 0.44 89.6 2.54
Comparison of
7 repetitions 56.2 89.6 91.7 memory measures
for different exposure
Notes: *p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01 levels
EJM Unaided recall
55,2 60
55
50
45
40
434 35
30
25
Figure 1.
20
Effects of brand
placement repetition 15

on unaided recall 10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Aided recall
95

90

85

80

75

Figure 2. 70

Effects of brand 65
placement repetition
on aided recall 60
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Recognion
92

90

88

86

84

Figure 3. 82

Effects of brand 80
placement repetition
on recognition 78
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

the coefficient associated with this term was statistically significant ( b = 0.03, p < 0.05). We
further analyzed the interaction by using PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2015). Results indicated
that when brand familiarity is low (one standard deviation below the mean), the curvilinear
is much steeper, but the curve flattens out with increasing familiarity. Specifically, for
respondents with a high level of brand familiarity (one standard deviation above the mean), Brand
there is no statistically significant evidence of curvilinearity in the association between placements in
brand placement repetition and brand attitudes u X2!YjM=4.49 = 0.00, t (478) =
0.05,
p > 0.05. However, for individuals with a low to a moderate level of brand familiarity the
music videos
relationship between repetition and brand attitudes is concave to a statistically significant
degree: u X2!YjM=3.56 =
0.28, t(478) =
2.46, p < 0.05; u X2!YjM=2.63 =
0.55, t(478) =

3.23, p < 0.05. In total, these results provide support for H6.
435
Discussion
The results of the analysis reveal linear relationships between the repetition of brand
placement and brand memory measures within the tested frequency of repetitions. These
results are in line with the findings of Schmidt and Eisend (2015), who conducted a meta-
analysis of effective frequency in advertising. The obtained linear relationship between
repetition and memory measures did not allow us to statistically identify effective
frequencies for memory measures (RQ1a, RQ1b and RQ1c). However, visual examination of
the corresponding plots revealed that for aided recall and recognition effective frequency
might be achieved after three exposures and about five exposures are needed for unaided
recall.
Furthermore, as stated in H2 and H3 and supported by data, the effects of repetition on
brand attitudes and purchase intentions follow the shape of an inverted U-curve. Based on
the analysis, RQ2 and RQ3 were addressed and it was shown that for brand attitudes and
purchase intentions maximums can be achieved at four to five exposures. After that point, a
further increase in repetition negatively affects brand attitudes and purchase intentions.
Such findings support propositions of the two-factor theory (Cacioppo and Petty, 1979), that
in case of up to five exposures to prominent brand placements positive habituation occurs.
H4 was not supported in this study, indicating that the relationship between repetition and
WOM intentions follows a linear path within the tested frequency of repetitions. As such, an
increase in exposure frequency positively affects the intentions of viewers to discuss the
brand. This is in line with the findings of Song et al. (2015), who showed that brand
placements in movies have a positive effect on consumers’ subsequent recommendations of
the movies. One of the possible explanations for such a relationship is that the wear-out
effect for WOM might occur at higher levels of repetition.
Additional analyzes revealed that brand familiarity moderates the effects of brand
placement repetition on memory outcomes and brand attitudes. Specifically, the repetition
has a stronger effect on aided recall, unaided recall and recognition for individuals with
moderate to high levels of brand familiarity. These effects are different from the findings of
Martí-Parreño et al. (2017), who found equal effects of repetition on recall and recognition

Brand attitude Purchase intentions WOM intentions

Coefficients Model 1 Model 2 Model3 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Repetition-linear term (A) 0.10* 0.45* 1.65* 0.12* 0.46* 0.12* 0.09 Table 7.
Repetition-quadratic term (B)
0.36*
1.91*
0.35* 0.22 Impact of linear and
Familiarity (C) 0.21* quadratic repetition
AB
1.31
AC 1.64*
effects on brand
F-value 4.90* 4.83* 6.97* 7.28* 5.89* 5.92* 3.39 attitude, purchase
intentions and WOM
Note: *p < 0.05 intentions
EJM Pairwise Brand Purchase WOM
55,2 comparisons attitudes t-value intentions t-value intentions t-value

0 repetition vs 4.61
0.81 3.69
0.91 3.34
0.66

1 repetition 4.76 3.89 3.47
0 repetition vs 4.61
3.02** 3.69
2.25** 3.34
0.6
3 repetitions 5.13 4.15 3.46
436 0 repetition vs 4.61
2.28** 3.69
3.27** 3.34 1.59
5 repetitions 5.01 4.35 3.66
0 repetition vs 4.61
1.82* 3.69
1.97** 3.34
2.69**
7 repetitions 4.95 4.11 3.92
1 repetition vs 4.76 2.1** 3.89 1.47 3.47 0.05
3 repetitions 5.13 4.15 3.46
1 repetition vs 4.76
1.39 3.89
2.19** 3.47
0.98
5 repetitions 5.01 4.35 3.66
1 repetition vs 4.76
0.99 3.89
0.99 3.47
2.13**
7 repetitions 4.95 4.11 3.92
Table 8. 3 repetitions vs 5.13 0.73 4.15
1.04 3.46
1.03
Comparison of brand 5 repetitions 5.01 4.35 3.66
attitude, purchase 3 repetitions vs 5.13 1.1 4.15 0.19 3.46
2.17**
7 repetitions 4.95 4.11 3.92
intentions and WOM 5 repetitions vs 5.01 0.33 4.35 1.18 3.66
1.22
intentions for 7 repetitions 4.95 4.11 3.92
different exposure
levels Notes: *p < 0.1; **p < 0.05

both for familiar and unfamiliar brands placed in video games. Besides contextual
differences, an explanation of such discrepancy can be that in their research Martí-Parreño
et al. (2017) used brand placements in forms of billboards surrounding a racing track,
whereas in our study the interaction between video characters and brands was
demonstrated, which according to Kamleitner and Khair Jyote (2013) impacts the
effectiveness of brand placements.
The moderation analysis showed that brand familiarity moderates the inverted U-curve
relationship between brand attitudes and repetition, such that for brands with a low to mid-
level brand familiarity the relationship is concave. For highly familiar brands, the
relationship is not curvilinear. The effect of repetition on brand attitudes has a different
pattern than that found for traditional advertising formats. Specifically, Campbell and Keller
(2003) report an advertising wear-out effect, both for familiar and unfamiliar brands within
the range of five exposures. While our findings for less familiar brands are similar to their
findings, for brands with high familiarity, no wear-out effects were detected, even after
seven exposures. Such differences can be attributed to the fact that the commercial intent of
brand placements is not obvious. Even in the case of frequent exposure (e.g. seven
exposures) of popular brands, they are perceived as essential and do not cause boredom
among viewers.
These findings have important implications for marketing practitioners, as it suggests
different strategies, depending on the level of familiarity of the target market, with the
selected brand. For example, in the case of high brand familiarity, the repetition in music
videos will positively affect the memory measures of viewers without compromising their
brand attitudes. As such, an increase in the repetition frequency would be a viable strategy
for high brand familiarity situations. In contrast, the repetition of less familiar brands in
music videos has a weaker effect on memory measures and after a certain number of
exposures the additional repetition negatively affects brand attitudes. Consequently, for less Brand
familiar brands increase of repetition levels beyond five exposures might be risky. While it placements in
might be difficult to control the number of exposures for a certain viewer segment,
marketers can address this issue by placing their brand in videos of “similar” artists or those
music videos
of artists that are popular among the same viewer groups. As such, they can increase the
potential frequency of exposures, which is desirable for popular brands. These findings also
suggest that when planning promotional activities for a less popular or novel brand, it might
make sense to rely on more traditional promotional means (e.g. television commercials) and 437
consider adding brand placements to the promotional mix only after achieving higher levels
of brand familiarity.

Contributions
This research contributes to advertising literature in a number of ways. First, the reported
findings contribute to the long-lasting debate between two academic schools of thought: the
minimalists and the repetitions. The results of this study indicate that for certain measures
(e.g. aided recall and recognition), three exposures might be enough to achieve a ceiling
effect, thus supporting the propositions of the minimalists. By contrast, for another group of
measures (e.g. unaided recall and WOM) repetition of brand placements produces positive
results even after three exposures, thus supporting the propositions of the repetitions.
Second, this research examined all the conventional effects of brand placements within
one study. Moreover, for the first time in brand placement scholarship, WOM intentions
were used to measure the effects of brand placement repetition on the willingness of
consumers to converse about the advertised product. As shown, repetitive exposure to
brand placements can facilitate consumers’ conversations about advertised brands.
Third, this article explores the answers to the question “how much advertising would be
enough?” Obviously, the answer to this question has particular relevance for advertising
practitioners. Given the high costs of media buys, intensive competition and the abundance
of different media options, finding the effective frequency needed to achieve the maximum
response rate is important when designing efficient promotional campaigns. Our findings
indicate that the number of optimal exposures depends on the objectives of the promotional
campaign. If the objective is to increase unaided recall, which is important when consumers
make decisions away from the point of purchase or when brand elements are not physically
present (e.g. online purchases), high levels (above 5 exposures) of repetition is required.
However, if the objective is to increase brand recognition, three exposures should be
sufficient. Brand recognition is imperative in the case of fast-moving consumer goods
because purchase decisions for such products are usually made at stores where the brand
name, logo, packaging and other physical features of the products are physically present.
Fourth, we investigated the moderation effect of brand familiarity on the relationship
between brand placement repetition and various effectiveness measures (i.e. unaided recall,
aided recall, recognition and brand attitude). Our results showed that the moderating effect
of brand familiarity on brand repetition in music videos and memory measures are different
than those for brand placements in other media (e.g. video games). Also, the moderating
effect of brand familiarity will impact upon the relationship between repetition and brand
attitudes differently from that of traditional advertising methods.
Finally, the present research is one of the first attempts to examine the effects of brand
placement repetition in different music videos (see also Burkhalter and Thornton, 2014;
Schemer et al., 2008). Experiencing a resurgence, after a downturn in the 1990s, music videos
are becoming an important medium for brand placements again (Burkhalter and Thornton,
2014; Plambeck, 2010). Trade magazines are full of stories that illustrate huge paybacks for
EJM successful brand placements in music videos (Graser, 2005). The findings of this study
55,2 illustrate that when executed correctly, brand placements in music videos can heighten
consumers’ brand memory, elevate positive brand attitudes and increase purchase- and
WOM intentions. Therefore, companies that are not including brand placements in their
promotional mix, should pay closer attention to this promising advertising channel. By
using brand placements in music videos, advertisers can successfully reach young
438 consumers who are less susceptible to traditional advertising techniques (McCarty Group,
2014).

Limitations and future research

The effects of brand placements in this study were measured through explicit tests that refer
to the placement event. Memory effects were measured by directly asking participants to
recall the brand that they have seen in the videos or to select the brand from the existing list.
Brand attitudes were assessed based on self-reported measures. Although such methods are
common in brand placement research (Auty and Lewis, 2004), some academics criticize the
use of explicit methods, claiming that they can be “uninformative and may even
misrepresent the influence of the placement” (Law and Braun, 2000, p. 5). As a more valid
alternate, these researchers recommend the use of implicit tests, during which consumers
are not instructed to remember events, but rather to perform certain activities. For example,
participants might be instructed to perform a word-fragment completion test, where they
need to make a complete word from a given fragment (Yang et al., 2006). Improvement in the
participant’s performance is then attributed to a memory effect.
Although the results of this study suggest that high levels of repetition might negatively
affect brand attitudes (for less familiar brands) and purchase intentions, the research does
not measure the actual characteristics of brand placements (e.g. obtrusiveness) or the
viewer’s mood, which might explain the results. Additionally, there might be other factors
that not considered in this research, that could account for these differences. Future research
should address these important issues.
Finally, this study examines the repetition effects of placing one brand (Beats) in a
specific medium (music videos). However, given that the level of congruity between
headphones (the product category of the selected brand) and music videos is high, one
should not automatically extrapolate these results to other product categories or media.
According to Russell (2002), congruous placements are perceived by viewers as more
natural, which can cause a delay in the wear-out effect. By contrast, in the case of highly
incongruent placements, we might expect a negative influence of brand placement repetition
on brand attitudes and a positive influence on brand recall and recognition (Lee and Faber,
2007; Russell, 2002). Thus, further research is needed to replicate this study using various
product categories (e.g. cars and alcohol) or mediums (e.g. movies and TV shows) to assess
the generalizability of our findings.

Conclusion
Given changing consumption habits, the level of sophistication of consumers, the
introduction of new technologies and the emergence of video-streaming services, traditional
advertising such as television commercials, are becoming more expensive and also less
effective. Numerous successful industry case studies suggest that brand placements could
be effectively used as a supplement or substitute for those conventional methods. However,
despite the proliferation of brand placements in various media, little is known about the
effects of repeated exposures on viewers’ responses.
 To address this knowledge gap, this study explored the effect of brand placement repetition, in Brand
music videos, on consumers’ memory (unaided recall, aided recall and recognition), attitude (brand placements in
attitude) and behavior (purchase intentions and WOM intentions). It also reviewed the potential
moderating effect of brand familiarity. The results of the study showed that repetition has different
music videos
effects on memory, brand attitude and behavioral outcomes. Specifically, while the relationship
between repetition and memory follows a linear course, a curvilinear (inverted U-shape) relationship
evolves between repetition and brand attitudes, as well as purchase intentions. Furthermore, the
level of brand familiarity of viewers moderates the effects of repetition on memory outcomes and
439
brand attitudes.

References
Alba, J.W. and Hutchinson, J.W. (1987), “Dimensions of consumer expertise”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 411-454.
Alpert, M.L., Golden, L.L. and Hoyer, W.D. (1983), “The impact of repetition on advertisement
miscomprehension and effectiveness”, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 130-135.
Auty, S. and Lewis, C. (2004), “Exploring children’s choice: the reminder effect of product placement”,
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 9, pp. 697-713.
Avery, R.J. and Ferraro, R. (2000), “Verisimilitude or advertising? Brand appearances on prime- time
television”, Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 217-244.
Avramova, Y.R., De Pelsmacker, P. and Dens, N. (2017), “Brand placement repetition in a fictional text”,
International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 38-59.
Baker, M.J. and Churchill, G.A. Jr, (1977), “The impact of physically attractive models on advertising
evaluations”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 538-555.
Balasubramanian, S.K., Karrh, K.A. and Patwardhan, H. (2006), “Audience response to product
placements: an integrative framework and future research agenda”, Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 115-141.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Belch, G.E. (1982), “The effects of television commercial repetition on cognitive response and message
acceptance”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 56-65.
Bornstein, R.F. and D’Agostino, P.R. (1994), “The attribution and discounting of perceptual fluency:
preliminary tests of a perceptual fluency/attributional model of the mere exposure effect”, Social
Cognition, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 103-128.
Brennan, I. and Babin, L.A. (2004), “Brand placement recognition: the influence of presentation mode
and brand familiarity”, Journal of Promotion Management, Vol. 10 Nos 1/2, pp. 185-202.
Burke, R.R. and Srull, T.K. (1988), “Competitive interference and consumer memory for advertising”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 55-68.
Burkhalter, J.N. and Thornton, C.G. (2014), “Advertising to the beat: an analysis of brand placements in
hip-hop music videos”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 366-382.
Burkhalter, J.N., Curasi, C.F., Thornton, C.G. and Donthu, N. (2017), “Music and its multitude of
meanings: exploring what makes brand placements in music videos authentic”, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 140-160.
Cacioppo, J.T. and Petty, R.E. (1979), “Effects of message repetition and position on cognitive response,
recall, and persuasion”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 97-109.
Campbell, M.C. and Keller, K.L. (2003), “Brand familiarity and advertising repetition effects”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 292-304.
EJM Cauberghe, V. and De Pelsmacker, P. (2010), “Advergames”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 5-18.
55,2
Concave Brand Tracking (2015), “20 Most visible brands in 2014 music videos”, available at: https://
concavebt.com/20-most-visible-brands-2014-music-videos/ (accessed 16 March 2020).
Cowley, E. and Barron, C. (2008), “When product placement goes wrong: the effects of program liking
and placement prominence”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 89-98.
440 Cox, D.S. and Cox, A.D. (1988), “What does familiarity breed? Complexity as a moderator of repetition
effects in advertisement evaluation”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 111-116.
Dahlen, M. (2001), “Banner advertisements through a new lens”, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 23-30.
Davtyan, D. and Cunningham, I. (2017), “An investigation of brand placement effects on brand
attitudes and purchase intentions: brand placements versus TV commercials”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 70, pp. 160-167.
De Keyzer, F., Dens, N. and De Pelsmacker, P. (2017), “Don’t be so emotional! how tone of voice and
service type affect the relationship between message valence and consumer responses to WOM
in social media”, Online Information Review, Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 905-920.
Delgado-Ballester, E., Navarro, A. and Sicilia, M. (2012), “Revitalizing brands through communication
messages: the role of brand familiarity”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 46 Nos 1/2, pp. 31-51.
Dens, N., De Pelsmacker, P., Wouters, M. and Purnawirawan, N. (2012), “Do you like what you
recognize?”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 35-54.
Edmond, M. (2014), “Here we go again: music videos after YouTube”, Television and New Media,
Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 305-320.
Fazio, R.H., Powell, M.C. and Williams, C.J. (1989), “The role of attitude accessibility in the attitude-to-
behavior process”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 280-288.
Friestad, M. and Wright, P. (1994), “The persuasion knowledge model: how people cope with
persuasion attempts”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-31.
Fromm, J. and Garton, C. (2013), Marketing to Millennials: Reach the Largest and Most Influential
Generation of Consumers Ever, AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn.
Fuentes, L.J., Carmona, E., Agis, I.F. and Catena, A. (1994), “The role of the anterior attention system in
semantic processing of both foveal and Para-foveal words”, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,
Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 17-25.
Gillespie, B., Muehling, D.D. and Kareklas, I. (2018), “Fitting product placements: affective fit and
cognitive fit as determinants of consumer evaluations of placed brands”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 82, pp. 90-102.
Graser, M. (2005), “McDonald’s buying way into hip-hop song lyrics”, available at: http://adage.com/
article/news/mcdonald-s-buying-hip-hop-songlyrics/45413/ (accessed 10 March 2015).
Guo, F., Ye, G., Hudders, L., Lv, W., Li, M. and Duffy, V.G. (2019), “Product placement in mass media: a
review and bibliometric analysis”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 215-231.
Gupta, P.B. and Lord, K.R. (1998), “Product placement in movies: the effect of prominence and mode on
audience recall”, Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 47-59.
Hayes, A.F. (2015), “Hacking PROCESS for estimation and probing of linear moderation of quadratic
effects and quadratic moderation of linear effects”, Unpublished White Paper, Ohio State
University, available at: http://afhayes.com/public/quadratichack.pdf (accessed 16 March 2020).
Hayes, A.F. (2017), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach, Guilford publications.
Hitchon, J., Duckler, P. and Thorson, E. (1994), “Effects of ambiguity and complexity on consumer
response to music video commercials”, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, Vol. 38
No. 3, pp. 289-306.
Homer, P.M. (2009), “Product placements”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 21-32. Brand
Jones, S. (2015), “Standing out in a saturated market: engaging consumers through product placement”, placements in
Journal of Brand Strategy, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 339-349.
music videos
Kamleitner, B. and Khair Jyote, A. (2013), “How using versus showing interaction between characters
and products boosts product placement effectiveness”, International Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 633-653.
Kang, J.A., Hong, S. and Hubbard, G.T. (2020), “The role of storytelling in advertising: consumer
emotion, narrative engagement level, and word-of-mouth intention”, Journal of Consumer
441
Behaviour, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 47-56.
Karrh, J.A., McKee, K.B. and Pardun, C.J. (2003), “Practitioners’ evolving views on product placement
effectiveness”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 138-149.
Kirmani, A. (1997), “Advertising repetition as a signal of quality: if it’s advertised so much, something
must be wrong”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 77-86.
Krishen, A.S. and Sirgy, J.M. (2016), “Identifying with the brand placed in music videos makes me like
the brand”, Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 45-58.
Krugman, H.E. (1965), “The impact of television advertising: learning without involvement”, Public
Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 349-356.
Lang, A. (2000), “The limited capacity model of mediated message processing”, Journal of
Communication, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 46-70.
Law, S. and Braun, K.A. (2000), “I’ll have what she’s having: gauging the impact of product placements
on viewers”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 12, pp. 1059-1075.
Lee, M. and Faber, R.J. (2007), “Effects of product placement in on-line games on brand memory: a perspective
of the limited capacity model of attention”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 75-90.
Lynch, J.G. Jr, (1982), “On the external validity of experiments in consumer research”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 225-239.
McCarty Group (2014), “Engaging millennials”, available at: http://themccarthygroup.com/what-we-do/
millennials_survey/ (accessed 9 November 2015).
Maheswaran, D. and Sternthal, B. (1990), “The effects of knowledge, motivation, and type of message
on ad processing and product judgments”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 66-73.
Martin, B.A. and McCracken, C.A. (2001), “Music marketing: music consumption imagery in the UK
and New Zealand”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 426-436.
Martí-Parreño, J., Bermejo-Berros, J. and Aldas-Manzano, J. (2017), “Product placement in video games:
the effect of brand familiarity and repetition on consumers’ memory”, Journal of Interactive
Marketing, Vol. 38, pp. 55-63.
Matthes, J., Wirth, W., Schemer, C. and Pachoud, N. (2012), “Tiptoe or tackle? The role of product
placement prominence and program involvement for the mere exposure effect”, Journal of
Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 129-145.
Mitchell, A.A. and Olson, J.C. (1977), “Cognitive effects of advertising repetition”, NA-Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 4, pp. 213-220.
Nordhielm, C.L. (2002), “The influence of level of processing on advertising repetition effects”, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 371-382.
Omnicore (2020), “YouTube by the numbers: stats, demographics and fun facts”, from www.
omnicoreagency.com/youtube-statistics/ (accessed 16 March 2020).
Pechmann, C. and Stewart, D.W. (1988), “Advertising repetition: a critical review of wearin and
wearout”, Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Vol. 11 Nos 1/2, pp. 285-329.
Peterson, R.A. and Merunka, D.R. (2014), “Convenience samples of college students and research
reproducibility”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 5, pp. 1035-1041.
EJM Plambeck, J. (2010), “Product placement grows in music videos”, The New York Times, Vol. 5, p. B8.
55,2 PQ Media (2018), “U.S. Product placement market grew 13.7% in 2017, pacing for faster
growth in 2018, powered by Double-Digit growth in television, digital video and music
integrations”, available at: www.pqmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/US-
Product-Placement-18.pdf (accessed 16 March 2020).
Price, L.L. and Arnould, E.J. (1999), “Commercial friendships: service provider-client relationships in
442 context”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 38-56.
Ray, M.L. and Sawyer, A.G. (1971), “Repetition in media models: a laboratory technique”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 20-29.
Rethans, A.J., Swasy, J.L. and Marks, L.J. (1986), “Effects of television commercial repetition, receiver
knowledge, and commercial length: a test of the two-factor model”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 50-61.
Rhee, E.S. and Jung, W.S. (2019), “Brand familiarity as a moderating factor in the ad and brand attitude
relationship and advertising appeals”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 25 No. 6,
pp. 571-585.
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, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 306-318.
Russell, C.A. (2019), “Expanding the agenda of research on product placement: a commercial intertext”,
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 38-48.
Sawyer, A.G. (1973), “The effects of repetition of refutational and supportive advertising appeals”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 23-33.
Schemer, C., Matthes, J., Wirth, W. and Textor, S. (2008), “Does ‘passing the courvoisier’ always pay off?
Positive and negative evaluative conditioning effects of brand placements in music videos”,
Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 10, pp. 923-943.
Schmidt, S. and Eisend, M. (2015), “Advertising repetition: a meta-analysis on effective frequency in
advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 415-428.
Simulmedia (2017), “TV advertising reach and frequency imbalance: how it hurts sales and what you
can do to prevent it”, available at: www.simulmedia.com/assets/media/TV-Advertising-Reach-
Frequency-Imbalance-Guide-Simulmedia.pdf (accessed 16 March 2020).
Song, R., Meyer, J. and Ha, K. (2015), “The relationship between product placement and the performance
of movies”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 322-338.
Spiller, S.A., Fitzsimons, G.J., Lynch, J.G., Jr and McClelland, G.H. (2013), “Spotlights, floodlights, and
the magic number zero: simple effects tests in moderated regression”, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 277-288.
Statista (2015), “Primary type of video content viewed by Millennial internet users in the United States
as of October 2015”, available at: www.statista.com/statistics/283815/millennials-popular-
digital-video-categories/ (accessed 16 March 2020).
Steenkamp, J.B.E., Batra, R. and Alden, D.L. (2003), “How perceived brand globalness creates brand
value”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 53-65.
Sujan, M. (1985), “Consumer knowledge: effects on evaluation strategies mediating consumer
judgments”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 31-46.
Tellis, G.J. (2004), Effective Advertising: Understanding When, How, and Why Advertising Works, Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Unnava, H.R. and Burnkrant, R.E. (1991), “Effects of repeating varied ad executions on brand name
memory”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 406-416.
Uribe, R. (2016), “Separate and joint effects of advertising and placement”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 459-465.
Van Reijmersdal, E.A. (2011), “Mixing advertising and editorial content in radio programs: appreciation Brand
and recall of brand placements versus commercials”, International Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 425-446. placements in
Verhellen, Y., Dens, N. and De Pelsmacker, P. (2013), “Consumer responses to brands placed in music videos
YouTube movies: the effect of prominence and celebrity endorser expertise”, Journal of
Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 287-303.
Williams, K., Petrosky, A., Hernandez, E. and Page, Jr., R. (2011), “Product placement effectiveness:
revisited and renewed”, Journal of Management and Marketing Research, Vol. 7, pp. 1-24. 443
Yang, M., Roskos-Ewoldsen, D.R., Dinu, L. and Arpan, L.M. (2006), “The effectiveness of ‘in-game’
advertising: comparing college students’ explicit and implicit memory for brand names”,
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 143-152.
Yaveroglu, I. and Donthu, N. (2008), “Advertising repetition and placement issues in on-line
environments”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 31-44.
Zielske, H.A. (1959), “The remembering and forgetting of advertising”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 23
No. 3, pp. 239-243.

Further reading
PQ Media (2015), “PQ media update: US product placement revenues up 13% in 1H15”, available at:
www.pqmedia.com/about-press-20150615.html (accessed 15 March 2016).

Corresponding author
Davit Davtyan can be contacted at: ddavtyan@unca.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com