Mere exposure effect research and brand placement

Whilst the research into brand placement and the MEE is scant, there have been four studies conducted. First, Matthes et al. (2007) investigated the influence of placement exposure, viewers’ involvement and persuasion knowledge on attitudes towards the brand and brand recall in a factual-based television programme. Their results indicated a MEE in terms of a frequently placed brand and positive brand evaluation in the absence of brand recall. However, the MEE was only present when there was high involvement with the programme and low persuasion knowledge. Conversely, when programme involvement was low and persuasion knowledge high, frequent brand placements led to a deterioration of brand attitudes.

Second Matthes et al. (2011) investigated individual differences in field dependence-independence for the perception of product placements. Matthes et al. (2011) ‘asserted that individual differences in the cognitive trait of field dependence- independence (FDI) were an integral factor in the process of placement perception’ (Matthes et al., 2011:86). When consumers see a film, television programme or videogame with brand placements, they differ in their ability to detect those placements. This is because field-independent (FI) individuals are better able to separate a stimulus from its embedding context than are field-dependent (FD) individuals as argued by (Witkin and Goodenough, 1981). Therefore, FI individuals are better able to recognize a placement (Matthes et al., 2011). The likelihood that product placements will be detected increases with the ability of an individual to extract information from a complex field. This is important because many studies seem to indicate that the hidden nature of product placements makes them hard to recognize; therefore, no effect on brand recall might often be observed (Russell, 2003; Russell, 1998). Their results demonstrate that field-independent individuals show a higher placement recall than field-dependent individuals, and that field- dependent individuals like the embedded brand more than field-independent individuals do. The results indicate the importance of individual difference variables

80 for product placement research.

Third, Matthes et al. (2012) considered subtle placements and the MEE, building on the previous studies of Law and Braun (2000) and Russell (2002). Their study used a rap video and had five experimental conditions: a control (no placements), two moderate frequency (15 placements), and two high (30 placements) frequency. The 266 participants were exposed to one of the conditions. Their findings were consistent with Grigorovici and Constantin (2004) and indicated that in a high involvement condition, the MEE is strong for subtle placements, but has no effect in the low involvement condition. Prominent placements were more recalled and recognised than subtle ones in both moderate and high conditions.

Fourth, Ruggieri and Boca (2013) tested the MEE in two widely distributed films in which several brands appeared. Their results indicated that in the high involvement condition one exposure was sufficient to produce a positive attitude towards the brand. Moreover, their findings were consistent with the fundamental construct; namely, the MEE does not depend on the awareness of having been exposed to the stimuli. Their findings were consistent with Auty and Lewis (2004) and Law and Braun (2000), who demonstrated brand placement effects on brand choice, were unrelated to memory. Thus, the limited processing occurs with a single brand placement exposure is enough to produce a feeling of familiarity, but is later mistaken as preference for the stimulus (Janiszewski, 1993; Zajonc, 1980).

To date these four studies into brand placement indicate support for the MEE in television, when the viewer displays high involvement with the programme, persuasion knowledge is low and exposures to the placement are frequent (Matthes et al., 2007). The Ruggieri and Boca (2013) study demonstrated that in a high involvement context (watching a film) one exposure was sufficient to activate the MEE and positive brand evaluation. Matthes et al. (2011) investigated individual differences in field dependence-independence for the perception of product placements and found support for this concept. Matthes et al. (2012) observed MEE is strong for music videos for subtle placements in high involvement conditions but has no effect in the low involvement conditions. Additionally Matthes et al. (2012) observed prominent placements were more recalled and recognised than subtle

81 ones in both moderate and high conditions.

In summary, the previous research has considered product placement in film and television and there is support for the MEE when the viewer is highly involved. Video games require game players to interact using a console or other device such as a smartphone and usually there is an objective task element to playing a game. It is this interactive element of gaming that makes it a more active medium than television or film. Thus in videogames involvement may be considered to be higher. This is because game players are expected to process both game-related information and background, ‘noise’ such as billboards and attention is divided (Yang et al., 2006). However, the previous studies have been inconclusive in terms of the number of exposures required to activate the MEE. In traditional MEE, psychology experiments exposures varied from 1 to 25 exposures Hamid (1973) with 3 being the recommended minimum Bornstein (1989). Ruggieri and Boca (2013) did observe the MEE for a single exposure in film. The idea of a single exposure being effective is contentious, but most researches agree that repeated exposures do indeed affect attitudes and sometimes purchase intentions.