Persuasion Knowledge Model

According to the persuasion knowledge model (PKM) Friestad and Wright (1994) consumers develop knowledge about how, why and when a message is intended to

57 persuade them. The PKM is outlined in Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3 Persuasion knowledge model

Source Friestad and Wright (1994)

This knowledge helps consumers manage persuasive episodes. Friestad and Wright (1994) persuasion model examines how consumers perceive persuasion agents such as marketers and advertisers in terms of their goals and tactics, evaluation of the effectiveness or appropriateness of persuasion attempts, and self- reflections of an audience’s ability to cope with these persuasion interventions. People learn about persuasion tactics from reference groups, their level of media literacy, direct experiences and commentary in the media (Friestad and Wright, 1994). Thus, persuasion knowledge is developmental and increases over time. In addition, persuasion knowledge will be different for each individual and the advertising tactics used.

58 The persuasion knowledge model implies consumers will process a message in a non-perceived persuasion setting differently than a setting where they believe persuasion intent or an advertising message is implicit (Ahluwalia et al., 2004). In these situations, the presence of an advert or sales agent is enough to activate persuasion knowledge. This may have implications for how the audience processes the sales message or advert. However, exposure to brand placements is different, as the stimulus is presented in a context that may be construed as entertainment and therefore consumers may not activate their persuasion knowledge. Accordingly, the key advantage of brand placement over traditional advertising can be ascribed to the hidden motive of persuasion (Bhatnager et al., 2004)

Persuasion knowledge is available for activation when the consumer believes a message is intended to persuade. When a tactic is perceived to have persuasive intent, the message will be affected by the change of meaning principle. This has implications for how consumers interpret both the actions of persuasive agents and the message.

In the context of brand placement, this may occur when a gamer notices that a placement is pulled from the background to the foreground, thus resulting in a change of meaning for the gamer as flow is suspended and persuasion knowledge activated. Campbell and Kirmani (2000) investigated the accessibility of an ulterior motive as an antecedent to the activation of persuasion knowledge, reporting when an ulterior motive is highly accessible, activation of persuasion knowledge is more likely. The activation of persuasion knowledge has also been shown to occur through exposure to an advertisement before seeing a prominent brand placement for the same brand. Cowley and Barron (2008) reported positive effects on attitude after exposure to a placement but this became damaging to brand attitude if the placement was preceded by an advertisement for the same brand. In these circumstances the advertisement activated persuasion knowledge, which in turn encouraged scepticism in the viewer.

Exposure to brand placements is different from traditional advertising as the stimulus is presented in a context that may be construed as entertainment. Therefore, consumers will not activate ‘their marketplace related social intelligence,

59 however deeply developed… leaving their performance unguided by that domain specific knowledge’ (Wright, 2002:680). As such, the key advantage of brand placement over traditional advertising can be ascribed to the hidden motive of persuasion (Bhatnager et al., 2004; Lang, 2000).

According to Friestad and Wright (1994), persuasion knowledge is relevant to how consumers may process brand placements. When a consumer recognises a communication as an attempt to persuade, they processes it differently than when no such recognition is identified. Therefore, the hidden and secondary nature of brand placements may not activate the processes that typically put a consumer on guard, as in the case of advertising. Hence, the stealth nature of brand placements may be a critical factor in making the product integration effective. However, brand placements are not always stealth in nature and are sometimes obvious such as the launch of the BMW Z3 roadster in the James Bond film Golden Eye (Campbell, 1995).

Russell (1998) proposed the ‘transformational’ concept for expressing the power of product placement in the context of engagement with television shows and film stars. In this early study, she suggested subtle placements rather than prominent placements would be more effective in activating the association of brand and context. These initial findings support the PKM, which assumes consumers use their knowledge about the persuasive tactics and goals of marketers to help them process these communications. Thus as prominent placements have more obvious persuasive intent than subtle placements they may generate more negative brand attitudes (Campbell and Kirmani, 2000). Although the Campbell and Kirmani (2000) study relates to traditional advertising media, their insights can be applied to interactive persuasive environments. Thus, it can be asserted that subtle placements could be expected to lead to more positive brand attitudes than prominent placements. However, in the case of IGA, the knowledge the entertainment context presents a persuasion setting may not be prevalent amongst gamers. Unlike traditional broadcast advertising, where most people of cognitive ability understand its persuasion intent, IGA typically presents a non-commercial medium with the focus on entertainment. In addition, due to the interactivity, fun and escapism of the gaming environment the expectation is that the transfer mechanism

60 will be activated for both subtle and prominent placements.

There have been several studies investigating the presence of persuasion knowledge on the evaluation of brand placements and to date they have generated mixed conclusions. Wei et al. (2008) demonstrated that disclosure of explicit knowledge persuasion resulted in significantly more favourable brand attitudes towards high familiarity brands placed in a college radio programme. Conversely, Matthes et al. (2007) concluded frequent repetition of brand placements resulted in less favourable brand attitudes when persuasion knowledge was apparent. Cowley and Barron (2008) who asserted disclosure of the persuasive intent of brand placements lowered brand attitudes and preferences supported this. The variation in these results can be explained by differences in the mode of brand placement. The first, Wei et al. (2008) employed auditory techniques and two versions of a college radio station were used. One version mentioned a brand of macaroni and cheese that was familiar (Kraft Dinner), and the other mentioned a brand that was low in familiarity (Carriage Trade). The second Matthes et al. (2007) employed visual placements and a news report about new methods of cattle breeding with the farming machinery brand De Laval inserted was utilised. The third, Cowley and Barron (2008) used a combination of visual and auditory placements, where an episode of Seinfeld (Seinfeld, 1991) was viewed and prominent placements of Pantene shampoo (audio) and M&M sweets, which were both audio and visual. Subtle brands were visual, were on screen for less than 5 seconds, and were Ruffles potato chips and Diet Coke. In the third study participants viewed advertisements for the placed brands at the beginning of the experiment meaning they were reminded of the ulterior motive of the placement: persuasion by association.

Research by Chan et al. (2016) argued that the prominence of placed brands resulted in significantly more extensive levels of processing, which was negatively correlated with brand attitudes. Consequently, prominence acts as an external trigger, which activates persuasion knowledge, which may lead to the altering of responses (Friestad and Wright, 1994). Chan et al., (2016) study confirms the mediating role of depth of processing between prominence and brand attitudes, but not purchase intention. Prominent brand placements thus activate persuasion knowledge and as the audience realise the brand is placed for commercial reasons

61 they become more cynical which leads to negative attitudes and beliefs about the brand and the placement as asserted by Balasubramanian et al. (2006) and thus this affects negatively on purchase intent. Conversely, Matthes and Naderer (2016) found no evidence that placement disclosures can harm brand attitude in music videos, by activating persuasion knowledge. This could be because the brand placement is associated in with less commercial intent. The music artist may want to be associated with the brand. In the Matthes and Naderer (2016) study, the music video clip was Telephone (Lady Gaga, 2010) which featured Polaroid. Hence, participants may have had an existing attitude to Polaroid and persuasion knowledge may be less powerful in negatively affecting brand attitudes than unfamiliar brans where there is no existing attitude. Further, the placements did not disrupt the participants processing of the narrative, which could also have explained the results.

The dissociation between cognition and effect of brand placements found in the existing literature may thus be attributed to variations in cognitive processing among individuals. It may also be explained by the mere exposure effect Zajonc (1968), which argues that cognition and affect are independent and this assertion is robustly supported in the literature.