Final Report for 08SM-Hudson “Product placement and its influence on
children”
One page Summary
Recent marketing literature has called for more research that focuses on the influence of
new media on children and specifically the use of product placement. The objective of
this study was to analyze the impact of food and beverage product placements on children
of different ages. Using an experimental approach, groups of children viewed the same
television program, but with either healthy products or unhealthy brands digitally
inserted. Children were exposed to a 20-minute section of a popular television show that
typically contains a number of product placements. Respondents were divided into
groups and each group saw the same television clip but with different (digitally inserted)
placements of various types of food and beverages. Unaided recall was measured by
asking children after exposure if they could recall any brands, sponsors or advertising
messages in the program. Aided recall was measured by asking children if they
recognized any brands shown to them (a list was provided). The influence of product
placement on behavior was measured by offering children a selection of beverages and
snacks. Children then completed a questionnaire with the help of the researchers asking
specific questions about their recollection, observation and impressions of the show.
In total 225 children from two schools took part in the experiment – 163 Grade 7 students
(aged 10-12) and 62 students from Grades 3 and 4 (aged 7-9). The children exposed to
product placements clearly recalled the products placed in the show. For example, of the
children who saw the unhealthy segment, 90 percent remembered seeing Pepsi, 70
percent saw the Fruit Gushers, 75 percent saw the Cheetos, and 67 percent recalled seeing
Reese’s Pieces. Further analysis revealed that a significantly higher percentage of older
children recalled the product placements. However, the product placements had very little
influence on immediate behavior for respondents as a whole. The majority of children
chose Pepsi or Coke along with a packet of Fruit Gushers, regardless of the segment they
watched. The only placement that possibly had an influence on behavior was Cheetos, as
twice as many children who had been exposed to Cheetos chose that snack.
The study has significant implications for public policy officials. The limited available
research suggests that product placements are especially potent in their effects upon
children and adolescents and the results of this study support that contention, even though
placement had very little influence on immediate behaviour. While this study does not
suggest a direct “media effect,” it draws attention to the need for considering both the
ethical dimensions of this type of marketing and the ways that product placement might
impact preferences over time. In Canada, policies related to product placement are
currently quite vague, although the Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children states that
“no children’s advertising may employ any device or technique that attempts to transmit
messages below the threshold of normal awareness” (Advertising Standards Canada,
2004). Perhaps these policies should be re-visited. Finally, public health field officials
who have the health of children a priority may be concerned that even though children
were exposed to healthier product placements and given healthy snack options, the
majority chose foods of poor nutritional quality.
1
Executive Summary
This study examines advertising to children, one of the most important topics worthy of
academic research in the marketing field (Hyman, Tansey and Clark, 1994). In particular
there have been calls for more research that focuses on the influence of new media on
children and specifically the use of product placement (Bachman, 2008). Product
placement has been defined as the planned entry of products into movies or television
shows that may influence viewers’ product beliefs and/or behaviors favorably
(Balasubramanian, 1994). The practice has emerged as one of the fastest growing
segments of the advertising market (Elliott, 2005; Hudson and Hudson, 2006) and it is
predicted that up to 75% of all scripted, prime-time network shows in the US will soon
star products or services paid for by advertisers (George, 2005). Companies like Walmart
and Procter & Gamble are even creating their own television programs in order to have
more control of the placement of their products (Vranica and Brown, 2010). Global paid
product placement was estimated to be worth $4.38 billion in 2007—a growth of 30%
from 2006—and product placement in films, TV shows, video games and even song
lyrics is set to triple by 2010 (PQ Media, 2006).
Alongside this growth and increasing sophistication have been rising concerns about the
ethics of product placement. Research has confirmed that consumers are concerned about
the ‘subliminal’ effect of product placement (Tiwsakul, Hackley and Szmigin, 2005).
Others fear that product placement’s influence on the content of movies and television
will seep into news magazines, where editorial content is seen by many as inviolate.
Critics also claim that the trend of embedding products into songs is an invasion of music
lovers’ privacy, and critics have articulated concerns over loss of artistic freedom
resulting from the increased use of brands in video games (Neslon, 2002). Concern has
been cited for product placements of ethically charged products (guns, alcohol and
tobacco for example), while others question the appropriateness of allowing brands to be
associated with video games that exhibit excessive violence (Gupta and Lord; Gibson and
Maurer, 2000).
Particularly contentious is the use of product placement in children’s programming
(Hudson, Hudson and Peloza, 2008; Avery and Ferraro, 2000). Such tactics are becoming
more and more common. Consequently, there have been calls for more research that
focuses on the influence of product placement on children (American Psychological
Association, 2004; Moore, 2004; Tiwsakul et al. 2005). This is because children have not
yet developed sensitivity to this type of promotional tool (Avery and Ferraro, 2000) and
yet its practice is growing. Furthermore, some researchers have suggested that advertising
and product placement practices geared to children – which largely consists of ads for
sugary cereals, candy and fast-food restaurants – may be contributing to the increase in
childhood obesity by promoting unhealthy foods (Halford et al., 2007; Datamonitor,
2002; Story and French, 2004; Jeffery, 2008). In the past 35 years, the percentage of
obese children in Canada has more than doubled, swelling to over 500,000 children
according to Statistics Canada (Deveau, 2006). According to the latest Standing
2
Committee on Health Report, titled Healthy Weights for Healthy Kids, over 26 per cent of
Canadian children are currently overweight or obese (House of Commons Canada, 2007).
Although the advertising industry acknowledges the potentially harmful effects of
advertising on child audiences, it generally balks at calls for it to take responsibility for
such unintentional effects (Haefner, 1991). Product placement practitioners argue that the
placement of brands in children’s programming is very limited (and certainly there is less
product placement in television than film) (Beck, 2001). However, they know that
children watch programs intended for other target audiences and are thus exposed to
advertising intended for those audiences. It has been argued that unintended exposure to
these advertisements may have powerful extended effects on child viewers’ role
expectations, values and world views (Haefner, 1991).
The general objective of this study was to fill a research gap in the literature when it
comes to understanding the impact of product placement on children. Specific objectives
were: to analyze the placement of food and beverage products on children of various
ages; to measure and assess the cognitive and behavioural response to these food/
beverage product placements; and to provide relevant policy recommendations pertaining
to product placement in terms of children’s preferences and awareness of advertising
intent in relation to age.
This study employed experimental methods, as they have been used successfully in
previous product placement research (Russell, 2002; McKechnie and Zhou, 2003; Gupta
and Lord, 1998). Based on Auty and Lewis (2004), children of different ages were
exposed to a 20-minute section of a popular television show that typically contains a
number of product placements. Child-respondents were divided into groups and each
group saw the same television clip but with different (digitally inserted) placements of
various types of food and beverages. All groups were shown a clip from Pop Idol – the
British equivalent of American Idol. Pop Idol was selected because the children are
familiar with the format of the show (in light of the popularity and audience base of
American Idol), but do not know the exact players or have preconceived expectations
about the “proper” product placement (i.e., the ubiquitous and prominent Coke
promotions in American Idol, etc.). American Idol has millions of child viewers, and in
2008 branded content in the show jumped 19 percent. The first 28 episodes of 2008
included 4,151 product placements (Sullivan, 2008).
In the experimental design, Groups 1 (7-8 years) and 2 (11-12 years) viewed the same 20minute segment in which various foods and drinks were digitally inserted into the
program. In the first sitting, Groups 1a and 2a viewed a 20-minute segment in which
various “healthier” choices (Milk 2 Go, Black Diamond cheese strings, Yoplait tubes,
and Dole Diced Peaches) were digitally inserted. In separate sittings, Groups 1 and 2
viewed the same 20-minute segment. However, in this segment, different “unhealthy”
products were digitally inserted. Digital inserts of Pepsi, Betty Crocker’s Fruit Gushers,
Reese’s Pieces and Frito-Lay Cheetos were strategically “placed” throughout. Finally,
Groups 1b and 2b, the control groups, viewed the same 20-minute segment but with no
product placements. Unaided recall was measured by asking children after exposure if
3
they could recall any brands, sponsors or advertising messages in the program. Aided
recall was measured by asking children if they recognized any brands shown to them (a
list was provided).
Although not strictly subliminal, product placements may not be consciously encoded
even by those who are cognitively capable of doing so (Auty and Lewis, 2004). This
makes it important to measure the influence of product placement on behavior
independent of recall measures. All of the children were therefore offered a selection of
beverages (small cans of Pepsi and Coke, water, and bottles of Milk 2 Go) and a selection
of snacks (cheese strings, Yoplait tubes, Dole Peaches, Fruit Gushers, Reese’s Pieces,
Cheetos, Smarties and a granola bar). Children then completed a questionnaire with the
help of the researchers asking specific questions about their recollection, observation and
impressions of the show.
In total 225 children from two schools took part in the experiment – 163 Grade 7 students
(aged 10-12) and 62 students from Grades 3 and 4 (aged 7-9). The gender split was fairly
even, with 107 girls and 118 boys. Fifty-one percent of the sample viewed the segment
with unhealthy product placements, 32% saw the show with healthy products inserted,
and the remainder were the control group, watching a segment with no placements at all.
Data is currently being analyzed, but initial results show that the children exposed to
product placements clearly recalled the products placed in the show. For example, of the
children who saw the unhealthy segment, 90% remembered seeing Pepsi, 70% saw the
Fruit Gushers, 75% saw the Cheetos, and 67% recalled seeing Reese’s Pieces. Of those
that saw the healthy segment, memory of placements was high for the drink placement
(90% for Milk 2 Go), but lower for the snacks (26% remembered Dole Fruit Cups, 27%
Cheese Strings and 38% Yoplait tubes). Further analysis revealed that a significantly
higher percentage of older children recalled the product placements.
The choice of snacks and drinks the children selected after viewing the program suggests
that product placement had very little influence on immediate behavior for respondents as
a whole. The majority of children chose Pepsi or Coke along with a packet of Fruit
Gushers, regardless of the segment they watched. The only placement that possibly had
an influence on behavior was Cheetos, as twice as many children who had been exposed
to Cheetos chose that snack.
The study has significant implications for public policy officials. The limited available
research suggests that product placements are especially potent in their effects upon
children and adolescents and the results of this study support that contention, even though
placement had very little influence on immediate behaviour. While this study does not
suggest a direct ‘media effect’, it draws attention to the need for considering both the
ethical dimensions of this type of marketing and the ways that product placement might
impact preferences over time. Public health field officials who have the health of children
a priority may also be concerned that even though children were exposed to healthier
product placements and given healthy snack options, the majority chose foods of poor
nutritional quality.
4
Scientific Report
Product placement
Product placement has been defined as the planned entry of products into movies or
television shows that may influence viewers’ product beliefs and/or behaviors favorably
(Balasubramanian, 1994). The practice has emerged as one of the fastest growing
segments of the advertising market (Elliott, 2005; Hudson and Hudson, 2006) and it is
predicted that up to 75 percent of all scripted, prime-time network shows in the US will
soon star products or services paid for by advertisers (George, 2005). Global paid product
placement was estimated to be worth $4.38 billion in 2007—a growth of 30 percent from
2006—and product placement in films, TV shows, video games and even song lyrics is
set to triple by 2010 (PQ Media, 2006).
In the last few decades product placement has also become very sophisticated. Products
no longer merely appear; they are placed or embedded, woven into storylines of shows,
films, songs, novels and games, making a stronger emotional connection with the
consumer than traditional product placement. In the past, advertisers sought to place
products in shows as soon as they became hits. Now, advertising deals are happening
alongside the creative development (Hudson and Hudson, 2006; Duffy, 2005). Product
placement is now commonplace in reality shows and is seeping into scripted shows,
where products are woven in during series development (Romano, 2004). Companies like
Walmart and Procter & Gamble are even creating their own television programs in order
to have more control of the placement of their products (Vranica and Brown, 2010).
Alongside this growth and increasing sophistication have been rising concerns about the
ethics of product placement. Research has confirmed that consumers are concerned about
the ‘subliminal’ effect of product placement (Tiwsakul, Hackley and Szmigin, 2005).
Others fear that product placement’s influence on the content of movies and television
will seep into news magazines, where editorial content is seen by many as inviolate.
Critics also claim that the trend of embedding products into songs is an invasion of music
lovers’ privacy, and critics have articulated concerns over loss of artistic freedom
resulting from the increased use of brands in video games (Neslon, 2002). Concern has
been cited for product placements of ethically charged products (guns, alcohol and
tobacco for example), while others question the appropriateness of allowing brands to be
associated with video games that exhibit excessive violence (Gupta and Lord; Gibson and
Maurer, 2000).
Particularly contentious is the use of product placement in children’s programming
(Hudson, Hudson and Peloza, 2008; Avery and Ferraro, 2000). Such tactics are becoming
more and more common. Examples of products aimed at children that are placed in films
include Zero Skateboards in A Cinderella Story, Etch-a-Sketch in Elf, Beanie Babies in
Agent Cody Banks 2, and Sony products in Freaky Friday. Recently, PepsiCo put $3
million into the soccer movie Gracie, which is why the film opens with a shot of
PepsiCos sports drink, Gatorade, sitting on the hood of a car. Consequently, there have
been calls for more research that focuses on the influence of product placement on
5
children (American Psychological Association, 2004; Moore, 2004; Tiwsakul et al.
2005). This is because children have not yet developed sensitivity to this type of
promotional tool (Avery and Ferraro, 2000) and yet its practice is growing.
Furthermore, some researchers have suggested that advertising geared to children –
which largely consists of ads for sugary cereals, candy and fast-food restaurants – may be
contributing to the increase in childhood obesity by promoting unhealthy foods (Halford
et al., 2007; Datamonitor, 2002; Story and French, 2004; Jeffery, 2008). In the past 35
years, the percentage of obese children in Canada has more than doubled, swelling to
over 500,000 children according to Statistics Canada (Deveau, 2006). According to the
latest Standing Committee on Health Report, titled Healthy Weights for Healthy Kids,
over 26 per cent of Canadian children are currently overweight or obese (House of
Commons Canada, 2007).
The evolution of product placement
The origins of product placement can be found in the 1930s, when US tobacco companies
paid movie stars and sporting heroes to endorse their brands. In the 50s in the first days of
television, Bing Crosby would open his radio show by literally singing the praises of
Chesterfield cigarettes; TV shows had names like Texaco Star Theater and The Colgate
Comedy Hour. A second ‘wave’ of product placement emerged in 1982, when Reese’s
Pieces were used to lure a lumbering little alien out of hiding in the film E.T. This
placement proved profitable for the candy’s manufacturers. Hershey saw a 65 percent rise
in sales following the film’s release. Ever since, the placement of products in movies and
television has become an important element of consumer marketing programs. Spurred
by the diminishing effectiveness of television advertising and other traditional
techniques, product placement has seen considerable growth in the last 10 years (Kaikati
and Kaikati, 2004). For advertisers, it is one way of combating unprecedented audience
fragmentation and new technologies that allow people to zap through commercials.
Consumers are increasingly refusing to abide commercial interruptions and demanding a
choice in the timing, placement and quantity of advertising they are exposed to. Studies
show that people with Personal Video Recorders (PVRs) like TiVo use them to skip 92
percent of the ads (George, 2005). However, these same people recall strategic product
placements four times as much as paid commercial messages, suggesting that product
placement can be far more effective than 30-second TV commercials.
Another reason for the development of product placement is the growth of the
entertainment industry. Traditionally advertising was placed adjacent to entertainment in
order to capitalize on the audiences the entertainment attracted. However, over the last
decade, the entertainment industry has proliferated and entertainment is now distributed
and consumed online, by mobile, on television or in cinemas. These changes have opened
the door to integrated advertising. Marketers realize that communications via branded
entertainment can be more sophisticated, more targeted and more widely seen than
traditional advertising methods.
Ethical attitudes towards product placement
6
Product placement’s ‘evolution’ has not been without hitches. From the late 1980s to the
early 1990s, the movie industry encountered much controversy as consumer advocate
groups voiced concerns that product placement was a deceptive practice and not in the
best interest of the public. In 1991, in response to the dispute, the product placement
industry formed the Entertainment Resources and Marketing Association (ERMA) as a
way to self-regulate the industry and to pre-empt any government regulation.
Interestingly, previous research indicates that consumers have a positive view towards
product placement (Nebanzhal and Secunda, 1993), and it seems to increase brand loyalty
by validating the purchase decisions of the consumer (Hart, 2003). However, as
previously mentioned, there are ethical concerns over its use as a marketing tool—and the
main concern centers on the issue of deception. Product placements are not labeled as
advertisements and therefore may be viewed as “hidden but paid” messages
(Balasubramanian, 1994). Research confirms that consumers are generally concerned
about the ‘subliminal’ effect of product placement (Tiwsakul et al., 2005). Commercial
Alert, an Oregon advocacy group, calls embedded advertising “an affront to basic
honesty,” and petitioned the US Federal Trade Commission (unsuccessfully) to regulate
product placement, suggesting that shows be required to insert pop-up notifications to
alert viewers to prearranged product placements. The issue of subliminal marketing is
extremely controversial. The idea of advertising which affects people below their level of
conscious awareness, so that they are not able to exercise conscious control over their
acceptance or rejection of the message creates ethical issues for both marketers and
consumers (Morton and Friedman, 2002).
New technology also fuels ethical dilemmas by blurring the line between commercial
messages and entertainment. Products are now being added to scenes in order to target a
particular market. Sony Pictures, for example, re-edited an existing series episode of The
King of Queens to add a product placement, incorporating a plug for Dr. Scholl’s
Massaging Gel Insoles (Lafayette, 2004). Critics believe this takes advantage of
unsuspecting viewers because they might not realize that the products were not originally
part of the scene during filming, but were added to target a specific viewing audience
Morton and Friedman, 2002).
Particularly troubling is the use of product placement in children’s programming (Avery
and Ferraro, 2000). Such tactics are becoming increasingly common; consequently there
have been calls for more research that focuses on the influence of product placement on
children Tiwsakul et al., 2005; Bachman, 2008).
The influence of product placement on children
“Given the significant role played by media in the lives of the nation’s children, it is time
to move forward with new academic research initiatives in this realm” (American
Psychological Association, 2004)
Children worldwide are exposed to an ever-growing number of advertising messages.
Children in North America spend more time watching television than any other activity
7
in their lives, except sleeping (Walsh and Gentile, 2002). Advertisers are increasingly
targeting children and youth for three core reasons. First is the potential exposure - the
typical North American child takes in some 38 hours of commercial media every week
and sees between 20 and 30 ads per hour (Laczniak and Palan, 2004). The second reason
is economic. Children represent an important consumer segment with an estimated $80
billion in aggregate income and the ability to influence an additional $225 billion in
spending by their parents (Berg, 2008). Finally, there is the race to establish brand loyalty
(Walsh and Gentile, 2002). Companies realize that brand loyalty established at an early
age may reap significant economic rewards over a child’s lifetime (McNeal, 1987).
Growth in marketing efforts directed towards the young has been accompanied by an
upsurge in the use of psychological knowledge and research to more effectively market
products to children. Specialist conferences now advise industry players on how to
develop sections of the children’s market, and how to manipulate the child’s influence
over parents – known in marketing circles as either ‘pester power’ or the ‘nag factor’.
This, in turn, has prompted concerns over the ethics of such research. Children are
viewed as a special market segment because of their lack of experience and stilldeveloping cognitive skills. With some exceptions, the primary goals of marketing and
advertising to children exclude notions of child welfare. For example, the tobacco
industry has, historically, employed the techniques of persuasion to influence children to
adopt an addictive, and dangerous, habit. Food marketers, too, are routinely chastised for
promoting foods of poor nutritional value to children.
Manufacturers know that children are particularly susceptible to advertising’s persuasion.
The Supreme Court of Canada recognized this in 1979, when it held that the Quebec
Consumer Protection Act’s protection of children under the age of 13 did not unduly limit
constitutionally protected free expression. The Court stated that “advertising directed at
young children is per se manipulative. Such advertising aims to promote products by
convincing those who will always believe” (Consumer Protection Act, 1989) As a
consequence, the province of Quebec has, since 1980, banned all television advertising to
children under the age of 13 on the grounds that such advertising is inherently deceptive.
Advocacy groups such as the Canadian arm of the Center for Science in the Public
Interest (among others) continue to lobby to extend it to the rest of Canada. In March
2007, Bill C-414—carrying the subhead “child protection against advertising
exploitation”—had its first reading in the House of Commons (Bill C-414, 2007).
A fundamental criticism of advertising to children revolves around the issue of fairness
(Treise et al., 1994) and the fact that children are less able to evaluate commercial
persuasion (Kumkel, 1988; Jeffery, 2006). Numerous studies have documented that
children under eight years of age especially are developmentally unable to understand the
intent of advertisements and accept advertising claims as factual (American Academy of
Pediatrics, 1995). Even after that age, youngsters may recognize that commercials intend
to sell, but not necessarily understand that they are biased messages which warrant some
degree of skepticism (American Psychological Association, 2004; Jeffery, 2006).
8
Thomas Barry (1980) was one of the first to focus on deception in children’s advertising,
using theory from psychology to support his contention that children are simply more
susceptible to deceptive messages. He referred to the work of Piaget (1970), who claimed
that children do not have the formal operational skills to logically test principles. They
are therefore more susceptible to deceptive messages from all sources. Moore comments
that to evaluate advertising, children must be able to distinguish between commercial and
non-commercial content (Moore, 2004). However, with the advent of product
placements, she says discriminating between an advertisement and entertainment may be
a much more difficult task for a child.
Work that has focused on children’s responses to ads has found that the appearance of a
character with a product favorably affects children’s evaluations of a product. Further,
advertising directed at children can lead to conflict between children and parents.
Laczniak and Palan (2004) investigated children’s responses to ads and their influence on
parents. Somewhat surprisingly, they found that older children (ages 8-9) may be more at
risk from the negative effects of television advertising messages than those under eight.
One study found that 40 percent of children aged 8 to 18 say they try to buy products they
have seen on TV or in the movies, with those aged eight to 12 most likely to agree (53%
of them) (Harris, 2006).
A recent report from the American Psychological Association (2004) recommended a
restriction on all advertising primarily directed to audiences of children below the age of
7-8 years. This was based mainly on the long-standing principle in communication law
that for advertising to be considered fair, it must be readily identifiable as such to its
intended audience. As far as the task force is concerned, compelling evidence suggests
that children do not have the defense mechanisms to identify the source of an advertising
message, making it unfair and deceptive to advertise to them. They also suggest that it is
equally unfair to use empirical research to identify the most effective strategies to
persuade child viewers, at least in relation to product marketing.
Although the advertising industry acknowledges the potentially harmful effects of
advertising on child audiences, it generally balks at calls for it to take responsibility for
such unintentional effects (Haefner, 1991). Product placement practitioners argue that the
placement of brands in children’s programming is very limited (and certainly there is less
product placement in television than film) (Beck, 2001). However, they know that
children watch programs intended for other target audiences and are thus exposed to
advertising intended for those audiences. It has been argued that unintended exposure to
these advertisements may have powerful extended effects on child viewers’ role
expectations, values and world views (Haefner, 1991).
Under a new Canadian Children’s Food & Beverage Advertising Initiative, 15 Canadian
companies have agreed to devote at least 50 percent of their television, radio, print and
Internet advertising directed primarily to children under 12 years of age to further the
goal of promoting healthy dietary choices and/or healthy active living. The social
marketing initiative was developed by Concerned Children’s Advertisers (CAA), a nonprofit organization of 22 member companies, supported by over 40 partner companies
9
and governments, issue experts and NGOs, that work together to contribute positively to
the media and life issues that effect children. Canada’s Broadcast Code for Advertising to
Children also recently introduced new guidelines for food advertising to children, to help
ensure that “advertising to children in all media encourages responsible product use and
that the amount of food shown being consumed in an advertisement does not exceed an
appropriate single serving size” (see Elliott, 2008). Unlike Canada’s move toward
industry self-regulation, in the UK, junk food adverts during TV shows aimed at under16s have been banned. The crackdown affects television commercials for all food and
drink products high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS).
Some researchers have suggested that advertising geared to children – which largely
consists of ads for sugary cereals, candy and fast-food restaurants – may contribute to the
increase in childhood obesity by promoting unhealthy foods (Halford et al., 2007;
Datamonitor, 2002; Story and French, 2004; Jeffery, 2008). Others have documented
how child-oriented food marketing reorients children’s perception of what ‘healthy’ food
entails (Elliott, 2009). In the past 35 years, the percentage of obese children in Canada
has more than doubled, swelling to over 500,000 children according to Statistics Canada
(Deveau, 2006). According to the latest Standing Committee on Health Report, Healthy
Weights for Healthy Kids, over 26 percent of Canadian children are currently overweight
or obese (House of Commons Canada, 2007). A fundamental criticism of advertising to
children revolves around the issue of fairness (Treise et al., 1994) and the fact that
children are less able to evaluate commercial persuasion (Kunkel, 1988; Jeffery, 2006).
Numerous studies have documented that children under age eight are cognitively unable
to understand the intent of advertisements and accept advertising claims as factual (AAP,
1995; APA, 2004; Jeffery, 2006).
Objectives
The general objective of this study is to fill a research gap in the literature when it comes
to understanding the impact of product placement on children. Specific objectives are: to
analyze the placement of food and beverage products on children of various ages; to
measure and assess the cognitive and behavioural response to these food/ beverage
product placements; and to provide relevant policy recommendations pertaining to
product placement in terms of children’s preferences and awareness of advertising intent
in relation to age.
Method
How to “measure” product placement has been the subject of much discussion, as many
marketers want to know the return on investment for money spent on placements. Just
like advertising, the effectiveness of product placement as a communications strategy
must be gauged against the specific objectives of decision-makers (d’Astous and
Chartier, 2000). Certain academics suggest that message impact should be assessed at
recall, persuasion, and behavioral levels (Balasubramanian, 1994). Amongst product
placement practitioners, unaided recall and brand recognition are the two most popular
means of assessing placements, although the tracking of subsequent related sales or the
measurement of trade or general press coverage are methods growing in use (Karrh,
McKee and Pardun, 2003).
10
This study employed experimental methods, as they have been used successfully in
previous product placement research (Russell, 2002; McKechnie and Zhou, 2003; Gupta
and Lord, 1998). Based on Auty and Lewis (2004), children of different ages were
exposed to a 20-minute section of a popular television show that typically contains a
number of product placements. Child-respondents were divided into groups and each
group saw the same television clip but with different (digitally inserted) placements of
various types of food and beverages. All groups were shown a clip from Pop Idol – the
British equivalent of American Idol. Pop Idol was selected because the children are
familiar with the format of the show (in light of the popularity and audience base of
American Idol), but do not know the exact players or have preconceived expectations
about the “proper” product placement (i.e., the ubiquitous and prominent Coke
promotions in American Idol, etc.). American Idol has millions of child viewers, and in
2008 branded content in the show jumped 19 percent. The first 28 episodes of 2008
included 4,151 product placements (Sullivan, 2008).
In the experimental design, Groups 1 (7-8 years) and 2 (11-12 years) viewed the same 20minute segment in which various foods and drinks were digitally inserted into the
program. In the first sitting, Groups 1a and 2a viewed a 20-minute segment in which
various “healthier” choices (Milk 2 Go, Black Diamond cheese strings, Yoplait tubes,
and Dole Diced Peaches) were digitally inserted. In separate sittings, Groups 1 and 2
viewed the same 20-minute segment. However, in this segment, different “unhealthy”
products were digitally inserted. Digital inserts of Pepsi, Betty Crocker’s Fruit Gushers,
Reese’s Pieces and Frito-Lay Cheetos were strategically “placed” throughout. Finally,
Groups 1b and 2b, the control groups, viewed the same 20-minute segment but with no
product placements. Unaided recall was measured by asking children after exposure if
they could recall any brands, sponsors or advertising messages in the program. Aided
recall was measured by asking children if they recognized any brands shown to them (a
list was provided).
The methodological design allows the children to select snacks from the exact same
range of products. However, Group 1 and 2 viewed a television sequence with healthier
“branded” products (milk, cheese, yogurt, fruit slices) digitally inserted, whereas Group
1a and 2a viewed the same television sequence—but with nutritionally poor selections
(Pepsi, Fruit Gushers, Cheetos, Reese Pieces) digitally inserted. These different branded
product placements allowed the study to reveal the degree to which children of varying
ages both recognized and recalled product placements. It also provided insight to the
degree to which such placements impacted children’s immediate snack choices (for
instance, children from Group 1 and 2 might be more likely to select milk and Yoplait as
a snack, while children from Group 1a and 2a might opt for Pepsi and Cheetos.) The
inclusion of Coke—a popular, competing cola product—as one of the snack selections
ensured that the study was not simply measuring children’s preference for sugary soda
over water or juice. Similarly, the study design to digitally insert include three “healthy”
options (for Groups 1 and 2) and three “junk” options (for Groups 1a and 2a) serves not
merely to reveal the impact of product placement on healthy and less healthy choices.
The three options allows the researchers to measure the degree to which product
11
placement recall actually impacts children’s immediate snack choices. For instance, if a
child can only recall a Reese’s Pieces product placement and then selects it as a snack,
then this, too, is particularly revealing. The option of selecting healthier choices for
Groups 1a and 2a and “junk” options for Groups 1 and 2 (i.e., the opposite snacks of what
they viewed in the television sequence) also works to sidestep the possibility of
confounding (due to too narrow of a selection of snack choices).
Although not strictly subliminal, product placements may not be consciously encoded
even by those who are cognitively capable of doing so (Auty and Lewis, 2004). This
makes it important to measure the influence of product placement on behavior
independent of recall measures. All of the children were therefore offered a selection of
beverages (small cans of Pepsi and Coke, water, and bottles of Milk 2 Go) and a selection
of snacks (cheese strings, Yoplait tubes, Dole Peaches, Fruit Gushers, Reese’s Pieces,
Cheetos, Smarties and a granola bar). Children then completed a questionnaire with the
help of the researchers asking specific questions about their recollection, observation and
impressions of the show.
Multivariate analysis (logistic regressions) will be used to analyze the data. It is a more
advanced statistical method, where one can ‘predict’ the outcome of a dependent variable
- in this case what drink and snack did the child choose - with not one, but many
independent variables. In this case, the independent variables would include the
demographics (these are standard in regression analysis), and a whole range of questions
about the snack: whether they have it regularly, how often, whether they think it is a treat,
whether they like the packaging, their attitudes towards the particular snack, attitudes
towards the show, attitudes towards the T.V., and, of course, whether or not they
remember seeing the drink/snack during the show. The advantage of applying regression
analysis here is that we will be able to see what independent variables have a significant
impact on the dependent variable, as well as the ‘strength’ of that impact while
accounting for, or isolating the effects of the other independent variables (i.e., holding
them constant). Thus, if our research hypothesis is that remembering seeing the
snack/drink during the show will impact the immediate choice of that snack/drink, we
should witness the ‘recalling seeing the snack/drink’ having a strong and significant
impact on ‘immediate choice of snack/drink’. It is necessary to do this type of analysis
because a simple cross tabulation or a correlation between ‘recalling seeing the
snack/drink’ and ‘immediate choice of snack/drink’ only tells us part of the story; for
example, a significant relationship between recalling seeing coke and choosing it might
be explained by a third factor of liking the package or thinking that the drink is yummy,
which we will not be able to examine in a crosstab or correlation. Regression analysis
will give us those answers.
Results
In total 225 children from two schools took part in the experiment – 163 Grade 7 students
(aged 10-12) and 62 students from Grades 3 and 4 (aged 7-9). The gender split was fairly
even, with 107 girls and 118 boys. Fifty-one percent of the sample viewed the segment
with unhealthy product placements, 32 percent saw the show with healthy products
inserted, and the remainder were the control group, watching a segment with no
12
placements at all. Data is currently being analyzed, but Table 1 indicates that the children
exposed to product placements clearly recalled the products placed in the show. For
example, of the children who saw the unhealthy segment, 90 percent remembered seeing
Pepsi, 70 percent saw the Fruit Gushers, 75 percent saw the Cheetos, and 67 percent
recalled seeing Reese’s Pieces. Of those that saw the healthy segment, memory of
placements was high for the drink placement (90% for Milk 2 Go), but lower for the
snacks (26% remembered Dole Fruit Cups, 27% Cheese Strings and 38% Yoplait tubes).
Further analysis revealed that a significantly higher percentage of older children recalled
the product placements. On average, 96 percent of them recalled placement of the drinks,
74 percent remembered the unhealthy snacks and 31 percent the healthier snacks. For the
younger children, memory was weaker with 72 percent recalling placement of the drinks,
58 percent remembering the unhealthy snacks and 29 percent the healthier snacks.
Table 1 – Product Placement Recall
Group
NPP/No Product
Placement
Did you see this
product during the
show?
Milk 2 Go
Coca Cola
Water
Pepsi
Gushers
Granola bar
Cheetos
Dole
Reese's
Smarties
Cheese Strings
Yoplait tubes
Yes
(#) %
(2) 5.1
(3) 7.9
(7) 18.9
(3) 7.9
(1) 2.6
-(1) 2.6
(2) 5.3
(2) 5.1
(2) 5.6
---
UPP/Unhealthy
Product Placement
No
Yes
(#) %
(#) %
(37) 94.9 (26) 23.6
(35) 92.1 (49) 45.4
(30) 81.1 (19) 17.3
(35) 92.1 (102) 90.3
(37) 97.4 (75) 69.4
(38) 100.0 (14) 12.4
(37) 97.4 (83) 74.8
(36) 94.7
(7) 6.3
(37) 94.9 (76) 67.3
(34) 94.4 (32) 28.6
(38) 100.0 (20) 18.3
(38) 100.0 (11) 10.2
HPP/Healthy Product
Placement
No
Yes
No
(#) %
(84) 76.4
(59) 54.6
(91) 82.7
(11) 9.7
(33) 30.6
(99) 87.6
(28) 25.2
(104) 93.7
(37) 32.7
(80) 71.4
(89) 81.7
97 (89.8)
(#) %
(62) 89.9
(8) 11.6
(18) 26.1
(7) 10.9
(11) 16.7
(7) 10.3
(18) 25.4
(17) 26.3
(3) 4.3
(4) 5.7
(18) 27.3
(25) 37.9
(#) %
(7) 10.1
(61) 88.4
(51) 73.9
(57) 89.1
(55) 83.3
(61) 89.7
(53) 74.6
(48) 73.8
(67) 95.7
(66) 94.3
(48) 72.7
(41) 62.1
The choice of snacks and drinks the children selected after viewing the program suggests
that product placement had very little influence on immediate behavior for respondents as
a whole (see Table 2).
Table 2 – Choice of Snacks and Drinks
Group
Fruit Gushers
Reese's Pieces
Smarties
Yoplait tubes
NPP/No
Product
Placement
UPP/Unhealthy
Product
Placement
(17) 44.7
(1) 2.6
(2) 5.3
(3) 7.9
(63) 56.2
(10) 8.9
(7) 6.2
(3) 2.7
HPP/Healthy
Product
Placement
(48) 69.6
(2) 2.9
(3) 4.3
(2) 2.9
13
Dole Peaches
Cheese Strings
Cheetos
Granola Bar
(1) 2.6
(3) 7.9
(11) 28.2
--
(5) 4.5
(23) 20.5
(23) 20.5
(1) 0.9
(3) 4.3
(2) 2.9
(8) 11.6
(1) 1.4
Coca Cola
Pure Life Water
Pepsi
Milk 2 Go
(8) 20.5
(11) 28.2
(13) 33.3
(7) 17.9
(38) 33.3
(13) 11.4
(37) 32.5
(26) 22.8
(28) 40.0
(7) 10.0
(23) 32.9
(12) 17.1
The majority of children chose Pepsi or Coke along with a packet of Fruit Gushers,
regardless of the segment they watched. The only placement that possibly had an
influence on behavior was Cheetos, as twice as many children who had been exposed to
Cheetos chose that snack. Further breakdown of results between the two age groups
showed a few significant differences. Of the younger children, 64 percent of those
exposed to Fruit Gushers chose that snack as opposed to only 46 percent who had not
seen the snack in the show. Further, 33 percent of that age group who had viewed the
unhealthy segment chose Pepsi as their drink compared to only 17 percent who saw the
healthy segment. Children who viewed the healthy segment were more likely to choose
Milk 2 Go, 2% white milk. Of the older groups who had viewed the unhealthy products,
12% chose Reese’s Pieces compared to only 4 percent who had not been exposed to the
product. Similarly 21 percent of the older children viewing Cheetos chose that snack
whereas only 9 percent of viewers of the healthier segment chose that snack.
Implications
Initial findings from the study have significant implications for both advertisers and
public policy officials. Advertisers will be interested to see that recall of product
placement was strong, and was highest amongst older children and highest for the
unhealthy snacks. The limited available research suggests that product placements are
especially potent in their effects upon children and adolescents and the results of this
study support that contention. However, contrary to Auty and Lewis’s findings,
placement had very little influence on immediate behaviour. There are several possible
explanations for this. Children could have viewed the post-television segment snack
selection as a “treating” opportunity, choosing products that they rarely get at home.
Further, while the children were invited over to the snack table one at a time to select
their beverage and food product (so that the choices were individual choices), it remains
possible that the snack choices of the first children ‘invited’ to the table influenced the
choices of subsequent children.
The results of the study may have important implications for policy makers. In Canada,
policies related to product placement are currently quite vague, although the Broadcast
Code for Advertising to Children states that “no children’s advertising may employ any
device or technique that attempts to transmit messages below the threshold of normal
awareness” (Advertising Standards Canada, 2004). While this study does not suggest a
direct “media effect,” it draws attention to the need for considering both the ethical
dimensions of this type of marketing and the ways that product placement might impact
preferences over time. Public health field officials who have the health of children a
priority may be concerned that even though children were exposed to healthier product
14
placements and given healthy snack options, the majority chose foods of poor nutritional
quality.
Results will be disseminated through University and local media channels and will also be
presented at the following conferences:
Association of Marketing Theory and Practice Conference USA, March 2010;
Academy of Marketing Conference UK, July, 2010
International Child and Teen Consumption (CTC) conference Linköping, Sweden, June 2010
References
Advertising Standards Canada (2004), “The Broadcast Code for Advertising to
Children”, The Canadian Association of Broadcasters, April.
American Academy of Pediatrics (1995), “Children, adolescents, and advertising:
Committee on Communications, American Academy of Pediatrics”, Pediatrics, 95, 295297.
American Psychological Association (2004), Report of the APA Task Force on
Advertising and Children.
d’Astous, A and Chartier, F (2000), “A study of factors affecting consumer evaluations
and memory of product placements in movies”, Journal of Current Issues and Research in
Advertising, 22 (2), 31-40.
Auty, S and Lewis, C (2004), “Exploring children’s choice: the reminder effect of
product placement”, Psychology & Marketing, 21 (9), 697.
Avery, R J and Ferraro, R (2000), “Verisimilitude or advertising? brand appearances on
prime-time television,” Journal of Consumer Affairs, 34 (2), 217-245.
Bachman, K (2008, June 27), “FCC to scrutinize TV, radio product placement”,
Mediaweek, available at: http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/content_display/news/mediaagencies-research/e3if0790e8b4c2f2907182c5ffc5ac52d0d
Balasubramanian, S K (1994), “Beyond advertising and publicity: hybrid messages and
public policy issues”, Journal of Advertising, 23 (4), 29-47.
Barry, T E (1980), “A Framework for Ascertaining Deception in Children’s Advertising,”
Journal of Advertising, 9 (1), 11-18.
Beck, J (2001, March 1), “Product Placement Gaining Promo Weight,” Kidscreen
Magazine, 13.
C. Elliott (2008). “Taste rules!: Food marketing, food law and childhood obesity in
Canada,” Cuizine: The Journal of Canadian Food Cultures, 1(1).
15
Berg, C (2008), “Kids and consumerism”, Western Parent, 13 (4), 5.
Bill C-414. “An Act to amend the Competition Act and the Food and Drugs Act (child
protection against advertising exploitation)”
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=2786680&file=4
Consumer Protection Act. (1989) 40.1.
Datamonitor. (2002, September 30). “Childhood obesity: how obesity is shaping the US
food and beverage markets”, Market Research Report, York: Datamonitor.
DeBerry-Spence, B (2008), “Consumer creations of product meaning in the context of
African-style clothing”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36 (3), 395-408.
Deveau, S (2006, June 2), “Mars drops ads aimed at very young”, National Post, FP2.
Duffy, J (2005, March 30), “Well placed: Rappers are being invited by McDonald's to
drop the words "Big Mac" into songs, while some British TV looks set to follow cinema
by allowing brands to feature in shows,” BBC News Magazine.
Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4391955.stm
Elliott, C (2009), “‘Healthy food looks serious’: How children interpret packaged food
products”, Canadian Journal of Communication, 34 (3), 359-380.
Elliott, S (2005, March 29), “More products get roles in shows, and marketers wonder if
they’re getting their money’s worth”, The New York Times, C3.
George, L (2005), “Is Kiefer Sutherland trying to sell you something?”, Macleans, 118
(8), 30-36.
Gibson, B and Maurer, J (2000), “Cigarette Smoking in Movies: The Influence of
Product Placement on Attitudes Toward Smoking and Smokers,” Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 30, 1457-1473.
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, 20, 47-59.
Haefner, M J (1991), “Ethical Problems of Advertising to Children,” Journal of Mass
Media Ethics, 6 (2), 83-92.
Halford, J C G, Boyland, E J, Highes, G, Oliveira, L P, Dovey, T M (2007), “Beyondbrand effect of television (TV) food advertisements/commercials on caloric intake and
food choice of 5-7-year-old children”, Appetite, 49, 263-267.
Harris, M (2006, August 25), Marketers, friends have ear of youth, National Post, FP7.
16
Hart, P J (2003), “Product Placement for Dummies,” Marketing Magazine, 108 (17), 17.
House of Commons Canada (2007), “Healthy weights for healthy kids”, Report of the
Standing Committee on Health. Rob Merrifield, MP (Chair). Ottawa.
Available at: http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=199309
Hudson, S and Hudson, D (2006), “Branded entertainment: a new advertising technique,
or product placement in disguise?”, Journal of Marketing Management, 22 (5-6), 489504.
Hudson, S, Hudson, D and Peloza, J (2008), “Meet the parents: a parents’ perspective on
product placement in children’s programming”, Journal of Business Ethics, 80 (2), 289304.
Hyman, M R, Tansey, R and Clark J W (1994), “Research on advertising ethics: past,
present and future”, Journal of Advertising, 23 (3), 5-15.
Jeffery, B (2006), “The Supreme Court of Canada’s appraisal of the 1980 ban on
advertising to children in Québec: implications for “misleading” advertising elsewhere”,
Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 39 (1), 321–360.
Jeffery, B (2008), “Exhorting Gen-XS to XL, cheating at child’s play: their health, our
laws”, in J. Greenberg and C. Elliott (eds.), Communication in Question: Competing
Perspectives on Controversial Issues in Communication Studies. Thomson-Nelson.
Kaikati, A M and Kaikati, J G (2004), “Stealth Marketing: How to Reach Consumers
Surreptitiously,” California Management Review, 46 (4), 6-22.
Karrh, J A, McKee, K B, and Pardun, C J (2003), “Practitioners’ evolving views on
product placement effectiveness”, Journal of Advertising Research, 43 (2), 138-149.
Kunkel, D (1988), “The evolution of children’s television regulatory policy”, Journal of
Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 31(Fall), 367-389.
Laczniak, R N, and Palan, K M (2004), “Under the influence”, Marketing Research,
(Spring), 35-39.
Lafayette, J (2004), “Reopening the Door to Product Placement,” TelevisionWeek, 23
(37), 2.
McKechnie, S A, and Zhou, J (2003), “Product placement in movies: a comparison of
Chinese and American consumers’ attitudes”, International Journal of Advertising, 22,
349-74.
17
McNeal, J J (1987), Children as Consumers: Insights and Implications, Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.
Moore, E S (2004), “Children and the changing world of advertising”, Journal of
Business Ethics, 52 (2), 161-167.
Morton, C R and Friedman, M (2002), “I Saw it in The Movies: Exploring the Link
Between Product Placement Beliefs and Reported Usage Behaviour,” Journal of Current
Issues and Research in Advertising, 24 (2), 33-40.
Nebenzahl, I D and Secunda, E (1993), “Consumers’ Attitudes Toward Product
Placement in Movies,” International Journal of Advertising, 12 (1), 1-11.
Nelson, M R (2002), “Recall of Brand Placements in Computer/Video Games,” Journal
of Advertising Research, 42 (2), 80-92.
Piaget, J (1970), “The Stages of the Intellectual Development of the Child,” in P.H.
Mussen (ed.), Readings in Child Development and Psychology. New York: Harper and
Row.
PQ Media Global Product Placement Forecast Series 2006-2010: Country-by-Country
Analysis, Stamford, CT: PQ Media.
Romano, A (2004), “The New Script for Product Placement,” Broadcasting & Cable, 134
(4), 13.
Russell, C A (2002), “Investigating the effectiveness of product placement in television
shows: the role of modality and plot connection congruence on brand memory and
attitude”, Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (December), 306-318.
Story, M and French, S (2004), “Food Advertising and marketing directed at children and
adolescents in the US”, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical
Activity, 1 (3), 1-17.
Sullivan, L (2008, June 20), “FCC is urged to clamp down on product placement”,
Marketing Daily.
Tiwsakul, R, Hackley, C and Szmigin, I (2005), “Explicit, non-integrated product
placement in British television programmes”, International Journal of Advertising, 24 (1),
95-111.
Treise, D, Weigold, M F, Conna, J and Garrison H (1994), “Ethics in advertising:
ideological correlates of consumer perceptions”, Journal of Advertising, 23 (3), 695-743.
Vranica, S., and Brown, E. (2010, February 11), “Giants Ally to Promote Familty TV”,
Wall Street Journal, B5.
18
Walsh, D, and Gentile D A (2002), “Slipping under the radar: advertising and the mind”,
in L. Riley and I. Obot (eds.), Drinking It In: Alcohol Marketing and Young People,
Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
19