When Product Placement Actually Works
Placements that stand out are remembered and placements that fit are liked. Russell's 2002 study shows the two can pull in opposite directions.
Key takeaways
- In Cristel Russell's 2002 study, visual placements woven into a sitcom's plot were recognised by about 55 per cent of viewers, against about 6 per cent for incidental visual ones.
- Placements that fit their scene improved attitudes; placements that stood out were remembered and discounted.
- A 2020 meta-analysis of 61 papers found sponsorship disclosures raised recognition and resistance and lowered brand attitudes.
- Measure how viewers feel about the brand, not only whether they remember it.
For a brand that is only seen on screen, the research is blunt: to be remembered, it should matter to the plot; to be liked, it should sit quietly in the background.
That is the most useful finding in the research on product placement, and it explains why so many placements that viewers notice do the brand no favours.
Martin Lindstrom's Buyology tells a more dramatic version of the story. In an early chapter he describes a brain-wave study of viewers watching the television talent show American Idol, in which a drinks brand woven into the programme was remembered far better than a car brand that relied on ordinary advertising breaks. His conclusion is that product placement works only when it is part of the narrative. The published research supports a version of that idea, with a twist the book does not mention.
Ask what the viewer is meant to remember afterwards
The clearest experiment on how placement works was published by Cristel Antonia Russell in the Journal of Consumer Research in 2002. Instead of studying a real programme, where brands appear in uncontrolled ways, she had a 27-minute sitcom made, in three versions, with brands placed in different ways. University students watched it in small groups, and 107 completed the study. The design has obvious limits: one programme, one audience of students, and memory measured soon after viewing. Its strength is control. Because the same brands appeared in different ways in different versions, differences in what viewers remembered could be traced to how a brand was placed rather than to which brand it was.
Placements varied on two things. Some were visual, a product seen on screen. Others were auditory, a brand mentioned in the dialogue. And some were closely tied to the plot, while others were incidental.
For memory, two findings stood out. Brands mentioned in dialogue were remembered better than brands only seen. And for brands only seen, plot connection made an enormous difference: visual placements closely tied to the story were recognised by about 55 per cent of viewers, against about 6 per cent for visual placements that were incidental. For brands that were spoken, plot connection made little difference.
The gap is striking. An incidental product in the background of a scene was, in effect, invisible to almost all viewers, while the same kind of product handled as part of the story was noticed by more than half of them. So if the goal is memory, the answer seems simple: say the brand's name, or make the product matter to the story. That is close to Lindstrom's conclusion. It is where the twist begins.
Check whether the brand fits the scene it is in
Russell also measured what happened to viewers' attitudes towards the brands, and the pattern reversed. Visual placements that were only loosely tied to the plot improved attitudes more than visual placements central to the story. Spoken placements that were central to the plot improved attitudes more than spoken ones that were not. On the study's measure of attitude change, loosely connected visual placements produced a shift of about half a point on the study's rating scale, against a tenth of a point for central ones, and central spoken placements about half a point against about a tenth for incidental ones.
Her explanation is about congruence. A product seen in the background fits naturally; a product spoken about as part of the story also fits. Those are the congruent combinations, and they were the ones that persuaded. The incongruent combinations, a product given a prominent visual role in the plot, or a brand named in passing for no reason, drew attention. They were remembered. But they seemed out of place, and viewers discounted them.
Russell's summary is that incongruence helps memory while congruence helps persuasion. A visual placement that you notice is often one that has stopped working on you as persuasion. Spoken mentions that belong to the story are the exception: they were both remembered and liked.
A visual placement that you notice is often one that has stopped working on you as persuasion.
That is the part the folklore of product placement tends to miss, and it changes what counts as a successful product placement. It is easy to measure whether viewers remember a brand. It is harder to measure whether they think better of it, and the two can move in opposite directions.
Read the disclosure as part of the advert itself
Since Russell's study, paid placements have increasingly come with labels, on television and especially on social media. That adds a third factor: whether viewers are told that a brand was paid to be there.
A 2020 meta-analysis led by Martin Eisend in the Journal of Advertising pooled 61 papers, some of which shared data, giving 57 distinct data sets, on disclosing sponsored content. Disclosures made viewers more likely to recognise the content as advertising, more aware of persuasion and more resistant to it. They also made attitudes towards the brand, and the credibility of the source, less favourable. For product placement on social media, where labels are now common, the meta-analysis suggests the label itself changes how the placement is judged.
The authors added a distinction that fits Russell's findings closely. Recognising sponsored content increased memory for it, but did not by itself change how the brand was evaluated. Understanding that it was persuasion did change evaluation. A viewer who notices a placement remembers the brand. A viewer who notices that it was paid for judges it more critically.
The likely reason is what researchers call persuasion knowledge: once people recognise that something is trying to persuade them, they apply their own defences to it. A placement that seemed like part of the story becomes, once labelled, an advert in disguise, and adverts in disguise are judged more critically.
For viewers, the point is practical: noticing a placement and liking the brand are separate outcomes, and the second depends on whether the placement seemed to belong.
Treat the unpublished claims with care
The American Idol study in Buyology is the most famous example of placement research in popular writing, and it should be read with care. Our review of the book found that none of the results from the book's own studies, this one included, carries a citation, and we could not find the study in any peer-reviewed journal.
The idea at its centre is not unreasonable. An earlier study by Shu Law and Kathryn Braun, published in Psychology and Marketing in 2000, reported in its abstract an overall enhancement in product recall, recognition and choice due to placement. Placement does something. The question the published research answers better than the book is what it does, and at what cost. A brain-wave measure of attention or memory can show that a brand registered. It cannot show whether viewers liked the brand more afterwards, and Russell's study suggests that the two answers can differ for the same placement.
What to take away
For brands, the evidence on product placement suggests deciding first whether the aim is to be remembered or to be liked, because the placements that achieve one can undermine the other. A product that fits its scene quietly, or is spoken about naturally as part of the story, tends to persuade. A product shoehorned into the plot, or named for no reason, tends to be remembered but less liked.
For viewers, the research offers a way to watch differently. When a brand catches your eye in a programme, ask whether it belonged there. If it did not, you may remember it without liking it.
The same logic applies well beyond television. A product held by a creator in an online video, a brand name in a song, a logo on a film set: each is a placement, and each faces the same trade. In product placement of every kind, the more a placement is made to stand out, the more it is remembered and the less it persuades, and a label saying it was paid for pushes further in the same direction.
The more a placement is made to stand out, the more it is remembered and the less it persuades.
For anyone commissioning a placement, that suggests measuring more than recall. A brand that counts how many viewers remembered it, and stops there, may be counting the placements that did least for its image. Asking viewers how they now feel about the brand, compared with viewers who did not see the placement, is the measure that matters, and it is not the measure the book reports for its own study.
A brand that counts only recall is counting the wrong half of the effect. It may end up rewarding the placements that did the brand least good.
Common questions
Does product placement work?
It can improve memory for brands. In Cristel Russell's 2002 study, visual placements woven into a sitcom's plot were recognised far more often than incidental ones. But placements that seemed out of place were remembered while doing less for attitudes towards the brand.
Why can a memorable product placement hurt a brand?
Because a placement that does not fit the scene draws attention and is then discounted. Russell found memory improved with incongruent placements while persuasion improved with congruent ones.
Do sponsorship disclosures change how people see a brand?
Yes. A 2020 meta-analysis of 61 papers found disclosures increased recognition of advertising and resistance to it, and made attitudes towards the brand and the credibility of the source less favourable.
Sources
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, 29(3), 306-318. doi:10.1086/344432. Full text read: purpose-made 27-minute sitcom; 107 participants; recognition .551 against .056 for visual placements by plot connection.
Law, S., & Braun, K. A. (2000). “I’ll have what she’s having: gauging the impact of product placements on viewers.” Psychology and Marketing, 17(12), 1059-1075.
Eisend, M., van Reijmersdal, E. A., Boerman, S. C., & Tarrahi, F. (2020). 'A meta-analysis of the effects of disclosing sponsored content.' Journal of Advertising, 49(3), 344-366. doi:10.1080/00913367.2020.1765909. 61 papers, 57 data sets.
Lindstrom, M. (2008). Buyology: Truth and Lies About Why We Buy. Doubleday. Read in full by this publication, with a reliability audit. Ch. 2. The American Idol study carries no citation and no peer-reviewed publication was located.
A note on scope: Russell's study used one programme and student viewers, with memory measured soon after viewing.