Word-of-author advertising in textbooks: the role of brand familiarity and placement repetition on recall and recognition.

Brennan, Ian ; McCalman, David

INTRODUCTION

Brand placement in the media of popular culture has burgeoned in recent years, projected to reach over 6.3 billion dollars in spending for 2008 (Education Policy Studies Laboratory 2005). In a Bruce Springsteen music video, Born in the USA, the music is accompanied by visual images of Miller beer. Mountain Dew has been liberally sprinkled throughout movies such as Secret Window, while Aquafina caught attention in the hit movie, National Treasure. References to branded products are not, however, confined to the media of entertainment; brand names and logos have also infiltrated academic textbooks. Indeed, a recent mathematics text contains visual or verbal references to Sony, Spalding, Disney, Warner Bros., Burger King and McDonalds (Hayes, 1999).

Friedman (1985, 1986, 1987, 1991) uses the term word-of-author advertising (WOA advertising) to describe the appearance of brand names in screenplays, television dramas, novels, lyrics and other "popular cultural products." WOA advertising may be motivated by creative considerations, such as the desire to lend verisimilitude to a drama. In contrast, when WOA advertising results from commercial considerations (i.e., brand owners are charged for a brand's appearance), the practice is considered brand placement (Karrh 1998).

WORD-OF-AUTHOR ADVERTISING IN TEXTBOOKS

Authors of textbooks often include practical applications of theoretical content; consequently, many texts are replete with WOA advertising. For example, the text Global Marketing Strategies_(1998) contains thirty-two pages that refer to Ford or Ford products, while references to Wal-Mart adorn thirteen pages of the text Electronic Commerce: A Managerial Perspective (2000). Hewlett Packard is featured on eight of the pages of the text Organizational Behavior (1998). Brand names also appear in non-business texts; for instance, Mathematics: Applications and Connections (1999) is sprinkled with references to Sony, Spalding, Disney, Warner Bros., Burger King and McDonalds (Hays 1999). Extant research has not addressed the potential benefits that might accrue to firms that receive WOA advertising. In the present paper we examine the effects of WOA advertising on consumer memory.

Recent research in marketing considers recall and recognition to be measures of explicit memory (Law and Braun 2000, Shapiro and Krishnan 2001). In contrast, implicit memory describes changes in task performance that are induced by exposure to a stimulus without the task performer being able to recollect the exposure episode (Schacter 1987). Thus an implicit memory of an advertising exposure may influence brand choice even when the consumer is unable to recognize the advertiser (Shapiro and Krishnan 2001). Consequently, we consider the impact of WOA advertising on measures of both explicit (advertiser recall and recognition) and implicit (brand choice) memory.

Researchers have examined the levels of brand recall and recognition generated by brands placed in movies (Babin & Carder, 1996; Brennan, Dubas & Babin, 1999; Gupta & Lord, 1998;) and television programs (Law & Braun, 2000). The extant literature on audience recollections of brand placements in movies has concentrated on the effects of variations in the presentational characteristics of the placement. These presentational characteristics include the mode of placement exposure--audio-visual versus visual-only (Gupta & Lord, 1998; Law & Braun, 2000, Brennan and Babin 2004), the time on-screen (Brennan, Dubas & Babin, 1999), and the relative prominence of the brand-placement (Brennan, Dubas & Babin, 1999; Gupta & Lord, 1998; Law & Braun, 2000). Given the tendency for WOA references to be repeated within a text, the present paper also considers the effects on recall, recognition and choice of one presentational characteristic--the extent of WOA advertising repetition. Our study also considers the effects of (pre-study) brand familiarity with a WOA advertiser.

Word-of-Author Advertising and Explicit Memory

Prior research in advertising suggests that familiar brands enjoy a recall advantage over brands that are less familiar (Johar & Pham, 1999; Nedgunadi, 1990). The recall advantage for familiar WOA advertisers over their less familiar counterparts may occur at the time of retrieval and/or during encoding. With respect to retrieval, the spreading-activation model of memory (Anderson, 1983; Collins & Loftus, 1975) asserts that brand retrieval may be triggered by the memory of a node (e.g., product category) with which it is associated, with stronger associations appearing to enhance brand retrieval (Lee & Sternthal, 1999; Negunadi, 1990). Accordingly, a familiar brand should have a greater likelihood of being retrieved than an unfamiliar brand, given the stronger associations of the former with the product category (Negunadi, 1990).

With respect to encoding, subjects who encounter a familiar name (e.g., a familiar WOA advertiser) are also more likely to encode the encounter into memory than is the case when they encounter an unfamiliar name. In a series of experiments, Watkins, LeCompte & Kim (2000) demonstrate that a list of words which occur more frequently in everyday language (e.g., letter, earth, captain, hotel and flower) are more recallable than a list of words which occur more rarely (e.g., proctor, kilt, mango, scooter and cobra),, even when neither list shares an association with an underlying node that would facilitate retrieval. Thus, WOA advertisers are more likely to enjoy both an encoding and retrieval advantage over their less familiar less familiar counterparts.

Advertising research also suggests that the repetition of an advertisement tends to increase brand familiarity (Berger & Mitchel, 1989) and brand name recall (Unnava & Burnkrant, 1991). Clearly, the additional opportunity to encode a WOA advertising reference should enhance its retrieval over a comparable reference that receives only a single execution. Whether WOA advertiser repetition magnifies the anticipated recall advantage for familiar WOA advertisers over their less unfamiliar counterparts is an issue of calibration. The additional encoding opportunity enhances the possibility that the encoding advantage of the familiar WOA advertiser is realized; for example, irrespective of familiarity, single WOA advertising references may not be encoded by a reader with inconsistent concentration. In contrast, potential ceiling effects on the recall of familiar WOA advertisers may limit the gains associated with repetition. In experiment one we test the following hypotheses:

H1: The unaided-recall of familiar WOA advertisers will be greater than the unaided-recall of less familiar WOA advertisers.

H2: WOA advertising repetition will increase the unaided-recall of WOA advertisers.

EXPERIMENT 1

Method

Subjects and design

The forty-one subjects who participated in quasi-experiment one (experiment 1) received extra-credit in an undergraduate marketing course. The subjects, undergraduates at a southeastern university, were asked to bring their Principles of Marketing textbooks to the experiment. Upon arrival they were told that they would take part in a study designed to measure the effectiveness of alternative distance learning programs. In phase one of the experiment, subjects were informed that the study was designed to measure the average level of knowledge that was likely to be gained by a class that a textbook chapter prior to an on-line instructional session. Consistent with the guise, the subjects were informed that after reading the New Product Development chapter from their text, they would be asked a series of questions designed to measure their knowledge of new product development. The content contained in the reading had not previously been discussed in the course, and subjects were screened to ensure that they had not previously read the relevant chapter. The subjects were told that they had about 35 minutes to read the chapter. At the end of the reading period (phase one), the subjects completed a ten-minute filler task that was consistent with the guise of the study. In phase two of the experiment, the subjects were asked to write down the names of all the companies that had been referred to in the reading.

Coding

A pretest required subjects, who did not take part in the experiments, to rate the familiarity of each firm that received one or two WOA advertisements in the chapter which was to serve as the experimental stimulus in experiment one. Subjects were asked to consider whether each firm was an industry leader. A post experimental test confirmed that subjects rated firms deemed to be "leaders in their industry" as significantly higher in familiarity.

Each correct, unaided, WOA advertiser recollection reported by each subject in phase two of the experiment was coded into one of four categories developed in the pretest: familiar-firm, one WOA advertisement; familiar-firm, two WOA advertisements; unfamiliar-firm, one WOA advertisement; unfamiliar-firm, two WOA advertisements. The number of WOA advertiser recollections in each category was recorded for each subject. Next, to counteract the potential for the presence of the higher base-rate of familiar (versus unfamiliar) WOA advertisers in the stimulus to contaminate the results, an unaided-recall score for each subject was created by dividing the number of WOA advertisers recalled by each subject in each category by the total number WOA advertisers appearing in the assigned chapter in that category (familiar-firm, one WOA advertisement = 13 firms; familiar-firm, two WOA advertisements = 4 firms; unfamiliar-firm, one WOA advertisement = 5 firms; unfamiliar-firm, two WOA advertisements = 2 firms). Thus, the coding procedure for phase two resulted in a 2 x 2 (WOA advertiser familiarity x WOA ad repetition) design in which all four evaluations were collected within-subjects.

Results

Umesh, Peterson McCann-Nelson and Vaidyanathan (1996) note that when research questions call for comparisons of cell means (rather than a comparison of residual effects present in cell means after main effects have been extracted), that it is inappropriate to conduct comparisons of cell means on the basis of a significant omnibus test of interaction in the ANOVA model. Accordingly, a planned-comparison analysis was performed on the combinations of the four cell means relevant to the hypotheses tests [Wilks' Lambda = .41; F(3, 38) = 18.14, p < .001].

H1 contends that the unaided-recall for familiar WOA advertisers will be superior to the unaided-recall obtained by unfamiliar advertisers. The results support H1. Subjects exhibited a higher recall of WOA advertisers when the WOA advertisement referred to a familiar firm than when the WOA advertisement referred to a unfamiliar firm [M's = 9.99 versus 0.61; F(1, 40) = 46.85, p < .001].

H2 contends that unaided-recall for a WOA advertiser will be positively related to WOA advertising repetition. Consistent with H2, subjects exhibited a higher recall of WOA advertisers when the advertisement was repeated in comparison with the single execution [M's = 7.32 versus 3.28; [F.bar](1, 40) = 9.36, p < .004]. An analysis of H2 within WOA advertiser-size, however, revealed that the increase in the recall of WOA advertisers that could be attributed to advertisement repetition was significant only for familiar WOA advertisers [M's = 13.41 versus 6.57; [F.bar](1, 40) = 8.14, p < .007]. In contrast, recall of unfamiliar WOA advertisers was not significantly increased by WOA advertisement repetition [M's = 1.22 versus 0.00; [F.bar](1, 40) = 1.00, p > .323, see Table]. Thus, familiarity appears to moderate the impact of WOA advertisement repetition on unaided-recall.

Discussion

The results of experiment one indicate that familiar WOA advertisers enjoy an unaided-recall advantage over unfamiliar WOA advertisers. The effects of WOA advertisement repetition appear to be moderated by familiarity. Subjects who were given an additional opportunity to process the WOA advertisement significantly increased their unaided-recall of familiar WOA advertisers. In contrast, the unaided-recall of unfamiliar WOA advertisers was not significantly increased by the repetition of the WOA advertisement.

The results of experiment one are not inconsistent with the notion that familiar WOA advertisers enjoy both encoding and retrieval advantages over their unfamiliar counterparts. The experiment does not, however, demonstrate that familiar WOA advertisers enjoy an encoding advantage over their unfamiliar counterparts; the superior recall exhibited by the familiar WOA advertisers may have resulted entirely from superior retrieval.

The notion that superior retrieval alone could explain the recall advantage enjoyed by familiar WOA advertisers would require the frequency effect to disappear. A recent study by Watkins, LeCompte & Kim. (2000) indicates that the frequency effect disappears and, may indeed reverse itself-- the mixed list paradox--when two conditions are fulfilled. First, the familiar and rare words must be presented on the same (mixed) list. Second, subjects must process the words under the expectation that they will be subjected to a recall test (Delosh & McDaniel, 1996; Watkins, LeCompte & Kim, 2000). Ostensibly, the two conditions that give rise to the mixed-list paradox are likely to be present when subjects process a text that contains WOA advertisers. First, rather than appearing in separate parts of a text, references to familiar and unfamiliar WOA advertisers are likely to be mixed within the text. Second, although the recreational reading of educational texts by students is not unknown, the reading of most students is likely to be motivated by an impending examination. Notwithstanding such arguments, we suspect that the mixed-list paradox is unlikely to emerge when students anticipate being tested on the arguments or principles discussed in a text (as is likely to be the case in practice), rather than on their ability to recall the illustrators (i.e., WOA advertisers) of those arguments. Accordingly, we contend that familiar WOA advertisers will enjoy an encoding advantage over their unfamiliar counterparts. In experiment two, by employing a recognition test that attempts to control for the effects of retrieval, we attempt to illuminate the effects of WOA advertiser-size on encoding.

EXPERIMENT 2

The extent to which the results obtained in experiment one may generalize to WOA advertiser recognition is addressed in experiment two. We anticipate that the unaided-recall advantages demonstrated for familiar WOA advertisers over unfamiliar WOA advertisers in experiment one will also extend to recognition. Such a view is consistent with the idea that familiar WOA advertisers will enjoy encoding advantages over their unfamiliar counterparts (i.e., the frequency effect), and inconsistent with the mixed-list paradox. The effects of repetition on WOA advertiser recognition are also expected to be consistent with those reported for the effects of repetition on unaided-recall in experiment one.

H3: A familiar WOA advertiser will attain a higher level of recognition than that attained by a less familiar WOA advertiser.

H4: WOA advertisement repetition will induce higher levels of WOA advertiser recognition.

Method

Subjects and design

Thirty-one subjects participated in a 2 x 2 (WOA advertiser familiarity x WOA ad repetition) within-subjects design. The experimental guise and text stimulus from experiment one were re-employed in quasi-experiment two. (experiment 2). In addition, two firms from each of the four experimental conditions were employed to create the WOA advertiser familiarity and WOA ad conditions. Subject recognition scores were calculated by averaging the recognition scores for the two WOA advertisers in each treatment condition.

The font and font-size employed in the WOA reference for each of the eight firms was identical. Although the experimental stimulus contained a number of graphs and illustrations, none referred to the WOA advertisers selected for experiment two. In an attempt to control for the effects of primacy and recency in the recollection task, each target WOA reference was both preceded and succeeded by at least six other WOA references that were not involved in the recognition task. When selecting the WOA advertisers for experiment 2, care was taken to balance the valence of the author's comments associated with the WOA references (across familiarity and within each repetition treatment). The single WOA advertisement execution conditions each contained a firm with one positive and one neutral reference. Within each WOA repetition condition, each firm received one positive and one neutral reference. The neutral references typically associated a firm with a particular new product development technique (e.g., a firm used a concept test to create a brand of dog food). The positive references associated a firm with a successful new product or a pleasant characteristic (e.g., a firm's product was described as "litter free").

Decoy-foils

A number of studies have examined the extent to which self-reported recollections are influenced by question characteristics (Menon, 1993; Schwarz, 1990; Schwarz, Hippler, Deutsch & Strack, 1985). Recent research in event-sponsor recognition (Johar & Pham, 1999) suggests that recognition based on direct retrieval of the event-sponsor association from memory may be supplemented by the use of constructive recognition strategies. These constructive recognition strategies rely upon inferences derived from the relative size of the sponsor vis-a-vis the decoy foil that is present at the time of recognition (Johar & Pham, 1999). For example, a subject who cannot retrieve an event-sponsor from memory may make an inference based upon the relative size of the two candidates. In particular, Johar & Pham contend that the larger of the two candidate event-sponsors may be selected on the basis that the larger firm is more likely to have the financial resources that would permit event sponsorship.

In the case of experiment two in the present study, we controlled for the possibility that the relative familiarity of the WOA advertiser vis-a-vis the decoy firm (foil) might serve as a retrieval cue. For example, if the foil is dissimilar in familiarity (distinctive) to the WOA advertiser, subject recognition of both familiar and unfamiliar WOA advertisers may be artificially inflated. In particular, assume that in spite of being unable to recall the name of a WOA advertiser, a subject is nevertheless able to retrieve two cues: (1) the industry from which the two candidates are drawn that was employed to illustrate an argument in the chapter reading, (2) whether the firm used in the illustration was familiar or unfamiliar. If a familiar WOA advertiser were pitted against a distinctive (unfamiliar) foil, or an unfamiliar WOA advertiser pitted against a distinctive (familiar) foil, the WOA advertiser could be selected constructively (by a process of elimination). These retrieval cues do not facilitate selection by elimination when WOA advertisers are pitted against foils that are non-distinctive (i.e., similar in familiarity to the WOA advertiser). Accordingly, after the results of a pretest, eight non-distinctive foils (from the same industry as their respective WOA advertiser) appeared as decoys on the recognition task.

Results

A planned comparison analysis was performed [Wilks' Lambda = .47; F(3,28) = 10.29 p < .001]. H3 contends that familiar WOA advertiser will attain higher levels of recognition than unfamiliar WOA advertisers when the judgement environment involves non-distinctive foils. The results of the planned comparison support H3. Subjects recognized a significantly higher number of familiar (versus unfamiliar) WOA advertisers [M's = 1.85 versus 1.58; F(1, 30) = 17.85, p < .001, see Table].

H4 contends that the repetition of a WOA advertisement will result in higher levels of recognition when the judgement environment involves non-distinctive foils. The results support H4 [M's = 1.81 versus 1.63; F(1, 30) = 4.67, p < .04]. An analysis of H4 within WOA advertiser-size, however, reveals that the increase in recognition associated with repetition was marginally significant for familiar WOA advertisers [M's = 1.94 versus 1.77; F(1, 30) = 2.95, p < .1]. In contrast, subjects recognition of unfamiliar WOA advertisers was not significantly increased by WOA advertisement repetition [M's = 1.68 versus 1.48; F(1, 30) = 1.67, p > .205 see Table]. The moderating influence of familiarity on the effects of WOA advertisement is directionally similar to that observed in experiment one. Finally, it should be noted that recognition accuracy differed from chance in all four treatment conditions (p's < .05).

Discussion

The results of experiment two indicate that familiar WOA advertisers obtain greater recognition than unfamiliar WOA advertisers. The repetition of a WOA advertisement in a text also induces higher levels of recognition in comparison with the single execution. The moderating role of familiarity on the effect of WOA advertisement repetition on recognition is directionally similar to that which was observed for unaided-recall in the first experiment.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

For WOA advertisements that appeared in a college textbook, our study investigated the influence of the familiarity of a firm appearing in a WOA advertisement and the repetition of the advertisement on recall and recognition.

The results of our experiments indicate that the WOA advertisement of a familiar firm enjoys an advantage over that of an unfamiliar firm with respect to both recall and recognition. Further, our results indicate that the effect of WOA advertisement repetition on recall is moderated by the size of the firm that is referenced in the WOA advertisement. Specifically, familiar WOA advertisers benefited from a significant increase in recall (and marginally significant increase in recognition) when subjects were afforded an additional opportunity to encode the WOA reference. In contrast, the recall and recognition of unfamiliar WOA advertisers were unaffected by WOA advertisement repetition. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that even when denied the recall advantage that familiarity generates via superior retrieval (Negunadi, 1990), the encoding advantage enjoyed by familiar WOA advertisers is sufficient to induce a recognition advantage over unfamiliar WOA advertisers.

Theoretical implications.

Within the domain of event-sponsor identification, research by Johar & Pham (1999) indicates that sponsor recognition accuracy is not significantly affected by sponsor-size when non-distinctive foils are present at the time of both encoding and retrieval. Johar & Pham exposed subjects to fictitious newspaper articles about sporting events that referred not only to the sponsor of the event, but also to the names of three other firms (from which foils were selected) from the same industry as the event sponsor. Johar and Pham had expected the recognition advantage associated with sponsor-size to diminish (but not disappear) when non-distinctive foils replaced distinctive foils on the recognition instrument. Their premise was that subjects unable to directly retrieve the event-sponsor would be denied the opportunity to constructively identify the event sponsor through the use of a heuristic: namely, that familiar companies, with extensive promotional budgets, would be more likely to be involved in sponsorship. Nevertheless, Johar & Pham anticipated that, as a result of superior encoding of the event-sponsor relationship, familiar sponsors would still retain a direct retrieval advantage over their less familiar counterparts. Accordingly, the authors were surprised to find that the recognition advantage associated with sponsor-size disappeared when event-sponsors were pitted against non-distinctive foils during the recognition task. Our findings suggest that an encoding advantage for familiar sponsors may emerge when non-distinctive foils are absent at the time of encoding and present only when a judgement of recognition is required.

Practical Implications

For managers involved in brand placement transactions, our findings draw attention to the potential for the effectiveness of brand placements to be influenced not only by presentational characteristics (Brennan, Dubas & Babin, 1999; Gupta & Lord, 1998; Law & Braun, 2000), but also by variation in an audience characteristic: brand familiarity.

Our results suggest that marketing mangers with brand recall and brand recognition objectives should explore opportunities to place WOA advertisements in books. Walsh (2000) notes that some educational institutions are partially funded by companies who are granted advertising opportunities within the scholastic environment. For example, with the exception of New York, all the school systems in the USA participated in a program that incorporated twelve minutes of Channel One programming and advertising into the daily curriculum; in exchange, the distributors of Channel One programming provided the school systems with free audio-visual equipment (Wyatt 2000b). School systems have also bartered advertising for computers and have permitted advertising on school buses, school menus, school hallways and textbook covers (Rassmussen, 1997; Stark, 2000; Wyatt, 2000a). This evidence suggests, that at least within the United States, a market for texts containing sponsored WOA advertising could develop if the publisher or author of the texts were to offer the adopting educational institutions some form of consideration (e.g., funding for an educational program or a reduction in the purchase price of affected textbooks).

Directions for Future Research

In our quasi-experiments differences in pre-study brand familiarity were measured. Measured variables enhance the ecological validity of an experimental design (Menon, 1993); however, such designs suffer from the fact that treatment conditions may differ from one another on variables other than those that were measured (i.e. the results are correlational). Our use of multiple firms within each treatment condition mitigates this threat to the internal validity of the research; it could be further alleviated by replications that utilize alternative sets of WOA advertisers.

Future research might examine WOA advertising within the realm of the novel. Since World War II, the identification of non-fictional products has become increasingly prevalent within the genre of fiction (Friedman, 1985). References to branded products not only add verisimilitude to the environments inhabited by the characters, but also assist an author in expediting the communication of their social backgrounds and personality traits (Karrh, 1998; Delorme & Reid, 1999). Accordingly, future research might consider the extent to which the patronage of leading characters in a novel may condition attitudes (Gorn, 1982) towards the companies and products that feature in WOA advertisements. An assessment of such conditioning effects is likely to be of particular interest to marketers with brands that compete in markets that lack a dominant brand--markets where conditioning has been shown to influence brand choice (Baker, 1999; Miniard, Sirdeshmukh & Innis, 1992).

REFERENCES

Anderson, J. R. (1983) 'A spreading activation theory of memory', Journal of Verbal Learning and Learning Behavior, 22, 261-295.

Babin, L. A., & Carder, S. T. (1996) 'Viewers' recognition of brands placed within a film', International Journal of Advertising, 15, 140-151.

Baker, W. E. (1999) 'When can affective conditioning and mere exposure directly influence brand choice', Journal of Advertising, 28, 31-46.

Berger, I. E., & Mitchell, A. A. (1989) 'The effect of attitude accessibility, attitude confidence, and the attitude behavior relationship', Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 269-279.

Bornstein, R F., (1989) 'Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968-1987', Psychological Bulletin, 106, 265-289.

Brennan, I., Dubas K. M. & Babin L. A. (1999) 'The influence of product-placement type and exposure-time on product-placement recognition', International Journal of Advertising, 18, 323-337.

Brennan, I & Babin L. A. (2004) Brand placement recognition: The influence of presentation mode and brand familiarity," Journal of Promotion Management, 10, 185-202.

Bazerman, M. H. (1994) Judgement in Managerial Decision Making (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Collins, W., Dritsas , L., Frey, P., Howard, A. C., McClain, K., Molina, D., Moore-Harris, B., Ott, J. M., Pelfrey, R., Price J., Smith, B., & Wilson P. S. (1999) Mathematics: Applications and Connections. NewYork: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

Collins, A M., & Loftus, F. (1975) 'A spreading activation theory of semantic processing', Psychological Review, 82, 407-428.

Delorme, D E., & Reid, L. N. (1999) 'Moviegoers experiences and interpretations of brands in films revisited', Journal of Advertising, 28, 71-95.

Delosh, E. L., & McDaniel, M. A. (1996) 'The role of order information in free recall: application to the word frequency effect', Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 22, 1136-1146.

Dexter, C. (1983) The Riddle of the Third Mile. London: Macmillan.

Education Policy Studies Laboratory of Arizona State University (2005) 'Product Placement Spending in Media 2005: Executive Summary', http://epsl.asu.edu/ceru/Articles/CERU-0505-127-OWI.pdf.

Friedman, M. (1985) 'The changing language of a consumer society: Brand name usage in popular American novels in the post war era', Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 927-938.

Friedman, M. (1986) 'Commercial influences in the lyrics of popular American music of the postwar era', Journal of Consumer Affairs, 20, 193-113.

Friedman, M. (1987) 'Word of author advertising and the consumer; an empirical analysis of the quality of product brands noted by authors of popular cultural works', Journal of Consumer Policy, 10, 307-318.

Friedman, M. (1991) A Brand New Language. New York: Greenwood Press.

Gupta, P. B., & 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.

Gorn, G. J. (1982) 'The effects of music in advertising on choice behavior', Journal of Marketing, 46, 94-101.

Hays, C. L. (1999, 21 March) 'Math textbook salted with brand names raises new alarm. New York Times', B1.

Hoyer, W. D., & Brown, S. P. (1990) 'The effects of brand awareness on choice for a common, repeat-purchase product', Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 141-148.

Jeannet, J. P., & Hennessey, H. D. (1998) Global Marketing Strategies, NewYork: Houghton Mifflin.

Johar, G. V., & Pham, M. T. (1999) 'Relatedness, prominence, and constructive sponsor identification', Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 299-312.

Karrh, J. A. (1998) 'Brand placement: A review', Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 20, 31-49.

Law, S.,& Braun, K. A. (2000) 'I'll have what she's having: Gauging the impact of product placement on viewers', Psychology and Marketing, 17, 1059-1075.

Lee, A. Y., & Sternthal, B. (1999) 'The effects of positive mood on memory', Journal of Consumer Research, 26, 115-127.

Meenaghan, T. (1994) 'Ambush marketing: Immoral or imaginative marketing practice?', Journal of Advertising Research, 34, 77-78

Menon, G. (1993) 'The effects of accessibility of information in memory on judgements of behavioral frequencies', Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 421-440.

Miniard, P. W., Sirdeshmukh, D., & Innis, D. E. (1992) 'Peripheral persuasion and brand choice', Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 226-239.

Moorhead, G., & Griffin, R. W., (1998) Organizational Behavior (5th ed.). New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Negunadi, P. (1990) 'Recall and consumer consideration sets: Influencing choice without altering brand evaluations', Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 263-276.

Rasmussen, E. (1997)'Courting the classroom', Sales and Marketing Management, 149, 20.

Rindfleisch, A., & Inman, J. J. (1998) 'Explaining the familiarity-liking relationship: mere-exposure, information availability or social desirability?', Marketing Letters, 9, 5-19.

Schwarz, N. (1990) 'Assessing frequency reports of mundane behavior: Contributions of cognitive psychology to questionnaire construction', In C. Hendrick & M. S. Clarke (Eds.), Research Methods in Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 98-119). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Schwarz, N., Hippler, H. J., Deutsch, B., & Strack, F. (1985) 'Response categories: Effects on behavioral reports and comparative judgements', Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 388-395.

Snyder, M. (1992) 'Movies and product placement: Is Hollywood turning films into commercial speech?', University of Illinois Law Review, 301-337.

Stark, A. (2000, March 31) 'Taste: Let's make a deal-Commerce invades the classroom; A terrible thing? Not always', Wall Street Journal, W17.

Turban, E., Lee, J., King, D., & Chung, H. M. (2000) Electronic Commerce: A Managerial Perspective. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall

Unnava, H. R., & Burnkrant, R. E. (1991) 'Effects of repeating varied ad executions on brand name memory', Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 406-416.

Walsh, M. (2000) 'USA: Commercials in the classroom', The Unesco Courier, 53, 14-16.

Watkins, M. J., LeCompte, D. C., and Kim, K. (2000) 'Role of study strategy in recall of mixed lists of common and rare words', Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 26, 239-245.

Wyatt, E. (2000a, April 7) 'School board considers deal to swap ads for computers', New York Times, p. A1.

Wyatt, E. (2000b, September 26) 'School board to turn to outside advisors', New York Times, p. B3.

Zajonc, R. B. (1968) 'Attitudinal effects of mere exposure', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monegraph, (9, Pt 2).

Ian Brennan, Colorado State University-Pueblo

David McCalman, University of Central Arkansas

Ian Brennan is associate professor of marketing at Colorado State University--Pueblo. His previous research has appeared in Advances in Consumer Research, Decision Support Systems, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, The International Journal of Advertising, Psychology and Marketing, The Journal of Promotion Management

D. G. McCalman is assistant professor of management at the University of Central Arkansas. His previous research has appeared in Business Horizons, Journal of Technology Transfer, and Competitiveness Review

TABLE MEANS FOR RECALL AND RECOGNITION OF WOA ADVERTISERS

                                          Placement = 1

                                 Familiar Firms   Unfamiliar Firms

Unaided-Recall (a)                    6.57              0.00
Recognition (b)                       1.77              1.48
Choice (c) advertising present        1.35              1.25
Choice (c) advertising present        1.2               1.2

                                          Placement = 2

                                 Familiar Firms   Unfamiliar Firms

Unaided-Recall (a)                   13.41              1.22
Recognition (b)                       1.94              1.68
Choice (c) advertising present        1.15              1.3
Choice (c) advertising present        1.15              1.3

(a) Percent of firms correctly recalled within each condition
(experiment 1).

(b) Number of brands recalled within each condition (range 0-2)
(experiment 2).

(c) Number of target brands chosen (range 0-2) when WOA advertising is
present (experiment 3).

(d) Number of target brands chosen (range 0-2) when WOA advertising is
absent (experiment 3).