Thesis

Recommendations

Info

Results 79 Tab. 27 Product placement prominence: reasons preference (audiovisual) Product category beer (Heineken) • )ts the beer which ) like the most. Product category consumer electronics (Apple) • The brand is well-known and offers a high quality. • The brand offers the highest quality. • I have a positive experience with the brand. • The other brands look like plastic. Product category energy drinks (Red Bull) • The image of the brand and past experience. • ) have the best experience with it. )t tastes the best and its effective. • I know this brand the best. • )ts the most famous and it has the highest quality. • It has the best design. • )f ) had to choose, it would be Red Bull as ) presume its the least disgusting. • )ts the most well-known to me and I like the ads. • It has a cool brand. • I know the brand and I like the taste. • Due to the packaging and the advertising. • The brand is well-known. I tasted it before. The quality is high. • It has the best taste and I trust its effectiveness. • )ts the most famous energy drink. • )ts the only energy drink ) tried and ) prefer to keep drinking what I know. • I like the design and I buy it every time. Source: experiment 1, 2015, n = 80 5.2.4 Attention Complementing the date regarding brand recall, the research wanted to also analyze attention to visual types of product placement. This section will describe the results of the basic key performance indicators for the AOIs defined for each brand. Firstly, the visual product placements will be discussed and secondly, the audiovisual product placements. The visual Heineken product placement had a 100% hit ratio, as well as 100% revisitors, indicating all 40 subjects looked at the brand element more than once, see figure 20. The term brand element is emphasized as due to how the message is encoded (the actor holds the bottle, partially covering the brands logo with his hand), it is not possible to say the brand itself was fully visible. However, it is possible a brand name was deduced from another brand element such as the packaging, colours or even a partially visible logo. The lack of logo visibility might in part explain why the hit ratio did not fully translate into brand recall (see above). However, the data gathered from the interviews revealed that those who did not recall the brand, also did not wrongly attribute the product category to a competing brand unlike the results from the questionnaire survey about overall brand recall (see above). Of all the visible product placements used as part of this experiment, the
80 Results Heineken brand had the highest dwell time as percentage of the total AOI visibility (4735,8 milliseconds). This might also be explained through the way the message was encoded: the particular scene had no dialogue, potentially avoiding the product placement having to compete with other sources of information. Moreover, the scene itself contained only one sequence of actions, namely the character lifting up the bottle, consuming it and putting it back down: as such the product placement complies with the criteria to be described as the used by character placement (Yang and Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2007), giving it a higher level of prominence than merely background placements. This could have contributed to the elevated dwell time. On a side note, due to the sequence of actions in this particular scene, it would be possible for the AOI of the bottle to overlap with a fictitious AOI (Bojko, 2013), being the face of the actor: the heat map, shown on figure 21, shows at lower kernel size that the gaze is indeed primarily focussed on the bottle as brand element. Fig. 20 Visual product placement (Heineken) - AOI KPIs Source: experiment 1, 2015, n = 80
Page 1 and 2:
The Effects of Product Placement on
Page 4:
I would firstly and foremost like t
Page 8:
Abstract VAN WICHELEN, Steven. The
Page 11 and 12:
4.3 Self-reported effects of produc
Page 13 and 14:
12 Introduction x
Page 15 and 16:
14 Objectives 2 Objectives The gene
Page 17 and 18:
16 Literature Survey 3 Literature S
Page 19 and 20:
18 Literature Survey through brand
Page 21 and 22:
20 Literature Survey Fig. 2 Sub-dim
Page 23 and 24:
22 Literature Survey bring about gr
Page 25 and 26:
24 Literature Survey 3.2.2 Product
Page 27 and 28:
26 Literature Survey only (AUD) and
Page 29 and 30: 28 Literature Survey Apéria and Ge
Page 31 and 32: 30 Literature Survey and the charac
Page 33 and 34: 32 Literature Survey Tab. 1 Alignme
Page 35 and 36: 34 Literature Survey and experience
Page 37 and 38: 36 Literature Survey Fig. 7 A model
Page 39 and 40: 38 Literature Survey (words, object
Page 41 and 42: 40 Literature Survey affective comp
Page 43 and 44: 42 Methods and materials 4 Methods
Page 45 and 46: 44 Methods and materials can stand
Page 47 and 48: 46 Methods and materials moderator,
Page 49 and 50: 48 Methods and materials 4.3 Self-r
Page 51 and 52: 50 Methods and materials As the aim
Page 53 and 54: 52 Methods and materials Before exp
Page 55 and 56: 54 Methods and materials and its ca
Page 57 and 58: 56 Methods and materials fer across
Page 59: 58 Methods and materials The second
Page 64 and 65: Results 63 Overall, brand recall wa
Page 66 and 67: Results 65 indicating a medium to l
Page 68 and 69: Results 67 To assess the level of s
Page 70 and 71: Results 69 Tab. 18 Crosstabulation:
Page 72 and 73: Results 71 20 15 10 5 0 15 14 9 5 0
Page 74 and 75: Results 73 Audiovisual types of pro
Page 76 and 77: Results 75 Tab. 23 Crosstabulation:
Page 78 and 79: Results 77 and 60%. The amount of s
Page 82 and 83: Results 81 Fig. 21 Visual product p
Page 84 and 85: Results 83 24. With 32 subjects ind
Page 86 and 87: Results 85 Fig. 26 Audiovisual prod
Page 88 and 89: Results 87 brand is likely the reas
Page 90 and 91: Results 89 Starbucks 15 14 Red Bull
Page 92 and 93: Results 91 Starbucks 2.66 2.96 Red
Page 94 and 95: Results 93 The results regarding th
Page 96 and 97: Results 95 became less descriptive.
Page 98 and 99: Results 97 Red Bull (control group)
Page 100 and 101: Results 99 Starbucks 2.85 2.86 Red
Page 102 and 103: Results 101 to evoking and recallin
Page 104 and 105: Results 103 influence. It does not
Page 106 and 107: Discussion 105 Regarding product pr
Page 108 and 109: Discussion 107 (Kotler, 2012) in th
Page 110 and 111: Benefits of the thesis 109 • Mana
Page 112 and 113: Conclusion 111 evoke brand recall t
Page 114 and 115: References 113 9 References Aaker,
Page 116 and 117: References 115 Cacioppo, J. )., & P
Page 118 and 119: References 117 Ferrier, M. (2014, J
Page 120 and 121: References 119 Kahneman, D. (1973).
Page 122 and 123: References 121 McGuire, William J.
Page 124 and 125: References 123 Rossiter, J. R. (199
Page 126 and 127: References 125 Wiles, M. A., & Dani
Page 128 and 129: List of tables 127 Tab. 22 Intervie
Page 130 and 131:
List of figures 129 Fig. 23 Visual
Page 132 and 133:
Appendix 131 B Questionnaire interv
Page 134 and 135:
Appendix 133 7. Which of the follow
Page 136 and 137:
Appendix 135 Name Surname Gender Ag
Page 138 and 139:
Appendix 137
Page 140 and 141:
Appendix 139
Page 142 and 143:
Appendix 141
Page 144 and 145:
Appendix 143
Page 146 and 147:
Appendix 145
Page 148 and 149:
Appendix 147
Page 150 and 151:
Appendix 149
Page 152 and 153:
Appendix 151
Page 154 and 155:
Appendix 153
Page 156 and 157:
Appendix 155
Page 158 and 159:
Appendix 157
Page 160 and 161:
Appendix 159
Page 162 and 163:
Appendix 161
Page 164 and 165:
Appendix 163
Page 166 and 167:
Appendix 165
Page 168 and 169:
Appendix 167
show all

Thesis

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?