The Efficacy of Brand-Execution Tactics in TV Advertising, Brand Placements, and Internet

Advertising
Jenni Romaniuk
Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science, University of South Australia
INTRODUCTION
Across all theories of advertising, there is a consistent theme: For the exposure to have any consequent effect in the future, the viewer
needs to know which brand is being advertised. It is crucial, therefore, for viewers of an advertisement to register the brand name in their
memory as a part of their exposure to that advertisement. The key mechanism for communicating the brand is direct branding execution,
which is how the brand name is presented throughout an advertisement. This execution (the focus of this article) consists of an
advertisement's mode, its timing, and its structureall of which can help a brand name cut through other media clutter and be noticed by
viewers.
Despite this acknowledged importance, evidence abounds that the branding execution often fails to capture the viewers' attention, even if
they notice an advertisement's creative content. Correct brand identification from viewers with verified advertisement exposure is about 40
percent (Franzen, 1994; Rossiter and Bellman, 2005). In other words, more than half of those who remember seeing an advertisement fail
to register the brand name and that a considerable amount of advertising exposures are wasted due to ineffective branding execution.
Ineffective branding execution occurs when the presentation of a brand name within an advertisement is insufficient in getting the brand
name itself noticed. The viewer either does not remember any brand at all, or cites a competing brand.
Why Single Out Branding Execution?
Branding is the only element of the advertisement that is not optional. It is what differentiates the creative piece as an advertisement,
rather than a short movie. Consumers can rarely act immediately on their advertising exposure. For at least a period of time, therefore,
the advertisement needs to appropriately register some sort of brand identity in buyer memory to ensure that traces of it can be recalled
in a buying situation.
Topic Relevance
Audience fragmentation means that marketers may need to spend more to reach different pockets of potential consumers in order to reach
a wide audience. Advertisers need to maximize the chance of sales effectiveness from every exposure. This fragmentation is driven by the
presence of new media (the internet, social networking, word of mouth) as well as alternative mechanisms in old media (i.e., brand
placements within TV programs).
This article has two primary objectives:
G To bring together the knowledge of the impact of branding execution on advertising effectiveness in order to identify the empirically
generalized findings.
G To compare traditional and new media in their performance on these execution tactics in order to identify key areas for
improvement across both new and old media.
BRANDING EXECUTION EFFECTIVENESS: CURRENT EMPIRICAL GENERALIZATIONS
This article focuses on quantifiable, objective measures of branding execution, not subjective metrics such as the brand's role in creative-
concept development. With a strict emphasis on empirical generalizations, the research focuses on execution elements that have been
investigated in multiple studies. Specifically:
G Visual frequency: How many times is the brand visually represented?
G Verbal frequency: How many times is the brand mentioned?
G Total brand exposures: How often is the brand referenced, regardless of mode?
G Duration of brand: For what period of time is the brand in front of the viewer?
G Early branding: Does the brand appear early in the advertisement?
G Dual mode: Does the advertisement include both visual and verbal branding-execution elements?
Journal of Advertising Research
Volume 49, No. 2, June 2009
www.journalofadvertisingresearch.com
This research includes both paid-media television advertising as well as brand placement within programming. Although there has been
some research into how brand placement performs in the context of movies, TV is the medium that has been the primary focus of research
into branding execution. Empirical generalizations are drawn when there is either consistency across the studies conducted to date, or
when the vast weight of evidence favors a particular finding.
The report's two primary dependent variables are:
G Brand recall: Can someone remember the brand advertising?
G Advertising persuasion: Did the advertisement increase the likelihood of the viewer buying the brand?
The discussion is focused on the relationship between brand-execution tactics and these two advertising-exposure outcomes.
EXECUTION ELEMENTS
Visual Frequency
The evidence for the influence of visual frequency on recall is strong (Romaniuk, 2008 [2 studies]; Scott and Craig-Lees, 2006; Stewart
and Furse, 1986). The empirical result is generalized across pretest and experimental situations as well as forced exposure and natural
viewing environments (see Table 1). There are two studies that did not find a positive relationship.
Table 1: Visual Frequency
In contrast, there is little evidence to support that visual frequency has a positive relationship with persuasion, with no relationship found
for the two studies conducted to date (Stewart and Furse, 1986; Stewart and Koslow, 1989).
EGla: Visual brand frequency is related to recall.
EGlb: Visual brand frequency is not linked to advertising persuasion.
Verbal Frequency
Three studies using pretest samples (Stewart and Furse, 1986; Stewart and Koslow, 1989; Walker and von Gonten, 1989) show a positive
link between verbal frequency and recall of the brand (see Table 2), as does the one study in brand placement (Romaniuk and Lock,
2008). The advertising studies drawing from samples watching television in their natural viewing environment, however, do not show a
positive relationship between verbal branding frequency and brand recall (Romaniuk, 2008 [2 studies]). This suggests that verbal
frequency may be effective in helping the brand cut through during a pretest, but is unable to cut through in an environment such as the
family home. There is, again, no link with persuasion in the two studies conducted to date. The weakness with the research to date,
therefore, is that it holds only in pretest environments. This makes it difficult to claim an empirically generalized result from studies to date.
And there is no empirically generalized result for the relationship between verbal frequency and recall.
Table 2: Verbal Frequency
EG2: Verbal brand frequency is not linked to advertising persuasion.
Total Frequency
There is a consistent empirical generalization that the frequency with which the brand occurs is related to advertising/brand recall across
the five studies (see Table 3) (Romaniuk, 2008 [2 studies]; Romaniuk and Lock, 2008; Stanton and Burke, 1998 [2 studies]). This
relationship has held in three different advertising exposure environments: home natural viewing environments, experimental in-home
viewing, and pretests. It has also held over studies including both 15- and 30-s advertisement lengths and for both brand placements and
advertising. In two recent studies, however, the relationship between total frequency and brand recall was weaker than the relationship
between visual frequency and brand recall (Romaniuk, 2008 [2 studies]). Further testing, therefore, is needed to determine the value of
saying the brand name over showing it visually.
Table 3: Total Brand Frequency
Again, there is very little evidence of any relationship with persuasion in three of the four studies (Stanton and Burke, 1998 [2 studies];
Stewart and Furse, 1986; Stewart and Koslow, 1989).
EG3a: There is a positive relationship between the total frequency of brand occurrences and recall, but this needs further testing to
separate out visual frequency effects.
EG3b: There is no relationship between total frequency of brand occurrences and advertising persuasion.
Duration
In most studies (see Table 4), there is no observed relationship between duration and recall in pretest, experimental, and real-world
conditions. The one exceptionin which a brand placement that lasted more than 10 s was associated positively with brand recall
(Romaniuk and Lock, 2008). There is no relationship with persuasion across the two studies that have tested for this.
Table 4: Dual Mode
EG4a: There is no relationship between the duration of branding and recall.
EG4b: There is no relationship between the duration of branding and advertising persuasion.
Early Branding
The weight of evidence favors early branding, with five out of eight studies showing a positive relationship between early branding and
recall (see Table 5). There was no evidence in three of four studies that early branding is linked to higher persuasion, the exception being
30-s executions cited in Stanton and Burke (1998).
Table 5: Early Branding
Conclusion
EG5a: There is a positive relationship between early presence of the brand and recall.
EG5b: There is no relationship between early presence of the brand and advertising persuasion.
Dual Mode
All five studies that have tested the impact of dual mode (visual and verbal branding) have found it to be more effective in stimulating
recall than single-mode execution (see Table 6). This empirical generalization holds in forced and natural-viewing environments,
experimental designs, and pretests. It also generalizes across advertisements and placements. No tests of the relationship between dual-
mode execution and persuasion could be found.
Table 6: Duration
Conclusion
EG6: There is a positive relationship between dual mode branding execution and recall.
OVERALL SUMMARY
There is more to branding than simply showing the brand, so it is not surprising that there is not 100 percent consistency across studies for
any execution elements. There often was, however, overwhelming evidence in a particular direction. One generalization across all studies
was the finding that branding execution is not linked to persuasion. In hindsight, this is probably not surprising, given the primary role that
branding execution plays in identifying the brand. The consistency of these results across all execution elements suggests that we should
not expect our branding execution to persuade viewers.
Two studies stood out with some results that were out of sync with the other studies. Consistent in both was the conversion of independent
variables from continuous to dichotomous in structure
(Romaniuk and Lock, 2008; Stanton and Burke, 1998). This condition requires establishment of a cut-off pointa decision that may lead to
lost information and, therefore, make the variable less sensitive. The introduction of a cut-off point may explain the contradictory findings,
but more research is needed to test why the two studies produced different results.
EXAMINING CURRENT PRACTICE
We now document the branding execution from approximately 1,500 U.S. primetime television advertisements, 2,000 U.S. television
program placements, and 100 video-based internet advertisements (see Table 7). To be considered comparable to television advertising
and brand placements, internet advertisements were chosen that had to have a moving component within the advertisement. In all cases,
multiple coders coded execution elements.
Table 7: Current Brand Execution Practice across Media
The TV spots and placements came from U.S. prime-time TV in 2006, and the internet advertisements were accessed in 2008. Results are
shown by execution element across product categories. The television advertisements were 15 and 30 s in length only, with the exception
of television-program promotions, which ranged from 5 to 60 s.
The brand placements were in shows that were predominantly 30 or 60 min in length and multiple brand placements for the same brand
within the same show were combined to represent a single brand placement.
The internet advertisements ranged from 5 to 150 s. In the case of continuously looping advertisements, a point that represented the start
of the message was taken as the start of the advertisement.
DISCUSSION
This article shows that there is empirically generalizable knowledge in the area of branding execution. Importantly, some execution tactics
are more effective than others. This knowledge may help move marketers out of a more branding toward an understanding of what
makes for better branding. There is strong evidence to support:
G visual brand frequency;
G early brand presence;
G dual-mode branding.
Particularly in real-world settings, there is mixed evidence regarding verbal frequency and, by extension, total frequency. There is very
little evidence to support duration as an effective execution strategymore branding does not mean more effective branding. Importantly,
there is a consistency across all studies in the effects of branding executionmore specifically, that it works more effectively on brand
memories, rather than persuasion.
An examination of current practice revealed that a large number of current television advertisements did not exhibit best practice in
terms of these branding principles. It also highlights that new media are not using this knowledge and, therefore, are making the same
kind of execution mistakes. These failings point to the potential for gains to be made in advertising effectiveness if more advertisers knew
aboutand implementedthe empirical generalizations about branding execution that already exist.
FUTURE RESEARCH AGENDA
Based on the findings to date, and marketing practice, the key priorities for research are as follows:
G More studies devoted to branding execution as a stand-alone element with the objective of making the brand name salient. A
separate stream of research would encourage researchers to focus specifically on what drives effective branding executionan
examination that purposefully would avoid the distraction of other advertising creative elements.
G More real-world studies. Most of the work to date has been in forced-exposure environments, either under pretest conditions or in
experimental design. Knowing what we do about advertising avoidance (Paech, Riebe, and Sharp, 2003) and passive viewing of
television (Krugman, Cameron, and White, 1995), real-world studies that take into account these viewer-related factors could help
develop robust empirical generalizations. It is important to ensure we take into account that the processing of advertising involves
both the characteristics of advertising and the viewing environment. Studies should incorporate the viewing environment, therefore,
and allow for the consideration of advertising-avoidance behavior.
G Clearer quantification of results. Most studies report effects, but do not clearly quantify the results, making it difficult to establish
quantifiable benchmarks that can become guidelines for advertising practice. For example, future research would be served
quantifying the effects of each visual exposure and examining the conditions that produced more positive results. Further,
understanding the nature of the relationship with continuous variables is important when identifying norms for practice. Knowing if
the relationship is linear or curvilinear is important. And, in the case of a curve, it is important to identify the opportunities for
maximum gains and the points where diminishing returns begin.
G Studies into the effects of branding execution within internet advertisements are needed to see if the same findings hold in this
medium. The consumption of internet advertising is different from TV: it tends to be a more focused activity, but it also takes place
in a cluttered page-viewing environment that is very different from television. Further research needs to identify what characteristics
can help ensure that the brand name breaks through this clutter.
G Studies into other forms of branding, such as the use of distinctive elements (taglines, logos, symbols, celebrities, etc.) to identify
the brand name. Research is needed to identify the extent to which these elements can replace direct branding execution. The best
use of these elements in different media is yet important area for future research.
Given the documented deficits in the current practice in brand execution, it seems that there is considerable scope for better branding in
advertising.
EMPIRICAL GENERALIZATION
The number of times a brand visually appears in a video advertisement is correlated with higher correct identification of that brand within
the advertisement.
Jenni Romaniuk, an associate professor at the University of South Australia, heads the Brand Equity Research Group at the Ehrenberg-
Bass Institute for Marketing Science. Her areas of expertise are brand equity tracking, brand salience, advertising effectiveness, and word
of mouth.
Jenni@MarketingScience.info
REFERENCES
Brennan, Ian, and Laurie A. Babin. Brand Placement Recognition: The Influence of Presentation Mode and Brand Familiarity. In Handbook
of Product Placement in the Mass Media, Mary-Lou Galacian, ed. Hawthorne, NJ: The Hawthorne Press, Inc., 2004.
Fazio, Russell H., Paul M. Herr, and Martha C. Powell. On the Development and Strength of Category-Brand Associations in Memory: The Case of Mystery Ads.
Journal of Consumer Psychology 1, 1 (1992): 113.
Franzen, G. Advertising Effectiveness: Findings from Empirical Research. Henley-on-Thames, U.K.: NTC Publications, 1994.
Gupta, Pola B., and Kenneth R. Lord. Product Placement in Movies: The Effect of Prominence and Mode on Audience Recall. Journal of
Current Issues and Research in Advertising 20, 1 (1998): 4759.
Krugman, Dean M., Glen T. Cameron, and Candace McKearney White. Visual Attention to Programming and Commercials: The Use of In-
Home Observations. Journal of Advertising 24, 1 (1995): 112.
Law, Sharmistha, And Kathryn A. Braun. I'll Have What She's Having: Gauging the Impact of Product Placements on Viewers. Psychology and Marketing 17, 12
(2000): 105975.
Paech, Samantha, Erica Riebe, and Byron Sharp. What Do People Do in Advertisement Breaks? Australia and New Zealand Marketing
Academy Conference. Adelaide: University of South Australia, 2003.
Romaniuk, Jenni. The Effectiveness of Branding Execution Tactics within Television Advertisements. Ehrenberg-Bass Institute Working
Paper, 2008.
Romaniuk, Jenni, and Craig Lock. The Recall of Brand Placements with Television Shows. Ehrenberg-Bass Institute Working Paper, 2008.
Rossiter, John R., and Steven Bellman. Marketing Communications: Theory and Applications. Frenchs Forest, U.K.: Pearson Education,
2005.
Scott, Jane, and Margaret Craig-Lees. Optimizing Success: Product Placement Quality and Its Effect on Recall. In In-Film Advertising:
Brand Positioning Strategy, P. Kanchan, ed. India: IC-FAI Business School, 2006.
Stanton, John L., and Jeffrey Burke. Comparative Effectiveness of Executional Elements in TV Advertising 15 versus 30 Second
Commercials. Journal of Advertising Research 38, 6 (1998): 713.
Stewart, David W., and David H. Furse. Effective Television Advertising: A Study of 1000 Commercials. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books,
1986.
, and S. Koslow. Executional Factors and Advertising Effectiveness: A Replication. Journal of Advertising 18, 3 (1989): 2132.
Stout, Patricia A., and Benedicta L. Burda. Zipped Commercials: Are They Effective? Journal of Advertising 18, 4 (1989): 2332.
Walker, David, and Michael F. von Gonten. Explaining Related Recall Outcomes: New Answers from a Better Model. Journal of Advertising
Research 29, 3 (1989): 1121.
Copyright Advertising Research Foundation 2009
Advertising Research Foundation
432 Park Avenue South, 6th Floor, New York, NY 10016
Tel: +1 (212) 751-5656, Fax: +1 (212) 319-5265

www.warc.com
All rights reserved including database rights. This electronic file is for the personal use of authorised users based at the subscribing
company's office location. It may not be reproduced, posted on intranets, extranets or the internet, e-mailed, archived or shared
electronically either within the purchasers organisation or externally without express written permission from World Advertising Research
Center.