Journal of Consumer Actions, J. Customer Behav. 12: 102вЂ“111 (2013) Published on the net in Wiley Online Collection (wileyonlinelibrary. com) DOI: 10. 1002/cb. 1423
Message direct exposure with good friends: The part of sociable context on attitudes toward prominently put brands
KESHA K. COKER1*, SUZANNE A. ALTOBELLO2 and SIVA T. BALASUBRAMANIAN3 you
School of Business, East Illinois School, 4012 Lumpkin Hall, Charleston, IL 61920, USA 2
College of Business, Southern Illinois School, 229A Rehn Hall, 1025 Lincoln Drive, Mail Code 4629, Carbondale, IL 62901, USA 3
Stuart College of Organization, Illinois Start of Technology, 565 Western Adams Street (Fourth Floor), Chicago, ARIANNE 60661, USA ABSTRACT
Consumers usually knowledge product positionings in the presence of others, including watching a show or television show together. With this study, the role of social framework on thinking toward prominently placed brands is investigated. Multilevel building was used to investigate data coming from 382 individuals who watched a sitcom episode in dyads, with a friend or perhaps with someone they did certainly not know. Additionally , dyads were allowed to interact during the observing or instructed to remain passive. Attitudes toward product positions were more favorable when coviewing with friends than with strangers, but simply toward a top intensity story placement. Not any attitude dissimilarities emerged among interactive and passive viewing, suggesting that talking when viewing does not distract viewers to the magnitude that it impacts attitudes. Zero signiп¬Ѓcant differences in attitudes come about between the friend-interactive experimental condition and the additional conditions. Nevertheless , a signiп¬Ѓcant difference in brand attitudes between friends and unknown people emerged inside the passive looking at context for any high intensity storyline placement. Implications are so that chatting with a buddy while watching product placements was no different from conntacting a new person, but when watching silently, the presence of a friend increased brand behaviour compared to the occurrence of a stranger for intensity plot positionings. This is the п¬Ѓrst known examine to investigate sociable context results on attitudes toward merchandise placements, the results which are important to brand approach. Brands with high intensity plan placements should encourage customers to view with friends. Other managerial ramifications and constraints are reviewed. Copyright В© 2013 David Wiley & Sons, Limited.
When a brand looks in a television show or video, it often becomes part of the consumer's experience. These types of
consumption activities are typically distributed to others
(Ramanathan and McGill, 2007). Although at times a solitary
activity, the experience of " watching television (and consequently, television ads) is often a social activity with one or more
friends, family members or perhaps acquaintancesвЂќ (Fisher and DubГ©, 2005, p. 851). Sector research has shown that when compared to
viewing by itself, people who observe television within a group placing are more likely to remember ads, decrease channel turning behaviors, and see product positionings (Feuer, 2004). Such shared viewing experience can also effect an individual's thinking, evaluation, or perhaps judgments toward the material and/or heroes (Lin and McDonald, 2007). Given
that placements in many cases are embedded in shared viewing
experiences, it is possible that the cultural context encircling the experience may impact the viewer's knowledge. However , not any known research to date has examined social context encircling the shared viewing of product positions. This
gap is resolved by going through the role of social context on
buyer behavior following a consumer's experience of
product positionings. Given the persuasive intention of merchandise
placements (Yang and Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2007), emphasis
is placed upon consumer attitudes toward plainly placed
brands. Prominent company placements are more central to the
placement automobile (e. g., the television show), and therefore,...
Sources: d'Astous A, Chartier Farreneheit. 2000. Research of factors impacting consumer
critiques and storage of merchandise placements in movies
Balasubramanian SK, Karrh JA, Patwardhan H. 2006. Audience
response to product positions: an integrative framework and
Bowman ND. 2008. A PAT on the back: press п¬‚ow theory revis(it)
Brechman T. 2011. Reconceptualizing п¬‚ow for application in media
exploration: a model of narrative finalizing
Brown JJ, Reingen PH LEVEL. 1987. Interpersonal ties and word-of-mouth affiliate
Klosterbruder M, Dosmukhambetova D, Nerb J. 2012. Emotional signs
in non-verbal interaction: dyadic facilitation and convergence in
Cowley Elizabeth, Barron C. 2008. Once product position goes wrong: the
effects of plan liking and placement dominance
J. Buyer Behav. doze: 102вЂ“111 (2013)
DOI: 12. 1002/cb
Brand J. 2005. Watching collectively might mean watching better.
Finneran CENTIMETER, Zhang G. 2003. A person-artefact-task (PAT) model
of п¬‚ow antecedents in computer-mediated environments
Fisher RJ, DubГ© L. june 2006. Gender differences in responses to emotional marketing: a social desirability perspective. Journal of
Consumer Exploration 31(4): 850вЂ“858.
Gallo G, Peoples G. 2012. The Grammy's because вЂsocial TV'. Billboard
Granovetter MS. 1973. The strength of fragile ties. The American
Diary of Sociology 78(6): 1360вЂ“1380.
Granovetter MS. 1983. The strength of weak connections: a network theory
Gupta PB, Gould SJ. 1997. Consumers' perceptions of the ethics
and acceptability of product positions in films: product
Gupta PB, God KR. 98. Product placement in films: the effect
of prominence and mode about audience remember
Harris D, Dennis C. 2011. Engaging customers about Facebook: challenges for e-retailers. Journal of Consumer Conduct 10: 338вЂ“346.
Hatп¬Ѓeld E, Cacioppo JT, Rapson RL. 1993. Psychological contagion.
Hocking JE. 1982. Sports and spectators: intra-audience effects.
Hokyoung R, Parsons D. 2012. Risky organization or sharing the load?
Interpersonal п¬‚ow in collaborative portable learning
Jakobs E, Manstead ASR, Fischer AH. 1999. Social purposes, emotional
emotions, and smiling
Jakobs Elizabeth, Manstead ASR, Fischer OH. 2001. Cultural context effects on
cosmetic activity in a negative psychological setting
Kimura M, Daibo I. 2008. The study of psychological contagion from
the perspective of interpersonal associations
LatanГ© M. 1981. The psychology of social influence. American
Psychiatrist 36(4): 343вЂ“356.
LatanГ© B, Nida S i9000. 1981. A decade of exploration on group size and
Legislation S, Braun KA. 2k. I'll include what she actually is having: gauging the
effect of item placements upon viewers
Li D, Eden L, Hitt MA, Ireland RD. 2008. Friends, associates,
or strangers? Partner selection in R& D forces
Lin H, McDonald DG. 2007. Effect of peer coviewing and individual
differences about reactions to comedy
MacKenzie SB, Lutz RJ. 1989. An scientific examination of the
structural antecedents of frame of mind toward the ad in an advertising
Macy's Online List. 2010. Offered at http://www.macys.com
[accessed twenty-one May 2010].
Marsden PV, Campbell KE. 1984. Testing tie strength. Social
Causes 63(2): 482вЂ“501.
Mitchell SOCIAL MEDIA PACKAGE, Olson JC. 1981. Will be product attribute beliefs the only
mediator of advertising effects on manufacturer attitude? Log of
Nelson MR, McLeod LE. 2015. Adolescent manufacturer consciousness
and product positionings: awareness, preference and recognized