All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.

Exploring the Effects of External Brand Placement on Game Players’ Processing of In-Game Brand
Unformatted Document Text:  Running Head: EFFECTS OF EXTERNAL BRAND PLACEMENT Brand Recognition. Brand recognition was measured using a recognition task. Participants were presented with 12 brand names and asked to indicate whether each of the brands had appeared during game play using the yes-no procedure. 6 brand names represented the brands that appeared (target brands) and 6 brands were those that did not appear during game play (foil brands). To block out any effects due to comparison across different categories, the foil brands were within the same product category as the target brands. Players’ recognition for the external and in-game brand was separately analyzed. Again, players in condition 1 and 4 were excluded from the external brand recognition analysis. For each analysis, a ‘1’ was scored if the brand was correctly recognized and a ‘0’ was scored if the brand was not recognized. Of the participants, 47% correctly recognized the in-game brand. The external brand recall was correctly recognized by 77% of respondents in condition 2 and 3. Brand Attitude. The questionnaire measured participants’ attitude towards the in-game brand (Prince) and the external brand they experienced during game play (Wilson or Columbia). Players in condition 1 and 4 were asked to indicate their attitudes towards the brand ‘Prince’ as they were only exposed to ‘Prince’ during their game play. The brand attitude was assessed using three seven-point semantic differential scales anchored by phrases “good-bad,” “pleasant- unpleasant,” and “favorable-unfavorable” (MacKenzie and Lutz, 1989). Items were collapsed to form a single attitude measure for the in-game brand (Prince), M = 5.01, SD = 1.21, α = .96. The overall mean for the external brand attitudes was also measured using the same items, M = 4.31, SD = 1.35, α = .962. The α for each external brand attitude was .97 (Wilson) and .96 (Columbia). RESULTS Brand familiarity 18

Authors: Kim, Eunice. and Eastin, Matthew.
first   previous   Page 18 of 30   next   last

background image
Brand Recognition. Brand recognition was measured using a recognition task. 
Participants were presented with 12 brand names and asked to indicate whether each of the 
brands had appeared during game play using the yes-no procedure. 6 brand names represented 
the brands that appeared (target brands) and 6 brands were those that did not appear during game 
play (foil brands). To block out any effects due to comparison across different categories, the foil 
brands were within the same product category as the target brands. Players’ recognition for the 
external and in-game brand was separately analyzed. Again, players in condition 1 and 4 were 
excluded from the external brand recognition analysis. For each analysis, a ‘1’ was scored if the 
brand was correctly recognized and a ‘0’ was scored if the brand was not recognized. Of the 
participants, 47% correctly recognized the in-game brand. The external brand recall was 
correctly recognized by 77% of respondents in condition 2 and 3. 
Brand Attitude. The questionnaire measured participants’ attitude towards the in-game 
brand (Prince) and the external brand they experienced during game play (Wilson or Columbia). 
Players in condition 1 and 4 were asked to indicate their attitudes towards the brand ‘Prince’ as 
they were only exposed to ‘Prince’ during their game play. The brand attitude was assessed using 
three seven-point semantic differential scales anchored by phrases “good-bad,” “pleasant-
unpleasant,” and “favorable-unfavorable” (MacKenzie and Lutz, 1989). Items were collapsed to 
form a single attitude measure for the in-game brand (Prince), M = 5.01, SD = 1.21, α = .96. The 
overall mean for the external brand attitudes was also measured using the same items, M = 4.31, 
SD = 1.35, α = .962. The α for each external brand attitude was .97 (Wilson) and .96 (Columbia). 
Brand familiarity 

All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 18 of 30   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.