代写留学生广告市场营销论文Meet the Parents: A Parents Perspective on Product Placement in Childrens Films
Simon Hudson
David Hudson
John Peloza
ABSTRACT. The ethics of advertising to children hasbeen identified as one of the most important topicsworthy of academic research in the marketing field. A fastgrowing advertising technique is product placement, andits use in childrens films is becoming more and morecommon. The limited evidence existing suggests thatproduct placements are especially potent in their effectsupon children. Yet regulations regarding placementstargeted at children are virtually non-existent, with
advertising guidelines suggesting that it remains the primeresponsibility of the parents to provide guidance for
children. This study measured the ethical evaluations ofparents in the UK and Canada regarding product placements
in childrens films. After exposing parents to a fourtypetypology of product placements, results show thatexplicit placements of ethically charged products wereperceived as the most unethical type of placements. Parentsin the UK were more sensitive to the use of thetechnique and there was a significant difference in relativismbetween the two groups. Both sets of respondentswould like to see more regulation on the use of placements,especially placements of alcohol, tobacco and fastfoods.
KEY WORDS: advertising ethics, children, marketingethics, MES, product placement, parents
Given the significant role played by media in the livesof the nations children, it is time to move forwardwith new academic research initiatives in this realm(American Psychological Association, 2004).Children all over the world are exposed to anever-growing number of advertising messages.
Advertising spending on childrens programmingamounted to $2.1 billion in 2005 in the US alone,
up 7% on the year before. The typical NorthAmerican child takes in some 38 h of commercialmedia every week and sees between 20 and 30 adsper hour (Laczniak and Palan, 2004). Childrens
beliefs are strongly influenced by advertising, particularlyby advertising that uses celebrity endorsement(Atkin and Block, 1983; Comstock and Paik,1991).
Not surprisingly, as the competition for youngaudiences continues to increase, the use of productplacement in childrens entertainment media isbecoming common across a range of media. Table Ilists a number of childrens films that contain productplacements, but placements are not confined tomovies. In a new teenage book called Cathys Book,
Procter & Gamble made a deal with the authors toinclude products such as Cover Girls ShimmeringOnyx eye shadow and Metallic Rose in exchangefor promoting the book. Marketers seeking to attractyoung consumers, such as McDonalds, hire agenciesto embed their brands within song lyrics and musicvideos. Finally, it is predicted that more than onethirdof product placement in video games by 2009will be in the form of ‘advergaming, where advertiserscreate a game around a product rather thanplace their brands within a well-known title (Abelson,2005). Worldwide, spending for paid productplacement swelled 42.2% in 2005 to US$2.2 billion.With non-cash promotion and barter deals included,he value of global placement in 2005 was up 27.9%to $6 billion (PQ Media, 2005).In response to the increasing use of productplacements in childrens entertainment, there havebeen calls for more research focusing on thenfluence of such marketing tactics (Hudson andHudson, 2006; Krider, 2006; Moore, 2004; Morton
Journal of Business Ethics (2008) 80:289–304 Springer 2007DOI 10.1007/s10551-007-9421-5
TABLE I
Examples of branded products featured in childrens films (Source: Featured BrandsCharlie and the Chocolate
Factory
Nike, Rockem Sockem Robots, LYPCSuperman Returns Aquafina, Budweiser, Doritos, Grey Goose Vodka, Plantronics, Scrabble
Chicken Little Dummies, Jolly Time, Mickey Mouse, Tic Tac
The Chronicles of Narnia Austin, Bradley Manor, Great Western Railway
Madagascar Animal Planet, Central Park Zoo, Coca-Cola, Krispy Kreme, Lincoln Center, Toys R Us
Scoobi-Doo 2 Burger King, Gatorade, Fuji, Starbucks
Spider-Man 2 Burger King, Dr. Pepper, eBay, Fritos, Joe’s Pizza, Nike, Pop-Tarts
Shark Tale Beluga, PlayStation, Turtle Wax
Elf Barbie, Coca-Cola, Etch A Sketch, Hershey’s, Hot Wheels, McDonald’s,
Nike, Pop-Tarts, Rockem Sockem Robots, Monopoly
Finding Nemo eBay, Sydney Opera House, Readers DigestScooby-Doo Coca-Cola, Heinz, Reebok, Sprite, Teen Beat
Spider-Man Baskin-Robbins, Budweiser, Carlsberg, Chock Full ONuts, Cup
Noodles, Dr. Pepper, McDonald’s, Tropicana
The Santa Clause 2 Coffee Beanery, Disney, McDonald’s, MG, Nerds, Nestle´, Nike,Rockem Sockem Robots, Rubik’s Cube
Jurassic Park III Barney, Carhartt, Chips Ahoy, Corona, Doritos, Nestle´Shrek 2 Baskin-Robbins
A Cinderella Story Zero Skateboards
Agent Cody Banks Beanie Babies, Heinz KetchupSmall Soldiers Hasbro
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Pepsi, Burger King, Domino’s Pizza
Back to the Future II Pepsi, Pizza Hut
Gremlins Burger King, Coors beer
Dick Tracy McDonald’s
代写留学生论文Fantastic Four Kelloggs, Pepsi, Dos Equis, Burger King, Corona
290 Simon Hudson et al.
and Friedman, 2002; Tiwsakul et al., 2005). Product
placement in childrens programming is an ethicallyambiguous issue for two reasons. Firstly, children
have not yet developed sensitivity to this type ofpromotional tool (Avery and Ferraro, 2000), and
secondly, they are more susceptible to placementsthan adults (Law and Braun, 2000; Sargent et al.,2005). The susceptibility of children comes fromtheir inability to make the distinction between adsand program content (Englehardt, 1987; Kunkel,1988; Raju and Lonial, 1989). Auty and Lewis(2004, p. 710), in one of the only studies to examinethe effects of product placement on children, state:‘‘Without being aware of their exposure to commercialmessages, they have been affected by theexposure in some preconscious way’’. Consequently,the blurring of advertising and entertainment targeted
at children, has been called ‘‘an ethical issuethat deserves our collective attention’’ (Moore,2004, p. 165).
The parental perspective on product placement inchildrens advertising is particularly important for anumber of reasons. Firstly, children lack cognitiveand articulation skills (Barry, 1980; Laczniak andPalan, 2004) and therefore do not make reliableparticipants for research questions such as thosepresented here. Secondly, a parental perspective isappropriate in order to inform both public policy(Young et al., 2003) and marketers (Crosby andGrossbart, 1984). Thirdly, previous researchers (Burrand Burr, 1976; Young et al., 2003) have shown thatparents perceive their children to be more easily
deceived by marketing techniques than adults, andtherefore are concerned about the issue. Furthermore,
previous research on ethical issues related tochildrens advertising has shown that consumers
believe that parents, and not the government, shoulddecide what children see on television, and thatquestionable practices should be handled throughparental supervision rather than government regulation(Treise et al., 1994).
Literature review
A fundamental criticism of advertising to childrenrevolves around the issue of fairness (Treise et al.,1994) and the fact that children are less able to evaluatecommercial persuasion (Kunkel, 1988). Numerousstudies have documented that children under 8 yearsof age especially are developmentally unable tounderstand the intent of advertisements and they accept
advertising claims as factual (American Academyof Pediatrics, 1995). Even after that age, youngstersmay recognize that commercials intend to sell, but notnecessarily that they contain biased messages, whichwarrant some degree of skepticism (American Psychological
Association, 2004).
Barry (1980) was one of the first to focus ondeception in childrens advertising, using theoryfrom psychology to support his contention thatchildren are simply more susceptible to deceptivemessages. He referred to the work of Piaget (1970),
who claimed that children do not have the formaloperational skills to test principles logically. Moore(2004) says that to evaluate advertising, childrenmust be able to distinguish between commercial andnon-commercial content. However, with the adventof product placements, she says discriminating betweenan advertisement and entertainment may be a
much more difficult task for a child: ‘‘As the medialandscape children face has diversified the lines betweenadvertising and entertainment have becomeincreasingly blurred’’ (p. 163).Placements can be generally divided into two
types, implicit placements and integrated explicitplacements (dAstous and Se´gun, 1999). Animplicit product placement is one where the brandis present within the program without being formallyexpressed: it plays a passive contextual role,and is considered low in obtrusiveness (dAstousand Se´gun, 1999). For example, a character in amovie may be drinking a can of Pepsi, but thebrand is not relevant to the story. Explicit productplacement refers to product placement that istightly integrated into the story or entertainmentcontent. For example, in the movie I Am Sam,Starbucks is featured not only as a backdrop to thestory, but actively plays a role as the main characters place of employment. Nebenzahl and Jaffe(1998) suggest that product placements, which arepurposely disguised advertisements and have a high
degree of obtrusiveness within the plot are theleast ethical. It is predicted therefore that parentswill have greater ethical concerns over explicitproduct placements.Meet the Parents 291
H1: An explicit product placement will lead to
more negative ethical reactions from parentsthan an implicit product placement.
Product placement has been accused of contributingto diseases in children, because it often promotesproducts such as junk food, soda pop, andalcohol (Kraak, 1998; Story and French, 2004). An
example is Taco Bell, the fast food chain, which hasa brand integration deal with the Discovery networks,including the Discovery Channel, TLC, and AnimalPlanet. Commercial Alert (2003, p. 12), a consumer
advocacy group, suggests that product placementsare another way that the advertising industry hascontrived to drive a wedge into the relationshipbetween parents and their own children: ‘‘Bysneaking past the guard of even watchful parents, theindustry is able to trigger cravings in children for
things that parents would not choose and mightactively oppose, such as junk food, alcohol and
gambling’’. Others have shown that placement ofcigarettes in movies significantly increases the risk offuture smoking among adolescent girls who havenever smoked (Distefan et al., 2004).Previous research has shown that ethical attitudes
will vary depending on the product characteristics,with more ethically charged products (e.g., alcohol,
cigarettes, fast food, guns) generating more concernsamong consumers than less ethically charged products
(Gibson and Maurer, 2000; Gould et al., 2000;Gupta and Gould, 1997; Kraak, 1998). It is therefore
predicted that ethically charged products placed inchildrens programming will result in a heightened
代写留学生论文ethical concern on the part of parents.H2: More ethically charged products will lead tomore negative ethical reactions from parentsthan less ethically charged products.Previous research has found that audiences in
different countries have varied attitudes towards theplacement of ethically charged products (Gouldet al., 2000). Hall (2004) discovered that European
movie watchers object more than North Americans
to brand placement. This could be explained by the
fact that regulations relating to product placement
are stricter in Europe than in North America. In
Canada, although the Canadian Radio-Television
and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is
beginning to regulate the amount of product
placement in Canadian programming, regulations
are more relaxed than in European countries. In the
UK, for example, producers and broadcasters cannot
take payments for placements as regulators attempt
to enforce clear distinctions between programming
and advertising. However, the Broadcasting Code is
under review and industry opinion has been sought
on the issue of brand placement. Legislators are
indicating that they will take a much more liberal
line on the whole question of product placement.
Because product placement has not yet become an
accepted means of marketing products and services,
it is expected that parents in Europe will have greater
ethical concerns over its use.
H3: Parents in Europe will have more ethical
concerns about product placement in children
s programming than parents in North
America.
The extant research examining advertising directed
toward children shows that parents are concerned
about the impacts of advertising on their children, and
would like to see more regulation of its practice (Burr
and Burr, 1976; International Association of Consumer
Food Organizations, 2003). Parental concerns
stem from the fact that they dont believe their children
are able to differentiate between advertising
messages and messages from less biased sources. Research
by Young and colleagues (2003) confirms that
parents believe children are more easily deceived by
advertising than adults, and that children are exposed
to too much advertising. It follows, then, that the
degree to which parents perceive product placement
as being an unethical marketing practice (i.e., deceptive)
will be positively related to the extent that they
favor government regulation of the practice.
H4: The degree to which parents believe that
product placement in childrens programming
is unethical will be positively related
to their expectations for government regulation
of product placement.
292 Simon Hudson et al.
Consumer perception about the ethical practices
of a company strongly influences purchase intentions
(Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003; Giacalone et al., 2005).
Specific to product placement, and consumers ethical
beliefs about its appropriateness as a marketing
tool, it has been shown to have an impact on attitudes
towards brands and intention to purchase
(Argan et al., 2007; Gupta and Gould, 1997). In fact,
recent product placement research suggests a pronounced
sentiment against placements in certain
ethically charged product categories (Balasubramanian
et al., 2006). Therefore, it is expected that
ethical concerns over product placement aimed at
children will negatively impact parental attitudes
toward the brands in those placements.
H5: The degree to which parents have ethical
concerns over product placement in children
s programming will be negatively related
to their attitudes towards the brand
used in product placements.
Method
The Multidimensional Ethics Scale (MES) (Reidenbach
and Robin, 1988, 1990) was used to
measure the ethical orientation and awareness of the
parents evaluating product placements in childrens
films. The MES was developed for used in business
contexts and permits insights into the cognitive
ethical reasoning process, offering the advantages
that specific modes of moral reasoning can be
identified. The MES scale is a semantic differential
scale consisting of eight items representing three
dimensions of ethical behavior. The measures of
ethical awareness capture the extent to which
respondents feel that a particular action is unethical
according to the ethical theories of moral equity
(just/unjust, fair/unfair, morally right/not morally
right, and acceptable/not acceptable to my family),
relativism (culturally acceptable/unacceptable and
traditionally acceptable/unacceptable), and contractualism
(violates/does not violate an unspoken
promise and violates/does not violate an unwritten
contract). Another item on the scale measures the
overall level of ethical orientation (the action is
ethical/unethical), a measure that captures a
respondents evaluation of the overall morality of an
action. These theories have been identified in previous
reviews of the moral philosophy literature.
The scale was chosen for use in this study because it
has been used successfully in many empirical studies,
and in particular for its use in examining ethical
attitudes towards questionable marketing practices
(Simpson et al., 1998; Smith and Cooper-Martin,
1997). If the ethical evaluations of parents are different
from one dimension to another, this could
allow some speculation as to the rationale for ethical
judgments of placing products in childrens films.
Four product placement scenarios from recent
childrens films were presented to parents (see
Appendix). The first two involved the placement of
ethically charged products in a childrens film (tobacco,
alcohol, fast food), one an implicit placement
and the other an explicit one. The other two scenarios
were placements of non-ethically charged
brands (monopoly, zoo, orange juice) in implicit and
explicit settings. Copyright issues prevented the use
of specific images from the films. Figure 1 summarizes
the research framework used in this study and
provides examples of both ethically and non-ethically
charged product placement in both implicit and
explicit settings.
Parents were asked to respond to these four scenarios
on a 7-point likert scale in terms of the MES
scale. Previous research has confirmed that tobacco,
alcohol, and fast foods can be classified as ‘ethically
charged (Gibson and Maurer, 2000; Gupta and
Lord, 1998; Story and French, 2004) and they were
therefore grouped together as such. The three less
controversial products used in the scenarios – orange
juice, monopoly and a zoo – were again derived
from previous studies of this nature (Gupta and
Type 1
e.g.: Don Equis beer billboard
behind the actors in Fantastic
Four
Type 2
e.g.: Marlboro Truck thrown back
and forth across the road
in Superman
Ethically
Charged
Products
Type 3
e.g.: Prominently displayed
bottle of Tropicana Orange Juice
in Herbie: Fully Loaded
Type 4
e.g.: Animals living in, and
escaping from, Central Park Zoo
in Madagascar
Non-Ethically
Charged
Products
Implicit
Placement
Explicit
Placement
Figure 1 Research Framework.
Meet the Parents 293
Gould, 1997; Brennan et al., 2004). Prior to
administering the survey, it was piloted with
three focus groups of ten parents. Parents confirmed
that they would group the six products chosen
into the given categories. However, the pilot did
result in minor changes to the research instrument.
In the pilot, respondents reported difficulty in
understanding some of the wording in the original
scales. Scales were therefore modified, based on
suggestions made by Hyman (1996). For example,
‘unfair was replaced with ‘unfair to the audience
and ‘violating an unspoken promise was changed to
‘breaking an unspoken promise made with the
audience’’.
Parents were also asked to what extent they
thought each type of product placement was disguised,
deceptive, and obtrusive, in order to test the
conceptual model proposed by Nebenzahl and Jaffe
(1998), who suggest that product placement is the
least ethical of all forms of advertising since it is both
high on source concealment and obtrusiveness. For
each scenario parents were asked whether or not
they felt this type of product placement should be
regulated (Karrh et al., 2003) or banned (Morton
and Friedman, 2002). Parents were also asked
whether or not product placement in general should
be disclosed (Commercial Alert, 2003), and whether
or not they discussed advertising and its affects with
their children. As in previous studies of this nature
(dAstous and Se´gun, 1999; Smith and Cooper-
Martin, 1997), respondents were questioned on their
behavioral intentions (i.e., whether or not the
placements influenced their purchase intentions).
Parents were then asked about the ethicality of
product placements in other media apart from film
(television, video games, music, Internet, and magazines).
A series of general questions then asked
parents about their own demographics and the ages
of their children.
The target population was parents of children
aged between 7 and 13 years of age living in large
metropolitan cities in Canada and England. Parents
were recruited with the help of education authorities
and local elementary schools. Teachers were asked to
give the surveys to children who took them home
for their parents to complete. A cover letter,
explaining the purpose of the research, accompanied
the survey. This letter explained the practice of
product placement and gave some examples of
placements in recent childrens films. A total of 450
usable responses were received, 270 from the UK
(13.5% response rate) and 180 from Canada (18%
response rate).
Results
Females made up 350 of the sample, and males 100.
The majority (387) were married (or common law)
and 352 were aged between 35 and 49. The average
child count per family was 2.25. With ‘1 representing
the positive form of the scale item (e.g. fair)
and ‘7 the negative form of the item (e.g. unfair),
mean scores were calculated for each scenario by
ethical dimension and country (see Table II). The
placement of ethically charged products was seen as
unethical by both groups of respondents, with the
explicit placement of an ethically charged product –
Scenario 2 – being perceived as the least ethical.
Respondents were less concerned about the placement
of non-ethically charged products.
Using independent sample t-tests, mean scores on
each of the three ethical dimensions, as well as
overall ethical intention, across each of the four
scenarios, were compared between Canadian and
UK respondents. There were significant differences
between the groups for the Relativism dimension in
all scenarios (p < .05). This indicates that product
placements generally were more culturally acceptable
for Canadians than for parents in the UK. There
was just one other significant difference: Canadian
respondents were significantly more likely than
those from the UK to suggest that Scenario 3 – the
implicit placement of a non-ethically charged
product – was ethical (p <.05).
Table III shows the mean scores for responses to
the four-type typology based on whether or not
each scenario was perceived as obtrusive, disguised,
or deceptive, and whether or not they should be
regulated or banned. Independent sample t-tests
showed no significant differences between Canadian
and UK respondents. Once again, the major concern
for parents was the use of ethically charged products,
and both groups would like to see more regulation
for these types of placements. Parents from the UK
were more likely to be in support of regulation, but
294 Simon Hudson et al.
TABLE II
Mean scores for each scenario by ethical dimension and country (measured on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 = unethical and 7 = ethical)
Moral Equity SCENARIO
1. Implicit/Ethically-
Charged
2. Explicit/Ethically
Charged
3. Implicit/Non-Ethically
Charged
4. Explicit/Non-Ethically
Charged
Total n = 450 3.48 3.32 4.66 5.09
UK n = 270 3.54 3.30 4.63 5.03
CAN n = 180 3.40 3.35 4.70 5.18
t ).804 .342 .497 .856
df 448 448 448 448
p-value .420 .733 .624 .398
Relativism
Total 4.03 3.91 4.94 5.25
UK 3.98 3.71 4.82 5.13
CAN 4.40 4.22 5.14 5.44
t 2.74 3.29 2.28 2.20
df 448 448 448 448
p-value .006* .001* .024* .027*
Contractualism
Total 3.86 3.60 4.67 5.07
UK 3.92 3.62 4.63 5.03
CAN 3.78 3.58 4.73 5.14
T ).83 ).371 .603 .604
df 448 448 448 448
p-value .406 .712 .556 .553
Overall Ethical Orientation
Total 3.42 3.32 4.49 5.02
UK 3.36 3.25 4.35 4.90
CAN 3.50 3.43 4.71 5.21
t .748 .976 2.10 1.85
df 448 448 448 448
p-value .452 .329 .037* .064
* significant at 0.05 level
Meet the Parents 295
not significantly so. The explicit placement of ethically
charged products (Scenario 2) was perceived as
the most obtrusive and most deceptive type of
product placement, whereas the implicit placement
of ethically charged products (Scenario 1) was perceived
as the most disguised. Sixty six percent of
parents felt that Scenario 2 was deceptive, and 63%
found Scenario 1 to be deceptive. Correlation
analysis revealed a significant positive relationship in
all scenarios between parents who perceived the
placements to be unethical, and those that demanded
more regulation of these placements (r = .65,
df = 448, p< .001; r = .66, df = 448, p< .001;
r = .66, df = 448, p < .001; r = .62, df = 448,
p < .001).
Table IV shows parents perspectives on the ethicality
of placement of different product types and in
different media. Results confirm that parents were
very concerned about the placement of ethically
charged products, including fast food and soda, but
less concerned about the placement of less harmful
products. Canadian parents were more concerned
than their counterparts in the UK about the placement
of tobacco and alcohol, whereas British parents
were more sensitive to the placement of fast foods.
As for the reactions of parents to product placements
in other media apart from film, placement in video
games (m = 4.83) was seen as the most unethical,
followed by music (m = 4.65) and the Internet
(m = 4.64).
The mean scores for parent reactions to various
statements on product placement, as well as the results
of independent sample t-tests comparing the
scores on each response between Canadian and UK
respondents, are shown in Table V. Results indicated
a significant difference in two statements
(p < .001); that they were aware of the practice of
product placement, and that they talked about
TABLE IV
Parents perspective on ethicality of placement of different product types and in different media, measured on a scale of
1 to 7 where 1 = ethical and 7 = unethical
Products placed Mean score Media Mean score
Total UK CAN Total UK CAN
Tobacco 6.21 6.08 6.39 Video games 4.83 4.72 5.00
Alcohol 6.03 5.89 6.25 Music 4.65 4.48 4.90
Fast Food 5.00 5.12 4.82 Internet 4.64 4.57 4.77
Soda pop 4.23 4.22 4.24 Television 4.57 4.50 4.67
Monopoly 3.15 3.16 3.14 Film 4.50 4.38 4.68
Zoo 2.78 3.06 2.35 Books 4.54 4.42 4.72
Orange juice 2.77 2.87 2.62 Magazines 4.33 4.29 4.39
TABLE III
Mean scores for responses to each scenario by country (measured on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 = strongly agree, and
7 = strongly disagree)
Scenario Obtrusive Disguised Deceptive Regulated Banned
ALL UK CAN ALL UK CAN ALL UK CAN ALL UK CAN ALL UK CAN
1. Implicit/Ethically Charged 3.69 3.69 3.69 2.53 2.52 2.55 3.10 3.12 3.07 2.66 2.59 2.76 3.55 3.52 3.60
2. Explicit/Ethically Charged 3.18 3.24 3.10 2.71 2.71 2.72 2.97 3.00 2.92 2.67 2.63 2.74 3.34 3.25 3.47
3. Implicit/Non-Ethically Charged 4.31 4.36 4.24 3.51 3.55 3.45 3.95 4.00 3.87 3.59 3.58 3.60 4.60 4.53 4.72
4. Explicit/Non-Ethically Charged 4.85 4.79 4.95 4.23 4.15 4.36 4.60 4.58 4.64 4.10 4.08 4.13 5.05 4.97 5.18
296 Simon Hudson et al.
advertising and product placement with their children.
Dimensions were categorized into three
categories (agree, disagree and undecided) and
chi-square assessments of statistical similarities and
differences in response to each statement by country
were made. Results show that Canadian parents
were significantly more aware of the practice of
product placement in films (v2 = 15.422, df = 2,
p <.001) with 74% of Canadians versus 55% of
British agreeing to this statement. Although the
majority of both samples felt that marketers should
make it much clearer to viewers (and parents) that
they are paying to place products in films that
children watch, UK respondents were significantly
more likely to agree with this statement (v2 = 5.22,
df = 2, p < .005). Canadian parents were significantly
more likely to educate their children about
the existence of product placement (v2 = 13.955,
df = 2, p < .001), although only 34% of Canadians
and 19% of British agreed that they discussed these
topics with their children.
The other statements revealed no significant differences
between countries. Statistical analysis of
males and female responses revealed only two significant
differences. Fathers were significantly more
aware that advertisers were paying to place products
in films (v2 = 4.61, df = 2, p< .05), and mothers
were significantly more likely to find that the
placement of products in childrens books was
unethical (v2 = 13.946, df = 2, p < .001). However,
only one survey was sent home with children, so
there was no assurance that parents completed the
survey independently of each other (apart from
indicating their gender on the survey).
Of all respondents, 42% agreed that the placement of
ethically charged products would deter them from
buying those brands. In fact there was a significant
positive relationship between ethical perceptions of
product placement and an indifference towards the
brands placed in Scenario 1 (r = .54, df = 448,
p<.001) and Scenario 2 (r = .53, df = 448, p<.001).
Only 22% said that the knowledge that brands of less
overtly harmful products such as orange juice or toys
are embedded in films would deter them from buying
those brands. Forty three percent of respondents said
they didnt mind product placement because it adds to
realism in films, and 61% said they could tolerate
product placement as long as there is not toomuch of it.
TABLE V
Mean Scores for statements on product placement (measured on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 = strongly agree, and 7 = strongly disagree)
The extent to which parents agree or disagree with the following statements Total n = 450 Mean UK n = 270 CAN n = 180 t df p-value
Before completing this survey, I was aware that advertisers were paying
to place their products into childrens films
3.10 3.44 2.57 )4.16 444 .000*
Marketers should make it much clearer to viewers (and parents) that they
are paying to place products in films that children watch.
2.53 2.44 2.67 1.43 445 .162
I talk about advertising or product placement with my children 4.76 5.04 4.32 )4.17 444 .000*
The knowledge that brands of fast food, tobacco and alcohol are imbedded
in films would deter me from buying these brands
3.83 3.91 3.70 )1.08 445 .280
The knowledge that brands of orange juice or toys are embedded in films
would deter me from buying these brands
4.62 4.54 4.73 1.12 446 .266
I dont mind product placement because it adds to realism in films 3.85 3.80 3.93 .736 444 .464
I can tolerate product placement as long as there is not too much of it 3.24 3.22 3.27 .325 445 .748
Product placement in childrens films is more unethical than traditional TV ads 3.51 3.60 3.38 )1.18 446 .229
* significant at 0.05 level
Meet the Parents 297
Finally, 49% thought that product placement in children
s filmswasmore unethical than traditionalTVads.
Discussion
As the results indicate, all hypotheses were supported
(see Table VI). An explicit placement of an ethically
charged product was perceived as the most unethical
type of placement, partially supporting H1, and not
surprisingly, the placements of tobacco and alcohol
in childrens programming was deemed as unethical
(supporting H2). But it was interesting to see that
respondents also believed the placement of both soda
(4.23) and fast food (m = 5.00) to be unethical,
confirming the findings from the focus groups.
British parents were more sensitive to the placement
of fast foods than Canadian parents. This could
be attributed to the publicity surrounding this issue
in the UK, where health and consumer groups have
been saying recently that junk food adverts are a
major contributor to the epidemic of childhood
obesity (Derbyshire, 2006). The proportion of obese
children in the UK grew 40% between 1995 and
2004. The Food Standards Agency, the Government
s food watchdog, is pressing for a pre-watershed
ban on all junk food commercials to improve
childrens health. In 2004, Jamie Oliver, the celebrity
chef, launched a nationwide Feed Me Better
campaign along with a documentary TV series called
Jamies School Dinners which was aired in early 2005.
His Feed Me Better Petition secured over 72,000
signatures, became front-page news and inspired
Tony Blairs government to respond with a votecatching
‘childrens manifesto as well as a substantial
increase in funding for school meals. In 2006 British
Education Secretary, Alan Johnson said the Children
s Food Bill, passed as a result of Olivers lobbying,
was aimed at improving school pupils
nutrition and undoing decades of neglect.
Respondents also said that an explicit placement of
an ethically charged product was the most obtrusive
and most deceptive type of product placement. This
contradicts the findings of dAstous and Se´gun (1999),
who found that implicit product placements are generally
perceived as less ethical by consumers.However,
it should be acknowledged that their results were based
on placements in magazines and not films. There is
partial support for the Nebenzahl and Jaffe (1998)
TABLE VI
Results of hypotheses testing
Hypothesis Test
H1: An explicit product placement will lead to more negative ethical reactions from parents than
an implicit product placement.
Partially supported
H2: More ethically charged products will lead to more negative ethical reactions from parents than less
ethically charged products.
Supported
H3: Parents in Europe will have more ethical concerns about product placement in childrens programming
than parents in North America.
Supported
H4: The degree to which parents believe that product placement in childrens programming is unethical
will be positively related to their expectations for government regulation of product placement.
Supported
H5: The degree to which parents have ethical concerns over product placement in childrens programming
will be negatively related to their attitudes towards the brand used in product placements.
Supported
298 Simon Hudson et al.
model inwhich they suggest that advertisementswith a
high degree of obtrusiveness are the least ethical.
However, according to their model, the other determinant
of ethicality is disguise, and in this study, it was
the implicit placement of ethically charged products
that was perceived as the most disguised.
Overall, parents who believe that product placement
in childrens programming is unethical will
demand more government regulation (H4) but those
in the UK were more sensitive to product placement
supporting H3. All types of product placements were
significantly more culturally acceptable for Canadians
than for parents in the UK. This is probably due
to the tougher regulations for the practice that exist
in Europe, and the consequent lack of exposure to
product placements for the British respondents. This
would also explain the significant difference in the
relativism dimension across groups.
Finally, parents who believed that product
placement in childrens programming is unethical
suggested they would not purchase the products
placed if they were ethically charged products,
supporting H5, as well as the limited research that
has been done in this area on behavioral outcomes
from product placement (Gupta and Gould, 1997).
Well over half the parents who completed the survey
felt that the placement of ethically charged products was
deceptive. This is a worrying situation from a public
policy standpoint, as previous research suggests there is
an inverse relationship between product placement
ethicality and product placement effectiveness (Nebenzahl
and Jaffe, 1998). In other words, themore deceptive
it is, the more successful it will be. According to Commercial
Alert (2003) product placement is inherently
deceptive because it is often below viewers threshold of
awareness. The FTC has recently ruled that product
placement seen by children is no different from ordinary
advertising and does not constitute a violation of the
FTC act. In this study, half of the parents interviewed
disagreed with this, saying that product placement in
childrens films was more unethical than traditional TV
ads. Thus, there is a significant gap between the opinions
of parents and the FTC on what constitutes acceptable
marketing to children.
Parental concern appears to stem from a lack of
disclosure. The study showed that a large percentage
of parents – nearly half in the UK – were unaware of
the extent of product placement use in childrens
films, and would like to see more regulation of its
practice. Because children are a vulnerable group,
parents are concerned about commercial influences
that may adversely impact their health, and feel that
there should be greater social responsibility for their
present and future health. Currently, disclosure of
paid messages in entertainment in virtually nonexistent,
so one solution would be for advertisers to
state openly when a show contains embedded ads;
possibly even label the embedded ads whenever they
appear. Then parents can make an informed decision
as to whether or not they want their children to
watch that show. Commercial Alert (2003, p. 12)
argues that ‘‘parents, and not the advertising industry,
should be guides to childrens behavior; but
parents cannot guide if they dont know whats
coming’’. Perhaps it is time for regulators to stop
‘‘looking the other way’’ at the practice of product
placement (Sutherland, 2006, p. 10). In November
2006, the US advertising industry did revise 32-yearold
guidelines for advertising at children younger
than 12 and separately launched a voluntary effort
with 10 food and beverage companies to devote at
least half of their advertising to promoting more
healthful dietary or lifestyle choices to children. The
new guidelines require companies to distinguish
between advertising and programming content.
However, disclosure is only part of the solution.
Television, for the most part, circumvents parental
authority with its messages to children (Treise el al.,
1994). Children increasingly experience media
messages on their own without any parental supervision;
over half of children aged 2–18 have a television
in their bedroom (Roberts et al., 1999). This
decreases parents ability to serve as a buffer between
their children and commercial messages (APA,
2004). This study showed that parents objected most
to the use of product placement in video games,
music and the Internet. In each case, parents typically
have less direct control over the exposure their
children have to advertising in these media.
Furthermore, even if parents were able to monitor
their childrens exposure to ads, it is unclear whether
or not they would make the effort. In this study, over
half the parents interviewed said they didnt talk about
advertising or product placement with their children;
nearly a third of mothers were not even aware that
advertisers were paying to place products in
programming. This supports the results of a study
commissioned by Ofcom in the UK, which showed
Meet the Parents 299
few parents make any attempt to mediate the impact of
television advertising to their children. They found
that 44% ‘never talk about advertising to their
children (Ofcom, 2005), and in these households
children are more pre-disposed to deception in
advertising (Barry, 1980; Ward and Wackman, 1972).
For marketers using product placement as a
communication tool, the results of this study have
important practical implications. This research has
shown that many parents believe the placement of
ethically charged products in childrens programming
to be deceptive and unethical. Negative
parental attitudes toward the products, along with
increased demands for regulation, should be a
concern to marketers employing this technique to
reach children. The placement of non-ethically
charged products is generally perceived as benign
by parents, so the continuation of this practice
should not lead to objections from parents or
regulators. Therefore, the participation in product
placement by a few ‘‘bad apples’’ may color the
entire industry. In addition, the majority of parents
said they could tolerate product placement as long
as there is not too much of it, and nearly half said
they didnt mind product placement because it
adds to realism in films.
The results also have implications for public
health practitioners. Firstly, there is clearly a need to
educate children, through their parents, about the
proliferation of product placement in childrens
media. Secondly, public health officials could consider
using product placement themselves. Walsh
and Gentile (2002) suggest that those in the public
health field who have the health of children and
youth as a priority would do well to study how they
can adopt effective advertising strategies and techniques
as a way to promote better health and welfare
for the children of the world. To promote healthy
behavior for young people, perhaps these groups
should consider using product placement, as such
placements are considered ethical compared to
placement of more harmful products, and may be
more effective than traditional advertising.
Limitations and future research
Although our study provides a preliminary glimpse
into parental attitudes toward a significant and
emerging trend in youth marketing, there are a
number of important questions raised by this
research. Firstly, because our samples were taken
from schools in the UK and Canada only, the results
may not be generalizable to other countries. In
general, more cross-cultural research is needed to
generate deeper knowledge of the diverse factors
that might impact the effectiveness of product
placement. Although this study measured the reactions
of parents from two different countries, globally
integrated marketing communications strategies
will require a more widespread knowledge of how
consumers in different cultures perceive, and form
attitudes towards, product placement – a phenomenon
that is predicted to become a US$14 billion
business by 2010 (PQ Media, 2005).
A second opportunity for future research is to explore
parental attitudes toward product placement in media
other than film. In previous research related to product
placement, there has been a general failure to differentiate
between media vehicles, so future research should
explore and compare parents ethical reactions to product
placement across different types of media. Product
placement in video games and music, for example, is
becoming more and more prevalent (Schneider and
Cornwell, 2005), and future studies can explore differences
across these emergingmedia vehicles.
A third opportunity for future research is to replicate
these findings in a field setting where researchers can
directly observe the movie-watching experience. In this
study, the placements were merely described (as accurately
as possible) to respondents, and it is possible the
results would be different if respondents viewed the
actual product placement scenarios using the theatre
methodology (Russell, 2002).One particular areawhere
a field study may provide value is the often subtle difference
between explicit and implicit product placement.
The use of a laboratory experiment could explain
the fact that explicit placement of non-ethically charged
products was not considered to be more unethical than
implicit placements of similar products in our study.
Finally, there is a need to determine whether ethical
responses to product placements will change over time,
andwhether or not there is a ‘saturation point whereby
consumers begin to object to the technique (Balasubramanian
et al., 2006, p. 136).As product placement
becomes an increasingly pervasive form of marketing
communication, it may lose its novelty and become
subject to the clutter that has characterized advertising
300 Simon Hudson et al.
over the last few decades. It will require themonitoring
of the effectiveness of the strategy over time to determine
whether and how such developments come to
affect viewer attention, recall and attitude.
Conclusion
This study provides the first examination of parental
attitudes towards a growing and ethically ambiguous
marketing technique where children are particularly
vulnerable. Although preliminary, our study demonstrates
that parents are concerned about the effects of
product placement in programming consumed by their
children, and that parental attitudes are in conflict with
existing public policyonthe issue.Furthermore, our study
provides useful guidance for marketers and public health
officials should they wish to use product placement as part
of their marketing communications strategy.
Appendix: Scenarios presented to parents
Product Placement Type 1. These placements are implicit
or passive product placements whereby the
brands appear but dont play any part in the storyline or
plot. They involve potentially harmful brands (ie.
alcohol, tobacco and fast-foods/drinks). For example,
in a scene from the recent film Fantastic Four, billboards
for Dos Equis beer and Pepsi appeared behind the
films characters. They played no role in the plot, but
the placements were paid for by the marketers of Pepsi
and Dos Equis. In another film Meet the Parents the
packaging design of a pack of Marlboro cigarettes is
clearly visible during one scene.
Product Placement Type 2. These placements are more
explicit product placements of potentially harmful
products as they are integrated into the storyline of the
film. For example, in Fantastic Four, one of the scenes
involved one of the Fantastics accidentally lighting up a
billboard featuring Burger Kings flame-broiled Whopper
with flames strategically placed in the right spots alluding
tohowthe burgers are cooked. In Superman II, therewas a
classic scene in which Superman and the bad guys threw a
Marlboro truck back and forth across Lexington Avenue.
Product Placement Type 3. These placements are
implicit or passive placements of non-harmful
brands.The brands appear but dont play any part in the
storyline or plot. For example, in the film Herbie: Fully
Loaded one of themain characters wears a Goodyear cap
for the first 15 min of the film. She is also seen pulling a
prominently displayed bottle of Tropicana Orange Juice
from a kitchen refrigerator. In another film, Elf, the
game Monopoly is clearly visible in one of the scenes.
Product Placement Type 4. These placements are
explicit placements of non-harmful products. The
brands play a central role in the plot but are not
harmful products. For example, in Madagascar, Central
Park Zoo played an important role in the cartoon film,
In your opinion these type of product placements are … Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree
Unfair to the audience 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Breaking an unspoken promise made with the audience 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not traditionally acceptable in this country 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not acceptable to my family values 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Morally wrong 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Not culturally acceptable in this country 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unjust to the audience 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Breaking an unwritten contract made with the audience 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unethical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Disguised (ie. concealed that they are paid advertisements) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Obtrusive (ie. undesirably noticeable) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Deceptive 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Should be regulated 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Should be banned 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Meet the Parents 301
as the film is all about a zebra, lion, giraffe, and hippo
escaping from the Central Park Zoo in New York.
For each of the above scenarios, parents were
asked to indicate their agreement/disagreement on
the following MES scale.
References
Abelson, J.: (2005), ‘Brands Line Up for Roles in Video
Games. Financial Post December 9, FP8.
American Psychological Association: (2004), ‘Report of
the APA Task Force on Advertising and Children,
February 20.
American Academy of Pediatrics: 1995, Children, Adolescents,
andAdvertising.Committee on Communications,
American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatrics 95, 295–297.
Argan, M., M. N. Velioglu and M. T. Argan: 2007,
Audience Attitudes Towards Product Placement in
Movies: A Case from Turkey, Journal of American
Academy of Business 11(1), 161–167.
Atkin, C. and M. Block: 1983, Effectiveness of
Celebrity Endorsers, Journal of Advertising Research
23(1), 57–61.
Avery, R. J. and R. Ferraro: 2000, Verisimilitude or
Advertising? Brand Appearances on Prime-Time
Television, Journal of Consumer Affairs 34(2), 217–245.
Auty, S. and C. Lewis: 2004, Exploring Childrens
Choice: The Reminder Effect of Product Placement,
Psychology & Marketing 21(9), 697.
Balasubramanian, S. K., J. A. Karrh. and H. Patwardhan:
2006, Audience Response to Product Placements. An
Integrated Framework and Future Research Agenda,
Journal of Advertising 35(3), 115–141.
Barry, T. E.: 1980, A Framework for Ascertaining
Deception in Childrens Advertising, Journal of
Advertising 9(1), 11–18.
Bhattacharya, C. B. and S. Sen: 2003, Consumer-
Company Identification: A Framework for Understanding
Consumers Relationships with Companies,
Journal of Marketing 67(2), 76–88.
Brennan, S., P. J. Rosenberger, III and V. Hementera:
2004, Product Placement in Movies: An Australian
Consumer Perspective on Their Ethicality and
Acceptability, Marketing Bulletin 15, 1.
Burr, P. L. and R. M. Burr: 1976, Television Advertising
to Children: What Parents are Saying About Government
Control, Journal of Advertising 5(4), 37.
Commercial Alert: (2003), ‘Request For Investigation of
Product Placement, Letter from Executive Director
Gary Ruskin to the Federal Trade Commission, September
30, Portland OR.
Comstock, G. and H. Paik: 1991, Television and the
American Child (Academic Press, New York)..
Crosby, L. A. and S. L. Grossbart: 1984, Parental Style
Segments and Concern About Childrens Food Advertising
, Current Issues & Research in Advertising 7(1), 43–64.
dAstous, A. and N. Se´gun: 1999, Consumer Reactions to
Product Placement Strategies in Television Sponsorship
, European Journal of Marketing 33(9/10), 896–910.
Derbyshire, D.: 2006, Call to Ban Junk Food Ads Before
Watershed, The Weekly Telegraph June 21–27, 9.
Distefan, J. M., J. P. Pierce and E. A. Gilpin: 2004, Do
Favorite Movie Stars Influence Adolescent Smoking
Initiation?, American Journal of Public Health 94(7),
1239–1244.
Englehardt T.: 1987, ‘Childrens Television: The Shortcake
Strategy, in T. Gitlin (ed.), Watching Television
(Pantheon, New York), pp. 680110.
Giacalone, R. A., K. Paul and C. L. Jurkiewicz: 2005, A
Preliminary Investigation into the Role of Psychology
in Consumer Sensitivity to Corporate Social Performance
, Journal of Business Ethics 58(4), 295–305.
Gibson, B. and J. Maurer: 2000, Cigarette Smoking in
Movies: The Influence of Product Placement on
Attitudes Toward Smoking and Smokers, Journal of
Applied Social Psychology 30, 1457–1473.
Gould, S. J., P. B. Gupta and S. Grabner-Krauter: 2000,
Product Placements in Movies: A Cross-Cultural
Analysis of Australian, French and American Consumers
Attitudes Towards this Emerging, International
Promotional Medium, Journal of Advertising
29(4), 41–58.
Gupta, P. B. and S. J. Gould: 1997, Consumers Perceptions
of the Ethics and Acceptability of Product
Placement in Movies: Product Category and Individual
Differences, Journal of Current Issues and Research in
Advertising 19(1), 37–50.
Gupta, P. B. and K. R. Lord: 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.
Hall, E.: 2004, Young Consumers Receptive to Movie
Product Placement, Advertising Age 75(13), 8.
Hudson, S. and D. Hudson: 2006, Branded Entertainment:
A New Advertising Technique, or Product
Placement in Disguise, Journal of Marketing Management
22(5–6), 489–504.
Hyman, M. R.: 1996, A Critique of the Multidimensional
Ethics Scale, Journal of Empirical Generalizations
in Marketing Science 1, 1–35.
International Association of Consumer Food Organizations
(IACFO): (2003), ‘Broadcasting Bad Health. A
report by IACFO for the World Health Organization,
July.
302 Simon Hudson et al.
Karrh, J. A., K. B. McKee and C. J. Pardun: 2003, Practitioners
Evolving Views on Product Placement Effectiveness
, Journal of Advertising Research 43(2), 138–49.
Kraak, V.: 1998, How Marketers Reach Young Consumers:
Implications for Nutrition Education and
Health Promotion Campaigns, Family Economics and
Nutrition Review 11(4), 31–42.
Krider, R. E.: 2006, Research Opportunities at the
Movies, Marketing Science 25(6), 662–664.
Kunkel, D.: 1988, The Evolution of Childrens Television
Regulatory Policy, Journal of Broadcasting and
Electronic Media 31(Fall), 367–389.
Laczniak, R. N. and K. M. Palan: 2004, ‘Under the
Influence, Marketing Research Spring, 35–39.
Law, S. and K. A. Braun: 2000, Ill Have What Shes
Having: Gauging the Impact of Product Placements on
Viewers, Psychology & Marketing 17(12), 1059.
Moore, E. S.: 2004, Children and the Changing World
of Advertising, Journal of Business Ethics 52(2), 161–
167.
Morton, C. R. and M. Friedman: 2002, I Saw it in The
Movies: Exploring the Link Between Product Placement
Beliefs and Reported Usage Behaviour, Journal
of Current Issues and Research in Advertising 24(2), 33–40.
Nebenzahl, I. D. and D. Jaffe: 1998, Ethical Dimensions
of Advertising Executions, Journal of Business Ethics
17(7), 805–815.
Ofcom: 2005, ‘Food Advertising in Context, at http://
www.ofcom.org.uk/research July 20.
Piaget, J.: 1970, The Stages of the Intellectual Development
of the Child, in P. H. Mussen (ed.), Readings
in Child Development and Psychology (Harper and Row,
New York).
PQ Media (2005), Product Placement Spending in Media
2005. PQ Media LLC March.
Raju, P. S. and S. C. Lonial: 1989, Advertising to
Children: Findings and Implications, Current Issues and
Research in Advertising 12, 231–274.
Reidenbach, R. E. and D. P. Robin.: 1988, Some Initial
Steps Towards Improving the Measurement of Ethical
Evaluations of Marketing Activities, Journal of Business
Ethics 7(11), 871–879.
Reidenbach, R. E. and D. P. Robin.: 1990, Towards the
Development of a Multidimensional Scale for
Improving Evaluations of Business Ethics, Journal of
Business Ethics 9(8), 639–653.
Roberts, D., U. Foehr, V. Rideout and M. Brodie: 1999,
Kids & Media @ The New Millennium: A Comprehensive
National Analysis of Childrens Media Use (Kaiser Family
Foundation, Menio Park, CA)..
Russell C. A.: 2002, ‘Investigating the Effectiveness of
Product Placement in Television Shows: The Role of
Modality and Plot Connection Congruence on Brand
Memory and Attitude, Journal of Consumer Research, 29
(December), 306–318.
Sargent, J. D., M. L. Beach, A. M. Adachi-Mejia, J. J.
Gibson, L. T. Titus-Ernstoff, C. P. Carusi, S. D.
Swain, T. F. Heatherton and M. A. Dalton: 2005,
Exposure to Movie Smoking: Its Relation to Smoking
Initiation Among US Adolescents, Pediatrics 116(5),
1183–1191.
Schneider, L. P. and T. B. Cornwell: 2005, Cashing in
on Crashes via Brand Placement in Computer Games,
International Journal of Advertising 24(3), 321–343.
Simpson, P. M., G. Brown and R. E. Widing II: 1998,
The Association of Ethical Judgment of Advertising
and Selected Advertising Effectiveness Response
Variables, Journal of Business Ethics 17(2), 125–136.
Smith, C. N. and E. Cooper-Martin: 1997, Ethics and
Target Marketing, Journal of Marketing 61(3), 1–21.
Story, M. and S. French: 2004, Food Advertising and
Marketing Directed at Children and Adolescents in the
US, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and
Physical Activity 1(3), 1–17.
Sutherland, M.: 2006, Product Placement – Regulators
Gone AWOL, International Journal of Advertising 25(1),
107–110.
Tiwsakul, R., C. Hackley and I. Szmigin: 2005, Explicit,
Non-Integrated Product Placement in British Television
Programmes, International Journal of Advertising
24(1), 95–111.
Treise, D., M. F. Weigold, J. Conna and H. Garrison:
1994, Ethics in Advertising: Ideological Correlates of
Consumer Perceptions, Journal of Advertising 23(3),
695–743.
Walsh, D. and D. A. Gentile: (2002), ‘Slipping Under the
Radar: Advertising and theMind. in L.Riley and I.Obot
(eds.), Drinking It In: Alcohol Marketing and Young People
(Geneva, Switzerland, World Health Organization).
Ward, S. and D. B. Wackman: 1972, Television
Advertising and Intra-Family Influence: Childrens
Purchase Influence Attempts and Parental Yielding,
Meet the Parents 303
in E. A. Rubenstein et al. (eds.), Television and Social
Behavior, vol. 4, Television in Day-to-Day Life: Patterns
of Use (US Department of Health, Education and
Welfare, Washington, DC).
Young, B. M., A. de Bruin and L. Eagle: 2003, Attitudes
of Parents Toward Advertising to Children in the UK,
Sweden and New Zealand, Journal of Marketing Management
19(3–4), 475–490.
Simon Hudson
Haskayne School of Business,
University of Calgary,
2500 University Drive NW, T2N1N4,
Calgary, AB, Canada
E-mail: [email protected]
David Hudson
Department of Marketing,
De Montfort University, Bosworth House,
The Gateway, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK
E-mail: [email protected]
John Peloza
Business, Simon Fraser University,
Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada
E-mail: [email protected]
304 Simon Hudson et al.