MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154072859 · doi:10.1509/jmkg.75.3.27

Do Marketing Media Have Life Cycles? The Case of Product Placement in Movies

2011· article· en· W2154072859 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Marketing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt History and Market Analysis
Canadian institutionsThe King's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduct placementProduct (mathematics)MarketingAdvertisingBusinessHabituationRelationship marketingPsychologyMarketing managementMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the economic worth of product placement in movies over a time span of 40 years (1968–2007). The authors find an inverted U-shaped relationship between the year of the movie release and the returns associated with product placements. In addition, a similar inverted U-shaped relationship characterizes the economic worth of tie-in campaigns associated with product placements. These findings are consistent with the habituation–tedium theory used to explain the inverted U-shaped pattern in response to novel advertisements and suggest that the same mechanism could be influencing the response to an entire marketing medium. Overall, the results reinforce the notion that marketers find it increasingly difficult to get their message across using traditional media and underscore the need for the marketing industry to reinvent itself when new tactics lose their luster. The authors conclude with a discussion of additional empirical regularities.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it