The Worth of Product Placement in Successful Films: An Event Study Analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a result of the diminishing effectiveness of broadcast advertising, firms are increasingly turning to product placements in films and television to promote their products. A growing stream of product placement research has conducted surveys of consumer and practitioner views on the practice and experiments to gauge product placement's impact on brand awareness, attitudes, and purchase intent. However, there is no evidence of whether firms’ investments in film product placements are worthwhile. The event study of 126 product placements in successful films during 2002 reveals a mean cumulative abnormal return of .89% during the film's opening, indicating that product placement in a successful film is associated with positive movements in firm stock prices. Cross-sectional analysis of the returns offers new insight into how product, film, and execution factors influence the placement's worth. The authors find that placement abnormal returns are enhanced by tie-in advertising and brand equity but are inhibited by audience absorption, critical acclaim, and violent film content. Placement modality, character associations, and blatancy also significantly affect the placement's value.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it