The perceived effectiveness of overt versus

covert promotions
Fanny Fong Yee Chan
Department of Marketing, The Hang Seng University of Hong Kong, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study contributes to literature on marketing communications by empirically contrasting the effectiveness of a new
form of covert promotions (product placement in recipes) and an overt promotion (traditional advertisement). The mediating role of perceived
believability of promotional materials and the moderating roles of advertising skepticism and brand awareness were examined based on a
conceptual model.
Design/methodology/approach – A Web-based experiment with 2 (form of promotion: overt versus covert)  2 (brand awareness: low versus
high) between-subjects full factorial design was used. A public sample of 537 participants had participated in the study. The conceptual model was
further tested on 106 participants using stimuli of a fictitious brand.
Findings – A two-stage moderated mediation analysis shows that the perceived believability of promotional materials was a significant mediator of
the form of promotion and brand evaluations. Consumers showed a higher level of believability toward covert promotion, which, in turn, led to more
positive evaluations of the promoted brand. Advertising skepticism and brand awareness were found to significantly moderate the relationship
between form of promotion and attitudes toward the promoted brands. A similar pattern of results was obtained when stimuli of a fictitious brand
were used.
Originality/value – This research addresses an important issue in marketing communication and extends the understanding of the perception of
overt and covert promotions by examining the underlying mediating and moderating variables, which have rarely been explored before. The results
guide marketers in developing effective marketing communication strategies for well-known, less well-known and even new brands. It also directs
policymakers to consider whether integrated branded content in recipes should be disclosed to protect consumers from surreptitious promotions,
which may help to lower consumers’ skepticism toward advertising in the long run.
Keywords Advertising, Experimental design, Brand communication, Consumer behaviour, Brand awareness, Product placement
Paper type Research paper

Introduction search for surreptitious means for promotion. Practitioners

The advertising sector is currently facing increasing criticism
from the general public and traditional advertising is continuing
to lose popularity (Belch and Belch, 2018). ACNielsen (2018)
has recently released a report, which shows that 92 per cent of
consumers around the world trust word-of-mouth
communications or recommendations from peers and family,
while only 47 per cent trust television, magazine and newspaper
advertisements. The unfavorable attitudes toward advertising
together with the advancement in advertisement-skipping
techniques make traditional advertising hard to reach
audiences. Advertisement blocking also happens in digital
media. PageFair and Adobe (2017) reported that worldwide
advertising blocking has increased 41 per cent in 2015 causing
the advertising industry to lose nearly US$22bn in revenue. It
implies that about 14 per cent of global advertising
expenditures were wasted.
In view of the fierce competition in the advertising market
and the rising of advertising costs, many marketers have tried to
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on
Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1061-0421.htm
have gradually come to realize the weaknesses of a hard-sell
approach and instead recognize the value of covert promotions.
For example, Goodby, founder of Goodby and Silverstein,
believed that “advertising works best when it sneaks into
people’s lives, when it does not look or feel like advertising”
(Vagnoni, 1998, p. 1). Carl Laemmle, former president of
Universal Studios, claimed that “if you jam advertising down
their (audiences’) throats and pack their eyes and ears with it,
you will build up a resentment that will in time damn your
business” (Lehu, 2007, p. 17). Various forms of covert
marketing communications have emerged, and product
placement has become more mature and sophisticated
(Hudson and Hudson, 2006; Kuhn et al., 2010). Product
placement is the integration of branded content into an
entertainment context, such as television programs, movies,
music or video games (Chan, 2012; Vaerenbergh, 2017).
Although many consumers do not like seeing traditional
advertising messages, they tend to be less resistant toward
product placement; even though they understand that both are
promotional messages (Chan et al., 2017). Some practitioners
even regarded product placement as the “future of advertising”
(Russell and Belch, 2005; Smit et al., 2009) or a “strategic

Journal of Product & Brand Management

Received 23 June 2018
29/3 (2020) 321–334 Revised 6 December 2018
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421] 1 May 2019
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-06-2018-1912] Accepted 24 June 2019

321
 Overt versus covert promotions
Fanny Fong Yee Chan
must-have” in a company’s marketing communications mix
(Belch and Belch, 2018).
Placing brands and products in different media content has
been widely used. For example, brands were found to place
their products in news articles or editorial content, which are
termed advertorials (Eisend and Kuster, 2011). Recently,
brands can increasingly be found placing their products in
recipes and research statistics support that recipes can be a
powerful tool for food and grocery marketers. Luth (2017)
research shows that consumers who shopped groceries online
tend to spend a great amount of time on recipe websites and
they usually make online purchases right after they have visited
recipe websites. The market share of online grocery shopping is
expected to reach 20 per cent by 2025. Companies selling
kitchenware or cooking utensils, such as German pool, have
created cooking recipes and cookbooks to promote their
products instead of adopting traditional advertising. Although
including real brands in a recipe may enhance its realism and
make it more informative, this outlet may be exploited by
marketers as a promotional tool. Product placement in recipes
represents a covert form of promotion and its effectiveness
compared with traditional advertisements has yet to be
empirically examined, even though researchers have made
frequent calls to compare product placements with other
message types (Balasubrimanian et al., 2006). Consequently,
this study is the first to compare the effectiveness of overt and
covert promotions by investigating their relative impact on
brand attitudes.
Although previous studies have attempted to examine the
effect of overt and covert promotions, a direct comparison
between the two is rare and inconsistent findings have been
recorded. For example, Wiles and Danielova (2009) found that
product placement in films provides financial returns to both
the placed brand and the film industry. However, their study
did not compare the financial returns of the same brand in
traditional cinema advertising and it also did not contrast the
consumer’s perception toward the two forms of promotion.
Most previous studies of covert promotions have focused on
the cognitive effect, such as the recall and recognition of placed
brands (Balasubrimanian et al., 2006; Bressoud et al., 2010).
Furthermore, research on the effect of covert promotions on
brand attitudes has generated mixed findings.
Davtyan and Cunningham (2017) found that product
placement (i.e. covert promotion) led to more positive brand
attitudes than television commercials (i.e. overt promotion),
but the underlying mechanism has not been explored. In other
words, the actual characteristics of product placement that
might be responsible for such differences were not determined.
Colliander and Erlandsson (2015) show that informing
participants about the sponsored nature of a blog content
affected one’s attitude toward the blog but not the attitude and
purchase intention toward the placed brand. This suggests that
whether the persuasive attempt is covert or overt did not affect
the consumer’s attitude toward the promoted brand. These
studies also suggest that a mediator may be present in the
relationship between the form of promotion and the
consumer’s attitude toward the promoted brand. Specifically,
the perceived believability of a covert promotion may be a key
determining factor in the consumer’s evaluation of the brand
information embedded in it. Therefore, the current study
322
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 321–334
contributes to the field of knowledge by exploring the
mediating role of perceived believability of promotional
materials on the form of promotion and the consumer’s
evaluation of a placed brand.
In addition to the mediating effect, the current study also
examines the moderating effect of advertising skepticism and
brand awareness. Although the selling intent of covert
promotions is subtle, some consumers may be more readily
able to detect it; especially those who have developed a high
level of advertising skepticism. These consumers may be less
likely to evaluate an embedded brand positively, even though
they perceive the promotional material to be believable.
Therefore, this study also examines the moderating effect of
advertising skepticism in the relationship between the
consumer’s perceived believability of promotional material and
their brand evaluation. Previous research has found that brand
awareness is an important moderator in consumer’s processing
of promotional material (Campbell and Keller, 2003; Chan
et al., 2016; Wei et al., 2008). However, studies comparing the
effectiveness of advertising and product placement have
primarily focused on well-known brands. For example, Uribe
(2016) compared the effectiveness of a television commercial
and the placement of an Apple MacBook. Davtyan and
Cunningham (2017) compared the effectiveness of a product
placement and a television commercial for the Heinz and
Snapple brands. They have called for further work to extend
their investigations to less well-known brands (Liljander et al.,
2015). The current study is among the first to examine the
moderating role of brand awareness on the evaluation of brands
that are placed in overt and covert promotions.
A conceptual model was developed and a set of hypotheses of
the mediating and moderating effects of the form of promotion
on the consumer’s evaluation of a promoted brand were
proposed. In response to calls from previous studies to use
more representative participant samples, the current study has
empirically tested the conceptual model on a general public
sample (Liljander et al., 2015). The conceptual model has also
been verified on another group of participants using stimuli of a
fictitious brand. The findings have both theoretical and
practical implications. They also guide marketers who wish to
develop more effective marketing communication strategies for
brands that target various consumer cohorts.
Literature review and hypothesis development
Overt and covert promotions
Direct comparisons of the effectiveness of overt and covert
promotions are sparse and inconsistent findings have been
recorded. The effects of covert promotions (e.g. advertorial
advertising) have been compared with traditional advertising
(Eisend and Kuster, 2011). In these studies, the audience
tended to be more willing to pay attention to covert promotions
than advertising (Kim et al., 2001). Advertorial advertising has
also been perceived to be more credible than traditional
advertising (Belch and Belch, 2018; Kim et al., 2010). A
significant difference was found in promotional messages that
appeared to be more editorial than those that appeared to be
more commercial (Becker-Olsen, 2003). Tutaj and van
Reijmersdal (2012) also found that participants were
significantly less critical toward sponsored content than to
 Overt versus covert promotions
Fanny Fong Yee Chan
banner advertisements because they were less likely to associate
sponsored content with persuasive intent. Consequently,
covert branded content was perceived as more informative and
less irritating than banner advertisements. Davtyan and
Cunningham (2017) also found that covert promotion led to
more positive brand attitudes than overt promotion, but the
underlying mechanism was not determined. Liljander et al.
(2015) found that overt marketing had a negative effect on
behavioral intentions, while covert marketing did not affect the
intended behavior. Furthermore, Colliander and Erlandsson
(2015) found that turning covert promotion into overt (i.e.
informing participants about the sponsored nature of a blog
content) did not affect the attitude and purchase intention
toward the promoted brand. Consequently, it appears that a
covert promotion is not necessarily more persuasive than an
overt promotion.
Many researchers have argued that an overt promotion is less
favorable because the promotional intent of traditional
advertising is usually apparent, so the audience may become
defensive when exposed to these messages. According to
reactance theory (Brehm, 1966; Chadee, 2011), individuals
who recognize that an incoming message is intended to
influence them may arouse their reactance and tend to react
counter to the persuasive attempts, which results in less
influence (Kivetz, 2005). Similarly, the elaboration likelihood
model also suggests that individuals tend to scrutinize an
incoming message more carefully and elaborate it more
extensively when they have a high degree of motivation to
process the message (Petty and Cacioppo, 1983, 1986). It is,
therefore, anticipated that individuals will find overt
promotions less trustworthy and will display less positive
attitudes toward it. They may then choose to react
discouragingly or even reject the persuasive messages to
reassert their independence. Alternatively, covert promotions
tend to trigger less reactance compared with traditional spot
advertising (Gupta and Gould, 2007).
Product placement in television programs, movies, music or
video games is common and has been widely examined
(Balasubramanian et al., 2006; Chan, 2012). However,
branded content in recipes represents a covert form of
promotion that has been increasingly adopted and has yet to be
systematically examined (Ruth, 2017). Traditionally, recipes
have not been perceived as tools of promotion and may,
therefore, appear to be more credible than conventional
advertisements. This could be explained in terms of the third-
party endorsement effect and source credibility theory. Micu
and Thorson (2008) found that online advertorials led to more
positive brand attitudes than online advertising. The
information was perceived to be supported by a trustworthy
news outlet and endorsed by the editors and journalists, and
therefore, appeared to be more believable. Similarly,
consumers may perceive a recipe appearing in a newspaper or
magazine as being endorsed by the editors and publishers, and
they will consequently display higher trust toward it. Therefore,
consumers are less likely to associate recipes with a deliberate
persuasive effort, even though brands are integrated into
the recipe. The higher level of perceived believability of the
promotional material may then be transferred to the placed
brand, which may be evaluated more positively. This effect was
demonstrated by Van Reijmersdal (2011), in which brand
323
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 321–334
placements were rated as more credible and likable than radio
commercials. Therefore, it is suggested that the form of
promotion may not have a direct impact on brand evaluation
but the relationship may instead be mediated by a third
variable, which is termed “perceived believability.”
A covert promotion is less likely to promote something
directly, and therefore, may appear to be less suspicious than an
overt promotion. Recipes provide guidance for food
preparation, which could be regarded as more informative and
trustworthy. Research shows that respondents rated recipes to
be significantly less interesting and absorbing than fiction or
travel articles but they recalled advertisements placed close to
recipes better than those placed close to other editorial content
(Norris and Colman, 1992). Consumers are more likely to
engage with information that they find to be useful or believable
and they are also more likely to evaluate it positively. It can be
argued that a recipe generally provides more information to
consumers than a traditional advertisement, and therefore,
appears to be more useful and believable. Even though real
brands are placed in a recipe, the selling intent is less explicit
than in traditional advertisements.
Traditional advertising is perceived to be fully controlled by
its sponsors, and hence, is viewed as less objective and
trustworthy (Balasubramanian, 1994). However, recipes
appear to be endorsed by a third party other than the brand’s
owners. Limited persuasive cues are available to activate one’s
processing and elaboration over the branded content (Petty and
Cacioppo, 1983, 1986). Friestad and Wright (1999) believe
that one may require the activation of persuasion knowledge to
distinguish between program content and advertising material
on television. Persuasion knowledge is considered to be an
“important interpretive belief system because it tells people
about situations where an intelligent purposeful outside agent is
skillfully trying to alter their inner self” (Friestad and Wright,
1999, p. 186). Individuals are less likely to attribute
information in a recipe to a commercial source, and hence, it is
less likely to activate consumer’s persuasion knowledge
(Friestad and Wright, 1994). The less that a promotion is
perceived to be overtly persuasive, the more accepting and
believable it may appear to the receivers (Jungkeun et al.,
2016). Nevertheless, the overt selling intention in traditional
advertising may trigger audiences to analyze the advertiser’s
motives and claims more extensively (Kirmani and Zhu, 2007).
Therefore, they may show less trust toward the advertising
information and find it less favorable. Previous research has
demonstrated that audiences first develop attitudes toward a
promotional material before forming attitudes toward the
promoted brand and there is a strong correlation between the
two (Brown and Stayman, 1992; MacKenzie et al., 1986).
Consequently, it is anticipated that consumers will find a covert
promotion that appears to be endorsed by a third party to be
more persuasive than an overt promotion that is perceived as
coming from the brand owner directly. Perceived believability
may also play a mediating role on the evaluation of brands
appearing in overt and covert promotions. Consequently, it is
hypothesized that:
H1. The relationship between forms of promotion and brand
evaluations is mediated by the perceived believability of
the promotional materials, such that participants will
 Overt versus covert promotions
Fanny Fong Yee Chan
find a covert promotion to be more believable; and they
will display more positive attitudes toward a brand
appearing in a covert promotion than in an overt
promotion.
This discussion suggests that consumers may find covert
promotions to be more believable, and hence, will develop
more positive attitudes toward the promoted brand. Previous
studies also show that individuals who are positive toward
commercials are more likely to be persuaded than those who
are neutral (Biel and Bridgwater, 1990). However, a more
recent study showed that audiences were more conservative in
forming attitudes toward brands than toward promotional
materials (Geuens et al., 2011). In other words, finding
promotional material to be believable may not necessarily turn
into positive attitudes toward the promoted brand. Attitudes
toward advertising and promotion in general also affect
attitudes toward a promoted brand (MacKenzie and Lutz,
1989). A general skepticism toward advertising may predispose
consumers to be more critical and conservative in forming
brand attitudes (Boush et al., 1994), and hence, the
believability toward a promotional material may not be fully
transferred onto the promoted brands.
Skepticism toward advertising is widely defined as the
tendency toward disbelief of advertising in general and it can be
manifested in various facets, such as questioning the truth of
advertising claims, the motives of advertisers or the
appropriateness of advertising for various products or
audiences, etc. (Obermiller and Spangenberg, 1998, p. 160). It
is anticipated that skepticism toward advertising, in general,
may moderate the relationship between perceived believability
of the promotional materials and attitudes toward the
promoted brands. In other words, consumers who found
promotional material to be believable may not fully transfer this
positive perception onto the promoted brand when they possess
a high level of skepticism toward advertising. Consequently, it
is hypothesized that:
H2. Advertising skepticism has a moderating effect on
the relationship between perceived believability of the
promotional materials and attitudes toward the
promoted brands, such that consumers with a low level
of advertising skepticism will evaluate a promoted brand
more positively when they perceive the promotional
material to be believable than when they perceive it as
not so believable; and such a difference will be less
prominent for consumers with a high level of advertising
skepticism.
Advertising skepticism may also moderate consumers’
perceptions of overt and covert promotions. It is believed that
consumers who are skeptical toward advertising, in general,
may be more critical in processing promotional materials.
These consumers dislike advertising intruding into their
personal space and they may be able to see right through it.
Consequently, it is, particularly, important to communicate to
skeptical consumers that they can trust the promotional source
and the brand (Noble et al., 2008). In other words, creating
something meaningful and worth reading (i.e. recipes in this
case) appears to be more appealing to skeptical consumers than
coaxing them into buying. Compared with traditional
324
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 321–334
advertisements, recipes provide useful content/information that
may be less likely to irritate skeptical consumers and to trigger
them to engage in intensive elaboration of the persuasion
attempts. Therefore, it is anticipated that skepticism toward
advertising may moderate the effect of the form of promotion
on attitudes toward the promoted brands. Consequently, it is
hypothesized that:
H3. Advertising skepticism has a moderating effect on the
relationship between the form of promotion and
attitudes toward the promoted brands, such that
consumers with a high level of advertising skepticism will
evaluate a promoted brand more negatively than
consumers with a low level of advertising skepticism
when the brand is promoted in an overt form; and such a
difference will be less prominent when a brand is
promoted in a covert form.
Brand awareness refers to the extent of a consumer’s
knowledge and experience with a particular brand (Kent and
Allen, 1994). It has also been shown to be an important
moderator in consumers’ processing of traditional
advertisements (Campbell and Keller, 2003) and product
placement (Wei et al., 2008). Lehu and Bressoud (2008)
argued that a brand’s awareness could affect its recall when
placed in a film. Recent research suggests that the effect of
promotional formats on brand attitudes should be examined
across various types of brands (Tutaj and van Reijmersdal,
2012). It is anticipated that brand awareness may moderate the
direct and indirect effect of the form of promotion on attitudes
toward the promoted brands. The path between the form of
promotion and perceived believability is supported by previous
studies (Belch and Belch, 2018), so the moderating effect is
likely to be on the relationship between perceived believability
and attitudes toward the promoted brands.
In line with the previous discussion, consumers are in general
more defensive toward a traditional advertisement than toward
a recipe, which is less likely to be associated with selling intent.
When exposed to an advertisement featuring a less well-known
brand, individuals have little understanding about the brand
and may exhibit more uncertainty and doubts about it (Eisend
and Kuster, 2011). Therefore, they may scrutinize it more
critically, which leads to less positive attitudes toward the
promoted brand. However, a recipe is unlikely to prompt
defensive processing, especially when a not commonly known
brand is placed. Consumers tend to concentrate more when
reading a recipe. Furthermore, the involving and covert context
of recipes is less likely to motivate consumers to associate a
recipe with a promotion. The less well-known brand is not a
strong persuasive cue to activate one’s persuasion knowledge
and the intensive elaboration of the material (Friestad and
Wright, 1999; Wei et al., 2008). It also cannot prime consumers
to detect the promotional intent and consumers are less likely to
be aware of the integration. In contrast, the information in the
recipe may aid the understanding of the less well-known brand
and enhance its evaluation (Edell and Burke, 1986). Dens and
De Pelsmacker (2010) also found that less well-known brands
were assessed more positively when advertised with an
informational appeal. Therefore, in the low brand awareness
condition, covert promotions are believed to be more favorable
than overt promotions.
 Overt versus covert promotions
Fanny Fong Yee Chan
In contrast, a different pattern is envisioned in the high brand
awareness condition. In this condition, consumers have
adequate knowledge about well-established products/brands,
and hence, there is little need of the more informative nature of
recipe in aiding their understanding of the brand (Giacalone
and Jaeger, 2016). They are more readily able to detect a well-
known brand when it appears in a recipe. A well-known placed
brand serves as a strong persuasive cue to activate consumers’
persuasion knowledge (Friestad and Wright, 1999) and it can
prompt questions about the presence of commercial brands.
For example, consumers may question the intent of embedding
a brand in a recipe and may evaluate it more critically. The
critical evaluation of the placed brand makes consumers
associate it with commercial intent and are thus more resistant
toward it. This may result in less positive attitudes toward the
promoted brand. This evaluation is expected to be even more
critical and negative than when processing traditional
advertisements. The selling intent of traditional advertisements
is explicit and consumers are well aware that it is intended to
persuade them, and therefore, the psychological reactance that
they may experience is weaker. Wei et al. (2008) found that
participants evaluated a well-known placed brand favorably
when persuasion knowledge was strongly activated. However,
their study only focused on covert promotions. Uribe (2016)
compared the effectiveness between advertising and product
placement with a focus on well-known brands (e.g. Apple).
Similarly, Liljander et al. (2015) examined the effect of overt
and covert promotions of well-known brands only.
In the current study, overt and covert promotions are directly
contrasted. It is anticipated that consumers will display more
positive attitudes toward a well-known brand when it is
promoted overtly than when it is promoted covertly. In
contrast, consumers may prefer a less well-known brand to be
promoted covertly than overtly. Liljander et al. (2015)
suggested that the differences between overt and covert
promotions in perceived credibility and persuasive intention
may be greater when the promoted brand is less well-known.
This happens because consumers may not be confident about a
less well-known brand, their attitudes toward the promoted
brand may rely largely on their perception of the promotional
material. However, when a brand is well-known, and hence,
consumers are more confident about it, they may have more
established attitudes toward the brand, which are less likely to
be affected by the perception of the promotional material.
Therefore, it is anticipated that a large difference in brand
attitudes will be found between consumers who perceive
promotional materials to be less and more believable in the low
brand awareness condition. It is hypothesized that:
H4. Brand awareness has a moderating effect on the
relationship between the form of promotion and
attitudes toward the promoted brand, such that
consumers will evaluate a less well-known brand more
positively when it is promoted in a covert form; and
consumers will evaluate a well-known brand more
positively when it is promoted in an overt form.
H5. Brand awareness has a moderating effect on the
relationship between perceived believability of
promotional material and attitudes toward the promoted
brand, such that a less well-known brand will be
325
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 321–334
evaluated more positively by consumers who perceive
the promotional material to be believable than
consumers who perceive it as not so believable; and such
a difference will be less prominent in the high brand
awareness condition.
Methodology
A web-based experiment with a 2 (form of promotion: overt
versus covert)  2 (brand awareness: low versus high) between-
subjects full factorial design was used to test the hypotheses
derived from the research model (Figure 1). A web-based
experimental setting enabled the manipulation of the research
stimuli and maintained a high degree of control over the
allocation of stimuli. The random allocation of research stimuli
and a between-subjects design were enforced, while
participants were unaware of this. This also allowed the
participants to be exposed to the research stimuli in a less
artificial environment. The research design combined the
merits of high internal validity in an experimental setting and
high external validity in a naturalistic setting. A between-
subjects design was used to rule out any repetition and
carryover effects (Malhotra, 2012). It also helped to prevent the
participants from recognizing the research purpose.
The experiment was administered in Hong Kong. A pretest
was first conducted with 50 participants of 18 years old or
above. Open-ended questions were used and participants were
asked to report on the appetizer that they liked the most and
was relatively easy to prepare. The results showed that potato
salad was the most favorable appetizer among the participants
and they generally found it easy to prepare. The researcher and
three research assistants scanned a series of print
advertisements for salad sauce to identify the most appropriate
one to be manipulated as the research stimulus. Print
advertisements were used to allow the participants to pace
themselves in viewing and to process the advertisement as they
wished. This helped to reflect the variation in attention and
elaboration triggered by the stimulus. Participants in the pretest
Figure 1 Conceptual framework of the perceived effectiveness of overt
and covert promotions
Perceived believability
of promotional materials
H1
0.15****
H1 H2
Advertising
0.69**** – 0.06*
skepticism
H5
n.s.
H3
0.15*
Form of Attitude toward
promotion the promoted brands
H4
– 0.15***
Brand
awareness
Notes: ****p < 0.0001; ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05;
and ns not significant
 Overt versus covert promotions
Fanny Fong Yee Chan
rated Kraft as the most known brand while Kühne was the least
known brand of salad sauce among Essential Waitrose, Kewpie
and others. Kraft is an American brand that has been more
heavily advertised than Kühne (a German brand). Kraft has
also appeared on the list of top 50 of the world’s most familiar
brands and top 100 of the world’s most valuable brands, while
Kühne was not on the lists and has a low level of awareness
(SyncForce, 2018).
The selected print advertisement was then edited to create
two advertisements, which were entirely identical except that
one featured the most known brand while the other featured the
least known brand. These two advertisements represented the
overt form of promotion. Two recipes for potato salad were
then developed, which again were exactly the same except that
one had the well-known brand placed while the other with the
less well-known brand placed. These two recipes represented
the covert form of promotion. According to the Federal Trade
Commission, a product placement will be considered as a
deceptive case if there are objective claims about the attributes
of the placed product and the product is misrepresented in
the media content (Petty and Andrews, 2008). Therefore, in
the recipe, the salad sauces were referred to as one of the
ingredients and no product descriptions were included.
Although the two selected brands originated from two
different countries and this is acknowledged as a limitation of
the study, it is believed that a country-of-origin effect was less
likely to be a concern (Melnyk et al., 2012) because both brands
were from developed countries, and hence, represented global
products to Hong Kong consumers. Consumers generally
assign superior quality and reliability to products from
developed nations (Steenkamp and de Jong, 2010) and
perceive these products as having higher product safety (Tse,
1999). Furthermore, Germany and the USA are the main
trading partners of Hong Kong (Kaynak and Kucukemiroglu,
2001). A previous study showed that Hong Kong consumers
had a preference for products from these two nations over the
others and they ranked the USA and Germany exactly the same
on various product attributes (Tse, 1999). Therefore, it is
believed that the country-of-origin of the selected products is
less likely to exercise an effect and to confound the research
findings.
Research procedures and pilot study
The participants first answered a few basic questions (i.e.
normal country of residence, media consumption habit, etc.)
and their levels of skepticism toward advertising, in general,
were checked. They were then randomly assigned to view one
of the four research stimuli (i.e. a traditional advertisement of a
well-known/less well-known brand or a recipe with the
placement of a well-known/less known brand), which were
portrayed as extracted from an online newspaper. The
participants were then invited to evaluate the perceived
believability of the stimuli using a scale adapted from
Beltramini (1982, 1988). To rule out any contextual effect, the
participants viewed the research stimuli in isolation without
relating to a particular publication. In addition, no producer/
sender of the research stimuli was suggested, which minimized
any imposed source effect (Eisend, 2010). Therefore, the
perceived believability measure was directed to the promotional
material itself rather than the source of the material or its
326
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 321–334
context. The random assignment of research stimuli to
participants enabled any potential differences among
participants and any pre-existing biases with the actual brands
(i.e. skepticism toward advertising, demographic
characteristics, etc.) to be evenly distributed across treatment
conditions. The time spent viewing the research stimulus was
automatically measured by Qualtrics and included as a
statistical control.
In addition to the tested stimulus, all of the participants were
invited to evaluate an advertisement for canned corn.
The insertion of this real filler advertisement helped to disguise
the research purpose and to improve the external validity. The
participants were then asked to report their general
consumption pattern and monthly expenditure on household
groceries. Their perceptions and evaluations of six global
brands – Kühne, Kraft, Pringles, Kowloon Diary, Del Monte
and Green Giant (the order of presentation was randomized) –
were recorded. The latter four brands were added as fillers. The
participants who had been exposed to Kraft were asked to
evaluate Kühne as well, and vice versa. This helped to take into
consideration any pre-existing biases toward these two brands.
Finally, all of the participants were invited to gauge the research
purpose. They were also linked to a debriefing page and
debriefed (Malhotra, 2012). The whole study lasted about
20 min. A pilot study with 60 participants was conducted to test
the manipulation of the research stimuli and the flow of the
experiment.
Research sample
The participants were recruited via the existing database of a
professional market research agency, and they were
compensated for their time and effort. Previous studies found
that women and participants with higher education levels were
more skeptical toward advertising in general (Matthes and
Wonneberger, 2014). Quota-sampling was adopted to ensure
that none of these demographic characteristics invalidated the
relationships. A total of 537 participants with an almost equal
distribution across age groups (52.3 per cent years of age 18-34
and 47.7 per cent years of age 35 or above) completed the
study. There were slightly more female participants (54.2 per
cent), as in other similar studies (Jin and Lutz, 2013). They also
matched the gender distribution of the local population. The
median monthly household income was US$4,500 and almost
half of the sample (46.7 per cent) had attained a bachelor’s
degree or above.
Research measures
All of the measurement items were adapted from previously
developed scales and they were further modified to maximize
their fit to the local context (Table I). Back translations were
used to establish translation equivalence (Mullen, 1995). The
two categorical variables were the form of promotion (overt
versus covert) and brand awareness (low versus high). The
manipulation of brand awareness was counter-checked by three
items (Nelson, 2002). Here, brand awareness is not simply
measured at the individual level, but is gauged at the aggregated
level and includes items such as “very well-known” and “used
by lots of people.” Skepticism toward advertising was measured
with nine items adopted from Obermiller and Spangenberg
(1998). The mediating variable perceived believability was
 Overt versus covert promotions Journal of Product & Brand Management
Fanny Fong Yee Chan Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 321–334

Table I Reliability coefficients of the multi-item constructs

Constructs Cronbach’s alpha CR AVE VIF
Advertising skepticism (Obermiller and Spangenberg, 1998) 0.89 0.89 0.51 1.17
1) We can depend on getting the truth in most advertising
2) Advertising’s aim is to inform the consumer
3) I believe advertising is informative
4) Advertising is generally truthful
5) Advertising is a reliable source of information about the quality and performance of products
6) Advertising is truth well told
7) In general, advertising presents a true picture of the product being advertised
8) I feel I have been accurately informed after viewing most advertisements
9) Most advertising provides consumers with essential information

Perceived brand awareness (Wei et al., 2008) 0.83 0.90 0.76 1.02
1) Not known at all/very well-known
2) Used by few people/used by lots of people
3) Not familiar to me at all/very familiar to me

Perceived believability (Beltramini, 1982) 0.94 0.95 0.75 1.15

1) Not convincing/convincing
2) Not credible/credible
3) Unbelievable/believable
4) Unreasonable/reasonable
5) Dishonest/honest
6) Questionable/unquestionable
7) Not authentic/authentic

Brand attitude (Matthes et al., 2007) 0.75 0.85 0.61 –

1) Unappealing/appealing
2) Unattractive/attractive
3) Not delicious/delicious
4) Unhealthy/healthy

measured using Beltramini’s (1982) scale (see also Chang,
2007). The dependent variable brand attitude was measured by
items adopted from Matthes et al. (2007) and two more items
were specifically added for the context of salad sauces (i.e.
delicious and healthy). Similar to previous studies on branded
content, explicit brand attitude was measured
(Balasubramanian et al., 2014). All of the items used were
measured on seven-point Likert scales, ranging from “strongly
disagree” to “strongly agree.”
Reliability tests were conducted and the Cronbach’s (1951)
alpha, construct reliability (CR) and average variance extracted
(AVE) values are reported in Table I. These values were above
the thresholds of 0.75, 0.70 and 0.50, respectively (Nunnally,
1978). Multicollinearity tests were conducted on the mediating
and moderating variables, and all of the variance inflation
factors (VIFs) were below the threshold of three, which
indicates that multicollinearity should not be an issue. In
addition, all of the constructs demonstrated discriminant
validity (Table II) because the square root of the construct’s
AVE exceeded the corresponding inter-variable correlations
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Therefore, it is concluded that all
of the scales had adequate construct validity and reliability, and
were thus averaged to form overall scores for further analysis.
In view of the fact that there could be pre-existing biases with
real brands, the conceptual model was further validated on 106
adults using stimuli of a fictitious brand (Fammi) of another
product category (i.e. chocolates). In addition, it is uncertain if
consumers’ involvement in and experience with cooking may
also be critical factors other than the awareness of the promoted
brand. The level of experience and enjoyment of cooking were
thus measured. The research procedures and other measures
were largely the same.
Results
The participants were equally distributed across the four
research conditions. There were no significant differences in
the research conditions with respect to gender [chi-square
( x 2)(3) = 1.03 and p = 0.79], age group ( x 2(3) = 1.05 and p =
0.79), education ( x 2(9) = 8.16 and p = 0.52), income
( x 2(18) = 4.64 and p = 1.00) or level of skepticism toward
advertising F(3, 533) = 1.89 and p = 0.13. Therefore, these
factors were unlikely to be confounding variables in the
research model.
Manipulation checks showed that the manipulation of brand
awareness was highly effective. The participants reported a
significantly higher level of awareness toward Kraft than Kühne
(MKuhne = 3.18, SD = 1.18 versus MKraft = 5.34, SD = 1.11;
t(536) = 28.79, p < 0.001). Manipulation checks also
confirmed that participants perceived a recipe to be
significantly more informative than a traditional advertisement
(Mrecipe = 4.57, SD = 0.96 versus Mad = 4.0, SD = 1.41;

327
 Overt versus covert promotions Journal of Product & Brand Management
Fanny Fong Yee Chan Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 321–334

Table II Discriminant validity tests of the mediating, moderating and dependent variables
Constructs Advertising skepticism Perceived brand awareness Perceived believability Brand attitude
Advertising skepticism 0.71 – – –
Perceived brand awareness 0.15 0.87 – –
Perceived believability 0.36 0.08 0.87 –
Brand attitude 0.24 0.61 0.25 0.78

Note: Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)

t(535) = 3.80, p < 0.001). The results of the participants’
perception of the fillers were not of concern to the current
research, and consequently, are not analyzed or further
discussed.
Hypothesis testing
To further mitigate any multicollinearity issue and to facilitate
the interpretation of the coefficients of the interaction terms, all
of the mediating and moderating variables were mean-
centered. A dual moderated mediation model in PROCESS
with ordinary least squares regression and bootstrap estimation
(with 10,000 bootstrapped samples) was used to test the direct
and indirect effects (Hayes, 2013). The independent variable
was the form of promotion, the dependent variable was
attitudes toward the promoted brands, and the mediator was
the mean-centered perceived believability of the promotional
materials. Mean-centered advertising skepticism and brand
awareness served as moderators (SPSS process settings:
Model 17). Table III summarizes the key findings of the tested
hypotheses depicted in the conceptual model (Figure 1). The
direct effect of the form of promotion on attitudes toward the
promoted brands was insignificant (b = 0.08, t = 1.16 and
p = 0.25, see Table III). In other words, brands promoted in
overt and covert forms were not evaluated significantly
differently. However, the relationship was mediated by the
perceived believability of the promotional materials.
Specifically, covert promotion was perceived to be significantly
more believable than overt promotion (b = 0.69, t = 8.23 and
p < 0.0001), and perceived believability of promotional
materials was positively related to attitudes toward the
promoted brands (b = 0.15, t = 4.31 and p < 0.0001). The
results revealed a significant indirect-only mediation effect of
perceived believability on the relationship between form of
promotion and brand attitudes, which supports Hypothesis 1.
H2 proposed that the relationship between the perceived
believability of promotional materials and the participant’s
attitude toward the promoted brands may be moderated by
advertising skepticism. Moderated mediation analyzes showed
that the perceived believability of promotional materials was
significantly related to brand attitudes, while advertising
skepticism negatively moderated that relationship (Table III).
The index of moderated mediation of advertising skepticism
was 0.06 (t = 2.31 and p < 0.05), which suggests a
significant moderated mediation. Participants with a low level
of advertising skepticism were more likely to develop a positive
attitude toward the promoted brand when they perceived the
promotional material to be believable than when they found it
not to be so believable (Mhigh believability = 4.46, SD = 0.96
versus Mlow believability = 4.09, SD = 0.96; t(260) = 3.05,
p < 0.005). The difference was insignificant for participants
with a high level of advertising skepticism (t(273) = 1.56 and
p = 0.12). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is also supported. A
graphical presentation of the interaction effect is shown in
Figure 2.
H3 and H4 predicted that the effect of the form of promotion
on attitudes toward the promoted brands would be moderated

Table III Moderated mediation analyzes of the form of promotion on brand attitudes
Bootstrap analysis
Effect Description Coefficient SE t-statistic p-value 95 % CI
a Form of promotion on perceived believability (H1) 0.69 0.08 8.23 <0.0001 0.52,
0.85
b Perceived believability on brand attitudes (H1) 0.15 0.04 4.31 <0.0001 0.08,
0.23
c’ Form of promotion on brand attitudes 0.08 0.07 1.16 =0.25 0.22,
0.06
d1 Advertising skepticism on the relation of perceived believability and brand attitudes (H2) 0.06 0.03 -2.31 <0.05 0.11,
0.01
d2 Advertising skepticism on the relation of form of promotion and brand attitudes (H3) 0.15 0.07 1.96 <0.05 0.01,
0.29
d3 Brand awareness on the relation of form of promotion and brand attitudes (H4) 0.15 0.04 -3.47 <0.001 0.24,
0.07
d4 Brand awareness on the relation of perceived believability and brand attitudes (H5) 0.01 0.02 0.44 =0.66 0.03,
0.05
Notes: An overt promotion was coded as ‘1’ and a covert promotion was coded as ‘2’. Bootstrap analyzes are based on 10,000 resamples; the coefficients
are unstandardized; SE = standard error; and CI = confidence interval

328
 Overt versus covert promotions Journal of Product & Brand Management
Fanny Fong Yee Chan Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 321–334

Figure 2 The interaction between advertising skepticism and the Figure 3 The interaction between consumers’ advertising skepticism
perceived believability of promotional materials on brand attitudes and the form of promotion on brand attitudes

by advertising skepticism and brand awareness. As shown in

Figure 4 The interaction between brand awareness and the form of
Table III, advertising skepticism significantly moderated the
promotion on brand attitudes
relationship between form of promotion and attitudes toward
the promoted brands (b = 0.15, t = 1.96 and p < 0.05).
Participants with a high level of advertising skepticism
perceived a brand significantly more negatively than
participants with a low level of advertising skepticism when the
brand was promoted in an overt form (Mlow skepticism = 4.38,
SD = 1.07 versus Mhigh skepticism = 3.85, SD = 0.98;
t(263) = 4.16, p < 0.0001). The participants with varied levels
of advertising skepticism did not show significantly different
brand attitudes when the brand was promoted in a covert form
(t(270) = 1.82 and p = 0.07). Therefore, H3 is supported.
Similarly, brand awareness was found to significantly
moderate the relationship between form of promotion and
attitudes toward the promoted brands (b = 0.15, t = 3.47
and p < 0.001). The participants found the less well-known
brand to be more positive when it was promoted in a covert
than an overt form (Mcovert = 3.79, SD = 0.74 versus the promoted brand (b = 0.26, t = 3.01 and p < 0.005), which
Movert = 3.46, SD = 0.77; t(268) = 3.63, p < 0.0001). An supports Hypothesis 1. Advertising skepticism significantly
opposite pattern was recorded for the brand with high moderated the relationship between perceived believability of
awareness. The participants reported less positive attitudes promotional materials and attitudes toward the promoted
toward the well-known brand when it appeared in a recipe than brand (b = 0.19, t = 2.08 and p < 0.05). It was also found to
in a traditional advertisement (Mcovert = 4.46, SD = 0.82 significantly moderate the relationship between form of
versus Movert = 4.78, SD = 0.88; t(265) = 3.04, p < 0.005). promotion and attitudes toward the promoted brand (b = 0.42,
Therefore, H4 is strongly supported. A graphical presentation t = 2.06 and p < 0.05). Therefore, H2 and H3 are also
of the interaction effects is shown in Figures 3 and 4. H5 supported. In addition, no significant relationship was found
proposed a moderating role of brand awareness on the between consumers’ involvement in cooking and their
relationship between perceived believability of promotional evaluations of the promotional materials (b = 0.12, t = 1.20 and
materials and attitude toward the promoted brand, which was p = 0.24) and the fictitious brand (b = 0.09, t = 0.95 and p =
found to be insignificant (b = 0.01, t = 0.44 and p = 0.66). 0.35). The results further confirmed the robustness of the
Therefore, H5 is not supported. conceptual model.
To further validate the conceptual model, a moderated
mediation analysis was performed on the data set of the
Discussion and conclusion
fictitious brand (PROCESS: Model 15). The same pattern of
results was obtained. The direct effect of the form of promotion In response to earlier calls, this study empirically contrasted the
on attitudes toward the promoted brand was insignificant effectiveness of overt and covert promotions of a well-known
(b = 0.10, t = 0.57 and p = 0.57) while a significant indirect and a less well-known brand using a public sample (Liljander
mediation effect was found. Covert promotion was perceived to et al., 2015). A direct contrast between the effect of overt and
be significantly more believable than overt promotion (b = 0.46, covert promotions is sparse and inconsistent findings have been
t = 2.38 and p < 0.05), and perceived believability of recorded in previous studies. For example, studies that have
promotional materials was positively related to attitudes toward compared the effectiveness between advertising and product

329
 Overt versus covert promotions
Fanny Fong Yee Chan
placement have primarily focused on well-known brands
(Davtyan and Cunningham, 2017; Uribe, 2016). The current
study is the first to extend this work to recipes, which are a
covert form of promotion and is increasingly adopted by food
and grocery marketers (Luth, 2017). Therefore, this represents
the first study to empirically examine the mediating role of
perceived believability of promotional materials and the
moderating roles of advertising skepticism and brand
awareness on the evaluation of brands placed in overt and
covert promotions. The conceptual model was further
validated using research stimuli of a fictitious brand and a
similar pattern of results was obtained, which confirmed the
robustness of the model. The results have important theoretical
implications and they are able to advance the field of
knowledge. The study is also able to provide pragmatic
recommendations to marketers who wish to develop effective
marketing communication strategies for brands.
It has previously been found that covert promotions are more
persuasive than overt promotions, though the underlying
mechanism has yet to be explored (Davtyan and Cunningham,
2017). For example, some studies have revealed that the form of
promotion can affect the perception of the promotional materials
but not the promoted brand (Colliander and Erlandsson, 2015).
Based on a conceptual model, this study shows that the perceived
believability of the promotional materials was a significant
mediator of the form of promotion and brand evaluations. The
subtle promotion intent in covert promotions is less likely to
trigger the consumer’s persuasion knowledge (Friestad and
Wright, 1994) and develop reactance toward the promotional
material (Brehm, 1966; Chadee, 2011). The participants
perceived covert promotions to be more believable, and
therefore, they displayed more positive attitudes toward the
promoted brands. The main effect of the form of promotion on
brand attitudes was insignificant. The participants only positively
evaluated a brand that was promoted in a covert form when they
perceived the promotional material to be trustful. This confirms
the findings of previous research that consumers develop
attitudes toward a promoted brand only after they have formed
attitudes toward the promotional material (Brown and Stayman,
1992; MacKenzie et al., 1986). Therefore, it is suggested that
marketers should ensure that their promotional materials appear
to be believable, no matter whether they are in overt or covert
forms. It is also suggested that some authentic cues should be
subtly integrated into the promotional materials (Beverland et al.,
2008).
Previous studies have shown that individuals who are more
skeptical toward advertising are less likely to be persuaded (Biel
and Bridgwater, 1990) and they tend to be more conservative in
forming attitudes toward brands than toward promotional
materials (Geuens et al., 2011). The current study found that
general skepticism toward advertising significantly moderated
the relationship between the perceived believability of the
promotional materials and brand evaluation. The perceived
believability of the promotional materials was shown to be a
significant predictor of promotion outcomes when individuals
had a low level of advertising skepticism. However, consumers
with a high level of advertising skepticism were in general less
positive toward the promoted brand, regardless of whether they
found the promotional material to be believable. Therefore,
marketers should strive to create a trustworthy advertising
330
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 321–334
environment and make sure that their promotional materials
are authentic. It has also been suggested that stricter self-
regulatory efforts should be fostered in the advertising industry
to improve the advertising practices, and hence, lower the
consumers’ skepticism toward advertising in general.
Consumers’ skepticism toward advertising, in general, was
also a key moderator of the relationship between the form of
promotion and their brand attitudes. Individuals with high
advertising skepticism disliked being deliberately manipulated
or sold to, and thus, evaluated a brand promoted in an overt
promotion more negatively than individuals with a low level of
advertising skepticism. However, these two groups of
individuals had similar attitudes toward a brand promoted in
covert form. Consequently, integrating brands in recipes
appears to be less offensive to the more informed and skeptical
group of consumers. It is recommended that marketing
managers should consider exploring less traditional promotion
methods and they should design the promotion to be as
authentic as possible when targeting this audience.
This study shows that brand awareness was another
significant moderator of the effectiveness of the promotion,
which extends our understanding about the use of overt and
covert forms of promotion for less well-known brands.
Promoting brands via recipes and traditional advertisements
had remarkably different effects for well-known and less well-
known brands. Specifically, covert promotions were superior to
overt promotions when the consumers lacked prior knowledge
about the product while overt promotions were preferred to
covert promotions for well-known brands. It is believed that the
information in traditional advertisements and recipes may serve
different functions for well-known and less well-known brands.
In the low-awareness condition, the consumers had limited
knowledge about the brand. Therefore, the information that
was given in the recipe aided the individuals’ fluency of
processing the placed brand, which resulted in more positive
attitudes toward the promoted brands. Meanwhile, these
individuals were less alerted when they saw a less well-known
brand in a recipe. The selling intent was less prominent and the
individuals might have been less prone to associate it with
promotional objectives (Petty and Cacioppo, 1983). Therefore,
covert promotion was found to be more persuasive than overt
promotion for a less well-known brand.
In the high-awareness condition, consumers had a profound
understanding about the brand and they may already have
formed attitudes toward it. When evaluating a well-known
brand that appears in a traditional advertisement (i.e. the
typical exposure), consumers are less likely to exercise effortful
processing and may tend to report their pre-existing attitudes
toward the brand; this evaluation is inclined to be relatively
positive. Nevertheless, consumers may become alerted when
they see a well-known brand integrated in a recipe (i.e. the
unusual form of exposure). They might then activate their
persuasion knowledge and critically evaluate the persuasive
attempt in the message (Friestad and Wright, 1994; Petty and
Cacioppo, 1983). The consumers may also have been more
likely to experience cognitive dissonance because recipes are
supposed to be informative rather than promotional in nature,
which contradicted their existing beliefs (Festinger, 1957).
Consequently, they might have resisted the persuasion because
of their desire to minimize their cognitive dissonance and
 Overt versus covert promotions
Fanny Fong Yee Chan
psychological reactance. Therefore, the individuals were less
positive toward a well-known brand when promoted in a covert
form.
The empirical findings of this study provide important
feedback for marketers who wish to develop effective
communication strategies, especially with regard to well-
known, less well-known and even new brands. For new or less
well-known brands, marketers should consider adopting more
subtle and non-patronizing promotional methods. Integrating
branded content into recipes is a preferred promotional strategy
over traditional advertising to consumers. In contrast, because
most consumers are familiar with well-known brands, they can
readily recognize covert forms of promotion. Therefore, brand
managers are advised to make the promotion and selling intent
explicit when promoting well-known brands. The moderating
role of brand awareness in the relationship between the
perceived believability of the promotional materials and
attitudes toward the promoted brand was not supported in this
study, although previous studies have envisaged this effect
(Liljander et al., 2015). The other variable of advertising
skepticism probably dominated the moderating effect.
Consequently, it is recommended that future studies to explore
the rationale behind this result.
Results of the current study also have a number of
implications for public policy initiatives (Kuhn et al., 2010).
This study found that consumers perceived covert promotions
to be more believable and they developed more favorable
attitudes toward the promoted brand, even though they should
have been more alerted toward this kind of promotion.
Therefore, policymakers should consider whether integrated
branded content in recipes should be disclosed to protect
consumers from surreptitious promotions. Darke and Ritchie
(2007) found that deceptive advertising led to higher distrust,
which adversely affected the credibility of subsequent
advertising. This appears to be a paradoxical issue–although
covert promotions are perceived as more believable in the first
instance, in the long run they might further reinforce skepticism
toward advertising and promotions in general.
Limitations and future studies
This section describes some of the methodological limitations
of this study, and makes a number of recommendations for
future research. The first limitation is that this study focused on
consumers of 18 years old or above. However, it is important to
examine the effect of information-coated promotions on
younger generations and to check whether the relationships
established in this study will be moderated by the individuals’
cognitive development. In a recent study, Van Reijmersdal et al.
(2015) found that boys of 8-12 years old found toy store
catalogs (i.e. overt promotion) more persuasive than a brand-
integrated magazine (i.e. covert promotion), even though they
were more aware of the persuasive intent of the former.
Consequently, future studies may extend this work to the
younger cohort or to adolescents.
As this study examined printed material (still images) using a
web-based experiment, the results may be more applicable to
the online context. It is recommended that this study could be
extended to audio-visual formats to test the applicability of the
conceptual model. For example, the effectiveness of a brand
331
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 321–334
placement scene in a two-minute cooking show could be
compared with a traditional commercial. Furthermore,
product category was found to moderate the effectiveness of
advertising appeals (Geuens et al., 2011). This study has
examined two product categories and obtained consistent
results. Future studies could extend to other product categories
or products with varied quality level to test the interaction
between product categories/quality level and form of
promotions.
This study chose an American and a German brand as the
research stimuli, which may lead to a country-of-origin effect.
Although this was justifiable and was considered unlikely to be
an issue for the research sample, future studies may examine
brands from the same origin. In the current study, brand
awareness was found to be a significant moderator in
determining the effectiveness of overt and covert promotions.
Dahlén and Lange (2005) found that strong (well-known)
brands were evaluated more positively when jointly promoted
with weak brands than when promoted alone, whereas weak
brands were evaluated less positively when promoted with
strong brands than alone. Further studies may extend this work
to brands with various levels of awareness or they may examine
the joint integration of well-known and less well-known brands
in promotions.
Although a web-based experiment allowed the participants
to view the promotional material in their favorite settings, other
distractions may have been present. Consequently, future
research may consider replicating this study in a laboratory
setting. In addition, this study did not specify the source of the
promotional materials. Therefore, it is recommended that
further studies explore the interaction effect between messages
and sources by specifying that the research stimulus was
extracted from either a less or a more reliable source (e.g. from
mass newspapers/tabloids versus elite newspapers). This study
investigated and treated traditional advertisements and brand
placement in recipes as independent persuasive devices. Future
research could look at the synergetic effect of overt and covert
promotions because integrated marketing communications are
becoming increasingly popular (Schweidel et al., 2014). In
addition, the repetition and wear-out effects of overt and covert
promotions could also be compared. These examples represent
fruitful areas for further investigations.
References
ACNielsen (2018), “Report on global trust in advertising
and brand messages”, available at: www.fi.nielsen.com/
site/documents/NielsenTrustinAdvertisingGlobalReport.
pdf (accessed 13 April 2018).
Balasubramanian, S.K. (1994), “Beyond advertising and
publicity: hybrid messages and public policy issues”, Journal
of Advertising, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 29-46.
Balasubramanian, S.K., Patwardhan, H., Pillai, D. and Coker,
K.K. (2014), “Modeling attitude constructs in movie
product placements”, Journal of Product & Brand
Management, Vol. 23 No. 7, pp. 516-531.
Becker-Olsen, K.L. (2003), “And now a word from our
sponsor: a look at effects of sponsored content and banner
advertising”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 17-32.
 Overt versus covert promotions
Fanny Fong Yee Chan
Belch, G.E. and Belch, M.A. (2018), Advertising and Promotion:
An Integrated Marketing Communication Perspective, 11st ed.,
McGraw-Hill Irwin Publishing, Boston.
Beltramini, R.F. (1982), “Advertising perceived believability
scale”, in Corrigan, D.R., Kraft, F.B. and Ross, R.H. (Eds),
Proceedings of the Southwestern Marketing Association, Wichita
State University, Southwestern Marketing Association,
Wichita, pp. 1-3.
Beltramini, R.F. (1988), “Perceived believability of warning
label information presented in cigarette advertising”, Journal
of Advertising, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 26-32.
Beverland, M.B., Lindgree, A. and Vink, M.W. (2008),
“Projecting authenticity through advertising: consumer
judgments of advertisers’ claims”, Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 5-15.
Biel, A. and Bridgwater, C.A. (1990), “Attributes of likable
television commercials”, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 38-44.
Boush, D.M., Friestad, M. and Rose, G.M. (1994),
“Adolescent skepticism toward TV advertising and
knowledge of advertiser tactics”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 165-175.
Brehm, J.W. (1966), A Theory of Psychological Reactance,
Academic Press, New York, NY.
Bressoud, E., Lehu, J.M. and Russell, C.A. (2010), “The
product well placed”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 50
No. 4, pp. 374-385.
Brown, S.P. and Stayman, D.M. (1992), “Antecedents and
consequences of attitude toward the ad: a meta-analysis”,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 34-51.
Campbell, M.C. and Keller, K.L. (2003), “Brand familiarity
and advertising repetition effects”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 292-304.
Chadee, D. (2011), “Toward freedom: reactance theory
revisited”, in D. Chadee (Ed.), Theories in Social Psychology,
Blackwell Publishing Ltd, New York, NY, pp. 13-43.
Chan, F.F.Y. (2012), “Product placement and its
effectiveness: a systematic review and propositions for future
research”, The Marketing Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 39-60.
Chang, C. (2007), “Diagnostic advertising content and
individual differences: testing a resource-matching
perspective with a Taiwanese sample”, Journal of Advertising,
Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 75-84.
Chan, F.F.Y., Lowe, B. and Petrovici, D. (2017), “Young
adults’ perceptions of product placement in films: an
exploratory comparison between the United Kingdom and
Hong Kong”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 23
No. 3, pp. 311-328.
Chan, F.F.Y., Petrovici, D. and Lowe, B. (2016),
“Antecedents of product placement effectiveness across
cultures”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 33 No. 1,
pp. 5-24.
Colliander, J. and Erlandsson, S. (2015), “The blog and the
bountiful: exploring the effects of disguised product
placement on blogs that are revealed by a third party”,
Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 110-124.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal
structure of tests”, Psychometrika, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 297-334.
332
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 321–334
Dahlén, M. and Lange, F. (2005), “Advertising weak and
strong brands: who gains?”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 22
No. 6, pp. 473-488.
Darke, P.R. and Ritchie, R.J.B. (2007), “The defensive
consumer: advertising deception, defensive processing, and
distrust”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 44 No. 1,
pp. 114-127.
Davtyan, D. and Cunningham, I. (2017), “An investigation of
brand placement effects on brand attitudes and purchase
intentions: brand placements versus TV commercials”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 160-167.
Dens, N. and De Pelsmacker, P. (2010), “Consumer response
to different advertising appeals for new products: the
moderating influence of branding strategy and product
category involvement”, Journal of Brand Management,
Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 50-65.
Edell, J.A. and Burke, M.C. (1986), “The relative impact of
prior brand attitude and attitude toward the ad on brand
attitude after ad exposure”, in Olson, J. and Stentis, K.
(Eds), Advertising and Consumer Psychology, Praeger
Publishers, pp. 93-107.
Eisend, M. (2010), “Explaining the joint effect of source
credibility and negativity of information in two-sided
messages”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 11,
pp. 1032-1049.
Eisend, M. and Kuster, F. (2011), “The effectiveness of
publicity versus advertising: a meta-analytic investigation of
its moderators”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 906-921.
Festinger, L. (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford
University Press, Stanford, CA.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Friestad, M. and Wright, P. (1994), “The persuasion
knowledge model: how people cope with persuasion
attempts”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 1-31.
Friestad, M. and Wright, P. (1999), “Everyday persuasion
knowledge”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 185-194.
Geuens, M., De Pelsmacker, P. and Faseur, T. (2011),
“Emotional advertising: revisiting the role of product
category”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 4,
pp. 418-426.
Giacalone, D. and Jaeger, S.R. (2016), “Better the devil you
know? How product familiarity affects usage versatility of
foods and beverages”, Journal of Economic Psychology,
Vol. 55, pp. 120-138.
Gupta, P.B. and Gould, S.J. (2007), “Recall of products placed
as prizes versus commercials in game shows”, Journal of
Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Vol. 29 No. 1,
pp. 37-50.
Hayes, A.F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and
Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach,
Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Hudson, S. and Hudson, D. (2006), “Branded entertainment:
a new advertising technique or product placement in
 Overt versus covert promotions
Fanny Fong Yee Chan
disguise?”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 22
Nos 5/6, pp. 489-504.
Jin, H.S. and Lutz, R.J. (2013), “The typicality and
accessibility of consumer attitudes toward television
advertising: implications for the measurement of attitudes
toward advertising in general”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 42
No. 4, pp. 343-357.
Jungkeun, K., Kim, J. and Marshall, R. (2016), “Are two
arguments always better than one? Persuasion knowledge
moderating the effect of integrated marketing
communications”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 50
Nos 7/8, pp. 1399-1425.
Kaynak, E. and Kucukemiroglu, O. (2001), “Country-of-origin
evaluations: Hong Kong consumers’ perception of foreign
products after the Chinese takeover of 1997”, International
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 117-138.
Kent, R.J. and Allen, C.T. (1994), “Competitive interference
effects in consumer memory for advertising: the role of brand
familiarity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 97-105.
Kim, B., Pasadeos, Y. and Barban, A. (2001), “On the
deceptive effectiveness of labeled and unlabeled advertorial
formats”, Mass Communication and Society, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 265-281.
Kim, J., Yoon, H.J. and Lee, S.Y. (2010), “Integrating
advertising and publicity”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 39
No. 1, pp. 97-114.
Kirmani, A. and Zhu, R. (2007), “Vigilant against
manipulation: the effect of regulatory focus on the use of
persuasion knowledge”, Journal of Marketing Research,
Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 688-701.
Kivetz, R. (2005), “Promotion reactance: the role of effort-
reward congruity”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31
No. 4, pp. 725-736.
Kuhn, K.L., Hume, M. and Love, A. (2010), “Examining the
covert nature of product placement: implications for public
policy”, Journal of Promotion Management, Vol. 16 Nos 1/2,
pp. 59-79.
Lehu, J. (2007), Branded Entertainment: Product Placement and
Brand Strategy in the Entertainment Business, Kogan Page,
London.
Lehu, J. and Bressoud, E. (2008), “Effectiveness of brand
placement: new insights about viewers”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 61 No. 10, pp. 1083-1090.
Liljander, V., Gummerus, J. and Söderlund, M. (2015),
“Young consumers’ responses to suspected covert and overt
blog marketing”, Internet Research, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 610-632.
Luth, R. (2017), 3 Ways to Use Recipes in Your Marketing,
Brandingmag, 19 Aug 2017.
MacKenzie, S.B. and Lutz, R.J. (1989), “An empirical
examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward
the advertisement in an advertising pretesting context”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 48-65.
MacKenzie, S.B., Lutz, R.J. and Belch, G.E. (1986), “The role
of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising
effectiveness: a test of competing explanations”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 130-143.
Malhotra, N.K. (2012), Basic Marketing Research: Integration of
Social Media, 4th ed., Prentice Hall/Pearson Education
International, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
333
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 321–334
Matthes, J., Schemer, C. and Wirth, W. (2007), “More than
meets the eye: investigating the hidden impact”, International
Journal of Advertising, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 477-503.
Matthes, J. and Wonneberger, A. (2014), “The skeptical green
consumer revisited: testing the relationship between green
consumerism and skepticism toward advertising”, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 115-127.
Melnyk, V., Klein, K. and Völckner, F. (2012), “The double-
edged sword of foreign brand names for companies from
emerging countries”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76 No. 6,
pp. 21-37.
Micu, A.C. and Thorson, E. (2008), “Leveraging news and
advertising to introduce new brands on the web”, Journal of
Interactive Advertising, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 14-26.
Mullen, M.R. (1995), “Diagnosing measurement equivalence
in cross-national research”, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 573-596.
Nelson, M.R. (2002), “Recall of brand placements in
computer/video games”, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 80-92.
Noble, S.M., Haytko, D.L. and Phillips, J. (2008), “What
drives college-age generation Y consumers?”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 617-628.
Norris, C.E. and Colman, A.M. (1992), “Context effects on
recall and recognition of magazine advertisements”, Journal
of Advertising, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 37-46.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-
Hill, New York, NY.
Obermiller, C. and Spangenberg, E.R. (1998), “Development of
a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising”,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 159-186.
PageFair and Adobe (2017), “Global ad blocking report”,
available at: http://blog.pagefair.com/2015/ad-blocking-
report (accessed 30 April 2018).
Petty, R.D. and Andrews, J.C. (2008), “Covert marketing
unmasked: a legal and regulatory guide for practices that
mask marketing messages”, Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 7-18.
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1983), “Central and peripheral
routes to persuasion: application to advertising”, in Larry, P.
and Woodside, A.G. (Eds), Advertising and Consumer
Psychology, Lexington Books, Toronto, pp. 3-23.
Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986), “The elaboration
likelihood model of persuasion”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.),
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press,
New York, NY, Vol. 19, pp. 123-205.
Russell, C. and Belch, M. (2005), “A managerial investigation
into the placement industry”, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 73-92.
Schweidel, D.A., Foutz, N. and Tanner, R.J. (2014), “Synergy
or interference: the effect of product placement on
commercial break audience decline”, Marketing Science,
Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 763-780.
Smit, E., Van Reijmersdal, E.A. and Neijens, P. (2009), “Today’s
practice of brand placement and the industry behind it”,
International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 761-782.
Steenkamp, J.E.M. and de Jong, M.G. (2010), “A global
investigation into the constellation of consumer attitudes
toward global and local products”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 18-40.
 Overt versus covert promotions
Fanny Fong Yee Chan
Tse, A.C.B. (1999), “Factors affecting consumer perceptions
on product safety”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33
Nos 9/10, pp. 911-925.
Tutaj, K. and van Reijmersdal, E.A. (2012), “Effects of online
advertising format and persuasion knowledge on audience
reactions”, Journal of Marketing Communications, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 5-18.
Uribe, R. (2016), “Separate and joint effects of advertising and
placement”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 2,
pp. 459-465.
Vaerenbergh, Y.V. (2017), “Consumer reactions to paid versus
unpaid brand name placement in song lyrics”, Journal of
Product and Brand Management, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 151-158.
Vagnoni, A. (1998), “Not skimming: ‘got milk?’ May be
goodby Silverstein most recognized at work”, available at:
http://adage.com/article/news/skimming -milk-goodby-
silverstein-s-recognized-ad-work-goodby-silverstein-intelligent-
work-a-sales-pitch/66072/ (accessed 15 June 2018).
Van Reijmersdal, E.A. (2011), “Mixing advertising and editorial
content in radio programmes: appreciation and recall”,
International Journal of Advertising, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 425-446.
Van Reijmersdal, E.A., Rozendaal, E. and Buijzen, M. (2015),
“Boys’ responses to the integration of advertising and
entertaining content”, Young Consumers, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 251-263.
Wei, M., Fischer, E. and Main, K.J. (2008), “An examination of
the effects of activating persuasion knowledge on consumer
response to brands engaging in covert marketing”, Journal of
Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 34-44.
Wiles, M.A. and Danielova, A. (2009), “The worth of product
placement in successful films: an event study analysis”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 4, pp. 44-63.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
334
Journal of Product & Brand Management
Volume 29 · Number 3 · 2020 · 321–334
Further reading
Bradley, A. (2010), “The time has come to embrace millennial
perspectives”, T 1 D, Vol. 64 No. 8, p. 22.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E.
(2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective,
7th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Lutz, R.J. (1985), “Affective and cognitive antecedents of
attitude toward the advertisement: a conceptual framework”,
in Alwitt, L. and Mitchell, A. (Eds), Psychological
Processes and Advertising Effects, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ,
pp. 45-65.
Maheswaran, D. and Meyers-Levy, J. (1990), “The influence
of message framing and issue involvement”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 361-367.
SyncForce (2018), “Top 50 most familiar brands”, available
at: www.rankingthebrands.com/The-BrandRankings.aspx?
rankingID=361&year=799 (accessed 30 May 2018).
About the author
Fanny Fong Yee Chan is an Assistant Professor of
Marketing at School of Business, The Hang Seng University
of Hong Kong. Her research interests include marketing
communications, culture and consumer psychology. Her work
has been published in the International Marketing Review,
International Journal of Advertising, Journal of Marketing
Communications, Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Journal of
Product and Brand Management, Journal of Promotion
Management, Asian Journal of Communication, The Marketing
Review, and others. Fanny Fong Yee Chan can be contacted
at: fannychan@hsu.edu.hk