Economicus Journal of Business and Economics Insights 2025 2(1), 26–35
OJS: https://revistascientificas.uach.mx/index.php/economicus
ISSN: 3061-8169
How to cite / Como citar:
Noli-Peschiera, A., & Chapa, S. (2025). Does co-brand placement work on ad recall? Exploring the impact of co-brand placement
in storytelling animated advertising. Economicus Journal of Business and Economics Insights, 2(1), 26–35.
https://doi.org/10.54167/ejbei.v2i1.1812
Este artículo está bajo los términos de la Licencia Creative Commons Atribución/Reconocimiento NoComercial 4.0 Internacional.
This article is under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 Internacional License.
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).
Article
Does co-brand placement work on ad recall? Exploring
the impact of co-brand placement in storytelling
animated advertising
¿Funciona la colocación de marcas conjuntas en la
retención de anuncios? Explorando el impacto de la
colocación de marcas conjuntas en la publicidad animada
con narrativas
Alessandra Noli Peschiera 1*, Sindy Chapa 2
1 Center for Hispanic Marketing Communication, Florida State University, Florida, United States of America;
anolipeschiera@fsu.edu; ORCID: 0009-0009-0351-3198
2 Center for Hispanic Marketing Communication, Florida State University, Florida, United States of America;
schapa@fsu.edu; ORCID: 0000-0002-3462-2487
* Correspondence author / autor de correspondencia
Received: 11/20/2024; Accepted: 12/24/2024; Published: 01/13/2025.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.54167/ejbei.v2i1.1812
Abstract: This study explored the effect of storytelling familiarity and co-branding on ad recall. This study used
the “Jack Be Nimble” popular character used by Geico advertisements to study the effect of brand and co-brand on
ad recall. First, the study explored the impact that consumers’ familiarity with the storytelling character (Jack Be
Nimble) had on the ad recall. Subsequently, it studied how consumers’ involvement with the product category
(fashion) influenced ad recall of the co-sponsored brand (Banana Republic). The results showed that the ad recall
was significantly higher when participants indicated being highly familiar with the storytelling character (Jack Be
Nimble) and with the brand (Geico). In the case of the co-brand effect, the results showed no significant relationship
between brand familiarity (Banana Republic) and ad recall. However, the results revealed that participants who
remembered the co-brand (Banana Republic) said being highly involved with the product category (fashion).
Keywords: Storytelling Familiarity, Co-branding, Ad Recall, Consumer Involvement.
JEL Classification: M31, M37.
Alessandra Noli Peschiera, Sindy Chapa 27
Economicus Journal of Business and Economics Insights 2025 2(1), 26–35
Resumen: Este estudio examinó el efecto de la familiaridad con la narrativa y el co-branding en la retención
publicitaria. Se utilizó al popular personaje “Jack Be Nimble,” empleado en anuncios de Geico, para analizar el
impacto de la marca principal y la marca conjunta en la retención del anuncio. Primero, el estudio investigó cómo
la familiaridad de los consumidores con el personaje de la narrativa (Jack Be Nimble) influía en la retención del
anuncio. Posteriormente, se evaluó cómo el nivel de involucramiento de los consumidores con la categoría de
producto (moda) afectaba la retención del anuncio de la marca co-patrocinadora (Banana Republic). Los resultados
mostraron que la retención publicitaria fue significativamente mayor cuando los participantes indicaron un alto
nivel de familiaridad tanto con el personaje de la narrativa (Jack Be Nimble) como con la marca principal (Geico).
En cuanto al efecto del co-branding, no se encontró una relación significativa entre la familiaridad con la marca
conjunta (Banana Republic) y la retención del anuncio. Sin embargo, los resultados revelaron que los participantes
que recordaron la marca conjunta (Banana Republic) reportaron un alto nivel de involucramiento con la categoría
de producto (moda).
Palabras clave: Familiaridad con la Narrativa, Co-branding, Retención Publicitaria, Involucramiento del
Consumidor.
Clasificación JEL: M31, M37.
1. Introduction
In a world cluttered with advertisements, it can sometimes take time to successfully differentiate a
brand from others in a way that is meaningful enough to establish a strong connection with consumers.
The challenge for marketers is constantly discovering new ways to stand out from the clutter and capture
the consumer's attention. An advertising avenue yet to be more empirically explored is cartoon
storytelling as a humor appeal for product placement, which is expected to lead to higher brand recall
and purchase intention (Moriarty, 1996, Hitchon & Jura, 1997). Numerous scholars have identified
animated storytelling as an execution form that positively affects memory and attitudes toward the
brands (Hitchon & Jura, 1997). However, more research is needed to measure its effect on brand recall
(Lai et al., 2007).
One of the more successful cartoon storytelling campaigns using animation and humor appeal in
the United States is the series of Geico's "Short Stories and Tall Tales" ads started in 2010 (Geico, 2016).
Geico employed a series of televised storytelling cartoons that showcased a man reading a classic
children's story with characters that required Geico insurance to cover the accidents they were involved
in. As expected, the Geico brand placement is explicitly introduced at the beginning and end of the
stories. Nevertheless, Geico's stories spontaneously interject another brand placement for a particular
product in the final remarks of the advertisements, such as a "Sleep Number" bed, Crate & Barrel, and
Banana Republic. Campaigns like Geico’s raise the concern of how effective a co-brand placement in a
story-telling cartoon ad concerns consumers’ brand recall. Thus, this paper explored the effect of co-
branding in animated story-telling ads.
Animation or cartoons used with a humor appeal in advertising are used to entertain and persuade
both children and adults (Leiner et al., 2004). In addition, videogames, television, and Internet
productions use animated cartoon productions extensively (Nasir & Jalbani, 2009). However, more
research appears to be needed on how cartoons in advertisements using humor appeal affect brand and
co-brand recall in adult consumers. Therefore, this study aims to measure the effect of co-branding on a
storytelling humor appeal cartoon advertisement by exploring the relationships of brand/character
familiarity, product involvement on consumers' ad recall, and co-brand recall. Specifically, this study
Does co-brand placement work on ad recall? Exploring the impact of co-brand placement in storytelling animated advertising 28
Economicus Journal of Business and Economics Insights 2025 2(1), 26–35
uses the case of the "Jack Be Nimble" commercial from Geico's short cartoon stories to accomplish two
objectives: first, to test the relationship between consumers' familiarity with the brand (Geico), and to test
the impact that consumers’ familiarity with the story-telling character (Jack Be Nimble) has on ad recall.
Second, to explore how consumer involvement with fashion brands and familiarity with the co-brand
relates to the co-brand recall effect.
This study is important for empirical contributions and managerial implications for account
planners and creative directors in the advertising industry. Recognizing the impact that a humor appeal
in cartoon advertising has for a sponsored brand and co-brand across segments could be beneficial in
identifying secondary brands, partnerships, and alliances in marketing communication.
2. Literature review and hypotheses development
2.1. Humor appeal in cartoon advertising
In terms of cartoon advertisements, for the most part, the existing research tends to focus more on
the effect of utilizing cartoons for advertisements targeting children. For example, in the health and
wellness field, researchers use cartoon advertisements on children to test whether they influence the child
to eat healthier food (Kelly et al., 2008). However, further research on the influence of the use of cartoons
on brand recall and purchase intention in adult consumers would be beneficial for marketers, considering
it may reveal new avenues for persuasion in advertising.
Humorous advertising has been found to impact consumers' attention, memory, and positive
attitude toward desirable products (Chung & Zhao, 2011; Heiser et al., 2008; Lee & Mason, 1999). A
humor appeal also elicits desirable responses, making ads more likeable and further memorable (Belch
& Belch, 1984; Rossiter & Percy, 1997). In addition to the likability of the ad, studies of humorous appeals
have suggested that this form of advertising increases liking for the brand (Gelb & Pickett, 1983), which
relates positively to advertising recall (Chung & Zhao, 2011). It is expected that consumers who find a
message funny may very well transfer that positive emotion and attitude toward the product and the
brand (Aaker et al., 1986; Batra & Stayman, 1990; Lee & Mason, 1999). The same can be true for children;
research has shown that the use of fun spokes-characters in ads, and repeated exposure to such ads,
makes the transfer of positive affect towards the product or brand more likely (Kelly et al., 2008). While
others have shown that humorous ads may not necessarily lead to a positive brand attitude or purchase
intention (Weinberger & Gulas, 1992), most of the advertising research as well as marketing practitioners
believe that humor is superior to non-humor in gaining observer attention and recall (Heiser et al., 2008;
Madden & Weinberger, 1982).
Concerning animated or cartoon forms of advertising, the literature has documented that animated
figures in advertising can significantly influence TV advertisement effectiveness via enhancement of
viewers' attention and impact on respective attitudes towards the advertised brand (Heiser et al. 2008).
According to Leiner et al. (2004), advertisements that include animated cartoons are particularly versatile
and successful in overcoming barriers of culture, age, time and literacy; these can be utilized in other
countries with minimal language and context adaptations.
In the "Jack Be Nimble" commercial of Geico's Short Stories campaign, the storyteller begins to tell
the classic story until suddenly Jack knocks over the candle and lights his own pants and all his
belongings on fire. The ad states, "since Jack had Renter's Insurance from Geico, he got full replacement
on his belongings, and he even has new pants he ordered from Banana Republic" (see Geico, 2016). This is
supposed to be a humorous assertion, but is it even recognized in the story? If so, will it lessen the recall
of the sponsored brand? Unfortunately, there is a lack of research in understanding the impact of a co-
branded humor appeal in advertising using animated storytelling.
Alessandra Noli Peschiera, Sindy Chapa 29
Economicus Journal of Business and Economics Insights 2025 2(1), 26–35
According to Heiser et al. (2008), animated spokes-characters in advertising exceed the impact of
human spokespersons in terms of TV advertisement efficacy, as they are highly adaptable, easily
controllable and clearly identified as a product symbol. Huang et al. (2011) investigated the
advertisement effectiveness of endorsements from animated spokes-characters and found that animated
figures enhance brand impression, improve advertisement communication affects and attract viewers'
attention, suggesting that they are a very valuable tool for increasing positive brand attitudes and
purchase intentions
Tversky et al. (2002) argued that animation facilitates several psychological effects, influencing
human cognitive processing and attention. Animated characters, in particular cartoons and spokes-
characters, have been shown to be associated with children's recognition of, and positive attitudes
towards, food products (Neeley & Schumann, 2004), creating long-term brand recognition and loyalty
from an early age. When children have repeated and food-specific exposures to cartoons and spokes-
characters, such as when they are used for a limited range of products, they are more likely to transfer
positive effects associated with the character to the advertised product (Mizerski, 1995). Spokes-
characters act as visual cues to represent a brand's attributes (Garretson & Burton, 2005), such as fun and
fantasy, that are appealing to children. In the same way, celebrities and sports people add credibility to
the branded product and attract attention to the advertisement (Nelson & Deborah, 2017).
2.2. Co-branding recall
The literature in branding strategies "focuses on investigating how far a single brand can extend and
shows little interest in co-branding that involves more than two established brands" (Ahn & Sung, 2011).
Further, the existing research on co-branding seems to focus more on how respondents perceive the
associations between two brands, and their affective response toward said association, than on brand
recall.
According to Romaniuk (2013), there are two main challenges with co-branded advertising: brand
linkage and consumer attention. Research shows that viewers have a hard time remembering advertised
brands, if they even pay attention to the advertisement instead of trying to avoid it. Having two brands
in the same advertisement might make the process even more difficult, with the risk of losing the
consumers' attention altogether (Romaniuk, 2013).
Romaniuk (2013) states that there are occasions when one brand can benefit from using co-branding
strategies, such as when the goal is to attract greater attention, tapping into a different audience, or to
facilitate a positioning message. Yet, the author warns of potential negative outcomes of co-branding:
risk of losing consumer attention, the message of the ad being attributed to the other brand, or potential
negative consequences of the ad creating a positive impact for the other brand (Romaniuk, 2013). In
general, placing two distinct brands in one single advertisement creates competition for consumer
attention, and thus requires careful execution to avoid fragmenting the attention of consumers
(Romaniuk, 2013).
According to Ahn and Sung (2011), one way to account for this is to ensure an appropriate fit
between the two brands to be used in the same ad. Research demonstrates that "between-partner fit
significantly influences co-branding evaluations, and that this fit is a function of both functional and
symbolic dimensions. Similarity between symbolic meaning between partners is important to leveraging
the success of co-branding activities," more so than functional fit (Ahn & Sung, 2011, p. 421-424). Eye-
tracking studies demonstrate that consumers focus on one item at a time, even when multiple items are
present. More vivid items can draw and hold consumer attention disproportionately.
In the case of online advertisements, Nguyen et al. (2017) found that the presence of a second brand
does not have a positive effect on ad recognition, and in fact has a negative effect on brand recall; this
effect becomes worse when the ad's context focuses on the other brand within the partnership. The
Does co-brand placement work on ad recall? Exploring the impact of co-brand placement in storytelling animated advertising 30
Economicus Journal of Business and Economics Insights 2025 2(1), 26–35
authors reference consumers' selective attention theory to explain the phenomenon, which states that,
regardless of whether they are brand users or not, if consumers do not pay enough attention to the second
brand, then it will not get processed into their memory (Nguyen et al., 2017).
Prior research in co-branding shows that the fit between partner brands is a fundamental factor in
determining the success of co-branding and finds that co-branding is evaluated more positively when
consumers perceive high between-partner fit, rather than low between-partner fit (Dickinson & Heath,
2006; Park et al., 2004; Simonin & Ruth, 1998). The authors suggest that between-partner fit significantly
influences co-branding evaluations and that this fit is a function of both functional and symbolic
dimensions. In particular, symbolic fit may have a greater effect on evaluations than functional fit, which
suggests that similarities in symbolic meaning between partners are important to leveraging the success
of co-branding activities. In this regard, it is suggested that symbolic fit provides more appropriate cues
to evoke favorable attitudes than does functional fit.
About the second brand or co-brand, it is said that adding a second brand to online advertising does
not positively affect ad recognition; one explanation is that both brand users and non-users do not attend
to the second brand sufficiently for it to get processed into memory (Ahn & Sung, 2011). Consistent with
previous theories of selective attention (e.g., Taylor et al., 1978), if the second brand fails to be noticed,
then its presence has no opportunity to attract attention to the advertisement. Consequently, the presence
of a second brand does not impact an audience's memory of the advertisement. For example, in the
context of online banner advertisements, the presence of another brand has a negative effect on brand
recall. Such effect is worsened for brands when the context of the advertisement focuses on the other
brand in the partnership (Ahn & Sung, 2011).
Within the scope of online banner advertisements, findings establish that promoting two brands (as
opposed to one) has no positive effect on the consumer's memory of the ad (Nguyen et al., 2017).
Consumers also have a lower propensity for retrieving co-advertised brands from memory. Combined,
these two findings indicate that the net effect of co-branded advertising on memory-related outcomes is
the same or lower than that for single-brand advertising (Nguyen et al., 2017).
According to Romaniuk (2013), there are two main challenges with co-branded advertising: brand
linkage and consumer attention. Research shows that viewers have a hard time remembering advertised
brands, if they even pay attention to the advertisement instead of trying to avoid it. Having two brands
in the same advertisement might make the process even more difficult, with the risk of losing the
consumers' attention altogether. Among co-branding strategies considered, pulsing the brand
throughout a television advertisement helps attract attention (Teixeira et al., 2010). For example, eye-
tracking studies demonstrate that consumers focus on one item at a time, even when multiple items are
present. More vivid items can draw and hold consumer attention disproportionately (Romaniuk, 2013).
It is said that there might be situations where the brand benefits from the presence of another brand, such
as through attracting more attention, sourcing a different audience, or facilitating a position or message
(Romaniuk, 2013).
However, it is claimed that the presence of a second brand in an advertisement means advertisers
should also consider the possibility of losing consumer attention to the other brand, risking
misattribution of the message to the other brand, and any negative consequences of the advertisement
having a positive impact on the other brand (Romaniuk, 2013). In general, Romaniuk (2013) suggested
that the presence of a second brand in a single piece of advertising creates more competition for consumer
attention, and it runs the risk of stealing the brand's spotlight. Thus, dual-branding scenarios require
careful execution to ensure that consumer attention is not so fragmented that neither brand is
appropriately noticed.
Alessandra Noli Peschiera, Sindy Chapa 31
Economicus Journal of Business and Economics Insights 2025 2(1), 26–35
2.3. Brand familiarity and brand recall
The literature in advertising (Burke & Edell, 1986; Pae et al., 2002) supports the premise that brand
familiarity plays a significant moderating role in advertisement effectiveness. Brand familiarity affects
the relationship between consumers’ attitudes toward the ad and the brand (Burke & Edell, 1986), which
simultaneously impact brand recognition (Brennan & Babin, 2004) and brand recall (Kent & Allen, 1994).
Brand familiarity measures the "share of mind" that a consumer poses about a particular brand as a
result of a direct or indirect experience with the brand (Alba & Hutchinson, 1987; Kent & Allen, 1994).
The strength of brand familiarity is determined by the kind of associations that the brand produces in
consumer memory (Campbell & Keller, 2003). The likelihood of remembering a familiar brand is higher
than when consumers are exposed to the unfamiliar (Brennan & Babin, 2004; Campbell & Keller, 2003).
Based on the framework of the effect of product involvement and brand familiarity on brand recall,
relationships between brand familiarity and ad recall and product involvement and ad recall were
hypothesized in a humor appeal animated-storytelling ad. This study uses the animated series of Geico's
"Short Stories and Tall Tales" ads started in 2010, which uses a product placement (Banana Republic) as
an advertised co-brand.
Therefore, the following hypotheses are presented:
H1: Consumer's brand familiarity with the sponsored brand (Geico) affects consumers' ad recall.
H2: Consumer's familiarity with the storytelling character (Jack Be Nimble) affects ad recall.
H3: Consumer's brand familiarity with the co-brand (Banana Republic) affects consumers' co-brand recall in
advertising.
2.4. Product involvement and brand recall
Consumers’ involvement with the products is a determinant of consumers' attention (Pitta & Prevel
Katsanis, 1995). The literature indicates that when consumers are engaged with certain products, they
automatically access their prior information, making advertising messages more viable for them (Baker
et al., 1986). Schmitt (2012) suggested that psychological engagement is reliant on consumers' needs,
motives and goals, which led them to become active recipients of information. Evidence suggest that
product involvement facilitates brand awareness and thus brand recall, facilitating purchases (Mohr,
2013).
A consumer's involvement level can have significant effects on consumer attitudes towards the
product being advertised. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) suggests that attitude formation via
the central or peripheral route depends on the degree of engagement exhibited by the receiver in
processing the information (Bhutada et al., 2017). Attitude change under high-involvement situations
will occur as a result of careful elaboration of the content of the persuasive message using the central
route (Bhutada et al., 2017). Consumers who are more involved with fashion are more prone to have
more interaction with brands, increasing their awareness, and thus facilitating co-brand recall (Mohr,
2013). Therefore, it is expected that consumers involved with fashion brands will be more prone to pay
attention to the co-brand (line: "Jack has a new pair of pants that he ordered from Banana Republic"). The
following hypothesis is proposed:
H4: Consumer's involvement with fashion brands affects co-brand recall in advertising.
3. Methodology
3.1. Research design
Does co-brand placement work on ad recall? Exploring the impact of co-brand placement in storytelling animated advertising 32
Economicus Journal of Business and Economics Insights 2025 2(1), 26–35
The data was collected using an online survey conducted through a national panel in collaboration
with Dynata Research, using a non-random sampling method. The data was collected using a quota
sampling technique, controlling for ethnic representation of Non-Hispanic Whites, Hispanics, Asian
Americans, and African Americans. A validation verification question was included in the questionnaire.
After the data was cleaned, a total sample of 3,179 was used in this study to measure the impact of
familiarity with the sponsored brand and familiarity with the storytelling character on consumers' ad
recall.
The questionnaire included previously validated scales (Sprott et al., 2009). Brand familiarity was
measured using three items initially developed by Laroche et al. (1996). The product involvement scale
of Kapferer and Laurent (1993) was adapted to measure product involvement in this study. Participants
responded using a 7-point semantic differential scale. Ad recall was measured using a single ad including
10 brands in each category (insurance and apparel) to avoid bias. An item labeled “I don’t recall” was
included. Cronbach’s alphas were run to test the internal consistency of the responses. The results
showed alphas higher than 0.90, indicating a good reliability.
3.2. Data analysis
To measure the relationship between these two variables on ad recall, a logistic regression was
performed. Logistic regression was used to investigate if it was possible to predict whether consumers
who were familiar with the story of Jack Be Nimble and with the Geico brand would be likely to
remember the ad. The binary group for the dependent variable was defined as 0 for “did not recall the
ad” and 1 for “yes recalled the ad.” The results showed positive significant coefficients indicating
significant differences between those who were familiar with Geico (β = 0.561, sig. = 0.000) and with Jack
Be Nimble (β = 0.719, sig. = 0.10). Therefore, hypotheses 1 and 2 are supported. The predictive power was
64 percent, with a chi-square of 170.85 (sig. = 0.000) and R2 of 0.072. This is as expected, considering that
more factors, which were not taken into consideration in this study, might affect consumers' ad recall.
Thus, out of 3,179 participants, 2,201 indicated they did recall the ad. The likelihood to recall the ad
increased when participants were familiar with the story and the brand.
To measure the impact of brand familiarity and product involvement on consumers’ co-brand recall,
a logistic regression was run with selected data. A total of 2,201 participants, those who indicated they
recalled the ad, were included in the data analysis. The binary group for the dependent variable was
defined as 0 for “did not recall the co-brand” and 1 for “yes recalled the co-brand.” The results indicated
that the overall equation was significant to 0.003, but brand familiarity was not significantly affecting the
likelihood to recall the co-brand in the ad (β = 0.039, sig. = 0.881). Thus hypothesis 3 is not supported.
However, participants who indicated they were highly involved with fashion brands were more
likely to remember the co-brand (β = 0.193, sig. = 0.001). The overall predictive power was 88.7 percent,
but with a chi square of 11.41 (sig. = 0.003). The overall percentage of participants who recalled the co-
brand was 11 percent, and the test indicated that those who were more likely to remember it were more
likely to be those who perceived themselves as being highly involved with fashion brands. Thus,
hypothesis 4 is supported.
4. Discussion, managerial implications, and limitations
The findings indicated that the ad recall was significantly higher when participants indicated being
highly familiar with the story character (Jack Be Nimble) and with the brand (Geico). In the case of the
co-brand effect, the results showed no significant relationship between brand familiarity (Banana
Republic) and ad recall. However, the results revealed that participants who remembered the co-brand
(Banana Republic) stated being highly involved with the product category (fashion).
Alessandra Noli Peschiera, Sindy Chapa 33
Economicus Journal of Business and Economics Insights 2025 2(1), 26–35
Finally, there are several contributions attained by this study that provide critical insights to
advertisers. First, it provided evidence to support the contention that using a popular and well-known
story-telling character effectively affects ad recall. Second, it provided evidence that brand familiarity
predicts brand recall in animated humor appeal advertising. Lastly, it demonstrated that co-brand
placement in advertising is effective when the audience has a considerably high level of involvement
with the product category of the co-brand. Yet further statistical analysis is needed to test the moderating
effect.
Finally, despite the contribution made by this study, some limitations are identified. First, this study
employed a one-ad message experimental design, limiting the generalizability of the results. A multiple
message design is recommended for future studies. Second, the category of the sponsored and
cosponsored brands was limited to Geico and Banana Republic, and subsequently to two industries,
insurance and fashion. Future research can test if congruent or incongruent categories of the product can
have an effect on the results. Lastly, the storytelling character used in the Geico campaign (Jack Be
Nimble) might be unknown across groups, such as low acculturated minority consumers for example.
Therefore, future research should be conducted in testing differences among cultural groups, ethnicities,
age, and gender.
CRediT Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.N.P., & S.C.; methodology, A.N.P., & S.C; software, A.N.P., &
S.C.; validation, A.N.P., & S.C.; formal analysis, A.N.P., & S.C.; investigation, A.N.P., & S.C; resources, S.C.; data
curation, A.N.P., & S.C.; writing—original draft preparation, A.N.P., & S.C.; writing—review and editing, A.N.P., &
S.C.; visualization, A.N.P., & S.C.; supervision, S.C. "All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript."
Conflicts of Interest: "The authors declare no conflicts of interest."
References
Aaker, D. A., Stayman, D. M., & Hagerty, M. R. (1986). Warmth in advertising: Measurement, impact, and sequence
effects. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(4), 365–381. https://doi.org/10.1086/208524
Ahn, H., & Sung, Y. (2011). A two-dimensional approach to between-partner fit in co-branding evaluations. Journal
of Brand Management, 19(5), 414–424. https://doi.org/10.1057/bm.2011.49
Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411–
454. https://doi.org/10.1086/209080
Baker, W.E., Hutchinson, J.W., Moore, D.L., & Nedungadi, P. (1986). Brand Familiarity and Advertising: Effects on
the Evoked Set and Brand Preference. Advances in Consumer Research, 13, 637–642.
Batra, R., & Stayman, D. M. (1990). The role of mood in advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(2),
203–214. https://doi.org/10.1086/208550
Belch, G. E., & Belch, M. A. (1984). An Investigation of the Effects of Repetition on Cognitive and Affective Reactions
to Humorous and Serious Television Commercials. Advances in Consumer Research, 11(1), 4.
Bhutada, N. S., Rollins, B. L., & Perri III, M. (2017). Impact of animated spokes-characters in print direct-to-consumer
prescription drug advertising: An elaboration likelihood model approach. Health Communication, 32(4), 391–
400. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1138382
Brennan, I., & Babin, L. A. (2004). Brand placement recognition: The influence of presentation mode and brand
familiarity. Journal of Promotion Management, 10(1-2), 185–202. https://doi.org/10.1300/J057v10n01_13
Burke, M. C., & Edell, J. A. (1986). Ad reactions over time: Capturing changes in the real world. Journal of Consumer
Research, 13(1), 114–118. https://doi.org/10.1086/209051
Campbell, M. C., & Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand familiarity and advertising repetition effects. Journal of Consumer
Research, 30(2), 292–304. https://doi.org/10.1086/376800
Does co-brand placement work on ad recall? Exploring the impact of co-brand placement in storytelling animated advertising 34
Economicus Journal of Business and Economics Insights 2025 2(1), 26–35
Chung, H., & Zhao, X. (2011). The effects of humor on ad processing: Mediating role of brand familiarity. Journal of
Promotion Management, 17(1), 76–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2011.553788
Dickinson, S., & Heath, T. (2006). A comparison of qualitative and quantitative results concerning evaluations of co-
branded offerings. Journal of Brand Management, 13, 393–406. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540281
Garretson, J. A., & Burton, S. (2005). The role of spokescharacters as advertisement and package cues in integrated
marketing communications. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 118–132. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.2005.69.4.118
Geico. (2016). GEICO TV Spot, “short stories & tall tales: Jack be nimble.” iSpot.tv | Realtime TV Advertising Performance
Measurement. https://www.ispot.tv/ad/A2D1/geico-short-stories-and-tall-tales-jack-be-nimble
Gelb, B. D., & Pickett, C. M. (1983). Attitude-toward-the-ad: Links to humor and to advertising effectiveness. Journal
of Advertising, 12(2), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1983.10672838
Heiser, R. S., Sierra, J. J., & Torres, I. M. (2008). Creativity via cartoon spokespeople in print ads: Capitalizing on the
distinctiveness effect. Journal of Advertising, 37(4), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.2753/joa0091-3367370406
Hitchon, J. C., & Jura, J. O. (1997). Allegorically speaking: Intertextuality of the postmodern culture and its impact
on print and television advertising. Communication Studies, 48(2), 142–158.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979709368497
Huang, W. S., Hsieh, T., & Chen, H. S. (2011). The advertisement effectiveness of animated spokes-characters. African
Journal of Business Management, 5(23), 9971–9978. https://academicjournals.org/journal/AJBM/article-
abstract/C13586314379
Kapferer, J.-N. & Laurent, G. (1993). Further evidence on the consumer involvement profile: five antecedents of
involvement. Psychology and Marketing, 10(4), 347–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.4220100408
Kelly, B., Hattersley, L., King, L. & Flood, V. (2008). Persuasive food marketing to children: use of cartoons and
competitions in Australian commercial television advertisements. Health Promotion International, 23(4), 337–344.
https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dan023
Kent, R. J., & Allen, C. T. (1994). Competitive interference effects in consumer memory for advertising: the role of
brand familiarity. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800307
Lai, Y. L., Hui, K. L., & Liu, N. (2007). To animate or not to animate? –The effects of animation on recall, product
perceptions & attitude. PACIS 2007 Proceedings. 6. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2007/6
Laroche, M., Kim, C., & Zhou, L. (1996). Brand familiarity and confidence as determinants of purchase intention: An
empirical test in a multiple brand context. Journal of Business Research, 37, 115–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-
2963(96)00056-2
Lee, Y. H., & Mason, C. (1999). Responses to information incongruency in advertising: The role of expectancy,
relevancy, and humor. Journal of Consumer Research, 26(2), 156–169. https://doi.org/10.1086/209557
Leiner, M., Handal, G., & Williams, D. (2004). Patient communication: a multidisciplinary approach using animated
cartoons. Health Education Research, 19(5), 591–595. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyg079
Madden, T. J., & Weinberger, M. G. (1982). The Effects of Humor on Attention in Magazine Advertising. Journal of
Advertising, 11(3), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1982.10672806
Mizerski, R. (1995). The relationship between cartoon trade character recognition and attitude toward product
category in young children. Journal of Marketing, 59(4), 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299505900405
Moriarty, S. E. (1996). Effectiveness, objectives, and the EFFIE awards. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(4), 54-64.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A18782737/AONE?u=anon~9e211c6&sid=googleScholar&xid=691302ae
Nelson, O., & Deborah, A. (2017). Celebrity endorsement influence on brand credibility: A critical review of previous
studies. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies, 7(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.29333/ojcmt/2577
Romaniuk, J. (2013). Sharing the spotlight: is there room for two brands in one advertisement? Journal of Advertising
Research, 53(3), 247–250. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-53-3-247-250
Mohr, I. (2013). The impact of social media on the fashion industry. Journal of Applied Business and Economics, 15(2),
17–22. http://www.na-businesspress.com/JABE/MohrI_Web15_2_.pdf
Nasir, F., & Jalbani, A. A. (2009). Animated Advertisements and Children: An Analysis of Consumer Behavior. JISR
Management and Social Sciences & Economics, 7(1), 43–54.
https://jisrmsse.szabist.edu.pk/index.php/szabist/article/view/322
Alessandra Noli Peschiera, Sindy Chapa 35
Economicus Journal of Business and Economics Insights 2025 2(1), 26–35
Neeley, S. M., & Schumann, D. W. (2004). Using animated spokes-characters in advertising to young children: does
increasing attention to advertising necessarily lead to product preference? Journal of Advertising, 33(3), 7–23.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2004.10639166
Nguyen, C., Romaniuk, J., Faulkner, M., & Cohen, J. (2017). Are two brands better than one? Investigating the effects
of co-branding in advertising on audience memory. Marketing Letters, 29, 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-
017-9444-3
Pae, J. H., Samiee, S., & Tai, S. (2002). Global advertising strategy: The moderating role of brand familiarity and
execution style. International Marketing Review, 19(2), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330210425024
Park, S.-Y., Hitchon, J. B., & Yun, G. W. (2004). The effects of brand familiarity in alignment advertising. Journalism
& Mass Communication Quarterly, 81(4), 750–765. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900408100403
Pitta, D. A., & Prevel Katsanis, L. (1995). Understanding brand equity for successful brand extension. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 12(4), 51–64. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363769510095306
Rossiter, J. R., & Percy, L. (1991). Emotions and Motivations in Advertising. Advances in Consumer Research, 18(1), 100.
Schmitt, B. (2012). The consumer psychology of brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(1), 7–17.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.09.005
Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. A. (1998). Is a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of
brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 30–42.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3151928
Sprott, D., Czellar, S., & Spangenberg, E. (2009). The importance of a general measure of brand engagement on
market behavior: development and validation of a scale. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 92–104.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.46.1.92
Taylor, S. E., Fiske, S. T., Etcoff, N. L., & Ruderman, A. J. (1978). Categorical and contextual bases of person memory
and stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(7), 778–793. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-
3514.36.7.778
Teixeira, T. S., Wedel, M., & Pieters, R. (2010). Moment-to-moment optimal branding in TV commercials: Preventing
avoidance by pulsing. Marketing Science, 29(5), 783–804. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1100.0567
Tversky, B., Morrison, J. B., & Betrancourt, M. (2002). Animation: can it facilitate? International Journal of Human-
Computer Studies, 57(4), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.2002.1017
Weinberger, M. G., & Gulas, C. S. (1992). The impact of humor in advertising: A review. Journal of Advertising, 21(4),
35–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1992.10673384
