The Unthinkable Brand: A Research towards the Difference in the Effect of Celebrity
Endorsement and Equal-customer Endorsement Strategies on the Image of
Taboo Brands.
Samantha Felicia Elward (MSc.)
10003958
sfelward@gmail.com
Master Thesis
Communication Science – Corporate Communication
Supervisor: Dr. Suzanne de Bakker
26th of November 2015
Abstract
Every individual has certain brand preferences. However, it also seems that within these brand preferences, there are also brands that certain groups of consumers actively avoid, because being associated with this brand evokes negative emotions, of which shame is the most important one. These type of brands are called taboo brands. These negative emotions often occur due to the fact that the self-identity and the self-image of the consumer, strongly disassociates with the image that the so-called taboo brand radiates. Celebrity endorsement strategies and, nowadays, equal-customer endorsement strategies, are often used to positively influence a brand’s image. This research investigates to what extend these existing advertisement strategies could also influence the image of a taboo brand in particular. In addition, other potential factors that are important in the field of brand image improvement, such as the influence of social pressure, the type of need a certain brand fulfills and the credibility of the shown endorsers, were researched as possible moderating variables.
An experimental survey was conducted to investigate the relationships between the different variables. The results indicated that no support can be found on the effect of both the celebrity and equal-customer endorsement strategy on the image of a taboo brand. It also seemed that the type of brand concept, the perceived endorser credibility and the sensitivity to peer pressure do not have an influence on this relationship. However, one of the most important findings was that the experienced level of shame, which was inserted as a control variable, had a direct effect on the image of the taboo brand in each of the researched models. The results also indicated that whether a taboo brand fulfilled symbolic or functional needs, also influenced the image of the taboo brand.
Table of content
Introduction ... 1
The problem with a brand’s user-imagery ... 1
What makes a brand a taboo brand? ... 1
Why tackling the image of a taboo brand? ... 3
How to tackle a lacking brand image? ... 4
Theoretical and managerial contributions ... 5
Theoretical background ... 7
The problem with the image of a taboo brand... 7
Belonging to a social group: the struggle of every teenager ... 8
Why tackling the image of a taboo brand for the teenage consumer group? ... 8
How a brand becomes “human” ... 9
Type of endorsement ... 10
Perceived endorser credibility ... 11
Type of brand concept ... 13
Sensitivity to peer pressure ... 15
Conceptual model ... 16
Methodology ... 17
Experimental research method ... 17
Research design ... 17
Pre-test and stimuli-selection ... 18
Stimuli material ... 21
Data collection ... 22
Respondents and research procedure ... 23
Measures ... 24
Descriptive statistics ... 30
Main analyses ... 31
Conclusion ... 43
Theoretical and managerial implications ... 45
Discussion ... 47
References ... 53
Appendix A - Pre-test questionnaire ... 64
Appendix B – Advertisements ... 72
Appendix C – Parent letter informed consent ... 74
1
Introduction
The problem with a brand’s user-imagery
One way or another, every brand evokes some kind of feeling or attitude among consumers. A certain user-imagery comes to mind where consumers express their thoughts about a prototypical person using that specific brand (Parker, 2009). Ever heard someone say on the highroad “That is a typical BMW-driver, asocial and rude”? (“Studie bewijst: BMW…”, 2014). This is a typical example of how a certain user-imagery can exist in the minds of consumers. User-imagery can be defined as a stereotyped perception that people have of the generalized user of a certain brand. This stereotyped perception is depicted by human characteristics that people associate with that typical brand user (Parker, 2009). Referring back to the example of BMW, this would be the characteristics asocial and rude. When this perceived user-imagery of a certain brand is not in line with how the consumer sees him- or herself, this often leads to disassociation towards this specific brand, making it a taboo (Haveman, 2003). One of the most known examples in the Netherlands struggling with such an issue, is Dutch textile and clothing brand Zeeman (“Jongeren schamen zich…”, 2009). What makes a brand a taboo brand?
Defining a taboo brand
Fershtman, Gneezy and Hoffman (2008) defined a taboo as an “unthinkable” action. Taboos are an important part of any social identity. People want to maintain a certain identity and view themselves as a moral person by that specific identity, therefore violating a taboo often results in evoking negative feelings, for example fear, disgust and shame. This explains why Haveman (2003) came up with the name “taboo brand”; these brands have a certain attractive power for a group of consumers, but are unthinkable for another group of consumers, because it evokes negative emotions, of which shame is the most important one.
Since a taboo brand evokes negative emotions for a certain group of consumers, it can be said that a taboo brand does not have strong, favorable and unique brand associations for that specific consumer group, which in the end, is important to have in order to create positive consumer perceptions (Cho, Fiore & Russell, 2015; Keller, 1993). These consumer perceptions on its turn, are important for the consumer’s brand and product choices. Matters that positively influence the consumer perceptions of taboo brands, or better said the image of taboo brands, will be the central matter of this thesis.
2 Defining social identification and social groups
According to Haveman (2003), consumers negotiate very often about the level of acceptation for a certain brand; do these brands fit the values, norms and self-image the consumer has in mind for oneself and for the social group he or she fits in? A social group can be defined as two or more individuals who share a common social identification about themselves and perceive themselves as members of the same social category (Turner, 1982 in: Wei & Yu, 2012). Social identification is derived from the social identity theory and can best be described as how people establish their self-concepts and how they perceive themselves in a group by categorizing themselves as members of certain social categories (Tajfel & Turner, 1985 in: He, Li & Harris, 2012). The social identity of an individual on its turn, plays a role in the development of the self-image of an individual, which comes down to how an individual believes other people perceive them.
Paulich (2012) stated that brands have an in-group and out-group of consumers and that both groups have their own brand associations about a (taboo) brand. Since a taboo brand on the one hand has attractive power to some extent, the in-group has strong positive product-related associations and associations that really match the self-identity of the consumer, which is important to create a positive brand image (Keller, 1993). However, on the other hand, the out-group has strong and negative product related associations, such as negative user-images and associations that really lacks matching the self-identity and the desired self-image of the consumer, which according to Keller, negatively influences a brand image. Consumers who experience themselves very strongly in an out-group of a brand, perceive the brand as a taboo brand (Haveman, 2003). The most important emotional consequence of being associated with such a brand for someone in an out-group, is the feeling of shame.
Defining shame
The concept of shame refers to the emotion that results “from an awareness of dishonor or disgrace” (Flannery, 2012, p.166). The great impact of shame is also shown by the research of Panagopoulus (2010) who indicated that shame even has a greater influence on decision-making than pride. When someone experiences a high level of shame this could decrease the social self-esteem of a person (Gruenewald, Kemeny, Aziz & Fahey, 2004) and shame is often related to interpersonal rejection by peers (Han & Kim, 2012).
3 Defining the image of a taboo brand
To describe a “taboo image”, it is important to have a clear definition of what a brand image is. The most common definition of a “brand” is the one by Kotler (1991; p. 442 in: Keller, 1993) who defines the concept from a consumer perspective. He states that it can be seen as “a name, term, sign, symbol, or design or combination of them which is intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors”. This definition shows that many things can be seen as a brand: a product, a product group, but also a complete organization. A brand is built by all the different associations that consumers and other relevant stakeholders have of that specific brand (Thomson, MacInnis & Whan Park, 2005). All these different associations together are called a brand image (Keller, 1993), which are actually simpler said the consumers’ subjective perceptions of a brand (Nandan, 2005).
Research by Berveling (2012) has shown that the user-imagery, the opinion of peers to create a preference for certain brands and the lack of social acceptance for some brands are the main drivers of a brand to become a taboo. When considering these drivers, it is not illogical that an out-group of a certain brand experiences a feeling of shame when associated with a taboo brand. These consumers feel ashamed towards the social group they belong to.
Based on the previous referenced literature it can be concluded that one of the important characteristics belonging to the image of a taboo brand, is that the consumer most likely does not have any strong, favorable and unique associations of the brand (Cho, Fiore & Russell, 2015; Keller, 1993), which means that the consumer perceptions of the brand are not that positive. In addition, due to the fact that the perceived user-imagery of the taboo brand is not in line with their desired self-image, this causes that these consumers do not want to associate themselves with the brand to prevent experiencing shame (Haveman, 2003; Berverling, 2012). Why tackling the image of a taboo brand?
Although being experienced as a taboo brand does not seem to stop most organizations of doing their jobs, the feeling of shame is a negative emotion that negatively influences the brand-consumer relationship. Why do we want to change that? Strong positive relationships between a brand and consumer bring multiple positive consequences for an organization. According to Albert and Merunka (2013) the most important antecedents of a strong relationship with a consumer is trust and identification. These antecedents are obviously lacking for consumers who perceive themselves very strongly in an out-group of a brand.
4 Consumers who do have a strong relationship with a brand and experience a high level of trust and identification are often part of the in-group of a brand (Paulich, 2012). This strong relationship on its turn, is often the basis of brand love that can lead to brand commitment and positive word-of-mouth, which are positive antecedents for the existence of every brand (Roy, Eshghi & Sarkar, 2012). Therefore, this thesis’ focus on the image of taboo brands can provide the grips for organizations coping with such customer-brand relationships with certain customer target groups.
How to tackle a lacking brand image?
Organizations use different strategies in order to create a positive brand image and therefore, positively influence the consumer’s attitude towards a brand. The user-imagery, the opinion of peers (within a social group) to create a preference for certain brands and the lack of social acceptance for some brands are the main drivers of a brand to become a taboo (Berveling, 2012). These are therefore the problems that have to be tackled by organizations in order to influence the image of a taboo brand.
Positively influencing the opinion of peers and creating social acceptance for a brand are not easy problems to target with a marketing strategy. However, changing the user-imagery of a brand is something that an organization can actively try to change. According to Liu, Li, Mizerski and Soh (2012), congruity between the perceived user-imagery of a brand and the desired self-identity and self-image of the consumer, leads to a positive brand evaluation by consumers.
There are multiple ways to create a certain user-imagery and one of them is celebrity endorsement in advertisements. Celebrity endorsement is one of the most popular chosen advertising strategies by organizations. It leads to favorable attitudes towards the endorsed brand (Till, Stanley & Priluck, 2008) and gives the brand a “face” and user-image. However, an important condition to have a good effect on the brand image is that the celebrity’s image is congruent with the self-image of the consumer (Cho & Rifon, 2012) and, more importantly, is perceived as a credible “user” of the brand (Spry, Pappu & Cornwell, 2011).
Nevertheless, not only celebrities are currently used as endorsers in advertisements. Normal consumers are also inserted as “equal” endorsers in advertisements over the past years. Practitioners believe that this is a more credible strategy for consumers, since most of them tend to identify with people like themselves (Jacob & Sengupta, 2011). In addition, Jacob and Sengputa also believe that this type of endorsement gives brands the possibility to create
5 brand recall for the product or service itself, instead of getting pushed by the power of celebrities. Last year, Dutch clothing store Zeeman for example, let its customers pose in their underwear advertisement (Brinks, 2014). The public’s response was positive and it put Zeeman in a positive light. However, does this also mean that the image of Zeeman for consumers who initially perceived it as a taboo brand, is positively influenced by these types of advertisements?
Inserting celebrities and equal-customers as brand endorsers in advertisements are effective ways to create a certain user-imagery for brands and positively influence the brand image (Till, Stanley & Priluck, 2008; Jacob & Sengputa, 2011). However, if these strategies also work for the image of taboo brands is still unknown. This leads to the following research question of this thesis:
To what extent do celebrity endorsement and equal-customer endorsement advertising strategies have an influence on the image of a taboo brand?
Since a dissonant user-imagery is one of the indicators of a taboo brand (Berveling, 2012) and the one that can be actively tackled by organizations, this research tries to apply existing literature on creating and changing the user-imagery of a brand in the context of organizations that are considered taboo brands. The goal of this research is to provide a first insight in how the image of a taboo brand can be positively influenced by means of inserting existing advertising strategies, but also by potential other factors that are important in the field of brand image development, such as the influence of social pressure, the type of need a certain brand fulfills and the credibility of the shown endorsers. The theoretical background will go further in-depth on the influences of these factors on the image of a taboo brand.
Theoretical and managerial contributions
When considering the existing literature, this research fills the gap with regard to the unexamined influence that existing advertising strategies have on the image of taboo brands. The concept of taboo brands is an under-researched topic in the scientific literature. The literature review which was specifically focused on taboo brands, only revealed researches on the indicators predicting a taboo brand (Beverling, 2012) and how a certain brand becomes a taboo brand in the mind of consumers (Paulich, 2012).
Although the effect of celebrity endorsement has been researched many times in the past, its effect has never been compared in one research with the effect of equal-customers as brand
6 endorsers. Inserting customers as brand ambassadors is an option that more and more organizations choose for, however, actively inserting them as endorsers in advertising is something more recent and not researched yet in such a context as this. More importantly, the effect of both strategies on the image of a taboo brand has not been investigated at all. The results of this research will not only contribute to the lacking number of researches focused on taboo brands, but also adds to the existing literature in the field of brand image, branding strategies and (celebrity) endorsement effects.
However, not only the scientific world benefits from this research. This research also gives the business practice insight in what kind of role the emotion of shame plays for taboo brands, but more importantly, also indicates how inserting celebrities or equal-customers as endorsers can influence the image of a taboo brand. Although being experienced as a taboo brand does not instantly seem problematic, having a positive and strong brand image in order for consumers to identify themselves with that brand, does certainly have its advantages, for example, positive word-of-mouth and brand commitment. This research provides brand marketers the grips in what kind of strategy could possibly tackle the image of taboo brands and to what extend this is feasible for their organization. In addition, many industries, especially the retail industry in particular, that nowadays are having a hard time, could potentially inspire their solutions on the results of this research. Retail organizations such as Zeeman, which are struggling with their dusty and shameful image for several years now, can identify where the potential issues lay, but more crucially, find potential ways to change this lacking image.
7
Theoretical background
The problem with the image of a taboo brand
Creating a favourable brand image is one of the top priorities of many organizations with a successful brand management (Cho, Fiore & Russell, 2015). After all, the consumer’s perceptions and feelings towards a brand play an important role in consumer’s brand and product choices (Keller, 1993).
Based on the brand image framework by Keller (1993) a brand image has a cognitive and an emotional dimension. The cognitive dimension includes consumer’s associations related to non-product related attributes, functional benefits and symbolic benefits. Keller accounts attributes such as price, but also the user-imagery of a brand, as non-product related attributes. The extent to which a brand solves a certain problem or need is mentioned as an example of a functional benefit, whereas the brand’s social approval or prestige was mentioned as an example of a symbolic benefit.
The emotional dimension of Keller’s (1993) brand image framework includes the consumer’s associations related to more product-related attributes. Examples of these so-called product related attributes by Cho, Fiore and Russell (2015) are the physical and sensory composition of the brand.
Since user-imagery, the opinion of peers to create a preference for certain brands and the lack of social acceptance for some brands are the main drivers of a taboo brand (Beverling, 2012), it seems that taboo brands merely struggle with the cognitive dimension of Keller’s (1993) so-called brand image framework rather than with the emotional dimension. User-imagery is an example of a non-product related attribute and the opinion of peers and social approval are examples of symbolic benefits, which are all three part of the cognitive dimension of a brand image. When all these different antecedents of a brand are not in line with the perceptions of a consumer, this enhances the distance in the brand-consumer relationship. This distance on its turn can ultimately influence the consumer to experience him- or herself such strongly dissociated to a brand, that being associated with this brand evokes a feeling of shame.
From this point of view, it seems logical to specifically focus on influencing the cognitive dimension in order to tackle the predictors of taboo brands. When attempts are focused on, for example, creating a matching user-imagery among the consumer target group which initially
8 perceived the brand as a taboo, this would also lessen the chance that in the end these consumers feel ashamed of the brand. This explains how shame can be interpreted as a consequent emotion of the image of a taboo brand, which complements the previous thoughts by Haveman (2003). Therefore, this thesis has chosen to insert the image of the taboo brand as dependent variable.
Belonging to a social group: the struggle of every teenager
Being socially accepted by a group is most important for consumers who are still in their mental and psychological development phase: teenagers (Kiran-Esen, 2012). According to the official definition, teenagers are between the age of thirteen to nineteen (Oxford Dictionaries, 2015). Teenagers often create shared meanings with their friends, therefore, how they see reality and how they evaluate certain things is more or less consistent with that of their peers (Gil, Kwon, Good & Johnson, 2012).
Expressing behavior that is completely against the norms of a peer group, evokes shame with the teenager who expresses that dissonant behavior. In the literature focused on teenagers, the term peer group often comes up (Gil, Kwon, Good & Johnson, 2012; Mangleburg, Doney & Bristol, 2004; Tokuhama, 2011). The definitions of a peer group and a social group relate to each other, but are not the same. As mentioned before, a social group can be explained as two or more individuals who share a common social identification about themselves as members of the same social category (Turner, 1982 in: Wei & Yu, 2012). A peer group can also be seen as individuals who share a common social identification, but what makes it different from a social group is that these individuals are often in the same age category and have a more close relationship with each other, like a group of friends for example (Mangleburg, Doney & Bristol, 2004). Since peers and peer groups are of great influence on teenagers’ purchase intentions and attitude forming towards brands (Gillani, 2012), the term peer group will be used from now on instead of social groups.
Why tackling the image of a taboo brand for the teenage consumer group?
Teenagers are in the phase where brands play an important role in developing their self-identity and perceived self-image (Tokuhama, 2011). Brands have a true impact on this specific consumer group’s life. One out of five Dutch teenagers buys certain brands to make themselves feel unique (Bartelds, 2012). Research by Hein (2007) indicated that 29 percent of the teenagers are obsessed with brand names and that having cool brands make them feel cool. However, besides actively buying certain brands, it seems that teenagers also actively
9 avoid brands; 70 percent of the Dutch teenagers state that they never buy something from certain brands (Rijnders, 2012). The belief exists that “you are what you buy” (Haveman, 2003; Hoogervorst, 2014), so teenagers actively disassociate themselves from certain brands, because they believe these brands are incongruent with their desired self-image and the image of their connected peers.
Although the problem of taboo brands is not just relevant for the teenage consumer group, this generation is one of the most important market segments organizations should actively target (Brici, Hodkinson & Sullivan-Mort, 2012). The combination of “you are what you buy”, still developing the self-identity, while at the same time trying to fit within a certain peer group, makes the brand-consumer relationship with teenagers quite difficult. One thing seems clear, negative feelings evoked by a brand do not have a positive influence on this brand-consumer relationship (Keller, 2013). Therefore, focusing on the issue of the image of taboo brands among the teenage consumer group can provide useful and most of all, new insights in the field of brand image improvement for this specific target group. Teenagers will therefore be the focused consumer group of this thesis.
How a brand becomes “human”
The previous mentioned literature makes it clear that one way or another, consumers tend to relate certain brands to certain types of individuals; it is the human face of the brand. However, it might be clear by now that this user-imagery is not always the desired one the organization behind the brand has in mind. An important term within this issue is brand personality. Brand personality can be explained by applying human characteristics or traits, such as cool, innovative and upscale, to a brand in order for the consumer to think of that brand as if it had those person-like qualities (Aaker, 1997).
The earlier explained user-imagery is similar to brand personality, because both concepts represent human characteristics that people associate with a certain brand. However, they also differ because, a user-imagery represents a prototypical person that comes to mind, whereas a brand personality is a more holistic perception of a brand’s composite image by the consumer, based on multiple sources inputs, such as (celebrity) endorsers and animated characters (Parker, 2009). So it can be said that the perceived brand personality by the consumer, relates to the perceived user-imagery.
10 Type of endorsement
Celebrity endorsement is one of the most popular chosen advertising strategies worldwide (Spry, Rappu & Cornwell, 2011). According to the official definition by Friedman, Termini and Washington (1976), a celebrity endorser is someone who is known to the public for his or her accomplishments in areas that are unrelated to the endorsed brand. It happens quite often that large organizations use celebrities as part of their marketing communications strategy in order to support their corporate or brand imagery (Erdogan, 1999). Inserting a celebrity endorser often leads to favourable attitudes towards the endorsed brand and creates a certain face and image for a brand (Till, Stanley & Priluck, 2008). This supports the conclusion by McCracken (1989), that celebrities play an important role in the meaning transfer from a celebrity’s image to the image of the endorsed brand. It is a way to penetrate the crowded world of advertising spots, draw the attention of consumers and generate high recall actions (Choi, Lee & Kim, 2005). According to Kelting and Hamilton Rice (2008) celebrities in general have a greater impact on attitude change and purchase intentions than non-celebrities, because of their established credible image and their wide recognition and popularity.
However, Jacob and Sengputa (2011) do not agree with the believe that celebrities generate high recall actions. They believe that inserting “typical” customers as endorsers is a more fruitful way of creating a brand recall for the product or service itself, because the brand is not overshadowed by the celebrity. More and more practitioners nowadays claim that celebrity endorsements are not worth the money (Harrington, 2014). Take for example female singer Beyoncé Knowles’ deal with PepsiCo, which cost the brand fifty million dollars (Casserly, 2012). According to Harrington this is useless, because he believes a celebrity only becomes worthwhile when the celebrity is essentially the product or brand that is promoted. He advises marketers to be careful since everyone, just as celebrities, have positive and negative personalities, but that these negatives can be more easily transferred to the brand. This means that every form of publicity, especially negative publicity, can easily be transferred to the endorsed brand (Koole, 2010).
This problem is more unlikely to occur when organizations choose to insert equal-customer endorsers, since they are not publicly discussed that often as celebrities are. In addition, another reason why equal-customers are stated as more beneficial compared to celebrity endorsers in advertisements, is that consumers are more willing to connect and purchase a brand when they perceive similarity between the person used in the advertisement and
11 themselves (Aagerup, 2011). The chance that this happens is greater when “real” people are used in advertisements, because consumers can relate themselves to them.
The previous cited literature showed that there is a lot to say about the effect of celebrity and equal-customer endorsements and why organizations should or should not insert it. However, what remains unclear is: what is the effect of both types of endorsements (celebrity and equal-customer) on the image of a taboo brand?
Although Aagerup (2011) concluded that inserting “real” people is beneficial for the willingness to connect and purchase a brand, he also concluded that when a brand wants to project an image of competence, it should employ models in advertisements that are more leaning towards perfect, than towards reality. Since the most important emotional consequence of taboo brands is the feeling of shame (Haveman, 2003; Beverling, 2012), the latter conclusion by Aagerup seems more useful for this specific research topic.
Conclusions by Chan, Leung Ng and Luk (2013) also support the favour of celebrity endorsement effects. They state that using a celebrity endorser over an equal-customer endorser in an ad, would at least increase the brand awareness, attract celebrity’s fans and enhance purchase confidence. Especially this enhancement of confidence towards purchasing a brand can be the power that is needed to overcome the evoked shame that comes with a taboo brand.
This literature review indicates that there are no clear conclusions which type of endorsement has more positive effect on a brand’s image. However, since celebrity endorsers seem to enhance confidence (Chan, Leung Ng & Luk, 2013) and project an image of competence (Aagerup, 2011) compared to normal and equal-customer endorsers, the chances are expected to be higher that a celebrity has a more positive effect on the image of a taboo brand than an equal-customer. This is supported by the conclusions of Woźniczka (2011 in: Karasiewicz & Kowalczuk, 2014) that celebrity endorsement creates better ad and brand attitude than a typical customer. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H1: Celebrity endorsement has a more positive effect on the image of a taboo brand among teenagers, than equal-customer endorsement.
Perceived endorser credibility
When organizations choose to work with endorsements in advertisements, one of the most important factors to keep in mind is the match between the endorser and the endorsed brand
12 (Boeing & Schurhaus, 2014). The credibility of the endorser has a positive influence on the credibility of the brand (Spry, Rappu & Cornwell, 2011) and a highly credible source is more persuasive than a less credible source in influencing the brand attitudes and evaluations of the consumers (Wei & Lu, 2103). Endorser credibility can be defined as the extent to which the source is perceived to have the relevant expertise to the topic that is endorsed and can be trusted as in having an objective opinion on the endorsed topic (Ohanian, 1990; Spry, Rappu & Cornwell, 2011).
According to Ohanian (1990), there are three dimensions of endorser credibility, which actually confirm the previous given definition of the term. The three dimensions are expertise, trustworthiness and the endorser’s attractiveness. Expertise refers to the extent in which the endorser is perceived to have knowledge, skills and experience and therefore is considered to be able of providing the correct information. Attractiveness refers to how physically attractive and likeable a source is evaluated by the consumer. Trustworthiness refers to the believe among consumers that the endorser provides objective and honest information about the brand (Yoon, Kim & Kim, 1998). Therefore, endorsers who are perceived to have the knowledge, to be reliable and physically attractive, are considered credible endorsers for a brand, which on its turn has a positive effect on the consumer’s attitudinal and behavioral responses towards a product, service or brand (Wei & Lu, 2013)
However, the effectiveness of the endorser depends upon the meaning that the endorser brings to the endorsement process (McCracken, 1989). As seen in the previous section, there are contradictory results on the potential effectiveness of a celebrity and an equal-customer endorsement (Kelting & Hamilton Rice, 2008; Jacob & Sengputa, 2011).
Based on the conclusions of Boeing and Schurhaus (2014) there is something to say about inserting either celebrity endorsers or equal-customers as endorsers, but that one of the most important things when choosing for a brand endorsement by a person, is that the endorser is credible and matches with the brand. Credible sources are more believable, which actually comes down to that the meaning they express in the advertisement is more believable too (Seno & Lukas, 2007). An interesting conclusion by Boeing and Schurhaus is that for celebrity endorsers it does not matter whether the celebrity is actually a consumer of the advertised brand in real life. This indicates that the endorser credibility is an important condition for the effectiveness of a celebrity endorser in particular (Wei & Lu, 2013). This leads to the following hypotheses:
13 H2a: Celebrity endorsement has a more positive effect on the image of a taboo brand among teenagers than equal-customer endorsement when the perceived endorser credibility is high.
H2b: Equal-customer endorsement has a more positive effect on the image of a taboo brand among teenagers than celebrity endorsement when the perceived endorser credibility is low.
Type of brand concept
When taking a more narrow focus on the teenage consumer group, practitioners state that this group experiences a difference between the relevance of the brand name for visible and invisible use of these brands (Hoogervorst, 2014). Explained more clearly; when the use of a product or service is visible for the outside world (e.g. smart phones, watches, clothing), the brand name seems to be more important for teenagers than when the use of the product or service is less visible or even invisible for the outside world (e.g. food and drinks). These so-called visible products are named “badge-items” in the business practice (Bartelds, 2012; Hoogervorst, 2014).
Although this type of brand distinction comes right out the business practice, it is still quite unclear when a certain brand can be categorized as visible or invisible. Fortunately, distinctions between brand concepts are not uncommon within the scientific world. One of the most well-known brand concept distinctions is from Bhat and Reddy (1998). They stated that there are two types of brand concepts: (1) functional brands that satisfy more immediate and practical needs and (2) symbolic brands that satisfy more symbolic needs for self-expression and prestige. Although Bhat and Reddy researched the issue of brand concepts, within one product category, Keller’s research (1993) indicated that this can also exist between two or more product categories.
According to Keller (1993) a brand can serve different benefits for the consumer – that is what the consumer believes the brand can do for them. The functional and symbolic distinction that Bhat and Reddy (1998) pointed out, is also seen in Keller’s framework. According to Keller there are three types of benefits: functional benefits, experiential benefits and symbolic benefits. Functional benefits are “the more intrinsic advantages of a brand and are often related to the more basic motivations of physiological or safety needs and involve a desire for problem removal or avoidance” (Keller, 1993, p.4). An example could be the fact that water fulfils the need of staying alive. Experiential benefits are related to what it feels like to use the brand and are often more related to product-related attributes. This type of benefit fulfils for example, the sensory pleasure a consumer wants from a certain brand or the need of
14 variety. Symbolic benefits are the more extrinsic advantages of a brand and “are often related to the non-product related attributes and to the underlying needs for social approval or personal expression” (Keller, 1993, p.4). The symbolic benefits of a certain brand are especially relevant for the previous mentioned “badge-items”. This distinction indicates that the categorization of brand concepts does not necessarily has to exist within one product category, but can also exist between different product categories.
The manner in which Keller (1993) defines the functional and symbolic benefit is in line with how Karasiewicz and Kowalczuk (2014) described this distinction. In addition, according to their research, this distinction even has an influence on the effect of the type of endorsement used in an advertisement and the evaluation of the product. Karasiewicz and Kowalczuk compared the effect of a celebrity endorser and a typical customer endorser for a watch (fulfils a symbolic need) and a juice (fulfils a functional need) advertisement. The results indicated that celebrity endorsement brings better results than a typical customer endorser, when the advertised brands are associated with higher levels of social and psychological risks. These social and psychological risks can be related to the previous mentioned symbolic benefits of social approval and personal expression by Keller’s (1993) framework and by the symbolic brand concept described by Bhat and Reddy (1998). This indicates that celebrity endorsements have a positive impact on the brand evaluation of durable goods which fulfil a more symbolic need, but have no effect on the evaluation of frequently purchased products that serve a more functional need. Moreover, Karasiewicz and Kowalczuk concluded that the use of celebrity endorsements is justified for those brands and product categories where the physical attractiveness and social status of the celebrity can be transferred to the brand and thus strengthens the brand image.
Based on these conclusions by Karasiewicz and Kowalczuk (2014), it seems that the type of brand concept plays an important role in the effectiveness of an advertisement on the image of a brand. However, will it also be the case for the image of a taboo brand? Since the research by Karasiewicz and Kowalczuk indicated that a celebrity endorser has a greater effect than a typical customer endorser on brands associated with higher levels of social and psychological risks, the expectation is that the same thing occurs for brands that are considered a taboo. The hypotheses are therefore as follows:
H3a: Celebrity endorsement has a more positive effect on the image of a taboo brand among teenagers, than equal-customer endorsement when the brand concept is symbolic.
15 H3b: Equal-customer endorsement has a more positive effect on the image of a taboo brand
among teenagers, than celebrity endorsement when the brand concept is functional.
Sensitivity to peer pressure
According to Gillani (2012), peer pressure is one of the main factors that influences purchase intentions among teenagers. Research indicated that teenagers often shop with their friends to reduce the risk of buying a brand or visiting a retail shop, which the peer group that they belong to disapproves (Mangleburg, Doney & Bristol, 2004).
Being a member of a peer group is one of the primary experiences of adolescents. During this time of physical and mental development, peers are often the main source of influence and support (Kiran-Esen, 2012). Social influence has long been recognized as an important factor influencing an individual’s consumer behavior. Social influence can occur in a number of ways, for example, when peers provide each other information about brands, products and services in ambiguous situations or when peers set normative standards of conduct that a certain member of a peer group should meet. These occurrences of social influence happen in different phases of consumer behavior: it can occur before, during and after purchase (Mangleburg, Doney & Bristol, 2004).
The social influence of peers also has a strong effect on the identity-development process of teenagers. Teenagers try to deter all the negative effects of peer pressure in order to develop their identity accordingly (Dumas, Wellis & Wolfe, 2012). Buying certain brands is often seen as an effective way to gain peer acceptance (Jiang, Zhang, Ke, Hawk & Qui, 2015). However, the business practice also showed that not buying certain brands seems to be important too. Like previously mentioned, teenagers often believe that “you are what you buy”, therefore they actively avoid buying certain brands (Rijnders, 2012) from which they believe these are incongruent with their desired self-image and the image of their connected peers (Haveman, 2003; Hoogervorst, 2014).
Although the social influence of peers is of great importance on the self-development of most teenagers (Dumas, Wellis & Wolfe, 2012), not every teenager is equally sensitive for the social influence of peers. The level of sensitivity to peer pressure seems to be one of the most important indicators of decision-making by teenagers (Michael & Ben-Zur, 2007). The strongest predictor of this sensitivity to peer-pressure is shame (Han & Kim, 2012), which makes the possible predictor role of peer pressure for the image of taboo brands quite interesting. Since shame is the most important emotional consequence for people who
16 experience a certain brand as a taboo (Haveman, 2003; Beverling, 2012), it could be the case that the more sensitive someone is to peer pressure, the less a certain advertisement strategy changes that person’s image of a taboo brand. However, the literature does not clearly indicate the direction and the kind of influence the level of sensitivity to peer pressure has on the relationship between the type of endorsement strategy and the image of the taboo brand. Therefore, instead of a hypothesis, the final sub-research question is as follows:
RQsubquestion: To what extent does the sensitivity to peer pressure has an influence on the
relationship between type of endorsement strategy and the image of the taboo brand.
Conceptual model
This previous mentioned hypotheses all come together in the conceptual model depicted in Figure 1.
17
Methodology
Experimental research method
The effect between several variables needs to be examined in this research, therefore an experimental survey was chosen as the most suitable research method. According to ‘t Hart, Boeije and Hox (2009), an experimental survey is an excellent way to investigate the effect between two or more variables, while at the same time being able as a researcher to spread the experiment among a large group of respondents to have a positive influence on the generalizability of the results.
Research design
This research has one dependent variable and four predictor variables. The image of the taboo brand is de dependent variable of this research, whereas type of endorsement strategy, type of brand concept, perceived endorser credibility and perceived sensitivity to peer pressure are the predictor variables. From these four predictor variables, the variables type of endorsement strategy and type of brand concept are manipulated. The type of endorsement strategy has three levels (e.g. celebrity endorser; equal-customer endorser; no endorser) and the type of brand concept has two levels (e.g. functional; symbolic).
The type of endorsement strategy and the type of brand concept were both considered between-subjects variables. A pro of the between-subjects variable is that it limits the chance that the different levels of one independent variable influences the answers on the other levels (Donk, n.d.). The researcher believed that for both manipulated variables, the respondent could discover the intention of the research when he or she is exposed to more than one level of both variables.
So in sum, this research applied a between-groups design, therefore the research design can be considered a 3 (celebrity endorser vs. equal-customer endorser vs. no endorser) x 2 (functional vs. symbolic) between-groups design.
18
Table 1. Research design.
Type of brand concept
Type of endorsement strategy
Functional Symbolic
Celebrity endorser Condition 1 Condition 2
Equal-customer endorser Condition 3 Condition 4 No endorser (control group) Condition 5 Condition 6
Pre-test and stimuli-selection
A pre-test was conducted in order to select the stimuli that will be included in the definite questionnaire. A total of 31 respondents participated in this pre-test, with the average age of 16 years old. Like mentioned in the theoretical background of this thesis, the researcher wants to make a distinction between functional and symbolic brand concepts. To compare more equivalent brands that every teenager deals with in life, the choice was made to use supermarket brands as functional brands and clothing stores as symbolic brands. Supermarkets main product offering fulfil the basic needs of food and drinks for consumers, which explains why these are categorized as functional. Clothing stores main product offerings fulfil the self-expressive needs of creating a certain image with a certain type of clothing and shoes, therefore these are categorized as symbolic.
To measure whether the respondents also believed that supermarkets fulfilled functional needs and clothing stores fulfilled symbolic needs, two propositions were asked after a short explanation in simple terms kind of consumer needs a functional and symbolic brand concept fulfils. These propositions were answered on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree). The respondents rated supermarket significantly (p < .001) more functional (M = 5.97; SD = 1.38), than symbolic (M = 3.03; SD = 1.91) and clothing stores significantly (p < .001) more symbolic (M = 6.03; SD = 1.05) than functional (M = 4.65; SD = 1.60). A total of three functional retail brands (DIRK, Lidl and Aldi) and three symbolic retail brands (Primark, C&A and Zeeman) have been selected for this pre-test as possible stimuli for the questionnaire. The researcher of this thesis consciously chose to include large retail brands as possible taboo brand stimuli. The reason behind this is that the researcher wanted to make sure to include functional and symbolic brands that teenagers are familiar with, because this would make the respondents more able to express whether they experience the shown brands as taboo. If the researcher would show unfamiliar brands, it is difficult to assess the honest
19 opinion of the respondent about the shown brands. This also explains why the familiarity with the brand is also measured in the pre-test. See Appendix A for the execution.
The selection of the used functional and symbolic brand
Although this research repeatedly discussed taboo brands in previous parts, one cannot just designate a certain brand as a taboo brand. One of the main goals of this pre-test is to figure out which functional and symbolic brand is considered most as a taboo brand. Respondents were shown different Dutch propositions about the chosen functional and symbolic brands to measure the level of shame they experienced towards these brands. The propositions were inspired by the research of Friedman and Friedman (1978) and the ‘Other-Shamer Scale’ of Goss, Gilbert and Allen (1994). Two examples of the used propositions are “If I would be seen with (brand X), then….I think others will look down on me” and “If I would be seen with (brand X), then….I feel insecure about how other might think of me”. The respondents were able to answer on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree). The functional and symbolic brand which evokes the most shame, was considered a taboo brand and therefore will be inserted as stimuli for this ultimate questionnaire of this research.
To check whether the scale is relevant and reliable, the principal component analysis (PCA) for the scale when measuring the Lidl brand will be further explained. The PCA with Varimax rotation showed that the eight propositions formed an uni-dimensional scale, since there was only one component with an Eigen Value above 1 (6.17). The first component explained 77.16% of the total variance and all items had a positive association with this component. The eight items altogether formed a very reliable scale (M = 2.81, SD = 1.54, α= 0.96).
When comparing the means of the experienced level of shame for the three shown supermarkets, it seems that the shown functional brands indeed had a significant influence on the experienced level of shame, F(1.58, 47.26) = 5.45, p = .011. It seems that Aldi evokes the highest level of shame (M = 3.21, SD = 1.90) compared to Lidl (M = 2.81, SD = 1.54) and DIRK (M = 2.50, SD = 1.44). With a post-hoc Bonferroni test, the levels of significance between the three means were also measured. This analysis showed that on the one hand, the mean difference between Lidl and DIRK was not significant, (MD = 0.30, SE = 0.23, p = .582), but that on the other hand, the mean difference between Lidl and Aldi (MD = -0.41, SE = 0.15, p < .001) and DIRK and Aldi (MD = -0.71, SE = 0.25, p < .001) were significant. Although the brand familiarity with Aldi is the lowest (M = 4.90; SD = 2.11) compared to Lidl (M = 6.23; SD = 1.11) and DIRK (M = 5.45; SD = 2.14), Aldi is still chosen as the
20 functional taboo brand for this research. The reason for this choice lies behind the fact that the evoked feeling of shame of a brand is considered the most important aspect of taboo brands (Haveman, 2003; Beverling, 2012), therefore the familiarity with the brand is less key.
When comparing the means of the experienced level of shame for the three shown clothing stores, it seems that the shown symbolic brands indeed had a significant influence on the experienced level of shame, F(2, 60) = 35.04, p < .001. It seems that Zeeman evokes the highest level of shame (M = 4.00, SD = 1.96) compared to Primark (M = 1.63, SD = 0.84) and C&A (M = 2.55, SD = 1.72). With a post-hoc Bonferroni test, the levels of significance between the three means were also measured. This analysis showed that the mean differences between C&A and Primark (MD = 0.92, SE = 0.29, p < .001), C&A and Zeeman (MD = -1.44, SE = 0.26, p < .001) and Primark and Zeeman (MD = -2.36, SE = 0.30, p < .001) were all significant. Although the brand familiarity with Zeeman is the lowest (M = 4.84; SD = 2.28), compared to Primark (M = 6.74; SD = 0.68) and C&A (M = 6.00; SD = 1.71), the brand is also still chosen as the symbolic taboo brand for this research.
The selection of the used celebrity and equal-customer endorser
The equal-customer endorser will be chosen by the researcher herself based on the celebrity endorser that is the most positively evaluated out of the pre-test. In order to have as much as control as possible in the experimental conditions, the researcher has chosen not to pre-test the equal-customer endorser to diminish the possible differences in the physical appearances of both the celebrity endorser and the equal-customer endorser.
The selection of the celebrity endorser was based on three pictures of celebrities who are currently popular among Dutch teenagers. The range of popularity was assessed in that the chosen celebrities were all discussed as a hot topic in (multiple) media channels over the past year and were continuously popular based on their followers on social media. Based on these criteria, the Dutch rapper Lil’ Kleine (Hollander, 2015), Dutch You-Tube artist EnzoKnol (Meulder, 2015) and American socialite and reality-star Kylie Jenner (Vulpo, 2015) were selected as possible celebrity endorsers. It is important that the respondents were familiar with the celebrity in order to really have an effect as a celebrity endorser, therefore the proposition was asked to what extent the respondent is familiar with the person shown on the image. This question could be answered on a seven-point bipolar scale (1 = unfamiliar, 7 = familiar). Following this question, the respondents were asked to fill in who they think the person on the shown image was.
21 The user-imagery is one of the issues when considering taboo brands (Haveman, 2003; Beverling, 2012), therefore the researcher wants to make sure that the used celebrity endorser has a user-imagery that fits the teenage target group. Therefore, the respondents got a set of propositions to assess the celebrity’s image. These propositions were inspired by Pecheux and Derbaix (1999) and Geuens, Wijters and De Wulf, (2009). Two examples of these propositions are “I think this person entertains” and “I think this person is cool”. These propositions were answered on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree). See Appendix A for all the propositions. The celebrity that is evaluated the most positively, will be included as the celebrity endorser in this research.
To check whether the scale is relevant and reliable, the principal component analysis (PCA) for the scale when measuring the Dutch rapper Lil’Kleine will be further explained. The PCA with Varimax rotation showed that the eight propositions formed an uni-dimensional scale, since there was only one component with an Eigen Value above 1 (3.54). The first component explained 70.72% of the total variance and all items had a positive association with this component. The eight items altogether formed a very reliable scale (M = 4.87, SD = 1.28, α= 0.88).
When comparing the means of the celebrity’s image, it seems that the shown celebrities did not have a significant influence on the image of the celebrity, F(1.90, 56.94) = 2.47, p = .096 and the post-hoc Bonferroni test also supported this insignificant result with the fact that the mean differences between the three celebrities were not significant. However, after a discussion with the thesis supervisor, the decision was made to still look at the means scores in order to decide which celebrity to include. The reason for this decision is that the researcher looks at the absolute average score on the image of the shown celebrity, but also takes into consideration the average score on the familiarity with the shown celebrity.
The results then seem that Lil’Kleine has the most positive image (M = 4.88, SD = 1.28) compared to Kylie Jenner (M = 4.22, SD = 01.19) and EnzoKnol (M = 4.45, SD = 1.40). The results also indicated that the familiarity with Lil’Kleine is also the greatest (M = 5.13; SD = 2.49), compared to EnzoKnol (M = 4.94; SD = 2.41) and Kylie Jenner (M = 4.90; SD = 2.51), therefore Lil’ Kleine is chosen as celebrity endorser for this research.
Stimuli material
Based on the results of the pre-test, Aldi was selected as functional brand, Zeeman was selected as symbolic brand and Dutch rapper Lil’Kleine as the celebrity endorser. Based on
22 the physical appearances of Lil’Kleine, an unknown individual was chosen as equal-customer endorser. The researcher has tried to provide an equal-customer endorser with the same gender, hair colour, and body image as the celebrity endorser. Each respondent was exposed to an advertisement in the form of a poster, which depicted the brand logo, the self-created slogan “Buy wherever you want….I do that too” (Koop waar je wilt…dat doe ik ook) and the endorser. The control group was exposed to an advertisement in which only the brand logo was depicted. See Appendix B for the advertisements.
Table 2. Research design with stimuli.
Type of brand concept
Type of endorsement strategy
Functional Symbolic
Celebrity endorser Lil’ Kleine and Aldi Lil’ Kleine and Zeeman Equal-customer endorser Unknown and Aldi Unknown and Zeeman No endorser (control group) Aldi Zeeman
Data collection
A self-administered questionnaire was used, in which a combination of scale questions, open questions and multiple choice questions were used to collect the data. Since there were six different conditions, six different versions of the questionnaire were developed. In order to create as much control as possible for the researcher, all six versions had the exact same questions. The only difference between the versions could be assigned to the manipulated endorsers and the brands in the advertisements.
The respondents for this research were selected via a cluster sampling method. Two schools in total, one in the Dutch city Schiedam and the other in the Dutch city Spijkenisse, were willing to make a few classes available in the age group 13 to 19 years old. Since most of the respondents were under the age of eighteen, the researcher notified the parents with a letter that was sent to them via email two weeks before the actual data collection started (See Appendix C). Parents could notify the researcher when they objected the participation of their child. In case the researcher did not get any responds from the parents, this indicated that they implicitly approved the participation of their child (Commissie Ethiek Afdeling Communicatiewetenschap, 2014). A total of 238 respondents filled in the questionnaires.
23 Respondents and research procedure
Respondents
The respondents were randomly assigned to either one of the six conditions. At request of the participating schools, the questionnaires were printed out for each respondent individually, since the schools did not have the resources to arrange a computer for each student. Each version of the questionnaire was printed in equally amounts and the researcher tried to hand out equal numbers of each version in all the different classes. The final sample had a total of 238 respondents (N = 238) and the average age was 14.83 years (age range: 12 – 18, SD = 1.65), from which 50.4% were boys and 49.2% were girls.
Randomisation
The numbers in Table 3 show that the respondents were quite equally distributed over the six different conditions.
Table 3. Distribution of respondents
Type of brand concept
Type of endorsement strategy
Functional Symbolic
Celebrity endorser 42 respondents 41 respondents Equal-customer endorser 35 respondents 40 respondents No endorser (control group) 41 respondents 39 respondents
Whether the randomization of the respondents across the six experimental conditions was successful, was examined by looking at the distribution of the control variables.
A Chi-square was conducted to examine the distribution of age and education level across the six experimental conditions. This analysis showed that the conditions did not significantly differ with regard to gender, χ² (5) = 1.68, p = .898 and education level, χ² (10) = 5.88, p = .830. These results indicated that age and education level did not have to be used as covariates.
A MANOVA was conducted with the six conditions as the independent variables and age and experienced level of shame towards the shown brand as dependent variables. The multivariate test using Pillai’s Trace shows, that there are significant differences of age and the experienced level of shame towards the shown brand across the six conditions, V = 0.12, F(10, 458) = 3.00; p =.001. However, the univariate tests partly support this result and show that the six conditions did significantly differ on the experienced level of shame towards the
24 shown brand, F(5, 229) = 5.92; p < .001, but does not significantly differ on age, F(5, 229) = 0.21; p = .996. The results indicated that only the experienced level of shame towards the shown brand had to be used as a covariate in the analyses. However, the researcher decided based on the argumentation given in the method section, to still add age and gender as covariates in the analyses.
Research procedure
Before the respondents started the questionnaire, they were informed about research institute ASCoR, the respondent’s anonymity, the research procedure and they were finally asked to sign the informed consent. The questionnaire then started with the advertisement and depicted, depending on the condition the respondent was in, either a functional or symbolic taboo brand in combination with either a celebrity endorser, an equal-customer endorser or no-endorser at all. The manipulation checks for type of endorser strategy and type of brand concept followed after this advertisement.
After these manipulation checks, questions followed to measure the image of the taboo brands. These questions were followed by a bipolar scale measuring the perceived endorser credibility and a collection of statements measuring the respondent’s sensitivity to peer pressure. Finally, the respondents were exposed to a collection of statements measuring the experienced level of shame towards the shown brand and some demographic questions, such as age, gender and education level. This experienced level of shame and demographic variables were considered control variables.
Measures
The questionnaire was originally developed in Dutch, but for this thesis report some example questions were translated to English. The original questionnaire can be found in Appendix D. Image of taboo brand
Like mentioned in the theoretical background, there are three brand image dimensions (e.g. cognitive, affective and sensory). The brand image measurement scale of this thesis will mainly focus on the cognitive dimension of brand image, since this dimension includes associations that are linked to non-product related attributes (e.g. user imagery), functional benefits (e.g. problem solving, fulfilling a basic need) and symbolic benefits (e.g. social approval, prestige) (Keller, 1993; Cho, Fiore & Russell, 2015), which sums up the main imagery issues that taboo brands have to tackle (Haveman, 2003; Beverling 2012). The image of a taboo brand is measured based on five propositions inspired by the method used by
25 Lassar, Mittal and Shara (1995), Chang and Chieng (2006) and Esch et al. (2006). Examples of these propositions are “I believe this brand focuses on quality…”, “This brand gives me the feeling that I belong to a group…” and “I believe this brand fits my personality…”.
A principal component analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation showed that the six items formed an uni-dimensional scale, since there was only one component with an Eigen Value above 1 (2.85). The first component explained 47.46 % of the total variance and almost all items had a positive association with this component. Only the item “This brand gives me the feeling that I belong to a certain group” (Ik krijg bij dit merk het gevoel dat ik bij een groep hoor) had a factor loading of 0.31, therefore this item was removed from the scale. The item “I believe this brand fits my personality” (Ik vind dat dit merk bij mijn persoonlijkheid past) had the strongest factor loading (0.81). The five items altogether formed a reasonable reliable scale (M = 2.76, SD = 0.91, α = 0.79) with the answer categories ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). Therefore, higher scores on this scale indicated a higher level of positive image of the taboo brand.
Perceived endorser credibility
The perceived endorser credibility is measured based on a seven-point bipolar scale that was developed by Ohanian (1990) and adapted by Kelting and Hamilton Rice (2008). This scale measured fifteen dimensions of endorser credibility (Ohanian, 1990; Yoon, Kim & Kim, 1998), like described in the theoretical background of this thesis. In total nine items were inserted to measure the overall perceived endorser credibility. Three items assessed the
attractiveness of the endorser, examples are “unattractive/attractive” and “ugly/beautiful”.
The three following items assessed the trustworthiness of the endorser, examples are “insincere/sincere” and “unreliable/reliable”. The three final items assessed the expertise of
the endorser, examples are “not expert/expert” and “inexperienced/experienced”.
A principal component analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation showed that the nine items formed a three-dimensional scale, since there were three components with an Eigen Value above 1 (3.12; 2.05; 1.10). The first component explained 26.59 % of the total variance and the first three items had a positive association with this component. The second component explained 23.10% of the total variance and the second three items had a positive association with this component. The third component explained 20.02 % of the total variance and the final two items had a positive association with this component. Only the item “Inexperienced - Experienced” (Onervaren - Ervaren) had a factor loading of 0.42, therefore this item was
26 removed from the scale. The item “Unattractive - Attractive” (Onaantrekkelijk - Aantrekkelijk) had the strongest factor loading (0.89).
Based on these results, the decision was made to create three subscales, just as conducted in the research of Ohanian (1990) and Kelting and Hamilton Rice (2008). The first three items altogether formed a very reliable scale for the subscale dimension attractiveness of the
endorser (M = 3.76, SD = 1.32, α = 0.79). The second three items altogether formed a
reasonable reliable scale for the subscale dimension trustworthiness of the endorser (M = 4.33, SD = 1.15, α = 0.77). The final two items together formed a reasonable reliable scale for the subscale dimension expertise of the endorser (M = 3.52, SD = 1.10, α = 0.74). All three scales had answer categories ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). Therefore, higher scores on this scale indicated a higher level of endorser credibility.
Sensitivity to peer pressure
Sensitivity to peer pressure is measured with eight propositions which could be answered on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree). The propositions were based on the research method by Santor, Messervey and Kusumakar (1999) and Gil, Kwon, Good and Johnson (2012). Examples of the inserted propositions are “I often feel pressured to do things I wouldn’t normally do” and “I’ve skipped classes, when others have urged me to”. A principal component analysis (PCA) with Varimax rotation showed that the eight items formed a two-dimensional scale, since there were two components with an Eigen Value above 1 (3.51; 1.44). The first component explained 31.04% of the total variance and the final six items had a positive association with this component. The second component explained 23.89% of the total variance and the first two items had a positive association with this component. The item “I often experience myself under pressure to do things that I normally would not do” (Ik voel mij vaak onder druk staan dingen te doen die ik normal gesproken niet zou doen) had the strongest factor loading (0.79).
Based on these results, the decision was made to create two subscales. The last six items altogether formed a reasonable reliable first subscale measuring the sensitivity to peer
pressure for breaking rules (M = 1.76, SD = 0.84, α = 0.77). The first two items together
formed a reasonable reliable second subscale measuring the sensitivity to peer pressure for
group pressure (M = 3.52, SD = 1.10, α = 7.23). Both scales had answer categories ranging
from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). Therefore, higher scores on this scale indicated a higher level of sensitivity to peer pressure.
27 Manipulation checks
Before the analyses can be conducted, it was necessary to check whether the manipulation of this research succeeded. To check if the type of brand concept manipulation worked out, a simple explanation of both brand concepts was given in the questionnaire, followed by the question whether the shown brand fulfilled symbolic or functional needs. Since the answer possibilities to the manipulation check question were categorical (See Appendix D), a chi-square had to be conducted to check whether there is a significant relationship between the condition the respondent was in and their answers to the manipulation questions.
Table 4. Chi-Square of type of exposed brand concept on the type of experienced brand
concept
Df X2 N p
Type of brand concept (functional vs. symbolic)
1 95.80 238 .000
The chi-square test results depicted in Table 4 show that there is a significant relationship between the type of brand concept the respondents were exposed to and the type of brand concepts the respondents experienced, χ² (1) = 95.80, p < .001.
Table 5. Descriptive statistics of the manipulation check of type of brand concept
Type of shown brand concept Type of
experienced brand concept
Functional brand (N = 118) Symbolic brand (N = 120) Functional brand 114 respondents 76 respondents
Symbolic brand 4 respondents 44 respondents
Still, when considering the descriptive statistics of this manipulation, which are depicted in Table 5, a critical note has to be made. Although there is a significant relationship between the type of brand concept the respondent is exposed to and the type of brand concept they experienced, these numbers indicate that the manipulation did not completely worked, since more than half of the respondents exposed to a symbolic brand, experienced it as a functional brand. These descriptive statistics show that the analysis should be taken with care. Possible explanations and flaws of this partial manipulation fail will be described in the discussion part of this thesis.
