Do YouTubers’ Claims Matter?
Impact of endorser credibility on brand equity
Dan Wu
Student Number: 10919058
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s programme Communication Science
Supervisor: dhr. dr. J.W.M. (Joost) Verhoeven
Table of Contents Abstract ... 3 Introduction ... 4 Theoretical Background ... 7 Brand Equity ... 7 YouTuber-the Endorser ... 8 Endorser Credibility ... 8
Acceptance of Search, Experience, and Credence Claims ... 10
Acceptance of Search Claims ... 11
Acceptance of Experience Claims ... 12
Acceptance of Credence Claims ... 12
Method ... 13
Participants ... 13
Materials ... 15
Procedures and Measures ... 15
Brand Equity ... 16
Endorser Credibility ... 16
Acceptance of Search, Experience, and Credence Claims ... 16
Results ... 17
Descriptive Statics ... 17
Multiple Regression Model ... 18
Mediation Model Analysis ... 19
Conclusion & Discussion ... 23
Implications ... 26
Limitations and Future Research ... 28
Conclusion ... 29
References ... 29
Appendix ... 36
Questionnaire of Corporate Communication Master Thesis Survey ... 36
Abstract
We investigate how the audience’s acceptance of search, experience, and credence claims about a product mediates the relationship between YouTubers’ source credibility and audience perceived brand equity. Previous research established a link between endorser credibility on the one hand and attractiveness, trustworthiness and expertise on the other (Ohanian, 1990). This research intends to find if the acceptance of these claims mediates the relationship with each of these attributes. Our findings from a quantitative survey confirm that YouTubers’ overall credibility increases perceived brand equity, and that especially YouTubers’ attractiveness has a significant impact. In addition, the more people accept product experience claims, the more brand preference and loyalty they will develop. However, our findings do not confirm a mediate relationship of verification of search, experience, and credence claims towards the three correlations: attractiveness-brand equity, trustworthiness-brand equity and expertise-brand equity. This study is one of the first to empirically add visualized product claims variables into the model of YouTubers’ credibility and brand equity. Although the mediate relationship is rejected, the identified relationships between (1) YouTubers’ attractiveness and (2) audiences’ acceptance of experience claims with brand equity can be used in managerial communication situations.
Introduction
Since invented in 2005, YouTube has been recognized as a cutting-edge media channel in modern society (Grossman, 2006). Different from traditional visual media, it delivers millions of videos globally that customers can watch any time they want. Due to its “no security officer” policy, various distinctive YouTubers emerged and endeared themselves to the public by holding a camera and presenting their life experience. Individuals can now create their own channel and attract millions of viewers by delivering alluring content and regularly uploading self-made videos. Ordinary people that mimic their idols have become high-profile stars and their videos are watched by large numbers of users (YouTube, n.d.). More than 36 million people have subscribed to the channel which belongs to the Swedish comedian PewDiePie and upwards of 200 million monthly views have been recorded in his channel (Vidstats, 2015). The video in which he introduced the American subscription box service brand Loot Crate has attracted more than 9 million views. The brand and corporation founded in 2012 became widely popular afterwards.
There is no doubt that YouTube is an ideal platform for people to evaluate purchased items and communicate via comments. YouTubers who release product reviews through videos and help people to make a better purchase decision are recognized as “market mavens” (Geissler & Edison, 2005; Wang, 2015). When people are searching information about a brand online, YouTube’s shopping experts can affect their future buying intentions and brand perceptions by providing knowledge and impartial reviews. With an increasing audience base, YouTube celebrities are gaining influence in the modern business environment (Holmbom, 2015).
YouTube has had a significant impact on brand advertising and corporate communication. An analysis revealed that YouTube’s mobile channel alone attracts more 18-to-49 year-olds than
any US cable network (YouTube, n.d.) Consumers now largely rely on social media when they wish to know a brand or make a purchase decision. (Hinz, Skiera, Barrot & Becker, 2011). YouTube is a particularly interesting channel as it allows its users to find previously unknown peers that filter information and help them throughout the customer journey. The YouTube stars make detailed brand and product claims that audiences are tempted to accept and process. The extent to which audiences do so hinges on the credibility they ascribe to individual endorsers.
Researchers have found that source credibility positively influences the perceived validity of information (Applbaum & Anatol, 1972). Ohanian (1990) developed a framework where perceived attractiveness, trustworthiness and expertise, strengthen credibility and persuasiveness of a message. Moreover, Ling and Liu (2008) illustrated that customers not only evaluate information but also construct brand awareness and belief based on endorser credibility. That is, when consumers perceive the endorser to be credible, their approach towards the brand will be more positive. It has also been demonstrated that the degree of credibility of the endorser positively affects consumer-based brand equity through improved brand credibility (Spry, Pappu & Bettina Cornwell, 2011). YouTube stars have two characteristics that support their credibility: (1) they are often micro-celebrities (Senft, 2008), and (2) they are perceived as unbiased.
Although the relationship between endorsement credibility and brand equity is widely discussed, limited study has been done on the relationship between endorser credibility, the acceptability of specific YouTubers’ product statements and perceived brand equity. Economists argue that the main goal of corporate communication is to deliver information to customers (Johan & Noor, 2013). People can decipher this information properly through recognizing signals provided in the advertisement and determine their brand evaluation afterwards (Ford, Smith & Swasy, 1988). “Search”, “experience” or “credence” claims that exist in the products influence
how consumers meticulously evaluate the realization and the reliability of the advertisement (Ford., et al., 1988). As a consequence, search, experience, and credence claims can be an important path to transfer endorser credibility into brand equity. YouTube videos that are visualized and easy to be re-viewed are more likely to add information and expand consumers’ identification of various aspects of the context (Risko, 2012). Therefore, it is necessary to examine whether the acceptance of search, experience, and credence claims could mediate the relationship between endorser credibility and brand equity. On the other hand, as YouTubers are becoming more and more popular and influencing people’s viewing demographic and lifestyle gradually, it is particularly imperative to complete the gap between endorsement credibility and brand equity regarding perceivable properties of products from the YouTubers.
Endorser credibility will be measured by three factors including attractiveness, trustworthiness, and expertise (Ohanian, 1990). We will mainly focus on how people perceive brand equity through judging celebrity credibility and engaging their acceptance of product information they have seen. In this research, we set out to examine the following research questions:
RQ1: To what extent do YouTubers’ source characteristics influence consumer perceived brand equity when they are introducing products to their audience?
RQ2: How does the acceptance of search, experience, and credence claims about the product mediate the relationship between the YouTubers’ source credibility and brand equity?
By investigating these, this study aims to create a deeper understanding of endorsement credibility effects on brand equity and provide an empirical reference to corporation communication through YouTubers.
Theoretical Background
Brand Equity
Kotler (1991) defined brand as “a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or combination of them” which allows audiences to recognize the products and services of certain corporations or distinguish them from competitors’. Brand equity denotes the consumer perceived value of a brand name and other brand features (Gladden, Milne & Sutton, 1998). With the core elements of brand awareness and brand image, brand equity mirrors how users realize, judge and perform in terms of the brand, thus assist to build up a good relationship with stakeholders (Jara & Cliquet, 2012). Higher levels of brand equity make people feel more intimate and loyal to the brand and corporation.
The endorsers’ sources usually streamed to the authorized brand and developed into the basic evaluation framework of related brand (Keller, 2013). When a brand is endorsed, people may connect endorsers’ sources (e.g. what he does, what he talks about, etc.) with the brand. The chain reaction can impact perceived brand equity afterwards (Spry et al., 2011). To be specific, credible endorsers who imply important information about product features and quality may decrease people’s risk evaluation and thus strengthen product and brand preference (Dean, 1999). For example, the brand strength of Tide was greatly reinforced with the engagement of the diverting social experiments and inventive pranks of Andrew Hales. His “Tide Pod Challenge” video has obtained more than 47 million views. In it, the hilarious YouTube star bumps into all the strangers in his way, makes his shirt dirty, washes it several times and ends up with a perfectly clean shirt. People easily remember the situation and with it recall the image of the trustworthy and convenient detergent he used to clean his shirt. As an ordinary YouTuber, his claims about Tide are more credible and effective than direct commercial advertisements.
YouTuber-the Endorser
Friedman & Friedman (1979) specified that a celebrity endorser can be any individual that has been widely recognized by the public due to his or her accomplishments. Traditional concepts of celebrity endorsements in advertising date back to 19th century and evolved in the 20th century when new media appeared: radio (the 1930s), television (1950s), and the Internet (1990s) (Erdogan, 1999). Due to substantial use of social media and convenient sharing of content on homepages and channels, ordinary people today can also attract a large amount of online followers and have substantial impact on their perceptions. In particular, Senft (2008) pointed out that many YouTubers can be viewed as micro-celebrities. They create a tailored online presentation and strategically manage their subscribers. Their YouTube channel can be a pathway to boost sales and raise interest for a brand (Claretta, 2014).
According to McCracken (1989), endorsement is a persuasive marketing method in modern society. It has been employed in brand promotion and is a preferred way to engage a credible third party (McPherson & Li, 2012). The credibility of an endorser has been proved to positively influence brand equity (Spry et al., 2011). Therefore, YouTubers who have certain amounts of subscribers and make a public statement saying that they support something may influence how their audiences assess a brand.
Endorser Credibility
Studies have found that endorser credibility consists of three elements: attractiveness, trustworthiness and expertise (Ohanian, 1990).
Joseph (1982) asserted that attractive broadcasters are more likely to affect product image. Both physical and temperament attractiveness could lead to a positive assessment of brand and organization (Erdogan, 1999). Social media platforms enable audiences to watch videos by attractive YouTubers. Therefore, brand and product endorsements by attractive YouTubers could have significant impact on consumers.
Audiences determine an endorser’s trustworthiness based on perceived authenticity, credibility and morality (Van der Waldt, Van Loggerenberg, Wehmeyer, 2009). When the person is perceived as trustworthy, the information disseminated is likely to be accepted and deemed valid (Ohanian, 1990). Different from traditional celebrities, YouTubers build up trustworthiness by constantly satisfying audiences’ demands providing unbiased information. Therefore when a trustworthy YouTuber has introduced a brand and give positive evaluation about it, audience’ perceptions of this brand will more easily be positively affected.
The factor expertise refers to the level of knowledge, professional explanation or skills that the endorser can provide in his or her communication (Ohanian, 1990). Metzger, Flanagin, and Medders (2010) found that discerning expertise and intelligence are critical in determining a source’s credibility and usefulness. They additionally found that consumers particularly consider indicators such as “topic mastery, writing style, spelling and grammar and the extent of detail” in making this judgment (Metzger et al., 2010). By obtaining more useful knowledge, people will also improve their recognition towards the product and brand.
Endorsement of the products has been considered one of the most effective mechanisms of brand communication (Sabunwala, 2013). Previous research revealed that endorsement affects customers’ opinion about product characteristics (Dean, 1999). The positive band endorsement will
then influence the brand equity of the products (Schlecht, 2003). YouTubers who are regarded as credible may also convey both strong financial and perceived brand value to the audiences.
Hence the following hypotheses are outlined:
H1a: YouTubers who possess more attractiveness in the product introduction video will have a more positive impact on brand equity.
H1b: YouTubers who possess more trustworthiness in the product introduction video will have a more positive impact on brand equity.
H1c: YouTubers who possess more expertise in the product introduction video will have a more positive impact on brand equity.
Acceptance of Search, Experience, and Credence Claims
The influence of endorser credibility on brand equity can be further explained through the acceptance of three claims during the communication process. Whether people accept search, experience, and credence claims affects how they assess a brand when making a purchase decision (Darby & Karni, 1973). Specifically, search claims refer to the attributes of the product that can be justified through the available information of products such as brand name and color. Experience
claims introduce genuine sensory attributes when consumers own the product, observe it and learn
more through their experience using the product. Credence claims indicate product or service features that cannot even be tested after several purchases (Wright & Lynch, 1995). For instance, whether pears contain pesticide cannot be demonstrated either before or after consuming the product. Therefore it is called “credence claim”. The core value of establishing brand equity and promoting a purchase is to understand how people feel when they combine various advertising
assertions with their inherent knowledge (Ford et al., 1988). The search-experience-credence framework has shown every sign of face validity, which made people immediately correlate the claims with the brand equity in the YouTube video. As noted above, the “associated network memory model” generated association between endorsement and brand equity (Till, 1998). By instinctively verifying the claims of the products in their videos, a professional and dependable YouTuber could easily induce stronger brand recognition.
Thus we can propose that the relationship between endorser credibility and brand equity could be mediated by search, experience, and credence claims. Concretely, how people assess the brand depends on diverse type of search, experience, and credence claims.
Acceptance of Search Claims. Firstly, search claims can be verified before purchasing by observing the appearance of products or the explicit properties. Baker & Churchill (1977) found that when the product or brand is attractiveness-correlated, the attractive endorser can generate better brand evaluation and higher purchase intention. The general match-up theory indicated that endorsers’ attractiveness only matters when the endorser and the product attributes are paired, so that it can generate more positive attitude towards the brand (Kamins, 1990). The perceived attractiveness is built on the congruence of the endorser and the product external claims (type, appearance, etc.). Similarly, in the YouTuber video, when people deem more attractiveness of the YouTuber, they must also identify the search claims of the product. With the exquisite and product centered video, people will be more likely to accept search claims when they see the attractive YouTuber. The acceptance of the search claims help audiences to diminish uncertainty and potential information costs, thus produce added value to the brand (Erdem & Swait, 1998). For example, a stylish YouTuber will make the audience concentrate more on the color, type or design
of the lipstick that is being discussed. The higher the acceptance of these claims, the higher level of brand equity people will perceive towards the product. Therefore we propose that:
H2: Acceptance of search claims explains the effects of YouTubers’ attractiveness on brand equity.
Acceptance of Experience Claims. Wang & Lin (2008) defined trust as the extent to which a relying party believes another party is willing and able to act in his or her interest. YouTuber who is perceived as trustworthy and has already used the product is more likely to be perceived as honest and reliable. This strengthens the audience’s confidence about the experience claims he or she makes (Griffiths, 2005). Experience claims address people’s risk evaluation for actually using the product. Thus when watching the YouTuber’s video, the verification of experience claim, such as trying the products and judging the function of the products will entice more dependable assessment towards the product and the brand. When YouTuber’s experience of using a certain product is well believed, the audience feel like they are integrated into the experiencing process, they will establish more appreciation towards the product’s brand equity. Thus we propose that:
H3: Acceptance of experience claims explains the effects of YouTubers’ trustworthiness on brand equity.
Acceptance of Credence Claims. Consumers cannot inspect credence claims even after they have operated the product, so missing clues will persuade them to exert more expectation towards the endorser (Srinivasan& Till, 2002). Source expertise reveals that endorsers succeed in conveying plausible judgment (Hovland & Weiss, 1951). YouTubers who always provide a comprehensive product description or unusual perspective on testing the product in their videos satisfy audiences’ demands for credence information. The expert YouTuber appeared to be the
most appropriate endorser to make credence claims. In other words, the more professional they are perceived, the more credence claims people will verify. The recognition of YouTubers’ expertise greatly enhance the acceptance of the products’ credence claims.
The strength of a brand which is the core elements of brand equity relies on whether it can reduce people’s risk assessment towards its products (Smith & Park, 1992). For example, in the case of an organic milk, the “organic” cannot be tested easily by the consumers. However, when they realize that YouTubers are helping them to test the “organic” characteristic and they accept the claims, they will formulate a more positive attitude towards the brand. Therefore, the brand strength and equity will be better developed when people accept more of the credence claims from the YouTubers.Based on this, the following hypothesis is advanced:
H4: Acceptance of credence claims explains the effects of YouTubers’ expertise on brand equity.
Figure 1. Model of Endorser Credibility- Acceptance of SEC claims- Brand Equity
Method Participants Attractiveness Trustworthiness Acceptance of Search Claims Expertise Acceptance of Experience Claims Acceptance of Credence Claims Brand Equity
Approximately 153 convenience samples ranging from 18-60 years old were collected, a total of 139 (N=139) responded to the questionnaire after watching the full version video and took part in the complete case study and survey design. A possible reason for the missing sample could be the difficulty in loading the video. Participants received a website link to the English survey and were instructed to the questionnaire step by step. The necessary requirement for respondents were that they are eligible to understand English video content. The average age of the respondents that participated in this study was 26.85 (SD=7.47). The sample was composed of 44.6% (N=62) males and 55.4% females (N=77). The survey was distributed from November 18th to December 8th, within which period people were free to participate.
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for the Sample of Subjects
Note N=139
Item Description Frequency Percentage
Age 18 to 25 years 86 62% 26 to 35 years 37 27% 36 to 45 years 11 8% 46 to 55 years 4 3% 56 to 65 years 1 1% Gender Male 62 45% Female 77 55%
Current Status Student 65 47%
Employed 62 45%
Self-employed 6 4%
Materials
The aim of the survey is to provide insights into the relationship between YouTubers’ credibility and the brand equity of the product they are introducing through their videos. As this type of endorsement is usually different from the traditional advertisement, we refer to endorsement credibility as the independent variables and the acceptance of search, experience, and credence claims as the mediate variables. The actor and content of the video were selected with these characteristics in mind. The main character is a medium known man who has been a technology gadget review YouTuber for 4 years and attracted 230,000 followers to his channel. His videos have received more than 36 million views in total (until November 18th, 2016) .Therefore, he is qualified to be a micro-celebrity endorser. Furthermore, in order to reduce bias, we only selected neutral brands in the public’s eye. That is, people do not have extreme negative or positive attitude towards the brand beforehand.
Procedures and Measures
A survey method was adopted for this study to measure the variables by asking groups of questions. It contained 2 prominent parts which are playing video and completing questionnaire. After reading the instruction, a 3 minutes 16 seconds video that displayed an extract of a YouTuber’s video and introduced a product was first showed to participants. Questions were conducted to evaluate the endorser’s credibility, the acceptance of search, experience, and credence claims and the perceived brand equity after watching the whole video. A total of 33 measurement items were chosen to measure these three main construct on a 7-point Likert scale. Items were initially developed from previous study including Ohanian (1990), Srinivasan& Till (2002) and
Shariq, Khan & Rizvi (2014). The specific approach and reliability of each sale is reported as followed.
Brand Equity is the dependent variable incorporating 8 statements in total, each measured on a seven-item Likert scale (ranging from 1= totally disagree to 7 = totally agree). This scale had a Cronbach’s α= .89(M= 4.22, SD= 1.26) indicating it is reliable.
Endorser Credibility is the independent variable which includes attractiveness, trustworthiness and expertise. We use 5 statements to scale each dimension and reach the answer by applying a seven-item Likert scale (ranging from 1= totally disagree to 7 = totally agree). Table 2 shows that Cronbach’s α of each dimension are respectively attractiveness=0.88 (M=4.85,
SD=2.08), trustworthiness= 0.96 (M=5.28, SD=1.25), expertise=0.94 (M=5.57, SD=1.25). This
means that the scale is reliable and the items measure the concept of endorser credibility well.
Acceptance of Search, Experience, and Credence Claims is the mediate variable consisting of three main aspects. A total of 10 questions on a seven-item Likert scale (ranging from 1= totally disagree to 7 = totally agree) are measured .The values of Cronbach’s α are separately acceptance of search claims=0.70 (M=5.59, SD=1.20), acceptance of experience claims=0.81 (M=5.84, SD=1.09). Those factors are both reliable to scale search and experience claims. Only one statement measures acceptance of credence claims (M=6.23, SD=1.37).
Table 2. Scale Reliability- Cronbach’s Alpha
Factor Number of Items Cronbach’s Alpha
Brand Equity(BE) 8 0.89
Note N=139
Results
Descriptive Statics
After cleaning the data, a total database number of 139 was available for analysis. Table 3 presents the means, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables. None of the control variables (gender, age, education level) affected the relationships under study and were therefore excluded from further analyses.
Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and correlations of all model variables.
Attractiveness 5 0.88
Trustworthiness 5 0.96
Expertise 5 0.94
Acceptance of SEC claims(ASEC) 10
Acceptance of Search(AS) 3 0.70 Acceptance of Experience(AE) 6 0.81 Acceptance of Credence(AC) 1 / Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. Attractiveness 4.85 2.08 2. Trustworthiness 5.28 1.25 .53*** 3. Expertise 5.57 1.25 .48*** .80*** 4. AS 5.59 1.20 .32*** .54*** .48*** 5. AE 5.84 1.09 .18* .50*** .58*** .61***
Note N= 139 *p<.05; **p<.01, *** p<.001
Multiple Regression Model
Next, we examined how endorser credibility including attractiveness, trustworthiness, and expertise predicts the dependent variable brand equity by conducting a multiple regression (see Table 4). The overall model explained 33 percent of variance in overall brand equity, which was displayed to be statistically significant, F (3,135) = 21.62, p < .001. An inspection of each predictor indicated that YouTuber’s attractiveness (b = .19, SE = .05, β = .32, p < .001) is a significant predictor of overall perceived brand equity. Specifically, per unit increase in the YouTuber’s attractiveness the level of brand equity sensed increases by 0.19. Therefore H1a is confirmed.
However, the relationships of trustworthiness (b = .14, SE = .12, β = .14) and expertise (b = .22, SE = .12, β = .22) of the YouTuber and brand equity were not significant, suggesting that the effect of people’s brand appreciation and loyalty does not depend on the level of trustworthiness and expertise of the YouTuber. Thus H1b and H1c were rejected.
Table 4. Multiple Regression Result for Endorser Credibility Predicting Brand Equity
Note R2 = .33 (N = 139, p < .001)
6. AC 6.23 1.37 .09 .34*** .39*** .48*** .68***
7. BE 4.22 1.26 .49*** .48*** .48*** .16 .28*** .13 /
Variable B SE β t R2 p Tolerance VIF
Overall 1.34 0.42 3.18 .00
Attractiveness 0.19 0.05 0.32 3.78 .24 .00 0.71 1.40
Trustworthiness 0.14 0.12 0.14 1.13 .23 .26 0.34 2.93
Mediation Model Analysis
Although the multiple regression failed to confirm H1b and H1c, high correlations of the independent variables (see Table 3) brings up the issue of multicollinearity. The analysis of correlations indicated that trustworthiness and expertise were near the level of multicollinearity (Trustworthiness [VIF] =2.93 tolerance (TOL) = .34. Expertise [VIF] =2.76 TOL = .36). VIF values greater than 10 are often considered multicollinearity (Neter, Wasserman & Kutner, 1985). However, in weaker models values that are more than 2.5 may be a consideration too. Therefore, when we come to the mediation model analysis, the simple regression between endorser credibility and acceptance of SEC claims could be carried out as a rigorous measurement.
For the first mediator model, we controlled the acceptance of search claims between the relationship of attractiveness and brand equity by doing a PROGESS regression. As indicated in table 5, YouTuber’s attractiveness was still a significant predictor of brand equity after controlling for the mediator, acceptance of search claims, which proved no mediation (b= .30, p< .001; b’= .30,
p< .001; Sobel’s Z= .09, p=.93). The result means controlling for acceptance of search claims
doesn't remove the effect of YouTuber’s attractiveness on brand equity. The indirect effect was tested using a bootstrap estimation approach with 1000 samples. It also showed the indirect coefficient was not significant (b = .04, SE = .03, 95% CI = -.054, .049). Our mediation is not significant. Thus, H2 is rejected.
Next, the variable acceptance of experience claims is applied as the mediator between YouTuber’s trustworthiness and brand equity. However, there is still no significant mediate effect (b= .48, p< .001; b’= .45, p< .001; Sobel’s Z= .60, p=.55). Therefore, controlling for acceptance of experience claims doesn't remove the effect of YouTuber’s trustworthiness on brand equity. Through using a bootstrap estimation approach with 1000 samples, we test the indirect effect. It
also revealed that the indirect coefficient was not significant (b = .03, SE = .04, 95% CI = -.077, .111). Our mediation model is not significant. Our hypothesis 3 is rejected.
H4 is rejected as well. As designated in table 5, since there is no significant influence of the model that acceptance of credence claim as the mediator and YouTuber expertise and brand equity as the independent and dependent variable (b= .48, p< .001; b’= .51, p< .001; Sobel’s Z=-.77,
p=.44). In addition, by using a bootstrap estimation approach with 1000 samples, the indirect effect
is tested. Result showed that the indirect coefficient was not significant (b = -.02, SE = .03, 95% CI = -.106, .023). The mediation effect doesn’t occur.
Table 5. Results of the Mediation Models
Note N = 139, p < .001 Variable B SE t R2 p Model 1 Attractiveness-BE 0.30 0.05 6.63 0.24 .00 Attractiveness-AS 0.18 0.05 3.89 0.10 .00 Attractiveness-AS-BE 0.30 0.05 6.24 0.24 .00 Model 2 Trustworthiness-BE 0.48 0.08 6.33 0.23 .00 Trustworthiness-AE 0.44 0.06 6.81 0.25 .00 Trustworthiness-AE-BE 0.45 0.09 5.15 0.23 .00 Model 3 Expertise-BE 0.48 0.08 6.36 0.23 .00 Expertise-AC 0.42 0.09 4.92 0.15 .00 Expertise-AC-BE 0.51 0.08 6.16 0.23 .00
Although acceptance of SEC claims cannot mediate the relationship between YouTuber’s credibility and the brand equity respectively, we are trying to find alternative explanations. Drawing from table 3, we can see that YouTuber’s attractiveness is correlated with acceptance of experience claims, YouTuber’s trustworthiness associates with acceptance of search and credence claims and YouTuber’s expertise also relates to acceptance of search and experience claims. Therefore we ran PROGESS regression analyse again with 5 new mediate models incorporating Attractiveness-AE-BE, Trustworthiness-AS-BE, Trustworthiness-AC-BE, Expertise-AS-BE, Expertise-AE-BE. Nonetheless, there was also no significant mediate effect in all the models (see Table 6). It means that controlling for acceptance of experience claims doesn't remove the effect of YouTuber’s attractiveness on brand equity (b= .30, p< .001; b’= .28, p< .001; Sobel’s Z=1.62,
p=.11). At the same time, controlling for acceptance of search and credence claims doesn't remove
the effect of YouTuber’s trustworthiness on perceived brand equity (Trustworthiness-AS-BE
b= .48, p< .001; b’= .55, p< .001; Sobel’s Z=-1.45, p=.15. Trustworthiness-AC-BE b= .48, p< .001; b’= .49, p< .001; Sobel’s Z=-.43, p=.66). Moreover, the variables-acceptance of search and
experience claims cannot explain the relationship between YouTuber’s expertise and audiences’ perceived brand equity as well (Expertise-AS-BE b= .48, p< .001; b’= .52, p< .001; Sobel’s Z=-.98,
p=.33. Expertise-AE-BE b= .48, p< .001; b’= .48, p< .001; Sobel’s Z=-.07, p=.95).
Table 6. Results of the Mediated Relationships of Attractiveness-AE-BE, Trustworthiness-AS-BE, Trustworthiness-AC-BE, Expertise-AS-BE
Variable B SE t R2 p
Model 4
Attractiveness-AE 0.10 0.04 2.19 0.03 .03 Attractiveness-AE-BE 0.28 0.04 6.17 0.28 .00 Model 5 Trustworthiness-BE 0.48 0.08 6.33 0.23 .00 Trustworthiness-AS 0.52 0.07 7.47 0.29 .00 Trustworthiness-AS-BE 0.55 0.09 6.16 0.24 .00 Model 6 Trustworthiness-BE 0.48 0.08 6.33 0.23 .00 Trustworthiness-AC 0.37 0.09 4.22 0.12 .00 Trustworthiness-AC-BE 0.49 0.08 6.09 0.23 .00 Model 7 Expertise-BE 0.48 0.08 6.36 0.23 .00 Expertise-AS 0.46 0.07 6.37 0.23 .00 Expertise-AS-BE 0.52 0.09 6.06 0.23 .00 Model 8 Expertise-BE 0.48 0.08 6.36 0.23 .00 Expertise-AE 0.50 0.06 8.25 0.33 .00 Expertise-AE-BE 0.48 0.09 5.14 0.23 .00 Note N = 139, p < .001
In the end, the relationship between YouTuber’s credibility and brand equity cannot be explained by the acceptance of SEC claims. Nevertheless, by examining Table 3, it is evident that there are certain correlations between the verification of SEC claims and brand equity. Thus, a multiple regression was used to investigate the interconnection between those two variables.
Results (see Table 7) showed that the overall model explained 9 percent of variance in brand equity, which was relatively significant, F (3,135) = 4.17, p < .001. The extending examination of each variable showed that acceptance of experience claims is the significant causal variable with brand equity (b = .41, SE = .15, β = .36, p < .01). When people identify more experience claims in the YouTuber’s statement, they will assume a higher brand equity. Nonetheless, the other two factors including acceptance of search and credence claims are not significant predictors of brand equity (AS b = .00, SE = .11, β = .00. AC b = -.11, SE = .11, β = -.11). Accordingly, the acceptance of experience claims could be a valuable influencer towards brand equity.
Table 7. Multiple Regression Result for Acceptance of SEC claims Predicting Brand Equity
Note R2 = .09 (N = 139, p < .001)
Conclusion & Discussion
The relationship between endorser credibility and brand equity though media has been widely studied (Bakshi & Mishra, 2011). However, the relationship between endorser credibility and brand equity has not been investigated in the context of YouTube yet. Especially when YouTubers have strengthened their influence on brand equity in the vivid video gradually. To complete the theoretical gap, we have introduced the Endorser Credibility-Acceptance of SEC Claims-Brand Equity model presenting that there is correlation among YouTuber credibility, the acceptance of search, experience, and credence claims of the actual commodity and developed
Variable B SE β t p
Overall
Acceptance of Search claims Acceptance of Experience claims Acceptance of Credence claims
2.47 0.00 0.41 -0.11 0.60 0.11 0.15 0.11 0.00 0.36 -0.11 4.10 -0.03 2.85 -1.01 .00 .98 .01 .32
brand equity. Although the three mediate relationships are all proved not significant, there’s still a correlation between YouTubers’ attractiveness and the brand equity. In addition, audiences’ acceptance of YouTubers’ experience claims about the product could also impact how they evaluate the brand.
Firstly, the results display a reasonable mean value of attractiveness, trustworthiness and expertise of the YouTuber. Meanwhile, the mean score of search, experience, and credence claims acceptability are even higher. It demonstrates that the audience are not very skeptical about what they have seen. In particular, credence claims received the highest mean score on the 7 Likert scale. It may indicate that participants formed a stronger impression on these claims as they presented them with new information.Different from search and experience attributes, credence attributes are important features but may not be determined by straightforward experience. People now gradually pay more attention to credence claims with regard to some important qualities of the products. (Wirth, Stanton & Wiley, 2011). Eventually, brand equity indicated a lower score than other factors, the explanation could be that the audience may not easily shape a favorable brand attitude through a short video.
As followed, the current study confirmed the relationship between endorser credibility and the acceptance of SEC claims. Several direct correlations are outlined. When people perceive a YouTuber as more attractive, they are inclined to take more notice of search claims of the product. In addition, the trustworthiness and expertise of a YouTuber can both appeal to more verification of all search, experience, and credence claims. More importantly, each composition of endorser credibility and the recognition of experience claims are significantly associated with perceived brand equity.
Thereafter, according to the findings of multiple regressions, we can see that when the audience perceive more attractiveness from the YouTuber, they will easily perceive higher value of the brand mentioned. Among the three aspects of endorser credibility, the YouTuber’s attractiveness is more likely to facilitate audience perceived brand equity. In the given scenario, when an attractive YouTuber and a stylish brand are put together through the endorsement, audiences generally deem the relevance of the celebrity’s image and the endorsed brand (Keller, 2013). Accordingly, for the trendy technology product, the attractiveness of the YouTuber plays a more important role in consumer attitudes towards the brand. Nonetheless, due to various attributes of the brand, our research and findings may not be fully generalized to other brands.
The acceptance level of experience claims greatly impact how people identify the brand equity, while the other two dimensions have no effect. The acceptance of experience claims about a brand is to certify the brand promise and grant a consistent action (Dall’ Olmo Riley & de Chernatony, 2000; Brodie, Whittome, & Brush, 2009). In addition, the brand experience positively serves to the people’s brand satisfaction and loyalty level (Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009; Iglesias, Singh & Batista-Foguet, 2011). Our research has expanded this relationship to the breadth of corporate communication through YouTubers. As people are skeptical, they expect to receive more functional information before the actual purchase. The core value of YouTubers is to share the user experience with their audience, therefore experience claims are a predominant facet when they inspect the YouTubers’ videos. Comparing with search and credence claims, people pay more attention on the information in terms of choosing to follow this brand or not. On the other hand, this could also explain that the obvious claims (search claims) and claims that could not be confidently detected (credence claims) are less likely to connect people’s opinions with brand equity. For instance, people will not evaluate a brand as bad only because of the price or appearance.
They always prefer to formulate the conception about a product brand and reputation through the genuine experience. In the endorser communication environment, the YouTubers’ product using experience played an essential role in their brand assessment procedure.
However, on the other hand, the results showed that even though the three relationships between attractiveness-acceptance of search claims, trustworthiness-acceptance of experience claims and expertise –acceptance of credence claims are related, the latter factors are not a mediator for attractiveness, trustworthiness and expertise regarding brand equity. In other words, in this research, we have not been able to deepen our understanding of endorsement effect on brand equity through the acceptance of search, experience, and credence claims. The Elaboration Likely Model (ELM) may offer an explanation. In terms of persuasive influence, two routes are constituted in the cognitive process (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986). When the information receivers have genuine interest in and motivation for the message content, and they are able to process the message, they are more likely to form a central route, which will lead to a more elaborative and predictive attitude. At the same time, a peripheral route is applied when audiences show a lower level of interest and involvement towards the information. Therefore, even though the mean score of endorser credibility and product claims are higher than average, peripheral cues could also play an important role in regarding the brand equity when they are not appealed with the video content and thus cannot integrate those two variables elaborately.
Implications
Theoretically, the findings contribute to the earlier studies (Ohanin, 1991; Dean, 1999; Spry et al., 2011) that endorsers’ attractiveness could significantly impact brand equity through YouTube videos. Although the acceptance of search, experience, and credence claims didn’t prove to mediate this relationship, our research offers new perspective to investigate endorser credibility.
As a receiver of the product, YouTubers are affected by both corporate communication and public environment. Therefore, various YouTubers’ attributes may mediate the relationship between organizations and public opinions. A new model from a macro level view could be advanced as well.
From the managerial aspect, this research adds values to social media brand communication. For corporate communication practitioners, we have drawn an imperative path of brand evaluation through YouTubers. As declared in the discussion, more attractive YouTubers will arouse a more positive brand assessment among audience. Therefore, when digital communication professionals would like to improve their brand awareness and equity, it is more effective to cooperate with attractive endorsers. For YouTubers in particular, attractiveness is the key concern in determining the brand equity.
What’s more, since acceptance of experience claims can affect people’s brand evaluation, companies ought to put more effort on optimising the utility of their products. Compare with the price consideration and product design, people still focus more on how functional the product is in judging the value of the brand. This finding gives direction for lifestyle brands and corporations by concentrating on communicating more product using experience information, boosting brand equity and triggering more purchase intentions.
Although we have not successfully proved the mediate relationship of endorser credibility, acceptance of SEC claims to brand equity, our research does show that audiences tend to believe a handsome (beautiful) and elegant YouTuber. Additionally, if a YouTuber provides more detailed information based on his/her experience, he/she has a more profound effect on the audience perceived brand equity.
Limitations and Future Research
Due to the failure of confirming some of the hypotheses, a few limitations need to be taken into consideration. Firstly pertaining to generalizability, the small total number of participants and convenience sample may contribute to an invalid research result. Additionally, the findings of the research are limited to the specific YouTubers. For future direction, other types of YouTuber (lower credibility, female, etc.) could be adopted,
Secondly, the questionnaire applied in this research may not have provided an effective measurements of search, experience, and credence claims. Cronbach’s Alpha was relatively low for both search and experience claims. In addition, only one item in our questionnaire measured credence claims. Also, the video we selected featured headphones, an item for which consumers are mainly interested in the user experience, and may therefore disregard search and credence claims. Therefore, future research should be developed with more reliable and thorough measurements of claims to act as a sound basis for firm conclusions.
Furthermore, the subjects in this research may not have felt involved as we only presented them with a short video. A longitudinal research could also be executed by taking several videos of one YouTuber and the reviews into account. Only in that way could we acquire a more comprehensive result over time.
Finally, future extension of our research ought to consider other conditions. The media used in this study is only a short video with primarily positive reviews. We may also test other YouTube videos that have received both positive and negative comments. In doing so we will gain more insight in the relationship between endorser credibility and brand equity, and in the factors underlying endorser credibility. In particular, consumers may be more willing to trust search,
experience, and credence claims if a review is negative, as they have less reason to doubt the YouTuber’s intentions.
Conclusion
The rise of social media is challenging the traditional corporate communication mindset. Instead of two-way interaction between companies and customers, branding and marketing strategies now incorporate more influential and even revenue-generating players-the micro celebrities on social media platforms (Fred, 2015). Despite the limitations, this research provides valuable implications for both organizations and YouTubers. For organizations, establishing solid brand prestige is still an essential way to improve their enterprise competition status. By exploiting the relationship between YouTubers’ credibility and the brand equity, marketing practitioners can obtain more discrete understanding on how to improve digital branding strategies.
Moreover, although we didn't prove a mediate relationship among YouTubers’ credibility, verification of the product claims in the video, and perceived brand equity, we did show that the acceptance of experience claims impact brand equity. Even for a stylish brand, function and commodity are still the most important features that people think highly of. This is also the intrinsic reason why social media endorsers are becoming increasingly popular. People are more willing to acquire more instructional and functional product information apart from the exaggerated advertisements, the product appearance and even the sustained reputation. It is necessary for future study to build upon this research model and to try to deliver more insights into the endorser credibility framework via examining varied arenas and brands.
References
of the speaking situation.
Baker, M. J., & Churchill Jr, G. A. (1977). The impact of physically attractive models on advertising evaluations. Journal of Marketing research, 538-555.
Bakshi, M., & Mishra, P. (2011). Content Credibility and Brand Equity of Media Channels-A Comparative Study of Print, Online and AV. In Proceeding WAPOR 64th Annual
Conference (pp. 1-30).
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Innovated brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(May), 52–68. Brodie , R . J . , Whittome , J . R . M .and Brush , G . J . ( 2009 ) Investigating the service brand:
A customer value perspective. Journal of Business Research 62 : 345 – 355 . Claretta T. Pam (2014). How to Increase Sales Using YouTube. Entrepreneurial Universe
Dall’Olmo Riley, F., & De Chernatony, L. (2000). The service brand as relationships builder. British Journal of Management, 11(2), 137-150.
Darby, M. R., & Karni, E. (1973). Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. The journal
of law & economics, 16(1), 67-88.
Dean, D. H. (1999). Brand endorsement, popularity, and event sponsorship as advertising cues affecting consumer pre-purchase attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 28(3), 1-12.
Psychology, 7(2), 131-157.
Erdogan, B. Z. (1999). Celebrity endorsement: A literature review. Journal of marketing
management, 15(4), 291-314.
Ford, G. T., Smith, D. B., & Swasy, J. L. (1988). An empirical test of the search, experience and credence attributes framework. NA-Advances in Consumer Research Volume 15.
Fred, S. (2015). Examining Endorsement and Viewership Effects on the Source Credibility of
YouTubers.
Friedman, H. H., & Friedman, L. (1979). Endorser effectiveness by product type. Journal of
advertising research, 19(5), 63-71.
Geissler, G. L., & Edison, S.W. (2005), Market mavens' attitudes towards general Technology: Implications for marketing communications. Journal of Marketing Communications, 11(2), 73-94.
Gladden, J.,Milne,G.,&Sutton, W. (1998) A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Brand Equity in
Division I College Athletics. Journal of Sport Management,12,1-19
Griffiths, N. (2005). Task delegation using experience-based multi-dimensional trust.
multiagent systems (pp. 489-496). ACM.
Grossman, L. (2006, December 25). “You — Yes, You — Are TIME’s Person of the Year”. Time.
Retrieved from http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1570810,00.html
Hinz, O., Skiera, B., Barrot, C. & Becker, J.U. (2011). Seeding Strategies for Viral Marketing: An Empirical Comparison. Journal of Marketing.
Holmbom, M. (2015). The YouTuber: A Qualitative Study of Popular Content Creators. Hovland, C.I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication
effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650.
Iglesias, O., Singh, J.J., & Batista-Foguet, J.M. (2011). The role of innovated brand experience and affective commitmen
Jara, M., & Cliquet, G. (2012). Retail brand equity: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal
of Retailing and Consumer Services, 19(1), 140-149.
Johan, M. R. M., & Noor, A. Z. M. (2013). The role of corporate communication in building organization’s corporate reputation: An exploratory analysis. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Comtemporary Research ın Business, 4(12), 1230-1240.
Joseph, W.B. (1982). The Credibility of Physically Attractive Communicators: A Review. Journal
of Advertising, 11(3), 15–25.
When beauty may be only skin deep. Journal of Advertising, 19, 4-13.
Keller, K.L. (2013), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing Brand Equity, Pearson Education, Essex.
Kotler, Philip H. (1991), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, and Control, 8th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc
Ling, L. L., & Liu, Y. F. (2008). Comprehension and persuasion on advertising message: Heuristic- systematic model approach. Journal of Management, 25(5), 487-503.
McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement process. Journal of consumer research, 16(3), 310-321.
Metzger, M. J., Flanagin, A. J., & Medders, R. B. (2010). Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication, 60, 413-439.
doi:10.1002/asi.20672.
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., & Kutner, M. H. (1985). Applied linear statistical models: Regression, analysis of variance and experimental designs. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin. Inc.,
I, L27 p.
Ohanian, R. (1990), Construction and Validation of A Scale to Measure Celebrity Endorser’s Perceived Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19(3), 39- 52.
Ohanian, R. (1991), “The Impact of Celebrity Spokespersons’ Perceived Image on Consumers’ Intention to Purchase,” Journal of Advertising Research, 31 (1), 46-53.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Communication and persuasion (pp. 1-24). Springer New York.
Risko, V. (2012). Be that teacher!: Breaking the cycle for struggling readers. Teachers College Sabunwala,Z. (2013) . Impact of Celebrity brand endorsements on brand image and product
purchases- a study for Pune region of India. International Journal of Research in Business
Management. Vol. 1, Issue 6, Nov 2013, 37-42.
Schlecht, C. (2003). Celebrities’ impact on branding. Center on Global Brand Leadership,
Columbia: Columbia Business School.
Senft, T. M. (2008). Camgirls: Celebrity and community in the age of social networks (Vol. 4). Peter Lang.
Shariq, M., Khan, B. M., & Rizvi, A. H. (2014). An Exploratory Analysis of Marketing Elements and Brand Equity in the UAE FMCG Category. Jindal Journal of Business Research, 3(1- 2), 121-136.
Smith, D. C., & Park, C. W. (1992). The effects of brand extensions on market share and advertising efficiency. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 296.
Spry, A., Pappu, R., & Bettina Cornwell, T. (2011). Celebrity endorsement, brand credibility and brand equity. European Journal of Marketing, 45(6), 882-909.
Srinivasan, S. S., & Till, B. D. (2002). Evaluation of search, experience and credence attributes:
role of brand name and product trial. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 11(7), 417-
431.
Till, B. D. (1998). Using celebrity endorsers effectively: lessons from associative learning. Journal
of product & brand management, 7(5), 400-409.
Van der Waldt, D., Van Loggerenberg, M., Wehmeyer, L. (2009), Celebrity Endorsements versus Created Spokespersons in Advertising: A Survey among Students. SAJEMS, 12(1), 110- 114.
Vidstats. (2015) Top 100 View Gains in the Last 30 Days. Retrivied from http://vidstatsx.com/top- 100-30dview-gains. (Accessed 2015-06-01)
Wang Cen (2015) Do People Purchase What They Viewed from Youtube? : the Influence of Attitude and Perceived Credibility of User-Generated Content on Purchase Intention Wang, Y., & Lin, K. J. (2008). Reputation-oriented trustworthy computing in e-commerce
environments. IEEE Internet Computing, 12(4).
Wirth, F. F., Stanton, J. L., & Wiley, J. B. (2011). The relative importance of search versus credence product attributes: Organic and locally grown. Agricultural and Resource Economics
Review, 40(1), 48.
experience when both search and experience attributes are present”, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 21, 708-718.
YouTube (n.d.).Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/yt/press/statistics.html. Appendix
Questionnaire of Corporate Communication Master Thesis Survey
Address:
https://uvacommscience.eu.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_425I6ZHZkTeCJz7
Q1：Thank you for your participation in this study. This study addresses the relationship between endorse credibility and brand equity regarding of search, experience and credence claims. In the beginning of the survey, you will be shown a video (3 min 16 sec) from a famous American YouTuber - Jim. His YouTube channel has about 210,000 subscribers. He shares his reviews about electronic products and has attracted more than 30 million views now. Please watch the video very carefully!!!!!! After the video, you will be guided to a questionnaire. (You can also go back to the video when answering the questions).
The questionnaire will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. Now click the next button to get started!
Q2：I hereby declare that I have been informed in a clear manner about the nature and method of the research, as described in the email invitation for this study. I agree, fully and voluntarily, to participate in this research study. With this, I retain the right to withdraw my consent, without having to give a reason for doing so. I am aware that I may halt my participation in the experiment at any time. If my research results are used in scientific publications or are made public in another
way, this will be done such a way that my anonymity is completely safeguarded. My personal data will not be passed on to third parties without my express permission. If I wish to receive more information about the research, either now or in future, I can contact Dan Wu. Should I have any complaints about this research, I can contact the designated member of the Ethics Committee representing the ASCoR, at the following address: ASCoR secretariat, Ethics Committee, University of Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020525 3680; ascor‐secr‐ fmg@uva.nl. I understand the text presented above, and I agree to participate in the research study.
Do you agree with the consent form? Yes, I do (4)
No, I don't (5)
Q3：What's your gender? Male (1)
Female (2)
Q4：How old are you? ______________
Q5：Your current status is: Student (1)
Employed (2) Self-employed (3) Unemployed (4) Retired (5)
Q6：Please wait for the video and watch it with full attention.
Beats Headphone Review.mp4
Q7：Timing First Click (1) Last Click (2) Page Submit (3) Click Count (4)
Q8：At first, we want you to focus on the claims of the products in this video, do you agree or not about the statement of the claims below? (If there is still unclear information, please go back to the video with the button at the left bottom of the screen.) (1 is totally disagree, 7 is totally agree)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1.The price of the Beats Solo 3 is relatively expensive 2. The layout of Beats Solo 3 looks the same as Beats Solo 2 3. You can adjust the voice, play and pause with the logo of Beats Solo 4. You can connect with Siri, Google voice or S voice (Samsung)by
holding down the button "B"
5. The Beats Solo 3 is edition silver and white with chrome accents 6. When Beats Solo 3 is stretched and put in the extreme pressure test,
a little bump comes out, but there's no serious broken
7.When Jim puts on Beats Solo 3, it squeezes his head a bit in the beginning, but after 30 seconds his ears feel fine
8.No pressure or soreness is noticed both at the face and the crown of the head
9.The quality of the soundstage is impressive and highly distinguishable
10.Beats Solo 3 could block unwanted noise
Q9：In the following, we would like to ask you some questions about the credibility of Jim, the YouTuber in this video. Judging from his voiceover and appearance in the film, we address three dimensions including attractiveness, trustworthiness and expertise. Please read each of these statements and indicate to what extent you agree or disagree in terms of attractiveness. (1 is totally disagree, 7 is totally agree)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1.The YouTuber in the video is attractive 2.The YouTuber in the video is classy 3. The YouTuber in the video is beautiful 4. The YouTuber in the video is elegant 5. The YouTuber in the video is sexy
in this video. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree. (1 is totally disagree, 7 is totally agree)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. The YouTuber in the video is dependable 2.The YouTuber in the video is honest 3.The YouTuber in the video is reliable 4.The YouTuber in the video is sincere 5.The YouTuber in the video is trustworthy
Q11：Now to some questions regarding your views on expertise of Jim, the YouTuber in this video. Please indicate to what extent you agree or disagree. (1 is totally disagree, 7 is totally agree)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1.The YouTuber in the video is an expert at what he is introducing 2.The YouTuber in the video is experienced at what he is introducing 3. The YouTuber in the video is knowledgeable at what he is
introducing.
4.The YouTuber in the video is qualified at what he is introducing 5.The YouTuber in the video is skilled at what he is introducing
about this brand is after watching this video. Please answer the questions as followed. (1 is totally disagree, 7 is totally agree)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1.Even if there is another brand as good as this brand, I still prefer to
buy this brand
2.If I had to choose among brands, I would choose this brand 3.I would buy this brand rather than any other brand even if they are
the same
4.I consider myself to be loyal to this brand 5. Even if another brand has same features as this brand, I would prefer
to buy this brand.
6.If there is another brand as good as this brand, I prefer to buy the other brand
7.The products of this brand are of consistent quality 8.This brand has a unique brand image compared to other brand
We appreciate your participation. If you wish to receive a summary of the study's findings, please leave your e-mail address below.
Screenshots of the YouTuber’s Video
