Becoming trustworthy by building or borrowing authenticity for low versus high credible brands

(1)

Becoming trustworthy by building or borrowing

authenticity for low versus high credible brands

By Daan van Dijk

Student: Daan van Dijk (10177213) Supervisor: drs. Jorge Labadie

Second Assessor: dhr. Roger Pruppers University: University of Amsterdam Faculty: Economics and Business

Programma: MSc Business Administration (Marketing track)

(2)

Abstract

Brand authenticity has increased in its importance for both the consumers and brands. A brand can create an authentic image by communicating authentic cues through its marketing campaign, which is called through a primary source. It could also link itself to a secondary source from which a brand can ‘borrow’ authentic associations. Three types of secondary sources tested in this study are; celebrity endorsement, brand alliance, and sponsorship. This empirical study looks at the effectiveness of these two types of sources, primary versus sec-ondary, in creating brand authenticity, and what the impact of brand authenticity eventually has on the level of brand trust. The study was held under two different conditions; a low level of credibility and a high level of corporate credibility. The results show that the primary and secondary sources do not differ from each other. However, a brand alliance was less effective in creating an authentic image than using a primary source. Next to this, the level of credibil-ity has an enormous impact on the level of perceived brand authenticcredibil-ity, whereas a high cred-ible brand was perceived as much more authentic. The study also shows that the level of per-ceived brand authenticity is strongly linked to the level of brand trust.

(3)

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Daan van Dijk who declares to take the full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The faculty of Economics and Business is responsible for the super-vision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(4)

3.1.2 Corporate credibility ... 35 3.1.3 Brand trust ... 37 3.2 Conceptual Framework ... 38 4. Method ... 39 4.1 Research design ... 39 4.2 Sample ... 41 4.3 Measures ... 41 4.3.1 Independent variables ... 41 4.3.2 Dependent variables ... 50 4.3.3 Control variables ... 50 5. Results ... 52 5.1 Data preparation ... 52 5.1.1 Frequency checks ... 52 5.1.2 Sample characteristics ... 52 5.1.3 Normality checks ... 53 5.1.4 Manipulation checks ... 53 5.1.5 Reliability checks ... 54

5.1.4 Experimental group similarity ... 54

5.1.5 Correlation analysis... 55

5.2 Hypotheses testing ... 55

5.2.1 Effectiveness of primary versus secondary sources and the influence of credibility ... 56

5.2.2 Secondary sources analysis ... 59

5.2.3 The relationship between brand authenticity and brand trust ... 60

6. Discussion... 62

6.1 Interpretation of Results ... 63

6.1.1 Primary versus Secondary sources under different Levels of Credibility ... 63

6.1.2 Type of secondary sources ... 65

6.1.3 The impact of Brand Trust ... 66

6.2 Theoretical Contribution ... 67

6.3 Managerial Implication ... 68

6.4 Limitations and future research directions ... 70

(5)

8. Appendix ... 75

APPENDIX A: Brand authenticity scale ... 75

APPENDIX B: Market share Dutch banking sector ... 75

APPENDIX C: Top 25 charity organizations in the Netherlands based on their revenues in 2015 . 76 APPENDIX D: Trust in charity work per sector in the Netherlands ... 76

APPENDIX E: Primary source message pre-test ... 77

APPENDIX F – Pre-test results ... 78

APPENDIX G – Independent sample t-test analysis of the stimuli pre-test ... 79

APPENDIX H – Manipulation check pre-test ... 80

APPENDIX I – Descriptive statistics ... 80

APPENDIX J – Normality Check... 81

APPENDIX K – Manipulation check ... 81

APPENDIX L – Reliability check... 82

APPENDIX M – ANOVA analysis between different conditions ... 82

APPENDIX N – Correlation Matrix ... 83

APPENDIX O – Full factorial ANCOVA analysis primary vs. secondary sources ... 83

APPENDIX P – Full factorial ANCOVA analysis Type of Source ... 85

APPENDIX Q – Full factorial analysis type of sources under a low-level and high-level of credibility ... 87

APPENDIX R – Full factorial analysis Secondary sources ... 89

APPENDIX S – Multiple regression analysis brand authenticity and brand trust ... 91

APPENDIX T – The eight conditions of the questionnaire ... 93

(6)

3

1. Introduction – Authenticity, to build or to borrow?

Recent events, such as the financial crises of 2008 and 2011, and corporate dissonance (i.e. the dissonance between the organization’s values / goals and its activities / achievements), have made the ‘cynical’ postmodern consumers see brands as exag-geraing entities who are trying to trick you (Napoli et al., 2016). This have created an erosion of brand trust in the mind of the consumers (Eggers et al., 2013). So resulted the financial crisis in an incremental decrease in the level of brand trust in the Dutch banking sector (2,8 on a scale from 1 to 5 (NVB, 2016)) To regain this trust of the consumers, many brands nowadays are using authentic cues in their marketing com-munications, to enhance their perceived authentic brand image. It has however been argued whether authentic cues are effective if they are communicated through mass media and / or commercial motives (Alexander, 2009; Beverland et al., 2008). Does this mean that marketing activities that emphasize authenticity in a more indirect man-ner are more effective in creating an authentic image? This study will examine if, and to what extent the creation of brand authenticity through an indirect manner (leverag-ing of secondary sources) is more effective than through direct market(leverag-ing attempts (primary sources).

Due to the commercialization, homogenization and standardization of markets in re-cent years, the authenticity in brands has increased in its importance (Morhart et al., 2015; Thompson et al., 2006). Consumers are constantly searching for the authenticity in brands and they even value authentic brands higher then inauthentic brands (Kovács et al., 2013). Being perceived as an authentic brand has many positive effects on

(7)

sev-4 eral business performance metrics. One of these metrics is the enhancement of brand trust, which is defined as ‘the belief that the brand will fulfill its brand promise’ (Schallehn et al., 2014). As mentioned before, there has been an erosion of this brand trust in the mind of the consumers (Eggers et al., 2013). This erosion of brand trust is accompanied by a damaged reputation of these brands. Many companies see the com-munication of authentic cues as the mean by which they can restore their trust and reputation. Tony’s Chocolonely, Starbucks and Nespresso for instance, became very transparent and honest in their whole supply chain to enhance their authentic image and so gain trust. The study by Napoli et al. (2014) supports this notion by suggesting that authentic cues are the corner stones of what is seen as authentic and so trustwor-thy. Next to this, there has been numerous evidence developed that brand authenticity has a positive impact on brand trust, either direct or indirect through the enhancement of brand reputation (Greysner, 2009; Nguyen et al., 2013; Schallehn et al., 2014).

So, based on the literature developed by Greysner (2009), Nguyen (2013) and Schal-lehn et al. (2014), the strategy carried out to regain trust in which brands communicate authentic cues to their consumers seems logical. In doing so they are trying to influ-ence the consumers' brand knowledge. However, creating a certain brand knowledge is, as Keller (2003) suggested, not as straightforward as it seems. He suggests that marketers often have to link or associate their brands with other people, places, things, or brands; leveraging of secondary sources. Brands leverage secondary sources, be-cause it is sometimes difficult to create this brand knowledge through a ‘direct’ way; through primary sources. Beverland et al. (2008) agrees that the creation of brand knowledge, an authentic identity in this case, using direct advertising is hard to

(8)

ac-5 complish. Their argument is that because methods of mass marketing are believed to undermine the claims about being authentic and so they should step away from the commercial side, distant themselves from commercial considerations. Moreover, in his study, Alexander (2009) found that downplaying any commercial motive is essential in creating an authentic brand. Based on these statements, it can be argued that creat-ing an authentic brand image through direct marketcreat-ing activities, will be ineffective.

So far, there is a lack of understanding in how to create an authentic brand image in the most effective way. This study will dig in to this topic and try to answer the fol-lowing research question:

“How can brands use brand authenticity to increase their trustworthiness under

different levels of corporate credibility?”

This study will examine if, and to what extent, leveraging secondary sources of brand knowledge would be more effective than the use of primary sources in creating brand authenticity. Next to this, a deeper insight into the differences between different forms effects secondary sources (celebrity endorsement, sponsorships and brand alliances) in creating an authentic brand image will be shown. Lastly, the relationship between this created brand authenticity on brand trust will be tested to confirm the existing litera-ture about this relationship.

Goldsmith et al. (2000) found that the corporate credibility - the reputation of a com-pany for honesty and expertise - has an impact on the attitude toward the brand and the

(9)

6 advertisement, the authentic cues in this case. Moreover, there has been numerous evi-dence developed that a highly credible source has more power to persuade the receiver than a low-credibility one (Pornpitakpan, 2004). Since McGinnies & Ward (1980) and Morhart et al. (2015) found that trustworthiness and credibility are very much related to each other, this could eventually have the effect that if the credibility of a brand is low, the effectiveness of the authentic cues from primary sources would be somewhat limited and leveraging secondary sources could be a better strategy. Due to this propo-sition, this study will be held in two different sectors which differ in their credibility and trustworthiness: The Dutch banking sector and the Dutch charity sector. These two sectors are chosen because brands in the Dutch banking sector score very low on brand trust and so could be considered as less credible, whereas charities in the Neth-erlands score relatively high (wwav, 2016).

Eventually, the effects of the use of different sources on brand trust in these two sec-tors will be examined. These two secsec-tors are chosen to investigate any main effect of using secondary over primary sources, and if this effect is potentially moderated by the initial credibility of the brand. Due to the fact that other variables and / or senti-ments might exist in the evaluation of the brands in these sectors which are not appli-cable in other industries, it will be hard to generalize the findings to other industries. However, the two extremes (low vs. high trust level) are chosen to compare the two extremes on the trust level. The results will however give little to no insights into brands with a moderate level of brand trust.

This study will contribute to the existing literature, in that it will examine any potential differences in the effectiveness of leveraging secondary sources of brand knowledge

(10)

7 versus the use of primary sources of brand knowledge in creating an authentic identity. The area of brand knowledge creation has not yet been examined in field of brand au-thenticity. A further understanding of the individual effects of the four different types of secondary sources will be established too. Lastly, the impact of the credibility of the brand on the relationship between type of source and perceived brand authenticity will be examined. This eventually will give marketers a common knowledge about how to most effectively create brand authenticity in the mind of the consumers.

The study will first elaborate on the existing literature in a theoretical framework. The first chapters of the theoretical framework of this study will elaborate on the phenom-enon authenticity and why this became important for brands in the modern market-place. Brand authenticity’s link to brand trust will also be thoroughly explained. This will be followed by an extensive review on the literature available about the means by which brands can create a certain brand image. From this literature review on the rele-vant topics, a research gap will be highlighted together with its research and sub-questions question which will act as the guidelines of this research. After this, the re-search design and the work plan of this study will be discussed.

(11)

8

2. Theoretical Framework

In today's world, there has been an increase in the commercialization of markets, which comes with fake products and meaninglessness of these markets. This makes people more disconnected to the commercial existence of brands and they hold a lack of faith in marketing and brands (Napoli et al., 2014). Moreover, there has been a loss of traditional sources of meaning and self-identity (Morhart et al., 2015). These recent events have led to an erosion of trust in brands by consumers (Eggers et al., 2013; Schallehn et al., 2014) and has given rise to the quest for authenticity in products and brands (Beverland & Farelly, 2010; Kovács et al., 2013). This brand authenticity could even overpower consumption consideration criteria as price and product availability (Gundlach & Neville, 2012). Gilmore and Pine (2007, p.5) also claim that "Authentici-ty has overtaken quali"Authentici-ty as the prevailing purchasing criterion". But what is this au-thenticity in brands and why do consumers value this phenomenon? Why do compa-nies have to focus on it and how can they create it? In the following sections the term and its effects will be thoroughly explained. First, the term authenticity will be ex-plained. This will be followed by a literature review of authenticity in a branding con-text, together with its effects on brand trust and its relationship with source credibility. Lastly, the different means of creating an authentic brand will be explained.

2.1 Authenticity

The term authenticity comes from the Greek word authentikós and the Latin word au-thenticus, which means worthy of acceptance, authoritative, trustworthy, not imagi-nary, false or imitation and conforming to an original (Napoli et al., 2016). Commonly

(12)

9 authenticity refers to the genuineness, reality or truth, (Beverland & Farelly, 2010), sincerity or innocence of something (Napoli et al., 2014). Furthermore, it relates to the concepts of simple, unspun and being honest (Napoli et al., 2016). According to Gundlach & Neville (2012), authenticity is an intangible subjective “assessment or judgment of the value placed on an offering by consumers”. Due to the subjective character of authenticity and the general agreement that authenticity is not an objective attribute inherent to a brand by consumers (Ilicic & Webster, 2014), there is not one universal definition of authenticity. The assessment or judgment by consumers makes perceived authenticity ideologically driven or asserted arbitrarily, and so subjective (Beverland, 2005). Beverland & Farelly (2010) agreed upon this and stated that per-ceived authenticity is a socially constructed interpretation rather than the real authentic features inherent in an object. Leigh et al. (2006) even see consumers as co- creators of brand authenticity, because there is an interaction between the consumer and the au-thentic object. An object could be perceived as auau-thentic by one person, but inauthen-tic by another.

According to Leigh et al. (2006) and Morhart et al. (2015) authenticity has three per-spectives; the objectivist, the existentialist and the constructivist perspective. Authen-ticity in these perspectives can be derived respectively by the objects, the self and the community (Alexander, 2009). The objectivist perspective, is defined by Napoli et al. (2014) as the authenticity in objects. Consumers consider a brand authentic based on facts, such as the founding date (Morhart et al., 2015). Authenticity in this perspective is “the original” or “the real one” and could be seen as an objective assessment of an object’s authenticity (Peterson, 2005). So could an original painting of Rembrandt be

(13)

10 considered as authentic. Authenticity judgment in this perspective may be formed around indexical cues (Grayson & Martinec, 2004; Morhart et al., 2015; Napoli et al., 2014). Indexical cues are referred to as “a perceiver’s experience of physical or behav-ioral fact that provides some verification of what is claimed to be delivered” (Grayson & Martinec, 2004). An object that holds indexical cues has a factual, spatiotemporal connection to a context in which objects and people interact.

The existentialist perspective examines authenticity as it relates to one’s identity (Morhart et al., 2015). The behavior of an authentic person is led by its own personal identity and by the perceived congruence between this behavior and his or her percep-tion of the “real” self. The assessment and judgment about authenticity in this per-spective are made by existential cues (Leigh et al., 2006; Morhart et al., 2015). Exis-tential cues are also part of the socio-psychological perspective mentioned by Schal-lehn et al. (2014), who define authenticity in this perspective as “the degree to which a person is true to his or her own identity in the face of corrupting external pressures”. Existential cues can provide authentic experiences for people if these are both in touch with their perspective of their “real” world and their “real” selves.

Lastly, the constructivist perspective suggests that authenticity cannot be objectively determined (Lu et al., 2015). Authenticity in this perspective is formed by iconic cues (Grayson & Martinec, 2004). Iconic cues are socially or personally constructed, so that this “reality” is the result of the different interpretation of what the “the real world” looks like (Grayson & Martinec, 2004). The iconic cues “suggest a schematic fit with a person’s mental picture of how an authentic object should look like” (Morhart,

(14)

11 2015). Napoli et al. (2014) formulate this as “the extent to which an object or event is a reasonable reconstruction of the past”. The authenticity of an object in this perspec-tive is not inherent in the object, but rather a projection of one’s own created “real world” with its corresponding beliefs, expectations and perspectives and so holds a more subjective view of authenticity (Morhart et al., 2015).

Consumers can find authenticity in several products, services and experience, includ-ing brands. In today’s world, people seek for authentic brands that help them express their authentic self (Napoli et al., 2016). But what is authenticity in brands? And what are the effects on business performance metrics? In the following section brand au-thenticity and its effects will be explained by a literature review.

2.2 Brand Authenticity

According to Thompson et al. (2006) consumers are in constant search for the authen-tic in an increasingly standardized and homogenized marketplace. Since markets in the postmodern era are increasing their commercialization and so become less mean-ingful, consumers increasingly seek for authenticity in brands (Morhart et al., 2015). Consuming authenticity provides a way to escape from the more meaningless and ar-tificial modern life and feel connected to the past (Grayson & Martinec, 2004). More-over, it has become an evaluation and decision criterion for choice of consumption (Napoli et al., 2016). The perception of brand authenticity in a product or service is however varying across people, what makes it an individuals’ experience (Beverland & Farrelly, 2010). Authenticity furthermore varies over time along with the ever-changing context (Napoli et al., 2016).

(15)

12 Brand authenticity can be defined as ‘a story that balances industrial and rhetorical attributes to project sincerity through the avowal of commitments to traditions, pas-sion for craft and production excellence, and the public disavowal of the role of mod-ern industrial attributes and commercial motivations’ (Beverland, 2005). Moreover, Napoli et al. (2014) describe brand authenticity as ‘a subjective evaluation of genu-ineness to ascribed to a brand by consumers’. The perceived brand authenticity by a consumer, is formed by the evaluation of various cues (Morhart et al., 2015). Indexi-cal cues are used to evaluate a brand from an objective perspective and are attributes that provide evidence for consumers of the things a brand claims to be. Iconic cues in branding context refer to marketing cues which create impressions that relate to the brand’s essence (Leigh et al., 2006). According to Morhart et al. (2015), brand au-thenticity perceptions from iconic cues “arise from consumers’ subjective construc-tion of the brand’s essence as communicated through the brand’s marketing efforts”. Existential cues on their behalf, serve as a way for consumers to reveal their “real” selves and so serve as an identity-related source (Morhart et al., 2015). In a branding context the different cues from the three different perspectives (objectivist, construc-tivist and existentialist) are intertwined and Morhart et al. (2015) therefore proposed that indexical, iconic and existential cues create the perceived brand authenticity. This research will however only measure the marketing efforts of a brand and its relation-ship to a brand’s perceived authenticity by the consumers, rather than perceived au-thenticity influenced by the self. That is why the emphasize will be on the iconic cues and in less importance on indexical cues.

(16)

13 Brand authenticity shares many of the terms and perceptions of authenticity described before; the genuineness, reality, truth, sincerity, innocence, simplicity, honesty of something (Beverland & Farelly, 2010; Napoli et al., 2014; Napoli et al., 2016). Next to this, heritage (Alexander, 2009; Wiedmann et al., 2012), downplaying commercial motives (Alexanders, 2009), craftsmanship, relationship to place, method of produc-tion (Beverland, 2006), quality commitment (Beverland, 2005; Napoli et al., 2014), design consistency (Beverland 2006; Beverland et al., 2008) and cultural symbolism (Napoli et al., 2016) are perceptions that build brand authenticity. Authenticity from brands is consumed by consumers to find their "truth" and the "real" in their artificial lives again. Morhart et al. (2015) and Napoli et al. (2014) furthermore developed measures for brand authenticity. Napoli et al. (2014) identified three principal com-ponents of brand authenticity; heritage, commitment and sincerity. Morhart et al. (2015) defined 'Continuity', 'Credibility', 'Reliability' and 'Symbolism' as the four main drivers that create perceived brand authenticity. In this study, the measure de-veloped by Morhart et al. (2015) will be used to measure the perceived brand authen-ticity. The four different components of this measure will now be explained thorough-ly.

The first component of the scale developed by Morhart et al. (2015) is ‘Continuity’. Continuity refers to the brand’s history and stability over time, but next to this also to the likelihood that it will survive and exist in the future (Morhart et al. (2015). One facet of continuity is that the brand has never changed over time, it has always had the

(17)

14 same taste, feel, image etc. A brand that scores high on continuity has / had the ability to survive trends. To cite Morhart et al. (2015): “the continuity dimension reflects a brand’s timelessness, historicity and ability to transcend trends”. The second im-portant facet mentioned by Morhart et al. (2015) is ‘Credibility’. Credibility refers to the brands’ willingness and ability to deliver on their promises. People consider a brand credible if it does not betray them and delivers over and over again what they promise. It also relates to the transparency, sincerity and honesty of the brand towards the consumer (Morhart et al. (2015). Next to this, brand trustworthiness is even seen as a component of brand credibility and they share many similarities. The next chap-ter will elaborate more on this credibility of brands.

The third part of the scale is the ‘Integrity’ of the brand and refers to the brand’s in-tentions and the values it embraces (Morhart et al., 2015). It involves the moral purity, responsibility, deeply held values and passion of the brand. To be authentic, brands should not be led by their economic agenda and should have a commercial disinter-estedness (Holt, 2002; Morhart et al., 2015). More preferably, the brand should be led by their intrinsic motivations, deeply held values and their passions. The last metric of the scale of Morhart et al. (2015) is ‘Symbolism’. This facet relates more to the exis-tential perspective of brand authenticity. Symbolism reflects the symbolic quality of a brand to which consumers can relate themselves and use the brand to define their identity. To fully assess the effectiveness of this facet in the scale, the identities of the respondents in the study has to be made clear. This is however, not the essence of this research and that is why this facet will have a somewhat less important role.

(18)

15 The four facets developed by Morhart et al. (2015) can be used in marketing activities to increase perceived brand authenticity of consumers and eventually enhance other business performance metrics. So do authentic brands deliver higher consumer ánd brand value than less authentic brands (Napoli et al., 2016). Highly authentic brands also enable more opportunities for consumers to feel emotional attached to the brand than low authentic brands (Morhart et al., 2015; Napoli et al., 2016). This can result in stronger consumer-brand relationships, which in turn leads to more positive word-of-mouth and brand loyalty (Morhart et al., 2015; Napoli et al., 2016). Alexander (2009) stated that this positive word-of-mouth and loyalty are important in creating brand equity and an aura of authenticity in the long run.

2.3 Brand Trust

Driven by recent events such as the financial crises of 2008 and 2011 and the erosion of trust, the public increasingly values and seek for the return of the truth and trust-worthiness in information and brands (Eggers et al., 2013; Schallehn et al., 2014). Brand trust is defined as “the belief that the brand will fulfill its brand promise” and is founded in that the brand will act in the best interests of the consumers (Schallehn et al., 2014). Napoli et al. (2016) stated that it is getting more and more difficulty for brands to build trust. This is due to the ‘cynical’ postmodern consumers who see brands as exaggerating entities who are trying to trick you (Napoli et al., 2016). Ac-cording to Eggers et al. (2013), the loss of trust is due to the corporate dissonance - i.e. the dissonance between the organization’s values/goals and its activi-ties/achievements - and this also damages brand reputation. Eggers et al. (2013)

(19)

fur-16 ther mention that maintaining a trustworthy brand is difficult, because a minor

viola-tion can lead to an immense lost in trust. Furthermore, consumers nowadays are not searching for companies who use trust just as a sales technique (Eggers et al., 2013). The companies that will be considered as truly trustworthy, should have authenticity embedded into their organizational culture. Brand trust is however still very im-portant, because if people trust a brand, they can become loyal customers (Eggers et al., 2013; Nguyen et al., 2013). This will in turn lead to more positive word-of-mouth and to higher usage frequencies.

A sector in which brands suffer from a loss of trust in recent years, is the banking sec-tor. Banks in the Netherlands score on average a 2,8 on a scale of 1 (very low trust) to 5 (very high trust) in 2016 (NVB, 2016). Trust plays a central role in the relationship customers have with their financial institution and is influenced by a brand’s reputa-tion (Nguyen et al., 2013). Moreover, it can be said that according to the article of Greyser (2009), banks in the Netherlands are in a crisis now; “the essence of the brand” is negatively affected and their reputation is damaged. Brand reputation arises from the signals that are send to consumers about the brand and the extent to which these signals are consistent with what the brand actually is doing, something that can be argued within this sector during the financial crisis (Napoli et al., 2016). If a repu-tation is damaged it can be rebuild, sustained and defend by authenticity (Greysner, 2009) and an increase in a favorable reputation will eventually have a positive impact on the trustworthiness of the bank consumers (Nguyen et al., 2013).

(20)

rela-17 tionship between brand authenticity and brand trust. Napoli et al. (2014) also found in their article that it is likely that authentic brands will be trusted more than inauthentic brands. This induces that brand authenticity can be seen as an important success fac-tor for branding by creating a trustworthy brand. This because perceived brand au-thenticity will directly (Schallehn et al., 2014) and / or indirectly through reputation enhancement (Greysner, 2009; Nguyen et al., 2013), influence the trust experienced by consumers. Moreover, Napoli et al. (2014) suggest that authentic cues are the cor-ner stones of what is seen as authentic and so trustworthy, and what is not. From these results, a logical strategy for banks to restore their trust is to communicate authentic cues to their consumers. But will the consumers believe you are an authentic brand if they have no trust in you and you have an unfavorable reputation? Trustworthiness and reputation are a huge part of the brand authenticity dimension credibility men-tioned by Morhart et al. (2015) and as Pornpitakpan (2004) stated in his article, for a brand which is considered as less credible it is more difficult to persuade consumers with their marketing efforts, than a highly credible one. Moreover, trustworthiness is even an essential factor leading to perceived credibility (Muda et al., 2014). In the fol-lowing section the influence of credibility on the effectiveness of marketing efforts on consumers will be explained

2.4 Corporate Credibility

In his article, Pornpitakpan (2004) found that perceived source credibility has an in-fluence on the communication effectiveness of a brand. Source credibility is an im-portant factor which influences the attitudes toward an advertisement and ultimately

(21)

18 partly determines the effectiveness of this ad. Muda et al. (2014) mentioned that in the advertising context, credibility of the source is often related to the credibility of an endorser, the advertiser, the advertisement, the corporation or web credibility. In this research, the focus will be on the corporate credibility, since studies have shown that this form of source credibility has next to the effect on the attitude toward the ad, even a stronger effect on the attitudes toward the brand (Lafferty et al., 2002). Corpo-rate credibility is defined as "the extent to which consumers believe that a firm can design and deliver products and services that satisfy customer needs and wants" (Kel-ler, 1998, p. 426). Corporate credibility is furthermore acknowledged to be an im-portant part of corporate image and reputation (Keller, 1998). Moreover, according to Morhart et al. (2015), credibility is one of the four facets of perceived brand authen-ticity. Therefore, there is a strong relationship between authenticity and credibility.

Corporate credibility could however be damaged if the company is lying to its con-sumers and so loses its trustworthiness, something what according to many concon-sumers happened in the banking sector during the financial crisis. Since corporate credibility plays a critical role in the attitude toward the ad, attitude toward the brand and even on the purchase, a low credibility could harm a brand tremendously (Goldsmith et al., 2000; Lafferty et al., 2002). Any marketing effort done by a brand that scores low on credibility could have no, a weak, or an opposite effect. So could a low credible brand that communicates authentic cues to enhance its authentic image, have difficulties in realizing it, because the consumers simply do not believe them. Pornpitakpan's (2004) article agrees upon this statement by providing evidence that the persuasiveness of an advertisement is higher for a more credible brand. This could induce on a higher

(22)

ef-19

fectiveness of the authentic cues used in marketing efforts by a high credible brand than for a low credible one.

But even if a brand is seen as highly credible, is the direct communication of these cues the most effective way to communicate an authentic identity? Beverland et al. (2008) stated that the use of advertising to project an image of authenticity is difficult because methods of mass marketing are believed to undermine such claims. The re-search of Alexander (2009) supports this by stating that downplaying of commercial motives was essential to the creation of an authentic brand aura. Beverland (2006) al-so stated that brand authenticity should step away from the commercial side, they must appear distant from commercial considerations. So could it be that a more indi-rect way of communication the authentic cues, will have more effect on the perceived authenticity of a brand? In the next section the direct (primary sources) and the indi-rect (secondary sources) way of communicating an authentic image will be explained thoroughly.

2.5 Brand knowledge

Perceived brand authenticity can be seen as a type of brand image. Brand image is part of the brand knowledge which is defined as “the personal meaning about a brand stored in consumer memory, that is, all descriptive and evaluative brand-related in-formation” (Keller, 2003). Moreover, Peter and Olson (2001) defined brand knowledge as the cognitive representation of the brand. Brand knowledge consists of two components; brand awareness and brand image. In his article, Keller (1993)

(23)

stat-20 ed that brand awareness is related to the strength of the trace of the brand in the memory, i.e. the consumer’s ability to identify the brand in different conditions. Brand image is defined as the perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand as-sociations held in consumer memory (Keller, 1993). To create customer-based brand equity, which is defined as the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumers response to the marketing of the brand, the brand associations that create the brand knowledge, should be favorable, strong, and unique (Keller, 1993). Moreover, a con-sumers' brand knowledge can be conceptualized in the form of associative networks (Bergkvist & Tayler, 2016). This network has a brand node which is linked to other objects and could also refer to another objects' associations, called secondary associa-tions.

2.5.1 Leveraging Marketing Communications

In his further research, Keller (2003) examined the multiple dimensions of- and means of creating brand knowledge. He identified eight key dimensions of brand knowledge; awareness, attributes, benefits, images, thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and experiences. Furthermore, he identified multiple means in which marketers can create brand knowledge. When brands try to create brand knowledge through primary sources, they try to develop marketing programs and design their product offerings to create certain brand-knowledge structures (Keller, 2003). However, in some cases, a desired brands knowledge cannot be achieved by this ‘direct’ attempts. In this case, marketers should try to link or associate their brands to secondary sources of brand knowledge and so create this brand knowledge through a more indirect way (Keller, 2003). In their article, Bergkvist & Taylor (2016) call this phenomenon Leveraged

(24)

21 Marketing Communications (LMC), which they define as "brand building strategies that intentionally pair a brand with another object for the purpose of enabling the brand to benefit from the associations the target audience has with the object". This could be the case in creating authenticity for a brand, since Alexander (2009) and Beverland et al. (2008) stated that authentic cues communicated through a direct manner will be less or even not effective.

The ‘borrowing’ of another entity’s associations is called brand leveraging. Figure 1 displays the secondary sources of brand knowledge from which the secondary associ-ations can be borrowed. By linking the brand to, things, places, other brands, and / or people, new brand knowledge can be created or it will affect the existing brand knowledge; the associative network will be updated (Keller, 2003). This could be par-ticular helpful for a brand that scores low on credibility, because the attitude toward the ad and brand will be negatively influenced by this low level of credibility and the consumers will not believe the accusations of the brand about their identity (Gold-smith et al., 2000).

(25)

22 In his article, Keller (2003) mentioned three factors that are seem as important for the effectiveness of leveraging that might result from linking a brand to another entity. The first factor is the knowledge of the other entity. If the consumer does not know anything specific about the entity to which the brand is linked, it would probably re-sult in a low leveraging level. If the other entity would be something that the consum-er has already a cconsum-ertain knowledge about, this is likely to transfconsum-er to the brand knowledge of the initial brand. The second factor mentioned by Keller (2003) is the meaningfulness of the knowledge of the entity. Keller (2003) defines this factor as to what extent might this knowledge about the entity be deemed meaningful for a brand. The third and last factor, is the transferability of the knowledge of the entity. This re-fers to what extent this knowledge about the entity will actually be linked to the brand or affect existing knowledge. (Keller, 2003).

Companies often select other entities based on their rich and positive associative net-works of which they try to benefit by linking themselves to them (Bergkvist & Tay-lor, 2016). As mentioned before, this other object could be a person, thing, other brand or a place. Some types of entities are likely to affect different key dimensions of brand knowledge (Keller, 2003). This means that they could have different effects on creating new – or affecting existing brand knowledge. So does Keller (2003) argue that events could for instance have a big impact on the ‘experience’ dimension of brand knowledge, whereas people is most likely to affect the ‘feeling’ dimension. This is why it could also be argued which of the secondary sources of brand knowledge will be more effective to create certain brand knowledge, brand

(26)

authentici-23 ty in this case, and if so, which type will have the most impact. In this study, the focus will lay on four different forms within the four different entity forms of Keller (1993) of LMC which were extensively examined in marketing research and so have a large base of previous research to draw on; 'celebrity endorsement', 'sponsorships' and 'brand alliances'. These three forms are chosen to be investigated, since they have compared to other forms, a much deeper source of previous research to draw on. In their article, Bergkvist & Taylor (2016) also consider 'cause-related marketing' and 'product placement' as viable LMC forms, but these two forms are not relevant for this study. The effectiveness of product placement will for instance be very complex to measure. Cause-related marketing on its part could be seen as a form of brand alli-ance, something that is already covered by the form ‘brand alliances’. Other forms have had limited attention in research and it is not clear if the other forms quantify under the definition of LMC developed by Bergkvist & Taylor (2016). In the follow-ing section the four forms of LMC will be explained thoroughly.

2.5.1.1 Celebrity endorsement

Celebrity endorsement is by far the form which has got the most attention in research. Numerous companies use celebrities in their marketing efforts to promote their brands. A celebrity endorser is defined as "any individual who enjoys public recogni-tion on behalf of a consumer good by appearing with it in an advertisement" (McCracken 1989, p. 310). The effectiveness of using celebrities in advertisements

has been backed up by several academic studies which show the positive relationship between the use of celebrity endorsers and consumers' attitudes toward the brand

(27)

24 (Eisend & Langner, 2010). Moreover, in their article, Bergkvist et al. (2016), did

re-search on the effects of the model below (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Conceptual model of the effects of celebrity and endorsement factor on the attitude towards the brand (Bergkvist et al., 2016)

The study of Bergkvist et al. (2016) did found support that a positive attitude towards the endorsement will have a positive effect on the attitude towards the brand. This means that celebrity endorsement has the potential to influence the attitude consumers have towards your brand. They also found a positive relationship between attitude towards the celebrity and the attitude of the endorsement, meaning that if someone has a positive or negative attitude towards the celebrity himself, this will have an ef-fect on the attitude towards the whole endorsement. Furthermore, support was found for the relationship between celebrity-brand fit and the attitude towards the endorse-ment (Bergkvist et al., 2016). The celebrity-brand fit refers to the degree of consisten-cy and similarity between the brand and the celebrity. Whereas high fit leads to a pos-itive effect on attitude toward the endorsement and the brand, a low fit has an oppo-site effect and leads to an unintentional result. The importance of celebrity-brand fit

(28)

25 has already got huge attention in previous research. This type of fit has been

investi-gated under the umbrella of the match-up hypotheses. The match-up hypothesis sug-gests that ‘the message conveyed by the image of the celebrity and the image of the product should converge in effective advertisements’ (Kamins 1990, p. 5). Endorsers are so more effective if they ‘match’ with the brand / product they endorse.

Ultimately the relationship between a celebrity's motive for participation in the en-dorsement and the attitude towards the enen-dorsement had been proven (Bergkvist et al., 2016). If a celebrity is mainly motivated by monetary incentives, this will nega-tively influence the consumers attitudes towards the celebrity's motive. This relates to some facets of authenticity which states that to become authentic, someone or some-thing should step away from commercial motivations (Alexander, 2009; Beverland, 2006). A celebrity, and possibly the brand, would only be seen authentic if the motive to participate in the endorsement is not based on financial incentives. Lastly, the study of Bergkvist et al. (2016) did not support any relationship between a celebrity's exper-tise and the attitude towards the endorsement and eventually the brand.

2.5.1.2 Sponsorships

Companies enter into the sponsorship branch for two reasons: to enhance brand awareness or to aid in brand positioning (Gwinner & Eaton, 1999). If sponsorship is used for positioning the brand, the firm tries to update the associative networks of the consumers by transferring the sponsored entity's associations to their brand (Zdravkovic & Till, 2012). Sponsored entities could be for instance a sports team or an (music) event.

(29)

26 As for celebrity endorsement, fit is an important variable for an effective image

trans-fer from the sponsored entity to the sponsor. The sponsored entity should be seen as similar to the sponsor because it potentially enhances consumer’s memory of spon-sor’s sponsorship-related activities (Cornwell et al., 2006). This is supported by the match-up hypothesis, which suggests that memory storage and retrieval are influ-enced by the level of fit. This is because a high fit potentially enhances consumer's memory of the brand's sponsorship-related activities (Zdravkovic & Till, 2012). Fit in a sponsorship context relates to similarity derived from the mission, products, mar-kets, technologies, attributes, brand concepts, or any other key association that the sponsor and sponsored entity have in common (Becker-Olsen, 2006).

Whereas a higher fit has shown to have a positive effect on this recall and recognition, it also has its contribution in the enhancement of the attitude towards the brand. If a brand for instance links itself to a well-liked sports team and this is in congruence with what the brand itself stands for, it can eventually enhance the brand image posi-tively (Zdravkovic & Till, 2012). This could mean that if a brand links itself to an au-thentic event or sports team, this will positively change the perceived brand auau-thentic- authentic-ity of the brand itself.

2.5.1.3 Brand alliances

Brands often link themselves to other brands in the hope that the desired associations will transfer to them (Keller, 2003). Brand alliances are defined as “…the short- or long-term association or combination of two or more individual brands, products,

(30)

27 and/or other distinctive proprietary assets” (Simonin and Ruth, 1998, pp. 30-31). Si-monin & Ruth (1998) furthermore found that consumers’ attitude toward a brand alli-ance influence the attitude to both brands individually. This so-called spillover effect was even presence after they controlled for prior brand attitudes. Furthermore, as for the use of celebrity endorsement and sponsorship, the degree of fit has an influence on the attitude toward the alliance. It could however, also be possible that the alliance will be seen successful even if one of the entities is evaluated unfavorably, because the unfavorable entity complements the other one by addressing the desired associa-tions (Simonin & Ruth, 1998). For brands that are inauthentic and lack in brand trust, this finding could provide them the reason to link themselves to an authentic entity.

Familiarity of the entity plays next to the brand fit a key role in the evaluation of the alliance (Simonin & Ruth, 1998). This supports the notion of Keller (1993) that a cer-tain knowledge of the entity is necessary for a successful image transfer. A more sali-ent brand has therefore a stronger effect in the brand alliance evaluations. This is also why the two brands do not always make equal contributions in the brand alliance (Simonin & Ruth, 1998). Furthermore Cunha et al. (2015) state that associations be-tween brands will transfer only if the consumer is not aware of the expected benefits of the alliances. So if consumers are acknowledges about the strategic motivations behind the alliance, it will have an aversely effect.

2.5.2 Association transfer

(31)

28 updating consumer’s knowledge about the brand will be explained. According to Bergkvist & Taylor (2016) there are four main ways on how LMC works, i.e. how as-sociations can be transferred between entities (see Figure 4). The transfer could how-ever happen on along two, three, or four routes simultaneously. The routes that are less relevant for this study will only be mentioned and not be thoroughly investigated.

Figure 3: The direct and indirect routes of the effects of leveraged marketing commu-nications on brands

The first ‘route’ is the ‘brand awareness learning’. Every exposure to brand and / or its identifier is an opportunity to establish or update the brand node and its memory linkages (Keller, 2003). For LMC this is not different. Every exposure to a LMC can have an influence on the associative network. The brand awareness route states that a LMC should increase the likelihood that consumers pay attention to the LMC and the brand (Bergkvist & Taylor, 2016). Since research has shown that people pay more at-tention to objects whose attitudes are very accessible, the entity to which a brand links itself should have a strong associative network. The increased attention to this

(32)

29 entity should enhance the likelihood that the brand awareness of the brand is

strength-ened and will eventually lead to better brand evaluations (Bergkvist & Taylor, 2016). So according to the brand awareness learning route, an entity used in LMC should have readily accessible associations and attitudes to enhance the brand’s awareness.

The second way of how associations can transfer is called the ‘affect transfer’ (Bergkvist & Taylor, 2016). Affect transfer can further be divided into indirect and direct affect transfer. In the indirect affect transfer route the attitude toward the ‘alli-ance’ plays a crucial role. This attitude toward the alliance is mediating the influence of fit and attributed motives (Bergkvist & Taylor, 2016). Fit and motive have already been discussed in the previous sections, where fit refers to the consumers’ perceived similarity or consistency between the brand and the LMC object (Bergkvist & Taylor, 2016). The motive of the LMC has previously only be mentioned in regard to the ce-lebrity endorser, but is also applicable to brand alliances and sponsorship. So if an al-liance or sponsorship is seen by consumers are driven by negative motives (e.g. fi-nancial motivations only), this will result in a negative effect on the attitude toward the alliance and eventually on the attitude toward the brand.

The direct affect transfer states that the liking of the entity transfers directly to the brand evaluation. The effect on the brand evaluation comes directly from the entity to which the brand links itself (Bergkvist & Taylor, 2016). This is the result of several cognitive processes. One of the processes is the balance theory. The balance theory has been used extensively to explain the affect transfer in sponsorships (Dalakas & Levin, 2005). This theory suggests that people generally strive for balance between

(33)

30 the brand and the sponsored entity. If a consumer strongly likes the sponsored entity, the theory predicts that the consumer’s liking of the brand that acts as the sponsor will increase (Bergkvist & Taylor, 2016). Furthermore, transfer effects according to this theory are more likely to occur under high effort processing and can result already from a single exposure to the LMC (Bergkvist & Taylor, 2016). In contrast, the other two direct affect transfer theories, evaluative conditioning and adaptive learning, re-quire repeated exposed to the LMC (Bergkvist & Taylor, 2016). This means that if a company wants to become authentic, it can link itself over and over again to an au-thentic entity. Due to the limited time frame and the research method, this study will only focus on the balance effects as a direct affect transfer.

The last route and the most important one for this study mentioned by is the image transfer Bergkvist & Taylor (2016). This transfer is again the result of two cognitive processes and leads to consumers forming similar associations to the brand as to the linked entity, brand authenticity in this case. One of the two cognitive processes are ‘inference’ (Keller, 1993). So far, inference has only been studied in the co-branding context. It is however likely that due to the fact that secondary associations also exist for other forms of LMC, similar inferences will occur in for instance celebrity en-dorsement and sponsorship. Inference means that consumers ‘infer’ that brands have characteristics similar to the associative entity (Keller, 1993). These inferences can update and add to existing brand associations, and eventually to positive brand out-comes (Bergkvist & Taylor, 2016). Inferences can occur after being made automati-cally in which the consumers are not aware of it, or being the result of effortful pro-cessing. Furthermore, it can occur already after just one exposure to the LMC and

(34)

af-31 ter low- and high-effort processing (Bergkvist & Taylor, 2016).

The second process of the image transfer theory is the ‘spontaneous trait transfer-ence’. In spontaneous trait transference, people transfer traits (e.g. adventurous, dar-ing) they associate with one person to another person and / or thing with whom it does not make sense to associate the trait (Bergkvist & Taylor, 2016). To date, there has not been evidence developed that spontaneous trait transference also transfers from the object to the brand nor in other LMC forms than celebrity endorsement. It is however a robust phenomenon that has been demonstrated to transfer not only from people to other people, but also from people to inanimate objects (e.g. baseball and a banana), from dogs to their owners, and from symbols to people (Bergkvist & Taylor, 2016). Therefore, it is likely that spontaneous trait transference will also hold in other forms of LMC like brand alliances and sponsorships.

(35)

32

3. Hypothesis development

This section will provide a recap of the provided literature together with the expected relationships in the form of hypotheses. This will be graphically shown in the concep-tual framework of this study.

3.1 Hypotheses

3.1.1 Primary versus secondary sources

Many companies are using authentic cues in their marketing communications to cre-ate an authentic image and so fulfill the needs of the consumers to find the authentic in their lives again through brands (Morhart et al., 2015; Thompson et al., 2006). By consuming authenticity, consumers can escape from their artificial modern life and feel more connected to the desired past (Grayson & Martinec, 2004). Moreover, it has become an evaluation and decision criterion for choice of consumption (Napoli et al., 2016) and could eventually even overpower consumption consideration criteria as price and product availability (Gundlach & Neville, 2012).

Even though research suggests that authenticity should step away from mass market-ing and commercial motivations (Alexander, 2009; Beverland, 2006), companies are using authentic cues in their direct marketing campaigns to their consumers. Because the quest of consumers of finding the authentic back in their lives is so high, we could expect that authentic cues communicated through primary sources will also, even if just a little, positively influence the perceived brand authenticity.

Next to creating associations via primary sources, associations can also be borrowed from other entities and transferred to a brand and is called Leveraged Marketing

(36)

33 Communication (LMC) (Bergkvist & Taylor, 2016). These so-called secondary sources will enable an effective leveraging if the consumer has the necessary the knowledge of the entity, how familiar a person is with it (Keller, 2003). The meaning-fulness and transferability of this knowledge are also determining successmeaning-fulness of the association transfer (Keller, 2003). Next to the three factors mentioned by Keller (2003), the concept of fit is very important regarding the effectiveness of the lever-aged marketing communication (Bergkvist & Taylor, 2016). If the consumers do not perceive any kind of fit between the brand and the linked entity, the associations will not or just limited be transferred to the brand. However, if the consumers are familiar with the other entity and perceive the linkage as relevant with a high fit, it is likely that the associative networks of the brand will be updated. Based on this, this study expects an increase in the perceived brand authenticity caused by an authentic sec-ondary source that consumers are familiar with and perceive as relevant for the brand.

Furthermore, the study will examine the difference in effectiveness of the three dif-ferent forms of secondary sources explained before; celebrity endorsement, sponsor-ship and brand alliances. To be effective, consumers should be familiar with the enti-ty and they should perceive some fit between the brand and the entienti-ty to be able to update their associative network (Bergkvist & Taylor, 2016; Keller, 2003).

Many academic researchers been able to prove the effectiveness of the secondary sources celebrity endorsement and sponsorship (Eisand & Langner, 2010; Zdravkovic & Till, 2012). Both types of secondary sources have the power to update the brand’s associative networks if they are used properly. If used properly in regard to brand-entity fit, it seems to be that if a brand sponsors an authentic familiar brand and

(37)

con-34 sumers perceive a certain level of fit between them, the brand will also be seen as more authentic. The same holds for a successful endorser.

Brands also often link themselves to other brands in the hope that the desired associa-tions will transfer to them (Keller, 2003). Again, fit and familiarity are the corner-stones for an effective alliance (Simonin & Ruth, 1998). It could however be possible that the alliance will still be successful in a low-fit condition (Simonin & Ruth, 1998). This is because one brand can complement the other one by addressing the desired associations. Furthermore, a more salient brand will probably have more effective, because the consumer is more familiar with it. (Simonin & Ruth, 1998; Keller, 1993). This is also why the two brands do not always make equal contributions in the brand alliance (Simonin & Ruth, 1998). As for all types of secondary sources, the motive behind the alliance can also have an impact on the effectiveness of it. So did Cunha et al. (2015) found that associations between brands will transfer only if the consumer is not aware of the strategic motivations behind the alliance. Nevertheless, if the condi-tions are sufficient, it is expected that the associative networks of the brand will be updated favorably.

Since Alexander (2009) and Beverland (2006) stated that authenticity should distant itself from mass marketing and that commercial motivations, we can expect some dif-ferences in the effects of primary versus secondary sources on perceived brand au-thenticity. Their research suggests that leveraging associations of authentic entities would be more beneficial than the direct communication of authentic cues to consum-ers and that this is essential to create an authentic aura. It can be said that even if the use of primary sources for the communication of a brand's authenticity will have a

(38)

35 positive effect, the use of secondary sources will have a stronger, more positive

ef-fect. This is why the following hypothesis is expected:

H1: Brand authenticity is higher when authenticity is communicated via a secondary source than via a primary source.

3.1.2 Corporate credibility

From the literature about corporate credibility, it can be concluded that this credibility should be added to the model because it will have an impact on the way consumers “accept” things the brand is communicating. So did Pornpitakpan (2004) stated that the persuasiveness of an advertisement is higher for a more credible brand and that this also has an impact on the attitude toward the advertisement. Goldsmith et al. (2000) furthermore found that the level of corporate credibility has an impact on the attitude toward the ad, the brand and even on the purchase intention. This inclines to a higher effectiveness of the authentic cues used in marketing efforts (via a primary source) by a high credible brand than for a low credible one.

Corporate credibility is an important part of corporate image and reputation. If a repu-tation of a brand is damaged, the consumers do not trust the brand anymore. It could be that any type of action would be considered as suspicious. Consumers could there-fore perceive an alliance, sponsorship or the use of an endorser by a low-credible brand as an act that is driven by negative motives (e.g. financial motivations only)

(Bergkvist & Taylor, 2016). This will eventually result in a negative effect on the atti-tude toward the LMC and eventually on the attiatti-tude toward the brand (Pornpitakpan, 2004).

(39)

36

Since this credibility has an impact on many important variables (e.g. attitude toward the brand), a low credibility could damage the brand. Consumers will then simply not trust the accusations of the brand that they make in their marketing campaigns. Any marketing campaign of a low-credible brand will therefore have no or even an oppo-site effect (Pornipitakpan, 2004). Based on the literature, it is likely that the use of primary sources will have higher positive effect on perceived brand authenticity for a high credible brand than for a low one and that a low-credible brand’s marketing ef-forts could even backfire and have an opposite effect. It could therefore be expected that the level of corporate credibility also has an impact on the relationship between the use of secondary sources and perceived brand authenticity.

The use of primary sources is in a more direct manner than that of the use of second-ary sources. The effectiveness could therefore be more influenced by the attitude to-ward the brand itself. If the general attitude toto-ward the brand is very negative, any ac-cusations via a primary source about its authenticity will not be trusted. Therefore, the negative attitude toward the brand will influence the attitude toward the ad negatively (Goldsmith et al., 2000). As Goldsmith et al. (2000) already suggested in their article, brands with a low credibility could use secondary sources to avoid this negative im-pact of their own bad reputation. Therefore, it is expected that the level of credibility has a stronger impact on the effectiveness of the primary source, than for the second-ary sources.

H2: The difference in brand authenticity between communication via a secondary and a primary source is larger when corporate credibility is low than when corporate credibility is high.

(40)

37 3.1.3 Brand trust

Consumers nowadays are not searching for brands who use trust just as a sales tech-nique (Eggers et al., 2013). Brands will be only be perceived as trustworthy if the brand is honest and authentic. Napoli et al. (2014) found in their study that authentic brands are trusted more than inauthentic brands and that authentic cues are the corner-stones of what is seen as authentic and trustworthy. Authenticity is influencing brand trust, either directly or indirectly through the reputation of the brand (Greysner, 2009; Nguyen et al., 2013; Schallehn et al., 2014). Schallehn et al. (2014) and Moulard et al. (2016) furthermore found a strong relationship between brand authenticity and brand trust. This relationship will be tried to be confirmed by testing the following hypothe-sis:

H3: Brand authenticity has a positive effect on brand trust.

Furthermore, since corporate credibility is very much intertwined with brand trust (Morhart et al,, 2015; Muda et al., 2014; Pornipitakpan, 2004), it is expected that the level of credibility will also influence the level of brand trust. The trust in a brand is lower if a brand is perceived as less credible (Pornipitakpan, 2004) Therefore the fol-lowing hypothesis is expected:

(41)

38 3.2 Conceptual Framework

(42)

39

4. Method

This chapter will consist of the description of the empirical set up for the research and the data collection. The first part covers the research design together with its partici-pants. Subsequently, the development of the stimuli and the other measures relevant for this study will be discussed. Lastly, the analysis plan for testing the hypothesized relationships will be explained.

4.1 Research design

The study will be done in the form of an experimental approach. In an experimental approach participant will be exposed to different treatments that can be controlled by the researches. This will give the researcher the opportunity to identify causality be-tween variables (Charness et al., 2012).To reach as many respondents possible, it will be conducted in the form of an online survey. The first goal of the acquired quantita-tive date from the survey will be to get insights into the differences in relationships between the type of source and the perceived brand authenticity. Therefore, the type of source needs to be manipulated. Next to this, the level of corporate credibility will also need to be manipulated in this experiment to get insights into causality between type of source and perceived brand authenticity (Charness et al., 2012). Since there are four types of sources part of the study under two different conditions of corporate credibility, the study will be a 4 (type of source; primary source, celebrity endorse-ment, sponsorship, brand alliance) x 2 (high versus low level of credibility) experi-mental design.

Each survey started with an introduction of the survey, a thankful word for their par-ticipations, and a promise to ensure their privacy. Every respondent will be randomly

(43)

40 assigned to one type of source in a high or in a low level of corporate credibility, therefore to just one condition by Qualtrics. This means that this study will be a "be-tween subject" experimental design. As long as the conditions in this type of design are assigned randomly to the participants, causality can be identified by comparing the behaviors of respondents in one condition with the behavior of those in another condition (Charness et al., 2012). To use a "within subject" designed experiment, each condition should be independent from each other, something that could not be assured in this study. If a person would be assign to for the same type of source in the a high and a low level of credibility, or two types of sources in the same level of cred-ibility, the absence of hypothesis guessing could not be assured. Next to this, a within design could lead to several confounds (Charness et al., 2012).

Within the type of source, the respondent could be assign to either a primary source, a celebrity endorsement, a sponsorship, or a brand alliance. The primary source will be in the form of a billboard containing authentic cues in the form of a direct advertising message to the consumers initiated by the brand itself. After the exposure, the re-spondents will have to assign the brand authenticity level and brand trust level through an online survey based on the scales of respectively Morhart et al. (2015) and Schallehn et al. (2014). The brand authenticity and brand trust levels will be scored on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree – 7 = strongly agree). This will even-tually provide data and insights in the differences and so effectiveness of the different types of creating an authentic image and so brand trust.

(44)

in-41 clude questions about the familiarity of the entity and about the perceived fit it has with the brand. Lastly, some demographical questions will have to be answered, end-ing with a gratitude for the respondent's participation.

4.2 Sample

In order to avoid the effects of culture differences, only the Dutch consumers are part of the target population, since these cultural differences could influence the generali-zability of the results.

Probability sample was used in order to give every consumer a known change of be-ing selected. The respondents will be approached via e-mails, by postbe-ing the link of the study on several social media platforms and by asking them to fill it in on a mo-bile device face-to-face.

4.3 Measures

Before the above described experiment can be performed, a pre-test was necessary to make sure that the construct validity of the manipulated stimuli is sufficient. In other words, do the stimuli actually measure what they are intended to measure. In the next section the process of the stimuli development together with the performed pre-test will be described.

4.3.1 Independent variables

The independent variables are the variables that are not influenced by any other varia-ble, but are on their part influencing other variables or relationships between variables. In this study, these are the ‘type of source’ and the level of 'corporate credibility’. The

Becoming trustworthy by building or borrowing authenticity for low versus high credible brands