Honesty Is The Best Policy.
The Effect of Disclosures’ Modality and Explicitness of Sponsored Branded Online Video Content (SBOVC) on Consumers’ EWOM Intentions
Master's Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master's Program Communication Science Supervisor: Stefan Bernritter
Somaiya Tabibi
Student number: 10700943
Abstract
Disclosures of sponsored branded online video content (SBOVC) intend to inform consumers about third-party influence but without putting consumers off. At that, since electronic Word of mouth (eWOM) has long been recognized as a powerful and influential force in advertising, promotion, and public relations it is inevitable to encourage consumers to engage in eWOM. But what is the most effective way to achieve this goal? To answer this question, this research investigates to what extend the modality and explicitness of SBOVC disclosures affect
consumers’ eWOM intentions. More specifically, we tested whether the effects of disclosures’ modality on consumers’ eWOM intentions via activated persuasion knowledge were different for consumers exposed to explicit disclosures than to implicit disclosures. We assume that
audiovisual disclosures of SBOVC have more positive affect on consumers’ eWOM intentions than text disclosures. In addition, we argue that audiovisual and explicit disclosures activate less persuasion knowledge than text and implicit disclosures of third-party influence. Moreover, we assume that the effects of audiovisual and written disclosures of SBOVC on consumers’ eWOM intentions via the activation of persuasion knowledge are affected by how explicit the reviewer disclose the third party influence. In addition, we expect persuasion knowledge to negatively effect consumers’ eWOM intentions. As expected, an online experiment (N=210) showed a moderated mediation effect: audiovisual SBOVC disclosures activated less persuasion
knowledge than text disclosures, which resulted in higher intention to engage in eWOM. This mediated effect was only significant for people who were exposed to audiovisual disclosures. Text disclosures raised awareness of the vlogger’s persuasive intentions, which subsequently led to more critical processing. People exposed to text disclosures already processed the review in a critical manner and activated stronger persuasion knowledge, unattached of its explicitness. These findings have important implications for theory, legislation, and the advertising practice.
Honesty Is The Best Policy.
The Effect of Disclosures’ Modality and Explicitness of Sponsored Branded Online Video Content (SBOVC) on Consumers’ EWOM Intentions
Introduction
YouTube is massive and has emerged as a highly influential digital marketplace. With the intention to exploit the popularity of this platform businesses and organizations use the strategy of direct influence over content of the YouTube videos (Waters, Tindall, & Morton, 2010) mostly generated by so-called vloggers (i.e. video bloggers). With its multi modality YouTube does not only provide new opportunities for advertisers for generating sponsored content, it also contributes alternative approaches to vloggers for disclosing third-party influences. This implies that vloggers can either reveal external influence by displaying a text that serves as a disclosure of the vlogger-company relationship, or they inform the viewer themselves by using the
audiovisual modality of YouTube by means of telling about the sponsorship. At that, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has clamped down on YouTube and social media users who feature products as results of a commercial deal without explaining their relationship with the companies and brands. In 2009 the FTC announced that any sponsorship in blogs must be disclosed.
Nevertheless, the types of vlogger-company relationship disclosures vary widely in their explicitness (Archer, Pettigrew, & Harrigan, 2014; Carr & Hayes, 2014). However, resulting of the innovation of these alternatives, yet it is unclear how different disclosure modalities and their explicitness affect consumer responses. Therefore, contributing to our understanding of
disclosure effects, the aim of this study is to investigate the effects of disclosures’ modality and explicitness of sponsored branded online video content (SBOVC) on consumers’ intention to engage in eWOM.
Engaging in eWOM behavior is of special importance for marketers since with the global rise of social media consumers’ one-to-one communication has developed into a one-to-many communication (Hansen & Lee, 2013). Studies of eWOM show that consumers provide opinions
and share content with peers, or seek comments from others related to products or brands (Cheung & Thadani, 2012). Thus, with the intention to motivate consumer to engage in eWOM these companies pay influential vloggers to promote or review their products (Campbell, Pitt, Parent, & Berthon, 2011, Cheong & Morrison, 2008). Some get further sponsored if they ask their follower to upload content featuring the specific brand, in other words to generate eWOM (Campell et al., 2011). Nonetheless, there is little research about the effects of disclosures of sponsored content on the consumers' eWOM intentions.
As SBOVC is fairly new, little is known about the extent to which consumers understand this type of advertising, and thus whether they have developed persuasion knowledge about SBOVC. The outcomes of the study may provide beneficial insights for regulators and marketers as well as vloggers.
In sum the present research has three key contributions: First, we extend the knowledge about communication modality and its effects on consumers’ eWOM intentions in the field of disclosures of SBOVC. Online video is a prominent form of marketing promotion, yet little is known about which factors make online video engaging or how they influence recipients’ forwarding intentions, especially with regard to its multi modality. Although the importance of message factors in the success of viral marketing has been widely noted (Hinz, Skiera, Barrot, & Becker, 2011; Huang, Lin, & Lin, 2009; van der Lans, van Bruggen, Eliashberg, Wierenga, 2010), there is limited empirical research recognizing the relationship between message modality and recipients’ intentions to share and forward the message.
Second, we extend the work of Carr and Hayes (2014) regarding positive effects of explicit disclosures of branded content in blogs by showing that explicit disclosures of SBOVC has a more positive effect on consumers intention to engage’ in eWOM compared to implicit disclosures of SBOVC.
Third, we empirically examine the message related drivers of consumers’ activation of persuasion knowledge. Although, some social influence research has stressed communication
modality or form (e.g., Chaiken & Eagly, 1976, 1983; McGinnies, 1965; Burgoon, Birk, & Pfau, 1990; Worchel, Andreoli, & Eason, 1975), there has been no research on the role and influence of communication modality and form on cognitive outcomes (e.g. activation of persuasion knowledge). Instead, both factors have been treated as a neutral channel of message content (Pfau, Holbert, Zubric, Pasha, 2000).
Altogether, by conducting an online experiment this study aims to answer the question to what extent SBOVC disclosures’ modality (i.e. audiovisual vs. text) and explicitness (explicit vs. implicit) effect consumers’ intention to engage in eWOM and if this relationship is mediated by consumers’ persuasion knowledge (i.e. the recognition of advertising).
Theoretical Background
Modality and Explicitness of SBOVC Disclosures
According to the FTC instructions creators of SBOVC are obligated to disclose third-party influences (Federal Trade Commission, 2013). The objective of disclosures is to inform consumers of a persuasive intent in a message that allows the audience to distinguish advertising from editorial content (Boerman, Van Reijmersdal, & Neijens, 2012). Disclosures of SBOVC can thus help consumers understand the commercial nature of online reviews on YouTube: when a disclosure is provided, people may realize that the reviewer created the video with the intention to persuade. However, as Internet behavior can be difficult to regulate, even if legally required, the influence of a third party on a review is not always fully and clearly disclosed (Carr et al., 2014; Walden, Bortee, & DiStaso, 2013). This is due to the vloggers’ intention to avoid being perceived as less credible or no longer subjective. Furthermore, since the FTC requirements do neither determine any details of the disclosure types nor are they broadly enforced (Carr et al., 2014), vloggers make use of many different disclosure types diverse in their modality or explicitness.
Thus, disclosures of SBOVC do not only differ in their explicitness, they also alter in their modalities. This is due to the fact that video-sharing Websites such as YouTube and Vimeo are taking full advantage of their multimodality to include many nonverbal aspect of
communication such as facial expressions, body posture and gaze behaviors (Mohammadi, Park, Sagae, & Vinciarelli, 2013). Thus, this aspect is also reflected in the ways vloggers disclose third-party influences in their videos. Based on the multimodality vloggers have on their command they choose between two ways to disclose external influence. An individual may choose to reveal the relationship with the brand by means of text disclosures in the beginning of the YouTube video or may decide to disclose by telling the receiver about the compensation herself.
At that, as already mentioned, the types of blogger-company relationships disclosures vary widely in their explicitness (Walden et al., 2013; Archer, et al., 2014; Carr et al., 2014) since the FTC rule has not been broadly enforced (Goldstein, 2010). Thus, the vlogger is free in choosing how obvious and explicit he or she discloses any external influence that may affect their online reviews. Accordingly, vloggers may explicitly provide full disclosure of the influence, directly noting the impacts of a third party on his or her espoused positions and attitudes, termed explicit disclosures. Explicit disclosures can be defined as statements that acknowledge compensations directly from the company or organization for specific, related reviews of their products or services (Carr et al., 2014). Alternately, the reviewer decides to recognize the impact tacitly, noting that influence may have occurred but without explicating the degree or nature of the influence; this is making implicit disclosures (Carr et al., 2014).
Electronic Word of Mouth (eWOM)
One important outcome for advertising on social media platforms, as YouTube is to evoke consumers’ eWOM, such as consumers’ sharing behavior. Engaging in eWOM behavior is of special importance for marketers, as consumers through (ultimately) passing along an
advertisers’ message can potentially become a persuasion agent carrying the message to their peers (Hansen et al., 2013). The concept of eWOM is defined as “any positive or negative statement made by potential, actual, or former customers about a product or company, which is made available to a multitude of people and institutions via the Internet” (Henning-Thurau, Gwinner, Walsh, & Gremler, 2004, p. 39). Through social media platforms (e.g. Facebook, Instagram, Twitter etc.), the Internet enables customers to share their opinion on, and
experiences with, goods and services with a multitude of other consumers; that is to engage in eWOM (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2004). In the face of market competition and growing digitization of commercial activities, eWOM communication becomes increasingly important in shaping consumer attitudes and behaviors (Shih, Lai, & Cheng, 2013). In this study we define eWOM as the spreading of online reviews, arguments, and recommendations that apply to personal
experiences with specific products or service providers. Consumers can conveniently share personal experiences with one another by posting or reading online reviews via firm-sponsored or public Internet platforms (Shih et al., 2013).
Effect of Sponsorship Disclosures’ Modality on Consumers’ Intention to Engage In EWOM As Ajzen (1992) states adopting different methods to deliver messages can invoke
different effects, even if the message is the same. Accordingly, research indicates that different effects occur with different modalities (Booth-Butterfield & Gutowki, 1993; Jensen, Farnham, Drucker, & Kollock, 2000). Generally speaking, modality is defined as the use of text, sound, and video on a single communication platform (Kiousis, 2006).
However, early studies on the effects of communication modality in persuasion show large inconsistency in their findings. For example, Jensen et al. (2000) found differences
between modalities of communication and the effect on perceived trust by comparing four forms of communication. More precisely, comparing voice and text-communication, voice
communication was found to have an extremely powerful effect in fostering trust (Jensen et al., 2000). In addition, Moreno and Mayer (2002) found that videotaped messages are more
persuasive than audio taped messages and text messages are the least persuasive, other studies suggested no difference or greater persuasiveness in writing messages. Further, based on Mohammadi et al. (2013) overall people are perceived more persuasive in video than audio and less persuasive in text. In addition, Mohammedi et al. (2013) tested the effects of communication modalities on perceived personality traits of the message sender and found that personality traits are indeed perceived differently across different modalities. Especially, the personality
conscientiousness and honesty was perceived significantly higher in video versus text messages. Additionally, Pfau et al. (2000) found that video modalities immediately generated positive relational perceptions about the source, which consequently bolstered consumers’ attitudes. In their study Xu, Chen, and Santhanam (2015) compared written based reviews with video based reviews and found video based reviews not only to be perceived as more credible and helpful, but also as more persuasive. Thus, dependent on the message modality, multiple cues and richer representations of information allow recipients to better understand the message and perceive it as more credible and persuasive (Xu et al., 2015) which in turn could positively impact
consumers’ intention to engage in eWOM. Accordingly, Hsieh, Hsieh and Tang (2012) argue that video modality with more multimedia effects increases consumers’ intention to forward the video.
In sum, these findings suggest that audiovisual information, such as audiovisual disclosures of SBOVC rather than text disclosures, could have a positive influence on
consumers’ intention to engage in eWOM. Most notably, based on the findings of Mohammadi et al. (2013), the audiovisual disclosures will be perceived as more credible and persuasive which may have a positive effect on consumers' eWOM intention. Thus, we hypothesize:
H1: Consumers who are exposed to audiovisual disclosures of SBOVC will generate more eWOM intentions than those who are exposed to text disclosures of SBOVC.
Modality and Explicitness of SBOVC Disclosures on Persuasion Knowledge
However, different modalities of sponsorship disclosures may also have other effects on the way viewers process the sponsored content and consequently result in different activation of the receivers’ persuasion knowledge. The Persuasion Knowledge Model (PKM) established by Friestad and Wright in 1994 describes the contingent development of consumers’ general knowledge about persuasion and how they use this knowledge to cope with persuasion attempts. The model describes the term “target” to refer to those consumers for whom a persuasion attempt is intended (e.g., consumers) and the term “agent” to represent whomever a target identifies as being responsible for designing and constructing a persuasion attempt (e.g. the company responsible for an advertising campaign) (Friestad et. al, 1994). In other words, consumers develop personal knowledge about the methods used in persuasion attempts of advertisers. This knowledge refers to personal knowledge and beliefs about advertising motives and tactics (Friedstad et al., 1994) and thus denotes the general comprehension of when, how, and why a recipient is confronted with persuasive attempts, and how to cope with them (Tessitore & Geuens, 2013; Boerman et al., 2012). Consumers acquire their persuasion knowledge from interactions with friends or family, from observing marketing activities of companies, or from news reports about marketing tactics (Friestad et al., 1994). Persuasion knowledge represents an important knowledge domain of consumers’ daily life and makes them aware of situations where an outside agent, in this case the vlogger, tries to change their thoughts, emotions and behaviors (Friestad & Wright, 1999). In a marketing context, persuasion knowledge mirrors consumers’ knowledge about marketers’ persuasion objectives and about how such strategies trigger and influence psychological processes (Hibbert, Smith, Davies, & Ireland, 2007). It is assumed that disclosures can weaken persuasion because they activate aspects of persuasion knowledge, such as persuasive intentions (Friestad et al., 1994; Kirmani & Zhu 2007; Wood & Quinn 2003).
To determine whether the modality of the SBOVC disclosures impact consumers’ activation of persuasion knowledge we will use the elaboration likelihood model (ELM). The
ELM is a dual process theory describing how attitudes form and change (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). This model aims to explain different ways of processing stimuli and differentiates between central and peripheral routes of processing information (Petty et al., 1986; Xu, et al., 2015). Under the central route, persuasion will likely result from a persons' careful and thoughtful consideration of the true merits of the information presented in support of an advocacy (Petty et al., 1986). The central route involves a high level of message elaboration in which the individual receiving the message generates great amounts of cognition about the arguments. The results of attitude change will be relatively enduring, resistant, and predictive of behavior. On the other hand, under the peripheral route, persuasion results from a persons’ association with positive or negative cues in the stimulus or making a simple inference about the merits of the advocated position (Petty et al., 1986). The cues received by the individual under the peripheral route are generally unrelated to the logical quality of the stimulus. These cues will involve factors such as the credibility or attractiveness of the sources of the message, or the production quality of the message (Xu et al., 2015). The likelihood of elaboration will be determined by individuals' motivation and ability to evaluate the argument being presented (Petty et al., 1986). In ELM research, in particular, central message processing, which consists of careful consideration of the merits of the information presented (Petty et al., 1986), results in attitudes more resistant to subsequent counter persuasion (Cacioppo & Petty, 1989).
In terms of message modality, Chaiken (1987) claims that video (e.g. audiovisual) is much more likely to evoke peripheral or heuristic message processing, in which influence occurs with only a minimal amount of information processing. Additionally, audio and video modes disrupt processing of important arguments, data or evidence, and instead cause the receiver to focus on salient source attributes (Booth-Butterfield et al., 1993). In contrast print (e.g. text) enables and encourages systematic thinking and requires less reliance on peripheral factors such as source likability or trustworthiness (Petty et al., 1986; Booth-Butterfield et al., 1993; Chen et al., 2008; Xu et al., 2015). Research has indeed shown that when a concealed and hidden motive
is made more accessible in peoples’ minds, it is easier to use persuasion knowledge when evaluating the persuasive attempt (Campbell & Kirmani, 2000). According to Sparks, Areni and Cox (1998) systematic information processing is used to form attitudes toward a
recommendation when arguments are presented in writing, whereas audio and audiovisual modes appear to encourage the use of speaker-related heuristics to form opinions about the speakers’ recommendation. In sum, text disclosures might be processed more profound and skeptical compared to audiovisual disclosures.
To recap this point, the reviewed literature suggests that text messages would enable systematic processing of arguments whereas audiovisual messages are processed heuristically as a consequence of the disruption of the cognitive processes of the receiver. This leads the receiver to engage in heuristic processing and focus upon the peripheral cues of source attribute (e.g. credibility or likability). In this case, audiovisual disclosures would trigger more trustworthiness and therefore cause less activation of the receivers’ persuasion knowledge. Contrary, text
disclosures modality might be processed more systematically, motivate the viewer to evaluate the persuasive attempt and therefore activate stronger persuasion knowledge. Consequently, the receivers’ considerations about the unbiasedness of the YouTuber come to the fore. As a result, taking into consideration all previous findings, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H2a: Audiovisual disclosures of SBOVC will activate less persuasion knowledge compared to text disclosures of SBOVC.
As already explained another characteristics of SBOVC disclosures might be their
explicitness. Studies that analyzed consumer reactions to company-driven communication lead to the notion that consumers show negative reactions in terms of negative attitudes and less strong behavioral intentions when they perceive a marketing tactic as manipulative (e.g., Campbell, 1995; Cotte, Coulter, & Moor, 2005; Hibbert et al., 2007; Kirmani & Zhu, 2007; & Wentzel,
Tomczak, & Herrmann, 2010; Bambauer-Sachse et al., 2013). The activation of persuasion knowledge may be the outcome underlying these different usages of disclosures.
Relative to implicit disclosures, explicit disclosures of SBOVC may be expected to have the least influence on the activation of the consumers’ persuasion knowledge (Carr et al., 2014), as such vloggers are being honest about their relationships and influences. Based on Carr et al. (2014) explicit disclosures of third-party influence may clearly acknowledge the reviewers’ bias and commercial interest. This in turn may minimize consumers’ intention to activate persuasion knowledge since there is no reason to feel threatened of any deceitful persuasive intent
(Williams, Fitzsimons, & Block 2004). Whereas explicit disclosures of third-party influence may seem sincere and credible, implicit disclosures of outside influence may seem an attempt to disguise a threat to the reviewers’ impartiality (Carr et al., 2014; Magnini, 2011).
The psychological state in which an individual considers that the actor may have a hidden motive has been defined as suspicion (Fein, 1996). This can result in a stronger activation of the message receivers’ persuasion knowledge. Accordingly, Darke and Ritchie (2007) show that deceptive advertising generates consumers’ distrust that consequently ends in negative beliefs about the marketing intentions of the advertiser. Thus, when the manipulative intent of a
message is deduced, the receiver of the message adopts a more critical processing style (Campell et al., 2000; Darke et al., 2007; Wentzel, Tomczak, & Herrmann, 2010) that may lead to stronger activation of persuasion knowledge. This is due to the fact that consumers’ knowledge about persuasion does not only include beliefs about persuasion motives, such as changing someone’s opinion or persuading someone to do something (Rule, Bisanz, & Kohn, 1985; Campell et al., 2000). Consumers’ knowledge structures also include beliefs about persuasion tactics, such as using deception in order to conceal the real intention (Cody, McLaughlin, & Jordan 1980; Friestad et al., 1999; Campell et al., 2000). Consequently, being exposed to implicit disclosures may be motivating for consumers to activate their persuasion knowledge in order to be able to cope with the hidden persuasion attempt. The consumer who thus wonders about the vloggers’
motives may infer that the reviewer has ulterior persuasion motives (Campell et al., 2000). As a result, a consumer may use persuasion knowledge to consider the motive for the vloggers’ positive remarks about the product he reviews.
Moreover, these assumptions are in accordance with research about the PKM. Targets that suspect agents of having an ulterior motive are more likely to perceive this agent as less sincere (Campbell et al., 2000; Friestad & Wright, 1994; Tuk, Verlegh, Smidts, & Wigboldus, 2008). Similarly, the study of Carr et al., 2014 on the effects of disclosures of third-party influence on a bloggers’ credibility showed that respondents, who are exposed to an implicit, thus a rather vague, disclosure, evaluate the source as less credible, than those who read a blog post that does not allude to third-party influence. In addition, there is evidence that consumers are aware or at the very least suspicious of overly positive reviews or product placements in entertainment media and may assume some sort of influence whether or not it is disclosed (Bhatnagar, Aksoy, & Malkoc, 2004). This may create associations in the mind of consumer, who may perceive a dishonest lack of explicit disclosures of a relationship that in return appeals activating their persuasion knowledge. Summarizing, are consumers alerted to the presence of a concealed persuasive attempt they may activate their persuasion knowledge, as they perceive these attempts as a threat to their autonomy and freedom of choice (Brehm, 1993; Koslow, 2000).
To recap this point, the literature outlined above suggests that since explicit disclosures clearly acknowledge the reviewers’ bias and commercial interest consumers perceive the
message as honest and sincere. That as a result does not provoke consumers’ intention to activate and use their persuasion knowledge. In contrast, consumers exposed to implicit disclosures will suspect ulterior and concealed motives and thus use their persuasion knowledge to cope with these attempts. Thus, with regard to disclosures’ explicitness, we argue that:
H2b: Explicit disclosures of SBOVC will activate less persuasion knowledge than implicit disclosures of SBOVC.
Moderating Role of Disclosures’ Explicitness
Chaiken et al. (1976), Liu and Stout (1987) and Pfister, Wollstädter and Peter (2011) revealed that message modalities interact with message features, affecting influence. For example, print messages were found to be more persuasive for material deemed to be difficult, whereas audio- and videotaped messages were more effective with message content defined as easy (Chaiken et al., 1976). Subsequently, Jacoby, Hoyer, and Zimmer (1983) found different effects of different modalities on message comprehension. Accordingly, Pfister et al. (2011) found an interaction effect of message modalities with message categories on
consumers’ affective responses. Modality used to convey the information, that is, as a written text or as a spoken communication, does indeed to a certain extent influence affective
responses. By and large, spoken messages trigger more pleasant affect and are associated with feelings of control, whereas written messages are, in comparison, less pleasant, associated with less control and with higher physiological agitation (Pfister et al., 2011). For example, Chaiken et al. (1983) conducted a study in which videotaped and audiotaped modalities enhance the salience of communicator-related information, which serves as a cue in persuasion (Coupey et al., 2000). At that, empirical studies in this area typically involve comparisons between modalities (video, audio, and written) and message content (e.g., concrete versus abstract) to determine effects of manipulated message vividness on criterion variables such as attention and persuasion (Coupey & Sandgathe, 2000). Based on Coupey et al. (2000) understanding how modality interacts with message to influence consumers' outcome responses is a necessary precursor to understanding what aspects of the presented information are likely to be used in the latter stages of the decision.
The Heuristic-Systematic Model of persuasion (HSM) provides a useful framework for understanding how disclosures’ explicitness of SBOVC might interact with disclosures’
modality to activate consumers’ persuasion knowledge. Similar to ELM, HSM distinguishes between systematic processing and heuristic processing (Chaiken, 1987). Systematic
processing is defined as an analytic orientation in which consumers access and scrutinizes all available information to assess its relevance to the judgment task whereas heuristic processing entails the consideration of only a subset of the information (Chaiken, 1987). When
systematic processing occurs, persuasion tends to be driven by carful assessment of arguments supporting the communications’ recommendation. Heuristic processing, on the other hand, entails the use of persuasion heuristics or inferential rules to form or modify attitudes
regarding a recommendation (Sparks et al., 1998). As already explained, research examining information processing and persuasion suggests that communication modality is an important cognitive determinant of whether consumers utilize systematic or heuristic processing.
Sparks et al. (1998) also states that communication modality affects the degree to which an audience comprehends the content of a persuasive message. With respect to message comprehension, numerous studies support the superiority of written material for accurately conveying information (Chaiken et al., 1976, Furnham, Gunter, & Green, 1990; Gunter, Furnham, & Gietson, 1984), and, thereby, increasing the impact of relevant arguments (Eagly, 1974). Thus, attributes, such as implicit SBOVC disclosures, may be less distracting when presented in writing. Consequently, SBOVC text disclosures, no matter if explicit or implicit, facilitate, and perhaps even encourage, systematic processing of the relevant arguments about the sponsorship. This may decrease reliance on heuristics as likeability or credibility of the vlogger who is disclosing the third party influence, even if she discloses it explicitly.
Communication modality research suggests that, relative to text modality, audiovisual modality enhance the salience of speaker characteristics (Chaiken et al., 1983; Sparks et al., 1998). The enhanced salience afforded by audiovisual modality likely plays a critical role in determining the effects of the SBOVC disclosures’ explicitness. According to Sparks et al. (1998) enhancing the salience of the speaker increases the tendency of individuals to rely on
heuristics (e.g. reliability, credibility) in forming their attitudes, which implies a stronger effect of SBOVC disclosures’ explicitness on consumers’ persuasion knowledge for audiovisual disclosures than for text disclosures.
In sum, research regarding comprehension and salience effects on persuasion suggests greater reliance on speaker-related heuristics when individuals are exposed to audiovisual messages relative to when they are presented with text messages. Furthermore, the inherent characteristics of written material promote systematic processing, which reduces dependence on speaker-related heuristics and thus might enhance the impact of SBOVC disclosures on the activation of persuasion knowledge, no matter if explicitly or implicitly disclosed. On the basis of this reasoning, we hypothesized that:
H2c: For audiovisual disclosures, explicit SBOVC disclosures will activate less persuasion knowledge than explicit SBOVC disclosures. For text disclosures explicitness will not effect the activation of persuasion knowledge.
Effect on Consumers’ eWOM Intentions
Recognizing the persuasive nature of a message can have several effects on the way the receiver responds to this message. Empirical research and theory on persuasion knowledge has indicated that the activation and use of persuasion knowledge influences its persuasive outcomes (Boerman et al., 2012; Campbell et al., 2000; Fransen & Fennis, 2014).
The activation of persuasion knowledge in response to an exposure is often seen as an important underlying mechanism that may explain different consumer responses (Lee & Hansen, 2013). Hsieh et al. (2012) state that when consumers activate their knowledge about persuasion tactics, they also can more easily identify how, when, and why the message sender try to influence them, which influences their responses to persuasive efforts. Studies conducted by Hsieh et al. (2012) and Van Noort and Willemsen (2012) demonstrated that the activation of persuasion knowledge indeed lowers consumers’ eWOM intention. For instance, there is lower
chance that consumer share social media advertising by forwarding online videos (Hsieh et al., 2012) and send an advertising campaign on a social networking site to their friends (Van Noort, Antheunis, & Van Reijmersdal, 2012) when their persuasion knowledge is strongly activated. The findings by Wei, Fischer, and Main (2008) support this assumption; respondents that activate their persuasion knowledge when being exposed to covert marketing on the radio, evaluate the presented brand less favorably, than those who do not activate their persuasion knowledge. Thus, Wei et al. (2008) provide direct support for the underlying view that triggering knowledge about covert marketing change the way consumers respond to persuasion attempts that use such tactics.
Thus, when viewers use their persuasion knowledge to recognize and evaluate the persuasion attempt, they may realize that the vlogger is not neutral and is trying to persuade which leads not only to less favorable attitude toward the brand but also to lower behavioral intentions. This effect can be explained by the reactance theory (Brehm & Brehm, 2013). According to this theory, people desire to maintain their freedom, and do not want to be manipulated. If this freedom is removed by external constraints then there will be a negative response (Edwards, Li, & Lee, 2002). According to the reactance theory (Brehm et al., 2013) and forewarning research, the recognition of a persuasive attempt, such as advertising, may induce resistance and critical processing (Quinn & Wood, 2004; Sagarin, Cialdini, Rice, & Serna, 2002; Wei et al., 2008) and negatively affect advertising outcomes (Flanagin et al., 2000). The more comprehensive and activated consumers’ persuasion knowledge is the more suspicious are consumers about marketing activities in that they perceive such activities as deceptive or
manipulative (Kirmani et al., 2007). Thus, increasing persuasion knowledge leads consumers to become less susceptive to marketing tactics (Friestad et al., 1994). Based on Tutaj and Van Reijmersdal (2012) and Campell (2012) the level of activated persuasion knowledge plays a significant role in the consumers’ behavioral intentions, such as their eWOM intention. More precisely, when consumers’ persuasion knowledge is activated by environmental factors, they
will resist inferred persuasion (Tutaj et al., 2012; Main, Dahl, & Darke, 2007). Panic, Cauberghe, and van De Pelsmacker (2013) also found that activated persuasion knowledge especially has negative effects on the consumers’ behavioral intentions.
Therefore, we hypothesize that consumer with stronger activated persuasion knowledge have lower eWOM intentions since they are more suspicious about marketing tactics and consequently the more they feel threatened in their freedom and want to cognitively defend themselves. Predicting that less activated persuasion knowledge lead to stronger eWOM intention, we hypothesize:
H3: Persuasion knowledge is negatively associated with consumers’ eWOM intentions.
In sum, we expect a moderated mediation effect. This means that we expect the effect of SBOVC disclosures on eWOM intention is mediated by activated persuasion knowledge, but that this effect is conditional; that is, dependent upon the disclosures’ explicitness. All these
hypotheses are summarized in the following model (Figure 1).
Method Participants and Design
In order to examine what influences consumers’ activation of persuasion knowledge and consequently their intention to engage in eWOM, this study employed a 2 (Modality:
Audiovisual vs. Text) x 2 (Explicitness: Explicit vs. Implicit) between subject design. For this experiment, 236 participants were recruited of which 13 of them where deleted as dropouts and 13 were non-coffee drinkers. The reason why it was important to exclude the non-coffee drinkers is because of the irrelevance of their responses since the product that was reviewed in the
YouTube video is a coffee machine. Thus, we were only interested in people who consume coffee. A total of 210 consumers between 12 and 48 years old participated in the experiment (MAge= 28.23, SDAge= 6.99, 57.1% female).
Procedure
Participants were recruited online by email or a Facebook status transmitting the
invitation letter. In addition, they were asked to forward the invitation to participate in the study to people in their network (snowballing) and got a reminder twice. Participants were presented an explanatory introduction including basic instructions, informed consent and a cover story. Participants were told they were participating in a study on reviews on social media platforms and were not informed about the real aim of the study. Furthermore, participants were explicitly told that there were no wrong answers and that all information would be processed anonymously. To make sure that the participants agreed to take part in this study, an informed consent was signed. After expressing their agreement the participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions. First, the participants were exposed to one of the four YouTube review about the Nespresso De´Longhi machine. A forced minimum of 6 minutes to look at the video was chosen to ensure basic observation of the stimuli by each participant. After that, they
filled out the questionnaire, which started with questions about their persuasion knowledge, brand attitude, eWOM-intention followed by measures of their background and demographics.
Stimulus Material
The independent variable of this study was the modality of sponsorship disclosures with two conditions: audiovisual disclosures and text disclosures. The moderator variable was the explicitness of the disclosures: explicit disclosures and implicit disclosures. Thus, for the online experiment, YouTube videos with audiovisual/explicit, audiovisual/implicit, text/explicit, text/implicit types of sponsorship disclosures were produced (Appendix A). We instructed the YouTuber Sami Salem to serve as our vlogger. With him we recorded the YouTube video composed of a review of the coffee machine Nespresso De´Longhi (For inspection of the videos see Appendix B). The four different disclosure types were produced separately and post edited on the review part of the YouTube video. The disclosures, no matter which modality and type of explicitness, were shown in the beginning of the video. In the explicit disclosure conditions, the disclosures represents the vlogger as receiving compensation directly from the company whose product is included in the video:
Nespresso heard about my channel and provided me with one of their new 2016 Nespresso models in order to test it and give you guys a review about it. Nespresso pays me for doing this video. However, what I’m going present here is my own and honest opinion about this product.
In the implicit disclosure conditions (either audiovisual or text) the following information was given:
Nespresso heard about my channel and provided me with one of their new 2016 Nespresso models in order to test it and give you guys a review about it. However, what I’m going to present here is my own and honest opinion about this product.
The text disclosures will appear for ten seconds at the beginning of the video and disclose about the third party influence either explicitly or implicitly (Figure 2). In the audiovisual
about this relationship himself. Thus, he will inform the consumer either explicitly or implicitly about the relationship with Nespresso by means of telling about the sponsorship (Figure 3).
Figure 2. Stimuli in Text Disclosure Conditions
Using audiovisual disclosures the vlogger discloses the sponsorship with Nespresso saying the exact same words as in the text disclosures. Although, this will also be at the beginning of the video, the vlogger welcomes the viewer after he discloses the relationship.
In both types of disclosures we followed the considerations for a clear and conspicuous disclosure, as mentioned in the guidelines published by FTC (Federal Trade Commission, 2013). Thus, it is prominently placed in the beginning of the video and within good proximity to the claims it is qualifying, it is unavoidable, no distractions placed, and the language is
understandable and appropriate for the audience. After disclosing the sponsorship, the vlogger will start reviewing the coffee machine by explaining how to make an espresso or a latte
macchiato. He mentions mostly positive but also some negative aspects of the machine in order to be perceived as honest and unbiased. At the end of the video he will express his appreciation to the viewer for watching the video.
Measures
Persuasion Knowledge. Based on Boerman et al. (2012), conceptual persuasion knowledge was measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), asking to what extent the respondents think the blog post was advertising (M = 5.27, SD = 1.43).
EWOM intention. To measure the participants’ intention to transmit the content of the video the following items will be used: a) I would encourage my friends to check out the Nespresso coffee machine via the Internet, b) I would say positive things about this the coffee machine to other people via the Internet and c) I would recommend the coffee machine (1 = no, definitely not, 7 = yes, definitely). This scale is based on the measurement scale of eWOM intentions used by Shi, Lai and Cheng (2013).
A principal component analysis (PCA) showed that these items form a single uni-dimensional scale: only one component had an eigenvalue above 1 (EV = 2.71) explaining 90.45% of the variance and also the scree plot showed a clear point of inflexion after this component. All items correlated positively with the first component, with the variable mean having the strongest association (factor loading is .96). Therefore, as intended, it appears that the scale measures eWOM intention: the higher the scale score, the higher a respondents’ intention
to engage in eWOM. The scale proved highly reliable, Cronbachs α = .94, and, thus, the items were averaged to form an index measure (M = 4.23, SD = 1.82).
Results Randomization Check
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and chi-square analyses were performed to check for differences between the experimental groups, with respect to age, F(3, 209) = 0.65, p = .585; gender, χ2(3) = 2.96, p = .961; education, F(3, 209) = 0.49, p = .692; country of residence, χ2(39) = 32.05, p = .777; review-watching frequency, F(3, 209) = 0.94, p = .423; disclosure memory, F(3,209) = 2.03, p = .111. As the analyses did not show any significant effects, we can conclude that no significant differences between the groups exist, and that randomization was successful.
Testing the Hypotheses
Before we test the hypotheses, we provide an overview of the main and interaction effects of disclosures modalities and disclosures explicitness; see table 1 for the means. Then we test the complete moderated mediation model.
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare consumers' eWOM intention in the audiovisual disclosure conditions and the text disclosure conditions. There was a significant difference in the scores for audiovisual disclosures (M = 5.19, SD = 1.59) and text disclosures (M = 3.25, SD = 1.47), t(208) = 9.17, p < 0.001, 95% CI [1.53, 2.36]. From these results, we can conclude, that consumers who were exposed to an audiovisual disclosure of SBOVC were more likely to generate eWOM intentions than those who were exposed to a text disclosure of
SBOVC, which is why H1 is confirmed.
To test H2a, an additional independent samples t-test was conducted in order to test the effect of modality on persuasion knowledge. Results revealed that people in the audiovisual disclosure conditions activated less persuasion knowledge (M = 3.45, SD = 2.00) than people in the text disclosure conditions (M = 4.88, SD = 1.59). The groups differed significantly, t (208) =
-5.71, p < 0.001, 95% CI [-1.91, -0.93], which means that audiovisual disclosures of SBOVC activate less persuasion knowledge compared to text disclosures of SBOVC. Thus, H2a is supported by the data.
Furthermore, we tested H2b conducting an additional independent samples t-test. Results showed people in the explicit disclosure conditions to generate significantly less persuasion knowledge (M = 3.77, SD = 1.99) than people in the implicit disclosure conditions (M = 4.52, SD = 1.82), t(208) = -2.83, p = .005, 95% CI [-1.26, -0.23]. These results confirm H2b, due to the fact that people exposed to explicit disclosures of SBOVC showed less persuasion knowledge than people exposed to implicit disclosures of SBOVC.
Table 1. Effects of disclosures' modality and explicitness on persuasion knowledge and eWOM
Audiovisual Disclosures Written Disclosures
Explicit Implicit Explicit Implicit
Persuasion Knowledge 2.78(1.92)a 4.07(1.87)b 4.76(1.52)c 4.98(1.66)c
eWOM Intentions 5.60(1.53)a 4.81(1.57)b 3.44(1.48)c 3.07(1.46)c
Notes:
2Mean scores are portrayed with standard deviations between parentheses.
abcdMeans with different superscripts in the same row differ significantly at p < 0.05
An univariate ANOVA were conducted with modality, explicitness and their interaction as predictors. Results revealed a showed significant main effects of modality F(1, 206) = 35.64, p < .001, η2 = .15, and explicitness F(1, 206) = 9.67, p = .002, η2 = .05, which were qualified by
an interaction effect, F(1, 206) = 4.91, p = .028, η2 = .02. As table 1 and figure 4 show, consumer exposed to audiovisual explicit disclosures showed lower activated persuasion knowledge
(M=2.78, SD=1.92) than people exposed to audiovisual implicit disclosure (M = 4.07, SD = 1.87). Additionally, people in the written explicit disclosure condition sowed lower persuasion knowledge (M = 4.76, SD = 1.52) than consumers exposed to written implicit disclosure (M =
4.98, SD = 1.66). Notwithstanding, a posthoc test of simple effects indicated that the difference between subjects who were exposed to audiovisual explicit and implicit disclosure was
significant (Mdifference = 1.29, p < .001), while there was no significant difference between explicit
and implicit written disclosure (Mdifference = 0.22 , p =.530). This indicates, that for audiovisual
disclosures, implicit SBOVC disclosures activated more persuasion knowledge than explicit SBOVC disclosures. For text disclosures, explicitness did not effect the activation of persuasion knowledge. Thus, H2c is supported by the data.
Figure 4. Interaction effect between disclosures’ modality and explicitness on the activation of persuasion knowledge.
As expected explicitness of the disclosures has a stronger effect on the activation of persuasion knowledge in the audiovisual disclosure conditions compared to the text disclosure conditions. Thus, consumers who were exposed to the explicit audiovisual disclosure activate less persuasion knowledge compared to consumers exposed to the implicit audiovisual
disclosure. In contrast, there was no significant difference between the activation of consumers’ activation of persuasion knowledge in the text disclosure condition. Consequently, we can conclude that explicitness of SBOVC disclosures does not affect consumers’ activation of persuasion knowledge when being exposed to text disclosures. However, in the audiovisual
2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 5 explicit implicit audiovisual text Per suas ion Knowled ge
disclosure conditions explicitness moderates the effect of modality on the activation of persuasion knowledge. Thus, consumers exposed to the audiovisual disclosures activated significantly less persuasion knowledge when the vlogger disclosed the third-party influence explicitly than when he disclosed implicitly. To recap this result, the interaction effect of explicitness is conditional on the disclosures modality. These results confirm H2c.
To test H3, we conducted a linear regression analysis to assess the ability of persuasion knowledge to predict eWOM intentions. Therefore, persuasion knowledge was used as
continuous predictor and eWOM intention as dependent variable. Results showed, that
persuasion knowledge was significantly, strongly associated with eWOM intention (b = -0.46, b* = -0.49, t = -8.18, p < .001, 95% CI [-0.57, -0.35]) with 24 per cent of the variation in eWOM intention being explained on the basis of persuasion knowledge (F (1, 208) = 66.91, p < .001, R2 = .24). Consequently, as persuasion knowledge showed to be negatively associated with eWOM intentions, we can confirm H3.
Moderated Mediation Analysis
To test the hypotheses depicted in figure 1, moderated mediation analyses were conducted using the PROCESS macro (Hayes 2013, Model 7). This macro also offers the possibility to test conditional indirect effects and provides confidence intervals based on bootstrapping with 1000 resamples for the mediated effect at the two levels of the moderator. The analysis showed a moderated mediation effect.
Modality had a positive effect on persuasion knowledge (b = 3.05, SE = 0.77, 99% CI [1.53, 4.57]). Moreover, persuasion knowledge decreased eWOM intentions (b = -0.32, SE = 0.05, 99% CI [-0.43, -0.21]). The direct path from modality to eWOM intentions was significant (b = -1.48, SE = 0.21, 99% CI [-1.91, -1.07]), which demonstrates a partial mediation by
With respect to eWOM, see table 2, the indirect conditional effect of disclosures’
modality via activation of persuasion knowledge was negative and significant for people exposed to explicit disclosure (b = - 0.63, SE = 0.16, 99% CI [-0.99, -0.36]) and also negative and
significant for people exposed to implicit disclosure (b = 0.29, SE = 0.13, 99% CI [0.59, -0.08]). This means, that for people being exposed to explicit disclosures, audiovisual disclosures activated less persuasion knowledge than written disclosures, which in turn resulted in higher eWOM intentions. For people exposed to implicit disclosures, audiovisual disclosures also activated less persuasion knowledge than written disclosures, which in turn resulted in higher eWOM intentions. Nonetheless, this effect was smaller for implicit than for explicit disclosures.
Table 2. Effects of disclosures' modality and disclosures' explicitness on eWOM-intention via persuasion knowledge (moderated mediation).
Path in the moderated mediation (Figure 1) Explicitness
a1 a2 a3 b c1 Explicit Implicit
eWOM 3.05 2.36 -1.07 -0.32 -1.48 -0.63 (0.16) -0.29 (0.13) Intentions (0.77) (0.76) (0.48) (0.05) (0.21) [-0.99, -0.36] [-0.59, -0.08]
Note: Unstandardized b-coefficients (with boot SE between parentheses) are presented. In the right part of the table
the total indirect effects for two types of explicitness and [Bias corrected 10,000 bootstrap confidence intervals between brackets] are presented. Significant indirect effects are in bold.
* p<0.01
Based on the results, the constructed model as a whole (Figure 1) expecting a moderated mediation effect is significant, with b = 0.34, SE = 0.16, 99% CI [-0.04, -0.69]. Consequently, the results showed a moderated mediation effect of disclosures’ modality on eWOM intentions with audiovisual explicit disclosure accounting for the strongest eWOM intentions through the least activated persuasion knowledge (Figure 5).
Note. *p < .05, n.s. not significant
Figure 5. Moderated Mediation Analysis. Using modality of disclosures as independent variable, explicitness of disclosures as moderator, persuasion knowledge as mediator, and eWOM intentions as dependent variable. Coding of modality of disclosure: 1 = audiovisual, 2 = text. Coding of explicitness of disclosure: 1 = explicit, 2 = implicit.
Discussion and Conclusion
The present study examines different characteristics of SBOVC disclosures that affect consumers’ intention to engage in eWOM and investigates the importance of the activation of consumers’ persuasion knowledge in this process. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the effects of different modalities of disclosures of SBOVC on consumers’ intention to engage in eWOM were moderated by their explicitness. More specifically, we tested whether the effects of audiovisual and text disclosures of SBOVC on consumers’ eWOM intentions via the activation of persuasion knowledge were affected by how explicit the reviewer disclose the third party influence. The study leads to important conclusions.
First of all, the study demonstrates that disclosures’ modality has a direct effect on consumers’ intention to engage in eWOM, confirming our first hypothesis. Accordingly,
consumers exposed to the audiovisual SBOVC disclosures were more likely to engage in eWOM compared to consumers who saw the text disclosures. Supportive of hypotheses regarding the effect of disclosures’ modality and explicitness on persuasion knowledge, audiovisual and
explicit disclosures activated less persuasion knowledge than text and implicit disclosures. At that, as we expected, we demonstrate that less activated persuasion knowledge positively affects consumers’ intention to engage in eWOM and that persuasion knowledge fully mediates the effect of disclosures’ modality (i.e. audiovisual vs. text) on consumers’ intention to engage in eWOM. This mediation is conditionally moderated by the SBOVC disclosures’ explicitness, which indicated that the effect of audiovisual disclosures on activation of persuasion knowledge is weaker when the third party influence is explicitly disclosed than when it is implicitly
disclosed. This only applies to audiovisual disclosures. These results confirm the expected moderated mediation.
The results of this study show that an audiovisual-plus-explicit disclosures type seems to be the best combination in eliciting stronger eWOM intentions since it activated the least
persuasion knowledge. Subsequently, experimental conditions did activate different levels of the several persuasion knowledge dimensions, indicating that this ‘knowledge’ works differently for different types of disclosures. Moreover, we show that the implicit text disclosure of the third-party influence generated strongest activation of persuasion knowledge. Thus, this type of disclosures made them more aware of the persuasive nature and marketing tactics of the vlogger by intending to conceal the sponsorship, as indicated by higher persuasion knowledge. This in turn led to less eWOM intentions.
The findings seem to indicate that the more honest and transparent the vlogger is about a sponsorship with the brand or product he is reviewing the less consumers use their persuasion knowledge. These findings are in line with the results of the study of Carr et al. (2014) who found that blogger and inherently the blog was perceived as most credible when the blogger explicitly disclosed outside bias. Accordingly, Tuk et al. (2008) found that disclosing the financial motive has a positive effect on agent evaluations.
Our results also confirm the detachment effect noted in the PKM (Friestad et al., 1994). The detachment effect is another effect of tactic recognition that functions fundamentally
“off-putting”. According to Friestad et al. (1994) it detaches one from the ongoing interaction and makes one conscious, or more conscious than otherwise. This implies that the viewer sees the vlogger who discloses sponsorships implicitly as someone on whom they think persuasion tactics can be or need to be used. This might also confirm the result of our study regarding consumers’ eWOM intention that verifiably depends on the activation of the consumers’ persuasion
knowledge. Accordingly, people do not appreciate online videos that use marketing tactics in order to sell products (Hsieh et al., 2014) or persuade consumers of a specific opinion. Consequently, they will not pass such videos on to their friends.
Managerial Implications
Our findings have important theoretical and practical implications. The confirmation of our first hypothesis, regarding the better effects of audiovisual disclosures on the consumers’ intention to engage in eWOM in comparison to text disclosures, endorses the results of Hsieh et al. (2012) and Xu et al. (2015) concerning the superiority of audiovisual messages over text messages. The study approves their prior findings that audiovisual messages are perceived as more persuasive and therefore increase consumers’ intentions to forward the video compared to written reviews. Furthermore, our results endorse the research of Carr et al. (2014) concerning the positive effects of disclosures’ explicitness of sponsored content in blogs on consumers’ persuasive outcomes. Moreover, the study extends former research linking the field of
communication modality to the domain of disclosures of sponsored content and that of eWOM. Our study was the first to examine disclosure effects of SBOVC and could therefore underline that these effects depends on the disclosures’ modality and that these effects are moderated by how explicit the third-party influence is revealed.
With our results concerning to disclosures’ effect on the activation of persuasion
knowledge we contribute to existing research in the field of disclosures of sponsored content on social media platforms. A large number of studies discussing persuasion knowledge have
focused on traditional TV advertising or product placement in advergames (e.g. Derbaix & Pecheux, 2003; Lawlor & Prothero, 2008; Pine & Veasey, 2003; Boerman, 2010, van
Reijmersdal et al., 2015; Nekmat & Gower, 2012). Even though it is perhaps still one of the most predominant forms of advertising that we are exposed to everyday, with the rise of the Internet and social media platforms, new advertisers’ practices are rapidly increasing their exposure to Internet users. Social media tools like blogs, reviews on YouTube and other consumer generated advertising on social media platforms are increasingly influencing the attitudes and behaviors of the public in large part because they have come to be perceived as more credible than traditional media outlets (Johnson & Kaye, 2004, Carr et al., 2014). Thus, measuring persuasion knowledge in an online environment will bring more insight into consumers’ processing of advertising on the Internet. With regard to implications for theory, the present study indicates that the theories that are used to explain disclosure effects in other contexts cannot be used to clarify the impact of disclosures of SBOVC.
Moreover, this study adds to the disclosure literature as it shows that the more explicit and honest a message sender is about a third-party influence, the less the viewer will activate his persuasion knowledge. Moreover, we showed that persuasion knowledge in turn affects peoples’ intention to engage in eWOM. Accordingly, key principle for online video advertisers is to ensure that the online video does not look like an outright advertisement, or it will create an unfavorable attitude among recipients and impede their willingness to forward the video.
In addition, this study emphasizes that although existing advertising legislation and regulations do not prescribe how disclosures of external impacts in YouTube reviews should be designed and implemented, that a commercial practice shall not be unfair, concealed and in particular shall not be misleading. However, YouTube videos sponsored by brands and companies still lack this context. As we can demonstrate in this study, especially for these situations, explicit and honest disclosures can be effective and should be encouraged, especially when vloggers tell about the sponsorship using the audiovisual modality YouTube is providing.
They can have the desired effects of gaining more credibility that is reflected in less activated persuasion knowledge. Moreover, they increase consumers’ intention to forward the content of the video. This is also backed up by studies conducted by Nebenzahl and Jaffe (1998) and Loewenstein, Cain and Sah (2011) who found that the audience might appreciate transparency about marketing tactics. .
Practically, these findings direct vloggers and other content generators in social media to be transparent in regard to relationships with or compensation from sponsoring firms, in line with FTC rules. In light of the impending enforcement of new regulations, disclosing any kind of third-party influence does not seem to entail the negative consequences marketers were
previously apprehensive about. Brands can therefore continue cooperating with vloggers and encourage them to make use of YouTube’s multi modality by means of telling about the sponsorships.
Overall, disclosures of SBOVC, especially in an audiovisual mode, do not diminish the positive outcomes of product reviews, as was previously assumed. However, as demonstrated in the present study, these positive effects are stronger the more honest and transparent the reviewer is perceived to be. As more companies and advertising firms seek to establish relationships with vloggers to generate goodwill and favorable reviews of their goods and services, these agents should seek to ensure the vlogger is adhering to FTC regulations for twofold benefit. First, explicit disclosures and acknowledgment of relationships may be required ethically or legally, ensuring the safety of the reviewer. Second, although some advertising, marketing, and public relation firms may desire to downplay their influence on bloggers to increase the perceived naturalness of influencers’ reviews, hidden relationships may not provide maximal benefit and exposure of their products. Rather, the present findings demonstrate that explicit, overt, and FTC-compliant disclosures can actually work in vloggers’ and companies’ favor by creating positive external effects, including decreased persuasion knowledge activation and higher intention to forward the content of the video.
Limitation and Future Research
There are several limitations of the current study that call for future research.
First of all, future research should further examine the effects of different disclosure types on attitudinal and behavioral persuasive outcomes. For instance, Carr et al. (2014) included information for links in their blog post where the audience can purchase the product that was absent in this study. The inclusion of additional information regarding product purchase while at the same time stating independence from outside influence may seem suspicious, which can be a reason for consumers’ critical assessment of the vloggers’ true intentions. We would suggest for future research to include information such as links to the brands’ corporate website or for product purchases following the statements of the reviews’ impartiality.
Second, other factors (e.g., corporate credibility, source likeability, humor and other emotions) might exert direct and interaction effects on recipients’ activation of persuasion knowledge and intention to engage in eWOM. For example, recipients might dislike and be less likely to forward the content of the video that is sponsored by a firm with poor corporate
credibility or a bad reputation, even if the video and the vlogger are appealing.
Third, up to now, because of its innovativeness, there has been a lack of integration between persuasion knowledge studies and research on effects of disclosures’ modality and explicitness of SBOVC generated by vloggers. The main assumption is that the more
‘knowledge’ you have, the less susceptible you will be to the persuasive message and, thus, the better you are able to resist commercial persuasion attempts. However, as we examined, different disclosures types activate different level of persuasion knowledge. Accordingly, research need to consider these different types of disclosures including their modality and explicitness when examining disclosure effects in the future. Since examination of the way in which we process disclosures of sponsorships has been lacking in previous studies, this experiment shows that more research integrating disclosure effects on audience reactions with persuasion knowledge processes is needed.
A possible point of concern is that earlier researches found that explicit and prominent disclosures of sponsorships lead to more activation of persuasion knowledge (Wood & Quinn, 2003; Nekmat et al., 2012; Campbell et al., 2012). This is contrary to our findings. A possible explanation is that the present experiment deals with the so-called influencer or opinion leader (e.g. vlogger) who are often perceived as unbiased and more honest than traditional advertiser (Willemsen, Neijens, & Bronner, 2012). Thus, the more honest and explicit they are about external influence, the fewer consumers have the desire to protect themselves from concealed marketing tactics.
At that, we recruited generally young respondents; more than 70 % or our sample was younger than 30 years. As stated by Madden (2007) and Lenhart, Purcell, Smith and Zickuhr (2010) largely young adults between 18 and 29 years of age are the most active online video participants. However, our results cannot be generalized to other samples or test situations without some caution.
Regarding the intended outcomes of disclosures, it must be noted that these disclaimers informing about external influence are tools to protect the audience from concealed persuasive attempts. This can, however, only occur, when the recipients are aware of the disclosures. In this study, 77% of the participants had correct memory of the disclosures, indicating that the used disclosures were satisfactorily recognizable. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether the meaning of the disclosures was truly understood. On that account, it seems important that researchers concentrate on clarifying the most appropriate types of disclosures.
In conclusion, this study adds to the literature, as it is the first to examine the differences in individual susceptibility to the effects SBOVC disclosures and the underlying mechanism. As such, it forms a significant basis for future research on the effects of the modality and
explicitness of disclosures and persuasion knowledge on individuals processing of persuasive content and consumer responses as eWOM intentions.
References
Ajzen, I. (1992). Persuasive communication theory in social psychology: a historical perspective. In Influencing human behavior: Theory and applications in recreation, tourism, and natural resource management (pp. 1-27).
Archer, C., Pettigrew, S., & Harrigan, P. (2014). A tale of power, passion and persuasion: Bloggers, public relations and ethics. Asia Pacific Public Relations Journal, 15(1), 37-54.
Bambauer-Sachse, S., & Mangold, S. (2013). Do consumers still believe what is said in online product reviews? A persuasion knowledge approach. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(4), 373-381.
Bhatnagar, N., Aksoy, L., & Malkoc, S. A. (2004). Embedding brands within media content: The impact of message, media, and consumer characteristics on placement efficacy. The psychology of entertainment media: Blurring the lines between entertainment and persuasion, 99-116.
Boerman, S. C. (2010). "This program contains product placement": Effects of sponsorship disclosures on television viewers' responses (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from UvA-DARE, the institutional repository of the University of Amsterdam (UvA). Boerman, S. C., Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2012). Sponsorship disclosure: Effects of
duration on persuasion knowledge and brand responses. Journal of Communication, 62(6), 1047-1064.
Booth-Butterfield, S., & Gutowski, C. (1993). Message modality and source credibility can
interact to affect argument processing. Communication Quarterly, 41(1), 77-89. Brehm, J. W. (1993). Control, its loss, and psychological reactance. In Control motivation and
Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (2013). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. Academic Press.
Burgoon, J. K., Birk, T., & Pfau, M. (1990). Nonverbal behaviors, persuasion, and credibility. Human Communication Research, 17(1), 140-169.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1989). Effects of message repetition on argument processing, recall, and persuasion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10(1), 3-12.
Campbell, M. C. (1995). When attention-getting advertising tactics elicit consumer inferences of manipulative intent: The importance of balancing benefits and investments. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(3), 225-254.
Campbell, C., Pitt, L. F., Parent, M., & Berthon, P. R. (2011). Understanding consumer conversations around ads in a Web 2.0 world. Journal of Advertising, 40(1), 87-102. Campbell, M. C., Mohr, G., & Verlegh, P. W. (2012). Can disclosures lead consumers to resist
covert persuasion? The important roles of disclosure timing and type of response. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(4), 483-495.
Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers' use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 69-83.
Carr, C. T., & Hayes, R. A. (2014). The Effect of Disclosure of Third-Party Influence on an Opinion Leader's Credibility and Electronic Word of Mouth in Two-Step Flow. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 14(1), 38-50.
Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In Social influence: the ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3-39).
Chaiken, S., & Eagly, A. H. (1976). Communication modality as a determinant of message persuasiveness and message comprehensibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(4), 605.
