The effect of sponsorship disclosure, place of sponsorship,
communicator expertise and receiver expertise on source
credibility of food blogs.
Statement of originality
This document is written by Isabel Bronts who declares to take 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 solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Abstract
As the amount of time consumers spend online increases, firms pay greater attention to social media and, in particular, blogs, which are a form of electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM). Moreover, bloggers are seen as influential, and they provide a great platform for marketing strategies. Marketers often sponsor bloggers, but since consumers are commonly exposed to marketing strategies, they pay less attention to these messages. As a response, marketers are developing communication methods that consumers cannot easily identify as persuasive content. Such content is, for example, hidden sponsorship in blog posts. The growing use of this kind of covert marketing has raised concerns. As a result, bloggers differentiate from each other in terms of sponsorship disclosure, and these are discussed in the present study.
Moreover, this study considers both blogger and receiver expertise. An online experiment is conducted. Findings of this research contribute to the existing literature on electronic word-of-mouth in, specifically, food blogs. The results suggest that both place of sponsorship and receiver expertise have an effect on source credibility. This study provides important
information for marketers, bloggers, and policy makers. With the growing popularity of blogs, it might be interesting for marketers to optimize their communication messages through this channel.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 5 2. Literature Review 9 2.1 Source Credibility 9 2.2.1 Sponsorship Disclosure 102.2.2 The Location of Sponsorship Disclosure 12
2.3 Communicator Expertise 14
2.4 Receiver and Communicator Expertise 16
3. Research Design 18
3.1. Materials and Procedure 18
3.2. Pretest 20
3.3 Measures 21
3.4. Population Sample 23
4. Results 25
4.1 Manipulation checks and frequencies 25
4.2 Hypothesis Testing and Outcomes 26
4.3 Main Effects 26 4.4 Moderating Effects 28 5. Discussion and Conclusion 35 5.1 Discussion 35 5.2 Conclusion 38 5.3 Implications 39 6. References 42 Appendix A – Survey 49
1. Introduction
Since the rise of the Internet and the increasing amounts of time that consumers spend online, businesses have progressively allocated more attention to social media and, in particular, to blogs (Barger and Labrecque, 2013; Jones et al., 2009; Wu et al., 2013; Liljander et al., 2015). Blogs are online platforms used by bloggers as a channel to communicate personal stories to which readers are able to respond (Uribe et al., 2016). They are, also, often a form of
electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) whereby bloggers provide product information, describe experiences, and express their opinions about products or services (Duan et al., 2008). Reviews posted by bloggers are generally regarded as a useful source of information and, therefore, have the power to influence the purchasing decisions of consumers (Gretzel and Yoo, 2008).
One popular form of this kind of platform is the food blog which allows readers to access and consult a large variety of recipes (Schneider et al., 2013). According to Ho and Chien (2010), people spend, on average, between one and three hours per week reading and interacting with food blogs. Interestingly, food blogs are widely utilized among parents, and in particular mothers, as a source of information regarding parenting, nourishing and taking care of their children (Domingo et al., 2014). Moreover, Willet et al. (2011) found that food bloggers often engage with topics such as health, wellbeing, and self-esteem. Some
researchers, however, see food blogging as part of a “foodie” culture in which bloggers focus on employing the aesthetic gratification of food as a cultural form of distinction (Watson et al,
(Liljander et al., 2015). Bloggers can also be asked to write reviews for products. Product recommendations can be divided into two different types. The first type is genuine word-of-mouth, that is, a personal and non-commercial communication regarding a brand, good, or service. The second form consists of commercial word-of-mouth marketing messages (Kozinets et al., 2010). A survey performed by Blogher (2012) revealed that blog readers often buy products based upon the recommendation of a blogger. They found that 71% of the surveyed blog readers had made a purchase based upon the recommendation of a food blog (Blogher, 2012).
Yet because nowadays consumers are exposed to an increasing volume of persuasive marketing, they pay less attention to these messages (Petty & Andrews, 2008). In response to this, marketers are developing communication methods that are not easily identifiable by consumers as persuasive content such as, for example, hidden sponsorships in blog posts (Kaikati & Kaikati, 2004). The increasing use of this kind of covert marketing has, however, raised concerns (Campbell et al., 2012).
In order to protect customers from hidden sponsorships within blogs, advertising codes now oblige bloggers to reveal sponsorships (Reclame Code commissie, 2014; Federal Trade Commission, 2015). These codes state that the sponsored content must be recognizable to the reader and bloggers are also provided with guidelines demonstrating ways in which to properly disclose sponsorships. In the Netherlands, for example, bloggers can indicate sponsorships by displaying one of the following messages on their blogs: “I received this product from brand name”, “brand name sent me product name”, “I received this product name from brand name for a review”, “I am paid by brand name”, and “this content is in collaboration with brand name” (Reclame Code Commissie, 2014). It is useful to note that bloggers are at liberty to reveal these sponsorships in a variety of ways as long as it is clear to the consumer when a post contains sponsorship (Reclame code commissie, 2014).
As a result of this choice, bloggers differ from each other in the ways they disclose sponsorship. Some bloggers reveal sponsorship collaborations at the beginning of their blog posts, while others disclose this at the end of a post. Some researchers have argued that the positioning of the disclosure can influence readers’ attitudes towards the blog (Boerman et al., 2012). For example, sponsorship disclosure at the beginning of a message may mean readers regard the blog content more critically because they are likely to be processing and evaluating content that has been identified as possible advertising from the beginning of the post as they read (Boerman et al., 2014).
When bloggers do not follow the rules concerning sponsorship disclosure, they can be fined. For example in the Netherlands, bloggers who are dishonest about their sponsorship agreements can receive large fines from The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM). The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets ensures fair competition between businesses and protects consumer interests (ACM, 2016).
Despite the fact that bloggers are liable for large fines if they do not reveal
sponsorships, some still do not do so (Meindersma, 2015). As bloggers are dependent on their followers and readers, it could be argued that they fear the loss of both their likability and credibility in disclosing sponsorships. To date, however, there has been limited research undertaken on the subject of blogs and sponsorship disclosure. In addition, research on the effects of sponsorship disclosure and credibility is not always consistent (Colliander &
the existing literature on sponsorship disclosure, the location of that disclosure and sources. It also cites the existing literature on the moderating effect of blogger expertise. Following the literature review, the theoretical and managerial contributions are discussed, followed by the gap that exists in current research on this subject and the research question. Next, the
conceptual model is presented along with the hypothesis and research design. Following this, the results are interpreted and summarized in the discussion and conclusion.
2. Literature Review
This literature review explains the central concepts of this research. Firstly, sponsorship disclosure and its location within a text are discussed. Secondly, source credibility is considered within which the direct effects involving communicator, receiver expertise and source credibility are examined along with the available literature on the possible moderating effects of communicator expertise and receiver expertise. Following this, the theoretical and managerial contributions are discussed, succeeded by the gap in current research and the research question. Finally, the conceptual framework is presented in which the hypotheses are explained.
2.1 Source Credibility
Trust is an important factor which can influence customer loyalty and satisfaction and also strengthen customer relationships (Liljander and Roos, 2002; Gummerus et al., 2004). Ho and Chien (2010) describe source credibility as “the belief of the information recipient that the source provider has considerable knowledge, experience and skills, and that the information provided by her/him is objective without bias.”
Young consumers often view source credibility as a crucial aspect in purchasing (Kelly et al., 2010; Liljander et al., 2015), and in addition, consumers are becoming
increasingly aware of the different types of product placements within online content (Lee et al., 2011). This is why it is important for bloggers to be perceived as credible sources and the
blog, this blog information can affect people’s food consumption in the real world (Ho & Chien, 2010). There have been, however, mixed results with regard to the impact of sponsorship disclosure on source credibility (Campbell et al., 2013; Colliander and
Erlandsson, 2015). Initially, Colliander and Erlandsson (2015) discovered in an experiment that in cases when bloggers revealed that they had been paid to promote a product, consumers perceived the message as less credible. On the other hand, in another experiment, Colliander (2012) found that direct sponsorship disclosure had no effect on blogger credibility. Finally, Liljander et al. (2015) found that overt marketing had a negative effect on behavioral
intentions such as future interest in the blogger, intention to engage in word-of-mouth and purchase intention. Covert marketing did not affect the intended behavior. In addition, neither covert nor overt marketing appeared to influence the blogger’s credibility.
2.2.1 Sponsorship Disclosure
In a lot of cases, it is difficult for consumers to recognize the difference between a blogger's own word-of- mouth recommendations and those that are sponsored (King et al., 2014). In blogger-mediated marketing, five principal marketing tactics are utilized: i) bloggers use their own resources in order to recommend a product without receiving any payment for doing so; ii) bloggers receive free products from companies but are not explicitly instructed by the companies to promote these products; iii) bloggers are offered money or gift cards, and in return are required to recommend the company’s products on their blog; iv) bloggers are paid for steering traffic to a website or sales point; and v) bloggers earn money by displaying banners and advertisements on their blogs. This last tactic is the only one that is clearly visible to consumers (Liljander et al., 2015).
In response to the increased incidence of sponsorships, regulations now exist that oblige bloggers to always inform readers regarding any type of sponsored content. Bloggers
can inform readers by concluding their blog post with, for example, a disclaimer or label in which they reveal whether a product is sponsored or not. It is also prohibited to manipulate readers by framing sponsored activity in such a way that it is misleading and thus
undetectable to readers (Reclame Code Commissie, 2014; Federal Trade Commission, 2015; Colliander & Erlandsson, 2015). Only recently, researchers have begun investigating how blog readers are influenced by the disclosure of sponsored recommendations on blogs (Campbell et al., 2013; Colliander & Erlandsson, 2015), and discovered that sponsorship disclosure and consumer reactions produce mixed effects. For example, Wei et al. (2008) found that when consumers are aware of sponsorship between a blogger and a company they evaluate the brand more negatively. Moreover, Colliander and Erlandsson (2015)
demonstrated that sponsorship disclosure by a blogger had no effect on purchase intention or brand attitude, but did have a negative effect on credibility. There are mixed results, however, when it comes to the impact of sponsorship disclosure on source credibility (Campbell et al., 2013; Colliander & Erlandsson, 2015, Liljander et al., 2015). While some researchers found that bloggers were perceived as less credible after disclosing sponsorship, others found that the disclosure did not affect the blogger’s credibility. Despite the aforementioned differing results, this study anticipates that the disclosure of sponsorship does negatively affect source credibility because this study only entails high involvement products which are likely to motivate people to be more critical of the message. It is expected, therefore, that disclosure of sponsorship leads to lower source credibility in comparison to a blog post without
2.2.2 The Location of Sponsorship Disclosure
As noted before, it has recently become mandatory for bloggers to divulge sponsorship although the way they choose to do so is relatively unrestricted as long as the sponsorship is clear to the consumers (Reclame Code Commissie, 2014). As a result of this, some bloggers reveal their collaboration with a company at the beginning of their blog post while others disclose it at the end of a blog post. It is questionable whether the location of the sponsorship disclosure has an influence on source credibility and it can be argued that this positioning does have an influence on people’s attitudes. According to Boerman et al. (2012), sponsorship disclosure at the beginning of a message can render the receiver more critical of the content. Moreover, Boerman et al. (2014) found that the timing of the disclosure could also be an important factor in processing content. When a disclosure is presented before or concurrent with the sponsored content, viewers then recognize this content as possible advertising which allows readers enough processing time to evaluate the content more critically. Campbell et al. (2013) also found that the timing of the disclosure influenced correction for recall and
attitudes. When sponsorship was disclosed before product placement, it did not have a negative effect on brand attitude, whereas sponsorship disclosed afterwards did lower the brand attitude. Wood and Quinn (2003) observed in their meta-analysis that in most cases forewarnings of persuasive marketing tactics did not elicit resistance to persuasion. Sometimes forewarning contrived resistance, but this resistance was often not enough for consumers to counteract the persuasive impact of the appeal (Campbell et al., 2013). Moreover, Campbell showed that the timing of the disclosure played an intriguing role in consumers’ correction processes. Corrections are the ways in which people adjust their responses away from the direction of an inferred influence when they perceive that their responses have been inappropriately influenced (Wegner & Petty, 1995). When people believe, however, that they have not been influenced; they do not change their responses.
Campbell et al. (2013) were the first researchers to investigate the influence of timing on people’s correction processes. It is, therefore, worth expanding this knowledge and investigating whether the location of the sponsorship disclosure in blogs leads to different responses regarding source credibility when placed at the beginning of the post in comparison to the end of the post.
As previously discussed, there are reasons to believe that people will be more critical towards content when a sponsorship disclosure is placed at the beginning of a blog post rather than at the end (Boerman, et al., 2014; Campbell et al., 2013; Wood and Quin, 2003). While Campbell (2013) observed that the disclosure occurring after the product placement led to lower brand attitudes, it could be argued that this was because people found the blog less credible. He proposes that sponsorship disclosure within a post leads to a higher motivation and ability by readers to judge potential influences on attitudes. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H2: Source credibility is lower when sponsorship disclosure is at the end of a blog post rather than at the beginning of a post.
2.3 Communicator Expertise
The expertise of the blogger (communicator’s expertise) can be regarded as an important element in the consumer’s attitude towards sponsored products in blogs and purchase intention (Ohanian, 1991; Uribe et al., 2016). Some researchers argue that blogger expertise can be viewed as one of the main contributors to word-of-mouth credibility (Phelps et al, 2004).
Communicator expertise is the level of capability that the blogger has attained with regard to making correct assertions about a product. This capability is measured by whether a blogger has the relevant skills, competency, and knowledge (Homer & Kahle, 1990; Uribe et al., 2016). Moreover, bloggers can be regarded as endorsers of the products about which they are writing (Uribe et al., 2016). When people perceive a blogger as an expert, an endorsement by the blogger can be regarded as an expert endorsement, while an endorsement by a blogger with no or low expertise can be seen as a novice endorsement (Zhu & Tan, 2007).
Several researchers have investigated the possible effects of a communicator’s
expertise on source credibility. For example, Kiecker et al. (2014) investigated the credibility of blog reviews and found that when the communicator was a high-expertise blogger, the message was perceived as more credible and persuasive. Dean and Abhijit Biswas (2001), also, found that a high-expertise endorsement is regarded as more credible in comparison to a low-expertise endorsement. Despite the fact that the audience considered high-experts to be more credible, they did not rely more on high-expertise sources to make decisions.
As previously stated, this study also examines issues around sponsorship with a high involvement product. Several studies suggest that high-expert communicators in particular have persuasive effects on products with higher financial, physical, technological, or
performance risks (Biswas & Das, 2006). It is anticipated, therefore, that when communicator expertise is high, it leads to a higher credibility rating in comparison to low communicator
expertise as consumers are more likely to take quality arguments such as expert comments into account when evaluating a message.
It is not only presumed that communicator expertise has a direct effect on source credibility but according to the literature it is also suggested that communicator expertise improves the relationship of sponsorship to source credibility. In an online setting, blog readers use cues such as the type of endorser in order to judge source credibility (Metzger, Flanagin & Medders, 2010). When readers are more involved, they perceive the quality of arguments as more important in their evaluation. A high-expert blogger may be perceived as a more valid source of information and, consequently, the information they provide will be considered more trustworthy than a blogger with a low expertise. The result of this is that the overall source credibility of bloggers with high expertise is less vulnerable to the negative effects of sponsorship owing to their knowledge of the topic rendering them more credible. It is, therefore, anticipated that source credibility is less negatively affected by sponsorship disclosure and the type of sponsorship disclosure when communicator expertise is higher rather than lower. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H3: Communicator expertise has a moderating effect on the type of sponsorship disclosure and on source credibility, such that high levels of communicator expertise leads to a less negative effect of sponsorship disclosure on source credibility than low communicator expertise does.
2.4 Receiver and Communicator Expertise
As summarized in the previous paragraphs, several conclusions regarding communicator expertise and source credibility can be deduced. As eWOM involves two parties, namely the “communicator” and the “blog reader”, it would be beneficial to incorporate the blog reader into this research. According to Moran and Muzellic (2014), it is not only the expertise of the blog writer that influences source credibility but also the reader’s expertise that influences the way in which the source credibility is perceived. Moreover, Herr et al. (1991) observed that when consumers had previous experience with products, they relied less on word-of-mouth. Sweetney el al. (2008) also argue that in investigating the factors influencing source
credibility, it is also important to consider the relative expertise of the eWOM receiver. This research, therefore, also incorporates blog reader expertise as a possible factor influencing source credibility. When message receivers are experts about the subject or brand that is being reviewed, they may be both more critical and more difficult for bloggers to persuade. These message receivers are also more likely to consider characteristics such as the blogger’s level of expertise in order to evaluate the blog credibility.
It has been previously suggested that recipients with more expertise about a topic are likely to be more critical towards messages they receive while also being more likely to evaluate this message via the central route (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Petty, Cacioppo & Schumann, 1983). When processing a message via the central route, arguments such as the expertise of the communicator are more likely to be taken into consideration when evaluating a message. It is proposed that when receiver expertise is higher, communicator expertise becomes more important and, therefore, high receiver expertise strengthens the relationship between communicator expertise and source credibility. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H4a: Receiver expertise moderates the effect on the type of sponsorship disclosure and source credibility, such that high receiver expertise has a less negative effect of sponsorship disclosure on source credibility than low communicator expertise does
H4b: Receiver expertise interacts with the moderating effect of communicator expertise on the relation between the type of sponsorship disclosure and source credibility.
F
Figure 1. Modeling relations of sponsorship disclosure, communicator expertise, receiver expertise, and source credibility.
Receiver expertise Communicator expertise Type of sponsorship disclosure - Non - At beginning - At the end Source credibility H1, H2 H3 H4b H4a
3. Research Design
Given the lack of a theoretical foundation in the research area of blog advertising, the most appropriate way to study the effects of sponsorship disclosure, types of sponsorship
disclosure, receiver expertise and communicator expertise on perceived source credibility is an experimental research methodology. Experiments have a high internal validity and offer greater control of the situation. To conduct this research, a 3 (non-sponsorship disclosure, sponsorship disclosure at the beginning and sponsorship at the end) x 2 (high blogger expertise vs. low expertise) x 2 (high expertise receiver vs. low expertise receiver) factorial between-subjects experimental design was used to test the hypothesis. The data were
collected through an online survey on Qualtrics which is a tool that creates online surveys and experiments. All of the questions were in English in order to be comprehensible for most people and a pretest was also performed to test the different constructs and present the questionnaire as clearly as possible.
3.1. Materials and Procedure
Owing to the fact that it is very difficult to isolate the independent variables on real existing blogs, a fictitious blog called “Appetizing Adventures” was created; this also guaranteed that the subjects did not have any prior knowledge of the blog or blogger. It was also easier to control variables such as expertise and the location of the sponsorship disclosure. In total, there were six conditions in this experiment (Table 1). The different blog interfaces were designed based on the template provided on Wix.com (www.wix.com). Screenshots of the designed posts for the fictitious cooking blog were used as stimulus material in an online questionnaire using Qualtrics. This meant that each condition had the same design, layout, format, and background complexity. The fictitious blog was written by a fictitious blogger
named Dana Hillwood. In addition, a personal story about the blogger was displayed to the respondents. In the condition that received an expert communicator, it was stated that the blogger had a cooking education, a professional job in cooking, and had even published a cookbook. The blog in this condition had also been judged as the best cooking blog of 2017. In the non-expert condition, the blogger did not have an education in cooking nor a
professional job linked to cooking nor published a book. A Vitamix blender (high involvement product) was used as the reviewed product in the blog and in the high communicator expertise and low communicator expertise conditions, the review provided was exactly the same. The review was presented as a two-sided message, that is, it contained both positive and negative features of the product. In addition, the conditions were differentiated by sponsorship and type of sponsorship. In the first and third blog interfaces, no sponsorship disclaimer was presented. In the second and fifth interfaces, the disclaimer “in collaboration with Vitamix” was displayed at the beginning of the blog directly beneath the title and before the first paragraph. In the third and sixth interfaces, this same disclaimer was displayed at the bottom of the blog beneath the last paragraph. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the conditions. All participants first received an instruction to carefully read and view the blog posts. Moreover, prior to the participants viewing another part of the blog, instructions were displayed each time. After viewing the blog interfaces and the post about the blogger, subjects proceeded to answer the questions which measured product involvement, receiver expertise, communicator expertise, and source credibility. Additionally, immediately after seeing the
noticed a sponsorship disclaimer.
Table 1. Overview of the different conditions in the experiment Interface blog 1
No sponsorship disclosure + high blogger expertise Interface blog 2
Sponsorship disclosure at beginning of blog + high blogger expertise Interface blog 3
Sponsorship disclosure at end of blog + high blogger expertise Interface blog 4
No sponsorship disclosure + low/non-blogger expertise Interface blog 5
Sponsorship disclosure at beginning of blog + low/non-blogger expertise
Interface blog 6
Sponsorship disclosure at end of blog + low/non-blogger expertise
3.2. Pretest
To verify the variables receiver expertise and communicator expertise, a pretest was
performed. For this pretest, 35 participants were recruited, of which 78.3% were women and 21.7% were men with an average age of 37 years (M = 37.56, SD = 23.78). These participants were randomly assigned to one of the six different blog interfaces. The pretest showed that the variables were tested well and that the participants understood all the questions. In addition, whether the communicator expertise manipulation worked was also examined. The groups were significantly different from each other. It was also verified that the Vitamix blender was
accepted as a high involvement product and that this measurement could, therefore, be excluded from the large survey that was conducted. Of the 23 total respondents, 26.1% remembered the sponsorship disclaimer and 73.9% did not. There was no plan to change this manipulation owing to the fact that it would not be an accurate representation of a real blog post. In conclusion, no changes were needed in the different stimuli.
3.3 Measures
Product involvement was measured with seven items on a seven-point semantic scale (Zaichkowsky, 1985). The items were as follows: “unimportant/important,”
“irrelevant/relevant,” “undesirable/desirable,” “uninterested/interested,”
“insignificant/significant,” and “unappealing/appealing.” The Cronbach’s Alpha values indicated that the scale was reliable (Coefficient alpha= 0.95).
Communicator expertise was measured by using five items respectively on a seven-point semantic differential scale by Homer and Kahle (1990). In this study, the following items were used: “not an expert/an expert,” “not knowledgeable/knowledgeable,”
“inexperienced/experienced,” “incompetent/competent,” and “unqualified/qualified.” The Cronbach’s Alpha values showed that the scale was reliable (Coefficient alpha= 0.91).
Receiver expertise was measured by using the same scale used for communicator expertise. The difference, however, was in the question form that was presented as the
blogger’s ability to provide objective and unbiased information. Source credibility was measured by a six item seven-point semantic differential scale with the following items: “believable/unbelievable,” “credible/not credible,” “trustworthy/not trustworthy,”
“dependable/not dependable,” “reliable/not reliable,” and “reputable/not reputable” (Choi & Rifon, 2002; MacKenzie and Lutz, 1989). The Cronbach’s Alpha values indicated that the
scale was reliable (Coefficient alpha= 0,95).
Control variables consisted of items concerning age, gender, and education and were all based on a single item. Another control variable that was incorporated was brand
knowledge. Respondents were asked if they already knew the brand “Vitamix” presented in the review and 10.1% already knew the brand. Moreover, 13% already knew the website Wix that was used for the manipulated blog. A question was also posed in order to detect whether the respondents had noticed the sponsorship disclosure. Table 2 provides a full overview of the variable measures described above in Table 1.
Table 2: Reliability and Descriptive Statistics for the Scales. Scale Items ∂ M SD Product involvement 8 0.947 4.509 1.27 Communicator expertise 6 0.905 4.59 1.04 Receiver expertise 6 0.949 3.733 1.362 Source credibility 6 0.934 4.664 1.128
3.4. Population Sample
In total 287 participants filled in the survey while 70 respondents failed to finish the questionnaire and, consequently, those participants were removed from the dataset. This meant that 208 participants were considered for the analysis of whom 31.7% were male and 68.3% were female. Most of the participants were studying (69.2%) and in addition, most of the respondents had a bachelor’s degree or higher degree. Of the respondents, 10.1% already knew the brand Vitamix shown in the blog and 13% already knew the website Wix. Only 15.4% had seen the sponsorship disclaimer in the review post while approximately 50% should have seen it. It is likely that they did see it, but did not remember this, or did not know what was meant by “sponsorship disclaimer.” The average age was 28 years while most of the respondents were 23 years old. For an overview, see Tables 3 and 4.
Table 3: Frequencies of demographics and control variables
Gender Female Male
68.3% 31.7% Studying? Yes No 69.2% 30.8% Did you know Vitamix? Yes No 10.1% 89.9% Do you know Wix? Yes No 13% 87%
Have you seen a sponsorship disclaimer? Yes No
Table 4: Level of education.
Percentage
Less than High School 1 %
High School/ GED 9.6%
Intermediate Vocational College Degree (MBO) 3.4%
Bachelor’s Degree (HBO) 15.9%
Bachelor’s Degree (WO) 32.2%
Master’s Degree 37%
4. Results
4.1 Manipulation checks and frequencies
Firstly, the data were analyzed and checked for errors using descriptive and frequencies analysis. No missing data, or other errors were identified in the data. Secondly, there were different conditions for receiver expertise. The variable was split into two groups (low receiver expertise and high receiver expertise), and this was calculated by the median and average. The median was 3,9 and, therefore, the low receiver expertise comprised all respondents who scored lower than 3,91 for the variable receiver expertise, and the high receiver experts were all respondents who scored higher than 3,91 on the scale measuring receiver expertise. After this, the manipulation of communicator expertise was examined The Independent T test F (8,859; 206 = 5,786, p = 0,017) revealed that the respondents in the communicator expertise group evaluated the blogger significantly lower in expertise (M = 3,94; SD = 1,15) than respondents in the high communicator expertise condition (M = 5,235; SD = 0,947. Thus, the manipulation is successful. Communicator expertise had 103
respondents in the expert condition and 105 in the non-expert condition. Moreover, there were in both groups of low receiver expertise and high receiver expertise 104 respondents. As regards place of sponsorship disclosure, there were 67 respondents in the non-disclosure
4.2 Hypothesis Testing and Outcomes
Since all group variables were compared to each other, the most suitable way to test them was with a Univariate Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Furthermore, analysis was also performed in order to test the differences between place of sponsorship and the moderating variables communicator expertise and receiver expertise. Firstly, 12 groups were compared with the ANOVA: 3 (non-sponsorship disclosure, beginning disclosure and end disclosure) x 2 (low communicator expertise and high communicator expertise) x 2 (low receiver expertise and high receiver expertise). Then, the moderating effects were verified with an ANOVA analysis.
4.3 Main Effects
ANOVA tested three main effects: sponsorship disclosure and place of sponsorship disclosure on source credibility, communicator expertise on source credibility, and lastly receiver
expertise on source credibility. The ANOVA showed a significant main effect of sponsorship disclosure on source (see Table 5). Hence, H1 – Source credibility will be lower when there is sponsorship disclosure in comparison with no sponsorship disclosure – is accepted. The results suggest a difference of 2,1 in the score of source credibility when comparing non-sponsorship disclosure with non-sponsorship disclosure. Therefore, when non-sponsorship was disclosed in the blog post, people rated it 2,1 less than when there was no sponsorship disclosure.
Table 5. The main effects of sponsorship disclosure, type of sponsorship, and receiver expertise on source credibility.
df F Sig. η2
Sponsorship disclosure (yes versus no) 2,196 2,105 0,05 0,021
Type of sponsorship disclosure 1,196 2,105 0,125 0,021
Receiver expertise 1,196 15,496 <0,05 0,073
The second hypothesis, H2 – Source credibility will be lower when sponsorship is disclosed at the end of a blog post than at the beginning – is not accepted. There is no significant difference in the score of source credibility when comparing non-sponsorship disclosure, disclosure at the beginning of the post, and disclosure at the end of a post (Table 5). A significant effect was discovered, however, when comparing non-sponsorship disclosure with disclosure at the end of the post (p = 0,049). Moreover, this research reveals that receiver expertise has a direct effect on sponsorship disclosure in which non-expert receivers
significantly rate the blogger as less (M = 4,18; SD = 0,112) credible than expert-receivers do (M = 4,923; SD = 0.106). See Table 5 for more details.
4.4 Moderating Effects
Figure 2. Summary of all Moderating Effects.
Lastly, possible moderating effects were analyzed with ANOVA. First, H3 – Communicator expertise has a moderating effect on the type of sponsorship disclosure and source credibility, such that high levels of communicator expertise lead to a less negative effect of sponsorship disclosure on source credibility than low communicator expertise does – could not be accepted. There was not a significant difference between communicator
expertise effect on type of sponsorship and source credibility. However, there is found a significant difference as regards non-communicator experts (Table 6).
4,524 4,846 5,146 4,824 3,815 4,691 4,931 4,794 4,225 3,804 4,533 5,311 3,5 3,7 3,9 4,1 4,3 4,5 4,7 4,9 5,1 5,3 5,5 Low receiver expertise, high communicator expertise Low receiver expertise, low communicator expertise High receiver expertise, low communictor expertise High receiver expertise, high communicator expertise Non sponsorship disclsoure Beginning sponsorship disclosure End sponsorship disclsoure
Table 6. Overview moderating effects with the dependent variable of source credibility
df F Sig. η2
Non-communicator expertise * place of sponsorship disclosure
2,196 5,1745 0,006 0,05
Non-receiver expertise * place of sponsorship disclosure 2,196 3,293 0,039 0,033
Communicator expertise * receiver expertise * place of sponsorship
2,196 0,465 0,629 0,005
Moreover, this difference is only found for non-sponsorship versus end of sponsorship disclosure and disclosure at the beginning of the post versus at the end of the post (Table 7). Consequently, when there was a non-expertise communicator, were significant differences in the scores of source credibility for non-disclosure versus disclosure at the end, and disclosure at the beginning of the post versus disclosure at the end of the post.
Table 7: Relations between communicator expertise and place of sponsorship as regards source credibility. Sponsorship disclosure Sponsorship disclosure Mean Difference SD Sig b Non-communicator expert Non Beginning 0,185 0,26 N.S. End 0,827* 0,276 0,003 Beginning Non -0,185 0,26 N.S. End 0,643* 0,252 0,012 End Non -0,827* 0,276 0,003 Beginning -0,643* 0,252 0,012
When the scores between the different places of sponsorship disclosure (Table 8) are examined closely, it is seen that in cases where bloggers are non-expert communicators, sponsorship should be disclosed at the beginning of the post, because people will evaluate the source credibility as the highest. Furthermore, it is recommended for marketers and bloggers not to disclose a sponsorship at the end of a post, as people evaluate source credibility the lowest in such a case.
Table 8: Estimates of place of sponsorship and communicator expertise as regards source credibility.
Communicator expertise Mean SD
Sponsorship disclosure Non Non-expert 4,5 0,2
Beginning Non-expert 4,81 0,18
End Non-expert 4,169 0,17
Next, the moderating effects of receiver expertise were analyzed: H4a – Receiver expertise moderates the effect on type of sponsorship disclosure and source credibility, such that high receiver expertise has a less negative effect of sponsorship disclosure on source credibility than low communicator expertise does’; and H4b – Receiver expertise interacts with the moderating effect of communicator expertise on the relation between type of sponsorship disclosure and source credibility. Both could not be accepted in this current study. However, interestingly, there is found a significant difference as regards non-expert receivers when non-sponsorship disclosure is compared with sponsorship disclosure at the end (Table 9).
Table 9: Relations between receiver expertise and place of sponsorship as regards source credibility. Sponsorship disclosure Sponsorship disclosure Mean Difference SD Sig b Non-receiver expert Non Beginning 0,432 0,28 N.S. End 0,670* 0,264 0,012 Beginning Non -0,432 0,28 N.S. End 0,238 0,276 N.S. End Non -0,67* 0,264 0,12 Beginning -0,238 0,276 N.S.
Examination of the scores on source credibility reveals that it is better to disclose a sponsorship at the beginning of a post (M = 4,253) rather than at the end of a post when there is a non-expert receiver (M = 4,015) (Table 10).
Table 10: Estimates of place of sponsorship and receiver expertise as regards source credibility.
Receiver expertise Mean SD
Sponsorship disclosure
Non Non-expert 4,685 0,189
Beginning Non-expert 4,253 0,206
An ANOVA was computed that compared interactions between place of sponsorship, communicator expertise, and receiver expertise with test H4b. Logically, as already
established for the separate relations, only significant differences are found for
non-communicator experts and non-expertise receivers. Yet, these differences are only significant in relation to non-disclosure versus end and beginning (M = 4,691) versus end (M = 3,815) (Tables 11 and 12).
Table 11: Relations between communicator expertise, receiver expertise, and place of sponsorship as regards source credibility.
Sponsorship disclosure Sponsorship disclosure Mean Difference SD Sig b Non-communicator expert & non-receiver expert
Non Beginning 0,155 0,362 0,669 End 1,042* 0,395 0,009 Beginning Non -0,155 0,362 0,669 End 0,887* 0,332 0,008 End Non -1,042* 0,395 0,009 Beginning -0,887* 0,332 0,008
To conclude, in relation to the moderating effects, it is important to note that there are only found significant differences for non-communicator expertise and non-receiver expertise when comparing non and end, beginning and end. While figure 2 shows all interaction effects, only a few are significantly different from each other.
Table 12: Estimates of place of sponsorship, receiver expertise, and communicator expertise as regards source credibility.
Communicator expertise Receiver expertise Mean SD Sponsorship disclosure
Non Non-expert Non-expert 4,846 0,297
Beginning Non-expert Non-expert 4,691 0,206
5. Discussion and Conclusion
5.1 Discussion
Table 13 Summary of the hypothesis and outcomes
Hypothesis Prediction Outcome
H1 Source credibility will be lower when sponsorship disclosure is disclosed in comparison with no sponsorship disclosure.
Accepted
H2
Source credibility will be lower when sponsorship disclosure is at the end of a blog post than at the beginning of a post.
Not accepted
H3 Communicator expertise has a moderating effect on type of sponsorship disclosure and source credibility.
Not accepted
H4a
Receiver expertise moderates the effect on type of sponsorship disclosure and source credibility, such that high receiver expertise has a less negative effect of sponsorship disclosure on source credibility than low communicator expertise does.
Not accepted
when consumers are aware of sponsorship between a blogger and company, they evaluate the brand more negatively.
Although it was expected that place of sponsorship also has a direct effect on source credibility, this was not the case. In this research, there is not found a significant difference for various places of sponsorship and source credibility. However, examination of the
interaction effect of receiver expertise on type of sponsorship disclosure and source credibility shows that low receiving experts rate bloggers as more credible when the disclosure is at the beginning than at the end. This result is in line with Campbell et al. (2013), who note that sponsorship disclosure before product placement leads to a higher brand attitude than when it is shown afterwards. Perhaps people do appreciate it more when bloggers reveal a
sponsorship at the beginning of an article.
Furthermore, there is found a direct effect of receiver expertise, but the opposite of what was expected. High expert receivers rate a blogger more highly on source credibility, than low expert receivers. As an explanation, it may be that expert receivers have more interest in the subject the blogger is writing about, which influences the effect of sponsorship disclosure. Alternatively, expert receivers rate more highly a blogger than low expert
receivers, because they are able to identify credibility from his or her knowledge. Low expert receivers are less able to make judgments because they lack certain knowledge about a topic. Additionally, it might be the case that high expert receivers identify more with food bloggers as they share the same interests and see them as ‘friends’. This can have an influence on their attitude and so they rate bloggers differently to low expert receivers (Colliander & Dahlén, 2011).
Moreover, results suggest that there is no significant difference between effects of communicator expertise on source credibility, or as a moderator between type of sponsorship disclosure and source credibility. This is an unexpected outcome, because in the literature
there is found support for the moderating role of communicator expertise (Kiecker et al., 2014; Dean & Abhijit Biswas, 2001). However, when we consider the source credibility for non, beginning, and end, there is found a difference for non-expert communicators and receivers. Although communicator expertise is not directly an influence, there can be seen a difference for non-expert communicators when adding non-expert receivers. This research suggests that communicator expertise is not very relevant for the evaluation of source credibility.
As previously described, the moderating role of receiver expertise on place of sponsorship and source credibility is partly accepted, but only for non-expert receivers and beginning versus end.
Moreover, receiver expertise does not interact with the moderating effect of
communicator expertise on the relation between type of sponsorship disclosure and source credibility. This can be explained by the fact that communicator expertise does not directly influence source credibility. Lastly, receiver expertise does not moderate the effect between communicator expertise and source credibility. This non-significant difference can be explained by the non-existing relationship between communicator expertise and source credibility.
5.2 Conclusion
This study aimed to examine the possible effect of place of sponsorship disclosure, communicator expertise, and receiver expertise on source credibility. New variables were added to previous research concerning sponsorship disclosure and source credibility. First, sponsorship disclosure was divided into different places: no sponsorship disclosure,
sponsorship disclosure at the beginning, and sponsorship at the end of a post. Moreover, this study incorporated a new variable: receiver expertise. The results suggest that both place of sponsorship and receiver expertise have an effect on source credibility. Although there is not found a significant difference when only comparing between type of sponsorship and source credibility, there are differences in no, beginning, and end sponsorship disclosure on source credibility when communicator expertise and receiver expertise are incorporated in the model. Furthermore, receiver expertise has a direct effect on source credibility, whereby high expert receivers rate bloggers more highly on source credibility than non-expert receivers. A reverse effect was expected because experts would probably evaluate a blogger more critically. Moreover, results show there is no significant difference of communicator expertise as regards source credibility. There is only a difference for expert communicators and non-expert receivers between the effect of place of sponsorship and source credibility.
5.3 Implications
Marketers and bloggers should be careful with the way they reveal sponsorship. This research shows that non-expert receivers find a non-expert blogger who shows a sponsorship
disclosure at the end of a blog post less credible than when he or she reveals the same sponsorship at the beginning of a post. People rate the source most credible when there is no sponsorship disclosure at all. Marketers and bloggers should be careful and take this into account when collaborating, because it can damage their credibility. Expert receivers also rate bloggers as more credible than non-experts. Therefore, it is advised that professional bloggers consider carefully the characteristics, hobbies, and interests of their receivers. However, given that the research only considers one type of blog, this finding may be limited to the study setting.
5.4 Limitations and future research
The first limitation that could influence the results of this study is that only 30,2% of the sponsorship disclaimer manipulation group indicated having seen the sponsorship disclaimer. Arguably, this is because they did not understand the concept of a sponsorship disclaimer, could not remember it, or did not notice it at all. It may be questioned whether this would be the case in a real environment. Despite the rules of the Reclame Code Commissie (2014), marketers often try to ‘hide’ it. Therefore, although people in a real environment may be more motivated to look at the details of a blog when they are reading, sponsorships are not always easy to see. However, when people have more interest in the subject, it is possible that a sponsorship disclosure will be remembered more in a real-life situation. While in this research there is found a difference between the source credibility score for non-sponsorship disclosure and sponsorship disclosure, this effect may be even higher when people are reading blogs with greater concentration.
Secondly, the participants of this study were selected by using a convenience-sampling method. Therefore, there are more women and highly educated people, which means that the results cannot be generalized to a real-life population. The sample size was also relatively small when comparing 12 different groups. To decrease this potential threat, fewer groups were also compared in order to increase sample size. No different results were shown, but for the moderating effects this small sample size could have decreased significance.
Thirdly, only food blogs were considered in this research, a subject which may not have been of interest for all participants. Future research should include more types of blogs and verify interest in the topic among the participants.
Fourthly, it was not expected that expert receivers would rate bloggers as more credible as non-experts. This may be because, for example, interest in the topic, and
incorporate these concepts to determine the underlying reason for this effect. While this is the first study incorporating different kinds of sponsorship disclosure, future research should explore more differences between bloggers in terms of how they reveal sponsorship.
6. References
Authority for Consumers and Markets. (2016). Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM). Retrieved from
https://www.acm.nl/en/publications/search-publications/?zf%5B%5D=so%3A6
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.
Boerman, S. C., Reijmersdal, E. A., & Neijens, P. C. (2014). Effects of sponsorship disclosure timing on the processing of sponsored content: A study on the effectiveness of European disclosure regulations. Psychology & Marketing, 31(3), 214-224.
Biswas, D., Biswas, A., & Das, N. (2006). The differential effects of celebrity and expert endorsements on consumer risk perceptions. The role of consumer knowledge, perceived congruency, and product technology orientation. Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 17-31.
BlogHer. Food Facts 2012 BlogHer Study. www.blogher.com/food-facts- 2012-blogher-study. Accessed Jan 20, 2017.
Campbell, M.C., Mohr, G.S. and Verlegh, P.W.J. (2013), “Can disclosures lead consumers to resist covert persuasion? The important roles of disclosure timing and type of response”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 483-495.
Choi, S. M., & Rifon, N. J. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of web advertising credibility: A study of consumer response to banner ads. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 3(1), 12-24.
Colliander, J. and Erlandsson, S. (2015), “The blog and the bountiful: exploring the effects of disguised product placement on blogs that are revealed by a third party”, Journal of Marketing Communication, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 110-124.
Dean, D. H. and Abhijit Biswas. “Third-party Organization Endorsement of Products: An Advertising Cue Affecting Consumer Prepurchase Evaluation of Goods and Services,” Journal of Advertising, Vol.30, No.4, 2001, pp.41- 57
Domingo, M., Kress, G., O'Connell, R., Elliott, H., Squire, C., Jewitt, C., & Adami, E. (2014). Development of methodologies for researching online: The case of food blogs.
Duan, Gu, B., & Whinston, A. B., "The dynamics of online word- of-mouth and product sales- An empirical investigation of the movie industry," Retailing, vol. 84, 2008.
Federal Trade Commission. (2015) Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking
Gummerus, J., Liljander, V., Pura, M. and Van Riel, A. (2004), “Customer loyalty to content-based web-sites. The case of an online health care service”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 175-186.
involvement in persuasion: An elaborative processing perspective. Journal of Advertising, 19(1), 30-39.
Ho, Hui-Yi; Chien, Pi-Hsuan Chang. (2010). Influence of message trust in online word-of-mouth on consumer behavior–by the example of food blog.1, V1-395-V1-399, IEEE
Hsu, C.-L., Lin, J.C.-C. and Chiang, H.-S. (2013), “The effects of blogger recommendations on customers’ online shopping intentions”, Internet Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 69-88.
Hwang, Y., & Jeong, S. H. (2016). “This is a sponsored blog post, but all opinions are my own”: The effects of sponsorship disclosure on responses to sponsored blog posts. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 528-535.
Jones, B., Temperley, J. and Lima, A. (2009), “Corporate reputation in the era of web 2.0: the case of primark”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 25 Nos 9/10, pp. 927-939.
Kaikati, A. M., & Kaikati, J. G. (2004). Stealth marketing: how to reach consumers surreptitiously. California Management Review, 46(4), 6-22.
Kalampokis, E., Tambouris, E. and Tarabanis, K. (2013), “Understanding the predictive power of social media”, Internet Research, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 544-559.
Kiecker, P., & Cowles, D. (2002). Interpersonal communication and personal influence on the Internet: A framework for examining online word-of-mouth. Journal of Euromarketing, 11(2), 71-88.
King, R.A., Racherla, P. and Bush, V.D. (2014), “What we know and don’t know about online word-of-mouth: a review and synthesis of the literature”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 167-183.
Kozinets, R.V., de Valck, K., Wojnicki, A.C. and Wilner, S.J.S. (2010), “Networked narratives: understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 71-89.
Lee, T.D., Sung, Y. and de Gregorio, F. (2011), “Cross-cultural challenges in product placement”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 366-384.
Liljander, V., Gummerus, J., & Söderlund, M. (2015). Young consumers’ responses to suspected covert and overt blog marketing. Internet Research, 25(4), 610-632.
Liljander, V. and Roos, I. (2002), “Customer relationship levels: from spurious to true relationships”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 7, pp. 593-614.
MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. The Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 48-65. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1251413
Moran, G., L. Muzellec, and E. Nolan. 2014. “Consumer Moments of Truth in the Digital Context.” Journal of Advertising Research 54 (2): 200–204.
Moran, G., & Muzellec, L. (2014). eWOM credibility on social networking sites: A framework. Journal of Marketing Communications, 1-13.
McQuarrie, E.F., Miller, J. and Phillips, B.J. (2013), “The megaphone effect: taste and audience in fashion blogging”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 136-158. Miura, A. and Yamashita, K. (2007), “Psychological and social influences on blog writing: an online survey of blog authors in Japan”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 1452-1471.
Ohanian, R. (1991). The impact of celebrity spokesperson's perceived image on con- sumers' intention to purchase. Journal of Advertising Research, 31(1), 46–52.
Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1990). Source expertise, time of source identification, and involvement in persuasion: An elaborative processing perspective. Journal of Advertising, 19(1), 30-39.
Pan, L.-Y. and Chiou, J.-C. (2011), “How much can you trust online information? Cues for perceived trustworthiness of consumer-generated online information”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 67-74.
Phelps, J. E., R. Lewis, L. Mobilio, D. Perry, and N. Raman. 2004. “Viral Marketing or electronicWord-of-Mouth Advertising: Examining Consumer Responses and Motivations to Pass AlongEmail.” Journal of Advertising Research 44 (4): 333–348.
Petty, R. D., & Andrews, J. C. (2008). Covert marketing unmasked: A legal and regulatory guide for practices that mask marketing messages. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,
27(1), 7-18.
Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to
advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. Journal of consumer research, 10(2), 135-146.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Communication and persuasion (pp. 1-24). Springer New York.
Reclame Code Commisie. (2014). Reclame Code Sociale Media (RSM) Retrieved from https://www.reclamecode.nl/nrc/pagina.asp?paginaID=289%20&deel=2
Schneider, E, P., McGovern, E. E., Lynch, C., Brown., L., S. (2013). ‘Do food blogs serve as a source of nutritionally balanced recipes’? An analysis of 6 popular food blogs. Journal of nutrition education and behavior, 2013, 45, 6, 696-700, Elsevier. Volume45. Issue6.
Sweeney, J. C., G. N. Soutar, and T. Mazzarol. 2008. “Factors Influencing Word of Mouth Effectiveness: Receiver Perspectives.” European Journal of Marketing 42 (3): 344–364.
Uribe, R., Buzeta, C., & Velásquez, M. (2016). Sidedness, commercial intent and expertise in blog advertising. Journal of Business Research.ar
Willet, P., Cox, A, M., Blake, M., (2011). ‘Information and food blogging as serious leisure’. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 63, 2/3, 204-220
Wu, C.H., Kao, S.-C. and Lin, H.-H. (2013), “Acceptance of enterprise blog for service industry”, Internet Research, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 260-297.
Wei, M.-L., Fischer, E. and Main, K.J. (2008), “An examination of the effects of activating persuation knowledge on consumer response to brands engaging in covert marketing”, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 34-44.
Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985). Measuring the Involvement Construct. Journal of consumer research, 12(3), 341-352.
Zhu, J., & Tan, B. (2007). Effectiveness of blog advertising: Impact of communicator expertise, advertising intent, and product involvement. ICIS 2007 Proceedings, 121
Appendix A – Survey
Dear sir/madam,
Thank you very much for participating in this online survey carried out by the Amsterdam Business School of the University of Amsterdam. This survey is taking approximately 5 minutes! If you have any questions about the survey, please contact me at:
isabelbronts@hotmail.com. Thanks a lot for helping me finishing my Master! Good luck and kind regards, Isabel Bronts
Please read the instruction below carefully:
Some pages of the online blog Appetizing Adventures will be shown. You are asked to view and read the different components of the blog carefully, because there will be asked some questions about it! Remember that there are no right or wrong answers. Good luck!
Have a look at the following page:
On a scale of 1 to 7, please circle the number that best reflects your feelings towards the expertise of the blogger.
Not an expert - An expert Inexperienced – Experienced
Unknowledgeable – Knowledgeable Unqualified – Qualified
Unskilled – Skilled
Please read the instruction below carefully:
Some pages of the online blog Appetizing Adventures will be shown. You are asked to view and read the different components of the blog carefully, because there will be asked some questions about it! Remember that there are no right or wrong answers. Good luck!
Have a look at the following page:
Manipulation sponsorship disclosure (non, beginning, end).
To which extend to you think the person who wrote the post is: Unbelievable – Believable
Not credible – Credible
Not trustworthy – Trustworthy Not dependable – Dependable Not reliable – Reliable
On a scale of 1 to 7, please circle the number that best reflects your opinion towards the product you have just seen:
Unimportant – Important Irrelevant – Relevant Undesirable –Desirable Uninterested – Interested
The next question is about the product shown below:
High involvement product used in the review shown (Vitamix blender).
On a scale of 1 to 7, please circle the number that best reflects your opinion towards the product you have just seen:
Useless – Useful
Does not matter to me – Matters to me Insignificant – Significant
Unappealing – Appealing
What is your gender? - Male
- No
What is the highest level of education you have completed? In case you're still studying: Which level are you studying at?
- Less than high school - High School / GED
- Intermediate Vocational College Degree (MBO)
- Bachelors Degree (HBO, University of Applied Sciences) - Bachelors Degree (WO, University)
- Masters Degree - Doctoral Degree
Did you already know the brand Vitamix? - Yes
- No
Do you know the website Wix? - Yes
- No
Did you see a sponsorship disclaimer in the review-post? - Yes
Thank you very much for participating! The blog showed in this survey is a fictitious blog specially made for this research. Don't forget to click on the arrows below to send the results to me!
