The effect of visual electronic word-of-mouth on brand attitude : an experimental study on brand attitude towards Coca-cola Zero

The effect of visual electronic word-of-mouth on brand

attitude

An experimental study on brand attitude towards Coca-cola Zero

Name Rob Mink

Student number 6078249

Supervisor Bob Rietveld

1 Statement of Originality:

This document is written by Rob Mink, 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.

2

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this research is to examine the impact of visual electronic word-of-mouth on the brand attitude of consumers, under different conditions (User vs. Firm generated & High vs. Low brand centrality).

Design/methodology/approach

An experimental setup was used to examine the effect of visual eWOM under different conditions. Two studies were conducted, an exploratory and longitudinal study. To gather data multiple surveys were used.

Findings

No significant results were found. The positive effect of visual eWOM on brand attitude was not found.

Research limitations/implications

The manipulation of the stimuli was not optimal, for this reason many participants were

excluded from the analysis.

Practical implications

The results seem to imply that the most effective form of visual eWom is firm-generated and has high brand centrality. However these results are not significant.

Originality/value

3

Table of contents

1. Introduction

p.5

2. Theoretical framework

p.8

2.3 WOM, eWOM & Visual eWOM 2.4 Social media & impact eWOM 2.5 Use of visuals in print advertising 2.6 Repetition effect

3. Hypotheses & Conceptual framework

p.31

3.1 Visual eWOM – Brand attitude 3.2 Sources of visual eWOM 3.3 Brand centrality 3.4 Repetition effect 3.5 Conceptual framework

4. Methodology

p.36

4

5. Results

p.47

5.1 Does visual eWOM have a positive effect on brand attitude?

5.2 Difference in effect user and firm generate visual eWOM on brand attitude 5.3 Difference in effect high and low brand centrality visual eWOM on brand attitude 5.4 Does the effect of visual electronic word-of-mouth follow an inverted U-shaped curve?

6. Discussion

p.61

6.1 Effect of visual eWOM on brand attitude 6.2 User vs. Firm-generated visual eWOM

6.3 The influence of brand centrality on the relationship of visual eWOM and brand attitude 6.4 Does the effect of visual electronic word-of-mouth follow an inverted U-shaped curve? 6.5 Theoretical contributions

6.6 Managerial implications

6.7 Limitations and future research directions

5

1. Introduction

The rise of new media channels such as social media during the last few years has offered fertile ground for electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) communication. Web 2.0 tools (e.g. online discussion forums, consumer review sites, weblogs, social network sites, etc.) are used more and more by consumers to communicate opinions and exchange information (Cheung & Thadani, 2012) The increasing amount of eWOM has significantly affected the way consumers make purchase decisions (Babić et al., 2016). eWOM represents one of the most significant developments in

contemporary consumer behavior. As a consequence traditional word-of-mouth (WOM) has now an electronic element resulting in a substantial research stream in electronic word-of-mouth (EWOM) (King et al., 2014; Cheung & Thadani, 2012; Babić et al., 2016). Previous studies show that consumers perceive WOM as more trustworthy and persuasive than traditional media (e.g. print ads, radio and tv advertising) (You, Vadakkepatt & Joshi, 2015).

Social media are increasingly replacing traditional media, and the buzz about these new marketing opportunities seems unlimited (Bruhn, Schoenmueller & Schäfer, 2012). Because eWOM has emerged to play an important role in the consumer decision making process; companies are allocating bigger portions of their marketing budget to generate and manage the eWOM process (You, Vadakkepatt & Joshi, 2015). Influencing, collecting, and displaying eWOM have become priorities of many companies as part of their effort to increase sales (Babić et al., 2016). Companies use the internet (more specifically social networking sites) to promote and spread information about their brands (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010); to connect with customers and enhance their brand

communication (Schivinski & Dabrowski, 2015). Although the market relevance of eWOM is

recognized, many professionals have not yet determined how to manage eWOM successfully (Babić et al., 2016).

In previous research several types of eWOM have been investigated, such as: discussion forums, UseNet groups, product reviews and social networking sites (SNS) (King et al., 2014). The focus has been on verbal/textual eWOM; however eWOM is not limited to text. Ring, Tkaczynski &

6 Dolnicar (2014) challenged the assumption that WOM is predominantly verbal; and found that both visual and verbal/textual word-of-mouth play a role. The growth of online social media platforms as YouTube, Flickr.com and Facebook has generated new media of expression in the form of videos, photos, and podcasts (Ertimur & Gilly, 2011). This provides empirical evidence for the importance of a new stream of research studying the role of visual stimuli as part of eWOM behavior.

The importance of visual stimuli as part of eWOM is growing, but there is a lack of academic research on this topic. The purpose of this research is to examine the impact of visual electronic word-of-mouth on the brand attitude of consumers, under different conditions (User vs. Firm generated & High vs. Low brand centrality). In this research visual electronic word-of-mouth will be defined as follows: “Any messages created and shared through social media by consumers or firms about a product or company in which the image is the leading aspect of the content of the message”. The research question that will be studied is: Does visual electronic word-of-mouth have a positive influence on brand attitude?

The reason to study the effect on brand attitude is that the roles of attitudes has become increasingly important in influencing all aspects of behavior, the construct has received considerable attention in the consumer behavior literature (Malhotra, 2005). Attitudes are a popular research topic in advertising/marketing because they are useful in predicting consumer behavior (Spears & Singh, 2004). Brand attitude is critical in understanding effective advertising strategy (Percy & Rossiter, 1992).

Brands are highly valuable assets for firms. Managers aim to create strong brands with rich and clear knowledge structure in consumer memory by authoring compelling brand stories (Gensler et al., 2013). The rapid growth of social media platforms over the last few years has raised the question of whether this development has diminished the marketer’s control of brand management (Berthon, Pitt & Campbell, 2008). This research will also answer the question if user of

firm-generated visual eWOM is more effective in positively influencing brand attitude.

7 element. The brand element consists of the visual brand-identity cues in the print advertisements, such as the brand name, trademark, and the brand-logo (Pieters & Wedel, 2004). In the literature there is debate about how much of the ad should exist of the brand element. The size and

prominence of the brand element will be scored as high or low brand centrality in this research. This research will also answer the question if visual eWOM with high or low brand centrality is more effective in positively influencing brand attitude.

1.1 Contributions

Theoretical: Electronic word-of-mouth represents one of the most significant developments in contemporary consumer behavior. The focus of previous research has been on verbal/textual eWOM; however eWOM is not limited to text. The growth of online social media platforms as YouTube, Flickr.com and Facebook has generated new media of expression in the form of videos, photos, and podcasts. By building on existing literature on eWOM and print advertising this research makes a first effort to get a better understanding of the role of visual stimuli as part of eWOM.

Managerial: Companies use the internet (more specifically social networking sites) to promote and spread information about their brands. Social media are increasingly replacing

traditional media, and the buzz about these new marketing opportunities seems unlimited. Although the market relevance of eWOM is recognized, many professionals have not yet determined how to manage eWOM successfully. This research will try and give marketers insight about the visual stimuli of eWOM, what will help them to improve their eWOM marketing strategies.

1.2 Outline

This study is structured as follows: the next paragraph will be the theoretical framework and will discuss the relevant literature. In the third paragraph the hypotheses will be formulated and the conceptual framework will be presented. In the fourth paragraph, the methodology and the data being used will be discussed. In the fifth paragraph the results are presented. In the sixth paragraph the empirical findings will be discussed, followed by the seventh and last paragraph, the conclusion.

8

2. Theoretical Framework

In the following paragraph the theoretical background of the concepts that are used in this study will be discussed. First, the core literature about consumer based brand equity will be discussed. Then brand attitude will be discussed, followed by literature about of-mouth, and electronic word-of-mouth. Social media & impact eWOM will be discussed next. Followed by the use of visuals in print advertising. And at last repetition effects will be discussed.

2.1 Brand equity

That brands and brand names are valuable to companies has long been recognized (Simon & Sullivan, 1993). A brand can be defined as “a name, term, sign, symbol, or design, or combination of them which is intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors” (Kotler 1991; p. 442). But what is the value of a brand or and how do you measure this? According to Simon & Sullivan (1993) brand equity is the

appropriate metric for evaluating the long-run impact of marketing decisions. Brand equity is defined as: “marketing effects uniquely attributable to the brand; when certain results of marketing occur because of the brand name, and would not occur without the brand name” (Keller, 1993).

Brand equity is important to firms because it increases the cash flow of the business (Simon & Sullivan, 1993). That brand equity improves financial performance is proven by the empirical results of Madden, Fehle & Fournier (2006) and Fehle et al. (2008). Thus brands can be seen as financial assets; there is also a literature stream that focuses on the consumer behavioral aspects of brand equity (Barwise, 1993). Marketing effects related to brand equity can be analyzed at the level of firm outcomes, such as market share, revenue, and premium prices; or at the consumer level, such as consumer’s brand knowledge, image, awareness and attitudes (Oliveira-Castro et al., 2008). Like Pappu, Quester and Cooksey (2006), this paper conceptualizes brand equity in accordance with Aaker

9 (1991) and Keller (1993), using a consumer (or marketing) perspective as opposed to a financial one. Brand equity will be referred to as consumer-based brand equity and is defined as: “the value consumers associate with a brand, as reflected in the dimensions of brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty” (Pappu, Quester & Cooksey, 2006). According to Keller (1993) consumer-based brand equity depends primarily on brand knowledge conceptualized according to an associative network memory model in terms of two components, brand awareness (i.e. recognition and recall) and brand image (i.e. associations related to attributes, benefits and attitudes).

From the customer’s point of view, brand equity is part of the attraction to—or repulsion from a particular product from a particular company generated by the nonobjective part of the product offering (i.e., not by the product attribute per se) (Keller & Lehmann, 2006). Customer based brand equity is important as it makes points of differentiation that lead to competitive advantages not based on price competition (Aaker, 1996). It increases the probability of brand choice, the willingness to pay premium prices, marketing communication effectiveness, and decreases the vulnerability to competitive marketing actions and elastic responses to price increases (Yoo, Donthu & Lee, 2000).

Previous advertising research has found that advertising is successful in generating brand equity. The value of brands changes as new information becomes available to consumers; marketing communications are an important driver of brand equity (Simon & Sullivan, 1993). Brand equity is the result of consumers’ reactions to both company’s brand-based activities and the brand-based

communications of other consumers on social media platforms (Bruhn, Schoenmueller & Schäfer, 2012). As long as the communications lead to favorable consumer reaction to the product in question, brand communication is positively associated with brand equity. Both communications through social and traditional media play an important role in improving the brand equity, by increasing the probability that a brand will be incorporated in the consumer’s consideration set (Yoo et al., 2000). High brand equity implies that consumers have a lot of positive and strong associations

10 related to the brand, perceive the brand is of high quality, and are loyal to the brand (Yoo, Donthu & Lee, 2000).

A reason to study Brand equity is to improve marketing productivity (Keller, 1993); when making decisions about marketing actions managers need to consider the potential impact on brand equity (Yoo, Donthu & lee, 2000). Both researchers (Shocker, Srivastava & Ruekert, 1994) and practitioners (Biel, 1992) have argued the importance of understanding the concept of brand equity. Brand equity is important to: guide marketing strategy; assess the extendibility of a brand; evaluate effectiveness of marketing decisions; to track the brand’s health in comparison to competitors; and to assign financial value to the brand (Ailwadi et al., 2003).

2.1.1 Constructs of Brand equity

Brand equity is a multidimensional construct and any measurement attempt must recognize its different dimensions. Keller and Lehmann (2001) divide the existing measures of brand attitude into three categories. First, the consumer mind-set, focuses on assessing the consumer-based source of brand equity. The second and third categories, which they call “product market” and “financial market” focus on the outcomes or net benefits that a firm derives from the equity of its brand. As this paper focuses on consumer-based brand equity, the focus will be on consumer mind-set measures. The consumer mind-set measures assess awareness, attitudes, association, attachments, and loyalties that customers have toward a brand (Ailawadi et al., 2003).

Brand equity can be created and grown by marketers by managing the independent

constructs that create brand equity. In this paper I use the constructs provided by Faircloth, Capella & Alford (2001). According to them brand equity consists of two construct; namely brand image and brand attitude. According to Aaker (1991) the creation of positive brand image and attitude should enhance the development of brand equity. Brand image can be seen as the perceptions related to the object (brand); and brand attitude as an evaluation of the object (brand). According to Faircloth, Capella & Alford, 2001) brand attitude has an indirect effect on brand equity through brand image. Their conceptual model is presented in figure 1. The model proposes three routes to brand equity

11 creation. First, directly through brand image; second directly to brand attitude; and third indirectly from brand attitude through brand image. The total effect of brand attitude on brand equity is significant; the significance is achieved because of the strong indirect relationship through brand image (Faircloth, Capella & Alford, 2001). This is consistent with the findings of Keller (1993), who conceptualize brand attitude as part of brand image. In the next section brand attitude will be discussed.

Figure 1: Conceptualization Brand Equity (Faircloth, Capella & Alford, 2001)

2.2 Brand attitude

This paper will only focus on one of the two constructs which combined result in brand equity, namely brand attitude. The reason to focus on just one of two constructs is that according to Faircloth, Capella & Alford (2001) marketers should specifically manage the separate constructs, brand image and brand attitude; and not brand equity.

The roles of attitudes has become increasingly important in influencing all aspects of behavior, the construct has received considerable attention in the consumer behavior literature

12 (Malhotra, 2005). Attitudes are a popular research topic in advertising/marketing because they are useful in predicting consumer behavior (Spears & Singh, 2004). Brand attitude is critical in

understanding effective advertising strategy. Purchase intention is rarely the direct object of advertising communication strategy, contrary to what may seem to be the obvious intent (Percy & Rossiter, 1992).Certainly purchase intention and behavior are the ultimate goal of advertising, but one must first raise salience of a brand, and then form at least some attitude toward a brand before purchase is considered. Brand awareness and attitude are necessary communication effects if brand purchase is to occur (Percy & Rossiter, 1992). This is confirmed by the findings of Larouch, Kim & Zhou (1996); which implicate that in order to increase a consumer’s purchase intention to buy a specific brand, a marketer needs to enhance his/her confidence in the brand; and by Keller’s (1993) findings that brand attitudes often form the basis for consumer behavior such as brand choice. The development of attitude strategies enables one to create better tailored, more effective advertising (Percy & Rossiter, 1992).

2.2.1 Definition Brand attitude

The definition of brand attitude being used in this study is that of Mitchell and Olson (1981); they define brand attitude as: “an individual’s internal evaluation of the brand”. This definition incorporates two characteristics of attitude that according to Giner-Sorolla (1999) have remained fairly constant during the 20th_{-century. First, an attitude is centered or directed at a real or an} imagined object, in this case the brand. Second, an attitude is evaluative in nature; it is organized around the basic categories of “good” and “bad”. After much debate most theorists have come to view evaluation as the primary component of attitudinal responses (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2000). Other examples of categories of evaluation than “good” or “bad” used by researchers are: liking or disliking (Murphy & Zajonc, 1993); desirable or undesirable and pleasant or unpleasant (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1970).

13

2.2.2 Expectancy-value model

The most popular model of attitude formation and structure is the expectancy-value model (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2000). One of the first and most complete statements of this model can be found in Fishbein’s (1963,1967) summation theory of attitude (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2000). In Fishbein’s theory people’s attitudes towards an object are determined by their accessible beliefs about the object, where beliefs are defined as the subjective probability that the object has a certain attribute (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). According to the expectancy-value model a person’s overall attitude towards an object is determined by the subjective evaluations of the attributes associated with the object and by the strength of these associations (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2000). Brand attitudes can be related to product-related attributes and the functional and experiential benefits, as well as to non-product-related attributes and symbolic benefits (Keller, 1993). An important implication of the value-expectancy model is that attitudes are formed automatically without conscious intent or cognitive effort, as we acquire new information about the object’s attributes; or just at the mere exposure to the attitude object (Fishbein, 1967; Ajzen & Fishbein, 2000). Evidence of the assumption of the expectancy-value model that evaluation can occur spontaneously without any conscious effort is given by Bargh & Chantrand (1999), they prove that automatic attitude activation can occur even in the absence of an explicit goal of making such judgments.

The expectancy-value model helps describe attitude change. Attitudes are based on the beliefs about the attitude object that are presently accessible; any change in the set of accessible beliefs or in the evaluations associated with then, can lead to a change in attitude (Ajzen & Fishbein, 2000). The mere repeated exposure to a stimulus object is enough to enhance a person’s attitude towards it (Zajonc, 1968). The success of a marketing campaign is reflected in the formation/change of a positive overall brand attitude. Consumers develop favorable brand associations when they believe the brand has attributes and benefits that satisfy their needs and wants (Keller, 1993).

2.2.3 Advertising is successful in changing brand attitudes

14 equity and increase brand attitude. Boulding, Lee Staelin (1994); Chay & Tellis (1991); Johnson (1984); Lindsay (1989); and Maxwell (1989) find that advertising is successful in generating brand equity, whereas sales promotion is unsuccessful (Yoo, Donthu & Lee, 2000). Advertising works as an extrinsic cue signaling product quality (Milgrom & Roberts, 1986). Heavy advertising spending implies superior quality, as it shows that the firm is investing in the brand (Kirmani & Wright, 1989); the same positive relationship between advertising and perceived quality was found by Aaker & Jacobson (1994). In increasing brand awareness as well as in creating strong brand associations, advertising also plays a pivotal role (Yoo, Donthu & lee, 2000). Repeated advertising increases the probability that a brand will be included in the consideration set (Hauser & Wernerfeldt, 1990). Advertising also reinforces brand-related associations and attitude towards the brand; increasing brand loyalty (Shimp, 1997).

Besides advertising the brand attitude of consumers can also be influenced through word-of-mouth. That through word-of-mouth others can be influenced has been well recognized in the consumer literature (Cheung & Thadani, 2012). In the next paragraph the concepts word-of-mouth and electronic word-of-mouth will be discussed.

2.3 WOM, eWOM and visual eWOM

Marketers are interested in better understanding of word-of-mouth (WOM) because traditional forms of communication appear to be losing effectiveness (Trusov, Bucklin & Pauwels, 2009). A person receives information through many varied channels; of these channels word-of-mouth seems to carry the most credibility (Godes & Mayzlin, 2004). According to some research the influence of WOM is greater than that of print ads, personal selling and radio advertising (De Bruyn & Lilien, 2008). There is little debate about the fact that WOM matters to firms (Godes & Mayzlin, 2004).

2.3.1 Word-of-mouth

15 narratives and dramas, that are persuasive arguments since consumers also tend to organize

information in such ways (Escalas, 2004). Storytelling has long been recognized to provide meaning to the brand and practitioners have used storytelling to enhance consumer connections with brands (Singh & Sonnenburg, 2012; Gensler et al., 2013). In order to make sense of what goes on in the world people naturally construct stories. The meaning of a brand is often the result of its being part of a story. These stories may result in self-brand connections if the stories create the belief for the consumer that the brand contributes to meeting self-related, psychological needs. Through making meaning of these narratives some brands become more important and valuable than others to consumers, becoming connected to consumers’ sense of self (Escalas, 2004). Brands evaluated more favorably have a higher likelihood of purchase than brands with few or no self-brand connections. Stories that include, provoking incidents, experiences, outcomes, evaluations and summaries of person-to-person and person-to-brand relationships within specific contexts are easily retrieved from memory, which adds to the persuasive power of consumer-generated brand stories (Woodside, 2010).

2.3.2 Electronic word-of-mouth

For decades both academics and practitioners have given word-of-mouth extensive attention. Since the early 1950s, research has demonstrated that personal conversations and informal exchange of information among acquaintances not only influence consumers’ choices and purchase decisions, but also shape consumer expectations, pre-usage attitudes, and even post-usage perceptions of a product or service (De Bruyn & Lilien, 2008). 50 years later word-of-mouth is given new significance through the use of the internet (Dellarocas, 2003). Online word-of-mouth behavior is named electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM). Electronic word-of-mouth is defined in the literature 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 et al. 2014, p.39). This definition implies that electronic word-of-mouth is verbal/textual.

16

2.3.3 Differences WOM and eWOM

While eWOM has some common characteristics in common with traditional WOM communication, it is also different in several dimensions according to Cheung & Thadani (2012). These differences make eWOM unique compared to traditional WOM. First, eWOM possess

unprecedented scalability and speed of diffusion. Second, eWOM is more accessible than traditional WOM; it is archived on the internet and is available for an indefinite period of time. Third, eWOM is more measurable than traditional WOM. A final difference is that with WOM the sender is always known and thus the credibility is known, this is not necessarily the case for eWOM.

2.3.4 Visual electronic word-of-mouth

In previous research several types of eWOM have been investigated, such as: discussion forums, UseNet groups, product reviews and social networking sites (SNS) (King et al., 2014). The focus has been on verbal eWOM; however eWOM is not limited to text. Ring, Tkaczynski & Dolnicar (2014) challenged the assumption that WOM is predominantly verbal; and found that both visual and verbal/textual word-of-mouth play a role in the sharing of holiday experiences. The growth of online social media platforms as YouTube, Flickr.com and Facebook has generated new media of expression in the form of videos, photos, and podcasts (Ertimur & Gilly, 2011). This provides empirical evidence for the importance of a new stream of research studying the role of visual stimuli as part of eWOM behavior.

The importance of visual stimuli as part of eWOM is growing, but there is a lack of academic research on this topic. The purpose of this paper is to get a better understanding of the effect of the visual aspect of eWOM, more specific that of photos. For that reason the definition of eWOM used for by Henning-Thurau et al. (2004) does not meet the requirements, as it focuses on verbal/textual eWOM. A new definition is needed, that of visual electronic word-of-mouth. In this research visual electronic word-of-mouth is defined as follows: “Any messages created and shared through social media by consumers or firms about a product or company in which the image is the leading aspect of the content of the message”. Besides the image the content can also exist of a capitation of the

17 image and the use of hashtags, but not a large story being told by text (text would then become the leading aspect).

Since there is a lack of academic research on the topic, regular eWOM, social media and advertising literature will be used and combined for theory. The literature on eWOM and social media will help with a better understanding of the online environment, and help explain possible effects of eWOM communication. The advertising literature can give a better understanding of the visual element, as in advertising the use of visuals has already been studied for print advertising.

2.4 Social media & impact of eWOM

2.4.1 Social media

The rise of social media has offered fertile ground for electronic word-of-mouth(Cheung & Thadani, 2012). Advancement in information technology has profoundly changed the way

information is transmitted (Duan, Gu & Whinston, 2008). One of the fastest growing arenas to transmit information on the internet is the space of so-called social networking sites or social media (Trusov, Bucklin & Pauwels, 2009). Social media describes a variety of sources of online information that are created, initiated, circulated and used by consumers to educate each other on brands, products, services, personalities and issues (Blackshaw & Nazzaro, 2004); more and more consumers use social media to communicate their opinions and exchange product information (Cheung & Thadani, 2012). Social media encompasses a wide range of online word-of-mouth forums containing digital audio, images, movies, photographs and text (Mangold & Fauld, 2009).

The amount of internet-based messages transmitted through social media is exploding in the 21st _{century. These messages have become a major factor in influencing various aspects of consumer} behavior including: awareness, information acquisition, opinions, attitudes, purchase behavior, and post-purchase communication and evaluation (Mangold & Fauld, 2009). The rising trend of the use of

18 social media by consumers will increasingly impact brand equity in the future (Bruhn, Schoenmueller & Schäfer, 2012). Social media is not just used by consumers but also by firms; social media networks increasingly replace traditional media, creating seemingly unlimited marketing opportunities (Bruhn, Schoenmueller & Schäfer, 2012). With the emergence of the phenomenon known as social media, the tools and strategies for communicating with customers have changed significantly; word-of-mouth marketing is a particular prominent feature on the internet (Trusov, Bucklin & Pauwels, 2009).

2.4.2 Bidirectionality social media

One of the most important capabilities of social media networks relative to previous mass communication technologies is its bidirectionality (Dellarocas, 2003). Social media has two

interrelated promotional roles in the marketplace. First, companies are enabled by social media to talk to their customers; this is consistent with the use of traditional integrated marketing

communications tools. Second, customers are enabled to talk back and to other consumers (WOM); compared to traditional integrated marketing communication tools this makes social media unique (Mangold & Fauld, 2009; Dellarocas, 2003). The traditional one-way communication is now multi-dimensional, two-way and peer-to-peer communication (Berthon, Pitt & Campbell, 2008). Another important difference is that, traditional media charges advertisers for time and space, social media are essentially free for advertisers and audiences (Berthon, Pitt & Campbell, 2008). This makes WOM communication strategies via social media appealing to marketers (Trusov, Bucklin & Pauwels, 2009).

Marketers have included social media communications in their media channel consideration; because social media allows marketers to have deeper interactions with consumers in ways that previous media could not deliver (Schivinski & Dabrowski, 2015). Because marketers have also included social media communication, or online word-of-mouth marketing in their marketing mix, and both consumers and marketers use social media to communicate with each other; this paper will depart from another crucial aspect of the definition of electronic word-of-mouth as given by

19 consumers; in this paper statements made on social media by firms will also be considered as

electronic word-of-mouth.

2.4.3 Consumers as pivotal authors of brand stories

To examine the impact of social media brand communications or electronic word-of-mouth, it is necessary to distinguish between the two different sources; namely: firm-generated and user-generated electronic word-of-mouth (Schivinski & Dabrowski, 2015). In traditional advertisement settings, organizations created advertisements and customer consumed them. The intentions of the organization would be to inform, persuade, or remind and present potential customers of the offerings or the organization itself (Berthon, Pitt & Campbell, 2008). In this situation consumers were seen as passive recipients of the communication; they reacted to this communication by becoming aware, being swayed to do something, having their memories jogged and reinforced, or simply ignoring the advertisement (Berthon, Pitt & Campbell, 2008). The rapid growth of social media platforms has raised the question of whether this development has diminished the marketer’s control of brand management (Bruhn, Schoenmueller & Schäfer, 2012). Brand communication previously controlled by marketers is gradually being shaped more and more by users (Schivinski & Dabrowski, 2015). Social media offers consumers an opportunity to communicate with thousands of other consumers around the world; companies are no longer the sole source of brand

communication (Bruhn, Schoenmueller & Schäfer, 2012; Kuskov, Shachar & Wang, 2013). The distinction traditionally made between producers and consumers is resolving.

The days in which marketers created a brand identity by themselves via image advertising are over. Marketing managers control over content, timing, and frequency of information is subject to severe erosion (Mangold & Fauld, 2009). Brand managers have lost their pivotal role as authors of their brand stories (Kuskov, Shachar & Wang, 2013). Instead consumers empowered to share their brand stories easily and to a wide audience through social networks have gained an important voice that brand managers can no longer ignore ( Gensler et al., 2013). Consumers can create ads about almost anything, themselves, their family, their friends, institutions or governments (Berthon, Pitt &

20 Campbell, 2008). Social media not only allows consumers to create and share content, but also to rely on content created by other consumers forming opinions about products and making purchase decisions (Mathwick, Wiertz & De Ruyter, 2008). The construction of brands can be seen as a

collective, co-creational process involving several authors who all contribute with their brand stories (Holt, 2003). A brand’s meaning follows from the consensus and dissensus between the collective sharing of what the brand means to all its stakeholders and the active negotiation of such meanings (Gensler et al., 2013). Brand managers are only one of the many authors of brand stories, and exert far less control over brand meanings than was commonly assumed in the conventional brand management literature (Gensler et al., 2013).

2.4.4 Importance consumer-generated content

A number of pronounced trends suggest that consumer generated content will grow in the future in prominence and effect. First, the technologies which are enabling consumers to create and broadcast their own brand messages are advancing rapidly (Berthon, Pitt & Campbell, 2008). For instance cell phones now have the capabilities to create and broadcast content. Second, the paradoxical tension with regard to brands in today’s business environment gives

consumer-generated content a great impulse. On the one hand, the obsession around brands is likely to grow, for both organizations and consumers. On the other hand, brands are very important in people’s lives but not appreciated by everyone, resulting in active anti-branding (Berthon, Pitt & Campbell, 2008). Third, brands give identity to the customers who purchase, own, use and consume them. By

communicating about brands consumers are able to say things about themselves, one way of doing this is by eWOM. Fourth, consumers consistently demand more control over their media

consumption, they want immediate access to information at their own convenience. Thus consumers are turning away from the traditional sources of advertising (e.g. radio, television, magazines and newspapers) (Raschtcy et al., 2007; Vollmer & Percourt, 2008). Fifth, social media is perceived as a more trustworthy source of information regarding products and services by consumers, than

21 (Foux, 2006). The fact that the influence of consumer generated content will most likely only

increase, indicates the importance of a good understanding of electronic word-of-mouth for marketers. And rises the question what the impact of consumer-generated content is.

2.4.5 Impact consumer-generated eWOM

A lot of research has been done on the effectiveness of consumer-generated eWOM. Chevalier & Mayzlin (2006) analyzed the effect of online reviews; their results suggest that customer word-of-mouth affects consumer purchasing behavior at internet retail sites. Floyd et al. (2014) did a meta-analysis of 26 studies to find out how online product reviews affect retail sales. There results show that online product reviews have a significant impact on sales elasticity. Chintagunta et al. (2010) researched the role of eWOM in influencing the off-line sales of sequentially released new products. They find that the valence of eWOM has a significant positive impact on sales. The results of Duan et al. (2008) suggest that consumers are not influenced by the persuasive effect of eWOM, they are however affected by the awareness effect generated by eWOM. Babić et al. (2016) performed a meta-analysis of 96 studies, there results show that overall there is a positive

correlation of 0.091 between eWOM and sales. Furthermore the results show that the effect has not changed systematically in the last 15 years, which suggests that marketers should include eWOM in their long-term strategic decisions (Babić et al., 2016). You, Vadakkepatt & Joshi (2015) conducted a meta-analysis of 51 studies on the effect of user-generated eWOM on sales. They also find that the eWOM has an effect on sales, and that this influence is affected by the volume and valence of eWOM. Besides sales, eWOM also affects the brand attitude of consumers. It seems that eWOM may have much more influence on a consumer’s brand attitude than any other source of influence (Godes & Mayzlin, 2004). The results of Wu & Wang (2011) support that eWOM has an effect on brand attitude; they find a positive relationship between message source credibility and brand trust, brand affection, purchase intention and brand attitude (Wu & Wang, 2011). Gruen, Osmonbekov & Czaplewski (2006) researched the effects of eWOM on customer perceptions of value and customer loyalty intentions. Their study found that consumer eWOM affects the value of the firm’s offering

22 and the customers’ future intention. In the next section the impact of firm-generated eWOM will be discussed.

2.5.6 Impact firm-generated eWOM

Godes & Mayzlin (2009) demonstrate that firm-generated eWOM like user-generated eventually drives sales. Firm-generated eWOM activities effectively enhance brand equity, by providing novel value to customers that traditional marketing media do not usually provide (Kim & Ko, 2012). Social media communications have a significant impact on brand equity (Bruhn,

Schoenmueller & Schäfer, 2012). The results of Bruhn, Schoenmueller & Schäfer (2012) show that traditional media communications has a stronger impact on brand awareness compared to social media communications; whereas social media has stronger positive influence on brand image. Voorveld & Van Noort (2014) conclude that social media can play an important and distinguishing role in advertising for two reasons. First, social media campaigns lead to enhanced buying intentions and cognitive responses. Second, consumers are not, or at least less, aware of the persuasive nature of advertising campaigns on social media; and therefore assert a greater persuasive impact. A brand’s social media platform offers customers the opportunity to engage in sincere and friendly communications with the brand and other users, which positively affects brand equity as well (kim & ko, 2012). Therefore, companies should view social media as an essential component of their

marketing mix, in order to increase brand equity. Thus both user-generated eWOM and firm-generated eWOM effect consumer-based brand equity and financial performances of brands. This raises the question if there are any differences in firm-generated and user-generated content.

2.4.7 Differences firm-generated and user-generated eWOM

Firm-generated brand stories typically are consistent and coherent over time (Gensler et al., 2013). Firm-generated content will always transport positive brand-based communication content; because marketers always aim at presenting their brand in a positive light (Bruhn Schoenmuller & Schäfer, 2012). User-generated stories can add to a firm’s pursued brand meaning, but they can also

23 add new and different meaning that contests the firm’s aspired brand meaning (Gensler et al., 2013). As user-generated content is not under the control of marketers therefore it cannot be expected to be unequivocally positive, but it can be either positive or negative (Bruhn, Schoenmueller & Schäfer, 2012). Both positive and negative content can increase brand’s awareness and thus influence purchase decisions (Bruhn, Schoenmueller & Schäfer, 2012).

Firm-created compared to user-generated social media communications have different effects on the brand image dimensions; due to the importance of source credibility (Bruhn,

Schoenmueller & Schäfer, 2012). Firm-created content specifically increases functional brand image, whereas user-generated content positively affects hedonic brand image. According to Bruhn, Schoenmueller & Schäfer (2012) this show that consumers consciously differentiate between the sources of information. The results of the research of Schivinski & Dabrowski (2015) show that firm-created social media brand communication influences only brand awareness/associations; and do not directly influence brand loyalty and perceived quality. In contrast, user-generated social media brand communication positively influences brand awareness/associations, brand loyalty and perceived quality.

The research by Brunel, Lawrence & Fournier (2010) provides some evidence for the potential of consumer-generated content in facilitating greater consumer engagement than firm-generated content (Ertimur & Gilly, 2011). By analyzing social media communications and

differentiating between firm-created social media communications and user-generated social media communications, Bruhn, Schoenmueller & Schäfer (2012) reveal the importance of source

credibility. Consumers tend to be skeptical towards firm-generated advertising messages, because they distrust corporate advertising. Consumers know that persuasion is the underlying motive of firm-generated advertising, and see these sources as lacking disinterest, and thus authenticity. The effectiveness of firm-generated advertisements to evoke favorable associations for this reason is often questionable (Campbell & Kirmani, 2000). User-generated content are more trusted than firm-generated content (Berthon, Pitt & Campbell, 2008). User-firm-generated content is thought to

24 independent of company influence, other users accept these evaluations as credible and authentic, and as external validations of the brand’s attractiveness or desirability (Bruhn, Schoenmueller & Schäfer, 2012). WOM is generally perceived as more credible in comparison to advertising, given its non-commercial nature (Murray, 1991). WOM is also seen as more authentic because a person’s actions or expressions are thought clearly to reflect who a person really is (Grayson & Martinec, 2004). Consumers talking to other consumers are seen as communicating their true beliefs and experience; with no commercial motive, lacking ulterior motive and thus encapsulating authenticity (Beverland & Farrelly, 2010).

Hautz et al. (2014) compared the credibility perceptions of user-generated videos with firm-generated videos influence consumers’ intended behavior. Their results show that user-firm-generated videos generally exhibit a higher degree of source credibility and thereby a stronger influence on intended behavior than firm-generated videos. In terms of trustworthiness they found that for low technical quality videos user-generated videos perform significantly better; but that there is no significant difference in trustworthiness for high technical quality videos. Hautz et al. (2014) also found that concerning source expertise, user-generated videos rated more highly than firm-generated videos.

Based on the literature this research makes the assumption that consumers consciously differentiate between user-generated and firm-generated content, and that the source influences the impact eWOM has. User-generated content seems more trustworthy and authentic, lacks a commercial and ulterior motive which together makes it a more credible source of information.

Since there is a lack of literature on the use of visuals in eWOM, the next section will discuss the use of visuals in print advertisement.

2.5 Use of visuals in print advertising

It is being said that a picture is worth a thousand words. Estimates are that 75% of the information we take in through our senses is visual (Hanson, 1987). In advertisement visual elements can be used

25 to attract attention to an advertisement, to display the product, to create an emotion, or to

demonstrate how a product can fit into a consumer’s life; through visuals individuals can be encouraged to pay more attention to the ad, which should increase ad recall (Clow et al., 2008). Extensive use of pictures or visuals in print advertisement is not a recent phenomenon (Edell & Staelin, 1983). Visuals are used to convey information about the brand, to show its users and uses, and/or to create an image or personality for the brand (Runyon, 1979).

Rossiter & Percy (1980) showed that visual content in advertising is just as capable of

increasing the consumer’s product attitude as is verbal content. The results of the study of Mitchell & Olson (1981) indicate that the visual elements of advertisements may affect brand attitudes in at least two ways. First, individuals may form inferences about the brand based on the visual

information presented; which may result in a change the beliefs about the advertised brand. Second, positive or negative evaluation of the visual element may have an effect on the attitude towards the brand; which can have influence on the attitude towards the brand. Mitchell (1986) also found that the visual element impacted both attitudes towards the ad and towards the brand. Clow et al. (2008) find that the visual had a stronger impact towards the ad attitude than it did on attitude towards the brand; they do however find that the visual element is an important driver of attitude towards the ad, which drives attitude toward the brand.

The assumption is being made that visuals used for eWOM have the same characteristics as the visuals in print advertisement. That individual may form inferences about the brand based on the visual information presented in eWOM; and that the positive or negative evaluation of the visual element has an effect on the attitude towards the brand. Since visuals in eWOM are also used to convey information about the brand, to show its users and uses, and/or to create an image or personality for the brand.

2.5.1 Different elements of a visual

Print advertisement in most cases contains three elements: a brand, pictorial, and text element. The brand element consists of the visual brand-identity cues in the print advertisements,

26 such as the brand name, trademark, and the brand-logo (Pieters & Wedel, 2004). The pictorial element consists of all non-textual information in the advertisement (excluding the brand trademark or logo). And the text element consists of all textual information (excluding the mentioning of the brand name) (Pieters & Wedel, 2004). Visual electronic word-of-mouth as defined in this research contains these three elements as well. In the visual the brand and pictorial element are present, and the capitation of the visual is the textual element. Visual eWOM differs from print advertising in the sense that either the brand, pictorial or both element(s) is always most prominently present; and never the textual element.

2.5.3 Brand centrality

The brand element in visual eWOM will be named brand centrality in this research. According Smith, Fischer & Yongjian (2012) brand centrality refers to the role of the brand in brand-related consumer-generated content. Is the brand the focus of the content, or is it used as more of a

supporting element. In the research of Smith, Fischer & Yongjian brand centrality was either present (if the brand was the main focus of the content) or not (if the brand had a peripheral function in the content). In this research I will make a different distinction, if the brand has the main focus in the visual it will be said the visual has high brand centrality; if the brand serves a peripheral function in the visual it will be said to have low brand centrality. No brand centrality would mean that the brand is not present in the visual.

2.5.2 Debate importance of the different elements of visuals

In the literature there is debate about how much of the ad should exist of the different elements. Armstrong (2000) says the pictorial element should be at least half of the size of the advertisement. Assael, Kofron, and Burgu (1967) on the other hand say that the pictorial element should be two-thirds of the advertisement; Rossiter & Percy (1997) say the bigger the brand element the better. Some scholars advice maximization of the brand element in advertising, while others advice minimization. The assumption is that the pictorial element increases the attention paid to the

27 advertisement in question. Wedel & Pieters (2000) tested this assumption using eye-tracking

equipment to record eye movements, by doing this they measured on which elements of

advertisements consumers focus the most. In their research on average, the pictorial element had the largest surface, followed by text and then the brand element. In absolute sense consumers focused the most on the pictorial element, confirming the assumption. To get a better understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of high brand centrality, the arguments in favor of high brand centrality will be discussed, followed by a section with counterargument.

2.5.2.1 Arguments in favor of high brand centrality

The brand receives the most fixation per surface area, the text receives less, and the pictorial element the least (Wedel & Pieters, 2000). The disproportionately high unit-fixation on the brand element compared to the other two elements is striking. Even if consumers dwell only for a short moment on each ad (less than 3 seconds), the brand element draws a disproportionately large amount of attention. This supports the idea that the brand element is the most meaningful ad element. The amount of information extracted on a single fixation decreases from brand to pictorial to text (Wedel & Pieters, 2000). This underlines the importance of the brand element as well. A final argument in favor of high brand centrality is given by the research of Pieters & Wedel (2004), they find that an increase in surface size of the brand element does not have a negative effect on the attention paid to the entire advertisement. Strong branding practices that involve more prominent placement of the brand element favor rather than harm attention to the brand; and they only have a small negative effect to the attention paid to the other elements. Combined these findings stimulate marketers to greatly enlarge the brand surface in order to maximize the effectiveness of marketing. 2.5.2.2 Argument in favor of low brand centrality

There are several considerations that warn against the maximization of the brand element (high brand centrality) (Wedel & Pieters, 2000). In an absolute sense the pictorial element drew the most attention. Second, the pictorial element did have an effect not to be ignored on brand memory,

28 as an retrieval cue (Wedel & Pieters, 2000). Keller (1987) found that the presence of advertising retrieval cues leads to greater recall of brand claims and evaluative ad reactions and more favorable brand evaluation; compared to the absence of advertising retrieval cues. Retrieval cues might be necessary to access favorable ad effects from memory and produce an improved brand attitude (Keller, 1987). Third, the loss of attention over repeated exposures (Wedel & Pieters, 2000). These are all arguments in favor of low brand centrality.

2.6 Repetition effect

As consumers are exposed to a brand’s advertising more frequently, they develop not only higher brand awareness and associations but also a more positive perception of brand quality, which results in strong brand equity (Yoo, Donthu & Lee, 2000). Multiple exposures to an advertisement enhances a consumers’ attitude and recall, this is called the repetition effect (Vuokko, 1997). Pechmann & Stewart (1988) define repetition effect as: “the differential effect of each successive advertising exposure”. In the literature there is consensus on the general relation of repetition effects and brand attitude and recall; and that it follows an inverted U-shaped curve. There is however still debate about the optimal number of the number of exposures (Schmidt & Eisend, 2015).

2.6.1 Minimalists vs. repetitionists

Tellis (1997) distinguishes the literature into two schools: minimalists, who believe that a few (one to three) exposures achieve the maximum response; and the repetitionists, who argue that repetition is necessary for optimal consumer response. The minimalist view is supported by Krugman (1972) who argues that three exposures may be enough, because four, five, etc. are repeats of the third exposure effect. McDonald (1971) found empirical evidence to support the theory of Krugman, who found that response peaked at two exposures. Pieters, Rosbergen & Wedel (1999) found that repetition reduces the amount of attention paid to the advertisement and its elements, by

29 approximately 50% for the first to the third exposure.

On the other end of the spectrum are the repetitionists, those who believe advertising repetition is essential for optimal consumer response. Zielske (1959) found that the repetition of a message as many as 13 times continued to increase consumer response. Kohli, Harich & Leuthesser (2005) showed attitudes still increase upon the fifth exposure; Nordhielm (2002) even until the 10th or

25th exposure. The result of Kohli, Halrich & Leuthesser (2004) show that the evaluation of brand

names improves with repeated exposure. This influences the evaluation of quality and other product attributes.

As result of this discussion Schmidt & Eisend (2015) distinguish between the minimalist view which argues for one to three repetitions, and the repetionist view which argues for more repetitions in order to achieve maximum impact on attitudes. In their study they find an inverted U-shaped relationship between exposure effects and attitude. Schmidt & Eisend (2015) results support the repetionists’ view; few exposures are not enough to achieve maximum response, but repetition is essential for consumer response.

It is important to mention that in regular advertising generally the same advertisement is showed multiple times to consumers. Firms that use visual eWOM generally post different visuals each time, although they can have a similar feel and touch. So it is hard to say that the effect of visual eWOM on brand attitude will also follow an inverted U-shaped curve to get a better idea of the influence of multiple exposures (volume) to visuals of a brand I also take a look at the literature on eWOM.

2.6.2 Impact volume of eWOM

From literature on eWOM we can learn the following. If we look at online consumer reviews, it seems that a greater number of reviews the better for a product. However consumers may be confronted with too much information, which results in information overload (Park & Lee, 2009). According to Park, Lee & Han (2007) consumers’ purchase intention increases along with the number of reviews, because many reviews indicate that the product is popular. An increase of product

30 reviews does make a product look popular; helping consumers rationalize purchase decisions (if many other people bought it, it must be good). Therefore as the number of reviews becomes large, there may be a tradeoff between the negative effect caused by eWOM overload, and the positive effect from an increase in the strength of the signal of product popularity; this is what Park & Lee (2009) researched. They found that the number of reviews increases the perceived popularity of a product; they also showed that information overload occurs in eWOM context. The results of the meta-analysis from Babić et al. (2016) demonstrate that volume and valence-volume are the most important metrics of eWOM linked to sales. They demonstrate that the brandwagon effect (volume) is more important than the persuasion effect (valence).

Social media is considered to be less intrusive than other marketing communication efforts, as consumers can more easily decide the extent of exposure to marketing content. Nevertheless, brands could easily annoy fans by posting too much and thereby spam the message board of users; annoyance has a negative effect on the evaluation of brands (Hutter et al., 2013).

The literature on eWOM seems to coincide with the repetitionist view. Volume is positively related to the success of eWOM, due to the brandwagon effect, the popularity of the product it implies. There could be some point however in which there is too much eWOM, which results in an information overload and/or annoyance. This indicates that the relationship between volume of eWOM and brand attitude might follow an inverted U-shaped curve as well. It is hard to say what the optimal number of eWOM messages is, since eWOM is considered to be less intrusive than other marketing communication efforts, and no exact number are being named in the literature.

Message spacing can have affect the repetition effect, message spacing will be discussed in the next section.

2.6.3 Message spacing

From the meta-analysis of Bornstein (1989) it follows that the relationship between

repetitions and attitude is positively moderated by a delay between exposures; even when the delay lasts up to 2 weeks. Schmidt & Eisend (2015) call this delay message spacing, which refers to the

31 duration between each advertising exposure. Cacioppo & Petty (1979) say that the additional time to think is necessary for individual to process more deeply and elaborate more fully the content of the communication. Janiszewski, Noel & Sawyer (2003) find that message spacing positively influences recall. Due to the message spacing individuals have time to process information and form

associations with information stored in their memory, which increases recall. The recall of pictures has been found to be more enduring than the recall of words (Gardner & Houston, 1986). Schmidt & Eisend (2015) find that message spacing enhances exposure effects on brand attitude. For this reason this research will do multiple measurements after multiple exposures.

3. Hypotheses and Conceptual Framework

In this paragraph the hypotheses and the conceptual framework will be discussed. The theories discussed in the previous paragraph form the basis of these hypotheses and the conceptual framework.

3.1 Visual eWOM – Brand attitude

This research will test if visual eWOM: “Any messages created and shared through social media by consumers or firms about a product or company in which the image is the leading aspect of the content of the message” influences brand attitude positively . As discussed in the theoretical framework, previous advertising research has found that both advertising and eWOM are successful in generating brand equity and can positively influence the brand attitude of consumers. The value of brands changes as new information becomes available to consumers (Simon & Sullivan, 1993).

According to the expectancy-value model a person’s overall attitude towards a brand is determined by the subjective evaluations of the attributes associated with the brand and the strength of these associations (Azjen & Fishbein, 2000). An important implication of the value-expectancy model is that attitudes are formed automatically without conscious or cognitive effort, as

32 we acquire new information about the brand attributes (Fishbein, 1967; Azjen & Fishbein, 2000), for instance through visual eWOM. Any change in the set of accessible beliefs or in the evaluation associated with them, can lead to a change in attitude (Azjen & Fishbein, 2000); the mere repeated exposure to a stimulus brand is enough to enhance a person’s attitude towards it (Zajonc, 1968). The results of Duan et al. (2008) suggest that consumers are influenced by the awareness effect

generated by eWOM.

Visuals can be used to attract attention, to display the product, to create an emotion, to demonstrate how a product can fit into a consumer’s life, to convey information about the brand, to show its users and uses, and to create an image or personality for the brand (Clow et al., 2008; Runyon, 1979). Visual elements can affect brand attitudes in at least two ways. First, individuals may form inferences about the brand based on the visual information presented; which may result in a change the beliefs about the advertised brand. Second, positive or negative evaluation of the visual element may have an effect on the attitude towards the ad; which can have influence on the attitude towards the brand (Mitchell & Olson, 1981).

Since visuals can provide new information about a brand’s attributes (both functional and hedonic), it can be expected that visual eWOM will result in a change in the brand attitude of consumers. Even if no new information is communicated through visual eWOM it is expected to enhance a consumer’s attitude toward a brand, due to the mere repeated exposure effect. This leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Visual electronic word-of-mouth positively influences the brand attitude of consumers.

3.2 Sources of visual eWOM

In traditional advertisement settings, organizations created advertisements and customer consumed them. ). In this situation consumers were seen as passive recipients of the communication; they reacted to this communication by becoming aware, being swayed to do something, having their

33 memories jogged and reinforced, or simply ignoring the advertisement (Berthon, Pitt & Campbell, 2008). But brand managers are only one of the many authors of brand stories, and exert far less control over brand meanings than was commonly assumed in the conventional brand management literature (Gensler et al., 2013). To examine the impact of social media brand communications or electronic word-of-mouth, it is necessary to distinguish between the two different sources; namely: firm-generated and user-generated electronic word-of-mouth (Schivinski & Dabrowski, 2015). Prior research has shown that consumers respond differently to user-generated content and firm-generated content, from these results follows the assumption that consumers consciously differentiate between user and firm-generated content.

WOM stories told by consumers tend to be influential because they are often narratives and dramas that are persuasive arguments since consumers also tend to organize information in such ways (Escalas, 2004). User-generated content are more trusted than firm-generated content (Berthon, Pitt & Campbell, 2008), becauseuUser-generated content is thought to be independent of company influence; other users accept these evaluations as credible and authentic, and as external validations of the brand’s attractiveness or desirability (Bruhn, Schoenmueller & Schäfer, 2012). Consumers talking to other consumers are seen as communicating their true beliefs and experiences; with no commercial motive, lacking ulterior motive and thus encapsulating authenticity (Beverland & Farrelly, 2010). Consumers tend to be skeptical towards firm-generated advertising messages, because they distrust corporate advertising. Consumers know that persuasion is the underlying motive of firm-generated advertising, and see these sources as lacking disinterest, and thus authenticity (Campbell & Kirmani, 2000).

User-generated content seems more trustworthy and authentic, lacks a commercial and ulterior motive which together makes it a more credible source of information. This leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: User-generated visual electronic word-of-mouth will have a larger positive effect on the brand attitude of consumers than firm-generated eWOM.

34

3.3 Brand centrality

In the literature there is an ongoing debate about how much of the ad should exist of the brand element. As the literature discussed in the previous section is inconsistent/contradictory about the optimal level of brand centrality alternating hypotheses for the optimal level of brand centrality will be used.

The brand element receives the most eye fixation per surface area; the disproportionately large amount of attention for the brand element in ads supports the idea that the brand element is the most meaningful element (Wedel & Pieters, 2000). Even if consumers dwell only for a short moment on each ad (less than 3 seconds), the brand element draws a disproportionately large amount of attention. The most information is extracted on a single fixation from the brand element (Wedel & Pieters, 2000). Strong branding practices that involve more prominent placement of the brand element favor rather than harm attention to the brand; and they only have a small negative effect to the attention paid to the other elements. Combined these findings stimulate marketers to greatly enlarge the brand surface in order to maximize the effectiveness of marketing. Since the brand element receives the most attention per surface area, and the most information is extracted from the brand element it is expected to have the most influence on brand attitude; resulting in the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3a: Visual electronic word-of-mouth with high brand centrality will have a larger positive effect on brand attitude of consumers than visual eWOM with low brand centrality.

There are several considerations that warn against the maximization of the brand element (high brand centrality) (Wedel & Pieters, 2000). In an absolute sense the pictorial element drew the most attention. Second, the pictorial element did have an effect not to be ignored on brand memory, as a retrieval cue (Wedel & Pieters, 2000). Keller (1987) found that the presence of advertising retrieval cues leads to greater recall of brand claims and evaluative ad reactions and more favorable brand evaluation; compared to the absence of advertising retrieval cues. Since in an absolute sense

35 the pictorial element draws the most attention, and the pictorial element has an significant effect as a retrieval cue on brand memory, low brand centrality might have better results in affecting brand attitude. Resulting in the following alternating hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3b: Visual electronic word-of-mouth with low brand centrality will have a larger positive effect on brand attitude of consumers than visual eWOM with low brand centrality.

3.4 Repetition effect

Multiple exposures to an advertisement enhances a consumers’ attitude and recall, this is called the repetition effect (Vuokko, 1997). In the advertising literature there is consensus on the general relation of repetition effects and brand attitude; and that it follows an inverted U-shaped curve. The idea is that multiple exposures are necessary for an optimal response, however after an x number of exposures the amount of attention paid reduces. From literature on eWOM it can also be expected that the relationship between repetition (volume) and brand attitude follows an inverted U-shaped curve. An increase in volume indicates that a product is popular, enhancing purchase intention and brand attitude. There might however be a turning point where an increase in volume results in information overload and/or eWOM starts to become annoying. These theories combined result in the expectation that the relationship between the volume of visual eWOM and brand attitude to follow an inverted U-shaped curve; which results in the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 4: The relationship between exposures to visual electronic word-of-mouth and the brand attitude of consumers follows an inverted U-shaped curve.

36

3.5 Conceptual Framework

Figure 2: Conceptual framework

4. Methodology

This paragraph focuses on the research methods used, preparation of the data set, and justifying the choices that were made. The paragraph starts with design choice, followed by the procedure, stimuli being used, measures, analytical strategy and preparation of the dataset.

4.1 Design

The main goal of this thesis is to find out if visual electronic word-of-mouth positively influences the brand attitude of consumers. As discussed visuals can have a different source as sender (firm vs. consumer) and a different level of brand centrality (high vs. low). Since it is expected that the source and the level of brand centrality will have an effect on the relationship between visual electronic word-of-mouth and brand attitude; different conditions should be tested in order to see if there is a difference in effect on brand attitude. To test the proposed hypotheses a quantitative study was performed, by means of an experiment. An experimental design was chosen because it allows for manipulation of the stimulus. Four experimental conditions were being researched resulting in a 2x2 (High brand centrality vs. low brand centrality) x (User-generated content vs. Firm-generated content) research design. Two experimental studies were conducted, an exploratory and