Sustainability in online
marketing communication
messages
How branding and rebranding influence the perceived credibility of sustainable
marketing communication messages on Facebook and Instagram.
Minke Kliphuis 21881708 Master’s Thesis
Abstract
The aim of this research is to examine and test the effect of rebranding and branding marketing communication messages on the perceived message credibility of consumers, including a moderating effect of the two most used social media platforms by marketeers: Instagram and Facebook. Branding refers to the strategy underlying marketing communication messages with respect to the image the brand is trying to portray. The difference between branding and rebranding strategies is that branding concerns a brand image or value that has been consistent since the beginning, which is portrayed through a marketing communication message. Rebranding in marketing communication messages is the communication of a change or alteration of this initial brand image or brand value. In order to test this relation, participants are shown a marketing communication message, either through the layout of Instagram or Facebook, of a coffee brand. The image, logo, and brand name are identical in all cases. The difference is in small textual cues, confirming if their 100% sustainable coffee has been this way since the start of the brand or has recently been updated. The findings show that there is neither a direct effect of rebranding versus branding on the perceived credibility of the message, as well as the interaction effect of Instagram or Facebook. However, the experiment did show a significant difference for the factor concerning the clarity of branding and rebranding messages, which can be traced back to the preference for consistency when it comes to credibility. Additionally, various reasons for the lack of significant outcomes are proposed, which may be implemented in future research.
Introduction
It is no secret that the world is in a global environmental crisis. With the media prominently covering items concerning natural disasters such as the Australian and Amazon bushfires, together with the increase of global climate marches and the increasing popularity of climate activist such as Greta Thunberg, it is evident that this crisis is top of mind amongst the population. Not only is this top of mind through the news, but also as consumers are becoming more and more aware of their impact on the environment, both negative and positive (McKeown & Shearer, 2019; Taoketao, Feng, Song & Nie, 2018). It is as if being concerned with the environment, and “going green” is a trend. Consumers are choosing the “greener” option increasingly often, which indicates that sustainability not only influences in one’s private life, but also affects businesses (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2010, Lee; 2017).
As it becomes increasingly important for organizations to integrate environmental practices in their strategic business plan, there is an increase in environmental claims in marketing communication messages (Kim & Fergusen, 2019; Kim, 2019). This increase is seen in both practice and in theory (McCarthy, Liu & Chen, 2015; Blom, Van Burg, Verhagen, Hillen, 2015). An example of the increase in practice is the rise of green food labels and conscious fashion brands (McCarthy et al., 2015; Blom et al., 2015). However, such sustainability marketing communication messages do not seem to achieve their purpose in all cases (Kim, 2019). For example, when looking into the chocolate industry, it seems that chocolate produced by the Tony Chocolonely is perceived as fairer than Nestlé KitKat, which also has a green food label, indicating that one is perceived as more credible than the other, in the eye of the public (Whoriskey & Siegel, 2019; Henderson, 2019). The same goes for Patagonia versus H&M, which also both produce relatively the same product, who both claim to enhance sustainable practices in their communication messages but are not perceived equally sustainable in the eye of the public (Slater, 2019; Sachs; 2019). So how come that some brands’
sustainable marketing communication efforts are perceived as credible whilst others mainly induce a sense of scepticism amongst the audience? Even if two brands may claim the exact same thing, how can it be that certain message evoke a higher sense of credibility than others? This may be due to the distinction branding and rebranding in the marketing messages.
The term branding implies the creation of a unique brand image and name in the mind of the consumer, which can be done through advertising and marketing (Muzallec & Lambkin, 2009). The goal of branding is to differentiate the brand from similar or competing brands, and thus creating value and attracting consumers (Muzallec & Lambkin, 2009). Of course, as the world we live in is forever evolving, including consumer, societal, and environmental demands, brands may need to change or alter their brand image sometimes. This process is called rebranding, which refers to the process of changing an already existing brand image with the goal of creating a new, better, and more competitive brand image according to the current market (Muzallec & Lambkin, 2005; Muzallec & Lambkin, 2009). These definitions suggest the importance of the brand image and imply that this is done through the branding process. However, the question remains if there is a different effect on the credibility of branding messages if we speak of initial branding in comparison to rebranding messages. This will be analysed in the context of sustainability marketing and communication.
One way in which a brand can differentiate their brand image is through sustainability marketing. According to Villarino and Font (2015), sustainability marketing and communication is a custom in which an organization aims to position themselves positively in terms of environmental, social and economic concern, with respect to customer needs. Sustainability marketing and communication is an opportunity for brands to emphasize their sustainable practices, which has become an increasing must for a company’s survival, as consumers become increasingly aware of their environmental impact to which they alter their consumption (Taoketo et al., 2018; Lee, 2017).
In the academic world, many aspects of sustainability marketing communication have been investigated. There have been studies looking into stakeholder engagement (Acuti, Grazzini, Mazzoli & Aiello, 2018), green consumption through social media (Bedard & Tolmie, 2018), consumer attitudes towards green brands (Line, Hanks & Zhang, 2016; Du et al., 2010; Taoketao et al., 2018), and green social media through Twitter and celebrity endorsement (McKeown & Shearer, 2019; Ruggeri, & Samoggia, 2017). However, so far no research has been done in examining the moderating effect of branding and rebranding strategy use when it comes to environmental sustainability marketing communication messages. Therefore, this thesis intends to fill this gap by examining the difference in effect of branding and rebranding strategies on sustainability marketing communication message credibility through an experiment. In doing so, this paper aims to contribute and add onto the existing knowledge of research by theorizing what may lead to best social media practices in the future. This is relevant, as the number of consumers brand interactions on social media is increasing and thus knowledge on how to properly navigate the waters of social media has become increasingly important (Clement, 2019).
Media platforms that can be used to communicate sustainability branding messages are social media. As social media have already been around for more than a dozen years (Kietzmann, Hermkens, McCarthy, & Silvestre, 2011) and have become one of the most commonly used technologies in our day-to-day lives (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2012), this seems to be relevant for business communications understandings (De Bruyn & Lilien, 2008). Also, when looking into the number of active social media users, which are a number of 2.96 billion users in 2020 and is still climbing (Clement, 2019), it can be assumed that this is an important medium for reaching a large audience. When looking into the social networking sites (SNS) used by marketeers, Instagram (73% of businesses worldwide and 1 billion active users) and
Facebook (94% of businesses worldwide and 2.5 billion active users) are the most commonly used media (Clement, 2020; Guttmann, 2019).
As these SNS’s are used to such magnitude amongst both consumers and marketeers, it is important to understand the difference between these two SNS’s with respect to their audience, functionalities and format, which may in turn affect message credibility. According to Kietzemann et al. (2011) SNS have different functionalities, with a difference of importance weight per platform. When looking into the functionalities of both Instagram and Facebook, these differ substantially (Kietzemann et al., 2011; Aragão, Farias, Mota & Freitas, 2016). Also, Facebook is a more textual and image focused platform, whilst Instagram focusses almost solely on images. This shortly illustrates a difference between the platforms, which may affect the way and magnitude in which the medium and content influences message credibility (Du et al., 2010).
The proposed moderation effect of social media on corporate sustainability marketing communication messages’ credibility has also not yet been studied in academic literature. From all the above, the following research question can be formulated:
RQ: To what extent do environmental sustainability marketing branding messages differ from rebranding messages in perceived message credibility and is this relation moderated by social media platform?
Theoretical background
In order to properly understand the constructs being measured, they will be explained in further detail in the coming section. This experiment measures the difference in effect on perceived credibility of marketing communication messages between branding and rebranding, as well as the moderating effect of Instagram versus Facebook. Firstly, the dependent variable, which is
credibility, will be explained, followed by the independent variable, which is branding and rebranding. Next, the moderator, social media, will be explained. Finally concluding from the literature, the hypotheses will be formulated.
Sustainability Marketing and Communication
As mentioned earlier, sustainability marketing and communication is the context in which this study will be conducted. Sustainability marketing and communication is the distribution of information by brands on their social and environmental sustainability, which in the eyes of the public is a step in the right direction in terms of a brands societal responsibility (Villarino & Font, 2015; Lee, 2017). This includes the manner in which brand address social, environmental and economic issues (Villarino & Font, 2015; Lee, 2017). Of course, how this is done influences the success of such sustainability marketing and communication practices, which can be measured in terms of perceived credibility.
Perceived message credibility
According to Metzger (2007, p.2078), message credibility “refers to the believability of some information and/or its source”. In other words, credibility expresses the level of trust consumers have in that what the brand is saying is the actual truth, and not something said in order to achieve some ulterior motive. When it comes to credibility of a message distributed by a brand, thus concerning a brand’s marketing communication messages, it refers to the reviewing of both the quality and correctness of the information in these messages (Metzger, 2007). In return, these reviews reflect on how trustworthy, and thus credible and appealing a brand is perceived by consumers with respect to their marketing communication efforts (Metzger, 2007).
The independent variable in this study is perceived message credibility. In order to create a full description of this variable, we must also understand the term brand credibility. It seems logical that the level of perceived credibility of a brand by consumers influences the perceived brand message credibility and vice versa. This would imply that, for example, when consumers perceive a brand to be not credible, they will more likely think the same for the brands messages in marketing and communication. If this were the case, the same would go for a brand that is perceived as highly credible, in this case consumers may tend to perceive their marketing communication messages as credible as well. Therefore, logically, brand credibility and brand message credibility seem to be connected to one another.
According to Hur, Kim and Woo (2014, p.78), brand credibility can be defined as “the consumers’ belief in the trustworthiness of the information offered by a company’s brand”. It is important for a brand to aim for the highest level of credibility when it comes to creating their strategy behind their marketing communication messages, as this also measures the level in which a message is able to reach its goal and eventually lead to consumer purchase intentions (Hur et al., 2013; Taoketao et al., 2018). Consumers may even perceive the products and services provided by a brand to have a higher quality when they perceive the brand as more credible (Hur et al., 2013; Taoketao et al., 2018). This all suggest the importance of creating a credible brand. Even though brand credibility may be the roots of overall credibility of a brand, this experiment focusses on perceived message credibility, which will be explained next.
Branding and Rebranding
The dependent variable in this thesis is whether a brand implements a branding or a rebranding strategy in their marketing communication in the sustainability context. According to Hur et al. (2013), the corporate brand is the body of past and present marketing communication related elements that together make up the brand. This corporate brand becomes
more credible when sustainability measures are being communicated which positively enhance the brand (Hur et al., 2013; Du et al., 2010). Branding is the communicated set of values, believes and morals that build the brand’s image towards the stakeholders, including consumers, which make up the brand identity over time (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2009; Roeck, Maon, & Lejeune, 2013; Stuart, 2010). Thus, branding can be conceptualized as a pre-planned activity in which a brand aims to create and maintain a good image and reputation in the eye of their stakeholders and consumers, by communication favourable values and activities through marketing (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2005; Roeck et al., 2013).
However, sometimes an organization or brand decides it is time for a change, due to internal or external factor to which they need to adapt their corporate branding (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2005). This practice is referred to as rebranding, which can be defined as “revitalising and repositioning a brand through gradual, incremental modification of the brand proposition and marketing aesthetics can be considered a natural and necessary part of the task of brand management in response to changing market conditions” (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2005). Such changes do not come without risk, as loyal consumers may feel the brand loses its authenticity, as well as the loss of existing reputation due to inconsistency (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2005).
Brands and organizations understand the need to implement sustainability into their marketing mix (Stuart, 2010). Having a sustainable corporate brand is when sustainability is a key driver in the business model of the brand (Stuart, 2010). When it comes to implementing sustainability in a branding strategy, it has been part of the core of the brand’s business model since the beginning of the brand’s lifecycle. An example of such a brand is TOMS (created in 2009) or Patagonia (created in 1979), who have been promoting sustainable clothing and shoes with an environmental and social focus since the establishment of these brands. They do this by promoting the recycling of clothing and fabric, donate clothing to the less fortunate, and have environmental preservation programs. In the case of a more mature brand, sustainability
measures may have been implemented at a later stage through a rebranding strategy. An example of this is H&M. This brand was established in 1947, when there was less known and less concern for the environment. As is was shortly after the second world war, the focus was more humanitarian and economic than environmental. Later, H&M created a sustainable line named H&M conscious, which was established in 2009 and uses sustainable fabrics. Then the question remains, in which case are sustainability marketing messages perceived as more credible, and is there even a difference?
Enhancing message credibility through sustainability rebranding and branding
Rebranding and branding influence perceived message credibility in terms of sustainability slightly differently. When the perceived credibility of a marketing communication message is low, consumers tend to react in a form of scepticism (Du et al., 2010). According to Du et al. (2010), consumers acknowledge the need for sustainable behaviour from brands, but also question their motives if it is sudden, out of character, or marketed aggressively by having a sense of scepticism towards such messages. According to Kim and Fergusen (2019, p.475) “consumer scepticism toward a firm is driven not simply by beliefs that the firm’s motives are self-serving, but rather by the perception that the firm is being deceptive of its true motives”. Additionally, “scepticism refers to a person’s propensity to doubt, disbelieve, and question” brands (Aqueveque et al., 2018, p.226). This suggests that communication needs to be transparent as in order to reduce consumer scepticism (Kim, 2014). However, when the motives of the distribution of sustainability marketing and communicated messages are not transparent, or when they are monetarily driven, consumer scepticism increases (Kim & Ferguson, 2019; Kim, 2014; Du et al., 2010).
The credibility of marketing communication messages may be influenced by rebranding versus branding when taking into account what drives rebranding. As mentioned before,
rebranding is the revitalization and repositioning of a brand. This is often done because of something that had damaged the reputation, to which rebranding is the reaction. The credibility of a marketing communication message is linked to the perceived motives behind this message (Du et al., 2010). In this case, there is a distinction between monetary and altruistic motives (Du et al., 2010). As rebranding is often done because of something that had damaged the reputation, the motives may be perceived as monetary (Du et al., 2010). The motives that drive marketing communication messages concerning sustainability are a way to enhance perceived message credibility and reduce consumer scepticism (Du et al., 2010). If the monetary motives are not acknowledged by the brand in their marketing communication, it may induce more scepticism amongst consumers than that it helps regenerate the reputation (Hur et al., 2013; Du et al., 2010). Branding on the other hand, has a different nature. As sustainability branding concerns the existing core values of a brand, these marketing communication messages may be perceived as having an altruistic nature, which leads to less scepticism, and thus more credibility (Hur et al., 2013; Du et al., 2010).
Moreover, when it comes to scepticism around the motives for sustainability marketing communication messages, we often refer to greenwashing. Greenwashing is the usage of sustainability marketing communication messages by brands who do this with an ulterior motive, which is not related to sustainability as much as it is related to improving one’s name and profit (Lee, 2017). Moreover, greenwashing implies that the communicated sustainability practices are first and foremost communicated, and not necessarily implemented by the brand (Lee, 2017; Stuart, 2010). Greenwashing does not necessarily have to happen for the audience to perceive sustainability marketing communication messages as greenwashing. This is more likely the case for rebranding than for branding, as rebranding is the change of the brand, and change creates skepticism and decreases credibility (Stuart, 2010). Greenwashing itself will not
be seen as a separate variable in this experiment, but it does contribute to the relation of branding or rebranding and perceived message credibility through the level of skepticism.
Furthermore, credibility is linked to the consistency of a brand (Stuart, 2010), which rebranding in that case is not by definition. Consistency is one of the criteria enhancing brand message credibility (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2005), inconsistency should enhance credibility in the opposite direction. When a brand chooses to communicate rebranding marketing communication messages, they are by definition communicating something new about their brand, which in return suggest inconsistencies with what was previously communicated (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2005). Credibility is linked to the consistency of a brand (Stuart, 2010), which rebranding in that case is not by definition. Thus, rebranding, as it is inconsistent, should generate less perceived message credibility, which may lead the audience to perceive these messages as greenwashing. On the other hand, branding is consistent and should therefore generate a higher level of perceived message credibility.
In sum, the possible monetary motives driving rebranding, the inconsistency of rebranding which leads to skepticism and perceived greenwashing effect in contrast the perceived altruistic motives, and consistency of the messages used in branding lead to the following hypothesis concerning the direct effect of sustainability marketing communication messages using branding or rebranding on perceived message credibility:
H1: When sustainability marketing communication messages use a branding strategy it
will evoke a higher level of perceived credibility than when the brand uses a rebranding strategy.
Social Media: Instagram and Facebook
Social Media existed for many years (Kietzmann et al., 2011) and has become intertwined with our day-to-day lives (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2012). Social media is defined as online, both mobile and web-based, interactive platforms that allow for its users to create, contribute, share, discuss and alter to a worldwide exchange of information and content (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Kietzmann et al., 2011). Social media also allows the perseverance of online social relations and interaction between individuals, but also between individuals and organizations (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010; Kietzmann et al., 2011).
According to Kietzemann et al. (2011) SNS functionalities are separated into the following groups: presence, sharing, relationships, identity, conversation, groups and reputation. Looking into more recent studies, SWOCC (2016) identifies twelve experiences users identify with when using social media, which are: information, incentive, concerns, social interaction, innovation, topicality, transformation, pastime, practical usability, empowerment, identification and social factors. When looking at the most important functionalities and experiences of both platforms and their known relation to credibility, we can see that they differ slightly.
For Facebook, the functionality with high importance is relationship, which entails the extent to which its users relate to one another in the setting of this social medium, in the form of association, conversation, or adding them to their personal online social network as a connection, friend or follower (Kietzemann et al., 2011). When it comes to brands, this ‘relationship’ must be formal and authentic (Kietzemann et al., 2011). The functionalities with medium importance for Facebook are presence, sharing, identity, conversation, and reputation, and the functionality with low importance is groups (Kietzemann et al., 2011).
For Instagram, the functionality with high importance is reputation, which according to Kietzemann et al. (2011) entails “the extent to which users can identify the standing of others,
including themselves, in a social media setting”. Reputation is linked to the credibility of a message and the level of trust consumers have in that what they see on social media is the truth (Kietzemann et al., 2011). This may be determined by user-generated voting systems that evaluate this in terms of likes, shares, or views (Kietzemann et al., 2011).The functionalities with medium importance for Instagram are presence, identity, conversation, and relationship, and the functionality with low importance is groups and sharing (Aragão et al., 2016).
When looking into the research done by SWOCC (2016), there are a few experiences which may reflect on the perceived credibility of the medium. One of these is the information experience, which SWOCC (2016) defines as news, orientation and credible information. Facebook scores higher (12) on this experience than Instagram (7) does. The same goes for the perceived usefulness of the information (Facebook scored 14 and Instagram scored 10). Furthermore, SWOCC (2016) identifies that, according to consumers, all information provided on Facebook should be credible, useful and up to date. When comparing this to Instagram, SWOCC (2016) does not explicitly emphasize its credibility but suggests that information provided through Instagram should spark joy and be up to date.
Moderation effect of Instagram and Facebook
As mentioned earlier, Du et al. (2010) suggests that the effectiveness of sustainability communication is affected by both message content and message channel. As both Facebook and Instagram have a large body of user generated content, the ability to engage in dialogue, which increases transparency, the possibility for consumers to give and share their honest opinion, and the low corporate controllability of content, both platforms have a high level of credibility when it comes to marketing communication messages (Du et al., 2010). According to Du et al. (2010), the less controllable a medium is, the more credible it becomes. With respect to this claim, one may assume that Facebook has a higher level of credibility, as the ability to
share and rate is more evident than it is on Instagram, taking into account the weight of the sharing functionalities, which is higher for Facebook than for Instagram (Du et al., 2010; Kietzemann et al., 2011; Aragão et al., 2016). It becomes more evident, as Facebook shows the amount of times shared, together with the amount of likes and comments, whilst Instagram does not show how many times a post is shared but does also show the amount of likes and comments. Furthermore, the ‘sharing’ functionality entails the “extent to which users exchange, distribute, and receive content” (Kietzemann et al., 2011, p.245) which gives them the ability to identify with certain content. Thus, one can presume that the more people openly identify with the branding or rebranding message, the more people perceive this message as something they agree with, and the more people agree with certain messages the more it is perceived as credible.
Furthermore, the most important functionality for Facebook is relationship (Kietzemann et al., 2011). One can imagine that, when having a relationship with someone or with a brand, it translates in a certain level of trust. If this where the case, the more the focus is out by a brand in the relationship with consumers, the more they build a long-term trust between one another. In this case, trust could translate into believability, or in giving a brand the benefit of the doubt due to this relationship, which may in turn translate to a higher level of perceived message credibility for both branding and rebranding.
Furthermore, rebranding contradicts the establishment of a corporate reputation, as it undermines brand image consistency (Muzellec & Lambkin, 2005). As the most important functionality of Instagram is reputation, one could question whether Instagram is a suitable medium for the implementation of rebranding strategies, as consistency is one of the key factors influencing reputation (Hur et al., 2014; Kim, 2019; Aragão et al., 2016). Rebranding is, by definition a revaluation of the previous branding strategy, which thus suggest change which leads to inconsistency. Consistency is one of the criteria enhancing brand message credibility
(Muzellec & Lambkin, 2005), inconsistency should enhance credibility in the opposite direction. This reputational consistency thus implies that when using a rebranding strategy, Instagram may not be the most suitable of the two chosen social media networks for this.
Finally, when looking at the outcomes from SWOCC (2016), Facebook scores higher on the information experience than Instagram does, which entails the level of perceived credibility of the information provided on the medium. Putting this together with the higher level of transparency, lower level of corporate controllability and the focus on relationships of Facebook, we come to the following hypothesis for the moderating effects of both social mediums:
H2a: The initial effect of branding in sustainability marketing communication messages
on perceived credibility is positively enhanced stronger when distributed through Facebook than through Instagram
H2b: The initial effect of rebranding in sustainability marketing communication
messages on perceived credibility is positively enhanced stronger when distributed through Facebook than through Instagram
Method Design
In order to test the research question and hypotheses an experimental study is conducted. The study is structured as a 2x2 factorial design with two between subjects (Sustainability marketing communication branding strategy: branding versus rebranding) and two between subjects (Social media platform: Instagram versus Facebook) experimental design. The conceptual model for this study is illustrated in Figure 1. These manipulations result in four total conditions. All participants are randomly assigned to any of the four conditions through Qualtrics, which implies that they do not all see the same content. This is illustrated in Table 1. The randomized allocation of participants also secures a somewhat even distribution of participants along the different conditions.
Stimulus material
The independent variable in this experiment is the difference between rebranding and branding in sustainable marketing communication messages. This is stimulated by using different textual incentives that suggest if the sustainable aspect has been part of the branding strategy since the start or has implemented it in through rebranding recently. The rebranding textual incentive is done by using words such as ‘from now on’ and ‘moving forward’. The branding textual incentive is done by using words such as ‘since the beginning’ and ‘as you know from us’. In order to exclude external factors as much as possible, only these key words in the message were adapted, the rest of the message was kept identical. The name, image and
logo of the fictional brand was also kept the same in both conditions. For this experiment, a fictional Dutch coffee brand was used, named “Van Hollandsche Bonen”, which loosely translates to “The Dutch Coffee bean”. The brand has a coffee bean as a logo in an orange circle, which emphasizes the fact that is it a Dutch brand, and a green line around the logo to emphasize that it is a ‘green’ and sustainable brand. The reason for choosing this type of brand is because coffee is something that is often promoted to be sustainable as well as that it is a product that is sold in every supermarket and is used over a large number of the population. How this is inserted in the stimulus material can be seen in Appendix B.
The moderator in this experiment are the two social media platforms Instagram and Facebook. As the respondents are collected through these two platforms, it can be assumed that they are at least familiar with one of these platforms. This layout is adjusted per stimulus condition of the independent variable, which is how the participant will see which social media platform is presented to them in the experiment. For this stimulus, as well as for the independent variable, the conditions were kept as similar as possible. How this is done can also be found in Appendix B.
Data analysis
For all three hypotheses, a two-way Univariate ANOVA is used, as both the moderator and the independent variable are dichotomous. This implies that they have dichotomous variable outcomes, either 0 or 1, which do not have a numerical value. For the independent variable, 0 represents the conditions which show a rebranding marketing communication message and 1 represents the conditions which show a branding marketing communication message. For the moderator variable, 0 represents the conditions which shows the marketing communication message through Instagram and 1 represents the conditions which shows the marketing communication message through Facebook.
Manipulation check
For this experiment, there were two manipulations in the stimulus material. These were the independent variable, branding and rebranding, and the social media moderator. The independent variable was whether or not the participant was shown a branding or rebranding message. In order to check if the manipulations was perceived as intended, two manipulation check questions were included in the survey. The questions used to measure the perceived manipulation was “Did the message show a new value implemented by the brand?”. For this question, the participants could choose between the options ‘yes’ (=1), ‘no” (=2) and ‘I don’t know’ (=3). The ‘I don’t know’ option was recoded to have a value of 0. The manipulation check is done through a Chi Square crosstabs test, with the mean answer for both manipulation check questions for branding (=1) and rebranding (=0) as the dependent variable. Therefore, the branding condition of both Instagram and Facebook, were compared to the branding condition of Instagram and Facebook. The test showed that from the 172 participants, 89 (51.74%) of the participant where shown a rebranding message and 83 (48.26%) were shown a branding message. From the participants in the rebranding condition, 68 (76.4%) answered the manipulation check correctly, 12 (13.5%) filled in branding, and 9 (10.1%) participant did not know. From the participants in the branding condition, 44 (53%) answered the manipulation check correctly, 22 (26.5%) filled in Instagram, and 17 (20.5%) participant did not know. The percentages between the different conditions did differ significantly, with the results of the Chi Square test being χ2 (2, N=172) = 44.10, p = .00. As the difference is significant, the manipulation of branding versus branding can be considered successfully manipulated.
Secondly, the moderator included in this experiment is the social medium used (Instagram versus Facebook). This is manipulated by showing the participant a marketing communication message through the layout of an Instagram post or that of a Facebook post.
The question used to measure this manipulation was “what type of medium did you see?” with the possible answers of ‘Facebook’ (=1), ‘Instagram’ (=2), and ‘I don’t remember’ (=3). The last answer was recoded to have a value of 0. The manipulation check is done through a Chi Square crosstabs test with the answer for the manipulation check question for social media as the dependent variable and the condition component for social media as the independent variable. Therefore, the Instagram (=0) condition with both branding and rebranding messages, were compared to the Facebook (=1) condition with both branding and rebranding messages. The test showed that from the 172 participants, 85 (49.4%) of the participant where shown the message through Facebook and 87 (50.6%) through Instagram. From the participants in the Facebook condition, 79 (90.8%) answered the manipulation check correctly, 7 (8%) filled in Instagram, and 1 (1.1%) participant did not know. From the participants in the Instagram condition, 69 (81.2%) answered the manipulation check correctly, 5 (5.9%) filled in Instagram, and 11 (12.9%) participant did not know.The percentages between the different conditions did differ significantly, with the results of the Chi Square test being χ2 (2, N=172) = 124.10, p = .00. As the difference is significant, the manipulation of Instagram versus Facebook can be considered successfully manipulated.
Dependent variable and measurements
The dependent variable in this experiment is the perceived message credibility. As mentioned in the previous section, credibility entails the degree in which the audience believes that what the message says is true, that they trust the source of the message. Lock and Seele (2017) designed a 17-item scale to measure communication credibility. This scale was used and adapted to the context of this experiment, by changing the wording according to sustainability, as can be seen in Appendix C.
As credibility is a complex variable, it is measured on a 7-point Likert scale, the scales ranges from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree). As the Cronbach’s Alpha has a value of α = .91, the scale in considered reliable.
As the 17 items measure different aspects of the same scale, it may be possible to combine the items into factors. This is done by conducting a factor analysis with principle axis factoring and a direct oblimin. The criterion for the Eigenvalues is that they must have an initial value of ≥ 1. In this case, only the first three factors load above 1, with a value of 7.545 (44.39% of the variance), 1.862 (10.95% of the variance), and 1.233 (7.25% of the variance). This data can also be found in Appendix D. This implies that three latent variables containing items of the scale, as presented in Table 2, should be constructed. Factor 1 is labelled Mean_Credibility, Factor 2 is labelled Mean_Clarity, and Factor 3 is labelled Mean_Sustainable_Credibility.
The KMO test measure of sampling suitability was .88, which is higher than the needed value of .60, and Bartlett’s test was significant, χ2 (136) = 1711.07, p < .05. The factor loadings were all above .30, as can be seen in Table 2. The reliability of the variables needs to be checked. The factor Mean_Credibility had a value of α = .92, factor Mean_Clarity had a value of α = .83, and the factor Mean_Sustainable_Credibility had a value of α = .80. All the Cronbach’s Alpha’s were above α = .80, and thus are considered reliable.
Sample
For this study, 188 participants were recruited to participate. However, only 172 completed the survey, thus excluding the other 16 from the total sample from the study. This concludes to the following distribution of participants per condition: 40 participants in the branding condition on Instagram, 45 participants in the rebranding condition on Instagram, 44 participants in the rebranding condition on Facebook, and 43 participants in the rebranding condition on Facebook respectively. All participants had an age between 18-78 years (M = 25.16 years, SD = 7.34 years). When looking at the gender of the participants, 50 identify as male (29.1 percent of the sample) identify and 122 identify as female (70.9 percent of the sample) identify.
Respondents were be recruited through the researchers own network (social media). This method of sampling through social media is chosen, as this would suggest that the tested group would also be the target group of the sustainability marketing messages which are shown in the experiment, thus giving more valuable outcomes when it comes to managerial implications. Internal validity is ensured through randomization allocation between the control group and the tested group, also eliminating any type of selection bias (Suresh, 2011).
When looking into specific characteristics needed within the sample, no age, gender, background restrictions. This may lead to a lower external validity, as this may lead to different background (cultural, educational, demographical etc.) respondents may have or differing settings in which the respondents are currently situated, which in turn may affect the way they perceive the manipulation. However, as this is not a factor mentioned in the model or research question, it is not necessary to discriminate for such factors.
Randomization check
In order to check if the randomized distribution of participants amongst the conditions, a randomization check according to age and gender. In order to check if participants’ age was comparable over the four conditions, a one-way ANOVA was conducted as age is a numerical variable. This ANOVA had the four stimulus conditions (branding Instagram, branding Facebook, rebranding Instagram and rebranding Facebook) as the independent variable, and age as the dependent variable. The ANOVA showed that participants’ age in the rebranding Instagram condition (M = 25.78 years, SD = 9.74 years), branding Instagram condition (M = 24.65 years, SD = 6.08 years), rebranding Facebook condition (M = 25.09 years, SD = 5.68 years), and branding Facebook condition (M = 25.07 years, SD = 7.23 years), which did not differ significantly from one another F (3.168) = .171, p = .916. Thus, as there is no significant difference, the respondents were equally distributed according to their age.
Next, a second randomization check is done for the gender of the participants. As the variable gender is dichotomous (male versus female), a Chi-Square test is used. Firstly, for the insurer specificity condition, out of the 45 participants in the rebranding Instagram condition, 10 (22.22%) were male and 35 (77.78%) were female. For the branding Instagram condition, the results showed that out of the 40 participants 11 (27.50%) were male and 29 (72.50%) were female. For the rebranding Facebook condition, the results showed that out of the 44
participants 13 (29.55%) were male and 31 (70.45%) were female. Finally, for the branding Facebook condition, the results showed that out of the 43 participants 15 (34.88%) were male and 27 (62.79%) were female. The percentages between the different conditions did not differ significantly, with the results of the Chi Square test being χ2 (6) = 4.98, p = .546. Therefore, the respondents were equally distributed over the conditions according to their gender.
Procedures
The data sampling period for this experiment was done between the 8th of May 2020
and the 18th of May 2020. This was done through the distribution of the Qualtrics survey on
social media channels, namely Instagram and Facebook. The outline of the survey consisted of various components, namely the ethical approval form, contextual questions, stimulus conditions, manipulation check questions, perceived credibility questions, and demographic questions in this particular order. Participants were randomly, the different stimuli conditions can be found in Appendix B. The complete outline of the survey can be found in Appendix C.
Results
Complete credibility scale
Firstly, when looking at the credibility scale as a whole, including all 17 items, a two-way ANOVA was used to examine if there is a significant main effect of rebranding and branding on perceived message credibility as well as the interaction effect Instagram and Facebook. The two-way ANOVA for the main effect was insignificant, 𝐹(1,168) = .010, 𝑝 = .920, partial 𝜂! = .000, observed power = .051. Therefore, H1 is rejected on the grounds of
the entire scale. This test result shows that after being exposed to a rebranding marketing communication message (M = 3.14, SD = .85), participants did not score significantly lower on
the perceived message credibility scale than participants that were exposed to a branding marketing communication message (M = 3.15, SD = .81).
Next, The two-way ANOVA for the interaction effect was also insignificant, 𝐹(1,168) = .057, 𝑝 = .812, partial 𝜂! = .000, observed power = .056. This test result shows
that after being exposed to a marketing communication message on Instagram (M = 3.20, SD = .90), participants did not score significantly lower on the perceived message credibility scale than participants that were exposed to a marketing communication message on Facebook (M = 3.10, SD = .76). When subdividing these results into the branding and rebranding stimulus, the mean and standard deviation between the condition remain insignificantly different. These outcomes can be found in Appendix D. Therefore, as there is no significant interaction effect, both H2a and H2b are rejected on the grounds of the entire scale.
Factor 1
Secondly, this analysis will be repeated for the partial effects of the three factors formed in the factor analysis. The first factor, labelled Mean_Credibility, consists of 11 items. The two-way ANOVA for the main effect was insignificant, 𝐹(1,168) = .411, 𝑝 = .523, partial 𝜂! =
.002, observed power = .098. Therefore, H1 is rejected on the grounds of the first factor. This
test result shows that after being exposed to a rebranding marketing communication message (M = 3.37, SD = 1.00), participants did not score significantly lower on the perceived message credibility scale than participants that were exposed to a branding marketing communication message (M = 3.27, SD = .92).
Next, The two-way ANOVA for the interaction effect was also insignificant, 𝐹(1,168) = .017, 𝑝 = .895, partial 𝜂! = .000, observed power = .052. This test result shows
that after being exposed to a marketing communication message on Instagram (M = 3.39, SD = 1.03), participants did not score significantly lower on the perceived message credibility scale
than participants that were exposed to a marketing communication message on Facebook (M = 3.25, SD = .88). When subdividing these results into the branding and rebranding stimulus, the mean and standard deviation between the condition remain insignificantly different. These outcomes can be found in Appendix D. Therefore, as there is no significant interaction effect, both H2a and H2b are rejected on the grounds of the first factor.
Factor 2
Next, the second factor, labelled Mean_Clarity, consists of 3 items. The two-way ANOVA for the main effect was significant, 𝐹(1,166) = 8.259, 𝑝 = .005, partial 𝜂! = .047,
observed power = .815. Therefore, H1 is accepted on the grounds of the second factor. This
test result proves that after being exposed to a rebranding marketing communication message (M = 2.04, SD = .98), participants scored lower on the perceived message credibility scale than participants that were exposed to a branding marketing communication message (M = 2.50, SD = 1.10).
Next, The two-way ANOVA for the interaction effect was insignificant, 𝐹(1,166) = 1.168, 𝑝 = .281, partial 𝜂! = .007, observed power = .189. This test result shows that after
being exposed to a marketing communication message on Instagram (M = 2.33, SD = 1.10), participants did not score significantly lower on the perceived message credibility scale than participants that were exposed to a marketing communication message on Facebook (M = 2.20,
SD = 1.02). This indicates that there may be a relation to the clarity of the message distinction
and that this influences the perceived message credibility. When subdividing these results into the branding and rebranding stimulus, the mean and standard deviation between the condition remain insignificantly different. These outcomes can be found in Appendix D. Therefore, as there is no significant interaction effect, both H2a and H2b are rejected on the grounds of the
Factor 3
Finally, the third factor, labelled Mean_Sustainable_Credibility., consists of 5 items. The two-way ANOVA for the main effect was insignificant, 𝐹(1,166) = 1.222, 𝑝 = .271, partial 𝜂! = .007, observed power = .196. Therefore, H1 is rejected on the grounds of the third
factor. This test result shows that after being exposed to a rebranding marketing communication message (M = 3.55, SD = 1.12), participants did not score significantly lower on the perceived message credibility scale than participants that were exposed to a branding marketing communication message (M = 3.37, SD = 1.04).
Next, The two-way ANOVA for the interaction effect was also insignificant, 𝐹(1,166) = .194, 𝑝 = .660, partial 𝜂! = .001, observed power = .072. This test result shows
that after being exposed to a marketing communication message on Instagram (M = 3.55, SD = 1.19), participants did not score significantly lower on the perceived message credibility scale than participants that were exposed to a marketing communication message on Facebook (M = 3.37, SD = .97). When subdividing these results into the branding and rebranding stimulus, the mean and standard deviation between the condition remain insignificantly different. These outcomes can be found in Appendix D. Therefore, as there is no significant interaction effect, both H2a and H2b are rejected on the grounds of the third factor.
Conclusion and discussion
This experiment investigates the effect of branding versus rebranding strategies in sustainability marketing communication messages, with Instagram and Facebook as a moderator. From the results we can conclude that this experiment does not show a difference in branding and rebranding marketing communication messages in their influence on perceived message credibility. There was no prove found that consumers perceive branding messages as more credible than rebranding messages. Therefore, the first hypothesis “When sustainability
marketing communication messages use a branding strategy it will evoke a higher level of perceived credibility than when the brand uses a rebranding strategy” can be rejected. There
are a variety of reasons why the results were insignificant.
Firstly, the lack of significance may be due to the number of participants (N=177). This sample is not very large, and thus may not give an accurate representation of the population. If the population were larger, the chance of having more significant differences between the conditions may have be larger. Secondly, there are external factors that may lead to internal inconsistencies if the experiment does not control for this. One of these factors is the predisposition for scepticism. A predisposition to scepticism suggest that everyone has a level of scepticism through which they see the world (Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998; Chen & Leu, 2011). As this differs per person, the perceived credibility of a message may have a different initial starting point between participants(Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998; Chen & Leu, 2011). As such, someone who has a high predisposition to scepticism will be more probable to rate something as not credible than a person with a low predisposition to scepticism (Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998; Chen & Leu, 2011). This is regardless of the product, message, image or medium. Thus, by acknowledging this predisposition and adjusting responses given by the respondents to a mean predisposition may alter the data in such a way that it gives a less biased outcome to the experiment. This, in return, may lead to more significant and relevant outcomes.
Another external factor influencing the way people react to sustainability is the level in which a person sees themselves as a sustainable person, or a ‘green person’. In other words, the level in which a person sees being sustainable as part of their being, as part of their personality, as part of their own identity (Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). When someone considers being green as part of their identity, they may feel that such messages confirming green behaviour are of higher importance (Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). They also tend to find it more important to reinforce green behaviour towards themselves and others, in order to minimize cognitive
dissonance (Whitmarsh & O’Neill, 2010). However, if someone identifies with being a green person, one may assume that they have acquired knowledge on how to be green prior to the experiment. This may lead them to look at the marketing communication message with a more critical eye than less knowledgeable people. In return, this may lead to an extra decrease in perceived credibility. As the current experiment does not take into account this level of identification which may generate outcomes that are not generalizable.
Finally, the experiment shows a particular product, namely a fictional sustainable Dutch coffee brand, in the marketing communication message. This is a widely used product but is not something the entire population consumes. Besides this, there may be a part of the population that does consume this product but does not necessarily focus on the sustainability of the product. If the consumer does not care about the level of sustainability a company or product has acquired and is now communication, they may feel indifferent to such messages. When feeling indifferent, the message may not appeal to them as either being credible or not credible. This situation would be considered a neutral situation. When using a 7-point scale, there is a central, or neutral point which does not give an outcome reflecting on credibility. Thus, when looking for ways to generate more significant and generalizable results, it may be wise to filter participants on their feelings towards the product used in the stimulus to ensure that they do not feel completely indifferent to the product. The same goes for changing the scale to an even number so that the participant is forced to choose a side, thus eliminating the possibility for a neutral standpoint.
Furthermore, the results of the experiment are lacking significant finding that suggest there is a difference in credibility when either branding or rebranding marketing communication message are shown through Instagram or Facebook. Therefore, the second hypotheses “The
initial effect of branding in sustainability marketing communication messages on perceived credibility is positively enhanced stronger when distributed through Facebook than through
Instagram” and “The initial effect of rebranding in sustainability marketing communication messages on perceived credibility is positively enhanced stronger when distributed through Facebook than through Instagram” are also rejected.
However, there was a significant difference when the scale was divided up into factors. For the second factor, measuring the clarity of the message, the results were significant. For this factor branding messages were perceived as more clear than rebranding messages, and thus scored significantly higher on perceived message credibility. This is in line with the prediction made by Muzellec and Lambkin (2005), who suggested that message credibility is linked to the consistency of a message. Inconsistencies can be perceived as confusing or unclear, and as rebranding is a change and thus is inconsistent, the results for this factor make sense.
From the above, it can be concluded that the research question “To what extent do
environmental sustainability marketing branding messages differ from rebranding messages in message credibility and is this relation moderated by social media platform?” can be answered.
The perceived message credibility is not influenced by whether it is using a branding or rebranding strategy. However, there is an indication that clarity plays a role in the credibility of marketing communication messages, in which branding messages are perceived as more clear than rebranding messages, which may reflect on the consistency of the message. That consistency may play a role in the perceived credibility of the message was predicted by Muzellec and Lambkin (2005).
Limitations and recommendations for future research
When examining the study critically, a few limitations come to mind. One of the limitations may be the oversimplification of the study. As mentioned in the discussion, there are many influencing elements that are part of sustainability. These are items such as the predisposition to scepticism, and the level of personal identification with ‘being green’. Thus, in for future
studies, these elements may be taken into account in order to generate significant and more thorough outcomes.
Secondly, the experiment shows a marketing communication message of a coffee product. As Du et al. (2010) suggests that the effectiveness of CSR and sustainability communication is affected by both message content and message channel. This experiment only looks at the channel, excluding the content of the message. Facebook is a more textual and image focused platform, whilst Instagram focusses almost solely on images, which may affect the outcomes through increased attractiveness of the pictures or the increased informativeness of the textual aspects. Also, the product in the content may affect the outcomes. For example, by how the participants have predisposed attitude towards this market or if they drink coffee. This could in return add on to the lack of significant outcomes in credibility, as they participant may not necessarily care if a product they do not use is credible or not.
Finally, the experiment does not have a time constraint implemented in the survey at the time where the participants are shown the stimulus material. Because of this, participants weren’t shown the stimulus material for a precise amount of time, meaning that some may have noticed something over the other as they took a longer look at the stimulus material. Thus, if this experiment were to be repeated, the survey should include a minimum amount of observation time before allowing the participants to move on to the next page for questioning.
References:
Acuti, D., Grazzini, L., Mazzoli, V., & Aiello, G. (2018). Stakeholder engagement in green place branding: A focus on user-generated content. Corporate Social Responsibility
And Environmental Management, 26(2), 492-501. doi: 10.1002/csr.1703
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour (3rd edition). Pearson Education (Us).
Aqueveque, C., Rodrigo, P., & Duran, I. (2018). Be bad but (still) look good: Can controversial industries enhance corporate reputation through CSR initiatives?.
Business Ethics: A European Review, 27(3), 222-237. doi: 10.1111/beer.12183
Aragão, F., Farias, F., Mota, M., & Freitas, A. (2016). Curtiu, comentou, comprou. A mídia social digital Instagram e o consumo. Revista Ciências Administrativas, 22(1), 130-161. doi: 10.5020/2318-0722.2016.v22n1p130
Bedard, S., & Tolmie, C. (2018). Millennials' green consumption behaviour: Exploring the role of social media. Corporate Social Responsibility And Environmental
Management, 25(6), 1388-1396. doi: 10.1002/csr.1654
Blom, E., Van Burg, E., Verhagen, P., Hillen, M. (2015) Tony’s Chocolonely: How a social enterprise is changing the chocolate industry. Stichting Social Enterprise NL.
Chen, F., & Leu, J. (2011). Product Involvement in the Link Between Skepticism Toward Advertising and Its Effects. Social Behavior And Personality: An International
Journal, 39(2), 153-159. doi: 10.2224/sbp.2011.39.2.153
Clement, J. (2019). Number of social media users worldwide 2010-2021. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/
Clement, J. (2020). Global social media ranking 2019. Statista.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/
De Bruyn, A., & Lilien, G. (2008). A multi-stage model of word-of-mouth influence through viral marketing. International Journal Of Research In Marketing, 25(3), 151-163. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2008.03.004
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing business returns to corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of CSR communication. International Journal of
Guttmann, A. (2019). Social media platforms used by marketers worldwide 2019. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/259379/social-media-platforms-used-by-marketers-worldwide/
Henderson, E. (2019). 10 best ethical chocolate brands that go the extra mile. Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/extras/indybest/food-drink/chocolate/best-ethical-chocolate-brands-fairtrade-divine-tonys-chocoloney-a9155341.html
Hur, W., Kim, H., & Woo, J. (2014). How CSR Leads to Corporate Brand Equity: Mediating Mechanisms of Corporate Brand Credibility and Reputation. Journal Of Business
Ethics, 125(1), 75-86. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1910-0
Kaplan, A., & Haenlein, M. (2012). Social media: back to the roots and back to the future.
Journal Of Systems And Information Technology, 14(2), 101-104. doi:
10.1108/13287261211232126
Kemper, J., & Ballantine, P. (2019). What do we mean by sustainability marketing?. Journal
Of Marketing Management, 35(4), 277-309. doi: 10.1080/0267257x.2019.1573845
Kietzmann, J., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I., & Silvestre, B. (2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business
Horizons, 54(3), 241-251. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2011.01.005
Kim, S. (2019). The Process Model of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Communication: CSR Communication and its Relationship with Consumers’ CSR Knowledge, Trust, and Corporate Reputation Perception. Journal Of Business
Ethics, 154(4), 1143-1159. doi: 10.1007/s10551-017-3433-6
Kim, Y. (2014). Strategic communication of corporate social responsibility (CSR): Effects of stated motives and corporate reputation on stakeholder responses. Public Relations
Review, 40(5), 838-840. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.07.005
Kim, Y., & Ferguson, M. (2019). Are high-fit CSR programs always better? The effects of corporate reputation and CSR fit on stakeholder responses. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal, 24(3), 471-498. doi:
10.1108/ccij-05-2018-0061
Lee, Y. (2017). Corporate Sustainable Development and Marketing Communications on Social Media: Fortune 500 Enterprises. Business Strategy And The Environment,
26(5), 569-583. doi: 10.1002/bse.1936
Line, N., Hanks, L., & Zhang, L. (2016). Sustainability communication: The effect of message construals on consumers’ attitudes towards green restaurants. International
Lock, I., & Seele, P. (2017). Measuring Credibility Perceptions in CSR Communication: A Scale Development to Test Readers’ Perceived Credibility of CSR Reports.
Management Communication Quarterly, 31(4), 584-613.
doi:10.1177/0893318917707592
McCarthy, B.L., Liu, H.B., & Chen, T. (2015) "Trends in Organic and Green Food Consumption in China: Opportunities and Challenges for Regional Australian Exporters," Journal of Economic and Social Policy. 17(1).
McKeown, C., & Shearer, L. (2019). Taking sustainable fashion mainstream: Social media and the institutional celebrity entrepreneur. Journal Of Consumer Behaviour, 18(5), 406-414. doi: 10.1002/cb.1780
Metzger, M. J. (2007). Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research. Journal of the American Society
for Information Science and Technology, 58(13), 2078–2091. doi:10.1002/asi.20672
Muzellec, L., & Lambkin, M. (2006). Corporate rebranding: destroying, transferring or creating brand equity?. European Journal Of Marketing, 40(7), 803-824. doi: 10.1108/03090560610670007
Muzellec, L., & Lambkin, M. (2009). Corporate branding and brand architecture: a conceptual framework. Marketing Theory, 9(1), 39-54. doi:
10.1177/1470593108100060
Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a Scale to Measure Consumer Skepticism Toward Advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 159-186. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp0702_03
Oyer, S. (2010). Effects of Crisis Type and Interactive Online Media Type on Public Trust During Organizational Crisis. Public Relations Journal, 4(3).
https://prjournal.instituteforpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2010Oyer.pdf
Ruggeri, A., & Samoggia, A. (2017). Twitter communication of agri-food chain actors on palm oil environmental, socio-economic, and health sustainability. Journal Of
Consumer Behaviour, 17(1), 75-93. doi: 10.1002/cb.1699
Sachs, L. (2019). The Best Sustainable Fashion Brands to Look Good While Doing Good. Good Housekeeping.
https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/clothing/g27154605/sustainable-fashion-clothing/
Sheth, J., & Sinha, M. (2015). B2B branding in emerging markets: A sustainability perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 51, 79-88. doi:
10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.06.002
Slater, S. (2019). The 'Greenwashing' Hiding the Truth of Your Favourite Fashion Brands. Vice. https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/kzmw5a/the-greenwashing-hiding-the-truth-of-your-favourite-fashion-brands
Suresh, K. (2011). An overview of randomization techniques: An unbiased assessment of outcome in clinical research. Journal Of Human Reproductive Sciences, 4(1), 8. doi: 10.4103/0974-1208.82352
SWOCC. (2016). Socialmediabelevingsonderzoek (Nr.71). https://www.swocc.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/SWOCC-socialmediabelevingsonderzoek.pdf
Taoketao, E., Feng, T., Song, Y., & Nie, Y. (2018). Does sustainability marketing strategy achieve payback profits? A signaling theory perspective. Corporate Social
Responsibility And Environmental Management, 25(6), 1039-1049. doi:
10.1002/csr.1518
Villarino, J., & Font, X. (2015). Sustainability marketing myopia. Journal Of Vacation
Marketing 21(4), 326-335. doi: 10.1177/1356766715589428
Whitmarsh, L., & O'Neill, S. (2010). Green identity, green living? The role of environmental self-identity in determining consistency across diverse
pro-environmental behaviours. Journal Of Environmental Psychology, 30(3), 305-314. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.01.003
Whoriskey, P., & Siegel, R. (2019). Cocoa’s child laborers. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/business/hershey-nestle-mars-chocolate-child-labor-west-africa/
Appendix A: Application form for ethical review for student research in the framework of education
Checklist for ethical permission for research conducted by students in the framework of education
1) Title of the research project:
Rebranding and branding in sustainability marketing communication and social media: the influence on perceived message credibility
2) Component of the programme (Bachelor’s or Master’s/Name of module): Master Communication Science – Corporate Communication track
3) Student(s) who will conduct the research: Minke Kliphuis
4) Teacher(s) who will supervise the research: Mevr. Suzanne de Bakker
5) Brief description of the research (max. 200 words)
This research looks into the difference between branding in rebranding on the perceived credibility of marketing communication messages in the sustainability arena. This is done by showing participants a message of a made-up brand showing that they have
implemented something sustainable recently (rebranding) or have done so since the beginning (branding). They are shown this through either Instagram or Facebook, as these are the most widely used social media platforms for marketeers.
6) Research method (max. 100 words):
The research method used in this thesis is an experiment through a survey design. The experiment is done by creating stimulus images that are shown to the participants from which online survey questions follow.
7) Where will the research be conducted (e.g. online, location, through organisation): Online
8) Duration of the research (from the start of recruitment until the close of data collection):
2 weeks
9) Who are the participants? How will they be recruited?
Respondents will be recruited through the researchers own network (social media), therefore, it is probable that respondents will mostly be in the age category 20-30. This method of sampling through social media is chosen, as this would suggest that the tested group would also be the target group of the sustainability marketing messages which are shown in the experiment, thus giving more valuable outcomes when it comes to managerial implications.
O no
O yes
If no, explain how active or passive permission will be obtained from the parents. nvt
11) Number of participants to be recruited: ±180
12) How will the anonymity and privacy of the participants be guaranteed? Explain. The anonymity will be maintained by not having to fill in personal information such as an email address or name, only gender and age will be received as information concerning the persona of the participants.
13) Will participants receive compensation for participating in the research?
O no
O yes
If yes, explain. N.v.t.
14) Will any misleading occur?
O no
O yes
If yes, explain how and why. Also explain how and when participants will be debriefed. N.v.t.
15) Is there a possibility that some participants/test subjects might consider the research unpleasant or troublesome for any reason, or that they may be exposed to information, materials or questions to which they would prefer not to be exposed?
O no
O yes
If yes, explain. N.v.t.
Signature of student(s) conducting the research: Signature of teacher(s) supervising the research:
Date: 22-04-2020 Date: 14-05-2020
Appendix B: Stimulus material
Sustainability marketing communication rebranding on Facebook:
