MASTER THESIS

#InstaFamous: The Effect of Influencer Type and Brand Familiairity on Brand attitude and Corporate Reputation

Jantien Wijnen February, 2019

#InstaFamous: The Effect of Influencer Type and Brand Familiairity on Brand attitude and Corporate Reputation.

The moderating roles of influencer fit and brand experience

MASTER THESIS FEBRUARY 2019 JANTIEN WIJNEN - S2030845 GRADUATION COMMITTEE: DR. J. F. GOSSELT DR. A. J. A. M. VAN DEURSEN UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE FACULTY OF BEHAVIOURAL, MANAGEMENT & SOCIAL SCIENCES MASTER COMMUNICATION STUDIES – CORPORATE COMMUNICATION

ABSTRACTIntroduction – Nowadays, socialmedia replaces traditionalmedia as being themostprominent media platform. Along with this change come new opportunities andchallenges for, amongothers, the fieldofbrandmanagement. Increasingly, consumerstendtofindinformationaboutproductsandservicesnolongerfromofflinesources,butfromdigitalword-of-mouthsourceslikesocialmediaandreviewwebsites.Thirdpartiesare increasingly used to promote a company on social media. This is a new type ofindependent providers of socialmedia posts,who shape the attitudes of a company’saudience,called‘socialmediainfluencers’.Purpose–Sincetheuseofinfluencersiscurrentlyincreasing,whilethefieldofresearchis still predominantly unexplored, the purpose of this research is to give advise tocompanies about the effect and the use of influencers for business purposes. Thisresearch examines the effect of influencer type on brand attitude and corporatereputationandtheinteractioneffectofinfluencertypeandbrandfamiliarity.Whichtypeofinfluencerfitsbestwithafamiliarbrandandwhichtypefitsbestwithanunfamiliarbrand?Dotheeffectslimittomarketingcommunicationstrategiesorshouldinfluencersbeinvolvedincorporatecommunicationstrategiesaswell?Companiescanadjusttheirinfluencerstrategiestotheseoutcomes.Method – This research was conducted with a 3x2 experiment through an onlinesurvey.Eachrespondentwasexposedtooneofthesixconditions.Thestimulusmaterialconsistedofonepicture,includinganinfluencertype(celebrity,socialmediainfluencerorunknown)andabrand(NikeorYS).Afterexposureof thepicture, therespondentswere asked to answer questions about brand attitude and corporate reputation, andadditionallyaboutbrandfamiliarity,brandexperienceandinfluencerfit.Results–Therewasnointeractioneffectbetweeninfluencertypeandbrandfamiliarity.This means that the type of influencer that is used by a company does not have todependon the familiarityof thebrand.Furthermore, therewereno significant effectsfound between influencer type and brand attitude and corporate reputation. Bothdependentvariablescouldbeseenasonevariableforinfluencertype.Influencerfithada direct positive effect on brand attitude and corporate reputation, instead of amoderatingroleontheeffectofinfluencertypeonthedependentvariables.Conclusion – From the findingswecanconclude that influencer typedoesnotplayasignificantroleinconsumers’brandattitudeandcorporatereputation.Thisdoesnotsaythat influencers are not useful for businesses, because there aremanyother businessevaluationsthatcouldbeaffectedpositivelybyinfluencersbutwerenotincludedwithinthisresearch.However,influencerfithasasignificanteffectonbothbrandattitudeandcorporatereputation.Thismeansthatbeforechoosinganinfluencer,companieshavetodetermine or investigate whether the influencer fits with their brand according toconsumers.KEYWORDSSocialmediainfluencers,celebrityinfluencers,brandattitude,corporatereputation,brandfamiliarity,brandexperience,influencerfit

PREFACEThis research was conducted with the intention to graduate on my masterCommunicationStudiesatUniversityofTwente.Writingamasterthesisisnotapieceofcake, it takesa lotofeffort,dedicationandtime.Butonceyouare finishedyoucanbeproudoftheworkyoudelivered.Youworkedhardandnowyoucanreapthebenefits.Iwould like to take this opportunity to thank peoplewho helpedme duringmy thesisperiod. Firstofall,Iwouldliketothankmyboyfriend,friendsandfamilyforsupportingmeduringthewritingprocessandgivingmetimetofocusonmythesis.Furthermore,Iwould like to thank the methodology shop at University of Twente for helping megettingstartedwiththeanalyses,andmysupervisorsDr.J.F.GosseltandDr.A.J.A.M.VanDeursen for givingme feedbackwhen needed. Last but not least, Iwould like tothanktherespondentsoftheresearch,whofilledinthesurvey, fortheirparticipation.Thankyouall!JantienWijnenFebruary,2019

Inhoudsopgave 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 6 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................................................... 9

2.1 BRAND ATTITUDE ............................................................................................................................................. 9 2.2 CORPORATE REPUTATION ................................................................................................................................ 9 2.3 BRAND ATTITUDE VERSUS CORPORATE REPUTATION ....................................................................................... 10 2.4 INFLUENCER MARKETING ................................................................................................................................ 11

2.4.1 Social media influencers versus celebrity influencers .......................................................................... 12 2.5 BRAND FAMILIARITY ........................................................................................................................................ 14 2.6 INFLUENCERS VERSUS BRAND FAMILIARITY ..................................................................................................... 15 2.7 MODERATING ROLE OF INFLUENCER FIT WITH BRAND ....................................................................................... 15 2.8 MODERATING ROLE OF BRAND EXPERIENCE .................................................................................................... 15

3. METHOD ............................................................................................................................................................ 17 3.1 DESIGN ......................................................................................................................................................... 17 3.2 STIMULUS MATERIAL ...................................................................................................................................... 17

3.2.1 Stimulus material and manipulation checks ......................................................................................... 17 3.3 MEASURES .................................................................................................................................................... 18 3.4 PROCEDURE .................................................................................................................................................. 19 3.5 VALIDITY ........................................................................................................................................................ 19 3.6 RESPONDENTS .............................................................................................................................................. 20

4. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................................... 21 4.1 CORRELATIONS .............................................................................................................................................. 21 4.2 MULTIVARIATE REGRESSION ........................................................................................................................... 22 4.3 MODERATION ANALYSES ................................................................................................................................ 24 4.4 RESULTS OF THE HYPOTHESES ....................................................................................................................... 26 4.5 ADDITIONAL ANALYSES ................................................................................................................................... 26

5. DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................................... 29 6. LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 32 7. IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ..................................................................................................... 34

7.1 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ...................................................................................... 34 7.2 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH .......................................................................................... 34

8. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................................... 36 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................................................... 37 APPENDIX A ..................................................................................... FOUT! BLADWIJZER NIET GEDEFINIEERD. APPENDIX B ..................................................................................... FOUT! BLADWIJZER NIET GEDEFINIEERD. APPENDIX C ..................................................................................... FOUT! BLADWIJZER NIET GEDEFINIEERD.

6

1.INTRODUCTIONNowadays,socialmediareplacestraditionalmediaasbeingthemostprominentmediaplatform (Abidin & Ots, 2015). Along with this change come new opportunities andchallengesfor,amongothers,thefieldofbrandmanagement.Marketersnotsolelyformmarketsanymore,butconsumershavean increasing influence inshapingandformingvariousfieldsofmarketingandbrandmanagementaswell(Abidin&Ots,2015;Booth&Matic,2010).Atpresent,normsandlogicsarecreatedtogetherwithconsumers,whichwas previously restricted to professionals only (Abidin & Ots, 2015). As a result,companiesaregettingridoftop-downcommunicationstrategiesandaretryingtomakemoreandmorepeopleloyaltothebrandthroughcommunitiesandsocialmedia(Boothand Matic, 2010). By using social media, companies tend to increase theirtrustworthiness (Becker, Nobre & Kanabar, 2013), brand attitude, and customercommitment (Dijkmans, Kerkhof & Beukeboom, 2014), which are considered to beimportantmeasuresinthecompetitionwithothercompanies.

A similar change applies to consumers: increasingly, they tend to findinformationaboutproductsandservicesfromdigitalword-of-mouthsourceslikesocialmediaandreviewwebsites,insteadoffromofflinesources(Dijkmansetal.,2014).Theyrely on other consumers’ opinions and perceive messages from reviews, friends orfamilymorepositivelythanthosefromcompanies(Booth&Matic,2010;Dijkmansetal.,2014; IZEA, 2017; Schivinski & Dabrowski, 2014; Woods, 2016). For this reason,companies increasinglyuse thirdparties thatarecomparablewithconsumers’ friendsand family (consumers feel a certain level of closeness and identification with theseindividuals)topromotetheircompanyonsocialmedia(Dijkmansetal.,2014;Freberg,Graham, McGaughey & Freberg, 2010). Thus, everyone could be a potential contentgenerator andhas thepotential tohavemeaningful influential power (Booth&Matic,2010).Thisisenabledthroughtheincreaseduseofsocialmediaandthecurrentgeneralfocus of companies on consumers (Khamis, Ang & Welling, 2016). This new type ofindependent providers of social media posts shape the attitudes of a company’saudience, and is called ‘social media influencers’ (Freberg et al., 2010; Khamis et al.,2016).

User-generatedcontent,suchas influencerpostsonsocialmediaandconsumerreviews,haveapositiveinfluenceonthebrandattitudeofotherconsumers(Schivinski& Dabrowski, 2014). Also, content on social media concerning organizationsincreasinglyinfluencestheircorporatereputation(Becker,Nobre&Kanabar,2013),andthus, recognizingwho the company’s storytellers are and engage them in the brand’sdiscussioncouldshapeorprotectabrand’sreputation(BoothandMatic,2010).Despitethis, little research has yet been conducted on the direct effect of social mediainfluencersonbrandattitudeandcorporatereputationinspecific(VanNorel,Kommers,VanHoofandVerhoeven,2014).Therecouldbeadifferenceinbothoutcomesbecauseabrandattitudecanbeformedatonemomentoftime(onelookatapicture)andincludesattitudes about only one product, whereas a corporate reputation is built overtime(Argenti & Druckenmiller, 2004; Fombrun, 1996; Jie et al., 2016) and includes the

7

reputationoftheentirecompany.Thiscouldcausethattheeffectofinfluencersthroughcontentonsocialmediaisweakeroncorporatereputationthanonbrandattitude.Thisdifferencewillbefurtherelaboratedinthetheoreticalframework(paragraph2.3).Bothoutcomes (influencer effect on brand attitude and corporate reputation) will becomparedtoeachotherinthisresearchtodeterminewhethertheeffectofinfluencersrestrictstomarketingoutcomes,orithaseffectoncorporateoutcomesaswell.

Influencerscanbegroupedintocelebritiesandsocialmediainfluencers(Khamiset al., 2016). Celebrities have a great identity and the requirements to be a target formarketingpurposes.Theincreasedeaseofcommunicatingsomeone’simagewithuseofsocialmediaandtheupcomingpopularityof individualismmadeiteasiertobecomea‘celebrity’ for ‘normal’people(Khamisetal.,2016),resulting in theexistenceofsocialmedia influencers. It has already been investigated that celebrity endorsers influencebrandattitudeandcorporatereputation(VanNoreletal.,2014;Zhou&Whitla,2013).When it comes to social media influencers, some researches suggest that they haveeffectonbrandevaluations.However,thespecificinfluenceofsocialmediainfluencerson brand attitude and corporate reputation, apart from each other, is underinvestigated. To determinewhether socialmedia influencers and celebrities have thesameeffectonbrandattitudeandcorporatereputationandtogiveadvisetocompaniesabout the type of influencer they should use for marketing or corporate purposes,celebrities and social media influencers will be compared with each other in thisresearch.

Especiallyforsmallbrandswithalimitedadvertisingbudget, it is interestingtobeawareoftheeffectof(thetypeof)influencer(s)onthebrandattitudeandcorporatereputation among consumers. They can effectively use their budget by choosing theright type of influencer to achieve a higher brand attitude or corporate reputationamong consumers. Namely,most studies on influencersmainly focus on large brandsthat are in possession of budgets that can provide them with an extended board ofinfluencers (Woods, 2016). Their advise will not do for small brands. Besides that,knowingthatadvertisementeffects,marketingstrategiesandbrandmanagementdifferfor familiar andunfamiliar brandsmakes it reasonable to take the influence of brandfamiliarityintoaccountaswellinthisresearch(Berthon,Ewing&Napoli,2008;Jarvis&Goodman, 2005; Kent & Allen, 1994). Does it make a difference for the effect ofinfluencertype(celebrityandsocialmediainfluencers)ifconsumersarefamiliartothebrand?Which type of influencer fits with either a familiar or an unfamiliar brand interms of brand attitude and corporate reputation? These questionswill be examinedwithinthisresearch.

Ha and Perks (2005) found that brand familiarity and brand experiencestrengthen each other in brand satisfaction. Is brand familiarity a direct predictor ofbrandattitudeandcorporatereputationordoesbrandexperiencehavearoleaswell?Forcompanies,thiswouldmakethedifferencebetweenconsumersthatarejustawareof the existence of their brand and loyal consumers. They could use influencers as ameanstoattractconsumersthatareawareofthemtobecomeloyalcustomersorasa

8

meanstoretain loyalcustomers,dependingonwhattheeffectofbrandexperienceontheeffectofinfluencersonbrandattitudeandcorporatereputationis.

Zietek(2016)arguesthatmarketingmanagerstendtoselecttheirinfluencersontheirfitwiththebrand.Didtheyalreadybuytheproductsbeforetheygotpaidtoshowthem(dotheyseemtonaturallyfitwiththebrand)?Aperceivedfitmustmatchwiththeassociations towards thebrand, includingadvertisementswith influencers.Otherwise,consumers could become confused and surprised, which could negatively influencebelievability(Doss,2011).Istheperceivedfitoftheinfluenceralsoimportantforbrandevaluations like brand attitude and corporate reputation? To answer this question,influencerfitisexaminedasamoderatorfortheeffectofinfluencersonbrandattitudeand corporate reputation. Out of the previous information, the following researchquestionisformulated:“What is the effect of (different types of) influencers and brand familiarity on brandattitudeandcorporatereputation,whichinfluencertypefitsbestwitha(n)(un)familiarbrand,andwhataretherolesofinfluencerfitandbrandexperience?”Inthesecondchapter, thetheoreticalbackgroundoftheresearchwillbedescribed. Inthethirdchapter,themethodwillbeelaborated.Thefourthchapterwillconsistoftheresults, followed by the discussion, limitations and implications for future research(chapter5through7).Thefinalchapterwillbetheconclusion(chapter8).

9

2.THEORETICALFRAMEWORKIn this chapter, the theoretical framework will be elaborated. Distracted from theintroduction, several topics can be distinguished. The topics are brand attitude (2.1),corporatereputation(2.2),brandattitudeversuscorporatereputation(2.3),influencermarketing (2.4), brand familiarity (2.5), influencers versusbrand familiarity (2.6) andthemoderatingrolesofinfluencerfitwiththebrand(2.7)andbrandexperience(2.8).

2.1BrandattitudeBrands represent the advantages provided by a product or service and aredistinguishablebytheircompetitiveposition, intermsofpriceandproductusage,andtheirpersonality(Hankinson&Cowking,1993,ascitedbyCambridge,2002).Thelatterconsistsoffunctionalattributessuchasdurabilityoreaseofuse,symbolicvaluessuchas thedegreeof funorcare,andemotionalappealcausedby forexample theproductdesign,nameoradvertising.Eachbrandconsistsofauniquecombinationoffunctionalfeatures, symbolic values and emotional appeal, with which they deliver andcommunicate the product or service experience (Cambridge, 2002). Because doingresearch on products to collect attributes is time consuming and takes effort, manyconsumersrelyontheproductbrandasanimportantsourceofinformation(Cambridge,2002;Ward& Lee, 2000). This causes that the overall consumer experience could bemainlyshapedbythebrand(Mitchell&Olson,1981;Schivinski&Dabrowski,2014). According toMunch, Boller and Swasy (1993) the first step towards a positivebrandattitudeistomakesurethatconsumersbelievethefeaturesandusereffectsthatarebeingcommunicatedabouttheproduct.Butitdoesnotrestricttothesefunctionalfeaturesonly;word-of-mouthcommunicationinfluencesbothshort-termandlong-termbrandattitudesaswell(Bone,1995;Hatch,Schultz&Williamson,2001).Furthermore,inappropriateuseofword-of-mouthcommunicationcanhaveanunintendedeffectonattitudecreationofconsumers towardsabrand(Lee,Park&Han,2007;Subramani&Rajagopalan,2003).Onceapositivebrandattitudeisachieved,itcanleadtoattractionofpotentialcustomersandtherebytoahigherpurchaseintention(Aghekyan-Simonian,et al., 2012; Hatch, Schultz & Williamson, 2001; Kudeshia & Kumas, 2016). Anotherfactor that has a severe positive effect on purchase intention is corporate reputation(Keh&Xie,2009),whichwillbeexplainedinthefollowingparagraph.

2.2CorporatereputationCorporatereputationconsistsoftheperceptionsandevaluationsaboutacompanyheldbystakeholders(Meadows&Meadows,2016).Corporatereputationcanbedefinedastherepresentationoftheoverallappealorcollectiveimagesofallstakeholderstowardsthe organization, built over time, compared to competitors (Argenti &Druckenmiller,2004; Fombrun, 1996; Jie et al., 2016). There are several reasons why reputation isimportanttoorganizations.Theperceptionofthepublicpredictsthecompanies’success(Fombrun, 1996). For example, a companywith a strong positive reputation attractsgood employees, is perceived to have more value, is enabled to charge more, theircustomersaremoreloyalandthepurchaseintentionofconsumersishigher(Keh&Xie,

10

2009). According to Eccles,Newquist and Schatz (2007), 70 to 80per cent ofmarketvalue comes from intangible assets (brand equity, intellectual capital and goodwill),whicharehardtoassess.Giventhis,anythingthatharmstheirreputationisathreattoacompany.Consumersoftenrelyonbrandsthathaveagoodreputationasriskrelievertolessentheiruncertainty(Aghekyan-Simonianetal.,2012)

Fombrun, Ponzi and Newburry (2005) developed the RepTrak® system formeasuring corporate reputation. The RepTrak® System is elaborated from variousstudies fromThe Reputation Institute since 2000 and has seven dimensions, namely:product and services, innovation, workplace, governance, citizenship, leadership andperformance (Frombrun, Ponzi & Newburry, 2005). An overview of the RepTrak®modelandanexplanationofitsvariablesisdepictedinfigure1.

Figure1RepTrak™ReputationModel(ReputationInstitute,2014)

2.3BrandattitudeversuscorporatereputationThe main difference between brand attitude and corporate reputation is that brandattitude focuses on the product itself, whereas corporate reputation focuses on thecompany behind the product. The main components of corporate reputation are theimage and identity of the company (Chun, 2005), whereas brand attitude limits toevaluationsaboutacertainproductorserviceofthebrand.Itisbasicallythedifferencebetweenmakingofferingsstandoutandattractingandretainingcustomers,andalsoadifferencebetweenmarketingandcorporatecommunication.

Positiveevaluationsbyconsumersaboutacertainproductdonotdirectlyaffecttheoverallreputationevaluations(Wang,Kandampully,Lo&Shi,2006).Forexample,it

11

is possible that a customer really likes a garment of Primark, but still has negativeassociations with the company because of their alleged contribution to child labor.Corporate reputation is an intangible equityof a company for the long term,whereaspositive brand attitudes give temporarily positive effects (for example one singlepurchase).Inthisresearchthegoalistoinvestigatewhetherinfluencershavealimitedeffectontheparticular‘offer’thatisshowed,orthatithasmoreprofoundeffectsontheoverall corporate reputation.For this reason,brandattitudeandcorporate reputationareseenastwoseparatedependentvariableswhenitcomestoresearchontheeffectofinfluencers.Inthisway,thetwovariablescanbecomparedwitheachother.Theeffectofinfluencers on brand attitude and corporate reputation will be further elaborated inparagraph2.4.

2.4InfluencermarketingIn this paragraph the influencer types ‘social media influencers’ and ‘celebrityinfluencers’ will be described. As stated before, influencers are third parties that areincreasinglyusedtopromoteacompanyonsocialmedia(Dijkmansetal.,2014;Freberg,Graham,McGaughey& Freberg, 2010) and they are becoming a part of a companies’socialmediastrategy(Booth&Matic,2010).Companieschoosesocialmediainfluencersbasedon theextensivenessof their socialnetwork, the frequencyofusing their socialnetwork, the relevance or visibility of their content and their suitability (fit)with thebrand (Hearn&Schoenhoff,2017). Social influencersasamarketing tool seems tobesimilar to the traditional marketing tool word-of-mouth (IZEA, 2017; Woods, 2016).However,thereisanessentialdifference;word-of-mouthdependsoncurrentcustomerswho are telling their acquaintances naturally about a product or brand they like,whereasinfluencersareaskedspecificallytopromoteaproductorbrand(IZEA,2017).Companies use influencers because social media content generated by themselves isexpected to be less successful, in terms of trustworthiness and credibility(Pornpitakpan, 2004), than user-generated social media content about the companypostedby theuser from theuser’s account (Allsop,Bassett&Hoskins,2007;Booth&Matic,2010;Schivinski&Dabrowski,2014).

The primary influencer platforms, that is to say the most established and theplatforms that can be expected to give good results to marketers, are Instagram,Facebook,Twitter,YouTubeandblogs(Sammis,LincolnandPomponi,2016).Thesharerate, the number of views, or the number of followers can be starting points whenlooking for the right influencers (Freberg et al., 2010; Neystadt et al., 2011).Furthermore, influencers can be classified into various influencer types for differentpurposes, for example providing content promotion, promoting product launches, orcreating content, by analyzing their online activities and particular usage (Woods,2016).Also,amongsocialmediainfluencers,adistinctioncanbemadebetweenmicro-influencersandmacro-influencers.Macro-influencersare famousthroughsocialmediabut have characteristics and an amount of followers that are comparable with acelebrity. Micro-influencers are regular people who became popular online by theattentionofaspecific (smaller)groupof followers,byshowing theiruseofgoodsand

12

services or lifestyles. They have a small niche of followers (Coursaris, Van Osch &Kourganoff,2018).Inthisresearchsocialmediainfluencerscanbedefinedinthesameway as micro-influencers, to make a clear distinction between celebrities and socialmediainfluencers,andbecausetheyareaccessibleforsmallbrandsaswellintermsofresources. The distinction between socialmedia influencers and celebrity influencerswillbeexplainedinthenextparagraph(2.4.1).

It is assumed that the use of influencers will lead to a more positive brandattitudeandcorporatereputation.Thefactthatlargebrandsalreadymakeextensiveuseofinfluencersrevealsthattheybeholdpositiveresultsfromit(Woods,2016).Also,sincepeopleperceivemessagesfromreviews,familyandfriendsanduser-generatedcontentonsocialmediamorepositivethanthoseofcompanies(Booth&Matic,2010;Dijkmans,Kerkhof&Beukeboom,2014;IZEA,2017;Schivinski&Dabrowski,2014;Woods,2016),theirbrandattitudeandcorporatereputationareexpectedtobepositiveaswellwheninfluencersareused. The strength of the effect of influencers on brand attitude and corporatereputation could differ between the two variables because brand attitude could beformedatonemomentoftime(onelookatapicture),whilereputationisbuiltovertime(Argenti & Druckenmiller, 2004; Fombrun, 1996; Jie et al., 2016) and consists ofaccumulatedattitudesfromthepast(Woods,2016).Besidesthat,influencersareoftenused to promote products and not directly to promote a brand, this could cause thatinfluencershaveagreaterdirecteffectonbrandattitudethanoncorporatereputation.Thefollowinghypothesisisformulated:H1:“(Socialmedia)Influencershaveastrongerpositiveeffectonbrandattitudethanoncorporatereputation.”

2.4.1SocialmediainfluencersversuscelebrityinfluencersHearnandSchoenhoff(2017)definesocialmediainfluencersasindividualswhoworktodevelopsomekindof“celebrity”statusandagenuine“personalbrand”,bytryingtogetasmuch attention as possible via social networks. Marwick (2016) and Raun (2018)considerthemtobeonlinenichepersonalitieswhoarenotknownbyeveryone(unlikecelebrities)buthavetheirownspecificpublic.Theyareindividualsocialmediaopinionleaders (Abidin & Ots, 2015; Freberg et al., 2010) with a valuable reputation andinfluence (Neystadt et al., 2011),who are being ‘used’ by organizations for consumerpurposes(Hearn&Schoenhoff,2017).Companiessponsorthesocialmediainfluencersortheygivethemperksinordertogetvaluableword-of-mouthinreturn.Theyhaveanewkindof job thatarose fromthedata flow(Hearn&Schoenhoff,2017).Celebritiesseemtobesimilartosocialmediainfluencersaswell,astheyhaveagreatinfluenceonindividuals(VanNoreletal.,2014),butthedifferenceisthatsocialmediainfluencersdonot need television networks to stand out (Hearn & Schoenhoff, 2017). Unlikecelebrities,socialmediainfluencersareinprinciplesolelyknownfromtheiractivitiesonsocialnetworks.

13

Celebrities are individualswho are famous on certain level, making themwellknown in society (Young& Pinsky, 2006, as cited byKim, Lee& Prideaux, 2014). Anindividualbecomesacelebrityduetotheirimageortrademark(Boorstin,1961,ascitedbyFraser&Brown,2002),andareknownbecauseofacertaintalentorjob.Inthepastyears, the influenceofcelebritieshas increasedthroughmassmedia(Fraser&Brown,2002).Peoplecreatementalbondswithcelebritiesandtrytopursuetheirlives,whichisalsothecasewithsocialmediainfluencers.Peoplefollowtheirvaluesandbehaviorsastheyhaveagreat interest in their livesand theyareattracted toandhaverespect forthem in a certain way. Celebrities are, as well as social media influencers, seen asopinionleaders:“peoplewhoinfluencetheopinions,attitudes,beliefs,motivations,andbehaviors of others” (Valente&Pumpuang, 2007, p. 881, as citedbyVanNorel et al.,2014). This causes that people are being influenced by celebrity endorsements(Djafarova&Rushworth,2017). ThepagesofcelebritiesonInstagram(forexample)arethemost-followedpagesof all. For that reason,many organizations use celebrity endorsement as amarketingtooltopositivelyinfluencetheirbrandawareness,brandimageandbrandattitude,orinordertoincreasetheircustomers’intentiontopurchasetheirproductsorservices(VanNorel et al., 2014). Celebrities are considered to be credible sources in generating apositive word-of-mouth regarding particular products and services (Djafarova &Rushworth,2017).Atthesametime,researchshowsthatconsumersaremorelikelytobelievetheauthenticityofanopinionofapersonalacquaintancethanofarichcelebrity(Schaefer,2012,ascitedbyHearn&Schoenhoff,2017).Eventhoughacelebrityreachesalargeraudiencecomparedtosocialmediainfluencers(Pedroni,2016),thisstatementcaused that organizations started to move away from celebrity influencers towardssocialmediainfluencers.Celebritiesansweredthisbymakingtheirpostsmorepersonaland started to interact with their fans. They show more about their personal lives,includingbrands,ratherthanposinginglamorousmagazineadvertisements.Thismakesthem more similar to social media influencers, causing that brands will still beinterestedinsponsoringcelebrities(Hearn&Schoenhoff,2017). This raises the question whether celebrities have the strongest influence oneitherbrandattitudeorcorporate reputation,or if socialmedia influencers took theirplace. Because consumers seem to be more inclined to identify with social mediainfluencers than with celebrities (they feel a certain distance) (Pedroni, 2016), it isassumed that social media influencers have more effect on brand attitude thancelebrities.Consumerswanttohavethesameproductsastheir‘friends’andtherebyitisexpected that social media influencers are more effective for marketing purposes(ratherthancorporatepurposes)thancelebrityinfluencers.Thefollowinghypothesisisformulated:H2: “Socialmedia influencers have a stronger effect on brand attitude than celebrityinfluencershave.”

14

According to Knittel and Stango (2012) celebrity endorsements consist of reputationrisks, because they reach a large audience and thereby could affect the overallreputationofanorganization.Whentheydamagetheirownreputation,theydamagethereputationofthecompanyaswell.Theyconsidertheeffectofsocialmediainfluencersonreputationsmallerthancelebrityinfluencers,becausesocialmediainfluencersreacha smaller public. For this reason, it is expected that celebrity influencers will have agreater influence on corporate purposes than socialmedia influencers. The followinghypothesisisproposed:H3: “Celebrity influencers have a stronger effect on corporate reputation than socialmediainfluencershave.”

2.5BrandfamiliarityKentandAllen(1994)definebrand familiarityasavariable that indicates the levelofdirect and indirect experiences of a consumerwith a certain product. They state thatbrandsthatarebeingadvertisedinnationalmediaarehighlyfamiliar.Also,theysaythatadvertising for familiar brands may not work in the same way as advertising forunfamiliarbrands. Consumersoftenusethebrandnameandrelatedsignalsasabasisforthechoiceofproduct.Familiarbrandsentailvariouspositiveassociationsthatcauseconsumerstotrusttheproductororganization.Forexample,whenitisnotpossibletojudgeaproductimmediately,thebrandfamiliarityservesascueforquality(Benedicktus,Brady,Darke&Voorhees,2010). Heath(1990)foundthatthemorefamiliarpeoplearetocertainstimuli,themoretheyperceiveto like it(ascitedbyLaroche,Kim&Zhou,1996).Generally, ithasbeenrecognized that the exposure effect is a basic process in preference and attitudeformationandchange(Zajonc&Markus,1982,ascitedbyLaroche,Kim&Zhou,1996).Thisleadstothefollowinghypothesis:H4:“Afamiliarbrandhasamorepositiveinfluenceonbrandattitudethananunfamiliarbrandhas.”People process an advertisement of a familiar brand easier than one of an unfamiliarbrand.Thiscausesthatthebrand-relatedmessageofanunfamiliarbrandislesslikelytobeprocessed(Lange&Dahlén,2003).Further,ifaconsumerhasapositiveperceptionaboutacertainbrand,normallyahighlevelofbrandfamiliaritycausesagreaterbrandattitudeandbrandtrust(Perera&Chaminda,2013).Lewis(1999)statesthatthebetterknownacompanyis,thebettertheirreputation.Thefollowinghypothesisisformulated:H5: “A familiar brand has amore positive influence on corporate reputation than anunfamiliarbrandhas.”

15

2.6InfluencersversusbrandfamiliarityAsitisexpectedthatcelebrityinfluencershavemoreimpactonbrandevaluationsthansocialmediainfluencers,itisassumedinthisresearchthatcelebrityinfluencerswillbemore effective for unfamiliar brands in terms of brand attitude and corporatereputation, and socialmedia influencerswill bemore effective for familiar brands, sopeoplecanidentifywiththesocialmediainfluencer(Frebergetal.,2010).Thefollowinghypothesisisformulated:H6: “Celebrity influencers have a greater positive influence on brand attitude andcorporatereputationforunfamiliarbrands,comparedtosocialmediainfluencers”.TheresearchofKolarova(2018)provedthatsocialmediainfluencerscombinedwithafamiliar brand has a more positive effect on brand evaluations than celebrityinfluencers.Tofindoutwhetherthisappliestobrandattitudeandcorporatereputationinspecific,thefollowinghypothesisarose:H7: “Socialmedia influencers have a greater positive influence on brand attitude andcorporatereputationforfamiliarbrands,comparedtocelebrityinfluencers”.

2.7ModeratingroleofinfluencerfitwithbrandAs stated before, marketers select influencers according to their fit with the brand(Hearn&Schoenhoff,2017).Thereshouldbeafitbetweentheinfluencerandthebrand,becauseconsumerscouldbecomeconfusedandsurprisedwhenthereisnoperceivedfit(Doss,2011).Thequestionforthisresearchiswhethertheinfluencerdirectlyinfluencesbrandattitudeandcorporatereputation,orfit isanimportantcondition,whichmakesthe effect of influencers on brand attitude and corporate reputation indirect. Thefollowinghypothesisisformulated:H8: “The effect of influencer type on brand attitude and corporate reputation ismoderatedbyinfluencerfitwiththebrand”.

2.8ModeratingroleofbrandexperienceAconsumerwhohasgonethroughtheprocessof informationsearch,decision-makingand/orproductusage is considered tobeexperienced.Experiencewithabrandcouldcause a deeper meaning and could be less forgettable, which can allow for greatercustomer trust. Familiarity and brand experience are important ingredients forconsumer knowledge and could have great influence on consumer cognitive patterns(Ha&Perks,2005).Thisiswhyitistakenintoaccountwithinthisresearch.

Thedistinctionbetweenthetwotermsisthatpeoplewhodonothaveexperiencewith a brand are more likely to use extrinsic instead of intrinsic hints in brandevaluations, because relatively they have less intrinsic brand information inreminiscence and a less developed outline, which makes intrinsic information moredifficulttoprocess.Thus,peoplecouldbefamiliarwithacertainbrand,butwhenthey

16

donothaveexperience,theirevaluationsarelikelytobedifferent(Ha&Perks,2005).Thelasthypothesisisformulated:H9: “The effect of brand familiarity on brand attitude and corporate reputation ismoderatedbybrandexperience.”Distractedfromthis,thefollowingconceptualmodelcanbedrawn(figure2):

Figure2Conceptualmodel

17

3.METHODIn this chapter the method of the research will be described. This consists of theresearchdesign(3.1),thestimulusmaterial(3.2),themeasures(3.3),theprocedureandparticipants(3.4),validity(3.5)andrespondents(3.6).

3.1DesignThis research was conducted through an online experiment. This method directlymeasures causality (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2007). The respondents received anintroductiontextinwhichthebrandtheywereexposedtointhestimulusmaterialwasdescribed andwere exposed to stimulusmaterial (described in paragraph 3.2). Afterthat, they answered multiple questions about brand familiarity, brand experience,influencer fit, corporate reputation and brand attitude of the brandmentioned in thestimulusmaterial.Anexperimental3x2designwasused.Thequestionnaireendedwithsomegeneralquestionsaboutdemographics.

3.2StimulusmaterialTherespondentsofthefirstgroup(celebrityinfluencerxfamiliarbrand)wereexposedto a post with a celebrity, a well-known product brand and a well-known corporatebrand.Therespondentsofthesecondgroup(socialmediainfluencerxfamiliarbrand)wereexposedtoapostincludingasocialmediainfluencer,awellkownproductbrandandawell-knowncorporatebrand,whereasthethirdgroup(unknownxfamiliarbrand)received a post with an unknown person, a well-known product brand and a well-known corporate brand. The fourth group (celebrity x unfamiliar brand) got a postincludinga celebrity, anunfamiliarproductbrandandanunfamiliar corporatebrand.The fifth group (socialmedia x unfamiliar brand) received a postwith a socialmediainfluencer, an unfamiliar product brand and an unfamiliar corporate brand. The lastgroup (unkown x unfamiliar brand) received a post with an unkown person, anunfamiliarproductbrandandanunfamiliar corporatebrand.The six conditionswerelabeledfromAtoF.ThestimulusmaterialcanbefoundinappendixA.

3.2.1StimulusmaterialandmanipulationchecksTheindependentvariables,influencertypeandbrandfamiliarity,wereusedtomakethestimulusmaterial.Therearesixconditionswhichall includeacombinationof thetwovariables (as explained in section 3.2). As an overall theme of the stimulusmaterials,sportswaschosentomakethestimulusmaterialdifferaslessaspossible.Theresultsoftherecognitionoftheinfluenceraredepictedintable1. For type of influencer, there are three categories: celebrity, (social media)influencer and an unknown person. For the celebrity Doutzen Kroes was selected,because the survey was held in the Netherlands and she is a model, which could beassociatedwithasportivelifestyle.Forthe(socialmedia)influencerMaritKloosterboer(@fitwithmarit)wasselected,becausethesurveywasheldintheNetherlandsandsheisan influencer in sports. For the unknown person, a random sportive looking woman(withsportiveclothesandphysique)wasselected.

18

For brand familiarity, the well-known brand Nike was selected as a familiarbrand,becauseitwasexpectedthatmostoftherespondentswouldknowthisbrand.Fortheunfamiliarbrand, abrandcalledYSwasmadeup.The reasonwhya fictivebrandwasusedisbecauseitenablestocheckwhetherrespondentsansweredveraciouslyonthequestionofbrandfamiliarity,andtherebythestimulusmaterialcouldbechecked.

ForgroupsAtoC,whowereexposedtothewell-knownbrand,all filled inthattheywerefamiliarwiththebrand.ThegroupsDtoF,whoareexposedtoafictivebrand,onlyonerespondentfilledinthathe/sheknewthebrand.GroupA&Dareexpectedtoknow the influencer,onlyone forgroupAand two forgroupDdonotknowDoutzenKroes.MostpeopledonotknowMaritKloosterboer(groupB&E).ItisexpectedthatnooneknowsthepersonthatisexposedtogroupC&F,but9peoplesaytheydo.Fromthistableitcanbeconcludedthatmostofthestimulusmaterialwasperceivedasitshould.Table1Frequenciesstimulusmaterial InfluencerrecognitionGroup Brandfamiliarity Unknown Known NeutralA Familiar 27/27 1 26 0B Familiar 35/35 29 3 3C Familiar 22/22 13 8 1D Unfamiliar 24/25 2 23 0E Unfamiliar 33/33 27 3 3F Unfamiliar 29/29 26 1 2

3.3MeasuresThe variables that were measured in this research are brand attitude, corporatereputation, brand familiarity, brand experience and influencer fit. Six itemsmeasuredbrandattitudeona5-pointLikert-scalefromagreetodisagree:this isagoodproduct,this product is satisfactory, this product is pleasant, this product is valuable, Iwouldprefer this product above others and this product is sensible (Kardes & Herr, 1992;KudeshiaandKumas,2016;Low&Jr,2000).

Corporate reputation was measured with the RepTrak® Model (ReputationInstitute, 2014), as depicted in figure 1. The variables were: product/services,innovation,workplace, governance, citizenship, leadership and performance. The fouroverall themes of these variables are esteem, admire, trust and feeling. One itemmeasuredeachtheme: Iesteemthisbrand(Nike/YS), Iadmire thisbrand(Nike/YS), Itrust this brand (Nike/YS) and I have a good feeling when I think of this brand(Nike/YS). In order to maintain consistency, the items were measured on a 5-pointLikert-scale.

Brand familiarity was measured with one item (are you familiar with the brandNike/YS?)answeredwitheitheryesorno.Ifyes,therespondentswereexposedtotheitemthatmeasuredbrandexperience,ona5-pointLikert-scalefromdisagreetoagree:Ibuyaproductofthisbrandonaregularbasis.

19

The influencer fit with the brand was measured with the following questionansweredona5-pointLikert-scalefromdisagreetoagree:doyouthinkthatthepersononthepicturefitswiththebrand?

3.4ProcedureThe research was spread through a survey with use of the survey tool Qualtrics, toacquaintancesoftheresearcherandthroughFacebook.Thus,participantsweregainedthroughSnowballsampling.Thesurveystartedwithashort introductionof thebrandand influencer concerned. Then, the stimulusmaterialwas exposed to theparticipantfollowed by the questions about brand familiarity and influencer fit. After that, theywereaskedabouttheirbrandattitudeandcorporatereputationthroughthepreviouslymentionedmeasures. The survey endedwith demographic questions such as age andgender.Theparticipantswerethankedafterwards.Whenalldatawasgathered,thedatawasanalyzedthroughSPSS.

3.5ValidityInordertomeasurethevalidityofthedataset,thesensiblenesswastestedthroughtheKaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO)measure.TheKMOvalue for thedataset is 0.824,which isabove0.5andtherebyconsideredtobeenoughforfactoranalysis(Williams,Onsman&Brown,2010).TheSPSSoutputforKMOcanbefoundinappendixC. The factor analysis for this research is depicted in table 2. The items forinfluencerfitandbrandfamiliaritywerenottakenintoaccountforthefactoranalysis,becausetheyconsistofonlyoneitem.Forthe‘brandexperience’scalethreeoutoffiveitemsweredeletedinordertogetaCronbach’salphascorecloseto0,7.Unfortunately,itcould not get any higher than 0.6. The items did not have a corrected item-totalcorrelationscoreabove0,3,sotheitemsweredeleted.Theitemsthatweredeletedare‘Ihaveonceboughtaproductofthisbrand’,‘IknowthebrandbutIhavenotboughtanyproducts yet’ and ‘I would evaluate my experience with the brand positively’. It isdecidedtotaketheitem‘Ibuyaproductofthisbrandonaregularbasis’intoaccount,becauseithasmoresignificantcorrelationswiththeothervariablesthantheotheritemthatwasleftandhasthehighestscoreinthefactoranalysis(0.83).TheCronbach’salphascoresfortheotherscaleswereabove0,7andtherebyreliableenough.TheCronbach’salphascoresaredepictedintable2,aswellasthefactoranalysis.Table2FactoranalysisandCronbach’salpha

Items

Components

Reputation BrandattitudeBrand

experienceIesteemthisbrand(Nike/YS).

- ,87

Iadmirethisbrand(Nike/YS).

,81

Itrustthisbrand(Nike/YS).

,76

I have a good feelingwhen I think of this brand(Nike/YS).

,84

20

Thisisagoodproduct.

,58

Thisproductissatisfactory.

,69

Thisproductispleasant.

.60

Thisproductisvaluable.

.68

Iwouldpreferthisproductaboveothers.

.72

Thisproductissensible ,78

Ibuyaproductofthisbrandonaregularbasis.

,83

Ihaveconsciouslyvisitedastoreofthisbrand

,76

Cronbach’sAlpha 0,88 0,80 0,6

3.6RespondentsThe number of respondents in this research (N) is 183. The survey was targeted atpeopleagedbetween18and30yearsoldandtherespondentswereexposedtooneofthe six stimulus materials. In table 3, the respondent characteristics are shown. Thenumberofrespondentspergroupwassupposedtobe30,butforsomeofthegroupsthenumberofrespondentsisbeneath30(CandF).Itcouldbethecasethatthetoolwhichwas used to collect the responses did not spread the survey as it should have, but itcouldalsobethecasethatalotofrespondentswhohadtofillinthesurveyforCandFstoppedbeforetheyfinished.MaybeitisnotacoincidencethatCandFbothincludetheunknownpersonandbothhavefewerresponses.Thenextsectionprovidestheresultsoftheresearch.Table3Respondent/samplecharacteristics N % Total Missingvalues Age 18t/m30 178 97,3 183 5

GenderMaleFemaleTotal

8094174

43,751,495,1

183 9

Stimulusmaterialgroup

ABCDEF

Total

343522303329183

18,619,112,016,418,015,8100

183

0

21

4.RESULTSThissectionconsistsoftheresultsoftheresearch.Inparagraph4.1thecorrelationsoftheconstructsaregiven.Insection4.2theresultsofamultivariateregressionaregiven,in section 4.3 the results of the moderation analyses are provided, in section 4.4 anoverviewoftherejectedorsupportedhypothesesisgivenandinsection4.5additionalanalysesareelaborated. Inordertobeabletocategorizethecasesingroupsaccordingtotheinfluencertype theywereexposed to, adummyvariablehasbeencomputedwhichallocates thecasestothesixgroups(AtroughF).Also,therehavebeencomputedthreevariablesforthe groups ‘celebrity’ (group A & D), ‘social media influencer’ (group B & E) and‘unknownperson’(groupC&F),tobeabletoanalyzethegroupsseparately.Bydoingthis, there is nodistinctionbetweenknownor unknownbrand anymorebetween thegroupsandtheonlydifferenceisinfluencertype.

4.1CorrelationsAPearson correlation testwas conducted to find outwhich constructs correlatewitheachanother(table4).Thereareeightsignificantcorrelationsinthetable,displayedinbold. One of the correlations (brand familiarity x brand experience) could not becomputed because only if brand familiaritywas answeredwith ‘yes’, the question forbrandexperiencewasshowedtotherespondent.Thismeansthatforrespondentsthatfilled in thebrandexperiencequestion, their answer forbrand familiaritywasalways‘yes’.Whenmeasuringthecorrelationbetweenbrandfamiliarityandbrandexperience,there is a constant value for brand familiarity. Thus, there is no correlation possiblebetweenthesetwovariables. Table4Mean,standarddeviationsandPearson’scorrelations

Variables N M SDBrand Brand

Experience

CorporateReputation

BrandFamiliarity

Influencer InfluencertypeAttitude Fit

BrandAttitude 182 3.12 0.67 1 BrandExperience

93 2.94 1.49 0.23* 1

CorporateReputation

183 3.55 0.83 0.50** 0.28** 1

BrandFamiliarity

183 0.51 0.50 0.21** - 0.37** 1

Influencerfit 183 3.61 0.99 0.20** -0.02 0.19** -0.03 1 Influencertype 183 1.93 0.79 0.09 0.14 0.04 -0.10 -0.18* 1**.Correlationissignificantatthe0.01level(2-tailed)*.Correlationissignificantatthe0.05level(2-tailed)

22

4.2MultivariateregressionThe regression analysis for this research has to be conducted for two independentvariables (brand familiarity and influencer type) and twodependent variables (brandattitudeandcorporatereputation),soithastobeconductedbyusingaMANOVAtestformultivariateregression.

TopreparefortheMANOVAtest,severaltestsweredonetosee if thedatametthe conditions for a MANOVA test. First a check on multivariate normality of thedependent variables has been done. Both of the variables show a significant p-value(corporatereputationp=0,000andbrandattitudep=0,003) for theShapiro-Wilk test,thusnormalityisnotassumed.TheMahalanobisdistancewascheckedandhadascoreof MD(N=182, df=2, MD<13.82, p>0.001), in this case we can assume multivariatenormality.

Also, it has been checked whether the two independent variables were linearrelated toeachother. InappendixC thematrixplotsaredepicted, that indicate linearrelationships between both variables. Last, the correlation between the dependentvariables was checked (depicted in table 5), which is 0.5 and r =(0.2 < 0.5 < 0.9).Therefore, it isassumedthat thevariablesarerelatedbutnotmulticollinear.Which isgoodenoughforMANOVA.

The multivariate test was done and since the Shapiro-Wilk test did not shownormality, we take the Pillai’s Trace into account. The Box’s Test of Equality ofCovarianceMatricesgivesavalueofp>0.05, so it isassumed that thegroupsdonothave different covariance matrices, which is desirable. In table 5 the results of theMANOVAtestcanbefound.Thesignificantresultscanbedistinguishedbecausetheyaredepictedinbold.

Table5Multivariateanalysisofvariance(MANOVA) F p-valueInfluencertype 0.702 0.591Brandfamiliarity 13.860 0.000Influencertype*brandfamiliarity 0.402 0.808Dependentvariables:brandattitudeandcorporatereputationThenullhypothesisforbrandfamiliaritywasrejected(F=13,86,p<0.001),becausethep-value is significant; there isamain-effectofbrand familiarityonbrandattitudeandcorporatereputation.Thegroupswithin thevariable (familiarorunfamiliar)differonthecombinationofbrandattitudeandcorporatereputation.Thismeansthatbothofthedependent variables should continue to be analyzed separately for brand familiarity.Also, the p-values for both of the dependent variables are significant for brandfamiliarity,thusthereisadifferencebetweenthetwogroups(familiarandunfamiliar)for both brand attitude and corporate reputation. In order to specify the differencebetweenthegroups(familiarandunfamiliar)onthetwodependentvariables,thetests

23

of Between-Subjects Effects has been taken into account. In table 6 the results aredepicted.Table6Meansandstandarddeviationsfortheindependentvariablesforeachgroup

Brandfamiliarity Influencertype

Familiar Unfamiliar Celebrity Influencer Unknown Brandattitude

3.25(0.67)** 2.97(0.63)** 3.03(0.67) 3.15(0.65) 3.17(0.69)

Corporatereputation

3.84(0.88)** 3.24(0.64)** 3.51(0.71) 3.56(0.88) 3.58(0.91)

Note.M(SD)**Significantatp<0.01Forbothfamiliarandunfamiliarbrands,thecorporatereputationissignificantlyhigherthan the brand attitude. Also, familiar brands score significantly higher on brandattitudethanunfamiliarbrands,aswellasfamiliarbrandsscoresignificantlyhigheroncorporatereputationthanunfamiliarbrands.

Rejectionofthenullhypothesisfailedforinfluencertype(F=0,702,p>0.05),thismeans that the three groups within the variable influencer type do not differsignificantly on the combination of brand attitude and corporate reputation, whichmeans that both dependent variables could be further analyzed as one dependentvariable.Also,thereisnosignificantdifferencebetweenthegroupsandtheireffectonbrandattitudeandcorporatereputation.

The interaction effect between both of the variables (brand familiarity andinfluencertype)isneithersignificant. Intable7,themeansandstandarddeviationsoftheinteractionaregiven.

Table7Meansandstandarddeviationsfortheinteractionbrandfamiliarity*influencertype

Familiarbrand Unfamiliarbrand

Celebrity Influencer Unknown Celebrity Influencer UnknownBrandattitude

3.22(0.63) 3.28(0.64) 3.27(0.80) 2.78(0.63) 3.02(0.65) 3.10(0.59)

Corporatereputation

3.81(0.73) 3.81(0.93) 3.93(1.06) 3.11(0.47) 3.29(0.75) 3.31(0.67)

In the Bonferroni tests for brand attitude and corporate reputation the results of theMANOVAarevisuallyrevealed.Figure3showstheresultsforbrandattitude(left)andcorporatereputation(right). Fromthefiguresitbecomesclearthatthereisadifferencebetweenfamiliarandunfamiliarbrandsandthereisasmalldifferencebetweenthegroupsofinfluencertype.Thebiggestdifferencebetweenthegroupsisforbrandattitude:themeanforcelebritiesismuchlowerthanthoseofinfluencersandunknownpersons.Apparently,theseresults

24

werenotsignificant.Last, it isclearthatthere isno interactioneffect; the linesdonotcrosseachother.Figure3Bonferroniplotsforbrandattitudeandcorporatereputation

4.3ModerationanalysesIn order to find out whether there is a moderating effect of influencer fit on theinteraction between influencer type and brand attitude/corporate reputation and ofbrand experience on the interaction between brand familiarity and brandattitude/corporatereputation,moderationanalysishasbeenconductedthrough linearregressionanalysis.

Topreparefortheanalysisofthemoderatorinfluencerfit,severalstepshadtobetaken. First, the variables brand attitude and corporate reputation were merged,becauseoutofthemultivariateregressionanalysis itwas learnedthat forthevariableinfluencertypethesedependentvariablescouldbeseenasonedependentvariable(theitemswere summedupanddividedby thenumberof items,which resulted inanewvariable: brand attitude/corporate reputation). Second, the independent variablesinfluencertypeandinfluencerfitwerestandardizedbyusingthestandardizeoptioninSPSS(descriptivestatisticsèsavestandardizedvaluesasvariables),after thatanothervariablewascomputedwhichmultipliesthetwostandardizedvariableswitheachother.At last, a linear regression analysis has been conducted, with the combination ofcorporate reputation and brand attitude as dependent variable and the standardizedvariablesofinfluencerfitandinfluencertypeandthecombinedvariableforinfluencertype x influencer fit as independent variables. In table 8 the results of the linearregressionanalysisaredepicted,intheappendixCtheSPSSoutputcanbefound.

25

Table8Moderatorinfluencerfitontheeffectofinfluencertypeonbrandattitude/corporatereputationDependentvariable Independent

variable(s) AdjustedR² Beta t p-value

Brandattitude/corporatereputation

Moderatorinfluencerfit*influencertype

0.056 0.129 1.776 0.077

Themoderator influencer fitx influencertypehasapositiveregression, thebettertheperson fits, the higher the coherence between influencer type and brandattitude/corporate reputation. However, the result is not significant. It is a bit higherthan0.05sotheresultcouldbeacoincidence.

Also for the moderator brand experience on the interaction between brandfamiliarity and corporate reputation/brand attitude, several variables had to becomputed.First,theindependentvariablesbrandfamiliarityandbrandexperiencehadto be standardized. Second, a new variable was computed which multiplies the twostandardized variables with each other. At last, two linear regression analyses wereconducted, with the dependent variables brand attitude and corporate reputationseparately.Towit,forbrandfamiliarity,brandattitudeandcorporatereputationcannotbe analyzed as one dependent variable (according to the multivariate regressionanalysis). In table 9 the results of the linear regression analyses are depicted, inappendixCtheSPSSoutputcanbefound.Table 9Moderatorbrandexperienceontheeffectofbrandfamiliarityonbrandattitudeandcorporatereputation

DependentvariableIndependentvariable(s)

AdjustedR² Beta t p-value

Brandattitude Moderatorbrandexperience*brandfamiliarity

0.041 0.154 2.23 0.028

Corporatereputation

Moderatorbrandexperience*brandfamiliarity

0.067 0.235 2.76 0.007

Forbrandattitude,thereisapositiveregressionwiththemoderatorbrandexperiencexbrand familiarity: the more experience with the brand, the higher the coherencebetween brand familiarity and brand attitude. The result is significant and not acoincidence. For corporate reputation there is a positive regression as well, with themoderatorbrandexperience *brand familiarity: themoreexperiencewith thebrand,the higher the coherence between brand familiarity and corporate reputation. In thiscase,theresultissignificant(p<0.05);theresultisnotacoincidence.

26

4.4ResultsofthehypothesesTheanalysescanbeusedtotesttheformulatedhypotheses(nineintotal).Anoverviewofthesupportedandrejectedhypothesesisgivenintable10.Onlyhypotheses4,5and9weresupported.Manyof therejectedhypothesestendedtobesupported,butwhenitcomestosignificancetheywerenot.Table10OverviewoftestedhypothesesH Formulation Supported Rejected1 “(Socialmedia)Influencershaveastrongerpositiveeffecton

brandattitudethanoncorporatereputation”

� þ

2 “Social media influencers have a stronger effect on brandattitudethancelebrityinfluencers”

� þ

3 “Celebrities have a stronger effect on corporate reputationthansocialmediainfluencers”

� þ

4 “Brand familiarity has a positive influence on brandattitude”

þ �

5 “Brandfamiliarityhasapositiveinfluenceoncorporatereputation”

þ �

6 “Celebrities have a greater positive influence on brandattitude and corporate reputation for unfamiliar brands,comparedtosocialmediainfluencers”

� þ

7 “Socialmediainfluencershaveastrongerpositiveinfluenceon brand attitude and corporate reputation for familiarbrands,comparedtocelebrityinfluencers”

� þ

8 “The effect of influencer type on brand attitude andcorporatereputationismoderatedbyinfluencerfitwiththebrand”

� þ

9 “The effect of brand familiarity on brand attitude andcorporatereputationismoderatedbybrandexperience” þ �

4.5AdditionalanalysesInthecorrelationstable(4)thereareseveralsignificantcorrelations,whichwerenotanalyzedyetbecausetheywerenotexpectedinthehypotheses.Inthissection,theremainingsignificantcorrelationswillbeanalyzedwithuseoflinearregression(table11).Infigure4,theinitialresearchmodelwasshown,includingthesupported

27

hypothesesandsignificantresults.Infigure5anewresearchmodelisdepicted,excludingtherejectedhypothesesandincludingtheadditionalanalyses.Table11OverviewofadditionalregressionanalysesIndependentvariable Dependent

variableF AdjustedR² p-value

Influencerfit Brandattitude

4.43 0.09 0.002

Corporatereputation

2.51 0.05 0.043

Influencertype 6.12 0.03 0.014

Influencertype Influencerfit 6.12 0.03 0.014

Brandexperience Brandattitude

4.96 0.04 0.028

Corporatereputation

7.61 0.07 0.007

In addition, there were a few questions asked about the type of influencer thatrespondents were exposed to. They were not necessary in this research but it givesinsight in the respondents’ views and starting points. The means and standarddeviationsaredepictedintable12.Table12Means,standarddeviations,Nofinfluencerquestions M SD N‘IidentifywithDoutzenKroes/MaritKloosterboer/Anna’

Celebrity 1.45 0.82 64Influencer 1.71 0.98 68Unknownperson 1.88 1.05 51

‘IfollowDoutzenKroes/MaritKloosterboer/Annaonsocialmedia’

Celebrity 2.391.181.37

1.630.760.98

646751

InfluencerUnknownperson

28

Figure4Initialresearchmodel,includingsupportedhypothesesFigure5Adjustedresearchmodel(b.a.=brandattitude,c.r.=corporatereputation)

29

5.DISCUSSIONThepurposeof this researchwas toanswer the followingresearchquestion: “What isthe effect of influencer type and brand familiarity on brand attitude and corporatereputation,which influencer type fitsbestwith a(n) (un)familiarbrand, andwhat aretherolesofinfluencerfitandbrandexperience?”Itwasexpected that socialmedia influencershavea strongerpositiveeffectonbrandattitude than on corporate reputation. This was not supported; brand attitude andcorporatereputationcouldbeseenasonevariableforinfluencertype.Thedifferencesbetween brand attitude and corporate reputation do not play a role in the effect ofinfluencers.Itseemsthatcomposingthebusiness’influencerstrategydoesnotdependonthedifferencebetweenthesetwopurposes(brandattitudeorcorporatereputation).Thefactthatmanyresearchesstatethatinfluencershaveapositiveeffectonconsumers’evaluations (IZEA,2017;Woods,2016)and this isnotprovedsignificantlywithin thisstudycouldbearesultofthefocusoftheresearches.Thisresearchwasfocusedonthedifferences between brand attitude and corporate reputation when it comes toinfluencers,whereas these researches focusonproductorbrandattitude.Apparently,studies focusedonmarketingpurposesshowmorepositiveresultsof influencersthanwhenmarketingandcorporateevaluationsarecombined.

Pedroni(2016)statedthatsocialmediainfluencersbecomemoreandmoreequalto celebrities. In this research, when focusing on brand attitude and corporatereputation,wecouldstatethatthisistrue.However,theuseofanunknownpersonwasnotsignificantlydifferenttotheuseofsocialmediainfluencersandcelebrities.Thus,wecansaythatsocialmediainfluencersandcelebritiesbothhavethesameeffectonbrandattitude and corporate reputation, but their effect is not significantly different to theeffectofanunknownperson.Namely,thereisnosignificanteffectfoundinthisresearchbetween influencer type and brand attitude or corporate reputation. There was nosignificantdifferenceamongthegroups.

Therewasasignificantpositiveeffectfoundofbrandfamiliarityonbrandattitudeandcorporatereputation.Heath(1990)wasrightwhenhestatedthatthemorefamiliarpeoplearetocertainstimuli,themoretheyperceivetolikeit(ascitedbyLaroche,Kim&Zhou,1996).Apparently,inthisresearch,brandfamiliarityservesascueforquality(Benedicktus,Brady,Darke&Voorhees,2010)andasamainpartofthepreferenceandattitudeformationofrespondents(Zajonc&Markus,1982,ascitedbyLaroche,Kim&Zhou,1996).PereraandChaminda(2013)statedthatahighlevelofbrandfamiliaritycausesagreaterbrandattitude;thisisconfirmedwithinthisresearch.Thisisalsothecaseforcorporatereputation;Lewis(1999)statedthatthebetterknownacompanyis,thebetterthereputationofthecompany.Besidesthat,thedifferenceintheeffectofbrandfamiliarityonbrandattitudeandcorporatereputationwassignificantaswell.Thismeansthatbrandfamiliarityhadasignificantstrongerpositiveeffectoncorporatereputationthanonbrandattitude,regardlessofthetypeofinfluencer.Thevariablesareseenastwoseparates.Itisassumedthatthiscouldbeduetothe

30

previouslybuildupreputationthatrespondentshadaboutthebrandNike,andtheyjustdidnotliketheproducttheywereexposedto.

In case of an unfamiliar brand, it was expected that celebrities have a greatereffect than social media influencers. This turned out to be false; influencers scoredhigher on both brand attitude and corporate reputation than celebrities for anunfamiliarbrand,andbesidesthatanunknownpersongivesevenbetterresultsforbothbrandattitudeandcorporatereputation.Incaseofafamiliarbrand,itwasexpectedthatinfluencers have a greater effect than celebrities. For brand attitude, this is true. Forcorporate reputation it is not true, celebrities score higher than influencers, butunknown persons score even higher. The statement of Kolarova (2018)which claimsthatsocialmediainfluencerscombinedwithafamiliarbrandhasamorepositiveeffectonbrandevaluationsthancelebrityinfluencers,doesapplytobrandattitudebutnottocorporate reputation, for this research. For unfamiliar brands, it was expected thatcelebrities have more impact on brand evaluations than influencers (Freberg et al.,2010),whichisnotthecaseinthisresearch.Influencersscorehigheronbrandattitudeandcorporatereputationandunknownpersonsevenhigher.Unfortunately,theresultswerenotsignificant,andsotheycouldbeacoincidence.

Althoughitwasexpectedthattherewasaninteractioneffectbetweeninfluencertype and brand familiarity, this was not the case. It was expected that celebrityinfluencershaveagreatereffectoncorporate reputationandsocialmedia influencershaveagreatereffectonbrandattitude.However,itseemsthatthereisnodifferenceintheuseofinfluencersforfamiliarorunfamiliarbrandswhenitcomestobrandattitudeand corporate reputation. A familiar brand has more effect on brand attitude andcorporatereputation,anditseemsthattheuseof influencersdoesnothelpunfamiliarbrandstoachieveahigherbrandattitudeorcorporatereputation. Itcouldalsobethecase that social media influencers and celebrities are more and more difficult todistinguish,aswasstatedbyPedroni(2016).

Influencerfitdoesnotplayamoderatingroleontheeffectofinfluencertypeonbrandattitudeandcorporatereputation,butitturnsouttohaveapositivedirecteffecton brand attitude, corporate reputation and influencer type. When the influencer isperceivedtofitwiththebrand,thebrandattitudeandcorporatereputationarehigher.Thus,alsointhiscaseitbecomesclearthatthereshouldbeafitbetweentheinfluencerand the brand, as stated by Doss (2011). In this research, the influencer fit with thebrandseemstobemoreimportantthanthetypeofinfluencerwhenitcomestobrandattitude and corporate reputation. For companies this would mean that it is moreimportanttofocusoninfluencerfitthanoninfluencertypewhencomposinginfluencerstrategies,sinceinfluencertypedoesnothaveasignificanteffectonbrandattitudeandcorporatereputation.Also,thesignificantnegativeeffectof influencerfitoninfluencertype, shows that respondents perceive that celebrities fit more with a brand thanunknownpersonsorinfluencers.

Brand experience has a significant moderating role on the effect of brandfamiliarity onbrandattitude and corporate reputation.Themore experiencewith thebrand, the higher the coherence between brand familiarity and brand attitude or

31

corporate reputation. Brand experience moderates the interaction between brandfamiliarityandbrandattitude,aswellastheinteractionbetweenbrandfamiliarityandcorporate reputation. The statement of Ha and Perks (2005) is confirmed; familiarityand brand experience have great influence on consumers’ outcomes. When therespondent buys products of the brand on a regular basis, familiaritywith the brandleadstoahigherbrandattitudeandcorporatereputation,thanwhentheyjustknowthebrandbutdonotfrequentlybuyanything.Therewasasignificantdirecteffectofbrandexperienceonbrandattitudeandcorporatereputationfoundaswell.

Thenextsectionwillelaborateonthelimitationsoftheresearch.

32

6.LIMITATIONSAs a reflection on the research, the limitations should be elaborated. The limitationshavetobetakenintoaccountwhenconsideringrecommendationsthatarederivedfromtheresearch. The survey was spread through Snowball sampling. This means that theresearcher shared the survey (in this case through social media) and respondentsshareditfurtherandfurther.Forthisreason,allrespondentswerein(theextensionof)the researchers’network,whichcould causebias.Also, since the surveywas inDutchandthesurveywasspreadintheNetherlands,theresultscannotbegeneralized.

Besides that, therewas only one celebrity, influencer and an unknown personusedasstimulusmaterial.Whenotherpeoplewereused, theresultsmighthavebeendifferent than they are now. This also applies to the brands that were used in thestimulusmaterials;theresultsmighthavebeendifferentwhenotherbrandswereused.The unknown brand was fictive in order to make sure that no one could actuallyrecognizeit,butmaybeitcouldinfluencetheresultswhenanexistinglessknownbrandisused.

As statedbyPedroni (2016), consumers tend to identifymorewith influencersthancelebrities.Inthisresearchthisistrue,strictlytaken.Themeanforinfluencerswashigher thanthemeanofcelebrities,but theydonot identifywithbothof them. Itwasalsoaskedwhether they followed the celebrity/influencer, they followed the celebritymoreoftenthantheinfluencerbutalsointhiscase,themeanswerebothonthenegativeside(totallydisagreeanddisagree).Thismakesitplausiblethattherespondentsdidnotidentify with the celebrity, influencer and unknown person that were used in thestimulusmaterials.Manyrespondentsdidnotknowthesocialmediainfluencer,sotheinfluencer that was used was not close to a celebrity just like some influencers are,whichwasdoneonpurpose tomakea cleardistinctionbetween celebrity influencersandsocialmediainfluencers.Maybetheresultswouldhavebeendifferentifoneofthemorefamoussocialmediainfluencerswasused.Thesocialmediainfluencercouldhavethesameeffectofanunknownpersonwithinthisresearch,forpeoplewhodidnotknowthesocialmediainfluencer.Furthermore,theabsenceofaninfluencer(aperson)andabrandonapicturewasnotmeasuredwithin this research; thismade it impossible toderivestatementsabouttheeffectofinfluencers(intermsofanindividualonapicture).

Also, the fact that therewerenosignificantdifferencesbetweencelebritiesandinfluencerscouldbeduetothefactthatcelebritiestendtoactmorelikeinfluencersbygettingmorepersonalwith‘normal’people(Hearn&Schoenhoff,2017).Ofcourse,thelackofdifferencescouldbecausedby thedependentvariables thatwereused (brandattitudeandcorporatereputation).Theremightbesignificantdifferencesthatcouldbedetected by other variables. Also, the variables influencer fit, brand familiarity andbrandexperiencecouldhavebeenmoreextendedlymeasured,forexampleonmultipleitems. Lookingbackonselectingandtestingthestimulusmaterial,thiscouldhavebeendonemoreextendedly.Itwasdecidedtousesportiveinfluencertypesandallfemale,to

33

minimalizedifferencesbetweenthem,butthiswasnotbasedonanyliterature.Fortheunknownperson,a femalewithablackskincolorwasusedwhereasthecelebrityandinfluencerhadawhiteskincolor,causingthatsomerespondentswhowereexposedtotheunknownpersonthoughtthattheresearchhadanythingtodowithskincolor(theymentioned it in the open question ‘why do you think the influencer fits with thebrand?’).ThepersonwasonlychosenbecausetheimagewasthemostsuitableforthePhotoshop adjustments. It might have had an influence on the results, because somepeople could have answered extra positive to show that theywere not influenced byethnicity,orsomethinglikethat.Butthiswasnotavariableatall, theanswerwasnotexpectedonbeforehand. Another limitation is that the stimulus material only consisted of a picture,withoutanycuesofthesocialmediaplatformitwaspostedon.Theresultsmighthavebeen differentwhen thiswas included, just like the number of likes or followers andwhether thepostwas sponsoredornot. Itwas chosennot todo so tominimalize thedifferencesbetweenthestimulusmaterialandthelackofresearchonhowmanylikesorfollowerswouldindicateaninfluenceroracelebrity.

The testing of the stimulus material has been done with use of the questionwhether the respondents knew the person, but the question that should have beenasked is whether they thought they were looking at a celebrity, an influencer or anunknown person. The confusion about whether they were looking at a celebrity,influencerorunknownpersoncouldhaveinfluencedtheresults.Respondentswerenotclearlyenoughinformedthatthereweresixcategories,andthattheywereexposedtoonlyoneofthem.Thereasonwhythiswasdoneistopreventbiasandmeasureprimaryreactionstothestimulusmaterial,butinsomecasesitraisedupquestions.

Alastlimitationisthatthroughasurvey,respondentsfillinwhattheythinkandnotwhattheyactuallywilldo.Influencingpeoplethroughimagesismostofthetimeanunconsciousprocess.Peoplethinkthatsomethingdoesnot influencethem,but in fact,sometimes itwill influence themwithout theirawareness. In thisresearch ithasbeentriedtoreducetheeffectofthis,byusingacontrolgroupwithanunknownperson.

34

7.IMPLICATIONSANDFUTURERESEARCHInthissection, thetheoreticalandfutureresearch(7.1)andpractical implicationsandfutureresearch(7.2)willbediscussed.

7.1TheoreticalimplicationsandfutureresearchThis research shows that when it comes to brand attitude and corporate reputation,brandfamiliarityandexperienceisofgreatimportance.Thisisaconfirmationofmanyresearches that have been conducted so far (Lange& Dahlén, 2003); Laroche, Kim&Zhou, 1996; Lewis, 1999). Out of this research, it becomes clear that there is nointeractioneffectbetween influencer typeandbrand familiarity.So itdoesnotmatterwhich type of influencer is used for a familiar brand or an unfamiliar brandwhen itcomes to brand attitude and corporate reputation. Brand experience should be takenintoaccountwhencomparingbrands.

Furthermore,influencertypedoesnothaveasignificanteffectonbrandattitudeandcorporatereputation.Quitealot(ofthefew)researchesoninfluencersarefocusedoninfluencertypeandincludecomparisonsofvariouslevelsofinfluencers:celebrityvs.social media influencer, micro- vs. meso-influencer, and so on (Hearn & Schoenhoff,2017;Knittel&Stango,2012,Pedroni,2016;Schaefer,2012).However,itturnsouttobemoreimportanttofocusoninfluencerfitwhenitcomestobrandattitudeandcorporatereputation, because it has a direct effect on both of them. More research could beconductedoninfluencerfitwiththeproduct,thebrandorthesocialmediaplatform,forexample. There might be an interaction effect between influencer fit and brandfamiliarity. Besides that, more research should be conducted on the effect betweeninfluencertypeandinfluencerfit. Also,becausethereisnotthatmuchresearchconductedoninfluencersyet,thereshouldbeconductedresearchoninfluencersfrommanydifferentanglesanddisciplines,forexamplepsychologyorneuroscience(inordertofindouttheunconsciousness).Itisrecommendedtouseanotherresearchmethodthanasurvey,tocollectdatathatismorereliableandtomeasurerespondents’physicalreactionsandemotions. For future research it is also recommended to conduct scales to classifyinfluencersunambiguously,includingcategoriesfornumberoffollowers,likes,etcetera.Ifthisturnsouttobeimpossible,influencersshouldbeseenasonegroup(influencersarecelebritiesandcelebritiesareinfluencers).

7.2PracticalimplicationsandfutureresearchApracticalimplicationofthisresearchisthatforbusinessownersormarketingofficers,itisrecommendedtotaketheinfluencerfitwiththebrandintoaccountratherthantheinfluencer type,when it comes tobrandattitudeandcorporatereputation.Outof thisresearch,wecannotconcludethatinfluencermarketinghasasignificanteffect,butwecan say that the type of influencer does not matter for both familiar and unfamiliarbrands, when it comes to brand attitude and corporate reputation. Since brandfamiliarity has a positive influence on brand attitude and corporate reputation, it isrecommended tomake sure that people recognize and are familiar with your brand.

35

Also, the fact that influencer type does not affect brand attitude and corporatereputation,itdoesnotmeanthatadvertisingthroughblogsorInstagramforexampleisnoteffective. Besides that, for practice, it is necessary to keep track of the popularity ofinfluencers and social media platforms. It could be that with the disappearance orreducedpopularityof forexample Instagram, just likewhat ishappening toFacebooknowadays,influencerswillnotbeaninterestingresearchtopicanymoreinthefuture.

36

8.CONCLUSIONNowadays influencermarketing is a hot topic. However, relatively little research hasbeen conducted on it. In this research, the goalwas to find outwhat influencer typeshould be used when regarding brand attitude and corporate reputation and whichinfluencertypefitsbestwithfamiliarandunfamiliarbrandsintermsofbrandattitudeandcorporatereputation. Influencerfitandbrandexperienceweretakenintoaccountasmoderators. Theresearchwasconductedwithuseofanonlinesurveyinwhichrespondentswereexposedtostimulusmaterial.Thereweresixconditions,whichwerederivedfromthe 3x2 experiment: celebrity, influencer or unknown person x familiar brand orunfamiliarbrand.Theindependentvariablesinfluencertypeandbrandfamiliarityweretestedonthedependentvariablesbrandattitudeandcorporatereputation. From the results it can be concluded that influencer type does not have asignificanteffectonbrandattitudeandcorporatereputationandinfluencerfitdoesnothaveamoderatingroleontheeffectofinfluencertypeonbrandattitudeandcorporatereputation.Ontheotherhand,brandfamiliaritydoeshaveapositivesignificanteffectonbrand attitude and corporate reputation, as well as brand experience has a directpositiveeffectonthedependentvariablesandamoderatingeffectontheeffectofbrandfamiliarity on the dependent variables. There was no interaction effect betweeninfluencertypeandbrandfamiliarity,sowecannotsaythatforanunfamiliarorfamiliarbrandaparticularinfluencertypeismoreefficienttouse.However,influencerfitturnedouttohaveapositivesignificanteffectonbrandattitudeandcorporatereputation.So,ifan influencer has a perceived fit with a brand, the brand attitude and corporatereputationaremorepositive. Theresearchshowsthatbrandattitudeandcorporatereputationarenotaffectedby influencer type, but since there is a huge area still uncultivated and regarding thelimitationsof this research, it is advised to testmultipleothervariableson influencertypeandbesidesthat, investigatemoreontheeffectofinfluencerfitonbrandattitudeandcorporatereputation.

37

REFERENCESAbidin, C. & Ots, M. (2015). The influencer’s dilemma: The shaping of new brand p rofessionsbetweencredibilityandcommerce.SanFransisco:AEJMC.Aghekyan-Simonian,M.,Forsythe,S.,Kwon,W.S.,&Chattaraman,V.(2012).TheRoleof Product Brand Image and Online Store Image on Perceived Risks and Online PurchaseIntentionsforApparel.JournalofRetailingandConsumerServices,19, 325-331.Allsop,D.T.,Bassett,B.R.,&Hoskins, J.A.(2007).Word-of-mouthresearch:Principles andapplications.JournalofAdvertisingResearch,47,398-411.Argenti,P.,&Druckenmiller,B.(2004).Inpractice:Reputationandthecorporatebrand. CorporateReputationReview,6(4),368-374.Becker, K., Nobre, H., & Kanabar, V. (2013). Monitoring and protecting company and brandreputationinsocialnetworks:whensitesarenotenough.GlobalBusiness andEconomicsReview,15,293-308.Benedicktus, R. L., Brady, M. K., Darke, P. R., & Voorhees, C. M. (2010). Conveying Trustworthiness to Online Consumers: Reactions to Consensus, Physical Store Presence, Brand Familiarity, and Generalized Suspicion. Journal of Retailing, 86(4),322-335.Berthon,P.,Ewing,M.T.,&Napoli, J. (2008).BrandManagement inSmall toMedium- SizedEnterprises.JournalofSmallBusinessManagement,46(1),27-45.Boorstin,D.J.(1961).Theimage:Aguidetopseudo-eventsinAmerica.NewYork:Harper &Row.Booth,N.,&Matic, J.A.(2010).MappingandLeveragingInfluencers inSocialMediato ShapeCorporateBrandPerceptions.ProceedingsoftheConferenceonCorporate Communication,16-25.Cambridge, J. (2002). Global ProductBranding and International Education. Journalof ResearchinInternationalEducation,1(2),227-243.Chun,R.(2005).Corporatereputation:Meaningandmeasurement.InternationalJournal ofManagementReviews,7(2),91-109.Churchill, G. A., & Surprenant, C. (1982). Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit. SociologicalMethods&Research,21(2),230-258.Cohen,L.,Manion,L.,&Morrison,K.(2007).ResearchMethodsinEducation.NewYork: Routledge,Taylor&FrancisGroupe-Library.Coursaris,C.,K.,VanOsch,W.,&Kourganoff,C. (2018).DesigningtheMediumandthe MessageforSponsorshipRecognitiononSocialMedia:TheInterplayofInfluencer Type, Disclosure Type, and Consumer Culture. SIGHCI 2018 Proceedings, 15. https://aisel.aisnet.org/sighci2018/15.Coviello,N.E.,Brodie,R.J.,&Munro,H.J.(2000).AnInvestigationofMarketingPractice byFirmSize.JournalofBusinessVenturing,15,523-545.Djafarova, E., & Rushworth, C. (2017). Exploring the credibility of online celebrities’’ Instagramprofiles in influencing thepurchasedecisionsof young femaleusers. ComputeresinHumanBehavior,68,1-7.

38

Doss,S.(2011).Thetransferenceofbrandattitude:theeffectonthecelebrityendorser. JournalofManagementandMarketingResearch,7(1),1-11.Eccles, R. G., Newquist, S. C., & Schatz, R. (2007). Reputation and Its Risks. Harvard BusinessReview,1-10.Fombrun,C. (1996).Reputation:Realizingvalueformthecorporateimage.Boston,MA: HarvardBusinessSchool.Fobmrun,C. J., Ponzi, L. J.,&Newburry,W. (2005). Stakeholder tracking andanalysis: The RepTrak® system for measuring corporate reputation. Corporate ReputationReview, 18(1),3-24.Fraser, B. P., & Brown, W. J. (2002). Media, Celebrities, and Social Influence: IdentificationWithElvisPresley.MassCommunication&Society,5(2),183-206Freberg,K.,Graham,K.,McGaughey,K.,&Freberg,L.A.(2010).Whoarethesocialmedia influencers?Astudyofpublicperceptionsofpersonality.PublicRelationsReview. Doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.11.001.Ha,H.Y.,&Perks,H.(2005).Effectsofconsumerperceptionsofbrandexperienceonthe web: Brand familiarity, satisfaction and brand trust. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 4(6),438-452.Hankinson, G. & Cowking, P. (1993). Branding in Action: Cases and Strategies for ProfitableBrandManagement.Maidenhead:McGraw-Hill.Hatch,M.J.,Schultz,M.,&Williamson,J.(2001).BringingtheCorporationintoCorporate Branding.EuropeanJournalofMarketing,37(8),1041-1064.Heath,T.B.(1990).TheLogicofMereExposure:AReinterpretationofAnand,Holbrook andStephens.JournalofConsumerResearch,17,237-241.Jarvis,W.,&Goodman,S. (2005).Effectivemarketingof smallbrands:nichepositions, attribute loyalty anddirectmarketing. JournalofProduct&BrandManagement, 14(5),292-299.Jie,C.T.,Yin,L.S.,Nadarajan,P.,&Ramayah,P.(2016).AReviewofReputationFacetsof SelectedPublic-listedCompaniesinMalaysiaBasedonRepTrak™Model.Journal ofHumanCapitalDevelopment,9(2),1-18.Kang,M.Y.&Park,B. (2018).SustainableCorporateSocialMediaMarketingBasedon MessageStructuralFeatures:FirmSizePlaysaSignificantRoleas aModerator. Sustainability,10(1167),1-14.Kardes,F.R.,&Herr,P.(1992).TheRoleofPriorKnowledgeandMissingInformationin MultiattributeEvaluation.OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses, 51,76-91.Keh,H.T.,&Xie,Y. (2009).Corporate reputationand customerbehavioral intentions: The roles of trust, identification and commitment. Industrial Marketing Managemnet,38,732-742.Khamis,S.,Ang,L.,&Welling,R.(2016).Self-branding, ‘micro-celebrity’andtheriseof SocialMediaInfluencers.CelebrityStudies,1-18.Kim, S. S., Lee, J., & Prideaux (2014). Effect of celebrity endorsement on tourists’ perception of corporate image, corporate credibility and corporate loyalty. InternationalJournalofHospitalityManagement,37,131-145.

39

Knittel,C.R.,&Stango,V. (2012).CelebrityEndorsements,FirmValueandReputation Risk:EvidencefromtheTigerWoodsScandal.ManagementScience,60(1),21-37.Kolarova, M. (2018). #Influencer marketing. The effects of influencer type, brand familiarity, andsponsorshipdisclosureonpurchaseintentionandbrandtrust onInstagram. University of Twente, Faculty of BMS. Derived from: https://essay.utwente.nl/74581/1/Kolarova_MA_BMS.pdfKudeshia, C., & Kumar, A. (2016). Social eWOM: does it affect the brand attitude and purchaseintentionofbrands?ManagementResearchReview,40(3),310-330.Laroche, M., Kim, Ch., & Zhou, L. (1996). Brand Familiarity and Confidence as Determinants of Purchase Intention: An Empricial test in a Multiple Brand Context.JournalofBusinessResearch,37,115-120.Lange, F., & Dahlén, M. (2003). Let’s be strange: brand familiarity and ad-brand incongruency.JournalofProduct&BrandManagement,12(7),449-461.Lee, J., Park, D. & Han, I. (2007). The effect of negative online consumer reviews on productattitude:An informationprocessingview.Elsevier,ElectronicCommerce andApplications,7(2007),341-352.Lewis,S.(1999).MeasuringCorporateReputation.London:MORI.Low, G. S., & Jr, C. W. L. (2000). The measurement and dimensionality of brand associations.JournalofProduct&BrandManagement,9(6),350-398.Marwick,A.(2016).YouMayKnowMefromYouTube.(Micro-)CelebrityinSocialMedia. ACompaniontoCelebrity,333-350.Meadows,C.Z.&Meadows,C.W.(2016).CorporateReputationonMassMedia,Public Opinion,andYouTube:ExaminingtheFactorsInfluencingReputationofFortune 500Companies.CorporateReputationReview,19(4),345-356Mitchell,A.A.,&Olson,J.C.(1981).AreProductAttributeBeliefstheOnlyMediatorof Advertising Effects on Brand attitude? Journal ofMarketing Research, 18, 318- 332.Munch,J.M.,Boller,G.W.,&Swasy,J.L.(1993).TheEffectsofArgumentStructureand AffectiveTaggingonProductAttitudeFormation. JournalofConsumerResearch, 20(2),294-302.Neystadt,E.,Karidi,R.,Weisfeild,Y.T.,Tennenholtz,M.,Radinsky,K.,&Varshavsky,R. (2011).SocialInfluencersDiscovery.USApplicationUS20120209920A1,Microsoft Corp.Parera,L.C.R.,&Chaminda,J.W.D.(2013).CorporateSocialResponsibilityandProduct Evaluation: The Moderating Role of Brand Familiarity. Corporate Social ResponsibilityandEnvironmentalManagement,20,245-256.Pedroni, M. (2016). Meso-celebrities, fashion and the media: How digital influencers struggleforvisibility.Film,Fashion&Consumption,5(1),103-121.Pornpitakpan,C.(2004).ThePersuasivenessofSourceCredibility:ACriticalReviewof Five Decades’Evidence.JournalofAppliedSocialPsychology,34(2),243-281.Raun, T. (2018). Capitalizing intimacy: New subcultural forms of micro-celebrity strategiesandaffectivelabouronYouTube.TheInternationalJournalofResearch intoNewMediaTechnologies,24(1),99-113.

40

Reputation Institute (2014). 2014 Global RepTrak® 100: TheWorld’s Most Reputable Companies.NewYork:ReputationInstitute.Sammis, K., Lincoln, C. & Pomponi S. (2016). Influencermarketing for dummies. New Jersey:JohnWiley&Sons.Schaefer, M. (2012). Return on Influence: The Revolutionary Power of Klout, Social Scoring,andInfluenceMarketing.NewYork:McGrawHill.Schivinski, B., & Dabrowski, D. (2014). The effect of social-media communication on consumer perceptions of brands. Gdańsk University of Technology, Faculty of MangementandEconomics,12.Subramani,M.R.,&Rajagopalan,B.(2003).Knowledge-SharingandInfluenceinOnline Social Networks via Viral Marketing. Communications of the ACM, 46(12), 300- 307.Van Norel, N. D., Kommers, P. A. M., Van Hoof, J. J., & Verhoeven, J. W. M. (2014). Damaged corporate reputation: Can celebrity Tweets repair it? Computers in HumanBehavior,36,308-315.Valente,T.W.,&Pumpuang,P.(2007).Identifyingopinionleaderstopromotebehavior change.HealthEducationandBehavior,34,881-896.Wang, Y., Kandampully, J. A., Lo, H. & Shi G. (2006). The Roles of Brand Equity and Corporate Reputation in CRM: A Chinese Study. Corporate Reputation Review, 9(3), 179-197.Ward, M. R., & Lee, M. J. (2000). Internet Shopping, Consumer Search and Product Branding.JournalofProduct&BrandManagement,9(1),6-20.Williams,B.,Onsman,A.,&Brown,T.(2010).Exploratoryanalysis:Afive-stepguidefor novices.JournalofEmergencyPrimaryHealthCare,3(8).Woods, S. (2016). #Sponsored: The Emergence of Influencer Marketing. Knoxville: UniversityofTennessee.Young, S., & Pinsky, D. (2006). Narcissism and celebrity. Journal of Research in Personality,40,463-471.Zajonc,R.B.,&Markus,H.(1982).AffectiveandCognitiveFactorsinPreferences.Journal ofConsumerResearch,9,123-131.Zhou, L., & Whitla, P. (2013). How negative celebrity publicity influences consumer attitudes: Themediating role ofmoral reputation. JournalofBusinessResearch, 66, 1013-1020.Zietek,N.(2016).Thecharacteristicsandcomponentsof fashioninfluencermarketing. TheSwedishSchoolofTextiles,1-39.