FINAL MASTER THESIS - Valentine Seivert

Academic Year 2012-2013 Seivert Valentine 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

There are many examples of multiple brands endorsement, even more than simple

endorsement in our everyday life. Indeed, for financial reasons, celebrities will prefer to

endorse more than one brand. However, according to many researchers, multiple brands

endorsement might be harmful for the brands as well as for the celebrity.

The purpose of this study is to investigate the difference of the effect of the endorser’s

characteristics such as expertise, trustworthiness, attractiveness or likeability on the degree of

memorability, the brand attitude and the attitude toward purchase in both cases: multiple and

simple endorsement.

The structure will be as follows: the introduction will formulate the research questions and the

sub-questions. The literature review will show then what is already known about celebrity

endorsers, the attitude, the memorability and the multiple brands endorsement. A survey of

undergraduate students will be then conducted and explained.

A total of 103 undergraduate students participated to the study. All of those students belonged

to the 18-25 years old category. Results revealed that under low involvement conditions, the

endorser’s characteristics have a positive impact on the attitude toward the purchase, the

memorability’s degree and the brand attitude. This impact is even stronger when the number

of brands endorsed is taken into consideration. However, when considered separately, both

endorser’s characteristics, the likeability and the trustworthiness, have a positive impact on

the attitude toward the purchase. To conclude, results showed that the endorser’s

trustworthiness had a negative impact on the memorability’s degree in both cases: simple and

multiple brands endorsement.


RAPPORT SOMMAIRE

Actuellement, les stars préfèrent, pour des raisons financières, représenter plusieurs marques

qu’une seule. Les célébrités cherchent régulièrement à accumuler les différents contrats

publicitaires alors que certaines recherches menées jusqu’ici démontrent clairement l’effet

néfaste que cela peut avoir sur la marque ou la célébrité elle-même.

Le but de cette étude est d’examiner, pour des produits à faible implication, la différence entre

l’impact que les caractéristiques de la célébrité ont sur le degré de mémorisation, l’attitude

face à la marque et face à l’achat selon qu’elle représente un ou plusieurs marques.

Le plan de la recherche débute par l’introduction. Elle annonce la question de recherche ainsi

que plusieurs sous-questions. La revue de littérature reprend, ensuite, la théorie connue sur le

« celebrity endorsement », l’attitude, la mémorisation et le « multiple brands endorsement ».

Pour étayer ce propos, une enquête auprès de 103 élèves universitaires, âgés de 18 à 25 ans, a

été menée. Les résultats ont montré que pour des produits à faible implication, les

caractéristiques de la célébrité ont un impact positif sur l’attitude face à la marque, l’attitude

face à l’achat et le degré de mémorisation. Cet impact est encore plus important lorsque le

candidat connaît les multiples représentations de la célébrité. Cependant, lorsque les

caractéristiques de la célébrité sont considérées séparément, les résultats montrent que sa

sympathie et sa fiabilité ont un impact positif sur l’attitude face à l’achat. Pour conclure, les

résultats ont montré que la fiabilité de la célébrité a un impact négatif sur le degré de

mémorisation, que celle-ci représente une ou plusieurs marques.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to my promoter Mrs Céline Brandt. Thanks for

answering all my questions and helping me developing this research.

Special thanks also to my reader Mr Charles Pahud De Mortranges. Thank you for your help,

patience and agreement when I asked you to conduct my survey at the end of your courses.

Also thanks also to Mrs Gentianne Haesbroek for agreeing without hesitation to answer all

my statistics questions.

My gratitude also goes to Mr Michael Ghilissen for advising me at the end of last year on my

thesis’ subject, but also for answering my questions. I really appreciate all your guidance.

Many thanks also to Olivier Mainville, former student at HEC, for correcting all my English

mistakes. It was a big help to me!

The most special thanks go to my partner and friend, Michael Franken, who gave me an

unconditional support through all this long process.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 9

1.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 9

1.2. Research motivation ................................................................................................................. 10

Business economics motivation ............................................................................................... 10

Academic motivation ................................................................................................................ 11

1.3. Problem statement ................................................................................................................... 11

Sub-questions ........................................................................................................................... 12

1.4. Contribution ............................................................................................................................. 12

1.5. Approach .................................................................................................................................. 12

2. Literature review .............................................................................................................15

2.1. Brand and brand equity ............................................................................................................ 15

The brand.................................................................................................................................. 15

Brand equity ............................................................................................................................. 15

The brand function ................................................................................................................... 16

2.2. Celebrity endorser .................................................................................................................... 17

Definition .................................................................................................................................. 17

History ...................................................................................................................................... 17

Categories of celebrity endorsers ............................................................................................. 18

Advantages of celebrity endorsers ........................................................................................... 18

2.3. The Butterfield Model .............................................................................................................. 19

2.4. Celebrity characteristics ........................................................................................................... 19

Source attractiveness Model and Source-credibility Model .................................................... 20

Meanings’ transfer model based on the endorsement process .............................................. 23

Congruence ............................................................................................................................... 24

2.5. Pros and Cons of the celebrity endorsement ........................................................................... 26

2.6. Attitude ..................................................................................................................................... 27

Attitude toward an object (A0) ................................................................................................ 27

Attitude toward behavior (Aact) .............................................................................................. 28

Attitude toward the purchase (Aact) ....................................................................................... 28

Brand attitude .......................................................................................................................... 28

2.7. Memorability ............................................................................................................................ 29


Learning in memory .................................................................................................................. 29

Factors influencing activation................................................................................................... 30

2.8. Brand attachment ..................................................................................................................... 30

2.9. Involvement level ..................................................................................................................... 30

Brand involvement ................................................................................................................... 30

Brand persuasion ...................................................................................................................... 31

Brand Likelihood Model of persuasion ..................................................................................... 31

2.10. Celebrity Multiple brand endorsements .................................................................................. 33

Negative points of view ............................................................................................................ 33

Positive points of view .............................................................................................................. 33

2.11. Summary of the review of Literature ....................................................................................... 34

2.12. Conceptual Model .................................................................................................................... 36

2.13. Choice of variables .................................................................................................................... 37

Independent variables .............................................................................................................. 37

Dependent variables ................................................................................................................. 38

Moderator variables ................................................................................................................. 38

2.14. Hypotheses ............................................................................................................................... 38

3. Research design ..............................................................................................................41

3.1. Research Methodology ............................................................................................................. 41

3.2. Sample choice ........................................................................................................................... 41

3.3. Research execution .................................................................................................................. 41

Construction of the survey and the advertisements ................................................................ 41

Structure of the survey ............................................................................................................. 42

Measurement items ................................................................................................................. 42

Scenarios ................................................................................................................................... 43

Focus group .............................................................................................................................. 43

4. Results ............................................................................................................................45

4.1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 45

4.2. Sample profile ........................................................................................................................... 45

4.3. Cronbach’s alpha statistic ......................................................................................................... 46

4.4. Statistical significance (p-value) ............................................................................................... 46


4.5. Statistical analysis ..................................................................................................................... 47

Linear regression: theory .......................................................................................................... 47

Linear regression: statistical calculations ................................................................................. 47

5. Discussion .......................................................................................................................55

5.1. Evaluation of the hypothesis .................................................................................................... 55

5.2. Summary of the results on the conceptual model ................................................................... 58

6. Conclusion ......................................................................................................................61

6.1. Summary of the research paper ............................................................................................... 61

6.2. Theoretical implication ............................................................................................................. 62

6.3. Managerial implications: recommendations ............................................................................ 62

6.4. Limitations and suggestions for further research .................................................................... 64

7. References ......................................................................................................................65

8. Appendixes .....................................................................................................................73

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Percentage of celebrity endorsement in advertisements

Figure 2: Brand equity and its five dimensions

Figure 3: Butterfly Model

Figure 4: Meaning’s transfer in the endorsement process

Figure 5: Schematic representation of conceptual framework relating beliefs, attitudes,

intentions and behaviors with respect to a given object

Figure 6: Two routes to persuasion in the ELM

Figure 7: Demographic analysis of the sample


LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: TEARS Model

Table 2: Pros and Cons of celebrity endorsement

Table 3: Measurement items: the endorser’s characteristics

Table 4: Measurement items: attitude toward the purchase

Table 5: Measurement items: brand attitude

Table 6: Measurement items: degree of memorability

Table 8: Items and Cronbach’s alphas

Table 9: Statistical analysis of the impact of the endorser’s characteristics on the attitude

toward purchase

Table 10: Statistical analysis of the impact of the endorser’s characteristics on the brand

attitude

Table 11: Statistical analysis of the impact of the endorser’s characteristics on the degree of

memorability

Table 12: Statistical analysis of the impact of the endorser’s characteristics on the attitude

toward the purchase when moderated by the number of brands endorsed

Table 13: Statistical analysis of the impact of the endorser’s characteristics on the brand

attitude when moderated by the number of brands endorsed

Table 14: Statistical analysis of the impact of the endorser’s characteristics on the

memorability’s degree when moderated by the number of brands endorsed.


1. Introduction

1.1. Introduction

For many years, celebrities’ influence has been in our everyday life. We all have been

confronted with famous people endorsing big brand in advertisings. For instance, we all have

seen Nespresso TV ad with Georges Clooney, Sketchers’ sneakers advertisement with Britney

Spears or even Michael Jordan’s for Nike. Celebrity endorsement is a goldmine for brands.

This advertising tool often has a positive influence on the turnover of the endorsed companies

if celebrities convey a positive image on a long-term period of time. Indeed, celebrities are

people who take advantage of public recognition and of a high degree of public awareness.

For long time, TV shows’ stars, big actors, sportsmen have often been paid huge amounts of

money to endorse brands. A bit before 1900 in France, Sarah Bernhardt was already

appearing on La Diaphane advertising, a rice’s dust brand (Lehu, 1993). However, celebrity

endorsement has only been accepted as an actual mean of advertising in the 80’ with the

development of the cinema. Indeed, the number of movies and TV shows then increased and

the bad commercial image celebrity endorsement had before the 70’ considerably decreased

(Erdogan, 1999).

In France, in the 80’s, the famous actress Catherine Deneuve endorsed Suez (Fleck-

Dousteyssier & Korchia, 2006). Between 2000 and 2004, 700 companies used celebrities in

TV advertising which means that celebrity endorsement observed an increase of around 60%

(Neumann, 2006, as cited in Fleck-Dousteyssier & Korchia, 2006). In the United States, at the

same period, around 25% of advertisements used celebrity endorsement (Shimp, 2000 as cited

in Amos, Holmes & Strutton, 2008) although in Great Britain, it was estimated at around 20%

(Erdogan, 2001).

Figure 1: Percentage of celebrity endorsement in advertisements.


Source: Erdogan, B.Z. (1999). Celebrity endorsement: a literature review. Journal of

Marketing Management, 15, p.292.

However, with an average of 70%, this was and still is in Korea and Japan than celebrity

endorsement enjoys the greater success (Um, 2008).

For financial reasons, celebrities will prefer to endorse more than one brand. The main issue

of multiple brands endorsement is the fact that it reveals to the consumer the real basis of the

endorsement, money.

1.2. Research motivation

Business economics motivation

There are several reasons explaining the success of this phenomenon. Those, when they are

respected by the audience, are really effective as they have a positive influence on consumer’s

attitude, on brand awareness, on advertising recall, on purchase intention toward the endorsed

brands and finally they generate an efficient PR effect which can make new brands quickly

known (Um, 2008).

Celebrities are also effective in changing brand positioning or in promoting new brand images

(Erdogan, 2001). According to Keller (2008), when they do celebrity endorsement, the

brands enhance second associations from celebrity and build brand image and finally get

better their brand equity. Indeed, if a company wants to change its brand positioning in the

mind of its customer, it will have to find a celebrity who has the right profile. The meanings

developed around the celebrity will be transferred to the company and then to the brand’s

customers. The brand and the celebrity endorser will match to make a “couple”, in which the

customer will be involved. The more the celebrity is involved in the brand, the more he/she is

linked to it (Pringle, 2008).

However, marketeers should be really careful when choosing the endorser. Before endorsing

a celebrity, the marketeers might think about the following key questions: “How well does

this particular celebrity fit in with the brand?”, “how famous is the star?”, “which facets of

this high-profile person can best work for the brand profile?” and “how much of this can the


brand finance” (Pringle, 2008, pp.107-108)? Moreover, negative information about the star

may as well negatively impact consumer’s attitude and purchasing intention (Till & Shimp,

1998).

Academic motivation

Regarding multiple endorsements, two possible scenarios can be considered: multiple

celebrities’ endorsement, which means that several celebrities endorse a single brand or

celebrity multiple brands endorsement, which means that a single celebrity endorses several

brands.

These both practices seem to be now more frequent than “simple endorsement” (one celebrity

endorsing one brand only) in advertising industry. Single celebrity endorsement even

becomes even rare. In fact, in India and China, the most famous celebrities can endorse more

than ten different brands in a single year (Subhadip, 2012).

Multiple endorsements and, more accurately celebrity multiple brands endorsement, has not

been deeply discussed by researchers. Those have ambivalent positions. Some of them think

multiple endorsements might generate negative image of the brand, for instance, in case of

overexposure of the celebrity (Mowen & Brown, 1981). Nevertheless, others think that even

if the risk of endorsing celebrity and its cost are high, the return of the celebrity’s influence

can also be really positive (Amos et al., 2008).

1.3. Problem statement

The main research question of this master thesis can be formulated as follows:

Under low involvement conditions, does the number of endorsements moderates the

impact that the endorser’s characteristics have on the brand attitude, the attitude

toward the purchase and the degree of memorability?

The goal of this thesis will be to analyze the impact the endorser’s characteristics

(attractiveness, likeability, trustworthiness and expertise) have on brand attitude, attitude

toward the purchase and the degree of memorability of the advertisement. Those elements

will be measured in case of simple endorsement as well as in case of celebrity multiple brands


endorsement in order to analyze the moderator effect of the number of brands endorsed by a

single celebrity.

Arising from that main question, the sub-questions will be studied to limit the research.

Sub-questions

Should marketeers avoid a celebrity who has a special characteristic? Should they give

priority to celebrity who has a special characteristic?

Should the marketeers give priority to simple endorser to endorse his brand?

Under low involvement conditions, which of the dependent variables (degree of

memorability, attitude toward the purchase and brand attitude) is the most affected by

the endorser’s characteristics?

1.4. Contribution

The expected benefits of this study will be to demonstrate to marketeers that multiple brands

endorsement is not harmful to the brand. In other words, the goal of this study will be to

prove that even in the case of multiple brands endorsement, the second meanings created

around a celebrity will be transferred to the consumers and will enhance the consumer’s

memorability and attitude.

1.5. Approach

The chapters of this study will be structured as follows. The next chapter (Chapter 2) will

review what is already known about the endorsers, celebrity endorsements and multiple

brands endorsement as well as the dependent variables. Then the main hypotheses and the

conceptual model will be established.

Chapter three will detail the different steps of the experiment, explaining the focus group

development, the sample choice and the two main market studies elaboration.


Chapter four will focus on analyzing the results of the previous experiment and so, the test of

the hypotheses.

Chapter five will explore the meaning of the previous findings and finally. Chapter six will

summarize the study and draw conclusions as well as the limitations of the research.


2. Literature review

2.1. Brand and brand equity

The brand is really important to the companies but to the consumers as well. Indeed, it helps

consumers to differentiate their products. In the 80’s, researchers measured brand equity from

a financial point of view as well as from a customer-based point of view. In this thesis, the

research will only focus from a customer-based point of view.

The brand

For the AMA, the American Marketing Association, a brand is “a name, a term, a sign, a

symbol or a combination of them that is designed to identify the goods or services of one

seller or a group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of competitors” (Keller, 2008,

p.4). Whenever a marketeer creates a new name, logo, symbol, etc. for a new product, he

creates a brand (Keller, Apéria & Georgson, 2008). One of the objectives of a brand will be to

help the customers in their purchase decision (Jobber, 2007).

Brand equity

Aaker (1994) divides brand equity in five points. He defines the different concepts of the

brand equity as follows. According to him, the brand equity is first composed by the loyalty

which is the measure of consumer’s attachment to a brand. It reveals the tendency to change

for another brand, mainly when competitors decrease their prices or change their features.

Brand equity only exists if the loyalty is tied to the brand.

Secondly, the notoriety is another point of the brand equity Aaker (1994) listed. It determines

the notoriety as the capacity to recognize or to remind that a brand exists and belongs to a

product category. It supposes the existence of a bound between the brand and the product.

Another important point of the brand equity is the perceived quality. This perceived quality is

different according each category of products. It is the idea of the quality the consumer (and

only him) has about a product or a service. It depends of the expectations and alternatives the

consumer has between competitors.


The next point of brand equity is the brand image. Aaker (1994) defines it as the set of

associated representations which make the value.

Finally, the last point of brand equity enumerated by Aaker is composed by the other brand

assets such as registered trademark, the connections, etc. that could separate the brand from

those of the competitors (Aaker, 1994).

Figure 2: Brand equity and its five dimensions

Source: Aaker, D.A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand

name. New York: Free Press, p.1.

The brand function

The function of a brand has been studied by various researchers. It increases or decreases the

value of the good or service and eases the consumer’s task by helping him to receive, deal and

store information about the product (Aaker, 1994). Moreover, Aaker states that brand equity

generates extra cash-flow for the company because it increases the visibility and the

credibility of advertising, eases indexation, encourages consumers to try new products, etc.


Finally, Montgomery (1975, as cited in Weitz & Wensley, 2002) noticed that having a strong

brand can help to have a higher chance of being on shelf space of supermarkets as stores are

more likely to distribute famous brands.

The brand is strongly associated with consumer product assessments, purchase intentions and

quality perception (Brown & Dacin, 1997; Day & Deutscher, 1982; Dodds et al., 1991;

Leclerc et al., 1994; Rao & Mooroe, 1989 as cited in Weitz & Wensley, 2002). For that

reason, consumers are less sensitive to a price increase if they are loyal to a brand

(Krishnamurthi & Raj, 1991). Advertising may also play a role in the decrease in price

sensitivity (Kanetkar et al., 1992, as cited in Weitz & Wensley, 2002).

2.2. Celebrity endorser

Definition

Friedman and Friedman (1979) define celebrities as individuals who are known for their

achievements. However, according to McCracken (1989, p.310), a celebrity endorser is “any

individual who enjoys public recognition and who uses this recognition on behalf of a

consumer good by appearing with it in an advertisement”. Television stars, movie actors,

famous athletes, and even dead personalities are widely used to endorse brands and so,

influence consumers’ attitudes and behaviors (Shimp, 2007).

History

Companies invest large amounts of money to convince celebrities to endorse their products

and/or brand (Jaiprakash, 2008). One sixth of world’s ads endorse celebrities (Shimp, 2007).

In the US, 25% of all TV ads feature celebrities (Erdogan et al., 2001).

Celebrity endorsement in advertising started long time ago (Najmi, 2011). However, in the

past, this strategy was seen as the result of a celebrity failure but benefited to the spread of

cinema to develop itself (McDonough, 1995). It was even seen as a short trend (Lehu, 1993).

Recently, mindset changed. Celebrity endorsement became an element of the marketing

communication’s strategy (Erdogan, 1999) and managers tried to exploit the transfer of

meanings that occurs from an endorser to products or brand involved (McCraccken, 1986).


Categories of celebrity endorsers

In 1979, Friedman and Friedman differentiated three kinds of celebrity endorsers. The first

category includes celebrities such as sportsmen whose achievement are not directly tied to the

endorsed product. Then, the second category covers the experts. Those are spokesmen who

have a professional opinion on the product and gain more easily confidence of consumers as

they have a personal experience with the product. Finally, the third category is composed of

consumers, those who have the same position as the audience (Chia-Ching, 2012)

Advantages of celebrity endorsers

The question is: what is it useful for? Fleck-Dousteyssier & Korchia (2006; p.4) cite Erdogan

(2001) and say “that it’s a good way to face “banalisation” in saturated markets, to position

itself in the consumer’s mind and to keep a strong exposition from the Media during the brand

events with celebrities”.

Erfgen (2011, p.4) thinks that “communication activities establish a pattern of connectivity

between the image of the celebrity and the image of the brand and that both entities represent

nodes in a cognitive network, whose connectivity can be modified according to the

experience”. When the communication creates contingency between the two entities, the

transfer of image occurs (Till, 1998).

Moreover, a celebrity use is efficient to determine the product category, the sector or the

service category (Aaker, 1994). Noah, Michael Jordan or Justine Henin, for instance, are

often used to represent sports’ items or energy products. This communication strategy then

positively influences the buyer’s purchase intention and is revealed to be a success factor for

brand image effects (Amos et al., 2008; Erdogan et al., 2001). Stock prices have also been

shown to rise when companies announce celebrity endorsement contracts (Shimp, 2007).

Finally, celebrities can help companies to be consistent, famous and likeable, which are very

important to succeed in the actual environment (Pringle, 2008).


2.3. The Butterfield Model

The Butterfield Model can explain in which context celebrities have to endorse the product or

brand and why they have such influence. The reason celebrity endorsement knows such a

success is determined by the fact that “they are much more likely to be “invited in” by

customers” (Pringle, 2004, p.68). Moreover, people are very familiar to them because of their

awareness; this means that if they are carefully selected for endorsing the brand, celebrities

will provide easier resonance and subscription on decision process (Pringle, 2004).

Figure 3: Butterfly Model

Have I heard of this organization/institution/individual?

Do I have a ‘picture’ of who they are/what they ‘stand for’/even what

images come to mind?

Do I know something about them?

Do they ‘mean’ anything to me (actions, behaviors, values etc.)? Do they

have any direct linkages or usages in my past/present/future life?

Do you like them/empathize with them?

Will I use/visit/support/recommend etc. this brand at a relevant moment

now or in the future?

Source: Pringle, H. (2004). Celebrity sells. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, p.68.

2.4. Celebrity characteristics

Companies have power over created spokespersons since they develop these characters

(Erdogan, 1999). They create characters that are congruent with the brand or the consumers

and make sure that they endorse their product correctly (Tom et al., 1992). Nevertheless,

Erdogan argues that if they choose celebrity endorsers, companies have much more limited

control over them as they have created their public person over the years. On the other hand,


Tom and al. study proved that created endorsers were more efficient than celebrity endorsers

in creating a link to the product. “The linkage is strong in created spokespersons, as it is

unique, whereas the linkage is weak in the case of celebrity endorsers because of other

associations” (Erdogan, p.293). According to Mehta (1994, as cited in Erdogan, 1999), there

is not a huge difference in attitudes toward the advertising, the brand or the purchase

intentions when using celebrity or non-celebrity endorsers, but different cognitive answers by

the recipient who focuses more on the brand and its features when there is no celebrity.

Nevertheless, all studies don’t end with the same results. Atkin and Block (1983) and Petty,

Cacioppo and Schulman (1983) declared that celebrity endorsers generated more positive

attitudes and more purchasing intention than non-celebrity endorsers. Additionally, Mathur

L.K., Mathur I. And Rangan (1997) even conducted studies whose results underlined the

effectiveness of celebrity endorsement.

Source attractiveness Model and Source-credibility Model

Two general models contribute to an endorser’s effectiveness: the source-credibility model

and the source-attractiveness model. Source-credibility determines the positive features the

sender has that generate the recipient’s reception of the message (Ohanian, 1990) and the

source-attractiveness model sets “the communication receiver’s perceptions of the source’s

similarity, familiarity and likeability” (Amos et al., 2008, p.214).

From Shimp’s perspective (2007), the TEARS model represents those two dimensions:


Table 1: TEARS Model

attributes

T= trustworthiness The property of being perceived as believable,

dependable as someone who can be trusted

E= expertise The characteristics of having specific skills,

knowledge or abilities with respect to the endorsed

brand

A= physical attractiveness The trait of being regarded as pleasant to look at

in terms of a particular group’s concept of

attractiveness

R= Respect The quality of being admired or even esteemed

due to one’s personal qualities and

accomplishments

S = similarity (to the target

audience)

The extent to which an endorser matches an

audience in terms of characteristics pertinent to

the endorsement relationship (age, gender,

ethnicity, etc.)

Source: Shimp, T. E. (2007). Advertising, promotion and other aspects of integrated

marketing communication (p: 251). Texas: The Dryden Press.

2.4.1.1. Source- credibility model

From Erdogan’s perspective (1999, p.297), a credible source can “influence beliefs, opinions,

attitudes and/or behaviors through a process called internalization, which occurs when

receivers accept a source influence in terms of their personal attitude and value structures”.

The source-credibility model has been created in the 50’s by Hovland. Indeed, the

effectiveness of the message depends on the perceived level of expertise and on the

trustworthiness in an endorser (Dholakia & Sternthal, 1977, as cited in Erdogan, 1999). It

means that if the endorser is credible, audience’s attitudes change to adopt his position. In

their study, Amos et al. (2008) argue that this may help practitioners evaluate consumer’s

perceptions of the endorser.

Cre

dib

ility

A

ttra

ctiv

enes

s


“Trustworthiness refers to the honesty, the integrity and the believability of an endorser and

depends on target audience perceptions” (Erdogan, 1999, p.297). According to Ohanian

(1990, p. 47), trustworthiness is “the listener’s degree of confidence in, and level of

acceptance of the speaker and the message”. In 1991, he adds that trustworthiness is not

significantly connected to customers’ intention to buy an endorsed brand.

Regarding the expertise, Kahle & Homer (1990) consider it as the more important dimension

of the credibility. It is defined as “the extent to which a communicator is perceived to be a

source of valid assertions” (Erdogan, 1999, p.8). Aaker & Myers (1987) claims that the more

a source is expert; the more it/she/he is persuasive and generates purchase intention. The

recipient’s perception of the source’s expertise also has a positive impact on the source

effectiveness (Ohanian, 1990).

Note that trustworthiness and expertise generate a positive impact on effectiveness of the

advertisement (Chao, Wuhrer & Werani, 2005, as cited in Amos, Holmes & Strutton, 2008).

2.4.1.2. Source-attractiveness model

Efficiency of the advertising depends also on the attractiveness of the endorser.

Attractiveness doesn’t only mean physical attractiveness, but it also includes perceived

features such as “intellectual skills, personality properties, lifestyle or athletic prowess”

(Erdogan, 1999, p.299). This is an important indicator of effectiveness (Chao et al.; 2005, as

cited in Amos, Holmes & Strutton, 2008). Indeed, physically attractive persons are more

successful in changing beliefs and behavior than their unattractive ones (Chaiken, 1979) and

have a positive impact on the buying intention (Kahle & Homer, 1985). According Erdogan

(1999, p.300), “physical attractiveness determines the effectiveness of persuasive

communication through a process called identification”.

Nevertheless, Erdogan (1999) as well as Baker & Churchill (1977) don’t totally agree with

Kahle & Homer. According to them, the endorser’s attractiveness improves consumer’s

evaluation towards advertising and brands but they don’t believe that he/she has an impact on

the purchase intention.


Finally, Silvera & Austad (2004) declared that the empirical results mainly revealed that the

attractiveness of a celebrity endorser benefits the brand image only if attractiveness is relevant

for the pertinent product category even though physical attractiveness unrelated to the product

category does not.

2.4.1.3. Familiarity and likeability

Finally, some studies include celebrity familiarity and likeability to attractiveness (Kahle &

Homer; 1985), which “are the most powerful components in a brand’s reputation” (Pringle,

2008, p.70). In 2008, Amos et al. included them in the source attractiveness model and

determined them as important source effects. On the other hand, familiarity is the “knowledge

of the source through exposure” (Erdogan, 1999, p.299) even though likeability is the

affection toward the endorser generated by his or her physical appearance and behavior

(McCracken, 1989).

Meanings’ transfer model based on the endorsement process

According to the meaning transfer model of McCracken (1989), the celebrity cultural

meanings are transferred from the endorser to the products through advertising to enhance the

brand image by his/her personal achievement. This model includes all the cultural meanings

of the celebrity, either emotional or cognitive. It shows the transfer of affect. Indeed,

according to McCracken (1986, 1989), there is a cultural meaning transfer from the celebrity

to the product or the brand and it is efficient only if the consumer seize these meanings.

Figure 4: Meaning transfer in the endorsement process

Stage …


Source: McCraken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser =cultural foundations of the

endorsement process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 315.

It means that the brand will have to check that the celebrity conveys the meaning it wants

(Fleck-Dousteyssier & Korchia, 2006). Till & Busler (2000) suggest being careful as

celebrity/product match-up is effective for different fields such as brand attitude, but not

purchase intension.

Erdogan (1999, p.305) cites McCracken (1989)’s words and argues that “meaning begins as

something resident in the culturally constituted world, in the physical and social world

constituted by categories and principles of the prevailing culture”. According to Erdogan

(1999, p.305), advertising brings consumer needs together with the “culturally constituted

world”. He adds that consumers goods are charged with cultural meanings, they even provide

ideas of gender, age, social class, lifestyle etc.

At the endorsement stage, meanings are then transferred from the celebrity to the product.

The endorsement here shapes product’s personality (Tom et al., 1992).

Finally, meanings previously moved into goods are, in this third step, transferred to the

consumer (Erdogan, 1999). The transfer of meanings is established thanks to the consumer’s

efforts to possess them to create its self-image (McCracken, 1989).

Congruence

By the way, the message conveyed by the celebrity image and the product message should be

congruent (Forkan 1980; kamins, 1990). Erdogan (2001, p.292) cites Misra & Beatty (1990)

and declares that the congruence is the “match-up determined by the degree of perceived ‘fit’

between the brand and the celebrity image”. This congruence between the celebrity and the

brand will ease this sense transfer. The more this congruence will be adapted, the more the

answer will be positive in terms of behavior or purchasing intention (Kamins & Gupta, 1994;

Misra & Beatty, 1990). Moreover, a relevant match-up will have a positive impact on

credibility and attractiveness of the endorser (Kamins & Gupta).

This is why, Jowdy & McDonald (2002) claim that to increase the brand image, marketeers

should find congruent associations to the brand. The authors also recommend that companies


create additional associations closely linked to the product and communicate effectively this

brand association.

According to Grunert (1996, as cited in Fleck-Dousteyssier & Korchia, 2006), people first

process automatically and unconsciously the message and determine its relevancy. Then, this

relevancy increases the consumer capacity to give a sense to that match (Fleck-Dousteyssier

& Korchia). Finally, the consumer will create associations to the brand or will reinforce

existing associations, which will make up the brand image (Keller, 1993).

Note that consumers expect relevancy of this match between endorser image and the endorsed

product (O’Mahony & Meenaghan, 1997, as cited in Erdogan, 1999; Ohanian, 1991). On the

contrary, the absence of this match stresses the fact that the endorser has been paid to endorse

the product or service (Erdogan, 1999). Evans (1988) even thinks that an incoherent match

could lead to the fact that the audience remembers the celebrity endorser, and not the product.

The hypothesis of congruence between the celebrity endorser and product is limited. Indeed,

other authors rejected these both studies, the TEARS model and the congruence or match-up

hypothesis when sectioning celebrity endorsers (DeSarbo & Harshman, 1985, as cited in

Erdogan, 1999) as:

-“they don’t provide measures to cope with multidimensionality of source effects;

-these approaches ignore overtone-meaning-interactions between a celebrity and the product

endorsed;

-there is a lack of quantified empirical basis for purposed dimensions” (Erdogan, 1999,

p.304).

According to Meyers-Levy, Louie & Curren (1994), the unexpected nature of this mix of

brand and celebrity arises curiosity of the consumer, generates more thoughts on the message

content and motivates him to deal with the message; on the contrary, the expected nature of

this mix could be negative on the motivation of the consumer and have less impact on the

brand image.


Finally, Amos et al. (2008) add that marketeers shouldn’t ignore the celebrity/product fit as it

may exaggerate the results; but, on the other hand, if the recipients had to consider the

celebrity/product fit, they may respond less favorably.

2.5. Pros and Cons of the celebrity endorsement

From Erdogan’s perspective (1999, p.295), the increasing competition and the product’s

proliferation has encouraged marketeers to use “attention-creating media stars to assist

product marketing”. Moreover, it is a “powerful device by which to enter the foreign

markets” (Erdogan, 1999, p.295). However, there are also risks to avoid when using

celebrities as endorsers. Indeed, the endorser can negatively change the image of the brand or

the product, result in a drop in popularity and a loss in credibility by “overdosing or

overshadowing endorsed products” (Erdogan, 1999, p.296). Negative information about a

celebrity endorser can even damage the endorsed product (Till and Shimp, 1995, as cited in

Erdogan, 1999). Additionally, the celebrity might disappear out of the media coverage before

the end of the endorsement contract (Ziegel, 1983) or could become overexposed if he/she

represents more than one brand/product (Erdogan, 1999). Finally, be careful with the fact that

consumers could focus their attention on the celebrity and forget your brand (Rossiter &

Percy, 1987).

Table 2: Pros and Cons of celebrity endorsement

Potential advantages Potential Hazards

Increased attention

Image polishing

Brand introduction

Brand repositioning

Underpin Global campaigns

Overshadow the brand

Public controversy

Image change and overexposure

Image change and loss of public recognition

expensive

Source: Erdogan, B.Z. (1999). Celebrity endorsement: a literature review. Journal of

Marketing Management, 15, 295.


2.6. Attitude

Researchers agreed on the definition of attitude. It is described as “a learned predisposition to

respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to a given object”

(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, p.6). Fishbein & Ajzen argue that the predisposition to react

positively or negatively is often the consequence of past experience. Moreover, they see the

nature of attitude as affective or evaluative, which is defined by the beliefs concerning the

attitude.

Finally, Peter & Olson (2010) distinguish consumer’s attitude oriented toward actions and

behaviors (Aact) or physical, social and intangible objects (A0).

Attitude toward an object (A0)

Consumers create attitudes toward objects by mixing their meanings, knowledge and beliefs

through the integration process (Peter & Olson, 2010). Attitude toward an object is directly

linked to the person’s intention to carry out several behaviors related to the object (Fishbein &

Ajzen, 1975).

Figure 5: Schematic representation of conceptual framework relating beliefs,

attitudes, intentions, and behaviors with respect to a given object.

Source: Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An

introduction to theory and research. Canada: Addison-Wesley, p. 15, figure 1.1.


Consumers create beliefs by various experiences in their life which form a network of linked

associations in consumer’s head (Peter & Olson, 2010). However, the consumer’s memory

capacity is not able to memorize everything. Therefore, Peter & Olson (p.134) underlined that

only those that can be activated are called “salient beliefs” and develop attitudes toward

objects (A0).

Attitude toward behavior (Aact)

Attitude toward an object (A0) is definitely associated to the behavior toward this same object.

In fact, the more a person’s attitude toward an object is important, the more we expect this

person to use or even buy the product (Peter & Olson, 2010). However, Peter & Olson

established that we can’t anticipate the attitude toward behavior (Aact) using the consumer’s

attitude toward the object (A0) of the behavior.

In this way, the Theory of Reasoned Action elaborated by Fishbein & Ajzen (1975)

establishes that the consumer’s attitude toward an object is not connected to the consumer’s

behavior. According to that theory, consumers’ behavior will rather depend on the beliefs

that the behavior the consideration of the relevant consequences. In other words, attitude

toward behavior reveals the consumer’s assessment of performing the behavior (Peter &

Olson, 2010).

Attitude toward the purchase (Aact)

When buying products, there are two different attitudes: either “overall attitudes toward the

item in terms of suitability or desirability” or “attitudes toward each of the item’s component

features or characteristics” (Alpert & Myers, 1968, pp.13-14). Marketers need to know which

are those features or attributes that result into a determinant buying behavior. For that reason,

Myers & Alpert discussed a study in which they underlined the importance of features

determinance and attributes determinance and argued that a direct questioning of consumers

or consumer observation in buying situation may answer those two important points.

Brand attitude

Brand attitude is the “person’s overall evaluation (e.g. affective responses) of a concept”, “it

refers to consumers’ evaluation” (Peter & Olson, 2010, p.128).


The evaluation might be created by affective or cognitive systems. First, affective system

generates affective response such as emotions or feelings. Then, cognitive system generates

an evaluation when consumers incorporate “knowledge, meanings and beliefs about the

attitude concept” (Peter & Olson, 2.10, p.128).

Peter and Olson (2010) believe that attitude toward the ad influences the overall attitude

toward the brand or the product. Additionally, the authors argue that ad liking and

understanding generate more attention from the consumers but this doesn’t lead automatically

to an increasing purchase of the brand (Peter & Olson, 2010).

2.7. Memorability

Memorability is important when building brand equity as it increases brand awareness (Keller

et al, 2008). Indeed, the communication motivates consumers to get involved in a deep

understanding, which develop meanings and learning that they will remember more easily

(Peter &Olson, 2010). Stimulus such as jingle, slogan, name and symbol will help to get

remembered and enhance brand equity.

Learning in memory

Kotler and al. (2009) distinguish two different recalls: the long-term recalls and the short-term

recalls. The authors explain that long-term recalls are often associated to links and establish

that memorized information (verbal, visual, etc.) are nodes linked altogether. Activating those

nodes enhance memory. The authors declare that brand knowledge is a unique node in which

brands are all associated to links. The stronger the links will be, the better the information will

be remembered. Peter & Olson (2010) approve by saying that a better comprehension is

developed by interconnected meanings in knowledge structure. Quantity and quality as well

as the repetition of this information impact the strength of the brand’s links, which will help to

retrieve more easily the information (Kotler et al.).

Note that Solomon and al. (2006) distinguish also a third kind of recalls: sensory recalls. This

recalls only last a couple of seconds and is transferred to the short-term recalls. For instance,

this happens when a consumer smell bread by walking past a bakery (Solomon et al.).


Memory can be divided in three phases: coding, storage and activation. Encoding is the way

the information is stored in the consumer’s memory to be retained while the activation is the

way the information arises from the memory (Kotler et al., 2009; Solomon et al., 2006).

Factors influencing activation

The involvement as well as the expertise and the familiarity with the brand also have positive

effects on the memorization of an advertisement (Mai & Schoeller, 2009; Peter & Olson,

2010). In fact, familiar or expert consumers inhabit knowledge about the product or the

brand, which activates and helps them to understand information better when novice

consumers have little knowledge, which also activate but develop few relevant meanings

(Peter & Olson, 2010). Salomon et al. (2006) also believe that salience and the consumer’s

mood match-up with the advertisement enhance when buying situation.

2.8. Brand attachment

Brand attachment is defined as “the extent to which consumers ‘favorable opinions of

celebrities are based on celebrities’ personal characteristics” (Ilicic & Webster, 2008, p.1).

Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1979, as cited in Ilicic & Webster, 2008) determines the degree

of strength of the consumer’s attachment. A strong attachment will be linked to intensified

impression of connection, affection, love and passion (Thomson, MacInnis & Park, 2005).

From Thomson’s (2006) perspective, attachment is measured by six characteristics:

relatedness, autonomy, separation distress, satisfaction, trust and commitment.

Although consumer’s celebrity perception is affected by the attachment, it is also by multiple

brand endorsements. The next chapter will discuss this point.

2.9. Involvement level

Brand involvement

“Consumer involvement corresponds to the motivation’s degree, the enthusiasm or the

interest created by an item or a particular situation. The involvement affects his behavior, the

way to deal with and his decision taking” (Kotler et al., 2009, p.230). Additionally, Kotler

and al. add that low involvement products are those frequently consumed and low valuable.


Brand persuasion

“Persuasion refers to changes in beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions caused by a

promotion communication” (Peter & Olson, 2010, p.421). Persuasion collaborates in building

effective advertising. Studies made about persuasion often relate the changes produced by the

understanding of an advertisement on brand attitude, attitude toward the purchase and finally

on purchase intention (Peter & Olson).

Brand Likelihood Model of persuasion

The Elaboration Likelihood Model, also called ELM, differentiates two cognitive processes

by which communication convince consumers: the central and peripheral routes to persuasion.

According to Peter and Olson (2010), the Elaboration Likelihood Model establishes the

persuasion process, which is determined by the consumer’s involvement level. The authors

explain that the central route occurs when consumer’s involvement is high toward the product

or the message (for example, when a brand has a competitive advantage). For that reason, the

consumer understands it deeper. It is the result of an extensive reflection of the perceived

information about the product and its features (Kotler et al, 2009). This deep comprehension

generates “support agreements”, which are positive thoughts toward the message; those

increase persuasion, positive attitude and purchase intention (Peter and Olson).

Peter and Olson (2010) added that the peripheral route (the most frequent), on the contrary,

occurs when consumer’s involvement is low (for example, when a brand is very comparable

to its competitors). The consumer has scarcely any motivation to understand the product

information in the communication. For those reasons, persuasion, brand attitude and finally

purchase intention’s levels are low. But the consumers might focus on other elements around

the product in the ad (celebrities for example) and this might generate a positive attitude

toward the ad and purchase intention.


Figure 6: Two routes to persuasion in the ELM

Source: Peter, J.P., & Olson, J.C. (2010). Consumer behavior & marketing strategy (p.422).

New-York: McGraw-Hill International.

Kirmani & Shiv (1998) as well as Petty and al. (1983)’s studies on the ELM showed that the

involvement regulates the effect of source characteristics and congruence (however, this

research paper is elaborated on a single endorsement basis). In fact, Kirmani & Shiv propose

that source congruence affects positively brand attitudes, but only under high involvement

conditions.

On the contrary, under low involvement conditions, Kirmani & Shiv (1998) argue that source

congruence is scarcely possible to affect brand attitudes, consumers build brand attitudes on

cues just like trustworthiness, attractiveness and so on.

In other words, they suggest that under high involvement conditions, source congruence,

which depends on the endorsers’ associations (and not on endorsers’ characteristics),

generates a persuasive argument and enhances brand attitudes, as consumers look for brand

pertinent information to establish brand attitudes. Although under low involvement

conditions, the advertising effectiveness depends on the peripheral cues instead of the

persuasive arguments of the ad (Kirmani & Shiv, 1998; Petty et al., 1983). For instance, in

1983, Petty and al. judged celebrity endorsers as peripheral cues that influence positively


attitudes. But they argued that under high involvement conditions, the celebrity never

affected attitudes (Kirmani & Shiv).

2.10. Celebrity Multiple brand endorsements

We previously studied the simple endorsement of brands, but multiple endorsements of

brands are also possible. “Multiple endorsements” is the fact than celebrities endorse several

brands at a time in different categories of products. For instance, Eva Longoria for L’Oréal

and Sheba, the Spice Girls for Pepsi and the UK supermarket chain “Tesco” or Jennifer

Hawkins for Lux, Pepsi and the makeup brand “CoverGirl”, etc.

Negative points of view

Prior studies relate that multiple brand endorsements might be risky for brands. For instance,

Mowen & Brown (1981) suggest that consumers react more positively to a product, to a

celebrity and to the advertisement in case of simple endorsement. Additionally, if the endorser

appeared in many different advertising repeatedly, multiple endorsements may become

negative as the overexposure of the celebrity increase (Till, 1998). This might also damage

fans and the celebrity relationship (Graham, 1989) as well as perception, likeability (Tripp,

Jensen & Carlson, 1994) and credibility (mainly trustworthiness) toward the ad (Mowen &

Brown, 1981) as it reveals the real base of the endorsement which is money instead of

attributes of the product (Tripp, Jensen& Carlson, 1994). Finally, from a psychological

perspective, the Attribution Theory (Kelley, 1973) focuses on how people explain or are

affected by the behavior of others. This theory states that multiple brands endorsement may

extract trait inferences (info pas réellement dites) about the self-interested reasons for a

celebrity’s advocacy (playdoyé), which may have a negative impact on the image of all the

endorsed brands (Kelley, 1973).

Positive points of view

Um (2008), Tripp and al. (1994), Ilicic and Webster (2011) and Hamilton Rice, Kelting and

Lutz, (2011) don’t agree and go further in the reflection: they think that celebrity endorsers

may also bring positive advertising effects in certain conditions. According to Um (2008) and

Ilicic and Webster, multiple brand endorsement is better than simple endorsement at

increasing advertisement attitude, brand attitude and purchase intention.


Ilicic and Webster (2011) go deeper in their statement and argue that when a consumer is

attached to a celebrity, multiple endorsements may impact negatively his/her purchase

intention. On the opposite, if he/she is not attached to the celebrity, multiple endorsements

may increase his/her purchase intention. The decision of the advertiser will depend on what

the brand focuses: the purchase intention or the consumer attitude. Furthermore, Um (2008)

states that trustworthiness, likeability and expertness are also higher among people who are

exposed to multiple brand endorsement.

Finally, Hamilton Rice et al. (2011) put forward the effects of congruence and involvement on

brand attitude when a celebrity endorses more than one brand. Unlikely to Kirmani & Shiv

(1994) who analyzed those effects on simple endorsements, they made a difference between

multiple endorsements under low or high involvement conditions (ex: a bottle of water for

low involvement as it is frequently consumed and has a low value) and argued that under low

involvement conditions, multiple brands endorsement has a negative effect on the consumer’s

brand attitude. However, under high involvement conditions, it depends on the congruence

between the celebrity and the endorsed brands. They think that when this congruence is low,

the more they will be endorsed brands by the celebrity; the bigger the impact on the attitude.

Additionally, they found that under low involvement conditions, there is no relationship

between the source congruence and the brand attitude (note that: in this research paper, as we

work only under low involvement conditions, the congruence won’t be taken into

consideration). They finally conclude that if the brand and the celebrity are congruent, and

that if the consumer is involved with the brand, managers should not be afraid of multiple

celebrity endorsements.

2.11. Summary of the review of Literature

This Chapter gave an overview of the existing literature about celebrity endorsement and

multiple brands endorsement.

First, celebrity endorsement as a general concept was explored. Research showed that source

characteristics such as likeability, expertise, trustworthiness, attractiveness and familiarity

influence the consumers the most (Erdogan, 1999; Kahle & Homer, 1985; Ohanian, 1991).

Additionally, the congruence (or match-up) between a celebrity and a product/brand has been

studied and has been demonstrated that it positively affects consumer response to celebrity


endorsement (Forkan, 1980; Kamins & Gupta, 1994). McCraken (1989) added that celebrity

cultural meanings are transferred from the celebrity to the brand and then, from the brand to

the consumer.

Then, the attitude has been defined. A distinction has been made between the attitude toward

an object (A0) and the attitude toward a behavior (Aact). According to Peter & Olson (2010),

both are closely linked as the more a person’s attitude toward an object is important, the more

we expect this person to use or even buy the product (Peter & Olson, 2010). However,

Fishbein & Ajzen (1975) believe that attitude toward an object and behaviors are not linked.

According to them, behaviors rather depend on the conscious evaluation of the consequences

they involve.

The process of memory has then been studied. It is divided in three important phases: coding

of information, storage and activation (Kotler et al., 2009; Solomon et al., 2006). The three

different recalls have been also distinguished: short-term recalls, long term recalls and

sensitive recalls (Salomon et al.). Those three degrees of memorability depend on how long

the information is stored and activated in consumers’ memory.

The ELM (Kirmani & Shiv, 1998; Peter and Olson, 2010; Petty et al., 1983) has been

described. This model explains two routes of persuasion: the peripheral (under low

involvement conditions) and the central route (high involvement conditions). Kirmani & Shiv

(1998) as well as Petty et al. (1983) established that in case of simple celebrity endorsement,

the involvement restrains the endorser characteristics and congruence’s effect. Kirmani &

Shiv also demonstrated that under high involvement conditions, the effectiveness of the

celebrity increases with the level of congruence. However, under lower involvement

conditions, the effectiveness of the celebrity depends on the peripheral route such as the

endorser characteristics (Petty et al., 1983).

Finally, research on multiple brands endorsement showed that researchers share their different

points of view. General research showed that the celebrity endorser’s effectiveness decreases

when the number of brands endorsed increases (Mowen & Brown, 1981) as it reveals the

consumers that the real base of endorsement is money (Tripp et al., 1994). On the other hand,

Ilicic and Webster (2011) underlined the importance of attachment when assessing purchase


intention. Hamilton Rice and al (2011) suggested an analysis of the impact of source

congruence, involvement and message repetition on brand attitude.

2.12. Conceptual Model

According to the Elaborate Likelihood Model, consumers “use” the peripheral route to create

their brand attitude under low involvement conditions (Hamilton Rice et al., 2011; Kirmani &

Shiv, 1994; Petty et al., 1983).

In 1983, Petty and al. (1983) showed the impact of (simple) celebrity endorsement on the

consumer’s brand attitude under either low or high involvement conditions. Then, in 1994,

Kirmani & Shiv examined the conditions under which high or low congruence between the

endorser and the brand affects brand attitudes and beliefs. They suggested that when

involvement is low, congruence has no effect on brand attitudes because consumers use the

peripheral cues (see Elaborate Likelihood Model) or heuristics to build brand attitudes.

Finally, in 2011, Hamilton Rice et al.’s investigated the effects of source congruence on brand

attitudes in case of multiple brand endorsements. Their results showed that under low

involvement conditions, brand attitude was always negative. Kirmani & Shiv, as well as

Hamilton Rice and al. used the celebrity source characteristics as independent variables. We

saw earlier that in the consumer psychology literature, the endorser’s characteristics positively

influence consumer response to celebrity endorsement (Kahle & Homer, 1985; Ohanian,

1991).

We intend by this thesis to go deeper in the multiple brand endorsements’ study and to focus

only on low involvement conditions. More accurately, the impact of celebrities’

characteristics on the degree of memorability of the ad, on the brand attitude and on the

attitude toward the purchase will be analyzed in two cases: simple endorsement (when one

celebrity endorses one brand) and multiple brand endorsements (when one celebrity endorses

several brands). To analyze the difference between both cases, the number of brands

endorsed will be the binary (0 ; 1) moderator variable.


2.13. Choice of variables

As just seen in the previous section, the literature relative to celebrity multiple brands

endorsement by celebrities is light which supports the making of this project and its

contributions.

Independent variables

Under low involvement conditions, due to the multiple brands endorsement context,

endorser’s main characteristics (that are explained previously in this chapter) such as

attractiveness, expertise, likeability and trustworthiness will be considered as they are

essential when brand attitude and purchase intention’s creation (Hamilton Rice et al., 2011).

Low involvement

Endorser’s

characteristics

Likeability

Attractiveness

Expertise

Trustworthiness

Degree of

memorability

Brand attitude

Attitude toward the

purchase

Number of brand endorsements

H1

H4

H7

H10

H2

H5

H8

H11

H3

H6

H9

H12

H13

H14

H15

H16

H17

H18 H19

H20

H21 H22

H23 H24


In this thesis, the impact of those four characteristics on brand attitude, attitude toward the

purchase and the degree of memorability will be assessed. Two market studies will be

conducted to differentiate the different impacts in case of advertisement with a celebrity

endorsing only one brand (simple endorsement) and a campaign with a celebrity endorsing

various brands (multiple brands endorsement).

Dependent variables

Under low involvement conditions, the influence of the four endorser’s characteristics will be

analyzed on three dependent variables: the brand attitudes, the degree of memorability and the

attitudes toward the purchase.

Note that the “attitudes toward the purchase” variable has been chosen over the “purchase

intention” variable (the variable suggested by the author of the article I based on) because it

was easier to assess.

Moderator variables

The difference between simple endorsement and multiple brand endorsement will be made

thanks to two different tests (one with a celebrity that have never been brand’s endorser in the

past, and one with a celebrity known for the number of brands he endorsed). Then, the

difference between both cases will be made thanks to a binary variable (0 ; 1). This variable,

also called dummy variable, will be inserted in the linear regression.

2.14. Hypotheses

After reviewing the literature about celebrity endorsement, it appears obvious that there is a

gap regarding the impact of “celebrity multiple brands endorsement” under low conditions on

the degree of memorability and the attitude toward the purchase. Only the impact on brand

attitude has been studied in the past but the authors mainly focused on the impact on brand

attitudes under high involvement conditions (Hamilton Rice et al. 2011; Kirmani & Shiv,

1998).

H1: Under low involvement conditions, the endorser’s likeability has a positive impact on the

degree of memorability.


H2: Under low involvement conditions, the endorser’s likeability has a positive impact on

brand attitudes.

H3: Under low involvement conditions, the endorser’s likeability has a positive impact on the

attitude toward the purchase.

H4: Under low involvement conditions, the endorser’s attractiveness has a positive impact on

the degree of memorability.


brand attitudes.


the attitude toward the purchase.

H7: Under low involvement conditions, the endorser’s expertise has a positive impact on the


H8: Under low involvement conditions, the endorser’s expertise has a positive impact on

brand attitudes.

H9: Under low involvement conditions, the endorser’s expertise has a positive impact on the

attitude toward the purchase.

H10: Under low involvement conditions, the endorser’s trustworthiness has a positive impact

on the degree of memorability.


on brand attitudes.


on the attitude toward the purchase.

H13: Under low involvement conditions, the number of brands endorsed by a celebrity

moderates the impact of trustworthiness characteristics of the endorser on brand attitude.


moderates the impact of trustworthiness characteristics of the endorser on the attitude toward

the purchase.


moderates the impact of trustworthiness characteristics of the endorser on the degree of

memorability.


moderates the impact of expertise characteristic of the endorser on the attitude toward the

purchase.



moderates the impact of likeability characteristic of the endorser on the degree of

memorability.


moderates the impact of attractiveness characteristic of the endorser on the degree of

memorability.


moderates the impact of expertise characteristic of the endorser on the degree of

memorability.


moderates the impact of expertise characteristic of the endorser on the brand attitude.


moderates the impact of attractiveness characteristic of the endorser on the brand attitude.


moderates the impact of likeability characteristic of the endorser on the brand attitude.


moderates the impact of attractiveness characteristic of the endorser on the attitude toward the

purchase.


moderates the impact of likeability characteristic of the endorser on the attitude toward the

purchase


3. Research design

This chapter focuses on data found thanks to the survey conducted in the previous chapter.

3.1. Research Methodology

In order to analyze the changes in brand attitude, degree of memorability and attitude toward

the purchase (i.e.: the dependent variables) when the number of brands endorsed is or is not

taken into consideration, a quantitative data collection of two groups of undergraduate

students has been carried out. The statistical analysis of those data will be established in the

next chapter and will confirm or, on the opposite, will reject the hypothesis previously

elaborated.

3.2. Sample choice

A total of 103 undergraduate students divided into two classes participated to the market

research. All of those students belonged to the 18-25 years old category. Those two groups

each received a different questionnaire with different celebrities’ replicates. The first one has

been exposed to simple celebrity endorsement (a celebrity not known for celebrity

endorsement) and the second one has been exposed to multiple brands endorsement (a

celebrity known for the number of brands already endorsed).

3.3. Research execution

Construction of the survey and the advertisements

All the variables of the conceptual model have been considered in the survey and measured

thanks to a seven-point Likert scale. Although the endorsers on the advertisement were not

similar in the two groups, both surveys were the same. You will find an English version of

them in the appendix section. Those two surveys were four-pages long and were written in

French. Indeed, all participants were French speakers.

A focus group was also conducted through social media to find a product that was bought

under low involvement conditions. This focus group’s result revealed that chewing gum was

the product bought under lowest involvement conditions. A famous chewing gum’s brand


(Hollywood Chewing Gum) was therefore chosen for the two different advertisements: one

advertisement with Robert Pattinson to represent simple celebrity endorsement and one

advertisement with George Clooney to represent celebrity multiple brands endorsement.

Indeed, Robert Pattinson never endorsed brands in the past and George Clooney, on the

opposite, is known for the number of brands he endorsed.

Structure of the survey

First, participants were explained the academic goal of this survey through a brief

presentation and the attention was brought on the importance of reading and filing it in

carefully. They were invited to watch an advertisement on a widescreen during a couple of

seconds and then, to flip over their questionnaire to answer 32 seven-point Likert scaled

questions. The reason the questionnaires were facing down was to avoid distraction when

watching the advertisement and to prevent cheating about the memorability test.

In this questionnaire, they were asked at the beginning if they thought the celebrity endorser

was well-known (strongly disagree to strongly agree). The goal of this question was to

remove participants who answered without knowing the celebrity. Indeed, those participants

couldn’t measure correctly the characteristics of the celebrity.

Finally, after being asked what gender they were, participants we were thanked for their

participation and were invited to leave a comment.

Measurement items

Table 3: Measurement items: the endorser’s characteristics

Variable Item source

Well-known X is well known Hamilton Rice et al. (2011)

Attractiveness X is good looking

X is attractive

Hamilton Rice et al. (2011)

trustworthiness X is trustworthy

X is trustful

X is believable

Hamiton Rice et al. (2011)

Expertise X knows a lot about watches

X knows a lot about (product

category)


Likeability X is one of my favorite celebrities

X is a great celebrity



Table 4: Measurement items: attitude toward the purchase

Variable Items Source

Attitude toward

the purchase

Y is good bad

Y is foolish wise

Y is beneficial harmful

All things considered, how likely

Are you to buy Y?

Mitchell (1986) using Fishbein

theory

Peter & Olson (2010)

Table 5: Measurement items: brand attitude

Variable Items Source

Brand attitude Y is likeableunlikeable

Y is appealingunappealing

Y is pleasant unpleasant

Y is boring interesting

Y is not funny funny

Y is uninformative informative

Y is not entertaining

entertaining

Mitchell (1986)

Mai & Schoeller (2009)

Table 6: Measurement items: degree of memorability

Degree of

memorability

Free recall tests (aided recall) Solomon et al. (2006)

Scenarios

Focus group

We had to find a product that was bought under low involvement conditions to complete

successfully the market study. Therefore, a focus group (composed of 10 people) has been

chosen to assess their involvement toward ten different products. High and low involvement

products such as a pen, jewelries, bread, cars or even toilet paper were chosen. You will find

more details in the appendix section.

The focus group was first given definitions of each concept, low involvement and high

involvement products. They were asked to choose five products among these ten that are

bought under low involvement conditions. Then, the group was asked to attribute points to


those five chosen products, knowing that they couldn’t give the same grade twice. After

calculating results, we realized that chewing gum and lemonade had the same involvement’s

level. We decided to survey two more people and concluded that chewing gum was the

product bought under the lowest involvement.

Experience1

The first group of participants was asked to carefully examine an advertisement on a

widescreen during a couple of seconds and then to flip over their questionnaire to fill it in.

The advertisement was then removed to mainly avoid cheating during the memorability test.

They were showed a Hollywood Chewing Gum’s advertisement endorsed by Robert

Pattinson. Robert Pattinson was chosen for his recent success and also because he had never

endorsed brands in the past (see appendix section).

Experience 2

The second group of participants was asked to follow the same rules than the first group (see

appendix section). However, they were showed a Hollywood chewing gum’s advertisement

endorsed by the famous actor and endorser Georges Clooney. Georges Clooney was chosen

because he is known for being a multiple brands endorser (Nescafé, Omega, Martini, etc.)


4. Results

4.1. Introduction

In this chapter, we will analyze the data collected in the survey with the software “Statistica”.

A short presentation of the sample of the survey will be first elaborated. The internal

consistency of the variables will be also checked thanks to a measure of squared correlation,

Cronbach’s alpha. Then, the variables’ analysis will be conducted thanks to a linear

regression, in which the moderator variable will be, for the second part of the hypotheses,

inserted. Indeed, the linear regression is a concept to measure the strength of the relationship

between an explanatory variable and a dependent variable.

4.2. Sample profile

A total of 103 people answered the three questionnaires. They were all undergraduate students

aged from 18 to 25. After completion of the questionnaire, they were asked their gender. As

presented below, in the two scenarios, there was a bit more women that answered than men.

Figure 7: Demographic analysis of the sample


4.3. Cronbach’s alpha statistic

In order to analyze the reliability of the survey’s questions, the Cronbach’s alpha of each

variable’s items was computed. This measured the correlations between the questions of each

variable. Almost all variables’ consistency was good or even excellent except one: the

trustworthiness variable. As presented below, the variable’s alpha is “questionable” because

its score is a bit lower than 0.70 (the limit beyond which it is acceptable). This means that the

fact that the questions measure entirely the variable is uncertain with this sample and this

figure doesn’t change when we remove one of the three items. Therefore, we won’t reject it

but we will take it into account to avoid biased results.

Note also that when there is only one item (see the memorability variable), it’s not relevant to

compute the Cronbach’s alpha as it measures the correlations between the items.

Table 8: Items and Cronbach’s alphas

variables Number of items Cronbach’s alpha Consistency

Attractiveness 2 0.92 Excellent

Trustworthiness 3 0.65 Questionable

Expertise 2 0.90 Excellent

Likeability 2 0.76 Acceptable

Attitude toward the

purchase

4 0.84 Good

Brand attitude 7 0.89 Good

Memorability’s degree 1 / /

4.4. Statistical significance (p-value)

The p-value is the probability of getting the same value than in the statistic test, considering

that the null hypotheses (see hypothesis in the previous chapter) are true. We will consider

that if the p-value is higher than 0.05 (the conventional α level), the findings are inconclusive.


4.5. Statistical analysis

Linear regression: theory

A linear regression will help to explain the impact of explanatory variables (the independent

variables) on the dependent variables (Y) and will be written as follows:

Y= α + β1.X1 +β2.X2+…+ ε

Note that for the second part of the analysis including dummy variables coded (i.e., 0, 1)

which represents the number of brands endorsed (or the moderator variable), the regression

will be written as follows:

Y= α + β1.X1 + β2.X2+ β3.X1. X2+…+ ε

H0: β1 = 0 H1: β1 ≠ 0 In other words, under H0, the dependent variable has no

impact on the dependent variable. Under H1, the dependent variable has an impact on

the dependent variable.

F. test (Fisher): H0: β1= β2= …= βp = 0 H1: there is at least one of the variables

“that explains”.

Linear regression: statistical calculations

The following table explains the statistical results of the impact of the endorser’s

characteristics on the attitude toward the purchase when we don’t take into

consideration the moderator variable: the number of brands endorsed H3, H6, H9

and H12.


attitude toward purchase


1) Interpretation overall model fit

The F of Snedecor F(4,97) is equal to 7,04 (p<0.00005). With a p-value lower than

1%, we can reject H0. We accept with 1-percent uncertainty that under low

involvement conditions, the four endorser’s characteristics considered together have

an impact on the attitude toward the purchase. The adjusted coefficient of

determination (adjusted R-squared) is equal to 0.19 which means that 19% of the

variance of the attitude toward the purchase is explained by the endorser’s

characteristics. The coefficient of correlation R is significant and positive (0.47). It

means that when the endorser’s characteristics will go up, the attitude toward the

purchase will go up as well.

2) Interpretation individual coefficients

Both trustworthiness and likeability have an impact on the attitude toward the

purchase. Indeed, with p-values of 0.018, we accept with 5-percent uncertainty’s level

that under low involvement conditions, the trustworthiness of the celebrity endorser

has an impact on the attitude toward the purchase (t-test= 2.40). Then, with p-value

which is equal to 0.03, we accept with 5-percent uncertainty’s level that under low

involvement conditions, the endorser’s likeability has an impact on the attitude toward

the purchase (t-test= 2.19).

In the table, the b-value (b) also explains how the attitude toward the purchase

increases when the independent variables (the trustworthiness and likeability) increase

by one. Therefore, we can conclude that when the trustworthiness will increase by

one, the attitude toward the purchase will increase with 0.33 but also that when the

likeability will increase by one, the attitude toward purchase will increase with 0.24.

The beta-value (b*) will show the relative importance of the independent variables.

With a b* of 0.28 for both characteristics, likeability and trustworthiness, we conclude

that both have the same impact on the attitude toward the purchase. H3 and H12 are

thus supported.


The next table explains the statistical results of the impact of the endorser’s

characteristics on the brand attitude when we don’t take into consideration the

moderator variable: the number of brands endorsed H2, H5, H8 and H11.


brand attitude.


With a p-value of 0.044 and thus, lower than 5%, we can reject the null hypothesis.

Therefore, we accept that under low involvement conditions, the four endorser’s

characteristics considered together have an impact on the brand attitude. The F of

Snedecor F(4,97) is equal to 2.56 (p<0.04330). The adjusted coefficient of

determination (adjusted R-squared) is equal to 0.58 which means that 58% of the

variance of the brand attitude is explained by the four endorser’s characteristics.

Finally, there is a positive coefficient of correlation (R=0.31) between the endorser’s

characteristics and the brand attitude. It means that when the endorser’s characteristics

will be high-valued, the consumer’s brand attitude will increase.


With this sample, we can’t conclude with 95-percent certainty that trustworthiness,

attractiveness, expertise or likeability of the endorser (considered separately) have an

impact on the brand attitude. Indeed, none of them has a p-value lower than 0.05.

Therefore, the hypotheses H2, H5, H8 and H11 are rejected.


characteristics on the memorability’s degree when we don’t take into consideration the






With a p-value equal to 0.034 and thus, lower than 5%, we can reject the null

hypothesis. We conclude with 95-percent certainty that under low involvement

conditions, the four endorser’s characteristics considered all together have an impact

on the memorability’s degree. The F of Snedecor F(4,97) is equal to 2.72 (p<0.034).

The adjusted coefficient of determination (adjusted R-squared) is equal to 0.63 which

means that 63% of the variance of the brand attitude is explained by the endorser’s

characteristics. The coefficient of correlation between the endorser’s characteristic and

the memorability’s degree is positive (R=0.32). It means when the characteristics will

be high-valued, the memorability’s degree will increase.


With this sample, we can only conclude with 95-percent certainty (p=0.03) that under

low involvement conditions, the trustworthiness has an impact on the brand attitude (t-

test= -2.20). In the table, the b-value (b) also explains us how the attitude toward

purchase increases when the independent variable, the trustworthiness, increases by

one. Therefore, the results revealed that when the trustworthiness will increase by one,

the attitude toward the purchase will decrease by 0.33 (because it is negative). The

relation between them is then negative and for that reason, the hypothesis H10 is

rejected. The beta-value (b*) shows the relative importance of the impact of

trustworthiness on memorability’s degree compared to other characteristics (b*=

0.28).


characteristics on the attitude toward the purchase when we take into consideration the




attitude toward the purchase when moderated by the number of brands endorsed.


With a p-value lower than 1% (p= 0.00057), we reject the null hypothesis. Therefore,

we accept with 99-percent certainty that under low involvement conditions, the

number of brands endorsed moderates the impact the endorser’s characteristics have

on the attitude toward the purchase. The F of Snedecor F(9,92) is equal to 3,68

(p<0.00005). The adjusted coefficient of determination (adjusted R-squared) is equal

to 0.19 which means that 19% of the variance of the attitude toward the purchase is

explained by the moderating effect of the number of brands endorsed on the endorser’s

characteristics. The coefficient of correlation is significant and positive (R=0.51),

which means that when the number of brands endorsed, as well as the endorser’s

characteristics will increase, the attitude toward the purchase will increase as well.


With this sample, we can’t conclude with 95-percent certainty that under low

involvement conditions, the number of brands endorsed moderates the impact each

endorser’s characteristic, taken one at a time, has an impact on the attitude toward

the purchase. The hypotheses H14, H16, H23 and H24 are thus rejected.

The next table explains the statistical results of the impact of the endorser’s

characteristics on the brand attitude when we take into consideration the moderator

variable: the number of brands endorsed H13, H20, H21 and H22.



brand attitude when moderated by the number of brands endorsed.


With a p-value equal to 0.22 and thus, higher than 5%, we accept the null hypothesis.

Therefore, we reject H1 according to which under low involvement conditions, the

number of brands endorsed moderates the impact the four endorser’s characteristics

has on the brand attitude. We reject the hypotheses H13, H20, H21 and H22.


characteristics on the memorability’s degree when we take into consideration the



memorability’s degree when moderated by the number of brands endorsed.


With a p-value equal to 0.017 and thus, lower than 5%, we can reject the null

hypothesis. Therefore, we accept that under low involvement conditions, the number

of brands endorsed moderates the impact the endorser’s characteristics have on the

memorability’s degree. The F of Snedecor F(9,92) is equal to 2,41 (p<0.017). The

adjusted coefficient of determination (adjusted R-squared) is equal to 0.11 which


means that 11% of the variance of the memorability’s degree is explained by the

moderating effect of the number of brands endorsed on the endorser’s characteristics.

The coefficient of correlation is equal to 0.44. It means that when the moderated effect

of the number of brands endorsed on the endorser’s characteristics will go up, the

degree of memorability will go up as well.


With this sample, we accept with 95-percent certainty that under low involvement

conditions, the number of brands endorsed by the endorser moderates the impact the

trustworthiness has on the memorability’s degree (t-test= -2.07). However, with a b-

value equal to 0.69, we conclude that when the moderating effect of the number of

brands endorsed on trustworthiness will increase, the memorability’s degree will

decrease significantly by almost 0.69 (because it is negative). H15 is then rejected.

The other hypotheses H17, H18 and H19 are also rejected. Indeed, we can’t

conclude with 95-percent certainty that under low involvement conditions, the number

of brands endorsed moderates the impact expertise, attractiveness and/or likeability

have on the brand attitude.


5. Discussion

After an objective presentation of the results, the goal of this new chapter will be to link the

results with the hypotheses (see chapter 2). Then, the research questions as well as sub-

questions will be also answered.

5.1. Evaluation of the hypothesis

In order to appreciate if the celebrity’s characteristics have an impact on the memorability’s

degree, the brand attitude and the attitude toward the purchase in both cases: when and

without taking into consideration the moderator effect of the number of brands endorsed, six

linear regressions have been carried out.

Attitude toward the purchase vs. characteristics without taking into consideration the

number of brands endorsed.

First, the results proved with 1-percent uncertainty that when considered all together, the four

endorser’s characteristics have a positive and significant impact on the attitude toward

purchase.

However, when the endorser’s characteristics are considered separately, the impact is

different. Only two of them (likeability and trustworthiness) have an impact on the attitude

toward the purchase. This impact is for both positive. It means that when the likeability or

trustworthiness of the endorser will increase, the attitude toward the purchase will increase as

well. Therefore, both hypotheses H3 and H12 are supported. As reminder, according to the

H3, under low involvement conditions, the endorser’s likeability has a positive impact on the

attitude toward the purchase. According to H12, under low involvement conditions, the

endorser’s trustworthiness has a positive impact on the attitude toward the purchase.

On the other hand, results showed that H6 and H9 were rejected. With this sample, we

didn’t conclude that under low involvement conditions, the endorser’s expertise and

attractiveness have an impact on the attitude toward the purchase.


Brand attitude vs. characteristics without taking into consideration the number of

brands endorsed.

The results showed that when considered all together, the endorser’s characteristics have a

positive impact on brand attitude. However, this sample’s results didn’t prove with enough

certainty that when considered separately, each of the endorser’s characteristics has an impact

on the brand attitude. H2, H5, H8 and H11, according to which, under low involvement

conditions, the endorser’s likeability, attractiveness, expertise and trustworthiness

(respectively) have an impact on the degree of brand attitudes, are thus rejected.

Degree of memorability vs. characteristics without taking into consideration the number

of brands endorsed.

First, the third statistical analysis proved that considered together, the endorser’s

characteristics have a positive impact on the memorability’s degree. However, the

characteristics considered separately, the impact is different.

With 95-percent certainty, the statistical analysis showed that only the endorser’s

trustworthiness has an impact on the memorability’s degree. However, this impact is negative.

It means that the more the endorser will be trustful, the more the memorability’s degree will

be low. As it decrease, the hypothesis H10 is then rejected. On the other hand, the

statistical analysis of the sample didn’t prove with enough certainty that the attractiveness,

expertise or likeability had an impact on the memorability’s degree. The hypotheses H1, H4

and H7 are then rejected.

Note that: this may be one risk of celebrity’s endorsement. Indeed, the celebrity’s appeal

captured the participants’ attention and thus, they quickly forgot the brand and the product’s

attributes.

Moderator effect of the number of brands endorsed on the characteristics vs. attitude

toward the purchase.


Although the results showed with 99-percent certainty that number of brands endorsed

moderates significantly the impact the four endorser’s characteristics considered all together

have on the attitude toward the purchase, this is not the case when considering the

characteristics separately. Indeed, the hypotheses H14, H16, H23 and H24 are rejected.

Moderator effect of the number of brands endorsed on the characteristics vs. brand

attitude.

The results didn’t prove with enough certainty that the number of brands endorsed moderates

significantly the impact the four endorser’s characteristics, when considered together, have on

brand attitude. H13, H20, H21 and H22 are thus rejected.

Moderator effect of the number of brands endorsed on the characteristics vs. the degree

of memorization.

The statistical analysis revealed that the number of brands endorsed moderates the impact the

characteristics of the endorser (considered together) have on the memorability’s degree.

However, when the endorser’s characteristics are considered separately, the impact is

different.

With 95-percent certainty, the statistical analysis showed that the number of brands endorsed

moderates the impact that the endorser’s trustworthiness has on the memorability’s degree.

However, as this impact is negative, the hypothesis H15 is rejected. The more the number

of brands or the trustworthiness will be high, the lower the memorability’s degree will be. On

the other hand, the statistical analysis of the sample didn’t prove with enough certainty that

the number of brands endorsed moderates the impact attractiveness, expertise or likeability

have on the memorability’s degree. The hypotheses H17, H18 and H19 are then rejected.

Note that: This may be one risk of celebrity’s endorsement. Indeed, the celebrity’s appeal

captured the participants’ attention and thus, they quickly forgot the brand and the product’s

attributes.

Furthermore, multiple brands endorsement emphasizes this negative effect. As previously

seen in the literature review, memorized information is activated by nodes linked altogether in

consumer’s mind. The pheripheral cue, Georges Clooney, famous for his number of


endorsements may have activated these nodes around him only because the memorization is

based on strong pre-existent knowledge. Therefore, participants gave more attention to him

than to the brand or the product’s attributes.

Another reason may be the fact that the celebrity is not congruent enough with the product.

Indeed, if we come back to the literature review, we will see that Evans (1988) declared that

an incoherent match-up between both could lead to the fact that the audience remembers the

celebrity endorser, and not the product.

5.2. Summary of the results on the conceptual model

Note that: H10 and H15 were not supported because although there is an impact, it is

negative.

Low involvement

Endorser’s

characteristics

Likeability

Attractiveness

Expertise

Trustworthiness

Degree of

memorability

Brand attitude

Attitude toward the

purchase

Number of brand endorsements

H10

H3

H12

H15


5.3. Research question: interpretation of the empirical results

At the beginning of the thesis, research questions and sub-questions were formulated

regarding the impact of multiple brands endorsement may have on the brand. In this second

part of the chapter, those questions will be answered.

Under low involvement conditions, does the number of endorsements moderates the

impact the endorser’s characteristics have on the brand attitude, the attitude toward the

purchase and the degree of memorability?

When considered together, the endorser’s characteristics have an impact on the brand attitude,

the attitude toward the purchase and the degree of memorability. However, when the number

of brands is taken into consideration, the endorser’s characteristics (always considered

together) have an impact on the attitude toward the purchase and the degree of memorability

only.

Then, a comparison of the coefficient of correlations between the three dependent variables

and the independent variables (considered with and without the moderator effect of the

number of brands endorsed) has been done. Whether it be the impact of the endorser’s

characteristics on the memorability’s degree or on the attitude toward the purchase, the

results showed that the coefficient of correlation (e.g.: the relationship) is always

stronger when it is moderated by the number of brands endorsed. This can be explained

by the fact that the endorser’s characteristics are higher valued among people who are

exposed to multiple brand endorsement (Um, 2008).

On the contrary, when considered separately, the endorser’s characteristics don’t always have

an impact on the memorability’s degree, brand attitude or attitude toward the purchase. Only

two hypotheses were supported: H3 and H12. According to those two hypotheses, the

endorser’s likeability and trustworthiness (respectively) have a positive impact on the attitude

toward the purchase.

Finally, two other impacts of the endorser’s characteristics on the dependent variable were

revealed by the results. However, those impacts are negative and thus, force us to reject the


hypotheses H10 and H15. As reminder, according to the first hypothesis, under low

involvement condition, the trustworthiness characteristic of an endorser has a positive impact

on the memorability’s degree. According to the second, under low involvement conditions,

the number of brands endorsed moderates the impact trustworthiness has on the

memorability’s degree.

Should marketeers avoid a celebrity who has a special characteristic? Should they give

priority to celebrity who has a special characteristic?

Trustworthiness proved to decrease memorability’s degree in both cases: when and without

considering the number of brands endorsed. However, when considered with other

characteristics, the impact on the memorability is positive. Even when moderated by the

number of brands endorsed.

If the objective of the marketeer is to increase the attitude toward the purchase of his low

involvement products, a likeable or trustful simple endorser will be recommended. Indeed,

both characteristics proved to impact positively the attitude toward the purchase in case of

simple endorsement.

Should the marketeers give priority to simple endorser to endorse his brand?

The results proved to be much more positive when the number of brands endorsed in taken

into consideration. Indeed, under low involvement conditions, the number of brands endorsed

moderates positively the impact the endorser’s characteristics have on the attitude toward the

purchase and the memorability’s degree. Note that we can’t make this conclusion with enough

certainty for the brand attitude.

Under low involvement conditions, which of the three dependent variables is the most

impacted by the endorser’s characteristics?

Attitude toward the purchase proved to be the most positively affected by the endorser’s

characteristics, even more when moderated by the number of brands endorsed.


6. Conclusion

After reviewing the results and answering the research question and sub-questions, the

following conclusion will synthesize the research paper, will analyze the theoretical

implications of the study and will make general recommendations. Limitations and

suggestions for future research will be finally established.

6.1. Summary of the research paper

A celebrity can be chosen for the meanings developed around him or herself. The meanings

developed will be transferred to the company and then to the brand’s customers. But in

today’s life, there are more examples of multiple brands endorsement than simple

endorsement. Indeed, for financial reasons, celebrities will prefer to endorse more than one

brand. However, according to some researchers, multiple brands endorsement might be

harmful for the brands as well as for the celebrity.

Multiple brands endorsement has not been deeply discussed by researchers. Those have

ambivalent positions. Some of them think multiple endorsements might generate negative

image of the brand, for instance, in case of overexposure of the celebrity (Mowen & Brown,

1981). Nevertheless, others think that even if the risk of endorsing celebrity and its cost are

high, the return of the celebrity’s influence can also be very positive (Amos et al., 2008).

The goal of the research paper was to fulfill a gap in the literature concerning multiple brands

endorsement under low involvement conditions. The difference between the impact of the

endorser’s characteristics such as the expertise, trustworthiness, attractiveness or likeability

on the memorability’s, the attitude toward the purchase and the brand attitude was analyzed

with and without taking into consideration the number of brands endorsed by the celebrity.

The main purpose of this research was to convince marketeers of the positive impact that

multiple brands endorsement also has on memorability and attitude under low involvement

conditions.

A survey of 103 undergraduate students of HEC-ULG was therefore conducted. After being

asked to analyze carefully an advertisement, two random groups were asked to answer several

seven-point Likert scale questions. The first group was exposed to simple endorsement, the


second to multiple brands endorsement. The results showed that under low involvement

conditions, the endorser’s characteristics, when considered together, have a positive impact on

the memorability’s degree, the attitude toward the purchase and the brand attitude. This

impact is even higher on the attitude toward the purchase and the memorability’s degree when

the moderator effect of the number of brands is taken into consideration.

However, results revealed that when the endorser’s characteristics are separately considered,

only two hypotheses are supported. According to both hypotheses, under low involvement

conditions, the endorser’s likeability and trustworthiness have a positive impact on the

attitude toward the purchase. Finally, results showed that when and without considering the

number of brands endorsed, the endorser’s trustworthiness has a negative impact on the

memorability’s degree.

6.2. Theoretical implication

These findings have important theoretical implications as it is an extension of the theoretical

current literature. Indeed, Hamilton Rice and al. (2011) analyzed celebrity multiple brands

endorsement under low and high involvement conditions. This research paper analyzed the

positive impact multiple brands endorsement has on memorability and attitude under low

involvement conditions.

The conceptual model of this study may be used in the future for one specific low

involvement product’s brand analysis but also to measure the impact of the endorser’s

characteristics on another dependent variable (one of the five Aaker’s brand equity

dimensions for instance) under low involvement conditions.

Note that, the conceptual model of this should be used only for low involvement products.

Indeed, for high involvement products, the congruence will have to be taken into

consideration (Hamilton Rice et al, 2011).

6.3. Managerial implications: recommendations


The main purpose of this research was also to find out and convince marketeers of the

positive effect multiple brands endorsement has on low involvement product’s campaigns. By

this research, we proved that when moderated by the number of brands endorsed, the

endorser’s four main characteristics have a more positive impact on memorability’s degree

and the attitude toward the purchase than when the number of brands is not considered.

But more specific recommendations were also made:

As previously said, for low involvement products, it is the attitude toward the purchase the

more positively impacted by the endorser’s characteristics (considered together). Even

more when the number of brands endorsed is taken into consideration. Therefore, multiple

brands endorsement shouldn’t be neglected, especially when the marketing decider’s

objective is to improve the attitude toward the purchase.

In case of simple endorsement, results revealed that for low involvement products, the

endorser’s likeability, as well as trustworthiness, has a positive impact on the

memorability’s degree. Regarding the impact they have on the memorability’s degree, both

have the same relative importance and thus, none of them will be more favored than the

other.

Unfortunately, results finally concluded that when the characteristics are considered

separately, the endorser’s trustworthiness has a negative impact on memorability, even in case

of multiple brands endorsement. It may be one risk of the celebrity’s endorsement. Indeed,

the celebrity’s appeal may capture people’s attention and then, people forget easily the brand

or the products’ attributes. If we come back to the literature review, Mehta (1994, as cited in

Erdogan, 1999) beared this negative effect by saying that the main difference when using

celebrity or non-celebrity endorsers is the different cognitive answers by the recipient who

focuses more on the brand and its features when there is no celebrity.

Two other reasons for which the impact on the memorability may be negative could be the

fact that the memorization was not based on pre-existent knowledge and/or the fact that the

celebrity was not congruent enough with the product. As reminder, according to Evans

(1988), the lack of congruence between the endorser and the product could lead to the fact

that the audience remembers the celebrity endorser, and not the product


6.4. Limitations and suggestions for further research

Further research should take into consideration the following limitations and suggestions.

First, the Cronbach’s alpha of the trustworthiness was equal to 0.65, which means that the

internal reliability of the items was questionable. Although the Cronbach’s alpha is only a bit

beyond the acceptable limit, it may have influenced the final results. The bad results of the

Cronbach’s alpha may be due to the fact that the participants didn’t perceive the difference

between the items. Indeed, the participants had to evaluate on a seven-point Likert scale if the

celebrity was, according to them, trustful, trustworthy and believable. The difficulty of

understanding the difference between those three concepts may have had an impact on the

question’s understanding.

Then, the participants were all undergraduate students. This sample may misrepresent a

population as business students all seem to have the same profile. The sample is therefore not

diversified.

Finally, some questions to evaluate the memorability’s degree were maybe too complicated.

For instance, the slogan was: “the blue chewing gum that gives you energy”. Most of

participants answered that it was said on the advertisement that the chewing gum was pink.

This is inferred by a lack of experience.

To conclude, the main recommendation would be first to correct the three previous limits and

to conduct the survey again. Moreover, as the literature about multiple brands endorsement is

very light, future possible research could also be done in that field. For instance:

- Does the source-congruence between the multiple brands endorser and the brand or

the product increase the brand equity’s five dimensions?

- In case of high involvement product such as a car, how do the multiple brands

endorser’s characteristics influence the attitude toward the purchase and the

memorability’s degree?


7. References

Aaker, D.A. & Myers, J.G. (1987).Advertising Management. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Aaker, D.A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New York:

Free Press.

Aaker, D.A. & Lendrevie, J. (1994). Le management du capital de marque : analyser, développer et

exploiter la valeur des marques. Paris: Dalloz.

Alpert, J.H. Myers, M.I. (1986). Determinant buying attitudes: Meaning and measurement. Journal of

Marketing, 22, 13-20.

Amos, C., Holmes, G., & Strutton, D. (2008). Exploring the relationship between celebrity endorser

effects and advertising effectiveness: a quantitative synthesis of effect size. International

Journal of Advertising, 27(2), 209-234.

Atkin, C. & Block, M (1983).Effectiveness of celebrity endorsers. Journal of Advertising Research,

23, 57-61.

Baker, M. & Churchill, J.R. (1977).The impact of physical attractive models on advertising

evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 38-55.

Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. In: Ilicic, J., &Webser, C.M.

(2008). Attachment to human brands: Opinions of celebrities endorsing multiple brands.

Retrieved from: https://vpn.gw.ulg.ac.be/2440/,DanaInfo=hdl.handle.net+75056.

Brown, T.J. & Dacin, P. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer

product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61, 68-84.

Chaiken, S. (1979). Communicator physical attractiveness and persuasion. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 37(2), 87-97.

Chao, P., Wuhrer, G. & Werani, T. (2005). Celebrity and foreign brand name as moderators of

country-of –origin effects. In: Amos, C., Holmes, G., & Strutton, D. (2008). Exploring the

https://vpn.gw.ulg.ac.be/2440/,DanaInfo=hdl.handle.net+75056


relationship between celebrity endorser effects and advertising effectiveness: a quantitative

synthesis of effect size. International Journal of Advertising, 27(2), 209-234.

Chia-Ching, T. (2012).The conditionings effect on celebrity multiple endorsements. World Academy

of Science, Engineering and Technology. Department of Business Administration. National

Yunlin University of Science and Technology. Taiwan.

Day, G.S. & Deutscher, T. (1982). Attitudinal predictions of choices of major appliance brands.

Journal of Marketing, 19, 192-8.

De Sarbo, W.S. & Harshman, R.A. (1985).Celebrity and brand congruence analysis. In: Erdogan, B.Z.

(1999). Celebrity endorsement: a literature review. Journal of Marketing Management, 15, 291-

314.

Dholakia, R. & Sternthal, B. (1977). Highly credible source: Persuasive facilitator or persuasive

liabilities? In: Erdogan, B.Z. (1999). Celebrity endorsement: a literature review. Journal of

Marketing Management, 15, 291-314.

Dodds, W.B., Monroe, K.B. & Grewal, D. (1991).Effects of price, brand, and store information on

buyers’ product evaluations. In: Weitz, B.A. & Wensley, R. (2002). Handbook of Marketing

(pp.151-158). London: Sage Publications.

Erdogan, B.Z. (1999). Celebrity endorsement: a literature review. Journal of Marketing Management,

15, 291-314.

Erdogan, B.Z. (2001). Selecting Celebrity Endorsers: The practitioner's perspective. Journal of

Advertising Research, 39-48.

Erfgen, C. (2011). Impact of Celebrity endorsement on Brand image: a communication process

perspective on 30 years of empirical research. Universität Hamburg. Retrieved

from:http://www.uni-hamburg.de/fachbereiche-

einrichtungen/fb03/ihm/Impact_of_Celebrity_Endorsement.pdf.

Evans, R.B. (1988). Production and creativity in advertising. London: Pitman Publishing.

Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975).Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to

theory and research. Canada: Addison-Wesley.

http://www.uni-hamburg.de/fachbereiche-einrichtungen/fb03/ihm/Impact_of_Celebrity_Endorsement.pdf

http://www.uni-hamburg.de/fachbereiche-einrichtungen/fb03/ihm/Impact_of_Celebrity_Endorsement.pdf


Fleck-Dousteyssier, N. & Korchia, M. (2006). Les célébrités dans la publicité : le rôle de la

congruence. Centre de recherches DMSP. Paris. Retrieved from:

http://www.watoowatoo.net/mkgr/papers/nf-mk-sl-2006.pdf.

Forkan, J. (1980). Product match-up key to effective star presentations. Advertising Age, 51, 42.

Friedman H.H. & Friedman L.W. (1979). Endorser effectiveness by product type. Journal of

Advertising Research, 19(5), 63-71.

Graham, J. (1989). Sponsors line up for rocking’s role. Advertising Age, p.50.

Grunert, K.G. (1996). Automatic and strategic processes in advertising effects. In: Fleck-

Dousteyssier, N. & Korchia, M. (2006). Les célébrités dans la publicité : le rôle de la

congruence. Centre de recherches DMSP. Paris.

Hamilton Rice, D., Kelting, K., & Lutz, R. (2012). Multiple endorsers and multiple endorsements: The

influence of message repetition, source congruence and involvement on brand attitudes. Journal

of Consumer Psychology, 22, 249-259.

Homer, P.M. & Kahle, L.R. (1985). Physical attractiveness of celebrity endorser: A social adaptation

perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 954-961.

Ilicic, J. & Webster, C.M. (2011).Effects of multiple endorsements and consumer-celebrity attachment

on attitude and purchase intention. Australasian Marketing Journal, (19), 230-237.

Ilicic, J., & Webser, C.M. (2008). Attachment to human brands: Opinions of celebrities endorsing

multiple brands. Retrieved from:

https://vpn.gw.ulg.ac.be/2440/,DanaInfo=hdl.handle.net+75056.

Jaiprakash, A.T. (2008). A conceptual research on the association between celebrity endorsement,

brand image and brand equity. Journal of Marketing Management, 7(4), 55-64.

Jowdy, E. & Mc Donald M. (2002). Tara Nott case study: Celebrity Endorsements and image

matching. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11(3), 186-189.

http://www.watoowatoo.net/mkgr/papers/nf-mk-sl-2006.pdf

https://vpn.gw.ulg.ac.be/2440/,DanaInfo=hdl.handle.net+75056


Kamins, M.A. & Gupta, K. (1994).Congruence between spokesperson and product type: A match-up

hypothesis perspective. Psychology and Marketing, 11(6), 69-87.

Kamins, M.A. (1990). An investigation into the match-up-hypothesis in celebrity advertising: When

beauty is only skin deep. Journal of Advertising, 19(1), 4-13.

Kanetkar, V., Weinbert, C.B & Weiss, D.L. (1992). Price sensitivity and television advertising

exposures: Some empirical findings. In: Weitz, B.A. & Wensley, R. (2002). Handbook of

Marketing (pp.151-158). London: Sage Publications.

Keller, K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal

of Marketing, 57, 2-7.

Keller, K.L. (1998). Strategic brand management: Building, measuring and managing brand equity.

Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Keller, K.L. (2001). Building customer-based brand equity: A blueprint for creating strong brands

(pp. 4-38). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

Keller, K.L., Apéria, T., & Georgson, M. (2008). Strategic brand management. Harlow, England:

Pearson Education Ltd.

Kelley, H.H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107-128.

Kirmani, A., Shiv, B. (1998). Effects of source congruity on brand attitudes and beliefs: The

moderating role of issue-relevant elaboration. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 25-47.

Kotler, P., Keller, K., Manceau, D., & Dubois, B. (2009). Marketing Management (13th Ed.). New

Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.

Krishnamurthi, L. & Raj, S.P. (1991).An empirical analysis of the relationship between brand loyalty

and consumer price elasticity. Marketing Science, 10, 172-183.

Leclerc, F., Schmitt, B.H. & Dube, L. (1994). Foreign branding and its effects on product perceptions

and attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(5), 263-70.


Lehu, J.-M. (1993). Origines et modes d'utilisation des célébrités par la publicité. Université Paris 1,

Panthéon Sorbonne.

Lynch, J. & Schuler, D. (1994). The match-up effect of spokesperson and product congruency: A

schema theory interpretation. Psychology and Marketing, 11 (5), 417-445.

Mai, L.-W. & Schoeller, G. (2009). Emotions, attitudes and memorability associated with TV

commercials. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 17, 55-63.

Mainville, O. (2012). Impact of celebrity endorsement on brand equity: What do negative occurrences

imply in terms of consumer's perception of a brand? HEC-Ulg, Liège.

Mathur, L.K., Mathur, I., &Rangan, N. (1997).The wealth effects associated with a celebrity endorser:

The Michael Jordan phenomenon. Journal of Advertising Research, 37(3), 67-73.

McCraken, G. (1986). Culture and consumption: A theoretical account of the structure and movement

of the cultural meaning of consumer goods. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 71-85.

McCraken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser cultural foundations of the endorsement process.

Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 310-322.

McDonough, J. (1995). Bringing brands to life. In : Erdogan, B.Z. (1999). Celebrity endorsement: a

literature review. Journal of Marketing Management, 15, 291-314.

Mehta, A. (1994). How advertising response modeling (ARM) can increase ad effectiveness. In:

Erdogan, B.Z. (1999). Celebrity endorsement: a literature review. Journal of Marketing

Management, 34(3), 62-74.

Meyers-Levy J., Louie T. A. & Curren M. T. (1994). How does the congruity of brand names affect

evaluations of brand name extensions? Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(1), 46-53.

Misra, S. & Beatty, S.E. (1990). Celebrity spokesperson and brand congruence: An assessment of

recall and affect. Journal of Business Research, 21, 159-173.

Mitchell, A.A. (1986). The effect of verbal and visual components of advertisements on brand

attitudes and attitude toward the advertisement. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(1), 12-24.


Misra, S. & Beatty, S.E. (1990). Celebrity spokesperson and brand congruence: An assessment of

recall and affect. Journal of Business Research, 21, 159-173.

Montgomery, D.B. (1975). New product distribution: An analysis of supermarket buyer decision. In:

Weitz, B.A. & Wensley, R. (2002). Handbook of Marketing (pp. 151-158).London: Sage

Publications.

Mowen, J.C. & Brown, S.W. (1981). On explaining and predicting the effectiveness of celebrity

endorsers. Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 437-441.

Najmi, Y. (2011). Celebrity endorsement : Effet de l’endossement par les célébrités sur l'intention

d'achat du consommateur. HEC-Ulg, Liège. (11-110).

Neumann, B. (2006). Leur image, c’est leur capital. In : Fleck-Dousteyssier, N. & Korchia, M. (2006).

Les célébrités dans la publicité : le rôle de la congruence. Centre de recherches DMSP. Paris.

O’Mahony, S. & Meenaghan, T. (1997). Research the impact of celebrity endorsements on consumers.

In: Erdogan, B.Z. (1999). Celebrity endorsement: a literature review. Journal of Marketing

Management, 15, 291-314.

Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived

expertise, trustworthiness and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19, 390-414.

Ohanian, R. (1991). The impact of celebrity spokesperson’s perceived image on consumers’ intention

to purchase. Journal of advertising research, 31(1), 46-52.

Peter, J.P., & Olson, J.C. (2010). Consumer behavior & marketing strategy (pp. 421-423). New-York:

McGraw-Hill International.

Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T., and Schuman, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising

effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 135-

146.

Pringle, H. (2004). Celebrity sells. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


Rao, A.R. & Monroe, K.B. (1989). The effects of price, brand name and store name on buyers’

perceptions of product quality: An integrative review. In: Weitz, B.A. & Wensley, R. (2002).

Handbook of Marketing (pp. 151-158). London: Sage Publications.

Redenbach, A. A multiple product endorser can be a credible source. Cyber Journal of Sport

Marketing, 9. Retrieved from:

http://fulltext.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/1999/cjsm/v3n1/redenbach31.htm.

Rossiter, J.R. & Percy, L. (1987). Advertising and promotion management. London: McGraw-hill.

Solomon, R.M., Bamossy, G., Askegaard, S. & Hogg, M.K. (2006).Consumer behavior: A European

perspective. Harlow, England: Pearson Educative.

Shimp, T. E. (2007). Advertising, promotion and other aspects of integrated marketing communication

(pp: 302-309). Texas: The Dryden Press.

Shimp, T.E. (2000). Advertising promotion: Supplemental aspects of integrated marketing

communications. In: Amos, C., Holmes, G., & Strutton, D. (2008). Exploring the relationship

between celebrity endorser effects and advertising effectiveness: A quantitative synthesis of

effect size. International Journal of Advertising, 27(2), 209-234.

Silvera, D.H. & Austad, B. (2004). Factors predicting the effectiveness of celebrity endorsement

advertisements. European Journal of Marketing, 38(11), 9-26.

Subhadip, R. (2012). To use the obvious choice: Investigating the relative effectiveness of an

overexposed celebrity. Journal of Research for Consumers, (22), 15-17. Retrieved from:

http://www.jrconsumers.com/Consumer_Articles/issue_22/SubhadipRoy-ConsumerArticle.pdf.

Thomasseli, R. (2004). $192 million: Nike bets big on range of endorsers. In: Erfgen, C. (2011).

Impact of Celebrity endorsement on brand image: A communication process perspective on 30

years of empirical research. Universität Hamburg.

Thomson, M. (2006). Human brands: investigating antecedents to consumers ‘strong attachments to

celebrities. Journal of marketing, 70, 104-119.

Thomson, M., MacInnis, D. & Park, C.W. (2005). The ties that bind: Measuring the strength of

consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 77-91.

http://fulltext.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/1999/cjsm/v3n1/redenbach31.htm

http://www.jrconsumers.com/Consumer_Articles/issue_22/SubhadipRoy-ConsumerArticle.pdf


Till, B.D &Busler, M. (2000). The match-up hypothesis: Physical attractiveness, expertise, and the

role of fit on brand attitude, purchase intentions, and brand beliefs. Journal of Advertising,

27(3), 1-13.

Till, B.D. & Shimp, T.A. (1995). Can negative celebrity information hurt the endorsed brand? In:

Erdogan, B.Z. (1999). Celebrity endorsement: a literature review. Journal of Marketing

Management, 15, 291-314.

Till, B.D. & Shimp, T.A. (1998). Endorsers in advertising: The case of negative information, Journal

of Advertising, 27(1), 67-82.

Till, B.D. (1998). Using celebrity endorsers effectively: Lessons from associative learning. Journal of

Product and Brand Management, 7(5), 400-409.

Tom, G., Clark, R., Elmer, L., Grech, E., Masetti, J. & Sandhar, H. (1992). The use of created versus

celebrity spokesperson in advertisements. The journal of Consumer Marketing, 9, 45-51.

Tripp, C, Jensen, T.D. & Carlson.L. (1994). The effect of multiple product endorsements by celebrities

on consumer attitudes and intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 535-547.

Um, N.H. (2008). Exploring the effects of single vs. multiple products and multiple celebrity

endorsements. Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 4(2), 104-114.

Weitz, B.A. & Wensley, R. (2002). Handbook of marketing (pp. 151-158). London: Sage

Publications.

Ziegel, V. (1983). Mark Spitz: Eleven years and seven gold medals later. Advertising Age, p.32.


8. Appendixes

Appendix 1: Focus group’s questionnaire: English version

Involvement

Please read carefully those 2 definitions:

High involvement products: Items for which the consumer is ready to spend money and that

requires effort and reflection.

Low involvement products: Items frequently bought and that requires little effort and

reflection as they are not essential and have no important impact on the consumer’s lifestyle.

Among those 10 products, choose 5 products that requires lowest involvement. Allocate

a mark from 1 to 5 to those 5 products (5 for the product that requires the lowest

involvement and 1 for the product that requires the highest involvement)

Ex : for instance, if salt is for you the product that requires lowest involvement when

purchasing it, you allocate it 5 points.

Nb: Please don’t give the same mark to 2 products

Only 5 products require a mark!

1) Des Chewing Gum …./5

2) Cell phone …/5

3) Shampoo …/5

4) Bread …./5

5) Ball point pen …/5

6) Jewelry…/5

7) Lemonade …/5

8) Toilet paper …/5

9) A car…/5

10) A book …/5


Appendix 2: Surveys

Questionnaire 1: simple endorsement

Group 1

Hi! I’m a master student in Management at HEC, University of Liege. By answering this short

questionnaire, you will contribute to my thesis’ success. Of course, you answers will be totally

anonymous.

Please, read carefully all the questions and answer them as seriously and naturally as possible,

following your feelings.

Thanks for your contribution.

Valentine Seivert.

Please watch carefully the advertisement and thick according to your agreement’s degree:

Strongly disagree

disagree I slightly disagree

I don’t agree nor disagree

I slightly agree

agree Strongly agree

Robert Pattinson is well-known :

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Robert Pattinson is good-looking :

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Robert Pattinson is attractive : ○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Robert Pattinson is trustworthy:

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Robert Pattinson is trustful : ○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Robert Pattinson is believable : ○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Robert Pattinson knows a lot about chewing-gum :

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Robert Pattinson knows a lot ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○


about candies : I dislike Robert Pattinson :

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Robert Pattinson is one of my favorite celebrity :

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Robert Pattinson is a great celebrity :

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Please assess you attitude toward purchase of that chewing-gum’s brand

1= bad 2 3 4 5 6 7 = good

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

1= foolish 2 3 4 5 6 7 = wise

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

1= harmful 2 3 4 5 6 7 =

beneficial

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

All things considered, how likely are you to buy this chewing’s brand?

1= extremely

unlikely

2 3 4 5 6 7 =

extremely

likely

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Please assess you brand attitude :

According to you, on a seven-point scale, this brand’s advertisement is

1= unlikeable

2 3 4 5 6 7= likeable

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

1= unappealing

2 3 4 5 6 7= appealing

○

○

○

○

○

○

○


1= unpleasant

2 3 4 5 6 7= pleasant

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

1= boring 2 3 4 5 6 7= interesting

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

1= not funny

2 3 4 5 6 7= funny

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

1= uninformative

2 3 4 5 6 7= informative

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

1= not entertaining

2 3 4 5 6 7= entertaining

○

○

○

○

○

○

○

Memorability’s test :

Which color is it said the chewing gum is?

○ pink

○ blue

○ white

Does Robert Pattinson have something in the hands?

○ yes

○ no

How many words are there around Robert Pattinson’s head?

○ 4


○ 7

○ 6

What’s the chewing-gum’s brand ?

○ « Freedent »

○ « Mentos 3 »

○ « Hollywood chewing gum »

Which color is the question mark on the package ?

○ white

○ Pink

○ blue

You are :

○ a woman

○ a man

Thank you for your attention!

Comment :


Questionnaire 2 : Multiple brands endorsement.

The Group number 2 exposed to an endorser known for his multiple brands advertisement and the

control group exposed to a non-famous endorser received the same questionnaire that the first group

(of course, the celebrity’s names were changed) but were exposed to different advertisements:

Advertisement for celebrity endorsing several brands

FINAL MASTER THESIS - Valentine Seivert

Documents

Transcript of FINAL MASTER THESIS - Valentine Seivert