Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
The Impact of a Celebrity's Expertise on the Intention to
Purchase
Merlin Kamp and Tineke Klamer
June 2008
University of T...
2. Theoretical Framework
First a definition of celebrity will be given. We will use the definition that has been used in
t...
There are two models that have been applied to the celebrity endorsement process. These are
the Source Credibility Model a...
The Source Attractiveness Model
McCracken (1989) is presenting the meaning transfer model in his research. The meaning
tra...
they ‘know’ the celebrity (Alperstein, 1991; Price et al. 2006). We assume that whether a
celebrity is known or not can be...
5. Method
Respondents will participate in an online visual experiment. The design for this experiment is:
O
R
X

O

Figure...
Experimental Group
1. The experimental group consists of 50 percent male respondents and 50 percent
female respondents. Th...
Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's
Alpha
.836

Cronbach's
Alpha Based
on
Standardized
Items
.834

Reliability Statistics

...
Model Summary
Model
1

R
.308a

Adjusted
R Square
-.006

R Square
.095

Std. Error of
the Estimate
.37322

a. Predictors: ...
Attractiveness
“I know the
Celebrity”
0,021

0.360
61

Trustworthiness

Perceived
Source-credibility =
expertness

0,095

...
Control Group
1. The control group consists of 37,5 percent male respondents and 62,5 percent female
respondents. The mean...
Are you a student?

Valid

Yes
No
Total

Frequency
6
2
8

Percent
75.0
25.0
100.0

Valid Percent
75.0
25.0
100.0

Cumulati...
The explained variance of the variable “I know the celebrity” is 0,423 and is not
significant (p=0,114 = α 0, 05)
Model Su...
4. The explained variance of the variable “Expertness” on the variable “Buyer Intention”
is 0,040 and is not significant (...
7. Conclusion and discussion
The conclusions of our research will be discussed in this chapter. First we will answer the
r...
References
Aaker, D., Myers, J. (1987). Advertising Management 3rd Edition, Engiewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, I...
APPENDIX
A. Additional SPSS Output from the experimental group
Histogram for gender

Gender

10

Frequency

8

6

4

2

Me...
Histogram for nationality

What is your nationality?

20

Frequency

15

10

5

Mean =1.08
Std. Dev. =0.289
N =12

0
0.6

...
B. Additional SPSS Output for the control group
Histogram for gender
Gender

Frequency

6

4

2

Mean =1.62
Std. Dev. =0.5...
Age

2.0

Frequency

1.5

1.0

0.5

Mean =22.5
Std. Dev. =2.449
N =8

0.0
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Age

20
Histogram for nationality
What is your nationality?

10

Frequency

8

6

4

2

Mean =1.12
Std. Dev. =0.354
N =8

0
0.6

0...
22
The Impact of a Celebrity's Expertise on the Intention to Purchase
Merlin Kamp and Tineke Klamer
June 2008
University of T...
24
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Onderzoek over Celebrity Endorsement

2,141 views

Published on

Een wetenschappelijk onderzoek dat ik heb uitgevoerd over Celebrity Endorsement.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Onderzoek over Celebrity Endorsement

  1. 1. The Impact of a Celebrity's Expertise on the Intention to Purchase Merlin Kamp and Tineke Klamer June 2008 University of Twente, Faculty of Behavioural Sciences Abstract Much research has been done in the field of celebrity endorsement to get more insight why companies use celebrities to promote their products or services. However, not much studies have been done to research the impact of these celebrities on the intention to purchase. This literature study gives more insight into this subject. Keywords: Celebrity, endorsement, expertise, purchase 1. Introduction ''Beauty is a greater recommendation than any letter of introduction''. This is a phrase of Aristotle and is very suitable for this paper. It shows the appreciation for the physical attractiveness of people in the world. Most celebrities that participate for advertisements are physically attractive. Examples are David Beckham, Anna Kornikova, Mariah Carey, Britney Spears and Pamela Anderson. These people play an important role in the advertising world. Many companies spend a lot of money to get a celebrity to promote their products. Celebrities serve to create and maintain attention, recognition, recall and increase intentions to purchase a product. Many studies in the field of celebrity endorsement discuss why companies use these celebrities to promote their products, what the advantages and disadvantages are and what the influence is of the attractiveness of the celebrity, the expertise and the trustworthiness. However, there are rarely studies about the impact on consumers of the attractiveness, expertise and trustworthiness on the intention to purchase. In this paper we focus on expertise and we think attractiveness and trustworthiness are moderators for expertise. In our research model this becomes much clearer. There is no doubt that attractive celebrity endorsers enhance attitudes towards advertising and brands, but whether they are able to create purchase intentions is ambiguous. It seems logical that David Beckham would have more expertise about football shoes than the Spice Girls. The trustworthiness seems to be also higher with David Beckham as celebrity endorser, but does it influence the purchase intentions of consumers? A new study on this topic fills the gap in the existing theory about celebrity endorsement. The pragmatic relevance is that companies and advertising agencies are more aware of the variables attractiveness, expertise and trustworthiness and how they can influence the intention to purchase a product. There are probably many companies and advertising agencies that don’t properly consider these variables when there are making a new advertisement or campaign with a celebrity playing the leading part. For this new study we have the next hypothesis: “Expertise influences a consumer's intention to purchase a product.” In order to get a good and reliable answer to this question it was important to get more insight into celebrity endorsement. 1
  2. 2. 2. Theoretical Framework First a definition of celebrity will be given. We will use the definition that has been used in the study of Pringle and Les Binet (2005). Pringle and Les Binet (2005) describe a celebrity as “a person with a clearly defined personality and reputation: they are known to be extremely good at something beyond their appearing in advertising and it’s their skill in their chosen field of endeavour which has brought them into the public eye and made them an object of veneration and respect.” Celebrities are often used in advertisements. Alperstein (1991) argues in his study about imaginary social relationships with celebrities appearing in television commercials, that “advertisements, along with other media content, create the illusion of interpersonal contact.” Horton and Wohl (1956, as read in Alperstein 1991) defined this as a form of social interaction and called this phenomenon intimacy at a distance. Levy (1979, as read in Alperstein 1991) stated that such interactions can be demonstrated by measuring the reaction of the audience to meanings attributed to a celebrity. This can be explained by the theory of parasocial relationships. Parasocial relationships (Price et al. 2006) are formed when people think they “know” the people they, for example, see on TV. These relationships are one-sided and based on illusion of interaction via television in stead of social interaction. These parasocial relationships can form a social context where people think they “know” the celebrity in the advertisement and therefore this celebrity receives a kind of credibility (or not). This kind of credibility is called source-credibility. Menon (n.d.), who studied the effectiveness of celebrity advertising, states that “a message source with higher credibility tends to be more effective than one with less credibility. Higher levels of source credibility tend to be associated with more positive attitudes toward the message and lead to behavioural changes. Therefore advertisers use celebrities if they think that these celebrities have a high level of credibility.” Source-credibility suggests that the effectiveness of a message depends on the “expertness” and “trustworthiness” of the source (Hovland et al. 1953). According to a model of Hovland et al. (1953) a message depends on the 'expertness' and 'trustworthiness' of the source for its effectiveness. Expertness is defined as the perceived ability of the source to make valid assertions. Trustworthiness is defined as the perceived willingness of the source to make valid assertions. A model of McGuire (1985) demonstrated that celebrities owe some of their effectiveness as marketing devices to their credibility and attractiveness. Research of Patzer (1985) identified that through increasing use of celebrities as endorsers of products, services and socials causes, attractiveness has become an important dimension of source credibility. According to Menon (n.d.) “expertness” refers to knowledge or expertise about a subject and is defined as “the perceived ability of the spokesperson to make valid assertions.” Menon (n.d.) also argues that the expert spokesman seems most appropriate with services or products that carry a higher or bigger risk, while an ordinary consumer is most appropriate for products and services that carry a lower risk. Expertise of a celebrity (when a celebrity is seen as an expert spokesman) also tends to highly correlate with believability and trustworthiness. According to Ohanian (1991), who studied the impact of the perceived image of a celebrity and buyer’s intention to purchase a product, source credibility isn’t only explained by “expertness” and “trustworthiness”, but also by “attractiveness”. According to Ohanian (1991) this is explained by the increasing use of celebrities as endorsers of products, services and social causes. Menon (n.d.) states that “celebrity appearance (physical attractiveness) seems to induce positive feelings towards the spokesperson and in some cases changes beliefs.” But Menon (n.d.) also states that not in every case attractiveness induced attitude changes. He argues that in several studies this effect wasn’t shown. Ohanian (1991) found a same sort of effect: that the use of celebrities in advertisements not always leads to attitude change. More research is needed to find evidence that attractiveness also leads to sourcecredibility. 2
  3. 3. There are two models that have been applied to the celebrity endorsement process. These are the Source Credibility Model and the Source Attractiveness Model. The Source Credibility Model The Source Credibility Model shows that the effectiveness of a message depends on the perceived level of expertise and trustworthiness of an endorser (Solomon, 1996). Trustworthiness refers tot the honesty, integrity and believability of an endorser. It depends on target audience perceptions. As a result of the findings of Friedman et al. (1978), authors urged advertisers to select personalities who are well liked when a trustworthy celebrity is desired to endorse brands. Desphande and Stayman (1994) confirmed that an endorser's ethnic status would affect endorser trustworthiness and as a result brand attitudes. These interactions occur because people trust individuals who are similar to them. Expertise is defined as the extent to which a communicator is perceived to be a source of valid assertions. It refers to the knowledge, experience or skills possessed by the endorser. It does not matter whether an endorser is an expert; all that matters is how the target audience perceives the endorser (Ohanian, 1991). A source/celebrity that has more expertise has been found to be more persuasive and to generate more intentions to buy the brand. (Aaker and Myers 1987 en Ohanian 1991). Ohanian (1990) constructed a tri-component celebrity endorser credibility scale. This scale assumes that credibility of celebrity endorsers is bound with given characteristic dimensions. Attractiveness Trustworthiness Expertise Attractive - Unattractive Classy - Not Classy Beautiful - Ugly Elegant - Plain Sexy - Not Sexy Trustworthy - Untrustworthy Dependable - Undependable Honest - Dishonest Reliable - Unreliable Sincere - Insincere Expert - Not expert Experienced - Inexperienced Knowledgeable - Unknowledgeable Qualified - Unqualified Skilled - Unskilled Table 1 Characteristics related to the degree of celebrity Ohanian (1991) said that the reason behind the popularity of celebrity advertising is the advertisers' belief that messages delivered by well-known personalities achieve a high degree of attention and recall for some consumers. Her research shows that often when reference is made to a credible celebrity spokesperson, no distinction is made among the expertise, trustworthiness, or attractiveness of the spokesperson. Ohanian (1991) researched the impact of expertise, trustworthiness and attractiveness on the intention to purchase a product. The results of the study state that the respondent's evaluation of the celebrity's perceived expertise with the product was significantly related to respondent's intention to purchase the product. The results also show that the use of a well-known personality can create initial interest and attention for an advertisement, but such an endorsement will not necessarily result in attitude changes toward the product. For celebrity spokespersons to be truly effective, they should be knowledgeable, experienced and qualified to talk about the product. Companies should attempt to employ celebrity spokespersons who have direct connections with their endorsed products and who are perceived to be experts by the target respondents. 3
  4. 4. The Source Attractiveness Model McCracken (1989) is presenting the meaning transfer model in his research. The meaning transfer model explains how a celebrity is chosen, how the properties of the celebrity become properties of the product and how the product/celebrity properties become properties of the consumer. This model has 3 stages: Figure 1 Three stages in the endorsement process In the first stage the model explains that the celebrities 'add value' to the meaning transfer process. Celebrities offer demographic information, such as distinctions of gender, age and status and they offer these meanings with special precision. Furthermore, celebrities offer a range of personality and lifestyle meanings that for example a model cannot provide. Celebrities also offer configurations of meaning that models can never posses. Celebrities have particular configurations of meaning that cannot be found elsewhere. In the second stage it is important to choose the celebrity who best represents the appropriate symbolic properties. The advertising or commercial must capture all the meanings it wishes to obtain from the celebrity and leave no meanings behind. The ad must be designed to suggest the essential similarity between the celebrity and the product so that the consumer will be able to take the last step in the meaning transfer model. For example, the properties of Britney Spears are now the properties of Pepsi. In de third and last stage we see that an endorsement by Britney Spears helps the properties of the wheelers become the properties of the consumer. Celebrities serve the final stage of meaning transfer because they are 'super consumers' of a kind. They are example figures because many people think that they have created the clear, coherent and powerful selves that everyone seeks. 3. Research Question and Hypothesis In this study buyer intention is examined when celebrities are praising products that aren’t in ‘their chosen field of endeavor’. For example, David Beckham praising perfume in stead of football gear or Madonna praising insurance policies in stead of music/fashion. The construct of source-credibility that affects buyer’s intention in this model is expertness. The other constructs attractiveness and trushworthiness were also being tested. We tested the correlation of these two constructs on expertness. Source-credibility only takes place when people think 4
  5. 5. they ‘know’ the celebrity (Alperstein, 1991; Price et al. 2006). We assume that whether a celebrity is known or not can be influenced by culture. Not every culture knows the same celebrities. Therefore the source-credibility can be affected by culture. Unless celebrities are used in the advertisements that are famous enough that practically every culture knows them, like Madonna, Michael Jackson, Ronaldinho and David Bechkam. This report focuses on the following research question: RQ: “What is the impact of a celebrity’s attractiveness, expertise and trustworthiness on a respondent’s intention to purchase a product/service?” The hypothesis of this research is: H0: “Expertise influences a consumer's intention to purchase a product/service.” 4. Research Model Attractiveness “I know the Celebrity” Trustworthiness Perceived Source-credibility = expertness Buyer intention Figure 2 The research model The manipulation in this model is the celebrity. This manipulation leads to a judgement (I know the person) which leads to perceived source-credibility (in this experiment the expertness). Attractiveness and trustworthiness are assumed to lead to source-credibility. The independent variables are: “I know the person”, attractiveness and trustworthiness on the perceived source-credibility (expertness). Also will be tested which if the variables lead to perceived source-credibility. The last relation that will be tested is perceived sourcecredibility (independent variable) on buyer intention (dependent variable). 5
  6. 6. 5. Method Respondents will participate in an online visual experiment. The design for this experiment is: O R X O Figure 3 The experimental design Respondents will randomly be chosen from a population of class mates, friends, colleagues and family. They will all receive an email with a link to the website where they can find the experiment. Respondents will randomly be assigned to one of the two groups (experimental group or control group). First the respondents will fill in some questions about gender, age, educational level and culture. Next they will view six different glossy advertisements with only female celebrities. In the experimental group the participants will see celebrities who are recommending products that aren’t in their field of expertness. In the control group the participants will see celebrities that are recommending products that are in their field of expertness. After viewing the advertisements, the respondents will answer some online questions about the expertness of the celebrity in the advertisement. The model used in this experiment is the source-credibility model. The tri-component celebrity endorser credibility scale of Ohanian (1991) will be used as constructs to measure source-credibility. Respondents will rate these constructs via a 5 points Likert scale. 6. Results From the send e-mails, 45 were addressed to the control group and 42 to the experimental group. In the control group 8 respondents took part and in the experimental group 12 respondents. The total response rate was 23 percent. The results were divided in two different SPSS sheets, one for the control group and one for the experimental group. We did all calculations on both groups. The calculations can be found in the appendix. First we made some frequency tables for the variables gender, nationality, age and student/not student. Second, we measured the reliability between the items of the scales and the represented variables attractiveness, trustworthiness and expertness. Third, we measured the relation between attractiveness, expertness and “I know the person”1 via linear regression. Before we could measure these relations, the items had to be compounded: the mean scores of all the items who measured this variable were added and turned into a new compounded variable. Fourth, we measured the relation between expertness and buyers intention via linear regression. 1 The variable “I know the celebrity” consisted of the answers “I know the celebrity” and “I presume to know the celebrity”, because everybody gave the right answer when they presumed to know the celebrity. The participants who didn’t know the celebrity were excluded. 6
  7. 7. Experimental Group 1. The experimental group consists of 50 percent male respondents and 50 percent female respondents. The mean age of the respondents is 27,58 years old. From the respondents 91,8 percent has the Dutch nationality. From our sample 58,3 percent is a student. All the variables were normal distributed. Statistics N Gender 12 0 1.50 .151 .522 .273 Valid Missing Mean Std. Error of Mean Std. Deviation Variance Age 12 0 27.58 2.883 9.986 99.720 What is your nationality? 12 0 1.08 .083 .289 .083 Are you a student? 12 0 1.42 .149 .515 .265 Table 2 Frequency table for gender, age, nationality and student or no student gender Valid Man Women Total Frequency 6 6 12 Percent 50.0 50.0 100.0 Valid Percent 50.0 50.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 50.0 100.0 Table 3 Frequency table for gender What is your nationality? Valid The Netherlands Other Total Frequency 11 1 12 Percent 91.7 8.3 100.0 Valid Percent 91.7 8.3 100.0 Cumulative Percent 91.7 100.0 Table 4 Frequency table for nationality Are you a student? Valid Yes No Total Frequency 7 5 12 Percent 58.3 41.7 100.0 Valid Percent 58.3 41.7 100.0 Cumulative Percent 58.3 100.0 Table 5 Frequency table for student or not student 2. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the variable “Attractiveness” is 0,836 and is significant (p= 0, 000 < α 0, 05). The Cronbach’s Alpha of the variable “Trustworthiness” is 0,725 and is significant (p=0, 0013 < α 0, 05). The Cronbach’s Alpha of the variable “Expertness” is 0,745 and is significant ( p= 0, 000 < α 0, 05). (All the Cronbach’s Alpha’s are bigger than 0,7 and are all significant. Our scale is thus reliable) 7
  8. 8. Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha .836 Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items .834 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha .725 N of Items 30 Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items .711 N of Items 28 Table 6 and 7 Cronbach’s Alpha with Attractiveness and Trustworthiness (all pictures are included) Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha .745 Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items .687 N of Items 30 Table 8 Cronbach’s Alpha with Expertness (all pictures are included) 3. The explained variance of the variable “Attractiveness” on the variable “Expertness” is 0,021 and is not significant (p= 0, 671 < α 0, 05). The explained variance of the variable “Trustworthiness” is 0,095 and is not significant (p=0,356 < α 0, 05). The explained variance of the variable “I know the celebrity” is 0,360 and is significant (p=0,051 = α 0, 05) Model Summary Model 1 R .145a R Square .021 Adjusted R Square -.088 Std. Error of the Estimate .38819 a. Predictors: (Constant), Attractiveness a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Attractiveness Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 2.819 .836 .150 .341 Standardized Coefficients Beta .145 t 3.373 .439 Sig. .008 .671 a. Dependent Variable: Expertness Table 9 Expertness and Attractiveness with Linear Regression 8
  9. 9. Model Summary Model 1 R .308a Adjusted R Square -.006 R Square .095 Std. Error of the Estimate .37322 a. Predictors: (Constant), Trustworthiness a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Trustworthiness Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 2.209 1.008 .332 .341 Standardized Coefficients Beta .308 t 2.192 .972 Sig. .056 .356 a. Dependent Variable: Expertness Table 10 Trustworthiness and Expertness with Linear Regression Model Summary Model 1 R .600a R Square .360 Adjusted R Square .289 Std. Error of the Estimate .31392 a. Predictors: (Constant), knowz3 a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) knowz3 Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 2.530 .305 .552 .245 Standardized Coefficients Beta .600 t 8.292 2.249 Sig. .000 .051 a. Dependent Variable: Expertness Table 11 I know the person (without answer 3) and Expertness with Linear Regression 4. The explained variance of the variable “Expertness” on the variable “Buyer Intention” is 0,083 and is not significant (p=0,389 < α 0, 05). Model Summary Model 1 R .289a R Square .083 Adjusted R Square -.018 Std. Error of the Estimate .15548 a. Predictors: (Constant), Expertness a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Expertness Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1.392 .423 .120 .132 Standardized Coefficients Beta .289 t 3.292 .905 Sig. .009 .389 a. Dependent Variable: BuyerIntention Table 12 Buyer Intention and Expertness with Linear Regression 9
  10. 10. Attractiveness “I know the Celebrity” 0,021 0.360 61 Trustworthiness Perceived Source-credibility = expertness 0,095 0,083 Buyer intention Figure 4 Results of the experimental group 10
  11. 11. Control Group 1. The control group consists of 37,5 percent male respondents and 62,5 percent female respondents. The mean age of the respondents is 22,5 years old. From the respondents 87,5 percent has the Dutch nationality. From our sample 75 percent is a student. All the variables are normal distributed. Statistics Gender N Valid Missing 8 0 1.63 .183 .518 .268 Mean Std. Error of Mean Std. Deviation Variance What is your nationality? 8 0 1.13 .125 .354 .125 Age 8 0 22.50 .866 2.449 6.000 Are you a student? 8 0 1.25 .164 .463 .214 Table 13 Frequency table for gender, age, nationality and student or no student Gender Valid Man Women Total Frequency 3 5 8 Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Valid Percent 37.5 62.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 37.5 100.0 Table 14 Frequency table for gender Age Valid 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Total Frequency 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Percent 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 12.5 25.0 37.5 50.0 62.5 75.0 87.5 100.0 Table 15 Frequency table for age What is your nationality? Valid The Netherlands Other Total Frequency 7 1 8 Percent 87.5 12.5 100.0 Valid Percent 87.5 12.5 100.0 Cumulative Percent 87.5 100.0 Table 16 Frequency table for nationality 11
  12. 12. Are you a student? Valid Yes No Total Frequency 6 2 8 Percent 75.0 25.0 100.0 Valid Percent 75.0 25.0 100.0 Cumulative Percent 75.0 100.0 Table 17 Frequency table for student or no student 2. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the variable “Attractiveness” is 0,934. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the variable “Trustworthiness” is 0,792. The Cronbach’s Alpha of the variable “Expertness” is 0,976 and is significant. (All the Cronbach’s Alpha’s are bigger than 0, 7. Our scale is thus reliable) Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha .934 Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items .934 Reliability Statistics N of Items 30 Cronbach's Alpha .792 Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items .819 N of Items 30 Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha .792 Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items .819 N of Items 30 Table 18 and 19 Cronbach’s Alpha with Attractiveness and Trustworthiness (all pictures are included) Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha .976 Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items .979 N of Items 30 Table 20 Cronbach’s Alpha with Expertise (all pictures are included) 3. The explained variance of the variable “Attractiveness” on the variable “Expertness” is 0,534 and is not significant (p= 0, 062 < α 0, 05). The explained variance of the variable “Trustworthiness” is 0,015 and is not significant (p=0,792 < α 0, 05). 12
  13. 13. The explained variance of the variable “I know the celebrity” is 0,423 and is not significant (p=0,114 = α 0, 05) Model Summary Model 1 R .731a R Square .534 Adjusted R Square .441 Std. Error of the Estimate .48634 a. Predictors: (Constant), Attractiveness a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Attractiveness Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1.100 .528 .541 .226 Standardized Coefficients Beta .731 t 2.085 2.395 Sig. .092 .062 a. Dependent Variable: Expertise Table 21 Expertness and Attractiveness with Linear Regression Model Summary Model 1 R .123a R Square .015 Adjusted R Square -.182 Std. Error of the Estimate .70726 a. Predictors: (Constant), Trustworthiness a Coefficients Model 1 Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 3.073 2.847 -.278 1.000 (Constant) Trustworthiness Standardized Coefficients Beta t 1.079 -.278 -.123 Sig. .330 .792 a. Dependent Variable: Expertise Table 22Trustworthiness and Expertness with Linear Regression Model Summary Model 1 R .650a R Square .423 Adjusted R Square .307 Std. Error of the Estimate .54160 a. Predictors: (Constant), Knowz3 a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Knowz3 Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 3.400 .618 -.867 .453 Standardized Coefficients Beta -.650 t 5.506 -1.913 Sig. .003 .114 a. Dependent Variable: Expertise Table 23 I know the person (without answer 3) and Expertness with Linear Regression 13
  14. 14. 4. The explained variance of the variable “Expertness” on the variable “Buyer Intention” is 0,040 and is not significant (p=0,668 < α 0, 05). Model Summary Model 1 R .200a R Square .040 Adjusted R Square -.152 Std. Error of the Estimate .24066 a. Predictors: (Constant), Expertise a Coefficients Model 1 (Constant) Expertise Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1.533 .357 .069 .151 Standardized Coefficients Beta .200 t 4.296 .455 Sig. .008 .668 a. Dependent Variable: ByerIntention Table 24 Buyer Intention and Expertness with Linear Regression Attractiveness “I know the Celebrity” 0,534 0,423 Trustworthiness Perceived Source-credibility = expertness 0,015 0,040 Buyer intention Figure 5 Results of the control group 14
  15. 15. 7. Conclusion and discussion The conclusions of our research will be discussed in this chapter. First we will answer the research question and the hypothesis. At last we will discuss future research in this field. RQ: “What is the impact of a celebrity’s attractiveness, expertise and trustworthiness on a respondent’s intention to purchase a product?” We have found evidence that knowing the celebrity has an effect on the perceived expertness of the celebrity. In the experimental group this effect (0.360) was significant (p=0,051 = α 0, 05), in the control group this effect (0.423) wasn’t significant. In the control group attractiveness (0.534) had an effect on expertness (p= 0, 062 < α 0, 05). In the experimental group it is clear that the model doesn’t predict everything. There has to be another intervening variable, which could be the manipulation. In the control group our model predicts expertness better. Expertise influences a consumer's intention to purchase a product We have found that expertise doesn’t influence the consumer’s intention to purchase a product. We have found evidence (not significant) that there is an indication that the buyer intention is even bigger when celebrities praise products that aren’t in their field of endeavour. In other words, when the celebrity’s expertise is low, they sell even more products. Respondents in the experimental group were more likely to buy the product (an effect of 0,083, p=0,389 < α 0, 05) than respondents in the control group (an effect of 0,040, p=0,668 < α 0, 05). These results weren’t significant. More research is needed to reject the hypothesis. This research should be seen as a preliminary study. Future research should focus on moderator variables like culture and age and should involve more respondents. An intervening variable for source-credibility can be age. Younger people are more easily influenced by celebrities than older people (Menon n.d). Therefore different age groups could be used in future studies. Also are the results limited to the used celebrities and the fact that we only used female celebrities in our research. Future research could include more celebrities and male celebrities for comparison. 15
  16. 16. References Aaker, D., Myers, J. (1987). Advertising Management 3rd Edition, Engiewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Alpenstein, N.M. (1991), Imaginary social relationships with celebrities appearing in television commercials, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media (35) vol. 1, 4358 [electronic version] Desphande, R., Stayman D. (1994). "A Tale of Two Cities: Distinctiveness Theory and Advertising Effectiveness," joumal of Marketing Research, 31(1), 57-64. Friedman, H., Termini, S., Washington, R. (1976), The Effectiveness Product" Joumal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 6, 291-299. Hovland, C., Weiss, W. (1953), The influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness. Public Opinuin Quarterly, 15, 635-650. Menon M. (n.d.), Celebrity Advertising: an assessment of its relative success, http://condor.depaul.edu/~dweinste/celeb/celeb_adverts.html McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Foundation of the Endorsement Process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3): 310–21. McGuire, W. (1985), Attitudes and Attitude Change. Handbook of Social Psychology, Volume 2, 233-246. Ohanian, R. (1990), Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure Celebrity Endorser's Perceived Expertise, Trustworthiness and Attractiveness, Joumal of Advertising, 19(3),39-52. Ohanian, R. (1991), The Impact of Celebrity Spokesperson's Perceived Image on Consumers' Intention to Purchase," joumal of Advertising Research, Celebrity Endorsement 31(1) , 46-52. Patzer, G. L. (1985), Research Claims that Beauty is Wallet Deep, Marketing News, (Aug.), 30. Price et al. (2006), Mass media research: advances trough meta-analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc. Philadelphia Pringle, H. and Binet, L. (2005), How marketers can use celebrities to sell more effectively, Journal of Consumer Behavior (3) vol. 4, 201-214 [electronic version] Solomon, M. (1996), Consumer Behavior. 3rd Edition, London: Prentice-Hall Intemational, Inc. 16
  17. 17. APPENDIX A. Additional SPSS Output from the experimental group Histogram for gender Gender 10 Frequency 8 6 4 2 Mean =1.5 Std. Dev. =0.522 N =12 0 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 Gender Histogram for age Age 6 5 Frequency 4 3 2 1 Mean =27.58 Std. Dev. =9.986 N =12 0 20 40 60 Age 17
  18. 18. Histogram for nationality What is your nationality? 20 Frequency 15 10 5 Mean =1.08 Std. Dev. =0.289 N =12 0 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 What is your nationality? Histogram for student or no student Are you a student? 10 Frequency 8 6 4 2 Mean =1.42 Std. Dev. =0.515 N =12 0 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 Are you a student? 18
  19. 19. B. Additional SPSS Output for the control group Histogram for gender Gender Frequency 6 4 2 Mean =1.62 Std. Dev. =0.518 N =8 0 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 Gender Histogram for age 19
  20. 20. Age 2.0 Frequency 1.5 1.0 0.5 Mean =22.5 Std. Dev. =2.449 N =8 0.0 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Age 20
  21. 21. Histogram for nationality What is your nationality? 10 Frequency 8 6 4 2 Mean =1.12 Std. Dev. =0.354 N =8 0 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 What is your nationality? Histogram for student or no student Are you a student? Frequency 6 4 2 Mean =1.25 Std. Dev. =0.463 N =8 0 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 Are you a student? 21
  22. 22. 22
  23. 23. The Impact of a Celebrity's Expertise on the Intention to Purchase Merlin Kamp and Tineke Klamer June 2008 University of Twente, Faculty of Behavioural Sciences The images for: the experimental group (original image) and control group (manipulated image) 23
  24. 24. 24

×