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.

Seivert Valentine 2
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.

Seivert Valentine 3
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.

Seivert Valentine 4
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

Seivert Valentine 5
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

Seivert Valentine 6
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

Seivert Valentine 7
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.

Seivert Valentine 8

Seivert Valentine 9
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.

Seivert Valentine 10
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.
CredibilityAttractiveness

“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 likeableunlikeable
Y is appealingunappealing
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.

FINAL MASTER THESIS - Valentine Seivert

FINAL MASTER THESIS - Valentine Seivert

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (13)

Similar to FINAL MASTER THESIS - Valentine Seivert

Similar to FINAL MASTER THESIS - Valentine Seivert (20)

FINAL MASTER THESIS - Valentine Seivert