I NT E R NAT I ONE L L A HANDE L S HGS KOL AN

HGSKOLAN I JNKPING






Cel ebri t y Endorsement -
Hidden factors to success
Master`s thesis within Business Administration
Author: Chabo Dimed
Saouma Joulyana
1utor: Gustasson Veronica
Co-examinator: Daidsson Per
Jonkoping: May 2005


J NKP I NG I NT E R NAT I ONAL BUS I NE S S S CHOOL
Jonkoping Uniersity



Cel ebri t y Endorsement -
Hidden factors to success
Master`s thesis within Business Administration
Author: Chabo Dimed
Saouma Joulyana
1utor: Gustasson Veronica
Co-examinator: Daidsson Per
Jonkoping May 2005


i
Master Thesis in Business administration
Title: Celebrity Endorsement
Authors: Chabo Dimed, Saouma Joulyana
Tutor: Gustavsson Veronica
Co-examinator: Davidson Per
Date: May 27
th
200S
Subject terms: Celebrity endorsement, Source credibility, Source
attractiveness, Negative publicity, Conjoint Analysis
Abstract
1he use o celebrity endorsement strategy is nowadays more requently used by
marketers in order to increase their sales and thereby extend their market shares. Many
celebrities are used in arious marketing campaigns and in most cases, the use o
celebrities as endorsers is seen rom mainly positie aspects. 1his made the authors
curious whether the negatie aspects, that also exists when using celebrities as endorsers,
aects consumers in their purchasing decisions when a celebrity gets associated with
negatie publicity. Another cause o interest is which actors o a certain celebrity are
most important and crucial in consumers` perceptions, in the case o negatie publicity.
Purpose: 1he purpose o this thesis is to study which actors consumers ind important
or a company to consider when a celebrity gets negatie publicity, to maintain
successul brand recognition.
Literature review: 1he use o preious studies within the ield o celebrity
endorsement clariies many important aspects when it comes to celebrity endorsement
and this chapter is elaborated rom 4 dierent perspecties, Company, Celebrity, Brand
and Consumer. Based on preious studies, the authors identiied 6 crucial attributes
when using celebrities as endorsers and this can also be seen as a pre-study that the
research process has been based upon. lurthermore, the 6 attributes are chosen rom
the three irst mentioned perspecties in order to be able to ulil the purpose. lence,
this thesis is conducted rom a consumer`s point o iew.
Method: A quantitatie method is used in this thesis since the authors want to base the
results on collected data that is expressed in numbers and also to generate a general
apprehension in this phenomenon. Moreoer, the combinations containing the 6
attributes are used in the conjoint experiment.
Conclusions: It was proen in this study that consumers do get aected by celebrities
as endorser, when the attributes rom the literature reiew are in a combination. But, the
consumers` perception o the attributes diers in dierent cases. loweer, the main
inding was that there are two crucial attributes, trustworthiness and expertise that
companies should take into account when using celebrities in their adertising
campaign.


ii
Table of Contents
1 Introduction............................................................................ 1
1.1 The emergence of celebrity endorsement ..................................... 1
1.2 The two-sided effect of celebrity endorsement .............................. 2
1.3 Limitations ..................................................................................... 4
1.4 Purpose......................................................................................... 4
1.5 Research questions....................................................................... 4
1.6 Outline of this study....................................................................... 4
2 Literature review.................................................................... 6
2.1 Introduction ................................................................................... 6
2.2 Celebrity endorsement strategy .................................................... 7
2.3 Company....................................................................................... 7
2.3.1 Choose and use celebrities as endorsers........................... 8
2.4 Celebrity........................................................................................ 9
2.4.1 Source credibility ................................................................ 9
2.4.2 Source attractiveness ....................................................... 10
2.4.3 Source Power ................................................................... 11
2.5 Brand........................................................................................... 11
2.5.1 Brand equity ..................................................................... 11
2.5.2 Meaning transfer............................................................... 12
2.5.3 Multiple brand endorsement ............................................. 13
2.6 Consumer.................................................................................... 14
2.6.1 Consumer behaviour and negative publicity ..................... 14
2.7 Chapter summary........................................................................ 15
2.7.1 Hypotheses....................................................................... 16
3 Methodology ........................................................................ 18
3.1 Introduction ................................................................................. 18
3.2 Sampling ..................................................................................... 18
3.3 Conjoint Analysis......................................................................... 20
3.3.1 Attributes and attribute level ............................................. 21
3.3.2 Different approaches of conjoint analysis ......................... 22
3.3.3 Experimental design ......................................................... 22
3.3.4 Pilot study ......................................................................... 23
3.3.5 Data collection .................................................................. 23
3.3.6 The survey........................................................................ 24
3.4 Statistics...................................................................................... 24
4 Analysis and results............................................................ 26
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................. 26
4.2 Research question 1 ................................................................... 26
4.2.1 Testing the hypothesis...................................................... 27
4.2.2 Results research question 1 ............................................. 27
4.3 Research question 2 ................................................................... 28
4.3.1 Case 1 .............................................................................. 28
4.3.2 Case 2 .............................................................................. 28
4.3.3 Testing the hypothesis...................................................... 29
4.3.4 Results research question 2 ............................................. 29


iii
4.4 Research question 3 ................................................................... 29
4.4.1 Perceived importance of attributes ................................... 30
4.4.2 Results research question 3 ............................................. 30
4.5 Chapter summary........................................................................ 31
5 Conclusions and discussion.............................................. 33
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................. 33
5.2 Research questions..................................................................... 33
5.3 Discussion................................................................................... 34
5.4 Final words from the authors....................................................... 35
5.5 Prospects for future researches .................................................. 35
6 Critique of this research process....................................... 37
References................................................................................. 38

Figures
Figure 1-1: The Optimal use of celebrity endorsement (Chabo & Saouma,
2005) ................................................................................................. 3
Figure 1-2: The effect of negative information (Chabo & Saouma, 2005) ...... 3
Figure 2-1: The structure of the literature review............................................ 6
Figure 2-2: A triangular relationship (Pringle, 2004)....................................... 8
Figure 2-3: Meaning transfer in the endorsement process (Schlecht, 2003) 13
Figure 1-1: The network of optimal use of a celebrity (Chabo & Saouma,
2005) ............................................................................................... 35

Tabels
Table 3-1: Numbers of Students at Jnkping University ............................ 20
Table 3-2: Attributes and attribute level of the conjoint experiment.............. 21
Table 4-1: Outline of research process ........................................................ 26
Table 4-2: Ranking the attributes ................................................................. 30

Appendices
Appendix 1- 8 profiles for the six attributes at two levels.............................. 42
Appendix 2 - Research Survey.................................................................... 43
Appendix 3- Extract from pilot study............................................................. 63
Appendix 4 - Appendix concerning reserach question 1 ............................. 64
Appendix 5- Appendix concerning reserach question 2 case 1................... 66
Appendix 6- Appendix concerning reserach question 2 case 2................... 67
Appendix 7- Anova tables ........................................................................... 68
Appendix 8- Perception of attributes ........................................................... 70
Introduction

1
1 Introduction
1be avtbor. ritt re.evt a geverat vvaer.tavaivg of tbe toic, cetebrit, evaor.evevt, iv tbe fir.t cbater.
vrtbervore, tbe avtbor. ritt at.o re.evt tbe robtev area, rbicb tbi. .tva, ritt be ba.ea ov, fottorea b,
tbe vro.e ava tbe ovttive of tbe .tva,.
1.1 The emergence of celebrity endorsement
1he use o adertising has changed oer the past 150 years, rom the classical to the
modern school. In the modern adertising strategies arious appeals are included, such as
sexual, chock, emotional, ear, and humour ,Seern, Belch & Belch, 1990, Belch and Belch,
2001, Soderlund, 2003,. 1he main purpose o these appeals is to delier the inormation
that the company seeks to send to gain high brand awareness and brand recognition among
a large audience. loweer, when using any o these appeals there is always a person
included, sometimes someone unknown or in most cases a well known person in the public
eye. According to McCracken ,1989,, a well-known person tends to hae a greater eect
on the consumer buying behaiour. 1his is especially i people more easily can identiy
themseles with this particular person ,Lrdogan, Baker, & 1agg, 2001,. McCracken ,1989,
also states that celebrity endorsement adertising has been recognized as a ubiquitous
eature o modern marketing.
1he concept itsel, celebrity endorsement, is recognized by marketers because it has an
eect that inluences the message ,brand, the company is trying to send rom someone
that the consumers eel a sense o similarity with. Consumers tend to ealuate inormation
rom a communicator ,celebrity,, which they hae similar a goal, interest or liestyle with
greater than someone they do not ,Lrdogan et al, 2001,. lurthermore, celebrities hae an
ability to transer their image to a speciic product that is being adertised ,\heeler, 2003,.
Companies hae taken this opportunity into account and tries, through using it as an
adertising tool, to gain a high brand exposure, attention, interest, desire and action ,Belch
& Belch, 2001,.
Celebrities are people who enjoy public recognition by a large share o a certain group o
people and they hae distinctie characteristics, such as attractieness and trustworthiness
,Silera & Austad, 2004,. Many companies hae realized the importance o celebrity
endorsement as a marketing communication tool ,Belch & Belch, 2001, Soderlund, 2003,.
In using this adertising tool, a company will in the short run generate a high awareness
among a larger audience as well as an increased market share. Since this adertising tool has
gained such attention rom arious companies, the price leel is extremely high
,Daneshary & Schwer, 2000, Kambitsis, larahousou, 1heodorakis, & Chatzibeis, 2002,.
As billions o dollars are spent per year on celebrity endorsement contracts, which indicates
that celebrities play an enormous and important role or the adertising industry. A recent
example o this is the Super Bowl in the United States o America, where thirty seconds o
adertising cost approximately seenteen million SLK. Pepsi used many dierent
celebrities, such as Cindy Craword, P Diddy and Carson Kressley to promote diet Pepsi.
leineken, on the other hand, used Brad Pitt in their endorsement strategy, where he
earned around three to ie million USD or his eort ,Lundell, 2005,.
1his shows that celebrity endorsement is a ery popular adertising tool, due to the prices
companies are ready to pay and the eect it has on consumers buying behaiour ,Belch &
Belch, 2001, McCracken, 1989, Soderlund, 2003,. 1hereore, a disputable issue rises
Introduction

2
upon which attributes and personal characteristics o a celebrity a company base their
choice. lurthermore, Silera & Austad ,2004, state that celebrities are eectie endorsers
because they are iewed as highly belieable, likeable, pursuable, and trustworthy.
loweer, celebrity endorsement might ary when it comes to the it between the celebrity
and the adertised product, as well as the leel o eectieness on the purchasing
behaiour ,1ill & Shimp, 1998,. 1his entails that the use o celebrity endorsement might
hae a risk when there is a lack o it or when the celebrity gets associated with negatie
publicity ,Soderlund, 2003,. Negatie publicity occurs when negatie inormation is spread
and associated with the celebrity. lence, negatie inormation can be direct, indirect
and,or perceied subjectiely.
1.2 The two-sided effect of celebrity endorsement
1here are not many researchers who hae embarked on the concept o negatie
inormation, which celebrities` causes or consumers` ealuations o endorsed brands ,1ill
& Shimp, 1998,, but still there are many dierent aspects on how negatie inormation can
be iewed. lurthermore, Soderlund ,2003, argues that celebrities can be perceied as less
trustworthy when they are adertising too many brands ,multiple brand endorsement, since
the consumers get dierse inormation. On one hand, a celebrity who is linked with
positie inormation has a greater opportunity to reach out to the targeted audience. On
the other hand, negatie inormation brings an association that decreases the
trustworthiness o a celebrity and the it with the brand, which is also the authors`
deinition o negatie inormation.
One example where the it between the celebrity and the brand has been ery successul is
Michael Jordan and Nike. 1he reason that the authors assume the perect it with the brand
is based on the act that Nike captured their endorser to a higher leel where they
deeloped a new brand within Nike called Air Jordan. One can assume that Michael Jordan
has not shown any indications o being reolutionary in the media. Basically, one can say
that Michael Jordan has been a ery good endorser or this brand, in the sense o his high
expertise and him being trustworthy, where a large audience eels a sense o similarity with.
Now twenty years later, they still use him in their adertising, which strengthens the
assumption o the good it between Michael and Nike ,Belch & Belch, 2001,.
laing this inormation in mind the authors decided to create a model to acilitate the
understanding o how the use o a celebrity aects the company. ligure 1-1 shows, when
the inormation the celebrity is sending out is optimal, and there are no obstacles between
the celebrity, brand, consumers, and company. As one can see, when looking at the model,
the company, celebrity, brand and consumer are interconnected as a continuous network.
In this optimal model, there are no particular obstacles that harm the celebrity
endorsement process. 1his implies that the it between the celebrity and brand are
integrated.





Introduction

3
Soderlund ,2003, argues that celebrities are not proitable to be used in a long-run
perspectie, i they in any matters are not maintaining releance with the consumers.
1his is an issue or companies,
because consumers are easily
adapting to another celebrity,
sometimes because one cannot
ully predict the lie-span o a
celebrity ,1ill & Busler, 1998,.
1his can aect the brand image
and also the leel o loyalty a
consumer has towards a brand.
lurthermore, Soderlund ,2003,
discusses that demographical
changes o a celebrity cannot be
seen as anything negatie
towards the brand.
loweer, eeryone cannot be as
perect as Michael Jordan. 1here
are always some celebrities that get negatie publicity, sometimes what media creates and
sometimes their own personal actions. 1his indicates that companies hae to be more
careul when selecting a celebrity who will endorse one o their brands. 1he authors hae in
igure 1-2 chosen to demonstrate how negatie publicity o a celebrity aects the company,
brand, and consumer. 1his igure tells us, that when a celebrity is associated with negatie
publicity, the celebrity is only aecting each part separately and that there is no connection
between the company, brand and consumer. lurthermore, there is no low in the network
o connections which also aects the lack o it between the celebrity and brand. 1he
questions that arise are, how are these our parts ,company, celebrity, consumer and brand,
connected, when a
celebrity is associated
with negatie
publicity low can a
company oercome
these obstacles in the
long run \ould the
use o a celebrity who
gets negatie publicity
destroy the brand
image and the leel o
loyalty consumers eel towards a brand Does the it between a celebrity and company
aect the consumers when a celebrity gets associated with negatie inormation Does the
meaning, a celebrity is transerring, aect the consumer`s perception o the brand, i a
celebrity is associated with negatie inormation 1he authors` beliee that rom the
perspectie o this thesis, the eect o negatie inormation on a celebrity is the most
interesting aspect to study, as it is not limited to certain exceptional elements but can make
use o a ariety o elements like source attractieness, source credibility, and source power.
Brand Company Consumer
Celebrity
ligure 1-2: 1he eect o negatie inormation ,Chabo &
Saouma, 2005,.

Company
Brand
Consumer
Celebrity

ligure 1-1: 1he Optimal use o celebrity
endorsement ,Chabo & Saouma, 2005,.
Introduction

4
1.3 Limitations
According to igure 1-2, the authors discuss the eect o negatie inormation and how the
celebrity aects the company, consumers and brand. loweer, the authors beliee that the
consumers are the end group o the network because they are the ones that the company is
trying to reach through their brand and the adertising tool, celebrity endorsement.
1hereore, the authors will base their study on a consumer perspectie.
1.4 Purpose
1he purpose o this thesis is to study which actors consumers ind important or a
company to consider when a celebrity gets negatie publicity, to maintain successul brand
recognition.
1.5 Research questions
1his thesis is intended to inestigate whether the attributes that hae been conducted
through the literature reiew ,chapter 2, really aects consumer purchase decisions.
lurthermore, the authors are ery interested to study i the consumers ealuate the
attributes dierently, when dierent endorsers, who get negatie publicity, are adertising a
product or serice. Lastly, the authors want to see how the consumers perceied the
attributes separately. 1he reason in doing this is to compare the results rom the conjoint
and the surey to show which attributes are perceied as the most important ones. 1hus,
this thesis addresses more precisely the ollowing research questions.
1. \hich actors rom the literature reiew aect the consumers` willingness to
purchase a product or serice that is endorsed by a celebrity who is associated with
negatie inormation, when the attributes are in a combination
2. Do the attributes rom the literature reiew hae dierent impact on consumers`
willingness to purchase a product or serice, when dierent celebrities are used as
endorsers
3. \hich attributes do consumers ind to be o most importance when ealuating
them separately
1.6 Outline of this study
Chapter J: 1he introduction chapter consists o an explanation concerning the importance
o celebrity endorsement in the adertising industry. 1he authors will urther on explain the
two-sided eect o celebrity endorsement, positie and negatie. Also, the purpose o this
thesis will be addressed ollowed by the research questions.
Chapter 2: 1he literature reiew is diided into our dierent phases, Company, Celebrity,
Brand and Consumer. 1hese parts are all related to celebrity endorsement strategy with its
main purpose to ind important attributes that will be studied urther on in this thesis.
Lastly, this will lead to a conclusion o this chapter and the hypotheses.
Chapter 3: 1he methodology chapter explains how the authors will approach this research
process in order to ulil the purpose. 1his will be done by using a quantitatie method and
more precisely a conjoint experiment.
Introduction

5
Chapter 4: In the analysis and results chapter, the main indings will be presented ollowed
by an analysis o the most crucial aspects within this subject. Lastly, the authors will present
a chapter summary and conclude the most important attributes.
Chapter S: In this chapter, the authors will answer the research questions and draw the
main conclusions ollowed by the inal words rom the authors. linally, the authors will
present suggestions or uture researches.
Chapter 6: 1he inal chapter will proide the reader with critique o this study.
Literature reiew

6
2 Literature review
1bi. cbater .ee/. to fiva tbe vo.t crvciat attribvte. tbat i. vo.tt, a..ociatea ritb cetebrit, evaor.evevt
.trateg,. 1bi. iv tvrv to at, tbe fottorivg attribvte. iv tbe vetboaotog, art of tbi. .tva,.
2.1 Introduction
\hen a celebrity gets associated with negatie inormation a company has to consider
arious actions to be able to maintain a good position on the market and a similar leel o
brand recognition as well. 1his indicates that a company needs to deelop a strategy that
preents upcoming obstacles ,1ill & Shimp, 1998,, i a celebrity that they are using as an
endorser gets associated with negatie inormation. \ithin this rame, which is also the
main body o this thesis, the authors will diide it into our dierent phases that are directly
related to each other. lence, these are the main pillars. 1he purpose o this chapter is to
identiy crucial attributes that will urther on be used in the research process. 1o acilitate
or the reader, the authors hae chosen to explain the structure o this chapter in the igure
below.

ligure 2-1: 1he structure o the literature reiew
As one can see rom the igure 2-1, this chapter is outlined with the basis o celebrity
endorsement strategy which is also the main ocus when elaborating later, concerning the
our dierent phases. 1hese parts will be intergrated and brought together as a summary o
the most important issues, which will also enhance the process o choosing releant
attributes or the experimental design ,see section 3.3.3,.
Company
Phase 1
Celebrity
Phase 2
Brand
Phase 3
Consumer
Phase 4
Celebrity endorsement strategy
Conclusions - identiication o attributes
Literature reiew


2.2 Celebrity endorsement strategy
Marketers usually use indiiduals who hae achieed some orm o celebrity status to sere
as spokespersons or their companies. Most o the celebrities that are hired by a company
to pitch their products or serices are popular people, moie stars, entertainers, athletics, or
pop-stars, although occasionally a politician or some other well-known public igure may
be used ,Belch & Belch, 2001,. lurthermore, when a company decides upon using an
endorsement strategy as their marketing communication tool, the main ocus lies in
exposing their brand ,Kotler, Armstrong, Saunders, & \ong, 2001,. In an endorsement
strategy a new sort o product is gien a new brand name that is unique or that product
,Riezebos, 2003,. Besides the unique brand name, they also get proided with the name o
an endorser. In this case, the endorser is a celebrity and unctions as endorsement which
means an approal or support that can be seen as a guarantee o recommendation or
consumers. According to Riezebos ,2003, it is only adisable to use endorsers or brands i
there is a high leel o brand-added alue. 1his means that the name o the endorser should
be clearly isible next to the name o the branded article.
Companies hae jointly been using their brands and themseles, through the use o
celebrity endorsers, in hope that celebrities may boost eectieness o their marketing
attempts in the long-term ,Belch & Belch, 2001,. Basically, a company is trying to send
arious types o inormation to their target audience. 1o be able to deelop an eectie
adertising and promotional campaign, a company has to select their endorser appropriate
to dierent channels and media ,1ill & Shimp, 1998,, such as source, message, and receier
,Belch & Belch, 2001,. 1hus, the brand can be seen as the message the company is trying
to send to their audience. Moreoer, the source which is intended to send this message in
an endorsement strategy is in this case, the celebrity. lurthermore, the receier in the
communication process is the consumer ,Belch & Belch, 2001,.
1he authors hae chosen to present each phase o this thesis separately. 1he reason in
doing this is to bring the reader an understanding o the eect celebrity endorsement
strategy has on each phase.
2.3 Company
According to Lrdogan & Baker ,2004,, there are seeral reasons why companies choose to
use celebrity endorsement to a larger extent. Managers seek to reresh the brand image,
awareness and attention getting and also to add new dimensions to the brand image.
According to Pringle ,2004,, the best identiied celebrity that is seen as the best or
promoting a brand, is one o the more important decisions considering how consumers
will perceie the brand. 1here are less important decisions or a brand compared to the
choice o celebrity such as what it is named, places where it is seen and sold and what kind
o adertising campaign it runs. 1hese considerations are taken into account and this is also
the reason why many companies are ready to inest a huge amount o money in choosing
and using a certain celebrity, whose identity its well with their brand. loweer, it is not
only the inolement between the celebrity and the brand, the consumers are also
integrated. Pringle ,2004, has outlined this relationship and it is shown in igure 2-2.
Literature reiew

8

ligure 2-2: A triangular relationship ,Pringle, 2004,
1hese three actors are important or a company to take into account in order to aoid any
obstacles when it comes to the triangular relationship. lence, another important area is
that the company only can regulate these three to a certain extent, or the process o
celebrity endorsement to be successul.
Unortunately, when looking at preious experiences rom the use o celebrity
endorsement, there are many examples that celebrities might change their behaiour, iews
and their perceied personality rather drastically ,Soderlund, 2003,. Certainly, consumers
might change their perception o the celebrities since the latter mentioned hae changed.
loweer, the worst outcome is that a celebrity is certainly no longer the indiidual that the
company chose to promote their brand in the irst place. 1his leads to a decrease in the
connection between the celebrity and brand ,Belch & Belch, 2001,.
2.3.1 Choose and use celebrities as endorsers
According to Lrdogan et al. ,2001, managers choose celebrity endorsers depending on the
product type and how that its with the characteristics o a celebrity. 1his will, according to
Louie & Obermiller ,2002,, lead to a more eicient adertising.
Celebrities can be chosen by companies to increase their competitie adantage or three
main reasons, launch, reinorcement and repositioning ,Pringle, 2004,.
1he irst opportunity is when launching the brand or the irst time and the use o
celebrity can be ery powerul in this situation. 1his can be particularly strong when
establishing a new category and the consumers need reassurance and an appropriate
star will proide them this.
Celebrity endorsement can be ery eectie when maintaining and reinorcing a
brand`s competitie position in the market. 1he use o celebrities in this situation
can be especially eectie i other brands hae entered the marketplace and thereby
changed its dynamics.
\hen the consumers` needs create greater potential in a dierent sector in the
market than the one which the brand is currently positioned, repositioning with the
help o a celebrity will be in order. 1he appropriate celebrity can be used as the
ocus o the brand communication and this shows consumers that it`s positioning is
changing in order to suit an emerging target audience.
In a research done by Bielli ,2003, it is shown that 18 o all the tested commercials
eature amous celebrities. In oerall, this study shows that celebrities are used to grab
attention, generate interest and inolement in the brand. Also, the right` celebrity can
add alues by associations. A suggestion made by this research is that the celebrity should
not oershadow the brand and instead be beneicial i the celebrity is used or what the
My personality
Celebrity personality Brand personality
Literature reiew

9
brand is already amous or. Instead, the brand should borrow and build on the celebrity. A
conclusion made by Bielli ,2003, is that a celebrity with a generally likeable personality is
more likely to make or success. Moreoer, adertisers and marketers need to ask
themseles our questions beore engaging too deep in a celebrity. low amous is the
celebrity low well does the celebrity it with the brand \hich acets o this celebrity can
best work or the brand proile low much o this can the brand inance Many studies
show that the deeper it between the celebrity and the brand it is the more likely to be
eectie in the marketplace. 1hereore, the company should strie to create a close
connection as possible between the celebrity and the brand ,Pringle, 2004,.
2.4 Celebrity
A celebrity can be considered as the source o the message a company seeks to send to
their target audience. According to Belch & Belch ,2001,, the term source, when talking
about the inolement in communicating a marketing message, can occur either directly or
indirectly. Directly can be the celebrity who unctions as a spokesperson and who sends
out the inormation that the company wants to delier to their target audience. Indirectly is
when a celebrity does not send the message, but instead draw attention to and,or enhances
the appearance o the ad ,Belch & Belch, 2001,. loweer, as mentioned in phase one, a
company hae to careully select a celebrity that has a good it with the brand, which is
intended to be exposed ,Pringle, 2004,.
\hen a company decides on the use o a celebrity in their endorsement strategy, there are
three ery important source actors, source credibility, source attractieness, and source
power ,Belch & Belch, 2001, 1ill & Shimp, 1998, Ohanian, 1990,. 1hese will now be
presented.
2.4.1 Source credibility
Credibility is the extent to which the receier sees the source as haing releant knowledge,
skills, experience and trust to gie unbiased and objectie inormation. Source credibility is
used to imply a communicator`s positie characteristics that will aect the receier`s
acceptance o a message ,Ohanian, 1990,. Basically, one can say that a communicator,
celebrity, can be seen as knowledgeable and a person with expertise. lurthermore, the
source needs to be trustworthy, in the sense o honesty, ethics, and belieability ,Belch &
Belch, 2001,. 1hese two attributes, that a celebrity needs to hae to be a successul
endorser in an adertising campaign, are presented more in-depth below.
erti.e: Belch & Belch ,2001, discusses that a spokesperson are oten chosen due
to their knowledge, experience, and expertise in a particular product or serice.
lurthermore, Ohanian ,1990, states that the perceied expertise o celebrity
endorsers is more important in explaining purchase intentions rather than their
attractieness and trustworthiness. She also argued that celebrity endorsers are
more eectie when they are knowledgeable, experienced, and qualiied to talk
about the product they are endorsing. On the whole, .ovrce eerti.e in persuasie
communication, indicates generally that the source`s perceied expertise has a
positie impact on attitude change.
1rv.trortbive..: In comparison to expertise, a celebrity needs to be trustworthy when
endorsing a product or a serice ,Schiman & Kanuk, 2004,. 1his is logically based
on how honest the celebrity is about what he,she says concerning the brand.
lurthermore, Belch & Belch ,2001, discusses that the target audience must ind the
Literature reiew

10
source ,celebrity, belieable. Moreoer, Ohanian ,1990, states that when a celebrity
is perceied more trustworthy, the message will be more eectie and the recieer
will be more integrated. lence, trustworthiness is the degree o conidence in the
communicator`s intention to communicate the assertions he,she considers being
the most alid ,Ohanian, 1990,.
Belch & Belch ,2001, argues that when the inormation rom a credible source inluences
the belies, opinions, and attitudes o the receier, the latter mentioned adopts the opinion
o the credible communicator. 1his is based on the assumption that the inormation rom
the source is accurate. I the celebrity achiees to integrate the receier with the
inormation that he,she meant to send, the company will in the long run gain a loyal
consumer, in the sense that the consumer is more integrated with the brand and not to a
high scope with the celebrity.
1he authors beliee that using these attributes, expertise and trustworthiness, will be
accurate in the research process. 1he authors beliee it will proide the thesis with aluable
results. lurthermore, it will also be considered as the underlying actor in the process o
inding suitable attributes which consumers ind important or a company to consider
when a celebrity gets associated with negatie inormation.
2.4.2 Source attractiveness
Source attractieness is more related to physical attributes, such as similarity, amiliarity,
and likeability. 1hese are important in the indiidual`s initial judgment o another person
,Ohanian, 1990,. Similarity is a supposed resemblance between the source and the receier
o the message, while amiliarity reers to the knowledge o the source through exposure.
Liability is aection or the source as a result o physical appearance, behaiour or other
personal traits ,Belch & Belch, 2001,. Source attractieness aects the receier in the sense
o that they are identiying themseles with the celebrity. 1his does also motiate the
receier to seek some type o relationship with the source and thus adopts similar belies,
attitudes, preerences, or behaiour. lurthermore, i a celebrity changes position, the
receier might ollow and adapt to these changes ,Belch & Belch, 2001, Ohanian, 1990,. I
this happens, the celebrity has ulilled its unction. loweer, not many celebrities achiee
this, but as mentioned beore, the main purpose with source attractieness is to make a
consumer eel a part o the celebrity as well as the company and brand.
1he three attributes similarity, amiliarity, and likeability are more elaborated below.
ivitarit,: \hen talking about similarity, Belch & Belch ,2001, mentions that the
consumers are more easily inluenced by a message coming rom someone with
whom they eel a sense o similarity with. lurthermore, Ohanian ,1990, elaborated
on the act that similarity can be measured i the communicator and receier hae
similar needs, goals, interest and liestyle.
avitiarit,: According to Belch & Belch ,2001,, amiliarity can be considered as the
leel o knowledge a celebrity possesses o a brand. \hen a company considers
choosing a celebrity or their adertising campaign, they need to analyze the
preious knowledge a celebrity has or how he,she will utilize their knowledge in
the exposure phase. 1he authors beliee that this will be an attribute that the
respondents will obsere as too diicult to ealuate and thereore the authors will
exclude it rom the research process. lurthermore, the respondent might ind it to
be to diusie.
Literature reiew

11
i/eabitit,: Marketers hae an important unction when choosing which celebrity to
use in their adertising campaign. Basically, these celebrities need to be admired or
at least well known in the public eye ,Belch & Belch, 2001,. lurthermore,
celebrities hae to be popular on the market and hae certain characteristics that
are extraagant. Moreoer, the company has to ind a balance to make sure that the
celebrity does not oershadow the brand itsel ,Ohanian, 1990,. 1his can be a
problem or the company when a celebrity might be associated with negatie
inormation.
Summarizing the eect o source attractieness, one can say that it is used to create
eectie messages, where the attribute attractieness reers to the endorser`s physical
appearance, personality, likeability, and similarity ,Salomon, 2002, Ohanian, 1990,. 1he
authors hae chosen to urther elaborate on the attributes similarity and likeability. 1his,
because they are key attributes when creating eectie messages, thus they will aect the
research process and proide it with crucial inormation that will acilitate the approach to
ulil the purpose.
2.4.3 Source Power
\hen mentioning the power a celebrity has in adertising, one mainly reers to how well
they can persuade the consumer to a purchase. 1his is ery beneicial in personal selling,
where personal communication can be an eicient way to conince or lead a consumer
into a purchase ,Salomon, 2002, Ohanian, 1990,. loweer, the power as source
characteristics is ery diicult to apply in a non-personal inluence situation such as
adertising. 1he reason is that a celebrity in an ad generally cannot apply any sanctions to
the receier or determine any compliance that will actually occur ,Belch & Belch, 2001,.
loweer, the source power can be beneicial in an endorsement strategy when using an
indiidual with an authoritatie personality as a spokesperson.
1he authors hae decided to exclude the whole concept o source power rom the research
process, since it does not belong within the rame o this thesis. 1he main reason
underlying this statement is because the purpose o this thesis does not inole any
personal selling, more than the adertising perspectie o the use o celebrity.
2.5 Brand
A brand, according to Keller ,2002, is a name, term, sign, symbol or een a combination o
them in order to identiy the goods and serices that are being adertised. 1he consumers
will be able to more easily dierentiate one brand rom their competitors due to the
dierent attributes associated with the brand. Adertising has a great impact on how
consumers will perceie a brand. Branding is about creating dierences and proiding
products,serices with the power o brand equity ,Aaker, 1991,.
Brand is one o the main pillars o this thesis and the authors explained earlier its
importance on the celebrity endorsement process. Since branding is an extensie area, there
will be a special ocus within branding such as brand equity, the meaning transer process,
and multiple brand endorsement. 1he concepts o brand linked together with the
adertising tool celebrity endorsement will be discussed in the dierent sections below.
2.5.1 Brand equity
Len though brand equity diers among companies it should in general be deined within
the area o marketing eects that is distinctie to a brand. 1he concept o brand equity
Literature reiew

12
arises when consumers react to more preerable products and the way it is marketed when
the brand gets identiied. One has to be aware, according to \algren, Ruble & Donthu
,1995, that brand equity will be less aluable or the manuacturers and retailers i it does
not hae any meaning to the consumers. Keller ,2002, continues explaining that brand
knowledge is composed o awareness ,recall and recognition, whereas brand image is more
about aourability, strength and uniqueness o a brand association.
Adertisers spend great sums o money to hae celebrities promoting their
products,serices with the expectation that consumers will react positiely to the
celebrity`s association with a certain brand. Consumers might say to themseles I she
uses it, it must be good` and I I use it, I will be like her` ,Belch & Belch, 2001,. In the
long term, this way o thinking may lead to an increase in the sales and thereater the brand
equity. Brand equity ,Riezebos, 2003, indicates the intrinsic alue in a well-known brand
name. 1he amount o alue that is reerred to in a brand name depends on consumer`s
perception o the brand domination and through social esteem that is proided when using
it as well as the consumers trust and identiication with the brand. 1he most aluable assets
in many companies are their brand names such as Coca-Cola and Nike which are also
reerred to as mega brands ,Riezebos, 2003,.
Brand equity can be inluenced by adertising in seeral ways ,\algren et. al, 1995,.
Awareness o the brand can be created and increase the possibility that the brand is
included in the consumer`s mind. Moreoer, when these brand associations get stored in
the consumers accessible memory, it can later lead to behaioural actions. 1he usage
experience can be inluenced through the use o adertising and it can also aect the
perceied quality o a brand ,\algren et. al, 1995,. A celebrity spokesperson is used in
order to promote a company`s product,brand and or these in turn to be associated with
the celebrity ,Belch & Belch, 2001,. 1his relates to the image,meaning transer model
described in the next section.
2.5.2 Meaning transfer
McCracken`s transer model is based on meanings and he suggests that the eectieness o
the endorser depends on the meaning the celebrity is bringing into the endorsement
process and the brand ,Schlecht, 2003, McCracken, 1989,. lence, he created the meaning
transer model in order to explain the celebrity endorsement process. Celebrities are ull o
dierent meanings e.g. demography ,age, gender, personality and liestyle types. 1his
makes it obious that a celebrity represents not only one meaning but rather a ariety o
seeral ones. 1hese celebrity spokespersons are ery useul in marketing brands since they
proide the consumers with quite a ew characteristics when ealuating the brands in
question. Celebrities add alue to the image transer process because they are oering
meanings o deepness and power rom their personality and lie styles, in comparison to
non-amous endorsers ,Schlecht, 2003,.




Literature reiew

13
1he model illustrates a three-stage process o meaning transer. 1his inoles the creation
o the celebrity image, transer o meaning rom the celebrity to the brand and the third
stage is how the brand transers image onto the consumers ,Schlecht, 2003,.
Meaning Acquisition Lndorsement Consumption





ligure 2-3: Meaning transer in the endorsement process ,Schlecht, 2003,
\hen the brand`s representatie eatures should be determined, the consumers` needs
should be considered. 1hen the adertising company has to decide on what celebrity to
choose and who possesses the most appropriate characteristics in relation to the brand.
Simply, there has to be a congruence or it between the celebrity and the product,brand
,Schlecht, 2003,.
2.5.3 Multiple brand endorsement
Nowadays, it is not unlikely that celebrity spokespersons can and are endorsing seeral or a
speciic brand. 1his situation is called multiple brand endorsement or een multiple
celebrity endorsement. Adertising irms might share certain spokespersons and thus the
celebrity will end up promoting more than one brand. An example o this is the actress
Catherine Zeta-Jones who promoted both 1-Mobile and Llizabeth Arden. Also, the gol
champion 1iger \oods endorsed as much as three brands, American Lxpress, Rolex and
Nike. 1he marketers hae to question i this kind o celebrity endorsement does aect
consumer brand attitudes ,Schlecht, 2003,. loweer, consumers are becoming more
knowledgeable within the ield o marketing and they might think that the celebrity rather
preers to get paid instead o transerring any meaning to the product, which in turn will
aect the consumer buying behaiour ,Belch & Belch, 2001,.
Preious experience explained by Redenbach ,2005, shows that an endorsement o our
dierent brands or products does indeed inluence the celebrity`s credibility,
trustworthiness, expertise and likeability. 1he reason or this is that a amous person, who
endorses seeral products instead o only ocusing and representing one speciic brand, will
eentually attain a lack o distinctieness. loweer, one has to be aware that the use o
multiple brand endorsement does not hae to imply that it is useless. Researches hae
actually showed some potential positie eects like transer o positie brand images. Also,
the shape o consumers response gets aected positiely when more than our products
are being endorsed ,Redenbach, 2005,.
It can also be beneicial to endorse a product with multiple celebrities. Celebrity
spokespersons represent a dierent mix o types, like gender and age. Using multiple
celebrities in collaboration they can more eectiely endorse a speciic brand. 1he cosmetic
manuacturer L`Oreal matches its wide range o product lines depending on the celebrities
and their meanings ,Redenbach, 2005,.




Stage 1





Stage 2




Stage 3
Role 1
Role 2
Role 3
Celebrity Product Consumer
Literature reiew

14
2.6 Consumer
1he continuously increasing competitieness has triggered many adertisers to realize that
they need to detect the consumers` actual needs in order to satisy them. By identiying the
consumer buying behaiour, it is more likely that the marketers will target products and
serices directly towards the consumers` needs. Marketing is about satisying needs and
thereore it is crucial or marketers to understand the releance o human needs to buyer
behaiour. Consumers tend to search or, purchase, use, ealuate, and dispose
products,serices that they expect will satisy their needs ,Schiman & Kanuk, 2004,.
1he uses o endorsers or spokespersons as credible sources are nowadays being requently
used by adertisers in order to inluence consumer`s attitudes and purchase intentions
,Goldsmith, Laerty & Newell, 2000,. Credibility according to Belch & Belch ,2001,
means in this context the extent which the source is perceied as possessing expertise
releant to the communication topic and can be trusted to gie an objectie opinion related
to the subject. 1rustworthiness reers to the honesty and belieability o the source whereas
expertise is originated rom the knowledge o the subject. 1rustworthiness along with
expertise are dimensions that are important to theorize credibility and it has been shown
that they are ery inluential when inluencing attitudes and persuading consumers.
2.6.1 Consumer behaviour and negative publicity
Publicity tends to be more credible and hae more power than general marketing
communications exerted by a company ,Dean, 2004,. Lspecially, negatie publicity seems
to hae the tendency to damage the company`s image. 1his is mainly due to the act that
high credibility as well as the negatiity eect has a tendency to be more relected upon
than positie inormation in the consumer`s ealuations. It is more likely that companies
will receie bad exposure since the media preers to present bad news. 1ill & Shimp ,1998,
support this statement and continues, explaining that companies hae to be aware o the
possibility o attaining negatie publicity when using celebrities as endorsers, since this may
eect the consumers` perception o the brand.
1he consumers` support o a brand is o major importance or the prospect existence o a
brand and the organization ,Riezebos, 2003,. I an incident occurs in relation to the brand,
the consumer`s trust in the brand will ade and the consequence will aect the consumers
purchasing behaiour. \hen consumers get questioned by marketers about their
purchasing behaiour, they gie the impression that incidents with brands do not inluence
their choices. Usually they also claim that neither adertising nor negatie publicity aects
them. Riezebos ,2003, also states that the most objectie way to determine this eect on
consumers is to list changes in the market shares.
Moreoer, i negatie publicity leads to brand damage, the media can be seen both as the
source,spreader o publicity simultaneously as challengers. In the case o source,spreader
the media unctions as a gate-keeper whereby it concentrates on those incidents that bring
about newsworthiness. Other incidents with a high newsworthiness are releant with a
particular brand in crisis. 1his is true mainly because the other eents can act as delections
and push away the negatie publicity o the brand. An example o this push away eent`
can be a natural disaster. 1he media can thereore also play an essential role in the
challenge o negatie publicity. In this case, one can think o the incident as possible but on
the other hand the attention during this news should be spent on the rebuilding o a brand
in order to retain the consumers and maintain the brand recognition ,Riezebos, 2003,.
Louie & Obermiller ,2002, explains the case o negatie eents` as problems that can take
Literature reiew

15
place when a amous person gets inoled in incidents that change or damage his,her
reputation. 1hese kinds o circumstances can dier widely rom misused exposure to an
accident that holds back a celebrity`s ability to perorm. In a study made by 1ill & Shimp
,1998, it was ound that negatie inormation about a celebrity can harm how consumers
perceie the product,brand through the connected link between the brand and celebrity.
\hen a company has a potential relationship with a celebrity, the consumers will not ocus
on the company but rather on the circumstances surrounding the celebrity. Consumer`s
reaction may not be unpleasant when irms reject high blame potential endorsers since
these could be harmul to the company`s image and the consumer buying behaiour.
loweer, due to the reason o consumers being deensie, they are supposed to not react
heaily when the potential endorsers hae low blame. Also, endorser candidates can be
more complex than the existing endorsers ,Louie & Obermiller, 2002,.
2.7 Chapter summary
1he main purpose o this section is to introduce the eatures that are releant when
inestigating which attributes consumers consider to be most appropriate or a company to
keep in mind, beore deeloping a celebrity endorsement strategy. 1he attributes hae been
elaborated rom preious empirical indings within celebrity endorsement, where the main
ocus hae been addressed on celebrities and the eect they hae had on company, brand
and consumer. lurthermore, the authors hae narrowed this additionally and put the ocal
point on how negatie inormation will aect the consumers and how this is linked to the
three other phases in this thesis. 1hese attributes will play the most important role when
conducting the conjoint analysis, and they will be presented in section 3.3.1.
By analyzing many earlier studies, the authors came to the conclusion that most o these
hae been structured in a similar way. Basically, the starting point was to elicit the
enormous role a celebrity hae had on the modern adertising industry. lurthermore, many
o these researchers hae embarked on how the consumers get aected by celebrities ,1ill
& Shimp, 1998, Soderlund, 2003, Silera & Austad, 2004, Belch & Belch, 2001,
McCracken, 1989,. Only a ew o them hae concentrated on the negatie eect a celebrity
can hae on consumers. 1his is the reason why, the authors chose to conduct this thesis
rom that nature.
1hese attributes are based on studies rom both qualitatie and quantitatie research
methods. 1he act that similar or exact attributes are mentioned and discussed in the both
research methods, only strengthen the thought that the attributes within this thesis are
comprehensie. loweer, it can also be seen as a weakness in only using the already
analyzed attributes since there might be other more important attributes that consumers
might ealuate in this dynamic market. lence, the time span limits the author`s ability to
search or other innoatie attributes. Despite this, earlier attributes will hopeully bring
another understanding related to consumer`s perspectie on celebrities in adertising.
1he ollowing attributes are elaborated on preious studies. 1hese attributes are related to
the company, celebrity and brand. 1he reason why no attributes are directly related to the
consumer is because the research is conducted rom a consumer perspectie, which
indirectly will lead to indings on what attributes consumers eel are most important or
companies to take into account when celebrities get associated with negatie publicity.


Literature reiew

16
Company
1he most important aspect that has been brought up is how well the celebrity fit.;vatcbe.)
with the company`s enironment and the brand as well. Consumers might perceie a brand
dierently depending on what celebrity a company chooses. 1he greater fit between the
celebrity and the brand, it is more likely or a consumer to accept this adertising tool. A
good congruence between the belies o a celebrity and a company will enhance the brand
recognition. 1hereore, the authors beliee that the fit ;vatcb) between the celebrity and
company is rather important to inestigate urther on when a celebrity gets associated with
negatie inormation and i a change o the fit will in turn change consumer`s perception
o a brand. 1his assumption is strengthen by Lrdogen & Baker ,2004,, Pringle ,2004,,
Brown ,2003,, Daneshary & Schwer ,2000,, Louie & Obermiller, ,2002,, Kamins ,1990,,
& 1ill & Shimp ,1998, who claim that it` ,match, can be considered as an attribute.
Celebrity
\hen talking about source credibility, both the attributes eerti.e ava trv.trortbive.. are
included. lurthermore, the eectieness o a message depends on the celebrities` eerti.e
ava trv.trortbive... 1he belies, opinions, attitudes and behaiour can be inluenced by the
inormation o a credible source. 1his occurs when the consumer ,receier, accepts a
source inluence when it comes to their personal attitude. Source attractieness includes
.ivitarit, ava ti/eabitit, which are also two attributes that will be used in the conjoint analysis.
1he underlying reason or this is because the authors eel they can play an important role
when analyzing the celebrity`s eerti.e, trv.trortbive.., .ivitarit, ava ti/eabitit, and how that
inluences the consumers` purchase behaiour when the celebrity gets associated with
negatie inormation ,Lrdogan et al, 2001, Ohanian, 1990, 1ill & Shimp, 1998, Silera &
Austad, 2004, Kamins, 1990, Daneshary & Schwer, 2000, Kamins, Brand, loeke &
Moe,1989,.
Brand
1he most important aspect to consider when talking about brand and celebrity is to what
extent a celebrity can trav.fer av, veavivg to the brand itsel. 1hereore, the more a celebrity
has the ability to trav.fer veavivg. to the brand, the more a consumer will associate with the
celebrity. lence, when a celebrity gets associated with negatie inormation, it might occur
that the celebrity looses the ability to transer the right meaning to the brand as the
company would like to. 1his indicates also that the consumer will get aected, sometimes
in a positie way and sometimes negatiely. 1hereore, the authors assume this is an
important attribute to study, in the sense on how consumers react to the meaning a
celebrity transers, when negatie inormation is associated with a certain celebrity
,Schlecht, 2003, Redenbach, 2005, 1ill & Shimp, 1998, \algren, Ruble & Donthu, 1995,
Gwinner, 199,.
2.7.1 Hypotheses
1o summarize this, one can conclude that the presented attributes are considered as the
personal characteristics o a celebrity. loweer, the main purpose o this thesis is to study
which attributes that a company has to consider when a celebrity gets associated with
negatie inormation. 1o be able to ulil the purpose o this thesis and also answer the
research questions ,the irst and second, that are posed in section 1.5, the authors ind it
ery appropriate to inestigate i there is a relationship between the consumer willingness
to purchase a product or serice, with the presented attributes in a conjunction. 1hereore,
Literature reiew

1
the irst hypothesis deals with i the consumers really get aected by the chosen attributes
rom the literature reiew. 1his leads us in to the ollowing hypothesis:
H
A
: 1he celebrity-product combination attributes expertise, trustworthiness,
similarity, likeability, meaning transfer, and fit (match) affect the consumers'
willingness to purchase a product or service also under condition of negative
information.
As in research question two, the authors are aiming to understand i the consumers are
aected dierently by these attributes when dierent celebrities are used as endorsers.
1hereore, the authors are ery keen on inestigating i consumers` willingness to purchase
a product or serice diers when using dierent celebrities. 1his leads us into the second
hypothesis:
H
B
: 1he relative importance of specific celebrity-product combination attributes is
different depending on which specific celebrity is used as endorser.
Methodology

18
3 Methodology
This chapter will describe the choice of methods and how the process of gathering
empirical data will occur to fulfil the purpose of this thesis. The approach that will be
used is a quantitative one, and the survey will be analysed through a conjoint
experiment.
3.1 Introduction
Many researchers hae supported the idea o using a multi-method approach in a
marketing research study. llick ,2002, & Carson, Gilmore, Perry & Gronhaug ,2001,, are
just a ew to mention and they urther claimed that a combination o qualitatie and
quantitatie approaches can lead to interesting and exciting explorations within a research
study. 1he integration o these two methods should also be seen as complementary rather
than rialry. Moreoer, llick ,2002, suggested that a thorough qualitatie pre-study should
be carried out in order or a quantitatie study to be successul. loweer, due to the time
span the authors hae with the thesis they decided that a multi-method-approach cannot be
undertaken. 1hereore, the authors hae decided upon conducting a quantitatie research.
In a quantitatie method according to Lsaiasson, Gilljam, Oscarsson & \gnerud ,2002,
the study is based on collected data that can be expressed in numbers to be estimated later.
1he reason or this choice o method is based on the act that many companies claim
themseles to be consumer-drien, but still ail when conducting a marketing research, this
because they are only running ocus groups, sending out questionnaires, and analysing sales
data ,Gustasson, lerrmann, & luber, 2001,. loweer, the main reason or this ailure is
basically that the company does not understand the consumer needs and has a lack o
inormation about the market ,Iggland, 1989,. lrom the perspectie o the purpose o this
thesis, the authors are aiming to identiy the most important actors a company should
consider rom consumers point o iew, when a celebrity gets associated with negatie
inormation. 1hereore, a quantitatie approach will proide this thesis with better results
that will lead to the process o drawing general conclusions and to get an oerall picture
among the larger sample ,Gustasson et al., 2001,. As stated in the multi-method approach,
conducting ocus groups as a pre-study will aour the study o this thesis. But, at the same
time many researchers hae embarked on the concept or the use o celebrity endorsement,
and thereore they hae come to the conclusion that some actors are more beneicial or a
company to consider when using a celebrity in their endorsement strategies ,McCracken,
1989, Seern, Belch & Belch, 1990, Lrdogen et al., 2001, \heeler, 2003, Silera & Austad,
2004, 1ill & Shimp, 1998, 1ill & Busler, 1998,. 1he authors o this thesis hae thereore
chosen to use the recommended attributes when conducting a quantitatie approach, and
exclude the use o ocus group or any other pre-study.
1he attributes hae been diided within the rame o this thesis, company, celebrity, brand,
and consumer. Basically, one can say that this thesis has our dierent phases. lence,
releant attributes hae been directly addressed to each phase and research questions hae
been deeloped. 1he authors will aim to ind proper results or each research question in
an eicient way in order to identiy the dierse consumer needs.
3.2 Sampling
1he most important aspect a researcher has to keep in mind is how to determine an
appropriate research population and a proper sampling procedure. According to Churchill
,1995, the sampling procedure can be diided into probability and non-probability
Methodology

19
sampling. lurthermore, Saunders et al. ,2003, explains probability sampling, as the chance
o each case being selected rom the population which is known. In non-probability
sampling there is an assumption that there is an een distribution o characteristics within
the population. \ithin business research it is oten not possible to speciy the probability
that any case will be included in the sample and thus, the sample must be selected some
other way ,Churchill, 1995,.
Probability sampling inoles the selection o a sample rom a population, based on the
principle o randomization or chance ,Aczel & Sounderpandian, 2002,. lence, probability
sampling is more complex in the sense that it sometimes inoles two dierent stages o
sampling. 1hereore, it can be considered to be more time consuming and more costly than
a non-probability sampling ,Saunders et. al, 2003,. Non-probability sampling is cheaper and
used when a sampling rame is not aailable. Also, this method is used in a research where
there is an interest o obtaining an idea o responses on ideas that people hae ,Churchill,
1995,. Based on this discussion, the sampling technique that will be used in this thesis is
non-probability sampling. 1he main argument or this is the limited time and the expenses.
Additionally, the authors hae no sampling rame aailable and want to keep the research
to a low cost while putting the main interest on getting hold o responses that people hae.
\hen conducting non-probability sampling, the main assumption a researcher makes is
that there is an een distribution o characteristics within the population. In doing this, the
sample would be representatie which will also lead to that the results will be truthul
,Aczel & Sounderpandian, 2002,. lurthermore, non-probability sampling proides a range
o alternatie techniques based on the researchers` subjectie judgement and examples o
these are: quota sampling, purposie sampling, snowball sampling and conenience
sampling ,Saunders et al, 2003,.
1o be able to ulil the purpose o this thesis, the main ocus lies on the consumers`
assumptions, and also the most important actors that are related to celebrities that get
associated with negatie inormation. 1hereore, the authors beliee quota sampling is
most appropriate. 1his sampling technique means that a researcher has the ability to get
inormation rom a respondent in the easiest way ,Lsaiasson et al., 2002,, which in this case
is on the campus area in Uniersity o Jonkoping. Quota sampling was chosen because
there will be a sampling ocus on students at Uniersity o Jonkoping. 1he underlying
actor or this statement is according to 1ang, Kim & 1ang ,2002,, 1ill & Shimp ,1998,,
that students are more conscious about celebrities and the authors also beliee that they
will gain more aluable inormation rom students. lurthermore, to be able to get a wider
understanding and strengthen the assumption that the students that are selected are similar
to those not selected, the authors will not ocus on one aculty and thereore take the our
aculties into consideration. Basically, Saunders et al. ,2003, argue that the sampling is
done, when a speciic number o units ,quotas, or arious sub-populations hae been
selected. 1his means that the main population in this case are the students at Uniersity o
Jonkoping, and the sub-population is the students at each aculty.
Shepherd and Zacharakis ,199, state that the sample size used in a conjoint analysis is
smaller then 250 respondents, which is the normal amount in a required standard surey.
lurthermore, they state that 50 respondents is a ery suicient amount o respondent,
when conducting a conjoint analysis. As mentioned beore, the total population is the
students at Jonkoping Uniersity. lurthermore, Saunders et al. ,2003, state that the quotas
may be based on population proportions. 1o acilitate the understanding or the reader, the
authors chose to present the sample population and how the quotas are selected in table 3-
1.
Methodology

20
1able 3-1: Numbers o Students at Jonkoping Uniersity
School Number o students Percentage o
students
Quota o students in
sample o 5
JIBS
1
1 50 20 15
ING
2
1 800 20 15
lLK
3
3 000 36 2
llJ
4
2 116 24 18
1otal 8 666 100 5

3.3 Conjoint Analysis
Conjoint analysis is a measurement technique that is concerned with an understanding o
how people make choices between products or serices, or a combination o them that
better meet the consumers underlying needs ,Gustasson, lerrmann, & luber, 2001,.
Rather then asking respondents or their sel-perceptions o what attributes determine their
choices, conjoint analysis inestigations ask consumers to rank or rate complete` or ull
proile` descriptions objects. 1he importance o each speciic attributes is tested out in the
statistical analysis. 1hereore, conjoint analysis has been recognized as an extremely
powerul way o capturing what really dries consumers to purchase a product oer
another and what consumers really alue ,Green & Sriniasan, 1990, Green, 2001,.
Moreoer, conjoint analysis can according to Malthotra ,1996, and Green & Sriniasan
,1990, be used when deeloping a model that enables companies to understand consumers`
needs. 1his is also important knowledge to be able to improe their market shares and as
well as understand how competitors` behaiour will aect their consumers.
Conjoint analysis has been used within many dierent research areas, such as consumer
behaior ,Bruns, 2004,, and in dierent marketing areas ,segmentation, positioning,
preerence models, ,Green & Sriniasan, 1990, Malhotra, 1996, Gustasson, lerrmann &
luber, 2001,. As one can tell, conjoint analysis is an eicient research method when the
aim is to inestigate and understand how consumers ealuate dierent combinations.
\ithin the rame o the thesis, the authors aim to understand what the underlying actors
consumers consider to be most important considering the aim o this thesis.
1he main reason to the decision to conduct a conjoint analysis is deeloped rom the aim
to ully understand how consumers are drien in ealuating a celebrity that gets associated
with negatie inormation. Also, a standard surey will not proide the authors with
enough data to be able to draw conclusions and present a model or companies that seek to
use a celebrity in their endorsement strategy. lence, the respondents in a standard surey

1
Jonkoping International Business School
2
Lngineering School
3
School o Lducation and Communication
4
School o lealth and Science
Methodology

21
will only ealuate each attribute ,actor, separately, and thereore not proide a general
impression o the use o celebrity in an endorsement strategy. But, in a conjoint analysis the
respondents are asked to rate dierent combinations o attributes at dierent leels and in
doing this the authors beliee they will gain more aluable inormation that will acilitate
the creating o a model that embarks the concept, celebrity endorsement.
1here are no speciic and reliable approaches to ealuate the alidity and reliability in a
conjoint analysis. lence, according to Antilla, leuel & Moller ,1980, the choice o
attributes and their leels are ery determined when it comes to alidity and reliability. 1o
be able to reach a high alidity, Antilla et al ,1980,, argues that a respondent needs to
ealuate realistic attributes, such as expertise and trustworthiness.
3.3.1 Attributes and attribute level
\hen choosing the attributes and the leels o attributes, it is according to Lkdahl ,199,,
ery important that they are realistic and related to the problem. lurthermore, he states
that the number should be as small as possible to minimize estimation eorts. Bruns
,2004,, also states that the irst steps in designing a conjoint study is to deelop a set o
attributes and their leels.
lurthermore, to be able to conduct a conjoint analysis one has to identiy the most
important attributes that a consumer assumes to be o most importance in their purchase
behaiour ,Antilla et al, 1980, Green & Sriniasan, 1990,. lrom the perspectie o this
thesis, the attributes can be chosen rom preious studies, both qualitatie and quantitatie
research methods, concerning the use o celebrity endorsement in marketing.
\hen deciding upon dierent leels o an attribute, one has to consider whether the
attributes are quantitatie or qualitatie. 1he attributes that are presented in table 3-2 are
rom a quantitatie base. 1his indicates that the leel o the attributes will be easier to
estimate.
1able 3-2: Attributes and attribute leel o the conjoint experiment









1o be able to create attribute leels both the authors and the respondents hae to
understand the clear dierence o leel which an attribute is attached to ,Van Der Pol &
Ryan, 1996,. lrom the literature reiew, it has been proen seeral times, that the attributes
and their leels presented in table 3-2 are ery applicable when studying celebrity
endorsement ,Lrdogan, Baker & 1agg, 2001, Ohanian, 1990, 1ill & Shimp, 1998, Silera &
Attribute Level J Level 2
Lxpertise ligh Low
1rustworthiness ligh Low
Similarity ligh Low
Likeability ligh Low
Meaning transer ligh Low
lit` Match ligh Low
Methodology

22
Austad, 2004, Kamins, 1990, Daneshary & Schwer, 2000, Kamins, Brand, loeke & Moe,
1989,. 1he reason or the choice o attributes were elaborated and explained in depth in
section 2..
3.3.2 Different approaches of conjoint analysis
\hen one considers conducting a conjoint analysis, there are many dierent approaches to
relect upon. loweer, the most popular one is a ull proile approach ,Green &
Sriniasan, 1990, when the amounts o attributes are not less then six and at the most
eight. 1hey recommended using trade-o matrices, when a larger number o attributes are
used. lurthermore, they also argued that when the number reaches ten or more attributes,
a researcher should use sel-explicated data and methods inoling a combination o sel-
explicated and conjoint data. 1he latest recommendation can be compared to an .aatire
Cov;oivt .vat,.i. ,ACD,. 1he ACD has gained more acceptances in recent years, due to that
it can accommodate a larger number o attributes, where it combines sel-explicated data
with pairs in comparison to intensity ratings ,Johnson, 198,.
1he approach, ull proile, is chosen by the authors to gather releant data or urther
analysis. 1he main reason is based on the amount o attributes that the authors decided to
support their research on ,see table 3-2,. 1he amounts o attributes are six, which indicates
that a ull proile is the most suitable approach or this study. loweer, this can be seen as
a negatie aspect due to that the respondents should not be oerloaded. 1hereore, the
authors decided upon attributes that are releant to the purpose o this thesis and also not
oerwhelming or the respondent.
3.3.3 Experimental design
Beore designing the surey one has to distinguish and make clariications concerning
dependent and independent ariables. According to Antilla et al. ,1980, the dependent
ariable can be seen as the preerence which can be explained by a number o independent
ariables. 1he dependent ariable used in this study is: tbe rittivgve.. to vrcba.e. In other
words, the analysis aims at inding out what attributes aect the most respondents in their
purchasing decisions, in the context o a celebrity being associated with negatie publicity.
1he independent ariables can also be considered as attributes, which in this case are six
dierent ones at two leels. lurthermore, the basic assumption or a conjoint experiment is
that the attributes are known in adance ,Bruns, 2004,. 1his means that the researcher can
select the attributes that are most appropriate or the study rom literature and preious
empirical indings. 1he authors support this assumption and hae presented the choice o
attributes more in-depth in chapter two. Ater clariying and deciding upon the dependent
and independent ariables one can start designing the experiment.
\hen designing the experiment one has to keep in mind how the respondents will
interpret it and as well understand it. In the case o conjoint analysis, the experiment will be
based on dierent generated combinations or conjoint proiles, in this case 64, which also
is a ull actorial design. 1he sureys are usually not perormed as ull actorial design, but
rather as ractional actorial designs, which basically are ractions o the ull design. 1he
reason that researchers use ractional actorial designs, according to Lkdahl ,199,, is that
they usually are utilized in order to add more attributes into the combinations and at the
same time to not increase the strain on the respondents. One can or sure use a ull
actorial design, when collecting data, but according to Bruns ,2004,, there will be too
many combinations or a respondent to rate and still proide alid results. 1hereore, the
Methodology

23
most important reason or limiting the experiment according to Bruns ,2004, is to keep the
number o cases manageable while still creating alid results.
In this case the authors came to the decision that two leels and six attributes will proide
this thesis with alid results. lurthermore, the assessment o six attributes with two leels
or each ariable would lead to 64 ,2
6
, hypothetical combinations which is a ull actorial
design. 1his according to Green & Sriniasan ,198, would be an oerwhelming task or
each respondent to ealuate and still gie consistent and meaningul answers. 1hereore,
Gustasson et al. ,2001, argues that it is important to keep the number o cases to be
ealuated to as ew as appropriate and possible, but still hae enough cases to generate
signiicant and alid results. 1his is the reason why an orthogonal ractional actorial design
will be applied ,Green & Sriniasan, 198, Bruns, 2004,. In doing this, the number o
combinations will be reduced rom 64 to 8 which is according to Lkdahl ,199, a suicient
number o combinations to conduct a conjoint analysis. But, Lkdahl ,199, also argued
that a suitable ractional actorial design or six attributes at two leels could be 2
6-2
~2
4
~16
combinations. lurthermore, he stated that the ractional actorial designs are generally
more resource eectie, and in the case o conjoint analysis more easible.
Shepherd & Zacharakis ,199, hae another iew o the amount o combinations that is
suicient when conducting a conjoint analysis. 1hey claimed that duplexing the amount o
combinations will lead to more alid results as well as reduced bias. 1his means that the
number o the total amount o combinations will be duplicated into 16, when the ractional
actorial design is 2
3
,8 combinations, and into 32 when the ractional actorial design is 2
4

,16 combination,, and still be manageable. Conersely, Smith, Schullen & Barr ,2002,
argues that it is een applicable and manageable to use less than 100 combinations where
the respondents are able to judge satisactorily. 1hey also state that the amount o
combinations is related to the nature o the purpose and what the authors want to achiee.
By taking both o these approaches into consideration, the amount o combinations ,8 or
16,, which will be suicient to ulil the purpose o this thesis, hae made the authors
question it. 1hereore, to not decrease the reliability o this thesis and the ability to
maintain accurate data to reach a sati actional conclusion, the authors chose to test both 8
and 16 combination in duplex orm, beore conducting the collection o data which leads
us into the next section.
3.3.4 Pilot study
\hen constructing the experiment, crucial eedback rom the respondents were gien to
the authors, who realized that 32 combinations would be too extensie or the respondents
and thereore the authors chose to keep it to 16 combinations. Other crucial eedbacks
were gien, both positie and negatie. 1he positie ones were that the instructions and
description o the attributes and leels were straightorward. 1he main concern was how to
deal with the combinations and the question related to them. 1he respondents interpreted
the question dierently, which also aected their ratings. \hen asking them how they were
thinking, the authors could clearly see a pattern o dierent interpretations. 1hereore, the
authors ound it highly important to re-phrase the question, which later on showed that the
interpretation o the question did not dier in a crucial matter. In appendix 3, an extract
rom the pilot study will be presented.
3.3.5 Data collection
1here are usually two types o scales used in conjoint analysis sureys, rating and rank
order ,Lkdahl, 199,. lurthermore, Gustasson ,1996, explains ie dierent response
Methodology

24
scales, where a conjoint analysis can be conducted. 1hese are, rank order, rating, erbal
rating, irst rank order and then distribute the concepts on a scale, and irst rate and then
rank order among combinations with the same rating. \hen the respondents are asked to
rank the combinations, which is rather easy or them, they will only proide inormation
that is in order o preerences and not stating the degree o preerences ,Green &
Sriniasen, 198,. Ranking is also not suitable or postal questionnaires, since the
respondents require help to acilitate their task. Verbal rating ,would buy and would not
buy, is also not useul or postal questionnaires as it is most applicable or low inolement
products. 1he rating scale ,1- or 1-9,, makes the respondents ealuate each combination
separately in regard to other combinations. 1he irst mentioned scale will be used in this
thesis or data collection. 1he reason or this is that the authors want each combination to
be ealuated separately, while the respondents assume that a celebrity gets associated with
negatie publicity. Also, the results will be more integrated and understandable in
comparison to a scale o 1-9, which can proide too aeraged results. lurthermore, ater
the pilot study was conducted, the authors came to the conclusion that a rating scale rom
1 to will make it easier or the respondents to ealuate the dierent combinations. 1his is
also stated by Smith et al. ,2002, who claimed that this rating scale is normally expected to
show ulilling reliability and ariability.
3.3.6 The survey
1he main surey is diided into ie dierent parts: ,1, presentation and task instructions
or the respondent, ,2, description o the attributes and their leels, ,3, the combinations
,conjoint proiles,, ,4, a post-experiment questionnaire, ,5, a short questionnaire
concerning the respondents` characteristics. 1he complete surey is presented in appendix
2.
In the irst part the respondents were instructed to assume that the celebrity was associated
with negatie inormation, and rom that rate each combination in order to show which
actors a company should consider in such particular case. 1he second part the authors
beliee it is highly important or the respondents to understand the meaning o each
attribute and their leels, to acilitate or the respondent and to proide the authors with
more accurate data. 1hirdly, the combinations will be presented in a erbal description
where the attributes will be introduced sequentially. 1he order in which the attributes are
presented is crucial since the results depend highly on this. 1wo dierent cases will be
proided or the respondents to acilitate their rating o the attributes. In the ourth part
the respondents will be asked to ealuate the dierent attributes and state how important
they are or a company to consider when a celebrity gets associated with negatie publicity.
Lastly, the authors are not seeking to segment the total population based on the answers
that are gien. 1his leads to no particular interest in demographical inormation, such as
age, sex, income etc. 1his is why, in the short questionnaire, the authors only asked about
their personal characteristics and how well ashion-oriented they are. Len though the
authors randomly chose respondents within each school, they aoided asking respondents
that are not conscious about ashion in order to enhance the alidity. By using non-
probability sampling the authors` choice o data collection was supported.
3.4 Statistics
\hen conducting the regression analysis ,multiple regressions, in SPSS, an understanding
is needed to see how well the experiment has been explained by the regression. \hen
looking at the signiicance o l ,P-alue, it shows how much o the results that can be
Methodology

25
attributed to chance. 1his means the percentage o data, which is not explained by the right
choice o attributes and attribute leels. 1he signiicance ,P-alue, has to be higher than 5
percent in order to support the results ,Gustasson et al. 2001,.
Moreoer, the signiicance is diided into dierent leels depending on how signiicant the
results are, and the ollowing leels are presented below: ,Korner & \ahlgren, 1998,
1hree star signiicant ,,: P-alue0.1
1wo star signiicant ,,: 0.1 P-alue1.0
One star signiicant ,,: 1.0 P-alue5.0


Analysis and results

26
4 Analysis and results
v tbi. cbater, tbe avtbor. re.evt tbe avat,.i. ava re.vtt.. 1be vo.t reteravt fivaivg. i. brovgbt v, rbicb
tbe avtbor. betiere are ivortavt to fvtfit tbe vro.e. vrtbervore, av avat,.i. i. covavctea rbicb teaa. to
tbe aeci.iov ov rbicb attribvte. are vo.t ivortavt.

4.1 Introduction
1he research surey or this thesis has been diided into a conjoint experiment and two
short questionnaires to be able to ulil the purpose o this thesis. lirstly, the consumers`
willingness to purchase a product or serice when the attributes are in a conjunction is
presented. Secondly, an inestigation will be brought up to see i the consumers`
willingness to purchase a product or serice diers when dierent endorsers are used. 1he
results or both these parts are receied rom the conjoint experiment. Data which is
deried rom the conjoint experiment, according to Shepherd & Zacharakis ,199, can be
used through two statistical techniques, regression analysis and analysis o ariance
,ANOVA,. linally, an analysis will be presented o the standard deiation and mean alue
when it comes to how consumers perceie each attribute separately.
1he authors will introduce the results rom the research process, where each part is related
to a research question and there are also hypotheses addressed to the two irst research
questions. 1he last research question deals with the two last parts in the research process.
1o acilitate the structure o this chapter the authors want to make it clear or the reader
how the dierent research questions are linked to the research process. 1his will be
explained in the table 4-1.
1able 4-1 Outline o research process
Research question 1 Conjoint experiment, combination 1-16
Research question 2 Conjoint experiment, combination 1-8 case 1 ,Michael Jackson,.
Conjoint experiment, combination 9-16 case 2 ,Bill Clinton,.
Research question 3 Questionnaires regarding post-experiment and respondents
characteristics.

4.2 Research question 1
!bicb factor. frov tbe titeratvre rerier affect tbe cov.vver.` rittivgve.. to vrcba.e a roavct or .errice
tbat i. evaor.ea b, a cetebrit, tbat i. a..ociatea ritb vegatire ivforvatiov, rbev tbe attribvte. are iv a
covbivatiov.
lirstly, the leel o importance o each attribute is presented when the respondents
ealuated the combinations. 1here are only small dierences between the attributes in
general ,see appendix 4A,. loweer, when comparing each bar some attributes are on a
higher leel than the other ones. In all o the combinations, expertise was seen as the most
important attribute ollowed by trustworthiness, similarity and likeability. All o these
attributes, as was mentioned in the literature reiew, are directly connected to the celebrity
and company. 1his implies that the choice and use o a celebrity is crucial since it appears
Analysis and results

2
clearly in the indings that these attributes inluence the consumer mostly. Moreoer, een
though the leel o importance between these our attributes diers slightly, they seem to
aect the consumers combined with each other. 1he other two attributes, meaning transer
and it` match, showed a lower leel o importance than the irst mentioned our
attributes. 1he results indicate that the meaning transer a celebrity shits to a certain brand
is more important than how well the it between the celebrity and brand is. Both meaning
transer and it` are directly connected to celebrity and brand.
Looking urther into how each indiidual rated each combination, one can clearly see ,see
appendix 4B, that it` and meaning transer do not show any indications o high
diergence. 1he respondents seem to hae similar opinions regarding these attributes
meaning that they are not considered to be the most crucial attributes when purchasing a
product,serice. At the same time, the authors can strengthen this statement that the other
our attributes, expertise, trustworthiness, similarity and likeability hae the greatest impact
on the consumers` willingness to purchase when a celebrity is used as an endorser. One can
urther on see that combination 12 has the highest mean alue with a leel o 4.9, which
makes it the most important combination and basically the winning concept. \hen looking
at the concept ,see appendix 4C, the most important attributes are expertise,
trustworthiness, similarity and likeability, which also strengthen what is gien rom the
importance summary.
4.2.1 Testing the hypothesis
As mentioned beore this part o the research deals with the 16 combinations. \hen
conducting a multiple regression analysis, one has to take into account the dierent
statistical terms, such as R-square and the signiicance leel. 1hese terms are presented in
the model summary ,see appendix A,. \hen looking at the table, R-square is 0.316 which
means that 31.6 o the obsered ariability o the willingness to purchase is explained by
the attributes. lurthermore, R
2
is the squared correlation coeicient between the obsered
alues o the dependent ariable and the predicted alue based on the regression model. A
alue close to 1 tells you that the dependent ariable can be perectly predicted rom the
independent ariable, whereas a alue close to 0 proes the opposite. 1he R
2
alue in this
case is 31.6 , which is a moderately good model it or this type o data.
Due to loss o degrees o reedom, howeer, the adjusted R
2
is only 12.8. 1his loss o
degrees o reedom also explains why the signiicant alue or the model is as high as 0.08
that is higher than the 5 conentionally used in signiicant testing. loweer, this is still a
signiicant result on the 10 leel and gien the theoretical support or these attributes our
conclusion is that the results are more in aour o the than against hypothesis A.
H
A
: 1he celebrity-product combination attributes expertise, trustworthiness,
similarity, likeability, meaning transfer, and fit (match) affect the consumers'
willingness to purchase a product or service also under condition of negative
information.
4.2.2 Results research question 1
As consumer willingness to purchase a product or serice gets aected by the attributes,
taken rom the literature reiews, one can argue that these attributes are releant when it
comes to celebrity endorsement strategy. lurthermore, these attributes showed dierent
leels o importance or consumers` willingness to purchase a product or serice that is
endorsed by a celebrity that is associated with negatie inormation. It was also proen in
Analysis and results

28
the indings that expertise, trustworthiness, similarity and likeability o a celebrity ,source
attractieness and credibility, hae a strong impact on consumers. 1he perceied expertise
o an endorser is more important when it comes to the purchasing intentions, rather than
trustworthiness. lence, the celebrity ,source, needs to irst and oremost be an expert in
the endorsement strategy and secondly be trustworthy in order to reach to the consumer
,receier,. 1he other attributes linked to a celebrity are also o importance and a crucial
aspect to bear in mind is that a celebrity, who is seen as haing all these six attributes linked
to him,her, is more likely to reach a certain target compared to a celebrity who only is
perceied as linked with one main attribute. As the it` and meaning transer do not show
any indications o importance, one can say that consumers do not ind a celebrity that is
associated with negatie inormation to aect the relationship it has with the brand or
company. linally, when looking at the importance summary one can see that the attributes
are relatiely important, but mostly when it comes to expertise, trustworthiness, similarity
and likeability. Studying the 16 combinations in the multiple regressions, the authors ind
the regression to be signiicant since there is no high skewness and at the same time it
strengthens the acceptance o the hypothesis.
4.3 Research question 2
Do tbe attribvte. frov tbe titeratvre rerier bare aifferevt ivact. ov cov.vver.` rittivgve.. to vrcba.e a
roavct or .errice, rbev aifferevt cetebritie. are v.ea a. evaor.er..
In this section, an inestigation on how the respondents rated the dierent combinations
related to each case is presented. 1he reason in doing this is to see how consumers perceie
the use o dierent celebrities as endorser. 1his is also done to ind i consumers react
equally no matter what celebrity is used at the same time as the particular celebrity is
associated with negatie inormation.
4.3.1 Case 1
Looking at the importance summary ,see appendix 5A, o how the respondents rated the
attributes in this case, the authors can conclude that the most important attribute was
likeability ollowed by expertise. 1rustworthiness was nearly as important ollowed by
meaning transer and similarity. Lastly, it` was not considered to aect the respondents`
willingness to purchase, as much as the preiously mentioned attributes. 1he indiidual
subject importance ,see appendix 5B, shows that likeability is clearly the most important
attribute since the respondents agree upon its importance, while the other attributes are
perceied ery dierent indiidually. 1his indicates that the respondents hae dierent
perceptions to the characteristics o the celebrity.
4.3.2 Case 2
1he importance summary ,see appendix 6A, tells us that the most important attributes or
the respondents were trustworthiness and meaning transer. 1he third attribute that the
respondents considered to be important was it`. 1he three other attributes, expertise,
similarity and likeability were considered to be o equal importance. 1he authors can
urther on claim, when looking at the indiidual subject importance ,see appendix 6B,, that
trustworthiness was more important than meaning transer based on that it was rated
higher. Meaning transer and it` were rated equally, but one can see that meaning transer
was in most cases more important. Lastly, when looking at appendix 6B, one can see that
expertise, similarity and likeability are, as mentioned beore, like wisely important. Similarity
was slightly more important in comparison with the other two, due to the dierse rating.
Analysis and results

29
4.3.3 Testing the hypothesis
\hen testing this hypothesis the authors intend to compare the importance alues across
the two regressions in case one and two. lurthermore, a comparison between the R
2
alues
in both cases is made. Looking at the importance summary o the attributes ,see appendix
5A and 6A, in both cases, one can clearly see a signiicant dierence on how the
respondents perceie the attributes when dierent celebrities are used.
In case one the R
2
is 18.5 and in case two it is 25.6 ,see appendix C and L,. As
shown there is a dierence between the R
2
alues, which also supports the hypothesis B
that there is a dierence in the perception o the attributes, depending on which speciic
celebrity is used as endorser.
H
B
: 1he relative importance of specific celebrity-product combination attributes is
different depending on which specific celebrity is used as endorser.
4.3.4 Results research question 2
1he hypothesis shows that consumers willingness to purchase or not is aected by a
celebrity`s characteristics ,the attributes rom the literature reiew,. 1his means that
consumers think and act dierently depending on a particular celebrity who is used in the
endorsement strategy. 1his also indicates that companies need to take this into account
when choosing a celebrity, since the mechanism o negatie publicity associated with a
celebrity does not necessarily has to mean that the consumers choose not to purchase the
endorsed brand. Instead, a company need to hae in mind that the willingness to purchase
a product,serice depends highly on to what extent consumers perceie a celebrity as
possessing the six attributes. 1he higher perception o a celebrity, the more likely and
willing they will be to purchase. Since two dierent celebrities were used in each case, one
can clearly see that consumers tend to ealuate a celebrity`s personal characteristics in
arious ways.
In case one, the attributes likeability and expertise were rated as the most important ones
while it` was not seen as playing an important role. In case two howeer, trustworthiness
and meaning transer were rated as most important whereas likeability surprisingly was seen
as the least important attribute. 1his clearly shows that there are clear dierences between
how consumers perceie dierent celebrities depending on what characteristics they
possess and in what certain situation they are in. Also, as was mentioned in chapter two, it
was indicated that when consumers get asked about their purchasing behaiour they usually
gie the impression that negatie publicity in relation with brands do not usually aect their
choices. loweer, the authors eel that consumers purchasing behaiours might occur
unconsciously and een though they claim that negatie publicity does not hae any
inluence on them, they most likely can. lurthermore, the authors can argue that the
attributes rom the literature reiew are dierently perceied in relationships with dierent
celebrities.
4.4 Research question 3
!bicb attribvte. ao cov.vver. fiva of vo.t ivortavce rbev eratvativg tbev .earatet,.
In this section o the empirical study, the respondents were asked to ealuate the six
dierent attributes separately. 1he reason is to compare the results rom the conjoint with
the surey, which in can either strengthen the research process or indicate that the
respondents are not ully aware o their own decision criteria.
Analysis and results

30
4.4.1 Perceived importance of attributes
In this section, the respondents were asked to rate the sel-perceied importance o each
attribute. Lach o the six attributes was ealuated on a scale ranging rom 1, vvivortavt, to
5, ivortavt. 1he results o the respondents` perceied importance o the attributes are
aeraged and illustrated in table 4-1.
1able 4-2 Ranging o attributes
Mean Std. De Ranking
Lxpertise 4.0 1.25 2
1rustworthiness 4.3 0.93 1
Similarity 3.4 1.1 4.5
Likeability 3.0 1.06 6
Meaning transer 3.4 1.24 4.5
lit` Match 3.6 1.1 3

1he mean o the sel-perceied weights ranged rom 3.0 or ti/eabitit, to 4.3 or
trv.trortbive... 1his indicates that the respondents perceied trv.trortbive.. as the most
important ollowed by expertise. 1he fit vatcb was ranked as the third most important
attribute ollowed by .ivitarit, and veavivg trav.fer which both were rated o equal
importance. Lastly, the least important attribute is ti/eabitit, ,see appendix 8,.
4.4.2 Results research question 3
1he respondents rated the importance o the attributes in general and this is why one can
see clear dierences between which attributes are important and less important. Since the
consumers beliee that the celebrity`s credibility is the most important, where both
trustworthiness and expertise are included, one can say that the consumers are more
aected by a celebrity`s positie characteristics. lurthermore, how well the celebrity
communicates the message that the company is trying to send, aects the consumers
purchasing decision. As it was stated that expertise and trustworthiness are the most
importance attributes, one can clearly state that the consumers alue the knowledge,
understanding and ethical aspects o celebrity more than the other personal characteristics.
1his also implies that companies should take these attributes more into account when
choosing a celebrity as an endorser. 1his is because i a particular celebrity gets associated
with negatie inormation it will not aect the brand equity or lead to a decrease in the
market shares as much. At the same time, the celebrity will still transer necessary
inormation that a consumer can ind crucial and that potentially can lead to a purchase. It
was also ound in this research that a celebrity`s attractieness does not aect the
consumers in any way, which can be chocking or many consumers since they may assume
that the use o celebrity endorsement is mainly beneicial or a company due to a celebrity`s
attractieness.
Analysis and results

31
4.5 Chapter summary
As the journey to ind the hidden actors that companies need to consider when using
celebrities in adertising is heading towards its end, the authors need to clariy some crucial
aspects. Since, the ocus throughout this thesis has been conducted rom consumer`s point
o iew, the authors will rom now on consider the respondents in this research process as
consumers.
1he authors can clearly state that the strategy o using celebrity endorsement is an eicient
way to reach out to a dierse audience. 1he ocal point throughout this study was the
inestigation on how willing consumers are to purchase a brand based on the attributes
elaborated rom the literature reiew, in relation to a celebrity that gets associated with
negatie inormation. At this point the authors can clearly present acts that consumers are
aected by celebrities and that negatie inormation that a celebrity is associated with can
play an important role occasionally. In the promotional campaign where celebrities are
included, the purpose is to send out optimal inormation to the consumers that will lead to
a purchase. 1aken the hypothesis A into account one can say that consumers are willing to
purchase a product or serice based on the attributes taken rom the literature reiew,
when they are in a combination. On the other hand, when inestigating hypothesis B the
authors came to the understanding that the consumers` willingness to purchase a product
or serice is aected by a particular celebrity, when the celebrity has the mentioned
attributes as personal characteristics. 1hereore, marketers in adertising agencies need to
be aware that a celebrity`s personality together with brand- and the consumers indiidual
personalities ,triangular relationship, are integrated, and the higher the linkage is between
these three parts the less likely consumers will get aected negatiely by negatie
inormation.
Since it was shown rom the three dierent sections in this chapter ,research question 1-3,
that the consumers rated the attributes dierently based on the dierent cases, the authors
can at this point claim that consumers tend to perceie attributes in arious ways. But, to
keep the ocus within the rame o this thesis, the authors chose to analyze the relationship
between the ratings o the dierent concepts with how the consumers rated each attribute
separately. lirstly, when rating the 16 combinations, the most important attributes
,expertise, trustworthiness, similarity, likeability, are linked with the celebrity`s
characteristics ,see section 2.4,. On the other hand, the attribute meaning transer which is
linked with the brand and it` which in turn is linked with the company are not
considered to hae a particular importance. In the case o Michael Jackson, the three most
important actors ,likeability, expertise, trustworthiness, are also linked to the celebrity. At
the same time, meaning transer and it` are once again not perceied as crucial actors.
loweer, in the case o Bill Clinton both meaning transer and it` were considered to be
important ollowed by trustworthiness, and the other three attributes as less important.
\hat can be said rom this, rom the dierent leels o importance in the dierent cases
It is as simple as the celebrities themseles and the brand they are endorsing aects how
consumers react to the dierent attributes in a combination. \hen comparing the two
cases with the total rating o the 16 combinations, one can see that trustworthiness in all
cases is ital whereas the other attributes are rated dierently. One can also clearly
understand that in the 16 combinations, expertise was seen as the absolute important
attribute which is also indicated to be important in the case o Michael Jackson but less
important in the case o Bill Clinton. 1his can be due to the product Clinton was
endorsing. 1hereore, the authors beliee that expertise also has a crucial aect when a
celebrity gets associated with negatie inormation. 1his due to that expertise was perceied
Analysis and results

32
and ranked as the second most important when the consumers rated the attributes
separately. lurthermore, as the authors aim to reach a general conclusion, expertise would
be an accurate attribute to include when choosing a celebrity in adertising purposes.
linally, based on eerything mentioned so ar in this thesis, the authors can summarize the
most important actors that companies need to consider when a celebrity gets associated
with negatie inormation. Basically, all attributes are important when using a celebrity as
an endorser but in the case when a celebrity gets associated with negatie inormation, the
authors ealuated all the six attributes and compared them and came to decide upon the
ollowing attributes to be the most crucial attribute to be taken into account when
choosing and using a certain celebrity.
1rv.trortbive..: the reason why this attribute is important is basically that it was ranked
highly both when the consumers rated it in combination in all cases and when they rated it
separately. 1hereore, there are seeral reasons in concluding it as the most crucial
attribute.
erti.e: has been rated dierently in each case but it was only rated as haing a low
importance in the case o Bill Clinton. Despite this, the authors beliee that it is an
important attribute to consider when a celebrity gets associated with negatie inormation.
1he reason or the low rating with the Clinton study could be explained as the product
which he promoted and also that consumers did not consider him being ery
knowledgeable in that particular ield.
1he remaining our attributes, meaning transer, likeability, similarity, and it` did not in
most cases show a high leel o importance but rather an indication o aerage importance.
1hus, the authors do not ind them to be crucial or a company when they use a celebrity
in the endorsement strategy. loweer, these can still be o importance in conjunction with
the two irst mentioned attributes. 1his is based upon that likeability in the case o Michael
Jackson showed to be the most important attribute whereas when the attributes were rated
separately, this attribute was seen as the least important one. 1he remaining three showed a
relatiely aeraged importance and are thereore not crucially unimportant. But, at the same
time they are not the driing mechanism to successul brand recognition when using a
celebrity in adertising.

Conclusions and discussion

33
5 Conclusions and discussion
v tbi. cbater tbe avtbor. ritt fivatt, roriae tbe reaaer ritb airect av.rer. to tbe o.ea re.earcb qve.tiov..
vrtbervore, fivat rora. frov tbe avtbor. ritt be girev. a.tt,, a ai.cv..iov ritbiv tbe re.earcb area ritt
be etaboratea ava ivticatiov. to ro.ect .tvaie. iv tbe area of cetebrit, evaor.evevt ritt be girev.
5.1 Introduction
1his thesis inestigated consumers` willingness to purchase a product or serice based on
the six attributes that were retrieed rom the literature reiew. In the introduction chapter,
three research questions were identiied. 1he direct answers to the research questions will
be more speciied in section 5.2. 1o be able to answer these questions, the quota sampling
o 5 uniersity students in the campus o Uniersity o Jonkoping was studied. 1hese
students were asked to ealuate 16 hypothetical cases, which are based on the attributes
retrieed rom the literature reiew and they were asked to indicate the willingness to
purchase a product or serice.
lurthermore, the literature reiew proided the authors with releant inormation o the
crucial attributes that are associated with celebrity endorsement. 1hese attributes hae
preiously been used when gaining an optimal use o a celebrity as an endorser ,see igure
1-1,. 1hus, it has led to the ocal point o this thesis which is to inestigate whether the
attributes rom the literature reiew really aect the consumers` willingness to purchase a
product or serice, when a celebrity is associated with negatie inormation.
1he authors came to the conclusion ater conducting the research process that two o the
six attributes are the most important attributes a company should consider beore choosing
and using a celebrity, due to the possibility that a celebrity can get associated with negatie
inormation. 1his will urther on be elaborated on in section 5.3. Beore tackling and
starting this discussion, the authors will answer the research questions. 1he last section o
this chapter will, ater all the dierent elements within this thesis, present suggestions that
can be undertaken in uture studies.
5.2 Research questions
!bicb factor. frov tbe titeratvre rerier affect tbe cov.vver.` rittivgve.. to vrcba.e a roavct or .errice
tbat i. evaor.ea b, a cetebrit, tbat i. a..ociatea ritb vegatire ivforvatiov, rbev tbe attribvte. are iv a
covbivatiov.
As it has been proen in this thesis, the authors can now conclude that the consumers
purchasing behaiour in general do get aected by the mentioned attributes rom the
literature reiew. 1his is also strengthened in the support o the hypothesis, which implies
that the attributes in combination really aect the consumers` willingness to purchase
under conditions o negatie inormation. 1hereore, the authors ound it ery important
to identiy these crucial attributes. As mentioned in section 4.2.2 expertise, trustworthiness,
likeability and similarity were the main ones.
Marketers need to be aware that consumers perceie celebrities in dierent ways based on
what personal characteristics they possess, thus leading to a purchase. \hen a celebrity is in
a particular situation and promoting dierent products or serices, the consumers tend to
preer a celebrity who is an expert and trustworthy within that situation. Moreoer, the
celebrity should preerably be likeable among the targeted consumers and hae similar
goals, interest etc. 1hese attributes in a combination could be the winning concept in a
celebrity endorsement strategy and increased market shares. 1he more knowledge and the
Conclusions and discussion

34
higher acceptance the consumers hae regarding the celebrity, when ealuating the
problematic` endorser, the more likely they still are to make a purchase o a
product,serice.
Do tbe attribvte. frov tbe titeratvre rerier bare aifferevt ivact. ov cov.vver.` rittivgve.. to vrcba.e a
roavct or .errice, rbev aifferevt cetebritie. are v.ea a. evaor.er..
1he two dierent cases with two dierent celebrities show clearly that consumers react in
arious ways to celebrities who are associated with negatie inormation. It is also crucial to
point out that consumers may perceie a separate attribute dierently in comparison to the
six attributes in a combination and in relation to dierent endorsers. 1he dierent
ealuations o the attributes with arious endorsers can be related to the answer o research
question one, regarding what situation the celebrity is in and what the endorser is
promoting. lence, the attributes rom the literature reiew hae dierent impacts on the
consumer behaiour depending on who the endorser is. linally, the authors cannot see a
direct association between the used attributes rom the literature reiew and the leel o
negatie inormation.
!bicb attribvte. ao cov.vver. fiva of vo.t ivortavce rbev eratvativg tbev .earatet,.
\hen the consumers ealuated the attributes separately, the attribute trustworthiness was
the most important one ollowed by expertise and it`. Similarity and meaning transer
were o equal importance and likeability was seen as the attribute which played the least
important role. 1hese indings together with the chapter summary in section 4.5, the
authors hae in a conjunction ound the two most important attributes that consumers
ound to be o most importance when ealuating them separately and een in
combinations. 1rustworthiness was throughout this thesis indicated as a ery important
attribute and expertise was almost o equal importance. 1hereore, the authors can
conclude that the consumers preer a celebrity who has the characteristics o being an
expert and trustworthy within the ield o adertising.
5.3 Discussion
Bringing the indings rom the research questions together, the authors hae decided to
proide the readers with a model ,igure 5-1, in order to gie a general apprehension o
their conclusions. 1his model is a deeper elaboration on igure 1-2 since the purpose o this
thesis was to ind the most important attributes that marketers need to consider when
using celebrities in their endorsement strategies. ligure 1-2 did not indicate what actors o
a celebrity that is o main importance but ater conducting this research, the authors can
inally conclude that the attributes trustworthiness and expertise are the hidden actors that
need to be considered when adertisers use the strategy o celebrity endorsement.
Conclusions and discussion

35

ligure 5-1 1he network o optimal use o a celebrity
1he attributes trustworthiness and expertise are combined in a network within the celebrity
endorsement strategy and since the consumers ealuated them as the most important ones,
the authors assume this model to be as the optimal use o a celebrity. A company needs to
be aware o igure 5-1 and the interaction in order to gain success or een preent ailure
when using celebrity endorsers. 1hese attributes are directly linked to the celebrity and
these are what marketers should consider when choosing a particular celebrity. 1hese will
eentually aect the company, consumer and brand when a celebrity gets associated with
negatie publicity. It is important to hae in mind that a celebrity who is linked with
negatie inormation and that possess these attributes to a ery high degree, is less likely to
aect the consumer behaiour negatiely in comparison to the opposite case.
5.4 Final words from the authors
1he main objectie o this thesis was to come to an understanding o which actors
consumers ind to be important or a company to consider when a celebrity gets associated
with negatie inormation. 1hese actors were as mentioned earlier trustworthiness and
expertise. But, the authors claim that only considering these actors does not eliminate the
other ones that has been used in the research process but rather that the identiied most
important actors are the ital ones. Now that the purpose is ulilled, the authors hae
gained more insight within the area o celebrity endorsement and hopeully proide
marketers with crucial inormation and knowledge that will beneit their company and
strengthen their brand equity. It is also crucial to bare in mind that the selection o a
celebrity should not only include the two most important attributes but also weigh the
remaining our as a priority, since these may strengthen the perception o a celebrity in
collaboration with the top listed attributes. Moreoer, there is no strong and determinant
indication that the ound attributes are the only ones to consider since there may be indeed
other hidden actors that consumers consider. 1he authors can now claim that this ield is a
continuously ongoing process and one should be clear that there is no correct way o doing
things, but rather proide helpul insights on what actors marketers should consider when
a celebrity gets associated with negatie publicity.
5.5 Prospects for future researches
Some o the results in this research process suggest interesting prospects or uture
research. 1he indings rom the post-experiment showed dierent results compared to the
general understanding o each attribute. Consumers tend to think and act dierently and
Celebrity
Company Brand Consumer
1rustworthiness Lxpertise
Conclusions and discussion

36
this is the main reason why the authors hae not claimed that the results are the accurate
ones. 1his research proided the readers with a general understanding o this subject and it
is crucial to urthermore state that this subject can be narrowed down een more, mostly
when it comes to psychological aspects. Potentially, this can lead to new and exiting
indings that can proide marketers with more understanding and a deep ocus on certain
psychological issues to take into account.
\hat can be interesting to elaborate deeper on is how the negatie inormation o a
celebrity aects low- and high inolement products,serices or luxury- and low cost
products,serices. Moreoer, what happens i a celebrity in the case o negatie
inormation promotes a brand that do not it well with the celebrity is also o peculiar
interest.
Another major area except or the psychological aspect is the demographical area. 1his
implies that studies regarding perceptions in dierent countries, ages, sex etc. can be
conducted to clariy more speciic issues that can be helpul and beneicial or marketers.
lurthermore, as it has been stated in preious studies, that one cannot predict the lie span
o a celebrity and combined with the indings in this thesis, there are no clear assumptions
i the consumers` willingness to purchase a product or serice that is promoted by a
celebrity and associated with negatie inormation. 1he authors beliee that a new research
area is deeloped. 1his one deals with how the eer changing identity o a celebrity might
aect the consumers` willingness to purchase, while some consumers might ind this
change o the celebrity as something negatie. 1hus, the authors assume that a potential
research area can be to inestigate i and in that case how consumers react to a celebrity`s
identity change during their time in the spotlight and also i the celebrity might through a
business perspectie beneit more i they start their own business, which will lead us in to a
new phenomenon o celebrity entrepreneurship.
Lastly, it would also be interesting to conduct a study within this subject, mainly rom
marketers point o iew or een an intertwined study rom both consumers and marketers
perspecties. Concluding this, the authors want to make it clear and agree with the act that
the adertising industry is really eicient when using celebrities as endorsers due to its
ability to reach a wider audience where the consumers can identiy themseles with. 1he
use o adertising is and will change in the uture, but at this time celebrities are the driing
mechanism to successul adertising within this industry.




Critique o this research process

3
6 Critique of this research process
ivce tbi. tbe.i. ba. beev covavctea ritb a tive cov.traivt ava tivitea re.ovrce., tbe avtbor. cav covre,
.ererat .etfcritici.v. ava ;vage tbe re.earcb roce.. .o tbat tbe reaaer ritt vot get vi.teaa or ivterret bia.ea
ivforvatiov.

1he authors eel that the limited time and resources hae aected the methodology. A
qualitatie study ,ocus groups, could hae beneited this thesis een more in the sense that
it could hae underpinned the main method used ,quantitatie,. lurthermore, it was
theoretically supported that at least 50 respondents can be used in a conjoint experiment
and een though 5 respondents were used in the research process, the authors eel that a
higher number o respondents could hae beneited this study to a greater extent and
proided more accurate results. Moreoer, the R
2
leel in all combinations ,1-16, 1-8, 9-16,
were on a low leel which indicates that the obsered ariability also was low. 1he R
2
leel
was on an aerage leel throughout the results and i the R
2
leels were closer to 1 it would
increase the reliability o the thesis. 1his can be due to the low amount o respondents.
Another reason or this can be the number o combinations o the conjoint experiment. A
larger amount o combinations ,cards, and ewer attributes would gie less statistical
uncertainty and more signiicant results.
1he results show that the celebrity-product attribute that hae been ound important in
preious research hold up in a context o a celebrity that is associated with negatie
inormation. loweer, a more ideal design would hae included negatie inormation
instead o as a consequence o the attributes, allowing or a more direct comparison.
lurthermore, the authors came to the understanding that as much as conjoint came across
as time consuming, they were going more or well answered questionnaires then hal done
ones. lurthermore, the authors beliee that the conjoint experiment is such a well coered
research process that many dierent results could hae been elaborated rom it. But, the
authors decided to keep it as accurate to the purpose o this thesis, which was to ind the
hidden actors and not inestigating the dierent relationships between the dierent
attributes. 1he concern was more on which attributes the respondents perceied to be
most important linked with the purpose o this thesis. 1his is why the authors only kept the
number o hypotheses to two instead o a larger number. 1here was a direct interest to
inestigate other aspects, mainly i the consumers were willing to purchase a product or
serice adertised by a celebrity that is associated with negatie inormation, and also i
consumers respond dierently in reaction to negatie inormation or the celebrities
negatie inormation.
1he last point o criticism that is important to point out is the order o combinations.
\hen looking at appendix 4 A, one can see that the leel o importance has a certain
symmetry where it starts o with a high leel and decreases slightly ater each combination
used. lence, i the combinations where placed in a dierent order the outcome might hae
diered and lead to other results.


Reerences

38
References
Aaker, D. A. ,2000,. rava eaaer.bi. A Diision o Simon & Schuster, Inc: New \ork.
Aaker, D. A. ,1991,. Mavagivg rava qvit,. 1he ress press, New \ork.
Aczel, A. D., & Sounderpandian, J. ,2002,. v.ive.. tati.tic. ,5
th
ed.,. McGraw-lill ligher
Lducation: New \ork.
Antilla, M., leuel, R. R., & Moller, K. ,1980,. Conjoint Measurement or Marketing
Management. vroeav ]ovrvat of Mar/etivg. 11,,, 39-408.
Belch, G.E., & Belch, M.A. (2001). Advertising and Promotion: An integrated
Marketing Communications Perspective (5
th
ed.). Boston: Irwin/MaGraw-
Hill.
Bielli, A. (2003).The Research Power Behind Great Brands. www.millwardbrown.com.
Retrieved 2005-02-15.
Carson, D., Gilmore A,. Perry C & Gronhaug K. ,2001,. Qvatitatire Mar/etivg Re.earcb.
SAGL Publications Ltd. Guildord: Great Britain.
Chabo, D., & Saouma, J. ,2005,. 1be Otivat v.e of Cetebrit, vaor.evevt. Jonkoping
International Business School: Jonkoping.
Chabo, D., & Saouma, J. ,2005,. 1be ffect of ^egatire vforvatiov. Jonkoping International
Business School: Jonkoping.
Chabo, D., & Saouma, J. ,2005,. 1be ^etror/ of Otivat v.e of a Cetebrit,. Jonkoping
International Business School: Jonkoping.
Churchill, G. A. ,1995,. Mar/etivg Re.earcb Metboaotogicat ovvaatiov. ,6
th
Ld., New \ork:
1he Dryden Press.
Daneshary, R., & Schwer, K.R. ,2000,. 1he Association and Consumers Intention to
Purchase: ]ovrvat of Cov.vver Mar/etivg, 1,3,, 203-213.
Dean, l. D. ,1999,. Brand Lndorsement, Popularity, and Lent Sponsorship as
Adertising Cues Aecting Consumer Pre-Purchase Attitudes. ]ovrvat of
.arerti.ivg. 2 ,3,.
Bruns, V. ,2004,. !bo Receire. av/ oav.. . .tva, of tevaivg officer.` a..e..vevt. of toav. to
grorivg .vatt ava veaivv.iea evterri.e.. Jonkoping International Business
School, Jonkoping Unieristy.
Lkdahl, l. ,199,. vcrea.ea Cv.tover ati.factiov |.ivg De.igv of erivevt., Cov;oivt .vat,.i.
ava QD. Linkoping: Diision o Quality 1echnology and Management
Department o Mechanical Lngineering, Linkoping Uniersity.
Lrdogan, Z.B., Baker, M.J., & 1agg, S. ,2001,. Selecting Celebrity Lndorsers: 1he
Practitioner`s Perspectie: ]ovrvat of .arerti.ivg Re.earcb, 11, 1-26.
Reerences

39
Lsaiasson, P., Gilljam, M., Oscarsson, l., & \ngnerud, L. ,2002,. Metoara/ti/av: Kov.tev
att .tvaera .avbatte, ivairia ocb var/vaa. Stockholm: Nordstedts Juridik.
llick, U. ,2002,. .v vtroavctiov to Qvatitatire Re.earcb. ,2
nd
ed., SAGL Publications Ltd.
\iltshire: Great Britain.
Goldsmith, L. R, Laerty, A. B, Newell, J.S. ,2000,. 1he Impact o Corporate Credibility
and Celebrity Credibility on Consumer Reaction to Adertisements and
Brands. ]ovrvat of .arerti.ivg, 2 ,3,.
Green, P.L., & Sriniasan, V. ,1990,. Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New deelopments
with implications or research and practise. ]ovrvat of Mar/etivg. :1,4,, 3-19.
Green, P.L., & Sriniasan, V. ,198,. Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and
Outlook. ]ovrvat of cov.vver Re.earcb, :: 103-123.
Green, P. L. ,2001,. loreword. In A. Gustasson, A. lerrmann, & l. luber ,Lds.,,
Cov;oivt vea.vrevevtvetboa. ava aticatiov., ,2
nd
ed., Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Gustasson, A., lerrman, A., & luber, l. ,2001,. Conjoint Analysis as an Instrument o
Market Reserach Practice. In A. Gustasson, A. lerrman, & l. luber ,Lds.,,
Cov;oivt vea.vrvevt: vetboa. ava aticatiov., 2
nd
ed. Berlin:Springer Verlag.
Gwinner, K. ,199,. . Moaet of vage Creatiov ava vage 1rav.fer iv revt ov.or.bi.
International Marketing Reiew, 11 ,3,, 145-158. North Carolina: USA.
Iggland, B. ,1989,. .vravaarbeavivg fr roav/tvtrec/tivg gev./a.raraerivgar vea Cov;oivt
.vat,.i.. Linkoping: Department o Management and Lconomics: Linkoping
Uniersity.
Johnson, R. M. ,198,. Adaptie Conjoint Analysis, in: artootb .vat,.i. Covferevce
Proceeaivg., Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Sotware, July, 253-65.
Kambitsis, C., larahousou, \., 1heodorakis, N., & Chatzibeis, G. ,2002,. Sports
Adertising in Print Media: 1he case o 2000 Olympic Games: Cororate
covvvvicatiov: .v ivtervatiovat ]ovrvat, ,3,, 155-161.
Kamins, A.M. ,1990,. An inestigation into the match-up` hypothesis in celebrity
adertising: when beauty may be only skin deap. ]ovrvat of .arerti.ivg, 1:
American Academy o Adertising.
Kamins, A.M., Brand, J.M., loeke. A.S & Moe, C.J. ,1989,. 1wo-Sided ersus One-Sided
Celebrity Lndorsements: 1he Impact on Adertising Lectieness and
Credibility. ]ovrvat of .arerti.ivg, 1: American Academy o Adertising.
Keller, L. K. ,2002,. Branding and Brand Lquity. Mar/etivg cievce v.titvte. Cambridge:
USA.
Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Saunders, J., & \ong, V. ,2001,. Privcite. of Mar/etivg. Prentice
lall: larlow.
Korner, S., & \ahlgren, L. ,1998,. tati.ti./a vetoaer. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Reerences

40
Louie, 1.A., & Obermiller, C. ,2002,. Consumer Response to a lirm`s Lndorser ,Dis,
association Decisions: ]ovrvat of .arerti.ivg, 1.
Lundell, M. ,2005,. 1 Mit;over fr 0 .e/vvaer. Atonbladet.
lttp:,,www.atonbladet.se,ss,ekonomi,story,utskrit,0,3258,600119,00.ht
m. Retrieed 2005-02-08.
Malhotra, K. N. ,1996,. Mar/etivg re.earcb: .v atiea orievtatiov ,2th ed.,. New
Jersey:Prentice lall.
McCracken, G. ,1989,. \ho is celebrity endorser Cultural oundations o the celebrity
endorsement process`. ]ovrvat of Cov.vver Re.earcb, 1,3,. 310-21.
OMahony, S. & Meenaghan, 1. ,199,98,. 1he impact o Celebrity Lndorsements on
Consumers: ri.b Mar/etivg Rerier, 10 ,2,, 15-24.
Ohanian, R. ,1990,. Construction and Validation o a scale to measure celebrity endorsers`
perceied expertise, trustworthiness and attractieness. ]ovrvat of .arerti.ivg, 1:
American Academy o Adertising.
Pringle, l. ,2004,. Celebrity Sells. ]obv !ite, c ov.. \iltshire: UK.
Redenbach, A. ,2005,. A Multiple Product Lndorser Can Be A Credible Source. C,ber
]ovrvat of ort Mar/etivg. ISSN. 132-6816. Griith Uniersity.
Riezebos, R., Kist, B., Koostra. G. (2003), Brand Management. A theoretical and
practical approach. Prentice Hall.
Saunders, M., Lewis P., & 1hornhill, A. ,2003,. Re.earcb vetboa. for bv.ive.. .tvaevt., Person
education limited: larlow.
Schiman, G. Leon & Kanuk, L. Lazar. ,2004,. Cov.vver ebariovr. Pearson education inc:
New Jersey.
Schlecht, C. ,2003,. Celebrities` Impact on Branding. Cevter ov Ctobat rava eaaer.bi.
Columbia Business School: New \ork.
Seern, J., Belch G.L. & Belch M.A. ,1990,. 1he eects o sexual and non-sexual
adertising appeals and inormation leel on cognitie processing and
communication eectieness. ]ovrvat of aarerti.ivg, 11, 14-22.
Silera, D.l., & Austad. B. ,2004,. lactors predicting the eectieness o celebrity
endorsement adertisements: vroeav ]ovrvat of Mar/etivg, ,11,12,, 1509-
1526.
Shepherd, D. A., & Zacharakis, A. ,199,. Conjoint analysis: A window o opportunity or
entrepreneurship research. .aravce. iv vtrerevevr.bi, irv vergevce, ava
Crortb, , 203-248.
Smith, A.L., Schullen, L.S., & Barr, l.S. ,2002,.Orgaviatiovat Re.earcb Metboa., : ,4,,
October 2002, 388-414.
Reerences

41
Solomon, M.R. ,2002,. Cov.vver ebarior: v,ivg, arivg,ava eivg, 5
th
ed.Prentice lall: New
Jersey.
Soderlund, M. ,2003,. votiov.taaaaa Mar/vaa.frivg. Liber: Malmo.
1ang, L.P., Kim, K.J & 1ang, L.1. ,2001,. Lndorsement o the Money Lthic, Income, and
Lie Satisaction - A comparison o ull-time employees, part-time employees,
and non-employed uniersity students. ]ovrvat of Mavageriat P.,cbotog,, 1 ,6,,
1ennessee: USA.
1ill, B.D., & Schimp, 1.A. ,1998,. Lndorsers in Adertising: 1he case o Negatie Celebrity
Inormation: ]ovrvat of .arerti.ivg, 2.
1ill, B.D., & Busler, M. ,1998,. Matching products with Lndorsers: Attractieness ersus
Lxpertise: ]ovrvat of Cov.vver Mar/etivg, 1: ,6,, 56-586.
1hurrot, P. ,2004,. \ith iPod success, Apple takes network eect` rom Microsot.
lttp:,,www.windowsitpro.com,Articles,Print.cmArticleID~4436.
Retrieed 2005-03-11.
Van de Pol, M., & Ryan, M. ,1996,. Using Conjoint analysis to establish consumer
preerences or ruit and egetables. ritti.b ooa ]ovrvat, ,8,, 5-12.
\algren, J. C, Ruble, A.C & Donthu, N. ,1995,. Brand Lquity, Brand Preerence &
Purchase Intentions. ]ovrvat of .arerti.ivg, 21 ,3,.
\heeler, R. ,2003,. Choosing Celebrity endorsers: 1ips and traps: ^ovrofit !orta., 21,4,,
1-20.





42
Appendix 1- 8 profiles for the six attributes at two levels
Lxpertise 1rust Similarity Likeability Meaning
transer
Match
it`
Concept
Low Low Low Low Low Low Design 1
ligh ligh Low Low ligh Low Design 2
Low ligh ligh Low ligh ligh Design 3
ligh Low ligh Low Low ligh Design 4
Low ligh Low ligh Low ligh Design 5
ligh Low Low ligh ligh ligh Design 6
ligh ligh ligh ligh Low Low Design
Low Low ligh ligh ligh Low Design



43
Appendix 2 - Research Survey
Dear re.ovaevt!
\ou hae been chosen to take part o our surey based on our Master`s thesis in marketing.
1his thesis has its main ocus on celebrity endorsement and as you might hae noticed, this
concept is being more requently used by marketers in the adertising industry.
lurthermore, most o the celebrities that hae been used hae generated a high brand
exposure and hae been associated with a certain brand, which in terms hae aected the
consumer buying behaiour.
1he use o celebrity endorsement has mostly a positie outcome or companies, since the
celebrity`s characteristics it well with the characteristics o a brand. Most o the celebrities
used by companies hae been chosen since they are considered to hae a strong power on
consumers. 1his means that consumers may buy a certain brand that is associated with a
celebrity to identiy themseles with this particular brand and also eel a sense o similarity
with the celebrity. loweer, one can wonder how consumers get aected by celebrities
that hae been associated with negatie publicity. 1his is what we want you to consider
when rating the different combinations of attributes and how the negative publicity
of a celebrity affects YOU.
\e will proide you with two dierent cases in order or you to get a better understanding
o how to rate when imagining that particular situation, and how that would eect you in
your buying decision. \e want to emphasize that the generated cases are made up. Simply,
what we want from you is to rate each combination of attributes from J to 7. Please
ealuate each combination as a separate situation independent o all others. Once you hae
completed one combination, you are not supposed to go back and take a preious look.
\ou should also read through the descriptions o the attributes and their leel one time
only. Moreoer, i you consider one combination not to hae a great impact on you, you
can rate it as number 1 and rom that point rate the combinations a higher number the
more impact they hae on you with being the highest.
\e would like to make it clear that there is no right or wrong answer, we are more
interested in what you consider to be most important when a celebrity gets associated with
negatie publicity. With negative publicity we mean any information that has
negative association that decreases the trustworthiness of the celebrity and the fit
with the brand.
1he whole experiment might be considered as time consuming but it will probably not take
you more than 15 minutes to complete this task. linally, we emphasize that your response
will remain anonymous and thank you or your participation.








44
Attribute Level J Level 2
erti.e: 1he leel o
knowledge, experience
and expertise a celebrity
has in a particular brand.
igb: 1he celebrity
has a high leel o
knowledge,
experience and
expertise.
or: 1he celebrity has a
low leel o knowledge,
experience and expertise.
1rv.trortbive..: low
honest and belieable a
celebrity is when
adertising a brand.
igb: 1he celebrity
is considered to be
ery trustworthy.
or: 1he celebrity is not
perceied to be honest
and belieable enough.
ivitarit,: 1he sense o
similarity a consumer eel
with a celebrity endorser.
igb: 1he consumer
eels highly linked
with the celebrity
when it comes to
the characteristics.
or: 1he consumer does
not eel any connection
with the celebrity.
i/eabitit,: 1he leel o a
celebrity`s ame in the
public eye and how
popular this person is.
igb: 1he celebrity
is highly amous
and popular.
or: 1he celebrity is not
likeable or popular.
Meavivg trav.fer: 1he
meaning a celebrity brings
or transers to a certain
brand with the help o
their personality and lie-
styles.
igb: 1he celebrity
is successully
transerring
meaning to a brand.
or: 1he celebrity does
not succeed in
transerring any meaning
to the brand.
it Matcb: low well the
it between the celebrity
and the brand is.
igb: A ery good
it.
or: No it at all.













45
Case J. Plastic Iantastic AB
1he last two years, Plastic lantastic AB has been sponsoring the most amazing and
extreme make-oer 1V-show ,1he Swan, or regular people in the USA. 1his has been
ery successul in the domestic market as well as internationally. 1hereore, Plastic
lantastic has now realized that this can be a beneicial way to reach out to a larger audience
in a dierent way than the original 1V-show promotion. 1alking about 1V-shows, Michael
Jackson is currently not only notorious or attending his own court on international 1V,
where he is accused o child molesting, but he is also promoting the serices Plastic
lantastic AB oers.

Combination J

Lxpertise Low

1rustworthiness Low

Similarity Low

Likeability Low

Meaning transfer Low

Iit Match Low

Based on the attributes mentioned aboe, how willing are you to buy this serice
,Please rate this combination,
Unwilling 1 2 3 4 5 6 \illing




46
Combination 2

Lxpertise High

1rustworthiness High

Similarity Low

Likeability Low

Meaning transfer High

Iit Match Low
Based on the attributes mentioned aboe, how willing are you to buy this serice
,Please rate this combination,
Unwilling 1 2 3 4 5 6 \illing















4
Combination 3

Lxpertise Low

1rustworthiness High

Similarity High

Likeability Low

Meaning transfer High

Iit Match High

Based on the attributes mentioned aboe, how willing are you to buy this serice
,Please rate this combination,
Unwilling 1 2 3 4 5 6 \illing















48
Combination 4

Lxpertise High

1rustworthiness Low

Similarity High

Likeability Low

Meaning transfer Low

Iit Match High

Based on the attributes mentioned aboe, how willing are you to buy this serice
,Please rate this combination,
Unwilling 1 2 3 4 5 6 \illing














49
Combination S

Lxpertise Low

1rustworthiness High

Similarity Low

Likeability High

Meaning transfer Low

Iit Match High

Based on the attributes mentioned aboe, how willing are you to buy this serice
,Please rate this combination,
Unwilling 1 2 3 4 5 6 \illing














50
Combination 6

Lxpertise High

1rustworthiness Low

Similarity Low

Likeability High

Meaning transfer High

Iit Match High

Based on the attributes mentioned aboe, how willing are you to buy this serice
,Please rate this combination,
Unwilling 1 2 3 4 5 6 \illing















51
Combination 7

Lxpertise High

1rustworthiness High

Similarity High

Likeability High

Meaning transfer Low

Iit Match Low

Based on the attributes mentioned aboe, how willing are you to buy this serice
,Please rate this combination,
Unwilling 1 2 3 4 5 6 \illing














52
Combination 8

Lxpertise Low

1rustworthiness Low

Similarity High

Likeability High

Meaning transfer High

Iit Match Low

Based on the attributes mentioned aboe, how willing are you to buy this serice
,Please rate this combination,
Unwilling 1 2 3 4 5 6 \illing















53
Case 2. Dell and Bill
Dell computers are launching their new product, Monica 69 \l, which includes a certain
system or managers` at large companies to enhance the process o keeping track o
numbers. 1his indicates that Dell`s main target is business-oriented people. 1o be able to
succeed with reaching this particular group, Dell hae been using Bill Clinton as a
spokesperson in promoting Monica 69 \l.

Combination 9

Lxpertise Low

1rustworthiness High

Similarity High

Likeability Low

Meaning transfer High

Iit Match High

Based on the attributes mentioned aboe, how willing are you to buy this product
,Please rate this combination,
Unwilling 1 2 3 4 5 6 \illing









54
Combination J0

Lxpertise Low

1rustworthiness Low

Similarity Low

Likeability Low

Meaning transfer Low

Iit Match Low

Based on the attributes mentioned aboe, how willing are you to buy this product
,Please rate this combination,
Unwilling 1 2 3 4 5 6 \illing















55
Combination JJ

Lxpertise Low

1rustworthiness High

Similarity Low

Likeability High

Meaning transfer Low

Iit Match High

Based on the attributes mentioned aboe, how willing are you to buy this product
,Please rate this combination,
Unwilling 1 2 3 4 5 6 \illing















56
Combination J2

Lxpertise High

1rustworthiness High

Similarity High

Likeability High

Meaning transfer Low

Iit Match Low

Based on the attributes mentioned aboe, how willing are you to buy this product
,Please rate this combination,
Unwilling 1 2 3 4 5 6 \illing















5
Combination J3

Lxpertise High

1rustworthiness Low

Similarity Low

Likeability High

Meaning transfer High

Iit Match High

Based on the attributes mentioned aboe, how willing are you to buy this product
,Please rate this combination,
Unwilling 1 2 3 4 5 6 \illing















58
Combination J4

Lxpertise High

1rustworthiness High

Similarity Low

Likeability Low

Meaning transfer High

Iit Match Low
Based on the attributes mentioned aboe, how willing are you to buy this product
,Please rate this combination,
Unwilling 1 2 3 4 5 6 \illing
















59
Combination JS

Lxpertise Low

1rustworthiness Low

Similarity High

Likeability High

Meaning transfer High

Iit Match Low

Based on the attributes mentioned aboe, how willing are you to buy this product
,Please rate this combination,
Unwilling 1 2 3 4 5 6 \illing















60
Combination J6

Lxpertise High

1rustworthiness Low

Similarity High

Likeability Low

Meaning transfer Low

Iit Match High

Based on the attributes mentioned aboe, how willing are you to buy this product
,Please rate this combination,
Unwilling 1 2 3 4 5 6 \illing















61
How important do you consider each of the attributes mentioned to be of
importance when considering a celebrity that gets negative publicity.
,Please ealuate each attribute on the scale o 1 to 5,


Lxpertise
Unimportant 1 2 3 4 5 Important

1rustworthiness
Unimportant 1 2 3 4 5 Important

Similarity
Unimportant 1 2 3 4 5 Important

Likeability
Unimportant 1 2 3 4 5 Important

Meaning transfer
Unimportant 1 2 3 4 5 Important

Iit Match
Unimportant 1 2 3 4 5 Important






62
,Please put a cross on the situation that is addressed to each question,

J. Which faculity do you belong to?

2. Do you consider yourself to be fashion conscious?


3. Do you consider yourself to be affected by celebrities in advertising?



4. Do you purchase brands that are advertised by celebrities?



S. Does your purchasing decisions change if a celebrity get assocaiated with
negative publicity?









JIBS ING lLK llJ
\es No Occassionally
\es No Occassionally
\es No Occassionally
\es No


63
Appendix 3- Extract from pilot study
Combination J

Lxpertise Low
1rustworthiness Low
Similarity Low
Likeability Low
Meaning transfer Low
Iit Match Low
Based on the attributes mentioned above, how important do you find the celebrity's
negative publicity affecting your purchasing decision.
,Please rate this combination,
Low importance 1 2 3 4 5 6 ligh
importance

















64
Appendix 4 - Appendix concerning reserach question 1
Appendix 4A
Importance summary
Factor
Match
meaning transf er
likeability
similarity
trsutworthiness
expertise
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
d

I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
30
20
10
0

Appendix 4B
Individual Subject Importance
Factor
Match
meaning transf er
likeability
similarity
trsutworthiness
expertise
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
d

I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75



65
Appendix 4C
CARD12
7,0 6,0 5,0 4,0 3,0 2,0 1,0
CARD12
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
30
20
10
0
Std. Dev = 1,45
Mean = 4,9
N = 75,00



66
Appendix 5- Appendix concerning reserach question 2
case 1
Appendix SA
Importance summary
Factor
Match
meaning transf er
likeability
similarity
trsutworthiness
expertise
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
d

I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
30
20
10
0

Appendix SB
Individual Subject Importance
Factor
Match
meaning transf er
likeability
similarity
trsutworthiness
expertise
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
d

I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
80
60
40
20
0
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75



6
Appendix 6- Appendix concerning reserach question 2
case 2
Appendix 6A
Importance summary
Factor
Match
meaning transf er
likeability
similarity
trsutworthiness
expertise
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
d

I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
30
20
10
0

Appendix 6B
Individual Subject Importance
Factor
Match
meaning transf er
likeability
similarity
trsutworthiness
expertise
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
d

I
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75



68
Appendix 7- Anova tables
Reserach question J
Model Summary(b) Appendix 7A

Model R R-square
Adjusted R-
square
Std. Error of
the Estimate


1
,562(a) ,316 ,128 20,357
a Predictors: (Constant), CARD16, CARD10, CARD7, CARD3, CARD12, CARD11, CARD1, CARD14,
CARD13, CARD5, CARD8, CARD2, CARD6, CARD4, CARD15, CARD9
b Dependent Variable: RESP


ANOVA(b) Appendix 7B

Model
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regressio
n
11114,608 16 694,663 1,676 ,078(a)
Residual
24035,392 58 414,403
1
Total
35150,000 74
a Predictors: (Constant), CARD16, CARD10, CARD7, CARD3, CARD12, CARD11, CARD1, CARD14,
CARD13, CARD5, CARD8, CARD2, CARD6, CARD4, CARD15, CARD9
b Dependent Variable: RESP


Research question 2 case J
Model Summary Appendix 7C

Model R R-square
Adjusted R-
square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1
,430(a) ,185 ,086 20,832
a Predictors: (Constant), CARD8, CARD7, CARD5, CARD4, CARD2, CARD1, CARD3, CARD6

ANOVA(b) Appendix 7D

Model
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regressio
n
6507,286 8 813,411 1,874 ,079(a)
Residual
28642,714 66 433,981
1
Total
35150,000 74
a Predictors: (Constant), CARD8, CARD7, CARD5, CARD4, CARD2, CARD1, CARD3, CARD6
b Dependent Variable: RESP




Research question 2 case 2


69
Model Summary Appendix 7E

Model R R-square
Adjusted R-
square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
1
,506(a) ,256 ,166 19,909
a Predictors: (Constant), CARD16, CARD10, CARD12, CARD14, CARD15, CARD11, CARD13, CARD9

ANOVA(b) Appendix 7F

Model
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regressio
n
8988,430 8 1123,554 2,834 ,009(a)
Residual
26161,570 66 396,387
1
Total
35150,000 74
a Predictors: (Constant), CARD16, CARD10, CARD12, CARD14, CARD15, CARD11, CARD13, CARD9
b Dependent Variable: RESP






















0
Appendix 8- Perception of attributes
Rating
5,0 4,0 3,0 2,0 1,0
Expertise
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
40
30
20
10
0
Std. Dev = 1,25
Mean = 4,0
N = 75,00

Rating
5,0 4,0 3,0 2,0 1,0
Trustworthiness
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
50
40
30
20
10
0
Std. Dev = ,93
Mean = 4,3
N = 75,00





1
Rating
5,0 4,0 3,0 2,0 1,0
Similarity
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
30
20
10
0
Std. Dev = 1,10
Mean = 3,4
N = 75,00

Rating
5,0 4,0 3,0 2,0 1,0
Likeability
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
30
20
10
0
Std. Dev = 1,06
Mean = 3,0
N = 75,00



2
Rating
5,0 4,0 3,0 2,0 1,0
Meaning transfer
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
30
20
10
0
Std. Dev = 1,24
Mean = 3,4
N = 75,00

Rating
5,0 4,0 3,0 2,0 1,0
"Fit" Match
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
30
20
10
0
Std. Dev = 1,10
Mean = 3,6
N = 75,00