Cross-case analysis

This section serves to analyse similarities and differences across the three cases in relation to the variables of the theoretical framework. The aim is to develop an understanding for how the findings from the cases together relate to the theoretical propositions and further how the findings can be accumulated towards analytical generalization. The previous section presented and analysed the findings within each case in relation to the variables of the theoretical framework. Some findings distinguish the cases from each other and other findings are evident across all three cases. Further, it is relevant to specify that the cross-case analysis is not seeking to compare the different influencers to each other, rather it strives to condense and compare the respondents’ answers regarding the variables in the theoretical framework. An example of the coding process that served as a base for the cross-case analysis can be found in Appendix 4.

This analysis first deals with engagement and the coupled antecedents of engagement. Then it attends to the antecedents of PSI and subsequently PSI. Additionally, it handles the findings regarding trust and sponsored content and finally the analysis concludes by exploring the connections between the main variables of the theoretical framework.

6.4.1 Engagement

Across all three cases the respondents mention different motivations for why they began following

the influencer. In the case of Bianca Ingrosso, the respondents’ motivation for starting to engage

with the influencer is entertainment. For Isabella Löwengrip, the respondents express inconclusive

initial motivations why they began following the influencer. In the case of Matilda Djerf, the most

prominent motivation for the respondent’s initial engagement with the influencer is inspiration.

However, the three cases exhibit similarities in regard to how the respondents engage with the influencers on a regular basis. Across all three cases the most common level of engagement is consuming. Further, the respondents mention that they sometimes engage by contributing but no evidence is found for creating. Overall, the same motivations are mentioned for consuming as for contributing. Across all three cases the respondents mention inspiration, information and entertainment to be their main motivations to engage with the influencer.

In terms of inspiration the respondents are mainly talking about style advice. In addition to that, in the case of Isabella Löwengrip the respondents are also mentioning the influencer’s personality as being inspirational.

In terms of information, it becomes clear in the case of Bianca Ingrosso and Matilda Djerf that information can also serve as a prerequisite for inspiration. It is mentioned that information is seen as a requirement for inspiration, some respondents argue that for them to fulfil the inspiration, they need information such as the names of the brands that the influencer is wearing, the restaurants the influencer is visiting or the places the influencer travels to. A common form of information that is acknowledged in the cases of Bianca Ingrosso and Matilda Djerf are tutorials, where the influencer shows how they use products.

Across all three cases the respondents mention different types of entertainment as a motivation to engage with the influencer. Aesthetic enjoyment as a motivation for engagement is mentioned by respondents across all three cases. In the case of Bianca Ingrosso and Isabella Löwengrip the respondents further express emotional release to be a motivation for engagement with the influencer. Overall, respondents across all three cases are using social media for entertainment in order to fill time. This motivation is more prominent in the cases of Bianca Ingrosso and Matilda Djerf. Finally, in the case of Bianca Ingrosso it is mentioned that escaping from problems is another motivation for engaging with her.

In none of the cases remuneration is mentioned as a motivation to engage with the influencer.

However, in the case of Matilda Djerf the respondents acknowledge remuneration as a motivation

to engage with influencers in general when talking about their online shopping behaviour.

In terms of self-expression, in none of the three cases the respondents express a clear connection between self-expression and their engagement with the influencer. However, in the case of Bianca Ingrosso and Matilda Djerf a few respondents acknowledge that following the influencer could reflect their social self, owing to the notion that they express awareness of other people's perception of the influencer. In contrast to this, the respondents in the case of Isabella Löwengrip do not express that connection since they believe it is common to follow Isabella Löwengrip.

Comparable to the findings regarding the motivations for engagement, the outcome of engagement is similar across all cases. In general, the findings reveal rather weak brand loyalty. However, respondents in all three cases exhibit some behavioural loyalty through revisit intentions and WOM.

The latter being the most notable outcome. The case of Isabella Löwengrip is the only one to exhibit any attitudinal loyalty, albeit weak as well. According to theoretical propositions, higher levels of engagement tend to lead to increased brand loyalty. In this sense, the low level of engagement in form of consuming expressed by the respondents could explain their weak brand loyalty intentions.

6.4.2 The antecedents of PSI

When talking about the influencer’s perceived interactivity, the respondents in the case of Bianca Ingrosso and Matilda Djerf perceive the influencer to interact by listening and talking to the followers. In the case of Bianca Ingrosso this is mainly related to her reacting to mean and hateful comments while in the case of Matilda Djerf this is attributed to her answering comments of her followers. In contrast to the other two cases, Isabella Löwengrip is perceived to be less interactive since the respondents acknowledge that she is mainly listening to her followers.

When comparing the cases, it becomes evident that they differ from each other in terms of how the

respondents perceive the influencer’s openness in communication. In contrast to the other two

cases, the case of Bianca Ingrosso shows that all respondents describe the influencer as being open

in her communication since she shares both positive and negative sides of her life. In the case of

Isabella Löwengrip the respondents describe the influencer as being open in her communication but

at the same time they acknowledge a strategy behind her communication. Finally, the respondents

in the case of Matilda Djerf are divided whether the influencer is open in her communication.

Across all cases the respondents find the influencer to be socially attractive. Further, it is widely recognized throughout the cases that there are ‘others’ that do not find the influencer attractive.

However, this seems to have little impact on the respondents’ perceptions of the influencer. In the cases of Bianca Ingrosso and Matilda Djerf, the respondents reveal a possible relationship between fame and social attraction in the sense that famous individuals are inherently socially attractive regardless of socially attractive attitudes or values.

Across all cases it becomes clear that the respondents see more differences than similarities between them and the influencer. However, the respondents across all three cases mention a limited number of similarities.

6.4.3 PSI

Across all three cases, almost all respondents show no feelings of PSI due to no signs of an illusionary experience with the influencer, which is what defines PSI. Instead the respondents seem very realistic about the relationship between themselves and the influencer. They exhibit an awareness of the boundaries between the two parties which is expressed through clearly separating between friends and the influencer. However, in the cases of Bianca Ingrosso and Matilda Djerf there is one respondent in each case that expresses an indication of feelings of PSI. This indication is exhibited through stronger emotional bonds and feelings of intimacy in comparison with the other respondents, which in the case of Matilda Djerf could be due to higher perceived social attraction and in the case of Bianca Ingrosso this could relate to a stronger attitude homophily. Overall, some of the other respondents in all three cases likewise mention indications of feelings of intimacy and emotional bonds but to a lesser extent. These findings in no way represents that the respondents are experiencing PSI, nonetheless they add understanding as to how the respondents make sense of illusionary experiences and why there is no PSI in any of the three cases. The emotional bonds and the feelings of intimacy that the respondents exhibit are seemingly not sufficient to lead to an illusionary experience. Finally, since there is no evidence of PSI across the cases, the outcomes of the relationship the respondents have with the influencer are in general attributed to other reasons.

6.4.4 Trust and sponsored content

Across all three cases the respondents emphasize the importance of how sponsorship is disclosed by

the influencers. The attitudes towards sponsored content differs across the three cases. In the case of

Bianca Ingrosso the respondents are divided in their attitude towards sponsored content. Two

respondents express a negative attitude, one a positive and one a neutral attitude. In the case of Isabella Löwengrip the respondents mainly have a positive attitude towards sponsored content while in the case of Matilda Djerf the respondents are split. Two respondents express a neutral attitude towards sponsored content and two express a positive attitude towards sponsored content.

When talking about trust in relation to influencers, the respondents across all three cases share a similar understanding of a trustworthy influencer as being open and transparent. In each case the respondents express that they in general trust the influencer. However, in the case of Bianca Ingrosso and Isabella Löwengrip some respondents mention how sponsored content can have a negative effect on their trust towards the influencer and further that the way how the influencer presents the sponsored content can negatively influence the respondents’ trust in the influencer. In contrary to this, in the case of Matilda Djerf none of the respondents express any negative effect of sponsored content on trust towards Matilda Djerf. Moreover, the respondents express that they trust in Matilda Djerf’s sponsored content and are willing to rely on her recommendations.

In the cases of Bianca Ingrosso and Matilda Djerf, the respondents acknowledge that it is the influencer’s job to post sponsored content and therefore they accept the sponsorship. Across all three cases it becomes clear that the respondents are more willing to accept sponsorship and trust the influencer when the sponsored product or brand fits the influencer’s lifestyle. Further, it is mentioned that sponsorships are accepted as long as the sponsorship does not take over the majority of the influencer’s content. In the case of Bianca Ingrosso and Isabella Löwengrip it is also found that the respondents are more willing to accept sponsorship when they receive something in exchange, for example in the form of discount codes. Finally, in comparison to the other cases, in the case of Matilda Djerf the respondents clearly expressed trust in the ability of Matilda Djerf to decide on sponsorship that is in line with her content and lifestyle.

Across all three cases, none of the respondents express any brand loyalty that stems from their

acceptance of sponsorship. However, the answers of the respondents across all three cases show

that sponsorships that are unaccepted can have a negative impact on engagement with the influencer

and consequently could diminish revisit intentions.

6.4.5 In sum

Overall, the findings from the cross-case analysis supply support for the theoretical framework, yet there are some unanticipated findings.

First, it is found that the influence sponsored content has an on trust towards the influencer, depends on the fit between the sponsored content and the influencer. Additionally, trust towards the influencer could decrease if the influencer is not transparent about sponsorships. Finally, the attitude towards sponsored content varies across all three cases and therefore no conclusion regarding a general attitude towards sponsored content can be made.

Second, the respondents express trust in the influencer’s ability to choose the right sponsorships and therefore show acceptance of sponsorships. Further the respondents show trust in the influencer to not present sponsored products and brands they do not like or use themselves, which further influences the respondent’s acceptance of sponsorship.

Third, no evidence is found to support that acceptance of sponsorship has a direct effect on brand loyalty. However, there are signs of an indirect negative effect when sponsorships are not accepted.

Likewise, unaccepted sponsorships are found to influence engagement negatively. This decreased engagement also has a negative effect on revisit intentions.

Fourth, there are little signs of feelings of PSI in all three cases. The relationship between the respondents and the influencers are revealed to be very realistic and no support for an illusionary experience is found. However, there is evidence for the antecedents of PSI. In all three cases, there are findings that show perceived interactivity, openness in communication, attitude homophily and social attraction to various degrees. Since there is no PSI, it is not possible to delve into the antecedents’ influence on PSI other than the notion that attitude homophily is the only antecedent that is expressed as low across all cases, which could indicate that it has a greater influence on creating PSI than the other antecedents.

Fifth, it is found that the respondents’ motivation for engagement with the influencers are

information, inspiration and entertainment. The level of engagement most prominent in the findings

is consuming and to some extent contributing. Further, no general conclusion about the

respondents’ initial motivation for engaging with the influencers can be made. It is found that some respondents were initially motivated by entertainment and some by inspiration. In regards to remuneration and self-expression as a motivation for engagement, no clear evidence was found in the researched cases.

In general, it is found that the respondents’ brand loyalty towards the influencers are rather weak.

Since no PSI is found, the brand loyalty shown in the three cases is attributed to engagement as the main mediator in the relationship between the respondents and the influencers. The respondents’

engagement mainly leads to behavioural loyalty. Since there is no PSI and rather weak brand

loyalty, it could be further discussed if PSI has a greater influence on brand loyalty in comparison

to engagement or if the weak brand loyalty could simply be explained by the low level of

engagement.

In document BEYOND PICTURE-PERFECT BRUNCH PLATES (Sider 98-105)