Measurement variables

5 Analytical model

________________________________________________________________________________

5 Analytical model

________________________________________________________________________________

Expertise

From research within the field of communication, expertise is defined as “the extent to which a communicator is perceived to be a source of valid assertions” (Ohanian, 1990, p. 41). Others describe expertise as the perceived competence of endorsers to make certain claims based on their experience, knowledge and skills (Munnukka, Uusitalo, & Toivonen, 2016). In literature, it is often more generally spoken of “a source’s competence or qualification, including the source’s knowledge or skills, to make certain claims relating to a certain subject or topic” (Lou & Yuan, 2019, p. 61).

Expertise in relation to CAs can be described as athletic expertise, meaning that CAs’ expertise stems from their sport success as well as from the skills and proficiency they possess in their field of sport (Arai, Ko, & Ross, 2014). By this, they can “provide expert opinions on […] products they use during competition” (Peetz & Lough, 2015, p. 130).

Transferred to the case of SMIs, expertise can be defined as “knowledge in a particular field” (A.

Levin, 2020, p. 21), which is often based on experience with a certain product category (Casaló et al., 2018). SMIs usually hold expertise in a specialized field, such as healthy living, food, travel, beauty or fashion (Lou & Yuan, 2019).

Attractiveness

Apart from physical attractiveness (Arai et al., 2014; Lou & Yuan, 2019; Ohanian, 1990), attractiveness has been also defined from a broader perspective (Simmers, Damron-Martinez, &

Haytko, 2009). Drawing upon the source attractiveness model, attractiveness encompasses three dimensions: similarity, familiarity, and likeability (Peetz & Lough, 2015).

With regard to possible effects on brand authenticity, the focus will be on only one dimension of attractiveness, which is similarity. In relation to endorsers, similarity can be described “as a supposed resemblance between the source and receiver of the message” (McCracken, 1989, p. 311).

In the context of CAs, Peetz (2012) suggests that consumers are likely to identify with endorsers who share similarities. They may also identify if they only have the feeling that they share commonalities regarding opinions or their way of life, for example. As a consequence of consumers’ identification with endorsers, those become influential (Peetz, 2012). In this context, Schouten et al. (2020) argue that consumers’ identification with celebrities, such as athletes, often emerges through consumers’

admiration for the celebrity and their pursuit to be like them rather than through actual commonalities.

Individuals are more likely to bond with people that are similar to themselves. Thus, the more consumers perceive SMIs to be similar to themselves, the more likely they are to interact with them.

5 Analytical model

________________________________________________________________________________

As consumers often compare themselves to admired SMIs, they are more likely to develop positive brand perceptions when products are shown by SMIs, who share similarities with the them (Lee &

Watkins, 2016).

Trustworthiness

Within research on communication, trustworthiness refers to “the degree of confidence in the communicator’s intent to communicate the assertions he considers most valid” (Ohanian, 1990, p.

41). Most findings on trustworthiness suggest a positive impact on message effectiveness and attitude change when the communicator is regarded as trustworthy (Ohanian, 1990). Concerning endorsers, in order to be perceived as trustworthy, they need to show “honesty, integrity and believability”

(Erdogan, 1999, p. 297).

Researchers suggest that CAs are required to hold characteristics that signal trustworthiness in order to be an effective endorser (Ruihley et al., 2010; Stone, Joseph, & Jones, 2003). In the particular case of CAs, sportsmanship can be considered as a factor of trustworthiness that becomes crucial in gaining consumers’ trust. Sportsmanship is commonly understood as athletes acting respectful, ethical and fair (Arai et al., 2014).

Trust in SMIs’ honest opinion is a focal aspect why consumers follow them (A. Levin, 2020). Those, who are perceived as trustworthy, are expected to have a higher impact on their audience’s behaviours (Lim, Mohd Radzol, Cheah, & Wong, 2017).

Brand congruence

According to the product match-up hypothesis, endorsers are deemed to be more effective when there is congruence between them and the product. Apart from product congruence, the effectiveness of the endorsement is influenced by the perceived congruence between the endorser and the brand (Erdogan, 1999). This means that congruence benefits also occur when a personality fit exists between endorsers and brands (Breves et al., 2019). Although most researchers distinguish product and brand congruence, it can be assumed that high product-endorser congruence, also leads to higher perceived brand-endorser congruence.

According to Min et al. (2019), the fit between the brand and the celebrity endorser is a critical aspect for the success of the endorsement. Similarly, Kim and Na (2007) state that consumers respond more positively to an endorsed product in cases where congruence between the CA and the endorsed

5 Analytical model

________________________________________________________________________________

product is given. Therefore, sport brands often select professional athletes for endorsing their products (Braunstein-Minkove et al., 2011; Min et al., 2019).

Likewise regarding SMIs, brand-influencer fit positively affects advertising effectiveness (Lim et al., 2017). The brand-influencer fit is seen as important for SMI endorsements, because SMIs’ messages are often not perceived as advertising and therefore a mismatch might irritate their audience (Breves et al., 2019).

5.2.2 Measurements variables for brand authenticity

To operationalise the brand authenticity construct, it will be drawn on the dimensions of brand authenticity. After gaining an overview of various researchers’ understanding of brand authenticity models in part 2.2, it had to be decided with which dimensions brand authenticity will be described and examined in this study. Guèvremont (2018) was found to be the only researcher, who has investigated brand authenticity dimensions in an online context. Therefore, it was decided to use the three identified dimensions of brand transparency, proximity and virtuousness for the research at hand.

The literature review has shown that many researchers incorporate a time-related dimension (e.g.

continuity) to measure brand authenticity (Bruhn et al., 2012; Morhart et al., 2015). However, the fact that a cross-sectional study was conducted means that data was collected within a short time frame.

Thereby, it would have become difficult to measure time-related dimensions such as continuity, further supporting the above stated decision.

Brand transparency

According to Guèvremont (2018), brand transparency is in place when a brand is perceived as honest, open, intuitive and spontaneous. Yoo (2014) defines brand transparency as “consumers’ perceived levels of a brand’s strategic communication effort to make information available - whether positive or negative in nature - for the purpose of enhancing their understanding and making a brand accountable for marketing practices” (p. 11). Brands that are perceived as transparent communicate emotions and not only show successes but also reveal negative aspects about themselves, such as

“weaknesses, imperfections, doubts, and mistakes” (Guèvremont, 2018, p. 510). In line with this is the following argument. Transparency is more than speaking the truth, it is about open communication of critical issues, such as labour conditions along the supply chain. By being transparent about these critical issues a competitive disadvantage might arise. But researchers claim

5 Analytical model

________________________________________________________________________________

that transparency increases consumers’ trust and by this offsets disadvantages (Hustvedt & Kang, 2013).

Brand proximity

Brand proximity means that a brand is perceived to be real, caring and accessible. The brand seeks to create “familiarity and closeness within the community” (Guèvremont, 2018, p. 510). Gahlot Sarkar and Sarkar (2016) relate brand proximity to the concept of interpersonal attachment and intimacy. In this vein, brands are understood to possess the ability to elicit a feeling of closeness and by this connect with consumers on an emotional level. The researchers further distinguish between three forms of brand proximity. First, there is subconscious cognitive brand proximity, which is largely shaped by consumers emotions. Second, social brand proximity is built when consumers perceive brands to be enhancing their own social image. Third, cultural brand proximity is increased when consumers perceive brands to possess favourable cultural meanings (Gahlot Sarkar & Sarkar, 2016).

Brand virtuousness

Brand virtuousness stands for brands that follow moral principles and have high values. It is not only about having these principles and values written down, but to really put them into action and living up to them. Virtuous brands are perceived to be following an intrinsic motivation, seeking to help people and thereby have a positive impact on society (Guèvremont, 2018). Brand virtuousness is furthermore understood as a brand’s externally viewed integrity (Fritz et al., 2017). According to Morhart et al. (2015), integrity refers to “moral purity and responsibility of the brand” (p. 203), meaning that it follows the ‘right’ values and is concerned about treating consumers thoughtfully (Morhart et al., 2015).