ERASMUSUNIVERSITYOFROTTERDAM

ErasmusSchoolofEconomics

MasterThesisMarketing(2015–2018)

Theimpactofadvertisingappealandbrandpersonalityoncustomers’willingnesstoshareaviraladvertisementofa

controversialproductonsocialmedia

Supervisor:Drs.Kolesnyk

Author:LorenaGambónBru

IDnumber:434834

Date:23rdofAprilof2018

AbstractRecently,agreatnumberofstudieshavefocusedonresearchingtheinfluenceofbrandingstrategiesonviraladvertisingonsocialmediaplatforms.However,to my knowledge, there are no studies on how viral marketing is affected,when using a controversial product that is advertised employing user-generatedcontent.The present research studies the effect of brand personality and advertisingappeal,togetherwithotherindependentvariables,onattitudetowardtheadandwillingness to sharea viraladvertisement,usinga controversialproductlikeunderwear.Anonlinesurveyexperimentisconductedtotesttheinfluenceof two of the brand personality dimensions established by Aaker (1997),sophisticationand ruggedness, for twodifferent levelsofadvertisingappeal,informationalandemotional.Unexpectedly, results revealed that there is no significant influenceofbrandpersonality and advertising appeal on attitude toward the ad.However, thepresentstudyfoundmoderatingeffectofbrandequityontheeffectofbrandpersonality on attitude toward the ad. Another interesting finding is thatcustomer’s levels of self-disclosure directly affects their willingness to sharethead,whenitcomestosharingcontentwithacontroversialproduct.Finally,this replicatedprevious findings, confirming the influenceof attitude towardthebrandonattitudetowardthead,whichaffectsconsumers’willingnesstoshareanad.TheeffectreplicatedtheresultsfoundbyMitchell’s(2000)aswellasmany others in the past, butwithin a novel context, thus, expanding thescopeofgeneralizationforpreviousfindings.Severalmanagerialandscientificimplicationsarediscussed,aswellasdirectionforfutureresearch.Keywords:advertisingappeal,brandpersonality,socialnetworkingsites(SNS),socialmedia,wordofmouth,viralmarketinganduser-generatedcontent(UGC).

Tableofcontents

1. Introductionofresearchproblemandstatement.......................................1

2. Literaturereview..........................................................................................2

2.1.Advertisingappeal...................................................................................2

2.2.Brandpersonality.....................................................................................3

2.4.Socialmedia.............................................................................................4

2.5.Brandequity.............................................................................................6

2.6.Attitudetowardthebrand(Ab)...............................................................7

2.7.Attitudetowardthead(Aad)...................................................................7

2.8.Self-disclosure..........................................................................................8

3. Researchquestionandhypotheses...........................................................10

4. Methodology.............................................................................................12

4.1Researchdesignexperiment...................................................................12

4.2.Procedure..............................................................................................13

4.3.Scales.....................................................................................................15

5. Resultsandconclusions.............................................................................17

6. Discussion,limitationsandfutureresearch...............................................22

References........................................................................................................26

Tableoffiguresandtables

Figure1:Researchmodel.................................................................................11

Figure2:Informationaladvertising……………………………………………………………….13

Figure3:Emotionaladvertising…………………………………………………………………….14

Table1:H1........................................................................................................17

Table2:H2........................................................................................................18

Table3:H3........................................................................................................18

Table4:H4........................................................................................................19

Table5:H5........................................................................................................20

Table6:H6........................................................................................................20

Table7:H7........................................................................................................21

Table8:H8........................................................................................................21

Table9:hypothesissummary...........................................................................22

1

1. IntroductionofresearchproblemandstatementSocialmediagrowth isundeniable. Thenumberofactive socialmediausersgrew 10% from 2015 to 2,307 billion users in 2016 (Index, 2016). Newplatforms, software, companiesand consumersarebeingestablished in thisrisingmarkettoenableinterconnectionsbetweenalloftheseorganisms.Thepossibility of sharing information between each other promotes thepropagationofwordofmouth.Therefore,socialmarketersareprogressivelyincreasing theusageof this tool to createnewmarketing strategies suchasviralmarketing.

Socialnetworkspendingtrendsindicatedthattheamountspentbyworldwidemarketersin2016worldwidewouldbe29,91billiondollars,withanexpected35,98 billion dollars in 2017. This figure represents the 16% of worldwidedigitaladspending(eMarketer,2015).

Strategies to interact and engage with customers through social media arerisingtoo.Paststudieshaveproventheimportanceofthemessage,freshandfrequentcontentandincentivesforconsumerparticipation(Ling,2005). Asaresult,many companies are calling users to share their content. Like in thepresentcasestudy,otherbrandsincentiviseuserstoparticipateincampaignsbysharingpicturesofthemselveswiththeproduct.

In these cases, companies can achieve their advertising goals through viralmarketing. Viralmarketing consists of consumers becoming promoters of aproduct or service, consciously advertising it online to their friends orfollowers (Berger, 2014). However, does viral marketing still work whencustomers perceive the advertisements as provocative due to thecontroversial nature of the product? There are many factors that affectcustomer’s ad perception. In this case, we are going to analyse advertisingappealandbrandpersonality.

Recent research intohowtopbrandsengagewithconsumers throughsocialmedia, found that creative and provocative strategies are commonlyassociatedwithengagement,eventhoughtopcompaniesareusingfunctionalappealsmore frequently (Ashley,2015).The sampleof the studywasbasedontopbrandssuchasthoseusedinthisresearch.Wewillalsoconsider,asamatter of study, the personality that a brand projects on their customers.

2

Withbrandpersonalitybeingthesetofhumantraitsthatareassociatedwithabrand(Aaker,1997).

Most of the time, socialmedia advertisementsmake use of incentives or aconcrete motivation to drive a consumer’s willingness to share (Berger,2014). In thepresent case study, customerswhoshare theirownversionofthe ad on social media will hypothetically participate in a contest to win avoucherworth500euros. Lastly, a customer’s adperception, and thereforetheirwillingnesstoshare,dependsonthecategoryoftheproductadvertised.We are testing if users will be willing to share their own user-generatedcontent, if the advertised product is considered to be controversial.Male/female underwear is classified by factor analysis as a controversialproduct within the gender/sex-related product category (Kim Shyan Fam,2004). By making use of a controversial product like underwear for theadvertisementwithintheviralmarketingframework,thisresearchwillstudythe influenceofbrandpersonalityandadvertisingappealontheconsumer’sad perception, and further, on their willingness to share a picture ofthemselveswiththeproductonsocialmedia.

2. Literaturereview

2.1.AdvertisingappealAakerandNorris(1982)developedoneofthefirstcategorisationmodelsforadvertisingappeals.Thismodeldifferentiatestwotypesofgeneraladvertisingappeals,with one relying on feelings, images and emotions and the secondusing information, rationalityandcognitiveappeal (AakerD.&.,1982).Thismodel is also used and recognised as a marketing management tool byadvertisingagencies.Anemotionalad isdesignedtoappealtotheemotionsofthecustomer,makinguseofemotion-elicitingstrategieslikemood,music,sex or comedy. In contrast, an informational ad is designed to recall therational side of the customer by providing him with objective informationabouttheproduct,itsbenefitsandattributes(YooC.&.,2005).Furtherresearchshowstheeffectivenessofthistypologywithregardstotheproduct category. Asmentioned in the introduction, recent research showsthatfunctionalappealsarethemostcommonlyusedbytopbrandsonsocialmedia (Ashley, 2015). However, Johan and Sirgy (1991) proved thatemotional appeals have higher effectiveness in value-expressive products,

3

whilefunctionalappealshaveastrongereffectonutilitarianproducts(Johar,1991).Inthiscase,underwearisaproductfromtheapparelcategorythatcanbeseenasbothvalueexpressiveandutilitariandependingontheconsumerand the brand. However, in the context of socialmedia viral advertising ofcontroversial product (underwear in this case), functional appeal, whichjustifiespassinginformationaround,mightbeperceivedasmoreappropriatecontext thanemotional,whichmightcreatean impressionof self-enhancingbehaviour. Thus, H1 is formulated as: For controversial products,informational advertising appealwould causemorepositive attitude towardthead,thansexual(emotional)advertisingappeal.

2.2.BrandpersonalityBrandpersonalityisthesetofhumancharacteristicsassociatedwithabrand(Aaker, 1997) In other words, the combination of personality traits that abrand projects on consumers. Aaker (1997) summarised human traits in atheoreticalframeworkbydefiningfivedimensionsthatrepresentthedifferentpersonalities a brand can have: sincerity, excitement, competence,sophistication and ruggedness. Past research proved that in many cases,consumers prefer brands that use appealing personalities to enhance andaffirmtheirsenseofself(ParkLiKyung,2010).Therefore,thisstudywillusetwo brands with completely different personalities that appeal to both thecustomersegmentlookingforproductsthatmakethemfeelsophisticatedandonethatprefersthefeelingofruggedness.Thetwobrandpersonalitieswerechosen,becausethosearefrequentlyencounteredintheunderwearmarket,examples of sophisticated brands could be Victoria’s Secret, example ofruggedbrandpersonalitycouldbeNike(ParkLiKyung,2010).Itisreasonabletoexpectthat inthecontextofad,which ismeanttobeshared,consumerswouldperceivemore favourably an ad,which is in linewith the image thatconsumerswanttopresentofthemselvesonsocialmedia.Menandwomenare likelytobewillingtoconveydifferent images,perhapssomewhat in linewith gender roles (Eagly, 1987), thus H2 and H3 are formulated as:H2: For controversial products, women would have a more favourableattitude toward the ad for a brand with sophisticated personality, than abrandwithruggedpersonality.H3: Gender would moderate the effect of brand personality on attitudetowardsthead,sothatmenwouldhaveamore favourableattitudetoward

4

thead forabrandwith ruggedpersonality, thanabrandwith sophisticatedpersonality,butthereversewouldholdforwomen.2.3.Wordofmouth(WoM)Wordofmouth,asaconcept,isdefinedasanyexchangeofinformationfromperson to person by oral communication. Intercommunication betweenconsumersisaveryimportantfactorforbusinessstrategies.Theimportanceofitsinfluenceismotivatedbythevarietyofmannersinwhichconsumerscanconnectwithoneanother.Moreover,nearreal-timecommunicationmethodshaveincreasedsincethebirthofsocialmedia,leadingtoanewlevelofWoM:electronicwordofmouth(Blazevic,2013).

2.4.SocialmediaSocialmedia are online channels such as applications, platforms andmediawhose objective is to create or facilitate interactions between parties, byparticipating inawidevarietyofactivities like collaborativewriting, contentsharing,socialnetworkingandsocialbookmarking.Astheseplatformsspreadandbecomemoreimportantforentitieslikesocialnetworkers,businessfirmsandgovernmentalorganisations,theirshapeevolved.Theystartedappearingin many different forms: weblogs, social blogs, pictures, videos and ratings(Kim,2012).Nowadays, companiesmakeuseof this channelbyputting intopractice all kinds of social media marketing activities including customerrelationship management, customer service, consumer research, leadgeneration, sales promotion, branding and even paid advertising (Ashley,2015).

Inordertodeterminehowcompaniescanunlocksocialmedia’sfullpotential,numerous studies have been made to define which factors strengthen theeffect of socialmedia ads over their audiences. For instance, Ashley (2015)explainedinherstudythatbrandpublicationsonsocialmediaaremorelikelytohaveaneffectoncustomersiftheyareinteractiveandexperiential(Ashley,2015).Moreover,usersofsocialnetworkssuchasFacebookusethisplatformto upload self-portrait images (Peluchette, 2009). Brands started combiningthesetwoconceptsintoanewsocialmediamarketingidea,askingconsumerstoparticipateintheircampaignsbyuploadingphotosofthemselveswiththeproductontheirownsocialmediachannels.Advertisingplususer-generatedcontent(UGC)becamethesuccessfulformulatoresultforviralmarketing.

5

WiththedevelopmentoftheWorldWideWebintoWeb2.0,onlineplatformsand content were no longer created and controlled by individuals. Instead,theywerecollectivelymanagedandmodifiedbyallusers(e.g.blogsorwikis).UGCwaspossibleevenbeforeWeb2.0,butthisparticipatorywayofcontentcreationevolvedtogetherwiththedevelopmentoftechnologicaldrivers(e.g.increaseofhardwarecapacity),economicdrivers(e.g.easeoftoolavailability)and social drivers (growth of a new generation with valuable technicalknowledge and the willingness to engage online). This made UGCfundamental. Therefore,user-generated content is currently defined as thecombinationof all differentways inwhichusers experience SocialMedia. Itusually describes the elements of being distinct media content practices,publiclyaccessibleanddesignedbyend-users(Kaplan,2010).

As Kaplan and Haenlein explained on their study in 2011, viral marketingalreadyexistedmorethan10yearsagoinliteraturepapers.Butaftertheriseofsocialmediausageinthepastyears,theideaofviralmarketingreachedawhole new stage, becoming the electronic word-of-mouth. The onlineenvironment has enhanced the strengthof viralmarketing.Now consumerssharecontent,experiencesandopinionsatmuchhigherspeed,oftenreachinglarger audiences at once (Thackeray, 2008). Viral marketing is any type ofmarketingmessage that reacheswide scale diffusion. It can be related to acompany, brand or product, however it always experiences an exponentialgrowthwhenbeingtransmitted(oftenthroughsocialmediaplatforms)(A.M.Kaplan,2011).

Inordertogetuserstoparticipateinsocialmediaviraladvertisingcampaigns,as Ashley et al. (2015) found,most of the top brands will rely on contestsmorethandiscountsasareward.However, it is importanttoresearchothervariablesaswellinordertounderstandwhatdrivesaconsumer’swillingnessto share. A 2008 study of viral marketing by Arnaud De Bruyn and Gary L.Lilienshowshoweventhoughmarketerscanuseincentives,designandothermarketing tools in order to influence customer’s decision-making processtherearesomeconsumer-basedattributesthatcannotbecontrolledbutneedtobe taken intoaccount. This includespersonal traits, preferenceandpriorattitudes (ArnaudDeBruyna,2008).Forthatreason,demographicfeatures,self-disclosure, attitude towards the brand and social media accountcharacteristicsarealsomeasuredinthisstudy.Lastly,recentfindingsindicatethatinbroadcasting,consumersarenotasopentosharepictures,astheyarewithnarrowcasting.Intheformer,userswillbemoreselectiveandonlyshare

6

contentthatmakesthemfeelgood.Sincewearestudyingauser’swillingnessto share self-portraits with the product on social media, it is thereforeimportanttopromoteagood-lookingimageofself inallfourversionsoftheadvertisementchosenforthisstudy(Berger,2014).

2.5.BrandequityandbrandpersonalityFarquhar,P.H.definesbrandequityasthe"addedvalue"perceivedbyafirm,aconsumeroratradethatisautomaticallytransferredtoaproductbecauseof itsbrand (term,name, sign, symbol, etc.) Theproductoffers a functionaluse or satisfaction,while the brand enhances its value by providing furtherconnotationstoit(Farquhar,1989).Thismeansthatovertime,customerssee,learn, feel and hear about the brand. Based on those experiences theyassemble an idea of the brand on theirminds, which develops the brand’spowerandbuildsupbrandequity.Brand personality is defined by Aaker (1991) as the combination of brandassets consisting in brand associations, brand loyalty, brand awareness,perceived quality andmany others (Aaker David, 1991). This is an abstractconcept that can be seen frommany different perspectives. As such, somedetractorsmightargueaboutitsdeficiency,whileotherswillmakeitworkasameasurementtoolbydefiningthedistinctconsumerbehavioureffectovertheenhancementofafirm’smarketingmixstrategies.Finally,inaconsumer-based approach, brand equity is the differential behaviour, perception andattitude that a consumer has for a branded product compared to anunbrandedequivalent(Faircloth,2001),the“addedvalue”.This“addedvalue”shouldbemoreimportantforbrandwithsophisticatedpersonality,whichareby definition the ones offering some “extras” relative to the brands withrugged personality,which aremore focused on being functional and rough.Thus,H4 is formulated as: Brand personalitymoderates the effect of brandequity on attitude towards the ad: the effect of brand equity would bestronger for brands with sophisticated personality, than for brands withruggedpersonality.This is important to establish because in order to build a strong brand,marketers need to ensure that their marketing efforts link the desiredthoughts, feelings, images,perceptionsandattitudestowardsthebrandintocustomerminds.Well-leveraged brand equity can have a positive effect on

7

manyaspectsthataffectcustomer’sdecisionmaking.Someoftheseaspectsinclude customer loyalty, less vulnerability towards competition, greaterresponse to price increases or decreases and marketing communicationeffectiveness(Keller,2001).

2.6.Attitudetowardthebrand(Ab)Brand attitude or attitude toward the brand, usually confused with brandimage, isdefinedassomeoftheassociationsthatareusedbyconsumers inorder tocreate theirparticularvisionof thebrand’s image (Faircloth,2001).Brand associations are any concept or idea linked with the brand inconsumers’ minds. They are the overall combination of brand associationsfrom the basis of their brand’s image perception, and therefore, evaluation(AakerDavid,1991).Much research was made on brand equity and the factors that make thisconcept measurable. Aaker (1991) stated in his book that positive brandimageandattitudeshouldstrengthenbrandequity’sdevelopment.However,therewerestillscholarsopposingit,arguingitslackofmanagerialusefulness(e.g.,Ehrenberg1997).Fairclothetal.(2001)putanendtothosediscussionsbyproving thatspecificbrandassociationsorstimulicanbeprovidedto thebrand.Thisresultsinimagesandattributesthatinfluencebrandimage,brandattitude,andfinally,brandequity.Inotherwords,marketerscanmanipulatebrandequitybyanticipatingandcreatingtherightassociationsinconsumers’minds(Faircloth,2001).Clearly, overall more positive perception of the brand should influence theperception of the ad, thus, H5: Attitude toward the brand would have apositiveeffectontheattitudetowardthead.

2.7.Attitudetowardthead(Aad)Mackenzie et al. defined “attitude toward the ad” as the favourable orunfavourablepredispositionforacustomertoreacttoaparticularadvertisingstimulusinaparticularexposuresituation(MacKenzie,1986).Simultaneously,this positive or negative evaluation affects consumers’ attitude toward theobjectofadvertisementandotherparametersofadvertisingeffectiveness,forinstancebrandpreference(Gelb,1983).

8

In 1981, Mitchell and Olson explored the idea that a consumers’ attitudetowardsanadhadaneffectoverthelikelihoodofapurchasedecision.Afterconsidering the influence of Attitude toward the ad on their study, theyobtained a better prediction of Attitude toward the brand and behaviouralintentions.TheynotonlyfoundtheinfluenceofAadonAb,butalsoafurthereffectonbrandchoiceandpurchaseintentions.Inotherwords,usingPavolv’sclassicalconditioningtheoryaboutthelinkedbehaviouralresponsefromonestimulus to another, Mitchell and Olson predicted that the positive ornegativeresponsetowardsanadwillthesameresponsetowardsthebrandedproductinthesubjectofthead(Mitchell,2000).TherearedifferentmodelstostudytheinteractionandinfluenceofAadandAb. Inthiscase,weareusingthe independent influencesmodelwherebothvariableshavedirectandseparateinfluencesonconsumers’will(MacKenzie,1986).Whatwearecertainabout,aswasmentionedbeforehand, isthatadappeal(emotionalvs.informational)isrecognisedbyadvertisingagenciesasausefultoolforstrategicadvertisingmanagement.Anemotionaladappealisdefinedas the execution of an ad formed using emotion-eliciting strategies, forexampledrama,sexormusic,knowntoattractconsumer’semotions.Instead,theexecutionofaninformationaladisdesignedinanobjectiveinformationalapproach, describing brand attributes or product advantages, in order toattracttherationalityofthereceiver(YooC.&.,2005). Thelevelofinvolvementinproductcategoryandpurchasedecisionalsoplaysa very important role.Customers’ brandattitudesmaybemoreaffectedbytheir overall attitude toward the ad than by attitudes and beliefs perceivedfromitscommunication(YooC.&.,2005).

2.8.Self-disclosureThe mentioned development of Web 2.0, viral marketing and social mediaplatforms opened new possibilities for users to communicate and sharepersonal information.Millions of users daily self-disclose personal and evenintimatecontentonsocialmedia.Publiclysharingthisinformationwithlarge,diverse and often unknown audiences make us wonder where the limitsbetween privacy and publicity are nowadays and which are the drivers for

9

people to publicly self-disclose personal information on social media(Bazarova,2014).Disclosure is firstly influenced by a complex consumer-based degree ofopenness-closeness. Moreover, the main driver for self-disclosure is thereward attained from creating social connections and promoting feelings ofself-belonging. Social validation, relational progress, self-expression, identitycollocation and social control are the five basic divisions on social rewards.However, implicit risks are also carried by public self-disclosure. Intimatelevels of self-disclosure can lead to greater feelings of vulnerability andinformationloss,becausesomedegreeofprivacyandpersonalcontrolislostwhen sharing information with others (Bazarova, 2014). Some people aremore prone to self-disclosure than others, which should be reflected inwillingnesstosharetheviralad,forsharingtheadisalsoaformofdisclosure,which reveals individual’s preference. Thus,H6: Proneness to self-disclosurewouldhaveapositiveeffectonthewillingnesstosharethead.Socialmedia audiences include really close friends, aswell as strangers anddistant acquaintances that don’t have access to the user’s personal socialcircleandprobablywillneverdo.AsPierceandSharp(1973)proved,usersaremorepronetoself-disclosepersonal informationor imageswiththistypeofpublic.Ontheotherhand,whenuserscanreachunknownacquaintancesthatface a greatpotential for future interactionoruninterestedobservers, theirwillingness to self-disclose personal information is very low, since itsvulnerabilityandinformationlosslevelsarehigher(Pearce,1973).Thisisthemain reason why it is considered important in this study, to gatherinformation about the respondent’s socialmedia characteristics and his/herperception of what their followers attitude would be towards the exposedcommercial. Clearly, if the respondents expect the environment to reactpositively,theyshouldbemorelikelytosharethead,asthisactionwouldbepotentiallymorerewarding,butontopofthatthisexpectedopinionofothersmightreinforceorsupressone’stendenciestoshare.Thisisatypicalexampleof behaviour regulation in line with perceived social norms. Therefore,H7:The perceived attitude of friends/followers toward self-disclosure has apositiveeffectonwillingnesstosharetheadandmoderatestheeffectofself-disclosure proneness on willingness to share the ad. The more positive f/fattitude toward self-disclosure is, the stronger the effect of self-disclosurepronenessonwillingnesstosharetheadwouldbe.

10

Beforetalkingaboutself-disclosurewehavetodefinewhatself-presentationis,sincetheyneedoneanothertocoexist.Self-presentationisperson’sdesireto control the impressions thatother individuals formof them,under socialcontexts (Goffman, 1959). This desire is driven by a person’s impulse ofcreatingapositiveresponseandaconsistentimageoftheirpersonalidentitytowardothers.Inotherwords,theywanttopresenttheironlineidealselftothe restof theworld.Thisexposurehas takenplace thanks to their levelofself-disclosure,meaningthattheirwillingnesstorevelpersonalinformationisconsistent with their desired self-image in a conscious or subconsciousmanner(Kaplan,2010).

3. ResearchquestionandhypothesesInordertoquantitativelyanswerthestatedresearchquestion,itisnecessarytostudythecorrelationsbetweenthevariablesjuststated.Inordertodothis,thefollowingresearchquestionhasbeenformulated:Do brand personality and advertising appeal influence consumers’ attitudetowardviraladvertisementofunderwear in socialmedia?And if so,do theyinfluencecustomers’willingnesstosharethead?Belowisthesummaryofthehypothesesformulatedbasedontheliterature:H1:Forcontroversialproducts, informationaladvertisingappealwouldcausemore positive attitude toward the ad, than sexual (emotional) advertisingappeal.H2: For controversial products, women would have a more favourableattitude toward the ad for a brand with sophisticated personality, than abrandwithruggedpersonality.H3: Gender would moderate the effect of brand personality on attitudetowardsthead,sothatmenwouldhaveamore favourableattitudetowardthead forabrandwith ruggedpersonality, thanabrandwith sophisticatedpersonality,butthereversewouldholdforwomen.

11

H4: Brand personality moderates the effect of brand equity on attitudetowardsthead:theeffectofbrandequitywouldbestrongerforbrandswithsophisticatedpersonality,thanforbrandswithruggedpersonality.H5: Attitude toward the brandwould have a positive effect on the attitudetowardthead.H6: Proneness to self-disclosure would have a positive effect on thewillingnesstosharethead.H7: The perceived attitude of friends/followers toward self-disclosure has apositiveeffectonwillingnesstosharetheadandmoderatestheeffectofself-disclosure proneness on willingness to share the ad. The more positive f/fattitude toward self-disclosure is, the stronger the effect of self-disclosurepronenessonwillingnesstosharetheadwouldbe.Finally, of course, we expect that having positive attitude towards the adwouldincreasethewillingnesstoshareit,therefore:H8: Consumer’s attitude toward the adwouldhave a positive effect on thewillingnesstoshare.Figure1:Researchmodel

12

There are two dependent variables in this research model: consumerperception of the ad (measured as attitude towards the ad) and consumerwillingnesstoshareit.Theindependentvariables,orobjectofmanipulation,are two: brand personality and advertising appeal. Both of them have twolevelsofmanipulation.Brandpersonalitywillstudythetwoofthefivebrandpersonality dimensions of Aaker J. L. that fit the most with the advertisedproduct (Aaker J. L., 1997). For example, the top underwear brand VictoriaSecret represents sophistication, while the sporty brand Nike representsruggedness (Park Li Kyung, 2010). On the other hand, regarding advertisingappeal,informationalandemotionalappealwillbethetwocomponentsthattheadvertisementmakesreferenceto.

4. Methodology

4.1ResearchdesignexperimentIn order to test the present research hypothesis, a survey experiment isdesigned.Therearetwomanipulatedvariablesinthisexperiment:advertisingappeal and brand personality. Each one has two levels (4 conditions),informationalversusemotionalappealandsophisticationversusruggedness.The advertising appeal is manipulated through the picture’s appeal thatrepresentsthecommercial,whilethebrandpersonalityismanipulatedbythebrandschosenfor theexperiment:Victoria’sSecretandNike (ParkLiKyung,2010).Theexperimentisdesignedasanonlinecross-sectionalquestionnaire,basedon2differentadvertisements from2differentbrands.Thecommercials aremodifiedtohaveafewerdifferencesbetweenthem(showingthesamekindof picture, a group of people and similar underwear), which will makedifferencesintreatmentvariablesmorenoticeable.Thus,itisa2x2between-subject design,whichmeans that respondentswill be randomly assigned tooneofthe4differentconditions.Afterperformingthesurvey-experiment,dataiscollectedandintroducedintothestatisticalsoftwareSPSS.Thestatisticaltestswillbeperformedusingthesoftware.Finally,findingswillbeinterpreted,inordertofindanswerstoourhypotheses. Further related findings from our study research will also bediscussed.

13

4.2.ProcedureThesurveyisstructuredin7blocksandmaintainsthesameformatandorderacross versions (see Appendix). The first block presents an introductoryparagraph that brings respondents into the topic and heads the advertising(onlyafewwordschangeineverysurveyaccordingtothespecificconditionandbrandbeingtestedonit).Subjects who participated in the study received the following set ofinstructions:“This survey is part of my Master thesis at the Erasmus University ofRotterdam. It is anonymous and all information provided will be used forscientific purposes only. It will take you about 8 minutes to fill inthequestionnaire. Please read carefully the following case and answer thequestions related to it (supposing there are stores of the publishing firm inyourcity).Thankyouverymuchforyourtimeandsupport.”The next block contains demographic and control questions to warm uprespondents. Participants are asked 4 demographic questions about age,gender, religion and approximateweight (by asking the size of clotheswithpossibility to skip the question) followed by two control questions todetermine if they have any socialmedia accounts and how frequently theyuseit.Below, theparticipant isexposed to theadvertisement (representingoneofthe conditions). There are 4 different blocks and versions of theadvertisement, one for each condition that this research paper iswilling tostudy:Victoria'sSecret isgivingyoutheopportunitytowina500€giftcard!SimplypostapictureofyourselfwearingthenewVictoria'sSecretsportyunderwearononeofoursocialmediachannels.Webelieveinafairgame,soifyoudon’town a pair of these amazingly comfortable underwear then come into ourstores, where you will be greeted with a free set and a professionalphotographertomakesureyougetyourbestshot.Oh,anddon’tworry,ifyou

14

stillfeellikepassingontheopportunitytowinthegiftcard,youcanhaveyourfree set by easilysharing this ad on

anyofyoursocialmediachannels.Don’tmissoutonthisspecialoffer!

Nike is giving you the opportunity to win a 500€ gift card! Simply post apictureofyourselfwearingthenewNikesexyunderwearononeofoursocialmediachannels.We believe in a fair game, so if you don’t own a pair of these amazinglyappealing underwear then come into our stores,where youwill be greetedwith a free set and a professional photographer tomake sure you get yourbestshot.Oh,anddon’tworry,ifyoustillfeellikepassingontheopportunitytowinthegiftcard,youcanhaveyourfreesetbyeasilysharingthisadonanyofyoursocialmediachannels.Don’tmissoutonthisspecialoffer!

Figure2:Informationaladvertising

15

Immediately after the advertisement, the last block with the mainquestionnaireispresented.Todiminishthehaloeffect,brandequityquestionsare locatedearlier inthesurveythantheonesregardingbrandattitude.Inthisway,thereisnoriskofdistortion on respondents’ perception, since theywill evaluate the detailedattributesof thebrandbeforeansweringabout theoverallattitude towardsthebrand(Beckwith,1975).

4.3.ScalesThissurveywasdesignedtoensurereliabilityandvalidity,sinceeveryconceptis measured based on different existing scales gathered from previousresearch.-Brandpersonality(manipulationcheck):Measuredwitha5-pointLikertscale(1=notatalldescriptive,5=extremelydescriptive).Thisscaleconsistsoffiveitems,the“BigFive”dimensionsofAaker(AakerJ.L.,1997).However,wewilluse only the two that are used in our study as a manipulation check:sophisticationandruggedness.Subjectsareaskedtoratetowhatextentthebrandselectedisdefinedbythetwopersonalitytraits.

-Brandequity:Measuredwithavalidatedmultidimensionalconsumer-basedbrand equity scale. The model is composed of three dimensions: brand

Figure3:Emotionaladvertising

16

loyalty,perceivedquality andbrandawareness/associations,with two itemsforeachconcept.Alloftheseitemsareevaluatedwitha5-pointLikertscale,goingfrom1=stronglydisagreeto5=stronglyagree(Yoo,2001).

- Attitude towards the brand: Measured with three items on a 5-pointsemantic differential scale: very attractive/very unattractive; verydesirable/veryundesirable;andextremelylikable/extremelyunlikable.Inthiscase, respondentsneed toansweronly for theonebrandassessedon theirsurvey(Yoo,2001).-Attitudetowardsthead:Measuredwitha7-pointsemanticdifferentialscaleusing two different items: like/dislike and interesting/boring (MacKenzie,1986).-Willingness to share: Thewillingness of every respondent to participate inthecontest,sharetheadandshareinformationabouttheadismeasuredasan intentionquestion.Theparticipant isaskedtoanswer,“Howlikelywouldyoubeto…”inrelationwith3items:“…participateinthecontestandpostapicture of yourself in underwear?” “…share the advertisement on socialmedia?” and “…share information about the advertisement with theperson/peopleyoucommunicatenextwith?”Thesethreeitemsareansweredina7-pointLikertscalefrom1=impossibleto7=certain(Barasch,2014).- Frequency of use:Measured by one item, “Posting pictures of myself onsocialmediaissomethingIdo…”alonga7-pointLikertscalefrom1=neverto7=always(VanGool,2015).

- Self-disclosure proneness:Measuredwith a 3-item scale, from 1=stronglydisagreeto7=stronglyagree.Thereisoneitemregardingdisclosureoffacts:“Ishare/postpicturesofmybodyonsocialmedia…”;andtherearetwoitemsregardingdisclosureoffeelings:“Ishare/postmyemotionsonsocialmedia…”and “I share/post my thoughts on social media…”. The first item has beenmodifiedinordertobemorespecificwiththetopic.Weaskaboutdisclosureof self-body pictures, instead of asking for the disclosure of general facts(Laurenceau,1998).

-Friendsorfollowersattitudetowardsrespondent’sself-disclosure:Measuredwith two items: “I think my friends/followers would not mind that I sharepicturesofmyselfonsocialmedia”,and“Myfriends/followerswouldapprove

17

thatIsharepicturesofmyselfonsocialmedia”.Bothofthemusinga7-pointLikert scale with responses from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree(VanGool,2015).

5. ResultsandconclusionsAftergatheringthedatawefoundthat154questionnaireswerefilledin,butahigh number of respondents left the survey unfinished. Thus, 53questionnaireswereexcludedfromtheresults.Thesamplesizeofthisstudywasmeanttobe120,inordertodetectthetrueeffectofthevariablesinthismodel.However,onlyatotalof101surveyswerecompleted.It is importanttotakethisfactintoaccountwhenconsideringtheresultsofthisstudy,sinceit lowersthestatisticalpoweroftheresearchanditmaybereflectedonthesignificanceoftheresults.

Hypothesis 1: For controversial products, informational advertising appealwouldcausemorepositiveattitudetowardthead,thansexual(emotional)advertisingappeal.Table1:H1

ANOVASummarytableonattitudetowardtheadSource SS df MS F pAdvertisingappeal 0.007 1 0.007 0.003 0.957

Error 249.052 99 2.516 Total 1.956,313 101

For this hypothesis a one-way ANOVA Between-Subjects test was run, withadvertisingappealasindependentvariableandattitudetowardtheadasthedependentvariable.

As expected, the sample sizes are quite equal regarding advertising appeal,scoring informational (N=51) and emotional (N=50). Since the two levels ofadvertising type were randomly distributed within respondents on thequestionnaire.

Table 1 shows that the overall model is not significant. The effect ofadvertisingtypeonattitudetowardstheadisnotsignificantF(1,99)=0.003,

18

p = 0.957. Therefore, hypothesis number 1 is not supported, havingadvertisingappealno relevant influenceon theattitude toward thead. Theresults after running the same analysis with the demographic variables ascontrolswerenon-significant too F (1,95) = 0.045, p = 0.832. Consequently,hypothesis1isnotsupported.

Lastly, I ran the univariate analysis of variance with our second dependentvariable, willingness to share, instead of attitude toward the ad, forrobustness.TheeffectofadvertisingappealonWTS isalsonon-significantF(1,95)=0.316,p=0.575.

Hypothesis 2: For controversial products, women would have a morefavourable attitude toward the ad for a brand with sophisticatedpersonality,thanabrandwithruggedpersonality.Table2:H2

ANOVASummarytableonattitudetowardtheadSource SS df MS F p

Brandpersonality 2.815 1 2.815 1.132 0.290

Error 246.244 99 2.487 Total 1.956,313 101

The results of the ANOVA Between-Subjects for Brand personality (IV) onattitudetowardthead(DV)showedthathypothesis2 isnotsupported.Theanalysis was run with control variables, F (1,95) = 0.902, p = 0.345, andwithoutthem,asshownintable2,F(1,99)=1.132,p=0.290.Consequently,there was no significant difference between the effects of a sophisticatedbrandpersonalityoraruggedbrandpersonality,onattitudetowardthead.

Hypothesis 3:Gender wouldmoderate the effect of brand personality onattitudetowardsthead,sothatmenwouldhaveamorefavourableattitudetoward the ad for a brand with rugged personality, than a brand withsophisticatedpersonality,butthereversewouldholdforwomen.

Table3:H3

ANOVASummarytableonattitudetowardthead

19

Source SS df MS F p

Brandpersonality 2.162 1 2.162 0.853 0.358Gender 0.103 1 0.103 0.041 0.840

Interactioneffect 0.406 1 0.406 0.160 0.690Error 245.737 97 2.533 Total 1.956,313 101

A new ANOVA was conducted to compare the main effects of brandpersonality(IV),genderandtheinteractioneffectbetweengenderandbrandpersonalityonattitudetowardthead(DV).Asshown intable3,bothbrandpersonality,F(1,97)=0.853,p=0.358,andgender,F(1,97)=0.041,p=0.840,arenot significantandneither is the interactioneffectdoesnotexist in thismodel.Hypothesisnumber3isnotsupported.

Hypothesis 4: Brand personality moderates the effect of brand equity onattitude towards the ad: the effect of brand equitywould be stronger forbrands with sophisticated personality, than for brands with ruggedpersonality.

Table4:H4

Regressionsummarytableonattitudetowardthead

Source Beta t p

Brandpersonality -0.220 -1.071 0.287 Brandequity 0.313 2.742 0.007 Interactioneffect 0.482 2.344 0.021

In order to measure the interaction effect of brand equity and brandpersonalitya regressionanalysiswas run to study themaineffectsofbrandpersonality(IV),brandequity(IV)andtheinteractioneffectbetweenthemonattitude toward the ad (DV). Table 4 presents the results of this analysis,brandequityhavingsignificantpositiveeffectonattitudetowardsthead,b=0.313,t=2.742,p<0.05,whichisaveryintuitivefact.Theinteractioneffectis also significant,b = 0.482, t = 2.344,p < 0.05. Positivemoderating effectshowsthatbrandpersonality (codedas0 for ruggedand1 forsophisticatedbrandpersonality) indeedmoderatesthe importanceofbrandequityontheattitudetowardsthead:theeffectofbrandequityonattitudetowardstheadis stronger for brands with sophisticated personality than for brands with

20

ruggedpersonality.Lastly,noneofthedemographicvariablesweresignificantinthismodel,asshownintable4.

Hypothesis5:Attitudetowardthebrandwouldhaveapositiveeffectontheattitudetowardthead.

Table5:H5

Regressionsummarytableonattitudetowardthead

Source Beta t pAttitudetowardbrand 0.569 6.876 0.000

In table5weare testing the influenceof attitude toward thebrand (IV)onattitudetowardthead(DV),byrunninganewlinearregression.Theresultsofthis regressionwere positive, being brand attitude significantb = 0.569, t =6.876, p < 0.05. The variable attitude toward the brand has a positiveunstandardized coefficient. Thismeans attitude toward the adwill increase,whenthecustomer’sattitudetowardthebrand increases.Hencehypothesisnumber5issupported.

Hypothesis6:Pronenesstoself-disclosurewouldhaveapositiveeffectonthewillingnesstosharethead.

Table6:H6

RegressionsummarytableonwillingnesstoshareSource Beta t p

Pronenesstoself-disclosure 0.232 2.368 0.020

To verify hypothesis number 6, a linear regression is run, measuring theinfluenceof customer’sproneness to self-disclosure (IV)on theirwillingnesstoshare(DV).Table6showshowpronenesstoself-disclosureissignificantinthis model, b = 0.232, t = 2.368, p < 0.05. As expected, proneness to self-disclosure has a positive unstandardized coefficient, thus, it has a positiveeffectoncustomer’swillingnesstoshare.Hence,themorepronenesstoself-disclosure a customer has, the more willingness to share the ad.Consequently,hypothesisnumber6issupported.

21

Hypothesis 7: The perceived attitude of friends/followers toward self-disclosurehasapositiveeffectonwillingnesstosharetheadandmoderatesthe effect of self-disclosure proneness onwillingness to share the ad. Themorepositivef/fattitudetowardself-disclosureis,thestrongertheeffectofself-disclosurepronenessonwillingnesstosharetheadwouldbe.

Table7:H7

Regressionsummarytableonwillingnesstoshare

Source Beta t pPronenesstoself-disclosure 0.244 0.678 0.500 F/fattitudetowardpronenesstoself-disclosure 0.240 1.242 0.217 Interactioneffect -0.045 -0.110 0.913

A new linear regression was conducted to study the effects of customer’spronenesstoself-disclosure(IV),friends/followersattitudetowardpronenessto self-disclosure and the interaction effect between the 2 variables onwillingnesstosharethead(DV).Table7presentstheresultsofthisanalysis,whereboth independent variablesaswell as the interactioneffect arenon-significant.Therefore,hypothesisnumber7isnotsupported.

Hypothesis8:Consumer’sattitudetowardtheadwouldhaveapositiveeffectonthewillingnesstoshare. Table8:H8

Regressionsummarytableonwillingnesstoshare

Source Beta t pAttitudetowardsthead 0.37

4 4.013 0.000

Lastly,ourlasthypothesiswastestedusinganotherlinearregression,toverifytheinfluenceofcustomer’sattitudetowardthead(IV)ontheirwillingnesstoshare(DV)inthismodel.Theresultsintable8,showhowattitudetowardthead is significant, b = 0.374, t = 4.013, p < 0.05. As expected, the attitudetoward theadhas apositiveunstandardized coefficient, so it has apositive

22

effectoncustomer’swillingnesstoshare.Thus,thehighercustomer’sattitudetowardtheadis,thehigherwillingnesstosharethead.Hypothesisnumber8,istherefore,supportedbythismodel.

6. Discussion,limitationsandfutureresearch

Table9:hypothesissummary

In this case research we analyse the effect of advertising appeal on acustomer’s willingness to share a viral advertisement, of a controversialproduct like underwear, on social media. This is performed by a surveyexperiment with random assignment to conditions, where besides otherquestions, respondents are asked if they would post a picture of them

HypothesesSupported/not

supportedH1:Forcontroversialproducts,informationaladvertisingappealwouldcausemorepositiveattitudetowardthead,thansexual(emotional)advertisingappeal

Notsupported

H2:Forcontroversialproducts,womenwouldhaveamorefavourableattitudetowardtheadforabrandwithsophisticatedpersonality,thanabrandwithruggedpersonality

Notsupported

H3:Genderwouldmoderatetheeffectofbrandpersonalityonattitudetowardsthead,sothatmenwouldhaveamorefavourableattitudetowardtheadforabrandwithruggedpersonality,thanabrandwithsophisticatedpersonality,butthereversewouldholdforwomen

Notsupported

H4:Brandpersonalitymoderatestheeffectofbrandequityonattitudetowardsthead:theeffectofbrandequitywouldbestrongerforbrandswithsophisticatedpersonality,thanforbrandswithruggedpersonality

Supported

H5:Attitudetowardthebrandwouldhaveapositiveeffectontheattitudetowardthead

Supported

H6:Pronenesstoself-disclosurewouldhaveapositiveeffectonthewillingnesstosharethead

Supported

H7:Theperceivedattitudeoffriends/followerstowardself-disclosurehasapositiveeffectonwillingnesstosharetheadandmoderatestheeffectofself-disclosurepronenessonwillingnesstosharethead.Themorepositivef/fattitudetowardself-disclosureis,thestrongertheeffectofself-disclosurepronenessonwillingnesstosharetheadwouldbe

Notsupported

H8:Consumer’sattitudetowardtheadwouldhaveapositiveeffectonthewillingnesstoshare

Supported

23

wearingtheadvertiser’spromotedunderwear,thatwasshowninthedesignexperiment.AsJohanandSirgydemonstratedin1991,functionaladvertisingappealshaveastrongereffectonutilitarianproducts,whileemotionalappealshavehighereffectiveness invalueexpressiveproducts(Johar,1991).Theproductchosenfor this research study is underwear, considered as a banal everydayutilitarianobjectinthepast,butcurrentlyseenasawell-recognisedmeansofself-expression. Therefore, both an informational appeal and an emotionalappeal are chosen for this study to measure the different results whenappealing to consumer’s emotions versus their rational side. Unfortunately,there are no relevant past research studies on how a controversial productlike underwear would influence customer’s willingness to share a user-generated content ad on social media. Our study did not find a significanteffect of advertising appeal neither on attitude towards the ad, nor onwillingness to share the ad.However, the lackof significant effectmightbedueto lackofstatisticalpower:thesamplesize inourstudyisquite limited.Thus,moreresearchregardingtheadvertisingofunderwearonsocialmediaplatformsmaybeneeded.Thereisasecondindependentvariableinthismodel:brandpersonality.Thisdesign experiment used two different brands: Victoria’s Secret and Nike;representing two different brand personalities: sophisticated and rugged.Based on the controversial nature of the product and the two differentappeals thatwewantrespondents torecall, thesetwonotoriousbrandsarepicked in order to find the influence of brand personality on customer’sattitude toward the ad. There was no significant effect of the brandpersonality on attitude towards the ad and thiswas true for bothmen andwomen. Again, lack of statistical power could explain lack of significance.Alternatively,brandpersonalityisnotsoimportantinattitudetowardstheadof controversial products and other factors matter more. One of thelimitations though is that only two of the five personality dimensions(sincerity,excitement,competence,sophisticationandruggedness) foundbyAakerareused inthisstudy(Aaker J.L.,1997).Therefore, there isspaceforotherstudiestofindtheinfluenceofbrandpersonalityoncustomer’sattitudetoward the ad, by using all five personal dimensions of Aaker within onemodel.

24

Thepresentresearchstudy,hasnotfoundanyconcludingeffectsofthetwomain independent variables on the dependent one, not supportinghypotheses1and2.Thismeansthatbrandpersonalityandadvertisingappealhavenoinfluenceonconsumer’sattitudetowardstheadinthismodel.Doesthismeanthereisnoactualeffectbetweentheindependentvariablesandthedependent one? This could be the case, even though these were not theexpected results. Based on past research and the fact that this study facespowerissues,thereisaneedtoproceedwithfurtherresearch,toshedmorelightonthisparticulartopic.The results of this model are significant for four hypotheses, presented intable 9. Hypothesis 4 showed that brand equitymattersmore for productswithsophisticatedpersonalitycomperedtoproductswithruggedpersonalityindefiningattitudetowardthead.Thishypothesiswasintegratedinthisstudybasedon the clearly supported fact that customer’s brandpast perceptionsandassociationsmatter forattitude toward thead,butespeciallywhen thebrandisseenastheonewiththeambitionofoffering“extravalue”.Hypothesis 5 and hypothesis 8 were proven significant in numerous paststudies, likeMitchell andOlson in2000, explaining the influenceof attitudetoward thebrandonattitude toward thead, togetherwith the influenceofattitude toward the ad on consumers’ will (Mitchell, 2000). As mentionedbefore,therearenootherresearchstudiesfound,regardingviraladvertisingwithuser-generatedcontentofacontroversialproduct.Thus,theimportanceof the obtained results resides in confirming the significance of theserelationships, combined this time,with a very different set of variables andusingadistincttypeofadvertisement.Asexplainedthroughoutthisstudy,nowadaysmillionsofuserspubliclysharepersonal information, and even intimate content on their social mediaplatforms(Bazarova,2014).Therefore, inthisstudy, it isconsideredofgreatimportance to proof the significant relationship between respondents’proneness to self-disclosure and their willingness to share the ad publicly.These results could be translated, with the help of further researches, intomarketers targeting audiences with higher levels of proneness to self-disclosure,forviraladvertisementsofuser-generatedcontentthatcouldfeeltoo intimate for some customers. Clearly this study opens gaps for furtherresearchonviraladvertisingthroughsocialmedianetworks.Nevertheless,itis

25

importanttoconsiderwhatstill remainsasthemain limitationofthisstudy.Asmentioned in the results section, lowstatisticalpowercouldbe reflectedonthesignificanceoftheresults,andthereforeanotherresearchstudyshouldconfirmthesignificanceoftheseeffects.Respondents’ past brand associations could also cause limitations in thisstudy.Theseassociationscouldbiasrespondents’attitudetowardtheadandso, theirwillingnesstosharetheadof thisparticularbrandonsocialmedia.Also, the fact thatVictoria’sSecrethas,upuntilnow,soldproductsonly forthefemalesector,isanotherlimitationthatmayhavebiasedmaleresponsesaboutthisbrand.Past studies have proven the importance of the advertising message (Ling,2005). This study only looks at the influence of the independent variables,basedonvisualadvertisingtogetherwithanexplanatorytextanda500euroscard incentive to push consumers’ motivation (Berger, 2014). Hence, it issuggested to run a new design experiment, with an implementedmessagethat reinforces the effect of the visuals. Therefore, it would be useful forfurther investigation, to study how these two elements combined have aninfluenceonwillingnesstoshare.

26

ReferencesA.M.Kaplan,M.H.(2011).Twoheartsinthreequartertime:Howtowaltzthesocialmedia/viralmarketingdance.BusinessHorizons,54(3),253-263.AakerDavid,A.(1991).Managingbrandequity."Capitalizingonthevalueofabrandname.NewYork:NY:TheFreePress.Aaker,D.&.(1982).Characteristicsoftelevisioncommercialsperceivedasinformative.JournalofAdvertisingResearch,vol.22,no.2,pp.61-70.Aaker,J.L.(1997).DimensionsofBrandPersonality.JournalofMarketingResearch34.3(1997):347–356.ArnaudDeBruyna,G.L.(2008).Amulti-stagemodelofword-of-mouthinfluencethroughviralmarketing.InternationalJournalofResearchinMarketing,Volume25,Issue3.Ashley,C.a.(2015).CreativeStrategiesinSocialMediaMarketing:AnExploratoryStudyofBrandedSocialContentandConsumerEngagement.Psychol.Mark.,32:15–27.DOI:10.1002/mar.20761.Barasch,A.&.(2014).Broadcastingandnarrowcasting:Howaudiencesizeaffectswhatpeopleshare.JournalofMarketingResearch,51(3),286-299.Bazarova,N.N.(2014).Self-disclosureinsocialmedia:Extendingthefunctionalapproachtodisclosuremotivationsandcharacteristicsonsocialnetworksites.JournalofCommunication,64(4),635-657.Beckwith,N.E.(1975).Theimportanceofhaloeffectsinmulti-attributeattitudemodels.JournalofMarketingResearch,265-275.Beerli,A.M.(2007).Self-congruityanddestinationchoice.AnnalsofTourismResearch,34(3),571-587.Berger,A.B.(2014).BroadcastingandNarrowcasting:HowAudienceSizeAffectsWhatPeopleShare.JournalofMarketingResearch,Volume51,No.3,pp.286-299.Blazevic,V.H.(2013).Beyondtraditionalword-of-mouth:anexpandedmodelofcustomer-driveninfluence.JournalofServiceManagement,24(3),294–313.

27

Eagly,A.H.(1987).Sexdifferencesinsocialbehavior:Asocial-roleinterpretation.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.eMarketer.(2015).MediaBuying.RetrievedfromeMarketer:http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Social-Network-Ad-Spending-Hit-2368-Billion-Worldwide-2015/1012357Faircloth,J.B.(2001).Theeffectofbrandattitudeandbrandimageonbrandequity.JournalofMarketingTheoryandPractice,9(3),61-75.Farquhar,P.H.(1989).Managingbrandequity.Marketingresearch,1(2).Gelb,B.D.(1983).Attitude-toward-the-ad:Linkstohumorandtoadvertisingeffectiveness.JournalofAdvertising,12(2),34-42.Goffman,E.(1959).Thepresentationofselfineverydaylife.NewYork:DoubledayAnchorBooks.Index,G.W.(2016).Digitalin2016.Retrievedfromslideshare:http://www.slideshare.net/wearesocialsg/digital-in-2016/8-wearesocialsg_8JAN2016_ANNUAL_GROWTHGROWTH_INJohar,J.S.(1991).Value-expressiveversusutilitarianadvertisingappeals:Whenandwhytousewhichappeal..JournalofAdvertising,20,23–33.Kaplan,A.M.(2010).Usersoftheworld,unite!ThechallengesandopportunitiesofSocialMedia.Businesshorizons,53(1),59-68.Keller,K.L.(2001).Buildingcustomer-basedbrandequity:Ablueprintforcreatingstrongbrands.MarketingManagement,10,14-21.KimShyanFam,D.S.(2004).Theinfluenceofreligiononattitudestowardstheadvertisingofcontroversialproducts.EuropeanJournalofMarketing,Vol.38Iss:5/6,pp.537-555.Kim,A.J.(2012).Dosocialmediamarketingactivitiesenhancecustomerequity?Anempiricalstudyofluxuryfashionbrand.JournalofBusinessResearch65(10),1480-1486.Laurenceau,J.P.(1998).Intimacyasaninterpersonalprocess:theimportanceofself-disclosure,partnerdisclosure,andperceivedpartnerresponsivenessininterpersonalexchanges.Journalofpersonalotyandsocialpsychology74(5).

28

Ling,K.B.(2005).UsingSocialPsychologytoMotivateContributionstoOnlineCommunities.JournalofComputer-MediatedCommunication,10:00.DOI:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00273.x.MacKenzie,S.B.(1986).Theroleofattitudetowardtheadasamediatorofadvertisingeffectiveness:Atestofcompetingexplanations.Journalofmarketingresearch,23(2),130-143.Malhotra,N.(1981).AScaletoMeasureSelf-Concepts,PersonConcepts,andProductConcepts.JournalofMarketingResearch,18(4),456-464.Mitchell,A.A.(2000).Areproductattributebeliefstheonlymediatorofadvertisingeffectsonbrandattitude?Advertising&SocietyReview,1(1).ParkLiKyung,J.D.(2010).GottoGetYouIntoMyLife:DoBrandPersonalitiesRubOffonConsumers?JournalofConsumerResearch,37,655–69.Pearce,W.B.(1973).Self-disclosingcommunication.JournalofCommunication,23(4),409-425.Peluchette,J.&.(2009).Examiningstudents’in-tendedimageonFacebook:‘Whatweretheythinking?!’.TheJournalofEducationforBusiness,85,30–37.Thackeray,R.N.(2008).Enhancingpromotionalstrategieswithinsocialmarketingprograms:useofWeb2.0socialmedia.Healthpromotionpractice,9(4),338-343.VanGool,E.V.(2015).Toshareornottoshare?Adolescents’self-disclosureaboutpeerrelationshipsonFacebook:AnapplicationofthePrototypeWillingnessModel.ComputersinHumanBehavior,44,230-239.Yoo,B.&.(2001).Developingandvalidatingamultidimensionalconsumer-basedbrandequityscale.Journalofbusinessresearch,52(1),1-14.Yoo,C.&.(2005).Thebrandattitudeformationprocessofemotionalandinformationalads.JournalofBusinessResearch,58(10),1397-1406.

29

AppendixSurveyStartofBlock:Introduction

ThissurveyispartofmyMasterthesisattheErasmusUniversityofRotterdam.Itisanonymousandallinformationprovidedwillbeusedforscientificpurposesonly.Itwilltakeyouabout6minutestofillinthequestionnaire.Pleasereadcarefullythefollowingcaseandanswerthequestionsrelatedtoit(supposingtherearestoresofthepublishingfirminyourcity).Thankyouverymuchforyourtimeandsupport.EndofBlock:Introduction

StartofBlock:Warmup

Q1Whatisyourgender?

o Male(1)o Female(2)

Q2Whatisyourage?

________________________________________________________________

Q3Doyouconsideryourselfareligiousperson?

o Yes(1)o No(2)

30

Q4Please,indicatewhichsizeofclothesyouwear

o XS(1)o S(2)o M(3)o L(4)o XL(5)o Skipquestion(6)

Q5Doyouhaveanysocialmediaaccount?

o Yes(1)o No(2)

Q6Howmanytimesamonthdoyoupost/sharecontentonit?

o Everyday(1)o About2-3timesaweek(2)o Afewtimesamonth(3)o Afewtimesayear(4)o Never(5)

EndofBlock:Warmup

StartofBlock:Block5

Victoria'sSecretisgivingyoutheopportunitytowina500€giftcard!SimplypostapictureofyourselfwearingthenewVictoria'sSecretsportyunderwear,ononeofoursocialmediachannels.Webelieveinafairgame,soifyoudon’townapairoftheseamazinglycomfortableunderwear,thencomeintoourstores,whereyouwillbegreetedwithafreesetandaprofessionalphotographertomakesureyougetyourbestshot.Oh,anddon’tworry,ifyoustillfeellike

31

passingontheopportunitytowinthegiftcard,youcanhaveyourfreesetbyeasilysharingthisadonanyofyoursocialmediachannels.Don’tmissoutonthisspecialoffer!

EndofBlock:Block5

StartofBlock:Block3

32

Nikeisgivingyoutheopportunitytowina500€giftcard!SimplypostapictureofyourselfwearingthenewNikesportyunderwear,ononeofoursocialmediachannels.Webelieveinafairgame,soifyoudon’townapairoftheseamazinglycomfortableunderwear,thencomeintoourstores,whereyouwillbegreetedwithafreesetandaprofessionalphotographertomakesureyougetyourbestshot.Oh,anddon’tworry,ifyoustillfeellikepassingontheopportunitytowinthegiftcard,youcanhaveyourfreesetbyeasilysharingthisadonanyofyoursocialmediachannels.Don’tmissoutonthisspecialoffer!

EndofBlock:Block3

StartofBlock:Block6

33

Victoria'sSecretisgivingyoutheopportunitytowina500€giftcard!SimplypostapictureofyourselfwearingthenewVictoria'sSecretsexyunderwear,ononeofoursocialmediachannels.Webelieveinafairgame,soifyoudon’townapairoftheseamazinglyappealingunderwear,thencomeintoourstores,whereyouwillbegreetedwithafreesetandaprofessionalphotographertomakesureyougetyourbestshot.Oh,anddon’tworry,ifyoustillfeellikepassingontheopportunitytowinthegiftcard,youcanhaveyourfreesetbyeasilysharingthisadononeofyoursocialmediachannels.Don’tmissoutonthisspecialoffer!

EndofBlock:Block6

StartofBlock:Block2

34

Nikeisgivingyoutheopportunitytowina500€giftcard!SimplypostapictureofyourselfwearingthenewNikesexyunderwear,ononeofoursocialmediachannels.Webelieveinafairgame,soifyoudon’townapairoftheseamazinglyappealingunderwear,thencomeintoourstores,whereyouwillbegreetedwithafreesetandaprofessionalphotographertomakesureyougetyourbestshot.Oh,anddon’tworry,ifyoustillfeellikepassingontheopportunitytowinthegiftcard,youcanhaveyourfreesetbyeasilysharingthisadonanyofyoursocialmediachannels.Don’tmissoutonthisspecialoffer!

EndofBlock:Block2

StartofBlock:DefaultQuestionBlockDisplayThisQuestion:

IfNikeisgivingyoutheopportunitytowina500€giftcard!Simplypostapictureofyourselfwea...IsDisplayed

OrNikeisgivingyoutheopportunitytowina500€giftcard!Simplypostapictureofyourselfwea...IsDisplayed

35

Q7TowhatextentisNikedefinedbythefollowingpersonalitytraits?

Notatalldescriptive

(1)

Slightlydescriptive

(2)

Somewhatdescriptive

(3)

Verydescriptive

(4)

Extremelydescriptive

(5)

Sophistication(1) o o o o o

Ruggedness(Toughness)

(2) o o o o o DisplayThisQuestion:

IfVictoria'sSecretisgivingyoutheopportunitytowina500€giftcard!Simplypostapictureof...IsDisplayed

OrVictoria'sSecretisgivingyoutheopportunitytowina500€giftcard!Simplypostapictureof...IsDisplayed

Q8TowhatextentisVictoria'sSecretdefinedbythefollowingpersonalitytraits?

Notatalldescriptive

(1)

Slightlydescriptive

(2)

Somewhatdescriptive

(3)

Verydescriptive

(4)

Extremelydescriptive

(5)

Sophistication(1) o o o o o

Ruggedness(Toughness)

(2) o o o o o

PageBreak

36

DisplayThisQuestion:

IfVictoria'sSecretisgivingyoutheopportunitytowina500€giftcard!Simplypostapictureof...IsDisplayed

OrVictoria'sSecretisgivingyoutheopportunitytowina500€giftcard!Simplypostapictureof...IsDisplayed

Q9Giventhefollowingstatementsaboutunderwear,towhatextentdoyouagree?

Stronglydisagree(1)

Somewhatdisagree(2)

Neitheragreenordisagree(3)

Somewhatagree(4)

Stronglyagree(5)

VSwouldbemyfirstchoice(1) o o o o o

Iwillnotbuyotherbrands

ifVSisavailableatthestore(2)

o o o o o ThelikelyqualityofVSisextremelyhigh(3)

o o o o o ThelikelihoodthatVSwouldbefunctionalisveryhigh

(4)o o o o o

IcanrecogniseVSamongothercompetingbrands(5)

o o o o o Iamawareof

VS(6) o o o o o Some

characteristicsofVScometomymindquickly(7)

o o o o o Icanquicklyrecallthesymbolor

logoofVS(8)o o o o o

37

DisplayThisQuestion:

IfNikeisgivingyoutheopportunitytowina500€giftcard!Simplypostapictureofyourselfwea...IsDisplayed

OrNikeisgivingyoutheopportunitytowina500€giftcard!Simplypostapictureofyourselfwea...IsDisplayed

Q10Giventhefollowingstatementsaboutunderwear,towhatextentdoyouagree?

Stronglydisagree(1)

Somewhatdisagree(2)

Neitheragreenordisagree(3)

Somewhatagree(4)

Stronglyagree(5)

Nikewouldbemyfirstchoice(1) o o o o o

IwillnotbuyotherbrandsifNikeisavailableatthestore(2)

o o o o o Thelikely

qualityofNikeisextremelyhigh(3)

o o o o o ThelikelihoodthatNikewouldbe

functionalisveryhigh(4)

o o o o o Ican

recogniseNikeamong

othercompetingbrands(5)

o o o o o

IamawareofNike(6) o o o o o Some

characteristicsofNikecometomymindquickly(7)

o o o o o IcanquicklyrecallthesymbolorlogoofNike

(8)o o o o o

38

PageBreak Q11Giventhefollowingattributes,whatdoyouthinkaboutthebrand?

1(1) 2(2) 3(3) 4(4) 5(5)

VeryUnattractive

(1) o o o o o VeryAttractive

VeryUndesirable

(2) o o o o o VeryDesirable

ExtremelyUnlikable

(3) o o o o o ExtremelyLikable

Q12Giventhefollowingattributes,whatdoyouthinkaboutthead?

1(1) 2(2) 3(3) 4(4) 5(5) 6(6) 7(7)

Dislike(1) o o o o o o o Like

Boring(2) o o o o o o o Interesting

Irritating(3) o o o o o o o Not

irritating

Bad(4) o o o o o o o Good

PageBreak

39

Q13Howlikelywouldyoubeto...

Impossible(1)

Unlikely(2)

Possible(3)

Evenchance(4)

Probable(5)

Verylikely(6)

Certain(7)

participateinthecontestandpostapictureofyourselfinunderwear?

(1)

o o o o o o o

sharetheadvertisementonsocialmedia?(2)

o o o o o o o share

informationaboutthe

advertisementwiththe

person/peopleyou

communicatenext?(3)

o o o o o o o

PageBreak Q14Supposeyouwanttoparticipateinthiscontestandpostyourpicture,whichsocialnetworkwouldyouuse?

o Facebook(1)o Instagram(2)o Other(pleasespecify)(3)________________________________________________o Twitter(4)

40

Q15Howmanyfollowers/friendsdoyouhaveonitapproximately?(Numericanswer)

________________________________________________________________

Q16Doyouhaveaprivateorapublicprofile?(cananyoneseeyourprofile?)

o Private(1)o Public(2)

Q17Whodoyouhaveasfollowers/friends?

o Ihavemostlyclosefriends(1)o IhavemostlypeoplethatIknowinreallife(2)o IhavemostlypeoplethatIdon'tknowinreallife(3)

PageBreak Q18Giventhefollowingstatement,howoftendoyou..

Never(1)

Almostnever(2)

Rarely(3)

Sometimes(4)

Often(5)

Usually(6)

Always(7)

PostingpicturesofmyselfonsocialmediaissomethingIdo...(1)

o o o o o o o

41

Q19Giventhefollowingstatements,towhatextentdoyouagree?

Strongly

disagree(1)

Disagree(2)

Somewhatdisagree

(3)

Neitheragreenor

disagree(4)

Somewhatagree(5)

Agree(6)

Stronglyagree(7)

Ishare/postmy

emotionsonsocialmedia...(1)

o o o o o o o

Ishare/postmy

thoughtsonsocialmedia...(2)

o o o o o o o

Ishare/postpicturesofmybodyonsocialmedia...(3)

o o o o o o o

PageBreak

42

Q20Giventhefollowingstatements,towhatextentdoyouagree?

Strongly

disagree(1)

Disagree(2)

Somewhat

disagree(3)

Neitheragreenor

disagree(4)

Somewhatagree(5)

Agree(6)

Stronglyagree(7)

Ithinkmyfriends/followerswouldnotmindthatI

sharepicturesofmyselfonsocialmedia

(1)

o o o o o o o

Myfriends/followe

rswouldapprovethatIsharepicturesofmyselfonsocialmedia

(2)

o o o o o o o

PageBreak Q21Howdoyouevaluatethefollowingattributesfortheidealunderwear?

1(1) 2(2) 3(3) 4(4) 5(5) 6(6) 7(7)

Veryplainlooking(1) o o o o o o o Verygoodlooking

Verylowquality(2) o o o o o o o Veryhighquality

Veryexpensive(3) o o o o o o o

Veryreasonableprice

Veryuncomfortable

(4) o o o o o o o Verycomfortable

43

Q22Howdoyouevaluatethefollowingattributesfortheunderwearadvertised? 1(1) 2(2) 3(3) 4(4) 5(5) 6(6) 7(7)

Veryplainlooking(1) o o o o o o o Verygoodlooking

Verylowquality(2) o o o o o o o Veryhighquality

Veryexpensive(3) o o o o o o o

Veryreasonableprice

Veryuncomfortable

(4) o o o o o o o Verycomfortable

EndofBlock:DefaultQuestionBlock