1. Multiple Endorsements and Consumer-Human Brand Attachment Jasmina Ilicic and Cynthia M. Webster Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

2. Celebrity Endorsement  Traditional Research  Celebrity Characteristics ▪Credibility (Hovland & Weiss 1951) ▪Attractiveness (McGuire 1985) ▪Match-up (Kamins & Gupta 1994; Till & Busler 1998) ▪Attractiveness Match-up ▪Attractive celebrity-attractiveness enhancing product (Kamins 1990)  Recent Research  Consumer-Celebrity connections ▪Self-concept (Escalas & Bettman 2009) ▪Attachment (Thomson, 2006)

3.  Relationships with celebrities (Thomson 2006)  Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci 2000)  Extent to which the object meets three fundamental human needs: ▪Autonomy ▪Relatedness ▪Competence  Attachment Theory (Bowlby 1980)  Separation Distress ▪indicator of the strength of attachment bonds (Berman & Sperling 1994)  Strong Relationship Outcomes  Satisfaction, Trust and Commitment (Fletcher, Simpson & Thomas 2000) Consumer-Human Brand Attachment

4.  Overexposure potentially detrimental (Till 1998)  Negative perceptions (Mowen & Brown 1981)  Perceived as less credible (Tripp, Jensen & Carlson 1994) Multiple Product/Brand Endorsements

5.  H1: Positive evaluations, in terms of  a) attitude towards the advertisement  b) attitude towards the brand and  c) purchase intention are greater when celebrities endorse a single branded product as opposed to endorsing multiple brands.  H2: Positive evaluations, in terms of  a) attitude towards the advertisement  b) attitude towards the brand and  c) purchase intention are greater when strong human brand attachment is present compared to weak attachment.

6.  Highly familiar  Equal on attractiveness  Product categories perceived as attractiveness-unrelated  Human Brand and product category perceived as being neither congruent nor incongruent  Human brand not have previously endorsed any products Control: Celebrity Characteristics

7.  Pretesting  Pretest 1: Celebrity selection ▪ 25 Students ▪ Rove McManus and Eddie McGuire ▪ Highly familiar and equal attractiveness ▪ Differing levels of attachment  Eddie- Weak attachment  Rove- Strong attachment ▪ Both had not endorsed brands previously  Pretest 2: Product and brand name selection ▪ 19 students ▪ Product categories - attractiveness-unrelated ▪ Products neither congruent nor incongruent ▪ Photographica camera, Marc pen, Gafae coffee ▪ Translation in non-English languages Rove Eddie

8.  2 x 2 Factorial Design Single Endorsement Multiple Endorsements Strong Attachment Celebrity 1 Celebrity 1 Hypothetical brand: 1 Hypothetical brands: 1, 2, 3 Weak Attachment Celebrity 2 Celebrity 2 Hypothetical brand: 1 Hypothetical brands: 1, 2, 3

9. Single Endorsement Ad Booklet Test Brand

10. Multiple Endorsement Ad Booklet Test Brand

11.  Significant, moderate positive relationships between:  Aad and Ab ▪ Pearson’s r =.404, p<.01  Aad and PI ▪ Pearson’s r =.485, p<.01  Ab and PI ▪ Pearson’s r =.421, p<.01  Series of regression analyses- Baron and Kenny (1986) used for Sobel Test (Sobel 1982; Preacher and Leonardelli 2005).  purchase intention is directly mediated via attitude towards the ad and attitude towards the brand ▪ test statistic of 3.78 and significance at the 0.001 level.

12.  Strong Attachment  More positive A ad and A b  Greater PI VariableMean Weak Mean Strong Attachment2.15023.0022 Ad Attitude2.49482.9867 Brand Attitude2.96513.1413 Purchase Intention3.00673.4082

13.  A ad, A b and PI affected by Attachment not Endorsement Situation Dependent VariableSource Sum of SquaresDfMean SquareFSig. Attitude towards the Ad Photographica Attachment 11.4131 23.401.000 Endorsement.8981 1.841.177 Attach * Endorse.2991.614.434 Attitude towards the Brand Photographica Attachment 1.4181 6.269.013 Endorsement.1771.783.377 Attach * Endorse.0001.001.977 Purchase Intention for Photographica Attachment 7.8651 4.309.039 Endorsement.0191.010.919 Attach * Endorse 7.7891 4.267.040

14.  Strong Attachment  greater A ad and A b in both single and multiple ES Attachment StrongWeak 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 Aad Single Endorsement Multiple Endorsements Low High Attachment Strong Weak Ab 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.9 Single Endorsement Multiple Endorsements Low High

15. Attachment StrongWeak PI 3.8 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.6 Single Endorsement Multiple Endorsements High Low  Strong Attachment  PI greater in single ES  Weak Attachment  PI greater in multiple ES

16. Implications and Future Research  Practitioners  Identifying appropriate and effective endorsers for their brands ▪ Based on consumer-human brand attachment  Future Research  Purchase Intention requires further investigation  Investigate genuine endorsement situations, using real ads with real brands.

17. References  Bowlby, John (1980), Loss: Sadness and Depression, New York: Basic Books.  Berman, W. H., Sperling, M. B., 1994. The Structure and Function of Adult Attachment. In Sperling, M. B. Berman, W. H. (Eds), Attachment in Adults: Clinical and Developmental Perspectives, New York: Guilford Press, 3-28.  Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., Thomas, G. 2000. The Measurement of Perceived Relationship Quality Components: A Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 26 (3), 340- 54.  Hovland, C. I., Weiss, W., 1951. The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly 15 (4), 635-650.  Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., Kelley, H. H., 1953. Communication and Persuasion: Psychological Studies of Opinion Change, New Haven: Greenwood Publishing Group.  Kamins, M. A. 1990. An Investigation of the ‘Match-up Hypothesis’ in Celebrity Advertising: When beauty may be only skin deep. Journal of Advertising 19 (1), 4-13.  Kamins, M. A., Gupta, K. 1994. Congruence between Spokesperson and Product Type: A match-up hypothesis perspective. Psychology and Marketing 11 (1), 4-13.  Kelley, H. H. 1967. Attribution Theory in Social Psychology. In Levine, D. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 192-238.  McGuire, W. J. 1985. Attitudes and Attitude Change. In Lindzey, G., Aronson, E. (Eds.) Handbook of Social Psychology Vol. 2, New York: Random House, 233-346.  Mowen, J. C., Brown, S. W. 1981. On Explaining and Predicting the Effectiveness of Celebrity Endorsers. Advances in Consumer Research 8, 437-441.  Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L. 2000. Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist 55 (1), 66-78.  Thomson, M., 2006. Human Brands: Investigating antecedents to consumers’ strong attachments to celebrities. Journal of Marketing 70 (July), 104-119.  Till, B. D., 1998. Using Celebrity Endorsers Effectively: Lessons from associative learning. Journal of Product and Brand Management 7 (5), 400-409.  Till, B. D., Busler, M. 1998. Matching Products with Endorsers: Attractiveness versus expertise. Journal of Consumer Marketing 15 (6), 576-586.  Tripp, C., Jensen, T. D., Carlson, L. 1994. The Effects of Multiple Product Endorsements by Celebrities on Consumers Attitudes and Intentions. Journal of Consumer Research 20 (March), 535-547.