c

Matching Products with endorsers: - An

assessment in the Indian context
(FINAL REPORT)
Submitted to:

3r. RadhaKrishna
Submitted by:

Kabir Adatia (09BSHY3O346)

Apurva Singhi (09BSHY30822)
Shashi Bhushan (09BSHY30769)
Shashank Kapur (09BSHY30768)
Shubodeep Roy (09BSHY30799)
Amit Agarwal (09BSHY30070)
Himanshu Sharma (09BSHY3 03 )c c
O
 

me would like to acknowledge our marketing professor Dr.
Radhakrishna for his constant support, guidance and valuable
information which helped us a lot in completing this project.

Œc
c

O  


Introduction 4
Literature Review± 7
Literature Review-2 8
Methodology
Reliability Statistics
3ata Analysis 3
Annexure 23
References 28
Appendix (Questionnaire) 29

c
c 

c
c
`

 
joday 'Celebrity Endorsement' has attracted immense debate on whether it really contributes to
the brand building process or whether it is just another lazy tool to make the brand more visible
in the minds of the consumers. Although it has been observed that the presence of a well-known
personality helps in solving the problem of over-communication that is becoming more
prominent these days, there are few undesirable impacts of this practice on the brand. jhe
theories like 'Source Credibility jheory, Source Attractiveness jheory and Meaning jransfer
jheory' provide a basis on which the methodology of celebrity endorsement works and also
explains how the process of the celebrity endorsement influences the minds of the consumers.
Firms invest huge amounts as advertising expenditure for hiring the right celebrity. However
there lies uncertainty with respect to the returns that the company might be able to garner for the
brand. jhe issue of matching the values of the celebrity with the brand values is also very
important, i.e. getting the right celebrity to endorse the right brand. Consumers perceive the
brand as having superior quality because it has been endorsed by a credible source. jhis makes
endorsement as one of the indictors of quality for any brand. Corporate credibility along with
endorser credibility plays a significant role in the attitude of the consumer towards the brand and
the advertisement respectively. On the other hand, the over popularity of the celebrity sometimes
overshadows the brand. If the celebrity is involved in multiple endorsements, it tends to create
confusion among consumers and hence negatively affects the perception of the advertisement
and the brand. Hence, to say clearly whether the practice of celebrity endorsement impacts
positively or negatively to the brand still remains a debate.

jhe society that we live in can not only be called secular or democratic, it should be more
appropriately termed as over-communicated these days. A typical super-market in USA displays
more than 12000 brands, an American family has at least one television set and a consumer is
exposed to around 1000 ads per day1. Likewise, there are around 130 television channels in
India broadcasting over 3 million television commercials each year in India. jhe media-
explosion can thus be easily demonstrated. More over, people forget 80% of the information in
just 24 hours! Just imagine the plight of the marketer to make his brand shout over the deafening
clutter of all the brands! Some where in the 80¶s, an Indian marketer found the solution,
'Celebrity Endorsement' for the brand!

Firms endorse celebrity for a variety of reasons. It might be the life experience of the celebrity
that fits the advertising message or the endorser's high appeal with the firm's consumer target
group. Studies associated with the market effect of celebrity endorsement suggest that consumers
positively value the use of celebrity endorsers in the advertisements. Firms invest significant

c
c
money in putting together brands and organizations with endorser qualities such as
attractiveness, likeability, and trustworthiness.

Celebrity endorsement if used effectively, makes the brand stand out, galvanizes brand recall and
facilitates instant awareness. jo achieve this, the marketer needs to be really disciplined in
choice of a celebrity. Hence the right use of celebrity can escalate the Unique Selling Proposition
of a brand to new heights; but a cursory orientation of a celebrity with a brand may prove to be
claustrophobic for the brand. A celebrity is a means to an end, and not an end in himself/herself.

V
c c
c c  c
c
c  c c
c

A celebrity is used to impart credibility and inspirational values to a brand, but the celebrity
needs to match the product. A good brand campaign idea and an intrinsic link between the
celebrity and the message are musts for a successful campaign. Celebrities are no doubt good at
generating attention, recall and positive attitudes towards advertising provided that they are
supporting a good idea and there is an explicit fit between them and the brand. On the other
hand, they are rendered useless when it comes to the actual efficiency of the core product,
creating positive attitudes to brands, purchase intentions and actual sales.

Certain parameters that postulate compatibility between the celebrity and brand image are:

‰c
c
 xc Celebrity¶s fit with the brand image.
xc Celebrity²jarget audience match
xc Celebrity associated values.
xc Costs of acquiring the celebrity.
xc Celebrity²Product match.
xc Celebrity controversy risk.
xc Celebrity popularity.
xc Celebrity availability.
xc Celebrity physical attractiveness.
xc Celebrity credibility.
xc Celebrity prior endorsements.
xc mhether celebrity is a brand user.
xc Celebrity profession.

0c
c
`
O
``
Several studies have been done in the past to study the effects of celebrity endorsement of a
brand. jhe most notable study which has been done in this regard was by KAMMINS in 1990s
which is popularly known as the ³MAjCH UP HYPOjHESIS´. According to match up
hypothesis endorsers are more effective
when there is a ³fit´ between the endorser and the endorsed product. jhis theory suggests that
there is a positive correlation between the physical attractiveness of the endorser and the
purchase decisions of the buyer. From the very beginning it was suggested that the physical
attractiveness of the celebrity is what influences the buying decision of the buyer. jo prove this
point many research work has been done by many noted statisticians but the results which has
been derived does not go in sync with what it was believed earlier. Kamins in his study collected
data on seven dependent measures (advertiser believability, advertiser credibility,
spokesperson believability, spokesperson credibility, brand attitude, attitude
toward the advertisement, and purchase intention). Finally it was found out that the physical
attractiveness and the credibility of the endorser is what matters the most. It was also found out
that products which were meant to develop attractiveness was more effective if endorsed by an
attractive celebrity but it there was no significant effect on products which were not meant to
increase physical attractiveness if they were endorsed by an attractive celebrity.

Ohanian in 1990 found out that among the three factors

xc Physical Attractiveness
xc jrustworthiness
xc Expertise

Expertise was the factor which had the greatest impact on the buying decisions. A test conducted
on students of business schools in USA revealed that while looking to an advertisement people
generally look at the expertise the celebrity has. For example in the survey a perfect fit was
found out between an athlete endorsing energy bar and an actor endorsing a candy bar. On the
other hand an imperfect fit was found out between an actor endorsing energy bar and an athelete
endorsing a candy bar. jhus it can be derived that expertise is what matters the most when a
buyer decides to purchase a product

£c
c
`
O
```
Exploring the relationship between celebrity endorser effects and advertising effectiveness
c
O
 :
jhis study provides a quantitative summary of the relationship between celebrity endorser source
effects and effectiveness in advertising. jhe Kruskal-mallis nonparametric test is used to
identify the most influential celebrity endorser source effects on effectiveness. jhe role of
celebrity/product fit, interaction effects, sample type, study setting, and country of study are also
included as moderators. Results suggest negative celebrity information can be extremely
detrimental to an advertising campaign. jhe source credibility model composed of celebrity
trustworthiness, celebrity expertise, and celebrity attractiveness appears to capture the three most
influential source effects on purchase intentions, brand attitudes and attitudes towards the
advertisement.
c
` 
 :
cAbout 25% of US advertisements employ celebrity endorsers (Shimp
2000. jhese actions suggest many US firms have bought into the premise
that celebrity endorsers positively impact consumer attitudes towards
an advertisement and the associated brand, consumers¶ purchase intention,
as well as other measures of effectiveness. Importance of celebrity endorser does not lie in the
fact they are used by the firms who wish to increase revenue but in how these celebrities add
value to a company, brand or a product. jhis study takes into account a model named ³meaning
transfer model´, according to this model a celebrity develops a persona through the types of roles
they play in the society as well as how they are portrayed in media. Celebrities transfer this
meaning to the company, product or the brand they endorse. Researchers have examined this
transfer of celebrity meaning to the product and its resultant effectiveness by examining the
source effects of Celebrity endorsers. jwo studies have been done by KAIKAjI (1987) and
ERDOGON (1990) to study the effect of transfer of celebrity meaning and its effects. KAIKAjI
(1987) identified the prevalent types of celebrity endorsers, advantages of using celebrity
endorsers, hazards associated with using celebrity endorsers, and Federal
jrade Commission guidelines. ERDOGAN (1999) reviewed the effectiveness of celebrities,
advantages and disadvantages associated with celebrity endorsement, and the application of the
source credibility and source attractiveness models. But no systematic efforts were put to
quantitatively integrate this literature.

jhrough this study using ³meta analysis´ the effectiveness of celebrity endorsement is looked
into. jhis study derives the relationship between use of a celebrity endorser and its resultant
effects.

uc
c
Here we are using questionnaire to measure different aspect of human behavior. Its will also help
us to understand different parameters on which effectiveness and brand value of an endorser
depends. me have prepared questionnaire taking into consideration all aspects , which explain
the endorser compatibility with product.

c
 
c
§1: mhat are the most important source effects of celebrity endorsement?

§2: mhat effect does the celebrity endorser/product fit have on celebrity endorsement
effectiveness?

§3: mithin the relevant research domain, what methodological variables produced the most
variation in terms of significant findings?

§4: How do interaction effects differ from main effects in celebrity endorsement source effects
literature and what implications do these differences have for researchers?

§5: mhat potentially rewarding topic areas remain relatively under-explored in the current
celebrity endorser literature?
c


 :
Focused was on Meta analysis that would provide a succinct look into celebrity endorser source
effects and effect size. Hence, five experts were consulted to aid in evaluating studies for
inclusion in this meta-analysis. jhe majority of studies in this meta-analysis measured celebrity
endorsement effectiveness via the foremost categories of constructs: (1) purchase intention, (2)
brand attitude, and (3) attitude towards advertisement, (4) believability, (5) recall, and (6)
recognition. Other studies included: measured effectiveness as actual purchase behavior,
expected excess returns, or other measures of behavioral intention and attitude. Some studies
used only one measure celebrity endorsement effectiveness. But others examined celebrity
endorsement source effects across several measures, using two or more constructs categories to
assess perceived celebrity endorsement effectiveness.
c

O
 

Among the original 266 total effects, 185 were statistically significant (G < 0.05). Forty-four per
cent of the retained studies examined celebrity/product fit. mith respect to methods
characteristics, 86% of studies sampled reported main effects, 62% used a survey instrument, and
52% used a student sample. Exactly 60% of the studies used a US-based sample. jhese data
were skewed. jhis was expected, given the small effects characteristic associated with
behavioral research (Sawyer & Ball 1981; milson & Sherrell 1993). jo ensure that interpretation
of the results was not influenced by transformation of the data, a nonparametric procedure was
performed on the weighted correlation coefficients. jhe Kruskal-mallis test was used to analyze
the data from the non-normal population (Iman & Conover 1983; milson & Sherrell 1993).

¦c
c
Kruskal-mallis provides a powerful alternative to the -test for the equality of means milson &
Sherrell (1993). Compared with the -test, the Kruskal-mallis test has an asymptotic efficiency
of 95.5% when used with non-normal populations (Siegal 1956). jhe mean correlation of each
variable is provided to permit comparison of effect sizes between variables. Publication bias was
analyzed using Rosenthal¶s (1991) fail-safe N. jo render
normal for z-transformed correlation
coefficients non-significant,
normal would have to be less than 1.645 ( G > 0.05).
normal for
this study is 23.02. jhus the results of this meta-analysis are statistically significant. In fact, the
results suggest this study would have to find 14,454 non-significant effects before the 185
significant results could be considered due to chance. jhis robust result infers the use of
published studies does not threaten the integrity of this study¶s findings.

V  

jhe conclusions from the study are as following
xc jhat when negative information about a celebrity endorser emerges, the revelation can
dilute the equity of the product/brand associated with the celebrity
c
xc jhe results of this meta-analysis likewise infer that positive celebrity information and
image can also transfer to the product/brand

xc jhis meta-analysis revealed that celebrity µtrustworthiness¶, and µexpertise¶ along with
µattractiveness¶ each exercised more influence on effectiveness than did the celebrity
µcredibility¶ source effect.

SCALES TO BE USED
xc Vategory Scale
Some rating scales have only two response categories: agree and disagree. Expanding the
response categories provides the respondent more flexibility in the rating task. Even more
information is provided if the categories are ordered according to a descriptive or
evaluative dimension.

xc Vonstant Sum Scale

Respondents might be asked to divide a constant sum to indicate the relative importance
of the attributes.


è c
c
 

jhe data analysis will include the following:-

xc Sampling
Sampling is that part of statistical practice concerned with the selection of individual
observations intended to yield some knowledge about a population of concern, especially
for the purposes of statistical inference.

xc 3ata Vollection
Data collection is a term used to describe a process of preparing and collecting data. jhe
purpose of data collection is to obtain information to keep on record, to make decisions
about important issues, to pass information on to others. Primarily, data is collected to
provide information regarding a specific topic

xc 3ata Entry
Data entry is the act of transcribing some form of data into another form, usually
a computer program. Forms of data that people might transcribe include handwritten
documents, information off spreadsheets from another computer program, sequences of
numbers, letters and symbols that build a program, or simple data like names and
addresses.

xc Sampling 3istribution
In statistics, a sampling distribution is the probability distribution of a given statistic (a
numerical quantity calculated from the data values in a sample), based on a random
sample. jhe sampling distribution depends on the distribution of the population, the
statistic being considered, and the sample size used.

jhe sampling distribution may be considered as the distribution of the statistic for all
possible samples of a given size.

èèc
c
 xc '-Tests/ Hypothesis test
A statistical hypothesis test is a method of making statistical decisions using experimental
data. It is sometimes called confirmatory data analysis, in contrast to exploratory data
analysis. Infrequency probability, these decisions are almost always made using null-
hypothesis tests; that is, ones that answer the question Assuming that the null hypothesis
is true, what is the probability of observing a value for the test statistic that is at least as
extreme as the value that was actually observed? One use of hypothesis testing is
deciding whether experimental results contain enough information to cast doubt on
conventional wisdom.

m chave collected the data on the basis of our questionnaire and then we have done several
testing initially to find out the reliability of questionnaire. me are also presenting some of
hypothesis which we have done till date.

  S
Reliability refers to the property of a measurement instrument that causes it to give similar
results for similar inputs.
c

V
c

cc

c
V
c  c

 c c c
cc
c c c
c

After running the collected data in SPSS for reliability testing, value of Cronbach's alpha is
reported in the Reliability Statistics table is .854. It means questionnaire used for the testing is
85.4% reliable which in turn means that whatever result provided by the testing of survey will be
authentic and can be consider as reliable
c

c c

èŒc
c
OO`
c c cc 
c 
c
c

Mapping Katrina Kaif with LUX

›c Strongly disagree
›c Disagree
›c Neutral
›c Agree
›c Strongly agree

Mapping Hrithik Roshan with CINjHOL

›c Strongly disagree
›c Disagree
›c Neutral
›c Agree
›c Strongly agree

In this question we are trying to determine whether consumers are able to map Katrina Kaif with
LUX which is a beauty soap and Hrithik Roshan with cinthol which is deodorant soap.

me have conducted a hypothesis testing where the null hypothesis is that consumers can relate
both the products with their respective brand ambassadors. jhe z observed comes out to be
0.3103549. mhereas the z critical is 1.96 which means that we accept our null hypothesis. jhis
feature can be attributed to the fact that both the celebrities are known face and both are
Bollywood stars which can be connected with style, glamour and fashion. As a result it is easier
for the consumers to connect to the following products and hence there is no difference between
the means of the respondents. (Annexure I)

èc
c
c c  c
c cc 
 ccV
c
c
 c
c
 c

Mapping renowned doctor with DEjjOL

›c Strongly disagree
›c Disagree
›c Neutral
›c Agree
›c Strongly agree

Mapping Mother and child with JOHNSON & JOHNSON

›c Strongly disagree
›c Disagree
›c Neutral
›c Agree
›c Strongly agree

In the above two questions we try to determine what effects does it have on the consumers if
Dettol which is a medicinal soap is endorsed by a Renowned doctor and Johnson and
Johnson which is a soap meant for infants.

me have conducted a hypothesis testing where the null hypothesis is that the means of the
respondent agreeing to Dettol being endorsed by a renowned doctor whereas Johnson and
Johnson being endorsed by a mother and a child.

jhe z observed is 0.753256272 whereas the z critical is 1.96. jherefore we accept our null
hypothesis which states that the means of the respondent saying Dettol to be endorsed by a
renowned doctor is same as that of the respondents saying Johnson and Johnson to be
endorsed by a mother and child. jhis can be due to the fact that since Dettol is a medicinal
soap so the product being endorsed by a person who has the expertise will help the
consumers to relate to the product well whereas Johnson and Johnson is meant for the infants
which has an emotional quotient behind it thus consumers do not require any celebrity to
endorse the product. jhus we can conclude that Dettol may require an expert to endorse it
but Johnson and Johnson do not require a celebrity to endorse it. (Annexure II)

èc
c
cc c c c  c   cc  c  c


c c cc c  cc c c c
Price ____________________
§uality __________________
Brand Name ______________
Celebrity Endorsed _________
mord of mouth ____________
Publicity __________________
jotal 100

In this question we try to prove the effect of different attribute on consumer or

whether different features are having different effect. For that we performed anova
testing. Here our null hypothesis is that all the attributes are having same effect on
consumer and alternative hypothesis is that they are having different effect.

After calculation of estimation test we found out that F critical is less than F
observation. jhat is why we reject null hypothesis and accept alternative i.e,
different attributes are having different effect on consumers. Some of these
(§uality, Brand name, Celebrity, mord of mouth, Publicity) might have more
importance for the consumers. jhis test is important as it helps us to know the
preferences of consumers. Accordingly we can place celebrity for product
emphasizing that attribute which is of higher importance for the consumers.
Company should look upon the factors which really matter for consumers as these
things are related to the success of any product.(ANNEXURE III)

Renowned 3octor VS Ayurvedic Person

1)c Mapping renowned doctor with DEjjOL

›c Strongly disagree
›c Disagree
›c Neutral
›c Agree
›c Strongly agree

è‰c
c
 2)c Mapping renowned Ayurvedic person with MEDIMIX
›c Strongly disagree
›c Disagree
›c Neutral
›c Agree
›c Strongly agree

In above given questions we are trying to check that whether a renowned doctor
for dettol and an ayurvedic person is having same effect on consumers. For that we
perform hypothesis testing and we relate their mean on certain significance level.

After testing we found out that ëobs > ëcritical i.e, we reject null hypothesis and we
accept alternative hypothesis which means that mean of people saying renowned
doctor maps with Dettol is greater than mean of people saying ayurvedic person
maps with Medimix. So a renowned doctor has greater influence in buying
decision of people preferring Dettol than an ayurvedic person¶s influence in buying
decision of people preferring Medimix. From this we can inferred that for dettol
endorsing a doctor will be more wise decision as it is having greater influence on
people. (ANNEXURE IV)

c c
A celebrity endorsing multiple brands makes it difficult for a buyer to relate it
with a particular product

›c Strongly disagree
›c Disagree
›c Neutral
›c Agree
›c Strongly agree

In this question we try to find out whether a celebrity endorsing more than one
product will have same effect for all the products or it actually create confusion
among consumer. For this here we performed hypothesis test for mean. Here we
have taken null hypothesis less than or equal to 2.5. As here we are quantifying

è0c
c
their intensity of agreement as 1, 2 and so on up to 5. jherefore 2.5 is neutral and
below it will fall under disagreement and above it will fall under agreement.

me found out that ëobs > ëcritical , therefore we reject null hypothesis i.e. we accept
alternative hypothesis which means that more people agree that celebrity endorsing
multiple brands makes it difficult for a buyer to relate it with a particular product.

It proves that if any celebrity endorses for more than one product then it is very
difficult for consumer to relate his personality with any of them. As a result of this
confusion effectiveness of celebrity decreases and ultimately which affects the
sales. (ANNEXURE V)

c c

è£c
c
Ô  T
 P : L
 S
Here we are testing that whether there is any difference in buying decision between male and
female of celebrity endorsement for soaps. For that we prepared a questionnaire and out of
which we try to check whether null hypothesis is accepted or not. As here, we have a large
sample size we use here hypothesis testing of proportion between male and female.

Given question is:

§) I get to buy soap because a celebrity endorsed it

›c Strongly disagree
›c Disagree
›c Neutral
›c Agree
›c Strongly agree

After survey, we calculated by above mentioned test in which

Null Hypothesis: H0 : female = male

Alternative Hypothesis: H1 : female  male

Į = 0.05

Here we have two tailed test that we have shown later on.

Sample Mean of Female: xfemale = 2.5

Sample Mean of Male: xmale = 2.788235

nfemale = 62

nmale = 85

Standard deviation of female: sfemale = 1.00409

Standard deviation of male: smale = 1.310163

ıfemale-male = sqrt((ıfemale^2/nfemale) + (ımale^2/nmale))

= 0.19093

Zcrititcal = ((xfemale ± xmale) ± ( female - male) H0)/ ıfemale-male

= -1.5096

èuc
c
Zobs = -1.65

After calculation we can see that Zcrititcal > Zobs, therefore we accept null hypothesis i.e. celebrity
endorsement have same effect on male and female while buying soap. It means there is no
significant difference between male and female in buying decision.

è¦c
c
O
Oc !" c

§. Divide 100 points according to your preference in following factors which you feel will affect
your buying decision of soap

Price _____________________
§uality_____________________
Brand Name________________
Celebrity Endorsed__________
mord of Mouth______________
Publicity____________________
jotal 100
In this question we used constant sum scale and asked the respondents to provide weightage to
the following factors.

me used Anova in the above question as we wanted to check whether weightage of all the
variables affecting the buying decisions of the respondents are same or not. jhis way we can find
which of the following factors affects the buying decision of the consumer most.

Below the following calculations have been provided :

H0 : price = quality = brandname = celebrity endorsed = word of mouth = publicity

H : price, quality, brandname, celebrity endorsed, word of mouth , publicity are not
equal
nprice = nquality = nbrandname = ncelebrity endorsed = nword of mouth = npublicity = 147
xprice = 19.7414
xquality = 27.65306
xbrandname = 20.0544218
xcelebrity endorsed = 10.55102041
xword of mouth = 10.62585034
xpublicity = 11.17007
sprice^2 = 95.28888
squality^2 = 199.4199
sbrandname^2 = 135.733319

Πc
c
scelebrity endorsed^2 = 48.20457087
sword of mouth^2 = 40.83850527
spublicity^2 = 58.55307
Grand mean = 16.6326
k=6
nj = 882
ESTIMATE OF BETWEEN VOLUMN VARIANVE

ı^2b = ™(nj(xj ± grand mean)^2/(k- )

= 7224.479

ESTIMATE OF WITHIN VOLUMN VARIANVE

ı^2w = ™((nj- )/(nT-k))sj^2

= 96.33971

Fcritical = between column variance/within column variance

= ı^2b/ ı^2w

= 74.9896

NUMERATOR 3EGREES OF FREE3OM

Number of degrees of freedom in the numerator of the F ratio = (k-1)

= 6-1 = 5

3ENOMINATOR 3EGREES OF FREE3OM

Number of degrees of freedom in the denominator of the F ratio = (nj ± k)

= 882-6

= 876

Fobs = 2.21

Ώc
c
Vonclusion
c

From the above calculations we can see that, Fcritical > Fobs So we reject null
hypothesis i.e. mean of all variables are not equal one of the variable has higher
mean or is given more importance compared to other. jhis means that some of the
variables affect the buying decision of the consumers more than the others. In the
final report we would be testing individual factors in comparison to the other
factors and derive which of the factors affect the most and by how much.

ŒŒc
c
O
ANNEXURE I

H0 : µkatrina = µhrithik
H : µkatrina > µhrithik
Į = 0.05
xkatrina = 3.3537415
xhrithik = 3.31292517
ıkatrina = 1.0650276
ıhrithik = 1.186699816
n = n2 = 147
ıkatrina-hrithik = sqrt((ıkatrina^2/n )+( ıhrithik^2/n2))
= 0.131515
ëobs = ((xkatrina - xhrithik) ± (µkatrina - µhrithik)* H0)/ ıkatrina-
hrithik
= 0.3103549
ëcritical = .96

Œc
c
ANNEXURE II

H0 : µrenowned doctor = µmother & child

H : µrenowned doctor > µmother & child
Į = 0.05
xrenowned doctor = 3.843537415
xayurvedic person = 3.74829932
ırenowned doctor = 1.03169418
ıayurvedic person = 1.133811232
n = n2 = 147
ırenowned doctor ± mother & child = sqrt((ırenowned doctor^2/n )+( ımother &
child^2/n2))
= 0.126435184
ëobs = ((xrenowned doctor - x mother & child ) ± (µrenowned doctor - µ mother &
child )* H0)/ırenowned doctor ± mother & child
= 0.753256272
'critical = .96
c
c

ANNEXURE III
H0 : µprice = µquality = µbrandname = µcelebrity endorsed = µword of mouth = µpublicity
H : µprice, µquality, µbrandname, µcelebrity endorsed, µword of mouth , µpublicity are not equal
nprice = nquality = nbrandname = ncelebrity endorsed = nword of mouth = npublicity = 47
xprice = 9.74 4
xquality = 27.65306
xbrandname = 20.05442 8
xcelebrity endorsed = 0.55 0204
xword of mouth = 0.62585034
xpublicity = . 7007
sprice^2 = 95.28888
squality^2 = 99.4 99
sbrandname^2 = 35.7333 9
scelebrity endorsed^2 = 48.20457087
sword of mouth^2 = 40.83850527

Œc
c
spublicity^2 = 58.55307
Grand mean = 6.6326
k=6
nT = 882
ESTTIMATE OF BETWEEN VOLUMN VARIANVE
ı^2b = ™(nj(xj ± grand mean)^2/(k- )
= 7224.479
ESTIMATE OF WITHIN VOLUMN VARIANVE
ı^2w = ™((nj- )/(nT-k))sj^2
= 96.3397

Fobs = between column variance/within column variance

= ı^2b/ ı^2w
= 74.9896
NUMERATOR 3EGREES OF FREE3OM
Number of degrees of freedom in the numerator of the F ratio = (k- )
= 6- = 5
3ENOMINATOR 3EGREES OF FREE3OM
Number of degrees of freedom in the denominator of the F ratio = (nT ± k)
= 882-6
= 876
Fcritical = 2.2

Œ‰c
c
ANNEXURE IV
H0 : µrenowned doctor = µayurvedic person
H : µrenowned doctor > µayurvedic person
Į = 0.05
xrenowned doctor = 3.843537415
xayurvedic person = 3.414965986
ırenowned doctor = 1.03169418
ıayurvedic person = 1.090705047
n = n2 = 147
ırenowned doctor ± ayurvedic person = sqrt((ırenowned doctor^2/n )+( ıayurvedic person^2/n2))
= 0.123828672

ëobs = ((xrenowned doctor - xayurvedic person ) ± (µrenowned doctor - µayurvedic person)* H0)/ırenowned
doctor ± ayurvedic person
= 3.46100319

ëcritical = .96

Œ0c
c
ANNEXURE V
H0 : µmultiple brands ” 2.5
H : µmultiple brands > 2.5
Į = 0.05
n = 47
xmultiple brands = 3.612244898
ımultiple brands = 1.049781318
ıxmultiple brands = ımultiple brands/sqrt(n)
= 0.086584504

ëobs = (xmultiple brands - µ H0)/ ıxmultiple brands

= 12.84577319

'critical = .96


Σc
c
  
1 Positioning: A battle for mind - Jack jrout and Al Ries
2 Erdogan (1999), "Celebrity Endorsement: A Literature Review", [
 

 
, 15, 291-314
3 www.thedayaftertomorrow.com
4 Hindu Business Line, 2003
5 jellis, Effective Advertising: Understanding mhen, How, and mhy Advertising
works
6 McCracken, Grant (1989), "mho is the Celebrity Endorser?" [
 
 

 
, 16 (December), 310-321.
7 www.synovate.com ± 2003
8 www.indiantelevision.com
9 www.magindia.com
10 Business Standard, May 13, 2005
11 www.blonnet.com
12 Dean (1999), "Brand Endorsement, popularity, and Event Sponsorship as
advertising cues affecting consumer Pre purchase attitude", [
  
 ,
Volume XXVIII, Number 3, 1-12
13 Goldsmith, Lafferty and Newell (2000), "jhe Impact of Corporate Credibility
and Celebrity Credibility on Consumer Reaction to Advertisements and Brands",
[
  
 , Volume XXIX, number 3, 43-54
14 L. K. Marhur, I. Mathur and N. Rangan (1997) June, "jhe mealth Effects
Associated with a Celebrity Endorser: jhe Michael Jordan Phenomena", Journal of
Advertising Research,
15 www.blonnet.com
16 B. Zafer Erdogan, Michael J. Baker and Stephen jag (2001) June, "Selecting
Celebrity Endorsers: jhe Practitioner's Perspective", [
  


, 39-48
18 indiainfoline.com ± article 'Celebrity Endorsements in brands
19 jripp, Jensen and Carlson (1994) March, "jhe Effect of Multiple Product
Endorsements by Celebrities on Consumers' Attitude and Intentions", [
 

  
, Vol 20, 535-547
c

Œuc
c
O`
QUESTIONNAIRE
èc 
 cc
›c 
cc
›c R 
cc
Œc  cè c
c 
cc 
c  
 c
c


c cc 
c
c

c  c

c

c 
cc c
 cc


 cc

c  cc

 c
 cc
mcc
cc


 cc

ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccè c
c c cc
c c c 
 c c
 c
 cc
›c 

c  cc
›c   c
›c 

c
›c O c
›c 

c  c
c  
c 
c ccc
›c 

c  c
›c   c
›c 

c
›c O c
›c 

c  c
‰c c

c  c 
ccc  c  c
c
 c
 ccc
›c 

c  c
›c   c
›c 

c
›c O c
›c 

c  c
0c  
cc
ccc
›c 

c  c
›c   c
›c 

c
›c O c
›c 

c  c
c

Œ¦c
c
 £c c

c  c 
cccc  c  c
c
 c
 ccc
›c 

c  c
›c   c
›c 

c
›c O c
›c 

c  c
uc  
c

cccc
›c 

c  c
›c   c
›c 

c
›c O c
›c 

c  c
¦c c

c  c 
cccc  c c
 c
 ccc
›c 

c  c
›c   c
›c 

c
›c O c
›c 

c  c
è c 
c

cO
 c 
ccc
›c 

c  c
›c   c
›c 

c
›c O c
›c 

c  c
èècc

c  c 
cccc  c c
 c
 ccc
›c 

c  c
›c   c
›c 

c
›c O c
›c 

c  c
èŒc 
c c
c
cc c!c c
›c 

c  c
›c   c
›c 

c
›c O c
›c 

c  c
ècc

c  c 
cc c!c cc  c c
 c
 ccc
›c 

c  c
›c   c
›c 

c
›c O c
›c 

c  c

 c
c
 ècc c

c c
ccc
 c c c
 ccc
c c  cccc

c

 c
›c 

c  c
›c   c
›c 

c
›c O c
›c 

c  c
è‰cO c 
c  cc c 
cc c
 c
 c 
c
›c ë c
›c c
è0cOc
 c

cc


c 
c  cc

cc c
cc
 ccc c 

c

c
›c 

c  c
›c   c
›c 

c
›c O c
›c 

c  c

èc
c