An Examination of Universal Personality

Endorser and the Interaction Between

Perceived Celebrity Image (PCI) and
Perceived Brand Image (PBI) Across National
Boundaries

Pajvani Mehulkumar

Volume 2 / No. 3

December 2005

ISSN nr. 1743-6796

 An Examination of Universal Personality Endorser and the Interaction
Between Perceived Celebrity Image (PCI) and Perceived Brand Image (PBI)
Across National Boundaries.

Pajvani Mehulkumar*

Postgraduate Researcher. Department of Marketing, Leeds University Business School, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 5QS,
United Kingdom

Abstract

We develop a proposal for a research study to examine the celebrity endorsement process in a
multicultural context developing a six-variable model of Perceived Celebrity Image (PCI). The
variables are “Credibility”, “Attractiveness”, “trustworthiness”, “Likeability”, “Expertise” and
“Familiarity” (“CATLEF”). This research study analyses these variables and the inter-
relationship among them in a multicultural settings. The proposed research examines the
relationship between Perceived Brand Image (PBI) and Perceived Celebrity Image (PCI) in an
international setting. We intend to measure “the reverse impact” – of PBI on PCI, which has not
been studied previously. The multicultural context of the study enables practitioners in the
celebrity endorser selection process for international advertisements. Furthermore the
examination of “the reverse impact” will provide useful guidelines to celebrities in the selection
of brands they endorse and will lay foundation for future research from a celebrities’
perspective.

Keywords
Celebrity Endorsement, Brand, Attractiveness, Meaning Transfer, International advertising

*
Contact details – E-mail address: busmp@leeds.ac.uk

1
Introduction

The use of celebrity endorsement in marketing is not a new phenomenon. Celebrities have
been used as brand endorsers for more than 50 years. The Old Poland Company, successfully
used a testimonial about the company by Rev. J.K. Chase of Rummney, New Hampshire, in an
advertisement which was published in 1864 (Kaikati 1987). Today, around 20% of all
commercials screened in United States (Bradley 1996) and Great Britain (Erdogan et al 2001)
include some sort of celebrity endorsements and 10% of advertising expenditure goes toward
celebrity endorsers (Bradley 1996).

A number of studies and investigations have been made regarding how the endorsement
process works, how to use celebrity endorsement effectively, and the characteristics of an
effective celebrity endorser. Different models such as source attractiveness (Baker and
Churchill 1977; Joseph 1982; Kahle and Homer 1985; McGuire 1985), source credibility
(Hovland et al. 1953; Kamins et al. 1989), match-up proposition (Kamins and Gupta 1994; Till
and Busler 2000) and meaning transfer models (McCracken 1986; McCracken 1989; Walker et
al. 1992) have been developed based on various theories including internalisation,
identification, social adoption, elaboration of likelihood, and associative learning principles from
the marketing, psychology and communication literature. While most studies have used
consumer samples and experimental methods (Atkin and Block 1983; Kahle and Homer 1985;
Kamins 1990; Kamins et al. 1989; Ohanian 1990; Pornpitakpan 2003; Till and Busler 1998;
Walker et al. 1992) some have explored perspective of practitioners considering those who are
responsible for selection of celebrities (Miciak and Shanklin 1994 and Erdogan et al.
2001). Research has also analysed the celebrity endorsement impact on firms’ market value,
and expected profitability (Agrawal and Kamakura 1995; Mathur et al. 1997).

The proposed research study attempts to examine the celebrity endorsement process at brand
level and in a multicultural context with two main dimensions. First, Perceived Celebrity Image
(PCI) and Perceived Brand Image (PBI) have been encapsulated in a six-variable model of
“CATLEF”; “Credibility”, “Attractiveness”, “Trustworthiness”, “Likeability”, “Expertise” and
“Familiarity”. This research study proposes the analysis of these variables and the inter-
relationship among these. Secondly, through the study proposes an attempt to consolidate and
examine the concept of ‘Meaning Transfer Model’ (McCracken 1986; 1989) and ‘Product Match

2
up Proposition’ (Till and Busler 1998; Kahle and Homer 1985; Kamins 1990) in multicultural
context. In order to examine the “product match up proposition”, the interaction between
product characteristics and celebrity characteristics will be analysed. Product characteristics
would be manipulated at three levels (attractiveness; involvement; and expertise). The celebrity
characteristics should be measured at two levels (attractiveness and expertise). Moreover, in
order to examine the meaning transfer process, the interaction between Perceived Celebrity
Image (PCI) and Perceived Brand Image (PBI) will be analysed by evaluating celebrity and
brand individually and then, when associated with each other, on the same variables derived
from the literature.

The paper starts with defining “celebrity endorsement” along with its advantages and potential
hazards in the background section followed by a literature review and a proposed model. The
literature review revolves around theoretical models historically been used to analyse the
endorsement process. Limitations of these theoretical models have also been identified and
presented. Based on the literature review, a research model has been proposed along with the
rationale and key research areas. Consistent to the proposed model, ten propositions have
been developed followed by methodology, limitations of the study and conclusion.

Background

A celebrity endorser has been defined as “an individual who enjoys public recognition and who
uses this recognition on behalf of a consumer good by appearing with it in advertisement.
Celebrities include movie and television stars, sports stars, politicians, businesspersons, artists
and persons from the military” (McCracken 1989, p.310). McCracken (1989) has described four
types of endorsements; explicit mode (“I endorse this product”), implicit mode (“I use this
product”), imperative mode (“You should use this product”) and co present mode (In which the
celebrity merely appears with the product).

According to a survey by Video Storyboard Tests Inc., about 39% of the respondents indicated
that celebrity makes advertisements more memorable. Moreover, they found an increase from
16 percent in 1987 to 22 percent in 1991 that there exists a ”very positive” feeling among the
television viewers about celebrities also (Lipman 1991).

3
Celebrities have been used in variety of ways in marketing and advertising. The use of
celebrity spokespersons help advertisers to stand out from the crowd and get attention (Kaikati
1987). Specific image, high profile and familiarity of a celebrity endorser make the
advertisement distinctive and thus improves the communicative ability (Atkin and Block 1983;
Sherman 1985). Research has also found an impact of celebrity image on perceived brand
image (Walker et al 1992) which helps the marketer to re-position an existing brand or design
or introduce the new brand (Kaikati 1987). With regard to international advertising, the use of
internationally recognised celebrities can help to avoid problems including the ‘Cultural Road
blocks’ (Kaikati 1987), such as time, space, language, religion, relationship, power, masculinity,
and femininity (Mooij 2004, p.4). The use of a celebrity endorser has also been found to
generate a positive impact on the economic return of the firm (Agrawal and Kamakura 1995;
Mathur et al. 1997). The “Michel Jordan's effect” has contributed around $ 10 billion to the U.S.
economy during the 14 years of his NBA career (Johnson and Harrington 1998).

In spite of wide the use of celebrities, there are some potential hazards while using celebrities
to endorse a brand. Problems in the personal life of a celebrity or negative publicity about a
celebrity may negatively affect the brand image (Till and Shimp 1998). The relationship
between a brand and the celebrity endorser ceases to be distinctive if a celebrity starts
endorsing too many or unrelated brands which may compromise the celebrities image (Graham
1989). Potential hazards can occur if the celebrity becomes controversial, loses popularity,
becomes overexposed, or changes image (Kaikati 1987).

Literature review

Models in endorsements

Whilst there is a growing interest in the literature regarding celebrity endorsement, most of the
work can be classified into the following four theory areas. These include “Source Credibility
Model”, “Source Attractiveness Model”, “Match up Proposition” and “Meaning Transfer Model”.

Source credibility

“Source Credibility” in a broad sense, refers to a communicator’s positive characteristics that

affect the receiver’s acceptance of a message” (Ohanian 1990, p. 41) and rests on the

4
research in social psychology (Hovland et al. 1953). The ‘Source Credibility Model’ is generally
considered to have two main dimensions; namely “Trustworthiness” (the audience's degree of
confidence in and degree of acceptance of the speaker and the message) and “expertness”
(the extent to which a communicator is perceived to be a source of valid assertions). This
model suggests that the effectiveness of a message depends upon how the consumers
perceive the endorser (Hovland et al. 1953).

Previous research established a link between expertise and persuasiveness. An expert

celebrity tends to be more persuasive and generates a higher willingness to buy the brand by
consumers (Ohanian 1990). Furthermore, research has also demonstrated the positive effect of
trustworthiness on attitude change. In a research study McGinnies and Ward (1980) found that
an expert a trustworthy source generated the strongest opinion change by consumers and the
trustworthy communicator was persuasive whether an expert or not (Ohanian 1990). Till and
Busler (2000) found the expertise dimension to be more important than physical attraction as a
match-up factor. Kamins, et al. (1989) indirectly supported source credibility model. In their
study, enhanced credibility and effectiveness was reflected in overall higher ratings on
perceived quality of service and respondents also revealed greater purchase intentions.

It should be noted that it is often difficult to define “source credibility” in exact terms. This is
because of different operationalisations and use of different labels and terminology such as
ethos, prestige, reputation, authority and competence by different researchers and authors
(Ohanian 1990 p. 41). Ohanian’s (1990) study is considered to be a key research paper in the
area of celebrity endorsement. Her three factors fifteen-item credibility scale has been widely
accepted and replicated by other researchers (Pornpitakpan 2003; Till and Busler 1998; Till
and Busler 2000). Using two exploratory and two confirmatory samples, Ohanian (1990)
developed a fifteen-item semantic differential scale to measure perceived expertise,
trustworthiness and attractiveness. Four celebrities and four products were selected and to
purify and validate the scale. The whole study was divided in two stages.

In the exploratory stage, after assessing the level of familiarity (with Madonna and John
McEnroe), respondents were asked to evaluate 72 semantic differential items. These were
reduced to 27 items representing three dimensions (expertise, trustworthiness and
attractiveness) by factor analysis. Finally, in order to obtain a practical size of five items per
factor, the items with the lowest item-to-total correlations were eliminated while maintaining an

5
acceptable level of reliability. In the confirmatory analysis, five items per subscale (total of 15
items) along with some other validation items were used to assess the final scale’s reliability
and validity. Two adult samples (138 and 127) and two different celebrities (Linda Evans and
Tom Selleck) were used to support the generalizability of the scale. Table 1 represents the final
three dimensions source credibility scale.

Table I

Source-Credibility Scale

Attractiveness Trustworthiness Expertise

Attractive-Unattractive Dependable-Undependable Expert-Not an expert
Beautiful-Ugly Honest-Dishonest Experienced-Inexperienced
Classy-Not Classy Reliable-Unreliable Knowledgeable-
Un knowledgeable
Elegant-Plain Sincere-Insincere Qualified-Unqualified
Sexy-Not sexy Trustworthy-Untrustworthy Skilled-Unskilled
Source: Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure Celebrity Endorsers’ Perceived Expertise,
Trustworthiness, and Attractiveness; Ohanian (1990).

In a recent study Pornpitakpan (2003) verified the celebrity endorsers’ credibility scale with
Singaporean sample, which fit the Singaporean data well. The study was replicated by Till and
Busler (1998, 2000) and evaluates the celebrity endorsement.

Source Attractiveness Model

Source Attractiveness Model; considered to be a component of the “source valance” model

(McGuire 1985) and draws on the research in social psychology (McCracken 1989). The
source attractiveness model is mainly based on four dimensions; namely “familiarity”
(knowledge of source through exposure), “likeability” (affection for source based on his/her
physical appearance or behaviour), “similarity” (resemblance between the source and the
audience), and “attractiveness” (McCracken 1989 p. 311). It suggests that effectiveness of the
message depends on these four dimensions. Sources that are familiar, likeable and/or similar
to the consumers are attractive and to this extent persuasive (Ohanian 1990).

Empirical findings posit that physical attractiveness is one of the key factors in an individual’s
initial judgement of another individual as well as influencing attitude change (Baker and

6
Churchill 1977; Caballero and Pride 1984; Chaiken 1979; Joseph 1982; Mills and Aronson
1965). Attractive models led to more favourable attitudes toward the advertisement and
stronger purchase intentions (Patzer 1983; Petroshius and Crocker 1989; Till and Busler 2000).
Physical attractiveness of the celebrity endorser was found to influence subject recall, product
attitudes and purchase intention to a greater extent than endorser likeability or level of product
involvement (Kahle and Homer 1985).

Product Match-up Model

The “Celebrity-Product Match” proposition holds that in order to make an advertisement

effective, there should be congruence between the product and the celebrity in terms of
characteristics such as image, expertise (Till and Busler 1998; Till and Busler 2000) or
attractiveness (Baker and Churchill 1977; Friedman and Friedman 1979; Joseph 1982; Kahle
and Homer 1985). The Match-up model states that attractive endorsers are more effective
when promoting products used to enhance one’s attractiveness (Kamins 1990) and that the
impact will not be significant in the case of an attractiveness unrelated product. Findings for the
research studies conducted by Baker and Churchill (1977), Friedman and Friedman (1979),
Joseph (1982) and Kahle and Homer (1985) demonstrated consistent results.

Kahle and Homer (1985) found that in the case of attractiveness related products, the use of
physical attractive celebrities increased subject recall, product attitudes, and purchase intention.
However, they did not demonstrate that an attractive celebrity is less effective when endorsing
a product not used to enhance one’s attractiveness, such as home computers (Kamins 1990).
Kamins (1990) set up a full test of the match-up proposition. He paired attractive and
unattractive celebrities with either attractiveness related or unrelated products. He paired a
celebrity with a product and found interaction effect between attractiveness and product type.
Predicted interaction was found for “spokesperson credibility” and “attitude toward the
advertisement” but not for “brand attitude” or “purchase intention”. Erdogan et al. (2001)
investigated practitioner’s perspective and found that while selecting celebrity endorsers,
managers considered a number of factors. Consistent to meaning transfer model (McCracken
1989), managers view the celebrity as a multidimensional personality with a bundle of
meanings. Moreover, the study demonstrated that there should be a proper fit between

7
celebrity characteristics and product types. Implicitly, they supported the product-match up
proposition. Agencies considered congruence, credibility, profession, popularity, and
obtainability issues to be more important while deciding upon a celebrity. They also rated
trustworthiness and expertise more important in the case of technical/attractiveness-unrelated
product (Erdogan et al. 2001). On the other hand, they indicated that celebrity’s physical
attractiveness, familiarity and likeability were more important for a non-technical or
attractiveness-related product.

Till and Busler (1998, 2000) examined attractiveness versus expertise as a relevant match-up
factor and found a general attractiveness effect on brand attitude and purchase intent but no
match-up effect was found based on attractiveness. Based on their findings, Till and Busler
(1998, 2000) proposed that though attractiveness is important, expertise is more appropriate
for matching products with a celebrity endorser.

Meaning Transfer Model (McCracken 1986, 1989)

McCracken (1989) addressed the endorsement process from a cultural perspective. He argued
that the endorsement process depends upon the symbolic properties of the celebrity endorser
and the celebrity served the endorsement process by taking on the meanings that then carry
from advertisement to advertisement.McCracken has described the Celebrity Endorsement
process as a special instance of a more general meaning transfer (McCracken 1986;
McCracken 1989). In the model, cultural meanings move through a conventional path to
individual consumers. Meanings begin as something inherent and resident in the culturally
constituted, physical, and social world (McCracken 1986). Meanings move from culturally
constituted world to consumer goods through advertising and fashion systems and than it is
transferred to individual consumer through the efforts of the consumer. Thus, meaning keeps
on circulating in the consumer society (McCracken 1986; McCracken 1989).

McCracken (1989)’s meaning transfer theory has direct implications for the celebrity
endorsement process. He argues that for the purpose of communication, a celebrity has a set
of fictional roles and when consumers respond to celebrity’s specific characteristic, they are in
fact responding to a very particular set of meanings. A celebrity is a persuasive communicator
not only because of being attractive or credible but also because he/she has made up certain

8
meanings the consumer finds compelling and useful (McCracken 1989). The effectiveness of
the endorser depends upon the meanings he or she brings to the endorsement process.

McCracken (1989) has described the whole Meaning Transfer Process in three stages. As
shown in Figure 1 in the initial stage, the meanings generated from distant movie performances,
political campaigns, or athletic achievements and performance, reside in celebrities themselves.
In the second stage, meanings are transferred to the product through advertisement and the
endorsement process. In the third stage the meanings are transferred from the product to the
consumer where the properties of the product become the properties of the consumer
(McCracken 1989).

Figure I

Movement of Meaning and Endorsement Process

Culture Endorsement Consumption

Objects
Persons Celebrity Celebrity Product Product Consumer
Context

Key: = path of meaning movement

= stage of meaning movement
Source: McCracken 1989, p. 315

Walker et al. (1992) concluded that meanings and images transferred from the celebrity
endorsers to product.

Limitations of source and meaning transfer models

McCracken (1989) has strongly criticised source models. According to him, source models
(source attractive and source credibility) failed to capture several important and central
characteristics of the endorsement process. These models make only assertions about the

9
credibility and attractiveness of the message and they do not say anything about the role of an
endorser as a message medium or the continuity of the message from ad to ad (McCracken,
1989, p.311). McCracken further argues that source models (source attractive and credibility)
have not explained why a celebrity fails as an endorser for one brand despite his success for
the other brand. Hence, it cannot serve as theoretical and practical guide to celebrity
endorsement.

Source models can tell us that a consumer will identify with a celebrity but cannot explain why.
According to McCracken (1989), celebrities involve a bundle of meanings and a source model
cannot make sense of these meanings. Source models can tell us only that a celebrity is
attractive, not what causes the attractiveness. On the basis of the source model, we cannot
make useful discrimination between celebrities. They may give some information about the
‘degree’ or ‘extent’ of attractiveness or credibility, but cannot tell anything about the ‘kinds’ of
attractiveness or credibility (McCracken 1989).

This is also the case for meaning transfer which has some limitations. Focusing on the cultural
perspective and symbolic properties of the celebrity endorser, McCracken (1989) has reviewed
real life cases including James Garner. However, his review seems to be more theoretical and
descriptive and lacks research evidence. For example, McCracken (1989) states that
endorsement succeeds when an association is fashioned between the cultural meanings of the
celebrity world and endorsed product, but more is required in terms of how to fashion it.

According to McCracken (1989) the elements are charged with more meanings than wanted for
the product. This means that advertisers should evoke via their advertising campaigns such
meanings. More specific research is required in this direction to examine the possibility and
effectiveness of such controlled meaning transfer.

Proposed model and rationale for the study

This section of the paper presents the rationale of the study and proposed model. Focusing on
the identified gap in the literature, the proposed model examines:

10
 - The interaction between celebrity characteristics (CATLEF) † and product
characteristics (ARP/AURP, EXRP/EXURP, HIP/LIP)‡ at brand level.
- The inter-relation among the celebrity characteristics (CATLEF).
- The interaction between Perceived Celebrity Image (PCI) and Perceived Brand
Image (PBI).
- The relationships and interaction in the international and multi-cultural context,
which will enable the comparison and analysis across the international boundaries.

“Catlef” analysis in multicultural settings

The perceived celebrity endorser image (PCI) has been summarized with a six variable model
of “CATLEF” (Credibility, Attractiveness, Trustworthiness, Likeability, Expertise, and
Familiarity). These variables have been found to interact with each other and are expected to
reflect cultural settings. This study proposes an analysis for all six variables (CATLEF) and
suggests an examination of their inter-relationship in multicultural settings. Figure 2 depicts
Perceived Celebrity Image (PCI) and Perceived Brand Image (PBI) in a six-variable model of
“CATLEF”.

† CATLEF= “Credibility”, “Attractiveness”, “Trustworthiness”, “Likeability”, “Expertise” and “Famaliarity”

‡ ARP= Attractiveness Related Product, AURP= Attractiveness Unrelated Product, EXRP= Expertise Related
Product/Product consistent to endorser’s expertise, EXURP= Expertise Unrelated Product/Product not consistent
to endorser’s expertise, HIP= High Involvement Product/Product High in financial and performance risk, LIP=Low
Involvement Product/Product Low in Financial and Performance Risk

11
 Figure II

Interrelation Among Celebrity Characteristics And Interaction Between Perceived Celebrity

Image And Perceived Brand Image In Multicultural Context

High/Low
Involvement Product

Attractiveness
Expertise
related/unrelated Product
related/unrelated
product Characteristics
product

Expertise Likeability Expertise Likeability

Attractivene Credibility Attractiveness Credibility

ss

Familiarity Trustworthines Familiarity Trustworthines

s s

Perceived Celebrity Image Perceived Brand Image

Media Usage and

Economic Similarity Cultural Similarity
availability Similarity

Interaction between celebrity characteristics and product characteristics

The proposed model examines this interaction between celebrity characteristics and product
characteristics by manipulating celebrity characteristics in terms of attractive or unattractive
celebrity (Kamins 1990; Till and Busler 1998; Till and Busler 2000) and product characteristics
in terms of attractiveness related or unrelated product (Erdogan et al. 2001; Kamins 1990; Till
and Busler 1998; Till and Busler 2000) at brand level. The “Expertise” dimension will be
examined by manipulating celebrity characteristics (expert and non-expert) and product
characteristics (product consistent and inconsistent to the endorser’s expertise) at brand level.
Moreover, Celebrity endorsers have also been found to be more effective in promotion of

12
products high in psychological and/or social risks than products of high financial and
performance risks. The proposed study examines the effectiveness of celebrity endorsers by
manipulating product characteristics in terms of its financial and performance risk (High/Low
Involvement Product).

Analysing the impact of Perceived Celebrity Image (PCI) on Perceived Brand Image (PBI)

Previous research has identified the impact of perceived celebrity image on perceived product
image (McCracken 1989, Walker et al. 1992). The proposed model examines the same in
multicultural settings with an international celebrity endorser. Moreover, there is a tendency by
previous researchers to look at product categories (Kamins 1990; Ohanian 1990; Walker et al.
1992), fictitious brands (Till and Busler 1998; Till and Busler 2000), or unknown brands (Atkin
and Block 1983; Kamins et al. 1989). However, in reality, celebrities are used to endorse
existing brands and therefore it is important to find how a celebrity endorser affects the brand
image. Based on experimental research, the present study proposed to analyse the impact of
Perceived Celebrity Image (PCI) on Perceived Brand Image (PBI).

Analysing the impact of Perceived Brand Image (PBI) on Perceived Celebrity Image (PCI)
“The Reverse Impact”

Just as the celebrity, the brand also possesses certain meanings and images in the mind of
consumer. This perceived brand image might in turn affect the perceived celebrity image. It
should be noted that no prior study has analysed this process from the celebrity endorser’s
perspective and analysed such ‘reverse impact’. Present study will provide important guidelines
to celebrity endorsers in the selection of particular brand.

Grouping and selection of countries

Having reviewed the literature regarding categorisation of international markets, we propose

that the six clusters identified by Sriram and Gopalakrishna (1991) will be a useful method for
selecting international markets in order to test the propositioned celebrity and brand image
model in an international setting. In their study, Sriram and Gopalakrishna (1991) divided forty
countries in to six clusters based on cultural, economical, and media usage and availability

13
similarity. A list of the variables used by Sriram and Gopalakrishna (1991) together with a table
of the six clusters can be found in Appendices 1 and 2.

Research propositions

Based on the literature on celebrity endorsement, globalisation, and cultural differences and
having identified the groups of countries under analysis based on cultural, media availability-
usage for the purpose of advertising standardisation following research propositions have been
proposed.

P1: There will be a significant difference in Perceived Celebrity Image (PCI) across countries
different on the cultural, media availability-usage and economical aspects (i.e. there will be a
significant difference between PCI in UK and PCI in India and between PCI in USA and PCI in
India).

P2: PCI will be consistent across the countries that are similar in terms of cultural, media
availability-usage and economic similarity and a celebrity endorser will be perceived in a similar
way across the countries that are similar i.e. there would not be a significant difference
between PCI in UK and PCI in USA.

P3: There will be a significant difference in Perceived Brand Image (PBI) across the countries
that are different on cultural, media availability-usage and economical aspects i.e. there would
be a significant difference between PBI in UK and PBI in India and between PBI in USA and
PBI in India.

P4: PBI would be consistent across the countries that are similar in terms of cultural, media
availability-usage and economic similarity i.e. there would not be a significant difference
between PBI in UK and PBI in USA.

P5: When a brand is endorsed by a celebrity endorser, PCI and PBI will interact with each
other and images will be transferred from the celebrity to the endorsed brand i.e. there will be a
significant difference between PBI-1 (perceived brand image when evaluated independently)
and PBI-2 (perceived brand image when associated with a celebrity endorser).

14
P6: When a brand is endorsed by a celebrity endorser, PCI and PBI will interact with each
other and images will be transferred from the endorsed brand to the celebrity endorser i.e.
there will be a significant difference between PCI-1 (Perceived Celebrity Image when evaluated
independently) and PCI-2 (Perceived Celebrity Image when associated with a brand).

P7: There will be an interaction among six celebrity and brand characteristics; Credibility,
Attractiveness, Trustworthiness, Likeability, Expertise and Familiarity (CATLEF) and the pattern
of the interaction will be consistent across the similar countries i.e. the there will not be any
significant difference in the pattern of interaction among these characteristics between the USA
and the UK.

P8: There will be an interaction among six celebrity and brand characteristics; Credibility,
Attractiveness, Trustworthiness, Likeability, Expertise and Familiarity (CATLEF) and the pattern
of the interaction will be significantly different across the countries that are not similar i.e. the
there will be a significant difference in the pattern of interaction among these characteristics
between the USA and India and between the UK and India

P9: An attractive celebrity will be more effective in the case of attractiveness related products
than attractiveness unrelated-technical products.

P10: In the case of low involvement (product low in financial and performance risk) an
attractive celebrity will be more effective while in the case of high involvement (product high in
financial and performance risk) and technical product, expertise will be the more important
factor.

Methodology

We hereby outline the design for the present research project which follows the stages
described by Kervin (1992 p. 85-199) and includes discussion of adopted research design,
variable selection, source of data, sampling method and procedure and questionnaire design.
Considering the research proposition and nature of the study, a quantitative research approach
has been proposed. A review of the literature, time, cost, sample size and international and

15
multi cultural aspects of the study make the quantitative approach more suitable for the
purpose of the present study.

The unit of analysis is the individual, more specifically aged between 18-40. Following the
guidelines by Kervin (1992) the basic research design would be “true experimental design”
which is believed to be the most suitable method to ascertain the presence, type and degree of
causal relationship between variables (Sarantakos 1997, p.176). Interaction between celebrity
characteristics and product characteristics will be studied by manipulating celebrity
characteristics in terms of attractive-unattractive celebrity. Product characteristics will be
manipulated in terms of attractiveness related or unrelated product and high or low involvement
product. The result is (Table 2; C-1 to C-8) 2X4 factorial design with 8 different conditions.

Table II

Celebrity-Product Characteristic Matrix

Product ARP AURP EXRP EXURP

Characteristics HIP LIP HIP LIP HIP LIP HIP LIP

Celebrity
Characteristics
Attractive C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4
Unattractive C-5 C-6 C-7 C-8
Expert/Non Expert C-9 C-10 C-11 C-12
Celebrity

Note: ARP=Attractiveness Related Product; AURP=Attractiveness Unrelated Product; EXRP= Expertise Related Product
(Product Consistent to Endorser’s Expertise; EXURP=Expertise Unrelated Product (Product not consistent to Endorser’s
expertise; HIP= High Involvement Product; LIP= Low Involvement Product; AC= Attractive Celebrity Endorser;
UNAC=Unattractive Celebrity Endorser; C= Condition No. (C-1 to C-12 Indicates 12 different conditions)

The study examines the “celebrity-product” fit by attractiveness versus expertise as the match
up factor. This necessitates the additional variable manipulating product characteristics by
involvement (High/Low Involvement Products-HIP-LIP) and expertise (expertise related or
unrelated). This results in 1X4 factorial design with 4 different conditions (Table 2; C-8 to C-12).
All together, combining both the factorial designs described above in one “celebrity-product
characteristics matrix” will result in matrix with 12 different conditions (C-1 to C-12).

The study necessitates the selection of three celebrities; the first an attractive celebrity for C-1
to C-4; the second, an unattractive for C-5 to C-8 and the third one to examine expertise as a
match-up factor (C-9 to C-12). Eight product categories will be required. Each of the proposed

16
product categories have been pre-tested and used in previous research studies (Appendix 4).
Table: 3 outlines proposed product categories.

It should be noted that product categories in the case of C-9 to C-12 depend upon the celebrity
selection and his/her area of expertise and hence it is not possible to propose before the
celebrity selection.

Table III

Proposed Product Categories

Condition No. Proposed Product Categories

C-1 (AC-ARP-HIP) Luxury Car
C-5 (UNAC-ARP-HIP) Luxury Car
C-2 (AC-ARP-LIP) Men’s Cologne
C-6 (UNAC-ARP-LIC) Men’s Cologne
C-3 (AC-AURP-HIP) Home Computer
C-7 (UNAC-AURP-HIP) Home Computer
C-4 (AC-AURP-LIP) Pen
C-8 (UNAC-AURP-LIP) Pen
C-9 (Celebrity-EXRP-HIP) HIP- Consistent to Celebrity’s Expertise
C-10 (Celebrity-EXRP-LIP) LIP- Consistent to Celebrity’s Expertise
C-11 (Celebrity-EXURP-HIP) HIP-Inconsistent to Celebrity’s Expertise
C-12 (Celebrity-EXRP-LIP) LIP-Inconsistent to Celebrity’s Expertise

In order to examine the interaction between PCI and PBI (Research proposition 1, 2, 3, and 4),
data need to be collected at the following four levels.

PCI-1 Perceived Celebrity Image separately (without any association with any brand or
product)
PBI-1 Perceived Brand Image separately (without any association with any celebrity)
PCI-2 Perceived Celebrity Image when associated with particular brand
PBI-2 Perceived Brand Image when associated with particular celebrity endorser.
(These indicators/abbreviations have been used in this document)

In order to examine the impact of PCI and PBI on each other PCI-1 will be compared with PCI-
2 and PBI-1 with PBI-2. The above procedure will generate a before-after (Pre-test post-test)
design, which is consistent with the research design used by Walker et al. (1992).

17
Selection of variables

Consistent with the methodology adopted by Walker et al. (1991), identical variables will be
used to evaluate perceived celebrity image and perceived brand image. Derived from the
previous literature, variables will represent six major celebrity characteristics; “Credibility” (C),
“Attractiveness” (A), “Trustworthiness” (T), “Likeability” (L), “Expertise” (E) and Familiarity (F)
which is referred to “CATLEF”. An emphasis will be placed on the interaction between PCI and
PBI and the impact of PCI and PBI on each other, it would not be appropriate to classify any of
these as dependent or independent variables.

Derived mainly from Ohanian’s (1990), Walker et al. (1992) and Reast (2003), fifty-two
descriptive semantic differential pairs (eight for attractiveness, twelve for trustworthiness, seven
for expertise, four for familiarity, six for likeability, and 15 others) will be used in the pre-test.
Each pair will be evaluated on five point scale (Walker et al. 1992). It should be noted that all
proposed variables have been pre-tested and used in previous research (Walker et al. 1992
Ohanian 1990; Pornpitakpan 2003; Till and Busler 1998; Till and Busler 2000). List of PCI-PBI
variables to be used for the pre-test can be found in Appendix 7.

Proposed Source of Data and Experimental Sampling

Following the guidelines outlined by Kervin (1192 p.157) ‘individual self reports’, being
described as data directly collected from the objects (such as consumers, employees) of the
research by asking them the information about themselves, will be used. In this context,
information will be collected from target population consisting of youngsters of age group 18-40
across three countries.

A judgemental sampling method will be used for the purpose of selecting of the countries.
Sriram and Gopalakrishna (1991)’s “six groups of countries” will be adopted as the base of
classification of countries on the basis of cultural, economical and media availability and usage
similarity. All together, three countries will be selected from six groups, two (different) countries
from two different groups representing each group and two (similar) countries from the same
group (Appendix 2). Twelve versions of (one for each condition C-1 to C-12) web
questionnaires containing PCI and PBI variables will be developed and uploaded on the
internet.

18
Following the methodology adopted by Walker et al. (1992), the questionnaire will be divided in
two sections. In section one, respondents will be requested to evaluate the brand and celebrity
endorser separately, one after another. In section two, respondents will be requested to
evaluate the celebrity endorser and the brand when the celebrity is endorsing the brand.
Identical picture, colour, and image will be used in both the section and across three countries.

Keeping in mind the multicultural dimension of the study, three facts about the celebrity
endorser and brand will be described (Till and Busler 1998, 2000). The variables used in the
questionnaire will be clarified with descriptors or synonyms in order to avoid ambiguities of
meaning of the same word in different cultures.

Research strategy

To generate the appropriate list of international celebrities, the methodology will resemble the
one adopted by Ohanian (1990). In the screening stage, respondents will be asked to list five
attractive and five unattractive celebrities followed by a list of 46 world’s top celebrities
(forbs.com and santabanta.com). Celebrities, familiar in all countries, will be selected on the
bases of total frequency of mention. A list of 30 celebrities derived from the screening stage will
be pre tested and classified as “attractive” or “not attractive” in the first pre test. A list world’s
top 21 brands (Business week 2004) based on product categories, will also be pre tested in
terms of “attractiveness related” or “attractiveness unrelated” and “familiar” or not familiar”.
Based on the first pre-test, six celebrities (three attractive and three not attractive) and six
brands (three attractiveness related and three attractiveness unrelated) will be selected. In
order to identify two celebrities (one attractive and one not attractive) with equivalent degree of
attractiveness, these six celebrities will be evaluated on five-item scale across three countries
(Ohanian 1990). List of branded product categories will also be short listed using similar
approach (Table 3).

Based on the second pre-test, two celebrities and six brands (Table-2, Table-3) will be selected
for the final stage. Twelve different versions (C-1 to C-12; Table-2) of questionnaires will be
developed with the first section evaluating the celebrity and the brand separately (PCI-1 and
PBI-1) and the second section evaluating the celebrity and the brand when associated with
each other (PCI-2 and PBI-2). Consistent with the methodology adapted by Walker et al. (1991),

19
identical variables will be used evaluate celebrities and brands across two section of the
questionnaire.

Data analysis

Research Proposition-1 and 2 necessitates evaluation of the Perceived Celebrity Image

when evaluated separately (PCI-1) for each countries and comparison of Perceived Celebrity
Image (when evaluated separately) PCI-1i across the countries.

Three PCI-1 values will be evaluated; one for each of the countries included within the study
(PCI-1a, PCI-1b and PCI-1c where PCI-1i indicates PCI-1 for country i) on fifty-two - seven point
semantic differential scales. For the purpose of analysis, these items will be averaged (Till and
Busler 2000) to represent PCI-1i. “Attractiveness”, “Trustworthiness”, “Expertise”, “Familiarity”,
“Likeability” and “Others” will also be evaluated separately (PCI= Attractiveness +
Trustworthiness + Expertise +Familiarity + Likeability + Others).

One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be used to compare the mean score of these three
main groups and eighteen sub groups (Perceived “Attractiveness”, “Trustworthiness”,
“Expertise”, “Familiarity”, “Likeability”) across three countries. Post-hoc comparisons will be
conducted to find out which groups are significantly different to one another (Pallant 2003). The
internal consistency of the scale, which refers to the degree to which the items that make up
the scale ‘hang together’ will be measured by calculating Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.

Research Proposition-3 and 4 requires the evaluation of the Perceived Brand Image (PBI-1i)
separately for each country and comparison of the same across the selected countries. Data
analysis approach will exactly be the same as outlined for research proposition 1 and 2.

Research Proposition-5 requires the evaluation of Perceived Brand Image when the brand is
associated and endorsed by the celebrity-PBI-2i (PBI-2 for each of the three countries) and
comparison of PBI-1i with PBI-2i. Following the guidelines given by Pallant (2003, p. 92)
“Paired Sample t-tests” will be used to test the significant difference between the Perceived
Brand Image when evaluated separately (PBI-1) and the Perceived Brand Image when
associated with the celebrity endorser (PBI-2). Similar procedure will be followed for each of

20
the PBI-1i and PBI-2i values for each country. This will enable the researcher to identify the
impact of Perceived Celebrity Image (PCI) on Perceived Brand Image (PBI) across three
international markets.

Research Hypotheis-6 focuses on the impact of Perceived Brand Image (PBI) on Perceived
Celebrity Image (PCI) and requires the comparison between Perceived Celebrity Image when
evaluated separately (PCI-1) with Perceived Celebrity Image when associated with a given
brand (PCI-2). The approach of data analysis will exactly be the same as outlined above for the
research proposition-5 (Paired Sample t-tests).

Research Proposition7 focuses on the analysis of the inter-relationship among the celebrity
characteristics (CATLEF). Following the guidelines given by Pallant (2003, p. 114-130) partial
Correlation will be calculated for each pair of the variables to explore the relationship between
each-two variables which is similar to the approach adopted by Friedman et al. (1978).

Research Proposition-8 attempts to explore the interaction between celebrity characteristics

(attractive/unattractive and expert/non expert) and product characteristics (attractiveness
related/unrelated, expertise related/unrelated and high/low involvement product). The method
of analysis will be Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) which is similar to that adopted by Till and
Busler (1998, 2000) and Kamins (1990).

Limitations

Just like any other research study, the present research study has some limitations.
Reorganisation of these limitations would help to extend and refine the future research in this
area. With regard to the type of sample and sample size, the use of internet users sample only
and 100 respondents per country for each condition, may be considered to be a limitation but
was influenced by time and cost consideration. Internet penetration and the profile of the
internet users may be different across the country and therefore the outcome of the study may
be affected by this factor. Though the attempt was made to use synonyms as and when
required, due to cost, time and technical limitations, the questionnaire has been prepared in
English language. Ideally it should be prepared in multiple languages with backward and
foreword translation.

21
Conclusion

The present paper proposes a research study to consolidate the literature, especially with
regards to the match up propositions and the meaning transfer model with an international
perspective. The outcome of the research is expected to provide a new horizon for future
research integrating the literature of international advertising and celebrity endorsement.
Based on this research, future research can be extended a larger number of countries from
different groups enabling within-group and across-group comparison. This may help
practitioners to identify few international celebrities that can be used worldwide in a
standardised advertisement. Research can also be done to develop and standardise the
measurement scale across cultural and geographical boundaries. Future research in this area
can also consider a more generalisable sample with multiple brands in a given product
category to control the confound impact of the brand image.

22
References

Aaker, David A. (2002), Building Strong Brands. London: Free.

Agrawal, Jagdish and Wagner A Kamakura (1995), "The economic worth of celebrity endorsers:
An event study analysis," Journal of Marketing, 59 (Jul), 56.

Agrawal, Madhu (1995), "Review of a 40-year debate in international advertising," International

Marketing Review, 12, 26.

Appelbaum, Ullrich and Chris Halliburton (1993), "How to develop international advertising
campaigns that work: The example of the European food and beverage sector," International
Journal of Advertising, 12, 223.

Atkin, C. and M Block (1983), "Journal of Advertising Research," 23 (1), 57-61.

Baker, Michael J and Gilbert A Churchill (1977), "The impact of physically attractive models on
advertising evaluations," JMR, Journal of Marketing Research (pre-1986), 14 (Nov), 538.

Benson, P.L., S. A. Karabenick, and R. M. Lerner (1976), "Pretty Pleases: The Effects of
Physical Attractiveness, Race, and Sex on Receiving Help," Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 12, 409-15.

Bradley, Sam (1996), "Marketers are always looking for good pitchers," in Brand week Vol. 37.

Caballero, Marjorie J and William M Pride (1984), "Selected Effects of Salesperson Sex and
Attractiveness in Direct Mail Advertisements," Journal of Marketing (pre-1986), 48 (Winter), 94.

Chaiken, Shelly (1979), "Communicatior Physical Attractivenss and Persuasion," Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (August), 1387-97.

Cooper, Michael (1984), "Can Celebrities Really Sell Products?," Marketing & Media Decisions,
19 (Sep), 64.

23
Czinkota, Michael R and Ilkka A Ronkainen (1995), "Market research for your export operations:
Part II - Conducting primary market research," International Trade Forum, 16.

Elinder, Erik (1965), "How International Can European Advertising Be?," Journal of Marketing
(pre-1986), 29 (Apr), 7.

Erdogan, B Zafer, Michael J Baker, and Stephen Tagg (2001), "Selecting celebrity endorsers:
The practitioner's perspective," Journal of Advertising Research, 41 (May/Jun), 39.

Erdogan Zafer B, Baker Michael J, and Tagg Stephen (2001), "Selecting celebrity endorsers:
The practitioner's perspective," Journal of Advertising Research, 41 (May/Jun), 39.

Fatt, Arthur C. (1967), "The Danger of "Local" International Advertising," Journal of Marketing
(pre-1986), 31 (Jan), 60.

Frieden, Jon B. (1984), "Advertising Spokesperson Effects: An Examination of Endorser Type

and Gender on Two Audiences," Journal of Advertising Research, 24 (Oct/Nov), 33.

Friedman, Hershey H, Michael J Santeramo, and Anthony Traina (1978), "Correlates of

trustworthiness for celebrities," Academy of Marketing Science. Journal (pre-1986), 6 (Fall),
291.

Friedman, Hershey H, Salvatore Termini, and Robert Washington (1976), "The effectiveness of
advertisements utilizing four types of endorsers," Journal of Advertising (pre-1986), 5 (Summer),
22.

Friedman, Hershey H. and Linda Friedman (1979), "Endorser Effectiveness by Product Type,"
Journal of Advertising Research, 19 (Oct.), 63.

Friedman, Hershy H. and et al. (1976), "The Effectiveness of Advertisement Utilizing Four
Types of Endorsers," Journal of Advertising, 5 (SUMMER), 22.

24
Goldsmith, Ronald E, Barbara A Lafferty, and Stephen J Newell/ (2000), "The impact of
corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and
brands," Journal of Advertising, 29 (Fall), 43.

Graham, Judith (1989), "AmEx Lands Paul Newman," in Advertising Age Vol. 60.

Hoft, Nancy (1999), "Global issues, local concerns," in Technical Communication Vol. 46.

Hovland, Carl I., Irving K. Janis., and Harold H. Kelley (1953), Communication and Percsuation,.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Jain, Subhash C. (1989), "Standardization Of International Marketing Strategy: Some R,"

Journal of Marketing, 53 (Jan), 70.

Johnson, Roy S and Ann Harrington (1998), "The Jordan effect," in Fortune Vol. 137.

Joseph, W. Benoy (1982), "The Credibility of Physically Attractive Communicators: A Review,"

Journal of Advertising, 11, 15.

Kahle, Lynn R and Pamela M Homer (1985), "Physical Attractiveness of the Celebrity Endorser:
A Social Adaptation Perspective," Journal of Consumer Research (pre-1986), 11 (Mar 1), 954.

Kaikati, Jack G. (1987), "Celebrity Advertising: A Review and Synthesis," International Journal
of Advertising, 6, 93.

Kamins, Michael A and Kamal Gupta (1994), "Congruence between Spokesperson and
Product Type: A Matchup Proposition Perspective," Psychology & Marketing (1986-1998), 11
(Nov/Dec), 569.

Kamins, Michael A. (1990), "An Investigation Into The 'Match-Up'Proposition In Celebrit,"

Journal of Advertising, 19, 4.

Kamins, Michael A., Meribeth J. Brand, Stuart A. Hoeke, and John C. Moe (1989), "Two-Sided
Versus One-Sided Celebrity ENdorsements: The Impa," Journal of Advertising, 18, 4.

25
Kelman, Herbert C. (1961), "Processes of Opinion Change," Public Opinion Quarterly, 33
(Spring), 57-78.

Kervin, John B. (1992), Methods for Business Research: Harper Collins Publishers.

Kotler, Philip (1986), "Global Standardization -- Courting Danger," The Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 3 (Spring), 13.

Laroche, Michel, V H Kirpalani, Frank Pons, and Lianxi Zhou (2001), "A Model of Advertising
Standardization in Multinational Corporations," Journal of International Business Studies, 32
(Jun), 249.

Laroche, Michel, Nicholas Papadopoulos, Louise Heslop, and Jasmin Bergeron (2003), "Effects
of subcultural differences on country and product evaluations," Journal of Consumer Behaviour,
2 (Mar), 232.

Levitt, Theodore (1983), "The Globalization of Markets," Harvard Business Review, 61

(May/Jun), 92.

Lipman, Joanne (1988), "Ad Fad: Marketers Turn Sour On Global Sales Pitch Harvard Guru
Makes --- Spanning The World Appears Much Easier in Theory, But Works Well for Coke ---
Parker Pen's Disappearing Ink," in Wall Street Journal.

---- (1991), "Celebrity Pitchmen Are Gaining Popularity, but Not Credibility," in Wall Street
Journal.

Marshall, Christy (1987), "It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time," in Forbes Vol. December
28.

Mathur, Lynette Knowles, Ike Mathur, and Nanda Rangan (1997), "The wealth effects
associated with a celebrity endorser: The Michael Jordan phenomenon," Journal of Advertising
Research, 37 (May/Jun), 67.

26
McCracken, GRANT (1986), "Culture and Consumption: A Theoretical Account of the Structure
and Movement of the Cultural Meaning of Consumer Goods," Journal of Consumer Research
(1986-1998), 13 (Jun), 71.

McCracken, Grant (1989), "Who Is The Celebrity Endorser? Cultural Foundations Of The,"
Journal of Consumer Research, 16 (Dec), 310.

McGuire, William J. (1985), Handbook of Social Psychology (Gardner Lindzey and Eliot
Aronson ed.). New York:Random House.

Miller, Gerald P. and John Basehart (1969), "Source Trustworthiness Opinionated Statements,
and Responses to persuasive Communication," Speech Monographs, 36 (1), 1-7.

Mills, Judson and Elliot Aronson (1965), "Opinion Change as a Function of the Communicator's
Physical Attractiveness and Desire to Influence," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
1 (February), 173-77.

Mooij, Marieke de (2004), Consumer Behaviour and Culture, Consequences for Global
Marketing And Advertising: SAGE Publications.

Mooij, Marieke De (2003), "Convergence and divergence in consumer behaviour: Implications

for global advertising," International Journal of Advertising, 22, 183.

Mooij, Marieke de (2000), "The future is predictable for international marketers Converging
incomes lead to diverging consumer behaviour," International Marketing Review, 17, 103.

NewsWeek (1978), "Rum Friends."

Ohanian, Roobina (1990), "Construction and Validation of a Scale to Measure Celebrity,"

Journal of Advertising, 19, 39.

Pallant, Julie (2003), SPSS Survival Manual. Maidenhead-Philadelphia: Open University Press,
McGraw Hill Education.

27
Patzer, Gordon L. (1983), "Source Credibility as a Function of Communicator Physical
Attractiveness," Journal of Business Research, 11 (Jun), 229.

Petroshius, Susan M. and Kenneth E. Crocker (1989), "An Empirical Analysis of Spokesperson
Characteristics on Advertisement and Product Evaluations," Academy of Marketing Science.
Journal, 17 (Summer), 217.

Pornpitakpan, Chanthika (2003), "The Effect of Celebrity Endorsers'Perceived Credibility on

Product Purchase Intention: The Case of Singaporeans," Journal of International Consumer
Marketing, 16, 55.

Roostal, Ilmar (1963), "Standardization of Advertising for Western Europe," Journal of

Marketing (pre-1986), 27 (Oct), 15.

Rossant, John (2000), "A Common Identity for Europe? You Better Believe It," in Business
Week.

Scott, James Calvert (1999), "Developing cultural fluency: The goal of international business
communication instruction in the 21st century," Journal of Education for Business, 74 (Jan/Feb),
140.

Sherman, Stratford P. (1985), "When You Wish upon a Star," in Fortune Vol. 112.

Sriram, Ven. and Pradeep Gopalakrishna (1991), "Can Advertising Be Standardized Among
Similar Countries? A Cluster-Based Analysis," International Journal of Advertising, 10, 137.

Stogel, Chuck (1996), "Hurray for Captain Spalding," in Brandweek Vol. 37.

Till, Brian D and Michael Busler (2000), "The match-up proposition: Physical attractiveness,
expertise, and the role of fit on brand attitude, purchase intent and brand beliefs," Journal of
Advertising, 29 (Fall), 1.

Till, Brian D and Terence A Shimp (1998), "Endorsers in advertising: The case of negative
celebrity information," Journal of Advertising, 27 (Spring), 67.

28
Till, Brian D. and Michael Busler (1998), "Matching products with endorsers: attractiveness
versus expertise," The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15, 576.

Tripp, Carolyn, Thomas D Jensen, and Les Carlson (1994), "The effects of multiple product
endorsements by celebrities," Journal of Consumer Research, 20 (Mar), 535.

Ueltschy, Linda C and John K Ryans (1997), "Employing Standardized Promotion Strategies in
Mexico: The Impact of Language and Cultural Differences," The International Executive (1986-
1998), 39 (Jul/Aug), 479.

Usunier, Jean-Claude (2000), Marketing across cultures (3 ed.): Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

Walker, Mary, Lynn Langmeyer, and Daniel Langmeyer (1992), "Commentary - Celebrity
Endorsers: Do You Get What You Pay For?," The Journal of Services Marketing, 6 (Fall), 35.

West, Douglas C (1993), "Cross-national creative personalities, processes, and agency

philosophies," Journal of Advertising Research, 33 (Sep/Oct), 53.

29
 APPENDIX 1
List of the Variables Used by Sriram and Gopalakrishna (1991)
Economic Indicators
MLIFE Male life expectancy
FLIFE Female life expectancy
WORKWEEK Average manufacturing working week
TELEPHONE Telephone in use per 100 inhabitants
URBAN Percentage urban population
INFLATION Percentage annual inflation rate
PRCAPGNP Per capita GNP (in US $)
LITERACY Percentage of literacy (15 years and older)
POPGRO Percentage of population growth
Culture Indicators
PDI Power distance
UAI Uncertainty avoidance index
IDV Individualism
MAS Masculinity
Media Availability/Usage
PAPCIR Paper circulation/100 population
TVOWN Television/1000
RADOWN Radios/1000
TVSPEND Television advertising spending per capita
RADSPEND Radio advertising spending per capita
OUTDOOR Outdoor advertising spending per capita
CINEMA Cinema advertising spending per capita
Source: Sriram and Gopalakrishna (1991; p. 142)

30
 APPENDIX 2

Clustering countries on the basis of cultural, economic, and media availability and usage
similarity (Sriram and Gopalakrishna 1991)

Cluster
1 2 3 4 5 6
Argentina Australia Austria Denmark India Japan
Brazil Canada Belgium Finland Iran
Mexico Hong Kong Chile Holland Pakistan
Yugoslavia Ireland Colombia Norway Philippines
New Zealand France Sweden Thailand
Peru W. Germany
S. Africa Greece
Singapore Israel
UK Italy
USA Portugal
Venezuela Spain
Switzerland
Taiwan
Turkey
Source: Sriram and Gopalakrishna (1991)

31
 APPENDIX 3

LITERATURE SUPPORT FOR THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG THE VARIABLES

1 Trustworthiness was correlated with familiarity (Friedman, Santeramo and Traina

1978, They used the term “Awareness”)
2 Relationship between familiarity and credibility has not been found in previous literature,
to be examined by the researcher.
3 Relationship between familiarity and likeability has not been found in previous literature,
to be examined by the researcher.
4 Trustworthiness was correlated with attractiveness (Friedman, Santeramo and
Traina 1978), - There is a link between attractiveness and trustworthiness (Till and
Busler 2000).
5 No direct relationship between attractiveness and credibility has been found in previous
literature, to be examined by the researcher.
6 Kamins (1990)
7 Till and Busler (2000) found that expertise manipulation had no effect on perception of
endorser’s trustworthiness or attractiveness. Researcher intends to re-examine this
relationship.
8 Source Credibility Model (Hovland and Weiss, 1951, 52; Hovland, Janes and Kelly,
1953) holds that expertise and trustworthiness are two dimensions of source credibility.

9 Celebrities who are liked would also be trusted. (Likeability-Trustworthiness) (Friedman

and Friedman 1976, Friedman, Santeramo and Traina 1978)
10 Source Credibility Model (Hovland and Weiss, 1951, 52; Hovland, Janes and Kelly,
1953) holds that expertise and trustworthiness are two dimensions of source credibility.

11 Relationship between likeability and credibility has not been found in previous literature.
Researcher intends to examine this relationship.
12 “Attractiveness” dimensions has been explored in previous research by; Baker and
Churchill (1997); Pertroshius and Crocker, (1989); Patzer, (1993); Till and Busler,
(2000); Kahle and Homer, (1985); Kamins (1990). (For further details see Section 3.00)

32
13 “Expertise” dimension of the celebrity endorser has been explored by McGinnies and
Ward (1980); Till and Busler (1998, 2000); Erdogan et al. (2001). (Further details can
be found in section 3.00)
14 No research study has been found on “Familiarity” dimension. Ohanian (1990)
measured familiarity and used as holding variable.
15 “Trustworthiness” dimension of the celebrity endorser has been found in research
studies done by McGinnies and Ward (1980), Erdogan et al. (2001), Till and Busler
(1998, 2000).
16 Source Credibility Model (Hovland and Weiss, 1951, 52; Hovland, Janes and Kelly,
1953). Expertness and trustworthiness are two main dimensions. Ohanian (1990)
developed three dimensions (attractiveness, expertise and trustworthiness)-fifteen
point source credibility scale. Researcher intends to use this source credibility scale
(Ohanian 1990) to measure source credibility in present research study.
17 Link between likeability and trustworthiness has been found in previous research.
Celebrities who are liked would also be trusted (Friedman and Friedman 1976,
Friedman, Santeramo and Traina 1978).
19, 20, 21 Indicates the economic, cultural and media usage-availability similarity (Sriram and
Gopalakrishna 1991). It is expected that the overall interaction will be more consistent
in the case of similar countries than countries that are different on these dimensions.
Table of six clusters of forty countries can be found in Appendix 2.

33
 APPENDIX 4

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH STUDIES

Researcher/Author Manipulated Endorser LIP/HIP Product Used Brand

Variables
Ohanian (1990) Maddona (F) Designer Jeans (Unbranded) New line of
Tom Selleck (M)
Men's Perfume
Jon McEnore(M)
Linda Evans(F) Tennis Rackets Perfume product
Kamins (1990) AC/UNAC Tom Selleck (AC) HIP Luxury Car (ARP) Home Real but relatively

Telly Savalas unknown -Sterling -

ARP/AURP (UNAC) HIP Computer(AURP) WYSE

Walker, Langmeyer and Madonna Bath Towels Blue No brand

Langmeyer (1992) Christie Brinkley Jeans VCR

Till and Busler (1998, Attractiveness, Fictitious LIP LIP With Fictitious Brand S1- Fictitious Aerius 2

2000) (Used Ohanian Expertise and Phill Johnson Pen/Men's Cologne S2-

1990 scale) Product Type Ted Franklin Energy/Candy bar Toba

Kahle and Homer Attractiveness AC-LC-Robert HIP LIP Disposable Razor Edge Razor
Redford & Jaclyn
Smith AC-
UNLC
Likeability Bo Derek & John
Travolta
UNAC-LC-Woddy
Product Allen & Jean
Staplaton
UNAC-UNLC-
Howard Cosell &
(1985)KH Involvement Bily Jean King Toothpaste
Erdogan et al,( 2001) HIP LIP Computer (AURP-HIP) No Brand
Blue Jeans (ARP-LIP)
Atkin and Block (1983)* Celebrity-3 Telly Savalas LIP Alcohol
Happy Hairston
Noncelebrity-3 Cheryl Tiegs
Kamins, Brand, Hoeke Sideness of the Leonard Nimoy HIP Service (Management Existing consulting firm
celebrity's
comments
regarding the
sponsoring
and Moe, (1989)** company Consulting) firm

Note: AC- Attractive Celebrity Endorser; UNAC-Unattractive Celebrity Endorser; LIP-Low

Involvement Product; HIP-High Involvement Product; F- Female; M-Male; LC-Likeable
Celebrity; UNLC- Unliekable Celebrity; ARP-Attractiveness Related Product; AURP-
Attractiveness Unrelated Product

34
 APPENDIX 5

Summary of the Variables Used in Previous Research

Dependent Variable Used BA PI SB SC ST SA SE SF SL AB AC ATA EFP AOC PA PR BR SCP

Researcher/Author

Ohanian (1990)*** 3 5 5 5

Kamins (1990) 1 1 1 1 1 4
Smith1983

-3

7 5 5 7 7 to +3
Walker, Langmeyer and 25

Langmeyer (1992)WL 7
Till and Busler (1998, 2000) 3 3 5 5 5 2 3 9 1

(Used Ohanian 1990 scale) 9 9 9

Kahle and Homer (1985)KH 3 14 1 1 1

9 11 9 11
Erdogan et al,( 2001)

Atkin and Block (1983)* 1 1 1 1 18 6 7 1

11 11 11 7 11
Kamins, Brand, Hoeke and 1 2 1

Moe, (1989)**
Frideman, Santeramo and

Traina(1978)

NOTE: BA: Brand Attitude; PI: Purchase Intent; SB: Spokespersons Believability; SC:
Spokespersons Credibility; ST: Spokesperson’s Trustworthiness; SA:
Spokesperson’s/celebrity’s Attractiveness; SE: Spokesperson’s/celebrity’s Expertise; SF:
Spokesperson’s/Celebrity’s Familiarity; SL: Spokesperson’s /Celebrity’s Likeability AB:
Advertiser’s Believability; AC: Advertiser’s Credibility; ATA: Attitude toward Advertisement EFP:

35
Endorser Fit with the Product; AOC: Appropriateness of the Combination; PA: Perceived
Product Attributes; PR: Product Recall; BR: Brand Recall; SCP: Spokesperson’s/Celebrity’s
Competence
NOTE:-- Grey shaded box indicates that variable used by the respective researcher.
- Digit at the top of the grey box stands for the number of items used to evaluate the given
variable
- Bottom digit of the grey box stands for the point of scale on which that variable was evaluated

36
 APPENDIX 6

Factors in Choice of the Basic Research Design (Source Kervin 1992 p. 113)

Prediction Evaluation Explanatory

Research Research Research

Manipulable Assumed Yes No Yes

Independent
Variable

Comparison
Group on No Yes No Yes
Manipulated
Variables?

Random
Assignment of No Yes No Yes
the Cases?

Non- Quasi- True-

Preferred Choice experimental experimental experimental
Design Design Design

37
 Appendix 7

PCI-PBI Variables

Attractiveness ( 8 variables)
Attractive-Unattractive Ohanian 1990, Walker. et. al. 1992
Classy-Not Classy Ohanian 1990
Beautiful-Ugly Ohanian 1990
Elegant-Plain Ohanian 1990
Sexy-Not Sexy Ohanian 1990; Walker. et. al. 1992
High Class-Low Class Walker. et. al. 1992
Sophisticated-Unsophisticated Ohanian 1990 Walker. et. al. 1992
Exotic-Ordinary Walker. et. al. 1992
Trustworthiness ( 12 variables)
Dependable-Undependable Ohanian 1990
Honest-Dishonest (honest and fair in dealing) Reast 2003

Reliable-Unreliable Ohanian 1990; Reast 2003;

Walker. et. al. 1992
Sincere-Insincere Ohanian 1990; Walker. et. al. 1992
Trustworthy-Untrustworthy Ohanian 1990; Walker. et. al. 1992
Serious-silly Walker. et. al. 1992
Risky-Safe Walker. et. al. 1992
Predictable-unpredictable Reast 2003
Truthful-untruthful Reast 2003
Gives you confidence in-gives you little Reast 2003
confidence in
Dependable-not dependable Reast 2003
Is a (brand) I trust- Is a brand I don’t trust Reast 2003
Expertise (7 expertise)
Expert-Not an expert Ohanian 1990; Reast 2003
Experienced-Inexperienced Ohanian 1990
Knowledgeable – Unknowledgeable Ohanian 1990
Qualified-Unqualified Ohanian 1990
Skilled-unskilled Ohanian 1990
Proven-Revolutionary Walker. et. al. 1992
Highly Competent-has poor competence Reast 2003

Familiarity (4 variables)
Wide appeal-Limited appeal Walker. et. al. 1992
Is very popular (brand)- Is not very popular brand Reast 2003
Is well known and well regarded-not well known Reast 2003
and well regarded
Highly visible in media-is not highly visible in Reast 2003
media
Likeability (6 variables)
Like-Dislike Walker. et. al. 1992

38
Does have a good image overall-does not have Reast 2003
good image overall
Is one that most people have a high opinion-Is Reast 2003
one that most people have low opinion
Has Good reputation-Has poor reputation Reast 2003
Pleasant –Unpleasant Walker. et. al. 1992
Nice-Nasty Walker. et. al. 1992
Others (15 Variables)
High Quality-Low Quality Walker. et. al. 1992; Reast 2003
Consistent in quality- has inconsistent quality Reast 2003
Modern-Old fashioned Walker. et. al. 1992
Luxurious- Spartan Walker. et. al. 1992
Does lots of new things-Does very few new things Reast 2003
Soft- Hard Walker. et. al. 1992
Natural-Unnatural Walker. et. al. 1992
Feminine-Unfeminine Walker. et. al. 1992
Low keyed-Intense Walker. et. al. 1992
Useless-Useful Walker. et. al. 1992
Rugged –Delicate Walker. et. al. 1992
Subdued-Outlandish Walker. et. al. 1992
Introvert-Extrovert Walker. et. al. 1992
Young-Old Walker. et. al. 1992
Has similar values to me-Has dissimilar values to Reast 2003
me
TOTAL- 52
(Source: Ohanian 1990, Walker. et. al. 1992 –Reast 2003)

39