B, Zafer Erdogan Dumlupinar University Turkey bayram.berdogan® yahoo.c0.0k ‘Michael J. Baker Nottingham Business School ‘Stephen Tage University of Strathclyde Selecting Celebrity Endorsers: The Practitioner’s Perspective Although a number of scholars have investigated effective celebrity endorser characteristics with consumer samples using experimental methods, there is only one study by Miciak and Shanklin (1994) that explored the point of view of practitioners who are responsible for the selection of celebrities. This paper investigates British advertising agency managers’ consideration of important celebrity characteristics when selecting an endorser and these factors’ importance according to product types. The fesearch findings validate much of the consumer-based research in that managers consider a range of criteria when choosing celebrity endorsers and indicate that the importance of the criteria depends on the product type. Deseyfe rie onvious economic advantage of using. relatively unknown personalities as endorsers in adver ing campaigns, the choice of celebrities to fulfil that role has become common practice for companies competing in today's eluttered media A recent estimate indicates that arourld one-quarter ofall commercials screened in the United States inelude celebrity endorsers mp, 2000). Although celebrity endorsement has a historic presence in Great Britain, the num- ber of celebrity campaigns has increased markedly in recent years. In fact, our findings show that one in five marketing communications campaigns in the United Kingdom feature celebrities There are several reasons for such extensi of celebrities. Because of their high profile, celeb- rities may help advertisements stand out from sur rounding clutter, thus improving their communi cative ability (Atkin and Block, 1983; Sherman, 1985), Colebrities may also generate extensive PR leverage for brands. For example, when Revlon launched the “Won't kiss off test” for its Colorstay lipsticks in 1994 with Cindy Crawford kissing re porters, the campaign featured on almost every rmajot news channel and equally widely in the press Although research findings are equivocal about the ability of celebrities to generate actual pur chase be! wie, positive impact on economic re: turng of sponsoring companies are well- documented (Agrawal and Kamakura, 1995; Mathur, Mathur, and Rangan, 1997). The best ex: “ample is Michael Jordan and his range of endorse- ments (@.g., Nike, Coke, Wheaties, McDonald's, Hanes, WorldCom, Oakley, Gatorade). His effect has been calculated to have contributed around $10 illion to the U.S. economy during the 14 years of his NBA career (Forte, 1998) {As well as promoting established brands, celeb rities are used to promulgate new brand images, reposition brands, or introduce new ones. For ex ample, Lucozade, a soit drink brand that had been associated with sick children, was able to achieve a ‘completely new image by association with famous athletes and British soccer pl Kitchen, 1998). Global marketing communication strategies can ers (Erdogan and be victim in individual countries to cultural “road. blocks,” such as time, space, language, relation ships, power, risk, masculinity, femininity, and :many others (Hofstede ,1984; De Mooi, 1994). Ce- lebrities with worldwide populari ‘ean help com> panies avoid many of these problems (Kaikati, 1987). Indeed, Advertising Age International (1997) reported that PepsiCo’s management attributed its 2 percent global market share increase, in an in dustry where a 1 percent rise in market share is ‘equivalent to millions of dollars, to the British pop _group, Spice Girls Despite these potential benefits, there ate still UERTISING RESEARCH 39 May © June 2001 JOURMALCELEBRITY ENDORSERS ‘many potential hazards in basing a mar- keting communications campaign on a ce- lebrity endorser(s). In fact, it has been found that negative information about a celebrity endorser not only influences con- sumers’ perception of the celebrity but also the endorsed product (Klebba and Unger, 1982; Til and Shimp, 1998). This cffect was clearly an embarrassment 0 Hertz, which had utilized ©.) Simpson as their endorser. Although many companies Include clauses in celebrity contracts for termination on grounds of moral turpi: tude and or take out “death, disablement, and disgrace” insurance to cover the foibles of celebrity endorsers, they may still lose out on their investment and image. Another important strategic issue is subsequent overexposure when a celeb- rity becomes an endorser for many di- verse products and the relationship be- tween the celebrity and a particular brand ceases to be distinctive (Mowen and Brown, 1981). This may not only compro- rise the value of celebrities in the eyes of their fans (Graham, 1989) but also make ‘consumers overtly aware of the true na: ture of the endorsement, which has less to do with the attributes of the brand, and more to do with money (Cooper, 1984, ‘Tripp, Jensen, and Carlson, 1994), Furthermore, celebrities may disappear from the media spotlight before the end of contractual term even if they had won seven Olympic gold medals when it started (Ziegel, 1983). Last, it is unusual for celebrities to change their image sud- denly, but when this oceurs it can destroy the very rationale of the relationship. For instance, the ex-Spice Git set out to divest herself of the group's “naughty” image by endorsing cancer ing, ambassador” by the United Nations but i Halliwell, charities and was appointed a “ro lost much of the potential benefit of her new persona when a press photographer caught her smoking, PRIOR RESEARCH [As can be inferred from this quick over- view, the selection of celebrity endorsers is an important task. In consequence, the subject has attracted a considerable amount of academic andl practitioner in- teres, from the foundations laid by Cat Hovland and his associates in the early 1950s (Hovland, Janis, and Kelley, 1953; Hovland and Weiss, 1951). Following his initial Source Crexkibility Model, three ad- ditional models have been proposed—the Source Attractiveness Model (McGuire, 1968), the Product Match-Up Hypothesis (Kahle and Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990), and the Meaning Transfer Model (McCracken, 1989). Indeed, a recent litera- ture review by Erdogan (1999) cites over 45 aondemic articles dealing with celebrity tendorsement strategy in mainstream mar- keting and communication journals, The first of these models, the Source (Credibility Model, contends that the effec tiveness of a message depends on per- ceived level of expertise and trustworthiness ‘of an endorser (Hovland and Weiss, 1951; 1953; Ohanian, 1991), In formation from a credible source (eg, ce- Hovland et al lebrity) can influence beliefs, opinions, at- titudes, and/or behavior through a pro cess called internalization, which occurs when receivers accept a source influence in terms of their personal attitude and value structures (Kelman, 1961). Trustieor- thinessrofers to the honesty, integrity, and believability of an endorser as perceived by the target audience. Although Fried- ‘man et al, (1978) found that trustworthi- ness is the major determinant of source ‘credibility, Ohanian’s (1991) finclings ind cated that trustworthiness of a celebrity was not significantly related to purchase intentions Expertise is defined as the extent to Which a communicator is perceived to be 2 source of valid assertions. It refers tothe perceived level of knowledge, experience, 40 JOURNAL OF AOUERTISING RESEARCH May * June 2002 or skills possessed by an endorser (How land et al, 1953). A celebrity that is more of an expert has been found to be more persuasive (peck, Schumann, and Thomp- son, 1988) and can generate more inten tions to buy the brand (Ohanian, 1991, The Source Attractiveness Model con- tends that the effectiveness of a message depends on the similarity, fanilarty, and (McGuite, 1968), Similarity is defined as a supposed resem- liking of an endorse blance between the source and the re- ceiver of the message, familiarity as know!- edge of the source through exposure, and Liknblity as affection for the source as a rusult of the source's physical appearance and behavior. A. generalized application to advertising has been suggested that “physical attractiveness” of a communica tor determines the effectiveness of persust sive communication through a process called identification, which is assumed to ‘occur when information from an attractive source is accepted as a result of desire to identify with such endorsers (Kelman, 1961), Research has shown physically at- tractive communicators are more succes ful at changing beliefs (Baker and Chu chill, 1977; Chaiken, 1978; Debevee and Kernan, 1984) and generating purchase in lentions (Friedman et a, 1976; Petty and Cacioppo,1983; Petroshius and Crocker, 1989) than their unattractive counterparts. On the other hand, Caballero et a. (1988) found thot positive feelings toward adver tising and products do not necessarily translate into actual behavior or purchase intentions. ‘The Product Match-up Hypothesis I ‘erature maintains that messages conveyed by the celebrity image and the product should be congruent for effective adver- tising (Forkan, 1980; Kahle 1985; Kamins, 1589, 1990). The determi- nant of the match between celebrity and sndl Homer, brand depends on the degree of perceived “fit” between brand and celebrity image(Misra and Beatty, 1990). Advertising a product via a celebrity whose image is highly congruent with the brand leads to greater advertiser and celebrity believabil- ity compared with a situation in which there is low congruence (Kamins and Gupta, 1994). Indeed, this may be the rea- son for the extensive usage of attractive celebrities (eg., Jennifer Aniston, Kate Mess, Madonna, and Cindy Crawford) for personal care products, shampoo, skin and hair care, and make-up. The emphasis of product match-up re search has been on the proper matth be- thwoen a celebrity and a product baged on celebrity physical attractiveness. How- fever, tio studies by Ohanian (199}) and ‘Till and Busler (1998) dealt with expertise and concluded that special attention should be paid to employ celebrities who are perceived to be experts by the target audiences. It is clear that the Match-up Hypothesis research may have to ¢xtend, beyond attractiveness and credibility to- ward a consideration and matching of the entire image of the celebrity with the en- dorsed brand and the target audienge. The ‘source credibility and attractiveness mod- ‘els may be inadequate in providing a heu- ristic for appropriate celebrity endorser selection as DeSarbo and Harshman at= sgued in 1985, Indeed, similar research has been sug> gested by McCracken (1989) and linder~ taken by Langmeyer and Walker (199La, by). According to McCracken (1989), celeb rity endorsements are special examples of 1 more general process of meaning trans- fer. In this process, thes ional path for the movement of cultural mean- ing in consumer societies. This progess in- volves three stages: the formation) of co- lebrity image, transfer of meaning, from celebrity to product, and finally from product to consumers. MeCracken’s (1989) Model of Meaning Transfer may at first seem a merely theoretical concept, but its replicability to real life was dem: ‘onstrated by two studies by Langmeyer and Walker (1991, b). Their studies dem- onstrated that symbolic meanings pos- sessed by celebrities (Cher; Madonna, and Chest dorsed brand/product (Scandinavian Brinkley) transferred to the en- Health Spas, bath towels, and blue jeans. ‘THE sTUDY The literature is predominantly U.S based and mostly comprises studies that test celebrity endorser characteristics in experiments using consumer samples. Only one study by Miciak and Shanklin (1994) investigated the factors taken into account by advertising practitioners when choosing celebrity endorsers based on a small sample including 21 ageney and 22 company practitioners. As a result, there is a further need for a practitioner-based study with a larger and different (e.g, British) sample that aims to understand the practitioner's mindset in deciding, which celebrity to utilize. Such a study may provide invaluable insights for Brit ish advertising agencies in striving to find the “right” celebrity endorser for ther cli- ents’ brand, It may also be of use to prac- titioners in other countries, since U.K= based advertising agencies are considered to be centers of excellence in the global marketing communication industry. Fur- thermore, this study may provide a “tri angulation” for previous consumer-based indings may shed light on how consistent the academic studies. In other words, the research in the field of celebrity endorse- ‘ment is with the behavior of agency man- agers. Therefore, the study reported here first aimed to me ture the importance of indi vvidual celebrity characteristics in order to “replicate” Miciak and Shanklin’s study ‘with a much larger sample. To do that, a measurement scale was developed from the titerature and exploratory interview CELEBRITY ENDORSERS findings and pre-tested with six manag cers, The two methods of pre-testing (in- terviews and the form of the main survey) were simultaneously conducted with three managers per mode as suggested by Kinnear and Taylor (1996) in order to ad dress the divided academic debate on the most appropriate method of pre-testing, In the first mode of pre-testing, authors first briefed! managers about the objectives tf the study and asked them to complete the questionnaire. Then, the researcher in vited manage nology used in the questionnaire and its relevance to advertising agency managers; to. comment on: the termi- bout the layout and the length of the questionnaire; about the content and the sequence of the questions; and last about their further suggestions for improving the research instrument. The second mode ‘was executed by mail, which included the cover page for the questionnaire, the ques- tionnaire itself, a business-reply envelope (BRE), and also a letter inviting respon- dents to comment on the same issues cov~ ‘ered during the interview mode. Aer incorporating the pre-test results, the number of scale items was 17, plus an “other” option which subsequently gener- ated no response at all. The reason for not using Miciak and Shanklin’s 25-item scale unmodified is that, during the pre-test stage, managers indicated that several items intheir scale were confusing, repetitive, or uunnecessary for British practitioners. This may have been due to the United King- ‘dom and the United States having ditfer- tent marketing communications styles. The second objective of the study was to test the relative importance of five celeb- rity characteristics for two types of prod ucts, The celebrity charactersties, (teust- worthiness, expertise, physical attractive ness, familiarity, and likability) were taken from the identification and internal- ization processes described by Kelman (1961). The products selected were per- May * June 2001 JOURDRL OF ADUERTISING RESEARCH 42.CELEBRITY ENDORSERS sonal computers and blue jeans, While the former is a technical/attractiveness— unrelated product high in financial and performance risk (Kamins, 1989; 1990), the latter is a nontechnical/attractiveness— related product (Langmeyer and Walker, 1991b) that is relatively low in financial and performance risk. In order to achieve the second objective of the study, the following five hypoth- ceses were constructed HA celebrity's perceived trustwor thiness is more important for _managers when selecting a celeb: rity endorser for a technical/ attractiveness-unrelated product as opposed to a nontechnical/ attractiveness-related product. Ha A celebrity's perceived expertise is a more important criterion for managers when selecting a celeb- rity endorser for a technical/ attractiveness-unrelated product than a nontechnical attractive noss-related product, A celebrity's perceived physical attractiveness is more important for managers when selecting a ce lebrity endorser for a nontechni= cal/attractivencss-related prod uct as opposed to a technical/ attractiveness-unrelated product. Hyg A celebrity's perceived familia ity is @ more important factor for managers when selecting a celeb rity endorser for a nontechnical/ attractiveness-related product than a technical/attractiveness- unrelated product. Hy A celebrity's perceived Likability is more important for managers when selecting a celebrity endorser for a nontechnical/attractiveness- related product as opposed to a 42 ll technical attractiveness-unrelated product. As can be gathered, the first two hy- potheses propose that advertising agency managers regard source credibility criteria as more important for a technical/ attractiveness-unrelated product (e.g. personal computers) than for a nontechni- cal/attractiveness-related product (e.g, blue jeans). On the other hand, the last three hypotheses argue that managers value celebrity attractiveness factors as ‘more important for a nontechnical/ attractiveness product (eg., blue jeans) than for a technical/attractiveness-unre- lated product (eg. personal computers). ‘METHODOLOGY The research design progressed from ex- ploratory interviews toa mail survey. The first phase was exploratory, as it was felt that developing and testing hypotheses derived only from the literature would not provide a precise reflection of what factors might be considered by practitio: ners. It was reasoned that large advertis: ing agencies were more likely to utilize Celebrities in campaigns, since celebrities carry high price tags. In fact, the mail sur- vey findings proved that this was the ease. The agency sample was taken from a ree: ognized listing of the 300 largest agencies in the United Kingdom (Canpign, 1997). Interviews were conducted with ten man= agers from nine advertising agencies who had extensive experience in celebrity cam- paigns (two CEOs, three account direc: tors, two creative directors, a casting rector, and two planning directors) and a celebrity director from a specialty research agency. Fax responses were also received from two agencies. After having explored the factors. con- sidered by practitioners in selecting celeb- rity endorsers, a mail survey was launched. The respondents included. ad: IAL OF ADUEATIING RESEARCH tay « June 2002 vertising agency directors/managers working at agencies that were members of the Institute of Practitioners in Advertis- ing (IPA), the British equivalentof the 4As inthe United States. Though they account only for around 10 percent ofall advertis- ing agencies in the United Kingdom, these transact more than 80 percent of total ULK. advertising expenditure (IPA, 1998), Purposive sampling was used with the objective of reaching agency managers who had been involved in celebrity cam= paigns. We first e-mailed agencies, which enabled us to determine only the names of sn 10 agencies (10/206 = 48 per- cent). After this “fruitless” attempt, the ‘names of managers inthe remaining agen- cies were obtained by phone. Besides identifying managers, these efforts al- owed us to determine to which advertis- ing agencies the surv was relevant, since some might not have utilized celeb: cities in their campaigns. Indeed, 58 out of 206 agencies were eliminated from the study for two reasons: 4 had no prior in- volvement in celebrity campaigns and 24 were media buying specialists and there= fore not involved in the process of adver- tising development. At the end, 414 agency managers from 148 agencies were Jdlentfied and included in the survey. After two waves, 131 out of 414 GL percent) questionnaires from 80 out of 148 (54 percent) agencies were received. Con- sidering that 20 to 30 percent response rates are considered to be good in Europe (Baker, 1992), this response rate is at the high end of the scale. It is in fact almost the same as the one obtained by Ferrell and Krugman (1983) from the U.S. adver= tising industry. AAs can be seen in Table 1, the majority of respondents worked for agencies hay: ing annual billings above 12 million pounds in 1998. One-way ANOVA and Bonferroni method of multiple compari- son test results indicate that the responserate from the smallest agency category was significantly lower than all other cat egories except the second largest (F + 4.52, 1 <.001). As indicated earlier, the Feason for this may be the fact that smaller agen cies are less likely to utilize celebrities in campaigns than their larger counterparts, Although positions held by respon= dents varied from agency CEO/MD/ CChaigperson to producers, account man- agers constituted the majority. However, there was no statistically significant lifer- ‘ence among response rates. The damina- tion of account managers (e.g, executive director, director, manager, executive) ‘was intentional since the exploratory in- terviews revealed that account mahagers ‘were the most likely to manage the pro- cess of selecting celebrity endomets (see Table 1) Over 80 percent of the respondents had at least six years of work experiente. All the respondents had been involved in ce- lebrity campaigns, with more than 40 per= cent being involved with six or more ce lebrity campaigns at the time of the sur TABLE 1. Response Rates by Agency Size and Positions emt ocr cede me mate a 7 ‘£25.4m-£100m z 89 Sine foo us iat oun ee 7 cate ae a CELEBRITY ENDORSERS ... Whether the celebrity is a branduser was considered to be unimportant . . . vey. In light ofthis response, we consider the findings representative of the popula- tion of U.K. advertising agencies actively involved in the recruitment and use of co lebrities as endorsers FINDINGS, Since the exploratory inte a backbone for the ma report findings from the mail survey. jews served as survey, we mainly Importance of celebrity ‘characteristics in general Table 2 depicts mean scores for impor tance of celebrity characteristies in rank order. Celebs target audience and brand match-up, and overall image of the celebrity, scored very high on the S-point Likert scale in which 5 ‘very important and 1 = very unimportant. This isin line with the findings of Friedman and Fried and Positions Responses puced___ Peau 5 ine 3 arr —_ 35 19 23 ” are 20 _ 19 a7 2 307 ‘ 20.0 s 50.0 man (1978, 1979), Kahle and Homer (1985), Kamins (1990), Kamins and Gupta, (1994), Langmeyer and Walker (1991a, 1991), Misea and Beatty (1990), Ohanian (1990, 1991), and with arguments put for ward by McCracken (1989) Respondents considered the cost and. likelihood of hiring the celebrity, celebrity trustworthiness, controversy risk, prior endorsements, and celebrity familiarity and likability to be inportant factors. Risk of celebrities overshadowing brands and the stage of celebrity life cycle were some- ua important Although previous academic research concentrated on celebrity expertise and physical attractiveness (Friedman, Ter- ‘mini, and Washington, 1976; Baker and Churchill, 1977; Chaiken, 1979; Debevee and Kernan, 1984; Speck, $ Thompson, 1988; Petroshius ane Crocker, 1999), these were indicated to be neither Important nor unimportant along, with ce- ‘human, and lebrity profession and a celebrity's mem- bership of the actors’ union. A possible explanation for this iscrepaney between scholars and practitioners could be that ‘most advertising agency managers per- ceive a colebrty as a gestalt and do not differentiate attractiveness and credibility characteristics, Indeed, one of the respon- dents during the interviews claimed that “when a person is famous, people forget about what the person looks like as every~ tone knows the face, and it is hard to judge Whether the person is pretty or ugly.” Lastly, whether the celebrity isa brand user was considered to be unimportant to the deci cers should consider this unimportant, jon. It is interesting, that manag since campaigns have suffered as a result of celebrities being caught using compet May + June 2001 JOURMAL OF ADUERTISING RESEARCH 43‘CELEBRITY ENDORSERS TABLE 2 Mean Scores of Criteria Importance Celebritytarget audience match Celebrity ir Overall image of the celebrity Cost of acquiring the celebrity Celeonty tustworthiness The lkelnood of acquiring the celebaity Celebrity controversy risk Celebrity famiianty Be Celebrity prior endorsements, Celebrity tikability Risk of celebrity overshadowing brands The stage of celebrity life cycle Celebrity expertise Celebrity profession Celebrity physical attractiveness Celebrity equity membership status Whether celebrity is a br i user tors’ brands of not using the product/ service at all. A British example occurred ‘when Helena Bonham-Carter admitted in her first brand interview for Yardley that she rarely used make-up. In order to identify underlying charac- teristics oF celebrity endorsers that are considered by agency managers, the scale was subjected to Exploratory Factor Analysis by using Principal Component Analysis Extraction with Promax Rotation. ‘This procedure reduced the number of fac: tors from seventeen to five (see Table 3), Al statistics support the use of factor analysis. The KMO test is at the high end of the scale (0.76), assuring that sampling Js adequate, and the Chi-square score of Bartlet’s test of sphericity is also quite high with a very high level of significance oe 625, P < 1). Components with eig: Mean st, ev, ‘ies a6 456 269 a9 968 434 ‘ a8 aura 4 ort 43 a2 407 ‘ove 0 oe get +300 Sn 322 a7 310 003 309 280 208 110 2.63 oss Ve Unit cenvalues greater than 1 and individual factor loadings of (+/-) 05are considered to be significant (Hair et al, 1995). In fact, “overall image of the celebrity was disregarded despite showing as 9 separate item, because it had an eigen value andl a factor loading less than T and. 05, respectively ‘These five components account for 65 percent of the total variance: congruence, credibility, profession, popularity, and obtain ability, tn other words, when agencies de- cide upon a celebrity, five main issues are considered: Does the celebrity have con: gruent associations with the produet/ brand and the target audience? Is the ce lebrity credible? What is the celebrity's profession? Is he or she popular? Can we ‘obtain his or her service? Five summated scales were calculated 44 SOURDRL OF ROUERTISING RESEARCH ntay « June 2001 to correspond to the components. The al- pha coefficients are acceptably high and are included in Table 3. Importance of celebrity characteristics according to product types In order to test the five hypotheses, the data were subjected to paired sample two-tailed tests. Respondents were asked to indicate each characteriste's im- cle from 5 = most important to 1 = least important. When taken together, all hypotheses test results imply that the agency manager's portance for each product on a behavior is in line with the product match-up hypothesis research (Kahle ane Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1990; Misra and Be- atty, 1990; Kamins and Gupta, 1984; 1 and Busler, 1998) since they have indi- cated that the importance of specific celeb- rity: charact product types. More specifically, as can be seen in istics differ according to Table 4, agency managers rated celebrity trustworthiness and expertise more im- portant in the case of a technical/ attractiveness-unrelated procluct than for a nontechnical /attractiveness-related product (Hy; = 157, df = 125, P < 001) (Hy; 1 = 147, df = 125 P < 001)}. On the contrary, they indicated that celebrity phys likability were more important for a non technical /attractiveness-related product than for 2 technical/attractiveness al attractiveness, familiarity, and unrelated product [(H.st = -239, df= 128, p<.) (Hy: f= 42, dF = 125, p < 001) (Hy t= -5.1, df= 125, p-<.001)], Thus, all hypotheses were upheld. In addition to testing these five hypoth feses, three more paired sample Htests were run in order to determine whether the most important individual celebrity characteristic for each product category is clearly more important than the others. The frst test compared the relative impor-TABLE 3 Factor Analysis of Important Celebrity Endorser Characteristics | Components Individual items Loadings Congruence Celebrity plysical attractiveness 7 w= .7L — Colebritytarget audience maten 73 Colebrity-product/brand match 68 The stage of celebrity life cycle 64 Credibility Celebrity controversy disk 86 = .72 _Colebrty prior endorsements 76 Celebrity trustworthiness 74 Profession Whether celebrity is a brand user w= 68 — Colebrity profession Celebrity EQUITY membership status Celebrity expertise Risk of colebnty overshadowing brands Popularity Celebrity familanty =.75__ Celebrity tikeabilty Obtainabitity Cost of acquiring the celebrity 73.,__The likelihood of acquiring the celebrity Eigenvalues 4.8 7 Vatiance explained (percent) 20. 11. tance of trustworthiness and expertise for a technical /attractiveness-unrelated product, Although managers indicated co lebrity trustworthiness is more important than expertise, the difference is not statis- tically significant (1 = 1.6, df= 125, )<.11) ‘Thuis, these two credibility criteria dre not distinctly more important than one an- other when deciding upon a celebrity en- dlorser for agency managers for a fechni- cal attractiveness such as PCS ‘The second test contrasted the impor arelated product tance of celebrity physical attractiveness with familiarity for a nontechnical/ attractiveness-related product: Results are statistically significant (F = 6.3, df + 125, p << 001) showing that celebrity physical at tractiveness is more important thar famil farity, The last paired sample t-test also compared the importance of celebrity TABLE 4 Bssaa 87 5 83 52 18 13 14 a7 CELEBRITY ENDORSERS physica attractiveness with likability for a ‘nontechnical /attractiveness-related proc- uct. Findings again indicate a statistically significant difference (! = 10.1, df = 125, p < 001) between the importance of celeb= rity phy in favor ofthe former. Asa result itis safe cal attractiveness and likability to argue that physical attractiveness is the most important criterion among the three attractiveness factors forageney managers when selecting a celebrity endorser for a nontechnical attractiveness-related prod- uct such as blue jeans. ‘CONCLUSION The findings of this study have a number ‘of implications for both theory and prac- tice. At the theoretical level, the research first shows that managers consider a set of criteria when selecting celebrity endorsers implying that managers do not see celeb- rities as unidimensional individuals (es, tractive, credible). The reason for this may very well be that, as McCracken (1989) argues, celebrities are different from unknown endorsers as they repre senta variety of meanings that are drawn. from the roles they assume n television, Mean Scores of Celebrity Characteristics for PCs and Blue Jeans Charactoristics. Trustworthiness Expertise Familiarity Likaoity Physical attractiveness Products Pes. Blue Jeans Pes. Blue Jeans: Pes. Blue Jeans. Pes. Bk Jeans Pcs Blue Jeans ‘Mean 3.92 1.87, 3.68 1.65 3.28 3.69 2.78 3.29 1.39 4.50 Std. Std. Dov. ror tt Sig. 116 0.10 15.7 125 0.001 0,900.08 1.25 011 147 125 0.001 0.92 0.08 109 0.10 -.2 125 0.001 0.89 0.08 105 0.09 -5.1 125 0.001, 0.84 0.07 0.87 0.08 -239 125 0.001 0.96 0.09 May + Juno 2001 JOURTRL OF ADUERTISIG RESEARCH 45CELEBRITY ENDORSERS film, polities, athletics, ete. Secondly, the findings confirm that the importance of any criterion clepends on the type of prod- uct. In other words, managers have im- plicitly incorporated the findings of prod uuct match-up hypothesis research in their decision making, For practitioners, the er teria presented in Table 2 provide a pos- sible “check lst” of factors that should be considered in selecting, celebrity endors- ers, since none of the advertising agencies had any written documentation regarding, celebrity endorsement strategy, ‘The major limitation of the study is that managers were provided with generic product names in the instrument, but in reality most campaigns are about brands that already have meanings (associations) attached to them (Levy, 1959; McCracken, 1989; Myers, 1999). Therefore, the impor tance of criteria considered by agency managers may heavily depend on brands’ existing meanings as well as on the posi- tion of the brand in the market (eg, leader), specific campaign objectives, bud- get, and many other related factors with which the respondents were not provided. As a result, there is a need for further Most, Importatnt 45 40 35 Least Important Trustworthiness Expertise Familiarity «+ .managers consider a set of criteria when selecting celebrity endorsers implying that managers do not see celebrities as unidimensional individuals (e.g.,attractive, credible} research integrating some or all of the above-mentioned factors. One further n= search route isto “replicate” the study by providing respondents with such infor- mation as brand name and history, market position, specific campaign objectives, time period, and budget, Even though re- spondents would be skeptical about the purpose of the research and therefore choose not to participate, this study will provide a better reflection of the impor- lance of the factors considered when se lecting celebrity endorsers Moreover, the research can be dupli- cated in other countries that may provide a basis for cross-cultural comparisons, The reason for these possible replications is that every country has its own cul: ture(s), which may very well affect the im Pes kabitity Physical Attractiveness Figure 1 Importance of Celebrity Characteristics According to Product Types 46 JOURNAL OF AQUERTISING RESEARCH Way » June 2001. portance of criteria. Finally, scholars wanting to replicate this study in any part of the world are encouraged to contact the first author without any’ hesitation for fu ture collaborations. san asst ptessor of mating athe Dna Unersy nTuky. He ‘cwcriy endorsers Hom the Unhorsty of Stthele » Glotgow. His research tarsi reads avetsingcompiatingbetair, dcr inmoairs, Meu J Bn is Emons Professor of Mating the University of Stathoden Glasgor and is ‘ure vine profesor at etngha Guiness Shoo. He ste authr of eros Books ad ‘of Nokoting Management, resisert of the Acaery of Marat, an Desa of th Sanaa of he CMs srt ot he Univers of State in Glasgow. He has gine is enpesene in consumer research ratbods em sting reactors to bulkings motos, and rsing practi. He paraly Imerste in using ulate statistical tos for hing rssarh in rmatonaaton, gf buying and tho etets of ects wating rom on patie, REFERENCES: AGRAWAL, JACDIBH, and WacxtR A. Ka: MAKURA, “The Economie Worth of Celebrity| | | | Endomsrs: An Event tly Analysis” fort of Marketing 58,3 (1995) 6-62. Arnis, CHARLS, and MARIN Bue. “Efe tiveness of Celebrity Endorsers.” Jounal ‘Aaeeriésing Resench 23, 2 (1983): 57-61 terete Lodo: Macelan Po, we | | _,and G. A, CHuxcHit, Jt. “The Igppact of Pryseal tractive Midels on Adverts Evaluations.” Journal of Marketing er 4 0977: 85 ‘Canattsno, Magonte J Jabs R. Losin, ana ChagtesS, MavoeN, “Using Physical At troctiveness as an Advertising Took An Em- pirical Test of Attraction Phenomenon” Jour al of Advertsing 2,9 (989): 16-22. CCaunaies. Special Report Top 300 British Advertising Agencies" February 28, 1997 Contin, SHELLY. “Communicator Physical Attractiveness and Persuasion.” Journal if Por analy and Sci Poctogy 197, Augut (0979p 1397-97 | Coors, MicHata. "Can Celebrites Really Sell Products?” Marketing aad Min Decisions Sep- tember (988) 64-65 and 120. | Dic, Kasishy and JoROw B KARMA “More Evidence on the Eifets ofa Prejenter’s Physical Atratveness Some Copitivg, A fective and Behavioral Consequences" Jn Ad- ances in Cansener Research, Wo. 11,7 Kine near, ed, Provo, UT: Association for Co sumer Resoarch, 1984 Disauuo, WavNe S, and RicHARD A Hist MAN. "Celebrity andl Brand Congruen Analysis” In Current sas and Ressnreh i Advertising, Vol 4, JH Leigh and C. R Manin, eds. Ann Acbor, Mk: University of Michigan, 1985, encom, Mann Advertising Word: Com cepts, Theories ant race oferta, Mas ination! and Glob! Adertisng, 2nd ed. Lon fon: Prentice-Hall International, 1994, Foor, B, ZArER “Celebrity Endorsement: A Literature Review.” Jounal of Marketing Maragennt 15,4 (1999) 291-914 and PHILP J, KICHEN. “Getting the Best out of Celebrity Enelorsers." ADMAP, 1998, rage, O.C,,and Dew Kavown “Re sponse Patterns and the Importance of the Follow-up Duplicate Questionnaire ina Ma Survey of Advertising Managers” Eunyean Reser) October (1983): 157-63. Foukay, Jas P. “Product Matchup Key to Elective Star Presentations.” Advertsing Age 1980, Foetuve, “The Jordan Effect.” June 22,199, Feo, Hessiey Hand LINDA FRIEDMAN. “Des the Celebrity Endorser's Frage Spill (Over the Product?” Jounal ofthe Academy of ‘Marsting Science 6, Fall (1978): 291-98. —. "Endomser biectveness >and by Product Type” fora of Adoertising Re scare 18,5. (1979) 63-7 5. Tein and R. WastcTON. “The Ffectiveness of Advertisements Usizing Four Types of Endorsers” Journal of Adverts ing 6,2 (1976) 22-24 Mica J Saxman, and ANTHONY Tana, “Corpeates of Trustworthiness for Celebrities” Journal ofthe Academy of Marke ing Science 6,4 1978): 291-98, CELEBRITY ENDORSERS ‘Guava, Joon. “Sponsors Line Up for Rocks ing Role” Adwrtsing Age, Deemer 1.1989 Hin, Jose Roun ANDERSON, ReaD L.TaTmaM, ane WisaM C. BLACK. Maar te Data Anais wit Rendings Ath ed. Lon don: Prentice-Hall International, 1995, Horstvpe, Grenr, Calta’: Consequoncrs:Iter- atonal Direc Work Related Value, Be rly Hills, CAs Sage Publishing Company, 198, How. ayn, Cag. LL 1 JaNs: and Hono KHL. Commuaton and Persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1953 and Wate Wr “The fluence of Source Credibility on Communication Efe tiveness Publi Opinion Quarterly 15, Winter (1951p: 635-80, IgsrTure oF Paacrmonts 1s ADvERrSING Anal Report 1997. London, 1988 Kane, Liny Rand P.M. Hoan, “Physical Attractiveness of Celebrity Endorsor: 4 Social Adaptation Perspective.” journal of Consumer Research 1, 4 (1985: 954-61 IKAKAN, JACK G. “Celebrity Advertising: A Review and Synthesis” Iferatonal Jour! of Adder 6,2 (1987) 93-108, Kays, Micnatt A. “Celebrity and Non-Ce- Iebrity Advertising ina Two-Sided Context Journal of Advertsing Rosenrch 2,3 (1989) 32 “An Investigation into the Match-Up Hypothesis in Celebrity Advertising: When Beauty fe Only Skin Dep.” Journal yf Adser- ising 19,1 (1990 4-13, and Koatne Gurr. *Congraence be tnvcon Spokesperson and Product Type: A May + June 2002 JOURDRL OF ADUERTISING RESERRCH 47CELEBRITY ENDORSERS: Matchup Hypothesis Perspective” Psyigy and Marketing 1, 6 (1994): 569-86, Kei, Hemet Ct rocess of Opinion [Change Publ Opinion Quarterly 25, Winter (a9 57-78. Kryvene, THontas C, and JR. Tavton, Mar feting Reser: An AppliodApprch, 5th et New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 196, uta, JOANNE M, and LyNerre S Uncen “The Impact of Negative and Positive Infor: mation on Source Credibility in a Feld Set ting" In Adones i Consumer Research, Vo 1, RP. Bogazzi and A. M. Tybout, eds Provo, UT: Associaton for Consumer Re= search, 1982 Lanowves, Law, and Many WALKER. “A, Fist Step 1 Identify the Meaning in Ceebity Endorsers.* In. Adcancs in Conse Reser, Vol. 18, RR. Holman and M.R. Solomon, ‘eds. Prova, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 1981, and —. “Assessing the Alects of Celebrity Endorsrs: Preliminary Findings.” In Process ofthe Amercwt Academy of Ar fisng, RR. Holman, el, 199 Livy, Story. “Symbols fr Sale." Haround Business Review ¥7, 4. (1959): 117-26 Mane, LYNETTE K, hE Matin, and Nawos, RAMGAN. “The Wealth Effects Associated with a Celebrity Endorser: The Micha Phenomenon.” Jounal of Adertising Rear 87,3. 0957 4 67-73, Jordan McCrackin, Gea: “Who Is the Cabri [Endorser? Cultural Foundation ofthe Et lorsemeont Process." Journal of Consumo Re sear 16,3 (1989): 310-21, MeGuine, Waias J. "The Nature of Atitudes and Attitude Change.” In Hendlikof Soiet Poychoingy, Gandner Lindzey and Eliot Aron son, eds: Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, 1968 Mictak, ALAW R, and WILLIAM L, SHANKUN “Choosing Celebrity Endorsers” Maren Management 3,3 (1984) 51-58 Mista, Shexiax and Sktanow E. Bray. "Cee lebrity Spokesperson and Brand Congruence: ‘An Assessment of Recall and Affect” foul of Business Research 21, September (199); 159-73, Mowe, Jon C, and Steins W, Brown: On Explaining and Prictng the Eifetive ss of Celebrity Endorses.” In Aden in Consumer Resa, Vol. 8, K. B. Momo, ‘Ann Arboe, Ml: Association for Consumer Research, 198 Murs, Gro Ad Worlds: Bras, Maia, Auli fence London: Arad, 1998, (Onasiwy, Rooms “Construction and Void tion ofa Scale to Measure Celebrity Enon cers Perceived Expertise, Tstvorthiness and Attractiveness” Jour of Advertising 19,3 (19 99-52. "The Impact of Celebrity Spokesper- son's Perceived Image om Consumers Inten= ion to Parchase” Journal of Advertising Re sear 3, 1 (1991) 46-52, Perosus SUSAN ML and KENNEY ‘Caockbe. “An Empirical Analysis of Spokes 48 JOURDRL OF ROVERTISING RESEARCH. Ney + June 2001, person Characteristics on Advertisement an Product Bvaluation.”Jowral of the Acadamy of 2 Marking Selene 17,3 (1989): 20 Perry, RicHARD E, Jos; Cacoero, and Daw W. Scatuatann, “Conta and Peripheral Rontes to Adv Mode Consumer Resear 10, 3 (1983): 135-6, ing Electiveness The ug Role of Involvement.” Jounal of Surrouny, SmeaTHFORD P, “When You Wish Upon a Star” Fortine August 19, 1985, Shaw, Toece. Advertising, Promotion Supple ‘mental Aspects of Integrated Marketing Conn ications, Sth ec. Fort Worth, TX: The Dryden Press, 200, ‘Srrcg, Paul, Daw W. ScHLMANN, and (Cec THOMION. “Celebrity Endorsements Scripts, Schema and Roles: Theoretical Frame work and Preliminary Tests." In Adem in CConsamer Rese, Vo. 15, M.J. Houston, ea, 1988, Tu, Batay D, and Mec BUSteR *Mateh- ing Products with Endorsees: Atteactiveness versus Expertise." Journal of Consumer Markst- fag 15,6 (1956) $76.85, ud TrtNcr SUN, “Endonsers in Ad ‘vertisng: The Case of Negative Celebrity In- formation.” Journ of Advertsing 27, 1 (199): 67-40, ‘Tasty, CAROLS, THEN D JENSEN, ad Ls CCakison. “The Efect of Multiple Product Ex dlorsements by Celebrities on Consumer Atti- tudes and Intentions ural of Cnsumer Rex search 20, 4 (1994) 535-47. ‘Zivca, Vie. "Mark Spit Eleven Years and Seven Gold Medals Later." Advertising Age, February 7, 1985,