1. CREDIBILITY
"ethos is the most potent of all means of persuasion" (Aristotle, The Rhetoric, 1356a)
“To become a celebrity is to become a brand name” (Phillip Roth)

2. What is Credibility?
Definition of credibility: "judgments made by a perceiver (e.g., message recipient) concerning the believability of a communicator" (O'Keefe, 1995, pp )

3. A reliable generalization
“A highly credible source is commonly found to induce more persuasion toward the advocacy than a low credibility source” (Pornpitakpan, 2004)
“The generalization that high credibility sources are more influential than low credibility sources is as close as one can come to a universal law of persuasion” (Gass & Seiter, 2007)

4. Celebrity endorsers: Selling ethos
25% of advertisements employ celebrity endorsers (Shimp, 2000).
Roughly 10% of advertising expenditures go to pay the endorser (Agrawal & Kamakura, 1995)
Selling power is known as a celebrity’s “quotient fare” or simply “Q”

5. Transfer effect
when a consumer identifies with a celebrity he/she purchases the product in the hope of claiming some of these transferred meanings for their own lives (Kelman 2006; McCracken 1989).

6. The match-up hypothesis
Endorsers are more effective when there is a "fit" between the endorser and the endorsed product Kamins, 1990.

7. The match-up hypothesis
How do these four endorsers fit the “My Life, My Card” American Express image?

8. Which brands go with which endorsers?
What brands would you match-up with Katie Couric, Amy Winehouse, will.i.am, and Steven Spielberg?

9. More about celebrity endorsers
$800 million was spent in the U.S. in 1998 on spokespersons Thompson, 1998)
Reliance on celebrity endorsers crosses all product categories (Thompson, 1998)
gender and celebrity endorsers
Once relegated 2nd class status, women endorsers now lead the field

10. Are celebrity spokespersons effective?
Study by Yankelovich and Gannett, of 1,000 consumers nationwide:
Only 25% of those questioned said a TV ad would induce them to try a product or brand
Only 3% said they would try a new product based on the recommendations of a celebrity
63% said they would try something new based on the advice of a friend.
But:
is what they say, what they would actually do?
Even 3% of a national television audience would represent millions of viewers.

11. Celebrity endorsers: the downside
Tarnished halos:
Michael Phelps: photographed smoking pot
Mel Gibson (DUI and anti-Semitic remarks
Tom Cruise (kooky behavior, denigrated Brooke Shields for taking anti-depressants)
Michael Richards (string of racial epithets)
scandals produce negative fallout for the sponsor's image as well
increased use of animated and animal endorsers can be attributed, in part, to a fear of endorser scandals hurting business

12. Celebrities and politics
"There is no polling evidence that celebrity endorsements make a difference,“
Kathleen Hall Jamieson
"political endorsements generally have little impact on voter preference."
A 2007 study by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
It may be that celebrities are more successful motivating people to vote in general as opposed to tendering a vote for a specific candidate.”
Natalie Wood, Ph.D., marketing professor

13. Conceptualizing credibility
credibility as a receiver-based construct
credibility as a multi-dimensional construct
credibility as a situational/contextual construct
(McCroskey & Young, 1981) what isn’t part of source credibility?
physical attractiveness? clothing?)

14. How credibility works Petty & Cacioppo's ELM model
central route (cognitive processing, deliberation, reflection)
peripheral route (credibility, appearance factors, likeability)
“preferential” processing
role of involvement (familiarity with, importance of issue)
Note: in Wilson & Sherrell's 1993) meta-analysis, 8 of 12 credibility studies (67%) supported the predictions of the ELM.

15. The factor analytic approach to credibility
primary dimensions
expertise (competence)
trustworthiness (safety)
goodwill (perceived caring)
secondary dimensions
dynamism or extroversion
composure
sociability
inspiring
functional approach to credibility; dimensions vary from situation to situation

16. expertise
Sources who are high in expertise are generally more persuasive than sources who lack expertise
High expertise sources can advocate more discrepant positions on issues
Expertise may interact with attractiveness, gender, and perceived similarity

17. trustworthiness
Jared Fogle, for Subway, isn’t a celebrity, but his “plain folks” appeal makes him trustworthy.
Richard Hatch won the million dollars on Survivor, but is he trustworthy?

18. Sources can be high in one dimension and low in another
Simon Cowell may have expertise, but lack perceived caring
Sarah Palin was low in expertise, but high in trustworthiness (genuine, authentic)

19. Amazing feats of credibility!
Bill Clinton, dissociation between the man and the office:
Clinton’s job approval ratings remained at a lofty 65% during the Monica Lewinsky scandal while his personal popularity plummeted to a dismal 35%.
Tiger Woods, defying the traditional logic
Only a few celebrity superstars have been able to successfully endorse multiple products
Tiger Woods is on track to become the first billion dollar endorser.

20. Moderating variables that affect credibility
receiver involvement: credibility matters little if receiver involvement is high
Low involved receivers are more susceptible to credibility appeals
reliance on peripheral processing
High involved listeners are less susceptible to credibility appeals
reliance on central processing
Authoritarianism
Authoritarians are highly susceptible to appeals by admired sources
Timing of source identification
The source and the source’s qualifications must be identified prior to the presentation of the message

21. Generalizing the credibility construct
Credibility applies not only to the rich and famous
institutions and organizations possess credibility as well
In dyadic encounters; there are two sources whose credibility is at stake
Do fictional spokespersons possess credibility?

22. Institutional credibility: the good, the bad, and the ugly
tarnished corporateand government images
FEMA: The Katrina disaster
Wall Street: underestimating risk
CIA and intelligence on WMD
Enron: gaming the electricity market
Wal-Mart: low wages, poor working conditions