The purpose of this study was to evaluate consumer attitudes towards brands when exposed to celebrityendorsements in cases where the personality of the celebrity does not match the personality of the brand (inconsistent). Theories used in this research included: Cognitive Dissonance Theory, how consumers are expected to react when receiving information that presents inconsistency; and Schema Theory, how information is stored in the form of schemas. A measure consisting of attractiveness, credibility, purchase intention and likeability was created based on studies by Spear and Singh (2004) and Halonen-Knight and Hurmerinta (2010) in order to evaluate consumer attitudes. A survey was given to 200 respondents to evaluate their attitude toward ten advertisements with celebrityendorsements. Five of the ads were consistent between celebrity and personality of the brand and five were inconsistent. Results showed that people had a significantly more positive attitude toward consistent ads compared to inconsistent ads.
inconsistency are mutually exclusive: the words themselves are set in opposition to each other. However, this oppositional approach may lead us to neglect the fact that their existence must be understood in relational terms - that is, in terms that recognise the co- existence of consistency and inconsistency in discourse and practice, their relation to each other, and the power dynamics that characterise their interactions. For example, consistent communication, when deployed as a strategy to cope with complexity, might be interpreted as a reaction to inconsistent communication; a tool to combat inconsistent practices; or a unifying narrative designed to maintain stability in the face of uncertain environmental conditions (see, for example, Cornelissen, 2014). Inconsistent communication, on the other hand, may be understood as a contestation of ‘consistent’ but inaccurate messages; as
Strong inconsistency is a very undesirable (finite sample) property first noticed by Stone (1976). His ideas were formalized in the form of definition 1 by Lane and Sudderth (1983). For interpretation, intuition and discussion see Heath and Sudderth (1978), Sudderth (1994), Eaton and Freedman (2004), Eaton and Sudderth (2004), Eaton (2008). Moreover, Eaton and Freedman (2004) proved that strong inconsistency (in our countably additive setup) is equivalent to de Finetti’s incoherence or existence of the Dutch book (that can be made against ). Thus throughout the paper we will use the terms “consistency” and “coherence” interchangeably. Overall, by the compelling arguments used in the above cited works, an avoidance of Bayesian inference that is strongly inconsistent should be recommended.
There are two ways in which perceived inconsistency may cause dissonance. T he first way relates to a need for information or stimulation, which may itself vary between individuals. Wicklund and Frey (1981) suggest that dissonance is more likely to arise if someone seeks stimulation; and a propensity for seeking stimulation may itself be related to personality, as extroverts are more likely than introverts to do so (e.g. Eysenck, 1970). For example, boredom may drive people towards contentious topics for entertainment or distraction. Kruglanski (e.g. 1989, 2006) also identified that people differ along a continuum from needing to attain, to needing to avoid, cognitive closure. Calogero, Bardi and Sutton (in press) found that individual differences in people’s need for cognitive closure affected people’s underlying values, for example, leading them to prefer m ore traditional values, or to seek stimulation. Again, this might enable some people m ore than others to cope with dissonance or to achieve consonance through different routes.
It may of course be that the h-index has certain good properties which for instance the highly cited publications indicator does not have. We now discuss some suggestions in this direction. Hirsch (2007) argues that compared with other bibliometric indicators the mechanism of the h-index is well suited to deal with high impact publications co-authored by scientists with different levels of seniority (or different levels of ability). According to Hirsch, this is because, in a certain sense, senior authors receive more credit from such high impact publications than junior authors (for the full argument, see Hirsch, 2007, p. 19197). Although we consider this an interesting argument, it depends crucially on the assumption that in the case of a high impact publication co-authored by junior and senior scientists most credit should go to the senior authors. Moreover, even if one accepts this assumption, we think it is doubtful whether the somewhat better way of dealing with co-authored publications is worth sacrificing the consistency of one’s measurements. A somewhat related argument in favor of the h-index is that “the focus of the index shifts in a natural way when comparing researchers at different levels. When comparing young researchers it emphasizes whether they have written a few papers that have had some impact, and when comparing distinguished senior researchers it ignores minor papers and considers only papers that have a substantial number of citations” (Ellison, 2010, p. 2). We agree that this can be seen as an advantage of the h-index over for instance the highly cited publications indicator. On the other hand, however, we believe that in the case of young scientists publication and citation statistics are only of limited value, and we therefore do not consider this a very significant advantage of the h-index. We also note that the above arguments in favor of the h-index pertain specifically to situations in which the h-index is used at the level of individual scientists. This means that the arguments cannot serve as a justification for the use of the h-index at other levels of aggregation, such as at the level of research groups or journals.
celebritisation of particular species, animals, places and things—given their ability to garner media and human celebrities’ attention and concern—might be understood as having serious implications for ‘the scope of environmental governance and brings the diversity of biodiversity conservation into question’ (Lorimer 2007, p. 928). In other words, the celebritisation of more-than-human species and things has the potential to lose sight of the ecological webs that particular animals or species are enmeshed in, upon which they depend upon and co-construct. At the same time, those ‘in-between’ or ‘less celebrifiable’ places and things can be left to the wayside in the wider framings of environmental movements and concerns as celebrified icons garner all the media and movement attention. The same too goes for the invisibility of those humans living nearby, in parallel and/or with the animals, ecologies and/or things that gain celebrity status. What Nick Couldry terms ‘the hidden injuries of media power’ (Couldry 2001) affects things, places and animals as much as humans.
celebrities and their materially poorer ‘roots’? Ms Dynamite, for instance, is often figured as exposing or highlighting awareness of the broader social issues that surround and have created racism and economic deprivation. Within the constraints of celebrity being always, by definition, individualistic, the Ms Dynamite example does at least offer less individualistic messages. However, this also raises important questions about whether and how celebrity can ever be used to further equalities, and if not, what the opposite or alternatives to celebrity might be. As the Ms Dynamite example shows, there are clearly many ways in which celebrities are used to promote discourses that benefit the many rather than the few. The pronouncements celebrities have made, the attitudes they embody and the identifications they make possible can all be used to instigate cultural change that engenders equality rather than exploitation. For example, from the
According to Source Attractiveness Theory, which is based on social psychological research, the acceptance of the message depends on familiarity, likeability and similarity. Familiarity is the audience's knowledge of the source through exposure; likeability is the affection for the source's physical appearance and behavior while similarity is the resemblance between source and receiver. This theory explains the message acceptance in two ways: Identification and Conditioning. Identification is when the receiver or the target audience of the communication begins to identify with the source's attractiveness, and hence tends to accept his opinions, beliefs, habits, attitudes etc. On identification, a quote from Bijou Kurien, COO, Titan, "We decided on Aamir because we wanted someone who is a bit iconic, who is style conscious himself, and somebody who cuts across both sex and age group, between urban and rural India. A celebrity who is mouldable and who is not over-exposed". Conditioning is when the attractiveness of the source is supposed to pass on to the brand after regular association of the source with the brand.
To operationalize the term “celebrity”, we say that a person has a celebrity-like status, be it locally or globally, if he or she possesses a verified Twitter account, and at the same time, is deemed notable enough to be the subject of a Wikipedia article and a Wikidata item. Importantly, Twitter verifies “that an account of public interest is authentic” (Twitter, 2018), awarding a blue checkmark badge: . Nota- bility at Wikipedia pertains to people who are “wor- thy of notice,” “remarkable,” or “famous or pop- ular” (Wikipedia, 2018). While verified accounts also include organizations, and while most notable people at Wikipedia/Wikidata are not considered celebrities, it is their intersection which provides for a good approximation. To collect celebrity pro- files at scale, we join these sources of information.
In the mid-twentieth century, scholars observed and at times criticized the rise of celebrity culture and its connection to the development of mass media technologies. Leo Lowenthal of the Frankfurt School notably commented that celebrity was no longer accomplished via achievement, but was rather circumstantial and even by chance. He labeled this phenomenon as creating idols of consumption rather than idols of pro- duction (Lowenthal, 1944). Specifically, Lowenthal identified the newsworthiness of celebrities’ personal lives in mass media. Indeed, a paradox within celebrity culture is the public’s desire to idolize the public persona of celebrities and what they represent in society, while simultaneously desiring to know the “real” person behind that sometimes larger than life public image (Marshall, 2014). There are also ethical considerations of whether there is a media limit before reporting becomes too invasive to celebrities.
This article has taken seriously the proposition that rather than asking how celebrities can be used by humanitarian and social justice campaigns to prompt audiences to take notice and potentially act on issues, we need to look more closely at the other side of the equation and ask what audiences do with celebrities. Central to this question is orientation: one’s lived relation to the world through the repeated, instinctive recognition of positive and negative symbolic value, and how it serves to underpin self-presentation and social positioning. But against the ethnographic turn in media research, I have argued that there is little volition in orientation. Not only do campaigners and celebrity handlers have little agency in shaping the responses audiences have to exposure to stars, but audiences too are instinctively predisposed to recognise certain symbolic forms and categories rather than others. This is not about the limits of image management, however. Even divergent audiences will tend to have their instincts confirmed when presented with the same celebrity – instincts about their own identities as compassionate or unimpressionable or savvy as much as instincts about the celeb in question. But we can go further than this apparently flatly structuralist approach by asking exactly what is going on in the mediated encounter between the star and the audience. Complicity appears to be the principal feature of this encounter, a recognition of authenticity where such a thing is learned and performed by both parties rather than simply being. Complicity is both pleasurable and useful, the latter in terms of making sense of our naturalised orientations in relation to public life: it affirms the hunch that there is something absurd about the way we relate to and through media while clinching our investment in it. But ultimately for those already oriented away from public action it can only sustain an ironised distance from the cause being advocated, frustrating to the humanitarian campaigner but perhaps no less enjoyable for those in the celebrity cluster.
The present study deals with influence of celebrity endorsement on five durable products with respect to various characteristics like brand, style, product features, price, quality, warranty, colour, product model, endorsing celebrity, value added services, installment purchase facility, financial assistance from banks, performance and after sales service. It is important to identify product wise characteristics, consumer preference and influence of celebrity endorsement on consumer preference for all five products, namely cars, washing machines, air conditioners, mobiles and DTH services
As we know, in situations imbued of uncertainties and similarities, people tend to refer to their reference group for decision making. It’s just the current condition that commodity market faces. And in most cases, people show much more liking towards those whom they regard as their reference groups. Most of the products or brands which need to be promoted through advertising are those that are confronted with fierce competition and want to stand out among similarities. Reference group’s attitude towards certain products works as social proof. When people buy a product that is associated with their reference group, they are expressing a connection with that group, which functions together with consistency principle (consumers are in consistent with endorsers). For sure, it only works with people who have reference group, or at least not so stubborn that their attitudes and behaviors can’t be changed by anyone else. At present, lots of people regard celebrity endorsers as their reference group and treat their choice or decision as social proof. The main reason comes as celebrities have a mass-based recognition and population, enjoying their fame in society. Similarly, the deeper people like the celebrity endorser, the more chances they would believe and follow what the celebrity endorser does. Both the weapons of “social proof” and “liking” serve as peripheral cues, enhancing the advertising persuasiveness by increasing the total number of favorable thoughts.
frequently enough, but there are notable omissions. There is no mention at all of Leo Braudy’s magisterial, and one would have supposed essential, history of fame, The Frenzy of Renown, although familiarity is suggested by the subtitle of the eighth chapter, ‘The Democratisation of Celebrity’, echoing the title of the fifth and longest section of Braudy’s book, ‘The Democratisation of Fame’.(6) There are also very few references to contemporary theorists of celebrity, and none at all to recent authors such as P. David Marshall, Chris Rojek or Graeme Turner, despite the fact that the idea of celebrity having a social function through the mobilisation of affect, strikingly similar to Inglis’s notion of modern celebrity as the performance of feeling, is something that Marshall in particular has developed at length – albeit from a more overtly Marxist
reveal the importance of a range of agents, from his relationships with his fans to the media agents and the shifting cultural and macro forces that the range of Bowie personas responded to. As a case study in celebrity brand management the paper ends with the suggestion that human brands are best considered from a portfolio perspective to address the challenges of fame and the challenges of aging. Celebrity brands in this regard become caught up in the forces of nostalgia and our own desire for an imagined past lost to time, stuck in cultural moments of resonance which only serve to produce tensions for those looking to escape the bonds of time, history and media/fan fabrication and attachment. But celebrity brands endure especially when the combine a cocktail of musical animation with storytelling artistry. But still the danger of ossification remains, that is the dangers of shifting from marketplace resonance to irrelevance. Celebrity brands are in this regard best understand as fables of transformation, from emancipation to resurrection: from Ziggy Stardust to Heathen, from The Man who could have sold the world to redemption and tales of survival: Let’s Dance.
Day means, for the purpose of complying with the service requirements of this subchapter, eight hours of watchstanding or day-working not to include overtime. On vessels where a 12-hour working day is authorized and practiced, each work day may be creditable as one and one-half days of service. On vessels of less than 100 gross register tons, a day is considered as eight hours unless the Coast Guard determines that the vessel's operating schedule makes this criteria inappropriate, in no case will this period be less than four hours. When computing service required for MODU endorsements, a day is a minimum of four hours, and no additional credit is received for periods served over eight hours.