基于感知的品牌丑闻对明星代言人评价的影响

322120103JOURNALOFBUSINESSECONOMICSNo.3Vo.l221Mar.2010:2009-10-29:(08JZD0019);(70772081):(1966-),,,,,(CBC),;(1966-),,,,,,(CBC),,何浏1,2,王海忠1(1.中山大学管理学院,广东广州510275;2.五邑大学经济管理学院,广东江门529020):层出不穷的品牌负面信息,既伤害了品牌的形象评价,也对品牌代言明星及广告代理服务业的利益带来损害文章通过两个实验,研究考察了品牌发生丑闻后对代言明星的负面影响结果发现:品牌丑闻对品牌形象的评价确实造成很大危害,同时也给代言明星带来负面影响;品牌丑闻的负面影响,依丑闻类型不同而异,同时与代言合同签订时的具体情境有关;能力型品牌丑闻的负面影响溢出比道德型的要强,但仅表现在代言人低过失代言情境下,在高过失情境下无差异研究结果对品牌维护管理广告代言管理等有重要的理论与实践借鉴意义:品牌丑闻;代言情境;丑闻类型;负面溢出:F713.50:A:10002154(2010)03007208[1-2],2008,!∀;20093,:?:34%,,36%,;:##!,,?();(,,,),(##,;,,),:,[1]48(),,,,,,,,,[3],,,,(BSA)(GBI)[4],,,,,,,:;,,()11(),,[1]45;,[2]69,∃,,;2008NIKE;,,;[5];;,[6],,;,:,(),:733,:假设1:代言品牌发生丑闻事件后,会产生负面溢出效应;消费者对发生品牌丑闻的代言人感知评价相对于未发生品牌丑闻的代言人评价要低()(StigmasResearch)[7],[8];(),,,[9];,[10],,:假设2a:丑闻品牌代言人在签订代言合同过程中的过失责备水平对消费者的代言人感知评价有影响作用无论何种品牌丑闻类型,消费者对高过失责备情境下的丑闻品牌代言人评价比低过失责备情境下的评价要低[11],[12],(),[13],,;,(),(),,,[14];,,,,:假设2b:不同类型的品牌丑闻对品牌代言人的评价有不同的溢出效应消费者对能力型丑闻品牌的代言人评价比道德型丑闻品牌的代言人评价要低,;(Partner)(Host),[15][16],,,[17],,,,,[18],,:假设3:代言情境与不同品牌丑闻类型间的代言人评价存在交互作用假设3a:低过失责备条件下,消费者对能力型丑闻品牌的代言人评价比道德型丑闻品牌的代言人评价比要低(负面溢出激活)假设3b:高过失责备条件下,消费者对能力型丑闻品牌和道德型丑闻品牌的代言人评价无差异(负面溢出抑制)()200956()(2009)74201050,28,22,28,,45;90,55,35,22,85,5(),()NEBC710;(),,,,,UTCYON-MP4;2008,,(,3.15),NEBC710,;!∀NEB():2(:vs),:,,();:2(:VS)%2(:VS),(),();9;59[19];59;39;59[20](),NEB()UT();()();,,NEBC710,NEBC710:3.15C710();C710();,,(,);,,,,,,:UT,,,753,:(),t,1,,1NEB实验条件前测后测丑闻发生(n=21)5.77(0.78)1.91(0.81)未发生(n=24)5.54(0.81)5.28(1.07)(,)t,T43=14.40,P0.001;(Maverage(5.77/1.91)=3.48)(Maverage(5.54/5.28)=5.41)(Mdifference=1.93)t,T20=6.028,P0.001;()(Maverage(5.28/191)=3.60)()(Maverage(5.77/5.54)=5.66)(Mdifference=2.06)1,,,22实验条件综合评价专业源信赖源喜爱源前测后测前测后测前测后测前测后测丑闻发生6.97(0.91)2.90(1.27)6.30(0.91)3.71(1.42)6.28(0.87)2.62(1.14)6.75(1.10)3.35(1.38)未发生6.69(1.22)6.43(1.37)6.41(0.96)6.35(1.05)6.41(2.16)5.98(0.97)6.55(1.38)6.69(0.99),M=6.51vs4.91,(Mdifference=1.60);,()()M=6.57vs4.84,Mdifference=1.71;(,)(,),1,,(),,33实验条件综合印象专业源信赖源喜爱源高过失低过失高过失低过失高过失低过失高过失低过失能力型丑闻3.21(1.57)4.36(1.41)3.45(0.97)4.02(1.26)2.55(0.95)4.15(0.65)3.34(1.28)4.27(1.05)道德型丑闻5.03(1.08)6.43(1.29)4.07(1.28)5.48(1.44)3.20(1.06)6.04(1.38)4.26(0.84)5.87(1.30)762010,,,F(1,83)=42.0,p0.001;,F(1,83)=14.6,p0.001(2());F(1,83)=33.3,p0.001();F(1,83)=25.7,p0.001();(Maverage(3.78/3.3/3.8)=3.63),(Maverage(4.71/4.48/4.98)=4.73),,F(1,83)=9.48,p0.001;,F(1,83)=8.22,p0.001();F(1,83)=49.9,p0.001();F(1,83)=13.2,p0.001();(,F(1,83)=7.09,p0.05))(2);,32b,,:,;,(2):,(),,(),3,1,,,()1.(StigmasResearch),,,,,,,,,,,2.,,,,(StigmasResearch),,,,,,,,,,773,:,,3.:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,?,,,,,;,,,,,,,,(),,,(UT),,,,,,()?,???,:[1]THERESEALOUIE,CARLOBERMILLER.ConsumerResponsetoaFirmsEndorser(Dis)AssociationDecisions[J].JournalofAdvertising,2002,4(Winter):41-52.[2]TILLBRIAND,TERENCEASHIMP.EndorsersinAdvertising:TheCaseofNegativeCelebrityInformation[J].JournalofAdvertising,1998,27(1):67-82.[3]TRIPPCAROLYN,THOMASDJENSEN,LESCARLSON.TheEffectsofMultipleProductEndorseMentsbyCelebritiesonConsumersAttitudesandIntentions[J].JournalofConsumerResearch,1994(20):535-547.[4]DILLONWR,MADDENTJ,KIRMANIA,eta.lUnderstandingWhatsinaBrandRating:AModelforAssessingBrandandAttributeEffectsandTheirRelationshiptoBrandEquity[J].JournalofMarketingResearch,2001,38(4):415-429.[5]LOKENB,JOHNDR.Dilutingbrandbeliefs:WhendoBrandExtensionshaveaNegativeImpact?[J].JournalofMarketing,1993(57):71-84.[6]MATTHEWTHOMSON.HumanBrands:InvestigatingAntecedentstoConsumersStrongAttachmentstoCelebrities[J].JournalofMarketing,2006,70(7):104-119.782010[7]DEJONGWILLIAM.TheStigmaofObesity:TheConsequencesofNaiveAssumptionsConcerningtheCausesofPhysicalDeviance[J].JournalofHealth&SocialBehavior,1980,21(1):75-87.[8]RAYMONDPPERRY,JAMIEMAGNUSSON.AnAttributionalAnalysisofReactionstoStigmas[J].JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,1988,55(5):738-748.[9]WEINERBERNARD.ACognitive(Attribution)EmotionActionModelofMotivatedBehavior:AnAnalysisofJudgmentsofHelpgiving[J].JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,1980,39(2):186-200.[10]WOJCISZKEB,BRYCZH,BORKENAUP.EffectsofInformationContentandEvaluativeExtremityonPositivityandNegativityBiases[J].JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology,1993(64):327-335.[11]AHLUWALIAR,RAOUNNAVA,BURNKRANTRE.TheModeratingRoleofCommitmentontheSpilloverEffectofSpilloverEffectofMarketingCommunications[J].JournalofMarketingResearch,2001(4):38.[12]AHLUWALIZR,BURNKRANTRE,RAOUNNAVA.ConsumerResponsetoNegativePublicity:TheModeratingRoleofCommitment[J].JournalofMarketingResearch,2000,37(5):203-214.[13]MICHELLELROEHM,ALICEMTYBOU.WhenWillaBrandScandalSpillOver,andHowShouldCompetitorsRespond?[J].JournalofMarketingResearch,2006,366(8):366-373.[14]NICOLEL,RAOH.SpilloverofNegativeInformationonBrandAlliances[J].JournalofConsumerPsychology,2006,16(2):196-202.[15]KELLERKEVIN,DAVIDAAAKER.TheEffectsofSequentialIntroductionofBrandExtensions[J].JournalofMarketingResearch,1992,29(2):35-50.[16]BORDIERIJAMESE,DAVIDEDREHMER.HiringDecisionsforDisabledWorkers:LookingattheCause[J].JournalofAppliedSocialPsychology,1986,16(3):197-208.[17]AHLUWALIAROHINI,ZEYNEPGURHANCAN