|
on Marketing |
|
Issue of 2024‒09‒16
two papers chosen by Marco Novarese, Università degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale |
| By: | Mathieu Béal (EM - EMLyon Business School); Charlotte Lécuyer; Ivan Guitart (EM - EMLyon Business School) |
| Abstract: | Many brands periodically respond humorously to the content that other brands and celebrities post on social media. Drawing on three scenario-based experiments and a content analysis of humorous tweets based on their likes and retweets, the authors use the benign violation theory to understand whether using humor constitutes a benign (i.e., translating into amusement) or malign (i.e., translating into ulterior motives) violation. The success of a humorous brand-to-brand interaction (i.e., brand attitudes and purchase intentions) depends on its ability to generate amusement without causing customers to suspect ulterior motives. Study 1's results reveal that customers respond more favorably when brands use affiliative humor rather than aggressive humor. Affiliative humor constitutes a benign violation that generates amusement, while aggressive humor constitutes a malign violation that leads customers to infer that brands have ulterior motives. Study 2 shows that aggressive humor partially compensates for its weaknesses over affiliative humor when brands target competing brands. Studies 3A and 3B reveal a reversed effect depending on brand positioning (top dogs versus underdogs). While underdog brands should always use affiliative humor, top dog brands could perform better by favoring aggressive humor (i.e., such brands could receive more likes and retweets without lowering customers' purchase intentions). |
| Keywords: | humor, brand-to-brand dialogues, social media, competitive context, top dog brands, underdog brands |
| Date: | 2024–07–31 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04666015 |
| By: | Dianna R. Amasino (Tilburg University and University of Amsterdam); Suzanne Oosterwijk (University of Amsterdam); Nicolette J. Sullivan (The London School of Economics and Political Science); Joël van der Weele (University of Amsterdam) |
| Abstract: | Consumers often encounter, and claim to care about, ethical information concerning the products they purchase. Across three studies, we investigate how the accessibility of this information impacts choice. When consumers must seek out product attribute information, the impact of ethical certifications (Fairtrade and Organic) is diminished relative to other attributes. Both positive and negative framing of certifications increase their impact on choice relative to neutral frames, with negative frames having the strongest effect. However, in contrast to theories of information demand that would predict more willful ignorance of negatively framed content, negative framing has the same impact regardless of information accessibility. Together, our findings suggest that having to seek ethical certification information leads to a small reduction in the use of certifications to guide choice, but that affective framing has a larger impact on the weight placed on certifications in consumer choices regardless of the accessibility of information. |
| Keywords: | Consumer-choice, information-avoidance, information-seeking, willful ignorance, sustainability, certifications |
| JEL: | D12 D83 D87 |
| Date: | 2024–05–10 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:tin:wpaper:20240029 |