mccloskey_kendall_estee_443project

MKT 443 Project An Insight into Kendall Jenner’s

Impact on the Estée Lauder Brand

Lauren K. McCloskey University of North Carolina Wilmington

December 2016

Dr. Barnes

1

Section 1: Explanation of Constructs

Identify with Source is defined as the ability to identify with the actor in a commercial (Whittler 1991, p.37-46).

Attention to Ad is defined as the amount of attention devoted to an advertised product or written message in the ad (Bucholz 1991, p.4-17).

Brand Equity is defined as the relative value of a specified brand to a consumer compared to

similar competing brands due to its name (above and beyond its features and quality) (Boonghee 2000, p.195-211).

Attitude Toward Sponsor measures perceptions toward the advertiser (Milliman 1991, p.51-60).

Attitude Toward Brand is defined as one’s affect toward a brand and does not attempt to assess cognitions related to particular product characteristics (Chattopadhyay 1990, p. 466-76).

Purchase Intention is defined as the likelihood that a consumer will buy a product he/she is

knowledgeable of (Dodds 1991, p.307-19).

Source Credibility is defined as the perceived credibility of the source of a message

(Gotlieb1991, p.38-45).

2

Section 2: Descriptives

Table 1: Descriptives for Familiarity with Kendall Jenner

Value Frequency Percent

1 – Very Familiar 24 45.3

2 – Moderately Familiar 20 37.7

3 – Slightly Familiar 9 17.0

Total 53 100.0

Table 2: Descriptives for Familiarity with Kardashian Family





Total 53 100.0

Table 3: Descriptives for Familiarity with Estée Lauder





4 – Not Familiar at All 3 5.7

Total 53 100.0

Table 4: Descriptives for Opinion of the Ad Shown


1 – Unfavorable 1 1.9

2 2 3.8

3 2 3.8

4 13 24.5

5 21 39.6

6 8 15.1

7 – Favorable 3 5.7

Total 50 94.3

3

Table 5: Descriptives for Identify with Source 1 Kendall Jenner is a person whom I want to be like


1 – Strongly Disagree 6 11.3

2 – Disagree 11 20.8

3 – Somewhat Disagree 5 9.4

4 – Neutral 17 32.1

5 – Somewhat Agree 9 17.0

6 – Agree 4 7.5

7 – Strongly Agree 1 1.9

Total 53 100.0

Table 6: Descriptives for Identify with Source 2

Kendall Jenner and I probably have similar values and beliefs.





4 – Neutral 9 17.0


6 – Agree 0 0.0


Total 53 100.0

Table 7: Descriptives for Identify with Source 3 Kendall Jenner is quite a bit like me.





4 – Neutral 14 26.4


6 – Agree 0 0.0


Total 53 100.0

4

Table 8: Descriptives for Identify with Source 4 It’s likely that Kendall Jenner and I have similar tastes and preferences.





4 – Neutral 12 22.6


6 – Agree 3 5.7


Total 53 100.0

Table 9: Descriptives for Attention to Ad 1

How much attention did you pay to Kendall Jenner?


1 – None/Not at All 13 24.5

2 11 20.8

3 – Moderate 21 39.6

4 5 9.4

5 – Very Much 3 5.7

Total 53 100.0

Table 10: Descriptives for Attention to Ad 2 How much did you concentrate on the red lips?



2 7 13.2


4 10 18.9


Total 53 100.0

Table 11: Descriptives for Attention to Ad 3

How much did you notice the lipstick product on the right?



2 8 15.1


4 10 18.9


Total 53 100.0

5

Table 12: Descriptives for Brand Equity 1 It makes sense to buy Estée Lauder instead of any other brand, even if they are the same.





4 – Neutral 13 24.5


6 – Agree 1 1.9


Total 53 100.0

Table 13: Descriptives for Brand Equity 2

Even if another brand has the same features as Estée Lauder, I would prefer to buy.





4 – Neutral 18 34.0


6 – Agree 3 5.7


Total 53 100.0

Table 14: Descriptives for Brand Equity 3 If another brand is not different from Estée Lauder in any way, it seems smarter to purchase from

Estée Lauder.





4 – Neutral 13 24.59.4


6 – Agree 5 9.4


Total 53 100.0

6

Table 15: Descriptives for Attitude Toward Sponsor 1 Kendall Jenner makes me feel more favorable toward Estée Lauder.





4 – Neutral 12 22.6


6 – Agree 2 3.8


Total 53 100.0

Table 16: Descriptives for Attitude Toward Sponsor 2

Kendall Jenner would improve my perception of Estée Lauder.





4 – Neutral 13 24.5


6 – Agree 3 5.7


Total 53 100.0

Table 17: Descriptives for Attitude Toward Sponsor 3 Kendall Jenner makes me like Estée Lauder more.





4 – Neutral 13 24.5


6 – Agree 2 3.8


Total 53 100.0

7

Table 18: Descriptives for Brand Reinforcement 1 That’s a good brand. I wouldn’t hesitate recommending it to others.





4 – Neutral 19 35.8


6 – Agree 6 11.3


Total 53 100.0

Table 19: Descriptives for Brand Reinforcement 2

I know that Estée Lauder brand is a dependable, reliable one.





4 – Neutral 16 30.2


6 – Agree 17 32.1


Total 53 100.0

Table 20: Descriptives for Brand Reinforcement 3 When I saw the ad, I thought of reasons why I should not buy from Estée Lauder.





4 – Neutral 13 24.5


6 – Agree 0 0.0


Total 53 100.0

8

Table 21: Descriptives for Brand Reinforcement 5 I like the brand Estée Lauder.





4 – Neutral 18 34.0


6 – Agree 12 22.6


Total 53 100.0

Table 22: Descriptives for Attitude Toward Brand 1


1 – Bad 0 0.0

2 3 5.7

3 21 39.6

4 21 39.6

5 – Good 6 11.3

Total 51 96.2



1 – Dislike quite a lot 0 0.0

2 4 7.5

3 29 54.7

4 17 32.1

5 – Like quite a lot 1 1.9

Total 51 96.2



1 – Unpleasant 0 0.0

2 3 5.7

3 21 39.6

4 19 35.8

5 – Pleasant 8 15.1

Total 51 96.2

9



1 – Poor quality 0 0.0

2 0 0.0

3 15 28.3

4 23 43.4

5 – High quality 13 24.5

Total 51 96.2

Table 26: Descriptives for Attitude Toward Advertiser 1

Professional ability


1 1 1.9

2 6 11.3

3 5 9.4

4 15 28.3

5 15 28.3

6 9 17.0

7 2 3.8

Total 53 100.0


Reputation


1 2 3.8

2 7 13.2

3 12 22.6

4 5 9.4

5 7 13.2

6 15 28.3

7 4 7.5

Total 52 98.1

Table 28: Descriptives for Attitude Toward Advertiser 3 General Impression


1 2 3.8

2 4 7.5

3 12 22.6

4 9 17.0

5 12 22.6

6 13 24.5

7 1 1.9

Total 53 100.0

10

Table 29: Descriptives for Attitude Toward Advertiser 4 Trust


1 6 11.3

2 16 30.2

3 8 15.1

4 12 22.6

5 5 9.4

6 4 7.5

7 0 0.0

Total 51 96.2


Likability


1 3 5.7

2 5 9.4

3 7 13.2

4 9 17.0

5 13 24.5

6 12 22.6

7 2 3.8

Total 51 96.2

Table 31: Descriptives for Source Credibility 1


1 – Credible 4 7.5

2 13 24.5

3 19 35.8

4 9 17.0

5 – Not Credible 8 15.1

Total 53 100.0



1 – Knowledgeable 7 13.2

2 16 30.2

3 18 35.8

4 11 13.2

5 – Unknowledgeable 4 7.5

Total 53 100.0

11



1 – Qualified 4 7.5

2 16 30.2

3 18 34.0

4 11 20.8

5 – Unqualified 4 7.5

Total 53 100.0



1 – Skilled 5 9.4

2 14 26.4

3 18 34.0

4 11 20.8

5 – Unskilled 5 9.4

Total 53 100.0

Table 35: Descriptives for Purchase Intention 1 If a new product is introduced through ads with a spokesmodel I do not find credible, I might

still buy it if it offers me benefits which I find attractive.





4 – Neutral 8 15.1


6 – Agree 22 41.5


Total 53 100.0

Table 36: Descriptives for Purchase Intention 2 If a product which I use adopts an ad campaign which I do not find the spokesmodel credible, I’ll

discontinue using it.





4 – Neutral 8 15.1


6 – Agree 1 1.9


Total 53 100.0

12

Table 37: Descriptives for Purchase Intention 3 I am willing to spend more on a product if I find the source to be credible.





4 – Neutral 12 22.6


6 – Agree 7 13.2


Total 53 100.0

Table 38: Descriptives for Purchase Intention 4

Even though I may see an ad with a spokesmodel that I do not find credible, I would continue to purchase other products from the company if their ads did not feature the spokesmodel.





4 – Neutral 17 32.1


6 – Agree 15 28.3


Total 53 100.0

Table 39: Descriptives for Opinion of Kendall Jenner Impact Opinion of the Ad


1 – None/Not at all 16 30.2

2 15 28.3

3 10 18.9

4 8 15.1

5 – Very much 3 5.7

Total 52 98.1

Table 40: Descriptives for Opinion of Kardashians Impact Opinion of Kendall Jenner


1 – None/Not at all 3 5.7

2 11 20.8

3 18 34.0

4 12 22.6

5 – Very much 8 15.1

Total 52 98.1

13

Table 41: Descriptives for Kendall Jenner Brand Separate from the Kardashian Brand


1 – Yes 33 62.3

2 – No 19 35.8

Total 52 98.1

Table 42: Descriptives for Purchased from Estée Lauder Before


1 – Definitely Yes 18 34.0

2 – Probably Yes 12 22.6

3 – Not Sure 5 9.4

4 – Probably Not 12 22.6

5 – Definitely Not 5 9.4

Total 52 98.1

Important Things to Note for Section 2:

Columns V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, V6, V7, V8, V9, V10, greeting, location longitude,

location latitude, location accuracy, and the ad were deleted due to irrelevance to study

All male responses were deleted because incomplete responses: 17, 18, 20, 37, 38, 39, 46,

56, 58, 62, 64, 76, 77, 92, 93, 104, 107, 113

Incomplete data and data in which the individual was “not familiar at all” with any of the following- Kendall Jenner, the Kardashian family, or that Kendall was a member of the

Kardashian family were deleted: 9, 22, 30, 33, 47, 48, 49, 52, 55, 57, 59, 60, 61, 63, 66, 71, 73, 75, 78, 79, 80, 86, 90, 91, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 108, 109,

110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117

The following were deleted due to failing the attention check: 83, 84, 94

14

Section 3: Factor Analysis

Table 43: Rotated Component Matrix

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Identify with Source 1 0.62




Attention to Ad 2 0.86

Attention to Ad 3 0.82

Brand Equity 1 0.61

Brand Equity 2 0.80

Brand Equity 3 0.85

Attitude Toward Sponsor 1 0.89



Attitude Toward Brand 1 0.88




Purchase Intention 1 0.86

Purchase Intention 4 0.73

Source Credibility 3 0.87

Source Credibility 4 0.91

Important Things to Note for Section 3:

Attention to Ad 1 is left out because the question was “how much attention did you pay to Kendall Jenner”. It was coming up with Identify with Source which is all about attitude

toward Kendall Jenner. They are too similar.

Brand Reinforcement is left out entirely because it is an extremely similar construct to

attitude toward brand.

Purchase Intention 2 and 3 are left out. Purchase Intention 2 is a poorly worded question including a double negative using the words “do not” and “discontinue”. Purchase

Intention 3 uses the word “source” instead of following the structure of the other questions that include the word “spokesmodel”. Source and spokesmodel can be

interpreted as different figures.

Source Credibility 1 and 2 are quite different from 3 and 4 and throw off the rest of the

data in other constructs.

Attitude Toward Advertiser coming up with Identify with Source. The constructs are too

similar and I asked an open-ended regarding attitude toward the advertiser.

15

Section 4: Reliability

Table 44:

Factor Loading

Mean SD SMC Alpha Alpha if

item

deleted

Identify with Source

Kendall Jenner is a person whom I want to be like.

3 3.53 1.55 .43

.87

.88

Kendall Jenner and I probably have

similar values and beliefs.

3 2.72 1.17 .62 .83

Kendall Jenner is quite a bit like me. 3 2.45 1.12 .67 .83

It’s likely that Kendall Jenner and I have similar tastes and preferences.

3 3.15 1.51 .65 .81

Table 45:

Factor Loading


item

deleted

Attention to Ad

How much did you concentrate on the red lips?

6 2.79 1.26 .20

.61

-

How much did you notice the lipstick product on the right?

6 2.77 1.33 .20 -

Table 46:

Factor

Loading Mean SD SMC Alpha

Alpha if item

deleted

Brand Equity

It makes sense to buy Estée Lauder instead of any other brand, even if

they are the same.

4 2.62 1.26 .21

.71

.71

Even if another brand has the same features as Estée Lauder, I would

prefer to buy.

4 3.25 1.43 .32 .61

If another brand is not different from Estée Lauder in any way, it seems smarter to purchase Estée Lauder.

4 3.28 1.45 .38 .51

16

Table 47:

Factor


Alpha if item

deleted

Attitude Toward Sponsor

Kendall Jenner makes me feel more favorable toward Estée Lauder.

1 3.17 1.57 .61

.71

.94

Kendall Jenner would improve my

perception of Estée Lauder.

1 3.15 1.50 .81 .87

Kendall Jenner makes me like Estée Lauder more.

1 2.89 1.46 .83 .85

Table 48:

Factor Loading


item

deleted

Attitude Toward Brand

Bad – Good 2 3.59 .78 .55

.85

.79

Dislike quite a lot – Like quite a lot 2 3.29 .64 .60 .81

Unpleasant – Pleasant 2 3.63 .82 .68 .76

Poor quality – High quality 2 3.96 .75 .37 .87

Table 49:

Factor Loading

Mean SD SMC Alpha

Alpha if

item deleted

Source Credibility

Qualified - Unqualified 5 2.91 1.06 .65

.89

-

Skilled – Unskilled 5 2.94 1.12 .65 -

Table 50:

Factor


Alpha if item

deleted

Purchase Intention

If a new product is introduced through ads with a spokesmodel I do

not find credible, I might still buy it if it offers me benefits which I find

attractive.

7 5.09 1.36 .09

.45

-

Even though I may see an ad with a spokesmodel that I do not find credible, I would continue to

purchase other products from the company if their ads did not feature

the spokesmodel.

7 4.62 1.13 .09 -

17

Section 5: ANOVA

Table 51: Descriptives for Identify with Source Average

Frequency Percent

1.00 4 7.5

1.25 2 3.8

1.75 3 5.7

2.00 5 9.4

2.25 3 5.7

2.50 5 9.4

2.75 4 5.7

3.00 3 9.4

3.25 6 7.5

3.50 3 5.7

3.75 1 11.3

4.00 4 5.7

4.25 2 3.8

4.50 1 1.9

4.75 2 3.8

5.00 4 7.5

Total 53 100.0

Table 52: Descriptives for Attention to Ad Average

Frequency Percent

1.00 6 11.3

1.50 4 7.5

2.00 10 18.9

2.50 6 11.3

3.00 6 11.3

3.50 6 11.3

4.00 13 24.5

4.50 1 1.9

5.00 1 1.9

Total 53 100.0

18

Table 53: Descriptives for Brand Equity Average

Frequency Percent

1.00 2 3.8

1.33 1 1.9

1.67 3 5.7

2.00 8 15.1

2.33 4 7.5

2.67 6 11.3

3.00 4 7.5

3.33 7 13.2

3.67 3 5.7

4.00 8 15.1

4.33 3 5.7

4.67 2 3.8

5.00 1 1.9

6.33 1 1.9

Total 53 100.0

Table 54: Descriptives for Attitude Toward Sponsor Average

Frequency Percent

1.00 7 13.2

1.33 1 1.9

1.67 1 1.9

2.00 10 18.9

2.33 2 3.8

2.67 3 5.7

3.00 2 3.8

3.33 7 13.2

3.67 4 7.5

4.00 5 9.4

4.33 2 3.8

5.00 7 13.2

6.00 1 1.9

6.33 1 1.9

Total 53 100.0

19

Table 55: Descriptives for Attitude Toward Brand Average

Frequency Percent

2.25 1 1.9

2.50 2 3.8

3.00 12 22.6

3.25 4 7.5

3.50 8 15.1

3.75 4 7.5

4.00 7 13.2

4.25 8 15.1

4.50 3 5.7

4.75 1 1.9

5.00 1 1.9

Total 51 96.2

Table 56: Descriptives for Source Credibility Average

Frequency Percent

1.00 3 5.7

1.50 3 5.7

2.00 8 15.1

2.50 10 18.9

3.00 11 20.8

3.50 6 11.3

4.00 7 13.2

4.50 1 1.9

5.00 4 7.5

Total 53 100.0

Table 57: Descriptives for Purchase Intention Average

Frequency Percent

2.00 2 3.8

3.00 1 1.9

3.50 2 3.8

4.00 8 15.1

4.50 9 17.0

5.00 14 26.4

5.50 5 9.4

6.00 9 17.0

6.50 3 5.7

Total 53 100.0

20

Table 58: Descriptives for Age

Frequency Percent

17 6 1.9

18 8 11.3

19 5 15.1

20 7 9.4

21 9 13.2

22 3 17.0

32 1 5.7

41 1 1.9

45 1 1.9

47 1 1.9

50 1 1.9

52 2 3.8

53 2 3.8

54 1 1.9

58 1 1.9

60 1 1.9

63 1 1.9

66 1 1.9

Total 52 100.0

Table 59: Descriptives for High Low Age

Frequency Percent

Age Low 26 49.1

Age High 26 49.1

Total 52 98.1

Table 60: Descriptives for High Medium Low Age

Frequency Percent

Age Low 19 35.8

Age Medium 16 30.2

Age High 17 32.1

Total 52 98.1

Table 61: Descriptives for Purchased from Estée Before Yes No

Frequency Percent

Yes 30 56.6

No 17 32.1

Neutral 5 9.4

Total 52 98.1

21

Table 62: Descriptives for Opinion of Kendall Impact Opinion of Ad

Frequency Percent

Little 31 58.5

Lot 11 20.8

Neutral 10 18.9

Total 52 98.1

Table 63: Descriptives for Opinion Kendall impact opinion Kardashians

Frequency Percent

Little 14 26.4

Lot 20 37.7

Neutral 18 34.0

Total 52 98.1

Table 64: Descriptives for Attention to Ad 1 HML

Frequency Percent

None/Not at all 24 45.3

Moderately 8 15.1

Very Much 21 39.6

Total 53 100.0

Table 65: Descriptives for Source Credibility 1 HML

Frequency Percent

Not Credible 17 32.1

Credible 17 32.1

Neutral 19 35.8

Total 53 100.0

Table 66: Descriptives for Attitude Toward the Advertiser 1 HML

Frequency Percent

Low Professional Ability 12 22.6

High Professional Ability 26 49.1

Neutral 15 28.3

Total 53 100.0

22

Hypothesis 1: Lower age category individuals will identify with the source, Kendall Jenner, more.

Table 67: ANOVA Results for Hypothesis 1

Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig.

Identify with Source Between Groups

21.61 2 10.80 11.32 0.00

Within Groups 46.77 49 0.96

Total 68.38 51

Table 68: Descriptives Results for Hypothesis 1

N Mean Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Minimum Maximum


Age Low 19 3.68 0.94 0.22 1.75 5.00

Age Medium 16 2.95 1.09 0.27 1.00 5.00

Age High 17 2.13 0.90 0.22 1.00 4.00

Total 52 2.95 1.16 0.16 1.00 5.00

Table 69: Tukey Post-Hoc Results for Hypothesis 1

Source Perception Identify

N Subset for alpha = 0.05

1 2

Age Low 17 2.13

Age Medium 16 2.95

Age High 19 3.68

Results 1: There were significant mean differences across high and low levels of Age HML with regards to identifying with the source (MeanIVHigh=2.13, MeanIVLow=3.68, F=11.32, P<.05). This means that younger individuals tend to identify with the source, Kendall Jenner, more.

Hypothesis 2: Individuals who view Kendall Jenner’s “brand” as separate from the Kardashian

“brand” feel as though they identify with her more than those who view the “brands” as not separate.


Sum of Squares

df Mean Square

F Sig.

Identify with Source Between

Groups

12.12 1 12.12 10.77 0.02


Total 68.38 51

23


N Mean Std. Deviation

Std. Error

Minimum Maximum

Identify

with Source

Yes 33 3.32 1.08 0.19 1.00 5.00

No 19 2.32 1.03 0.24 1.00 5.00

Total 52 2.95 1.02 0.16 1.00 5.00

Results 2: There were significant mean differences across high and low levels of Kendall Jenner Brand Separate from the Kardashian Brand with regards to identifying with the source (MeanYes=3.32, MeanNo=2.95, F=10.77, P<.05). This means that the people who view Kendall

Jenner’s “brand” as separate from the Kardashian brand claim to identify with the source, Kendall Jenner more.

Hypothesis 3: Individuals who view Kendall Jenner’s “brand” as separate from the Kardashian’s “brand” will have higher positive attitude toward the Estée Lauder brand.


Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig.


Between Groups

1.72 1 1.72 4.76 0.03


Total 19.01 49


N Mean Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Minimum Maximum


Yes 31 3.75 0.57 0.10 2.50 5.00

No 19 3.37 0.65 0.15 2.25 4.50

Total 50 3.61 0.62 0.09 2.25 5.00

Results 3: There were significant mean differences across high and low levels of Kendall Jenner Brand Separate from the Kardashian Brand with regards to identifying with the source

(MeanYes=3.75, MeanNo=3.37, F=4.76, P<.05). This means that the people who view Kendall Jenner’s “brand” as separate have a more positive attitude toward the brand Estée Lauder.

24

Hypothesis 4: Individuals who have purchased from Estée Lauder before will have increased brand equity.


Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig.

Brand Equity Between Groups

12.04 2 6.02 6.08 0.00


Total 60.58 51


N Mean Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Minimum Maximum

Brand Equity

Yes 30 3.49 1.00 0.18 2.00 6.33

No 17 2.51 0.99 0.24 1.00 4.33

Neutral 5 2.53 0.99 0.44 1.00 3.67

Total 52 3.08 1.09 0.15 1.00 6.33

Results 4: There were significant mean differences across high and low levels of purchasing from Estée Lauder before with regards to brand equity (MeanYes=3.49, MeanNo=2.51, F=6.08,

P<.05). This means that the people who have purchased from Estée Lauder before have higher brand equity.

Hypothesis 5: Individuals who have purchased from Estée Lauder before will have a more positive attitude toward the brand Estée Lauder.


Sum of Squares

df Mean Square

F Sig.

Attitude Toward the

Brand

Between

Groups

3.54 2 1.77 5.38 0.01

Within Groups 15.47 47 .33

Total 19.01 49



Std. Error

Minimum Maximum

Attitude

Toward the Brand

Yes 29 3.82 0.63 0.12 2.50 5.00

No 16 3.23 0.46 0.12 2.25 4.25

Neutral 5 3.55 0.57 0.25 3.00 4.25

Total 50 3.61 0.62 0.09 2.25 5.00

25

Results 5: There were significant mean differences across high and low levels of purchasing from Estée Lauder before with regards to attitude toward the brand (MeanYes=3.82,

MeanNo=3.23, F=5.38, P<.05). This means that the people who have purchased from Estée Lauder before have a more positive attitude toward the brand.

Hypothesis 6: Individuals who have purchased from Estée Lauder before will have a higher purchase intention.


Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig.

Purchase Intention Between Groups

6.44 2 3.22 3.42 0.04


Total 52.67 51


N Mean Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Minimum Maximum

Purchase Intention

Yes 30 5.08 0.91 0.17 3.00 6.50

No 17 4.35 1.10 0.27 2.00 6.50

Neutral 5 5.20 0.84 0.37 4.00 6.00

Total 52 4.86 1.02 0.14 2.00 6.50

Results 6: There were significant mean differences across high and low levels of purchasing from Estée Lauder before with regards to purchase intention (MeanYes=5.08, MeanNo=4.35,

F=3.42, P<.05). This means that the people who have purchased from Estée Lauder before have a higher purchase intention.

Hypothesis 7: The more an individual believes that their opinion of Kendall Jenner impacted their opinion of the ad the more attention they paid to the ad.


Sum of Squares

df Mean Square

F Sig.

Attention to Ad Between

Groups

8.07 2 4.04 3.66 0.03


Total 62.13 51

26



Std. Error

Minimum Maximum

Attention to Ad

Little 31 3.08 1.09 0.20 1.00 5.00

Lot 11 2.09 0.80 0.24 1.00 3.00

Neutral 10 2.70 1.16 0.37 1.00 4.00

Total 52 2.80 1.10 0.15 1.00 5.00

Results 7: There were significant mean differences across high and low levels of believing their

opinion of Kendall Jenner impacted their opinion of the ad with regards to attention to the ad (MeanLot=2.09, MeanLittle=3.08, F=3.66, P<.05). This means that the people who believe their

opinion of Kendall Jenner impacted their opinion of the ad a lot did not pay more attention to the ad.

Hypothesis 8: The more an individual believes that their opinion of Kendall Jenner impacted their opinion of the ad the higher their brand equity.


Sum of Squares

df Mean Square

F Sig.

Brand Equity Between Groups

7.87 2 3.94 3.66 0.03


Total 60.58 51


N Mean Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Minimum Maximum

Brand Equity

Little 31 2.98 1.04 0.19 1.00 6.33

Lot 11 2.67 1.11 0.33 1.33 4.33

Neutral 10 3.83 0.95 0.30 2.00 5.00

Total 52 3.08 1.09 0.151 1.00 6.33

Results 8: There were significant mean differences across high and low levels of believing their

opinion of Kendall Jenner impacted their opinion of the ad with regards to brand equity (MeanLot=2.67, MeanLittle=2.98, F=3.66, P<.05). This means that the people who believe their

opinion of Kendall Jenner impacted their opinion of the ad a lot did not have higher brand equity.

Hypothesis 9: The more an individual believes that their opinion of Kendall Jenner impacted

their opinion of the ad the higher the purchase intention.

27


Sum of Squares

df Mean Square

F Sig.

Purchase Intention Between Groups

8.21 2 4.11 4.53 0.02


Total 52.67 51


N Mean Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Minimum Maximum

Purchase Intention

Little 31 5.18 .85 0.15 3.50 6.50

Lot 11 4.27 1.25 0.38 2.00 5.50

Neutral 10 4.50 0.88 0.28 3.00 6.00

Total 52 4.86 1.02 0.14 2.00 6.50

Results 9: There were significant mean differences across high and low levels of believing their opinion of Kendall Jenner impacted their opinion of the ad with regards to purchase intention (MeanLot=4.67, MeanLittle=5.18, F=4.53, P<.05). This means that the people who believe their

opinion of Kendall Jenner impacted their opinion of the ad a lot did not have higher purchase intention.

Hypothesis 10: The more an individual believes that their opinion of the Kardashian family impacted their opinion of Kendall Jenner the more they identify with the source, Kendall Jenner.


Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig.


15.20 2 7.60 7.00 0.00


Total 68.38 51

Table 87: Descriptive Results for Hypothesis 10

N Mean Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Minimum Maximum


Little 14 2.89 0.95 .26 1.75 5.00

Lot 20 2.38 0.91 .20 1.00 4.00

Neutral 18 3.64 1.23 0.29 1.00 5.00

Total 52 2.95 1.16 0.16 1.00 5.00

28

Results 10: There were significant mean differences across high and low levels of believing their opinion of the Kardashian family impacted their opinion of Kendall with regards to identifying

with the source (MeanLot=2.38, MeanLittle=2.89, F=7.00, P<.05). This means that the people who believe their opinion of the Kardashian’s impacted their opinion of Kendall Jenner a lot did not

identify with the source, Kendall Jenner, more.

Hypothesis 11: The more an individual believes that their opinion of the Kardashian family

impacted their opinion of Kendall Jenner Opinion the more positive attitude they have toward the sponsor, Kendall Jenner.


Sum of Squares

df Mean Square

F Sig.

Attitude Toward Sponsor

Between Groups

16.84 2 8.42 4.81 0.01


Total 102.68 51


N Mean Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Minimum Maximum

Attitude

Toward Sponsor

Little 14 2.81 1.30 0.35 1.00 5.00

Lot 20 2.55 1.41 0.32 1.00 6.33

Neutral 18 3.83 1.24 0.29 2.00 6.00

Total 52 3.06 1.42 0.20 1.00 6.33

Results 11: There were significant mean differences across high and low levels of believing their opinion of the Kardashian family impacted their opinion of Kendall with regards to attitude toward the sponsor (MeanLot=2.55, MeanLittle=2.81, F=4.81, P<.05). This means that the people

who believe their opinion of Kardashian’s did impact their opinion of the Kendall Jenner did not have a more positive attitude toward the sponsor.

Hypothesis 12: The more an individual paid attention to Kendall Jenner in the ad, the more they selected that they identified with her.


Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig.


17.07 2 8.54 8.27 0.00


Total 68.68 52

29



Std. Error

Minimum Maximum

Identify

with Source

None/Not at all 24 2.35 1.04 0.21 1.00 5.00

Very Much 8 3.19 1.41 0.50 1.00 5.00

Moderately 21 3.58 0.80 0.17 2.00 5.00

Total 53 2.96 1.15 0.16 1.00 5.00

Results 12: There were significant mean differences across high and low levels of attention to ad

1 with regards to identifying with the source (MeanVeryMucht=3.19, MeanNone/NotAtAll=2.35, F=8.27, P<.05). This means that the people who paid more attention to Kendall Jenner in the ad, reported

a higher level of identifying with the source, Kendall Jenner. Hypothesis 13: The more credible the individual feels the source is, the higher their attitude

toward the sponsor will be.


Sum of Squares

df Mean Square

F Sig.

Attitude Toward

Sponsor

Between

Groups

28.56 2 14.28 9.62 0.00


Total 102.75 52



Std. Error

Minimum Maximum

Attitude Toward

Sponsor

Not Credible 17 2.55 1.08 0.26 1.00 5.00

Credible 17 4.14 1.18 0.29 1.00 6.33

Neutral 19 2.58 1.36 0.31 1.00 6.00

Total 53 3.07 1.41 0.19 1.00 6.33

Results 13: There were significant mean differences across high and low levels of credibility of source with regards to attitude toward the sponsor (MeanCredible=4.14, MeanNotCredible=2.55,

F=9.62, P<.05). This means that the people who view Kendall Jenner as having more credibility also had a more positive attitude toward the sponsor.

Hypothesis 14: The higher professional ability the individual feels the source, Kendall Jenner, has, the more they identify with the source.

30


Sum of Squares

df Mean Square

F Sig.


12.53 2 6.26 5.58 0.01


Total 68.68 52


N Mean Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

Minimum Maximum

Identify

with Source

Low Professional Ability 12 2.38 0.91 0.26 1.00 4.00

High Professional Ability

26 3.45 1.16 0.23 1.00 5.00

Neutral 15 2.58 0.98 0.25 1.00 4.25

Total 53 2.96 1.15 0.16 1.00 5.00

Results 14: There were significant mean differences across high and low levels of professional

ability with regards to identifying with the source (MeanHigh=3.45, MeanLow=2.38, F=5.58, P<.05). This means that the people who view Kendall Jenner as having a higher level of

professional ability also identified with her more. Hypothesis 15: The higher professional ability the individual feels the source, Kendall Jenner,

has, the more positive attitude they have toward the brand Estée Lauder.


Sum of Squares

df Mean Square

F Sig.


Between Groups

4.80 2 2.40 7.89 0.00


Total 19.42 50



Std. Error

Minimum Maximum

Attitude Toward

Brand

Low Professional Ability 12 3.15 .52 0.149 2.25 4.25

High Professional Ability

25 3.90 .51 0.10 3.00 5.00

Neutral 14 3.51 .65 0.17 2.50 4.50

Total 51 3.61 .62 0.09 2.25 5.00

31

Results 15: There were significant mean differences across high and low levels of professional ability with regards to attitude toward the brand (MeanHigh=3.90, MeanLow=3.15, F=7.89, P<.05).

This means that the people who view Kendall Jenner as having a higher level of professional ability also have a more positive attitude toward the brand Estée Lauder.

Hypothesis 16: The higher age group will be more familiar with Estée Lauder brand than the low.


Sum of Squares

df Mean Square

F Sig.

Familiarity with Estée

Lauder brand

Between

Groups

2.77 1 2.77 4.20 0.05


Total 35.77 551



Std. Error

Minimum Maximum

Familiarity

with Estée Lauder

brand

Age Low 26 2.58 0.90 0.18 1.00 3.00

Age High 26 2.12 0.71 0.14 1.00 3.00

Total 52 2.35 0.84 0.12 1.00 3.00

Results 16: There were significant mean differences across high and low levels of age with regards to familiarity with Estée Lauder brand (MeanHigh=2.12, MeanLow=2.58, F=4.20, P<.05).

This means that the lower age category is more familiar with the brand Estée Lauder. The hypothesis is not supported.

Section 6: Critical Incidence Technique

Table 100: CIT for Attitude Toward Kendall Jenner

Table 101: CIT for Attitude Toward Kardashian Family

32

Q1 Category #/% Criteria

Recognizable

13/18.31% Familiar and widely well known by many.

Key phrases include:

Popular

Famous

Neutral 12/16.90% Neither liking nor disliking. Key phrases include:

Indifferent

Ambivalent

Respected and Entertaining

10/14.08% Having positive personality traits or talent or provide amusement.


Hard working

Good at modeling

Negative 10/14.08% Unpleasant emotions or disapproval.


Spoiled

Not respected

Annoying

Physical Appearance 9/12.68% Any discussion of physical traits. Key phrases include:

Pretty

Face and body goals

Attractive

Admire 7/9.86% Having an influence on individuals that creates a desire to mimic one’s looks or actions.


Wish I could be more like her

Trend setter

Most Likeable Out

of all Siblings

7/9.86% Having a more favorable opinion toward than other

members of her family. Key phrases include:

Better than the rest

Most down to earth

Wealthy 3/4.23% Having more than sufficient financial means. Key phrases include:

Rich

Q1 Category #/% Criteria

Negative 43/58.11% Unpleasant emotions or disapproval.


Obnoxious

Greedy

Successful and Entertaining

10/13.51% Accomplishing achievements in the business world or provide amusement.


Succeeding

Experts on advertising

Recognizable

9/12.16% Familiar and widely well known by many.


Popular

Famous

Neutral 7/9.46% Neither liking nor disliking.


Indifferent

Ambivalent

Wealthy 6/8.11% Having more than sufficient financial means. Key phrases include:

Rich

Unusual 2/2.70% Different from the norm.


Unusual

Admire 1/1.35% Having an influence on individuals that creates a desire to

mimic one’s looks or actions. Key phrases include:

Wish I could be like them

Physical Appearance 1/1.35% Any discussion of physical traits. Key phrases include:

Pretty

33

Section 7: Conclusions

As shown by Tables 98 and 99, the lower age category is more familiar with Estée Lauder brand

than the higher age category. This supports the movement to a new, younger target market that Estée has more recently moved to. My suggestion would be to keep targeting younger individuals, but not forget about older:

Keep using ad campaigns with younger models that appeal to younger age groups, but

advertise more older individuals

Look into forming partnerships with more youth driven stores such as Sephora and Ulta,

department stores attract more of an older crowd

Use social media more to target this market: Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat

Extend product lines or items within with new products that appeal more to younger age groups, such as highlighters, eye liners

34

As shown by Tables 67 and 68, the lower age category also identifies with Kendall Jenner more, which makes sense since she just turned 21. This shows that using younger models that younger

individuals are quite familiar with is an advantage to an ad campaign. Bringing in more well-known and well admired models will likely allow young individuals to identify with the source

more, thus likely creating a demand or desire for the products that one endorses. As shown by Tables 70 and 71 those individuals who view Kendall Jenner’s “brand” as separate

from the rest of the Kardashian’s “brand” selected that they identify with her more. This tells us that per the data, more individuals who identify with Kendall Jenner do not think her “brand” is

related to the Kardashian “brand”. This is important in analyzing the impact of the controversial Kardashian families’ actions on Kendall Jenner’s modeling career and in return the Estée Lauder brand.

Continuing with this idea of related or not related “brands”, Tables 72 and 73 show that people

who view Kendall Jenner’s “brand” as separate from the Kardashian’s “brand” have a more positive attitude toward the brand Estée Lauder. This suggests that people who see the brands as separate from one another have a more positive attitude toward Estée Lauder. It could be

interpreted that if a negative occurrence happened with the “Kardashian brand” and not “Kendall Jenner’s brand” than more individuals may keep their positive attitude toward the brand Estée

Lauder. My suggestion is to keep the “brands” separate and not bring on Kendall’s younger sibling, Kylie Jenner as a spokesmodel. Kylie also has her own line of beauty supplies, which must be closely monitored as a possible threat in SWOT analysis and could potentially become a

conflict of interest for Kendall.

Tables 74 and 75 display that individuals who have purchased from Estée Lauder before have higher brand equity. It can be implied that this is true since the consumer knows and has experience with the brand’s products since they have been and customer before. Brand equity is

closely related to brand loyalty, which is something every company including Estée Lauder should strive toward. This relates back to the new target market that Estée Lauder is after. It is

more expensive to bring in new clientele than to keep the one’s Estée already has. Completely straying away from the older female market would not be beneficial to Estée Lauder and may even lead to profit loss.

Tables 76 and 77 show that people who have purchased from Estée Lauder before have a more

positive attitude toward the brand. This tells us that people who have purchased, like Estée brand. My suggestion would be to push out samples. Samples can lead to a sale, thus leading to a more positive attitude toward the brand.

Tables 78 and 79 relate to purchase intention which also relates to brand loyalty. These tables

support the hypothesis that people who have purchased from Estée Lauder before have a higher purchase intention. This restates the last point that Estée needs to products in consumer’s hands to test so that they know the products and want to purchase.

Tables 90 and 91 show that people who paid more attention to Kendall Jenner in the ad, reported

a higher level of identifying with the source, Kendall Jenner. Estée Lauder should strive to draw attention to Kendall Jenner as the newest spokesmodel for their brand. I would suggest setting up

35

meet and greets with Kendall, amping up her blog posts on the Estée Lauder website. Have Kendall share the links on her Instagram where she has about 70 million followers.

The CIT for Kendall Jenner versus the Kardashian family had some interesting results. In regards

to negative comments or feelings toward them, the responses for Kendall only contained about 14.08% negative factors, whereas the Kardashian family had 58.11% negative factors. Something else to note about Kendall is that many people (9.86%) felt that she was the most

likeable out of all the siblings. This relates back to the separation in the “brands”.

Section 8: Things to Change

In order to make this project more reliable and functional I would make the following changes:

Survey males through the entirety of the survey

Ask household income

Ask race

Explore new constructs such as endorser attractiveness

On top of asking statements like “Kendall Jenner makes me like Estée Lauder more”, I would also ask a reverse coded question, such as “Kendall makes me like Estée Lauder

less”

Not include the exact same construct twice, brand reinforcement and attitude toward

brand are the same so I had to remove one from my analysis

Separate “how much attention did you pay to this product” from “how much attention did

you pay to Kendall Jenner”

36

Avoid double negative statements, such as “If a product which I use adopts an ad

campaign which I do not find the spokesmodel credible, I’ll discontinue using it”. This uses both “discontinue” and “not”.

Avoid reversing question answers, such as starting with “Strongly Disagree” and moving

to “Strongly Agree” and then switching to “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree”

Let participants that end the survey earlier due to gender or unfamiliarity with one of the

necessary factors in this study still enter their age, will possibly provide insight into which age groups are familiar and which are not with the spokesmodel

Give better instructions for the open-ended questions. Be more specific with details desired

mccloskey_kendall_estee_443project

Documents