# Do endorsers contribute to the social standing of brands? Exploring social judgments about celebrities versus influencers

Françoise Simon, Marine Cambefort

► To cite this version:

Françoise Simon, Marine Cambefort. Do endorsers contribute to the social standing of brands? Exploring social judgments about celebrities versus influencers. Journal of Business Research, 2025, 200, pp.115671. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115671. hal-05235153

HAL Id: hal-05235153

https://uha.hal.science/hal-05235153v1

Submitted on 2 Sep 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Do endorsers contribute to the social standing of brands? Exploring social judgments about celebrities versus influencers

Françoise Simon<sup>a,*</sup> ID, Marine Cambefort<sup>b</sup>

## ARTICLE INFO

**Keywords:**

Endorsement

Celebrity

Influencer

Reputation

Status

Legitimacy

## ABSTRACT

As part of their institutional work, brands mobilize their social standing to signal their value, societal appropriateness, and power to consumers. Drawing on the microfoundations of social judgment, this study describes celebrities and influencers as two distinct categories of brand endorsers in terms of legitimacy, reputation, and status and explores how these consumer judgments affect brand social standing. A mixed-methods approach is used to investigate the structure of endorsers' social judgments, based on a qualitative study and lexicometric analysis of a 726-consumer panel. The results show that social judgments exhibit contrasting poles of meaning depending on the endorser category. Celebrity endorsers are brand-centered with abstract and symbolic legitimacy, whereas influencer endorsers exhibit concrete and product-centered legitimacy. In terms of reputation and status, celebrity endorsers are perceived as having a positive reputation and high status, while influencers are judged as more nuanced, with reality TV influencers potentially damaging brand image because of reputational stigma. This study extends the literature on advertising endorsement by offering insights into the endorser legitimacy construct as a form of brand-endorser congruency, whose strength and construal level depend on the endorser category. It provides new findings on the social comparison processes involved in brand endorsement and the contamination of negative biases. At the level of brand management, the study clarifies the nature of the complementarity of the two endorser categories and the tensions that their coexistence can engender. From a managerial perspective, the study delineates multi-endorsement brand strategies and the risks associated with influencer partnerships.

## 1. Introduction

From an institutional perspective, markets are socially embedded, complex, and adaptive systems in which organizations seek to shape mutual arrangements to their advantage by signaling their social standing. Social standing is understood as the overall recognition of a brand's social appropriateness, power, and ability to successfully meet the interests of its stakeholders (Baker et al., 2019; Dimov et al., 2007; Fombrun & Shanley, 1990; Podolny, 2001). Brands use their social standing to signal quality, increase their attractiveness, and influence relationships in their markets (Baker et al., 2019; Humphreys & Carpenter, 2018). This theoretical approach is based on the assumption that audience perceptions of a brand's social standing in a given market are driven by social judgments at the micro level (Dubois & Ordabayeva, 2015; Philippe et al., 2022). Drawing from prior research on the psychological and sociocognitive aspects of institutions (Bitektine, 2011;

Felin et al., 2015; Tost, 2011), Bitektine et al.'s (2020) framework of the microfoundations of social judgments states that an entity is socially judged by individuals based on a particular configuration of three dimensions: legitimacy, reputation, and status. However, only a limited number of studies have examined the social standing of brands as appraised by external audiences, particularly consumers, from an integrative standpoint that encompasses all three dimensions (Philippe et al., 2022). This research gap is important to address given that ever-expanding online connectivity is providing new opportunities for consumers to challenge brands and shape their legitimacy and reputation (Campbell & Price, 2021). In light of this, the present study aims to contribute to the theoretical understanding of how consumers' social judgments about a brand, or the entities representing that brand, influence the brand's social standing in terms of its legitimacy, reputation, and status.

In their pursuit of enhanced social standing, brands must integrate

<footnote><sup>a</sup> Université de Haute-Alsace, CREGO (UR 7317), 16 rue de la Fonderie, 68093 MULHOUSE Cedex, France</footnote>

<footnote><sup>b</sup> Université de Strasbourg, EM Strasbourg Business School, HuManiS, EA 7308, 61 Avenue de la Foret Noire, 67000 Strasbourg, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author.</footnote>

<footnote>E-mail addresses: francoise.simon@uha.fr (F. Simon), cambefort@em-strasbourg.eu (M. Cambefort).</footnote>
and control the effects of their endorsement practices. Such an action is necessary because endorsers, insofar as they are known entities, are subject to social judgments made by consumers, which may potentially be transferred to the brand. The use of endorsers to promote brands and their offerings has been a popular advertising strategy for decades (Carrillat & Ilicic, 2019), with nearly a quarter of all advertisements using a celebrity endorsement strategy (Knoll & Matthes, 2017). A study by Kleine et al. (2023, p. 262) found that celebrities appeared in 16% of advertisements in a global database of more than 13,000 TV, digital, print, and outdoor advertisements (Kantar, 2021). Prior research on endorsement has primarily focused on identifying the specific traits of endorsers that contribute to the effectiveness of celebrity endorsement campaigns through source-based models (Erdogan, 1999). The prevailing view is that either the credibility of the endorser, including their expertise and trustworthiness, or their attractiveness exerts a significant influence on brand evaluations (for a review, see Bergkvist & Zhou, 2016; Schimmelpfennig & Hunt, 2020). In contrast, the meaning transfer model (McCracken, 1989) posits that celebrity endorsers convey a more complex set of associations beyond these two typical qualities. Such associations include those of a deeper cultural nature, such as the social status and lifestyle type of the endorser, which enable symbolic transference to a brand. Despite the influence of the meaning transfer model, there has been a paucity of empirical studies investigating these meanings, and even fewer have examined their transfer to brands (Bergkvist & Zhou, 2016; Schimmelpfennig & Hunt, 2020). Finally, a substantial body of research on endorsement has proposed an improvement to previous source-based models through the introduction of the “match-up hypothesis” (e.g., Choi & Rifon, 2012; Knoll & Matthes, 2017), which posits that congruence between an endorser and the brand they endorse is a prerequisite for the effective transfer of associations to the brand.

However, this body of research presents several notable limitations in assessing the impact of endorsements on a brand's social standing. First, the models tend to focus on brand evaluations in terms of perceived quality, attitude, and image while neglecting the dimensions of legitimacy, reputation, and status. This oversight precludes the development of an institutional approach to the brand when mobilizing endorsers. Second, by targeting attractiveness and credibility as typical traits of endorsers, these models ignore the social judgments that endorsers themselves may elicit (e.g., Bauer et al., 2022; Schimmelpfennig & Hunt, 2020). Consequently, they cannot fully account for the nature of the social judgments associated with the entities. Finally, as influencers continue to emerge as a novel type of endorser on social media, new endorser traits may come to the fore in relation to social judgments. This is because social media, in contrast to mass media, can be understood as a public space in which individuals share personal information to signal or gain status and maintain relationships based on a virtual self that aligns with the social standards of the online space (Shehzala et al., 2024).

Gräve and Bartsch (2021) demonstrated that perceptual differences between influencers and celebrities extend beyond the attributes typically considered in endorsement research. As the literature comparing traditional celebrities and influencers is still in its infancy, the field remains limited and fragmented (Fan, 2021; Hugh Wilkie et al., 2022; Schouten et al., 2020). Nevertheless, this body of work suggests that contextual differences exist between influencers and celebrities, which the present study interprets as potentially related to forms of social judgment. For example, influencers are regarded as more akin to consumers and more approachable than traditional celebrities, whereas celebrities are perceived as serving an aspirational function, regardless of the medium, because of their fame and glamorous lifestyle (Djafarova & Rushworth, 2017; Schouten et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2022). These findings suggest that the two categories of endorsers are distinct in terms of social status. Given the interrelated nature of social judgments (Bitektine et al., 2020), it can be surmised that other consumers' social judgments about endorsers regarding, for example, their legitimacy or

reputation may play a pivotal role in the assessment of the endorsers' attributes, subsequently contributing to the formation of the brand's social standing. For example, the commercial misconduct of some influencers has had deleterious effects on their reputations (Antoniou, 2024), thus raising the question of whether this negative evaluation is passed on to the brand. Given that celebrities and influencers operate within distinct sociocultural contexts, the sources of their legitimacy are also likely to differ significantly, potentially creating tensions at the level of the brand's social standing.

Against this background, this study seeks to examine and compare two categories of endorsers—celebrities and influencers—through social judgments concerning their legitimacy, reputation, and status. A mixed methods approach was used to identify the conceptual content underlying each dimension for both endorser categories (qualitative study) and to explore the structure of social judgments based on a panel survey of 726 consumers (lexicometric analysis). The data reveal that specific configurations of social judgments shape consumer preferences for an endorser category and the social standing of brands.

The study extends the literature on brand management and advertising endorsement in four distinct ways. First, it describes celebrities and influencers according to new attributes ranging from legitimacy to status, thereby substantiating the contextual differences between the two endorser types. Second, the study enriches the match-up hypothesis by shedding light on the nexus of endorser legitimacy and brand-endorser congruency, as well as its dependency on endorser type. Third, the study provides new findings on the social comparison processes triggered by exposure to an endorser and the contamination of negative biases due to reputational stigma. Finally, the study presents compelling arguments regarding the use of mixed forms of brand endorsement. It clarifies the nature of the complementarity of the two endorser types in terms of their respective legitimacies and the tensions that their coexistence can generate for brand management. From a managerial perspective, the study offers insights into the formulation of multi-endorsement brand strategies and the potential risks associated with influencer partnerships.

## 2. Conceptual background and research questions

### 2.1. *The microfoundations of social judgments*

Marketing research has increasingly used neo-institutional theory to explore market change through relational processes, which has expanded the recognition of the institutional work of brands in promoting their social standing and shaping consumer preferences (Dolbec et al., 2022; Humphreys & Carpenter, 2018). A brand's social standing can be understood as the global perception of the entity's social appropriateness, value, and power based on the social judgments of external audiences (Philippe et al., 2022; Piazza & Castellucci, 2014; Podolny, 2001). The social construction of judgments involves both macro- and micro-level institutional processes (Berger et al., 1998; Bitektine, 2011; Tost, 2011). This multilevel perspective recognizes that macro-level outcomes often stem from complex interactions between lower-level elements (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).

Bitektine et al. (2020) have identified legitimacy, reputation, and status as distinct types of social judgments that underlie the construction of an entity's social acceptability and standing. Each type of social judgment is described as follows.

* *Legitimacy* includes both cognitive and sociopolitical legitimacy. Cognitive legitimacy is based on the recognition of an entity's membership in a particular category in the minds of evaluators, while sociopolitical legitimacy is primarily concerned with the acceptability of an entity based on its performance, practices, and outcomes in terms of conformity with social norms (Suchman, 1995). Overall, the legitimacy of an entity is built from established cultural accounts that explain the entity's existence and whether it is
beneficial or hazardous to social groups or society at large (Bitektine et al., 2020; Meyer & Scott, 1983).

* Reputation is defined as the perception of an entity's attributes as inferred from its past actions. Thus, it describes the entity's overall attractiveness to key constituents in comparison to that of its competitors (Podolny, 2005). Reputation is relevant to anticipating future behavior or performance and plays an important role in the differentiation of entities within a category (Bitektine, 2011). As certain entities are structurally perceived as having a “bad reputation” due to inherent attributes that are negatively evaluated, they are likely to suffer from a social judgment based on stigma, “an evaluation held and often expressed by some social audience(s) that an organization or set of organizations is discounted, discredited, and/or tainted in some way owing to some core attribute or attributes” (Hudson, 2008, p. 254). Stigmatized entities are evaluated as possessing morally questionable attributes that make them highly unattractive (Pollock et al., 2019).

* Status reflects the perceived prominence of an entity's relative position within the social system (Wejnert, 2002). Status judgments attempt to determine where an entity fits within the hierarchy of entities in its field (Bitektine et al., 2020). Whereas reputation “captures differences in perceived or actual quality or merit that generate earned, performance-based rewards,” status “captures differences in social rank that generate privilege or discrimination” (Washington & Zajac, 2005, p. 283). For example, celebrities are perceived as having a higher status as brand endorsers than models (Thomas et al., 2020).

## 2.2. Advertising endorsement and the meaning transfer model

McCracken's (1989) interpretive model of meaning transfer is significant in endorsement research. The model focuses on the cultural meanings of celebrities as endorsers and how the endorsement process enables the transfer of those meanings from the culturally constituted world to brands and consumer societies. Prior studies on endorsement using the attractiveness or credibility source model have empirically demonstrated that celebrities who endorse a brand can enhance brand performance by serving as credible or attractive and likable sources, respectively (Schimmelpfennig & Hunt, 2020; Wong et al., 2020). However, McCracken (1989) has contended that the importance of celebrity endorsement cannot be reduced to credibility or attractiveness and likability because endorsers are complex cultural figures associated with a wide range of meanings, including status, class, personality traits, abilities, and lifestyle associations (Erdogan, 1999; Kennedy et al., 2019). Through their personal lives and public roles, celebrities come into contact with many objects, people, and contexts and transfer meaning (Ilicic & Webster, 2015). Some associations can be positive, while others may be negative. For instance, in the 1980s, Madonna was perceived as sexy and modern but also outlandish and mean (Campbell & Warren, 2012, p. 174).

Although the meaning transfer model is influential, few studies have investigated the mechanisms that govern the transfer of endorser-related meanings (Bergkvist & Zhou, 2016; Schimmelpfennig & Hunt, 2020). Early experimental studies examined the direct transfer of symbolic meanings from the endorser to the brand. For instance, Batra and Homer (2004) found that the association of a celebrity endorser's personality with fun and sophistication could reinforce consumer beliefs about the brand's benefits in those dimensions. Similarly, Miller and Allen (2012) demonstrated that negative meanings, such as being trashy or controversial, were transferred from endorsers to brands through mere co-occurrence and manifested new or altered beliefs about the brands.

Subsequent experimental studies have sought to determine the role of endorser-brand congruence in the meaning transfer process. The match-up hypothesis (Kamins, 1990; Lynch & Schuler, 1994) posits that endorser-brand congruence is necessary for a brand to benefit from the transfer of endorser characteristics. Among the dimensions of

congruence, product category fit, credibility, attractiveness, and image have been the most commonly studied, while symbolic meanings have rarely been examined (Schimmelpfennig & Hunt, 2020; Song & Kim, 2020). In alignment with the meaning transfer model, Campbell and Warren (2012) have found that celebrity-product congruence moderated the transfer of symbolic meanings from celebrities to brands. Specifically, positive traits, such as being intelligent, fun, and young, transferred only under conditions of high congruence, whereas negative traits, such as being arrogant or ditsy, transferred even under conditions of low congruence. Their findings suggest that the endorser-to-brand meaning transfer process is influenced by the negativity bias effect, whereby negative information often has a greater psychological impact than positive information (Baumeister et al., 2001). However, existing models of endorsement tend to capitalize on the positive valence of the endorser's attributes since the literature supports the transfer of valence—either overall valence (e.g., likability, credibility) or valence regarding specific attributes (i.e. symbolic meanings)—to the product, regardless of the transfer of meaning per se (Shang et al., 2008; Wong et al., 2020).

In comparison to traditional source-effect models, which are based on credibility or attractiveness, the meaning transfer model appears to be more aligned with an institutional approach to endorsement because it incorporates symbolic and cultural associations, such as an endorser's status or personality, that can explain a greater number of social judgments. Furthermore, applications of this model have empirically demonstrated that the meanings associated with an endorser, whether positive or negative, influence brand beliefs. These findings provide a rationale to assert that social judgments, as meanings associated with endorsers, can impact perceptions of a brand's social standing.

### 2.2.1. Categorical differentiation of celebrity and influencer endorsers

While celebrities have long served as major spokespeople in traditional advertising, a growing number of marketers have turned to influencers to promote their brands and products on social media (Leung et al., 2022). The comparison of the endorsement effectiveness of these two types of endorsers has spawned a new stream of research (Schouten et al., 2020). This emerging literature shares the premise that celebrities and influencers represent two distinct categories of endorsers in the minds of consumers (Gräve & Bartsch, 2021; Zhu et al., 2022).

From an institutional perspective, influencers differ from celebrities in terms of the source of their fame. Whereas celebrities have had their professional talents and achievements certified by formal institutions associated with cultural industries (e.g., film, music, sports), influencers do not benefit from the recognition of a formal institution (McQuarrie et al., 2013). As influencers gain followers by sharing content, they acquire their audiences directly without institutional mediation (Gräve & Bartsch, 2021). Therefore, they are perceived as more connected to users and more approachable than traditional celebrities (Djafarova & Rushworth, 2017; Zhu et al., 2022).

The categorical distinction between these two endorser types is also reflected in the models employed to explain their social media effectiveness. While the credibility source model has been used to explain the social media effectiveness of both influencers and celebrities, the identification model (Austin et al., 2008) has been applied only to celebrities (Kim et al., 2021; Schouten et al., 2020). Consistent with the meaning transfer model (McCracken, 1989), the identification model assumes that the identification process occurs because consumers aspire to be endowed with the meanings ascribed to celebrities, and they believe that celebrity-endorsed products will help them increase their own attractiveness (Austin et al., 2008; Schouten et al., 2020). Through multidimensional scaling, Gräve and Bartsch (2021) have empirically confirmed that consumers perceived fundamental differences between celebrities and influencers beyond endorser characteristics, such as credibility, attractiveness, and likability, that are commonly used in source-effect models. This finding leaves space for social judgments to explain differences in perceptions between the two types of endorsers.
## 2.3. Research questions

Based on the conceptual approach of the microfoundations of social judgments (Bitektine et al., 2020) and the meaning transfer model proposed by McCracken (1989) in the field of advertising endorsement, this study explores whether influencers and celebrities constitute two distinct categories of endorsers based on consumers' social judgments, which are understood as a structured set of meanings. In addition, it investigates how particular configurations of social judgments associated with an endorser category may align with the consumer preference for the endorser category as a facilitating condition for meaning transfer to the brand. The research questions are as follows.

* Q1: What are the meanings associated with each endorser category—celebrity and influencer—in social judgments based on legitimacy, reputation, and status?

* Q2: What are the similarities and differences between the two endorser categories based on legitimacy, reputation, and status?

* Q3: Do specific configurations of social judgments associated with a particular endorser category (a) align with the consumer preference for that endorser category and (b) translate to the brand's social standing?

The dynamics of a brand's social standing have become more complex as consumers, as a stakeholder group, have gained novel avenues for shaping the legitimacy and reputation of brands. Characterizing endorsers in terms of the social judgments they elicit can yield insights into the influence of endorsers on the social branding of brands and more effectively differentiate between influencers and traditional celebrities.

## 3. Research design

Research on social judgments at the micro level is still under development in institutional theory (Bitektine et al., 2020). Thus, its application to brand endorsers as particular types of social actors, some of whom recently emerged with the rise of social media, is best suited to an exploratory and predominantly qualitative approach. The present study adopts a mixed methods approach based on sequential exploratory research, which seeks to “use quantitative data and results to assist in the interpretation of qualitative findings” (Creswell et al., 2003, p. 181). In this design, quantitative data are built on qualitative findings to provide generalizability and refine the understanding of a particular phenomenon (Hanson et al., 2005; Venkatesh et al., 2016).

In the first phase of the study, 32 in-depth interviews were conducted to identify the meanings that consumers associate with the celebrity and influencer endorser categories and to examine the extent to which they feed into the legitimacy-reputation-status grid for social judgments. The data were analyzed using thematic axial coding. In the second phase, a survey instrument was developed on the basis of the qualitative findings and piloted with a panel of 726 consumers. The panel was reasonably representative of the French adult population under the age of 55. A lexicometric approach was used to analyze the lexical forms ascribed to the endorser-related social judgments. This type of approach is frequently employed to examine social evaluations. In the present case, such evaluations pertained to endorsers. Social evaluations are regarded as reflecting the collective elaboration of a social object by a specific group of stakeholders and are therefore characterized by a high degree of consensus among individuals (Moliner & Abric, 2015; Moscovici, 1963; Wagner et al., 1999). Lexicometric methods are inductive quantitative techniques based on co-occurrences of lexical forms that are used to identify relationships and build conceptual structures between data (Illia et al., 2014; Salime et al., 2021; Schweitzer & Simon, 2021). They provide a rigorous and systematic way to uncover hidden patterns in lexical forms for research purposes (Lo Monaco et al., 2017). In the present study, the lexicometric approach was selected for three reasons.

First, it is appropriate for analyzing a corpus of textual data representing social evaluations within the consumer stakeholder group from a neo-institutional perspective. Second, it is well suited for extending the findings of a qualitative survey on perceptions of a social object (in this case, brand endorsers) to a broader corpus of textual data to ensure generalizability; therefore, it is consistent with sequential exploratory research in a mixed methods design (Creswell et al., 2003). Finally, it can uncover the proximities and distances among the data for the comparison of endorser categories. The following sections present the qualitative study and subsequent lexicometric exploration in line with the research design.

## 4. Study 1: Qualitative investigation

The first study explored the social judgments of celebrities and influencers as brand endorsers. A conceptual grid was established using an inductive method based on semi-structured interviews.

### 4.1. Methodology

#### 4.1.1. Data collection

A qualitative investigation was conducted in France between September 2022 and March 2023. The study included designing, conducting, and interpreting in-depth interviews to gain insight into perceptions of celebrities and influencers and, more particularly, social judgments associated with these two categories of brand endorsers among the overall population.

Thirty-two interviews were conducted in French. The interviews ranged from 30 to 58 min in duration. Because the goal of qualitative research “is not the breadth or representativeness of large-n research, but rather the depth of the knowing” (Bonoma, 1985, p. 206), the objective was to elicit a diversity of viewpoints on brand endorsers, and the sample was designed accordingly to encompass a range of respondents in terms of gender, age, and professions (Table 1). Regarding

<table><caption>Table 1
Qualitative sample.</caption><thead><tr><td>No.</td><td>Gender</td><td>Age</td><td>Occupation</td><td>Interview duration</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Female</td><td>29</td><td>Bank employee</td><td>43 min</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Male</td><td>56</td><td>HRM</td><td>42 min</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Female</td><td>44</td><td>Personal care assistant</td><td>40 min</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Male</td><td>32</td><td>Prison guard</td><td>41 min</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Male</td><td>24</td><td>Student</td><td>41 min</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Male</td><td>30</td><td>Station agent</td><td>30 min</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Female</td><td>22</td><td>Student</td><td>35 min</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Female</td><td>32</td><td>Business developer</td><td>40 min</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Female</td><td>26</td><td>Hairdresser</td><td>46 min</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Female</td><td>27</td><td>Order picker</td><td>54 min</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Female</td><td>31</td><td>Housewife</td><td>58 min</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Male</td><td>28</td><td>Salesperson</td><td>45 min</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Female</td><td>31</td><td>Nurse</td><td>41 min</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Female</td><td>22</td><td>Student</td><td>46 min</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Male</td><td>38</td><td>Concierge</td><td>42 min</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Female</td><td>22</td><td>Bank employee</td><td>30 min</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Female</td><td>56</td><td>Personal care assistant</td><td>35 min</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Female</td><td>28</td><td>Unemployed</td><td>43 min</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>Female</td><td>22</td><td>Rental manager</td><td>30 min</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Female</td><td>24</td><td>HRM</td><td>40 min</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>Female</td><td>52</td><td>Middle manager executive</td><td>47 min</td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>Male</td><td>27</td><td>Laboratory assistant</td><td>58 min</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Male</td><td>28</td><td>Engineer</td><td>38 min</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>Male</td><td>42</td><td>Social worker</td><td>45 min</td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>Female</td><td>40</td><td>Executive</td><td>50 min</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>Male</td><td>28</td><td>Photograph</td><td>55 min</td></tr><tr><td>27</td><td>Male</td><td>55</td><td>Business owner</td><td>37 min</td></tr><tr><td>28</td><td>Female</td><td>30</td><td>Salesperson</td><td>52 min</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>Female</td><td>49</td><td>Childminder</td><td>38 min</td></tr><tr><td>30</td><td>Male</td><td>22</td><td>Student</td><td>44 min</td></tr><tr><td>31</td><td>Male</td><td>35</td><td>Graphic artist</td><td>41 min</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>Female</td><td>51</td><td>Engineer</td><td>48 min</td></tr></tbody></table>
gender, 19 respondents were female, and 13 were male. The respondents were between the ages of 22 and 56 years, and 75 % were between the ages of 20 and 40. This demographic was intentionally overrepresented to align with the prevalence of Millennials and Generation Z on particular social media platforms, such as Instagram or TikTok, that has been observed in France (Statista, 2023) and the USA (Auxier & Anderson, 2021). Nevertheless, efforts were made to ensure that all age groups were represented in the sample. Respondents worked in a variety of occupations, including management (5 respondents), community and social services (3), personal care and services (3), sales and related occupations (3), architecture and engineering (2), art, design, entertainment, sports, and media (2), business and financial operations (2), healthcare (2), office and administrative support (2), healthcare support (1), and transportation and material moving (1). Six respondents identified as students, unemployed individuals, or homemakers.

An interview guide for exploring brand endorsement perceptions was used for conducting the interviews. First, respondents were asked about their general perceptions of brand advertising. Then, they were questioned about their perceptions of celebrities and influencers with a focus on brand endorsement. The two endorser categories were compared at the end of the interviews. The number of interviews was determined using the data saturation criterion (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). The interviews were stopped when they no longer provided new information to answer the research questions, which occurred after 32 interviews.

### 4.1.2. Data analysis

According to Creswell (2007), the general procedure for data analysis in qualitative research includes preparing and organizing the data, reducing them into themes through coding, and then presenting them in tables and discussing them. Based on this procedure, the 32 interviews were transcribed and collected into a corpus for subsequent thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Initially, axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) was employed to identify recurring patterns and themes, which were then compared with the relevant literature. Finally, a conceptual grid was established for social judgments regarding legitimacy, reputation, and status.

## 4.2. Results

This section presents the respondents' social judgments about brand endorsers and analyzes the similarities and differences between celebrities and influencers. Tables 2 and 3 present the themes identified in the respondents' social judgments about each endorser type based on representative verbatim quotations from respondents.

### 4.2.1. Celebrities

The legitimacy of celebrity endorsers is primarily grounded in four perceptual elements: congruence with the brand's symbolic universe, sublimation of the brand, signaling of the brand's premium characteristics, and adequation with qualitative visual media. First, celebrities who are perceived as congruent with a brand's symbolic universe can become brand ambassadors because they embody the values and soul of the brand. For instance, one respondent stated that the Dior Sauvage advertisement featuring Johnny Depp exemplified and effectively conveyed the brand's values of masculine coolness and a laid-back attitude. Second, celebrities can provide a sense of glamor and elegance to a brand, which can communicate the brand's aspirational meaning and dream to the audience, thus sublimating the brand image. Similarly, celebrities can signal the premium characteristics of a brand, which indicates the brand's qualitative positioning. Several respondents observed that a brand's capacity to finance the use of a celebrity, which they perceived as indicative of the brand's global capacity, strongly suggests a high quality of products. Finally, brand advertising with celebrities is associated with qualitative visual media, such as TV or cinema, and thus requires the elegance and aura that characterize celebrities.

Public perceptions of a celebrity's reputation are shaped by exceptional talent and considerable notoriety. Respondents recognized that celebrities must have performed exceptionally well in their particular fields (e.g., film, music, sports) to achieve their fame. Such notoriety enables them to be recognized by different generations around the world. Furthermore, the respondents perceived celebrities as having an exclusive status characterized by a form of social distinction. This perception was reflected in the view that celebrities stand out in a crowd but are inaccessible and distant. However, respondents did not perceive this social distance as a threat or with resentment, and many of them

<table><caption>**Table 2**
Social judgments of celebrities as brand endorsers.</caption><thead><tr><th>Social judgments</th><th></th><th>Verbatim</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4"><strong>Legitimacy</strong></td><td>Congruence with the symbolic universe of the brand</td><td>"Celebrities can embody brand values." (Female, 31 years)<br>"So, the image and soul of the brand will be the image and soul of the celebrity." (Female, 22 years)<br>"If we attribute values such as masculinity, seriousness, reliability, and authenticity to the star, we also attribute these values to the brand." (Male, 56 years)</td></tr><tr><td>Sublimation of the brand</td><td>"Leonardo DiCaprio enhances the brand image." (Male, 24 years)<br>"A star adds luster to the brand." (Female, 29 years)<br>"It's a bit of a dream when a celebrity represents a brand." (Female, 31 years)<br>"Celebrities add a touch of elegance." (Female, 30 years)</td></tr><tr><td>Signal of brand's premium characteristic</td><td>"When a celebrity is associated with a brand, it is a guarantee, it means the brand is prestigious." (Male, 32 years)<br>"Ads with celebrities mean quality." (Female, 32 years)<br>"I trust an ad with a celebrity more... The brand spent a lot of money on the ad, so I expect the products to be worth it and be good quality." (Female, 22 years)</td></tr><tr><td>Adequation with qualitative visual media</td><td>"For high-end brands or luxury brands, I prefer celebrities [as brand endorsers]." (Female, 30 years)<br>"They are present on traditional channels like television." (Male, 32 years)<br>"We can see them in classic media, such as television or cinema." (Male, 35 years)<br>"When celebrities represent a brand, they're mostly on screens, in TV ads." (Female, 40 years)<br>"I see the Nespresso TV ad as elegant and refined, in line with George Clooney's image." (Woman, 30 years)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"><strong>Reputation</strong></td><td>Exceptional talent</td><td>"A celebrity is someone with a great talent." (Male, 30 years)<br>"They have some talent, some merit." (Female, 32 years)<br>"Someone who has done something extraordinary." (Male, 32 years)</td></tr><tr><td>Fame</td><td>"Someone who can influence all generations." (Male, 24 years)<br>"A celebrity is known by everyone." (Male, 56 years)<br>"They are more famous than influencers, sometimes worldwide." (Male, 35 years)</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Status</strong></td><td>Social distinction</td><td>"They are almost inaccessible to their fans." (Male, 30 years)<br>"Celebrities are more distant from their community than influencers." (Male, 35 years)<br>"The celebrity is a star, one who stands apart from the crowd. You can't get close to her." (Female, 22 years)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 3**
Social judgments of influencers as brand endorsers.</caption><thead><tr><th>Social judgments</th><th></th><th>Verbatim</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6"><strong>Legitimacy</strong></td><td>Product authentication</td><td>"I know they test and test products again." (Female, 32 years)<br>"The advantage of influencers is they directly test products; they know what they are talking about." (Female, 29 years)<br>"We can see the product in a real setting." (Female, 26 years)</td></tr><tr><td>Product access<br>democratization</td><td>"I would prefer an influencer because I could get a promo code and so a discount." (Female, 22 years)<br>"I appreciate promo codes from influencers." (Female, 26 years)<br>"When I want to get good tips and promo codes, I'd love to see an influencer." (Female, 22 years)</td></tr><tr><td>Adequation with social<br>media</td><td>"Influencers are great for small brands because they help to raise awareness of these brands that are not yet well known." (Female, 28 years)<br>"Someone who is mainly active on social networks." (Female, 44 years)<br>"Influencers are only present on YouTube and social networks." (Male, 35 years)<br>"Influencers appeared thanks to social networks." (Female, 40 years)</td></tr><tr><td>Lack of exceptional talent</td><td>"An influencer doesn't necessarily have to be talented." (Male, 30 years)<br>"Anyone can be an influencer." (Female, 32 years)<br>"I don't think 'influencer' is a real job. It doesn't require any professional skills." (Female, 52 years)</td></tr><tr><td>Variability of trust</td><td>"Influencers benefit from a high level of trust." (Male, 32 years)<br>"I'd rather trust influencers, because it seems more authentic." (Female, 26 years)<br>"I rely on influencers' opinions." (Female, 22 years)<br>"Influencers are no longer as authentic as they were at the beginning." (Male, 38 years)<br>"Influencers promote products just for money and not for product advantages. I'm sure some of them aren't happy with the product, but they still promote it." (Female, 28 years)</td></tr><tr><td>Reality TV stigma</td><td>"Influencers are opportunists who jump on the bandwagon and associate themselves with brands only for money." (Male, 55 years)<br>"Reality TV stars will do product placement for anything as long as they make money, they don't care if the brand is questionable, most of the time it's drop shipping." (Female, 30 years)<br>"There are a lot of scandals and a lot of lies among real TV influencers." (Male, 56 years)<br>"Advertising with reality TV influencers means fraud." (Female, 28 years)<br>"Reality TV influencers promote ineffective products that lead to distrust." (Female, 27 years)</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3"><strong>Status</strong></td><td>Social proximity</td><td>"Influencers try to create a bond with their community." (Female, 29 years)<br>"Influencers are more approachable than celebrities." (Female, 31 years)<br>"We know influencers almost as well as our family members or friends." (Female, 29 years)</td></tr><tr><td>Ephemeral status</td><td>"An influencer is fleeting." (Male, 30 years)<br>"A celebrity will always be famous whereas an influencer will be fleeting." (Female, 51 years)</td></tr></tbody></table>

consistently placed celebrities at the top of the social hierarchy based on their success.

### 4.2.2. Influencers

The respondents understood the legitimacy of influencers to be dependent on their social function of authenticating products and making them accessible to their followers. This function was viewed as inseparable from an influencer's suitability for social media. For the respondents, product authentication entailed testing a product in a real setting and displaying its characteristics in their raw reality. Respondents consistently assumed that influencers are somehow linked to the product categories they promote—for example, a gamer will promote a video game. Additionally, they closely associated influencers with the distribution of promotional codes offering discounts to their followers, which makes brands increasingly accessible to consumers. This accessibility is perceived as relevant to mainstream and nascent brands with limited commercial development, as promotional codes for these brands offer consumers the opportunity to discover cheaper products. The final element reported to determine influencers' legitimacy was their adequacy on social media platforms, such as YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok. The respondents were aware of the direct link between influencers and social networking and understood that social networks represent a unique environment in which influencers can be effective and feel comfortable. At the same time, some respondents observed that certain influencers were gaining access to cultural institutions that were previously reserved for celebrities. For example, one respondent noted that the French lifestyle influencer Léna Situations attended the Met Gala, an annual fundraising event that is highly prized within the fashion industry.

The reputation of influencers inverts that of celebrities in that it is driven by the general perception of a lack of exceptional talent and is affected by the variability of trust they inspire in consumers. Influencers are believed to gain their professional status not through specific skills but by sharing their personal lives, which is often perceived negatively. In line with this perspective, respondents expressed that anyone could do what influencers do. In addition, the influencer category was

fundamentally linked to the variability of trust they inspire in consumers. Several respondents reported having a complete lack of trust in influencers in regard to product placement, while other respondents indicated a willingness to trust certain influencers but expressed reservations about others. Such differences in opinion were not associated with the age of the respondents or the specialty of the influencers. The first group of respondents perceived influencers as inherently dishonest and suspected that they would be willing to promote any product for money without concern for their followers. The second group of respondents distinguished between influencers who appear honest and authentic and those who seem less trustworthy. They based this distinction on positive cues, such as a low number of placements per day or the promotion of products that are obviously congruent with the influencer.

Reality TV influencers appear to be widely subject to social stigma. Most respondents spontaneously differentiated between influencers who started their careers on social media and those who had first appeared on a TV show. In this context, reality TV refers to shows in which contestants expose their private lives without displaying any specific talent. These programs are known in the media literature as “docusoaps” or “reality dating programs” (Montemurro, 2008). The respondents distinguished these shows from those in which participants face real-life survival situations under extreme conditions or showcase their talents, such as singing or dancing. A frequently cited example of a typical French reality show that has produced many French influencers was *Les Marseillais*, which dramatizes the love lives of expatriate residents of the city of Marseilles in various paradisiacal locations around the globe. Respondents associated product placements by reality TV influencers with various deceptive practices, including the use of dropshipping and the promotion of dubious brands or ineffective products. They also perceived reality TV influencers as controversial and unreliable and believed that they posed risks to a brand's image.

The status of influencers is fundamentally defined by their social proximity and the ephemeral nature of their professions. Because of their proximity to their followers, they are often perceived as more “approachable” than celebrities. Several respondents recognized that
influencers strive to foster close relationships with their followers through regular interactions. This social bond was viewed positively as a social benefit for followers. Some respondents regarded influencers almost as friends or family members because they shared their personal lives on a daily basis. They also considered influencers to be similar to their followers in terms of values and lifestyle. However, they perceived the status of an influencer as fleeting, as individual influencers often remain popular for only a short period. Essentially, the longevity of influencers was seen as tenuous and dependent on the influencer's ability to maintain ongoing social proximity and continue attracting the interest of their followers.

### 4.3. Conclusion

This study aimed to explore the social judgments associated with celebrities and influencers who serve as brand endorsers. A conceptual grid was constructed along three dimensions of social judgment—legitimacy, reputation, and status—for both types of brand endorsers. The findings reveal some noteworthy differences between the two. First, the legitimacy of celebrities was primarily linked with symbolic brand values, whereas that of influencers was related to product attributes. While celebrities sublimate the brand and express its universe, influencers authenticate products and democratize access. Moreover, celebrity endorsers and influencers were associated with distinct channels of advertisement supporting their legitimacy. Celebrities usually appear in traditional visual media, whereas influencers typically appeal to social networks. The reputation of influencers was also more complex and nuanced than that of celebrities. Celebrities enjoy a level of fame that allows them to be widely recognized across generations and countries, and their reputations are based on exceptional talent. In contrast, influencers do not benefit from any particular talent, and the trust that they inspire in their followers varies.

Based on the results, influencers can be divided into two categories: those who are perceived as reliable and honest by their followers, and those who are viewed as only interested in making money and lacking benevolence toward their followers. Reality TV influencers were subject to social stigmatization and associated with unfair and dubious brand promotion practices. Finally, the statuses of the two types of brand endorsers mark the opposition between social distinction and proximity. While celebrities are perceived as distant from their audience because of their prestige, influencers are perceived as close to their followers because of their regular interactions with their community and their perceived social similarity. The social proximity of influencers is also connected to the ephemerality of their professional status, which was considered fragile and fleeting.

## 5. Study 2: Lexicometric analysis

The second study employed a survey instrument informed by the qualitative investigation and was designed to explore the structure of social judgments associated with celebrities and influencers as brand endorsers through lexicometric analysis (see Fig. 1).

### 5.1. Methodology

Building on the conceptual grid of social judgments about celebrities versus influencers as brand endorsers provided by the qualitative study, we surveyed a large sample of 18- to 54-year-olds to determine the extent to which the grid matches consumer perceptions. In line with the lexicometric approach to social evaluations (Flick et al., 2015; Moliner & Abric, 2015), the following four quantitative analyses were conducted successively using Iramuteq software (Ratinaud, 2009).

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Sequential process for the lexicometric analysis of the structure of social judgments about endorsers.</figcaption></figure>
1) A categorical analysis was conducted to determine the level of agreement in the social judgments under study across the sample (Dany et al., 2015; Salime et al., 2021). This analysis allowed for the selection of the most salient lexical form to represent a given meaning as a form of social judgment associated with an endorser category. It confirmed a 15-item grid of social judgment meanings consistent with the qualitative findings.

2) A correspondence factor analysis (CFA; Hoffman & Franke, 1986) was performed to graphically analyze the relationships among the 15 lexical forms related to social judgments and the preference for an endorser category along two factors.

3) A similarity analysis (Clemence et al., 2014; Flament, 1986) was conducted to create a complementary graph of the structure of the 15 lexical forms in a maximum tree. Within this tree, four thematic communities were delineated as groupings of highly interconnected social judgments. The maximum tree enabled the identification of proximities and distances between the thematic communities.

4) A sensitivity analysis of the thematic communities was performed using mean tests based on ANOVAs to determine whether the preference groups for an endorser category were significantly associated with any of the thematic communities. The communities were aggregated based on the scores of their lexical forms and were found to be highly sensitive to the endorser preference groups.

### 5.1.1. Data collection and sample

Data were collected from an opt-in online panel provided by the research agency Toluna. The sample was balanced across all key demographics (gender, age, education level, region, and socio-professional category) to reflect the French adult population under the age of 55. Its distribution by strata was very close to the national population under study, as shown in Table 4. The survey sample did not include the adult population over the age of 55 since this demographic exhibits a markedly lower propensity for social media use (Auxier & Anderson, 2021).

A preliminary question asked respondents if they knew of at least one influencer. Attention-check questions were included to filter dishonest and random responses. Only respondents who successfully completed the preliminary question and attention check were included in the study. The final sample consisted of 726 respondents. Table 4 provides the sociodemographic information. For media use, the daily time spent on social media was categorized as < 1h (33 %), 1–2 h (39 %), 3–4 h (20 %), or > 4h (8 %), and daily time spent watching TV was categorized as < 1h

<table><caption>**Table 4**
Sample (N = 726).</caption><thead><tr><th>Demographic variables</th><th>Category</th><th>Frequency</th><th>Sample percent</th><th>National percent <sup>(a)</sup></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Gender</td><td>Female</td><td>379</td><td>52</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>347</td><td>48</td><td>48</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Age</td><td>18–24</td><td>126</td><td>17,5</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>25–34</td><td>182</td><td>25</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>35–44</td><td>209</td><td>28,5</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>45–54</td><td>209</td><td>29</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Education</td><td>Below High School</td><td>139</td><td>19</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>High School</td><td>172</td><td>24</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Bachelor</td><td>174</td><td>24</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>Master's degree or higher</td><td>241</td><td>33</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Socio-professional category</td><td>Inactive</td><td>140</td><td>19</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>Low</td><td>321</td><td>44</td><td>44</td></tr><tr><td>High</td><td>265</td><td>37</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Region</td><td>Northeast</td><td>177</td><td>24</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>Southeast</td><td>140</td><td>19</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>Paris region</td><td>142</td><td>20</td><td>19</td></tr><tr><td>Northwest</td><td>181</td><td>25</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Southwest</td><td>86</td><td>12</td><td>15</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: <sup>(a)</sup> Source: French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies.

(21 %), 1–2 h (35 %), 3–4 h (31 %), or > 4h (13 %). Regarding influencer awareness, over 92 % of respondents correctly identified at least one influencer from a list of 12 personalities. They reported the number of influencers they followed on social media as no influencers (39 %), 1–5 influencers (24 %), 5–10 influencers (16 %), or > 10 influencers (21 %).

### 5.1.2. Measures

For each subcategory of the social judgment grid constructed from the qualitative analysis, a set of a few items was developed to describe evaluations corresponding to the endorser category (Table 5). Six items were developed for the subcategory “Trust variability.” Three items indicated high levels of trust in influencers, and the other three indicated low levels of trust, which reflects the variability in trust that emerged in the qualitative analysis. Two academic experts assessed the content validity of the items based on the definitions of the subcategories and their representative verbatim quotations (Tables 2 and 3). The panelists were asked to read the definitions of each validated item and indicate on a four-point scale (1: completely disagree; 2: rather disagree; 3: rather agree; 4: completely agree) whether they perceived the item to correspond to their own perceptions of the brand endorser category. Table 5 presents the final items and their descriptions. Additionally, a four-item scale (Cronbach α = 0.9; mean = 3.49; standard deviation = 1.08) adapted from Silvera and Austad's (2004) scale of endorser attitude was employed to measure preference for the celebrity versus influencer category of endorsers using the following items: “When it comes to promoting my favorite brand, I prefer a celebrity to an influencer,” “I prefer my favorite brands to be promoted by a celebrity rather than an influencer,” “I prefer my favorite brand to work with a celebrity rather than an influencer,” and “The ads in which brands feature a celebrity are more appealing to me than when they feature an influencer.”.

## 5.2. Findings

Following the steps of the methodology outlined above, the findings of the lexicometric analysis are presented for each type of quantitative analysis.

### 5.2.1. Categorical analysis

The categorical analysis aimed to identify social judgments that were shared by consumers based on a high level of agreement scores (Dany et al., 2015). For the “Trust variability” subcategory of social judgments, all items emphasizing high levels of trust in influencers had mean scores below 2.35 and median scores close to 2, and they were significantly lower when compared to the corresponding items that indicated low levels of trust in influencers (Table 5). Consequently, items indicating high levels of trust in influencers were excluded because they did not meet the threshold for high levels of social agreement. The mean scores for all other subcategories were greater than 2.5, which indicates positive agreement. The most prominent subcategories were “Reality TV stigma” (2.95), “Ephemeral status” (2.88), “Trust variability” (2.83), and “Suitability for social networks” (2.78) for the influencer category and “Congruence with the brand’s symbolic universe” (2.69), “Fame” (2.66), and “Brand sublimation function” (2.52) for the celebrity category. The items related to each subcategory were subjected to inter-reliability analysis, which revealed a Cronbach’s alpha exceeding 0.7 for each subcategory. These results confirmed the consistency of the subcategories. Therefore, the categorical analysis corroborated the 15-item grid of social judgment subcategories that emerged from the qualitative analysis, with the “Trust variability” subcategory limited to items reflecting low levels of trust in influencers. For the remainder of the lexicometric analysis, each subcategory was summarized by the item with the highest score and referred to as its lexical form (Table 5).

### 5.2.2. Correspondence factor analysis

Correspondence factor analysis is suitable for describing a set of
<table><caption>**Table 5**
Scores of items for social judgments.</caption><thead><tr><th>Type of endorser</th><th>Social judgment category</th><th>Subcategory</th><th>Subcategory mean</th><th>Item (lexical form of the category in bold)</th><th>Item mean score (median)</th><th>Standard deviation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Celebrity</td><td rowspan="10">Legitimacy of the endorser</td><td rowspan="3">Congruence with the brand's symbolic universe</td><td rowspan="3">2,69</td><td><strong>Has the ability to act as a brand ambassador</strong></td><td>2,77 (3)</td><td>0,92</td></tr><tr><td>Has the ability to represent the values of the brand</td><td>2,66</td><td>0,89</td></tr><tr><td>Has the potential to resonate with what the brand is trying to convey</td><td>2,64</td><td>0,87</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Brand sublimation function</td><td rowspan="2">2,64</td><td><strong>Contributes to brand sublimation</strong></td><td>2,65 (3)</td><td>0,9</td></tr><tr><td>Conveys an image of beauty in brand advertising</td><td>2,65</td><td>0,9</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Brand premium signal function</td><td rowspan="2">2,52</td><td>Is a dream vehicle in brand advertising</td><td>2,61</td><td>0,92</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Indicates that the brand has a qualitative positioning</strong></td><td>2,54 (3)</td><td>0,91</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Suitability for qualitative visual media</td><td rowspan="2">2,62</td><td>Indicates that the brand has an upscale positioning</td><td>2,54</td><td>0,95</td></tr><tr><td>Indicates that the brand is a quality brand</td><td>2,47</td><td>0,94</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Exceptional talent</td><td rowspan="2">2,52</td><td><strong>Lends itself to aesthetic, sophisticated visual advertising</strong></td><td>2,67 (3)</td><td>0,89</td></tr><tr><td>Is well suited for billboards, television and cinema advertising</td><td>2,57</td><td>0,9</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Reputation</td><td rowspan="3">Social distinction</td><td rowspan="3">2,66</td><td><strong>Demonstrates excellence in performance</strong></td><td>2,56 (3)</td><td>0,87</td></tr><tr><td>Is distinguished by exceptional talent</td><td>2,52</td><td>0,9</td></tr><tr><td>Represents some form of extraordinary achievement</td><td>2,48</td><td>0,9</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Status</td><td rowspan="10">Legitimacy of the endorser</td><td rowspan="3">Product authentication function</td><td rowspan="3">2,55</td><td><strong>Enjoys a high degree of fame</strong></td><td>2,75 (3)</td><td>0,89</td></tr><tr><td>Is a person known to all</td><td>2,72</td><td>0,9</td></tr><tr><td>Has recognition across generations</td><td>2,52</td><td>0,89</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Product access democratization</td><td rowspan="3">2,68</td><td><strong>Stands out from the crowd</strong></td><td>2,7 (3)</td><td>0,86</td></tr><tr><td>Enjoys a prestigious social status</td><td>2,64</td><td>0,92</td></tr><tr><td>Is at the top of the social hierarchy</td><td>2,45</td><td>0,91</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">No exceptional talent</td><td rowspan="3">2,69</td><td><strong>Matches the product category marketed by the brand</strong></td><td>2,62 (3)</td><td>0,89</td></tr><tr><td>Tests the product under real-life conditions</td><td>2,53</td><td>0,93</td></tr><tr><td>Identifies the real attributes of the product</td><td>2,49</td><td>0,92</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Trust variability</td><td rowspan="3">2,83</td><td><strong>Provides access to promotional codes</strong></td><td>2,72 (3)</td><td>0,91</td></tr><tr><td>Makes brands accessible to their community of followers</td><td>2,68</td><td>0,89</td></tr><tr><td>Promotes small brands</td><td>2,63</td><td>0,89</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Reality TV stigma</td><td rowspan="3">2,95</td><td><strong>Is well suited to social media such as TikTok, Instagram or YouTube</strong></td><td>2,81 (3)</td><td>0,93</td></tr><tr><td>Leads a community of followers online</td><td>2,77</td><td>0,9</td></tr><tr><td>Interacts regularly with members of their community</td><td>2,75</td><td>0,9</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Status</td><td rowspan="10">Ephemeral status</td><td rowspan="3">Product authentication function</td><td rowspan="3">2,88</td><td><strong>Influencers have no special talent</strong></td><td>2,78 (3)</td><td>0,94</td></tr><tr><td>Anyone can do what influencers do</td><td>2,65</td><td>0,92</td></tr><tr><td>As long as you're willing to share your personal life, it's easy to be an influencer</td><td>2,63</td><td>0,95</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Many influencers are not honest</td><td rowspan="3">2,83</td><td><strong>It's hard to trust an influencer</strong></td><td>2,9 (3)</td><td>0,9</td></tr><tr><td>Many influencers don't really care about the good of their community</td><td>2,75</td><td>0,89</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Influencers are honest</strong></td><td>2,25</td><td>0,89</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Reality TV influencers look for easy money</td><td rowspan="2">2,87</td><td><strong>Influencers are trustworthy</strong></td><td>2,21</td><td>0,92</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Influencers care about what is good for their community</strong></td><td>2,34</td><td>0,89</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Social proximity</td><td rowspan="10">Ephemeral status</td><td rowspan="10">2,62</td><td><strong>The status of an influencer is a fleeting one</strong></td><td>2,92 (3)</td><td>0,89</td></tr><tr><td>Influencers go out of fashion</td><td>2,87</td><td>0,88</td></tr><tr><td>Influencer appeal does not stand the test of time</td><td>2,86</td><td>0,89</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Influencers are close to their audience</strong></td><td>2,68 (3)</td><td>0,87</td></tr><tr><td>An influencer looks like his or her audience</td><td>2,61</td><td>0,85</td></tr><tr><td>An influencer reveals his or her private life</td><td>2,58</td><td>0,91</td></tr></tbody></table>

discrete data without an a priori defined structure and for visualizing the most important relations among them. Therefore, CFA was used to analyze the relationships among the 15 subcategories related to social judgments and the preference for an endorser category as an ordered quantitative variable. The data were processed in the form of a

contingency table distributing the 15 lexical forms and the ordered quantitative variable along each respondent. Then, CFA was performed to locate each lexical form as a point in a low-dimensional Euclidean space using the chi-square metric as the distance measure between each lexical form. While points around the origin represent the lexical forms
shared by most respondents, points away from the origin represent deviations from the mean. The overall spatial variation in the set of points, called “total inertia,” can be decomposed along the factors obtained by their eigenvalue indicators, with each point associated with a proportion of inertia (Hoffman & Franke, 1986).

The results show that the subcategories of social judgments can be organized into two main dimensions: Factor 1 (73.2 % of the total inertia) and Factor 2 (18.4 % of the total inertia; see Fig. 2). The graph suggests that the legitimacy judgments about each endorser category and the intermediate positive levels of celebrity endorser preference (PC3) are commonly shared evaluations because they lie close to the intersection of the two axes. Based on the variations in the first factor, we can observe that the social judgments about legitimacy for each endorser category are relatively close, whereas the social judgments about reputation are distant. On the vertical axis, social judgments are relatively close except for celebrity judgments related to social status and qualitative visual media suitability. The distribution of celebrity endorser preference levels shows that low levels (PC1) are close to influencer reputation judgments, whereas high levels (PC4) are associated with celebrity reputation and status judgments.

### 5.2.3. Similarity analysis

The responses were recoded into binary data (agreement or disagreement with social judgment) and subjected to similarity analysis (Flament, 1986). This analysis was based on graph theory, which is typically used to describe social evaluations (Clemence et al., 2014). It reveals the underlying structure of a representational field by analyzing the existing proximity and relationship between lexical forms based on their co-occurrence computed through a similarity matrix. These proximities and relationships are presented in the form of a maximum tree, which is a graphical illustration of the structure of lexical forms generated by the similarity matrix. In this study, we used the Jaccard coefficient, a widely used co-occurrence index for ordered binary data. A similarity matrix consisting of pairwise Jaccard coefficients is presented in Appendix 1.

The maximum tree, which was constructed using the nearest neighbor algorithm (Clemence et al., 2014), searches for the shortest without-cycle path to connect all lexical forms as nodes within a graph so that only one link exists between any two nodes. As the former lexical form included in the tree exhibits the largest frequency value, the one with the highest Jaccard coefficient of the former lexical form is selected and connected to it. In the final graph, the edges uniting the lexical

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 2. Graphical representation of the two-dimensional correspondence factor analysis of social judgments.</figcaption></figure>
forms as nodes reveal the strength of the relationships as measured by the Jaccard coefficient. A lexical form is considered a major node within the maximum tree if it shows high connectivity based on the number of total links with other elements and the strength of such relations.

Finally, thematic communities were identified within the maximum tree using the edge-betweenness algorithm (Newman & Girvan, 2004) in Iramuteq software. This optimization algorithm identifies communities within a given network structure by sequentially removing the edges with the highest proximity to other communities. In the final iteration of the algorithm, lexical forms belonging to the same community are highly interconnected and weakly connected to other communities (Blondel et al., 2008). While CFA revealed the categorical groupings of social judgments along a few dimensions, similarity analysis provided a complementary perspective on how social judgments are structured into thematic communities (Schweitzer & Simon, 2021).

The results show that the maximum tree (Fig. 3) is built sequentially into four thematic communities. The more distant communities are the “Influencer Negative Reputation” community at the top of the tree and the “Celebrity Legitimacy” community at the bottom of the tree, while the “Influencer Legitimacy” and “Celebrity Positive Reputation and Status” communities are in between. While the latter three are connected by Jaccard coefficients between 0.3 and 0.4, the “Influencer Negative Reputation” community is connected to the “Influencer Legitimacy” community by a Jaccard coefficient of less than 0.3, which indicates that these communities are weakly connected.

Regarding the content of each thematic community, the “Influencer Negative Reputation” community, which is articulated around the “Reality TV stigma” major node, is highly consistent, as its internal linkages to “Trust variability” and “No exceptional talent” are higher than 0.4 as measured by the Jaccard coefficient. The “Influencer Legitimacy” community is articulated around the “Social media suitability” major node, which is linked to “Product access democratization” with a linkage of between 0.3 and 0.4. The latter lexical form is linked to “Product authentication function” with a linkage of less than 0.3, which indicates that associating influencers with access to lower-priced products is only weakly related to their ability to authenticate the value of the products. The “Celebrity Positive Reputation and Status” community is articulated around the “Fame” major node, with the linkages to “Exceptional talent” and “Social distinction” measured between 0.3 and 0.4. The linkage between “Fame” and “Influencer social proximity” is less than 0.3. Finally, the “Celebrity Legitimacy” community is

articulated around the “Brand symbolic universe congruence” major node and has internal linkages to “Brand sublimation function,” “Premium brand signal,” and “Qualitative visual media suitability” that are all between 0.3 and 0.4, which indicates good consistency.

Overall, the similarity analysis confirms the findings of the CFA by showing the relative proximity of positive evaluations related to influencer legitimacy and all social judgments about celebrities. Meanwhile, the negative evaluation of influencer reputation appears to be consistently organized into prominent lexical forms that are distant from other endorsers’ social judgments.

### 5.2.4. Sensitivity of thematic communities

Mean tests were used to determine whether each of the four thematic communities is sensitive to celebrity endorser preferences. Differences related to consumer age were also examined, as younger consumers are likely to be more heavily exposed and accustomed to influencers because of the digital generational divide. The score for each thematic community was calculated by adding the mean scores of its lexical forms (Table 5). An ANOVA was then performed on each independent variable (age and celebrity endorser preference) with each of the four thematic community scores as the dependent variable (Table 6). Significant differences across consumer ages were found only for the “Influencer Negative Reputation” community ($F[3,722] = 4.33, p < 0.01$). A significantly lower level of agreement was found for consumers aged 18 to 24 years compared to the other three age groups. Thus, the view of influencer reputation among adults below 25 years of age was negative (2.73 out of 4), but it was less negative than that among other adults.

Significant differences were found within each thematic community depending on the level of preference for a celebrity endorser (Table 6). Post-hoc Tukey and Bonferroni tests showed significant differences between preference groups on a one-to-one basis in all thematic communities apart from the “Influencer Legitimacy” community, where no significant difference was observed between medium and high positive preference levels. Thus, consumers with a high celebrity preference had similarly positive evaluations of celebrity legitimacy, reputation, and status and influencer legitimacy (approximately 3.06 out of 4) as well as a negative evaluation of influencer reputation (3.31). In contrast, consumers with a low preference for celebrity endorsement had negative evaluations of the legitimacy, reputation, and status of celebrities and the legitimacy of influencers (<2.25), and they evaluated the reputation of influencers negatively (2.56), though much less negatively than consumers with a high preference for celebrity endorsement.

Overall, the thematic communities are highly sensitive to endorser category preferences. The preference for celebrity endorsers is significantly related to positive social judgments about the legitimacy, reputation, and status of celebrities and significantly related to the highly unfavorable evaluations of influencer reputation and the favorable evaluations of influencer legitimacy. A low preference for celebrity endorsers does not translate to positive ratings of influencer legitimacy but does correspond to less negative ratings of their reputation. The thematic communities are only weakly related to consumer age.

In conclusion, the lexicometric analysis generalizes the results of the qualitative study by corroborating the 15-item grid of social judgment subcategories that emerged. Additionally, the proximities and distances within the maximum tree reveal conceptual sets that provide insights into the contrasting contributions of the two categories of endorsers.

# 6. Discussion and implications

## 6.1. Summary of findings

This mixed methods study used a sequential exploratory design. The lexicometric analysis was conducted with a large panel that was reasonably representative of the French adult population under the age of 55 and was validated by the findings of the qualitative analysis. The qualitative analysis identified distinct social judgments associated with

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 3. Similarity graph of social judgments as a maximum tree based on the Jaccard coefficient.</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 6**
Sensitivity of thematic communities.</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="3"></th><th rowspan="3"></th><th colspan="4">Mean scores</th></tr><tr><th colspan="4">Thematic communities</th></tr><tr><th>Influencer Negative Reputation</th><th>Influencer Legitimacy</th><th>Celebrity Positive Reputation and Status</th><th>Celebrity Legitimacy</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>ANOVA: F(3,722); p value</td><td></td><td>4,33; p &lt; 0,01</td><td>1,41; p &gt; 0,1</td><td>0,22; p &gt; 0,1</td><td>0,72; p &gt; 0,1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Consumer age (years)</td><td>Sample percent</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>18-24</td><td>17,5%</td><td>2,73</td><td>2,77</td><td>2,70</td><td>2,73</td></tr><tr><td>25-34</td><td>25,0%</td><td>2,96</td><td>2,78</td><td>2,64</td><td>2,67</td></tr><tr><td>35-44</td><td>28,5%</td><td>2,94</td><td>2,72</td><td>2,65</td><td>2,66</td></tr><tr><td>45-54</td><td>29,0%</td><td>3,03</td><td>2,63</td><td>2,68</td><td>2,60</td></tr><tr><td>ANOVA: F(3,722); p value</td><td>N = 726</td><td>2,94</td><td>2,71</td><td>2,66</td><td>2,66</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Preference of celebrity endorser</td><td>Sample percent</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>21,9%</td><td>2,56</td><td>2,23</td><td>2,18</td><td>2,12</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>22,7%</td><td>2,78</td><td>2,59</td><td>2,49</td><td>2,52</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>32,9%</td><td>3,06</td><td>2,88</td><td>2,82</td><td>2,82</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>22,5%</td><td>3,31</td><td>3,06</td><td>3,06</td><td>3,07</td></tr><tr><td>ANOVA: F(3,722); p value</td><td>N = 726</td><td>2,94</td><td>2,71</td><td>2,66</td><td>2,66</td></tr></tbody></table>

the celebrity and influencer categories of brand endorsers organized around the evaluative triptych of legitimacy, reputation, and status. The findings indicate that the two endorser types are distinctly legitimate. Celebrity endorsers are brand centered with abstract and symbolic legitimacy, whereas influencer endorsers are evaluated in terms of their concrete, functional, and product-centered legitimacy. The evaluations contrast in terms of valence at the levels of reputation and status. Celebrity endorsers are perceived as having a positive reputation and high status; conversely, the status of influencers is characterized by fragility, and their reputation is generally negative, even bordering on stigmatized in the case of reality TV influencers. If the qualitative analysis suggests that the level of trust is influenced by the specific influencer under consideration, then the lexicometric analysis indicates that negative evaluations are more prevalent at the social judgment level of the category.

Consumers tended to prefer a celebrity figure as the primary endorser of a brand (preference score: 3.49 out of 4). This preference translates into more favorable social judgments of celebrities and a rejection of the reputation of influencers. The age of consumers had no significant effect on their social judgments of endorsers apart from the influencer's reputation, which was rated higher by individuals between 18 and 24 years old but still slightly negative. However, the preference for a celebrity endorser did not exclude a positive perception of the legitimacy of influencers. Thus, the CFA and the thematic communities obtained by the similarity analysis highlight the relative closeness of the two endorsers' legitimacy judgments, even if they are different in nature. Specifically, a celebrity's legitimacy is primarily conveyed to consumers through the perception of congruency between the celebrity and the brand's symbolic universe as a set of meanings and values. Therefore, the observed alignment between the celebrity preference and legitimacy supported by the sensitivity analysis suggests that the celebrity preference reflects a symbolic form of endorser-brand congruency. In contrast, influencer legitimacy is based on product access facilitation and abilities related to social media, which implies an indirect and weaker form of endorser-brand congruency that is indexed only to the product category. Additionally, the sensitivity analysis indicates that the influencer preference is not associated with an improved perception of influencer legitimacy.

## 6.2. Theoretical implications

This study contributes to the marketing literature by integrating social judgments about endorsers to gain insight into their potential impact on brand social standing as an institutional outcome. In doing so, this research sheds light on the contextual differences between celebrities and influencers and advances key aspects of the brand management literature on endorsement, including the match-up hypothesis, social comparison and negative bias contamination, and mixed endorsement as the simultaneous use of celebrities and influencers by a brand.

This research introduces a novel perspective of the match-up hypothesis (Bauer et al., 2022) by uncovering the nexus of endorser legitimacy and endorser-brand congruency. Prior research has employed a range of criteria to assess the congruence between endorsers and brands, including the endorser's attractiveness, product fit, personality, and image (e.g., Schimmelpfennig & Hunt, 2020; Song & Kim, 2020). However, these studies have not considered the role of the endorser's legitimacy. In the case of celebrity endorsements, the present study shows that the legitimacy of the endorser constitutes a major form of endorser-brand congruency, which, according to construal level theory (Trope & Liberman, 2010) is located at a high construal level (i. e., as a form of symbolic congruence that is linked to the brand's universe). In the case of influencers, an endorser's legitimacy constitutes a weaker and indirect form of endorser-brand congruency at a low construal level (i.e., as a form of concrete congruence linked to the product). In establishing that endorser legitimacy is a form of brand-endorser congruency, the strength of which depends on the type of endorser, this study also demonstrates that celebrity preference is strongly correlated with endorser legitimacy as a congruency expression. The results are less conclusive for influencers and warrant further investigation.

In addition, the study provides new evidence of the relevance of the meaning transfer model (McCracken, 1989) in finding that a celebrity's legitimacy, which is inherently symbolic, is grounded in the endorser's cultural meanings. These meanings, which may include the celebrity's personality, aura, and lifestyle, have the potential to resonate with the brand universe, thus transcending the conventional endorser attributes of attractiveness and credibility. Nevertheless, the meaning transfer model appears to be less appropriate for addressing the distinctive meanings associated with influencers. These meanings are typically
anchored at a low level of construal in an influencer's daily life, as evidenced by their social media content, which features ordinary contexts, realistic product use, and the influencer's social proximity. This contextualization of meaning illustrates the reciprocal relationship postulated by construal level theory (Trope & Liberman, 2010) between psychological distance, including its temporal, social, spatial, or hypothetical facets, and the level of abstraction at which a target is construed. Because this theory posits that communication effectiveness depends on construal-level matching, the meanings associated with an influencer are less likely to transfer to the brand universe, which refers to a set of culturally rooted symbolic values that evoke aspirational lifestyles and social desirability (Saeed et al., 2024).

Thus, our findings offer insights into the endorser legitimacy construct as a form of brand-endorser congruency, whose strength and construal level depend on the endorser category. The match-up hypothesis model posits that congruence between an endorser and the brand they endorse is a prerequisite for the effective transfer of associations to the brand. This study makes a substantial contribution to this literature by extending the model to the endorser legitimacy criterion and identifying how the endorser type may influence the transfer of social judgments to the brand. In doing so, the study delineates generic brand advertising strategies that could theoretically leverage congruency effects based on each type of endorser. First, celebrities contribute more than influencers to the enhancement of the brand universe. This contribution is particularly evident in the case of premium brands, and even more so for luxury brands, as their ads use symbols, rhetoric, and mise en scène intended to elicit a sense of desirability by distancing consumers from their usual life contexts (Gurzki, Schlatter, & Woisetschläger, 2019). In such ads, the celebrity is all the more legitimate and valued because he or she symbolically fits into the brand's universe. Conversely, the inclusion of an influencer figure is likely to result in construal incongruence that is detrimental to the brand's meaning. Second, influencers, as opposed to celebrities, are more effective in providing consumers with information about the feasibility of products in the different contexts of consumers' lives that they describe on their social media pages. Their legitimacy is derived from their proximity to, if not actual expertise in, the category of the product they promote.

Another significant theoretical contribution of this study concerns the role of the endorser category in the social comparison mechanisms involved in brand endorsement. Prior research has referred to social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954; Festinger, 1954) to explain how exposure to a brand endorser affects consumer self-perceptions (e.g., Gulas & McKeage, 2000). Social comparison theory posits that individuals are driven to compare their abilities and actions to those of others. The theory distinguishes between upward and downward comparisons; upward comparisons are elicited by a target superior on a relevant comparison criterion, while downward comparisons are elicited by an inferior target. While upward comparisons are typically associated with negative effects for the self, causing people to have poorer self-evaluations and experience negative affect, downward comparisons are associated with positive effects (Meier et al., 2020). However, an individual's cognitive focus on similarities with the target (i.e., assimilation) versus differences (i.e., contrast) may also impact the outcomes of social comparison. Specifically, upward assimilation and downward contrast may possibly produce more positive consequences for the self, and vice versa (Mussweiler, 2003). In their meta-analysis, Gerber, Wheeler, and Suls (2018) indicated that people generally choose to compare with people who are superior to them in some way, even in the presence of a threat to self-esteem, and that these comparisons tend to result in a worsened mood and lower ability appraisal through a contrast mechanism.

The present study has introduced the concept of endorser status, which provides an institutional framework for understanding the nuances of social distance in social comparison processes. The respondents distinguished between the social proximity of an influencer (feeling

close to the endorser) and the social distinction of a celebrity (perceiving the endorser's high status). In contrast to the prevailing assumptions in social comparison theory (e.g., Gerber et al., 2018) and endorsement literature regarding upward social distance (e.g., Sobol & Darke, 2014), the perception of a celebrity's social distinction did not invoke a social comparison process associated with a decrease in the respondents' self-perception. Instead, it resulted in an experience of awe and even joy in relation to celebrities. This finding suggests that a celebrity's social distinction may lead to an inspirational state (Böttger et al., 2017; Thrash et al., 2014), in which consumers are motivated to extend to themselves the qualities and uncommon situations exemplified by the celebrity. As advanced by Thrash et al. (2014), inspiration does not have a detrimental impact on consumer self-perception; rather, it is conducive to hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Conversely, the strong rejection of reality TV influencers may be interpreted in terms of contrast mechanisms that classically occur in situations of downward social distance to protect the self from assimilation into entities whose reputations are controversial (Meier et al., 2020). This interpretation might provide a compelling rationale for brands to avoid partnering with reality TV influencers. Further research is required to identify and compare the effects of social comparison mechanisms based on endorser categories as determined by social standing.

Moreover, the concept of stigma offers another valuable perspective on how consumers perceive reality TV influencers as brand endorsers and how such social perception can have a detrimental impact on a brand's social standing. Reality TV creates the illusion that anyone can become famous and successful (Turner, 2006). However, the present findings indicate that reality TV influencers, who were perceived as a distinct subcategory of influencers, are not "ordinary people" and are associated with extreme commercialization and greed. Prior research on negativity bias (Baumeister et al., 2001; Unkelbach et al., 2020), which predisposes individuals to perceive negative information as more salient than positive information, suggests that an influencer's negative reputation may pose a risk to a brand, particularly in terms of valence transfer. Our findings substantiate this assumption and extend it to the overall stigmatized subcategory of reality TV influencers based on the belief of consumers that these influencers may be significantly detrimental to a brand's image. The pervasiveness of reality TV influencers in mass media and their presence on social media platforms likely amplify the stigma associated with them. Overall, our findings extend the negative bias model by providing evidence of the contagion of endorser category-related stigma to the social standing of brands.

Finally, this study lends support to the nascent field of research on mixed endorsement. Although mixed endorsement is an increasingly common pattern in advertising (Leung et al., 2022), there is still a paucity of studies on the subject. The present research has addressed this gap by identifying the nature of the institutional complementarity between the two categories of endorsers as well as the tensions that their coexistence can generate with respect to a brand's social standing. The introduced notion of legitimacy is instrumental in identifying the areas of fruitful coexistence between a celebrity and one or more influencers. Notably, positive evaluations of the legitimacy of a celebrity as a brand ambassador who is capable of expressing and sublimating the brand universe may coexist with positive evaluations of an influencer's legitimacy as a driver of democratizing access to branded products, even when there is a strong preference for the celebrity endorser. Such coexistence of social judgments at the micro level is likely to support a complementary form of brand legitimacy at the macro level ranging from an enhanced brand identity to the brand's response to social aspirations regarding access to product consumption through promotional codes. This finding is consistent with recent research indicating that the majority of contemporary consumers want brands to support inclusivity initiatives (Ferraro et al., 2023), which has shifted the purpose of advertising "toward reflecting society's expectations and projecting the values a brand believes in" (Wilkie et al., 2023, p. 732).

However, mixed endorsement may also create tensions between
legitimacy, reputation, and status depending on the types of endorsers. While there is convergence in the valence of the three types of social evaluations for celebrity endorsers, a positive evaluation of an influencer's legitimacy collides with negative or mixed evaluations of their reputation in terms of trustworthiness, talent, or status. From an institutional standpoint, the poor reputation and status of influencers and the social distinction of celebrities can be partially attributed to the presumption that certifications by cultural industries substantiate the reputation and status of the entities they recognize (Pollock et al., 2019). This is particularly true for celebrities, as such certifications serve to authenticate their talents and professional achievements. Consequently, celebrities are viewed as having mastered specific competencies, such as acting, singing, or music composition. Moreover, the cultural industry regularly hosts official selection and award ceremonies to rank celebrities within their respective professional categories. Influencers have no comparable certification system to authenticate their professional competencies, at least in the French context. While number of followers may be an indicator of an influencer's professional ranking (Kupfer et al., 2018), it did not emerge as a signal of an influencer's elevated social status in our qualitative study. With these findings, our research highlights the importance of an institutional approach for brands to address the cultural levers available to improve perceptions of endorsers.

## 6.3. Managerial implications

From a managerial perspective, this study offers insights into three aspects of brand management: the role of celebrities, the complementarity of endorsements, and the risks associated with influencer partnerships.

First, regarding the role of celebrities, consumers tend to prefer a celebrity over an influencer as the main endorser of a brand, especially premium or luxury brands, because the use of a celebrity is perceived as a signal of power and good brand quality. Conversely, when premium brands solely use influencer endorsers, consumers are likely to have a negative interpretation of the quality of the offering. Moreover, the results show that celebrity endorsement has the unique capacity to enhance a brand's symbolic universe by providing "a part of the dream" to consumers. This finding suggests that celebrity endorsement remains a fruitful strategy for fostering brand identity, even in the present era of emerging Internet ecosystems that have prompted managers to allocate increasing portions of their advertising budgets to online influencers.

At the same time, the use of celebrity endorsers presents a challenge in terms of media planning. Since consumers associate celebrities with high-quality visual media, such as TV, cinema, and magazines, brands are encouraged to prioritize these types of media when featuring celebrities in their advertisements. The findings further indicate that social distinction is an asset of celebrities, and the distance implied by this distinction is not perceived as a threat or source of frustration by consumers. For this reason, brands have no interest in showing celebrities in the context of their ordinary lives, even on social media, where the disclosure of personal information is pervasive.

The study also provides insights into the management of endorsers' complementarity. While celebrities can stimulate a brand's imaginative appeal, they are considerably less pertinent to promoting a product's characteristics. The findings show that influencers were perceived as legitimate in their role of authenticating a product's qualities, and they can be mobilized to perform this function. It is recommended that managers employ a complementary strategy that utilizes both celebrities and influencers to fulfill the brand's identity imperatives and those strictly linked to the product's promise, respectively. For example, the premium pod coffee brand Nespresso recently initiated a mixed endorsement strategy. Since 2006, the company has worked with the American actor George Clooney as a brand ambassador, and he has shared the stage with many celebrity guests in the brand's advertisements. While these advertisements employed the humor and charisma of

the ambassador in a sophisticated and staged manner, they focused on the actors rather than the product itself. Since the 2020s, however, the pod coffee brand has incorporated influencer partnerships into its communication strategy. On their social media accounts, these influencers post about the different colors of Nespresso coffee machines, share videos of themselves preparing iced coffee with capsules of a particular flavor, and explain how to recycle capsules. This strategy presents the product's characteristics in a more detailed and organic manner compared to the brand's typical celebrity advertisements.

Mainstream brands may also benefit from the complementary use of influencers in addition to celebrities to facilitate consumer discovery of a brand's novel products through monetary promotions that could be framed as brand events. Repeated discounts are detrimental to brand image in the long term (Yi & Yoo, 2011), but an event-based approach may mitigate this effect. Furthermore, influencers can make a brand more accessible by offering promotional codes, which can be leveraged to support the brand's policy of engaging with a more socially diverse audience. In a similar vein, premium brands may engage with influencers to advance corporate citizenship initiatives. For instance, in 2023, Nespresso promoted its Youthstart program, a complimentary training course for young individuals, and its partnership with Café Joyeux, a solidarity company uniting cafés that employ disabled people in Belgium, through collaborations with the Belgian influencers Dominique Schmitz and Claire Marnette, respectively.

Regarding potential risks to a brand's image and social standing when using influencers, premium and mainstream brands are advised to refrain from partnering with reality TV influencers, as they tend to have an unfavorable reputation in the French context. Luxury brands have exhibited a reluctance to be associated with reality TV influencers; for instance, the Louboutin brand issued a formal notice to the production company of the reality TV show *Les Marseillais* to object to the appearance of Jessica Thivenin, a prominent influencer on the program, wearing Louboutin heels.

For other categories of influencers, brands could identify and promote the specific competencies of the influencers they employ to compensate for their relative lack of professional status. For example, brands may wish to emphasize the quality of influencers' interactions with their followers or their meticulous approaches to product testing. Furthermore, brands can enhance transparency by articulating the rationale behind their partnerships with influencers, which may reassure customers about the quality of those influencers. Our findings broadly suggest that brands should assume a role in institutional mediation to enhance social judgments about influencers. To this end, companies can implement labels that certify the quality and ethical compliance of influencers' work in product placement. Furthermore, brands can engage in partnerships with influencers in four areas to institutionalize influencer status.

The first area for partnership is book publications. As evidenced by the cases of the two French lifestyle influencers Caroline Receveur (No Filter, 2017) and Léna Mahfouf (Toujours Plus, 2020), whose books were both edited and published by Robert Laffont, book publication can allow influencers to gain social recognition. Another illustrative example is that of the French culinary influencer L'atelier de Roxane, who has published three cookbooks since 2017. These examples reflect a model in which brands partner with influencers to publish brand-related books. For instance, a food brand may sponsor a book by a cooking influencer based on recipes made with the brand's products, or a family influencer may provide everyday tips in collaboration with a household appliance brand.

The second area for partnership is the inclusion of influencers in prestigious events. In France, a few influencers have been invited by brands to attend the esteemed Festival de Cannes. For the 2023 edition, Dessange and BMW invited the lifestyle influencers Jodie La Petite Frenchie and Noholita, respectively, and L'Oréal invited Léa Elui, a body-positive influencer.

The third area for partnership is the participation of influencers in
official competitions within their respective spheres of expertise. For instance, Tibo Inshape, a French YouTuber specializing in bodybuilding, was the winner of the 2018 Fitness Paris Natural Championship, an event organized by the official French Association for Natural Body Building. Brands should consider sponsoring the influencers with whom they collaborate; for instance, a sports brand can sponsor a bodybuilding influencer in a fitness competition, or a video game brand can sponsor a gaming influencer in a video game competition.

The fourth area for partnership is the co-creation of limited edition. For example, Nespresso partnered with the Italian influencer Chiara Ferragni to create two limited edition collections in its range of coffee machines and accessories in 2021 and 2022. This form of collaboration between the brand and the influencer resembles co-branding and endows the influencer with social status. As the influencer can be perceived as complementary to the brand, which is a prerequisite for a successful co-branding strategy, such a collaboration could lead to a positive reception of the co-created products (Rundin & Colliander, 2021).

## 6.4. Limitations and future research

This study has several limitations to consider. First, the use of self-reported data and online data collection in a panel-based sampling strategy can potentially introduce bias. However, the consistency of the findings between the qualitative and panel-based studies suggests that such biases are not a significant concern. Second, alternative designs, such as experimental designs, are required to estimate the completeness of the social judgment effects when transferring consumers' social judgments from the endorser entity to the brand's social standing. While lexicometry is an effective tool for inductively mapping a corpus and identifying the most dominant lexical forms and their co-occurrences, it is not suitable for testing causality hypotheses or estimating the amplitude of effects due to particular explanatory variables. Regarding the social evaluation themes, our study suggests that endorser legitimacy judgments may fully translate to their contribution to brand legitimacy. However, further research is needed to determine the extent to which other types of social judgments about endorsers, such as social proximity or ephemeral status, can be transferred in their entirety to a brand and affect its social standing.

Additionally, since the valences associated with multiple endorsers may be in conflict, as illustrated in a typical mixed endorsement (e.g. Wong et al., 2020), it would be beneficial to determine whether the process of valence transfer favors certain salient social judgments or affect-valences, in line with the negative bias model, or is instead compensatory. It could also be advantageous to examine the potential protective influence of a celebrity on a brand's social standing in the case of mixed endorsement. Just as a flagship product can resist brand dilution in the context of brand extension (John et al., 1998), a celebrity endorser may continue to support a brand's social standing regardless of the mixed reputational evaluations of influencers who are simultaneously endorsing the brand. Further investigation of this conjecture would be a fruitful avenue of research.

Another limitation of this study is that it examines consumers' social judgments in the French context, which may introduce cultural biases. For example, Eastern cultures have integrated social media channels into their daily lives to a greater extent than Western cultures (Gräve & Bartsch, 2021), which may significantly increase consumers' global trust in the commercial practices of influencers, thereby improving their reputations. In addition, because Asian individuals make global judgments about people based on a holistic impression (Kang & Park, 2022), they are less likely than Westerners to separate their judgments of

endorser and vary the valences of the three dimensions of legitimacy, reputation, and status, which could benefit the influencer category. Finally, prior research has demonstrated that cultural values influence customer evaluations in relation to social distance and power (Patterson et al., 2006), which are particularly meaningful in status and reputation judgments. Compared to consumers in the West, those in the East are more likely to come from cultures with a high power distance (Hofstede, 1991). This cultural difference may explain consumers' tendency to listen to and respect the opinions of authority figures, including celebrities, and subsequently have a stronger propensity to worship celebrities, such as Indian audiences' admiration for Bollywood stars (Winterich, Gangwar, & Grewal, 2018). Therefore, future research could examine the effects of the holistic processing mode and power distance, as two distinct cultural orientations, on consumers' social judgments about endorser categories in Western and Eastern countries.

The findings of this study indicate that reality TV influencers in France have a reputation that is detrimental and borderline stigmatising. An analysis was conducted of the distribution of the top-10 influencers in terms of follower number on Instagram in France, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom based on a series of published rankings in digital media (Appendix 2). The results of the ranking reveal that there is at least one reality TV influencer per country, which suggests that reality TV influencers achieve comparable degrees of awareness and interest across these European countries. This finding supports the notion that reality TV is a pervasive cultural phenomenon. Nevertheless, number of followers is not a reliable indicator of the social standing of an influencer, as evidenced in our qualitative study, and it would be erroneous to conclude that the absence of notable discrepancies in follower rankings implies the absence of differences in reputation or even stigma. Perceptions of reality TV influencers may also be shaped by country-specific cultural factors, such as the structure of the media industry or the cultural orientation of the population. It would therefore be advantageous to determine whether influencers in other geographical regions also encounter social stigma when transitioning from reality TV to social media.

Compliance with ethical standards:

(i) Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest: there are no conflicts of interest to declare.

(ii) Research involving human participants: participants were recruited in France through Toluna, which is a leading provider of on-demand consumer insights with a community of over 14 million consumers around 70 countries. Toluna complies with the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Toluna has put in place adequate safeguards to protect panelists' data, including standard data protection clauses for the transfer of personal data to third parties from non-EU countries.

## CRediT authorship contribution statement

**Françoise Simon:** Writing – original draft, Validation, Supervision, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. **Marine Cambefort:** Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Methodology, Investigation, Data curation.

## Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
## Appendix 1.: Inter-theme similarity matrix (jaccard similarity coefficients)

<table><thead><tr><th>Themes</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th><th>8</th><th>9</th><th>10</th><th>11</th><th>12</th><th>13</th><th>14</th><th>15</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1 Social distinction</td><td>0,00</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>2 Social media suitability</td><td>0,27</td><td>0,00</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>3 Qualitative visual media suitability</td><td>0,24</td><td>0,22</td><td>0,00</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>4 Product access democratization</td><td>0,22</td><td><strong>0,38</strong></td><td>0,22</td><td>0,00</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>5 Ephemeral status</td><td>0,13</td><td><strong>0,23</strong></td><td>0,12</td><td>0,17</td><td>0,00</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>6 Brand sublimation</td><td>0,21</td><td>0,21</td><td>0,3</td><td>0,23</td><td>0,13</td><td>0,00</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>7 Trust variability</td><td>0,15</td><td>0,2</td><td>0,15</td><td>0,2</td><td><strong>0,43</strong></td><td>0,17</td><td>0,00</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>8 Exceptional talent</td><td><strong>0,34</strong></td><td>0,21</td><td>0,29</td><td>0,23</td><td>0,1</td><td>0,24</td><td>0,16</td><td>0,00</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>9 Brand symbolic universe congruency</td><td>0,21</td><td>0,27</td><td>0,27</td><td>0,29</td><td>0,19</td><td><strong>0,32</strong></td><td>0,21</td><td>0,25</td><td>0,00</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>10 Reality TV stigma</td><td>0,15</td><td><strong>0,26</strong></td><td>0,14</td><td>0,22</td><td>0,4</td><td>0,16</td><td><strong>0,43</strong></td><td>0,14</td><td>0,24</td><td>0,00</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>11 Premium brand signal</td><td>0,26</td><td>0,18</td><td>0,26</td><td>0,24</td><td>0,12</td><td><strong>0,3</strong></td><td>0,15</td><td>0,26</td><td>0,27</td><td>0,14</td><td>0,00</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>12 No exceptional talent</td><td>0,14</td><td>0,18</td><td>0,15</td><td>0,16</td><td>0,36</td><td>0,14</td><td><strong>0,41</strong></td><td>0,14</td><td>0,17</td><td>0,35</td><td>0,16</td><td>0,00</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>13 Social proximity</td><td>0,22</td><td>0,25</td><td>0,23</td><td>0,25</td><td>0,19</td><td>0,17</td><td>0,2</td><td>0,24</td><td>0,22</td><td>0,18</td><td>0,24</td><td>0,2</td><td>0,00</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>14 Fame</td><td><strong>0,36</strong></td><td>0,29</td><td>0,25</td><td><strong>0,31</strong></td><td>0,17</td><td>0,3</td><td>0,21</td><td>0,32</td><td><strong>0,38</strong></td><td>0,24</td><td>0,29</td><td>0,18</td><td><strong>0,26</strong></td><td>0,00</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>15 Product authentication</td><td>0,23</td><td>0,25</td><td>0,22</td><td><strong>0,28</strong></td><td>0,14</td><td>0,24</td><td>0,15</td><td>0,19</td><td>0,23</td><td>0,13</td><td>0,24</td><td>0,15</td><td>0,2</td><td>0,22</td><td>0,00</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note:

In bold: Jaccard coefficients corresponding to a linkage uniting two themes in the maximum tree.

## Appendix 2.: Ranking of influencers by number of followers on Instagram

<table><thead><tr><th>Country</th><th>1</th><th>2</th><th>3</th><th>4</th><th>5</th><th>6</th><th>7</th><th>8</th><th>9</th><th>10</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Italy</td><td>Khabane Lame (81.2 M) <strong>Humor and comedy</strong></td><td>Chiara Ferragni (28.7 M) <strong>Lifestyle and family</strong></td><td>Gianluca Vacchi (22.5 M) <strong>Fashion</strong></td><td>Valentina Ferragni (4.5 M) <strong>Fashion</strong></td><td>Mariano Divaio (7.1 M) <strong>Fashion and street culture</strong></td><td>Benedetta Rossi (5 M) <strong>Food</strong></td><td>Chiara Biasi (4.4 M) <strong>Fashion and beauty</strong></td><td>Marco Franceschini (3.8 M) <strong>Lifestyle and pet care</strong></td><td><strong>Béatrice Valli</strong> (3.3 M) <strong>Reality TV</strong></td><td>Veronica Ferraro (1.4 M) <strong>Fashion</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Spain</td><td>Ibai Lanos (10.5 M) <strong>Gaming</strong></td><td>Thegrefg (7.4 M) <strong>Gaming</strong></td><td>Lola Violeta (4.1 M) <strong>Beauty and lifestyle</strong></td><td>Dulceida (3.5 M) <strong>Beauty, lifestyle, and travel</strong></td><td>Maria Pombo (3.5 M) <strong>Lifestyle</strong></td><td>Wismichu (2.9 M) <strong>Humor</strong></td><td>Violeta Mangrinar (2.4 M) <strong>Reality TV</strong></td><td>Paula Gonu (1.8 M) <strong>Fashion, beauty, and travel</strong></td><td>Gala González (1.7 M) <strong>Fashion and beauty</strong></td><td>Sofia Suescun (1.4 M) <strong>Reality TV</strong></td></tr><tr><td>France</td><td>TiboInShape (13.7 M) <strong>Fitness</strong></td><td>Nico Capone (13.2 M) <strong>Humor</strong></td><td><strong>Nabilla Vergara</strong> (9.3 M) <strong>Reality TV</strong></td><td>Squeezie (8.8 M) <strong>Gaming</strong></td><td>Julien Tanti (8.2 M) <strong>Reality TV</strong></td><td>Jessica Garcia (6 M) <strong>Reality TV</strong></td><td>Inoxtag (6 M) <strong>Gaming</strong></td><td>Cyprien (5.8 M) <strong>Humor</strong></td><td>Marie Lopez (5.7 M) <strong>Lifestyle</strong></td><td>Caroline Receveur (5.5 M) <strong>Lifestyle</strong></td></tr><tr><td>United Kingdom</td><td>Molly-Mae Hague (8.3 M) <strong>Reality TV</strong></td><td>Simon Minter (6.3 M) <strong>Lifestyle</strong></td><td>Harry Lewis (5.6 M) <strong>Fitness and lifestyle</strong></td><td>Vicky Pattison (5.5 M) <strong>Reality TV</strong></td><td>Arron Crascall (4.6 M) <strong>Humor</strong></td><td>Vikram Singh Barn (4.4 M) <strong>Gaming and fitness</strong></td><td>Ethan Payne (4.1 M) <strong>Gaming and fitness</strong></td><td>Gaz Beadle (3.7 M) <strong>Reality TV</strong></td><td>Dani Dyer (3.7 M) <strong>Reality TV</strong></td><td>Lydia Bright (1.2 M) <strong>Reality TV</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Notes:

a) The number of followers displayed on the Instagram page of the influencer as of November 21, 2024 is shown in brackets. The influencer's niche is italicized, and reality TV influencers are in bold.

b) The ranking of the influencers is based on the following digital media sources: (1) Blog influence4you. Classement Instagrameurs: les 50 + gros influenceurs français. Retrieved from https://blogfr.influence4you.com/classement-instagram-50-gros-influenceurs-francais/. Accessed November 19, 2024; (2) Blog instaboss. Classement des 13 meilleurs influenceurs Instagram Italiens en 2023. Retrieved from https://instaboss.app/blog/influenceur-italien-instagram. Accessed November 20, 2024; (3) Blog influence4you. Top 10 des influenceurs Espagnols. Retrieved from https://blogfr.influence4you.com/top-10-des-influenceurs-espagnols/. Accessed November 20, 2024; (4) Kolsquare. 10 UK Instagram Influencers for Boosting Brand Awareness. Retrieved from https://www.kolsquare.com/en/top-influencers/10-uk-instagram-influencers-for-boosting-brand-awareness. Accessed November 21, 2024; (5) Pinky events. Top 10 des Influenceurs Espagnols à Suivre en 2024. Retrieved from https://pinkhyevents.com/top-10-influenceurs-espagnols-a-suivre-en-2024/. Accessed November 20, 2024; and (6) Starngage. Les 1000 principaux influenceurs en Italie. Retrieved from https://starngage.com/plus/fr/influencer/ranking/instagram/italy. Accessed November 20, 2024.

## Data availability

The authors do not have permission to share data.

## References

Antoniou, A. (2024). When likes go rogue: Advertising standards and the malpractice of unruly social media influencers. *Journal of Media Law*, 16(1), 74–117.

Austin, E. W., Vord, R. V. D., Pinkleton, B. E., & Epstein, E. (2008). Celebrity endorsements and their potential to motivate young voters. *Mass Communication and Society*, 11(4), 420–436.

Auxier, B., & Anderson, M. (2021). *Social Media use in 2021* (pp. 1–4). Washington DC: Pew Research Center.

Baker, J. J., Storbacka, K., & Brodie, R. J. (2019). Markets changing, changing markets: Institutional work as market shaping. *Marketing Theory*, 19(3), 301–328.

Batra, R., & Homer, P. M. (2004). The situational impact of brand image beliefs. *Journal of Consumer Psychology*, 14(3), 318–330.

Bauer, B. C., Carlson, B. D., & Johnson, C. D. (2022). The match-up hypotheses revisited: Matching social judgments and advertising messaging in celebrity endorsements. *European Journal of Marketing*, 56(3), 869–898.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. *Review of General Psychology*, 5(4), 323–370.

Berger, J., Ridgeway, C. L., Fisek, M. H., & Norman, R. Z. (1998). The legitimization and delegitimation of power and prestige orders. *American Sociological Review*, 379–405.
Bergkvist, L., & Zhou, K. Q. (2016). Celebrity endorsements: A literature review and research agenda. *International Journal of Advertising* 35(4), 642–663.

Bitektine, A. (2011). Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. *Academy of Management Review*, 36(1), 151–179.

Bitektine, A., Hill, K., Song, F., & Vandenberghe, C. (2020). Organizational legitimacy, reputation, and status: Insights from micro-level measurement. *Academy of Management Discoveries*, 6(1), 107–136.

Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J. L., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. *Journal of statistical mechanics: theory and experiment*, 2008(10), Article P10008.

Bonoma, T. V. (1985). Case research in marketing: Opportunities, problems, and a process. *Journal of Marketing Research*, 22(2), 199–208.

Böttger, T., Rudolph, T., Evanschitzky, H., & Pfrang, T. (2017). Customer inspiration: Conceptualization, scale development, and validation. *Journal of Marketing*, 81(6), 116–131.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. *Qualitative Research in Psychology*, 3(2), 77–101.

Campbell, M. C., & Price, L. L. (2021). Three themes for the future of brands in a changing consumer marketplace. *Journal of Consumer Research*, 48(4), 517–526.

Campbell, M. C., & Warren, C. (2012). A risk of meaning transfer: Are negative associations more likely to transfer than positive associations? *Social influence*, 7(3), 172–192.

Carrillat, F. A., & Ilicic, J. (2019). The celebrity capital life cycle: A framework for future research directions on celebrity endorsement. *Journal of Advertising*, 48(1), 61–71.

Choi, S. M., & Rifon, N. J. (2012). It is a match: The impact of congruence between celebrity image and consumer ideal self on endorsement effectiveness. *Psychology & Marketing*, 29(9), 639–650.

Clemence, A., Doise, W., & Lorenzi-Cioldi, F. (2014). *The quantitative analysis of social representations*. Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L. P., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed. Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, 209.

Dany, L., Urdapilleta, I., & Lo Monaco, G. (2015). Free associations and social representations: Some reflections on rank-frequency and importance-frequency methods. *Quality & Quantity*, 49(2), 489–507.

Dimov, D., Shepherd, D. A., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2007). Requisite expertise, firm reputation, and status in venture capital investment allocation decisions. *Journal of Business Venturing*, 22(4), 481–502.

Djafarova, E., & Rushworth, C. (2017). Exploring the credibility of online celebrities' Instagram profiles in influencing the purchase decisions of young female users. *Computers in Human Behavior*, 68, 1–7.

Dolbec, P. Y., Castilhos, R. B., Fonseca, M. J., & Trez, G. (2022). How established organizations combine logics to reconfigure resources and adapt to marketing: A case study of Brazilian religious schools. *Journal of Marketing Research*, 59(1), 118–135.

Dubois, D., & Ordabayeva, N. (2015). 13 Social Hierarchy, Social Status, and Status Consumption. In *The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Psychology*. Edited by Norton MI, Rucker DD, Lamberton C. Cambridge University Press; 2015:332-367.

Erdogan, B. Z. (1999). Celebrity endorsement: A literature review. *Journal of Marketing Management*, 15(4), 291–314.

Fan, F. (2021). Exploratory study about audience response to product endorsements by online DIY celebrities and traditional celebrities. *Young Consumers*, 22(2), 169–184.

Felin, T., Foss, N. J., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015). The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. *Academy of Management Annals*, 9(1), 575–632.

Ferraro, C., Hemsley, A., & Sands, S. (2023). Embracing diversity, equity, and inclusion (EDI): Considerations and opportunities for brand managers. *Business Horizons*, 66 (4), 463–479.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. *Human relations*, 7(2), 117–140.

Flament, C. (1986). L'Analyse de Similitude: Une Technique Pour les Recherches Sur les Représentations Sociales. In W. Doise (Ed.), *L'Etude des Représentations Sociales*, 139-156. Paris: Delachaux & Niestle.

Flick, U., Foster, J., & Caillaud, S. (2015). Researching social representations. *The Cambridge handbook of social representations*, 3(1), 64–80.

Fombrun, C. J., & Shanley, M. (1986). What's in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. *Academy of Management Journal*, 33(2), 233–258.

Gerber, J. P., Wheeler, L., & Suls, J. (2018). A social comparison theory meta-analysis 60+ years on. *Psychological bulletin*, 144(2), 177.

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). *The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research*. Chicago, CA: Aldine.

Gräve, J. F., & Bartsch, F. (2021). # Instafame: Exploring the endorsement effectiveness of influencers compared to celebrities. *International Journal of Advertising*, 41(4), 591–622.

Gulas, C. S., & McKeage, K. (2000). Extending social comparison: An examination of the unintended consequences of idealized advertising imagery. *Journal of advertising*, 29 (2), 17–28.

Gurzki, H., Schlatter, N., & Woisetschläger, D. M. (2019). *Crafting extraordinary stories: Decoding luxury brand communications*. *Journal of advertising*, 48(4), 401–414.

Hanson, W. E., Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L. P., Petska, K. S., & Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed methods research designs in counseling psychology. *Journal of Counseling Psychology*, 52(2), 224.

Hoffman, D. L., & Franke, G. R. (1986). Correspondence analysis: Graphical representation of categorical data in marketing research. *Journal of Marketing Research*, 23(3), 213–227.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Empirical models of cultural differences. In N. Bleichrodt, & P. J. D. Drenth (Eds.), *Contemporary issues in cross-cultural psychology* (pp. 4–20). Swets & Zeitlinger Publishers.

Hudson, B. A. (2008). Against all odds: A consideration of core-stigmatized organizations. *Academy of Management Review*, 33, 252–266.

Hugh Wilkie, D. C., Dolan, R., Harrigan, P., & Gray, H. (2022). Influencer marketing effectiveness: The mechanisms that matter. *European Journal of Marketing*, 56(12), 3485–3515.

Humphreys, A., & Carpenter, G. S. (2018). Status games: Market driving through social influence in the U.S. Wine Industry. *Journal of Marketing*, 82(5), 141–159.

Ilicic, J., & Webster, C. M. (2015). Consumer values of corporate and celebrity brand associations. *Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal*, 18(2), 164–187.

Illia, L., Sonpar, K., & Bauer, M. W. (2014). Applying co-occurrence text analysis with ALCESTE to studies of impression management. *British Journal of Management*, 25(2), 352–372.

John, D. R., Loken, B., & Joiner, C. (1998). The negative impact of extensions: Can flagship products be diluted? *Journal of Marketing*, 62(1), 19–32.

Kamins, M. A. (1990). An investigation into the “match-up” hypothesis in celebrity advertising: When beauty may be only skin deep. *Journal of Advertising*, 19(1), 4–13.

Kang, I. H., & Park, T. (2022). Cultural differences in consumer responses to celebrities acting immorally: A comparison of the United States and South Korea. *Journal of business ethics*, 1–17.

Kantar. (2021). “How Can Celebrities Help to Maximise the Brand Impact of Advertising?”. Retrieved from https://www.kantar.com/inspiration/advertisingmedia/how-can-celebrities-help-to-maximise-the-brandimpact-of-advertising. Accessed December 10, 2021.

Kennedy, A., Baxter, S. M., & Ilicic, J. (2019). Celebrity versus film persona endorsements: Examining the effect of celebrity transgressions on consumer judgments. *Psychology & Marketing*, 36(2), 102–112.

Kim, M., Song, D., & Jang, A. (2021). Consumer response toward native advertising on social media: The roles of source type and content type. *Internet Research*, 31(5), 1656–1676.

Kleine, J., Friederich, N., & Paul, M. (2023). Celebrity endorser scandals and competitor firm value. *Journal of Advertising*, 53(2), 262–277.

Knoll, J., & Matthes, J. (2017). The effectiveness of celebrity endorsements: A meta-analysis. *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science*, 45, 55–75.

Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multi-level approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein (Ed.), *Multi-level theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions* (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kupfer, A. K., Vor, P., der Holte, N., Kübler, R. V., & Hennig-Thurau, T. (2018). The role of the partner brand's social media power in brand alliances. *Journal of Marketing*, 82 (3), 25–44.

Leung, F. F., Gu, F. F., Li, Y., Zhang, J. Z., & Palmatier, R. W. (2022). Influencer marketing effectiveness. *Journal of Marketing*, 86(6), 93–115.

Lo Monaco, G., Piermattéo, A., Rateau, P., & Tavani, J. L. (2017). Methods for studying the structure of social representations: A critical review and agenda for future research. *Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour*, 47(3), 306–331.

Lynch, J., & Schuler, D. (1994). The matchup effect of spokesperson and product congruency: A schema theory interpretation. *Psychology & Marketing*, 11(5), 417–445.

Malhouf, L. (2020). Toujours Plus, Ed. Robert Laffont, ISBN-10: 978221247884.

McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement process. *Journal of consumer research*, 16(3), 310–321.

McQuarrie, E. F., Miller, J., & Phillips, B. J. (2013). The megaphone effect: Taste and audience in fashion blogging. *Journal of Consumer Research*, 40(1), 136–158.

Meier, A., Gilbert, A., Börner, S., & Possler, D. (2020). Instagram inspiration: How upward comparison on social network sites can contribute to well-being. *Journal of Communication*, 70(5), 721–743.

Meyer, J. W., & Scott, R. W. (1983). Centralization and the legitimacy problems of local government. In J. W. Meyer, & R. W. Scott (Eds.), *Organizational environments: ritual and rationality* (pp. 199–215). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Miller, F. M., & Allen, C. T. (2012). How does celebrity meaning transfer? investigating the process of meaning transfer with celebrity affiliates and mature brands. *Journal of Consumer Psychology*, 22(3), 443–452.

Moliner, P., & Abric, J. C. (2015). Central core theory. *The Cambridge handbook of social representations*, 83–95.

Montemurro, B. (2008). Toward a sociology of reality television. *Sociology Compass*, 2(1), 84–106.

Moscovici, S. (1963). Attitudes and opinions. *Annual Review of Psychology*, 14, 231–260.

Mussweiler, T. (2003). Comparison processes in social judgment: Mechanisms and consequences. *Psychological review*, 110(3), 472.

Newman, M. E., & Girvan, M. (2004). Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. *Physical Review E*, 69(2), Article 026113.

Patterson, P. G., Cowley, E., & Prasongsukarn, K. (2006). Service failure recovery: The moderating impact of individual-level cultural value orientation on perceptions of justice. *International Journal of Research in Marketing*, 23(3), 263–277.

Philippe, D., Debenedetti, A., & Chaney, D. (2022). How brands mobilize status, reputation, and legitimacy cues to signal their social standing: The case of luxury watchmaking. *Marketing Theory*, 22(3), 333–358.

Piazza, A., & Castellucci, F. (2014). Status in organization and management theory. *Journal of Management*, 40(1), 287–315.

Podolny, J. M. (2001). Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. *Am. J. Sociology*, 107, 33–60.

Podolny, J. M. (2005). Status Signals: A Sociological Study of Market Competition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
Pollock, T. G., Lashley, K., Rindova, V. P., & Han, J.-H. (2019). Which of these things are not like the others? Comparing the rational, emotional, and moral aspects of reputation, status, celebrity, and stigma. *Academy of Management Annals*, *13*(2), 444–478.

Ratinaud, P. (2009). *IRaMuTeQ: Interface de R pour les Analyses Multidimensionnelles de Textes et de Questionnaires*. Downloadable at: http://www.iramuteq.org.

Reveeur, C. (2017). In Robert (Ed.), *No filter*.

Rundin, K., & Colliander, J. (2021). Multifaceted influencers: Toward a new typology for influencer roles in advertising. *Journal of Advertising*, *50*(5), 548–564.

Saeed, M. R., Khan, H., Lee, R., Lockshin, L., Bellman, S., Cohen, J., & Yang, S. (2024). Construal level theory in advertising research: A systematic review and directions for future research. *Journal of Business Research*, *183*, Article 114870.

Salime, S., Clesse, C., & Batt, M. (2021). Health professional's social representation about elderly subject with mental health disorders: A pilot study on 790 health professionals. *Aging & mental health*, *25*(2), 350–359.

Schimmelpfennig, C., & Hunt, J. B. (2020). Fifty years of celebrity endorser research: Support for a comprehensive celebrity endorsement strategy framework. *Psychology & Marketing*, *37*(3), 488–505.

Schouten, A. P., Janssen, L., & Verspaget, M. (2020). Celebrity vs. influencer endorsements in advertising: The role of identification, credibility, and product-endorser fit. *International Journal of Advertising*, *39*(2), 258–281.

Schweitzer, V., & Simon, F. (2021). Self-construals as the locus of paradoxical consumer empowerment in self-service retail technology environments. *Journal of Business Research*, *126*, 291–306.

Shang, J., Reed, A., & Croson, R. (2008). Identity congruency effects on donations. *Journal of Marketing Research*, *45*(3), 351–361.

Shehzala Jaiswal, A. K., Vemireddy, V., & Angeli, F. (2024). Social media “stars” vs “the ordinary” me: Influencer marketing and the role of self-discrepancies, perceived homophily, authenticity, self-acceptance and mindfulness. *European Journal of Marketing*, *58*(2), 590–631.

Silvera, D. H., & Austad, B. (2004). Factors predicting the effectiveness of celebrity endorsement advertisements. *European Journal of Marketing*, *38*(11/12), 1509–1526.

Sobol, K., & Darke, P. R. (2014). "I'd like to be that attractive, but at least I'm smart": How exposure to ideal advertising models motivates improved decision-making. *Journal of Consumer Psychology*, *24*(4), 533–540.

Song, S., & Kim, H. Y. (2020). Celebrity endorsements for luxury brands: Followers vs. non-followers on social media. *International Journal of Advertising*, *39*(6), 802–823.

Statista. (2023). Réseaux sociaux : le fossé générationnel se creuse. Retrieved from https://fr.statista.com/infographie/26076/part-utilisateurs-reseaux-sociaux-en-france-sel-on-generations-tranches-ages/. Accessed October 22, 2024.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. London: Sage Publications.

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. *Academy of Management Review*, *20*(3), 571–610.

Thomas, V. L., Fowler, K., & Saenger, C. (2020). Celebrity influence on word of mouth: The interplay of power states and power expectations. *Marketing Letters*, *31*, 105–120.

Thrash, T. M., Moldovan, E. G., Oleynick, V. C., & Maruskin, L. A. (2014). The psychology of inspiration. *Social and Personality Psychology*, *8*(9), 495–510.

Tost, L. P. (2011). An integrative model of legitimacy judgments. *Academy of management review*, *36*(4), 686–710.

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. *Psychological Review*, *117*(2), 440.

Turner, G. (2006). The mass production of celebrity: ‘Celetoids’, reality TV and the ‘demotic turn’. *International Journal of Cultural Studies*, *9*(2), 153–165.

Ukelbach, C., Alves, H., & Koch, A. (2020). Negativity bias, positivity bias, and valence asymmetries: Explaining the differential processing of positive and negative information. In *Advances in experimental social psychology* (Vol. 62, pp. 115–187). Academic Press.

Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., & Sullivan, Y. (2016). Guidelines for conducting mixed-methods research: An extension and illustration. *Journal of the Association for Information Systems*, *17*(7), 435–495.

Wagner, W., Duveen, G., Farr, R., Jovchelovitch, S., Lorenzi-Cioldi, F., Marková, I., & Rose, D. (1999). Theory and method of social representations. *Asian Journal of Social Psychology*, *2*(1), 95–125.

Washington, M., & Zajac, E. J. (2005). Status evolution and competition: Theory and evidence. *Academy of Management Journal*, *48*(2), 282–296.

Wejnert, B. (2002). Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework. *Annual Review of Sociology*, *28*(1), 297–326.

Wilkie, D. C. H., Burgess, A. J., Mirzaei, A., & Dolan, R. M. (2023). Inclusivity in Advertising: A Typology Framework for Understanding Consumer Reactions. *Journal of Advertising*, *52*(5), 721–738. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2023.2255252

Winterich, K. P., Gangwar, M., & Grewal, R. (2018). When celebrities count: Power distance beliefs and celebrity endorsements. *Journal of Marketing*, *82*(3), 70–86.

Wong, V. C., Fock, H., & Ho, C. K. (2020). Toward a process-transfer model of the endorser effect. *Journal of Marketing Research*, *57*(3), 565–581.

Yi, Y., & Yoo, J. (2011). The long-term effects of sales promotions on brand attitude across monetary and non-monetary promotions. *Psychology & Marketing*, *28*(9), 879–896. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20416

Zhu, H., Kim, M., & Choi, Y. K. (2022). Social media advertising endorsement: the role of endorser type, message appeal and brand familiarity. *International Journal of Advertising*, *41*(5), 948–969.

Françoise Simon is a full Professor of Marketing at the University of Haute-Alsace in France. After a few years working in industry, she received her Ph.D. from the University of Strasbourg and took up a lectureship in 2005. Her research focuses on technology acceptance and resistance to innovation, relationship marketing and brand communication, with a particular interest in the effects of brands' relationship investments and discursive strategies on consumer behavior. Her research has been published in a number of academic journals, including the International Journal of Research in Marketing, Marketing Letters, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Journal of Business Research, European Journal of Marketing, Psychology & Marketing, and Journal of Marketing Management. She serves on the Editorial Review Board of the "Recherche et Applications en Marketing", a publication of the French Marketing Association.

Marine Cambefort is a lecturer at the University of Strasbourg. She holds a PhD in Marketing. Her research focuses on anti-consumption, social influences and the role of political ideologies in consumerism.