How Generation X and Millennials Perceive Influencers’ Recommendations: Perceived Trustworthiness, Product Involvement, and Perceived Risk
, Fernando J. Fuentes-García, M. Carmen Cano-Vicente and Miguel González-Mohino *
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work has merit and it is a very innovative and updated issue. However, there are small mistakes that need to be addressed.
1. The pdf (at least) does not match up with the template, the numbers lines are on the left instead of the right.
2. References: please, review references. Missing data as in lines 598, 620, wrong data as 595, 606, 637
3. Introduction: from 78 to 85 are mainly final results, which on the whole, are not part of an introduction. Erase this part and tell how you are going to address the research, check some articles in your references.
4. Table 4, correct independent variable H4
5. Please, elaborate more H6.
On the whole, the article has flow and coherence and is coherent. congratulations on your research!
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the editors and reviewers for their time dedicated to improving the final result of the article. All their corrections and revisions are highly valued and important to us. To facilitate the location of the modifications, we have inserted text in blue color.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer 1
The work has merit and it is a very innovative and updated issue. However, there are small mistakes that need to be addressed.
Thank you very much for your words. We will now try to answer your questions one by one. You can locate all the changes made with the blue text.
- The pdf (at least) does not match up with the template, the numbers lines are on the left instead of the right.
We think it is a formatting conversion error. We have verified that in the Word version the formatting is correct and the number lines are on the right. For this reason, we thought it would be more appropriate, since the Word version is correct, not to make any changes in this regard.
- References: please, review references. Missing data as in lines 598, 620, wrong data as 595, 606, 637
Thank you for your comments. All citations and references contained in the document have been entered with Endnote. The references have been obtained from the journal of publication (in most cases). We have proceeded to review them and have introduced modifications in some of them, but we have found that when applying the style of the journal some information is lost, or other information is distorted. As we have the library archived in Endnote we think that this issue can be solved at the editing stage (in case the article is finally accepted). In this way, it will be much easier to solve each of the errors in detail. However, if you consider it appropriate, we are open to a new revision of the references.
- Introduction: from 78 to 85 are mainly final results, which on the whole, are not part of an introduction. Erase this part and tell how you are going to address the research, check some articles in your references.
Thank you for your comment. We have modified lines 73 to 91, with additional explanations and justification of the gap covered by the paper. We have also included the sample data in the abstract. We think that this improves the understanding of the introduction in the sense of your recommendation, and better justifies the knowledge gap covered by the paper and the theoretical support.
- Table 4, correct independent variable H4
We have carefully reread all the paragraphs and text related to hypothesis 4 and table 4, but we did not notice the error. In case we have overlooked something, if it can be more precise we will make as many modifications as necessary.
- Please, elaborate more H6.
Thank you for your comment. We believe that it was indeed necessary to expand the theoretical justification of hypothesis 6. It has been strengthened in lines 259 to 266, thus making it much clearer.
On the whole, the article has flow and coherence and is coherent. congratulations on your research!
We think that after making the modifications that you have suggested, the article has improved a lot. We hope that you will soon be able to read the final version of the paper. Thank you very much for your contributions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors.
After carefully reviewing your research I can inform you that it does not require any changes.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the editors and reviewers for their time dedicated to improving the final result of the article. All their corrections and revisions are highly valued and important to us. To facilitate the location of the modifications, we have inserted text in blue color.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer 2
Dear Authors.
After carefully reviewing your research I can inform you that it does not require any changes.
Thank you very much for your words. Following the suggestions of the other reviewers, the final text has been changed. We hope you will soon be able to read the final version.
___________________________________________________________________________
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article presents a novel analysis suitable for the journal in which it is applied. The so-called influencer marketing has become a strategic communication tool for all types of companies to reach their potential customers naturally and effectively
This paper attempts theoretical contributions on the relationships between perceived trustworthiness, perceived risk, product involvement and purchase intention.
The study also adds more novel contributions, such as the multigroup analysis of these relationships of generation X and generation Y (millennials); the gender; and the social norm.
The final sample is large (251), considering that the profile of the respondents was specific, based on followers of fashion influencers.
The methodological section is adequate.
Finally, the conclusions and practical implications shed light on companies that decide to use influencer marketing to promote their products. For example, when selecting the influencer correctly, due to the trust and involvement that they transmit to the audience.
Regarding the aspects of improvement:
Introduction: The authors should better show the gap of the paper, showing what we know, and how this paper contributes to the existing literature. The research question should be highlighted in the introduction.
Theory: I think it would be better to homogenize the hypotheses. I mean, sometimes the authors use "has a positive influence" "positive impact" "decrease" "attenuate".. Furthermore, some hypotheses have a very brief explanation, if there are no doubts about this relationship, then the hypothesis is not needed, if there are doubts then more arguments are needed to understand why this relationship occurs. Above all, moderation hypotheses should be reinforced.
Conclusions: The authors should go deeper into the discussion in the aspects related to the unsupported hypothesis.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the editors and reviewers for their time dedicated to improving the final result of the article. All their corrections and revisions are highly valued and important to us. To facilitate the location of the modifications, we have inserted text in blue color.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer 3
The article presents a novel analysis suitable for the journal in which it is applied. The so-called influencer marketing has become a strategic communication tool for all types of companies to reach their potential customers naturally and effectively
This paper attempts theoretical contributions on the relationships between perceived trustworthiness, perceived risk, product involvement and purchase intention.
The study also adds more novel contributions, such as the multigroup analysis of these relationships of generation X and generation Y (millennials); the gender; and the social norm.
The final sample is large (251), considering that the profile of the respondents was specific, based on followers of fashion influencers.
The methodological section is adequate.
Finally, the conclusions and practical implications shed light on companies that decide to use influencer marketing to promote their products. For example, when selecting the influencer correctly, due to the trust and involvement that they transmit to the audience.
The authors would like to thank you for taking the time to read the text and for your positive comments.
Regarding the aspects of improvement:
Introduction: The authors should better show the gap of the paper, showing what we know, and how this paper contributes to the existing literature. The research question should be highlighted in the introduction.
Thank you for your comment. We have made modifications and added observations according to your proposal (between lines 73 to 91). We think that, in this way, the research question as well as the knowledge gap covered by the article are much clearer.
Theory: I think it would be better to homogenize the hypotheses. I mean, sometimes the authors use "has a positive influence" "positive impact" "decrease" "attenuate".. Furthermore, some hypotheses have a very brief explanation, if there are no doubts about this relationship, then the hypothesis is not needed, if there are doubts then more arguments are needed to understand why this relationship occurs. Above all, moderation hypotheses should be reinforced.
We believe that your comment is very accurate. We have standardized the wording of the hypotheses, and the theoretical justification of hypothesis 6 has been expanded. On the other hand, the justification of the moderating hypotheses has also been expanded (lines 259 to 266, and 302 to 309).
Conclusions: The authors should go deeper into the discussion in the aspects related to the unsupported hypothesis.
Thank you for your comment. We have introduced a new commentary according to your suggestion (lines 541 to 545).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The subject in discuss is very merging, the comparation between generation X and Millennnials it's very attractive. The analyzes made through partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) is very well proposed in the research, it's very innovative, the statistical model gives a more ample aspects of human behavior. Although it should be noted that, even though is mentioned that the relationship between the perceived trust in the influencers messages and the observed risk consequential from their recommendations has been little studied: "Behind the interest of influencers with the object to be promoted, there is the business marketing that selects and promotes. This can be the object or a mistrust no reflected in the study that can reduce the purchase intention"
It should be added to the discussion and conclusions as an open line for future research.
(Accept in present form but considering this minor revisions concerning the discussion)
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the editors and reviewers for their time dedicated to improving the final result of the article. All their corrections and revisions are highly valued and important to us. To facilitate the location of the modifications, we have inserted text in blue color.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Reviewer 4
The subject in discuss is very merging, the comparation between generation X and Millennnials it's very attractive. The analyzes made through partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) is very well proposed in the research, it's very innovative, the statistical model gives a more ample aspects of human behavior. Although it should be noted that, even though is mentioned that the relationship between the perceived trust in the influencers messages and the observed risk consequential from their recommendations has been little studied: "Behind the interest of influencers with the object to be promoted, there is the business marketing that selects and promotes. This can be the object or a mistrust no reflected in the study that can reduce the purchase intention"
It should be added to the discussion and conclusions as an open line for future research.
(Accept in present form but considering this minor revisions concerning the discussion)
Thank you for your comments. We very much agree with the suggestion you have made, and we have included some ideas about it on lines 620 to 624.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
