#ThisIsSustainable: The Effect of Disclosures in Influencer Marketing for Sustainable Food

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Excellent study. Nicely written with clear English. The only thing I would like to see if the applicability outside of the study country. I think with the global world young people now live in, this has great applicability and I think this being discussed would be the 'cherry on top of the cake' for this paper. But overall, I think it is very interesting. 

Author Response

Thank you for the kind words. Based on the information I have in this study; I cannot extrapolate the findings for a global population since intercultural differences might play a role. “Previous research has indicated that culture can affect social media participation, as well as the engagement with branded content [70,71]. Moreover, Ur Rahman et al. [72] propose that cultural dimensions also affect sustainable consumption. In line with much of the previous research, the current study was conducted in a Western setting and the question remains whether these findings could be extrapolated to other markets. Therefore, we suggest future research to consider taking the cultural dimensions into account as potential moderating variables.” I have included this reflection in the limitations’ section of the paper on page 12.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript sets out to explore an interesting idea based on post sponsorship disclosure for food products. However, the experiment has a major flaw that I address in the comments below. Additional changes are recommended for methodology, data analysis, and comparisons of the study’s results to previous research.

Considering the examined manuscript, I recommend the improvement of the following aspects:

 

1. Statistics on Influencer marketing could be provided in the Introduction to showcase the importance of this marketing strategy in current settings and to create a relevant background of the study.

2. In the beginning of section 2.1., the manuscript reflects an abrupt reference to unhealthy snacks and kids, without a proper contextualization in the Introduction of the study.

3. The Food Marketing Defense model should be further explored.

4. The manuscript lacks not clear details on the pretesting phase. Overall, the manuscript lacks mentioning many key details on the implementation of this study, the pre-stages, timeline, randomization…

5. It is important to include the sample profile for each of the experiment groups of respondents in a summarizing table. 

6. Section 3.2. Manipulation check of the disclosure should be addressed further. What actions were taken for the respondents who did not manage to notice the sponsored dimension of the post?

7. From my understanding, this manuscript developed one single experiment. The idea of the experiment is interesting, however there is a major error in the implementation of the experiment. 

One of the golden rules of experimental studies is that the experimental priming’s should not vary in any aspect apart from the intended manipulation. 

Thus, the experiment methodology should focus on exploring only one element that is manipulated. In this case, the experiment includes: 

• different photos 

• different products (granola vs. chocolate spread)

• different disclosure-related text (with/without #sponsored tag) – which is correctly implemented based on the proposed manipulation checks and the scope of the paper. 

This creates a case on multiple manipulations and inconclusive results. Based on these multiple manipulations in the same experiment, this study is not congruent with the implementation of an experiment. In its current framework, the study reflects a multi-sample analysis of 2 different stimuli, with different products and photos. 

As mentioned, my understanding is that only one experiment was conducted. If the study included multiple experiments with different manipulations, then this aspect was not explained in the manuscript. The idea of implementing an experiment is interesting, however attention the details is necessary to avoid the pitfalls of this research strategy.

 

References for experiment implementation and manipulation checks:

• Hudders, L., & De Jans, S. (2022). Gender effects in influencer marketing: an experimental study on the efficacy of endorsements by same-vs. other-gender social media influencers on Instagram. International Journal of Advertising, 41(1), 128-149.

• Franke, C., Groeppel-Klein, A., & Müller, K. (2022). Consumers’ Responses to Virtual Influencers as Advertising Endorsers: Novel and Effective or Uncanny and Deceiving?. Journal of Advertising, 1-17.

• Phua, J., Jin, S. V., & Kim, J. (2020). Pro-veganism on Instagram: Effects of user-generated content (UGC) types and content generator types in Instagram-based health marketing communication about veganism. Online Information Review, 44(3), 685-704.

• De Veirman, M., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2017). Marketing through Instagram influencers: the impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand attitude. International journal of advertising, 36(5), 798-828.

 

8. Hypotheses interpretations should be more clearly described.

9. Not enough details are provided on the implementation of the analyses for hypothesis testing, steps for data screening, clear details on the DVs and IVs…

10. Additional result comparisons to previous studies should be provided in the Discussion section.

11. Each manuscript has to provide clear details on the original contributions and study relevancy.

12. The practical implications should be further expanded. There is also an error: “Further research is needed to compare the effects of different 395 disclosures, as mentioned by previous research (EXAMPLES).” I agree, additional practical examples are necessary for a clear representation of the marketing implementations.

13. The Limitations of the study need to be addressed further.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

The manuscript sets out to explore an interesting idea based on post sponsorship disclosure for food products. However, the experiment has a major flaw that I address in the comments below. Additional changes are recommended for methodology, data analysis, and comparisons of the study’s results to previous research.

Considering the examined manuscript, I recommend the improvement of the following aspects:

1. Statistics on Influencer marketing could be provided in the Introduction to showcase the importance of this marketing strategy in current settings and to create a relevant background of the study.

Response: The following has been added to the introduction on page 2: “Influencer marketing is such a new form of marketing communication which has grown from representing a market size of 4.6 billion dollars to 16.5 billion dol-lars during the last five years, and it is expected to grow even more [10].]”  and “The Belgian SMI Barometer 2023 [16] shows that 28.3% of respondents (between 16 and 39) that follow influencers, content creators or celebrities bought something the influencer advertised in the last three months. Moreover, 33.2% of respondents started following the advertised brand and 45.1% looked for more information about the advertised brand. In sum, using influencers seems to be an effective marketing strategy.” I hope these provide sufficient statistics about influencer marketing; otherwise, I am more than happy to hear from the reviewer what additional information they would like to see.

2. In the beginning of section 2.1., the manuscript reflects an abrupt reference to unhealthy snacks and kids, without a proper contextualization in the Introduction of the study.

Response: The main idea behind introducing these references is the fact that they show that influencers can effectively affect food intake. I have tried to make this clearer in the manuscript.

3. The Food Marketing Defense model should be further explored.

Response: I agree that this model was not properly explained. However, given that this model was not central for my hypotheses building, I have opted to remove the reference to this model. The Persuasion Knowledge Model is, in my opinion, sufficient to underpin the hypotheses regarding recognition of selling intent.

4. The manuscript lacks not clear details on the pretesting phase. Overall, the manuscript lacks mentioning many key details on the implementation of this study, the pre-stages, timeline, randomization…

Response: the stimulus material has not been pretested and, as such, a pre-testing phase has not been mentioned. However, the manipulation for the disclosure was based on Evans et al. (2017) – which is mentioned on page 6. Moreover, the manipulation checks ensured that the manipulation were perceived as intended. I have included the time at which the data was collected (April 2020) on page 6 and I have now indicated on page 5 that the distribution of the condition was random, and in line with the next comment, a randomization check has been added as well on page 6. I hope that these additions address your concerns sufficiently.

5. It is important to include the sample profile for each of the experiment groups of respondents in a summarizing table. 

Response: Table 1 now provides a sample descriptive per experimental group. Moreover, on page 6 a randomization check has been added. The experimental groups do not significantly differ with respect to age F (1, 328) = .294, p = 5.88, gender χ2 (3) = 1.56, p = .668 or Instagram use χ2 (3) = 9.06, p = .170

6. Section 3.2. Manipulation check of the disclosure should be addressed further. What actions were taken for the respondents who did not manage to notice the sponsored dimension of the post?

Response: 62 respondents who did not correctly identify the presence or absence of the disclosure were removed from further analyses. The remaining respondents only significantly differed in age t (323) = -3.66, p <.001 with the excluded respondents (page 7). More specifically, the excluded group was on average younger (M = 17.29, SD = 3.55) compared to the included group (M = 19.12, SD = 3.53). This is not an unexpected finding since persuasion knowledge, and therefore the ability to be able to recognize persuasion attempts increases when cognitive skills develop. Nevertheless, I believe it was important to mention in the methodology.

7. From my understanding, this manuscript developed one single experiment. The idea of the experiment is interesting, however there is a major error in the implementation of the experiment. 

One of the golden rules of experimental studies is that the experimental priming’s should not vary in any aspect apart from the intended manipulation. 

Thus, the experiment methodology should focus on exploring only one element that is manipulated. In this case, the experiment includes: 

• different photos 
• different products (granola vs. chocolate spread)
• different disclosure-related text (with/without #sponsored tag) – which is correctly implemented based on the proposed manipulation checks and the scope of the paper. 

This creates a case on multiple manipulations and inconclusive results. Based on these multiple manipulations in the same experiment, this study is not congruent with the implementation of an experiment. In its current framework, the study reflects a multi-sample analysis of 2 different stimuli, with different products and photos. 

As mentioned, my understanding is that only one experiment was conducted. If the study included multiple experiments with different manipulations, then this aspect was not explained in the manuscript. The idea of implementing an experiment is interesting, however attention the details is necessary to avoid the pitfalls of this research strategy.

 

References for experiment implementation and manipulation checks:

• Hudders, L., & De Jans, S. (2022). Gender effects in influencer marketing: an experimental study on the efficacy of endorsements by same-vs. other-gender social media influencers on Instagram. International Journal of Advertising, 41(1), 128-149.
• Franke, C., Groeppel-Klein, A., & Müller, K. (2022). Consumers’ Responses to Virtual Influencers as Advertising Endorsers: Novel and Effective or Uncanny and Deceiving?. Journal of Advertising, 1-17.
• Phua, J., Jin, S. V., & Kim, J. (2020). Pro-veganism on Instagram: Effects of user-generated content (UGC) types and content generator types in Instagram-based health marketing communication about veganism. Online Information Review, 44(3), 685-704.
• De Veirman, M., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2017). Marketing through Instagram influencers: the impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand attitude. International journal of advertising, 36(5), 798-828.

 Response: I acknowledge that the mix between different products and, resultingly, different photos could have biased the findings of the result. Nevertheless, as now added in the limitations of this paper (page 10), “The reasoning behind this was to increase the likelihood that the conditions would significantly differ in terms of perceived sustainability. Although the manipulation checks indeed indicated that these two conditions significantly differed in terms of perceived sustainability, this might have also introduced a potential confound in terms of, for example, product involvement. Moreover, the pictures also have slight differences – although in both we ensured that the picture showed the actual product as well as the packaging of the product. Without being able to collect new data I am unable to disentangle these effects in the current manuscript. Nevertheless, future research (page 12) is encouraged to disentangle the effects of product involvement and sustainability”.

8. Hypotheses interpretations should be more clearly described.

Response: The hypotheses’ interpretations have now been more clearly described.

9. Not enough details are provided on the implementation of the analyses for hypothesis testing, steps for data screening, clear details on the DVs and IVs…

Response: With regard to the data screening, details have now been added on page 5. In total 427 participants took part in the survey. 13 did not have an Instagram account and were automatically re-directed to the end of the survey and 30 more stopped the survey themselves. From the remaining 384 participants who continued the survey, 50 did not complete the survey. This resulted in a sample of 332 participants.

I am unsure what details for the implementation of the analysis for hypothesis testing and details for DVs and IVs the reviewer specifically is referring too. Nevertheless, I have tried to make it as clear as possible. However, in case there is something specific missing, I will add these in the following round.

10. Additional result comparisons to previous studies should be provided in the Discussion section.

Response: Throughout the Discussion section I have now tried to compare the findings of the current manuscript more elaborately with previous research (page 9).

11. Each manuscript has to provide clear details on the original contributions and study relevancy.

Response: The introduction now more clearly states the three main aims of the study (on page 2). Furthermore, I believe that by improving the Discussion section in line with your previous comment, the contribution of the study has also been strengthened.

12. The practical implications should be further expanded. There is also an error: “Further research is needed to compare the effects of different 395 disclosures, as mentioned by previous research (EXAMPLES).” I agree, additional practical examples are necessary for a clear representation of the marketing implementations.

Response: The sentence with the mistake has been removed because it referred to suggestions for future research, which should not be added in the Practical Implications’ section. Nevertheless, I have tried to deepen this part to make the implications more specific.

13. The Limitations of the study need to be addressed further.

Response: In line with the suggestion made my R1 to reflect upon the generalizability of the findings for a global audience and your comment regarding the design I have addressed two more limitations of the study. Nevertheless, if you have further limitations to point out, then I will gladly take them into account in the next round.

 

Response: Thank you for your helpful feedback and I hope I have been able to address your concerns.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper deals with an actual and interesting topic.

However, the conclusion section needs to be completed, namely:

- authors should highlight how their study originally contributed to this research field.

- implications for policies and strategies drawing on the results obtained should be highlighted.

Author Response

The paper deals with an actual and interesting topic.

Response: Thank you for the kind words.

However, the conclusion section needs to be completed, namely:

- authors should highlight how their study originally contributed to this research field.

Response: The introduction now more clearly states the three main aims of the study (on page 2). Furthermore, I believe that by improving the Discussion section in line one of the comments from R2, the contribution statement of the study has also been strengthened.

- implications for policies and strategies drawing on the results obtained should be highlighted.

Response: The previous version already indicated that these findings are important for regulators and platform managers. Nevertheless, I have tried to expand this section to make this implication clearer.

Reviewer 4 Report

This work is very interesting as a contribution to influencer marketing. It brings together two very current areas of research: a content of a sustainable development objective and a new marketing modality in a social sector as relevant today as food products.   For all these reasons, it seems to me a great contribution to the scientific society. It opens up new lines of research.

Author Response

Thank you for the kind words.

Reviewer 5 Report

Paper considers sustainable food consumption  since, green marketers are trying to combine newer formats of marketing communications, such as influencer marketing, to change consumer’s behavior to a more environmentally sustainable food choice. 

 

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for the kind words.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The new version of the paper addressed previous recommendations and this manuscript offers clear perspectives on the examined topic. Moreover, the study addresses original contributions regarding the effect of Influencers' disclosures for sustainable food products, as well as marketing implications.

Minor editing of English language required