The branding power of social media influencers: an interactive marketing approach

Figures & data

Table 1. Table of definitions.

Part Name	Definition	Example
Definition I: Influencer	An individual with substantial online prominence is capable of exerting a persuasive impact on the attitudes and behaviours of their digital audience.	‘A popular Instagram influencer recommendation on the latest products significantly influences his followers’ purchasing decisions.’
Definition II: Influencer’s Marketing	An advertising strategy in which brands team up with online personalities to promote products or services to a broader audience, leveraging influencers’ credibility and reach.	‘The companies partnered with a popular beauty vlogger to promote their new skincare line to her dedicated audience, resulting in a surge in product sales.’

Author own compilation.

Figure 1. Conceptual model of the study.

Table 2. Respondents demographics.

Item	Demographics	Sample	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	206	50.5
	Female	202	49.5
Age	18–25	122	30
	25–35	173	42.6
	35–45	76	18.4
	Above 45 years	39	9.3
Education	Senior high school	11	2.7
	Undergraduate	20	4.9
	Graduate	218	53.6
	Masters	157	38.6
Respondents Professional Background	Government Employee	75	18.4
	Private Industry	98	24.1
	Self-employed/ Independent Enterprise	22	5.1
	Retired/ Unemployed individual	14	3.45
	Students	199	49
Time Spent on social media (Hours)	<1	66	16.2
	1–2	128	31.5

Sample demographics (N = 408). Authors own compilation.

Table 3. Source and description of the study constructs.

Constructs Scales	Sources
Influencer Homophily (H)	(Gilly et al., 1998)
Influencer Social Presence (ISP)	(Aw et al., 2022; Jun & Yi, 2020; Kim & Kim, 2022).
Influencer Physical Attractiveness (IPA)	(Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Currás-Pérez et al., 2009)
Affinity (A)	(Park et al., 2010)
Trust in Influencer (T)	(Sands et al., 2022; Yan et al., 2024)
Loyalty (L)	(Kim & Kim, 2022; Jun & Yi, 2020)
Purchase Intention (PI)	(Aw et al., 2022; Poulis et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2017)

Author’s own compilation.

Table 4. Composite reliability, factor loadings, Cronbach’s Alpha and AVE.

Construct	Items	Factor Loading	Cronbach’ Alpha	Composite Reliability (CR)	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Influencer Homophily (H)	Sence of human sensitivity	0.870	0.833	0.889	0.669
	Interaction feels like real conversations	0.894
	Content is similar to me	0.818
	Feels like home	0.671
Influencer Social Presence (ISP)	Relatedness	0.817	0.851	0.899	0.692
	Personal communication	0.885
	Sense of human sensitivity	0.883
	Real conversation	0.733
Influencer Physical Attractiveness (IPA)	Physically attractive	0.824	0.820	0.881	0.649
	Lot common with me	0.829
	Beautiful	0.754
	Inspiring	0.812
Affinity (A)	Emotional bond	0.901	0.895	0.927	0.762
	Personally connected	0.901
	Sense of belongingness	0.866
	Shares my value	0.821
Trust in Influencer (T)	Reliable	0.893	0.903	0.932	0.775
	Genuine reviews	0.895
	Credible	0.871
	Trustworthy	0.862
Loyalty (L)	Keep on following	0.725	0.838	0.892	0.674
	Continue watching posting	0.881
	I will watch the content whenever I use social media	0.815
	Encourage my friends and family to watch the influencer	0.854
Purchase Intention (PI)	I will purchase the product if an influencer I like endorse it	0.891	0.875	0.915	0.726
	Keep on purchasing influencers reviewed products	0.833
	I may buy the product if the influencer endorsing it, is an expert.	0.899
	Willingness to buy influencer recommended product is high	0.789

*All individual item’s factor loadings have demonstrated statistical significance at a level of p < .001.

Table 5. Assessment of discriminant validity.

	Affinity	Homophily	Influencer physical attractiveness	Influencer social presence	Loyalty	Purchase intention	Trust
Affinity	0.873
Homophily	0.903	0.818
Influencer physical Attractiveness	0.815	0.842	0.806
Influencer Social Presence	0.942	0.864	0.841	0.832
Loyalty	0.766	0.770	0.796	0.774	0.821
Purchase Intention	0.810	0.814	0.823	0.788	0.746	0.854
Trust	0.798	0.851	0.803	0.784	0.717	0.767	0.880

The main diagonal (highlighted in bold) already denotes that it corresponds to ‘the square roots of the variance shared by each variable.

Table 6. Assessment of the model fit.

	Saturated model	Estimated model
SRMR	0.079	0.102
d_ULS	2.560	4.264

Model goodness of fit.

Figure 2. Empirically tested conceptual model (SmartPLS 4.0).

Table 7. Path coefficient.

	Original sample (O)	Sample mean (M)	Standard deviation (STDEV)	T statistics (|O/STDEV|)	p values
Affinity -> Loyalty	0.766	0.767	0.022	35.247	.00
Affinity -> Purchase Intention	0.691	0.692	0.028	24.655	.00
Affinity -> Trust	0.798	0.799	0.024	33.564	.00
Homophily -> Affinity	0.385	0.387	0.033	11.578	.00
Influencer Physical Attractiveness -> Affinity	−0.076	−0.074	0.036	2.116	.034
Influencer Social Presence -> Affinity	0.674	0.671	0.037	18.28	.00
Loyalty -> Purchase Intention	0.403	0.403	0.05	8.077	.00
Trust -> Purchase Intention	0.478	0.478	0.053	9.107	.00

Significance levels *p < .05, **p < .001.

Table 8. Predictive relevance analysis.

	R-squares	R-squares adjusted
Affinity	0.921	0.920
Loyalty	0.587	0.586
Purchase Intention	0.668	0.666
Trust	0.636	0.635

The value of R² > 0.10, except for ED. Also, the value of Q² is > 0.

Table 9. Hypothesis Testing.

Hypothesis No	Hypothesized Path	Direct Effects			Mediating Effects			Remarks
		B-Value	p-Value	T-Value	B-Value	p-Value	T-Value
H1	H → A	0.385	.00	11.578				Supported
H2	ISP → A	0.674	.00	18.280				Supported
H3	IPA → A	−0.076	.034	2.116				Supported
H4	A → T	0.798	.00	33.564				Supported
H5	A → L	0.766	.00	35.247				Supported
H6	T → PI	0.478	.00	9.107				Supported
H7	L → PI	0.403	.00	8.077				Supported
H8	A → PI	0.691	.00	0.028				Supported
H9	A → T → PI				0.211	.00	4.628	Supported
H10	A → L → PI				0.180	.00	4.397	Supported

*** p < .01. ** p < .05. * p < .1.

Table 10. Exploring mediation effects.

Total effect (A->PI)			Direct effects (A->PI)				Indirect effects (A->PI)
											Percentile Bootstrap 97.5% confidence interval
Coefficient	T value	p value	Coefficient	T value	p value	Hypotheses	Coefficient	(SE)	T value	p value	Lower	Upper
0.811	37.459	.000	0.420	7.487	.000	H9: A → T → PI	0.211	0.045	4.628	.000	0.125	0.301
0.811	37.459	.000	0.420	7.487	.000	H10: A → L → PI	0.180	0.041	4.397	.000	0.103	0.261

Signifies Statistically Significance *p < .10; p < .05; p < .001.

Table A1. Constructs with items and sources.

Constructs	Items	Sources
Homophily	The influencer provides a sense of human sensitivity	(Gilly et al., 1998)
	Interacting with this influencer was like having a real conversation
	I would continue to watch the posting of the influencers
	I can relate to all of the posts/content
Influencers Social Presence	I can identify/relate with Influencer	(Aw et al., 2022; Jun & Yi, 2020; Kim & Kim, 2022)
	Influencer allows me to communicate directly with her or him
	Influencer would respond to me quickly and efficiently
	This influencer is usually present (e.g. show his/herself photos/videos) in the promotional/advertisement posts
Influencer Physical Attractiveness	I find this influencer very attractive physically	(Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Currás-Pérez et al., 2009)
	This influencer has a lot in common with me
	This influencer has thoughts and ideas that are similar to mine
	Influencer wants to do best at providing concerned content
Affinity	I feel a strong sense of belonging to this influencer account	(Park et al., 2010)
	I enjoy being a follower of this influencer account
	I am very committed to this influencer account
	This influencer shares my values
Trust	Product recommendations from the influencer are reliable	(Sands et al., 2022; Yan et al., 2024)
	Influencers give genuine reviews
	Influencer ads are a reliable source of information to get to know the quality and properties of the product
	We can depend on getting the truth in most influencer ads
Loyalty	I will keep on following Influencers account as long as they are providing me with satisfying content	(Kim & Kim, 2022; Jun & Yi, 2020)
	I would love to recommend Influencer to my friends
	I would encourage friends and relatives to see the influencers content
	Influencers’ reviews are Believable
Purchase Intension	I will buy the product if the Influencer I like started endorsing it	(Aw et al., 2022; Poulis et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2017)
	I intend to keep purchasing the product reviewed by influencers
	My willingness to buy the product recommended by influencer is high
	I will probably buy a product if the influencer endorsing it is an expert

Author’s own compilation.

Gilly, M. C., Graham, J. L., Wolfinbarger, M. F., & Yale, L. J. (1998). A dyadic study of interpersonal information search. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(2), 83–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070398262001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aw, E. C.-X., Tan, G. W.-H., Chuah, S. H.-W., Ooi, K.-B., & Hajli, N. (2022). Be my friend! Cultivating parasocial relationships with social media influencers: Findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. Information Technology & People, 36(1), 66–94. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-07-2021-0548

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jun, S., & Yi, J. (2020). What makes followers loyal? The role of influencer interactivity in building influencer brand equity. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 29(6), 803–814. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-02-2019-2280

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kim, J., & Kim, M. (2022). Rise of social media influencers as a new marketing channel: Focusing on the roles of psychological well-being and perceived social responsibility among consumers. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(4), 2362. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042362

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer–company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76–88. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.2.76.18609

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Currás-Pérez, R., Bigné-Alcañiz, E., & Alvarado-Herrera, A. (2009). The role of self-definitional principles in consumer identification with a socially responsible company. Journal of Business Ethics, 89(4), 547–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-008-0016-6

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Park, C. W., MacInnis, D. J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A. B., & Iacobucci, D. (2010). Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: Conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.74.6.1

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sands, S., Campbell, C. L., Plangger, K., & Ferraro, C. (2022). Unreal influence: Leveraging AI in influencer marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 56(6), 1721–1747. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-12-2019-0949

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yan, J., Xia, S., Jiang, A., & Lin, Z. (2024). The effect of different types of virtual influencers on consumers’ emotional attachment. Journal of Business Research, 177, 114646–114646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114646

 Google Scholar

Poulis, A., Rizomyliotis, I., & Konstantoulaki, K. (2019). Do firms still need to be social? Firm generated content in social media. Information Technology & People, 32(2), 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1108/itp-03-2018-0134

 Google Scholar

Wang, J., Bao, J., Wang, C., & Wu, L. (2017). The impact of different emotional appeals on the purchase intention for green products: The moderating effects of green involvement and Confucian cultures. Sustainable Cities and Society, 34, 32–42.

 Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data supporting the findings in this manuscript are available upon request. To access the data, please contact the corresponding author at [email protected]