research

A Mixed Methods Examination of How People Assess the Credibility of Sources Used by Public Relations Practitioners

Julie O’Neila, Marianne Eisenmannb, and Maggie Holmanc

aTexas Christian University Fort Worth, TX, USA; bSyneos Health, New York, NY, USA; cCity of Pflugerville, Pflugerville, TX, USA

ABSTRACT This study examined how people assess the credibility of sour- ces—earned news stories, traditional advertisements, native advertisements, independent blogs, and corporate blogs— used commonly by public relations practitioners. Researchers conducted five focus groups with 46 participants and imple- mented a survey with 1,500 participants recruited from a con- sumer panel. Participants viewed earned media stories as the most credible. Regardless of the source utilized, people value strong writing, copious facts, and balanced perspectives when processing public relations messaging.

KEYWORDS public relations; source credibility; earned media; native advertising

Introduction

Despite conventional wisdom and contemporary claims that audiences view an implied third-party endorsement from earned media as more credible than traditional advertising, public relations experimental design research has consistently shown that this is not correct (Howes & Sallot, 2013; O’Neil & Eisenmann, 2017; Stacks & Michaelson, 2009; Ver�ci�c, Ver�ci�c, & Laco, 2008). Indeed, prior experimental research on the efficacy and cred- ibility of earned news media compared to advertising indicates that people rate these sources about the same. Ironically, survey research on this same topic does not align with these experimental design study results. Hallahan (1999b) found that university students rated news as more trustworthy, believable and accurate in comparison to advertising. When O’Neil and Eisenmann (2017) asked people to rate their levels of trust with various sources, people rated consumer reviews and stories written by a reporter the highest, ahead of newspaper advertising. This study explores these contradictions in experimental studies and sur-

vey research via a qualitative examination of how people process the

CONTACT Julie O’Neil [email protected] Strategic Communication, College of Communication, Texas Christian University, TCU Box 298065, Fort Worth, TX 76129, USA. � 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 2020, VOL. 26, NO. 1, 75–96 https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2018.1536619

credibility of sources used frequently by public relations practitioners. The researchers conducted five focus groups with participants of various age groups across the United States to explore how people assess the credibility of sources when thinking about a consumer purchase. Researchers also ana- lyzed the open-ended responses of 1,500 consumer panel participants, who viewed examples of an earned news story, a newspaper advertisement, a native advertisement, a blog written by an independent source and a blog penned by a company and were asked to describe the credibility of these sources in their own words. While the majority—if not all—of public relations research has examined

source credibility from a quantitative perspective, this research is unique in its mixed methods approach that uses open-ended questions for description and understanding. The results also have the potential to deepen our understanding of how people view native advertising, an increasingly popu- lar public relations source, and to elucidate if and how people untangle the increasingly complex interplay of media sources in today’s contempor- ary society.

Literature review

In a world of pervasive media, users rely on cues to determine what media to consume and trust. Trust itself is in crisis, as Edelman’s 2017 Trust Barometer reports yet another year of declining trust in business, media, and other industries. More than half of people trust a search engine over a human editor (Edelman Trust Barometer, 2017). About 43% of people trust the media, and while this figure is slightly higher than the 41% of the pub- lic who said they trust the government, the media suffered the greatest decrease in trust during the past year (Edelman Trust Barometer, 2017). Consumers are losing their trust in brands, leaders, and the media. For media to regain public trust, they must establish credibility (Cosenza, Solomon, & Kwon, 2015). Users seek consumer information from a variety of different sources and rely on different cues to assess the credibility of these sources (Mitchell & Holcomb, 2016). Credibility research is rooted in persuasion and source credibility litera-

ture. Audiences find highly credible sources more persuasive and acceptable, while they ignore messages lacking in credibility (Berlo, Lemert, & Mertz, 1969; Dholakia & Sternthal, 1977; Gotlieb & Sarel, 1991; Jackob, 2010). Initially, researchers operationalized credibility as dichotomous, either high or low (Berlo et al., 1969). Hovland, Janis, and Kelley (1953) established the dimensions of credibility as expertise and trustworthiness. Although expertise and trustworthiness remain the pillars of source credibility, researchers have added other dimensions such as likeability and dynamism (Berlo et al., 1969;

76 J. O’NEIL ET AL.

Infante, 1980; Whitehead, 1968). During the past 20 years, researchers have conducted a great deal of research on the credibility of various media, including blogs, native advertisements, online newspapers, advertising, and earned media, which this article will now review.

Blog credibility

Research suggests that four main factors impact blog credibility: (1) charac- teristics of the user reading the blog, (2) source (the blogger) credibility, (3) message of the blog, and (4) type of blog. According to uses and gratifi- cations theory, blog readers are active (Kaye & Johnson, 2011; Sweetser, Porter, Chung, & Kim, 2008). These active users have goals they are look- ing to achieve when reading blogs. User characteristics contribute to what goals, or gratifications, users look to achieve by reading blogs. Factors like trust, time spent online, reliance on blogs, participation level, quality expectation, and demographics all factor into how users assess the credibil- ity of a blog (Kaye & Johnson, 2011; Mack, Blose, & Pan, 2008; Sweetser et al., 2008). If users do not believe a blog meets their needs, they will likely not view it as credible (Kaye & Johnson, 2011). Users carefully consider bloggers’ traits and credentials to help them bet-

ter understand a sometimes unknown or unverified source (Cho & Huh, 2010; Cosenza et al., 2015). People also evaluate the transparency of blog- gers as they make credibility judgments (Maurya, 2011). The Wal-Marting Across America blog—featuring a couple traveling across America, visiting Wal-Marts and interviewing store employees—created and written by the PR firm Edelman remains a textbook example of what not to do. People are critical and distrustful of these so-called “flogs” (fake blogs), viewing them as hidden marketing tools. To gain a user’s trust, bloggers must prac- tice transparency (Maurya, 2011) and self-disclose (Cho & Huh, 2010). Bloggers’ expertise, trustworthiness and values also impact their perceived credibility (Cosenza et al., 2015). Since anyone can create a blog, users care less about authority and reputation, more traditional components of source credibility, when judging bloggers’ credibility (Greenberg, Yaari, & Bar- Ilan, 2013). Message credibility refers to the content of blogs. If a person perceives a

blog’s content as too corporate, if the message is just about marketing, if the content is otherwise not truthful, that person may not find the blog credible (Kaye & Johnson, 2011). People view corporate blogs that carefully balance their content as more authoritative and credible (Mack et al., 2008). People also judge the credibility of a blog based upon the number of grammatical and spelling errors (Greenberg et al., 2013).

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 77

Finally, people consider the type and purpose of blogs when assessing credibility (Kaye & Johnson, 2011). When readers see a blog as affiliated with a company or otherwise biased, they view that blog more negatively (Sweetser et al., 2008). While bias stems from the topics a blogger may cover, readers generally appreciate blogs that feature the perspectives of groups that mainstream media might not otherwise discuss (Kaye & Johnson, 2011). Of the three factors—source, message, and medium— source is most important to people’s perception of the credibility of blogs (Cosenza et al., 2015).

Native advertising credibility

Native advertising “borrows from the credibility of a publisher” by creating content “that resembles the publisher’s own content in format and sub- stance” and publishing it on their platform (Sweetser, Ahn, Golan, & Hochman, 2016, p. 1442). In addition to considering the credibility of the advertiser, a user judges the credibility of a native advertisement on the credibility of the media source that publishes the content (Wu et al., 2016). Native advertising’s credibility stems from three factors: (1) user percep- tion, (2) content, and (3) identification of source. To persuade users of a native advertisement’s credibility, creators must decrease users’ skepticism about the content’s claim and provide useful information (J. Lee, Kim, & Ham, 2016; Sweetser et al., 2016). According to the persuasion knowledge model, users develop beliefs about the advertised product or service based on their perception of the native advertisement. If this perception is posi- tive, then the native advertisement has more persuasive power (J. Lee et al., 2016). Users exposed to native advertisements that are nonobtrusive and nonmanipulative tend to have more positive attitudes toward the native ads (J. Lee et al., 2016). People perceive native advertising as more credible than advertising.

People view native advertising as less invasive, less irritating and more use- ful than traditional internet advertising (Howe & Teufel, 2014). Users may feel this way because native advertising seeks to blend in with existing con- tent, making its presentation more appealing. Research suggests that before assessing anything else, users critically evaluate the design, organization, and other visual aspects of the native advertisement (Howe & Teufel, 2014). Design aesthetics is rooted in prominence-interpretation theory, which posits that users notice the physical attributes of something before making a judgment (Howe & Teufel, 2014). As part of their credibility assessment, users make a judgment of how the native advertisement fits in with its surroundings and whether it provides useful information.

78 J. O’NEIL ET AL.

People’s ability to properly identify the advertiser sponsoring the content in a native advertisement also impacts credibility. Campbell and Marks (2015) explain that native advertising has three varying levels of secrecy: full disclosure, moderately secretive, and highly secretive. Not surprisingly, users feel greater trust with less secretive native advertisements (Campbell & Marks, 2015). Wojdynski (2016) tested how deception, or disclosure of a source, impacted the perception of native advertising. In this study, the native advertisement was secretive, and most participants could not identify it. Those who did identify the advertisement reacted negatively to what they felt was deception and rated the advertisement as lower quality, viewed the brand more negatively and were less likely to share the content with their network. Some researchers (Howe & Teufel, 2014; Sweetser et al., 2016) question

whether participants understand native advertising or if they even recognize what they are viewing. Research (Wu et al., 2016) shows that when users receive descriptive information about native advertising prior to seeing the message, they view the native advertising as more credible.

Online newspaper credibility

As traditional news media adapts to an online format to combat changing reader behaviors, companies are integrating advertisements into content as a way to survive in an increasingly competitive atmosphere (Pompilio, 2009). Despite the differences in internet users and print news readers, online newspapers and traditional news media share the same dimensions of credibility (Joo Chung, Kim, & Hyun Kim, 2010). These include “perceptions of believability, reliability, fairness, lack of bias, balance, community affiliation, ease of use, completeness, composure, sociability, accuracy, or attractiveness of the media themselves” (Joo Chung et al., 2010, p. 673). Overall, users view traditional media conglomerates that have successfully transitioned to online news formats as highly credible (Nah & Chung, 2012). Researchers have identified two primary dimensions of credibility in

online news media: (1) user characteristics and (2) source credibility. Research shows that user characteristics of political views, religiousness, racism, skepticism and age impact perceptions of online newspaper cred- ibility (Jackob, 2010; T. T. Lee, 2010; Mackay & Lowrey, 2011). Mackay and Lowrey (2011) found that younger users are more likely to trust sour- ces like blogs and social media, whereas older users are more likely to trust traditional online media sources. Most of the literature on media credibility pits two types of media against each other on one single issue (usually pol- itics), showing that users’ belief on that issue influences their perception of

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 79

that medium’s credibility (T. T. Lee, 2010). For different issues, the same person will rate a different medium as being more credible for that issue. How users view journalists’ role in the media is another indicator of how they will assess credibility (Nah & Chung, 2012). If people believe journal- ists are important, then they assign more credibility to their writing. The second dimension of online newspaper credibility is source credibil-

ity. This dimension often hinges on the identity and reputation of the jour- nalist or news site. Mackay and Lowrey (2011) compared the credibility of The New York Times website to a personal news page and found that “websites affiliated with a news organization were considered most credible while personal sites were evaluated as the least credible” (p. 41). Users fur- ther assessed credibility on several different factors, including their percep- tion of the journalist’s skill level (Mackay & Lowrey, 2011). In fact, the journalist often plays a more important role determining source credibility than the news agency. Despite the nuances in technology that make online news different than traditional news, readers still default to the traditional constructs of assessing source credibility: expertise and trustworthiness (Chung, Nam, & Stefanone, 2012). Chung et al. (2012) found that people viewed independent news sources with no editorial policy, strong biases, and no gatekeeping policy as less credible. Even in a world where everyone can be a journalist, people still view traditional roles like being a watchdog, adversarial, and critical of those in power as valuable (Nah & Chung, 2012).

Advertising and earned media credibility

Research shows advertising credibility is “directly related to both advertising value and attitude toward advertising” (Wang, Zhang, Choi, & D’Eredita, 2002, p. 1145). In a meta-analysis of five decades of advertising credibility literature, Pornpitakpan (2004) found that credibility decreased when an advertisement featured little evidence, obvious self-promotion, complexity, attacks on competitors, a new product, or was highly technical. The place- ment of an advertisement and message characteristics also influence credibil- ity (Ha, 2008). However, the most important factor contributing to credibility is the source of the advertisement. Lafferty, Goldsmith, and Newell (2002) delineated two dimensions of source credibility in advertising: spokesperson credibility and corporate credibility. Attractiveness, trust- worthiness and expertise of the speaker or personality in the advertisement all impact users’ perception of spokesperson credibility. Corporate credibility relates to consumers’ perception of the brand doing the advertising. Public relations practitioners frequently tout that an earned news story is

more credible than advertising because journalists provide a third-party,

80 J. O’NEIL ET AL.

objective endorsement when they write a positive article about a product or service (Grunig & Grunig, 2000). Readers may positively view the third-party endorsement more favorably than an advertisement because the journalist was not paid to write the story. However, multiple experimental design stud- ies have indicated that advertising does not outperform earned media (public relations) when it comes to perceived credibility and fostering positive atti- tudes, word of mouth, and behavioral intent (Cameron, 1994; Hallahan, 1999a; Howes & Sallot, 2013; Jo, 2004; O’Neil & Eisenmann, 2017; Stacks & Michaelson, 2009; Supa & Dodd, 2015; Ver�ci�c et al., 2008). Despite the consistent experimental design findings that advertising and

earned media perform on equal footing, survey research on credibility sug- gests otherwise (Hallahan, 1999b; O’Neil & Eisenmann, 2017). In O’Neil and Eisenmann’s (2017) survey research, participants indicated higher trust with a news story written by a reporter in comparison to advertising. In Hallahan’s (1999b) study, participants rated news as more trustworthy, believable and accurate compared to advertising. Hallahan speculated that people may be “more positively predisposed to processing information in the form of news compared to advertising. Stated another way, audiences might be less negatively predisposed [emphasis added] toward news than advertising” (p. 345). In summary, public relations practitioners have a rich and diverse tool set

with which to message and motivate consumer behavior: earned media, advertising, native advertising, and blogs. The research discussed in this litera- ture review suggests that people assess the credibility of these sources typically based upon a combination of user characteristics, the source and the message. However, most of the credibility studies to date on these various media have examined only one or two sources at a time, and most have used experimen- tal design. This study departs from these approaches by asking people to compare and contrast the credibility of many sources used commonly by public relations practitioners. Unlike extant experimental research on advertis- ing versus earned media, this study asks people to describe in their own words how they process earned media compared to other sources. More spe- cifically, this study seeks to answer the following question: RQ1: How do people assess credibility for earned media stories, trad-

itional advertising, native advertising, independent blogs, and corpor- ate blogs?

Method

Researchers used a mixed method approach in order to triangulate. Researchers conducted focus groups in order to glean rich and descriptive insight from participants in terms of how they assess credibility.

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 81

Researchers also conducted a consumer panel survey with 1,500 partici- pants to gain a wider representation of sampling. The consumer panel sur- vey asked people to describe the credibility of a source in their own words. In the next section, the researchers describe the details of both approaches.

Focus groups

The researchers conducted five in-person focus groups with 46 participants in December 2016 and January 2017. The researchers moderated three focus groups with university students located in the southwest United States (n¼ 8, 9, and 10) and two focus groups with a convenience sample of adults age 22 and older located on the east coast (n¼ 11 and 8). Participants ranged in age from 20 to 72 and included 10 men and 36 women. Researchers recruited the university students by offering extra credit in classes, and they recruited friends and acquaintances for the con- venience sample. The focus groups lasted on average about 90minutes. During the focus groups, the researchers showed participants five sour-

ces—a news story, a traditional advertisement, a native advertisement, an independent blog, and a corporate blog—and then asked participants to rank order the five sources in terms of credibility. Researchers instructed participants to write down on a piece of paper the rationale behind their ranking. After writing their responses, respondents discussed their answers aloud. Researchers showed three of the focus groups information about a high-end $399 smartphone with an extended battery life. The other two focus groups were shown product information about a low-end product: a compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulb with built-in surge protector that retails for $7. All product names and information were fictitious. A professional designer had constructed the five sources to look like a

page from the technology section of The New York Times (for the news story, the traditional advertisement and the native advertisement) and the posts from a professional technology blogger and corporate blogger. The product information—the smartphone and the CFL—contained in the five stories/posts/ads was identical; the only difference was the source of the information, which the researchers clearly labeled and explained. The credentials of The New York Times technology journalist included

serving as a technology columnist for The New York Times, a correspond- ent for CNN and MSNBC, a commentator for HGTV and an author of Technology in Your Home and Techie. The independent blogger was described as someone who regularly shares news, information, and product reviews about the latest advances in personal technology products; a regular guest appearing on CNN and MSNBC; a commentator on HGTV; and the author of Technology for Home and Techie and a monthly column in Wired

82 J. O’NEIL ET AL.

Magazine. The mockup of the independent blog contained a notation that the blogger was not receiving any form of compensation for the post. Finally, the company blog was described as “Welcome to Surge Pro’s Personal Tech blog about innovations in technology products, which can enhance your lifestyle. We regularly share news, information and product reviews about the latest advances in personal technology products.” Assistants observed, took notes and audio recorded the focus groups.

Researchers also took notes immediately following the conclusion of each focus group and later compared impressions and notes with one another to aid with data analysis. Researchers analyzed data by reading through their own notes and the written responses of the focus group participants, con- sulting with one another, and listening to the audio recordings to reduce data, display data and draw conclusions (Miles & Huberman, 1984).

Consumer panel study

The researchers also conducted a survey with 1,500 participants. A con- sumer panel company recruited participants who were at least 18 years old and living in the United States. Males (n¼ 766) and females (n¼ 769) com- prised 50% of the sample. The age breakdown of the sample follows: 18–25 (13%, n¼ 193), 26–35 (21%, n¼ 315), 36–45 (14%, n¼ 218), 46–55 (15%, n¼ 236), 56–65 (17%, n¼ 261), and 66 or older (20%, n¼ 312). Participants reported the following ethnicities: Caucasian (83%, n¼ 1283), followed by African American (6%, n¼ 87), Hispanic/Latina (5%, n¼ 72), Asian (3%, n¼ 49), other (2%, n¼ 30), and American Indian (1%, n¼ 14) and the following levels of education: 1% some high school (1%, n¼ 15), high school (16%, n¼ 240), some college (22%, n¼ 333), associate’s degree (10%, n¼ 149), bachelor’s degree (25%, n¼ 392), some graduate work (5%, n¼ 76), and a graduate degree (21%, n¼ 330). Finally, the income ranges of participants included the following: less than $20,000 (14%, n¼ 216), $20,000 to $39,999 (21%, n¼ 316), $40,000 to $59,999 (16%, n¼ 252), $60,000 to $79,999 (14%, n¼ 221), $80,000 to $99,999 (13%, n¼ 195), $100,000 or higher (18%, n¼ 275), and prefer not to answer (4%, n¼ 60). The survey directed each participant to view only one of the five sources: a

news story, traditional advertisement, native advertisement, independent blog or company blog. Half of the 1,500 participants viewed one of the five sour- ces about the CFL and the other half viewed one of the five sources about the smartphone. The examples shown to the panel participants were the same as those shown to the focus group participants. The survey prompted participants on what they were about to read (i.e., the native advertisement or the independent blog) and then told them to spend time carefully review- ing the information. For those 300 participants directed to the native

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 83

advertisement (150 to the one about the CFL and 150 to the one about the smartphone), the survey provided a clear explanation of a native advertise- ment. For all five sources, the survey then asked via an open-ended question: Do you find ___________ (i.e., the native advertisement, independent blog, company blog, etc.) credible? Why or why not? The researchers then read through each of the 1,500 responses multiple times. Researchers inductively coded the rationale offered by each participant for why he or she perceived a particular source as credible or not (see Table 1). Researchers compared cat- egorization notes and examples to ensure validity. Researchers captured examples of participants’ words, phrases and description to illustrate induct- ive categorizations, as detailed in Table 1.

Table 1. Consumer panel respondents’ credibility assessments of the five sources. Source % Said credible % Said somewhat credible % Said not credible

(��n¼ 144) 48% (n¼ 26) 9% (n¼ 10) 3% News story

(�N ¼ 300) Credibility of The New York

Times Independence of the jour-

nalist Credentials of the journalist Factual nature of the story Copious product details

Need to consult other sources

Need to personally try out to verify

Sort of reads like an ad

No one source by itself is credible

More information on prod- uct needed

Seems too good to be true

(n¼ 124) 41% (n¼ 31) 10% (n¼ 8) 2.6% Traditional advertise-

ment (N¼ 300) Ad centers on product

features Focuses on facts Seems legitimate and

truthful Why would the company

lie? Company can get in trouble

for false advertising

Somewhat credible, but still an advertisement

Need to try product to verify

Want more information Independent verification

needed Don’t depend on ads

for info

Always skeptical of ads Just another ad Biased because paid for by

manufacturer

(n¼ 136) 45% (n¼ 40) 13% (n¼ 31) 10% Native advertise-

ment (N¼ 300) No outlandish claims;

sounds believable Factual nature of the ad Pros and cons offered

Because the company paid for ad, need to check facts

Doubt they would outright lie

Would need to do more research

General distrust of adver- tisements

Biased because paid for by company

(n¼ 136); 46% (n ¼ 33) 11% (n ¼ 8) 2.6% Independent

blog (N¼ 300) Blogger credentials Blogger not paid for

endorsement Factual nature of the post Post is well written

Want to verify the facts myself

Not familiar with the blog- ger

Skeptical of claims in post

Never believe blogs Need an independent

source like Consumer Report to verify

(n¼ 107); 36% (n¼ 26) 9% (n¼ 28) 9% Company

blog (N¼ 300) Focuses on facts Personal experience with

product Company can get in trouble

for false advertising Seems accurate and reliable

Possible bias because writ- ten by company

Need third party verification

Biased because written by company

Never trust blogs

�Although 1,500 respondents overall participated, 300 people were exposed to each of the five sources.��Numbers do not necessarily add to 300 per source, because some people did not respond to the question.

84 J. O’NEIL ET AL.

Findings

Focus group findings

Source credibility Among the 46 participants, 31 (67%) ranked the news story written by The New York Times journalist as the most credible source. When asked to describe why, respondents explained that The New York Times is a “trusted,” “honest,” and “reputable” publication. Some people mentioned the educational background of journalists, explaining that journalists have been trained to write unbiased stories. Some respondents said they found the traditional news stories the most credible because an editorial board vets the stories. Others praised the journalists’ fact checking and research conducted to write the stories. A few people said they like the extensive information provided by journalists. One millennial explained, “The New York Times is a reputable source. The information is earned, not paid for by the company. The story is written by an industry expert who is paid to be knowledgeable about the product technology industry.” Eleven of the 46 (23%) participants ranked independent bloggers as the

most credible source. Some people mentioned the experience of the blog- gers as the driving force behind their high credibility ranking. One person said, she admires the “real life experiences with the product,” and another said, “I want information about how the product performs from someone who has nothing to do with the company selling it.” A few people explained that an independent blogger represents “a real person like me,” using terms such as the “real everyday person,” a “typical consumer,” and “someone people can relate to.” Others said that bloggers are “unbiased” and will give “honest” and “truthful” reviews. One person suggested that bloggers are “organic,” adding that bloggers are “less forced and seem more natural, especially if the product fits within the blogger’s typical posts.” Finally, some people reflected on the strong credentials of the blogger. Even though most participants perceived independent bloggers to be

credible, a handful of participants did not. When asked why, these partici- pants voiced concern that the independent blogger might be receiving some sort of sponsorship or payment from a company. Some people explained that a blogger offers only opinions, sometimes strong opinions, and not facts. One person said that bloggers could be dramatic. Participants agreed that it is important to consult the blogger’s credentials. Nearly half of participants (48%) ranked native advertisements as the

least credible source. Participants unanimously described the native ads as “sneaky,” “tricky,” and “disingenuous.” One person said that “I don’t think that you should pay for a story; your news should be so worth it that they can talk about it without paying.” One participant explained that she never

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 85

reads an ad that is “sponsored” or “paid; my eyes usually immediately skip over it.” Another participant said “I feel like they are trying to trick me into thinking it’s supposed to be on that platform when it’s an ad and biased because it’s paid for by their company.” One person went as far as to say “it seems a little aggressive to me.” Most people ranked traditional advertising either third or fourth on their

credibility ranking lists. Respondents explained that ads are good for people with short attention spans, but that clearly the company is “trying to sell something” and that the ads are biased. However, a few participants praised the short and factual nature of the presented ad. Another respondent said that effective advertising could help shape the branding of a company, which could possibly change a person’s impression of that company. Respondents also explained that a traditional ad is upfront and transparent, unlike a native ad. One participant said, “Ads are typically based upon an element of truth, and informative ads can provide essential information.” Finally, two participants said that the law “regulates superlatives used and content in ads,” so the information must be credible. Many participants ranked corporate blogs in the middle of their credibil-

ity rankings. Some people said that company-generated information is biased, and one person went as far as to say that it’s like “talking to a sales- person in the worst way.” Despite the company’s inherent motivation to sell through its blog, participants said they appreciated the good informa- tion and that companies should know the “specification, features, benefits, and limitations.” Many participants explained that they particularly value consumer reviews on company websites. In fact, participants like it when the reviews are not all positive, because that makes the information seem even more real. One participant explained how the company reviews should ideally be read: “The product has all these great features, but… .” Participants also praised corporate blogs’ factual nature and level of details to help them find the information they need. Participants also appreciate that “at least you know they are not trying to trick you in any way. They are providing facts for their products.” Two of the 46 participants ranked company blogs as the most credible source. These individuals explained that the company knows its product best and that it’s not in the company’s best interest to lie; the company could be sued for exaggeration.

Channel recommendations to increase credibility Participants believe the content of a message is important, not just the placement. Depending on the product, participants said they look for humorous, interesting, relevant, and informative content—something that was written by or targeted to “people like them.”

86 J. O’NEIL ET AL.

Participants said they typically seek out multiple sources in order to reduce uncertainty about a new product decision, particularly a high-end product such as a smartphone. One participant said, “I don’t trust one source for anything.” Another respondent explained: “If a product is new, you would need to do a mix: There should be an ad, editorial, company and personal blog.” Because participants have ready access to online and social channels for product information, participants are actively comparing information and consumer reviews. In fact, according to participants, cred- ibility is at least partially based upon appearing in all the relevant channels. While advertisements are not at the top of participants’ credibility list,

participants believe that advertisements are a necessary component of the communication mix to build awareness. A few respondents said if a com- pany did not advertise a product they might be suspicious that they were not credible or that the product was being discontinued or the company wasn’t financially sound enough to put resources behind its brands. For some, advertisements offer a conduit through which to seek out

more credible information. One participant explained,

People don’t necessarily go to one source anymore. It may depend on your media and you may be influenced by the ad in The New York Times and then look that up online to see where it’s available or the cost.

Another respondent explained she felt inspired by an ad that featured “yoga tights made from water bottles” to further seek out additional infor- mation about the product. Some people expressed frustration with differentiating between various

sources of information. One person explained, “Certain publications design editorials and ads in such a way as to make it very difficult to differentiate between the two. I’m not sure what I am reading.” Participants also mentioned that authentic content impacts their credibil-

ity perceptions. Using bloggers or endorsements from people with sound credentials is one way to enhance credibility. Participants also explained that they link the quality of writing of a traditional news story with authen- ticity, which in turn, influences credibility. Moreover, participants said that negative comments or reviews enhance the authenticity of the story and therefore improves their perception of credibility.

Consumer panel findings

A total of 48% (n¼ 144)—the highest percentage for all the five sources— of respondents who read the news story found the news story credible (see Table 1). Respondents mentioned multiple reasons for why they found the news story credible. Approximately half of the respondents who found the news story credible mentioned that they appreciated the factual nature of

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 87

the story and product details; these participants praised things such as the story’s rationality, its believability and its accuracy. Roughly 12% (n¼ 17) of the participants who found the news story credible mentioned the cred- ibility of The New York Times. Participants provided explanations such as “The New York Times provides credible, important and unbiased news coverage throughout topic areas,” “I have faith in the NY Times,” and “I trust the NY Times.” Roughly 5% (n¼ 7) of the credibility comments focused on the credentials of the journalist. Some mentioned that the jour- nalist has a strong technical background, while others mentioned the jour- nalist’s independence and association with The New York Times. Only 12% of respondents said that the news story was either not credible or only somewhat credible. Participants mentioned the need to verify the claims of the story with outside research or personally try the product. One person explained: “Any one source, by itself, is not particularly credible. A prepon- derance of evidence is necessary to balance bias and proprietary interests.” Finally, a handful of respondents mentioned that the product described in the news story seemed too good to be true, whereas a few explained that they wanted additional information on product specifications. Approximately 41% (n¼ 124) of participants who viewed the traditional

advertisement found it credible. Participants overwhelmingly appreciated that the advertisement presented facts and product features, invoking com- ments such as “features are included telling you the facts” and “only details are mentioned, not opinions.” Some rhetorically asked or questioned the logic of a company lying, with a handful mentioning the consequences of false advertising. One respondent explained, “A company can’t stay in busi- ness with false advertising; if they failed readily they wouldn’t last in the marketplace.” Roughly 13% (n¼ 16) of the participants who viewed the advertisement were either skeptical of the advertisement or did not find it credible. About half of these respondents mentioned the importance of ver- ifying the information by either a third party, by actually using the product and/or doing additional research. A few people voiced skepticism of adver- tisements in general, saying, “it’s just another ad,” and they are “somewhat biased because it was paid for by the manufacturer.” One person said, “Ads are made to sell a product. I don’t trust corporations to tell all of the facts, let alone, the truth. Where money is concerned, corporations only care about the bottom line.” A total of 45% (n¼ 136) of respondents who viewed the native advertise-

ment said they found it credible. The majority of these respondents talked about how they appreciated that the ad provided so many facts and included both pros and cons. A handful of participants mentioned that they found the native advertisement credible because it appeared in The New York Times. Some people (2%) explained that companies must

88 J. O’NEIL ET AL.

tell the truth or else they will get in trouble. A total of 23% (n¼ 31) of respondents said the native advertisement was either somewhat or not credible at all, a higher percentage compared to the individuals who voiced discontent regarding the credibility of the other four sources. Some partici- pants talked about the need to verify the claims of the native advertisement, whereas others talked about a distrust of advertising in general and a bias against information coming from companies that paid for the ad. One par- ticipant explained: “I usually do not trust any ads like this in this form.” Another respondent said, “I would ignore it, simply don’t care what any company has to say about its products/services. I do my own research, make up my own mind and self-promoting ads have absolutely no impact on my decisions.” A total of 46% (n¼ 136) of participants who viewed the independent

blog said they found it credible. Roughly 25% (n¼ 34) of these participants said they found the blog credible because it provides so many informative facts. Approximately 30% (n¼ 41) of them praised the blogger in some way. Some respondents talked about the blogger’s credentials and/or level of expertise, saying things such as “the blogger is associated with CNN and MSNBC” and “he is known in his area of expertise and has published, so he appears to be credible.” Others talked about the blogger’s independence, noting that he receives no pay to endorse a product. Finally, a few respond- ents praised the writing style of the blog. One participant said, “I view this blog as completely believable because of the candid writing style of the author; he is not at all biased, but mentions advantages as well as disadvan- tages of the product he’s reviewing.” Approximately 14% (n¼ 19) of partic- ipants exposed to the independent blog said it was either somewhat or not credible. These participants offered reasons including wanting to verify the facts of the story, not believing the facts presented in the blog post and not believing blogs in general. Only 36% (n¼ 107) of respondents exposed to the corporate blog—the

lowest percentage of all five sources—said that they found the corporate blog credible. Participants offered reasons similar to those offered by partic- ipants who viewed some of the other sources. Roughly 10% (n¼ 11) of par- ticipants praised the facts and rich detail in the blog. Others mentioned that the description matched their personal experiences with comparable products, while a handful of others mentioned that they saw little reason why the company would lie. Approximately 18% (n¼ 19) of respondents said they found the corporate blog either somewhat or not credible. The majority of respondents who indicated skepticism talked about the possible bias of the information because the company penned it. One respondent explained, “I can’t say I view it as totally credible because every manufac- turer of ANY product is going to ‘tout’ that their product is ‘the best’.”

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 89

Another respondent said, “I don’t trust what any company says about its products. I trust consumer reviews or objective tech websites.” Other peo- ple talked about the need for third party verification and a handful of par- ticipants mentioned their distrust of blogs in general. In summary, the highest percentage of respondents (48%) found the

earned news story credible, although the percentage was fairly comparable to the percentage of respondents who deemed the independent blog (46%) and native advertisement (45%) credible. Conversely, the highest percentage of respondents (33%) indicated that they found the native advertisement either not credible or somewhat credible, followed by the individuals who said that the corporate blog was either not credible or somewhat cred- ible (18%).

Discussion

This study sought to examine how people assess credibility for earned media stories, traditional advertising, native advertising, independent blogs and corporate blogs. Table 2 offers the consolidated and summarized descriptive feedback provided by the five focus groups and 1,500 consumer panel participants and yields important insight for both public relations academics and practitioners and promotion managers. Regardless of which source a company uses to promote a low-end or

high-end consumer product, people judge the credibility of a product mes- sage based upon whether it is well written, focused on product details and facts and offers a balanced view that contains both positive and negative attributes. People recognize and dislike information that is overly rosy or that resembles puffery. Even though many communication practitioners may disdain negative customer feedback that is made public, participants in this study explain that a negative review, comment, or observation in a story, blog, or website actually affirms credibility. Public relations practi- tioners should not be so quick to remove organic negative information when promoting a new product or service across channels. Focus group participants explained that they actively seek out multiple

online sources to verify claims in their effort to reduce uncertainty about a new product decision. Perhaps public relations practitioners and academics should focus less on the perceived credibility superiority or effectiveness of one source compared to another and focus instead on integrating consist- ent messaging across a wide spectrum of sources for maximum effective- ness. Public relations practitioners should continue to leverage and to share earned media stories across both owned and social channels. Past experimental design research has consistently shown that an earned

news story is neither more credible nor effective than advertising

90 J. O’NEIL ET AL.

(Cameron, 1994; Hallahan, 1999a; Howes & Sallot, 2013; Jo, 2004; O’Neil & Eisenmann, 2017; Stacks & Michaelson, 2009; Ver�ci�c et al., 2008). This mixed methods study diverges to some degree from these findings. In this study, the greatest percentage of participants in the focus groups indicated that they found the earned media story the most credible among the five sources provided, the most unique contribution this research study pro- vides. When asked to describe credibility in their own words, people explain that earned media is perceived as more credible than advertising. For more than two decades, public relations academics (Cameron, 1994; Hallahan, 1999a; Howes & Sallot, 2013; Jo, 2004; O’Neil & Eisenmann, 2017; Stacks & Michaelson, 2009; Ver�ci�c et al., 2008) have concluded that

Table 2. How people assess credibility for earned media, advertisements and blogs All sources People’s credibility of all sources is shaped by messages that are:

� Well-written � Factual � Focus on product features � Offer both pros and cons

To further assess credibility, people � Consult outside sources to verify information in the message � Possibly try out product to verify information in the message � Seek additional information to learn more

Earned media People’s credibility of an earned news story is positively shaped by: � Reputation of a flagship media institution such as The New York Times � Independence of the journalist � Research and writing credentials of the journalist � Objective nature of news writing

Traditional advertisement People’s credibility of an advertisement is positively shaped by: � Perception that the company is the best authority to describe the product � Perception that the ad helps to build awareness and understanding � Perception that the company has no motivation to lie � Perception that fears of false advertising motivate companies to tell the truth

People’s credibility of an advertisement is negatively shaped by: � Perception that information is biased because a company paid for it

Native advertisement People’s credibility of a native advertisement is positively shaped by: � Perception that the company has no motivation to lie � Quality of the publication/site where native ad is placed

People’s credibility of a native advertisement is negatively shaped by: � Perception that information is biased because a company paid for it � Perception that it is sneaky and not transparent

Independent blog People’s credibility of an independent blog is positively shaped by: � Blogger’s credentials � Blogger’s experience with the product � Blogger is not paid for the post � Blogger may represent a real, everyday person like me

People’s credibility of an independent blog is negatively shaped by: � General distrust of blogs (for some people) � Unfamiliarity with blogger’s credentials � Uncertainty of whether blogger is being paid to post � Blogger offers only opinions not facts

Corporate blog People’s credibility of a company blog is positively shaped by: � Perceptions that the company is the best authority to describe the product � Perception that the company has no motivation to lie

People’s credibility of a company blog is negatively shaped by: � General distrust of blogs (for some people) � Perception that information is biased because a company owns the channel

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 91

earned media is not more credible than advertising. The majority of these academic studies utilized the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1996), which states that people with less motivation and ability tend to rely on external cues—such as source and associated cues—when examining a message. This study has filled a gap and contributed to source credibility theory by indicating what cues people actively pay attention to when examining a message appearing in an earned media story: the inde- pendence of the journalist writing the story, whether the story is balanced in its coverage, the credentials of the journalist, and the prestige of the media outlet where the story appeared. That people actively seek out and pay attention to these cues suggests the unique value that earned media stories provide. Despite the growing prevalence and importance of social and digital media, the findings of this research affirm that traditional media remain a crucial component of the media mix for promoting a product or service. The conflicting results of this study compared to past public relations

research may be due to the methodologies utilized. This study is unique in that it did not narrowly examine just one source, but rather how people simultaneously evaluate multiple sources. In the focus groups, participants compared and contrasted all five sources and provided a rank ordering of the five sources. Panel participants described in their own words why they found a source credible or not. In sum, this study adopted a receiver orien- tation that sought to examine how people process messaging and assess credibility. In contrast, the experimental design studies utilized a sender orientation by exposing participants to only one source to test for cause and effect. Future research on source credibility should utilize a variety of methods, including qualitative approaches such as in-depth interviewing and focus groups to better understand how sources work synergistically across paid, earned, shared, and owned spaces. This research provides a foundation for consumer-centered research moving forward by providing insight into how people actively assess sources as they seek to make a pur- chase decision. The narrative of future research should not focus on one or two source, but multiple, because people are consulting a myriad of sources to reduce uncertainty. Even though more participants in both the focus groups and consumer

panel said they find a news story credible compared to the number of people who said that about traditional advertising, the margin of difference was not big. Rather than focus on this percentage difference, this study suggests that the more important question is to understand that people process and judge the credibility of these two sources differently. Focus group participants in this study said that they know that advertising helps build brand awareness and that if executed well, can serve as an important source of product information.

92 J. O’NEIL ET AL.

Although people recognize that the information contained in an advertisement may be somewhat biased because the company paid for it, people temper those understandings with a critical review of the information and a desire to seek outside verification of the claims made. People recognize that companies will face legal consequences if they don’t tell the truth. When asked whether and why people find earned media stories credible,

focus group and consumer panel participants provided reasons— unprompted by the researcher or survey—that match verbatim with and provide empirical support for what both public relations practitioners and academics have been promulgating for decades (Cameron, 1994; Grunig & Grunig, 2000; O’Neil & Eisenmann, 2017). As summarized in Table 2, peo- ple believe that a journalist’s independence, research and writing skills, objectivity, and association with a reputable news organization all bolster the credibility of the message. These findings also line up with past credibility research on online newspapers (Chung et al., 2012; Joo Chung et al., 2010). Native advertising received mixed credibility assessments in this study,

another unique contribution of this study. Roughly, one third of partici- pants in both the focus groups and consumer panel survey rated native advertising as either not credible or somewhat credible. People pointed out their “sneaky” and “nontransparent” nature, while others described their inherent corporate bias. On the other hand, approximately 45% of con- sumer panel participants said that they found the native advertisement credible, higher than the 41% who mentioned that they found traditional advertising credible and close to the 48% who said they found the earned media story credible. When describing why they found the native advertise- ment credible, participants mentioned the good factual detail and their bal- anced coverage, which also supports research on native advertising (Howe & Teufel, 2014). This latter finding suggests that native advertising has potential for public relations practitioners, as long as they are well written, clearly identified and provide balanced, factual information. Overall, people find blogs written by an independent blogger as credible.

Focus group and consumer panel participants praised the blogger’s writing, his credentials, his experience using the product and his independence from the company manufacturing the product, reinforcing research from previous credibility research on blogs (Cho & Huh, 2010; Cosenza et al., 2015; Maurya, 2011). Public relations practitioners should continue to actively pitch and leverage messaging to trusted and influential bloggers. Many focus group and consumer panel participants expressed skepticism

of blogs disseminated by a company. Only 36% of consumer panel respondents exposed to the corporate blog—the lowest percentage of all five sources—said that they found the corporate blog credible. People ques- tioned the company bias and some expressed distrust of blogs in general,

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 93

echoing the findings of past research on corporate blogs (Sweetser et al., 2008). Managers responsible for product promotion campaigns can use the

findings of the research to inform their channel decisions. Participants in this study said they actively consult multiple sources to reduce uncertainty when making a new product purchase, reinforcing the importance of utiliz- ing multiple channels, including earned media, traditional advertising, trusted and influential bloggers, and native advertising, if the latter provides a balanced view and is transparent in its source identification. This study also indicates that participants are fairly sophisticated in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of various promotional tools; for example, people recognize that advertising can help to provide important product details, even though it is one-sided in its approach. Moreover, managers should not be afraid to hide or minimize negative information that may appear in comments to blogs, websites, or online spaces, since consumers want to verify that product information is not too good to be true. However, man- agers may want to minimize their usage and/or investment in corporate blog promotions, since this research suggests that most participants do not view corporate blogs as credible. As summarized in Table 2, this study has explored and analyzed how

people assess the credibility of sources used commonly in public relations practice. People described how they judge credibility from their perspective, helping to validate some assumptions of public relations scholarship. One limitation of this study is that it focused only on messages about a con- sumer product promotion. Future research might examine social advocacy or government messaging. Future research might also examine how people untangle and make sense of messaging that spans across the complex eco- media system that consists of paid, earned, and owned channels in order to better understand how public relations practitioners can identify the best integration and resonance balance to motivate behavior.

References

Berlo, D. K., Lemert, J. B., & Mertz, R. J. (1969). Dimensions for evaluating the acceptabil- ity of message sources. Public Opinion Quarterly, 33(4), 563–576.

Cameron, G. T. (1994). Does publicity outperform advertising? An experimental test of the third-party endorsement. Journal of Public Relations Research, 6(3), 185–207.

Campbell, C., & Marks, L. J. (2015). Good native advertising isn’t a secret. Business Horizons, 58(6), 599–606.

Cho, S., & Huh, J. (2010). Content analysis of corporate blogs as a relationship manage- ment tool. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 15(1), 30–48.

Chung, C. J., Nam, Y., & Stefanone, M. A. (2012). Exploring online news credibility: The relative influence of traditional and technological factors. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(2), 171–186.

94 J. O’NEIL ET AL.

Cosenza, T. R., Solomon, M. R., & Kwon, W. S. (2015). Credibility in the blogosphere: A study of measurement and influence of wine blogs as an information source. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14(2), 71–91.

Dholakia, R. R., & Sternthal, B. (1977). Highly credible sources: Persuasive facilitators or persuasive liabilities? Journal of Consumer Research, 3(4), 223–232.

Edelman Trust Barometer (Rep.). (2017, January 15). Retrieved from http://www.edelman. com/global-results/

Gotlieb, J. B., & Sarel, D. (1991). Comparative advertising effectiveness: The role of involve- ment and source credibility. Journal of Advertising, 20(1), 38–45.

Greenberg, S., Yaari, E., & Bar-Ilan, J. (2013, January). Perceived credibility of blogs on the internet—The influence of age on the extent of criticism. Aslib Proceedings, 65(1), 4–18.

Grunig, J., & Grunig, L. (2000). When conventional wisdom meets research: The myth of implied third-party endorsement. Jim & Lauri Grunig’s Research: A Supplement of PR Reporter.

Ha, L. (2008). Online advertising research in advertising journals: A review. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 30(1), 31–48.

Hallahan, K. (1999a). Content class as a contextual cue in the cognitive processing of publi- city versus advertising. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11(4), 293.

Hallahan, K. (1999b). No, Virginia, it’s not true what they say about publicity’s ‘implied third-party endorsement’. Public Relations Review, 25(3), 331–350.

Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and Persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Howe, P. A., & Teufel, B. (2014). Native advertising and digital natives: The effects of age and advertisement format on news website credibility judgments. ISOJ Journal, 4(1), 78–90.

Howes, P. A., & Sallot, L. M. (2013, September). Company spokesperson vs. customer testi- monial: Investigating quoted spokesperson credibility and impact in business-to-business communication. Public Relations Review, 39(3), 207–212.

Infante, D. A. (1980). The construct validity of semantic differential scales for the measure- ment of source credibility. Communication Quarterly, 28(2), 19–26.

Jackob, N. G. E. (2010). No alternatives? The relationship between perceived media dependency, use of alternative information sources, and general trust in mass media. International Journal of Communication, 4, 589–606.

Jo, S. (2004). Effect of content type on impact: Editorial vs. advertising. Public Relations Review, 30(4), 503–512.

Joo Chung, C., Kim, H., & Hyun Kim, J. (2010). An anatomy of the credibility of online newspapers. Online Information Review, 34(5), 669–685.

Kaye, B. K., & Johnson, T. J. (2011). Hot Diggity blog: A cluster analysis examining moti- vations and other factors for why people judge different types of blogs as credible. Mass Communication and Society, 14(2), 236–263.

Lafferty, B. A., Goldsmith, R. E., & Newell, S. J. (2002). The dual credibility model: The influence of corporate and endorser credibility on attitudes and purchase intentions. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 10(3), 1–11.

Lee, J., Kim, S., & Ham, C. D. (2016). A double-edged sword? Predicting consumers’ atti- tudes toward and sharing intention of native advertising on social media. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(12), 1425–1441.

Lee, T. T. (2010). Why they don’t trust the media: An examination of factors predicting trust. American Behavioral Scientist, 54(1), 8–21.

JOURNAL OF PROMOTION MANAGEMENT 95

Mack, R. W., Blose, J. E., & Pan, B. (2008). Believe it or not: Credibility of blogs in tour- ism. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 14(2), 133–144.

Mackay, J. B., & Lowrey, W. (2011). The credibility divide: reader trust of online newspapers and blogs. Journal of Media Sociology, 3(1–4), 39–57.

Maurya, M. (2011). Evolution of blogs as a credible marketing communication tool. Journal of Case Research, 2(1), 71–90.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage. Mitchell, A., & Holcomb, J. (2016, June 15). State of the News Media 2016. Retrieved from

http://www.journalism.org/2016/06/15/state-of-the-news-media-2016/ Nah, S., & Chung, D. S. (2012). When citizens meet both professional and citizen journal-

ists: Social trust, media credibility, and perceived journalistic roles among online com- munity news readers. Journalism, 13(6), 714–730.

O’Neil, J., & Eisenmann, M. (2017). An examination of how source classification impacts credibility and consumer behavior. Public Relations Review, 43(2), 278–292.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1996). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Pompilio, N. (2009). A porous wall: As news organizations, in their struggle to survive, blur the line between editorial and advertising, does credibility take a hit? American Journalism Review, 31(3), 32–38.

Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281.

Stacks, D. W., & Michaelson, D. (2009). A replication and extension of prior experiments. Public Relations Journal, 3(3), 1–22.

Supa, D. W., & Dodd, M. D. (2015). Examining the impact of advertising vs. public rela- tions in consumer engagement with social responsibility. PRism, 12(2), 1–13.

Sweetser, K. D., Ahn, S. J., Golan, G. J., & Hochman, A. (2016). Native advertising as a new public relations tactic. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(12), 1442–1457.

Sweetser, K. D., Porter, L. V., Chung, D. S., & Kim, E. (2008). Credibility and the use of blogs among professionals in the communication industry. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(1), 169–185.

Ver�ci�c, T., Ver�ci�c, D., & Laco, K. (2008, November). Comparing advertising and editorials: An experimental study in TV and print. Public Relations Review, 34(4), 380–386.

Wang, C., Zhang, P., Choi, R., & D’Eredita, M. (2002). Understanding consumers’ attitude toward advertising. In AMCIS 2002 Proceedings, 158.

Whitehead, J. L. (1968). Factors of source credibility. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 54(1), 59–63.

Wojdynski, B. W. (2016). The deceptiveness of sponsored news articles: How readers recog- nize and perceive native advertising. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(12), 1475–1491.

Wu, M., Huang, Y., Li, R., Bortree, D. S., Yang, F., Xiao, A., & Wang, R. (2016). A tale of two sources in native advertising: Examining the effects of source credibility and priming on content, organizations, and media evaluations. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(12), 1492–1509.

96 J. O’NEIL ET AL.

Copyright of Journal of Promotion Management is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.