See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326474924

Authenticity under threat: When social media influencers need to go beyond

Article  in  Journal of Business Research · July 2018

CITATIONS READS

59 10,946

3 authors:

Alice Audrezet Gwarlann de Kerviler

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Julie Guidry Moulard

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Response fluency View project

Manifest ambivalence View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alice Audrezet on 01 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

NEED TO GO BEYOND SELF-PRESENTATION

Abstract

Social media influencers (SMIs) are increasingly being approached by brands to promote

products, a practice commonly called influencer marketing. SMIs can take advantage of their

influence to obtain personal rewards by entering into partnerships with brands. However, SMI

followers value influencers’ intrinsic motivations and noncommercial orientation. Thus, SMI–

brand collaborations may result in tensions for SMIs’ authenticity management. This research

applies a qualitative approach based on SMI–brand partnership observations, SMI interviews,

and a comparison of these data sources. Two authenticity management strategies emerged from

the analysis: passionate and transparent authenticity. We articulate these strategies to propose

a four-path framework that provides the first conceptualization of how SMIs can manage

authenticity for themselves to resolve the tensions created by brand encroachment into their

content. The results offer guidance for both SMIs and marketers on how to best partner with

each other to build win–win relationships while protecting SMIs’ authenticity.

Key words

Influencer marketing; Social media; Authenticity; Fashion

NEED TO GO BEYOND SELF-PRESENTATION

1. Introduction

Social media has led online user-generated content to become a prevalent consumer practice.

Social media allow users to develop and share content on a variety of topics, such as

technology, beauty, fashion, politics, and health (Niederhoffer, Mooth, Wiesenfeld, & Gordon,

2007). Contributors post on various platforms (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010) to give their opinions

(e.g., Tripadvsior, Amazon), inform their network (e.g., Twitter), share their expertise within a

field (e.g., Wikipedia), or express their passions (e.g., personal blogs, Instagram, Pinterest,

Facebook).

Over time, some contributors gain extended competencies in creating sophisticated content in

the form of stories, videos, and visuals. Given the internet’s scalability and speed of diffusion,

these contributors may rapidly attract a mass audience and attain fame (Tan, 2017) through

accumulation of cultural capital (McQuarrie, Miller, & Phillips, 2013). For example, in the

fashion industry, several fashionistas play a prominent role (Wissinger, 2015) in the fashion

ecosystem, sit in the front rows at fashion shows and publicly wear branded designer clothes

(Luvaas, 2017). One such fashionista is Chiara Ferragni, an Italian fashion influencer known

for her blog “The Blonde Salad,” which has 8.2 million Instagram followers. As contributors

gain increasing numbers of engaged followers, they may develop into social media influencers1

(Etter, Colleoni, Illia, Meggiorin, & D’Eugenio, 2018; Freberg, Grahamb, McGaughey, &

Freberg, 2011; Li & Du, 2017).

1
Hereafter referred to as SMIs.

1
With actions that include expressing their opinions in product reviews, offering tips on product

usage, and posting pictures or videos containing products or services (Bernritter, Aksoy, &

Malkoc, 2016), SMIs “represent a new type of independent third party endorser who shape

audience attitudes through blogs, tweets, and the use of other social media” (Freberg et al.,

2011, p. 90). In the domain of fashion and lifestyle, in particular, aesthetic judgment and taste

discrimination are assets that only a few individuals will master (McQuarrie et al., 2013). As

such, influencers can complement traditional branding communication by serving as an

embodied presentation of their personal tastes and clothing choices. Thus, SMIs are particularly

attractive to brands, and marketers have started to develop a new communication practice,

“influencer marketing,” to take advantage of SMIs’ content (Hearn & Schoenhoff, 2016; De

Veirman, Cauberghe, & Hudders, 2017). Influencer marketing is defined as promoting brands

through use of specific key individuals who exert influence over potential buyers (Brown &

Hayes, 2008). US marketers familiar with influencer marketing consider this practice to be the

second most effective promotional strategy (7.56 on a 10-point scale) compared to other media,

such as magazine advertising (5.36) and celebrity endorsements (6.84)2.

However, partnerships with brands do not come without risks for both parties. Initially, an

SMIs’ followers are attracted by the opportunity to access content that originates from other

“ordinary” consumers, thought to be noncommercial in nature and, thus, more trustworthy than

marketer-initiated communication (Mudambi & Schuff, 2010). SMIs’ messages are perceived

as “one of the few forms of real, authentic communication” (Scott, 2015, p. 295), and

collaborations with brands may call this authenticity into question. SMIs’ intrinsic desires to

create content about their personal passions might be sidetracked by commercial opportunities

2
“The 2017 state of the creator economy,” study from Izea, a consumer research company, is available on-line
at https://izea.com/resources/the-2017-state-of-the-creator-economy/ (retrieved on 11/05/2017).

2
to promote brands or products they would not ordinarily be interested in. Thus, SMIs’

authenticity can be threatened by brands’ encroachment into their content.

Recent research has investigated how consumers perceive brand authenticity in various

contexts (Beverland, Lindgreen, & Vink, 2008; Chronis & Hampton, 2008; Holt, 2002;

Moulard, Raggio, & Folse, 2016) including the fashion domain (Choi, Ko, Kim, & Mattila,

2015), an important industry having sales of $2.5 billion in 2017.3 This stream of research has

mainly focused on the authenticity of traditional brands and has more recently expanded to the

authenticity of personal or human brands (e.g., Kowalczyk & Pounders, 2016; Moulard,

Garrity, & Rice, 2015; Moulard, Rice, Garrity, & Mangus, 2014), including social media

influencers. Techniques used by influencers to craft an authentic self-presentation, such as

circulating selfies (Gannon & Prothero, 2016), posting original and creative content (Duffy &

Wissinger, 2017; Marwick, 2013; Marwick & Boyd, 2011; Savignac, Parmentier, & Marcoux,

2012), shooting videos that operate with the code of dialog immediacy and live atmosphere

(Suhr, 2014), or interacting directly with followers (Marwick, 2013) have been studied with a

focus on techniques used to project an authentic self to an external party (e.g., followers,

marketers, peer-influencers) and on personal branding strategies (Labrecque, Markos, & Milne,

2011). However, prior studies do not conceptualize how SMIs manage to craft authenticity for

themselves. With the exponential development of influencer marketing, it is necessary to

deepen the understanding of SMIs’ authenticity management when influencers face tensions

due to commercial opportunities. As such, this research aims to answer the following question:

what strategies do SMIs use to maintain their personal authenticity when partnering with

brands?

3
“The State of Fashion 2018”, Business of Fashion and McKinsey, London 2017.

3
To answer this question and provide insight into SMIs’ authenticity management, we

specifically study the fashion and lifestyle domain, which features a proliferation of SMI–brand

collaborations (Dasgupta & Kothari, 2018). Our literature review develops the notion that

brands’ encroachment into SMIs’ content, also known as influencer marketing, is a form of

product placement. The review also introduces the conceptual roots of authenticity and the

challenges facing SMIs’ authenticity due to brand encroachment. Then, the three-step

qualitative methodology is described, including (1) an observation of SMI-brand

collaborations, (2) a content analysis of the declared intentions in SMIs interviews about such

collaborations, and (3) a comparison of these two data sources. Two authenticity strategies

emerged: passionate and transparent. Based on these results, we propose a framework of

authenticity management comprising four paths: absolute, fairytale, fake, and disembodied

authenticity. These results offer guidance for both SMIs and marketers in the fashion and

lifestyle domains regarding how to best partner with each other to build win-win relationships

while protecting SMI authenticity.

2. Literature review

2.1. Brand encroachment into SMIs’ content

One way brands can harness SMIs’ content is to engage in influencer marketing, which

involves SMIs incorporating brand messages within their posts in return for rewards (Hearn &

Schoenhoff, 2016; Lu, Chang, & Chang, 2014). Prior research has investigated marketing

techniques used by various influencers, who could all be considered endorsers or SMIs

(Freberg et al., 2011), such as bloggers (Fu & Chen, 2012; Johnson & Kaye, 2004; Liljander,

Gummerus, & Söderlund, 2015; Nekmat & Gower, 2012), vloggers (i.e., video bloggers) or

YouTubers (Garcia-Rapp, 2017; Verhellen, Dens, & De Pelsmacker, 2013), Instagrammers

4
(De Veirman et al., 2017; Djafarova & Rushworth, 2017), and micro-celebrities (Hearn &

Schoenhoff, 2016; Khamis, Ang, & Welling, 2017; Lee, 2016).

Also referred to by some practitioners as “sponsored” or “seeding campaigns” and “organic”

or “native advertising,” influencer marketing represents a growing trend in promotional

strategies with varying degrees of brand encroachment. In the case of minimal encroachment,

marketers simply send free products with the hopes that SMIs will communicate some

information about the product sampled (e.g., in an Instagram post). Maximum encroachment

entails marketers offering payment in return for a post whose content has been fully determined

contractually by the marketer. In the latter case, the brand may dictate specific requirements

regarding the content (e.g., a minimum number of posts mentioning the products, a specific

number of brand citations and pictures featuring the influencer with the brand, a redirection to

the brand’s online store, etc.).

We argue that influencer marketing can be considered a form of product placement because it

involves purposely integrating brand messages into editorial media content (Russell & Belch,

2005; Schneider & Comwell, 2005). Although product placement was originally developed in

the context of traditional, often narrative, media such as books, movies, or TV shows, this

practice has expanded recently into social media in the form of influencer marketing. We

believe that product placement provides a framework for analysis, clearly articulated in past

research.

Product placement has been found to improve brand memorization (Babin & Carder, 1996;

d’Astous & Chartier, 2000; Law & Braun, 2000), enhance brand attitude and brand choice

(Auty & Lewis, 2004; Russell, 2002), and increase purchase intentions (Gould, Gupta, &

Grabner-Kräuter, 2000; Tessitore & Geuens, 2013). Practitioners rely on product placement

because it allows the product to be presented in consumption usage situations and in

5
entertaining environments into which the viewers can project themselves (Russell & Stern,

2006). Thus, consumers envision how to use products or services in real-life situations (e.g.,

drinking a particular soda while attending a cocktail party). In the context of social media,

product placement may be particularly persuasive because followers tend to develop an

impression of friendship with the influencers they admire, albeit often a one-sided

“relationship,” due to the possibility of direct interactions (Hartmann & Goldhoorn, 2011), also

referred to as “parasocial interaction” (Lee & Watkins, 2016). As such, followers trust

influencers and are willing to replicate their behaviors and adopt their choices of products.

Despite its effectiveness, product placement is sometimes criticized because the underlying

promotional intent may be unclear to consumers (Boerman, Willemsen, & Van Der Aa, 2017).

Furthermore, consumer advocates and public policy makers argue that “hiding” advertising in

entertainment can sometimes be considered a deceptive communication practice (Cain, 2011).

In the context of product placement within an SMI’s content, ambiguity often exists concerning

the extent to which the content is under the influencer’s control or becomes, at least partially,

suggested by brands (Liljander et al., 2015). As such, consumers may find it difficult to

discriminate which messages are tied to influencer marketing and which are not (Bhatnagar,

Aksoy, & Malkoc, 2004).

To avoid such confusion, more stringent regulations have appeared. For instance, the US

Federal Trade Commission updated its endorsement guidelines.4 Since August 2017, the

guidelines have specified that a tweet, vlog, blog, or Instagram post for which the influencer

has any connection or relationship with a company is considered a promotion and that such

relationships should be disclosed. More specifically, the guidelines state that this type of

4
“The FTC’s Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking,” FTC website: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-
advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking#productplacements (retrieved
from the Internet on 11/08/17).

6
content should display the hashtag “ad” in a prominent position (first three lines of the caption).

In France, where most of the data were collected, authorities have also developed regulations

to ensure that promotional content is disclosed as such. 5

Tighter regulations on product placement disclosures have stimulated research examining its

effects. At first glance, such regulations might not seem desirable from the marketer’s

perspective (Lewczak & Di Giovanni, 2010). A closer look, however, highlights that disclosure

may also help the brand through increased awareness (Charry & Tessitore, 2016). Indeed,

disclosing may not generate resistance if the product placement is perceived as appropriate

(Wei, Fischer, & Main, 2008), that is to say if “the marketer’s tactics seem to be moral or

normatively acceptable” (Friestad & Wright, 1994, p. 10). However, almost no research has

examined the impact of product placement disclosure on the media or content producers’

authenticity management. Becker-Olsen (2003) suggests that although disclosure might not

impair attitude toward the brand because companies are expected to make persuasive attempts

(Campbell, 1995; Campbell & Kirmani, 2008), consumers may not expect media to participate

in such promotional activities. This is all the more true in social media contexts, where

followers expect influencers to express an unbiased, original, and trustable content (Mudambi

& Schuff, 2010).

Followers, brands, and regulators pressurize SMIs to disclose information about product

placement. Thus, influencer marketing creates challenges regarding how SMIs manage

commercial and noncommercial influences and maintain authenticity for themselves.

5
Article L121-1-1 of the consumer code, Legifrance website, public service for the dissemination of law via the
internet:
https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?idArticle=LEGIARTI000019293654&cidTexte=LEGITE
XT000006069565 (retrieved from the Internet on 11/08/17).

7
2.2. SMI authenticity

Marketing research has recognized the importance of authenticity as an attribute. Consumers

increasingly desire authenticity from their products and brands (Chronis & Hampton, 2008).

Authenticity improves message receptivity (Labrecque et al., 2011), enhances perceived

quality (Moulard et al., 2016) and increases purchase intentions (Napoli, Dickinson, Beverland,

& Farrelly, 2014). In the context of content generation about beauty, lifestyle and fashion,

authenticity has also been proven to be essential (e.g., Duffy, 2013; Gannon & Prothero, 2016;

Garcia-Rapp, 2017; Marwick, 2013).

While notions of authenticity revolve around what is true, genuine, or real (Beverland &

Farrelly, 2010), marketing researchers recognize that the concept encompasses multiple

meanings, and nuanced conceptualizations of these meanings have been offered (e.g., Napoli

et al., 2014; Spiggle, Nguyen, & Caravella, 2012). Grayson and Martinec (2004) developed

one of the most notable frameworks of authenticity in marketing and suggested two types of

authenticity: indexical and iconic. Indexical authenticity refers to whether an object, such as a

painting, is the “real thing” or a true “original,” with all other similar-looking objects being

inauthentic copies. Iconic authenticity, on the other hand, refers to whether an object is

perceived to be an accurate representation of something else (Grayson & Martinec, 2004).

While Grayson and Martinec (2004) focus on inanimate objects’ authenticity, another notion

of authenticity applies to individuals’ or marketers’ motivations. According to self-

determination theory, authenticity involves an individual’s engagement in intrinsically

motivated behaviors—those that emanate from a person’s innate desires and passions. These

behaviors involve the “active engagement with tasks that [one] finds interesting” (Deci & Ryan,

2000). In contrast, inauthenticity involves engagement in extrinsically motivated behaviors—

those driven by external pressures such as reward or punishment (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and

8
often determined by other individuals or groups. Because such behaviors are not driven by

internal desires, extrinsically motivated behaviors may not be inherently satisfying and often

involve “going through the motions.”

In the context of branding, this latter meaning of authenticity revolves around the extent to

which consumers perceive that brands—both human brands (e.g., celebrities, artists) and

products or services brands (Moulard et al., 2014; Moulard et al., 2015; Moulard et al., 2016)—

are intrinsically motivated. Authentic brands are those whose marketers appear to be in

business or engaged in their craft because it is enjoyable and provides hedonic value (e.g.,

Beverland et al., 2008; Babin, Darden, & Griffin, 1994). Inauthentic brands, on the other hand,

are those whose marketers thought to be in business simply to increase profits and prestige via

increased sales and market share (Moulard et al., 2014; Moulard et al., 2016). As such,

inauthentic brands are perceived as “selling out” (see also Chronis & Hampton, 2008; Holt,

2002; Spiggle et al., 2012).

Research on brand authenticity mostly focuses on users’ perceptions, and little work has

centered on how producers (i.e., individuals or brands) manage their own authenticity.

Beverland (2006) finds that wine producers attempt to showcase their authenticity and

downplay their marketing orientation. Likewise, recent research on online content producers,

such as influencers, has studied the techniques used to craft an authentic self-presentation

(Duffy, 2013; Marwick, 2013; Savignac, Parmentier, & Marcoux, 2012; Shifman, in press) as

part of a personal branding strategy. Nonetheless, research on producers does not delve into

whether being authentic (i.e., being intrinsically rather than extrinsically motivated) is valued

by these producers themselves.

Indeed, producers can be intrinsically motivated and value their work due to the enjoyment it

offers (Hirschman, 1983). Self-oriented producers follow a production orientation, place more

9
value on authenticity for themselves, and produce market offerings they enjoy, rather than

market-oriented offerings that are financially successful. Given that many SMIs’ primary

activity revolves around self-expression, one can argue that SMIs may also value intrinsic

motivations and produce social media content based on their love for the topic and their activity

(e.g., creating and sharing content, discussing their interests with others). SMI production may

be not only simply a means to an end (i.e., to please followers or marketers, to obtain financial

compensation, etc.) but also the mean in itself. That is, SMIs value content production

gratification, such as feelings of self-improvement, enjoyment, pleasure, and emotional

management (Sepp, Liljander, & Gummerus, 2011; Marwick, 2013). A recent study by

Terakeet6, which explored influencers’ motivations to publish, confirms that making money is

only ranked fourth and that influencers are motivated more by using publishing as a creative

outlet, as a way to connect with people, and as a means to journal their day-to-day life. Thus,

SMIs authenticity would be highly important, not just as part of a personal branding technique,

but also for themselves.

Brand encroachment into an SMI’s content might compromise this authenticity. SMIs might

encounter a tension between creating content that satisfies their inner needs and creating

content that satisfies the brands with which they partner. Using a qualitative approach, we aim

at providing a clear framework of authenticity management, linking SMIs’ produced content

to the strategies they stated.

6
“Win in Search with Effective (+ unpaid) Influencer Marketing Campaigns,” study from Terakeet, an
influencer marketing company available on-line at the following address:
https://www.slideshare.net/MatthewRaven2/win-in-search-with-effective-unpaid-influencer-marketing-
campaigns-80785239 (slides presented at the Influencer Marketing Days conference in New York on September
25th-26th 2017 and retrieved from the internet on 11/05/2017).

10
3. Methodology

This research uses a qualitative methodology, including non-participative observations of

SMI–brand collaborations and semi-directive interviews with SMIs. We chose this method

because the study of individual strategies and their implementation calls for an in-depth

analysis of produced content, practices, and perspectives, which are better captured through a

qualitative approach. We thus follow three steps to progressively identify authenticity signs

(Step 1), characterize authenticity strategies (Step 2), and propose a framework of authenticity

management (Step 3). Figure 1 synthesizes the methodological approach. Our investigations

focus on the context of fashion and lifestyle because it is one of the most successful and visible

domains of digital production (Duffy & Hund, 2015; Marwick, 2013), resulting in large

investments in influencer marketing (Kim & Ko, 2012).

—Insert Figure 1 here—

3.1. Step 1: “On-stage” influencers’ authenticity signs

Because it constitutes the more visible traces of authenticity production, we first observed signs

of authenticity in the content produced by SMIs when they partner with brands.

To constitute our sample, we applied three criteria to select online marketing campaigns

involving SMI–brand collaborations: (1) the campaign must be recent (launched between May

2015 and June 2016); (2) the campaign must involve a partner brand established in the fashion

or lifestyle domains; and (3) the campaign must involve a brand that partnered with more than

one influencer. We purposely chose multi-influencers campaigns (i.e., several influencers

collaborate with the same partner brand for the same marketing campaign) for two reasons.

First, each SMI–brand collaboration can then be probed separately and compared with the

11
others. Second, when multiple influencers are involved simultaneously with the same partner

brand, their need to manage their authenticity is particularly prominent because the possibility

exists that followers will compare one influencer’s sponsored post with that of another

influencer for the same campaign.

This selection process yielded a sample of seven marketing campaigns involving seven

different partner brands in the fashion and lifestyle domains and 36 influencers. The profiles

of the brands and the SMIs involved (anonymous names and number of followers) in these

campaigns are detailed in Figure 2.

—Insert Figure 2 here—

Subsequently, in order to find posts produced for the selected seven marketing campaigns, we

systematically searched for occurrences of the partner brands’ names in the content of the 36

influencers on different platforms (i.e., Instagram, Facebook, Blogs, YouTube, Twitter, and

Pinterest). This usually entailed 30 to 50 posts per campaign. Total downloaded texts from the

36 influencers amounted to more than 5,000 words.

In order to convert the SMI-produced content related to signs of authenticity into meaningful

units, a thematic content analysis (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) was first conducted using a

framework originally developed in the context of celebrity authenticity, highlighting the role

of intrinsic motivations in building an authentic self (Moulard et al., 2015).

To categorize the content using this framework, an independent, iterative approach was used,

and the analysis switched between examining each SMI post in depth versus examining a cross-

section of several posts from the same SMI together with comparing posts from several SMIs

at once. After successive readings and discussions among researchers, it appeared that part of

the content analyzed corresponded with intrinsic motivations. However, unexpected findings

12
were also considered, which allowed new themes to be identified inductively in the data.

Indeed, in addition to signs regarding whether SMIs are intrinsically passionate, other

authenticity signs emerged. Researchers assigned a special code to these new components,

which they subsequently analyzed for the naming process. Then, findings were compared to

finally obtain a coherent coding structure of authenticity signs.

3.2. Step 2: “Behind-the-scenes” influencers’ authenticity strategies

Because authenticity signs produced by SMIs may not completely reflect their intentions,

observational data were complemented with interviews of 27 influencers (Appendix A) in order

to capture “behind-the-scenes” authenticity strategies.

Interviewees were selected using two main criteria: (1) the SMI’s main area of interest must

revolve around fashion, even though other subjects could be present (e.g., food, travel,

lifestyle); and (2) the SMI must have previous personal experiences of partnering with brands.

Among the SMIs who met these criteria, we ensured that the SMIs encompassed a range of

audience sizes (from less than 1,000 Instagram followers to more than 100,000) and experience

(from those who started a few months ago to experienced influencers who started 4 to 5 years

before the interview).

To subsequently recruit SMIs who corresponded to the above profile, we relied on either

contacting acquaintances from authors’ professional network (e.g., community or product

managers who work with SMIs) or on directly emailing SMIs. About 100 requests for

interviews were sent via email, which resulted in obtaining the first 15 participants. These first

interviewees subsequently provided contact with other influencers, who the authors then

contacted. After 27 interviews, authors did not interview more participants because point of

13
saturation was reached, with additional informants providing no new information (McCracken,

1988).

During the discussions, participants were questioned about their perspective of being an

influencer, their audience, and their relationships with brands. More specifically, we asked

them to describe recent collaborations with brands. Respondents then focused on how they

view brand encroachment in their content and reflected on their strategy to maintain their

authenticity. The interviews were conducted face to face or by phone, lasting between 30 and

150 minutes, depending on amount of experience. The duration of the interviews depended on

each SMI’s depth and breadth of partnership experience with brands. More experienced SMIs

could elaborate more on their strategy to maintain their authenticity than SMIs with limited

experience. The resulting data collected through the interviews comprised around 100,000

words from transcripts of the interviewees’ answers.

In order to interpret the transcripts, we used a constant comparison method (Strauss & Corbin,

1990). The two main authenticity themes identified during Step 1 of the research were used to

sort and classify SMIs’ verbatim responses in terms of authenticity strategies. Continuously

feeding back into these two authenticity themes, new verbatims were constantly compared with

previous ones to test, expand, and refine the themes and sub-themes. Consequently, researchers

more comprehensively established the components of the themes and sub-themes. Two

independent coders then coded quotes from interviews into the themes and sub-themes

established by researchers. The rate of intercoder agreement reached 86.4%. Then, through

multiple rounds of discussions, disagreements were resolved and a final interpretation of the

interviews emerged.

14
3.3. Step 3: Comparison between goals and observations of authenticity strategies

This analytical step aimed to compare declared strategies with produced signs of authenticity

and explore the potential discrepancies.

For Step 3, five top-ranked SMIs, i.e., those with a high number of Instagram followers, were

selected from the 27 SMIs interviewed in Step 2. Their influence creates more opportunities

for partnering with well-known brands, which in turn might cause the SMIs to face intense

tensions and develop sophisticated strategies to maintain their authenticity. How these SMIs

develop and implement strategies might be of particular interest to better understand

authenticity management.

For each of the five selected SMIs, we then searched for one of their recent marketing

campaigns in which they partnered with a fashion brand (list in Appendix B) and collected the

online content they produced for the purpose of these marketing campaigns.

We analyzed conjointly the declared strategy (from SMI interviews) and signs of authenticity

(from SMI content produced online). In the light of strategies identified in Step 2, we checked

the extent to which their claimed “behind the scene” intentions are manifested in the “on-stage”

content produced. By doing so, we highlight challenges of brand encroachment into

influencer’s content and propose a framework of authenticity management.

4. Interpretive findings

The results follow the three-step methodology conducted. After identification of authenticity

signs (Section 4.1.), we characterize authenticity strategies declared (Section 4.2). It is followed

by a proposition of a framework of authenticity management (Section 4.3.) based on a

comparison between the declared strategies and the authenticity signs.

15
4.1. Identification of authenticity signs in SMIs’ content

Authenticity was observable within SMIs’ content through elements expressing creativity such

as original pictures, text, and the occasional video. Content typically takes the form of a mini-

story linking the influencer’s life with the product or service promoted. In addition, messages

generally encompass both factual information about the product or service and an emotional

dimension about how the SMI relates to the brand and experience of producing the content. A

further analysis of the content converged on several distinct signs of authenticity, as follows.

- Intrinsic satisfaction in producing and sharing posts. This type of content includes words and

stylistic punctuation, such as exclamation marks, capital words, and even occasional

emoticons. For instance, I6c mentions, “A magical shoot is finishing. [...] A team of girls at

the top. It is thanks to you that I can go through such experiences, so THANK YOU!!!! And

now, SO impatient to see the results; I am so excited to share this project with you!!!”

(VivelDop). Also, I4e writes, “Party Time!! 🎉✨ ready for partying this weekend! I have found

the ideal outfit with @comptoirdescotonniers 💙 we did a great shooting between girls

photographed by my @Lyloutte and I love the result, as usual 😘” (Comptoir des Cotonniers).

Content includes demonstrations of excitement and pleasure. Satisfaction derived from creating

or sharing content can be associated with intrinsic sources of motivation for the role of

influencer.

- Emotions triggered by the product or service presented. The content’s verbs and nouns

specifically express positive emotions, personal appreciation, and enthusiasm for the brand’s

products and services. Participant I1f shares, “I am an ultra fan and I now wear it every day! I

am truly thankful to Rinascimento—it is a very nice discovery. The dress is made out of a thick

fabric, which creates a nice shape. The node in the back is a very feminine touch. I wanted thus

to wear it in a very girly manner. I really think you will like the look” (Rinascimento). The

16
content portrays how the influencer truly feels when using or wearing the brand and how she

is intrinsically motivated to use and wear it.

- Fit between oneself and the product or service presented. The content incorporates elements

related to personal tastes and interests. I4a explains, “You know me—sometimes I adopt a

bohemian style and sometimes an urban one. When I picked the dress, I decided to put on the

urban style [....]. It seems that this dress was designed for me, this is exactly what I look for

when I want to dress well and be comfortable until the end of the night. When I want to party,

this dress is the first thing that comes to mind. Associating easiness and style, I feel really good

and so much myself! And feeling myself is essential for self-confidence” (Comptoir des

Cotonniers). By explaining how the attire fits her personal preferences, the influencer expresses

the match between the brand and her style, tastes, or personal interests. This congruence

generates an intrinsic motivation to adopt the brand.

The content analysis also revealed other signs of authenticity that did not pertain to expressions

of enthusiasm or personal enjoyment:

- Fact-based opinions about the product or service. The content provides precise objective

information on the brand and its offerings. I2a details, “I wear the shoes while exercising and

while walking around the city. When I have a long day ahead of me, I do not hesitate to choose

these shoes. I’ve worn them for running, fitness room training, walking for a long time… the

shoes have been perfect every single time. However, for running, these shoes remain really

adapted for non-professional runners only” (Adidas). The content presents detail on how,

when, and where the product was tested and the observed outcomes of the experience. Such

objective accounts of performance and quality can be associated with sharing an honest,

unbiased opinion.

17
- Disclosure of product placement contractual terms. The content reveals information about the

collaboration with the brand. 17b reports “A few days before my birthday, I received an email:

I was offered to spend 24 hours at the Pullman Marseille to experience the Mermaid classes

and the Yoga Paddle. I could not miss such an opportunity [....]. An enormous thank you to

Accor for these 24 hours and this MAGIC birthday!” (Pullman Hotel). The influencer explains

the partnership context by offering information regarding how the brand initiated contact and

the offered rewards. Moreover, I1a discloses commercial ties at the bottom of her page for the

Rinascimento campaign: “Leather jacket Vero Moda (partnership); Rinascimento dress

(offered); Sarenza boots (partnership).”

Based on this first step of content analysis, we concluded that “on-stage” signs of authenticity

revolve around expression of intrinsic motivations (satisfaction, emotions, and fit) as well as

the expression of integrity (disclosure of partnership terms and fact-based information). As

such, our analysis of “on-stage” SMI posts in the context of marketing campaigns can be tied

to past research on self-presentation, which highlights the use of signs of authenticity (Ellison,

Heino, & Gibbs, 2006).

To understand intentions behind the produced content, we wanted to go “behind-the-scenes”

and interview influencers regarding their authenticity strategies.

4.2. Characterization of SMIs’ authenticity strategies

Behind authenticity signs observed in the online content, interviews allow for characterization

of SMIs’ strategies of authenticity. Precisely, strategies could be organized as those that pertain

to passion and those that pertain to transparency.

18
4.2.1. Managing authenticity through passion

The first strategy revolves around expressing one’s passions. It begins with a willingness to

apply specific guidelines regarding the partnership process.

- Partnerships must guarantee mutual respect and balanced relationships. SMIs state their

expectations regarding the terms of the marketing campaign. For example, BB requires that

“what a brand offers me must be equitable, I must also have my fair share, a real win-win

exchange. Depending on what is requested from me, I adjust my conditions.” Moreover, the

marketing approach must ensure a human and personalized relationship. MB explains, that she

expects brands to show an interest in her blog: “When a brand contacts me, I first look at how

the email begins. If the header begins with ‘Hello,’ ‘Dear blogger,’ ‘Dear [blog name],’ I do

not even read the rest. I delete it immediately. My name is MB and if you follow my blog, you

know it.” SMIs highlight that human relationships are built through partnerships. Because

influencers communicate with brand representatives (CMOs, brand managers, etc.) on a daily

basis, they have established contract and communications norms and expect potential brand

partners to respect them.

- Partnership must guarantee freedom of creative expression. To justify willingness to partner

with a brand, CR declares, “I had free rein! I was able to do everything I wanted.” Similarly,

an overly-binding commitment is a reason to refuse a partnership. For example, NB stated, “I

was asked for a 400-word article with 10 keywords including the name of the shop in the title

and the inclusion of their banner ads on my blog for 15 days [...]. I, of course, refused.” In an

environment where influencers can compete for followers, part of the added value that

influencers offer is their tailored and personal messages. Brands that are perceived as overly

prescriptive may result in the SMI’s rejection of the proposed partnership.

19
Selecting partnerships also supposes using criteria to choose partner brands.

- Brand and products must be appreciated, and choice of a partner brand could be either passive

or active. When brands contact influencers for partnerships, many influencers apply selection

criteria. For example, MM declared, “I never contact brands! I do not work that way. I only

work with people or brands that I like.” However, some interviewees also reported that they

sometimes initiate contact with brands they like. As EF explained, “I regularly approach

emerging designers and craftsmen directly. But only when I sincerely appreciate their work.”

In the end, influencers’ brand choice results from ideas generated by SMIs as well as from

partnership opportunities. For instance, AP describes her sources of inspiration in terms of both

individual initiatives and suggestions from brands “Sometimes I just call my boyfriend because

I have no idea what to put on my evening post, and I ask him to check if we could visit a castle

in the afternoon. And we are visiting a castle, ha ha! It also depends on the partnership

proposals we receive. Yesterday, we were invited to a gastronomic restaurant, and I will surely

post something about this experience. We receive a lot of partnership demands and select

between opportunities.” Careful partnership selection ensures intrinsic satisfaction with the

activity.

- The partnered brand must fit with SMI’s style, image, and editorial content. Participants

shared several points regarding their vigilant daily management of partnerships. FC explains,

“I always pay attention that the campaign message is aligned with my editorial content. I will

not talk about a brand which has nothing to do with me. I always ask myself: Would it interest

me if I did not have a blog? Would I buy it?” AP justifies rejecting partnerships in the following

terms “The brand Boohoo asked me to become its ambassador, and at first glance I was really

excited to receive products throughout the year. But in the end, I refused because I thought that

it would not fit me [....] it was not congruent with my image.” PD also revealed challenges of

including herself in pictures with certain brands “I try to estimate if the collaboration would be

20
natural and whether it would fit with my image, as well as if the shooting would not be too

difficult.” These statements reflect a desire to avoid doing things one would not do without

commercial ties or promoting a brand that does not fit. SMIs also pay attention to their ability

to imagine and produce creative content around the partnered product or service.

4.2.2. Managing authenticity through transparency

Interviews highlighted another strategy to manage authenticity when doing product placement:

avoiding any risk of confusing followers.

- Following practices of partnership disclosure. Although each influencer has different rules,

most participants claim to disclose information about the extent to which any content is fully

or partially sponsored. For example, MC states, “I never hide a collaboration. I provide

straightforward answers if I am asked questions on a partnership. I think it is very important.”

Following stricter rules, MS explained “I always add a label ‘sponsored’ at the end of my posts,

meaning that if there is a collaboration with a brand, it is always stated. And I systematically

thank the brand inside my post.” Influencers seem to be preoccupied with being perceived as

too commercially oriented. For that reason, some SMIs tend to avoid participating in massive

non-personalized partnerships, like BC states: “It’s a pity. A brand that organizes a press

conference.... It’s obvious when you see always the same things [on different blogs]. Everybody

knows then that it is sponsored.”

- Providing objective product or service evaluations. SMIs also want to be able to disclose

potential product failures. BB explains “I try to be as transparent as possible to avoid my

followers feeling cheated. If I notice a small defect with the product, I mention it.” Objective

product tests allow SMIs to occupy the role of trusted advisor. For example, CR states “My

community is generally happy to discover a product that has been tested and approved, which

21
can sometimes inspire them for future purchases.” Thus, SMIs provide fact-based evaluations

because they perceive themselves as helpers who can test products before others.

- Publishing true-to-life unedited content showing one’s real appearance and mood. Although

it might not be a general rule, a few SMIs argue that they do not edit their pictures. This is the

case of NB, a plus-size influencer, “Another important thing: in reality I am like on pictures. I

never minimize my shape, retouch my skin, or anything else. I do not smooth the picture and

do not edit anything!” Moreover, CR reports how telling the truth about her hair resulted in

positive feedback “I wrote an article about my hair dying experience in which I explain how I

lost my hair... it was not a cool moment. I hid for two weeks, covering my hair under caps, hats,

hoods on Snapchat, and suddenly I posted an article about my new life with this short hair and

how to live with it!” AP criticizes edited, or not true-to-life, content when he says, “We

deliberately choose not to smile when we are not in mood, while others do it all the time.” The

goal is to offer a true picture of reality, which involves sincerely reporting physical appearance

and mood without any photo editing.

From these data, we propose that when incorporating product placements within their content,

SMIs rely on a strategy of either passionate and/or transparent authenticity. A passionate

authenticity strategy corresponds to a set of means that an SMI develops in order to ensure an

intrinsically satisfying creation process—a self-gratifying activity in accordance with his or her

true self. A transparent authenticity strategy corresponds to a set of means that SMIs develop

in order to provide a truthful and exhaustive representation of the partnership and personal

opinions to respect their own sense of integrity. As such, our findings reveal that SMI

authenticity management requires “behind-the-scenes” conscious efforts. Previous researches

already pointed out potential obstacles to pursuing behaviors that produce or reveal an

individual’s true self (Arnould & Price, 2003). In the context of SMI activity, when external

22
commercial temptations arise, an SMI may have to refuse immediate rewards from partnership

activities to comply with self-imposed internal guidelines.

4.3. Proposition of a framework of authenticity management

The last methodological step aimed to compare SMIs’ declared authenticity strategies with

observed signs of authenticity. The analysis highlights that discrepancies could sometimes be

found between SMIs’ intentions and their produced content. Facing these difficulties,

influencers appear to either combine the strategies (simultaneously or sequentially) or

exclusively resort to one of the two options. Sometimes they do not engage in either of the two,

resulting in a lack of authenticity. These results led to four paths of authenticity management,

depending on how the influencer uses passion and transparency (Figure 3).

—Insert Figure 3 here—

4.3.1. Path of absolute authenticity management

Absolute authenticity management corresponds to a situation in which partnering with the

brand provides the SMI with an opportunity to express intrinsic passion in a highly transparent

way. EF is an example of an influencer who strives to adopt absolute authenticity management.

In her interview, EF states “Partnership is a tool to be professional, to show how two worlds

[i.e. the influencer’s world and the brand’s world] can be mixed, to allow followers to discover

brands or products, and for me to earn money. I try to be as honest as possible in my captions,

my texts, and my comments, and I always try to add something personal to every picture I

post.” The interview portrays a willingness to accept partnerships if passion is preserved and

transparency is ensured. EF’s intentions are also demonstrated in content produced around

partnerships “OK nothing can be as useful as an elastic hair tie but this one is close, or should

23
I say CLUSE, works like a watch, feels like a slender bracelet: right wrist, the ball is in your

court. Content created in collaboration with CLUSE Watches.” There is a consistency between

intentions and content produced, showing both intrinsic pleasure and transparency. This

approach seems to represent the “optimal” management of authenticity.

However, the content analysis highlighted that influencers sometimes use either passion or

transparency. As a result, other paths emerged, which we detail below.

4.3.2. Path of fairytale authenticity management

Fairytale authenticity management corresponds to a situation in which SMIs preserve their

passions but with limited transparency. In her interview, MB acknowledges that for

partnerships in general, “products are offered and then I am paid according to the number of

links and posts.” For the brand GOLA in particular, she was contacted “through an agency.”

She then claims “Shoes are my passion, especially sneakers. I literally have dozens of them

which I proudly show off. I never had issues with brands because I always do as I want, it is

above all a passion!” However, MB does not have a specific disclosure policy. Regarding posts

resulting from the partnership with GOLA, their content does not include any mention of a

relationship with the brand: “For today’s look, this is typically what I wear during hot days,

when I do not have much to do and I feel good. I have worn these shoes for most of the holidays

and they are comfortable but also original.” She writes as if she was spontaneously inspired to

talk about GOLA shoes that day, without specifying any influence from the brand.

In fairytale authenticity management, influencers are very enthusiastic about the product and

brand and take pleasure in producing and sharing that content. However, the belief that passion

compensates for lack of transparency about commercial orientation can be described as “naive”

or “fairytale” authenticity. Furthermore, constant, consistent enthusiasm for every single brand

24
mentioned could raise questions about whether SMIs can be always very excited about each

partnership and whether they are exaggerating their passion.

4.3.3. Path of disembodied authenticity management

Disembodied authenticity management corresponds to a situation in which SMIs transparently

disclose partnerships with brands, yet they do not express passion. For example, PD describes

her collaborations in an opportunistic manner “Partnerships bring me a lot! Gifts, the

opportunity to test new brands and products… and clothes that allow me to create variety and

renewal of my blog content and get regular updates [...] I can get additional visibility.” Latter

in the interview, she admitted her commercial orientation, “I did some collaborations that were

not really for me.” Also, in her content during a collaboration with Boohoo, PD writes “As you

may surely know, Paris Fashion Week is now on and all the Fashionistas are running to admire

the most beautiful shows of the creative designers. The e-shop from Boohoo has given me an

interesting challenge: compose a complete outfit around ‘First row of the Fashion shows of

PFW.’ To make things harder, the outfit had to include a dress and a piece of suede. I paired

a Bordeau dress and a nice pair of boots. So challenge met?” The description does not include

emotions nor references pleasure or interest, thus adopting a distant and cold approach that

abstains from imbuing the content with personal feelings.

Disembodied management can be associated with a commercial approach without passion. The

risk of this approach is that influencers’ content may not be very creative and may not generate

enthusiasm among followers.

4.3.4. Path of fake authenticity management

Fake authenticity management corresponds to a situation in which SMIs neither disclose their

partnerships nor express any intrinsic passion. A few influencers could be considered as faking

25
authenticity. In her interview, MM revealed, “I had to write an article, mention the brand and

create a post for Instagram, [...] I have a professional relationship with brands through

collaborations. After all, this is a job, and one has to earn a living [...]. Partnerships with

brands allow me to present new trends.” By mentioning an obligation to comply with brand

requirements to earn money, MM exhibits a lack of passion and an instrumental approach to

the influencer activity. Moreover, in her content MM does not manifest either passion or

transparency: “Hi girls! Today I greet you with a new outfit created for Valentine’s Day.

Valentine’s Day—so much business for one date you will say? Certainly a good marketing

thing without thinking of single people. [...] So Promod has collaborated with Hast. This

association offers an idea for a good gift for Valentine’s Day. [...] It is a shirt made of jean

fabric for him and for her. […] after all, why not, it is different from chocolate, perfume, or

other gifts. It is available in Promod stores and on their website for 49€95. This shirt has been

especially designed for Valentine’s Day. It is a limited edition” (PromodxHast). MM explains

that she does not like Valentine’s Day and questions its commercial dimension. Perhaps

because she is not comfortable with the situation, she not only limits herself to a factual, non-

passionate description of the product, but she also does not reveal the partnership.

In conclusion, although absolute authenticity management appears to offer the optimal solution

for influencers, opportunistic approaches may emerge that lead to partnerships without passion

and a lack of transparency. In such cases, authenticity management can be considered fake

because both gratification and honesty are lacking.

5. Discussion

Our findings reveal two authenticity strategies deliberately used by SMIs to guide their brand

partnerships: passionate authenticity and transparent authenticity. Passionate authenticity

26
refers to the notion that authentic people or brands are those that are intrinsically motivated

rather than extrinsically motivated (Moulard et al., 2014, 2015, 2016). That is, they are driven

by their inner desires and passions more so than by commercial goals. Although prior studies

suggest that some producer types (i.e., ideologists and artists) reject commercial interests to

follow inner desires, those researches do not link such notions to authenticity (Hirschman,

1983). We add to this body of prior research by studying how passionate authenticity is

managed by influencers. Influencers are passionately authentic when they publish digital

content that is enjoyable and intrinsically gratifying. Such activities are aligned with what

Hirschman (1983) describes as marketing to one’s self. SMIs manage passionate authenticity

by selecting fashion and lifestyle brands that fit their style, respect their identity, and give them

creative freedom. Overall, we can therefore define a passionate authenticity strategy as a means

to ensure an intrinsically satisfying creation process.

Additionally, we find a second type of authenticity, which we label transparent authenticity. In

the context of SMIs and product placements, transparent authenticity refers to providing fact-

based information about the product or service at the center of the brand partnership.

Transparent authenticity also entails disclosing information about the contractual terms of the

partnership with the particular brand, as well as posting unedited content. Napoli et al. (2014)

empirically identify sincerity as one component of brand authenticity but do not offer a

definition of their sincerity concept. Additionally, Grayson and Martinec (2004)’s notion of

indexical authenticity, which they describe as something that is not a copy or imitation,

parallels transparent authenticity. We propose that in the context of influencer marketing for

fashion and lifestyle brands, a transparent authenticity strategy refers to a set of means to

provide a truthful and exhaustive representation of brand partnerships as well as personal

opinions in order to respect the SMI’s personal sense of integrity.

27
By highlighting the two strategies for authenticity management for oneself in the context of

SMI–brand partnerships—passion and transparency—we complement past research. Indeed,

we bridge two streams of research that have discussed authenticity. On the one hand, past

research on self-projection and personal branding techniques established how individuals

promote transparent authenticity through disclosure strategies in order to be seen as genuine

by an audience (Schau & Gilly, 2003). On the other hand, past research relying on self-

determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) conceptualized passionate authenticity as associated

to intrinsic as opposed to extrinsic motivations (Moulard et al., 2014, 2015, 2016).

Building on a methodology comparing “on-stage” produced online content with “behind-the-

scene” stated authenticity strategies via semi-directed interviews, we propose four paths that

SMIs adopt in their day-to-day activity to manage authenticity for themselves. The paths move

from absolute authenticity (passionate and transparent) to disembodied authenticity (only

transparent) and fairytale authenticity (only passionate) and finally to fake authenticity (neither

passionate nor transparent).

SMIs adopting absolute authenticity may result in their feeling better about engaging in this

type of commercial activity. Indeed, psychology research finds that when individuals’

behaviors align with their true selves, they experience greater self-esteem and life satisfaction

(Goldman & Kernis, 2002) and decreased stress (Wood et al., 2008). Moreover, being honest

and avoiding misrepresentation has been shown to enhance subjective well-being (Reinecke &

Trepte, 2014). However, by adopting this path, SMIs must take care to refuse commercial

opportunities when a brand does not fit their inner interests as well as when a brand is

requesting non-disclosure of sponsorship to mimic spontaneous endorsement. This

consideration might be particularly important for SMIs who promote products that are

subsequently purchased by their followers.

28
Other SMIs give preeminence to following their passions and showcasing their tastes. They

believe that because they are not primarily driven by commercial opportunities, being

occasionally sponsored is not an issue and assume that their intrinsic passion for their activity

and for the brands they promote makes up for not disclosing commercial relationships. These

SMIs pursue the fairytale path and derive satisfaction from inner self-gratification and

enjoyment; they seem comfortable taking advantage of commercial opportunities as long as

they are passionate about brands they promote and do not feel like marketers influence their

opinions or behaviors. Marwick and Boyd (2011) recognize that an influencer will “interject

her own personality and passions—like music—to retain an authentic voice” (p. 126).

However, these authors consider this to be a strategy for building authenticity and thus do not

discuss it as providing possible compensatory tools for a lack of disclosure.

Another identified path relies on transparency but lacks passion, resulting in a disembodied

authenticity management. This management style might stem from SMIs being jaded due to

the repetitive dimensions of their work or disillusion with a system in which commercial

opportunities prevail over creativity. Some influencers lack emotions or interest for their

sponsored activity or products but disclose all information transparently in a systematic

manner. This finding may nuance past research on personal branding literature because it

highlights that when individuals manage authenticity solely through transparency and without

passion, they may risk losing interest in their activity.

In the most extreme case, influencers give prominence to external factors (e.g., peer pressure,

financial reality, fame, and talent showcasing) over intrinsic motivations and transparency.

Following this fake authenticity path may lead SMIs to relinquish some of their passion and

integrity for the sake of getting more immediate rewards. This fake authenticity path creates

signals of authenticity but removes the SMI’s inner satisfaction. If only the artifice and labor

are left when partnering with brands, SMI activity may not be sustainable in the long run.

29
Indeed, managing an artificial and inauthentic self threatens the individual identity (Yang,

Holden, & Carter, 2017).

These aforementioned findings lead to specific recommendations for both influencers and

brands.

6. Managerial implications

In the context of SMI–brand partnerships, authenticity management raises unique challenges.

Accordingly, we have developed specific guidelines for both SMIs and marketers to manage

tensions created by brand encroachment into the SMI’s personal sphere. Even if SMIs import

some branding techniques for self-presentation purposes, individuals cannot ignore their moral

obligation of integrity nor their inner desires (Yang & Brown, 2015). Influencers who follow

neither passionate nor transparency rules may fail in the long run because such an overly

commercial orientation may lack resonance with followers. For example, the American beauty

influencer Michelle Phan explains in a video entitled, “Why I left” 7 (more than 9 million

YouTube views), that she stopped her influencer activity because of authenticity management

issues, “Who I was on camera and who I was in real life began to feel like strangers. [...] I

spend all my life chasing after success, only to find myself running away from the very thing

that matters, myself, my true self.” In an activity that is rather new, unscripted, and just starting

to become professionalized (Pedroni, 2015), it is important that SMIs implement rules of

conduct to maintain intrinsic motivations and success.

For instance, influencers could state their criteria for managing their partnerships and stick to

them as a necessary step. More particularly, to maintain self-gratification in an activity,

7
“Why I left”, video posted by the formal beauty influencer Michelle Phan on 06/01/2017:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=8&v=UuGpm01SPcA (retrieved on 11/08/2017).

30
collaborating with brands they is passionate about is crucial. Likewise, establishing partnership

terms with brands that guarantee creative control should be a high priority. Ensuring inner

satisfaction from the activity might lead to refusing partnerships when brands do not comply

with the rules, even if they would offer short-term rewards.

Also, transparent authenticity should not be viewed as a risk but as an opportunity to maintain

trustworthy relationships. As regulations become more demanding, there will be a stronger call

for differentiating sponsored from non-sponsored content. One possibility to comply with

expected transparency is to apply a disclosure policy systematically to all content and claim

this explicitly in user profiles on various platforms. Rather than passively waiting for the new

rules to be enforced, SMIs can then take control and initiate proactive disclosure rules, thus

building a trustable profile.

Apart from influencer marketing, it is also essential that the SMI continues to produce content

that follows his or her own inspirations by focusing on freely chosen topics and promoting

things that the SMI personally believes in. Creating personal content, opening up to new

brands, and sharing opinions openly may allow an SMI to engage in a self-discovery processes.

This practice results in opportunities to develop a unique taste in comparison with other

influencers. In turn, taste leadership also creates distinction, which can be leveraged into

cultural capital (McQuarrie et al., 2013).

Our findings also provide guidelines for marketers. When collaborating with influencers for

marketing campaigns, marketers should be sure to provide scope to allow both authenticity

strategies to emerge. For example, when initiating the primary contact, marketers should avoid

anonymous mass emails. Further, marketers potentially can be helped by specialized agencies

in customizing their communication. Indeed, a personalized message expressing a real interest

in each SMI’s universe can give the influencer the feeling that he/she is respected and will be

31
treated as a real business partner rather than merely a promotional medium. This should

encourage the SMI to be more confident that there is room for a co-production process to

emerge. When marketers are attentive to SMIs’ requests and expectations, they might also

identify signals of lack of passion and thus avoid paying for purely opportunistic behaviors.

To preserve SMIs’ passionate authenticity, brand managers should be attentive to reducing

creative constraints. As partnership develops, brands can let influencers choose the products

that suit their tastes and generate personalized communication around the selected items.

Managers should accept the risk of giving free rein to the SMI, particularly because an

environment perceived as controlling can erode intrinsic motivation (Deci, Connell, & Ryan,

1989). In particular, for fashion brands, it seems all the more important to respect influencers’

tastes because their followers expect them to express their own identity and lifestyle. It would

appear false and dishonest to wear and showcase publicly apparel that does not fit their body

or style.

Moreover, marketers can take advantage of strengthened disclosure regulations. Rules can help

SMIs manage their transparent authenticity. By allowing influencers to give full information

about the products, their opinions, and the partnerships, marketers can help foster enhanced

trust between SMIs and their followers. Doing so will enable SMIs to provide informed, fact-

based opinions.

7. Limitations and future research

This paper provides theoretical and managerial contributions, the limitations of which provide

a foundation for further research.

32
We did not investigate if influencers manage their authenticity through the four paths

sequentially, thus ignoring potential temporal dynamics of authenticity management. With

influencers progressively professionalizing their activities, our proposed framework could be

used to analyze SMIs’ career dynamics. Probably, SMIs start with genuine intrinsic passion

applying absolute authenticity management; with the growing recognition, they might be

tempted to accept partnerships with brands they are not passionate about and may move toward

either disembodied or fairytale authenticity. Building on the tension between intrinsic passion

and financial gains, it would be interesting to empirically test the extent to which evolving from

the absolute to either disembodied or fairytale authenticity paths affects the well-being of the

SMI. Moreover, it would be interesting to analyze the extent to which SMIs can develop a

unique positioning through the choice of one particular authenticity management path, as well

as determine how followers’ discernment of such paths influences their perceptions of the SMI.

In addition, product placement in the context of influencer marketing differs from traditional

product placement, and future research could analyze those differences. Within traditional

product placement in movies, the commercial message is produced by the brand, the film

director is responsible for the fictitious creative content, and the actor is just executing a script

with limited input (Russell & Belch, 2005). However, in the case of influencer product

placement, the situation is different because the SMI is considered as controlling, at least

partially, the production of content supposedly representing real life. The practice may create

confusion and expose SMIs to unique risks. Products placed and used by actors in movies are

implicitly approved because they are embedded into a fictional narrative. However, those

placed by influencers into their content and embedded into their daily life story seem explicitly

approved by influencers as real consumption choices. Moreover, as influencers sometimes

provide buying options (through affiliate links), one might question to what extent they are

33
perceived as playing a seller’s role. Product placement researchers might probe who would be

blamed in case of product dissatisfaction in this specific context—the brand or the SMI.

Finally, although we tried to be systematic in the data collection, this context is highly rich in

data because each influencer produces content for multiple platforms. Thus, we faced

difficulties in ensuring data exhaustiveness. Nonetheless, replication could strengthen

generalization of our findings. Furthermore, authenticity management is a concern for other

types of human brands, such as politicians, top managers or academics, all of which providing

avenues for future research.

34
Appendix A. Profile of the 27 SMIs interviewed in Step 2

Anonym Profile (gender, location, age, Topics of interest Nb. of

name seniority) when available Instagram

followers*

AD Woman living in Montréal Fashion, beauty, 1,451

culture

MB** Woman living in Paris. Fashion, beauty, 108,000

Seniority: 5 years lifestyle

YZ** Two men living in Paris Fashion, sport, 49,300

Both are 26 years old lifestyle and

culture

MM** Woman living in a major French Fashion, beauty, 78,700

city lifestyle

Seniority: 4 years

VF Woman living in an average-size Fashion, beauty, 2,621

French city lifestyle

28 years old

Seniority: 5 years

MS Woman living in a major French Fashion 2,481

city

Seniority: 6 years

35
CB Woman living in a major French Fashion, lifestyle 15,000

city

Seniority: 4 years

AL Woman living in Montréal Fashion and 12,600

Seniority: 9 years beauty

AW Woman living in a major French Fashion and 2,029

city lifestyle

Seniority: 6 years

CR Woman living in Paris Fashion and 6,041

Seniority: 9 years lifestyle

EF** Woman living in Montréal Fashion, beauty, 104,000

Seniority: 8 years interior, bridal and

art

NB Woman living in French Plus-size fashion, 7,834

countryside lifestyle, food

Seniority: 7 years

FC Woman living in a major French Fashion, beauty 1,546

city and lifestyle

Seniority: 5 years

AP Couple living in a major French Fashion, sport and 20,100

city lifestyle

Both are 24 years old

36
 Seniority: 2 years

CD Woman living in Paris Fashion and 5 641

22 years old lifestyle

Seniority: 4 years

MP Woman living in a major French Beauty, cooking 8,154

city and interiors

Seniority: 1 year

26 years old

BB Woman living in an average-size Plus-size fashion 13,500

French city and beauty

Seniority: 9 years

PD** Woman living in an average-size Fashion, interiors 78,300

French city and lifestyle

26 years old

Seniority: 7 years

AC Woman living in Paris Fashion, beauty 1 382

23 years old and lifestyle

MC Woman living in Paris Fashion, beauty 76,500

26 years old and lifestyle

DP Woman living in a major French Fashion, lifestyle 2,142

city and music

37
 Seniority: 5 years

BC Woman living in Munich Fashion, beauty, 610

Seniority: 5 years lifestyle and

cooking

HR Woman living in Paris Fashion, beauty, 80,100

28 years old lifestyle

Seniority: 2 years

SC Woman living in an average-size Fashion and No Instagram

French city beauty account

24 years old 2,453 followers

Seniority: 5 years on YouTube

ED Woman living in London Fashion and 597

25 years old lifestyle

Seniority: 4 years

SM Woman living in a major French Fashion 6,245

city

35 years old

Seniority: 5 years

AE Woman living in Paris Beauty 1,055

25 years old

Seniority: 8 years

*Recorded in November 2017

38
**Influencers also included in Step 3

39
Appendix B. Top-ranked SMIs and campaigns analyzed in Step 3

Anonym Nb. of Anonym Type of Period

influencer Instagram campaign business

name followers* number

PD 78,300 Campaign 3-1 Online retailer October 2015

EF 104,000 Campaign 3-2 Watch brand August 2016

MM 78,700 Campaign 3-3 Clothing brand February

2016

MB 108,00 Campaign 3-4 Shoe brand March 2016

YZ 49,300 Campaign 3-5 Jeans brand May 2016

*Recorded in November 2017

40
Figure 1. Research design and analytical approach for study of SMIs’ authenticity

41
Figure 2. Multi-influencers marketing campaigns selected for Step 1.

*Recorded in November 2017

42
Figure 3. Four paths in the authenticity management framework

43
References

Arnould, E. J., & Price, L. L. (2003). Authenticating acts and authoritative performances:

Questing for self and community. In S. Ratneshwar, D. G. Mick, & C. Huffman (Eds.), The

Why of Consumption: Contemporary Perspectives on Consumer Motives, Goals and Desires

(pp. 140–163). London: Routledge.

Auty, S., & Lewis, C. (2004). Exploring children's choice: The reminder effect of product

placement. Psychology & Marketing, 21(9), 697–713.

Babin, L. A., & Carder, S. T. (1996). Viewers’ recognition of brands placed within a film.

International Journal of Advertising, 15(2), 140–151.

Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and

utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644–656.

Becker-Olsen, K. L. (2003). And now a word from our sponsor: A look at effects of sponsored

content and banner advertising. Journal of Advertising, 32(2), 17–32.

Bernritter, S. F., Verlegh, P. W., & Smit, E. G. (2016). Why nonprofits are easier to endorse

on social media: The roles of warmth and brand symbolism. Journal of Interactive Marketing,

33, 27–42.

Beverland, M. (2006). The ‘real thing’: Branding authenticity in the luxury wine trade. Journal

of Business Research, 59(2), 251–258.

Beverland, M., & Farrelly, F. J. (2010). The quest of authenticity in consumption: Consumers’

purposive choice of authentic cues to shape experienced outcomes. Journal of Consumer

Research, 36(5), 838–856.

44
Beverland, M., Lindgreen, A., & Vink, M. W. (2008). Projecting authenticity through

advertising. Journal of Advertising, 37, 5–15.

Bhatnagar, N., Aksoy, L., & Malkoc, S. A. (2004). Embedding brands within media content:

The impact of message, media, and consumer characteristics on placement efficacy. In L. J.

Shrum (Ed.), The Psychology of Entertainment Media: Blurring the Lines Between

Entertainment and Persuasion (pp. 99–116). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Boerman, S. C., Willemsen, L. M., & Van Der Aa, E. P. (2017). “This post is sponsored”:

Effects of sponsorship disclosure on persuasion knowledge and electronic word of mouth in

the context of Facebook. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 38, 82–92.

Brown, D., & Hayes, N. (2008). Influencer Marketing: Who Really Influences Your

Customers? New York: Taylor & Francis.

Cain, R. M. (2011). Embedded advertising on television: Disclosure, deception, and free

speech rights. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 30(2), 226–238.

Campbell, M. C. (1995). When attention-getting advertising tactics elicit consumer inferences

of manipulative intent: The importance of balancing benefits and investments. Journal of

Consumer Psychology, 4(3), 225–254.

Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2008). I know what you’re doing and why you’re doing it:

The use of the persuasion knowledge model in consumer research. In C. Hugvstedt, P. Herr, &

F. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of Consumer Psychology (pp. 549–574). New York: Psychology

Press.

Charry, K., & Tessitore, T. (2016). Product placement, its supporters and detractors: A quest

for balance. In P. de Pelsmacker (Ed.), Advertising in New Formats and Media: Current

45
Research and Implications for Marketers (pp. 265–290). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group

Publishing Limited.

Choi, H., Ko, E., Kim, E. Y., & Mattila, P. (2015). The role of fashion brand authenticity in

product management: A holistic marketing approach. Journal of Product Innovation

Management, 32(2), 233–242.

Chronis, A., & Hampton, R. D. (2008). Consuming the authentic Gettysburg: How a tourist

landscape becomes an authentic experience. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7(2), 111–126.

d’Astous, A., & Chartier, F. (2000). A study of factors affecting consumer evaluations and

memory of product placements in movies. Journal of Current Issues and Research in

Advertising, 22(2), 31–40.

Dasgupta, S., & Kothari, R. (2018). The impact of digital word-of-mouth communication on

consumer decision-making processes: With special reference to fashion apparel industry. In S.

Dasgupta, S. K. Biswal, & M. A. Ramesh (Eds.), Holistic Approaches to Brand Culture and

Communication Across Industries (pp. 176-198). IGI Global.

Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(4), 580–590.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and

the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

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.

46
Djafarova, E., & Rushworth, C. (2017). Exploring the credibility of online celebrities’

Instagram profiles in influencing the purchase decisions of young female users. Computers in

Human Behavior, 68, 1–7.

Duffy, B. E. (2013). Remake, remodel: Women's magazines in the digital age. University of

Illinois Press.

Duffy, B. E., & Wissinger, E. (2017). Mythologies of creative work in the social media age:

Fun, free, and “just being me”. International Journal of Communication, 11, 1–20.

Duffy, B. E., & Hund, E. (2015). “Having it all” on social media: Entrepreneurial femininity

and self-branding among fashion bloggers. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1–11.

Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation

processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication,

11(2), 415–441.

Etter, M., Colleoni, E., Illia, L., Meggiorin, K., & D’Eugenio, A. (2018). Measuring

organizational legitimacy in social media: Assessing citizens’ judgments with sentiment

analysis. Business & Society, 57(1), 60–97.

Freberg, K., Grahamb, K., McGaughey, K., & Freberg, L. A. (2011). Who are the social media

influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 90–

92.

Friestad, M., & Wright, P. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with

persuasion attempts, Journal of Consumer Research, 21(1), 1–31.

Fu, J.-R., & Chen, J. H. F. (2012). An investigation of the factors that influence blog advertising

effectiveness. International Journal of Electronic Business Management, 10(3), 194–203.

47
Garcia-Rapp, F. (2017). ‘Come join and let’s BOND’: Authenticity and legitimacy building on

YouTube’s beauty community. Journal of Media Practice 18(2/3), 120–137.

Gannon, V., & Prothero, A. (2016). Beauty blogger selfies as authenticating practices.

European Journal of Marketing, 50(9/10), 1858–1878.

Goldman, B. M., & Kernis, M. H. (2002). The role of authenticity in healthy psychological

functioning and subjective well-being. Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association,

5(6), 18–20.

Gould, S. J., Gupta, P. B., & Grabner-Kräuter, S. (2000). Product placements in movies: A

cross-cultural analysis of Austrian, French and American consumers' attitudes toward this

emerging, international promotional medium. Journal of Advertising, 29(4), 41–58.

Grayson, K., & Martinec, R. (2004). Consumer perceptions of iconicity and indexicality and

their influence on assessments of authentic market offerings. Journal of Consumer Research,

31(2), 296–312.

Hartmann, T., & Goldhoorn, C. (2011). Horton and Wohl revisited: Exploring viewers’

experience of parasocial interaction. Journal of Communication, 61(6), 1104–1121.

Hearn, A., & Schoenhoff, S. (2016). From celebrity to influencer: Tracing the diffusion of

celebrity value across the data stream. In P. D. Marshall, & S. Redmond (Eds.), A Companion

to Celebrity (pp. 194–211). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Hirschman, E. C. (1983). Aesthetics, ideologies and the limits of the marketing concept.

Journal of Marketing, 47(3), 45–55.

48
Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (2004). Wag the blog: How reliance on traditional media and the

internet influence credibility perceptions of weblogs among blog users. Journalism and Mass

Communication Quarterly, 81(3), 622–642.

Holt, D. B. (2002). Why do brands cause trouble? A dialectical theory of consumer culture and

branding. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(1), 70–90.

Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and

opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68.

Khamis, S., Ang, L., & Welling, R. (2017). Self-branding, ‘micro-celebrity’ and the rise of

Social Media Influencers. Celebrity Studies, 8(2), 191–208.

Kim, A. J., & Ko, E. (2012). Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity?

An empirical study of luxury fashion brand. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1480–1486.

Kowalczyk, C. M., & Pounders, K. R. (2016). Transforming celebrities through social media:

the role of authenticity and emotional attachment. Journal of Product & Brand Management,

25(4), 345–335.

Labrecque, L. I., Markos, E., & Milne, G. R. (2011). Online personal branding: Processes,

challenges, and implications. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 25(1), 37–50.

Law, S., & Braun, K. A. (2000). I’ll have what she’s having: Gauging the impact of product

placements on viewers. Psychology & Marketing, 17(12), 1059–1075.

Lee, H. H. M. (2016). Making of celebrities: A comparative analysis of Taiwanese and

American fashion bloggers. In P. Moreau, & S. Puntoni (Eds.), Advances in Consumer

Research, Vol. 44 (pp. 319–324). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.

49
Lee, J. E., & Watkins, B. (2016). YouTube vloggers' influence on consumer luxury brand

perceptions and intentions. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 5753–5760.

Lewczak, J., & Di Giovanni, A. (2010). Enhanced FCC regulation of product placement would

breach free speech rights. Legal Backgrounder, 25(11), 1–4.

Li, F., & Du, T. C. (2017). Maximizing micro-blog influence in online promotion. Expert

Systems with Applications, 70, 52–66.

Liljander, V., Gummerus, J., & Soderlund, M. (2015). Young consumers’ responses to

suspected covert and overt blog marketing. Internet Research, 25(4), 610–632.

Lu, L.-C., Chang, W.-P., & Chang, H.-H. (2017). Consumer attitudes toward blogger’s

sponsored recommendations and purchase intention: The effect of sponsorship type, product

type, and brand awareness. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 258–266.

Luvaas, B., (2017). What does a fashion influencer look like? Portraits of the Instafamous.

Fashion, Style, & Popular Culture, 4(3), 341–364.

Marwick, A. E. (2013). ‘They’re really profound women, they’re entrepreneurs’: Conceptions

of authenticity in fashion blogging. Paper presented at the International Conference on

Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM). Cambridge, MA.

Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users,

context collapse, and the imagined audience. New media & society, 13(1), 114–133.

McCracken, G. (1988). The Long Interview. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

McQuarrie, E. F., Miller, J., & Phillips, B. J. (2013). The megaphone effect: Taste and audience

in fashion blogging, Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), 136–158.

50
Moulard, J. G., Garrity, C. P., & Rice, D. H. (2015). What makes a human brand authentic?

Identifying the antecedents of celebrity authenticity. Psychology & Marketing, 32(2), 173–186.

Moulard, J. G., Raggio, R. D., & Folse, J. A. G. (2016). Brand authenticity: Testing the

antecedents and outcomes of brand management's passion for its products. Psychology &

Marketing, 33(6), 421–436.

Moulard, J. G., Rice, D. H., Garrity, C. P., & Mangus, S. M. (2014). Artist authenticity: How

artists’ passion and commitment shape consumers’ perceptions and behavioral intentions

across genders. Psychology & Marketing, 31(8), 576–590.

Mudambi, S. M., & Schuff, D. (2010). What makes a helpful review? A study of customer

reviews on Amazon.com. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 185–200.

Napoli, J., Dickinson, S. J., Beverland, M. B., & Farrelly, F. (2014). Measuring consumer-

based brand authenticity. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1090–1098.

Niederhoffer, K., Mooth, R., Wiesenfeld, D., & Gordon, J. (2007). The origin and impact of

CPG new-product buzz: Emerging trends and implications. Journal of Advertising Research,

47(4), 420–426.

Nekmat, E., & Gower, K. K. (2012). Effects of disclosure and message valence in online Word-

of-Mouth communication: Implications for integrated marketing communication. International

Journal of Integrated Marketing Communication, 41(1), 85–98.

Pedroni, M. (2015). Stumbling on the heels of my blog: Career, forms of capital, and strategies

in the (sub)field of fashion blogging. Fashion Theory, 19(2), 179–199.

51
Reinecke, L., & Trepte, S. (2014). Authenticity and well-being on social network sites: A two-

wave longitudinal study on the effects of online authenticity and the positivity bias in SNS

communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 95–102.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.

Russell, C. A. (2002). Investigating the effectiveness of product placements in television

shows: The role of modality and plot connection congruence on brand memory and attitude.

Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 306–318.

Russell, C. A., & Belch, M. (2005). A managerial investigation into the product placement

industry. Journal of Advertising Research, 45(1), 73–92.

Russell, C. A., & Stern, B. B. (2006). Consumers, characters, and products: A balance model

of sitcom product placement effects. Journal of Advertising, 35(1), 7–21.

Savignac, B. M., Parmentier, M. A., & Marcoux, J. S. (2012). Consumer-bloggers mobilized

in marketing campaigns: A study of opinion leaders’ authenticity management in a streetwear

community. In Z. Gürhan-Canli, C. Otnes, & R. J. Zhu (Eds.), Advances in Consumer

Research, Vol. 40. (pp. 81–84) Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.

Schau, J. H., & Gilly, M. C. (2003). We are what we post? Self-presentation in personal web

space. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 385–404.

Schneider, L. P., & Cornwell, T. B. (2005). Cashing in on crashes via brand placement in

computer games: The effects of experience and flow on memory. International Journal of

Advertising, 24(3), 321–343.

52
Scott, D. M. (2015). The New Rules of Marketing and PR: How to Use Social Media, Online

Video, Mobile Applications, Blogs, News Releases, and Viral Marketing to Reach Buyers

Directly (4th ed.). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Sepp, M., Liljander, V., & Gummerus, J. (2011). Private bloggers’ motivations to produce

content - a gratifications theory perspective. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(13/14),

1479–1503.

Shifman, L. (2018). Testimonial rallies and the construction of memetic authenticity. European

Journal of Communication, 33(2), 172–184.

Spiggle S., Nguyen, H. T., & Caravella, M. (2012). More than fit: Brand extension authenticity.

Journal of Marketing Research, 49, 967–983.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Suhr, H. C. (Ed.). (2014). Online Evaluation of Creativity and the Arts. New York: Routledge.

Tan, D. (2017). The Commercial Appropriation of Fame: A Cultural Analysis of the Right of

Publicity and Passing Off. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tessitore, T., & Geuens, M. (2013). PP for ‘product placement’ or ‘puzzled public’? The

effectiveness of symbols as warnings of product placement and the moderating role of brand

recall. International Journal of Advertising, 32(3), 419–32.

Verhellen, Y., Dens, N., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2013). Consumer responses to brands placed in

Youtube movies: The effect of prominence and endorser expertise. Journal of Electronic

Commerce Research, 14(4), 287–303.

53
 Wei, M.-L., Fischer, E., & Main, K. J. (2008). An examination of the effects of activating

persuasion knowledge on consumer response to brands engaging in covert marketing. Journal

of Public Policy & Marketing, 27(1), 34–44.

Wissinger, E. (2015). This Year's Model: Fashion, Media, and the Making of Glamour. NYU

Press.

Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic

personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization, and the development of the

authenticity scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3), 385–399.

Yang, C. C., & Brown, B. B. (2015). Factors involved in associations between Facebook use

and college adjustment: Social competence, perceived usefulness, and use patterns. Computers

in Human Behavior, 46, 245–253.

Yang, C. C., Holden, S. M., & Carter, M. D. (2017). Emerging adults' social media self-

presentation and identity development at college transition: Mindfulness as a moderator.

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 52, 212–221.

54

View publication stats