Journal of Marketing Communications Vol. 17, No.

5, December 2011, 355374

Branded product information search on the Web: The role of brand trust and credibility of online information sources
Chunsik Leea*, Junga Kimb and Sylvia M. Chan-Olmstedc
a Department of Advertising, University of Florida, PO Box 118400, Gainesville, USA; bSchool of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Minnesota, 206 Church Street SE, Minneapolis, USA; cDepartment of Telecommunication, University of Florida, PO Box 118400, Gainesville, USA

Drawing upon the cost benet framework and trust mechanism as a risk reducer, this study examines the inuence of brand factors and source credibility on branded product information Web searches. The online survey was conducted within the pre-purchase context of digital camera brands. The results revealed that brand factors did not inuence overall branded information search efforts. However, brand trust and source credibility appeared to inuence the different types of online information sources sought. Keywords: brand trust; brand information search; product information search; online source credibility; online information search

Introduction Unquestionably, the Internet has become one of the most common information sources for consumers to nd product or brand information. According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project Tracking surveys (Pew Internet & American Life Project Database 2007), around 80% of Americans use the Internet to look for information about products or services they are thinking of buying. This prevalent use of the Internet as a branded product information search tool has signicant implications for brand managers in designing more effective communication strategies. In the early boom years of e-commerce, some authors predicted that the availability of branded product information and search capability of the Internet (e.g. comparison shopping) will gradually decrease the functional role of brands as an assurance of quality and a way to reduce searching (Sealy 1999; Sinha 2000; Ward and Lee 2000). Some mixed results have been reported with regard to the conicting roles of brand power and Internet searches. According to Ernst & Youngs (1998) industry report, 69% of those surveyed stated that brand names play a signicant role in their online buying decisions. Chen (2001) proposed situations in which the role of brand still remains important in the Internet age. However, the relationship between brand-related factors such as existing knowledge and attitudes toward brands and branded product information searching has rarely been investigated systematically in the context of Internet search behavior. While existing product knowledge and information seeking from external sources have been extensively examined in marketing literature (Beatty and Smith 1987; Kulviwat, Guo, and Engchanil 2004; Moorthy, Ratchford, and Talukdar 1997; Srinivasan 1990 for a comprehensive review), the relationship between brand-related factors (such as brand familiarity and

*Corresponding author. Email: cslee2@u.edu

ISSN 1352-7266 print/ISSN 1466-4445 online q 2011 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2010.484128 http://www.tandfonline.com

356

C. Lee et al.

brand trust) and external information-seeking behavior has not been investigated carefully in the context of branded product information searching. The Internet provides consumers with far more variety in information sources and content when compared to traditional sources that marketers were able to control with reasonable effort (Ward and Ostrom 2003). Due to the decentralized nature of the Internet and its low barrier to entry, the breadth and diversity of branded product information sources have become a challenging task for marketers to incorporate into their programs. In a content analysis of search engine result pages with 32 brand names, Ward and Ostrom (2003) found that Internet searching returns more information from unofcial sources (e.g. individuals blog, competitors, public interest groups) that marketers cannot control rather than ofcial sources such as corporate websites, authorized dealers, approved afliates, and press releases. Thus, understanding the patterns in which consumers seek specic types of information on the Internet can provide important insight into shaping online brand communication strategy. Nevertheless, existing literature on consumer information searches tends to focus on the amount of searches and overall patterns of source usages. The descriptive nature of these studies does not answer the question: Why do consumers engage in certain patterns of search behavior? To ll this gap in the consumer search literature, this study attempts to relate brand factors, such as brand familiarity and brand trust, to the types of information sources that consumers prefer to search. In addition, the study proposes the credibility of online information sources as a predictor of branded product information search behaviors. The goal of this study is twofold: (1) to investigate the role of brand trust on search efforts, and (2) to examine the differential patterns of searches in relation to the source credibility of various online information sources. The following literature review will examine the theory of trust in general, pre-purchase information search studies, and brand trust concepts to investigate the relationships between brand trust and external search efforts. Furthermore, the characteristics of online information sources are discussed in terms of credibility dimensions. Literature review Branded product information search: Internal search vs external search A cumulative body of literature on consumer searching has pointed out that perceived risk, inherent in the purchase decision context, is the main driver of consumer searches (Conchar et al. 2004; Jacoby and Kaplan 1972). Consumers feel uncertain that a product or a brand will function as expected (performance risk). For example, the actual picture quality of a branded digital camera may not be the same as claimed. Shutter speed may not be as fast as expected. To reduce a variety of risks involved in buying decisions, consumers constantly search for available information internally or externally (Beatty and Smith 1987; Murray 1991). The relationship between internal and external searching has been well documented in the consumer information processing literature (Bettman 1979). According to Bettman (1979), internal information search, by denition, involves memory; whereas external information search involves non-memory sources. In a comprehensive review of consumer search behavior, Srinivasan (1990) gives a nice explanation of the interactive process between the internal and external search. Consumers rst rely on their own memories, previously learned from direct experience or indirect observations, to gure out a branded products expected performance. They either trust what they already know about a brand or infer expected quality of a branded product. Then, if internal information

Journal of Marketing Communications

357

is insufcient to reach a certain trust level, consumers turn to external information searches to decrease uncertainty about a branded product (Srinivasan 1990). Indeed, a great deal of research on consumer-based brand equity has demonstrated that consumer brand knowledge, such as brand familiarity or brand association, serves as an internal source of brand information (see Hoefer and Keller 2003 for a review; Keller 2002). Thus, with regard to a branded product information search, existing brand knowledge is postulated to inuence subsequent online information search behavior, that is, the amount of search effort and types of information sources sought. Trust as a risk reduction mechanism Similar to the internal vs external search account, trust theorists have suggested that trust and external searches for information are alternative mechanisms to decrease uncertainty (Luhmann 1979). According to Luhmann (1979, 24), trust can be seen as an effective mechanism to reduce the complexity of human conduct in situations where people have to cope with uncertainty. Without trust, people would have to consider every possible outcome of an action before deciding what to do. In line with the cost benet framework from the economics of information (Nelson 1974; Stigler 1961), this notion of trust can explain consumers varying search efforts. The cost benet framework holds that, as a rational utility maximizer, consumers search for information to the extent that the cost of the search does not outweigh the benet of the search. Consumers make an effort to search for information from external sources to the extent that uncertainty or risk of concern is reduced enough to trust a party or object. In a sense, though not necessarily predicting the exact behavioral outcome, trust can effectively reduce the complexity of a situation by reducing uncertainty. Consequently, under such a trust mechanism, a consumer may need less information to make a decision. On the other hand, if there is little trust, there will be more need for information to reduce uncertainty. This study applies this notion to branded product information searching, and proposes that trust-related components in existing brand knowledge such as brand familiarity and brand trust may affect the subsequent information search behavior, such as the amount of external searching and the type of information sources sought. Low search cost in an online environment Ever since the proposition of reduced search costs in an online environment was raised (Bakos 1997), a good deal of research has focused on the impact of low search costs brought about by the Internet (Alba et al. 1997; Hoffman and Novak 1996; Jepsen 2007; Peterson and Merino 2003). Contrary to the reduced search cost proposition, this line of research generally holds that low search cost alone may be insufcient to increase the amount of searches online. Peterson and Merino (2003) pointed out that several psychological factors, such as cognitive overload and the need to learn new skill sets, might not dramatically increase the amount of Internet searches in the pre-purchase search context. Thus, despite the potential benet of low search cost, there is room for variations in search efforts on the Internet due to contextual factors. Brand factors: Brand trust and brand familiarity In general, trust has been dened as the willingness to be vulnerable to the other party based on the expectation that it will perform as promised, and despite a certain level of risk

358

C. Lee et al.

(Doney and Canon 1997; Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman 1995). Trust has been considered a multi-dimensional concept, and various sub-dimensions have been identied in the relevant literature. Competence, integrity, and benevolence are among the most frequently recurring sub-dimensions of trust (see for a review Mayer et al. 1995; McKnight and Chervany 2002). Various scholars have conceptualized brand trust in a brand customer relationship context. Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001, 82) dened brand trust as customers willingness to rely on the ability of the brand to perform its stated function. Focusing on the competence beliefs of a brand or perceived brand quality, they found that brand trust contributes to brand loyalty in the long term, as well as purchase loyalty. Emphasizing a brands motivational aspects, or benevolence, Delgado-Ballester, Munuera-Aleman, and Yague-Guileen (2003, 36) dened brand trust as expectations of the brands reliability and intentions in situations entailing risk to the customer. In an attempt to combine two aspects of brand trust, Li et al. (2007) proposed a two-factor model of brand trust consisting of two sub-dimensions: performance competence and benevolence intention. This two-factor model holds that a trustworthy brand requires that consumers believe the brand has the expertise and ability to perform relevant tasks in a product domain. In addition to competence beliefs, consumers should also believe that the brand will benet them beyond an egocentric motive. Some previous studies on brand trust have examined its possible consequences. Some research proposed that brand trust is an antecedent of brand loyalty and is critical in maintaining a long-term customer relationship (Barry 1995; Chaudhuri and Holbrook 2001; Reichheld and Schefter 2000). Some empirical studies demonstrated that trust in Web retailers leads to enhanced purchase intentions online (Chen and Dhillon 2003; Lee and Turban 2001; McKnight, Kacmar, and Choudhury 2004). Trust in an ofine brand also was found to positively affect purchase intention and consumers word of mouth behavior (Sichtmann 2007). Schlosser, White, and Lloyd (2006) examined the differential effects of the two aspects of brand trust in the e-commerce context. Their study showed that among trusting beliefs, ability beliefs only led to enhanced purchase intention in the goal oriented searching type of consumers, whereas none of the trust dimensions affected purchase intentions in the hedonic, experiential browsing type of consumers (Schlosser et al. 2006). There has been relatively little research examining the role of brand trust in connection with branded product information search, though Erdem and Swait (1998, 2002) alluded to it. Specically, the authors used brand credibility, a slightly different concept from brand trust, and dened it as the believability of the product position information contained in a brand (Erdem and Swait 2002, 3). They proposed brand credibility as an antecedent of reducing information acquisition costs. The fundamental premise of the cost benet framework is that consumers will search for information until the marginal cost equals the marginal benet (Srinivasan 1990). Logically, consumers will search for assurance information rather than taking a risk in a pre-purchase situation. Consumers with low brand trust will likely search for more information to reassure themselves about the branded product, rather than tolerate uncertainty about the branded product. By acquiring more information about the branded product online, consumers with low trust will reduce uncertainty or risk, such as eliminating the branded product in a consideration set. On the other hand, consumers with high brand trust will conduct information searches to the extent that they conrm or reinforce their own brand evaluation. Drawing upon the cost benet framework and the trust mechanism as risk reducer, the rst hypothesis is posed regarding the relationship between brand trust and the amount of online search effort.

Journal of Marketing Communications H1-1: Low brand trust will lead to more branded product searching on the Web.

359

Also, although a low-order variable, existing trust literature has identied familiarity as a key factor in reducing uncertainty or risk (Jarvenpaa and Tractinsky 1999; Luhmann 1979). Thus, we speculate that in the context of branded product information searching, consumers may perceive less risk when they are more familiar with a brand. Therefore, the difference in perceived risk may affect the amount of searches for branded product information. H1-2: Low brand familiarity will lead to more branded product searching on the Web.

In addition, a research question was posited to observe the hypothesized effects of brand factors on search effort for different online information sources. RQ1: How do brand factors such as brand trust and brand familiarity inuence search efforts for different online information sources?

Online branded product information sources and source credibility Researchers have long categorized consumer information sources in various ways. Early studies on consumer search categorized information sources in a more descriptive fashion (Beatty and Smith 1987; Claxton, Fry, and Portis 1974; Kiel and Layton 1981; Punj and Staelin 1983). Beatty and Smith (1987) proposed four information sources: interpersonal search (relatives, friends, neighbors); neutral search (consumer reports, news articles, buying guides, etc.); retailer search (visits, consulting salesperson); and media search (advertising, promotions). One search effort index was created by applying different weight to each information source. However, such a categorization system fails to address why consumers prefer using certain information sources over others. Other consumer information search literature categorized the types of information sources in terms of information delivery channels and information controlling agents (Andreasen 1968; Hoyer and MacInnis 2004). This 2 by 2 typology includes marketercontrolled sources vs non-marketer-driven sources via mass media vs personal contacts. The typology allows for interpretations of consumer preferences for certain type of sources in that each type has its advantages and disadvantages. Personal channels are believed to provide more vivid information in more interactive ways than do information sources delivered via mass media. On the other hand, personal channels are inferior to mass media in terms of coverage (Hoyer and MacInnis 2004). It seems plausible that marketercontrolled sources can be perceived as less credible and more biased because of the purposes of the messages. In contrast, non-marketer-driven sources can be perceived as more credible because consumers generally believe that these sources do not have a personal stake in inuencing their buying decisions. A few empirical studies have addressed the possible impacts of different information sources. Woodruff (1972) found that consumer-driven sources, such as local consumers opinions, decreased uncertainty about quality perceptions of a color television more than did marketer-controlled sources, such as brochures and a salespersons statement. Also, neutral sources such as independent product test results were found to signicantly decrease uncertainty regarding product quality more than did marketer-controlled and consumerdriven sources. In a car buying situation, Grnhaug (1972) showed that the degree of risk perception may affect consumers preference for information sources. Buyers with high perceived risk tended to ask other people for advice, while those low in perceived risk were more likely to read advertising information and pay visits to the dealer shops.

360

C. Lee et al.

In the online context, far more brand information sources are available. The current study focuses on four information sources based on the type of controlling agent to examine consumers branded product information searches. The rst group of sources is marketercontrolled sources such as brand websites and e-retailer websites. The second group of sources is non-marketer-driven sources like third-party websites and personal blogs. These four categories are commonly used online information sources by consumers and have obtained much research attention in prior literature. Though these four information sources are neither comprehensive nor mutually exclusive in terms of various source characteristics, they appear to provide essential branded product information from various aspects. For example, a brand website is a means of direct marketing communications bypassing third-party media. Brand sites are considered the place to communicate with various target markets or stakeholders (Coyle and Gould 2007; Plummer et al. 2007). One advantage of brand website is marketers can control the messages on the site. E-retailer sites such as amazon.com are the common place for consumers to obtain branded product information. Often times, e-retailers allow for consumers to post their reviews about the product. E-retailer sites may be different from brand websites in that marketers cannot fully control information on e-retailers. On the other hand, personal blogs are an important consumer-driven information source. The consumer-driven source on the Internet involves different types of e-WOM (electronic word of mouth) websites: organic eWOM sites, third-party sponsored e-WOM sites such as angieslist.com, marketer initiated eWOM sites, etc. (Cho 2008). Organic e-WOM typically occurs in personal blogs and e-bulletin boards without following any externally imposed rules or any specic rating system. Finally, third-party websites such as consumerreports.org or CNET.com are also popular non-marketer-driven sources that consumers often turn to for more unbiased information. In the consumer information search literature (Beatty and Smith 1987), neutral sources such as Consumer Report or expert review on news media have been included in a set of consumer information sources. Because of varying purposes and natures, branded product information sources on the Internet differ in terms of levels of credibility. In mass communication-related literature, it has been well documented that source credibility has two key sub-dimensions: perceived trustworthiness and perceived expertise (see Hovland, Janis, and Kelley 1953; Metzger et al. 2003 for a review). However, credibility dimensions of each information source have rarely been investigated in the context of a product information search. Each online product information source may have different sub-dimensional characteristics. For example, online marketer-driven sources, such as corporate websites, may have low levels of perceived trustworthiness and high levels of perceived expertise among online consumers. Third-party websites, such as online consumer reports or expert review websites, may have high scores in both the expertise and trustworthiness dimensions. Nevertheless, these speculations are yet to be empirically tested. To assess the variation in source credibility of different online information sources and their associated dimensions, the following research question is proposed; it focuses on four main information sources of different characteristics: ofcial brand websites; e-retailer websites (containing consumer reviews); third-party websites (containing expert reviews); and personal blogs (containing his or her review of product). RQ2: How different are branded product information sources on the Web in terms of source credibility and its sub-dimensions?

According to the search cost benet framework, an individual would pursue more effective, efcient ways to reduce uncertainty, thereby minimizing cost and maximizing

Journal of Marketing Communications

361

benet. During the uncertain pre-purchase period, an individual tends to search for sources with high information utility, that is, accuracy and objectivity, with minimized cost (Ratchford, Lee, and Talukdar 2003). Grant, Clarke, and Kyriazis (2007) proposed that in such situations, source credibility can serve as an information utility for information seekers. That is, consumers as information seekers are likely to gain maximum information utility via more credible sources. In light of the limited search theorem and cognitive overload, consumers are also likely to prefer visiting only the needed amount of credible sources to reach their information goals. In other words, consumers will attempt to maximize information utility by using more credible online sources. As indicated earlier, different online information sources are likely to have different levels of source credibility because of certain inherent characteristics. Thus, the desire for higher source credibility would inuence information seekers preference for certain information sources. Kerstetter and Cho (2004) found that source credibility strongly accounted for the types of information sources tourists sought regarding vacation destination decisions. Previous literature has identied source credibility as a multidimensional concept. To fully understand the inuence of course credibility, it is essential to assess the relative power of each sub-dimension of source credibility in such search context. Thus, the following hypothesis and research question are posited: H2: RQ3: Perceived credibility of an online information source will positively inuence a consumers search effort of that information source. How do different credibility dimensions of an information source inuence a consumers information-seeking effort?

Methods The survey research method was adopted for this study. Specically, an online survey of college students was used for data collection. The Web-based questionnaire is appropriate because of the nature of the investigation of online information search behavior. A total of 125 undergraduate students in various mass communication introductory courses from a large southeastern university participated in the survey. Though a convenient sampling, it has been stated that such a sampling of college students has some advantages for online-related research because these subjects are the rst generation to grow up with the Internet (Howard, Rainie, and Jones 2001). A Web-based questionnaire was designed to capture online consumers product information search behavior and other relevant variables. Because the purpose of the study was to examine the inuence of brand-related factors and credibility of different sources in the online information search context, comparable online consumer search behavior data needed to be collected using the same purchasing scenario. Accordingly, a pre-purchase task condition was assigned to the participants before they began the survey. In the pre-purchase situation, the respondents were given a branded digital camera as a candidate product. The budget range was also specied ($169.99 199.99) to avoid the potential effects of price sensitivity. There are several reasons for choosing a digital camera and its available brands in the US market in this study. First, this study examined consumers branded product information-seeking behavior. To collect data about online information seeking, we used an information-seeking scenario using a specic product category and brands because consumer information seeking is considered a goal-oriented, context-dependent behavior as well as reecting an individuals chronic, usual information-seeking style. Secondly, the

362

C. Lee et al.

product of interest should be one of the attribute rich product categories to obtain variance in consumer information seeking. A good deal of prior research used a digital camera in the context of consumer information-seeking behavior (Ferguson and Ellen 2006; Ma, Liao, and Lee 2010; Su 2007). A pretest of 17 subjects was conducted to choose the digital camera brands that allow for some variances in brand trust. To select digital camera brands available in the US market, we referred to a well known consumer electronics magazine, CNET. About 60 brands are available in the US market. Among them, we did not include rare brands such as Cobra and Concord because trust measures, to some degree, require direct and indirect experience with the brand. It may not be a valid measure for brand trust to evaluate trust about the unknown brand. Based on researchers discussion, we selected Cannon, Kodak, Olympus, Nikon, Pentax and Casio for the pretest. Six digital camera brands available in the US market were selected from CNET.com, and pretested. Two digital camera brands with the highest and lowest brand trust levels were ultimately chosen from the pretest sample: Canon (M 5.7, SD .96 in seven-point scales) and Casio (M 3.5, SD 1.32 in seven-point scales). Two versions of survey questionnaires were randomly sent out to the participant list. Afterwards, the data were collapsed and analyzed as one dataset. Key measures After describing a pre-purchase information search scenario, the online survey questionnaire included overall online information search effort measures and search efforts via different product information sources as key dependent variables. Then, source credibility of each product information source and brand-related factors, such as brand familiarity and brand trust, were measured as predictor variables. As control variables, product-related factors, that is, knowledge, involvement, purchase involvement, and Internet search skills were measured. Finally, background information of the participants, such as age and gender, was gathered. As specied in Table 1, brand trust was measured by averaging six seven-point Likert scales, which were adapted from Li et al.s (2007) two-factor model. Brand familiarity was measured by using a single semantic differential scale. Six seven-point semantic differential scales were averaged to create source credibility measures. In addition, search effort was measured by asking about the intention to search given a scenario, rather than asking about actual past search behavior. Two items, on time spent and search effort, were averaged to create the search effort measures. All the items were measured on a sevenpoint scale. This study also included product-related factors that have been repeatedly examined in prior literature on consumer information searching (Srinivasan 1990): product category involvement, purchase involvement (Beatty and Smith 1987), and product category knowledge (Brucks 1986; Johnson and Russo 1984). Internet search skill has also been suggested as one of the key factors inuencing online information searches (Jepsen 2007; Peterson and Merino 2003). During the hypothesis testing process, the productrelated factors and search skills were controlled to isolate the effects of the predictors proposed. Results Sample characteristics and descriptive statistics for key measures Of the 125 respondents, 65% were female. Most of their ages ranged from 18 to 23. Their current school year was evenly distributed (freshmen: 22%, sophomore: 28%, junior: 28%,

Table 1. Key variable measures. Measures - Benevolent/Honest/Has a good will - Expertise/Competent/Knowledgeable Measures Flanagin and Metzger (2007)

Constructs

Source credibility (semantic differential items)

- Benevolence (three items) - Expertise (three items) Overall search effort (two seven-point scales)

Authors

Search effort per source (two seven-point scales)

Authors

Brand Trust (six seven-point Likert scales) - Performance competence (three items) - Benevolence intention (three items)

Li et al. (2007)

Brand familiarity (seven-point semantic differential scale) Product category knowledge (two items)

Brucks (1986)

Journal of Marketing Communications

Product category involvement (four items)

- How much would you search more information about Brand A digital camera on the Web? (Not at all a great deal) - How much time would you spend on nding more information about Brand A digital camera on the Web? (Not at all a great deal) - How likely you are to use the following sources to nd out more information about Brand A digital camera? (Denitely would not denitely would) - How much time would you spend on nding out more information about Brand A digital camera? (Not at all a great deal) - Brand A does a good job - I expect Brand A to deliver on its promise - I am condent in Brand As ability to perform well - The quality of Brand A is very consistent - Brand A has good intentions toward its customers - Brand A will respond constructively if I have any product-related problems Brand A would do its best to help me if I had a problem Familiar unfamiliar Past experience with using the brands digital camera (Yes 1, No 0) - How familiar do you think you are with digital camera as a product category? (Unfamiliar familiar) - How knowledgeable are you about digital cameras compared to the average consumer? (One of the least knowledgeable one of the most knowledgeable) - In general I have a strong interest in digital cameras - Digital cameras are very important to me - Digital cameras matter a lot to me - Digital cameras are very relevant to me

Beatty and Talpade (1994)

363

364 C. Lee et al.

Table 1 continued Measures Measures Mittal (1995)

Constructs

Purchase involvement (3 items)

Online search skill (2 items)

- In selecting from many types and brands of digital camera available in the market, would you say that I would care a great deal as to which one I buy? - How important would it be for you to make a right choice of digital camera? - In making your selection of digital camera, how concerned would you be about the outcome of your choice? - How condent are you that you can nd product information you are looking for online? - Rate your own search skill compared to the average people.

By authors

Journal of Marketing Communications

365

senior: 22%). Forty-three percent of the respondents were mass communication majors and the rest were from other colleges. Ninety-four percent of the participants had purchased a product online. Thus, it appeared that the sample is appropriate for investigating online pre-purchase information search. Descriptive statistics and a correlation matrix among key measures are presented in Table 2. Inter-item reliability tests were performed by using Cronbach a. The results of all the composite measures were higher than the conventional cut-off level (.70, Hair et al. 2005) except for search self-efcacy.

Hypotheses testing The inuence of brand factors on overall search efforts online H1-1 and H1-2 predicted the negative correlation between brand-related factors such as brand trust (H1-1) and brand familiarity (H1-2) and overall search efforts on the Web. To test these hypotheses, hierarchical regression analysis was performed for overall intention to search for branded product information on the Web. Product-related factors were controlled to observe the pure effects of brand factors. As presented in Table 3, adding brand trust and brand familiarity to the model did improve the variance of overall search efforts for branded product information online (DR2 .044, F(2, 117) 3.35, p , .05). Brand trust (b .24, p , .05) appeared to positively inuence overall search efforts online as opposed to our prediction whereas brand familiarity (b 2 .09, p . .05) did not inuence overall search efforts online. Thus, the opposite direction of H1-1was found and H1-2 was not supported.

The inuence of brand factors on search efforts via each information source RQ1 addressed the extent to which brand-related factors inuence consumers information search effort through different sources. Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted separately for the four different information sources. Product-related factors and credibility factors of each source were controlled in this process. Table 4 shows that brand factors were found to signicantly inuence search efforts for ofcial brand sites only (DR2 .06, p , .05). Brand trust was found to positively inuence branded product information search efforts via ofcial brand sites (b .22, p , .01), whereas brand familiarity appeared to negatively inuence ofcial brand sites searches (b 2 .29, p , .01). For third-party websites such as epinions.com or consumerreports.org, and for e-retailers dealing with digital cameras, brand factors did not appear to inuence branded product information search efforts. Brand familiarity, on the other hand, does play a role in a consumers use of personal blogs for branded information searches. Regarding RQ1, brand factors appeared to inuence information searches via brand websites rather than other information sources such as e-retailer sites and third-party sites. To a lesser degree, if one is familiar with a brand, it is more likely for him/her to use personal blogs for information searches. Source credibility and its sub-dimensions RQ2 examined the source credibility and its sub-dimensions, such as expertise and benevolence, of different product information sources. Table 5 showed the descriptive statistics of credibility and its sub-dimensions for each source. The signicance tests

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for key measures.

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

366

C. Lee et al.

1. Brand familiarity 2. Brand trust .404** 3. Overall search .112 .331** effort 4. Search effort for 2 .213* .254** .312** brand websites 5. Search effort for .222* .257** .392** .069 third-party sites 6. Search effort for .038 .215* .463** .183* .635** e-retailer sites 7. Search effort for .245** .077 .310** 2 .072 .428** .277** personal blogs 8. Brand site 2 .155 .234** .101 .627** 2 .036 .158 2 .001 credibility 9. Third-party .224* .371** .310** .116 .488** .326** .150 .154 credibility 10. E-retailer .063 .333** .428** .221* .408** .522** .198* .320** .469** credibility 11. Personal blog .184* .226* .233** .037 .199* .144 .492** .081 .377** .343** credibility 12. Product category .459** .195* .223* .055 .194* .101 .104 .013 .315** .140 .106 knowledge 13. Product category .297** .260** .255** .075 .145 .131 .123 .131 .193* .087 .089 .601** involvement 14. Purchase .232** .334** .441** .209* .244** .284** .103 .204* .297** .287** .190* .451** .556** involvement 15. Search self.163 .141 .179* .009 .363** .338** .145 .098 .348** .309** .160 .443** .183* .339** efcacy Mean 5.45 5.03 5.09 5.14 5.08 5.18 3.67 5.03 5.18 4.70 3.92 4.52 4.86 5.73 5.38 Standard deviation 2.00 1.12 1.40 1.49 1.46 1.42 1.61 0.98 1.12 1.04 1.10 1.29 1.60 1.18 1.06 Cronbach a N/A .93 .87 .86 .82 .88 .85 .86 .91 .88 .89 .86 .97 .88 .69

*p , .05; **p , .01.

Journal of Marketing Communications

367

of mean differences were performed using a multiple of the paired t-test. Ofcial brand websites and third-party websites were perceived as most credible among the four online information sources. A paired t-tests results revealed that the difference in credibility scores between ofcial brand sites and third-party sites were not signicant  official2third 2 .15 (SE .12), t 2 1.2, p . .05). E-retailer sites were found to be (X the third most credible product information source; personal blogs scored the lowest among the four sources in terms of overall credibility (below the mid-point with 4 on a seven-point scale). The credibility sub-dimensions of each information source were also examined. Note that the expertise sub-dimension reects online consumers perceived expertise evaluation of product information contained in each source. Ofcial brand websites scored the highest in this dimension, followed by third-party websites, e-retailer websites, and personal blogs, respectively. All the expertise scores among the four information sources were signicantly different. Benevolence is one dimension of credibility measuring the motivational aspects of each information source. In this dimension, third-party websites earned the highest score, signicantly higher than the others. E-retailer websites were rated the second highest in benevolence. As shown in Table 5, ofcial brand sites and personal blogs were lowest but above mid-point (4 out of seven-point scale), with insignicant difference.

The relationship between source credibility of individual information sources and search efforts via each source H2 was set up to test the positive inuence of the source credibility factor on branded product information searches via certain types of websites. H2 was tested by using hierarchical regression analysis for each information source. Model 2 of Table 4 indicated that when credibility factors such as benevolence and expertise perception were considered, the explanatory power of the model signicantly improved for all the information sources. Among other information sources, credibility perception of ofcial brand websites most explained the variances of consumers information seeking via brand
Table 3. Hierarchical regression for overall search efforts for brands on the Web. B Model 1

p .008 .876 .963 .000 .778

(Constant) 1.940 Product category knowledge .019 .018 Product category involvement .005 .005 Purchase involvement .497 .417 Search self-efcacy .036 .027 Model summary: R square .192, F 7.05, d.f.1 4, d.f.2 119, p .000 Model 2

(Constant) 1.169 .137 Product knowledge .067 .061 .611 Product involvement 2 .018 2 .020 .857 Purchase involvement .427 .358 .001 Search self-efcacy .018 .014 .884 Brand trust .301 .240 .011 Brand familiarity 2 .065 2 .092 .348 Model summary: R square .235, F 6.01, d.f.1 6, d.f.2 117, p .000 Model comparison: R square change .044, F change 3.35, d.f.1 2, d.f.2 117, p .038

368

Table 4. Hierarchical regression for search efforts for each source on the Web. Standardized regression coefcients b Ofcial brand sites .006 2 .063 .256** 2 .078 R2 .05 .128 2 .144 .133 2 .137 .349** .352** DR2 .37** .239* 2 .149 .116 2 .148* .363** .229* .224** 2 .290** DR2 .06** 2 .132 .058 .035 .249** .274** .164 2 .011 .163 DR2 .02 2 .059 .057 .039 .240** .286** .156 DR2 .12** 2 .160 .091 .107 .222** .231** .269** DR2 .12** 2 .156 .088 .104 .222* .231* .264** .016 2 .010 DR2 .00 2 .026 .030 .123 .321** R2 .14** 2 .179 .054 .222* .332** R2 .16** Third-party sites E-retailer sites Personal blogs 2 .023 .106 .013 .135 R2 .03 2 .020 .117 2 .069 .081 .282** .256* DR2 .17** 2 .124 .128 2 .042 .098 .260* .269** 2 .129 .222* DR2 .00

C. Lee et al.

N 125

Model 1

(Constant) Product knowledge Product involvement Purchase involvement Search self-efcacy

Model 2

(Constant) Product knowledge Product involvement Purchase involvement Search self-efcacy Benevolence of each site Expertise of each site

Model 3

(Constant) Product knowledge Product involvement Purchase involvement Search self-efcacy Benevolence of each site Expertise of each site Brand trust Brand familiarity

*p , .05; **p , .01.

Journal of Marketing Communications

369

sites (DR2 .37, p , .01). Thus, H2 was supported; source credibility does predict the usage of specic information sources in the pre-purchase context. RQ3 was posed to observe the relative importance of credibility sub-dimensions in inuencing usage intention of each information source. Table 4 provided some implications for RQ3. In Model 3 of Table 4, two credibility sub-dimensions were considered with product-related factors and brand factors in explaining the variances of search efforts via each information source. First, both benevolence (b .36, p , .01) and expertise (b .23, p , .01) perception of brand sites were found to positively inuence search efforts via ofcial brand sites. The ndings from RQ1 suggested that ofcial brand sites were superior to others in terms of expertise dimension, but also perceived as moderately benevolent, second to third-party websites. Given the two ndings from RQ1 and RQ3, we conclude that product information searches of ofcial brand sites occur when online searchers perceive the brand sites not only as expertise but also as benevolent. Second, benevolence perception was found to be a signicant factor explaining information searches via third-party websites. This nding was consistent with the nding from RQ1 that third-party sites were superior to others in terms of benevolence. Lastly, it appeared that both expertise and benevolence perception signicantly inuence information searches via e-retailer sites and personal blogs. Conclusions and discussion Applying the concept of trust as a risk-reducing mechanism and the framework of cost benet analysis, this study attempted to examine the roles that brands and source credibility play for different online information sources in the context of branded product information searching. It rst predicted a negative relationship between brand trust/familiarity and the overall branded information search efforts. Contrary to the expectation, the results of the regression analyses found the positive effect of brand trust on overall search effort and no signicant relationships between brand familiarity and the overall search efforts. Our data did not support the hypothesis that less risk perception of a brand, or high brand trust leads to less search effort. We speculated two alternative explanations for this unexpected result. Our results suggest that branded product information seeking occurs following conrmation bias (Nicholson 1998) rather than as a risk reducing mechanism. As consumers perceive a branded product in consideration sets trustworthy, they may want to look for information that conrms their beliefs about the branded product. Relatedly, purchase involvement was found to be a signicant predictor regarding the overall search efforts. It is possible that the search behavior for branded products is different from that of general, unbranded product information search in that it is more specic, associated with pre-purchase conditions, and dependent on the desired utility provided by each type of search source. However, the possibility that conrmation

Table 5. Mean comparisons of credibility and its sub-dimensions for each source. Overall credibility Ofcial brand sites E-retailer sites Third-party sites Personal blogs 5.03 (.98) 4.70 (1.04) 5.18 (1.12)a 3.92 (1.10)
a

Expertise 5.63 (.92) 4.63 (1.25) 5.23 (1.29) 3.48 (1.17)

Benevolence 4.43 (1.25)b 4.76 (1.13) 5.13 (1.15) 4.36 (1.28)b

Note: All the pairs of mean differences are signicant at p , .05 except for superscripted pairs of a and b.

370

C. Lee et al.

bias comes into play in pre-purchase information seeking does not reject the risk reducing hypothesis. The unexpected result may be due to the idiosyncrasy of this study setting. Brands used in the study might not reach risk thresholds that trigger respondents to search more. In the case of a brand with a signicantly low trust level, consumers may want to search for more information about the brand. In the case of overall search efforts, variables related more to the decision or act of purchasing, such as purchase involvement, seem to play a more direct role. Medium high trusted branded products may lead to conrmatory information search online in prepurchase branded product search stage. When specic online information sources are considered (RQ1), the brand factors we examined appeared to signicantly inuence the search efforts for some types of online sources. First, consumers tend to search a brands ofcial website more when they have a higher trust of the brand. Second, consumers tend to search a brands ofcial website more when they are less familiar with the brand. These ndings can be explained by the characteristic of ofcial brand websites. In general, ofcial brand websites provide brand identity information as well as accurate product information. They are also easily searchable on the Internet compared to other categories of information sources such as neutral information sources (e.g. electronic specialized websites containing experts reviews) or consumer-driven e-WOM websites (e.g. blogs). Besides the searchability of ofcial brand websites, conrmation bias that people look for information conrming their high level of brand trust can explain the positive relationship between brand trust and uses of brands websites. On the other hand, consumers may want to check out the identity of the brand that they are unfamiliar with. The sources of e-retailers and third-party sites are not signicantly linked to the brand factors. The ndings point to the important function of ofcial brand sites as both an information source to increase familiarity with its products and to validate, or even enhance, the level of trust that might lead to purchases. It seems that personal blogs play a more visible role when a consumer is more familiar with a certain brand. Thus, their function might be suited to a higher level of branding process such as brand images, attitudes, and relationships. In sum, high level of brand trust seems to play a positive role in the online information searches of branded products in the pre-purchase information search stage. In addition, the searchability of ofcial brand sites seemed to lead to the positive relationship between brand trust and uses of ofcial brand sites. This study also found that ofcial brand and third-party websites are regarded as having more source credibility in online branded information searching, while e-retailer sites and personal blogs are perceived to have less credibility (RQ2) (see Figure 1). Ofcial brand sites, third-party websites, e-retailers, and personal blogs exhibit decreasing levels of credibility based on the perceived expertise of the sources. On the other hand, third-party and e-retailer sites seem to score higher in the motivational aspect of source credibility. The results are logical, as the nature of ofcial brand and third-party sites are supposedly more information-driven, focused on the brands of interest, and less personality-driven, which might lead to higher expertise evaluation. Comparatively, third-party and e-retailer sites might be seen as more neutral sources of information than personal blogs or a brands ofcial online site; the latter two represent the opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of selfinterest (see Figure 1). Another nding to note is that search self-efcacy predicted the uses of third-party websites and e-retailer websites for branded product information search. Proper level of search efcacy leads to uses of third-party websites and e-retailer websites for branded product information search. The less searchability of personal blogs and the

Journal of Marketing Communications

371

Brand sites

High credibility Thirdparty

High expertise

Eretailers

Personal blogs

High benevolence

Figure 1. Credibility dimensions as a search source of brand information. Note: The position of each source reects the relative differences in each dimension, but not the absolute values of Table 5 in each dimension of source credibility.

relative ease of searchability of brand sites did not seem to make signicant differences in uses of the two information sources. As predicted, the study found that credibility of each source accounted for signicant amount of variances in search effort using each information source. Source credibility, including most sub-dimensions, signicantly impacted the use of the four types of search sources separately, especially in the case of ofcial brand sites (RQ3 and H2). The results again point to the importance of examining online branded information search behavior in the context of types of information sources and the perceived functions that they typically serve. Also, in situations when consumers are searching online for information about a specic brand, not just a general product, they are likely to have some pre-conceived familiarity or knowledge about the brand already. Therefore, it is likely that the consumers would be looking for additional information or for validation of what they already know in accordance with conrmation bias hypothesis. Literature on pre-purchase online information search behavior rarely addresses the role of brands and source credibility in the context of different types of online information sources. This study sheds light on the inuence of brand trust, familiarity, and source credibility in such search efforts. It also points to the important role of ofcial brand sites in various pre-purchase conditions related to different brand situations. The study has a few limitations, which can inform future research. The ndings may not be generalized to the brands of other product categories because the study was conducted in the specic context of a pre-purchase search of digital camera brands. The impacts of brand factors on brand information searching may vary depending upon the searchability of products (e.g. search goods vs experience goods). Also, another future study might delve into the impacts of more complex brand concepts, such as brand attitude and brand knowledge structure, on branded product information searches. In this study, search efforts were measured as intention to search rather than self-reports on past search behavior. To help validate our ndings, it would be helpful to use behavioral

372

C. Lee et al.

data, such as click stream data, or use observational research instruments such as keystroke capture technology. Regarding source factors, source credibility was the only information utility considered in this study. When explaining consumer preference for information sources, it would be helpful to examine the impacts of other information utilities such as relevance, accuracy, and variety of information source.

Notes on contributors
Chunsik Lee earned his masters degree from the University of Minnesota in 2007 and is currently a doctoral student in Advertising at the University of Florida. His research interests lie in consumer information seeking and Internet advertising, including keyword search advertising and online video advertising. Junga Kim is a Masters student at the University of Minnesota and is interested in health information search behavior on the Internet. Sylvia M. Chan-Olmsted (PhD, Michigan State University) is Associate Dean for Research and Professor of Telecommunication in the College of Journalism and Communications at the University of Florida. Her research focuses on media branding, strategy, and management.

References
Alba, J.W., J. Lynch, B. Weitz, C. Janiszewski, R. Lutz, A. Sawyer, and S. Wood. 1997. Interactive home shopping: Consumer, retailer, and manufacturer incentives to participate in electronic marketplaces. Journal of Marketing 61, no. 3: 38 53. Andreasen, A.R. 1968. Attitudes and customer behavior: A decision model. In Perspectives in consumer behavior, ed. H.E. Kassarjian and T.S. Robertson, 498 510. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman & Company. Bakos, J.Y. 1997. Reducing buyer search cost: Implications for electronic marketplace. Management Science 43, no. 12: 1676 92. Barry, L.L. 1995. Relationship marketing of services, growing interest, emerging perspectives. Journal of Academy of Marketing Science 23, no. 4: 236 45. Beatty, S.E., and S.M. Smith. 1987. External search effort: An investigation across several product categories. Journal of Consumer Research 14, no. 1: 83 95. Beatty, S.E., and S. Talpade. 1994. Adolescent inuence in family decision making: A replication with extension. Journal of Consumer Research 21, no. 2: 33241. Bettman, J.R. 1979. An information processing theory of consumer choice. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publications. Brucks, M. 1986. The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior. Journal of Consumer Research 12, no. 1: 1 16. Chaudhuri, A., and M.B. Holbrook. 2001. The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing 65, no. 2: 81 93. Chen, S. 2001. Assessing the impact of the Internet on brands. Journal of Brand Management 8, nos. 4 5: 288 302. Chen, S.C., and G.S. Dhillon. 2003. Interpreting dimensions of consumer trust in e-commerce. Information Technology and Management 4, nos. 2 3: 303 18. Cho, S. 2008. The effect of Internet use motivations and opinion leader characteristics on eWOM behaviours. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago, August 6 9. Claxton, J.D., J.N. Fry, and B. Portis. 1974. A taxonomy of prepurchase information gathering pattern. Journal of Consumer Research 1, no. 3: 35 42. Conchar, M.P., G.M. Zinkan, C. Peters, and S. Olavarrieta. 2004. An integrated framework for the conceptualization of consumers perceived risk processing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 32, no. 4: 41836. Coyle, J.R., and S.J. Gould. 2007. Internet Integrated Marketing Communications (I-IMC): Theory and practice. In Internet advertising: Theory and research, ed. D.W. Schumann and E. Thorson, 69 88. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Journal of Marketing Communications

373

Delgado-Ballester, E., J.L. Munuera-Aleman, and M.J. Yague-Guileen. 2003. Development and validation of a brand trust scale. International Journal of Market Research 45, no. 1: 35 53. Doney, P.M., and J.P. Cannon. 1997. An examination of the nature of trust in buyer seller relationships. Journal of Marketing 61, no. 2: 35 51. Erdem, T., and J. Swait. 1998. Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. Journal of Consumer Psychology 7, no. 2: 131 57. . 2002. The impact of brand credibility on consumer price sensitivity. International Journal of Research in Marketing 19, no. 1: 1 19. Ernst & Young, LLP. 1998. Internet shopping: An Ernst & Young special report. http:/www.ey.com/ shopping.html. Ferguson, J.L., and P.S. Ellen. 2006. The devil you know: Effects of suspicion of an information sources identity. Advances in Consumer Research 33, no. 1: 273 4. . 2007. The role of site features, user attributes, and information verication behaviors on the perceived credibility of Web-based information. New Media & Society 9, no. 2: 319 42. Grant, R., R.J. Clarke, and E. Kyriazis. 2007. A review of factors affecting online consumer search behavior from an information value perspective. Journal of Marketing Management 23, nos. 5 6: 519 33. Grnhaug, K. 1972. Risk indicators, perceived risk and consumers choice of information sources. Swedish Journal of Economics 74, no. 2: 246 62. Hair, J.F., R.L. Tatham, R.E. Anderson, and W. Black. 2005. Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hoefer, S., and K.L. Keller. 2003. The marketing advantages of strong brands. Brand Management 10, no. 6: 421 45. Hoffman, D.L., and T.P. Novak. 1996. Marketing in hypermedia computer-mediated environments: Conceptual foundations. Journal of Marketing 60, no. 3: 50 68. Hovland, C.I., I.L. Janis, and H.H. Kelley. 1953. Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Howard, P., L. Rainie, and S. Jones. 2001. Days and nights on the Internet: The impact of a diffusing technology. American Behavioral Scientist 45, no. 3: 383 404. Hoyer, W.D., and D.J. MacInnis. 2004. Consumer behavior. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifin Company. Jacoby, J., and L.B. Kaplan. 1972. The components of perceived risk. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Conference of the Association of Consumer Research, ed. M. Venkatesan, 38293. Urbana, IL. Jarvenpaa, S.L., and N. Tractinsky. 1999. Consumer trust in an Internet store: A cross-cultural validation. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 5, no. 2: 1 26. Jepsen, A.L. 2007. Factors affecting consumer use of the Internet for information search. Journal of Interactive Marketing 21, no. 3: 21 34. Johnson, E.J., and J.E. Russo. 1984. Product familiarity and learning new information. Journal of Consumer Research 11, no. 1: 542 50. Keller, K.L. 2002. Strategic brand management. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kerstetter, D., and M. Cho. 2004. Prior knowledge, credibility, and information search. Annals of Tourism Research 31, no. 4: 961 85. Kiel, G.C., and R.A. Layton. 1981. Dimensions of consumer information seeking behavior. Journal of Marketing Research 18, no. 2: 233 9. Kulviwat, S., C. Guo, and N. Engchanil. 2004. Determinants of online information search: A critical review and assessment. Internet Research 14, no. 3: 245 53. Lee, M.K.O., and E. Turban. 2001. A trust model for consumer Internet shopping. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 6, no. 1: 75 91. Li, F., N. Zhou, R. Kashyap, and Z. Yang. 2007. Brand trust as a second-order factor. International Journal of Market Research 50, no. 6: 817 39. Luhmann, N. 1979. Trust and power. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Ma, Z., K. Liao, and J.J.-Y. Lee. 2010. Examining comparative shopping agents from two types of search results. Information Systems Management 27, no. 1: 3 9. Mayer, R.C., J.H. Davis, and F.D. Schoorman. 1995. An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review 20, no. 3: 709 34.

374

C. Lee et al.

McKnight, D.H., and N.L. Chervany. 2002. What trust means in e-commerce customer relationships: An interdisciplinary conceptual typology. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 6, no. 2: 35 59. McKnight, D.H., C.J. Kacmar, and V. Choudhury. 2004. Shifting factors and the ineffectiveness of third party assurance seals: A two-stage model of initial trust in a Web business. Electronic Markets 14, no. 3: 252 66. Metzger, M.J., A.J. Flanagin, K. Eyal, D.R. Lemus, and R.M. McCann. 2003. Credibility for the 21st century: Integrating perspectives on source, message, and media credibility in the contemporary media environment. In Communication Yearbook 27, ed. P.J. Kalbeisch, 293 335. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Meyer, P. 1988. Dening and measuring credibility of newspapers: Developing an index. Journalism Quarterly 65, no. 3: 567 74. Mittal, B. 1995. A comparative analysis of four scales of involvement. Psychology & Marketing 12, no. 7: 663 82. Moorthy, S., B.T. Ratchford, and D. Talukdar. 1997. Consumer information search revisited: Theory and empirical analysis. Journal of Consumer Research 23, no. 4: 263 77. Murray, K.B. 1991. A test of services marketing theory: Consumer information acquisition activity. Journal of Marketing 55, no. 1: 10 25. Nelson, P. 1974. Advertising as information. Journal of Political Economy 82, no. 4: 729 54. Nicholson, R.S. 1998. Conrmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology 2, no. 2: 175 220. Peterson, R.A., and M.C. Merino. 2003. Consumer information search behavior and the Internet. Psychology & Marketing 20, no. 2: 99 121. Pew Internet & American Life Project Database. 2007. Consumer choice. http://www.pewinternet. org/Shared-Content/Data-Sets/2007/September-2007 Consumer-Choice.aspx. Plummer, J., S. Rappaport, T. Hall, and R. Barocci. 2007. The online advertising playbook: Proven strategies and tested tactics from the advertising research foundation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Punj, G.N., and R. Staelin. 1983. A model of consumer information search behavior for new automobile. Journal of Consumer Research 9, no. 4: 366 80. Ratchford, B.T., M. Lee, and D. Talukdar. 2003. The impact of the Internet on information search for automobiles. Journal of Marketing Research 40, no. 2: 193 209. Reichheld, F.F., and P. Schefter. 2000. E-loyalty: Your secret weapon on the Web. Harvard Business Review 78, no. 4: 105 13. Schmidt, J.B., and R.A. Spreng. 1996. A proposed model of external consumer information search. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 24, no. 3: 246 56. Schlosser, A.E., T.B. White, and S.M. Lloyd. 2006. Converting web site visitors into buyers: How web site investment increases consumer trusting beliefs and online purchase intentions. Journal of Marketing 70, no. 2: 133 48. Sealy, P. 1999. How e-commerce will trump brand management. Harvard Business Review 77, no. 4: 171 6. Sichtmann, C. 2007. An analysis of antecedents and consequences of trust in a corporate brand. European Journal of Marketing 41, nos. 9 10: 9991015. Sinha, I. 2000. Cost transparency: The Nets real threat to prices and brands. Harvard Business Review 78, no. 2: 43 50. Srinivasan, N. 1990. Pre-purchase external search for information. In Review of marketing, ed. V.A. Zeithaml, 153 89. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association. Stigler, G.J. 1961. The economics of information. Journal of Political Economy 69, no. 3: 213 25. Su, B. 2007. Consumer e-tailer choice strategies at on-line shopping comparison sites. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 11, no. 3: 135 59. Ward, J.C., and A.L. Ostrom. 2003. The Internet as information mine eld: An analysis of the source and content of brand information yielded by net searches. Journal of Business Research 56, no. 11: 907 14. Ward, M.R., and M.J. Lee. 2000. Internet shopping, consumer search and product branding. Journal of Product & Brand Management 9, no. 1: 6 20. Woodruff, R.B. 1972. Brand information sources, opinion change, and uncertainty. Journal of Marketing Research 9, no. 4: 414 8.

Copyright of Journal of Marketing Communications is the property of Routledge 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.