Value creation through social media : how influencer marketing can affect brand attitude, perceived brand image, and overall brand equity of luxury brands

In the rapidly changing landscape of the retail industry, companies are forced to frequently adapt to the newest digital technologies to stay relevant. The dramatic growth of social media marketing has resulted in brands resorting to influencer marketing strategies, targeting millions of American users on social platforms every single day. With a higher level of trust and relatability compared to traditional celebrities, these influencers offer brands a convenient platform to reach consumers and enhance their brand equity. However, social media platforms have become over-saturated with sponsored influencer endorsements of brands, leaving consumers yearning for honest reviews. The question arises whether content sponsorship plays a role in consumer evaluations and the resulting brand equity. This study experimentally investigates the influence of the existence of content sponsorship of a post on brand attitude, brand image, and overall brand equity, moderated by different types of perceived fit (i.e., brand-influencer fit, brand-consumer fit, and influencer-consumer fit). To examine the research questions, a one-way between-subjects experimental design was employed using an online survey with two conditions (i.e., a sponsored content group and an organic content group), resulting in 135 valid responses from a college student sample. The results did not indicate any significant differences between the organic condition and the sponsored condition. However, our analysis showed that perceived influencer-consumer fit has a moderating effect on the relationship between type of post and brand attitude. Thus, we conclude that congruency between consumers and influencers is an important factor in brand equity efforts of luxury brands. Further, this study supported previous research in the effect of brand attitude on both brand image and overall brand equity. Brand attitude was found to have a significant impact on brand image, the effect of which carried through to overall brand equity as well. We therefore emphasize the importance of brand attitude in luxury brands’ attempts to enhance brand image and brand equity. Since the sample in this study consisted of college students, future research should investigate the topic of influencer marketing with generations less familiar with digital technologies and social media. We also suggest researching the impact of content sponsorship with different stimuli, including other luxury brands and influencer ethnicities, to allow more generalizability of findings

Deferoxamine mesylate in patients with intracerebral haemorrhage (i-DEF): a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 2 trial

BackgroundIron from haemolysed blood is implicated in secondary injury after intracerebral haemorrhage. We aimed to assess the safety of the iron chelator deferoxamine mesylate in patients with intracerebral haemorrhage and to establish whether the drug merits investigation in a phase 3 trial.MethodsWe did a multicentre, futility-design, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial at 40 hospitals in Canada and the USA. Adults aged 18-80 years with primary, spontaneous, supratentorial intracerebral haemorrhage were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive deferoxamine mesylate (32 mg/kg per day) or placebo (saline) infusions for 3 consecutive days within 24 h of haemorrhage onset. Randomisation was done via a web-based trial-management system centrally in real time, and treatment allocation was concealed from both participants and investigators. The primary outcome was good clinical outcome, which was defined as a modified Rankin Scale score of 0-2 at day 90. We did a futility analysis: if the 90% upper confidence bound of the absolute risk difference between the two groups in the proportion of participants with a good clinical outcome was less than 12% in favour of deferoxamine mesylate, then to move to a phase 3 efficacy trial would be futile. Primary outcome and safety data were analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population, comprising only participants in whom the study infusions were initiated. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02175225, and is completed.FindingsWe recruited 294 participants between Nov 23, 2014, and Nov 10, 2017. The modified intention-to-treat population consisted of 144 patients assigned to the deferoxamine mesylate group and 147 assigned to the placebo group. At day 90, among patients with available data for the primary outcome, 48 (34%) of 140 participants in the deferoxamine mesylate group, and 47 (33%) of 143 patients in the placebo group, had modified Rankin Scale scores of 0-2 (adjusted absolute risk difference 0·6% [90% upper confidence bound 6·8%]). By day 90, 70 serious adverse events were reported in 39 (27%) of 144 patients in the deferoxamine mesylate group, and 78 serious adverse events were reported in 49 (33%) of 147 patients in the placebo group. Ten (7%) participants in the deferoxamine mesylate and 11 (7%) in the placebo group died. None of the deaths were judged to be treatment related.InterpretationDeferoxamine mesylate was safe. However, the primary result showed that further study of the efficacy of deferoxamine mesylate with anticipation that the drug would significantly improve the chance of good clinical outcome (ie, mRS score of 0-2) at day 90 would be futile.FundingUS National Institutes of Health and US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke