An egg is also convincing
It is striking that the type of profile image of the tweeter sending the negative tweet does not play a role. The study looked at the possible difference in the use of the type of profile image of the tweeter (egg image, abstract image or a real photo of the tweeter). The expectation was that negative tweets from an egg account would be perceived as less reliable and therefore less convincing than, for example, a tweeter with a real photo of a face. This turned out not to be the case: regardless of the profile image of the tweeter, negative product-related tweets about a brand have a damaging effect on brands.
This outcome implies that brands must respond to all negative statements about their brand through webcare: latvia phone number list including negative tweets from egg accounts.
egg account
In the follow-up study, in which consumers (n = 236) were exposed to negative tweets about cake from the fictitious brand CakeFactory, another striking phenomenon emerged. When the negative tweets come from an expert tweeter in the field of the product in the tweet, these negative statements have a stronger effect than when they come from an inexperienced person. Consumers experience an expert person as more trustworthy than an inexperienced person: 'That person knows about it, so it must be true'.
When consumers were exposed to a negative tweet about CakeFactory cake from a pastry chef (expert), they were more strongly influenced than when the same tweet came from a pet keeper (inexpert). Negative tweets from expert tweeters lead to a stronger reduction in brand trust than negative tweets from inexpert tweeters. The same effect occurs with the intention to spread negative messages about the brand: this tendency is considerably stronger when an expert tweets than when an inexpert does so. However, it is important here that the tweeter is selfless.