Contrasting the Efficacy of the Type of Influencer to the Type of Product: The Mediating Effect of Perceived Authenticity

With advent of artificial intelligence applications, managers and policymakers are challenged to incorporate such transformative technology into their practices. Drawing upon the match-up hypothesis, this article aims to examine how consumers respond to utilitarian (food), symbolic (Gucci bag) or stigmatized (cigarettes) products endorsed by artificial intelligence influencer compared to human influencer. The phenomenon by which utilitarian/hedonic attributes trade-offs determine preference for, or resistance to, artificial intelligence-based recommendations in comparison to human influencer’s product recommendations. Research sheds light on social media’s dark side by investigating the effectiveness of influencer marketing in endorsing stigmatized product type. A ‘web-based between-subjects’ experiment was conducted on 236 Egyptian female samples with an equal exposure to artificial intelligence ( n = 118) and human influencers ( n = 118). After validating the designed scenarios and measurement model, structural equation modelling was employed to test the hypotheses. Results show that there is no significant difference between artificial intelligence and human influencers for symbolic product recommendations. Compared to artificial intelligence, human influencers are more effective at making recommendations for utilitarian products, while artificial intelligence influencers are more effective at making recommendations for stigmatized products. Moreover, perceived authenticity leads to variation between human and artificial intelligence influencer effectiveness for symbolic product recommendations.