I don't want your apology

Sammanfattning: Social media influencer (SMI) transgressions when endorsing brands have become a current topic and various SMI-related scandals have gained massive media coverage in the past decade. SMIs themselves face backlash and a damaged personal brand image and the endorsing brands express either support or dissociation, through termination of contracts with the endorsed influencer. Despite its increasing prominence and critical importance for brands, SMI transgressions have not been extensively researched in conjunction with effective image response strategies to apply post-transgression. This quantitative study, therefore, investigates the subject of SMI transgressions and endorsing brands, by measuring the effectiveness of two common response strategies - the mortification strategy (giving an apology) versus the silence strategy - and their effects on social media users. More specifically, their attitudes towards the SMI and purchase intentions of the endorsed brand. Furthermore, we examine the effect of authenticity as a mediator for improving SMI image when adopting a mortification strategy. Using a fictitious experiment in an online survey, 94 responses (female, U.S.-based were obtained and analyzed using Independent sample t-Tests, Paired sample t-Test, General Linear Model, and Regression Process model 6 (SPSS macro) for mediation analysis. The findings show that an SMI transgression affects followers' perceptions and attitudes toward the SMI image and their perceived authenticity negatively. Also, the purchase intentions of the endorsed brand were affected negatively. The examined response strategies do not, however, provide support that either strategy can repair the SMI's image nor reduce negative effects on purchase intentions. No significant mediation relationship of authenticity to improve SMI image could be proven. The study results have implications for SMIs, brands and researchers within the field, and suggest that using a response strategy such as apologizing or being silent after a transgression has no significant effect on repairing the personal brand image of the influencer nor on the purchase intentions of the brand. After a transgression, both the perception of the SMI and purchase intentions remain damaged. These novel insights contribute to the existing body of literature on the subject of social media influencer marketing and crisis communication. Further research on response strategy efficacy over a period of time should be conducted to investigate this relevant topic further.