Exploring Trust in Media Brands Today: Definition, Dimensions and Cross-national Differences

ABSTRACT

Understanding consumers’ perception of media brands in today’s digitalized world is of major importance to media brands and advertisers alike. Influencing the media consumption experience, trust is one of the key drivers of this perception. Based on the differing business models as compared to brands, a specific foundation for the research on media brands is essential. Based on qualitative and quantitative data from Germany, the US, and South Korea we are able to present 17 “media” categories, building the foundation for a user-centric definition of media brands. Further, we identify eleven dimensions constituting the multidimensional construct of media brand trust.

Introduction

Due to the attention economy and an ongoing growth of media choices, media brands and consumers in today’s world are affected by massive competition and the challenge to decide (Nelson-Field, 2020). Consumers in this environment not only choose which media to engage with, but actively shape the public perception of each brand through their own actions (Holt, 2004). Media digitization and media convergence further influence the media environment through the increasing extent of co-created content produced by companies and consumers distributed through the same channels (Malmelin & Villi, 2017). This convergence is characterized by the establishment of media conglomerates integrating content and brands across many channels and consumers taking media in their own hands (Moisander, Könkkölä, & Laine, 2012). Additionally, even brands traditionally operating in non-media related businesses establish their own media functions and search for ways to manage this area (Baetzgen & Tropp, 2015). This reality, shaping the process of consumers deciding for one and against another media brand, is influenced by conscious and unconscious factors that need to be evaluated by media brand managers in terms of developing and achieving strategic goals (Santoso, Konopka, Rosenstreich, & Wright, 2017).

In this environment, media managers are facing the growing need for valid parameters measuring media brand success to provide an attractive offering (Siegert, 2015). As research has shown, a positive perception of the media environment not only influences the media brands themselves but also the advertising industry (Enehasse & Sağlam, 2020; Kwon, King, Nyilasy, & Reid, 2018). Trust as one of the major elements of a positive perception of a media brand can thus increase advertising effectiveness significantly (Malthouse, Calder, & Tamhane, 2007). Among other things, this is due to the halo effect describing the impact of the media environment on advertising effectiveness (Liu-Thompkins, 2019). Besides this impact, trust was also shown to be driving the selection and consumption of (news) media (Strömbäck et al., 2020), consumers’ purchase intention in general (Chong, Yang, & Wong, 2003) and even general satisfaction with a brand (Yuana & Sutarso, 2021). Additionally, trust in the media system in general is of major influence on consumers’ decision for a channel to engage with (news) media overall (Fletcher & Park, 2017; Kalogeropoulos, Suiter, Udris, & Eisenegger, 2019). Given these implications of consumers’ trust in (media) brands, it is of major relevance to media brand managers to be able to understand how trust in their brand is established and to improve upon this knowledge.

Previous research on (media) brand trust largely focused on brands in general or, if directed toward media, news (or informing) media, neglecting entertaining media overall. However, there are significant differences between brands and media brands for example presented by Malthouse and Calder (2018). Additionally, peculiarities in the consumption and nature of informing and entertaining media (Prior, 2005) (i.e. “informing and rational” content concerning “reality and facts” vs. “uninformative and emotional” content “based on fiction and hyperbole” (Edgerly & Vraga, 2017)) need to be considered. Therefore, to approach the area of media brands and media brand trust (MBT) specifically, the development of a substantive and timely definition of the term “media brand“, incorporating all different backgrounds (i.e. informing & entertaining brands), is required. The development of this definition then allows for the establishment of the multidimensional structure of MBT distinguished from available trust models and directed toward the media area in general.

By providing the relevant definitions and MBT conceptualization, this research will be beneficial to media managers from all different kinds of areas, but also to advertisers, consumers and, if integrated into public operations, even for the credibility of the public sector as a whole (Ariely, 2015).

Literature review and hypothesis development

Brand and media brand definitions

Media brands and brand trust measurements are a momentous topic in marketing literature with numerous articles published in the past (e.g. Malmelin & Moisander, 2014; Sung & Kim, 2010; Xie & Peng, 2009). However, while brands in general have been at the core of (trust) research for several decades, this focus has not been directed toward media brands in particular. Nevertheless, this focus is of major importance due to the special role of brand trust in the media sector. It is based on the interplay between media and society that can be described as a circular model of media representation and societal influence (Hodkinson, 2016). Trust in media brands thus not only has an impact on the brands themselves, but also on social environments and society (Ariely, 2015; Chan-Olmsted & Kim, 2022).

When approaching this topic and observing brands in general and media brands in specific, several significant differences are noticeable that require a precise differentiation. First of all, while brands in general depend on advertising to fund their business, brands in general rather rely on selling their goods and services to consumers (Eisend & Knoll, 2012). Hence, brands in general operate in a persuasive manner, exploiting media channels mostly for the communication of products and services available to the market (Malthouse & Calder, 2018). In contrast, media brands can rather be characterized as ”social shells“, resulting in a business operation that is distinguished through owned media content, user-generated content and advertising distributed through the same channels (Ots & Hartmann, 2015). Media markets can be characterized as two-sided markets, providing content to consumers and reselling their attention to advertisers simultaneously (Anderson & Jullien, 2015). While traditionally media brands operated in a one-directional environment, creating and distributing content mostly through their own channels, in this digital age of media everybody can be a creator and content is available through various channels and often in close proximity to content produced by consumers and competitors (Hess, 2014). Furthermore, business processes connected to media brands are rather based on engagement with consumers’ attention as the main success factors (Malthouse & Calder, 2018). Finally, differences between trust in brands in general and media brands do not only play a role to the media brands themselves, but especially need to be observed based on the stronger impact of media on consumer’s perception of social reality (Shrum, 2009).

Analyzing media and media brands, various studies from different perspectives are available. Evaluating these publications allowed us to provide an overview on the current media (brand) research. Aggregating several approaches, media (brands) can be characterized as consumption categories (Chan-Olmsted, 2011), as external business functions (Malmelin & Moisander, 2014), as intrinsic functions of the company (Voci et al., 2019), based on their cultural relevance as platforms (Ots & Hartmann, 2015), and as communicative approaches (Hess, 2014). While the above mentioned publications focus on several areas of the market such as media in general and media organizations, research on media brands in specific and a definition to specify which brands are “media brands” has not been published yet.

In addition to those approaches on establishing a comprehensive description of media, research in the past separated between companies that operate as ”common carriers“, responsible for the provision of technologies required to transmit, receive and consume media content, and “media publishers“ that produce and distribute content themselves (Colombo & Garrone, 1998). This definition involved the possibility of governments to regulate certain areas assessed as common carriers, while others were guarded through the protection of journalistic activities (Lister, 2001). However, due to the digitalization of media, this separation has resulted in uncertainties on how business models in a digitalized world (e.g. digital platforms) fit into this structure and continue to be observed from a variety of research fields (e.g. Bhagwat, 2022; Deacon, 2015; Gao & Yang, 2015; Speta, 2002; Tremolada, 2021, Volokh, 2021; Yoo, 2021). Resulting from this uncertain environment, extracting the elements relevant for media brands is of major importance to present a theoretically sound definition applicable in today’s media landscape.

Analyzing the available publications, all presented definitions were developed from a media (brand’s) perspective and built on a theoretical or practical point of view. Consumers’ perceptions on media and non-media distinction and their specific and possibly differing expectations have hardly been taken into account in past publications. It is thus of major importance to consider those audiences and approach the topic from a media consumer’s perspective. Since media brands largely rely on their audience’ consumption, only by understanding their consumers’ view of this area managers can distinguish between competitors and other players in the market and adapt their strategy and communication accordingly (Punj & Moon, 2002). The main challenge for the determination of such a valid definition is the rapid evolution of business processes and distribution channels that has been ongoing for several decades (Scolari, 2013). Therefore, combining available theoretical publications with consumers’ perception is of major relevance in terms of developing a timely and substantive definition of media brands.

Resulting from this requirement, our first two research questions are:

RQ1:

How can brand categories be separated into “media” and “non-media” from a consumer’s perspective?

RQ2:

What is a timely, user-centric definition of “media brands”?

Trust constructs and trust measurement

Significantly driving the perception and usage of media, understanding and measuring trust is relevant to media brands and the advertising industry (Strömbäck et al., 2020). Advertised brands benefit from trust in a chosen media environment due to its significant impact on “consumer behavior intentions“ (Enehasse & Sağlam, 2020). Trust plays this key role through its impact on commercial exchange relationships by creating a competitive advantage and promoting marketing success (Wottrich, Verlegh, & Smit, 2016). This way, trust is not only influential for consumers’ cognitive and emotional decisions, but subsequently also drives consumer–brand relationships (Ozdemir, Zhang, Gupta, & Bebek, 2020; Punyatoya, 2019). While media brands in today’s world are confronted with trust issues, for example presented in the area of news media by Park, Fisher, Flew, and Dulleck (2020), media managers require a better understanding on why trust is established and how it can be improved.

Approaching this topic of measuring trust in media brands, the analysis of available brand trust scales regarding relevant dimensions is essential as the foundation of a trust model specifically addressing media brands. However, due to an ever-evolving media landscape and the essential differences between brands in general and media brands in specific it demands the supplementary analysis of consumer perceptions to determine a comprehensive set of elements underlying MBT. While various trust scales have been developed focusing on different brand- and non-brand-related concepts (e.g. Gurviez & Korchia, 2003; Munuera-Aleman, et al. 2003), no research has been focused on transferring these findings to the specific analysis of trust in media brands. By analyzing the available literature on (brand) trust we determined several elements and dimensions that were introduced in terms of the development of a multidimensional (brand) trust scheme. The main dimensions underlying trust identified in past publications are (1) Competence, describing the organizational ability to realize promises based on available expertise, skills and leadership (e.g. Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Delgado‐Ballester, 2004; Hegner & Jevons, 2016; Li, Xu, Li, & Zhou, 2015; Mal, Davies, & Diers-Lawson, 2018; Xie & Peng, 2009); (2) Credibility, characterized as the ability to meet a consumer’s expected performance (e.g. Erdem, Swait, & Valenzuela, 2006; Fisher, 2016; Gurviez & Korchia, 2003; Palmatier, Dant, Grewal, & Evans, 2006); (3) Intentionality (or Benevolence in some cases), representing consumers’ perception of the brand as being “responsible and caring despite the vicissitudes of future problematic situations” (Delgado‐Ballester, 2004; Gurviez & Korchia, 2003; Li, Xu, Li, & Zhou, 2015; Munuera-Aleman, Delgado-Ballester, & Yague-Guillen, 2003); (4) Transparency, describing the availability of information on a company’s internal processes and open communication about content production (Busser & Shulga, 2019; Kang & Hustvedt, 2013; Mal, et al. 2018; Yuana & Sutarso, 2021); and (5) Integrity, describing the belief that a brand is consistent, honest and responsible (Delgado‐Ballester & Luis Munuera‐Alemán, 2005; Gurviez & Korchia, 2003; Mal, Davies, & Diers-Lawson, 2018). Since the publications defining those elements as underlying trust focused on organizations, brands or trust measures in general, it is necessary to conduct additional research on the importance of each dimension and possible additions required in terms of MBT. This expansion demands particular attention on cognitive and emotional responses, as media consumption has significant influences on both areas (Potter & Bolls, 2012). Shaping brand image, those emotional and cognitive factors should be a significant part of media brands’ strategic operations (Syed Alwi & Kitchen, 2014). Furthermore, as trust is an important factor for the consumption of and decision for certain media brands, defining this concept is of major relevance (Schranz, Schneider, & Eisenegger, 2018).

With those peculiarities in mind our study adds elements from the research presented by Chan-Olmsted and Kim (2022) who determined additional dimensions relevant to consumers when it comes to trust in media brands specifically. From this research we expanded the initial set of dimensions of brand trust presented above through the elements of (6) Relevancy, describing “the degree to which the brand provides things relevant to [consumers’] lives”, (7) Experience, incorporating the relationship between consumers and a brand that is built on past interactions, (8) Time, specifically focusing on the time a brand is known (and consumed) for, and (9) Commercialism, directed toward the level of and approach on earning money through media products, especially through the integration of advertising. In their explorative study, Chan-Olmsted and Kim (2022) found those to have an impact on consumers’ trust in media brands specifically. By including those dimensions into our research we aim for their verification through additional, multi-national research to establish a model applicable in a broader environment.

Finally, besides the brand trust research presented above and the exploratory study specifically focused on MBT, we further added the dimensions of (10) Likeness, describing the perceived similarity between oneself, a brand and other consumers from this brand (Tuškej, Golob, & Podnar, 2013) and (11) Halo, incorporating findings on the importance of mutual influences between content and environment on media perception (Liu-Thompkins, 2019). Those dimensions were not specifically included in brand trust measurements in the past. However, they have been shown to be of significant influence on the perception of (media) brands and should thus be incorporated into a comprehensive MBT analysis.

Based on qualitative data we generated through focus group interviews (FGIs) we conducted an explorative approach that permits the determination of a new and comprehensive delineation of MBT. In line with the categorization of brands, this approach allows for the amplification of theoretical definitions through consumers’ perceptions. By conducting the FGIs we generated a broad dataset which we used to evaluate established dimensions and provide content for the inductive development of new elements (Wilkinson, 1998). As MBT plays a role on an international level, by conducting FGIs in multiple countries we were able to analyze similarities and differences in terms of the MBT. Combining available publications with the data generated through the FGIs we aim for the definition of a structure underlying MBT. Therefore, our third and fourth research questions are the following:

RQ3:

Which dimensions constitute trust in media brands?

RQ4:

Are there country-based specifics concerning media brand trust?

Methodology

Based on the diverse nature of our research questions we decided to apply a mixed-method design. We chose this process due to the advantage of mixed-method studies in the analysis of social realities, providing different types of data to the analysis of complex circumstances (Dellinger & Leech, 2007). We organized three types of surveys to generate data allowing for the development of the valid definition of “media brands” and the connected MBT scheme. First, we conducted a quantitative media classification online survey in Germany, the US, and South Korea, collecting empirical data on the categorization of (media) brands. The decision for those markets was based on the different media systems (US – private, South Korea – public, Germany – mixed), but also on the objective to generate a culturally diverse dataset. Second, we performed FGIs in the three countries to gather qualitative insights into the perception of and interaction with media brands. This step was especially focused on the determination of influences and dimensions underlying the construct of MBT. Third, we interviewed experts from media research and practice to evaluate our findings and to challenge the developed area of construct. Tapping into the expertise of our interview partners, this process provided feedback on the validity of the consumer-based media categorization and allowed for the revision of the proposed structure of MBT and the definition of each dimension.

Collecting quantitative data

First, to address RQ1 and RQ2, we conducted an online quantitative media classification survey using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to generate data on the perception of brand categories as “media” and ”non-media”. This categorization was established to provide a top-level overview of brand categories that distinguish included brands as “media” and “non-media” from a consumer’s perspective. To ensure validity we provided 100 participants from Germany, the US and South Korea (n = 300) with a list of local and global brands to be categorized according to the scheme “media”, “non-media”, and “I don’t know this brand”. By asking participants about this categorization in their respective language (i.e. “Media” in the US, “Medien” in Germany, “미디어“in Korea) and by surveying participants in those markets with significant differences (i.e. regarding culture & media systems), we were able to generate a comprehensive dataset combining national perceptions of “media” and to establish a conceptualization that is applicable beyond the single countries observed. While the understanding of “what is media” might differ in the three markets, by approaching the topic from a national-specific perspective, surveying participants in their respective mother tongue, and finally aggregating the findings generated in the three markets, the final dataset allowed for the development of a combined observation. Besides the country-specific recruitment of participants and a required level of survey expertise (>50 completed surveys; response-approval >90%), we did not implement additional demographic criteria. Before entering the survey, all participants gave their written consent to participate. No personal data was collected.

During the process of brand selection we followed a thorough process aiming for the establishment of a comprehensive foundation. First, we generated an extensive list of categories such as “Social Media”, “Print Publishers” and “Radio Stations” etc. that were previously mentioned as media in scientific publications (e.g. Reeves, Yeykelis, & Cummings, 2015; Schranz, Schneider, & Eisenegger, 2018; Voci et al., 2019) and expanded this list by further categories that could be added to this group (e.g. Events, Dating Platforms, Online Retailers). Those additional categories were chosen based on the findings generated in our literature review and thus consisted of brands that operate in two-sided markets (Anderson & Jullien, 2015), generate revenues through advertisements (Eisend & Knoll, 2012), rely on the engagement with consumers (Malthouse & Calder, 2018) or provide the means to other brands to connect with their audience (Colombo & Garrone, 1998). Additionally, to incorporate brands traditionally considered as “common carriers”, we added the category “network providers” to gain insights into this area from a consumer’s perspective.

Second, we collected brands for each media category on a local and global level to generate a substantive representation of each category. During the establishment of this list we focused on brands directly connected to consumers and selected those brands specifically matching the initially defined brand categories. This resulted in the integration of some parent companies (e.g. Amazon, Disney) and specific sub-brands (e.g. PlayStation, Skype) that are well known amongst consumers. In cases where parent company and sub-brand are interacting with consumers directly we added both to the dataset (e.g. Apple, Apple Music, Apple TV). This process resulted in the creation of 29 categories consisting of 387 brands in total. Taking care of cross-country equivalence incorporating differences between locally and globally operating brands, the list of brands varied slightly with 127 brands included in Germany, 139 brands in the US, and 121 brands in South Korea. All categories and brands included in each subgroup were thus initially defined by the researchers. The included brands were then provided to the participants to gather their perception of those brands as either “media” or “non-media”. By analyzing the data gathered for all brands included in the survey and aggregating the ratings according to the initially defined categories, we were then able to quantitatively differentiate between categories perceived as “media categories” and “non-media categories” from a consumer perspective.

Collecting qualitative data

Following the quantitative approach we conducted qualitative surveys in the form of semi-structured FGIs in the same markets (Germany, US, South Korea), allowing for the international observation of consumer interactions with and the perception of media brands and MBT. This data was subsequently used to address RQ2–4, allowing for the definition of “media brands“, as well as the determination of the dimensions underlying MBT and country specific differences regarding this construct. We decided to collect the data through FGIs especially due to the explorative nature of RQ3, which is suitable to the in-depth survey nature best applied to topics about which little is known (Stewart & Shamdasani, 2014). By interviewing participants in a group we were able to generate a comprehensive understanding by gathering insights into norms, beliefs and values that are common in the lives of all interviewees (Bloor, 2001).

As the study aims at media users in general, besides the goal of using a maximum variation sampling allowing the identification of patterns across different cases and cultures, no specific additional qualification criteria for participation were required (Hoepfl, 1997). Focus groups were organized based on homogeneity within groups and heterogeneity between groups, aligning with the focus group methodological principles (Morgan & Krueger, 1998). Since we conducted interviews in three countries it was important to ensure comparability regarding participants and survey execution (van Bezouw, et al. 2019). Therefore, participants in all countries were either enrolled in undergraduate or graduate studies or working as research assistants. In the end, we recruited 55 participants (19 in Germany, 16 in the US, and 20 in South Korea). The number of participants per interview was determined based on the saturation principle and ranged from four to eight participants per group (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Each participant was rewarded with a 25€ voucher. All interviews were conducted digitally and lasted about 60 minutes. We recorded the interviews via audio recordings which were transcribed and anonymized subsequently. In line with the research questions addressed in this study, we developed the interview guide focusing on the establishment of an understanding of media brand definitions and usage, as well as the definition of MBT and relevant dimensions underlying the construct. Before analyzing the interviews a professional translator transferred the Korean interviews to English, which were then double-checked by a native speaker. The German and English interviews remained in their original language, as native speakers for both languages were part of our research team. To establish a coding guide applicable in all countries we then analyzed and interpreted one interview per country to be able to compare initial findings to the category set we developed deductively.

After conducting the interviews we deductively developed a category system. We defined thematic categories based on the available literature on media (brands) (e.g. Malmelin & Moisander, 2014; Voci et al., 2019) and (media) brand trust (e.g. Chan-Olmsted & Kim, 2022; Mal, Davies, & Diers-Lawson, 2018; Munuera-Aleman, Delgado-Ballester, & Yague-Guillen, 2003). Emerging from the literature review, we developed the set of eleven dimensions presented above as relevant to consumers’ trust in media brands. Additionally, we collected all mentions of brands perceived as media and general descriptions of what participants defined as media from their perspective. Based on this initial set of categories, we defined coding rules and category definitions underlying the process of data analysis.

Through hermeneutical and interpretive reading of the interviews, we deductively and inductively expanded the set of relevant categories by another twelve explorative codes. The final codes were established in line with the questionnaire developed to structure the FGI interviews and additional codes emerging from the reading process. They consisted of all relevant aspects initially determined from the literature review on consumers media perception, usage and trust (see Appendix A1). Additionally, we defined all possible dimensions of MBT introduced above as codes in the analysis. As interviews from all three countries were combined to establish the final coding guide we were then able to combine all qualitative findings and generate a dataset applicable for national and multi-national analysis. The detailed list of categories and subcategories resulting from this deductive and inductive approach can be found in Table 1.

Table 1. Structure of the focus group analysis.

Category	Trust Dimensions	Explorative Codes
Subcategory	Relevancy Integrity Transparency Likeness Experience Benevolence Credibility Competence Halo Time Commercialism	Daily Media Usage Media Usage Times Media Brand Definition Media Usage Reason Media Categories Trust Definition Media Brand Trust Reason Impact of Trust Reasons to Distrust Media Values Emotions & Media Commercialization of Media Traditional & Modern Media

Based on this coding scheme we established the analysis guide to be used in the subsequent examination of all nine interviews. By reading through all transcripts again we determined the final coding guide which we used in the coding and analysis process. During the coding phase conducted with MAXQDA two researchers read through and coded all interview transcripts in line with the coding guide. By aggregating and validating both coders’ results we generated a final set of coded segments and validated this outcome through inter-coder agreement (for details see Section 4.2.). Subsequently, we created summaries of the different codes and categories which were instrumental to the final phase of analysis.

Concluding the phase of qualitative analysis we followed the process of thematic preparation and analysis (Kuckartz, 2014). First, we prepared thematic matrices with quotes and summaries, as well as case-based summaries of the different categories. Building on this foundation we conducted thematic analysis by observing the data in line with those categories, the relationship between categories and sub-categories, and the connections between different sub-categories.

Expert interviews

Finally, we challenged our results on RQ1–4 with a series of expert interviews. Specifically, we wanted experts to revise our selection of brands for the MTurk task and discuss the classification results. Furthermore, we wanted them to review the dimensions underlying MBT obtained from the FGIs and our findings regarding country-specific differences. We conducted the expert interviews in a “theory generating” manner, aiming for the analytic reconstruction and communicative clarification of subjective perceptions of the experts’ knowledge (Bogner & Menz, 2009). This process enabled us to pose open questions and ask for personal opinions and insights in terms of tapping into the perception of experts from theoretical and practical backgrounds.

To recruit the experts, we reached out to eligible media researchers and practitioners at a global scale. Nine experts working in media research as well as three practitioners from media business practice agreed to take part in our interviews. Interviews were conducted with experts from six countries (e.g. Germany, Australia, the US). All interviews were conducted via Zoom or Microsoft Teams and were systematically documented.

Results

Media classification online survey

Based on the comprehensive set of categories analyzed in the multi-national survey, we were able to establish a distinct classification of (media) categories. In line with RQ1, by aggregating all responses and categorizing each brand according to the brand category scheme, we developed a distinct classification of brands into “media” and “non-media” (excluding all “I don’t know this brand” responses). All responses were grouped by the brand category scheme initially defined and presented in Chapter 3.1, thus allowing for the clear differentiation between categories perceived as “media” and “non-media” according to consumers’ perception. We decided to define categories as “media category” if the brand-aggregated rating yields more than 50% agreement. Table 2 provides the resulting classification.

Table 2. Categorization of media and non-media brands.

Media Categories (>50%)	Non-Media Categories (≤50%)
Television Channel Television Network Radio Station Radio Programme News (Online) News (Offline) News (Agency) Film Studio (Parent) Film Studio (Major) Music Label Streaming Provider (Music) Streaming Provider (Video) Social Media Print Publisher Outdoor Advertiser Text Messenger Service Video Chat Service	Gaming (Platform) Gaming (Hardware) Gaming (Software) Gaming (Mobile) Hardware Provider Software Provider Dating Platform Event Network Provider Online Retailer Global Tech Brands Influencers

Not surprisingly, we see that all traditional media categories such as TV, radio and news in general are still strongly perceived as media. Further, digital entertainment brands such as streaming (e.g. Netflix, Spotify) and social media (e.g. Facebook, TikTok) were clearly classified as media. However, it is important to note that brands with a broad set of sub brands focusing on different areas (e.g. Amazon, Apple) need to be differentiated by the specific sub brands. For example, this resulted in the umbrella brands (Amazon, Apple) not being perceived as media, while sub brands like Amazon Prime Video or Apple Music were clearly rated as media brands by the participants. Brands focusing on the provision of technology required for media distribution such as hardware (e.g. Xbox, Huawei), software (e.g. Microsoft, Ubuntu) and network providers (e.g. AT&T, T-Mobile) were not part of the consumer’s media perception.

When observing the quantitative results for each market separately, some differences were found that need to be highlighted. First, participants of the quantitative survey in Germany displayed the broadest understanding of media brands (62%) as compared to consumers from the US (58%) and South Korea (45%). This resulted in “Music Labels”, “Podcasts”, and “Print Publishers” rated as media only in Germany and the US. Additionally, almost all categories connected to gaming (i.e. Hardware, Software, Mobile) were perceived as media only in Germany. The only exception from this finding are “Gaming Platforms” which were also rated as media in the US. However, for most categories included in our analysis, similar results were reported. This resulting categorization is supporting the development of a user-driven definition of media brands in the next step.

International focus group interviews

Following the process of qualitative content analysis described in Chapter 3.2.1, we examined the FGIs by categorizing statements according to the analysis structure developed deductively and inductively. With this approach we aimed for the development of a consumer-based media brand definition and the establishment of a reliable structure of dimensions underlying MBT. Coding was conducted by two researchers separately, generating different datasets to be aligned subsequently. Based on the aggregation and validation of both coders’ results we generated a set of 881 coded segments. To establish intercoder reliability we compared the coded segments from the two researchers and examined the results for full, partial and missing overlap. By counting full overlaps and individually deciding on partial matches we determined the inter-coder agreement to be 96%. The inductive definition of explorative codes as listed in Table 2 enabled us to dive deeper into consumers’ perceptions of media brands.

First, we conducted our development on the basis of the media categorization presented in Chapter 3.1.2. and statements recorded by participants of the FGIs. This thematic analysis was based on 64 statements recorded from all three markets. Additionally, we collected 24 statements on the impact of trust in media brands reported by participants. When thinking about how to define media, the main narrative reported by FGI participants revolved around the means of communication, as well as the distribution and consumption of information. Responses showed that media is used to share own messages, but also to engage with content produced by brands and other consumers. The main statements on different sub themes of trust can be found in Table 3. All statements were professionally translated from German and Korean to English to be included in this overview.

Table 3. Subthemes of media brand definitions.

Subthemes	Examples	Quantitative Results
Media Categories	“In the past, there were some media that we thought were limited. If it’s a newspaper, there’s a medium called a newspaper, and if it’s a movie, there’s a movie theater platform. If it’s a television, there’s a platform called television. And I think they’re getting better and better so that we can communicate more interactively through the development of online and computers or something like this. And I think the development of the platform was also important in that.” (KOR – Int.1 - Transl.) “Because I mean, when you said media, I immediately thought, you know, news outlets” (US – Int.2) “I see this more for what purpose I use the media, that is, for example, information media, such as news channels, news apps or entertainment media such as Netflix or communication media such as WhatsApp, Facebook, etc.” (DE – Int.1 - Transl.)	n = 24 GER: n = 10 US: n = 4 KOR: n = 10
Media Definitions	“Because the term media itself is derived from the term connection. So I think it’s the media that people with information communicate with each other, exchange things, or deliver things in one direction. I think it’s the media that can communicate and connect with each other in our daily lives.” (KOR – Int.1 - Transl.) “I think media is just any kind of app or way of communication with someone sharing their ideas. So like radio, obviously media, TVs, media, the apps like CNN is media or snapshots of media, just ways that people can share ideas with each other.” (US – Int.3) “In the past, I would have said that media is the journalistic field, so to speak. So television, newspapers and so on. And now it’s just become much more. Because you can stream everything, because we have different social media channels. I would call all of that media. Facebook and Instagram are also media. They are also means of transmission, yes, things that facilitate exchange between people. So spreading information, exchanging opinions.” (DE – Int.3 - Transl.)	n = 40 GER: n = 17 US: n = 11 KOR: n = 12
Impact of Media Brand Trust	“I think trusting the media means that I can take my time to appreciate the value of the media and consume it. Unreliable media does not seem to lead to continuous use of media afterwards, even if it is once consumed because it is misled by provocative titles or images. I think I won’t subscribe anymore if I start to think that I don’t trust it.” (KOR – Int.3 - Transl.) “From my perspective, trust actually plays a key role on what kind of input or if I’m using media or not, if they’re not trustworthy, according to my views, or to my knowledge, or to my experience, then I don’t consume those media anymore.” (US – Int. 2) “If there is trust, then I use it more.” (DE – Int. 3 - Transl.)	n = 24 GER: n = 9 US: n = 9 KOR: n = 6

By combining the quantitative data generated through the surveys presented in Chapter 3.1. with the results from the FGIs we were able to establish a multi-national definition of “media brands”. We approached this definition by conducting simultaneous triangulation of the two different data types by first individually analyzing our findings and then carving out the overarching definition (Morse, 1991). From the FGIs we determined that traditional areas such as print media, radio and TV are top of mind when thinking about media brands. Regarding more recent technologies, especially video and chat messaging services, as well as social media, were frequently mentioned media categories. Those findings were then compared to our media categorization results from the three markets, showing the significant overlap of qualitative and quantitative findings (e.g. TV, radio, news, streaming, messengers). From those findings we then developed the following media brand definition:

A media brand is a differentiated product/service that provides the means for the creation and distribution of self- and externally-produced audio and visual content as well as for the communication through various channels with the objective to connect, inform or entertain the receiver.

In line with RQ2, this definition allows for the differentiation between brands and media brands necessary for managers and advertisers alike. Based on the development of the definition in a multi-national approach, it is applicable in an international environment. Due to the diverging perception of brands and media brands and the varying impact of the nature of trust, this differentiation is essential to take substantiated strategic decisions. Based on this foundation, we continued with the development of the comprehensive structure of MBT as based on the international FGIs.

Approaching this topic, we asked participants to think about the influence of trust in brands perceived as ”media“on their consumption of such brands. Participants from all three markets stated that an increase in trust will go concomitant with usage intention (see Table 3). Trust was hereby reported to be connected to a media brand’s value and to have a major impact on their decision for or against certain media brands. Additionally, although some participants stated that they would consume media brands they do not trust, they noted that their continuous usage of brands however is significantly influenced by trust in that brand.

Building on our findings and analyzing available publications on brand trust, it is reasonable to develop the MBT model as a multidimensional construct, embracing a broad set of influences on consumer-media brand connections and the cognitive and emotional aspects of such interactions (e.g. Munuera-Aleman, Delgado-Ballester, & Yague-Guillen, 2003; Potter & Bolls, 2012). By aggregating codes and creating summaries of the coded segments we created a set of 249 statements that were connected to the dimensions defined based on our literature review and preceding studies. While those sections can be linked to the elements underlying our initial proposition of the construct MBT, the inductive and deductive definition of explorative codes as listed in Table 1 enabled us to dive deeper into consumers’ perceptions of media brands, as well as the impact of MBT on their interactions. The resulting scheme clearly shows the dimensionality of MBT as all those dimensions were mentioned independently and connected to why consumers trust a media brand or not. The main statements on each dimension of MBT are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Thematic analysis of the dimensions of media brand trust.

Dimension	Examples	Quantitative Results
Relevancy	“I think I’m picking some media depending on what information I personally want to get.” (KOR – Int.3 - Transl.) “[…] is this something that I even want to listen to or watch or read?” (US – Int.1) “So the newspapers I consume are valuable to me because I feel they […] inform me about what I want to know.” (DE – Int.3 - Transl.)	n = 9 GER: n = 1 US: n = 4 KOR: n = 4
Integrity	“Trusting the media gives me […] information that is as unbiased as possible.” (KOR – Int.3 - Transl.) “I think trust to me, is knowing that I can go to the source, and they’ll give me all of the facts, and that they will give it to me in a way that’s not biased.” (US – Int.3) “Maximum objectivity and diversity. So different views on the same subject from different authors and yes, very independent.” (DE – Int.3 - Transl.)	n = 45 GER: n = 14 US: n = 15 KOR: n = 16
Transparency	“They subtly explained what they were trying to say. Looking at it, I realized through the newspaper that depending on how they see the same facts, how they report, what pictures they use, and what pages they put them in, there could be many different results.” (KOR – Int.3 - Transl.) “[…] for me, […] emotional trust is just a matter of private and […] media trust is more a matter for facts and transparency.” (DE – Int.2 - Transl.)	n = 23 GER: n = 8 US: n = 4 KOR: n = 11
Likeness	“I think I tend to trust sources that have the same views as me” (US – Int.3) “So you have experience with [… a media brand] and that fits with your own attitude. And the more one trusts, the more one also reads that and then at some point you no longer read anything else.” (DE – Int.3 - Transl.)	n = 10 GER: n = 2 US: n = 8 KOR: n = 0
Experience	“[…] trust goes up the more you use it.” (KOR – Int.1 - Transl.) “[…] it’s like a relationship. And […] if you break that trust, then I lose it. So, just building the […] foundation over time of being consistent and truthful.” (US – Int.2) “So I think trust for me only builds over time […]. If something is said, done and that is in line with what was said before and that happens more often, no negative examples happen, then I would say that trust then builds up.” (DE – Int.3 - Transl.)	n = 30 GER: n = 4 US: n = 17 KOR: n = 9
Benevolence	“That’s why traditional media has a sense of justification and responsibility, and social media is much less like that, so I think traditional media [I tend] to trust more than social media.” (KOR – Int.3 - Transl.) “So trust is […] the absence of mistrust, that is, of the fear of being affected in some way. […] So to be afraid that someone is working against one’s own interests.” (DE – Int.3 - Transl.)	n = 6 GER: n = 3 US: n = 1 KOR: n = 2
Credibility	“I think it’ll be less reliable if there’s a lack of credibility” (KOR – Int.2 - Transl.) “When I think of trust, I tend to look mostly for reliable sources that support the main argument presented. […] I look for evidence that is supporting that argument mostly.” (US – Int.3) “Trust in the media is all about ensuring that the information is correct.” (DE – Int.1 - Transl.)	n = 32 GER: n = 11 US: n = 12 KOR: n = 9
Competence	“I’ve experienced that I can’t trust the media because I’ve seen people who are considered experts on the same topic talk about completely different things.” - (KOR – Int.1 - Transl.) “I can trust someone if they’re an expert in their field. And [even if] I don’t really agree with what they’re saying. I still trust what they’re saying.” (US – Int.2) “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung simply [is] very trustworthy, because the texts are very, very high quality and long. And because I usually know within the text what they have decided on. Why? How was the drafting? The numbers are a bit more accurate. For me, for example, that would be one where I would trust more, because I get even more info.” (DE – Int.1 - Transl.)	n = 19 GER: n = 4 US: n = 6 KOR: n = 9
Halo	“I don’t trust advertisements from the media that I can’t trust.” (KOR – Int.3 - Transl.) “Unfortunately, when I see the news on Instagram, I trust it a little less than the news on TV, even though it’s totally stupid and I actually know that the same people are checking it. But because I always have in the back of my mind, oh, it’s just Instagram.” (DE – Int1 - Transl.)	n = 7 GER: n = 1 US: n = 3 KOR: n = 3
Commercialism	“I think advertising is necessary, but I think it’s better not to advertise behind the scenes, that deceives consumers.” (KOR – Int.2 - Transl.) “I would basically say that it depends on whether I have paid for the medium or not. Because if I’ve already paid for the medium and advertising is still shown, that’s questionable, because then it couldn’t finance itself purely from the aspect of what they deliver to me as a benefit, so to speak.” (DE – Int.2 - Transl.)	n = 49 GER: n = 20 US: n = 13 KOR: n = 16
Time	“So, the media brands that I trust, are the ones that I’ve trusted for the longest. And the reason I trust them is they haven’t given me a reason not to.” (KOR – Int.1 - Transl.) “I think about the ones for me that have been around a really long time. The ones that I’ve seen my whole life.” (US – Int.2) “The […] reason why I watch the Tagesschau […] and think that what is reported there is important, is because I used to see that with my parents, too, that they always watched it.” (DE – Int.1 - Transl.)	n = 20 GER: n = 7 US: n = 10 KOR: n = 3

Visualizing the frequency each dimension was mentioned in total and per country, Figure 1 provides additional insights into the survey outcomes. Responses are separated into records from Germany (black), the US (gray) and Korea (light gray). It highlights the importance of “Integrity“ and “Commercialism“ to consumers on an international scale. While other dimensions were mentioned less frequently, we recorded statements (with one exception, i.e. “Likeness“) for all dimensions in all countries. Comparing the frequency of mentions per country it can be noted that consumers in Germany and Korea are highly focused on a media brand’s “Commercialism“and “Integrity“, while in the US especially the “Experience” with a media brand is relevant for the establishment of trust in the brand.

Figure 1. Frequency and distribution of statements per dimension.

Diving deeper into the analysis, Figure 2 displays the proximity of codes connected to the different dimensions, as well as to those codes initially defined as explorative elements. We produced this graph using MAXQDA to highlight the connections between coded segments (i.e. the proximity of different codes in the same FGI). We have decided to include connections between codes that were located in the same or directly following paragraphs (i.e. stated by one person in the same statement or by one person directly responding to another person’s statement). Elements included are the MBT dimensions (black), explorative codes (gray), as well as the connections between the elements displaying the number of codes with close proximity as described above. To ensure visual clarity, we decided to set the threshold of connections to be shown at minimum ten interactions. We decided for this threshold as there was hardly any benefit by increasing it marginally, while if it is not set at a certain level the visualization is too complex, which diminished its value and rendered the interpretation impossible.

Figure 2. Code-relations-model of trust dimensions.

Interpreting the connections visualized by the code-relations-model helps understanding the internal structure and interactions between MBT dimensions.

First, the dimension of “Integrity” is shown to be connected to most dimensions and appears to be crucial for the emergence of trust in media brands. The dimensions mentioned most frequently in close proximity were “Competence”, “Credibility”, and “Commercialism”. While the first two dimensions highlight the importance of a brands integer operation to gain a professional perception amongst consumers, a media brand’s commercial appearance might shape its perceived levels of integrity. “Commercialism” is only related to four dimensions with “Integrity” and “Transparency” showing the strongest connection. This highlights the importance of independent media production and consistent advertisement placements, as well as the need for transparent disclosure of external influences and advertisements/sponsorships. It is further supported by the strong connection between “Reasons to Distrust” and “Transparency” which highlight the negative impact of low transparency on MBT.

Second, the explorative code “Trust Definition” was coded with the closest connection to “Credibility”. This finding might provide an argument for conceptualizing trust (or trustworthiness) as a dimension of credibility as claimed in past publications (e.g. Erdem, Swait, & Valenzuela, 2006). However, based on the research presented by Ganesan and Hess (1997) and Wu, Huang, and Hsu (2013), as well as our own FGIs, we argue the other way that rather credibility constitutes just one – albeit very important – dimension of a multi-dimensional MBT construct.

Third, while most dimensions show various connections to other dimensions and explorative codes, “Likeness”, “Relevancy”, and “Halo” do not show a close proximity to other elements. However, this does not render those dimensions irrelevant, as they might focus on an aspect of MBT neglected by the rest of the scheme. This notion is based on the importance of all elements for trust in brands reported in the literature. First, including relevancy of the source was shown to refine formal and computational trust models (Paglieri & Castelfranchi, 2014). Second, ”Likeness“ (or the similarity between receiver and source) was also demonstrated to have a significant impact on trust in information. Besides congruence between the receivers’ and senders’ attitude toward the specific topic referred to in the transmitted content, even likeness regarding other areas was proven to positively influence trust in the source (Meijnders et al., 2009). Lastly, the halo effect has been repeatedly shown to be of significant influence for the perception of diverse (media) contents and advertisements consumed in close proximity, and can thus be of major relevance for consumer’s trust toward media brands (Liu-Thompkins, 2019).

Finally, in line with research on the cognitive and emotional interaction of consumers with media brands, our set of evolved dimensions incorporates both. While dimensions such as “Relevancy” (Henderson, Malcolm, & Schandl, 2009) and “Credibility” (Stacks & Salwen, 2014) reflect the cognitive perspective on media brands, “Likeness” (Fournier, 1998) and “Experience” (Shahid, Paul, Gilal, & Ansari, 2022) signal the role emotions play in using media brands.

Besides observing the multi-national results described above, significant differences between the three surveyed markets Germany, USA and South Korea were found in response to RQ4. While most MBT dimensions were mentioned in all three countries, there were regional differences in the importance of dimensions. For example, Table 4 shows that “Likeness” is highly relevant to consumers in the US (7 mentions) while its importance appears to be of much lower significance in South Korea (no mentions at all). The dimension of “Experience” was found to be the most important in the US while it seems to be the least important dimension in Germany. “Commercialism” was recorded most frequently in Germany, participants from South Korea mentioned “Commercialism” and “Integrity” most often. These findings highlight the importance of approaching the development of a valid media brand definition and an MBT framework against an international background.

Expert interviews

Resulting from the expert interviews we were able to generate several important aspects of media brands and MBT that further enhance the definition and dimensions developed in this paper.

First, it was highlighted that media brands regularly take political stands and change the way you think. This is rather uncommon for brands in general. Additionally, brands can check their product to gain consumer feedback before distributing it. In contrast, due to the fast moving media sector, media brands can hardly gather feedback before distribution and need to rely on the quality of production itself. This notion supports our approach of clearly separating brands and media brands.

Second, it was noted that even though all media brands can be described by our definition, it is important to separate media brands into different subcategories as done in study 1. This allows for the establishment of a broad definition as presented in this paper, while it leaves space for different areas to be observed in specific. Due to these characteristics it is important to observe differences between entertaining and informing media brands in the analysis. However, as our research was focused on the development of an overarching definition of media brands, incorporating informing and entertaining entities, this is of relevance to future studies building on this definition and needs to be clarified when observing media brands in specific research projects.

Third, due to the digitalization of the media sector, it is relevant to make sure how online-only and offline-only sub brands of the same company are handled (e.g. Zeit & Zeit online, Amazon & Amazon Prime Video). Based on the results generated in the FGIs we concluded they should be perceived as separate entities.

Fourth, the set of dimensions emerging from our FGI analysis was supported by all experts from theory and practice, adding the cue of future quantitative studies substantiating this model.

Finally, experts agreed that trust might play a role in the decision for or against the consumption of certain media brands. However, due to the attention economy and the excessive availability of content today, the effect should be further analyzed in the future.

Discussion & conclusion

This research is the first to specifically establish a definition of “media brands” and the practical application of this definition to brand categories. Additionally, it is the first research addressing the development of a trust model particularly focused on media brands. Using a mixed-methods approach consisting of quantitative surveys, qualitative FGIs and expert interviews conducted in multiple countries, the research collected data from consumers, media managers and scientific media experts in terms of a valid MBT model. Based on the analysis, we defined 17 brand categories as media (Table 2) and developed a comprehensive structure of eleven dimensions underlying MBT (Table 4). While developing this model and definition, we were able to approach the research questions raised above.

First, brands and media brands share a common core based on their creation of products, services, and content and the need for consumption of their supply. However, when it comes to consumer trust and its impact, brands and media brands show significant differences. While brands operate on a transaction-based approach which is connected to a need for consumer persuasion, media brands rely on a continuing development of trust, as their business model is based on the ongoing engagement with the brand. Hence, we developed a quantitative differentiation between “media categories” and “non-media categories“. While previous studies on the definition of media organizations or certain areas of the media landscape set the basis, they are not sufficient to establish the foundation for the development of the fundamental MBT model as it is not possible to precisely draw the line between brands and media brands. Through quantitative analysis of consumers’ brand perceptions, connected to the statements collected through FGIs, we presented a scheme of 17 media and 12 non-media categories that can be applied in the process of media brand selection. Through combining the theoretical approach with the practical exploration we developed the means to categorize (media) brands based on our research. This result is connected to RQ1 and provides us with the required classification to differentiate between brands and media brands on a scientific basis. Our findings are essential for media brands and advertisers alike, due to the different nature of trust in brands and media brands and the significant impact of trust on consumer perception and advertising effectiveness.

Second, the fundamental differences between brands and media brands already described by Malthouse and Calder (2018) were supported by the findings generated through the multi-national FGIs. Participants reported various reasons for and impacts of MBT that had not been described in past research focused on brands in general. Based on these findings we developed a timely, user-centric definition of the term “media brand”. By combining available literature with the media brand classification and the statements recorded by participants of the FGIs, this definition incorporates all brands that are perceived as media by consumers and thus represents a “democratized“ definition as aimed for by RQ2.

Third, by analyzing available brand trust concepts and comparing those findings through results generated from FGIs, in line with RQ3 we were able to develop a trust model specifically focused on media brands. While the dimensions incorporated in (brand) trust scales and schemes such as the ones presented by Gurviez and Korchia (2003), Mal, Davies, and Diers-Lawson (2018), and Munuera-Aleman, Delgado-Ballester, and Yague-Guillen (2003) (e.g. Competence, Integrity, Credibility) also have an impact on MBT, additional dimensions are required in terms of this measurement. By conducting FGIs in three countries and evaluating the proposed structure in expert interviews, we presented a set of eleven dimensions underlying MBT as inquired in RQ3. In addition to the dimensions introduced in past publications, we expanded this foundation by dimensions that were either neglected or not relevant for the measurement of trust in brands in general. By adding elements such as “Halo”, describing the bidirectional impact of the trust in content and environment on each other, “Time”, characterized as the period a media brand is known for, or ”Likeness“, observing the similarity between consumers’ and brands’ attitudes and perceptions of the world, we were able to approach the development of a trust scale specifically focused on the complex domain of media brands. The chosen dimensions establish the broad structure of MBT and allow for the analysis of media brands from all different sizes, backgrounds, and operating areas. By approaching the research from this overarching perspective we provide a foundation to be applied in a broad media environment, allowing for the application in future studies on the differences in trust between media brands operating in a variety of areas (e.g. informing vs. entertaining brands). While the specific analysis of differences between brands providing different content types has not been conducted in our research, our framework is nevertheless beneficial to theory and practice approaching this topic. Applying the findings presented in this paper and analyzing brands in terms of consumers’ perception of the eleven dimensions connected to MBT can help to generate an understanding of a media brands performance regarding consumers’ trust. From this analysis, differences in the specific MBT dimensions might occur between e.g. informing and entertaining media, building the foundation for further analysis of the different areas and media brands in specific.

Fourth, by analyzing the qualitative and quantitative results on national and international scale, we were able to observe differences in the perception of media brands and the dimensions underlying MBT from different perspectives. This analysis resulted in specific observations such as the definition of gaming brands as media only in Germany. This perception of a broader range of brand categories (such as gaming brands) can be connected to a generally broader perception of “media“ in this country. Aggregating the ratings for all brands included in the survey and comparing the three countries we found a “media brand rating“ of 45% in Korea, 58% in the US and 62% in Germany. This highlights that some areas will be perceived as media in some countries, while in others they are considered non-media. Our research focused on determining the common ground between those perceptions and to establish a definition and categorization applicable in a multi-national environment. Additionally, our research highlighted the fundamental similarity of MBT dimensions on an international basis with only some exceptions such as “Likeness“ only reported in two out of the three countries examined (Germany and US). Approaching RQ4, we were thus able to highlight consistencies and discrepancies from a multi-country perspective, further consolidating the overall findings presented in this paper.

Resulting from these findings, several implications emerge. First, our research provides evidence about the higher complexity of MBT in comparison to trust in brands in general. This finding was supported by the additional number of elements mentioned by participants of the FGIs, but can also be connected to the higher importance of trust for media brands due to their business model based on two-sided markets and the continuous engagement with consumers. Second, in connection to this importance, media brand managers need to be aware of the relevance of trust to the perception and consumption of media content. This was also shown by the comments resulting in the dimension of “Experience”, which were characterized by the notion that diminished trust is hard to regain. Third, the halo effect describing the mutual interaction of content and environment appears to hold when it comes to MBT. Participants in the FGIs noted that the channel they consume media brands through has a significant impact on trust, while trust in content on a platform can also drive trust in the platform itself. This is of major importance for advertisers and media brands distributing their content through third-party channels. Finally, MBT is characterized through cognitive and emotional traits. While previous research provides evidence for this structure of media perception (Potter & Bolls, 2012), our findings support this notion and highlight the importance of including dimensions focused on both areas into a reliable scale. Besides the measurement of MBT, media managers need to follow different approaches in terms of the establishment of a holistic trust perception amongst consumers.

Managerial implications

Our findings have several implications for managers from media brands and advertisers. First, the definition of what a media brand is (and is not) defined from a consumer’s perspective allows for the establishment of a better understanding of the own companies perception in the market. This understanding is fundamental for the evaluation of factors relevant to development of a successful communication with consumers.

Second, based on our results, media brand managers can determine which factors are beneficial and detrimental for the trust in their brand not only from a top-level perspective but also on a more detailed basis. By evaluating the different dimensions individually, managers get a foundation for strategic decisions specifically focused on certain areas with the final outcome of increased trust in the brand.

Third, due to the halo effect, the insights on the perception of each different trust dimension for different media brands is also relevant to advertisers. They can determine and manage their distribution based on those dimensions. By analyzing customer’s perception of the different dimensions of MBT for certain media environments, the determination of advertising strategies and distribution can be aligned with their own specific goals.

Limitations and future research

Our research provides fundamental insights into the nature of MBT and offers an explorative basis for the definition of media brands. The qualitative nature of the chosen methodology, while essential for the fundamental nature of the questions examined in this research, has some limitations which need to be addressed. While the general importance of all elements defined in this research was documented, the specific structure of the construct and the nature of each underlying element need further analysis through quantitative surveys. Only through this empirical analysis, the definition of each element as either dimension or antecedent and the relevance of each of those elements for MBT can be confirmed. While this is of major importance to the overall development of a Media Brand Trust Scale (MBTS) succeeding this research, especially the elements of “Relevancy” and “Likeness” need specific analysis due to the missing connections to other dimensions as shown in Figure 2.

Another limitation of the study is the selection of participants of the FGIs. During the organization of the interviews we took care of all necessary measures to be taken in terms of the generation of valid qualitative data. In line with established focus group methodological principles (Morgan & Krueger, 1998), the interviewees were either enrolled as undergraduate or graduate or even held an academic degree. While this is not an issue for the validity of the generated data in general, perceptions of consumers outside this academic environment and from older demographic backgrounds have not been considered in the development of the MBT structure. Therefore, it is necessary to take care of national representative populations participating in the quantitative surveys to be conducted in the subsequent development of the MBTS.

Based on the quantitative data generated through surveys in Germany, the US and South Korea, in combination with the qualitative findings from the FGIs in the same countries, we determined a multi-national definition of media brands. However, this research was based on a dataset consisting of 100 participants from each country and focused on the definition of media brands from an overarching perspective. Therefore, results generated in this paper should be perceived as a starting point for future research projects. Further surveys with larger, nationally representative samples are required to validate those findings and verify the definitions developed in our research. Additionally, research building on our findings should expand on the initial set of countries included in this survey to make sure the definition presented in this paper is applicable in a global environment. This approach would additionally provide further insights into the general extent of brands to be perceived as media in different countries and add to the initial findings presented in our research. Furthermore, we aimed for the development of a MBT structure incorporating all different kinds of media brands. Our findings should therefore be perceived as a first but very relevant step in the area of MBT research, allowing future projects to dive deeper into trust differences between media brands from different areas, such as those focused on informing or entertaining the consumer. As we found initial evidence for the different impact of MBT on informing and entertaining media brands, future research should consider either including information about the area of media brand operation or even ask survey participants about their reasons to use certain media brands. By following this distinction, further insights on the differing perception of entertaining and informing media brands and the varying impact of MBT can be provided.

Finally, another aspect that has been mentioned but not observed specifically in this research is the differing expectation of consumers for brands and media brands. While our definition provided a first understanding of what differentiates those areas based on an audiences’ perspective, additional research on the reasons for those differences and possible impacts on expectations and perceptions should be conducted in the future.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

Funding provided by NORDAKADEMIE Foundation

Appendix

Table A1. Survey Questionnaire - Focus Group Interviews

No.	Question	Reasoning	Explorative Code
1	How do you use media? You can walk me through your experience on a typical day. Which media do you use on a daily basis?	Probe to assess the relative importance of different media and gather a set of media used	Daily Media Usage Media Usage Times
2	What do you consider to be ‘media’?	Probe about tech/media/non-media brands	Media Brand Definition Media Categories
3	Which purpose does media serve to you?	Probe to assess media usage which can be linked to trust asked later	Media Usage Reason
4	What does ‘trust’ mean to you?	Probe to gather buzzwords and an understanding about trust	Trust Definition
5	Think about a media brand that you trust. What makes you trust it? Can you give some examples of situations that you felt like you trust this media brand?	Probe for a set of emotions, experiences and specific dimensions connected to media trust	Media Brand Trust Reason
6	What does ‘trusting a media’ mean to you? Is trust in any way relevant to your usage of media brands?	Probe about the different types of media platforms and the impact of trust on this usage	Impact of Trust
7	Have you ever not trusted a certain media?	Probe of other media brands they did not think of before and reasons for distrust	Reasons to Distrust
8	Think about a media brand that you use a lot in your daily life. What makes it valuable to you? Does this make you trust the brand more?	Probe about media value and the connection to media trust	Media Values
9	Think about the media brand that you trusted the most over the years. What do you feel when you think about that media brand? How has it earned trust over time?	Probe on the impact of time on trust in media	Emotions & Media
10	Think about the same brand again. Do you tend to pay for the media you use or is it okay for you to see ads to use them for free?	Probe on the impact of commercialism on media usage and trust	Commercialisation of Media
11	When you think about trusting media. Is there a difference between media you get active on and media you only consume?	Probe on the difference of social and traditional media	Traditional & Modern Media