‘Is it a match?’ An experiment on the effect of
brand fit and perceived importance in unallied
cause-related marketing
Master thesis for the Master’s programme Persuasive Communication Communication Science at the University of Amsterdam
Guus van Duijn Student number: 10738304
Supervisor: dr. S. Mollen Word count: 8046
Abstract
Brands increasingly make use of cause-related marketing (CRM) without linking themselves directly to a non-governmental organisation, as shown by brands’ increasing participation during Pride events. Prior to this study, no research was done regarding the form of CRM, in which the brand solely addresses the social cause, but does not link itself to a
non-governmental organisation. This study explored the effectiveness of cause-brand fit and perceived importance of a social cause on attitude towards the advertisement, attitude towards the brand and purchase intention in this form of unallied CRM. An experimental study (n = 201) was conducted to explore the relations using an existing CRM advertisement between LGBTQ+ acceptance (the cause) and Durex (high-cause brand it) or Oral-B (i.e. low cause-brand fit). This stimulus was based on a pre-test and proved to successfully manipulate high- and low cause-brand fit. The results of this study revealed that consumer responses towards the advertisement and brand are not influenced by cause-brand fit, nor was purchase intention. People with a high perceived importance did evaluate the advertisement more favourably than people with low importance, but there was no difference in attitude towards the brand and purchase intention. No interaction effects between cause-brand fit and
perceived importance were found. Discussion includes implications of the study’s findings as
well as avenues for future research.
Keywords: Unallied cause-related marketing, cause-brand fit, perceived importance of social cause, Pride campaigns, brand evaluation
Introduction
‘Get woke or go broke’ is a credo that has been increasingly used in the sphere of marketing
practitioners. Over the past decade, corporate social responsibility (CSR) has evolved from a ‘nice-to-have’ to a ‘fundamental strategic priority’ for businesses (McPherson, 2018). The concept of CSR refers to “a brand’s commitment to improve societal well-being through discretionary business practices and contributions of corporate resources” (Kotler and Lee,
2005, p. 3). A brand can express this responsibility in numerous ways, but one commonly used strategy of CSR is cause-related marketing (CRM). This strategy usually includes a brand’s sponsorship of a non-governmental organisation (NGO), which results in a mutually
beneficial cooperation to promote the company’s sales and the NGO’s cause (Lee & Johnson, 2019). An example of CRM is the cause RED (i.e. an organisation founded by U2’s lead singer Bono that helps children in Africa with AIDS), which has raised over 350 million US Dollars through CRM activities in collaboration with brands like Apple, Starbucks, Nike and Le Creuset (Garrahan, 2016).
The dominant focus in the area of CRM research shows that the vast majority of studies have focused on the persuasive effects of this marketing strategy. For instance, a study by Basil and Herr (2006) found that brands that link themselves to a social cause are evaluated more positively after a CRM campaign in comparison to before the campaign. However, the majority of the current literature on the persuasive effects of CRM have focused on brands (financially) supporting specific NGOs (e.g., greenpeace; Bergkvist & Zhou, 2019). Hence, these studies examine disclosed support with a cause; namely, a brand allies itself with an NGO. This contrasts with current marketing practices, since a lot of companies address social issues (e.g. global warming, gay rights, sustainability) without specifying a collaboration with or donations to a related cause. Research in the field of CRM has not paid attention yet to this form of unallied CRM.
Over the years, companies have for instance showed increasing interest in participating in Pride events for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer, and other allied sexual and gender orientations (LGBTQ+) (Fraanje, 2018; Olsen, 2016). Pride events are usually rallies, marches or parades celebrating sexual diversity, LGBTQ+ social and self-acceptance, achievements and legal rights. Companies can take part in Pride events in order to increase their brand equity as an inclusive company or target their product or services to a LGBTQ+ target audience (Andéhn et al., 2014). This can vary from limited products with rainbow flags to joining a parade. One of the companies that joined Pride in 2019 was Listerine, a manufacturer of oral health care products (e.g. mouthwash). For Pride, Listerine released a ‘rainbow bottle’. The bottle was ridiculed online for its perceived irrelevance to the
LGBTQ+ community (Bollinger, 2019). Members from the LGBTQ+ community noted that they’re tired of companies adding a rainbow to their products in order to show solidarity
(Ermac, 2019). Another company, that failed to launch a successful Pride campaign was Shell. For Pride 2018, Shell decorated their gas stations with the rainbow flag with the message ‘Welcome to Shell. Everyone’. This unallied CRM activity resulted in the press accusing Shell of ‘pinkwashing’ (i.e. promotion of gay-friendliness in attempt to downplay or
soften negative effects), since Shell has a reputation as a polluting company (Appels, 2019). On the contrary, despite having a very similar CRM activity as Listerine and Shell, the ‘Rainbow bottle’ of Absolut Vodka has been received positively among consumers
(Wolinski, 2018). Absolut has been supporting Pride and LGBTQ+ initiatives since the early 80’s (Absolut. n.d.). With this early adaptation of LGBTQ+ visibility, Absolut has positioned
itself as a LGBTQ+ ally (Sender, 2001).
But why does one CRM campaign succeed and the other does not, when the content of the CRM activity is well-nigh the same? An explanation for Absolut’s success and Listerine’s and Shell’s deficiency in CRM could be that Absolut’s brand reputation forms a
better fit to LGBTQ+. Absolut has been positioning itself as an LGBTQ+ ally for nearly four decades, while Listerine has not spoken about this topic prior to Pride 2019. Cause-brand fit has proven itself to be an important antecedent to and predictor of CRM advertisements (Trimble & Holmes, 2013). Studies within the field of CRM suggest that a high cause-brand fit can increase the attitude towards the advertisement and brand (Elving, 2013; Lafferty, 2007; Rifon et al., 2004). Even though many studies found that cause-brand fit is an important antecedent in CRM, it is not clear if this is the same case for unallied CRM. Therefore, the current study will compare a high and low cause-brand fit in unallied CRM.
When reviewing the responses of consumers to Pride campaigns by different brands, we should also take into account that the people who criticized Listerine and Shell, were highly involved with LGBTQ+ issues. Previous literature shows that the pre-existing attitude towards a cause can determine the brand evaluation in CRM campaigns (Basil & Herr, 2006). However, it is unclear if the perceived importance of a cause moderates the effect of a high cause-brand fit on brand evaluation, since there is no literature on this moderation effect. Perceived importance also might hold a different position in the context of unallied CRM. As mentioned above, Shell was accused of the phenomenon ‘pinkwashing’. In context of the
current study, that would mean that a brand (here: Shell) has a low cause-brand fit with an issue, that is perceived as highly important (here: gay rights). This illustrates the position that perceived importance might have in the relationship of cause-brand fit on brand evaluations. However, this interaction effect of perceived importance has yet to be examined. Therefore, this study will take perceived importance in account as a variable for predicting brand outcomes in unallied CRM, but also as a possible moderator between cause-brand fit and brand evaluation.
The current study aims to depart from the trend in CRM research in the way that brands sponsor NGOs and aims to focus more on the predisposition of the consumer (i.e. the
perceived importance of the social cause). In the traditional form of CRM there is mutual consent from the company and the specific NGO that advocates for a social cause. If the NGO disappears as the ‘middleman’, the evaluations of the customer and their perceived
importance of this cause could be more important. Similar to brands, NGOs build an affective network in the cognitive system of the public. For instance, RED has linked itself to the singer Bono and therefore has been influenced by celebrity endorsement, which has proven to be a peripheral cue in the Elaboration Likelihood Model (Lee & Koo, 2016). The spill-over from NGO to brand does not occur when the NGO does not appear. Hence, consumers are less likely to be peripherally influenced by spill-over effects. This study aims to build a model that helps marketing practitioners understand and predict the effects on the brand and campaign, when entering an arena of a social issue. With the upcoming trend of socially engaging advertising, it is important to know who is affected in what way. This study might offer some strategic insights in when to address a social issue and when it’s better to use a different brand strategy.
RQ To what extent does cause-brand fit in unallied CRM campaigns influence the
consumers’ ad- and brand evaluation and purchase intention? And does the perceived
importance of the cause moderate the relationship between cause-brand fit in unallied CRM campaigns and the ad- and brand evaluation and purchase intention?
Theoretical framework
Cause-brand fit
Nan and Heo (2007) described fit as the observed relationship between the company and the CSR domain, based on various cognitive assumptions. Generally speaking, cause-brand fit is the observed link between a company’s products, image, positioning and/or target groups,
and the equivalence to an NGO (Varadajan & Menon, 1988). A high cause-brand fit can be exemplified by the alliance of Nike, a sports brand, with Women Win, an NGO that globally encourages girls to play sports. It is also important to note that before judging a brand on its perceived fit with a cause, an individual requires knowledge or familiarity with the brand in order for them to make a connection and judgement about the relationship (Simonin & Ruth, 1998). As studies show, cause-brand fit has no effect when the familiarity with a brand is low (Simonin & Ruth, 1998; Nan & Heo, 2007). Hence, when speaking of cause-brand fit, it should be kept in mind that there is always a pre-existing brand evaluation.
In general, a high fit between a cause and brand leads to more positive attitudes than a low fit (Aaker & Keller, 1990; Basil & Herr, 2006; Gorton et al., 2013; Elving, 2012; Folse et al., 2014; Lafferty, 2007; Pracejus & Olsen, 2004; Rifon et al., 2004; Samu & Wymer, 2009, 2014).However, the abovementioned studies have focused solely on brands collaborating with a specific NGO. It is known that when a company allies themselves with an NGO, there is a certain attitudinal spillover effect (Bigné et al., 2012). Whether the same spillover effect of a high cause-brand fit occurs, when a brand connects itself to a certain social issue but not to an NGO (e.g., LGBTQ+ movement), is unclear.
The effectiveness of cause-brand fit can be explained by the associations that an individual holds towards the cause and how these associations are processed. Both
congruence theory (Sirgy, 1982) and associative network theory (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006) could offer an explanation how cause-brand fit is formed into the perceivers’ cognitive
system. The congruency theory suggests that storage and retrieval of information from memory are influenced by relatedness or similarity. The more congruent, the better the association and retrieval. This means that when a brand links itself to a cause, the retrieval of the brand becomes stronger, if the tie between cause and brand is congruent. The study of Rifon et al. (2004) shows that the less the brand and cause fit, the less influence the pairing will have on attitude change. Studies show that the strong tie between cause and brand have positive outcomes on brand evaluation (Gorton et al., 2013). On the other hand, literature also shows that the strong tie between cause and brand have positive outcomes on brand
evaluation (Gorton et al., 2013). Secondly, the influence of fit is related to the associative network theory (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006). The theory suggests that a perceived high fit has a positive influence on consumer attitude towards the brand, because the CRM activity is seen as appropriate. When there is a good fit between expectations, knowledge, associations, actions and competences of a company and the social cause, as observed by the consumer, it is easily adopted in the existing cognitive structure of that consumer. However, an effortless retrieval does not necessarily explain positive attitudes, when there is a strong fit. Both congruence theory and associative network theory are related to how much cognitive effort an individual has to make in order to make a certain link, but the attitudinal effects can be explained by the fluency theory (Lee & Labroo, 2004). This theory suggests that objects differ in the fluency with which they can be processed. If objects are consistent with people’s
expectancies, this will result in a more fluent processing. However, if objects do not contribute to the experience of familiarity, the processing is less fluent and requires more cognitive effort, resulting in a critical evaluation. The fluency theory suggests that people are more inclined to like things, which they do not have to think critically about (Dragojevic & Giles, 2016; Schwarz, 2004). On the contrary, people tend to dislike information that requires critical processing (Dragojevic & Giles, 2016).
These abovementioned theories offer an explanation why a high cause-brand fit might elicit a more positive attitude towards the ad and brand than a low cause-brand fit.
Subsequently, literature suggests that a high attitude towards a brand transcends to a higher purchase intention of the brand (Wang & Yang, 2010; Küster & Hernandez, 2012)
A result of the critical reflection that CRM can cause, when the social cause is inconsistent with the brand’s reputation, is that the CRM advertisement is perceived as a marketing trick with commercial purposes instead of a genuine initiative of the brand to ‘do good’. Literature shows that when the corporations’ motives are perceived as not credible,
this undermines the persuasive effects of a CRM campaign on the brand evaluation and purchase intention (Lafferty, 2009).
Literature that is mentioned above is done in regard to specific NGOs. However, following the reasoning of the theories mentioned above, multiple hypotheses are formulated for the main effect of cause-brand fit in unallied CRM.
H1 A high cause-brand fit in CRM advertisements will lead to a more positive attitude towards the advertisement (H1a) and the brand (H1b) and will lead to a higher purchase intention (H1c) compared to a low cause-brand fit.
Perceived importance of a cause
In addition to a main effect of cause-brand fit, a main effect of perceived importance is also proposed in the current study. Perceived importance of a social cause is operationalized as the general level of interest in a cause or the centrality of the cause to the person’s ego-structure
(Day, 1970, p. 45). In the context of causes, the perceived importance of the cause is not necessarily the same as the commonly used term involvement. Involvement has typically been used interchangeably with personal relevance, which implies that the issue affects the person directly in some way (Lafferty, 2009). However, consumers frequently give to causes
that have no personal relevance to them, but they believe that the cause is an important one that deserves support. Perceived importance transcends involvement, as involvement can be a part of perceived importance, but does not limit to involvement. An individual can support the LGBTQ+ movement, because they are members of the LGBTQ+ community themselves (i.e. personally involved), but also because they have a high morality about stereotyping sexual minorities (i.e. attitudinal belief). It can also be exemplified by the CRM activities that were developed to generate donations for the 2004 tsunami. While most people were not directly affected by this event many people donated or went specifically to Starbucks for their Sumatra coffee, because profits were given to CARE for tsunami relief (Stannard-Friel, 2004). Since, perceived importance examines a broader spectrum of the beliefs related to a social cause, this will likely provide a deeper understanding of the importance of this variable in the relationship to CRM.
The study of Basil and Herr (2006) shows that pre-existing attitudes towards the cause influence the attitudinal effects of CRM on the evaluation of the ad and brand. Specifically, when there were both positive pre-existing attitudes towards the cause and the brand, the evaluation of the CRM campaign was the highest. This follows from balance theory (Heider, 1946). The balance theory is a theory that conceptualizes attitude change due to an
individual’s need for cognitive consistency in order to keep psychological balance (Heider,
1946). Heider (1946) explains his theory by the perception of three individuals: Bob, Bill and Brad. The theory suggests that if Bob likes Bill and Bill likes Brad, Bob is also likely to be fond of Brad. In this case that would mean that when an individual perceives a social cause important and a brand addresses this social cause as important as well, the individual is also likely to like the brand. Heider proposes that people seek balance among their interpersonal relationships and among the attitudes towards these relationships. In a
Following this theory, this would suggest that when an individual ‘likes’ a certain social issue and a brand takes stance according to their belief, this individual is more likely to also like the brand in order to keep psychological balance. Taking this in account, this results in the following hypothesis on the main effect of perceived importance on brand outcomes.
H2 A high perceived importance of a social cause in CRM advertisements will lead to a more positive attitude towards the advertisement (H2a) and the brand (H2b) and will increase the purchase intention (H2c) compared to a low perceived importance.
Cause-brand fit and perceived importance
As explained above, a main effect of cause-brand fit and perceived importance on brand evaluations can be hypothesized. However, these theories might not be able to explain a potential moderating effect of perceived importance in the effect of cause-brand fit in unallied CRM on the attitude towards the ad and brand and purchase intention. It could be proposed that when a CRM campaign of a brand that does not fit well with the cause, could elicit backlash from an audience that evaluates the cause as very important, as shown in the introduction.
A theoretical explanation of the role of perceived importance on the relationship between cause-brand fit on brand evaluations could be offered by the social judgement theory (SJT; Sherif et al., 1965). The SJT is a theoretical framework pertaining to human judgement. The theory was developed in order to understand why humans are persuaded by information differently, when exposed to the exact same information. This theory could be used to explain how we persuade ourselves by evaluating and comparing a persuasive message with one’s judgmental anchor (i.e. an individual’s initial attitudes). According to the SJT, when a
stimulus is further away from one’s judgmental anchor, a boomerang effect (i.e. unintended consequences of an attempt of persuasion) could occur. SJT researchers distinguished three levels of attitudinal beliefs. Firstly, there is the latitude of acceptance, which is the range of ideas that are perceived as reasonable and worthy of consideration. Secondly, there is the latitude of rejection, which is the range of ideas that is perceived as objectionable and would be disregarded by the individual. Lastly, there is the latitude of noncommitment, which is the range of ideas that an individual is indifferent about and do not elicit a response. When a message is perceived as objectionable and thus is categorized to fall into the latitude of rejection, SJT suggests that a boomerang effect could occur, resulting in narrowing the latitude of acceptance. Hence, individuals with a narrow latitude of acceptance are harder to persuade. In this case, that could mean that people with a high perceived importance of a social cause have a bigger latitude of rejection and thus, are harder to persuade.
Literature in SJT suggest that a wide-ranged latitude of rejection is the result of high ego involvement with a topic (Sherif & Sherif, 1976). It should be noted that the term involvement as used in SJT overlaps with the operationalization of perceived importance in this study. Ego involvement in the perceived importance of an issue to a person’s life, which is often enhanced by a certain social group or subculture that a person identifies with or a long-term elaboration of the issue, broadens the latitude of rejection. On the contrary, people with low ego involvement regarding a certain topic, are likely to have a wide range of latitude of acceptance and noncommitment. Therefore, people with low perceived importance would be more easily persuaded by information than people with a high perceived importance. Research shows that people with high ego involvement are also more likely to question the source (Birnbaum & Stegner, 1979). This means that a credible source is more important for people with a narrow latitude of acceptance, since a person with a wider latitude of
credibility, is dependent on the fit between cause and brand (Bigné-Alcañiz et al., 2009). This means that a brand with a high cause-brand fit is perceived more credible than when there is a low cause-brand fit.
For this current study this would mean that people with who perceive an issue as highly important are only likely to be influenced by the CRM campaign if the source is credible (i.e. a high cause brand fit). If not, the CRM campaign is likely to fall into the latitude of rejection for the people with a high perceived importance, but not for the people with a low perceived importance. This results in the following hypotheses. All the hypotheses are summarized in graph 1.
H3 A high cause-brand fit results in a more positive attitude towards the ad (H3a), attitude towards the brand (H3b) and a higher purchase intention (H3c) compared to low cause-brand fit, but this relationship is stronger for people who have a high perceived importance of the cause compared to low perceived importance. Graph 1. Conceptual model Cause-brand fit Attitude advertisement Attitude brand Purchase intention Perceived importance H2 (a ,b,c ) H 3 (a ,b,c ) H1(a,b,c)
Method
Design
In order to determine the effect of fit in CRM advertisements on consumer evaluations and whether this effect depends on the perceived importance of the cause, the current study made use of a 2 (cause-brand fit: low vs. high) x 2 (perceived importance: low versus high )
between-subject factorial design. The moderating independent variable ‘perceived importance’ is a quasi-experimental variable. The variable ‘perceived importance’ was
recoded into two conditions (i.e. high and low perceived importance) post-data collection by means of a median split (median = 4.89). The independent variable ‘cause-brand fit’ was manipulated and therefore is a true experimental factor. The experimental design is displayed in table 1.
Table 1.
Draw of experimental design
Low cause-brand fit High cause-brand fit Low perceived importance Condition 1
n = 46
Condition 2 n = 52
High perceived importance Condition 3 n = 52
Condition 4 n = 51
Sample
For this study, all people above 18 years old were eligible to participate. There were no other entry-requirements prior to the study, since the aim was to have as much variation as possible in perceived importance of the social cause. Since the study had four conditions, the required number of participants (n) was aimed at 200 people. Previous research shows that a minimum of 50 participants per conditions is recommended for a 2x2 between-subject factorial design in order to prove validity for a significant result (Simonsohn, 2015).
In total 201 completed the experiment. All participants were older than 18 years old and there were no outliers in the dataset. Therefore, no participants were removed. The sample consisted more females (n = 144) than males (n = 57). Participant’s ages ranged from 18 to 81 (M = 29.31, SD = 11.66). Participants predominantly did not identify with the LGBTQ+ community; 78.10% (n = 157) did not identify with the LGBTQ+ community, 18.40% (n = 37) did identify as a member of the LGBTQ+ community and 3.5% (n = 7) did not want to answer. The sample was predominantly high educated; 89.10% (n = 179) followed or completed a degree at a University of Applied Sciences or higher.
Procedure
Participants were recruited through Social Networking Sites (SNSs), such as Facebook and Instagram. In the recruitment on SNSs, prospective participants were told that among the participants two vouchers of €25,- for the website bol.com were raffled. When taking part in the experiment, participants were first informed what they could expect if they decided to take part in the research study. After providing informed consent, participants continued to the first part of the experiment in which they answered some questions regarding their
demographics. If the participant stated they were younger than 18, they were thanked for their participation and the questionnaire ended. The other participants continued to
questions regarding their beliefs on perceived importance of LGBTQ+ issues.
After completing the first part of the research, participants received instructions for the second part, in which they were randomly assigned to a condition where they watched an advertisement that had either a low cause-brand fit (i.e. Pride campaign of Oral-B) or a high cause-brand fit (i.e. Pride campaign of Durex). After watching the video, the participant was asked about their attitude towards the advertisement and brand, as well as their intention to purchase a product of the brand. When continuing, the participant got questions regarding the
exposure recall and manipulation check. If the participant could not answer the unaided recall question, they got an additional question of the aided recall.
Lastly, the participant was asked to report what they thought the purpose of the current study was and had the possibility to leave a comment. Also, their e-mail address was asked if they wanted to enter the raffle for the two €25,- bol.com vouchers. They were
informed that this data was only used for the purpose of choosing a winner and sending the prize to them. When submitting their answers, participants were thanked for their
participation and fully debriefed. The consent form, general questions and debriefing can be found in Appendix A.
Manipulation
The independent variable cause-brand fit was manipulated by connecting two brands to the same social issue, making use of the same, already existing, advertisement. This variable was the manipulation of the experiment. By ‘cause-brand fit’ is meant the matching, or perceived ‘fit’ between the brand and the values it is associated with, and the chosen social cause
(Lafferty, 2009). Both the experimental condition and control condition made use the same video. The only thing that was varied was the brand that was showed at the end of the ad. Based on a pretest a social cause and two brands were selected that were perceived to have low- and high brand fit. Respectively, the pretest showed Durex had a high cause-brand fit and Oral-B a low cause-cause-brand fit with the social cause of LGBTQ+ acceptance.
One of the key points of relevance of the current study was to depart from the trends in CRM literature to a more reality-based situation. As the literature review of Bergkvist and Zhou (2019) shows, a lot of studies include a print advertisement in their manipulation. However, in the field of marketing practice, the most common way of advertising in television and Social Networking Sites (SNSs) is through audio-visual material.
The advertisement of Sprite Argentina was used in the current study for to highlight the social cause of LGBTQ+ acceptance. In this advertisement the relationship between family members and LGBTQ+ youth is shown. The advertisement did not air in the Netherlands, so the likelihood that people were previously exposed to this video was very low. The logos of Durex and Oral-B were affixed with the rainbow flag in Adobe Photoshop in order to make it more coherent with the advertisement. The logo of Sprite was removed and replaced with the logos of Oral-B and Durex in iMovie.
Pretest
Prior to the experimental study, a pretest was conducted in order to determine the perceived cause-brand fit, as well as variance in perceived importance of various causes, since these variables form the fundaments of the four experimental conditions. For the pretest, a convenience sample was used. In total 37 Dutch speaking people completed the survey. As was done in the study of Lafferty (2009), participants in the pretest were given a list of three social causes (i.e. LGBTQ+ acceptance, catcalling and implementation of the ‘roetveegpiet’). These social causes were picked, because they all entail a different domain of social activism (i.e. LGBTQ+ rights, feminism and racism), so they might elicit different responses. After accepting the informed consent, participants read a short factual explanation of each social cause. For each social cause, participants were asked to indicate how important they perceived the cause on a scale from 1 (not important at all) to 100 (very important). The social issues were shown in random order to prevent possible order-effects. Since it is important that individual variation exists with regard to the perceived importance of the social cause the SDs of all social causes were inspected in selecting an appropriate cause for this study.
Furthermore, people were asked to rank eight brands on their perceived fit with each social issue from 1 (highest cause-brand fit) to 8 (lowest cause-brand fit). The brands were carefully picked in order to rule out possible alternative explanations. For instance, the results of this study might be biased if the brands fulfill different needs of the customer (e.g. one brand might offer planned purchase luxurious goods, while another can offer fast moving consumer goods). The study of Das et al. (2014) shows that the type of good (hedonic versus utilitarian) and type of purchase (planned versus unplanned) have an interaction effect on the relationship between cause-brand fit and brand evaluations. Hence, only utilitarian brands, which people likely consume unplanned, were chosen. This study requires a clear low and high cause-brand fit with preferably low standard deviations. The mean scores in
classification and standard deviations are displayed in Table 2.
Lastly, the brand evaluation of the 8 brands were measured by using three mutually exclusive items (e.g. ‘good’ versus ‘bad’) on a 7-points Likert scale of Spears and Singh (2004). The attitude towards the brand was measured in this pretest in order to ensure that there was no significant difference in mean scores between the high and low fit brands. All brand attitudes are reported in Table 2.
The pretest showed that all issues had a standard deviation between 18.30 and 24.59. Participants reported the largest variety in perceived importance on the issue of catcalling (M = 74.92, SD = 24.59). However, the issue of catcalling did not have a distinct high- and low cause-brand fit (see Table 2). The issue of roetveegpieten had the second largest standard deviation in perceived importance (M = 79.08, SD = 24.26). However, a one-way ANOVA showed that the two brands with the highest (i.e. HEMA) and lowest (i.e. Durex) score in cause-brand fit had a significantly different brand attitudes, F(5, 26) = 2.14, p = 0.031. Also, the second highest scoring brand (i.e. Albert Heijn) had a more positive brand attitude compared to the brand attitude of Durex. Hence, the last issue, LGBTQ+ acceptance (M =
87.73, SD = 18.30), was also taken into consideration. This cause was taken into
consideration because the difference in standard deviations of perceived importance were relatively small. The issue of LGBTQ+ acceptance had Durex as highest fitting and Oral-B as lowest fitting brand. The two brands showed no significant difference in brand evaluation, F(5, 26) = 0.69, p = 0.724. On average, Durex was evaluated with a score of 4.89 (SD = 0.83) and Oral-B 4.60 (SD = 0.99). Also, the difference in perceived cause-brand fit was significant between these two brands, F(5, 26) = 2.36, p = 0.05. Therefore, in the manipulation the social issue of LGBTQ+ acceptance was chosen with the brand Durex for the high cause-brand condition and Oral-B for the low cause-brand condition.
Table 2.
Scores on cause-brand fit and brand attitudes
Cause-brand fit Roetveegpieten LGBTQ+ Catcalling Brand attitude M SD M SD M SD M SD McDonald’s 4.57 1.56 5.05 1.79 4.76 1.83 4.25 1.24 HEMA 1.70 1.49 2.51 1.59 3.57 2.23 5.56 0.92 Albert Heijn 2.19 1.54 3.84 1.66 4.22 1.89 5.36 1.17 Starbucks 4.70 1.37 4.08 1.72 4.24 2.14 4.46 1.25 Durex 6.89 1.66 2.00 1.67 3.05 2.54 4.89 0.83 Milka 3.84 1.50 5.49 1.84 5.14 2.29 4.64 1.00 Oral-B 6.68 1.16 6.81 1.54 5.97 1.92 4.60 0.99 Burger King 5.43 1.50 6.22 1.49 5.05 2.26 3.19 1.18 Measure Dependent variables
Attitude towards the ad (Aad) is defined as a ‘predisposition to respond in a favourable or
unfavourable manner to a particular advertising stimulus during a particular exposure occasion’ (Mackenzie et al., 1986). Traditionally, the attitude towards the ad is measured by a
advertisement and have proven to be a valid measuring method. However, in order not to make the questionnaire too lengthy and prevent fall-out during participation, 5 items were picked. These items included adjectives, such as ‘good’ (versus ‘bad’), ‘interesting’ (versus ‘boring’) and ‘not irritating’ (versus ‘irritating). The reliability analysis to this scale indicates a high reliability (α = .93). The scale could not and should not be improved by deleting any
items. The factor analysis also showed that there was one factor (eigenvalue = 3.97, explained variance = 79.51%, M = 5.53, SD = 1.37).
Attitude toward the brand (Abr) can be conceptualized as audiences' affective reaction
to the advertised brand (Lutz et al., 1983). As in the pretest, Abr was measured by using the
scale of Spears and Singh (2004), because of its proven reliability and assessment to psychometric validity. The instrument includes five bi-polar items that indicates an individual’s Abr (e.g. ‘bad’ versus ‘good’, ‘unappealing’ versus ‘appealing) on a 7-points
Likert scale. For Abr the reliability analysis showed a α of .94, which indicates a high
reliability. The factor analysis showed that 1 factor could be formed by the five items of Abr
(eigenvalue = 4.05, explained variance = 80.94%, M = 4.99, SD = 1.20).
Purchase intentions (PI) are personal action tendencies relating to the consumption or usage of a brand (Bagozzi et al., 1979; Ostrom, 1969). The intention of purchase is distinct from attitudes. Whereas attitudes are summary evaluations, intention represent the “person’s motivation in the sense of his or her conscious plan to exert effort to carry out a behavior” (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, p. 3) The study of Spears and Singh (2004) also provides a psychometric valid instrument for the measurement of purchase intention. This instrument has proven itself to correlate with the scale of Abr and was therefore also incorporated in the
current study. Again, this instrument includes 5 mutually exhaustive items (e.g. ‘I do
definitely not intend to buy this product’ versus ‘I do definitely intend to buy this product’, ‘I will never buy this product’ versus ‘I will definitely buy this product’) on a 7 points-Likert
scale. or PI the reliability analysis showed a α of .94, which indicates a high reliability. The factor analysis showed that 1 factor could be formed by the four items of PI (eigenvalue = 3.36, explained variance = 83.96%, M = 4.42, SD = 1.45).
Perceived importance of LGBTQ+ acceptance
In the current study, perceived importance of LGBTQ+ acceptance is defined as ‘the
cognitive and affective significance that an individual holds towards improving the position of members of LGBTQ+ community in society’(Jones et al., 2014). There has yet a scale to be created that indicates the perceived importance of LGBTQ+ acceptance. However, the Ally Identity Measure (AIM) (Jones et al., 2014) provides a valid measurement, that assesses one’s perceived importance of the LGBTQ+ issues by measuring one’s alliance to the
LGBTQ+ community. The AIM is a multi-dimensional scale, of which all dimensions entail a different type of perceived importance (i.e. ‘knowledge and skills’, ‘openness and support’ and ‘oppression awareness’). However, the scale is multi-factorial and the statements of ‘knowledge and skills’ and ‘oppression awareness’ did not fit the operationalization of
perceived importance in the current study. Hence, only the 7 items that included the openness to and support of the LGBT community were included in the current study. The items
included statements, such as ‘I have engaged in efforts to promote more widespread
acceptance of sexual minority people’ and ‘If I see discrimination against a sexual minority
person or group occur, I actively work to confront it’. Additionally, two statements were added that included donation intent (e.g. ‘I think it’s important to donate to causes that advocate for sexual minority people’), since these statements complement this scale with the
definition stated in the theoretical framework. The order of the statements was randomly presented in the questionnaire in order to overcome potential order effects.
The reliability analysis to this scale indicates a high reliability (α = .89). The scale could not and should not be improved by deleting any items. The factor analysis showed that two factors could be formed by the nine items of this scale. However, a second component would have a marginal eigenvalue of 1.02 and would include 4 items that have no substantive connection. In order to remain the scale informative as possible, one factor was formed (eigenvalue = 4.93, explained variance = 54.83%, M = 4.75, SD = 1.34). Subsequently, the variable was made into a dichotomous variable of low and high importance by a median split. The median had a score of 4.89, meaning that people who had an average of a neutral to a somewhat positive score in perceived importance or lower were classified in the low importance condition (n = 98) and people who scored higher were indicated with a high importance (n = 103).
Manipulation and exposure check
In order to check if the manipulation was successful, three questions were added to the questionnaire. In these questions the participants were asked if they could remember the brand they were exposed to correctly, with an open text box and the option ‘I don’t know’. If the box ‘I don’t know’ was checked, the participant got another question with the answer options ‘Oral-B’ and ‘Durex’. The latter was done in order to distinguish unaided versus
aided recall of the participant.
Since this study made use of an existing campaign, participants were also asked if they saw this advertisement prior to this study. Lastly, participants were asked to rate the cause-brand fit by asking them the question ‘How well do you think the brand you saw fits with the social issue?’, as done in the study of Lafferty (2007). They could indicate their answer on a 7-points Likert scale going from 1 (‘not compatible at all’) to 7 (‘very compatible’).
Results
Manipulation check and exposure check
To inspect if participants who saw an Oral-B ad about LGBTQ+ acceptance indeed perceived a lower brand fit compared to participants who saw a Durex ad, an independent samples t-test
was conducted to compare the means. In the low cause-brand fit condition (i.e. Oral-B), participants evaluated the fit with the brand as significantly lower (M=2.53, SD = 1.65) compared to those in the high cause-brand fit condition (i.e. Durex; M = 5.44, SD = 1.59), t (199) = 12.69, p < .001, 95%-CI [2.45, 3.36]. Hence, the manipulation succeeded.
Additionally, 87.56% of the sample (n = 176) remembered the exposed brand
correctly. Among participants who could not spontaneously recall the brand when asked (n = 18), 55.56% (n = 10) of the participants were able to correctly identify the brand from a list of the two brands. Only 1.5% of the sample (n = 3) stated that they had seen the
advertisement prior to participation. The effect of removal of these participants on the outcomes was checked, but this did not influence the results. Thus, these participants were retained in the dataset.
Analyses
For the measurement of the hypotheses an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted per dependant variable. As Table 3 shows, the Pearson’s R correlation matrix showed that the variable ‘age’ significantly correlated with the dependent variables. Therefore, age was
included as covariate for all dependent variables. For Aad there was also a correlation with
gender, education and whether a person was member of the LGBTQ+ community or not. Thus, all the variables in Table 3 will be included in the ANCOVA for Aad,
Table 3.
Correlation between control variables and Aad, Abr and PI
Aad Abr PI
Age -.20** -.15** -.21**
Education .20** .09 .04
Gender .33** .03 -.12
LGBTQ+ community -.18* -.13 -.03 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Attitude towards the ad
With regard to the attitude towards the ad (Aad) it was hypothesised that it would be more
positively influenced by a high cause-brand fit compared to a low cause-brand fit (H1a) and a high perceived importance compared to low perceived importance (H2a) and that the positive effect of high cause-brand fit (versus low cause-brand fit)on Aad was stronger for people with
a high perceived importance, compared to low perceived importance (H3a). The precondition for an ANCOVA was met for Aad, the assumptions of equal variances in the population had
not been violated, Levene’s F(3, 197) = .32, p = .812.
The ANCOVA showed a significant main effect of perceived importance, F(1, 193) = 2.80, p = 0.003, but not for cause-brand fit, , F(1, 193) = .01, p = 0.927 (see Table 4 for Means and SDs). Participants who scored high on perceived importance reported a more positive attitude toward the ad (M = 5.90, SD = 1.35), than participants with a low perceived importance (M = 5.15, SD = 1.30), F(1, 195) = 13.94, p < 0.001, η2 = .07. Hence, there was a small positive effect of perceived importance on Aad. The interaction effect between cause-brand fit and perceived importance on Aad was found to be insignificant, F(1, 193) = .01, p =
0.942 (see Table 5 for Means and SDs). Hence, H2a can be confirmed, but H1a and H3a must be rejected.
Attitude towards the brand
Regarding the second variable ‘attitude towards the brand’ (Abr) it was hypothesised that it
would be positively influenced by a high cause-brand fit compared to a low cause-brand fit (H1b) and a high perceived importance (versus a low perceived importance; H2b) and that the relationship between high cause-brand fit and Abr was stronger for people with a high
perceived importance (H3b). Again, the precondition for ANCOVA was met, Levene’s F(3, 197) = 2.03, p = .111.
The ANOVA showed no significant main effects of cause-brand fit on Abr, F(1, 193)
= 1.96, p = 0.163 and perceived importance on Abr, , F(1, 193) = 2.03, p = 0.156 (see Table
4). Also, there was no significant interaction effect of perceived importance on cause-brand fit and Abr, F(1, 193) = .01, p = 0.926 (see Table 5). Thus, H1b, H2b and H3b must be
rejected.
Purchase intention
With regard to the purchase intention (PI) it was hypothesised that it would be more
positively influenced by a high cause-brand fit compared to a low cause-brand fit (H1c) and a high perceived importance compared to low perceived importance H2c) and that the positive effect of a high cause-brand fit (versus low cause-brand fit) on PI was stronger for people with a high perceived importance, compared to low perceived importance (H3c).
However, the precondition for the ANCOVA was not met. The assumptions of equal
variances in the population were violated, Levene’s F(3, 197) = 4.10, p = .008. The analysis
was still conducted, but potential results for PI should be critically interpreted.
The ANOVA showed no significant differences for the main effects of cause-brand fit, F(1, 193) = .55, p = 0.459, and perceived importance on Abr,, F(1, 193) = .44, p = 0.506
cause-brand fit and Abr, F(1, 193) = .12, p = 0.727 (see Table 5). Thus, H1c, H2c and H3c
must be rejected.
Table 4.
Results for main effects of cause-brand fit and perceived importance
Table 5.
Results for moderation effect of perceived importance
DV IV M SD F p
Attitude towards the ad
High cause-brand fit 5.57 1.32 .01 .927 Low cause-brand fit 5.50 1.43
High perceived importance 5.90 1.35 8.80 .003 Low perceived importance 5.15 1.30
Attitude towards the brand
High cause-brand fit 5.13 1.24 1.96 .163 Low cause-brand fit 4.86 1.15
High perceived importance 5.10 1.27 2.03 .156 Low perceived importance 4.87 1.11
Purchase intention High cause-brand fit 4.37 1.68 .55 .459 Low cause-brand fit 4.47 1.20
High perceived importance 4.47 1.49 .44 .506 Low perceived importance 4.37 1.20
High cause- brand fit Low cause-brand fit Interaction effect DV M SD M SD F p Attitude towards the ad High perceived importance 5.88 1.22 5.93 1.39 .01 .942 Low perceived importance 5.21 1.35 5.08 1.36 Attitude towards the brand High perceived importance 5.23 1.32 4.97 1.19 .01 .926 Low perceived importance 5.00 1.11 4.75 1.11 Purchase intention High perceived importance 4.47 1.73 4.47 1.22 .12 .727 Low perceived importance 4.26 1.62 4.75 1.20
Discussion
This study aimed to investigate the relationship between cause-brand fit and brand evaluations in CRM activities, in which no alliance to a specific NGO is disclaimed (i.e. unallied CRM). In this relationship, the current study explored the moderating effect of perceived importance of the addressed social cause. There was no literature on the role of perceived importance of a cause in the abovementioned relationship prior to this study. Following the reasoning of the fluency theory (Lee & Labroo, 2004), it was hypothesised that a high cause-brand fit would lead to a more positive attitude towards the advertisement and the brand and would result in a higher purchase intention compared to a low cause-brand fit. With the reasoning of the balance theory (Heider, 1946), a main effect of perceived
importance with the same outcome results was expected. Lastly, according to the social judgement theory (Sherif et al., 1965), the positive effect of a high cause-brand fit compared to low cause-brand fit would be stronger for people who have a high perceived importance of the cause compared to low perceived importance.
Even while a thorough pre-test was conducted and the materials developed for the study were able to successfully manipulate low and high cause-brand fit with existing brands, no effect of cause-brand fit on attitude towards the advertisement, attitude towards the brand and purchase intention was found. Perceived importance did prove to be a predictor for attitude towards the advertisement, but not attitude towards the brand or purchase intention. Additionally, the hypothesised interaction effect of cause-brand fit and perceived importance could not be substantiated. Hence, a high-cause brand fit (versus low cause-brand fit) did not result a more positive attitude towards the advertisement and brand and did not lead to a higher purchase intention for people with a high perceived importance (versus low perceived importance).
Previous studies in the field of CRM research showed cause-brand fit to be an
important antecedent of advertisement and brand evaluations (e.g. Trimble & Holmes, 2013; Gorton et al., 2013; Elving, 2012; Folse et al., 2014). The current study contradicts with these findings. The difference in findings might be explained from two perspectives.
Firstly, the unexpected outcomes can be explained by the type of message that is used in these stimuli. The advertisement in this study was more cause-dominated, which has proven to have a more positive effect on brand evaluations compared to brand-dominated messages (Samu & Wymer, 2009, 2014). The study of Samu & Wymer (2009) shows that when an advertisement is cause-dominated the effect of cause-brand fit on brand evaluation disappears. This could explain why this study did not find differences between high and low cause-brand fit. The slow music, family relationships and LGBTQ+ relationships in the stimuli can be seen as emotional appeals, which are proven to have positive outcomes on brand evaluations for low-involvement products, as used in the current study (Akbari, 2015). This builds upon the framework that affective appeals can cause a temporal state of
persuasion, in which a person thinks less critically and is more likely to accept the message that is presented in the advertisement (Bülbül & Menon, 2010). Future research might want to consider comparing rational versus affective appeals in unallied CRM. Also, when using fit as a variable, the notions about cause-dominance should be taken into consideration.
The second reason that the results in this study might differ from prior results is of methodological nature. It should be noted that this scale was formed with usage of a median split. This split was done at a relative positive score of the scale. It might be a simplification of reality to categorize people in either a high or low perceived importance of the LGBTQ+ community. Research shows that the Netherlands is one of the most positive countries in the world towards homosexuality (Van Beusekom & Kuyper, 2018). Hence, in reality it is probable that there is not a fifty-fifty split in the population on perceived importance of
LGBTQ+ acceptance. Furthermore, this study asked the questions about perceived
importance prior to the manipulation, since literature suggests that CRM advertisements can result in a more positive attitude towards the cause (Basil & Herr, 2006). However, it could be that asking these questions beforehand primes the attitudinal beliefs about the LGBTQ+ community, resulting in cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1962). The cognitive dissonance theory explains that people seek internal psychological consistency in their attitudes. This could explain that, when a person stated that they are favourable towards the LGBTQ+ community and they are exposed to an advertisement containing LGBTQ+ imagery, this person is more likely to also be favourable towards the advertisement. This also could offer an explanation for the main effect of perceived importance on the attitude towards the advertisement, but not on the attitude towards the brand and purchase intention. Future research is needed to further understand the role of perceived importance in unallied CRM.
Theoretical and practical implications
This study contributes to CRM research in way that it made the first steps in unallied CRM. This study offers a successful measurement of high and low cause-brand fit in unallied CRM. For marketing practitioners, these results might indicate that a brand could address a social cause, despite their fit to the cause. However, it remains unclear if this also the case for other causes and other type of messages.
Additionally, some notions must be made on the degree of generalizability of this study, since this study only examined the social cause of Pride and an audio-visual advertisement rather than a brand activation. Hence, these results might not be applicable for joining Pride in parades or marches or releasing limited editions of products with rainbow flags, as some brands have done in the past.
their target group and what social causes are perceived as important by that group in order to establish a successful unallied CRM campaign.
Conclusion
As the first steps in the research field of unallied CRM are made, a lot still remains
unexplored. Future research is required in order to better understand the boundaries of cause-brand and perceived importance fit in unallied CRM. This could be done with the
abovementioned suggestions. While this study offers support for the claim that perceived importance could might play a role in the effectiveness of unallied CRM, more research is needed to further for marketing practices to be able to strategize CRM activities. Up until then, a lot of brands might still sleep upon the credo ‘getting woke’.
Literature
Aaker, D., & Keller, K. (1990). Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions. Journal Of Marketing, 54(1), 27. doi: 10.2307/1252171
Absolut (n.d.). Absolut Rainbow. Accessed Janurary 11, 2020, at: https://www.absolut.com/en/products/absolut-rainbow/
Akbari, M. (2015). Different Impacts of Advertising Appeals on Advertising Attitude for High and Low Involvement Products. Global Business Review, 16(3), 478-493. doi: 10.1177/0972150915569936
Andéhn, M., Kazeminia, A., Lucarelli, A., & Sevin, E. (2014). User-generated place brand equity on Twitter: The dynamics of brand associations in social media. Place Branding And Public Diplomacy, 10(2), 132-144. doi: 10.1057/pb.2014.8
Appels, L. (2019). Bedrijven die meeliften met Pride: oprecht of pinkwashing?. Het Parool. Accessed January 11, 2020, at: https://www.parool.nl/amsterdam/bedrijven-die- meeliften-met-pride-oprecht-of-pinkwashing~be82e83e/
Bagozzi, R., Tybout, A., Craig, C., & Sternthal, B. (1979). The Construct Validity of the Tripartite Classification of Attitudes. Journal Of Marketing Research, 16(1), 88. doi: 10.2307/3150879
Basil, D., & Herr, P. (2006). Attitudinal Balance and Cause-Related Marketing: An Empirical Application of Balance Theory. Journal Of Consumer Psychology, 16(4), 391-403. doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1604_10
Becker-Olsen, K., Cudmore, B., & Hill, R. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal Of Business Research, 59(1), 46-53. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.01.001
Bergkvist, L., & Zhou, K. (2019). Cause-related marketing persuasion research: an integrated framework and directions for further research. International Journal Of Advertising, 38(1), 5-25. doi: 10.1080/02650487.2018.1452397
Bigné‐Alcañiz, E., Currás‐Pérez, R., & Sánchez‐García, I. (2009). Brand credibility in cause‐ related marketing: the moderating role of consumer values. Journal Of Product & Brand Management, 18(6), 437-447. doi: 10.1108/10610420910989758
Bigné, E., Currás‐Pérez, R., & Aldás‐Manzano, J. (2012). Dual nature of cause‐brand fit. European Journal Of Marketing, 46(3/4), 575-594. doi:
Birnbaum, M., & Stegner, S. (1979). Source credibility in social judgment: Bias, expertise, and the judge's point of view. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 37(1), 48-74. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.1.48
Bollinger, A. (2019). Listerine has released a rainbow bottle to ‘celebrate’ pride & the internet is cracking up. Accessed 11 January, 2019 at:
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/05/listerine-released-rainbow-bottle-celebrate-pride-internet-cracking/
Bruner, G. (2009). Marketing scales handbook (5th ed., pp. 89-98). Fort Worth: GCBII Productions.
Bülbül, C., & Menon, G. (2010). The Power of Emotional Appeals in Advertising. Journal Of Advertising Research, 50(2), 169-180. doi: 10.2501/s0021849910091336
Das, N., Guha, A., Biswas, A., & Krishnan, B. (2014). How product–cause fit and donation quantifier interact in cause-related marketing (CRM) settings: evidence of the cue congruency effect. Marketing Letters, 27(2), 295-308. doi: 10.1007/s11002-014-9338- 6
Dragojevic, M., & Giles, H. (2016). I Don't Like You Because You're Hard to Understand: The Role of Processing Fluency in the Language Attitudes Process. Human
Communication Research, 42(3), 396-420. doi: 10.1111/hcre.12079
Eagly, A., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes (p. 3). Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Elving, W. (2013). Scepticism and corporate social responsibility communications: the influence of fit and reputation. Journal Of Marketing Communications, 19(4), 277- 292. doi: 10.1080/13527266.2011.631569
Ermac, R. (2019). Listerine’s pride bottle is leaving a bad taste in people’s mouths. Accessed 11 January, 2020 at: https://www.pride.com/news/2019/5/22/listerines-pride-bottle-leaving-bad-taste-peoples-mouths
Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance (Vol. 2). Califiornia: Stanford university press.
Folse, J., Grau, S., Moulard, J., & Pounders, K. (2014). Cause-Related Marketing: Factors Promoting Campaign Evaluations. Journal Of Current Issues & Research In Advertising, 35(1), 50-70. doi: 10.1080/10641734.2014.866847
Fraanje, T. (2018). Ik vroeg mensen in de viplounge van de botenparade of ze Pride te commercieel vinden. Vice. Accesed 11 January, 2020 at:
https://www.vice.com/nl/article/vbw59j/ik-vroeg-mensen-in-de-viplounge-van-de-botenparade-of-ze-de-pride-te-commercieel-vinden
Garrahan, M. (2016). Bono surveys a Red decade of ‘conscious consumerism’. Financial Times, January 20 2016.
Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and Cognitive Organization. The Journal Of Psychology, 21(1), 107-112. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1946.9917275
Jones, K., Brewster, M., & Jones, J. (2014). The creation and validation of the LGBT Ally Identity Measure. Psychology Of Sexual Orientation And Gender Diversity, 1(2), 181-195. doi: 10.1037/sgd0000033
Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. New York: Wiley.
Küster, I., & Hernández, A. (2012). Brand impact on purchase intention. An approach in social networks channel. Economics And Business Letters, 1(2), 1. doi:
10.17811/ebl.1.2.2012.1-9
Lafferty, B. (2007). The relevance of fit in a cause–brand alliance when consumers evaluate corporate credibility. Journal Of Business Research, 60(5), 447-453. doi:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.09.030
Lafferty, B. (2009). Selecting the right cause partners for the right reasons: The role of importance and fit in cause-brand alliances. Psychology And Marketing, 26(4), 359-382. doi: 10.1002/mar.20277
Lee, A., & Labroo, A. (2004). The Effect of Conceptual and Perceptual Fluency on Brand Evaluation. Journal Of Marketing Research, 41(2), 151-165. doi:
10.1509/jmkr.41.2.151.28665
Lee, J., & Johnson, K. (2019). Cause-related marketing strategy types: assessing their relative effectiveness. Journal Of Fashion Marketing And Management: An International Journal, 23(2), 239-256. doi: 10.1108/jfmm-03-2018-0032
Lee, Y., & Koo, J. (2016). Can a Celebrity Serve as an Issue-Relevant Argument in the Elaboration Likelihood Model?. Psychology & Marketing, 33(3), 195-208. doi: 10.1002/mar.20865
Lutz, R.J., S.B. MacKenzie & G.E. Belch (1983). Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: Determinants and consequences. Advances in Consumer
MacKenzie, S., Lutz, R., & Belch, G. (1986). The Role of Attitude toward the Ad as a Mediator of Advertising Effectiveness: A Test of Competing
Explanations. Journal Of Marketing Research, 23(2). doi: 10.2307/3151660 McPherson, S. (2018), ‘8 Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Trends To Look For In
2018’, Accessed October 10, 2019, at:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanmcpherson/2018/01/12/8-corporate-social-responsibility-csr-trends-to-look-for-in-2018/#6dba889140ce
Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer Responses to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Initiatives: Examining the Role of Brand-Cause Fit in Cause-Related Marketing. Journal Of Advertising, 36(2), 63-74. doi: 10.2753/joa0091-3367360204
Olson, E. (2016). An exploration of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender pride festival sponsors. Journal Of Convention & Event Tourism, 18(1), 60-73. doi:
10.1080/15470148.2016.1230531
Ostrom, T. (1969). The relationship between the affective, behavioral, and cognitive
components of attitude. Journal Of Experimental Social Psychology, 5(1), 12-30. doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(69)90003-1
Pracejus, J., & Olsen, G. (2004). The role of brand/cause fit in the effectiveness of cause- related marketing campaigns. Journal Of Business Research, 57(6), 635-640. doi: 10.1016/s0148-2963(02)00306-5
Rifon, N., Choi, S., Trimble, C., & Li, H. (2004). Congruence Effects in Sponsorship: The Mediating Role of Sponsor Credibility and Consumer Attributions of Sponsor Motive. Journal Of Advertising, 33(1), 30-42. doi: 10.1080/00913367.2004.10639151
Samu, S., & Wymer, W. (2009). The effect of fit and dominance in cause marketing communications. Journal Of Business Research, 62(4), 432-440. doi:
10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.039
Samu, S., & Wymer, W. (2014). Cause marketing communications. European Journal Of Marketing, 48(7/8), 1333-1353. doi: 10.1108/ejm-04-2012-0226
Schwarz, N. (2004). Metacognitive Experiences in Consumer Judgment and Decision Making. Journal Of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332-348. doi:
10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_2
Sender, K. (2001). Gay Readers, Consumers, and a Dominant Gay Habitus: 25 Years of the Advocate Magazine. Journal Of Communication, 51(1), 73-99. doi: 10.1111/j.1460- 2466.2001.tb02873.x
Sherif, C. W., Sherif, M., & Nebergall, R. E. (1965). Attitude and attitude change: The social judgment-involvement approach (pp. 127-167). Philadelphia: Saunders.
Sherif, C., & Sherif, M. (1976). Attitude, ego-involvement, and change. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
Simonin, B., & Ruth, J. (1998). Is a Company Known by the Company It Keeps? Assessing the Spillover Effects of Brand Alliances on Consumer Brand Attitudes. Journal Of Marketing Research, 35(1), 30. doi: 10.2307/3151928
Simonsohn, U. (2015). Small Telescopes: Detectability and the Evaluation of Replication Results. Psychological Science, 26(5), 559-569. doi: 10.1177/0956797614567341 Sirgy, M. (1982). Self-Concept in Consumer Behavior: A Critical Review. Journal Of
Consumer Research, 9(3), 287. doi: 10.1086/208924
Spears, N., & Singh, S. (2004). Measuring Attitude toward the Brand and Purchase
Intentions. Journal Of Current Issues & Research In Advertising, 26(2), 53-66. doi: 10.1080/10641734.2004.10505164
Stannard-Friel, J. (2004). Proving the win-win strategy of cause-related marketing. Accessed January 6, 2020 at: http://www.onphilanthropy.com
Trimble, C., & Holmes, G. (2013). New Thinking on Antecedents to Successful CRM Campaigns: Consumer Acceptance of an Alliance. Journal Of Promotion Management, 19(3), 352-372. doi: 10.1080/10496491.2013.787381
Van Beusekom, G., & Kuyper, L. (2018). LHBT-monitor 2018 (978 90 377 0891 2). Accessed 1 February 2020 at:
https://www.scp.nl/Publicaties/Alle_publicaties/Publicaties_2018/LHBT_Monitor_20 18
Varadarajan, P., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-Related Marketing: A Coalignment of Marketing Strategy and Corporate Philanthropy. Journal Of Marketing, 52(3), 58. doi: 10.2307/1251450
Wang, X., & Yang, Z. (2010). The Effect of Brand Credibility on Consumers’ Brand Purchase Intention in Emerging Economies: The Moderating Role of Brand Awareness and Brand Image. Journal Of Global Marketing, 23(3), 177-188. doi: 10.1080/08911762.2010.487419
Wolinski, C. (2018). How did vodka become the spirit of Pride?. Vinepair. Accessed January 11, 2019, at: https://vinepair.com/articles/vodka-lgbtq-pride
Appendix A
Beste deelnemer,
Hierbij wil ik je uitnodigen om deel te nemen aan een onderzoek dat wordt uitgevoerd onder verantwoordelijkheid van de Graduate School of Communication, onderdeel van de
Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Het onderzoek waar ik je medewerking voor wil vragen is getiteld "Opinies en Merken", hetgeen ik uitvoer in het kader van mijn master scriptie. Het onderzoek bestaat uit twee verschillende onderdelen in het eerste onderdeel word je gevraagd naar je mening over een bepaald sociaal onderwerp. Als je dit deel hebt afgerond ga je naar het tweede onderdeel waarin je wordt gevraagd naar je mening over merken en merkuitingen. Je krijgt in dit tweede deel een video te zien van een merk waarover we graag je mening willen weten. Daarnaast worden nog wat algemene vragen gesteld.
Je kunt aan dit onderzoek meedoen als je 18 jaar of ouder bent. Deelname aan het onderzoek duurt tussen de 5 en 10 minuten.
Omdat dit onderzoek wordt uitgevoerd onder de verantwoordelijkheid van ASCoR, Universiteit van Amsterdam, heb je de garantie dat:
1. Je anonimiteit is gewaarborgd en dat je antwoorden of gegevens onder geen enkele voorwaarde aan derden worden verstrekt, tenzij je hiervoor van tevoren uitdrukkelijke toestemming hebt verleend.
2. Je zonder opgaaf van redenen kunt weigeren mee te doen aan het onderzoek of je deelname voortijdig kunt afbreken. Ook kun je achteraf (binnen 24 uur na deelname) je toestemming intrekken voor het gebruik van je antwoorden of gegevens voor het onderzoek.
3. Deelname aan het onderzoek geen noemenswaardige risico's of ongemakken met zich meebrengt en je niet met expliciet aanstootgevend materiaal zult worden
geconfronteerd.
4. Je uiterlijk vijf maanden na afloop van het onderzoek de beschikking kunt krijgen over een onderzoeksrapportage waarin de algemene resultaten van het onderzoek worden toegelicht.
contact opnemen met Guus van Duijn (g.j.g.vanduijn@uva.nl).
Mochten er naar aanleiding van je deelname aan dit onderzoek klachten of opmerkingen bij je zijn, dan kun je contact opnemen met het lid van de Commissie Ethiek van de afdeling
Communicatiewetenschap, per adres: ASCoR secretariaat, Commissie Ethiek, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Postbus 15793, 1001 NG Amsterdam; 020‚Äê525 3680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl.
Een vertrouwelijke behandeling van je klacht of opmerking is daarbij gewaarborgd.
Ik hoop je hiermee voldoende te hebben geïnformeerd en dank je bij voorbaat hartelijk voor je deelname aan dit onderzoek dat voor mij van grote waarde is.
Met vriendelijke groet,
Guus van Duijn
Ik verklaar hierbij op voor mij duidelijke wijze te zijn ingelicht over de aard en methode van het onderzoek, zoals uiteengezet in de uitnodigingsmail voor dit onderzoek.
Ik stem geheel vrijwillig in met deelname aan dit onderzoek. Ik behoud daarbij het recht deze instemming weer in te trekken zonder dat ik daarvoor een reden hoef op te geven. Ik besef dat ik op elk moment mag stoppen met het onderzoek.
Als mijn onderzoeksresultaten worden gebruikt in wetenschappelijke publicaties, of op een andere manier openbaar worden gemaakt, dan zal dit volledig geanonimiseerd gebeuren. Mijn persoonsgegevens worden niet door derden ingezien zonder mijn uitdrukkelijke toestemming.
Als ik meer informatie wil, nu of in de toekomst, dan kan ik me wenden tot Guus van Duijn (g.j.g.vanduijn@uva.nl) of zijn begeleider Saar Mollen (s.mollen@uva.nl). Voor eventuele klachten over dit onderzoek kan ik me wenden tot het lid van de Commissie Ethiek namens ASCoR, per adres: ASCoR secretariaat, Commissie Ethiek, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam; 020‐525 3680; ascor-secr‐fmg@uva.nl.
√ ik begrijp de bovenstaande tekst en ga akkoord met deelname aan het onderzoek
Wat is je geslacht?
Man
Vrouw
Anders, namelijk….
Identificeer je jezelf als onderdeel van de LGBTQ+ gemeenschap?
Ja
Nee
Deze vraag wil ik liever niet beantwoorden
Wat is je leeftijd in jaren?
[Open antwoord] Waarde lager dan 18: BEDANKT & EINDE SURVEY
Wat is je hoogst genoten of huidige opleiding?
Basisschool Lbo Mavo/Vmbo-t Havo Vwo Mbo Hbo Wo Bachelor Wo Master PhD Anders namelijk:_____
Perceived importance (Jones et al., 2014)
In deel 1 van het onderzoek willen we je vragen naar je mening over een sociaal onderwerp. Geef telkens aan in hoeverre de stellingen op jou van toepassing zijn.
Deze vragen gaan over jouw houding ten opzichte van seksuele minderheden. Met seksuele minderheden wordt in dit geval de LGBTQ+ gemeenschap bedoeld (dat is: lesbiennes,
