Creating vital non-profit brands:
The effects of non-profit brand personality on individuals’
intentions to donate
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s program Communication Science Under supervision of dr. A. Wonneberger
Fleur Denissen Student ID: 10518606 29-06-2018
Although research emphasizes the important role of brands for nonprofit organizations (NPOs), studies on nonprofit brand personality effects and relevant mediators are limited. Therefore, this study assessed the effects of four different brand personality dimensions on donation intentions, and considered trust and skepticism as possible mediators. An
experiment (N = 212) was executed and showed that there are no different effects of the brand personality dimensions on trust, skepticism and individuals’ intentions to donate blood to an NPO. Moreover, skepticism toward the NPO does not affect donation intentions, but trust in the organization does: perceived trustworthiness of the NPO positively influences individuals’ intentions to donate. These findings suggest that certain NPO brand personalities are not more effective than others in acquiring donors’ support, and that organizations’ focus should be on creating relationships based on trust. Finally, this study invites researchers to study brand personality from a broader perspective, as part of comprehensive branding concepts.
Keywords: nonprofit marketing, brand personality, charitable giving, social exchange, trust, skepticism
INTRODUCTION
The non-profit sector in The Netherlands has to cope with constant changes. Since the beginning of the 21st century, nonprofit organizations (NPOs) observe a loss of resources and a drop in contributions from both the government as well as foundations and individual donors (Size and scope of the third sector in Europe, 2016). Since at the same time the competition among NPOs is growing, their race for support, both financial and other, has never been more critical. One of the ways in which NPOs deal with this growing competition in their field is by using branding techniques developed in the for-profit context (Groza & Gordon, 2016). However, both academics as well as practitioners have expressed concern about the nonprofit sector becoming too commercialized as a result of the adoption of these
techniques (Stride & Lee, 2007). Now more than ever, NPOs are in need of branding strategies designed for nonprofits that differentiate them from their competitors and in turn allow for garnering more social, human and financial resources (Venable, Rose, Bush, & Gilbert, 2005).
Despite a growing body of research on the role of brands for NPOs (e.g. Sargeant, Ford, & Hudson, 2008; Shehu, Becker, Langmaack, & Clement, 2016; Venable et al., 2005), studies on the effects of brand personality, a vital branding concept, are limited in the
nonprofit sector. Combined with a lack of research regarding its effects not only on intentions to support the organization but also on other relevant factors, implies a need for more
research on the different effects of brand personalities in the nonprofit context.
The notion of brand personality can be defined as ‘the set of human characteristics that are associated with a brand’ (Aaker ,1997, p. 347). Brand personality is relevant for an NPO because it largely determines the way that individuals perceive a nonprofit brand, which in turn plays a significant role in making decisions about where to give volunteer efforts (Groza & Gordon, 2016). Venable et al. (2005) distinguish several nonprofit brand personalities (integrity, nurturance, ruggedness and sophistication), which function as essential cues used by individuals to evaluate NPOs and have the power to positively affect their intentions to donate (Hou, Du, & Tian, 2009). Literature suggests that the perceived trustworthiness of the NPO plays an important role in this relationship, in which brand personality and trust interact (Shehu et al., 2016). This is also supported by previous
research, providing evidence that donor involvement depends on a close identification with a nonprofit’s cause and relies on the perceived trustworthiness (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003), which in turn is created through a brand personality that appeals to donors (Hou et al., 2009). However, no previous research has studied the specific mediating role of trust for each brand personality individually.
In addition, although trust has been found to affect individuals’ giving intentions, there is a gap of research on the effects of skepticism toward the nonprofit brand. Most literature regarding skepticism focusses on for-profit organizations and purchase intentions, and the
limited amount of research on skepticism towards NPOs does not take into account branding – or more specifically, the concept of brand personality. This is surprising due to the
possibility that certain brand personalities might entail characteristics that are not typically associated with an NPO (e.g. aspects of sexy, glamour and upper-class, subsumed in the dimension of sophistication (Aaker, 1997)), which could evoke negative connotations and skepticism. In turn, since skepticism can be regarded as a counterpart of trust, it is plausible that skepticism can negatively affect donation intentions. As there is still a lack of research studying the effects of nonprofit brand personalities with the inclusion of relevant mediators combined (i.e. trust and skepticism), the following comprehensive research question can be posed:
When studying these effects, the research’ focus is on donation intentions in terms of blood, since a higher level of trust is assumed to be needed and therefore brand personalities may be of greater value. In addition, because advertising plays a dominant role in brand
personality creation (Ouwersloot & Tudorica, 2001), the study uses advertisements as a means to portray brand personalities.
Obtaining insight in the previously mentioned effects can be helpful for NPOs hoping to connect with individuals and acquire resources through the use of external
communication. NPOs will be more aware of which brand personality works best for raising trust and acquiring donors, which in turn may affect donation intentions. But most
importantly, focusing on the right brand personalities may be an essential component of a nonprofit’s marketing and branding toolkit, and increase its chances of survival in this competitive field.
In order to answer the research question, the paper is organized as follows. First, relevant literature on nonprofit branding, brand trust and brand skepticism is discussed. Thereafter, a model conceptualizing the possible relationships between the variables is
How do non-profit organizations’ brand personalities influence individuals’ donation intentions through trust in the organization and skepticism toward the organization?
tested. The findings of the study are then presented and discussed, before relevant implications, limitations as well as future research propositions are made.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Brand personality
In studies on consumer behavior and marketing, a growing amount of attention is given to the concept of brand personality. However, up until the end of the 20th century, research on brand personality was limited due in part to the lack of consensus regarding its definition (Aaker, 1997). How is brand personality distinguished from other branding
constructs? And does it have a set of dimensions that are similar to those of human personality? To answer these questions, Aaker (1997) developed a model which is
considered as the fundamental foundation of brand personality. The findings of personality studies in the psychology field on the Five Factor Model (John, 1990; McCrae & Costa 1989; Norman, 1963) were adapted by Aaker (1997) in order to measure consumer brand
personality. This Five Factor Model (FFM) functions as a framework to classify human characteristics and is a widely accepted fundamental approach to explore human
personalities (Gurven, Rueden, Massenkoff, Kaplan, & Vie, 2013). Aaker used this approach to study human characteristics of brands – since a brand personality can be defined as ‘the set of human characteristics that are associated with a brand’ (Aaker, 1997, p. 347) – and measured these characteristics’ valence among subjects. This resulted in a measure consisting of five dimensions: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. More specifically, sincerity is related to honesty and the feeling of warmth (agreeableness), whereas excitement is associated with sociability, energy and activities (extraversion). Competence encompasses traits of reliability, goal orientation and
organizational success. Finally, sophistication and ruggedness are related to the materialized image of status and wealth: sophistication encompasses aspects of sexy, glamour and
upper-class, whereas ruggedness represents masculinity, strength and toughness (Aaker, 1997). Further analyses, relying on consumer perceptions, indicated that this newly
developed five-factor framework functioned as a valid and reliable measure of the (symbolic) attributes of brand personality (Aaker, 1997).
However, since the model has been developed in 1997, there is a possibility the dimensions might be obsolete and therefore not valid to use today. Moreover, the research conducted by Aaker (1997) had an economic nature and has solely been tested on
commercial brands involving for-profit firms (e.g. Ekinci & Hosany, 2006; Freling & Forbes, 2005; Kim, Han, & Park, 2001), in which brand personality effects on consumer engagement and brand loyalty were most commonly tested. The question whether these brand personality dimensions and its accompanying effects are also applicable in the non-profit sector
remained unaddressed.
Brand personality in the non-profit sector
Whereas brand personalities of for-profit organizations have been studied
extensively, the brand personalities of NPOs remained an undiscovered area of research up until 2005 (Venable et al., 2005). This is surprising, since a brand personality is beneficial to non-profit practitioners and researchers because it differentiates NPOs in a competitive charitable market. Donors ascribe personality traits to NPOs and use the organizations’ personality to differentiate between nonprofits (Venable et al., 2005).
Building on Aaker’s (1997) model of brand personality dimensions, Venable et al. (2005) developed and refined a parsimonious measure of brand personality specifically for the non-profit sector in order to maximally benefit from branding strategies. Several
multimethod studies of nonprofit stakeholders validated the role of brand personality in NPOs of three major classifications: health, environment/rights, and arts/humanities. This resulted in four dimensions of brand personality for nonprofits: honesty, reputability, and reliability (subsumed in the dimension/level integrity); goal orientation and robustness (ruggedness); a loving and caring nature (nurturance); and characteristics related to glamour (sophistication).
When comparing these dimensions to the ones defined by Aaker (1997), it appears that the previously described dimensions of sincerity, excitement and competence are not featured as prominent characteristics for a nonprofit brand personality. In addition, the findings of Venable et al. (2005) demonstrated the existence of two important characteristics that distinctively measure a non-profit brand personality: the dimension of nurturance and integrity. Although the latter is similar to Aaker’s (1997) dimension of sincerity, the overall difference between the two models underlines the importance of using a scale especially applicable for NPOs.
Finally, Venable et al. (2005) also found that a nonprofit brand personality may influence potential donors’ likelihood to donate. These findings correspond to more recent studies which adopted the scale of Venable et al. (2005) and emphasize that brand
personality plays an important role in stakeholders’ evaluation of an NPO and consequently, their intentions to donate (Hou et al. 2009; Faircloth, 2005). Considering this, the scale becomes especially relevant in the context of the current study in which donation intentions are a central dependent variable.
Pro-social behavior and social exchange
Besides organizational (marketing) aspects, what specifically motivates individuals to give to charity? Essentially, donating behavior in general has a pro-social nature. Pro-social behavior encompasses activities that are costly to individuals themselves but mostly benefit others (Andreoni, 1990). An aid in explaining why individuals engage in pro-social behavior can be found in the Social Exchange Theory. For NPOs, the nature of exchange is different from the typical monetary-based exchange in the for-profit sector. Rather than economical, the act of donating to a nonprofit inclines to be more social in nature. The social benefits of donating are mostly of greater importance than the economic benefits and can range from self-worth and satisfaction to humanitarianism and spiritualism (Arnett, German, & Hunt, 2003). Because social exchanges predominantly involve helping others by donating tangible items such as blood or organs, these actions are driven by trust in the organization
(Moorman, Zaltman, & Deshpande, 1992). Therefore, a nonprofit organization should identify and communicate benefits to its stakeholders in order to establish successful and trustworthy relationships (Venable et al., 2005). Brand personality can be a positive contributor to
establishing these relationships, since a nonprofit brand personality functions as a focal cue for individuals engaging in pro-social behavior (Shehu et al., 2016).
Nonprofit brand trust
To stimulate donations and pro-social behavior, nonprofits should invest their efforts into developing brand personalities that are more likely to convey trust (Shehu et al., 2016). In short, brand trust can be defined as “the willingness of the average stakeholder to rely on the ability of the brand to perform its stated function” (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001, p. 82), which arises after consumers’ evaluation of an organizations’ offerings.
According to previous studies (e.g. Bainbridge, 1997; Kamp, 1999; Smith, 2001) trust is a brand’s vital attribute. Especially to NPOs, developing trust is an essential means to encourage support (Sargeant et al., 2008). Since donors are not directly able to observe the impact of their donations (Supphellen, Kvitastein, & Nelson, 1997), the exchange depends highly on the development of trust: donors need to trust that their donations will be used as they wish and expect (Arnett et al., 2003; Sargeant & Jay, 2004). Several researchers argue that donors often depend on nonprofit brands as trust-related cues regarding social
exchanges with NPOs (Sargeant et al., 2008; Venable et al., 2005). Therefore, in order for an NPO to become part of donors’ consideration, a positive brand perception is a necessary and essential condition for the organization (Tapp, Lindsay, & Sorrell, 1999). This is where the importance of nonprofit branding is underlined once more, since brand personality has the power to influence stakeholders’ perception of a brand (Shehu et al., 2016).
Interestingly, studies on how different types of nonprofit brand personalities affect trust are limited. Doney and Cannon (1997) found that when companies provide beliefs of honesty, reliability and safety – which are reflected in the brand personality of integrity – brand trust will be generated subsequently. This corresponds to the findings of Venable et al.
(2005), who demonstrated the importance of trust regarding the evaluation of NPOs, and that a brand personality which focuses on integrity and nurturance enhances donors’ intention to engage with a particular NPO. Shehu et al. (2016) also conducted a study on the effects of brand personalities of NPOs and found evidence for trust-based social exchanges, with the two nonprofit-specific dimensions integrity and nurturance as relevant brand personalities. Their results demonstrated that both dimensions indeed reflect the loving and caring nature of NPOs, testify to the pro-social nature of donations, and serve as a trust signal which affects donors’ intentions to support nonprofits.
Based on these findings, it is expected that the nonprofit brand personalities of integrity and nurturance will be positively related to higher levels of trust, as compared to the personalities of ruggedness and sophistication. In addition, since donation intentions appear to be highly dependent on trust, we can expect a positive relationship between trust and donation intentions. Thus, the following hypotheses can be stated:
Brand skepticism
Although trust has been found to play a role in the relationship between nonprofit branding and donors’ intentions to give, there is a lack of research on the mediating role of skepticism between brand personality and donation intentions. In this study, skepticism
Hypothesis 1:
The nonprofit brand personality dimensions integrity and nurturance cause higher levels of trust in the nonprofit organization as compared to the dimensions of ruggedness and sophistication, which cause relatively lower levels of trust in the organization.
Hypothesis 2:
Trust in a nonprofit organization positively influences individuals’ intentions to donate to the organization.
Hypothesis 3:
Brand personality has an indirect effect on donation intentions through trust, i.e. trust functions as a mediator.
toward an organization is studied with the use of an advertisement, since advertising plays a dominant role in brand personality creation (Ouwersloot & Tudorica, 2001). Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998, p. 160) defined skepticism toward advertising as “the tendency toward disbelief of advertising claims”, doubting its truthfulness. When studying the effects of skepticism, advertisements that evoke skepticism are found to be less likeable, reliable and influential (Obermiller, Spangenberg, & McLachlan, 2005). Moreover, skepticism toward an advertisement causes lower purchasing intentions (Obermiller et al., 2005). Since these findings are only valid in the for-profit sector, it is problematic to state that skepticism toward a nonprofit advertisement also leads to less donation intentions. However, due to the fact that skepticism is reflective of a general distrust (Obermiller et al., 2005), one may expect skepticism to cause opposing effects of trust regarding NPOs (i.e. negatively affecting donation intentions).
In addition, Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998, p. 164) believe that “the aim of advertising generally and ultimately is to persuade people to buy the advertised product”. This corresponds to the arguments used by Schweda, Wöhlke, and Schicktanz (2009), who discuss prominent dichotomies present in the context of organ donation. Their findings suggest that using a commercial model (such as an advertisement) to stimulate donations in the nonprofit sector can raise skepticism. This can be explained by dichotomies (e.g.
donation versus sale and altruism versus economics) reflected in advertisements. Therefore, it can be expected that in the current study such dichotomies may also come to mind and evoke skepticism toward the NPO, in turn affecting donation intentions. Yet, could certain brand personality dimensions be responsible for higher levels of skepticism? And, if so, which dimensions would they be?
Since there is no research on these possible effects, the current study aims to answer the above questions. Whereas the brand personality dimensions ruggedness and
sophistication are expected to cause relatively lower levels of trust in an NPO than integrity and nurturance (Hypotheses 1 and 2), it is expected that they will in fact cause higher levels skepticism toward the organization – since trust and skepticism can be seen as opposites.
Moreover, it is expected that skepticism in turn negatively influences donation intentions. Thus, the following hypotheses can be stated:
Conceptual model
Based on the above four hypotheses, the relationships between the variables have been visually summarized in Figure 1 below, which illustrates the conceptual model.
Figure 1: Conceptual Model Hypothesis 4:
The nonprofit brand personality dimensions ruggedness and sophistication cause higher levels of skepticism toward the nonprofit organization as compared to the dimensions of integrity and nurturance, which cause relatively lower levels of skepticism toward the organization.
Hypothesis 5:
Skepticism toward a nonprofit organization negatively influences individuals’ intentions to donate to the organization.
Hypothesis 6:
Brand personality has an indirect effect on donation intentions through skepticism, i.e. skepticism functions as a mediator.
METHOD
Research design and respondents
The study used an experimental design with brand personality as independent between-subject variable (operated on four levels: integrity, nurturance, ruggedness, and sophistication), trust and skepticism as mediators, and donation intentions as dependent variable. The study was conducted through an online survey.
Respondents were recruited by means of convenience sampling and contacted online through e-mail and Facebook. Respondents agreed to participate voluntarily. Some
respondents were asked to share the survey, which therefore partially led to snowball sampling. This resulted in a final sample of 212 respondents. Of these respondents, 153 were female (72.2%) and 59 were male (27.8%). The average age of the respondents was 27 years (SD = 9.35), with the age ranging from 19 to 64 years. Most respondents were Dutch (69.8%) or Canadian (12.3%). 22 other nationalities were represented in the sample (8.8%). In addition, 28 respondents worked for an NPO (13.2%). Most respondents indicated to donate money once to five times a year (39.6%) and never to donate blood (81.1%).
Experimental stimuli
Since the independent variable brand personality consisted of four levels, four different nonprofit textual campaigns were created (Appendix A). All campaigns featured a fictive Dutch NPO: Blood Center Netherlands (BCN). By using a fictive organization, it ensured that individuals’ existing knowledge and judgements would not result in biased answers which could affect the findings. In order to protect the internal validity of the study, the campaigns were kept as similar as possible. First, all campaigns had identical logos, visuals, and layout. Second, the structure was kept similar among the campaigns. The first section introduced the readers to the organization, which was not manipulated. The second section elaborated more on BCN’s mission, values and activities. This text, however, was
manipulated in order to correspond to the different brand personalities. To illustrate, the campaign reflecting the integrity focused on the procedures used to ensure safety of the blood transfusion chain. The nurturance campaign expressed how much BCN cares about its people: both the patients as well as the donors. Ruggedness, on the other hand, was
represented in the campaign by describing the organization as tough and by emphasizing the goals it aims to reach (i.e. obtaining donors and saving more lives). Finally, the sophistication campaign portrayed the organization in terms of popularity and media attention (e.g. the annual event of Donor Week was discussed and its attention). Although the content of this second section varied among the four conditions, the versions had similar length and the same writing style was used. The campaigns finished with a third section, which was not manipulated, asking the reader to become a donor.
Pretest
In order to test the manipulated material, a within-subjects pretest was conducted (N = 22). Each respondent was shown the four versions of the campaigns, one for each brand personality. After studying each campaign, the respondents filled in a survey regarding the brand personality of the organization based on the campaign. Existing and reliable scales for measuring these nonprofit brand personality dimensions were used (Venable, 2005), which can be found in Appendix B.1.
To test whether the manipulation was successful, an ANOVA with repeated measures was conducted. Beforehand, a factor analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation indicated that each of the scales was unidimensional (Table 1, Appendix C). Cronbach’s Alpha reliability analysis suggested that the scales were reliable. Table 2 (Appendix C) presents the alpha values for each of the computed mean scores, along with its means and standard deviations. Regarding the condition nurturance, analysis showed that the manipulation was successful, since this condition scored significantly higher than the other conditions on the items
measuring nurturance, F(2.13, 44.64) = 5.03, p = .01. Yet, Bonferroni pairwise comparisons suggested that this difference was only significant between nurturance and integrity (p = .02).
Regarding integrity, no significant differences on its items were found between the conditions, F(1.84,38.53) = 2.72, p = .08. However, the condition of ruggedness, F(1.57, 33.03) = 5.76, p = .01, as well as of sophistication, F(1.65, 34.73) = 5.8, p = .01, differed significantly from the other conditions. Bonferroni pairwise comparisons showed that for ruggedness, this difference was only significant between ruggedness and nurturance (p = .01), and that for sophistication, the difference was only significant between sophistication and integrity (p = .04).
As presented in Table 2 (Appendix C), mean scores show that the campaigns indeed reflected the desired brand personalities. However, these differences were not all significant. Since this was possibly due to the relatively small sample size, no further changes to the material were made.
Procedure
The data for this study was gathered mid-2018, using an online Qualtrics survey. Each respondent was randomly assigned to one of the four conditions (between-subjects method), which was done automatically as soon as they opened the link to the survey. The survey opened with an introduction explaining the topic of the study and asking for the respondents’ consent. After agreeing to the consent statement, each respondent was shown one of the four campaigns (Appendix A). Thereafter, they were asked questions about the campaign (Appendix B). First, they were asked about the characteristics of the organization (manipulation check). Afterwards, their level of trust and skepticism toward the organization was measured. Finally, they were asked to indicate their donation intentions. At the end of the survey, respondents were asked for demographical information and they were thanked for their participation. The respondents filled out the survey on their computers, tablets or smartphones, in a natural setting.
Measures
Manipulation check
The scale used to measure whether the conditions indeed reflected the brand personality it was intended to reflect, was entirely adopted from Venable et al. (2005). Each brand personality dimension was assessed by three to five items, which were measured on a 7-point Likert Scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). To give an illustration of some of the items, one statement about the level of integrity read: “The organization is honest”. Another statement, measuring ruggedness, read: “The organization is
goal-oriented”. A complete listing of all of the items can be found in Appendix B.1. and in Table 1 (Appendix C). The reliability of the scales is presented in Table 2 (Appendix C).
Dependent variables
Trust in the organization was measured using a 5-item scale, which was a
combination of two existing scales (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Zboja & Voorhees, 2006). The items “I trust this organizational brand” and “The organizational brand is honest” were adopted from Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001). The other three items (“The organizational brand is honest”; “The organizational brand has high integrity”; “The organizational brand is competent”) were adopted from Zboja and Voorhees (2006). All items were measured on a 7-point Likert Scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). A Factor Analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation indicated that the scale was unidimensional (EV = 3.57), explaining 71.4% of the variance. The items of all three dependent variables (Appendix B.2.) including the factor loadings are presented in Table 3 (Appendix C). Reliability analysis showed that the scale was reliable (Cronbach’s Alpha = .90), meaning that the items were internally
consistent. Therefore, a new variable was constructed based on the mean scores of all five items, which was used in further analyses. The scores on the new variable ranged from 1.2 to 7 (M = 5.29; SD = .98).
Skepticism toward the organization was measured using a 4-item scale. The scale was adopted from Reijmersdal, Tutaj, and Boerman (2014), who based their scale on the
one used by Gupta and Gould (1997). Each item was formulated as follows: “The organizational brand is”. The terms that followed after were ‘dependable’, ‘commercial’, ‘deceptive’, ‘credible’ and ‘misleading’. All items were measured on a 7-point Likert Scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). A factor analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation indicated that the scale was unidimensional (EV = 2.75), explaining 64.25% of the variance. Reliability analysis showed that the scale was reliable (Cronbach’s Alpha = .80). The scores on the new variable with calculated mean scores ranged from 1 to 6.5 (M = 3.05; SD = 1.12). Intentions to donate, the last dependent variable, was measured using a 3-item scale. The scale was adopted from Masser, White, Hyde, Terry, and Robinson (2009). The
statements read the following: “I would like to donate blood within the next 3 months”, “I intend donate blood within the next 3 months” and “I will donate blood within the next 3 months”. All items were measured on a 7-point Likert Scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). A factor analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation indicated that the scale was unidimensional (EV = 2.61), explaining 86.83% of the variance. Reliability analysis showed that the scale was reliable (Cronbach’s Alpha = .92). The scores on the new variable with calculated mean scores ranged from 1 to 7 (M = 3.59; SD = 1.72).
Control variables
To ensure that possible effects of brand personality on the dependent variables would not be caused by differences between respondents in the conditions, control variables were added. These variables encompassed demographical information (such as gender, age and nationality), whether respondents were employed in a nonprofit organization (0 = no, 1 = yes), if they had ever supported an NPO (0 = no, 1 = yes), and how often they donated blood and money. The latter was formulated as follows: “How often do you donate [money / blood] to a nonprofit organization?”. The answers were measured on a 5-point scale (1 = never, 2 = less than once a year, 3 = 1-5 times a year, 4 = 6-10 times a year, 5 = more than 10 times a year). A complete listing of all control items can be found in Appendix B.2.
Data analyses
Randomization checks were conducted to ensure that the participants’ gender, nationality, age, work, and donation frequency were evenly distributed over the conditions. ANOVA and Chi-Square analyses showed there were no significant differences between the experimental conditions with respect to gender, χ2 = 3.05, df = 3, p = .38, nationality, χ2 = 71.53, df = 69, p = .39, age, F(3, 208) = .45; p = .73), for-profit/non-profit work, χ2 = 2.3, df = 3, p = .51, blood donation frequency, F(3, 208) = .62; p = .60, and monetary donation
frequency, F(3, 208) = .68; p = .56. Since the randomization checks were all successful, no control variables were used in further analyses.
The data was imported into SPSS Statistics and the model was tested using Hayes’ PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013), model four. The analyses for this study used 10,000 bootstrap samples to estimate the bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (BCBCI). In order to test the effects of the different brand personality dimensions, dummy variables were created for each dimension. Four separate multiple mediation analyses were run with one of the brand personality dimensions as reference group. In these analyses, one of the
dimensions functioned as independent variable, trust and skepticism as mediators, and donation intentions as dependent variable. Two other dimensions were included as covariates in order to control for them and increase statistical power. The personality dimension that was excluded from the analyses became the reference category.
RESULTS
Manipulation check
In order to study whether the manipulation of the independent variable brand
personality was successful in the experiment, a manipulation check was conducted. This was done by a One-Way ANOVA with the mean scores on the four brand personality dimensions as dependent variables and condition as factor. As presented in Table 2 (Appendix C), though quite minimal, each condition did indeed show higher scores on its accompanying
manipulation check. However, the differences between these mean scores were not
significant among the conditions of integrity, F(3, 208) = .77, p = .51, nurturance, F(3, 208) = 1.41, p = .24, and ruggedness, F(3, 207) = 1.17, p = .32. Regarding the manipulation check of sophistication, significant differences between the conditions were found, F(3, 208) = 3.98, p < .01. However, a Bonferroni post-hoc test did not show any comparison within this condition to be significant, thus differences between its mean scores could not be
interpreted. To summarize, it cannot be stated that the manipulation of the experimental material was entirely successful.
Exploratory correlations
To explore the relationship between the mediators trust and skepticism, and the dependent variable donation intentions, correlations (Pearson’s r) were studied. The correlation values suggested a significant weak positive relationship between trust and donation intentions (r = .26; p < .001) and no significant relationship between skepticism and donation intentions (r = -.10; p = .14). The correlation matrix also showed a moderate to strong negative relationship between trust and skepticism (r = -.56; p < .001), which corresponds to theory that both are indeed two contradictory concepts. Further analyses investigated the role of brand personality and possible significant relationships with the mediators and dependent variable.
Multiple mediation model
Figure 2 represents the tested multiple mediation models with brand personality (four levels) as independent variable, trust and skepticism as mediators, and donation intentions as dependent variable. The paths in this figure correspond to the results presented in Table 5. The c-path in the model includes the direct effect of brand personality on donation
intentions, independent of the effect of the mediators (c’), and the total effect of brand personality on donation intentions (c), which is the sum of the direct effect and the indirect effect via the mediators (Hayes, 2013).
In order to test whether the different dimensions of brand personality had an effect on donation intentions, an One-Way ANOVA was conducted. There was no significant
difference between the brand personality dimensions and intentions to donate, F(3,208) = .51, p = .67. This means that the level of individuals’ intentions to donate blood to the NPO did not vary between the four different campaigns that were read. Findings of subsequent regression analyses using the PROCESS macro indicated that the four multiple mediation models (comparing integrity to ruggedness and to sophistication, and comparing nurturance to ruggedness and to sophistication) were all significant, F(5,206) = 3.40; p = .006; R2 = .08.
The next sections discuss the effects of each brand personality and the mediators specifically.
Figure 2: Tested multiple mediation model
Brand personality, trust and donation intentions Brand personality and trust
Four regression analyses using the PROCESS macro tested the effects of the four brand personality dimensions on trust, subsumed in Hypothesis 1. Mean scores indicated that integrity and nurturance scored higher on trust than ruggedness and sophistication did (Table 4). To test whether these differences were significant, four regression analyses were conducted. As shown in Table 5, results of the analyses testing the first two models indicated that integrity did not predict trust (path a1) differently than ruggedness, ba1 = .19; SE = .19;
t(208)= .99; p = .32, or sophistication did, ba1 = .11; SE = .19; t(208)= .61; p = .54. Similarly,
regarding the third and fourth regression model, nurturance did not predict trust differently than ruggedness, ba1 = .22; SE = .19; t(208)= 1.16; p = .25, and sophistication did, ba1 = .15;
SE = .19; t(208)= .78; p = .44. Since these findings suggested that there was no significant difference between the effects of brand personality on trust, Hypothesis 1 remains
unsupported.
Trust and donation intentions
Hypothesis 2, which expected a positive relationship between trust and donation intentions (path a2), was tested using a simple linear regression analysis. Results indicated
that trust was a significant positive predictor of donation intentions, ba2 = .45; SE = .12; t(210)
= 3.93; p < .001. For each additional point on the scale of trust, the average donation intentions increased by .45. In addition, trust explained 7% of the variance in donation intentions (R2 = .07). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported.
Total, direct and indirect effects
The four regression analyses mentioned earlier also tested the total (path c), direct (path c’) and indirect effects of brand personality on donation intentions. As presented in Table 5, none of the brand personality dimensions (compared to another dimension)
demonstrated significant total or direct effects on donation intentions. The indirect effect was tested using a bootstrap estimation approach with 10,000 samples. As Table 5 shows, there were no indirect effects of brand personality on donation intentions via trust. Altogether these findings suggest that there was no effect of the different brand personality dimensions on donation intentions, either with or without trust as mediating variable. Since no mediation was present, Hypothesis 3 was not supported.
Table 4
Means (and standard deviations) for the scores on trust, skepticism, and donation intentions (N = 212).
Brand personality Trust Skepticism Donation intentions
Integrity (N = 54) 5.35 (.91) 2.87 (1.11) 3.72 (1.84) Nurturance (N = 55) 5.38 (.87) 2.95 (1.19) 3.75 (1.69) Ruggedness (N = 51) 5.16 (.97) 3.24 (1.12) 3.48 (1.58) Sophistication (N = 52) 5.23 (1.17) 3.18 (1.04) 3.41 (1.79) Total 5.29 (.98) 3.05 (1.12) 3.59 (1.72) Table 5
Effects of brand personality on trust, skepticism and donation intentions (N = 212).
Brand personality (Reference)
Indirect effect a1 a2 c (Total) c’ (Direct)
Integrity (Ruggedness) .10 (.10) [-.084; .322] -.04 (.06) [-.195; .053] .19 (.19) -.37 (.22) .25 (.34) .19 (.33) Integrity (Sophistication) .06 (.11) [-.140; .299] -.04 (.05) [-.158; .057] .11 (.19) -.32 (.22) .31 (.34) .29 (.33) Nurturance (Ruggedness) .12 (.10) [-.059; .338] -.04 (.05) [-.161; .052] .22 (.19) -.29 (.22) .27 (.34) .18 (.33) Nurturance (Sophistication) .08 (.11) [-.123; .312] -.03 (.05) [-.128; .060] .15 (.19) -.24 (.22) .34 (.34) .28 (.32)
Note. SE between parentheses; BCBI = bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval using 10,000
bootstrap samples; first indirect effects are via trust as mediator, the second indirect effects are via skepticism.
Brand personality, skepticism and donation intentions Brand personality and skepticism
The four regression analyses discussed previously, also tested the expected mediating variable skepticism. First, effects of brand personality on skepticism (path b1),
subsumed in Hypothesis 4, were tested. Mean scores indicated that ruggedness and sophistication scored higher on skepticism than integrity and nurturance did (Table 4). However, the four regression analyses indicated none of these differences to be significant: integrity did not predict skepticism differently than ruggedness, bb1 = .37; SE = .22; t(208)=
-1.69; p = .09, or sophistication did, bb1 = -.32; SE = .22; t(208)= -1.46; p = .15. Similarly,
nurturance, did not predict skepticism differently than ruggedness, bb1 = -.29; SE =
.22; t(208)= -1.33; p = .19, or sophistication did, bb1 = -.24; SE = .22; t(208)= -1.09; p = .28.
Thus, Hypothesis 4 was not supported.
Skepticism and donation intentions
A simple linear regression tested the effects of skepticism on donation intentions (path b2), discussed in Hypothesis 5. Results indicated that skepticism did not predict
donation intentions, bb2 = -.16; SE = .11; t(210) = -1.47; p = .14. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 was
not supported.
Indirect effects
As discussed earlier, the regression analyses using the PROCESS macro showed no significant total (path c) or direct (path c’) effects of brand personality on donation intentions. In addition, there were no indirect effects via skepticism (Table 5). This means that there was no effect of different brand personality dimensions on donation intentions, either with or without skepticism as mediator. Since no mediation was present, Hypothesis 6 was not supported.
Additional exploratory analyses
Additional regression analyses using the PROCESS macro found no moderation of the variables blood donation frequency, monetary donation frequency and work
(profit/nonprofit) on the previously found relationship. However, as also presented in Table 6, the frequency of individuals’ blood donations did predict their intentions to donate, b = 1.22; SE = .16; t(210) = 7.45; p < .001, which explained 21% of the variance in donation intentions (R2 = .21). The more frequent individuals’ donated blood, the higher were their intentions to
donate blood to the organization, but these effects were only significant for ruggedness, (p = .01), and sophistication, (p = .01). On the other hand, the frequency of monetary donations did not predict individuals’ intentions to donate to the organization, b = -.01; SE = .11; t(210)= -.09; p = .93. Individuals’ work did not predict donation intentions either, b = .57; SE = .11; t(208)= 1.80; p = .07.
Table 6
Means (and standard deviations) for blood/monetary donation frequency and individuals work, and their effect on donation intentions (N = 212)
M (SD) b/b* SE t p
Blood donation frequency 1.29 (.65) 1.22/.46* .16 7.45 .00
Monetary donation frequency
2.56 (1.14) -.01/-.01* .11 -.09 .93
Work - .92/.18* .34 2.67 .01
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Due in large part to the rapid growth of competition in the nonprofit sector, NPOs’ race for support has never been more critical. In order to differentiate a nonprofit from its competitors, marketing and branding activities are of vital importance. Despite a growing
body of research on the role of brands for NPOs (e.g. Sargeant et al., 2008; Shehu et al., 2016; Venable et al., 2005), studies on nonprofit brand personality effects are limited. Previous research has established certain brand personality dimensions to positively affect individuals’ intentions to donate (Venable et al., 2005). Other literature suggests that the perceived trustworthiness of an organization plays an important role in this relationship (Shehu et al., 2016). However, no knowledge exists on how the effects of different brand personalities are mediated by trust and especially its counterpart, skepticism. The current study answered this call, by testing whether trust and skepticism toward the organization could be such a mediator between different brand personalities and donation intentions. The findings of this experimental study provide evidence that there are no different effects of the four brand personality dimensions – when compared to each other – on trust, skepticism and individuals’ intentions to donate (blood) to an NPO. Moreover, skepticism toward the organization does not affect donation intentions, but trust in the organization does: individuals’ level of trust in the NPO positively influences their intentions to donate.
Discussion and research implications
The findings regarding a lack of difference between any brand personality effects are not in line with expectations. There are several possible explanations for this. First, the absence of different effects of specific brand personality dimensions could indicate that brand personality should be studied more as a branding dimension in itself, instead of as a set of separate dimensions. Venable et al. (2005) point out that brand personality in general has the ability to influence individuals’ intentions to donate. In addition, other studies do not all study different dimensions of brand personality, but rather brand personality as a whole (Hou et al., 2005; Faircloth, 2005). For instance, Faircloth (2005) determines brand personality not by categorizing brands into dimensions, but by assessing the ‘level’ of brand personality which is done by measuring brand respect and brand differentiation. Brand personality, then, is studied as something one brand possesses more than its competitors do. This would suggest that brand personality could be seen as a continuum, in which the intensity of the
personality could determine its effects. Moreover, the absence of differences between brand personality effects does not imply there is no such thing as brand personality dimensions. However, it is possible that their boundaries are not as clear-cut as other studies may suggest, but instead the dimensions tend to overlap. Again, it would be the intensity of the brand personality that is a determiner of its effects.
Second, studying brand personality effects from four specific dimensions separately may lead to no or lessened effects as opposed to when its effects are studied as part of other marketing tools. For instance, Hou et al. (2009) found several positive effects of brand equity – a concept which encompasses brand personality, brand image and brand awareness. It follows that this usage of more general branding concepts is able to explain more variance in outcomes related to charitable giving. The scales used in the study of Hou et al. (2005) were originally adopted from Faircloth (2005), whose exploratory research was the first to apply brand equity to the nonprofit sector and provided evidence of the multidimensional influence of brand personality, brand image and brand awareness. Since these branding concepts are then simply elements of a larger overarching branding tool, it is plausible that effects of the whole are greater than of its parts studied separately. This, then, does not imply that brand personality has no effect at all – it means that its effects could be reinforced when combined with other branding tools.
Regarding the positive effect of trust on donation intentions, this study echoes the findings of earlier research. The current study therefore underlines the importance of trust for NPOs that rely on donations of tangible items. As other research also suggests, donations do indeed highly depend on the development of trust (Sargeant et al., 2008; Arnett et al., 2003; Sargeant & Jay, 2004).
Surprisingly, skepticism toward an NPO does not have any effect on individuals’ intentions to donate. Since no previous research has studied this relationship, the findings of this study extend the literature on individuals’ brand perception and its consequences for nonprofits. In the for-profit sector, advertisements that evoked skepticism are found to cause lower purchasing intentions (Obermiller et al., 2005). The current study suggests that
advertising effects of this matter are likely not the same for nonprofits. This underlines the notion that some branding effects may only be valid in the for-profit sector and are better not adopted by nonprofits. Finally, the finding that skepticism toward an organization does not determine donation intentions could suggest that despite individuals’ skeptical attitude toward an organization, their perception of supporting an organization for a good cause prevails and a campaign cannot easily change their beliefs. However, due to the fact that the findings depend on stimulus material that did not indicate a successful manipulation check, these conclusions should be interpreted with caution.
Limitations and directions for future research
While this research provides some understanding regarding brand personality and individuals’ donation intentions to NPOs, the results need to be interpreted with a few limitations.
First, as discussed earlier, by assessing the effects of brand personality dimensions relative to each other, this study does not provide insights into the absolute effects of brand personality. Therefore, future research should study brand personality effects from a larger scope such as brand equity, or operate brand respect and its differentiation instead of personality characteristics subsumed in dimensions.
Second, research was conducted by studying only one NPO, a blood center
specifically. This can threaten external validity, since the question arises to what extent the results can be generalized and applied to other types of NPOs. Moreover, since the
organization was fictional, individuals had no existing knowledge of the brand. This was done on purpose to exclude effects of familiarity. However, this strategy also has its limitations. Research indicates that awareness, or individuals’ memory of recalling a brand, increases the probability of a brand being chosen (Rossiter & Percy, 1987). This suggests that in the case of NPOs, individuals’ awareness of the brand might increase their donation intentions. Future research should therefore take brand awareness into account when studying NPOs’ branding effects.
Third, only one type of donation was studied, namely blood donation. Findings suggested that the frequency of blood donations did affect their donation intentions, but that the frequency of monetary donations did not. Since no monetary donation intentions were studied, it is unknown what effects related donation frequencies may have on this type of intention. Future research should therefore investigate a broader scope of donation intentions.
Finally, some limitations can be understood in terms of research design and
methodology. The main issue regarding this aspect is the insignificant manipulation check in the experiment, which threatens internal validity. The material may not have been perfectly manipulated which could have influenced the results and validity of the study. Moreover, since the pretest was conducted using a within-subjects design, the respondents were able to compare the campaigns which may have led to stronger differences between the
conditions than in the experiment itself, which used a between-subjects design. Therefore, future research should manipulate the material differently and use one research design for both the pretest as well as the experiment itself.
Conclusion and practical implications
In a time when competition in the nonprofit sector is increasing by the day, using the right branding strategies becomes vital for organizational survival. While a brand personality is often proposed as an essential tool to achieve this, the findings of this study do not confirm that certain brand personalities are more effective than others. However, this does not imply that brand personality in itself is not an effective tool – it merely indicates that brand
personality could be considered as a part of larger branding concepts, such as brand equity (Faircloth, 2005).
For the management in the nonprofit sector, this suggests that the aim of brand management should not be directed at creating one obvious brand personality, but instead at creating a brand personality that is strong and could positively influence brand equity and trust. The latter is underlined by the findings of this study, since trust can be of vital
importance regarding the recruitment of donors. Nonprofit leaders should therefore try to establish relationships with potential donors based on trust. Finally, since skepticism does affect purchasing intentions in the for profit sector but not donation intentions in the nonprofit sector, nonprofit leaders should remain cautious when adopting strategies from the for profit field.
REFERENCES
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 347-356. doi:10.2139/ssrn.945432
Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464. doi:10.2307/2234133
Arnett, D. B., German, S. D., & Hunt, S. D. (2003). The identity salience model of relationship marketing success: The case of nonprofit marketing. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 89-105. doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.2.89.18614
Bainbridge, J. (1997). Who wins the national trust? Marketing, 21-23.
Bhattacharya, C., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76-88. doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.2.76.18609
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81-93. doi:10.1509/jmkg.65.2.81.18255
Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35. doi:10.2307/1251829
Ekinci, Y., & Hosany, S. (2006). Destination personality: An application of brand Personality to rourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 45(2), 127-139.
Faircloth, J. B. (2005). Factors influencing nonprofit resource provider support decisions: Applying the brand equity concept to nonprofits. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 13(3), 1-15. doi:10.1080/10696679.2005.11658546
Freling, T. H., & Forbes, L. P. (2005). An empirical analysis of the brand personality effect. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(7), 404-413.
doi:10.1108/10610420510633350
Groza, M. P., & Gordon, G. L. (2016). The effects of nonprofit brand personality and self-brand congruity on self-brand relationships. Marketing Management, 26(2), 117-129. Gupta, P. B., & Gould, S. J. (1997). Consumers' perceptions of the ethics and acceptability of
product placements in movies: Product category and individual differences. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 19(1), 37-50.
doi:10.1080/10641734.1997.10505056
Gurven, M., Rueden, C. V., Massenkoff, M., Kaplan, H., & Vie, M. (2013). How universal is the Big Five? Testing the five factor model of personality variation among Forager-Farmers in the Bolivian Amazon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 354-370.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Hou, J., Du, L., & Tian, Z. (2009). The effects of nonprofit brand equity on individual giving intention: mediating by the self-concept of individual donor. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 14(3), 215-229. doi:10.1002/nvsm.356 John, O. P. (1990). The 'Big Five' factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in natural
language and in questionnaires. In Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (pp. 66-100). New York: Guilford.
Kamp, B. E. (1999). We're all brands around here. Brandweek, 40(25), 6-15. Kim, C. K., Han, D., & Park, S. (2001). The effect of brand personality and brand
identification on brand loyalty: Applying the theory of social identification. Japanese Psychological Research, 43(4), 195-206. doi:10.1111/1468-5884.00177
Masser, B. M., White, K. M., Hyde, M. K., Terry, D. J., & Robinson, N. G. (2009). Predicting blood donation intentions and behavior among Australian blood donors: testing an extended theory of planned behavior model. Transfusion, 49(2), 320-329.
doi:10.1111/j.1537-2995.2008.01981.x
McCrae, R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins's Circumplex and Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(4), 586-595. Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and
users of market research: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 314. doi:10.2307/3172742
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality ratings. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66(6), 574-583. doi:10.1037/h0040291
Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2005). Ad skepticism: The Consequences of Disbelief. Journal of Advertising, 34(3), 7-17.
doi:10.1080/00913367.2005.10639199
Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to measure consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 159-186. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp0702_03
Ouwersloot, J., & Tudorica, A. (2001). Brand personality creation through advertising. Rossiter, J. R., & Percy, L. (1998). Advertising communications & promotion management.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sargeant, A., Ford, J. B., & Hudson, J. (2008). Charity brand personality: The relationship with giving behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(3), 468-491. doi:10.1177/0899764007310732
Sargeant, A., & Jay, E. (2004). Building donor loyalty: The fundraiser's guide to increasing lifetime value. John Wiley & Sons.
Schweda, M., Wöhlke, S., & Schicktanz, S. (2009). Understanding public skepticism toward organ donation and its commercialization: The important role of reciprocity.
Transplantation Proceedings, 41(6), 2509-2511. doi:10.1016/j.transproceed.2009.06.109
Shehu, E., Becker, J. U., Langmaack, A. C., & Clement, M. (2016). The brand personality of nonprofit organizations and the influence of monetary incentives. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(3), 589-600. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2595-3
Size and scope of the third sector in Europe (12). (2016). Retrieved from Third Sector Impact website: http://www.thirdsectorimpact.eu
Smith, C. (2001). Why building trust should be the holy grail of marketing. Marketing, 27-28. Stride, H., & Lee, S. (2007). No logo? No way. Branding in the non-profit sector. Journal of
Marketing Management, 23(1-2), 107-122. doi:10.1362/026725707x178585
Supphellen, M., Kvitastein, O.A., & Nelson, M.R. (1997). Cognitive responses to charitable donation requests: Consumer welfare and public policy implications. Proceedings of the 1997 Macromarketing Conference, Bergen.
Tapp, A., Lindsay, G., & Sorrell, R. (1999). Towards a branding framework for cause-, funding-and need-oriented charities. Journal of Marketing Communications, 5(1), 39-50. doi:10.1080/135272699345734
Van Reijmersdal, E. A., Tutaj, K., & Boerman, S. C. (2013). The effects of brand placement disclosures on skepticism and brand memory. Communications - The European Journal of Communication Research, 38(2). doi:10.1515/commun-2013-0008 Venable, B. T., Rose, G. M., Bush, V. D., & Gilbert, F. W. (2005). The role of brand
personality in charitable giving: an assessment and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(3), 295-312. doi:10.1177/0092070305276147 Zboja, J. J., & Voorhees, C. M. (2006). The impact of brand trust and satisfaction on retailer
repurchase intentions. Journal of Services Marketing, 20(6), 381-390. doi:10.1108/08876040610691275
APPENDIX A
A.1 Materials for nonprofit campaigns: four brand personality dimensions
_________________________________________________________________________________ Integrity
One of the organization’s top priorities is safety. The safety of the blood transfusion chain from donor to patient is ensured by sophisticated production methods, rigid procedures, strict quality requirements and testing, as well as thorough staff training. BCN tests donors before they give blood and excludes people at high risk of infectious diseases. All donations are tested, thereby minimizing the risk of transmitting blood infections by blood products. Also, accurate administration to keep close track of what happens to blood is an integral part of ensuring maximum safety. BCN keeps records of who receives its products, and products can always be traced back to the donor. This data is kept for thirty years. Hospitals and pharmacists also keep track of which patient receives which blood product.
Nurturance
At BCN we care a lot about our donors and patients. We are constantly aware of our responsibility to handle the donors’ gift carefully, responsibly and effectively, and to put the patients’ safety and welfare first. One of BCN’s top priorities is the health of patients and donors. We make sure that the blood transmission from donor to patient is performed safely, to save as many lives as possible. BCN’s greatest strength is our people—the employees, blood donors and recipients, supporters, corporate and community partners, and many others who join forces to save lives each and every day. They are the vital part of BCN. Together we put donors and patients first.
Ruggedness
Blood is vital. Together with donors we save 21.000 lives per year, but this number could be even higher with the help of new donors. Besides saving more lives, our mission is to provide the highest quality blood and related medical and consultative services to hospitals and patients. We also aim to develop products, technologies, and services in the fields of hematology, blood banking, and
transfusion medicine and cellular therapies, with the potential to have worldwide humanitarian impact. Accomplishing its mission through development of a critical mass of outstanding and dedicated individuals, BCN will continue its legacy of being recognized worldwide as a comprehensive center of excellence.
Sophistication
Blood is vital. Together with donors we save 21.000 lives per year, but this number could be even higher with the help of new donors. An important moment to recruit donors takes place during the ‘Donor Week’: a week which surrounds around BCN’s campaigns to attract new donors. BCN gets national attention for a whole week, campaigns are spread extensively through the media and events are organized. BCN has also collaborated with several Dutch celebrities (such as Erica Terpstra, Lange Frans, Giel Beelen and Nicolien Sauerbreij) on special Donor Week events to help with the recruiting of donors. Together with the help of the new donors reached through our campaigns and the media, BCN can save more and more lives each year.
APPENDIX B
B.1 Survey scales and items: pretest and manipulation check
Integrity (Venable et al., 2005)
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements: • The organization is honest
• The organization has positive influence
• The organization is committed tot he public good • The organization is reputable
• The organization is reliable
(Likert: 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
Nurturance (Venable et al., 2005)
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements: • The organization is compassionate
• The organization is caring • The organization is loving
• The organization is humanitarian
(Likert: 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) Ruggedness (Venable et al., 2005)
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements: • The organization is tough
• The organization is goal-oriented • The organization is masculine
(Likert: 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
Sophistication (Venable et al., 2005)
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements: • The organization is good-looking
• The organization is glamorous
(Likert: 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
B.2 Survey scales and items: measures (experiment)
Trust (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Zboja & Voorhees, 2006)
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements: • I trust this organizational brand
• The organizational brand is honest
• The organizational brand has high integrity • The organizational brand is competent • The organizational brand is dependable
(Likert: 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
Skepticism (Reijmersdal, Tutaj & Boerman, 2014)
Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements: • The organizational brand is commercial
• The organizational brand is deceptive • The organizational brand is not credible • The organizational brand is misleading
(Likert: 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
Donation intentions (Masser, White, Hyde, Terry & Robinson, 2009) Please indicate the extent to which you agree with the following statements:
• I would like to donate blood within the next 3 months • I intend to donate blood within the next 3 months • I will donate blood within the next 3 months
(Likert: 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
Control variables
• Gender (Male / Female) • Age ___
• Nationality ___
• Do you work for a nonprofit organization? (Yes / No)
• Do you support or have you ever supported a nonprofit organization? (Yes / No) • How often do you donate money to a nonprofit organization?
(Never / Less than once a year / 1-5 times a year / 6-10 times a year / More than 10 times a year)
• How often do you donate blood or stem cells to a nonprofit organization?
(Never / Less than once a year / 1-5 times a year / 6-10 times a year / More than 10 times a year)
__________________________________________________________________________
Introduction and informed consent statement Welcome to this survey!
This survey is a part of a Master’s thesis on Communication Science, performed at the University of Amsterdam. The topic of the research is about the effects of branding strategies of nonprofit organizations. You will be shown a campaign of a fictive Dutch nonprofit
organization. Read the campaign carefully. After reading the campaign, I would like to ask you some questions about the way you perceive the nonprofit organization. Take as much time as needed. During the survey, you are allowed to reread the campaign at any time by using the ← at the bottom of the page.
Your responses are processed anonymously and the reports of the data are always
anonymous and at group level, to make sure responses cannot be traced back to individuals. If you have any questions about this process or about this study in general, please do not hesitate to contact me. I am interested in your opinion. There are no right or wrong answers. This survey will take about 5 minutes.
Thank you for your contribution to this research. It is highly appreciated!
With kind regards,
Fleur Denissen, Master’s student Corporate Communication Under supervision of Dr. A. Wonneberger
Please read the following consent:
I agree to voluntarily participate in this study. I am free to withdraw at any time, without giving a reason. If my results are used in scientific publications, or are published in any other way, my data will be completely anonymous. My personal data will not be read by third parties without my explicit permission.
If I want more information, now or in the future, I can contact Fleur Denissen (fleurdenissen@hotmail.com).
APPENDIX C
Table 1
Factor loadings (Varimax rotation) of the items used in the pretest, measuring brand personality (N = 22).
Construct/items Factor
1 2 3 4
Integrity
The organization is honest .94
The organization has positive influence .94 The organization is committed to the public good .84
The organization is reputable .89
The organization is reliable .90
Nurturance
The organization is compassionate .91
The organization is caring .90
The organization is loving .89
The organization is humanitarian .89
Ruggedness
The organization is tough .90
The organization is goal-oriented .70
The organization is masculine .88
Sophistication
The organization is good-looking .95
The organization is upper-class .93
The organization is glamorous .96
Eigenvalues (EV) 4.07 3.21 2.07 2.68
