EGOISM AND ALTRUISM: THE IMPACT OF BRANDING IN THIRD SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS ON STAKEHOLDERS’ WILLINGNESS TO
DONATE
Author: Franziska Pohle Student ID: 11368306
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s Program Communication Science
Supervisor: Dr. Anke Wonneberger Date of Completion: 30 June, 2017
2 ABSTRACT
Branding is becoming more and more important for third sector organizations (e.g.
nonprofits) that are faced with growing competition for resources like donations, volunteers, and government funding. Previous research supported the close relationship between
branding, reputation, and stakeholders’ willingness to support an organization. This study employs a 2x3 experimental design with the factors symbolic branding and functional branding to research the effects of differently framed mission statement of a vegan advocacy third sector organization on the organization’s reputation and stakeholders’ willingness to donate through mediation. Personal values, which have been shown to be an important
precursor for donation and volunteering decisions, are treated as a moderator. Results indicate no support for the theorized relationships, even though personal values have a direct effect on reputation and willingness to donate. Instead, future research is advised to look into different frames in third sector branding.
Keywords: nonprofit branding, third sector, reputation, personal values, charitable giving, volunteering
3
EGOISM AND ALTRUISM: THE IMPACT OF BRANDING IN THIRD SECTOR ORGANIZATIONS ON STAKEHOLDERS’ WILLINGNESS TO DONATE
INTRODUCTION
The third sector is constantly changing and new kinds of advocacy groups, social movement organization, and nonprofits are emerging (Hasenfeld & Gidron, 2005). As
professional corporate communication practices make their way from the for-profit to the not-for-profit sector, it becomes more important for third sector organizations (TSOs) to
understand corporate communication practices in the context of their mission, so that they as well can create competitive advantages through a strategic communication strategy.
Corporate branding has been shown to influence corporate reputation through a complex relationship with corporate identity made up of a variety of factors like strategic choices and corporate expression (Abratt & Kleyn, 2012). This is not just true in the for-profit sector of organizations, but also for third sector organizations. TSOs increasingly have to compete for favorable reputations, donations, members, and volunteers (Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004; Weerawardena & Mort, 2008). Persuading stakeholders to support the organization is therefore a key goal for TSOs. Persuasive communication research has examined the influence of campaign message content (e.g. Kim & Kou, 2014; Renner, Lindenmeier, Tscheulin, & Drevs, 2013) and framing (e.g. Chang & Lee, 2010; Das, Kerkhof, & Kuiper, 2008) on audience behavior like intention to support a third sector organization.
Corporate communication research has recognized the importance that TSO
reputation plays in stakeholders’ intentions to donate, e.g. by volunteering or donating (e.g. Meijer, 2009; Padanyi & Gainer, 2003; Sarstedt & Schloderer, 2010; Schloderer, Sarstedt, & Ringle, 2014). However, the literature lacks assessing TSO reputation on the basis of the organizations’ branding. As modeled by Abratt and Kleyn (2012), reputation is dependent on
4 a complex interaction between strategic choices, corporate expression, and brand image. Third sector branding is therefore highly likely to impact a TSO’s reputation and
consequently stakeholders’ intention to support.
The literature suggests that an important factor in the success of third sector
stakeholder persuasion is the way that campaign messages are framed (Bennett, 2003) and how stakeholders identify themselves with the campaign message (Amos, Holmes, & Allred, 2015; Boenigk & Möhlmann, 2016; Xie & Bagozzi, 2014). However, it is plausible to
assume that researching the effect of campaign messages on reputation intention to support is overlooking a different, an earlier point in the process of making a decision to donate, namely the TSO’s branding. While for a long time, branding has mostly been seen as relevant in for-profit research, the positive effects that branding has on the third sector make it imperative to engage in more comprehensive research on branding in TSOs.
Branding has been shown to be composed of two dimensions, symbolic and
functional, where symbolic branding is associated with organizational values and personality traits and functional branding with tangible objects like the organization’s qualities (Michel & Rieunier, 2011, Sargeant, Ford, & Hudson, 2008; Venable, Rose, Bush, & Gilbert, 2005). Functional elements can be and often are present in the form of performance and efficacy indications. For the symbolic dimension it is important to note that most TSOs are value-based organizations (Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, & Kalof, 1999). Their brand should therefore inherently include symbolic associations. Indeed, mission statements of TSOs often contain altruistic, egoistic, or both kinds of values that frame their work. Altruism (or self-transcendence) and egoism (or self-enhancement) are part of Stern and colleagues’ (1999) Value-Belief-Norm Theory according to which “Individuals who accept a movement’s basic values, believe that valued objects are threatened, and believe that their actions can help restore those values experience an obligation […] for pro-movement action” (Stern et al.,
5 1999, p. 81). Emphasizing different values in branding messages is therefore likely to
positively or negatively resonate with a stakeholder’s personal values, consequently influence the reputation that stakeholder holds of the organization, and ultimately impact his or her intentions to support the TSO. However, neither the importance of symbolic branding in form of these values nor that of functional associations in TSO branding have received attention from the research community so far.
To close this gap, an online experiment with a 2x3 experimental design is employed to answer the following research question. What impact do different values (altruistic vs. egoistic) and performance indications in a TSO’s brand communication have on stakeholder willingness to donate and volunteer; how is this impact mediated by the TSO’s reputation, and how do personal values moderate this effect? The TSO in this experiment is a fictitious vegan advocacy group. This particular branch is chosen because of the rapid growth of the vegan movement worldwide (Davis, 2012; Heinrich Böll Stiftung & Friends of the Earth Europe, 2014; Smart, 2004; Vegetarierbund Deutschland, n.d.) and the lack of research that has revolved around this kind of TSO (exceptions are e.g. Cherry, 2006; Smart, 2004). In addition, as a value-based social movement with the foundation of abstaining all animal products, it has close ties to more traditional movements like environmentalism, animal rights, the fight against world hunger, or human health. Results are of relevance for TSO communication professionals as they uncover the relationship between the branding
dimensions and intention to support, therefore giving them an indication on how to establish a competitive advantage by making strategic branding decisions.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
THE THIRD SECTOR AND THE MARKET FORCES
The third sector is comprised of organizations that are described with many names. What they all have in common is that they are neither part of the public nor of the
profit-6 making sector (Hasenfeld & Gidron, 2005). Third sector organizations (TSOs) are
characterized by the benevolent value-based fashion after which they organize and manage themselves (Anheier, 2005; Sargeant, Hudson, & West, 2008; Werther & Berman, 2001).
Hasenfeld and Gidron (2005) propose that TSOs are evolving and multi-purpose hybrid voluntary organizations emerge with an ever-growing public sphere and a high density of associations. Multi-purpose hybrid voluntary organizations are characterized by being a combination of social movement organizations, nonprofit service organizations, interest groups, and member associations: By (a) following a value-based mission that, like a social movement, is usually opposed to the dominant opinion, (b) offering a place for sympathizers to unite and build a collective identity like membership organizations, and (c) offering services to members like nonprofit service organizations, they evolve into hybrid organizations with multiple purposes (Hasenfeld & Gidron, 2005).
Third-sector research is often not consistent in the vocabulary on the organizations it examines, using terms interchangeably or very broadly. This inconsistency might be due to the described emergence of hybrid organizations. Since a majority of organizations in the present third-sector landscape seems to incorporate at least some elements of multi-purpose hybrid voluntary organizations, talking for instance only about nonprofit organizations would not account for the overarching nature of third-sector organizations (TSO). When
appropriate, this research will therefore use the term third-sector organization to refer to organizations that research has described as nonprofit organizations, volunteer organizations, advocacy groups, or interest groups, to avoid confusion.
While not part of the for-profit sector, faced by an ever fiercer competition for resources like government funding, donations, volunteers, and members (Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004; Hume & Hume, 2008; Weerawardena & Mort, 2008), TSOs are recognizing
7 the need for establishing competitive advantage. To achieve a better strategic performance and competitive position, TSOs are becoming increasingly market-oriented (Dolnicar, Irvine, & Lazarevski, 2008; Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004; Kerlin, 2006; Roper & Cheney, 2005). Even though this is seen as worrisome (Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004; Ritchie, Swami, & Weinberg, 1999) by some that see the benevolent value-based way that distinguishes this sector from the public and private sectors threatened, this marketization (Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004) is logical. Resource-dependency theory argues that organizations need resources to thrive, which leads to the necessity of interacting with actors that have control over the needed resources (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2003). Besides broader goals of gaining support for the organization’s mission and effecting behavior change, two of the resources that TSOs depend upon are funds from charitable giving and volunteering.
CHARITABLE GIVING AND VOLUNTEERING
TSOs and TSO researchers have long been trying to understand what drives constituents to engage in behaviors like donating. In Stern and colleagues’ Value-Belief-Norm (VBN) Theory (Stern et al., 1999; Stern, 2000), pursuing a certain behavior indicating support for a TSO (like volunteering, donating, or changing one’s behavior) is theorized to be preceded by an individual’s personal values, the belief that those values are under threat, and the belief that pursuing that certain behavior can alleviate the threat.
While this theory has been supported for environmentalism and should be applicable to a relatively wide array of TSOs, it has (a) not yet been tested for all kinds of TSOs and (b) is needed to be complemented by interdisciplinary research (Stern, 2000). Additionally, this social psychology perspective on behavior change is focused on the individual, which does not indicate how organizations can position themselves most beneficially to attract resources like donations and volunteering. Since Stern (2000) also points out that contextual factors
8 play a big, yet largely unexplored, role in this theory, this research adds the organizational factor to this value-based theory to explore what drives constituents to the desired behaviors by looking at how organizational branding influences stakeholders’ willingness to donate and volunteer.
Organizational communication science has been exploring the motivators that underlie donor and volunteer behavior. Ariely, Bracha, and Meier (2009) have categorized most of the different types of motivations to donate (see Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011, for a literature review) or volunteer (see Wilson, 2010, for a literature review) into three types: extrinsic, intrinsic, and image motivation. An example for extrinsic motivation are the benefits that one receives from a donation, like a good feeling or a subscription to the organization’s magazine. Intrinsic motivation is often present in the form of altruism and one’s values. Image motivation includes wanting to be recognized for a good deed by others. Donating or volunteering in this case means enhancing one’s own reputation by signaling one’s commitment to others. It has been argued that this effect only takes place when the receiving organization has a good reputation (Mews & Boenigk, 2013). On the one hand, this means that organizations can deter potential donors and volunteers with a bad reputation. On the other hand, this provides an opportunity for the organization to determine donor and volunteer behavior as well.
REPUTATION
Corporate reputation has been defined as the general aggregated evaluation a
stakeholder holds of an organization (Abratt & Kleyn, 2010). When a reputation is strong, it can seize opportunities and avoid threats for an organization, presenting an advantage towards competitors (Abratt & Kleyn, 2012; Fombrun & Van Riel, 1997). The for-profit literature has researched reputation extensively (Walker, 2010) and has shown several
9 benefits that organizations can derive from a good reputation like lowering operational costs while increasing prices (Deephouse, 2000), being more attractive employers (Turban & Greening, 1997) and standing out from the competition (Abimbola & Vallaster, 2007).
The third sector is no exception to the benefits a good reputation effects (Meijer, 2009). For both charitable donations (Meijer, 2009; Padanyi & Gainer, 2003; Sarstedt & Schloderer, 2010) and volunteering (Leete, 2006), reputation has been found to explain why or why not a person supports a TSO (Bennett & Gabriel, 2003; Sarstedt & Schloderer, 2010), for example by giving blood (Bednall & Bove, 2011; Mews & Boenigk, 2013) and making multiple financial donations (Bennett & Ali-Choudhury, 2009). Better reputation also plays a role in the educational sector, explaining why some schools are preferred over others by postgraduate students (Donaldson & McNicholas, 2004), and in the areas of humanitarian relief (Stephenson & Schnitzer, 2006), arts (Hughes & Luksetich, 1999), health care (Gallagher & Radcliffe, 2002), and social services (Roller, 1996). This power makes reputation one of the most important intangible assets a TSO can have (Schloderer et al., 2014).
Looking specifically at TSOs, Sarstedt and Schloderer (2010) developed a model to measure reputation. They found two underlying dimensions of third-sector nonprofit reputation, competence and likability. The authors were able to show that competence and likability predict donor behavior, suggesting that a better reputation leads to a higher willingness to donate (Sarstedt & Schloderer, 2010). This supports the theory that image motivation is one of the driving forces that precede TSO support and highly dependent on reputation (Ariely et al., 2009). However, reputation does not evolve on its own but is strongly connected to an organization’s brand (Abratt & Kleyn, 2012).
10 BRANDING
Branding in the third sector has been an activity that has been frowned upon for being immoral and too close to for-profit organizations (Andreasen & Kotler, 2003; Ritchie et al., 1999) and TSOs have been slow to strategically brand themselves (Grounds & Harkness, 1998; Sargeant & Jay, 2004). Additionally, TSOs cannot simply use branding strategies that are already working in for-profit organization (Brooks, 2014) since third sector branding deals with unique challenges (Andreasen & Kotler, 2003). TSOs for the most part offer services and ideals instead of tangible products which makes the organization itself the consumers’ focal point and the primary brand (Berry, 2000; Venable et al., 2005). In addition, they often ask more of their target group than companies ask of their consumers, they aim at a behavior change and not just a purchase decision (Andreasen & Kotler, 2003). However, given the earlier mentioned competition between a steadily growing number of TSOs, building a strong third sector brand is crucial (Andreasen & Kotler, 2003; Brooks, 2014; Sargeant, 1999; Venable et. al., 2005).
THE TWO DIMENSIONS OF A BRAND
Concentrating on the organization’s brand can make it more successful (Napoli, 2006; Ritchie et al. 1999). Research shows that there is a direct effect of brand personality (certain traits that are characteristic for a brand) on willingness to donate (Venable et al., 2005) and on actual donations (Sargeant et al., 2008a) as well as of brand image on donation intentions (Bennett & Gabriel, 2003, Michel & Rieunier, 2011).
While these effects were all measured using different scales (for an overview, see Michel & Rieunier, 2011), what they all have in common are dimensions on the functional and on the symbolic side. Even though the distinction between those two characteristics has been used predominantly in the commercial sector (Aaker, 1991; Hankinson, 2001; Keller, 1993), Michel and Rieunier (2011) have also applied it to the third sector. They see
11 functional brand associations as given in an organization’s mission, tangible qualities, and organizational characteristics. Symbolic brand associations are more abstract and refer to the values, emotions, and personality traits an organization represents (Michel & Rieunier, 2011).
BRANDING IN AN ORGANIZATION’S MISSION STATEMENT
One piece of branding that most TSOs feature regardless of their branding strategy and that often combines those two dimensions is an organization’s mission statement. It includes all the characteristics that sets an organization apart and summarizes and justifies its purpose.
Some functional brand associations are for example portrayed by a display of the organization’s performance and indicators of its efficacy and competence. The importance of this functional dimension can be seen in the literature. Performance has been shown to be an antecedent of donor commitment (Sargeant & Woodliffe, 2005; Sargeant, West, & Ford, 2001) and in the form of efficacy it showed an effect on willingness to donate time and money (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011; Bennett & Gabriel, 2003; Bennett & Savani, 2003; Michel & Rieunier, 2011; Wilson, 2000).
Symbolic associations of the brand are included in the mission statement by way of the values the organization holds at its core, emotional appeals, and by extension also the personality that organization embodies. Especially TSOs like (vegan) social movements have as their raison d’être to change the world according to certain values (Aiken, 2005; Hudson, 1995; Sargeant & Lee, 2002). They should therefore play an important part in the
organization’s branding and mission statement (Bruce, 1998; Stride, 2006). Values have been researched in TSO branding more in the form of brand personality traits, e.g. a brand could be compassionate and caring (Bennett & Gabriel, 2003), or honest and positive (Venable et al., 2005).
12 However, values in which an organization frames the reason why it is pursuing its mission have not received any attention in the literature so far. It has therefore been called for a clearer understanding of how values are conceptualized in nonprofit branding (Stride, 2006).
For the case of vegan advocacy groups, frequent values that are used to frame the reason to advocate veganism are health, animals, and the environment. Framing its mission in values based on self-preservation (i.e. human health, living space protection) are self-centered and embody egoistic values. In contrast, using a frame that highlights the importance of veganism for others, e.g. animals, or for preserving the environment, shows altruistic values. The altruistic frame can be found in most TSO brands, since being nonprofit generally means being altruistic and wanting to help others. However, especially those TSOs that are also social movement or advocacy groups, often also use the egoistic frame to convince the audience that it is in their best interest to change.
This study measures the impact of the presence of the symbolic dimension
(differentiating between altruistic and egoistic values) and the functional dimension (whether a mission statement contains an indication of performance/efficacy or not) in a TSO’s
branding on willingness to donate time and money. As mentioned earlier, branding has a strong connection to reputation, and the two-dimensional concept of branding (symbolic and functional) and that of reputation (likability and competence) reveal some more similarities. Because of this connection and the role reputation plays for the decision to donate by
influencing image motivation, reputation is expected to behave as a mediator in this study. As part of the intrinsic motivation to donate, personal values are incorporated as a moderator.
13 HYPOTHESES
People that donate to TSOs have been shown to have an altruistic value orientation (Bekkers & Schuyt, 2008; Farmer & Fedor, 2001) and feel responsible for society as a whole (Amato, 1985; Reed & Selbee, 2002; Schuyt, Bekkers, & Smit, 2010) rather than to be egoistic. The literature suggests that brands that embody personality traits that match a donor’s personality or that exhibit those values that the donor wants to be characterized with (Bennett, 2003; Sargeant et al., 2008b; Sargeant & Woodliffe, 2005) are more likely to receive donations. By extension, it can be assumed that the symbolic branding dimension with altruistic values leads to higher reputation and willingness to donate than branding with both values present or only with egoistic values.
H1: Symbolic mission statements with an emphasis on altruistic values lead to a higher willingness to donate time and money than those with both values present and those with an emphasis on egoistic values.
As mentioned earlier, TSO performance or efficacy is an element that often precedes donor commitment (Sargeant & Woodliffe, 2005; Sargeant et al., 2001) and willingness to donate (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011; Bennett & Gabriel, 2003; Michel & Rieunier, 2011; Wilson, 2000). Including such an element as a functional association in a mission statement of a vegan advocacy group should therefore increase the willingness to donate.
Additionally, Michel and Rieunier (2011) describe how, since volunteering means getting more involved with the organization than donating money, which is a more rational than emotional decision in itself (Liu & Aaker, 2008), a brand’s emotional components (or symbolic brand associations) have a bigger impact on the willingness to volunteer than they have on the willingness to donate money.
14 H2: Mission statements with a functional aspect lead to a higher willingness to
donate money than purely symbolic mission statements, while symbolic mission statements lead to a higher willingness to donate time.
According to Sarstedt and Schloderer (2010), reputation is made up of two dimensions, likability and competence. Because of the similarities between those two
dimensions and the two branding dimensions, symbolic and functional, and reputation being a result of how a person perceives an organization’s brand, it is theorized that the two branding dimensions have different effects on the two reputation dimension, which subsequently has an impact on a stakeholder’s willingness to donate. This leads to the following hypotheses.
H3: The likability dimension of reputation positively mediates the relationship between symbolic branding and willingness to donate.
H4: The competence dimension of reputation positively mediates the relationship between functional branding and willingness to donate.
As mentioned above, people that donate to TSOs are often altruistic in their value orientation and not egoistic (Bekkers & Schuyt, 2008; Farmer & Fedor, 2001). Snow, Rochford, Worden, and Benford (1986) argue that focusing on values held by the target audience (here, altruism) gets stakeholders to commit to the organization. Furthermore, stakeholders that hold the same values as a TSO are more likely to donate to that organization than to an organization is has less shares values with (Bennett, 2003; Sargeant & Woodliffe, 2005). An altruistic value orientation, as intrinsic motivation to help others, is also seen as one of the three groups of motivators that precede donations and volunteering (Ariely et al., 2009). This leads to the last set of hypotheses. Figure 1 gives an overview of the
15 H5: An altruistic value orientation positively moderates the effect of symbolic
branding on reputation and on willingness to donate.
H6: An altruistic value orientation positively moderates the effect of functional branding on reputation and on willingness to donate.
Figure 1. Conceptual Model.
METHOD
This paper uses an online experiment to answer the research question. The method of experiment has been chosen since this is the only method to prove the causality between variables under controlled conditions with the least amount of ambiguity. The experimental design is a 2x3 between subjects design (Figure 2) with the experimental factors Symbolic Branding (three levels: egoistic value, altruistic value, combined values) and Functional Branding (two levels: absent, present).
16 PARTICIPANTS
Participants were invited via a public Facebook post to complete an online experiment on the Qualtrics survey website. The original post was shared several times by other
Facebook users. The sampling method was a combination of convenience and snowball sampling to reach the highest possible number of respondents from the general population of Facebook users within a limited amount of time. As an incentive, respondents who completed the survey had the option of participating in a prize draw for an Amazon.com voucher worth 20€. To secure anonymity, the email addresses that were collected for the prize draw were stored separately on Qualtrics and not downloaded together with the data.
A total of N = 222 complete responses were used for further analysis after no outliers were detected. Per condition, this amounted to a sample size of between 32 and 39.
According to Brosius, Koschel, and Haas (2009), at least 30 participants per condition are needed to produce reliable results in an experiment.
Participants were mostly female (76%) and concentrated in the 18-24 (51%) and 25-34 (40%) age brackets. Most participants had their country of origin in Europe (68%) while the second largest group indicated North America as their region of origin (19%). More than 87% had obtained a university degree. Appendix A includes a table with detailed descriptive statistics.
PROCEDURE
After opening the study link, participants were informed about the study in general, the anonymity provisions, their right to stop participation, and the possibility to complain (for full text, see Appendix B). After they expressed their understanding of the presented
17 Participants were then randomly exposed to one of six different stimuli texts, a
mission statement of the fictitious TSO “Vegan Advocacy Group”. To ensure that respondents understand the text and take in the necessary detail, they were asked to read carefully as there would be questions on the text content later on. In addition, participants were only able to proceed to the next page after 30 seconds had passed.
Following exposure to the stimulus material, respondents were asked to rate the organization’s reputation. The next set of questions assessed their willingness to donate time and money. To check the effect of the stimulus without distorting the manipulation,
participants were only now asked to recall the text and select the correct answer concerning the content.
Subsequently, participants were asked to answer some demographical questions as well as rate their involvement with the organization’s mission (veganism). Finally,
respondents had the possibility to enter their email address in order to participate in the prize draw. As a last step, respondents were offered debriefing information about the experiment (Appendix B) and thanked for their participation.
Chi-squared tests showed that the six different groups did not differ significantly in gender, χ2 (5, n = 222) = 5.89, p = .321, education level, χ2 (35, n = 222) = 40.17, p = .252, job status, χ2 (15, n = 222) = 11.42, p = .723, issue involvement χ2 (10, n = 222) = 6.67, p = .755, NGO engagement χ2 (15, n = 222) = 6.97, p = .959, or age χ2 (20, n = 222) = 27.59, p = .120. Thus, it can be concluded that the conditions were successfully randomized.
STIMULUS
The factors in this research, Symbolic Branding and Functional Branding, are derived from the two dimensions of the branding concept. This study employs six versions of a mission statement of a fictitious vegan advocacy group to create the different conditions. The
18 example of a vegan advocacy group was chosen because of the rapid growth of the vegan movement (Davis, 2012; Heinrich Böll Stiftung & Friends of the Earth Europe, 2014; Smart, 2004; Vegetarierbund Deutschland, n.d.) and the novelty of researching this branch in the third sector. The form of mission statement was chosen since it is usually made up of both functional associations like the organization’s tangible qualities and successes, and symbolic associations like core values or emotional appeals (Michel & Rieunier, 2011). A mission statement can therefore contain both dimensions of branding and the corresponding independent variables in this research can hence easily be incorporated in the text.
For the symbolic branding conditions, the value part of the dimension is
operationalized as framing the organization’s actions in the values that are most often used by vegan advocacy groups, egoism and altruism, as well as a combination of the two (Freeman, 2010). To exemplify egoistic values, the importance of veganism for the human health and living space are emphasized. For the altruistic values, the emphasis lies on the protection of animals and the environment. The combined condition exhibits elements of both.
For the functional branding conditions, the texts focus on providing tangible numbers of successes to tap into the performance and efficacy part of the dimension. All experimental conditions vary in their content but have the same design (Appendix B).
PRETEST
To test whether the stimulus material would be perceived as intended, the conditions were pretested (n = 42). For the symbolic conditions, a one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was executed to compare the egoistic, altruistic, and combined condition on how altruistic or egoistic pretest participants rated them (mean scores and standard deviations in Appendix C). Condition I (egoistic) was rated significantly more egoistic than the other symbolic conditions (F(2, 11) = 4.63, p = 0.04). Condition II (altruistic) did not receive
19 significantly higher altruistic ratings than the other conditions (F(2, 11) = 1.90, p = 0.19). The reason for the insignificant difference was thought to be the ambiguity of the additional argument of combatting world hunger (also benefits the own human race and could therefore be seen as egoistic). For the final version, the argument of world hunger was therefore removed. The condition III text (combined values) received higher ratings for altruism than for egoism. This was thought to be the case because the wording of the altruistic argument was emphasized more than the other arguments. For the final version of the stimulus, the arguments were presented more balanced.
The three conditions with a performance indication were rated as more competent, accomplished, and credible than those without performance indication (see Appendix C). However, an independent samples t-test revealed that this effect was only approaching statistical significance for being accomplished t(30)=2.01, p = 0.05.
MEASURES
For a full account of all questions used to assess the measures, please refer to Appendix B. Factor loadings can be found in Appendix D.
BRANDING
The six conditions described in the stimulus section were combined in different ways to create the independent variables (IVs) as presented in Table 3.
20 WILLINGNESS TO DONATE
The dependent variable (DV) in this study is the willingness of the participants to donate to the fictitious Vegan Advocacy Group, divided into Willingness to Donate Money (WTDM) and Willingness to Donate Time (WTDT). To assess the participants’ WTDM and WTDT, they were given a scenario where they had time and money to spare. Respondents were asked to rate their willingness to donate (e.g. I would intend to donate money to this organization.) on two 7-point Likert scales, respectively, that measured the intent and the likelihood with which a participant would donate time and money. Answer options ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
The scores on each item were combined into the two corresponding variables WTDM and WTDT as well as an overall variable Willingness to Donate (WTD), made up of all the scores. The scales proved to be reliable: WTDM (eigenvalue 1.91; explained variance = 47.84; Cronbach’s alpha = .95, M = 2.98, SD = 1.57), WTDT (eigenvalue 1.96; explained variance = 48.66; Cronbach’s alpha = .98, M = 3.04, SD = 1.66), WTD (eigenvalue 3.42; explained variance = 85.55; Cronbach’s alpha = .94, M = 3.01, SD = 1.52).
REPUTATION
Reputation is expected to be the mediator in this study. It was measured with a scale developed by Sarstedt and Schloderer (2010) that contains six items from which three assessed the likability dimension (e.g. I regard the Vegan Advocacy Group as a likable organization.) and three the competence dimension (e.g. I believe that the Vegan Advocacy Group performs at a premium level.). To account for the fictitious nature of the organization, minor changes were made to the wording (e.g. I can imagine that the Vegan Advocacy Group is a top NGO in its market. instead of As far as I know, the Vegan Advocacy Group is a top
21 NGO in its market.). Answer options were given on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
The six items were combined into one overall reputation scale, one scale for the likability dimension, and one for the competence dimension. The scales were reliable: Reputation (eigenvalue 3.79; explained variance = 63.24; Cronbach’s alpha = .88, M = 3.70, SD = 1.23), Likability (eigenvalue 2.55; explained variance = 43.46; Cronbach’s alpha = .88, M = 3.77, SD = 1.46), Competence (eigenvalue 2.33; explained variance = 38.75; Cronbach’s alpha = .87, M = 3.63, SD = 1.32).
PERSONAL VALUES
The moderator in this research is the variable Personal Values. Adapted from the original instrument developed by Schwartz in the course of his writings on the
norm-activation theory of altruism (1973, 1977), Stern and colleagues (1995) modified the scale to tap environmental values and finalized four factors (altruistic, traditional, self-interest, openness to change). From this instrument, the present study uses the scales altruistic (seven items) and self-interest (four items) scales. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of 11 values on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all important, 7 = extremely important).
Other research using this or similar scales has sometimes been able to find a third factor derived from these items, a biospheric value orientation (e.g. De Groot & Steg, 2008). People with a biospheric value orientation will find issues like environmental protection to be very important (De Groot & Steg, 2008). These occasional findings of a third value
orientation within this scale can explain why also in the present study, a factor analysis revealed three factors, one clearly fitting the biospheric value orientation (eigenvalue 3.01; explained variance = 27.35) while the other two confirmed the expected altruistic
22 (eigenvalue 2.13; explained variance = 19.36) and egoistic value orientation (eigenvalue 1.88; explained variance = 17.08).
While it is interesting to note that this research confirmed previous work by De Groot and Steg (2008) and others, in this study, only the effects of egoistic and altruistic value orientations are examined. The factor analysis was therefore rerun with a fixed number of two factors which resulted in satisfactory factor loadings (see Appendix D, Table 19) and two reliable scales: Egoistic Values (EV) (eigenvalue 1.91; explained variance = 17.33;
Cronbach’s alpha = .61, M = 5.88, SD = 0.84) and Altruistic Values (AV) (eigenvalue 3.85; explained variance = 34.98; Cronbach’s alpha = .85, M = 4.17, SD = 0.99). Out of the 222 participants, only 4.2% rated the egoistic values as very important or extremely important. In contrast, 57.3% rated the altruistic values as very important or extremely important. This high prevalence of altruistic value orientations in the sample leads to limitations which will be discussed at a later point in this study.
ISSUE INVOLVEMENT
In order to be able to account for pre-existing attitudes of the participants with regard to vegan advocacy, Issue Involvement (Involve) was assessed as control variable. A 5-item, 5-point scale measured how involved the participants are with the topic (e.g. The cause in the campaign is 1 = unimportant to me, 5 = important to me). The measure was taken from Bigné- Alcañiz, Currás-Pérez, Ruiz-Mafé, and Sanz-Blas (2010) who base this scale on work by Maheswaran and Meyers-Levy (1990). The five items loaded on one factor and were combined into one reliable scale (eigenvalue 4.31; explained variance = 86.22; Cronbach’s alpha = .96). The mean value for Issue Involvement was M = 3.04 (SD = 1.22).
23 NGO ENGAGEMENT
A second control variable was NGO Engagement (Engage), since a person’s prior engagement in the third sector might, for example, influence WTD. Following Venable and colleagues (2005), participants were first asked about the number of TSOs they had
contributed to in the past twelve months. When participants selected an answer other than None, they were additionally asked what kind of contribution they had made (e.g. money, time, in-kind goods or services). 65.9% of participants had contributed to at least one
organization in the past twelve months. Of those, 49.1% had done so monetarily while 38.3% had volunteered.
DEMOGRAPHICS
Further control variables and general demographic information was collected with questions about age, gender, region of origin, level of education, employment status, industry, and industry sector.
MANIPULATION CHECK
To check whether the stimuli were perceived as intended, participants had to answer a question after they read the stimulus material. Respondents were asked to choose which of the three given answer options best described the reasons the organization gave for their advocacy efforts (e.g. Veganism benefits the human health and protects our living space.). 66.2% of respondents chose the correct answer. As intended, almost no participant in the egoistic conditions (except one person) chose the altruistic answer and only two participants in the altruistic conditions chose the egoistic answer. However, only 45.1% of people in the egoistic conditions chose the egoistic answer option while 53.5% chose the combined answer option. Similarly, 56% of respondents in the altruistic conditions chose the altruistic answer, while 41.3% chose the combined answer option. 96.1% of participants in the combined
24 conditions chose the correct answer. Since almost no participant perceived the stimulus as the opposite of the intended manipulation, it was decided to proceed with the analysis without excluding participants.
RESULTS
PRELIMINARY CORRELATION ANALYSIS
A correlation analysis between the dependent variable, mediator, moderator, and control variables was executed to explore their interdependence (Table 4). Respondents who rated the organization’s reputation higher also indicated a higher WTD which is in line with the theory (r = 0.76, p < .001). Looking at participant characteristics, it can be seen that more altruistic people were more likely to have a higher WTD (r = 0.48, p < .001), rated the organization’s reputation higher (r = 0.49, p < .001), and were more involved with the issue (r = 0.51, p < .001). In contrast, more egoistic participants rated the organization as less likable (r = -0.18, p < .001), were less involved with the issue (r = -0.20, p < .001) and reported less NGO engagement (r = -0.18, p < .001).
25 MAIN ANALYSES
In this section, the proposed hypotheses will be probed with different statistical tests. The variables Age, Gender, NGO Engagement, and Issue Involvement were controlled for in all analyses.
VALUE FRAMES ON WILLINGNESS TO DONATE
To test the main effect hypothesized in H1, which stated that the symbolic mission statement with an altruistic value frame leads to a higher WTD, WTDM, and WTDT than the text with an egoistic value frame or the one with a combination of the two frames, three one-way analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were conducted. The nine analyses, with the three IVs Egoistic/Altruistic, Egoistic/Combined, and Altruistic/Combined, the three DVs WTD, WTDM, and WTDT, and Personal Values (AV and EV) as additional control variables, showed no significant effects. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 has to be rejected. For individual results of the analyses please refer to Table 5 and for mean scores and standard deviations to Table 6.
26 Table 6
PERFORMANCE INDICATION ON WILLINGNESS TO DONATE
Another set of three one-way ANCOVAs was conducted to test Hypothesis 2 which stated that a functional mission statement with a performance indication leads to a higher WTDM than a symbolic text without performance indication, while symbolic mission statements results in a higher WTDT than a functional text. Again, WTD, WTDM, and WTDT acted as dependent variables, but Perform was the independent variable. Hypothesis 2 was not supported, since neither the effect on WTD (F (1, 70) = 2.15, p = 0.147, η2p = .03), nor on WTDM (F (1, 70) = 2.15, p = 0.147, η2p = .03), nor on WTDT (F (1, 70) = 2.15, p = 0.147, η2p = .03) was significant. Table 7 gives mean scores and standard deviations for the three analyses.
27 MEDIATION
To test the mediation in hypotheses 3 and 4, Hayes’ PROCESS macro (2013) model 4 for mediation was employed to conduct several regression analyses. Figure 3 gives a
statistical representation of all the variables in the mediation models and the paths of their connection.
REPUTATION’S INFLUENCE ON THE EFFECT BETWEEN SYMBOLIC BRANDING AND WTD Hypothesis 3 stated that reputation’s likability dimension positively mediates the relationship between symbolic branding and WTD, WTDT, and WTDM, meaning that a higher effect of the different symbolic IVs on Reputation Likability also enhances the willingness to donate. The model was tested separately with Egoistic/Altruistic,
Egoistic/Combined, and Altruistic/Combined as IVs. Likability acted as mediator variable, and WTD, WTDM, and WTDT as dependent variables. The results indicated no mediation in any of the nine variations of the model. Table 8 details the results for the main models with Egoistic/Altruistic as IV, WTD, WTDM, and WTDT as DVs, and Likability as mediator. Detailed results for the other insignificant mediation effects of the remaining models can be found in Appendix E.
28 Table 8
REPUTATION’S INFLUENCE ON THE EFFECT BETWEEN FUNCTIONAL BRANDING AND WTD Hypothesis 4 stated that reputation’s competence dimension would positively mediate the effect between functional branding and WTD, WTDM, and WTDT, meaning that a bigger effect of the functional IV on Reputation Competence also enhances the effect on willingness to donate.The model was tested separately with Perform as the independent variable,
Competence as mediator variables, and WTD, WTDM, and WTDT as DVs. The results indicated no mediation in any of the three variations of the model. Hypothesis 4 is therefore not supported. Table 9 gives a full account of the results for each model.
Table 9
MODERATED MEDIATION
The moderated mediation hypothesized in H5 and H6 were tested with Hayes’ (2013) PROCESS model 9 for moderated mediation. Figure 4 represents all the variables in this analysis and their connecting paths. Due to the high number of model variations resulting
29 from these variables, the results sections for H5 and H6 will only give a general account of the results and provide one detailed table for the main model of the respective hypothesis. Detailed results for all remaining models can be found in Appendix E.
PERSONAL VALUES’ INFLUENCE ON THE EFFECT BETWEEN SYMBOLIC BRANDING AND REPUTATION
Hypothesis 5 states that personal values moderate the mediation of symbolic branding on willingness to donate through reputation. More specifically, it is expected that high values for an altruistic value orientation will positively influence this mediation and high values for egoistic value orientation will negatively influence the mediation. The model was tested separately with the IVs Egoistic/Altruistic, Egoistic/Combined, and Altruistic/Combined. AV and EV were the moderator variables, Reputation, Likability, and Competence were mediator variables, and WTD, WTDM, and WTDT were DVs. The results indicated significant direct effects of the moderator Altruistic Values on the mediator and on the DV (see Table 12 for regression coefficients of the general model and Appendix E for all remaining models). However, there was no significant moderated mediation in any of the model variants.
30 Hypothesis 5 is therefore not supported. Table 10 details the results of the moderated
mediation for the models with Egoistic/Altruistic as IV.
PERSONAL VALUES’ INFLUENCE ON THE EFFECT BETWEEN FUNCTIONAL BRANDING AND REPUTATION
Hypothesis 6 states that personal values moderate the mediation of functional branding on willingness to donate through reputation. More specifically, it is expected that high values for an altruistic value orientation will positively influence this mediation and high values for egoistic value orientation will negatively influence the mediation. The model was tested separately with Perform as IV, AV and EV as moderators, Reputation, Likability, and Competence as mediators, and WTD, WTDM, and WTDT as DVs. The results indicated no significant moderated mediation in the variations of the model. Hypothesis 6 is therefore not supported. Table 11 gives a full account of the moderated mediation results for the different models.
31 Table 10
32 Table 12
33 DISCUSSION
This study answered the research question: What impact do different values (altruistic vs. egoistic) in the symbolic branding and performance indications in the functional branding of a vegan advocacy group’s communication have on stakeholder willingness to donate and volunteer; how is this impact mediated by the TSO’s reputation, and how do personal values moderate this effect? While revealing direct effects of personal values on how stakeholders rate the organization’s reputation and their willingness to donate time and money, none of the hypothesized mediation, moderation, or direct effects were statistically supported. This section will discuss several explanations for these findings.
First, while the great majority of literature supports the inference that branding texts using altruistic values lead to a higher willingness to donate than those using egoistic values, there is the occasional research example that shows that people respond primarily to self-centered (egoistic) as opposed to environmental (altruistic) values in campaigns (Boenigk & Möhlmann, 2016). Furthermore, those studies supporting this paper’s hypothesized effects used either campaign donation appeals (e.g. Sargeant et al., 2008b) or other pieces of brand communication for their research. Additionally, the literature revealed that articles usually study real organizations (e.g. Michel & Rieunier, 2011; Sargeant et al., 2008a, 2008b). Thus, the theoretical foundation for this paper lacks evidence for fictitious TSOs. This argument also holds for the type of TSO. The specificity and novelty of vegan advocacy groups might not necessarily allow for the assumptions that were drawn from the literature on domestic violence and animal rescue (Sargeant et al., 2008b), or environmental protection TSOs (e.g. Stern et al., 1999).
The assumption that the symbolic branding dimension influences the likability dimension of reputation and functional branding is related to the competence dimension of
34 reputation was made because of the apparent similarities between them but was not grounded in theory. This might explain the insignificant mediation effects. The connection between those two two-dimensional concepts therefore needs further probing.
However, the higher altruistic value orientations consistently showed significant positive direct effects on reputation and on willingness to donate. These findings are in line with the literature which suggests that altruists are more likely to donate (e.g. Bekkers & Schuyt, 2008; Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011). The results also suggest that altruists rate a TSO’s reputation higher than egoists. In previous research, donations have been shown to be preceded by an organization’s good reputation (e.g. Bennett & Gabriel, 2003; Sarstedt & Schloderer, 2010). This effect has been reconfirmed by significant positive direct effects of reputation on willingness to donate in most models. However, these results need to be taken with caution, since the ratio of people with altruistic and those with egoistic value
orientations was heavily skewed towards altruists.
The findings are only generalizable to the general population to a certain extent. While the artificial conditions created in this experiment allow for drawing causal inferences, these conditions are what makes an experiment generally not suitable for generalizing results for the whole population.
The sample, which was only drawn from Facebook users, showed a large majority of females. While in developed countries, women more often participate in donating money and time than men (Charities Aid Foundation, 2016), the high number of females in the sample still represents a problem.
People aged 50 are the group that participates most in donating money to charity (34%) (Charities Aid Foundation, 2016). Since the sample is mostly made up of younger people, it does not represent the opinions of the group that is represented most in donations.
35 When it comes to education, people with a college or university degree have been shown to donate most as opposed to those with a lower level of education (“Statistics”, n.d.; Kottasz, 2004b; Schervish, O’Herlihy, & Havens, 2006; Schlegelmilch, Love,
Diamantopoulos, 1997). The same holds true for volunteering (Bussell & Forbes, 2002; Smith, 1999; Wilson, 2000). The high prevalence of university degrees in the sample is therefore representative of people that donate most time and money.
LIMITATIONS
The insignificant results of this study might be explained in part by limitations due to the research design. First, the assumption that a piece of brand communication like the employed mission statement would encourage the same reactions as campaign materials might have been premature, especially given the fact that TSOs with a vegan focus are a relatively new phenomenon and have to the author’s best knowledge not been the subject of a similar study. The fictitious nature of the “Vegan Advocacy Group” could also have played a role in the insignificant results. While a fictitious organization has the advantage that
participants do not hold any preconceived opinions, real-life examples might be more convincing to respondents and effect different results.
Another point was the very low willingness to donate among participants. In addition to fictitious nature of the organization, reasons for the low rating might also lay with the young sample and large proportion of students who are not generally known for having a lot of money to spare for charity. In addition, the rather controversial topic of veganism is prone to influence opinions more than more consensual issues like domestic violence. While the control variable Issue Involvement attempted to limit the effect of personal opinions in the analyses, this regulation might not have been complete enough.
36 Furthermore, the manipulation check indicated that while participants did not perceive their condition opposite to the intended effect and a pretest mostly showed the success of the desired manipulation, most respondents indicated that they thought the stimulus included both altruistic and egoistic values, irrespective of the condition they were assigned to. The structure of the online questionnaire could be an explanation here, since the manipulation check was placed two other questions after the stimulus which might have been too late for participants to remember. Additionally, while keeping the stimulus as concise and clear as possible, participants might have been overwhelmed by the presented information.
Furthermore, respondents might have been influenced by previous knowledge about the reasons that vegan advocacy groups present for their mission which are often a combination of egoistic and altruistic values.
It is also possible that participants that were assigned to the functional dimensions doubted the fictitious organization’s claims for a good performance. While respondents in the pretest rated texts with performance indication as indicating a more competent,
accomplished, and credible organization than those without performance indication, the differences were not statistically significant. Since in the final questionnaire this rating was not repeated, it cannot be known how well and credible participants perceived the
manipulation for the functional branding dimension.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
The lack of significant results indicates that no claim can be made for the importance of values and performance indication in TSO branding, at least not in the form this study applied. TSO communication professionals may still be advised to focus on building a brand for their organizations, since previous research suggested the importance of branding in the third sector to build a competitive advantage for attracting donations, funding, and volunteers
37 (e.g. Napoli, 2006; Ritchie et al. 1999; Venable et. al., 2005). However, the results of this study imply that there is no need for vegan advocacy groups to concentrate on egoistic or altruistic framing of their mission statements. Instead, they might be better advised to look into the language they use. As an example, literature has shown that incendiary language has negative effects on the perception of animal rights organizations (Mika, 2006), that justice might be a better point to address than altruism (Freeman, 2010, 2014).
Professionals might also benefit from taking a step back by exploring and segmenting their audience (Andreasen & Kotler, 2003). One helpful information that this research
contributes here is that altruists display a higher willingness to donate also in the context of vegan advocacy groups. TSOs in that sector can take this information to cater better to their target audience. Organizations should also strive to understand which values their target group sees threatened by the current situation in society. By presenting solutions to those threats in their mission and branding communication, according to the VBN Theory (Stern et al., 1999; Stern, 2000), this allows them to garner support and commitment from
stakeholders.
THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS
This study contributed to the theory in that it added emphasis and a new value-based focus to the growing research on third sector branding. Even though the importance of this focus was not supported by statistical significance, it might be found in different contexts. The emphasis on third sector branding should be seen as valuable even without significant results, since the importance of branding for organizations outside the for-profit sector has been widely recognized (e.g. Andreasen & Kotler, 2003; Brooks, 2014). The theory will benefit from more additions to this topic and especially from testing more typically corporate branding strategies in the third sector context.
38 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
For further research, some key recommendations can be made. When studying the potential effects of branding on reputation and on willingness to donate, the two branding dimensions should be operationalized in a different way. Specifically, it is recommended to not focus on the distinction between egoistic and altruistic values but to only differentiate between the presence and the absence of values. The functional dimension could be operationalized in a way that encompasses more elements than only a performance
indication. Additionally, this study utilizes a fictitious organization. Future research should concentrate on real-life TSOs (from the vegan advocacy sector) and should do so by furthermore comparing different organizations. Using real organizations moreover enables the researchers to measure real giving and volunteering behavior and move beyond the declarative stage that is used here.
In conclusion, this study contributes to the field by indicating that further research should move away from the distinction between altruistic and egoistic frames in TSO branding or incorporate the proposed changes to the research design. Communication professionals can take away that catering to altruistic stakeholders might benefit their reputation and ability to attract donations, since altruists have been shown to rate an
organization’s reputation significantly higher and display a higher willingness to donate. The insignificant results of this paper should also not discourage future research from exploring the effects of branding in the third sector, and specifically in vegan advocacy groups, so that the scarce research on this rapidly growing sector can be enriched.
39 REFERENCES
Aaker, D. A. (2009). Managing brand equity. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Abratt, R., & Kleyn, N. (2012). Corporate Identity. Corporate Branding and Corporate Reputations: Reconciliation and Integration.
Abimbola, T., & Vallaster, C. (2007). Brand, organisational identity and reputation in SMEs: An overview. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 10(4), 341-348. doi: 10.1108/13522750710819685
Aiken, M. (2001). Keeping close to your values: Lessons from a study examining how voluntary and co-operative organisations reproduce their organisational values. Milton Keynes: Open University.
Amato, P. R. (1985). An investigation of planned helping behavior. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 232-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90031-5 Amos, C., Holmes, G. R., & Allred, A. (2015). Exploring impact philanthropy, altruistic,
hedonic, and egoistic motivations to support animal causes. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 27(4), 351-372.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2015.1015377
Andreasen, A. R. & Kotler, P. T. (2003). Strategic marketing for nonprofit organizations. International edition (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Anheier, L. (2005). The nonprofit sector: Approaches, management, policy. London and New York: Routledge.
Ariely D, Bracha A, Meier S (2009) Doing good or doing well? Image motivation and monetary incentives in behaving prosocially. American Economic Review, 99(1):544–555. doi: 10.1257/aer.99.1.544
40 Bednall, T. C., & Bove, L. L. (2011). Donating blood: a meta-analytic review of self-reported
motivators and deterrents. Transfusion Medicine Reviews, 25(4), 317-334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmrv.2011.04.005
Bekkers, R. (2005). It’s not all in the ask: Effects and effectiveness of recruitment strategies used by nonprofits in the Netherlands. Retrieved from mysciencework.com
Bekkers, R., & Schuyt, T. (2008). And who is your neighbor? Explaining denominational differences in charitable giving and volunteering in the Netherlands. Review of Religious Research, 50(1), 74-96. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20447529.
Bennett, R. (2008). Marketing of voluntary organizations as contract providers of national and local government welfare services in the UK. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19(3), 268-295. doi: 10.1007/s11266-008-9065-9
Bennett, R., & Ali‐Choudhury, R. (2009). Second‐gift behaviour of first‐time donors to charity: an empirical study. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 14(3), 161-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmrv.2011.04.005
Bennett, R., & Gabriel, H. (2003). Image and reputational characteristics of UK charitable organizations: An empirical study. Corporate Reputation Review, 6(3), 276-289. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540206
Bennett, R., & Savani, S. (2003). Predicting the accuracy of public perceptions of charity performance. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 11(4), 326-342. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jt.5740088
41 Berry, L. L. (2000). Cultivating service brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 28(1), 128-137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281012
Bigné-Alcañiz, E., Currás-Pérez, R., Ruiz-Mafé, C., & Sanz-Blas, S. (2010). Consumer behavioural intentions in cause-related marketing. The role of identification and social cause involvement. International Review on Public and Nonprofit
Marketing, 7(2), 127-143. doi: 10.1007/s12208-010-0053-6
Boenigk, S., & Möhlmann, M. (2016). A public sector marketing model to measure the social and environmental values of public strategies: an empirical study on a green public service. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 28(2), 85-104.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2014.987036
Brooks, J. (2014). The money-raising nonprofit brand. Motivating donors to give, give
happily, and keep on giving. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Brosius, H., Koschel, F., & Haas, A. (2009). Methoden der empirischen
Kommunikationsforschung. Eine Einführung. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Bruce, I. 1998. Successful charity marketing. Hemel Hempstead: ICSA Publishing Limited.
Bussell, H., & Forbes, D. (2002). Understanding the volunteer market: The what, where, who and why of volunteering. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7(3), 244-257. doi: 10.1002/nvsm.183
Chang, C.-T., & Lee, Y.-K. (2010). Effects of message framing, vividness congruency and statistical framing on responses to charity advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 29(2), 195-220. http://dx.doi.org/10.2501/S0265048710201129
42 Charities Aid Foundation (2016). CAF World Giving Index 2016. Retrieved from
www.cafonline.org
Cherry, E. (2006). Veganism as a cultural movement: A relational approach. Social
Movement Studies, 5(2), 155-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14742830600807543
Davis, J. (2012). World veganism – past, present, and future. Retrieved from www.ivu.org/history
Das, E., Kerkhof, P., & Kuiper, J. (2008). Improving the effectiveness of fundraising
messages: The impact of charity goal attainment, message framing, and evidence on persuasion. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(2), 161-175. doi: 10.1080/00909880801922854
Deephouse, D. L. (2000). Media reputation as a strategic resource: An integration of mass communication and resource-based theories. Journal of Management, 26(6), 1091-1112. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600602
De Groot, J. I., & Steg, L. (2008). Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior how to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environment and Behavior, 40(3), 330-354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506297831
Dolnicar, S., Irvine, H., & Lazarevski, K. (2008). Mission or money? Competitive challenges facing public sector nonprofit organisations in an institutionalised
environment. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 13(2), 107-117. doi: 10.1002/nvsm.311
43 Donaldson, B., & McNicholas, C. (2004). Understanding the postgraduate education market
for UK‐based students: a review and empirical study. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 9(4), 346-360. doi: 10.1002/nvsm.259
Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk?. Public Administration Review, 64(2), 132-140. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00355.x
Farmer, S. M., & Fedor, D. B. (2001). Changing the focus on volunteering: an investigation of volunteers’ multiple contributions to a charitable organization. Journal of Management, 27(2), 191–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700204
Fombrun, C., & Van Riel, C. (1997). The reputational landscape. Corporate Reputation Review, 1(5), 1-16. doi:10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540008
Freeman, C. P. (2010). Framing animal rights in the “Go Veg” campaigns of US animal rights organizations. Society & Animals, 18(2), 163-182. doi:
10.1163/156853010X492015
Freeman, C. P. (2014). Framing farming: Communication strategies for animal rights. doi: 10.1163/9789401211741
Gallagher, M., & Radcliffe, V. S. (2002). Internal controls in nonprofit organizations: The case of the American Cancer Society, Ohio Division. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 12(3), 313-325. doi: 10.1002/nml.12307
Grounds, J., & Harkness, J. (1998). Developing a brand from within: Involving employees and volunteers when developing a new brand position. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 3(2), 179-184. doi:
44 Hankinson, P. (2001). Brand orientation in the charity sector: A framework for discussion
and research. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 6(3), 231-242. doi: 10.1002/nvsm.149
Hasenfeld, Y., & Gidron, B. (2005). Understanding multi-purpose hybrid voluntary
organizations: The contributions of theories on civil society, social movements and non-profit organizations. Journal of Civil Society, 1(2), 97-112.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17448680500337350
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Heinrich Böll Stiftung & Friends of the Earth Europe (2014). Meat atlas. Facts and figures about the animals we eat. Retrieved from www.boell.de/en/meat-atlas
Hudson M. (1995). Managing without profit. London: Penguin.
Hughes, P. N., & Luksetich, W. A. (1999). The relationship among funding sources for art and history museums. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 10(1), 21-37. doi: 10.1002/nml.10103
Hume, C., & Hume, M. (2008). The strategic role of knowledge management in nonprofit organisations. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Marketing, 13(2), 129-140. doi: 10.1002/nvsm.316
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. The Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22. doi: 10.2307/1252054
Kerlin, J. A. (2006). Social enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and learning from the differences. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(3), 246. doi:10.1007/s11266-006-9016-2
45 Kim, S. J., & Kou, X. (2014). Not all empathy is equal: How dispositional empathy affects
charitable giving. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 26(4), 312-334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2014.965066
Kottasz, R. (2004). How should charitable organisations motivate young professionals to give philanthropically?. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Marketing, 9(1), 9-27. doi: 10.1002/nvsm.230 https://doi.org/10.1086/588699
Leete, L. (2006). Work in the nonprofit sector. In Powell, W. & Steinberg, R. (Eds.), The non-profit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed.) (pp. 159-179). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Liu, W., & Aaker, J. (2008). The happiness of giving: The time-ask effect. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 543-557.
Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(3), 361-367. doi: 10.2307/3172593
Meijer, M. (2009). The effects of charity reputation on charitable giving. Corporate Reputation Review, 12(1), 33–42. doi:10.1057/crr.2009.5
Mews, M., & Boenigk, S. (2013). Does organizational reputation influence the willingness to donate blood?. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 10(1), 49-64. doi:10.1007/s12208-012-0090-4
Michel, G., & Rieunier, S. (2012). Nonprofit brand image and typicality influences on charitable giving. Journal of Business Research, 65(5), 701-707.
