Purpose-driven marketing: how to succeed and fail
Investigating the effects of fit, commitment, and importance on brand attitudes in the ever-increasing world of purpose-driven marketing.
Master’s Thesis Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science
Name: James Trusler Student ID: 12334936 Supervisor: Dr. Marijn Meijers Date of completion: 31st January 2020 Words: 7,861
Abstract
The rise of purpose-driven marketing, in recent years, has seen a number of successes but with that a number of failures too. From beer to soft drink and outdoor clothing to soap, a number of brands have put a higher social purpose at the core of their marketing
communication efforts, however, to mixed results. This variance in results is partly due to there being little academic research into the topic and a lack of understanding from brands into how to implement their purpose-driven marketing strategy to success. This study helps fill that gap by looking into key indicators that could play a role in affecting brand attitudes and asking the question; how does the closeness of fit between a brand and its purpose and the length of commitment between a brand and its purpose effect brand attitude? And does purpose importance have an influence on these effects? This study revealed that in the context of purpose-driven marketing purpose importance has a strong effect on brand attitude, with a higher level of purpose importance leading to stronger brand attitudes. The elements of fit and commitment however were found not to be significant, meaning brands are not limited to only selecting a purpose related to their product category and are likely to realise the positive effects of implementing such a strategy relatively quickly.
Introduction
“It’s not what you sell, it’s what you stand for!” (Spence & Rushing, 2011). This is not just the title of one of the many books to sing the praises of brand-purpose over the past decade, but also sums up the philosophy of purpose-driven marketing in a nutshell. Purpose refers to the definitive reason a brand exists beyond just generating profit ("What we know about brand purpose", 2019). In 2012, Jim Stengel, Proctor & Gamble’s Global Marketing Officer from 2001 to 2008, highlighted the power of purpose in the book Grow. Stengel analysed data from a ten-year-growth study comparing companies with a brand-purpose to the rest of the market and found that purpose-driven brands outperformed the market by a huge margin (Stengel, 2012). According to Stengel an investment in the top 50 purpose-driven businesses in his ten-year-growth study would beat an investment in the Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 by 400 percent. Since the release of Grow the industry has taken note and brand after brand has begun to implement their own purpose-driven marketing strategies.
One of the best recognised examples of a brand to use purpose-driven marketing to success is the beauty brand Dove. Since 2004, Dove has successfully put a higher social purpose at the forefront of its marketing communications with their Real Beauty campaign, celebrating body positivity. Dove’s purpose is focussed on creating a world where beauty is a source of confidence, not anxiety ("Dove - Our vision", n.d.). Following through on their purpose statement with action, Dove offers body confidence educational programmes to teenage girls through online resources such as action plans, videos, and workshops (Hsu, 2017). Since implementing their purpose-driven strategy, Dove has seen the rewards with sales jumping from US$2.5 billion to $4 billion in ten years of the campaign running (Neff, 2014) and was also ranked as the number 1 campaign of the 21st Century by Ad Age (Hsu, 2017).
However, for every brand succeeding in purpose-driven marketing, there are a number of brands failing too. Soft drink giant, Pepsi, experienced a high-profile misstep in 2017, with their attempt at purpose-driven marketing. The company tried to promote a global message of unity and peace, however, badly missed the mark with many consumers having negative reactions (Victor, 2017). The ad, which featured TV celebrity Kendall Jenner, depicted scenes similar to those of the Black Lives Matter movement in the U.S., displaying racially motivated protests against police brutality. The ad concluded with Jenner handing a can of Pepsi to one of the police officers with a joyous celebration following from the crowd. This attempt at purpose-driven marketing was widely criticised by consumers, who accused Pepsi of appropriating a serious societal issue to sell cans of soft drink. In fact, within a day of its launch, Pepsi pulled the ad and offered an apology, admitting they missed the mark (Victor, 2017).
As can be seen, the strategy of adopting and implementing a purpose-driven marketing strategy, and getting it right, can mean huge success for brands. However, as demonstrated, getting it right can be challenging (Hsu, 2017). To date, few academic studies have been conducted in the area of brand-purpose, and thus, the academic world has been able to provide little guidance for brands in how to select and implement such a strategy (Hsu, 2017). Across other areas of “good marketing” however, such as corporate social responsibility (CSR), cause-related marketing, and cause sponsorship, indicators for implementing such a strategy have been identified that can potentially help inform that of purpose-driven marketing (Robinson, Irmak & Jayachandran, 2012; Dwyer, Schurr & Oh, 1987; van Den Brink, Odekerken-Schröder & Pauwels, 2006). Based on existing academic research in these related areas, two key indicators have been identified as potentially having an influence on what makes a purpose-driven marketing effort succeed, while others fail. These indicators are; the closeness of fit between a brand and its purpose, and the
commitment a brand has to its purpose. These two indicators look at separate aspects of
implementing a successful purpose-driven marketing strategy. Fit refers to the strength of connection a cause or initiative has to a company’s core business and could help brands at the beginning of their strategy development, guiding them in how to successfully select a
purpose for their company (Robinson, et al., 2012). Whereas, in cause-related marketing, commitment is often defined as the length a company supports a cause and will help brands once they have selected their purpose, to then implement their purpose-driven marketing strategy effectively (van Den Brink et al., 2006).
In addition to the factors of fit and commitment, the level of importance a consumer places on a brand’s purpose could have the potential to also influence brand attitudes. Importance is the level of significance a consumer places on a brand’s purpose and could have the potential to moderate the effect fit and/or commitment has on brand attitude (Antil, 1983).
Existing research of these three indicators has not yet been conducted in relation to the field of purpose-driven marketing. In fact, to date, very little empirical research at all exists on the topic (Hsu, 2017). Aiming to reduce this gap is the focus of this research, thus adding to the scientific field. Exploring this research gap has not only scientific relevance but also a great deal of societal relevance as it will help inform marketing practitioners looking to reap the benefits of implementing their own purpose-driven marketing strategy with
empirical evidence. The aim of this study is to gain useful insights into why some purpose-driven marketing efforts fail and others succeed. The goal is to see how these elements interact and if a combination provides a greater effect than one element alone. This leads to the research question of this study:
RQ: How does the closeness of fit between a brand and its purpose and the length of commitment between a brand and its purpose affect brand attitude? And does purpose importance have an influence on these effects?
Theoretical Framework Defining Purpose
In the book Grow, Jim Stengel (2012) defines purpose as, the inspirational and motivational reason an organization exists and Spence and Rushing (2011) define it as a statement expressing the difference your business has on the world, in their book, It’s not
what you sell, it’s what you stand for. Ultimately, a brand’s purpose is a statement that
defines the reason a company exists beyond just making money ("What we know about brand purpose", 2019). As University of Virginia Professor, R. Edward Freeman, puts it, “We need red blood cells to live (the same way business needs profits to live), but the purpose of life is more than to make red blood cells (the same way the purpose of business is more than simply to generate profits)” (Skapa, 2019). Marketing scholar Phillip Kotler describes how
consumers have driven the shift in marketing efforts to become more focussed on values. This shift, he states, is in part due to the rise of easy to share word-of-mouth in the new digital era (Kotler, 2011). As Kotler (2011) describes it, companies shift from Marketing 1.0, when they see consumers buying products based on functionality, to Marketing 2.0, being based on emotional criteria, to then Marketing 3.0, which is based on companies’ social responsibility. Marketing 3.0 is what he calls the value-driven era and is where companies appreciate consumers as people with hearts, minds, and spirits. The reason many companies are making the shift toward Marketing 3.0 is due to the staggering numbers that suggest this is what consumers now seek from their brands. Research suggests that in the U.S., almost 90% of consumers are likely to switch away from a brand that is not seen as doing good, to a brand that is, all else being equal (Du, Bhattacharya & Sen, 2010). And in the U.K., almost
half of consumers say they would be willing to abandon a brand if it has poor corporate behaviour (Rodionova, 2017). Statistics like this, in part, help explain the rise of purpose-driven marketing over recent years.
There are many different types of marketing strategies that aim to do good for people, society, and the environment, such as CSR, cause-related marketing, and cause sponsorship (see Table 1). Purpose-driven marketing, however, differs from these initiatives but can encompass them (Hsu, 2017). Purpose is a bigger company-wide principle and is the lifeblood that runs through the entire business. As PepsiCo’s Vice President of Marketing, Todd Kaplan explains, being purpose driven is not just having a nice CSR program, instead, purpose is what guides every decision your brand makes (Adams, 2018).
One of the best recognised examples of purpose-driven marketing is that of outdoor clothing brand Patagonia. Patagonia has, since its inception, operated with a core purpose at the heart of its business, which is “to save our home planet” ("Patagonia Mission Statement - Our Reason For Being", n.d.). For Patagonia everything the company does ladders up to this purpose. From the products they sell to their manufacturing processes, even to how they light their stores. Every decision is made with their purpose in mind. And for Patagonia, it’s paid off, having seen their revenue quadruple over the past decade (Beer, 2018). Ironically, Patagonia has even seen sales grow when campaigning with anti-consumerist messages. In 2011, the company ran a full-page newspaper ad featuring an image of one of their fleece’s and the headline “Don’t Buy This Jacket”. The ad was designed to encourage customers to repair and reuse as much of their clothing as possible, bucking the fast fashion trend and promoting a message of sustainable living. Interestingly, however, during the campaign, sales for the brand actually increased by about 30%, in a demonstration that the values-driven message was strongly connecting with consumers and helping form positive brand attitudes (Beer, 2018).
This is just one example where purpose-driven marketing has been used successfully, however not all brands have seen the same success, with Nike, Gillette, McDonald’s, and Heineken all running purpose-driven marketing campaigns in recent years, to varying success (Aziz, 2018; Abitbol, 2019; Rodionova, 2017; Ritson, 2017). In fact, the brewing industry is one to have really embraced purpose-driven marketing of late. All around the world, beer brands have executed purpose-driven marketing in different forms. As well as Heineken from the Netherlands, Victoria Bitter from Australia, Carlsberg from Denmark, Corona from Mexico, and Budweiser from the United States have all implemented purpose-driven marketing strategies, again to varying success (Ritson, 2017; Wilkinson, 2019; Roderick, 2017; Smiley, 2019; McAteer, 2018). The variance in success, however, could be explained by how they have treated the elements of fit and commitment when selecting and
implementing their brand-purpose.
Marketing Strategy Definition
Brand-purpose The reason a business exists beyond just
generating a profit ("What we know about brand purpose", 2019).
Corporate social responsibility A company’s activities related to its perceived societal or stakeholder obligations (Lee, Park, Rapert & Newman, 2012)
Cause-related marketing A company linking the support of a charity or cause to product sales (Robinson et al., 2012). Cause-sponsorship A charity or cause clearly identifying a
company as a supporter (Bloom, 2006).
Table 1.
Fit
Fit refers to the strength of connection a cause or initiative has to a company’s core business (Robinson et al., 2012). It has been defined in a social marketing context as a consistent pairing between two or more elements (Yoo & Lee, 2018). The concept of fit has been studied in many different brand and marketing communication contexts, such as the influence fit has on developing successful product extensions (Aaker & Keller, 1990), in relation to selecting programs for corporate social responsibility (Becker-Olsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006; Du et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2012; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; Yoo & Lee, 2018) and selecting a cause for cause-related marketing (Robinson et al., 2012). Although the concept of fit has not been studied within the context of purpose-driven
marketing, these definitions can be considered to apply, i.e., the perceived relevance between the characteristics of a company and its brand-purpose. For example, the fit between Dutch chocolate brand Tony’s Chocolonley and its purpose to make chocolate 100% slave-free could be considered a high fit. However, a low fit would be if its brand-purpose was to celebrate body positivity, as this has little relevancy to the brand’s core business of making and selling chocolate.
Much of the research that has been conducted concerning the concept of fit suggests that the higher the fit between a cause or initiative and the brand the better received it is by consumers (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Du et al., 2010; Lee et al., 2012; Menon & Kahn, 2003; Robinson et al., 2012; Yoo & Lee, 2018). These studies present a consistent pattern, which is the closer or higher the fit, the stronger the brand attitude. Becker-Olsen et al. (2006), for example, found that high fit pairings between a brand and its CSR initiative significantly elevated brand attitude when compared to low fit pairings.
As the concept of fit hasn’t been researched within the context of purpose-driven marketing, it remains to be seen what effect it will have on consumer reactions. However, as
these results strongly point in favour of a higher fit leading to stronger brand attitudes, hypothesis 1 is as follows:
H1: A high fit between a brand and its purpose will lead to more positive brand attitudes compared to a low fit.
Commitment
Another element to consider in developing a successful brand-purpose strategy is the commitment a brand has to its purpose. Commitment, in the context of a company
committing to a cause, has been studied within academic research in the fields of cause-related marketing and CSR (Drumwright, 1996; Dwyer, et sl., 1987; L’Etang, 1994;
Varadarajan & Menon, 1988; Webb & Mohr, 1998). L'Etang (1994) suggests that the level of commitment a company has to a cause can determine how that relationship is viewed by consumers, especially with respect to the company being viewed as genuinely caring about the cause. The higher the commitment, the more authentic the partnership is perceived to be, whereas a lower commitment has the potential to be perceived as supporting a cause just because it’s popular or seen as a good thing, with no real care or intent by the company to follow through with good actions.
In research to date, however, the concept of the commitment a brand has to a cause does not have a standard definition in academic literature. Many academics define it using slightly different aspects of commitment or, in some cases, a combination of aspects. Dwyer, et al., (1987) define commitment as the promise of consistency made between two or more partners over a specific period of time. Defining three separate factors that makeup
commitment; the amount of input, the durability of the association, and the consistency of the input. However, many researchers view commitment in regard to the length of time, i.e., low
commitment, as a short period of time (this could be a campaign lasting six months) or high commitment, as a long period of time (considered as multiple years).
Webb and Mohr (1998) found that consumers used the length of time a brand was committed to a cause for judging the brand’s motives – shorter-term campaigns were viewed as a way to increase sales, while longer-term commitments were viewed as more authentic. A similar result was revealed by Drumwright (1996), who found social advertising campaigns lasting six months or less could be disastrous for brands, compared to campaigns that extended over multiple years, which were judged to be more successful. Again, in line with these results, Varadarajan and Menon (1988) suggest that medium- or long-term
commitments provide consumers with more time to learn about a company-cause connection, leading to communications being more effective.
As true purpose-driven marketing requires a long term commitment, this research will look into the length of time it takes for a brand to see the pay-off from such a strategy, for example, will strong brand attitudes be formed straight away or will they only be realised after years of commitment to the purpose. This leads to hypothesis 2:
H2: A high commitment between a brand and its purpose will lead to more positive brand attitudes compared to a low commitment.
Moderating Effects of Purpose Importance
The importance a consumer places on a company’s brand-purpose has also been seen to have the potential to affect band attitudes. Importance, in this context, refers to the level of significance a consumer places on a specific cause or initiative within a specific situation (Antil, 1983). In fact, the main effect of cause importance on brand attitude has been demonstrated to positive effect within the contexts of cause-related marketing and CSR
(Wang & Anderson, 2018; Lafferty & Edmondson, 2014; Basil & Weber, 2006; Hou, Du & Li, 2008). However, within this study, it is hypothesised that importance, in this case, purpose importance, will have a moderating effect on the relationship that fit and
commitment has on brand attitudes. This hypothesis is in line with Petty and Cacioppo’s (1986) Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), which argues that there are two routes of processing information. One, called the central route, where attitudes are formed, based on a person’s deeper processing and careful consideration of the message arguments. This route of processing suggests that, if the message arguments are found to be clear, logical, and
convincing, then favourable views will occur. However, if the message arguments are considered to be weak, the message will be counterargued and rejected. It is thought the central route is followed in situations when a person is highly motivated and has interest in the information being presented. However, when a person is not motivated, they are likely to process information via the second route, called the peripheral route. In this route, attitudes are formed not through careful consideration of the arguments presented but based on heuristic cues and associations linked to the message.
It is suggested that, as a person sees a brand’s purpose as more important, then the more interest and motivation they will have to process the persuasive message, hence eliciting the message to be processed via the central route. As, with this route of processing, people are likely to critically assess the message arguments, and in the case of purpose-driven marketing, elements such as fit and commitment will be scrutinized in more depth. In line with H1 and H2, it is posited that consumers will view a higher fit between a brand and its purpose and a higher commitment a brand has to its purpose as more credible, thus eliciting more favourable thoughts toward the brand. However, when fit and commitment are low, these elements will be critically viewed as dubious and thus elicit less favourable attitudes toward the brand. This leads to H3 and H4:
H3: The effect of fit on brand attitude is moderated by importance, such that it is stronger for high purpose importance.
H4: The effect of commitment on brand attitude is moderated by importance, such that it is stronger for high purpose importance.
Method Participants and Design
This study is specifically focused on the U.K. market; thus, the sample was restricted to only those living within the United Kingdom. A total sample of 403 participants was recruited via data collection agency Prolific. Due to time and budget constraints, this sample was gathered through a probability, convenience sampling method and was
non-representative. Participants within the sample were paid a small monetary reward for their time.
Of the 403 participants, twelve participants were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria of living within the U.K., and fifty-seven participants were removed due to failing one or both of the included attention checks1. Analyses was thus conducted over a final sample of 334 participants.
The average age of participants was 32.71 (SD = 11.76), ranging from 18 to 76, with 67.4% of the sample being female. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the conditions of a 2 (fit: low vs. high) x 2 (commitment: low vs. high) between subjects experiment with purpose importance as a continuous measured predictor.
Procedure
This study was conducted as an online experiment. Participants were first asked to read the instructions of the experiment and give their consent for participation. Participants
were told this was a study of brands and their marketing communications, in order to not reveal the true purpose of the experiment, as this may have had an effect on the results. Participants were then presented with a brief paragraph about Stone & Wood, an Australian beer brand. This brand was selected due the rise of the brewing industry adopting purpose-driven marketing strategies, and due to its relative obscurity within the U.K., where this experiment was conducted. An unknown brand was chosen to ensure existing brand attitudes or associations did not influence the results of this study. Participants were then randomly presented one of the four stimulus manipulations (high fit/high commitment, high fit/low commitment, low fit/low commitment, low fit/low commitment), and once the participant viewed the manipulation stimulus, they were asked to answer two questions designed as an attention check. The participant was then asked a series of questions that measure the dependent variable of brand attitude and questions to measure the moderator of purpose importance. Once this was complete, participants were asked separate sets of questions to measure the manipulation check for both fit and commitment. Finally, the participant was asked demographic questions and debriefed about the study.
Stimulus Material Fit.
One of the two independent variables in this study was fit (containing 2 levels: high fit, low fit). As a beer brand (Stone & Wood) was chosen as the brand to test a high fit and low fit brand-purpose was defined for this product. These levels were defined via an online pre-test survey containing ten different purpose areas (Ocean plastic, Mental health,
Renewable energy, Drug addiction, Immigration/Refugees, Drink driving, Domestic violence, Breast cancer, Racial Equality, and Environmental preservation). In total, 35 participants were recruited through a convenience sampling method to complete the pre-test survey. The average age of participants was 29.85 (SD = 9.10), ranging from 20 to 65, with
66.7% of the sample being female. Of these 35 participants, two participants were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria of living within the U.K. Analyses was thus conducted over a final sample of 33 participants in total2. As part of this pre-test, participants were asked to rank each purpose area using four, 7-point semantic differential scales, the questions were as follows: “On a scale of, 1 to 7, with 1 being a "Weak fit" and 7 being a "Strong fit", how do you rate the fit between Stone & Wood and the social issues or causes below:”, “On a scale of, 1 to 7, with 1 being "Dissimilar" and 7 being "Similar", how do you rate the similarity between Stone & Wood and the social issues or causes below:”, “On a scale of, 1 to 7, with 1 being "Inconsistent" and 7 being "Consistent", how do you rate
the consistency of Stone & Wood and the social issues or causes below:”, and “On a scale of, 1 to 7, with 1 being "Not complementary" and 7 being "Complementary", how do you rate the complementariness of Stone & Wood and the social issues or causes below:” These scales were adopted from Becker-Olsen et al. (2006). A paired-samples t-test revealed that a drink driving purpose (M = 4.21, SD = 1.97) for a beer brand was a significantly higher fit than a breast cancer purpose (M = 1.63, SD = 1.05), t(32) = -6.54, p = <.001, d = 1.14, 95% CI [-3.39, -1.78] (see appendix: Table 2 for M and SD of all purpose areas). These purpose areas were selected for the manipulation of fit within this experiment.
Commitment.
The second independent variable in this study was commitment (containing 2 levels: high commitment, low commitment). The operationalization of this variable was adapted from the study of Ellen, Webb, & Mohr (2006). High commitment was defined as 3 years, and low commitment was defined as 1 month.
Facebook Posts.
In order to manipulate fit and commitment within this study, four fictional Facebook posts were created on behalf of the beer brand Stone & Wood. Each post was created to look as if it was posted from the official Facebook page of Stone & Wood and spoke of the
company’s brand-purpose (either, anti-drink driving or breast cancer research) and the length of time they had supported that purpose (either, 1 month or 3 years). For example, the high fit, high commitment post read: “On the journey to brew a better world we’re making
progress in our effort to reduce drink driving and make our roads safer. We believe in good beer and doing good things. And today marks 3 years since we dedicated ourselves to supporting anti-drink driving. We want to thank you for your support, over the last 3 years, as we continue to fight for this important cause”. The post was accompanied by an image of
the Stone & Wood product and a logo restating the brand-purpose and length of commitment, please see Image 1 for all stimulus material.
High Fit/High Commitment High Fit/Low Commitment
Low Fit/High Commitment Low Fit/Low Commitment
Image 1.
Measurements
Moderator: Purpose Importance.
Purpose importance was measured using an adopted scale from Lafferty and Edmondson (2009). Through the use of three, 7-point semantic differential scales,
participants were asked: “On the scales below, please describe your overall feelings about the cause mentioned in the Facebook post you saw:”. The items were: “Very unimportant/Very
important”, “Means nothing to me/Means a lot to me”, “Very insignificant/Very significant”.
Together these items tapped the importance people placed on the brand’s purpose, M = 5.73 (SD = 1.07), Cronbach’s alpha = .80.
Dependent Variable: Brand Attitude.
Brand attitude is the dependent variable of this study. This construct was measured using an adopted scale from Spears and Singh (2004). Using five, 7-point semantic
differential scales, participants were asked: “On the scales below, please describe your overall feelings about Stone & Wood:”. The items were: “Unappealing/Appealing”,
“Bad/Good”, “Unpleasant/Pleasant”, “Unfavourable/Favourable”, “Unlikeable/Likeable”, M = 5.08 (SD = 1.15), Cronbach’s alpha = .88.
Attention Check Measurements.
The first check, designed to measure attention of the fit manipulation asked
participants to indicate the social issue or cause Stone & Wood were supporting from a list of ten different purpose areas (Ocean plastic, Mental health, Renewable energy, Drug addiction, Immigration/refugees, Drink driving, Domestic violence, Breast cancer, Racial equality, Environmental preservation). These purpose areas were presented randomly to each participant. The second check to measure attention of the commitment manipulation asked participants to indicate how long Stone & Wood supported the social issue or cause from a list of five different time periods (1 month, 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years).
Manipulation Check Measurements.
Fit.
The manipulation of fit was assessed using four items (see Becker-Olsen, et al., 2006). Using 7-point semantic differential scales, participants were asked the same questions used in the pre-test defining the fit manipulations. The items measured people’s perception of how closely the purpose fit the brand using the following scales; “Weak fit/Strong fit”,
“Dissimilar/Similar”, “Inconsistent/Consistent”, “Not complementary/Complementary”, M
= 3.92 (SD = 1.58), Cronbach’s alpha = .89.
Commitment.
The manipulation of commitment was assessed using two items (see Ellen, et al., 2006). Using 7-point semantic differential scales, the items measured people’s perception of how committed the brand was to its purpose using the following scales; “Not committed at
all/Very committed”, “Don’t care at all/Care very much”, M = 5.31 (SD = 1.33), Cronbach’s
alpha = .86.
Results Randomization Check
In order to check if participants’ age was comparable across experimental conditions, a two-way ANOVA was conducted with fit (high fit vs. low fit) and commitment (high commitment vs. low commitment) as independent variables, and age as dependent variable. An analysis of variance showed that participants’ mean age between the high fit/high
commitment condition (M = 33.37, SD = 12.61), the high fit/low commitment condition (M = 33.94, SD = 12.89), the low fit/high commitment condition (M = 31.71, SD = 11.39), and the low fit/low commitment condition (M = 32.05, SD = 10.16) did not significantly differ, F = (3, 330) = 0.66, p = .580.
In order to check if participants’ gender was comparable across the experimental conditions, a Chi-square analysis was performed. The Chi-square revealed that the effect of experimental condition on gender was not statistically significant, x2 (6) = 2.54, p = .864. This confirms randomization worked for gender and age across groups.
Manipulation Check Fit.
To check if participants perceived the match between Stone & Wood and an anti-drink driving purpose as a higher fit than with a breast cancer research purpose, a two-way
ANOVA was conducted with fit (high fit vs. low fit) and commitment (high commitment vs. low commitment) as independent variables, and perception of fit as the dependent variable. An analysis of variance revealed a significant effect of fit on perception of fit, F (1, 330) = 61.59, p = <.001, η2 = .16. This effect was large in size. Results revealed that participants exposed to a high fit, high commitment post (M = 4.54, SD = 1.49) or a high fit, low commitment post (M = 4.59, SD = 1.70), had a significantly higher perception of fit than when they were exposed to a low fit, high commitment post (M = 3.54, SD = 1.41) or a low fit, low commitment post (M = 3.09, SD = 1.19). This confirms that fit (high vs. low) was successfully manipulated within this experiment. As part of this model, the analysis of variance revealed an insignificant effect of commitment on perception of fit, F (1, 330) = 1.53, p = .218.
Commitment.
To check if participants perceived a 3-year commitment as a higher commitment than a 1-month commitment, a two-way ANOVA was conducted with commitment (high
commitment vs. low commitment) and fit (high fit vs. low fit) as independent variables, and perception of commitment as the dependent variable. An analysis of variance revealed a significant effect of commitment on perception of commitment, F (1, 330) = 11.26, p = .001,
η2 = 0.03. This effect was weak. Results revealed that participants exposed to a high commitment, high fit post (M = 5.42, SD = 1.37) or a high commitment, low fit post (M = 5.65, SD = 1.28) had a significantly higher perception of commitment than those exposed to a low commitment, high fit post (M = 5.29, SD = 1.30) or low commitment, low fit post (M = 4.81, SD = 1.24). This confirms that commitment (high commitment vs. low commitment) was successfully manipulated with this experiment. As part of this model, the analysis of variance revealed an insignificant effect of fit on perception of commitment, F (1, 330) = 0.71, p = .400.
RQ Testing
Fit and Commitment on Brand Attitude.
To answer the research question, how does the closeness of fit between a brand and its purpose and the length of commitment between a brand and its purpose affect brand attitude? And does purpose importance have an influence on these effects?, a two-way ANOVA was conducted, with fit (high vs. low) and commitment (high vs. low) as independent variables, purpose importance as a moderator and brand attitude as the dependent variable. The analysis revealed a non-significant interaction effect of fit and commitment on brand attitude, F(1, 326) = 0.01, p = .913. This suggests that adding the elements of high fit and a high commitment together does not result in stronger brand attitudes. The analysis also revealed a non-significant effect of fit and commitment and purpose importance on brand attitude, F(1, 326) = 0.05, p = .825. Again, this suggests that incorporating these three elements together in a purpose-driven strategy will not result in stronger brand attitudes.
Hypotheses Testing
Fit on Brand Attitude.
To test Hypothesis 1, that a higher fit between a brand and its purpose will lead to a more positive brand attitude compared to a lower fit, a two-way ANOVA was conducted, with fit (high fit vs. low fit) and commitment (high commitment vs. low commitment) as independent variables, purpose importance as a moderating variable and brand attitude as the dependent variable. The analysis revealed a non-significant main effect of fit on brand attitude F(1, 326) = 1.65, p = .201. In contrast to the expectation, being exposed to a high fit, high commitment post (M = 4.89, SD = 1.25) or a high fit, low commitment post (M = 4.96,
SD = 1.14) led to a similar brand attitude compared to a low fit, high commitment post (M =
5.27, SD = 1.22) or a low fit, low commitment post (M = 5.15, SD = 0.93). Support for H1 was thus not found.
Commitment on Brand Attitude.
To test Hypothesis 2, that the higher commitment a brand has to its purpose will lead to a more positive brand attitude compared to a lower commitment, a two-way ANOVA was conducted, with commitment (high commitment vs. low commitment) and fit (high fit vs. low fit) as independent variables, purpose importance as a moderator and brand attitude as the dependent variable. The analysis revealed a non-significant main effect of commitment on brand attitude F(1, 326) = 0.59, p = .444. In contrast to the expectation being exposed to a high commitment, high fit post (M = 4.89, SD = 1.25) or a high commitment, low fit post (M = 5.27, SD = 1.22) did not lead to a significant difference in brand attitude than being
exposed to a low commitment, high fit post (M = 4.96, SD = 1.14) or a low commitment, low fit post (M = 5.15, SD = 0.93). Support for H2 was thus not found.
Fit and Purpose Importance on Brand Attitude.
To test Hypothesis 3, that the effect of fit on brand attitude is moderated by importance, such that it is stronger for high purpose importance, a two-way ANOVA was conducted, with fit (high vs. low) and commitment (high vs. low) as independent variables, purpose importance as a moderator and brand attitude as the dependent variable. The analysis revealed that purpose importance did not moderate the effect of fit on brand attitude, F(1, 326) = 3.07, p = .081. Support for H3 was thus not found.
Commitment and Purpose Importance on Brand Attitude.
To check Hypothesis 4, that the effect of commitment on brand attitude is moderated by importance, such that it is stronger for high purpose importance, a two-way ANOVA was conducted, with fit (high vs. low) and commitment (high vs. low) as independent variables, purpose importance as a moderator and brand attitude as the dependent variable. The analysis revealed that purpose importance did not moderate the effect of commitment on brand
attitude F(1, 326) = 0.73, p = .393. Support for H4 was thus not found. Exploratory Findings
Purpose Importance on Brand Attitude.
An interesting result, not hypothesised within this study, is the main effect of purpose importance on brand attitude. A two-way ANOVA conducted with fit (high vs. low) and commitment (high vs. low) as independent variables, purpose importance as a moderator and brand attitude as the dependent variable, revealed a significant main effect of purpose
importance on brand attitude, F(1, 326) = 40.81, p = <.001, η2 = 0.11. This effect was large in size and means that the more important people perceive the brand’s purpose to be, the higher their attitude toward the brand.
Conclusion & Discussion
The rise of purpose-driven strategies has become more common-place in marketing
communications over recent years. From beer to soft drinks and outdoor clothing to soap, a number of brands have put a higher social purpose at the core of their marketing
communication efforts. However, with a number of high-profile brands demonstrating how challenging it can be to successfully implement such a strategy, guidance is needed to help companies minimise waste in their marketing budgets and avoid potential damage to their brand. This study set out to provide advice by identifying and testing the key indicators that make a purpose-driven strategy successful. The research question this study set out to answer is, how does the closeness of fit between a brand and its purpose and the length of
commitment between a brand and its purpose affect brand attitude? And does purpose importance have an influence on these effects? This question was answered through the four hypotheses presented: (H1) that a high fit between a brand and its purpose will lead to a more positive brand attitude compared to a low fit; (H2) that a high commitment between a brand and its purpose will lead to a more positive brand attitude compared to a low commitment; (H3) that the effect of fit on brand attitude is moderated by importance, such that it is stronger for high purpose importance; and (H4) that the effect of commitment on brand attitude is moderated by importance, such that it is stronger for high purpose importance. Analysis revealed non-significant results for the effect of fit on brand attitude and
commitment on brand attitude. Non-significant results were also found for purpose
importance, having a moderating effect on the relationship between fit and brand attitude and the relationship between commitment and brand attitude. Thus, support was not found for any of the four hypotheses, subsequently answering the research question set out. An interesting result, however, that was not hypothesised, was the significant and large, main effect of purpose importance on brand attitude. This presented a noteworthy finding as it was the only
indicator tested that revealed a significant result. Overall, results from this study suggest that the closeness of fit between a brand and its purpose and the length of commitment a brand has to its purpose do not play a significant role in impacting brand attitude, however selecting a purpose that your audience cares about and perceive as highly important does have the potential to significantly impact brand attitudes.
In contrast to the expectation and findings by Becker-Olsen et al., (2006), Du et al., 2010 and Lee et al., (2012), results from this study, however insignificantly, found a low fit between a brand and its purpose led to stronger brand attitudes rather than a high fit. These findings, however insignificant, were in the same direction as research conducted by Bloom et al. (2006) in the field of CSR. The study conducted by Bloom et. al (2006) found that a low fit between a brand and their CSR initiative had the potential to lead to more favourable consumer reactions. They suggested that low fit pairings may actually be positive for brands, differentiating them from their competitors and appearing more genuine in their motives (Bloom et al., 2006). This explanation could possibly explain the results of fit within the current study. It is possible that as a number of “good marketing” campaigns such as CSR and cause-related marketing have been run with high fit parings, this has now become the norm and is expected by consumers, thus not providing something of interest. In contrast, however, a lower fit pairing may present itself as novel and attention-grabbing, setting the brand apart from its competitor and thus being rewarded for its differentiation. However, as this result was insignificant within this current study, this suggests that the closeness of fit is not a significant indicator of brand attitudes within purpose-driven marketing.
In further contrast to expectations, commitment did not significantly influence brand attitude. Although, the direction of the relationship was in line with research conducted by Webb and Mohr (1998) and Drumwright (1996) in the fields of cause-related marketing and social advertising, with a high commitment leading to stronger brand attitudes, however
within this current study these findings were insignificant. However, in line with research conducted by Armstrong Soule and Reich (2015), length of commitment was found to have an insignificant effect within the field of green demarketing. Armstrong Soule and Reich (2015) suggested that the reputation of the brand may play a bigger role in consumers’ minds than the length of commitment. However, in the context of purpose-driven marketing, it is possible that the brand-purpose has overshadowed the length of commitment, thus making commitment nonsignificant. It may be that consumers expect companies to have a brand-purpose and to be doing good, so therefore the length of commitment doesn’t matter to consumers as they would expect it to be ongoing. This is a good thing for brands as it means they are likely to see the rewards from implementing a brand-purpose relatively quickly. The insignificant results for the moderation of purpose importance on fit and
commitment on brand attitude was also unexpected. In line with Petty and Cacioppo’s (1986) ELM, it was expected that consumers who perceived the purpose with higher importance would process the message arguments centrally and thus view the elements of fit and commitment more critically. It was predicted that a high fit and high commitment would significantly lead to stronger brand attitudes as these elements would be scrutinized in more depth and thus be perceived as more credible compared to a low fit and low commitment. However, a significant result was not found.
Interestingly though, the most remarkable result from this study, is the significant main effect purpose importance has on brand attitude. This finding is in line with research conducted by Hou, et al., (2008) that suggests cause importance has a positive effect on consumers’ evaluations of cause-related marketing campaigns. This finding suggests that the most important element brands need to get right when selecting a purpose is to ensure the purpose selected is seen as important by their consumers. Selecting a purpose with high
importance has the potential to significantly increase the success of the purpose-driven marketing campaign by building stronger brand attitudes.
Theoretical and Practical Implications
This research provides a great deal of scientific relevance as it’s one of the first studies to look into the area of purpose-driven marketing. Although many similar areas of “good marketing” communication have been studied, the specific area of brand-purpose currently lacks attention within the academic world. As has been demonstrated within the introduction and theoretical framework of this paper, purpose-driven marketing is on the rise, and the trend shows no signs of slowing. As more and more brands adopt their own purpose-driven marketing strategy, it is imperative to have empirical research that can help guide them in their decision making. This research hopefully will provide a foundation for further research to be conducted in this space so these findings can be built upon, firstly, to confirm the findings of this research but also to look into other indicators that could have an effect within the context of successful purpose-driven marketing.
Not only is this research scientifically relevant, but it also provides the practical world guidance when implementing purpose-driven marketing strategies. Brands, agencies,
marketing directors and brand managers, who are looking to implement their own brand-purpose now have empirical evidence on the indicators that will have significance in forming strong brand attitudes as they develop their purpose-driven marketing strategy. This research argues that any purpose adopted by a brand must be considered as highly important by its consumers, as this is what will have a significant effect in driving strong brand attitudes. From this research, companies now know to focus their efforts on purpose importance. These findings suggest that marketing resources should be invested in researching their consumers and testing a range of purpose areas based on importance. It would then be recommended to select and implement a purpose ranked with a high level of importance. It is also good news
for brands as no evidence was found for closeness of fit, having an effect on brand attitudes. This means marketers are not limited to selecting a purpose that relates directly to their category, instead giving them the freedom to select a purpose that differentiates themselves from their competitors. As there was also no evidence for length of commitment having an effect on brand attitudes, this indicates that brands should be able to recognise the rewards of implementing their purpose-driven strategy relatively quickly. This information will, in part, help companies minimise waste within their marketing budget and/or internal resources as they are now better informed on how to succeed.
Limitations and Future Research
Despite the theoretical and practical implications of this study, as with any academic research, the current study has limitations to address and recommendations for areas of future research. First, it is acknowledged that this study was conducted within the constraints of a very specific context. Only one product category was tested, a beer brand, with two specific brand-purpose areas, anti-drink driving, or breast cancer research. Although the product category (a beer brand) was chosen due to the rise of brands within the brewing industry adopting purpose-driven marketing strategies, it is acknowledged that the generalizability of this study’s findings can only be viewed within the context of this product segment. It is possible that different product categories would reveal different findings. However, the product category was not the only element that set the context of this study. The purpose areas (anti-drink driving and breast cancer research) also defined the context findings should be viewed within. Along with a different product category possibly revealing differing results, so too could different purpose areas. To overcome this shortcoming, future research should look into products within different categories to see if and how results differ. The purpose area should also be tested, again to see if and how the type of purpose impacts the results. A second limitation acknowledged within this study is that more than two-thirds of
the participants within the sample were female. This limitation has the potential to impact the results in that the sample was not representative of the consumer market for the product being tested. According to research from Nielsen, men make up a higher proportion of the craft beer market than women. They suggest that 88% of men are likely to drink craft beer
monthly compared to 79% of women (Kendall, 2019). So the fact that women are less likely to consume the product being tested (craft beer), but represented a higher proportion of the study’s sample, presents a limitation that could have had an impact on the findings. In future research of brand-purpose, it would be recommended to use a product that is more equally purchased or consumed by both males and females, helping the generalizability of the findings.
As the current study is one of the first in the area of brand-purpose, there is much for future research to build on. However, the findings this study uncovered provide a strong base for which future research can be built upon. The significant effect of purpose importance on brand attitude is the key insight this study has revealed, as too is the insignificant results of fit and commitment. These findings can not only inspire future research in this space but also help brands develop and shape their own purpose-driven marketing strategies, guiding them in how to succeed and fail.
References
Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions. Journal of
Marketing, 54(1), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299005400102
Abitbol, A. (2019). Razor burned: Why Gillette's campaign against toxic masculinity missed the mark. Retrieved 31 January 2020, from https://theconversation.com/razor-burned-why-gillettes-campaign-against-toxic-masculinity-missed-the-mark-109932
Adams, P. (2018). Purpose takes center stage for PepsiCo, Stella Artois at SXSW. Retrieved 31 January 2020, from https://www.marketingdive.com/news/purpose-takes-center-stage-for-pepsico-stella-artois-at-sxsw/519342/
Antil, J. (1983). Conceptualization and Operationalization of Involvement. Advances in
Consumer Research, 11. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1293374057/
Armstrong Soule, C., & Reich, B. (2015). Less is more: is a green demarketing strategy sustainable? Journal of Marketing Management, 31(13-14), 1403–1427.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2015.1059874
Aziz, A. (2018). The Power Of Purpose: Nike And Colin Kaepernick. Retrieved 31 January 2020, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/afdhelaziz/2018/09/04/the-power-of-purpose-nike-and-colin-kaepernick/#611d2a3b6f33
Basil, D., & Weber, D. (2006). Values motivation and concern for appearances: the effect of personality traits on responses to corporate social responsibility. International Journal
of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(1), 61–72.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.38
Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived
corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research,
59(1), 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2005.01.001
Beer, J. (2018). How Patagonia Grows Every Time It Amplifies Its Social Mission. Retrieved 30 January 2020, from https://www.fastcompany.com/40525452/how-patagonia-grows-every-time-it-amplifies-its-social-mission
Bloom, P., Hoeffler, S., Keller, K., & Basurto Meza, C. (2006). How social-cause marketing affects consumer perceptions. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(2), 49–55.
Dove - Our vision. Retrieved 31 January 2020, from
https://www.dove.com/us/en/stories/about-dove/our-vision.html
Drumwright, M. E. (1996). Company Advertising with a Social Dimension: The Role of Noneconomic Criteria. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 71.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1251902
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2010). Maximizing Business Returns to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of CSR Communication. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 12(1), 8–19.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00276.x
Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing Buyer-Seller Relationships.
Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 11. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251126
Ellen, P., Webb, D., & Mohr, L. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 34(2), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070305284976
Hou, J., Du, L., & Li, J. (2008). Cause’s attributes influencing consumer’s purchasing intention: Empirical evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics, 20(4), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1108/13555850810909704
Hsu, C. K. J. (2017). Selling products by selling brand purpose. Journal of Brand
Strategy, 5(4), 373-394.
Kendall, J. (2019). Nielsen Shares 2019 Craft Beer Consumer Insights. Retrieved 28 January 2020, from https://www.brewbound.com/news/power-hour-nielsen-shares-2019-craft-beer-consumer-insights
Kotler, P. (2011). Reinventing Marketing to Manage the Environmental Imperative. Journal
Lafferty, B., & Edmondson, D. (2009). Portraying the Cause Instead of the Brand in Cause-Related Marketing ADS: Does it Really Matter? Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 17(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679170203
Lafferty, B., & Edmondson, D. (2014). A note on the role of cause type in cause-related marketing. Journal of Business Research, 67(7), 1455–1460.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.07.021
Lee, E. M., Park, S.-Y., Rapert, M. I., & Newman, C. L. (2012). Does perceived consumer fit matter in corporate social responsibility issues? Journal of Business Research, 65(11), 1558–1564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.02.040
L’Etang, J. (1994). Public relations and corporate social responsibility: Some issues arising.
Journal of Business Ethics, 13(2), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00881580
McAteer, O. (2018). Budweiser 'threw away rule book' to nail purpose-driven marketing. Retrieved 31 January 2020, from https://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/budweiser-threw-away-rule-book-nail-purpose-driven-marketing/1461728
Menon, S., & Kahn, B. E. (2003). Corporate Sponsorships of Philanthropic Activities: When Do They Impact Perception of Sponsor Brand? Journal of Consumer Psychology,
13(3), 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327663JCP1303_12
Neff, J. (2014). Ten Years In, Dove's 'Real Beauty' Seems to Be Aging Well. Retrieved 31 January 2020, from https://adage.com/article/news/ten-years-dove-s-real-beauty-aging/291216
Patagonia Mission Statement - Our Reason For Being. Retrieved 31 January 2020, from https://www.patagonia.com/company-info.html
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. In
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). Elsevier.
Ritson, M. (2017). Heineken should remember marketing is about profit, not purpose – Marketing Week. Retrieved 31 January 2020, from
https://www.marketingweek.com/heineken-marketing-purpose-profit/)
Robinson, S. R., Irmak, C., & Jayachandran, S. (2012). Choice of Cause in Cause-Related Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 126–139. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.09.0589 Roderick, L. (2017). Carlsberg zeroes in on sustainability as part of premium push. Retrieved
31 January 2020, from https://www.marketingweek.com/carlsberg-sustainability-premium-push/
Rodionova, Z. (2017). UK consumers are ready to spend more for socially conscious brands. Retrieved 31 January 2020, from
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-consumers-brands-leave-pepsi-mcdonalds-advert-poor-corporate-behaviour-retail-a7749871.html
Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better? Consumer Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing
Research, 38(2), 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.2.225.18838
Skapa, J. (2019). Putting the Capital “P” in Purpose By Vawn Hicks. Retrieved 31 January 2020, from https://www.consciouscapitalism.org/blog/profiles/putting-the-capital-p-in-purposeby-vawn-hicks
Smiley, M. (2019). Corona Will Accept Plastic Waste as Payment to Combat Ocean Pollution. Retrieved 31 January 2020, from
https://www.adweek.com/brand-marketing/corona-will-accept-plastic-waste-as-payment-to-combat-ocean-pollution/ Spears, N., & Singh, S. (2004). Measuring Attitude toward the Brand and Purchase
Intentions. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 26(2), 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2004.10505164
Spence, R., & Rushing, H. (2011). It's not what you sell, it's what you stand for. New York, NY: Portfolio / Penguin.
Stengel, J. (2012). Grow. New York, NY: Crown.
van Den Brink, D., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Pauwels, P. (2006). The effect of strategic and tactical cause-related marketing on consumers’ brand loyalty. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 23(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760610641127
Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-Related Marketing: A Coalignment of Marketing Strategy and Corporate Philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 58. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251450
Victor, D. (2017). Pepsi Pulls Ad Accused of Trivializing Black Lives Matter. Retrieved 31 January 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/business/kendall-jenner-pepsi-ad.html
Wang, A., & Anderson, R. (2011). A Multi-Staged Model of Consumer Responses to CSR Communications. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, (41), 51–68.
What we know about brand purpose. (2019). Retrieved 30 January 2020, from
https://www.warc.com/SubscriberContent/Article/What_we_know_about_brand_purp ose/109945
Webb, D., & Mohr, L. (1998). A Typology of Consumer Responses to Cause-Related Marketing: From Skeptics to Socially Concerned. Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, 17(2), 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/074391569801700207
Wilkinson, Z. (2019). VB announces it will be brewed with solar power by 2020 in latest campaign. Retrieved 31 January 2020, from https://mumbrella.com.au/vb-announces-it-will-be-brewed-with-solar-power-by-2020-in-latest-campaign
Yoo, D., & Lee, J. (2018). The Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Fit and CSR Consistency on Company Evaluation: The Role of CSR Support. Sustainability,
Appendix. Tables. M SD Ocean plastic 3.63 1.88 Mental health 3.09 1.68 Renewable energy 2.89 1.50 Drug addiction 2.78 1.68 Immigration/Refugees 1.92 1.33 Drink driving 4.14 1.93 Domestic violence 3.24 1.97 Breast cancer 1.66 1.07 Racial equality 2.06 1.37 Environmental preservation 3.81 1.75 Table 2.
