To be seen, or not to be seen: that is the question
The influence of the place where a product will be consumed and a person’s degree ofself-monitoring on the effectiveness of cause-related marketing campaigns
Kim Aileen Staiger (11107480)
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science
Persuasive Communication Supervised by Dr. Marijn H.C. Meijers
Abstract
The present study extends cause-related marketing literature by researching the effect of two internal factors, the place where a product will be consumed and a person’s degree of self-monitoring, on the effectiveness of cause-related marketing campaigns. It was predicted that purchase intention towards cause-related marketing products that are consumed in public would be higher than towards cause-related marketing products that are consumed in private. Besides that, the effect of a person’s degree of self-monitoring on the effectiveness of related marketing campaigns was investigated. A main effect of the place where a cause-related marketing product would be consumed on purchase intention as well as an interaction effect of self-monitoring and the place where a cause-related marketing product would be consumed on purchase intention were expected. Across two experimental studies, purchase intention was indeed higher towards cause-related marketing products that are used in public. However, self-monitoring seemed not to influence the effectiveness of cause-related
marketing campaigns.
Keywords: cause-related marketing; internal factors; purchase intention; public consumption;
Introduction
Can you contribute to a better world by shopping? And can you achieve more with money you spend on daily purchases than merely increasing the brand’s profit? In fact you can. Pampers offers consumers the possibility to donate a vaccination for another baby in a third world country while buying diapers for their own baby in cooperation with UNICEF. Dopper gives consumers the chance to improve clean water access in Nepal while purchasing colourful Dopper bottles in the Netherlands in cooperation with Simavi. And IKEA offers consumers the opportunity to donate solar-powered lamps to communities in third world countries while purchasing a lamp for their own living room in cooperation with UNICEF. These are just a few examples of the countless cause-related marketing (hereafter CRM) campaigns which Berglind and Nakata (2005) define as a “practice of marketing a product, service, brand, or company through a mutually beneficial relationship with a non-profit or social cause organization” (p. 444). This cooperation seems like a win-win-win situation for company, cause and consumer (William & Endacott, 2004). The good cause receives donations it would have otherwise missed. The consumer has a clear conscience because he/she supported a good cause while buying necessities. And, last but not least, the company (ideally) improves sales.
Previous research has focused on external factors that affect the effectiveness of CRM campaigns. These are factors that can be influenced by the company or the good cause
engaging in the cooperation, for example, the perceived motivation of a company to
participate (Marone, Miyazaki, & Taylor, 2000), a fit between product and cause (Nan & Heo, 2007), or the effect of letting the consumer choose a cause that the brand contributes to
(Robinson, Irmak, & Jayachandran, 2012). Even though various researchers have stressed the importance of taking internal factors into account when trying to determine the effectiveness of influence attempts such as CRM (i.e., characteristics of the product or the consumer), this focus is absent in the CRM literature (Eagly, 1981; Haugtvedt, Petty, & Cacioppo, 1992).
An important internal factor of the product that may influence the effectiveness of CRM is the place where a product will be consumed. That is, products that are consumed in public (such as bikes, individually wrapped cookies or tumblers) offer people the chance to present themselves as a person supporting good causes (Griskevicius, Tybur, & Van Den Bergh, 2010). In contrast, products that are consumed in private (such as a home trainer, a family package of cookies or a mug), do not offer this chance to show off behaviour that is in line with social expectations. It might therefore be the case that CRM products are especially well-liked when it concerns products that are consumed in public rather than in private, as these offer consumers the possibility to show their prosociality.
Another internal factor that may influence the effectiveness of CRM campaigns may be self-monitoring. Self-monitoring is the degree to which individuals are able and motivated to modify their expressive behaviour in line with social expectations (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). Self-monitoring might moderate the effect the place where a product will be consumed has on purchase intention. As Krebs (1970) noted, helping others is socially desirable and a deeply rooted norm in our society. By purchasing a CRM product, one supports a good cause and therefore behaves in line with the social expectation of altruism. Since behaving in line with social expectations is exactly what high self-monitors try to do, it can be expected that they will show a high purchase intention towards CRM products. In other words, CRM is a suitable expressive mechanism for high self-monitors to show their desire to help others. However, the influence of how others evaluate self-monitors’ behaviour is only relevant for public behaviours, such as the use of a tumbler on a train. If a behaviour remains private, such as the use of a mug at home, high self-monitors will most likely not try to behave in line with social expectations because their behaviour is not seen by others. This leads to the
expectations that high self-monitors are more likely to support CRM by purchasing CRM products when those products will subsequently be used in public.
The current study aims at taking another step towards effectively applying CRM by answering the following question: Does the place where a product will be consumed influence the effectiveness of CRM campaigns and does a consumer’s degree of self-monitoring
moderate this effect? It thereby offers a significant theoretical contribution to the body of CRM literature by taking into account internal factors such as product characteristics (public versus private use) as well as personality characteristics (high versus low degree of self-monitoring) that might influence the effectiveness of CRM campaigns. From a managerial perspective, the study contributes to a better understanding of the appropriateness of CRM campaigns for products that are consumed publicly versus privately. It also provides insights into the importance of immutable personality characteristics.
Theoretical Framework
Cause-Related Marketing
Statistics show the importance of CRM: 90% of U.S. consumers would switch to a CRM product when having to choose between two brands of comparable quality and price (CONE, 2015). In an international study by Nielsen (2014), 55% of all international participants were willing to pay more for products from companies that claimed to be committed to a positive social or environmental cause and 52% of all international
participants asserted that they check product packaging to ensure a sustainable impact. CRM thus seems a promising marketing technique that has been adapted widely.
Prior research has defined various goals of CRM campaigns such as an increase in sales (Varadarajan & Menon, 1988), improving a company’s image projected towards its employees (Kotler & Lee, 2005), achieving a competitive advantage (Adkins, 1999) as well as its ability to reduce consumer sensitivity towards price and quality differences (Trimble & Rifon, 2006). However, CRM is no wild card to success. Kim and Lee (2009), for example, discuss the problem of scepticism towards CRM campaigns which lowers the acceptance of
claims made by a company and thereby decreases the successfulness of the campaign. To maximize the effectiveness of CRM campaigns, various factors influencing its success have been researched. Barone, Miyazaki, and Taylor (2000) showed that a company’s motivation underlying the CRM efforts influences consumer choice. Motivations that are perceived to benefit the cause improve consumer choice, whereas motivations that are perceived to exploit the cause reduce consumer choice. Furthermore, Barone and colleagues (2000) showed that consumer choice is negatively influenced when a customer must trade off quality or a low price to enable the sponsorship. Moosmayer and Fuljahn (2010) stressed the importance of a relatively large donation size in campaigns targeted at women. That is, campaigns in which a relatively large amount was promised to the good cause were more successful than campaigns in which a smaller donation amount was promised, but only when the campaign was targeted at women. Nan and Heo (2007) discussed the importance of a fit between cause and brand in positively influencing ad and brand attitudes among brand conscious consumers. Robinson, Irmak, and Jayachandran (2012) demonstrated that if consumers can choose a cause they want to support with their purchase, they evaluate the campaign more positively. Lastly, Grau and Folse (2007) suggested the cooperation with local good causes and positive rather than negative message framing to produce favourable
campaign outcomes.
In sum, there is abundant research investigating the influence of external factors, which are factors that can be influenced by the company or cause engaging in the campaign, on the success of CRM. However, there is a lack of research investigating the role of internal factors, which are factors that are inherent to the CRM product or consumer. This lack will partially be compensated with the current study. The first internal factor that will be looked at is inherent to the CRM product: the place where the CRM product would most likely be consumed (public versus private).
Public versus Private Consumption
CRM is a form of helping others and therefore living up to the expectation of behaving prosocially or altruistic. Krebs (1970) highlighted that such behaviour is a central norm in our society. Using CRM products in public can therefore have the function of a self-promoting billboard to show ones willingness to support a socially desirable choice (Griskevicius, Tybur, & Van Den Bergh, 2010). In contrast, using CRM products in private does not offer this chance of promoting oneself as an altruistic person. Bearden and Etzel (1982) argued that using products in public makes people adapt their behaviour so that it is in line with social expectations. Bourne (1957) discussed decisions regarding products that will be used in public and are therefore strongly influenced by the presence of others (Bourne, 1957).
Various research has discussed this phenomenon of behaviour being more likely to be corresponding to what is expected or deemed desirable when it concerns public rather than private behaviour (Griskevicius, Tybur, & Van Den Bergh, 2010; Ratner & Kahn, 2002; Zhou and Wong, 2008). In line with Bourne’s (1957) reasoning, these studies showed that public product choices or decisions, were not always the most logical option, but one that was
consistent with what others might expect and appreciate. So, on one hand, someone’s decision regarding a new pair of sneakers (i.e., a product that will be used in public) will be more likely influenced by what others deem important. On the other hand, someone’s decision regarding household cleaning detergents (i.e., a product that will be used in private) is less likely to be influenced by what others deem important.
Given that donating to a good cause is considered socially desirable, it is expected that people are more likely to buy CRM products that will be used publicly than CRM products that will be used privately, as using such a product privately does not offer the chance to show ones good behaviour. So far, there is no research that investigated this, however, there is some research that substantiates this reasoning.
evaluated as something positive, when choosing between different types of candy or
appetizers as soon as their decision is public compared to when their decision remains private. Griskevicius, Tybur, and Van Den Bergh (2010) showed a comparable adjustment of
behaviours to social expectations in public situations, but not in private situations, towards making pro-environmental choices. Lastly, Zhou and Wong (2008) found that when buying luxurious products, prestige is more important when considering publicly consumed products, whereas quality guides decisions on privately consumed products. Together, these studies indicate that when making a decision that will subsequently be visible in public, people are inclined to behave in line with social expectations. Based on this and the fact that CRM is regarded as something desirable (Berglind & Nakata, 2005), it is expected that people are more likely to buy CRM products that will be used publicly than CRM products that will be used privately, leading to the following hypothesis:
H1: Participants will have a higher purchase intention towards CRM products that will be consumed publicly than towards CRM products that will be consumed privately.
The strength of the influence of the place where the product will be consumed on the choice of products might be affected by other internal factors, such as individual factors or character traits. It is possible that the degree to which people’s decisions are guided by their surroundings’ expectations, weakens respectively strengthens the influence of the place where a product will be consumed. This reasoning asks for a consideration of self-monitoring.
Self-Monitoring
Self-monitoring is the degree to which individuals are able and motivated to control their expressive behaviour (Gangestad & Snyder, 2000). People may be either high or low in self-monitoring. High self-monitors scan their environment searching for social cues and change their behaviour according to those cues (DeBono & Kenneth, 2006), whereas low self-monitors do not adjust their behaviour to different social environments (Snyder & Gangestad,
1986). Research has shown that high self-monitors will actually change their attitudes when realizing that they oppose the consensus to assimilate as much as possible (DeBono & Edmonds, 1989). In contrast, low self-monitors’ self-expression is in line with their own feelings, attitudes and values which leads to a consistency between public behaviours and private attitudes (DeBono & Kenneth, 2006).
One cue that high self-monitors might detect in our society is the expectation to behave in a socially responsible way (Krebs, 1970). One way of behaving in line with this expectation is to purchase CRM products (Berglind & Nakata, 2005). As mentioned before (H1), it is expected that purchase intention will be higher towards CRM products that will be used in public compared to CRM products that will be used in private, as this provides people with the opportunity to show others how good they are. It is, however, expected that this is especially relevant for people whose decisions are guided by others’ expectations, in other words high self-monitors. In contrast, low self-monitors are less likely to adjust their behaviour to different social environments (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986). Their purchase intention of CRM products will be less likely influenced by the place where the CRM product will be consumed. They might purchase a CRM product, but only because they appreciate its impact, quality or other aspects, not because they want to conform to society’s norm of altruism. In line with this reasoning, the potential moderating effect of self-monitoring on the influence of the place where a CRM product will be used on purchase intention will be tested with the following hypothesis:
H2: Purchase intention for CRM products that will be consumed publicly will be higher for high self-monitors than for low self-monitors, in contrast, purchase intention for CRM products that will be consumed privately does not depend on a person’s degree of self-monitoring.
Place where the CRM product
will be used Purchase intention
Degree of self-monitoring
H2
H1 Figure 1. Conceptual model
Pretest
A pretest (N = 26) was performed to find products that are very similar, but one product should be clearly used in public and the other one in private. Besides that, the
likeliness to purchase the products had to be comparable for both products. The options were the following: small bottle of hand sanitizer versus big bottle of hand sanitizer, bike versus home trainer, laptop versus desktop computer, clock versus wristwatch, single wrapped cookie versus family package of cookies, soda can versus soda bottle, tumbler versus mug. For every product participants were asked to indicate on a 7-point scale anchored with privately (for example at home) and in public (for example in the city, on the train) where they would most likely use the product. They also indicated on a 7-point scale anchored with not very likely and very likely how likely it was that they would buy a product of that type. The tumbler and mug turned out to be the best pair, due to the biggest difference in the place where the product would be used while revealing a very comparable purchase intention, see Table 1.
Participants clearly indicated that they would use a tumbler in public (M = 4.88, SD = 0.34) while using a mug privately (M = 2.08, SD = 1.32). This is a large statistically
significant difference, t (23) = 9.47, p < .001, CI = [2.18, 3.40], d = 1.94. Furthermore, purchase intention was very comparable for the tumbler (M = 3.75, SD = 1.23) as well as the mug (M = 4.00, SD = 1.10). This is reflected in a non-significant test result, t(23) = -.83, p =
.417, CI = [-0.88, 0.38]. Therefore, a campaign using those two products was developed with the help of a professional designer. Special attention was paid to ensuring the comparability of the two versions. This was achieved by keeping all elements constant and only adapting the product’s name as well as a short note on where the product could be used, see Figure 2.
Study 1
To test the hypotheses that CRM products are best liked when consumed in public rather than in private and that this effect is especially strong for those high in self-monitoring, a lab experiment was conducted.
Method
Design. The study represented a 2 × 2 mixed factorial design with self-monitoring
(high versus low) as a quasi-independent variable and the place where the product is consumed (private versus public) as a true independent variable.
Participants. One hundred and forty-eight participants (MAge = 22, SD = 3.22, 80.7%
female) took part in a laboratory experiment under controlled conditions and received course credit or €10. Participants were recruited either via the laboratory website, where they voluntarily made an appointment, or they were approached on campus by one of the laboratory assistants. A session consisted of four thematically independent experiments of other researchers. Since some of the experiments required a student sample, Study 1 was restricted to students. To rule out any possible influences among the experiments, participants were asked to indicate the purpose of the study but none guessed the correct aim. Each
participant was randomly assigned to one of the two conditions (public (N = 74) versus private (N = 74) product). Outliers, participants who scored two or more standard deviations above or below the mean (z ≥ |2|) on more than one dependent variable, were excluded from the analysis (N = 2) (Field, 2013).
Procedure and materials. Participants entered the laboratory and were asked to leave
other experiments of the session as well as to keep them focused on the task. They were seated in individual cubicles where they could fill in the questionnaires on personal
computers. For one of the experiments an additional test had to be started which meant that participants had to call a laboratory assistant. Besides that, another experiment included evaluating several snacks (cookies, M&M’s, mandarins, and grapes). Those two intermissions made the experimental session diverse, as such increasing the chance that participants would still be focused and motivated at the end of the session when the questionnaire related to the present study would appear on the screen.
After answering demographical questions, agreeing to an informed consent form and finishing the questionnaires belonging to the other studies, they started the present
experiment. First of all the moderator, the participant’s degree of self-monitoring, was assessed. Subsequently, they were exposed to the CRM campaign for a product that is either used publicly (TravelCup) or privately (CozyMug; see Figure 2). After being exposed to the manipulation, participants answered questions regarding purchase intention. At the end of the survey they were asked several questions about their environmental self-identity, to be able to control for this in case necessary.
Self-monitoring. Self-monitoring was assessed with Lennox and Wolfe’s (1984)
revised self-monitoring scale consisting of 13 items. The scale is subdivided into a subscale assessing a person’s ability to modify self-presentation as well as a subscale assessing a person’s sensitivity to expressive behaviour of others. An example item for the former would be the statement “I have the ability to control the way I come across to people, depending on the impression I wish to give them”. An example item for the latter would be “In
conversations, I am sensitive to even the slightest change in the facial expression of the person I'm conversing with”. Participants indicated how much they agreed with the
statements on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). The self-monitoring scale was reliable (α = .84; M = 4.88; SD = 0.73). However, a principal
component analysis (PCA) that was conducted on the 13 items with orthogonal rotation (Varimax) showed that three components had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination explained 36,02% of the variance. Subdividing the scale into three factors was not in line with theory that suggests two factors (ability to modify self-presentation and sensitivity to expressive behaviour of others). Besides that, there appeared to be no logical coherence within the suggested factors. In the light of Cronbach’s alpha it was decided to continue with all 13 items as one factor, but this issue will be addressed in the discussion.
Dependent variables. Participant’s purchase intention for the displayed product was
assessed with the following item “Imagine you needed a tumbler [mug] right now. How likely is it that you would buy the TravelCup [CozyMug]?”. This item was based on Yoon, Bolls and Lang’s (1998) item assessing purchase intention, but slightly adjusted to the current situation. Participants were asked to indicate their purchase intention on a 7-point bipolar matrix scale anchored with improbable and probable, unlikely and likely as well as impossible and possible. The 3-item scale for purchase intention proved to be unidimensional (EV = 2.52) and reliable (α = .90; M = 4.37; SD = 1.54), explaining 83,92% of the variance.
Environmental self-identity. Environmental self-identity was measured with three
items such as “Acting environmentally-friendly is an important part of who I am” (Van der Werff, Steg, & Keizer, 2013b). Participants had to rate on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). Cronbach's alpha for this unidimensional (EV = 2.67) scale was α = .94 (M = 4.10, SD = 1.41), explaining 89% of the variance.
Van der Werff, Steg, and Keizer (2013a) have shown that environmental self-identity increases the motivation to behave environmentally friendly. A stronger motivation leads to more environmentally friendly behaviour. The experimental campaigns of the present study (see Figure 2) thematise sustainable farming, which is a concept that might be especially appealing to participants with a strong environmental self-identity. It is possible that a participant’s environmental self-identity influences their behaviour (Van der Werff, Steg, &
Keizer, 2013b), which in the case of the present study is purchase intention. Therefore, environmental self-identity is a potential covariate. This will be tested at a later stage.
Results and Discussion
Manipulation check. First of all it was tested whether the manipulation (public versus
private) was perceived the way it was intended. The manipulation check was successful since participants who were exposed to the TravelCup indicated that they would use it in public (M = 5.91, SD = 1.01) whereas participants who were shown the CozyMug indicated that they would use it privately (M = 1.80, SD = 1.00), t (146) = -23.85, p < .001, CI = [-4.45,-3.77], d = 4.10.
Randomization check and confounding variable analysis. To test whether
randomization was successful, a randomization check was performed. There were no
significant differences between the two groups regarding demographic variables such as age, t(146) = -.96, p = .337, CI = [-1.57, 0.54] and gender, c2(1) = 2.10, p = .147, or their degree of monitoring, t(146) = 9.87, p = .386, CI = [-0.13, 0.34], and neither for environmental self-identity, t(146) = .76, p = .449, CI = [-0.27, 0.62] so randomization was successful.
To assess which of the control variables must be included in the analysis as covariates, a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient between the dependent variable purchase intention and age, gender as well as environmental self-identity was computed. There was no statistically significant correlation between purchase intention and any of the control
variables. Since there was no significant correlation and randomization was successful, no covariate will be taken into account in the analyses.
Main analyses. Hypothesis 1 stated that participants have a higher purchase intention
towards CRM products that are consumed publicly than towards CRM products that are consumed privately. An independent samples t-test with the participant’s purchase intention as the dependent variable and the place where the depicted product would be consumed (public versus private) as the independent variable showed that on average, participants’
purchase intention towards the TravelCup (public) was significantly higher (M = 4.91, SD = 1.30) than participants’ purchase intention towards the CozyMug (private) (M = 3.91, SD = 1.53), t(146) = -4.25, p < .001, CI = [-1.45,-0.53], d = 0.70. This means that indeed
participants have a higher purchase intention towards CRM products that are consumed publicly compared to CRM products that are consumed privately. Hypothesis 1 can therefore be accepted.
Hypothesis 2 stated that purchase intention for CRM products that will be consumed publicly will be higher for high self-monitors than for low self-monitors. In contrast, purchase intention for CRM products that will be consumed privately does not depend on a person’s degree of monitoring. In order to dichotomize monitoring, a median split of the self-monitoring index created two groups of which one was defined as high in self-self-monitoring (> median) while the other one was defined as low in self-monitoring (< median). A 2 (place: public versus private) × 2 (degree of self-monitoring: high versus low) ANOVA with
purchase intention as the dependent variable showed that there was no significant interaction effect of the place where a product would be consumed and a participant’s degree of self-monitoring on purchase intention, F(1,144) = 1.79, p = .183. This means that participants who are high in self-monitoring did not show a higher purchase intention for products that will be consumed in public (M = 4.87, SD = 1.42) than participants who are low in self-monitoring (M = 4.95, SD = 1.20). Furthermore, high self-monitors did not show a significantly different purchase intention for products that would be consumed privately (M = 4.18, SD = 1.45) than low self-monitors (M = 3.63, SD = 1.58). The main effect of self-monitoring on purchase intention was not significant, F(1,144) = 1.06, p = .306, while the main effect of the place where the product will be consumed was significant, F(1,144) = 18.66, p < .001. Hypothesis 2 must be rejected. See Table 2 for all descriptive statistics.
To test Hypothesis 2, all participants were allocated to either a group of high or low self-monitors based on a median split. This was done because the hypothesis was based on
theory using the dichotomization into high and low self-monitoring. However, Fitzsimons (2008) criticized this approach of dichotomizing and prompts researchers to analyse with the full variation of the data. Therefore, it was tested whether analysing with the full variation of self-monitoring would lead to different results. An ANOVA with purchase intention as the dependent variable and the place where a product will be consumed (public vs private) as independent variable, the average degree of self-monitoring as an individual continuous predictor, and their interaction as predictors showed no significant interaction effect of the place where a product would be consumed and a participant’s degree of self-monitoring on purchase intention, F(1,144) = 1.24, p = .268. To conclude, no difference in significance was found whether the interaction effect was based on the full variation of self-monitoring or on its dichotomization.
In sum, the results of Study 1 suggested that the place where a product will be
consumed influences the effectiveness of CRM campaigns. Self-monitoring, however, did not have a moderating effect on the relationship between the place where a product will be
consumed and purchase intention.
Study 2
The aim of Study 2 was to replicate the findings of Study 1 with a more general sample, meaning that not only students from the University of Amsterdam took part. Besides, an online experiment that people could perform in their familiar surroundings increased external validity and therefore, complemented the internal validity that was given in a
laboratory experiment. Last but not least, replication led to more robust results since it helped to substantiate the veracity of effects found in Study 1 (Brandt et al., 2014).
Method
Design. Just as the previous study, this study represented a 2 × 2 mixed factorial
design with self-monitoring (high versus low) as a quasi-independent variable and the place where the product is consumed (private versus public) as a true independent variable.
Participants. One hundred sixty-eight participants (MAge = 30.64, SD = 10.87, 69,8 %
female) took part in the online experiment. They were recruited using snowball sampling that started via social media channels and text messages to friends, family and acquaintances of the researcher. This sample was not restricted to students and they did not receive any reward for participating. Each participant who opened the link was randomly assigned to one of the two conditions (public (N = 85) versus private product (N = 83)). Outliers, participants who scored two or more standard deviations above or below the mean (z ≥ |2|) on more than one dependent variable were excluded from the analysis (N = 1) (Field, 2013).
Procedure and materials. When opening the internet link for the experiment,
participants landed on a welcoming page. After choosing the right language (Dutch, German, or English) they proceeded to an informed consent form page. Participants had to give consent before the survey continued exactly as the survey from Study 1 with the assessment of a participant’s degree of self-monitoring. All items as well as the campaign materials were similar to the ones from Study 1.
Measures. Study 2 used the same measures as the previous study did. The
self-monitoring scale was reliable (α = .76; M = 4.66; SD = 0.69). A principal component analysis (PCA) that was conducted on the 13 items with orthogonal rotation (Varimax), however, showed again that three components had eigenvalues over Kaiser’s criterion of 1 and in combination explained 57,91% of the variance. Again based on a non-existent logical coherence within the suggested factors as well as a high Cronbach’s alpha, it was decided to continue with all 13 items as one factor but to return to this issue in the discussion.
Similarly, the 3-item scale for purchase intention proved to be unidimensional (EV = 2.58) and reliable (α = .91; M = 4.05; SD = 1.72), explaining 85,27% of the variance. The same applies to the 3-item scale assessing environmental self-identity (α = .89; M = 4.56; SD = 1.21). The scale also proved to be unidimensional (EV = 2.48) and explained 82,81% of the variance.
Results
Manipulation check. First of all it was tested whether the manipulation (public versus
private) was perceived the way it was intended. Again the manipulation check was successful since participants who were exposed to the tumbler indicated that they would use it in public (M = 5.27, SD = 1.63) whereas participants to whom the mug was shown answered that they would use it privately (M = 2.92, SD = 1.75), t(167) = -9.04, p < .001, CI = [-2.87,-1.84], d = 1.38.
Randomization check and confounding variable analysis. There were no significant
differences between the two groups regarding their age, t(165) = 0.49, p = .619, CI = [-2,49, 0.54], gender, c2(1) = 0.16, p = .688, or their degree of self-monitoring, t(166) = -0.39, p = .700, CI = [-2.49, 4.18], and neither for environmental self-identity, t(166) = -.71, p = .476, CI = [-0.50, 0.23]. Therefore, it can be assumed that random assignment to one of the groups was successful.
To assess which control variable must be included in the analysis as covariate, a Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient between the dependent variable purchase intention and age, gender as well as environmental self-identity was computed. There was only a statistically significant, positive correlation between purchase intention and
environmental self-identity, r = .31, p < .001. Therefore, environmental self-identity will be taken into consideration as a covariate in all subsequent analyses.
Main analyses. Hypothesis 1 stated that participants would have a higher purchase
intention towards CRM products that are consumed publicly than towards CRM products that are consumed privately. An ANCOVA with the participant’s purchase intention as the
dependent variable, the place where the depicted product would be consumed (public versus private) as the independent variable and environmental self-identity as a covariate showed that on average, participants’ purchase intention towards the TravelCup (public) was significantly higher (M = 4.41, SD = 1.73) than participants’ purchase intention towards the CozyMug
(private) (M = 3.72, SD = 1.64), F(1,165) = 6.53, p = .011 2p = .04. This means that indeed participants have a higher purchase intention towards CRM products that are consumed publicly compared to CRM products that are consumed privately. In line with Study 1, Hypothesis 1 can therefore be accepted.
Hypothesis 2 stated that purchase intention for CRM products that will be consumed publicly will be higher for high self-monitors than for low self-monitors. In contrast, purchase intention for CRM products that will be consumed privately does not depend on a person’s degree of monitoring. In order to dichotomize monitoring, a median split of the self-monitoring index created two groups of which one was defined as high in self-self-monitoring (> median) while the other one was defined as low in self-monitoring (< median). A 2 (place: public versus private) × 2 (degree of self-monitoring: high versus low) ANCOVA with purchase intention as the dependent variable and environmental self-identity as a covariate showed that there was no significant interaction effect of the place where a product would be consumed and a participant’s degree of self-monitoring on purchase intention, F(1,163) = .41, p = .525. This means that participants who are high in self-monitoring did not show a higher purchase intention for products that will be consumed in public (M = 4.50, SD = 1.73) than participants who are low in monitoring (M = 4.32, SD = 1.74). Furthermore, high self-monitors did not show a significantly different purchase intention for products that would be consumed privately (M = 3.64, SD = 1.72) than low self-monitors (M = 3.79, SD = 1.59). The main effect of self-monitoring on purchase intention was not significant, F(1,163) = 1.10, p = .297, while the main effect of the place where the product will be consumed was significant, F(1,163) = 6.60, p = .011. Hypothesis 2 must be rejected. See Table 3 for all descriptive statistics.
Again it was tested whether analysing Hypothesis 2 with the full variation of self-monitoring in contrast to dichotomizing it, as called for by Fitzsimons (2008), would lead to different results. An ANCOVA with purchase intention as the dependent variable, the place
where a product will be consumed (public versus private) as the independent variable, the average degree of self-monitoring as an individual continuous predictor, and environmental self-identity as a covariate, was computed. There was no significant interaction effect of the place where a product would be consumed and a participant’s degree of self-monitoring on purchase intention, F(1,101) =1.27 p = .204. To conclude, no difference in significance was found whether the interaction effect was based on the full variation of self-monitoring or on its dichotomization.
In sum, the results of Study 2 were in line with the results of Study 1. They suggested that the place where a product will be consumed influences the effectiveness of CRM
campaigns. Self-monitoring, however did not seem to have a moderating effect on the relationship between the place where a product will be consumed and purchase intention.
General Discussion
The research question, whether the place where a product will be consumed (publicly versus privately) influences the effectiveness of CRM campaigns and whether a consumer’s degree of self-monitoring moderates this effect, was answered with two experimental studies. First of all, it is important to note that the results were consistent across both studies.
Therefore, they will be discussed together. The results show that the place where a CRM product will be consumed indeed influences a participant’s purchase intention. Purchase intention was significantly higher for a CRM product that will be used publicly compared to a CRM product that will be used privately (Hypothesis 1). However, no moderating effect of self-monitoring on the effect of the place where a CRM product will be consumed on purchase intention was found (Hypothesis 2). The stronger purchase intention for publicly used CRM products was not influenced by a person’s degree of self-monitoring.
Theoretical Contributions and Practical Implications
The present study helps to improve the effectiveness of CRM campaigns. Several external factors have been shown to influence the effectiveness of CRM campaigns (Barone, Miyazaki, & Taylor, 2000; Grau & Folse, 2007; Moosmayer & Fuljahn, 2010; Nan & Heo, 2007; Robinson, Irmak, & Jayachandran, 2012).
However, this study is the first that takes internal factors into account that are inherent to the product (the place where it will be consumed) as well as the consumer (degree of self-monitoring). The results show that people are more likely to purchase CRM products that will be used in public rather than in private. This is in line with research on the influence of public consumption towards making socially desirable choices (Peloza, White, & Shang, 2013; Griskevicius et al., 2010). Peloza et al. (2013) showed that participants preferred products that were promoted with ethical appeals as soon as a purchase decision was made publicly. In contrast, participants preferred products that were promoted with self-benefit appeals, when their purchase decision remained private. Making use of CRM is one form of using ethical appeals and thus the results of the present study support Peloza et al.’s (2013) findings that consumers prefer products marketed with ethical appeals when their decision is public. In addition, the results show as reported by Griskevicius et al. (2010) that prosocial (in their case environmentally friendly) products are preferred over conventional products when the
decision is public. In sum, the present study supports the idea that decisions are in line with socially expected behaviour, when they are visible in public rather than when they remain private.
This expected influence of public consumption leading to prosocial choices has a major managerial implication. Since purchasing CRM products is a prosocial choice, CRM is especially suitable for products that will be consumed or used in public. As the present
experiments have shown, people have a higher purchase intention towards a tumbler, which is usually used in public, compared to a mug, which is usually used in private. This means that
CRM would be an effective strategy for a company promoting cars or clothes, which are both products that are used in public. People would be proud to drive around in a car of a certain brand that is associated with a CRM campaign. Furthermore, they would like to show off their support of a good cause by wearing clothes of a brand that takes part in a CRM campaign. To speak in Griskevicius et al.’s (2010) words, people are inclined to make use of CRM products as a self-promoting billboard to show off their willingness to support a socially desirable choice. In contrast, CRM would be less likely to be an effective strategy for a company promoting towels or toothpaste, which are products that are mostly used in private. Since those products do not offer people the possibility to present themselves as altruists supporting a good cause, purchase intention towards products that will be used in private is expected to be lower than that towards products that will be used in public. However, companies
promoting products that will be used in private have the chance to publicize the use of their (private) products. With publicizing I refer to the process of making the use of private products visible in public. By offering for example promotional pins that can be attached to products that are used in public, companies offer consumers a way to publicly show their support of the CRM campaign. Besides that, consumers could be provided with the possibility to publicize their purchase on Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat or other social media by
reporting their purchase as a status update.
In sum, CRM seems to be more effective as a marketing technique for companies promoting products that will be used in public than for companies promoting products that will be used in private. However, by giving consumers the chance to publicize their purchase of CRM products that will be used in private, the constraining influence of the place where a CRM product will be consumed might be overcome.
Apart from insights into the effect of a factor inherent to the CRM product, which is the place where it will be used, the present study provides us with a more profound
self-monitoring. Even though a high degree of self-monitoring seems to positively influence the desire to purchase products from companies that engage in corporate social responsibility activities (Basil & Weber, 2006), this effect was not found in the present study. Neither does self-monitoring seem to influence a person’s purchase intention towards a CRM product, nor does it moderate the effect of the place where a CRM product will be used on purchase intention. This insight has managerial implications for companies trying to determine the appropriateness of engaging in a CRM campaign. The present study suggests that a
consumer’s degree of self-monitoring does not impact the success of a CRM campaign. This means that companies targeting consumers who are expected to be high in self-monitoring, such as brand conscious consumers (Ko & Megehee, 2012), can successfully engage in CRM. But also companies targeting consumers whose degree of self-monitoring is either not known or expected to be low can successfully engage in CRM.
Limitations and Future Research
The use of Lennox and Wolfe’s (1984) revised self-monitoring scale might be a limitation of the present study that could be addressed in future research. As mentioned before, a principal component analysis (PCA) that was conducted on all 13 items suggested to subdivide the scale into three components. That is not in line with the two factors reported by Lennox and Wolfe (ability to modify self-presentation and sensitivity to expressive behaviour of others). In addition, the suggested factors did not show any convincing connection that would have advocated an analysis with three factors. Therefore, it was decided to continue with just one factor containing all 13 items. This scale, however, revealed very little variance (M = 4.88; SD = 0.73 for Study 1; M = 4.66; SD = 0.69 for Study 2). It seems that most participants did not strongly agree or disagree with statements but rather chose the golden mean. Yet, variation is needed to detect any effect (Field, 2013). This might be an explanation for the non-significant moderating and main effects of self-monitoring. The lack of variation
in answers given, as well as the incongruous results of the principal component analysis, call for a revision of the self-monitoring scale. Future research focusing on the self-monitoring scale could also take into account the fact that the scale does not include items assessing a person’s motivation to adjust their behaviour to others’ expectations which is part of
Gangestad and Synder’s (2010) definition of self-monitoring. The scale primarily assesses the skill of being able to detect expressive behaviour of others’ and in a second step the skill of modifying one’s own behaviour accordingly. The consideration of a person’s motivation to actually bring the skills into action, one could also say transform the “I can” to “I want”, would add validity to the self-monitoring scale. However, this shortcoming did not influence the main effect of the place where the product will be consumed which is the main focus of the present study. Nevertheless, it might be an alternative explanation for the non-significant moderating effect of self-monitoring.
Besides resolving any obscurities concerning the self-monitoring scale, future research could focus on the relative effectiveness of CRM campaigns. In order to assess the relative effectiveness of CRM campaigns compared to conventional marketing campaigns, it would be interesting to add two conditions without aspects of CRM in them. By doing so, one could determine a baseline purchase intention and see whether the increase in purchase intention from a conventional to the CRM campaign is statistically significant and also practically relevant. It is not yet clear, whether CRM does actually lead to a significantly higher purchase intention than a marketing campaign without a collaboration with a good cause would have led to. In addition, possible differences in purchase intention need to be relevant in practice. This means that participants’ purchase intention has to increase to a degree that justifies all resources that are assigned to developing and executing CRM campaigns.
Another aspect future research focussing on public versus private consumption of products should ensure is the comparability of the two product categories. The present study did this by using two very comparable products and campaigns. Differences between the two
products (mug versus tumbler) were reduced to a minimum, other than the place where the product will be used. Therefore, there is no alternative explanation for differences in purchase intentions. Besides that, the pretest showed that people are as likely to purchase a tumbler as they are to purchase a regular mug. Surprisingly, other studies that addressed the influence of the place where a product will be consumed made use of very different products such as cars and household cleaners (Griskevicius, Tybur, & Van Den Bergh, 2010).
Even though the extension of Study 2 beyond a Dutch student population, led to more robust and generalizable effects, future research could be done with a sample that is
representative of society as a whole for an increased level of external validity. Since factors such as people’s socio-economic status or their environmental self-identity might influence their support of CRM campaigns, the present results might be biased due to a sample with a relatively high socio-economic status, a high level of education and a rather strong
environmental self-identity.
The present experiment, but also taking one of the suggested steps, ensures that CRM gets the scientific attention that is justified by its broad use in practice. In an advertising world that is characterized by clutter that sparks a constant struggle to draw attention to one’s own message, but also a world in which society calls for more individual and corporate socially responsible behaviour (Bénabou & Tirole, 2010), CRM might be the logical conclusion and optimal solution.
References
Adkins, S. (1999): Cause-related marketing: Who cares wins. Oxford: Butterwort-Heinemann.
Barone, M., Miyazaki, A., & Taylor, K. (2000). The influence of cause-related marketing on consumer choice: Does one good turn deserve another? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 248-262.
Basil, D. Z., & 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.
Bearden, W. O., & Etzel, M. J. (1982). Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 183-194.
Bénabour, R. & Tirole, J. (2010). Individual and corporate social responsibility. Economica, 77(305), 1-19.
Berglind, M., & Nakata, C. (2005). Cause-related marketing: More buck than bang? Business Horizons, 48(5), 443-453.
Brandt, M. J., IJzerman, H., Dijksterhuis, A., Farach, F. J., Geller, J., Giner-Sorolla, R., . . . van 't Veer, A. (2014). The replication recipe: What makes for a convincing replication? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 217-224.
Bourne, F. S. (1957). Group influence in marketing and public relations. In R. Liker, & S. P. Hayes (Eds.), Some applications of behavioural research (pp. 207-252). Paris: UNESCO.
CONE Communications/Ebiquity global CSR study (2015). Boston, MA: CONE Communications. Retrieved from:
http://www.conecomm.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/0/2482ff6f22fe4753488d3fe37e948e3 d/files/global_pdf_2015.pdf
DeBono, K.G. (2006). Self-monitoring and consumer psychology. Journal of Personality, 74(3), 715-738.
DeBono, K., & Edmonds, A. (1989). Cognitive dissonance and self- monitoring: A matter of context? Motivation and Emotion, 13(4), 259-270.
Doing well by doing good (2014). Retrieved from:
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/reports/2014/doing-well-by-doing-good.html
Eagly, A. H. (1981). Recipient characteristics as determinants of responses to persuasion. In R. E. Petty, T. M. Ostrom, & T. C. Brock (Eds.), Cognitive responses in persuasion (173–195). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Field, A. P. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: And sex and drugs and rock 'n' roll (4th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.
Fitzsimons, G. (2008). Editorial: Death to dichotomizing. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(1), 5-8.
Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126(4), 530-555.
Grau, S. L., & Folse, J. A. G. (2007). Cause-related marketing (CRM): The influence of donation proximity and message-framing cues on the less-involved consumer. Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 19-33.
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. (2010). Going green to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 392-404.
Haugtvedt, C. P., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1992). Need for cognition and advertising: Understanding the role of personality variables in consumer behaviour. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1(3), 239-260.
Kim, Y. J., & Lee, W. (2009). Overcoming consumer skepticism in cause-related marketing: The effects of corporate social responsibility and donation size claim objectivity. Journal of Promotion Management, 15(4), 465-483.
Ko, E., & Megehee, C. M. (2012). Fashion marketing of luxury brands: Recent research issues and contributions. Journal of Business Research, 65(10), 1395-1398.
Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Krebs, D. L. (1970). Altruism: An examination of the concept and a review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 73(4), 258-302.
Kristiansen, C. M., & Zanna, M. P. (1988). Justifying attitudes by appealing to values: A functional perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology, 27(3), 247-256.
Lennox, R., & Wolfe, R. (1984). Revision of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6), 1349-1364.p
Moosmayer, D. C., & Fuljahn, A. (2010). Consumer perceptions of cause related marketing campaigns. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 27(6), 543-549.
Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives: Examining the role of brand-cause fit in cause-related marketing. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 63-74.
Peloza, J., White, K., & Shang, J. (2013). Good and guilt-free: The role of self-accountability in influencing preferences for products with ethical attributes. Journal of Marketing, 77(1), 104-119.
Ratner, R., & Kahn, B. (2002). The impact of private versus public consumption on Variety‐ Seeking behaviour. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), 246-257.
Robinson, S. R., Irmak, C., & Jayachandran, S. (2012). Choice of cause in cause-related marketing. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 126-139.
Trimble, C. S., & Rifon, N. J. (2006). Consumer perceptions of compatibility in cause-related marketing messages. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(1), 29-47.
Van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2013a). It is a moral issue: The relationship between environmental self-identity, obligation-based intrinsic motivation and pro-environmental behaviour. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 1258-1265.
Van der Werff, E., Steg, L., & Keizer, K. (2013b). The value of environmental self-identity: The relationship between biospheric values, environmental self-identity and
environmental preferences, intentions and behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 34, 55-63.
Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 58-74.
William, R. & Endacott, J. (2004) Consumers and CRM: a national and global perspective. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21(3), 183-189.
Yoon, K., Bolls, P., & Lang, A. (1998). The effects of arousal on liking and believability of commercials. Journal of Marketing Communications, 4(2), 101-114.
Zhou, L., & Wong, A. (2008). Exploring the influence of product conspicuousness and social compliance on purchasing motives of young Chinese consumers for foreign brands. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7(6), 470-483.
Table 2
Purchase intention as a function of the place where the product will be consumed and degree of self-monitoring in Study 1
Purchase intention
Degree of self-monitoring Place M SD
High Private 4.18 1.45
Public 4.87 1.42
Low Private 3.63 1.58
Public 4.95 1.20
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and t-test results pretest Place where product
will be consumed Purchase intention M SD t-value M SD t-value Mug 2.08 1.32 9.47*** 4.00 1.10 -0.83 Tumbler 4.88 0.34 3.75 1.29
Small bottle of hand sanitizer
4.50 0.93
4.22***
3.25 1.26
-1.03 Big bottle of hand
sanitizer 3.04 1.85 3.50 1.25 Home trainer 1.58 1.02 8.28*** 1.83 1.17 5.10*** Bike 4.46 1.18 3.75 1.23 Desktop computer 2.71 1.63 0.00 2.58 1.41 -4.04* Laptop 2.71 1.12 4.00 1.14 Clock 2.54 1.50 -3.76*** 2.21 1.18 -3.50* Wrist watch 4.04 0.81 3.38 1.34 Family package of cookies 2.17 1.27 3.57*** 3.92 1.14 -0.55
Single wrapped cookie 3.21 1.38 3.79 1.10
Soda bottle 2.67 1.40
1.78 2.96 1.46 0.15
Soda can 3.00 1.35 3.00 1.35
Table 3
Purchase intention as a function of the place where the product will be consumed and degree of self-monitoring in Study 2
Purchase intention
Degree of self-monitoring Place M SD
High Private 3.64 1.72
Public 4.50 1.73
Low Private 3.79 1.59
Public 4.32 1.74
