• No results found

Master Thesis Buying for charity: the effect of donation type and campaign duration on consumer perceived ethicality. AUSE - RELATED MARKETING C

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Master Thesis Buying for charity: the effect of donation type and campaign duration on consumer perceived ethicality. AUSE - RELATED MARKETING C"

Copied!
46
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

C

AUSE

-

RELATED MARKETING

Buying for charity: the effect of donation type and campaign

duration on consumer perceived ethicality.

Master Thesis

Research Paper for MSc Marketing

by

Damon Aminabad

UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN

Faculty of Economics and Business

MSc Marketing

Supervisor: Dr. M.C. Leliveld

Research theme: Deception in Marketing

(2)

2

P

REFACE

Groningen, January 2014

This paper provides insight on the principal topic of cause-related marketing. This topic has received increasingly more attention in the past years and was therefore proposed by the University of Groningen. This study is particularly concerned with the drivers of consumer perceived ethicality level in cause-related marketing campaigns.

(3)

3

A

BSTRACT

Increasing attention has been drawn to cause-related marketing (CRM) worldwide. This concept implies that firm donates to a charity, every time a consumer buys a specific product. As noble as CRM aims to be, it raises some ethical and moral ambiguities in the mind of consumers and critics in practice. Consumer skepticism in particular, questions ethicality of these campaigns, underlying motivations for the involved parties and their practices. As consumers are willing to punish unethical behavior by abandoning the firm, cause or the campaign (i.e. buying alternative products, helping alternative charitable organizations or not participating in a particular campaign), success of CRM also depends to the degree of consumer perceived ethicality (CPE).

Many factors have been linked with success of CRM campaigns such as cause-involvement, donation proximity, etc. However, emergence of nonmonetary donation within CRM, i.e. donating material goods instead of money is a novel concept that requires further

investigation. Campaign duration is also a less-addressed issue within the CRM-literature. Mentioning how long firms cooperate with a charitable organization may lead to certain perception among consumers. Firms rarely mention how much a donation is actually worth Sharing this information with consumers (or not) may be essential to forming CPE. This study examines how donation type and campaign duration affect people’s perceived ethicality (CPE) in CRM depending on the amount of information they received about the donation. Using an online survey method among 166 people, this study adopted a 2 (type of donation: monetary vs. nonmonetary) x 2 (campaign duration: long vs. short) x 2 (information

provision: complete vs. incomplete) between-subjects design. The results show that in general the effects of the donation type and campaign duration on the CPE level are insignificant. The moderating role of information provision also did not yield any significant differences on the relations of the donation type and campaign duration with CPE level. Future research is discussed in the final chapter. Considering the widespread use of CRM, these results can open up new opportunities for firms, as they gain more freedom in their choice of cause, duration of alliance and information provision to the consumers.

Keywords:

cause-related marketing (CRM), Consumer perceived ethicality (CPE), Consumer

skepticism, nonmonetary donation, Campaign duration, information provision.

(4)

4

T

ABLE OF

C

ONTENTS

1. Introduction ... 5

2. Problem Statement ... 5

3. Theoretical background ... 10

3.1. Monetary and Nonmonetary donation ... 10

3.2. Campaign Duration ... 11

3.3. Moderator of Information Provision on Donation type and Campaign Duration... 13

4. Method ... 17 4.1. Research Design ... 17 4.2. Sample ... 18 4.3. Stimuli ... 18 4.4. Analysis ... 19 5. Results ... 20 5.1. Manipulation Check ... 20 5.2. Measuring CPE ... 21

5.3. Testing the hypotheses ... 21

(5)

5

1. I

NTRODUCTION

Every day, consumers can express their moral views and ethical responsibilities towards people, animals or the environment by deciding what goods to consume (Kim & Johnson, 2012). For example, people can buy fair-trade products that benefit others (e.g. fruit, coffee, tea, etc.) or eco-friendly products that help the environment (e.g. green cleaning products, use of recycled material, etc.) In general, people have the option to choose goods and

products which are not only beneficial to themselves (an isolated member of the society) but also to others or the environment (Kim & Johnson, 2012). Individuals have been approached by various charities and NGO’s throughout the years so that they can practice their sense of empathy and affect others’ sense of moral obligation by setting an example. For instance, people would be asked to donate an amount to STOP AIDS NOW! or to attend an event from which all earnings go to charity.

As time passes, the economic climate alters. Currently, it fluctuates mainly in a negative direction. This is also influenced by global political conditions that cause additional

expenditures to world’s economy. One can think of War on Terror; Afghanistan and Iraq war, new security measures and entities (e.g. emergence of Home land security), new political movements; e.g. “Arab Spring”, scarcity and inflation of fuel prices as result of UN sanctions, etc. Emergence of economic crises has led to diminution of charitable giving in size and frequency (Cafonline, 2012). Hence, generating creative methods to collect philanthropic aids became the new challenge. To this end, many charities and NGO’s have entered cooperation with firms and manufactures, in the form of ‘Cause-Related Marketing’ (CRM). This concept is defined as the contribution to a designated cause by a firm, in which the specified contribution is conditional on “customers’ engaging in revenue-providing exchanges that satisfy organizational and individual objectives” (Chéron, Kohlbacher & Kusuma, 2012: 357; Varadarajan & Menon, 1988: 60). Literature indicates that when

consumers are confronted with selecting a product among a set of comparable products, the probability of choosing a certain brand is increased when this brand is engaged in CRM (Barone, Miyazaki & Taylor,2000).

2.

P

ROBLEM

S

TATEMENT

” In recent years, ethical consumerism has emerged as an important influence on business” (Carrigan and Attalla, 2001: 560). The existing literature advocates fostering ethical behavior in firms’ practices. Firm’s stakeholders, among which consumers, are becoming more

(6)

6 “The use of cause-related marketing as a marketing platform has been progressively

employed by companies, as consumers increasingly value corporate support of social causes” (Cone, Feldman, and DaSilva, 2003: 95). Many believe that this concept may offer a win-win situation for both the cause and the firm. “Marketers' efforts to reach consumers via cause tie-ins have gained consumers' trust” (Youn and Kim, 2008: 123). Various field-studies indicate that the majority of consumers are willing to try firms’ products for the first time when the firms are involved in CRM (GollinHaris, 2005; Cone, Feldman, and DaSilva, 2003).

However, as noble as CRM aims to be, it raises some ethical and moral ambiguities in the mind of consumers and critics in practice. Consumers may perceive companies motivation of conducting such campaigns as for self-interested motives such as to increase sales and gain more profits rather than for altruistic motives of supporting causes (Anuar, Omar &

Mohamad, 2013). This also entails questioning genuine intentions of the campaign, its integrity and (un)fair distribution of gain . This notion is also referred to as “consumer skepticism” which can be defined as consumers’ tendency to disbelieve or question a company’s motivation to conduct a CRM campaign” (Mohr et al., 1998: 246; Anuar et al., 2013: 95). Any misconduct, deceptive behavior and disingenuousness, detected or perceived by the consumers may eventually lead to distrust and less inclination to

continuation of support. Consequently, consumers are willing to punish such behavior from the firms by abandoning the firm and paying higher or lower prices elsewhere (Creyer & Ross, 1997). A vivid example of such skepticism was the cause marketing campaign, held by Cadbury in the UK. As a British confectionary company, they introduced: “Collect vouchers from Cadbury products - trade them in for sports equipment for your school”. This campaign failed after people were told later that one would have to eat 3,000 chocolate bars to get enough vouchers for one football. Evidently, consumers and critics called the motivation behind this CRM campaign into questions. Clearly, it would endanger consumers’ health when they actually ate so much chocolate (e.g. Obesity, diabetes, etc). So, it is vital to establish what is ethical or unethical in the eye of the beholder. The aforementioned example violated consumers’ perceived permissible ethicality, as they abandoned consuming Cadbury products as a sign of protest to the deception of this campaign. This resulted in failure of the campaign and brought enduring harm to Cadbury’s brand image, value and equity (Mallenbaker, 2013).

(7)

7 forum, 2013). So, what is wrong and right according to the consumers? This research aims to cover this question by investigating the level of ethicality of CRM campaign, perceived by the consumer.Singh, Iglesias and Batista-Foguet (2012) define Consumer perceived

ethicality (CPE) as “the perception of the brand as being honest, responsible, and

accountable toward various stakeholders” (Singh et al., 2012: 543). Naturally, this definition embodies all stakeholders of the firm. However, within the scope of this study, we focus on what ‘consumers’ perceive. CPE’s level can vary depending to multiple drivers. As these drivers should be applicable in cause-related marketing, we seek to link the latest trends in the charity world to the existing literature about drivers of CPE.

Another interesting matter in CRM is the emergence of product donations. Increasingly, firms consider product donations for a good cause rather than donating a certain amount (The guardian, 2011). Take the following campaigns as an example: Optimel and 3FM

request; Cruesli and World food program; Spa Reine and UNICEF. Does this type of donation increase or decrease CPE? These campaigns contain statements such as “save a mother in Africa”, “Together with you, we support school meals in Benin” or 1 liter Spa Reine = 1 day clean drinking-water”. But, they rarely mention how much this nonmonetary donation is actually worth. Or for how long they cooperate with a certain charitable organization. Even whether to share this information with consumers or not may be essential to forming CPE. Consequently, consumers may alter corporate associations and their initially attributed CPE level to the firm. Hence, these relevant drivers are discussed hereafter.

Donation Type

The first factor that might influence CPE, according to a recent new line of research, is the distinction between monetary and nonmonetary aids, donation of a certain amount to charity, opposed to donation of medical supply. Each of these types may be perceived, interpreted and valued differently in the mind of consumers. (Leliveld &Bolderdijk, 2012; Ellen, Mohr and Webb, 2000). Consequently, this leads to stimulating or blocking their intention in participating in the CRM campaign, as they form an opinion with respect to the underlying motives of the firm for the CRM campaign (Freeman, 1987). A more concrete example is the comparison of these donation types in a context: imagine donating e.g. 10 cent per purchase to build play grounds in a radius of 1 kilometer of their school.

(8)

8

Campaign Duration

The second possible driver of CPE is the duration of the campaign. One-time or short-term cause-marketing programs have shown occasional success in the past. Examples are donating a portion of the earned profit from the grocery shopping to the less fortuned around Thanksgiving or Christmas by supermarkets or allocating all regional earnings from a specified date to UNICEF by Coca-Cola. However, generally, this short-term focus is

perceived as a tool to gain financial advantage by the firm and hence, insincere by the consumers. Conversely, medium- to long term campaigns are more desirable (Varadarajan & Menon, 1988). In the same sense, Procter & Gamble’s annual affiliation with Special

Olympics comes much easier into mind of the consumer than do grocery store promotion (Varadarajan & Menon, 1988). Additionally, this long-term association builds trust, a fundamental element of ethicality. (Singh, Iglesias and Batista-Foguet, 2012). Therefore, duration of campaign (the span of cooperation between the firm and the charity

organization) can be an essential factor in forming an ethical image in the mind of consumer (Chéron, Kohlbacher,& Kusuma, 2012).

Note that within the duration of campaign the frequency of the help offered is also essential in effectiveness of the actions undertaken by the campaign. We take offering a tetanus vaccine to Africa for buying pack of diapers by Procter and Gamble’s “Pampers” as an example. Experts believe that for reaching the level of immunity, the children need to be vaccinated 6 times, from the birth until the age of 9, on specified time frames. Failing to reaching these benchmarks results in failure of the entire vaccination process. This means that “Pampers” campaign that offered three injections, only immunized the mother for 5 years and her child only for 2 months against tetanus. Clearly, long haul cooperation

between UNICEF and Pampers is required to ensure exiling tetanus for an African child. The same notion can be applied for World Food Program and other charity organization, as the subjects of help (e.g., children) need nutritious food not only once or for a short period of time, but rather requires frequent and systematic supply (Keuringsdienst van Waarde, 2012). In sum, consumers perceive long-term campaigns more ethical than short-term CRM

activities (Varadarajan & Menon, 1988; Che´ron, Kohlbacher,& Kusuma, 2012; Singh, Iglesias and Batista-Foguet, 2012).

Information Provision

The third factor of influence on CPE is the amount of information available. Consumers rarely have the complete information on monetary value of the donations, campaign

(9)

9 on such impact within the CRM literature. So, would consumers still prefer nonmonetary donations over monetary donation if they were given complete information on the donation by the campaign? That is, would they still favor Pampers when they know the vaccine is only worth 7 cents? Or would they still prefer long-term campaigns over short-term campaigns if they only had access to limited information about the donation?

This research aims to explore and investigate consumers’ interpretation of ethicality with regard to CRM practices. Specifically, we are going to investigate how donation type and

campaign duration affect people’s perceived ethicality (CPE) in CRM depending on the amount of information they receive about the donation.

Figure 1 denotes the conceptual model:

(10)

10

3. T

HEORETICAL BACKGROUND

3.1. MONETARY AND NONMONETARY DONATION

An essential element of any CRM-campaign is the act of donation as it connects the “cause” with the campaign. The idea is to have the consumer purchase a product or service which enables the firm to make a donation from the earnings of this particular product or service. Here, one needs to recognize a distinction between two types of donation; monetary and nonmonetary, as they each trigger different response from the consumers. Accordingly, consumers then decide whether to partake in the campaign or not.

Comparing to other drivers of influence in cause marketing (e.g. cause-firm commitment, psychographic factors, etc.) there is limited academic research dedicated to identification and clarification of the donation type. As one of the few, Leliveld and Bolderdijk (2012) conducted a research in which they identified two donation types: monetary and

nonmonetary donations. They base this distinction on two underlying processes for decision making: decision making on cognitive and affective level.

Their reasoning for differences in cognitive level decision making relies on Nunes and Park’s research (2003) in sales promotion which imply that “consumersform their attitude

differently for monetary (e.g. 33% discount) than for material (e.g., a free backpack) promotions” (Leliveld &Bolderdijk, 2012: 4). Here, one reveals that consumers’’ attitude is formed in direct relation with the price of the product for monetary promotions. The price of the product serves as a reference point. However, as for nonmonetary promotions the lack of having a reference point makes any type of comparison less likely to occur. Hence, the absence of “reference point” makes the consumers perceive the value of nonmonetary promotions higher than monetary promotions. By the same token, Leliveld and Bolderdijk (2012) argue that nonmonetary donations are deemed more valuable on the cognitive level by the consumers than monetary donations.

Furthermore, Leliveld and Bolderdijk (2012) put forward differences in consumers’ decision making due to experiencing dissimilar degree of response to affective factors. Vivid CRM messages (which are emotionally loaded, concrete and imaginary provoking) attract the consumers more towards product and the firm (Taylor and Thompson, 1982; Nisbett & Ross 1980; Frey and Eagly, 1993; Small & Loewenstein, 2003). Donating a meal rather than money is a good example. Furthermore, they suggest that higher transparency on what a company donates (e.g. donating a tetanus vaccine opposed to a vague amount of money) also

contributes to having a positive attitude towards the CRM-campaign and the firm. Hence, both abovementioned reasons substantiate the thought that nonmonetary donations receive more affective response than do monetary donation.

(11)

11 (“Buy our product and we make a donation” or “Buy our product and we donate a meal to World Food Program”). The results suggest that both cognitive and affective route predict the nonmonetary donations to be more attractive for the customers than monetary donations (Leliveld and Bolderdijk, 2012).

Similarly, Ellen, Mohr and Webb (2000) advocate superiority of nonmonetary over monetary donations in CRM. Their view relies predominantly on the motivation behind a CRM

campaign. In order for consumers to believe sincerity of the campaign, firms need to

minimize their self-interest nature. They can do this by conveying altruistic motives through gift-giving concept. Central to this view, is the degree of effort and energy put into behavior in gift giving situations (Mohr & Bitner, 1995). In general, the more effort from a giver is seen (as in investing in the gift), the more generous and caring the giver is perceived to be. This investment of effort in the gift may explain the perceived inappropriateness of monetary gifts in many situations as it is deemed to be less effortful than other types of gifts (Douglas and lsherwood, 1979). Consequently, they applied this view to CRM campaigns and

concluded that respondent evaluation were more positive for donations involving greater effort (i.e. product rather than cash contribution) (Ellen, Mohr and Webb, 2000). Favorability of nonmonetary donation is also acknowledged and applied by Garretson and Landreth (2005) (as cited in Garretson & Landreth, 2007).

Finally, we point out that when consumers focus on a specific cause marketing campaign, they base their response on the underlying firm’s motives for the campaign as well. These can be extrinsic which is viewed as egoistic or self-interested; less ethically appropriate. They also can be intrinsic which can be thought of as altruistic or other-interested, more ethically appropriate. Generally, buyers associate the nonmonetary donations with more extrinsic motives and monetary donations with more intrinsic motives (Ellen, Mohr and Webb, 2000). Hence, the higher consumer evaluation also entails buyers’ view of the ethicality for each donation type. In sum, based on all of this literature, we formally hypothesize the following:

H1: CPE (Consumer perceived ethicality) will be higher for nonmonetary donations than for monetary donations in CRM.

3.2. CAMPAIGN DURATION

Campaign duration is a less-addressed topic within the framework of CRM in comparison to

(12)

12 financial gains and short-term sales boost from the CRM. This can easily have a backfire effect for the firm engaging in CRM as short duration can be associated with insincere and deceitful intentions, harming firm’s image and reputation. Van den Brink, Gaby and Pauwels (2006) adopted Varadarajan and Menon’s view in their quest for effects of strategic- and tactical CRM on consumer’s brand loyalty. They set forth that companies’ commitment in CRM is in proportion to the campaign duration. They found statistical evidence for this statement and hence declared that brand loyalty for firm increases, only if the firm engages in long term cooperation in the form of CRM campaign.

To explain the effect of long-term vs. short-term campaigns, we can also take the

perspective of associative links. Till and Nowak (2000) indicate that “associative link” can be achieved among two nodes in human memory by repetition of pairing these two nodes over time, a concept otherwise referred to as signal learning. The idea is for the association to come to mind whenever one comes to contact (by hearing, reading, listening, etc.) with either of the two nodes. A good example of this type of link is the cooperation between FC Barcelona and UNICEF; 5-year alliance in which FC Barcelona makes annual donation of € 1.5 million and places UNICEF as a sponsor on its merchandise. Because of FC Barcelona‘s image, equity and global televised coverage, the association with UNICEF is almost instantly made for soccer fans. This can only be achieved in cause-related marketing when the target

consumers are exposed to firm/cause pairing over a significant time frame. The only way for firms to build trust and a successful connection is to establish long-term commitments with the cause. Accordingly, sporadic, one-time and short campaigns are far less effective as they fail to establish this type of pairing association and create respectively less trust among consumers.

The degree of consumer perceived ethicality can be affected by campaign duration. Short-term campaigns denote weaker links with consumers and previous research label them as less genuine. This sets ground for us to believe that this effect will hold also for CRM campaigns. Specifically, this notion can have a considerable impact on what consumers deem as genuine and sincere in case of long-term CRM campaign or otherwise, deceitful and inappropriate when the campaign is of short duration. One needs to note that this research distinguishes and applies two timeframe for campaign duration, following the pattern of Che´ron, Kohlbacher & Kusuma (2012). This implies having a short-term campaign with duration of 1 month, opposed to a long-term campaign spreading over 5 years.

In light of the abovementioned literature, we thus develop the following hypothesis:

(13)

13

3.3. MODERATOR OF INFORMATION PROVISION ON DONATION TYPE AND CAMPAIGN DURATION

Donations are rarely described completely in terms of monetary value, quality, frequency, duration, etc. As mentioned before, there are no records present of addressing the topic of

information provision in CRM framework. That being said, many studies have examined the

effect of the amount of information available on consumer decision making and evaluation (Johnson & Levin 1985; Ross & Creyer 1992; Simmons& Lynch 1991). Often consumers do not even note the absence of information (Johnson & Levin 1985). For example, when consumers consider purchasing a MP4-player, they may not even notice a missing

information; namely the display resolution. But, when they do, other studies indicate how consumers treat missing information and how this missing information impacts valuation of options (Meyer, 1981; Ross & Creyer 1992). Hence, the presence and respectively absence of information may alter consumer evaluation of (cause-related) products. Here, we recognize three distinct schools of thoughts:

(1) Simmons and Lynch (1991) evaluated “a set of single-attribute product descriptions along with descriptions of competing brands that systematically altered what attributes people perceived as missing from the product descriptions” (Simmons and Lynch, 1991: 477). They propose that “noting an attribute as missing reduces attention to presented attributes” (Simmons and Lynch, 1991: 489). Accordingly, consumers do not make inferences about missing information even if there is logical ground to it. Basically, they reject occurrence of any kind of inference.

(2) Unlike Simmons and Lynch, Meyer (1981) theorizes that missing information induces reduction of attractiveness of an option for consumers. He denotes that missing information is a source of uncertainty, as revealing the actual information may be unattractive. Hence, this uncertainty offers motive for forming inference for the missing information. That is why inference has a negative effect on decision making and makes the option inferior.

If we presume that missing information has no effect (in other words, nonexistence of inference; by Simmons and Lynch, 1991), this leaves no room for further elaboration within the framework of this study. That missing information about an attribute/product decreases an option’s attraction among consumers (Meyer, 1981), is simply in contradiction with firms’ practices. After all, firms rarely present complete information on attributes/products (e.g. monetary value, quality, etc.). Hence, this study bases its assumptions on Johnson & Levin (1985)’s theory, as their view empowers the position of firms in selectively providing

(14)

14 (3) Johnson and Levin (1985) indicate that there is yet another motive for firms maneuvering their way around provision of information. Please recall Simmons and Lynch’s study in which they presented a set of attributes in product descriptions along with descriptions of

competing brands. They systematically altered missing attributes in the product description, presented to people and observed no inference for the missing information. Johnson & Levin conducted a similar test, but they put forward that “individuals simply ignore attributes for which no information is available” or “make (positive) inference about the missing

information” (Johnson & Levin, 1985: 169. Evidently, these “inferences have a predictable influence on the evaluations being made” (Johnson & Levin, 1985: 169). Accordingly, participants were informed in some cases about the fact that some attributes were missing whereas in other cases they were not. In both cases, the predictability arises as individuals form inference about missing information based on the present (opposed to absent) information. So, the inference has often higher value than the actual information, since it is based on commonality with the present information. Admittedly, if the number of attributes missing comparing to attribute present is much higher, the present information has little value. Nevertheless, this theory suggests that inference creates a positive image for missing information; as people are motivated to arrive at their desired conclusion (Kunda, 1990). Imagine that you work in Alkmaar at an advertising company. As reward for you r hard work, your boss decides to offer you a 3-day trip to Lisbon, Portugal. One would expect a pleasant time in Lisbon, enjoying the weather and the beach (example of the desired conclusion) based on the information presented by your boss. It sounds all really magical, till he hands you the bus ticket, departing from Breda. This would mean that you spend almost the entire 3 days commuting to and from Lisbon. Sharing this information upfront would decrease offer’s attractiveness considerably, whereas sketching an inaccurate picture guides your mind to infer more positively.

(15)

15 an example, recall the Pampers’s CRM-campaign by Procter and Gamble. The information about the monetary value of the donated vaccine was not shared with the consumers initially. Only those who invested extensive effort, time and other resources were able to uncover that the vaccine was actually worth 7 cents.

This paper seeks the effect of information provision on two levels : complete information about the donation (e.g. details on the nature of donation, value of the donation in monetary terms, procedures for transportation and supply of the donation to people in need, etc.; e.g. for every purchased product, 0.30 € goes to World Food Program to buy a meal for children in Somalia) or incomplete information, consciously or unconsciously supplying partial information with missing values (e.g. for every purchased product, a donation will be made to charity).

Following in footsteps of Johnson & Levin (1985) on advantages of incomplete information, this research intends to act as a bridge for favorability of nonmonetary- over monetary donations in CRM (Leliveld and Bolderdijk’s, 2012; Ellen, Mohr and Webb, 2000; Garretson and Landreth, 2005). As incomplete information seem to be the more attractive option than the complete information in decision making (Johnson & Levin, 1985), we believe that this phenomenon can affect the relation between donation type (nonmonetary vs. monetary) and the level of perceived ethicality by consumers.

Normally, nonmonetary donations seem to be favored over monetary donations and are considered more ethical. So, there is a clear-cut CPE-difference: nonmonetary donations are favorable whereas monetary donations are unfavorable. This difference in CPE can increase or decrease by our moderator, information provision. Specifically, complete information would decrease CPE-difference for nonmonetary donations. Inversely, complete information would intensify CPE- difference for monetary donations. In the similar fashion, incomplete information would increase CPE-difference for nonmonetary donations and would lessen CPE-difference for monetary donations. And for this reason we formulate the following hypotheses:

H3: Provision of complete information decreases CPE-difference for nonmonetary donations and increases CPE-difference for monetary donations.

H4: Provision of incomplete information increases CPE-difference for nonmonetary donations and decreases CPE-difference for monetary donations.

(16)

16

Figure 2

CPE-Difference (H3 &H4)

Furthermore, this study suggests that the campaign duration in CRM is also affected by the information provision. Generally, consumers perceive long-term campaigns more ethical than the short-term campaigns in cause-related marketing (Varadarajan and Menon, 1988; Van den Brink, Gaby and Pauwels, 2006; Till and Nowak, 2000). Also here, there is a clear-cut CPE-difference: long-term campaigns are favorable whereas short-term campaigns are unfavorable. Evidently, this difference in CPE can increase or decrease by the moderator, information provision. This paper puts forward that incomplete information would increase CPE-difference for long-term campaign. Conversely, incomplete information would reduce CPE-difference for short-term campaigns. In the similar fashion, complete information would decrease CPE-difference for long-term CRM-campaigns and would increase CPE-difference for short-term campaigns. Hence, we formulate the following hypotheses:

H5: Provision of complete information decreases CPE-difference for long CRM campaigns (Duration: 5 years) and decreases CPE-difference for long CRM campaigns (Duration: 5 years).

H6: Provision of incomplete information increases CPE-difference for long CRM campaigns (Duration: 5 years) and decreases CPE-difference for short CRM campaigns (Duration: 1 month).

Also these hypotheses are visually presented hereafter:

(17)

17

Figure 3

CPE-Difference (H5 &H6)

4. M

ETHOD

The goal of this study is to develop a framework for the drivers of Consumer perceived ethicality (CPE) in Cause-related marketing (CRM). The following section explains the research design, sample and analysis.

4.1. RESEARCH DESIGN

In this study, a 2 (type of donation: monetary vs. nonmonetary) x 2 (campaign duration: long vs. short) x 2 (information provision: complete vs. incomplete) between subjects design was used to study the effects of donation type and campaign duration on CPE. This quantitative research design was conducted in the form of an online survey which relied on scenario study as stimulus. In conformity with the number of treatments in this study, we developed 8 different scenarios. These scenarios differed slightly from one another, based on different levels in the independent variables and the moderator. Accordingly, each participant was presented one version of scenarios which served as basis for their decision making and response. The changes in the scenarios were verified on these adjustments by a

manipulation check. The DV in this study was CPE which indicated what drivers are ethically more important in the mind of the consumer. In order to measure CPE, this paper adopted an operationalized scale by Brunk (2011) which consist of 4 items, assessed on five-point likert scale (items 1 to 4), In addition, this research adds 10 extra items to this scale (items 5 to 14) which were validated by a Cronbach's alpha test. Item 9 on this list contained reversed scoring due its formulation. Participants were asked to point to what extent they would agree with each item on a 1 to 5 Likert scale. Some examples of these items are presented hereafter; the complete list of the items is included in the appendix 8.3:

(18)

18

I. (Company/brand) respects moral norms.

II. (Company/brand) is a socially responsible company.

III. Company/brand) holds an ethically responsible campaign.

IV. I consider this campaign sincere.

In accordance, the survey contained two sections: section A presented the scenario (stimulus) and subsequently measuring CPE and section B verified comprehension of the scenario by conducting a manipulation check. Section B consisted of three questions each addressing the levels of IV or moderator mentioned in the presented scenario.

4.2. SAMPLE

The survey was disseminated from a social media platform (e.g. Facebook) and the intended sample size was 160 participants, 20 people per treatment. The sample for this research consisted of 166 participants, from which 160 respondents were randomly presented with one of the aforementioned 8 scenarios, 20 participants per scenario. In addition to this number, scenarios A, D and E were each randomly assigned to 2 more respondents, summing to166 respondents in total.

Furthermore, there were no specific requirements for targeting the population for this research in terms of gender, nationality or education level. However, due to limited resources for this research we decided to select the participants through social media platforms. Hence, a convenience-sample method was adopted in which we randomly assigned a scenario to each participant.

4.3. STIMULI

Scenarios serve as stimuli within the framework of this research. Each of the scenarios carry a specific level of donation type, campaign duration and information provision. You will find all scenarios in the appendices. To give you an idea, two of these scenarios are presented hereafter:

Scenario A (Condition 1; monetary aid, 1-month campaign, incomplete information)

Victoria’s Secret, the largest American retailer of women lingerie recently announced its alliance with Breast cancer foundation, a charitable organization that offers help to breast cancer patients. They will jointly run this campaign all over the world. This alliance will last for one month [five years].

To this end, Victoria’s Secret will make a monetary donation [€ 1,50] to Breast cancer foundation whenever a consumer purchases a bra at its shops or online stores.

Scenario E (Condition 5; nonmonetary aid, 1-month campaign, incomplete information)

(19)

19 cancer patients. They will jointly run this campaign all over the world. This alliance will last for one month [five years].

To this end, Victoria’s Secret will donate a consultancy session for the less-fortunates [worth € 1,50] to Breast cancer foundation whenever a consumer purchases a bra at its shops or online stores.

4.4. ANALYSIS

This research used a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial (true experimental) research design (ANOVA, Analysis of Variance) which resulted in having 8 treatments; 3 factors, each containing 2 levels, summing up to 23= 8 different conditions as shown hereafter:

Table 1

Treatments for ANOVA

Conditions Type of Donation Campaign Duration Information provision

1 Monetary Short Incomplete

2 Monetary Short Complete

3 Monetary Long Incomplete

4 Monetary Long Complete

5 Nonmonetary Short Incomplete

6 Nonmonetary Short Complete

7 Nonmonetary Long Incomplete

8 Nonmonetary Long Complete

This Model is based on a 2 x 2 x 2 between group ANOVA

The model includes 4 types of interaction: 1. Donation type x Campaign Duration 2. Donation type x Information provision 3. Campaign Duration x Information provision

4. Donation type x Campaign Duration x Information

(20)

Chi-20

Square test for assessing the spread of gender and education (nominal variables) and we

conducted a T-Test for the continuous variable age.

5. R

ESULTS

The sample consisted of 100 (60.2%) men and 66 (39.8%) women, with an average age of 26 years (M = 25.96, SD = 5.12). In terms of educational level, the most common degrees were: a bachelor’s degree; 75 (45.2%) participants and a Master’s degree; 51 (30.7%).

In order to insure that data is not overpopulated by any particular groups of respondents, distorting validity of the research, a number of variables are examined here. Accordingly,

Chi-Square test for assessing the spread of gender, nationality, and education (nominal

variables) yield no significant difference between monetary- and nonmonetary donations, [χ2(1, N = 166) = 1.54, p = .022], [χ2(2, N = 166) = 2.2, p = .333], [χ2(4, N = 166) = 0.60, p = .963]. Similarly and in the same order, no significant difference was found between short- and long campaigns, [χ2(1, N = 166) = 0.57, p = .452], [χ2(2, N = 166) = 3.59, p = .166], [χ2(4, N = 166) = 5.62, p = .229]. Conducting a T-Test for the continuous variable age denotes also no significant difference effect, (M Monetary donation = 26.56, SD = 5.06), (M Nonmonetary donation = 25.34,

SD = 5.14),t(153) = 1.48, p < .140); M Short campaign = 25.91, SD = 5.99), M Long campaign = 26.01, SD

= 4.06), t(153) = - 0.12, p < .903). So, the data do not depict any overpopulation by a particular group of participants.

5.1. MANIPULATION CHECK

A Chi-Square test depicts to what extent the manipulation, as intended by this research, was well-received by the participants. The question What type of aid was offered by Victoria’s

Secret to Breast cancer foundation? denotes significant difference among the participants for monetary- and nonmonetary donations, [χ2(1, N = 166) = 30.62, p = .000]. Similarly, the question Did the previous scenario mention the explicit value of the donation offered to

Breast cancer foundation? indicates significant difference among the participants for complete- and incomplete information about donations, [χ2(1, N = 166) = 76.88, p = .000]. Finally, the question How long was the alliance between Victoria’s Secret and Breast cancer

foundation supposed to last? Points out significant difference among the participants for short- and long donation campaigns, [χ2(4, N = 166) = 56.38, p = .000].

(21)

21

5.2. MEASURING CPE

In order to measure the dependent variable of this research, CPE, the responses to 13 questions of section B are aggregated. In this fashion, one single entity emerges as CPE from a list of questions, answered by the respondents. Prior to this step, Cronbach’s alpha

coefficient is measured to insure the internal consistency of the aggregation. The first 4

questions of section B belong to CPE scale, developed by Brunk (2011). This scale separately contained a reasonable alpha level (N = 4: 0.747). The remaining 9 items were

conceptualized by this study and required validation through this reliability test. Also these items depict an adequate alpha level (N = 9: 0.800) and we can proceeded with aggregation of these items with those from Brunk’s scale. The question How often do you shop at

Victoria’s Secret? is omitted from the CPE measurement. This question merely serves to

highlight the effect of the campaign and does not further contribute to the concept of CPE. It is noteworthy that 69.7% of all participants never shop at Victoria’s Secret, and 17 % just

rarely do.

Accordingly, a satisfactory alpha level was found for the total items on CPE (N = 13: 0.850), enabling the research to calculate the arithmetic mean of these 13 questions for each participant’s degree of perceived ethicality on a 1 to 5 Likert scale.

5.3. TESTING THE HYPOTHESES

This research applied a 2x2x2 between-subjects ANOVA to examine whether the group means differ among the participants for donation type, campaign duration and possible effect of information provision.

Across the total sample of participants (166 people), no significant differences were found for any of the independent variables. Specifically, there was not a significant (main) effect of

donation type on CPE [F(1,156)= 0.625, p = 0.430]. Furthermore, we did not find a significant

(main) effect of campaign duration on CPE, [F(1,156)= 2.148, p = 0.145]. Finally, the analysis did not yield any significant (main) effect of information provision on the relation between donation type with CPE and that of campaign duration with CPE at the p <.05 level,

[F(1,156)= 0.057, p = 0.812].

Similarly, the study did not find a significant Donation Type x Campaign Duration interaction [F(1,156)= 0.855, p = 0.357]. There was also not a significant Donation Type x Information

Provision interaction [F(1,156)= 0.451, p = 0.503]. Moreover, we did not obtain a significant Campaign Duration x Information Provision interaction [F(1,156)= 0.039, p = 0.845]. Finally,

the analysis did not find a significant Donation Type x Campaign Duration x Information

Provision interaction [F(1,156)= 0.016, p = 0.901]. Table 2 depicts the means and standard

(22)

22 Table 2 ANOVA in details Main effect of the variable

Means & Standard Deviations Donation Type Monetary Donations (M = 3.493, SD = 0.591) Nonmonetary Donations (M = 3.456, SD = 0.434) Campaign Duration

Short Campaigns (1 month) (M = 3.413, SD = 0.512) Long Campaigns (5 years) (M = 3.541, SD = 0.522) Information

Provision

Complete Information (M = 3.461, SD = 0.539) Incomplete Information (M = 3.488, SD = 0.501)

Interaction (Donation Type x Campaign Duration)

Short Campaigns Long Campaigns

Monetary Donations (M = 3.387, SD = 0.571) (M = 3.597, SD = 0.599) Nonmonetary Donations (M = 3.438, SD = 0.452) (M = 3.477, SD = 0.417)

Interaction (Donation Type x Information Provision)

Complete Information Incomplete Information Monetary Donations (M = 3.463, SD = 0.601) (M = 3.522, SD = 0.395) Nonmonetary Donations (M = 3.460, SD = 0.474) (M = 3.452, SD = 0.571)

Interaction (Campaign Duration x Information Provision)

Complete Information Incomplete Information Short Campaigns (M = 3.372, SD = 0.553) (M = 3.451, SD = 0.473) Long Campaigns (M = 3.548, SD = 0.516) (M = 3.532, SD = 0.536)

Interaction (Donation type x Campaign Duration x Information)

Donation Type Campaign Duration Information provision

Means & Standard Deviations

Monetary Short Incomplete (M = 3.433, SD = 0.475) Monetary Short Complete (M = 3.337, SD = 0.670) Monetary Long Incomplete (M = 3.619, SD = 0.688) Monetary Long Complete (M = 3.577, SD = 0.521) Nonmonetary Short Incomplete (M = 3.468, SD = 0.482) Nonmonetary Short Complete (M = 3.406, SD = 0.429) Nonmonetary Long Incomplete (M = 3.431, SD = 0.254) Nonmonetary Long Complete (M = 3.516, SD = 0.522)

The dependent variable in this analysis was the mean of the 13 item-CPE scale

(23)

23 subjects ANOVA once again. However, this time, instead of using the mean of 13 items for CPE, we took each item separately, as the dependent variable.

Following this step, only the item Victoria’s Secret holds an ethically responsible campaign delivered statistically (marginal) significance for campaign duration and interaction between

Donation Type x Campaign Duration. We found a marginal significant (main) effect of campaign duration on CPE-item Victoria’s Secret holds an ethically responsible campaign,

[F(1,155)= 3.717, p = 0.056]. In general, our participants prefer long campaigns (M= 3.84, SD = 0.791) over short campaigns (M= 3.60, SD = 0.713)

Furthermore, the analysis indicates a significant Donation Type x Campaign Duration interaction [F(1,155)= 4.867, p = 0.029]. As can be seen in Table 3, when making monetary donations, participants valued long-term campaigns (M = 4.02, SD = 0.811) more than short-term campaigns (M = 3.55, SD = 0.772). As for nonmonetary donations, participants favored short-term campaigns (M = 3.64, SD = 0.656) over long-term campaigns (M = 3.62, SD = 0.721).

Table 3

ANOVA with Victoria’s Secret holds an ethically responsible campaign as DV

Interaction (Donation Type x Campaign Duration)

Short Campaigns Long Campaigns Monetary Donations (M = 3.55, SD = 0.772) (M = 4.02, SD = 0.811) Nonmonetary Donations (M = 3.64, SD = 0.656) (M = 3.62, SD = 0.721)

Victoria’s Secret holds an ethically responsible campaign is one of the 13 items of CPE-scale.

The fact that only 67 participants answered all three manipulation-check questions correctly might suggest that the analysis should consider this particular group differently. The idea is to see whether there are any statistical discrepancies between this group and the total sample. Subsequently, a between-subject ANOVA was conducted among this group of 67 respondents. Here, we found a significant (main) effect of donation type on CPE, [F(1,58)= 6.509, p = 0.013]. In general, the participants who thoroughly comprehended the scenarios prefer monetary donations (M= 3.622, SD = 0.499) over nonmonetary donations (M= 3.378,

SD = 0.429).

(24)

24 A between-subject ANOVA for people, who answered both manipulation questions for

donation type and information provision correctly (N = 101), did not indicate any statistical

significance. Similarly, we did not find any statistical significance for participants who answered both manipulation questions for campaign duration and information provision correctly (N = 83).

Ultimately, a between-subject ANOVA for people, who answered both manipulation questions for donation type and campaign duration correctly (N = 74) showed some statistical significance. Here, we found a significant (main) effect of donation type on CPE, [F(1,65)= 4.888, p = 0.031]. In general, the participants who answered the abovementioned questions correctly, prefer monetary donations (M= 3.606, SD = 0.485) over nonmonetary donations (M= 3.402, SD = 0.414).

6. D

ISCUSSION

Many factors have been linked with success of CRM campaigns such as psychographic- and demographic characteristics, cause-involvement, donation proximity, etc. However,

consumer skepticism questions ethicality of these campaigns and their practices. As consumers are willing to punish unethical behavior by abandoning the firm, cause or the campaign, success of CRM also depends to the degree of ethicality. Moreover, emergence of nonmonetary donation within CRM is a novel concept that requires further investigation. This study examined how donation type and campaign duration affected people’s perceived ethicality (CPE) in CRM depending on the amount of information they received about the donation.

Donation type

The results of this study show that the effects of the donation type and campaign duration on CPE level were insignificant among 166 participants. In other words, consumers expressed similar value to the campaign donating money or a product. This phenomenon may be explained by developing a clause into Ellen et.al ‘s (2000) theory, as they advocated

superiority of nonmonetary over monetary donations in CRM through gift giving concept. Let us remind you that they ascribe favorability of nonmonetary donations to the extensive effort, time and energy involved in gift giving situations (opposed to monetary gifts). Unlike them, Sherry (1983) and Johnson (1974) believe that situational conditions play a major role in preferring one type of gift (e.g. nonmonetary) over another (e.g. monetary). Accordingly, they put forward that the nature of gift changes as intimacy towards recipient decreases. Johnson (1974) investigated this through a gift-giving experiment among various

departments at a firm. He found that “the medium of exchange changed from personal items to specified amounts of money as network members changed from intimates to mere

(25)

25 patients, the participants opted more often for monetary donations than expected.

Therefore, favorability of nonmonetary donations was compromised. It would be interesting to investigate whether this condition holds for more CRM-campaigns.

Campaign Duration

The results for campaign duration indicated a minor preference for longer campaigns,

although the difference was not significant. This statistical nonsignificance confirmed Chéron et al. (2012)’s paper, as they found no significant differences among their participants for campaign duration. Many people did not even notice the timeframe of the campaign or did not perceive it as important in their study. It is also plausible to assume that some people prioritize short-term campaign over long-term campaign, especially when there is a sense of emergency involved such as the case with war, famine, natural disasters. These situations encourage more helping behavior and generally focus more on humanitarian aid rather than development aid (Piliavin and Charng, 1990; Skitka, 1999; Unite for sight, 2013; Ellen et al., 2000). Accordingly, the victims seek to meet their basic needs as the situation does not so much involve human errors but rather uncontainable natural disasters (Bendapudi, Singh, and Bendapudi, 1996; Skitka, 1999).“In contrast, offering to help an ongoing cause may arouse more skepticism and self-interested attributions for the company's participation” (Ellen et al., 2000: 397). Therefore, many might be inclined to participate only in acute one-time campaigns rather than getting involved in long-term campaign. Evidently, this group would not envisage long-term campaigns superior to short-term campaign. This perspective among our participants may have led to reducing the favorability of longer campaigns, resulting in insignificant difference. Our findings further suggest that there might be correlation between campaign duration and the donation type. Apparently, when making monetary donations, consumers prefer long-term campaigns. Conversely, they prefer short-term campaigns when making nonmonetary donations. It would be of high significance if future studies could provide more insight on this matter.

Information Provision

(26)

26 might have caught readers’ attention more such as firm, cause, sense of social responsibility of the respondent. The may have automatically developed a conscious or subconscious response to a particular firm or cause. They may also have simply assigned more importance to the actors (i.e. firm and the cause) in the scenario rather than the act (i.e. helping

behavior) itself. Participants’ individual sense of sympathy and solidarity may have influenced their decision as well. These factors may have overshadowed the attention to the

manipulated information. Ideally, the particular manipulated effect should have been examined through a within-subject design, by presenting multiple scenarios to each

participant. This way, participants would be more directed towards acknowledging different conditions with missing information. Thus, the justification for this section may be due to a limitation in research setup.

Other Factors of Influence

Beyond the desired manipulations, there may be other factors involved which influenced participants’ perceived ethicality level. These factors may have distorted people’s opinion or prevented them from assuming an objective position when participating in this study. This suspicion was further strengthened, as many participants submitted their personal opinions about this study. These factors can be classified into four categories:

(1) Victoria’s Secret’s brand image turned out to be not as positive as desired among the participants. Many believe that this firm targets an elite group by offering high-priced (not affordable) lingerie, much more popular in the US than in Europe. Excessive use of supermodels in the campaigns and organizing themed events is particularly not appealing to the female respondents. This may be explained by the cultural differences between US-female population and our mainly Dutch and German female participants. The fact that a vast majority of participants never or rarely shops at Victoria’s secret is also of significance. Overall, negative associations may have been the reason for not deeming the CRM campaign of Victoria’s secret as ethical as expected.

(2) Skepticism towards intentions of Victoria’s secret in this campaign or about the concept of cause-related marketing in general, was another major motive to disregard ethicality of this CRM campaign. Many participants indicated that the distribution of gain from this campaign is much more for the firm, as this is just another marketing trick to boost the sales of their products. The actual contribution to charity in comparison to this gain, is much less, almost negligible, according to this group of participants. Consequently, this group considers this entire CRM-enterprise low- to unethical.

(3) Arguably incomprehensible nature of the nonmonetary donation in our study, a consultancy session, might have led to undesired outcomes. Many participants did simply not grasp the idea of what a consultancy session entailed. As an alternative, some suggested a custom-designed bra for cancer patients by Victoria’s Secret as donation. (4) Many male participants declared not to be involved in buying lingerie, even for their

(27)

27 participate. Accordingly, this may have resulted in lower CPE level score for this campaign.

There is yet another major reason for presuming that the results of this study do not convey the actual opinions of the participants. The manipulation check revealed that only 67 people answered all three manipulation questions correctly. This means that the majority of the participants either ignored or did not notice the manipulation in the scenario they were presented. Despite of prior notification to participants about presenting only one scenario as basis for following question, they were unable to recall the correct information. As the position of the manipulated items was well-considered in the scenario, we may assume that people simply rushed through the questionnaire rather than taking the time and reading the scenario carefully. Some might have deliberately done this assuming they could go back to the scenario at any moment during the questionnaire which was not permitted in this study. The attention to other information in the scenario such as cause, firm, cause-firm fit may have prevented the respondents from noticing the manipulated items. One way or another, the poor response from manipulation check should be regarded as yet another factor to question the obtained results. It would be highly desirable to conduct a follow-up study whilst controlling the abovementioned factors in order to raise validity of the research.

Remarkable Findings

The between-subject ANOVA for each item of CPE scale separately, revealed significant outcomes for the item Victoria’s Secret holds an ethically responsible campaign. The response for this item indicated marginal significance for campaign duration. The analysis confirmed higher CPE level for long-term campaign which was assumed in H2. Furthermore, the interaction effect of Donation Type x Campaign Duration indicated that when making monetary donations, people value long-term campaigns more. Similarly, when making nonmonetary donations, people prefer short-term campaigns. This means that our H2; CPE

(Consumer perceived ethicality) will be higher for long-term CRM campaign (5 years) than for short-term campaigns (1 month) is not supported under all conditions. We may presume

that people generally associate nonmonetary donations with acute short-term

(28)

28 As an extra step, the dataset was filtered based on the manipulation check; only participants who answered all 3 or 2 out 3 questions were considered for further research. Both groups of participants with 3 (67 people) or 2 out of 3 (84 people) correct answers indicated the same interesting outcome. People who comprehended the scenario (or almost) thoroughly consider monetary donation more ethical than nonmonetary donations. This phenomenon stresses the critical influence of situational conditions from Sherry- (1983) and Johnson’s theory (1974) on gift-giving concept. The intimacy level between participants and cancer patients in our study is virtually nothing which in turn explains why people favor monetary donations. Again here, arguably incomprehensible nature of the nonmonetary donation in our study might have had an impact on participants’ opinion leaning towards monetary donations. Although, due to limited size of the sample we cannot further generalize this finding, but this interesting outcome contradicts previous (limited) existing literature on donation type in CRM.

Conclusion

Ultimately, this paper has shown that donation type and campaign duration do not have sufficient effect on the ethicality level perceived by the consumers in CRM campaigns. The level of Information provision does not moderate the abovementioned relationships. This indicates that people either value other factors in cause marketing such as firm-cause fit, cause involvement, proximity of cause, etc. or are generally skeptic about such campaigns and their overarching intentions. Despite the (limited) existing literature on the donation type, from a 67-person sample we may conclude that consumers perceive monetary

donations more ethical than nonmonetary donations. Yet, due to the limited sample size, we need to look for further evidence in the future studies.

6.1. MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

This study provides managers with some useful information in the area of CRM and marketing in a broader scope.

First of all, not having a preference for a certain donation type among consumers offers more freedom to firms when engaging in CRM. They can decide on the donation type they desire whilst pursuing multiple goals such as maximizing financial gain from the campaign and investing more capital in other business areas such as brand image and brand equity. They can to this whilst preserving and respecting basic ethical codes of conduct and simultaneously help a charitable cause. The ability to have a more economic choice is the key here as firms are more easily in the position to decide what portion of profit margin is assigned to the cause. Accordingly, they can minimize their contribution to the cause by donating nonmonetary products with lower monetary values than an actual monetary donation. The scope of applicability of this finding can be broadened in marketing as many retailers nowadays can offer products as part of customer-loyalty reward system or

(29)

29 can offer inexpensive material promotions monetary (e.g., a free backpack) opposed to monetary reward or store credit (e.g. 20% discount). The effectiveness of nonmonetary promotions is also acknowledged by Chandon, Wansink and Laurent (2000). In their paper, they “built a framework of the multiple consumer benefits of sales promotion” (Chandon et al., 2000: 65). They show that consumers allocate different levels of utilitarian and hedonic benefits to each promotion type (i.e. monetary- opposed to nonmonetary promotion). They believe that nonmonetary promotions have more hedonic benefits than monetary

promotions.

The favorability of monetary donations over nonmonetary donation among the filtered participants sample of 67 people may offer some insights as well. Firms may also want to take another direction and consider focusing more on monetary donations as this type is considered more ethical among consumers. Although, this step requires more scientific evidence as the limited sample size here does not allow further acknowledgment of this idea.

Second of all, absence of significant difference in preference for the campaign duration in our study grants firms freedom of choice. Firms would be less compelled to enter in long-term cooperation with the cause organization, as consumers show no concern for the duration of this cooperation. The choice for the charity will be broader, as firms can look beyond the hurdle of the charitable organizations who are only interested in long-term cooperation. Accordingly, firms can be more cost-effective by avoiding fixed expenditures on a campaign over a long period of time. They also can benefit from not sharing the profit with the cause organization periodically, as the duration of the campaign can span over a short period of time. There is always some level of risks involved when initiating CRM campaigns. The possible financial- and reputation damage can be more controllable in short-term campaigns, as they come considerably quicker to an end, saving firms further loss. In case a firm wants to practice its high sense of social responsibility, it can engage in multiple short-term campaigns regularly. Evidently, short-short-term campaigns require relatively less financial aid than their long-term equivalents. Acting in this fashion, firms can also offset failure of one campaign with the success of another and gain more insight and experience about ins and outs of cause-related marketing. The effect of short-term campaigns can be fortified here if it involves an acute situation with high emergency level such as war, famine, natural disasters (Unite for sight, 2013; Ellen et al., 2000).

Ultimately, the situation becomes much more interesting for the firms when the results of our study do not show any moderating effect from the amount of information provided for monetary value of the donation. Marketers can tactically and intentionally design

(30)

30 Accordingly, firms can choose to make inexpensive nonmonetary donations such as food or medical supply that may have a higher value association in consumer’s mind than in reality. Not needing to mention the monetary value of the donation enables the firm to withhold provision of this information to the consumers when they desire so. Consumers might presume that the food or medical supply is vital to other humans’ lives, whereas in reality, it might be of low monetary value and not as effective as expected to help the cause.

Technological advancements makes accessing more information on any subject much easier in today’s world and this fact should be reckoned with by firms. If consumers detect

unethical behavior from the firm, the entire campaign could face a problem. But, if carried out properly, this idea of selectively providing information can be practiced within the ethical boundaries and direct the campaign towards desired direction. After all, consumers seem to deem provision of information of no consequence when assessing ethicality level of the CRM campaigns. In fact, many firms are already practicing this advice in their campaign: Pampers and UNICEF; Optimel and 3FM request; Cruesli and World food program; Spa Reine and UNICEF, etc.

One should note that all abovementioned advices can only be applied on one condition. As we know by now, a CRM campaign pursues a twofold objective: to support a social cause and to improve marketing performance (Varadarajan and Menon, 1988). Retaining the balance between these two directions is the key to success in CRM for firms. Violating this balance may result in negative, undesired even catastrophic effects if consumers find the company’s use of CRM exploitive (Varadarjan and Menon, 1988; Webb and Mohr, 1998). So, moderation in maintaining this balance is simply essential in achieving success.

(31)

31

6.2. LIMITATIONS

This research concedes various limitations which create a platform for further research in the field of cause-related marketing. To begin with, the demographics of the respondents formed a barrier to extend the scope of this research. The majority of the participants were either Dutch or German, between the age of 20 and 30. Admittedly, cultural differences and age-related characteristics were not included in the current study. Hence, the need to broaden the scale of the future studies to embody a true international spectrum from all ages is highly recommended.

Limited resources to incentivize participation in the study prevented us from demanding more time and energy from our respondents. Consequently, this forced us to have a

between-subject design, presenting each participant with one single scenario. Even then, the manipulation check pointed out that many respondents may not have had the time or

energy required to follow the instructions properly. Ideally, this research advocates also a within-subject design in order to highlight the differences among various scenarios from each respondent’s point of view. Doing so, the accuracy and reliability of the outcomes of the research would increase considerably. The future studies ought to obtain more (financial) resources to attract and commit more participants.

The inability to conduct the research in a controlled environment was another cause of limitation. Many respondents did not comprehend the scenarios well according to the outcomes of the manipulation check. The direct environment may have had a considerable effect on their response, as many distractions are present in an uncontrolled environment: audio and visual impulses, emotional condition of the participant, etc. A controlled

environment may even be combined with a guide to walk the participants through the research and explain the idea to avoid ambiguities. We recommend such set up for future investigation in order to increase validity and reliability of the outcome. Conducting a pretest would then indicate how successful we are in examining what we had intended to

investigate, allowing for any revisions and adjustments in the research.

Finally, the scope of this study was limited to investigate only the effect of donation type and campaign duration on the CPE level with moderating effect of information provision.

(32)

32

7. R

EFERENCES

Anuar, M.M., Omar, K., & Mohamad, O. 2013. Does Skepticism Influence Consumers

Intention to Purchase Cause-related Products? International Journal of Business and Social

Science, 4 (5): 94-98.

Baker, M. (2010, November 1). Cadbury rediscovers the double edged sword of cause marketing [web log post]. Retrieved November 13, 2013, from

http://www.mallenbaker.net/csr/post.php?id=371.

Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2000). The influence of cause-related marketing on consumer choice: Does one good turn deserve another? Journal of

theAcademy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 248–262.

Bendapudi, Neeli, Surendra N. Singh and Venkat Bendapudi. (1996). "Enhancing Helping Behavior: An Integrative Framework for Promotion Planning". Journal of Marketing, 60 (July): 33-49.

Bester, S. & Jere, M.G. (2012). Cause-related marketing in an emerging market: Effect of cause involvement and message framing on purchase intention. Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management , 19(4): 286–293

Brown, T. J. & Dacin, P. L. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68–84.

Brunk, K. H. (2011). Un/ethical company and brand perceptions: Conceptualising and operationalising consumer meanings. Journal of Business Ethics. 111:551–565.

Carrigan, M., & Attalla, Ahmad. (2001). The myth of the ethical consumer: do ethics matter in purchase behaviour? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(7), 560–578.

Chandon, P., Wansink, B., & Laurent, G. (2000). A benefit congruency framework of sales promotion effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 64(4), 65–81.

Chang, C.T. & Lee, Y.K. (2010) Effects of message framing, vividness congruency and

statistical framing on responses to charity advertising. International Journal of Advertising, 29(2), pp. 195–220.

Charities Aid Foundation (CAF). (2012, December 9). One in six charities fear closure as charity funding crisis hits. CAF online. Retrieved October 15, 2013, from

https://www.cafonline.org/media-office/press-releases/2012/0912-charities-fear-closure.aspx.

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Simulation results revealed that given one gallery (Training) face image and four different pose images as a probe (Testing), PCA based system is more accurate in recognizing

Situation ab 2009 • 2 Verschiedene Teams neben Standard Team • Individuelle Betreuung der Patienten • Entscheidung welcher Team basiert auf Informationen Voranmeldung oder nach

the consumer will infer motives of manipulative intent, which will have a negative effect on the willingness to pay for the product, and on the brand likeability. DVs

It is showed that the WTP for the single elements (design and functional customization) is higher than the WTP for both elements combined. Women would pay 15.6 EUR

I want to thank our current group members, Yingfen, Silang, Liany, Joshua, Sanne, Ewout, Silvia, Hong, Jin, Jacob, Henriet, Henk, Anil, Lily, Laaya, Qikai, Mart, M´onica,

Furthermore, interviews with civil servants from the national government will be used to analyse how the integration of local knowledge and participation in

The( results( show( a( positive( relationship( between( leader( age( and( leader( legitimacy( and( a( positive( relationship( between( leader( legitimacy( and(

It is worth mentioning that in some cases, the ontology codes were not found with a keywords search in Swoogle and Watson search engines; instead, the full codes of some of the