Download The Impact of Brand/Cause Fit and Cause’s Participation on ... Intention: A Case Study among Customers of IranianChain Stores

Advances in Environmental Biology, 7(11) Oct 2013, Pages: 3224-3233
AENSI Journals
Advances in Environmental Biology
Journal home page: http://www.aensiweb.com/aeb.html
The Impact of Brand/Cause Fit and Cause’s Participation on Consumers’ Purchasing
Intention: A Case Study among Customers of IranianChain Stores
1
SeyedSadeghAlavi, 2SinaZeynali
1
2
Faculty member, management dept,ShahidBahonar University of Kerman, Iran.
Department of Management, ShahidBahonar University of Kerman, Iran.
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received 23 August 2013
Received in revised form 24 October
2013
Accepted 5 October 2013
Available online 14 November 2013
Key words
Cause-related
Marketing,brand/cause
fit,cause’s
participation,Consumerspurchasing
intention, Iran
ABSTRACT
Today, many companies employ cause-related marketing strategies that link
product sales to the support of a charity to create and maintain favourable brand
images. Cause-related marketing (CRM) enables consumers to make a difference
in society through their purchases. Cause related marketing, on the other handle,
is about leveraging a charitable brand to increase Sales, support product
positioning or differentiate from competitors. It is seen as an effective way to
build brands, increase sales, revitalize corporate values, create product awareness
and make corporate social responsibility and community involvement visible.
Previous studies of CRM have demonstrated that it can impact on consumers
purchasing intention. Overall the impacts of cause-related marketing on
consumers purchasing intention are significant. This paper investigates (1) the
impact of brand/cause fit on attitude toward CRM and consumers purchasing
intention. (2) The effect of cause’s participation on consumers purchasing
intention to CRM. (3) The moderating role of gender on the relationship between
cause’s participation and consumers purchasing intention. The results indicate
that brand/cause fit and cause’s participation have a significant positive impact
on consumers purchasing intention, also gender has an influence on the
consumers purchasing intention in CRM and The Impact of cause’s participation
is not the same for male and female consumers in CRM. Results of this study can
be used as guidelines for manufacturing firms or companies, service, advertising
and Businesses firms.
© 2013 AENSI Publisher All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION
In the past several years, companies have discovered the importance of strategic social alliances,
particularly in the form of cause related marketing (CRM) programs. CRM alliances continue to grow in
popularity [51].
CRM has become a major corporate philanthropic trend: a company donates money to a charity each time a
consumer makes a purchase. It has been widely accepted in many countries as a promising tool for building
positive brand awareness since brands involved with CRM are often viewed as “generous” and “altruistic” [47].
Cause-related marketing (CRM) is a common and popular form of CSR.In last few decades the concept of
corporate social responsibility (CSR) emerged as a main theme for corporations to address; and with each new
corporate quandary this trend is picking up momentum [9].
The EU’s definition of CSR states that: “it is a concept whereby companies integrate social and
environmental concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stakeholders on a
voluntary basis” [22].
According to Macchiette and Roy [43], marketers have become increasingly responsible for their role in
societalproblems and the publicity engendered from this discussion has translated itself into a new competition
arena, largelybased on perceptions of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Indeed, the notion that CSR creates
value for consumers is now widely accepted [30].
Causespecificity of CSR is, for various reasons, often more appealing than a more general approach to good
corporatecitizenship. CRM is not only easier to communicate but most likely cheaper and more attuned or
adjustable to the specificcustomer segments a company targets. A cause is not only an identifier of CSR but it
also creates a direct linkage betweencustomer and company. A customer’s association with a cause is described
as the “cause affinity” of the customer [3,19].
Corresponding Author: SinaZeynali, Department of Management, ShahidBahonar University of Kerman, Iran.
E-mail: [email protected]; Tel: +98-913-3988138; Fax: +98-341-2533790
3225
SinaZeynali
Advances in Environmental Biology, 7(11) Oct 2013, Pages: 3224-3233
More concretely, Beise-Zee and Sheikh [5] investigated how consumers respondto CRM campaigns
depending on their cause affinity. Theyfind that CRM may have negative effects in low affinityconditions and
that CRM may be particularly useful inreducing the response to negative CSR information for highaffinity
consumers.
Heightened criticism of corporate behaviour and the demand for more ethical and socially responsible
behavior has transformed stakeholder expectations of the role of business in society and its concomitant
responsibilities.Arguably CRM has the potential to provide the means to use the power of the brand to publicly
demonstrate a firm’scommitment to addressing the social issues of the day through providing resources and
funding whilst addressingbusiness marketing objectives. American Express introduced the term ‘cause-related
marketing’ in 1983 when itpromised to make a donation to renovate the statue of Liberty each time someone
used its charge card [36].
Several CRM’s structural elements such as product type [62,61], cause-type [15,23], cause-proximity
[28,56], Cause importance [50,24] and fit between sponsoring company and the cause supported [34] have been
postulated in the literature to influence consumers’ response to CRM.
Manufacturers and retailers, including Proctor and Gamble,Home Depot, Kay Jewelers, and Ann Taylor,
have long been involved with cause-related marketing (CRM) campaignsmaking specified donations to nonprofit partners each time consumers,perform a prescribed behavior, such as purchasing the company’s products.
For example, Kay Jewelers donates $4 to St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital for each limited-edition teddy
bear purchased as part of its annual CRM partnership with the hospital [32,53].
Varadarajan and Menon [66] describe the key feature of CRM as is that the firm’s contribution is linked to
consumers’ engagement in revenue producing transactions with the firm. It is essentially a way for a firm to “do
well by doing good” and provides several benefits to both the firm and the nonprofit organizations receiving the
donations.
Recent studies have begun to investigate when consumers are more likely to buya product associated with a
cause, and have identified product-cause fit as animportant variable in the success of a CRM campaign [65].
One particularly essential factor for successful CRM campaigns is brand-cause compatibility or fit [8,47].
Strahilevitz and Meyers [61] have proposed that fit between brand and cause may impactthe success of CRM.
With the exception of Bendapudi et al. [6], who address the issue of donor/recipient similarityin the context of
charitable giving, no other conceptual orempirical work has been done in the area of brand/cause fitin CRM.
Other domains, however, have found robust effectsof fit on other types of brand associations.
One study begins to address the issue of participation effort but from the firm level.Ellen, Mohr and Webb
(2000) examined the effect of the firm’s effort on consumers’ attributions of CSR. The authors defined effort as
the amount of energy put into a behavior. Using gift literature, they manipulated the level of effort as whether
the firm gives money, indicating low levels of effort or products, indicating higher levels of effort. They
hypothesized that donations requiring higher levels of effort were perceived more positively and found evidence
to support this.
The present study aims at: (1) understanding the effect of brand/cause fit on consumers purchasing intention
towards CRM (2) understanding the effect of cause’s participation on consumers purchasing intention towards
CRM and (3) examining the role of gender on the relationship between cause’s participation and consumers
purchasing intention towards CRM.
Literature Review:
Being the pioneers in this field, Varadarajan and Menon [66] defined CRM in an article comprehensively as
“the process of formulating and implementing marketing activities that are characterized by an offer from the
firm to contribute a specified amount to a designated cause when customers engage in revenue-providing
exchanges that satisfy organizational and individual objectives” [66].
An increasing number of scholars begin to concern and research in this marketing mode. For example,
Kalligeros [35] considered CRM is a strategy that links a company, brand, or product to a NPO for a mutually
beneficial purpose, and it can enhance the reputation of a corporate entity, differentiate a brand, and build the
emotional bond between the consumer and a brand. Wymer [68] analyzed the three ways of corporate
philanthropy: corporate giving, sponsorship and CRM.
The fact that donations to causes are tied directly to sales of products in CRM has led some skeptical
consumers to doubt the motives of companies engaging in CRM campaigns. However, CRM has still been
found to positively influence consumers’ buying decisions, and improve consumers’ perception of the
sponsoring company [30,45].
CRM involves the contribution to a cause by a firm which is ‘‘linked to customers’ engaging in revenue
producing transactions with the firm’’ [66].
Dupree [20] suggests that growth of interest in CRM is due to consumers ’ growing social consciousness,
whereas Fellman argues that companies are taking a more strategic approach to community involvement efforts,
and are seeking ways of benefi ting community organizations while simultaneously furthering company
3226
SinaZeynali
Advances in Environmental Biology, 7(11) Oct 2013, Pages: 3224-3233
business goals. In fact, many of the world’s most admired corporations maintain a sustained commitment to
various forms of CRM [18].
Rifon et al. [55] demonstrated that greater fit between a company and a cause can promote positive
evaluations of the sponsoring company. Rifon et al. also extended Pracejus and Olsen’s [54] initial findings by
providing process evidence indicating that company–causefit influences perceived motives, which, in turn,
impacts the credibility and attitudes associated with the sponsoring firm.
Cause-related marketing (CRM) programs emerge as communication strategy creating distinction in the
marketplace. Also Bennett and Sargeant suggest the need to more closely examine national and cultural factors
influencing consumer attitudes toward CRM programs.
CRM campaigns exist at the corporate, divisional, or brand level, and their geographic scope varies from
regional or national to international [66]. Most CRM campaigns aretransaction-based in which the organization
requires consumers topurchase products in order to make donations.
However, there aremany ways companies get creative in structuring CRM offers and elicitingthe
participation of consumers. Some of these campaigns donot involve purchase, but do require consumer action.
Cui et al. [15] note an example where Lowe's Home Improvement storesserve as a cash donation site for the
Red Cross while also providinga match on customer donations.
CRM is transactional in away that a consumer’s product purchase triggers thecompany’s donation.
Moreover, the total amount donated tothe cause depends on the product’s turnover. Theimplementation of CRM
usually follows financial andmarketing aims, and CRM may thus provideemotional, social, as well as functional
value to consumers [30].
Nonetheless, there should be “atleast one noneconomic objective related to social welfare” [19]. Usually,
companiescooperate with non-profit organizations (NPO)who haveexpertise in implementing the supported
cause.
Webb and Mohr [67] found that most of their samplewere aware of CRM and could provide two examples,
andthat nearly one third said that CRM had some impact ontheir purchases. More recent work has developed
scales tomeasure individual differences in attitudes toward charitableorganizations and attitudes toward helping
others.
Brown and Dacin [11] also demonstratethat corporate social responsibility associations can
influenceproduct evaluations. This impact, however, was primarilythrough overall corporate evaluations, as
opposed toattribute perceptions.
Conventional wisdom suggests that a company should support a cause which isconsistent with its product
image (i.e. a consistent fit between product and cause) [3,33,39,54,58,65].
Avonwomen’s products, for example, have supported the Susan G. Komen Breast CancerResearch
Foundation to strengthen Avon’s brand image. Since both the targetmarket for the products and the cause are
related to women, the relation may bedescribed as a “tight fit” or high fit. The consistency between product and
brand hasbeen identified as one important way to obtain a fit that benefits the brand [29,65]. If it is successful in
increasing sales of the company’sproduct, profit-driven motives would be the easy to infer with this type of
campaign [63].
Previous studies demonstrated that consumers responded positively to companies that participated in CRM
campaigns relative to companies that do not participate in philanthropic activities [67]. Research has further
revealed several factors pertinent to improving the effectiveness of CRM campaigns, including the level of
brand/cause fit [8,19], the consumer’s familiarity with the cause [37], donation framing [48], types of
product(frivolous vs practical products) [61], and product price.
brand/cause fit effects on consumers purchasing intention to CRM:
Generally speaking, perceived fit is the degree of similarity or compatibility that consumers perceive exists
between the cause and the brand. In various research streams in marketing such as brand extensions, comarketing alliances, sponsorships, and brand alliances perceived fit generally leads to a positive effect on
attitudes [1,55,59].
Bigne´-Alcan˜ iz et al. [5] found that the perceived motive of a CRM campaign is influenced by the causebrand fit. cause-brand fit, i.e. partners’ congruence and similarity with regard to a supported cause may impact
the alliances success and may thus be used to differentiate CRM alliances [64,41].
Studies have shown that a high perceived brand-cause fit can positively impact a consumer’sbuying choice
[54].
High perceived brand-cause fit has been found to enhance brand recall [14], corporate credibility, and
consumer attitudes toward the cause sponsored [55]. On the other hand, low perceived brand-cause fit may
result in backlash from consumers because they might perceive the motivation of such CRM campaigns as
purely for the self-interest of the sponsoring company, with the objective of generating sales. As such, CRM
campaigns with low perceived brand-cause fit might be viewed as an abusive marketing tool, instead of as the
pure altruistic intention of contributing to society.
3227
SinaZeynali
Advances in Environmental Biology, 7(11) Oct 2013, Pages: 3224-3233
CRM is similar to these other domains in that brands are intentionally associating themselves with some
other object in order to improve brand performance along some dimension. brand/cause fit has generally been
found to facilitate transfer of positives from an object (celebrity, core brand, etc.) to the object-associated brand.
That is, fit is necessary, but not sufficient for success. Generally when people donate to a specific cause that is
not part of a cause–brand alliance, it is because the cause is personally relevant to them or is self-congruent [6].
Recently, research by Lafferty and Edmondson [39] assessesthe impact of visual elements on purchase
intention. Their researchindicates intention to purchase increases when a brand's photo versus a photo of the
cause is present in a CRM campaign. Cause–brand fit research further reveals that a logical fit between the
causeand the brand results in more positive consumer attitudes toward dependentmeasures [4,38,47,58].
Involvement level assessments are also on the rise.
In CRM, Strahilevitz and Meyers [61] had proposed that fit between brand and cause may impact the
success of CRM. Aaker and Keller [1] considered fit between brand extensions and core brands could enhance
the evaluation of the extension when the core brand is well liked.
Pracejus and Olsen [54] used experimental methods to explore the role of fit between brand and cause on
choice and purchasing intention when the cause is well-liked, and found brand/cause fit substantially can
amplify the CRM’s effect above. They Also replicate and extend previous research findings using choice-based
conjoint. Their two studies involving 329 respondents show that fit between brand and charity can impact
choice.
Gwinner [31] distinguishes between two types of brand/cause fit:1. functional-based fit; and2. image-based
fit.Functional-based fit is determined by the degree to which thefunctional characteristics of the company’s
product is related tothe cause sponsored, while for image-based fit, some aspect ofthe company’s image, such as
its corporate history, corresponds to the image of the sponsored cause [65].
Overall, brand/cause fit is defined as the “overall perceived relatednessof the brand and the cause with
multiple cognitive bases”[47]. In other words, it is the degree ofacceptance of the pairing of the brand and the
cause, from theconsumers’ point-of-view.
Based on the theories mentioned, it is proposed that the brand/cause fit cue communicated in a CRM
campaign will influence consumers purchasing intentionto CRM. . Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1:There is a significant correlation between brand/cause fit and consumers purchasingintentionin CRM.
Cause’s participation effects on consumers purchasing intention to CRM:
Cause’s participation is defined in this research as the amount of effort the consumer can participate in the
CRM program.
Folse et al [26] demonstrated that the effects of purchase quantity on firm inferences and subsequent
participation intentions are moderated by consumer participation effort where higher participation requirements
(e.g., mail-in proof-of purchase) yield more negative purchase quantity effects. They argued that higher than
expected consumer participation effort may activate persuasion knowledge [27] that give rise to more consumer
suspicion of the firm motives for the purchase quantity requirements [12,14,55].
Most research has determined propensity and intentions toward CRM but has not varied the amount of
participation effort required from the consumer. For example, some campaigns simply ask the consumer to
make the purchase and the donation is made by the company. Other campaigns (e.g. Yoplait’s Breast Cancer
campaign) need the consumer to actively participate in the campaign, thus duplicating the amount of effort on
the part of the consumer.
Yoplait is currently busy in a campaign that needs consumers to return tag from empty yogurt containers by
mail. Yoplait then donates ten cents from each lid to breast cancer research. This program builds a heightened
level of effort for the consumers.
Whilst there is ample evidence that CRM programmes require employee participation, There is little
knowledge about the extent to which they are preoccupied in the decision-making phase of the CRM campaign.
Liu et al argued that some firms allow for direct participation or ‘immediate personal involvement of
organization members’ in CRM decisions whilst others restrict this involvement to ‘indirect participation’ which
relies on employee representation (or filtered participation) and/or individual representation where employees
apply for funds on behalf of a charity of their choice. They stated that that Individual participation appears to
exert a less concentrated impact on corporate legitimacy but is used as a means of catering to diverse
preferences that may not be accounted for by the general CRM strategy. Doing so allows firms to send the
message that they are supporting the values of specific employees even when these may not be ‘mainstream’
and/or directly part of the CRM strategy [69] and heightens perceived organisational support triggering a sense
of belongingness and a feeling that the company shares similar social values [2,22].
Ellen et al [23] investigated the effect of the firm’s effort on consumers’ attributions of CSR. They defined
effort as the amount of power put into a behavior. Using gift belleslettres, they retouched the level of effort as
whether the company gives money, stating low levels of effort or products, indicating higher levels of effort.
They hypothesized that donations need higher levels of effort were perceived more positively and found
3228
SinaZeynali
Advances in Environmental Biology, 7(11) Oct 2013, Pages: 3224-3233
evidence to patronage this. Consumers feel more positive about higher levels of participation by the company
than lower levels of participation.
Participation in cause-related marketing can be either inactive or active. inactive participation is simply
compliant to purchase the product whereby the company transits along the grant. This level need low levels of
effort on the sector of the consumer. Active participation need a higher level of effort on the sector of the
consumer. Consumers are required to mail something back to the firm, allegorically, in order to create the
donation. Based on the earlier conversation of the interests accrued by consumers through the utilization of sales
promotions, it should follow that consumers should have more affirmative feelings about the participating firm
and about their purpose to purchase the product or participate in the CRM program if the situation is active
compared to inactive.
Generally, different campaigns have created in the marketplace that needs increased effort on the part of the
consumer (e.g. Kellogg’s and American Airlines Race for the 80 Cure).
All the studies that have been done each manipulated a various level of effort on the part of the consumer.
Each study gave Different results, but interesting results. Active participation was hypothesized to yield positive
results for attitudes and intentions due to the hedonic benefits often gained from shopping [13]. However, when
compared along with dimension of complication, inactive participation should yield more positive tendency
toward the firm due to a more detailed survey of the company’s motives.
Based on the theories mentioned, it is proposed that the cause’s participation will influence consumers
purchasing intention to CRM. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2:There is a significant correlation between cause’s participation and consumerspurchasingintentionin
CRM.
The moderating role of gender:
Because, it is not clear how gender influences the impact of cause’s participation on consumerspurchasing
intention toward CRM. Hence, survey the moderating effect of gender is important as torealize how gender
influences the relationship between cause’s participation and consumerspurchasing intentionto CRM. Generally,
gender and cause’s participation discussed asdeterminants of consumer perceptions of CRM campaigns.
Gender influences have been largely discussed in consumer response to socially relevantmarketing
activities in general [44,49] and to CRMcampaigns in particular [56].
Studies further indicate that some factors like gender and donation size, the type of non-profitcause and
personal relationship with a cause can influence Consumers' attitudes and purchaseintention [25].
Research has found that differences are not biologically rooted but are relied more on diversities in socially
ascribed gender roles. Men and Women differ in their value, attitude, and role behaviors. With regard to
responses to CRM campaigns, prosocialbehavior seems particularly suitable for explaining differences
[7,17,52].
Moosmayer and Fuljahn [45] found that consumer perception of firm behavior, consumerattitude to
product, and consumer goodwill toward the CRM campaign differ between gender groups. Moreover, they
found that gender moderates the influence of CRM on consumers purchasing intention of firm behavior.
Langenm et al were analyzed the moderating role of gender on Cause-related MarketingTheir results
showed that gender significantly influence consumers’ expectation and children under 18 significantly impact
consumers’ request regarding CRM efficiency.
Empathy describes the competence to perceive (cognitively) and share (affectively) theemotional state of
another person [70]. by arousing feelings of care for and interest in the wellbeing of another person, empathy
has a direct prosocial function. Moreover, empathy is usually considered to be a keysource of altruistic and
prosocialbehavior [21].
Past studies on sex roles suggest that females are more favorable toward self and other oriented appeals
compared to males [46]. Hence, with regards to CRM, female as compared to male is expected to give more
favorable response towards CRM regardless of the cause-related marketing. This is because with regards to
prosocialbehavior female is likely to respond to CRM campaigns more positively than male.Also Considering
gender differences in empathy, diverse studies have consistently reported stronger empathic feelings for women
than for men [60]. Owing to the link between empathy and prosocialbehavior, women tend to behave more
prosocially and are thus likely to respond to CRM campaigns more positively than men.
It is therefore expected that gender may moderates the impact of cause’s participation on consumers
purchasing intention to CRM. Based on the theories mentioned and review of relevant literature the following
hypothesis is therefore suggested:
H3: The Impact of cause’s participation is not the same for male and female consumers in CRM.
Methodology:
In the present study we investigated the effects of brand/cause fit andcause’s participation on
consumerspurchasingintentionin Cause-Related Marketing (CRM). Also, was examined the moderating role of
3229
SinaZeynali
Advances in Environmental Biology, 7(11) Oct 2013, Pages: 3224-3233
gender on the relationship between cause’s participation and consumers purchasing intention. In order to
analyze the first hypothesis,(ie the relationship between brand/cause fitand consumerspurchasingintentionin
CRM) and analyze the second hypothesis,(iethe relationship between cause’s participation and consumers
purchasing intentionin CRM) inferential two-variable linear regression was used to determine the relationship
between two variables brand/cause fitand consumerspurchasingintention(also, cause’s participation and
consumerspurchasingintention) by means of distance scale in which the determination rate of criterion variance
by means of predictor variable was identified by R2 (coefficient of determination).
In order to analyze the Third hypothesis, (ie the moderating role of gender on the relationship between
cause’s participation and consumers purchasing intention); Leven test was used to determine the equality of
variance between the groups of women and men, then given equal variances between these two groups,
inferential independent T-test was used to compare the average of cause-related marketing between the two
groups of male and female.
The current study, according to its purpose, is an applied research and also is kind of descriptive surveys of
the area of field studies considering the data collection method. To investigate the relationship between the
variables and testing hypothesis, after collecting the needed data and information through questionnaires,
statistical software SPSS20 was used.
All Iranian consumers form the Statistical population of this research. Due to the magnitude and distribution
of these consumers, those who bought their needs from, Lale, Shahrvavd, Khane&Kashane, Refah and Artesh
Chain Stores underwent this survey. In this study, simple random sampling has been used meaning that the
researcher accidentally went to these stores and gave the questionnaire to the buyers to fill out the questionnaire
and some of the completed questionnaires were chosen from each region according to the Cochran formula
about the estimated sample.
The sample size is very important to generalize the results to the community. There are several methods for
determining sample size which among them mathematical methods are the most accurate ones for calculating
the sample size.
Cochran's formula is used to obtain the sample size in this study based on which the number of sample is
equal to 384, which shows the maximum sample size in cases we may not have the exact population of the study
with 5% of error.
n =
zα2
p (1 − p )
2
d
2
=
(1.96) 2 (0.5)
.0.5 = 384
(0.05) 2
In this study, the data collected in the field part was done by a questionnaire and the library method was
used to collect information about the concepts and theories related to the topic of the research.
The questions are based on a Likert scale from very much agreement to very much disagreement that the
grading is 1 to 5. In the present study, in order to more assurance a total number of 400 questionnaires were
distributed among consumers in stores. Some of questionnaires were excluded due to wrong and incomplete
responses and finally 384 questionnaires were analyzed for data analysis.
In the present study, Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used to assess the reliability of the questionnaire and
the reliability of the questionnaire is obtained Cronbach's Alpha: 0.81.
Findings and Discussion:
In this part we have tried to examine each hypothesis by using inferential two-variable linear regression
statistics to test the first and second hypothesis and independent T test to examine the Third hypothesis, and
made a decision to approve or reject the hypotheses.
Test of the first hypothesis:
There is a significant correlation between brand/cause fit and consumers purchasing intention in CRM.
Our H0 is: There is not a significant correlation between brand/cause fit and consumers purchasing
intention in CRM.
Our H1 is: There is a significant correlation between brand/cause fit and consumers purchasing intention in
CRM.
A survey on the correlation between brand/cause fit and consumers purchasing intention is achieved by
using an inferential two-variable linear regression statistics, based on which the calculated p-value (0.001) is
less than significant level 0.01, therefore, at this level, H0 is rejected. So it is concluded that the linear regression
model is significant and it means that there is a significant correlation between brand/cause fit and consumers
purchasing intention. Correlation coefficient is R=0.77, which represents extend of correlation between
brand/cause fit and consumers purchasing intention. Given that the value of R2adj (adjusted R2) is equal to 0.54,
it is concluded that the variable of brand/cause fit to consumers in this model, determine 0.54 of the variance of
purchasing intention of a product by consumers (Table 1).
3230
SinaZeynali
Advances in Environmental Biology, 7(11) Oct 2013, Pages: 3224-3233
The results also indicate that the regression coefficient of brand/cause fit impact on consumers purchasing
intention is 0.67 and the due to the P-value (significance) of 0.001 which is smaller than the significance level of
α=0.05, the H0 is rejected in this level and thus it can be said that brand/cause fit has a significant positive
impact on consumers purchasing intention.
Table 1: The coefficients of the regression model of the correlation between brand/cause fit and consumers purchasingintention
Variable
The extent
consumers
of
brand/cause
fit
for
R
R2
R2adj
Estimate B
SE
The
standard
t
estimate of β
p-value
0.77
0.53
0.54
1.13
0.076
0.68
0.001
17.97
Test of the second hypothesis:
There is a significant correlation between cause’s participation and consumers purchasing intention in
CRM.
Our H0 is: There is not a significant correlation between cause’s participation and consumers purchasing
intention in CRM.
Our H1 is: There is a significant correlation between cause’s participation and consumers purchasing
intention in CRM.
A survey on the correlation between cause’s participation and consumers purchasing intention is
achieved by using an inferential two-variable linear regression statistics, based on which the calculated p-value
(0.001) is less than significant level 0.01, therefore, at this level, H0 is rejected. So it is concluded that the linear
regression model is significant and it means that there is a significant correlation between cause’s participation
and consumers purchasing intention. Correlation coefficient is R=0.78, which represents extend of correlation
between cause’s participation and consumers purchasing intention. Given that the value of R2adj (adjusted R2) is
equal to 0.56, it is concluded that the variable of consumers purchasing intention to consumers in this model,
determine 0.56 of the variance of purchasing intention of a product by consumers (Table 1).
The results also indicate that the regression coefficient of cause’s participation impact on consumers
purchasing intention is 0.57 and the due to the P-value (significance) of 0.001 which is smaller than the
significance level of α=0.05, the H0 is rejected in this level and thus it can be said that cause’s participation has
a significant positive impact on consumers purchasing intention. In other words, the results show that, the higher
participation of a cause sponsored by a firm consumers perceive, the more likely its product is purchased.
Table 2: The coefficients of the regression model of the correlation between cause’s participation and consumerspurchasingintention.
The
standard
R2adj
Estimate B
SE
t
p-value
Variable
R
R2
estimate of β
The extent of cause’s participation for 0.78
consumers
0.52
0.56
1.12
0.071
0.75
18.12
0.001
Test of the Third hypothesis:
The Impact of cause’s participation is not the same for male and female consumers in CRM.
Our H0 is: The Impact of cause’s participation is the same for male and female consumers.
Our H1 is: The Impact of cause’s participation is not the same for male and female consumers.
Leven Test was used to examine the equality of variances and due to a p-value (significance) of 0.247
which is larger than the significant level of α=0.05, H0 is not rejected and as a result the variances of the two
groups are said to be equivalent, so parameter one test is applicable. Comparison Impact of cause’s participation
for male and female consumers is obtained via T-test and because the p-value (significance) equals 0.001 is
smaller than the significance level of α=0.05, so the H0 hypothesis is rejected in this level. Thus it can be
concluded that there is a significant difference in cause’s participation between the male and female consumers.
According to the averages the cause’s participation for male consumers is more than that for female consumers
(Table 3).
Table 3: T-test statistics for comparing the average The Impact of cause’s participation for consumers in terms of gender
Gender
The rate of
participation
consumers
Male
Number
cause’s
for 138
Female
Mean
SD
Number
Mean
SD
10.02
2.33
246
9.27
2.74
T Statistic
Degrees
freedom
[[[
[4.48
381
of Significant
0.001
3231
SinaZeynali
Advances in Environmental Biology, 7(11) Oct 2013, Pages: 3224-3233
Conclusions:
The present study assesses impact of brand/cause fit, cause’s participation and gender on consumers
purchasing intention to cause-related marketing. Using an experimental study on a total of 384 respondents
among Customers of Iranian Chain Stores, the current study shows that brand/cause fit and cause’s participation
have a significant positive impact on consumers purchasing intention. In different research currents in marketing
such as brand extensions, co-marketing alliances, corporate social responsibility, sponsorships, and brand
alliances perceived fit commonly leads to a positive impact on attitudes. the order of perceived fit is the level of
similarity or opportuneness that consumers perceive exists between the cause and the brand. brand/cause fit play
an important role in consumers’ attitudes and their purchasing intention towards CRM. In other words, the
results show that, a high perceived brand-cause fit can positively impact a consumer’s purchasing intention to
cause-related marketing. The higher brand-cause fit of a cause sponsored by a firm consumers perceive, the
more likely its product is purchased. The overall, the results show that a good brand/cause fit would have a
greater impact on purchase intention than a poor brand/cause fit. But this study fails to identify the distinctions
made between both low and high congruence and fit, explore these differences need to be examined in further
study.
Marketers are expanding CRM campaigns that need various levels of participation, essentially using
implications from sales promotions strategies such as rebates and coupons. Contrary to simple intuition,
Predicate that consumers prefer to hold a diverse standard of participation, there is a group of consumers who
degust active participation in CRM campaign. The results of this study show that cause’s participation has a
significant positive impact on consumers purchasing intention.
In addition, the current study examines The Impact of cause’s participation on male and female. With
regards to the moderating effect of gender on the relationship between cause’s participation and purchasing
intention towards CRM, the results shows that The Impact of purchasing intention towards is not the same for
male and female consumers. Male response towards CRM is influenced by degree of cause’s participation. In
other words, cause’s participation don't effect on Response of female consumers towards CRM very much. on
the contrary, cause’s participation impact attitudes towards CRM for male response much more than female.
Overall, female have more favorable purchasing intention towards CRM than male and that male response
towards CRM is influenced by cause’s participation.The findings of this study can be directly or indirectly used
as guidelines for manufacturing companies or firms, service, advertising and commerce firms and can be used
by managers in designing their CRM campaigns in the future.
REFERENCES
[1] Aaker, D.A., K.L. Keller, 1990. ‘‘Consumer evaluations of brand extensions’’, Journal of Marketing, 54(1):
27-41.
[2] Allen, D.G., L.M. Shore, R.W. Griffeth, 2003. ‘‘the Role of PerceivedOrganizational Support and
Supportive Human Resource Practices in the TurnoverProcess’’, Journal of Management, 29(1): 99-118.
[3] Barone, M.J., A.T. Norman and A.D. Miyazaki, 2007. “Consumer response toretailer use of cause-related
marketing: is more fit better?”, Journal of Retailing, 83(4): 437-45.
[4] Becker-Olsen, K.L., B.A. Cudmore and R.P. Hill, 2006. “The impact of perceived corporate social
responsibility on consumer behavior”, Journal of BusinessResearch, 59(1): 46-53.
[5] Beise-Zee, R., S.-u.-R. Sheikh, 2011. “Corporate social responsibility or cause-related marketing? The role
of cause specificity of CSR”, Journal of ConsumerMarketing, 28(1): 27-39.
[6] Bendapudi, N., S.N. Sing, V. Bendapudi, 1996.‘‘Enhancing helping behaviour: anintegrativeframework for
promotional planning’’. J Mark, 60: 33– 49 (July).
[7] Berger, I., C. Peggy and R. Kozinets, 199.9 ‘‘the processing of CRM claims: cues,bias or motivators’’,
AMA Summer Educators Conference, 7: 71-2.
[8] Bigne´-Alcan˜ iz, E., R. Curra´s-Pe´rez and I. Sa´nchez-Garcı´a, 2009. “Brand credibilityin cause-related
marketing: the moderating role of consumer values”, Journal ofProduct& Brand Management, 18(6): 437447.
[9] Brink, D.V.D., G. Odekerken-Schoder, and P. Pauwels, 2006. “The effect of strategic and tactical causerelated marketing on consumers’ brand loyalty”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(1): 15-25.
[10] Bronn, P.S. and A.B. Vrioni, 2001. “Corporate social responsibility and cause-related marketing:an
overview”, International Journal of Advertising, 20(2): 207-20.
[11] Brown, T.J., P. Dacin, 1997. The company and the product: corporateassociationsand consumer product
responses. J Mark, 61: 68-84 (January).
[12] Campbell, C. Margaret, 1995. “When Attention-Getting Advertising TacticsElicit Consumer Inferences of
Manipulative Intent: The Importance of BalancingBenefits and Investments,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 4(3): 225-54.
3232
SinaZeynali
Advances in Environmental Biology, 7(11) Oct 2013, Pages: 3224-3233
[13] Chandon, Pierre, Brian Wasink and Gilles Laurent, 2000. “A Benefit CongruencyFramework of Sales
Promotion Effectiveness,” Journal of Marketing, 64: 65-81.
[14] Cornwell, T.B. and L.V. Coote, 2005. “Corporate sponsorship of a cause: the roleofidentification in
purchase intent”, Journal of Business Research, 58(3): 268-76.
[15] Cui, Y., E.S. Trent, P.M. Sullivan, & G.N. Matiru, 2003. Cause-related marketing:how generation Y
respons, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31(6): 310-320.
[16] Curt, Herr Paul and Kardes Frank, eds.NewYork: Psychology Press, 549-74.
[17] Dahl, W.D. and A.M. Lavack, 1995. “Cause-relatedmarketing, impact of size of corporate donation and
sizeof cause-related promotion on consumer perceptions andparticipation”, in Stewart, D.W. and Vilcassim,
N.J. (Eds),1995 AMA WinterEducators’ Conference, AmericanMarketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp:
477-81.
[18] Demos, T., 2006. ‘The world’s most admired companies ’ , Fortune, 153(4): 33-42.
[19] Drumwright, M.E., 1996. “Company advertising with a social dimension: the roleof noneconomic criteria”,
Journal of Marketing, 60: 71-87.
[20] Dupree, J., 2000. ‘Review of Brand Spirit: how cause related marketing builds brands ’ , in H. Pringle and
M. Thompson (eds) , Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(5): 461-464.
[21] Eisenberg, N., 2000. “Emotion, regulations, and moral development”, AnnualReview of Psychology, 51:
665-97.
[22] Eisenberger, R., J.R. Jones, J. Aselage and I.L. Sucharski, 2004. PerceivedOrganizational Support (Oxford
University Press, Oxford).
[23] Ellen, Pam Scholder, Lois A. Mohr, and Deborah J. Webb, 2003. “Pure or MixedMotives: Consumer
Attributions About Cause Marketing Offers,”Paper Presented attheAssociation for Consumer
Research,Atlanta Georgia, 76(3): 393-406.
[24] Ellen, Pam Scholder, Lois Mohr and Deborah Webb, 2000. “Charitable Programsandthe Retailer: Do They
Mix?” Journal of Retailing, 76(3): 393-406.
[25] Farache, F., K.J. Perks, L.S.O. Wanderley, & J.M.dS. Filho, 2008. Cause-Related Marketing: Consumer’s
Perceptions and Benefits for Profit and Non-Profit Organizations, Brazilian Administration Review,
Curitiba, 5(3): 210-224.
[26] Folse, J.A.G., 2010. Cause-Relating Marketing: The Effects of Purchase Quantityand Firm Donation
Amount on Consumer Inferences and Participation Intentions,Journal of Retailing, 86(4): 295-309.
[27] Friedstad, Marian and Peter Wright, 1994. “The Persuasion KnowledgeModel: How People Cope with
Persuasion Attempts,” Journal of ConsumerResearch, 21: 1-31.
[28] Grau, S.L., & J.A.G. Folse, 2007. Cause-related marketing (CRM) Theinfluenceof donation proximity and
message framing cues on the less-involvedconsumer. Journal ofAdvertising, 36(4): 19-33.
[29] Gray, R., 2000. “Developing a tight fit is crucial to CRM”, Marketing, 4: 37-8.
[30] Green, T. and J. Peloza, 2011. “How does corporate social responsibility create value for consumers?”,
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 28(1): 48-56.
[31] Gwinner, K., 1997. “A model of image creation and image transfer in eventsponsorship”, International
Marketing Review, 14(3): 145-58.
[32] Hall, Holly, 2009. “Corporate and Individual Giving: What to Expect in ComingMonths,” Chronicle of
Philanthropy, 21(9): 3.
[33] Hamlin, R.P. and T. Wilson, 2004. “The impact of cause branding on consumerreactions to products: does
product/cause ‘fit’ really matter?”, Journal of Marketing Management, 20(7-8): 663-81.
[34] Hou, J., & l. Du, & j. Li, 2008. Cause’s attributes influencing consumer’spurchasing intention: empirical
evidence from China, Asia Pacific Journal ofMarketing andLogistics, 20(4): 363-380.
[35] Kalligeros, M., 2005. ‘‘Choose wisely: partnering for cause-related marketing’’, Public Relations Tactics,
12(8): 1.
[36] Kleppner, 1996. Advertising Procedures: London, Prentice Hall.
[37] Laaksonen, P., 1994. Consumer Involvement: Concepts andResearch, Routledge, London.
[38] Lafferty, B.A., 2007. “The relevance of fit in a cause-brand alliance whenconsumers evaluate corporate
credibility”, Journal of Business Research, 6(5): 447-53.
[39] Lafferty, B.A., 2009. “Selecting the right cause partners for the right reasons: therole of importance and fit
in cause-brand alliance”, Psychology and Marketing, 26(4): 359-82.
[40] Langen, N., C. Grebitus, M. Hartmann, 2010. Is there Need for moreTransparency and Efficiency in Causerelated Marketing?, Int. J. Food System Dynamics, 4(1): 366-381.
[41] Liu, G. and W.-W. Ko, 2011. “An analysis of cause-related marketingimplementation strategies through
social alliance: partnership conditions and strategic objectives”, Journal of Business Ethics, 100(2): 253281.
3233
SinaZeynali
Advances in Environmental Biology, 7(11) Oct 2013, Pages: 3224-3233
[42] Liu, G., C. Liston-Heyes, W.W. Ko, 2010. Employee Participation in Cause-Related Marketing Strategies:
A Study of Management Perceptions from BritishConsumer Service Industries, Journal of Business Ethics,
92(2): 195-210.
[43] Macchiette, B. and A. Roy, 1994. “Sensitive groups and social issues: are you marketing correct?”, Journal
of Consumer Marketing, 11(4): 55-64.
[44] Meijer, M.-M. and T. Schuyt, 2005. “Corporate social performance as a bottom line for consumers”,
Business and Society, 44(4): 442-61.
[45] Moosmayer, D., A. Fuljahn, 2010. Consumer perceptions of cause related marketing campaigns, Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 27(6): 543-549.
[46] Myers L.V., 1988. The influence of sex roles on judgments. Journal of ConsumerResearch, 14(March), 522530.
[47] Nan, X. and K. Heo, 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.
[48] Olsen, G.D., J.W. Pracejus and N.R. Brown, 2003. “When profit equals price:consumer confusion about
donationamounts in cause-related marketing”, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 22(2): 170-80.
[49] Paul, K., L.M. Zalka, M. Downes, S. Perry and S. Friday, 1997. “US consumer sensitivity to corporate
social performance”, Business and Society, 36: 408-18.
[50] Petty, Richard E. and John T. Cacioppo, 1984. “The Effects of Involvement on Responses to Argument
Quantity and Quality: Central and Peripheral Routes toPersuasion,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 46(1): 69-81.
[51] PMAIGable Group., 2000. Survey of cause marketing. Retrieved October 19,2001, from
http:Nwww.pmalink.org
[52] Potter, M. and S. Adam, 2005. “An exploratoryinvestigation of attitudes toward cause-related marketing”,in
Deakin University (Ed.), 2nd Australian Nonprofit and Social Marketing Conference, Burwood, Australia.
[53] PowerPact, LLC., 2004. “Cause Marketing Forum,” June 16, 2004. Last accessedonJune 4, 2008 at
www.causemarketingforum.org.
[54] Pracejus, J.W., G.D. Olsen, 2004. ‘‘the role of brand/cause fit in the effectivenessofcause-related marketing
campaigns’’, Journal of Business Research, 57: 635-40.
[55] Rifon, Nora J., Sejung Marina Choi, Carrie S.Trimble and Hairong Li, 2004. Congruence Effects in
Sponsorship: The Mediating Role of SponsorCredibility and Consumer Attributions of Sponsor Motive,”
Journal ofAdvertising, 33(2): 29-42.
[56] Ross, J.K.III, M.A. Stutts, & L.T. Patterson, 1991. Tactical considerations fortheeffective use of causerelated marketing. Journal of Applied Business Research, 7(2): 58-65.
[57] Ross, J.K.III, L.T. Patterson and M.A. Stutts, 1992. “Consumer perceptions oforganizations that use
causerelatedmarketing”, Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, 20(1): 93-7.
[58] Samu, S. and W. Wymer, 2009. “The effect of fit and dominance in cause marketingScience, 20(1): 93-7.
[59] Simonin, B.L. and J.A. Ruth, 1998. ‘‘is a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing the spillover
effects of brand alliances on consumer brandattitudes’’, Journal of Marketing Research, 35: 30-42.
[60] Skoe, E.E., A. Cumberland, N. Eisenberg, K. Hansen and J. Perry, 2002. “Theinfluence of sex and genderrole identity on moral cognition and prosocialpersonalitySocial Marketing Conference, Burwood, Australia.
[61] Strahilevitz, M. and J.G. Meyers, 1998. ‘‘Donations to charity as purchaseincentives:how wellthey work
may depend on what you are trying to sell’’, Journal of ConsumerResearch, 24(3): 434-46.
[62] Subrahmanyan, S., 2004. Pricing strategy and practice: effects of price premium andproduct type on the
choice of cause-related brands: a Singapore perspective.JournalofProduct & Brand Management, 13(2):
116-124.
[63] Szykman, L.R., 2004. “Who are you and why are you being nice? Investigating theindustry effect on
consumer reaction to corporate societal marketing efforts”, inKahn, B. and Luce, M.F. (Eds), Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 31,Association for Consumer Research, Valdosta, GA, pp: 306-15.
[64] Till, B.D. and L.I. Nowak, 2000. “Toward effective use of cause-relatedmarketingalliances”, Journal of
Product & Brand Management, 9(7): 472-484.
[65] Trimble, C.S. and N.J. Rifon, 2006. “Effects of consumer perceptions of compatibility in causerelated
marketing messages”, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(1): 29-47.
[66] Varandarajan, P.R., A. Menon, 1988. Cause related marketing: a coalignmentof marketing strategy and
corporate philanthropy. J Mark, 52: 58-74 (July).
[67] Webb, D.J. and L.A. Mohr, 1998. “A typology of consumer responses to cause-related marketing: from
skeptics to socially concerned”, Journal of Public Policy &Marketing, 17(2): 226-38.
[68] Wymer, W., 2006. ‘‘Special issue on corporate philanthropy’’, International Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(1-2): 1-2.
[69] Yoon, J. and J.C. Lim, 1999.‘Organizational Support in the Workplace: The Caseof Korean Hospital
Employee’, Human Relations., 52(7): 923-945.
[70] Zahn-Waxler, C. and M. Radke-Yarrow, 1990. “The origins of empathic concern”,Motivation and Emotion,
14(2): 107-30.