* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download The Impact of Brand/Cause Fit and Cause’s Participation on ... Intention: A Case Study among Customers of IranianChain Stores
Ambush marketing wikipedia , lookup
Online shopping wikipedia , lookup
Celebrity branding wikipedia , lookup
Multi-level marketing wikipedia , lookup
Marketing plan wikipedia , lookup
Social media marketing wikipedia , lookup
Targeted advertising wikipedia , lookup
Marketing strategy wikipedia , lookup
Marketing research wikipedia , lookup
Guerrilla marketing wikipedia , lookup
Marketing communications wikipedia , lookup
Target audience wikipedia , lookup
Brand awareness wikipedia , lookup
Customer engagement wikipedia , lookup
Product planning wikipedia , lookup
Food marketing wikipedia , lookup
Brand equity wikipedia , lookup
Brand ambassador wikipedia , lookup
Street marketing wikipedia , lookup
Multicultural marketing wikipedia , lookup
Direct marketing wikipedia , lookup
Digital marketing wikipedia , lookup
Viral marketing wikipedia , lookup
Visual merchandising wikipedia , lookup
Target market wikipedia , lookup
Integrated marketing communications wikipedia , lookup
Emotional branding wikipedia , lookup
Marketing mix modeling wikipedia , lookup
Brand loyalty wikipedia , lookup
Global marketing wikipedia , lookup
Marketing channel wikipedia , lookup
Advertising campaign wikipedia , lookup
Consumer behaviour wikipedia , lookup
Youth marketing wikipedia , lookup
Customer relationship management wikipedia , lookup
Neuromarketing wikipedia , lookup
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.