Is cash always king? Bundling product–cause fit and product type in cause‐related marketing

Abstract

In traditional cause-related marketing (CRM) campaigns, companies support a cause by donating a portion of the proceeds from product sales (i.e., monetary giving).Recently, some companies have used the funds to buy something or just donate their own products for the beneficiaries (i.e., nonmonetary giving). We compare these two giving styles along with two moderators: product-cause fit and product type. Three experiments with various sampling methods (mall intercept data and online pool) and donation information (percentage of sales price, the amount of the product price, or one-for-one campaign) are conducted to enhance the robustness of the results. Study 1 shows that when the product and the cause fit well together, the nonmonetary giving strategy evokes a more positive consumer attitude and a stronger purchase intention than does the monetary giving strategy. When the product-cause fit is low, the opposite holds true. Studies 2 and 3 consider product type and product-cause fit simultaneously. When the product-cause fit is high, nonmonetary giving is more effective than monetary giving, regardless of the product type. On the other hand, when the product-cause fit is low, nonmonetary giving is more effective in promoting utilitarian products, but monetary giving is more effective in promoting hedonic products. In Study 3, consumer attributions regarding the company's motives for making the donation (i.e., inferred motives) is used to explain the underlying mechanism.

Attribution and Effectiveness of Cause-Related Marketing: The Interplay between Cause–Brand Fit and Corporate Reputation

“…That is, consumers made specific inferences about why companies engage in CRM campaigns. This finding aligns with previous studies highlighting several components to consumer-attributed motives [35], as opposed to merely two opposing constructs [14,29].…”

“…Our results suggested that cause-brand fit positively influenced consumer attitudes toward the company. These findings are similar to those of many previous studies suggesting that a high cause-brand fit for CRM campaigns elicits more positive outcomes such as enhanced brand image [44], brand credibility [28], and purchase intentions [15,27,29]. The positive effect of fit on consumer responses aligns with congruency theory, stating that the more the two entities fit, the better the association and attitudinal outcomes [29].…”

“…According to attribution theory [75], consumers would attribute company motives for the CRM, which refers to the inferences that consumers make about the reasons for the company's CRM campaign [29,76]. Previous research has discussed the role of inferred motives in affecting consumer evaluation of the company and intention to participate in the CRM campaign [15].…”

“…Previous research has discussed the role of inferred motives in affecting consumer evaluation of the company and intention to participate in the CRM campaign [15]. However, the majority of this research into how individuals attribute firm motives has primarily focused on two opposing constructs-namely, benefit to those external to the firm (i.e., altruistic, or other-centered) versus benefit to the firm itself (i.e., egoistic, or self-centered) [29,30,44]. Hemingway and Maclagan (2004) [77] added complexity by classifying a third attributable motive where firms meet societal expectations and stakeholder expectations (i.e., stakeholder-driven).…”

“…Previous research has found that a high cause-brand fit could lead to positive consumer attribution, while a low fit would result in negative consumer attribution because of the inconsistencies with consumer expectations [14,28]. For example, Kuo and Rice (2015) [14] found that the congruence between firm and cause was positively related with consumers attributing other-serving motives and was negatively related with self-serving motives, and altruistic and self-serving motives, furthermore, had positive and negative effects on consumer reactions, respectively [29]. Differentiating between the four motives, Ellen et al (2006) [35] found that consumers would respond positively when they judged a company's CSR efforts as value driven and strategic while responding negatively when the CSR efforts were perceived as stakeholder driven or egoistic.…”