تاثیر مناسب و تسلط در علت ارتباطات بازاریابی

Consumer processing of cause marketing communications featuring a brand and a cause is investigated in the context of the communication format (perceived fit and dominance) on consumer attitudes and behavioral intentions. Two studies using different forms of communication, public service announcement (PSA) and cause-related marketing advertisement (CRM ad), are used to examine these effects. Findings suggest that both factors are important to consider in any joint communication. While high fit is critical for brands, dominance is shown to be important for both in joint communications.

Business firms are increasingly linking their brands with causes/charities to achieve corporate and nonprofit objectives. Such relationships have been referred to as cause marketing or cause–brand alliances (Lafferty et al., 2004). Spending on such programs rose from $1.11 billion in 2005 to $1.35 billion in 2006 with increases being led by specialty retailers, banks, automakers, and non-alcoholic beverages (Watson, 2006). Cause marketing communications feature a business's name/logo (referred to as brand) along with a nonprofit name/logo (referred to as cause) (Barone et al., 2000). The increasing corporate involvement with nonprofits makes it timely to understand and improve the effectiveness of such communications (Pracejus et al., 2003). While previous research has examined the relationship between the brand and cause (Drumwright et al., 2000); the specific characteristics of the communication need more research attention. Hence, this study will investigate two key communication characteristics: perceived fit, the degree to which the brand and cause are perceived as compatible or congruent with each other (Pracejus and Olsen, 2004), and dominance, the relative emphasis given to brand/cause in a particular message. While perceived fit has been studied before, dominance is a new construct in cause marketing communication. These two factors determine the “which” (specific cause) and “how” (specific focus) of cause marketing messages. In summary, this paper addresses the following questions related to cause marketing messages: ➢ Should brands select causes with high versus low perceived fit as partners? ➢ Should brands or causes dominate, or should both have equal emphasis in the message? 1. Factors affecting consumer processing of cause marketing messages Perceived fit has a significant effect on consumers with higher fit impacting choice and market share (Pracejus and Olsen, 2004). Fit has been studied in terms of product/cause and similarity of target markets with perceived fit being the compatibility/congruence between the brand and cause based on any meaningful association between them or their target markets (Drumwright et al., 2000). Dominance is the degree to which a particular message (e.g., a CRM ad) differentially emphasizes the brand and/or the cause. Gestalt psychology suggests that when one part of a stimulus (figure) dominates, other parts (ground) recede into the background (the figure-ground effect) (Bigand et al., 2000). Consumers are expected to initially focus on the dominant part of the message and allow other parts to recede to the background. In an ad, if consumers perceive that the majority of the space, words, or images are devoted to the brand (cause), then it is brand (cause) dominant. Equal dominance exists when consumers perceive that neither the brand nor the cause is differentially emphasized.

This paper takes a broad overview of cause marketing communication to define the outcomes and provide directions for future research. The findings are useful for managers in marketing and nonprofit organizations when selecting partners and type of message. Perceived fit is important, with higher fit leading to stronger attitudes and behavioral intentions. Dominance is also important, with cause dominance leading to higher audience responses, suggesting that the ideal combination is high perceived fit and cause dominance. However, some interactions suggest otherwise. There is some evidence to suggest that consumers process PSA's and ads differently. For CRM ads (but not PSA's), cause dominance led to more positive outcomes towards the cause in the high fit condition, suggesting differences between images and text. When there was higher amount of text (PSA's), there were no differences across the three dominance conditions. When fit is low, cause dominance seems to be critical for both ads and PSA's — for all measures, the values are higher. Future studies should examine this difference to understand consumer processing of image versus text to determine whether increased amount of text leads to better consumer understanding of the cause–brand relationship under high fit. While previous research indicated the superiority of the picture over text in increasing attention (Childers and Houston, 1986), recent evidence indicates that increase in the size of text leads to increased consumer attention (Pieters and Wedel, 2004). At the same time, previous research comparing text and picture had only one brand along with text. In the case of a CRM ad/PSA, it is important to examine the congruency between two pictures or between two sets of texts. A suggestion would be to vary the amount of image versus text, using a procedure similar to the dominance manipulation to find out the equilibrium point. A second area to examine is the inconsistency in results across the two studies. While intent to volunteer was not significant in study 1, intent to contribute/purchase was not significant in study 2. Other behavioral measures or multi-item measures may be needed to better understand the outcomes. The importance of cause dominance on attitude towards the brand also needs to be examined to better understand the role of skepticism towards the brand/trust in the cause. While this research identifies skepticism/trust as possible reasons for the results, it may be necessary to measure/manipulate skepticism/trust using different types of brands and causes. Theoretically, these results enable a conceptualization and understanding of the interactions between two types of organizations as they communicate a joint relationship. Consumer processing of textual information appears to be crucial to these results. In situations where processing is higher (PSA's or ads with high amount of text), fit may be a better indicator of the success of cause marketing than dominance. However, where there are images (ads or other messages containing images), dominance enhances the outcome of fit and has a higher impact. Future research needs to focus on processing to understand the use of categorization and attribution through which consumers develop attitudes towards the brand and cause. While the results seem to support the theoretical rationale developed for the hypotheses, lack of actual process measures limit the certainty with which one could conclude that consumers used the proposed processes. These results suggest several alternatives for brand and cause managers. For brands, partner selection is extremely important due to the importance of fit. Given the normal skepticism associated with brands, if it wants to dominate the message and convey information about itself as well as acknowledge its connections to the cause, high fit is essential. However, if the brand cannot control the fit (e.g., a low fit partner has already been chosen), it may be better to allow the cause to dominate the communication. Nonprofit firms need to be less concerned about fit as audience responses continue to be high under both levels, confirming the general positive feelings towards it; however, dominance is critical. When fit is high, cause benefits from all dominance combinations. When fit is low, cause dominance is critical to reduce consumer skepticism and ensure more positive audience responses. When there is equal dominance, consumers seem uncertain about the reasons for such ads, but it is important to explore this in greater detail. There are several areas in which future research could add to the existing knowledge about developing more effective cause–brand messages. First, differential effects for audience sub-groups and changes due to message sender can be examined. Attitudes toward the brand and cause may mediate perceptions of fit and dominance. Second, are there characteristics of the brand or cause that may influence responses? Does relative size or notoriety of the partnering organization influence attributions? All these issues would be productive areas for future inquiry. 4.1. Limitations The use of student subjects for Gerber could be an issue, but it was considered necessary to have brands which subjects had not purchased. It should be noted that care was taken to pre-test the treatments for brand awareness using similar student subjects. However, it is important to replicate this study with other brands and population (Peterson, 2001). The interaction between fit and dominance in the dominance manipulation check is also a limitation and it is important to acknowledge the difficulty in attributing the effects to just one independent variable. Other limitations of experimental research are applicable as well. These and other limitations make it imperative to replicate this study with other brand/cause combinations and populations.