87763897 the component of cause related marketing campaign affecting on thai consumer patronage...
TRANSCRIPT
THE COMPONENT OF CAUSE RELATED MARKETING
CAMPAIGN AFFECTING ON THAI CONSUMER
PATRONAGE INTENTION
Phongzahrun Pollsrilert
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
Doctor of Business Administration Program in Marketing Siam University
March 2010
i
ABSTRACT
The Cause Related Marketing (CRMK) has been increasingly popular societal
marketing tool which firms can contribute for Corporate Social Responsibility. Many
previous researches stated that CRMK campaign had the influential factors on consumer
response. After reviewing the literature in this domain, almost all of previous researches showed
consumers’ response to CRMK campaign from the only representatives of United State of America,
Europe, and Australia. The results showed mostly positive responses to CRMK campaigns. Moreover,
almost of previous research studies focused on only of consumer response with purchase intention or
attitude toward brand and firm. Importantly, there is no evident finding in any research studied on the
correlation between CRMK and consumer patronage intention, especially CRMK campaign
component.
Thai consumer and marketer are becoming an increasingly contributors to social issues
nowadays. How should a firm setup the component of CRMK campaign which affect to consumer
patronage intention? The integrated approach which examining variety factors in the component of
CRMK campaign is necessary for marketing research.
The purpose of this research were as follows; 1) To study the consumer opinion level
toward to CRMK campaign component (cause important, brand-cause fit, and donation
framing), include patronage intention (purchase intention, repeat purchase, and word of
mouth), and skepticism. 2) To study and develop the causal model effect of CRMK campaign
component on consumer patronage intention. 3) To study and provide a guidance practicable
CRMK campaign component for marketers.
This study was a descriptive research. The study was conducted from February to
March 2009. The samples of the study consisted of 943 graduate students of Ramkhamhaeng
University studied at Huamak Campus, Bangkok Metropolis. Questionnaire was the primary
ii
used instrument in this study. The statistics used for the data analysis were descriptive
statistics. Structural Equation Modeling was used to assess model fit and investigation for
parsimonious model to explain the effect of CRMK campaign component on consumer
patronage intention.
Research findings showed that CRMK campaign component effected on consumer
patronage intention. The study showed cause important, brand-cause fit, and donation framing were
considered to be used for the parts of CRMK campaign component with more agree level. They had
high factor loading of 0.758, 0.924, and 0.986 which represented the important of these factors in
CRMK campaign component.
The study shows that there is the strong negative relationship between CRMK campaign
component and skepticism (standardized parameter estimate = -0.707), which is consistent with the
expected observation. The study show the high appropriate component for CRMK campaign had a
significant effect on consumer skepticism. The findings support the positive relationship between
CRMK campaign component and patronage intention (standardized parameter estimate = 0.582),
which is consistent with the expectation. Surprisingly, the findings show that there is a positive
relationship between skepticism and patronage intention (standardized parameter estimate = 0.362)
which is inconsistent with expectation and previous findings that consumers with a high level of
skepticism will be less likely to respond positively to CRMK campaign than consumers with low level
of skepticism toward CRMK campaign (Mohr et al., 1998; Webb & Mohr, 1998. The findings
however, is consistent with Youn and Kim (2008) which found that high in skepticism are more likely
to trust a company's willingness to engage in philanthropic commitment to social causes. For
demographic factors, there were seven exogenous variables had direct effect on patronage intention,
such as age, used to buy CRMK product, gender, donated within last 6 months, job related with
marketing function, monthly income, and studying in MBA program.
iii
These findings do suggest for managerial implications into four questions as follows:
Which a major cause or charity should the CRMK campaign be focused? How should alliance
between brand and cause be structured? How do we create a donation structure? And, Should level of
promotional campaign be standardized and worldwide applied in marketing activity?
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to many involving persons.
Firstly to my dissertation adviser, Dr. Prin Laksitamas. Without his support and trust, this
dissertation would have never seen the light of the day. Working with him through this
professional process has been full of exhilaration, frustration, excitement, and all of other
feeling one could experience in such a project.
Secondly, I am grateful for the advices and guidance of my chairperson of committee,
Assistant Professor Dr. Thanawan Saengsuwan. Including to my co-advisers, Associate
Professor Sirisopa Siribovornkiat, Dr. Sivarat Na Pathum, and Dr. Chaiyapol Horungruang.
Without their precious assistance and constructive comments, this dissertation could not have
been completed well.
Thirdly, I also grateful to Dr. Boonkiet Chokwatana, CEO of ICC international Plc.,
Dr. Lakkana Leelayouthayotin, CEO of Cerebos Thailand, and Mr. Sompol Chantprasert,
Senior Executive Vice President of CAT Telecom Plc. for granting me their time for the
interviews.
Fourthly, I would like to express my special thanks to all student interviewers for
assiting me with the data collection. I am also indebted to a thousand of graduate students
Ramkhamhang University for participating in the surveys and make this study possible.
Finally, I really appreciate Mama Khema Wisuttiwatanakorn and my wife, Nuch, for
their understanding and being of great support all through my work in the doctoral program.
Phongzahrun Pollsrilert
SIAM University
March 2010
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………...i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………………..iv
LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………………...……. viii
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………...……….. .x
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………..
1
The research problem………………………………………………………………
1
The research questions and objectives……………………………………………..
3
Independent variables………..…………………………………………………….
4
Dependent variables………………………………………………………………..
10
Intervening variables……………………………………………………………….
11
Conceptual framework……………………………………………………………..
11
Research hypothesis………………………………………………………………..
12
The research approach……………………………………………………………..
13
Contributions of the study…………………………………………………………
13
Definition…………………………………………………………………………..
14
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….
15
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
17
Corporate social responsibility in marketing..……………………………………..
17
Corporate social responsibility initiatives………………………………………….
28
Cause related marketing……………………………………………………………
41
Development of cause related marketing campaign……………………………….
44
vi
Benefit of participating in cause related marketing campaigns……………………
56
Risks of participating in cause related marketing campaigns……………………...
58
Component of cause related marketing campaign…………………………………
60
Cause important………………………………………………………………...
60
Brand – cause fit………………………………………………………………..
67
Donation framing……………………………………………………………….
70
Consumer attitudes toward CRMK campaign…………………………………….
75
Patronage intention……………………………………………………………..
75
Skepticism………………………………………………………………………
77
Demography……….……………………………………………………………….
80
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….
81
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY…………………………………………………..
83
Research design……………………………………………………………………
83
Population and sampling plan...……………………………………………………
83
Data collection……………………………………………………………………..
83
Questionnaires development…………………...…………………………………..
86
Data analysis techniques and criteria………………………………………………
94
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………
100
4. RESEARCH RESULTS……………………………………………………………
101
Data editing and screening…………………………………………………………
101
Characteristic of respondents………………………………………………………
102
Attitude of the respondents toward observed variables……………………………
103
Multicollinearity testing…………………………………………………………… 116
vii
Exploratory factor analysis for CRMK campaign component……………………..
120
Structural equation modeling analysis……………………………………………..
122
Legend to labeling constructs / variables……………………………………….
122
Confirmatory factor analysis of CRMK campaign component………………...
122
Structural equation modeling fitting……………………………………………
127
Results of hypotheses testing……………………………………………………...
141
Total direct, direct and indirect effects…………………………………………….
142
Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….
144
5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………………
146
Research issues and hypothesis testing……………………………...……………..
146
CRMK campaign component………….……………………………………….
146
Consumer attitudes toward CRMK campaign……………….………………...
152
Hypothesis testing………………………………………………………………
153
Theoretical contributions…………………………………………………………
159
Managerial implications……………………………………………………………
164
Limitation…………………………….…………………………………………….
172
Future research….………………………………………………………………….
174
REFERENCES………………………………………………………………………..
176
APPENDIX……………………………………………………………………………
190
Questionnaire (English version)………………………………………………...
Questionnaire (Thai version)……………………………………………………
viii
LIST of TABLES
Page
TABLE
1 Evolution of CSR concept……………………………………………………...
28
2 Examples of CSR in Thailand…..……………………………………………...
35
3 Examples of cause related marketing campaign………………………………..
45
4 Questions measuring skepticism from Mohr et al. 1988……………………….
79
5 Summary of measures for five latent constructs………………………………..
87
6 Summary of Cronbach’ s Alpha………………………………………………..
92
7 Indices used and recommended acceptable fit standards………………………
98
8 Profile of respondents………………………………………………………….
102
9 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on personal relevance………………………………………………………………………..
104
10 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on cause proximity.
105
11 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on cause agent……
106
12 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on cause claim……
107
13 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on functional fit…..
108
14 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on natural fit……...
109
15 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on image fit………
110
16 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on donation size…..
111
17 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on transparent donation…………………………………………………………………………
112
18 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on purchase intention…………………………………………………………………………
113
19 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on repeat purchase..
114
20 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on word of mouth…
114
ix
21 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on skepticism……..
115
22 Correlation matrix………………………………………………………………
117
23 Exploratory factor analysis for four dimensions of cause important…………...
120
24 Exploratory factor analysis for three dimensions of brand-cause fit…………...
121
25 Exploratory factor analysis for three dimensions of donation framing…………
121
26 Dummy variables for demographic factors…………………………..…………
126
27 Standardized parameter estimates and model fit statistics of the hypothesis model……………………………………………………………………………
130
28 Standardized parameter estimates for the measurement model of CRMK campaign component model……………………………………………………
132
29 Regression Weights…………………………………………………………….
136
30 Standardized Regression Weights………………………………………………
137
31 Squared Multiple Correlations………………………………………………….
139
32 Summary of structural paths and hypothesis testing results, standardized estimates………………………………………………………………………..
141
33 Direct effects, indirect effect, and total effect of CRMK campaign component model……………………………………………………………………………
142
x
LIST of FIGURES Page
FIGURE
1 A preliminary model of the component of CRMK campaign affecting on Thai consumer patronage intention…………………………………………….……
12
2 Corporate social responsibility continuum……………………………………..
41
3 Measurement model for cause important…………………………………………..
123
4 Measurement model for brand-cause fit…….…………………………………….. 124
5 Measurement model for donation framing…………………………………………….. 125
6 Hypothesis model for goodness-of-fit testing………….…………………………….. 125
7 Standardized estimates for CRMK campaign component model…………………….. 131
8 A parsimonious model of the sequent impact of CRMK campaign component on patronage intention……………………………………………………………………..
155
9 Hierarchy of effect model……………………………………………………………... 161
1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
The research problem
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an important wave of the business
practice. Many firms have been using CSR to address their social and environmental
concerns. CSR reporting has been steadily rising since 1993 and it has increased
substantially in the period of 2002 – 2005. The majority of Fortune Global 250
corporations increasingly published CSR information as part of their annual reports
from 52 percent in 2002 to 64 percent in 2005 (KPMG, 2005). So, CSR is one of
today’s core issues in business management and emerges as an inescapable priority
for business leaders in many countries. Many firms have already done CSR activities
for two reasons. First, the business and society are interdependent. Society depends on
business to achieve its needs and welfare, whereas, business depends on society for its
existence and growth. Second, there are pressures on firms to think of corporate social
responsibility in generic ways most appropriate to each firm’s strategy (Porter &
Kramer, 2006). Specifically, the business case for virtue is the strongest for firms that
have made CSR as part of their strategy for attracting and retaining consumers,
employees, and investors, and for highly visible global firms that have been targeted
by activities (Vogel, 2005).
CSR programs have becoming increasingly popular marketing tools since the
sixties and seventies, like Andreasen’s (1975) work on the disadvantage consumer,
empirical studies of socially responsible consumers (Miller & Sturdivant, 1977), and
more general analyses of the relevance of CSR to marketing (Patterson, 1966). CSR
2
and marketing researches become more and more important in this decade
(Bhattacharya et al., 2004; Ellen et al., 2006; Lichtenstein et al., 2004; Luo &
Bhattacharya, 2006; Maignan & Ferrell, 2004; Mohr et al., 2001; Yoon et al., 2006).
Kotler and Lee (2005, p.3) issued “corporate social initiatives” to describe
major efforts under the corporate social responsibility umbrella and offer also gave
the definition. Corporate social initiatives are major activities undertaken by a firm to
support social causes and to fulfill commitment to corporate social responsibility.
Among the six categories of corporate social initiatives, cause-related
marketing (CRMK) is the only one which directly measures financially impact of the
marketing campaign because of CRMK campaigns rely on consumers to make
purchases in exchange for a donation from the sponsoring firm to a cause
(Varandarajan & Menon, 1988). One of the very notable examples was the American
Express campaign to restore the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island. The firm promised
to contribute 1 cent for every card transaction and $1 for every new card issued during
the last quarter of 1983 to the cause. American Express collected $1.7 million for the
restoration effort. Report indicated that as a result of that program, there was a 28
percentages increase in use of the American Express card (Chiagouris & Ray, 2007).
As for business case in Thailand, Cerebos (Thailand) Ltd. had used CSR
concept to build brand loyalty of BRANDS’ essence of chicken for over 20 years.
During the period of November 2005 to January 2006, the firm had launched CRMK
campaign “Buy every a BRANDS gift basket as the firm promised to donate 10 baht
to The Mother Princess Medical Volunteer Foundation”. The firm reported that as a
result of CRMK campaign, there was 1.42 million baht for donation
(www.brandworld.co.th).
3
From the examples given, CRMK is a very effective socially responsible
marketing tool. This is also becoming an increasingly significant contributor in
addressing social issues and the needs of charities and causes. CRMK works by
integrating the core trading objectives and activities of a business with the need of a
particular cause or charity. Indeed, if effectively used, CRMK provides a win
situation for the charity or cause, a win for the consumer, a win for shareholders and
other stakeholders and also a win for the business (Varandarajan & Menon, 1988).
After reviewing the literatures in this domain, almost all of previous
researches showed consumers’ response to CRMK campaign from the only
representatives of United State of America, Europe, and Australia. The results showed
mostly positive responses to CRMK campaigns. Moreover, almost of previous
research studies focused on only of consumer responses with purchase intention or
attitude toward brand and firm. Evidently, there is no finding in any research studied
on the correlation between CRMK and consumer patronage intention, especially
CRMK campaign component.
Thai consumer and marketer are becoming an increasingly contributors to
social issues nowadays. How should a firm setup the component of CRMK campaign
which affect to consumer patronage intention? The integrated approach which
examining variety factors in the component of CRMK campaign is necessary for
marketing research.
The research questions and objectives
The main purpose of this study was to study the component of CRMK
campaign. The fundamental question addressed in this study was how can the abstract
concept of component of CRMK campaign would be a practicality? This basic
4
question leaded to more complex issues regarding the interaction of various factors
which influenced consumer patronage intention.
There were three objectives in this study:
1) To study the consumer opinion level toward to CRMK campaign
component (cause important, brand-cause fit, and donation framing), patronage
intention (purchase intention, repeat purchase, and word of mouth), and skepticism.
2) To study and developed the causal model effect of CRMK campaign
component (cause important, brand-cause fit, and donation framing) on consumer
patronage intention (purchase intention, repeat purchase, and word of mouth) .
3) To provide a guidance of practicable CRMK campaign component for
marketers to be used and applied with marketing strategies for each marketing
situation.
Pertinent variables
Independent variables
CRMK campaign component; many previous researches have stated that
CRMK campaign has the important factors which influence on consumer response.
This study defined CRMK campaign component as follows:
Cause important; previous researches have confirmed positive effects of
cause important on attitude toward brand and purchase intention (Ellen et al., 2000;
Kotler & Lee, 2005; Landreth, 2002). According to Ellen, Mohr & Webb (2000), they
manipulated the donation situation as either an ongoing cause or a disaster. They
found that disaster situations were perceived as more important because disasters
were perceived as more personally involving. Many observed variables were found
5
for cause important like personal relevance, cause proximity, cause agent and cause
claim.
Personal relevance (also known as involvement) is the level of perceived
personal importance and/or interest evoked by a stimulus within a specific situation.
The variations of involvement and manipulation become important because the
concept of personal importance is manifested as cause importance which is the
support of a cause due to personal experience or social norms (Ellen et al., 2000; Grua
& Folse, 2007; Lafferty, 1996; Landreth, 2002).
Cause proximity deals with the distance between the donation activity and the
consumer affecting the impact of the donation. The levels of cause proximity are local
cause and national cause. If donations support an overall cause on a local basis, it is
more likely to impact the consumer more directly than if they are provided on a
national basis (Landreth, 2002).
Cause agent represents the cause important. Menon and Kahn (2001) did not
assess involvement with the cause but used a cause agent or charity to represent the
cause. Cause agent characteristics will influence consumer responses in CRMK
campaigns.
Cause claim is an executional element which enhanced viewers’ a priority
levels of involvement in an advertising and increased information processing and
persuasion. Cause claim in advertisements has a very powerful influence on purchase
intention (Berger, et al., 1999).
Brand-cause fit; fit is particularly relevant in predicting positive consumer
responses if prior consumer attitudes toward the partners are positive. Perceived fit
had a significant effect on consumers with high fit having impact on purchase
6
intention (Basil, 2002; Bottomley & Holden, 2001; Drumwright, 1996; Gupta &
Pirsch ,2006; Kotler & Lee, 2005; Pracejus & Olsen, 2004; Simmons & Becker-
Olsen, 2006; Strahilevitz & Myers 1998). Despite the relative of brand cause links,
several terms have been used throughout the literature to characterize them. The terms
compatibility, similarity, fit, relevance, match, congruence and natural fit have been
used to describe the perceived link between a sponsor/brand and cause/nonprofit.
Congruence and its synonyms fit and match, dominated the sponsorship literature
representing functional links. Brand-cause fit had two variables were found for this
variable, such as product fit and image fit.
Product fit is perceived on the basis of a match between a product attributes
and the objectives of the alliance. It is perceived with functional fit and natural fit.
Functional fit may be perceived on the basis of a match between a brand’s functional
attributes and the objectives of the alliance. Firm provided a core competence to
contribute meaningfully to accomplishing the mission and objectives of the alliance.
In addition to a functional fit, some firms attempted to “create” a fit with causes by
emphasizing similarity in values (Kashyap & Li, 2006). Compatibility may be a
function of not only the two types of congruence defined in the literature, functional
and image, but also other factors such as individual characteristics and their
relationship to the sponsored cause (Trimble & Rifon, 2006).
Natural fit is the extent to which the sponsored cause is perceived as being
congruent with the image of the sponsor, independent of efforts to create a perceived
fit between the organizations (Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006). For example, Alpo
and the Humane Society are high in natural fit because both are strongly associated
with pets; this association readily comes to mind. In contrast, Alpo and the Special
Olympics are low in natural fit because they share no highly accessible association.
7
Simmons & Becker-Olsen (2006) stated that natural fit is of interest for several
reasons. First, firms may engage in low fit sponsorships because of a sincere interest
in the cause or a belief that is irrelevant. Second, cost efficiencies are greater if there
is no need to spend on efforts to create fit. Finally, because marketers do not control
the entire context in which consumers encounter information about their activities, a
sponsorship that does not depend on such control for its effectiveness is highly
attractive. This study will use natural fit as one of the observed variables.
Image fit refers to how comfortable consumers are with the brand-cause
pairing. Each partner brings perceptions of their image to the alliance. In any
collaborative effort, the images of both parties become part of the equation
(Varandarajan & Menon, 1988). Therefore, perception of image fit between the brand
and the cause is congruent. The alliance will be evaluated more favorable.
High brand-cause fit should therefore be a key selection criterion for
practitioners who are considering a brand-cause alliance if the aim of the campaign is
to influence consumer attitude and consumer patronage intent.
Donation framing; consumer perception of donation quantifiers may also be
influenced by the size of the donation relative to the price of the product offered for
purchase. Pracejus, Olsen and Brown (2004) use the term “donation quantifiers” to
describe how the donation amount is presented to the consumer. There are three main
types of quantifiers; calculable, estimated, and abstract. Calculable quantifiers are
defined as donation amounts that allow consumers to calculate the actual amount
being donated and include “percentage of sales” or “percentage of price” formats.
Estimable quantifiers give the customer only a piece of the information needed to
calculate the donation amount. These quantifiers are usually expressed as “a
percentage of the net proceeds” or as “a percentage of profit/net profit”. Abstract
8
quantifiers, the most commonly used method, occur when the customer is provided
with almost no information about how much the firm donated to the sponsored cause
(Olsen et al., 2003; Pracejus & Olsen, 2004; Pracejus et al., 2004).
Donation size; Consumer perception of donation quantifiers may also be
influenced by the size of the donation relative to the price of the product offered for
purchase. Dahl and Lavack (1995) found that consumers were more skeptical of small
donation sizes. However, the amount per transaction generated by the campaign may
be small and therefore, high volumes will be a key to successful campaign (Kotler &
Lee, 2005).
Transparent donation; Olsen, Pracejus & Brown (2003) compared donation
quantifiers between percentage of sales and percentage of profit. They stated that the
percentage of profit format was inherently ambiguous and result in decreased attitudes
and intentions. Landreth, Garretson, and Pirsch (2007) included a fourth level, the
“exact” donation quantifier. The most concrete option, an exact quantifier, stated the
exact amount of the donation given for each product sold. Example from recent
CRMK campaigns included Avon’s “Kiss Goodbye to Breast Cancer” campaign
which the firm donated $1 for each lipstick sold. Grau and Folse (2007) founded 75
percentages of responses preferred exact option. Moreover, timeframe of the
campaign is the one of transparent donation component. Varandarajan and Menon
(1988) stated that there were three different types of time frame campaigns. These
were long-term, medium-term, and short-term. Short-term focus was the most
dominating choice even though firms desire to focus on medium-term or long-term.
However, short-term had more disadvantages than advantages when it came to
creating trust and belief among the consumers if the support was going to last no
longer than a year. Long-term relationships also showed that consumers recognized
9
the brand and the charity cause if the relationship was strong and took place over a
long period of time (Pringle & Thompson, 1999).
Despite the number of campaigns using abstract quantifiers, consumers
preferred more tangible information regarding the donation. If the amount donated
through CRMK campaign was stated in transparent, straightforward way, there would
be little concern about potential consumer confusion.
Demography
Gender; According to previous researches, CRMK studies have noted
differences in acceptance of CRMK campaign by sex of the respondents. Women
were found to be more accepting of CRMK campaigns than men (Ross et al., 1992).
The findings suggested that the nurturing personalities of women (Ross et al., 1992)
or a need to assuage guilt (Strahilevitz & Myers, 1998) might be parts of the process
that allowed CRMK to influence consumers, but these assertions have not been
directly tested. However, recent research analyzing fit or match had not shown
differences based on gender (Lafferty et al., 2004; Pracejus & Olsen, 2004; Rifon et
al., 2004). They suggested that influence of gender was not a foregone conclusion.
Therefore, the sample size would be divided women and men equally.
Age; Consumer age was shown to have a relationship to consumer attitudes
toward societal marketing, with no consistent pattern. The studies conducted by
Straughan and Roberts (1999) concluded that older consumers responded more
favorable to societal marketing. However, the findings from Peppas and Peppas
(2000) identified that age did not show any influences on consumer attitudes.
10
Dependent variables
Patronage intention; Several studies investigated patronage intention
regarding consumer perceptions of socially conscious businesses (e.g., Mohr & Webb,
2005; Porter & Kramer, 2002; Ricks, 2005; Walker, 2007) and found that corporate
associations influenced product evaluations and overall consumer attitudes about the
organization. Patronage intention is the ‘indicator that signals whether customers will
remain with or defect from a firm (Zeithaml et al., 1996, p31). The two most
commonly examined dimension of patronage intention which is of interest to retailers
relate to repurchase intention and intention to recommend. Baker, Parasuraman,
Grewal, and Voss (2002) defined patronage intention as a willingness to recommend
and to buy. This study defined patronage intention as purchase intention, repeat
purchase, and word of mouth.
Purchase intention; consumer attitudes to purchase intention or brand choice,
including the propensity to switch brands to those that support causes, tend to increase
with the perception of ethical and social responsibility demonstrated by the firm
(Barone et al., 2000; Bennett & Gabriel, 2000; Berger et al., 1999; Creyer & Ross,
1997; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; Webb & Mohr, 1998). Women tend to have a
higher intention to buy or switch brands than men (Ross et al.,1992; Webb & Mohr,
1998). Additionally, campaigns which support social causes were shown by Barone,
Miyazaki and Tayor (2000) to be rewarded by consumers when these causes were
perceived by the consumers for appropriate reasons.
Repeat purchase; brand loyalty has been conceptualized both in a behavioral
and an attitudinal ways. The former captures more patronage behavior and focuses on
repeated purchasing of a certain brand by a consumer over time (Bloemer & Kasper,
1995).
11
Word of Mouth; According to Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman (1996), in the
case those consumers have patronage intention for CRMK campaign, they intent to
spread their positive words and recommend the campaign to other people. On the
other hand, if the campaign is not well conducted, negative word of mouth can also
destroy the campaign and discourage consumers to have participation.
Intervening variables
Skepticism; Webb and Mohr (1998) make the assumption that skepticism
toward CRMK campaign derives mainly from consumer’s distrust and cynicism
toward advertising. The negative attitudes toward CRMK campaign expressed from
half of their research respondents were credited mostly to skepticism toward
implementation and or cynicism toward a firm’s motives. Half of the respondents
indeed perceived the firm’s motive as being “self-serving”. A few previous researches
suggest that consumers with a high level of skepticism will be less likely to respond
positively to CRMK campaign than consumers with low level of skepticism toward
CRMK campaign (Mohr et al., 1998; Webb & Mohr, 1998).
Conceptual framework
The conceptual model is presented in Figure 1. The propositions in the figure
suggest that the independent variable of CRMK campaign component with four
domains (i.e., brand-cause fit, cause important, donation framing, and demography)
will impact the dependent variables of three dimensions of consumer patronage
intention (i.e., purchase intention, repeat purchase, and word of mouth) which are
intervened by skepticism.
12
Figure 1 A preliminary model of The sequent impact of CRMK campaign component on patronage intention
Research hypothesis
To support testing of the model and to answer the research questions, several
hypotheses have been developed, which are further described below:
H1: CRMK campaign component negatively related to Skepticism
H2: CRMK campaign component positively related to Patronage Intention
H3: Skepticism negatively related to Patronage Intention
H4: Demography impacted on Patronage Intention
13
The research approach
The purpose of this study was to study the components of CRMK campaign
and to provide the practicability of cause related marketing strategy. The instrument
used in the study was survey method by structured questions to assess respondents’
belief, attitudes, and self-report of behavior in the form of descriptive research.
Because of this research is intended to generalize the responses to a population, it is
important to have a representative sample. The group self-administered survey
method which is one of survey methods generally viewed as an economic efficient
way and be applied with less difficulty and accomplished within reasonable period of
time. Respondents take the survey in a group context. Each respondent works
individually, but they meet as a group (Burns & Ronald, 2000).
The sample for the study was comprised of Graduate students of
Ramkhamhaeng University at Huamak Campus, Bangkok Metropolitan. The
population was divided into two groups, MBA students and Non-MBA students. They
were different in occupations and age of between 23-60 years old, include variety of
knowledge in business and in general background would significantly the
representative of study. The 943 respondents were randomly assigned to respond to
the questionnaires with their reliability by Cronbach’s alpha which was higher than
0.70.
Contributions of the study
This study was a different from the previous researches in cause related
marketing area with the following reasons. This study combined various factors of
cause related marketing which the previous research stated there were influencing on
14
consumer response included to new model, CRMK campaign component. The
integrated model allowed inclusion of antecedent and mediator variables making the
model became more useful and applicable. The measurement model with structural
equations modeling was used to grouping various variables which resulted in
generating a more parsimonious model. The results from this study will provide the
new marketing concept for practitioners which will be able to modify CRMK
campaign component to firm’s marketing strategic decision. Finally, the result of this
study will be presented to the public. It should be the one of many value researches
which has an influence on the private sector. Corporate social responsibility with
CRMK initiatives will be the important marketing tool for “doing well by doing
good” for the private sector.
Definition
Definitions adopted by practitioners and researchers in the field of cause
related marketing. Thus terms that represent important concepts were defined in this
section.
1. Cause related marketing (CRMK): cause related marketing specificity was
defined for this research as the process of formulating and implementing marketing
activities which commits to making a contribution or donating an amount of revenues
to a specific cause based on product sales.
2. CRMK campaign component: the CRMK campaign which had a
combination of cause important, brand-cause fit, and donation framing.
15
3. Cause important: the importance of a major cause which was the main issue
for CRMK campaign. Cause important had many observed variables which were
found with; personal relevance, cause proximity, cause agent, and cause claim.
4. Brand–cause fit: the degree of similarity or compatibility that consumers
perceive exists between the cause and the brand which had many observed variables
which were found with; product fit, and image fit.
5. Donation framing: the structure of donation which had many observed
variables which was found with; donation size and transparent donation.
6. Patronage intention: the consumer behavior which was the indicator that
signaled whether customers would remain with or defect from a firm. The three most
commonly examined dimension of patronage intention were purchase intention,
repeat purchase, and word of mouth.
7. Skepticism: the tendency toward disbelief in advertising claims which was
related to the quality of accumulated consumer experiences.
Conclusion
Corporate social responsibility programs have been becoming increasingly
popular marketing tools. Among the six categories of CSR initiatives, cause-related
marketing (CRMK) is the only one which directly measures financially impact of the
marketing campaign because it relies on consumers to make purchases in exchange
for a donation from the sponsoring firm to a cause. After reviewing the literature,
most previous research studies focused on only consumer response with purchase
intention or attitude toward brand and firm. Yet, there was no research study on the
correlation between CRMK and Thai consumer patronage intention (purchase
16
intention, repeat purchase, and word of mouth), skepticism, including CRMK
campaign component (cause important, brand-cause fit, and donation framing). The
purpose of this study was contributed to a developing body of research in the
prominently component of CRMK campaign and provided the practically of cause
related marketing strategy.
17
CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in marketing
Although corporate social responsibility (CSR) is becoming increasingly
popular element of corporate marketing strategy as a serious discipline in
management, contributing to society is not a totally new concept for firms. In the last
decades, the CSR has originated other related concepts and themes, many of which
embraced CSR and were quite compatible with it. Further terms have become more or
less synonymous of CSR: they are Corporate Sustainability, Corporate Citizenship,
Corporate Social Investment, Corporate (Social) Responsiveness, Corporate Social
Performance, Corporate Philanthropy, Community Relations, Public Responsibility,
Sustainable Development, Social Responsibility, Social Responsibility Behavior,
Ethical Business and Corporate Governance (Carroll, 1999; Van Marrewijk, 2003).
Hopkins (2003) commented that “without a common language we don’t really know
that our dialogue with firms is being heard and interpreted in a consistent way”.
While the term CSR in marketing may appear to be relatively new to the
corporate world, the evolution of CSR concept has taken place over several decades.
The terminology of CSR has changed continually over the time in tune with business,
political and social developments. The definitions also are influenced by the impact of
globalization and global trend.
There are many articles to establish a better understanding of CSR in
marketing and to develop a specific definition. The best known is Carroll’s (1999)
literature review of CSR definitions in academic literature. Mohr, Webb, and Harris
(2001) followed this methodological approach, but expanded the analysis to include
18
definitions used by business. Others presented reviews of available definitions, e.g.
Joyner and Payne (2002). The literature reviews were indeed necessary in order to
provide an overview of the historical development of concepts such as CSR.
The period of 1950s
In 1953, Bowen conceptualized CSR as social obligation – the obligation “to
pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which
are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society” (Bowen in Maignan
& Ferrell, 2004). Carroll described Bowen as the modern “Father of Corporate Social
Responsibility” and believed that his work marked the beginning of modern period of
literature on CSR (Carroll, 1999).
Drucker (1955) was one of the first to explicit address CSR, including public
responsibility as one of the eight key areas for business objectives developed in his
book “The Practice of Management”. While Drucker believed that management’s first
responsibility to society involved making a profit. Therefore, management should
consider the impact of every business policy and action upon society.
The period of 1960s
The literature of the 1960s was lightly represented in CSR discourse.
However, Carroll believed that this decade “marked a significant growth in attempts
to formalize, or more accurately, stated what CSR means” (Carroll, 1999). He
suggested that some of the most prominent writers during that time were Keith Davis,
Joseph W McGuire, William C Frederick and Clarence C Walton. Davis (1960), an
early thinker on modern business and societal interrelationships, articulated the
relationship between social power and social responsibility. He reasoned ethically that
corporations with greater social power had more social responsibilities, and those
19
corporations that did not meet their social responsibilities risk losing the power they
had earned – a principle referred to as the “Iron Law of Responsibility”. Davis’s point
of view was “Some socially responsible business decisions can be justified
by…having a good chance of bringing long-run economics gain to the firm, thus
paying it back for its socially responsible outlook” (Davis in Carroll, 1999).
In 1960, Fredrick introduced CSR as a means to “…enhance total socio-
economic welfare,” and he maintained that CSR “…implies a public posture toward
society’s economic and human resources and a willingness to see that those resources
are used for board social ends and not simply for the narrowly circumscribed interests
of private persons and firms” (Fredrick in Carroll, 1999). A more specific approach
to CSR was offered in McGuire’s (1963) work entitled Business and Society. The
author extended the definition of CSR beyond economic and legal compliance (as
previously mentioned) stating, “…the idea of social responsibilities supposes that the
corporation has responsibilities to society which extend beyond these (economic and
legal) obligations” (McGuire in Walker, 2007). Walton (1967) emphasized that “the
essential ingredient of the corporation’s social responsibilities include a degree of
voluntarism, as opposed to coercion”. He also suggested “the acceptance that costs are
involved for which it may not be possible to gauge any direct measurable economic
returns” (Walton in Carroll, 1999).
The period of 1970s
In 1970, Friedman presented CSR in a business-centric view. The firms had to
use their resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it
stayed within the rules of the game, which was to say, engage in open and free
competition, without deception or fraud. The US Committee for Economic
Development’s (CED) 1971 model of CSR revealed that despite Friedman’s
20
pronouncement, there were other evolving views about the role of business in CSR.
The Committee described CSR as being ‘related to products, jobs and economic
growth; related to societal expectations; and related to activities aimed at improving
the social environment of the firm’ (US Committee for Economic Development in
Wheeler et al, 2003).
Carroll (1999) described the CED’s model as ‘a landmark contribution to the
concept of CSR’ which illustrated the changing relationship between business and
society. Business was asked to assume broader responsibilities to society than ever
before and to serve a wider range of human values. Business enterprises, in effect,
were asked to contribute more to the quality of American life than just supplying
quantities of product and services. As business exists to serve society, its future will
depend on the quality of management’s response to the changing expectations of the
public (Carroll, 1999).
The relationship between business and society was being questioned at this
decade when the United States was embroiled in the social and political protests of the
civil rights and peace movements, when issues such as ‘human values’ and morality
were being publicly debated. This would also have impacted on American firms
(Carroll, 1999).
In 1974, Eells and Walton’s discussion of CSR could perhaps be seen as
moving toward the issue of social license. CSR represents a concern with the needs
and goals of society which goes beyond the merely economic. Insofar as the business
system as it exists today can only survive in an effectively functioning free society,
the corporate social responsibility movement represents a broad concern with
business’s role in supporting and improving the social order (Eells and Walton in
Carroll, 1999).
21
Sethi (1975) presented the concept of corporate social performance with three-
level model. The model distinctions made between various corporate behaviors.
Sethi’s three tiers were social obligation (a response to legal and market constraints);
social responsibility (congruent with societal norms); and social responsiveness
(adaptive, anticipatory and preventive).
Carroll (1979) presented social responsibility categories, or sometimes labeled
Carroll’s four faces of social responsibility. In this model, Carroll stated that for a
definition of social responsibility to fully address the entire range of obligations
business had to society, it must embody the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary
categories of business performance. Economic responsibility was the first and
foremost social responsibility of business. It was the responsibility of firms to sell
product at a profit. Legal responsibility was the obligation of firms to abide by the
rules of law. Carroll’s definition of ethical responsibility was rather hazy as he said
that it simply means that society had expectations of business over and above legal
requirements. The discretionary elements were the activities like philanthropic
contributions and other non-profit generation acts.
Early research studies on CSR conducted in this decade had used a variant of
content analysis to measure the number of lines covering social responsibility in firm
annual reports. The headings they used included ‘corporate responsibility, social
responsibility, social action, public service, corporate citizenship, public
responsibility, and social responsiveness’ (Carroll, 1999).
The period of 1980s
The 1980s had been described as having ‘a more responsible approach to
corporate strategy’ (Freeman in Lucas, Wollin & Lafferty, 2001). Prominent was the
22
work of Freeman (1984) on the emerging stakeholder theory. Freeman suggested
those meeting shareholders’ needs as only one element in a value-adding process.
Firms should identified a range of stakeholders (including shareholders) who were
relevant to the firm’s operations. Freeman’s paper continued to be identified as a
seminal paper on stakeholder theory, and stakeholder theory as the ‘dominant
paradigm’ in CSR (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001).
Mintzberg (1983) stated that CSR could be practiced or appear in various
forms. The purest form was when CSR was practiced for its own stakeholders. The
firm expected nothing from their CSR activities and they became socially responsible
because that was the noble way for corporations to conduct. A less pure form of CSR
was when it was undertaken for enlightened self-interest in which case firms
undertook CSR with the belief that CSR paid. The pay could be tangible or intangible
but in either case, the payback was expected. This was related to Mintzberg’s third
form of CSR in which CSR was seen as a sound investment. According to the sound
investment theory, the stock market reacted to firm’s actions and socially responsible
behaviors would be rewarded by the market. The fourth form of CSR, which was also
related to enlightened self-interest, was CSR practiced in order to avoid interference
from external political influences. In this case, firms became socially responsible in
order to prevent the authorities forcing them to be so via legislation. Mintzberg argued
that CSR could only survive and should be practiced in its purest and most proper
form- as an ethical position without any expectation of paybacks. So that, CSR meant
firms undertaking some actions to serve society beyond selfishness and greed.
Drucker (1984) proposed a new meaning for CSR with special focus in the
society. The contribution of Drucker pointed out that profitability and responsibility
were complementary notions. At this time, this contribution proposed direction by
23
providing the possibility of transforming social responsibilities in window
opportunities for new business. Drucker stated that the proper social responsibility of
business was “to tame the dragon that was to turn a social into economic opportunity
and economic benefit, into productive capacity, into human competence, into well-
paid jobs, and into wealth”. Thus, the first social responsibility of the entrepreneur
was to make profit to cover the future costs.
Carroll (1999) believed that in the 1980s, the focus on developing new or
refined definitions of CSR gave way to research on CSR and a splintering of writings
into alternative concepts and themes such as corporate social responsiveness, public
policy, business ethics, and stakeholder theory/management. A prominent
development in terms of CSR was the global debate on sustainable development that
emerged in this decade. The World Conservation Strategy (published in 1980)
stressed the interdependence of conservation and development and was the first to
conceptualize “sustainable development” (Tilbury & Wortman, 2004).
In 1987 the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED)
published the Brundtland Report, ‘Our Common Future’. The report stated that
‘Sustainable development seeks to meet the needs and aspirations of the present
without compromising the ability to meet those of the future’ (World Commission on
Environment and Development, 1987). The report clearly linked sustainable
development with economic growth and set the direction for future debate on this
issue. Although we have seen examples of earlier work that touched on the issue of
CSR and financial profit, Carroll identified the 1980s as the period when ‘scholars
were becoming interested in the question of whether socially responsible firms were
also profitable firms. If it could be demonstrated that they were, this would be an
added argument in support of the CSR movement (Carroll, 1999).
24
The period of 1990s
The literature of the 1990s had not so much expanded the definition of CSR,
but used the CSR concept ‘as the base point, building block, or point-of-departure for
other related concepts and themes, many of which embraced CSR-thinking and were
quite compatible with it. Stakeholder-theory, business ethics theory, and corporate
citizenship were the major themes that took center stage in the 1990s’ (Carroll, 1999).
Wood (1991) identified three main types of processes used by businesses to
implement their CSR motivational principles: environmental marketing management,
issues management and stakeholder management. Once implemented throughout the
organization, these processes helped the firm to keep abreast of, and to address
successfully, stakeholder demands (Wood in Maignan & Ralston, 2002).
Carroll (1991) improved his social responsibility categories model when he
proposed the pyramid of CSR. Both the social responsibility categories and the
pyramid of CSR emphasized that economic aims were indeed a major part of CSR.
Firms should not pursue the discretionary (called ‘philanthropic’ in the pyramid
model) element of CSR if the other three elements were not fulfilled. In other words,
according to Carroll, a holistic understanding of CSR would encourage firms to
devise a strategy to enhance overall business performance, with discretionary or
altruistic CSR an option to be considered only once the economic, legal and ethical
responsibilities have been fulfilled.
Writing of Carroll’ work in 1999 as the new millennium approached suggested
that CSR concept would remain as an essential part of the business language and
practice because it was a vital underpinning to many of the other theories and was
25
continually consistent with what the public expected of the business community
today. (Carroll, 1999)
The period of 2000s
In this decade, there were many debates in the academic community over
whether firms should be managed using a stakeholder or a shareholder theory. Lantos
(2001) divided CSR into ethical CSR, altruistic CSR and strategic CSR. Ethical CSR
was the demand for firms to be morally responsible to prevent offense and harm that
could result from their activities. This type of CSR was expected of all firms and had
to be fulfilled as the very minimum. Altruistic CSR was genuine optional caring, even
at possible personal or organizational sacrifice. Strategic CSR was when a firm
undertook certain caring corporate community service activities that accomplish
strategic business goals.
Lantos (2001) used various ethics framework to vigorously argued that
altruistic CSR was unethical and, therefore, should not be practiced by public firms,
ethical CSR is the very minimum while strategic CSR is good for business and
society. Lantos (2003) also added that altruistic CSR, although sometimes was
expected because of the perceived social contract between a firm and society, was
relatively rare because it lay outside the scope of a firm’s proper activities.
Schwartz and Carroll (2003) supported Lantos’s view. Thus, CSR should be
focused on the following two aspects: 1) Preventing offense and harm that could
result from business activities. 2) Accomplishing strategic business goals.
Mohr, Webb, and Harris (2001) defined CSR as a firm's commitment to
minimizing or eliminating any harmful effects and maximizing its long-run beneficial
impact on society. Socially responsible behavior, then, included a broad array of
26
actions such as behaving ethically, supporting the work of nonprofit organizations,
treating employees fairly, and minimizing damage to the environment. The definition
implied that a socially responsible firm considered the effects of its actions on
everyone, whether directly related to the firm or not. Socially responsible firms,
therefore, had to be managed according to stakeholder theory.
Mc Williams and Siegel (2001) presented a supply and demand perspective on
CSR, which implied that the ideal level of CSR might be determined through cost
benefit analysis. They defined CSR as the set of actions that appeared to further some
social benefit, beyond the interests of the firm and that which was required by law.
Hopkins (2003) was quite specific about the relationship between CSR and
stakeholder management when he defined CSR as treating the stakeholders of the firm
ethically or in a responsible manner. Similarly, Smith (2003) stated that CSR was
obligation of the firm to society, or more specifically, the firm’s stakeholders-those
affected by corporate policies and practices. Smith related CSR to paternalistic
capitalism which firms’ motivation may be a mix between self-interest and desire to
doing well.
However, Moore (2003) went a step further by saying that the use CSR in the
quest of enhancing profitability was actually putting virtue at the service of greed. He
argued that there was a tension between social and economic struggle that became
socially responsible. Firms were actually working to ease this tension. Moore called
for the creation of a properly socially responsible firm as “the virtuous firm” which
pursued the external product as they were necessary to sustain and support the
development of excellence in the business practice. Moore also claimed that if CSR
was to be properly applied in business practices, then it had not be at the service of
greater profitability. To do so would be unethical.
27
CSR had also been described as a tool to build good corporate reputation.
Lewis (2003) found that public perception on the role of firms in society had changed
significantly. Lewis argued that firms had a new basis to regain public trust-through
exercising their corporate social responsibility. Lewis believed that CSR could
become a competitive edge and core competence for those firms who could exploit it
properly.
In order to review the most important reference studies about the CSR concept
under an evolutionary basis, a chronological approach was presented in terms of
reference studies, main topic and CSR concepts in Table 1.
28
Table 1 – Evolution of CSR concept
Reference Studies Main Topics CSR Concept
Bowen (1953)
Drucker (1955)
Davis (1960)
Fredrick (1960)
McGuire (1963)
Significant attempts to formalize the meaning of CSR.
Firms had not only economic and legal obligations, but also curtained responsibilities to society.
Friedman (1970)
CED (1971)
Eells & Walton (1974)
Sethi (1975)
Carroll (1979)
Dissemination of CSR definitions and attempts to be defined distinctive features and rules of CSR. The analysis of the relationship between CSR and performance did start.
Pursuit of socioeconomic goals through the elaboration of social norms in prescribes business roles. The firms had the responsibility to produced product and services that society wanted and to obtained profit.
Mintzberg (1983)
Freeman (1984)
Drucker (1984)
Few definitions did appear, There were additional research and alternatives themes.
Involved the strategic conduct of firms and was composed by four parts: economic, legal, ethical and voluntary or philanthropic.
Wood (1991)
Carroll (1991, 1999)
CSR was integrated in alternative topic of research. The importance of stakeholders did increase.
Oriented to alternative themes, such as, business ethics, social issues and corporate social performance.
McWilliams & Siegel (2001)
Mohr, Webb & Harris (2001)
Hopkins (2003)
Lantos (2001,2003)
Lewis (2003)
Moore (2003)
Schwartz & Carroll (2003)
Smith (2003)
There were many debates in the academic community over whether firms should be managed using a stakeholder or a shareholder theory.
Set of actions that were applied in business policy and practice which were considered in the both of social responsibilities and self benefit.
Source: Applied from Carroll (1999), Lewis (2003), Moore (2003), and Schwartz & Carroll (2003)
Corporate social responsibility initiatives
The debate about the actual meaning of CSR continued among scholars and
researchers. Absolutely, practitioners did not wait for a conclusive and universally
accepted definition to emerge. Business leaders had marched ahead and taken various
actions that they saw socially responsible actions. Smith (2003) explained, it now
centers on how to be socially responsible. Perhaps due to this shift, business
practitioners preferred to discuss the specific activities that constitute CSR rather than
29
debating the concept of CSR (Bhattacharya et al., 2004; Ellen et al., 2006;
Lichtenstein et al., 2004; Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006; Maignan & Ferrell, 2004; Yoon
et al., 2006).
Interestingly, a point of convergence was seen between the continuing
debates in academia and the practices in the business world. It was apparent that CSR
was increasingly and almost unanimously seen as serving the needs of appropriate
stakeholders. This was implicit in expression writings by those who argue that CSR
should be seen as an ethical stance, and explicit among those who saw CSR as a
business strategy. The stakeholder groups were served from the firm depending on the
priorities at the time. And the actions might or might not result in better business
performance.
Investigating the possibilities of applying CSR within marketing activity, it
was observed that various authors indicated the significance of CSR in various
marketing solutions. CSR activities were related with the solutions for the
development of the image of the firm and the brand (Jones et al., 2005) as well as the
retention and strengthening of firm’s reputation (Balmer & Greycer, 2006). The
relationship of CSR and firm’s activity was revealed through firm’s reputation.
Therefore, it should be purposefully controlled (Bronn & Vrioni, 2001) and developed
by paying the attention to norms and values of all relevant stakeholders (Maignan et
al., 2005).
The usage of CSR within the studies of consumer behavior indicated that if
socially responsible activity of the firm could determine the course of consumer’s
decision making process then, the question was how this impact could influence
preferences of existing and potential consumers. Consumer values that were
constantly changing had became social responsibility oriented towards the concern
30
related with social outcomes of humanity’s existence. Besides, socially conscious
attitudes were based on the rejection of product which were produced by the firm that
carried out its activity irresponsibly and wrongly. This forced firms to look for new
ways that would make marketing important for the society (Jones et al., 2005; Bronn
& Vrioni, 2001). Recently, it has been observed that consumers tended to prefer firms
that were socially responsible (especially in those cases when the price and quality of
product provided was considered to be the same) or preferred safety products or
ethical sales (Bronn & Vrioni, 2001; Podnar & Golob, 2007). In addition to this,
consumers, choosing a product, often considered the aspects that were not directly
related with them (this would be child labour, inequality of rights and many other)
(Maignan et al., 2005; Podnar & Golob, 2007).
Examining scientific literature, it became clear that the management of all
marketing areas, indicated above, was closely associated with marketing
communication activities (Jones et al., 2005). The communication directed towards
CSR became a close related element while talking about the identity, image and
reputation of the firm and creating sustainable relationship with stakeholders. That
was why marketing and firm’s communication should focus on the usage of such
means that would permit to inform consumers and raise their social responsibility
consciousness (Bronn & Vrioni, 2001).
Maignan, Ferrrel & Ferrel (2005) presented a step-by-step methodology
directed towards stakeholders that could be used while implementing CSR program
within marketing activity. The model consisted of discovering organizational norms
and values, identifying stakeholders, identifying stakeholder issues, assessing the
meaning of CSR, auditing current practices, implementing CSR initiatives, promoting
CSR and gaining stakeholder feedback.
31
Blomqvist & Posner (2004) determined three different approaches toward the
integration of CSR into marketing activity as follows:
The integrated approach, when the brand and CSR act synchronically. The
approach is applied in such firms where responsibility is already treated as the
principal value of the firm and determines the main aspects of firm’s activity, or when
it is realized that socially responsible activity of the firm determines consumer
preferences while choosing brands, provided by the firm. This would mean a
consistent performance across environmental, community, employee welfare,
financial performance and corporate governance commitments.
The selective approach, when CSR expresses unconsciously in very specific
and purposeful ways. The approach is extremely efficient when it is known that
responsible activity of the firm becomes the drive for choosing the brand but the firm
does not possess enough data that would confirm the fact and allow applying the
integrated approach. In fact, it could be efficient when a particular sub-segment
provides exclusive value for socially responsible activity of the firm.
Finally, the invisible approach is applied then when CSR plays an important
strategy of philosophical role within managerial level of the firm, but it is not so
important for external communication or initiatives. This allows firms to use CSR
while strengthening the confidence in brand or the firm itself. In this case messages
about CSR do not become a part of the main communication.
The contemporary literature more often emphasizes the fact that CSR is the
area that should be considered by every firm to a certain extent (Knox et al., 2005). In
addition, it has already been mentioned that marketing communication, which starts
32
from the moment when the firm determines its values, mission and presents them to
the society, is rather significant for implementing CSR in marketing practice.
Kotler and Lee (2005) issued “corporate social initiatives” to describe major
efforts under the corporate social responsibility umbrella and offered the definition.
Corporate social initiatives are major activities undertaken by a corporation to support
social causes and to fulfill commitment to corporate social responsibility.
With the concept “doing well and doing good”, it is quite likely more firms
pick a few strategies areas of focus that fit with corporate values; select initiatives that
support business goals; choose issues related to core products and core market;
support issues that provide opportunities to meet marketing objectives such as
increased market share, market penetration, or building a desired brand identity;
evaluate issues based on their potential for positive support in times of corporate crisis
or national policy making; involve more than one department in the selection process,
so as to lay a foundation of support for implementation of program; and take on issues
the community, consumers, and employees care most about (Kotler & Lee, 2005).
Models of social responsibility for business or “corporate social
responsibility” have come to Thailand through the efforts of multinational companies
that have implemented activities that are aligned with their business strategy in ways
similar to those used elsewhere in the global operations of those companies (Wedel,
2007). Knowledge-intensive companies such as Intel, Microsoft and MSD have
tended to focus on education. Companies like Nike, Coca Cola and Pepsi, whose
products appeal to youth have focused on youthful activities like sport and music.
Companies with large factories or with environmental issues such as Unocal have
tended to focus on building good relationships with local communities. Companies
that have potential environmental impacts from their operations, such as Dow
33
Chemical, Shell, Exxon or Chevron often support environmental projects. Those such
as American Express whose business depends on travel, often focus on preservation
or creation of cultural or historical attractions. Japanese companies, which are
typically joint ventures with Thais, have tended to provide philanthropic assistance to
the needy and the community rather than focusing on strategic alignment with the
business. Activities by such international companies have important spill-over effects.
Typically, they are implemented by Thai staff and when those staff people move to
other companies they tend to encourage those companies to engage in CSR. Thai
companies see the benefits in terms of good will, community trust and corporate
image.
In 2006 the Stock Exchange of Thailand became interested in CSR and
announced the first SET CSR awards. A year later, the SET established a CSR
Institute. At the same time the Securities and Exchange Commission set up a working
group to promote CSR and establish CSR guidelines for Thai companies. An early
issue for the working group was whether to legislate CSR. After much debate it was
decided to encourage CSR as a voluntary rather than required mechanism. The
government, although not requiring CSR, has been active in supporting it. The Labor
Ministry established a Thai labor standard to help Thai companies meet the
expectations of international customers. The Ministry of Social Welfare and Human
Security established centers devoted to CSR and voluntarism.
In a well-known case of Thailand, Siam Cement Group (SCG) which is one of
the leading conglomerates in Thailand and ASEAN national comprises 5 core
strategic business units which include SCG Chemicals, SCG Paper, SCG Cement,
SCG Building Materials, and SCG Distribution. The firm adheres to the philosophy of
conducting its business with a commitment to promote sustainable growth in every
34
community and society as well as creating value for its consumers, employees and
stakeholders everywhere it operates. SCG has organized itself largely around the
concept of being a good corporate citizen. SCG believes that conducting an
accountable business with society and all stakeholders can contribute to sustainable
business growth. SCG has, therefore, initiated numerous socially beneficial activities
designed to improve the quality of life in line with SCG’s business philosophy
regarding “Concern for Social Responsibility”. SCG continuously supports activities,
especially the development of potentiality in the area of education, not only in
Thailand, but also in other countries of ASEAN. SCG has encouraged its employees
to contribute in socially beneficial activities as part of their career commitments.
In 2007, SCG had provided 635 million baht to public benefit both social
contribution and environmental conservation (http://www.siamcement.com). In other
words, SCG pursues CSR because SCG’s vision is “by the year 2015, SCG will be
well recognized as an innovative workplace of choice, and a role model in corporate
governance and sustainable development”.
A review of Thailand business cases in CSR showed that several examples of
firms have demonstrated CSR as a part of business strategy as can seen from table 2.
35
Table 2 Example of CSR in Thailand
Firm High light CSR in action
AIA insurance (Thailand) AIA smile volunteers service to society. Partner with the Operation Smile Foundation in Thailand supporting the provision of medical services, equipment and treatment for children with facial deformities where medical funding may be limited or unavailable.
AIS AIS Sarnrak Childern Development Center over the past 5 years in Kalasin, Pitsanuloke, Chiengmai and Nakornratsima. Sarn Rak Kon Keng Hua Jai Krang (promoting and funding education for needy child /youth) Inspires child / youth to further education and come back to their homeland; Over the past 8 years more than 380 students in project and 31 graduates.
Bangchak Petroleum Company’s voluntary employees’ program to spend 1 – 1.5 hours before the end of working day, 4 days a week, to assist these children to do their homework and to arrange useful activities, in emphasizing knowledge concerning mathematics, English and Thai language, social science, art and ethics
Betagro "Saitarn Foundation" was established with the collaboration of the group's management and employees aiming to encourage proper education to students in need throughout the nation.
CAT Telecom CAT organizes the Young Web Designer project opening opportunities for secondary school students to attend website design training courses free of charge during school vacations, taught by professional trainers from the Net Design institute.
Cerebos (Thailand) Longstanding programmes include the Volunteer Doctor Foundation and the BRAND’S® Summer Camp (in its 19th year) which coaches students for university entrance examinations. Another well established activity is BRAND’S® International Crossword Competition (in its 23rd year) which continues to promote better English. Cerebos also continues to grant scholarships to Thai researchers, enabling them to pursue studies in science and nutrition.
Charoen Pokphan Foods Plc. The Company supports all types of activities concerning culture and sports believing that these activities will promote pride, identity, camaraderie and nationalism. Some of these activities include supports for the Navy football team, Thai boxing competition and the field and track national athletes.
Chevron (Thailand) Supported education in 50 public school districts and provided scholarship funding for second year in the role to underprivileged students at Phra Dabos school.
DTAC “Rakbankerd Foundation” develop community leader with education and support sufficiency economy.
36
Firm High light CSR in action
ESSO (Thailand) “Knowledge is Light”. Supported the operation of the Satellite Education Foundation in expanding its reach to community education and lifelong learning through e-learning.
Pranda Jewelry Plc. Pranda always knows that workers and staff are the real assets of the company, more so than the buildings, machinery, designs and stock. Pranda provides accommodation with very high standard, medical, educational , crèche, and sports facilities.
PTT petroleum Following the PTT’s Reforestation Project in Honor of HM the King on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the accession to the throne, in which one million rai of land was targeted, PTT realized the value and significance of plantation, which does not mean just to plant trees. Even though the project was already presented to HM the King in 2002, PTT has still followed up the program through PTT Development Village Project and three types of training to ensure forest existence, i.e. PTT Youth Loves Forest Training, Forest Fire Fighting Volunteer Training, and Forest Protection Volunteer Training.
SAMART Corporation SAMART has been made a lot of benefits to the social continuingly such as following issues; building the human ability; developing the education and innovation with the competition of IT software’s design and development project likes ‘Samart Innovation Awards’ and the project of giving scholarship to students from beginning to graduated at the university levels continuingly as ‘Samart’s scholarships’.
SINGHA Corporation Singha is one of the largeat sport sponsorship in Thailand, providing training facility for both Amateur and Professional Athletes in Singha team in various sport activities such as tennis, golf and swimming. Moreover, Singha corporation continues to support various professional sports throughout the year by organizing sport events and sponsoring individual athlete in their competition both domestically and internationally.
Starbucks (Thailand) Coffee and Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.) Practices was designed to help ensure that high-quality coffee is grown and processed in a socially and environmentally responsible manner, an approach that extends throughout coffee supply chain. It was also designed to be inclusive of all types of suppliers regardless of their size from small family farms and cooperatives to large estates including farms that also mill and process their coffee. In Thailand, Starbucks giving back to community and environment “Muan Jai Project”. In the other word, Starbucks directly purchases coffee bean from framer with higher price than market price.
37
Firm High light CSR in action
Thai Beverage ThaiBev Unites to Fight against the Cold’ programme, formerly known as “Chang…Unites to Fight the Cold was initially carried out by Beer Thai (1991) Plc, before passing on the philanthropic mission to ThaiBev in 2005, with unchanging goal to donate blankets to people in remote areas of the kingdom, through collaboration with the Interior Ministry. The programme enjoys high success in terms of public response and awareness, serving as a model for other citizen campaign in Thailand. In the year 2009, ThaiBev marks a decade of warmth sharing campaign with the number of blankets handed out reaching 2 million.
Thai Life Insurance Thai life Insurance has continuously been dedicated to improving the quality of life for Thai people. The company has joined with other organizations and public sectors to create new projects and to continue to existing projects for the benefit of the customers as well as the Thai people.
TOT TOT delivered “TOT IT School” to Bang-Bua Thong School Nonthaburi in order to enhanced learning opportunities for Thai youths via TOT telecommunications networks. Certainly, TOT plans to deliver 80 TOT IT Schools throughout Thailand.
Toyota (Thailand) The road safety campaign has been run under the name “White Roads” since 1988 with the aim to educate people of the importance of traffic rules adherence and good manners on the road. The program also includes cooperation with various organizations and government agencies to implement accident reduction campaigns in order for the roads to be safe in the long run.
True Corporation “www.helplink.net” Community website for helping people and donate to network charities. “True crop wisdom” providing education additional to classroom teaching in 2,000 schools.
Source: Applied from companies’ web site.
A continuum of CSR alternatives identified by Drumwright and Murphy
demonstrates the many options available to businesses. They include philanthropy,
strategic philanthropy, sponsorships, firm advertising with a social dimension, cause-
related marketing, licensing agreements, social alliances, corporate volunteerism,
strategic corporate volunteerism, and enterprises as possible methods (Drumwright &
Murphy, 2001).
38
Kotler and Lee (2005) indentified CSR programs manifestly as the following
six strategies:
Cause promotions: A corporation provides funds, in-kind contributions, or
other corporate resources to increase awareness and concern about a social cause or
support fundraising, participation, or volunteer recruitment for a cause. The
corporation may initiate and manage the promotion on its own; it may be a major
partner in an effort; or it may be one of several sponsors.
Cause-related marketing: A corporation commits to make a contribution or
donating a percentage of revenues to a specific cause based on product sales. Most of
the offer is for an announced period of time, with a specific product, and for a
specified charity. In this scenario, a corporation is most often partnered with a
nonprofit organization, creating a mutually beneficial relationship designed to
increase sales of a particular product and to generate financial support for the charity.
The consumer thinks of this as a win-win-win, as it provides consumers an
opportunity to contribute for free to their favorite charities as well.
Corporate social marketing: A corporation supports the development and
implementation of a behavior change campaign intended to improve public health,
safety, the environment, or community well-being. The distinguishing feature is the
behavior change focus, which is different from cause promotions that focuses on
supporting awareness, fundraising, and volunteer recruitment for a cause. A
corporation may develop and implement a behavior change campaign on its own
(tobacco and alcoholic beverage firms are good examples), but more often it involves
partners in public sector agencies and/or nonprofit organizations.
39
Corporate philanthropy: A corporation makes a direct contribution to a
charity or cause, most often in form of cash grants, donations, and in-kind services.
This is perhaps the most traditional of all corporate social initiatives.
Community volunteering: A corporation supports and encourages
employees, retail partners, and franchise members to volunteer their time to support
local community organizations and causes. This activity may be a stand-alone effort
or it may be done in partnership with a nonprofit organization. Volunteer activities
may be organized by the corporation, or employees may choose their own activities
and receive support from the firm through such a paid time off.
Socially responsible business practices: A corporation adopts and conducts
discretionary business practices and investments that support social causes to improve
community well-being and to protect the environment. Initiatives may be conceived
of and implemented by the corporation or they may be in partnership with others.
According to Friedman (1970), he stated that the firm’s only responsibility is
to maximize shareholder profits, but fail to acknowledge that there are several
methods of doing so, not all of which provide easily measurable returns. Marketing is
widely acknowledged as being one such measure, and a well-defined CSR strategy is
another controllable measure.
However, some CSR initiative has often been called a waste of shareholders’
investment. It has never been referred to as what it actually is- an integral part of a
corporate marketing strategy. Firms need to become more comfortable with their use
as a means of marketing and learn where to benefit financially from their impact.
Among the six categories of corporate social initiatives, cause-related
marketing (CRMK) is the only one which directly measures financially impact of the
40
marketing campaign (Adkins, 2005). A well-known CRMK program, Avon has been
ongoing worldwide fund for women’s health. In the United Kingdom, in 1992, Avon
conducted a comprehensive research study amongst its consumers and representatives
to better understand women’s needs, interests, and motivations. The results showed
clearly that breast cancer was the issue of leading concern to these women. This led
Avon UK to create the Avon Crusade Against Breast Cancer later that same year, and
also led Avon in the United States to create Avon’s Breast Cancer Awareness Crusade
in 1993. The mission of both initiatives is to raise awareness of the breast cancer
cause, and to help Avon sales representatives raise money for breast cancer
organization through the sales of special fundraising products.
However, at one end of this continuum of CSR initiatives are philanthropies,
which are purely altruistic in nature but have become less common in the corporate
sector since the 1980s (Smith & Stodghill, 1994). At the other end it is cause related
marketing, which is the same as like all the methods which have an altruistic effect,
but in practice it includes tangible self-interest benefits for business. Figure 1
demonstrates area of stratification as the six initiatives which are organized by levels
of altruism, with cause related marketing serving as the most self interested method,
as its use has been proven to be the most measurable of sales increasing for business.
Kotler and Lee discussed that cause related marketing is often part of an integrated
marketing campaign.
41
Figure 2 Corporate social responsibility continuum
Altruistic Self-Interested Socially
Responsible Business Practices
Community Volunteering
Corporate Philanthropy
Corporate Social
Marketing
Cause Promotions
Cause Related
Marketing
Cause related marketing (CRMK)
During the mid 1980s, the most comprehensive and widely used theoretical
definition of cause-related marketing originated from Varadarajan and Menon (1988).
They stated that CRMK was distinct from other types of marketing activities and was
“the process of formulating and implementing marketing activities that were
characterized by an offer from the firm to contribute a specified amount to a
designated cause when customers engage in revenue- providing exchanges that
satisfied organizational and individual objectives.” CRMK is the alignment of
corporate philanthropy and general business practices. A marketing program that
strives to achieve two objectives - improve corporate performance and help worthy
causes - by combining fund raising for a particular cause with the purchase of the
firm's product/service. The business enhances its public image by being associated
with a "worthy cause" and increases its sales in the process. The nonprofit
organization receives the cash benefits of the donations, along with the increased
public awareness, courtesy of the marketing capabilities of the business (Caesar
1986).
In 1991, Smith and Alcorn stated that CRMK was “the most cost-effective
product strategy that had evolved in years, as address the issue of how to directly
measure financial success of a marketing campaign”. CRMK allowed firms to not
only leverage their donations to charities but also not to give them until there is
42
consumer action such as a sale or purchase. Pringle and Thompson (1999) stated that
CRMK was “a strategic positioning and marketing tool which links a firm or brand to
a relevant social cause or issue, for mutual benefit”. This definition expands the scope
of CRMK by including all cause association activities by a firm as long as both
benefit. However, purchase condition was not a condition for donation in this
definition. Same as, Barone, Miyazaki and Taylor (2000), they described in marketing
term CRMK as “a strategy designed to promote the achievement of marketing
objectives via firm support of social causes. Polonsky and Speed (2001) defined
CRMK as “the joining of not-for-profit charity and a commercial firm in an effort to
raise funds and build awareness for the cause while building sales and awareness for
the profit partner”. This definition recognized that one of the main outcomes for the
firm would be sales increase but did not state that the donation should be contingent
on sales of products and services.
Brink, Odekerken-Schroder and Pauwels (2006) proposed a model that
classified a CRMK campaign as either strategic or tactical based on the following
factors: the congruency between the cause and a firm’s core competency, the duration
of the campaign, the amount of invested resources and the level of senior management
involvement. According to the authors, a relatively low rating on any of these
variables would suggest a tactical CRMK campaign (Brink et al., 2006). It was
believed that any classifications based on this model might be highly subjective.
Nevertheless, the argument for the classification of CRMK as strategic or tactical was
sufficient to lessen the appeal of the definition by Pringle and Thompson (1999). The
use of the word ‘strategic’ also precluded the adoption of the definition proposed by
Barone, Miyazaki, and Taylor (2000). Similarly, the definition by Kalligeros (2005),
who defined CRMK, as “a strategy that links a firm, brand or product to a non-profit
43
organization for a mutually beneficial purpose” was not adopted. Other definitions
were also considered before the adoption of the definition proposed by Marconi,
(2002). The author defined CRMK as “the practice of marketing a product, service,
brand or firm through a mutually beneficial relationship with a non-profit or social
cause organization (Marconi, 2002)”. It was believed that this definition would reflect
the various forms of CRMK campaign.
Although all of these definitions are slightly different they all mirror in some
fashion as one proposed by Varadarajan and Menon (1988). However, the later
definitions more clearly identify that CRMK involves complex benefits for causes
beyond the generating of additional revenues. Acording to Kotter & Lee (2005), they
defined CRMK as a corporation commits to make a contribution or donating a
percentage of revenues to a specific cause based on sales.
Since the beginning of cause related marketing, the academic community has
provided limited literature on how to structure CRMK campaigns or how to assess
their impact on the consumer (Osterhus, 1997). The first benchmark piece of
academic literature identified CRMK as being a type of horizontal cooperative sales
promotion technique (Varadarajan, 1986). CRMK had previously been described as
an element of corporate philanthropy that was tied into promotion strategies (Grahn
et.al., 1987). In 1988, Varadarajan and Menon’s seminal piece of literature stated that
CRMK should be recognized as a separate marketing phenomenon and recommended
for further investigation. This revolutionized the issue of CRMK and helped
legitimize it as a valid and useful marketing tool for both practitioners to utilize and
academics to study and investigate more advancement. Over the years, other
respectable authors have termed CRMK as social responsibility marketing (Garrison,
44
1990), joint-venture marketing (Barnes, 1991), public purpose marketing and social
advertising (Drumwright, 1996).
Many marketing campaigns have utilized CRMK as a sales promotion
technique and marketing tool, which rely on consumers purchasing a product from a
firm and donate a portion of the proceeds from the purchase price to a charity
organization. Varadarajan & Menon (1988) described CRMK as a “marketing
activity- a way for a firm to do well by doing good- distinct from sales promotion,
corporate philanthropy, corporate sponsorship, corporate samaritan acts, and public
relations, though it is often an amalgam of such activities”. It is suggested that this
makes it easier to calculate financial gain or return from a CRMK program because
firm donations are linked with a charity when customers engage in sales transactions
with the firm products (Varadarajan & Menon, 1988; Smith & Alcorn, 1991). In
short, firms involved with a CRMK program focus on targeting causes that match
their existing or potential customer base and use these charities as the incentive for
consumers to the firm’s product (Osterhus, 1997).
Development of cause related marketing campaign
The phrase, cause related marketing (CRMK), was created in 1983 to describe
a highly successful American Express campaign "When Did You First Fall in Love
with Her?" which became one of the most heralded CRMK campaigns to date (Caesar
1986; Schiller 1988; Smith & Alcorn 1991; Varadarajan & Menon 1988). The
campaign was set up so that 1 cent of monetary values would be donated to the Statue
of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation for each time the American Express Card was used
and $1 would be donated for each new customer application. American Express spent
$6 million on the campaign and was able to raise and donate $1.7 million to the Ellis
Island Foundation. In addition, card usage increased by 28 percentages over the same
45
period in 1982 and new applications increased by 45 percentages during the
promotion (Caesar 1986; Varadarajan & Menon 1988). As a result, throughout the
early 1980s many firms considered CRMK as a strategy to increase customer
awareness and market share, advance corporate social responsibility policies, and
enhance corporate and brand image. Due to the success of the American Express
program in 1983, many other firms became motivated to utilize this new marketing
strategy competitively.
CRMK progressed from a disease focused marketing strategy to one that
incorporates broader social issues and even ranges across internationally boarders
(Table 3).
Table 3 Examples of cause related marketing campaigns
Cause
Supporting firms
AIDS/ HIV Body Shop; Tanqueray; Whitbread (United Kingdom)
Animals Andrex; Beatrice; Hunt Wesson; Lion Blind (Guide Dogs) Coca-Cola (United Kingdom); Pal (Australia) Cancer Research First USA Bank; Kellogg’s product Women Cancer Athena Water; Avon; BMW; Estee Lauder;
Ford; Gillette; Jenny Craig; Ralph Lauren; Revlon; Sears Roebuck
Children: Health and Safety British Airways; Cadbury; Daddies Ketchup; McDonalds; Visa
Children; Literacy Visa; Walmart Children: Foster Parents Ramada Inn Children: Missing Digital; Sony; IBM; Polaroid; Walmart; Disney Children: Education Target; Tesco Children: Sick & Hospitalized AT&T; Northwest Airline; Target; Walmart Guns: Buy Back New York Knicks Human Rights Reebok Hunger American Express Literacy: Adults Coors; Visa Muscular Dystrophy Kellogg’s
46
Cause
Supporting firms
Multiple Sclerosis Mercedes Benz; Visa Racism Nike Senior Citizens KFC; Visa; Walmart Special Olympics Johnson & Johnson; Walmart; Coca-Cola Violence against women Johnson & Johnson; Ryka Water Supply Procter & Gamble
Source: Applied from Adkin (2005); Alder (2006); Kotler & Lee (2005); Marconi (2002); Pringle & Thompson (1999); Steckel & Simon (1992)
In the U.S.A., Sponsorship spending on Cause Marketing and CRMK has
grown rapidly from US$120 million in 1990 to an estimated worth of US$1.52 billion
annually in 2008 and will hit US$1.57 billion in 2009 (IEG Sponsorship report
retrieved from www.causemarketingforum.com). CRMK has gained momentum over
the last few years, as marketers and firms have come to realize that partnerships with
non-profit organizations can potentially translate into greater degrees of customer
loyalty and increased market share. One of the most beneficial advantages of CRMK
is its ability to help marketers stay in tune with the feelings, emotions and mood of its
customers because of its sensitivity, trustworthiness and relevance to society.
Consumers tend to have a favorable opinion of CRMK campaigns. According to the
2008 Cone Cause Evolution Study, it was found that consumers were both more
aware of and more receptive to cause-related messages than ever before. They would
reward socially conscious firms both with money and goodwill if they feel they were
supporting a good cause. While most consumers (75percentages) said it was important
for firms to offer them a way to purchase a product that supported a cause. They also
want to be offered a range of other ways to support issues they care about.
CRMK campaign can appear in many variety forms. Tactical use of CRMK
campaign should always be considered within the context of the strategic
47
implications. Andreasen (1996) suggested that CRMK had three key forms of
alliance: transaction based promotions, joint issue promotions and licensing. This
covers part but not all of the spectrum of CRMK. Adkins (2005) also stated that
CRMK was the part of the promotional mix which included advertising, sales
promotion, public relations or publicity, sponsorship, licensing and direct marketing,
which included loyalty and relationship marketing forms as follows:
CRMK as advertising form
Advertising clearly includes a variety of media; television and satellite or
internet advertising to print and press campaigns. CRMK advertising may focus on
communicating a particular sales promotion and also refer to the advertising of a
particular cause or issue where the business aligns itself with a particular good cause
and uses its advertising to communicate the cause message. Apart from raising
awareness of the particular cause or issue, the objectives from the organization’s point
of view can range from building, reinforcing or demonstrating corporate or brand
reputation to providing differentiation and encouraging relationships and loyalty
between the product, service or charity, cause or corporate.
CRMK as public relations form
Public relations (PR) is often cited as a key benefit and indeed a key objective
of CRMK and in some cases represents the leading discipline in defining, creating and
implementing a CRMK campaign. The key to getting the PR coverage for CRMK is
the same as for any other PR activity. Newsworthiness, innovation and excitement are
all crucial but there is a significant difference for CRMK. Therefore, the balance in
the communication must be absolutely appropriate. Both of the media and the public
have to understand that any CRMK partnership is sincere, open, transparent and
48
honesty. The relationship is based upon a partnership of mutual respect and that there
is balanced benefit to be accrued by both sides. Consumers are more cynical and
sophisticated and therefore, messages have to be communicated openly and honestly
if the public and the media are going to support the partnerships and for the maximum
benefit to be achieved.
CRMK as sponsorship form
A key way of realizing a CRMK partnership is often through sponsoring a
particular event or activity. What makes CRMK as opposed to standard sponsorship is
first, what is being sponsored is a good cause or charity. Second, that the
organizations use activity marketing and both relationship to meet the company and
the charity objectives. Objectives, as have been highlighted earlier, can range from
awareness, PR, demonstrations of corporate and brand values, consumer engagement,
generating trial, providing a differential aspect. In some cases the sponsorship might
be straight commercial relationship with cause links interwoven within it.
CRMK as licensing form
In a licensing relationship, the corporate pays for the license to use the charity
logo or identity on its product or service. The corporate generally wants to use to
charity logo to sell more product or service, to benefit from the implied endorsement
and halo effect of the charity or cause and the positive values that it projects. This is
very much a commercial relationship. The charity or cause can decide whether or not
to sign up to the deal and to be as part of that process, put a price on the opportunity
and considers the effects on their own brand and reputation.
49
CRMK as direct marketing form
Direct marketing is clearly one of the methods that could be employed to
communicate CRMK campaign message. Many charities are experts in the field,
managing databases with millions of records. Often, accessing to the charity’s
database is considered the big prize for the corporate in a CRMK relationship.
Clearly, it is very much up to the charity or cause whether or not it makes this
database available and if so, under what circumstances. Those who have concerns
about CRMK as a way of forcing charities or cause to sell their souls often refer to the
abuse of charities databases as a key concern. Relationships with one’s customers or
supporters whether one is a charity or cause are crucial and should be guarded with
enormous care.
CRMK as sales promotion form
Sales promotion is such a broad category that it is almost impossible to cover
every possible option. Adkins (2005) suggested some of the most frequently used
mechanics and some of the more innovations as.
Purchase triggered donations
Donations to causes are triggered by purchase, as donating 1 $US from every
purchase of product or donate a percentage from the sale of product wine to the
charity.
Trial triggered donations
CRMK campaign can also be used to trigger donations through trial,
application or signing up to a product or services and through usage. The American
Express Restoration of the Statue of Liberty program and the Charge against Hunger
program show this kind of campaign in action.
50
Voucher collection schemes
Voucher collection schemes are also frequent mechanics for CRMK.
Consumers are simply invited to send in a coupon from their bill and this
automatically triggered a donation to the particular cause.
CRMK has taken over marketing strategies around the world with a variety of
campaign forms, some of which are now even web-based. The American Marketing
Association (2007) partnered with Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) to conduct
the research on 2007 holiday shopping. On September 20-21 ORC conducted online
interviews with 1,174 internet-representative consumers. More than half of those
responding to the survey commented that they would visit a social-networking site in
the holiday season. One out of every three consumers said they would be more likely
to buy a product or service connected to cause-related marketing if they knew that a
certain amount of the purchase price was being donated directly to a cause or
campaign.
Each year since 2003, the Cause Marketing Forum and an interdisciplinary
judging panel have selected winners of CRMK campaigns on the basis of conceptual
strength, execution, business results and cause results that implemented in whole or in
part. These are examples of campaign awards in the CRMK campaigns or
transactional campaigns (namely) from 2003 to 2008
(www.causemarketingforum.com) as follows:
51
2008 Campaign awards
Gold: Heroes at home, Sears Holdings Company and Rebuilding together
campaign
Sears developed this program to provide home repair assistance to military
veterans and their families because it combined the firm’s expertise (home services)
with a cause that would appeal to shoppers. Its first two fund-raising drives in 2007
raised more than $3.7 million firm donations and customer donations at checkout and
Sears credit card transactions. This funding paid for renovations for more than 300
military veterans and was judged such a success that it is being expanded and repeated
in 2009 as well.
Silver: Crate & Barrel’s distribution of DonorsChoose.org gift certificates
campaign
The dual objectives of this campaign were to deepen Crate & Barrel customer
loyalty and to inspire civic engagement via DonorsChoose.org. Crate and Barrel
provided funding to DonorsChoose.org and sent gift certificates to select customers
that enabled them to browse the DonorsChoose.org website and apply the certificate
to funding the classroom project of its choice. In the three waves of mailings that had
been conducted when the entry was submitted, more than 15,000 customers redeemed
the certificates, an extraordinary 12 percentages direct mail response rate. Market
research revealed significant increases in customer loyalty among program
participants – even those who had not taken the time to redeem a certificate. The
program has generated more than $500,000 to fund 6,000 classroom projects reaching
more than 150,000 students and generated tremendous publicity for DonorChoose.org
which has led to new individual and corporate support.
52
2007 Campaign awards
Gold: The goodwill sale, Bon-Ton Stores and Goodwill Industries
campaign
This heavily advertised promotion matches Bon-Ton Stores with Goodwill
agencies in 22 states. In exchange for donations of gently used clothing and household
items, consumers received 20 percentages-off coupons for use in participating stores.
In 2006, sales at Bon-Ton Stores far exceeded those in the previous year. For
Goodwill, more than 5 million pounds of donations were collected generating more
than $7 million to support job training and career services.
Silver: Target/Red Cross Emergency Preparedness Kit, Target Stores and
the American Red Cross campaign
In an effort to help the American public for a disaster better prepare and
emergencies, this program created an affordable First Aid and Emergency
Preparedness Starter Kit (at $29.99 a savings of more than 50percentages compared to
buying the 33 items separately at Target) that yielded a $10 donation to the Red
Cross. More than 99,600 Starter Kits had been sold, resulting in more than a $1
million contribution. More than 200 media placements occurred during the item’s first
month, and 117 million media impressions were generated in 2006.
2006 Campaign awards
Gold: Music rising: Gibson guitar, Guitar Center and Music cares
campaign
Shortly after Katrina hit, U2’s The Edge and producer Bob Ezrin went to these
music industry leaders to quickly launched Music Rising, a campaign to bring the
music back to the Gulf Region by replacing musicians’ lost or destroyed
53
instruments. Gibson produced 300 Music Rising Guitars which were sold by Guitar
Center. The $1 million raised went to Music Rising which has helped over 1,000
musicians.
Silver: Easter seals & Friendly’s cones for kids: Easter seals and Friendly
Ice Cream Corporation campaign
This dynamic duo celebrated 25 years of supporting families living with
disabilities with Thanksgiving to Valentine’s Day promotions including ice cream
cone coupons given to thank for donations and fundraising merchandise
sales. Together they raised $1 million and drove store traffic during the slow (for ice
cream) winter season.
2005 Campaign awards
Gold: Toys ‘R’ Us holiday toy drive: Toys ‘R’ Us and Marine Toys for
Tots Foundation campaign
This collaboration demonstrated the benefits of bringing the right firm and
cause together. Not satisfied with results of its 2003 toy drive, Toys ‘R’ Us teamed up
with Marine Toys for Tots Foundation in 2004 and saw cash donations double to $4.1
million and toy donations triple to $3.1 million. Toy pickups by Marines reduced the
retailer’s costs by $400,000.
Silver: Triple Winner Game: The Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. and the
Jimmy Fund of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute campaign
Stop & Shop’s Triple Winner Game has raised $25 million for pediatric cancer
research and care since 1991 by encouraging shoppers to contribute $1 at checkout to
The Jimmy Fund. In return, consumers received an instant winner scratch ticket good
for a free product, a gift certificate or a cash prize up to $10,000. Stop & Shop’s
54
suppliers supported the program by providing product prizes and paying marketing
fees participation.
2004 Campaign awards
Gold: Things remembered holiday, Things Remembered and Make-A-
Wish Foundation campaign
This partnership began in 1997 with the wish of a girl named Elysia who
wanted to give friends and family personalized gifts to remember her. It grew into the
creation of a line of Make-A-Wish products that generate donations when purchased:
a keepsake box, an ornament and a musical snow globe. For Holiday 2003, Things
Remembered prominently featured the items in catalogs and other advertising
materials, developed a new customer donation program and implemented a National
Make A Wish Day promotion in its 700 stores. These efforts together generated over
$500,000 for Make A Wish in 2003.
Silver: TUMS Helps Put Out More Fires Than You Think, TUMS and
First Responder Institute campaign
This program is a great example of how a marketer can team up with a little
known nonprofit group to develop a program that helps the brand stand out while
raising significant awareness and funding for the cause. Offering a 10 cent donation
per bottle, TUMS told America about the First Responder Institute via FSIs, point-of-
sale displays, brochures, a satellite media tour, the TUMS website and account
specific promotion with Walgreens. TUMS experienced record highs in the number of
displays shipped (a 30percentages increase) and a 16 percentages sales volume lift
during the promotional period. The program generated $238K for the Institute which
55
awarded grants to 60 fire departments for breathing systems, thermal imaging cameras
and other equipment.
2003 Campaign awards
Gold – “Cook for the Cure,” a partnership of KitchenAid and the Susan
G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation campaign
KitchenAid studied its marketplace and found that the appliance category was
of such low interest that 805 of consumers could not recall the brands they owned. To
differentiate itself, KitchenAid chose to work with the Komen Foundation to inject a
touch of pink ribbon into the “sea of white” that confronts appliance customers when
shopping and stay top-of-mind with them. The program started in 2001 with a $50
donation by KitchenAid with purchase of a pink version of its popular stand mixer
and grew to include a $50 donation with purchase of major appliances during
National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. In 2002, KitchenAid worked with
Gourmet magazine and celebrity chefs to encourage these with a culinary passion to
host ‘dinner with a purpose’ fundraisers for Komen. The overall program was
publicized with advertising in 26 publications, co-op advertising, point-of-purchase
programs for retailers, direct mail, a dedicated Web site and product packaging.
Silver – “Samsung’s Four Seasons of Hope,” from Samsung Electronics
and the charitable foundations of four admired athletes: Boomer Esiason,
Arnold Palmer, Magic Johnson and Joe Torre campaign
The program, produced by Innovative Marketing Services, partnered Samsung
and the sports legends for a national and retailer-specific program that aims to
improve the quality of life for children and their families. Each superstar was teamed
with a Samsung retailer via special appearances, a print campaign, Internet
56
advertising and sales promotions that tied donations by Samsung to the athlete’s
charity to purchases of specified products. The campaign was a PR success for
Samsung and a powerful sales generator for its retailers, as well as raising $1.1
million for the charities.
Benefit of participating in Cause related marketing campaigns
Many researches showed that well-constructed CRMK campaign provides
many benefits for business. According to the 2008 Cone Cause Evolution Study found
that consumers were both more aware of and more receptive to cause-related
messages than ever before, and they rewarded socially conscious firms both with
money and goodwill if they felt they were supporting a good cause. The survey was
conducted online, during August 14-15, 2008 by Opinion Research Corporation
among a demographically representative US sample of 1,071 adults, including 500
men and 571 women of age 18 or more. The research found that 85 percentages of
Americans said they had a more positive image of a product or firm when it supported
a cause they cared about. This number remains unchanged from 1993 survey results.
The responders 85 percentages felt it was acceptable for firms to involved a cause in
their marketing (compared with 66 percentages in 1993). Moreover, 79 percentages
said they would be likely to switch from one brand to another, when price and quality
were about equal, if the other brand was associated with a good cause (compared with
66percentages in 1993). And then, 38 percentages bought a product associated with a
cause in the last 12 months (compared with 20 percentages in 1993).
The three key stakeholders in a CRMK campaign are the sponsoring firm, the
cause receiving the support and the customers who must decide whether or not to
purchase a cause-related marketing associated product. The sponsoring firm can
realize the rewards of participating in a CRMK initiative at both the product level and
57
at the organizational level. Firms can increase the product’s ability to break through
the advertising clutter in the marketplace (Oldenberg, 1992; Shell, 1989), generate
low cost exposure for the product and increase the product’s ability to win customer
support (Brown & Peter, 1997; Henricks, 1991). Additionally, the positive perception
associated with a particular sponsored product can spill over to other, related products
offered in the same line or under the same brand name, resulting in a halo effect for
the firm’s products. This halo effect can produce an increase in the customer’s
willingness to purchase firm’s other products (Barone et al., 2000), to pay premium
prices, and to switch brands (Meyer, 1999).
A firm which participate in CRMK initiatives included generating favorable
customer attitudes towards the firm (Brown & Peter, 1997; Ross et al., 1990-1991;
Ross et al., 1992), increasing favorable purchase intentions towards brands
(Andreasen, 1996; Barone et al.,2000; Meyer, 1999; Ross et al., 1992; Webb & Mohr,
1998), creating a higher level of visibility for the organization (Andreasen, 1996),
generating a differentiated image due to the association with social causes
(Andreasen, 1996; Barich & Kotler 1991; Bronn & Vrioni, 2001; Meyer 1999; Shell
,1989) enhancing corporate image (Bronn & Vrioni, 2001; Fombrun & Shanley, 1990;
Meyer, 1999; Schiller, 1988), allowing the firm to communicate its core values to the
society (Mohr et al., 2001; Shell, 1989), giving the firm a competitive edge (Bronn &
Vrioni, 2001) and reducing employee turnover (Meyer, 1999). Finally, a cause-related
alliance gives the corporation access to the non-profit’s clientele, staff, trustees and
donors, all of whom could be potential customers (Andreasen, 1996). However, the
key benefit of a CRMK initiative to the organization continues to be the generation of
favorable purchase intent or product choice among the organization’s customers
(Lawrence, 1993; Mohr et al., 2001; Shell, 1989). This can result in increased sales
58
and profits for the firm, and the increased recognition of its brand name(s) and
product offering within its consumer base.
Causes accrue rewards such as new sources of much needed funds, and
heightened public awareness (Caesar, 1986; Varadarajan & Menon, 1988). Customers
perceive CRMK to be an effective way to financially assist social non-profit
organizations (Ross et al., 1990-1991; Ross et al., 1992). Although the firm and the
cause realize the bulk of the rewards of a CRMK campaign, customers are rewarded
by a sense of additional perceived value to their purchase (Webb & Mohr, 1998).
Additionally, customers gain the ability to differentiate between competing
manufacturers (Barone et al., 2000), and can satisfy their altruistic needs of the self by
helping society (Polonsky & Wood, 2001). According to Strahilevitz and Myers
(1998), customers most often seek to realize this added value in the purchase of
unnecessary product, where they can rationalize their purchases and reduce any
cognitive dissonance associated with the exchange of product or service.
Risks of participating in cause related marketing campaigns
Several risks are also associated with a CRMK strategy. These shortcomings
can also be classified by stakeholder: those experienced by the firm, the cause and the
customer. Despite altruistic intentions, investment in CRMK campaigns poses a
financial risk for the firm (Shell, 1989). This is primarily because CRMK is not
philanthropy, and the funding for the program is usually apportioned from the
marketing budget (Ross et al., 1990-1991). Other pitfalls for firms associating with
social causes include wasted monetary funds caused by linking up with a charity that
offers little or no synergism, a difficulty in measuring the social contributions of the
CRMK initiative, and the risk of customer cynicism (Meyer, 1999). Finally, CRMK
59
campaigns have been perceived by customers as “marketing’s most unabashed
exploitation” (Drumwright,1996; Smith & Stodghill, 1994).
The biggest CRMK participation risk for the cause is that involvement with a
corporate sponsor can bring the taint of commercialism to the cause’s image
(Garrison, 1990). Another risk for cause is that CRMK funds may be viewed by
customers and firms as a substitute for regular individual and corporate philanthropic
contributions, rather than as a supplement to their contributions (Andreasen, 1996;
Caesar, 1986). Other risks for cause include the risk of wasted resources if the alliance
fails to meet its objective, the loss of organizational flexibility to enter into other
similar alliances with the sponsoring firms’ competitors, the use of anti-ethical
marketing practices by the corporate partner, increased dependency on corporate
funds, and the risk of overwhelming the cause’s ability to administrate incoming
contributions (Andreasen, 1996). In a summary article, Polonsky and Wood (2001)
identify several sources of concern that CRMK campaigns pose to customers and to
society. Customers run the risk of being misled by sponsoring firms that exaggerate
CRMK related generosity. This might lead the individual donor to perceive that the
cause no longer needs assistance, creating a shortfall in Non Profit Organization
funding, which in turn, becomes a detriment to the customer by forcing the Non Profit
Organization to reduce client services. The firm-cause alliance may also lead
customers to mistakenly perceive that the cause has participated in the development of
the sponsoring firm’s products and or practices.
Finally, in an attempt to forge more lucrative relationships with sponsoring
firms or to expand their customer base, causes may choose to shift their focus to
include a new topic or group, in extreme situations at the expense of the original
program. For example, a cause focused on breast cancer may choose to expand its
60
potential constituency by also focusing on lung cancer, or by abandoning breast
cancer altogether to focus exclusively on lung cancer. While in the short term this
might benefit the cause by generating a larger potential audience, in the long term the
consumer may be misled as the cause’s activities may be inconsistent with the
consumer’s perceptions at the time of their initial support (Polonsky & Wood, 2001).
Component of cause related marketing campaign
Based on the academic literature, as well as the experience of practitioners, it
is evident that the critical success factors for a CRMK campaign relate to these main
areas:
Cause important; previous researches confirmed positive effects of cause
important on attitude toward brand and purchase intention (Ellen et al., 2000; Kotler
& Lee, 2005; Landreth, 2002). It can be seen from the research relating to the effects
of involvement within a persuasion context that higher levels of cause importance
should lead to greater levels of motivation and opportunity to think about a message
and lower levels of involvement should lead to the examination of peripheral cues in
order to make an evaluation. As consumers have greater levels of cause importance,
the cause becomes more diagnostic and consumers become more motivated to devote
more cognitive effort to evaluate the issue-relevant arguments that are presented,
indicating a more central route to persuasion.
The previous academic researches presented the important of cause important
and it has variety factors which should be considered in CRMK campaign such as
personal relevance, cause proximity, cause agent, and cause claim.
Personal relevance (also known as involvement) is the level of perceived
personal importance and/or interest evoked by a stimulus within a specific situation.
61
The variations of involvement manipulation become important because the concept of
personal importance is manifested as cause importance, which is the support of a
cause due to personal experience or social norms (Ellen et al., 2000; Lafferty, 1996;
Landreth, 2002).
Personal relevance has been studied extensively in both psychology and
marketing contexts. Krugman (1965) first defined the concept of involvement and
stated that it varied by circumstances and individuals. Involvement is a personal
connection or bridging experience for an individual. Since its introduction, there were
multiple definitions of the involvement construct (Krugman in Landreth, 2002).
Personal relevance is connected to the individual as the primary component of ego
involvement thus making it vital to their self identity. The most widely used definition
of personal relevance is the level of perceived personal importance and/or interest
evoked by a stimulus within a specific situation (Antil, 1984).
Academic researchers generally manipulate personal relevance in two ways.
On one hand, personal importance deals with how the stimulus impacts the consumer
on an individual level. On the other hand, several studies argue that subjects have
stronger attitudes and greater elaboration toward a stimulus when it directly impacts
them (Liberman & Chaiken, 1996; Sorrentino et al., 1988) or when the proximity of
the stimulus impacts the consumer. Ellen, Mohr and Webb (2000) manipulated the
donation situation as either an ongoing cause or a disaster, which utilizes the notion of
personal relevance to determine consumers’ assessments of a firm’s CSR. They found
that disaster situations were perceived as more important, because disasters were
perceived as more personally involving.
62
Lafferty, Goldsmith, and Hult (2004) showed that attitudes toward familiar
causes were more easily accessed than attitudes toward non-familiar causes. A survey
by Cone Roper (2008) found that 83 percentages of consumers thought that personal
relevance is a key when deciding to support a CRMK campaign.
The variations of involvement manipulation became important in this research
because the concept of personal importance was manifested as cause importance,
which was the support of a cause due to personal experience or social norms.
According to Krugman’s definition, personal experiences were vital to personal
relevance. This personal relevance can be a result of past experiences with a cause
(e.g., a relative has cancer) or part of their self-concept (e.g., environmentally
conscious people are likely to find recycling programs more personally relevant). This
research examined the causes which had personal relevance in the level of family,
gender, self-experience, and social norms.
Cause proximity deals with the distance between the donation activity and the
consumer thus affecting the impact of the donation. Varadarajan and Menon (1988)
identified three alternatives of cause proximity: national, regional or local. Smith and
Alcorn (1991) found that consumers indicated that local causes were most important
as well. Individuals are most concerned with issues that will impact their lives
directly.
However, Ross, Patterson, and Stutts (1992) found that local causes did not
lead to a more positive evaluation than national causes. Notably, the authors examined
the effects of cause proximity on attitude toward the firm and attitude toward the
cause, but did not examine the effects on extent of elaboration of the CRMK or the
intention to participate in the CRMK campaign.
63
Landerth (2002) found that under high cause importance, cause proximity
should not affect extent of elaboration – that was, the cause was the most important
element and not where the donations are going. Under conditions of low cause
importance, the effects of cause proximity become important. In this case, consumers
were more likely to elaboration on local donations than on national donations because
of the more direct impact of the donation. CRMK campaign could use local donations
to increase elaboration, attitude toward the product and intention to purchase a
product. This also provided evidence that cause proximity alone would not be an
effective structural variable to affect attitudes and intentions.
Cause agent represents the cause important. Menon and Kahn (2001) did not
assess involvement with the cause but used a cause agent or charity (i.e., American
Cancer Society) to represent the cause. Cause agent characteristics will influence to
consumer responses in CRMK campaigns. The Charity Commission (2005) reported
of findings of a survey of public trust and confidence in charities. The survey
involved a 15 minute telephone survey amongst 1001 members of the public across
England and Wales, which was conducted between 15th – 27th February 2005. The
research found what actually driving trusts in charities were trustworthy. Researcher
establish actual drivers through statistical analysis. Most people (79 percentages) felt
that most charities were inherently trustworthy and three quarters of them believed
that charities were regulated to ensure that they acted for the public benefit. However,
69 percentages accepted that they did not know much about how charities were
actually ran. People claimed they trusted local charities more than charities acting
abroad, and that they would have trusted charities more if they had heard about them.
The profile of a charity also influenced overall trust although to a much lesser
degree than inherent belief. This factor makes up only 7 percentages of the total
64
drivers of trust. While less than half of people (44 percentages) said they trusted big
charities more than smaller ones. In the other word, the size of a charity can affect
overall trust of consumer and donation size. There was also an inverse relationship
between involvement with a charity and propensity to more trust in big charities.
Doubts over how charities spend their money and fundraise barely affect the
overall trust of consumer. There were 69 percentages believed that charities spend too
much of their funds on salaries and admin and 60 percentages believed that charities
used more unclear fundraising techniques these days. Additionally, these were the
reasons given for trusting specific individual charities less. As a result, doubts over
how charities behave must be carefully monitored.
By the year 2008, the Charity Commission reported that there was near-total
agreement from the public about the importance of charities publishing information
about their spending and achievements. Ninety-six percent said that it was important
to them that charities provided the public with information about how they spent their
money, whilst 90 percentages said it was important for charities to publish an annual
report of what they actually achieve. The vast majority (85 percentages) of the public
more trusted in charities they had heard the information of them. Forty-one percent of
the population in 2008 more trusted in charities with a well-known patron, whilst 38
percentages trusted bigger charities more than smaller ones.
However, the vast majority of the public felt that charities played an important
role in society. A third (32 percentages) claimed charities to be essential and 34
percentages claimed them to be very important and a further 29 percentages claimed
them to be extremely important. Just 3 percentages of the population felt that charities
were not important in society (Charity Commission, 2008).
65
Cause claim as executional elements which enhance viewers’ a priority levels
of involvement in an advertising and increase information processing and persuasion
(Berger, et al., 1999). Berger, Cunningham, and Koziets (1999) stated that cause
claim in brand advertisements had a very powerful influence on brand attitudes and
purchase intention. If causes were executional cues that could enhance processing,
there should be a difference in processing when strong versus weak cause-claims were
used. Since there was no academic literature on the specifics of cause-claim design,
possible elements of cause strength were found from the trade press. The search
revealed that relevance of the cause to the subject was important as was the credibility
of the charitable organization, and the size and impact of the donation. They stated
that cause claims had a differential effect on female versus male viewers. Females
tended to generally have more positive attitudes towards cause-claims and the
products associated with them.
Lafferty and Goldsmith (2005) adopted a pretest and posttest approach,
comparing consumer evaluations of a brand before and after exposure to advertising
for this brand with a CRMK campaign component. The researchers found that post-
exposure attitudes toward the brand were significantly more positive than pre-
exposure evaluations. Furthermore, Nan and Heo (2007) found that CRMK message
elicit more favorable consumer responses compared with a similar ad without a CRM
component. However, attitude toward the firms were not found to be affected by
either the main effect of brand/cause fit or the interaction of brand/cause fit and brand
consciousness.
Peltier, Schibrowsky, and Schultz (2002) stated that message strategies
influence buyers in different ways and at different stages of the decision-
making/relationship-building process. A longitudinal communications plan required
66
an understanding of the sequential nature of the decision-making process, brand
perceptions (including such things as perceived quality, personal experiences,
involvement and beliefs, and communications), motivations that directly impact the
consumer's decisions, category importance, and brand importance.
From a charitable-giving perspective, the study suggested that donation
involvement required a communications campaign that reminded customers with the
positive experiences and benefits that the charity had provided them, that informs
them of current events and the successes that their financial support brings, and that
made them aware of why and where their help was needed, how they could help, and
why they needed to get involved.
Additionally, the use of celebrities as spokespeople for cause continued to be a
popular method of advertising in social cause and became an important dimension of
source credibility. The reason behind the popularity of celebrity advertising was the
advertisers' belief that messages delivered by well-known characters achieve as high
degree of attention and recalled for some consumers. While the idea is intuitively
appealing, it is strengthened by an appropriate connection between the celebrity and
the product endorsed or by the celebrity's personification of some aspects of the
product (Ohanian, 1991).
However, Weiner, and Mowen (1985) suggested that the three dimensions of
source credibility could make independent contributions to source effectiveness. For
example, a spokesperson can be perceived as an expert and still be untrustworthy
(e.g., a salesperson), or a spokesperson lacking expertise can be perceived as highly
trustworthy (e.g., a minister giving financial advice). Similarly, a physically attractive
spokesperson might be neither an expert nor trustworthy. In any given case, a
communicator's influence on audiences will depend upon some combination of these
67
three dimensions, and this resultant value can be referred to as the perceived
"credibility" of the communicator.
Brand – cause fit
There is high consensus among researchers on the effectiveness of CRMK
campaigns in achieving objectives such as influencing consumers’ attitude toward a
brand as well as influencing consumer purchase intent (Brink et al., 2006; Ellen et al.,
2000; Hamlin & Wilson, 2004; Lafferty & Goldsmith, 2005; Nan & Heo, 2007;
Pracejus & Olsen, 2004; Rifon et al., 2004; Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006; Till &
Nowak, 2000). However there is some debates about the role of brand-cause fit in
achieving these objectives.
Lafferty (2007) defined brand-cause fit as “the degree of similarity or
compatibility that consumers perceive exists between the cause and the brand”. While
this definition was considered to be well expressed, it would appear to provide
inadequate insight into the attributes and associations that consumers may consider
when evaluating a brand-cause linkage. Some researchers suggested that fit was a
complex concept and that brand-cause fit may be achieved in many ways (Nan &
Heo, 2007). Therefore, a definition of brand-cause fit should reflect the number of
ways in which fit may be achieved.
Varadarajan and Menon (1988) defined brand-cause fit as “the perceived link
between the firm’s image, positioning and target market and the cause’s image and
constituency.” This definition was believed to provide more insight into the types of
associations through which fit could be achieved. However, the definition proposed
by Simmons and Becker-Olsen (2006) held more appeal. Simmons and Becker-Olsen
(2006) defined brand-cause fit as “consumer perception of whether a firm and a cause
68
go together and may be derived from mission, products, markets, technologies,
attributes, brand concepts or any other key association.”
Some authors suggested that brand-cause fit was important where the aim of
the campaign was to influence consumer attitude toward a brand and also to influence
consumer purchase intent (Ellen et al., 2000; Ellen et al., 2006; Gupta & Pirsch, 2006;
Hamlin & Wilson, 2004; Nan & Heo, 2007; Pracejus & Olsen, 2004; Rifon et al.,
2004; Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006).
Samu and Wymer (2002) described fit in terms of the degree of congruence
between a cause and a business’s product/service. For example, the nonprofit
organization March of Dimes (mission: funding research to prevent birth defects) was
a better fit for the Gerber firm (produces baby food/products) than the Exxon-Mobile
Firm (produces petroleum products). Many previous researches founded that a high
level of fit among Brand and Cause leaded to more positive attitudes and strong
purchase intentions (Andreasen, 1996; Basil, 2002; Basil & Herr, 2003; Samu &
Wymer, 2002; Till & Nowak, 2000).
However, other researchers suggested that brand-cause fit might not be
important (Lafferty, 2007; Brink et al., 2006). Lafferty (2007) studied to determine
the effect of corporate credibility on brand-cause fit reported that, “marketers may
have to rethink fit as a necessary criterion for a brand-cause alliance depending on
what their motives are”. In addition, Brink et al. (2006) investigated the role of brand-
cause fit on brand loyalty, reported that the evidence that supported the importance of
brand-cause fit was inconclusive. Therefore, the role of brand-cause fit was uncertain.
The terms compatibility, similarity, fit, relevance, match, congruence and
natural fit have been used to describe the perceived link between a sponsor/brand and
69
cause/nonprofit. Congruence and its synonyms fit and match, dominate the
sponsorship literature representing functional links. Brand-cause fit had two
characteristics such as product fit and image fit.
Product fit is perceived on the basis of a match between a product attributes
and the objectives of the alliance. It is perceived with functional fit and natural fit.
Functional fit may be perceived on the basis of a match between a brand’s functional
attributes and the objectives of the alliance. Firm provided a core competence to
contribute meaningfully to accomplishing the mission and objectives of the alliance.
In addition to a functional fit, some firms attempted to “create” a fit with causes by
emphasizing similarity in values (Kashyap & Li, 2006). Compatibility may be a
function of not only the two types of congruence defined in the literature, functional
and image, but also other factors such as individual characteristics and their
relationship to the sponsored cause (Trimble et al., 2004).
Natural fit is the extent to which the sponsored cause is perceived as being
congruent with the image of the sponsor, independent of efforts to create a perceived
fit between the organizations (Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006). For example, Alpo
and the Humane Society are high in natural fit because both are strongly associated
with pets; this association readily comes to mind. In contrast, Alpo and the Special
Olympics are low in natural fit because they share no highly accessible association.
Simmons & Becker-Olsen (2006) stated that natural fit is of interest for several
reasons. First, firms may engage in low fit sponsorships because of a sincere interest
in the cause or a belief that is irrelevant. Second, cost efficiencies are greater if there
is no need to spend on efforts to create fit. Finally, because marketers do not control
the entire context in which consumers encounter information about their activities, a
70
sponsorship that does not depend on such control for its effectiveness is highly
attractive. This study will use natural fit as one of the observed variables.
Image fit refers to how comfortable consumers are with the brand-cause
pairing. Each partner brings perceptions of their image to the alliance. In any
collaborative effort, the images of both parties become part of the equation
(Varandarajan & Menon, 1988). Therefore, perception of image fit between the brand
and the cause is congruent. The alliance will be evaluated more favorable.
High brand-cause fit should therefore be a key selection criterion for
practitioners who are considering a brand-cause alliance if the aim of the campaign is
to influence consumer attitude and consumer patronage intent.
Donation framing
When consumers make a donation directly to a charity or cause, the exchange
equation is relatively simple: the consumers donate money, possessions, or their labor
then receive gratitude from the charity as well as a self-congratulatory pat on the
back. Corporations also make donations to charities with CRMK campaign, but the
exchange equation is more complicated. There are three actors instead of two. The
corporation (actor 1) announces that it will donate some specified amount of money to
a charitable cause (actor 2) each time a consumer (actor 3) engages in a revenue-
producing transaction with the firm. The linkage between the consumer and the
charity is indirect in CRMK, which contrasts with the direct linkage when only two
actors are involved. With a direct linkage and only two actors, the donation is likely to
be interpreted as philanthropy. In CRMK, however, the firm benefits first before any
obligation to donate is accrued, and this could be interpreted as self-interest rather
than philanthropy. An important question is whether consumers will perceive CRMK
71
as self-interest and exploitation of the charity rather than philanthropy. If so, this type
of promotion could backfire and result in a loss of goodwill toward the firm.
Dean (2004) researched the effects of type of donation (conditional or not
conditional upon corporate revenue) and reputation of the firm making the donation
(firms described as scrupulous, average, or irresponsible in the discharge of their
social responsibility) on consumer regard for the firm; perceived mercenary intent of
the firm; and whether the social performance of the firm is consistent with "good"
management. Consumer responses were predicted based on the contrast effect and
attribution theory. Results suggested that irresponsible firms increased their favor
with consumers by pursuing either type of donation. The average firm enhanced its
image by pursuing an unconditional donation, but a conditional donation did not
damage firm image. Perception of the scrupulous firm was little changed after
unconditional donation, but a scrupulous firm suffered a loss of favor by pursuing
CRMK. It is concluded that the average firm does not risk a loss of public goodwill
when using CRMK.
However, when considering CRMK campaigns as part of a firm’s marketing
and promotional strategy, marketers are faced with a variety of decisions about how
the CRMK campaign offer is structured. Successfully, identifying the specific
structural issues that will either encourage or deter consumer participation is essential
to the success of the program, both for the sponsoring and the nonprofit organization.
One example of a well-known CRMK campaign with these structural issues
came from Yoplait yogurt. Since 1997, Yoplait annually offers the “Lids for Lives”
campaign, which customers were asked to purchase yogurt and then sent lids from
their containers in exchange for a ten cent donation from Yoplait to a women’s breast
cancer foundation (www.yoplait.com). As part of this campaign, Yoplait marketing
72
managers made several key structural decisions about how the campaign would be
executed. Firstly, Yoplait specifically stated the amount they would donated (ten cents
per lid received) to the selected cause. Second, Yoplait limited the total contribution
that they would make to women’s breast cancer to $750,000, regardless of the number
of lids sent in by customers. Third, Yoplait restricted the length of time available for
consumer participation to a four month period by imposing a donation deadline.
Fourth, Yoplait used their website to disseminate information about their results.
From the company’s standpoint, each of these decisions seemed reasonable and
practical. In this case, Yoplait’s marketing staff chosen to clearly convey the amount
donated, and placed limits on the amount and time allowed for contribution,
presumably to limit their financial exposure from this promotional event. These
elements include (1) the presentation of the firm’s donation size to the cause
(donation quantifier), and subsequently (2) the transparent information of CRMK
contributions during the campaign which showed the presence or absence of donation
amounts and donation timeframe of CRMK campaign.
Donation size is the donation which relative to the price of the product offered
for purchase. Consumer perception of donation quantifiers may also be influenced by
the size of the donation relative to the price of the product offered for purchase.
Pracejus, Olsen, and Brown (2004) used the term “donation quantifiers” to describe
how the donation amount is presented to the consumer. There are three main types of
quantifiers; calculable, estimated, and abstract. Calculable quantifiers are define as
donation amounts that allow consumers to calculate the actual amount being donated
and include “percentage of sales” or “percentage of price” formats. Estimable
quantifiers give the customer only a piece of the information needed to calculate the
donation amount. These quantifiers are usually expressed as “a percentage of the net
73
proceeds” or as “a percentage of profit/net profit”. Abstract quantifiers, the most
commonly used methods occur when the customer is provided with almost no
information about how much the firm is donating to the sponsored cause (Olsen et al.,
2003; Pracejus & Olsen, 2004; Pracejus et al., 2004). Furthermore, Dahl and Lavack
(1995) found that consumers were more skeptical of small donation sizes. However,
the amount per transaction generated by the campaign may be small and therefore
high volumes will be a key of successful campaign (Kotler & Lee, 2005).
Transparent donation is the exact amount of the donation given for each
product sold. Landreth, Garretson, and Pirsch (2007) included a fourth level, the
“exact” donation quantifier. The most concrete option, an exact quantifier, stated the
exact amount of the donation given for each product sold. Examples from recent
CRMK campaigns included Avon’s “Kiss Goodbye to Breast Cancer” campaign
which the firm donated $1 for each lipstick sold. Grau and Folse (2007) founded 75
percentages of responses preferred exact option. Despite the number of campaigns
using abstract quantifiers, consumers preferred more tangible information regarding
the donation. If the amount donated through CRMK campaign is stated in transparent,
straightforward way, there will be little concern about potential consumer confusion.
Consumers want “details, details, details” presumably to protect their own
interests and to make intelligent judgments on how their contributions are directed
(Grau & Folse, 2007). Furthermore, consumers are most likely to look for information
about the results of the CRM campaign on the Internet using firm websites.
Consumers may see this medium as less invasive than paid television and print ads or
direct mailings, thus making it more acceptable from an ethical standpoint.
Additionally, truly interested consumers can easily seek out the information
themselves, rather than relying on the firm to communicate the information to them.
74
Grau and Folse (2007) stated that firms might walk a fine line when using
CRMK campaigns as part of their corporate social responsibility program or
promotional campaign. Consumers can be skeptical of these types of efforts. By
providing detailed information about the amounts donated and the duration of the
campaign and maximum contributions, firms can build consumer confidence in
corporate efforts. Firms face a dilemma when promoting the results of their CRMK
efforts, too. Wanting to know the results of the campaign, consumers can understand
how their efforts help. However, too much “marketing” of the firm’s effort can make
the firm seem disingenuous and out only for profit gain. CRMK campaigns can have
positive results for all three parties involved, the firm, the cause and the customer, as
long as the firm openly discusses their intentions and restrictions with their potential
consumers.
Moreover, timeframe of the campaign is the one of transparent donation
component. Varandarajan and Menon (1988) stated that there were three different
types of time frame campaigns. These were long-term, medium-term, and short-term.
Short-term focus was the most dominating choice even though firms desire to focus
on medium-term or long-term. However, there are more disadvantages than
advantages for short term when it came to creating trust and belief among the
consumers if the support was going to last no longer than a year. Long-term
relationships also showed that consumers recognize the brand and the charity cause if
the relationship was strong and taked place over a long period of time (Pringle &
Thompson, 1999).
Consumers do not have strongly negative opinions regarding deadlines and
donation amounts. Instead, they see these elements of a CRMK campaign as
necessary business practices that are reasonable constraints to protect the firm’s
75
financial contributions. Several studies pointed out, however, that donations were
reasonable only so long as they were disclosed to the consumer up front.
Consumer attitudes toward CRMK campaign
Patronage intention
Several studies investigated patronage intention regarding consumer
perceptions of socially conscious businesses (e.g., Mohr & Webb, 2005; Porter &
Kramer, 2002; Ricks, 2005; Walker, 2007) and the findings of the studies indicated
that corporate associations influenced product evaluations and overall consumer
attitudes about the organization. Patronage intention is the indicator that signals
whether customers will remain with or defect from a firm (Zeithaml et al., 1996). The
two most commonly examined dimensions of patronage intention which are of
interest to retailers relate to the intention to repurchase and the intention to
recommend. Baker, Parasuraman, Grewal, and Voss (2002) defined patronage
intention as a willingness to recommend and a willingness to buy. This study defined
patronage intention as follows:
Purchase intention; consumer attitudes to purchase intention or brand choice,
including the propensity to switch brands to those that support causes, tend to increase
with the perception of ethical and social responsibility demonstrated by the firm
(Barone et al., 2000; Bennett & Gabriel, 2000; Berger et al., 1999; Creyer & Ross,
1997; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; Webb & Mohr, 1998). Women tend to have a
higher intention to buy or switch brands than men (Ross et al., 1992; Webb & Mohr,
1998). Additionally, campaigns which support social causes were shown by Barone,
Miyazaki and Tayor (2000) to be rewarded by consumers when these causes were
perceived by the consumers to be for appropriate reasons.
76
Repeat purchase; brand loyalty has been conceptualized both in a behavioral
and in an attitudinal way. The former captures more the patronage behavior and
focuses on repeated purchasing of a certain brand by a consumer over time (Bloemer
& Kasper, 1995).
Word of mouth; According to Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman (1996), in
the case that consumers had patronage intention for CRMK campaign, they intended
to spread their positive words and recommended the campaign to other people. On the
other hand, if the campaign is well constructed, negative word of mouth can also
destroy the campaign and discourage other consumer to agree with the campaign.
The survey conducted by Cone/Roper (1993/1994) provided strong evidence
that firms could benefit significantly from connecting themselves to a cause, or issue
of consumers surveyed in the following:
- 8 out of 10 agreed that companies should be committed to a specific cause
over a long period of time.
- 84 percentages said they had a more positive image of a company if it is
doing something to make the world better.
- 78 percentages of adults said they would be more likely to buy a product
associated with a cause they care about.
- 66 percentages said they would switch brands to support a cause they
cared about.
- 62 percentages said they would switch retail stores to support a cause.
- 64 percentages believed that cause related marketing should be a standard
part of a company's activities.
77
Others have similar contentions and present strong evidence that support
consumer patronage intention with the firm that has involvement in social cause. The
2002 Cone Corporate Citizenship Study reported that 84 percentages of Americans
said they would be likely to switch brands to one associated with a good cause, if
price and quality were similar. Drumwright (1994) founded that 75 percentages of
consumers said their purchase decisions were influenced by a firm’s reputation with
respect to the environment, and 8 out of 10 said they would pay more for products
that were environmentally friendly.
Skepticism
CRMK campaign in relation to the sponsoring firm have been criticized
(Drumwright, 1996) and may run the risk of consumer backlash if consumers question
the validity of the offer, the firm’s motives for engaging in the alliance, or the absence
of a logical fit between the brand and the cause (Osterhus, 1997). Varadarajan and
Menon (1988) warned that CRMK could be seen as motivated by firm self- interest
and could experience negative consequences. Consumer skepticism can be manifested
as a decrease in donation size (Dahl & Lavack, 1995), perceived firm motivation and
what the consumer must trade off to participate (Barone et al., 2000), and as an
element of consumer type (Webb & Mohr, 1998).
Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998) defined advertising skepticism as the
tendency toward disbelief in advertising claims, which was related to the quality of
accumulated consumer experiences. In other words, the more consumers experience
perceived advertising deception and exaggeration, the more skeptical they would be.
They argued that ad skepticism was a stable characteristic of consumers that played a
role in responses to advertising. Virtually, all advertising includes claims that are
subject to some degree of disbelief. They proposed personality traits, marketplace
78
experience, education, and consumer socialization as antecedents to advertising
skepticism and found evidence of association with the first three. Similarly,
Mangelburg and Bristol (1998) found advertising skepticism to be positively related
to marketplace knowledge which involved knowledge of stores and shopping.
Additionally, Boush, Marian, and Gregory (1994) found that trust in advertising
decreased as one's educational level increased and that trust in sources was seen as
being more objective tended to increase. Importantly, the advertisers have to be
careful with the level of consumer skepticism when they use celebrities in their
advertisements to target different groups of consumers (Bailey, 2007).
Webb and Mohr (1998) made the assumption that skepticism toward CRMK
campaign derived mainly from consumer’s distrust and cynicism toward advertising.
The negative attitudes toward CRMK campaign expressed from half of their research
respondents were credited mostly to skepticism toward implementation and or
cynicism toward a firm’s motives. Half of the respondents indeed perceived the firm’s
motive as being “self-serving”. They stated that consumers' distrust toward
advertising led to skepticism toward CRMK campaign, indicating that consumers no
longer believed firm's altruistic intentions of charitable giving. Obermiller,
Spangenberg, and MacLachlan (2005) stated that consumers who were skeptical of
advertising tended to enhance advertising sales and showed a lack of connection
between advertising and purchase intention.
Mohr, Dogan, and Ellen (1998) developed and tested a measure of skepticism
toward environmental claims in marketer’s communications, specifically the “green”
claims made by marketers on their packaging and in their advertising. The researchers
believed that measuring skepticism was important, as most consumers tended to be
lack of knowledge on environmental issues and claimed using environmental terms.
79
They believed this was an important factor as skepticism could be correlated with lack
of knowledge. Consequently, the more consumers know about an issue the less
skeptical they may be and thus be more positive to the firm and its products.
The point of Mohr et al.’s work was to find a reliable and valid measurement
of skepticism. They started with 13 items identified from previous research. After two
studies which they used to refine the measure for reliability and validity, they derived
four questions that could be used to measure skepticism to environmental claims
made in marketers’ communications. The four questions are listed in table 4.
Questions 1 and 4 appear to measure the same thing, but Mohr, Dogan, and Ellen
(1998) kept the two seemingly similar questions in order to test or check the
consistency of the respondents’ answers to the questions. This is important if
respondents are not conscious or aware of CRMK campaigns.
Table 4 Questions measuring skepticism from Mohr, Dogan, and Ellen (1998).
1 Most environmental claims made on package labels or in advertising are true.
2 Because environmental claims are exaggerated, consumers would be better off it such claims on package labels or in advertising were eliminates.
3 Most environmental claims on package labels or in advertising are intended to mislead rather than to inform consumers.
4 I do not believe most environment claims made on package labels or in advertising.
A few previous researches suggest that consumers with a high level of
skepticism will be less likely to respond positively to CRMK campaign than
consumers with low level of skepticism toward CRMK campaign (Mohr et al., 1998;
Webb & Mohr, 1998). Differently, Youn and Kim (2008) found that high in
advertising skepticism are more likely to trust a company's willingness to engage in
philanthropic commitment to social causes. This finding is very encouraging for
80
CRMK practitioners in that consumer perceive traditional commercial advertising and
CRMK campaign differently.
Demography
A large bulk of studies showed that demography related to pro-social
behaviors (Chrenka, et al., 2003; Hettman & Jenkins, 1990; Penner, 2002; Wilson &
Musick, 1997). With regard to gender, it appears that women are more likely to be
engaged in pro-social behaviors such as volunteering than men (Chrenka et al., 2003;
Penner et al., 2005). On the other hand, Penner (2002) found that there were no
differences in gender between active volunteers and nonvolunteers. Relating to cause-
related marketing, Ross, Larry, and Mary (1992) found that women showed more
favorable attitudes toward cause-related marketing than men. The industry
publications also revealed that women demonstrated greater support for cause-related
marketing activities than men (DaSilva, 2004). In terms of age, there were more likely
to give mixed results regarding the likelihood of individuals to give to charities or
volunteer time. Chrenka, Gutter, and Jasper (2003) reported that the older people were
more likely to give time or money, compared to 35-47 years old as a reference group.
However, Hettman and Jenkins (1990) found that young adults aged 25 to 34 were
more active volunteers than the older ones. Penner (2002) found no relationship
between age and volunteering. In conjunction with cause-related marketing, the
studies showed that young consumers were more receptive to cause related marketing
activities, compared to their older counterparts (Cui et al., 2003; DaSilva, 2004).
Although the findings were inconsistent regarding the relationship between age and
pro-social behaviors, this study followed the industry findings relating to cause-
related marketing, expecting that the younger consumers were tended to support
corporate cause-branding activities. The level of education affects a wide range of
81
pro-social behaviors (Chrenka et al., 2003; Hettman & Jenkins, 1990; Penner et al.,
2005; Wilson & Musick, 1997). Wilson and Musick (1997) uncovered the positive
effect of education on volunteering and argued that educated people were inclined to
be civic minded and well-informed about community affairs. Similarly, Chrenka,
Gutter, and Jasper (2003) also found that more educated consumers had greater
willingness to give money or time to charities. Becker and Dhingra (2001) found that
higher education levels corresponded to a higher likelihood of volunteering.
Conclusion
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is becoming increasingly popular
element of corporate marketing strategy. Kotler and Lee issued “corporate social
initiatives” to describe major efforts under the corporate social responsibility and
indentified CSR programs manifestly as the following six strategies: Cause
promotion, Cause related marketing, Corporate social marketing, Corporate
philanthropy, Community volunteering, and Socially responsible business practices.
Cause-related marketing (CRMK) is the only one which directly measure
financially impact of the marketing campaign. The key benefit of a CRMK campaign
to the organization continues to be the generation of favorable purchase intent or
product choice among the organization’s customers. This can result in increased sales
and profits for the firm, and the increased recognition of its brand name(s) and
product offering within its consumer base. Based on the academic literature, as well
as the experience of practitioners, it is evident that the critical success factors for a
CRMK campaign relate to these main areas: cause important, brand – cause fit, and
donation framing.
82
There were also many previous researches that studied the relation between
demography factors and consumer responses in CRMK campaign. Several studies
investigated patronage intention regarding consumer perceptions of socially conscious
businesses and found that corporate associations influenced product evaluations and
overall consumer attitudes about the organization. Patronage intention is the ‘indicator
that signal whether customers will remain with or defect from a firm. The three most
commonly examined dimensions of patronage intention were purchase intention,
repeat purchase, and word of mouth. Importantly, a few previous researches
suggested that consumers with a high level of skepticism would be less likely to
respond positively to CRMK campaign than consumers with low level of skepticism
toward CRMK campaign.
83
CHAPTER 3
Research Methodology This chapter includes the discussion of research methodology framework,
including research design, sampling plan, data collection instruments and procedures,
operational definitions of research variables, and analytical measurement. The
analytical measurement is divided into the statistical procedures of scale validation,
scale dimensionality, exploratory factor analyses, confirmatory factor analyses and
structural equation modeling.
Research design
Descriptive research was used in this study for analyzing consumer reaction to
various components of CRMK campaign related to the outcome variables of
consumer patronage intention. The survey method was employed in the study to
assess respondent’ attitudes. Two sources of data are utilized in the study. First,
secondary data mostly obtained from EBSCOhost database during 1865 – 2008 which
also were used for literature review and model and hypotheses development, and also
gathering scale measurement for generating the initial set of items in questionnaire
development stage. Second, primary data were collected from group self-administered
survey method with questionnaire for empirical testing of the proposed model.
Population and sampling plan
Population
The population in this study were graduate students of Ramkhamhaeng
University, Huamak Campus, Bangkok Metropolitan. They were selected because
CRMK campaign was a newly promotional marketing approach for Thai consumers,
84
the participants with higher education could give appropriate answers for the research.
Additionally, there were various occupations and ages which are between 23-60 years
old include variety of knowledge in business and in general background would
significantly the representative of study. Therefore, the survey results of these
population could predict consumers attitude. The participants were separated into two
groups of equal numbers, MBA students and Non-MBA students. According to the
university student enrollment in 2008 school year, there were 8,500 MBA students
and 3,300 Non-MBA students.
Sample size
Sample size was determined based on the n = (1+ N) / (1+ N(e)2)
(Yamane,1978). The total sample size is 738.93 where as MBA student and non-
MBA student sample sizes are 382.07 and 356.86 respectively. Alternatively, Hair,
Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998) suggested that for both regression and structural
equation modeling analyses, the preferred ratio of observations to independent
variables were 15 to 20. Therefore, the appropriate number of observation for 54
independent variables in this study were at least 810 (54x15) to 1,080 (54 x 20)
observations.
Sampling plan
This study, multistage cluster sampling procedure and non-probability quota
sampling were the combination used to select sampling units. First, cluster sampling
was used. The list of graduate student program in Ramkhamhaeng University,
Huamak Campus, Bangkok Metropolitan was divided into four groups such as MBA
weekday program, MBA weekend program, non-MBA weekday program, and non-
MBA weekend program and each group was further categorized into the major of
85
program. Finally, non-probability quota sampling was used to select sampling unit.
The purpose of quota sampling was to ensure that the proportion respondents were
almost the representative of MBA class and Non-MBA class. After that, the
questionnaires were assigned to interviewers with quota for each class. Additionally,
each gender was fixed approximately a half of sample size.
Data collection
Data collection from questionnaires
Data collection is conducted from February till March 2009. The data
collection method was necessary group self-administered survey. Researcher will hire
a number of interviewers and interviewing each MBA students and Non-MBA
students class during break time class. The interviewers were briefed and supervised
by the research on the first days of data collection. They would introduce themselves
and ask for their permission to fill in the questionnaires. After permission, they would
explain the structure of the questionnaire and instructions to fill in the forms. Then
they would let the respondents wrote down all answers by themselves. It took about
20-25 minutes to complete the questionnaires. After filling in the questionnaires, they
checked for any mistakes or unanswered parts and immediately rechecked any
missing information requested the respondents to correct or fill in those parts of them.
According to Churchill (1999), editing data of each questionnaire was
inspected and corrected to ensure minimum quality of the raw data. Then, the data
was assigned a number and entered into a computer. Missing data was treated by
mean replacement before further analysis.
86
Data collection from In-depth interview
A few companies which used to have CRMK campaign were contacted for
interviewing. The executives who were responsibility in marketing campaign were
invited to have in-depth interview with a structural questionnaire. The purpose of the
interview was to collect and cross check their opinions and experience around CRMK
campaign. There were three companies as designated participation firms such as
Cerebos (Thailand), ICC Plc. (Arrow shirt, Wacoal), and CAT Telecom Plc.
Questionnaires development
The questionnaires development procedure was divided into four approaches
consecutively. First, the variables were measured and specified. Second, the first draft
questionnaires were developed. Third, the items were evaluated via critical review
and pilot tests. And finally, the questionnaires were pretested and revised, ready for
data collection in the main study.
The variables to be measured were specified from secondary data mostly
obtained from EBSCOhost database during 1865 – 2008 which also were used for
literature review and model and hypotheses development. The study had already
identified relevant variables used to conduct empirical test of the proposed model and
hypothesis as reported in the first chapter.
The first draft of the questionnaires were developed to best capture the
measuring of the theoretical construct with transforming into item wording,
questionnaires format and response alternative, the number of items, the number of
response alternatives per item, and the overall organization.
The questionnaires were divided into six sections: 1) personal data, 2) cause
important, 3) brand-cause fit, 4) donation framing, 5) patronage intention, and
87
6) skepticism. In each of section, there were a few of latent variables which include at
least 2 items needed to achieve adequate reliability and provided enough information
to yield strict test of hypothesis in the structural equation modeling.
Table 5 Summary of measures for five latent constructs
All items of questionnaires consisted of five-point scales with such anchors as “very more agree, more agree, moderate agree, less agree, and very less agree”
Cause important; the extent to which a consumer perceives the important of cause or social problem which should be promoted in CRMK campaign.
No. Personal relevance Adapted from
CI 1
The social problem relates with the quality of your living and family.
Antil, 1984; Ellen et al., 2000; Lafferty, 1996; Landreth, 2002; Liberman & Chaiken, 1996; Sorrentino et al. 1988;
CI 2 The social problem relates with your gender disease.
CI 3 The social problem relates with your experience and has emergency for resolving.
CI 4 The relevance social problem which you always perceive from mass communications.
No. Cause proximity Adapted from
CI 5
The local social problem which is the air pollution or environment problem in your community.
Landerth, 2002; Ross et al., 1992; Smith & Alcon, 1991; Varadarajan & Menon, 1988
CI 6 The local social problem which is the safety of your community lives.
CI 7 The provincial social problem which is the natural disaster in many provinces.
CI 8 The provincial social problem which is the stray animal in your province.
CI9 The national social problem which is the uneducated children.
CI10 The national social problem which is the public health.
88
No. Cause proximity Adapted from
CI11 The global social problem which is the Aids/HIV.
CI 12 The global social problem which is the global
warming.
No. Cause agent Adapted from
CI 13 The social problem which has a well-known charity takes care of the problem.
Charity Commission ,2005; Charity Commission ,2008; Menon & Kahn, 2001
CI 14 The social problem which has a charity is really agency of problem solving takes care of the problem.
No. Cause claim Adapted from
CI 15
The social problem which is unaware. It is promoted by CRMK campaign.
Berger, et al., 1999; Lafferty & Goldsmith, 2005; Nan & Heo, 2007; Ohanian, 1991; Peltier et al., 2002; Weiner & Mowen,1985
CI 16 The serious national social problems which are fully used advertising for donation support in CRMK campaign.
CI 17 The social problem which has a celebrity is the supporter in CRMK campaign.
Brand-cause fit; the extent to which a consumer perceives the congruence between brand and cause which should be promoted in CRMK campaign.
No. Product fit with functional fit (high / low fit) Adapted from CF 1
Automobile is an alliance with the safety road project.
Kashyap & Li, 2006; Trimble & Rifon, 2006; Varadarajan & Menon, 1988 CF 2 Automobile is an alliance with the child slum care
project.
CF 3 Apparel is an alliance with the cold disaster people care project.
CF 4 Apparel is an alliance with the elephant’s survival project.
89
No. Product fit with functional fit (high / low fit) Adapted from CF 5 Construction material is an alliance with the school
buildings maintenance project.
CF 6 Construction material is an alliance with the project helping the handicapped.
No. Product fit with natural fit (high / low fit) Adapted from CF 7
Pet food is an alliance with helping the stray dog and cat project.
Samu & Wymer, 2002; Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006; Varadarajan & Menon, 1988 CF 8 Pet food is an alliance with helping HIV patient
project.
CF 9 Ladies’ product is an alliance with the breast cancer crusade project.
CF 10 Ladies’ product is an alliance with the headwater sources conservation project.
CF 11 Heart candy is an alliance with helping children with heart diseases.
CF 12 Heart candy is an alliance with helping people who meet with flood disaster.
No. Image fit Adapted from CF 13
The large corporate with good image in CSR is an alliance with the large amount of charity and popular.
Varadarajan & Menon, 1988
CF 14 The corporate which recognized product or service is an alliance with the charity which has strongly resulted of social problem solving.
CF 15 The corporate which has continually public news of CSR activities is an alliance with the charity which has continually public news of social problem solving.
90
Donation framing; the extent to which a consumer perceives the structural and progressive of donation which should be promoted in CRMK campaign.
No. Donation size Adapted from DF 1
Comparing of donation quantifiers with price of product should be relative.
Dahl & Lavack, 1995: Kotler & Lee, 2005; Olsen et al., 2003; Pracejus & Olsen, 2004; Pracejus et al., 2004
DF 2 Donation quantifiers can calculate the percentage of price.
DF 3 The product which has high sales volume can donate with a small donation size when comparing with the price.
DF 4 The portion of income which is not included in donation from sales amount should be extra donated to charity.
No. Transparent donation Adapted from DF 5
The exact target of donation to a charity should be informed to the public.
Grau et al., 2007; Landreth et al., 2007; Olsen et al., 2003 Pringle & Thompson, 1999; Varandarajan & Menon, 1988
DF 6 The campaign should be publicized clearly information of donation.
DF 7 The campaign should be continually publicized and informed the accumulated donation.
DF 8 The total amount of donation should be known to the public when the campaign comes to as end.
DF 9 The campaign should have certain period.
DF 10 The timeframe of campaign should be related with the target of donation size.
DF 11 The CRMK campaign against critical social problems should be continually conducted for a long time.
91
Patronage intention; the extent to which a consumer has patronage intention level with CRMK campaign.
No. Purchase intention Adapted from PI 1
You have intention to purchase CRMK product although never used it before.
Cone/Roper ,1993/1994; Cone/Roper, 2002; Drumwright ,1994 Ross et al.,1992; Webb & Mohr, 1998;
PI 2 You have intention to purchase CRMK product compare with others brand name which have same price and quality.
PI 3 You have intention to purchase CRMK product although it is not necessary product for you.
PI 4 You have intention to switch brand from your usual product to CRMK brand to support CRMK campaign.
PI 5 You have intention to purchase CRMK product despite it is higher price than other brand.
No. Repeat purchase Adapted from PI 6
When you bought CRMK product, you have intention to repeat purchase to support CRMK campaign.
Bloemer & Kasper, 1995
PI 7 You continuously purchase CRMK product because you have feeling more donate.
PI 8 If you knew the CRMK campaign does not achieved the donation target, you will immediately repeat purchase.
No. Word of mouth Adapted from PI 9
You have intention to tell about your supporting in the campaign to your family.
Zeithaml et al., 1996
PI 10 You have intention to recommend the CRMK campaign to your family and familiar for their supporting.
PI 11 You have intention to recommend the CRMK campaign to the others.
92
Skepticism; the extent to which a consumer has skeptism level with CRMK campaign.
No. Skepticism Adapted from SK 1
You have skepticism with CRMK campaign advertising.
Mangelburg & Bristol, 1998 Mohr et al., 1998; Obermiller & Spangenberg,1998; Webb & Mohr, 1998
SK 2 Almost all of CRMK campaign advertising is with intention to convince the customers
SK 3 Almost all of the CRMK campaign advertisings are exaggerated.
SK 4 CRMK campaign is sales promotion tool.
SK 5 Image and credit of firm and brand image impact on your patronage intention.
SK 6 Unclear CRMK campaign component makes impact on your patronage intention.
The questionnaires were evaluated via critical review by a group of
dissertation consultants committee. The committee suggested a short summary of the
purpose of the study, the model and the hypotheses. Their comments and feedbacks
were used to revise the questionnaires. The pilot test was performed in December
2008 with 5 graduate students subjected to examine any possible problems in the
questionnaires such as confusion over item wordings, the organization of the
questionnaires, etc. The result of the pilot test was used to refine item wordings and
questionnaires format.
Then, the questionnaires were pretested by a representative sample (n=110)
from population of this study during January 2009. The results of the pretest was
checked for their reliability by Cronbach’s alpha which be higher than 0.70. Then
each question in the questionnaires was revised to make them clearer for the survey.
93
Table 6 Summary of Cronbach’s alpha
Variable Number
of items Reliability
Cause Important
Brand-Cause Fit
Donation Framing
Patronage Intention
Skepticism
Personal relevance
Cause proximity
Cause agent
Cause claim
Product fit with high fit
Product fit with low fit
Image fit
Donation size
Transparent donation
Purchase intention
Repeat purchase
Word of mouth
Skepticism
4
8
2
3
6
6
3
4
7
5
3
3
6
0.811
0.897
0.709
0.726
0.980
0.989
0.870
0.852
0.921
0.848
0.835
0.873
0.872
94
Data analysis techniques and criteria
Data screening. According to Churchill (1999), editing data of each
questionnaire was inspected and corrected to ensure minimum quality of the raw data.
Then, the data were assigned numbers and entered into the computer. Missing data
were put in before further analysis.
Statistical techniques and criteria.
The statistical techniques employed in this study were descriptive and
explanation. The statistics used for the data analysis were descriptive statistics such as
frequency distribution, percentage, arithmetic mean, and standard deviation with
SPSS version 16.0. Structural equation modeling analytical procedure AMOS version
7.0 were used to assess model fit and investigation for parsimonious model to explain
the effect of CRMK campaign component toward to consumer patronage intention.
Structural equation modeling technique is used to group several variables into
fewer underlying constructs and analyze cause-effect relationships between the
constructs. First, the univariate analyses of the data in terms of frequency distribution,
mean, standard deviations were used to examine the respondents’ characteristics.
Second, bivariate analysis was executed by exploring correlations among variables.
This was the initial check-up for unidimensional construct and multicollinearity.
Third, multivariate analysis was explored. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was
used to test the model and hypotheses. There were two advantages in using SEM:
First, the technique examines a series of dependence relationship (i.e. multiple
regression equations) simultaneously and second, the tool provides the measurement
model allowed more rigorous evaluation of the measurement reliability and validity of
95
the measures and constructs than performing a factor analysis and using the factor
scores in the regression (Hair et al. 1998).
Structural equation modeling and interpretation
This study used structural equation modeling (SEM) for the main relationship
model. To examine the conceptual model and associated hypotheses in the previous
chapter, structural equation modeling was appropriate due to these confirmatory
methods (Bentler, 1990; Joreskog, 1978) provided researchers with a comprehensive
means of assessing and modifying theoretical models (Anderson & Gerbing, 1982).
This dissertation employed Amos version 7.0 to analyze confirmatory factor
analysis in which the maximum likelihood estimation (ML) method was provided.
The ML method was used for theory testing and development (appropriate for testing
our conceptual model and hypotheses), which included several relative strengths. This
method provided the most efficient parameter estimates (Joreskog & Wold, 1982) and
an overall test of model fit. Under the assumptions of a multivariate normal
distribution of the observed variables, maximum likelihood estimators had the
desirable asymptotic, or large-sample, properties of unbiased, consistent, and efficient
(Kmenta, 1971).
Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a technique that allowed a separate
relationship for each of a set of dependent variables. SEM provides the appropriate
and most efficient estimation technique for a series of separate multiple regression
equations estimated simultaneously. It is characterized by two basic components: the
structural model and the measurement model. The structural model is the ‘path’
model, which relates independent to dependent variables. The measurement model
allows the researcher to use several variables for a single independent or dependent
96
variable. In this model, the researcher can assess the contribution of each scale item as
well as incorporate how well the scale measures the concept into the estimation of the
relationships between dependent and independent variables. In this dissertation, the
researcher adopts seven procedures in structural equation modeling (Hair et al., 2006)
as follows:
First, developing a theory based model. Structural equation modeling is based
on causal relationships. Hence, the change of one variable is assumed to result in the
change in another variable.
Second, constructing a path diagram of causal relationships. There are two
assumptions that apply to a path diagram. First, all causal relationships are indicated.
Second, it relates to the nature of the causal relationships that are assumed to be
linear. Hence, nonlinear relationships cannot be directly estimated in structural
equation modeling; however, the modified structural models can approximate
nonlinear relationships.
Third, converting the path diagram into a set of structural equations and
measurement equations. The objective is to link operational definitions of the
constructs to theory for the appropriate empirical test.
Fourth, choosing the input matrix type and estimating the proposed model.
SEM uses only the variance/covariance or correlation matrix as its input data. The
measurement model specifies which indicators corresponds to each construct. Then,
the latent construct scores are employed in the structural model. As mentioned before,
the sample size of 200 is considered to be the ‘critical sample size’.
Fifth, assessing the identification of the model equations. An identification
problem is the inability of the proposed model to generate unique estimates. There are
97
four symptoms to detect an identification problem, including very large standard
errors for one or more coefficients, inability to convert the information matrix,
negative error variances and high correlation (-0.90 or greater) among the estimated
coefficients (Hair et al., 2006).
Finally, evaluating the results for goodness-of-fit. SEM includes three
assumptions as other multivariate methods, which are independent observations,
random sampling of respondents, and the linearity of all relationships. After satisfying
these assumptions, the offending estimates are examined. The next step is to assess
the overall model fit with one or more goodness-of-fit measures. There are three
categories for the goodness-of-fit measures, comprising absolute fit measures
followed by incremental fit measures and parsimonious fit measures, respectively.
The absolute fit measures assess the overall model fit (both structural and
measurement models), with no adjustment for the degree of ‘over fitting’ that might
occur. The incremental fit measures compare the proposed model to another model
specified by the researcher. The parsimonious fit measures adjust the measures of fit
to provide a comparison between models with differing numbers of estimated
coefficients. To sum up, the presentation of goodness-of-fit criteria is shown in Table
7.
98
Table 7 Indices used and recommended acceptable fit standards
Indices used Acceptable levels and descriptions
Chi-Square Statistic Not significant value for chi-square supports the model (p >0.05). (Hair, et al., 2006)
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) Values range from 0.00 to 1.00, where 1.00 indicates perfect fit (Joreskog, 1999). Values greater than 0.90 indicate an acceptable fit; values close to 0.95 represent a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Root mean Square Residual (RMR)
Values closer to 0.00 represent a better model fit. Values less than 0.08 indicate acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Schmacker & Lomax, 1996).
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)
Values of 0.05 or less indicate a close fit of the model in relation to degrees of freedom (Browne & Robert, 1993). Values up to 0.08 are reasonable (Hair et al. 2006); values above 0.10 indicate a problem (Browne & Robert, 1993).
Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI)
Value adjusted for df. Values greater than 0.08 are acceptable (Segars & Grover, 1993). Value close to or >0.90 are recommended for a goof fit (Hair et al. , 2006).
Normed Fit Index (NFI) Values greater than 0.90 are acceptable (Hair et al., 2006); values close to 0.95 indicate a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Incremental Fit Index (IFI)
Values greater than 0.90 are acceptable (Hair et al., 2006); values close to 0.95 indicate a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Comparative Fit Index (CFI)
Values greater than 0.90 are recommended (Hair et al., 2006); values close to 0.95 indicate a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
Normed Chi-Square (CMIN/DF)
Values less than 1.50 and more than 1.00 indicate a good fit (Hair et al., 2006). Arbuckle (2005) suggest a ration in the range of 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 indicates an acceptable fit between the proposed model and sample data.
99
R Square values. Similar to R2 (coefficient of determination) reported in the
regression analysis, the usual interpretation of R2 value is the relative amount of
variance of the dependent variable explained or accounted for by the explanatory
variables (Joreskog 1999). Structural equations modeling provides an R2 for every
linear relationship estimated (measurement and structural equations). In the
measurement model, R2 values can be interpreted as the reliabilities of the respective
observed variables that define the latent variables; whereas, R2 values for the
structural equations indicate the amount of variance predicted by the latent variables
(Schumacker & Lomax 1996).
Exploratory factor analysis
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is a statistical technique that is used to
reduce data to a smaller set of summary variables and to explore the underlining
theoretical structure of the phenomena. Exploratory factor analysis is used to identify
the structure of the relationship between the variable and the respondent. VARIMAX
rotation was used in order to maximize the sum of variance of required loading of the
factor matrix (Hair et al. 2006). Hair et al. suggested that interpretation of factor
loading should depend on practical significance. There is a rule of thumb for the
significance of factor loading: factor loading greater than 0.30 are considered to meet
minimum level, 0.50 are considered more important, 0.70 or greater are considered
practically significant.
Confirmatory factor analysis
Confirmatory factory analysis (CFA) is a theory-testing model as opposed to
the theory-generating method like exploratory factor analysis (EFA). In CFA, the
research starts with a hypothesis prior to the analysis. The hypothesis is based on a
100
strong theoretical and/or empirical foundation. This method, after specifying the ‘a
priori’ factors, seek to optimally match the observed and theoretical factors structures
for a given data set in order to determine the ‘goodness of fit’ of the predetermined
factor model (Gounaris & Stathakopoulos, 2004). Therefore, this study performed
only confirmatory factor analysis because all constructs have already been tested by
many eminent researches as literature reviewed in previous chapter. The purpose of
confirmatory factor analysis is to test how well the specified measurement model fits
the actual data, which is more applicable in this study.
Conclusion
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the research methodology
approaches on which this study is designed and developed. The research design in this
study is descriptive research by using survey methodology. Non-probability quota
sampling and convenience sampling had used to select sampling size of 943 graduate
students. Several statistical methodologies are applied, which are validity and
reliability measures such as exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor
analysis. Structural equation modeling would be used for hypothesis testing.
101
Chapter 4
Research Results
In this chapter, the procedures and results of data analyses will be presented.
The chapter begins with explanation of data collection, data editing, characteristics of
the sample, respondents’ opinion toward to observed variables. Then, the initial
results of exploratory and confirmatory factor assessment of the scale are shown in
terms of construct reliability and validity. Finally, the description of a structural
equation modeling containing will be presented all of variables in this dissertation.
Data editing and screening
As mentioned in the previous chapter, the target sample was at least 810 to
1,080 observations. All of the 1,000 questionnaires collected, 57 questionnaires or 5.7
percentages did not complete. Most questions missing were in the last pages of the
questionnaire. These questionnaires were discarded and excluded from further
analysis. Data from the remaining 943 questionnaires were inputted and used for
subsequent data analysis. Each response to each question was assigned a number and
entered into the computer by SPSS program version 16.0 for Windows. Reverse
question items in skepticism section (sk1, sk5, and sk6) were conversed. There was no
particular pattern of missing data.
102
Characteristic of the respondents
This study had 943 respondents which were representative of MBA students
and Non MBA students. The profiles of respondents will be presented in Table 8.
Table 8 Profile of respondents (n=943)
Characteristics
MBA Student (n=469)
Non MBA student (n=474)
Total
(n=943) n % n % n %
Gender Male 147 31.3 260 54.9 407 43.2 Female 322 68.7 214 45.1 536 56.8 Age < 26 yrs 77 16.4 110 23.2 187 19.8 26 – 30 yrs. 173 36.9 189 39.9 362 38.5 31 – 35 yrs. 85 18.1 97 20.5 182 19.3 36 – 40 yrs. 88 18.8 42 8.9 130 13.8 41 – 45 yrs. 42 9.0 28 5.9 70 7.4 45 – 50 yrs. 3 0.6 4 0.8 7 0.7 > 50 yrs 1 0.2 4 0.8 5 0.5 Marital status Single 361 77.1 356 75.2 717 76.0 Married 104 22.1 116 24.4 220 23.4 Divorced 4 0.8 2 0.4 6 0.6 Occupation Business office worker 303 64.6 140 29.6 443 47.0 Government officer 54 11.5 202 42.6 256 27.2 Employee of state enterprise 36 7.7 46 9.7 82 8.7 Business owner 32 6.8 34 7.2 66 7.0 Housewives 1 0.2 2 0.4 3 0.3 Freelance 14 3.0 22 4.6 36 3.8 Unemployed 29 6.2 28 5.9 57 6.0 Monthly income (Baht) < 20,0001 176 37.5 301 63.5 477 50.6 20,001-40,000 178 38.0 128 27.0 306 32.5 40,001-60,000 71 15.1 31 6.5 102 10.8 60,001-80,000 22 4.7 2 0.4 24 2.6 80,001-100,000 6 1.3 0 0.0 6 0.6 >100,000 5 1.1 0 0.0 5 0.5 No income 11 2.3 12 2.6 23 2.4 Job related with marketing function. Very related 156 33.3 77 16.2 233 24.7 Some related 152 32.4 191 40.3 343 36.4 Not related 132 28.1 178 37.6 310 32.9 Unemployed 29 6.2 28 5.9 57 6.0 Used to buy CRMK products Used to buy 439 93.6 446 94.1 885 93.8 Didn’t use to buy 30 6.4 28 5.9 58 6.2 Donated within past 6 months More than once per month 129 27.5 94 19.8 223 23.6 Once per month 118 25.2 111 23.4 229 24.3 3-4 times in 6 months 94 20.0 121 25.5 215 22.8 1-2 times in 6 months 114 24.3 119 25.1 233 24.7 Never donated in 6 months 14 3.0 29 6.1 43 4.6
103
Table 8 showed that data cover a variety of respondent which were
representative of Graduate student of Ramkhamhang University, Huamak Campus
area of Bangkok Metropolitan. Data indicated that half of the 943 respondents were
female (56.8%). One-third of them (35.8%) were in the 26-30 years old or half of all
respondents were not more than 30 years old (58.3%). The majority 76.0 percentages
were single. Almost half of the respondents (47.0%) worked as business officer. Half
of all respondents had monthly income not more than 20,000 baht (50.6%). More than
half of respondents had a job related with marketing function (61.1%). Almost of
respondents used to buy product or service which had CRMK campaign (93.8%). Few
respondents (4.6 %) had never donated to any charity in the past 6 months. In the
other way, half of respondents always donated to charity (47.9 % from donated more
than once per month and donated once per month).
Attitude of the respondents toward observed variables
A preliminary examination of the data for the sample provided the descriptive
statistics for the observed variables. ‘Likert’ statements were used to obtain the
respondents’ attitudes towards a given statement. The respondents were given the
statement for each observed variable and gave a response with agree level from very
more agree (5), more agree (4), moderate agree (3), less agree (2), very less agree (1).
The collected data on the surveys’ ‘Likert’ questions were documented and analyzed
throughout the following.
104
Cause important
Cause important is the important of a major cause which is a main issue for
CRMK campaign. Cause important has many variables such as personal relevance,
cause proximity, cause agent, and cause claim. The respondent gave a response with
agree level for each of cause or social problem should be considered and applied to be
the component of CRMK campaign.
Personal relevance
Personal relevance is the level of perceived personal important and/or interest
evoked by a stimulus within a specific situation. According to mean score, the
respondents agreed with more level on all of personal relevance questions (Table 9).
Table 9 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on personal relevance (n=943)
Personal relevance
% of total percentages
Very more agree……...Very less agree
Mean Std. Average
agree level
5 4 3 2 1
CI1 The social problem relates with the quality of your living and family.
18.2 40.9 30.0 7.7 3.1 3.64 0.968 More
CI2 The social problem relates with your gender disease.
24.6 46.2 21.1 6.9 1.2 3.86 0.905 More
CI3 The social problem relates with your experience and has emergency for resolving.
19.9 35.4 30.0 10.4 4.2 3.56 1.053 More
CI4 The relevance social problem which you always perceive from mass communications.
12.8 38.9 39.9 7.8 0.5 3.56 0.832 More
Remark Mean = 5.00-4.21: Very more agree // Mean = 4.20-3.41: More agree//
Mean = 3.40-2.61: Moderate agree// Mean = 2.60-1.81: Less agree // Mean = 1.80-1.00: Very less agree
105
Cause proximity
Cause proximity is the distance between the donation activity and the
consumer thus affecting the impact of the donation. According to mean score, the
respondents agreed with more level on all of cause proximity questions (Table 10).
Table 10 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on cause proximity
(n=943)
Cause proximity
% of total percentages
Very more agree……...Very less agree
Mean Std. Average
agree level
5 4 3 2 1
CI5
The local social problem which is the air pollution or environment problem in your community.
41.5 38.9 17.0 2.7 0.0 4.19 0.809 More
CI6
The local social problem which is the safety of your community lives.
24.4 36.2 32.9 5.9 0.6 3.78 0.905 More
CI7
The provincial social problem which is the natural disaster in many provinces.
33.7 38.2 21.7 4.7 1.7 3.98 0.946 More
CI8
The provincial social problem which is the stray animal in your province.
30.0 39.7 23.3 5.6 1.4 3.91 0.936 More
CI9 The national social problem which is the uneducated children.
43.2 36.6 15.9 3.8 0.5 4.18 0.871 More
CI10 The national social problem which is the public health.
40.8 34.6 19.3 4.8 0.5 4.10 0.911 More
CI11 The global social problem which is the Aids/HIV.
12.8 36.7 40.6 7.6 2.2 3.50 0.891 More
CI12 The global social problem which is the global warming.
26.0 42.1 29.6 2.3 0.0 3.92 0.802 More
106
Cause agent
Cause agent or charity is representative of specific social problem. Cause
agent characteristics will influence to consumer responses in CRMK campaign.
According to mean score, the respondents agreed with very more level on all of cause
agent questions (Table 11).
Table 11 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on cause agent (n=943)
Cause agent
% of total percentages
Very more agree……...Very less agree
Mean Std. Average
agree level 5 4 3 2 1
CI13
The social problem which has a well-known charity takes care of the problem.
42.1 40.1 16.9 0.7 0.2 4.23 0.765 Very more
CI14
The social problem which has a charity is really agency of problem solving takes care of the problem.
44.9 36.1 16.0 3.1 0.0 4.23 0.825 Very more
Remark Mean = 5.00-4.21: Very more agree // Mean = 4.20-3.41: More agree//
Mean = 3.40-2.61: Moderate agree// Mean = 2.60-1.81: Less agree // Mean = 1.80-1.00: Very less agree
Cause claim
Cause claim is executional elements which enhance viewers’ a priority levels
of involvement in as advertising and increase information processing and persuasion.
According to mean score, the respondents agreed with more level on all of cause
claim questions (Table 12).
107
Table 12 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on cause claim (n=943)
Cause claim
% of total percentages
Very more agree……...Very less agree
Mean Std. Average
agree level 5 4 3 2 1
CI15
The social problem which is unaware. It is promoted by CRMK campaign.
19.7 38.1 37.4 3.4 1.3 3.72 0.862 More
CI16
The serious national social problems which are fully used advertising for donation support in CRMK campaign.
12.8 38.9 39.9 7.8 0.5 3.56 0.832 More
CI17
The social problem which has a celebrity is the supporter in CRMK campaign.
17.4 37.2 35.8 9.0 0.5 3.62 0.892 More
Remark Mean = 5.00-4.21: Very more agree // Mean = 4.20-3.41: More agree//
Mean = 3.40-2.61: Moderate agree// Mean = 2.60-1.81: Less agree // Mean = 1.80-1.00: Very less agree
Brand – cause fit
Brand – cause fit is the degree of similarity or compatibility that consumers
perceive exists between the cause and the brand which has variables such as product
fit, and image fit. The respondent gave a response with agreed level for each of brand-
cause fit should be considered and applied to be the component of CRMK campaign.
Product fit
Functional fit
Product fit was examined with the functional fit and the natural fit. Functional
fit may be perceived on the basis of a match between a brand’s functional attributes
and the objectives of the alliance. The statement of CF1, CF3, and CF5 were high
functional fit. The statement of CF2, CF4 and CF6 were low functional fit. According
to mean score, the respondents very more agreed with high functional fit CF1, CF3
and CF5 and less agreed with low functional fit CF2, CF4 and CF6(Table 13).
108
Table 13 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on functional fit (n=943)
Product fit with functional fit
% of total percentages
Very more agree……...Very less agree
Mean Std. Average
agree level 5 4 3 2 1
CF1
Automobile is an alliance with the safety road project.
46.3 46.1 7.4 0.2 0.0 4.38 0.631 Very more
CF2 Automobile is an alliance with the child slum care project.
0.0 4.5 39.8 38.8 17.0 2.32 0.804 Less
CF3
Apparel is an alliance with the cold disaster people care project.
47.3 39.4 13.3 0.0 0.0 4.34 0.700 Very more
CF4 Apparel is an alliance with the elephant’s survival project.
0.0 0.0 52.4 28.7 18.9 2.34 0.775 Less
CF5
Construction material is an alliance with the school buildings maintenance project.
58.0 35.1 5.8 1.1 0.0 4.50 0.656 Very more
CF6
Construction material is an alliance with the project helping the handicapped.
0.0 0.0 54.2 31.0 14.8 2.39 0.732 Less
Remark Mean = 5.00-4.21: Very more agree // Mean = 4.20-3.41: More agree//
Mean = 3.40-2.61: Moderate agree// Mean = 2.60-1.81: Less agree // Mean = 1.80-1.00: Very less agree
Results in Table 13 showed the respondents less agreed with pairs of low
functional fit to used in CRMK campaign component. Therefore, the variables of low
functional fit were suppressed from the further study and structural equation
modeling.
109
Natural fit
Product fit with natural fit is the extent to which the sponsored cause is
perceived as being congruent with the product image of the sponsor, independent of
efforts to create a perceived fit between the product and charity. The statement of
CF7, CF9, and CF11 were high natural fit. The statement of CF8, CF10 and CF12
were low natural fit. According to mean score, the respondents very more agreed with
high natural fit CF7 and CF9 and more agreed with high natural fit CF11. Whereas,
they less agreed with low natural fit CF8, CF10 and CF12 (Table 14).
Table 14 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on natural fit (n=943)
Product fit with natural fit
% of total percentages
Very more agree……...Very less agree
Mean Std. Average
agree level 5 4 3 2 1
CF7
Pet food is an alliance with helping the stray dog and cat project.
57.1 37.3 10.6 1.0 0.0 4.39 0.712 Very more
CF8 Pet food is an alliance with helping HIV patient project.
0.0 1.7 35.2 37.5 25.6 2.13 0.812 Less
CF9
Ladies’ product is an alliance with the breast cancer crusade project.
50.2 42.3 7.2 0.3 0.0 4.42 0.639 Very more
CF10
Ladies’ product is an alliance with the headwater sources conservation project.
0.0 4.1 47.3 29.9 18.7 2.37 0.830 Less
CF11
Heart candy is an alliance with helping children with heart diseases.
40.6 34.9 20.6 2.4 1.5 4.11 0.912 More
CF12
Heart candy is an alliance with helping people who meet with flood disaster.
0.0 2.5 20.1 54.1 23.2 2.02 0.732 Less
Remark Mean = 5.00-4.21: Very more agree // Mean = 4.20-3.41: More agree//
Mean = 3.40-2.61: Moderate agree// Mean = 2.60-1.81: Less agree // Mean = 1.80-1.00: Very less agree
110
Results in Table 14 showed the respondents less agreed with pairs of low
natural fit to used in CRMK campaign component. Therefore, the variables of low
natural fit were suppressed from the further study and structural equation modeling.
Image fit
Image fit refers to how comfortable consumers are with the brand-cause
pairing. Each partner brings perceptions of their image to the alliance. In any
collaborative effort, the images of both parties become part of the equation.
According to mean score, the respondents more agreed with all of image fit questions
(Table 15).
Table 15 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on image fit (n=943)
Image fit
% of total percentages
Very more agree……...Very less agree
Mean Std. Average
agree level 5 4 3 2 1
CF13
The large corporate with good image in CSR is an alliance with the large amount of charity and popular.
38.5 39.9 18.9 2.1 0.6 4.13 0.836 More
CF14
The corporate which recognized product or service is an alliance with the charity which has strongly resulted of social problem solving.
24.4 42.2 29.8 3.1 0.5 3.87 0.834 More
CF15
The corporate which has continually public news of CSR activities is an alliance with the charity which has continually public news of social problem solving.
25.5 43.8 26.5 3.9 0.3 3.90 0.834 More
Remark Mean = 5.00-4.21: Very more agree // Mean = 4.20-3.41: More agree//
Mean = 3.40-2.61: Moderate agree// Mean = 2.60-1.81: Less agree // Mean = 1.80-1.00: Very less agree
111
Donation framing
Donation framing is the structure of donation which had many observed
variables which is found out exactly such as; donation size, and transparent donation.
The respondent gave a response with agreed level for each of donation characteristic
should be considered and applied to be the component of CRMK campaign.
Donation size
Donation size is the donation which relative to the price of the product offered
for purchase. According to mean score, the respondents more agreed with almost of
donation size questions (DF1, DF2 and DF3) except DF4 which they moderate agreed
(Table 16).
Table 16 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on donation size (n=943)
Donation size
% of total percentages
Very more agree……...Very less agree
Mean Std. Average
agree level 5 4 3 2 1
DF1
Comparing of donation quantifiers with price of product should be relative.
35.6 41.7 19.8 2.4 0.4 4.10 0.826 More
DF2
Donation quantifiers can calculate the percentage of price.
26.7 39.9 25.5 6.8 1.2 3.84 0.935 More
DF3
The product which has high sales volume can donate with a small donation size when comparing with the price.
23.5 36.7 27.6 9.8 2.4 3.69 1.013 More
DF4
The portion of income which is not included in donation from sales amount should be extra donated to charity.
15.8 30.1 32.7 15.2 6.3 3.34 1.105 Moderate
Remark Mean = 5.00-4.21: Very more agree // Mean = 4.20-3.41: More agree//
Mean = 3.40-2.61: Moderate agree// Mean = 2.60-1.81: Less agree // Mean = 1.80-1.00: Very less agree
112
Transparent donation
Transparent donation is the tangible information regarding the donation. If the
amount donated through CRMK campaign is stated in transparent, straightforward
way, there will be little concern about potential consumer confusion. According to
mean score, the respondents more agreed with almost of transparent donation
questions (DF5, DF6, DF7, DF10, and DF11) except DF8 and DF9 which they very
more agreed (Table 17).
Table 17 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on transparent donation
(n=943)
Transparent donation
% of total percentages
Very more agree……...Very less agree
Mean Std. Average
agree level 5 4 3 2 1
DF5
The exact target of donation to a charity should be informed to the public.
34.4 39.3 23.0 3.2 0.1 4.05 0.842 More
DF6
The campaign should be publicized clearly information of donation.
33.2 44.5 21.6 0.6 0.0 4.10 0.751 More
DF7
The campaign should be continually publicized and informed the accumulated donation.
37.4 38.4 22.4 1.8 0.0 4.11 0.811 More
DF8
The total amount of donation should be known to the public when the campaign comes to as end.
49.0 30.5 18.0 2.1 0.3 4.26 0.847 Very more
DF9 The campaign should have certain period.
42.9 39.7 16.0 1.1 0.2 4.24 0.771 Very more
DF10
The timeframe of campaign should be related with the target of donation size.
28.7 43.3 25.3 2.2 0.4 3.98 0.817 More
DF11
The CRMK campaign against critical social problems should be continually conducted for a long time.
29.4 40.4 24.2 5.5 0.5 3.93 0.894 More
Remark Mean = 5.00-4.21: Very more agree // Mean = 4.20-3.41: More agree//
Mean = 3.40-2.61: Moderate agree// Mean = 2.60-1.81: Less agree // Mean = 1.80-1.00: Very less agree
113
Patronage intention
Patronage intention is the indicator that signals more or less consumer support
on CRMK campaign. The three most commonly examined dimension of patronage
intention are purchase intention, repeat purchase, and word of mouth. According to
mean score, the respondents had moderate agreed with purchase intention and repeat
purchase (Table 18 and 19 respectively) and had more agreed with word of mouth
(Table 20).
Table 18 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on purchase intention
(n=943)
Purchase intention
% of total percentages
Very more agree……...Very less agree
Mean Std. Average
agree level 5 4 3 2 1
PI1
You have intention to purchase CRMK product although never used it before.
13.7 34.7 36.6 10.7 4.3 3.43 0.997 More
PI2
You have intention to purchase CRMK product compare with others brand name which have same price and quality.
21.6 45.1 29.1 3.5 0.7 3.83 0.829 More
PI3
You have intention to purchase CRMK product although it is not necessary product for you.
6.9 20.3 47.3 16.4 9.1 2.99 1.004 Moderate
PI4
You have intention to switch brand from your usual product to CRMK brand to support CRMK campaign.
2.5 27.8 46.1 16.9 4.0 3.13 0.894 Moderate
PI5
You have intention to purchase CRMK product despite it is higher price than other brand.
5.6 30.9 41.4 14.7 7.4 3.13 0.981 Moderate
Average mean
3.30 0.700 Moderate
Remark Mean = 5.00-4.21: Very more agree // Mean = 4.20-3.41: More agree//
Mean = 3.40-2.61: Moderate agree// Mean = 2.60-1.81: Less agree // Mean = 1.80-1.00: Very less agree
114
Table 19 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on repeat
purchase
(n=943)
Repeat purchase
% of total percentages
Very more agree……...Very less agree
Mean Std. Average
agree level 5 4 3 2 1
PI6
When you bought CRMK product, you have intention to repeat purchase to support CRMK campaign.
8.9 38.2 38.4 12.3 2.2 3.39 0.893 Moderate
PI7
You continuously purchase CRMK product because you have feeling more donate.
17.3 42.5 30.3 8.2 1.7 3.66 0.915 More
PI8
If you knew the CRMK campaign does not achieved the donation target, you will immediately repeat purchase.
8.2 21.7 46.8 17.8 5.5 3.09 0.967 Moderate
Average mean
3.38 0.741 Moderate
Remark Mean = 5.00-4.21: Very more agree // Mean = 4.20-3.41: More agree//
Mean = 3.40-2.61: Moderate agree// Mean = 2.60-1.81: Less agree // Mean = 1.80-1.00: Very less agree
Table 20 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on word of mouth (n=943)
Word of mouth
% of total percentages
Very more agree……...Very less agree
Mean Std. Average
agree level 5 4 3 2 1
PI9
You have intention to tell about your supporting in the campaign to your family.
15.4 38.3 36.6 8.4 1.4 3.58 0.896 More
PI10
You have intention to recommend the CRMK campaign to your family and familiar for their supporting.
17.1 36.2 37.0 6.9 2.9 3.58 0.947 More
PI11
You have intention to recommend the CRMK campaign to the others.
9.3 31.1 41.3 10.7 7.6 3.24 1.020 Moderate
Average mean
3.47 0.808 More
Remark Mean = 5.00-4.21: Very more agree // Mean = 4.20-3.41: More agree//
Mean = 3.40-2.61: Moderate agree// Mean = 2.60-1.81: Less agree // Mean = 1.80-1.00: Very less agree
115
Skepticism
Skepticism is the indicator that signals consumer’s distrust on CRMK
campaign. The question SK1, SK5 and SK6 were conversed the scores from 5 to 1, 4
to 2, 2 to 4 and 1 to 5. So, the statements of SK1, SK5 and SK6 in table 22 were
conversed from the questionnaires also. According to mean score, the respondents had
moderate agreed with skepticism (Table 21).
Table 21 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents’ opinion on skepticism (n=943)
Skepticism
% of total percentages
Very more agree……...Very less agree
Mean Std. Average
agree level 5 4 3 2 1
SK1
You have skepticism with CRMK campaign advertising.
0.7 6.2 36.9 38.2 15.6 2.38 0.846 Less
SK2
Almost all of CRMK campaign advertising is with intention to convince the customers
14.3 54.1 28.8 2.3 0.4 3.80 0.722 More
SK3
Almost all of the CRMK campaign advertisings are exaggerated.
16.2 32.1 40.2 9.9 1.6 3.52 0.932 More
SK4 CRMK campaign is sales promotion tool.
23.5 40.8 31.0 3.9 0.7 3.83 0.860 More
SK5
Image and credit of firm and brand image impact on your patronage intention.
0.0 0.4 20.9 46.9 31.8 1.90 0.731 Less
SK6
Unclear CRMK campaign component makes impact on your patronage intention.
0.8 5.5 21.1 40.0 32.6 2.02 0.913 Less
Average mean
2.91 0.347 Moderate
Remark Mean = 5.00-4.21: Very more agree // Mean = 4.20-3.41: More agree//
Mean = 3.40-2.61: Moderate agree// Mean = 2.60-1.81: Less agree // Mean = 1.80-1.00: Very less agree
116
Multicollinearity testing
Before testing the hypothesized conceptual model, the collinearity or
multicollinearity problem should be addressed. Collinearity is the association between
two independent variables, whereas multicollinearity is the correlation among three or
more independent variables. Multicollinearity represents the degree to which any
variable’s effect can be predicted or accounted for by the other variables in the
analysis. As multicollinearity rises, the ability to define any variable’s effect is
diminished. The addition of irrelevant or marginally significant variables can only
increase the degree of multicollinearity, which makes interpretation of all variables
more difficult. Symptoms of mulitcollinearity may be observed in situations: 1) small
changes in the data produce wide swings in the parameter estimates, 2) coefficients
may have very high standard errors and low significance levels even though they are
jointly significant and the R2 for the regression is quite high, 3) coefficients may have
the “wrong” sign or implausible magnitude, and 4) when multicollinearity is extreme,
Type II error rates are generally unacceptably high (Grewal et al., 2004).
One way to assess the possibility of multicollinearity among the study
variables is to perform correlations. If a correlation coefficient matrix demonstrates
correlations of .90 or higher (r>0.90) among the variables, there may be
multicollinearity (Hair et al., 2006). Table 22 showed the highest correlation was
0.609 which was the correlation between intention to repeat purchase (repeat) and
intention to word of mouth (wom). Therefore, all variables in the study could use for
the hypothesized model.
117
Table 22 Correlation matrix
CI1 CI2 CI3 CI4 CI5 CI6 CI7 CI8 CI9 CI10 CI11 CI12 CI13 CI14 CI15
CI1 1.00
CI2 0.42 1.00
CI3 0.35 0.34 1.00
CI4 0.19 0.34 0.42 1.00
CI5 0.16 0.27 0.32 0.49 1.00
CI6 0.02 0.23 0.25 0.43 0.52 1.00
CI7 0.07 0.24 0.23 0.30 0.46 0.36 1.00
CI8 0.06 0.25 0.22 0.35 0.35 0.28 0.56 1.00
CI9 0.03 0.24 0.17 0.36 0.37 0.41 0.39 0.46 1.00
CI10 0.09 0.08 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.03 1.00
CI11 0.18 0.19 0.25 0.36 0.28 0.15 0.25 0.29 0.22 0.36 1.00
CI12 0.11 0.20 0.20 0.33 0.25 0.16 0.26 0.24 0.17 0.17 0.53 1.00
CI13 0.08 0.15 0.21 0.26 0.27 0.26 0.20 0.16 0.32 0.09 0.17 0.21 1.00
CI14 0.28 0.23 0.33 0.29 0.26 0.19 0.22 0.16 0.19 0.27 0.38 0.28 0.17 1.00
CI15 0.26 0.34 0.34 0.21 0.37 0.26 0.25 0.22 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.13 0.25 0.31 1.00
CI16 0.11 0.20 0.26 0.25 0.32 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.13 0.33 0.33 0.28 0.30 0.33
CI17 0.08 0.23 0.18 0.21 0.27 0.22 0.15 0.25 0.25 0.27 0.19 0.11 0.10 0.29 0.23
CF1 0.05 0.13 0.19 0.31 0.22 0.28 0.17 0.21 0.22 0.13 0.25 0.26 0.12 0.12 0.09
CF3 0.06 0.21 0.13 0.24 0.24 0.19 0.20 0.34 0.34 0.11 0.30 0.23 0.15 0.18 0.20
CF5 0.10 0.19 0.12 0.30 0.23 0.21 0.23 0.33 0.18 0.07 0.27 0.31 0.09 0.17 0.20
CF7 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.26 0.23 0.17 0.18 0.26 0.22 0.11 0.28 0.26 0.12 0.22 0.20
CF9 0.13 0.17 0.13 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.19 0.23 0.26 0.08 0.26 0.17 0.16 0.17 0.17
CF11 0.10 0.17 0.08 0.21 0.24 0.21 0.13 0.13 0.16 0.03 0.09 0.08 0.18 0.04 0.23
CF13 0.16 0.19 0.17 0.31 0.21 0.16 0.14 0.21 0.23 0.22 0.31 0.24 0.22 0.29 0.14
CF14 0.20 0.23 0.28 0.32 0.12 0.22 0.11 0.16 0.15 0.19 0.25 0.19 0.29 0.32 0.19
CF15 0.15 0.13 0.17 0.23 0.16 0.21 0.05 0.16 0.17 0.21 0.26 0.17 0.22 0.28 0.16
DF1 0.08 0.04 0.16 0.24 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.23 0.13 0.18 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.28 0.10
DF2 0.11 0.18 0.22 0.24 0.17 0.18 0.20 0.28 0.19 -0.01 0.22 0.22 0.17 0.20 0.23
DF3 0.03 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.11 0.10 0.02 0.18 0.10 0.01 0.17 0.08 0.05 0.14 0.16
DF4 -0.01 0.07 0.19 0.14 0.20 0.19 0.08 0.08 0.21 0.06 0.10 -0.03 0.18 0.12 0.09
DF5 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.21 0.11 0.03 0.23 0.13
DF6 0.13 0.17 0.24 0.25 0.17 0.06 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.05 0.21 0.15 0.17 0.22 0.13
DF7 0.06 0.16 0.28 0.29 0.20 0.13 0.10 0.22 0.15 0.00 0.29 0.22 0.12 0.18 0.21
DF8 0.11 0.21 0.17 0.37 0.23 0.20 0.10 0.18 0.28 0.05 0.25 0.21 0.27 0.24 0.13
DF9 0.04 0.21 0.27 0.34 0.26 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.16 0.12 0.30 0.28 0.10 0.24 0.17
DF10 0.12 0.25 0.30 0.25 0.27 0.22 0.17 0.20 0.17 0.16 0.27 0.22 0.29 0.30 0.20
DF11 0.10 0.20 0.22 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.17 0.19 0.19 0.05 0.26 0.29 0.24 0.25 0.20
Purchase 0.22 0.25 0.26 0.22 0.21 0.18 0.10 0.11 0.22 0.15 0.15 0.08 0.25 0.26 0.24
Repeat 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.26 0.19 0.17 0.12 0.10 0.11 0.09 0.11 0.12 0.26 0.21 0.22
Wom 0.09 0.21 0.21 0.24 0.22 0.12 0.11 0.22 0.27 0.15 0.21 0.15 0.25 0.19 0.14
SK1 -0.12 -0.09 -0.09 -0.17 -0.12 -0.01 0.02 -0.07 -0.17 -0.19 -0.11 -0.07 -0.24 -0.09 -0.10
SK2 0.08 0.10 0.18 0.15 0.11 -0.04 0.07 0.15 0.12 0.08 0.17 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.10
SK3 0.07 0.07 0.21 0.05 -0.01 0.07 0.09 0.09 -0.05 0.02 0.09 0.09 0.00 0.07 0.19
SK4 0.04 -0.01 0.08 0.15 0.11 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.21 0.21 0.10 0.11 0.05
SK5 -0.11 -0.11 -0.12 -0.24 -0.13 -0.11 -0.13 -0.12 -0.11 -0.07 -0.24 -0.27 -0.21 -0.26 -0.04
SK6 -0.12 -0.10 -0.05 -0.21 -0.19 -0.16 -0.10 -0.01 -0.09 -0.08 -0.21 -0.18 -0.15 -0.23 -0.05
N of cases = 943 Reliability coefficients 46 items = .890 Standardized item alpha = .893
118
Table 22 Correlation matrix (cont.)
CI16 CI17 CF1 CF3 CF5 CF7 CF9 CF11 CF13 CF14 CF15 DF1 DF2 DF3 DF4
CI1
CI2
CI3
CI4
CI5
CI6
CI7
CI8
CI9
CI10
CI11
CI12
CI13
CI14
CI15
CI16 1.00
CI17 0.32 1.00
CF1 0.26 0.20 1.00
CF3 0.23 0.19 0.51 1.00
CF5 0.20 0.14 0.43 0.54 1.00
CF7 0.12 0.18 0.38 0.44 0.56 1.00
CF9 0.18 0.12 0.38 0.43 0.48 0.56 1.00
CF11 0.07 0.13 0.31 0.38 0.35 0.42 0.47 1.00
CF13 0.25 0.27 0.32 0.30 0.30 0.34 0.28 0.19 1.00
CF14 0.25 0.21 0.22 0.14 0.18 0.23 0.17 0.13 0.47 1.00
CF15 0.19 0.25 0.12 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.13 0.06 0.43 0.46 1.00
DF1 0.24 0.22 0.28 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.21 0.09 0.31 0.24 0.19 1.00
DF2 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.27 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.10 0.25 0.23 0.19 0.53 1.00
DF3 0.07 0.22 0.15 0.14 0.11 0.17 0.06 0.03 0.19 0.16 0.13 0.23 0.41 1.00
DF4 0.10 0.19 0.19 0.13 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.16 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.30 0.56 1.00
DF5 0.07 0.17 0.13 0.15 0.20 0.18 0.21 0.16 0.29 0.21 0.25 0.12 0.17 0.13 0.02
DF6 0.15 0.11 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.22 0.24 0.18 0.28 0.25 0.21 0.25 0.23 0.14 0.16
DF7 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.24 0.21 0.15 0.26 0.28 0.18 0.21 0.27 0.24 0.16
DF8 0.23 0.11 0.21 0.29 0.21 0.26 0.28 0.15 0.36 0.41 0.26 0.25 0.21 0.18 0.12
DF9 0.19 0.20 0.33 0.30 0.29 0.28 0.24 0.16 0.35 0.27 0.17 0.26 0.29 0.20 0.15
DF10 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.21 0.16 0.28 0.20 0.11 0.31 0.30 0.37 0.20 0.30 0.20 0.14
DF11 0.29 0.18 0.18 0.26 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.15 0.25 0.21 0.18 0.15 0.26 0.23 0.12
Purchase 0.13 0.27 0.09 0.23 0.14 0.17 0.19 0.16 0.30 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.28 0.15 0.14
Repeat 0.14 0.17 0.11 0.12 0.18 0.17 0.13 0.11 0.18 0.14 0.23 0.21 0.27 0.18 0.17
Wom 0.13 0.22 0.16 0.25 0.18 0.26 0.21 0.12 0.30 0.21 0.24 0.22 0.29 0.25 0.36
SK1 -0.09 -0.18 -0.15 -0.08 -0.10 -0.13 -0.09 -0.07 -0.24 -0.21 -0.24 -0.17 -0.15 -0.14 -0.26
SK2 0.09 0.19 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.11 0.13 0.00 0.21 0.15 0.11 0.21 0.17 0.18 0.15
SK3 0.08 0.13 0.05 0.06 0.13 0.06 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.08 0.13 0.16 0.03
SK4 0.13 0.06 0.15 0.10 0.03 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.11 0.06 0.06 0.17 0.13 0.02 -0.07
SK5 -0.23 -0.03 -0.23 -0.10 -0.22 -0.25 -0.26 -0.12 -0.29 -0.21 -0.21 -0.23 -0.14 -0.05 -0.03
SK6 -0.20 -0.03 -0.14 -0.11 -0.17 -0.15 -0.22 -0.07 -0.23 -0.19 -0.22 -0.09 -0.02 0.02 0.04
N of cases = 943 Reliability coefficients 46 items = .890 Standardized item alpha = .893
119
Table 22 Correlation matrix (cont.) DF5 DF6 DF7 DF8 DF9 DF10 DF11 Purc
hase Repe
at wom SK1 SK2 SK3 SK4 SK5
CI1
CI2
CI3
CI4
CI5
CI6
CI7
CI8
CI9
CI10
CI11
CI12
CI13
CI14
CI15
CI16
CI17
CF1
CF3
CF5
CF7
CF9
CF11
CF13
CF14
CF15
DF1
DF2
DF3
DF4
DF5 1.00
DF6 0.39 1.00
DF7 0.31 0.48 1.00
DF8 0.31 0.43 0.58 1.00
DF9 0.34 0.34 0.43 0.35 1.00
DF10 0.26 0.32 0.30 0.40 0.41 1.00
DF11 0.17 0.27 0.27 0.30 0.30 0.41 1.00
Purchase 0.26 0.25 0.19 0.30 0.23 0.36 0.21 1.00
Repeat 0.16 0.24 0.14 0.17 0.21 0.31 0.21 0.59 1.00
Wom 0.14 0.26 0.22 0.23 0.25 0.34 0.28 0.59 0.61 1.00
SK1 -0.10 -0.30 -0.13 -0.16 -0.05 -0.17 -0.14 -0.28 -0.29 -0.41 1.00
SK2 0.18 0.10 0.26 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.09 0.21 -0.21 1.00
SK3 0.11 -0.06 0.11 -0.04 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.10 0.07 0.00 0.25 1.00
SK4 0.12 0.05 0.17 0.24 0.19 0.10 0.16 -0.02 -0.03 -0.02 0.06 0.23 0.11 1.00
SK5 -0.15 -0.22 -0.21 -0.30 -0.28 -0.26 -0.25 -0.13 -0.17 -0.17 0.21 -0.23 -0.06 -0.36 1.00
SK6 -0.22 -0.19 -0.10 -0.22 -0.25 -0.24 -0.21 -0.05 -0.14 -0.08 0.11 -0.19 -0.08 -0.26 0.49
N of cases = 943 Reliability coefficients 46 items = .890 Standardized item alpha = .893
120
Exploratory factor analysis for CRMK campaign component
For checking the constructs’ validity, exploratory factor analysis was used to
analytical method. Exploratory factor analysis for multiple-item constructs is
recommended before assessing reliability (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988). Thus, all 37
measures in the CRMK component such as cause important, brand-cause fit, and
donation framing were submitted for exploratory factor analysis by category. The
specific procedure used principal component analysis with varimax rotation and
Kaiser normalization. Because of large sample size of 400, the items with factor
loading of less than 0.30 were all eliminated as prescribed by Hair et al., (2006).
Objectives were to assess magnitudes of factor loading, to identify weak variables for
possible elimination, and to summarize data in a minimum number of components as
support for the conceptual model.
Table 23 Exploratory factor analysis for four dimensions of cause important (n=943)
Items Rotated factor loading*
1 2 3 4 Personal relevance CI1 0.791 CI2 0.677 CI3 0.643 CI4 0.573 Cause proximity CI5 0.513 CI6 0.655 CI7 0.695 CI8 0.694 CI9 0.684 CI10 0.721 CI11 0.451 CI12 0.476 Cause agent CI13 0.777 CI14 0.769 Cause claim CI15 0.660 CI16 0.472 CI17 0.769
* Loading whose absolute values were less than 0.30 were suppressed
121
Table 24 Exploratory factor analysis for three dimensions of brand-cause fit (n=943)
Items Rotated factor
loading* 1 2
High Product fit CF1 0.646 CF3 0.754 CF5 0.756 CF7 0.738 CF9 0.753 CF11 0.671 Image fit CF13 0.730 CF14 0.806 CF15 0.809
* Loading whose absolute values were less than 0.30 were suppressed
Table 25 Exploratory factor analysis for three dimensions of donation framing (n=943)
Items Rotated factor
loading* 1 2
Donation size DF1 0.526 DF2 0.699 DF3 0.799 DF4 0.763 Transparent donation DF5 0.620 DF6 0.703 DF7 0.719 DF8 0.738 DF9 0.645 DF10 0.607 DF11 0.492
* Loading whose absolute values were less than 0.30 were suppressed
Result in Table 23, 24, and 25 showed satisfactory levels for factor loading,
ranging from 0.451 to 0.791 and all well exceeding the 0.30 cutoff. Initial data
assessment was complete and data analysis efforts now focus on developing a
structural equation model, starting with estimation of number of measurement model
using confirmatory factor analysis.
122
Structural equation modeling analysis
This study employed two-stage structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis
(Schmacker & Lomax, 1996) where the measurement model was first estimated by
confirmatory factor analysis, then the measurement model was fixed in the second
stage when the structural model was estimated. This approach had advantages for the
study such as avoiding the interaction of measurement and structural model and
reducing the number of parameter to be estimated. Afterward, the hypothesized paths
were modified by model specification.
Legend to labeling constructs / variables
Label Construct / variables CRMK Cause related marketing campaign component Cause Cause important Relevan Cause relevance Proxim Cause proximity Agent Cause agent Claim Cause claim Cause Brand-cause fit Product Product fit Image Image fit Donation Donation framing Size Donation size Trans Donation transparent Patron Patronage intention Intent Purchase intention Repeat Repeat purchase Word Word of mouth Skep Skepticism
Confirmatory factor analysis of CRMK campaign component
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the measurement model
that set of observed (indicator) variables identified the hypothetical latent construct
and confirming the theory generated model (Brown, 2006). Testing the measurement
model also provided an assessment of convergent and discriminant validity. Criteria
for evaluating were no significant chi-square value (X2) p>.05, Root mean squared
123
.00
relevan
.27ci4e4
.52
.42ci3e3.65
.34ci2e2
.58
.19ci1e1 .44
.00
proxim
.27ci8e8
.16ci7e7
.32ci6e6
.31ci5e5
.25ci9e9
.00
agent
.64ci13e13
.32ci12e12
.17ci11e11
.17ci10e10
.00
claim.14
ci17e17
.52ci16e16
.14ci15e15
.42ci14e14
.38
.72.38
erelevan
eproxim
eagent
eclaim
.75
.46
.63
.70
.67
.63
.80.65
.55.57
.56
.41.41.50
.52.40
.24.10
-.06
.22
.25.27
.36.22
.19
.41.23
.32
.07
.28.17
.05
.09.17.08
.11
.11
.19
.08 .15
.17
.08
.10
.10
.31
.13
.13
.16.11.09
.09
.15
.12
.12
residual and Root mean square error of approximation(RMR and RMSEA)<.05, and
Goodness of fit index, Adjusted goodness of fit index, and Comparative fit index
(GFI, AGFI, and CFI)>.90 as mentioned in chapter 3. The results of CFA were as
follow.
Cause important
Cause important construct were measured with 4 latent variables (personal
relevance, cause proximity, cause agent, and cause claim) and 17 observed variables.
The measurement model showed good fitted to the data (X2= 76.531, p.053>.05,
RMR=.020<.05, RMSEA= .019<.05, GFI=.990>.90, AGFI=.974>.90, CFI=
.995>.90). All indices exceed acceptable standards of model fit as shown in figure 3.
Figure 3 Measurement model for cause important
Chi-square= 76.531, df=57 p.051>.05, RMR=.020<.05, RMSEA=.019<.05,
GFI=.990>.90, AGFI=.974>.90, CFI=.995>.90
124
.00
product
.45cf5e3
.49cf3e2
.42cf1e1
.26cf11e11
.37cf9e9
.35cf7e7
.00
image.73
cf15e15
.29cf14e14
.72cf13e13
.85
.53.85
eproduct
eimage
.64.70.67
.59
.61
.51
.52
.10
.13.04
.27.12
.30.18
.23
.04-1.07
-.49
.12
Brand – cause fit
Brand–cause fit construct were measured with 2 latent variables (high product
fit and image fit) and 9 observed variables. The measurement model showed good
fitted to the data (X2= 22.055, p.106>.05, RMR=.010<.05, RMSEA=.022<.05,
GFI=.995>.90, AGFI=.984>.90, CFI=.997>.90). All indices exceed acceptable
standards of model fit as shown in figure 4.
Figure 4 Measurement model for brand-cause fit
Chi-square= 22.055, df=15 p.106>.05, RMR=.010<.05, RMSEA=.022<.05,
GFI=.995>.90, AGFI=.984>.90, CFI=.997>.90
125
Donation framing
Donation framing construct were measured with 2 latent variables (donation
size and transparent donation) and 11 observed variables. The measurement model
showed good fitted to the data (X2= 22.650, p.178>.05, RMR=.013<.05,
RMSEA=.017<.05, GFI=.995>.90, AGFI=.984>.90, CFI=.998>.90). All indices
exceed acceptable standards of model fit as shown in figure 5.
Figure 5 Measurement model for donation framing
Chi-square= 22.650, df =20 p.178>.05, RMR=.013<.05, RMSEA=.017<.05,
GFI=.995>.90, AGFI=.984>.90, CFI=.998>.90
126
Dummy variables
A critical factor in structural equation modeling method, metric variables must
be used as independent variables. To this point, demography such as gender, age,
marital status, occupation, monthly income, job related with marketing function, used
to buy CRMK product, and donated with in past 6 months were nonmetric variables.
Therefore, a method for using dummy variable (coded 0-1) was acted as replacement
variables for all of the demography. The demography which had more than two
categories were combined into two categories for coding 0 and 1 in the following:
Table 26 Dummy variables for demography
Characteristics Total
(n=943) Coded Remark n %
Education Studying in Non MBA 474 50.3 0 Code 0: Non MBA student
Code 1: MBA student Studying in MBA 469 49.7 1 Gender Female 536 56.8 0 Code 0: Female
Code 1: Male Male 407 43.2 1 Age < 26 yrs 187 19.8 0 Coded 0: Age not more than
30 yrs. Coded 1: Age more than 30 yrs.
26 – 30 yrs. 362 38.5 0 31 – 35 yrs. 182 19.3 1 36 – 40 yrs. 130 13.8 1 41 – 45 yrs. 70 7.4 1 45 – 50 yrs. 7 0.7 1 > 50 yrs 5 0.5 1 Marital status Single 717 76.0 0 Code 0: Single
Code 1: Married Married 220 23.4 1 Divorced 6 0.6 1 Occupation Government officer 256 27.2 0 Coded 0: Occupation was not
related to the business. Coded 1: Occupation was related to the business.
Employee of state enterprise 82 8.7 0 Housewives 3 0.3 0 Unemployed 57 6.0 0 Business office worker 443 47.0 1 Business owner 66 7.0 1 Freelance 36 3.8 1 Monthly income (Baht)
Coded 0: Monthly income not more than 20,000 Baht Coded 1: Monthly income more than 20,000 Baht
No income 23 2.4 0 < 20,0001 477 50.6 0 20,001-40,000 306 32.5 1 40,001-60,000 102 10.8 1 60,001-80,000 24 2.6 1 80,001-100,000 6 0.6 1 >100,000 5 0.5 1
127
Table 26 Dummy variables for demography (continue)
Job related with marketing function. Unemployed 57 6.0 0 Code 0: Job was not related
with marketing. Code 1: Job was related with marketing.
Not related 310 32.9 0 Some related 343 36.4 1 Very related 233 24.7 1 Used to buy CRMK products Didn’t use to buy CRMK product 58 6.2 0 Code 0: Didn’t used to buy
Code 1: Used to buy Used to buy CRMK product 885 93.8 1 Donated within the past 6 months
Code 0: Did not donate every month Code 1: Donated every month
Never donated in 6 months 43 4.6 0 1-2 times in 6 months 233 24.7 0 3-4 times in 6 months 215 22.8 0 Once per month 229 24.3 1 More than once per month 223 23.6 1
Structural equation modeling fitting
The following sections presented the results of the full-hypothesized model.
The hypothesized model was estimated using ML estimation in AMOS 7.0. The
criteria of the better fitted model and greater parsimony were decided by goodness-of-
fit measures as mentioned in chapter3.
The structural model described the hypothesized relationship linking the
model constructs which were divided and measured into four sets: CRMK campaign
component which was included three latent variables such as cause important, brand-
cause fit, and donation framing which were described. Skepticism, patronage
intention and demography were examined in the structural model. Having satisfied the
requirement of measurement model, the structural relationships were tested as
hypothesized. Accordingly, four constructs with 4 hypotheses were selected for
testing and the conceptual framework was operationalized into the testable as
presented in Figure 6.
128
Figure 6 Hypothesis model for goodness-of-fit testing
relevan
ci4e4
11
ci3e31
ci2e21
ci1e11
proximci8e8
ci7e7
ci6e6
ci5e5
11
1
1
1
ci9e91
agent
ci14e14
ci13e1311
1
claimci16e16
ci15e15
11
1
productcf5e20
cf3e19
cf1e18
11
1
1
image
cf15e26
cf14e25
cf13e24
11
1
1
sizedf3e29
df2e28
df1e27
11
1
1
df4e301
tran
df7e33 11
df6e321
df5e311
cause
brand CRMK
1
donation
1 edonation1
ebrand1
ecause1
erelevan1
eproxim1
eagent1
eclaim1
eproduct1
eimage1
esize1
skep
sk1
e38
1
1
sk2
e391
sk3
e401
sk4
e411
sk5
e421
sk6
e431
patron
intent e4411
repeat e451
word e461
eskep1
epatron1
edu
frequen
bought
gender
age
status
occu
market
income
1
ci10e101
ci11e111
ci17e171
cf7e211
cf9e221
cf11e231
df8e341
df9e351
df10e361
df11e371
etran1
1
ci12e121
129
In this structural equation modeling correlation between factors was allowed,
resulting in chi-square = 1078.283, p 0.236>0.05 with 1021 degrees of freedom. A
nonsignificant chi-square value implied that there was no significant discrepancy
between the covariance matrix implied by the model and the population covariance
matrix, hence indicating the model fit the data. The ratio of the chi-square to degrees
of freedom (CMIN/DF) = 1.056 was nearly 1. This ratio gave an indication that the
model adequately fits the data.
AMOS output included many other fit indices, including comparative fit index
(CFI = 1.000) which indicated a perfect fit. Root mean square residual (RMR= 0.021)
and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA = 0.019), indicating a good fit
for the model. The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and the adjusted goodness-of-fit
(AGFI) were 0.952 and 0.927 respectively indicated the amount of variance and
covariances jointly accounted for by the model and a good fit. Normed fit index (NFI)
and incremental fit index (IFI) were 0.928 and 0.980 the values were more than 0.90
and closed to 1 indicated a very good fit as described in table 27. R square values (R2)
reported in the regression analysis, the usual interpretation of R2 value was the
relative amount of variance of the dependent variable explained or accounted for by
the explanatory variables. It was estimated that the predictors of patronage intention
explain 47.9 percent of its variance.
Finally, the structural equation modeling of CRMK campaign component for
average was analyzed and presented in Figure 7 together with the standardized
estimate values. From the figure, there were 12 exogenous and two endogenous
constructs. The results showed that all structural paths in the model were significant at
p<0.05. More details about structural paths were presented in the hypotheses testing
section.
130
Table 27 Standardized parameter estimates and model fit statistics of the hypothesis model
H: From To Hypothesis model Standardized
estimate t-value
H1 CRMK campaign component
Skepticism -0.707 -7.018*
H2 CRMK campaign component
Patronage intention
0.838 8.437*
H3 Skepticism Patronage intention
0.362 4.126*
H4a Education in MBA Patronage intention
0.075 2.269*
H4b Gender Patronage intention
-0.112 -3.637*
H4c Age Patronage intention
0.183 4.155*
H4d Marital status Patronage intention
0.003 0.075
H4e Occupation Patronage intention
-0.021 -0.581
H4f Monthly income Patronage intention
-0.092 -2.595*
H4g Job related with marketing function
Patronage intention
0.100 2.826*
H4h Used to buy CRMK product
Patronage intention
0.133 4.415*
H4i Donated within last 6 months
Patronage intention
-0.112 -3.596*
Model goodness-of-fit statistics
Criteria Hypothesis model
Chi-square - 1078.283 df - 1021 p-value p>0.05 0.236 CMIN/DF Nearly1 1.056 GFI ≥0.90 0.952 AGFI ≥0.90 0.927 NFI ≥0.90 0.926 IFI ≥0.90 0.980 CFI ≥0.90 1.000 RMR <0.05 0.019 RMSEA <0.05 0.019 SMC (R2) Patronage >0.40 or (40%) 0.479 or (47.9%)
Note: * t-value>1.96 had significant at 0.05 level (*p<.05) and supported the hypotheses
131
Figure 7 Standardized estimates for CRMK campaign component model
relevan
ci4
ci30.637
ci2
ci1
proxim
ci8 ci7 ci6 ci5
0.524 0.6480.786
ci90.579
agent
ci14
ci13
0.679
0.768
claim
ci16
ci15
0.648
0.342
product
cf5
cf3
cf1
0.697
0.762
0.472
image
cf15
cf14
cf13
0.615
0.743
size
df3
df2
df1
0.533
0.745
0.814
df40.386
trans
df7
0.509
df6df5
cause
brand CRMK
0.632
0.832
0.564
0.76
donation0.625
0.986
skep
sk1
0.332
sk2
-0.421
sk3
-0.355
sk4-0.455
sk50.737
sk6
0.604
patron
intent0.764
repeat0.772
word
0.815
0.838
-0.707 0.362
edu
gender
age
income0.1
market bought frequen
0.075
0.133-0.112
ci100.63
ci11
ci170.489
cf70.798cf9 0.689
cf11 0.52
df8
0.621
df9
0.641
df10
0.635
df11
0.917
0.758
ci12
0.924
0.813
0.546
0.431
0.543
0.8190.394
0.921
0.481
0.529
0.5
0.587
0.183-0.902
-0.112
0.784
Chi-square = 1078.283, df = 1021, p-value = 0.236, CMIN/DF =1.056, GFI = 0.952, AGFI=0.927, NFI=0.926, IFI= 0.980, CFI=1.000, RMR=0.019, RMSEA = 0.019 P<0.05
132
Table 28 Standardized parameter estimates for the measurement model of CRMK campaign component model
Factor Loading
Factors CRMK Cause Band Donation Patron Cause 0.758 Band 0.924 Donation 0.986 Relevan 0.784 Proxim 0.632 Agent 0.832 Claim 0.813 Product 0.564 Image 0.760 Size 0.986 Trans 0.917 Intent 0.764 Repeat 0.772 Word 0.815
133
Table 28 Standardized parameter estimates for the measurement model of CRMK campaign component model (Cont.)
134
Table 28 Standardized parameter estimates for the measurement model of CRMK campaign component model (Cont.)
135
Table 28 Standardized parameter estimates for the measurement model of CRMK campaign component model (Cont.)
136
Table 29 Regression Weights Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label
donation <--- CRMK 1.250 .142 8.813 *** skep <--- CRMK -.747 .106 -7.018 *** cause <--- CRMK 1.000 brand <--- CRMK .980 .099 9.849 *** proxim <--- cause .875 .088 9.895 *** agent <--- cause 1.319 .126 10.486 *** product <--- brand 1.000 image <--- brand 1.458 .134 10.919 *** size <--- donation 1.000 patron <--- CRMK 1.684 .200 8.437 *** patron <--- skep .689 .167 4.126 *** patron <--- edu .080 .035 2.269 .023 patron <--- frequen -.120 .033 -3.596 *** patron <--- bought .296 .067 4.415 *** patron <--- gender -.122 .034 -3.637 *** patron <--- age .200 .048 4.155 *** patron <--- status .004 .050 .075 .940 patron <--- occu -.023 .039 -.581 .562 patron <--- market .109 .039 2.826 .005 patron <--- income -.099 .038 -2.595 .009 relevan <--- cause 1.000 perceive <--- donation 1.132 .115 9.865 *** claim <--- cause 1.173 .103 11.432 *** ci4 <--- relevan 1.000 ci3 <--- relevan 1.496 .115 12.990 *** ci2 <--- relevan 1.106 .091 12.094 *** ci1 <--- relevan .937 .098 9.512 *** ci8 <--- proxim 1.000 ci7 <--- proxim 1.269 .093 13.609 *** ci6 <--- proxim 1.471 .108 13.605 *** ci5 <--- proxim 1.525 .124 12.313 *** ci9 <--- proxim 1.027 .080 12.885 *** ci14 <--- agent 1.000 ci13 <--- agent 1.053 .062 17.043 *** ci16 <--- claim 1.000 cf5 <--- product 1.000 cf3 <--- product 1.181 .063 18.699 *** cf1 <--- product .658 .061 10.774 *** cf15 <--- image 1.000 cf14 <--- image 1.032 .069 14.966 *** cf13 <--- image 1.270 .086 14.726 *** df3 <--- Size 1.000 df2 <--- Size 1.291 .105 12.256 ***
137
Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label df1 <--- Size 1.242 .099 12.505 *** df4 <--- Size .776 .064 12.180 *** df7 <--- perceive 1.000 df6 <--- perceive .950 .068 13.930 *** df5 <--- perceive 1.008 .089 11.337 *** sk1 <--- skep 1.000 sk2 <--- skep -1.078 .141 -7.653 *** sk3 <--- skep -.511 .125 -4.076 *** sk4 <--- skep -1.394 .190 -7.325 *** sk5 <--- skep 1.907 .223 8.553 *** sk6 <--- skep 1.957 .232 8.425 *** intent <--- patron 1.000 repeat <--- patron 1.066 .045 23.573 *** word <--- patron 1.218 .051 23.972 *** ci9 <--- proxim 1.167 .092 12.651 *** ci13 <--- proxim .355 .071 5.001 *** ci17 <--- claim .855 .071 12.112 *** cf7 <--- product 1.263 .062 20.537 *** cf9 <--- product .976 .050 19.603 *** cf11 <--- product 1.041 .067 15.627 *** df8 <--- tran 1.261 .075 16.843 *** df9 <--- tran 1.188 .082 14.487 *** df10 <--- tran 1.246 .094 13.241 *** df11 <--- tran 1.032 .092 11.164 *** ci16 <--- proxim 1.356 .111 12.185 *** ci10 <--- claim .579 .065 8.954 ***
Table 30 Standardized Regression Weights
Estimate donation <--- CRMK .986skep <--- CRMK -.707cause <--- CRMK .758brand <--- CRMK .924proxim <--- cause .632agent <--- cause .832product <--- brand .564image <--- brand .760size <--- donation .625patron <--- CRMK .838patron <--- skep .362patron <--- edu .075patron <--- frequen -.112
138
Estimate patron <--- bought .133patron <--- gender -.112patron <--- age .183patron <--- status .003patron <--- occu -.021patron <--- market .100patron <--- income -.092relevan <--- cause .784tran <--- donation .917claim <--- cause .813ci4 <--- relevan .543ci3 <--- relevan .637ci2 <--- relevan .546ci1 <--- relevan .431ci8 <--- proxim .524ci7 <--- proxim .648ci6 <--- proxim .786ci5 <--- proxim .921ci9 <--- proxim .579ci14 <--- agent .679ci13 <--- agent .768ci16 <--- claim .648cf5 <--- product .697cf3 <--- product .762cf1 <--- product .472cf15 <--- image .587cf14 <--- image .615cf13 <--- image .743df3 <--- size .533df2 <--- size .745df1 <--- size .814df4 <--- size .386df7 <--- tran .509df6 <--- tran .529df5 <--- tran .500sk1 <--- skep .332sk2 <--- skep -.421sk3 <--- skep -.355sk4 <--- skep -.455sk5 <--- skep .737sk6 <--- skep .604intent <--- patron .764repeat <--- patron .772word <--- patron .815
139
Estimate ci10 <--- proxim .630ci11 <--- proxim .394ci17 <--- claim .489cf7 <--- product .798cf9 <--- product .689cf11 <--- product .520df8 <--- tran .621df9 <--- tran .641df10 <--- tran .635df11 <--- tran .481ci12 <--- proxim .819ci15 <--- claim .342
Table 31 Squared Multiple Correlations
Estimate Skep .500 donation .971 brand .949 cause .575 patron .479 Tran .840 Size .391 image .578 product .318 claim .661 agent .692 proxim .400 relevan .614 ci12 .218 df11 .231 df10 .403 df9 .411 df8 .386 cf11 .270 cf9 .475 cf7 .637 ci17 .239 ci11 .097 ci10 .397 word .621 repeat .596 intent .584 sk6 .365
140
Estimate sk5 .542 sk4 .207 sk3 .024 sk2 .178 sk1 .110 df5 .250 df6 .280 df7 .259 df4 .149 df1 .503 df2 .555 df3 .285 cf13 .552 cf14 .378 cf15 .345 cf1 .324 cf3 .580 cf5 .485 ci15 .117 ci16 .419 ci13 .590 ci14 .462 ci9 .336 ci5 .291 ci6 .618 ci7 .420 ci8 .338 ci1 .186 ci2 .298 ci3 .405 ci4 .295
141
Results of Hypotheses testing
The hypothesis model for CRMK campaign component fitted the data very
well as mentioned. All structural paths shown in the model were statistically
significant at p<0.05. Structural paths and their standardized estimates were
summarized in Table 32 along with results of hypotheses tests.
Table 32 Summary of structural paths and hypothesis testing results, standardized estimates (n=943)
H: From To CRMK model Hypotheses
support Standardized estimate
t-value
H1 CRMK campaign component
Skepticism -0.707 -7.018*** Accepted
H2 CRMK campaign component
Patronage intention
0.838 8.437*** Accepted
H3 Skepticism Patronage intention
0.362 4.126*** Rejected
H4a Education in MBA Patronage intention
0.075 2.269* Accepted
H4b Gender Patronage intention
-0.112 -3.637*** Accepted
H4c Age Patronage intention
0.183 4.155*** Accepted
H4d Marital status Patronage intention
0.003 0.075 Rejected
H4e Occupation Patronage intention
-0.021 -0.581 Rejected
H4f Monthly income Patronage intention
-0.092 -2.595* Accepted
H4g Job related with marketing function
Patronage intention
0.100 2.826* Accepted
H4h Used to buy CRMK product
Patronage intention
0.133 4.415*** Accepted
H4i Donated within last 6 months
Patronage intention
-0.112 -3.596*** Accepted
***p<0.001, *p<0.05
Two-tailed test of significance were employed to analyze the significance of
each path coefficient. The majority of the hypotheses (9 from 12) were statistically
significant in the hypothesized direction as expected, except the hypothesized
relationship between skepticism and patronage intention (H3) which was statistically
significant in the opposite direction as expected. Two paths were not significant and
142
associated hypotheses were rejected. These were the path from marital status to
patronage intention (H4d); and the path from occupation to patronage intention (H4e).
Results for all 10 hypotheses which were significantly would be discussed in the
chapter 5.
Total, direct, and indirect effects
In total, direct and indirect effects of predictors and mediating factors were
presented in Table 33. For CRMK campaign component, it was found that 47.9
percent (R2=0.479) of its total variation can be explained by the regression model
consisting of CRMK campaign component, skepticism, and demography factor such
as age, used to buy CRMK product, gender, donated within last 6 months, job related
with marketing function, monthly income, and studying in MBA.
According to CRMK campaign component model in figure 7, the results
showed the degree of effects which influenced to consumer patronage intention. The
direct effects, indirect effect, and total effects were examined.
Table 33 Direct effects, indirect effect, and total effect of CRMK campaign component model
Exogenous variables Endogenous variables
Skepticism Patronage intention DE IE TE DE IE TE
CRMK campaign component -0.707*** 0.000 -0.707*** 0.838*** -0.256*** 0.582***
Skepticism 0.362*** 0.000 0.362***
Age 0.183*** 0.000 0.183***
Used to buy CRMK product 0.133*** 0.000 0.133***
Gender -0.112*** 0.000 -0.112***
Donated within last 6 months -0.112*** 0.000 -0.112***
Job related with marketing function 0.100*** 0.000 0.100***
Monthly income -0.092* 0.000 -0.092*
Studying in MBA 0.075* 0.000 0.075*
DE= Direct effect, IE=Indirect effect, TE=Total effect Significance at *** p<0.001, *p<0.05
143
The results in table 33 were arranged in order from high total effect to low
total effect. CRMK campaign component had negative direct effect on skepticism was
-0.707. CRMK campaign component had positive direct effect on patronage intention
was 0.838 and had negative indirect effect through skepticism on patronage intention
was -0.256. The total effect of CRMK campaign component on patronage intention
was 0.582. Skepticism had positive direct effect on patronage intention was 0.362.
For demography, 7 of 9 exogenous variables had direct effect on patronage
intention, such as age, used to buy CRMK product, gender, donated within last 6
months, job related with marketing function, monthly income, and studying in
MBA(0.183, 0.133, -0.112, -0.112, 0.100, -0.092, 0.075). The each sign of direct
effect (+ or –) were interpreted as follows.
Age (+): the respondents were not more than 30 years old had tend to more
patronage intention than the ones were more than 30 years old.
Used to buy CRMK product (+): the respondents used to buy CRMK product
had tend to more patronage intention than the ones did not used to buy.
Gender (-): the respondents who were female had tend to more patronage
intention than male.
Donated within last 6 months (-): the respondents who sometimes donate
tended to more patronage intention than the ones who donated every month.
Job related with marketing function (+): the respondents had job relate with
marketing function tended to more patronage intention than the ones had no job relate
with marketing function.
144
Monthly income (-): the respondents had monthly income not more than
20,000 baht tended to more patronage intention than the ones had monthly income
more than 20,000 baht.
Studying in MBA (+): the respondents who were studying in MBA program
tended to more patronage intention than the ones who were studying in the other
programs.
In CRMK campaign component model, it was estimated a value for customer
patronage intention to CRMK campaign using this equation:
Patronage intention = 0.838 (CRMK campaign component) + 0.362 (Skepticism)
+ 0.183 (Age) + 0.133 (Used to buy CRMK) - 0.112 (Gender) – 0.112 (Frequency to
donated) + 0.100 (Job related to market function) -0.092 (Monthly income) + 0.075 (Studying
in MBA) ; R2 = 0.479 (47.9%)
Conclusion
This chapter described details of data analysis processes and data analysis
results for the conceptual model and associated hypotheses. It emphasized
measurement model details and step-by-step procedures that produced satisfactory
measurement of the conceptual model’s four constructs. The chapter described a final
structural model that had a good fit with observed data, statistically supported by
major goodness-of-fit indices.
The structural equation model partially supported the important of CRMK
campaign component such as, cause important, brand-cause fit, donation framing and
supported mediating role of skepticism in relationship between CRMK campaign
component and patronage intention. The model supported almost of the hypotheses
and helped to understand important causes and effects of relationships between
145
CRMK campaign component and patronage intention, CRMK campaign component
and skepticism, skepticism and patronage intention, also demography and patronage
intention. Results data analysis would be discussed in more depth in chapter 5,
followed by academic and managerial implications and research limitations.
146
Chapter 5
Conclusions and Recommendations
This chapter was divided into four sections. Conclusion of the research results
and the results of hypotheses testing to confirm the relationship between the CRMK
campaign component, skepticism, and patronage intention were discussed in the first
section. In the second section, managerial implications were suggested. The third
section discussed the limitations of this study and directions for future research were
discussed in the final section.
Conclusions: Research issues and hypotheses testing
The first objective of this study was to studied the opinion level of consumer
toward to CRMK campaign component (cause important, brand-cause fit, and
donation framing), patronage intention (purchase intention, repeat purchase, and word
of mouth), and skepticism.
CRMK campaign component
The study showed cause important, brand-cause fit, and donation framing
were considered to be used for the parts of CRMK campaign component with more
agree level. They had high factor loading of 0.758, 0.924, and 0.986 (Table 28) which
represented the important of these factors in CRMK campaign component.
Cause important
The study showed sequence important of the cause important factors which
should be considered in CRMK campaign component. Cause agent, cause claim,
cause relevance, and cause proximity had respectively high factor loading of 0.832,
147
0.813, 0.784, and 0.632 (Table 28) which represented the important of these factors in
CRMK campaign component.
Cause agent represents the cause important. Menon and Kahn (2001) used a
cause agent or charity to represent the cause important. Cause agent characteristics
would influence consumer responses in CRMK campaigns. The study supported the
previous studies and showed consumer had patronage intention with the cause which
had well-know charity (factor loading 0.768) and really agency of problem solving
(factor loading 0.679) took care. In other words, the profile of charity has influenced
on consumer’s trust and patronage intention toward CRMK campaign.
Cause claim is an executional element which enhanced viewers’ a priority
levels of involvement in an advertising and increased information processing and
persuasion. Cause claim in advertisements has a very powerful influence on purchase
intention (Berger, et al., 1999). The study supported the previous studies and showed
consumer had patronage intention with the cause which used fully advertising for
donation support to CRMK campaign (factor loading 0.648). However, consumer
would supported the cause which had celebrity to be a supporter and the cause which
was promoted by CRMK campaign (factor loading 0.489 and 0.342).
Personal relevance is the level of perceived personal important or interest
evoked by a stimulus within a specific situation. The variations of involvement
manipulation become important because the concept of personal importance is
manifested as cause importance which is the support of a cause due to personal
experience or social norms (Ellen et al., 2000; Grua & Folse, 2007; Lafferty, 1996;
Landreth, 2002). The study supported the previous studies and showed consumer had
patronage intention with the cause which related with their experience and had
148
emergency for resolving (factor loading 0.637), the cause which related with their
gender disease (factor loading 0.546), the cause which perceived from mass
communications (factor loading 0.543) and the cause which related with the quality of
their living and family (factor loading 0.431).
Cause proximity deals with the distance between the donation activity and the
consumer affecting the impact of the donation. The levels of cause proximity are local
cause and national cause. If donations support an overall cause on a local basis, it is
more likely to impact the consumer more directly than if they are provided on a
national basis (Landreth, 2002). The study supported the previous studies and showed
consumer had patronage intention with the cause which was the local social problem
such as environment problem in their community (factor loading 0.921) and the local
social problem which was the safety of their community lives (factor loading 0.786).
The causes which were provincial social problem, national social problem and global
social problem were received consumer patronage less than local social problem. The
study showed consumer had patronage intention with the provincial social problems
which were the natural disaster in many provinces (factor loading 0.648) and the stray
animal in their provinces (factor loading 0.524). The national social problems which
were the public health problem and uneducated children received respectively
consumer patronage intention (factor loading 0.630 and 0.579). Finally, the global
social problems which were global warming and Aids/HIV received respectively
consumer patronage intention (factor loading 0.648 and 0.394).
The results showed that strong cause should be relevantly to the audiences that
is associated with a credible charity and presented in an advertisement. Moreover,
CRMK campaign should select a major cause that firm and target consumer have
familiar and passion about.
149
Brand-Cause fit
Perceived fit had a significant effect on consumers with high fit having impact
on purchase intention. High brand-cause fit should therefore be a key selection
criterion for practitioners who are considering a brand-cause alliance if the aim of the
campaign is to influence consumer attitude and consumer patronage intent.
The study showed sequence important of the brand-cause fit factors which
should be considered in CRMK campaign component. Image fit and product fit had
respectively high factor loading of 0.760 and 0.564 (Table 28) which represented the
important of these factors in CRMK campaign component.
Image fit refers to how comfortable consumers are with the brand-cause
pairing. Each partner brings perceptions of their image to the alliance. In any
collaborative effort, the images of both parties become part of the equation
(Varandarajan & Menon, 1988). Therefore, perception of image fit between the brand
and the cause is congruent. The alliance will be evaluated more favorable. The study
supported the previous study and showed consumer had patronage intention with the
good image of large corporate in CSR was an alliance with the large charity and
popular (factor loading 0.743). Moreover, the consumer had patronage intention with
the corporate which had recognized product or service was an alliance with the
charity which had strongly resulted of social problem solving (factor loading 0.615)
and the corporate which had continually public news of CSR activities was an alliance
with the charity which had continually public news of social problem solving (factor
loading 0.578).
Product fit is perceived on the basis of a match between a product attributes
and the objectives of the alliance. It is perceived with functional fit and natural fit.
150
Functional fit may be perceived on the basis of a match between a brand’s functional
attributes and the objectives of the alliance. Firm provided a core competence to
contribute meaningfully to accomplishing the mission and objectives of the alliance.
The study supported the previous study and showed consumer had patronage intention
with the high functional fit such as automobile was an alliance with the safety road
project (factor loading 0.472), apparel was an alliance with the cold disaster people
care project (factor loading 0.762), construction material was an alliance with the
school buildings maintenance project (factor loading 0.697).
Natural fit is the extent to which the sponsored cause is perceived as being
congruent with the image of the sponsor, independent of efforts to create a perceived
fit between the organizations (Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006). The study supported
the previous study and showed consumer had patronage intention with the high
natural fit such as pet food was an alliance with helping the stray dog and cat project
(factor loading 0.524), ladies’ product was an alliance with the breast cancer crusade
project (factor loading 0.630), heart candy was an alliance with helping children with
heart diseases (factor loading 0.520).
The results demonstrate one of the keys to doing CRMK campaign
successfully is to ensure that the brand and cause share the same boundary. Thus
marketing’s understanding and interpretation of a brand’s boundary needs to be
extended beyond marketing performance and corporate image. One way in which this
can be done is through the development of CRMK campaign which fits very well with
the cause.
151
Donation framing
The study showed sequence important of the donation framing factors which
should be considered in CRMK campaign component. Donation size and transparent
donation had respectively high factor loading of 0.986 and 0.917 (Table 28) which
represented the important of these factors in CRMK campaign component.
Donation size relate to the price of the product offered for purchase. Dahl and
Lavack (1995) found that consumers were more skeptical of small donation sizes.
However, the amount per transaction generated by the campaign may be small and
therefore, high volumes will be a key to successful campaign (Kotler & Lee, 2005).
The study supported the previous studies and showed consumer had patronage
intention with donation size should be relative with product price (factor loading
0.814), donation size could calculated the percentage of price (factor loading 0.745),
the product which had high sales volume could donated with a small donation size
when comparing with the price (factor loading 0.533), and the portion of income
which was not included in donation from sales amount should be extra donated to
charity (factor loading 0.386).
Transparent donation is the exact amount of the donation given for each
product sold. Consumers preferred more tangible information regarding the donation.
If the amount donated through CRMK campaign is stated in transparent,
straightforward way, there will be little concern about potential consumer confusion
(Grau et al., 2007). Moreover, timeframe of the campaign is the one of transparent
donation component. Varandarajan and Menon (1988) stated that there were three
different types of time frame campaigns. These were long-term, medium-term, and
short-term. Short-term focus was the most dominating choice even though firms
desire to focus on medium-term or long-term. However, there are more disadvantages
152
than advantages for short term when it came to creating trust and belief among the
consumers if the support was going to last no longer than a year. Long-term
relationships also showed that consumers recognize the brand and the charity cause if
the relationship was strong and took place over a long period of time (Pringle &
Thompson, 1999).
The study supported the previous studies and showed consumer had
respectively patronage intention with the campaign should had certain period (factor
loading 0.641), the timeframe of campaign should be related with the target of
donation size (factor loading 0.635), the total amount of donation should be known to
the public when the campaign came to as end (factor loading 0.621), the campaign
should be publicized clearly information of donation (factor loading 0.529), the
campaign should be continually publicized and informed the accumulated donation (factor loading 0.509), the exact target of donation to a charity should be informed to
the public (factor loading 0.500), and the CRMK campaign against critical social
problems should be continually conducted for a long time (factor loading 0.481).
These results showed consumers prefer more tangible information regarding
the donation. As evidenced by the results, consumers want more details and the
luxury of at least having enough information to calculate the donation themselves. As
long as deadlines and target of donation sizes are reasonable in terms of time allowed
for participation. The other word, the issue of disclosure is important to firms.
Consumer attitudes toward CRMK campaign
Patronage intention
The study showed consumer had high patronage intention with CRMK
campaign by purchase intention, repeat purchase and word of mouth. They had
153
respectively high factor loading of 0.764, 0.772 and 0.815 (Table 28). Opportunely
for marketers, they can use CRMK as a strategic positioning and marketing tool
which links a company or brand to a relevant social cause or issue, for mutual benefit.
Skepticism
The study showed consumer had respectively skepticism with credit of firm
and brand image, unclear CRMK campaign component, and using CRMK campaign
for sales promotion. They had factor loading of 0.737, 0.604, and 0.455. Furthermore,
consumer had skepticism with CRMK advertising (factor loading 0.332), CRMK
campaign advertising had intention to convince (factor loading 0.421) and CRMK
campaign advertising were exaggerated (factor loading 0.355) (Table 28). Results
from the study demonstrated that there may be a threshold in the level of skepticism
in CRMK campaign. Firm should surpasses the first threshold, consumer evaluate the
firm and brand image based on its actual attributes and performance. The study
supported Mohr and Webb (2005) showed that information about firm’s CSR have
significantly impact on company evaluation and purchase intention. Therefore, it
seems that maintaining high social responsibility should be protection CRMK purpose
rather than sales promotion.
Hypotheses testing
The second objective of this study was to studied and developed the causal
model effect of CRMK campaign component (cause important, brand-cause fit, and
donation framing) on consumer patronage intention (purchase intention, repeat
purchase, and word of mouth) . The intervening effects of skepticism for relationship
between the variables (CRMK campaign component and patronage intention) were
also examined.
154
To support testing of the model and to answer the research questions, several
hypotheses had been developed, which were described below:
H1: CRMK campaign component negatively related to Skepticism
H2: CRMK campaign component positively related to Patronage Intention
H3: Skepticism negatively related to Patronage Intention
H4: Demography impacted on Patronage Intention
H4a: Education in MBA impacted on Patronage Intention
H4b: Gender impacted on Patronage Intention
H4c: Age impacted on Patronage Intention
H4d: Marital status impacted on Patronage Intention
H4e: Occupation impacted on Patronage Intention
H4f: Monthly income impacted on Patronage Intention
H4g: Job related with marketing function impacted on Patronage
Intention
H4h: Used to buy CRMK product impacted on Patronage Intention
H4i: Donated within last 6 months impacted on Patronage Intention
The 9 hypotheses were tested by using a structural equation modeling method.
According to Table 31, the results indicated that only 10 (H1, H2, H4a, H4b, H4c,
H4f, H4g, H4h, H4i) from 12 hypotheses were statistically significant in the direction
as excepted, except the hypothesized relationship between skepticism and patronage
intention (H3) which was statistically significant in the opposite direction as expected.
Two paths were not significant and associated hypotheses were rejected. These were
the path from marital status to patronage intention (H4d); and the path from
occupation to patronage intention (H4e). Furthermore, the results of hypotheses
testing and its implications are discussed separately as follows.
155
Figure 8. A parsimonious model of the sequent impact of CRMK campaign component on patronage intention
H1: CRMK campaign component negatively related to Skepticism
The strong negative relationship between CRMK campaign component and
skepticism (standardized parameter estimate = -0.707), which is consistent with
expectation. The study show the high appropriate component for CRMK campaign
had a significant effect on consumer skepticism. Consumers are more skeptical when
CRMK campaign component is unclear in cause important, brand-cause fit and
donation framing. As a consequence, consumers perceive higher CRMK campaign
credibility with an objective component. This result supports that of consumer may
become skeptical of CRMK campaign when its credibility is questioned and could be
a major obstacle for a successful campaign (Dahl & Lavack, 1995; Obermiller &
Spangenberg, 1998; Varadarajan & Menon, 1988; Webb & Mohr, 1998).
156
H2: CRMK campaign component positively related to Patronage
Intention
The strong positive relationship between CRMK campaign component and
patronage intention (standardized parameter estimate = 0.582), which is consistent
with expectation. The study show the high appropriate component for CRMK
campaign had a significant effect on consumer patronage intention. This result
supports that of many previous studies, that appropriate component of CRMK
campaign leads to positive consumer with patronage intention (Mohr & Webb, 2005;
Porter & Kramer, 2002; Ricks, 2005; Walker, 2007)
H3: Skepticism negatively related to Patronage Intention
There is a positive relationship between skepticism and patronage intention
(standardized parameter estimate = 0.362) which is inconsistent with expectation and
previous findings (Mohr et al., 1998; Webb & Mohr, 1998). The result of this study is
consistent with Youn and Kim (2008) which found that high in skepticism are more
likely to trust a company's willingness to engage in philanthropic commitment to
social causes. This finding is very encouraging for CRMK practitioners in that
consumers perceive traditional commercial advertising and CRMK campaign
differently. CRMK campaign clearly seems to appeal to the consumer segment that
has a negative attitude toward advertising. Viewing demography profiles as the
motivational basis or consumers’ attitudes, this study examined demography that
influence consumer support for CRMK campaign which be discussed in the next
hypothesis.
H4: Demography impacted on Patronage Intention
It is important to consider the factors that may influence the response to
CRMK campaign. Many previous studies showed that demography related to pro-
157
social behaviors (Chrenka et al., 2003; Hettman & Jenkins, 1990; Penner, 2002;
Wilson & Musick, 1997). Based on previous studies, this study consider on gender
and age. Moreover, this study also consider on major education in master degree or
studying in MBA, marital status, occupation, job related with marketing function,
monthly income, used to buy CRMK product, and donated within the last 6 months.
For demography, 7 of 9 exogenous variables had direct effect on patronage intention.
Age (standardized parameter estimate = 0.183) that is the respondents are not
more than 30 years old have tend to more patronage intention than the ones are more
than 30 years old. The result of this study is consistent with expectation, that is young
consumers are more receptive to CRMK campaign, compared to their older
counterparts (Cui et al., 2003; DaSilva, 2004). However, an age effect could
predispose younger consumers to respond more favourably to CRMK. It has been
suggested that younger consumers have been indoctrinated into the consumer culture
earlier than previous generations (Backewell & Mitchell, 2003) and tend to be
skeptical of traditional forms of marketing communications such as advertising
(Wolberg & Pokrywczynski, 2001). In addition, the younger generation, although less
rebellious than their predecessors, are concerned about current major problems,
especially those relating to the environment (Herbig et al., 1993). As such, the
younger consumer may respond more positively to CRMK campaign than the general
population.
Gender (standardized parameter estimate = -0.112) that is the respondents who
are female have tend to more patronage intention than male. The result of this study is
consistent with expectation, that is female are more likely to be engaged in pro-social
behaviors or more favorable attitudes toward CRMK campaign than male (Chrenka et
al., 2003; Penner et al., 2005; Ross et al., 1992).
158
Monthly income (standardized parameter estimate = -0.092) that is the
respondents have monthly income not more than 20,000 baht tend to more patronage
intention than the ones have monthly income more than 20,000 baht. The result shows
the consumers who have a less income patronize CRMK campaign because they can
make a purchasing in exchange for a donation from the sponsoring firm to a cause.
Used to buy CRMK product (standardized parameter estimate = 0.133) that is
the respondents who used to buy CRMK product have tend to more patronage
intention than the ones did not used to buy. The result of this study is consistent with
expectation.
Donated within the last 6 months (standardized parameter estimate = -0.112)
that is the respondents who sometimes donate tend to more patronage intention than
the ones who always donate every month. The result shows consumers who always
donate are more likely to directly donate to the charity. When consumers make a
donation directly to a charity or cause, the exchange equation is relatively simple: the
consumers donate money, possessions, or their labor then receive gratitude from the
charity as well as a self-congratulatory pat on the back. Corporations also make
donations to charities with CRMK campaign, but the exchange equation is more
complicated. There are three actors instead of two. The corporation (actor 1)
announces that it will donate some specified amount of money to a charitable cause
(actor 2) each time a consumer (actor 3) engages in a revenue-producing transaction
with the firm. The linkage between the consumer and the charity is indirect in CRMK,
which contrasts with the direct linkage when only two actors are involved. With a
direct linkage and only two actors, the donation is likely to be interpreted as
philanthropy.
159
Job related with marketing function (standardized parameter estimate =
-0.100) that is the respondents have job relate with marketing function tend to more
patronage intention than the ones have no job relate with marketing function.
Similarly, studying in MBA (standardized parameter estimate = 0.075) that is the
respondents who are studying in MBA program tended to more patronage intention
than the ones who are studying in the other programs. Because of CRMK campaign is
a newly promotional marketing approach for Thai consumers, the participants who
have the basis of marketing knowledge tend to patronage the CRMK campaign.
Theoretical contributions
This research provides empirical testing of relationships that have not been
subjected to empirical testing in the past. Based on the findings, contributions are
highlighted in this section.
Develop an integrated model with empirical testing
By taking an integrated approach, the largest theoretical contribution of this
study is conceptual refinement, operationalization, measurement development, and
testing of three dimension of CRMK campaign component such as; cause important,
brand-cause fit, donation framing for examining the consumer response of skepticism
and patronage intention. This study includes demography or personal trait of
consumers as mediators in the same model; thus allows exploring the process why
consumers have patronage intention on CRMK campaign.
Explore the important level of each component of CRMK campaign
This study is the first one that investigates cues in three different components
of CRMK campaign that consumers consider. The result states cause important,
brand-cause fit and donation framing have very high factor loading that is most of
160
them are necessary to consider in the CRMK campaign. In additional, donation
framing just has been considered from previous studies since a few years. This study
shows donation framing is the most important of all components with the highest
factor loading (0.986).
In CRMK context, donations might appear rather abstract or unobservable to
consumers and the idea that such financial support to the causes. This study
investigated the various dimensions of donation framing such as donation size and
transparent donation. The results found that both of them are very important
components for CRMK campaign successful.
The CRMK campaign needs marketing communication strategy
Consumer skepticism of firm’s altruistic motivation would be a key obstacle to
the success of CRMK campaign. The findings encourage the strong negative
relationship between CRMK campaign component and consumers skepticism. A well
campaign and commitment to social responsibility might be strong motivation for
consumer patronage intention. However, CRMK campaign is very complicate.
Therefore, marketing communication strategy is the essential process in CRMK
campaign strategy.
The findings state that consumers need more information all along period of
CRMK campaign because of the campaign needs purchase intention, repeat purchase,
and word of mouth form the consumers. Marketing communications are the means by
which firms attempt to inform, persuade, and remind consumers, directly or
indirectly, about the CRMK campaign. Marketing communications strategy should
concentrate on consumers’ specific responses to communications. CRMK campaign
needs the consumers pass through a cognitive, affective, and behavioral stage, in that
161
order. This “learn-feel-do” sequence is appropriately because of CRMK campaign is
more complicated.
The Hierarchy-of-Effects Model of Robert and Gary (1961) is suitable for
CRMK campaign communications. Among marketing communication theories, the
hierarchy-of-effects model is predominant. It shows clear steps of how marketing
communication works. Hierarchy of effects Model can be explained with the help of a
pyramid.
Figure 9 Hierarchy-of-Effects Model
Source: Applied from Robert & Gary (1961)
First the lower level objectives such as awareness, knowledge or
comprehension are accomplished. Subsequent objectives may focus on moving
prospects to higher levels in the hierarchy to elicit desired behavioural responses such
as associating feelings with the campaign, trial purchase, repurchase and word of
mouth.
162
Awareness
If most of the target audience is unaware of the cause which is the major
objective of CRMK campaign, the communicator’s task is to build awareness, the
important of cause, with simple messages repeating the cause and brand which are
high fit. Consumers must become aware of the campaign. This isn’t as straightforward
as it seems. Capturing someone’s attention doesn’t mean they will notice the
campaign. Thus, the CRMK campaign needs to be made focal to get consumers to
become aware. Media selection is finding the most cost-effective media to deliver the
desired number and type of exposures to the target audience.
Knowledge
The target audience might have CRMK campaign awareness but not know
much more; hence this stage involves creating campaign knowledge. This is where
comprehension of the cause and what it stands for become important. What are the
cause’s specific appeals, its problem? Which charity will be supported the donation,
why? Who is a celebrity of this cause or campaign? The structural elements of
donation, including how much of the target donation size, how the donation amount is
quantified such as percentage of price or profit or specific donation amount, the
presence of donation deadlines. These are the types of questions that must be
answered if consumers are to achieve the step of campaign knowledge.
Liking
If target audience know the CRMK campaign, how do they feel about it? If
the audience looks unfavourably towards the product to communicator has to find out
why. If the unfavourable view is based on real problems, a communication
163
campaigns alone cannot do the job. For campaign problem it is necessary to first fix
the problem and only then can communicate its renewed quality.
Preference
Some members of target audience might like the CRMK campaign but not
prefer it to others. In this case, the communicator must try to build consumer
preference by promoting the important of cause, the gap between accumulated
donation and target donation, value of helping cause, performance and other
features. The communicator can check the campaigns success by measuring audience
preference before and after the campaign.
Conviction
A target audience might prefer the CRMK campaign but not develop a
conviction about purchase intention. The communicator’s job is to build conviction
among the target audience.
Purchase
Finally, some members of the target audience might have conviction but not
quite get around to making the purchase. They may wait for more information or plan
to act later. The communicator must need these consumers to take the final step,
perhaps by offering the event marketing with a celebrity, strong public relation and
using the other media types. This is where consumers make a move to actually search
out information or purchase. Thus marketing communication is thought to work and
follow a certain sequence whereby the prospect is moved through a series of stages in
succession from unawareness to the purchase intention, repeat purchase and word of
mouth.
164
Managerial implications
The third objective of this study was to provide a guidance of practicable
CRMK campaign component for marketers to be used and applied with marketing
strategies for each marketing situation. This study indicates that consumers’
perception of appropriate CRMK campaign component will affect their patronage
intention and skepticism. Findings on the effects of CRMK campaign component on
consumer patronage intention stated that CRMK campaign should be concerned about
cause important, brand-cause fit, and donation framing. If firm has an applicable
CRMK campaign component, consumers tend to more support the campaign.
There are several managerial and operational strategies derived from the
empirical study. The managerial implications are classified into four sections as
follows: Which a major cause or charity should the CRMK campaign be focused?
How should alliance between brand and cause be structure? How does campaign
create a donation structure? Finally, should level of promotional campaign be
standardized and worldwide applied in marketing activity?
Which a major cause should the CRMK campaign be focused?
The result of this study states that some of the issues that managers should
consider regarding where to direct the donations for a CRMK campaign. Determining
where to donate the money should be clearer given this research. In order to maximize
consumer patronage intentions from both high and low cause importance, the safest
option is to donate locally (such as the local cause which is the environment problem
in consumers’ community). In addition, it is important to be as specific as possible
regarding the cause agent that is receiving the donation. The cause agent should be a
well-know charity who is a really agency of problem solving.
165
This research also highlights the importance of choosing a cause that a firm’s
constituents care about. This may increases attitude toward the product as well as
purchase intentions and patronage intention on the CRMK campaign. There may be
certain consumers, especially in the high cause importance group, who react
differently towards a CRMK campaign. Marketers may identify advocates for the
cause and examine the lengths that this target group will go to for the cause.
Marketing survey may need to examine other types of causes as well as donations
under extreme conditions (such as the Red Cross donations following the Haeti
earthquake tragedy).
Consumers’ attitudes and intentions may differ under such extreme conditions,
because of their personal relevance with the social problem. On one hand, consumers
may be even more willing to donate given the tragic nature of the event (see Ellen et
al., 2000). On the other hand, consumer may believe that firms are taking advantage
of the tragic events for monetary and market share gain.
However, consumers may have low level of cause importance, because of the
cause is unaware or newly. This study states that cause claim in CRMK campaign
advertisements have a very powerful influence on consumer patronage intention. The
donation involvement requires a communications campaign that reminds customers
with the positive experiences and benefits that the charity has provided them, that
informs them of current events and the successes that their financial support brings,
and that made them aware of why and where their help are need, how they can help,
and why they need to get involve.
Additionally, the use of celebrities as spokespeople for cause continued to be a
popular method of marketing communication in social cause and become an
important dimension of source credibility. The reason behind the popularity of
166
celebrity marketing communication is the advertisers' belief that messages delivered
by well-known characters achieve as high degree of attention and recalled for some
consumers.
How should alliance between brand and cause be structure?
The study shows that brand-cause fit can blur or reinforce the firm’s
positioning. Therefore, marketer needs to consider when choosing a partner in the
CRMK campaign. This research serves to highlight the importance of choosing
congruent partners. Brand-cause fit should be a key consideration in the development
CRMK campaign. Supporting a familiar, well-liked cause is not enough to ensure a
good outcome and may even be harmful. Low fit, even with a well-liked cause, can
dilute the firm’s positioning and create dislike for CRMK campaign. In contrast, high
fit reinforces the firm’s positioning and creates patronage intention toward the CRMK
campaign.
The study shows that image fit is more important than product fit. However,
the CRMK campaign component should be considered both of them. In order for a
consumer to determine if the image of a firm is compatible with the image of a cause,
the consumer must have enough information about the firm to make the compatibility
judgment. This concept would be less important in evaluating a product fit, because
the briefest of assessments would provide the consumer the necessary cues (company
name or logo, for example) to note the strong an obvious similarities between the
firm and the cause. As the results, cause important is less important than brand-cause
fit. When obvious similarities are absent, consumers need more information to
determine and cause familiarity takes on an important part of the consumer response
to CRMK campaign.
167
Product fit is perceived on the basis of a match between a product attributes
and the objectives of the alliance. It is perceived with functional fit and natural fit.
Functional fit may be perceived on the basis of a match between a brand’s functional
attributes and the objectives of the alliance. Firm provided a core competence to
contribute meaningfully to accomplishing the mission and objectives of the alliance.
Natural fit is the extent to which the sponsored cause is perceived as being congruent
with the image of the sponsor, independent of efforts to create a perceived fit between
the organizations.
Realistically, there are many causes would be concerned and need helping
from the society. Firms must consider their target audiences’ specific interests and
needs. CRMK campaign may use strategically not pre-selected a cause partner,
instead letting their consumers pick the cause. Consumers may want to give to
charity, but they don’t want to feel sting. They also want to decide which charities or
cause they support. So, the choice of causes will be collected and selected from
market research.
Toward that end, high brand-cause fit should be a key selection criterion for
practitioners who are considering a brand-cause alliance if the aim of the campaign is
to influence consumer attitude and consumer patronage intent.
How does campaign create a donation structure?
The result of this study indicates that donation structure, time limits and
amount of the donation may also play a role in consumers’ attitudes and patronage
intentions. When talking about the amount donated for each purchase made in a
CRMK campaign, firms should express their donation using the exact amount of the
donation. Consumers prefer to know exactly how much of their purchase is being
168
contributed to the cause. Additionally, there seems to be least a marginal relationship
between the donation amount and product price. Consumers view small donations
relative to purchase price negatively on average, which may in turn reflect poorly on
the sponsoring firm. Donation quantifiers can calculate the percentage of price.
However, the product which has high sales volume can donate with small donation
size when comparing with the price.
In general, consumers do not have strongly negative opinions regarding
deadlines and donation amounts. Instead, they see these elements of a CRMK
campaign as necessary business practices that are reasonable constraints to protect the
firm’s financial contributions. The study shows that the campaigns should have
certain period and the time frame of campaign should be related with the target of
donation size. Furthermore, consumers want “details, details, details,” presumably to
protect their own interests and to make intelligent judgments on how their
contributions are directed. Therefore, the CRMK campaign should be publicized
clearly information of donation such as target of donation size, accumulated donation
and totally amount of donation when the campaign comes to as end.
In summary, responses from the study indicate that firms should walk a fine
line when using CRMK campaign as part of their corporate social responsibility
program or promotional campaign. Consumers can be skeptical of these types of
effort. By providing detailed information about the component of campaign and the
duration of the campaign and maximum contributions, firms can build consumers
confidence in corporate efforts. Consumers want to know a result of campaign so they
can understand how their efforts help. However, too much marketing of firm’s effort
can make the firm seem disingenuous and out only for profit gain. CRMK campaigns
can have positive results for all three parties involved, the firm, the cause and the
169
consumers, as long as the firm openly discusses their intention and restrictions with
their potential consumers.
Should level of promotional campaign be standardized and worldwide
applied in marketing activity?
One of the marketing issues that marketers face when developing a
communication campaign is the choice of a proper advertising or campaign theme.
Firms that sell the same product in multiple markets need to establish to what degree
their advertising or campaign should be standardized which minimize total costs and
promote a global corporate image. On the other hand, there are necessary needs for
marketing adaptation to fit the unique dimensions of each local market.
What are the practical implications for global CRMK campaign? The major
findings of this study state that consumers concern with the causes which they have
personal relevance in the proximity of local causes. The success of Avon’s
international CRMK campaign and the Avon worldwide fund for women’s health is
the direct result of leveraging Avon strength as a company, the direct selling system,
and the dedication of sales representative around the world.
Knowing that breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among
women around the world. Therefore, breast cancer is the both of local cause and
global cause which consumers have awareness and concern with this critical disease.
The goal of the Avon Foundation Breast Cancer Crusade is to benefit all women.
However, there is special emphasis on reaching medically underserved women,
including low-income, elderly and minority women, and women without adequate
health insurance. Avon is distinguishing itself from others that fund a single
institution or scientific investigator by supporting a virtual national network of
170
research, medical, social service and community-based organizations, each of which
is making a unique contribution to helping patients or advancing breast cancer
research. In addition, the Avon Foundation facilitates collaboration among the various
organizations, institutions and investigators and bridges breast cancer physicians at
academic medical centers and public and community hospitals.
The Avon Breast Cancer Crusade was launched in the UK in 1992. While the
US Breast Cancer Crusade is the largest program, Avon now supports breast cancer
programs in some 50 countries worldwide, raising funds and awareness while
breaking cultural, social, financial and medical barriers in the breast cancer cause. In
2006, Avon Thailand continued with the goals established in the Avon Care
campaign, a campaign to raise awareness about cancer prevention and treatment. The
first Avon Walk & Run Against Breast Cancer of the year brought together 500
participants in Bangkok. To organize the event, Avon Thailand collaborated with a
number of governmental and non-governmental organizations including Provincial
Public Health, National Cancer Institute. There were a number of activities at the
event including, educational exhibition booths, a booth demonstrating how breast
cancer testing is performed, and free consultation and activities areas for the
participants. Items were on sale to help raise funds (http://walk.avonfoundation.org).
According to Avon CRMK campaign, the most important success factors of
standardized CRMK campaign strategy are only under certain conditions, such as
existence of a global market segment, synergy determined by standardization,
attainability of the infrastructure of communication and distribution that ensures the
supply of the firm’s products to the market on the global scale.
However, segmentation of target consumer is important because different
consumer may have different product/brand knowledge and cause important
171
perceptions. This is more apparent for international markets. International CRMK
campaign decisions require specific dimensions for particular target markets focusing
on particular products and causes. Depending on economic factors such as disposable
income and quality of life among target nations, different national markets have
similarities or dissimilarities consumer demand and commonality of lifestyle patterns.
CRMK campaign should be tailored to a firm’s specific marketing needs. The
international CRMK campaign should ask local consumer to buy into a pre-
established partnership. On a national level this was done successfully by MasterCard
in 1987 campaign called “Choose to Make a Difference”. Each time consumer used
MasterCard, the firm donated money to one of six national charities. The choice to
include six charities was made in response to market research. The result of this study
supported this case.
MasterCard designed its campaign accordingly, polling consumer to learn
which charities were to greatest interest to them. MasterCard built its campaign
around the consumer’s ability to choose between them. Letting the consumer pick the
cause has also been successful on a much smaller, local level.
Moreover, linking a CRMK campaign with a special event of each local or the
nation can be extremely effective for several reasons. It draws increased attention to
the campaign. It provides additional benefit to the charity. And it reinforces the firm’s
connection with the cause. This last is particularly important as the number of CRMK
campaign grows. Firms which have CRMK campaign need to let the public know that
their commitment to the cause is real and continuing-not just a strategy for winning
sales.
172
Limitation
Although this study significantly contributes to the knowledge surrounding
cause related marketing, one important issue deserving discussion is the limitations of
the study. In this dissertation, the research method includes five limitations, which
offer an opportunity for future study as follows:
First, the data of this investigation was derived from the perspectives of
consumers on graduated students of graduate students of Ramkhamhaeng University,
Huamak Campus, Bangkok Metropolitan, which emphasized only a specific segment
of consumers. This narrow focus may limit the generalization to Thai consumers. The
sample in this dissertation considered only graduate students in Social Science at
Ramkhamhaeng University, Huamak Campus, Bangkok Metropolitan (MBA program
and Non-MBA program. Therefore, the structures and characteristics of consumers
and their opinions toward to CRMK campaign component may be different from the
whole Thai consumer. The results from the sample in this dissertation cannot be
generalized for the whole population of Thai consumer.
Second, the participants were drawn from quota sampling and convenience
sampling of students which was non-probability sampling techniques. As such, this
technique is quite arbitrary, as researchers rely heavily on personal judgment. There
are no appropriate statistical techniques for measuring random sampling error from a
non-probability sample. Nevertheless, there are occasions when non-probability
samples are best suited for the researcher’s purpose. This is appropriate when
examining theoretical foundations and exploratory research (Zikmund, 2002) which
were purposes of this study.
173
Third, the ability to generalize the findings from this study is limited due to a
number of factors. This study focused on a few sample of cause important and brand-
cause fit. As such, the findings may not relate to the other causes or brand-cause
alliances. Although comparisons of the selected causes in the present study were
made to check for differences in cause important, the example exposed in the survey
may not have been strong enough to touch the respondents in the degree of caring
more about the cause.
Fourth, a standardized questionnaire, which was used in this dissertation, may
not be applicable in Thai consumer context. For example, on skepticism
questionnaires derived from Webb and Mohr (1998), which was formerly applied
only with American consumers. Additionally, the subjects could have been asked if
they had prior experiences in purchasing a product or service sponsoring a cause that
they care about or even if in the present, they would purchase a product or service
which would result in a donation to charity.
A final limitation is the model itself. While the model fit the data reasonably
well, that does not mean it is the only model or the best one to assess the relationships
inherent in a cause-related marketing campaign component. The determinants in the
model explain 47.9 percent of the variance for post exposure attitudes toward
patronage intention on CRMK campaign. While these determinants provide some
indication of what influences the endogenous variables, clearly there is unexplained
variance in this model. In defense of the model, it is parsimonious and does explain a
reasonable amount of the variance for the endogenous variables given its parsimony.
Therefore, while there may be other models with greater explanatory power, this
model does present a reasonably good conceptualization of a component of cause-
related marketing campaign affecting on Thai consumer patronage intention.
174
Future research
Future research that builds on the findings of this study and overcomes its
limitations is recommended. This study focused on three components which there are
various observed variables. It may be useful from a managerial perspective to assess
the effect another observed variable has on a relatively unfamiliar. Therefore, this
study should be replicated using a number of other cause, brand-cause fit and
donation types to determine whether these results can be extended to other conditions.
Similarly, this study should be replicated with a nonstudent sample to determine
whether these findings can be generalized to the overall population.
It is also important from a managerial perspective to assess what effect CRMK
campaign component has on attitude toward brand. This model has made an important
contribution toward the understanding of how consumers perceive CRMK campaign
component and the effect they have on postexposure attitudes toward purchase
intention. The next step is to expand the model in future research to include
consumers’ overall attitude toward the sponsoring firm or brand and cognitive
knowledge about a brand as the outcome variables and assess what influence CRMK
campaign component has on this important dependent variables.
The findings of this research suggest that consumer perception of fit between
brand and cause, in addition to consumer attitude to the CRMK campaign, are critical
factors in facilitating change in patronage intention. Therefore, it is suggested that
future research explore these factors in more detail. For example, with regard to
perception of fit, qualitative research could provide insight into how consumers assess
whether there is a natural fit between brand and cause. The research should also
explore the use of other types of products and other causes. The study should examine
the alliance between causes and firm in the service sector.
175
The future research would be worthwhile to explore whether the firm could
favourably influence this perception by clearly articulating the connection in the
communication of the campaign. With regard to attitude to the CRMK campaign,
future research should examine the impact of the consumer’s existing awareness and
attitude toward the cause and the consumer’s perception of the firm’s motivation for
participating in the CRMK campaign. Types of media which are higher influence in
patronage intention behavior of consumers, when a firm is introducing a CRMK
campaign.
Furthermore, this study provides a model that confirms theoretically and
conceptually some of the important antecedents necessary to implement a successful
CRMK campaign. The strength of this model and the use of structural equation
modeling will allow future research to explore other moderators and antecedents
which, in turn, will allow researchers and practitioners to more fully understand how
CRMK campaign component work. Although there are relationships between
demography and patronage intention, it would be worthwhile to examine the
predictive impact of psychographics on patronage intention in future. In addition, this
research should be extended to see if the CRMK campaign component model holds
for other populations, such as other nationalities or cultures.
176
REFERENCES
Adkin, S. (2005). Cause related marketing: Who cares wins. Oxford: Elsevier
Butterworth-Heinemann. Alder, S.M. (2006). Cause for concern: Results-oriented cause marketing. Thomson
Higher Education, Ohio,U.S.A. American Marketing Association. (2007). AMA: Social-network shopping, cause-
related marketing top holiday trends. Retrieved September 30, 2008 from http://www.marketingcharts.com/interactive/ama-social-network-shopping- cause-related-marketing-top-holiday-trends-2729/ama-cause-related-product-
purchase-likelihoodjpg/ Andreasen, A.R. (1975). The disadvantage consumer. New York: Free Press. Andreasen, A. R. (1996). Profits for nonprofits: Find a corporate partner. Harvard
Business Review,74 (6), 47-59. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Some methods for respecifying
measurement models to obtain unidimensional construct measurement. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 453-460.
Antil, J. H. (1984). Conceptualization and operationalization of involvement.
Advances in Consumer Research,11, 203-209. Arbuckle, J. L. (2005). Amos 6.0 user’s guide. Amos Development Corporation. Backewell, C., & Mitchell, V. W. (2003). General Y female consumer decision
making styles. Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31(2), 95-106. Bailey, A.A. (2007). Public information and consumer skepticism effects on
celebrity endorsements: Studies among young consumers. Journal of Marketing Communications, 13(2), 85–107.
Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., & Voss, G. B. (2002). The influence of
multiple store environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 120-141.
Balmer, J. M. T., & Greyser, S. A. (2006). Corporate marketing: Integrating corporate
identity, corporate branding, corporate communications, corporate image and corporate reputation. European Journal of Marketing, 40(7/8), 730-741.
Barich, H., & Kotler, P. (1991). A framework for marketing image management.
Sloan Management Review,32 (2), 94-106. Barnes, N.G. (1991). Joint venture marketing: A strategy for the 1990’s. Health
Marketing Quarterly, 9 (1/2), 23-36.
177
Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2000). The influence of cause related marketing on consumer choice: Does one good turn deserve another? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28( 2), 248-262.
Basil, D. (2002). Cause-related marketing and consumer attitudes: The effects of balance and fit on cognitive processing. PhD. Dissertation, University of Colorado.
Basil, D., & Herr, P.M. (2003). Dangerous donations: The effectiveness of cause-
related marketing on charity attitude. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 11 (1), 59-76.
Becker, P. E., & Dhingra, P. H. (2001). Religious involvement and volunteering:
implications for civil society. Sociology of Religion 62, (3),315-335. Bennett, R., & Gabriel, H. (2000). Charity affiliation as a determinant of product
purchase decisions. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(4), 255-270.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107 (2), 238-246.
Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Koziets, R. V. (1999). Consumer persuasion
through cause-related advertising. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 491-497.
Bhattachrya, C.B., & Sanker, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why
and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47 (Fall), 9-24.
Blomer, J. M. M., & Kasper, H. D. P. (1995). The complex relationship between
consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty, Journal of Economic Psychology, 16(2). 311-329.
Blomqvist, K.H., & Posner, S. (Summer 2004). Three strategies for integrating CSR
with brand marketing. Market Leader, 33-36. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://prophet.com/downloads/articles/Blomqvist-and-Posner.pdf
Bottomley, P.A., & Holden, S.J.S. (2001). Do we really know how consumer
evaluate brand extensions? Empirical generalizations based on secondary analysis of eight studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(4), 494-500.
Boush, D.M., Marian, F., & Gregory, M. R. (1994). Adolescent skepticism toward
TV advertising and knowledge of advertiser tactics. Journal of Consumer Research, 21( ), 65-175.
Brink, D., Odekerken-Schröder, G., & Pauwels, P. (2006). The effect of strategic and
tactical cause-related marketing on consumers' brand loyalty. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23 (1), pp. 15-25
178
Bronn, P. S., & Vrioni, A. B. (2001). Corporate social responsibility and cause-related Marketing: an overview. International Journal of Advertising, 20, 207-222.
Brown, T.A. (2006). Confirmatory factory analysis for applied research. Guilford
press, New York.
Brown, T. J. & Peter A. D. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61 (1), 68-84.
Browne, M. W., & Robert, C. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. in Testing structural equation models. Kenneth A. B., & Long, J. S. eds. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 136-162.
Burns, A. C., & Ronald, F. B. (2000). Marketing research, 3nd ed. Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Caesar, P. (1986). Cause-related marketing: The new face of corporate philanthropy. Business and Society Review, 59 (Fall), 15-19. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 4 (4), 497-505. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the
moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, July-August, 39-48.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility. Business and Society.
38(3),268-295. Charity Commission. (2005). Report of findings of a survey of public trust and
confidence in charities. Retrieved January 18, 2009 from www.charity- commision.gov.uk./library/spr/pdfs/surveytrust.pdf
Charity Commission. (2008). Report of findings of a survey of public trust and
confidence in charities. Retrieved January 18, 2009 from www.charity- commision.gov.uk./news/pbsurveyint.asp
Chiagouris, L., & Ray, I. (2007). Saving the world with cause-related marketing.
Marketing Management, July/August, 48-51. Chrenka, J., Gutter, M. S., & Jasper, C. (2003). Gender differences in the decision to
give time or money. Consumer Interest Annual, 40, 1-4. Churchill, G. A. Jr. (1999). Marketing research methodological foundation, 7th ed.,
Florida: The Dryden Press. Cone Communications and Roper Srarch Worldwide. (1994). A benchmark survey
marketing, Cone Communications. Retrieved January 18, 2009 from www.msen.mb.ca/crm.html
179
Cone Communications and Roper Srarch Worldwide. (2002). Cone corporate citizenship: The role of cause branding. Retrieved January 18, 2009 from www.coneic.com/pages/pr_13.html
Cone Communications and Roper Srarch Worldwide. (2008). Cone cause evolution
study. Retrieved January 18, 2009 from www.marketingcharts.com/topics/behavioral-marketing/consumers-reward- companies-that-support-causes-6362.
Creyer, E. H., & Ross, W. T. Jr. (1997). The influence of firm behavior on purchase
intention: do consumers really care about business ethics? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(6), 421-432.
Cui, Y., Trent, E. S., Sullivan, P. M., & Matiru, G. N. (2003). Cause-related
marketing: How generation Y responds. International journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31 (6), 310-320.
Dahl, D., & Lavack, A. (1995, Winter). Cause-related marketing: Impact of size of
cause-related promotion on consumer perception and participation. Paper presented at the conference in Marketing Theory and Applications: American Marketing Association. Chicago.
Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California
Management Review, 2, 70-76. Dasilva, A. (2004). The 2004 Cone Corporate Citizenship Study. Boston: Cone
Communications. Retrieved January 18, 2009 from www.coneinc.com/pages/pr_30.html.
Dean, D. H. (2004). Consumer perception of corporate donations: Effects of company
reputation for social responsibility and type of donation. Journal of Advertising, 32(4), 91-102.
Drucker, P.F. (1955). The practice of management. London: Heineman. Drucker, P.F. (1984). The new meaning of corporate social responsibility. California
Management Review, 26, 53-63.
Drumwright, M.E. (1994). Socially responsible organizational buying: Environmental concern as a noneconomic buying criterion. Journal of Marketing, 58(July),1-19.
Drumwright, M.E. (1996). Company advertising with a social dimension: The role of
noneconomic criteria. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 71-87. Drumwright, M.E., & Murphy, P. (2001). Corporate societal marketing. In The
handbook of marketing and society, edited by P.N. Bloom and G.T. Gundlach, 168-183. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
180
Ellen, P. S., Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2000). Charitable programs and the retailer: Do they mix? Journal of Retailing, 76 (3), 393-406.
Ellen, P. S., Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2006). Building corporate associations:
Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(Spring), 147-158.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: a stakeholder approach. London:
Pitman. Friedman, M. (1970). The Social responsibility of business is to increase its profits,
Retrieved August 15, 2008, from http://alonso.stfx.ca/nmaltby/Courses/BSAD 101/Friedman article.doc.
Fombrun, C., & Mark, S. (1990). What’s in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33 (2), 233-58.
Garrison, J.R. (1990). A new twist to cause marketing. Fund Raising Management,
20(12), 40-44, 68. Gerbing, W.D., & Anderson, C.J. (1988). An updates paradigm for scale development
incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(May), 186-192.
Gounairs, S., & Stathakopoulos, V. (2004). Antecedents and consequences of brand
loyalty: An empirical study. Journal of Brand Management, 11(4), 283-306. Grahn, J.L., Hannaford, W.J., & Laverty, K.J. (1987). Corporate philanthropy and
marketing strategy: A review and directions for research. AMA Educators’ Proceedings. Chicago: American Marketing Association, (53), 67-69.
Grau, L. S., & Folse, J. A. G. (2007). Cause-related marketing: The influence of
donation proximity and message-framing cues on the less-involved consumer. Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 19-33.
Grewal, R., Joseph A. C., & Baumgartner, H. (2004). Multicollinearity and
measurement error in structural equation models: Implications for theory testing. Marketing Science, 23 (4), 519-529.
Gupta, S., & Pirsch, J. (2006). The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-
related marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(6), 314-326. Hair, J. F. J., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate
data analysis with readings. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Hair, J. F. J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. C., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006).
Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
181
Hamlin, R., & Wilson, T.(2004). The impact of cause branding on consumer reactions to products: Does product/cause 'fit' really matter?. Journal of Marketing Management, 20 (7/8), pp. 663-681.
Henricks, M. (1991). Doing well while doing good. Small Business Reports, 16
(11), 28-38. Herbig, P., Koehler, W., & Day, K. (1993). Marketing to baby bust generation.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10(1), 4-9.
Hettman, D. W., & Jenkins, E. (1990). Volunteerism and social interest. Individual Psychology, 46(4), 298-303.
Hopkins, M. (2003). The business case for CSR: Where are we? International Journal
for Business Performance Management. 5(2/3), 125-140.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Journal of Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
Jones, P., Comfort, D., & Hillier, D. (2005). Corporate social responsibility as a
Means of marketing to and communicating with customers within stores: A case study of UK food retailers. Management Research News, 28(10), 47-56.
Joreskog, K. G. (1978). Structural analysis of covariance and correlation matrices.
Psychometrika, 43, 443-447. Joreskog, K. G. (1999). How large can a standardized coefficient be? In contributions
by Joreskog, K.G, Lisrel 8.50 (June 2001) by Karl Joreskog and Dag Sorbom, Scientific software international Inc.
Joreskog, K. G., & Wold, H. (1982) The ML and PLS techniques for modeling with
latent variables: Historical and comparatives aspects. In K. G. Joreskog & H. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Joyner, B.E. & Payne, D. (2002). Evolution and implementation: a study of values,
business ethics and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(4), 297–311.
Kalligeros, M. (2005). Choose wisely: Partnering for cause-related marketing. Public
Relations Tactics, 12 (8), pp.18-1. Kashyap, R., & Li, F. (2006). If the cause doesn’t fit, must the social marketer quit?
Investigating the importance of fit between brands and social causes. Paper presented at the conference in Marketing Theory and Applications: American Marketing Association. Chicago.
Kmenta, J. (1971). Elements of econometrics. New York: MacMillan.
182
Knox, S., Maklan, S., French, P. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Exploring
stakeholder relationships and programme reporting across leading FTSE companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 61, 7-28.
Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good
for your company and your cause. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. KPMG. (2005). KPMG International survey of corporate responsibility reporting.
Retrieved August 15, 2008, from http://kpmg.com.au?Portals/0/KPMGSurvey2005_3.pdf
Lafferty, B. A. (1996). Cause-related marketing: Does the cause make a difference in consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions toward the product? Department of Marketing, Florida State University,Tallahassee, FL.
Lafferty, B.A. (2007). The relevance of fit in a cause-brand alliance when consumers
evaluate corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 60 (5), 447-453. Lafferty, B. A., Goldsmith, R. E., & Hult G, T, M. (2004). The impact of the alliance
on the partners: a look at cause-brand alliances. Psychology & Marketing, 21(7), 509-531.
Lafferty, B. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2005). Cause–brand alliances: Does the cause
help the brand or does the brand help the cause? Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 423–429.
Landreth, S. (2002). For a good cause: The affects of cause importance, cause
proximity, congruency and participation effort on consumer’ evaluations of cause related marketing. PhD. Dissertation, Louisiana State University.
Landreth, S., Garretson, A. J., & Pirsch. J. (2007). Cause-related marketing: An
exploratory study of campaign donation structures issues. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 18(2), 69-91.
Lantos, G.P. (2001). The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility.
Journal of Consumer Marketing,18(2), 595-630. Lantos, G.P. (2003). Corporate socialism masquerades as “CSR”: the difference
between being ethical, altruistic in business. Strategic Direction, 19(6), 31-35. Lawrence, E. L. (1993). Doing Well While Doing Good. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall. Lewis, E. (2003). Why giving is good for you; It pays to be charitable but only if the
balance is right (Industry Overview). Brand Strategy, April, 26-29. Lieberman, A., & Chaiken, S. (1996). The direct effect of personal relevance on
attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22 (March), 269-280.
183
Lichtenstein, D. R., Drumwright, M. E., & Braig, B. M. (2004). The effect of
corporate social responsibility on consumer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits. Journal of marketing, 68(October), 16-32.
Lucas, T., Wollin, A., & Lafferty, G. (2001). Achieving social responsibility through
corporate strategy: a matter of governance, Governance and Capable Responsibility in the New Millennium, Canberra.
Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C.B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer
satisfaction, and market value, Journal of Marketing, 70 (October), 1-18. Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O.C. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and marketing:
An integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(Winter), 3-19.
Maignan, I., Ferrel, O. C., & Ferrel, L. (2005). A stakeholder model for implementing
social responsibility in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 39(9/10), 956-977.
Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and
the U.S.: Insights from businesses self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 497-515.
Mangleburg, T. F., & Bristol, T. (1998). Socialization and adolescents' skepticism
toward advertising. Journal of Advertising, 27 (3), 11-21. Marconie, J. (2002). Cause Marketing: build your image and bottom line through
socially responsible partnerships, program, and events. Dearborn Trade Publishing. U.S.A.
McGuire, J. (1963). Business and Society, New York: McGraw-Hill. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the
firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117-127. Menon, S., & Kahn, E. B. (2001). Corporate sponsorships of philanthropic
activities: Do they help the sponsor? Retrieve August 15, 2008 from http://socialmarketingquarterly.com/ejournal.htm.
Meyer, H. (1999).When the cause is just. Journal of Business Strategy, 20 (6),
27-31. Miller, K. E., & Fredrick, D. S. (1977). Consumer responses to socially questionable
corporate behavior: An empirical test. Journal of consumer Research, 4(June), 1-7.
Mintzberg, H. (1983). The case for corporate social responsibility. The Journal of
Business Strategy, 4(2), 3-15.
184
Mohr, L. A., Dogan, D. E., & Ellen, S. P. (1998). The development and testing of a measure of skepticism toward environment claims in the marketers’ communications. The Journal of Consumers Affairs, 32(1), 30-55.
Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001). Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. The journal of consumer affairs, 35(1), 45-72.
Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2005). The effect of corporate social responsibility and
price on consumer responses. The journal of consumer affairs, 39(1), 121-149. Moore, G. (2003). Hives and horseshoes, Mintzberg and McIntyre: what future for
corporate social responsibility? Business Ethics: A European Review, 12(1), 41-53.
Nan, X., & Heo, K. (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.
Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to assess
consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 159-186.
Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E. R., & Maclachlan, D. (2005). Ad skepticism: The
consequences of disbelief. Journal of Advertising, 34, (3),7-17. Ohanian, R. (1991). The impact of celebrity spokespersons’ perspective image on
consumers’ intention to purchase. Journal of Advertising Research, February-March, 46-54.
Oldenberg, D. (1992). Big companies plus big causes for big gains. Business and
Society Review, 8 (3), 38-39. Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction. A behavioral perspective on the consumer.
McGraw-Hill, New York. Olsen, G. D., Pracejus, J. W., & Brown, N. R. (2003). When profit equals price:
Consumer confusion about donation amounts in cause-related marketing. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 22(2), 170-180.
Osterhus, T. (1997). Pro-social consumer influence strategies: When and how do they
work?. Journal of Marketing, 61(3), 16-29. Patterson, J. M. (1966). What are the social and ethical responsibilities of marketing
executives? Journal of Marketing, 30 (July), 12-15. Peltier, J.W., Schibrowsky, J.A., & Schultz, D.E. (2002). Leveraging customer
information to develop sequential communication strategies: A case study of charitable-giving behavior. Journal of Advertising Research, July-August, 23-41.
185
Penner, L. A. (2002). Dispositional influences on sustained volunteerism: An interactionist perspective. The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, 58(3), 447-467.
Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial
behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365-92. Peppas, S. C., & Peppas, G. J. (2000). Business ethic in the European union: a study
Of Greek attitudes. Management Decision, 38(6), 369-376. Podnar, K., & Golob, U. (2007). CSR expectations: the focus of corporate marketing.
corporate communication: An International Journal 12( 4), 326-340.
Polonsky, M. J., & Wood, G. (2001). Can the over commercialization of cause related marketing harm society? Journal of Macromarketing, 21 (1), 8-22.
Polonsky, M.J., & Speed, R. (2001). Lonking sponsorship and cause related
marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 35(11/12), 1361-1385.
Porter, E. M., & Kramer, R. M. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy, Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56-68.
Porter, E. M., & Kramer, R. M. (2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard business review, December, 78 – 92.
Pracejus, J.W., & Olsen, G. D. (2004). The role of brand/cause fit in the
effectiveness of cause-related marketing campaigns. Journal of Business Research, 57, 635-640.
Pracejus, J. W., Olsen, G. D.,& Brown, R. N. (2004). On the prevalence and impact
of vague quantifiers in the advertising of cause-related marketing builds brands. Journal of Advertising, 32 (4),19-28.
Pringle, H., & Thompson, M. (1999). Brand spirit; How cause related marketing builds brands. London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Rifon, N, J., Choi, S, M., Trimble, C, S., & Hoirong, L. (2004). Congruence effects in
sponsorship: the mediating role of sponsor credibility and consumer attributions of sponsor motive. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 29-42.
Ricks, J. M. (2005). An assessment of strategic corporate philanthropy on perceptions
of brand equity variables. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(3), 121-134. Robert, J.L., & Gary, A.S. (1961). A model for predictive measurements of
advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 25(October), 59-62. Ross, J. K., Larry, T. P., & Mary, A.S. (1992). Consumer perceptions of
organizations that use cause-related marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(1), 93-97.
186
Ross, J. K., Mary, A.S., & Larry, T. P. (1990-1991). Tactical considerations for the Effectiveness of cause related marketing. The Journal of Applied Business Research, 7(2), 58-65.
Samu, S., & Wymer, W.W. Jr. (2002). Social advertising: Effects of dominance and
fit on attitudes and behavioral intentions. Paper presented at 2002 Academy of marketing science conference, 29/05- 01/06/2002, Sanibel Island, Florida.
Schiller, Z. (1988). Doing well by doing good: Should business link philanthropy to promotional schemes? Business Week, December, 53-54.
Schmacker, R., & Lomax, R. (1996). A beginner’s guide to structural equation
modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum. Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: a three-
domain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503-530. Segars, A., & Grover, V. (1993). Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness:
A confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Quarterly, 17(December), 517-525. Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better?
Consumer reaction to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225-244.
Sethi, S. (1975). Dimension of corporate social performance: An analytic framework. California Management Review, 17, 58-64. Shell, A. (1989). Cause related marketing: Big risks, big potential. Public Relations
Journal, 45 (7), 8-13. Simmons, C. J., & Becker-Olsen, K. L. (2006). Achieving marketing objectives
through social sponsorships. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 154-169. Smith, G., & Stodghill, R. (1994). Are good causes good marketing? Business Week,
3363, 64-66. Smith, N. C. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: whether or how? California
Management Review, 45 (4), 52-76.
Smith, S.M., & Alcorn, D.S. (1991). Cause marketing: A new direction in the marketing of corporate responsibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 8(3), 19-35.
Sorrentio, R. M., Ramona, D. B., Maria Z. G., James M. O., & Erin C. H. (1988).
Uncertainty orientation and persuasion: individual differences in the effects of personal relevance on social judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55 (September), 357-372.
Steckel, R., & Simon, R. (1992). Doing best by doing good: how to use public-
purpose partnerships to boost corporate profits and benefit your community. Penguin books, New York, U.S.A.
187
Strahilevitz, M., & Myers, J.G. (1998). Donation to charity as purchase incentives: How well they work may depend on what you are trying to sell. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), 434-446.
Straughan, R. D., & Roberts, J. A. (1999). Environmental segmentation alternative: a
look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16( 6), 558-575.
Till, B., & Nowak, L. (2000). Towards effective use of cause related marketing
alliances. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9 (7), pp. 472. Tilbury, D., & Wortman, D. (2004). Engaging people in sustainability. IUCN, Gland. Trimble, C, S., & Rifon, N, J. (2006). Consumer perceptions of compatibility in
cause-related marketing messages. Int.J.Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., 11 (February), 29-47.
Varadarajan, P. R. (1986). Horizontal cooperative sales promotion: A framework for
classification and additional perspectives. Journal of Marketing, 50 (2), 61-74. Varadajan, P.R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of
marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of marketing, 52(3), 58-74.
Van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate
sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 95.
Vogel, D. (2005). The market for virtue: The potential and limits of corporate social
responsibility. Washington, DC. Brooking Institution Press. Walker, B. M. (2007). Assessing the influence of corporate social responsibility on
consumer attitudes in the sport industry. PhD. Dissertation, The Florida State University.
Walton, C. (1967). Corporate social responsibilities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (1998). A typology of consumer responses to cause-
related marketing: From skeptics to socially concerned. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 17(2), 226-238.
Wedel, P. (2007). Recent Developments in Corporate Social Responsibility in
Thailand – Presentation. Retrieved 20 October, 2009 from http://www.adbi.org/conf-seminar-papers/2007/10/30/2390.csr.wedel/
Weiner, J., & Mowen. (1985). The impact of product recalls on consumer perceptions.
The Journal of the Society of Consumer Affairs Professionals in Business, 14(1),18-21.
188
Wheeler, D., Colbert, B., & Freeman, R. E. (2003). Focusing on value: Reconciling
corporate social responsibility, sustainability and a stakeholder approach in a network world. Journal of General Management, 28(3), 1-28.
Wilson, J., & Musick, A. M. (1997). Work and volunteering: The long arm of the job.
Social Forces, 76(1), 251-72. Wolberg, J. M., & Pokrywczynski, J. (2001). A psychographic analysis of generation
Y college students. Journal of Advertising Research, October, 33-52. Wood, D. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management
Review, 16(4), 691-718. World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, Our common future,
Retrieved November 26, 2008, from www.are.admin.ch/imperia/md/content/are/nachhaltlgeentwicklung/brundtlan d_bericht.pdf
Yamane, T. (1978) Statistics: An introductory analysis, Singapore: Times Printers
Snd. Bhd.
Youn, S., & Kim, H. (2008). Antecedents of consumer attitudes toward cause-related marketing. Journal of Advertising Research, 48(1), 123-137.
Yoon, Y., Canli, G. Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social
responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of consumer psychology, 16(4), 377-390.
Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral
consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60 (2). 31-46. Zikmund, G.W. (2002). Exploring marketing research. 8th , Thomson.
Appendix 1a: Questionnaire (English version)
This research is a part of doctoral dissertation in marketing program Siam University.
The objective of the survey is to study the factors which affect on consumer patronage intention with cause related marketing campaign. The findings will be highly useful for academic and business application.
Please participation in the survey by answering every question.
Cause-Related Marketing (CRMK):
“The process of formulating and implementing marketing activities which corporation commits to making a contribution or donating an amount of revenues to a specific cause based on product sales.”
The Component of Cause Related Marketing Campaign Component
Affecting on Thai Consumer Patronage Intention
Please answer every question by checking √ in the ( ) or box. In cases where is no exact answer, please answer your best estimates. Personal Data You are studying in ( ) Master degree in MBA ( ) Master degree in Non MBA How many you have participated in any charity within 6 months ? ( ) 1. More than once per month ( ) 2. Once per month ( ) 3. 3-4 times in 6 months ( ) 4. 1-2 times in 6 months ( ) 5. Have not yet participated in any charity in 6 months Did you use to buy any products or services which had CRMK campaign before? ( ) 1. Yes ( ) 2. No Gender ( ) 1. Male ( ) 2. Female Age ( ) 1. Not more than 25 years old ( ) 2. 26 – 30 years old
( ) 3. 31 – 35 years old ( ) 4. 36 – 40 years old ( ) 5. 41 – 45 years old ( ) 6. 46 – 50 years old ( ) 7. 51 – 55 years old ( ) 8. More than 55 years old
Marital status ( ) 1. Single ( ) 2. Married ( ) 3. Divorced / Widow Occupation ( ) 1. Office worker ( ) 2. Government official
( ) 3. State enterprise ( ) 4. Business owners ( ) 5. Home duties ( ) 6. Freelance ( ) 7.Unemployed ( ) 8. Others...............
How does your job relate with marketing function? ( ) 1. Very related ( ) 2. Related ( ) 3. Not related ( ) 4. Unemployed Monthly Income (Baht) ( ) 1. Not more than 20,000 ( ) 2. 20,001 – 40,000
( ) 3. 40,001 – 60,000 ( ) 4. 60,001 – 80,000 ( ) 5. 80,001 – 100,000 ( ) 6. More than 100,000
( ) 7. No income
CI How much do you agree with these each following social problem should
be applied to CRMK campaign?
Ver
y m
ore
Mor
e
Mod
erat
e
Les
s
Ver
y le
ss
1 The social problem relates with the quality of your living and family. 5 4 3 2 1
2 The social problem relates with your gender disease.
5 4 3 2 1
3 The social problem relates with your experience and has emergency for resolving.
5 4 3 2 1
4 The relevance social problem which you always perceive from mass communications.
5 4 3 2 1
5 The local social problem which is the air pollution or environment problem in your community.
5 4 3 2 1
6 The local social problem which is the safety of your community lives.
5 4 3 2 1
7 The provincial social problem which is the natural disaster in many provinces. 5 4 3 2 1
8 The provincial social problem which is the stray animal in your province.
5 4 3 2 1
9 The national social problem which is the uneducated children.
5 4 3 2 1
10 The national social problem which is the public health.
5 4 3 2 1
11 The global social problem which is the Aids/HIV.
5 4 3 2 1
12 The global social problem which is the global warming. 5 4 3 2 1
13 The social problem which has a well-known charity takes care of the problem.
5 4 3 2 1
14 The social problem which has a charity is really agency of problem solving takes care of the problem.
5 4 3 2 1
15 The social problem which is unaware. It is promoted by CRMK campaign.
5 4 3 2 1
16 The serious national social problems which are fully used advertising for donation support in CRMK campaign. 5 4 3 2 1
17 The social problem which has a celebrity is the supporter in CRMK campaign.
5 4 3 2 1
CF
How much do you agree with the alliance of product and social problem of each following should be applied to CRMK campaign?
Ver
y m
ore
Mor
e
Mod
erat
e
Les
s
Ver
y le
ss
1 Automobile is an alliance with the safety road project. 5 4 3 2 1
2 Automobile is an alliance with the child slum care project. 5 4 3 2 1
3 Apparel is an alliance with the cold disaster people care project. 5 4 3 2 1
4 Apparel is an alliance with the elephant’s survival project. 5 4 3 2 1
5 Construction material is an alliance with the school buildings maintenance project. 5 4 3 2 1
6 Construction material is an alliance with the project helping the handicapped. 5 4 3 2 1
7 Pet food is an alliance with helping the stray dog and cat project. 5 4 3 2 1
8 Pet food is an alliance with helping HIV patient project. 5 4 3 2 1
9 Ladies’ product is an alliance with the breast cancer crusade project. 5 4 3 2 1
10 Ladies’ product is an alliance with the headwater sources conservation project. 5 4 3 2 1
11 Heart candy is an alliance with helping children with heart diseases. 5 4 3 2 1
12 Heart candy is an alliance with helping people who meet with flood disaster. 5 4 3 2 1
CF How much do you agree with the image of corporate and charity of each
following which become alliances in CRMK campaign?
Ver
y m
ore
Mor
e
Mod
erat
e
Les
s
Ver
y le
ss
13 The large corporate with good image in CSR is an alliance with the large amount of charity and popular. 5 4 3 2 1
14 The corporate which has recognized product or service is an alliance with the charity which has strongly resulted of social problem solving.
5 4 3 2 1
15 The corporate which has continually public news of CSR activities is an alliance with the charity which has continually public news of social problem solving.
5 4 3 2 1
DF How much do you agree with the donation framing of each following
should be applied to CRMK campaign?
Ver
y m
ore
Mor
e
Mod
erat
e
Les
s
Ver
y le
ss
1 Comparing of donation quantifiers with price of product should be relative. 5 4 3 2 1
2 Donation quantifiers can calculate the percentage of price. 5 4 3 2 1
3 The product which has high sales volume can donate with a small donation size when comparing with the price. 5 4 3 2 1
4 The portion of income which is not included in donation from sales amount should be extra donated to charity. 5 4 3 2 1
5 The exact target of donation to a charity should be informed to the public. 5 4 3 2 1
6 The campaign should be publicized clearly information of donation. 5 4 3 2 1
7 The campaign should be continually publicized and informed the accumulated donation. 5 4 3 2 1
8 The total amount of donation should be known to the public when the campaign comes to as end. 5 4 3 2 1
9 The campaign should have certain period. 5 4 3 2 1
10 The timeframe of campaign should be related with the target of donation size. 5 4 3 2 1
11 The CRMK campaign against critical social problems should be continually conducted for a long time. 5 4 3 2 1
PI How much do you agree with each following of your patronage intention in CRMK campaign?
Ver
y m
ore
Mor
e
Mod
erat
e
Les
s
Ver
y le
ss
1 You have intention to purchase CRMK product although never used it before.
5 4 3 2 1
2 You have intention to purchase CRMK product compare with others brand name which have same price and quality.
5 4 3 2 1
3 You have intention to purchase CRMK product although it is not necessary product for you.
5 4 3 2 1
4 You have intention to switch brand from your usual product to CRMK brand to support CRMK campaign.
5 4 3 2 1
5 You have intention to purchase CRMK product despite it is higher price than other brand. 5 4 3 2 1
6 When you bought CRMK product, you have intention to repeat purchase to support CRMK campaign.
5 4 3 2 1
7 You continuously purchase CRMK product because you have feeling more donate.
5 4 3 2 1
8 If you knew the CRMK campaign does not achieved the donation target, you will immediately repeat purchase. 5 4 3 2 1
9 You have intention to tell about your supporting in the campaign to your family. 5 4 3 2 1
10 You have intention to recommend the CRMK campaign to your family and familiar for their supporting.
5 4 3 2 1
11 You have intention to recommend the CRMK campaign to the others.
5 4 3 2 1
SK How much do you agree with each following statement?
Ver
y m
ore
Mor
e
Mod
erat
e
Les
s
Ver
y le
ss
1 You have skepticism with CRMK campaign advertising. 5 4 3 2 1
2 Almost all of CRMK campaign advertising is with intention to convince the customers. 5 4 3 2 1
3 Almost all of the CRMK campaign advertisings are exaggerated. 5 4 3 2 1
4 CRMK campaign is sales promotion tool. 5 4 3 2 1
5 Image and credit of firm and brand image impact on your patronage intention. 5 4 3 2 1
6 Unclear CRMK campaign component makes impact on your patronage intention. 5 4 3 2 1
Appendix 1b: Questionnaire (Thai version)
งานวิจัยน้ีเปนสวนหน่ึงของวิทยานิพนธของนักศึกษาระดับปริญญาเอกทางการตลาด มหาวิทยาลัยสยาม ซึ่งมี
จุดประสงคเพ่ือศึกษาตัวแปรที่มีผลตอความต้ังใจสนับสนุนของผูบริโภคตอกิจกรรมการตลาดเพ่ือสังคม อันจะเปน
ประโยชนตองานวิชาการและการปรับประยุกตใชในภาคธุรกิจ
จึงใครขอความรวมมือจากทาน กรุณาตอบแบบสอบถามน้ีใหครบถวนสมบูรณ
คําอธิบาย ตัวอยางและลักษณะการทํากิจกรรมการตลาดอิงการกุศล
Cause-Related Marketing (CRMK)
“รูปแบบการทํากิจกรรมการตลาดท่ีบริษัทไดโฆษณาไววา จะนําเงนิรายไดสวนหนึ่งจากการขาย
สินคาหรือบริการ ไปบริจาคหรือรวมสมทบทุนใหกับองคกรการกุศล เพื่อนําไปชวยเหลือ และแกไขปญหา
ตาง ๆ ของสังคมท่ีเกิดขึ้น”
แบบสอบถามเร่ือง “องคประกอบการรณรงคการตลาดอิงการกุศล ท่ีมีผลตอความต้ังใจสนับสนุนของผูบริโภคไทย”
(The Component of Cause Related Marketing Campaign
Affecting on Thai Consumer Patronage Intention)
ขอมูลสวนตัว (เปนสวนท่ีมีความสําคัญอยางมากตอการวิเคราะหผลการวิจัย จึงใครขอความกรุณาจากทาน
ตอบคําถามทุกขอโดยการขีดเครื่องหมายถูก √ ลงใน ( ) หนาคําตอบท่ีตรงกับทานมากท่ีสุด)
ทานกําลังศึกษาอยู ( ) โครงการปริญญาโททางบริหารธุรกิจ
( ) โครงการปริญญาโทสาขาอื่นๆ
ในรอบ 6 เดือนท่ีผานมา ทานไดมีสวนรวมในการกุศล บริจาคเงิน สิ่งของ ใหกับองคกรการกุศล เชน วัด มูลนิธิ สมาคมการ
กุศล มากนอยเพียงไร
( ) 1. เปนประจําทุกเดือน มากกวาเดือนละ 1 ครัง้ ( ) 2. เดือนละ1 ครั้ง ( ) 3. ประมาณ 3-4 ครั้ง
( ) 4. ประมาณ 1-2 ครั้ง ( ) 5. ยังไมไดมีสวนรวมในการกุศลเลย
ทานเคยมีสวนรวมในการสนับสนุน ซื้อสินคาหรือบริการ ที่ทํากิจกรรมการตลาดอิงการกุศล ที่มีการนํารายไดสวนหน่ึง
สมทบทุนใหกับองคกรการกุศลหรือไม ( ) 1. เคย ( ) 2. ไมเคย
เพศ ( ) 1. ชาย ( ) 2. หญิง
อายุ ( ) 1.ไมเกิน 25 ป ( ) 2. 26 – 30 ป ( ) 3. 31 – 35 ป ( ) 4. 36 – 40 ป ( ) 5. 41 – 45 ป
( ) 6. 46 – 50 ป ( ) 7. 51 – 55 ป ( ) 8. มากกวา 55 ป
สถานภาพสมรส ( ) 1. โสด ( ) 2. สมรส ( ) 3. หมาย / หยาราง
อาชีพ ( ) 1. พนักงานบริษัท ( ) 2. ขาราชการ ( ) 3. พนักงานรัฐวิสาหกิจ ( ) 4. ทําธุรกิจสวนตัว
( ) 5. แมบาน/พอบาน ( ) 6. อาชีพอิสระ ( ) 7.ไมไดทํางาน ( ) 8. อื่น ๆ................
งานที่ทานทําอยู มีความเก่ียวของกับงานดานการตลาดมากนอยเพียงไร
( ) 1. เก่ียวของกับงานการตลาดอยางมาก ( ) 2. เก่ียวของกับงานการตลาดเล็กนอย
( ) 3. ไมเก่ียวของกับงานการตลาดเลย ( ) 4. ไมไดทํางาน
รายไดสวนตัวตอเดือน (บาท) ( ) 1. ไมเกิน 20,000 ( ) 2. 20,001 – 40,000 ( ) 3. 40,001 – 60,000
( ) 4. 60,001 – 80,000 ( ) 5. 80,001 – 100,000 ( ) 6. มากกวา 100,000
( ) 7. ไมมีรายไดประจํา
คําชี้แจง กรุณาตอบคําถามน้ีทุกขอ โดยการขีดเคร่ืองหมายถูก √ ลงบนตัวเลขที่ตรงกับความเห็นของทานมากที่สุด ใน
กรณีท่ีทานไมสามารถระบุคําตอบท่ีชัดเจนได กรุณาแสดงความเห็นหรือเลือกคําตอบท่ีทานคิดวาใกลเคียงกับความเปนจริง
ของทานมากที่สุด
CI ทานเห็นดวยกับ ประเด็นปญหาสังคม ตอไปน้ีควรนํามาใช
ในการทํากิจกรรมการตลาดอิงการกุศล มากนอยเพียงไร มากที่
สุด
มาก
ปานก
ลาง
นอย
นอยที่
สุด
1 ปญหาสังคมท่ีเก่ียวของกับคุณภาพชีวิตความเปนอยูของทานและสมาชิกในครอบครัว 5 4 3 2 1
2 ปญหาสังคมท่ีเก่ียวของกับเพศของทาน เชน ปญหาสุขภาพและโรคภัยที่เกิดขึ้นเฉพาะ
กับเพศชาย หรือ เพศหญิง 5 4 3 2 1
3 ปญหาสังคมท่ีทานเคยประสบเหตุการณมาดวยตนเอง และคิดวามีความเรงดวนที่ตอง
ชวยกันแกไข 5 4 3 2 1
4 ปญหาสังคมท่ีทานคุนเคยจากการไดรับรูขาวสารอยูเปนประจํา 5 4 3 2 1
5 ปญหาระดับชุมชน เชน ปญหาสิ่งแวดลอมในชุมชน 5 4 3 2 1
6 ปญหาระดับชุมชน เชน ปญหาความปลอดภัยในชีวิตและทรัพยสินของคนในชุมชน 5 4 3 2 1
7 ปญหาระดับจังหวัด เชน ปญหาภัยธรรมชาติในจังหวัดตางๆ 5 4 3 2 1
8 ปญหาระดับจังหวัด เชน ปญหาสัตวเรรอนในจังหวัด 5 4 3 2 1
9 ปญหาระดับประเทศ เชน ปญหาเด็กดอยโอกาสทางการศึกษาของประเทศ 5 4 3 2 1
10 ปญหาระดับประเทศ เชน ปญหาดานสาธารณสุขของประเทศ 5 4 3 2 1
11 ปญหาระดับโลก เชน ปญหาผูปวยโรคเอดส 5 4 3 2 1
12 ปญหาระดับโลก เชน ปญหาภาวะโลกรอน 5 4 3 2 1
13 ปญหาสังคมท่ีไดรับการดูแลโดย องคกรการกุศล ที่มีช่ือเสียงและผลงานการชวยเหลือ
แกไขปญหาของสังคม ที่เปนที่ยอมรับ 5 4 3 2 1
14 ปญหาสังคมท่ีไดรับการดูแลโดย องคกรการกุศล ที่เช่ือถือไดวา เปนตัวแทนการแกไข
ปญหาสังคมเรื่องน้ัน ๆ อยางแทจริง 5 4 3 2 1
15 ปญหาสังคมท่ีพ่ึงไดรับการประชาสัมพันธจากกิจกรรมการตลาดอิงการกุศล 5 4 3 2 1
16 ปญหาสังคมท่ีไดถูกกลาวถึง วิพากษ วิจารณ อยางมากในสื่อตาง ๆ มาอยางตอเน่ือง 5 4 3 2 1
17 ปญหาสังคมท่ีมีบุคคลที่มีช่ือเสียงเปนที่รูจัก รวมเปนพรีเซนเตอร เพ่ือชวยรณรงคการ
สนับสนุนกิจกรรม 5 4 3 2 1
CF ทานเห็นดวยกับ ประเภทสินคาและปญหาสังคมในแตละคูตอไปน้ี มีความเหมาะสมที่
ควรนํามาใชในการทํากิจกรรมการตลาดอิงการกุศล มากนอยเพียงไร มากที่
สุด
มาก
ปานก
ลาง
นอย
นอยที่
สุด
1 รถยนต กับ โครงการเพ่ือความปลอดภัยในการจราจร 5 4 3 2 1
2 รถยนต กับ โครงการชวยเหลือเด็กออนในสลัม 5 4 3 2 1
3 สินคาเคร่ืองแตงกาย กับ โครงการชวยเหลือผูประสบภัยหนาว 5 4 3 2 1
4 สินคาเคร่ืองแตงกาย กับ โครงการชวยเหลือชาง 5 4 3 2 1
5 วัสดุกอสราง กับ โครงการปรับปรุงอาคารโรงเรียนในพ้ืนที่ชนบทหางไกล 5 4 3 2 1
6 วัสดุกอสราง กับ โครงการชวยเหลือผูพิการซ้ําซอน 5 4 3 2 1
7 สินคาอาหารสัตว กับ โครงการชวยเหลือสัตวจรจัด 5 4 3 2 1
8 สินคาอาหารสัตว กับ โครงการชวยเหลือผูปวยโรคเอดส 5 4 3 2 1
9 สินคาสําหรับสตรี กับ โครงการจัดซื้อเครื่องมือและอุปกรณในการตรวจ รักษา
โรคมะเร็งที่เกิดขึ้นเฉพาะสตรี 5 4 3 2 1
10 สินคาสําหรับสตรี กับ โครงการอนุรักษผืนปาตนนํ้า 5 4 3 2 1
11 ขนมลูกอมรูปหัวใจ กับ โครงการชวยเหลือเด็กผูปวยโรคหัวใจ 5 4 3 2 1
12 ขนมลูกอมรูปหัวใจ กับ โครงการแกไขปญหาภัยนํ้าทวม 5 4 3 2 1
CF ทานเห็นดวยกับ ภาพลักษณระหวาง “องคกรธุรกิจ กับ องคกรการกุศล” ในแตละคู
ตอไปน้ี มีความเหมาะสมที่ควรนํามาใชในกิจกรรมการตลาดอิงการกุศล มากนอย
เพียงไร
มากที่
สุด
มาก
ปานก
ลาง
นอย
นอยที่
สุด
13 บริษัทขนาดใหญที่มีภาพลักษณที่ดีในการเปนองคกรที่แสดงถึงความรับผิดชอบตอ
สังคม กับ องคการกุศลขนาดใหญที่มีภาพลักษณที่ดีในการดูแล แกไขปญหาตาง ๆ
ของสังคม
5 4 3 2 1
14 บริษัททั่วไปท่ีมีภาพลักษณในการขายสินคา หรือ บริการ ที่ไมมีกระแสตอตานวาเปน
พิษภัยตอสังคม กับ องคกรการกุศลที่มีผลงานในการดูแลปญหาของสังคมอยางชัดเจน 5 4 3 2 1
15 บริษัทที่ทําการประชาสัมพันธภาพลักษณอยางสม่ําเสมอวา “รวมเปนสวนหน่ึงในการ
ดูแลสังคม” กับ องคกรการกุศลที่มีการแถลงขาวผลงานอยูเปนประจํา 5 4 3 2 1
DF ทานเห็นดวยกับแนวทางการบริจาค ในประโยคตอไปน้ีมากนอยเพียงไร
มากที่
สุด
มาก
ปานก
ลาง
นอย
นอยที่
สุด
1 จํานวนเงินบริจาคเปรียบเทียบตอราคาสินคา ควรสัมพันธกัน 5 4 3 2 1
2 สามารถประเมินไดถึงสัดสวนรอยละของเงินที่บริจาค เปรียบเทียบตอราคาสินคา 5 4 3 2 1
3 สินคาที่มีปริมาณการขายสูงมาก สามารถมีจํานวนเงินบริจาคนอยเมื่อเปรียบเทียบตอ
ราคาสินคาได 5 4 3 2 1
4 รายไดสวนหน่ึงจากการจําหนาย นอกเหนือจากที่กําหนดไวในกิจกรรม ควรนํามา
บริจาคเพ่ิมเติมใหกับองคกรการกุศล 5 4 3 2 1
5 ประชาสัมพันธเปาหมายจํานวนเงินแนนอน ที่ตองการบริจาคใหกับองคกรการกุศล
5 4 3 2 1
6 การประชาสัมพันธรูปแบบการนําเงินรายไดจากการจําหนายไปบริจาค ควรสามารถ
เขาใจไดงาย 5 4 3 2 1
7 มีการประชาสัมพันธเปนระยะวา ขณะนี้มียอดเงินจากรายไดที่รวมบริจาคเปนจํานวน
เงินเทาไร 5 4 3 2 1
8 ภายหลังจากสิ้นสุดกิจกรรมการตลาด มีการประชาสัมพันธใหทราบวา ยอดเงินที่ได
รวมบริจาคมีจํานวนทั้งสิ้นเทาไร 5 4 3 2 1
9 มีการกําหนดระยะเวลาเริ่มตนและสิ้นสุดของการจัดกิจกรรมการบริจาคท่ีแนนอน 5 4 3 2 1
10 ระยะเวลาของกิจกรรมการตลาด มีความสัมพันธ กับเปาหมายท่ีตองการระดมเงิน
สมทบทุน 5 4 3 2 1
11 ปญหาสังคมท่ีวิกฤติ ควรมีการทํากิจกรรมฯ อยางตอเน่ืองติดตอกันเปนระยะเวลานาน 5 4 3 2 1
PI ทานเห็นดวยกับการใหการสนับสนุน กิจกรรมการตลาดอิงการกุศล
ในประเด็นตอไปน้ี มากนอยเพียงไร มากที่
สุด
มาก
ปานก
ลาง
นอย
นอยที่
สุด
1 ทานต้ังใจซื้อสินคาที่ทํากิจกรรมฯ ถึงแมจะไมเคยใชยี่หอน้ันมากอน 5 4 3 2 1
2 ทานต้ังใจเลือกซื้อสินคาที่ทํากิจกรรมฯ เมื่อเทียบกับยี่หออื่นที่มีราคาและคุณภาพ
ใกลเคียงกัน 5 4 3 2 1
3 ทานต้ังใจซื้อสินคาที่ทํากิจกรรมฯ ถึงแมวาจะเปนสินคาที่ไมมีความจําเปนสําหรับทาน 5 4 3 2 1
4 ทานต้ังใจท่ีจะเปล่ียนไปใชสินคาตราสินคาอื่นที่ทํากิจกรรมฯ แทนตราสินคาที่ทานใช
อยูเปนประจํา 5 4 3 2 1
PI ทานเห็นดวยกับการใหการสนับสนุน กิจกรรมการตลาดอิงการกุศล
ในประเด็นตอไปน้ี มากนอยเพียงไร มากที่
สุด
มาก
ปานก
ลาง
นอย
นอยที่
สุด
5 ทานต้ังใจท่ีจะซื้อสินคาที่ทํากิจกรรมฯ ถึงแมวาจะมีราคาสูงกวายี่หออื่นที่ไมทํา
กิจกรรมฯ 5 4 3 2 1
6 เมื่อทานไดซื้อสินคาที่ทํากิจกรรมฯ ทานต้ังใจท่ีจะซื้อสินคาน้ันซ้ําเพ่ือรวมสนับสนุน
กิจกรรมฯ 5 4 3 2 1
7 ทานซื้อสินคาที่ทํากิจกรรมฯ อยางตอเน่ือง เพราะทําใหทานรูสึกเหมือนไดมีสวนรวม
ในการทําการกุศลเพ่ิมขึ้น 5 4 3 2 1
8 ถาทราบวา สินคาที่ทํากิจกรรมฯ ที่ทานต้ังใจใหการสนับสนุนซื้ออยูน้ัน มียอดเงิน
บริจาคสมทบทุนยังไมเปนไปตามเปาหมาย ทานจะรีบไปซื้อเพ่ิมทันที 5 4 3 2 1
9 ทานเต็มใจบอกกลาวใหเพ่ือนสนิท ญาติพ่ีนอง คนในครอบครัว วาทานมีความต้ังใจ
สนับสนุนในกิจกรรมฯ น้ี 5 4 3 2 1
10 ทานต้ังใจท่ีจะบอกตอเพ่ือนสนิท ญาติพ่ีนอง คนในครอบครัว และชักชวนใหชวยกัน
ซื้อสินคาที่ทํากิจกรรมฯ 5 4 3 2 1
11 ทานมีความต้ังใจที่จะแนะนําให ผูอื่นรวมสนับสนุนสินคาที่ทํากิจกรรมฯ 5 4 3 2 1
SK ทานเห็นดวยกับประโยคตอไปน้ี มากนอยเพียงไร
มากที่
สุด
มาก
ปานก
ลาง
นอย
นอยที่
สุด
1 ทานไมมีความสงสัยในโฆษณาประชาสัมพันธของกิจกรรมฯ 5 4 3 2 1
2 โดยสวนใหญ ขอความท่ีบริษัทไดโฆษณาประชาสัมพันธใหซื้อสนิคาเพ่ือรวมสมทบ
ทุนในกิจกรรมฯ จะมีความต้ังใจช้ีนํา ผูบริโภค 5 4 3 2 1
3 โดยสวนใหญ ขอความท่ีบริษัทไดโฆษณาประชาสัมพันธใหซื้อสนิคาเพ่ือรวมสมทบ
ทุนในกิจกรรมฯ จะมีการกลาวเกินความจริง 5 4 3 2 1
4 กิจกรรมการตลาดอิงการกุศล เปนการโฆษณาเพ่ือสงเสริมการขาย 5 4 3 2 1
5 ภาพลักษณและความนาเช่ือถือของบริษัทหรือตราสินคา มีผลตอความต้ังใจสนับสนุน
กิจกรรมฯ 5 4 3 2 1
6 การโฆษณาประชาสัมพันธใหขอมูลที่คลุมเคลือ มีผลตอความต้ังใจสนับสนุนกิจกรรม 5 4 3 2 1