Brand credibility in cause‐related marketing: the moderating role of consumer values

Abstract

PurposeThe main purpose of this paper is to analyse the moderating effect of consumer altruistic values upon two drivers of brand credibility in cause‐related marketing (CrM): cause‐brand fit and consumer attribution of altruistic brand motivations.Design/methodology/approachThis is a quantitative study. Data have been collected through personal interviews at households using the random route sampling technique. The sample is formed by consumers of insurance and personal hygiene products, using different brand‐social cause combinations. Data have been analysed through structural equation modelling and multigroup analysis to test the moderation hypotheses.FindingsFindings show that altruistic consumers use mainly altruistic attribution to form their judgement on brand credibility in CrM messages, whereas non altruistic consumers base their assessment on cause‐brand fit.Research limitations/implicationsReal brands have been used in the empirical study and thus further research should replicate the study with fictional brands in order to avoid the effect of consumer prior information.Practical implicationsThe findings have relevant implications for CrM campaign managers in helping them to understand how to increase brand credibility in CrM messages. They should emphasize altruistic motivations if their target comprises more altruists or brand‐cause fit if non‐altruists outweigh.Originality/valueThis study contributes to the literature by making explicit the moderating role of altruistic values on two antecedents of brand credibility (cause‐brand fit and altruistic attributions) in a CrM campaign.

Co-branding strategy in cause-related advertising: the fit between brand and cause

“…However, since the relationship between brand and advertisement attitudes has been demonstrated empirically (Mitchell and Olson 1981;MacKenzie, Lutz and Belch, 1986), and in more recent advertising research (Halkias and Kokkinaki, 2014;Scheinin, Varki, and Ashley, 2011), the relationship in our model is used, but do not present it as a hypothesis. Regarding the synergistic effect of brand-cause strategic alliances, when consumers perceive both as an overt connection, the meaning transfer model proposes a transmission of emotional resources from cause to brand (Hoeffler and Keller, 2002;Ellen et al, 2006;Bigné-Alcañiz et al, 2009;Samu and Wymer, 2009); favorable attitudes toward a sponsored cause lead to favourable attitudes toward a sponsoring brand, triggered by creation of new emotional associations with the brand (Simmons and Becker-Olsen, 2006). This is consistent with research that demonstrates that consumer attitudes toward a brand relate closely with attitudes toward brand alliances (Simonin and Ruth, 1998) and brand extensions (Sullivan, 1990), and working together, they achieve superior results in comparison to when each operates alone.…”

Consumer response to gift promotions

“…between brands and extensions, brands and endorsers, brand and causes) consumers experience cognitive consistency and respond favourably to the offer (e.g. Aaker and Keller, 1990;Boush and Loken, 1991;Becker-Olsen and Hill, 2006;Vö lckner and Sattler, 2006;Bigné-Alcañ iz et al, 2009;Samu and Wymer, 2009). However, when there is a low fit, customers experience cognitive inconsistency and report negative reactions.…”

The Role of Company-Cause Fit and Company Involvement in Consumer Responses to CSR Initiatives: A Meta-Analytic Review

“…Indeed, past studies have investigated the impacts of company-cause fit across a wide range of outcomes, including attitudinal responses such as an initiative evaluation [16], company's evaluation [19], brand attitudes [42], brand credibility [43] and company-cause alliance attitudes [44], and behavioral responses such as purchase intentions [25] and brand loyalty [45]. Given that the fit between a company and a cause enables an easier transfer of affect from not-for-profit organizations (NPO) to companies, the effects of the fit would be stronger for consumers' attitudes than for their behaviors.…”

“…Next, the articles were carefully read to collect data in order to calculate the effect sizes. Papers that reported insufficient information to compute the mean difference effect sizes were excluded from this study (see [27,29,43,58]). …”