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

Abstract

Citation for published item:ruertsEqr¡ %D F nd venglerD tF nd gonsoli¡ onEegurD gF @PHIUA 9goErnding strtegy in useErelted dvertising X the (t etween rnd nd useF9D tournl of produt nd rnd mngementFD PT @PAF ppF IQSEISHF Further information on publisher's website: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Design/Methodology/ApproachThis study includes two stages: a qualitative stage to build brand-cause relationships, and a quantitative study of one of these relationships to examine which fit dimensions are involved and whether they generate synergy in purchase intentions. FindingsResults demonstrate that adjustment to two of the five dimensions is sufficient to influence emotional responses positively. Originality/ValueThe analysis provides tools for managers to verify which types of strategic fit operate in this relationship and facilitate co-branding planning to achieve financial goals.

Success drivers of co‐branding: A meta‐analysis

“…Building on the theory of planned behaviour, both attitude and behavioural intentions are accepted as proxies for actual consumer behaviour (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). Attitude towards the co-branding entails the judgment and evaluation of the consumers' general feelings about the co-branded product (Garcia et al, 2017;James, 2006;Roswinanto, 2015;Senechal et al, 2014;Simonin & Ruth, 1998) whereas behavioural intention refers to the consumers' intention to purchase the co-branded product (e.g. Helmig et al, 2007;Mazodier & Merunka, 2014;Moon & Sprott, 2016;Rodrigue & Biswas, 2004); intention to recommend it to others (Ho et al, 2017) and willingness to pay (e.g.…”

“…Since marketing literature investigates brand attitude and behavioural intention as the success parameters for co-branding practice (e.g. Garcia et al, 2017;Helmig et al, 2008;Simonin & Ruth, 1998), this meta-analysis studies both of these variables as the dependent variables.…”

“…The effect sizes of studies that used regressions or reported standardised beta coefficients (e.g. Bouten et al, 2011;Garcia et al, 2017) were converted into correlations with a formula suggested by Peterson and Brown (2005).…”

“…Relative importance: high/medium Relative importance: low/none Brand attitude Baumgarth (2004); Boo (2003); Garcia et al (2017); James (2006); Helmig et al (2007); Lafferty (1999); Lafferty et al (2004); Mazodier and Merunka (2014); Bouten et al (2011); Simonin and Ruth (1998); Rodrigue and Biswas (2004); Bleijerveld et al (2015); Ahn et al (2009) Senechal et al (2014; Rodrigue and Biswas (2004); Bouten et al (2011) Brand equity Arnett et al (2010); Ma et al (2018) Brand familiarity Lafferty et al (2004); Naidoo andHollebeek (2016) Bouten et al (2011); Moon and Sprott (2016) Brand perceived quality James (2006); Singh et al (2014) Brand trust Naidoo and Hollebeek (2016) Relationship between brands Relative importance: high/medium PAYDAS TURAN co-branding' (e.g. Rodrigue & Biswas, 2004).…”

Exploring conspicuous compassion as a brand management strategy

“…An increasing number of companies are developing corporate social responsibility initiatives, in particular, CR-M practices (Huertas-García et al, 2017) because they have positive effects on consumers' behaviors (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001;van den Brink et al, 2006) and attitudes (Barnes, 1992). In fact, in experimental studies (Koschate-Fischer et al, 2012;van den Brink et al, 2006), researchers found that compared to a control condition without CR-M, CR-M practices are more effective and have positive effects on brand-related outcomes.…”