2003
DOI: 10.1509/jppm.22.2.170.17641
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

When Profit Equals Price: Consumer Confusion about Donation Amounts in Cause-Related Marketing

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

6
82
1
2

Year Published

2008
2008
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 137 publications
(94 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
6
82
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The mismatch between the donation offered by the firm and the consumers' perception of the amount actually donated is well supported by several empirical investigations (Olsen et al, 2003; and anecdotal or case studies evidence (Horne, 2013;Dadush, 2010;Stole, 2008). Using a web search, Olsen et al (2003) found that on 3414 websites with a cause-related campaign, about 70% of the formats was completely abstract in nature, 25.6% of the formats was estimable, and only 4.5% was calculable.…”
mentioning
confidence: 92%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The mismatch between the donation offered by the firm and the consumers' perception of the amount actually donated is well supported by several empirical investigations (Olsen et al, 2003; and anecdotal or case studies evidence (Horne, 2013;Dadush, 2010;Stole, 2008). Using a web search, Olsen et al (2003) found that on 3414 websites with a cause-related campaign, about 70% of the formats was completely abstract in nature, 25.6% of the formats was estimable, and only 4.5% was calculable.…”
mentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Using a web search, Olsen et al (2003) found that on 3414 websites with a cause-related campaign, about 70% of the formats was completely abstract in nature, 25.6% of the formats was estimable, and only 4.5% was calculable. A cap on donations also contributes to the vagueness of the donation as stressed in several contributions.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In addition to the elements mentioned by Webb and Mohr (1998) structural campaign elements include the non-profit partner (and strategic fit between the partners) (Hamlin and Wilson, 2004), the time-frame of the campaign, the strategic or tactical orientation of the campaign, the geographic parameters of the campaign, and the manner in which the donation amount is communicated (Varadarajan and Menon, 1988). Aspects such as price-donation relations, computational bias and estimation error are also relevant (Subrahmanyan, 2004;Olsen, Pracejus and Brown, 2003). Grau and Folse (2007) acknowledged that some research was emerging in the area of cause-related marketing structural elements and emphasized the importance of further studies.…”
Section: Cause-related Marketing Communication Framing and Structurmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The typical delivery pattern for CRM can be divided into two forms: conventional and social alliance (see Table I for summaries and examples). The conventional delivery pattern refers to a company directly addressing the social issue Olsen et al (2003), Strahilevitz and Myers (1998) Samu and Wymer (2009), Drumwright (1996) Lafferty and Browning (1993), Peterson (2004a, b) Example (conventional delivery pattern) a…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%