Does cause congruence affect how different corporate associations influence consumer responses to cause-related marketing?

Abstract

This paper investigates how different corporate associations may influence consumer evaluations and purchase intention in response to cause-related marketing (CRM) and whether this impact is contingent on congruence between the cause and the company. Our experimental study, based on 660 participants, reveals that both corporate ability association and corporate social responsibility association may enhance product evaluation; this effect is mediated through company and CRM campaign evaluations. The study also reveals how these evaluations relate to purchase intention. Furthermore, by identifying the interplay between corporate associations and cause congruence, the study’s results suggest that incongruent causes are preferable for companies more strongly associated with corporate ability, whereas congruent causes are preferable for companies more strongly associated with social responsibility.

Keywords

Cause congruence cause-related marketing corporate ability association corporate social responsibility association

1. Introduction

The number of companies supporting social causes through marketing communications has increased dramatically in response to higher consumer expectations in relation to corporate social responsibility (CSR) (Drumwright, 1996; Gupta and Pirsch, 2006; Klein and Dawar, 2004; Menon and Kahn, 2003; Smith and Stodghill, 1994; Tangari et al., 2010). The marketing communications and activities through which CSR is practiced are commonly referred to as cause-related marketing (CRM). More specifically, CRM is a marketing strategy adopted by businesses to link their names, brands or services with a particular “good cause” or charitable organization to achieve organizational marketing objectives (Endacott, 2004; Varadarajan and Menon, 1988). Several empirical studies have demonstrated that CRM may result in increased consumer recognition and thus bring various benefits to companies engaging in CRM, their products and involved non-profit organizations (e.g., Andreasen, 1996; Dean, 2003; Drumwright, 1996; File and Prince, 1998; Ross et al., 1992; Varadarajan and Menon, 1988). However, due to consumer distrust and cynicism toward CRM appeals, skepticism arises among certain audiences, leading the charitable intention of the company engaged in CRM to be questioned and influencing the validity of the offer (Barone et al., 2000; Gray, 2000; Webb and Mohr, 1998). The inconsistent results that have been reported regarding the effects of CRM in the literature reveal the necessity of better understanding CRM effect mechanisms and adoption conditions (e.g., Varadarajan and Menon, 1988; Webb and Mohr, 1998).

How consumers actually perceive companies engaged in CRM and their products is naturally a crucial determinant of the successful execution of CRM strategies. Previous research has revealed that the distinction between two general categories of consumer responses might lead to different evaluations of companies and their products (Berens et al., 2005; Brown and Dacin, 1997). These responses are known as corporate associations, which refer to consumer beliefs, moods, emotions and evaluations, among other factors, that are mentally associated with organizations (Aaker, 1996; Brown and Dacin, 1997; Dacin and Brown, 2002). Associations that are related to a company’s expertise in producing and delivering its outputs are collectively referred to as corporate ability (CA) associations. Associations that concern an organization’s status and activities with regard to its perceived societal obligations are referred to as CSR associations (Brown and Dacin, 1997). Some empirical studies have shown that different types of corporate associations related to companies influence the evaluations of their products in different ways (e.g., Berens et al., 2005; Brown and Dacin, 1997; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001). Specifically, this research indicates that CA associations have a stronger effect on the product evaluation of consumers compared to CSR associations (Berens et al., 2005; Brown and Dacin, 1997). The findings also suggest that strategies to strengthen CSR associations may not be effective when consumers use CA associations to evaluate products; however, this inference has not been examined in the CRM context.

As a strategy to improve CSR associations, the successful implementation of CRM programs (CRMPs) may contribute to a company’s reputation for sustainability and long-term profitability (e.g., Andreasen, 1996; Varadarajan and Menon, 1988). However, perceived company ability and the motivation to launch a CRMP may also influence the short-run effectiveness of CRM (Barone et al., 2000; Gray, 2000; Webb and Mohr, 1998). Therefore, we propose that one way to understand the inconsistent findings regarding the effectiveness of CRM in previous studies is to distinguish between the effects of CA and CSR associations on several business performance indicators, including consumer company evaluation, product evaluation, purchase intention and CRMP evaluation, in the CRM context.

In CRMPs, cause congruence, which refers to the perceived connection between the cause and its constituents and the sponsoring company’s product line, brand image, brand positioning or target market, is also a key consideration for marketers (Ellen et al., 2000; Varadarajan and Menon, 1988). However, whether a company should pursue congruence between itself and its chosen cause is debatable (e.g., Ellen et al., 2000; Gray, 2000; Menon and Kahn, 2003). Some studies find that a high level of congruence within the CRM context makes consumers less skeptical of CRM campaigns (Drumwright, 1996; Gray, 2000) and leads to positive product ratings (Friestad and Wright, 1994; Menon and Kahn, 2003), whereas other research supports the notion that incongruence is more effective in affecting consumer attitudes (Ellen et al., 2000). Because previous findings have suggested that CA and CSR associations influence consumer perceptions differently under different levels of congruence (Berens et al., 2005), investigating the interaction between corporate associations and cause congruence within the CRM context may help to explain the inconsistent findings of previous research and identify the conditions under which a company should select a cause that is congruent with its products, based on its CA or CSR strength. Such investigation may provide companies with additional insights regarding self-screening the suitability for CRM and selecting CRM campaign communication strategies.

Accordingly, given the increasing popularity of CRM and the inconclusiveness of previous research, this paper aims to develop a CRM perception model by incorporating the concept of corporate associations into CRM research. In addition, this paper aims to identify how the two types of corporate associations (CA and CSR) and their interactions with cause congruence influence consumer company evaluation, CRMP evaluation, product evaluation and purchase intention related to CRM. We conducted an experiment based on a series of pre-tests to test the proposed model.

2. Conceptual model

Based on the literature review, we propose and discuss the conceptual model presented in Figure 1. The relevant relationships are discussed below.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model.

Corporate associations refer to all the information that individuals hold about a company (Brown and Dacin, 1997). Extant empirical studies have demonstrated that consumers use both performance-related corporate associations and perceived social responsibility when forming an impression of a company (e.g., Winters, 1986, 1988). Therefore, corporate associations may be categorized into two general types: CA and CSR associations (Brown and Dacin, 1997). It is important to note that corporate associations differ from product associations, which are related to a specific product or service. Corporate associations are directly related to company evaluation, which is also referred to as attitudes toward a company (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1993).

CA associations are related to a company’s expertise in producing and delivering its outputs. These associations are signaled through manufacturing expertise, customer orientation, company innovativeness, research and development (R&D), employee expertise, product quality and after-sales service, among others. Consumers also make CA associations through prior use or experience with a product, media reports or interpersonal communications (Brown and Dacin, 1997).

Previous research has demonstrated that CA associations positively reinforce consumer evaluations of companies and their products or services (Brown and Dacin, 1997). In particular, except in relation to effects that are mediated through corporate evaluation, CA associations directly affect product evaluation through their influence on perceptions of important product attributes (Berens et al., 2005; Brown and Dacin, 1997).

In the CRM context, in addition to company and product evaluations, consumers may form attitudes toward CRMP, that is, CRMP evaluation (Barone et al., 2000; Madrigal, 2000). The perceptions of a company’s abilities may positively support the credibility of a CRMP among its audience (Brønn and Vrioni, 2001). We thus propose that CA associations may positively influence consumer perceptions of companies, products and CRMPs, and we formulate the following hypotheses:

H1: CA associations are positively related to company evaluation in CRM.

H2: CA associations are positively related to product evaluation in CRM.

H3: CA associations are positively related to CRMP evaluation in CRM.

CSR represents public concerns regarding the relationship between business and society (Carroll, 1999). CSR associations reflect an organization’s status and activities with respect to its perceived societal obligations (Brown and Dacin, 1997). Whereas CA associations relate to a company’s expertise in producing and delivering its products or services, CSR associations provide consumers with insight into a company’s “value system” (Turban and Greening, 1997), “soul” (Chappell, 1993) or “character” (Brown and Dacin, 1997; Keller and Aaker, 1992). A company that follows a CSR association strategy could, for example, focus on community involvement, corporate philanthropy and social issues that are relevant to shareholders. CSR associations may be useful in enhancing how well-liked or trustworthy a company is perceived to be (Aaker, 1996; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001), although they have little direct effect on perceptions related to product attributes. Prior empirical studies have verified that CSR associations have a much lower impact on product evaluation compared to CA associations (e.g., Brown and Dacin, 1997; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001). We thus propose that in CRM, CSR associations have a significant impact on the evaluations of companies and CRMPs, whereas their influence on product evaluation is mediated through these two types of evaluation. Therefore, we formulate the following hypotheses:

H4: CSR associations are positively related to company evaluation in CRM.

H5: CSR associations are positively related to CRMP evaluation in CRM.

H6: Company evaluation is positively related to product evaluation in CRM.

As awareness of social responsibility increases, consumers tend to have an increasingly favorable opinion of CRMPs (e.g., Barone et al., 2000; Madrigal, 2000). For example, in Smith and Alcorn’s (1991) survey, almost 46% of consumers were likely to switch brands to support socially responsible companies, and nearly 30% were inclined to buy products simply because the manufacturers supported charitable causes. Similarly, in Webb and Mohr’s (1998) survey, one third of respondents admitted that CRM campaigns had some impact on their purchase decisions. These results suggest that CRMP may generate favorable consumer attitudes toward products and affect purchase intention.

In contrast, Holmes and Kilbane (1993) found that CRM offers did not have a significant impact on consumer attitudes toward the associated message or store or on purchase intention. Smith and Stodghill (1994) found CRM to foster negative perceptions about a company’s motivation for engaging in such activities. Their findings also indicated that a company’s support for a cause had little bearing on consumer decision-making. However, few studies have directly examined whether evaluations of companies, CRMPs and products could influence consumer purchase intention in CRM. Therefore, purchase intention serves as the final endogenous variable in this proposed model. We thus formulate the following hypotheses:

H7: CRMP evaluation is positively related to product evaluation in CRM.

H8: Company evaluation is positively related to purchase intention in CRM.

H9: CRMP evaluation is positively related to purchase intention in CRM.

H10: Product evaluation is positively related to purchase intention in CRM.

Sponsorship researchers have highlighted the importance of congruence between sponsors and events (Speed and Thompson, 2000). The popular press suggests that to maximize the results of CRM, sponsoring firms should select causes that are compatible with their identities and are compelling to their target markets (e.g., Larson, 1994). However, in previous academic studies, there has been some debate regarding whether companies should pursue congruence between themselves and causes (e.g., Ellen et al., 2000; Gray, 2000; Gupta and Pirsch, 2006; Menon and Kahn, 2003). Advocates argue that consumers may view it as more typical or appropriate for companies to relate causes with their products. Consumers use simple heuristics, for example, the level of congruence or perceived fit between the company and the cause, to determine the appropriateness of a company’s sponsorship activities (Friestad and Wright, 1994; Menon and Kahn, 2003). However, Ellen et al. (2000) argue that consumer reactions to CSR are only slightly contingent on the congruence between causes and products and that this incongruence is sometimes more effective in influencing consumer attitudes.

Realizing that causes adopted in CRM are related to social responsibility, we propose that whether higher cause congruence is desirable may depend on a company’s CA or CSR strength. According to information integration theory, which suggests that “prior attitudes will be integrated with the new information provided by the alliance, thus influencing the evaluations towards the alliance” (Lafferty et al., 2004: 513), CSR associations would be perceived to reinforce the fit between companies and causes and thus lead to more favorable evaluations of CRM. In contrast, if cause congruence is low, the lack of diagnosticity of such information would inhibit CSR associations’ effect on CRM evaluation (Feldman and Lynch, 1988). Consequently, CSR associations may have a strong influence. We thus posit that H1–H5 are contingent on cause congruence; specifically:

H11: When cause congruence is high, CSR associations have a stronger impact on company and CRMP evaluation in CRM. Comparatively, when cause congruence is low, CA associations have a stronger impact on company, product and CRMP evaluations in CRM.

3. Pre-tests and measurements

Following previous research on CRM, fictitious companies and products were used to test the conceptual model. We conducted four pre-tests to ensure the appropriateness of the manipulations for the main study.

Higher levels of cause importance may enhance the motivation, attention and perception of respondents in processing CRM claims (Petty and Cacioppo, 1984). However, consumer perceptions of which causes are important vary between countries (e.g., Cavill + Co., 2001). The purpose of the first pre-test is to identify important causes for the main study. Thirty-five students and alumni from a top business school in China were asked via an open-ended questionnaire to nominate several social causes that they felt were important and explain why they felt this way. A list of 20 social causes was compiled and subsequently was emailed to the respondents. The respondents were then asked to rate the importance of each individual cause on a 10-point differential scale (1 = extremely unimportant; 10 = extremely important). Based on the average ratings from 33 returned responses, the top five most important causes were chosen (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Pre-test results of importance and congruence.

Title of the social causes	Importance	Congruence with dry battery
Environmental protection	8.96	6.05
Program for poor children’s education	8.70	3.62
Improving medical treatment system in countryside	7.91	3.58
Protection for wildlife and endangered species	7.61	4.03
Donation to senior citizen’s shelter	7.52	3.65

The purpose of the second pre-test is to select a product and determine the various levels of congruence between the product and the cause. According to the selection criteria proposed by previous studies (e.g., Brown and Dacin, 1997), dry batteries were selected from a focus group study. Other discussed commodities included milk, sugar, shampoo and petrol. The main reasons for selecting dry batteries are as follows: (1) they have standardized product features (such as shape and size); (2) they are similar in terms of overall performance; (3) most respondents have previous experience using dry batteries; and (4) batteries are strongly linked with environmental protection in the minds of many consumers.

Thirty-two respondents were then asked to rate the congruence between dry batteries and the five most important causes identified in Pre-Test 1 based on Heckler and Childers’s (1992) three-item, seven-point Likert congruence scale. The results are also shown in Table 1.

Accordingly, environmental protection (Mean = 6.05) was chosen as the most congruent cause for dry batteries. The ratings for the other causes are quite similar. Taking importance into consideration, a program for the education of poor children (Mean = 3.62) was chosen as the incongruent cause, although it had the second-lowest congruence mean.

Following the procedure outlined by Brown and Dacin (1997), we performed a third pre-test to identify specific CA and CSR associations and finally selected three items for CA (R&D capability, professional ability of staff, manufacturing ability) and CSR (involvement in local communities, donation to worthy causes, environmental protection performance) associations.

Scenario descriptions of corporate associations based on these items were drafted for clarity and reality checks in the final pre-test. Necessary modifications were made accordingly.

Other measures, including company evaluation, product evaluation, purchase intention and CRMP evaluation, were taken from previous studies. Specifically, the measurement items for company evaluation, product evaluation and purchase intention were adapted from Bower and Landreth (2001), and the items for CRMP evaluation were borrowed from Landreth (2002) (all items are shown in Table 2).

Table 2.

Results of the exploratory factor analysis.

	F_1	F_2	F_3	F_4	F_5	F_6
CA association (α = 0.85):
Technological research and development capability	−.24	.15	.80	.04	.12	.12
Manufacturing ability	−.21	.11	.84	.11	.13	.03
Staffs’ professional ability	.02	.18	.85	−.01	.01	.04
CSR association (α = 0.94):
Donation to charity and worthy causes	.90	.19	−.14	−.02	.05	.05
Involvement in local communities	.93	.17	−.15	.03	.06	.03
Performance on the environment Support for environmental protection	.88	.22	−.10	.02	.10	−.01
Company evaluation (α = 0.87):
I like this company	.29	.74	.20	.12	.11	.20
It’s a very good company	.28	.70	.34	.14	.17	.12
Attitude toward the company is very positive	.24	.79	.16	.10	.14	.20
Product evaluation (α = 0.71):
I like this product	.09	−.06	.11	.08	.84	.06
It’s a very good product	.03	.31	.10	.07	.75	.18
Attitude toward the product is very positive	.14	.37	−.06	.16	.61	.25
CRMP evaluation (α = 0.70):
I should support this marketing campaign	−.18	.36	−.10	.65	.01	−.12
It’s a very good social activity	.08	.06	.05	.86	.11	.24
Attitude toward this campaign is very positive	.09	.01	.07	.85	.12	.25
Purchase intention (α = 0.79):
Likely to purchase the product	.05	.21	.10	.12	.22	.84
Participate in the campaign by purchasing this product	.00	.18	.06	.22	.09	.86
Eigenvalues	5.30	3.16	1.82	1.25	1.01	.92
Variance explained %	16.77	31.10	45.21	57.24	68.02	78.53

CA: corporate ability; CSR: corporate social responsibility; CRMP: cause-related marketing program

4. Methodology

4.1. Research design

The main study was a 2 (CA: high/low) × 2 (CSR: high/low) × 2 (cause: congruent/incongruent) between-subjects partial factorial design (to reduce the size of experiment (e.g., Gunst and Mason, 2009), the condition of low CA association and low CSR association was not included). Fictitious product categories and companies were used to control for previous knowledge. Considering practical relevance, we selected three types of corporate associations and assigned them to three anonymous companies: (1) Double Circle Co. (CA_high and CSR_high); (2) Triple Circle Co. (CA_high and CSR_low); and (3) Fourfold Circle Co. (CA_low and CSR_high). A description of the product and the different company profile manipulations are provided in the Appendix. In this study, each company contributed to a congruent (environmental protection) or incongruent (education of poor children) cause; therefore, a total of six versions of the questionnaire were created.

4.2. Procedure

A total of 660 subjects completed paper copies of the questionnaire. The respondents were recruited in university reading rooms during public holidays; highly educated respondents are more likely to incorporate related information into their perceptions of a company and its products. In addition, a number of external non-students were also studying in the reading rooms at that time. Therefore, the survey could include both student and non-student samples. To encourage participation, all respondents were given a souvenir before reading the questionnaire. A total of 55% per cent of respondents (363) were female. The average age of the respondents was 25.6, and their ages ranged from 16 to 45. Among the participants, 3.9% had a middle school education, 6.9% were high school graduates, 65.7% had a bachelor’s degree, and 23.5% had a master’s or higher degree. A total of 59.5% of the respondents were college students.

Each respondent was exposed to one of the six conditions. After reading the product and company descriptions, respondents were asked to rate each corporate attribute (1 = very weak; 7 = very strong) based on the provided information. Three CA association items and three CSR association items were then rated separately. Next, the respondents were informed that the company was planning a marketing campaign to support an environmental protection (or poor children’s educational) program. The respondents’ company, CRMP, and product evaluations, as well as their purchase intention, were then measured.

4.3. Assessment of multiple-item measures

Cronbach’s α (shown in Table 2) indicated the reliability of the scales. To further examine the validity of these constructs, an exploratory factor analysis using the principal component method with Varimax rotation was performed. As shown in Table 2, six factors corresponding to the six constructs were extracted, with a total explained variance of 78.53%. All variables had loadings of less than 0.40 on inappropriate factors, whereas all hypothesized loadings were greater than 0.60.

A confirmatory factor analysis was also conducted on these items. The resulting χ² was 322 and significant (p < 0 .001). However, the χ²/df statistics (3.09) indicated that the six factors fit the sample data well. Other fit indexes, such as root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) (0.06), goodness-of-fit index (GFI) (0.94), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI) (0.91), comparative fit index (CFI) (0.96) and non-normed fit index (NNFI) (0.95), also demonstrated the validity of the six constructs. Moreover, we found that all average variance extracted (AVE, as shown in Table 3) values were above 0.5 and higher than the squared correlations among factors, thus confirming the convergent and discriminant validities of the items (Fornell and Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2006).

Table 3.

The AVE and squared correlation among factors.

	CA	CSR	CE	PE	CRMP	PI
CA	0.65
CSR	0.07	0.84
CE	0.18	0.18	0.69
PE	0.11	0.06	0.40	0.54
CRMP	0.04	0.01	0.16	0.13	0.57
PI	0.07	0.01	0.25	0.29	0.27	0.69

Note: AVEs are shown on the diagonal.

AVE: average variance extracted; CA: corporate ability; CSR: corporate social responsibility; CE: company evaluation; PE: product evaluation; CRMP: cause-related marketing program; PI: purchase intention.

5. Results and analysis

5.1. Manipulation check

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that the respondents’ CA association perceptions were more favorable in the high CA association condition than in the low CA association condition (5.38 versus 3.38, F(1,553) = 450.45, p < 0.001) (the means are calculated by averaging the values of the three CA association items); in addition, the respondents’ perceptions of CSR associations were more favorable in the high CSR association condition than in the low CSR association condition (5.76 versus 2.19, F(1,553) = 1409.19, p < 0.001). A one-way ANOVA also revealed a significant difference in the cause congruence evaluations between the congruence (m = 5.52) and incongruence groups (m = 3.28), F(1,553) = 317.519, p < 0.001, indicating that respondents perceived the manipulation correctly. A total of 330 respondents were exposed to the congruence condition. Of these respondents, sixteen (5%) failed the manipulation check for congruence and were excluded from further analysis. The other 330 respondents were in the incongruence condition. Of these respondents, 29 (9%) failed the manipulation check and were also excluded from further analysis.

5.2. Hypotheses testing

The means for the corporate, product and CRMP evaluations, as well as those of purchase intention by condition, are provided in Table 4.

Table 4.

Variable means by experimental conditions.

Path	Congruent cause				Incongruent cause
	Comp. eva.	Product eva.	CRMP eva.	Purchase intention	Comp. eva.	Product eva.	CRMP eva.	Purchase intention
CA_high&CSR_high	5.48	5.51	6.50	5.93	5.09	5.05	6.12	5.42
CA_high&CSR_low	4.39	5.01	6.26	5.42	4.47	4.86	6.17	5.53
CA_low&CSR_high	4.90	5.13	6.13	5.36	4.66	5.04	5.99	5.59

CRMP: cause-related marketing program.

We tested the proposed model using structural equation modeling. We specified the model depicted in Figure 1 and input it into the LISREL program. The chi-square p-value (χ² = 409.16, df = 123, p < 0.001) suggests that the proposed model does not fit the data well. Given that χ² is notably sensitive to sample size, we evaluated other indicators and fit indices, as is the practice for most structural equation models. The χ²/df statistics (3.33) indicate that the model fit the sample data well. We also used other fit indexes that were modified by degrees of freedom, sample size or both. Based on RMSEA (<0.08), GFI (>0.9), AGFI (>0.9), CFI (>0.9), NNFI (>0.9) and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) (<0.05), it may be concluded that the proposed model is satisfactory (Bagozzi and Yi, 2012; Bentler, 2007; Chen et al., 2008; Pedhazur and Schmelkin, 1991). Structural equation modeling (SEM) results are shown in Figure 2. Except for the direct link between CA and product evaluation, all hypothesized relationships are supported.

Figure 2.

Results of the general model.

In line with previous research (e.g., Berens et al., 2005; Brown and Dacin, 1997), both CA and CSR associations significantly impact company evaluation; however, their direct impact on product evaluation is not evident in this study. Furthermore, their standardized path coefficients of impact (0.60 and 0.59, respectively) show that CA and CSR associations play equally important roles in affecting consumer evaluations of companies in CRM.

This is the first study to investigate the relationship between corporate associations and CRMP evaluation in CRM. In this study, both CA and CSR associations are positively related to CRMP evaluation. The standardized path coefficients indicate that CA associations (0.29) have a stronger impact on CRMP evaluation than CSR associations (0.17). The findings also suggest that CA and CSR associations influence product evaluation not only through overall company evaluation, but also through CRMP evaluation. Although CRMP evaluation is positively related to product evaluation and purchase intention, it is less influential on product evaluation (0.15) than on purchase intention (0.35). Conversely, company evaluation is more influential on product evaluation (0.58) than on purchase intention (0.16).

The results generally show that company, CRMP and product evaluation are all positively related with purchase intention. The path coefficients also suggest that company evaluation (0.16) has less influence on purchase intention than CRMP (0.35) and product evaluations (0.32), indicating that in CRM, CRMP and product evaluation affect consumer purchase intention more directly and effectively than company evaluation.

To further test H11, that is, by investigating the joint influence of corporate associations and cause congruence in CRM, comparison analyses were performed. Two different course congruence groups were compared in the high CA association condition (CA_high + CSR_high plus CA_high + CSR_low) and the high CSR association condition (CA_high + CSR_high plus CA_low + CSR_high). The results are shown in Table 5. To assess the invariance between the congruence and incongruence groups, a SEM multi-group analysis was conducted (Byrne, 2004). As shown in Table 6, we first assessed the model with two groups (congruence and incongruence) in the high CA association condition. We obtained a chi-square value of 1129.96, with 257 df as a baseline value against which subsequent tests for invariance could be compared. Then, by setting the path coefficient of CA to company evaluation to be equal across groups, we obtained a new chi-square value of 1134.15 for the constrained model. The constrained and initial models had a 4.18 difference in chi-square values with 1 df, which is statistically significant (p < 0.05). The result suggested that the path coefficients of CA to company evaluation across groups in high CA association conditions were not similar. Following this comparative procedure, we tested the invariance of all path coefficients for both high CA association and high CSR association conditions across the congruence and incongruence groups.

Table 5.

Standardized path coefficient and pairwise parameter comparisons.

Path	Path coefficient
	High CA association			High CSR association
	Con	Incon	Dif	Con	Incon	Dif
CA to company evaluation	0.43	0.57	−0.14*	0.49	0.58	−0.09
CA to product evaluation	0.18	0.51	−0.33*	0.07	−0.35	0.42*
CA to CRMP evaluation	0.37	0.32	0.05	0.25	0.16	0.09
CSR to company evaluation	0.60	0.36	0.24*	0.48	0.35	0.13*
CSR to CRMP evaluation	0.13	0.02	0.11	0.34	0.27	0.07

P < 0.05.

CA: corporate ability; CSR: corporate social responsibility; CRMP: cause-related marketing program; Con: congruent cause; Incon: incongruent cause; Dif: difference.

Table 6.

Goodness-of-fit statistics for tests of invariance across (in)congruence groups.

Constrained path	Condition	Comparative model	χ²	df	Δχ²	Δdf	Sig.
Model_1	High CA association	−	1129.96	257	−	−	−
CA→CE	High CA association	Model_1	1134.15	258	4.18	1	p < 0.05
CA→PE			1135.32	258	5.36	1	p < 0.05
CA→CRMPE			1130.89	258	0.92	1	ns
CSR→CE			1134.53	258	4.57	1	p < 0.05
CSR→CRMPE			1130.24	258	0.28	1	ns
Model_2	High CSR association	−	547.27	257	−	−	−
CA→CE	High CSR association	Model_2	548.92	258	1.65	1	ns
CA→PE			551.43	258	4.15	1	p < 0.05
CA→CRMPE			547.29	258	0.02	1	ns
CSR→CE			551.11	258	3.84	1	p < 0.05
CSR→CRMPE			547.46	258	0.19	1	ns

CE: company evaluation; PE: product evaluation; CRMPE: cause-related marketing program evaluation; CA: corporate ability; CSR: corporate social responsibility.

According to the results, when there is high CA association, its influence on both company and product evaluation is significantly lower in the cause congruence group than in the incongruence group, whereas the influence of CSR association on company evaluation is higher in the cause congruence group than in the incongruence group. This finding suggests that companies with high CA association may obtain better consumer responses to CRM through incongruent causes when they want to leverage their capability association.

When there is high CSR association, its influence on company evaluation is significantly higher in the cause congruence group than in the incongruence group. However, CA association may have a negative influence (–0.35) on product evaluation in the incongruence group. This finding suggests that companies with high CSR associations should choose congruent causes when they want to emphasize their social responsibility to obtain better consumer responses to CRM. The results reveal that except with regard to CRMP evaluation, CA association has a stronger impact on company and product evaluation when cause congruence is low, whereas CSR association has a stronger impact on company evaluation when cause congruence is high. H11 is therefore partially supported.

6. Conclusions

This study provides important insights into how different types of corporate associations may lead to favorable consumer responses to CRM. To conclude, we first provide a brief summary of the theoretical and managerial implications and subsequently address the study’s limitations, as well as future research directions.

Theoretically speaking, this study is the first to incorporate the concept of corporate associations into CRM research. Mainstream CRM research focuses on how the elements of CRM campaigns themselves affect attitudes and purchase intention (e.g., Barone et al., 2000; Endacott, 2004; Varadarajan and Menon, 1988). This study provides a new perspective to explore CRM efforts based on the types of corporate associations held by consumers. Previous research has resulted in inconsistent findings on the effectiveness of CRM (Barone et al., 2000; Gray, 2000; Webb and Mohr, 1998). This study reveals that consumer responses to the products of companies engaged in CRM are influenced by both company and CRMP evaluations. In addition, formed attitudes toward companies and CRMP are induced not only by CSR associations but also by CA associations. As a strategy that focuses on reinforcing CSR associations, the implementation of CRM does not guarantee a significant increase in positive consumer responses to companies and their products. The findings suggest that the inconsistent findings in the related literature regarding CRM effectiveness may be caused by the failure to distinguish between these two types of associations in CRM contexts.

Secondly, this study investigates the interrelationships between corporate associations and cause congruence. The results suggest that when a company has a high CA association or wishes to emphasize its CA association in its communications, incongruent causes might be preferred. A good example of this strategy is the Ford Motor company’s association with a breast cancer research program in 2001. When new Ford cars were launched in the market, the company emphasized and promoted its innovation capabilities in CRM campaigns by selecting an incongruent cause (media.ford.com). The situation is reversed for companies with high CSR associations. The case of Avon, which is associated with a congruent cause (breast cancer research program), supports our findings (www.avonfoundation.org). This study provides an answer to previous contradictory findings in cause congruence research.

Finally, this study provides important managerial implications for marketing managers to determine a company’s suitability for CRM campaigns and choose specific CRM marketing strategies. Because CA associations are very influential on both company and CRMP evaluations, the results suggest that implementing a CRMP might be more effective for companies with a high CA association. For such a company, whether a congruent cause should be chosen may not be very important. Nevertheless, for companies with a low CA association, social responsibility should be addressed in CRM communications, and it is more beneficial for these companies to select congruent causes.

Future research could develop along several lines. Firstly, a fictitious dry battery was selected as the product category in this study. The use of fictitious products may lead participants to provide less realistic responses. In addition, the use of only one product category does not generate highly representative results. Further studies should investigate different product categories to extend the external generalizability of the findings. When considering more product categories, the potential moderating roles of product category familiarity, interest and involvement in CRM campaigns should also be examined.

Secondly, prior research (Strahilevitz and Myers, 1998) has demonstrated that the effectiveness of CRM might depend on whether the sponsored product is a hedonic or utilitarian good. The personal values held by individual consumers may influence their evaluations of companies and products. Therefore, future research should explore the effect of the personal values of consumers with regard to corporate associations and consumer perceptions of CRM campaigns.

Thirdly, in practice, a particular CRMP may influence several different stakeholders, such as employees, suppliers, communities and cooperating charities, among others. This study only investigates the responses of consumers to CRM campaigns. The responses of other stakeholders should also be considered in future research.

Footnotes

Appendix

Final transcript accepted 3 June 2013 by Ashish Sinha (AE Marketing).

Funding

This research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71172011; No.70872057; No.71272044) and MOE (Ministry of Education in China) Youth Project of Humanities and Social Sciences (No. 11YJC630183).

References

Aaker

(1996) Building Strong Brands. New York: Free Press.

Andreasen

(1996) Profits for nonprofits: Find a corporate partner. Harvard Business Review 74: 47–59.

Barone

Miyazaki

Taylor

(2000) The influence of cause related marketing on consumer choice: Does one good turn deserve another? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28: 248–262.

Bagozzi

(2012) Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 40(1): 8–34.

Bentler

(2007) On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality and Individual Differences 42(5): 825–829.

Berens

Van Riel

CBM

Van Bruggen

(2005) Corporate associations and consumer product responses: The moderating role of corporate brand dominance. Journal of Marketing 69: 35–48.

Bower

Landreth

(2001) Is beauty best? Highly vs. normally attractive models in advertising. Journal of Advertising 30: 1–14.

Brønn

Vrioni

(2001) Corporate social responsibility and cause-related marketing: An overview. International Journal of Advertising 20: 207–222.

Brown

Dacin

(1997) The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing 61: 68–84.

10.

Byrne

(2004) Testing for multigroup invariance using AMOS Graphics: A road less traveled. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 11: 272–300.

11.

Carroll

(1999) Corporate social responsibility. Business & Society 38: 268–295.

12.

Cavill + Co. (2001) Heart and sold: Australian consumers speak from the heart on cause-related marketing. Available at: www.cavill.com.au/Australia/heart&;sold.html

13.

Chappell

(1993) The Soul of Business. New York: Bantam Books.

14.

Chen

Curran

Bollen

Kirby

Paxton

(2008) An empirical evaluation of the use of fixed cutoff points in RMSEA test statistic in structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research 36(4): 462–494.

15.

Dacin

Brown

(2002) Corporate identity and corporate associations: A framework for future research. Corporate Reputation Review 5: 254–263.

16.

Dean

(2003) Consumer perception of corporate donations – Effects of company reputation for social responsibility and type of donation. Journal of Advertising 32: 91–102.

17.

Drumwright

(1996) Company advertising with a social dimension: The role of noneconomic criteria. Journal of Marketing 30: 71–87.

18.

Ellen

Mohr

Webb

(2000) Charitable programs and the retailer: Do they mix? Journal of Retailing 76: 393–406.

19.

Endacott

RWJ

(2004) Consumer and CRM: A national and global perspective. Journal of Consumer Marketing 21: 183–189.

20.

Feldman

Lynch

Jr (1988) Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 73: 421–435.

21.

File

Prince

(1998) Cause related marketing and corporate philanthropy in the privately held enterprise. Journal of Business Ethics 17: 1529–1539.

22.

Fornell

Larcker

(1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18: 39–50.

23.

Friestad

Wright

(1994) The persuasion knowledge model: How people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research 21: 1–31.

24.

Gray

(2000) Developing a tight fit is crucial to CRM. Marketing, 4 May, 37–38.

25.

Gunst

Mason

(2009) Fractional factorial design. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics 1: 234–244.

26.

Gupta

Pirsch

(2006) The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-related marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing 23: 314–326.

27.

Hair

Black

Babin

. (2006) Multivariate Data Analysis. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

28.

Heckler

Childers

(1992) The role of expectancy and relevancy in memory for verbal and visual information: What is incongruency. Journal of Consumer Research 18: 475–492.

29.

Holmes

Kilbane

(1993) Selected effects of price and charitable donations. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 1: 67–83.

30.

Keller

(1993) Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing 57: 1–22.

31.

Keller

Aaker

(1992) The effects of sequential introduction of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research 29: 35–50.

32.

Klein

Dawar

(2004) Corporate social responsibility and consumers’ attributions and brand evaluations in a product-harm crisis. International Journal of Research in Marketing 21: 203–217.

33.

Lafferty

Goldsmith

Hult

GTM

(2004) The impact of the alliance on the partners: A look at cause-brand alliances. Psychology & Marketing 21: 509–532.

34.

Landreth

(2002) For a Good Cause: The Effects of Cause Importance, Cause Proximity, Congruency and Participation Effort on Consumers’ Evaluations of Cause Related Marketing. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest Company Press.

35.

Larson

(1994) If you’re not committed, don’t bother. American Demographics 16: 16–18.

36.

Madrigal

(2000) The influence of social alliances with sports teams on intentions to purchase corporate sponsors’ products. Journal of Advertising 29: 13–24.

37.

Menon

Kahn

(2003) Corporate sponsorships of philanthropic activities: When do they impact perception of sponsor brand? Journal of Consumer Psychology 13: 316–327.

38.

Pedhazur

Schmelkin

(1991) Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

39.

Petty

Cacioppo

(1984) The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46: 69–81.

40.

Ross

Patterson

Stutts

(1992) Consumer perceptions of organizations that use cause-related marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 20: 93–97.

41.

Sen

Bhattacharya

(2001) Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research 38: 225–243.

42.

Smith

Stodghill

III (1994) Are good causes good marketing? Business Week, 21 March, 64–65.

43.

Smith

Alcorn

(1991) Cause marketing: A new direction in the marketing of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing 8: 19–35.

44.

Speed

Thompson

(2000) Determinants of sports sponsorship response. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28: 226–238.

45.

Strahilevitz

Myers

(1998) Donations to charity as purchase incentives: How well they work may depend on what you are trying to sell. Journal of Consumer Research 24: 434–446.

46.

Tangari

Folse

JAG

Burton

. (2010) The moderating influence of consumers’ temporal orientation on the framing of societal needs and corporate responses in cause-related marketing campaigns. Journal of Advertising 39: 35–50.

47.

Turban

Greening

(1997) Corporate social performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Management Journal 40: 658–672.

48.

Varadarajan

Menon

(1988) Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Marketing 52: 58–74.

49.

Webb

Mohr

(1998) A typology of consumer responses to cause-related marketing: From skeptics to socially concerned. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 17: 226–238.

50.

Winters

(1986) The effect of brand advertising on company image: Implications for corporate advertising. Journal of Advertising Research 26: 54–59.

51.

Winters

(1988) Does it pay to advertise to hostile audiences with corporate advertising? Journal of Advertising Research 28: 11–18.