ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH
Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802
Product Or Cause?: the Impacts of Product Type and Cause Framing in Cause-Related Marketing Advertising
Chun-Tuan Chang, National Sun Yat-sen University, Taiwan
Yu-Kang Lee, National Sun Yat-sen University
Ting-Ting Chen, National Taiwan University
This research compares two cause-related marketing (CRM) ad execution styles. Moderating effects of product type and type of cause
promotion are considered. Findings underscore the importance for marketers to learn more about how visuals work and reveal how
practitioners can avoid consumer negative reactions to cause-related ads.
[to cite]:
Chun-Tuan Chang, Yu-Kang Lee, and Ting-Ting Chen (2011) ,"Product Or Cause?: the Impacts of Product Type and Cause
Framing in Cause-Related Marketing Advertising", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 39, eds. Rohini Ahluwalia,
Tanya L. Chartrand, and Rebecca K. Ratner, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 465-467.
[url]:
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1009355/volumes/v39/NA-39
[copyright notice]:
This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in
part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/.
Product or Cause? The Impacts of Product Type and Cause Framing in Cause-Related
Marketing Advertising
Chun-Tuan Chang, National Sun Yat-sen University
Yu-Kang Lee, National Sun Yat-sen University
Ting-Ting Chen, National Taiwan University
Extended Abstract
Because of increasing public concern over social and environmental matters, many companies have begun to affiliate their products with a range of popular causes related to social and ecological issues. Partnership between product and cause is referred to as
cause-related marketing (CRM) (Varadarajan and Menon, 1988).
One influential variable that has been identified to determine the success of CRM is its advertising (Chang, 2008 and 2011; Lafferty and
Edmondson, 2009). This article contributes to this evolving stream
of research by comparing the two execution styles (i.e., productoriented vs. cause-focused) in promoting CRM campaigns. This research will demonstrate that these two execution styles might not be
equally persuasive in all conditions, and could be moderated by two
variables: product type and cause framing.
The findings from two experiments raise concerns about the
effectiveness of visuals, as well as questions when different visuals
(cause or product photo as dominance) are persuasive. The results
suggest that selection of cause/product as visual can be an effective
tool for influencing consumer behavior, notably in product purchase
behaviors. Different from Lafferty and Edmondson (2009) in which
the examined cause was low in importance and familiarity (i.e., the
Conservancy’s efforts to protect the Northern Rocky Mountain Grizzlies’ habitat). In current research, World Vision in Study 1 was considered as a non-profit with high credibility and familiarity (Chang,
2008). Using a fictitious non-profit (i.e., Medical Research Charities Association), cause importance was considered as a covariate in
Study 2. Extending recent developments in execution style of CRM
advertising literature, the present research identifies boundary conditions associated with the roles of product type and cause framing in
consumer evaluations of CRM ads. In doing so, the study is capable
of providing insight into the important, but previously unanswered
questions of “Under what conditions do cause-focused ads facilitate
consumer attitudes and purchase intentions? Conversely, when does a
cause-focused ad backfire?” The findings presented here establish that
the influence of execution style on consumer response is relatively
complex and contingent on product type and cause framing. In terms
of the relative effects of different product types, this study shows
systematic effects on consumer responses by comparing hedonic and
utilitarian products/values. Five observations are noteworthy.
First, the beneficial effects of using a cause as a visual focus
occur when a hedonic product is promoted or when a product is perceived hedonic. Emotion contagion can be used to explain such a
phenomenon. People think with their hearts for hedonic consumption, which arouses emotions including pleasure and guilt. Consistent to charity donation literature (e.g., Chang and Lee, 2009; Small
and Verrochi, 2009), visuals of a cause may cause vividness and
stimulate sympathy and, thus, more positive attitudes and purchase
intentions. The congruence between emotion from hedonic product
purchase and emotion evoked by a cause image facilitates people to
purchase the promoted with a cause. From a practical point of view,
the findings here should be considered encouraging companies who
wish to employ cause photos in initiating CRM ads.
Second, a product photo as a visual emphasis is more effective
when a utilitarian product is promoted or when a product is perceived
utilitarian. Using a product as focal visuals provides precise benefits/
attributes. This matches well with the rationality of utilitarian con-
sumption. The finding echoes Lafferty and Edmondson (2009) that
the photo of a utilitarian product (i.e., granola bars) had a greater
effect on purchase intentions than the cause photo.
Third, investigating impacts of value framing is an important
marketing issue because both self-benefit and other-benefit appeals
are commonly used as good-faith attempts to communicate why the
cause should be supported. However, they may not be equivalent
with respect to their ability to enhance CRM effectiveness. An otherbenefit appeal facilitates the effects of a cause-focused ad on hedonic
product advertising, while a self-benefit appeal enhances the effects
of product-oriented ad on utilitarian product promotion. This lends
qualified support to the phenomenon of value congruity (Brunel and
Nelson, 2000; Chang, Lee, and Chen, 2009) in charity promotion
contexts. Altering the frame of a persuasive message is a relatively
straightforward task. An appropriately framed message could be incorporated into CRM campaigns to increase its effectiveness.
Fourth, it appears that cause framing could play a similar role as
what execution style does in CRM advertising since both influences
are contingent on product type. One major difference between cause
framing and execution style is the format of presentation: the former
is verbal portrayal and the latter is visual display. When comparing
each interaction with product type, the experiment results indicate a
stronger influence of execution style. The results echo an old saying “a
picture is worth a thousand words.” Actually, image display is widely
used in a charitable communication to boost vividness effects (Chang
and Lee, 2009; Perrine and Heather, 2000; Thornton, Kirchner, and
Jacobs, 1991). The use of visuals requires more expenses than verbal
description, as more talent, artistic skills and digital enhancement are
needed for developing impressive images. Meanwhile, good visuals
improve advertising persuasion and increase product sales.
Finally, the main effect of product type is consistently found in
Study 1 and 2. The results demonstrate the previously observed effects of product type on CRM by comparing utilitarian and hedonic
products (Chang, 2008; Strahilevitz, 1999; Strahilevitz and Myers,
1998). The advantage of perceived hedonic value resides in its ability to elicit more favorable consumer attitudes toward the company
and toward the sponsoring firm. The current investigation provides
guidance for practitioners to frame the nature of the product in CRM
campaigns. Perceived hedonic value is an important element in
CRM. Transforming a product with perceived utilitarian value into
one with clear hedonic value can be an important re-positioning strategy for a company using CRM to successfully promote the product.
To marketers who intend to promote products with charity incentive, this research provides marketing implications into how consumers respond to differently framed CRM messages based on product features. This research suggests that there are specific optimal
ways for information presented in an ad that may optimize the effectiveness of cause-related campaigns. The present research should
serve a starting point for entry into this under-researched area.
References
Adkins, Sue (2010), “Cause-Related Marketing: Who Cares Wins,”
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Agrawal, Nidhi, Geeta Menon, and Jennifer L. Aaker (2007),
“Getting Emotional About Health,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 44(1), 100-113.
Advances in Consumer Research
465
Volume 39, ©2011
466 / Product or Cause? The Impacts of Product Type and Cause Framing in Cause-Related Marketing Advertising
Ahtola, Olli T. (1985), “Hedonic and Utilitarian Aspects of
Behavior: An Attitudinal Perspective,” In Advances in
Consumer Research, 12, E. C. Hirschman and M. B. Holbrook
(eds.), Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 7-10.
Babin, Barry J., William R. Darden, and Mitch Griffin (1994),
“Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian
Shopping Value,” Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644656.
Batson, Charles Daniel (1991) The Altruism Question: Toward A
Social-Psychological Answer. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.
Baumann, Donald J., Robert B. Cialdini, and Douglas T.
Kendrick (1981), “Altruism as Hedonism: Helping and
Self-Gratifications as Equivalent Responses,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 40(6), 1039-1046.
Bendapudi, Neeli, Surendra N. Singh, and Venkat Bendapudi
(1996), “Enhancing Helping Behavior: An Integrative
Framework for Promotion Planning,” Journal of Marketing,
60(3), 33-49.
Boulanger, Nolan Christopher (2008), “Cross-Cultural Responses
to Cause-Related Marketing Advertising Moderated by
Message Framing Effects,” master thesis, National Sun
Yat-Sen University, (accessed February 28, 2011), [available
at http://etd.lib.nsysu.edu.tw/ETD-db/ETD-search-c/view_
etd?URN=etd-0813108-115220].
Brunel, Frédéric F. and Michelle R. Nelson (2000), “Explaining
Gendered Responses to “Help-Self” and “Help-Others”
Charity Ad Appeals: The Mediating Role of World-Views,”
Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 15-28.
Carpenter, Jason M., Marguerite Moore, and Ann E. Fairhurst
(2005), “Consumer Shopping Value for Retail Brands,”
Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 9(1), 43-53.
Chang, Chun-Tuan (2007), “Interactive Effects of Message
Framing, Product Perceived Risk, and Mood: The Case
of Travel Healthcare Product Advertising,” Journal of
Advertising Research, 47(1), 51-65.
Chang, Chun-Tuan (2008), “To Donate or not to Donate? Product
Characteristics and Framing Effects of Cause-Related
Marketing on Consumer Purchase Behavior,” Psychology and
Marketing, 25(12), 1089-1110.
Chang, Chun-Tuan (2011), “Guilt Appeals in Cause-Related
Marketing: The Subversive Roles of Product Type and
Donation Magnitude,” International Journal of Advertising,
forthcoming.
Chang, Chun-Tuan and Yu-Kang Lee (2009), “Framing Charity
Advertising: Influences of Message Framing, Image Valence,
and Temporal Framing on Charitable Appeal,” Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 39(12), 2910-2935.
Chang, Chun-Tuan and Yu-Kang Lee (2010), “Effects of Message
Framing, Vividness Congruency, and Statistical Framing on
Responses to Charity Advertising,” International Journal of
Advertising, 29(2), 195-220.
Chun-Tuan Chang, Yu-Kang Lee, Kuang-Hao Chen (2009), “The
“I” of the Beholder: The Impacts of Gender Differences and
Self-Referencing on Charity Advertising,” in Advances in
Consumer Research Volume 36, eds. Ann L. McGill and
Sharon Shavitt, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer
Research, 748-749.
Childers, Jerry L., Susan E. Heckler, and Michael J. Houston
(1986), “Memory for the Visual and Verbal Components of
Print Advertisements,” Psychology & Marketing, 3(3), 137150.
Clow, Kenneth E., Karen E. James, Kristine E. Kranenburg,
and Christine T. Berry (2009), “An Examination of the
Visual Element Used in Generic Message Advertisements:
A Comparison of Goods and Services,” Services Marketing
Quarterly, 30(1), 69-84.
Cobb-Waglgren, Cathy J. and Lois A. Mohr (1998), “Symbols
in Service Advertisements,” Journal of Services Marketing,
12(2), 129-151.
Cunningham, Michael R. (1979), “Weather, Mood, and Helping
Behavior: Quasi Experiments With the Sunshine Samaritan,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 19471956.
Das, Enny, Kerkhof, Peter, and Kuiper, Joyce (2008), “Improving
the Effectiveness of Fundraising Messages: The Impact of
Charity Goal Attainment, Message Framing, and Evidence on
Persuasion,” Journal of Applied Communication Research,
36(2), 161-175.
Dhar, Ravi and Klaus Wertenbroch (2000), “Consumer Choice
Between Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 37(1), 60-71.
Eagly, Alice H. and Shelly Chaiken (1993), The Psychology of
Attitudes. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Edell, Julie A. and Richard Staelin (1983), “The Information
Processing of Pictures in Print Advertisements,” Journal of
Consumer Research, 10(1), 45-61.
Fisher, Robert J., Mark Vandenbosch, and Kersi D. Anita (2008),
“An Empathy-Helping Perspective on Consumers’ Responses
to Fund-Raising Appeals,” Journal of Consumer Research,
35(3), 519-531.
Ghingold, Morry (1981), “Guilt Arousing Communications: An
Unexplored Variable,” In Advances in consumer research,
Monroe, K., and Arbor, A. eds., MI: Association of Consumer
Research, 8(1), 442-448.
Grau, Stacy Landreth, Judith Anne Garretson Folse, and Julie
Pirsch (2007), “Cause-Related Marketing: An Exploratory
Study of Campaign Donation Structure Issues,” Journal of
Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 18(2), 69-91.
Grau, Stacy Landreth and Judith Anne Garretson Folse (2007),
“Cause-Related Marketing (CRM)-The Influence of Donation
Proximity and Message-Framing Cues on the Less-Involved
Consumer,” Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 19-33.
Hirschman, Elizabeth, C. (1980), “Innovativeness, Novelty
Seeking, and Consumer Creativity,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 7(3), 289-295.
Isen, Alice M. and Paula F. Levin (1972), ”The Effect of Feeling
Good on Helping: Cookies and Kindness,” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 21(3), 384-388.
Isen, Alice M., Thomas E. Shalker, Margaret Clark, and Lynn Karp
(1978), ‘‘Affect, Accessibility of Material in Memory and
Behavior: A Cognitive Loop?’’ Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 36(1), 1-12.
Kelly, Bill (1991), “Cause-Related Marketing: Doing Well While
Doing Good,” Sales and Marketing Management, 143(3),
60-65.
Kim, Dan J. and Yujong Hwang (2010), “A Study of Mobile
Internet User’s Service Quality Perceptions from a User’s
Utilitarian and Hedonic Value Tendency Perspectives,”
Information Systems Frontiers, forthcoming.
Kim, John, Lim, Jeen-Su, and Bhargava, Mukesh (1998), “The
Role of Affect in Attitude Formation: A Classical Conditioning
Approach,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
26(2), 143-152.
Advances in Consumer Research (Volume 39) / 467
Lafferty, Barbara A. and Ronald E. Goldsmith (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.
Lafferty, Barbara A. and Diane R. Edmondson (2009), “Portraying
the Cause Instead of the Brand in Cause-Related Marketing
Ads: Does it Really Matter?” Journal of Marketing Theory
and Practice, 17(2), 129-144.
Lavack, Ann M. and Fredric Kropp (2003), “A Cross-Cultural
Comparison of Consumer Attitudes toward Cause-Related
Marketing,” Social Marketing Quarterly, 9(2), 3-16.
Levin, Irwin P, Schneider, Sandra L., and Gaeth, Gary J (1998),
“All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical
Analysis of Framing Effect,” Organizational Behavior and
Health Decision Processes, 76(2), 149-188.
Maner, Jon K. and Matthew T. Gailliot (2007), “Altruism
and Egoism: Prosocial Motivations for Helping Depend
on Relationship Context,” European Journal of Social
Psychology, 37(2), 347-358.
Mano, Haim and Richard L. Oliver (1993), “Assessing the
Dimensionality and Structure of the Consumption Experience:
Evaluation, Feeling, and Satisfaction,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 20(3), 451-466.
Nelson, Michelle R., Fre´de´ric F. Brunel, Magne Supphellen, and
Rajesh V. Manchanda (2006), “Effects of Culture, Gender, and
Moral Obligations on Responses to Charity Advertising Across
Masculine and Feminine Cultures,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 16(1), 45-56.
Okada, Erica Mina (2005), “Justification Effects on Consumer
Choice of Hedonic and Utilitarian Goods,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 42(1), 43-53.
Olsen, G. Douglas, John W. Pracejus, and Norman R. Brown
(2003), “When Profit Equals Price: Consumer Confusion
About Donation Amounts in Cause-Related Marketing,”
Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 22(2), 170-180.
Perrine, Rose M. and Stacie Heather (2000), “Effects of Picture and
Even-a-Penny-Will-Help Appeals on Anonymous Donations to
Charity,” Psychological Reports, 86, 551-559.
Polonsky, Michael Jay and Greg Wood (2001), “Can the
Overcommercialization of Cause-Related Marketing Harm
Society?” Journal of Macromarketing, 21(1), 8-22.
Pracejus, John W., G. Douglas Olsen, and Norman R. Brown
(2003), “On the Prevalence and Impact of Vague Quantifiers in
the Advertising of Cause-Related Marketing (CRM),”Journal
of Advertising, 32 (4), 19–28.
Rozin, Paul, Carol J. Nemeroff, Marcia Wane, and Amy Sherrod
(1989), “Operation of the Sympathetic Magical Law of
Contagion in Interpersonal Attitudes among Americans,”
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27, 367-370.
Sciulli, Lisa M. and Charlene Bebko (2005), “Social Cause Versus
Profit Oriented Advertisements: An Analysis of Information
Content and Emotional Appeals. Journal of Promotion
Management, 11(2/3), 17-36.
Shavitt, Sharon (1990), “The Role of Attitude Objects in Attitude
Functions,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26(2),
124-148.
Simonin, Bernard L. and Julie A. Ruth (1998), “Is a Company
Known by the Company it Keeps? Assessing the Spillover
Effects of Brand Alliances on Consumer Brand Attitudes,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 30-42.
Small, Deborah A. and Nicole M. Verrochi (2009), “The Face of
Need: Facial Emotion Expression on Charity Advertisements,”
Journal of Marketing Research, “46(6), 777-787.
Strahilevitz, Michal and John G. 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(4), 434-446.
Strahilevitz, Michal (1999), “The Effects of Product Type and
Donation Magnitude on Willingness to Pay More for a
Charity-Linked Brand,” Journal of Consumer Psychology,
8(3), 215-241.
Subrahmanyan, Saroja (2004), “Effects of Price Premium and
Product Type on the Cause-Related Brands: A Singapore
Perspective,” Journal of Product and Brand Management,
13(2), 116-124.
Supphellen, Magne and Michelle R. Nelson (2001), “Developing,
Exploring, and Validating a Typology of Private Philanthropic
Decision Making,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 22(5),
573-603.
Tangari, Andrea Heintz, Judith Anne Garretson Folse, Scot Burton,
and Jeremy Kees (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(2), 35-50.
Thornton, Bill, Gayle Kirchner, and Jacqueline Jacobs (1991),
“Influence of a Photograph on a Charitable Appeal: A Picture
May Be Worth a Thousand Words When It Has to Speak for
Itself,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21 (6), 433-445.
Varadarajan, P. Rajan and Anil Menon (1988), “Cause-Related
Marketing: A Coalignment of Marketing Strategy and
Corporate Philanthropy,” Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 57-74.
Voss, Kevin E., Eric R. Spangenberg, and Bianca Grohmann
(2003), “Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions
of Consumer Attitude,” Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3),
310-320.
Webb, Deborah J. and Lois A. Mohr (1998), “A Typology of
Consumer Responses to Cause-Related Marketing: From
Skeptics to Socially Concerned,” Journal of Public Policy &
Marketing, 17(2), 226-238.
White, Katherine and John Peloza (2009), “Self-Benefit Versus
Other-Benefit Marketing Appeals: Their Effectiveness in
Generating Charitable Support,” Journal of Marketing, 73(4),
109-124.