Donation recipient specificity

Firms who are planning CARE campaigns have to decide on the specificity of the donation recipient associated with a campaign (Sheikh & Beise-Zee, 2011). Some firms opt for promising donations to a vague recipient (e.g. a donation will be made to charity), whist others are very particular about the recipient of their contributions and thus state a specific NPO’s name in their campaigns (Sheikh & Beise-Zee, 2011).

110

Those firms who select to be more specific about their donation recipients often adopt one of two approaches: (1) reference to a cause, or (2) reference to a charity/NPO. Researchers have distinguished between a charity and a cause (Cone et al., 2003:98): “a charity is an organisation” and “a cause is a big tent” that offers a shelter under which “a host of charities can prosper”. The word charity is thus a synonym for the term NPO, whilst several NPOs can address the same cause.

It has been suggested that selecting a cause versus a specific NPO for inclusion in a CARE campaign might not be a mutually exclusive decision. Cone et al. (2003) suggested that a firm should first choose and commit to a cause and then select a charity partner to affiliate with. This procedure will prevent a firm’s CARE programme from becoming too dependent on the NPO and will encourage firms to first consider the fit of their firm with their societal partner on a broad level (Chéron et al., 2012; Cone et al., 2003). However, it appears that some firms halt after selecting a general cause and never clearly communicate the specified donation recipient/NPO.

Cone et al. (2003) emphasised that it is essential to partner with an NPO, in particular if the organisation offers knowledge, credibility, advanced intelligence and practical experience. Partnering with a specific NPO whose identity and brand is clearly evident in campaign communication enables a firm to accrue the previously mentioned co-branding benefits (Blackett & Boad, 1999). Thus, although the primary role of NPOs in any cause-brand alliance is “to channel resources to people in need” and not “to shape the corporate brand”, both the firm and NPO could benefit from specifying their brands in such campaigns (Cone et al., 2003:98).

It has been said that communicating a cause in general rather than a specific NPO in a CARE campaign might pose fewer risks, because the firm has the opportunity to broaden, narrow or redefine the cause as its pro-social programme evolves and progresses. However, when selecting a general cause for the purpose of flexibility, firms are encouraged to refrain from incoherence in their alliances (Cone et al., 2003) – a firm that decides to support a particular cause should clarify the parameters within which to operate. For instance, a firm that decides to focus on education, has to consider what aspects of education will be addressed (e.g. early childhood, bursaries, etc.), a firm that focuses on optometric health, can choose to address, for instance, only the aspect of providing eyeglasses to under- privileged people (Cone et al., 2003).

111

Research suggests that specifying the NPO partner in a CARE campaign might be more favourable than referring to a cause in general. According to Chang (2012), when a cause is specified through its name and brand, the focus on the cause becomes more prominent and the campaign advertisement more easily evokes altruistic feelings (Chang, 2012). Baghi and Gabrielli (2013) assessed the influence of both for-profit brand awareness and non-profit brand awareness on various consumer responses. Their research revealed a significant interaction between for- and non-profit awareness in influencing consumer willingness to pay – respondents were willing to pay a higher price for a cause-linked product featuring a well- known for-profit brand in partnership with an equally well-known non-profit brand. In contrast, they were willing to pay a lower price for a cause-linked product featuring an unknown for- profit brand in partnership with an unknown non-profit brand (Baghi & Gabrielli, 2013). Both for- and non-profit awareness exerted a separate, but significant, influence on consumer intentions to purchase a cause-linked product (Baghi & Gabrielli, 2013). These findings illustrate the importance of the NPO brand in a CARE campaign.

According to Minton and Cornwell (2015) the importance of the NPO brand in CARE campaigns could be attributed to cueing and inference theory. Cueing, as discussed before, refers to receiving a cue from the environment that activates a node associated with the cue in an individual’s memory (McNamara, 1992). Inference making refers to using the cue and memory activation to make judgements (Minton & Cornwell, 2015). The NPO brand acts as the cue that activates altruistic associations in the individual’s memory (Chang, 2008). If the activated nodes hold positive associations, the consequent inferences and judgements will also be positive (Minton & Cornwell, 2015). This contention places emphasis on the importance of building a strong and positive NPO brand (Weisnewski, 2009). Strong NPO brands signal trustworthiness, represent identity and reflect organisational values (Weisnewski, 2009). Building brand equity is thus critical for NPOs (Laidler-Kylander & Simonin, 2009; Naddaff, 2004; Judd, 2004). A strong NPO brand indicates to the marketplace that the organisation and sector is professional, and that the organisation and its workforce are working toward a common purpose (Hankinson, 2004; Hankinson & Cowking, 1996). It has been said that an NPO’s brand is its greatest advantage (Laidler-Kylander & Simonin, 2009; Laidler-Kylander, Simonin & Quelch, 2007). However, it has been found that many NPOs do not use their brands effectively and devote little effort to managing it (Bishop, 2005). Collaborative campaigns such as CARE can contribute to building an NPO’s brand, but as previously mentioned, such campaigns are more effective when participating brands are already strong (Baghi & Gabrielli, 2013; Laidler-Kylander & Simonin, 2009).

112

Despite the suggested importance of brands in cause-brand alliances, research about the influence of the NPO brand in CARE is scant (Lafferty & Edmondson, 2014). In the past, the role of the firm’s brand has been more readily assessed, but conclusive evidence about whether specifying the NPO brand in CARE will impact consumer responses is lacking (Lafferty & Edmondson, 2014). This research gap will be addressed in this study – inquiry into the influence of the donation recipient’s brand specificity regarding intention-, attitude- and perception-related consumer responses will recurrently represent Part (b) of the stated hypotheses.

Although a brand refers to more than visual indicators (e.g. brand name, logo, etc.), these are often the most developed and communicated representation of the NPO brand (Hankinson, 2000). In this study, the NPO brand in question will be represented by its name and logo. More information will be provided in Chapter 6.