USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Building a case for the unfamiliar cause in cause-related marketing

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Building a case for the unfamiliar cause in cause-related marketing the importance of cause vested interest
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
O'Brien, Charles G
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
CRM
brand-cause alliance
branding
vested interest
charities
Dissertations, Academic -- Mass Communications -- Masters -- USF
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: Marketing and advertising practitioners are currently matching up a brand with a cause and broadcasting the association to consumers in a practice called cause related marketing (CRM). Scholars are building a stream of academic research which seeks to understand the relationship between a brand and a cause (a.k.a., alliance) in relation to the final outcome of a CRM campaign. Ostensibly, both partners benefit from this alliance, although many CRM studies seek to understand how to optimize this relationship for each partner. In professional practice and academic research both practitioners and researchers have focused on established, popular, well-known causes in consideration of successful alliances. Less established, unfamiliar, unknown causes have yet to be considered for possible alliances.This research seeks to build a case for the successful alliance between a brand and an unfamiliar cause with an outcome that will outperform an alliance between the same brand and an established, popular, well-known cause. An experiment was conducted in which familiarity with the brand, familiarity with the cause, and vested interest in the cause were manipulated, and their effects on attitude towards the brand, attitude towards the cause, and attitude towards the brand-cause alliance measured. Results indicated that cause vested interest had a significant influence on attitude towards the brand and attitude towards the cause, regardless of brand and cause familiarity.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2004.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Charles G. O'Brien.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 105 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001498101
oclc - 57708815
notis - AJU6696
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0000478
usfldc handle - e14.478
System ID:
SFS0025169:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Building a Case for the Unfamiliar Cause in Cause-Related Marketing: The Importance of Cause Vested Interest by Charles G. O’Brien A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Art Department of Mass Communications College of Arts and Sciences University of South Florida Major Professor: Scott Liu, Ph.D. Kimberly Golombisky, Ph.D. Randy Miller, Ph.D. Date of Approval: November 15, 2004 Keywords: CRM, brand-cause alliance, branding, vested interest, charities Copyright 2004, Charles G. O’Brien

PAGE 2

i Table of Contents List of Tables................................................................................................................. ....iii List of Figures................................................................................................................ ....iv Abstract....................................................................................................................... .........v Chapter One: Introduction..................................................................................................1 Background..............................................................................................................2 Chapter Two: Literature Review........................................................................................8 Business...................................................................................................................9 Brand......................................................................................................................11 CRM.......................................................................................................................13 Alliance..................................................................................................................18 Cause......................................................................................................................19 Vested Interest.......................................................................................................21 Chapter Three: Hypotheses...............................................................................................24 Main Effects...........................................................................................................25 Interaction Effects of Familiarity and CVI............................................................26 Chapter Four: Methodology..............................................................................................28 Design....................................................................................................................28 Independent Variables...........................................................................................28 Dependent Variables..............................................................................................29 Subjects..................................................................................................................30 Stimuli....................................................................................................................31 Procedure...............................................................................................................32 Chapter Five: Results........................................................................................................3 4 Manipulation Checks.............................................................................................34 Reliability of Dependent Measures........................................................................34 Tests of Hypotheses...............................................................................................35 Chapter Six: Discussion....................................................................................................43 Limitations.............................................................................................................45 Chapter Seven: Conclusion...............................................................................................47

PAGE 3

ii References..................................................................................................................... .....50 Appendices..................................................................................................................... ....55 Appendix A: Questionnaire 1...............................................................................56 Appendix B: Questionnaire 2................................................................................60 Appendix C: Questionnaire 3................................................................................64 Appendix D: Questionnaire 4...............................................................................68 Appendix E: Questionnaire 5................................................................................72 Appendix F: Questionnaire 6................................................................................76 Appendix G: Questionnaire 7...............................................................................80 Appendix H: Questionnaire 8...............................................................................84 Appendix I: Pretest Questionnaire........................................................................88

PAGE 4

iii List of Tables Table 1 Measurement of Brand Know ledge Constructs Related to Customer-Based Brand Equity..................................................................13 Table 2 2 x 2 x 2 Experimental Design...................................................................28 Table 3 Causes with High/Low Familia rity and High/Low Vested Interest...........32 Table 4 Means and Standard Deviations of ATTB in Experimental Conditions....36 Table 5 Summary of ANOVA Results: Effects of Independent Variables on ATTB..............................................37 Table 6 Means and Standard Deviations of ATTC in Experimental Conditions....38 Table 7 Summary of ANOVA Results: Effects of Independent Variables on ATTC..............................................39 Table 8 Means and Standard Deviations of ATTA in Experimental Conditions...40 Table 9 Summary of ANOVA Results: Effects of Independent Variables on ATTA..............................................41 Table 10 Summary of H ypotheses Testing Results..................................................42

PAGE 5

iv List of Figures Figure 1 Dependent Variable: ATTB (Attitude Towards the Brand).....................36 Figure 2 Dependent Variable: ATTC (Attitude Towards the Cause).....................38 Figure 3 Dependent Variable: ATTA (Attitude Towards the Alliance).................40 Figure 4 The Soup and Sub Kitchen Corp...............................................................48

PAGE 6

v Building a Case for the Unfamiliar Cause in Cause-related Marketing: The Importance of Cause Vested Interest Charles G. O’Brien ABSTRACT Marketing and advertising practitioners are currently matching up a brand with a cause and broadcasting the association to c onsumers in a practice called cause related marketing (CRM). Scholars are building a stream of academic research which seeks to understand the relationship between a brand and a cause (a.k.a., alliance ) in relation to the final outcome of a CRM campaign. Ostensibly, both partners benefit from this alliance, although many CRM studies seek to understand how to optimize this relationship for each partner. In professional practice and academic rese arch both practitioners and researchers have focused on established, popular, well-know n causes in consider ation of successful alliances. Less established, unfamiliar, unknown causes have yet to be considered for possible alliances. This research seeks to build a case for th e successful alliance between a brand and an unfamiliar cause with an outcome that will outperform an alliance between the same brand and an established, popular, well-known cause. An experiment was conducted in which familiarity with the brand, familiarity with the cause, and vested interest in the cause were manipulated, and their effects on attitude towards the brand, attitude towards the cause, and attitude towards the brand-cause alliance measured. Results indicated that

PAGE 7

vi cause vested interest had a si gnificant influence on attitude towards the brand and attitude towards the cause, regardless of brand and cause familiarity.

PAGE 8

1 Chapter One Introduction Cause Related Marketing (CRM) is an area of study and practice slowly amassing case studies. The first pub licized CRM campaign occurred in 1991, when American Express joined with a non-prof it group to promote fine arts in San Francisco. Profits of $1.7 million, from increased use of American Express cards, were donated to the organization. American Express called its link with charity “cause related marketing” and registered the term as a service mark with the U.S. Patent Office (Smith and Higgins, 2000). Too few years have passed since this first campaign to determine whether CRM is to become a basic staple of sound marketing or simply a passing advertising trend. The altruistic implications for CRM (e.g., increased donations to causes, greater awareness of societal problems, larger numbers of volunteers ) make this researcher believe that it is one of the most important new advertising pr actices to understand in order to optimize its chances for success. The initial research qu estions of this thesis center on how consumer attitudes towards an association between a brand and a cause are formed. How will the brand and the cause benefit? What dimensions of th e brand, the cause, and the alliance can be identified? How might consumer beha vior change or be influenced? While researching the study and practi ce of CRM, one specific trend begins to stand out. Causes that are consider ed as more favorable in a brand-cause alliance tend to be

PAGE 9

2 well-known, popular, and established causes. Several reasons for this trend will be discussed later in the research. If fam iliar causes are indeed becoming the standard practice and study of CRM, then the infere nce is that unfamiliar causes might become ignored. An even worse scenario is th at unfamiliar causes go unnoticed, unmentioned, and unsupported. Suddenly, the unfamiliar cause becomes a relevant cause. Child abuse, rape, and AIDS are just three examples of once unfamiliar causes which have escalated into relevant societal dilemmas. Another goal of this thesis is to explore whether an unfamiliar cause can perform better than a familiar cause by some standard of measure that is important to the alliance. If a brand-unfamiliar cause alliance can simply match the performance of a brandfamiliar cause alliance, then perhaps the evidence can improve CRM before it matures into a standardized practice of strictly br and-familiar cause alliances. This thesis attempts to create empirical evidence to s upport the claim that an unfamiliar cause in a brand-cause alliance can perform as well, if not better, than a familiar cause in a similar alliance. Specifically, it attempts to show that unfamiliar causes can outperform familiar causes when there is a high level of vested interest in the unfamiliar causes. Background In the United States, brands rule the world of consumerism. Choice is rampant in nearly every category of cons umer goods, products, and serv ices. Choice has spurned parity, which has necessitated the need for differentiation, more often than not through branding.

PAGE 10

3 In its simplest form, branding simply differentiates. A rancher would use a branding iron to identify his cattle as belonging to him, as opposed to his neighbors, should a steer stray into neighboring pastures. A modern consumer also depends on branding to distinguish among any number of products or se rvices. Branding is far from this simple in the modern world of consumerism. Today, successful branding can lead to an increased perception in value. This perception of value influences many constituen cies who have an interest in the branded product – owners, manufacturers, retailers (customers), shareholders, stakeholders, distributors, salespeople, employees, prospective employees, special interest groups, societal groups, advocacy groups, industry anal ysts, government, and last, but definitely not least, consumers. Simple differentiation through branding can lead to preferences for specific “brands,” which can lead to increas ed demand for specific “brands.” Increased demand means increased value; therefore, individual consumer demand generates less overall value than a mass of consumers with a common demand. Branding has so deeply infiltrate d the American cultural lexicon that brands themselves become synonymous with the en tire product category, such as Kleenex for tissue. Branding seeks to e xploit every conceivable avenue of differentiation through all available human senses, real or perc eived, to create preferences. This rarely happens without the aid of communication. The st udy of the evolution of media is yet another vast area of research a nd practice that has culminated into a world called mass communications. Again, stated far too simply, the ability to communicate to a larger number of consumers creates a greate r possibility of genera ting a larger mass of consumers with a common preference for a spec ific branded product or service. This

PAGE 11

4 creation of demand has value to those constituen cies wishing to differentiate their brands, and this demand, through the years, has subs idized the creation of media to broadcast these messages of differentiation. Advertisers simply view each medium as a space to place their messages for exposure to a mass au dience, and armies of specialists make careers crafting messages of differentiation. Because consumers are as varied as the combination of products, media, and messages that they receive, an entire field of study called Consumer Behavior studies the vast a rray of individual differences that create either brand loyalty or staunch disbelief. Anything can be branded, including people. Familiarity with brands can win elections. Branding messages have the power to convince us to become dissatisfied with ourselves if we are too fat, do not wear the “r ight” clothes, or are not embarrassed by how our bodies smell. Brands wiel d an influence Americans so ca sually accept that it is has been easy to sell the exciteme nt of death through smoking an d the absolute cheerfulness of alcoholism with little public protest. Bra nds have the power to persuade people how to behave. Branding in advertising has its own hi story of evolution. A si mple demonstration of attributes can be a compelling point of differentiation for a pr oduct or service. Attributes can create benefits. But differentiation al so can border on the ludicrous and trivial, especially when the differences have no grounding in reality. If parity of attributes between competito rs is too similar, then efforts often escalate to image advertising in order to create differen ces. Image advertising is limited only by the imagination of those who create the ads.

PAGE 12

5 Whether a product or service resorts to attributes or image, both forms are compelled by a goal to create consumer demand or preference. Image advertising has escalated to socia lly conscious advertising. In its early stages, it has been practiced as a sort of “no MSG” strategy. For example: The Body Shop proclaims “no animal testing” in the developm ent of its cosmetics. Socially conscious advertising has become a viable marketing pr actice, although research studies are finding that in certain conditions consumers may find these types of messages to be irrelevant and arrogant. Perhaps in response to a socially conscious segment of consumer, a number of marketers have recognized the need to state their own social awaren ess. A number of American corporations have contributed time, resources and money to good causes. Nevertheless, these marketers cannot merely cl aim to be socially conscious. Skeptical consumers expect some degree of authenticit y. In response to this need a new practice has arisen called cause related marketing (CRM ). Other terminologies for this concept include commercial co-venture strategi c giving, and pragmatic altruism (Smith & Higgins, 2000). Currently, CRM entails matching a brand with a cause and broadcasting the association to consumers. How the brand a nd cause are matched together is claimed by some practitioners to be a proprietary skill acquired through experience and unique insight. Academic researchers have begun to study this phenomenon as the brand-cause “fit” and are attempting to discover variable s which influence favorable and unfavorable conditions of the “fit” as well as the infl uences on both the brand and the cause.

PAGE 13

6 Ostensibly, as consumers become aw are of the brand-cause association, a more favorable perception of the brand ensues, lead ing to a preference. This could translate into an important field of marketing practi ce and study. With so many important causes in need of support the importance of substantia ting this practice seems sensible. Even if the intention of the brand is not altogether al truistic, the support to the cause could prove to be valuable. A marketer has to decide what cause to support. In the past, these decisions may have been arbitrary (Pringle & Th ompson, 1999). With CRM, the brand-cause association is becoming a marketing function with implicatio ns for consumer perception of the brand. In the early stages of developing CRM, mark eters are faced with associating with an already organized and known charity, or deve loping an ownable brand-cause association independently. Current practi ce and research suggests de veloping a “fit” that will enhance both the brand and the cause. Acad emic research into CRM currently has developed experiments that test known br ands and known causes. General findings support the notion that greater consumer aw areness of the cause will more favorably influence the awareness and at titudes towards the brand (L afferty, 1999). Cause is being studied as if it bears the same properties as a brand. Much of this research stems from the use of co-branding, brand extension, and product bundling research (Keller, 1993). From 1990 to 1993, corporate spending on alliances between nonprofit organizations and companies increased more than 150% to reach nearly $1 billion (Smith & Stodghill, 1994).

PAGE 14

7 Few would dispute the importance of, for example, the American Red Cross or the American Cancer Society, or any number of relatively popular and well-known causes. Worrisome are the causes that have yet to become popularized – the unfamiliar causes. The unfamiliar cause is about the unpopul arized and undiscovered needs of society, rather than the known causes with which the co nsumer may have more or less familiarity. The unfamiliar cause has relevance as a need that may or may not merit concern. Association between a brand and an unfamiliar cause could be a more powerful marketing practice than branding through attrib utes, image, or social consciousness. Perhaps it could be more effective than al liances between a brand and a known cause. Instead of the current trend of multiple brands rushing to gather around a popular cause, maybe research can state a case for associ ating with unknown but worthy causes, which may languish without resources to gene rate awareness and public concern. On the other hand, if too many brands rush to support a common cause, the value of the association to the brands may become d iluted. Ten years ago, Avon and breast cancer awareness were inextricably linked. Today, th at association benefits many more brands than simply Avon. Avon can choose to mainta in an altruistic stan ce and continue to support the cause, but the benef its as a marketer may have diminished regarding the once unique relationship between Avon and a cause affecting one in nine women, despite the obvious advantage to the cause. The exponent ial growth of awar eness surrounding breast cancer thanks to CRM illustrates how rapidl y the practice is developing as well as the urgent need to study CRM, in general, and unf amiliar causes, specifica lly, as this thesis attempts to do.

PAGE 15

8 Chapter Two Literature Review What are the basic components of a br and-cause alliance in the current practice and study of CRM? Why should a business enter in to an alliance? What does an alliance entail? What is a brand? What is a caus e – both familiar and unfamiliar? What relevant factors need to be considered when choosing a cause? Does a cause even need to be relevant to create a successful alliance? Thes e questions build the prem ise of this thesis. This literature review will explain the myri ad factors surrounding a brand-cause alliance, finally positing a focus on the brand, the familiar cause, and the unfamiliar cause. Although brand equity is not the focus of this thesis, a claim can be made that all research here is presented in response to Hoeffler and Keller (2002). Drawing from CRM literature and case studies, Hoeffler and Keller (2002) identify 13 research propositions through which corporate societ al marketing (CSM) programs can build brand equity. Their seventh proposition relate s directly to relevance and meaningfulness of the cause: “Consumers will have greater levels of relevance for a brand when the CSM program partner has a higher perceived personal impact.” Interestingly, Hoeffler & Keller (2002) seem only to lay out research propositions that they personally believe releva nt to the greater understand ing of CRM. None of it is grounded in theory, nor do they offer any s upport other than arguments supported by case studies.

PAGE 16

9 Business Friedman (1962) describes the dominant politics of the 1980s that believed business had no social responsibility other than th e generation of profit for its owners. Involvement in social welfare could not be ju stified because corporate funds were not the directors’ to give aw ay. Friedman (1962) concluded, “The re is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its res ources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game” (p. 133). Smith and Higgins (2000) trace these sentim ents to the evolution of dist rust of marketing practices, which ultimately manifested more conc retely in the consumerist movement. Smith and Higgins’ (2000) research pr esents a variety of arguments that defended consumerism as pro-marketing because it offered a chance to do things right. Marketing’s poor reputation was simply due to a few firms that betrayed consumer trust in favor of profits. The defense of marketing led to the development of humanistic marketing proposed by Kotler (1987), whom Smith and Higgins (2000) quote: Humanistic marketing is a marketing philo sophy that takes as its central objective the earning of profits th rough the enhancement of th e customer’s long run well being. It assumes that the consumer is active and diligent; se eks satisfaction of both immediate needs and la rger interests and favors companies that develop products, services and communications that enrich the customer’s life possibilities (p. 272). Smith and Higgins (2000) assert that its central rhetoric remains predominantly concerned with exchange. A belief domi nates that only through exchange can a

PAGE 17

10 marketing concept of greater social responsibil ity be realized – hence the development of cause-related marketing (CRM). Smith and Higgins (2000) acknowledge a definition of CRM put forth by Varadarajan and Menon (1998) in their seminal article on CRM: “The process of formulating and implementing marketing activities that are ch aracterized by an offer from the firm to contribute a specified amount to a designated cause when customers engage in revenueproducing exchanges that satisfy organizationa l and individual objec tives” (p. 60). While acknowledging this definition, Smith and Higgi ns (2000) favor a more broadly defined version put forth by Hawkes and Stead ( 1996) that does not limit CRM to specific transactions: “Any marketing activit y undertaken by a company designed to simultaneously benefit the company and the ch arity, or similar cause. The emphasis is on marketing” (p. 4). Drumwright (1996) insi sts that CRM is merely an innovative and effective form of advertising, to be assessed by tr aditional criteria but with the belief that mutual benefits can accrue. Drumwright (1996) points out: There is not a company in the U.S. or the world that would spend money on advertising in a way that is not economi c. The only reason, absolutely the only reason, that money is spen t on advertising is to m ove people toward economic payoffs for the product and the company. (p. 74) The principles of “enlightened self -interest” and “doing well by doing good” have always been an overt characteristic of corporate philanthropy (Fisher, 1980). Corporations continuously grapple with th e issues surrounding pr ofit responsibilities versus social responsibilities. Stroup and Norbert (Stroup, Norbert & Anderson, 1987)

PAGE 18

11 offer a counter argument to pure profit motivations: Philanthropy has been regarded as the first expression of social responsibility in most corporat ions, although managers view philanthropic efforts as competing for co rporate resources. Shareholders view philanthropy as competing for dividends. Prior to 1954, corporate giving was limited by law to donations that could be justified as be ing in the stockholder’s interest (Varadarajan & Menon, 1988). Regulatory actions became the motivation fo r social responsibility as it evolved. Not to be confused with CRM, internal cause s such as equal employment opportunities are part of the rubric of social responsibility. Stroup and Norbert (1987) stress that, as social responsibility has evolved from voluntary acti on to mandated action, it now needs to take the next step of overcoming the dominant resentment towards socially responsible expenditures as detrimental to the firm. They present a view of social responsibility as an investment in the long-term performance of an enterprise. One example the authors cite is the concept of day care. While some oppone nts view day care as simply another form of philanthropy, many case studies attest to the recruitment a nd retention of both a higher quantity and higher quality of employee as a direct result of “doing good.” While not a direct contribution to profitability, practicing social responsibility ha s direct implications for enhancing the va lue of a business. Nevertheless, the attitude that CR M is not a profitable venture persists. Brand Much of the CRM literature attempts to compare brand-cause associations to brand extensions, which may or may not be appropriate.

PAGE 19

12 David Ogilvy (1983) defines brand as, “T he intangible sum of a product’s attributes: Its name, packaging, and price, its history, its reputation, a nd the way it’s advertised.” This definition is synonymous with brand equity. Branding has many definitions. Acad emic peer-reviewed rigor demands definition, yet the following statement from brand research literature is a good i ndication of the state of affairs on one variation of branding – br and equity. Winters (1991) observes, “There has been a lot of interest lately in measur es of brand equity. However, if you ask ten people to define brand equity, you are likely to get ten (maybe 11) different answers as to what it means.” In a general sense, brand equity is de fined in terms of the marketing effects uniquely attributable to the brand – for example, when certain outcomes result from the marketing of a product or service because of its brand name that would not occur if the same product or service did not have that name. Keller (1993) draws on the associative network memory model to lay the foundations of his framework on customer-based brand e quity. This model views semantic memory or knowledge as consisting of a set of nodes and links. Nodes are stored information connected by links that vary in strength. A node becomes a potential source of activation for other nodes either when external inform ation is being encoded or when internal information is retrieved from long-term memo ry. Activation can spread from this node to other linked nodes in memory. When activati on of another node exceeds some threshold level, the information contained in that node is recalled. Thus, the strength of the association between the activat ed node and all linked nodes determines the particular

PAGE 20

13 information that can be retrieved from me mory. Recall and recognition, shown in Table 1, are used to measure brand awareness. Table 1 Measurement of Brand Knowledge Constructs Related to Customer-Based Brand Equity Construct Measure(s) Purpose of Measure(s) Brand Awareness Recall Correct identification of brand given product category of some other type of probe Capture “top-of-mind” accessibility of brand in memory Recognition Correct discrimination of brand as having been previously seen or heard Capture potential retrievability or availability of brand in memory Keller (1993) presents guidelines to help marketers better manage customer-based brand equity, ending with a gui deline that branches out in to brand extensions. Brand extensions can facilitate acceptance of a new product or service by providing two benefits. First, awareness for the extens ion may be higher because the brand node is already present in memory. Second, inferred as sociations for the attributes, benefits, and overall perceived quality may be created. In summary, brand knowledge starts with awareness of the brand. CRM Webb and Mohr (1998) used semistruct ured interviews of c onsumers to present a qualitative study exploring perceptions of CRM campaigns. Ostensibly, if corporations are not inherently committed to social respons ibility, then consumer demand could prove to be the driving motivation. The authors sought to develop an exploratory typology of consumer responses to CRM. They identif y four unique consumer groups who vary in responses to CRM concerns: Skeptics, who ar e predisposed to distrust; Balancers, who are positive towards CRM; Attribution-Or iented, who view companies as having

PAGE 21

14 unselfish motives for CRM; and Socially C oncerned, who invest time and effort to understand CRM. Nearly 80% of their samp le was judged as having a strong knowledge of CRM. It is interesting to note that Webb a nd Mohr’s (1998) findings center on the brand as opposed to the cause. The findings identify several types of consumer responses that have implications in assessing CRM campaigns: Honesty, fairness, and the amount of help given to the cause. Attribution of reasons for the firm’s participation in CRM. Consistency of the firm’s social responsibility programs. Traditional purchase criteria st ill play an important role. Change in company image can be influenced by CRM. Change in purchase behavior can be influence by CRM. Another study supporting these results is the most notab le commercial research that addresses consumer reactions to CRM, the 1997 Cone/Roper Caus e-Related Marketing Trends Report, which is based on a 1993 benchmark study and a follow-up study conducted in 1996 (Cone Communications Pres s Release, 1997). In 1996, 76% of the consumers surveyed stated that, when price and quality are equal, they would be likely to switch to brands or retailers associated with a cause or is sue about which they care. A cause which they care about is another way of saying a cause in which they have a vested interest. In consumer-oriented research into CRM, both quantitative and qualitative, consumers rarely mention any concerns about the cause Only one qualitative study (Webb & Mohr,

PAGE 22

15 1998) mentioned a woman who had boycotted Dominos Pizza when the company conducted a CRM campaign associated with the highly volatile cause of abortion. Varadarajan and Menon (1988) seem to be the first researchers to build a comprehensive overview of CRM and to have set some dimensions for a future research stream. The authors narrowly define CRM as “the process of formulating and implementing marketing activities that are ch aracterized by an offer from the firm to contribute a specified amount to a designated cause when customers engage in revenueproducing exchanges that satisfy organizati onal and individual objectives” (p. 60). “Specified amount” and “revenue-produci ng exchange” however, do not account for many of the case studies that would qualify as CRM, which en tail barter or less tangible profits. For example, HelpAd is an advert ising medium in the United Kingdom in which a brand owner barters space on its product p ackaging, similar to the missing children on the side of milk cartons here in the United States. CSM – corporate societal marketing – has all the qualities of CRM and could easily be considered a CRM practice, or vice versa. Although Varadarajan and Menon (1988) ar e considered to have authored the seminal research on CRM, they too have opted to disc uss brand versus cause. The authors draw on research from areas such as marketing for non-profit organizat ions, the promotion mix, corporate philanthropy, corporate social responsibility, fund-raising management, and public relations. The major dimensions of CRM that they outline are all brand centric.

PAGE 23

16 Varadarajan and Menon (1988) also cite the goal systems that most firms tend to cluster around regarding CRM programs. F our goals are identified and each can be measured on a continuum: 1. Profit maximization, soci al goals incidental. 2. Profit growth, social goa ls also important. 3. Social goals, break even on money. 4. Social goals, money losses acceptable. Interestingly, the notion that a brand-cau se alliance could generate profit is not represented. Corporate reputation rankings of comp anies are regularly pub lished in periodicals such as Fortune and The Wall Street Journal One of the most comprehensive polls is conducted using the Harris-Fombrun Reputation QuotientSM (RQ). Twenty attributes comprising six dimensions are used to compare companies. Social responsibility is one of the dimensions, with thr ee attributes: Supports good causes, is an environmentally responsible company, and maintains high standa rds in the way it treats people. These measures are consistent with limited bene fits that companies hope to realize by participating in CRM alliances. Dacin and Brown (2002) present a recent study suggesting a framework for researching corporate associati ons. “Corporate associations” is used as a generic label for all the information about a company th at a person holds in memory. Dacin and Brown (2002) argue the importance of paying at tention to external constituencies in current practices for building a positive corpor ate image. Specifically, both the consumer and CRM associations hold more importance in the present business climate than past

PAGE 24

17 notions of successful marketing have identifi ed. Consumer expectations have evolved and so should marketing. Due to the imprecise definitions of cause marketing, corporate issue promotion (Andreson 1996), CRM, CSM, and CSR, none has been categorized to a generally accepted standard. Mastercard’s Charge Agai nst Hunger, Ronald McDonald House, Paul Newman’s Salad Dressings, Avon’s Breast Canc er Awareness Crusade, Ben & Jerry’s, and Liz Claibourne’s Women’s Work campaign against domestic viol ence are regularly held up as examples of successful al liances between a brand and a cause. Pringle and Thompson (1999) present se veral of the most comp rehensive case studies available in their book for the Saatchi & Saat chi Cause Connection based in the United Kingdom. Their CRM practitioner counterpart in the states is Cone Communications (http://www.coneinc.com). Ca rol Cone originated Avon’s CRM program and rallied her success into a PR firm dedicated exclusively to Cause Branding. Due to the proprietary nature of information about CRM practices, most case studies are little more than boastful accounts of success generated on behalf of the brand and the cause. Insights into motivations and behind-th e-scene discussions are virtually nonexistent, except for one qualitative study by Drumwri ght (1996), who conducted interviews with elite decision makers behind 22 campaigns – 11 with social dimensions and 11 standard campaigns. Although anonymity was a condition of the interviews, the author uncovered general motivations for engaging in CRM. The 22 campaigns were a mix of economic, noneconomic, and mixed economic intentions with no type of campaign particularly outperforming the other with regards to c onsumer reactions. Resistance came from salespeople and retailers who argued that adve rtising was not bringi ng people in the door

PAGE 25

18 or making the cash register ring, even when a campaign was successful in achieving its objectives. The author states that organiza tional identification may be the route through which advertising with a social dimensi on achieves company-oriented goals. The 11 campaigns with social dimensions significan tly motivated the work force, communicated the essence of the company mission, increase d job satisfaction and intraorganizational cooperation, as well as enhanced relationships with interorg anizational partners through “a different sort of bonding.” Advertising is the most visible form of acknowledging an asso ciation between a brand and a cause. Because social responsibility is such an abstract concept, advertising is a more concrete form of communication used by many researchers to test consumer perceptions of CRM. Advertising also inte grates products, services, companies, and sponsors into a form readily understood by consum ers. The levels of association between a firm and a cause can occur at the organizati onal level, at the produc t line/division level, or at the brand level. Alliance Many issues surrounding the successful alliance between the bra nd and the cause have already been presented. Till and Nowak (2000) used associative learning principles and classical conditioning in a conceptual article de scribing “fit” characteristics. A research proposition that they propose implies that CRM can affect consumers’ overall attitude toward the sponsoring company or brand. In the conclusion of their review, T ill and Nowak (2000) contribute three of their own original insights. A synthesi s of their findings suggests that charity links have changed

PAGE 26

19 from a corporation’s tactical response to a more strategic a pproach. The alliance is more substantial and engages more that just the public presenta tion of the brand. Second, CRM should be a long-term commitment from the firm to create a more permanent connection between its brand and the cause where it matters, in the mind of the consumer. Others discuss alterna tive associations between the br and and the cause. Pringle and Thompson (1999) ask, “Charity, cause, or hybr id?” Hoeffler and Keller (2002) suggest one of three scenarios: Creat e own self-branded cause, cobr and link to existing cause, or jointly link brand to existi ng cause. Barnes and Fitz gibbons (1991) discuss one-shot versus ongoing. Drumwright (1996) stresses that social ca mpaigns are more effective when they focus on fewer causes, perhaps one, versus the cause portf olio approach cited by Varadarajan and Menon (1988). The study of alliances in CRM is in its infancy. Attitude is the starting point. Cause Among CRM research, there is consensus that the cause should be consistent with the image the company is seeking to build or sust ain for its brand. Ironically, of the cited research has defined “cause.” Additionally, CRM research focuses only on familiar causes. For the purposes of this research, a cause will be defined as organized efforts or activities designed to alleviate a societal problem. Gallup has been asking the MOP ques tion in polls since 1935, “What do you think is the most important problem in America to day?” A respondent ca nnot answer with a cause that is unknown to him or her. CRM res earch claims that the “cause” needs to be

PAGE 27

20 positive (Till & Nowak, 2000), which again suggests that it needs to be familiar. A “cause” with a greater appeal or a larger audience segment than a lesser known brand or new product introduction will have greater be nefit to the brand (Dacin & Brown, 2002) – again focusing on the familiar cause. To date, CRM research has focused primarily on familiar causes and their alliances with known brands. A cause can also be an unidentified societal need – the unfamiliar cause. The unfamiliar cause is not established as a non-profit organization. It is unfamiliar as a cause. Special interest groups have yet to jo in forces to build aw areness of the unfamiliar cause. The unfamiliar cause is not going to make the Top 10 on this year’s MOP question. The unfamiliar cause is a societal n eed waiting to be noticed. Child abuse was an unfamiliar cause, as was rape, and AIDS, and child labor, in addition to unfamiliar causes that exist today, but have yet to surface. If marketers are looking for brand-cau se alliances, then the unfamiliar cause should be part of their decision set. If marketing practiti oners and researchers sustain the current trend of restricting their explor ation of causes to only those th at are familiar, then society as a whole will not benefit from the wealth of opportunities available. Unfamiliar causes need to become a consistently included al ternative, especially if CRM proves to be consistently valuable as a marketing practice. No reliable decisions about the effectiveness of CRM can be made when the cause choices are restricted to familiarity. As st ated by Hoeffler and Keller (2002), consumers relate strongly to relevance. To presuppos e that an unfamiliar cause does not possess as much relevance as a familiar cause completely ignores the potential of CRM. A successful alliance with an unfamiliar cause high in personal relevance could turn the

PAGE 28

21 practice of CRM into a profita ble venture. This statem ent could be true, yet CRM research has yet to explore unfamiliar causes. Vested Interest Theories of persuasion suggest that, in choosing a brand-cause alliance, relevance of the cause to consumer could be one of the mo st important considerations in regards to attitude formation. Petty and Cacioppo’s (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986a, 1986b) El aboration Likelihood Model (ELM) is one of the more articulated theories of persuasion in the reception of advertising messages by consumers. According to ELM, level of involve ment determines the depth and outcome of information processing. Depending on th ree antecedent variables – motivation, opportunity, and ability to process – a person will process the comm unication with either a higher or lower level of involvement. I nvolvement refers to the perceived personal relevance of the information. The processing of an ad can be partitioned into two phases, an initial very basic comprehension (“dec oding” the stimulus) of the message and a subsequent elaboration. In the elaboration stage, intern al responses to the decoded stimulus, including counterarguments a nd inferences, are generated. Both comprehension and elaboration are influenced by the activated schema (i.e., organized set of knowledge about an object or event that is stored in memory). High involvement information processing occurs via the central route of persuasion, while low involvement occurs via the peripheral route. In attitude and belief change via the central route, the consumer pays more attention to the message and processes it at a

PAGE 29

22 deeper level. Consequently, the consumer will generate more cognitive responses – favorable and unfavorable thoughts – about the message. Depending on the extent to which the cognitive responses support the message belief changes can occur. Change in belief leads to change in attitude, which, in turn, leads to behavior change. When changes in belief and attitude occur via the central route, the effects are relatively enduring and predictive of behavior. In explicating th e concept of involvement, Petty and Cacioppo (1986a, 1986b) maintain that high levels of personal releva nce lead to more intensive processing of attitude-relevant communications and, ultim ately, to attitudes of greater strength. Personal relevance thus constitutes the essence of involvement. Agans and Crano (1962) introduced the conc ept of vested interest as a more restrictive definition of the involvement-elaboration-attitude strength dynamic. Vested interest refers to the extent to which an attitude is relevant for the attitude holder. The personal consequences associated with an object determ ine vested interest. Not all variables that enhance attitude-behavior c onsistency involve attitude objects of great personal consequence. But attitude objects that are personally consequential will be vested, and vested interest, in turn, will fost er attitude-consistent action. The factors hypothesized by Crano (1995) to be component parts of the global concept of vested interest are: (1) the actor’s stake in a given att itude object, (2) the salience of the object, (3) the certainty of that specifi c consequences will ensue from an attituderelevant action, (4) the immediacy of these cons equences, and (5) the actor’s self-efficacy to enact the requisite (or att itude-implicated) behaviors.

PAGE 30

23 Vested interest is the core concept fr om which inquiries into the unfamiliar cause and brand-cause fit will be drawn. It seems especially relevant as it pertains to such adjectives as meaningful, important, relevant, personal, and local – a ll cues that suggest a high degree of personal consequence, and all cues that are easily operationalized into research questions. The vested interest inherent in a cause is an essential factor to explore in the study of CRM. Cause vested interest (CVI) could be a factor used to build a case to explain why an unfamiliar cause may be as effective as a familiar cause in a brand-cause alliance. CVI may affect the significance of an alli ance. CVI could determine the level of involvement consumers have with both the brand and the cause in an alliance. If the consumer pays more attention to the cause with high vested interest, and processes that information into a favorable response, then a change in belief can occur. A change in belief can lead to a change in attitude, which, in turn, can lead to behavior change. When changes in belief and attitude occur via the central route, the effects are relatively enduring and predictive of behavi or. Can the benefits of a society rallying to support an unfamiliar cause be predicted? Can CRM become an enduring practice? This research seeks to build a case for th e successful alliance between a brand and an unfamiliar cause with an outcome that will outperform an alliance between the same brand and a familiar cause. CVI may interact with familiarity in determining CRM outcomes. In the next chapter, research hypothese s derived from the concep t of vested interest and other variables – brand and cause familiarity – examined in previous research will be presented.

PAGE 31

24 Chapter Three Hypotheses As stated earlier, the broad goal of this thesis is to conduct an experiment which can support a claim that an unfamiliar cause paired with a brand can create a more favorable attitude towards the brand (ATTB) than the pairing of a familiar cause with a brand. Vested interest is a variable that has not been investigat ed in current CRM studies. Therefore, a fair amount of preliminary research must be considered in order to establish a basic understanding of both main effects and interaction effects surrounding brand, cause, and vested interest. The following hypothe ses are presented in an attempt to gain this greater understanding. Based on prior research, the effectiven ess of brand-cause alli ance is a function of consumer’s vested interest in the cause. When there is a high level of vested interest in the cause, consumers are likely to pay more attention to the message, process it and elaborate it more extensively, and generate more favorable and enduring attitudes toward the brand, the cause, and the brand-cause allianc e, regardless of their familiarity with the brand or the cause. In empiri cal terms, the reasoning predicts the main effect of cause vested interest – an effect independent from brand and cause familiarity. An alternative prediction is the interaction effects between cau se vested interest and familiarity: Cause vested interest will have impact on brand and cause attitude if and onl y if familiarity with brand or cause is high. In other words, instead of being an independent source of influence, cause vested interest only facilitates or reinforces the effects of brand or cause

PAGE 32

25 familiarity on attitudes. In what follows, these alternative hypotheses related to cause vested interest are presented along with ot her hypotheses pertaini ng to brand and cause familiarity. Main Effects Main effect of brand familiar ity on brand attitude (ATTB): H1: A familiar brand will lead to a more favorable ATTB than an unfamiliar brand. Main effect of cause familiarity on ATTB: H2: A familiar cause will have a more favorable ATTB than an unfamiliar cause. Main effect of cause ve sted interest on ATTB: H3: A cause with higher vested interest will have a more favorable ATTB than a cause with lower vested interest. Main effect of brand familiar ity on cause attitude (ATTC): H4: A familiar brand will have a more favorable ATTC than an unfamiliar brand. Main effect of cause familiarity on ATTC: H5: A familiar cause will have a more favorable ATTC than an unfamiliar cause. Main effect of cause ve sted interest on ATTC: H6: A cause with higher vested interest will have a more favorable ATTC than a cause with lower vested interest.

PAGE 33

26 Main effect of brand familiarity on attitude towards the alliance (ATTA): H7: A familiar brand will have a more favorable ATTA than an unfamiliar brand. Main effect of cause familiarity on ATTA: H8: A familiar cause will have a more favorable ATTA than an unfamiliar cause. Main effect of cause ve sted interest on ATTA: H9: A cause with higher vested interest will have a more favorable ATTA than a cause with lower vested interest. Interaction Effects of Familiarity and CVI Interaction effect of brand familiarity and cause familiarity: H10: Cause familiarity can facilitate/reinforce the effects of brand familiarity on ATTB. H11: Cause familiarity can facilitate/reinforce the effects of brand familiarity on ATTC. H12: Cause familiarity can facilitate/reinforce the effects of brand familiarity on ATTA. Interaction effect of brand famili arity and cause vested interest: H13: Vested interest in a cause can f acilitate/reinforce the effects of brand familiarity on ATTB. H14: Vested interest in a cause can f acilitate/reinforce the effects of brand familiarity on ATTC.

PAGE 34

27 H15: Vested interest in a cause can f acilitate/reinforce the effects of brand familiarity on ATTA. Interaction effect of Cause Famili arity and Cause Vested Interest: H16: Vested interest in a cause can f acilitate/reinforce the effects of cause familiarity on ATTB. H17: Vested interest in a cause can f acilitate/reinforce the effects of cause familiarity on ATTC. H18: Vested interest in a cause can f acilitate/reinforce the effects of cause familiarity on ATTA.

PAGE 35

28 Chapter Four Methodology Design The design for this research used a 2x2x2 (brand familiarity: familiar versus unfamiliar, cause familiarity: familiar versus unfamiliar, and cause vested interest: high versus low) full factorial, shown in Table 2. Table 2 2x2x2 Experimental Design Cause High Familiarity Low Familiarity High Vested Interest Low Vested Interest High Vested Interest Low Vested Interest High Familiarity United Way/ AT&T Red Cross/ AT&T School Crossing/ AT&T Growing Friends/ AT&T Brand Low Familiarity United Way/ cricKet Red Cross/ cricKet School Crossing/ cricKet Growing Friends/ cricKet Independent Variables Brand Familiarity: Familiar versus Unfamiliar The questionnaires contained two ques tions seeking to confir m the manipulation of brand familiarity. Both questions required a respondent to circle a response on a fivepoint Likert scale ranging from -2 (Strongl y disagree) to +2 (Strongly agree). The questions: • I am familiar with AT&T ( cricKet ) Wireless cellular phone service.

PAGE 36

29 • AT&T ( cricKet ) Wireless cellular phone service is known to many people. Cause Familiarity: Familiar versus Unfamiliar The questionnaires contained two questions seeking to c onfirm the manipulation of cause familiarity. Both questions required a respondent to circle a response on a fivepoint Likert scale ranging from -2 (Strongl y disagree) to +2 (Strongly agree). The questions: • I am familiar with the American Red Cross ( alternate cause ). • The American Red Cross ( alternate cause ) is known to many people. Vested Interest: High Vested Inte rest versus Low Vested Interest The questionnaires contained five quest ions seeking to confir m the manipulation of vested interest. Each questi on required a respondent to circle a response on a five-point Likert scale ranging from -2 (S trongly disagree) to +2 (Str ongly agree). The questions: • I have a stake in the American Red Cross ( alternate cause ). • The American Red Cross ( alternate cause ) is important to me personally. • My support of the American Red Cross ( alternate cause ) will ensure specific consequences. • The consequences of my support of the American Red Cross ( alternate cause ) will be immediate. • My support of the American Red Cross ( alternate cause ) could make a difference. Dependent Variables Attitude towards the brand (ATTB)

PAGE 37

30 Attitude toward the brand was measured by asking subjects how they felt about the brand on four 7-point semantic differential s cales (like/dislike, favorable/unfavorable, good/bad, wanted/unwanted). Attitude towards the cause (ATTC) Similarly, attitude toward the cause was measured by asking subjects how they felt about the cause on four 7-point semantic differential scales (like/dislike, favorable/unfavorable, good/bad, wanted/unwanted). Attitude towards the alliance (ATTA) Four 7-point semantic differentials (positive /negative, favorable, unfavorable, good/bad, important to me/unimportant to me) we re used to measure attitude toward the brand-cause alliance. Subjects Subjects were recruited from undergrad uate classes at a larg e Southern university. The majority of students were juniors and seni ors. Collection of re search data took place during the summer semester, wh ich has notoriously sporadic attendance. This required numerous visits to many small classes versus a single visit to one la rge class. Classes were chosen according to approval by the professors. Professors allowed the researcher to distribute questionnaires dur ing the first ten minutes of class. Students received no compensation or credit for participation and c ould freely choose not to participate. A total of 176 students participated in the main experiment.

PAGE 38

31 Stimuli The creation of advertising stimuli cons isted of two phases. In the first phase, eight concept print advertisements for wireless cellular telephone service were created, with each ad containing one pairing of a brand-cause alliance, as shown in Table Y. Headline, visual and body copy were identical for each ad – only the brand logo and the cause logo were varied. These concept print advertis ements are included in Appendices A through H. In the second phase, a pretest was conducted to determine causes with high/low familiarity and high/low vested interest. Fi fty student volunteers participated in the pretest. These students answered seven questions for each of the 20 causes – a total of 140 questions (see pretest quest ionnaire used in Appendix X). For each cause, two questions sought to determine familiarity, wh ile the remaining five questions probed for vested interest. All questions required a respondent to circ le a response on a five-point Likert scale ranging from -2 (Strongly disagree) to +2 (S trongly agree). The causes ranged from existing, ostensibly well-known cau ses in American culture to completely fictitious causes created for this research. The pretest results are shown in Table 3. Four causes with di stinct differences in familiarity and vested interest were selected for use in the final design questionnaire: • High/High – (X familiarity = 1.23, X vested interest = 1.03) – The United Way • High/Low – (X familiarity = 1.32, X vested interest = .86) – American Red Cross • Low/High – (X familiarity = 0.10, X vested interest = 1.07) – School Crossing Safety • Low/Low – (X familiarity = 1.25, X vested interest = 0.82) – Growing Friends

PAGE 39

32 Due to the prolifer ation of mobile phones on college campus, an assumption was made that wireless cellular telephone service w ould be familiar to college students even if the particular brand of service was not. AT&T Wireless cellular phone service was selected as the brand with higher familiar ity and cricKet Wireless cellular phone service was selected as the brand with lower familia rity. Manipulation ch ecks were conducted in the main experiment in order to confirm this assumption. Table 3 Causes with High/Low Familiarit y and High/Low Vested Interest High Familiarity Low Familiarity The United Way School Crossing Safety Program Familiarity(Self) Mean1.20 Familiarity(Self) Mean0.18 SD0.86 SD1.49 Familiarity(Others)Mean1.26 Familiarity(Others) Mean0.02 SD0.75 SD1.10 Familiarity(All) Mean 1.23 Familiarity(All) Mean 0.10 High Vested Interest Vested Interest Mean 1.03 Vested Interest Mean 1.07 American Red Cross Growing Friends Familiarity(Self) Mean1.22 Familiarity(Self) Mean1.48 SD0.86 SD0.68 Familiarity(Others)Mean1.42 Familiarity(Others) Mean1.02 SD0.57 SD0.77 Familiarity(All) Mean 1.32 Familiarity(All) Mean 1.25 Low Vested Interest Vested Interest Mean 0.86 Vested Interest Mean 0.82 Procedure The main experiment was conducted in several class sessions. Experimental instructions, advertising stimuli, and respons e measures were presented in a questionnaire format. Thirty questionnaires were created fo r each of the eight experimental conditions, with a total of 240 questionnaires. The 240 quest ionnaires were then randomly ordered to

PAGE 40

33 allow randomization whereby all participants had an equal chance of being assigned to different experimental conditions.. At the beginning of each session, a statement of informed consent was read to students and any student could freely choose not to partic ipate. Subjects were randomly assigned to eight experimental conditions by receiving randomly ordered questionnaires. All eight questionnaires are incl uded in Appendices A through H. Subjects read the gene ral instructions on the first pa ge of the questionnaires which asked them to look at an ad and answer the questions following the ad. They were given ten minutes to complete the questionnaire. At the end of the ten-minute time period, questionnaires were collected a nd the researcher left the building. A to tal of 176 subjects completed questionnaires. Responses to the completed questionnaires were coded and analyzed with SPSS.

PAGE 41

34 Chapter Five Results Manipulation Checks T-tests were used to determine if the experiment successfully manipulated the independent variables of brand familiarity, cause familiarity, and cause vested interest. Results indicated that all th ree independent variables were manipulated successfully: High familiarity brand (AT&T) scored highe r than low familiarity brand (cricKet) (X high familiarity = .99, X low familiarity = -1.46, t = 22.78, df = 164, p < .001); high familiarity causes (American Red Cross and United Way) indeed sc ored higher than low familiarity causes (School Crossing Safety Progr am and Growing Friends) (X high familiarity = .1.41, X low familiarity = -.91, t = 19.61, df = 164, p < .001); and high ve sted interest causes (United Way and School Crossing Safety Pr ogram) indeed scored higher than low vested interest causes (American Red Cross and Growing Friends) (X high vested interest = -.13, X low vested interest = -.54, t = 3.67, df = 163, p < .001). Reliability of Measures Cronbach's alpha measures how well a se t of items (or variables) measures a single underlying construct. Alpha coefficient ranges in value from 0 to 1 and may be used to describe the reliability of multi-point forma tted questionnaires or scales. The higher the alpha value, the more reliable the generate d scale is. Nunnaly ( 1978) has indicated 0.70

PAGE 42

35 to be an acceptable reliability coefficient but lower thresholds are sometimes used in the literature. All three dependent vari ables attained high reliability in the present study. The alpha values for ATTA, ATTC, and ATTA are .96, .98, and .95, respectively. Tests of Hypotheses In this study, three-way Analysis of Vari ance (ANOVA) was used to determine the significance of the hypothesized main effect s of the independent variables (brand familiarity, cause familiarity, and vested intere st), as well as their interaction effects on each of the dependent variables (ATTB, ATTC and ATTB). The main effect is the simple effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable. In other words, it is the effect of the independent variable alone aver aged across the levels of other independent variables. An interaction effect is the va riation among the differences between means for different levels of one independe nt variable over different leve ls of the other variable(s). Table 4 presents the means and standa rd deviations of ATTB in all experimental conditions. Figure 1 graphs the mean values of ATTB as a function of brand familiarity, cause familiarity, and cause vested interest The ANOVA results are presented in Table 5. Supporting Hypothesis 1, the main effect of brand familiarity was significant: Subjects showed more favorable ATTB towards fa miliar brands than unfamiliar brands (X familiar brand = 4.61, X unfamiliar brand = 4.20, F = 5.01, df = 1,158, p < .05). Hypothesis 2 predicts more favorable ATTB toward brands associated with familiar causes than unfamiliar causes. Somewhat surprisingly, results showed that subjects showed slightly more favorable attitudes toward brands associated with unfamiliar causes

PAGE 43

36 Table 4 Means and Standard Deviations of ATTB in Experimental Conditions Brand Familiarity Cause Familiarity Cause Vested Interest Mean Standard Deviation N High 4.8000 1.30403 22 Low 4.3351 1.15905 22 High Total 4.5772 1.23309 44 High 4.7193 1.17202 21 Low 4.5873 1.11008 20 Low Total 4.3500 1.12711 41 High 4.7307 1.22582 43 Low 4.4732 1.12353 42 High Total Total 4.3132 1.17339 85 High 4.3333 1.32101 20 Low 3.7879 .93250 21 High Total 4.0758 1.17873 41 High 4.5238 1.30201 19 Low 4.1333 1.11029 21 Low Total 4.3333 1.21335 40 High 4.4419 1.29830 39 Low 3.9524 1.03743 42 Low Total Total 4.2000 1.19545 81 High 4.5714 1.31550 42 Low 4.0398 1.09002 43 High Total 4.3173 1.22572 85 High 4.3137 1.23008 40 Low 4.3359 1.12003 41 Low Total 4.4897 1.17507 81 High 4.5935 1.23389 82 Low 4.2143 1.10813 84 Total Total Total 4.4013 1.20074 133 Figure 1 Dependent Variable: ATTB (Attitude Towards the Brand) 4.37 4.59 3.79 4.13 4.80 4.72 4.36 4.52 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 HI CVILOW CVI FAMILIAR BRAND FAMILIAR CAUSE FAMILIAR BRAND UNFAMILIAR CAUSE UNFAMILIAR BRAND FAMILIAR CAUSE UNFAMILIAR BRAND UNFAMILIAR CAUSE

PAGE 44

37 Table 5 Summary of ANOVA Results: Effects of Independent Variables on ATTB Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Significance Corrected Model 15.915 7 2.274 1.318 .134 Intercept 3221.297 1 3221.297 2292.838 .000 Brand Familiarity 7.157 1 7.157 5.095 .025 Cause Familiarity 1.084 1 1.084 .771 .381 Cause Vested Interest 3.083 1 3.083 4.330 .039 Brand Familiarity Cause Fa miliarity .343 1 .343 .244 .322 Brand Familiarity Cause Vested Interest .413 1 .413 .294 .589 Cause Familiarity Cause Vested Interest .317 1 .317 .439 .509 Brand Familiarity Cause Fa miliarity Cause Vested Interest .033 1 .033 .025 .873 Error 221.977 158 1.405 Total 3454.000 133 Corrected Total 237.893 135 (X unfamiliar cause = 4.49) than familiar causes (X familiar cause = 4.32). However, the main effect of cause familiarity failed to reach significance (F = .77, df = 1,158, p =.38). Hypothesis 2 was thus not supported. Hypothesis 3 predicts th at causes that involve high vest ed interest will produce more favorable ATTB than causes that involve low ve sted interest. Results show, as predicted, that there was a significant main effect of cause vested intere st: Subjects in the high cause vested interest condition showed more favor able ATTB than those in the low cause vested interest condition (X high vested interest = 4.59, X low vested interest = 4.21, F = 4.33, df = 1,158, p < .05). Table 6 presents the means and sta ndard deviations of ATTC in experimental conditions. Figure 2 graphs the mean values of ATTC as a function of brand familiarity, cause familiarity, and cause vested interest. The ANOVA results are presented in Table 7. Supporting Hypothesis 4, the main effect of br and familiarity was significant: Subjects showed more favorable ATTC towards fa miliar brands than unfamiliar brands (X familiar brand = 5.28, X unfamiliar brand = 4.87, F = 7.29, df = 1,157, p < .005).

PAGE 45

38 Table 6 Means and Standard Deviations of ATTC in Experimental Conditions Brand Familiarity Cause Familiarity Cause Vested Interest Mean Standard Deviation N High 3.4137 .84379 22 Low 5.5553 .92095 22 High Total 5.9753 .97579 44 High 4.9298 1.28898 21 Low 4.2222 .73980 19 Low Total 4.5583 1.09489 40 High 5.3923 1.30731 43 Low 4.8889 1.07314 41 High Total Total 5.2757 1.25254 84 High 5.8333 1.10330 20 Low 4.8788 1.43040 21 High Total 5.3712 1.37383 41 High 4.4444 1.13203 19 Low 4.1579 .32231 21 Low Total 4.3083 .92539 40 High 5.1705 1.31811 39 Low 4.5447 1.19433 42 Low Total Total 4.8351 1.29030 81 High 3.1270 1.01734 42 Low 5.2093 1.25993 43 High Total 5.3327 1.22959 85 High 4.3750 1.21830 40 Low 4.1917 .39548 40 Low Total 4.4333 1.01521 80 High 5.4187 1.33108 82 Low 4.7189 1.14229 84 Total Total Total 5.0337 1.28479 135 Figure 2 Dependent Variable: ATTC (Attitude Towards the Cause) 5.56 4.22 4.88 6.42 4.93 5.86 4.16 4.44 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00 6.50 HI CVILOW CVI FAMILIAR BRAND FAMILIAR CAUSE FAMILIAR BRAND UNFAMILIAR CAUSE UNFAMILIAR BRAND FAMILIAR CAUSE UNFAMILIAR BRAND UNFAMILIAR CAUSE

PAGE 46

39 Table 7 Summary of ANOVA Results: Effects of Independent Variables on ATTC Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Significance Corrected Model 95.372 7 13.325 12.200 .000 Intercept 4209.817 1 4209.817 3739.499 .000 Brand Familiarity 8.140 1 8.140 7.288 .008 Cause Familiarity 33.245 1 33.245 53.330 .000 Cause Vested Interest 20.734 1 20.734 18.533 .000 Brand Familiarity Cause Fa miliarity 1.189 1 1.189 1.035 .304 Brand Familiarity Cause Vested Interest .227 1 .227 .203 .353 Cause Familiarity Cause Vested Interest 1.835 1 1.835 1.370 .198 Brand Familiarity Cause Fa miliarity Cause Vested Interest .733 1 .733 .383 .410 Error 175.339 157 1.117 Total 4503.444 135 Corrected Total 270.711 134 Hypothesis 5 predicts more favorable ATTC toward brands associated with familiar causes than unfamiliar causes. Consistent with the prediction, ANOVA results showed a significant main effect of cause familiar ity on ATTC: Familiar causes produced more favorable ATTC than unfamiliar causes (X familiar cause = 5.33, X unfamiliar cause = 4.43, F=53.33, p<.001). Table 8 presents the means and sta ndard deviations of ATTA in experimental conditions. Figure 3 graphs the mean values of ATTA as a function of brand familiarity, cause familiarity, and cause vested intere st. The ANOVA results presented in Table 9 indicated that none of the hypothesized main ef fects reached statistical significance. There was no significant difference in attit ude toward brand-cause alliance between familiar and unfamiliar brands (X familiar brand = 5.02, X unfamiliar brand = 4.93, F = .11, df = 1,157, p = .74), between familiar and unfamiliar causes (X familiar cause = 5.09, X unfamiliar cause = 4.87, F = 1.48, df = 1,157, p = .23), and between high and low cause vested interest (X high vested interest = 4.87, X low vested interest = 4.99, F = 2.39, df = 1,157, p =.10). Hypotheses 7, 8, and 9 were not supported.

PAGE 47

40 Table 8 Means and Standard Deviations of ATTA in Experimental Conditions Brand Familiarity Cause Familiarity Cause Vested Interest Mean Standard Deviation N High 5.3337 1.22307 22 Low 5.1743 1.41272 22 High Total 5.2383 1.31038 44 High 4.9349 1.22373 21 Low 4.5714 .98933 20 Low Total 4.7583 1.11193 41 High 5.1709 1.22533 43 Low 4.8730 1.24273 42 High Total Total 5.0135 1.23592 85 High 5.1337 1.25883 20 Low 4.3970 1.24383 21 High Total 4.9318 1.23078 41 High 5.0335 1.28071 19 Low 4.9000 .80277 21 Low Total 4.9837 1.03445 40 High 5.1133 1.25543 39 Low 4.7937 1.05140 42 Low Total Total 4.9539 1.13359 81 High 5.2319 1.23089 42 Low 4.9302 1.33342 43 High Total 5.0941 1.28855 85 High 5.0137 1.24023 40 Low 4.7317 .90744 41 Low Total 4.8724 1.08723 81 High 5.1423 1.23398 82 Low 4.8333 1.14480 84 Total Total Total 4.9859 1.19315 133 Figure 3 Dependent Variable: ATTA (A ttitude Towards the Alliance) 5.17 4.57 4.70 4.91 5.37 4.96 5.17 5.06 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 HI CVILOW CVI FAMILIAR BRAND FAMILIAR CAUSE FAMILIAR BRAND UNFAMILIAR CAUSE UNFAMILIAR BRAND FAMILIAR CAUSE UNFAMILIAR BRAND UNFAMILIAR CAUSE

PAGE 48

41 Table 9 Summary of ANOVA Results: Effects of Independent Variables on ATTA Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Significance Corrected Model 10.093 7 1.442 1.008 .428 Intercept 4121.111 1 4121.111 2881.315 .000 Brand Familiarity .132 1 .132 .114 .737 Cause Familiarity 2.120 1 2.120 1.482 .225 Cause Vested Interest 3.844 1 3.844 2.388 .103 Brand Familiarity Cause Fa miliarity 3.159 1 3.159 2.208 .139 Brand Familiarity Cause Vested Interest .003 1 .003 .004 .949 Cause Familiarity Cause Vested Interest .028 1 .028 .020 .888 Brand Familiarity Cause Fa miliarity Cause Vested Interest .337 1 .337 .433 .493 Error 225.983 158 1.430 Total 4332.778 133 Corrected Total 233.078 135 Hypotheses 10 through 18 predict that the extent to wh ich an independent variable exerts its influence on the depe ndent variables is a function of (or dependent upon) other independent variables. For example, Hypot hesis 13 predicts that high cause vested interest would facilitate or reinforce the effect of brand familiarity on ATTB. Familiar brands associated with causes of high vested interest would thus produce more favorable ATTB than familiar brands associated with causes of low vested interest. Similarly, unfamiliar brands associated with causes of high vested interest would produce more favorable ATTB than unfamiliar brands associated with causes of low vested interest. In ANOVA terms, hypotheses 10 through 18 would be supported by showing significant two-way interaction effects of the independent variables on dependent measures. Results (see Table 5, 7, and 9) showed, however, that none of the hypothesized interaction effects reached significa nce at the .05 level. In other words, the present study provided insufficient evidence to reject the null hypothe ses that the effects of the independent variables operated independently from each other. Table 10 summarizes the results of hypotheses testing and re levant statistics.

PAGE 49

42 Table 10 Summary of Hypotheses Testing Results Hypotheses Significance H1 A familiar brand will lead to a more favorable ATTB than an unfamiliar brand. (X familiar brand = 4.31, X unfamiliar brand = 4.20, F = 5.01, df = 1, p < .05) Significant H2 A familiar cause will have a more favorable ATTB than an unfamiliar cause. (X familiar cause = 4.32, X unfamiliar cause = 4.49, F = .771, df = 1, p = .38) Not significant H3 A cause with higher vested interest will have a more favorable ATTB than a cause with lower vested interest. (X high vested interest = 4.59, X low vested interest = 4.21, F = 4.33, df = 1,p< .05) Significant H4 A familiar brand will have a more favorable ATTC than an unfamiliar brand (X familiar brand = 5.28, X unfamiliar brand = 4.87, F = 7.29, df = 1, p < .005) Significant H5 A familiar cause will have a more favorable ATTC than an unfamiliar cause. (X familiar cause = 5.33, X unfamiliar cause = 4.43, F = 53.33, df = 1, p < .005) Not significant H3 A cause with higher vested interest will have a more favorable ATTC than a cause with lower vested interest. (X high vested interest = 5.42, X low vested interest = 4.72, F = 18.57, df = 1, p < .005) Significant H7 A familiar brand will have a more favorable ATTA than an unfamiliar brand. (X familiar brand = 5.02, X unfamiliar brand = 4.93, F = .114, df = 1, p = .74) Not significant H8 A familiar cause will have a more favorable ATTA than an unfamiliar cause. (X familiar cause = 5.09, X unfamiliar cause = 4.87, F = 1.48, df = 1, p = .22) Not significant H9 A cause with higher vested interest will have a more favorable ATTA than a cause with lower vested interest. (X high vested interest = 5.14, X low vested interest = 4.83, F = 2.39, df = 1, p = .10) Not significant H10 Cause familiarity can facilitate/reinforce the effects of brand familiarity on ATTB. Not significant H11 Cause familiarity can facilitate/reinforce the effects of brand familiarity on ATTC. Not significant H12 Cause familiarity can facilitate/reinforce the effects of brand familiarity on ATTA. Not significant H13 Vested interest in a cause can facilitate/reinforce the effects of brand familiarity on ATTB. Not significant H14 Vested interest in a cause can facilitate/reinforce the effects of brand familiarity on ATTC. Not significant H15 Vested interest in a cause can facilitate/reinforce the effects of brand familiarity on ATTA. Not significant H13 Vested interest in a cause can facilitate/reinforce the effects of cause familiarity on ATTB. Not significant H17 Vested interest in a cause can facilitate/reinforce the effects of cause familiarity on ATTC. Not significant H18 Vested interest in a cause can facilitate/reinforce the effects of cause familiarity on ATTA. Not significant

PAGE 50

43 Chapter Six Discussion Support for H1 seems to be understandably justified. Subjects who are familiar with a brand would be more likely to favor that brand over a brand they are not familiar with. In practice, advertisers consiste ntly pursue top of mind cons umer awareness and recall for the brands that they promote. Academic res earch, such as ELM, in to the peripheral route supports evidence that mere awareness of a br and, void of any deeper processing within the mind, can lead to purchase behavior. H3 has been supported by previous vest ed interest research. A cause with higher vested interest would have a more favorabl e attitude than a cause with lower vested interest. This study replicates previous findings by Crano. Surp risingly, a cause with higher vested interest also can create a more favorable atti tude towards the brand than a cause with lower vested interest. This is a significant finding wh ich supports the notion that perhaps familiarity is not the only vari able that should be taken into account when considering a brand-cause alliance. H2 was not significant. A familiar cause will not necessarily create a more favorable attitude towards the brand than an unfamiliar cause. This is an exciting discovery for the future re search of this thesis Perhaps brand-cause alliances could benefit the brand more if vested interest is co nsidered to be an important variable in the alliance decisi on process versus the current pr actice of popularity contests. H4 is a significant finding for both familiar and unfamiliar causes. If a familiar brand will result in a more favorable attitude to ward the cause than an unfamiliar brand, then

PAGE 51

44 people responsible for the causes need to c onsider the brand alliances carefully. The perceived “fit” between the brand and the cause might not need to be as relevant to the consumer as might be expected. The decisi on might be based on brand familiarity. None of the main effects on attitude towards the a lliance proved to be significant. Could it be possible that a consumer does not really care wh at brand is paired with what cause, as long as the brand is familiar and the cause is relevant? None of the hypotheses for the interac tion effects of familiarity and cause vested interest were supported. The main effects without interaction simply mean that cause vested interest could work without cause familiarity – neither seems to depend on the other based on the findings of the research presented. However theoretically and intuitively appealing the hypothe sized interaction effects migh t be, their absence does not necessarily diminish the importance of CVI. The results showed that the effects of the independent variables are additive (i.e., main effects), rather than multiplicative (i.e., interaction effects). That is, each of the independent variables has independent and unique contribution to CRM effectiveness. With regard to CVI, the present results suggest that it should be treated as primary factor in its own right, rather than a secondary or supplemental consideration in CRM planning. Interaction cuts both ways. Familiar brands may benefit from causes if causes happen to have high CVI. Theoretically, however, the reverse may also be true--causes with high vested interest may work better when they are associated with familiar brands. That is, high CVI in and of itself is not sufficient to produce optimal CRM effects. In the present context, the absence of interaction may act ually strengthen the argument for taking CVI seriously--its significant main effect indicates that it could be effective regardless of

PAGE 52

45 brand and cause familiarity. In other word s, high CVI can be effective in promoting familiar and unfamiliar brands, as well as familiar and unfamiliar causes. Limitations Several factors could improve the quality of the research presented. First, sample size could be vastly improved. Second, results we re obtained from stude nts who might not be at a stage in life where they are concerned about causes, or at least the causes presented in this particular research. Third, selection of the brand and the causes was extremely experimental at this first stage. Greater distinction between means for cause familiarity and cause vested interest could yield results with greater diversity. Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3 illustrate how similar the depende nt variables paralleled each other. A larger sample size with a larger selection of both brands and causes might also help to improve generalizability. Finally, the imperfect design of the stimu li contributed to the resu lts. Students had to make judgments about the causes based on the name of the cause, rather than a deeper explanation which would be more true to life in an alliance advertisement. The manipulations imposed by experimental a dvertising research necessary to isolate certain causal factors are often achieved at the expense of ex ternal validity and generalizability. This study is no exception. Before discussing the implications of the present findings, specific limitations are summarized. First, the ad stimuli used in the ex periments were artificia l and described a limited number of hypothetical bra nds in a single product categor y. Second, the conditions for ad exposure and processing were atypical in several respec ts: Ad exposure was forced

PAGE 53

46 and highly compressed; ads were presented in isolation without surrounding editorial content; since the experiments were done w ith college students, the results should be generalized only to subjects similar to the gr oup of students participated in the study. All these limitations should be kept in mind when evaluating the results and their implications.

PAGE 54

47 Chapter Seven Conclusion Vested interest deserves further exploration regarding to its role as a variable in the brand-cause alliance. More brands, more causes, and more alliances need to be considered. Speaking altruistically, the proof will come in CRM practice from the successful alliance of a relevant unknown cause in a brand-cause alliance. A successful case study will have far deeper significance in reality than empirical data supporting the importance of vested intere st in theory building. A cause bears absolutely no resemblance to a brand. If brands are in business to make money, then causes should be in business to make problems obsolete. Ideally, a successful brand-cause alliance wi ll last only as long as the pr oblem exists. Realistically, solutions will not occur on any predictable sche dule and a brand will have to hang in for the long run. This makes cause relevance ev en more important. The fickle nature of consumers, who have been trained through advertising to seek out what is popular (familiar) today cannot be expected to maintain a high level of involvement when the next popular issue arises tomorrow. Vested interest can also help to de termine what causes to support. Bill Gates has amassed the greatest personal fortune in modern times. He built his fortune on the paychecks of millions of consumers, yet he alone will determine what causes to support. He alone will decide if has wants to support any cause at all. If CRM becomes a standard marketing practice, then consumers will decide which causes to support. Consumers will vote with their hard earned money by deciding what brands to purchase. Competing

PAGE 55

48 brands will have cause vested interest to counter brand familiarity. Perhaps this is thinking far too altruisticall y, but imagine the possibility of consumers taking an active role in solving societal problems simply by deciding which brands to purchase. Imagine that the success of a company is dependent on the company it keeps. CRM programs also can be profit-m otivated and cause-related simultaneously. Subway is one of the largest food franchises in the U.S. As territories become saturated, Subway is looking for new distribution channels to increase franchis e opportunities. The mobile food service industry is an untapped resource. Most breakfast and lunch vendors are private small business owners who own their own truck and manage their own food service. Imagine Subway expanding into th e mobile food service with branded trucks and service. Take one more step into CRM and imagine the Subway Soup & Sub Kitchen Corp. Wherever disast er strikes, you will see the Subw ay fleet of trucks serving free soup and subs to victims and volunteers. This is an economic motivation with an altruistic capability, which hopefully will prove to be an enduring strength of CRM. The question is: As a consumer, would you choose to go to Subway? Figure 4 The Soup and Sub Kitchen Corp

PAGE 56

49 Finally, the ideals and values that we are teaching to new advertising students need to open up creative possibilities. Advertising has an important role in American society, yet it is constrained by standardized practices a nd successful norms. Teaching the unfettered mind of a new student without these constr aints about CRM is important. We do not need to create constraints in the practice of CRM before inventive minds have had a crack at it. The importance of vested intere st is but one possibil ity in the brand-cause alliance. How many others are there?

PAGE 57

50 References Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizi ng on the value of a brand name New York, NY: The Free Press. Aaker, D. A. (1993). Building strong brands New York, NY: The Free Press. Aaker, D. A. & Biel, A. L. (Eds.). (1993). Brand equity & advertisi ng: Advertising’s role in building strong brands. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Aaker, D. A. & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000). Brand leadership New York, NY: The Free Press. Aaker, D. A. & Keller, K. L. (1990). C onsumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 27-41. Barnes, N. G. & Fitzgibbons, D. A. (1991). Is cause related marke ting in your future? Business Forum 16(4), 20-23. Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2000). The influence of cause-related marketing on consumer choice: Does one good turn deserve another? Academy of Marketing Science Journal 28(2), 248-262. Broniarczyk, S. M. & Alba, J. A. (1994). The im portance of the brand in brand extension. Journal of Marketing Research 31(2), 214-228. Brown, T. J. & Dacin, P. A. (1997). Th e company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing 61(1), 68-84. Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm fo r developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16, 64-73.

PAGE 58

51 Crano, W. D. (1995). Attitude stre ngth and vested interest in R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.) Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp.131-157). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dacin, P. A. & Brown, T. J. (2002). Corporat e identity and corpor ate associations: A framework for future research. Corporate Reputation Review 5, 254-263. Dalai Lama & Cutler, H. C. (1998). The art of happiness: A handbook for living New York, NY: Riverhead Books. Dillon, W. R., Madden, T. J., Kirmani, A ., & Mukherjee, S. (2001). Understanding what’s in a brand rating: A model for asse ssing the brand and attribute effects and their relationship to brand equity. Journal of Marketing Research 38(4), 415-429. Drumwright, M. (1996, October). Company advertis ing with a social dimension: The role of noneconomic criteria. Journal of Marketing 60, 71-87. Drumwright, M. & Murphy, P. E. (2001). Corpor ate societal marketi ng. In P. N. Bloom & G. T. Gundlach (Eds.) Handbook of marketing and society (pp. 162-183). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Exploring Brand Equity: An Insightful Collectio n of Noteworthy Articles and Papers of Conceptual, Definitional, Attitudinal Behavioral, Monetary Worth, and Multidimensional Aspects of Brand Equity (1995). New York, NY: Advertising Research Foundation. Fisher, D. (1980). American philanthropy and the social science in Britain, 1919-1939: The reproduction of a conservative ideology. Sociological Review 28(2), 277315. Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

PAGE 59

52 Hoeffler, S. & Keller, K. L. (2002). Buildi ng brand equity through corporate societal marketing. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 21(1), 78-90. Jones, J. P. & Slater, J. S. (2003). What’s in a name?: Adver tising and the concept of brands (2nd ed). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research 29(4), 595-601. Keller, K. L. (2001). Editorial: Brand research imperatives. The Journal of Brand Management, 9(1), 4-7. Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptu alizing, measuring, and mana ging customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing 57(1), 1-22. Keller, K. L. & Aaker, D. A. (1992). The e ffects of sequential introduction of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research 29(1), 35-50. Kotler, P. (1987). Humanistic Marketing: Be yond the marketing concept. In A. Fuat Firat, N. Dholakia, & R. Bagozzi (Eds.), Philosophical and radi cal thought in marketing (pp. 269-283). New York: Lexington Books. Lafferty, B. A. (1999). Assessing cause-brand alliance eva luations on subsequent attitudes toward th e cause and the brand Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Florida. MacKay, M. M. (2001). Evaluation of brand equi ty measures: Further empirical results. The Journal of Product and Brand Management 10(1), 38. Na, W. B., Marshall, R., & Ke ller, K. L. (1999). Measuri ng brand power: Validating a model for optimizing brand equity. The Journal of Product and Brand Management 8(3), 170.

PAGE 60

53 Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ogilvy, D. (1983). Ogilvy on advertising New York, NY: Vintage Books. Perry, A. & Wisnom, D., III. (2003). Before the brand: Creating the unique DNA of an enduring brand identity. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986a). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986b). The el aboration likelihood mode l of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123205). New York, NY: Academic. Pringle, H. & Thompson, M. (1999). Brand spirit: How cause related marketing builds brands Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons. Richards, I., Foster, D., & Morgan, R. ( 1998). Brand Knowledge management: Growing brand equity. Journal of Knowledge Management 2(1), 47-55. Ries, A. & Trout, J. (2001). Positioning: The battle for your mind New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Schmidt, K. & Ludlow, C. (2002). Inclusive branding: The why and how of a holistic approach to brands. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Simonin, B. L. & Ruth, J. A. (1998). Is a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing the spillover effect s of brand alliances on cons umer brand attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 30-42. Smith, W. & Higgins, M. (2003). Cause-relate d marketing: Ethics and the ecstatic. Business and Society 39(3), 304-322. Stroup, M. A., Neubert, R. L., & Anderson, J. W., Jr. (1987). Doing good, doing better:

PAGE 61

54 Two views of social responsibility. Business Horizons March-April, 22-25. Till, B. D. & Nowak, L. I. (2000). Toward effective use of caus e-related marketing alliances. The Journal of Product and Brand Management 9(7), 472. VanAuken, B. (2003). Brand aid: An easy reference gui de to solving your toughest branding problems and strengthening your marketing position New York, NY: AMACOM. Van Osselaer, S. J. & Alba, J. W. (20 03). Locus of equity and brand extension. Journal of Consumer Research 29(4), 539-551. Varadarajan, P. R. & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Marketing 52, 58-74. Washburn, J. H. & Plank, R.E. (2002). Measur ing brand equity: An evaluation of a consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 10(1), 46-63. Washburn, J. H., Till, B. D., & Priluck, R. (2000). Co-branding: Brand equity and trial effects. The Journal of Consumer Marketing 17(7), 591. Webb, D. J. & Mohr, L. A. (1998). A typology of consumer responses to cause-related marketing: From skeptics to socially concerned. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 17(2), 226-238. Wood, L. (2000). Brands and brand e quity: Definition and management. Management Decision 38(9), 662. Yechiam, E., Barron, G., Erev, I., & Erez, M. (2002). On the robustness and direction of the effect of cause-related marketing. Journal of Consumer Behavior 2(4), 320332.

PAGE 62

55 Appendices

PAGE 63

56 Appendix A: Questionnaire Version 1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS The following questionnaire is in terested in determining your reactions to magazine advertisements. An ad has been provided for you to examine. Please read the ad as you would norma lly do. After you read the ad, please answer all of the questions that follow -then proceed to the next page. Please answer all of the questions before you turn the page. For those questions that have more than one scale to measure them, please make sure that you circle a number on every scale. Thank you for your help. 1

PAGE 64

57 Appendix A Continued

PAGE 65

58 Appendix A Continued Please circle the response that most closely represents your feelings. 1. I am familiar with AT&T Wireless cellular phone service: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 2. AT&T Wireless cellular phone se rvice is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 4. My overall impression of AT&T Wireless cellular phone service is: Like Dislike : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Good Bad : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 5. I am familiar with the American Red Cross: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 6. The American Red Cross is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 7. I have a stake in the American Red Cross: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 8. The American Red Cross is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 9. My support of the American Red Cr oss will ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree

PAGE 66

59 Appendix A Continued 10. The consequences of my support of the American Red Cross will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 11. My support of the American Red Cross could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 12. My overall impression of the American Red Cross is: Like Dislike : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Good Bad : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 13. I feel that AT&T’s alliance with the American Red Cross is: Positive Negative : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Good Bad : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Important to me Unimportant to me : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 14. Based on the ad, how likely is it that you would c onsider signing up for AT&T Wi reless cellular phone service? Very likely Very unlikely : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Definitely would consider De finitely would not consider : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Very probable Not probable at all : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 15. Are you currently a user of AT&T Wireless cellular phone service? YES NO

PAGE 67

60 Appendix B: Questionnaire 2 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS The following questionnaire is in terested in determining your reactions to magazine advertisements. An ad has been provided for you to examine. Please read the ad as you would norma lly do. After you read the ad, please answer all of the questions that follow -then proceed to the next page. Please answer all of the questions before you turn the page. For those questions that have more than one scale to measure them, please make sure that you circle a number on every scale. Thank you for your help. 2

PAGE 68

61 Appendix B Continued

PAGE 69

62 Appendix B Continued Please circle the response that most closely represents your feelings. 1. I am familiar with AT&T Wireless cellular phone service: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 2. AT&T Wireless cellular phone se rvice is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 4. My overall impression of AT&T Wireless cellular phone service is: Like Dislike : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Good Bad : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 5. I am familiar with the United Way: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 6. The United Way is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 7. I have a stake in the United Way: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 8. The United Way is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 9. My support of the United Way w ill ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree

PAGE 70

63 Appendix B Continued 10. The consequences of my support of the United Way will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 11. My support of the United Way could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 12. My overall impression of the United Way is: Like Dislike : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Good Bad : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 13. I feel that AT&T’s alliance with the United Way is: Positive Negative : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Good Bad : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Important to me Unimportant to me : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 14. Based on the ad, how likely is it that you would c onsider signing up for AT&T Wi reless cellular phone service? Very likely Very unlikely : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Definitely would consider De finitely would not consider : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Very probable Not probable at all : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 15. Are you currently a user of AT&T Wireless cellular phone service? YES NO

PAGE 71

64 Appendix C: Questionnaire 3 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS The following questionnaire is in terested in determining your reactions to magazine advertisements. An ad has been provided for you to examine. Please read the ad as you would norma lly do. After you read the ad, please answer all of the questions that follow -then proceed to the next page. Please answer all of the questions before you turn the page. For those questions that have more than one scale to measure them, please make sure that you circle a number on every scale. Thank you for your help. 3

PAGE 72

65 Appendix C Continued

PAGE 73

66 Appendix C Continued Please circle the response that most closely represents your feelings. 1. I am familiar with AT&T Wireless cellular phone service: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 2. AT&T Wireless cellular phone se rvice is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 4. My overall impression of AT&T Wireless cellular phone service is: Like Dislike : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Good Bad : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 5. I am familiar with the School Crossing Safety Program: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 6. The School Crossing Safety Pr ogram is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 7. I have a stake in the School Crossing Safety Program: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 8. The School Crossing Safety Program is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 9. My support of the School Crossing Safety Program will ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree

PAGE 74

67 Appendix C Continued 10. The consequences of my support of the Sch ool Crossing Safety Program will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 11. My support of the School Crossing Sa fety Program could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 12. My overall impression of the Sc hool Crossing Safety Program is: Like Dislike : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Good Bad : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 13. I feel that AT&T’s alliance with the School Crossing Safety Program is: Positive Negative : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Good Bad : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Important to me Unimportant to me : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 14. Based on the ad, how likely is it that you would c onsider signing up for AT&T Wi reless cellular phone service? Very likely Very unlikely : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Definitely would consider De finitely would not consider : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Very probable Not probable at all : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 15. Are you currently a user of AT&T Wireless cellular phone service? YES NO

PAGE 75

68 Appendix D: Questionnaire 4 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS The following questionnaire is in terested in determining your reactions to magazine advertisements. An ad has been provided for you to examine. Please read the ad as you would norma lly do. After you read the ad, please answer all of the questions that follow -then proceed to the next page. Please answer all of the questions before you turn the page. For those questions that have more than one scale to measure them, please make sure that you circle a number on every scale. Thank you for your help. 4

PAGE 76

69 Appendix D Continued

PAGE 77

70 Appendix D Continued Please circle the response that most closely represents your feelings. 1. I am familiar with AT&T Wireless cellular phone service: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 2. AT&T Wireless cellular phone se rvice is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 4. My overall impression of AT&T Wireless cellular phone service is: Like Dislike : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Good Bad : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 5. I am familiar with Growing Friends: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 6. Growing Friends is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 7. I have a stake in Growing Friends: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 8. Growing Friends is im portant to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 9. My support of Growing Friends will ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree

PAGE 78

71 Appendix D Continued 10. The consequences of my support of Growing Friends will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 11. My support of Growing Friends could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 12. My overall impression of Growing Friends is: Like Dislike : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Good Bad : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 13. I feel that AT&T’s alliance with Growing Friends is: Positive Negative : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Good Bad : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Important to me Unimportant to me : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 14. Based on the ad, how likely is it that you would c onsider signing up for AT&T Wi reless cellular phone service? Very likely Very unlikely : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Definitely would consider De finitely would not consider : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Very probable Not probable at all : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 15. Are you currently a user of AT&T Wireless cellular phone service? YES NO

PAGE 79

72 Appendix E: Questionnaire 5 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS The following questionnaire is in terested in determining your reactions to magazine advertisements. An ad has been provided for you to examine. Please read the ad as you would norma lly do. After you read the ad, please answer all of the questions that follow -then proceed to the next page. Please answer all of the questions before you turn the page. For those questions that have more than one scale to measure them, please make sure that you circle a number on every scale. Thank you for your help. 5

PAGE 80

73 Appendix E Continued

PAGE 81

74 Appendix E Continued Please circle the response that most closely represents your feelings. 1. I am familiar with CricKet Wireless cellular phone service: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 2. CricKet Wireless cellular phone service is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 4. My overall impression of CricKe t Wireless cellular phone service is: Like Dislike : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Good Bad : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 5. I am familiar with the American Red Cross: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 6. The American Red Cross is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 7. I have a stake in the American Red Cross: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 8. The American Red Cross is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 9. My support of the American Red Cr oss will ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree

PAGE 82

75 Appendix E Continued 10. The consequences of my support of the American Red Cross will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 11. My support of the American Red Cross could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 12. My overall impression of the American Red Cross is: Like Dislike : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Good Bad : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 13. I feel that CricKet’s alliance with the American Red Cross is: Positive Negative : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Good Bad : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Important to me Unimportant to me : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 14. Based on the ad, how likely is it that you would cons ider signing up for CricKet Wi reless cellular phone service? Very likely Very unlikely : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Definitely would consider De finitely would not consider : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Very probable Not probable at all : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 15. Are you currently a user of CricKe t Wireless cellular phone service? YES NO

PAGE 83

76 Appendix F: Questionnaire 6 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS The following questionnaire is in terested in determining your reactions to magazine advertisements. An ad has been provided for you to examine. Please read the ad as you would norma lly do. After you read the ad, please answer all of the questions that follow -then proceed to the next page. Please answer all of the questions before you turn the page. For those questions that have more than one scale to measure them, please make sure that you circle a number on every scale. Thank you for your help. 6

PAGE 84

77 Appendix F Continued

PAGE 85

78 Appendix F Continued Please circle the response that most closely represents your feelings. 1. I am familiar with CricKet Wireless cellular phone service: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 2. CricKet Wireless cellular phone service is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 4. My overall impression of CricKe t Wireless cellular phone service is: Like Dislike : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Good Bad : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 5. I am familiar with the United Way: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 6. The United Way is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 7. I have a stake in the United Way: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 8. The United Way is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 9. My support of the United Way w ill ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree

PAGE 86

79 Appendix F Continued 10. The consequences of my support of the United Way will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 11. My support of the United Way could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 12. My overall impression of the United Way is: Like Dislike : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Good Bad : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 13. I feel that CricKet’s alliance with the United Way is: Positive Negative : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Good Bad : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Important to me Unimportant to me : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 14. Based on the ad, how likely is it that you would cons ider signing up for CricKet Wi reless cellular phone service? Very likely Very unlikely : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Definitely would consider De finitely would not consider : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Very probable Not probable at all : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 15. Are you currently a user of CricKe t Wireless cellular phone service? YES NO

PAGE 87

80 Appendix G: Questionnaire 7 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS The following questionnaire is in terested in determining your reactions to magazine advertisements. An ad has been provided for you to examine. Please read the ad as you would norma lly do. After you read the ad, please answer all of the questions that follow -then proceed to the next page. Please answer all of the questions before you turn the page. For those questions that have more than one scale to measure them, please make sure that you circle a number on every scale. Thank you for your help. 7

PAGE 88

81 Appendix G Continued

PAGE 89

82 Appendix G Continued Please circle the response that most closely represents your feelings. 1. I am familiar with CricKet Wireless cellular phone service: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 2. CricKet Wireless cellular phone service is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 4. My overall impression of CricKe t Wireless cellular phone service is: Like Dislike : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Good Bad : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 5. I am familiar with the School Crossing Safety Program: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 6. The School Crossing Safety Pr ogram is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 7. I have a stake in the School Crossing Safety Program: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 8. The School Crossing Safety Program is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 9. My support of the School Crossing Safety Program will ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree

PAGE 90

83 Appendix G Continued 10. The consequences of my support of the Sch ool Crossing Safety Program will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 11. My support of the School Crossing Sa fety Program could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 12. My overall impression of the Sc hool Crossing Safety Program is: Like Dislike : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Good Bad : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 13. I feel that CricKet’s alliance w ith the School Crossing Safety Program is: Positive Negative : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Good Bad : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Important to me Unimportant to me : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 14. Based on the ad, how likely is it that you would cons ider signing up for CricKet Wi reless cellular phone service? Very likely Very unlikely : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Definitely would consider De finitely would not consider : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Very probable Not probable at all : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 15. Are you currently a user of CricKe t Wireless cellular phone service? YES NO

PAGE 91

84 Appendix H: Questionnaire 8 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS The following questionnaire is in terested in determining your reactions to magazine advertisements. An ad has been provided for you to examine. Please read the ad as you would norma lly do. After you read the ad, please answer all of the questions that follow -then proceed to the next page. Please answer all of the questions before you turn the page. For those questions that have more than one scale to measure them, please make sure that you circle a number on every scale. Thank you for your help. 8

PAGE 92

85 Appendix H Continued

PAGE 93

86 Appendix H Continued Please circle the response that most closely represents your feelings. 1. I am familiar with CricKet Wireless cellular phone service: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 2. CricKet Wireless cellular phone service is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 4. My overall impression of CricKe t Wireless cellular phone service is: Like Dislike : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Good Bad : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 5. I am familiar with Growing Friends: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 6. Growing Friends is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 7. I have a stake in Growing Friends: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 8. Growing Friends is im portant to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 9. My support of Growing Friends will ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree

PAGE 94

87 Appendix H Continued 10. The consequences of my support of Growing Friends will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 11. My support of Growing Friends could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 12. My overall impression of Growing Friends is: Like Dislike : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Good Bad : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Wanted Unwanted : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 13. I feel that CricKet’s alliance with Growing Friends is: Positive Negative : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Favorable Unfavorable : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Good Bad : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Important to me Unimportant to me : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 14. Based on the ad, how likely is it that you would cons ider signing up for CricKet Wi reless cellular phone service? Very likely Very unlikely : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Definitely would consider De finitely would not consider : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : Very probable Not probable at all : 7 : 6 : 5 : 4 : 3 : 2 : 1 : 15. Are you currently a user of CricKe t Wireless cellular phone service? YES NO

PAGE 95

Cause-Response Questionnaire Instructions The purpose of this study is to measure people’s involvement with causes. We need you to judge various causes against a series of descriptive scales according to how you perceive the cause. Here is how to use these scales: Please circle the response that most closely represents your feelings. For example, if you strongly agree with a statement concerning the cause, then ci rcle “+2 Strongly agree.” -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree If you strongly disagree with a statement concerning the cause, then circle “-2 Strongly disagree.” -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree Please circle only one response per question. • American Red Cross™ 1. I am familiar with the American Red Cross: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 2. The American Red Cross is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 3. I have a stake in the American Red Cross: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 4. The American Red Cross is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 5. My support of the American Red Cr oss will ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 6. The consequences of my support of th e American Red Cross will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 7. My support of the American Re d Cross could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree Appendix I: Pretest Questionnaire 88

PAGE 96

• The School Crossing Safety Program™ 8. I am familiar with the School Crossing Safety Program: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 9. The School Crossing Safety Pr ogram is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 10. I have a stake in the School Crossing Safety Program: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 11. The School Crossing Safety Progr am is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 12. My support of the School Crossing Safety Program will en sure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 13. The consequences of my support of the Sc hool Crossing Safety Program will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 14. My support of the School Crossing Sa fety Program could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree • 3rd Generation Welfare Association™ 15. I am familiar with the 3rd Generation Welfare Association: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 16. The 3rd Generation Welfare As sociation is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 17. I have a stake in the 3rd Generation Welfare Association: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 18. The 3rd Generation Welfare Association is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 19. My support of the 3rd Gene ration Welfare Association will ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 20. The consequences of my support of th e 3rd Generation Welfare Association will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 21. My support of the 3rd Generation Welf are Association could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree Appendix I Continued 89

PAGE 97

• The Sierra Club™ 22. I am familiar with the Sierra Club: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 23. The Sierra Club is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 24. I have a stake in the Sierra Club: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 25. The Sierra Club is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 26. My support of the Sierra Club will ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 27. The consequences of my support of the Sierra Club will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 28. My support of the Sierra Club could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree • UNICEF™ 29. I am familiar with UNICEF: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 30. UNICEF is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 31. I have a stake in UNICEF: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 32. UNICEF is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 33. My support of UNICEF will ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 34. The consequences of my support of UNICEF will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 35. My support of UNICEF could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 90 Appendix I Continued

PAGE 98

• Watch for Motorcycles™ 36. I am familiar with Watch for Motorcycles: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 37. Watch for Motorcycles is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 38. I have a stake in Watch for Motorcycles: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 39. Watch for Motorcycles is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 40. My support of Watch for Motorcyc les will ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 41. The consequences of my support of Watch for Motorcycles will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 42. My support of Watch for Moto rcycles could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree • March of Dimes™ 43. I am familiar with the March of Dimes: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 44. The March of Dimes is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 45. I have a stake in the March of Dimes: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 46. The March of Dimes is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 47. My support of the March of Dime s will ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 48. The consequences of my support of the March of Dimes will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 49. My support of the March of Dimes could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree Appendix I Continued 91

PAGE 99

• The Mobile Soup Kitchen™ 50. I am familiar with the Mobile Soup Kitchen: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 51. The Mobile Soup Kitchen is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 52. I have a stake in the Mobile Soup Kitchen: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 53. The Mobile Soup Kitchen is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 54. My support of the Mobile Soup Kitc hen will ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 55. The consequences of my support of th e Mobile Soup Kitchen will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 56. My support of the Mobile Soup Kitchen could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree • Growing Friends™ 57. I am familiar with Growing Friends: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 58. Growing Friends is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 59. I have a stake in Growing Friends: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 60. Growing Friends is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 61. My support of Grow ing Friends will ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 62. The consequences of my support of Growing Friends will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 63. My support of Growing Frie nds could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree Appendix I Continued 92

PAGE 100

• YMCA™ 64. I am familiar with the YMCA: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 65. The YMCA is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 66. I have a stake in the YMCA: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 67. The YMCA is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 68. My support of the YMCA will ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 69. The consequences of my support of the YMCA will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 70. My support of the YMCA could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree • Eating for Life™ 71. I am familiar with Eating for Life: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 72. Eating for Life is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 73. I have a stake in Eating for Life: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 74. Eating for Life is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 75. My support of Eating for Life will ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 76. The consequences of my support of Eating for Life will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 77. My support of Eating for Life could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree Appendix I Continued 93

PAGE 101

• Bike to Work™ 78. I am familiar with Bike to Work: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 79. Bike to Work is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 80. I have a stake in Bike to Work: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 81. Bike to Work is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 82. My support of Bike to Work will ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 83. The consequences of my support of Bike to Work will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 84. My support of Bike to Wo rk could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree • American Cancer Society™ 85. I am familiar with the American Cancer Society: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 86. The American Cancer Society is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 87. I have a stake in the American Cancer Society: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 88. The American Cancer Society is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 89. My support of the American Cancer Society will ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 90. The consequences of my support of the American Cancer Society will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 91. My support of the American Cancer Society could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree Appendix I Continued 94

PAGE 102

• The Salvation Army™ 92. I am familiar with the Salvation Army: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 93. The Salvation Army is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 94. I have a stake in the Salvation Army: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 95. The Salvation Army is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 96. My support of the Salvation Army will ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 97. The consequences of my support of the Salvation Army will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 98. My support of the Salvation Army could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree • Goodwill™ 99. I am familiar with Goodwill: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 100. Goodwill is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 101. I have a stake in Goodwill: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 102. Goodwill is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 103. My support of Goodwill will ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 104. The consequences of my support of Goodwill will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 105. My support of Goodwill could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree Appendix I Continued 95

PAGE 103

• The Special Olympics™ 106. I am familiar with the Special Olympics: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 107. The Special Olympics is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 108. I have a stake in the Special Olympics: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 109. The Special Olympics is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 110. My support of the Special Olympics will ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 111. The consequences of my support of the Special Olympics will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 112. My support of the Special Olympics could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree • Library Free America™ 113. I am familiar with Library Free America: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 114. Library Free America is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 115. I have a stake in Library Free America: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 116. Library Free America is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 117. My support of Library Free Ameri ca will ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 118. The consequences of my support of Library Free America will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 119. My support of Library Free America could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree Appendix I Continued 96

PAGE 104

• 211™ 120. I am familiar with 211: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 121. 211 is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 122. I have a stake in 211: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 123. 211 is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 124. My support of 211 will ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 125. The consequences of my support of 211 will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 126. My support of 211 could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree • The United Way™ 127. I am familiar with the United Way: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 128. The United Way is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 129. I have a stake in the United Way: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 130. The United Way is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 131. My support of the United Way will ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 132. The consequences of my support of the United Way will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 133. My support of the United Way could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree Appendix I Continued 97

PAGE 105

• Organic Consumers Association™ 134. I am familiar with the Organic Consumers Association: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 135. The Organic Consumers Association is known to many people: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 136. I have a stake in the Organic Consumers Association: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 137. The Organic Consumers Associati on is important to me personally: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 138. My support of the Organic Consumers A ssociation will ensure specific consequences: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 139. The consequences of my support of the Or ganic Consumers Association will be immediate: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree 140. My support of the Organic Consumer s Association could make a difference: -2 -1 0 +1 +2 Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree or disagree Agree Strongly agree Thank You Appendix I Continued 98


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001498101
003 fts
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 041209s2004 flua sbm s000|0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0000478
035
(OCoLC)57708815
9
AJU6696
b SE
SFE0000478
040
FHM
c FHM
090
P90 (ONLINE)
1 100
O'Brien, Charles G.
0 245
Building a case for the unfamiliar cause in cause-related marketing
h [electronic resource] :
the importance of cause vested interest /
by Charles G. O'Brien.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
2004.
502
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2004.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 105 pages.
520
ABSTRACT: Marketing and advertising practitioners are currently matching up a brand with a cause and broadcasting the association to consumers in a practice called cause related marketing (CRM). Scholars are building a stream of academic research which seeks to understand the relationship between a brand and a cause (a.k.a., alliance) in relation to the final outcome of a CRM campaign. Ostensibly, both partners benefit from this alliance, although many CRM studies seek to understand how to optimize this relationship for each partner. In professional practice and academic research both practitioners and researchers have focused on established, popular, well-known causes in consideration of successful alliances. Less established, unfamiliar, unknown causes have yet to be considered for possible alliances.This research seeks to build a case for the successful alliance between a brand and an unfamiliar cause with an outcome that will outperform an alliance between the same brand and an established, popular, well-known cause. An experiment was conducted in which familiarity with the brand, familiarity with the cause, and vested interest in the cause were manipulated, and their effects on attitude towards the brand, attitude towards the cause, and attitude towards the brand-cause alliance measured. Results indicated that cause vested interest had a significant influence on attitude towards the brand and attitude towards the cause, regardless of brand and cause familiarity.
590
Adviser: Liu, Scott.
653
CRM.
brand-cause alliance.
branding.
vested interest.
charities.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Mass Communications
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.478