The company-cause-customer fit decision incause-related marketing

Shruti Gupta

Penn State University – Abington, Abington, Pennsylvania, USA, and

Julie PirschVillanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania, USA

AbstractPurpose – Cause-related marketing activities are increasingly becoming a meaningful part of corporate marketing plans. This paper aims to examinethe relationship between the company, cause and customer, and how fit between these three groups influences consumer response via generating apositive attitude toward the company-cause alliance and purchase intent for the sponsored product.Design/methodology/approach – Two studies are carried out, first among students and second among consumers.Findings – Two studies (study 1 ¼ 232 students, study 2 ¼ 531 consumers) demonstrate that company-cause fit improves attitude toward thecompany-cause alliance and increases purchase intent. Additionally, this effect is enhanced under conditions of customer-company and customer-causecongruence, and the consumer’s overall attitude toward the sponsoring company. Skepticism about the company’s motivation for participating in acause-related marketing initiative was not relevant to consumer purchase decisions.Research limitations/implications – Results from these studies suggest that consumers may in fact make two different assessments of thesponsoring company in a cause-related marketing campaign. One assessment may be more cognitive where the consumer compares his or her ownidentity to that of the company: “Is this company like me? Are our identities alike?” The second assessment is more affective or emotional: “Do I likethis company? Do I feel positively about this company?” The strength of the consumer sample suggests that when building a cause-related marketingprogram, marketing managers should select a cause that makes sense to the consumer to be a partner in the alliance, build a general positive feelingtoward their brand, and limit any self-serving promotion of the cause-related marketing alliance to the target consumer population.Originality/value – The paper provides useful information on the relationship between the company, cause and customer, and how the fit betweenthese three groups influences consumer response.

Keywords Cause marketing, Customers

Paper type Research paper

An executive summary for managers and executive

readers can be found at the end of this article.

Introduction

After the recent 2004 tsunami in Asia, the Washington Post

profiled a number of companies who donated money to the

relief effort. For example, Starbucks chose to donate two

dollars to disaster relief in Indonesia for each pound of

Sumatran coffee purchased, while Avon agreed to donate

three dollars to reconstruction efforts for each “Heart of Asia”

pin purchased by its customers (Cooperman, 2005). This

type of corporate charitable donation is an example of cause-

related marketing: a program designed to create a partnership

between a sponsoring firm and a non-profit cause to raise

money through product sales (Varadarajan and Menon,

1988).

The increasing strategic importance and consumer

relevance of such socially responsible marketing initiatives is

evidenced in the results of a Cone and Roper consumer

survey (Cone Inc., 2004). Approximately 80 percent of

consumers surveyed stated corporations who support a cause

generate greater trust, 86 percent said they would switch

brands to a cause-supporting product when faced with a

choice of equal product price and quality, and 85 percent said

the company’s commitment to a social cause was important

when deciding whom to do business with in their local

community.These results suggest that while marketing in general is

focused on the process of selling, influencing and persuading

the end user to purchase a product, companies feel compelled

to serve and satisfy the human needs of their customers

(Kotler and Levy, 1969) and of their other internal and

external publics (Kotler, 1972), both out of obligation to

society, and to achieve positive consumer rewards. Cause-

related marketing allows the marketer to reach these publics

and help consumers differentiate one company from the otherThe current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm

Journal of Consumer Marketing

23/6 (2006) 314–326

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761]

[DOI 10.1108/07363760610701850]

The authors would like to thank MSI International, a full-servicemarketing intelligence firm based near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for thegenerous contribution of their survey programming and internet surveypanel for data collection for this research. The authors are listed inalphabetical order.

314

by tying a company’s “economic activity to a higher social

purpose” (Kotler and Levy, 1969, p. 15).But how do companies ensure the success of such corporate

social responsibility (CSR) initiatives, specifically in the case

of using cause-related marketing campaigns? Research in

marketing addressing this question generally falls into two

categories:1 the effect of company-cause fit on purchase intent (e.g.

Lafferty et al., 2004); and2 the degree of congruence between the customer and the

company (C-C congruence) as perceived by the customer

(Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003).

Examining each relationship separately, however, fails to

capture all of the elements of this “. . . complex utilitarian

economic exchange between the customer, the firm and the

cause” (Ross et al., 1992).This paper examines the impact of the exchange between

the customer, company and the cause in cause-related

marketing by utilizing the knowledge from these two

principle literature streams. The framework proposed here

suggests that two key factors play an instrumental role in

predicting the success of a cause-related marketing campaign

in terms of generating purchase intent for the sponsored

product: company-cause fit and customer identification with

both the company and the cause. Two studies of 232 students

and 531 consumers from a national online panel provide

empirical evidence for the importance of these two

components of successful cause-related marketing

campaigns. Additionally, in the second study two

moderating variables designed to assess the consumer’s

affective assessment of company-cause fit are added:

attitude toward the sponsoring company, and skepticism

about the company’s motivation for sponsoring a cause-

related marketing campaign. Results demonstrate that while

overall attitude toward the sponsoring company significantly

affects the consumer’s attitude towards the company-cause fit,

their level of skepticism about the company’s motivations for

sponsoring the cause-related marketing campaign does not

affect the campaign’s effectiveness.

Conceptual background and model

In a seminal paper on cause-related marketing, Varadarajan

and Menon (1988, p. 60) offer the most comprehensive

cause-related marketing conceptualization, defining it as:

. . . the process of formulating and implementing marketing activities that are

characterized by an offer from the firm to contribute a specified amount to adesignated cause when customers engage in revenue-providing exchanges

that satisfy organizational and individual objectives.

Among other benefits to the sponsoring company, cause-

related marketing programs can generate favorable purchase

intent or product choice among the sponsoring firm’s

customers (Shell, 1989; Lawrence, 1993; Mohr et al., 2001)

and favorable customer attitudes towards the sponsoring firm

(Ross et al., 1990-1991, 1992; Brown and Dacin, 1997). For

the participating cause, cause-related marketing programs

accrue rewards such as new sources of much-needed funds,

and heightened public awareness (Caesar, 1986; Varadarajan

and Menon, 1988). And consumers benefit by gaining a sense

of additional perceived value to their purchase (Webb and

Mohr, 1998) and satisfying their altruistic needs of the self by

helping society (Polonsky and Wood, 2001).

It is proposed that to maximize these benefits, sponsoring

companies should carefully consider several important

variables:. the degree of company – cause fit in the minds of the

consumer;. the level of customer identification with the company; and. the level of customer identification with the selected

cause.

Company-cause fitThis condition argues for the importance of fit between the

company and the sponsored cause in a cause-related

marketing alliance. Fit is defined as the perceived link

between the company’s image, positioning and target market

and the cause’s image and constituency (Varadarajan and

Menon, 1988; Ellen et al., 2000). Sponsorship researchers

have highlighted the importance of fit between the sponsor

and the event (Speed and Thompson, 2000), while results

from the popular press suggest that to maximize cause-related

marketing results, the sponsoring firm should select a cause

that is compatible with its identity and is compelling to the

firm’s target market (e.g. Higgins, 1986; Shell, 1989; Larson,

1994).This issue of the effect of the compatibility of company and

cause is proposed to influence consumer choice through

associative learning (Shimp et al., 1991; Till and Nowak,

2000), and perceived belongingness: a greater match-up

between two stimuli (e.g. the company and the cause) should

make the development of an associative link easier

(McSweeney and Bierley, 1984; Till and Nowak, 2000). In

past research, a lack of fit between the alliance partners has

been shown to influence consumers’ evaluation of the fit,

resulting in a negative attitude towards the fit while the

presence of fit produced a favorable attitude towards the fit

(Lafferty et al., 2004). This result can be explained through

information integration theory, which suggests that “prior

attitudes will be integrated with the new information provided

by the alliance, thus influencing the evaluations towards the

alliance” (Lafferty et al., 2004, p. 513). These results are also

in keeping with findings from the area of co-branding, where

selecting a compatible brand partner has been shown to

increase co-branding success (Bucklin and Sengupta, 1993;

Lafferty et al., 2004). Therefore, greater fit between company

and cause in the cause-related marketing alliance should lead

to a more favorable response to the alliance in the form of a

favorable evaluation, either through the process of positive

associations developed as a result of partnering with a cause,

or through elaboration of the company’s public identity based

on this association:

H1. Consumer attitude towards the company-cause fit will

be more positive when company-cause fit is high than

when company-cause fit is low.

Further, Fishbein (1963) argues that an individual’s attitude

towards an object or phenomenon is directly related to his

subsequent action or behavior (see also Fishbein and Azjen,

1975). In the case of cause-related marketing initiatives,

having a positive attitude towards the fit should correspond to

a positive evaluation of the sponsored product, leading

eventually to an increased intent to purchase. This follows

reports from consumers demonstrating that supporting a

cause that the customer finds meaningful makes customers

more likely to purchase a product associated with the cause

(Cone Inc., 2004). Thus:

The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-related marketing

Shruti Gupta and Julie Pirsch

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 23 · Number 6 · 2006 · 314–326

315

H2. When consumer attitude toward the company-cause fit

is high, intent to purchase the sponsored product willbe higher than when consumer attitude toward the

company-cause fit is low.

Customer identification with the company and causeThis paper proposes that the consumers’ intent to purchase

the sponsored product of a cause-related marketing campaignis enhanced by the amount of congruence between the

company’s character and their own. Theoretical support forthis claim comes from two research streams that study

employees’ relationships with their work organizations(Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994; Kristof,

1996; Bergami and Bagozzi, 2000). The first area examinesperson-organization (P-O) fit by conceptualizing it in terms of

the congruence between the values of the individual and theorganization, and is used to explain employee preference and

commitment to his work organization (e.g. Kristof, 1996).Sen and Bhattacharya (2001) extend the concept of P-O fit bylooking at the relationship between consumers and

companies, suggesting that as consumers become moreknowledgeable about companies, their reactions and

responses to the company and its products may beinfluenced by their perceptions of the P-O fit. Further, as

the differences in the corporate abilities of each organizationdiminish (e.g. product assortment, product quality (Brown

and Dacin, 1997)), CSR initiatives adopted by theorganizations play and increasingly influential role in

separating high fit companies from the low ones.The second area of literature seeks to explain members’

organizational identification, or customer-company fit, byusing the concept of Social Identity Theory (SIT). A person’s

social identity is defined as the aspects of an individual’s self-image that derive from the social categories to which he

perceives himself as belonging (Tajfel, 1978, p. 16; Tajfel andTurner, 1985; Hogg and Abrams, 1988). These social

categories or groups are formed based on the prototypicalcharacteristics of their members (Turner, 1985; Ashforth andMael, 1989). Group members perceive themselves to be part of

the same social category, are emotionally involved with thegroup in some way, and evaluate the group and its membership

similarly (Tajfel and Turner, 1985). The decision to join agroup is dictated by the emotional and value significance to the

individual (Tajfel, 1972; Turner, 1975).Ashforth and Mael (1989) use SIT as a basis for their

concept of organizational identification between the individualand the organization via the process of self-categorization.

These authors argue that individuals closely identify with anorganization when they can categorize themselves into social

groups with central, enduring and distinctive characteristics(Albert and Whetten, 1985). Organizational identification is

regarded as a specific form of social/group identification and ismotivated by the individual’s need for meaning,

connectedness, empowerment and immortality that could bepotentially fulfilled by an organization. These authors arguethat the connection a company makes with its publics can be

influenced by the company’s symbolic interactions andsymbolic management. Symbolic interactions are verbal and

nonverbal interactions with the company’s publics, whilesymbolic management is the means by which these interactions

are transmitted to these publics, for example by usingmarketing tools such as advertisements, logos, mascots and

information sessions.

Dutton et al. (1994) argue further that members’ cognitive

identification with and response to an organization resultsfrom a combination of the individual’s perceived

organizational identity, or the cognitive bond betweenhimself and the central, enduring and distinctive (Albert

and Whetten, 1985; Ashforth and Mael, 1989) elements ofthe organization “derived from images that each member hasof the organization” (Dutton et al., 1994, p. 239), and the

individual’s construed external image (Dutton and Dukerich,1991), or the perception of the outsider’s view of the

organization. In general, individuals closely identify with anorganization when the same attributes define both the

individuals and the organization or, “when [individuals]incorporate the characteristics they attribute to theirorganization into their self-concepts” (Dutton et al., 1994,

p. 241). Individuals learn about organizational identityattributes via events, changes in organization’s environment

caused by regulatory or competitive changes, or throughstories and rituals.Bergami and Bagozzi (2000, Ellemers et al., 1993) extend

this concept by proposing that an individual’s social identityin an organization is made up of a cognitive (organizational

identification), an affective (affective commitment) and anevaluative (organization-based self-esteem) component.

Cognitive identification, where individuals use SIT toevaluate similarities and differences between themselves and

the organization, is shown to influence the affectivecommitment the person makes to the organization(involvement with and emotional attachment to the

organization) as well as their organization-based self esteem.Finally, Bhattacharya and Sen (2003, p. 228) extend the

organizational identification literature developed within thecontext of the work organization to explain customer

identification with companies, arguing that “as consumerslearn more about and develop relationships with not justproducts but also the producing organizations, they may

identify with some such organizations even in the absence offormal membership”. It is also suggested that CSR actions,

such as cause-related marketing initiatives, rather thancorporate ability (CA) attributes, enhance the organizational

identification process between companies and their customersby helping to communicate the company’s identity to thetargeted customers. By matching with a particular cause,

companies can verbally and non-verbally symbolize theirvalues (Ashforth and Mael, 1989) and communicate their

identity (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001) to customers, buildinga cognitive and affective component (Bergami and Bagozzi,

2000) of identity in the minds of targeted customers. Thisallows customers to see the cause association choice thecompany makes, and through this choice, evaluate at least one

aspect of the company’s identity in the marketplace. Thisidentification translates, in many cases, to behaviors such as

donating (Bhattacharya et al., 1995) or other actions that offerno reward to the individual but benefit the larger

organization, (O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986). Based on thisresearch, it is proposed that:H3a. The effect of attitude toward the company-cause fit on

customer intent to purchase the sponsored product willbe moderated by company-customer congruence. The

positive influence of high attitude toward the company-cause fit on consumer purchase intent will be stronger

when company-customer congruence is high thanwhen it is low.

The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-related marketing

Shruti Gupta and Julie Pirsch

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 23 · Number 6 · 2006 · 314–326

316

H3b. The effect of attitude toward the company-cause fit on

customer intent to purchase the sponsored product will

be moderated by cause-customer congruence. The

positive influence of high attitude toward the company-

cause fit on consumer purchase intent is stronger when

the cause-customer congruence is high than when it is

low.

Study 1 method and results

In order to test these hypotheses, a survey was administered

to 232 students in two northeastern private universities. The

sample consisted of 124 females (53.4 percent) and 108 males

(46.6 percent), with an average respondent age of 19.8 years.

The survey included five measured variables: company-cause

fit, customer–company congruence, customer-cause

congruence, attitude toward the company cause fit, and

purchase intent.Respondents read a brief description of the “cause”, in this

case St Jude Children’s Research Hospital. St Jude Children’s

Research Hospital was chosen as the cause as it was relatable

to the student population and was considered to be non-

controversial with respect to the issue (children’s health

treatment and research) it supported. Disney, a provider of

entertainment and theme park experiences, was the stimulus

company used. The company description was pre-tested using

a pool of 15 different companies who were listed as corporate

partners of St Jude on the St Jude web site (St Jude, 2004).A brief outline of the company using CA and CSR

attributes was given, followed by a short description of the

fictional cause-related marketing initiative offered by the

company in conjunction with St Jude Children’s Research

Hospital. No specifics were given as to the amount of

contribution by the company; respondents saw only that

Disney would contribute “a portion of the proceeds” from the

purchase of a product or service during a particular calendar

month to St Jude Children’s Research Hospital.Responses for the assessment of company-cause fit between

Disney and St Jude were split into two categories based on the

mean response to company-cause fit (M ¼ 3:938). A means

test assessing the company cause-fit responses between the

high fit condition and the low fit condition showed a

significant difference between the two conditions

(MHighFit ¼ 4:98, MLow–Fit ¼ 2:78, 1 ¼ low company-cause

fit, 7 ¼ high fit, t ¼ 222:582, df ¼ 230, p-value ¼ 0:000).H1 stated when company-cause fit is high, consumer attitude

toward the fit will be more positive than when the company-

cause fit is low. Analysis of variance showed that this hypothesis

was supported (Fð1; 229Þ ¼ 21:595, p-value ¼ 0:000,MHighFit ¼ 5:992, MLow–Fit ¼ 5:434). Results for all

hypotheses are summarized for all hypotheses in Table I.H2 stated when consumer attitude toward the company-

cause fit is high, intent to purchase the sponsored product will

be higher than when consumer attitude toward the company-

cause fit is low. The responses for attitude toward company-cause fit were split into two categories based on the mean

response to attitude toward the fit (M ¼ 5:729). A means testcomparing the high attitude toward the fit condition and the

low attitude toward the fit condition showed a significantdifference between the two conditions (MHighAttitudeToward–

the – Fit ¼ 6.549, MLowAttitudeToward–the–Fit ¼ 5:008; 1 ¼ low

attitude toward the fit, 7 ¼ high attitude toward the fit,t ¼ 220:981, df ¼ 229, p-value ¼ 0:000). Analysis of

variance (ANOVA) results showed support for thehypothesis (Fð1; 229Þ ¼ 8:602, p ¼ 0:004,MHighAttitude ¼ 4.528, MLowAttitude ¼ 3.837) indicating themore positive the attitude toward the company-cause fit, themore likely the customer is to purchase the sponsored

product.H3a examined the moderating influence of company-

customer congruence, stating that the positive influence of ahigh attitude toward company-cause fit on purchase intent is

stronger when company-customer congruence is high thanwhen it is low. In order to explore this hypothesis, theresponses to company-customer congruence were split into

thirds, with the top third representing those respondents whoassessed a high level of company-customer congruence

(n ¼ 81), and the bottom third representing those whoassessed a low level of company-customer congruence

(n ¼ 78). As the data were normally distributed, thistechnique was used to generate the maximum contrastbetween high and low fit conditions. T-test results between the

high and low company-customer congruence conditionsdemonstrated a significant difference between these two

conditions (MHigh Company –CustomerCongruence ¼ 5.214,MLowCompany–CustomerCongruence ¼ 2.415, t ¼ 228.107, df

¼ 157, p-value ¼ 0.000). ANOVA results examining theinfluence of the moderating variable, company-customercongruence, on the effect of attitude toward the company-

cause fit on purchase intent showed a non-significantinteraction (Fð1; 155Þ ¼ 0:659, p-value ¼ 0:418) between

attitude toward the company-cause fit and company-customer congruence. There was no difference in purchase

intent for the high company-customer congruence condition(MHigh Attitude Toward the Company –Cause – Fit ¼ 4.850,MLowAttitude–Toward– the–Company–Cause–Fit ¼ 4.268) versus for

the low company-customer congruence condition(MHigh Attitude Toward the Company –Cause – Fit ¼ 4.441,

MLowAttitudeToward– the–Company–Cause–Fit ¼ 3.409), indicatingno support for H3a.H3b examined the moderating influence of customer-cause

congruence, stating that the positive influence of high attitudetoward the company-cause fit on purchase intent is stronger

when the customer-cause congruence is high than when it islow. This hypothesis was also not supported. Following the

same technique used for H2a, the sample was split into thirdsbased on the respondent’s answers assessing the level of

congruence between themselves and St Jude Children’sResearch Hospital. T-test results showed significantdifferences between these conditions (MHigh Customer –

CauseCongruence ¼ 4.70, MLowCustomer–CauseCongruence ¼ 1.901,t ¼ 227:819, df ¼ 160, p-value ¼ 0:000). ANOVA results

showed a non-significant interaction (Fð1; 157Þ ¼ 0:580,p-value ¼ 0:448) between company-cause congruence and

company-cause fit. There was no difference in attitude towardthe company-cause fit for the high customer-cause fit

Table I Study 1 results

Hypothesis F value df p-value Results

H1 21.595 (1, 229) 0.000 Supported

H2 8.602 (1, 229) 0.004 Supported

H3a 0.659 (1, 155) 0.418 Not supported

H3b 0.580 (1, 157) 0.448 Not supported

The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-related marketing

Shruti Gupta and Julie Pirsch

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 23 · Number 6 · 2006 · 314–326

317

condition (MHigh Attitude Toward the Company –Cause Fit ¼ 5.000,

MLowAttitudeToward theCompany–Cause Fit ¼ 4.279) versus for the

low customer-cause fit condition(MHigh Attitude Toward the Company –CauseFit ¼ 4.541,

MLowAttitudeToward theCompany–Cause Fit ¼ 3.413), indicating no

support for H3b.

Study 1 discussion

Results from study 1 offer a variety of interesting findings formanagers pursuing a cause-related marketing promotional

strategy as part of their product’s overall promotional plan.

First, the results provide empirical evidence that company-cause fit is important, as consumer attitude toward the fit and

purchase intent are more positive when company-cause fit ishigh. This confirms the results of the study conducted by

Lafferty et al. (2004) and indicates that consumers prefer that

the company-cause connection in a cause-related marketingcampaign “make sense” to them as they are making

purchasing decisions.Contrary to our expectations, the moderating influence of

customer-company congruence was not supported. These

results could be related to several factors. First, the studentsample almost unanimously indicated their intent to support

the cause-related marketing alliance through a positive intent

to purchase the sponsored product, as purchase responsesfrom both the high and low attitude toward the fit conditions

means were above the midpoint of 3.5 (MHighAttitude ¼ 4:528,MLowAttitude ¼ 3:837). Second, despite the fact that there wasa significant difference between low and high company-

customer congruence conditions, it is possible that both

categories of subjects felt a strong emotional connection toDisney as a brand, and thus were willing to purchase the

product equally under both conditions. Third, subjects werepresented with a single company stimulus, and were exposed

to the company-cause fit information in a quick and specific

sequence. In the marketplace, consumers are more likely to beexposed to be to such information in a varied order and over

multiple time periods, or might be exposed to a wide variety

of cause-related marketing campaign information offered bydifferent companies simultaneously.A potential explanation for the lack of significant findings

for the degree of customer-cause congruence may be that in

general, consumers view most causes positively, and therefore

are very willing to support these organizations, regardless oftheir affiliation with a particular company. It is possible that

even if the cause is not one that the consumer identifies with

or feels strongly about, a more “negative” assessment (lesscompany-cause fit) will not affect purchase intent, as the

customer will always reward a company’s intended goodworks. Additionally, the nature of the cause selected for the

study could also have influenced the results. In an attempt to

eliminate any potential bias against a particular cause (i.e. aright-to-life organization which could polarize respondents),

St Jude Children’s Research Hospital was selected and pre-

tested for this study. Therefore, it may have been difficult forthe respondent to have a negative attitude toward the alliance

because of the nature of the cause, researching childhood

disease.Finally, this study showed that consumer intention to

purchase the sponsored product was stronger under thecondition of more positive attitude toward the company-cause

fit than in the condition of a more negative attitude toward the

fit. From the manager’s perspective, this suggests that the

closer the fit between the company and the cause the more

favorable the consumer attitude toward the fit and subsequent

participation via purchase of the sponsored product. Fit

matters, then, and must be considered when selecting a cause-

related marketing partner.

Study 2

Study 2 has several objectives:. further explore the link between consumer attitude

towards the company-cause fit and purchase intention,

based on the somewhat surprising results from H3a and

H3b;. address the methodological limitations in study 1; and. compare the results for H1-H3 to results from study 1 to

determine the generalizability of study 1’s results.

Affective and cognitive components of

company-cause fit

In order to more deeply understand the effect of attitude

toward the company-cause fit on purchase intent, and the role

of customer-company and customer-cause congruence, the

literature on social identity was further explored. Bergami andBagozzi (2000), among others, argue that social identity has

three components: a cognitive element, an affective element,

and a self-esteem component (see also Ellemers et al., 1993).The cognitive component is argued to provide the rationale

for participating in behavior through the “cognitive process of

categorization, where one forms self-categories of

organizational membership and one’s similarities with others

in the organization, as well as with others in different

organizations” (Bergami and Bagozzi, 2000, p. 557). This is

the part of participation that the consumer thinks about and

considers, and uses to make a careful choice to participate ornot participate in the group.In contrast, the affective component is seen as driving the

motivation to participate in the behavior. Bergami and

Bagozzi (2000, p. 573) conceptualized this component of

social identity as a combination of the positive feelings a

person receives by “belonging” to the organization, plus the

feelings that the person has toward the organization, such asattachment or belongingness.These two components, the cognitive and the affective, are

viewed as “empirically distinct” (Bergami and Bagozzi, 2000,

p. 556) from one another, and should be measured separately.

Therefore, this model adds greater emphasis on the affective

component by including two additional moderating variablesto capture this important element of social identity: attitude

toward the company, and skepticism about the company’s

motivation for participating in a cause-related marketing

campaign.

Consumer attitude toward the sponsoring firm

Research in the area of CSR has produced significantevidence supporting the argument that companies investing in

socially responsible initiatives enjoy favorable consumer

attitudes and rewards. For example, Brown and Dacin

(1997) argue that a positive consumer attitude towards an

organization (“corporate evaluation”) contributes significantly

to reward behavior via favorable purchase intent. Attitudes in

individuals represent the overall affect the individual has

toward the product or object (Bettman, 1979) and attitudes

The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-related marketing

Shruti Gupta and Julie Pirsch

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 23 · Number 6 · 2006 · 314–326

318

toward one object have been shown to “spill over” onto otherassociated objects (Simonin and Ruth, 1998). These learned,evaluative predispositions act as filters for how individualsperceive objects, products and experiences, and may directlylead to specific, consistent favorable or unfavorable behaviors(Fishbein and Azjen, 1975; Lutz, 1991; Eagly and Chaiken,1993; Faircloth et al., 2001; Madrigal, 2001). Further, thecombination of the context of a cause-related marketingcampaign (the company-cause partnership) along with priorattitudes towards each partner has been shown to promptconsumers to elaborate on the identities of the alliancepartners through comparison to the pre-alliance image ofthese organizations (Lafferty et al., 2004). This leads to thefollowing hypotheses:H4a. Consumer attitude toward the company-cause fit will

be more positive when customer attitude toward thecompany is high than when it is low.

H4b. Consumer attitude toward the company will moderatethe relationship between company-cause fit andattitude toward the fit. The positive influence of highcompany-cause fit on attitude toward that fit will bestronger when attitude toward the company is highthan when it is low.

Consumer skepticism

The choice to add the skepticism variable as a moderatorstems from a large volume of literature pointing to thechallenge of relying on attitudes alone as accurate predictorsof behavioral intention and action. Ajzen and Fishbein (1977)indicate that while attitude-behavior consistency is applicableunder most circumstances, attitude is a more accuratepredictor of behavioral intention than of the actual behavioritself. This disconnect can be due to the fact that certainmoderating variables may make the actual behaviorimpossible, despite the respondent’s indication that theyintend to pursue this behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1977;Triandis, 1977). It is suggested that by including interveningvariables such as personal and social norms that may berelevant to the actual behavior, the influence of attitude onbehavioral intention may be more clearly explained (Ajzenand Fishbein, 1977; Triandis, 1977). Examining thecustomer’s level of skepticism about the firm’s motivationfor sponsoring the cause-related marketing campaign maythus help to explain this attitude-intention-behavior link, andoffer insights into the role of affect in the consumer’s decision-making process.The addition of skepticism as a moderating influence on

purchase intent arises from several key findings in theliterature which demonstrate the overriding influence of aconsumer’s level of skepticism about a product, service orcompany on their decision making process. While evidencefor the importance of fit is strong, some do suggest that a highdegree of congruency can increase consumer skepticism aboutthe company’s motivation for sponsorship (Barone et al.,2000) by raising the issue of companies seeking profit at theexpense of the associated cause (Drumwright, 1996; Ellenet al., 2000).Skepticism has been defined as a tendency toward disbelief

(Obermiller and Spangenberg, 2001), or the overall tendencyto question (Kantner and Mirvis, 1989; Boush et al., 1993).In the case of cause-related marketing programs, consumersare often likely to express skepticism about a company’smotivation for participating in such a program, particularly

when the company publicizes its participation (Webb and

Mohr, 1998). Specifically, consumer skepticism is often

determined by whether the cause-related marketing programs

are perceived by the consumer to be cause-beneficial, or causeexploitative (Varadarajan and Menon, 1988; Ross et al., 1990-1991; Andreasan, 1996). Low levels of skepticism tend to

occur when customers believe that company motivation

behind CSR program is perceived as being driven by morealtruistic intentions rather than by the desire to sell more

products. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:

H5. Consumer skepticism about the company’s motivationfor participating in a cause-related marketing campaign

will moderate the effect of attitude toward the

company-cause fit on purchase intent. The positive

influence of attitude toward the company-cause fit onintent to purchase the sponsored product is stronger

when the customer skepticism toward the sponsoring

company’s motivation to participate in a cause-related

marketing program is low than when it is high.

Study 2 method and results

In order to address the issue of generalizability, study 2’s

sample consisted of an internet panel of 531 consumersdrawn from across the USA. The average age of the

respondents was 45 years old, with a minimum age of 18

and a maximum age of 74. Approximately 68 percent

(n ¼ 363) of the randomized sample was female, and 32percent were male (n ¼ 168). In this study, fit between the

sponsoring cause-related marketing company and the cause

(high versus low fit) and overall attitude toward the

sponsoring company (high versus low) were manipulated.Measured variables included attitude toward the company-

cause fit, purchase intent, customer-company and customer-

cause congruence, and skepticism about the company’s cause-

related marketing motivations.In this case, two companies and two causes were used to

assess consumer responses. The companies selected wereAT&T (positive attitude toward the company) and MCI/

WorldCom (negative attitude toward the company). These

companies were pre-tested among 89 undergraduate and

MBA students using eight potential companies (four intra-industry company pairs). Attitude toward the company was

measured for each company, and the AT&T/MCI pair was

selected due to the maximum positive/negative contrast in

attitudes toward these companies. These pretests alsomeasured the fit between companies and two fictitious

causes in order to generate the high/low company-cause fit

condition. Respondents were shown only one of the four

scenarios in this between subjects design. The number ofrespondents per condition is reported in Table II.

Table II Respondents per scenario study 2

Manipulated condition: company cause

fit/attitude to company

Number of

respondents

High/positive 124

High/negative 129

Low/positive 120

Low/negative 158

Total 531

The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-related marketing

Shruti Gupta and Julie Pirsch

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 23 · Number 6 · 2006 · 314–326

319

Two manipulation checks were performed to ensure that the

manipulated variables were perceived differently by the

respondents as intended. The mean of the high company-

cause fit condition (n ¼ 292) was assessed at 5.170 (1 ¼ low

level of fit, 7 ¼ high level of fit), while the mean of the low fit

condition (n ¼ 239) was assessed at 2.310. This resulted in a

significant difference between responses (t ¼ 234:115,df ¼ 529, p-value ¼ 0:000), indicating a successful variable

manipulation. The second manipulation check was conducted

for consumer attitude towards the company. The test results

showed that the mean of the positive attitude toward the

company condition (n ¼ 278) was 5.34 (1 ¼ negative attitude

toward the company, 7 ¼ positive attitude toward the

company) while the mean of the negative company attitude

condition (n ¼ 253) was 3.06. This also resulted in a

significant difference between the two conditions

(t ¼ 215:280, df ¼ 529, p-value ¼ 0:000), indicating a

successful variable manipulation.To address the limitation of external validity of the previous

study, the hypotheses from study 1 (H1-H3) were

re-examined for replication of results with this substantial,

non-student sample. H1 stating that when company-cause fit

is high, consumer attitude toward the fit will be more positive

than when the company-cause fit is low was once again

supported by the results from this sample

(Fð1; 529Þ ¼ 249:229, p-value ¼ 0.000, MHighCompany–

Cause–Fit ¼ 6.017, MLowCompany–Cause Fit ¼ 3.912). All results

for study 2 can be found in Table III. H2 stated that when

consumer attitude toward the company-cause fit is high,

intent to purchase the sponsored product will be higher than

when consumer attitude toward the company-cause fit is low.

An ANOVA replicated the results from study 1 by showing

significant support for the hypothesis (Fð1; 529Þ ¼ 98:992,p-value ¼ 0.000, MHigh Attitude to Fit ¼ 3.321,

MLowAttitude to Fit ¼ 1.211).H3a stating the positive influence of a positive attitude

toward the company-cause fit on purchase intent is stronger

when customer-company congruence is high than when it is

low was supported by the results from this sample, contrary to

findings in study 1. Similar to the technique used in study 1,

the sample was split into thirds, with the top third (n ¼ 226)

representing those respondents with a high perceived level of

fit between their own self-image and that of the company, and

the bottom third (n ¼ 182) representing low fit respondents.

T-test results showed significant differences between these

high and low fit samples (MHigh ¼ 4:23, MLow ¼ 0:938,t ¼ 41:985, df ¼ 406, p-value ¼ 0:000). ANOVA results

showed a significant interaction (Fð1; 404Þ ¼ 5:620, p-alue¼ 0.018) between the attitude toward company-cause fit and

the customer-cause congruence. There was a difference in

purchase intent for the high customer-company congruence

condition (MHigh Attitude Toward Company –Cause Fit ¼ 3.947,

MLowAttitudeTowardCompany–Cause Fit ¼ 1.353) versus for the

low customer-company congruence condition

(MHigh Attitude Toward Company –Cause Fit ¼ 2.447,

MLowAttitude Toward Company –CauseFit ¼ 1.119), indicating

support for H3a (see Figure 1).H3b, which states the positive influence of high company-

cause fit on attitude toward the fit is stronger when the

customer-cause congruence is high than when it is low, was

also supported by the results from this sample, contrary to the

findings in study 1. Following the same technique used for

H2a, the sample was split into thirds, with the top third

(n ¼ 198) representing those respondents with a high

customer-cause congruence, and the lower third (n ¼ 188)

representing those with a low level of customer-cause

congruence. T-test results showed significant differences

between these samples (Mhigh ¼ 5:743, Mlow ¼ 1:752,t ¼ 249:233, df ¼ 384, p-value ¼ 0:000). ANOVA results

showed a significant interaction (Fð1; 382Þ ¼ 13:495,p-value ¼ 0.000) between the level of company cause fit and

the level of fit between the customer’s self-image and that of

the company. There was a difference in purchase intent for

the high customer-cause congruence condition

(MHigh Attitude Toward Company –Cause Fit ¼ 4.233,

MLowAttitudeTowardCompany–Cause Fit ¼ 1.371) versus for the

low customer-cause congruence condition

(MHigh Attitude Toward Company –Cause Fit ¼ 2.415,

MLowAttitude Toward Company –Cause Fit ¼ 1.146), indicating

support for H3b (see Figure 2).H4a stated that the attitude toward the company-cause fit is

more positive when attitude toward the company is high than

when it is low. The sample was split into high and low attitude

toward the company groups based on the overall mean for this

variable of 4.265 (nHigh ¼ 278, nLow ¼ 253). T-test results

Table III Study 2 hypothesis results

Hypothesis F value df p-value Results

H1 249.229 (1, 529) 0.000 Supported

H2 98.992 (1, 529) 0.000 Supported

H3a 5.620 (1, 404) 0.018 Supported

H3b 13.495 (1, 382) 0.000 Supported

H4a 111.318 (1, 529) 0.043 Supported

H4b 4.128 (1, 527) 0.043 Supported

H5 1.284 (1, 371) 0.258 Not supported

Figure 1 Study 2 H3a interaction of attitude to company-cause fit andcustomer-company congruence

The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-related marketing

Shruti Gupta and Julie Pirsch

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 23 · Number 6 · 2006 · 314–326

320

showed significant differences between the positive and

negative attitude toward the company responses

(MHigh Attitude Toward the Company ¼ 5.953,

MLowAttitude Toward the Company ¼ 2.391, t ¼ 239:766,df ¼ 529, p-value ¼ 0:000). Attitude toward the company

was shown to have a significant main effect on the consumer’s

attitude toward the fit (Fð1; 529Þ ¼ 111:318, p ¼ 0:043),indicating support for H4a.H4b stated the positive influence of company-cause fit on

attitude toward the fit is stronger when the customer attitude

toward the sponsoring company is high than when it is low.

ANOVA results showed a significant interaction

(Fð1; 527Þ ¼ 4:128, p-value ¼ 0:043) between company-

cause fit and the consumer’s attitude towards the company

itself. There was a difference in purchase intent for those

customers with a high attitude toward the company

(MHigh Company –Cause Fit ¼ 6.199, MLowCompany –

Cause Fit ¼ 4.721) versus those customers with a low attitude

toward the company (MHigh Company –Cause Fit ¼ 5.595,

MLowCompany–Cause Fit ¼ 3.549), indicating support for H4(see Figure 3).H5 stated the positive influence of attitude toward the

company-cause fit on intent to purchase the sponsored

product is stronger when the customer skepticism toward the

sponsoring company’s motivation to participate in a cause-

related marketing program is low than when it is high. To test

this hypothesis, the sample was split into thirds, with the top

third (n ¼ 212) representing those respondents with a high

level of skepticism about the company’s motivations, and the

bottom third (n ¼ 163) representing low skepticism

respondents. In this case, responses correspond to 1 ¼ high

level of skepticism, and 7 ¼ low level of skepticism. T-testresults showed significant differences between the high and

low skepticism conditions (Mhigh ¼ 4:553, Mlow ¼ 2:523,

t ¼ 234:363, df ¼ 373, p-value ¼ 0:000). ANOVA results

showed a non-significant interaction (Fð1; 371Þ ¼ 1:284,p-value ¼ 0.258) between the customer’s attitude toward the

company-cause fit and their skepticism about the company’s

motivation for participating in a cause-related marketing

initiative. There was no difference in purchase intent for those

customers who were more skeptical about the company’s

motivations (MHighAttitudeToward theCompany–Cause Fit ¼ 3.708,

MLowAttitudeToward theCompany–Cause Fit ¼ 1.824) versus those

customers who were less skeptical

(MHigh Attitude Toward the Company –Cause Fit ¼ 2.305,

MLowAttitudeToward theCompany–Cause Fit ¼ 1.017), indicating no

support for H5 (see Figure 4).

Study 2 discussion

Results from study 2 confirmed the results from study 1 for

the main effects of this model. Company-cause fit does

influence the customer’s attitude toward the fit, which in turn

influences the customer’s intent to purchase the cause-related

marketing product. These confirmatory results are

particularly significant given large sample size and

representative nature of this sample to the general population.In contrast to the previous study, study 2 generated support

for H3a. On further examination, one possible explanation for

this result could be that the two companies used in this study,

AT&T and MCI, elicited a strong enough “connection” to

consumers to significantly influence their attitudes toward the

company-cause fit and subsequent purchase intent.

Bhattacharya and Sen (2003, p. 79) explore this concept of

company-consumer congruence by proposing that consumers

are more attracted to companies when the company satisfies

at least one of the consumer’s need for self-continuity, self-

distinctiveness and self-enhancement (Dutton et al., 1994).

These authors also point out an even more intensive version

Figure 2 Study 2 H3b interaction of attitude to company-cause fit andcustomer-cause congruence

Figure 3 Study 2 H4b interaction of company-cause fit and attitudetoward the company

The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-related marketing

Shruti Gupta and Julie Pirsch

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 23 · Number 6 · 2006 · 314–326

321

of this identification, called “embeddedness,” which occurs

when consumers involve themselves with the company’s

internal stakeholders and other consumers (Scott and Lane,

2000) through activities ranging from member conferences

(Cross, 1992), company forums (McAlexander et al., 2002),

or networking with other customers. It is possible that AT&T

and MCI at least in part satisfied these customer needs of self-

continuity, self-distinctiveness and self-enhancement, or that

customers are not sufficiently embedded in the company’s

culture or identity to enhance the effect of company-cause fit

on their attitude toward this fit.In contrast to study 1, this study generated significant

support for H3b: the influence of company-cause fit on

attitude toward this fit was enhanced by the level of customer-

cause congruence. This finding could have resulted from the

idea that while some may argue that consumers give causes

the “benefit of the doubt” when it comes to cause-related

marketing, and are willing to support most efforts, cause

choice does matter. This is in keeping with the findings from

H1, which suggest that cause choice influences attitude

toward the company-cause fit. Cause-related marketing

initiatives generate better results when the chosen cause is

in fact relevant to consumers’ lives and experiences.Attitude toward the company was shown to have both a

direct and a moderating effect on attitude toward the

company-cause fit. This indicates that consumer perceptions

of and feelings about the sponsoring company play a key role

in enhancing the success of a cause-related marketing

campaign. These results suggest that consumers may in fact

make two different assessments of the sponsoring company.

One assessment, outlined in H3a, may be more cognitive

(Dutton et al., 1994; Bergami and Bagozzi, 2000; Scott and

Lane, 2000) where the consumer compares his or her own

identity to that of the company: “Is this company like me? Are

our identities alike?” In some cases, perhaps particularly when

consumers are more “embedded” (Scott and Lane, 2000;

Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003) or integrated into the

company’s culture, this assessment could potentially

influence the consumer’s attitude toward the company-cause

fit.The second assessment, outlined in H4a and H4b, is more

affective or emotional, where the consumer relies more on his/

her heart than his/her head: “Do I like this company? Do I feel

positively about this company?” For example, a consumer

may not think that he/she is particularly similar to AT&T in

terms of social identity, personality, values or goals. However,

he/she may feel that AT&T is a good company with a good

reputation, and feels good about doing business with this

organization. The customer therefore has a more positive

attitude toward this company’s actions, and in turn has a

more positive attitude toward this company’s cause-related

marketing initiatives since he/she feels good about the

reputation of this branded organization.The results for H5, where the consumer’s level of

skepticism about the company’s motivation did not

significantly influence the effect of attitude toward the

company-cause fit on customer purchase intent of the

sponsored cause-related marketing product, indicate that the

company’s rationale for sponsoring a cause-related marketing

campaign is irrelevant to their purchase decision. This could

result from the consumers’ perceptions about and acceptance

of the idea that most companies are not sponsoring a cause-

related marketing product just to do a good thing for a social

cause, but also must keep profitability in mind. Despite the

fact that companies may increase sales and/or increase profits

on cause-related marketing product, consumers will still

purchase the product in support of the cause, regardless of the

perceived intentions of the company.

Theoretical and managerial implications

The framework in this study makes several theoretical

contributions by enhancing knowledge about the nature and

structure of cause-related marketing. It confirms the results of

Lafferty et al. (2004) suggesting that the customer’s overall

attitude toward the sponsoring company plays an important

role in influencing purchase intent of the sponsored product.

This supports the suggestion by Bergami and Bagozzi (2000)

that an individual’s ability to identify with an organization has

both an emotional (attitude toward the company) and a

cognitive (company-customer fit) component.This study also supports findings from earlier research

focusing on consumer-company congruence as it relates to

purchase intent (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001; Bhattacharya

and Sen, 2003). Additionally, these findings support the

literature on organizational identification arguing that

organizational identification drives citizenship behaviors

(Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Bergami and Bagozzi, 2000).

With high levels of identification between the customer and

company, customers indicated their intention to participate in

citizenship behavior (intent to purchase the sponsored

product in a cause-related marketing campaign). These

results support the validity of extending organizational

identification theory from work organizations (employer and

employee) to the relationship between consumers and

companies and their intent to purchase (e.g. Sen and

Bhattacharya, 2001).

Figure 4 Study 2 H5 interaction of attitude to company-cause fit andskepticism

The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-related marketing

Shruti Gupta and Julie Pirsch

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 23 · Number 6 · 2006 · 314–326

322

From a managerial perspective, this study indicates to

managers that the safest bet when considering a cause-related

marketing campaign is to find a cause that has a high degreeof fit with their company. People tend to feel better about the

alliance, and therefore are more likely to purchase thesponsored products. Second, it is effective to have a cause that

is highly relatable to the target audience. While the fit between

the company and the cause may be the driving force in cause-related marketing success, having a relatable cause helps to

maximize the company-cause alliance effectiveness. Third,the overall attitude toward the company makes a significant

difference in cause-related marketing campaign success. For

managers, this means that the consumer’s decision toparticipate in a cause-related marketing initiative comes

down at least in part to whether the consumer likes the

company or not, and whether they have a positive attitudetoward the brand. In conjunction with this conclusion, this

study indicates that consumers on average are influenced bythe level of congruence between themselves and the

sponsoring cause-related marketing company and the cause.

Therefore, the decision to participate seems to be acombination of both the affective and the cognitive

processes. Arming consumers with concrete information,then, in conjunction with establishing positive affect toward

the company itself is critical in creating an overall positive

image in the consumer’s mind.Fourth, the consumer’s level of skepticism about the

company’s motivation for participating in a cause-relatedmarketing campaign does not affect the consumer’s likelihood

of purchase of the sponsored product. Consumers may expectcompanies to have an altruistic and a profit motive when

sponsoring cause-related marketing initiatives, and seem to be

willing to purchase the sponsored products with bothmotivations in mind. Companies may wish to be cautious,

however, not to promote their good works too much, so that

they are not perceived as cause-exploitive. Recently, otherresearch has shown that companies that both specify the

amount of money given for each purchase, and who maximizethe size of the donation that they are giving to the cause

generate improved performance of their cause-related

marketing programs (Landreth et al., 2004), furtherpointing to the need to demonstrate commitment to the

cause and to be clear about company intentions in the eyes ofthe consumer.

Limitations and future research

This study is limited in some ways, but these limitations poseinteresting questions for future research topics in this area.

First, the construct of customer-company fit does not explore

the three dimensions of the company-consumer identity (self-continuity, self-distinctiveness and self-enhancement)

proposed by Scott and Lane (2000) and Bhattacharya andSen (2003). Further investigation into this construct in the

context of cause-related marketing would be helpful in

understanding what drives or does not drive the link betweencompany-consumer identification in this domain. Second, the

causes chosen for both study 1 and study 2 were both non-controversial ones. It would be interesting to explore whether

companies would increase or decrease participation by

aligning themselves with causes that, while compatible withthe company’s identity, may be perceived as controversial by

some part of their target audience. Third, as pointed out

earlier, this study only measured behavioral intention rather

than actual behavior. While it attempted to clarify this

intention-behavior link through the addition of moderating

variables as suggested by Fishbein and Azjen (1975), a

behavioral study that followed actual consumer purchases in acontrolled experiment would provide the most significant

results. Finally, the issue of “embedded” consumers raised by

Scott and Lane (2000) presents a potential project comparing

embedded versus non-embedded consumers to see if there is

any difference in the relevance of the company-customer fitand its influence on attitude and intent to purchase the

sponsored cause-related marketing product.

Conclusion

In summary, this paper started with the idea that consumers

tend to spend a reasonable amount of cognitive effort

considering and comparing their own identity and how it

relates to the sponsoring company and related cause in a

cause-related marketing campaign. Results show thatconsumers rely not only on these cognitive processes, but

also on the affective perceptions of the sponsoring company,

and on the general fit between the company and the

sponsored cause. The strength of the consumer sample used

in the second study of this research lends credence to thesefindings, and suggests that marketing managers should focus

on the basics when developing a cause-related marketing

campaign: build a general positive feeling toward their brand,

pick a cause that makes sense to the consumer to be a partner

in the alliance, and make sure that the consumer does notthink that your company is exploiting the alliance through too

much promotion. Follow these basic rules, and managers are

far more likely to achieve success through purchase in a cause-

related marketing campaign.

References

Ajzen, I. and Fishbein, M. (1977), “Attitude-behavior

relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empiricalresearch”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 84 No. 5, pp. 888-918.

Albert, S. and Whetten, D.A. (1985), “Organizational

identity”, in Staw, B. and Cummings, L. (Eds), Researchin Organizational Behavior, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.

Andreasan, A.R. (1996), “Profits for nonprofits: find a

corporate partner”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 6,

pp. 47-59.Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989), “Social identity theory

and the organization”, Academy of Management Review,Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 20-39.

Barone, M.J., Miyazaki, A.D. and Taylor, K.A. (2000), “The

influence of cause-related marketing on consumer choice:

does one good turn deserve another?”, Academy ofMarketing Science Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2, p. 248.

Bergami, M. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2000), “Self-categorization,

affective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct

aspects of social identity in the organization”, BritishJournal of Social Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 555-77.

Bettman, J.R. (1979), An Information Processing Theory ofConsumer Choice, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2003), “Consumer-company

identification: a framework for understanding consumers’

relationships with companies”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67,April, pp. 76-88.

The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-related marketing

Shruti Gupta and Julie Pirsch

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 23 · Number 6 · 2006 · 314–326

323

Bhattacharya, C.B., Rao, H. and Glynn, M.A. (1995),

“Understanding the bond of identification: an investigation

of its correlates among art museum members”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 59 No. 4, p. 46.

Boush, D.M., Kim, C.-H., Khale, L.R. and Batra, R. (1993),

“Cynicism and conformity as correlates of trust in product

information sources”, Journal of Current Issues and Researchin Advertising, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 71-9.

Brown, T.J. and Dacin, P.A. (1997), “The company and the

product: corporate associations and consumer productresponses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 68-84.

Bucklin, L.P. and Sengupta, S. (1993), “Organizing

successful co-marketing alliances”, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 57 No. 2, p. 32.

Caesar, P. (1986), “Cause related marketing: the new face of

corporate philanthropy”, Business and Society Review,Vol. 59, pp. 15-20.

Cone Inc. (2004), “2004 Cone corporate citizenship study”,

available at: www.mybizwarehouse.com/2ndbusiness/

2004ConeCorporateCitizenshipStudy.pdf#search ¼ %222004%20Cone%20Corporate

%20Citizenship%20 Study%22 (accessed September

2005).Cooperman, A. (2005), “Cause and effect; tsunami aid is

goodwill and good business”, The Washington Post, January26, p. E01.

Cross, R.H. (1992), “The five degrees of customer bonding”,

Direct Marketing, Vol. 55 No. 6, pp. 33-7.Drumwright, M.E. (1996), “Company advertising with asocial dimension: the role of non-economic criteria”,

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 71-87.Dutton, J.E. and Dukerich, J.M. (1991), “Keeping an eye onthe mirror: image and identity in organizations”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 517-54.

Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.V. (1994),“Organizational images and member identification”,

Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39 No. 2, p. 239.Eagly, A.H. and Chaiken, S. (1993), The Psychology ofAttitudes, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Fort Worth, TX.

Ellemers, N., Wilke, H. and van Knippenberg, A. (1993),

“Effects of the legitimacy of low group or individual status

on individual and collective identity enhancementstrategies”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,Vol. 64, pp. 766-78.

Ellen, P.S., Mohr, L.A. and Webb, D.J. (2000), “Charitableprograms and the retailer: do they mix?”, Journal ofRetailing, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 393-406.

Faircloth, J.B., Capella, L.M. and Alford, B.L. (2001), “Theeffect of brand attitude and brand image on brand equity”,

Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 9 No. 3,

pp. 61-75.Fishbein, M. (1963), “An investigation of the relationships

between beliefs about an object and the attitude towards the

object”, Human Relations, August, pp. 233-40.Fishbein, M. and Azjen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intentionand Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research,Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Higgins, K.T. (1986), “Cause related marketing: does it pass

the bottom line test?”, Marketing News, Vol. 20 No. 10,

pp. 1-4.Hogg, M.A. and Abrams, D. (Eds) (1988), SocialIdentifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relationsand Group Processes, Routledge, New York, NY.

Kantner, D.L. and Mirvis, P.H. (1989), Thy CynicalAmericans: Living and Working in an Age of Discontent andDisillusion, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA.

Kotler, P. (1972), “A generic concept of marketing”, Journalof Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 45-54.

Kotler, P. and Levy, S. (1969), “Broadening the concept ofmarketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 10-15.

Kristof, A.L. (1996), “Person-organization fit: an integrative

review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and

implications”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 1-49.Lafferty, B.A., Goldsmith, R.E. and Hult, G.T.M. (2004),

“The impact of the alliance on the partners: a look at cause-

brand alliances”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 7,p. 509 þ .

Landreth, S., Pirsch, J. and Garretson, J. (2004), “Cause-

related marketing”, in Scammon, D., Mason, M. andMayer, R. (Eds), Marketing and Public Policy Proceedings,Salt Lake City, UT, pp. 116-8.

Larson, J. (1994), “If you’re not committed, don’t bother”,American Demographics, Vol. 16 No. 12, pp. 16-18.

Lawrence, E.L. (1993), Doing Well While Doing Good,Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Lutz, R.J. (1991), “The role of attitude theory in marketing”,

in Kassarjian, H.H. and Robertson, T.S. (Eds), Perspectivesin Consumer Behavior, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J.W. and Koenig, H.F. (2002),

“Building brand community”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66,January, pp. 38-54.

McSweeney, B.B. and Bierley, C. (1984), “Recent

developments in classical conditioning”, Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 11, September, pp. 619-31.

Madrigal, R. (2001), “Belief-attitude-intentions hierarchy:

implications for corporate sponsorship”, Psychology andMarketing, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 145-65.

Mohr, L.A., Webb, D.J. and Harris, K.E. (2001), “Do

consumers expect companies to be socially responsible?

The impact of corporate social responsibility on buyingbehavior”, The Journal of Consumer Affairs, Vol. 35 No. 1,

pp. 47-72.Obermiller, C. and Spangenberg, E. (2001), “Development

of a scale to measure consumer skepticism towardadvertising”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 2,

pp. 159-86.O’Reilly, C. III and Chatman, J. (1986), “Organizationalcommitment and psychological attachment: the effects of

compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial

behavior”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3,

pp. 492-9.Polonsky, M.J. and Wood, G. (2001), “Can the over

commercialization of cause related marketing harm

society?”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 21 No. 1,pp. 8-22.

Ross, J.K., Patterson, L.T. and Stutts, M.A. (1992),

“Consumer perceptions of organizations that use causerelated marketing”, Journal of the Academy of MarketingScience, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 93-7.

Ross, J.K., Stutts, M.A. and Patterson, L.T. (1990-1991),“Tactical considerations for the effectiveness of cause

related marketing”, The Journal of Applied Business Research,Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 58-65.

Scott, S.G. and Lane, V.R. (2000), “A stakeholder approach

to organizational identity, academy of management”,

The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, p. 43.

The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-related marketing

Shruti Gupta and Julie Pirsch

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 23 · Number 6 · 2006 · 314–326

324

Sen, S. and Bhattacharya, C.B. (2001), “Does doing good

always lead to doing better? Consumer reactions to

corporate social responsibility”, Journal of Marketing

Research, Vol. 38, May, pp. 225-43.Shell, A. (1989), “Cause related marketing: big risks, big

potential”, Public Relations Journal, Vol. 45 No. 7, pp. 8-13.Shimp, T.A., Stuart, E.W. and Engle, R.W. (1991),

“A program of classical conditioning experiments testing

variations in the conditioned stimulus and context”, Journal

of Consumer Research, Vol. 18, June, pp. 1-12.Simonin, B.M. and Ruth, J.A. (1998), “Is a company known

for the company it keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of

brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes”, Journal of

Marketing Research, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 30-42.Speed, R. and Thompson, P. (2000), “Determinants of sports

sponsorship response”, Academy of Marketing Science

Journal, Vol. 28 No. 2, p. 226.Tajfel, H. (1972), “La categorization sociale” (“Social

categorization)”, in Moscovici, S. (Ed.), Introduction a La

Psychologie Sociale, Larousse, Paris.Tajfel, H. (1978), “Social categorization, social identity and

social comparison”, in Tajfel, H. (Ed.), Differentiation

between Social Groups, Academic Press, New York, NY.Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1985), “The social identity theory

of intergroup behavior”, in Worchel, S. and Austin, W.G.

(Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall

Publishers, Chicago, IL.Till, B.D. and Nowak, L.I. (2000), “Toward effective use of

cause-related marketing alliances”, The Journal of Product &

Brand Management, Vol. 9 No. 7, p. 472.Triandis, H.C. (1977), Interpersonal Behavior, Brooks/Cole

Publishing, Monterey, CA.Turner, J.C. (1975), “Social comparison and social identity:

some prospects for intergroup behavior”, European Journal

of Social Psychology, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 5-34.Turner, J.C. (1985), “Social categorization and the self-

concept: a social cognitive theory of group behavior”,

in Lawler, E.J. (Ed.), Advances in Group Processes, JAI Press,

Greenwich, CT.Varadarajan, P.R. and Menon, A. (1988), “Cause related

marketing: a co-alignment of marketing strategy and

corporate philanthropy”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52

No. 3, pp. 58-74.Webb, D.J. and Mohr, L.A. (1998), “A typology of consumer

responses to cause related marketing: from skeptics to

socially concerned”, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,

Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 226-38.St Jude (2004), “St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital”,

available at: www.stjude.org (accessed April 15, 2004).

About the authors

Shruti Gupta is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at The

Pennsylvania State University at Abington. Her research

interests include corporate social responsibility, cause-related

marketing and international business. Shruti Gupta is the

corresponding author and can be contacted at:

sxg37@psu.eduJulie Pirsch is an Assistant Professor of Marketing at

Villanova University. Her research interests include cause-

related marketing, corporate social responsibility, and obesity

issues among adults and children.

Executive summary and implications formanagers and executives

This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives

a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a

particular interest in this topic may then read the article in toto to

take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the

research undertaken and its reults to get the full benefits of the

material present.

Research has indicated that companies are increasingly

securing competitive advantage through cause related

marketing (CRM) and other socially responsible activities.

There is evidence that consumers use corporate social

responsibility (CSR) as a means of differentiating one

company from another. In one survey, around 80 percent of

respondents said they trusted organizations that backed a

cause, while an even higher number would reportedly switch

allegiances to such organizations when faced with a choice of

products comparable in terms of range, quality and price.

Likewise, 85 percent admitted that support of a social cause

influenced their choice of which companies to patronize in

their local community. Individuals who support such

companies satisfy their own humanitarian desires and thus

perceive they are obtaining additional value from their

purchases.

The three Cs: company, consumer and cause

It has been previously shown that cause selection is critical to

the chances of a CRM campaign succeeding. CRM works

best when the company sponsors a cause whose image and

aims relate to its own, and when the target market approves

the association. Conversely, consumer attitude can be

negative when there is a perceived lack of fit between

alliance partners. One parallel to this situation is an

organization’s choice of partner for a co-branding initiative.Gupta & Pirsch build on earlier research by carrying out

two studies to investigate the significance of company-cause

fit and customer identification with both company and cause.

The first study involved 232 university students and the

second an online panel of 531 consumers aged between 18

and 74.Participants in the first study were given details of a

fictitious cause linking Disney with St Jude Children’s

Research Hospital. The students received a profile of

Disney using corporate ability (CA) and CSR attributes and

details of a cause-related marketing initiative relating to

children’s health treatment and research. The amount of

donation was unspecified. The authors chose two companies,

AT&T and MCI/WorldCom, for the second study with the

deliberate aim being to manipulate consumer response and

ensure contrasting attitudes towards the respective

organizations. Two unspecified fictitious causes were

detailed and each participant was exposed to one

combination of these variables.Both studies provide empirical support for earlier research

showing the importance of company-cause fit. The findings

indicated that customer attitude towards the fit and purchase

intention is higher when the customer-cause fit is high. That

the second study provided confirmation was deemed

especially significant given the number of respondents and

the sample’s representation of the general public.

The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-related marketing

Shruti Gupta and Julie Pirsch

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 23 · Number 6 · 2006 · 314–326

325

Analysts have shown that employees are more loyal whenthe organization’s value system closely mirrors their own. Theauthors propose that purchase intention similarly increaseswhen the consumer perceives a fit between a company andthemselves. According to the literature, this perceivedcloseness emerges through emotional attachment and senseof belonging that companies can themselves nurture throughcommunication, marketing and advertising.The studies reveal conflicting evidence in relation to the

significance of customer-company congruence and customer-cause congruence. In the first study, the student sampledemonstrated an almost unanimous intent to purchase thesponsored product and the level of customer-cause fit was alsofound to be insignificant. In contrast, the second studyindicated that the level of both customer-companycongruence and customer-cause congruence influencedconsumer attitude and purchase intent.Gupta and Pirsch suggest several reasons for these

discrepancies:. Possibility that student participants felt strong emotional

attachment to the Disney brand regardless of theperceived level of customer-company congruence.

. Idea that consumers generally view most causes positivelyand are willing to show support to causes regardless ofwhether they engage with a company or not. The causechosen for the first study was deemed especially significantsince the vast majority of people would support researchinto childhood disease.

. Similarly, consumers may feel inclined to reward anorganization’s good intentions even if the cause is notespecially close to their own heart. However, the secondstudy indicated that CRM is likely to be more effectivewith causes most relevant to the consumer.

. Belief that AT&T and MCI/WorldCom respectivelyevoked strong positive or negative consumer reactionsthat heavily influenced attitude and purchase intention;

Consumer attitude and skepticism

In the second study, the authors also examined the effect oftwo moderating variables: consumer attitude towards thecompany and consumer skepticism about an organization’smotives for engaging in CRM activities. According to theliterature, a consumer’s assessment of the company hascognitive and affective strands. These strands respectivelyrelate to how alike the consumer perceives the company and

him or herself to be and the feelings the individual has

towards the organization. Results showed that attitude

towards the company is significant and the authors suggest

that the emotional strand is particularly influential. They

point out that, in this case, people may not have thought they

held much in common with AT&T but had positive emotions

towards the company because of its good reputation.Previous studies had established that skeptical consumers

question a company’s true rationale for sponsoring a cause.

But the findings here run contrary to the indication that such

skepticism influences decision-making. Although different

levels of skepticism about company motivations were

recorded, there was no impact on purchase intention.

According to Gupta & Pirsch, this shows that consumers

accept that an organization’s involvement in CRM causes will

be driven by business reasons as well as the intention to dosome good.

Recommendations and further research

To enhance the performance of a CRM program, managers

should:. Ensure that the chosen cause fits closely with their

organization and its target audience.. Nurture a positive feeling towards the brand by keeping

the consumer informed about the company and its aims.. Demonstrate commitment to the cause. The organization

can achieve this by maximizing its contribution and

specifying the amount donated.. Beware of over publicizing the CRM program, as doing so

invites suspicion that the company is manipulating the

alliance.

Some analysts believe that company-consumer identity is

multi-faceted and the authors suggest further research could

develop an understanding of how the link is forged. They also

believe that study into actual consumer behavior rather than

behavior intention would be especially significant. The

potential of certain causes to divide opinion is also pointed

out and Gupta and Pirsch speculate that causes deemed

contentious by some sections of the company’s target

audience are likely to influence the level of consumer support.

(A precis of the article “The company-cause-customer fit decisionin cause-related marketing”. Supplied by Marketing Consultantsfor Emerald.)

The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-related marketing

Shruti Gupta and Julie Pirsch

Journal of Consumer Marketing

Volume 23 · Number 6 · 2006 · 314–326

326

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints