The company-cause-customer fit decision in

cause-related marketing
Shruti Gupta
Penn State University – Abington, Abington, Pennsylvania, USA, and
Julie Pirsch
Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania, USA

Abstract
Purpose – Cause-related marketing activities are increasingly becoming a meaningful part of corporate marketing plans. This paper aims to examine
the relationship between the company, cause and customer, and how fit between these three groups influences consumer response via generating a
positive 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 the
company-cause alliance and increases purchase intent. Additionally, this effect is enhanced under conditions of customer-company and customer-cause
congruence, and the consumer’s overall attitude toward the sponsoring company. Skepticism about the company’s motivation for participating in a
cause-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 the
sponsoring company in a cause-related marketing campaign. One assessment may be more cognitive where the consumer compares his or her own
identity to that of the company: “Is this company like me? Are our identities alike?” The second assessment is more affective or emotional: “Do I like
this company? Do I feel positively about this company?” The strength of the consumer sample suggests that when building a cause-related marketing
program, marketing managers should select a cause that makes sense to the consumer to be a partner in the alliance, build a general positive feeling
toward 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 between
these 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 current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0736-3761.htm
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 other

The authors would like to thank MSI International, a full-service

marketing intelligence firm based near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for the
Journal of Consumer Marketing
23/6 (2006) 314– 326 generous contribution of their survey programming and internet survey
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0736-3761] panel for data collection for this research. The authors are listed in
[DOI 10.1108/07363760610701850] alphabetical order.

314
The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-related marketing
Shruti Gupta and Julie Pirsch
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); and
2 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 a
designated 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).
315
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 6 · 2006 · 314 –326
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 fit
This 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
H2. 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.
Customer identification with the company and cause
This paper proposes that the consumers’ intent to purchase
the sponsored product of a cause-related marketing campaign
is enhanced by the amount of congruence between the
company’s character and their own. Theoretical support for
this 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 examines
person-organization (P-O) fit by conceptualizing it in terms of
the congruence between the values of the individual and the
organization, 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 by
looking at the relationship between consumers and
companies, suggesting that as consumers become more
knowledgeable about companies, their reactions and
responses to the company and its products may be
influenced by their perceptions of the P-O fit. Further, as
the differences in the corporate abilities of each organization
diminish (e.g. product assortment, product quality (Brown
and Dacin, 1997)), CSR initiatives adopted by the
organizations 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, by
using 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 and
Turner, 1985; Hogg and Abrams, 1988). These social
categories or groups are formed based on the prototypical
characteristics of their members (Turner, 1985; Ashforth and
Mael, 1989). Group members perceive themselves to be part of
the same social category, are emotionally involved with the
group in some way, and evaluate the group and its membership
similarly (Tajfel and Turner, 1985). The decision to join a
group 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 individual
and the organization via the process of self-categorization.
These authors argue that individuals closely identify with an
organization 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 is
motivated by the individual’s need for meaning,
connectedness, empowerment and immortality that could be
potentially fulfilled by an organization. These authors argue
that the connection a company makes with its publics can be
influenced by the company’s symbolic interactions and
symbolic management. Symbolic interactions are verbal and
nonverbal interactions with the company’s publics, while
symbolic management is the means by which these interactions
are transmitted to these publics, for example by using
marketing tools such as advertisements, logos, mascots and
information sessions.
316
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 6 · 2006 · 314 –326
Dutton et al. (1994) argue further that members’ cognitive
identification with and response to an organization results
from a combination of the individual’s perceived
organizational identity, or the cognitive bond between
himself and the central, enduring and distinctive (Albert
and Whetten, 1985; Ashforth and Mael, 1989) elements of
the organization “derived from images that each member has
of 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 an
organization when the same attributes define both the
individuals and the organization or, “when [individuals]
incorporate the characteristics they attribute to their
organization into their self-concepts” (Dutton et al., 1994,
p. 241). Individuals learn about organizational identity
attributes via events, changes in organization’s environment
caused by regulatory or competitive changes, or through
stories and rituals.
Bergami and Bagozzi (2000, Ellemers et al., 1993) extend
this concept by proposing that an individual’s social identity
in an organization is made up of a cognitive (organizational
identification), an affective (affective commitment) and an
evaluative (organization-based self-esteem) component.
Cognitive identification, where individuals use SIT to
evaluate similarities and differences between themselves and
the organization, is shown to influence the affective
commitment 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 the
context of the work organization to explain customer
identification with companies, arguing that “as consumers
learn more about and develop relationships with not just
products but also the producing organizations, they may
identify with some such organizations even in the absence of
formal membership”. It is also suggested that CSR actions,
such as cause-related marketing initiatives, rather than
corporate ability (CA) attributes, enhance the organizational
identification process between companies and their customers
by helping to communicate the company’s identity to the
targeted customers. By matching with a particular cause,
companies can verbally and non-verbally symbolize their
values (Ashforth and Mael, 1989) and communicate their
identity (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001) to customers, building
a cognitive and affective component (Bergami and Bagozzi,
2000) of identity in the minds of targeted customers. This
allows customers to see the cause association choice the
company makes, and through this choice, evaluate at least one
aspect of the company’s identity in the marketplace. This
identification translates, in many cases, to behaviors such as
donating (Bhattacharya et al., 1995) or other actions that offer
no reward to the individual but benefit the larger
organization, (O’Reilly and Chatman, 1986). Based on this
research, it is proposed that:
H3a. The effect of attitude toward the company-cause fit on
customer intent to purchase the sponsored product will
be 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 than
when it is low.
The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-related marketing
Shruti Gupta and Julie Pirsch
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
(MHigh Fit 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,
MHigh Fit 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
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
317
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 6 · 2006 · 314 –326
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 test
comparing the high attitude toward the fit condition and the
low attitude toward the fit condition showed a significant
difference between the two conditions (MHigh Attitude Toward –
the – Fit ¼ 6.549, MLow Attitude Toward – 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 the
hypothesis (Fð1; 229Þ ¼ 8:602, p ¼ 0:004,
MHigh Attitude ¼ 4.528, MLow Attitude ¼ 3.837) indicating the
more positive the attitude toward the company-cause fit, the
more likely the customer is to purchase the sponsored
product.
H3a examined the moderating influence of company-
customer congruence, stating that the positive influence of a
high attitude toward company-cause fit on purchase intent is
stronger when company-customer congruence is high than
when it is low. In order to explore this hypothesis, the
responses to company-customer congruence were split into
thirds, with the top third representing those respondents who
assessed a high level of company-customer congruence
(n ¼ 81), and the bottom third representing those who
assessed a low level of company-customer congruence
(n ¼ 78). As the data were normally distributed, this
technique was used to generate the maximum contrast
between high and low fit conditions. T-test results between the
high and low company-customer congruence conditions
demonstrated a significant difference between these two
conditions (MHigh Company – CustomerCongruence ¼ 5.214,
MLow Company – CustomerCongruence ¼ 2.415, t ¼ 228.107, df
¼ 157, p-value ¼ 0.000). ANOVA results examining the
influence of the moderating variable, company-customer
congruence, on the effect of attitude toward the company-
cause fit on purchase intent showed a non-significant
interaction (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,
MLow Attitude – 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,
MLow Attitude Toward – the – Company – Cause – Fit ¼ 3.409), indicating
no support for H3a.
H3b examined the moderating influence of customer-cause
congruence, stating that the positive influence of high attitude
toward the company-cause fit on purchase intent is stronger
when the customer-cause congruence is high than when it is
low. This hypothesis was also not supported. Following the
same technique used for H2a, the sample was split into thirds
based on the respondent’s answers assessing the level of
congruence between themselves and St Jude Children’s
Research Hospital. T-test results showed significant
differences between these conditions (MHigh Customer –
Cause Congruence ¼ 4.70, MLow Customer – Cause Congruence 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 toward
the company-cause fit for the high customer-cause fit
The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-related marketing
Shruti Gupta and Julie Pirsch
condition (MHigh Attitude Toward the Company – Cause Fit ¼ 5.000,
MLow Attitude Toward the Company – Cause Fit ¼ 4.279) versus for the
low customer-cause fit condition
(MHigh Attitude Toward the Company – CauseFit ¼ 4.541,
MLow Attitude Toward the Company – Cause Fit ¼ 3.413), indicating no
support for H3b.
Study 1 discussion
Results from study 1 offer a variety of interesting findings for
managers 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 is
high. 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 marketing
campaign “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 student
sample almost unanimously indicated their intent to support
the cause-related marketing alliance through a positive intent
to purchase the sponsored product, as purchase responses
from both the high and low attitude toward the fit conditions
means were above the midpoint of 3.5 (MHigh Attitude ¼ 4:528,
MLow Attitude ¼ 3:837). Second, despite the fact that there was
a significant difference between low and high company-
customer congruence conditions, it is possible that both
categories of subjects felt a strong emotional connection to
Disney as a brand, and thus were willing to purchase the
product equally under both conditions. Third, subjects were
presented 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 be
exposed 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 by
different 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 of
their 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 (less
company-cause fit) will not affect purchase intent, as the
customer will always reward a company’s intended good
works. 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. a
right-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 for
the 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 the
condition of more positive attitude toward the company-cause
fit than in the condition of a more negative attitude toward the
318
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 6 · 2006 · 314 –326
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 and
Bagozzi (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 or
not 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 as
attachment 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 variables
to 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 significant
evidence 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
toward one object have been shown to “spill over” onto other
associated objects (Simonin and Ruth, 1998). These learned,
evaluative predispositions act as filters for how individuals
perceive objects, products and experiences, and may directly
lead to specific, consistent favorable or unfavorable behaviors
(Fishbein and Azjen, 1975; Lutz, 1991; Eagly and Chaiken,
1993; Faircloth et al., 2001; Madrigal, 2001). Further, the
combination of the context of a cause-related marketing
campaign (the company-cause partnership) along with prior
attitudes towards each partner has been shown to prompt
consumers to elaborate on the identities of the alliance
partners through comparison to the pre-alliance image of
these organizations (Lafferty et al., 2004). This leads to the
following hypotheses:
H4a. Consumer attitude toward the company-cause fit will
be more positive when customer attitude toward the
company is high than when it is low.
H4b. Consumer attitude toward the company will moderate
the relationship between company-cause fit and
attitude toward the fit. The positive influence of high
company-cause fit on attitude toward that fit will be
stronger when attitude toward the company is high
than when it is low.
Consumer skepticism
The choice to add the skepticism variable as a moderator
stems from a large volume of literature pointing to the
challenge of relying on attitudes alone as accurate predictors
of behavioral intention and action. Ajzen and Fishbein (1977)
indicate that while attitude-behavior consistency is applicable
under most circumstances, attitude is a more accurate
predictor of behavioral intention than of the actual behavior
itself. This disconnect can be due to the fact that certain
moderating variables may make the actual behavior
impossible, despite the respondent’s indication that they
intend to pursue this behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1977;
Triandis, 1977). It is suggested that by including intervening
variables such as personal and social norms that may be
relevant to the actual behavior, the influence of attitude on
behavioral intention may be more clearly explained (Ajzen
and Fishbein, 1977; Triandis, 1977). Examining the
customer’s level of skepticism about the firm’s motivation
for sponsoring the cause-related marketing campaign may
thus help to explain this attitude-intention-behavior link, and
offer 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 the
literature which demonstrate the overriding influence of a
consumer’s level of skepticism about a product, service or
company on their decision making process. While evidence
for the importance of fit is strong, some do suggest that a high
degree of congruency can increase consumer skepticism about
the company’s motivation for sponsorship (Barone et al.,
2000) by raising the issue of companies seeking profit at the
expense of the associated cause (Drumwright, 1996; Ellen
et al., 2000).
Skepticism has been defined as a tendency toward disbelief
(Obermiller and Spangenberg, 2001), or the overall tendency
to question (Kantner and Mirvis, 1989; Boush et al., 1993).
In the case of cause-related marketing programs, consumers
are often likely to express skepticism about a company’s
motivation for participating in such a program, particularly
319
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 6 · 2006 · 314 –326
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 cause
exploitative (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 more
altruistic intentions rather than by the desire to sell more
products. Therefore, it is hypothesized that:
H5. Consumer skepticism about the company’s motivation
for 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 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.
Study 2 method and results
In order to address the issue of generalizability, study 2’s
sample consisted of an internet panel of 531 consumers
drawn 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 32
percent 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 were
AT&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 also
measured 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 of
respondents per condition is reported in Table II.
Table II Respondents per scenario study 2
Manipulated condition: company cause Number of
fit/attitude to company 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 Journal of Consumer Marketing
Shruti Gupta and Julie Pirsch Volume 23 · Number 6 · 2006 · 314 –326

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, MHigh Company –
Cause – Fit ¼ 6.017, MLow Company – 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,
MLow Attitude 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-alue
¼ 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 (M High Attitude Toward Company – Cause Fit ¼ 3.947,
MLow Attitude Toward Company – Cause Fit ¼ 1.353) versus for the
low customer-company congruence condition
(MHigh Attitude Toward Company – Cause Fit ¼ 2.447,
M Low Attitude 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,
MLow Attitude Toward Company – Cause Fit ¼ 1.371) versus for the
low customer-cause congruence condition
(MHigh Attitude Toward Company – Cause Fit ¼ 2.415,
M Low Attitude 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
Figure 1 Study 2 H3a interaction of attitude to company-cause fit and
customer-company congruence

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

320
The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-related marketing
Shruti Gupta and Julie Pirsch
Figure 2 Study 2 H3b interaction of attitude to company-cause fit and
customer-cause congruence
showed significant differences between the positive and
negative attitude toward the company responses
(MHigh Attitude Toward the Company ¼ 5.953,
M Low Attitude 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, M Low Company –
Cause Fit ¼ 4.721) versus those customers with a low attitude
toward the company ( M High Company – Cause Fit ¼ 5.595,
MLow Company – 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-test
results showed significant differences between the high and
low skepticism conditions (Mhigh ¼ 4:553, Mlow ¼ 2:523,
321
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 6 · 2006 · 314 –326
Figure 3 Study 2 H4b interaction of company-cause fit and attitude
toward the company
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 (MHigh Attitude Toward the Company – Cause Fit ¼ 3.708,
MLow Attitude Toward the Company – Cause Fit ¼ 1.824) versus those
customers who were less skeptical
(MHigh Attitude Toward the Company – Cause Fit ¼ 2.305,
MLow Attitude Toward the Company – 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
The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-related marketing
Shruti Gupta and Julie Pirsch
Figure 4 Study 2 H5 interaction of attitude to company-cause fit and
skepticism
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
322
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 6 · 2006 · 314 –326
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).
The company-cause-customer fit decision in cause-related marketing
Shruti Gupta and Julie Pirsch
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 degree
of fit with their company. People tend to feel better about the
alliance, and therefore are more likely to purchase the
sponsored 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 to
participate 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 attitude
toward the brand. In conjunction with this conclusion, this
study indicates that consumers on average are influenced by
the level of congruence between themselves and the
sponsoring cause-related marketing company and the cause.
Therefore, the decision to participate seems to be a
combination 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-related
marketing campaign does not affect the consumer’s likelihood
of purchase of the sponsored product. Consumers may expect
companies 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 both
motivations 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, other
research has shown that companies that both specify the
amount of money given for each purchase, and who maximize
the size of the donation that they are giving to the cause
generate improved performance of their cause-related
marketing programs (Landreth et al., 2004), further
pointing to the need to demonstrate commitment to the
cause and to be clear about company intentions in the eyes of
the consumer.
Limitations and future research
This study is limited in some ways, but these limitations pose
interesting 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 and
Sen (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 between
company-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 with
the company’s identity, may be perceived as controversial by
some part of their target audience. Third, as pointed out
323
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 6 · 2006 · 314 –326
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 a
controlled 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 fit
and 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 that
consumers 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 these
findings, 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 not
think 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 empirical
research”, 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), Research
in 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 of
Marketing 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”, British
Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 555-77.
Bettman, J.R. (1979), An Information Processing Theory of
Consumer 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
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 of
Marketing, 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 Research
in 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 product
responses”, 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, January
26, 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 a
social 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 on
the mirror: image and identity in organizations”, Academy of
Management 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 of
Attitudes, 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 enhancement
strategies”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 64, pp. 766-78.
Ellen, P.S., Mohr, L.A. and Webb, D.J. (2000), “Charitable
programs and the retailer: do they mix?”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 393-406.
Faircloth, J.B., Capella, L.M. and Alford, B.L. (2001), “The
effect 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, Intention
and 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), Social
Identifications: A Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations
and Group Processes, Routledge, New York, NY.
324
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 6 · 2006 · 314 –326
Kantner, D.L. and Mirvis, P.H. (1989), Thy Cynical
Americans: Living and Working in an Age of Discontent and
Disillusion, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Kotler, P. (1972), “A generic concept of marketing”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 45-54.
Kotler, P. and Levy, S. (1969), “Broadening the concept of
marketing”, 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. and
Mayer, 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), Perspectives
in 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 of
Consumer Research, Vol. 11, September, pp. 619-31.
Madrigal, R. (2001), “Belief-attitude-intentions hierarchy:
implications for corporate sponsorship”, Psychology and
Marketing, 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 buying
behavior”, 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 toward
advertising”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 2,
pp. 159-86.
O’Reilly, C. III and Chatman, J. (1986), “Organizational
commitment 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 cause
related marketing”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 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
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 á 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.edu
Julie 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.
325
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 6 · 2006 · 314 –326
Executive summary and implications for
managers 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
Analysts have shown that employees are more loyal when
the organization’s value system closely mirrors their own. The
authors propose that purchase intention similarly increases
when the consumer perceives a fit between a company and
themselves. According to the literature, this perceived
closeness emerges through emotional attachment and sense
of belonging that companies can themselves nurture through
communication, 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 sample
demonstrated an almost unanimous intent to purchase the
sponsored product and the level of customer-cause fit was also
found to be insignificant. In contrast, the second study
indicated that the level of both customer-company
congruence and customer-cause congruence influenced
consumer 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 the
perceived level of customer-company congruence.
.
Idea that consumers generally view most causes positively
and are willing to show support to causes regardless of
whether they engage with a company or not. The cause
chosen for the first study was deemed especially significant
since the vast majority of people would support research
into childhood disease.
.
Similarly, consumers may feel inclined to reward an
organization’s good intentions even if the cause is not
especially close to their own heart. However, the second
study indicated that CRM is likely to be more effective
with causes most relevant to the consumer.
.
Belief that AT&T and MCI/WorldCom respectively
evoked strong positive or negative consumer reactions
that heavily influenced attitude and purchase intention;
Consumer attitude and skepticism
In the second study, the authors also examined the effect of
two moderating variables: consumer attitude towards the
company and consumer skepticism about an organization’s
motives for engaging in CRM activities. According to the
literature, a consumer’s assessment of the company has
cognitive and affective strands. These strands respectively
relate to how alike the consumer perceives the company and
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
326
Journal of Consumer Marketing
Volume 23 · Number 6 · 2006 · 314 –326
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 do
some 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 précis of the article “The company-cause-customer fit decision
in cause-related marketing”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants
for Emerald.)