THE COMPONENT OF CAUSE RELATED MARKETING CAMPAIGN AFFECTING ON THAI CONSUMER PATRONAGE INTENTION

Phongzahrun Pollsrilert

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for

Doctor of Business Administration Program in Marketing Siam University

March 2010

ABSTRACT

The Cause Related Marketing (CRMK) has been increasingly popular societal marketing tool which firms can contribute for Corporate Social Responsibility. Many previous researches stated that CRMK campaign had the influential factors on consumer response. After reviewing the literature in this domain, almost all of previous researches showed
consumers response to CRMK campaign from the only representatives of United State of America, Europe, and Australia. The results showed mostly positive responses to CRMK campaigns. Moreover, almost of previous research studies focused on only of consumer response with purchase intention or attitude toward brand and firm. Importantly, there is no evident finding in any research studied on the correlation between CRMK and consumer patronage intention, especially CRMK campaign component. Thai consumer and marketer are becoming an increasingly contributors to social issues nowadays. How should a firm setup the component of CRMK campaign which affect to consumer patronage intention? The integrated approach which examining variety factors in the component of CRMK campaign is necessary for marketing research.

The purpose of this research were as follows; 1) To study the consumer opinion level toward to CRMK campaign component (cause important, brand-cause fit, and donation framing), include patronage intention (purchase intention, repeat purchase, and word of mouth), and skepticism. 2) To study and develop the causal model effect of CRMK campaign component on consumer patronage intention. 3) To study and provide a guidance practicable CRMK campaign component for marketers. This study was a descriptive research. The study was conducted from February to March 2009. The samples of the study consisted of 943 graduate students of Ramkhamhaeng University studied at Huamak Campus, Bangkok Metropolis. Questionnaire was the primary
i

used instrument in this study. The statistics used for the data analysis were descriptive statistics. Structural Equation Modeling was used to assess model fit and investigation for parsimonious model to explain the effect of CRMK campaign component on consumer patronage intention. Research findings showed that CRMK campaign component effected on consumer patronage intention. The study showed cause important, brand-cause fit, and donation framing were
considered to be used for the parts of CRMK campaign component with more agree level. They had high factor loading of 0.758, 0.924, and 0.986 which represented the important of these factors in CRMK campaign component. The study shows that there is the strong negative relationship between CRMK campaign component and skepticism (standardized parameter estimate = -0.707), which is consistent with the expected observation. The study show the high appropriate component for CRMK campaign had a significant effect on consumer skepticism. The findings support the positive relationship between CRMK campaign component and patronage intention (standardized parameter estimate = 0.582), which is consistent with the expectation. Surprisingly, the findings show that there is a positive relationship between skepticism and patronage intention (standardized parameter estimate = 0.362) which is inconsistent with expectation and previous findings that consumers with a high level of skepticism will be less likely to respond positively to CRMK campaign than consumers with low level of skepticism toward CRMK campaign (Mohr et al., 1998; Webb & Mohr, 1998. The findings however, is consistent with Youn and Kim (2008) which found that high in skepticism are more likely to trust a company's willingness to engage in philanthropic commitment to social causes. For demographic factors, there were seven exogenous variables had direct effect on patronage intention, such as age, used to buy CRMK product, gender, donated within last 6 months, job related with marketing function, monthly income, and studying in MBA program.

ii

These findings do suggest for managerial implications into four questions as follows:
Which a major cause or charity should the CRMK campaign be focused? How should alliance between brand and cause be structured? How do we create a donation structure? And, Should level of promotional campaign be standardized and worldwide applied in marketing activity?

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to many involving persons. Firstly to my dissertation adviser, Dr. Prin Laksitamas. Without his support and trust, this dissertation would have never seen the light of the day. Working with him through this professional process has been full of exhilaration, frustration, excitement, and all of other feeling one could experience in such a project. Secondly, I am grateful for the advices and guidance of my chairperson of committee, Assistant Professor Dr. Thanawan Saengsuwan. Including to my co-advisers, Associate Professor Sirisopa Siribovornkiat, Dr. Sivarat Na Pathum, and Dr. Chaiyapol Horungruang. Without their precious assistance and constructive comments, this dissertation could not have been completed well. Thirdly, I also grateful to Dr. Boonkiet Chokwatana, CEO of ICC international Plc., Dr. Lakkana Leelayouthayotin, CEO of Cerebos Thailand, and Mr. Sompol Chantprasert, Senior Executive Vice President of CAT Telecom Plc. for granting me their time for the interviews. Fourthly, I would like to express my special thanks to all student interviewers for assiting me with the data collection. I am also indebted to a thousand of graduate students Ramkhamhang University for participating in the surveys and make this study possible. Finally, I really appreciate Mama Khema Wisuttiwatanakorn and my wife, Nuch, for their understanding and being of great support all through my work in the doctoral program. Phongzahrun Pollsrilert SIAM University March 2010
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page ABSTRACT...i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..iv LIST OF TABLES.... viii LIST OF FIGURES..... .x CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION.. The research problem The research questions and objectives.. Independent variables... Dependent variables.. Intervening variables. Conceptual framework.. Research hypothesis.. The research approach.. Contributions of the study Definition.. Conclusion. 1 1 3 4 10 11 11 12 13 13 14 15

2. LITERATURE REVIEW Corporate social responsibility in marketing.... Corporate social responsibility initiatives. Cause related marketing Development of cause related marketing campaign.

17 17 28 41 44
v

Benefit of participating in cause related marketing campaigns Risks of participating in cause related marketing campaigns... Component of cause related marketing campaign Cause important... Brand cause fit.. Donation framing. Consumer attitudes toward CRMK campaign. Patronage intention.. Skepticism Demography.. Conclusion.

56 58 60 60 67 70 75 75 77 80 81

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.. Research design Population and sampling plan... Data collection.. Questionnaires development..... Data analysis techniques and criteria Conclusion

83 83 83 83 86 94 100

4. RESEARCH RESULTS Data editing and screening Characteristic of respondents Attitude of the respondents toward observed variables Multicollinearity testing

101 101 102 103 116

vi

Exploratory factor analysis for CRMK campaign component.. 120 Structural equation modeling analysis.. Legend to labeling constructs / variables. Confirmatory factor analysis of CRMK campaign component... Structural equation modeling fitting Results of hypotheses testing... Total direct, direct and indirect effects. 122 122 122 127 141 142

Conclusion. 144 5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Research issues and hypothesis testing..... CRMK campaign component.. Consumer attitudes toward CRMK campaign.... Hypothesis testing Theoretical contributions 146 146 146 152 153 159

Managerial implications 164 Limitation.. 172 Future research.. 174

REFERENCES..

176

APPENDIX 190 Questionnaire (English version)... Questionnaire (Thai version)

vii

LIST of TABLES
Page TABLE 1 Evolution of CSR concept... 2 Examples of CSR in Thailand..... 3 Examples of cause related marketing campaign.. 4 Questions measuring skepticism from Mohr et al. 1988. 5 Summary of measures for five latent constructs.. 6 Summary of Cronbach s Alpha.. 7 Indices used and recommended acceptable fit standards 8 Profile of respondents. 9 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on personal relevance.. 10 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on cause proximity. 11 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on cause agent 12 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on cause claim 13 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on functional fit.. 14 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on natural fit... 15 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on image fit 16 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on donation size.. 17 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on transparent donation 18 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on purchase intention 19 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on repeat purchase.. 20 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on word of mouth 28 35 45 79 87 92 98 102

104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111

112

113 114 114

viii

21 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on skepticism.. 22 Correlation matrix 23 Exploratory factor analysis for four dimensions of cause important... 24 Exploratory factor analysis for three dimensions of brand-cause fit... 25 Exploratory factor analysis for three dimensions of donation framing 26 Dummy variables for demographic factors.. 27 Standardized parameter estimates and model fit statistics of the hypothesis model 28 Standardized parameter estimates for the measurement model of CRMK campaign component model 29 Regression Weights. 30 Standardized Regression Weights 31 Squared Multiple Correlations. 32 Summary of structural paths and hypothesis testing results, standardized estimates.. 33 Direct effects, indirect effect, and total effect of CRMK campaign component model

115 117 120 121 121 126

130

132 136 137 139

141

142

ix

LIST of FIGURES
Page FIGURE 1 A preliminary model of the component of CRMK campaign affecting on Thai consumer patronage intention. 2 Corporate social responsibility continuum.. 3 Measurement model for cause important.. 4 Measurement model for brand-cause fit... 5 Measurement model for donation framing.. 6 Hypothesis model for goodness-of-fit testing... 7 Standardized estimates for CRMK campaign component model.. 8 A parsimonious model of the sequent impact of CRMK campaign component on
patronage intention..

12 41 123 124 125 125 131

155 161

9 Hierarchy of effect model...

CHAPTER 1 Introduction

The research problem Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an important wave of the business practice. Many firms have been using CSR to address their social and environmental concerns. CSR reporting has been steadily rising since 1993 and it has increased substantially in the period of 2002 2005. The majority of Fortune Global 250 corporations increasingly published CSR information as part of their annual reports from 52 percent in 2002 to 64 percent in 2005 (KPMG, 2005). So, CSR is one of todays core issues in business management and emerges as an inescapable priority for business leaders in many countries. Many firms have already done CSR activities for two reasons. First, the business and society are interdependent. Society depends on business to achieve its needs and welfare, whereas, business depends on society for its existence and growth. Second, there are pressures on firms to think of corporate social responsibility in generic ways most appropriate to each firms strategy (Porter & Kramer, 2006). Specifically, the business case for virtue is the strongest for firms that have made CSR as part of their strategy for attracting and retaining consumers, employees, and investors, and for highly visible global firms that have been targeted by activities (Vogel, 2005). CSR programs have becoming increasingly popular marketing tools since the sixties and seventies, like Andreasens (1975) work on the disadvantage consumer, empirical studies of socially responsible consumers (Miller & Sturdivant, 1977), and more general analyses of the relevance of CSR to marketing (Patterson, 1966). CSR

and marketing researches become more and more

important in this decade

(Bhattacharya et al., 2004; Ellen et al., 2006; Lichtenstein et al., 2004; Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006; Maignan & Ferrell, 2004; Mohr et al., 2001; Yoon et al., 2006). Kotler and Lee (2005, p.3) issued corporate social initiatives to describe major efforts under the corporate social responsibility umbrella and offer also gave the definition. Corporate social initiatives are major activities undertaken by a firm to support social causes and to fulfill commitment to corporate social responsibility. Among the six categories of corporate social initiatives, cause-related marketing (CRMK) is the only one which directly measures financially impact of the marketing campaign because of CRMK campaigns rely on consumers to make purchases in exchange for a donation from the sponsoring firm to a cause (Varandarajan & Menon, 1988). One of the very notable examples was the American Express campaign to restore the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island. The firm promised to contribute 1 cent for every card transaction and $1 for every new card issued during the last quarter of 1983 to the cause. American Express collected $1.7 million for the restoration effort. Report indicated that as a result of that program, there was a 28 percentages increase in use of the American Express card (Chiagouris & Ray, 2007). As for business case in Thailand, Cerebos (Thailand) Ltd. had used CSR concept to build brand loyalty of BRANDS essence of chicken for over 20 years. During the period of November 2005 to January 2006, the firm had launched CRMK campaign Buy every a BRANDS gift basket as the firm promised to donate 10 baht to The Mother Princess Medical Volunteer Foundation. The firm reported that as a result of CRMK campaign, there was 1.42 million baht for donation (www.brandworld.co.th).

From the examples given, CRMK is a very effective socially responsible marketing tool. This is also becoming an increasingly significant contributor in addressing social issues and the needs of charities and causes. CRMK works by integrating the core trading objectives and activities of a business with the need of a particular cause or charity. Indeed, if effectively used, CRMK provides a win situation for the charity or cause, a win for the consumer, a win for shareholders and other stakeholders and also a win for the business (Varandarajan & Menon, 1988). After reviewing the literatures in this domain, almost all of previous researches showed consumers response to CRMK campaign from the only representatives of United State of America, Europe, and Australia. The results showed mostly positive responses to CRMK campaigns. Moreover, almost of previous research studies focused on only of consumer responses with purchase intention or attitude toward brand and firm. Evidently, there is no finding in any research studied on the correlation between CRMK and consumer patronage intention, especially CRMK campaign component. Thai consumer and marketer are becoming an increasingly contributors to social issues nowadays. How should a firm setup the component of CRMK campaign which affect to consumer patronage intention? The integrated approach which examining variety factors in the component of CRMK campaign is necessary for marketing research. The research questions and objectives The main purpose of this study was to study the component of CRMK campaign. The fundamental question addressed in this study was how can the abstract concept of component of CRMK campaign would be a practicality? This basic

question leaded to more complex issues regarding the interaction of various factors which influenced consumer patronage intention. There were three objectives in this study: 1) To study the consumer opinion level toward to CRMK campaign component (cause important, brand-cause fit, and donation framing), patronage intention (purchase intention, repeat purchase, and word of mouth), and skepticism. 2) To study and developed the causal model effect of CRMK campaign component (cause important, brand-cause fit, and donation framing) on consumer patronage intention (purchase intention, repeat purchase, and word of mouth) . 3) To provide a guidance of practicable CRMK campaign component for marketers to be used and applied with marketing strategies for each marketing situation. Pertinent variables Independent variables CRMK campaign component; many previous researches have stated that CRMK campaign has the important factors which influence on consumer response. This study defined CRMK campaign component as follows: Cause important; previous researches have confirmed positive effects of cause important on attitude toward brand and purchase intention (Ellen et al., 2000; Kotler & Lee, 2005; Landreth, 2002). According to Ellen, Mohr & Webb (2000), they manipulated the donation situation as either an ongoing cause or a disaster. They found that disaster situations were perceived as more important because disasters were perceived as more personally involving. Many observed variables were found

for cause important like personal relevance, cause proximity, cause agent and cause claim. Personal relevance (also known as involvement) is the level of perceived personal importance and/or interest evoked by a stimulus within a specific situation. The variations of involvement and manipulation become important because the concept of personal importance is manifested as cause importance which is the support of a cause due to personal experience or social norms (Ellen et al., 2000; Grua & Folse, 2007; Lafferty, 1996; Landreth, 2002). Cause proximity deals with the distance between the donation activity and the consumer affecting the impact of the donation. The levels of cause proximity are local cause and national cause. If donations support an overall cause on a local basis, it is more likely to impact the consumer more directly than if they are provided on a national basis (Landreth, 2002). Cause agent represents the cause important. Menon and Kahn (2001) did not assess involvement with the cause but used a cause agent or charity to represent the cause. Cause agent characteristics will influence consumer responses in CRMK campaigns. Cause claim is an executional element which enhanced viewers a priority levels of involvement in an advertising and increased information processing and persuasion. Cause claim in advertisements has a very powerful influence on purchase intention (Berger, et al., 1999). Brand-cause fit; fit is particularly relevant in predicting positive consumer responses if prior consumer attitudes toward the partners are positive. Perceived fit had a significant effect on consumers with high fit having impact on purchase
5

intention (Basil, 2002; Bottomley & Holden, 2001; Drumwright, 1996; Gupta & Pirsch ,2006; Kotler & Lee, 2005; Pracejus & Olsen, 2004; Simmons & BeckerOlsen, 2006; Strahilevitz & Myers 1998). Despite the relative of brand cause links, several terms have been used throughout the literature to characterize them. The terms compatibility, similarity, fit, relevance, match, congruence and natural fit have been used to describe the perceived link between a sponsor/brand and cause/nonprofit. Congruence and its synonyms fit and match, dominated the sponsorship literature representing functional links. Brand-cause fit had two variables were found for this variable, such as product fit and image fit. Product fit is perceived on the basis of a match between a product attributes and the objectives of the alliance. It is perceived with functional fit and natural fit. Functional fit may be perceived on the basis of a match between a brands functional attributes and the objectives of the alliance. Firm provided a core competence to contribute meaningfully to accomplishing the mission and objectives of the alliance. In addition to a functional fit, some firms attempted to create a fit with causes by emphasizing similarity in values (Kashyap & Li, 2006). Compatibility may be a function of not only the two types of congruence defined in the literature, functional and image, but also other factors such as individual characteristics and their relationship to the sponsored cause (Trimble & Rifon, 2006). Natural fit is the extent to which the sponsored cause is perceived as being congruent with the image of the sponsor, independent of efforts to create a perceived fit between the organizations (Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006). For example, Alpo and the Humane Society are high in natural fit because both are strongly associated with pets; this association readily comes to mind. In contrast, Alpo and the Special Olympics are low in natural fit because they share no highly accessible association.
6

Simmons & Becker-Olsen (2006) stated that natural fit is of interest for several reasons. First, firms may engage in low fit sponsorships because of a sincere interest in the cause or a belief that is irrelevant. Second, cost efficiencies are greater if there is no need to spend on efforts to create fit. Finally, because marketers do not control the entire context in which consumers encounter information about their activities, a sponsorship that does not depend on such control for its effectiveness is highly attractive. This study will use natural fit as one of the observed variables. Image fit refers to how comfortable consumers are with the brand-cause pairing. Each partner brings perceptions of their image to the alliance. In any collaborative effort, the images of both parties become part of the equation (Varandarajan & Menon, 1988). Therefore, perception of image fit between the brand and the cause is congruent. The alliance will be evaluated more favorable. High brand-cause fit should therefore be a key selection criterion for practitioners who are considering a brand-cause alliance if the aim of the campaign is to influence consumer attitude and consumer patronage intent. Donation framing; consumer perception of donation quantifiers may also be influenced by the size of the donation relative to the price of the product offered for purchase. Pracejus, Olsen and Brown (2004) use the term donation quantifiers to describe how the donation amount is presented to the consumer. There are three main types of quantifiers; calculable, estimated, and abstract. Calculable quantifiers are defined as donation amounts that allow consumers to calculate the actual amount being donated and include percentage of sales or percentage of price formats. Estimable quantifiers give the customer only a piece of the information needed to calculate the donation amount. These quantifiers are usually expressed as a percentage of the net proceeds or as a percentage of profit/net profit. Abstract
7

quantifiers, the most commonly used method, occur when the customer is provided with almost no information about how much the firm donated to the sponsored cause (Olsen et al., 2003; Pracejus & Olsen, 2004; Pracejus et al., 2004). Donation size; Consumer perception of donation quantifiers may also be influenced by the size of the donation relative to the price of the product offered for purchase. Dahl and Lavack (1995) found that consumers were more skeptical of small donation sizes. However, the amount per transaction generated by the campaign may be small and therefore, high volumes will be a key to successful campaign (Kotler & Lee, 2005). Transparent donation; Olsen, Pracejus & Brown (2003) compared donation quantifiers between percentage of sales and percentage of profit. They stated that the percentage of profit format was inherently ambiguous and result in decreased attitudes and intentions. Landreth, Garretson, and Pirsch (2007) included a fourth level, the exact donation quantifier. The most concrete option, an exact quantifier, stated the exact amount of the donation given for each product sold. Example from recent CRMK campaigns included Avons Kiss Goodbye to Breast Cancer campaign which the firm donated $1 for each lipstick sold. Grau and Folse (2007) founded 75 percentages of responses preferred exact option. Moreover, timeframe of the campaign is the one of transparent donation component. Varandarajan and Menon (1988) stated that there were three different types of time frame campaigns. These were long-term, medium-term, and short-term. Short-term focus was the most dominating choice even though firms desire to focus on medium-term or long-term. However, short-term had more disadvantages than advantages when it came to creating trust and belief among the consumers if the support was going to last no longer than a year. Long-term relationships also showed that consumers recognized
8

the brand and the charity cause if the relationship was strong and took place over a long period of time (Pringle & Thompson, 1999). Despite the number of campaigns using abstract quantifiers, consumers preferred more tangible information regarding the donation. If the amount donated through CRMK campaign was stated in transparent, straightforward way, there would be little concern about potential consumer confusion. Demography Gender; According to previous researches, CRMK studies have noted differences in acceptance of CRMK campaign by sex of the respondents. Women were found to be more accepting of CRMK campaigns than men (Ross et al., 1992). The findings suggested that the nurturing personalities of women (Ross et al., 1992) or a need to assuage guilt (Strahilevitz & Myers, 1998) might be parts of the process that allowed CRMK to influence consumers, but these assertions have not been directly tested. However, recent research analyzing fit or match had not shown differences based on gender (Lafferty et al., 2004; Pracejus & Olsen, 2004; Rifon et al., 2004). They suggested that influence of gender was not a foregone conclusion. Therefore, the sample size would be divided women and men equally. Age; Consumer age was shown to have a relationship to consumer attitudes toward societal marketing, with no consistent pattern. The studies conducted by Straughan and Roberts (1999) concluded that older consumers responded more favorable to societal marketing. However, the findings from Peppas and Peppas (2000) identified that age did not show any influences on consumer attitudes.

Dependent variables Patronage intention; Several studies investigated patronage intention regarding consumer perceptions of socially conscious businesses (e.g., Mohr & Webb, 2005; Porter & Kramer, 2002; Ricks, 2005; Walker, 2007) and found that corporate associations influenced product evaluations and overall consumer attitudes about the organization. Patronage intention is the indicator that signals whether customers will remain with or defect from a firm (Zeithaml et al., 1996, p31). The two most commonly examined dimension of patronage intention which is of interest to retailers relate to repurchase intention and intention to recommend. Baker, Parasuraman, Grewal, and Voss (2002) defined patronage intention as a willingness to recommend and to buy. This study defined patronage intention as purchase intention, repeat purchase, and word of mouth. Purchase intention; consumer attitudes to purchase intention or brand choice, including the propensity to switch brands to those that support causes, tend to increase with the perception of ethical and social responsibility demonstrated by the firm (Barone et al., 2000; Bennett & Gabriel, 2000; Berger et al., 1999; Creyer & Ross, 1997; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; Webb & Mohr, 1998). Women tend to have a higher intention to buy or switch brands than men (Ross et al.,1992; Webb & Mohr, 1998). Additionally, campaigns which support social causes were shown by Barone, Miyazaki and Tayor (2000) to be rewarded by consumers when these causes were perceived by the consumers for appropriate reasons. Repeat purchase; brand loyalty has been conceptualized both in a behavioral and an attitudinal ways. The former captures more patronage behavior and focuses on repeated purchasing of a certain brand by a consumer over time (Bloemer & Kasper, 1995).
10

Word of Mouth; According to Zeithaml, Berry and Parasuraman (1996), in the case those consumers have patronage intention for CRMK campaign, they intent to spread their positive words and recommend the campaign to other people. On the other hand, if the campaign is not well conducted, negative word of mouth can also destroy the campaign and discourage consumers to have participation. Intervening variables Skepticism; Webb and Mohr (1998) make the assumption that skepticism toward CRMK campaign derives mainly from consumers distrust and cynicism toward advertising. The negative attitudes toward CRMK campaign expressed from half of their research respondents were credited mostly to skepticism toward implementation and or cynicism toward a firms motives. Half of the respondents indeed perceived the firms motive as being self-serving. A few previous researches suggest that consumers with a high level of skepticism will be less likely to respond positively to CRMK campaign than consumers with low level of skepticism toward CRMK campaign (Mohr et al., 1998; Webb & Mohr, 1998). Conceptual framework The conceptual model is presented in Figure 1. The propositions in the figure suggest that the independent variable of CRMK campaign component with four domains (i.e., brand-cause fit, cause important, donation framing, and demography) will impact the dependent variables of three dimensions of consumer patronage intention (i.e., purchase intention, repeat purchase, and word of mouth) which are intervened by skepticism.

11

Figure 1 A preliminary model of The sequent impact of CRMK campaign component on patronage intention

Research hypothesis To support testing of the model and to answer the research questions, several hypotheses have been developed, which are further described below: H1: CRMK campaign component negatively related to Skepticism H2: CRMK campaign component positively related to Patronage Intention H3: Skepticism negatively related to Patronage Intention H4: Demography impacted on Patronage Intention

12

The research approach The purpose of this study was to study the components of CRMK campaign and to provide the practicability of cause related marketing strategy. The instrument used in the study was survey method by structured questions to assess respondents belief, attitudes, and self-report of behavior in the form of descriptive research. Because of this research is intended to generalize the responses to a population, it is important to have a representative sample. The group self-administered survey method which is one of survey methods generally viewed as an economic efficient way and be applied with less difficulty and accomplished within reasonable period of time. Respondents take the survey in a group context. Each respondent works individually, but they meet as a group (Burns & Ronald, 2000). The sample for the study was comprised of Graduate students of Ramkhamhaeng University at Huamak Campus, Bangkok Metropolitan. The population was divided into two groups, MBA students and Non-MBA students. They were different in occupations and age of between 23-60 years old, include variety of knowledge in business and in general background would significantly the representative of study. The 943 respondents were randomly assigned to respond to the questionnaires with their reliability by Cronbachs alpha which was higher than 0.70.

Contributions of the study This study was a different from the previous researches in cause related marketing area with the following reasons. This study combined various factors of cause related marketing which the previous research stated there were influencing on

13

consumer response included to new model, CRMK campaign component. The integrated model allowed inclusion of antecedent and mediator variables making the model became more useful and applicable. The measurement model with structural equations modeling was used to grouping various variables which resulted in generating a more parsimonious model. The results from this study will provide the new marketing concept for practitioners which will be able to modify CRMK campaign component to firms marketing strategic decision. Finally, the result of this study will be presented to the public. It should be the one of many value researches which has an influence on the private sector. Corporate social responsibility with CRMK initiatives will be the important marketing tool for doing well by doing good for the private sector.

Definition Definitions adopted by practitioners and researchers in the field of cause related marketing. Thus terms that represent important concepts were defined in this section. 1. Cause related marketing (CRMK): cause related marketing specificity was defined for this research as the process of formulating and implementing marketing activities which commits to making a contribution or donating an amount of revenues to a specific cause based on product sales. 2. CRMK campaign component: the CRMK campaign which had a combination of cause important, brand-cause fit, and donation framing.

14

3. Cause important: the importance of a major cause which was the main issue for CRMK campaign. Cause important had many observed variables which were found with; personal relevance, cause proximity, cause agent, and cause claim. 4. Brandcause fit: the degree of similarity or compatibility that consumers perceive exists between the cause and the brand which had many observed variables which were found with; product fit, and image fit. 5. Donation framing: the structure of donation which had many observed variables which was found with; donation size and transparent donation. 6. Patronage intention: the consumer behavior which was the indicator that signaled whether customers would remain with or defect from a firm. The three most commonly examined dimension of patronage intention were purchase intention, repeat purchase, and word of mouth. 7. Skepticism: the tendency toward disbelief in advertising claims which was related to the quality of accumulated consumer experiences.

Conclusion Corporate social responsibility programs have been becoming increasingly popular marketing tools. Among the six categories of CSR initiatives, cause-related marketing (CRMK) is the only one which directly measures financially impact of the marketing campaign because it relies on consumers to make purchases in exchange for a donation from the sponsoring firm to a cause. After reviewing the literature, most previous research studies focused on only consumer response with purchase intention or attitude toward brand and firm. Yet, there was no research study on the correlation between CRMK and Thai consumer patronage intention (purchase
15

intention, repeat purchase, and word of mouth), skepticism, including CRMK campaign component (cause important, brand-cause fit, and donation framing). The purpose of this study was contributed to a developing body of research in the prominently component of CRMK campaign and provided the practically of cause related marketing strategy.

16

CHAPTER 2 Literature Review

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in marketing Although corporate social responsibility (CSR) is becoming increasingly popular element of corporate marketing strategy as a serious discipline in management, contributing to society is not a totally new concept for firms. In the last decades, the CSR has originated other related concepts and themes, many of which embraced CSR and were quite compatible with it. Further terms have become more or less synonymous of CSR: they are Corporate Sustainability, Corporate Citizenship, Corporate Social Investment, Corporate (Social) Responsiveness, Corporate Social Performance, Corporate Philanthropy, Community Relations, Public Responsibility, Sustainable Development, Social Responsibility, Social Responsibility Behavior, Ethical Business and Corporate Governance (Carroll, 1999; Van Marrewijk, 2003). Hopkins (2003) commented that without a common language we dont really know that our dialogue with firms is being heard and interpreted in a consistent way. While the term CSR in marketing may appear to be relatively new to the corporate world, the evolution of CSR concept has taken place over several decades. The terminology of CSR has changed continually over the time in tune with business, political and social developments. The definitions also are influenced by the impact of globalization and global trend. There are many articles to establish a better understanding of CSR in marketing and to develop a specific definition. The best known is Carrolls (1999) literature review of CSR definitions in academic literature. Mohr, Webb, and Harris (2001) followed this methodological approach, but expanded the analysis to include
17

definitions used by business. Others presented reviews of available definitions, e.g. Joyner and Payne (2002). The literature reviews were indeed necessary in order to provide an overview of the historical development of concepts such as CSR. The period of 1950s In 1953, Bowen conceptualized CSR as social obligation the obligation to pursue those policies, to make those decisions, or to follow those lines of action which are desirable in terms of the objectives and values of our society (Bowen in Maignan & Ferrell, 2004). Carroll described Bowen as the modern Father of Corporate Social Responsibility and believed that his work marked the beginning of modern period of literature on CSR (Carroll, 1999). Drucker (1955) was one of the first to explicit address CSR, including public responsibility as one of the eight key areas for business objectives developed in his book The Practice of Management. While Drucker believed that managements first responsibility to society involved making a profit. Therefore, management should consider the impact of every business policy and action upon society. The period of 1960s The literature of the 1960s was lightly represented in CSR discourse. However, Carroll believed that this decade marked a significant growth in attempts to formalize, or more accurately, stated what CSR means (Carroll, 1999). He suggested that some of the most prominent writers during that time were Keith Davis, Joseph W McGuire, William C Frederick and Clarence C Walton. Davis (1960), an early thinker on modern business and societal interrelationships, articulated the relationship between social power and social responsibility. He reasoned ethically that corporations with greater social power had more social responsibilities, and those

18

corporations that did not meet their social responsibilities risk losing the power they had earned a principle referred to as the Iron Law of Responsibility. Daviss point of view was Some socially responsible business decisions can be justified byhaving a good chance of bringing long-run economics gain to the firm, thus paying it back for its socially responsible outlook (Davis in Carroll, 1999). In 1960, Fredrick introduced CSR as a means to enhance total socioeconomic welfare, and he maintained that CSR implies a public posture toward societys economic and human resources and a willingness to see that those resources are used for board social ends and not simply for the narrowly circumscribed interests of private persons and firms (Fredrick in Carroll, 1999). A more specific approach to CSR was offered in McGuires (1963) work entitled Business and Society. The author extended the definition of CSR beyond economic and legal compliance (as previously mentioned) stating, the idea of social responsibilities supposes that the corporation has responsibilities to society which extend beyond these (economic and legal) obligations (McGuire in Walker, 2007). Walton (1967) emphasized that the essential ingredient of the corporations social responsibilities include a degree of voluntarism, as opposed to coercion. He also suggested the acceptance that costs are involved for which it may not be possible to gauge any direct measurable economic returns (Walton in Carroll, 1999). The period of 1970s In 1970, Friedman presented CSR in a business-centric view. The firms had to use their resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stayed within the rules of the game, which was to say, engage in open and free competition, without deception or fraud. The US Committee for Economic Developments (CED) 1971 model of CSR revealed that despite Friedmans
19

pronouncement, there were other evolving views about the role of business in CSR. The Committee described CSR as being related to products, jobs and economic growth; related to societal expectations; and related to activities aimed at improving the social environment of the firm (US Committee for Economic Development in Wheeler et al, 2003). Carroll (1999) described the CEDs model as a landmark contribution to the concept of CSR which illustrated the changing relationship between business and society. Business was asked to assume broader responsibilities to society than ever before and to serve a wider range of human values. Business enterprises, in effect, were asked to contribute more to the quality of American life than just supplying quantities of product and services. As business exists to serve society, its future will depend on the quality of managements response to the changing expectations of the public (Carroll, 1999). The relationship between business and society was being questioned at this decade when the United States was embroiled in the social and political protests of the civil rights and peace movements, when issues such as human values and morality were being publicly debated. This would also have impacted on American firms (Carroll, 1999). In 1974, Eells and Waltons discussion of CSR could perhaps be seen as moving toward the issue of social license. CSR represents a concern with the needs and goals of society which goes beyond the merely economic. Insofar as the business system as it exists today can only survive in an effectively functioning free society, the corporate social responsibility movement represents a broad concern with businesss role in supporting and improving the social order (Eells and Walton in Carroll, 1999).
20

Sethi (1975) presented the concept of corporate social performance with threelevel model. The model distinctions made between various corporate behaviors. Sethis three tiers were social obligation (a response to legal and market constraints); social responsibility (congruent with societal norms); and social responsiveness (adaptive, anticipatory and preventive). Carroll (1979) presented social responsibility categories, or sometimes labeled Carrolls four faces of social responsibility. In this model, Carroll stated that for a definition of social responsibility to fully address the entire range of obligations business had to society, it must embody the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary categories of business performance. Economic responsibility was the first and foremost social responsibility of business. It was the responsibility of firms to sell product at a profit. Legal responsibility was the obligation of firms to abide by the rules of law. Carrolls definition of ethical responsibility was rather hazy as he said that it simply means that society had expectations of business over and above legal requirements. The discretionary elements were the activities like philanthropic contributions and other non-profit generation acts. Early research studies on CSR conducted in this decade had used a variant of content analysis to measure the number of lines covering social responsibility in firm annual reports. The headings they used included corporate responsibility, social responsibility, social action, public service, corporate citizenship, public

responsibility, and social responsiveness (Carroll, 1999). The period of 1980s The 1980s had been described as having a more responsible approach to corporate strategy (Freeman in Lucas, Wollin & Lafferty, 2001). Prominent was the

21

work of Freeman (1984) on the emerging stakeholder theory. Freeman suggested those meeting shareholders needs as only one element in a value-adding process. Firms should identified a range of stakeholders (including shareholders) who were relevant to the firms operations. Freemans paper continued to be identified as a seminal paper on stakeholder theory, and stakeholder theory as the dominant paradigm in CSR (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). Mintzberg (1983) stated that CSR could be practiced or appear in various forms. The purest form was when CSR was practiced for its own stakeholders. The firm expected nothing from their CSR activities and they became socially responsible because that was the noble way for corporations to conduct. A less pure form of CSR was when it was undertaken for enlightened self-interest in which case firms undertook CSR with the belief that CSR paid. The pay could be tangible or intangible but in either case, the payback was expected. This was related to Mintzbergs third form of CSR in which CSR was seen as a sound investment. According to the sound investment theory, the stock market reacted to firms actions and socially responsible behaviors would be rewarded by the market. The fourth form of CSR, which was also related to enlightened self-interest, was CSR practiced in order to avoid interference from external political influences. In this case, firms became socially responsible in order to prevent the authorities forcing them to be so via legislation. Mintzberg argued that CSR could only survive and should be practiced in its purest and most proper form- as an ethical position without any expectation of paybacks. So that, CSR meant firms undertaking some actions to serve society beyond selfishness and greed. Drucker (1984) proposed a new meaning for CSR with special focus in the society. The contribution of Drucker pointed out that profitability and responsibility were complementary notions. At this time, this contribution proposed direction by
22

providing the possibility of transforming social responsibilities in window opportunities for new business. Drucker stated that the proper social responsibility of business was to tame the dragon that was to turn a social into economic opportunity and economic benefit, into productive capacity, into human competence, into wellpaid jobs, and into wealth. Thus, the first social responsibility of the entrepreneur was to make profit to cover the future costs. Carroll (1999) believed that in the 1980s, the focus on developing new or refined definitions of CSR gave way to research on CSR and a splintering of writings into alternative concepts and themes such as corporate social responsiveness, public policy, business ethics, and stakeholder theory/management. A prominent development in terms of CSR was the global debate on sustainable development that emerged in this decade. The World Conservation Strategy (published in 1980) stressed the interdependence of conservation and development and was the first to conceptualize sustainable development (Tilbury & Wortman, 2004). In 1987 the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) published the Brundtland Report, Our Common Future. The report stated that Sustainable development seeks to meet the needs and aspirations of the present without compromising the ability to meet those of the future (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). The report clearly linked sustainable development with economic growth and set the direction for future debate on this issue. Although we have seen examples of earlier work that touched on the issue of CSR and financial profit, Carroll identified the 1980s as the period when scholars were becoming interested in the question of whether socially responsible firms were also profitable firms. If it could be demonstrated that they were, this would be an added argument in support of the CSR movement (Carroll, 1999).
23

The period of 1990s The literature of the 1990s had not so much expanded the definition of CSR, but used the CSR concept as the base point, building block, or point-of-departure for other related concepts and themes, many of which embraced CSR-thinking and were quite compatible with it. Stakeholder-theory, business ethics theory, and corporate citizenship were the major themes that took center stage in the 1990s (Carroll, 1999). Wood (1991) identified three main types of processes used by businesses to implement their CSR motivational principles: environmental marketing management, issues management and stakeholder management. Once implemented throughout the organization, these processes helped the firm to keep abreast of, and to address successfully, stakeholder demands (Wood in Maignan & Ralston, 2002). Carroll (1991) improved his social responsibility categories model when he proposed the pyramid of CSR. Both the social responsibility categories and the pyramid of CSR emphasized that economic aims were indeed a major part of CSR. Firms should not pursue the discretionary (called philanthropic in the pyramid model) element of CSR if the other three elements were not fulfilled. In other words, according to Carroll, a holistic understanding of CSR would encourage firms to devise a strategy to enhance overall business performance, with discretionary or altruistic CSR an option to be considered only once the economic, legal and ethical responsibilities have been fulfilled. Writing of Carroll work in 1999 as the new millennium approached suggested that CSR concept would remain as an essential part of the business language and practice because it was a vital underpinning to many of the other theories and was

24

continually consistent with what the public expected of the business community today. (Carroll, 1999) The period of 2000s In this decade, there were many debates in the academic community over whether firms should be managed using a stakeholder or a shareholder theory. Lantos (2001) divided CSR into ethical CSR, altruistic CSR and strategic CSR. Ethical CSR was the demand for firms to be morally responsible to prevent offense and harm that could result from their activities. This type of CSR was expected of all firms and had to be fulfilled as the very minimum. Altruistic CSR was genuine optional caring, even at possible personal or organizational sacrifice. Strategic CSR was when a firm undertook certain caring corporate community service activities that accomplish strategic business goals.

Lantos (2001) used various ethics framework to vigorously argued that altruistic CSR was unethical and, therefore, should not be practiced by public firms, ethical CSR is the very minimum while strategic CSR is good for business and society. Lantos (2003) also added that altruistic CSR, although sometimes was expected because of the perceived social contract between a firm and society, was relatively rare because it lay outside the scope of a firms proper activities. Schwartz and Carroll (2003) supported Lantoss view. Thus, CSR should be focused on the following two aspects: 1) Preventing offense and harm that could result from business activities. 2) Accomplishing strategic business goals. Mohr, Webb, and Harris (2001) defined CSR as a firm's commitment to minimizing or eliminating any harmful effects and maximizing its long-run beneficial impact on society. Socially responsible behavior, then, included a broad array of
25

actions such as behaving ethically, supporting the work of nonprofit organizations, treating employees fairly, and minimizing damage to the environment. The definition implied that a socially responsible firm considered the effects of its actions on everyone, whether directly related to the firm or not. Socially responsible firms, therefore, had to be managed according to stakeholder theory. Mc Williams and Siegel (2001) presented a supply and demand perspective on CSR, which implied that the ideal level of CSR might be determined through cost benefit analysis. They defined CSR as the set of actions that appeared to further some social benefit, beyond the interests of the firm and that which was required by law. Hopkins (2003) was quite specific about the relationship between CSR and stakeholder management when he defined CSR as treating the stakeholders of the firm ethically or in a responsible manner. Similarly, Smith (2003) stated that CSR was obligation of the firm to society, or more specifically, the firms stakeholders-those affected by corporate policies and practices. Smith related CSR to paternalistic capitalism which firms motivation may be a mix between self-interest and desire to doing well. However, Moore (2003) went a step further by saying that the use CSR in the quest of enhancing profitability was actually putting virtue at the service of greed. He argued that there was a tension between social and economic struggle that became socially responsible. Firms were actually working to ease this tension. Moore called for the creation of a properly socially responsible firm as the virtuous firm which pursued the external product as they were necessary to sustain and support the development of excellence in the business practice. Moore also claimed that if CSR was to be properly applied in business practices, then it had not be at the service of greater profitability. To do so would be unethical.
26

CSR had also been described as a tool to build good corporate reputation. Lewis (2003) found that public perception on the role of firms in society had changed significantly. Lewis argued that firms had a new basis to regain public trust-through exercising their corporate social responsibility. Lewis believed that CSR could become a competitive edge and core competence for those firms who could exploit it properly. In order to review the most important reference studies about the CSR concept under an evolutionary basis, a chronological approach was presented in terms of reference studies, main topic and CSR concepts in Table 1.

27

Table 1 Evolution of CSR concept

Reference Studies Bowen (1953) Drucker (1955) Davis (1960) Fredrick (1960) McGuire (1963) Friedman (1970) CED (1971) Eells & Walton (1974) Sethi (1975) Carroll (1979) Mintzberg (1983) Freeman (1984) Drucker (1984) Wood (1991) Carroll (1991, 1999) McWilliams & Siegel (2001) Mohr, Webb & Harris (2001) Hopkins (2003) Lantos (2001,2003) Lewis (2003) Moore (2003) Schwartz & Carroll (2003) Smith (2003) Source: Applied from Carroll (1999), Lewis (2003), Moore (2003), and Schwartz & Carroll (2003) CSR was integrated in alternative topic of research. The importance of stakeholders did increase. There were many debates in the academic community over whether firms should be managed using a stakeholder or a shareholder theory. Few definitions did appear, There were additional research and alternatives themes. Dissemination of CSR definitions and attempts to be defined distinctive features and rules of CSR. The analysis of the relationship between CSR and performance did start. Pursuit of socioeconomic goals through the elaboration of social norms in prescribes business roles. The firms had the responsibility to produced product and services that society wanted and to obtained profit. Involved the strategic conduct of firms and was composed by four parts: economic, legal, ethical and voluntary or philanthropic. Oriented to alternative themes, such as, business ethics, social issues and corporate social performance. Set of actions that were applied in business policy and practice which were considered in the both of social responsibilities and self benefit. Main Topics Significant attempts to formalize the meaning of CSR. CSR Concept Firms had not only economic and legal obligations, but also curtained responsibilities to society.

Corporate social responsibility initiatives The debate about the actual meaning of CSR continued among scholars and researchers. Absolutely, practitioners did not wait for a conclusive and universally accepted definition to emerge. Business leaders had marched ahead and taken various actions that they saw socially responsible actions. Smith (2003) explained, it now centers on how to be socially responsible. Perhaps due to this shift, business practitioners preferred to discuss the specific activities that constitute CSR rather than
28

debating the concept of CSR (Bhattacharya et al., 2004; Ellen et al., 2006; Lichtenstein et al., 2004; Luo & Bhattacharya, 2006; Maignan & Ferrell, 2004; Yoon et al., 2006). Interestingly, a point of convergence was seen between the continuing debates in academia and the practices in the business world. It was apparent that CSR was increasingly and almost unanimously seen as serving the needs of appropriate stakeholders. This was implicit in expression writings by those who argue that CSR should be seen as an ethical stance, and explicit among those who saw CSR as a business strategy. The stakeholder groups were served from the firm depending on the priorities at the time. And the actions might or might not result in better business performance. Investigating the possibilities of applying CSR within marketing activity, it was observed that various authors indicated the significance of CSR in various marketing solutions. CSR activities were related with the solutions for the development of the image of the firm and the brand (Jones et al., 2005) as well as the retention and strengthening of firms reputation (Balmer & Greycer, 2006). The relationship of CSR and firms activity was revealed through firms reputation. Therefore, it should be purposefully controlled (Bronn & Vrioni, 2001) and developed by paying the attention to norms and values of all relevant stakeholders (Maignan et al., 2005). The usage of CSR within the studies of consumer behavior indicated that if socially responsible activity of the firm could determine the course of consumers decision making process then, the question was how this impact could influence preferences of existing and potential consumers. Consumer values that were constantly changing had became social responsibility oriented towards the concern
29

related with social outcomes of humanitys existence. Besides, socially conscious attitudes were based on the rejection of product which were produced by the firm that carried out its activity irresponsibly and wrongly. This forced firms to look for new ways that would make marketing important for the society (Jones et al., 2005; Bronn & Vrioni, 2001). Recently, it has been observed that consumers tended to prefer firms that were socially responsible (especially in those cases when the price and quality of product provided was considered to be the same) or preferred safety products or ethical sales (Bronn & Vrioni, 2001; Podnar & Golob, 2007). In addition to this, consumers, choosing a product, often considered the aspects that were not directly related with them (this would be child labour, inequality of rights and many other) (Maignan et al., 2005; Podnar & Golob, 2007). Examining scientific literature, it became clear that the management of all marketing areas, indicated above, was closely associated with marketing communication activities (Jones et al., 2005). The communication directed towards CSR became a close related element while talking about the identity, image and reputation of the firm and creating sustainable relationship with stakeholders. That was why marketing and firms communication should focus on the usage of such means that would permit to inform consumers and raise their social responsibility consciousness (Bronn & Vrioni, 2001). Maignan, Ferrrel & Ferrel (2005) presented a step-by-step methodology directed towards stakeholders that could be used while implementing CSR program within marketing activity. The model consisted of discovering organizational norms and values, identifying stakeholders, identifying stakeholder issues, assessing the meaning of CSR, auditing current practices, implementing CSR initiatives, promoting CSR and gaining stakeholder feedback.
30

Blomqvist & Posner (2004) determined three different approaches toward the integration of CSR into marketing activity as follows: The integrated approach, when the brand and CSR act synchronically. The approach is applied in such firms where responsibility is already treated as the principal value of the firm and determines the main aspects of firms activity, or when it is realized that socially responsible activity of the firm determines consumer preferences while choosing brands, provided by the firm. This would mean a consistent performance across environmental, community, employee welfare, financial performance and corporate governance commitments. The selective approach, when CSR expresses unconsciously in very specific and purposeful ways. The approach is extremely efficient when it is known that responsible activity of the firm becomes the drive for choosing the brand but the firm does not possess enough data that would confirm the fact and allow applying the integrated approach. In fact, it could be efficient when a particular sub-segment provides exclusive value for socially responsible activity of the firm. Finally, the invisible approach is applied then when CSR plays an important strategy of philosophical role within managerial level of the firm, but it is not so important for external communication or initiatives. This allows firms to use CSR while strengthening the confidence in brand or the firm itself. In this case messages about CSR do not become a part of the main communication. The contemporary literature more often emphasizes the fact that CSR is the area that should be considered by every firm to a certain extent (Knox et al., 2005). In addition, it has already been mentioned that marketing communication, which starts

31

from the moment when the firm determines its values, mission and presents them to the society, is rather significant for implementing CSR in marketing practice. Kotler and Lee (2005) issued corporate social initiatives to describe major efforts under the corporate social responsibility umbrella and offered the definition. Corporate social initiatives are major activities undertaken by a corporation to support social causes and to fulfill commitment to corporate social responsibility. With the concept doing well and doing good, it is quite likely more firms pick a few strategies areas of focus that fit with corporate values; select initiatives that support business goals; choose issues related to core products and core market; support issues that provide opportunities to meet marketing objectives such as increased market share, market penetration, or building a desired brand identity; evaluate issues based on their potential for positive support in times of corporate crisis or national policy making; involve more than one department in the selection process, so as to lay a foundation of support for implementation of program; and take on issues the community, consumers, and employees care most about (Kotler & Lee, 2005). Models of social responsibility for business or corporate social

responsibility have come to Thailand through the efforts of multinational companies that have implemented activities that are aligned with their business strategy in ways similar to those used elsewhere in the global operations of those companies (Wedel, 2007). Knowledge-intensive companies such as Intel, Microsoft and MSD have tended to focus on education. Companies like Nike, Coca Cola and Pepsi, whose products appeal to youth have focused on youthful activities like sport and music. Companies with large factories or with environmental issues such as Unocal have tended to focus on building good relationships with local communities. Companies that have potential environmental impacts from their operations, such as Dow
32

Chemical, Shell, Exxon or Chevron often support environmental projects. Those such as American Express whose business depends on travel, often focus on preservation or creation of cultural or historical attractions. Japanese companies, which are typically joint ventures with Thais, have tended to provide philanthropic assistance to the needy and the community rather than focusing on strategic alignment with the business. Activities by such international companies have important spill-over effects. Typically, they are implemented by Thai staff and when those staff people move to other companies they tend to encourage those companies to engage in CSR. Thai companies see the benefits in terms of good will, community trust and corporate image. In 2006 the Stock Exchange of Thailand became interested in CSR and announced the first SET CSR awards. A year later, the SET established a CSR Institute. At the same time the Securities and Exchange Commission set up a working group to promote CSR and establish CSR guidelines for Thai companies. An early issue for the working group was whether to legislate CSR. After much debate it was decided to encourage CSR as a voluntary rather than required mechanism. The government, although not requiring CSR, has been active in supporting it. The Labor Ministry established a Thai labor standard to help Thai companies meet the expectations of international customers. The Ministry of Social Welfare and Human Security established centers devoted to CSR and voluntarism. In a well-known case of Thailand, Siam Cement Group (SCG) which is one of the leading conglomerates in Thailand and ASEAN national comprises 5 core strategic business units which include SCG Chemicals, SCG Paper, SCG Cement, SCG Building Materials, and SCG Distribution. The firm adheres to the philosophy of conducting its business with a commitment to promote sustainable growth in every
33

community and society as well as creating value for its consumers, employees and stakeholders everywhere it operates. SCG has organized itself largely around the concept of being a good corporate citizen. SCG believes that conducting an accountable business with society and all stakeholders can contribute to sustainable business growth. SCG has, therefore, initiated numerous socially beneficial activities designed to improve the quality of life in line with SCGs business philosophy regarding Concern for Social Responsibility. SCG continuously supports activities, especially the development of potentiality in the area of education, not only in Thailand, but also in other countries of ASEAN. SCG has encouraged its employees to contribute in socially beneficial activities as part of their career commitments. In 2007, SCG had provided 635 million baht to public benefit both social contribution and environmental conservation (http://www.siamcement.com). In other words, SCG pursues CSR because SCGs vision is by the year 2015, SCG will be well recognized as an innovative workplace of choice, and a role model in corporate governance and sustainable development. A review of Thailand business cases in CSR showed that several examples of firms have demonstrated CSR as a part of business strategy as can seen from table 2.

34

Table 2 Example of CSR in Thailand

Firm AIA insurance (Thailand)

High light CSR in action AIA smile volunteers service to society. Partner with the Operation Smile Foundation in Thailand supporting the provision of medical services, equipment and treatment for children with facial deformities where medical funding may be limited or unavailable. AIS Sarnrak Childern Development Center over the past 5 years in Kalasin, Pitsanuloke, Chiengmai and Nakornratsima. Sarn Rak Kon Keng Hua Jai Krang (promoting and funding education for needy child /youth) Inspires child / youth to further education and come back to their homeland; Over the past 8 years more than 380 students in project and 31 graduates. Companys voluntary employees program to spend 1 1.5 hours before the end of working day, 4 days a week, to assist these children to do their homework and to arrange useful activities, in emphasizing knowledge concerning mathematics, English and Thai language, social science, art and ethics "Saitarn Foundation" was established with the collaboration of the group's management and employees aiming to encourage proper education to students in need throughout the nation. CAT organizes the Young Web Designer project opening opportunities for secondary school students to attend website design training courses free of charge during school vacations, taught by professional trainers from the Net Design institute. Longstanding programmes include the Volunteer Doctor Foundation and the BRANDS Summer Camp (in its 19th year) which coaches students for university entrance examinations. Another well established activity is BRANDS International Crossword Competition (in its 23rd year) which continues to promote better English. Cerebos also continues to grant scholarships to Thai researchers, enabling them to pursue studies in science and nutrition. The Company supports all types of activities concerning culture and sports believing that these activities will promote pride, identity, camaraderie and nationalism. Some of these activities include supports for the Navy football team, Thai boxing competition and the field and track national athletes. Supported education in 50 public school districts and provided scholarship funding for second year in the role to underprivileged students at Phra Dabos school. Rakbankerd Foundation develop community leader with education and support sufficiency economy.

AIS

Bangchak Petroleum

Betagro

CAT Telecom

Cerebos (Thailand)

Charoen Pokphan Foods Plc.

Chevron (Thailand) DTAC

35

Firm ESSO (Thailand)

High light CSR in action Knowledge is Light. Supported the operation of the Satellite Education Foundation in expanding its reach to community education and lifelong learning through elearning. Pranda always knows that workers and staff are the real assets of the company, more so than the buildings, machinery, designs and stock. Pranda provides accommodation with very high standard, medical, educational , crche, and sports facilities. Following the PTTs Reforestation Project in Honor of HM the King on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the accession to the throne, in which one million rai of land was targeted, PTT realized the value and significance of plantation, which does not mean just to plant trees. Even though the project was already presented to HM the King in 2002, PTT has still followed up the program through PTT Development Village Project and three types of training to ensure forest existence, i.e. PTT Youth Loves Forest Training, Forest Fire Fighting Volunteer Training, and Forest Protection Volunteer Training. SAMART has been made a lot of benefits to the social continuingly such as following issues; building the human ability; developing the education and innovation with the competition of IT softwares design and development project likes Samart Innovation Awards and the project of giving scholarship to students from beginning to graduated at the university levels continuingly as Samarts scholarships. Singha is one of the largeat sport sponsorship in Thailand, providing training facility for both Amateur and Professional Athletes in Singha team in various sport activities such as tennis, golf and swimming. Moreover, Singha corporation continues to support various professional sports throughout the year by organizing sport events and sponsoring individual athlete in their competition both domestically and internationally. Coffee and Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.) Practices was designed to help ensure that high-quality coffee is grown and processed in a socially and environmentally responsible manner, an approach that extends throughout coffee supply chain. It was also designed to be inclusive of all types of suppliers regardless of their size from small family farms and cooperatives to large estates including farms that also mill and process their coffee. In Thailand, Starbucks giving back to community and environment Muan Jai Project. In the other word, Starbucks directly purchases coffee bean from framer with higher price than market price.

Pranda Jewelry Plc.

PTT petroleum

SAMART Corporation

SINGHA Corporation

Starbucks (Thailand)

36

Firm Thai Beverage

High light CSR in action ThaiBev Unites to Fight against the Cold programme, formerly known as ChangUnites to Fight the Cold was initially carried out by Beer Thai (1991) Plc, before passing on the philanthropic mission to ThaiBev in 2005, with unchanging goal to donate blankets to people in remote areas of the kingdom, through collaboration with the Interior Ministry. The programme enjoys high success in terms of public response and awareness, serving as a model for other citizen campaign in Thailand. In the year 2009, ThaiBev marks a decade of warmth sharing campaign with the number of blankets handed out reaching 2 million. Thai life Insurance has continuously been dedicated to improving the quality of life for Thai people. The company has joined with other organizations and public sectors to create new projects and to continue to existing projects for the benefit of the customers as well as the Thai people. TOT delivered TOT IT School to Bang-Bua Thong School Nonthaburi in order to enhanced learning opportunities for Thai youths via TOT telecommunications networks. Certainly, TOT plans to deliver 80 TOT IT Schools throughout Thailand. The road safety campaign has been run under the name White Roads since 1988 with the aim to educate people of the importance of traffic rules adherence and good manners on the road. The program also includes cooperation with various organizations and government agencies to implement accident reduction campaigns in order for the roads to be safe in the long run. www.helplink.net Community website for helping people and donate to network charities. True crop wisdom providing education additional to classroom teaching in 2,000 schools.

Thai Life Insurance

TOT

Toyota (Thailand)

True Corporation

Source: Applied from companies web site.

A continuum of CSR alternatives identified by Drumwright and Murphy demonstrates the many options available to businesses. They include philanthropy, strategic philanthropy, sponsorships, firm advertising with a social dimension, causerelated marketing, licensing agreements, social alliances, corporate volunteerism, strategic corporate volunteerism, and enterprises as possible methods (Drumwright & Murphy, 2001).
37

Kotler and Lee (2005) indentified CSR programs manifestly as the following six strategies: Cause promotions: A corporation provides funds, in-kind contributions, or other corporate resources to increase awareness and concern about a social cause or support fundraising, participation, or volunteer recruitment for a cause. The corporation may initiate and manage the promotion on its own; it may be a major partner in an effort; or it may be one of several sponsors. Cause-related marketing: A corporation commits to make a contribution or donating a percentage of revenues to a specific cause based on product sales. Most of the offer is for an announced period of time, with a specific product, and for a specified charity. In this scenario, a corporation is most often partnered with a nonprofit organization, creating a mutually beneficial relationship designed to increase sales of a particular product and to generate financial support for the charity. The consumer thinks of this as a win-win-win, as it provides consumers an opportunity to contribute for free to their favorite charities as well. Corporate social marketing: A corporation supports the development and implementation of a behavior change campaign intended to improve public health, safety, the environment, or community well-being. The distinguishing feature is the behavior change focus, which is different from cause promotions that focuses on supporting awareness, fundraising, and volunteer recruitment for a cause. A corporation may develop and implement a behavior change campaign on its own (tobacco and alcoholic beverage firms are good examples), but more often it involves partners in public sector agencies and/or nonprofit organizations.

38

Corporate philanthropy: A corporation makes a direct contribution to a charity or cause, most often in form of cash grants, donations, and in-kind services. This is perhaps the most traditional of all corporate social initiatives. Community volunteering: A corporation supports and encourages

employees, retail partners, and franchise members to volunteer their time to support local community organizations and causes. This activity may be a stand-alone effort or it may be done in partnership with a nonprofit organization. Volunteer activities may be organized by the corporation, or employees may choose their own activities and receive support from the firm through such a paid time off. Socially responsible business practices: A corporation adopts and conducts discretionary business practices and investments that support social causes to improve community well-being and to protect the environment. Initiatives may be conceived of and implemented by the corporation or they may be in partnership with others. According to Friedman (1970), he stated that the firms only responsibility is to maximize shareholder profits, but fail to acknowledge that there are several methods of doing so, not all of which provide easily measurable returns. Marketing is widely acknowledged as being one such measure, and a well-defined CSR strategy is another controllable measure. However, some CSR initiative has often been called a waste of shareholders investment. It has never been referred to as what it actually is- an integral part of a corporate marketing strategy. Firms need to become more comfortable with their use as a means of marketing and learn where to benefit financially from their impact. Among the six categories of corporate social initiatives, cause-related marketing (CRMK) is the only one which directly measures financially impact of the

39

marketing campaign (Adkins, 2005). A well-known CRMK program, Avon has been ongoing worldwide fund for womens health. In the United Kingdom, in 1992, Avon conducted a comprehensive research study amongst its consumers and representatives to better understand womens needs, interests, and motivations. The results showed clearly that breast cancer was the issue of leading concern to these women. This led Avon UK to create the Avon Crusade Against Breast Cancer later that same year, and also led Avon in the United States to create Avons Breast Cancer Awareness Crusade in 1993. The mission of both initiatives is to raise awareness of the breast cancer cause, and to help Avon sales representatives raise money for breast cancer organization through the sales of special fundraising products. However, at one end of this continuum of CSR initiatives are philanthropies, which are purely altruistic in nature but have become less common in the corporate sector since the 1980s (Smith & Stodghill, 1994). At the other end it is cause related marketing, which is the same as like all the methods which have an altruistic effect, but in practice it includes tangible self-interest benefits for business. Figure 1 demonstrates area of stratification as the six initiatives which are organized by levels of altruism, with cause related marketing serving as the most self interested method, as its use has been proven to be the most measurable of sales increasing for business. Kotler and Lee discussed that cause related marketing is often part of an integrated marketing campaign.

40

Figure 2 Corporate social responsibility continuum

Altruistic
Socially Responsible Business Practices Community Volunteering Corporate Philanthropy Corporate Social Marketing

Self-Interested
Cause Promotions Cause Related Marketing

Cause related marketing (CRMK) During the mid 1980s, the most comprehensive and widely used theoretical definition of cause-related marketing originated from Varadarajan and Menon (1988). They stated that CRMK was distinct from other types of marketing activities and was the process of formulating and implementing marketing activities that were characterized by an offer from the firm to contribute a specified amount to a designated cause when customers engage in revenue- providing exchanges that satisfied organizational and individual objectives. CRMK is the alignment of corporate philanthropy and general business practices. A marketing program that strives to achieve two objectives - improve corporate performance and help worthy causes - by combining fund raising for a particular cause with the purchase of the firm's product/service. The business enhances its public image by being associated with a "worthy cause" and increases its sales in the process. The nonprofit organization receives the cash benefits of the donations, along with the increased public awareness, courtesy of the marketing capabilities of the business (Caesar 1986). In 1991, Smith and Alcorn stated that CRMK was the most cost-effective product strategy that had evolved in years, as address the issue of how to directly measure financial success of a marketing campaign. CRMK allowed firms to not only leverage their donations to charities but also not to give them until there is

41

consumer action such as a sale or purchase. Pringle and Thompson (1999) stated that CRMK was a strategic positioning and marketing tool which links a firm or brand to a relevant social cause or issue, for mutual benefit. This definition expands the scope of CRMK by including all cause association activities by a firm as long as both benefit. However, purchase condition was not a condition for donation in this definition. Same as, Barone, Miyazaki and Taylor (2000), they described in marketing term CRMK as a strategy designed to promote the achievement of marketing objectives via firm support of social causes. Polonsky and Speed (2001) defined CRMK as the joining of not-for-profit charity and a commercial firm in an effort to raise funds and build awareness for the cause while building sales and awareness for the profit partner. This definition recognized that one of the main outcomes for the firm would be sales increase but did not state that the donation should be contingent on sales of products and services. Brink, Odekerken-Schroder and Pauwels (2006) proposed a model that classified a CRMK campaign as either strategic or tactical based on the following factors: the congruency between the cause and a firms core competency, the duration of the campaign, the amount of invested resources and the level of senior management involvement. According to the authors, a relatively low rating on any of these variables would suggest a tactical CRMK campaign (Brink et al., 2006). It was believed that any classifications based on this model might be highly subjective. Nevertheless, the argument for the classification of CRMK as strategic or tactical was sufficient to lessen the appeal of the definition by Pringle and Thompson (1999). The use of the word strategic also precluded the adoption of the definition proposed by Barone, Miyazaki, and Taylor (2000). Similarly, the definition by Kalligeros (2005), who defined CRMK, as a strategy that links a firm, brand or product to a non-profit
42

organization for a mutually beneficial purpose was not adopted. Other definitions were also considered before the adoption of the definition proposed by Marconi, (2002). The author defined CRMK as the practice of marketing a product, service, brand or firm through a mutually beneficial relationship with a non-profit or social cause organization (Marconi, 2002). It was believed that this definition would reflect the various forms of CRMK campaign. Although all of these definitions are slightly different they all mirror in some fashion as one proposed by Varadarajan and Menon (1988). However, the later definitions more clearly identify that CRMK involves complex benefits for causes beyond the generating of additional revenues. Acording to Kotter & Lee (2005), they defined CRMK as a corporation commits to make a contribution or donating a percentage of revenues to a specific cause based on sales. Since the beginning of cause related marketing, the academic community has provided limited literature on how to structure CRMK campaigns or how to assess their impact on the consumer (Osterhus, 1997). The first benchmark piece of academic literature identified CRMK as being a type of horizontal cooperative sales promotion technique (Varadarajan, 1986). CRMK had previously been described as an element of corporate philanthropy that was tied into promotion strategies (Grahn et.al., 1987). In 1988, Varadarajan and Menons seminal piece of literature stated that CRMK should be recognized as a separate marketing phenomenon and recommended for further investigation. This revolutionized the issue of CRMK and helped legitimize it as a valid and useful marketing tool for both practitioners to utilize and academics to study and investigate more advancement. Over the years, other respectable authors have termed CRMK as social responsibility marketing (Garrison,

43

1990), joint-venture marketing (Barnes, 1991), public purpose marketing and social advertising (Drumwright, 1996). Many marketing campaigns have utilized CRMK as a sales promotion technique and marketing tool, which rely on consumers purchasing a product from a firm and donate a portion of the proceeds from the purchase price to a charity organization. Varadarajan & Menon (1988) described CRMK as a marketing activity- a way for a firm to do well by doing good- distinct from sales promotion, corporate philanthropy, corporate sponsorship, corporate samaritan acts, and public relations, though it is often an amalgam of such activities. It is suggested that this makes it easier to calculate financial gain or return from a CRMK program because firm donations are linked with a charity when customers engage in sales transactions with the firm products (Varadarajan & Menon, 1988; Smith & Alcorn, 1991). In short, firms involved with a CRMK program focus on targeting causes that match their existing or potential customer base and use these charities as the incentive for consumers to the firms product (Osterhus, 1997). Development of cause related marketing campaign The phrase, cause related marketing (CRMK), was created in 1983 to describe a highly successful American Express campaign "When Did You First Fall in Love with Her?" which became one of the most heralded CRMK campaigns to date (Caesar 1986; Schiller 1988; Smith & Alcorn 1991; Varadarajan & Menon 1988). The campaign was set up so that 1 cent of monetary values would be donated to the Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation for each time the American Express Card was used and $1 would be donated for each new customer application. American Express spent $6 million on the campaign and was able to raise and donate $1.7 million to the Ellis Island Foundation. In addition, card usage increased by 28 percentages over the same
44

period in 1982 and new applications increased by 45 percentages during the promotion (Caesar 1986; Varadarajan & Menon 1988). As a result, throughout the early 1980s many firms considered CRMK as a strategy to increase customer awareness and market share, advance corporate social responsibility policies, and enhance corporate and brand image. Due to the success of the American Express program in 1983, many other firms became motivated to utilize this new marketing strategy competitively. CRMK progressed from a disease focused marketing strategy to one that incorporates broader social issues and even ranges across internationally boarders (Table 3). Table 3 Examples of cause related marketing campaigns

Cause AIDS/ HIV Animals Blind (Guide Dogs) Cancer Research Women Cancer Children: Health and Safety Children; Literacy Children: Foster Parents Children: Missing Children: Education Children: Sick & Hospitalized Guns: Buy Back Human Rights Hunger Literacy: Adults Muscular Dystrophy

Supporting firms Body Shop; Tanqueray; Whitbread (United Kingdom) Andrex; Beatrice; Hunt Wesson; Lion Coca-Cola (United Kingdom); Pal (Australia) First USA Bank; Kelloggs product Athena Water; Avon; BMW; Estee Lauder; Ford; Gillette; Jenny Craig; Ralph Lauren; Revlon; Sears Roebuck British Airways; Cadbury; Daddies Ketchup; McDonalds; Visa Visa; Walmart Ramada Inn Digital; Sony; IBM; Polaroid; Walmart; Disney Target; Tesco AT&T; Northwest Airline; Target; Walmart New York Knicks Reebok American Express Coors; Visa Kelloggs

45

Cause Multiple Sclerosis Racism Senior Citizens Special Olympics Violence against women Water Supply

Supporting firms Mercedes Benz; Visa Nike KFC; Visa; Walmart Johnson & Johnson; Walmart; Coca-Cola Johnson & Johnson; Ryka Procter & Gamble

Source: Applied from Adkin (2005); Alder (2006); Kotler & Lee (2005); Marconi (2002); Pringle & Thompson (1999); Steckel & Simon (1992)

In the U.S.A., Sponsorship spending on Cause Marketing and CRMK has grown rapidly from US$120 million in 1990 to an estimated worth of US$1.52 billion annually in 2008 and will hit US$1.57 billion in 2009 (IEG Sponsorship report retrieved from www.causemarketingforum.com). CRMK has gained momentum over the last few years, as marketers and firms have come to realize that partnerships with non-profit organizations can potentially translate into greater degrees of customer loyalty and increased market share. One of the most beneficial advantages of CRMK is its ability to help marketers stay in tune with the feelings, emotions and mood of its customers because of its sensitivity, trustworthiness and relevance to society. Consumers tend to have a favorable opinion of CRMK campaigns. According to the 2008 Cone Cause Evolution Study, it was found that consumers were both more aware of and more receptive to cause-related messages than ever before. They would reward socially conscious firms both with money and goodwill if they feel they were supporting a good cause. While most consumers (75percentages) said it was important for firms to offer them a way to purchase a product that supported a cause. They also want to be offered a range of other ways to support issues they care about. CRMK campaign can appear in many variety forms. Tactical use of CRMK campaign should always be considered within the context of the strategic
46

implications. Andreasen (1996) suggested that CRMK had three key forms of alliance: transaction based promotions, joint issue promotions and licensing. This covers part but not all of the spectrum of CRMK. Adkins (2005) also stated that CRMK was the part of the promotional mix which included advertising, sales promotion, public relations or publicity, sponsorship, licensing and direct marketing, which included loyalty and relationship marketing forms as follows: CRMK as advertising form Advertising clearly includes a variety of media; television and satellite or internet advertising to print and press campaigns. CRMK advertising may focus on communicating a particular sales promotion and also refer to the advertising of a particular cause or issue where the business aligns itself with a particular good cause and uses its advertising to communicate the cause message. Apart from raising awareness of the particular cause or issue, the objectives from the organizations point of view can range from building, reinforcing or demonstrating corporate or brand reputation to providing differentiation and encouraging relationships and loyalty between the product, service or charity, cause or corporate. CRMK as public relations form Public relations (PR) is often cited as a key benefit and indeed a key objective of CRMK and in some cases represents the leading discipline in defining, creating and implementing a CRMK campaign. The key to getting the PR coverage for CRMK is the same as for any other PR activity. Newsworthiness, innovation and excitement are all crucial but there is a significant difference for CRMK. Therefore, the balance in the communication must be absolutely appropriate. Both of the media and the public have to understand that any CRMK partnership is sincere, open, transparent and

47

honesty. The relationship is based upon a partnership of mutual respect and that there is balanced benefit to be accrued by both sides. Consumers are more cynical and sophisticated and therefore, messages have to be communicated openly and honestly if the public and the media are going to support the partnerships and for the maximum benefit to be achieved. CRMK as sponsorship form A key way of realizing a CRMK partnership is often through sponsoring a particular event or activity. What makes CRMK as opposed to standard sponsorship is first, what is being sponsored is a good cause or charity. Second, that the organizations use activity marketing and both relationship to meet the company and the charity objectives. Objectives, as have been highlighted earlier, can range from awareness, PR, demonstrations of corporate and brand values, consumer engagement, generating trial, providing a differential aspect. In some cases the sponsorship might be straight commercial relationship with cause links interwoven within it. CRMK as licensing form In a licensing relationship, the corporate pays for the license to use the charity logo or identity on its product or service. The corporate generally wants to use to charity logo to sell more product or service, to benefit from the implied endorsement and halo effect of the charity or cause and the positive values that it projects. This is very much a commercial relationship. The charity or cause can decide whether or not to sign up to the deal and to be as part of that process, put a price on the opportunity and considers the effects on their own brand and reputation.

48

CRMK as direct marketing form Direct marketing is clearly one of the methods that could be employed to communicate CRMK campaign message. Many charities are experts in the field, managing databases with millions of records. Often, accessing to the charitys database is considered the big prize for the corporate in a CRMK relationship. Clearly, it is very much up to the charity or cause whether or not it makes this database available and if so, under what circumstances. Those who have concerns

about CRMK as a way of forcing charities or cause to sell their souls often refer to the abuse of charities databases as a key concern. Relationships with ones customers or supporters whether one is a charity or cause are crucial and should be guarded with enormous care. CRMK as sales promotion form Sales promotion is such a broad category that it is almost impossible to cover every possible option. Adkins (2005) suggested some of the most frequently used mechanics and some of the more innovations as. Purchase triggered donations Donations to causes are triggered by purchase, as donating 1 $US from every purchase of product or donate a percentage from the sale of product wine to the charity. Trial triggered donations CRMK campaign can also be used to trigger donations through trial, application or signing up to a product or services and through usage. The American Express Restoration of the Statue of Liberty program and the Charge against Hunger program show this kind of campaign in action.
49

Voucher collection schemes Voucher collection schemes are also frequent mechanics for CRMK. Consumers are simply invited to send in a coupon from their bill and this automatically triggered a donation to the particular cause. CRMK has taken over marketing strategies around the world with a variety of campaign forms, some of which are now even web-based. The American Marketing Association (2007) partnered with Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) to conduct the research on 2007 holiday shopping. On September 20-21 ORC conducted online interviews with 1,174 internet-representative consumers. More than half of those responding to the survey commented that they would visit a social-networking site in the holiday season. One out of every three consumers said they would be more likely to buy a product or service connected to cause-related marketing if they knew that a certain amount of the purchase price was being donated directly to a cause or campaign. Each year since 2003, the Cause Marketing Forum and an interdisciplinary judging panel have selected winners of CRMK campaigns on the basis of conceptual strength, execution, business results and cause results that implemented in whole or in part. These are examples of campaign awards in the CRMK campaigns or transactional campaigns (namely) from 2003 to 2008

(www.causemarketingforum.com) as follows:

50

2008 Campaign awards Gold: Heroes at home, Sears Holdings Company and Rebuilding together campaign Sears developed this program to provide home repair assistance to military veterans and their families because it combined the firms expertise (home services) with a cause that would appeal to shoppers. Its first two fund-raising drives in 2007 raised more than $3.7 million firm donations and customer donations at checkout and Sears credit card transactions. This funding paid for renovations for more than 300 military veterans and was judged such a success that it is being expanded and repeated in 2009 as well. Silver: Crate & Barrels distribution of DonorsChoose.org gift certificates campaign The dual objectives of this campaign were to deepen Crate & Barrel customer loyalty and to inspire civic engagement via DonorsChoose.org. Crate and Barrel provided funding to DonorsChoose.org and sent gift certificates to select customers that enabled them to browse the DonorsChoose.org website and apply the certificate to funding the classroom project of its choice. In the three waves of mailings that had been conducted when the entry was submitted, more than 15,000 customers redeemed the certificates, an extraordinary 12 percentages direct mail response rate. Market research revealed significant increases in customer loyalty among program participants even those who had not taken the time to redeem a certificate. The program has generated more than $500,000 to fund 6,000 classroom projects reaching more than 150,000 students and generated tremendous publicity for DonorChoose.org which has led to new individual and corporate support.

51

2007 Campaign awards Gold: The goodwill sale, Bon-Ton Stores and Goodwill Industries campaign This heavily advertised promotion matches Bon-Ton Stores with Goodwill agencies in 22 states. In exchange for donations of gently used clothing and household items, consumers received 20 percentages-off coupons for use in participating stores. In 2006, sales at Bon-Ton Stores far exceeded those in the previous year. For Goodwill, more than 5 million pounds of donations were collected generating more than $7 million to support job training and career services. Silver: Target/Red Cross Emergency Preparedness Kit, Target Stores and the American Red Cross campaign In an effort to help the American public for a disaster better prepare and emergencies, this program created an affordable First Aid and Emergency Preparedness Starter Kit (at $29.99 a savings of more than 50percentages compared to buying the 33 items separately at Target) that yielded a $10 donation to the Red Cross. More than 99,600 Starter Kits had been sold, resulting in more than a $1 million contribution. More than 200 media placements occurred during the items first month, and 117 million media impressions were generated in 2006. 2006 Campaign awards Gold: Music rising: Gibson guitar, Guitar Center and Music cares campaign Shortly after Katrina hit, U2s The Edge and producer Bob Ezrin went to these music industry leaders to quickly launched Music Rising, a campaign to bring the music back to the Gulf Region by replacing musicians lost or destroyed
52

instruments. Gibson produced 300 Music Rising Guitars which were sold by Guitar Center. The $1 million raised went to Music Rising which has helped over 1,000 musicians. Silver: Easter seals & Friendlys cones for kids: Easter seals and Friendly Ice Cream Corporation campaign This dynamic duo celebrated 25 years of supporting families living with disabilities with Thanksgiving to Valentines Day promotions including ice cream cone coupons given to thank for donations and fundraising merchandise sales. Together they raised $1 million and drove store traffic during the slow (for ice cream) winter season. 2005 Campaign awards Gold: Toys R Us holiday toy drive: Toys R Us and Marine Toys for Tots Foundation campaign This collaboration demonstrated the benefits of bringing the right firm and cause together. Not satisfied with results of its 2003 toy drive, Toys R Us teamed up with Marine Toys for Tots Foundation in 2004 and saw cash donations double to $4.1 million and toy donations triple to $3.1 million. Toy pickups by Marines reduced the retailers costs by $400,000. Silver: Triple Winner Game: The Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. and the Jimmy Fund of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute campaign Stop & Shops Triple Winner Game has raised $25 million for pediatric cancer research and care since 1991 by encouraging shoppers to contribute $1 at checkout to The Jimmy Fund. In return, consumers received an instant winner scratch ticket good for a free product, a gift certificate or a cash prize up to $10,000. Stop & Shops
53

suppliers supported the program by providing product prizes and paying marketing fees participation. 2004 Campaign awards Gold: Things remembered holiday, Things Remembered and Make-AWish Foundation campaign This partnership began in 1997 with the wish of a girl named Elysia who wanted to give friends and family personalized gifts to remember her. It grew into the creation of a line of Make-A-Wish products that generate donations when purchased: a keepsake box, an ornament and a musical snow globe. For Holiday 2003, Things Remembered prominently featured the items in catalogs and other advertising materials, developed a new customer donation program and implemented a National Make A Wish Day promotion in its 700 stores. These efforts together generated over $500,000 for Make A Wish in 2003. Silver: TUMS Helps Put Out More Fires Than You Think, TUMS and First Responder Institute campaign This program is a great example of how a marketer can team up with a little known nonprofit group to develop a program that helps the brand stand out while raising significant awareness and funding for the cause. Offering a 10 cent donation per bottle, TUMS told America about the First Responder Institute via FSIs, point-ofsale displays, brochures, a satellite media tour, the TUMS website and account specific promotion with Walgreens. TUMS experienced record highs in the number of displays shipped (a 30percentages increase) and a 16 percentages sales volume lift during the promotional period. The program generated $238K for the Institute which

54

awarded grants to 60 fire departments for breathing systems, thermal imaging cameras and other equipment. 2003 Campaign awards Gold Cook for the Cure, a partnership of KitchenAid and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation campaign KitchenAid studied its marketplace and found that the appliance category was of such low interest that 805 of consumers could not recall the brands they owned. To differentiate itself, KitchenAid chose to work with the Komen Foundation to inject a touch of pink ribbon into the sea of white that confronts appliance customers when shopping and stay top-of-mind with them. The program started in 2001 with a $50 donation by KitchenAid with purchase of a pink version of its popular stand mixer and grew to include a $50 donation with purchase of major appliances during National Breast Cancer Awareness Month. In 2002, KitchenAid worked with Gourmet magazine and celebrity chefs to encourage these with a culinary passion to host dinner with a purpose fundraisers for Komen. The overall program was publicized with advertising in 26 publications, co-op advertising, point-of-purchase programs for retailers, direct mail, a dedicated Web site and product packaging. Silver Samsungs Four Seasons of Hope, from Samsung Electronics and the charitable foundations of four admired athletes: Boomer Esiason, Arnold Palmer, Magic Johnson and Joe Torre campaign The program, produced by Innovative Marketing Services, partnered Samsung and the sports legends for a national and retailer-specific program that aims to improve the quality of life for children and their families. Each superstar was teamed with a Samsung retailer via special appearances, a print campaign, Internet

55

advertising and sales promotions that tied donations by Samsung to the athletes charity to purchases of specified products. The campaign was a PR success for Samsung and a powerful sales generator for its retailers, as well as raising $1.1 million for the charities. Benefit of participating in Cause related marketing campaigns Many researches showed that well-constructed CRMK campaign provides many benefits for business. According to the 2008 Cone Cause Evolution Study found that consumers were both more aware of and more receptive to cause-related messages than ever before, and they rewarded socially conscious firms both with money and goodwill if they felt they were supporting a good cause. The survey was conducted online, during August 14-15, 2008 by Opinion Research Corporation among a demographically representative US sample of 1,071 adults, including 500 men and 571 women of age 18 or more. The research found that 85 percentages of Americans said they had a more positive image of a product or firm when it supported a cause they cared about. This number remains unchanged from 1993 survey results. The responders 85 percentages felt it was acceptable for firms to involved a cause in their marketing (compared with 66 percentages in 1993). Moreover, 79 percentages said they would be likely to switch from one brand to another, when price and quality were about equal, if the other brand was associated with a good cause (compared with 66percentages in 1993). And then, 38 percentages bought a product associated with a cause in the last 12 months (compared with 20 percentages in 1993). The three key stakeholders in a CRMK campaign are the sponsoring firm, the cause receiving the support and the customers who must decide whether or not to purchase a cause-related marketing associated product. The sponsoring firm can realize the rewards of participating in a CRMK initiative at both the product level and
56

at the organizational level. Firms can increase the products ability to break through the advertising clutter in the marketplace (Oldenberg, 1992; Shell, 1989), generate low cost exposure for the product and increase the products ability to win customer support (Brown & Peter, 1997; Henricks, 1991). Additionally, the positive perception associated with a particular sponsored product can spill over to other, related products offered in the same line or under the same brand name, resulting in a halo effect for the firms products. This halo effect can produce an increase in the customers willingness to purchase firms other products (Barone et al., 2000), to pay premium prices, and to switch brands (Meyer, 1999). A firm which participate in CRMK initiatives included generating favorable customer attitudes towards the firm (Brown & Peter, 1997; Ross et al., 1990-1991; Ross et al., 1992), increasing favorable purchase intentions towards brands (Andreasen, 1996; Barone et al.,2000; Meyer, 1999; Ross et al., 1992; Webb & Mohr, 1998), creating a higher level of visibility for the organization (Andreasen, 1996), generating a differentiated image due to the association with social causes (Andreasen, 1996; Barich & Kotler 1991; Bronn & Vrioni, 2001; Meyer 1999; Shell ,1989) enhancing corporate image (Bronn & Vrioni, 2001; Fombrun & Shanley, 1990; Meyer, 1999; Schiller, 1988), allowing the firm to communicate its core values to the society (Mohr et al., 2001; Shell, 1989), giving the firm a competitive edge (Bronn & Vrioni, 2001) and reducing employee turnover (Meyer, 1999). Finally, a cause-related alliance gives the corporation access to the non-profits clientele, staff, trustees and donors, all of whom could be potential customers (Andreasen, 1996). However, the key benefit of a CRMK initiative to the organization continues to be the generation of favorable purchase intent or product choice among the organizations customers (Lawrence, 1993; Mohr et al., 2001; Shell, 1989). This can result in increased sales
57

and profits for the firm, and the increased recognition of its brand name(s) and product offering within its consumer base. Causes accrue rewards such as new sources of much needed funds, and heightened public awareness (Caesar, 1986; Varadarajan & Menon, 1988). Customers perceive CRMK to be an effective way to financially assist social non-profit organizations (Ross et al., 1990-1991; Ross et al., 1992). Although the firm and the cause realize the bulk of the rewards of a CRMK campaign, customers are rewarded by a sense of additional perceived value to their purchase (Webb & Mohr, 1998). Additionally, customers gain the ability to differentiate between competing manufacturers (Barone et al., 2000), and can satisfy their altruistic needs of the self by helping society (Polonsky & Wood, 2001). According to Strahilevitz and Myers (1998), customers most often seek to realize this added value in the purchase of unnecessary product, where they can rationalize their purchases and reduce any cognitive dissonance associated with the exchange of product or service. Risks of participating in cause related marketing campaigns Several risks are also associated with a CRMK strategy. These shortcomings can also be classified by stakeholder: those experienced by the firm, the cause and the customer. Despite altruistic intentions, investment in CRMK campaigns poses a financial risk for the firm (Shell, 1989). This is primarily because CRMK is not philanthropy, and the funding for the program is usually apportioned from the marketing budget (Ross et al., 1990-1991). Other pitfalls for firms associating with social causes include wasted monetary funds caused by linking up with a charity that offers little or no synergism, a difficulty in measuring the social contributions of the CRMK initiative, and the risk of customer cynicism (Meyer, 1999). Finally, CRMK

58

campaigns have been perceived by customers as marketings most unabashed exploitation (Drumwright,1996; Smith & Stodghill, 1994). The biggest CRMK participation risk for the cause is that involvement with a corporate sponsor can bring the taint of commercialism to the causes image (Garrison, 1990). Another risk for cause is that CRMK funds may be viewed by customers and firms as a substitute for regular individual and corporate philanthropic contributions, rather than as a supplement to their contributions (Andreasen, 1996; Caesar, 1986). Other risks for cause include the risk of wasted resources if the alliance fails to meet its objective, the loss of organizational flexibility to enter into other similar alliances with the sponsoring firms competitors, the use of anti-ethical marketing practices by the corporate partner, increased dependency on corporate funds, and the risk of overwhelming the causes ability to administrate incoming contributions (Andreasen, 1996). In a summary article, Polonsky and Wood (2001) identify several sources of concern that CRMK campaigns pose to customers and to society. Customers run the risk of being misled by sponsoring firms that exaggerate CRMK related generosity. This might lead the individual donor to perceive that the cause no longer needs assistance, creating a shortfall in Non Profit Organization funding, which in turn, becomes a detriment to the customer by forcing the Non Profit Organization to reduce client services. The firm-cause alliance may also lead customers to mistakenly perceive that the cause has participated in the development of the sponsoring firms products and or practices. Finally, in an attempt to forge more lucrative relationships with sponsoring firms or to expand their customer base, causes may choose to shift their focus to include a new topic or group, in extreme situations at the expense of the original program. For example, a cause focused on breast cancer may choose to expand its
59

potential constituency by also focusing on lung cancer, or by abandoning breast cancer altogether to focus exclusively on lung cancer. While in the short term this might benefit the cause by generating a larger potential audience, in the long term the consumer may be misled as the causes activities may be inconsistent with the consumers perceptions at the time of their initial support (Polonsky & Wood, 2001). Component of cause related marketing campaign Based on the academic literature, as well as the experience of practitioners, it is evident that the critical success factors for a CRMK campaign relate to these main areas: Cause important; previous researches confirmed positive effects of cause important on attitude toward brand and purchase intention (Ellen et al., 2000; Kotler & Lee, 2005; Landreth, 2002). It can be seen from the research relating to the effects of involvement within a persuasion context that higher levels of cause importance should lead to greater levels of motivation and opportunity to think about a message and lower levels of involvement should lead to the examination of peripheral cues in order to make an evaluation. As consumers have greater levels of cause importance, the cause becomes more diagnostic and consumers become more motivated to devote more cognitive effort to evaluate the issue-relevant arguments that are presented, indicating a more central route to persuasion. The previous academic researches presented the important of cause important and it has variety factors which should be considered in CRMK campaign such as personal relevance, cause proximity, cause agent, and cause claim. Personal relevance (also known as involvement) is the level of perceived personal importance and/or interest evoked by a stimulus within a specific situation.

60

The variations of involvement manipulation become important because the concept of personal importance is manifested as cause importance, which is the support of a cause due to personal experience or social norms (Ellen et al., 2000; Lafferty, 1996; Landreth, 2002). Personal relevance has been studied extensively in both psychology and marketing contexts. Krugman (1965) first defined the concept of involvement and stated that it varied by circumstances and individuals. Involvement is a personal connection or bridging experience for an individual. Since its introduction, there were multiple definitions of the involvement construct (Krugman in Landreth, 2002). Personal relevance is connected to the individual as the primary component of ego involvement thus making it vital to their self identity. The most widely used definition of personal relevance is the level of perceived personal importance and/or interest evoked by a stimulus within a specific situation (Antil, 1984). Academic researchers generally manipulate personal relevance in two ways. On one hand, personal importance deals with how the stimulus impacts the consumer on an individual level. On the other hand, several studies argue that subjects have stronger attitudes and greater elaboration toward a stimulus when it directly impacts them (Liberman & Chaiken, 1996; Sorrentino et al., 1988) or when the proximity of the stimulus impacts the consumer. Ellen, Mohr and Webb (2000) manipulated the donation situation as either an ongoing cause or a disaster, which utilizes the notion of personal relevance to determine consumers assessments of a firms CSR. They found that disaster situations were perceived as more important, because disasters were perceived as more personally involving.

61

Lafferty, Goldsmith, and Hult (2004) showed that attitudes toward familiar causes were more easily accessed than attitudes toward non-familiar causes. A survey by Cone Roper (2008) found that 83 percentages of consumers thought that personal relevance is a key when deciding to support a CRMK campaign. The variations of involvement manipulation became important in this research because the concept of personal importance was manifested as cause importance, which was the support of a cause due to personal experience or social norms. According to Krugmans definition, personal experiences were vital to personal relevance. This personal relevance can be a result of past experiences with a cause (e.g., a relative has cancer) or part of their self-concept (e.g., environmentally conscious people are likely to find recycling programs more personally relevant). This research examined the causes which had personal relevance in the level of family, gender, self-experience, and social norms. Cause proximity deals with the distance between the donation activity and the consumer thus affecting the impact of the donation. Varadarajan and Menon (1988) identified three alternatives of cause proximity: national, regional or local. Smith and Alcorn (1991) found that consumers indicated that local causes were most important as well. Individuals are most concerned with issues that will impact their lives directly. However, Ross, Patterson, and Stutts (1992) found that local causes did not lead to a more positive evaluation than national causes. Notably, the authors examined the effects of cause proximity on attitude toward the firm and attitude toward the cause, but did not examine the effects on extent of elaboration of the CRMK or the intention to participate in the CRMK campaign.

62

Landerth (2002) found that under high cause importance, cause proximity should not affect extent of elaboration that was, the cause was the most important element and not where the donations are going. Under conditions of low cause importance, the effects of cause proximity become important. In this case, consumers were more likely to elaboration on local donations than on national donations because of the more direct impact of the donation. CRMK campaign could use local donations to increase elaboration, attitude toward the product and intention to purchase a product. This also provided evidence that cause proximity alone would not be an effective structural variable to affect attitudes and intentions. Cause agent represents the cause important. Menon and Kahn (2001) did not assess involvement with the cause but used a cause agent or charity (i.e., American Cancer Society) to represent the cause. Cause agent characteristics will influence to consumer responses in CRMK campaigns. The Charity Commission (2005) reported of findings of a survey of public trust and confidence in charities. The survey involved a 15 minute telephone survey amongst 1001 members of the public across England and Wales, which was conducted between 15th 27th February 2005. The research found what actually driving trusts in charities were trustworthy. Researcher establish actual drivers through statistical analysis. Most people (79 percentages) felt that most charities were inherently trustworthy and three quarters of them believed that charities were regulated to ensure that they acted for the public benefit. However, 69 percentages accepted that they did not know much about how charities were actually ran. People claimed they trusted local charities more than charities acting abroad, and that they would have trusted charities more if they had heard about them. The profile of a charity also influenced overall trust although to a much lesser degree than inherent belief. This factor makes up only 7 percentages of the total
63

drivers of trust. While less than half of people (44 percentages) said they trusted big charities more than smaller ones. In the other word, the size of a charity can affect overall trust of consumer and donation size. There was also an inverse relationship between involvement with a charity and propensity to more trust in big charities. Doubts over how charities spend their money and fundraise barely affect the overall trust of consumer. There were 69 percentages believed that charities spend too much of their funds on salaries and admin and 60 percentages believed that charities used more unclear fundraising techniques these days. Additionally, these were the reasons given for trusting specific individual charities less. As a result, doubts over how charities behave must be carefully monitored. By the year 2008, the Charity Commission reported that there was near-total agreement from the public about the importance of charities publishing information about their spending and achievements. Ninety-six percent said that it was important to them that charities provided the public with information about how they spent their money, whilst 90 percentages said it was important for charities to publish an annual report of what they actually achieve. The vast majority (85 percentages) of the public more trusted in charities they had heard the information of them. Forty-one percent of the population in 2008 more trusted in charities with a well-known patron, whilst 38 percentages trusted bigger charities more than smaller ones. However, the vast majority of the public felt that charities played an important role in society. A third (32 percentages) claimed charities to be essential and 34 percentages claimed them to be very important and a further 29 percentages claimed them to be extremely important. Just 3 percentages of the population felt that charities were not important in society (Charity Commission, 2008).

64

Cause claim as executional elements which enhance viewers a priority levels of involvement in an advertising and increase information processing and persuasion (Berger, et al., 1999). Berger, Cunningham, and Koziets (1999) stated that cause claim in brand advertisements had a very powerful influence on brand attitudes and purchase intention. If causes were executional cues that could enhance processing, there should be a difference in processing when strong versus weak cause-claims were used. Since there was no academic literature on the specifics of cause-claim design, possible elements of cause strength were found from the trade press. The search revealed that relevance of the cause to the subject was important as was the credibility of the charitable organization, and the size and impact of the donation. They stated that cause claims had a differential effect on female versus male viewers. Females tended to generally have more positive attitudes towards cause-claims and the products associated with them. Lafferty and Goldsmith (2005) adopted a pretest and posttest approach, comparing consumer evaluations of a brand before and after exposure to advertising for this brand with a CRMK campaign component. The researchers found that postexposure attitudes toward the brand were significantly more positive than preexposure evaluations. Furthermore, Nan and Heo (2007) found that CRMK message elicit more favorable consumer responses compared with a similar ad without a CRM component. However, attitude toward the firms were not found to be affected by either the main effect of brand/cause fit or the interaction of brand/cause fit and brand consciousness. Peltier, Schibrowsky, and Schultz (2002) stated that message strategies influence buyers in different ways and at different stages of the decisionmaking/relationship-building process. A longitudinal communications plan required
65

an understanding of the sequential nature of the decision-making process, brand perceptions (including such things as perceived quality, personal experiences, involvement and beliefs, and communications), motivations that directly impact the consumer's decisions, category importance, and brand importance. From a charitable-giving perspective, the study suggested that donation involvement required a communications campaign that reminded customers with the positive experiences and benefits that the charity had provided them, that informs them of current events and the successes that their financial support brings, and that made them aware of why and where their help was needed, how they could help, and why they needed to get involved. Additionally, the use of celebrities as spokespeople for cause continued to be a popular method of advertising in social cause and became an important dimension of source credibility. The reason behind the popularity of celebrity advertising was the advertisers' belief that messages delivered by well-known characters achieve as high degree of attention and recalled for some consumers. While the idea is intuitively appealing, it is strengthened by an appropriate connection between the celebrity and the product endorsed or by the celebrity's personification of some aspects of the product (Ohanian, 1991). However, Weiner, and Mowen (1985) suggested that the three dimensions of source credibility could make independent contributions to source effectiveness. For example, a spokesperson can be perceived as an expert and still be untrustworthy (e.g., a salesperson), or a spokesperson lacking expertise can be perceived as highly trustworthy (e.g., a minister giving financial advice). Similarly, a physically attractive spokesperson might be neither an expert nor trustworthy. In any given case, a communicator's influence on audiences will depend upon some combination of these
66

three dimensions, and this resultant value can be referred to as the perceived "credibility" of the communicator. Brand cause fit There is high consensus among researchers on the effectiveness of CRMK campaigns in achieving objectives such as influencing consumers attitude toward a brand as well as influencing consumer purchase intent (Brink et al., 2006; Ellen et al., 2000; Hamlin & Wilson, 2004; Lafferty & Goldsmith, 2005; Nan & Heo, 2007; Pracejus & Olsen, 2004; Rifon et al., 2004; Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006; Till & Nowak, 2000). However there is some debates about the role of brand-cause fit in achieving these objectives. Lafferty (2007) defined brand-cause fit as the degree of similarity or compatibility that consumers perceive exists between the cause and the brand. While this definition was considered to be well expressed, it would appear to provide inadequate insight into the attributes and associations that consumers may consider when evaluating a brand-cause linkage. Some researchers suggested that fit was a complex concept and that brand-cause fit may be achieved in many ways (Nan & Heo, 2007). Therefore, a definition of brand-cause fit should reflect the number of ways in which fit may be achieved. Varadarajan and Menon (1988) defined brand-cause fit as the perceived link between the firms image, positioning and target market and the causes image and constituency. This definition was believed to provide more insight into the types of associations through which fit could be achieved. However, the definition proposed by Simmons and Becker-Olsen (2006) held more appeal. Simmons and Becker-Olsen (2006) defined brand-cause fit as consumer perception of whether a firm and a cause

67

go together and may be derived from mission, products, markets, technologies, attributes, brand concepts or any other key association. Some authors suggested that brand-cause fit was important where the aim of the campaign was to influence consumer attitude toward a brand and also to influence consumer purchase intent (Ellen et al., 2000; Ellen et al., 2006; Gupta & Pirsch, 2006; Hamlin & Wilson, 2004; Nan & Heo, 2007; Pracejus & Olsen, 2004; Rifon et al., 2004; Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006). Samu and Wymer (2002) described fit in terms of the degree of congruence between a cause and a businesss product/service. For example, the nonprofit organization March of Dimes (mission: funding research to prevent birth defects) was a better fit for the Gerber firm (produces baby food/products) than the Exxon-Mobile Firm (produces petroleum products). Many previous researches founded that a high level of fit among Brand and Cause leaded to more positive attitudes and strong purchase intentions (Andreasen, 1996; Basil, 2002; Basil & Herr, 2003; Samu & Wymer, 2002; Till & Nowak, 2000). However, other researchers suggested that brand-cause fit might not be important (Lafferty, 2007; Brink et al., 2006). Lafferty (2007) studied to determine the effect of corporate credibility on brand-cause fit reported that, marketers may have to rethink fit as a necessary criterion for a brand-cause alliance depending on what their motives are. In addition, Brink et al. (2006) investigated the role of brandcause fit on brand loyalty, reported that the evidence that supported the importance of brand-cause fit was inconclusive. Therefore, the role of brand-cause fit was uncertain. The terms compatibility, similarity, fit, relevance, match, congruence and natural fit have been used to describe the perceived link between a sponsor/brand and

68

cause/nonprofit. Congruence and its synonyms fit and match, dominate the sponsorship literature representing functional links. Brand-cause fit had two characteristics such as product fit and image fit. Product fit is perceived on the basis of a match between a product attributes and the objectives of the alliance. It is perceived with functional fit and natural fit. Functional fit may be perceived on the basis of a match between a brands functional attributes and the objectives of the alliance. Firm provided a core competence to contribute meaningfully to accomplishing the mission and objectives of the alliance. In addition to a functional fit, some firms attempted to create a fit with causes by emphasizing similarity in values (Kashyap & Li, 2006). Compatibility may be a function of not only the two types of congruence defined in the literature, functional and image, but also other factors such as individual characteristics and their relationship to the sponsored cause (Trimble et al., 2004). Natural fit is the extent to which the sponsored cause is perceived as being congruent with the image of the sponsor, independent of efforts to create a perceived fit between the organizations (Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006). For example, Alpo and the Humane Society are high in natural fit because both are strongly associated with pets; this association readily comes to mind. In contrast, Alpo and the Special Olympics are low in natural fit because they share no highly accessible association. Simmons & Becker-Olsen (2006) stated that natural fit is of interest for several reasons. First, firms may engage in low fit sponsorships because of a sincere interest in the cause or a belief that is irrelevant. Second, cost efficiencies are greater if there is no need to spend on efforts to create fit. Finally, because marketers do not control the entire context in which consumers encounter information about their activities, a

69

sponsorship that does not depend on such control for its effectiveness is highly attractive. This study will use natural fit as one of the observed variables. Image fit refers to how comfortable consumers are with the brand-cause pairing. Each partner brings perceptions of their image to the alliance. In any collaborative effort, the images of both parties become part of the equation (Varandarajan & Menon, 1988). Therefore, perception of image fit between the brand and the cause is congruent. The alliance will be evaluated more favorable. High brand-cause fit should therefore be a key selection criterion for practitioners who are considering a brand-cause alliance if the aim of the campaign is to influence consumer attitude and consumer patronage intent. Donation framing When consumers make a donation directly to a charity or cause, the exchange equation is relatively simple: the consumers donate money, possessions, or their labor then receive gratitude from the charity as well as a self-congratulatory pat on the back. Corporations also make donations to charities with CRMK campaign, but the exchange equation is more complicated. There are three actors instead of two. The corporation (actor 1) announces that it will donate some specified amount of money to a charitable cause (actor 2) each time a consumer (actor 3) engages in a revenueproducing transaction with the firm. The linkage between the consumer and the charity is indirect in CRMK, which contrasts with the direct linkage when only two actors are involved. With a direct linkage and only two actors, the donation is likely to be interpreted as philanthropy. In CRMK, however, the firm benefits first before any obligation to donate is accrued, and this could be interpreted as self-interest rather than philanthropy. An important question is whether consumers will perceive CRMK

70

as self-interest and exploitation of the charity rather than philanthropy. If so, this type of promotion could backfire and result in a loss of goodwill toward the firm. Dean (2004) researched the effects of type of donation (conditional or not conditional upon corporate revenue) and reputation of the firm making the donation (firms described as scrupulous, average, or irresponsible in the discharge of their social responsibility) on consumer regard for the firm; perceived mercenary intent of the firm; and whether the social performance of the firm is consistent with "good" management. Consumer responses were predicted based on the contrast effect and attribution theory. Results suggested that irresponsible firms increased their favor with consumers by pursuing either type of donation. The average firm enhanced its image by pursuing an unconditional donation, but a conditional donation did not damage firm image. Perception of the scrupulous firm was little changed after unconditional donation, but a scrupulous firm suffered a loss of favor by pursuing CRMK. It is concluded that the average firm does not risk a loss of public goodwill when using CRMK. However, when considering CRMK campaigns as part of a firms marketing and promotional strategy, marketers are faced with a variety of decisions about how the CRMK campaign offer is structured. Successfully, identifying the specific structural issues that will either encourage or deter consumer participation is essential to the success of the program, both for the sponsoring and the nonprofit organization. One example of a well-known CRMK campaign with these structural issues came from Yoplait yogurt. Since 1997, Yoplait annually offers the Lids for Lives campaign, which customers were asked to purchase yogurt and then sent lids from their containers in exchange for a ten cent donation from Yoplait to a womens breast cancer foundation (www.yoplait.com). As part of this campaign, Yoplait marketing
71

managers made several key structural decisions about how the campaign would be executed. Firstly, Yoplait specifically stated the amount they would donated (ten cents per lid received) to the selected cause. Second, Yoplait limited the total contribution that they would make to womens breast cancer to $750,000, regardless of the number of lids sent in by customers. Third, Yoplait restricted the length of time available for consumer participation to a four month period by imposing a donation deadline. Fourth, Yoplait used their website to disseminate information about their results. From the companys standpoint, each of these decisions seemed reasonable and practical. In this case, Yoplaits marketing staff chosen to clearly convey the amount donated, and placed limits on the amount and time allowed for contribution, presumably to limit their financial exposure from this promotional event. These elements include (1) the presentation of the firms donation size to the cause (donation quantifier), and subsequently (2) the transparent information of CRMK contributions during the campaign which showed the presence or absence of donation amounts and donation timeframe of CRMK campaign. Donation size is the donation which relative to the price of the product offered for purchase. Consumer perception of donation quantifiers may also be influenced by the size of the donation relative to the price of the product offered for purchase. Pracejus, Olsen, and Brown (2004) used the term donation quantifiers to describe how the donation amount is presented to the consumer. There are three main types of quantifiers; calculable, estimated, and abstract. Calculable quantifiers are define as donation amounts that allow consumers to calculate the actual amount being donated and include percentage of sales or percentage of price formats. Estimable quantifiers give the customer only a piece of the information needed to calculate the donation amount. These quantifiers are usually expressed as a percentage of the net
72

proceeds or as a percentage of profit/net profit. Abstract quantifiers, the most commonly used methods occur when the customer is provided with almost no information about how much the firm is donating to the sponsored cause (Olsen et al., 2003; Pracejus & Olsen, 2004; Pracejus et al., 2004). Furthermore, Dahl and Lavack (1995) found that consumers were more skeptical of small donation sizes. However, the amount per transaction generated by the campaign may be small and therefore high volumes will be a key of successful campaign (Kotler & Lee, 2005). Transparent donation is the exact amount of the donation given for each product sold. Landreth, Garretson, and Pirsch (2007) included a fourth level, the exact donation quantifier. The most concrete option, an exact quantifier, stated the exact amount of the donation given for each product sold. Examples from recent CRMK campaigns included Avons Kiss Goodbye to Breast Cancer campaign which the firm donated $1 for each lipstick sold. Grau and Folse (2007) founded 75 percentages of responses preferred exact option. Despite the number of campaigns using abstract quantifiers, consumers preferred more tangible information regarding the donation. If the amount donated through CRMK campaign is stated in transparent, straightforward way, there will be little concern about potential consumer confusion. Consumers want details, details, details presumably to protect their own interests and to make intelligent judgments on how their contributions are directed (Grau & Folse, 2007). Furthermore, consumers are most likely to look for information about the results of the CRM campaign on the Internet using firm websites. Consumers may see this medium as less invasive than paid television and print ads or direct mailings, thus making it more acceptable from an ethical standpoint. Additionally, truly interested consumers can easily seek out the information themselves, rather than relying on the firm to communicate the information to them.
73

Grau and Folse (2007) stated that firms might walk a fine line when using CRMK campaigns as part of their corporate social responsibility program or promotional campaign. Consumers can be skeptical of these types of efforts. By providing detailed information about the amounts donated and the duration of the campaign and maximum contributions, firms can build consumer confidence in corporate efforts. Firms face a dilemma when promoting the results of their CRMK efforts, too. Wanting to know the results of the campaign, consumers can understand how their efforts help. However, too much marketing of the firms effort can make the firm seem disingenuous and out only for profit gain. CRMK campaigns can have positive results for all three parties involved, the firm, the cause and the customer, as long as the firm openly discusses their intentions and restrictions with their potential consumers. Moreover, timeframe of the campaign is the one of transparent donation component. Varandarajan and Menon (1988) stated that there were three different types of time frame campaigns. These were long-term, medium-term, and short-term. Short-term focus was the most dominating choice even though firms desire to focus on medium-term or long-term. However, there are more disadvantages than advantages for short term when it came to creating trust and belief among the consumers if the support was going to last no longer than a year. Long-term relationships also showed that consumers recognize the brand and the charity cause if the relationship was strong and taked place over a long period of time (Pringle & Thompson, 1999). Consumers do not have strongly negative opinions regarding deadlines and donation amounts. Instead, they see these elements of a CRMK campaign as necessary business practices that are reasonable constraints to protect the firms
74

financial contributions. Several studies pointed out, however, that donations were reasonable only so long as they were disclosed to the consumer up front.

Consumer attitudes toward CRMK campaign Patronage intention Several studies investigated patronage intention regarding consumer perceptions of socially conscious businesses (e.g., Mohr & Webb, 2005; Porter & Kramer, 2002; Ricks, 2005; Walker, 2007) and the findings of the studies indicated that corporate associations influenced product evaluations and overall consumer attitudes about the organization. Patronage intention is the indicator that signals whether customers will remain with or defect from a firm (Zeithaml et al., 1996). The two most commonly examined dimensions of patronage intention which are of interest to retailers relate to the intention to repurchase and the intention to recommend. Baker, Parasuraman, Grewal, and Voss (2002) defined patronage intention as a willingness to recommend and a willingness to buy. This study defined patronage intention as follows: Purchase intention; consumer attitudes to purchase intention or brand choice, including the propensity to switch brands to those that support causes, tend to increase with the perception of ethical and social responsibility demonstrated by the firm (Barone et al., 2000; Bennett & Gabriel, 2000; Berger et al., 1999; Creyer & Ross, 1997; Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001; Webb & Mohr, 1998). Women tend to have a higher intention to buy or switch brands than men (Ross et al., 1992; Webb & Mohr, 1998). Additionally, campaigns which support social causes were shown by Barone, Miyazaki and Tayor (2000) to be rewarded by consumers when these causes were perceived by the consumers to be for appropriate reasons.
75

Repeat purchase; brand loyalty has been conceptualized both in a behavioral and in an attitudinal way. The former captures more the patronage behavior and focuses on repeated purchasing of a certain brand by a consumer over time (Bloemer & Kasper, 1995). Word of mouth; According to Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman (1996), in the case that consumers had patronage intention for CRMK campaign, they intended to spread their positive words and recommended the campaign to other people. On the other hand, if the campaign is well constructed, negative word of mouth can also destroy the campaign and discourage other consumer to agree with the campaign. The survey conducted by Cone/Roper (1993/1994) provided strong evidence that firms could benefit significantly from connecting themselves to a cause, or issue of consumers surveyed in the following: 8 out of 10 agreed that companies should be committed to a specific cause over a long period of time. 84 percentages said they had a more positive image of a company if it is doing something to make the world better. 78 percentages of adults said they would be more likely to buy a product associated with a cause they care about. 66 percentages said they would switch brands to support a cause they cared about. 62 percentages said they would switch retail stores to support a cause. 64 percentages believed that cause related marketing should be a standard part of a company's activities.

76

Others have similar contentions and present strong evidence that support consumer patronage intention with the firm that has involvement in social cause. The 2002 Cone Corporate Citizenship Study reported that 84 percentages of Americans said they would be likely to switch brands to one associated with a good cause, if price and quality were similar. Drumwright (1994) founded that 75 percentages of consumers said their purchase decisions were influenced by a firms reputation with respect to the environment, and 8 out of 10 said they would pay more for products that were environmentally friendly. Skepticism CRMK campaign in relation to the sponsoring firm have been criticized (Drumwright, 1996) and may run the risk of consumer backlash if consumers question the validity of the offer, the firms motives for engaging in the alliance, or the absence of a logical fit between the brand and the cause (Osterhus, 1997). Varadarajan and Menon (1988) warned that CRMK could be seen as motivated by firm self- interest and could experience negative consequences. Consumer skepticism can be manifested as a decrease in donation size (Dahl & Lavack, 1995), perceived firm motivation and what the consumer must trade off to participate (Barone et al., 2000), and as an element of consumer type (Webb & Mohr, 1998). Obermiller and Spangenberg (1998) defined advertising skepticism as the tendency toward disbelief in advertising claims, which was related to the quality of accumulated consumer experiences. In other words, the more consumers experience perceived advertising deception and exaggeration, the more skeptical they would be. They argued that ad skepticism was a stable characteristic of consumers that played a role in responses to advertising. Virtually, all advertising includes claims that are subject to some degree of disbelief. They proposed personality traits, marketplace
77

experience, education, and consumer socialization as antecedents to advertising skepticism and found evidence of association with the first three. Similarly, Mangelburg and Bristol (1998) found advertising skepticism to be positively related to marketplace knowledge which involved knowledge of stores and shopping. Additionally, Boush, Marian, and Gregory (1994) found that trust in advertising decreased as one's educational level increased and that trust in sources was seen as being more objective tended to increase. Importantly, the advertisers have to be careful with the level of consumer skepticism when they use celebrities in their advertisements to target different groups of consumers (Bailey, 2007). Webb and Mohr (1998) made the assumption that skepticism toward CRMK campaign derived mainly from consumers distrust and cynicism toward advertising. The negative attitudes toward CRMK campaign expressed from half of their research respondents were credited mostly to skepticism toward implementation and or cynicism toward a firms motives. Half of the respondents indeed perceived the firms motive as being self-serving. They stated that consumers' distrust toward

advertising led to skepticism toward CRMK campaign, indicating that consumers no longer believed firm's altruistic intentions of charitable giving. Obermiller, Spangenberg, and MacLachlan (2005) stated that consumers who were skeptical of advertising tended to enhance advertising sales and showed a lack of connection between advertising and purchase intention. Mohr, Dogan, and Ellen (1998) developed and tested a measure of skepticism toward environmental claims in marketers communications, specifically the green claims made by marketers on their packaging and in their advertising. The researchers believed that measuring skepticism was important, as most consumers tended to be lack of knowledge on environmental issues and claimed using environmental terms.
78

They believed this was an important factor as skepticism could be correlated with lack of knowledge. Consequently, the more consumers know about an issue the less skeptical they may be and thus be more positive to the firm and its products. The point of Mohr et al.s work was to find a reliable and valid measurement of skepticism. They started with 13 items identified from previous research. After two studies which they used to refine the measure for reliability and validity, they derived four questions that could be used to measure skepticism to environmental claims made in marketers communications. The four questions are listed in table 4. Questions 1 and 4 appear to measure the same thing, but Mohr, Dogan, and Ellen (1998) kept the two seemingly similar questions in order to test or check the consistency of the respondents answers to the questions. This is important if respondents are not conscious or aware of CRMK campaigns. Table 4 Questions measuring skepticism from Mohr, Dogan, and Ellen (1998). 1 2 3 4 Most environmental claims made on package labels or in advertising are true. Because environmental claims are exaggerated, consumers would be better off it such claims on package labels or in advertising were eliminates. Most environmental claims on package labels or in advertising are intended to mislead rather than to inform consumers. I do not believe most environment claims made on package labels or in advertising.

A few previous researches suggest that consumers with a high level of skepticism will be less likely to respond positively to CRMK campaign than consumers with low level of skepticism toward CRMK campaign (Mohr et al., 1998; Webb & Mohr, 1998). Differently, Youn and Kim (2008) found that high in advertising skepticism are more likely to trust a company's willingness to engage in philanthropic commitment to social causes. This finding is very encouraging for
79

CRMK practitioners in that consumer perceive traditional commercial advertising and CRMK campaign differently. Demography A large bulk of studies showed that demography related to pro-social behaviors (Chrenka, et al., 2003; Hettman & Jenkins, 1990; Penner, 2002; Wilson & Musick, 1997). With regard to gender, it appears that women are more likely to be engaged in pro-social behaviors such as volunteering than men (Chrenka et al., 2003; Penner et al., 2005). On the other hand, Penner (2002) found that there were no differences in gender between active volunteers and nonvolunteers. Relating to causerelated marketing, Ross, Larry, and Mary (1992) found that women showed more favorable attitudes toward cause-related marketing than men. The industry publications also revealed that women demonstrated greater support for cause-related marketing activities than men (DaSilva, 2004). In terms of age, there were more likely to give mixed results regarding the likelihood of individuals to give to charities or volunteer time. Chrenka, Gutter, and Jasper (2003) reported that the older people were more likely to give time or money, compared to 35-47 years old as a reference group. However, Hettman and Jenkins (1990) found that young adults aged 25 to 34 were more active volunteers than the older ones. Penner (2002) found no relationship between age and volunteering. In conjunction with cause-related marketing, the studies showed that young consumers were more receptive to cause related marketing activities, compared to their older counterparts (Cui et al., 2003; DaSilva, 2004). Although the findings were inconsistent regarding the relationship between age and pro-social behaviors, this study followed the industry findings relating to causerelated marketing, expecting that the younger consumers were tended to support corporate cause-branding activities. The level of education affects a wide range of
80

pro-social behaviors (Chrenka et al., 2003; Hettman & Jenkins, 1990; Penner et al., 2005; Wilson & Musick, 1997). Wilson and Musick (1997) uncovered the positive effect of education on volunteering and argued that educated people were inclined to be civic minded and well-informed about community affairs. Similarly, Chrenka, Gutter, and Jasper (2003) also found that more educated consumers had greater willingness to give money or time to charities. Becker and Dhingra (2001) found that higher education levels corresponded to a higher likelihood of volunteering. Conclusion Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is becoming increasingly popular element of corporate marketing strategy. Kotler and Lee issued corporate social initiatives to describe major efforts under the corporate social responsibility and indentified CSR programs manifestly as the following six strategies: Cause promotion, Cause related marketing, Corporate social marketing, Corporate philanthropy, Community volunteering, and Socially responsible business practices. Cause-related marketing (CRMK) is the only one which directly measure financially impact of the marketing campaign. The key benefit of a CRMK campaign to the organization continues to be the generation of favorable purchase intent or product choice among the organizations customers. This can result in increased sales and profits for the firm, and the increased recognition of its brand name(s) and product offering within its consumer base. Based on the academic literature, as well as the experience of practitioners, it is evident that the critical success factors for a CRMK campaign relate to these main areas: cause important, brand cause fit, and donation framing.

81

There were also many previous researches that studied the relation between demography factors and consumer responses in CRMK campaign. Several studies investigated patronage intention regarding consumer perceptions of socially conscious businesses and found that corporate associations influenced product evaluations and overall consumer attitudes about the organization. Patronage intention is the indicator that signal whether customers will remain with or defect from a firm. The three most commonly examined dimensions of patronage intention were purchase intention, repeat purchase, and word of mouth. Importantly, a few previous researches

suggested that consumers with a high level of skepticism would be less likely to respond positively to CRMK campaign than consumers with low level of skepticism toward CRMK campaign.

82

CHAPTER 3 Research Methodology

This chapter includes the discussion of research methodology framework, including research design, sampling plan, data collection instruments and procedures, operational definitions of research variables, and analytical measurement. The analytical measurement is divided into the statistical procedures of scale validation, scale dimensionality, exploratory factor analyses, confirmatory factor analyses and structural equation modeling. Research design Descriptive research was used in this study for analyzing consumer reaction to various components of CRMK campaign related to the outcome variables of consumer patronage intention. The survey method was employed in the study to assess respondent attitudes. Two sources of data are utilized in the study. First, secondary data mostly obtained from EBSCOhost database during 1865 2008 which also were used for literature review and model and hypotheses development, and also gathering scale measurement for generating the initial set of items in questionnaire development stage. Second, primary data were collected from group self-administered survey method with questionnaire for empirical testing of the proposed model. Population and sampling plan Population The population in this study were graduate students of Ramkhamhaeng University, Huamak Campus, Bangkok Metropolitan. They were selected because CRMK campaign was a newly promotional marketing approach for Thai consumers,

83

the participants with higher education could give appropriate answers for the research. Additionally, there were various occupations and ages which are between 23-60 years old include variety of knowledge in business and in general background would significantly the representative of study. Therefore, the survey results of these population could predict consumers attitude. The participants were separated into two groups of equal numbers, MBA students and Non-MBA students. According to the university student enrollment in 2008 school year, there were 8,500 MBA students and 3,300 Non-MBA students. Sample size Sample size was determined based on the n = (1+ N) / (1+ N(e)2) (Yamane,1978). The total sample size is 738.93 where as MBA student and nonMBA student sample sizes are 382.07 and 356.86 respectively. Alternatively, Hair, Anderson, Tatham, and Black (1998) suggested that for both regression and structural equation modeling analyses, the preferred ratio of observations to independent variables were 15 to 20. Therefore, the appropriate number of observation for 54 independent variables in this study were at least 810 (54x15) to 1,080 (54 x 20) observations. Sampling plan This study, multistage cluster sampling procedure and non-probability quota sampling were the combination used to select sampling units. First, cluster sampling was used. The list of graduate student program in Ramkhamhaeng University, Huamak Campus, Bangkok Metropolitan was divided into four groups such as MBA weekday program, MBA weekend program, non-MBA weekday program, and nonMBA weekend program and each group was further categorized into the major of

84

program. Finally, non-probability quota sampling was used to select sampling unit. The purpose of quota sampling was to ensure that the proportion respondents were almost the representative of MBA class and Non-MBA class. After that, the questionnaires were assigned to interviewers with quota for each class. Additionally, each gender was fixed approximately a half of sample size. Data collection Data collection from questionnaires Data collection is conducted from February till March 2009. The data collection method was necessary group self-administered survey. Researcher will hire a number of interviewers and interviewing each MBA students and Non-MBA students class during break time class. The interviewers were briefed and supervised by the research on the first days of data collection. They would introduce themselves and ask for their permission to fill in the questionnaires. After permission, they would explain the structure of the questionnaire and instructions to fill in the forms. Then they would let the respondents wrote down all answers by themselves. It took about 20-25 minutes to complete the questionnaires. After filling in the questionnaires, they checked for any mistakes or unanswered parts and immediately rechecked any missing information requested the respondents to correct or fill in those parts of them. According to Churchill (1999), editing data of each questionnaire was inspected and corrected to ensure minimum quality of the raw data. Then, the data was assigned a number and entered into a computer. Missing data was treated by mean replacement before further analysis.

85

Data collection from In-depth interview A few companies which used to have CRMK campaign were contacted for interviewing. The executives who were responsibility in marketing campaign were invited to have in-depth interview with a structural questionnaire. The purpose of the interview was to collect and cross check their opinions and experience around CRMK campaign. There were three companies as designated participation firms such as Cerebos (Thailand), ICC Plc. (Arrow shirt, Wacoal), and CAT Telecom Plc. Questionnaires development The questionnaires development procedure was divided into four approaches consecutively. First, the variables were measured and specified. Second, the first draft questionnaires were developed. Third, the items were evaluated via critical review and pilot tests. And finally, the questionnaires were pretested and revised, ready for data collection in the main study. The variables to be measured were specified from secondary data mostly obtained from EBSCOhost database during 1865 2008 which also were used for literature review and model and hypotheses development. The study had already identified relevant variables used to conduct empirical test of the proposed model and hypothesis as reported in the first chapter. The first draft of the questionnaires were developed to best capture the measuring of the theoretical construct with transforming into item wording, questionnaires format and response alternative, the number of items, the number of response alternatives per item, and the overall organization. The questionnaires were divided into six sections: 1) personal data, 2) cause important, 3) brand-cause fit, 4) donation framing, 5) patronage intention, and
86

6) skepticism. In each of section, there were a few of latent variables which include at least 2 items needed to achieve adequate reliability and provided enough information to yield strict test of hypothesis in the structural equation modeling. Table 5 Summary of measures for five latent constructs All items of questionnaires consisted of five-point scales with such anchors as very more agree, more agree, moderate agree, less agree, and very less agree Cause important; the extent to which a consumer perceives the important of cause or social problem which should be promoted in CRMK campaign.

No. CI 1

Personal relevance The social problem relates with the quality of your living and family. The social problem relates with your gender disease. The social problem relates with your experience and has emergency for resolving. The relevance social problem which you always perceive from mass communications. Cause proximity The local social problem which is the air pollution or environment problem in your community. The local social problem which is the safety of your community lives. The provincial social problem which is the natural disaster in many provinces. The provincial social problem which is the stray animal in your province. The national social problem which is the uneducated children. The national social problem which is the public health.

Adapted from Antil, 1984; Ellen et al., 2000; Lafferty, 1996; Landreth, 2002; Liberman & Chaiken, 1996; Sorrentino et al. 1988;

CI 2 CI 3 CI 4

No. CI 5 CI 6 CI 7

Adapted from Landerth, 2002; Ross et al., 1992; Smith & Alcon, 1991; Varadarajan & Menon, 1988

CI 8 CI9 CI10

87

No. CI11 CI 12

Cause proximity The global social problem which is the Aids/HIV. The global social problem which is the global warming.

Adapted from

No. CI 13 CI 14

Cause agent The social problem which has a well-known charity takes care of the problem. The social problem which has a charity is really agency of problem solving takes care of the problem.

Adapted from Charity Commission ,2005; Charity Commission ,2008; Menon & Kahn, 2001

No. CI 15 CI 16

Cause claim The social problem which is unaware. It is promoted by CRMK campaign. The serious national social problems which are fully used advertising for donation support in CRMK campaign. The social problem which has a celebrity is the supporter in CRMK campaign.

Adapted from Berger, et al., 1999; Lafferty & Goldsmith, 2005; Nan & Heo, 2007; Ohanian, 1991; Peltier et al., 2002; Weiner & Mowen,1985

CI 17

Brand-cause fit; the extent to which a consumer perceives the congruence between brand and cause which should be promoted in CRMK campaign.

No. CF 1

Product fit with functional fit (high / low fit)

Automobile is an alliance with the safety road project. Automobile is an alliance with the child slum care project. Apparel is an alliance with the cold disaster people care project. Apparel is an alliance with the elephants survival project.

Adapted from Kashyap & Li, 2006; Trimble & Rifon, 2006; Varadarajan & Menon, 1988

CF 2

CF 3

CF 4

88

No. CF 5

Product fit with functional fit (high / low fit)

Construction material is an alliance with the school buildings maintenance project. Construction material is an alliance with the project helping the handicapped.

Adapted from

CF 6

No. CF 7

Product fit with natural fit (high / low fit)

Pet food is an alliance with helping the stray dog and cat project. Pet food is an alliance with helping HIV patient project. Ladies product is an alliance with the breast cancer crusade project. Ladies product is an alliance with the headwater sources conservation project. Heart candy is an alliance with helping children with heart diseases. Heart candy is an alliance with helping people who meet with flood disaster.

Adapted from Samu & Wymer, 2002; Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006; Varadarajan & Menon, 1988

CF 8

CF 9

CF 10

CF 11

CF 12

No. CF 13

Image fit
The large corporate with good image in CSR is an alliance with the large amount of charity and popular. The corporate which recognized product or service is an alliance with the charity which has strongly resulted of social problem solving. The corporate which has continually public news of CSR activities is an alliance with the charity which has continually public news of social problem solving.

Adapted from Varadarajan & Menon, 1988

CF 14

CF 15

89

Donation framing; the extent to which a consumer perceives the structural and progressive of donation which should be promoted in CRMK campaign.
No. DF 1

Donation size
Comparing of donation quantifiers with price of product should be relative. Donation quantifiers can calculate the percentage of price. The product which has high sales volume can donate with a small donation size when comparing with the price. The portion of income which is not included in donation from sales amount should be extra donated to charity.

Adapted from Dahl & Lavack, 1995: Kotler & Lee, 2005; Olsen et al., 2003; Pracejus & Olsen, 2004; Pracejus et al., 2004

DF 2

DF 3

DF 4

No. DF 5

Transparent donation
The exact target of donation to a charity should be informed to the public. The campaign should be publicized clearly information of donation. The campaign should be continually publicized and informed the accumulated donation. The total amount of donation should be known to the public when the campaign comes to as end. The campaign should have certain period. The timeframe of campaign should be related with the target of donation size. The CRMK campaign against critical social problems should be continually conducted for a long time.

Adapted from Grau et al., 2007; Landreth et al., 2007; Olsen et al., 2003 Pringle & Thompson, 1999; Varandarajan & Menon, 1988

DF 6

DF 7

DF 8

DF 9 DF 10

DF 11

90

Patronage intention; the extent to which a consumer has patronage intention level with CRMK campaign.
No. PI 1

Purchase intention
You have intention to purchase CRMK product although never used it before. You have intention to purchase CRMK product compare with others brand name which have same price and quality. You have intention to purchase CRMK product although it is not necessary product for you. You have intention to switch brand from your usual product to CRMK brand to support CRMK campaign. You have intention to purchase CRMK product despite it is higher price than other brand.

Adapted from Cone/Roper ,1993/1994; Cone/Roper, 2002; Drumwright ,1994 Ross et al.,1992; Webb & Mohr, 1998;

PI 2

PI 3

PI 4

PI 5

No. PI 6

Repeat purchase
When you bought CRMK product, you have intention to repeat purchase to support CRMK campaign. You continuously purchase CRMK product because you have feeling more donate. If you knew the CRMK campaign does not achieved the donation target, you will immediately repeat purchase.

Adapted from Bloemer & Kasper, 1995

PI 7

PI 8

No. PI 9

Word of mouth
You have intention to tell about your supporting in the campaign to your family. You have intention to recommend the CRMK campaign to your family and familiar for their supporting. You have intention to recommend the CRMK campaign to the others.

Adapted from Zeithaml et al., 1996

PI 10

PI 11

91

Skepticism; the extent to which a consumer has skeptism level with CRMK campaign.
No. SK 1

Skepticism
You have skepticism with CRMK campaign advertising. Almost all of CRMK campaign advertising is with intention to convince the customers Almost all of the CRMK campaign advertisings are exaggerated. CRMK campaign is sales promotion tool. Image and credit of firm and brand image impact on your patronage intention. Unclear CRMK campaign component makes impact on your patronage intention.

Adapted from Mangelburg & Bristol, 1998 Mohr et al., 1998; Obermiller & Spangenberg,1998; Webb & Mohr, 1998

SK 2

SK 3

SK 4 SK 5

SK 6

The questionnaires were evaluated via critical review by a group of dissertation consultants committee. The committee suggested a short summary of the purpose of the study, the model and the hypotheses. Their comments and feedbacks were used to revise the questionnaires. The pilot test was performed in December 2008 with 5 graduate students subjected to examine any possible problems in the questionnaires such as confusion over item wordings, the organization of the questionnaires, etc. The result of the pilot test was used to refine item wordings and questionnaires format. Then, the questionnaires were pretested by a representative sample (n=110) from population of this study during January 2009. The results of the pretest was checked for their reliability by Cronbachs alpha which be higher than 0.70. Then each question in the questionnaires was revised to make them clearer for the survey.
92

Table 6 Summary of Cronbachs alpha Variable Number Reliability of items 4 8 2 3 0.811 0.897 0.709 0.726

Cause Important

Personal relevance Cause proximity Cause agent Cause claim

Brand-Cause Fit

Product fit with high fit Product fit with low fit Image fit

6 6 3

0.980 0.989 0.870

Donation Framing

Donation size Transparent donation

4 7

0.852 0.921

Patronage Intention

Purchase intention Repeat purchase Word of mouth

5 3 3

0.848 0.835 0.873

Skepticism

Skepticism

0.872

93

Data analysis techniques and criteria Data screening. According to Churchill (1999), editing data of each questionnaire was inspected and corrected to ensure minimum quality of the raw data. Then, the data were assigned numbers and entered into the computer. Missing data were put in before further analysis. Statistical techniques and criteria. The statistical techniques employed in this study were descriptive and explanation. The statistics used for the data analysis were descriptive statistics such as frequency distribution, percentage, arithmetic mean, and standard deviation with SPSS version 16.0. Structural equation modeling analytical procedure AMOS version 7.0 were used to assess model fit and investigation for parsimonious model to explain the effect of CRMK campaign component toward to consumer patronage intention. Structural equation modeling technique is used to group several variables into fewer underlying constructs and analyze cause-effect relationships between the constructs. First, the univariate analyses of the data in terms of frequency distribution, mean, standard deviations were used to examine the respondents characteristics. Second, bivariate analysis was executed by exploring correlations among variables. This was the initial check-up for unidimensional construct and multicollinearity. Third, multivariate analysis was explored. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test the model and hypotheses. There were two advantages in using SEM: First, the technique examines a series of dependence relationship (i.e. multiple regression equations) simultaneously and second, the tool provides the measurement model allowed more rigorous evaluation of the measurement reliability and validity of

94

the measures and constructs than performing a factor analysis and using the factor scores in the regression (Hair et al. 1998). Structural equation modeling and interpretation This study used structural equation modeling (SEM) for the main relationship model. To examine the conceptual model and associated hypotheses in the previous chapter, structural equation modeling was appropriate due to these confirmatory methods (Bentler, 1990; Joreskog, 1978) provided researchers with a comprehensive means of assessing and modifying theoretical models (Anderson & Gerbing, 1982). This dissertation employed Amos version 7.0 to analyze confirmatory factor analysis in which the maximum likelihood estimation (ML) method was provided. The ML method was used for theory testing and development (appropriate for testing our conceptual model and hypotheses), which included several relative strengths. This method provided the most efficient parameter estimates (Joreskog & Wold, 1982) and an overall test of model fit. Under the assumptions of a multivariate normal distribution of the observed variables, maximum likelihood estimators had the desirable asymptotic, or large-sample, properties of unbiased, consistent, and efficient (Kmenta, 1971). Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a technique that allowed a separate relationship for each of a set of dependent variables. SEM provides the appropriate and most efficient estimation technique for a series of separate multiple regression equations estimated simultaneously. It is characterized by two basic components: the structural model and the measurement model. The structural model is the path model, which relates independent to dependent variables. The measurement model allows the researcher to use several variables for a single independent or dependent

95

variable. In this model, the researcher can assess the contribution of each scale item as well as incorporate how well the scale measures the concept into the estimation of the relationships between dependent and independent variables. In this dissertation, the researcher adopts seven procedures in structural equation modeling (Hair et al., 2006) as follows: First, developing a theory based model. Structural equation modeling is based on causal relationships. Hence, the change of one variable is assumed to result in the change in another variable. Second, constructing a path diagram of causal relationships. There are two assumptions that apply to a path diagram. First, all causal relationships are indicated. Second, it relates to the nature of the causal relationships that are assumed to be linear. Hence, nonlinear relationships cannot be directly estimated in structural equation modeling; however, the modified structural models can approximate nonlinear relationships. Third, converting the path diagram into a set of structural equations and measurement equations. The objective is to link operational definitions of the constructs to theory for the appropriate empirical test. Fourth, choosing the input matrix type and estimating the proposed model. SEM uses only the variance/covariance or correlation matrix as its input data. The measurement model specifies which indicators corresponds to each construct. Then, the latent construct scores are employed in the structural model. As mentioned before, the sample size of 200 is considered to be the critical sample size. Fifth, assessing the identification of the model equations. An identification problem is the inability of the proposed model to generate unique estimates. There are

96

four symptoms to detect an identification problem, including very large standard errors for one or more coefficients, inability to convert the information matrix, negative error variances and high correlation (-0.90 or greater) among the estimated coefficients (Hair et al., 2006). Finally, evaluating the results for goodness-of-fit. SEM includes three assumptions as other multivariate methods, which are independent observations, random sampling of respondents, and the linearity of all relationships. After satisfying these assumptions, the offending estimates are examined. The next step is to assess the overall model fit with one or more goodness-of-fit measures. There are three categories for the goodness-of-fit measures, comprising absolute fit measures followed by incremental fit measures and parsimonious fit measures, respectively. The absolute fit measures assess the overall model fit (both structural and measurement models), with no adjustment for the degree of over fitting that might occur. The incremental fit measures compare the proposed model to another model specified by the researcher. The parsimonious fit measures adjust the measures of fit to provide a comparison between models with differing numbers of estimated coefficients. To sum up, the presentation of goodness-of-fit criteria is shown in Table 7.

97

Table 7 Indices used and recommended acceptable fit standards Indices used
Chi-Square Statistic Goodness of Fit Index (GFI)

Acceptable levels and descriptions

Not significant value for chi-square supports the model (p >0.05). (Hair, et al., 2006) Values range from 0.00 to 1.00, where 1.00 indicates perfect fit (Joreskog, 1999). Values greater than 0.90 indicate an acceptable fit; values close to 0.95 represent a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Values closer to 0.00 represent a better model fit. Values less than 0.08 indicate acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Schmacker & Lomax, 1996). Values of 0.05 or less indicate a close fit of the model in relation to degrees of freedom (Browne & Robert, 1993). Values up to 0.08 are reasonable (Hair et al. 2006); values above 0.10 indicate a problem (Browne & Robert, 1993). Value adjusted for df. Values greater than 0.08 are acceptable (Segars & Grover, 1993). Value close to or >0.90 are recommended for a goof fit (Hair et al. , 2006). Values greater than 0.90 are acceptable (Hair et al., 2006); values close to 0.95 indicate a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Values greater than 0.90 are acceptable (Hair et al., 2006); values close to 0.95 indicate a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Values greater than 0.90 are recommended (Hair et al., 2006); values close to 0.95 indicate a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Values less than 1.50 and more than 1.00 indicate a good fit (Hair et al., 2006). Arbuckle (2005) suggest a ration in the range of 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 indicates an acceptable fit between the proposed model and sample data.

Root mean Square

Residual (RMR)

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)

Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI)

Normed Fit Index (NFI)

Incremental Fit Index (IFI) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) Normed Chi-Square (CMIN/DF)

98

R Square values. Similar to R2 (coefficient of determination) reported in the regression analysis, the usual interpretation of R2 value is the relative amount of variance of the dependent variable explained or accounted for by the explanatory variables (Joreskog 1999). Structural equations modeling provides an R2 for every linear relationship estimated (measurement and structural equations). In the measurement model, R2 values can be interpreted as the reliabilities of the respective observed variables that define the latent variables; whereas, R2 values for the structural equations indicate the amount of variance predicted by the latent variables (Schumacker & Lomax 1996). Exploratory factor analysis Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is a statistical technique that is used to reduce data to a smaller set of summary variables and to explore the underlining theoretical structure of the phenomena. Exploratory factor analysis is used to identify the structure of the relationship between the variable and the respondent. VARIMAX rotation was used in order to maximize the sum of variance of required loading of the factor matrix (Hair et al. 2006). Hair et al. suggested that interpretation of factor loading should depend on practical significance. There is a rule of thumb for the significance of factor loading: factor loading greater than 0.30 are considered to meet minimum level, 0.50 are considered more important, 0.70 or greater are considered practically significant. Confirmatory factor analysis Confirmatory factory analysis (CFA) is a theory-testing model as opposed to the theory-generating method like exploratory factor analysis (EFA). In CFA, the research starts with a hypothesis prior to the analysis. The hypothesis is based on a

99

strong theoretical and/or empirical foundation. This method, after specifying the a priori factors, seek to optimally match the observed and theoretical factors structures for a given data set in order to determine the goodness of fit of the predetermined factor model (Gounaris & Stathakopoulos, 2004). Therefore, this study performed only confirmatory factor analysis because all constructs have already been tested by many eminent researches as literature reviewed in previous chapter. The purpose of confirmatory factor analysis is to test how well the specified measurement model fits the actual data, which is more applicable in this study. Conclusion The purpose of this chapter is to describe the research methodology approaches on which this study is designed and developed. The research design in this study is descriptive research by using survey methodology. Non-probability quota sampling and convenience sampling had used to select sampling size of 943 graduate students. Several statistical methodologies are applied, which are validity and

reliability measures such as exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Structural equation modeling would be used for hypothesis testing.

100

Chapter 4 Research Results

In this chapter, the procedures and results of data analyses will be presented. The chapter begins with explanation of data collection, data editing, characteristics of the sample, respondents opinion toward to observed variables. Then, the initial results of exploratory and confirmatory factor assessment of the scale are shown in terms of construct reliability and validity. Finally, the description of a structural equation modeling containing will be presented all of variables in this dissertation. Data editing and screening As mentioned in the previous chapter, the target sample was at least 810 to 1,080 observations. All of the 1,000 questionnaires collected, 57 questionnaires or 5.7 percentages did not complete. Most questions missing were in the last pages of the questionnaire. These questionnaires were discarded and excluded from further analysis. Data from the remaining 943 questionnaires were inputted and used for subsequent data analysis. Each response to each question was assigned a number and entered into the computer by SPSS program version 16.0 for Windows. Reverse question items in skepticism section (sk1, sk5, and sk6) were conversed. There was no particular pattern of missing data.

101

Characteristic of the respondents This study had 943 respondents which were representative of MBA students and Non MBA students. The profiles of respondents will be presented in Table 8. Table 8 Profile of respondents (n=943)
Characteristics n Gender Male Female Age < 26 yrs 26 30 yrs. 31 35 yrs. 36 40 yrs. 41 45 yrs. 45 50 yrs. > 50 yrs Marital status Single Married Divorced Occupation Business office worker Government officer Employee of state enterprise Business owner Housewives Freelance Unemployed Monthly income (Baht) < 20,0001 20,001-40,000 40,001-60,000 60,001-80,000 80,001-100,000 >100,000 No income Job related with marketing function. Very related Some related Not related Unemployed Used to buy CRMK products Used to buy Didnt use to buy Donated within past 6 months More than once per month Once per month 3-4 times in 6 months 1-2 times in 6 months Never donated in 6 months 147 322 77 173 85 88 42 3 1 361 104 4 303 54 36 32 1 14 29 176 178 71 22 6 5 11 156 152 132 29 439 30 129 118 94 114 14 MBA Student (n=469) % 31.3 68.7 16.4 36.9 18.1 18.8 9.0 0.6 0.2 77.1 22.1 0.8 64.6 11.5 7.7 6.8 0.2 3.0 6.2 37.5 38.0 15.1 4.7 1.3 1.1 2.3 33.3 32.4 28.1 6.2 93.6 6.4 27.5 25.2 20.0 24.3 3.0 Non MBA student (n=474) n % 260 214 110 189 97 42 28 4 4 356 116 2 140 202 46 34 2 22 28 301 128 31 2 0 0 12 77 191 178 28 446 28 94 111 121 119 29 54.9 45.1 23.2 39.9 20.5 8.9 5.9 0.8 0.8 75.2 24.4 0.4 29.6 42.6 9.7 7.2 0.4 4.6 5.9 63.5 27.0 6.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 2.6 16.2 40.3 37.6 5.9 94.1 5.9 19.8 23.4 25.5 25.1 6.1 Total (n=943) n 407 536 187 362 182 130 70 7 5 717 220 6 443 256 82 66 3 36 57 477 306 102 24 6 5 23 233 343 310 57 885 58 223 229 215 233 43 % 43.2 56.8 19.8 38.5 19.3 13.8 7.4 0.7 0.5 76.0 23.4 0.6 47.0 27.2 8.7 7.0 0.3 3.8 6.0 50.6 32.5 10.8 2.6 0.6 0.5 2.4 24.7 36.4 32.9 6.0 93.8 6.2 23.6 24.3 22.8 24.7 4.6

102

Table 8 showed that data cover a variety of respondent which were representative of Graduate student of Ramkhamhang University, Huamak Campus area of Bangkok Metropolitan. Data indicated that half of the 943 respondents were female (56.8%). One-third of them (35.8%) were in the 26-30 years old or half of all respondents were not more than 30 years old (58.3%). The majority 76.0 percentages were single. Almost half of the respondents (47.0%) worked as business officer. Half of all respondents had monthly income not more than 20,000 baht (50.6%). More than half of respondents had a job related with marketing function (61.1%). Almost of respondents used to buy product or service which had CRMK campaign (93.8%). Few respondents (4.6 %) had never donated to any charity in the past 6 months. In the other way, half of respondents always donated to charity (47.9 % from donated more than once per month and donated once per month). Attitude of the respondents toward observed variables A preliminary examination of the data for the sample provided the descriptive statistics for the observed variables. Likert statements were used to obtain the respondents attitudes towards a given statement. The respondents were given the statement for each observed variable and gave a response with agree level from very more agree (5), more agree (4), moderate agree (3), less agree (2), very less agree (1). The collected data on the surveys Likert questions were documented and analyzed throughout the following.

103

Cause important Cause important is the important of a major cause which is a main issue for CRMK campaign. Cause important has many variables such as personal relevance, cause proximity, cause agent, and cause claim. The respondent gave a response with agree level for each of cause or social problem should be considered and applied to be the component of CRMK campaign. Personal relevance Personal relevance is the level of perceived personal important and/or interest evoked by a stimulus within a specific situation. According to mean score, the respondents agreed with more level on all of personal relevance questions (Table 9). Table 9 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on personal relevance
(n=943) Personal relevance The social problem relates with the quality of your living and family. The social problem relates with your gender disease. The social problem relates with your experience and has emergency for resolving. The relevance social problem which you always perceive from mass communications.
% of total percentages Very more agree...Very less agree

Mean

Std.

Average agree level

CI1 CI2 CI3 CI4

Remark

18.2 24.6 19.9 12.8

40.9

30.0 21.1 30.0

7.7 6.9 10.4 7.8

3.1 1.2 4.2 0.5

3.64 3.86 3.56 3.56

0.968 0.905 1.053 0.832

More More More More

46.2

35.4 38.9

39.9

Mean = 5.00-4.21: Very more agree // Mean = 4.20-3.41: More agree// Mean = 3.40-2.61: Moderate agree// Mean = 2.60-1.81: Less agree // Mean = 1.80-1.00: Very less agree

104

Cause proximity Cause proximity is the distance between the donation activity and the consumer thus affecting the impact of the donation. According to mean score, the respondents agreed with more level on all of cause proximity questions (Table 10). Table 10 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on cause proximity
(n=943) Cause proximity
% of total percentages Very more agree...Very less agree

Mean

Std.

Average agree level

CI5

The local social problem which is the air pollution or environment problem in your community. The local social problem which is the safety of your community lives. The provincial social problem which is the natural disaster in many provinces. The provincial social problem which is the stray animal in your province. The national social problem which is the uneducated children. The national social problem which is the public health. The global social problem which is the Aids/HIV. The global social problem which is the global warming.

41.5

38.9

17.0

2.7

0.0

4.19

0.809

More

CI6

24.4

36.2

32.9

5.9

0.6

3.78

0.905

More

CI7

33.7

38.2

21.7

4.7

1.7

3.98

0.946

More

CI8

30.0

39.7

23.3

5.6

1.4

3.91

0.936

More

CI9 CI10 CI11

43.2

36.6 34.6 36.7

15.9 19.3

3.8 4.8 7.6

0.5 0.5 2.2

4.18 4.10 3.50

0.871 0.911 0.891

More More More

40.8 12.8

40.6

CI12

26.0

42.1

29.6

2.3

0.0

3.92

0.802

More

105

Cause agent Cause agent or charity is representative of specific social problem. Cause agent characteristics will influence to consumer responses in CRMK campaign. According to mean score, the respondents agreed with very more level on all of cause agent questions (Table 11). Table 11 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on cause agent
(n=943) Cause agent
% of total percentages Very more agree...Very less agree

Mean

Std.

Average agree level Very more

CI13

The social problem which has a well-known charity takes care of the problem. The social problem which has a charity is really agency of problem solving takes care of the problem.

42.1

40.1

16.9

0.7

0.2

4.23

0.765

CI14

44.9

36.1

16.0

3.1

0.0

4.23

0.825

Very more

Remark

Mean = 5.00-4.21: Very more agree // Mean = 4.20-3.41: More agree// Mean = 3.40-2.61: Moderate agree// Mean = 2.60-1.81: Less agree // Mean = 1.80-1.00: Very less agree

Cause claim Cause claim is executional elements which enhance viewers a priority levels of involvement in as advertising and increase information processing and persuasion. According to mean score, the respondents agreed with more level on all of cause claim questions (Table 12).

106

Table 12 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on cause claim

(n=943) Cause claim
% of total percentages Very more agree...Very less agree

Mean

Std.

Average agree level

CI15

The social problem which is unaware. It is promoted by CRMK campaign. The serious national social problems which are fully used advertising for donation support in CRMK campaign. The social problem which has a celebrity is the supporter in CRMK campaign.

19.7

38.1

37.4

3.4

1.3

3.72

0.862

More

CI16

12.8

38.9

39.9

7.8

0.5

3.56

0.832

More

CI17

17.4

37.2

35.8

9.0

0.5

3.62

0.892

More

Remark

Mean = 5.00-4.21: Very more agree // Mean = 4.20-3.41: More agree// Mean = 3.40-2.61: Moderate agree// Mean = 2.60-1.81: Less agree // Mean = 1.80-1.00: Very less agree

Brand cause fit Brand cause fit is the degree of similarity or compatibility that consumers perceive exists between the cause and the brand which has variables such as product fit, and image fit. The respondent gave a response with agreed level for each of brandcause fit should be considered and applied to be the component of CRMK campaign. Product fit Functional fit Product fit was examined with the functional fit and the natural fit. Functional fit may be perceived on the basis of a match between a brands functional attributes and the objectives of the alliance. The statement of CF1, CF3, and CF5 were high functional fit. The statement of CF2, CF4 and CF6 were low functional fit. According to mean score, the respondents very more agreed with high functional fit CF1, CF3 and CF5 and less agreed with low functional fit CF2, CF4 and CF6(Table 13).

107

Table 13 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on functional fit

(n=943) Product fit with functional fit
% of total percentages Very more agree...Very less agree

Mean

Std.

Average agree level Very more

CF1

Automobile is an alliance with the safety road project. Automobile is an alliance with the child slum care project. Apparel is an alliance with the cold disaster people care project. Apparel is an alliance with the elephants survival project. Construction material is an alliance with the school buildings maintenance project. Construction material is an alliance with the project helping the handicapped.

46.3

46.1

7.4

0.2

0.0

4.38

0.631

CF2

0.0

4.5

39.8

38.8

17.0

2.32

0.804

Less Very more Less Very more

CF3

47.3

39.4

13.3

0.0

0.0

4.34

0.700

CF4

0.0

0.0

52.4

28.7

18.9

2.34

0.775

CF5

58.0

35.1

5.8

1.1

0.0

4.50

0.656

CF6

0.0

0.0

54.2

31.0

14.8

2.39

0.732

Less

Remark

Mean = 5.00-4.21: Very more agree // Mean = 4.20-3.41: More agree// Mean = 3.40-2.61: Moderate agree// Mean = 2.60-1.81: Less agree // Mean = 1.80-1.00: Very less agree

Results in Table 13 showed the respondents less agreed with pairs of low functional fit to used in CRMK campaign component. Therefore, the variables of low functional fit were suppressed from the further study and structural equation modeling.

108

Natural fit Product fit with natural fit is the extent to which the sponsored cause is perceived as being congruent with the product image of the sponsor, independent of efforts to create a perceived fit between the product and charity. The statement of CF7, CF9, and CF11 were high natural fit. The statement of CF8, CF10 and CF12 were low natural fit. According to mean score, the respondents very more agreed with high natural fit CF7 and CF9 and more agreed with high natural fit CF11. Whereas, they less agreed with low natural fit CF8, CF10 and CF12 (Table 14). Table 14 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on natural fit
(n=943) Product fit with natural fit
% of total percentages Very more agree...Very less agree

Mean

Std.

Average agree level Very more

CF7

Pet food is an alliance with helping the stray dog and cat project. Pet food is an alliance with helping HIV patient project. Ladies product is an alliance with the breast cancer crusade project. Ladies product is an alliance with the headwater sources conservation project. Heart candy is an alliance with helping children with heart diseases. Heart candy is an alliance with helping people who meet with flood disaster.

57.1

37.3

10.6

1.0

0.0

4.39

0.712

CF8

0.0

1.7

35.2

37.5

25.6

2.13

0.812

Less Very more

CF9

50.2

42.3

7.2

0.3

0.0

4.42

0.639

CF10

0.0

4.1

47.3

29.9

18.7

2.37

0.830

Less

CF11

40.6

34.9

20.6

2.4

1.5

4.11

0.912

More

CF12

0.0

2.5

20.1

54.1

23.2

2.02

0.732

Less

Remark

Mean = 5.00-4.21: Very more agree // Mean = 4.20-3.41: More agree// Mean = 3.40-2.61: Moderate agree// Mean = 2.60-1.81: Less agree // Mean = 1.80-1.00: Very less agree

109

Results in Table 14 showed the respondents less agreed with pairs of low natural fit to used in CRMK campaign component. Therefore, the variables of low natural fit were suppressed from the further study and structural equation modeling. Image fit Image fit refers to how comfortable consumers are with the brand-cause pairing. Each partner brings perceptions of their image to the alliance. In any collaborative effort, the images of both parties become part of the equation. According to mean score, the respondents more agreed with all of image fit questions (Table 15). Table 15 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on image fit
(n=943) Image fit
% of total percentages Very more agree...Very less agree

Mean

Std.

Average agree level

CF13

The large corporate with good image in CSR is an alliance with the large amount of charity and popular. The corporate which recognized product or service is an alliance with the charity which has strongly resulted of social problem solving. The corporate which has continually public news of CSR activities is an alliance with the charity which has continually public news of social problem solving.

38.5

39.9

18.9

2.1

0.6

4.13

0.836

More

CF14

24.4

42.2

29.8

3.1

0.5

3.87

0.834

More

CF15

25.5

43.8

26.5

3.9

0.3

3.90

0.834

More

Remark

Mean = 5.00-4.21: Very more agree // Mean = 4.20-3.41: More agree// Mean = 3.40-2.61: Moderate agree// Mean = 2.60-1.81: Less agree // Mean = 1.80-1.00: Very less agree

110

Donation framing Donation framing is the structure of donation which had many observed variables which is found out exactly such as; donation size, and transparent donation. The respondent gave a response with agreed level for each of donation characteristic should be considered and applied to be the component of CRMK campaign. Donation size Donation size is the donation which relative to the price of the product offered for purchase. According to mean score, the respondents more agreed with almost of donation size questions (DF1, DF2 and DF3) except DF4 which they moderate agreed (Table 16). Table 16 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on donation size
(n=943) Donation size
% of total percentages Very more agree...Very less agree

Mean

Std.

Average agree level

DF1

Comparing of donation quantifiers with price of product should be relative. Donation quantifiers can calculate the percentage of price. The product which has high sales volume can donate with a small donation size when comparing with the price. The portion of income which is not included in donation from sales amount should be extra donated to charity.

35.6

41.7

19.8

2.4

0.4

4.10

0.826

More

DF2

26.7

39.9

25.5

6.8

1.2

3.84

0.935

More

DF3

23.5

36.7

27.6

9.8

2.4

3.69

1.013

More

DF4

15.8

30.1

32.7

15.2

6.3

3.34

1.105

Moderate

Remark

Mean = 5.00-4.21: Very more agree // Mean = 4.20-3.41: More agree// Mean = 3.40-2.61: Moderate agree// Mean = 2.60-1.81: Less agree // Mean = 1.80-1.00: Very less agree

111

Transparent donation Transparent donation is the tangible information regarding the donation. If the amount donated through CRMK campaign is stated in transparent, straightforward way, there will be little concern about potential consumer confusion. According to mean score, the respondents more agreed with almost of transparent donation questions (DF5, DF6, DF7, DF10, and DF11) except DF8 and DF9 which they very more agreed (Table 17). Table 17 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on transparent donation
(n=943) Transparent donation
% of total percentages Very more agree...Very less agree

Mean

Std.

Average agree level

DF5

The exact target of donation to a charity should be informed to the public. The campaign should be publicized clearly information of donation. The campaign should be continually publicized and informed the accumulated donation. The total amount of donation should be known to the public when the campaign comes to as end. The campaign should have certain period. The timeframe of campaign should be related with the target of donation size. The CRMK campaign against critical social problems should be continually conducted for a long time.

34.4

39.3

23.0

3.2

0.1

4.05

0.842

More

DF6

33.2

44.5

21.6

0.6

0.0

4.10

0.751

More

DF7

37.4

38.4

22.4

1.8

0.0

4.11

0.811

More

DF8

49.0

30.5

18.0

2.1

0.3

4.26

0.847

Very more Very more

DF9

42.9

39.7

16.0

1.1

0.2

4.24

0.771

DF10

28.7

43.3

25.3

2.2

0.4

3.98

0.817

More

DF11

29.4

40.4

24.2

5.5

0.5

3.93

0.894

More

Remark

Mean = 5.00-4.21: Very more agree // Mean = 4.20-3.41: More agree// Mean = 3.40-2.61: Moderate agree// Mean = 2.60-1.81: Less agree // Mean = 1.80-1.00: Very less agree

112

Patronage intention Patronage intention is the indicator that signals more or less consumer support on CRMK campaign. The three most commonly examined dimension of patronage intention are purchase intention, repeat purchase, and word of mouth. According to mean score, the respondents had moderate agreed with purchase intention and repeat purchase (Table 18 and 19 respectively) and had more agreed with word of mouth (Table 20). Table 18 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on purchase intention
(n=943) Purchase intention
% of total percentages Very more agree...Very less agree

Mean

Std.

Average agree level

PI1

You have intention to purchase CRMK product although never used it before. You have intention to purchase CRMK product compare with others brand name which have same price and quality. You have intention to purchase CRMK product although it is not necessary product for you. You have intention to switch brand from your usual product to CRMK brand to support CRMK campaign. You have intention to purchase CRMK product despite it is higher price than other brand.

13.7

34.7

36.6

10.7

4.3

3.43

0.997

More

PI2

21.6

45.1

29.1

3.5

0.7

3.83

0.829

More

PI3

6.9

20.3

47.3

16.4

9.1

2.99

1.004

Moderate

PI4

2.5

27.8

46.1

16.9

4.0

3.13

0.894

Moderate

PI5

5.6

30.9

41.4

14.7

7.4

3.13

0.981

Moderate

Average mean
Remark

3.30

0.700

Moderate

Mean = 5.00-4.21: Very more agree // Mean = 4.20-3.41: More agree// Mean = 3.40-2.61: Moderate agree// Mean = 2.60-1.81: Less agree // Mean = 1.80-1.00: Very less agree

113

Table 19 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on repeat purchase

(n=943) Repeat purchase
% of total percentages Very more agree...Very less agree

Mean

Std.

Average agree level

PI6

When you bought CRMK product, you have intention to repeat purchase to support CRMK campaign. You continuously purchase CRMK product because you have feeling more donate. If you knew the CRMK campaign does not achieved the donation target, you will immediately repeat purchase.

8.9

38.2

38.4

12.3

2.2

3.39

0.893

Moderate

PI7

17.3

42.5

30.3

8.2

1.7

3.66

0.915

More

PI8

8.2

21.7

46.8

17.8

5.5

3.09

0.967

Moderate

Average mean
Remark

3.38

0.741

Moderate

Mean = 5.00-4.21: Very more agree // Mean = 4.20-3.41: More agree// Mean = 3.40-2.61: Moderate agree// Mean = 2.60-1.81: Less agree // Mean = 1.80-1.00: Very less agree

Table 20 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on word of mouth

(n=943) Word of mouth
% of total percentages Very more agree...Very less agree

Mean

Std.

Average agree level

PI9

You have intention to tell about your supporting in the campaign to your family. You have intention to recommend the CRMK campaign to your family and familiar for their supporting. You have intention to recommend the CRMK campaign to the others.

15.4

38.3

36.6

8.4

1.4

3.58

0.896

More

PI10

17.1

36.2

37.0

6.9

2.9

3.58

0.947

More

PI11

9.3

31.1

41.3

10.7

7.6

3.24

1.020

Moderate

Average mean
Remark

3.47

0.808

More

Mean = 5.00-4.21: Very more agree // Mean = 4.20-3.41: More agree// Mean = 3.40-2.61: Moderate agree// Mean = 2.60-1.81: Less agree // Mean = 1.80-1.00: Very less agree

114

Skepticism Skepticism is the indicator that signals consumers distrust on CRMK campaign. The question SK1, SK5 and SK6 were conversed the scores from 5 to 1, 4 to 2, 2 to 4 and 1 to 5. So, the statements of SK1, SK5 and SK6 in table 22 were conversed from the questionnaires also. According to mean score, the respondents had moderate agreed with skepticism (Table 21). Table 21 Percentage distribution and mean of respondents opinion on skepticism
(n=943) Skepticism
% of total percentages Very more agree...Very less agree

Mean

Std.

Average agree level Less

SK1

You have skepticism with CRMK campaign advertising. Almost all of CRMK campaign advertising is with intention to convince the customers Almost all of the CRMK campaign advertisings are exaggerated. CRMK campaign is sales promotion tool. Image and credit of firm and brand image impact on your patronage intention. Unclear CRMK campaign component makes impact on your patronage intention.

0.7

6.2

36.9

38.2

15.6

2.38

0.846

SK2

14.3

54.1

28.8

2.3

0.4

3.80

0.722

More

SK3

16.2

32.1

40.2

9.9

1.6

3.52

0.932

More

SK4

23.5

40.8

31.0

3.9

0.7

3.83

0.860

More

SK5

0.0

0.4

20.9

46.9

31.8

1.90

0.731

Less

SK6

0.8

5.5

21.1

40.0

32.6

2.02

0.913

Less

Average mean
Remark

2.91

0.347

Moderate

Mean = 5.00-4.21: Very more agree // Mean = 4.20-3.41: More agree// Mean = 3.40-2.61: Moderate agree// Mean = 2.60-1.81: Less agree // Mean = 1.80-1.00: Very less agree

115

Multicollinearity testing Before testing the hypothesized conceptual model, the collinearity or multicollinearity problem should be addressed. Collinearity is the association between two independent variables, whereas multicollinearity is the correlation among three or more independent variables. Multicollinearity represents the degree to which any variables effect can be predicted or accounted for by the other variables in the analysis. As multicollinearity rises, the ability to define any variables effect is diminished. The addition of irrelevant or marginally significant variables can only increase the degree of multicollinearity, which makes interpretation of all variables more difficult. Symptoms of mulitcollinearity may be observed in situations: 1) small changes in the data produce wide swings in the parameter estimates, 2) coefficients may have very high standard errors and low significance levels even though they are jointly significant and the R2 for the regression is quite high, 3) coefficients may have the wrong sign or implausible magnitude, and 4) when multicollinearity is extreme, Type II error rates are generally unacceptably high (Grewal et al., 2004). One way to assess the possibility of multicollinearity among the study variables is to perform correlations. If a correlation coefficient matrix demonstrates correlations of .90 or higher (r>0.90) among the variables, there may be multicollinearity (Hair et al., 2006). Table 22 showed the highest correlation was 0.609 which was the correlation between intention to repeat purchase (repeat) and intention to word of mouth (wom). Therefore, all variables in the study could use for the hypothesized model.

116

Table 22
CI1 CI1 CI2 CI3 CI4 CI5 CI6 CI7 CI8 CI9 CI10 CI11 CI12 CI13 CI14 CI15 CI16 CI17 CF1 CF3 CF5 CF7 CF9 CF11 CF13 CF14 CF15 DF1 DF2 DF3 DF4 DF5 DF6 DF7 DF8 DF9 DF10 DF11 Purchase Repeat Wom SK1 SK2 SK3 SK4 SK5 SK6
1.00 0.42 0.35 0.19 0.16 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.03 0.09 0.18 0.11 0.08 0.28 0.26 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.10 0.13 0.13 0.10 0.16 0.20 0.15 0.08 0.11 0.03 -0.01 0.19 0.13 0.06 0.11 0.04 0.12 0.10 0.22 0.14 0.09 -0.12 0.08 0.07 0.04 -0.11 -0.12

Correlation matrix
CI2
1.00 0.34 0.34 0.27 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.24 0.08 0.19 0.20 0.15 0.23 0.34 0.20 0.23 0.13 0.21 0.19 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.19 0.23 0.13 0.04 0.18 0.15 0.07 0.19 0.17 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.25 0.20 0.25 0.16 0.21 -0.09 0.10 0.07 -0.01 -0.11 -0.10 1.00 0.42 0.32 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.17 0.13 0.25 0.20 0.21 0.33 0.34 0.26 0.18 0.19 0.13 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.08 0.17 0.28 0.17 0.16 0.22 0.14 0.19 0.18 0.24 0.28 0.17 0.27 0.30 0.22 0.26 0.17 0.21 -0.09 0.18 0.21 0.08 -0.12 -0.05 1.00 0.49 0.43 0.30 0.35 0.36 0.13 0.36 0.33 0.26 0.29 0.21 0.25 0.21 0.31 0.24 0.30 0.26 0.22 0.21 0.31 0.32 0.23 0.24 0.24 0.15 0.14 0.18 0.25 0.29 0.37 0.34 0.25 0.25 0.22 0.26 0.24 -0.17 0.15 0.05 0.15 -0.24 -0.21 1.00 0.52 0.46 0.35 0.37 0.09 0.28 0.25 0.27 0.26 0.37 0.32 0.27 0.22 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.24 0.21 0.12 0.16 0.08 0.17 0.11 0.20 0.16 0.17 0.20 0.23 0.26 0.27 0.23 0.21 0.19 0.22 -0.12 0.11 -0.01 0.11 -0.13 -0.19 1.00 0.36 0.28 0.41 0.03 0.15 0.16 0.26 0.19 0.26 0.33 0.22 0.28 0.19 0.21 0.17 0.22 0.21 0.16 0.22 0.21 0.11 0.18 0.10 0.19 0.12 0.06 0.13 0.20 0.20 0.22 0.22 0.18 0.17 0.12 -0.01 -0.04 0.07 0.06 -0.11 -0.16 1.00 0.56 0.39 0.05 0.25 0.26 0.20 0.22 0.25 0.33 0.15 0.17 0.20 0.23 0.18 0.19 0.13 0.14 0.11 0.05 0.13 0.20 0.02 0.08 0.03 0.11 0.10 0.10 0.21 0.17 0.17 0.10 0.12 0.11 0.02 0.07 0.09 0.06 -0.13 -0.10 1.00 0.46 0.04 0.29 0.24 0.16 0.16 0.22 0.32 0.25 0.21 0.34 0.33 0.26 0.23 0.13 0.21 0.16 0.16 0.23 0.28 0.18 0.08 0.04 0.13 0.22 0.18 0.21 0.20 0.19 0.11 0.10 0.22 -0.07 0.15 0.09 0.04 -0.12 -0.01 1.00 0.03 0.22 0.17 0.32 0.19 0.15 0.32 0.25 0.22 0.34 0.18 0.22 0.26 0.16 0.23 0.15 0.17 0.13 0.19 0.10 0.21 0.04 0.15 0.15 0.28 0.16 0.17 0.19 0.22 0.11 0.27 -0.17 0.12 -0.05 0.07 -0.11 -0.09 1.00 0.36 0.17 0.09 0.27 0.00 0.13 0.27 0.13 0.11 0.07 0.11 0.08 0.03 0.22 0.19 0.21 0.18 -0.01 0.01 0.06 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.12 0.16 0.05 0.15 0.09 0.15 -0.19 0.08 0.02 0.07 -0.07 -0.08 1.00 0.53 0.17 0.38 0.15 0.33 0.19 0.25 0.30 0.27 0.28 0.26 0.09 0.31 0.25 0.26 0.28 0.22 0.17 0.10 0.21 0.21 0.29 0.25 0.30 0.27 0.26 0.15 0.11 0.21 -0.11 0.17 0.09 0.21 -0.24 -0.21 1.00 0.21 0.28 0.13 0.33 0.11 0.26 0.23 0.31 0.26 0.17 0.08 0.24 0.19 0.17 0.28 0.22 0.08 -0.03 0.11 0.15 0.22 0.21 0.28 0.22 0.29 0.08 0.12 0.15 -0.07 0.15 0.09 0.21 -0.27 -0.18 1.00 0.17 0.25 0.28 0.10 0.12 0.15 0.09 0.12 0.16 0.18 0.22 0.29 0.22 0.17 0.17 0.05 0.18 0.03 0.17 0.12 0.27 0.10 0.29 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.25 -0.24 0.14 0.00 0.10 -0.21 -0.15 1.00 0.31 0.30 0.29 0.12 0.18 0.17 0.22 0.17 0.04 0.29 0.32 0.28 0.28 0.20 0.14 0.12 0.23 0.22 0.18 0.24 0.24 0.30 0.25 0.26 0.21 0.19 -0.09 0.15 0.07 0.11 -0.26 -0.23 1.00 0.33 0.23 0.09 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.17 0.23 0.14 0.19 0.16 0.10 0.23 0.16 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.21 0.13 0.17 0.20 0.20 0.24 0.22 0.14 -0.10 0.10 0.19 0.05 -0.04 -0.05

CI3

CI4

CI5

CI6

CI7

CI8

CI9

CI10

CI11

CI12

CI13

CI14

CI15

N of cases = 943

Reliability coefficients 46 items = .890

Standardized item alpha = .893

117

Table 22
CI16 CI1 CI2 CI3 CI4 CI5 CI6 CI7 CI8 CI9 CI10 CI11 CI12 CI13 CI14 CI15 CI16 CI17 CF1 CF3 CF5 CF7 CF9 CF11 CF13 CF14 CF15 DF1 DF2 DF3 DF4 DF5 DF6 DF7 DF8 DF9 DF10 DF11 Purchase Repeat Wom SK1 SK2 SK3 SK4 SK5 SK6

Correlation matrix (cont.)

CI17 CF1 CF3 CF5 CF7 CF9 CF11 CF13 CF14 CF15 DF1 DF2 DF3 DF4

1.00 0.32 0.26 0.23 0.20 0.12 0.18 0.07 0.25 0.25 0.19 0.24 0.23 0.07 0.10 0.07 0.15 0.20 0.23 0.19 0.20 0.29 0.13 0.14 0.13 -0.09 0.09 0.08 0.13 -0.23 -0.20 1.00 0.20 0.19 0.14 0.18 0.12 0.13 0.27 0.21 0.25 0.22 0.23 0.22 0.19 0.17 0.11 0.25 0.11 0.20 0.19 0.18 0.27 0.17 0.22 -0.18 0.19 0.13 0.06 -0.03 -0.03 1.00 0.51 0.43 0.38 0.38 0.31 0.32 0.22 0.12 0.28 0.24 0.15 0.19 0.13 0.25 0.25 0.21 0.33 0.18 0.18 0.09 0.11 0.16 -0.15 0.14 0.05 0.15 -0.23 -0.14 1.00 0.54 0.44 0.43 0.38 0.30 0.14 0.10 0.22 0.27 0.14 0.13 0.15 0.26 0.26 0.29 0.30 0.21 0.26 0.23 0.12 0.25 -0.08 0.16 0.06 0.10 -0.10 -0.11 1.00 0.56 0.48 0.35 0.30 0.18 0.15 0.23 0.19 0.11 0.04 0.20 0.25 0.25 0.21 0.29 0.16 0.22 0.14 0.18 0.18 -0.10 0.16 0.13 0.03 -0.22 -0.17 1.00 0.56 0.42 0.34 0.23 0.20 0.23 0.19 0.17 0.10 0.18 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.22 0.17 0.17 0.26 -0.13 0.11 0.06 0.10 -0.25 -0.15 1.00 0.47 0.28 0.17 0.13 0.21 0.18 0.06 0.04 0.21 0.24 0.21 0.28 0.24 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.13 0.21 -0.09 0.13 0.02 0.11 -0.26 -0.22 1.00 0.19 0.13 0.06 0.09 0.10 0.03 0.06 0.16 0.18 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.11 0.15 0.16 0.11 0.12 -0.07 0.00 0.05 0.13 -0.12 -0.07 1.00 0.47 0.43 0.31 0.25 0.19 0.16 0.29 0.28 0.26 0.36 0.35 0.31 0.25 0.30 0.18 0.30 -0.24 0.21 0.01 0.11 -0.29 -0.23 1.00 0.46 0.24 0.23 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.25 0.28 0.41 0.27 0.30 0.21 0.22 0.14 0.21 -0.21 0.15 0.11 0.06 -0.21 -0.19 1.00 0.19 0.19 0.13 0.16 0.25 0.21 0.18 0.26 0.17 0.37 0.18 0.23 0.23 0.24 -0.24 0.11 0.04 0.06 -0.21 -0.22 1.00 0.53 0.23 0.17 0.12 0.25 0.21 0.25 0.26 0.20 0.15 0.24 0.21 0.22 -0.17 0.21 0.08 0.17 -0.23 -0.09 1.00 0.41 0.30 0.17 0.23 0.27 0.21 0.29 0.30 0.26 0.28 0.27 0.29 -0.15 0.17 0.13 0.13 -0.14 -0.02 1.00 0.56 0.13 0.14 0.24 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.23 0.15 0.18 0.25 -0.14 0.18 0.16 0.02 -0.05 0.02 1.00 0.02 0.16 0.16 0.12 0.15 0.14 0.12 0.14 0.17 0.36 -0.26 0.15 0.03 -0.07 -0.03 0.04

N of cases = 943

Reliability coefficients 46 items = .890

Standardized item alpha = .893

118

Table
CI1 CI2 CI3 CI4 CI5 CI6 CI7 CI8 CI9 CI10 CI11 CI12 CI13 CI14 CI15 CI16 CI17 CF1 CF3 CF5 CF7 CF9 CF11 CF13 CF14 CF15 DF1 DF2 DF3 DF4 DF5 DF6 DF7 DF8 DF9 DF10 DF11 Purchase Repeat Wom SK1 SK2 SK3 SK4 SK5 SK6

22
DF5

Correlation matrix (cont.)

DF6 DF7 DF8 DF9 DF10 DF11 Purc hase Repe at wom SK1 SK2 SK3 SK4 SK5

1.00 0.39 0.31 0.31 0.34 0.26 0.17 0.26 0.16 0.14 -0.10 0.18 0.11 0.12 -0.15 -0.22 1.00 0.48 0.43 0.34 0.32 0.27 0.25 0.24 0.26 -0.30 0.10 -0.06 0.05 -0.22 -0.19 1.00 0.58 0.43 0.30 0.27 0.19 0.14 0.22 -0.13 0.26 0.11 0.17 -0.21 -0.10 1.00 0.35 0.40 0.30 0.30 0.17 0.23 -0.16 0.20 -0.04 0.24 -0.30 -0.22 1.00 0.41 0.30 0.23 0.21 0.25 -0.05 0.20 0.09 0.19 -0.28 -0.25 1.00 0.41 0.36 0.31 0.34 -0.17 0.10 0.07 0.10 -0.26 -0.24 1.00 0.21 0.21 0.28 -0.14 0.15 0.07 0.16 -0.25 -0.21 1.00 0.59 0.59 -0.28 0.15 0.06 -0.02 -0.13 -0.05 1.00 0.61 -0.29 0.09 0.10 -0.03 -0.17 -0.14 1.00 -0.41 0.21 0.07 -0.02 -0.17 -0.08 1.00 -0.21 0.00 0.06 0.21 0.11 1.00 0.25 0.23 -0.23 -0.19 1.00 0.11 -0.06 -0.08 1.00 -0.36 -0.26 1.00 0.49

N of cases = 943

Reliability coefficients 46 items = .890

Standardized item alpha = .893

119

Exploratory factor analysis for CRMK campaign component For checking the constructs validity, exploratory factor analysis was used to analytical method. Exploratory factor analysis for multiple-item constructs is recommended before assessing reliability (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988). Thus, all 37 measures in the CRMK component such as cause important, brand-cause fit, and donation framing were submitted for exploratory factor analysis by category. The specific procedure used principal component analysis with varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization. Because of large sample size of 400, the items with factor loading of less than 0.30 were all eliminated as prescribed by Hair et al., (2006). Objectives were to assess magnitudes of factor loading, to identify weak variables for possible elimination, and to summarize data in a minimum number of components as support for the conceptual model. Table 23 Exploratory factor analysis for four dimensions of cause important (n=943)
Items 1 Personal relevance CI1 CI2 CI3 CI4 Cause proximity CI5 CI6 CI7 CI8 CI9 CI10 CI11 CI12 Cause agent CI13 CI14 Cause claim CI15 CI16 CI17 0.791 0.677 0.643 0.573 0.513 0.655 0.695 0.694 0.684 0.721 0.451 0.476 0.777 0.769 0.660 0.472 0.769 Rotated factor loading* 2 3

* Loading whose absolute values were less than 0.30 were suppressed

120

Table 24 Exploratory factor analysis for three dimensions of brand-cause fit (n=943)
Items Rotated factor loading* 1 2

High Product fit CF1 0.646 CF3 0.754 CF5 0.756 CF7 0.738 CF9 0.753 CF11 0.671 Image fit CF13 0.730 CF14 0.806 CF15 0.809 * Loading whose absolute values were less than 0.30 were suppressed

Table 25 Exploratory factor analysis for three dimensions of donation framing (n=943)
Items Rotated factor loading* 1 2

Donation size DF1 0.526 DF2 0.699 DF3 0.799 DF4 0.763 Transparent donation DF5 0.620 DF6 0.703 DF7 0.719 DF8 0.738 DF9 0.645 DF10 0.607 DF11 0.492 * Loading whose absolute values were less than 0.30 were suppressed

Result in Table 23, 24, and 25 showed satisfactory levels for factor loading, ranging from 0.451 to 0.791 and all well exceeding the 0.30 cutoff. Initial data assessment was complete and data analysis efforts now focus on developing a structural equation model, starting with estimation of number of measurement model using confirmatory factor analysis.

121

Structural equation modeling analysis This study employed two-stage structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis (Schmacker & Lomax, 1996) where the measurement model was first estimated by confirmatory factor analysis, then the measurement model was fixed in the second stage when the structural model was estimated. This approach had advantages for the study such as avoiding the interaction of measurement and structural model and reducing the number of parameter to be estimated. Afterward, the hypothesized paths were modified by model specification. Legend to labeling constructs / variables Label CRMK Cause Relevan Proxim Agent Claim Cause Product Image Donation Size Trans Patron Intent Repeat Word Skep Construct / variables Cause related marketing campaign component Cause important Cause relevance Cause proximity Cause agent Cause claim Brand-cause fit Product fit Image fit Donation framing Donation size Donation transparent Patronage intention Purchase intention Repeat purchase Word of mouth Skepticism

Confirmatory factor analysis of CRMK campaign component Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to test the measurement model that set of observed (indicator) variables identified the hypothetical latent construct and confirming the theory generated model (Brown, 2006). Testing the measurement model also provided an assessment of convergent and discriminant validity. Criteria for evaluating were no significant chi-square value (X2) p>.05, Root mean squared
122

residual and Root mean square error of approximation(RMR and RMSEA)<.05, and Goodness of fit index, Adjusted goodness of fit index, and Comparative fit index (GFI, AGFI, and CFI)>.90 as mentioned in chapter 3. The results of CFA were as follow. Cause important Cause important construct were measured with 4 latent variables (personal relevance, cause proximity, cause agent, and cause claim) and 17 observed variables. The measurement model showed good fitted to the data (X2= 76.531, p.053>.05, RMR=.020<.05, RMSEA= .019<.05, GFI=.990>.90, AGFI=.974>.90, CFI=

.995>.90). All indices exceed acceptable standards of model fit as shown in figure 3. Figure 3 Measurement model for cause important
.19
e1

.24 .10 e2 -.06

e3 .05 .10 e4 .22 .07 e5 .08 .15 .25 e6 .27 .36 e7 .09 .22 .17.08 .19 e8 .17 .11 .12 .16 .28 .41 e9 .11 .23 .09 .13 .11 .32 e10 .12 .19 e11 .10 .08 e12

.34.44 .58 .00 ci2 .42 .65 relevan

ci3 .52 ci4

ci1

erelevan

.27 .31 .32 .75

ci5 ci6

.16 .55 .57 ci7 .27 .40 .00 .52 ci8 .25 .50 proxim .17 .41 ci10 .56 .17
ci11 ci12 ci9 .41

.46
eproxim

.63

.70 .67
eagent

.32

.13 .09 .31 .17 .15

e13 e14 e15 e16 e17

.64 .00 .80 ci13 .42 .65 agent

ci14 ci15 ci16 ci17

.14 .38 .00

eclaim

.63

.52 .72

.38 .14

claim

Chi-square= 76.531, df=57 p.051>.05, RMR=.020<.05, RMSEA=.019<.05, GFI=.990>.90, AGFI=.974>.90, CFI=.995>.90 123

Brand cause fit Brandcause fit construct were measured with 2 latent variables (high product fit and image fit) and 9 observed variables. The measurement model showed good fitted to the data (X2= 22.055, p.106>.05, RMR=.010<.05, RMSEA=.022<.05, GFI=.995>.90, AGFI=.984>.90, CFI=.997>.90). All indices exceed acceptable standards of model fit as shown in figure 4.

Figure 4 Measurement model for brand-cause fit

.42
e1

cf1 cf3

.10
e2

.49

.12

.13 .04 .27 .12 .30 .18 .23

e3

e7 e9 e11 e13

.64 .45 .70 .00 .67 cf5 .35 .59 product cf7 .61 .37 .51
cf9

eproduct

.26 .52 .85 .00

eimage

cf11

.72
cf13 cf14 cf15

.04 -1.07
e14 e15

.29 .53

.85 .73

image

-.49

Chi-square= 22.055, df=15 p.106>.05, RMR=.010<.05, RMSEA=.022<.05, GFI=.995>.90, AGFI=.984>.90, CFI=.997>.90

124

Donation framing Donation framing construct were measured with 2 latent variables (donation size and transparent donation) and 11 observed variables. The measurement model showed good fitted to the data (X2= 22.650, p.178>.05, RMR=.013<.05, RMSEA=.017<.05, GFI=.995>.90, AGFI=.984>.90, CFI=.998>.90). All indices exceed acceptable standards of model fit as shown in figure 5.

Figure 5 Measurement model for donation framing

Chi-square= 22.650, df =20 p.178>.05, RMR=.013<.05, RMSEA=.017<.05, GFI=.995>.90, AGFI=.984>.90, CFI=.998>.90

125

Dummy variables A critical factor in structural equation modeling method, metric variables must be used as independent variables. To this point, demography such as gender, age, marital status, occupation, monthly income, job related with marketing function, used to buy CRMK product, and donated with in past 6 months were nonmetric variables. Therefore, a method for using dummy variable (coded 0-1) was acted as replacement variables for all of the demography. The demography which had more than two categories were combined into two categories for coding 0 and 1 in the following: Table 26 Dummy variables for demography
Characteristics n Education Studying in Non MBA Studying in MBA Gender Female Male Age < 26 yrs 26 30 yrs. 31 35 yrs. 36 40 yrs. 41 45 yrs. 45 50 yrs. > 50 yrs Marital status Single Married Divorced Occupation Government officer Employee of state enterprise Housewives Unemployed Business office worker Business owner Freelance Monthly income (Baht) No income < 20,0001 20,001-40,000 40,001-60,000 60,001-80,000 80,001-100,000 >100,000 474 469 536 407 187 362 182 130 70 7 5 717 220 6 256 82 3 57 443 66 36 23 477 306 102 24 6 5 Total (n=943) % 50.3 49.7 56.8 43.2 19.8 38.5 19.3 13.8 7.4 0.7 0.5 76.0 23.4 0.6 27.2 8.7 0.3 6.0 47.0 7.0 3.8 2.4 50.6 32.5 10.8 2.6 0.6 0.5 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 Code 0: Non MBA student Code 1: MBA student Code 0: Female Code 1: Male Coded 0: Age not more than 30 yrs. Coded 1: Age more than 30 yrs. Coded Remark

Code 0: Single Code 1: Married

Coded 0: Occupation was not related to the business. Coded 1: Occupation was related to the business.

Coded 0: Monthly income not more than 20,000 Baht Coded 1: Monthly income more than 20,000 Baht

126

Table 26 Dummy variables for demography (continue)

Job related with marketing function. Unemployed Not related Some related Very related Used to buy CRMK products Didnt use to buy CRMK product Used to buy CRMK product Donated within the past 6 months Never donated in 6 months 1-2 times in 6 months 3-4 times in 6 months Once per month More than once per month 57 310 343 233 58 885 43 233 215 229 223 6.0 32.9 36.4 24.7 6.2 93.8 4.6 24.7 22.8 24.3 23.6 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 Code 0: Job was not related with marketing. Code 1: Job was related with marketing. Code 0: Didnt used to buy Code 1: Used to buy Code 0: Did not donate every month Code 1: Donated every month

Structural equation modeling fitting The following sections presented the results of the full-hypothesized model. The hypothesized model was estimated using ML estimation in AMOS 7.0. The criteria of the better fitted model and greater parsimony were decided by goodness-offit measures as mentioned in chapter3. The structural model described the hypothesized relationship linking the model constructs which were divided and measured into four sets: CRMK campaign component which was included three latent variables such as cause important, brandcause fit, and donation framing which were described. Skepticism, patronage intention and demography were examined in the structural model. Having satisfied the requirement of measurement model, the structural relationships were tested as hypothesized. Accordingly, four constructs with 4 hypotheses were selected for testing and the conceptual framework was operationalized into the testable as presented in Figure 6.

127

Figure 6 Hypothesis model for goodness-of-fit testing

1
e1

ci1

erelevan

1
e2

ci2

1
e3

relevan
ci31 ci4 ci5

1
e4

1
e5

1
e6

ci6

1
e7

1
eproxim

ci7

1
e8

1 1 proxim
ecause

ci8

1
e9

ci9

1
e10

1
ci10

1
e11

cause
ci11
eagent

1
e12

1 1

ci12 ci13 ci14 ci15

e13 e14

1 agent
eclaim

1
e15

1 claim 1

1
e16

1
ci16 ci17 cf1 cf3 cf5 cf7 cf9 cf11
eproduct e38

1
e17

1
e18

1
e19

1
e20

1 1 product 1
ebrand

e39

e40

e41

e42

e43

sk1

sk2

1
e21

1 1

sk3

sk4

sk5

sk6

1
e22

1 brand CRMK

eskep

skep

epatron

11 patron

1
intent
e44 e45 e46

1
e23

1
repeat

1
e24

eimage

cf13 cf14 cf15 df1 df2

1 image edu
esize

1
word

1
e25

1
e26 e27

1 1

1 size 1
edonation

frequen bought gender age status occu market income

e28

1
e29

1
df3 df4 df5

1
e30

1 1

1 donation

e31 e32

df6
etran

1
e33

df7 df8 df9 df10 df11

1 tran

1
e34

1
e35

1
e36

1
e37

128

In this structural equation modeling correlation between factors was allowed, resulting in chi-square = 1078.283, p 0.236>0.05 with 1021 degrees of freedom. A nonsignificant chi-square value implied that there was no significant discrepancy between the covariance matrix implied by the model and the population covariance matrix, hence indicating the model fit the data. The ratio of the chi-square to degrees of freedom (CMIN/DF) = 1.056 was nearly 1. This ratio gave an indication that the model adequately fits the data. AMOS output included many other fit indices, including comparative fit index (CFI = 1.000) which indicated a perfect fit. Root mean square residual (RMR= 0.021) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA = 0.019), indicating a good fit for the model. The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and the adjusted goodness-of-fit (AGFI) were 0.952 and 0.927 respectively indicated the amount of variance and covariances jointly accounted for by the model and a good fit. Normed fit index (NFI) and incremental fit index (IFI) were 0.928 and 0.980 the values were more than 0.90 and closed to 1 indicated a very good fit as described in table 27. R square values (R2) reported in the regression analysis, the usual interpretation of R2 value was the relative amount of variance of the dependent variable explained or accounted for by the explanatory variables. It was estimated that the predictors of patronage intention explain 47.9 percent of its variance. Finally, the structural equation modeling of CRMK campaign component for average was analyzed and presented in Figure 7 together with the standardized estimate values. From the figure, there were 12 exogenous and two endogenous constructs. The results showed that all structural paths in the model were significant at p<0.05. More details about structural paths were presented in the hypotheses testing section.
129

Table 27 Standardized parameter estimates and model fit statistics of the hypothesis model

H: H1 H2 H3 H4a H4b H4c H4d H4e H4f H4g

From CRMK campaign component CRMK campaign component Skepticism Education in MBA Gender Age Marital status Occupation Monthly income

To Skepticism Patronage intention Patronage intention Patronage intention Patronage intention Patronage intention Patronage intention Patronage intention Patronage intention Patronage intention Patronage intention Patronage intention Standardized estimate -0.707 0.838 0.362 0.075 -0.112 0.183 0.003 -0.021 -0.092

Hypothesis model t-value -7.018* 8.437* 4.126* 2.269* -3.637* 4.155* 0.075 -0.581 -2.595*

Job related with 0.100 2.826* marketing function H4h Used to buy CRMK 0.133 4.415* product H4i Donated within last 6 -0.112 -3.596* months Model goodness-of-fit Criteria Hypothesis model statistics Chi-square 1078.283 df 1021 p-value p>0.05 0.236 CMIN/DF Nearly1 1.056 GFI 0.90 0.952 AGFI 0.90 0.927 NFI 0.90 0.926 IFI 0.90 0.980 CFI 0.90 1.000 RMR <0.05 0.019 RMSEA <0.05 0.019 SMC (R2) Patronage >0.40 or (40%) 0.479 or (47.9%) Note: * t-value>1.96 had significant at 0.05 level (*p<.05) and supported the hypotheses

130

Figure 7 Standardized estimates for CRMK campaign component model

ci12

ci11

ci10

ci9

ci8

ci7

0.394 0.819

0.63

0.579

ci6

ci5

0.524 0.6480.786 0.921 0.543 proxim 0.637

ci3 ci4

ci13 ci14

0.768 agent

0.679
ci15 ci16

0.632 relevan 0.832 0.813 cause

sk2

0.546
ci2

0.342

0.431 0.784
ci1

0.648
ci17 cf1

claim 0.489

0.472
cf3 sk1

-0.455 0.737

sk3

sk4

sk5

sk6

0.762
cf5

0.758

-0.421 -0.355 0.332 0.604 skep 0.764 0.362 0.838 patron edu 0.075 0.772
repeat intent

0.697
cf7

0.798
cf9 0.689 cf11

product 0.564 brand

-0.707 0.924 CRMK

0.52 0.76 0.743 0.986 image age

0.815
word

cf13

0.615
cf14

gender-0.112 0.183 income -0.902 0.1 market 0.133 -0.112

cf15 0.587 df1

bought frequen

0.814 0.625 0.745 size

donation 0.917

df2

0.533
df3

trans 0.5 0.481 0.509 0.621 0.641 0.635

df10 df11

0.386
df4 df5 df6

0.529 df7

df8

df9

Chi-square = 1078.283, df = 1021, p-value = 0.236, CMIN/DF =1.056, GFI = 0.952, AGFI=0.927, NFI=0.926, IFI= 0.980, CFI=1.000, RMR=0.019, RMSEA = 0.019 P<0.05

131

Table 28 Standardized parameter estimates for the measurement model of CRMK campaign component model Factor Loading Band Donation

Factors Cause Band Donation Relevan Proxim Agent Claim Product Image Size Trans Intent Repeat Word

CRMK 0.758 0.924 0.986

Cause

Patron

0.784 0.632 0.832 0.813 0.564 0.760 0.986 0.917 0.764 0.772 0.815

132

Table 28 Standardized parameter estimates for the measurement model of CRMK campaign component model (Cont.)

133

Table 28 Standardized parameter estimates for the measurement model of CRMK campaign component model (Cont.)

134

Table 28 Standardized parameter estimates for the measurement model of CRMK campaign component model (Cont.)

135

Table 29 Regression Weights Estimate S.E. C.R. P donation <--- CRMK 1.250 .142 8.813 *** skep <--- CRMK -.747 .106 -7.018 *** cause <--- CRMK 1.000 brand <--- CRMK .980 .099 9.849 *** proxim <--- cause .875 .088 9.895 *** agent <--- cause 1.319 .126 10.486 *** product <--- brand 1.000 image <--- brand 1.458 .134 10.919 *** size <--- donation 1.000 patron <--- CRMK 1.684 .200 8.437 *** patron <--- skep .689 .167 4.126 *** patron <--- edu .080 .035 2.269 .023 patron <--- frequen -.120 .033 -3.596 *** patron <--- bought .296 .067 4.415 *** patron <--- gender -.122 .034 -3.637 *** patron <--- age .200 .048 4.155 *** patron <--- status .004 .050 .075 .940 patron <--- occu -.023 .039 -.581 .562 patron <--- market .109 .039 2.826 .005 patron <--- income -.099 .038 -2.595 .009 relevan <--- cause 1.000 perceive <--- donation 1.132 .115 9.865 *** claim <--- cause 1.173 .103 11.432 *** ci4 <--- relevan 1.000 ci3 <--- relevan 1.496 .115 12.990 *** ci2 <--- relevan 1.106 .091 12.094 *** ci1 <--- relevan .937 .098 9.512 *** ci8 <--- proxim 1.000 ci7 <--- proxim 1.269 .093 13.609 *** ci6 <--- proxim 1.471 .108 13.605 *** ci5 <--- proxim 1.525 .124 12.313 *** ci9 <--- proxim 1.027 .080 12.885 *** ci14 <--- agent 1.000 ci13 <--- agent 1.053 .062 17.043 *** ci16 <--- claim 1.000 cf5 <--- product 1.000 cf3 <--- product 1.181 .063 18.699 *** cf1 <--- product .658 .061 10.774 *** cf15 <--- image 1.000 cf14 <--- image 1.032 .069 14.966 *** cf13 <--- image 1.270 .086 14.726 *** df3 <--- Size 1.000 df2 <--- Size 1.291 .105 12.256 ***

Label

136

df1 df4 df7 df6 df5 sk1 sk2 sk3 sk4 sk5 sk6 intent repeat word ci9 ci13 ci17 cf7 cf9 cf11 df8 df9 df10 df11 ci16 ci10

<--- Size <--- Size <--- perceive <--- perceive <--- perceive <--- skep <--- skep <--- skep <--- skep <--- skep <--- skep <--- patron <--- patron <--- patron <--- proxim <--- proxim <--- claim <--- product <--- product <--- product <--- tran <--- tran <--- tran <--- tran <--- proxim <--- claim

Estimate S.E. C.R. P 1.242 .099 12.505 *** .776 .064 12.180 *** 1.000 .950 .068 13.930 *** 1.008 .089 11.337 *** 1.000 -1.078 .141 -7.653 *** -.511 .125 -4.076 *** -1.394 .190 -7.325 *** 1.907 .223 8.553 *** 1.957 .232 8.425 *** 1.000 1.066 .045 23.573 *** 1.218 .051 23.972 *** 1.167 .092 12.651 *** .355 .071 5.001 *** .855 .071 12.112 *** 1.263 .062 20.537 *** .976 .050 19.603 *** 1.041 .067 15.627 *** 1.261 .075 16.843 *** 1.188 .082 14.487 *** 1.246 .094 13.241 *** 1.032 .092 11.164 *** 1.356 .111 12.185 *** .579 .065 8.954 ***

Label

Table 30 Standardized Regression Weights Estimate .986 -.707 .758 .924 .632 .832 .564 .760 .625 .838 .362 .075 -.112
137

donation <--skep <--cause <--brand <--proxim <--agent <--product <--image <--size <--patron <--patron <--patron <--patron <---

CRMK CRMK CRMK CRMK cause cause brand brand donation CRMK skep edu frequen

patron patron patron patron patron patron patron relevan tran claim ci4 ci3 ci2 ci1 ci8 ci7 ci6 ci5 ci9 ci14 ci13 ci16 cf5 cf3 cf1 cf15 cf14 cf13 df3 df2 df1 df4 df7 df6 df5 sk1 sk2 sk3 sk4 sk5 sk6 intent repeat word

<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<---

bought gender age status occu market income cause donation cause relevan relevan relevan relevan proxim proxim proxim proxim proxim agent agent claim product product product image image image size size size size tran tran tran skep skep skep skep skep skep patron patron patron

Estimate .133 -.112 .183 .003 -.021 .100 -.092 .784 .917 .813 .543 .637 .546 .431 .524 .648 .786 .921 .579 .679 .768 .648 .697 .762 .472 .587 .615 .743 .533 .745 .814 .386 .509 .529 .500 .332 -.421 -.355 -.455 .737 .604 .764 .772 .815
138

ci10 ci11 ci17 cf7 cf9 cf11 df8 df9 df10 df11 ci12 ci15

<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<--<---

proxim proxim claim product product product tran tran tran tran proxim claim

Estimate .630 .394 .489 .798 .689 .520 .621 .641 .635 .481 .819 .342

Table 31 Squared Multiple Correlations Estimate .500 .971 .949 .575 .479 .840 .391 .578 .318 .661 .692 .400 .614 .218 .231 .403 .411 .386 .270 .475 .637 .239 .097 .397 .621 .596 .584 .365
139

Skep donation brand cause patron Tran Size image product claim agent proxim relevan ci12 df11 df10 df9 df8 cf11 cf9 cf7 ci17 ci11 ci10 word repeat intent sk6

sk5 sk4 sk3 sk2 sk1 df5 df6 df7 df4 df1 df2 df3 cf13 cf14 cf15 cf1 cf3 cf5 ci15 ci16 ci13 ci14 ci9 ci5 ci6 ci7 ci8 ci1 ci2 ci3 ci4

Estimate .542 .207 .024 .178 .110 .250 .280 .259 .149 .503 .555 .285 .552 .378 .345 .324 .580 .485 .117 .419 .590 .462 .336 .291 .618 .420 .338 .186 .298 .405 .295

140

Results of Hypotheses testing The hypothesis model for CRMK campaign component fitted the data very well as mentioned. All structural paths shown in the model were statistically significant at p<0.05. Structural paths and their standardized estimates were summarized in Table 32 along with results of hypotheses tests. Table 32 Summary of structural paths and hypothesis testing results, standardized estimates (n=943)
H: H1 H2 H3 H4a H4b H4c H4d H4e H4f H4g H4h H4i From CRMK campaign component CRMK campaign component Skepticism Education in MBA Gender Age Marital status Occupation Monthly income Job related with marketing function Used to buy CRMK product Donated within last 6 months To Skepticism Patronage intention Patronage intention Patronage intention Patronage intention Patronage intention Patronage intention Patronage intention Patronage intention Patronage intention Patronage intention Patronage intention CRMK model Standardized t-value estimate -0.707 -7.018*** 0.838 0.362 0.075 -0.112 0.183 0.003 -0.021 -0.092 0.100 0.133 -0.112 8.437*** 4.126*** 2.269* -3.637*** 4.155*** 0.075 -0.581 -2.595* 2.826* 4.415*** -3.596*** Hypotheses support Accepted Accepted Rejected Accepted Accepted Accepted Rejected Rejected Accepted Accepted Accepted Accepted

***p<0.001, *p<0.05

Two-tailed test of significance were employed to analyze the significance of each path coefficient. The majority of the hypotheses (9 from 12) were statistically significant in the hypothesized direction as expected, except the hypothesized relationship between skepticism and patronage intention (H3) which was statistically significant in the opposite direction as expected. Two paths were not significant and
141

associated hypotheses were rejected. These were the path from marital status to patronage intention (H4d); and the path from occupation to patronage intention (H4e). Results for all 10 hypotheses which were significantly would be discussed in the chapter 5. Total, direct, and indirect effects In total, direct and indirect effects of predictors and mediating factors were presented in Table 33. For CRMK campaign component, it was found that 47.9 percent (R2=0.479) of its total variation can be explained by the regression model consisting of CRMK campaign component, skepticism, and demography factor such as age, used to buy CRMK product, gender, donated within last 6 months, job related with marketing function, monthly income, and studying in MBA. According to CRMK campaign component model in figure 7, the results showed the degree of effects which influenced to consumer patronage intention. The direct effects, indirect effect, and total effects were examined. Table 33 Direct effects, indirect effect, and total effect of CRMK campaign component model
Exogenous variables DE CRMK campaign component Skepticism Age Used to buy CRMK product Gender Donated within last 6 months Job related with marketing function Monthly income Studying in MBA DE= Direct effect, IE=Indirect effect, TE=Total effect Significance at *** p<0.001, *p<0.05
-0.707***

Skepticism IE
0.000

Endogenous variables Patronage intention TE DE IE TE

-0.707*** 0.838*** 0.362*** 0.183*** 0.133*** -0.112*** -0.112*** 0.100*** -0.092* 0.075* -0.256*** 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.582*** 0.362*** 0.183*** 0.133*** -0.112*** -0.112*** 0.100*** -0.092* 0.075*

142

The results in table 33 were arranged in order from high total effect to low total effect. CRMK campaign component had negative direct effect on skepticism was -0.707. CRMK campaign component had positive direct effect on patronage intention was 0.838 and had negative indirect effect through skepticism on patronage intention was -0.256. The total effect of CRMK campaign component on patronage intention was 0.582. Skepticism had positive direct effect on patronage intention was 0.362. For demography, 7 of 9 exogenous variables had direct effect on patronage intention, such as age, used to buy CRMK product, gender, donated within last 6 months, job related with marketing function, monthly income, and studying in MBA(0.183, 0.133, -0.112, -0.112, 0.100, -0.092, 0.075). The each sign of direct effect (+ or ) were interpreted as follows. Age (+): the respondents were not more than 30 years old had tend to more patronage intention than the ones were more than 30 years old. Used to buy CRMK product (+): the respondents used to buy CRMK product had tend to more patronage intention than the ones did not used to buy. Gender (-): the respondents who were female had tend to more patronage intention than male. Donated within last 6 months (-): the respondents who sometimes donate tended to more patronage intention than the ones who donated every month. Job related with marketing function (+): the respondents had job relate with marketing function tended to more patronage intention than the ones had no job relate with marketing function.

143

Monthly income (-): the respondents had monthly income not more than 20,000 baht tended to more patronage intention than the ones had monthly income more than 20,000 baht. Studying in MBA (+): the respondents who were studying in MBA program tended to more patronage intention than the ones who were studying in the other programs. In CRMK campaign component model, it was estimated a value for customer patronage intention to CRMK campaign using this equation:
Patronage intention = 0.838 (CRMK campaign component) + 0.362 (Skepticism) + 0.183 (Age) + 0.133 (Used to buy CRMK) - 0.112 (Gender) 0.112 (Frequency to donated) + 0.100 (Job related to market function) -0.092 (Monthly income) + 0.075 (Studying in MBA) ; R2 = 0.479 (47.9%)

Conclusion This chapter described details of data analysis processes and data analysis results for the conceptual model and associated hypotheses. It emphasized measurement model details and step-by-step procedures that produced satisfactory measurement of the conceptual models four constructs. The chapter described a final structural model that had a good fit with observed data, statistically supported by major goodness-of-fit indices. The structural equation model partially supported the important of CRMK campaign component such as, cause important, brand-cause fit, donation framing and supported mediating role of skepticism in relationship between CRMK campaign component and patronage intention. The model supported almost of the hypotheses and helped to understand important causes and effects of relationships between
144

CRMK campaign component and patronage intention, CRMK campaign component and skepticism, skepticism and patronage intention, also demography and patronage intention. Results data analysis would be discussed in more depth in chapter 5, followed by academic and managerial implications and research limitations.

145

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations

This chapter was divided into four sections. Conclusion of the research results and the results of hypotheses testing to confirm the relationship between the CRMK campaign component, skepticism, and patronage intention were discussed in the first section. In the second section, managerial implications were suggested. The third section discussed the limitations of this study and directions for future research were discussed in the final section. Conclusions: Research issues and hypotheses testing
The first objective of this study was to studied the opinion level of consumer

toward to CRMK campaign component (cause important, brand-cause fit, and donation framing), patronage intention (purchase intention, repeat purchase, and word of mouth), and skepticism. CRMK campaign component The study showed cause important, brand-cause fit, and donation framing were considered to be used for the parts of CRMK campaign component with more agree level. They had high factor loading of 0.758, 0.924, and 0.986 (Table 28) which represented the important of these factors in CRMK campaign component. Cause important The study showed sequence important of the cause important factors which should be considered in CRMK campaign component. Cause agent, cause claim, cause relevance, and cause proximity had respectively high factor loading of 0.832,

146

0.813, 0.784, and 0.632 (Table 28) which represented the important of these factors in CRMK campaign component. Cause agent represents the cause important. Menon and Kahn (2001) used a cause agent or charity to represent the cause important. Cause agent characteristics would influence consumer responses in CRMK campaigns. The study supported the previous studies and showed consumer had patronage intention with the cause which had well-know charity (factor loading 0.768) and really agency of problem solving (factor loading 0.679) took care. In other words, the profile of charity has influenced on consumers trust and patronage intention toward CRMK campaign. Cause claim is an executional element which enhanced viewers a priority levels of involvement in an advertising and increased information processing and persuasion. Cause claim in advertisements has a very powerful influence on purchase intention (Berger, et al., 1999). The study supported the previous studies and showed consumer had patronage intention with the cause which used fully advertising for donation support to CRMK campaign (factor loading 0.648). However, consumer would supported the cause which had celebrity to be a supporter and the cause which was promoted by CRMK campaign (factor loading 0.489 and 0.342). Personal relevance is the level of perceived personal important or interest evoked by a stimulus within a specific situation. The variations of involvement manipulation become important because the concept of personal importance is manifested as cause importance which is the support of a cause due to personal experience or social norms (Ellen et al., 2000; Grua & Folse, 2007; Lafferty, 1996; Landreth, 2002). The study supported the previous studies and showed consumer had patronage intention with the cause which related with their experience and had

147

emergency for resolving (factor loading 0.637), the cause which related with their gender disease (factor loading 0.546), the cause which perceived from mass communications (factor loading 0.543) and the cause which related with the quality of their living and family (factor loading 0.431). Cause proximity deals with the distance between the donation activity and the consumer affecting the impact of the donation. The levels of cause proximity are local cause and national cause. If donations support an overall cause on a local basis, it is more likely to impact the consumer more directly than if they are provided on a national basis (Landreth, 2002). The study supported the previous studies and showed consumer had patronage intention with the cause which was the local social problem such as environment problem in their community (factor loading 0.921) and the local social problem which was the safety of their community lives (factor loading 0.786). The causes which were provincial social problem, national social problem and global social problem were received consumer patronage less than local social problem. The study showed consumer had patronage intention with the provincial social problems which were the natural disaster in many provinces (factor loading 0.648) and the stray animal in their provinces (factor loading 0.524). The national social problems which were the public health problem and uneducated children received respectively consumer patronage intention (factor loading 0.630 and 0.579). Finally, the global social problems which were global warming and Aids/HIV received respectively consumer patronage intention (factor loading 0.648 and 0.394). The results showed that strong cause should be relevantly to the audiences that is associated with a credible charity and presented in an advertisement. Moreover, CRMK campaign should select a major cause that firm and target consumer have familiar and passion about.
148

Brand-Cause fit Perceived fit had a significant effect on consumers with high fit having impact on purchase intention. High brand-cause fit should therefore be a key selection criterion for practitioners who are considering a brand-cause alliance if the aim of the campaign is to influence consumer attitude and consumer patronage intent. The study showed sequence important of the brand-cause fit factors which should be considered in CRMK campaign component. Image fit and product fit had respectively high factor loading of 0.760 and 0.564 (Table 28) which represented the important of these factors in CRMK campaign component. Image fit refers to how comfortable consumers are with the brand-cause pairing. Each partner brings perceptions of their image to the alliance. In any collaborative effort, the images of both parties become part of the equation (Varandarajan & Menon, 1988). Therefore, perception of image fit between the brand and the cause is congruent. The alliance will be evaluated more favorable. The study supported the previous study and showed consumer had patronage intention with the good image of large corporate in CSR was an alliance with the large charity and popular (factor loading 0.743). Moreover, the consumer had patronage intention with the corporate which had recognized product or service was an alliance with the charity which had strongly resulted of social problem solving (factor loading 0.615) and the corporate which had continually public news of CSR activities was an alliance with the charity which had continually public news of social problem solving (factor loading 0.578). Product fit is perceived on the basis of a match between a product attributes and the objectives of the alliance. It is perceived with functional fit and natural fit.

149

Functional fit may be perceived on the basis of a match between a brands functional attributes and the objectives of the alliance. Firm provided a core competence to contribute meaningfully to accomplishing the mission and objectives of the alliance. The study supported the previous study and showed consumer had patronage intention with the high functional fit such as automobile was an alliance with the safety road project (factor loading 0.472), apparel was an alliance with the cold disaster people care project (factor loading 0.762), construction material was an alliance with the school buildings maintenance project (factor loading 0.697). Natural fit is the extent to which the sponsored cause is perceived as being congruent with the image of the sponsor, independent of efforts to create a perceived fit between the organizations (Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006). The study supported the previous study and showed consumer had patronage intention with the high natural fit such as pet food was an alliance with helping the stray dog and cat project (factor loading 0.524), ladies product was an alliance with the breast cancer crusade project (factor loading 0.630), heart candy was an alliance with helping children with heart diseases (factor loading 0.520). The results demonstrate one of the keys to doing CRMK campaign successfully is to ensure that the brand and cause share the same boundary. Thus marketings understanding and interpretation of a brands boundary needs to be extended beyond marketing performance and corporate image. One way in which this can be done is through the development of CRMK campaign which fits very well with the cause.

150

Donation framing The study showed sequence important of the donation framing factors which should be considered in CRMK campaign component. Donation size and transparent donation had respectively high factor loading of 0.986 and 0.917 (Table 28) which represented the important of these factors in CRMK campaign component. Donation size relate to the price of the product offered for purchase. Dahl and Lavack (1995) found that consumers were more skeptical of small donation sizes. However, the amount per transaction generated by the campaign may be small and therefore, high volumes will be a key to successful campaign (Kotler & Lee, 2005). The study supported the previous studies and showed consumer had patronage intention with donation size should be relative with product price (factor loading 0.814), donation size could calculated the percentage of price (factor loading 0.745), the product which had high sales volume could donated with a small donation size when comparing with the price (factor loading 0.533), and the portion of income which was not included in donation from sales amount should be extra donated to charity (factor loading 0.386). Transparent donation is the exact amount of the donation given for each product sold. Consumers preferred more tangible information regarding the donation. If the amount donated through CRMK campaign is stated in transparent, straightforward way, there will be little concern about potential consumer confusion (Grau et al., 2007). Moreover, timeframe of the campaign is the one of transparent donation component. Varandarajan and Menon (1988) stated that there were three different types of time frame campaigns. These were long-term, medium-term, and short-term. Short-term focus was the most dominating choice even though firms desire to focus on medium-term or long-term. However, there are more disadvantages
151

than advantages for short term when it came to creating trust and belief among the consumers if the support was going to last no longer than a year. Long-term relationships also showed that consumers recognize the brand and the charity cause if the relationship was strong and took place over a long period of time (Pringle & Thompson, 1999). The study supported the previous studies and showed consumer had respectively patronage intention with the campaign should had certain period (factor loading 0.641), the timeframe of campaign should be related with the target of donation size (factor loading 0.635), the total amount of donation should be known to the public when the campaign came to as end (factor loading 0.621), the campaign should be publicized clearly information of donation (factor loading 0.529), the campaign should be continually publicized and informed the accumulated donation (factor loading 0.509), the exact target of donation to a charity should be informed to the public (factor loading 0.500), and the CRMK campaign against critical social problems should be continually conducted for a long time (factor loading 0.481). These results showed consumers prefer more tangible information regarding the donation. As evidenced by the results, consumers want more details and the luxury of at least having enough information to calculate the donation themselves. As long as deadlines and target of donation sizes are reasonable in terms of time allowed for participation. The other word, the issue of disclosure is important to firms. Consumer attitudes toward CRMK campaign Patronage intention The study showed consumer had high patronage intention with CRMK campaign by purchase intention, repeat purchase and word of mouth. They had

152

respectively high factor loading of 0.764, 0.772 and 0.815 (Table 28). Opportunely for marketers, they can use CRMK as a strategic positioning and marketing tool which links a company or brand to a relevant social cause or issue, for mutual benefit. Skepticism The study showed consumer had respectively skepticism with credit of firm and brand image, unclear CRMK campaign component, and using CRMK campaign for sales promotion. They had factor loading of 0.737, 0.604, and 0.455. Furthermore, consumer had skepticism with CRMK advertising (factor loading 0.332), CRMK campaign advertising had intention to convince (factor loading 0.421) and CRMK campaign advertising were exaggerated (factor loading 0.355) (Table 28). Results from the study demonstrated that there may be a threshold in the level of skepticism in CRMK campaign. Firm should surpasses the first threshold, consumer evaluate the firm and brand image based on its actual attributes and performance. The study supported Mohr and Webb (2005) showed that information about firms CSR have significantly impact on company evaluation and purchase intention. Therefore, it seems that maintaining high social responsibility should be protection CRMK purpose rather than sales promotion. Hypotheses testing The second objective of this study was to studied and developed the causal model effect of CRMK campaign component (cause important, brand-cause fit, and donation framing) on consumer patronage intention (purchase intention, repeat purchase, and word of mouth) . The intervening effects of skepticism for relationship between the variables (CRMK campaign component and patronage intention) were also examined.

153

To support testing of the model and to answer the research questions, several hypotheses had been developed, which were described below: H1: CRMK campaign component negatively related to Skepticism H2: CRMK campaign component positively related to Patronage Intention H3: Skepticism negatively related to Patronage Intention H4: Demography impacted on Patronage Intention H4a: Education in MBA impacted on Patronage Intention H4b: Gender impacted on Patronage Intention H4c: Age impacted on Patronage Intention H4d: Marital status impacted on Patronage Intention H4e: Occupation impacted on Patronage Intention H4f: Monthly income impacted on Patronage Intention H4g: Job related with marketing function impacted on Patronage Intention H4h: Used to buy CRMK product impacted on Patronage Intention H4i: Donated within last 6 months impacted on Patronage Intention The 9 hypotheses were tested by using a structural equation modeling method. According to Table 31, the results indicated that only 10 (H1, H2, H4a, H4b, H4c, H4f, H4g, H4h, H4i) from 12 hypotheses were statistically significant in the direction as excepted, except the hypothesized relationship between skepticism and patronage intention (H3) which was statistically significant in the opposite direction as expected. Two paths were not significant and associated hypotheses were rejected. These were the path from marital status to patronage intention (H4d); and the path from occupation to patronage intention (H4e). Furthermore, the results of hypotheses testing and its implications are discussed separately as follows.
154

Figure 8. A parsimonious model of the sequent impact of CRMK campaign component on patronage intention

H1: CRMK campaign component negatively related to Skepticism The strong negative relationship between CRMK campaign component and skepticism (standardized parameter estimate = -0.707), which is consistent with expectation. The study show the high appropriate component for CRMK campaign had a significant effect on consumer skepticism. Consumers are more skeptical when CRMK campaign component is unclear in cause important, brand-cause fit and donation framing. As a consequence, consumers perceive higher CRMK campaign credibility with an objective component. This result supports that of consumer may become skeptical of CRMK campaign when its credibility is questioned and could be a major obstacle for a successful campaign (Dahl & Lavack, 1995; Obermiller & Spangenberg, 1998; Varadarajan & Menon, 1988; Webb & Mohr, 1998).
155

H2: CRMK campaign component positively related to Patronage Intention The strong positive relationship between CRMK campaign component and patronage intention (standardized parameter estimate = 0.582), which is consistent with expectation. The study show the high appropriate component for CRMK campaign had a significant effect on consumer patronage intention. This result supports that of many previous studies, that appropriate component of CRMK campaign leads to positive consumer with patronage intention (Mohr & Webb, 2005; Porter & Kramer, 2002; Ricks, 2005; Walker, 2007) H3: Skepticism negatively related to Patronage Intention There is a positive relationship between skepticism and patronage intention (standardized parameter estimate = 0.362) which is inconsistent with expectation and previous findings (Mohr et al., 1998; Webb & Mohr, 1998). The result of this study is consistent with Youn and Kim (2008) which found that high in skepticism are more likely to trust a company's willingness to engage in philanthropic commitment to social causes. This finding is very encouraging for CRMK practitioners in that consumers perceive traditional commercial advertising and CRMK campaign differently. CRMK campaign clearly seems to appeal to the consumer segment that has a negative attitude toward advertising. Viewing demography profiles as the motivational basis or consumers attitudes, this study examined demography that influence consumer support for CRMK campaign which be discussed in the next hypothesis. H4: Demography impacted on Patronage Intention It is important to consider the factors that may influence the response to CRMK campaign. Many previous studies showed that demography related to pro156

social behaviors (Chrenka et al., 2003; Hettman & Jenkins, 1990; Penner, 2002; Wilson & Musick, 1997). Based on previous studies, this study consider on gender and age. Moreover, this study also consider on major education in master degree or studying in MBA, marital status, occupation, job related with marketing function, monthly income, used to buy CRMK product, and donated within the last 6 months. For demography, 7 of 9 exogenous variables had direct effect on patronage intention. Age (standardized parameter estimate = 0.183) that is the respondents are not more than 30 years old have tend to more patronage intention than the ones are more than 30 years old. The result of this study is consistent with expectation, that is young consumers are more receptive to CRMK campaign, compared to their older counterparts (Cui et al., 2003; DaSilva, 2004). However, an age effect could predispose younger consumers to respond more favourably to CRMK. It has been suggested that younger consumers have been indoctrinated into the consumer culture earlier than previous generations (Backewell & Mitchell, 2003) and tend to be skeptical of traditional forms of marketing communications such as advertising (Wolberg & Pokrywczynski, 2001). In addition, the younger generation, although less rebellious than their predecessors, are concerned about current major problems, especially those relating to the environment (Herbig et al., 1993). As such, the younger consumer may respond more positively to CRMK campaign than the general population. Gender (standardized parameter estimate = -0.112) that is the respondents who are female have tend to more patronage intention than male. The result of this study is consistent with expectation, that is female are more likely to be engaged in pro-social behaviors or more favorable attitudes toward CRMK campaign than male (Chrenka et al., 2003; Penner et al., 2005; Ross et al., 1992).
157

Monthly income (standardized parameter estimate = -0.092) that is the respondents have monthly income not more than 20,000 baht tend to more patronage intention than the ones have monthly income more than 20,000 baht. The result shows the consumers who have a less income patronize CRMK campaign because they can make a purchasing in exchange for a donation from the sponsoring firm to a cause. Used to buy CRMK product (standardized parameter estimate = 0.133) that is the respondents who used to buy CRMK product have tend to more patronage intention than the ones did not used to buy. The result of this study is consistent with expectation. Donated within the last 6 months (standardized parameter estimate = -0.112) that is the respondents who sometimes donate tend to more patronage intention than the ones who always donate every month. The result shows consumers who always donate are more likely to directly donate to the charity. When consumers make a

donation directly to a charity or cause, the exchange equation is relatively simple: the consumers donate money, possessions, or their labor then receive gratitude from the charity as well as a self-congratulatory pat on the back. Corporations also make donations to charities with CRMK campaign, but the exchange equation is more complicated. There are three actors instead of two. The corporation (actor 1) announces that it will donate some specified amount of money to a charitable cause (actor 2) each time a consumer (actor 3) engages in a revenue-producing transaction with the firm. The linkage between the consumer and the charity is indirect in CRMK, which contrasts with the direct linkage when only two actors are involved. With a direct linkage and only two actors, the donation is likely to be interpreted as philanthropy.

158

Job related with marketing function (standardized parameter estimate = -0.100) that is the respondents have job relate with marketing function tend to more patronage intention than the ones have no job relate with marketing function. Similarly, studying in MBA (standardized parameter estimate = 0.075) that is the respondents who are studying in MBA program tended to more patronage intention than the ones who are studying in the other programs. Because of CRMK campaign is a newly promotional marketing approach for Thai consumers, the participants who have the basis of marketing knowledge tend to patronage the CRMK campaign. Theoretical contributions This research provides empirical testing of relationships that have not been subjected to empirical testing in the past. Based on the findings, contributions are highlighted in this section. Develop an integrated model with empirical testing By taking an integrated approach, the largest theoretical contribution of this study is conceptual refinement, operationalization, measurement development, and testing of three dimension of CRMK campaign component such as; cause important, brand-cause fit, donation framing for examining the consumer response of skepticism and patronage intention. This study includes demography or personal trait of consumers as mediators in the same model; thus allows exploring the process why consumers have patronage intention on CRMK campaign. Explore the important level of each component of CRMK campaign This study is the first one that investigates cues in three different components of CRMK campaign that consumers consider. The result states cause important, brand-cause fit and donation framing have very high factor loading that is most of
159

them are necessary to consider in the CRMK campaign. In additional, donation framing just has been considered from previous studies since a few years. This study shows donation framing is the most important of all components with the highest factor loading (0.986). In CRMK context, donations might appear rather abstract or unobservable to consumers and the idea that such financial support to the causes. This study investigated the various dimensions of donation framing such as donation size and transparent donation. The results found that both of them are very important components for CRMK campaign successful. The CRMK campaign needs marketing communication strategy Consumer skepticism of firms altruistic motivation would be a key obstacle to the success of CRMK campaign. The findings encourage the strong negative relationship between CRMK campaign component and consumers skepticism. A well campaign and commitment to social responsibility might be strong motivation for consumer patronage intention. However, CRMK campaign is very complicate. Therefore, marketing communication strategy is the essential process in CRMK campaign strategy. The findings state that consumers need more information all along period of CRMK campaign because of the campaign needs purchase intention, repeat purchase, and word of mouth form the consumers. Marketing communications are the means by which firms attempt to inform, persuade, and remind consumers, directly or indirectly, about the CRMK campaign. Marketing communications strategy should concentrate on consumers specific responses to communications. CRMK campaign needs the consumers pass through a cognitive, affective, and behavioral stage, in that

160

order. This learn-feel-do sequence is appropriately because of CRMK campaign is more complicated. The Hierarchy-of-Effects Model of Robert and Gary (1961) is suitable for CRMK campaign communications. Among marketing communication theories, the hierarchy-of-effects model is predominant. It shows clear steps of how marketing communication works. Hierarchy of effects Model can be explained with the help of a pyramid.

Figure 9 Hierarchy-of-Effects Model

Source: Applied from Robert & Gary (1961)

First the lower level objectives such as awareness, knowledge or comprehension are accomplished. Subsequent objectives may focus on moving prospects to higher levels in the hierarchy to elicit desired behavioural responses such as associating feelings with the campaign, trial purchase, repurchase and word of mouth.

161

Awareness If most of the target audience is unaware of the cause which is the major objective of CRMK campaign, the communicators task is to build awareness, the important of cause, with simple messages repeating the cause and brand which are high fit. Consumers must become aware of the campaign. This isnt as straightforward as it seems. Capturing someones attention doesnt mean they will notice the campaign. Thus, the CRMK campaign needs to be made focal to get consumers to become aware. Media selection is finding the most cost-effective media to deliver the desired number and type of exposures to the target audience. Knowledge The target audience might have CRMK campaign awareness but not know much more; hence this stage involves creating campaign knowledge. This is where comprehension of the cause and what it stands for become important. What are the causes specific appeals, its problem? Which charity will be supported the donation, why? Who is a celebrity of this cause or campaign? The structural elements of donation, including how much of the target donation size, how the donation amount is quantified such as percentage of price or profit or specific donation amount, the presence of donation deadlines. These are the types of questions that must be answered if consumers are to achieve the step of campaign knowledge. Liking If target audience know the CRMK campaign, how do they feel about it? If the audience looks unfavourably towards the product to communicator has to find out why. If the unfavourable view is based on real problems, a communication

162

campaigns alone cannot do the job. For campaign problem it is necessary to first fix the problem and only then can communicate its renewed quality. Preference Some members of target audience might like the CRMK campaign but not prefer it to others. In this case, the communicator must try to build consumer preference by promoting the important of cause, the gap between accumulated donation and target donation, value of helping cause, performance and other features. The communicator can check the campaigns success by measuring audience preference before and after the campaign. Conviction A target audience might prefer the CRMK campaign but not develop a conviction about purchase intention. The communicators job is to build conviction among the target audience. Purchase Finally, some members of the target audience might have conviction but not quite get around to making the purchase. They may wait for more information or plan to act later. The communicator must need these consumers to take the final step, perhaps by offering the event marketing with a celebrity, strong public relation and using the other media types. This is where consumers make a move to actually search out information or purchase. Thus marketing communication is thought to work and follow a certain sequence whereby the prospect is moved through a series of stages in succession from unawareness to the purchase intention, repeat purchase and word of mouth.

163

Managerial implications The third objective of this study was to provide a guidance of practicable CRMK campaign component for marketers to be used and applied with marketing strategies for each marketing situation. This study indicates that consumers perception of appropriate CRMK campaign component will affect their patronage intention and skepticism. Findings on the effects of CRMK campaign component on consumer patronage intention stated that CRMK campaign should be concerned about cause important, brand-cause fit, and donation framing. If firm has an applicable CRMK campaign component, consumers tend to more support the campaign. There are several managerial and operational strategies derived from the empirical study. The managerial implications are classified into four sections as follows: Which a major cause or charity should the CRMK campaign be focused? How should alliance between brand and cause be structure? How does campaign create a donation structure? Finally, should level of promotional campaign be standardized and worldwide applied in marketing activity? Which a major cause should the CRMK campaign be focused? The result of this study states that some of the issues that managers should consider regarding where to direct the donations for a CRMK campaign. Determining where to donate the money should be clearer given this research. In order to maximize consumer patronage intentions from both high and low cause importance, the safest option is to donate locally (such as the local cause which is the environment problem in consumers community). In addition, it is important to be as specific as possible regarding the cause agent that is receiving the donation. The cause agent should be a well-know charity who is a really agency of problem solving.

164

This research also highlights the importance of choosing a cause that a firms constituents care about. This may increases attitude toward the product as well as purchase intentions and patronage intention on the CRMK campaign. There may be certain consumers, especially in the high cause importance group, who react differently towards a CRMK campaign. Marketers may identify advocates for the cause and examine the lengths that this target group will go to for the cause. Marketing survey may need to examine other types of causes as well as donations under extreme conditions (such as the Red Cross donations following the Haeti earthquake tragedy). Consumers attitudes and intentions may differ under such extreme conditions, because of their personal relevance with the social problem. On one hand, consumers may be even more willing to donate given the tragic nature of the event (see Ellen et al., 2000). On the other hand, consumer may believe that firms are taking advantage of the tragic events for monetary and market share gain. However, consumers may have low level of cause importance, because of the cause is unaware or newly. This study states that cause claim in CRMK campaign advertisements have a very powerful influence on consumer patronage intention. The donation involvement requires a communications campaign that reminds customers with the positive experiences and benefits that the charity has provided them, that informs them of current events and the successes that their financial support brings, and that made them aware of why and where their help are need, how they can help, and why they need to get involve. Additionally, the use of celebrities as spokespeople for cause continued to be a popular method of marketing communication in social cause and become an important dimension of source credibility. The reason behind the popularity of
165

celebrity marketing communication is the advertisers' belief that messages delivered by well-known characters achieve as high degree of attention and recalled for some consumers. How should alliance between brand and cause be structure? The study shows that brand-cause fit can blur or reinforce the firms positioning. Therefore, marketer needs to consider when choosing a partner in the CRMK campaign. This research serves to highlight the importance of choosing congruent partners. Brand-cause fit should be a key consideration in the development CRMK campaign. Supporting a familiar, well-liked cause is not enough to ensure a good outcome and may even be harmful. Low fit, even with a well-liked cause, can dilute the firms positioning and create dislike for CRMK campaign. In contrast, high fit reinforces the firms positioning and creates patronage intention toward the CRMK campaign. The study shows that image fit is more important than product fit. However, the CRMK campaign component should be considered both of them. In order for a consumer to determine if the image of a firm is compatible with the image of a cause, the consumer must have enough information about the firm to make the compatibility judgment. This concept would be less important in evaluating a product fit, because the briefest of assessments would provide the consumer the necessary cues (company name or logo, for example) to note the strong an obvious similarities between the firm and the cause. As the results, cause important is less important than brand-cause fit. When obvious similarities are absent, consumers need more information to determine and cause familiarity takes on an important part of the consumer response to CRMK campaign.

166

Product fit is perceived on the basis of a match between a product attributes and the objectives of the alliance. It is perceived with functional fit and natural fit. Functional fit may be perceived on the basis of a match between a brands functional attributes and the objectives of the alliance. Firm provided a core competence to contribute meaningfully to accomplishing the mission and objectives of the alliance. Natural fit is the extent to which the sponsored cause is perceived as being congruent with the image of the sponsor, independent of efforts to create a perceived fit between the organizations. Realistically, there are many causes would be concerned and need helping from the society. Firms must consider their target audiences specific interests and needs. CRMK campaign may use strategically not pre-selected a cause partner, instead letting their consumers pick the cause. Consumers may want to give to charity, but they dont want to feel sting. They also want to decide which charities or cause they support. So, the choice of causes will be collected and selected from market research. Toward that end, high brand-cause fit should be a key selection criterion for practitioners who are considering a brand-cause alliance if the aim of the campaign is to influence consumer attitude and consumer patronage intent. How does campaign create a donation structure? The result of this study indicates that donation structure, time limits and amount of the donation may also play a role in consumers attitudes and patronage intentions. When talking about the amount donated for each purchase made in a CRMK campaign, firms should express their donation using the exact amount of the donation. Consumers prefer to know exactly how much of their purchase is being

167

contributed to the cause. Additionally, there seems to be least a marginal relationship between the donation amount and product price. Consumers view small donations relative to purchase price negatively on average, which may in turn reflect poorly on the sponsoring firm. Donation quantifiers can calculate the percentage of price. However, the product which has high sales volume can donate with small donation size when comparing with the price. In general, consumers do not have strongly negative opinions regarding deadlines and donation amounts. Instead, they see these elements of a CRMK campaign as necessary business practices that are reasonable constraints to protect the firms financial contributions. The study shows that the campaigns should have certain period and the time frame of campaign should be related with the target of donation size. Furthermore, consumers want details, details, details, presumably to protect their own interests and to make intelligent judgments on how their contributions are directed. Therefore, the CRMK campaign should be publicized clearly information of donation such as target of donation size, accumulated donation and totally amount of donation when the campaign comes to as end. In summary, responses from the study indicate that firms should walk a fine line when using CRMK campaign as part of their corporate social responsibility program or promotional campaign. Consumers can be skeptical of these types of effort. By providing detailed information about the component of campaign and the duration of the campaign and maximum contributions, firms can build consumers confidence in corporate efforts. Consumers want to know a result of campaign so they can understand how their efforts help. However, too much marketing of firms effort can make the firm seem disingenuous and out only for profit gain. CRMK campaigns can have positive results for all three parties involved, the firm, the cause and the
168

consumers, as long as the firm openly discusses their intention and restrictions with their potential consumers. Should level of promotional campaign be standardized and worldwide applied in marketing activity? One of the marketing issues that marketers face when developing a communication campaign is the choice of a proper advertising or campaign theme. Firms that sell the same product in multiple markets need to establish to what degree their advertising or campaign should be standardized which minimize total costs and promote a global corporate image. On the other hand, there are necessary needs for marketing adaptation to fit the unique dimensions of each local market. What are the practical implications for global CRMK campaign? The major findings of this study state that consumers concern with the causes which they have personal relevance in the proximity of local causes. The success of Avons international CRMK campaign and the Avon worldwide fund for womens health is the direct result of leveraging Avon strength as a company, the direct selling system, and the dedication of sales representative around the world. Knowing that breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women around the world. Therefore, breast cancer is the both of local cause and global cause which consumers have awareness and concern with this critical disease. The goal of the Avon Foundation Breast Cancer Crusade is to benefit all women. However, there is special emphasis on reaching medically underserved women, including low-income, elderly and minority women, and women without adequate health insurance. Avon is distinguishing itself from others that fund a single institution or scientific investigator by supporting a virtual national network of

169

research, medical, social service and community-based organizations, each of which is making a unique contribution to helping patients or advancing breast cancer research. In addition, the Avon Foundation facilitates collaboration among the various organizations, institutions and investigators and bridges breast cancer physicians at academic medical centers and public and community hospitals. The Avon Breast Cancer Crusade was launched in the UK in 1992. While the US Breast Cancer Crusade is the largest program, Avon now supports breast cancer programs in some 50 countries worldwide, raising funds and awareness while breaking cultural, social, financial and medical barriers in the breast cancer cause. In 2006, Avon Thailand continued with the goals established in the Avon Care campaign, a campaign to raise awareness about cancer prevention and treatment. The first Avon Walk & Run Against Breast Cancer of the year brought together 500 participants in Bangkok. To organize the event, Avon Thailand collaborated with a number of governmental and non-governmental organizations including Provincial Public Health, National Cancer Institute. There were a number of activities at the event including, educational exhibition booths, a booth demonstrating how breast cancer testing is performed, and free consultation and activities areas for the participants. Items were on sale to help raise funds (http://walk.avonfoundation.org). According to Avon CRMK campaign, the most important success factors of standardized CRMK campaign strategy are only under certain conditions, such as existence of a global market segment, synergy determined by standardization, attainability of the infrastructure of communication and distribution that ensures the supply of the firms products to the market on the global scale. However, segmentation of target consumer is important because different consumer may have different product/brand knowledge and cause important
170

perceptions. This is more apparent for international markets. International CRMK campaign decisions require specific dimensions for particular target markets focusing on particular products and causes. Depending on economic factors such as disposable income and quality of life among target nations, different national markets have similarities or dissimilarities consumer demand and commonality of lifestyle patterns. CRMK campaign should be tailored to a firms specific marketing needs. The international CRMK campaign should ask local consumer to buy into a preestablished partnership. On a national level this was done successfully by MasterCard in 1987 campaign called Choose to Make a Difference. Each time consumer used MasterCard, the firm donated money to one of six national charities. The choice to include six charities was made in response to market research. The result of this study supported this case. MasterCard designed its campaign accordingly, polling consumer to learn which charities were to greatest interest to them. MasterCard built its campaign around the consumers ability to choose between them. Letting the consumer pick the cause has also been successful on a much smaller, local level. Moreover, linking a CRMK campaign with a special event of each local or the nation can be extremely effective for several reasons. It draws increased attention to the campaign. It provides additional benefit to the charity. And it reinforces the firms connection with the cause. This last is particularly important as the number of CRMK campaign grows. Firms which have CRMK campaign need to let the public know that their commitment to the cause is real and continuing-not just a strategy for winning sales.

171

Limitation Although this study significantly contributes to the knowledge surrounding cause related marketing, one important issue deserving discussion is the limitations of the study. In this dissertation, the research method includes five limitations, which offer an opportunity for future study as follows: First, the data of this investigation was derived from the perspectives of consumers on graduated students of graduate students of Ramkhamhaeng University, Huamak Campus, Bangkok Metropolitan, which emphasized only a specific segment of consumers. This narrow focus may limit the generalization to Thai consumers. The sample in this dissertation considered only graduate students in Social Science at Ramkhamhaeng University, Huamak Campus, Bangkok Metropolitan (MBA program and Non-MBA program. Therefore, the structures and characteristics of consumers and their opinions toward to CRMK campaign component may be different from the whole Thai consumer. The results from the sample in this dissertation cannot be generalized for the whole population of Thai consumer. Second, the participants were drawn from quota sampling and convenience sampling of students which was non-probability sampling techniques. As such, this technique is quite arbitrary, as researchers rely heavily on personal judgment. There are no appropriate statistical techniques for measuring random sampling error from a non-probability sample. Nevertheless, there are occasions when non-probability samples are best suited for the researchers purpose. This is appropriate when examining theoretical foundations and exploratory research (Zikmund, 2002) which were purposes of this study.

172

Third, the ability to generalize the findings from this study is limited due to a number of factors. This study focused on a few sample of cause important and brandcause fit. As such, the findings may not relate to the other causes or brand-cause alliances. Although comparisons of the selected causes in the present study were made to check for differences in cause important, the example exposed in the survey may not have been strong enough to touch the respondents in the degree of caring more about the cause. Fourth, a standardized questionnaire, which was used in this dissertation, may not be applicable in Thai consumer context. For example, on skepticism questionnaires derived from Webb and Mohr (1998), which was formerly applied only with American consumers. Additionally, the subjects could have been asked if they had prior experiences in purchasing a product or service sponsoring a cause that they care about or even if in the present, they would purchase a product or service which would result in a donation to charity. A final limitation is the model itself. While the model fit the data reasonably well, that does not mean it is the only model or the best one to assess the relationships inherent in a cause-related marketing campaign component. The determinants in the model explain 47.9 percent of the variance for post exposure attitudes toward patronage intention on CRMK campaign. While these determinants provide some indication of what influences the endogenous variables, clearly there is unexplained variance in this model. In defense of the model, it is parsimonious and does explain a reasonable amount of the variance for the endogenous variables given its parsimony. Therefore, while there may be other models with greater explanatory power, this model does present a reasonably good conceptualization of a component of causerelated marketing campaign affecting on Thai consumer patronage intention.
173

Future research Future research that builds on the findings of this study and overcomes its limitations is recommended. This study focused on three components which there are various observed variables. It may be useful from a managerial perspective to assess the effect another observed variable has on a relatively unfamiliar. Therefore, this study should be replicated using a number of other cause, brand-cause fit and donation types to determine whether these results can be extended to other conditions. Similarly, this study should be replicated with a nonstudent sample to determine whether these findings can be generalized to the overall population. It is also important from a managerial perspective to assess what effect CRMK campaign component has on attitude toward brand. This model has made an important contribution toward the understanding of how consumers perceive CRMK campaign component and the effect they have on postexposure attitudes toward purchase intention. The next step is to expand the model in future research to include consumers overall attitude toward the sponsoring firm or brand and cognitive knowledge about a brand as the outcome variables and assess what influence CRMK campaign component has on this important dependent variables. The findings of this research suggest that consumer perception of fit between brand and cause, in addition to consumer attitude to the CRMK campaign, are critical factors in facilitating change in patronage intention. Therefore, it is suggested that future research explore these factors in more detail. For example, with regard to perception of fit, qualitative research could provide insight into how consumers assess whether there is a natural fit between brand and cause. The research should also explore the use of other types of products and other causes. The study should examine the alliance between causes and firm in the service sector.
174

The future research would be worthwhile to explore whether the firm could favourably influence this perception by clearly articulating the connection in the communication of the campaign. With regard to attitude to the CRMK campaign, future research should examine the impact of the consumers existing awareness and attitude toward the cause and the consumers perception of the firms motivation for participating in the CRMK campaign. Types of media which are higher influence in patronage intention behavior of consumers, when a firm is introducing a CRMK campaign. Furthermore, this study provides a model that confirms theoretically and conceptually some of the important antecedents necessary to implement a successful CRMK campaign. The strength of this model and the use of structural equation modeling will allow future research to explore other moderators and antecedents which, in turn, will allow researchers and practitioners to more fully understand how CRMK campaign component work. Although there are relationships between demography and patronage intention, it would be worthwhile to examine the

predictive impact of psychographics on patronage intention in future. In addition, this research should be extended to see if the CRMK campaign component model holds for other populations, such as other nationalities or cultures.

175

REFERENCES Adkin, S. (2005). Cause related marketing: Who cares wins. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Alder, S.M. (2006). Cause for concern: Results-oriented cause marketing. Thomson Higher Education, Ohio,U.S.A. American Marketing Association. (2007). AMA: Social-network shopping, causerelated marketing top holiday trends. Retrieved September 30, 2008 from http://www.marketingcharts.com/interactive/ama-social-network-shoppingcause-related-marketing-top-holiday-trends-2729/ama-cause-related-productpurchase-likelihoodjpg/ Andreasen, A.R. (1975). The disadvantage consumer. New York: Free Press. Andreasen, A. R. (1996). Profits for nonprofits: Find a corporate partner. Harvard Business Review,74 (6), 47-59. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1982). Some methods for respecifying measurement models to obtain unidimensional construct measurement. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 453-460. Antil, J. H. (1984). Conceptualization and operationalization of involvement. Advances in Consumer Research,11, 203-209. Arbuckle, J. L. (2005). Amos 6.0 users guide. Amos Development Corporation. Backewell, C., & Mitchell, V. W. (2003). General Y female consumer decision making styles. Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31(2), 95-106. Bailey, A.A. (2007). Public information and consumer skepticism effects on celebrity endorsements: Studies among young consumers. Journal of Marketing Communications, 13(2), 85107. Baker, J., Parasuraman, A., Grewal, D., & Voss, G. B. (2002). The influence of multiple store environment cues on perceived merchandise value and patronage intentions. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 120-141. Balmer, J. M. T., & Greyser, S. A. (2006). Corporate marketing: Integrating corporate identity, corporate branding, corporate communications, corporate image and corporate reputation. European Journal of Marketing, 40(7/8), 730-741. Barich, H., & Kotler, P. (1991). A framework for marketing image management. Sloan Management Review,32 (2), 94-106. Barnes, N.G. (1991). Joint venture marketing: A strategy for the 1990s. Health Marketing Quarterly, 9 (1/2), 23-36.

176

Barone, M. J., Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2000). The influence of cause related marketing on consumer choice: Does one good turn deserve another? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28( 2), 248-262. Basil, D. (2002). Cause-related marketing and consumer attitudes: The effects of balance and fit on cognitive processing. PhD. Dissertation, University of Colorado. Basil, D., & Herr, P.M. (2003). Dangerous donations: The effectiveness of causerelated marketing on charity attitude. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 11 (1), 59-76. Becker, P. E., & Dhingra, P. H. (2001). Religious involvement and volunteering: implications for civil society. Sociology of Religion 62, (3),315-335. Bennett, R., & Gabriel, H. (2000). Charity affiliation as a determinant of product purchase decisions. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(4), 255-270. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107 (2), 238-246. Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Koziets, R. V. (1999). Consumer persuasion through cause-related advertising. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 491-497. Bhattachrya, C.B., & Sanker, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47 (Fall), 9-24. Blomer, J. M. M., & Kasper, H. D. P. (1995). The complex relationship between consumer satisfaction and brand loyalty, Journal of Economic Psychology, 16(2). 311-329. Blomqvist, K.H., & Posner, S. (Summer 2004). Three strategies for integrating CSR with brand marketing. Market Leader, 33-36. Retrieved November 15, 2008, from http://prophet.com/downloads/articles/Blomqvist-and-Posner.pdf Bottomley, P.A., & Holden, S.J.S. (2001). Do we really know how consumer evaluate brand extensions? Empirical generalizations based on secondary analysis of eight studies. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(4), 494-500. Boush, D.M., Marian, F., & Gregory, M. R. (1994). Adolescent skepticism toward TV advertising and knowledge of advertiser tactics. Journal of Consumer Research, 21( ), 65-175. Brink, D., Odekerken-Schrder, G., & Pauwels, P. (2006). The effect of strategic and tactical cause-related marketing on consumers' brand loyalty. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23 (1), pp. 15-25

177

Bronn, P. S., & Vrioni, A. B. (2001). Corporate social responsibility and cause-related Marketing: an overview. International Journal of Advertising, 20, 207-222. Brown, T.A. (2006). Confirmatory factory analysis for applied research. Guilford press, New York. Brown, T. J. & Peter A. D. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate associations and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61 (1), 68-84. Browne, M. W., & Robert, C. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. in Testing structural equation models. Kenneth A. B., & Long, J. S. eds. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 136-162. Burns, A. C., & Ronald, F. B. (2000). Marketing research, 3nd ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Caesar, P. (1986). Cause-related marketing: The new face of corporate philanthropy. Business and Society Review, 59 (Fall), 15-19. Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Journal, 4 (4), 497-505. Carroll, A. B. (1991). The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, July-August, 39-48. Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility. Business and Society. 38(3),268-295. Charity Commission. (2005). Report of findings of a survey of public trust and confidence in charities. Retrieved January 18, 2009 from www.charitycommision.gov.uk./library/spr/pdfs/surveytrust.pdf Charity Commission. (2008). Report of findings of a survey of public trust and confidence in charities. Retrieved January 18, 2009 from www.charitycommision.gov.uk./news/pbsurveyint.asp Chiagouris, L., & Ray, I. (2007). Saving the world with cause-related marketing. Marketing Management, July/August, 48-51. Chrenka, J., Gutter, M. S., & Jasper, C. (2003). Gender differences in the decision to give time or money. Consumer Interest Annual, 40, 1-4. Churchill, G. A. Jr. (1999). Marketing research methodological foundation, 7th ed., Florida: The Dryden Press. Cone Communications and Roper Srarch Worldwide. (1994). A benchmark survey marketing, Cone Communications. Retrieved January 18, 2009 from www.msen.mb.ca/crm.html
178

Cone Communications and Roper Srarch Worldwide. (2002). Cone corporate citizenship: The role of cause branding. Retrieved January 18, 2009 from www.coneic.com/pages/pr_13.html Cone Communications and Roper Srarch Worldwide. (2008). Cone cause evolution study. Retrieved January 18, 2009 from www.marketingcharts.com/topics/behavioral-marketing/consumers-rewardcompanies-that-support-causes-6362. Creyer, E. H., & Ross, W. T. Jr. (1997). The influence of firm behavior on purchase intention: do consumers really care about business ethics? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 14(6), 421-432. Cui, Y., Trent, E. S., Sullivan, P. M., & Matiru, G. N. (2003). Cause-related marketing: How generation Y responds. International journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 31 (6), 310-320. Dahl, D., & Lavack, A. (1995, Winter). Cause-related marketing: Impact of size of cause-related promotion on consumer perception and participation. Paper presented at the conference in Marketing Theory and Applications: American Marketing Association. Chicago. Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California Management Review, 2, 70-76. Dasilva, A. (2004). The 2004 Cone Corporate Citizenship Study. Boston: Cone Communications. Retrieved January 18, 2009 from www.coneinc.com/pages/pr_30.html. Dean, D. H. (2004). Consumer perception of corporate donations: Effects of company reputation for social responsibility and type of donation. Journal of Advertising, 32(4), 91-102. Drucker, P.F. (1955). The practice of management. London: Heineman. Drucker, P.F. (1984). The new meaning of corporate social responsibility. California Management Review, 26, 53-63. Drumwright, M.E. (1994). Socially responsible organizational buying: Environmental concern as a noneconomic buying criterion. Journal of Marketing, 58(July),1-19. Drumwright, M.E. (1996). Company advertising with a social dimension: The role of noneconomic criteria. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 71-87. Drumwright, M.E., & Murphy, P. (2001). Corporate societal marketing. In The handbook of marketing and society, edited by P.N. Bloom and G.T. Gundlach, 168-183. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

179

Ellen, P. S., Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2000). Charitable programs and the retailer: Do they mix? Journal of Retailing, 76 (3), 393-406. Ellen, P. S., Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(Spring), 147-158. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: a stakeholder approach. London: Pitman. Friedman, M. (1970). The Social responsibility of business is to increase its profits, Retrieved August 15, 2008, from http://alonso.stfx.ca/nmaltby/Courses/BSAD 101/Friedman article.doc. Fombrun, C., & Mark, S. (1990). Whats in a name? Reputation building and corporate strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 33 (2), 233-58. Garrison, J.R. (1990). A new twist to cause marketing. Fund Raising Management, 20(12), 40-44, 68. Gerbing, W.D., & Anderson, C.J. (1988). An updates paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(May), 186-192. Gounairs, S., & Stathakopoulos, V. (2004). Antecedents and consequences of brand loyalty: An empirical study. Journal of Brand Management, 11(4), 283-306. Grahn, J.L., Hannaford, W.J., & Laverty, K.J. (1987). Corporate philanthropy and marketing strategy: A review and directions for research. AMA Educators Proceedings. Chicago: American Marketing Association, (53), 67-69. Grau, L. S., & Folse, J. A. G. (2007). Cause-related marketing: The influence of donation proximity and message-framing cues on the less-involved consumer. Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 19-33. Grewal, R., Joseph A. C., & Baumgartner, H. (2004). Multicollinearity and measurement error in structural equation models: Implications for theory testing. Marketing Science, 23 (4), 519-529. Gupta, S., & Pirsch, J. (2006). The company-cause-customer fit decision in causerelated marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(6), 314-326. Hair, J. F. J., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis with readings. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Hair, J. F. J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. C., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.

180

Hamlin, R., & Wilson, T.(2004). The impact of cause branding on consumer reactions to products: Does product/cause 'fit' really matter?. Journal of Marketing Management, 20 (7/8), pp. 663-681. Henricks, M. (1991). Doing well while doing good. Small Business Reports, 16 (11), 28-38. Herbig, P., Koehler, W., & Day, K. (1993). Marketing to baby bust generation. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10(1), 4-9. Hettman, D. W., & Jenkins, E. (1990). Volunteerism and social interest. Individual Psychology, 46(4), 298-303. Hopkins, M. (2003). The business case for CSR: Where are we? International Journal for Business Performance Management. 5(2/3), 125-140. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Journal of Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. Jones, P., Comfort, D., & Hillier, D. (2005). Corporate social responsibility as a Means of marketing to and communicating with customers within stores: A case study of UK food retailers. Management Research News, 28(10), 47-56. Joreskog, K. G. (1978). Structural analysis of covariance and correlation matrices. Psychometrika, 43, 443-447. Joreskog, K. G. (1999). How large can a standardized coefficient be? In contributions by Joreskog, K.G, Lisrel 8.50 (June 2001) by Karl Joreskog and Dag Sorbom, Scientific software international Inc. Joreskog, K. G., & Wold, H. (1982) The ML and PLS techniques for modeling with latent variables: Historical and comparatives aspects. In K. G. Joreskog & H. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation Amsterdam: North-Holland. Joyner, B.E. & Payne, D. (2002). Evolution and implementation: a study of values, business ethics and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 41(4), 297311. Kalligeros, M. (2005). Choose wisely: Partnering for cause-related marketing. Public Relations Tactics, 12 (8), pp.18-1. Kashyap, R., & Li, F. (2006). If the cause doesnt fit, must the social marketer quit? Investigating the importance of fit between brands and social causes. Paper presented at the conference in Marketing Theory and Applications: American Marketing Association. Chicago. Kmenta, J. (1971). Elements of econometrics. New York: MacMillan.

181

Knox, S., Maklan, S., French, P. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Exploring stakeholder relationships and programme reporting across leading FTSE companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 61, 7-28. Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. KPMG. (2005). KPMG International survey of corporate responsibility reporting. Retrieved August 15, 2008, from http://kpmg.com.au?Portals/0/KPMGSurvey2005_3.pdf Lafferty, B. A. (1996). Cause-related marketing: Does the cause make a difference in consumers attitudes and purchase intentions toward the product? Department of Marketing, Florida State University,Tallahassee, FL. Lafferty, B.A. (2007). The relevance of fit in a cause-brand alliance when consumers evaluate corporate credibility. Journal of Business Research, 60 (5), 447-453. Lafferty, B. A., Goldsmith, R. E., & Hult G, T, M. (2004). The impact of the alliance on the partners: a look at cause-brand alliances. Psychology & Marketing, 21(7), 509-531. Lafferty, B. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2005). Causebrand alliances: Does the cause help the brand or does the brand help the cause? Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 423429. Landreth, S. (2002). For a good cause: The affects of cause importance, cause proximity, congruency and participation effort on consumer evaluations of cause related marketing. PhD. Dissertation, Louisiana State University. Landreth, S., Garretson, A. J., & Pirsch. J. (2007). Cause-related marketing: An exploratory study of campaign donation structures issues. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 18(2), 69-91. Lantos, G.P. (2001). The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing,18(2), 595-630. Lantos, G.P. (2003). Corporate socialism masquerades as CSR: the difference between being ethical, altruistic in business. Strategic Direction, 19(6), 31-35. Lawrence, E. L. (1993). Doing Well While Doing Good. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Lewis, E. (2003). Why giving is good for you; It pays to be charitable but only if the balance is right (Industry Overview). Brand Strategy, April, 26-29. Lieberman, A., & Chaiken, S. (1996). The direct effect of personal relevance on attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22 (March), 269-280.

182

Lichtenstein, D. R., Drumwright, M. E., & Braig, B. M. (2004). The effect of corporate social responsibility on consumer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits. Journal of marketing, 68(October), 16-32. Lucas, T., Wollin, A., & Lafferty, G. (2001). Achieving social responsibility through corporate strategy: a matter of governance, Governance and Capable Responsibility in the New Millennium, Canberra. Luo, X., & Bhattacharya, C.B. (2006). Corporate social responsibility, customer satisfaction, and market value, Journal of Marketing, 70 (October), 1-18. Maignan, I., & Ferrell, O.C. (2004). Corporate social responsibility and marketing: An integrative framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32(Winter), 3-19. Maignan, I., Ferrel, O. C., & Ferrel, L. (2005). A stakeholder model for implementing social responsibility in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 39(9/10), 956-977. Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. (2002). Corporate social responsibility in Europe and the U.S.: Insights from businesses self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 497-515. Mangleburg, T. F., & Bristol, T. (1998). Socialization and adolescents' skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Advertising, 27 (3), 11-21. Marconie, J. (2002). Cause Marketing: build your image and bottom line through socially responsible partnerships, program, and events. Dearborn Trade Publishing. U.S.A. McGuire, J. (1963). Business and Society, New York: McGraw-Hill. McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 117-127. Menon, S., & Kahn, E. B. (2001). Corporate sponsorships of philanthropic activities: Do they help the sponsor? Retrieve August 15, 2008 from http://socialmarketingquarterly.com/ejournal.htm. Meyer, H. (1999).When the cause is just. Journal of Business Strategy, 20 (6), 27-31. Miller, K. E., & Fredrick, D. S. (1977). Consumer responses to socially questionable corporate behavior: An empirical test. Journal of consumer Research, 4(June), 1-7. Mintzberg, H. (1983). The case for corporate social responsibility. The Journal of Business Strategy, 4(2), 3-15.

183

Mohr, L. A., Dogan, D. E., & Ellen, S. P. (1998). The development and testing of a measure of skepticism toward environment claims in the marketers communications. The Journal of Consumers Affairs, 32(1), 30-55. Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & 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, 35(1), 45-72. Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2005). The effect of corporate social responsibility and price on consumer responses. The journal of consumer affairs, 39(1), 121-149. Moore, G. (2003). Hives and horseshoes, Mintzberg and McIntyre: what future for corporate social responsibility? Business Ethics: A European Review, 12(1), 41-53. Nan, X., & Heo, K. (2007). Consumer responses to corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives: examining the role of brand-cause fit in cause-related marketing. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 63-74. Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. R. (1998). Development of a scale to assess consumer skepticism toward advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 159-186. Obermiller, C., Spangenberg, E. R., & Maclachlan, D. (2005). Ad skepticism: The consequences of disbelief. Journal of Advertising, 34, (3),7-17. Ohanian, R. (1991). The impact of celebrity spokespersons perspective image on consumers intention to purchase. Journal of Advertising Research, February-March, 46-54. Oldenberg, D. (1992). Big companies plus big causes for big gains. Business and Society Review, 8 (3), 38-39. Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction. A behavioral perspective on the consumer. McGraw-Hill, New York. Olsen, G. D., Pracejus, J. W., & Brown, N. R. (2003). When profit equals price: Consumer confusion about donation amounts in cause-related marketing. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 22(2), 170-180. Osterhus, T. (1997). Pro-social consumer influence strategies: When and how do they work?. Journal of Marketing, 61(3), 16-29. Patterson, J. M. (1966). What are the social and ethical responsibilities of marketing executives? Journal of Marketing, 30 (July), 12-15. Peltier, J.W., Schibrowsky, J.A., & Schultz, D.E. (2002). Leveraging customer information to develop sequential communication strategies: A case study of charitable-giving behavior. Journal of Advertising Research, July-August, 23-41.
184

Penner, L. A. (2002). Dispositional influences on sustained volunteerism: An interactionist perspective. The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, 58(3), 447-467. Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 365-92. Peppas, S. C., & Peppas, G. J. (2000). Business ethic in the European union: a study Of Greek attitudes. Management Decision, 38(6), 369-376. Podnar, K., & Golob, U. (2007). CSR expectations: the focus of corporate marketing. corporate communication: An International Journal 12( 4), 326-340. Polonsky, M. J., & Wood, G. (2001). Can the over commercialization of cause related marketing harm society? Journal of Macromarketing, 21 (1), 8-22. Polonsky, M.J., & Speed, R. (2001). Lonking sponsorship and cause related marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 35(11/12), 1361-1385. Porter, E. M., & Kramer, R. M. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy, Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56-68. Porter, E. M., & Kramer, R. M. (2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard business review, December, 78 92. Pracejus, J.W., & Olsen, G. D. (2004). The role of brand/cause fit in the effectiveness of cause-related marketing campaigns. Journal of Business Research, 57, 635-640. Pracejus, J. W., Olsen, G. D.,& Brown, R. N. (2004). On the prevalence and impact of vague quantifiers in the advertising of cause-related marketing builds brands. Journal of Advertising, 32 (4),19-28. Pringle, H., & Thompson, M. (1999). Brand spirit; How cause related marketing builds brands. London: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Rifon, N, J., Choi, S, M., Trimble, C, S., & Hoirong, L. (2004). Congruence effects in sponsorship: the mediating role of sponsor credibility and consumer attributions of sponsor motive. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 29-42. Ricks, J. M. (2005). An assessment of strategic corporate philanthropy on perceptions of brand equity variables. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(3), 121-134. Robert, J.L., & Gary, A.S. (1961). A model for predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 25(October), 59-62. Ross, J. K., Larry, T. P., & Mary, A.S. (1992). Consumer perceptions of organizations that use cause-related marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20(1), 93-97.

185

Ross, J. K., Mary, A.S., & Larry, T. P. (1990-1991). Tactical considerations for the Effectiveness of cause related marketing. The Journal of Applied Business Research, 7(2), 58-65. Samu, S., & Wymer, W.W. Jr. (2002). Social advertising: Effects of dominance and fit on attitudes and behavioral intentions. Paper presented at 2002 Academy of marketing science conference, 29/05- 01/06/2002, Sanibel Island, Florida. Schiller, Z. (1988). Doing well by doing good: Should business link philanthropy to promotional schemes? Business Week, December, 53-54. Schmacker, R., & Lomax, R. (1996). A beginners guide to structural equation modeling. Lawrence Erlbaum. Schwartz, M. S., & Carroll, A. B. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: a threedomain approach. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4), 503-530. Segars, A., & Grover, V. (1993). Re-examining perceived ease of use and usefulness: A confirmatory factor analysis. MIS Quarterly, 17(December), 517-525. Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does doing good always lead to doing better? Consumer reaction to corporate social responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 225-244. Sethi, S. (1975). Dimension of corporate social performance: An analytic framework. California Management Review, 17, 58-64. Shell, A. (1989). Cause related marketing: Big risks, big potential. Public Relations Journal, 45 (7), 8-13. Simmons, C. J., & Becker-Olsen, K. L. (2006). Achieving marketing objectives through social sponsorships. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 154-169. Smith, G., & Stodghill, R. (1994). Are good causes good marketing? Business Week, 3363, 64-66. Smith, N. C. (2003). Corporate social responsibility: whether or how? California Management Review, 45 (4), 52-76. Smith, S.M., & Alcorn, D.S. (1991). Cause marketing: A new direction in the marketing of corporate responsibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 8(3), 19-35. Sorrentio, R. M., Ramona, D. B., Maria Z. G., James M. O., & Erin C. H. (1988). Uncertainty orientation and persuasion: individual differences in the effects of personal relevance on social judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55 (September), 357-372. Steckel, R., & Simon, R. (1992). Doing best by doing good: how to use publicpurpose partnerships to boost corporate profits and benefit your community. Penguin books, New York, U.S.A.
186

Strahilevitz, M., & Myers, J.G. (1998). Donation to charity as purchase incentives: How well they work may depend on what you are trying to sell. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(4), 434-446. Straughan, R. D., & Roberts, J. A. (1999). Environmental segmentation alternative: a look at green consumer behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16( 6), 558-575. Till, B., & Nowak, L. (2000). Towards effective use of cause related marketing alliances. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 9 (7), pp. 472. Tilbury, D., & Wortman, D. (2004). Engaging people in sustainability. IUCN, Gland. Trimble, C, S., & Rifon, N, J. (2006). Consumer perceptions of compatibility in cause-related marketing messages. Int.J.Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., 11 (February), 29-47. Varadarajan, P. R. (1986). Horizontal cooperative sales promotion: A framework for classification and additional perspectives. Journal of Marketing, 50 (2), 61-74. Varadajan, P.R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of marketing, 52(3), 58-74. Van Marrewijk, M. (2003). Concepts and definitions of CSR and corporate sustainability: Between agency and communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), 95. Vogel, D. (2005). The market for virtue: The potential and limits of corporate social responsibility. Washington, DC. Brooking Institution Press. Walker, B. M. (2007). Assessing the influence of corporate social responsibility on consumer attitudes in the sport industry. PhD. Dissertation, The Florida State University. Walton, C. (1967). Corporate social responsibilities. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (1998). A typology of consumer responses to causerelated marketing: From skeptics to socially concerned. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 17(2), 226-238. Wedel, P. (2007). Recent Developments in Corporate Social Responsibility in Thailand Presentation. Retrieved 20 October, 2009 from http://www.adbi.org/conf-seminar-papers/2007/10/30/2390.csr.wedel/ Weiner, J., & Mowen. (1985). The impact of product recalls on consumer perceptions. The Journal of the Society of Consumer Affairs Professionals in Business, 14(1),18-21.
187

Wheeler, D., Colbert, B., & Freeman, R. E. (2003). Focusing on value: Reconciling corporate social responsibility, sustainability and a stakeholder approach in a network world. Journal of General Management, 28(3), 1-28. Wilson, J., & Musick, A. M. (1997). Work and volunteering: The long arm of the job. Social Forces, 76(1), 251-72. Wolberg, J. M., & Pokrywczynski, J. (2001). A psychographic analysis of generation Y college students. Journal of Advertising Research, October, 33-52. Wood, D. (1991). Corporate social performance revisited. Academy of Management Review, 16(4), 691-718. World Commission on Environment and Development 1987, Our common future, Retrieved November 26, 2008, from www.are.admin.ch/imperia/md/content/are/nachhaltlgeentwicklung/brundtlan d_bericht.pdf Yamane, T. (1978) Statistics: An introductory analysis, Singapore: Times Printers Snd. Bhd. Youn, S., & Kim, H. (2008). Antecedents of consumer attitudes toward cause-related marketing. Journal of Advertising Research, 48(1), 123-137. Yoon, Y., Canli, G. Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of consumer psychology, 16(4), 377-390. Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60 (2). 31-46. Zikmund, G.W. (2002). Exploring marketing research. 8th , Thomson.

188

Appendix 1a: Questionnaire (English version)

The Component of Cause Related Marketing Campaign Component Affecting on Thai Consumer Patronage Intention

This research is a part of doctoral dissertation in marketing program Siam University. The objective of the survey is to study the factors which affect on consumer patronage intention with cause related marketing campaign. The findings will be highly useful for academic and business application. Please participation in the survey by answering every question. Cause-Related Marketing (CRMK): The process of formulating and implementing marketing activities which corporation commits to making a contribution or donating an amount of revenues to a specific cause based on product sales.

Please answer every question by checking in the ( ) or box. In cases where is no exact answer, please answer your best estimates. Personal Data You are studying in ( ) Master degree in MBA ( ) Master degree in Non MBA How many you have participated in any charity within 6 months ? ( ) 1. More than once per month ( ) 2. Once per month ( ) 3. 3-4 times in 6 months ( ) 4. 1-2 times in 6 months ( ) 5. Have not yet participated in any charity in 6 months Did you use to buy any products or services which had CRMK campaign before? ( ) 1. Yes ( ) 2. No Gender Age ( ( ( ( ( ) 1. Male ( ) 2. Female ( ( ( ( ) 2. 26 30 years old ) 4. 36 40 years old ) 6. 46 50 years old ) 8. More than 55 years old

) 1. Not more than 25 years old ) 3. 31 35 years old ) 5. 41 45 years old ) 7. 51 55 years old ( ) 2. Married ( ( ( (

Marital status ( ) 1. Single Occupation ( ( ( ( ) 1. Office worker ) 3. State enterprise ) 5. Home duties ) 7.Unemployed

( ) 3. Divorced / Widow

) 2. Government official ) 4. Business owners ) 6. Freelance ) 8. Others...............

How does your job relate with marketing function? ( ) 1. Very related ( ) 2. Related ( ) 3. Not related ( ) 4. Unemployed Monthly Income (Baht) ( ( ( ( ) 1. Not more than 20,000 ( ) 2. 20,001 40,000 ) 3. 40,001 60,000 ( ) 4. 60,001 80,000 ) 5. 80,001 100,000 ( ) 6. More than 100,000 ) 7. No income

Very more

Moderate

More

CI

How much do you agree with these each following social problem should be applied to CRMK campaign? The social problem relates with the quality of your living and family. The social problem relates with your gender disease. The social problem relates with your experience and has emergency for resolving. The relevance social problem which you always perceive from mass communications. The local social problem which is the air pollution or environment problem in your community. The local social problem which is the safety of your community lives. The provincial social problem which is the natural disaster in many provinces. The provincial social problem which is the stray animal in your province. The national social problem which is the uneducated children. The national social problem which is the public health. The global social problem which is the Aids/HIV. The global social problem which is the global warming. The social problem which has a well-known charity takes care of the problem. The social problem which has a charity is really agency of problem solving takes care of the problem. The social problem which is unaware. It is promoted by CRMK campaign. The serious national social problems which are fully used advertising for donation support in CRMK campaign. The social problem which has a celebrity is the supporter in CRMK campaign.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

17

Very less 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Less

Very more

Moderate

More

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Automobile is an alliance with the safety road project. Automobile is an alliance with the child slum care project. Apparel is an alliance with the cold disaster people care project. Apparel is an alliance with the elephants survival project. Construction material is an alliance with the school buildings maintenance project. Construction material is an alliance with the project helping the handicapped. Pet food is an alliance with helping the stray dog and cat project. Pet food is an alliance with helping HIV patient project. Ladies product is an alliance with the breast cancer crusade project. Ladies product is an alliance with the headwater sources conservation project. Heart candy is an alliance with helping children with heart diseases. Heart candy is an alliance with helping people who meet with flood disaster.

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Less 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Less 2 2 2

CF

How much do you agree with the alliance of product and social problem of each following should be applied to CRMK campaign?

Very more

Moderate

CF

13

The large corporate with good image in CSR is an alliance with the large amount of charity and popular. The corporate which has recognized product or service is an alliance with the charity which has strongly resulted of social problem solving. The corporate which has continually public news of CSR activities is an alliance with the charity which has continually public news of social problem solving.

More

How much do you agree with the image of corporate and charity of each following which become alliances in CRMK campaign?

14

15

Very less 1 1 1

Very less 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Very more

Moderate

More

DF

How much do you agree with the donation framing of each following should be applied to CRMK campaign?

Comparing of donation quantifiers with price of product should be relative. 5 4 3 2 1

Donation quantifiers can calculate the percentage of price. 5 4 3 2 1

The product which has high sales volume can donate with a small donation size when comparing with the price. The portion of income which is not included in donation from sales amount should be extra donated to charity. The exact target of donation to a charity should be informed to the public.

5 6 The campaign should be publicized clearly information of donation. 5 7 The campaign should be continually publicized and informed the accumulated donation. The total amount of donation should be known to the public when the campaign comes to as end. The campaign should have certain period. 5 10 The timeframe of campaign should be related with the target of donation size. 5 11 The CRMK campaign against critical social problems should be continually conducted for a long time.

Very less 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Less

Very more

Moderate

More

PI

How much do you agree with each following of your patronage intention in CRMK campaign?

1 2 3 4 5

You have intention to purchase CRMK product although never used it before. You have intention to purchase CRMK product compare with others brand name which have same price and quality. You have intention to purchase CRMK product although it is not necessary product for you. You have intention to switch brand from your usual product to CRMK brand to support CRMK campaign. You have intention to purchase CRMK product despite it is higher price than other brand. When you bought CRMK product, you have intention to repeat purchase to support CRMK campaign. You continuously purchase CRMK product because you have feeling more donate. If you knew the CRMK campaign does not achieved the donation target, you will immediately repeat purchase. You have intention to tell about your supporting in the campaign to your family. You have intention to recommend the CRMK campaign to your family and familiar for their supporting. You have intention to recommend the CRMK campaign to the others.

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

6 7 8

5 5 5

4 4 4

3 3 3

2 2 2

10 11

Very more

Moderate

SK

How much do you agree with each following statement?

1 2

You have skepticism with CRMK campaign advertising. Almost all of CRMK campaign advertising is with intention to convince the customers. Almost all of the CRMK campaign advertisings are exaggerated. CRMK campaign is sales promotion tool. Image and credit of firm and brand image impact on your patronage intention. Unclear CRMK campaign component makes impact on your patronage intention.

5 5 5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2 2 2

3 4 5 6

Very less 1 1 1 1 1 1

More

Less

Very less 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Less

Appendix 1b: Questionnaire (Thai version) (The Component of Cause Related Marketing Campaign Affecting on Thai Consumer Patronage Intention)

Cause-Related Marketing (CRMK)

( ( ) )
( ) ( ) 6 ( ) 1. 1 ( ) 4. 1-2 ( ) 2. 1 ( ) 3. 3-4 ( ) 5.

( ) 1. ( ) 2. ( ) 1. ( ) 2.

( ) 1. 25 ( ) 2. 26 30 ( ) 3. 31 35 ( ) 4. 36 40 ( ) 5. 41 45 ( ) 6. 46 50 ( ) 7. 51 55 ( ) 8. 55

( ) 1. ( ) 1. ( ) 5. /

( ) 2.

( ) 3. /

( ) 2. ( ) 3. ( ) 4. ( ) 6. ( ) 7. ( ) 8. ................

( ) 1. ( ) 3. () ( ) 1. 20,000 ( ) 4. 60,001 80,000 ( ) 7. ( ) 2. ( ) 4. ( ) 2. 20,001 40,000 ( ) 5. 80,001 100,000 ( ) 3. 40,001 60,000 ( ) 6. 100,000

CI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

CF

13 14 15

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

CF

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

1 2 3 4

5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2

PI

DF

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1

5 6 7 8 9 10 11
SK

5 5 5 5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2 2 2 2

1 2 3 4 5 6

5 5 5 5 5 5

4 4 4 4 4 4

3 3 3 3 3 3

2 2 2 2 2 2

PI

1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1 1