This article was downloaded by: [Deakin University Library] On: 26 March 2012, At: 02:27 Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wnon20

CauseRelated Marketing from the Nonprofit's Perspective: Classifying Goals and Experienced Outcomes
Mary Runt , Debra Z. Basil & Sameer Deshpande
a a b b

Faculty of Management, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada

b

Centre for Socially Responsible Marketing, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada Available online: 11 Aug 2009

To cite this article: Mary Runt, Debra Z. Basil & Sameer Deshpande (2009): CauseRelated Marketing from the Nonprofit's Perspective: Classifying Goals and Experienced Outcomes , Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 21:3, 255-270 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10495140802644505

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 21:255270, 2009 Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1049-5142 print / 1540-6997 online DOI: 10.1080/10495140802644505

Cause-Related Marketing from the Nonprofits Perspective: Classifying Goals and Experienced Outcomes
MARY RUNTE
Faculty of Management, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada

Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 02:27 26 March 2012

DEBRA Z. BASIL and SAMEER DESHPANDE

Centre for Socially Responsible Marketing, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada

This research examines the cause-related marketing (CRM) experience from a nonprofit (NPO) perspective, using qualitative and quantitative methods. U.S. NPO managers with direct CRM experience (n 5 154) participated. Results demonstrate that NPOs have both first order (immediate financial support) and second order (less tangible, longer term) goals when undertaking CRM, and that they generally realize these outcomes, though not always. NPOs primarily seek event support, networking opportunities and public awareness, followed by funding opportunities, with less emphasis on gaining business expertise. This research extends the framework of Gourville and Rangan (2004) by offering a more precise, differentiated model. KEYWORDS cause-related marketing, CRM, nonprofit, NPO, corporate social responsibility, CSR

INTRODUCTION
Corporate social responsibility (CSR), the expectation that corporations will engage in prosocial behavior, has become ubiquitous. CSR takes many forms
The authors gratefully acknowledge funding from the Faculty of Management, University of Lethbridge. Address correspondence to Mary Runte , Faculty of Management, University of Lethbridge, 4401 University Drive West, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada T1K 3M4. E-mail: mary.runte@uleth.ca 255

256

M. Runte et al.

and frequently involves the partnering of a corporation with a nonprofit organization (NPO) (Seitanidi & Ryan, 2007; Wymer & Samu, 2003) through activities such as corporate support for employee volunteerism (Basil, Runte, Easwaramoorthy, & Barr 2009), philanthropic donation (Wunderink, 2002), and cause-related marketing (CRM; Varadarajan & Menon, 1988). CRM, which links a firms marketing activities to an NPOs mission and identity, satisfies societal expectations for social engagement, while maintaining a focus on the firms profit generation. CRM has thus been characterized as a form of strategic CSR (Porter & Kramer, 2002) and as a transactional partnership with greater benefits being accrued by the corporation (Samu & Wymer, 2001). CRM alliances continue to grow in popularity (Cone/Roper, 1999); in 2006, US$1.3 billion were spent on CRM campaigns in the United States (IEG, 2007). Concurrent with the escalation in CSR expectations placed upon the profit sector, the nonprofit sector has faced increased pressures for accountability and financial efficiency (Schlegelmilch, Love, & Diamantopoulos, 1999). Previously funded through government structures, many NPOs are turning to the profit sector for financial support and are increasingly employing marketing practices (Berglind & Nakata, 2005; Kirchner, Markowski, & Ford, 2007; Seitanidi & Ryan, 2007; Wunderink, 2002). The opportunities for partnership provided by CRM can therefore satisfy the perceived needs of both sector participants. CRM can be viewed as a triadic relationship between consumers, business, and NPOs. An example of CRM is Yoplaits Save Lids to Save Lives campaign, where Yoplait donates 10 cents to the Susan B. Koman Breast Cancer Foundation for every lid returned. Consumers purchase the product and engage in the necessary action to stimulate the donation, the business mounts the marketing campaign and provides the product or service that is marketed, and the NPO or cause links its name to the campaign and receives a benefit in exchange. Engagement of these primary participants in the CRM process has been the focus of recent research, although considerable knowledge gaps remain (Gupta & Pirsch, 2006; Nowak & Washburn, 2000). CRM research has primarily taken a consumer perspective; managerially-oriented CRM research is much less common. NPO-oriented research is extremely sparse and our research is positioned to begin to fill this gap. Our goal is to clarify the role of the NPO in this triadic relationship by exploring the goals and outcomes of CRM from the perspective of NPO managers who have experience in a CRM partnership.

Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 02:27 26 March 2012

LITERATURE REVIEW
The most prevalent line of CRM research focuses on consumer response and attitudes. Consumers generally have positive responses to CRM, evidenced through increased brand loyalty (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2004) and positive

Cause-Related Marketing from the Nonprofits Perspective

257

brand attitude (Basil & Herr 2006; Lavack & Kropp, 2003). Increased purchasing behavior and purchase intent have been demonstrated (Berger, Cunningham, & Kozinets, 1999; Cone/Roper, 1999; Mohr, Webb, & Harris, 2001), although the positive effect of CRM may be lower for the company (Creyer & Ross, 1996) and the NPO (Deshpande & Hitchon, 2002), relative to other initiatives. Corporate reputational enhancement and the opportunity for differentiation from competitors (Brnn & Vrioni, 2001; Creyer & Ross, 1996) are organizational goals linked to consumer perception of CRM campaigns. Consumer perception of the cause and the partnering NPO is also identified as salient to the benefits accrued by the NPO and the business. Partnerships between corporations with strong reputations and NPOs with little prior public awareness stimulate an increase in trust, awareness, and support for the NPO, whereas an NPO with a priori high awareness may not gain such benefit (Nowak & Washburn, 2000). Consumer characteristics, such as social desirability (Schlegelmilch et al., 1997), psychographics (Youn & Kim, 2008), and consumer attitudes towards the cause (Basil & Herr, 2003; Hajjat, 2003; Nowak & Washburm, 2000) and the corporation (Basil & Herr, 2006) have been demonstrated to influence campaign response. A second line of research has addressed managerial issues, such as the source of company funds used to promote CRM, the amount of money donated (Ross, Stutts, & Paterson, 19901991; Varadarajan & Menon, 1988), and the impact on employees (Cone Communications, 2002; Berger, Cunningham, & Drumwright, 2006; Drumwright, 1996). CRM as a strategic marketing tool to increase profitability has been an assumed goal of corporate engagement (Varadarajan & Menon, 1988; Gupta & Pirsch, 2006). Corporations may also use CRM to communicate their core values to society (Berger et al., 2006; Mohr et al., 2001). Recent research has addressed the structuring of campaigns to maximize corporate return (Grau & Folse, 2007; Grau, Garretson, & Pirsch, 2007). Very little research has addressed the impact of CRM on managerial issues relevant to NPOs. What little has been undertaken can be divided into two streams. First, toolkit type guidance, with helpful dos and donts for nonprofit managers, is available (Andreasen, 1996; Gourville & Rangan, 2004). The second stream of research examines CRM experiences for nonprofit managers and the drivers of their engagement. It is this stream that we intend to further develop by empirically addressing CRM from a managerial perspective for NPOs. NPOs assumed goals and outcomes postulated in conceptual articles (Varadarajan & Menon, 1988) and trade publications (Meyer, 1999; Schiller, 1988) have been accepted without further inquiry. It is assumed, for example, that the primary motivation and received benefit of CRM for nonprofits is short term funding and publicity; this conjecture has not been empirically assessed, nor have the relative priorities of the motivations been

Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 02:27 26 March 2012

258

M. Runte et al.

analyzed. Berger, Cunningham, and Drumwright (2004, 2007) provide a valuable starting point by including nonprofit managers in their interview sample. Their research, however, addresses only a specific and limited form of alliance (social alliance, representing long-term relationships) and focuses on corporate, not NPO, motivation. In this paper, we present the findings of a two-phase exploratory research study which empirically assesses the overarching research question: What is the experience of CRM from the perspective of the NPO manager? In the first phase, we examine through exploratory qualitative research a wide range of CRM alliances with a focus on the perspective of the nonprofit managers. We then assess, through a larger-scale, quantitative study, the goals and perceived outcomes of NPO managers who have engaged in CRM partnerships, thus contributing a more comprehensive and generalizable understanding of the impact of CRM on the nonprofit sector. Austin (2003) proposed three stages of collaboration between companies and nonprofits: philanthropic, transactional, and integrative. Donations to charity represent the philanthropic stage. Traditional CRM represents the transactional stage; donations to the nonprofit are based on marketplace transactions such as product purchases, and the campaigns often run for a limited period of time. Social alliances represent the integrative stage; social alliances are long-term, strategic relationships between companies and nonprofits (Berger et al., 2004). Consistent with Austins stages, Gourville and Rangan (2004) proposed that transactional alliances offer first order benefits, focusing on the direct exchange of money; relationship focused alliances offer second order benefits, which include a wide array of less tangible benefits involving many stakeholder groups and having long-term impact. Gourville and Rangan (2004) outline the interrelationships between stakeholders and create a relational map showing whether first or second order benefits are accrued by the NPO as a result of that relationship. First order benefits are those that emanate directly from the purchasing relationship inherent in the CRM approach. The purchase of a product by a consumer stimulates a promised donation to the NPO who uses the donation to fund their mission-driven activities, thus benefiting their cause. With second order benefits, the NPO gains benefits, such as a heightened community profile, that lead to greater understanding of their mission within a broader community than would be experienced without the partnership. For example, the partnership of an NPO focused on a lesser-known disease may result in the general public having a greater understanding of a previously unknown condition thus garnering a greater understanding of their clients needs. This research examines CRM alliances by applying Gourville and Rangans (2004) conceptualization of first and second order benefits to the goals and outcomes of CRM alliances from the perspective of the NPO. The first phase of this research is qualitative, consisting of two focus groups. It is used to

Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 02:27 26 March 2012

Cause-Related Marketing from the Nonprofits Perspective

259

identify the primary goals and outcomes of CRM for the NPO. The second phase is quantitative, consisting of an electronic quantitative survey. Phase 2 applies the information gained in Phase 1 in order to further explicate the notion of first and second order benefits.

RESEARCH STUDY Phase 1: Focus Groups

PARTICIPANTS AND METHOD Two focus groups were conducted, with 12 and 10 participants, respectively. The participants were NPO managers, with 231 years of experience within the sector. The vast majority (20 out of 22) were paid managers; 21 selfidentified using a managerial title, such as coordinator, CEO, or executive director. All the participants worked within organizations that had partnered with profit-sector organizations at some time. Initially, attempts were made to recruit only NPO managers who had experienced CRM partnerships, but given that the terminology was not familiar to many of the NPO managers, the sample was broadened to include those who had experienced any form of partnership with the profit sector. The participants work in a diverse range of organization types, including health, sports, social services, religious, and arts and culture. The majority of organizations are locally managed, although 4 out of 22 had formal ties to a parent organization that oversaw at least some of the marketing and management nationally. The groups were facilitated by one of the researchers, with a second researcher observing and taking notes. The focus groups were videotaped with the written consent of the participants. The participants were guided through a series of questions designed to elicit commentary and insights into CRM partnerships, including their own organizations goals, strategies for engaging partners and outcomes of past partnerships. The majority of NPO managers, when probed, described a range of partnership experiences; all but one NPO had experience in CRM partnerships, either administered through the local or national office. The NPO without CRM experience desired such a partnership, but felt such support was unlikely given the nature of their mission serving a disenfranchised population. RESULTS Data from the first focus group interview were analyzed prior to the second focus group to identify common themes regarding goals and outcomes. Using this information as a foundation, the second focus group collectively developed a master list of goals for CRM that they considered to be
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 02:27 26 March 2012

260

M. Runte et al.

Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 02:27 26 March 2012

comprehensive. The NPOs goals in corporate partnership, identified by the NPO managers, were: public awareness of the NPO; establishing a long-term relationship with the corporation; enhancing public awareness of the NPOs mandate; event support; contacts and networking; short-term funding; improving overall public donations; improving overall long-term funding; improving how the NPO meets its mandate; attracting volunteers; gaining managerial expertise from the business partner; and improving internal procedures by learning from the experience of partnership. The results of the first phase of the research study indicate that NPOs engage in corporate partnerships for multiple reasons, some of which are oriented to satisfying the operational needs of the NPO, such as attaining funding to support program operation, which may be characterized as first order benefits. Additionally, NPOs engage in partnerships to further their mission in terms of cause recognition and nonfinancial gain, which may be characterized as second order benefits. Although Gourville and Rangan (2004) present that NPOs may seek a range of benefits from CRM partnerships they do not provide a comprehensive list of what these goals and outcomes might be. In the first phase of research, we have extended the work of Gourville and Rangan by documenting a more expansive list of goals and outcomes. The second phase of this research is a survey developed with the input of focus group participants. The survey tests Gourville and Rangans conceptualization of first and second order benefits and provides a descriptive analysis of the NPOs goals and outcomes of CRM partnerships.

Phase 2: Survey
THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT A primary goal of this phase of our research was to provide a descriptive account of NPO managers perceptions of CRM partnerships. This analysis was guided by the following research question:
RQ1: What are NPO managers (a) goals and (b) perceived outcomes of CRM partnerships?

Consistent with Gourville and Rangans (2004) conceptualization, we examine first and second order benefits of CRM for NPOs. We propose that CRM goals and outcomes identified by the focus group participants can be distinctly categorized as first order or second order.
H1: The various (a) goals for CRM and (b) outcomes of CRM can be distinctly categorized as first order or second order.

Cause-Related Marketing from the Nonprofits Perspective

261

Recognizing that NPOs enter into CRM partnerships with expectations, dissatisfaction may result when expectations exceed outcomes (Oliver, 1980). To assess satisfaction, we match participants identified goals with their experienced outcomes.
RQ2: Are the NPO goals realized as outcomes of the CRM relationship?

Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 02:27 26 March 2012

Experience moderates satisfaction and dissatisfaction (Chang, 2004). Experience impacts subsequent expectations; individuals adjust their expectations in accordance with their actual experiences (Yi & La, 2004). Applying this to the present context, NPOs with more CRM experience should have a more realistic perception of potential outcomes. As such, we expect goals to better meet outcomes for NPOs with more CRM experience, thus the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2: NPOs with more CRM experience will demonstrate smaller gaps whereby CRM goals exceed CRM outcomes.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHOD An invitation to participate in an on-line survey was sent to 1,000 nonprofit managers who were members of a standing online research panel for Market Facts, Inc. A total of 742 responded resulting in 689 usable surveys. The present analysis examines only the 154 of these participants who had previously been personally involved with a CRM alliance thus assuring that responses are coming from those with sufficient knowledge to provide valuable feedback. These participants were 75% female. The average age of participants was 45.6. Participants had been with their organization 7.9 years on average, and had worked in the public and/or nonprofit sector for 12.5 years on average. The online survey was composed of questions developed and refined in Phase 1 of this research. The survey asked respondents about 12 key goals and outcomes identified in the focus groups: short term funding, long-term funding, event support, donations, volunteers, long-term relationship, gaining expertise from the business, gaining contacts/networking, improving internal procedures, better meeting overall mandate, public awareness of organization, and public awareness of mandate. Participants were asked whether these 12 key issues were (a) a primary goal for them with the CRM campaign, and whether (b) the campaign met or was in the process of meeting this goal. All questions were asked on a 10-point scale anchored by strongly disagree and strongly agree. Participants were classified as high or low level CRM participants, using a median split. Those who had participated in CRM campaigns with three or

262

M. Runte et al.

fewer businesses were classified as low level CRM participants, and those with four or more were classified as high level CRM participants. RESULTS To assess RQ1a, identifying NPO goals for CRM, mean responses to the question of goals indicated that public awareness of the NPO (M 5 7.85), developing a long-term relationship (M 5 7.83), and public awareness of the NPOs mandate (M 5 7.53) were the NPOs leading goals for CRM. Improving internal procedures (M 5 4.03) and gaining expertise (M 5 4.88) were the lowest rated goals. RQ1b examines the outcomes experienced by NPOs. Participants felt their CRM alliance provided a long-term relationship (M 5 7.82), event support (M 5 7.59) and public awareness for their NPO (M 5 7.64). The lowest outcome scores were attained for improving internal procedures (M 5 4.03) and gaining volunteers (M 5 4.87). To assess Hypothesis 1a, factor analysis with varimax rotation was run in order to determine whether goals could clearly be clustered according to first and second order outcomes, consistent with Gourville and Rangens (2004) frame. The results supported a four factor solution. Two factors are consistent with first order benefits; these are labeled Seeking Funding (3 items: short-term funding, long-term funding, donations from the public) and Event Support (1 item). Two of the extracted factors are consistent with second order benefits. These are labeled Business as a Resource (4 items: improving internal processes, meeting mandate, gaining expertise, gaining volunteers) and Networking and Awareness (4 items: long-term relationship, public awareness for NPO, public awareness for mandate, gaining contacts). These results suggest that viewing CRM goals in terms of first and second order outcomes may be appropriate, but a clearer understanding can be gained through a more refined view of these categories. A similar analysis was performed using the CRM outcomes experienced, Hypothesis 1b. A four factor solution again emerged, similar to the goals factor analysis. Two items differed in this solution: the long term relationship item and the public donations item. Based on underlying theory and scale reliability analyses, the item donations from the public was included with the seeking funding factor and the item long term relationship was included with the networking and awareness factor. Cronbachs Alpha revealed that the Business as a Resource and the Networking and Awareness factors were reliable scales (Cronbachs Alpha . 0.70 for both goals and outcomes). The Seeking Funding factor reliability was marginally acceptable for both goals and outcomes (Cronbachs Alpha . 0.6 for each). Items for each scale were averaged to create a scale score. Event Support was a single-item scale. Overall these results support H1 in that the various goals and outcomes of CRM can distinctly be categorized as first or second order. The results offer additional insights as well, suggesting further refinement within the broad

Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 02:27 26 March 2012

Cause-Related Marketing from the Nonprofits Perspective

263

Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 02:27 26 March 2012

categories of first and second order outcomes. Specifically, relevant goals and outcomes centre on the issues of seeking funding and gaining event support (both first order), and using the business as a resource and using the business for networking and public awareness (both second order). An assessment of mean responses suggests that both first and second order issues serve as key goals and outcomes for NPOs. Specifically, Event Support (a first order construct) and Networking and Awareness (a second order construct) demonstrate the highest means both in terms of goals and in terms of outcomes experienced. These means do not differ from each other significantly (p . .05). They are however both significantly higher than the means of the other constructs (all p , .05). Mean goal and outcome scores for the Event Support, Seeking Funding, and Networking and Awareness constructs were all significantly above the scale mid-point whereas mean goal and outcome scores for the Business as a Resource construct were significantly below the scale midpoint, suggesting lower relative importance and realization of this construct (see Figure 1). Addressing RQ2, mean goal scores were compared to mean outcome scores for each of the four constructs. The mean goal score (M 5 7.5) exceeded the mean outcome score (M 5 7.4) for the Networking and Awareness construct (t[152] 5 2.2, p , .05) and for the Seeking Funding construct (M 5 6.2 and 6.0 respectively; t[152] 5 2.0, p , .05). There were no significant differences in goal and outcome scores for the Business as a Resource construct or the Event Support construct (p . .05). These results may suggest that expectations were not met for overall funding goals and networking & awareness goals, but they were met for resource goals and

FIGURE 1 First and Second Order Construct Goals and Outcomes

264

M. Runte et al.

Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 02:27 26 March 2012

event support (see Figure 1), however this interpretation should only be viewed as suggestive. A posthoc analysis of the goal versus outcome discrepancies exposed in the RQ2 analysis was conducted, differentiating the sample by level of CRM experience. Specifically, NPOs with more CRM experience (defined through a median split) demonstrated no significant gaps between goals and outcomes (all p . .05), whereas NPOs with less CRM experience demonstrated a marginal gap for the Seeking Funding construct (p , .05) and a significant gap for the Networking and Awareness construct (p , .01). This suggests that goal versus outcome gaps are primarily driven by NPOs with less experience. Finally, H2 was assessed. Mean goal and outcome scores were compared for NPOs with more versus less CRM experience, as determined through a median split. NPOs with more CRM experience had significantly higher goals and experienced significantly better perceived outcomes for the Seeking Funding factor (t[127] 5 2.8, p , .01 and t[127] 5 3.2, p , .005 respectively). No significant differences occurred for the other three factors (all p . .05).

DISCUSSION
This study serves to expand our empirical understanding of NPO-business partnerships, with particular emphasis on CRM relationships. Although CRM partnerships appear to be increasing in frequency, the perspective of the NPO manager, a key stakeholder and decision maker in the relationship, has been under-examined. The goals and experienced outcomes of the NPO have been assumed in both the business press and in academic journals, but little empirical research has actually examined these goals and outcomes. Our study begins to fill this research gap by focusing exclusively on the NPO manager as informant. We provide support for the contention that NPOs enter into CRM partnerships for a variety of reasons which can be meaningfully grouped, thus providing both corporate and NPO partners, as well as researchers, greater breadth of understanding of the motivations driving NPO engagement. This research builds upon the conceptual model proposed by Gourville and Rangan (2004) that characterized partnership goals and benefits as being first or second order. By first expanding the list of NPOs desired goals and then, using factor analysis to link the disparate goals under common factors, we allow researchers and CRM partners greater insight into the breadth of the NPOs goals as well as how these goals may interrelate. As discussed by Austin (2003) and Gourville and Rangan (2004), first order benefits are more likely accrued by transactionally-oriented partnerships and second order benefits, such as networking and awareness, are an outcome

Cause-Related Marketing from the Nonprofits Perspective

265

of more relationally oriented partnering. By understanding that certain goals are less likely to be satisfied in a traditional CRM partnership, the NPO manager may be able to assist the NPO in developing realistic expectations. NPO managers have multiple goals which drive the NPO to seek CRM partners. NPO managers experiences/expectations are more complex than initially conceptualized. Our study further differentiates Gourville and Rangans (2004) framework by identifying distinct constructs within the general categories of first and second order benefits. Specifically, our research demonstrates that within the context of first order benefits, NPOs expect CRM alliances to provide support for a particular event as well as providing other sources of funding. Within the context of second order benefits, NPOs expect the business partner to serve as a resource, and they expect to gain networking opportunities and public awareness from CRM alliances. NPOs appear to be primarily seeking event support as well as opportunities for networking and increasing public awareness when they enter into CRM alliances. Seeking other funding from the business and seeking public donations are moderately important. Using the business as a resource does not appear to be a strong goal or outcome of the CRM alliance. Our study suggests that NPO managers experience with CRM partnerships is moderately positive; however gaps between partnering goals and experienced outcomes are reported. Specifically, goals for Networking and Awareness significantly exceeded outcomes. Similarly, goals for Seeking Funding significantly exceeded outcomes. In both cases, the goals and outcome scores were both relatively high, suggesting that NPOs desire and attain these outcomes. Since the goal score exceeded the outcome score on these constructs, one might interpret the result as demonstrating dissatisfaction with these components of the CRM alliance. The results are suggestive in this regard, but more direct measures are required before such claims can be made with confidence. Traditionally, dissatisfaction has been viewed as a measure of difference between expectations and outcomes. In the present research we examined goals and outcomes. As goals and expectations are not synonymous, any inferences regarding dissatisfaction must be made with care. It does appear that NPOs with less CRM experience are more likely to demonstrate gaps between goal and experienced outcome. One might question whether this is because NPOs with more CRM experience adjust their expectations downward in accordance with past experience. This does not appear to be the case, as NPOs with more experience did not demonstrate lower mean scores on goals and outcomes, in fact where differences occur the experienced NPOs demonstrated higher mean scores. It appears, then, that self-selection may be impacting our results. Specifically,

Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 02:27 26 March 2012

266

M. Runte et al.

those NPOs that did not meet their expectations in their first CRM alliance may not choose to enter into additional CRM alliances. As discussed by the participants in Phase 1, CRM may be a desired, but less attainable strategy for some NPOs, such as those with more controversial or negative public images. Note that while this study is unable to indicate how widespread the problem of some NPOs inability to attract business partnerships may be, it is important that the NPO assess the probability of being a desired CRM partner. This is supported by the finding that expectations and outcomes for first order benefits increases with experience; some NPOs experience may be that further pursuit of CRM is only marginally worthwhile, while for others, initial experiences are sufficiently successful to lead to additional CRM campaigns, maximizing CRM expectations and benefits. NPOs without CRM partnerships, which do not experience such perceptual barriers, should consider seeking out such partnerships given the overall record of success demonstrated here. Although our research has focused on the NPO perspective of CRM partnerships, the implications of this study for the business partner merit discussion. For businesses, emphasis should be on ensuring that they understand the NPOs goals and expectations (rather than make assumption they know what the NPOs goals are), and that these are achievable targets within the business mandate and budget for the proposed CRM campaign. Attention should be given to maximizing the attainment of NPOs goals while minimizing costs and risks to the corporation. CRM projects with experienced NPOs, i.e., those with other successful CRM projects (e.g. cancer) should be considered as they are more likely to have the experience to partner effectively. Given that NPOs enter partnerships for varied reasons, it is critical that both partners be explicit about which needs the CRM project is to address to make it easier for each partner to hit the target and thus satisfy expectations. Although this study focuses explicitly on the goals and outcomes for the NPO, increased recognition of each partners first and second order goals could lead to a better managed CRM partnership which is directed towards maximization of the partners goals. This appraisal of goals and desired outcomes may draw upon the constructs provided in this study and allow for refinement of the CRM project/relationship to permit the realization of desired benefits. For NPOs the emphasis here would be on articulating minimum expectations (demands) in negotiation with the corporate partner to ensure that expectations are both realistic and understood by their partner.

Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 02:27 26 March 2012

CONCLUSION
This research demonstrates that NPOs seek a variety of outcomes from CRM, beyond immediate funding expectations. Both first order and second order

Cause-Related Marketing from the Nonprofits Perspective

267

benefits are evident, consistent with Gourville and Rangans (2004) conceptualization, however a more finely tuned distinction is required. Outcomes match goals in some cases (supporting an event and using the business as a resource), but fail to attain the level of goals in other cases (seeking funding and networking & awareness). Those NPOs with more CRM experience tend to report a closer match between goals and outcomes. Generally it appears that CRM offers many positive outcomes for the NPO.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH

Further research into how the NPOs rank and prioritize their CRM goals is indicated. Additionally, although these goals were identified by the focus group participants (Phase 1) as relevant for all NPO-business partnerships, in Phase 2 the importance of these goals for the NPO were only assessed for one type of partnership, CRM. Differences in NPO managers goals and perceived outcomes for other forms of partnerships require examination. A limitation of our study is that we relied exclusively on the input of NPO managers. Although NPO managers are a key stakeholder in CRM, NPO strategy is ultimately the jurisdiction of the board of directors. As directors with a mandate to shape and further the organizations mission, rather than managers who are responsible for operations, their assessment of goals and perceived outcomes may differ. NPO managers, in Phase 2 of this study, rated the importance of the varied goals as drivers of their partnering behavior. A limitation of this study is that we did not assess the rationale behind these ratings. Are ratings of lower importance a measure of low prioritization of goals in overall strategy, or a reflection of low expectations of CRMs ability to meet those particular goals? For example, the second order factor of Business as a Resource was identified in our factor analysis. Given the increased emphasis on accountability within the NPO sector, further explication of this factor is indicated. Is, for example, a lower importance rating for gaining expertise from business partner and improving internal procedures reflective of NPO managers belief that they do not have a need for increased expertise (they feel themselves competent managers, thank you very much); or because they have no faith that business partners have relevant expertise (large corporate bureaucracy versus small NPO) or do they doubt the efficacy of CRM as a mechanism of transmission (low expectations of successful attainment of this goal leads to down grading of importance of this goal in CRM)? Further research is needed to assess this variable. Although the NPO managers in this study did not rate this factor as being as important as other goals of the CRM partnership, the relationship between elements of this factor and accountability is indicated in that it is an identified
Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 02:27 26 March 2012

268

M. Runte et al.

Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 02:27 26 March 2012

goal in CRM partnering. A framework of institutional theory is appropriate as it would facilitate a greater understanding of legitimacy seeking behavior by both the NPO and the business partner. Our research suggests that NPO managers with greater CRM partnering experience have higher expectations for first order benefits and rate their outcome of this measure as higher than those with less experience. Further research is necessary to support whether the learning experienced from engaging in multiple partnerships leads to more realistic outcomes or whether those who experience positive first order outcomes are more likely to choose to continue to engage in partnering behavior. Are first order benefits more likely to have been experienced by the NPOs who were early adopters of this partnering strategy? Some NPOs may be more inherently compatible with CRM than others; those who have found sponsorships less than satisfactory, even when their initial expectations were relatively low, may not pursue additional partnerships. Consequently, less experienced NPOs may be in reality those that found CRM only marginally satisfactory and therefore have pursued further CRM experience less vigorously than NPOs that had higher expectations and/or whose expectations were exceeded. Further research is required to distinguish between those with one business partner, but multiple successful CRM campaigns (exclusive partnership experience) and those engaged with a series of business partners (serial partnerships) and those engaged in multiple simultaneous relationships (multiple concurrent partnerships) to further clarify the role of experience and the structuring of partnerships. Inexperienced NPOs may have lower expectations and gain fewer benefits, and so they experience the partnership as less successful than experienced NPOs.

REFERENCES
Andreasen, A. (1996). Cause-related marketing: Salvation or quicksand for nonprofits? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 4756. Austin, J. (2003). Strategic alliances. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1(2), 4855. Basil, D. Z., & Herr, P. M. (2003). Dangerous donations? The effects of cause-related marketing on charity attitude. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing 11(1), 5396. Basil, D. Z., & Herr, P. M. (2006). Attitudinal balance and cause-related marketing: An empirical application of balance theory. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16, 391403. Basil, D. Z., Runte, M. S., Easwaramoorthy, M., & Barr, C. (2009). Company support for employee volunteering: A national survey of companies in Canada. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, 387399. Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Kozinets, R. V. (1999). Consumer persuasion through cause-related advertising. Advances in Consumer Research, 26(1), 491497.

Cause-Related Marketing from the Nonprofits Perspective

269

Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Drumwright, M. E. (2004). Social alliances: Company/nonprofit collaboration. California Management Review, 47, 5890. Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Drumwright, M. E. (2006). Identity, identification, and relationship through social alliances. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 34, 128137. Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Drumwright, M. E. (2007). Mainstreaming corporate social responsibility: Developing markets for virtue. California Management Review, 49, 132157. Berglind, M., & Nakata, C. (2005). Cause-related marketing: More buck than bang? Business Horizons, 48, 443453. Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2004). Doing better at doing good: When, why, and how consumers respond to corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 47, 924. Brnn P. S., & Vrioni A. B. (2001). Corporate social responsibility and cause-related marketing: An overview. International Journal of Advertising, 20, 207222. Chang, C. (2004). The interplay of product class knowledge and trial experience in attitude formation. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 8392. Cone Communications. (2002). 2002 Cone corporate citizenship study. Retrieved July 24, 2009, from http://www.coneinc.com/stuff/contentmgr/files/0/ 7c6165bb378273babd958415d58ec980/files/2002_cone_corporate_citizenship_ study.pdf Cone/Roper. (1999). Cause related trends report. Boston: Cone/Roper Starch Worldwide. Creyer, E. H., & Ross, Jr., W. T. (1996).The impact of corporate behavior on perceived product value. Marketing Letters, 7, 173185. Deshpande, S., & Hitchon, J. (2002). Ethical implications of use of cause-related marketing ads in the light of negative news. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 79, 905926. Drumwright, M. E. (1996). Company advertising with a social dimension: The role of noneconomic criteria. Journal of Marketing, 60(October), 7187. Gourville, J. T., & Rangan, V. K. (2004). Valuing the cause marketing relationship. California Management Review, 47, 3857. Grau, S. L., & Folse, J. A. G. (2007). Cause related marketing. Journal of Advertising, 36(4), 1933. Grau, S. L., Garretson, J. A., & Pirsch, J. (2007). Cause-related marketing: An exploratory study of campaign donation structures issues. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 18(2), 6991. Gupta, S., & Pirsch, J. (2006). The company-cause-customer fit decision in causerelated marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23, 314326. Hajjat, M. M. (2003). Effect of cause-related marketing on attitudes and purchase intentions: The moderating role of cause involvement and donation size. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 11(1), 93108. IEG. (2007). Retrieved November 6, 2007, from http://www.sponsorship.com/ Kirchner, T. A., Markowski, E. P., & Ford, J. B. (2007). Relationships among levels of government support, marketing activities, and financial health of nonprofit performing arts organizations. International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12, 95116.

Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 02:27 26 March 2012

270

M. Runte et al.

Lavack, A. M., & Kropp, F. (2003). Cross-cultural comparison of consumer attitudes toward cause-related marketing. Social Marketing Quarterly, 9(2), 316. Meyer, H. (1999). When the cause is just. Journal of Business Strategy, 20(6), 2731. 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), 4572. Nowak, L. I., & Washburn, J. H. (2000). Marketing alliances between non-profits and businesses: Changing the publics attitudes and intentions towards the cause. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 7(4), 3345. Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decision. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 460469. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 5669. Ross, J. K., Stutts, M. A., & Patterson, L. T. (19901991). Tactical considerations for the effective use of cause-related marketing. Journal of Applied Business Research, 7(2), 5865. Samu, S., & Wymer, W. (2001). Nonprofit-business alliance model: Formation and outcomes. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 9(1/2), 4562. Schiller, M. (1988, December). Doing well by doing good. Business Week, 5357. Schlegelmilch, B. B., Love, A., & Diamantopoulos, A. (1997). Responses to different charity appeals: The impact of donor characteristics on the amount of donations. European Journal of Marketing, 31 (7/8), 548560. Seitanidi, M., & Ryan, A. (2007). A critical review of forms of corporate community involvement: from philanthropy to partnerships. International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12, 247266. Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 5874. Wunderink, S. R. (2002). Individual financial donations to charities in the Netherlands: Why, how and how much. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 10(2), 2130. Wymer Jr., W., & Samu, S. (2003). Dimensions of business and nonprofit collaborative relationships. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 11(1), 323. Yi, Y., & La, S. (2004). What influences the relationship between customer satisfaction and repurchase intention? Investigating the effects of adjusted expectations and customer loyalty. Psychology & Marketing, 21, 351373. Youn, S., & Kim, H. (2008). Antecedents of consumer attitudes toward cause-related marketing. Journal of Advertising Research, March, 123136.

Downloaded by [Deakin University Library] at 02:27 26 March 2012