Cause-brand alliances: Does the cause help the brand or does the brand help the cause?

Abstract

Partnering charitable causes with brands has become a common practice for many marketing programs referred to strategically as cause-related marketing. While there is the perception that both partners benefit from the alliance, research has focused primarily on the benefits to the brand. This experiment (n=463) evaluates changes in attitude for both the cause and the brand as a consequence of the cause–brand alliance (CBA) using familiarity of the cause as a moderator. The results show that allying a cause with a familiar brand improves attitude toward the cause when the cause is unfamiliar but has less impact on a familiar cause. The effect of the alliance on brand attitudes is positive regardless of the degree of cause familiarity. These results suggest that managers of unfamiliar causes rather than familiar causes may have a greater vested interest in forming a CBA, and brand managers are beneficiaries of the partnership either way.

Full text

ARTICLE IN PRESS
Cause–brand alliances: does the cause help the brand
or does the brand help the cause?
Barbara A. Lafferty
a,
*, Ronald E. Goldsmith
b,1
a
Department of Marketing, College of Business Administration, University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue,
BSN 3403, Tampa, FL 33620-5500, USA
b
Department of Marketing, College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1110, USA
Received 30 April 2002; accepted 29 July 2003
Abstract
Partnering charitable causes with brands has become a common practice for many marketing programs referred to strategically as cause-
related marketing. While there is the perception that both partners benefit from the alliance, research has focused primarily on the benefits to
the brand. This experiment (n= 463) evaluates changes in attitude for both the cause and the brand as a consequence of the cause – brand
alliance (CBA) using familiarity of the cause as a moderator. The results show that allying a cause with a familiar brand improves attitude
toward the cause when the cause is unfamiliar but has less impact on a familiar cause. The effect of the alliance on brand attitudes is positive
regardless of the degree of cause familiarity. These results suggest that managers of unfamiliar causes rather than familiar causes may have a
greater vested interest in forming a CBA, and brand managers are beneficiaries of the partnership either way.
D2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cause-related marketing; Cause – brand alliances; Brand alliances; Cobranding; Corporate social responsibility
1. Introduction
At almost no other time in history has there been more
need for corporate social responsibility than now. Americans
want sincere and credible corporate involvement after Sep-
tember 11, 2001 and seek restoration of their confidence in
corporate America following the scandals of Enron, World-
Com and others (Hein, 2002; Oldenburg, 2001). Providing
evidence of good corporate citizenship can help restore
confidence and build trust in the company and in the brand
(Anand, 2002; Hein, 2002). Previous studies show that
consumers are more favorable toward new products from
companies that are perceived to be socially responsible (e.g.,
Brown and Dacin, 1997) and evaluate those companies more
positively (Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001).
One way to operationalize corporate social responsibility
is to partner a brand with a cause, referred to strategically
as ‘‘cause-related marketing.’’ The long-term partnership
between the brand and the cause creates an alliance
between the two organizations with the objective of form-
ing a deeper bond with the consumer that will result in
long-term market positioning of the brand (Davidson,
1997). For social causes, such alliances also provide
benefits in the form of revenue and increased exposure
leading to greater awareness and knowledge of the cause.
Cause-related marketing is defined as ‘‘the process of
formulating and implementing marketing activities that are
characterized by an offer from the firm to contribute a
specified amount to a designated cause when customers
engage in revenue-providing exchanges that satisfy organi-
zational and individual objectives’’ (Varadarajan and Menon,
1988, p. 60). It is a form of corporate philanthropy based on
the rationale of profit-motivated giving that can be viewed as
a manifestation of the alignment of corporate philanthropy
and enlightened business (Varadarajan and Menon, 1988).
Today, cause-related marketing is seen as a way for a
company to establish long-term differentiation from com-
petitors and to add value to the corporate brand (Davidson,
1997). By focusing on long-term strategic implications,
cause-related marketing gives the company a competitive
advantage (Murphy, 1997) and has evolved into a cause–
brand alliance (CBA). Relatively few empirical studies
0148-2963/$ – see front matter D2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.07.001
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-813-974-5998 (Work), +1-813-643-
4003 (Home); fax: +1-813-974-6175.
E-mail addresses: lafferty@coba.usf.edu (B.A. Lafferty),
rgoldsm@garnet.acns.fsu.edu (R.E. Goldsmith).
1
Tel.: +1-850-644-4401.
JBR-05946; No of Pages 7
Journal of Business Research xx (2003) xxx – xxx

ARTICLE IN PRESS
have addressed cause-related marketing or CBAs. These
studies have focused on specific issues such as local versus
national causes (Ross et al., 1992), effects of a cause claim
in an ad on unaided recall and purchase intent (Cunning-
ham and Cushing, 1993), type of offer and degree of
consumer/corporate participation (Ellen et al., 1995), type
of product and the importance of the cause (Lafferty, 1997;
Lafferty and Matulich, 2002), effectiveness of using don-
ations to a charity as a purchase incentive (Strahilevitz and
Myers, 1998) and whether and when cause-related market-
ing efforts influence consumer choice (Barone et al., 2000).
While these studies focused on the influence of the alliance
on the brand, no studies were found that assessed the affect
of the alliance on the cause.
Thousands of charitable organizations are potential
partners in a CBA. Selecting one often is based on name
recognition or familiarity of the cause. The cause-related
marketing literature does not discuss this moderating
variable, but it has been shown to influence information
processing and brand evaluations (e.g., Alba and Hutch-
inson, 1987; Bettman and Sujan, 1987; Gardner, 1983;
Laroche et al., 1996). The marketing literature already
emphasizes the influence of brand familiarity in attitude
formation and purchase intent. Thus, this study focused on
the degree to which cause familiarity affects perceptions of
the cause and the brand as a result of the CBA. Because
the main focus of the current study is to investigate the
effect of familiarity of a cause, not the familiarity of a
brand, on the alliance, only brands that subjects rated as
highly familiar were used in the experiment while both a
high and a low familiar cause were selected.
The purpose of this study is to assess the effect of a
CBA on attitudes toward both the cause and the brand with
cause familiarity as a moderator of the influence process.
Our paper discusses the background of CBAs, provides
specific hypotheses and uses an experiment to assess the
effect of the alliance on cause and brand attitudes. We
measured cause and brand attitudes at three points in time
(preexposure, exposure to the alliance and postexposure) to
evaluate the degree of change as a consequence of the
alliance. However, the main interest of this study is the
change in attitudes between preexposure (Time 1) and
postexposure (Time 3). Implications from the study are
discussed from the perspectives of both a brand manager
and a cause manager, and possible limitations and direction
for future research are discussed.
2. Relevant theories and hypotheses
The intent of the CBA from both partners’ perspective is
for consumers to formulate new evaluations and associations
for both the cause and the brand that enhance the image of
both. Information integration theory provides theoretical
support, suggesting that prior attitudes will be integrated
with the new information provided by the alliance, thus
influencing the evaluations toward the alliance and the
postexposure attitudes toward the cause and the brand.
According to information integration theory, attitudes are
formed and modified as people receive, interpret, evaluate
and then integrate this information with their prior attitudes
(Anderson, 1981). The critical component of this model is
the effect the prior attitude has in predicting the polarization
that occurs when information of equal value is cumulated.
Information integration theory predicts that the attitude will
become more extreme as recipients are exposed to more
messages (Anderson, 1981; Eagly and Chaiken, 1993,
pp. 245–246). This prediction is consistent with the well-
known set size effect, which indicates that adding items of
information creates a more extreme judgment, even when
the scale values of the items are held constant. The general
terms in which information integration theory is formulated
allow it to be applied very flexibly to a CBA, thus providing
an understanding of how new information about the alliance
combines with prior attitudes toward the cause and the
brand to produce new attitudes toward both. If prealliance
attitudes toward the cause and the brand are favorable, the
integration of the two in the form of a partnership should
produce more favorable attitudes toward each. Thus,
H1: Attitude toward the cause will be higher after exposure
to the alliance than before exposure to the alliance.
H2: Attitude toward the brand will be higher after exposure
to the alliance than before exposure to the alliance.
2.1. Familiarity of the cause
Attitude accessibility theory suggests that the stronger
the attitude, the more easily it is accessed from memory,
and in general, the stronger the attitude, the more familiar
the person is with the attitude object (Fazio et al., 1989).
Those attitudes typically based on direct experience, such
as that which often exist for a familiar brand, have greater
clarity and are held with more confidence and certainty
than those where there is indirect experience such as that
which is typical for a cause (Alba and Hutchinson, 1987;
Bendapudi et al., 1996; Bettman and Sujan, 1987; Fazio
and Zanna, 1981). When information exists where one
attitude object is familiar and the other is not as familiar,
according to anchoring and adjustment theory, subjects
anchor on information that is most easily accessible (Tver-
sky and Kahneman, 1973) or the first thing that comes to
mind (Taylor and Fiske, 1978) and then adjust for the less
salient information. Therefore, if the attitude toward the
brand is positive and the brand is familiar, then the subjects
will anchor on the brand because it is most salient and
adjust their attitudes toward the cause accordingly. Thus,
when the cause is low in familiarity, the strength of the
attitudes toward the brand will serve as an anchor and help
increase positive attitudes toward the cause. However,
B.A. Lafferty, R.E. Goldsmith / Journal of Business Research xx (2003) xxx–xxx2

ARTICLE IN PRESS
when the cause is also high in familiarity and existing
attitudes are positive, there will be little upward adjustment
of the cause because existing attitudes for it are already
strong. Thus, it is hypothesized that cause familiarity will
moderate the effect of the CBA on cause attitudes.
H3: There will be interaction effect between the low
familiar cause and the high familiar cause over time such
that (a) attitudes toward the low familiar cause will be
greater after the alliance than before but (b) attitudes toward
the high familiar cause will be unchanged after the alliance.
The effect of the partnership on postexposure attitudes
toward the brand is particularly important to brand managers.
The intent of brand managers is to develop a partnership that
enhances the image and later the sale of their brands. Thus,
the carry-over effect of the alliance on the brand is important
and is one of the key reasons for the origination and
popularity of this marketing strategy. From the perspective
of the brand in this study, familiarity already exists and the
question is whether the familiarity of the cause will have a
differential effect on attitudes toward the brand. In a CBA,
the company or brand is seen as the benefactor, donating
money to a cause when a purchase is made. Any associations
of a company with a social cause tend to evoke affective
responses in consumers (Bagozzi and Moore, 1994), creating
a potentially positive association between the brand and the
cause. The perception of the brand or the company is that it is
altruistic. Regardless of the cause, positive affect is generat-
ed because of the benevolent behavior and the brand benefits
as a result. If consumers are altruistic and they perceive a
company to be altruistic also, they feel a sense of connect-
edness to the company according to social identification
theory (Mael and Ashforth, 1992). This in turn can lead to
more favorable attitudes toward the brand and the company
(Brown and Dacin, 1997; Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001).
Thus, an association with any cause capable of evoking
positive attitudes should have a positive affect on attitudes
toward the partnered brand regardless of cause familiarity.
Therefore,
H4: Attitudes toward the brand will be greater after the
alliance for both the low familiar cause and the high
familiar cause.
3. Method
3.1. Subjects
Student volunteers in introductory marketing and man-
agement classes at a large U.S. university participated in the
study for extra credit. The study was conducted at three points
in time (preexposure, exposure to the alliance and postexpo-
sure) with each questionnaire separated by at least 1 day but
no more than 4 days. From a total of 620 respondents, 463
questionnaires were usable across the three sessions consist-
ing of 254 (54.9%) men and 209 (45.1%) women. Ages
ranged from 19 to 51, with 81.2% between ages 20 and 23.
The participants were randomly assigned to one of the eight
versions of the alliance described below.
3.2. Target stimuli
Based on pretests, American Red Cross (ARC, the high
familiar cause) and Famine Relief Fund (FRF, the low
familiar cause) were selected as the alliance causes. To
minimize potential confounds, both causes represented the
same product category, human services. A logical fit
between the cause and the product was also controlled to
prevent experimental bias. Bottled water and canned soup
were selected as the two choices, representing a good
product category fit with ARC and FRF. Because the intent
of the study was to assess the effect of cause familiarity, the
brands selected as partners were relatively high and similar
in familiarity. We pretested (n= 36) eight brands (three
soup and five water) for familiarity using a seven-point
scale; two brands were selected to represent each product
category. Evian (M= 6.42, S.D. = 1.4) and Naya (M= 6.14,
S.D. = 1.4) were the brands selected for the bottled water
category. Campbell’s (M= 6.94, S.D. = 0.23) and Healthy
Choice (M= 6.39, S.D. = 0.87) were selected for the canned
soup category. While ttests indicated that the means of the
bottled waters were not significantly different [t(35) = 1.3,
P=.26] and the canned soup means were significantly
different [t(35) = 3.8, P< .01], of the eight brands evaluated
for familiarity, these were the two highest and most similar
in familiarity in each product category. They were selected
to minimize brand familiarity differences that might influ-
ence the respondents’ attitudes before or after exposure to
the cause/brand alliance.
3.3. Independent variables
Because the design of the study was longitudinal (pre-
exposure/exposure/postexposure) and the analysis for this
study is a repeated-measures ANOVA, time is an indepen-
dent variable. The interest in the study is specifically the
changes in attitudes between preexposure (Time 1) and
postexposure (Time 3) as a result of the CBA. This permit-
ted an examination of a delayed effect that is a somewhat
more realistic reflection of advertising’s effects than a
measure taken immediately after ad exposure (Belch et al.,
1987, pp. 103–104). High/low cause familiarity is the other
independent variable that also serves as a moderator. Thus,
the study is a 2 (high/low familiar cause) 2 [preexposure
(Time 1)/postexposure (Time 3)] mixed design.
3.4. Dependent variables
Attitude toward the cause and attitude toward the brand
were the two dependent variables. In each of the three
B.A. Lafferty, R.E. Goldsmith / Journal of Business Research xx (2003) xxx–xxx 3

ARTICLE IN PRESS
sessions, respondents’ attitudes toward causes and brands
were measured using a three-item scale. Respondents were
asked to circle a number on each of three seven-point
adjective pairs that best reflected their attitudes toward the
brand and their attitudes toward the cause. The items were
‘‘good/bad,’’ ‘‘positive/negative’’ and ‘‘favorable /unfavor-
able’’ (e.g., Burnkrant and Unnava, 1995; Osgood et al.,
1957). The sum of these three items formed the dependent
variables, attitude toward the cause or attitude toward the
brand.
3.5. Design and procedure
In the preexposure session (Time 1), the questionnaire
measured both familiarity with and attitudes toward the
causes and the brands prior to the alliance. The respond-
ents were told that the questionnaire was interested in
determining how familiar they were with various charita-
ble organizations and name brand products as well as
their beliefs about these organizations and brands. Eight
causes were given including the two target causes. Fol-
lowing the causes, 12 brand name products were listed for
evaluation, including the four target brands. Because the
study contained two brands of water and two brands of
canned soup, the other masking brands also appeared in
pairs to prevent the target brands from standing out.
Respondents rated attitudes toward both the cause and
the brand using the seven-point bipolar scales discussed
above. Three seven-point scales measured familiarity for
both: ‘‘familiar/unfamiliar,’’ ‘‘recognized/did not recog-
nize’’ and ‘‘had heard of/had not heard of’’ (Simonin
and Ruth, 1998). These were summed to form a single
measure.
In the exposure session (Time 2; 1– 2 days after the
preexposure), participants were given a booklet containing
four advertisements. The general instructions told the
respondents that the purpose of the study was to assess
the reactions consumers have toward various magazine
advertisements. The first three ads were actual print
advertisements taken from recent consumer magazines
but copied to appear in black and white to be consistent
with the target stimulus ad. After each of the three
masking ads, the respondents answered questions asking
how the respondent felt about the product and how
familiar they were with that brand using the same
measures as those in the preexposure session.
The target stimulus containing the alliance appeared last.
The target stimulus showed a black-and-white picture of
the actual product along with the logo for the cause. The
copy was six sentences stating that (brand) and (cause) had
teamed up to help disaster victims and a donation would be
given to (cause) for each purchase of (brand) (see Appen-
dix A). To eliminate the possibility of confounds due to
variations in contextual cues, each ad was identical in
layout and copy, with the exception of changes in the
name of the brand and the cause. Following the target ad,
respondents rated their familiarity with and attitudes toward
the brand and the cause using the same seven-point scales.
The postexposure session (Time 3; 1– 4 days after the
exposure session) measured the respondents’ postexposure
attitudes toward the target cause and brand. The general
instructions stated that the questions were intended to
determine beliefs about various charitable organizations
and brands. To ensure that the respondents did not guess
the purpose of the study, all respondents rated their
attitudes toward the ARC, FRF, Campbell’s, Healthy
Choice, Evian and Naya regardless of what treatment
condition the respondents may have received. Postexpo-
sure attitudes were assessed using the same three attitude
scales as before.
4. Results
4.1. Manipulation checks
The three familiarity rating items from the exposure
session were summed to measure cause familiarity (a=.98).
Summed familiarity ratings ranged from 3 to 21 (3 is the
lowest familiarity mean and 21 is the highest familiarity
mean). One-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference
in mean familiarity between the high familiar cause
(M
ARC
= 20.33) and the low familiar cause (M
FRF
= 7.57)
[F(1,462) = 1294.36, P< .0001, g
2
= 0.74], confirming the
success of the cause familiarity manipulation. Brand fa-
miliarity was not manipulated. However, by summing the
three familiarity rating items for the brand (a=.87; ratings
ranged from 3 to 21) and evaluating the mean scores, the
results show that the four brands were all in the high
familiarity range as required for this study: Healthy Choice
(M= 18.9), Naya (M= 19.7), Evian (M= 20.2) and Camp-
bell’s (M= 20.8) [ F(3,459) = 13.8, P< .01, g
2
= 0.083] with
SNK post hoc tests ( P=.05) showing that Healthy Choice
was less familiar than the other three brands, Naya and
Evian were nearly equal in familiarity and Campbell’s was
more familiar than the other three brands. These results
were identical to the pretest. The main concern with the
selected brands is that they varied little in familiarity,
which is evident by the low g
2
. Slight differences can be
detected because of the large sample size and are not
significant to this study. Consistent with expectations, the
means show that the brands were high in familiarity but
the stand deviations show that cause familiarity was more
variable (M
Brands
= 19.93, S.D. = 2.38 vs. M
Cause
= 13.94,
S.D. = 7.44).
4.2. Hypotheses tests
The first hypothesis states that for both causes combined,
postexposure attitudes toward the cause (Time 3) will be
higher than preexposure attitudes (Time 1). A repeated-
measures ANOVA compared the means. The sphericity
B.A. Lafferty, R.E. Goldsmith / Journal of Business Research xx (2003) xxx–xxx4

ARTICLE IN PRESS
assumption was not met (Mauchly’s W= 0.921, v
2
= 37.82,
df =2, P<.001) so the Greenhouse –Geisser correction was
applied. The main effect of time of measurement was
significant [ F(1.854,854.554) = 30.78, P< .0001, g
2
=
0.063]. Post hoc comparisons were performed using the
Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons. Postexpo-
sure attitudes toward the cause (M= 18.67, S.D. = 3.16)
were more positive than preexposure attitudes toward the
cause (M= 18.17, S.D. = 3.66, P< .008). While there was a
slight decay over time as is expected (M= 19.33, S.D. =
2.71, at the time of actual exposure), the effect between
Time 1 and Time 3 was still statistically significant and H1
was supported.
The second hypothesis states that for all brands
combined, postexposure attitudes toward the brand (Time
3) will be higher than preexposure attitudes. The sphe-
ricity assumption of the repeated-measures ANOVA
again was not met (Mauchly’s W= 0.814, v
2
= 94.66,
df =2, P<.0001) so the Greenhouse– Geisser correction
was applied. The main effect of time of measurement
was significant [ F(1.686,775.479) = 49.15, P< .0001, g
2
=
0.097]. Post hoc comparisons were performed using the
Bonferroni adjustment for multiple comparisons. Postex-
posure attitudes toward the brand (M= 18.26, S.D. = 3.17)
were significantly more positive than the preexposure
attitudes toward the brand (M= 17.30, S.D.= 3.99, P<
.0001). Again, a slight decay was noted following
exposure as expected (M= 18.65, S.D. = 2.86). Thus, H2
was supported.
H3 predicts an interaction; the effect of changes in
time on attitude toward the cause varies as a function of
high/low cause familiarity. It stated that attitude toward
the low familiar cause will be greater after the alliance
than before the alliance but that attitude toward the high
familiar cause would not vary as much. The ANOVA
showed a significant interaction (between-subjects) effect
[F(1,461) = 163.7, P< .0001, g
2
= 0.262] that can be seen
in Fig. 1A, thus supporting H3. While attitude toward the
cause was lower for the low familiar cause (M= 16.17)
than for the high familiar cause (M= 20.19) in the
preexposure, as one would expect, the effect of the
CBA was to improve the attitude toward the low familiar
cause more than it did for the high familiar cause. Mean
attitude toward the low familiar cause increased from
16.17 to 17.65 after the CBA, while mean attitude toward
the high familiar cause actually decreased somewhat from
20.19 prior to the CBA to 19.68.
Finally, H4 proposed that attitude toward the brand would
improve as a result of the CBA but that this improvement
would not be moderated by familiarity of the cause. That is,
brand attitudes would improve when partnered with either
the high or the low familiar cause. This hypothesis was
supported by the ANOVA showing that the interaction
(between-subjects) effect was not significant [ F(1,460) =
0.015, P=.902, g
2
= 000]. Thus, while the CBA improved
attitudes toward the brand (as per H2), it made little differ-
ence whether the cause was high or low in familiarity (see
Fig. 1B).
5. Discussion
The results show that both partners benefit from a good
CBA, albeit differentially. The role of cause familiarity as a
moderator of the effect of the CBA on brand attitudes
appears to be less relevant if the brand is high in familiarity
and has relatively positive attitudes before the alliance. In
this case, the brand achieved a benefit as a result of the CBA
regardless of cause familiarity. This could be attributed to the
fact that subjects just felt more positive overall toward the
brand when it was perceived to help any worthy cause. This
is consistent with research suggesting that social causes
evoke affective responses in consumer (Bagozzi and Moore,
1994) and that people, in general, think more positively
about a company if is perceived to be socially responsible
(Sen and Bhattacharya, 2001). In addition, while FRF was
unfamiliar to the subjects (M= 7.57), they did have a
relatively positive attitude toward it (M= 16.17) more than
likely an affective reaction to the name itself.
Fig. 1. Means for attitude toward the cause (A) and attitude toward the
brand (B).
B.A. Lafferty, R.E. Goldsmith / Journal of Business Research xx (2003) xxx–xxx 5

ARTICLE IN PRESS
The greater benefit of the CBA for the low familiar
cause than the high familiar cause could be due to the
familiar and positive brand served as an anchor for the
unknown cause and facilitated an upward movement in
attitudes for FRF as a result. This is consistent with the
anchoring and adjustment literature and attitude accessibil-
ity. On the other hand, the preexisting highly positive
attitudes for the high familiar cause (ARC) (M= 20.19)
suggested it would benefit little from the alliance. There
would be less need to anchor on the positive brand attitudes
and adjust cause attitudes although attitudes did have room
to move upward had the partnership been influential. For
the high familiar cause, there was insignificant movement
in attitudes toward the cause from preexposure (Time 1) to
exposure (Time 2), indicating that the partnership had little
effect. Because a decay of some degree is expected, it was
plausible that the postexposure attitudes could be lower
than preexposure attitudes. Because of the time delay
between exposure and postexposure, this slight variation
may just suggest a regression toward the mean. To deter-
mine if this effect is credible, further tests should be done
with other high familiar causes as well as other more
moderately familiar causes.
5.1. Managerial implications for brand managers
The fact that a CBA can improve evaluations of a brand
confirms the validity of using this strategic marketing tool to
enhance brand image. The results of this study show that
regardless of cause familiarity, when the brand is familiar and
is thought of positively, the CBA is successful. This suggests
that brand managers may not be constrained by the familiarity
of the cause with which they partner, but they still should
assess the prior attitudes toward the cause to ensure they are
positive. For a new brand that is not familiar to consumers,
these findings suggest that a CBA may be beneficial because
of the overall positive affect as a consequence of a partnership
with a favorable cause. Further analysis would be required to
determine if cause familiarity would assume a more impor-
tant role if the brand was not known.
5.2. Managerial implications for cause managers
The implications of a CBA are just as relevant for
managers of nonprofit organizations. Strategically, they
also stand to gain or lose based on the effectiveness of
the partnership. Cause partners benefit financially through
donations that result from the success of the marketing
campaign as well as from an image perspective. Therefore,
the right brand partner is critical for them as well. The
results show that a CBA does have the potential to modify
attitudes toward the cause as a consequence of the part-
nership. The well-known brand appears to enhance per-
ceptions of the cause as a result of the alliance but
primarily if the cause is low in familiarity. Therefore,
cause managers should seek to align themselves with a
well-known brand, particularly if their cause is not familiar
to consumers. While the high familiar cause did not appear
to benefit from the CBA to any significant extent, they can
still benefit financially from the partnership owing to the
donations they receive and to the additional exposure as a
result of promotions with the brand. Thus, the high
familiar cause partner has a significant bargaining chip in
the alliance due to the cause’s ability to enhance percep-
tions of the brand as a consequence of the partnership. In
addition, because prior brand attitudes influence the as-
sessment of the CBA, cause managers also should be
aware of existing attitudes toward the brand before they
select it as a partner.
5.3. Limitations and future research
The limitations inherent in this study present opportu-
nities for future research. While the results from this study
provide empirical support for the benefits derived from a
CBA and are consistent with theory, there are limitations
to the generalizability of the findings because so few
causes and brands were tested. Additional studies should
test the effect of other causes from other categories (e.g.,
health services such as American Cancer Institute) rather
than just human services as well as other brands to
determine if the results found here are replicable.
Although using students is a common practice in aca-
demic research, and a homogeneous sample such as this is
acceptable for testing theory (Sternthal et al., 1994), use of
students limits the generalizability of the results to other
populations. The student sample, however, did permit us to
use a large sample with its accompanying high statistical
power. Although ample pretesting was done to assure degree
of familiarity with the causes and products selected as well as
the relevancy of both to the student sample, effects may be
different for older, nonstudent consumers.
To prevent any confounds, two causes were selected
from the same product category of human services that
exemplified the same service, disaster relief. Of the few
causes in this area that provided enough variation to test
the familiarity moderator, the high familiar cause (ARC)
that was selected had a very high mean attitude score
(M= 20.19) prior to the alliance. This may have produced
a ceiling effect that suppressed the attitude scores for
ARC preventing it from moving much higher as a result
of the partnership. While the sample size was sufficient
to detect small changes in attitudes, further testing with
other causes that are high in familiarity but have a lower
mean score prior to the alliance should be tested to see if
the findings for the high familiar cause hold or if the
alliance actually does have an effect for a high familiar
cause as well.
Finally, while the emphasis in this study was to assess
changes in attitudes toward the cause as a consequence of
the alliance with familiarity as a moderator, the use of only
a high familiar brand did not permit the assessment of the
B.A. Lafferty, R.E. Goldsmith / Journal of Business Research xx (2003) xxx–xxx6

ARTICLE IN PRESS
effect cause familiarity would have if the brand were
unknown. This should be explored in future research.
Nevertheless, this study does provide insight and adds to
the literature on the beneficial and reciprocal effects that
can occur as a consequence of a CBA.
Appendix A. The more you buy, the more we will give
At (Healthy Choice), we know how critical it is to get
food, water and other supplies to people when disaster strikes.
That is why we are partnering with (FRF), an organization
dedicated to providing emergency relief to famine stricken
areas. To help others in their time of need, (Healthy Choice)
will make a donation to (FRF) each time you purchase a can
of (Healthy Choice) soup. It is a big commitment and one we
are serious about. Help us to help others with your next
purchase. (Healthy Choice) and (FRF), partners making a
difference.
References
Alba JW, Hutchinson JW. Dimensions of consumer expertise. J Consum
Res 1987;13(March):411 – 35.
Anand V. Building blocks of corporate reputation, social responsibility
initiatives. Corp Reputation Rev 2002;5(1):71 – 4.
Anderson JC. Integration theory applied to cognitive responses and atti-
tudes. In: Petty RE, Ostrom TM, Brock TC, editors. Cognitive responses
in persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1981. p. 361– 97.
Bagozzi RP, Moore DJ. Public service advertisements: emotions and em-
pathy guide prosocial behavior. J Mark 1994;58(January):56 – 70.
Barone MJ, Miyazaki AD, Taylor KA. The influence of cause-related mar-
keting on consumer choice: does one good turn deserve another? J Acad
Mark Sci 2000;28(Spring):248– 62.
Belch GE, Belch MA, Villarreal A. Effects of advertising communications:
review of research. In: Research in marketing, vol. 9. Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press; 1987. p. 59 – 117.
Bendapudi N, Singh SN, Bendapudi V. Enhancing helping behavior: an
integrative framework for promotion planning. J Mark 1996;60(July):
33 – 49.
Bettman JR, Sujan M. Effects of framing on evaluation of comparable and
noncomparable alternatives by expert and novice consumers. J Consum
Res 1987;14(September):141 – 54.
Brown TJ, Dacin PA. The company and the product: corporate associations
and consumer product responses. J Mark 1997;61(January):68 – 84.
Burnkrant RE, Unnava HR. Effects of self-referencing on persuasion.
J Consum Res 1995;2(June):17 – 26.
Cunningham MH, Cushing P. Cause-related marketing appeals in adver-
tising: do they increase effectiveness. Paper presented at the Annual
Conference on Consumer Psychology, St. Petersburg, FL, 1993.
Davidson J. Cancer sells. Work Women 1997;22(May):19 – 36.
Eagly AH, Chaiken S. The psychology of attitudes. New York: Harcourt
Brace Javanovich; 1993.
Ellen PS, Mohr LA, Webb DJ. Consumer reactions to corporate social
responsibility: do attributions make a difference? Paper presented at
the Association of Consumer Research Annual Conference, Minneap-
olis, MN, 1995.
Fazio RH, Zanna MP. Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency.
In: Berkowitz L, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology,
vol. 14. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1981. p. 161–202.
Fazio RH, Powell MC, Williams CJ. The role of attitude accessibility in the
attitude-behavior process. J Consum Res 1989;16(December):280 – 8.
Gardner MP. Advertising effects on attributes recalled and criteria used for
brand evaluations. J Consum Res 1983;10(3):310 – 9.
Hein K. As big scandals mount, experts say be truthful and honest in ads.
Brandweek 2002;43(July):37.
Lafferty BA. Cause-related marketing: does the cause make a difference in
consumers’ attitudes and purchase intentions toward the product? In:
Brucks M, MacInnis D, editors. Advances in consumer research,
vol. 24. Tucson, AZ: Association for Consumer; 1997. p. 113.
Lafferty BA, Matulich E. Consumers’ perceptions of cause-related market-
ing: does the importance of the cause matter? In: Venable BT, editor.
Marketing advances in pedagogy, process, and philosophy. St. Peters-
burg, FL: Society for Marketing; 2002. p. 217 – 20.
Laroche M, Kim C, Zhou L. Brand familiarity and confidence as determi-
nants of purchase intention: an empirical test in a multiple brand con-
text. J Bus Res 1996;37(2):115 – 21.
Mael F, Ashforth BE. Alumni and their alma mater: a partial test of the
reformulated model of organizational identification. J Organ Behav
1992;13:103 – 23.
Murphy D. Mutual attractions. Marketing. 1997;30 – 3.
Oldenburg D. Selling well doing good. Washington Post 2001;
14(November):C12.
Osgood CE, Suci GJ, Tannenbaum PH. The measurement of meaning.
Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press; 1957.
Ross III JK, Patterson LT, Stutts MA. Consumer perceptions of organiza-
tions that use cause-related marketing. J Acad Mark Sci 1992;20(1):
93 – 7.
Sen S, Bhattacharya CB. Does doing good always lead to doing better?
Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility. J Mark Res
2001;38(May):225 – 43.
Simonin BL, Ruth JA. Is a company known by the company it keeps?
Assessing the spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand
attitudes. J Mark Res 1998;35(February):30 – 42.
Sternthal B, Tybout AM, Calder BJ. Experimental design: generalization
and theoretical explanation. In: Bagozzi R, editor. Principles of
marketing research. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers; 1994.
p. 195 – 223.
Strahilevitz M, Myers JG. Donations to charity as purchase incentives: how
well they work may depend on what you are trying to sell. J Consum
Res 1998;24(March):434 – 46.
Taylor SE, Fiske ST. Salience, attention, and attribution: top of the head
phenomena. 1st ed. Advances in experimental social psychology,
vol. 11. Berkowitz, NY: Academic Press; 1978. p. 286 – 98.
Tversky A, Kahneman D. Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency
and probability. Cogn Psychol 1973;5:207– 32.
Varadarajan RP, Menon A. Cause-related marketing: a coalignment of
marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. J Mark 1988;52(3):
58 – 74.
B.A. Lafferty, R.E. Goldsmith / Journal of Business Research xx (2003) xxx–xxx 7