Conclusions - 傷害性產品的善因行銷研究 -產品與善因之間的關連性和產品類別之影響

As an emerging area within the marketing discipline, there is a critical need for research into the various elements of CRM strategies. This research was undertaken with the intention of contributing to the understanding of these two factors how to maximize CRM effectiveness.

The findings of this research have important implications for both practitioners and academic scholars. The results indicate that consumer attitudes toward a sponsoring company are evaluated more favorable when the chosen cause is based on consistency fit rather than compensation fit. Through the compensation act, socially-oriented campaigns are undertaken by a company which might be perceived as highly skeptical rather than altruistic. When consumers tend to be more skeptical, the attitudes toward a company and purchase intention could be more negative. Let’s go back to the question of the research title: does product–cause fit really matter in CRM for harmful products? The answer will be “it depends”. It depends on the nature of the product types. When promoting frivolous products,

the consistency fit and the compensation fit strategies have similar effects on consumer attitudes toward the company. Both of these two strategies relating to high fit can lead to more favorable evaluations of the company than low fit. However, when promoting practical products, the consistency strategy is more effective than the compensation fit in CRM promotion. The results add to the current body of knowledge relating to CRM and provide insights into this area.

REFERENCES

Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L. (1990). Consumer Evaluations of Brand Extensions. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 27-41.

Ahtola, O. T. (1985). Hedonic and Utilitarian Aspects of Behavior: An Attitudinal Perspective.

in Advances in Consumer Research, 12, (Ed.), Elizabeth Hirschman and Morris B.

Holbrook, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 7-10.

Andreasen, A. R. (1996). Profits for Nonprofits: Find a Corporate Partner. Harvard BusinessReview, 74(6), 47-59.

Babbin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or Fun: Measuring Hedonic and Utilitarian Shopping Value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644-657.

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.

Batra, R., & Ahtola, O. T. (1991). Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources of Consumer Attitudes. Marketing Letters, 2(2), 159-170.

Batson, D. C. (1991). The Altruism Question: Toward a Social Psychological Answer.

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Bazerman, M. H., Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Wade-Benzoni, K. (1998). Negotiating with Yourself and Losing: Making Decisions with Competing Internal Preferences. Academy of Management, 23(2), 225-241.

Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Drumwright, M. E. (2004). Social Alliances:

Company/Nonprofit Collaboration. California Management Review, 47(1), 58-90.

Benezra, K. (1996). Cause and Effects Marketing. Brandweek, 37(17), 38-40.

Bronn, P. S., & Albana, B. V. (2001). Corporate Social Responsibility and Cause-Related Marketing: An Overview. International of Journal of Advertising, 20(2), 207-222.

Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations

and Consumer Product Responses. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 68-84.

Bucklin, L. P., & Sengupta, S. (1993). Organizing Successful Co-Marketing Alliances.

Journal of Marketing, 57(2), 32-46.

Christensen, L.B. (1994). Experimental Methodology. 6th Edition, Allyn and Bacon, Boston

Cialdini, R. B., Kenrick, D. T., & Baumann, D. J. (1982). Effects of Moods on Prosocial Behavior in Children and Adults. in Eisenberg, N. (Ed.): The Development of Prosocial Behavior, Academic Press, New York, NY.

Crowley, A. E., Sprangenberg, R. E., and Hughes, R. K. (1992), Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Attitudes toward Product Categories, Marketing Letters, 3(3), 239-249.

Cunningham, M. R. (1979). Weather, Mood and Helping Behavior: Quasi Experiments with the Sunshine Samaritan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(November), 1956-1974.

Davidson, J. (1997) Cancer Sells. Working Women, New York, 22(May), 19 –36.

Drumwright, M. E. (1996). Company Advertising with a Social Dimension: The Role of Noneconomic Criteria. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 71-87.

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.

Esther, P.Y., & Ricky, Y. K. (1998). Purchasing Behaviours and Perceptions of Environmentally Harmful Products. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 16(6), 356-360.

Fein, Steven, James, L. H., & Dale, T. M. (1990). Suspicion of Ulterior Motivation and the Correspondence Bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 753-764.

Forehand, M. R., & Grier, S. (2003). The Effect of Stated Company Intent on Consumer Skepticism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 349-356.

Ghingold, M. (1981). Guilt Arousing Communications: An Unexplored Variable. in Advances

in Consumer Research, 8, (Ed.), Kent Monroe, Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research, 442-448.

Gray, R. (2000). Developing a Good Fit is Crucial to CRM. Marketing (UK), 4(May), 37-38.

Gupta, S., & Pirsch, J. (2006). The Company-Cause-Customer Fit Decision in Cause-Related Marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 23(6), 314-326.

Hamlin, R. P., & 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), 663-681.

Hess, D., Rogovsky, N., & Dunfee, T. W., 2002. The Next Wave of Corporate Community Involvement: Corporate Social Initiatives. California Management Review, 44, 110-125.

Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. (2002). Building Brand Equity through Corporate Societal Marketing. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 21(1), 78-89.

Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The Experiential Aspects of Consumption:

Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132-140.

Hsee, C. K. (1996). Elastic Justification: How Unjustifiable Factors Influence Judgments.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 66(1), 122-129.

Isen, T. E., Shalker, M. C., & Lynn , K. (1978). Affect, Accessibility of Material in Memory and Behavior: A Cognitive Loop? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36 (January), 1-12.

Kamins, M. A., & Gupta, K. (1994). Congruence between Spokesperson and Product Type: A Matchup Hypothesis Perspective. Psychology and Marketing 11(6), 569-586.

Kanter, L. D., & Mirvis, H. P. (1989). Cynical Americans: Living and working in an Age of Discontent and Disillusionment. Jossey-Boss, San Francisco, CA, 11(3), 181.

Kao, (2006). Effects of Cause-Related Marketing on Consumer Purchase Decision: It depends on How You Frame the Advertisement. Unpublished Master Thesis, National

University of Kaohsiung, Taiwan.

Kim, H. J., Kim, J. I., & Han, W. H. (2005). The Effects of Cause-Related Marketing on Company and Brand Attitudes. Seoul Journal of Business, 11(2), 83-115

Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2002a). Earning the Right to Indulge: Effort as a Determinant of Customer Preferences toward Frequency Program Rewards. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(2), 155-170.

Kivetz, R., & Simonson, I. (2002). Self-Control for the Righteous: Toward a Theory of Precommitment to Indulgence. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2), 199-217.

Lafferty, B. A., and Goldsmith, R. E. (2005). Cause-brand Alliances: Does the Cause Help the Brand or Does the Brand Help the Cause? Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 423-429.

Lafferty, B. A., (2007). The Relevance of Fit in a Cause-brand Alliances When Consumers Evaluate Corporate Credibility. Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 447-453.

Lascu, D. N. (1991). Consumer Guilt: Examining the Potential of a New Marketing Construct.

in Advances in Consumer Research, 18, (Ed.), Rebecca H. Holman and Michael R.

Solomon, Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 290-293.

Levin, P. F., & Isen, A. M. (1975). Further Studies on the Effect of Feeling Good on Helping.

Sociometry, 38(March), 141-147.

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and Their Alma Mater: A Partial Test of the Reformulated Model of Organizational Identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103-123.

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), 497-514.

Mizerski, D., Mizerski, K., & Sadler. O. (2001). A Field Experiment Comparing the Effectiveness of “Ambush” and Cause Related Ad Appeals for Social Marketing Causes. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 9(4), 25-45.

Murphy, P. D., (1997). Mutual Attractions. Marketing(UK), 2(October), 30-33.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory, 2^ndEdition, McGraw Hill, New York.

Obermiller, C., & Spangenberg, E. (2001). Development of a Scale to Measure Consumer Skepticism toward Advertising. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 159-186.

Okada, E. M., & Stephen, J. H. (2004). Spending Time versus Spending Money. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 313-323.

Olsen, G. D., & Pracejus, J. W. (2004). The Role of Brand/Cause Fit in the Effectiveness of Cause-Related Marketing Campaigns. Journal of Business Research, 57(6), 635-640.

Pappas, J. M., & Flaherty, K. E. (2006). The Moderating Role of Individual-Difference Variables in Compensation Research. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(1/2), 19-35.

Park, C. W., Jun, S. Y., & Shocker, A. D. (1996). Composite Branding Alliances: an Extension and Feedback Effects. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(November), 453-466.

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(6), 635.

Prelec, D., & Loewenstein, G. (1998). The Red and the Black: Mental Accounting of Savings and Debt. Marketing Science, 17(1), 4-28.

Rifon, N. J., Choi, S. M., Trimble, C. S., & Li, H. (2004). Congruence Effects in Sponsorship:

The Mediating Role of Sponsor Credibility and Consumer Attributions of Sponsor Motive. Journal of Advertising, 33(spring), 29-42.

Ross, J. K, Patterson, L. T., & Stutts, M. A. (1992). Consumer Perceptions of Organizations That Use Cause-Related Marketing. Journal of Academy Marketing Science, 20(1), 93-97.

Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. (2001). Does Doing Good Always Lead to Doing Better?

Consumer Reaction to Corporate Social Responsibility. Journal of Marketing, 38(2), 225-243.

Shafir, E., Itamar, S., & Amos T. (1993). Reason-Based Choice. Cognition, 49(1/2), 11-36.

Simonin, B. L., & Ruth, J. A. (1998). Is a Company Known by the Company It Keeps?

Assessing the Spillover Effects of Brand Alliances on Consumer Brand Attitudes.

Journal of Marketing Research, 35(1), 30-42.

Smith, W. & Higgins, M. (2000). Cause-Related Marketing: Ethics and the Ecstatic. Business and Society, 39(3), 304-322.

Strahilevitz, M. (1999). The Effects of Product Type and Donation Magnitude on Willingness to Pay More for a Charity-Linked Brand. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(3), 215-241.

Strahilevitz, M. (2003). The Effects of Prior Impressions of a Firm's Ethics on the Success of a Cause-Related Marketing Campaign: Do the Good Look Better While the Bad Look Worse? Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 11(1), 77-92.

Strahilevitz, M., & Myers, J. G. (1998). Donations to Charity as Purchase Incentives: How Well They Work May Depend on What You are Trying to Sell. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 434-446.

Stroup, M. A., Neubert, R. L., & Anderson, J. J. (1987). Doing Good, Doing Better: Two Views of Social Responsibility. Business Horizons, 30(2), 22-25.

Szykman, L. R. (2004). Who Are You and Why Are You Being Nice?: Investigating the Industry Effect on Consumer Reaction to Corporate Societal Marketing Efforts.

Advances in Consumer Research, 31, 306-315.

Szykman, L. R., Bloom, P. N., & Blazing, J. (2004). Does Corporate Sponsorship of a Socially-Oriented Message Make a Difference? An Investigation of the Effects of Sponsorship Identity on Responses to an Anti-Drinking and Driving Message.

Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1), 13-28.

Trimble, C. S., & Rifon, N. J. (2006). Consumer Perceptions of Compatibility in Cause-Related Marketing Messages. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(1), 29-47.

Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-Related Marketing: A Coalignment of

Marketing Strategy and Corporate Philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 58-74.

Vellucci, S. L. (1990). Uniform Titles as Linking Devices. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 12(1), 35-62.

Voss, K. E., Spangerberg, E. R., and Grohmann, B. (2003), Measuring the Hedonic and Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(3), 310-320.

Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (1988). A Typology of Consumer Responses to Cause-Related Marketing: From Skeptics to Socially Concerned. Journal of Public Policy &

Marketing, 17(2), 226-238.

Welsh, J. (1999). Good Cause, Good Business. Harvard Business Review, 77(5), 21-24.

Xiaoli, N., & Kwangjun, H. (2007). Consumer Responses to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Initiatives. Journal of Advertising, 36(2), 63-74.

Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, 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.

APPENDIX

Appendix A. Pretest of Questionnaire

Appendix B. Twelve Versions of Questionnaire

Product Type Product-Cause Fit Price Level Version 1 Frivolous Product Consistency Fit High-Priced Product Version 2 Frivolous Product Compensation Fit High-Priced Product Version 3 Frivolous Product Low Fit High-Priced Product Version 4 Practical Product Consistency Fit High-Priced Product Version 5 Practical Product Compensation Fit High-Priced Product Version 6 Practical Product Low Fit High-Priced Product Version 7 Frivolous Product Consistency Fit Low-Priced Product Version 8 Frivolous Product Compensation Fit Low-Priced Product Version 9 Frivolous Product Low Fit Low-Priced Product Version 10 Practical Product Consistency Fit Low-Priced Product Version 11 Practical Product Compensation Fit Low-Priced Product Version 12 Practical Product Low Fit Low-Priced Product

Version1

(三)以下是關於當企業贊助不同性質的非營利組織時，消費者所產生的不同觀感，請根據