CHAPTER - 1

Introduction:

Increased competition in the market has been saturated the possibility of brand differentiation based on traditional attributes such as price and quality. Brand needs to be associated with symbolic values such as altruism or civic mind into an entity so that consumers are able to identify themselves with the brand and thus build a stable committed relationship that benefits both parties. In this context, linking the brand with corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a very effective positioning strategy that can be competitive differentiation attributes (Brammer and Millington, 2006; Du et al, 2007 in Bigne'-Alcaniz, et al., 2009). It can be argued that generally people have preference to brands which are associated with social causes in CrM strategy (Webb and Mohr, 1998; Till and Nowak, 2000; Lafferty and Goldsmith, 2005); However, previous literature didnt give much attention to the influence of demographic and psychographic characteristics of consumers in response to CrM (Webb and Mohr, 1998; Cui et al, 2003 in Bigne'-Alcaniz, et al., 2009 ). In this case, the structure of individual values provides a strong influence on cognition and behavior of individual attitudes toward the brand and social causes (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975 Bigne'-Alcaniz, et al., 2009). The main purpose of the study is to analyze the influence of cause-brand fit, firms motives and altruistic attribution to customer inferences and loyalty moderated by customer values. Pursuant to the main purpose, this study specifically aims to analyze: (1) the influence of cause-brand fit and firm motives to altruistic attribution (2) the influence of cause-brand fit, firm motives and altruistic attribution to CSR perception, consumer trust and commitment (3) the moderating effect of altruistic values in the influence of cause-brand fit, firm motives and altruistic attribution towards CSR perception, consumer trust and commitment (4) the influence CSR perception to consumer trust, (5) the influence of consumer trust to consumer commitment and (5) the influence of CSR perception, consumer trust and commitment to customer loyalty. Existing research is limited in its ability to directly examine whether and how CRM may influence consumer choice. First, the evidence gained from prior work has been derived largely from survey-based methodologies, precluding a determination of cause-and-effect relationships among variables (i.e., thatCRMaffects choice). Second, such research typically has involved antecedents of choice (e.g., brand attitudes, purchase intentions) rather than choice itself. This may be problematic in light of findings that violate the assumption of procedural invariance

made in classical theory (e.g., Payne 1982; Slovic 1975; Tversky, Sattath, and Slovic 1988). Such findings underscore the need for research that directly assesses CRMs impact on judgments of choice rather than its impact on related, but distinct, variables (e.g., attitudes).

It has become extremely difficult for the marketers to differentiate products and services from the others in the market place. Many people argue that Unique Selling Proposition (USP) is an outdated concept now. People now-a-days look for something extra in addition to the distinctive features in a product. If this extra can do something good for the society, this would be like icing on the cake. This platform whereby you unify a cause with the profit, can act as a strong differentiator. Cause related marketing is the medium through which you can do the same. It is more than buzz words today. While the issue of obligation and commitment to society beyond business has risen to prominence among management circles as well as the wider public, it is still a nascent subject among stakeholders. Cause-related marketing can positively differentiate a company from its competitors. Though a few big Indian companies practice CRM (Cause related marketing), the extent to which it is done is unsatisfactory. There has been growing awareness among the academic institutions as well towards cause related marketing and Corporate social responsibility as a subject to sensitize the future managers of this nation to the societal needs besides generating profits for their organizations with increased efficiency. In recent years it is proved that establishing partnership with a cause in India has proved beneficial for the long term productivity and customer patronage for the brand. Further these campaigns are certainly affecting favorable consumer buying behavior towards the brand. So it is of most importance to find out whether such cause related marketing efforts are driving Indian consumers favorable buying decisions and patronage towards the brands.

TYPES OF CAUSE-RELATED MARKETING

Cause-related marketing campaigns vary in their scope and design, the types of nonprofit partners, and the nature of the relationships between companies and their marketing partners.

3.1 DONATING A PORTION OF EACH PURCHASE

In the most common type of relationship, a company might donate a portion of each purchase made by its customers during a specific period of time to the nonprofit entity.e.g. Project Shiksha according to which, with every P&Gs product purchase, some portion goes to poor child education fund. Another example is of ITC, the company launched a nationwide campaign for water conservation. Dubbed Aashirvad - Boond Se Sagar, this initiative has over the years put into place 31,000 acres of life saving irrigation system benefiting over 40,000 people. Consumers who buy Aashirvad products (atta, spices and salt) were made aware that from its sale, a worthy contribution was being made to the water conservation efforts of the nation.

3.2 ENGAGE IN EDUCATIONAL OR AWARENESS-BUILDING ACTIVITIES:

Not all campaigns channel money to nonprofits; some engage principally in educational or awareness-building activities. E.g. Tata Tea Jago Re campaign. Another example is of save tiger campaign from Aircel. Save our Tigers campaign is collaborative effort from Aircel and WWF India to save the wildlife especially tigers.

3.3 LICENSE GIVEN TO A COMPANY BY A NON- PROFIT ORGANIZATION

It may also include licensing of well-known charity trademarks and logos. Under this method, a nonprofit licenses a company to develop, produce and market/distribute a mission related product that is promoted either with the organizations brand name or co -branded with both the companys and nonprofits name for a fixed number of products produced or for a fixed time period. For example: WWF logos on stationery.

Introduction to Study:

Corporate image and purchase intentions Corporate image can be defined as the perception/feelings of customers regarding the companys products and activities (Webb and Mohr,1998). It requires a lot of time and enormous resources to build a positive corporate image but, on the other hand, it can help the companies not only in introducing new brands but also to pick up the sales of existing brands (Markwick and Fill, 1997). In order to build a positive corporate image in the minds of customers, companies are using cause related marketing as a strategy (Varadarajan and Menon, 1988; Chattananon et al2008) to gain a competitive edge in market place (Anselmsson and Johansson, 2007). As a result of their studies, Webb and Mohr (1998) as well as Anselmsson and Johannson (2007) argued that customers purchase intentions are influenced by the corporate image of a company involved in cause related marketing.

Brand awareness and purchase intentions

In order to answer the primary questions being empirically set forth in this paper, brand awareness is seen as an important concept for two reasons: first, brand awareness is one of the factors which affect the attitude of the consumers towards the purchase of products; second, the relationship between CRM and brand awareness had been established in previous research. Nedungad (1990) argued that consumers inclination to purchase a brand in the market place depends upon the prior knowledge about the brand. Keller (2003) defines brand awareness as the ability of customers to recall a brand among the clutter of rival brands. In the same vein, Radder and Huang (2008) hold that, especially in highly competitive markets, awareness can strongly influence a customer while buying a product. Consequently, to better exploit the contributions of brand awareness companies are using different strategies to create brand awareness among the consumers (Schmitt and Geus, 2006). Using cause related marketing to create brand awareness (Varadarajan and Menon, 1988) leads to enhanced purchase intentions (Hoyer and Brown, 1990; Grewal1998). Accordingly, Kotler and Keller (2006) regard Cause Related Marketing as just one opportunity for the companies to enhance the brand awareness.

Implying the importance of experience on memory building (Kaufmann, 2004), Skory et al (2004) argued that most of the companies use CRM to increase brand awareness among the consumers through their participation. So companies use the cause-related marketing campaigns consistently over time to change the overall attitude of consumers towards the company and its brands (Till and Nowak, 2000).

The mediating role of brand awareness and corporate image

This paper investigates the nature of the relationship between cause related marketing, brand awareness, corporate image and consumer purchase intentions. As mentioned earlier, previous research has shown that cause related marketing campaigns can help the companies in increasing brand awareness and building positive corporate image in the minds of customers (Varadarajan and Menon, 1988; Adkins, 2004). These two benefits can be achieved due to increased affective customer affiliations with the company achieved by CRM. But on the other hand consumer purchase intentions are pre-established, that is consumers are purchasing the existing products of the company before the company is executing the cause related marketing campaigns. This paper hypothesizes that consumer purchase intentions may not be increased through CRM campaigns in Pakistan or other developing countries unless consumers are not able to recognize the

products (advertised in cause related marketing campaigns).

LIMITATIONS

Sample for the study is convenience sample and hence may not present a comprehensive conclusion for the same.

The study includes students who also form a significant part of consumers.

The Research was confined to HUL, P&G , ITC Limited , ICICI Bank , Infosys , Colgate Palmolive , Conagra Foods.

The study was restricted to students mostly in Bangalore.

OBJECTIVES:

To study the importance of CRM on the consumer purchase intention

To study awareness of companies supporting causes

To study influence of cause related marketing towards customer loyalty

To study influence of CRM on trust on the brand.

To study the level of customer patronage towards companies supporting causes.

SCOPE AND FORMS OF CAUSE RELATED MARKETING IN INDIA

CRM is although a phenomenon that had its roots in the western countries, but it has gained rapid acceptance in India in recent Years. According to Professor Alan Andreasen, there can be three forms of alliance between the for-profit and nonprofit organizations. They are as follows:

1. Transaction-based promotions: Programs that elicit participation with an offer to make a contribution to a designated cause based on consumer activity such as buying a specific product, redeeming a coupon, registering at a website or shopping at a particular retail chain. 2. Joint-Issue Promotions: Joint campaigns that raise awareness of a causes message (e.g. fight skin cancer) or participation in its programs (e.g. join us in a coastal cleanup) while building a positive association with the corporate sponsor or its brands.

3. Licensing: Independent Sector defines cause marketing licensing as An agreement in which the nonprofit allows its information or knowledge to be used for a fee or an agreement in which a nonprofits name is attached to a product. Typically, a nonprofit licenses a company to develop, produce, market and/or distribute a mission-related product that is promoted either with the organizations brand name or co-branded with both the companys and nonprofits names. This form of alliance is not yet practiced in India. The above three forms covers a part but not the whole gamut of CRM. Various forms of CRM are created or are defined only by the limitations of ones imagination.CRM simply means marketing related to a cause. The confine CRM to one, two or three types will be erroneous as marketing is in its developing stage and with the development of marketing; we are going to see other forms of CRM too. As we say that, Marketing-mix consists of 4Ps i.e. product, price, place and promotion, CRM is a part of the last P i.e. promotion. It can be demonstrated through advertising, sales promotion, sponsorship, direct marketing, publicity, and many more aspects of marketing. The list of

promotion-mix is growing day by day and so is the scope of CRM. In the following paragraph an attempt has been made to understand how in the Indian market scenario, the marketer is using various communication tools to exhibit CRM.

Need and scope of the study:

Are consumers more likely to select brands offered by companies that engage in cause-related marketing (CRM)? Somewhat surprisingly, little evidence exists that directly addresses this issue. Accordingly, the present examination investigates whether and when CRM efforts influence consumer choice. The results from several studies indicate that information regarding a companys support of social causes can affect choice. However, CRMs influence on choice is found to depend on the perceived motivation underlying the companys CRM efforts as well as whether consumers must trade off company sponsorship of causes for lower performance or higher price. The results also indicate that CRM cues affect choice primarily through compensatory strategies involving trade-offs rather than through non compensatory strategies. Implications of the current findings for existing theory are discussed along with directions for future research.

I believe it is very important for companies to think about supporting a cause or social volunteerism to get a marketing edge over other companies to sustain a competitive advantage. It is widely seen in previous works that companies get a positive, negative or neutral image pertaining to their CRM efforts. So it is also evident that one needs find the congruence of CRM and the brand fit before investing on the campaign to get maximum advantage in future. It is evident to find out the reach of CRM campaigns and their effectiveness among consumers.The study aims to bring out the perception about CRM efforts among consumers also their influence towards brand and purchase intentions.

Company Profile:

Hindustan Unilever: Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) is India's largest Fast Moving Consumer Goods Company with a heritage of over 75 years in India and touches the lives of two out of three Indians. HUL works to create a better future every day and helps people feel good, look good and get more out of life with brands and services that are good for them and good for others. With over 35 brands spanning 20 distinct categories such as soaps, detergents, shampoos, skin care, toothpastes, deodorants, cosmetics, tea, coffee, packaged foods, ice cream, and water purifiers, the Company is a part of the everyday life of millions of consumers across India. Its portfolio includes leading household brands such as Lux, Lifebuoy, Surf Excel, Rin, Wheel, Fair & Lovely, Ponds, Vaseline, Lakm, Dove, Clinic Plus, Sunsilk, Pepsodent, Closeup, Axe, Brooke Bond, Bru, Knorr, Kissan, Kwality Walls and Pureit. The Company has over 16,000 employees and has an annual turnover of around Rs. 21,736 crores (financial year 2011 - 2012). HUL is a subsidiary of Unilever, one of the worlds leading suppliers of fast moving consumer goods with strong local roots in more than 100 countries across the globe with annual sales of about 46.5 billion in 2011. Unilever has about 52% shareholding in HUL. Procter & Gamble: P&G is one the largest and amongst the largest growing fast moving consumer goods companies that is committed to improving the lives of more consumers in more parts of India. From Beauty to health to home and beyond P&Gs brands make every day just gets brighter. P&Gs purpose to touch and improve the lives of the consumers , now and for generations to come , is a simple yet powerful thought that guides its sustainably initiatives in India.

ITC LIMITED: Though the first six decades of the Company's existence were primarily devoted to the growth and consolidation of the Cigarettes and Leaf Tobacco businesses, the Seventies witnessed the beginnings of a corporate transformation that would usher in momentous changes in the life of the Company. ITC's Packaging & Printing Business was set up in 1925 as a strategic backward integration for ITC's Cigarettes business. It is today India's most sophisticated packaging house. In 1975 the Company launched its Hotels business with the acquisition of a hotel in Chennai which was rechristened 'ITC-Welcomgroup Hotel Chola'.

ICICI BANK: ICICI Bank is India's second-largest bank with total assets of Rs. 4,062.34 billion (US$ 91 billion) at March 31, 2011 and profit after tax Rs. 51.51 billion (US$ 1,155 million) for the year ended March 31, 2011. The Bank has a network of 2,752 branches and 9,225 ATMs in India, and has a presence in 19 countries, including India. ICICI Bank offers a wide range of banking products and financial services to corporate and retail customers through a variety of delivery channels and through its specialised subsidiaries in the areas of investment banking, life and nonlife insurance, venture capital and asset management. Infosys: Infosys Limited (NASDAQ: INFY) was started in 1981 by seven people with US$ 250. Today, we are a global leader in consulting, technology and outsourcing with revenues of US$ 6.994 billion (FY12). Many of the worlds most successful organizations rely on Infosys to deliver measurable business value. Infosys provides business consulting, technology, engineering and outsourcing services to help clients in over 30 countries build tomorrows enterprise. Our award winning Infosys Labs and its breakthrough intellectual property can be leveraged as a co-creation engine to accelerate innovation across the enterprise.

ConAgra Foods: Agro Tech Foods Ltd (ATFL) is a public limited company engaged in the business of marketing food and food ingredients to consumers and institutional customers. We are affiliated to ConAgra Foods Inc. of USA, which is one the worlds largest food companies

Colgate Palmolive:

The small soap and candle business that William Colgate began in New York City early in the 19th century is now, more than 200 years later, a truly global company serving hundreds of millions of consumers worldwide. The 200 years of presence in the market reflects the strength of the company constanly delivering on brands and products.

CHAPTER 2

Literature Review: The practice of advocating corporate social responsibility in marketing communications activities is commonly known as cause related marketing. Cause-related marketing (CRM) is defined as the process of formulating and implementing marketing activities that are characterised by contributing a specific amount to a designated nonprofit effort that, in turn, causes customers to engage in revenue providing exchanges (Mullen, 1997). In the USA, CRM is used as a corporate term for working together in financial concert with a charity to tie a company and its products to a cause (Ptacek & Salazar, 1997). It is a dramatic way to build brand equity as it creates the most added value and most directly enhances financial performance (Mullen, 1997). It (societal marketing) can generate the long-term value needed for a company to survive and achieve competitive advantage (Collins, 1993) . CRM is the latest buzz-word for European marketers who have come to realise that alliances of companies with charities can potentially result in growing market shares and customer loyalty (Stewart, 1998). Cause-related marketing has a great potential in helping marketers to stay in tune with the mood of the public, as it is more sensitive, trustworthy and relevant to society (Duncan & Moriarty, 1997). Surveys have shown that most consumers, if price and quality are equal, are more likely to switch to a brand that has a cause-related marketing benefit (RSW, 1993, 1996).

Elaborating further in the field of profitable stakeholder relationships, Duncan (1995) refers to CRM from a conceptually different angle. What he calls mission marketing (MM) integrates a non-commercial, socially redeeming system into a companys business plan and operations. Whether it is called CRM or MM, it is the ultimate brand contact, the manifestation of a companys mission and philosophy, which can drive communication campaigns and even strategy (Duncan & Moriarty, 1997).

When properly executed, CRM sells products, enhances image and motivates employees. However, CRM can be a very dangerous area for companies to venture into if not done properly. According to Duncan and Moriarty (1997), this means, among other things, tying the cause to the organisations mission, making it long term, not using it as a short-term tactic to increase sales,

and understanding that the effects are not always easy to measure and whatever effects there are, normally through enhanced reputation, are very long term.

Most Americans, for example, think of CRM as a believable and effective way to improve the countrys social problems and that it can influence what and where they buy. A recent focus group survey conducted by Boulstridge and Carrigan (2000) however, challenges these studies. These researchers found that their respondents did not find corporate behavior important in their purchasing decisions. They concede that corporate reputation can provide competitive advantage but they question that it has the impact on purchasing decision that other research has indicated. The bulk of the research, however, indicates that the potential to affect buying behaviour does exist and is credited to: (1) the value it can add to the brand and thus brand equity, (2) the ability to strengthen relationships with internal and external stakeholders, whose support is vital to brand equity and ultimately affects the companys bottom line, and (3) the ability to make the message believable, less confusing and misleading, and thus lessen negative effects of customer scepticism (Duncan and Moriarty, 1997)

Several studies indicate that consumers believe it is important for marketers to seek out ways to become good corporate citizens (RSW, 1996), that cause-related marketing is a good way to solve social problems (Ptacek & Salazar, 1997), and that consumers have a more positive image of a company if it is doing something to make the world a better place. Yet the level of scepticism towards such schemes that unite the interests of charity and business remains very high.

Webb and Mohr (1998) make the assumption that scepticism towards CRM derives mainly from customers distrust and cynicism towards advertising, which is a component of the marketing mix used in CRM campaigns. The negative attitudes towards CRM expressed by half of Webb and Mohrs (1998) respondents were credited mostly to scepticism towards implementation and/or cynicism towards a firms motives. Half of the respondents indeed perceived the firms motive as being self-serving. This scepticism is perhaps further fuelled by recent research

results which show that total corporate philanthropy increases in small but significant ways following negative media. Nevertheless, consumers express interest in and appreciation of a companys involvement in CRM given that it results in funds being raised for the cause. Barone et al. (2000) conclude that a firms support of social causes can influence consumer choice, but simple support is not enough. Marketers must consider how consumers perceive the companys motivation. In their res earch, Webb and Mohr (1998) found that this distinction sometimes led to purchasing based on CRM, and one-third of their respondents admitted that these campaigns have at least some impact on their buying decisions. Perceptions that the company is making much ado about nothing or that its promotion does not correspond to the reality of the help being given to the cause can lead to scepticism. Since scepticism can affect consumers purchase decisions (Szykman et al., 1997), it can be a great help when developing campaign strategies to have a more thorough understanding of the level of scepticism in target audiences. Webb and Mohrs research suggests that consumers with a high level of skepticism will be less likely to respond positively to CRM campaigns than consumers with a low level of skepticism towards CRM. It is nearly impossible to influence the opinion of cynics, according to Mohr et al. (1998), due to their enduring beliefs. The authors suggest, however, that skepticism can be decreased as knowledge increases. Boulstridge and Carrington (2000) propose that consumers are not as aware as the data in Table 3 suggest. They found in their research that awareness of company activity in the area of social responsibility was very low, in spite of increased coverage by the media of corporate activities and the rise of business activity in this area. If they don't say enough about their charity links consumers believe that Companies are hiding something and if they say too much they believe that Charities are being exploited by the big corporations. It makes the promotion of such schemes one of the most delicate jobs in marketing. Go too far one way And consumers believe you are using the charity, go the other way and they will not even know of your involvement (Tom O'Sullivan, 1997). The potential to affect buying behaviour, however, does exist and is credited to: a) the value it can add to the brand and thus brand equity, b) the ability to strengthen relationships with internal

and external stakeholders, whose support is vital to brand equity and ultimately affects the company's bottom line and c) the ability to make the message believable, less confusing and misleading, and thus lessen negative effects of customer scepticism (Duncan & Moriarty, 1997). Establishing a cause-related marketing partnership enables a non-profit organization to access a wider and a more diverse audience. For example, Susan G. Komen Foundation has developed a relationship with Ford Credit, a subsidiary of Ford Motor Company, and NASCAR Race Events (Daw, 2006). As a result, the Susan G. Komen Foundation is gaining marketing exposure at no direct cost. Polonsky and Wood (2001) argue that this extensive publicity may enable a nonprofit organization to gain a greater presence in the market. Cause-related marketing decreases a NPOs transactions costs because NPOs do not have to directly approach consumers for a donation. Costumers indirectly donate to a cause through their purchases. Therefore, NPOs do not have to spend additional resources asking the public for direct donations. Polonsky and Wood (2001) mention that consumers may feel that they are doing something good for society without it costing them any additional cost when they buy a product linked to a cause. Customers purchase at their discretion and essentially donate on more than one occasion through the continued use of a certain product. Furthermore, earned-income generating activities are viewed as more reliable funding sources than donations and grants (Dees, 1998). According to Dees (1998) self-funding is the new mantra since dependency on individual donors is now being seen as a weakness (Dees, 1998). Firms that participate in cause-related marketing programs increase their product sales, service offerings and revenue. This is because firms are able to differentiate their products. A study of the literature finds a clear consensus among corporate executives that they use cause-related marketing because it increases a companys profits. A writer in Incentive states, worthy causes benefit from such campaigns, but make no mistake about it: Cause-related marketing is first and foremost a marketing program. CRM is separate from the many purely philanthropic projects that companies often undertake (Wagner and Thompson, 1994). General Foods, for example, pledged to contribute 10 cents for every Tang cents-off coupon redeemed during a specified period, up to a maximum of $100,000. The redemption rate was above the 4 percent average for coupons in general and a 13 percent positive movement of the brand was tracked Varadarajan, and Menon, 1988). Polonsky and Wood (2001) suggest that because company donations are

directly triggered by sales, it is easier to calculate the return from cause-related marketing programs. Furthermore, as with nonprofits, for-profit organizations can receive additional publicity from CRM programs, which would increase the sales and use of their product. One such cause-related partnership that illustrates the success of the firm is that between VISA USA and Reading is Fundamental (RIF). Visa USA runs a cause-related marketing program aimed at literacy in partnership with RIF. Adkins (1999) claims that Visa carried out cardholder research that identified that over 70 percent of cardholders felt reading was important, and if Visa supported such a card they would increase their Visa card usage. Each time the Visa card is used, a donation is made to Reading is Fundamental. The minimum guaranteed donation was $1 million, with additional funding if Visas volume goal was achieved. The campaign has been supported by TV advertising, local radio, shopping mall media and has had a $20 million advertising budget with more than $4 million in co-operative merchant marketing. This program had significant impact on the Visa brand image with an increase of 7 percent and an all-time high of 62 percent for Best Overall Card in Visas on-going image tracking study. Visas bankcard share of the market was up to 66.3 percent from 65.9 percent in the same quarter of 1996. In November 1997, sales volume was up 16.9 percent over 1996 and transaction volumes were up 18.9 percent. In 1997, 20 percent consumer awareness of the promotion was achieved, an increase of over 82 percent on 1996, and 64 percent of those aware of the promotion perceived value from it (Adkins, 1999). Support for companies involved in cause-related marketing partnerships with nonprofit organizations has grown. Early research studies conducted in 1993 illustrated that more than eight in ten American consumers had a more positive image of businesses involved in causerelated marketing programs (Daw, 2006). Furthermore, the 1993 Cone/Roper Cause Related Trends Report found that nearly two-thirds of Americans felt cause-related marketing should be a standard business practice. In Cones 2004 study, 92 percent of Americans have a more positive image of companies and products that support causes (Daw, 2006). In the fall 2004 Cone Inc. Survey on corporate citizenship, 86 percent of those surveyed said they were very or somewhat likely to switch from one brand to another that was about the same price and quality, if the other brand was associated with a cause (Daw, 2006). Eighty-five percent say a companys commitment to a social cause influences the decision of which companies could do business in a

local community (Daw, 2006). Furthermore, corporations are able to access a wider audience. Polonsky and Wood (2001) point out that CRM programs allow firms to access a causes supporters and give them a credible message. Cause-related marketing enables companies to play an active role in building community and demonstrating what they stand for as they express a commitment to a cause. For example, a representative of Reebok International Limited, which underwrote the Human Rights Now! concert tour, alleged that Reebok was looking for an issue that everybody felt strong about (Wagner and Thompson, 1994). He stated, we believe in freedom of expression and wanted to do something of importance, beyond selling sneakers (Wagner and Thompson, 1994). Selling yogurt with a cause has also proven to be profitable. Stonyfield Farm, Inc. has launched a campaign that centers on celebrities who are advocates of environmental causes. This fulfills Stonyfield Farm, Inc.s dual mission of selling organic yogurt and also promoting social and environmental causes (Kane, 2000). As a result of its successful campaign, the company has lured both new customers and those of its rivals (Kane, 2000). Its charitable donations, which are 10 percent of its profits, go to groups like Share Our Strength, the antipoverty and hunger organization, and the Jane Goodall Institute, which promotes wildlife research and preservation (Kane, 2000). Over the last two and a half years, Stonyfield Farm has grown from being a regional brand to a national player, ranking number five, with 3.1 percent of the $1.95 billion national yogurt market (Kane, 2000). Stonyfield, with sales at $60.7 million, competes with major brands like Yoplait, the leader, which has 31.5 percent of the market; Dannon, with 27.7 percent of the market; Breyers with 8.2 percent and Colombo with 4.1 percent (Kane, 2000). Firms that illustrate a commitment to a cause enable companies to attract employees. Daw (2006) states that corporations in cause-related marketing partnerships are able to attract and retain employees. In 2002, the Cone survey found that employees whose companies support social issues were 40 percent more likely to say they are proud of their companys values, nearly 25 percent more likely to be loyal to their employers than those whose companies do not have such programs (Daw, 2006). A study by Chivas Regal found that 53 percent of employees felt more loyal to the company as a result of being involved in corporate giving programs (Mullen, 1997).

Costs Associated With A Cause-Related Marketing Relationship Nonprofit organizations have to spend resources such as time and money on non-cause related activity (Andreasen and Drumwright, 2000). Non-profit organizations, for example, do not have the specific business organizational skills, managerial capacity, and credibility to succeed in commercial markets. Building new organizational capabilities, therefore, can be costly and difficult. Non-profit organizations not only have to hire new employees with business skills, but they must also be able to integrate the skills and values of the new staff. The costs of forming a cause-related marketing relationship with a firm, therefore, can be greater than the benefits of forming this partnership. Nonprofit organizations that partner with firms take the risk of establishing a relationship with a corporation that may not share a nonprofits mission and values. The unethical behavior of the corporate partner outside the cause-related marketing relationship could affect the image of the nonprofit organization teamed with this corporation. Deshpande and Hitchon (2002) state that negative news coverage results from exploitation of the nonprofit organization by the commercial partner and from exposure of unethical acts by the commercial marketer. Adreasen and Drumwright (2000) point out that the commercial partner could mislead the nonprofit organization about the donation or commitment. Furthermore, the corporate partner could spend more resources promoting the cause than contributing, or even exploit the endorsement of the nonprofit. Once a cause-related marketing relationship is established, the mission of a NPO may become obscure. Cynthia Currence (2000) states that although the American Cancer Society enjoys 97 percent name recognition and high approval ratings, the public has little understanding of the organizations mission. Nonprofit organizations might experience mission drift when they shift the direction and activities of their nonprofit organization in order to become more attractive partners. Polonsky and Wood (2001) note that mission drift could result in the termination of a particular nonprofit organization. For example, an Australian religious organization wanted to reduce its Lifeline program, a phone in help line, by $100,000 so that it could reallocate the money and use it for corporate purposes (Polonsky and Wood, 2001). If it had not been for the objections from within the organization and also from outside of the organization, the Lifeline program would have been discontinued.

The revenue that is acquired from corporations through cause-related marketing could illustrate to the general public that nonprofit organizations do not need both corporate donations and individual support. Andreasen (1996) and Andreasen and Drumwright (2000) suggest that individual donors may perceive that some causes no longer need assistance because of the increased revenue that comes from a cause-related marketing relationship. Donors might shift their individual support to other causes that do not practice CRM. This does not hurt consumers or the other causes that are getting this support, but it does harm the NPOs that are no longer receiving individual donations. The increasing popularity of cause-related marketing may make the benefits of cause-related marketing for the corporation not as significant if corporations are competing for these types of partnerships. A 1997 study reports that consumers value good corporate citizens, but many are not able to link specific philanthropic efforts with sponsoring companies (Desphande, 2002). Even though consumers say they would switch brands to support a cause, Desphande (2002) argues that actual purchasing behavior shows other factors can intervene.

CHAPTER - 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

Objective:

The objective of the study was to find out the awareness and purchase intentions among consumers in Bangalore towards cause related marketing efforts by companies. At the same time Analyze the previous works and research in past to work out the scope of the analysis. It also includes analyses of primary data collected through online survey and further analyzed by statically tools.

RESEARCH DESIGN:

It consists of clean statement of the research problem procedures and information processing and analysis of data collected. It includes hypothesis also. I have used Descriptive Research which includes survey and fact-finding enquiries of different kinds. The main characteristics of this method are that the researchers have no control over the variables; he can only report what has happened or what is happening. The major purpose of descriptive research is description of the state of affairs as exists as present.

Purpose: To examine whether cause related marketing attributes effect consumer perception about the brand and favorable buying decisions towards the brands. To empirically test the hypothesized relationship between cause related marketing with consumer perception towards the brand and favorable buying behavior. H1: To empirically test the hypothesized relationship between cause related marketing with consumer perception towards the brand and favorable buying behavior.

DESCRIPTIVE STUDY

To describe the characteristics of the study

TOOLS FOR DATA COLLECTION

Structured questionnaire

Closed ended standardized questionnaire

7 questions

SAMPLING DESIGN

Sampling Size: 100

Sample Type: Convenience Sampling

Sampling Unit: Students

Unit of analysis: Students

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Location: Bangalore, Karnataka

Population: Students

Source: Primary Data

ANALYSIS DESIGN

Statistical Package for Social Sciences Regression Linear

Correlation

Excel

CHAPTER 4

Statiscal Analysis and Interpretation: Variable a: Consumers like to switch to brands that claim to help a cause Variable b: Consumers like to pay more for brands supporting causes Variable c: Consumers feel more likely to buy a product that support a cause Variable d: Cause related marketing efforts by the companies improve consumers trust on the brands Variable e: Consumers like to be loyal to companies supporting causes

Variables Entered/Removed(b)

Mode Variables l 1 Entered e, b, d, c(a)

Variables Removed . Method Enter

a All requested variables entered. b Dependent Variable: a

Model Summary

Std. Mode l 1 R .632(a) Adjusted R Square R Square .400 .358 of

Error the

Estimate .34391

a Predictors: (Constant), e, b, d, c

ANOVA(b)

Mode

Sum

of df

Mean

Sig.

l 1 Regressio n Residual Total

Squares 4.568 6.860 11.429 4 58 62

Square 1.142 .118 9.656 .000(a)

a Predictors: (Constant), e, b, d, c b Dependent Variable: a

Coefficients(a)

Unstandardized Coefficients Mode l 1 (Constant ) b c d e B .232 .025 .550 -.140 .248 Std. Error .112 .096 .126 .122 .127

Standardized Coefficients

Beta

t 2.076

Sig. .042 .792 .000 .254 .055

.029 .537 -.140 .243

.265 4.355 -1.151 1.955

a Dependent Variable: a The value of R2 in the Model Summary is .400 which means that 40.1 percent of the variation in the brands that help to claim a cause is explained by the Independent variables which include b, c, d, e . The value of R2 is highly significant as it is seen from the P-value of 0.000 of F statistics from ANOVA table. This shows the Goodness of fit of the regression equation. A=.232 +.025b + .055c 0.140d+ .248e From the table of coefficient it is evident that c is significantly correlated to the dependent variable a, the p value is .000 for c , and its highly significant , rest all variables are not

significant and is not required in my study. In order to check the dependency of independent variables over dependent variable we look into the beta values in the coefficient table; so variable c is the 53.7 % dependent on the dependent variable a. Variables Entered/Removed(b)

Mode Variables l 1 Entered e, a, d, c(a)

Variables Removed . Method Enter

a All requested variables entered. b Dependent Variable: b

Model Summary

Std. Mode l 1 R .372(a) Adjusted R Square R Square .138 .079 of

Error the

Estimate .46985

a Predictors: (Constant), e, a, d,

ANOVA(b) Mode l 1 Regressio n Residual Total Sum of df 4 58 62 Mean Square .513 .221 F 2.325 Sig. .067(a)

Squares 2.053 12.804 14.857

a Predictors: (Constant), e, a, d, c b Dependent Variable: b

Coefficients(a)

Unstandardized Coefficients Mode l 1 (Constant ) a c d e B .245 .047 .371 .013 .051 Std. Error .155 .179 .193 .168 .179

Standardized Coefficients

Beta

t 1.578

Sig. .120 .792 .059 .938 .776

.042 .318 .011 .044

.265 1.925 .077 .286

a Dependent Variable: b

The value of R2 in the Model Summary is .138 which means that 13.8 percent of the variation in the minds of consumers to pay more for brands that supports a cause is explained by the Independent variables which include a, c, d, e . The value of R2 is not significant as it is seen from the P-value of 2.235 of F statistics from ANOVA table. This does notshows the Goodness of fit of the regression equation. A=.245 + 0.047a+.371c+0.013d+.051e Variables Entered/Removed(b)

Mode Variables l 1 Entered e, b, a, d(a)

Variables Removed . Method Enter

a All requested variables entered. b Dependent Variable: c

Model Summary

Std. Mode l 1 R .698(a) Adjusted R Square R Square .487 .451 of

Error the

Estimate .31042

a Predictors: (Constant), e, b, a, d

ANOVA(b)

Mode l 1 Regressio n Residual Total

Sum

of df 4 58 62

Mean Square 1.325 .096 F 13.750 Sig. .000(a)

Squares 5.300 5.589 10.889

a Predictors: (Constant), e, b, a, d b Dependent Variable: c Coefficients(a)

Unstandardized Coefficients Mode l 1 (Constant ) A B D E B .084 .448 .162 .233 .096 Std. Error .104 .103 .084 .107 .118

Standardized Coefficients

Beta

t .807

Sig. .423 .000 .059 .033 .418

.459 .189 .239 .096

4.355 1.925 2.180 .815

a Dependent Variable: c The value of R2 in the Model Summary is .487 which means that 48.7 percent of the consumers feel to buy the brand that supports cause is explained by the Independent variables which include a, b, d, e .The value of R2 is highly significant as it is seen from the P-value of 0.000 of F statistics from ANOVA table. This shows the Goodness of fit of the regression equation. A=.0.084+0.448a+0.162b+0.233d+.096e From the table of coefficient it is evident that c is significantly correlated to the dependent variable a, the p value is .000 for a, and its highly significant, rest all variables are not significant and is not required in my study. In order to check the dependency of independent variables over dependent variable we look into the beta values in the coefficient table; so variable c is the 44.7 % dependent on the dependent variable a. Variables Entered/Removed(b)

Mode Variables l 1 Entered e, b, a, c(a)

Variables Removed . Method Enter

a All requested variables entered. b Dependent Variable: d

Model Summary

Std. Mode l 1 R .565(a) Adjusted R Square R Square .319 .272 of

Error the

Estimate .36633

a Predictors: (Constant), e, b, a, c

ANOVA(b)

Mode l 1 Regressio n Residual Total

Sum

of df 4 58 62

Mean Square .911 .134 F 6.791 Sig. .000(a)

Squares 3.645 7.783 11.429

a Predictors: (Constant), e, b, a, c b Dependent Variable: d

Coefficients(a)

Unstandardized Coefficients Mode l 1 (Constant ) a b c e B .283 -.159 .008 .325 .441 Std. Error .118 .138 .102 .149 .127

Standardized Coefficients

Beta

t 2.403

Sig. .019 .254 .938 .033 .001

-.159 .009 .317 .430

-1.151 .077 2.180 3.467

a Dependent Variable: d The value of R2 in the Model Summary is .319 which means that 31.9 percent of the consumers trust the brand that supports cause is explained by the Independent variables which include a, b, c, e .The value of R2 is highly significant as it is seen from the P-value of 0.000 of F statistics from ANOVA table. This shows the Goodness of fit of the regression equation. A=.283 0.159a + 0.008b + 0.325 c + 0.441 e

From the table of coefficient it is evident that c is significantly correlated to the dependent variable a, the p value is .000 for e, and its highly significant, rest all variables are not significant and is not required in my study. In order to check the dependency of independent variables over dependent variable we look into the beta values in the coefficient table; so variable c is the 44.1 % dependent on the dependent variable d. Variables Entered/Removed(b)

Mode Variables l 1 Entered d, b, a, c(a)

Variables Removed . Method Enter

a All requested variables entered. b Dependent Variable: e

Model Summary

Std. Mode l 1 R .607(a) Adjusted R Square R Square .369 .325 of

Error the

Estimate .34420

a Predictors: (Constant), d, b, a, c

ANOVA(b)

Mode l 1 Regressio n Residual Total

Sum

of df 4 58 62

Mean Square 1.004 .118 F 8.478 Sig. .000(a)

Squares 4.017 6.871 10.889

a Predictors: (Constant), d, b, a, c b Dependent Variable: e

Coefficients(a)

Unstandardized Coefficients Mode l 1 (Constant ) a b c d B .183 .249 .027 .118 .389 Std. Error .113 .127 .096 .145 .112

Standardized Coefficients

Beta

t 1.611

Sig. .113 .055 .776 .418 .001

.255 .032 .118 .399

1.955 .286 .815 3.467

a Dependent Variable: e The value of R2 in the Model Summary is .369 which means that 36.9 percent of the consumers are loyal to the brand that supports cause is explained by the Independent variables which include a, b, c, d .The value of R2 is highly significant as it is seen from the P-value of 0.000 of F statistics from ANOVA table. This shows the Goodness of fit of the regression equation. A=.183+0.249a+0.027b+0.118c+0.389d From the table of coefficient it is evident that c is significantly correlated to the dependent variable a, the p value is .000 for d, and its highly significant, rest all variables are not significant and is not required in my study. In order to check the dependency of independent variables over dependent variable we look into the beta values in the coefficient table; so variable d is the 38.9 % dependent on the dependent variable e.

Correlations

a a Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N b Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N c Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N d Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N e Pearson Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) N 63 .252(*) .046 63 .598(**) .000 63 .213 .095 63 .418(**) .001 63 1

b .252(*) .046 63 1

c .598(**) .000 63 .367(**) .003

d .213 .095 63 .175 .169 63 .418(**) .001

e .418(**) .001 63 .210 .099 63 .449(**) .000 63 .508(**) .000

63 .367(**) .003 63 .175 .169 63 .210 .099 63

63 1

63 .418(**) .001 63 .449(**) .000 63

63 1

63 .508(**) .000 63

63 1

63

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Looking at the correlation matrix consisting of five variables following conclusions can be drawn: Variable a is correlated to b and is highly significant it is evident by looking at the p-value i.e. 0.046. Looking at the p-values for variables a and c it is evident that they are highly significant. Variables a and e are also correlated to each other evident from the p values. Similarly, b is correlated to a, b is correlated to c looking at the p-values in the correlation matrix. Variable c is correlated to a, variable c is correlated to b, variable c is correlated to d and variable c is also correlated to variable e. Variable d is correlated to variable c and e evident from the correlation matrix. Variable e is correlated to variables a, b, c evident from the correlation matrix.

ANALYSIS OF DATA COLLECTED:

Do you like to be loyal to companies supporting causes?

23%

Yes No

77%

Does Cause related marketing efforts by the companies improve your trust on the brands?

22%

Yes No

78%

Would you like to pay more for brands supporting causes ?

40%

Yes No

60%

Would you like to switch to brands that claims to help a cause ?

24%

Yes No

76%

Are you aware of companies supporting cause and social volunteerism ?

7%

Yes No

93%

Do you feel more likely to buy a product that support a cause ?

24%

Yes No

76%

Does Cause related marketing efforts by the companies improve your trust on the brands?

22%

Yes No

78%

CHAPTER 5

FINDING AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

It was observed that most of the sample population were aware of the cause related marketing efforts from the chosen companies Most of the consumers felt that they end up buying most of the times the product backing some causes Most of the consumers were aware of the causes and social volunteerism taken up mostly HUL , P&G, Infosys and ITC It was observed that consumers do not blindly trust the brands that support causes It was evident from the primary data that most of the consumers dont want to spend more on the brands supporting causes. It was observed that consumers tend to show favourable buying behavior mostly than to stay loyal for the lifetime towards company supporting causes Most of the respondents felt of switching to brands that supports cause Consumers trust the product that supports cause from the data collected