Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
International Journal of Marketing and OF MARKETING AND (IJMHRM), INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Human Resource Management HUMAN IS...
International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM),ISSN 0976 – 6421 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 643X (Onli...
International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM),ISSN 0976 – 6421 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 643X (Onli...
International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM),ISSN 0976 – 6421 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 643X (Onli...
International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM),ISSN 0976 – 6421 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 643X (Onli...
International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM),ISSN 0976 – 6421 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 643X (Onli...
International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM),ISSN 0976 – 6421 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 643X (Onli...
International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM),ISSN 0976 – 6421 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 643X (Onli...
International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM),ISSN 0976 – 6421 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 643X (Onli...
International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM),ISSN 0976 – 6421 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 643X (Onli...
International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM),ISSN 0976 – 6421 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 643X (Onli...
International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM),ISSN 0976 – 6421 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 643X (Onli...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

A study on effectiveness of cause related marketing [crm] as a strategic philanthropy

688 views

Published on

  • Be the first to comment

A study on effectiveness of cause related marketing [crm] as a strategic philanthropy

  1. 1. International Journal of Marketing and OF MARKETING AND (IJMHRM), INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL Human Resource Management HUMAN ISSN 0976 – 6421 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 643X (Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January - April (2013) RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (IJMHRM)ISSN 0976 – 6421 (Print)ISSN 0976 – 643X (Online) IJMHRMVolume 4, Issue 1, January- April (2013), pp. 28-39© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijmhrm.asp ©IAEMEJournal Impact Factor (2013): 4.6901 (Calculated by GISI)www.jifactor.com A STUDY ON EFFECTIVENESS OF CAUSE RELATED MARKETING [CRM] AS A STRATEGIC PHILANTHROPY IN TERMS OF BRAND POPULARITY & SALES Mr. Sandip Dhakecha Asst. Professor, School of Management, RK.University ABSTRACT Cause-related marketing is an emerging area within the marketing discipline, originating in the United States in the 1980s’. There has been a growing concern for cause related marketing over the last two decades. A growing number of firms are entering into commercial partnerships with nonprofit organizations to achieve specific business objectives. Cause-related marketing is one example of such a partnership. Cause-related marketing is a marketing strategy whereby the firm makes a contribution, financial or otherwise, to a nonprofit organization(s) contingent upon the customer engaging in a revenue-providing exchange that satisfies business and individual objectives. The main objective of this research paper is to gather more understanding of CRM in terms of brand popularity & sales as compare to sales promotion and sponsorship. This paper explored the following questions: 1. Do consumers respond more positively toward Cause-related marketing than towards other marketing strategy? 2. What is the impact of Cause-related marketing on the consumer’s response in terms of attitude towards the brand, attitude to the strategy and purchase intention? Key Words: Cause Related Marketing [CRM], Strategic Philanthropy, Sales Promotion, Sponsorship 28
  2. 2. International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM),ISSN 0976 – 6421 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 643X (Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January - April (2013)1.0.0 OBJECTIVE The main objective of this paper is to understand the impact of CRM on brand popularity andsales in comparison of other marketing strategies like Sales promotions and Sponsorships”.1.1.0 INTRODUCTION A growing number of firms are entering into commercial partnerships with nonprofitorganizations to achieve specific business objectives. Cause-related marketing is one example of sucha partnership. Cause-related marketing is a marketing strategy whereby the firm makes a contribution,financial or otherwise, to a nonprofit organization(s) contingent upon the customer engaging in arevenue-providing exchange that satisfies business and individual objectives (Varadarajan and Menon1988). It has emerged relatively recently and its origins have been attributed to a promotionundertaken by American Express in the early 1980s (Cunningham 1997).In an environment of increasing competition, the objective of every organization on the globe includestwo common elements, first to keep improving consumer attitude towards brand and second to keepstimulating consumer purchase intension of that brand. In this regard a strategy known as CauseRelated Marketing (CRM) is emerging on a fast pace and attracting increasing consumer interest.Considering the importance of this trend in our country efforts have been made not only to provide anunderstanding about this concept but also to compare its effectiveness with other marketing strategies.As CRM is an independent variable, variables which are dependent in this report are: • Consumer attitude towards CRM strategy. • Change in consumer attitude towards brand after CRM. • Consumer purchase intention after CRM.I believe that this paper will provide a considerable justification for organization to undertake theCRM as an innovative yet effective strategy for changing customer attitude and shaping theirpurchase intention towards their brands.1.2.0 LITERATURE SURVEY Marketing communication is one of the four ‘Ps’ of marketing mix and its role is to createbrand awareness, generate favorable brand attitudes and stimulate purchase intention (Belch andBelch 1998; Rossiter and Percy 1998). These objectives are pursued using a range of communicationsstrategies including advertising, sales promotion, direct marketing, public relations, sponsorship andpersonal selling. Sales promotion is an important form of marketing communications. Price promotion,coupons, feature advertising and end-of-aisle displays have been identified as the most commonlyused consumer promotions (Chandon, Wansink and Laurant 2000; Lemon and Nowlis 2002).Promotional tools in general are designed to stimulate short-term sales but frequent promotions canalter the customer’s reference price and negatively impact on brand equity (Mela, Gupta and Lehmann1997). Sponsorship’s importance as a form of marketing communications is also not negligible. Ithas increased in comparison to traditional advertising (Erdogan and Kitchen 1998; Harvey 2001). Thepopularity of sponsorship has also been attributed to its ability to avoid the clutter; as it attempts toenhance consumers’ perceptions of the brand by creating a link between the brand and a sponsoredevent or organization that is valued by the consumer. However, the ultimate objective is to influenceconsumer preference and purchase. Despite the availability of several marketing tools, marketing communication is changing thecommunication practices and has provided the bases for the development of new forms ofcommunication and marketing strategies, such as cause-related marketing. 29
  3. 3. International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM),ISSN 0976 – 6421 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 643X (Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January - April (2013)1.2.1 Brand Attitude Attitudes are not innate; they are learned and plays a critical role in influencing behaviortherefore can be created or changed through marketing communications strategies. Attitudes actas a key link in the causal chain between attribute perceptions on the one hand and intentions andbehaviors on the other. Thus marketers who understand that causal sequence, and who use it indecision making, can have a powerful ally in their battle for superiority in the marketplace (Lutz1991)To generate a positive attitude toward the brand, the consumer must believe that the brand has theattributes and benefits that will satisfy his or her wants or needs (Keller 1993). These attributes orbenefits can be product-related or non-product related, but must be important to the consumer tohave an impact. Attitudes toward a brand can also be altered by ‘…pointing out theirrelationships to particular social groups, events or causes’ (Rossiter and Percy 1998). In thiscontext, marketing communications must be designed to create these favorable attitudes,reinforce existing favorable attitudes and/or change negative attitudes.1.2.2 Purchase Intension In terms of measuring the impact of marketing communications, it has been found that,although the attitudes of customers are important, they are less relevant than what the consumeractually does in the marketplace’ (Schultz 1998, p.410). The ability to influence purchaseintention is therefore a critical objective for marketing communication. In this context, In additionto the existence of a favorable brand attitude, a number of other factors such as habit, corporatecredibility, endorsement of a product by an association and/or sport sponsorship can have apositive effect on purchase intention (Daneshvary and Schwer 2000). Similarly, high involvementwith the sponsored activity will impact on a consumer’s preference for a sponsor’s product due tothe level of goodwill generated (Meenaghan 2001).The origin of the phrase ‘cause-related marketing’ has been attributed to American Express inrelation to a marketing campaign undertaken in 1983 (Cunningham 1997). With the objectives ofincreasing new cardholders as well as usage of the card, American Express developed amarketing strategy that linked those objectives with a commitment to contribute funds for therestoration of the Statue of Liberty. AMEX achieved a 28 percent increase in card usage as wellas a substantial increase in new cardholders.According to Varadarajan and Menon (1988): Cause-related marketing is the process offormulating and implementing marketing activities that are characterized by an offer from thefirm to contribute a specified amount to a designated cause when customers engage in revenue-providing exchanges that satisfy organizational and individual objectives.Cause-related marketing has also been referred to as ‘strategic philanthropy’ and a way forbusiness to ‘…do well while doing well. It is also suggested that the strategic use of philanthropyis an important component in building long-term competitiveness (Simon 1995).Sponsorship has been described as ‘…the underwriting of a special event to support corporateobjectives by enhancing corporate image, increasing awareness of brands, or directly stimulatingsales of products and services’ (Javalgi et al. 1994, p.48). In the case of sponsorship, thecontribution to the nonprofit organization precedes the generation of sales revenue and is made inanticipation of an outcome. In contrast, with a cause-related marketing strategy, the contributionis a direct consequence of revenue generation. Therefore, cause-related marketing andsponsorship are perceived as different strategies (Cornwell and Maignan 1998).Sales promotion has been defined as ‘…short term incentives to encourage purchase or sales of aproduct or service’ (Kotler et al. 2001). Incentives used in sales promotions generally relate to 30
  4. 4. International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM),ISSN 0976 – 6421 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 643X (Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January - April (2013)discounts, cash-back offers, additional product for the same cost or free gifts; that is, a tangibleutilitarian benefit for the consumer. Cause-related marketing, conversely, does not necessarily offer apersonal benefit to the consumer, but instead provides a benefit to a third party via the cause orcharity. Sales promotion however can be used in conjunction with cause-related marketing.To summarize, the literature suggests that cause-related marketing can create positive implication asthis strategy actively engages the customer. This engagement is an advantage over other marketingactivities such as sponsorship and sales promotions as these activities are generally short-term innature and can be useful for encouraging product trail, rewarding existing customer or increase usage.2.0.0 RESEARCH QUESTION In the context of literature survey and the objective of report as well as taking intoconsideration, the specific research question comes out as follows. 1. Dose CRM as a strategy effect on consumer’s response in terms of attitude to the strategy, change consumer attitude towards brand and stimulate purchase intensions? 2. Do sales promotions and sponsorships generate more positive consumer response than CRM?3.0.0 METHODOLOGY In this paper efforts have been made to investigate the effectiveness of cause-relatedmarketing, in terms of consumer attitude to the strategy, brand attitude and purchase intention. It alsoexplores consumer response to cause-related marketing as compared to sponsorship and salespromotion. The findings I believe shall provide knowledge and assistance to marketing managers inthe development of more effective cause-related marketing strategies. The convenience sample based on 275 respondents has been drawn from both undergraduate andpostgraduate Teachers of RK University representing all disciplines. It was believed that theserespondents would provide more rational opinion as they know and understand more deeply thesubject matter as compare to common men. • Data was collected using self-administered survey in which questionnaire was the key instrument. Survey was administered during the third week of January 2013 i.e. between 17th, 18th, and 19th as before these dates respondents were not easily available because of University exams. • The data was then analyzed using statistical techniques given in MS Excel which includes analysis of variance (ANOVA). Z-TEST, T-TEST and measure of Central Tendencies and Dispersion.4.0.0 HYPOTHESIS Keeping in mind the objective along with the research question, number of hypothesis havebeen developed which are as follows: H1. A Consumer will have more positive attitude towards CRM as an image enhancing marketing strategy, than they will towards Sales promotions and Sponsorships. H2. A Consumer opinion will be significantly different in terms of their change of attitude towards brands which undertake CRM as compare to Sales promotions and Sponsorships. H3. A Consumer purchase intention will not be more positive as a result of exposure to CRM strategy than the exposure to Sales promotions and Sponsorships. H4. A Respondents’ opinion will not be significantly different in terms of all determinants (Overall) taken to measure the impact of cause related marketing as compare to sales promotion & promotion towards brand popularity and sales. 31
  5. 5. International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM),ISSN 0976 – 6421 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 643X (Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January - April (2013)5.0.0 SURVEY FINDINGS The major survey findings were analyzed below in order to have a better understanding andcomprehension of respondents’ opinion towards the impact of CRM viz-a-viz Sales promotion andSponsorship.5.1.0 Measures of Central tendencies & dispersions The measure of central tendencies and measure of dispersion for the dimensions related to theimpact of cause related marketing on brand popularity and sales are presented below: Table 1 Positive Attitude towards SP Positive Attitude Change Attitude & Sponsorship towards (CRM) From + To - Mean 2.00 2.55 2.54 Standard Error 0.04 0.05 0.06 Median 2.01 2.52 2.54 Mode 1.00 1.00 2.00 Standard Dev. 0.64 0.84 0.94 Sample Var. 0.41 0.71 0.88 Kurtosis -1.28 -1.12 -0.57 Skewness -0.08 -0.06 0.23 Range 2.00 3.00 4.00 Minimum 1.00 1.00 1.00 Maximum 3.00 4.00 5.00 Sum 549.95 701.33 697.55 Count 275.00 275.00 275.00 Consumers Buy Products if Change Attitude linked with SP & Consumers Buy Products From - To + Sponsorship if linked with CRMMean 3.02 1.99 2.88Standard Error 0.07 0.04 0.07Median 3.00 1.95 2.88Mode 4.00 1.00 1.00Standard Dev. 1.15 0.63 1.16Sample Var. 1.32 0.39 1.36Kurtosis -1.11 -1.29 -1.17Skewness -0.03 0.02 0.05Range 4.00 2.00 4.00Minimum 1.00 1.00 1.00Maximum 5.00 3.00 5.00Sum 830.20 547.35 793.25Count 275.00 275.00 275.00 32
  6. 6. International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM),ISSN 0976 – 6421 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 643X (Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January - April (2013) The above analysis shows that the respondents opinion towards impact of causerelated marketing on brand popularity & sales as compare to sales promotion and sponsorshipfor all the surveyed determinants was as high as 3.02 for “CRM change attitude fromnegative to positive” and as low as 1.99 for “Consumers will buy products if linked with salespromotion & sponsorship”. The standard deviation of respondents’ opinions towards impact of cause relatedmarketing on brand popularity and sales as compare to sales promotion and sponsorship washighest for dimension ---consumers will buy products if linked with CRM ‘1.16’ ---- andleast for dimension consumers will buy products if linked with sales promotion &sponsorship ‘0.63’. Dimension CRM change attitude from negative to positive is second interms of high standard deviation ‘1.15’. These high standard deviations indicates that there isa high polarization of the respondent’s on the dimension “consumer will buy products iflinked with CRM”, and CRM CHANGE ATTITUDE FROM negative to positive whereasleast on the “CONSUMERS will buy products if linked with sales promotion & sponsorship’.The skewness of dimension for “consumers will buy products if linked with sales promotion& sponsorship”, “ Consumers will buy products if linked with CRM” , change in attitudefrom negative to positive through sales promotion & sponsorship was found positive , whichwere 0.02, 0.05, and 0.23 respectively . It indicates that the normal distribution curve ispositively skewed and that the majority of the respondents’ opinions were above than themean. The skewness was found negative for negative to positive change in attitude throughCRM, positive attitude towards sales promotion & sponsorship and for positive attitudetowards CRM respectively -0.03, -0.08 and -0.06. This indicates that the normal distributioncurve is negatively skewed and that the majority of the respondents’ opinions were lowerthan the mean.6.0.0 HYPOTHESIS TESTING Based on literature survey different hypotheses were developed and tested which arepresented as follows:6.1.0 Hypothesis One H1O: Consumer will not have more positive attitude towards CRM as an image enhancing marketing strategy, than they will towards Sales promotions and Sponsorships. H1A: Consumer will have more positive attitude towards CRM as an image enhancing marketing strategy, than they will towards Sales promotions and Sponsorships.Statically Representation: H1 o: µ1 ≠ µ2 H1 A: µ1 = µ2 33
  7. 7. International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM),ISSN 0976 – 6421 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 643X (Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January - April (2013) Table 2 Z-test: Two Sample for Means Positive Attitude towards SP & Positive Attitude towards Sponsorship (CRM) Mean 2.00 2.55 Known Variance 0.41 0.71 Observations 275.00 275.00 Hypothesized Mean Diff. 0.00 Z -8.63 P(Z<=z) one-tail 0.00 z Critical one-tail 1.64 P(Z<=z) two-tail 0.00 z Critical two-tail 1.96Decision The hypotheses related with consumers will not have more positive attitude towards CRM as an image enhancing marketing strategy, than they will towards Sales promotions and Sponsorships was rejected. At 95% confidence level the z-calculated value of -8.63 is higher than the Z-critical value of 1.96, which apparently falls under critical zone.6.2.0 Hypothesis Two H2O: Consumer opinion will not be significantly different in terms of their change of attitude towards brands which undertake CRM as compare to Sales promotions and Sponsorships. H2A: Consumer opinion will be significantly different in terms of their change of attitude towards brands which undertake CRM as compare to Sales promotions and Sponsorships.Statically Representation: H2 o: µ1 ≠ µ2 H2 A: µ1 = µ2 Table 3Z-test: Two Sample for Means Use of CRM can change Use of SP & Sponsorship can Change Attitude From + To - Attitude From - To +Mean 2.55 2.54Known Variance 0.88 1.32Observations 275.00 275.00HypothesizedMean Diff. 0.00Z 0.15P(Z<=z) one-tail 0.44z Critical one-tail 1.64P(Z<=z) two-tail 0.88z Critical two-tail 1.96 34
  8. 8. International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM),ISSN 0976 – 6421 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 643X (Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January - April (2013)DecisionThe hypotheses related to respondent’s opinions of no significant difference on the twodimensions that is “use of CRM can change of attitude towards brands from positive to negativeas compare to Sales promotions and Sponsorships was accepted. At 95% confidence level, the z-critical value of 1.96 is higher than the calculated Z value of 0.15.6.3.0 Hypothesis Three H3O: Consumer purchase intention will be more positive as a result of exposure to CRM strategy than the exposure to Sales promotions and Sponsorships. H3A: Consumer purchase intention will not be more positive as a result of exposure to CRM strategy than the exposure to Sales promotions and Sponsorships.Statically Representation: H3 o: µ1 ≠ µ2 H3 A: µ1 = µ2 Table 4 F-test Two-Sample for Variances Consumers prefer buying Consumers prefer buying products if products linked with SP linked with CRM Mean 1.99 2.88 Variance 0.39 1.36 Observations 275.00 275.00 df 274.00 274.00 F 0.29 P(F<=f) one-tail 0.00 F Critical one-tail 0.82Decision The hypotheses related to respondents opinions of significant difference for determinant“customer prefer buying products linked with CRM products linked with sales promotions &sponsorship was accepted; At 95% confidence level, and 274 degrees of freedom; the F-criticalvalue was 0.82 and the F-calculated value was 0.29 that fall under non-critical region and showsthat there is high significance.6.4.0 Hypothesis Four H4O: There is no significant difference in respondents’ opinion in terms of measuring the impact of CRM viz-a-viz Sales promotion & sponsorship towards all determinants (overall). H4A: There is significant difference in respondents’ opinion in terms of measuring the impact of CRM viz-a-viz Sales promotion & sponsorship towards all determinants (overall).Statically Representation: H4 o: µ1 ≠ µ2 ≠ µ3 ≠ µ4 H4 A: µ1 = µ2 = µ3 = µ4 35
  9. 9. International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM),ISSN 0976 – 6421 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 643X (Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January - April (2013) Table 5 Anova: Single Factor SUMMARY Groups Count Sum Average Variance Positive Attitude towards SP & Sponsorship 275.00 547.73 2.00 0.41 Positive Attitude towards (CRM) 275.00 697.40 2.55 0.70 Change Attitude From + To - 275.00 695.55 2.54 0.88 Change Attitude From - To + 275.00 826.86 3.02 1.32 Buy Products if linked with SP & Sponsorship 275.00 545.35 1.99 0.40 Buy Products if linked with CRM 275.00 791.44 2.89 1.36 ANOVA P- Source of Variation SS df MS F value F crit Between Groups 255.69 6.00 51.14 60.54 0.00 2.22 Within Groups 1383.68 1638.00 0.84 Total 1639.36 1643.00Decision: The hypothesis related to no significant difference in respondents’ opinion over the all six determinants was rejected. At 95% confidence level and (6, 1638) degree of freedom, the F- critical value is 1.79 and the F-calculated values is 60.54 which apparently falls under the critical zone.7.0.0 CONCLUSION Cause-related marketing activities, although emerged relatively recent, are useful foractively involving the customer with the brand. In an environment of increasing competition,product parity and demanding consumers, it has been suggested that cause-related marketingis a unique win-win-win strategy. That is to say, this marketing strategy benefits thecommunity, generates goodwill and revenue for the company and creates positive feelings forthe consumer as a result of their purchase decision. Furthermore, cause-related marketing isan attractive proposition to nonprofit organizations facing decreased government funding andincreased competition for contributions from individual donors. Based on the literature survey a questionnaire was developed that was administered toa sample size of 275. The major findings are discussed below: Respondents opinion towards impact of cause related marketing on brand popularity& sales as compare to sales promotion and sponsorship for all the surveyed determinants wasas high as 3.02 for “CRM change attitude from negative to positive” and as low as 1.99 for“Consumers will buy products if linked with sales promotion & sponsorship”. 36
  10. 10. International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM),ISSN 0976 – 6421 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 643X (Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January - April (2013)The standard deviation of respondents’ opinions towards impact of cause related marketingon brand popularity and sales as compare to sales promotion and sponsorship negative topositive is second in terms of high standard deviation ‘1.15’. These high standard deviations indicates that there is a high polarization of therespondent’s on the dimension “consumer will buy products if linked with CRM”, and CRMCHANGE ATTITUDE FROM negative to positive whereas least on the “CONSUMERS willbuy products if linked with sales promotion & sponsorship’. The skewness of dimension for “consumers will buy products if linked with salespromotion & sponsorship”, “ Consumers will buy products if linked with CRM” , change inattitude from negative to positive through sales promotion & sponsorship was found positive ,which were 0.02, 0.05, and 0.23 respectively . It indicates that the normal distribution curveis positively skewed and that the majority of the respondents’ opinions were above than themean. The skewness was found negative for negative to positive change in attitude throughCRM, positive attitude towards sales promotion & sponsorship and for positive attitudetowards CRM respectively -0.03, -0.08 and -0.06. This indicates that the normal distributioncurve is negatively skewed and that the majority of the respondents’ opinions were lowerthan the mean. The standard deviation of respondents’ opinions towards impact of cause relatedmarketing on brand popularity and sales as compare to sales promotion and sponsorship washighest for dimension ---consumers will buy products if linked with CRM ‘1.16’ ---- andleast for dimension consumers will buy products if linked with sales promotion &sponsorship ‘0.63’. Dimension CRM change attitude from negative to positive is second interms of high standard deviation ‘1.15’. These high standard deviations indicates that there isa high polarization of the respondent’s on the dimension “consumer will buy products iflinked with CRM”, and CRM CHANGE ATTITUDE FROM negative to positive whereasleast on the “CONSUMERS will buy products if linked with sales promotion & sponsorship’.Based on literature survey four hypotheses were developed and tested; the summarizedresults are presented below:a) The hypotheses related with consumers will not have more positive attitude towards CRM as animage enhancing marketing strategy, than they will towards Sales promotions and Sponsorships wasrejected. At 95% confidence level the z-calculated value of -8.63 is higher than the Z-criticalvalue of 1.96, which apparently falls under critical zone.b) The hypotheses related to respondent’s opinions of no significant difference on the twodimensions that is “use of CRM can change of attitude towards brands from positive to negativeas compare to Sales promotions and Sponsorships” was accepted. At 95% confidence level, the z-critical value of 1.96 is higher than the calculated Z value of 0.15. This shows that there is no/lowsignificant difference.c) The hypotheses related to respondents opinions of significant difference for determinant“customer prefer buying products linked with CRM products linked with sales promotions &sponsorship was accepted; At 95% confidence level, and 274 degrees of freedom; the F-criticalvalue was 0.82 and the F-calculated value was 0.29 that fall under non-critical region and showsthat there is high significance. d) The hypothesis related to no significant difference in respondents’ opinion over the all sixdeterminants was rejected. At 95% confidence level and (6, 1638) degree of freedom, the F-critical value is 1.79 and the F-calculated values is 60.54 which apparently falls under the criticalzone. 37
  11. 11. International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM),ISSN 0976 – 6421 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 643X (Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January - April (2013) Appendix1 QUESTIONNAIRE (Demographical Data)Q-1. Age O 18 - 25 O 26 - 30 O 31 – AboveQ-2. Qualification O Undergraduate O Graduate O Postgraduate O OtherQ-3. Gender O Male O FemaleQ-4. Area of Profession O Marketing O Finance O Computer Science O Engineering QUESTIONNAIRE (Subject Data) [Encircle the numbers where 5 is strongly agree and 1 is strongly disagree]Q-5. Your attitude will be more positive if an organization use cause related marketing strategy for their brand popularity and sales development? 5 4 3 2 1Q-6. Your attitude will be more positive if an organization use sales promotion and sponsorship for their brand popularity and sales development? 5 4 3 2 1Q-7. Use of CRM for brand popularity and sales development can change your attitude from negative to positive: 5 4 3 2 1Q-8. Use of sales promotion and sponsorship for brand popularity and sales development can change your attitude from negative to positive:5 4 3 2 1Q-9. You would like to buy brands which are linked with the cause related marketing campaign and generating funds for some specific cause: 5 4 3 2 1Q-10. You would like to buy brands which are linked with sales promotion and sponsorship: 5 4 3 2 1Q-11. Overall you like organization expediting CRM strategy: 5 4 3 2 1REFERENCES1. Andreason, AR 1996, ‘Profits for Nonprofits: Find a Corporate Partner’, HarvardBusiness Review, vol. 74, no. 6, pp. 47-69.2. Belch, GE and Belch, MA 1998, Advertising and Promotion, International Edition,Irwin/McGraw Hill, U.S.A.3. Bendapudi, N, Surendra, S and Bendapudi, V 1996, ‘Enhancing Helping Behavior:An Integrative Framework for Promotion Planning’, Journal of Marketing, vol. 60, no. 3, pp.33-49.4. Cavill and Company 1997, The New Bottom Line, Melbourne, Australia.5. Chandon, P, Wansink, B and Laurant G 2000, ‘A Benefit Congruency Framework ofSales Promotion Effectiveness’, Journal of Marketing, vol. 64, October, pp. 65-81. 38
  12. 12. International Journal of Marketing and Human Resource Management (IJMHRM),ISSN 0976 – 6421 (Print), ISSN 0976 – 643X (Online), Volume 4, Issue 1, January - April (2013)6. Cornwell, TB and Maignan, I 1998, ‘An International Review of SponsorshipResearch’, Journal of Advertising, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 1-21.7. Cunningham, P 1997, ‘Sleeping with the Devil? Exploring Ethical ConcernsAssociated with Cause-Related Marketing’, New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising,vol. 18, pp. 55-76.8. Dacin, PA and Brown, TJ 1997, ‘The Company and the Product: CorporateAssociations and Consumer Product Responses’, Journal of Marketing, vol. 61, January, pp.68-84.9. Daneshvary, R and Schwer, RK 2000, ‘The Association Endorsement and ConsumersIntention to Purchase’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 203-213.10. Drumwright, ME 1996, ‘Company Advertising with a Social Dimension: The Role ofNoneconomic Criterion’, Journal of Marketing, vol. 60, no. 4, pp. 71-87.11. Erodogan, BZ and Kitchen, PJ 1998, ‘Managerial Mindsets and the SymbioticRelationship between Sponsorship and Advertising’, Marketing Intelligence & Planning,vol.16, no.6, pp. 369-374.12. Hoeffler, S and Keller, KL 2002, ‘Building Brand Equity through Corporate SocietalMarketing’, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 78-89.13. Javalgi, RG, Traylor, MB, Gross, AC and Lampman, E 1994, Awareness ofSponsorship and Corporate Image: An Empirical Investigation, Journal of Advertising, vol.23, no. 4, pp. 47-58.14. Keller, KL 1993, ‘Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based BrandEquity’, Journal of Marketing, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 1-22. th15. Kotler, P, Brown, L, Adam, S and Armstrong, G 2001, Marketing, 5 Edition,Prentice Hall, Australia.16. Lutz, R 1991, ‘The Role of Attitude Theory in Marketing’, In: Kassarjian andRobertson, (Ed.) Perspectives in Consumer Behavior, pp. 317-339, Prentice Hall, NewJersey.17. Mela, CF, Gupta, S and Lehmann, DR 1997 ‘The Long-Term Impact of Promotionand Advertising on Consumer Brand Choice’, Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 34, May,pp. 248-61.18. Mendleson, N and Polonsky, MJ 1995, ‘Using Strategic Alliances to DevelopCredible Green Marketing’, Journal of Consumer Marketing, vol. 10, no.12, pp. 4-18.19. Pringle, H and Thompson, M 1999, Brand Spirit, John Wiley & Sons, England.20. Ross, JK, Stutts, MA and Patterson, LT 1991, ‘Tactical Considerations for theEffective Use of Cause-Related Marketing’, Journal of Applied Business Research, vol. 7,no. 2, pp. 59-65.21. Schultz, DE 1998, ‘Determining How Brand Communication Works in the Short andLong Terms’, International Journal of Advertising, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 403-426.22. Simon, FL 1995, ‘Global Corporate Philanthropy: A Strategic Framework’,International Marketing Review, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 20-37.23. Varadarajan, PR and Menon, A 1988, ‘Cause Related Marketing: A Co-alignment ofMarketing Strategy and Corporate Philanthropy’, Journal of Marketing, vol. 52, July,pp. 58-74. 39

×