Transcript Charity Brand Personality: The Relationship with Giving

Charity Brand Personality:
The Relationship with Giving
Behavior
John B. Ford, Professor of Marketing
and International Business
Charitable Giving
page 1
Charitable giving reached $248.52 Billion in the US in
2004.
Individual donors provided 75.6% of the total
amount of gifts representing an average of 1.9% of
personal pre-tax income.
In the UK the total amount donated in financial year
2004/5 was $14.1 Billion.
This giving represents an average of $300 per adult
head of the population (Pharoah et al. 2005).
Charitable Giving
page 2
How and why individuals elect to offer their help to
others is a topic that has puzzled philosophers and
economists since the “dawn of antiquity” (Wispe
1978).
Comparatively recently marketing’s contribution to
“giving” has been recognized and a succession of
authors have demonstrated its utility (Bendapudi et
al. 1996; Kotler and Andreason 1987; Lovelock and
Weinberg 1984; Varadarajan and Menon 1988).
Charitable Giving
page 3
Studies concerned with monetary donations have tended to
regard the decision to donate (or not) as the primary output
from any model of giving behavior (Sargeant 1999).
While some studies have addressed the factors driving the value
of gifts, much of the existing literature has focused on
distinguishing donors from non-donors (Schlegelmilch et al.
1992).
Fundraisers have become increasingly interested in 1) the level
of the gift, 2) the likely lifetime value of the donor, and 3) the
extent to which the donor may be persuaded to support the
organization for extended periods of time.
Charitable Giving
page 4
A review of the literature reveals that research is needed which
examines the role that the characteristics of a recipient
organization might play in stimulating donations (Venables et al.
2005).
The role of branding, in particular, has received little empirical
attention.
Venables et al. (2005) is the only study to date which examines
nonprofit brand personality by validating Jennifer Aaker’s 1997
for-profit brand structure in a nonprofit setting, but the authors
did not look at the potential impact of a nonprofit brand
personality on giving.
Charitable Giving
page 5
To adequately study this, attitude theory suggests that there is
a need to examine the facets of brand personality that may
form a reasonable basis for differentiation from those which
are charitable in nature and thus shared across the sector by
all nonprofits (Eagly and Chaiken 1993).
It is the goal of this study to delineate a set of personality traits
associated with nonprofit brands to see which are genuinely
distinctive as opposed to those which are shared with others in
the sector and to examine the connection with giving behavior.
Brand Personality
page 1
Aaker (1997) defines brand personality as “the set of human
characteristics associated with a brand” (p. 347).
Brand personality is a series of traits or values (i.e., the stable
tendencies of individuals).
While product-related attributes serve a utilitarian function for
consumers, brand personality serves a predominantly symbolic
or self-expressive function (Keller 1993).
Charity donors are drawn to brands that are perceived as having
personalities encompassing values congruent to their own,
actual or aspired (de Chernatony et al. 2004).
Brand Personality
page 2
The degree of congruence between an individual’s self-image
and the personality of a particular product has an impact on
consumer behavior (Grubb and Hupp 1968; Sirgy 1982).
This concept of identification has been shown to increase loyalty
to an organization (Adler and Adler 1987), brand loyalty/positive
word of mouth (Peter and Olson 1993), and subsequent
behavior (Bhattarchaya et. al. 1995).
This would suggest that the development and communication of
an appropriate brand personality would be particularly useful in
stimulating donor support for nonprofits.
Brand Personality
page 3
Aaker (1997) built upon the work of Goldberg (1990)
who suggested that there were five big trait factors
in human personality (extroversion, agreeableness,
conscientiousness, emotional stability and openness).
Jennifer Aaker (1997) tried to clarify the underlying
structure of brand personality and found five similar
dimensions (sincerity, excitement, competence,
sophistication, and ruggedness), but it is unclear as
to whether this framework can legitimately be
generalized to all brand contexts (Austin et al. 2003).
Brand Personality
page 4
Saxton (2002) identified that the public associated such traits as
“accountable” and “traditional” with the personality of leading
UK charities, and these traits do not fall neatly into the
suggested framework presented by Aaker (1997).
Of greatest concern here is that Aaker’s original focus lay in
identifying those traits likely to distinguish among various
brands.
It is reasonable to assume here that this research should
determine not only those traits that are capable of
differentiating among charities, but also determine whether any
traits might be shared by all organizations within the sector as a
whole.
Brand Personality
page 5
It would not make sense for a charitable organization
to stress traits that were shared by all charities within
the sector in their marketing efforts as no specific
organization would stand out as separate and
distinct.
Methodology
page 1
A two-stage methodology was utilized in partnership with nine
large charities in the UK.
Three charity partners were selected from three distinct
categories of charitable causes: visual impairment (V.I.),
children and animal welfare.
These causes were deliberately selected from the Charities Aid
Foundation (2002) typology to optimize the diversity in
perceived traits.
Each charity was a large national charity with high brand
awareness drawn from the Top 200 as ranked by voluntary
income.
Methodology
page 2
In the first stage a series of nine exploratory focus groups were
conducted to identify the values associated with the nine
organizations in the study and to formulate hypotheses as to
how these might be structured.
The focus groups were made up of donors to all nine
organizations living in the geographical area where the focus
groups were being run.
Ninety participants were involved, stratified to reflect a mix of
gender and age, and each was paid £50 for attendance at each
meeting scheduled to last for 90 minutes.
Methodology
page 3
The group discussion was kept semi-structured. Following an
initial discussion of the organizations participants chose to
support, each group was asked to consider the factors that had
driven that choice, and what was distinctive about each focal
charity.
The participants were then asked to specifically consider the
personality of the brand of their chosen charity with the
wording, “suppose the brand were a person, what kind of
person would he or she be? With what personality?
A similar exercise was undertaken for the other two charities in
the category of cause to identify potential differences in
perception, followed by a more general discussion of other
charities in other categories of charitable cause.
Methodology
page 4
The focus groups were audio-taped and transcribed.
The transcripts were reviewed individually and summarized.
In a phase Strauss (1990) called “open coding,” the interview
transcripts were scrutinized line-by-line and paragraph-byparagraph to suggest initial categories or themes.
In the step Strauss calls “axial” coding, the transcripts were
examined again and again to consider each of the themes
across the interviews and to assess the fit of each theme to the
data.
Finally, in the “selective” coding stage, the data were carefully
examined again to refine the themes and findings for each.
Personality of Charities in General
page 1
It was clear from the discussions with the participants that they
were employing the notion of “charity” to attribute an
organization with s distinctive set of characteristics.
Certain traits were attributed to the charity by nature of the fact
that it was a charity. For example, “it’s a charity, so it must be
caring, mustn’t it?”
The analysis suggested that two categories of trait were
considered as being charitable in nature:
Benevolence
Progression
Personality of Charities in General
page 2
Benevolence would include the following attributes: caring,
compassionate, fair, ethical, honest, trustworthy, and helpful.
Progression would include the following attributes:
transforming, pioneering, responsive, and engaging.
H1: Traits associated with “benevolence” will be shared
by all charities within the sector.
H2: Traits associated with “progression” will be shared
by all charities within the sector.
Personality for a Specific Cause
page 1
Many practitioners have argued that distinct brand values
should evolve around certain types of causes (e.g., animal
welfare, prevention of child abuse, cancer research).
Here we found that those organizations that provided benefits
for human beings were distinctive. They were imbued with
additional characteristics that defined how participants felt a
charity should deal with or should communicate with a human
beneficiary group.
The focus was on the service provided.
Personality for a Specific Cause
page 2
“I guess I would view them as open and
approachable. They have to be really to do what
they do. I mean…I’ve no experience, but you just
have that feeling.” (Visual Impairment donor)
No other shared categories of traits could be
identified across the sampled organizations.
H3: Traits associated with “service” will be
shared by organizations aimed at providing
assistance to human beneficiaries
Personality of an Individual Organization
page 1
Two categories of trait appeared to distinguish
among individual charitable organizations, “emotional
stimulation” and “performance.”
Emotional stimulation appeared in such traits as
strong, bold, exciting, fun, heroic and inspiring.
Eagley and Chaiken (1993) argued that attitudinal
theory would suggest that the level of arousal that
brands were able to generate should be linked to
giving behavior.
Personality of an Individual Organization
page 2
The level of emotional stimulations appeared in our focus
groups to make the contact with the charity more memorable by
prompting higher levels of support.
There are clear parallels to the work of Jennifer Aaker (1997)
who found that “excitement” was a differentiating factor capable
of encouraging the purchase of a particular commercial brand.
“The materials they send me are genuinely fun, so they really
stand out from the crowd. If I’m honest, it becomes a higher
priority for me to respond. You just really want to.” (Animal
Charity donor)
Personality of an Individual Organization
page 3
In terms of performance, a cluster of traits seemed capable of
distinguishing among a number of the charity brands involved.
These traits included: prudent, efficient, effective, wasteful, and
bureaucratic.
These traits appeared to drive both the inclusion of an
organization in an individual’s choice set (or not) and the
subsequent amounts that would be donated.
Higher performing charities attracted a higher proportion of an
individual’s “charitable pot of funds.”
Personality of an Individual Organization
page 4
“I definitely give more to (specific charity). They spend nearly
all of the money donated on the cause, not on salaries and
management. I know when I give to them they’re not wasting
my money.” (Children’s Charity donor)
H4: Traits associated with “emotional stimulation” will
differentiate among individual charity brands.
H5: Traits associated with “performance” will
differentiate among individual charity brands.
H6: The perception of traits associated with “emotional
stimulation” is linked to individual giving behavior.
H7: The perception of traits associated with
“performance” is linked to individual giving behavior.
Quantitative Phase – The Survey
page 1
To test the hypotheses, a mail survey was conducted of donors
to nine nonprofit charitable organizations, three each from three
distinctive categories of cause: animal welfare, children and
visual impairment.
A sample of 500 donors was drawn from the donor database of
each organization.
Postcard pre-notification was utilized.
The final response rate was 27.9% (1255 respondents).
Each respondents was asked to indicate the extent to which the
61 different traits identified in the qualitative phase applied to
the organization they supported using a 7-point scale.
See Table 1.
Table 1
Brand Adjective Means Across the Nine Charities
Charity
G
Adjective
Accountability
A
4.72
B
5.15
C
4.94
D
5.30
E
5.53
F
5.46
5.54
H
5.34
I
5.51
Ambitious
Approachable
4.48
4.78
4.74
5.30
4.63
4.98
5.52
5.88
4.63
5.32
5.14
5.62
5.51
6.03
5.30
5.53
5.62
5.65
Authoritative
Bold
Caring
Cautious
Challenging
Collaborative
3.99
3.97
5.55
4.00
4.28
3.75
3.77
3.72
6.04
3.90
4.58
4.40
4.51
4.14
5.89
4.11
4.01
4.16
4.70
4.97
6.23
4.16
5.18
4.57
4.42
4.37
6.18
4.03
4.79
4.35
4.64
4.50
6.33
4.26
4.71
4.42
4.80
4.85
6.48
4.27
4.83
4.56
5.14
4.99
6.16
4.45
5.02
4.48
5.30
5.17
6.38
4.42
5.41
4.65
Compassionate
5.42
6.01
5.61
6.13
6.01
6.36
6.39
6.20
6.24
Conservative
4.15
4.11
4.40
3.94
3.89
4.22
4.04
4.37
4.01
Courageous
Dedicated
Determined
Dynamic
Effective
Empowering
Engaging
Even-Handed
4.46
5.47
5.10
4.16
4.82
4.19
4.18
4.40
4.53
5.99
5.45
4.37
5.39
4.27
4.47
4.79
4.35
5.83
5.10
3.93
5.20
4.00
4.54
4.49
5.22
6.14
5.90
5.15
5.67
5.03
5.11
4.95
4.64
5.95
5.42
4.40
5.40
4.62
6.60
4.97
5.21
6.39
5.85
4.73
5.91
4.48
4.88
4.90
5.39
6.45
6.15
5.05
5.95
4.52
5.05
5.16
5.39
6.27
5.93
4.75
5.39
4.57
4.72
4.88
5.47
6.27
6.04
5.12
5.58
4.95
5.02
4.87
Established
Ethical
Exciting
Fair
Flexible
Focused
Friendly
Fun
Generous
Helpful
5.01
5.15
3.60
4.91
4.42
5.16
5.20
3.85
4.73
5.20
5.84
5.62
3.74
5.19
4.49
5.59
5.42
3.74
4.98
5.72
5.98
5.38
3.70
4.95
4.19
5.33
5.18
3.91
4.46
5.20
5.76
5.72
4.93
5.48
5.11
5.86
6.04
5.46
5.57
5.77
6.02
5.85
4.08
5.40
4.80
5.73
5.57
4.06
5.01
5.52
6.32
6.03
4.38
5.56
4.90
5.99
5.97
4.81
5.56
5.93
5.99
6.01
4.85
5.76
5.02
6.09
6.22
5.78
5.80
6.01
6.39
5.74
4.04
5.48
4.69
5.93
5.62
3.90
4.95
5.70
6.21
5.86
4.31
5.42
4.79
5.95
5.60
3.90
5.12
5.66
Table 1
Brand Adjective Means Across the Nine Charities
Charity
Heroic
Honest
Inclusive
Independent
Influential
Informative
Innovative
Inspiring
Modern
Open
Outspoken
Passionate
Personal
Pioneering
Positive
Practical
Professional
Protecting
Prudent
Reputable
Respectful
Responsible
Responsive
Supportive
Sympathetic
Thoughtful
Traditional
Transforming
3.97
5.20
4.70
4.81
4.22
4.79
4.09
4.35
4.10
4.78
4.10
4.87
4.60
4.26
4.97
5.01
5.26
4.83
4.43
5.25
5.22
5.35
4.73
5.17
5.32
5.03
4.66
4.32
3.88
5.47
4.78
4.92
4.78
5.36
4.45
4.67
4.53
5.17
4.31
4.82
4.90
4.67
5.49
5.45
5.68
5.18
4.71
5.93
5.67
5.79
5.18
5.62
5.76
5.31
5.06
4.36
3.64
5.23
4.29
4.97
4.60
4.45
3.90
4.58
4.13
4.41
3.82
5.01
4.60
4.23
5.11
5.50
5.45
5.08
4.63
5.87
5.19
5.67
4.83
5.51
5.39
5.04
5.26
4.09
4.70
5.59
5.00
5.23
5.18
5.56
5.15
5.52
5.52
5.28
4.35
5.76
5.41
5.27
5.90
5.70
5.87
5.50
4.72
5.94
5.80
5.91
5.47
5.99
6.00
5.75
4.30
5.02
3.92
5.73
5.07
5.03
5.01
5.31
4.65
4.76
4.70
5.24
4.48
5.00
4.75
4.66
5.39
5.42
5.62
5.65
4.95
5.99
5.47
5.95
5.24
5.70
5.77
5.43
4.95
4.73
4.99
5.92
4.87
5.28
5.18
5.76
4.79
5.15
5.15
5.39
4.70
5.84
5.07
5.09
5.76
5.87
6.16
6.16
5.04
6.39
6.05
6.29
5.78
6.03
6.14
5.79
5.63
4.76
5.07
5.89
5.20
5.40
5.28
5.97
5.37
5.66
5.69
5.79
4.95
6.04
5.45
5.17
6.05
5.86
6.08
6.19
5.11
6.16
6.02
6.29
5.96
6.10
6.18
6.01
5.08
5.06
5.49
5.68
4.58
5.09
5.54
5.58
4.60
5.31
4.78
5.13
5.15
5.98
4.82
4.83
5.69
5.63
5.96
6.18
4.78
6.23
5.94
6.20
5.69
5.65
5.80
5.56
5.42
4.66
4.81
5.67
5.02
5.02
5.57
5.71
5.02
5.46
5.09
5.35
5.22
5.80
5.14
5.15
5.69
5.39
5.80
6.05
4.79
6.26
5.97
6.04
5.69
5.85
5.97
5.79
5.09
5.14
Transparent
Trustworthy
Visionary
Welcoming
3.88
5.37
4.63
5.20
4.09
5.74
4.86
5.29
3.73
5.43
4.13
4.83
4.23
5.73
5.34
5.91
4.42
5.91
4.88
5.45
4.25
6.14
5.12
5.97
4.42
6.05
5.39
6.08
3.89
5.86
4.81
5.35
4.08
5.89
5.19
5.61
Quantitative Phase – The Survey
page 2
The mean scores across the 61 traits were also calculated for
each of the three cause groupings.
These scores are shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Brand Adjective Means Across the Three Sectors
Adjective
Children
Sector
5.45
5.21
5.61
4.77
4.80
6.26
4.19
5.10
4.52
6.12
Animals
Sector
5.46
5.33
5.76
4.83
4.76
6.35
4.31
4.84
4.49
6.33
All Charities
Accountability
Ambitious
Approachable
Authoritative
Bold
Caring
Cautious
Challenging
Collaborative
Compassionate
Visual Impairment
Sector
4.95
4.63
5.04
4.08
3.94
5.85
4.00
4.31
4.14
5.70
Conservative
Courageous
Dedicated
Determined
Dynamic
Effective
Empowering
Engaging
Even-Handed
Established
Ethical
Exciting
Fair
Flexible
Focused
Friendly
Fun
Generous
Helpful
4.22
4.45
5.78
5.23
4.16
5.16
4.16
4.41
4.58
5.65
5.40
3.69
5.03
4.40
5.38
5.27
3.83
4.73
5.39
3.94
5.07
6.11
5.75
4.86
5.54
4.85
4.90
4.93
5.98
5.81
4.43
5.43
4.91
5.83
5.74
4.51
5.24
5.65
4.19
5.33
6.38
5.99
4.86
5.78
4.52
4.90
5.00
6.21
5.94
4.47
5.62
4.89
6.01
5.98
4.95
5.50
5.90
4.10
5.06
6.16
5.75
4.72
5.57
4.57
4.80
4.89
6.01
5.78
4.30
5.43
4.79
5.82
5.75
4.56
5.24
5.70
5.35
5.14
5.56
4.66
4.61
6.21
4.20
4.83
4.43
6.12
Table 2
Brand Adjective Means Across the Three Sectors
Heroic
Honest
Inclusive
Independent
Influential
Informative
Innovative
Inspiring
Modern
Open
Outspoken
Passionate
Personal
Pioneering
Positive
Practical
Professional
Protecting
Prudent
Reputable
Respectful
Responsible
Responsive
Supportive
Sympathetic
Thoughtful
Traditional
Transforming
Transparent
Trustworthy
Visionary
Welcoming
3.82
5.31
4.59
4.90
4.54
4.88
4.16
4.54
4.27
4.79
4.08
4.90
4.71
4.40
5.22
5.34
5.48
5.04
4.60
5.71
5.38
5.62
4.93
5.45
5.51
5.13
5.01
4.26
3.90
5.53
4.55
5.11
4.45
5.67
5.03
5.10
5.22
5.51
4.93
5.21
5.09
5.29
4.65
5.49
5.09
5.00
5.65
5.51
5.75
5.71
4.83
6.05
5.73
5.96
5.45
5.84
5.90
5.64
4.77
4.95
4.26
5.84
5.12
5.66
5.16
5.85
4.93
5.28
5.31
5.81
4.97
5.39
5.26
5.48
4.92
5.96
5.15
5.05
5.85
5.80
6.08
6.18
5.00
6.26
6.01
6.27
5.62
5.96
6.07
5.82
5.36
4.85
4.22
6.03
5.15
5.85
4.62
5.67
4.90
5.13
5.13
5.51
4.79
5.15
5.00
5.27
4.65
5.57
5.04
4.91
5.65
5.60
5.83
5.78
4.85
6.07
5.78
6.02
5.51
5.81
5.89
5.61
5.07
4.77
4.17
5.86
5.02
5.63
Quantitative Phase – The Survey
page 3
To identify significant differences in the scores shown in tables 1
and 2, a series of one-way ANOVAs were conducted.
The results are found in Table 3.
Interestingly here, only perceptions of the trait “cautious” were
not found to vary significantly across the nine nonprofits utilized
in the study.
Also, there appear to be significant differences between two or
more causal groupings with respect to all of the personality
traits involved.
Table 3: ANOVA and Power Analyses
Adjective
Accountable
Ambitious
Approachable
Authoritative
Bold
Caring
Cautious
Challenging
Collaborative
Compassionate
Conservative
Courageous
Dedicated
Determined
Dynamic
Effective
Empowering
Engaging
Even handed
Established
Ethical
Exciting
Fair
Flexible
Focused
Friendly
Fun
Generous
Helpful
Heroic
Organization Effects
F
Sig
7.960
.000
12.606
.000
12.556
.000
12.057
.000
13.325
.000
8.428
.000
1.793
.074
9.149
.000
3.204
.001
11.674
.000
2.095
.034
12.732
.000
11.151
.000
13.948
.000
11.827
.000
11.572
.000
5.427
.000
5.364
.000
3.205
.001
13.109
.000
6.270
.000
14.791
.000
6.312
.000
5.429
.000
8.619
.000
12.236
.000
39.785
.000
14.164
.000
6.605
.000
20.540
.000
2
.03
.08
.08
.08
.08
.05
.01
.06
.02
.07
.01
.08
.07
.08
.07
.07
.04
.04
.02
.08
.04
.09
.04
.04
.06
.08
.22
.09
.04
.13
f
.17
.29*
.29*
.29*
.29*
.23
.10
.25
.14
.27*
.10
.29*
.27*
.29*
.27*
.27*
.20
.20
.14
.29*
.20
.31*
.20
.20
.25
.29*
.53**
.31*
.20
.39*
Cause Effects
F
Sig
15.056
.000
20.859
.000
28.394
.000
23.284
.000
32.598
.000
22.213
.000
3.563
.029
23.700
.000
6.407
.002
34.115
.000
4.834
.008
33.760
.000
32.432
.000
36.065
.000
25.334
.000
25.804
.000
17.571
.000
11.708
.000
8.257
.000
21.493
.000
18.018
.000
27.676
.000
20.928
.000
15.172
.000
28.443
.000
28.921
.000
38.585
.000
26.859
.000
16.130
.000
60.557
.000
*Medium Effects - as measured by the eta squared statistic to assess effect size
**Large Effects
2
.02
.03
.04
.04
.05
.03
.01
.04
.01
.05
.01
.05
.05
.06
.04
.04
.03
.02
.01
.04
.03
.04
.03
.03
.05
.05
.06
.04
.03
.10
f
.14
.17
.20
.20
.23
.17
.10
.20
.10
.23
.10
.23
.23
.25
.20
.20
.17
.14
.10
.20
.17
.20
.17
.17
.23
.23
.25
.20
.17
.33*
Table 3: ANOVA and Power Analyses
Honest
Inclusive
Independent
Influential
Informative
Innovative
Inspiring
Modern
Open
Outspoken
Passionate
Personal
Pioneering
Positive
Practical
Professional
Protecting
Prudent
Reputable
Respectful
Responsible
Responsive
Supportive
Sympathetic
Thoughtful
Traditional
Transforming
Transparent
Trustworthy
Visionary
Welcoming
5.345
4.649
2.428
11.645
17.565
14.149
13.835
19.752
10.419
10.976
18.556
6.590
8.225
10.627
5.636
7.912
21.195
2.907
9.440
8.830
9.735
13.253
7.488
7.953
8.585
10.874
7.163
2.751
5.748
8.723
13.121
.000
.000
.013
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.003
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.005
.000
.000
.000
.03
.03
.02
.07
.11
.09
.09
.12
.07
.07
.11
.04
.05
.07
.04
.05
.13
.02
.06
.06
.06
.08
.05
.05
.06
.07
.05
.02
.04
.06
.08
.17
.17
.14
.27*
.35*
.31*
.31*
.37*
.27*
.27*
.35*
.20
.23
.27*
.20
.23
.39*
.14
.25
.25
.25
.29*
.23
.23
.25
.27*
.23
.14
.20
.25
.29*
17.642
7.825
6.242
31.487
47.740
31.675
30.675
41.332
22.444
24.029
51.988
7.902
18.909
24.272
14.027
25.180
74.228
7.089
21.695
23.371
34.053
42.624
16.690
20.298
23.857
16.676
20.224
4.088
16.667
16.787
27.764
*Medium Effects - as measured by the eta squared statistic to assess effect size
**Large Effects
.000
.000
.002
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.001
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.000
.017
.000
.000
.000
.03
.01
.01
.05
.07
.05
.05
.06
.04
.04
.08
.01
.03
.04
.02
.04
.11
.01
.03
.04
.05
.07
.03
.03
.04
.03
.03
.01
.03
.03
.05
.17
.10
.10
.23
.27
.23
.23
.25
.20
.20
.29*
.10
.17
.20
.14
.20
.35*
.10
.17
.20
.23
.27*
.17
.17
.20
.17
.17
.10
.17
.17
.23
Quantitative Phase – The Survey
page 4
It should be noted that the sample size is quite large, which
may significantly affect any statistical tests utilized (Snyder and
Lawson 1993; Thompson and Keiffer 2000).
It is therefore necessary to extend this analysis to distinguish
between statistical significance and practical significance
(Thompson 2002).
Testing for statistical significance does not indicate whether the
results are “important” as relatively minor differences in mean
scores may be statistically significant but represent little
practical differences.
Quantitative Phase – The Survey
page 5
Mean scores on the trait “conservative,” for example, ranged
from 3.89 to 4.40 on a seven-point scale, which in general
indicates ambivalence, yet the result is statistically significant.
The eta squared statistic for the measurement of effect size was
presented in Table 3. The analysis indicates that when all is
said and done, there were few practical differences in
perception found to exist between causes.
Only the traits of responsive, protecting, passionate and heroic
appear to differ, with post hoc tests confirming that the key
differences here are found for animal welfare and visual
impairment.
Quantitative Phase – The Survey
page 6
The majority of differences that emerged were between two or more of
the nine organizations involved with a total of 29 traits showing
moderate or large effects across the organizations involved (as
opposed to the causal groupings involved).
In order to provide practical help for charity brand managers, two
additional analyses were undertaken. First, a factor analysis was
conducted of the traits with small (or no) effect sizes. This allows
researchers to define those facets of brand personality that are shared
across the organizations involved.
If these traits are shared by all, they are not helpful to stress for
purposes of differentiation.
The results are found in Table 4.
Table 4: Charity Non-Differentiators
Factor Analysis of Low Effect and Non-Significant Traits
Trait
Factor
Name
Caring
Component
1
2
3
Benevolence
Progression
Conservatism
.687
Cautious
.771
Conservative
.840
Empowering
.786
Engaging
.727
Ethical
.683
Fair
.661
Focused
.709
Helpful
.756
Honest
.760
Pioneering
.680
Practical
.675
Reputable
.803
Respectful
.705
Responsible
.841
Supportive
.761
Sympathetic
.792
Thoughtful
.699
Transforming
Trustworthy
.742
.775
Visionary
% of Variance
Explained
Cumulative %
Explained
.682
37.1
18.4
6.8
37.1
55.5
62.3
Quantitative Phase – The Survey
page 7
In the second step, a factor analysis was conducted utilizing
those traits that exhibited moderate or high effects and where it
can be argued that practical perceptual differences exist across
the various charities in the sample.
The results are presented in Table 5.
Table 5: Charity Differentiators
Factor Analysis of Medium and High Effect Traits
Trait
Factor
Name
Component
1
2
3
4
Emotional
Stimulatio
n
Service
Voice
Tradition
Ambitious
.764
Approachable
.702
Authoritative
.777
Bold
.788
Compassionate
.863
Dedicated
.846
Exciting
.769
Fun
.781
Heroic
.619
Innovative
.750
Inspiring
.754
Modern
.751
Traditional
.920
% of Variance Explained
27.9
18.1
16.9
8.6
Cumulative Variance
27.9
46.0
62.9
71.4
Quantitative Phase – The Survey
page 8
A series of regressions were run to examine the impact of brand
personality trait factors on actual giving behavior.
Dependent variables were developed by matching questionnaire
responses post hoc with the giving histories recorded in the
charity donor databases.
We looked at the number of gifts given, the total amount given
and the last gift given.
The first regressions were run using the trait factors that were
NOT able to distinguish between the charities in the sample as
predictor variables. None were found to be significant.
Quantitative Phase – The Survey
page 9
Regressions were then run using those trait factors that were
able to distinguish among charities.
The results are found in Table 6.
Table 6: Regression Results
Charity Differentiating Brand Personality Factors and Giving Behavior
Model 1*
Model 2**
Factor
Beta
T
Sig.
Constant
119.163
1.460
.145
Emotional Stimulation
.065
.028
.978
Service
-1.722
-.329
.743
Voice
9.606
2.241
.025
Tradition
-9.741
-1.032
.302
R2
Adjusted R2
F
Df
Sig.
.013
.005
1.638
511
.163
* Dependent Variable: Total Giving
Factor
Beta
T
Sig.
Constant
-2.078
-.346
.730
Emotional Stimulation
.489
2.705
.007
Service
.438
1.077
.283
Voice
-.115
-.341
.733
Tradition
-.889
-1.241
.216
R2
Adjusted R2
F
Df
Sig.
.055
.041
3.971
275
.004
Model 3***
Factor
Beta
T
Sig.
Constant
.652
5.387
.000
Emotional Stimulation
.015
4.427
.000
Service
.010
1.260
.208
Voice
.001
.152
.879
Tradition
.006
.481
.631
R2
Adjusted R2
F
Df
Sig.
.070
.064
13.155
707
.000
**Dependent Variable: Number of Gifts ***Dependent Variable: Last Gift
Quantitative Phase – The Survey
page 10
Significant results were found for the number of gifts and for
the amount of the last gift given.
The trait factor that we labeled as voice was found to have a
major bearing on the total amount given.
The trait factor that we labeled emotional stimulation was found
to have a major impact on the number of gifts and the amount
of the last gift given.
Discussion
page 1
A large number of traits (32) were exhibited equally by all of the
nine charities.
These results support the findings in the qualitative phase that
donors tend to “imbue” a charity with particular characteristics
because it is a charity.
The common traits tend to reflect the voluntary and benevolent
nature of charitable organizations.
H1 and H2 are therefore supported.
While a third component “conservatism” was found, the mean
scores hovered around the scalar midpoint.
Discussion
page 2
The data did not support H3.
While a service factor was found, it appeared to distinguish
among all organizations rather for human causes as a group.
No clear patterns of traits distinguishing among the three
groups of causes was found. Further work is needed.
Discussion
page 3
H4 was supported but H5 was not.
There were 29 traits found to exhibit moderate or large
organizational effects and allowed differentiation among the
nine charities. These were found to load together in four
factors.
In trying to differentiate their charity brand, charity marketers
should look to the nature of emotional stimulation created by
the organization, the voice projected, the character of the
service provision, and the extent to which the organization
might be viewed as traditional.
But traits did not group as expected around the notion of
performance.
Discussion
page 4
There are numerous charities that are presently differentiating
themselves on the factors that we found, and our results
suggest that these dimensions provide them with the greatest
opportunity for differentiation.
Emotional stimulation: Dogs Trust UK use fun to differentiate;
NSPCC (National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Children) are known for their bold stance on social issues’
National Trust focus on tradition and heritage.
In terms of giving, H6 was supported (emotional stimulation
affecting giving) while H7 was not (performance did not affect
giving).
Managerial Implications
page 1
Charity brand personalities are structured differently from their
commercial counterparts.
Donors appear to have a clear conception of what it means to
be a charity and how they expect such organizations to behave.
Of the 61 traits identified in the study, 32 appear to be common
to all charitable organizations.
In the nonprofit sector this suggests that there are a series of
brand personality traits that are NOT built directly through an
organization’s own fundraising or marketing communications.
Managerial Implications
page 2
If the acquisition of such generic personality traits is felt to be
desirable, our results suggest that an organization need only to
ensure that it is recognized as a charity and/or recognized to be
working with a particular cause to have people automatically
imbue the organizations with these traits.
For brand managers who want to differentiate their charity
brands from those of their competitors, promoting values
associated with benevolence or progression will NOT be helpful.
Greater benefit would come from the promotion of those trait
factors that were found to be distinctive, which should also help
to affect giving behavior (emotional stimulation, voice, service
provision and traditionality).
Study Limitations
This work is exploratory in nature, and while the results are
enlightening, they may not generalize completely to the charity
sector as a whole.
It should also be stressed that although the sectoral factors
were not linked to giving to the various charities in the study, it
is possible that the perception of these traits may drive the
issue of whether a given charity is included in a possible choice
set and/or whether a favorable perception of “Charity” is linked
to an individual becoming a donor for the first time. Additional
exploration is warranted.
Suggestions for Future Research
It would be appropriate to expand beyond this limited sampling
of charities to explore additional subsectors and causes.
It would also be prudent to expand beyond this UK setting to
the US and other countries. Do American charities exhibit
different traits from their UK counterparts?
What about corporate donors and their giving patterns? Do
companies give to charities that stress certain personality traits?