DIFRACCIÓN DE FRAUNHOFER: RANURA SIMPLE

When designing CARE campaigns, firms are faced with decisions about the time-frame of such campaigns – it is viewed as one of the core managerial decisions related to CARE (Varadarajan & Menon, 1988).

The duration of a campaign influences consumer responses and seems to signal more than simply when a campaign commences and ends. Also, as with many of the previously discussed CSEs, the influence of campaign duration often depends on its interaction with other elements (Varadarajan & Menon, 1988). Varadarajan and Menon (1988), for instance, suggest a relationship between CARE programme duration and a number of other aspects, including the use of public relations principles, the option of realising a tangible end-product as part of the campaign, and whether or not a maximum donation amount is specified when a campaign commences. In turn, Skitka (1999) has emphasised the relationship between campaign duration and cause type. Further analyses of the findings related to CARE campaign duration provide insights about the time-frame that is most appropriate to adopt when designing campaigns.

Hawkins (2012) analysed empirical research about CARE as used by development-focused organisations in North America and found that campaign duration varied significantly. The

134

largest portion of campaigns was ongoing (35 per cent) or lasted between two and six months (25 per cent). Fourteen percent were six weeks or less in duration, whilst eight percent lasted for seven to twelve months, twelve per cent was unspecified and six per cent continued until all cause-linked items had been sold (Hawkins, 2012). Such diversity of approaches to CARE campaign time-frames seem to be characteristic of the field.

Sagawa and Segal (2000) emphasised that CARE is most effective when a firm or brand focuses on partnering with a single cause over an extended period of time: “Lurching from cause to cause from year to year won’t establish a link in die minds of consumers” (Sagawa & Segal, 2000:128). Pertaining to campaign duration, this earlier comment still seems to hold true. However, it also brings to the fore an important distinction related to CARE campaign time-frames, namely campaign versus partnership duration. As indicated by Sagawa and Segal (2000) a long-term partnership between the for-profit and the non-profit partner is recommended. However, a long-term partnership does not necessarily infer an ongoing campaign. CARE partners thus have two time-frame decisions to make: (1) whether they are willing to commit to a long-term relationship – that might include CARE and other endeavours – with the other partner, and (2) what the duration of a particular CARE campaign will be.

Drumwright (1996) found that a firm’s time commitment to a cause is positively related to the success of a pro-social advertising campaign. Other researchers (Cui et al., 2003:313) agreed that consumers consider the length of a firm’s support as an indication of its commitment. In conjunction with support length (long- versus short-term), support frequency (regular versus occasional) and firm inputs (economic and emotional) have also been highlighted as a determinant of perceived commitment (“an implicit or explicit pledge to relational continuity between exchange partners”) (Cui et al., 2003:313). Consumers have rated long-term involvement with frequent support and more inputs from the firms as more favourable than short-term, less frequent support. It has been suggested that long-term involvement indicates less self-interested motivations (Cui et al., 2003). As mentioned previously in this chapter, longer-term campaigns exert a more favourable impact on firm image and perceived motives for engaging in a CARE campaign (Chéron et al., 2012). Also, longer-term campaigns signal a firm’s willingness to commit to a cause or NPO for an extended period of time and thus convey an impression of selflessness (Chéron et al., 2012). However, short-term campaigns are often preferred, in particular when the focus is disaster relief where the immediacy and the size of the perceived need are extensive (Skitka, 1999; Ross et al., 1992). Varadarajan and Menon (1988) acknowledged that CARE programmes with a short-term focus do occur, but distinguished such campaigns from the “underlying characteristics” of CARE that “suggests the desirability of a medium-term or long-term focus”

135

(Varadarajan & Menon, 1988:63). Royd-Taylor (2007) focused on the fast moving consumer goods industry and recommended that campaign managers should exert extensive effort to avoid that their campaigns appear to be mere short-term sales promotion activities. Therefore it was recommended that managers employ extended campaign durations and even consider non-transactional campaigns with a selection of non-profit partners (Royd- Taylor, 2007).

Tangari et al. (2010) suggested that consumer temporal orientation might influence consumer responses, as individuals have different ways in which they perceive and use time (Cotte, Ratneshwar & Mick, 2004). They suggested that campaign duration might not be perceived in the same manner by all consumers. Experimental research was conducted that assessed the role of consumer temporal orientation and temporal framing on purchase intention and brand attitude (Tangari et al., 2010). Temporal orientation referred to whether consumers were present- or future oriented, whereas temporal framing referred to whether the corporate response in the CARE advert stimulus was portrayed as proximal (situated close to the point of reference) or distal (situated away from the point of reference) (Tangari et al., 2010). It was found that present-oriented consumers have a more positive purchase intention and brand attitude when the CARE advertisement features a proximal rather than a distal corporate response, whilst future-oriented consumers were not differentially affected by proximal or distal corporate responses (Tangari et al., 2010). The results might be explained by construal level theory that suggests that the “mental representation of events change as they move closer in time” and that consumers thus have a more abstract view of distant events and a more concrete view of events that are closer in time (Tangari et al., 2010:37; Chandran & Menon, 2004).

The temporal orientation of consumers might be the reason that many firms refrain from communicating the time-frame of their CARE campaigns when the CARE offer is presented to consumers. Firms often view campaign duration as part of their strategic planning and not as part of their campaign messaging. Thus, campaign time-frames are often not visible in the marketing communications related to a specific CARE campaign. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, the importance of long-term partnerships between for- and non-profit firms were acknowledged, but campaign duration was excluded from empirical inquiry.

136