Various studies have been conducted in regards to single aspects related to co-branding, mostly centred on brand fit, product fit, brand attitudes and purchase intent. Washburn, Till and Priluck (2000) state that co-branding can be a win/win strategy for both co-branding partners regardless of whether original brands are perceived by consumers as having high or low brand equity. They do find that low equity brands benefit more from co-branding relationships, but that high equity brands are not denigrated, and that, generally, positive product trial enhances consumer evaluation of the co-branded product (Washburn, et al., 2000).
Prince and Davies (2002) suggest a courtship process between the involved brands and state that the decision whether to enter a co-branding relationship should be based on the opportunities for creating a competitive advantage and the potential operational benefits that could be accrued (Aaker, 2002; Abratt & Motlana, 2002).
Most studies on the subject of co-branding have focused on either high involvement or low involvement product categories and have called for inquiry that provide simultaneous insights into both levels of involvement (Baumgarth, 2004) because of their differential impacts on consumer evaluations (Hillyer & Tikoo, 1995). Researchers have further proposed the importance of brand fit in co-branding. The issue of fit has received extensive attention over the past years due to its role in CARE and thus warrants further elaboration.
4.5.5.1 The importance of brand fit
Several researchers have stated that the process of how the impressions of one brand are transferred to or affected by the impressions of other brands to which they are strategically linked, plays a significant role in the success of brand alliances (Van der Lans, Van den Bergh & Dieleman, 2014; Levin & Levin, 2000). Embedded in this research challenge is the issue of fit.
Past co-branding research has found that a good fit between brand extensions and core brands positively affect the extension when the core brand is well liked (Bigné-Alcañiz, Currás-Pérez & Aldás-Manzano, 2012; Aaker & Keller, 1993, 1990). Also, fit in terms of attribute complementarity has been found to trigger more favourable product attitudes and enhanced information processing speed (Bigné-Alcañiz et al., 2012; Pracejus & Olsen, 2004; Park, Jun & Shocker, 1996; Kamins & Gupta, 1994; Speck, Schumann & Thompson, 1988).
98
For the purpose of this study the concept of fit relates specifically to the fit between a profit- oriented and a non-profit brand/cause. Firms involved in CARE are faced with the complex challenge of identifying a cause that fits with the brand identity of the firm and simultaneously satisfies and reconciles both business and philanthropic objectives (Bigné-Alcañiz et al., 2012; Cone et al., 2003).
The management of the fit between the product and the cause is becoming increasingly important, most probably due to the evolution of CARE beyond once-off tactical activities toward a more strategic approach (Bigné-Alcañiz et al., 2012; Mullen, 1997; Cone 1996). The aim of managing the fit between the product and the cause is to optimise the performance of a CARE campaign through the creation of a good fit (Hamilin & Wilson, 2004; Bainbridge, 2001; Gray, 2000). What constitutes a good fit has been only loosely defined, sometimes in terms of common values and sometimes in terms of common target groups, but a more clear definition seems to be evolving through time (Hamlin & Wilson, 2004).
Initially Hamlin and Wilson (2004) stated that a noteworthy level of attention has been dedicated to the issue of fit within the CARE literature. However, according to Nan and Heo (2007:64) in a later publication “there has been surprisingly scant research addressing the role of brand/cause fit in determining the effects of CARE”, despite the apparent importance thereof. Hamlin and Wilson (2004) concurred that, although case studies and commentaries can be found, there is little empirical evidence in either the commercial or academic literature to support the assertion that fit will optimise the performance of CARE campaigns. Extant results about cause-brand fit provide greater insights about this important CARE concept.
Drumwright (1996) explored the preconditions for the success of social campaigns and found firm-cause compatibility to be a major contributor to perceived campaign success. The researcher operationalised firm-cause compatibility as the relationship of cause and core business, affinity for the cause among key constituents, and support of the cause community.
Polonsky and Speed (2001:1375) extended their research beyond mere compatibility and contended that negative consequences can arise due to a failure to demonstrate fit in CARE. An example of a potential negative consequence includes sophisticated consumers’ perception that unrelated programmes merely exploit an issue, whereas a strong fit in CARE programmes are viewed as a “signal of sincerity” (Polonsky & Speed, 2001:1376) and as being representative of sound, authentic firm motives (Folse et al., 2010; Chiagouris & Ray 2007). Hamlin and Wilson (2004) found that the degree of fit between products and causes
99
has a significant effect on consumers’ evaluations of products that form part of the CARE campaign and have therefore gained a cause-brand identity.
Researchers such as Pracejus and Olsen (2004) have contributed significantly to the CARE literature when they succeeded, by means of choice conjoint techniques, in calculating the magnitude of CARE impact, both in terms of market share and trade-off with price. It was found that, in terms of trade-offs against price discounts, a donation to a charitable organisation with a high fit with the firm’s brand can lead to a donation magnitude that is five to ten times the value of a donation to a low fit charitable organisation (Pracejus & Olsen, 2004). Pracejus and Olsen (2004) have also demonstrated that the fit between a profit- oriented brand and a cause may moderate the effectiveness of a CARE programme. The researchers emphasised that the “perceived fit between the company and the charity is an important measure that should always be taken prior” to any campaign (Pracejus & Olsen, 2004:640).
Kim (2005) found that the fit between the brand and the cause in CARE has the ability to trigger consumer scepticism, for example, firms in sinful industries such as tobacco or alcohol, could be accused of trying to increase sales among the youth when supporting community youth programmes in their CARE campaigns (Szykman, 2004).
Nan and Heo (2007) conducted a controlled experiment and found that when an advertisement with an embedded CARE message is compared to a similar advertisement without a CARE message, the CARE approach elicits a more favourable attitude toward the firm, regardless of the level of fit between the sponsoring brand and the social cause. However, when brands are paired within a CARE campaign, fit has generally been found to facilitate positive transfers between the objects involved and seems to be a necessary consideration for successful campaigns (Pracejus & Olsen, 2004).
Bigné-Alcañiz, Curras-Pérez, Ruiz-Mafé and Sanz-Blas (2012) found that high social cause- brand fit leads to the strengthening of the positive influence of CSR associations on brand attitude formation and it also reinforces behavioural responses in favour of the brand and social cause.
According to Harben and Forsythe (2011) the influence of cause-brand fit on a firm’s perceived motives for engaging in the alliance, is supported by attribution theory which suggests that when people attempt to interpret the reasons for an action, they tend to place importance on the entity performing the action’s motives (Kelley & Michela, 1980; Jones &
100
Davis, 1965; Heider, 1958). In terms of CARE attribution theory thus suggests that people will infer reasons for the brand’s partnering with the cause and that these inferences will be affected by cause-brand fit (Harben & Forsythe, 2011). Besides emphasising the importance of a good cause-brand fit, attribution theory thus also accentuates the role of perceived firm motives in CARE campaign effectiveness.
Anghel et al. (2011) refer to cause-brand fit as compatibility and confirm that high compatibility leads to greater effectiveness and CARE campaign success. However, Bloom, Hussein and Szykman (1995) warn that compatibility is desirable, but not an absolute necessity. Rather, cause-brand fit should be planned in conjunction with other CSEs which could possibly have a moderating effect on the influence of fit on CARE (Robinson et al., 2012). It was, for instance, found that the stifling effect of a low-fit cause can be countered by offering consumers the option of selecting a cause as part of the CARE campaign (Robinson, et al., 2012).
4.5.5.2 Co-branding in the current study
Co-branding infers a planned relationship between brands, usually interpreted in terms of two or more for-profit partners. Co-branding has been applied to the CARE context only – instead of including two for-profit brands, a for-profit and a non-profit brand were included (Baghi & Gabrielli, 2013). Baghi and Gabrielli (2013) emphasised the potential that can be unlocked by understanding co-branding strategy in a CARE context. Their intent was to determine which brand (for- or non-profit) and which level of awareness (high or low) exert the most influence on consumer opinions and intentions. The results indicated that the for-profit independently exerts no significant influence, but the non-profit brand alone and in interaction with the for- profit brand positively influenced consumer purchase likelihood (Baghi & Gabrielli, 2013). The results confirmed the suspected value of co-branding strategy for CARE and emphasised that it is advisable for non-profit marketing practitioners to embrace the importance of brand building.
In this research the importance of branding, co-branding and cause-brand fit is acknowledged and taken into consideration during the research design, the selection of stimuli elements and measurement.