Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-9xpg2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-09T10:24:05.203Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The impact of cause-related marketing (CRM) in spectator sport

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Ki Tak Kim ,
Dae Hee Kwak  and
Yu Kyoum Kim
Ki Tak Kim
Affiliation:
Paichai University, Daejeon, South Korea
Dae Hee Kwak
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA
Yu Kyoum Kim
Affiliation:
The Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Cause-related marketing (CRM) refers to the marketing strategy an organization uses to associate itself with a good cause. Even though CRM decisions may be partly charitable, they may also serve corporate self-interest. Although this area of inquiry is growing, CRM's strategic potential as an effective management tool for connecting sport organizations (i.e., teams) with consumers has not been thoroughly examined in a sport management context. In order to provide an improved picture of spectator sport consumers' perceptions toward a sport team's CRM initiatives, we developed a structural model that incorporates perceived CRM, attitudes toward the team, and re-attendance intention. Using LISREL analysis, the findings showed that CRM's effect on re-attendance intention was completely mediated through the attitude toward the team. In addition, perceptions toward the team's motive for CRM did not vary CRM's effect on attitude and behavioral intention. The lack of interaction effect might provide evidence that there may be universal appeal and effectiveness of CRM in a spectator sport context. Consequently, the findings provide a useful rationale for making managerial decisions about implementing and maintaining CRM efforts in sport organization.

Keywords

corporate social responsibilitycause-related marketingsport consumption

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , September 2010 , pp. 515 - 527
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.Google Scholar
Aschermann, K. (2006). No charity, no glory: Teams, leagues embrace new social consciousness. Street & Smith's SportsBusiness Journal, 9(23), 30.Google Scholar
Barone, J. J., Miyazaki, A. D., & Taylor, K. A. (2000). The influence of cause related marketing on consumer choice: Does one good turn deserve another? Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, 29, 248–262.Google Scholar
Barone, J. J., Norman, A. T., & Miyazaki, A. D. (2007). Consumer response to retailer use of cause-related marketing: Is more fit better? Journal of Retailing, 83(4), 437–445.Google Scholar
Becker-Olsen, K. L., Cudmore, B. A., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Research, 59, 46–53.Google Scholar
Berger, I. M., Cunningham, M. P., & Kozinets, R. V. (1996). The processing of cause-related marketing claims: Cues, biases or motivators? AMA Educators' Proceedings, 7, 71–72.Google Scholar
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2008). Does it pay to be different? An analysis of the relationship between corporate social and inancial performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1325–1343.Google Scholar
Brown, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternatives ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 230–258.Google Scholar
Brown, S. P., & Stayman, D. M. (1992). Antecedents and consequences of attitude toward the ad: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 34–51.Google Scholar
Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The company and the product: Corporate association and consumer product responses. Journal of Marketing, 61, 68–84.Google Scholar
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65, 81–93.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical poweranalysisfor the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Cone, C. L., Feldman, M. A., & DaSilva, A. T. (2003). Causes and effects. Harvard Business Review, 81(7), 95–101.Google Scholar
Cregan, R. (2008). Rewards of being a good sport. Brand Strategy, 223, 54–55.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coeficient alpha and the internal structure of a test. Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.Google Scholar
Dean, H. D. (2004). Consumer perception of corporate donations: Effects of company reputation for social responsibility and type of donation. Journal of Advertising, 32(4), 91–102.Google Scholar
Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994) Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22, 99–113.Google Scholar
DiNitto, E. (1989). Marketing with a conscience. Marketing Communications, 14(5), 42–46.Google Scholar
Drumwright, M. E. (1996). Company advertising with a social dimension: The role of noneco-nomic criteria. Journal of Marketing, 60, 71–87.Google Scholar
Ellen, P. S., Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2000). Charitable programs and the retailer: Do they mix? Journal of Retailing, 76, 393–406.Google Scholar
Ellen, P. S., Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 147–157.Google Scholar
File, K. M., & Prince, R. A. (1998). Cause related marketing and corporate philanthropy in the privately held enterprise. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(14), 1529–1539.Google Scholar
Fournier, S. M. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343–373.Google Scholar
Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63, 70–87.Google Scholar
Gupta, S., & Pirsch, J. (2006). A taxonomy of cause-related marketing research: Current findings and future research directions. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 15, 25–43.Google Scholar
Hair, J. F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2005). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.Google Scholar
Iacobucci, D., Saldanha, N., & Deng, X. (2007). A mediation on mediation: Evidence that structural equations models perform better that regressions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 139–153.Google Scholar
Irwin, R. L., Lachowetz, T., Cornwell, B., & Clark, J. S. (2003). Cause-related sport sponsorship: An assessment of spectator beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12(3), 131–139.Google Scholar
Johnson, D., & Grayson, K. (2005). Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships. Journal of Business Research, 58, 500–507.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). PRELIS (Version 2.80) [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.Google Scholar
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1–22.Google Scholar
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Kukalis, S. (2009). Survey of recent developments in strategic management: Implications for practitioners. International Journal of Management, 26(1), 99–106.Google Scholar
Lacey, R., Suh, J., & Morgan, R. M. (2007). Differential effects of preferential treatment levels on relational outcomes. Journal of Service Research, 9, 241–256.Google Scholar
Lafferty, B. A., & Goldsmith, R. E. (1999). Corporate credibility role in consumers' attitude and purchase intentions when a high versus a low credibility endorser is used in the ad. Journal of Business Research, 44, 109–116.Google Scholar
Lavack, A. M., & Kropp, F. (2003). A cross-cultural comparison of consumer attitudes toward cause related marketing. Social Marketing Quarterly, 9(2), 3–16.Google Scholar
Laverie, D. A., & Arnett, D. B. (2000). Factors affecting fan attendance: The influence of identity salience and satisfaction. Journal of Leisure Research, 32, 225–246.Google Scholar
Lavidge, R. J., & Steiner, G. A. (1961). A model for predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 26, 59–62.Google Scholar
Lombardo, J. (2008). NBA drafts sponsors into public service. Street & Smith's Sportsbusiness Journal, 10(41), 41.Google Scholar
MacInnis, D. J., & Jaworski, B. J. (1989). Information processing from advertisement: Toward an integrative framework. Journal of Marketing, 53, 1–23.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the AD in an advertising pretest context. Journal of Marketing, 53, 48–65.Google Scholar
Madden, T. J., Allen, C. T., & Twible, J. L. (1988). Attitude toward the ad: An assessment of diverse measurement indices under different processing “sets”. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 242–252.Google Scholar
Maignan, I. (2001). Consumers' perceptions of corporate social responsibilities: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 30, 57–72.Google Scholar
Mardia, K. V. (1985). Mardia's test of multinor-mality. In Kotz, S. & Johnson, N. L. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistical sciences (Vol. 5, pp. 217–221). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
McAlister, D. T., & Ferrell, L. (2002) The role of strategic philanthropy in marketing strategy. European Journal of Marketing, 36(5/6), 689–705.Google Scholar
McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. R. (2002). Principles and practices in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82.Google Scholar
Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factor invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–544.Google Scholar
Mohr, L. A., Webb, D. J., & Harris, K. E. (2001) Do consumers expect companies to be socially responsible? The impact of corporate social responsibility on buying behavior. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35(1), 45–72.Google Scholar
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journalof Marketing, 58, 20–58.Google Scholar
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, O. M. (2008). Mplus (Version 5.2) [Computer software]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., Grewal, D., & Evans, K. R. (2006). Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 136–153.Google Scholar
Poole, M. (2007). Doing the right thing is also the logical thing for companies. Street & Smith's Sportsbusiness Journal, 10(9), 20.Google Scholar
Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 173–184.Google Scholar
Raykov, T. (2001) Estimation of congeneric scale reliability using covariance structure analysis with nonlinear constraints. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 9, 315–323.Google Scholar
Rigney, M., & Steenhuysen, J. (1991). Conscience raising, Advertising Age, 62(35), 19.Google Scholar
Ross, J. K., Patterson, L., & Stutts, M. A. (1992). Consumers' perceptions of organizations that use cause-related marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20, 93–97.Google Scholar
Ross, J. K., Stutts, M. A., & Patterson, L. (1991). Tactical considerations for the effective use of cause-related marketing. Journal of Applied Business Research, 7, 58–65.Google Scholar
Ross, S. D. (2006) A conceptual framework for understanding spectator-based brand equity. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 22–38.Google Scholar
Roth, M. S. (1995). The effects of culture and socioeconomics on the performance of global brand image strategies. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 163–175.Google Scholar
Roy, D. P., & Graeff, T. R. (2003). Consumer attitudes toward cause-related marketing activities in professional sports. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12(3), 163–172.Google Scholar
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In von Eye, A. & Clogg, C. C. (Eds.), Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399–419). Englewood Cliffs, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Smith, V., & Langford, P. (2009) Evaluating the impact of corporate social responsibility programs on consumers. Journal of Management & Organization, 15(1), 97–109.Google Scholar
SPSS, Inc. (2005). SPSS (Version 16.0) [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70.Google Scholar
Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52, 58–74.Google Scholar
Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (1998). A typology of consumer responses to cause-related marketing: From skeptics to socially concerned. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17(2), 226–238.Google Scholar
Weston, R., & Gore, P. A. (2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 719–751.Google Scholar
Yoon, Y., Gürban-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on companies with bad reputation. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16, 377–390.Google Scholar