Abstract
The brand personality of nonprofit service organizations (NPO) is a focal cue for individuals engaging in pro-social behavior. However, the positive effect of brand personality on donors’ intention to engage pro-socially may be affected in cases in which NPOs provide monetary incentives to those donors. Relying on social exchange theory, the authors examine how monetary incentives and brand personality commonly affect the intention to donate and whether this effect varies based on the perceived trustworthiness of the NPO. The results of two experimental studies show that branding and incentivizing decisions should not be developed independently because monetary incentives do indeed undermine the positive effects of brand personality on the intention to donate. However, the effectiveness of incentives varies with the perceived level of trust in the NPO: highly trusted NPO services are harmed by monetary incentives, whereas less-trusted NPOs may even benefit.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
To use only realistic responses, we considered only potential blood donors and excluded 49 participants who were not allowed to donate blood due to medical conditions or age restrictions (<18 years; >71 years). Additionally, we excluded five participants because of their unrealistically fast processing time (<8 min; average: 17 min).
Similarly to Study 1, we excluded 196 participants (besides the 418 valid responses) who were not eligible to donate blood and 40 respondents who gave answers with low reliability.
References
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 347–356.
Aaker, J. L., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S. A. (2004). When good brands do bad. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 1–16.
American Red Cross. (2015). Give blood. Retrieved from http://www.redcross.org/blood. Accessed 1 Jan 2015.
Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow giving. Economic Journal, 100, 464–477.
Ariely, D., Bracha, A., & Meier, S. (2009). Doing good or doing well? Image motivation and monetary incentives in behaving prosocially. American Economic Review, 99(1), 544–555.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1975). Marketing as exchange. Journal of Marketing, 39(4), 32–39.
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer–company identification: A framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(April), 76–88.
Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brand experience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affect loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73(3), 52–68.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668.
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335–362.
European Blood Alliance. (2009). Competition in the EU blood component market. Amsterdam: Position Paper.
Faircloth, J. B. (2005). Factors influencing nonprofit resource provider support decisions: applying the brand equity concept to nonprofits. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 13(3), 1.
Falk, A., & Kosfeld, M. (2006). The Hidden Costs of Control. American Economic Review, 96(5), 1611–1630.
Fehr, E., & Falk, A. (2002). Psychological Foundations of Incentives. European Economic Review, 46(4–5), 687–724.
Fehr, E., & List, J. (2004). The Hidden Costs and Returns on Incentives - Trust and Trustworthiness among CEOs. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2(5), 743–771.
Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689–723.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Fuster, A., & Meier, S. (2010). Another Hidden Cost of Price Incentives: The Detrimental Effect on Norme Enforcement. Management Science, 56(1), 57–70.
Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An Updated Paradigm for Scale Development Incorporating Unidimensionality and Its Assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 186–192.
Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000a). A Fine Is a Price. Journal of Legal Studies, 29(1), 1–18.
Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000b). Pay Enough or Don’t Pay at All. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 791–810.
Gneezy, U., Meier, S., & Rey-Biel, P. (2011). When and Why Incentives (Don’t) Work to Modify Behavior. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(4), 191–209.
Grohmann, B. (2009). Gender dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 105–119.
Heyman, J., & Ariely, D. (2004). Effort for Payment: A Tale of Two Markets. Psychological Science, 15(11), 787–793.
Hou, J., Du, L., & Tian, Z. (2009). The effects of nonprofit brand equity on individual giving intention: mediating by the self-concept of individual donor. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 14(3), 215–229.
Kotler, P. & Keller, K.L. (2011). Marketing Management ((14th ed.) Upper Saddle River: Pearson).
Lacetera, N., Macis, M., & Slonim, R. (2014). Rewarding Volunteers: A Field Experiment. Management Science, 60(5), 1107–1129.
Lemmens, K. P. H., Abraham, C., Hoekstra, T., Ruiter, R. A. C., De Kort, W., Brug, J., & Schaalma, H. P. (2005). Why don’t young people volunteer to give blood? An investigation of the correlates of donation intentions among young nondonors. Transfusion, 45(6), 945–955.
Lemmens, K. P. H., Abraham, C., Ruiter, R. A. C., Veldhuizen, I. J. T., Dehing, C. J. G., Bos, A. E. R., & Schaalma, H. P. (2009). Modelling antecedents of blood donation motivation among non-donors of varying age and education. British Journal of Psychology, 100(1), 71–90.
Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the” overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(1), 129.
Lichtenstein, D. R., Drumwright, M. E., & Braig, B. M. (2004). The Effect of Corporate Social Responsibility on Customer Donations to Corporate-Supported Nonprofits. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 16–32.
Mellstrom, C., & Johannesson, M. (2008). Crowding out in Blood Donation: Was Titmuss Right? Journal of the European Economic Association, 6(4), 845–863.
Misje, A. H., Bosnes, V., Gasdal, O., & Heier, H. E. (2005). Motivation, recruitment and retention of voluntary non-remunerated blood donors: A survey-based questionnaire study. Vox Sanguinis, 89(4), 236–244.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships Between Providers and Users of Market Research: The Dynamics of Trust Within and Between Organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 314–328.
Naskrent, J. & Siebelt, P. (2011). The Influence of Commitment, Trust, Satisfaction, and Involvement on Donor Retention. Voluntas, 22(4), 757-78.
Oswalt, R. M., & Napoliello, M. (1974). Motivations of blood donors and nondonors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59(1), 122–124.
Piliavin, J. A. (1990). Why do they give the gift of life? A review of research on blood donors since 1977. Transfusion, 30(5), 444–459.
Rose-Ackerman, S. (1996). Altruism, nonprofits, and economic theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(June), 701–728.
Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(4), 305–335.
Sargeant, A., Ford, J. B., & Hudson, J. (2008a). Charity brand personality: The relationship with giving behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(3), 468–491.
Sargeant, A., Hudson, J., & West, D. C. (2008b). Conceptualizing brand values in the charity sector: the relationship between sector, cause and organization. Service Industries Journal, 28(5), 615–632.
Sung, Y., & Kim, J. (2010). Effects of brand personality on brand trust and brand affect. Psychology & Marketing, 27(7), 639–661.
Tapp, A. (1996). Charity Brands: A Qualitative Study of Current Practice. Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 1(4), 327–336.
Tapp, A., Lindsay, G., & Sorrell, R. (1999). Towards a branding framework for cause-, funding-and need-oriented charities. Journal of Marketing Communications, 5(1), 39–50.
Titmuss, R. M. (1970). The gift relationship. London: Allen and Unwin.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.
Venable, B. T., Rose, G. M., Bush, V. D., & Gilbert, F. W. (2005). The Role of Brand Personality in Charitable Giving: An Assessment and Validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(3), 295–312.
Winterich, K. P., & Zhang, Y. (2014). Accepting Inequality Deters Responsibility: How Power Distance Decreases Charitable Behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(2), 274–293.
Winterich, K. P., Mittal, V., & Aquino, K. (2013a). When Does Recognition Increase Charitable Behavior? Toward a Moral Identity-Based Model. Journal of Marketing, 77(3), 121–134.
Winterich, K. P., Mittal, V., Swartz, R., & Aquino, K. (2013b). When Moral Identity Symbolization Motivates Prosocial Behavior: The Role of Recognition and Moral Identity Internalization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 759–770.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful for the support of this research from the blood donation services of the German Red Cross North and East.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix: Description of Measures
Construct/items | Study 1 | Study 2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | SD | Mean | SD | |
Intentiona (Lemmens et al. 2009) | ||||
Do you intent to give blood in the next 6 month | 4.18 | 2.22 | 3. 37 | 2.16 |
Integrityb (Venable et al. 2005) | 3.79 | 0.88 | 3.39 | 1.21 |
The organization is honest | 3.64 | 1.09 | 3.28 | 1.32 |
The organization has positive influence | 3.77 | 1.02 | 3.41 | 1.29 |
The organization is committed to the public good | 3.86 | 0.95 | 3.44 | 1.30 |
The organization is reputable | 3.94 | 0.91 | 3.56 | 1.20 |
The organization is reliable | 3.73 | 1.03 | 3.26 | 1.37 |
Nurturanceb (Venable et al. 2005) | 3.46 | 0.93 | 3.42 | 1.26 |
The organization is compassionate | 3.27 | 1.12 | 3.00 | 1.36 |
The organization is caring | 3.57 | 0.98 | 3.23 | 1.30 |
The organization is loving | 3.55 | 0.94 | 3.13 | 1.29 |
Ruggednessb (Venable et al. 2005) | 2.95 | 0.78 | 2.95 | 0.89 |
The organization is tough | 3.63 | 0.99 | 3.76 | 1.10 |
The organization is masculine | 2.41 | 1.11 | 2.60 | 1.19 |
The organization is outdoor | 2.59 | 1.12 | 2.47 | 1.19 |
The organization is western | 3.17 | 1.12 | 3.12 | 1.20 |
Sophisticationb (Venable et al. 2005) | 2.55 | 0.92 | 2.47 | 1.03 |
The organization is good-looking | 3.21 | 1.05 | 2.96 | 1.20 |
The organization is upper-class | 2.11 | 1.08 | 2.17 | 1.15 |
The organization is glamorous | 2.33 | 1.18 | 2.27 | 1.19 |
Past behaviorc (Lemmens et al. 2009) | ||||
Have you donated blood within the last 10 years? | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.49 | 0.50 |
Demographics | ||||
Please state how old you are | 39.63 | 12.65 | 42.93 | 14.05 |
Please select your gender (1 = male) | 0.43 | 0.50 | 0.59 | 0.49 |
Are you employed | 0.81 | 0.39 | 0.73 | 0.44 |
Appendix: Correlations
Study 1 | Alpha | Expl. Var. | 1. | 2. | 3. | 4. | 5. | 6. | 7. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Integrity | 0.95 | 0.84 | 1.00 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
2. Nurturance | 0.92 | 0.87 | 0.73 | 1.00 | – | – | – | – | – |
3. Ruggedness | 0.73 | 0.56 | 0.31 | 0.48 | 1.00 | – | – | – | – |
4. Sophistication | 0.78 | 0.71 | 0.24 | 0.48 | 0.70 | 1.00 | – | – | – |
5. Past Behavior | – | – | 0.07 | −0.02 | −0.00 | −0.06 | 1.00 | – | – |
6. Age | – | – | −0.07 | −0.16 | −0.21 | −0.19 | 0.04 | 1.00 | – |
7. Gender | – | – | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.12 | 0.25 | 0.22 | 1.00 |
8. Employment | – | – | −0.01 | 0.08 | −0.10 | −0.02 | 0.07 | −0.04 | −0.00 |
Study 2 | Alpha | Expl. Var. | 1. | 2. | 3. | 4. | 5. | 6. | 7. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Integrity | 0.96 | 0.86 | 1.00 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
2. Nurturance | 0.94 | 0.89 | 0.87 | 1.00 | – | – | – | – | – |
3. Ruggedness | 0.75 | 0.57 | 0.43 | 0.47 | 1.00 | – | – | – | – |
4. Sophistication | 0.80 | 0.72 | 0.50 | 0.58 | 0.68 | 1.00 | – | – | – |
5. Past Behavior | – | – | −0.02 | −0.03 | −0.02 | −0.02 | 1.00 | – | – |
6. Age | – | – | −0.05 | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.03 | −0.19 | 1.00 | – |
7. Gender | – | – | 0.01 | −0.04 | −0.05 | 0.02 | 0.02 | −0.12 | 1.00 |
8. Employment | – | – | 0.07 | −0.00 | −0.05 | −0.05 | 0.11 | −0.04 | 0.09 |
Appendix: Experimental Stimuli used in Study 1
Monetary Incentive Treatment
Imagine you are on your way to work. A person approaches you and reveals s/he works for the nonprofit organization X. The person informs you about the relevance of blood donations and that donating blood may help to save lives because blood cannot be produced artificially. Then, the person encourages you to donate blood at X’s donation center located close to your home. The person also mentions that X offers 20€ in cash for each time you donate blood.
No Incentive Treatment
Imagine you are on your way to work. A person approaches you and reveals s/he works for the nonprofit organization X. The person informs you about the relevance of blood donations and that donating blood may help to save lives because blood cannot be produced artificially. Then, the person encourages you to donate blood at X’s donation center located close to your home.
Appendix: Experimental Stimuli used in Study 2
High Trust Treatment
Our blood is a merchandising product—Organization X earns millions by selling donated blood to health industry firms.
Berlin Consumer protection organizations are seriously concerned. A recent study on blood donation reveals that only 26 percent of whole blood donations are really needed for patient care. The overwhelming amount of donated blood is sold to the health industry at a substantial profit. Blood donors come away empty-handed, because organization X does not pay for blood donations.
It is unclear whether these revenues are only used to cover the costs. Organization X takes advantage of its long-standing monopoly position within the blood donation market and does not publishing its annual accounts.
Low Trust Treatment
Our blood saves lives—The nonprofit organization X helps to save lives!
Berlin The activities of organization X made it possible to help numerous sick and injured patients in 2011. The social and engagement of organization X is exemplary. According to a recent report, organization X provided the major amount of needed blood also in 2011.
In this context, organization X is clearly focused on the benefit to the public. Organization X operates with exemplary transparency regarding its objectives, activities, as well as the use of resources.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shehu, E., Becker, J.U., Langmaack, AC. et al. The Brand Personality of Nonprofit Organizations and the Influence of Monetary Incentives. J Bus Ethics 138, 589–600 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2595-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2595-3