Case Study Charity

Leveraging Customer Information to DeveiopSequential Communication Strategies:A Case Study of Charitabie-Giving Behavior

JAMES W. PELTIERUniversity of

Wisconsin-Whitewater

Peitier)@uwwvax.uww.edu

JOHN A.SCHIBROWSKYUniversity of

Nevada-Las VegasSchibrow@ccmaii.

nevada.edu

DON E. SCHULTZNorthwestern [email protected].

nwu.edu

In this paper we develop a comprehensive model that integrates attitudinal,

motivational, and psychographical data from customers and combines that with

behavioral data to determine the overall impact on interactive relationships. We

investigate the sequential or multi-staged nature of the relationship-building process

and how these stages impact relationship loyalty. By doing so, longitudinal

communication strategies can be developed that help move prospects through the

decision process, culminating in long-term loyalty to the organization and/or social

cause. Marketing as a discipline has long been criticized for its focus on enhancing

corporate rather than consumer welfare. Our model is constructed and tested in a

university/alumni giving setting.

MARKETING AS A DisaPLiNE has long been criticizedfor its focus on corporate rather than consumerwflfare. These criticisms contributed to the rise inresearch on "social" marketing, with its emphasis(,>n how marketing efforts can enhance society'swell being and quality of life (Bloom and Novelli,1981).

SOCIAL MARKETING: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Social marketing efforts differ from traditionalmarketing in that they are designed primarily tobenefit targeted audiences directly (e.g., adoptingspecial-needs children) or society in general (e.g.,less-polluted environment) rather than the finan-cial worth of the sponsoring organization (An-dreasen, 1994). Although still emerging as a disci-pline, strategic applications of social marketingprinciples in such areas as health, education, andcharitable giving show much promise for improv-ing peoples' everyday lives (Wilkie and Moore,1999).

Traditionally, the cornerstone of marketing hasbeen creating satisfactory buyer-seller exchanges.Early social marketing literature adhered to thebelief that the accruement of societal benefits

could only be accomplished through understand-ing exchange relationships (Kotler and Zaltman,1971). Unfortunately, most of today's social mar-keting efforts fail to acknowledge the critical im-portance of maintaining exchange-oriented rela-tionships in the marketplace (Andreasen, 1995).William Smith (1993), a noted practitioner statesthat "the problem with social marketing practice isclear, there is often little or no marketing." To takesocial marketing to a higher level, the focus mustturn to managing socially motivated behaviorsthat come as a result of the development of tan-gible or intangible relationships (Rothschild, 1999).

Nowhere in the field of social marketing is therean area that would benefit more through an in-creased utilization of marketing theory than thatof charitable-giving behavior. The problem is be-coming acute in that donors are becoming lessloyal and more cynical toward nonprofit groups(Craver et al., 1999a) and are increasingly discern-ing when assessing potential relationships with so-cial organizations (Berger and Smith, 1997). Re-search is thus needed to better understand donor-recipient relationships and to find ways tofacilitate the relationship-building process (Cer-mak et al., 1994).

J u l y . August 2002 MMl DF flOUEIlTISIflG eESEflRCH 2 3

COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES

Emergence of interactive marketing"lnternctive" marketing, an emergingbody of research in the marketing com-munications literature, offers considerablepromise for enliancing our understandingol-' donor-recipient relationships. Relatedin theory and practice to the concepts ofrelationship marketing, one-on-one mar-keting, and customer relationship man-agement, interactive marketing utilizesextensive "customer-driven" data cap-tured via person-to-person or person-to-technology contacts to create individual-ized exchanges designed to affect achange in knowledge or behavior of atleast one person (Haeckel, 1998). To maxi-mize the value of interactive relationships,it is critical to not only measure loho yourcustomers are and wJwt they are doing,you must also understand the psychologi-cal factors that impact why they are seek-ing or maintaining a relatior\ship (Peltier etal., 1998). Once acquired, interactive datacan be synthesized to develop and imple-ment information-intensive communicationstrategies tailored to meet the needs t)f in-dividual customers {Peppers et ai., 1999).

Despite these advantages, relatively feworganizations are truly customer-focusedand thus fall far short of reaching the fuilpotential of interactive marketing (Deigh-ton and Glazer, 1997, 1998). For the mostpart, firms have tended to rely on eitherbehavioral data or attitudinal data buthave great difficulty combining the two.Thus, many organizations know whattheir customers do or how they feel buthave difficulty understanding the total re-lationship (Schultz et al., 2001). Because ofa dearth of literature in this area, concep-tual and empirical research that investi-gates how psychographic-related data,such as customer lifestyles, attitudes, be-liefs, values, needs, motivations, and pri-orities, can be "leveraged" to impact posi-tive interactive relationships is warranted(Webster, 1998).

Longitudinal communication strategiesKeshibaum et al. (1998) argue that rela-tionship building has a substantial timehorizon, and that longitudinal contactstrategies are needed that present a coher-ent stream of marketing communicationsfor converting prospects into loyal cus-tomers. They contend that general and di-rect marketers often fail to take a long-term approach in their communicationstrategies, and that this failure hinderstheir ability to take full advantage ofemerging media technologies and the spe-cial competencies they provide for usingbuyer-seller dialogs to build and nurtureinteractive relationships. Through theselong-term dialogs, effective customer rela-tionship strategies can be developed thatutilize multiple messages, communicationformats, and advertising themes acrossthe relationship life cycle (Baker et al.,1998). In practice, successful longitudinalcommunications are contingent upon theability to understand the importance ofvarious descriptive, behavioral, and psy-chographic-related data at different stagesof tbe relational decision process (Peltierct al., 2002).

Although there is growing support thatmessage strategies influence buyers in dif-ferent ways at different stages of the deci-sion process (Berger and Smith, 1998), thatrelationships are sequential in nature (la-cobucci and Hibbard, 1999), and that in-teractivity can only occur when marketersimplement information-intensive strate-gies that adapt communications to theneeds of their customers (Glazer, 1999),virtually no studies exist in the interactivemarketing or communication literaturethat develop and test comprehensivemodels of how customer information canbe leveraged throughout the relationshipdevelopment process. The purpose of thisarticle is to begin to fill that void.

In this article, we develop a comprehen-sive donor relationship-building model

that integrates attitudinal, motivational,and psychographical data from customer::,and combines that with behavioral data todetermine their overall impact on interac-tive relationships. We are especially inter-ested in determining the sequential ormulti-staged nature of the relationship-building process and how this orderingimpacts long-term loyalty. In this way,phased and/or longitudinal communica-tion strategies can be developed to moveprospects along a decision life cycle, cul-minating in long-term loyalty to the orga-nization and/or support for a social cause.Our model is constructed and tested in auniversity giving setting. Because manyuniversities have a database containingmultiple forms of descriptive and behav-ioral data (Burdenski, 1991), appendingattitudinal, motivational, and psycho-graphical information offers an opportu-nity to develop a database that is rich intheory and strategic application (Mora etai., 1998).

Longitudinal communications, interactivemarketing, and the charitabie-givingprocessThe development of longitudinal commu-nication strategies that move individualsalong from the prospect to the loyal rela-tionship partner continuum becomesmore difficult without an understandingof "what" types of appeals and informa-tion content are needed, "when" these dif-ferent communications should take place,and "how often" they need to be commu-nicated (Kestnbaum et al., 1998). Alongthese same lines. Stern (1997) contendsthat marketing relationships are intimatein nature and require communicationsthat address needs of both rational andemotional consumers. Using advertisingas her message medium, she proposedfive stages that need to be addressed tobuild intimate relationships: communica-tion, caring, commitment, comfort (com-

24 Of flOU[flTISIOD RESEfieCH July . August 2 0 0 2

OOMMUNICATION STRATEGIES

patibility), and conflict resolution. Devel-oping stepped communication strategiesover various stages of the charitable-giving life cycle has considerable merit forstrengthening donor-recipient relation-ships (Bendapudi et al., 1996).

The emerging interactive marketing lit-erature provides a foundation for under-standing how donor data can be inte-grated to develop and enhance donor-recipient relationships. Peltier et al. (1998)developed and tested a data-erJiancementrelationship model that integrated de-scriptive characteristics, attitudinal judg-ments, buying motives, relationship ben-efits, psyehographics, and lifestyles toform relational segments. Building uponthis work, Peltier et al. (2002) provided adetailed review of psychographic-relateddata and developed relationship segmentsIhal differed in terms of behavioral re-sponse to financial service products andprofitability. Though these studies offeredinsight into how customer data may beleveraged to form interactive relation-ships, no effort was made to identify andassess the hierarchical and sequentialnature of the relationship-building andmaintenance process.

Using interactive marketing theories in,1 charitable-giving context involves tak-ing a broader perspective of what consti-tutes a donor-recipient relationship. Spe-cifically, the donation decision must notbe viewed as a series of independent per-ceptions and actions but as a set of inter-related processes and determinants (Cer-mak et al., 1994; Hibbert and Horne, 1996).However, virtually no empirical studiesexist that provide evidence of the rela-tional and sequential nature of the chari-table-giving process and how individuallevel information can be used to developand nurture donor-recipient relationships.For longitudinal communication strate-gies to be effective in charitable-giving en-vironments, research is needed that inves-

tigates how direct and mass media mes-sages can be integrated (Peltier andSchibrowsky, 1995; Schibrowsky and Pel-tier, 1995), which in tum highlights theimportance of methodologies that canmap the donation decision and relation-ship-development processes (Okunade,1996).

MODEL DEVELOPMENTThe interactive relationship-buildingframework that we propose is conceptu-alized in Figure 1. The model integrates avariety of psychographic-related dimen-sions, including beliefs and attitudes, val-ues, buying motives, and customer life-style data that can become part of an or-ganization's in-house database (see Peltieret al., 1998). An important criterion of in-teractive relationships is the ability to col-lect and utilize customer information atthe individual level, most commonlythrough the utilization of proprietary da-tabases (Iacobucci and Hibbard, 1999).Our model is designed to integrate datathat can strengthen and deepen buyer-seller relationships (Peppers et a!., 1999)and that converts data-rich but informa-tion-poor relationships into highly inter-active and leveraged partnerships (Iaco-bucci and Hibbard, 1999).

The model contains seven dimensions:donor-organization relationships, donor-beneficiary relationships, relationshipcommitment, relationship motivations,category priority, relationship priority,and relationship outcomes. We briefly dis-cuss each of these dimensions. AppendixA contains a more detailed literature re-view and develops hypotheses.

Donor-organizational relationships. Themodel posits that personal impact andcommunications with the university affectthe alumni's perception of the quality ofthe educational experience provided bythe university. As a group, these variables

are posited to have an impact on donorinvolvement, relationship motivations,priority of giving to the target university,and the actual amount donated to thealma mater.

Donor-beneficiary relationships. Guyand Patten (1989) proposed that the dona-tion decision process is sequential in na-ture. Three time-ordered prerequisitestages were proposed; (1) potential donorsmust first become aware others are inneed of help and deserve to be helped; (2)benefits of donating must be understood;and (3) potential donors must accept theresponsibility for solving this problem orhelping the beneficiaries. Together thesesequenced perceptions are posited to in-fluence relationship motivations, the pri-ority of giving to universities, the priorityof giving to the target university, and theamount donated.

Relationship commitment. This involve-ment-based dimension is a critical compo-nent in the donor relationship-buildingprocess. Donor involvement is hypoth-esized to influence donor-beneficiary rela-tionships, relationship motivations, prior-ity of giving to universities, priority ofgiving to a target university, and theamount donated.

Relationship motivations. The literatureidentified three types of donor motives:altruistic, egoistic, and accountability.These motivations are proposed to impactthe priority of giving to universities, thepriority of giving to the target university,and the amount donated.

Category priority, relationship priority,and relationship outcomes. Category pri-ority is the overall priority of giving touniversities. This variable was posited toinfluence the priority to give to the targetuniversity and the amount donated (rela-

J u l y . August 2 0 0 2 JflURIlfiL OF flOUEBTISKlG RESEflfiCfi 2 5


RELATIONSHIP PERCEPTIONS:DONOR-BENEFICIARY

Need/ DeserveHelp

RELATIONSHIPCOMMITMENT

DonorInvolvement

CATEGORYPRIORITY

Priority of Giving toUniversities

AltruismEgoisticAccountability

RELATIONSHIPMOTIYATIONS Priority of Giving to

Specific University

TRELATIONSHIPPRIORITY

PersonalImpact

Communication"itii University

Quality ofUniversity

REL VTIONSHIPOLTCOMES

AmountDonated

RELATIONSHIP PERCEPTIONS:DONOR-ORGANIZATION

Figure 1 Relationship-Building Decision Process: Leveraging Psyehographie Data

tionship outcomes). Relationship priorityis the priority to give to/maintaining a re-lationship with the alma mater. The prior-ity to give to the university was hypoth-esized to influence the amount donated tothe university.

In summary, the model that we proposeis a comprehensive sequential model ofthe donor relationship-building process.In the next section we discuss how themodel was tested.

DATA ANALYSIS

MethodTo test our model, a project was initiatedfor the alumni foundation at a mid-

western university. The overall goal wasto better understand the donation processand to develop a communication plan toincrease the acquisition, retention, andcontribution of alumni donors. The surveyinstrument contained 57 questions acrossthe variables outlined in Figure 1 and wasmailed to 3,000 randomly selected alumni(2,000 donors and 1,000 non-donors). Aproportionate stratified sampling planwas utilized that selected sample mem-bers based on the percent of alumni fromeach of the university's four colleges. Atotal of 1,012 alumni returned the surveyafter two mailing waves, for an overall re-sponse rate of 33.7 percent. The responses

by college closely matched the college ra-tios in the university's database.

FindingsCK'erall, the findings from the study con-firm our longitudinal communicationsmodel. The model presented in Figure 2contains only those structural paths thatwere significant. The structural equationestimates are contained in Table 3. Appen-dix B presents a more detailed presenta-tion of the data analysis procedures.

Donor-organizational relationships. Thesequential relationships between the threedonor-organizational relationship vari-

2 6 JOURIlfiL OF RDOEfiTISlOG RESEflRCfl July . Augus t 2 0 0 2


Need andDeserve Helc

Benefits AcceptResponsibility

PersonalImpact

Communication\vilh University

Quality of-*i School

Priority ofGiving to

Universities

Priority ofGiving to

UWW

Figure 2 Donor Decision Process with Significant Pathways

ables came out as predicted. Both personalimpact and communication were posi-tively related to perceived quality of theuniversity. Regarding the direct links toihe proposed loyalty measures, the onlysignificant relationship was from per-ceived quality to dollars donated. How-ever, personal impact, communicationwith the university, and perceived qual-ity of the university all increased donorinvolvetnent.

Donor-beneficiary relationships. As pre-dicted, a sequential relationship wasfound from need/deserve help-to ben-efits of helping-to accepting responsibil-ity. Surprisingly, need and deserve helpdid not have a sigriificant direct impact onaccepting responsibility, further under-scoring a staged decision process throughthe benefits of helping. Although accept-ing responsibility did not have a direct im-

pact on priority of giving to the target uni-versity or dollars donated, it did have apositive impact on the priority of giving touniversities, which in tum influences thepriority of giving to the alma mater andthe amount donated to the university.This further supports the notion that thedonation decision is sequential.

As we indicated in Appendix A, thecharitable-giving literature providedlittle empirical guidance on how the do-nor-beneficiary relationship dimensionswould be related to donation motives.Here, the need and deserve benefits vari-able was inversely related to egoistic mo-tives. This indicated that alumni who feltthat students need and deserve help wereless likely to have self-oriented donationmotives. In contrast, the helping benefitsdimension was positively related to ailthree motives. Lastly, accepting responsi-bility was positively related to altruistic

motives, indicating that those who feltthat they should be part of the solution aremore altruistic.

Relationship commitment. As predicted,relationship commitment/involvement isan important construct for understandingthe donation decision process. As ex-pected, strength of donor involvementpositively impacted accepting responsibil-ity and altruistic motives. Conceptually,involved alumni are more likely to feel theneed to heip other students meet their ed-ucational goals. Of interest, although do-nor involvement/commitment did nothave a direct impact on dollars donated, ithad a strong positive effect on priority ofgiving to universities and the priority ofgiving to one's alma mater. Obviously,donor involvement is a critical variable indetermining who gives to the Luiiversityand the amount donated.

J u l y . August 2 0 0 2 M M ^ l OF RDUEBTISIOG RESEflllCH 2 7


Relationship motives. Of the three mo-tive types, only altruism had a significantimpact on giving to universities and giv-ing to the target university. In retrospect,altruistic motives are probably the mostinfluential in determining whether or notan individual actually gives to a charitablecause.

Category and relationship priorities.Consistent with expectations, priority ofgiving to the university and priority ofgiving to the alma mater had significantpositive impacts on the amount of moneydonated to the university. Additionally,priority of giving to universities was posi-tively linked to priority of giving to thealma mater. Since priority of giving to uni-versities and to one's alma mater are mea-sures of behavioral intentions, the resultsagain underscore the sequential nature ofthe decision process.

In conclusion, our proposed model ofalumni giving was supported in most partby the data collected in this study. In allcases, and in varying degrees, the sequen-tial hypotheses were supported and thebasic model was a good fit of the data.

DISCUSSION

Sequential communication strategiesOur study was motivated by the work ofBaker et ai. (1998), Glazer (1999), Iacobucciand Hibbard (1999), Kestnbaum et al.(1998), Berger and Smith (1998), and otherresearchers who posited that messagestrategies influence buyers in differentways and at different stages of the deci-sion-making/relationship-building pro-cess. If this is true, then it is incumbent onadvertisers to understand the sequentialnature of the relationship-building pro-cess. Our findings advance the integratedand interactive communication fields bydeveloping and testing a sequential modelof building interactive relationships. This

. . . true interactivity is oniy possibie when marketers

impiement information-intensive communication strate-

gies that adapt messages to meet the changing needs of

their customers . . .

study demonstrated that developing alongitudinal communications plan re-quires an understanding of the sequentialnature of the decision-making process,brand perceptions (including such thingsas perceived quality, personal experi-ences, involvement and beliefs, and com-munications), motivations that directlyimpact the consumer's decisions, categoryimportance, and brand importance. How-ever, even more critical is an understand-ing of how these various factors areinterrelated.

The problem has been finding a way todetermine the sequential links among thefactors that impact the total relationshipover time. Virtually no studies exist in themarketing literature that develop and testcomprehensive models of how varioustypes of customer information can becombined and analyzed to provide insightinto the relationship development and en-hancement process. Because of this dearthof literature in the area, Webster (1998)noted that conceptual and empirical re-search studies are needed that investigatehow psychographic-related data such ascustomer lifestyles, attitudes, beliefs, val-ues, needs, motivations, and priorities canbe "leveraged" to impact positive interac-tive relationships. This study representsan initial foray into the development ofa process for providing insight into theways in which consumer decisions, atti-tudes, motivations, and behavioral dataare interrelated. The process is critical fordesigning a longitudinal communicationplan that leverages in-depth customerinformation.

While this is an important first step,true interactivity is only possible whenmarketers implement information-inten-sive communication strategies that adaptmessages to meet the changing needs oftheir customers as they move through thesequential process. Fortunately, emergingtechnologies afford interactive marketersthe opportunity to collect a wealth of in-formation on individual customers, in-cluding data on decision processes, atti-tudes, psychographics, motivations, andpurchase behaviors (Peltier et al., 1998;2002). Now that this information canreadily be collected, the question is "whalto do with these data to turn them into alongitudinal communication plan?" Fur-thermore, we believe the process pre-sented here can be used as a template foranalyzing individual level data to developcustomized longitudinal communicationprograms across a wide range of con-sumer and business-to-business settings.

Social marketingFrom a charitabie-givjng perspective, theprimary contribution of this study is thatit proposed and tested a sequential modelof the key factors associated with the do-nor relationship-building process. Thefindings highlight that the interrelation-ships among these variables are importantin explaining and predicting the amountdonated to a charitable cause. The studyextends the work of Burnett and Wood(1988), Guy and Patton (1989), and Benda-pudi et al. (1996), which have all called forintegrated approaches to studying help-ing behavior. While these authors pro-

2 8 JOUBnflL OF flOUERTISinC HESEHRCH j u i y . August 2 0 0 2


posed integrated hierarchical models ofcharitable giving, this study actually mod-els, measures, and tests some of the pro-posed relationships. As such, this studyrepresents a major step forward in the de-velopment of an integrated model of help-ing behavior by moving past the proposi-tion stage to the model-testing stage.

One major conclusion that can bedrawn from this study is that the decisionto give to a target university is sequentialand more complicated than the previousliterature suggested. While only three ofthe ten proposed direct relationships be-tween the various factors and amount do-nated were shown to be statistically sig-nificant, all of the factore had some type ofhierarchical indirect effect on donations.

The study suggests that there are threefactors that directly impact the amoimt ofmoney an alumnus donates to his or heruniversity. They are perceived quality ofthe university, the priority the individualplaces on donating to universities, and thepriority the individual places on donatingto the specific university. This implies thatthe university must continue to providecurrent and prospective donors with evi-dence of the quality of educational expe-rience provided by the institution.

The finding that increasing the overallpriority for giving to universities increasesthe priority of giving to a specific univer-sity and the amount donated is intriguing.It suggests that universities could benefitby forming inter-campus partnerships topromote the overall importance of donat-ing to higher education.

This study provides evidence that thedecision to give to the university is a se-quenced decision process starting with therealization that otliers need and deservehelp, followed by the realization that pro-viding help affords multiple benefit op-portunities. The final step is the accep-tance of the responsibility to help. Once anindividual accepts responsibility for solv-

ing the problem, their relationship moti-vation becomes more altruistic and thelikelihood of giving to the university in-creases dramatically.

These findings also suggest that acquir-ing and retaining alumni donors requiresthinking long-term. Through the realiza-tion that relationship-building has a sub-stantial time horizon, longitudinal and in-teractive contact strategies can be devel-oped that present a coherent stream ofmarketing communications that moveprospect donors along the loyalty con-tinuum (Kestnbaum et al., 1998). Throughsequenced dialogs utilizing multiple mes-sages and communication formats acrossthe relationship life cycle, effective donorrelationships can be developed (Baker etal., 1998). As a consequence, universitiesand other social organizations can posi-tively impact their alumni donations bydeveloping longitudinal integrated mar-keting communication plans that aredesigned to move prospective donorsthrough the decision-making process.

This study concludes that the lynchpin in alumni giving is keeping individu-als involved with the university after tlieyleave. This involvement requires a com-munications campaign that remindsalurrmi of the positive experiences andbenefits that the university has providedthem, that informs them of current eventsand the successes that their financial sup-port brings, and that makes them awarewhy and where their help is needed, howthey can help, and why they need to getinvolved.

CONCLUSIONSTo maximize the value of interactive rela-tionships, it is critical to have detaileddata on who your customers are, what theyare doing, and psychographical-based in-formation related to why they are seekingor maintaining a relationship (Peltier etal., 1998). This is the type of advertising

research needed to develop longitudinalcommunication programs designed tobuild long-term relationships. Despite theprofit potential of this approach to busi-ness, few organizations are truly cus-tomer-focused and thus fail to reach thefull potential of interactive marketing(Deighton and Glazer, 1998).

A recent study by APQC benchmarked18 organizations on the issue of using cus-tomer information to better understandtheir customers and to build relationships.While these organizations have demo-graphic and behavioral data (they knowwho their customers are and what theyhave done in the past), they either lack theattitudinal data needed or the knowledgeof how to link the attitudinal data to thebehavioral data to get a full understand-ing of their customers (APQC Study,Schultz and Schultz, 2001). From theAPQC study, it is clear that most organi-zations are not very far along in collectingor combining data to gain a full under-standing of why customers perform asthey do and what can be done to influencethose behaviors.

Many organizations are relying on tech-nical answers. They buy CRM and data-mining software hoping that it will pro-vide the answers. Unfortunately, theytypically find that the problem is not asoftware or hardware issue but rather oneof understanding their customers. In ad-dition, most organizations are not long-term-oriented. They are only interested inshort-term objectives and are not thinkingabout developing customer relationshipmanagement programs designed to influ-ence their customers' behaviors over time.Few have been able to generate much topmanagement support for their activitiesbecause they have difficulty demonstrat-ing financial returns.

This study offers hope to organizationsstruggling with the problem of combiningdata to gain a better understanding of

J u l y . August 2 0 0 2 JOOfinflL OF flDUEIiTISIIlG nESEflllCH 2 9


their customers. It presents a logical ap-proach to exploring the links between thefactors that marketers have long believedhold the key to understanding the rela-tionships between what customers do andwhy they do it. Once this information isbetter understood, it can be synthesijzed todevelop and implement information-intensive strategies that are tailored tomeet the ever-changing needs of custom-ers (Peppers et al,, 1999).

While the process employed in thisstudy can be applied in a broad range ofrelationship-building situations, the find-ings of this study are con text-specific.More work needs to be done to investigatethe sequential nature of the charitable-giving process and interrelationshipsamong the factors to see if they can begeneralized to other relationship-orientedsettings. In addition, research is neededthat further develops the constructs andmeasures we have presented in this paper.Finally, this field can be advanced dra-matically by longitudinal studies that areable to demonstrate the bottom-line influ-ence of leveraging consumer informationto develop and implement longitudinalintegrated marketing communication pro-grams. In the true spirit of interactive mar-keting, this area of study could benefitgreatly from research that shows the long-run revenue and profit impact of suchactivities.

JAMES (JIMMY) W. PELTIER is professor and chair of thedepartment of marketing at the University of

Wisconsin-Whitewater, Dr. Peltier has a number of

award-winning papers in the area of

psychographics-based communications and is the

recipient of the 2001 Outstanding Educator Award

sponsored by the Direct Marketing Association. Most

recently, he was selected as the Outstanding

Educator of the Year (2001) by the Direct MarketingEducational Foundation. He is also director of

research for Knupp & Watson, Inc. of Madison,

Wisconsin, with clients ranging across both the

for-profit and not-for-profit industries. He has

published articles in the Journal of Interactive

Marketing, the Journal ot Direct Marketing, the

Journal of Health Care Marketing. Health Marketing

Services, and the Academy of Managerial

Communications, among others.

JOHN (JACK) A, SCHIBROWSKV is an associate professorin the department of marketing at the University of

Nevada, Las Vegas. He is a frequent speaker, writer,

and consultant in the areas of pricing, customer

relationship marketing, database marketing,

customercentered companies, health care marketing,

customer satisfaction and loyalty, and experiential

products. He is the author of over 30 major marketingpublications with topics ranging from harnessing the

power of databases to analyzing complaints to

building alumni relations. He has published articies in

the Joumal of Interactive Marketing, the Journal of

Services Marketing, the Journal of Consumer

Marketing, the Joumal of Direct Marketing. Marketing

Intelligence and Planning, Healtfi Marketing Services.

and the Joumal of Personal Selling and Sales

Management, among others.

DON E. SCHULTZ is presently Professor (Emeritus) ofIntegrated Marketing Communications at the Medill

School of Journalism, Northwestern University. He is

aiso president of the consulting firm. Agora, Inc.. both

in Evanston, Illinois. His articles have appeared in

Advertising Age, the Journal of Advertising Research.

the Joumal of Advertising, Marketing Communications.

Business Marketing, the Journal of Direct Marketing.

the Journal of Business Strategy, the Joumal of

Database Marketing, and Marketing News. He is the

author/co-author of nine books in the

communications and promotion fiefd. He also serves

as director of Penton Media, Inc, Cleveland; The

Simon Richards Group, Melbourne, Australia;

Ounnhumby Associates, London: and Brand Rnance,

London.

REFERENCES

, J, C , and J. A. NARUS. "A Model of

Distributor Firm and Manufacturer Firm

Working Relationships," loimial of Marketing54, 1 (1990): 42-58.

ANDRCASEN, ALAN R. Marketing Social Change.

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers,

1995.

, "Social Marketing: Us Definition and

Domain," Joumal of Public Policy & Marketing13, Spring (1994): 108-14.

ANDREONI, JAMES. "Giving with Impure Altru-

ism and Donation to Public Goods: A Theory

of 'Warm Glow' Giving." journal ctf PoliticalEconomy 97, 6 (1990); 1447-58.

, and JOHN KARL SCHOLZ. "An Eco-

nomic Analysis of Charitable Giving with In-

terdependent Preferences," Economic liiqiiin/

36, 3 (1998): 410-19.

BAGOZZI, Rit HARD P,, and YOU]AE Yi. "On theEvaluation of Structural Equations Models,"

Jouruai of the Academy of Marketing Science 16,1 (1988): 74-94.

BAKER, M . J., E. A. BUTTERY, and E, M, RICH-

TEK-BUTTERV. "Relationship Marketing in

Three Dimensions." jonrnal of interactive Mar-keting 12,4(1998): 47-62.

BATSON, DANIEL C . The Altruism Question. Hill-sdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates,

1991.

.^ "Prosocial Motivation: Is it Ever Truly

Altruistic?" In Advances in Experimental Social

Psyclwlog}/. Vo! 20, L, Berkowitz, ed.. NewYork, NY: Academic Press, 1987.

BAYTON, JAMES A. "Motivation, Cognition,

Learning-Basic Factors in Consumer Market-

ing," journal of Marketing 22, 1 (1958): 282--89.

BENDAPUDI, NEELI, SURENDRA N . SINCH, and

VENKAT NENDAruDi. "Enhancing Helpinj^ Be-havior: An Integrative Framework tor Promo-

3 0 JOUfiflflL Of flOUEBTISIflG flESEflllCfl July . August 2 0 0 2

COMMUNIOATION STRATEGIES

tion Planning." journal of Marketing 60, 3(I9%): 33-49.

Lii'KCER, PAUL D., and GI-RALD E. SMITH. "The

iiffect of Direct Mail Framing Strategies and

Segmentation Variables on University Fund-

raising Performance." journal of Direct Market-ing 11, 1 (1997): 30-43.

BERRY, LLONAKD L. "Relationship Marketing of

Services-Growing Interest, Emerging Perspec-

tives." journal of tlie Academy of Marketing Sci-rncf 23, 4 (1995): 236-45.

BiTNER, MARY JO. "Building Service Relation-

ship: It's All About Keeping Promises." jour-nal of the Academy of Marketing Science 23, 4(1993); 246-51.

, KF;VIN P. GwiNNKR, and DWAYNU D .

GREMLER. "Relational Benefits in Services In-

dustries: The Customer's Perspective." journalof the Academy of Marketing Science 26, 2 (1998):

BLOOM, PAUL N . , and WILLIAM D . NOVELLL

"Problems and Challenges in Social Market-ing." journal of Marketing 45, 2 (1981): 79-88.

BROWN, STEPHEN W . , and TFRESA A. SCHWARTZ.

"A Gap Analysis of Professional Service Qual-ity." Journal of Marketing 54, 2 (1989): 92-98.

BURDENSKl, HELEN M . "The Use of Direct Mar-

keting by Colleges and Universities." Journal

of Direct Marketing 5, 4 (1991): 50-58.

BURNETT, JOHN J. Relationship Fundraising. The

White Lion Press, London, 1993.

, and VAN R. WOOD. "A Proposed

Model of the Donation Decision Process." In

Research in Consumer Behavior, E. Hirschman

.ind J. Sheth, eds. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,

1988.

More About You." Fund Raising Management

30, 4 (1999): 32-33.

CERMAK, DLANNH S. P., KAREN MARU FiLt, and

Russ ALAN PRINCE. "A Benefit Segmentation

of the Major Donor Market." journai of Busi-ness Research 29, 2 (1994): 121-30.

CHURCHILL, GILBERT A. "A Paradigm for De-

veloping Better Measures of Marketing Con-

structs." journal of Marketing Research 16, 1(1979): 64-73.

CONSIDINF., JOHN A. "Direct Mail: Can It Work

for Religious Organizations?" jourual of DirectMarkefhig 8, 4 (1994): 59-65.

COREY, RODJERT J., and DAVID T. WILSON. "Us-

ing Motivation as a Basis for Understanding

and Improving Direct Marketing Relation-

ships." journal of Direct Marketing 8, 4 (1994):28-39.

CRAVER, MATHEWS, SMITH and CoMrANV DO-

NOR STUDY. "Toward 2000 and Beyond: Chari-table and Social Change Giving in the NewMillennium: Part 1," Fund Raising Management30, 3 (1999a): 28-31.

, "Toward 2000 and Beyond: Charitable

and Social Change Giving in the New Millen-

nium: Part 2." fund Raising Management 30, 4(1999b): 24r-29.

. "Toward 2000 and Beyond: Charitable

and Social Change Giving in the New Millen-nium: Part 3." Fund Raising Managetnent 30, 5(1999c): 32-37.

CROSBY, LAWRENCE A., KENNETH R. EVANS, and

DEBORAH COWLHS. "Relationship Quality inServices Selling: An Interpersonal Influence

Perspective." Journal of Marketing 54, 3 (1990):68-81.

, and NANCY STEVENS. "Effects of Rela-

CAMPBELL, BRUCE. "Your Donors Want to Hear tionship Marketing on Satisfaction, Retention,

and Prices in the Life Insurance Industry."

Journal of Marketing Research 24, 4 (1987): 404-11.

DAWSON, SCOTT. "Four Motivations for Chari-

table Giving: Implications for Marketing Strat-

egy to Attract Monetary Donations for Medi-

cal Research." lournal of Health Care Marketing8, 2 (1988): 23-27.

DoNEY, P. M,, and J. P. CANNON. "An Exami-

nation of the Nature of Trust in Buyer-Seller

Relationships." Journal of Marketing 61, 2(1997): 35-51.

DEIGHTON, JOHN, and RASHI GLAZFR. "Erom

the Editors." Journal of Direct Marketing 11, 4(1997): 4-5.

-, and -. "From the Editors." Jour-

nal of Interactive Marketing 12, 1 (1998): 2 ^ .

DuNLor, D. R, "Strategic Management of a

Major Gift Program." In Developing an EffectiveMajor Gift Program: From Managing Staff to So-liciting Gifts, R. Muir and J. May, eds. Wash-ington, DC: Case, 1993.

DWYER, F. R., P. H. ScilURR, and S. OH. "De-

veloping Buyer-Seller Relationships." Journal

of Marketing 57, 2 (1987): 19-38.

FRENZEN, J. K., and H. L. DAVIS. "Purchasing

Behavior in Embedded Markets." Journal ofConsumer Research 17, 1 (1990): 1-12.

GARBARINO, ELLI'N, and MARK S. JOHNSON.

"The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust,and Commitment in Customer Relationships.journal of Marketing 63, 2 (1999): 70-87.

GLAZER, RASHI. "Editorial: Wimiing in Smart

Markets." journal of interactive Marketing 13, 1(1999): 2-1.

GRANDt;, C A I ^ I N E A. , and TERRY G . VAVRA.

"Differentiating Donors: Applying a Psycho-

J u l y . Augus t 2 0 0 2 JOURfllL OF RDUERTISIdG RESEHRCH 3 1


graphic Analysis to improve Efficiency of

Hospital Fundraising," Marketing Health Ser-

vices 19, 3 (1999): 33-37.

GRIFFIN, MITCH, BARRY J, BABLN, JILL S. ATT-

AWAV, and WILLIAM R, DAKDEN. "Hey You,

Can You Sparc Some Change? The Case of

Empathy and Personal Distress As Reactions

to Charitable Appeals," In Advances in Con-

purner Research, Vol, 20. Provo, UT: Associa-

tion of Consumer Research, 1993,

Guv, BONNIE S., and WHSLKY E. PATTON, "The

Marketing of Altruistic Causes: Understand-

ing Why People Help," journal of ConsumerMarketing 6, 1 (1989); 19-30.

HAECKEL, STKE'HAN H . "About the Nature and

Future of Interactive Marketing." journal ofInteractive Marketing 12, 1 (1998); 63-71.

HARRISON, WILLIAM B., and SHANNON K.

MFTCHELL. "Alumni Donations and Colleges'

Development Expenditures: Does Spending

Matter?" American journal of Economics andSociologi/ 54, 4 (1995): 396-412,

HARVEY, J.-^ MLS W . "Benefit Segmentation for

Fundraisers." Academy of Marketing Science 18,1 (1990): 77-86,

HiBBERT, SALLY ANN, "The Market Positioningof British Medical Charities." European journalof Marketing 29, 10 (1995): 6-27.

, and SUZANNE HORNE. "Giving to

Charity: Questioning the Donor Decision Pro-cess." journal of Consumer Marketing 13, 2(1996): 4-12.

I,\(;:oi3ucc[, DAWN, and JONATHON D . HIRHARD.

"Encompassing Theory of Business Marketing

Relationships (BMRS) and Interpersonal Com-mercial Relationships (ICRS): An EmpiricalExample," journal of Interactive Marketing 13, 3(1999): 13-33,

, and A. OSTROM, "Gender Differences

in the Impact of Core and Relational Aspects

of Services on the Evaluation of Service En-

cotinters," journal of Consumer Psychology 1, 3(1993): 257-86.

JoRESKtx;, KARI G,, and DAG SORBOM. LISREL

8: Structural Equation Modeling with SIMPLIS

Command Language. Hillsdaie NJ: Lawrence

Earlbaum Associates, 1993.

KESTNBAUM, ROBERT D., KATE T. KESTNBAUM,

and PAMELA W . AMES. "Building a Longitudi-

nal Contact Strategy," journal of InteractiveMarketing 12, 1 (1998): 56-62.

, and GERALD ZALTMAN. "Social Market-

ing: An Approach to Planned Social Change,"journal of Marketing 35, 2 (1971): 3-12.

LEVINGER, GEORGE KLAUS, and J. D, SHOCK,

"Development and Change," In Close Relation-ships. Harold H. Kelley et al., eds. New York,NY: W. H. Freeman, 1972.

LiNDAHL, W, E., and C. WiNSHlP. "Predictive

Modeling for Annual Fundraising and MajorGift Fundraising." Nonprofit Management amiLeadership 3 (1992): 43-64.

MArL, F,, and A. E. ASHFOKD. "Aiumni andTheir Alma Mater: A Partial Test of the Refor-

mulates Model of Organizational Identifica-tion." journal of Organizational Behavior 13(1992): 103-23.

MCCARIY, JOHN A., and L, J. SCHRUM. "The

Recycling of Solid Wastes: Personal Values,

Value Orientations and Attitudes about Recy-

cling as Antecedents of Recycling Behavior,"

journal of Business Research 30, 1 (1994): 53-62.

MILNE, GEORGE R,, and MARIA-EUGENIA BOZA.

"Trust and Concern in Consumers' Percep-

tions of Marketing Management Practices."

journal of Interactive Marketing 13, 1 (1999):5-24,

MOORMAN, CHRISTINE, ROHIT DESHPANDE, and

GERALD ZALIMAN. "Factors Affecting Trust inMarket Relationships," journal of Marketing 57,1 (1993): 33-47.

; GERALD ZALTMAN, and ROHIT DESH-

I'ANDE. "Relationships Between Providers and

Users of Marketing Research." journal of Mar-keting Research 29, 3 (1992): 314-29.

MORA, JOSE-GINES, and MICHAEL NUGENT.

"Seeking New Resources for European Uni-versities: The Example of Fund-raising in theUS," European journal of Education 33, 1 (1998):113-20.

MORGAN, ROBERT M. , and SHELBY D, HUNT.

"The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relation-ship Marketing." journal of Marketing 58, 3(1994): 20-39.

OKUNADE, ALBERT ADE, "Graduate School

Alumni Donations to Academic Funds: Micro-Data Evidence." American joumal of Economics& Psychology 55, 2 (1996): 213-40.

, PHANfNURA V, WuNNAVA, and RAY-

MOND WALSH, JR, "Charitable Giving of

Alumni: Micro-Data Evidence from a Large

Public University." The American journal ofEconomics and Sociology 53, 1 (1994): 73-84.

PELTIER, JAMES W . , and JOHN A, SCHIBROWSKY.

"The Use of Need-Based Segmentation forDeveloping Segment-Specific Direct Market-ing Strategies." journal of Direct Marketing 11,4 (1997): 53-62.

-, and, "The Direct Marketing of

Charitable Causes: A Study of U,S. Fundrais-ers." journal of Direct Marketing 9, 3 (1995);72-80.

, , and JOHN DAVIS. "Using Atti-

32 OF flDUEfiTISIIlG flESORCH Juiy . August 2 0 0 2


tudinal and Descriptive Database Informationto Understand Buyer-Seller Relationships,"journal of Interactive MarkeUng 12, 2 (1998):32-45.

, -, DON E. SCHULTZ , and JOHN

DAVIS. "Interactive Psyehographics: Cross-Selling in the Banking Industry." journal ofAdvertising Research 42, 2 (2002): 7-22.

, DON, MAJUHA R^XIERS, and BOB DORF.

"Is Your Company Ready for One-to-OneMarketing?" Harvard Business Review 77, 1(1999): 151-60.

I'ETFR, J, PAUL. "Reliability: A Review of Psy-

chometric Basics and Recent Marketing Prac-tices." journal of Marketing Research 16, 1(1979): 6-17.

PRICE, LINDA L., LAWRENCE F. FETCK, and Au-

DRFY GuSKEY. "Everyday Market Helping Be-havior." journal of Public Policy 6- Marketing14, 2 (1995): 255-67,

['RiTCHARD, MARK P., MARK E. HAVFFZ, and

DENNIS R, HOWARD. "Analyzing the Commit-

ment-loyalty Link in Service Contexts." Acad-emii of Marketing Science Journal 27, 3 (1999):333-48.

RAY, LEONARD. "Why We Give: Testing Eco-

nomic and Social Psychology Accounts of Al-truism," Polity 30, 3 (1998); 383-415,

ROTHSCHILD, MICHAEL R, "Carrots, Sticks, and

Promises: A Conceptual Framework for theManagement of Public Healtli and Social Is-sue Behaviors." journal of Marketing 63, 4(1999): 24-37.

SCHIBROWSKY, JOHN A,, and JAMES W . PELTIER.

"Decision Frames and Direct Marketing Of-fers: A Field Study in a Fundraising Context."Journal of Direct Marketing 9, 1 (1995): 8-16,

SCHULTZ, DON E., and HEIDI E. SCHULTZ. "Le-

veraging Customer Information: Driving Stra-tegic Direction and Marketing Profitability."American Productivity & Quality Center, Hous-ton, TX, 2000.

-, and StoTT BAILI-:Y. "Building a ViableModel of Customer/Brand Loyalty in an In-teractive Marketplace." Journal of AdvertisingResearch, forthcoming.

SMITH, H . , and M. B, DUNN. "Gifts and Donor

Expectations," In The Ethics of Asking: Dilem-mas in Higher Education Fundraising. Baltimore,MD: The John Hopkins University, 1995,

SMITH, WU I.IAM. "The Future of Social Market-ing." Presentation to the Marketing Confer-

ence on Creating Successful Partnersliips, Car-

leton University, Ottawa, Canada, 1993.

SPRINGER, L., and IKENBERRY, J. "Alumni Donor

Predictive Modeling." Unpublished Report,Office of University Development, The Penn-sylvania State University, 1996,

STERN, BARBARA A, "Advertising Intimacy: Re-

lationship Marketing and the Services Con-sumer." journal of Advertising 26, 4 (1997): 17-20.

Sui'BENANT, CAROL F., and MiciiAFi. R.MON. "Predictability and Personalization inthe Service Encounter." joumal of Marketing51, 2 (1987): 86-97,

WEBSTER, FREDERICK E,, JR, "Commentary: In-

teractivity and Marketing Paradigm Shifts."journal of Interactive Marketing 12, 1 (1998):54-55.

ii, WILLIAM L., and ELIZABETH S. MOORE.

"Marketing's Contribution to ScKiety." Journalof Marketing 63, 4 (1999): 198-218.

. Consumer Behavior, 2"'' ed. New York,NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1990.

ZEITHAML, VALARIE A. "Service Quality, Profit-ability, and the Economic Worth of Custom-ers." Academy of Marketing Science journal 28, 1(2000): 67-86.

J u l y . August 2 0 0 2 JDURRRL OF ROUERTISIHG RESEHBCH 3 3

COMMUNiOATION STRATEGIES

APPENDIX ATheoretical Details of the Donor Relationship-Building Model

Our model focuses primarily on psyehographie and attitudinal con-structs and follows the general guidelines from previous researchon leveraging customer information (see Peltier et al., 1998;2002). The emphasis on psyehographics and values responds torecent calls in the marketing (Garbarino and Johnson, 1999; Iaco-bucci and Hibbard. 1999; Pritchard et al,. 1999) and charitable-giving literature (Craver et al.. 1999b, 1999c) that research isneeded that addresses how these internalized constructs impactrelationships. Although our model is operationalized on concepts/factors emanating from charitable-giving research, the types ofdata that we discuss are applicable to most any relationship-building setting.

Relationship PerceptionsConsumer researchers have typically studied marketing relation-

ships from one of two perspectives: buyer-organization relation-ships or buyer-individual relationships (e.g.. with specific sales-person). In contrast to this literature, charitable-giving relation-ships are broader in scope and include donors' perceptions of theirrelationship with those who will benefit directly through their do-nations (e.g., needy children) and the organization soliciting dona-tions (e.g., UNICEF), As is evident from Figure 1 on page 26, forparsimony sake no direct link is posited between donor-organization relationship perceptions and donor-beneficiary rela-tionship perceptions. However, we do propose an indirect link be-tween these two relationship orientations through relational com-mitment/donor involvement. Each of these separate relationshipperceptions is discussed below.

Relationship Perceptions: Donor-OrganizationConsumer decision making with regard to marketing organiza-

tions is guided by a combination of higher order perceptual con-structs such as. trust, satisfaction/service quality, and commit-ment (Garbarino and Johnson. 1999). Considered jointly, thesepsychological relational components impact an individual's per-sonal identification with an organization and are mediated in partby ititer-party communications (Iacobucci and Hibbard, 1999).

Trust Emerging as a core component of successful marketingrelationships, the level of trust an individual has in an organizationis an important indicant of the willingness to look beyond short-term inequities (e.g., no immediate value for money donated) forthe purpose of long-term benefits (e.g., educating the population).Though trust has been defined in a multitude of ways, there appearto be two major dimensions: psychological and sociological (Moor-man et al.. 1993). Two definitions have particular relevance to thecurrent study, Moorman etal. (1992) defined trust as a willingness

to rely on and have confidence in an exchange partner in whom onehas confidence. This definition is internal to the exchange partnerwhom is extending trust. In contrast, Doney and Cannon (1997)take a more external perspective through their definition of trust asthe perceived credibility and benevolence of a target of trust.

Satjsfaction/Service Quality. Related in nature, satisfaction andquality focus on the level of performance provided by and/or theextent to which expectations have been met by an exchange (Bit-ner, 1995). Although consensus exists that customer satisfactionand service quality are important for maintaining positive market-ing relationships, their role as mediating constructs is not (Gar-barino and Johnson, 1999). Similar to Doney and Cannon's (1997)view of trust, satisfaction and service quality are in part a functionof the perceived level of competence attached to an organization'sand/or service provider's offerings and is seen to impact relation-ship outcomes (Crosby et al,. 1990).

Communication. Communication between exchange partners isan understudied issue and its impact on the strength and longevityof interactive relationships is unclear. Communications betweenrelationship partners have been defined in terms of the meaningfulsharing of information (e.g., Anderson and Narus, 1990), fre-quency of contacts (Doney and Oannon, 1997), and the reportingof information to others (e.g.. Frenzen and Davis, 1990). Commu-nications between relationship partners has been shown to posi-tively impact trust (e.g., Morgan and Hunt, 1994), overall satisfac-tion and perceived quality {e.g.. Crosby and Stevens. 1987), socialcloseness (Frenzen and Davis, 1990), and relational outcomes(e.g., Anderson and Narus. 1990).

Charities seeking to establish positive and long-term relation-ships with donors must convince them that they are trustworthy ofreceiving their financial support (Burnett. 1993). The level of trusta donor has in an organization is partly a function of past relationalexperiences (Milne and Boza. 1999). From an alumni's perspec-tive, past experiences involve perceptions related to their level ofsatisfaction with the education that they received, the memoriesthat they have, activities they participated in. and ultimately, theimpact the university had on their life (Lindahl and Winship, 1992;Mael and Ashford, 1992: Okunade, 1993).

Hla: Perceived personal impact is positively related to priorityof giving to alma mater and total amount donated.

As with all interactive relationships, the quality and quantity ofcommunications between charitable organizations and potentialdonors are critical for generating financial support (Considine.1994; Craver et al., 1999c; Hibbert and Horne, 1996; Mora and

34 LOF RESERRCR July August 2 0 0 2

APPENDIX A (cont'd)


Nugent. 1998). In university fundraising, communications de-signed to establish positive alumni relations are viewed as beingespecially critical (Harrison et al.. 1995). Specific communicationcontent issues of importance for enticing ongoing support includegenerating awareness of needs, explaining how donations are be-ing spent, reporting accomplishments and progress reports, andadministrative efficiencies (Campbell, 1999; Harrison et al., 1995:Okunade, 1993).

Hlb: Donor-organization communication is positively related topriority of giving to alma mater and total amount donated.

The impact of perceived quality on marketing relationships hasreceived considerable attention in the services literature (Berry,1995; Bitner, 1995). Along with quality, the perceived commitmenta person has with an exchange partner has consistently beenshown to impact outcomes (Brown and Swartz, 1989; Iacobucciand Ostrom, 1993: Crosby and Stephens, 1987). Along thesesame lines, the perceived value of a charitable organization shouldbe a function of the type and quality of work that they do (Dunlop,1993; Iacobucci and Hibbard, 1999).

Hlc: Perceived relationship quality is positively related to pri-ority of giving to alma mater and total amount donated.

In our model, perceived relationship quality can be viewed interms of its relationship with the communication and personalimpact constructs. For example, communications enhance cus-tomers' perceptions of the quality of their relationship with orga-nizations (Brown and Swartz, 1989; Crosby and Stephens, 1987:Surprenant and Solomon. 1987). Communications have also beenfound to positively impact the level of organizational distinctive-ness and prestige (Mael and Ashford, 1992). Although little re-search has addressed the affect post hoc evaluations of personalimpact have on perceived quality of the institution, "wanting to giveback to the university" and "reciprocity" (Cermak et al,, 1994:Dawson, 1988) suggest the existence of a linkage between per-sonal impact and perceived quality.

H2: (a) Donor-organization communication and (b) personal im-pact are positively related to perceived quality.

Relationship Perceptions: Donor-BeneflclaryCommunication strategies designed to enhance relationships

with donors must not only consider how to improve perceptions ofrecipient organizations, they must also generate support for likelybeneficiaries. Motivated by the early work of Guy and Patton(1989) and Burnett and Wood (1988). a number of more recent

studies have made efforts to conceptualize how donors make de-cisions in light of their perceptions of beneficiaries (Hibbert. 1995:Hibbert and Home, 1996: Price et al., 1995). Despite these ef-forts, the nature and sequential orientation of donor-beneficiaryrelationships is still unknown (Bendapudi et al,, 1996).

As noted earlier, our work is illustrative of how customer infor-mation can be leveraged across the relationship-building life cycle.Specific to charitable giving, understanding the sequential move-ment of donors through the decision process as it pertains todonor-beneficiary relationship development is critical for creatinglongitudinal communication contact strategies. For the sake ofparsimony, we have synthesized relevant literature into three de-cision stages: need and deserve help, helping benefits, and ac-cepting responsibility.

Need-Deserve Help. Guy and Patton (1989) proposed that thedonation decision process is triggered only after a potential donoris made aware that others are in need of help. The signaling ofneed could be the result of personal experience, mass marketingcommunications, or more personal sources of information. How-ever, need recognition by itself is not a sufficient criterion for mo-tivating subsequent helping behavior. The gap between the ben-eficiary's current and ideal states must be sufficiently large as well(Batson, 1987). Awareness of needs must also be accompaniedby a belief that an individual's own actions did not cause the needstate (Guy and Patton, 1989: Griffen at al., 1993) and can insteadbe attributed to factors beyond his or her locus of control (Ray,1995).

Benefits of Helping. Successful interactive relationships requirean understanding of the benefits that will accrue to exchange part-ners (Peltier et al,, 1998). Yet, relational benefits for individualsinteracting in service-oriented environments are not well under-stood (Bitner et al.. 1998). In a charitable-giving setting, the in-ability to convince potential donors of the presence of exchangebenefits and/or positive "consequences" of their helping actionswill negatively impact donation likelihood (Bendapudi et al., 1996:Guy and Patton, 1989). The second stage of the donor-beneficiat7relationship-buiiding process as modeled in Figure 1 (see page 26)addresses three potential helping benefits/consequences. First,donors may internalize their benefits in terms of feeling good aboutthemselves (Dawson, 1988; Harvey. 1990) and/or generate exter-nal status through public recognition and acclaim (Andreoni, 1990:Andreoni and Scholz. 1998: Hibbert and Home. 1996). Second,relational benefits could be the result of knowing that others areactually being helped (Batson, 1991). Lastly, a perceived conse-quence of giving might be that society in general is being helped(McCarty and Schrum, 1994). Moderating these perceived rela-tional benefits is the extent to which donors feel confident in theirability to help (Guy and Patton. 1989: Price et al., 1998) and

July . August 2 0 0 2 JOURnOL OF HDUERTISinG RESEflfiCH 3 5


APPENDIX A (cont d)

whether through their donations that beneficiaries and society willbe better off (Craver et al. 1999a: 1999b: 1999c).

Accept Responsibility. As modeled, the last stage in thedonor-beneficiary relationship-building process relates to whetherprospect donors can be convinced to accept partial responsibil-ity for helping. If there is a belief that many sources of help exist,or that other individuals and/or organizations are more respon-sible for helping, prospect donors are less likely to accept respon-sibility for helping (Bendapudi et al., 1996: Guy and Patton. 1989).As is evident from the hypotheses presented below, our modelposits a sequential relationship-building process. As such, theonly direct hypothesis to the outcome measures emanates fromresponsibility.

H3: Need/deserve help is (a) positively related to benefits ofhelping, and (b) accepting responsibility, (c) Benefit of help-ing is positively related to accepting responsibility. Acceptingresponsibility is positively related to (d) priority of giving touniversities, (e) priority of giving to alma mater, and (f)amount donated.

Relationship Commitment/InvolvementThere is increasing consensus that commitment is one of the cor-

nerstones of interactive relationships. Commitment has been definedas an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship (Moorman etal., 1992), an explicit pledge of relational continuity {Dwyer et al..1987). and as an ongoing relationship that merits maximum effortsto maintain it (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). Relevant to charitable giving,commitment from the perspective of intimacy theory has been de-fined as a sense of "we-ness"where relationship partners share acommon belief motivated by others' welfare (Levinger and Shock,1972).

H4: Relationship commitment is positively related to (a) priority ofgiving to universities, (b) priority of giving to alma mater, and(c) amount donated.

In most charitable-giving settings the recipient organization acts asan "intermediary" between donors and beneficiaries (Okunade.1996). We propose that donor-organization relationship perceptionsindirectly impact donor-beneficiary relationship perceptions throughrelationship commitment. Specifically, there is a growing body of lit-erature that suggests that trust/personal impact (Morgan and Hunt.1994: Moorman et al.. 1992; Pettier et al., 1998). communications(Dunlop, 1993: Mora and Nugent. 1998: Springer and Ikenberry,1996), and perceived quality (Zeithaml, 2000) all impact relationshipcommitment. In turn, individuals with high personal commitment to acharitable organization or cause are more likely to accept responsi-

bility for assisting the charity in meeting its goals (Harvey, 1990: Moraand Nugent, 1998: Price et al., 1998).

H5: Perceived (a) personal impact, (b) communication, and (c)quality are positively related to relationship commitment; (d)relationship commitment is positively related to acceptingresponsibility to help.

Relationship MotivationsMotivation has long been studied in marketing and the social sci-

ences and has been defined in terms of drives, urges, wishes, ordesires that initiate the sequence of events leading to a behavior(Bayton, 1958) and as problem-solving or goal-directed behavior thatoccurs as a result of having unmet needs (Wilkie, 1990). "Need-based" segmentation aggregates consumers according to motiva-tional and attribute-based phenomena underlying a purchase situation and represent internal drives that influence consumers to seekout, evaluate, and purchase products and sen/ices (Peltier and Schi-browsky, 1997). By focusing on need-based relational orientations,interactive marketing theory and practice will benefit through an in-creased understanding of the factors that motivate individual-levelbuying behavior and the evaluative cnteria that most influence choice(Corey and Wilson, 1994: Glazer. 1999).

Two different types of donor motives have received considerableattention in the charitable- giving literature: egoistic and altruistic. Athird type, which we call accountability, has been addressed as well.Egoistic motives suggest that helping behavior is undertaken in partto enhance one's own welfare and has been studied in terms ofsocial norms/reducing peer pressure (Andreoni and Scholz, 1998:Harvey, 1990: Mora and Nugent. 1998). personal recognition andself-esteem (Dawson. 1988: Andreoni. 1990). the donor or someoneelse they know will benefit (Cermak et al., 1994: Smith and Dunn.1995), and tax purposes (Cermak et al., 1994: Mora and Nugent,1998). Altruistic motives represent internalized values that are basedon the belief that the ultimate goal of giving behavior is to enhancethe welfare of those in need regardless of social reinforcement (Guyand Patton, 1989; Price et al., 1995). Altruistic motives have beendescribed in term of reciprocity (Dawson, 1988: Grande and Vavra,1999), emotions and empathy (Craver et al, 1999c; Batson. 1987:Ray, 1998). humanitarianism (Cermak et al.. 1994). and wanting tohelp others (Batson, 1991: Han/ey, 1990). 4ccounfat)///(y reflects anorientation whereby donors seek assurance that their contributionsare making an impact and are administered efficiently (Campbell.1999: Craver et al,. 1999a, 1999c: Harvey. 1990).

During the decision process, prospect donors may employ mul-tiple motives, some of which may be in conflict with one another(Bendapudi et al., 1996). According to Batson (1987). compatiblemotives will have an additive effect during the donation decision.

3 6 JOURRRL OF HDyERTISinG eFSEflflCfl j u i y . August 2 0 0 2

APPENDIX A (cont'd)


When motives are in confiict. the stronger drive will supercede. Sincethere is no clear-cut evidence of which motives dominate, we positthat:

H6: (a) Egoistic motives, (b) altruistic motives, and (c) account-ability motives are all positively related to the priority of givingto universities, priority of giving to the named university, andtotai donations.

Although charitable-giving motives have received research atten-tion, how donor-organization relationship perceptions, donor-beneficiary relationship perceptions, and relationship commitmentimpact relationship motives is virtually unexplored. From a generalperspective, we would expect that individuals, who have more posi-tive experiences with the university, would be more committed to theuniversity, and who accept responsibility, will place greater emphasison altnjistic motives.

H7: Donor-organization relationship perceptions, donor-beneficiary relationship perceptions, and relationship com-mitment are all positively related to the relationship motives.

Category Priority, Relationship Priority, and Relationship OutcomesUsing multiple indices to measure relationship commitment pro-

vides a richer test and a better understanding of the loyalty construct

(Peltier, Schibrowsky, Davis, and Schultz, 2002). We utilize threeloyalty outcome measures; category priority, relationship priority, andrelationship outcome. Category priority is especially important in to-day's competitive charitable-giving environment in which the averagedonor gives to more than five different causes (Craver et al., 1999a).Priority of giving to a specific university has special importance in thatit is possible to assess how donor-organization relationship percep-tions, involvement, and motive processes are sequentially structured.Lastly, because dollars donated is an easy to track behavioral databaseelement, linkages between the priority dimensions and other model el-ements are actual actions and not self-reported intentions.

Although not well conceptualized in the interactive marketing andcharttabl&giving literature, we propose the following relationships andpaths;

H8: Priority to giving to universities is positively related to (a) priori^of giving to alma mater and (b) dollars donated.

H9; Priority of giving to alma mater is positively related to dollarsdonated.

The model that we propose is comprehensive and hypothesizes nu-merous theoretical connections between a variety of interactive market-ing dimensions that could be leveraged into longitudinal communicationstrategies.

APPENDIX BData Analysis Details

Preliminary Data AnalysisFor purposes of this study, a total of nine measures were devel-

oped from the original 57 questions. The nine measures employingmultiple indicants were evaluated according to the principles out-lined by Churchill (1979) and Peter (1979). Table 1 contains themeasures, the specific questions used in each of the measures,and the reliabilities of each of the measures.

In addition, a correlation analysis was conducted to determinewhich of the measures were statistically related to the total amountof money donated, category priority, and relationship priority. Thisanalysis provided an empirical test of the relationships proposed inthe literature. Table 2 contains the results. All of the measures wererelated to at least one of the key loyalty measures and provided initialsupport for the direct relationships proposed in the model. While thisis encouraging, it should be noted that these findings would providelittle help to managers trying to design a longitudinal communicationstrategy that combines various types of information to increase ac-quisition, retention, and monetary value of the donors.

Lisrel Modeling ResultsStructural equation analysis was used to investigate the se-

quential and causal relationships between the constructs pro-posed in the donor decision process. The structural model wasestimated using LISREL 8.0 (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1993).The overall chi square statistic for the model was significant(Chi square (22 df)=362.2. p < .000). This is an expected resultgiven the targe sample size (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). Other fit indi-ces that were not directly related to sample size, includingthe goodness of fit index (GFI - .920), the comparative fit index(CFI = .930), the incremental fit index (IF! = .930). and the stan-dardized root mean square residual (SRMR = .079) provided evi-dence of an excellent model fit. The results suggested that themodel was a logical basis to test the substantive hypotheses. Thebasic hypothesized structural model is shown in Figure 1. Theparameter estimates and corresponding t-values are shown inTable 3.

J u l y . August 2 0 0 2 JOURRRL OF eOUERTISIHB RESEBRCH 3 7


APPENDIX B (cont'd)

TABLE 1Donor Satisfaction Survey MeasuresNeed and Deserve HelpMany university students are worthy of being helped.Universities are finding it more difficult to raise money.

Coefficient Alpha = ,47Accept ResponsibilitySupporting universities is not my responsibility.My contributions don't make much of a difference.Supporting the state's universities is everyone's responsibility,

Coefficient Alpha = .53Benefits of DonatingI feel good when I help others in need.In the long run, the state benefits by helping students.If given resources, universities can help many people.

Coefficient Alpha = .73Personal impactI received a high quality education at the specific university.The university has had a great impact on my life.I have found memories of my schooling at the specific

university.I am loyal to the specific university.

Coefficient Alpha ^ .81Donor involvement

I keep in touch with what is happening at the specificuniversity.

The specific university cares for their alumni.I would recommend to others to donate to the specific

university.Coefficient Alpha = .81

Quality ProgramThe university is an important part of the state's higher

education system.The university is a valuable resource to the state's employers.The university is worthy of receiving financial support.I have confidence in the university's leadership.The university was a good value for my money.

Coefficient Alpha - .85

CommunicationThe university makes it easy to contribute.The university explains well how donations are spent.The university is responsive to the concerns of alumni.The university listens to donors on how donations should be

spent.The university is trustworthy with the donations that it receives.The university does a good job communicating with alumni.

Coefficient Alpha = .83AltruismThe academic reputation of the university is important.Wanting to give something back to the university is important.I want to give someone else the same opportunity I had.I vi/ant to help.

Coefficient Alpha = .77Egoisticothers I know also give to the university.My children or grandchildren may want to attend.My gift is tax deductible.1 like to be recognized for my donation.I want to be able to pick how my money is spent.

Coefficient Alpha = .69Accountability for DonationsIt is important that the university spends donations well.It is important that the university have low administrative costs

for the donation program.I want to be kept informed about how my money is spent.

Coefficient Alpha = .81

38 OF flDUERTISIflG HESKH July - August 2002

APPENDIX B (cont'd)


TABLE 2Correlations

Totai Amout Priority of Giving Priority of GivingDonated to Universities to Aima iViater

Need and deserve help .162** .257** .239**

Benefits of donating^ .134** r.^.^S** .2^4**_

Accept responsibility .195** .465** .435**

Personal impact .185** .392** .528**

Donor involvement .290** .654** .??!.*

Perceived quality of the university . 2 2 1 * * . 421* * .^23**_

Communications .179** .380** .518**_

Altruism .186**^ .496** .492**

Egoism .039 .209** ;240**_

Accountability .023 .087** .063

Priority of giving to universities .312**

Priority of giving to the specific unviersity .326** .747* _ 'Correlation /,s sij^inficafil nt the ,005 Imvl (2'tailed),"Correlation is significant at the 0.01 la-el {2-taiied),

TABLE 3Structural Equation Model Estimates

PATHS

To From Estimate t-value

Benefits of Heiping Need and Deserve Heip 1.65 18.89

Accept Responsibility Need and Deserve Help -.15 ~.h^9,Accept Responsibility Benefits of Heiping .32 7.37^Accept Responsibility Quaiity of the University .03 .93Accept Responsibility Communication with the University .05 1.67Accept Responsibility Donor invoivement .21 6.73

Quaiity of the University Personai impact .72 ?.f:?Quaiity of tiie University Communication with the University .38 15.05Donor invoivement Quality of the University .12 2.54Donor invoivement Personai impact .49 9.61Donor invoivement Communcation with the University .38 11.55Accountability Donor Involvement .04 1.04

Accountability Quality of the University .07 1.45Accountability Need and Deserve Help -.27 -1.73

J u i y . August 2 0 0 2 JOIURL OF HDUERTISIIIB flESERRCH 3 9


APPENDIX B (cont'd)

TABLE 3Cont'd

PATHS

J^, From Estimate t-valueAccountability Benefits of Helping .25 4.47

Accountability Accept Responsibility .06 1.38

Accountability Personal Impact - . 1 0 -1 .64

Egoistic Motive Donor involvement .37 5.75Egoistic Motive Quality of the University - . 12 -1 .57Egoistic iVIotive Need and Deserve Heip - . 5 3 -2 .07Egoistic Motive Benefits of Heiping .29 3.10

Egoistic Motive Accept Responsibility .03 .32Egoistic Motive Personal Impact .05 .52

Aitruism Donor involvement .30 7.40

*'.*.'.*.f!?. Quality of the University .11 2.27Altmism Need and Desen/e Help - . 0 1 - . 0 1

*.'.*!'V.'..'!!. Benefits of Heiping .37 6.30Aitruism Accept Responsibility .21 4,35Altruism Personal Impact - . 0 3 - . 50Priority of Giving to iJniversitles Altruism .05 6.07

Priority of Giving to Universities Egoistic Motive - . 0 1 - . 84Priority of Giving to Universities Accountability - . 0 1 - 1 3 7Priority of Giving to Universities Accept Responsibility .06 5.84

Priority of Giving to Universities Donor involvement .11 15.42Priority of Giving to the Target University Altruism .01 1 3 6Priority of Giving to the Target University Egoistic Motive - . 0 1 - .88Priority of Giving to the Target University Accountability - . 0 1 -1 .89Priority of Giving to the Target University_ Accept Responsibility - . 0 1 -1 .02Priority of Giving to the Target University Personai Impact - . 0 1 -1 .27Priority of Giving to the Target University Donor involvement .16 27.26Priority of Giving to the Target University Priority of Giving to Universities .34 15.93Priority of Giving to the Target University Quality of the University - . 0 1 - .96Priority of Giving to the Target University Communication with the University - . 0 1 -1 .90

Total Amount Donated Priority of Giving to the Target University 17.12 2.92Totai Amount Donated Priority of Giving to Universities 7.23 2.45Total Amount Donated Altruism .27 .53

4 0 m m i OF HDUEfiTISIflG HESEflfiCH July . August 2002


APPENDIX B (cont'd)

TABLE 3Cont'd

To

Total Amount Donated







PATHS

From

Egoistic MotiveAccountability

Donor Involvement

Quaiity of the University

Accept Responsibility

Personal Impact

Communication with the University

Estimate

-.46

.15

-.73

1.50

.27

-.73

-.40

t-vaiue

-1 .41

.28

-.75

2.00

.39

-.87-.73

Fit statisticsChi stpiare = 362 with 22 degrees offreedaniGoodness of fit indexGFI = .92; Comparative fit indexCF! - .93; Incremental fit indexIFI - .92.!'ol,il juillis ,5.5 Significant paths 24

the ARF 2002-2003 Calendar of Events

ARFA MARK YOUR CALENDARS NOW!December 3, 2002

Business Intelligence ForumMetropolitan HotelNew York, NY

April 7-9, 2003

ARF 49*" Annual Convention &Research Infoplex

The Hilton New YorkNew York. NY

June 15-20, 2003

ARF/ESOMARWorldvi'ide Audience Measurement

(WAM) ConferenceRenaissance. HollywoodLos Angeles. CA

For furtiier information of any of the events iistedhere, or to be added to ther ARF's mailing list,simply call (212) 751-5656 and ask for theconference department, or visit our website at:www.theARF.org.

J u l y . August 2 0 0 2 JDUeflflL OP HDUERTISinG RESEflflCH 4 1

Case Study Charity

Documents

Transcript of Case Study Charity