Publisher: Routledge
Download 0.9 Mb. View original pdf
|
| Introduction The objectives of nonprofit advertising are quite different from those of for-profit advertising. The latter aims to persuade consumers to purchase products and services, whereas the former intends to motivate donors to give either time or money (Reed et al. 2007), which are resources that donors view as being quite different from each other. There is evidence that time and money are psychologically different and that consumers display different perceptions and behaviours concerning spending time vs money (Liu & Aaker 2008). Time is measured more ambiguously than money (Okada & Hoch 2004), and temporal budgetary constraints are more elastic than monetary constraints (Hsee 1995). Spending time generates a more positive consumer attribution (Reed et al. 2007), is more related to the experience that accompanies feelings and emotions (Schwarz & Clore 1996) and more directly involves the self (Reed et al. 2007) than spending money does. Because of these differences, the behaviours that donors tend to display when giving time and money are different. For example, Liu and Aaker (2008) found that monetary donations are larger when donors are asked to donate their time beforehand (or when spending time is activated) than when they are asked to donate money directly (or when spending money is activated. The other example includes research by Reed et al. (2007), Downloaded by [McGill University Library at 01:34 07 February 2015 708 InternatIonal Journal of advertIsIng, 2014, who argued that the moral identity of donors, which is defined as the extent to which the image of moral character is an important part of his or her self-concept’ (Reed et al. 2007, p. 180), influences donors preference of time vs money. Donors with a high moral identity tend to donate time rather than money because donating time is perceived as a more moral act. The differences in donors perceptions and behaviours concerning time and money suggest that different advertising appeals should be used to attract different resources. However, existing studies did not differentiate between time and money when seeking the most effective charity advertising strategies and, thus, showed mixed results. For example, Homes, Miller and Lerner (2002) revealed that people are willing to donate more money when giving is presented as an economic transaction between a donor and a charity than when presented as a noble act of charity. Contrasting results appeared in Pessemier et al. (1977), who found that providing monetary incentives reduces the intention to donate body parts (e.g. kidneys or blood. Some researchers attempted to explain this inconsistency by introducing contextual and individual factors that moderate the effects of these two types of appeal. White and Peloza (2009) used donors public self- image as a moderating variable to argue that advertising that emphasises an altruistic intention to help others is more effective when public self-image is important. Brunel and Nelson (2000) argued that gender differences influence the effects of donation appeals and showed that women prefer fundraising appeals that emphasise helping others, whereas men generally like advertisements with self-help appeals. The present study attempts to add to existing findings by proposing that different advertising strategies evoke different donor behaviour. Egoistic advertising appeals are more effective than altruistic appeals because donors are asked to donate money, found Homes et al. (2002). The conflicting result of Pessemier et al. (1977), showing that altruistic appeals area better option, might have resulted from the dependent variable, body parts donations. These two studies are good examples of the different effects of advertising appeals depending on the resources that firms ask consumers to donate. To reveal the advertising strategies that are the most effective at attracting different resources, the current study focuses on three dimensions of charity advertising appeal types (egoistic vs altruistic, Brunel & Nelson 2000; White & Peloza 2009), how to portray the beneficiaries of the charities (needy vs helped beneficiaries, Bendapudi et al. 1996) and how to describe the victims (statistical vs identifiable, Small & Loewenstein 2003; Kogut & Ritov 2005). These dimensions are unique to charity advertising. Download 0.9 Mb. Share with your friends:
|