Characteristics of Persuasion: The Role of Tangibility in CSR Messages

MScMarketing
20142015
Characteristicsofpersuasion:Theroleof
tangibilityinCSRmessages
by
NabilDabbagh
SupervisedbyProf.NicholasOShaughnessy
September2015
Acknowledgement
My sincerest appreciation goes to my supervisor, Professor Nicholas OShaughnessy for his

sinceresupportandmentoring,withoutwhomthisprojectwouldnotbewhatitistoday.
My gratitude also go to the hundreds of people who have graciously given me some of their
precioustimetocreateathoroughandproudpieceofresearch.
Toyouall,thankyou.
Abstract
This dissertation sought to fill a gap in the academic research of corporate social
responsibility (CSR) as a persuasion tool. Little focus has been placed on the precise
characteristics which make CSR messages the creator of either persuasion or cynicism.
Instead, past academics have attempted to show the positive or negative impact these
campaigns can have on companies, with little to no interest on the elements that make them
so.
This dissertation has thereforetriedtoexpandonthesepastfindingsandsoughttounderstand

how juxtaposing CSR with certain features in messagescanyieldpositiveconsumerattitudes
andbehaviorswhileimprovingtheirmemorability.
A mixed form of research was used in order to answer these queries. Namely, the use of
quantitative surveys allowed for a broad range of answers, while the use of qualitative focus
groupsgaverhetoricaldatatobackuptheirquantitativecounterpart.
In the end, the research found a clear link between a CSR messages level of tangibility (a
term applied inaspecificmannerforthispaper)andchangesinconsumerattitudes,behaviors
and memory. That is to say, statistically significant findings showed an improvement in
purchase intention when participants were faced with CSR messages which were
exceptionally clear, produced with vivid examples and understandable rhetoric. Likewise,
skepticism was reduced when participants were faced with similar messages, while memory
ofhighlytangiblemessagessawstrikingimprovements.
Tableofcontents
Chapter1:Introductio
n
1.1Rationaleandjustificationforresearch
1.2Researchquestions
Chapter2:Literaturereview
2.1ConceptualandhistoricalunderstandingsofCSR
2.2CSRasapromotionaltool
11
2.2.1Consumerattitude
11
2.2.2Consumerbehaviorandpurchaseintention
17
Chapter3:Methodology
3.1Researchobjectives
21
3.2Definingtangibility
22
3.3Researchmethod
23
3.4Sampling
24
3.5ResearchDesign
26
3.6Dataanalysistechniques
30
Chapter4:DataAnalysis
4.1Tangibilitytest
31
4.2Consumerattitudes
32
4.2.1Trust(H1)
32
4.2.2Skepticism(H1a)
35
4.2.3Attitude(H2)
36
4.3Consumerbehaviorandpurchaseintention
38
4.3.1Purchaseintention(H3)
38
4.3.2Memory(H4)
39
4.4Additionalfindings
41
4.5Discussion
42
Chapter5:Conclusion
5.1Limitations
45
5.2Furtherresearch
47
5.3Conclusionandimplications
47
References
50
Appendix
53
Chapter1:Introduction
1.1Rationaleandjustificationforresearch
The researchisallbutdeniable.Amajorityofconsumersexpectordemandfromcompaniesa
growing level of social activity, morality, or ethics (see next chapter). In other, more
academic terms, consumers are, to varying degrees, interested in companies involved in
corporatesocialresponsibility(CSR)activities.
The evolution in technologies has fueled the momentum of change in consumer demands
(Werther & Chandler, 2011). Corporations are accountable for their actions what one
experiences, a million see. In fact, added to that, the idea of a brand has witnessed a
powerful evolution. While utilitarian characteristics used to define a brands image in
consumer minds, the focus has now converged to less prevalent characteristics
(OShaughnessy & OShaughnessy, 2003). Namely, the idea that a brand can mean
something emotionally as well as rationally. Consumers, today, are emblematic of this new
shift, as the logo on the products we wear, drink, or eat,havebecomeexpressiveparts ofour
ownidentitiesandcharacters.
As such, brands areencouragedtobemoreemotionallyexpressive,muchliketheircustomers

would be. As a result, for a brand to look caring, they have to act empathetically, and this is
where the role of corporate social responsibility comes in. It is when a brand seeks to be
caring that they will gain a competitive advantage today (OShaughnessy & OShaughnessy,
2003).Thisnewnotionwillbedevelopedin furtherdetailthroughoutthe
Literaturereviewby
looking at the role of CSR historically its source and evolution as well as identifying
key pieces of literature which have aimed to understand its effect on consumer attitudes and
behaviors.
The following chapter (

Methodology
) will develop a series of hypotheses based on the
reviewed literature. These hypotheses, and the questions they stem from, seek to bring the
field of CSR beyond highlighting its success as atoolforpersuasion.Instead,itwilltry togo
beyond, and highlight the precise characteristics which have made CSR so successful (
Data
analysis
).
1.2Researchquestions
Asaresult,thefollowingquestionshavekindledthisdissertation:
IfCSRactivitiesareinfactpersuasive,whichprecisecharacteristicsmakethemso?
As CSR becomes more prevalent in marketing, howcanpractitionersavoidconsumer

skepticism?
WithariseinCSRmessages,howcanmarketersmaketheirsmorememorable?
Chapter2:Literaturereview
The notion of corporations being socially responsible is far from new. Since the dawn of
trade, managers and business owners have tried to invest not only in their product, but in
those that make them, the environment they make them in, and the community aroundthem.
However, the term corporate social responsibility has only recently been coined and only in
the last several decades have theorists and academics focused much of their attention on the
subject. Having said that, the topic is still ripe with disagreement, something this literature
reviewwillattempttodisplayandanalyse.
2.1ConceptualandhistoricalunderstandingsofCSR
It is therefore not only appropriate, but vital to understand exactly what academics and
practitioners identify and understandasbeinganorganizationssocial
responsibility
,andwhy
CSRhasgarneredsomuchattentionandimportanceasoflate.
There are many contradicting beliefs as to what exactly is an organizations social

responsibility
. Some believe that an organizations sole responsibility is towards its
shareholders and therefore to produce profits (Friedman, 1970). Economist Milton Friedman
(1970: 126) is one of such individuals, whose publication in the NewYork
Timesstatedthat,
there is one and only one
responsibility [emphasis added]ofbusinesstouseitsresources
and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of
the game. Friedman (1970) argues that a corporate executivehasneitherthetrainingnorthe
duty to spend his organizations capital on external social causes. Instead, Friedman (1970)
would contend, much like Adam Smith, or the many world leaders he inspired including
Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan that a profitable and functioning organization in a
freemarketsocietywillredistributeitswealthandfulfilitsresponsibilitytowardssociety.
Many of the more rationalminded leaders of the past, includingFrederickTaylor(1967)and

Henry Ford believed in the same economic ideal. In fact,althoughmanyhavecriticizedFord
forhisimplementationofapurelyrationalandrigidformoforganization,whichsubsequently
ledtothedehumanizationofhislabor,highturnover,andlowmorale(Drucker, 1954),we can
identify from his rhetoric that he wasacompassionateandphilanthropicindividual.Suchcan
be witnessed in a particular instance where Ford explained his rationale for lowering the
prices of his vehicles, because it enables a larger number ofpeople tobuyandenjoytheuse
of a car and because it gives a larger number of men employment at good wages. Those are
thetwoaimsIhaveinlife.(FordinWillmott,2003:68)
However, should one attempt to understand Friedmans (1970) statement about a firms sole
social responsibility, one must consider its historical context.WhileFord,andthesubsequent
rise of Fordism, in the early days of the twentieth century proved fruitful for capitalism, the
Second World War paved the way to welfare state systems (Willmott, 2003). The United
States where Friedman was from and the United Kingdom witnessed soaring
government spendings, peaking in the mid1970s with the British government spending
nearly half of its gross domestic product, and the American government spending nearly a
quarter (Figure 1). Willmott (2003) argues that the shift in responsibility from companies to
governments rendered the former less likely to take part in philanthropic activities. One can
therefore understand Friedmans motivationsmoreclearly:theWeststwogreatestpowers
the United States and the United Kingdom both reached unprecedented levels of
government spendings and as most capitalists, Friedman believed that returning to Fordism
wasinthebestinterestforboththeeconomyandsocietyswellbeing.
Figure 1: Percentage of GDP spent by US & UK governments 19302000 (U.S. Bureau of

EconomicAnalysis,2015Rogers,2013)
In fact, Friedman(1970)thoroughly believedintherighteousnessoffreemarketsocieties,for

he believed that rulesweresetinplacetoavoidfreedomfromveeringtowardsanarchy.Inhis
essay for the
Times
,Friedman(1970:126) defendsthatafirmssolesocialresponsibilityisto
make profits, so long as it stays within the rules of the game. In other words, a company
will produce the social responsibility it is mandated to produce (by employing community
members and paying taxes) so long as they abidebythelaw.However,onecanonlysuppose
that in the mid to latetwentieth century Friedman (1970) did not presume that capitalism
would fuel globalisation the way it has in recent decades (Stiglitz, 2006). As a result,
capitalism, which seeks to reduce the roadblocks for any company seeking to grow, has led
many businesses to find refuge in underdeveloped nations, wherelaws,orrules(Friedman,
1970: 126) are more lenient than in developed nations. One can therefore assume that
Friedman (1970) identifies social responsibilities to be taken care of by laws. However, as
history seems to have proven, some nations and their inhabitants do nothavetheprivilegeof
living and working in a society which bears witness to such laws.Unfortunately,Friedmans
(1970: 122) ideal for corporations, which have since been adopted by Margaret Thatcher in
the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States (Peck & Tickell, 2002), have
permitted such establishments to seek nothing but to, increase its profits, even if it has
meantgoingbeyondbordersandignoringtherulesFriedman(1970:126)refersto.
Whats more, Friedmans (1970) illusion that society and enterprise run independently from
each other has garnered him even more criticism. As Porter and Kramer (2003: 33) explain,
companies do not function in isolation from the society around them. Rather, theyworkin
the same silo and are dependent of each other. Thus proving the growing importance for
companies to invest beyond their shareholders as well as their stakeholders, for the two are
intrinsicallylinked(Werther&Chandler,2011).
However,theriseofcapitalisminthe1980sbyThatcherandReaganprovedfruitless tosocial
responsibility. It led a rise in income inequality, and with the recession in the 1990s,
companies were no longer trusted (Willmott, 2003). Social responsibility, it seems,belonged
to noone. It was around that time that corporations not only saw it as a moral and ethical
imperativetoreownsocialresponsibilities,butalsotoregainthetrustoftheircustomers.
10
2.2CSRasapromotionaltool
2.2.1Consumerattitude
As this review has illustrated, Friedmans (1970) ideal for capitalism is that if companies do
well and increase their profits then that will have atrickledowneffectonthegreatergoodof
society. Unfortunately,muchtohisdispleasure,thatidealhasnotextendedtohiscompatriots.
As Figure 2 shows, researchers found that consumers dont believe that a companys only
responsibility is to increase profits, as 95% believe that companies have a
responsibility
towardstheirworkersandthecommunitiestheyworkin.
Figure 2:
American consumers belief of Friedmans statements (Business Week/Harris,
2000)
2000
1999
4%
5%
95%
95%
1%
0%
U.S. corporations should have only one purpose to make

the most profit for their shareholders and their pursuit of
that goal will be best for America in the long run.
U.S. corporations should have more than one purpose. They
also owe something to their workers and the communities in
which they operate, and they should sometimes sacrifice
some profit for the sake of making things better for their
workers and communities
Not sure/No answer
Therefore, corporate social responsibility seems to have transitioned, from being a

responsibility
, in the literal term which is defined as being a prosocial duty where the
benefactor does not expect to benefit fromtheirgoodwill(Murray&Vogel,1997),tobeinga
11
means to an end (Werther & Chandler, 2011). This comes as no surprise seeing the ample
studieswhichhavedepictedconsumersasbeingexceedinglylesstrustingofcorporationsthan
in the past (Business Week/Harris, 2000). Asaresult, researchersandacademicshavesought
to understand the effects of CSR activities on consumer attitudes. In otherwords,usingCSR
asapromotionaltool.
Much of the literature which juxtapose the fields of corporate social responsibility and
consumer behavior attempt to analyse a consumers actions without looking at theirattitudes
(PavaandKrausz,1996McGuire,SundgrenandSchneeweis,1988).Oneofthemoreholistic
definitions of attitudes is best presented by Krech and Crutchfield (1948: 152) as being, an
enduring organisation of motivational, emotional, perceptual and cognitive process with
respect to some aspects of the individuals world. Using the evidence presented above,
research clearly shows a growing cynicism in the eyes of consumers towards businesses. It
would therefore seem slightly futile to recognise and attempt to shape behaviors without
understanding the attitudes, which are often antecedents or predictors of such behaviors
(OShaughnessy & OShaughnessy, 2003). In fact, according to Brown and Dacins (1997)
research, a consumer who is lacking informationonaproductwillfillthatinformationalvoid
with his or her existing associations or knowledge towards the company. In other
words, if an advertising message does not satisfy consciously or unconsciously the
cognitivedemandsoftheviewer,theywillgeneratetheirowninterpretation basedonpastand
existingbeliefsorknowledgeaboutthecompany.
Their research highlights an important stage in one of the more widely respected models on
attitude formation. Namely, the hierarchy of effects model by Lavidge and Steiner (1961),
12
which argues that consumers form an attitude through a hierarchical process, consisting of
three main stages cognitive, affective and conative which themselves comprise more
precisesteps,identifiedinFigure3.
Figure3:
Hierarchyofeffectsmodel(Lavidge&Steiner,1961)
Awareness
Knowledge
Liking
Preference
Conviction
Purchase
Cognitive
Affective
Conative
The model argues that in order to execute a behavior, consumers must go through aseriesof
stages. However, such a model would stipulate that stages are experienced one at atime,but
in reality such stages are often intertwined together or act independently from each other
(Storbeck & Clore, 2007 Vakratsas & Ambler, 1999), which would make the argument in
defence of a hierarchy more convoluted. In fact, opponents of the hierarchy of effectsmodel
discredit it by arguing that humans are not as rational as the model would assume
(OShaughnessy & OShaughnessy, 2003). Rather, they argue against the use of ahierarchy,
for they believe that our affective characteristics unconsciously produce attitudes. In other
words, this rules out the idea that attitudes always start with a cognition stage
(OShaughnessy&OShaughnessy,2003:124).
Other academics who have researched that field using CSR activities have also found that
persuasion can take place without any awareness. In fact, much like the research by Brown
13
and Dacin (1997)whicharguesthatpastknowledgefillsingapswhenaconsumerscognitive

demands arent met, the research by Russo and Chaxel (2010) complements theirthesiswith
theargumentthatawarenessisnotalwaysnecessarytopersuade.
The evidence presented by Russo and Chaxel (2010) would therefore allude to the fact that
persuasion can take place through wordofmouth or public relations techniques. Both are
tools which are ideal for corporate social responsibility as they present a perceived unbiased
opinion from a third party. Having said that, while researchers still dont align with a single
precise opinion on attitudes, they all seem to agree on the stark differences between attitude
formationsandattitudechanges(Bohner&Dickel,2011).
In light of these facts, if we turn our attention towards the scarce literature which attains to
juxtapose the effects of corporate social responsibility initiatives on consumer attitudes, one
can find that there exists some level of consensus. Much of that research has found CSR
initiatives to have a positive impact on the attitudes of consumers, most notably that of
Murray and Vogel (1997: 154) which sought to implement the hierarchy of effects model
within CSR activities and foundthat,corporateprosocialendeavorsareinfluentialandthata
hierarchicalevaluativeapproachis,indeed,sensitivetochangesinattitude.
Others, who didnt use existing modelstotesttheirhypothesesalso foundsimilarresults.Sen

and Bhattachayra (2001: 237) found that, CSR Record will have a positive effect on
Company Evaluations. Their research therefore complements that of Brown and Dacin
(1997) who argue that past knowledge or beliefs fill in the gap when a viewer's cognitive
demands arentsatisfied. CreyerandRoss(1997)alsolookedattherelationshipbetweenCSR
14
activities and consumer attitudes, but included the criterion of expectation, arguing that
consumers have precise expectations from companies, which are often formed by price, past
experiences,aswellaspriorknowledge.
However, it seems that the existing literature on the effects of CSR activities on consumer
attitudes have not identified the differences between formation of attitudes and changes in
attitudes, going against what most of the theorists see asavitaldifference(Bohner&Dickel,
2011). Whats more, while the research todate has sought to show the mostly positive
relationship between CSRactivitiesandconsumerattitudes,nonehavelookedpreciselyat the
triggers to the changes or formations of these attitudes. The few that have, found that
consumer skepticism depended on whether they perceived the companys motivation to be
profitrelatedratherthansociallyrelated(Mohr,WebbandHarris,2001).
FindingMeaninginBrands
With gaps in research, we must turn towards advertising literature which highlights the
importance producing meaning into a brand. OShaughnessy and OShaughnessy (2003)
argue that long are the days when brands touted their products with utilitarianspecifications.
Today, they contend, brands hold more than just rational meaning they hold emotional
meaning.
In fact, their argument is that todays consumersaremoreattunedtotheemotionalcontentof

a brand and are sensitive to what that brand says of themselves whenever they use their
products.
15
When approaching it from the angle of CSR, OShaughnessy and OShaughnessy (2003)
speak of solidarity. In humanbeings, the sense of compassion is inherent to our DNA
(Keltner,2014).Therefore,whenconsciouslyorunconsciouslylookingforabrandwhichwill
bring us meaning, we willseekthesame characteristicswhicharepart ofourownDNA,such
ascompassionandsolidarity.
The idea that inorderforacompanytoregainitscompetitiveadvantageitmustfocusonboth

its brand image and that of the consumers they are targeting, is growing in the field of
marketing research and is the topic of a completely different dissertation. However, there
comes a point of convergence where CSR and brand image meet.Insuchinstances,bothcan
greatly benefit from each other. That is to say, CSR can be used to infiltrate brands as a
promotional tool and use the appeal of solidarity helping society and others to
magnetiseonesaudience.
The successful use of solidarity stems from its ability to marry rationality and emotionality.
Using the Body Shop as an example, OShaughnessyand OShaughnessy(2003)explainthat
the company was able to build a brand image using distinctive associations of social
responsibility in a market filled with animal testing and environmental calamities. The
company was able to rise in prominence not simply for the utilitarian qualities of their
products, but for its ability to pour meaning into these products. Thus, the rationallydriven
consumer who seeks socially responsible offerings (solidarity) will feel emotionally
compelled towards brands who reflect the same persona. In essence, OShaughnessy and
OShaughnessy (2003) would argue that a consumer looks for the same affective
characteristicsinabrandastheydoinapersonlikethemselves.
16

This thereforeleadsustoourfirstthreehypotheses,whichtrytouseadvertisingtechniquesof
persuasion to show that CSR activities can be used more efficiently through the use of
tangibleexamples.Therefore,Ihypothesisethefollowing:
H1: Offering tangible examples of CSRactivitiesincreasesthetrusttheviewerhastowardsa

messageandthecompany
H1a: Offering tangible examples of CSR activities reduces a viewers skepticism
towardsthemessageandcompany
H2:
Offering tangible examples of CSR activities creates morefavorableattitudesin viewers
towardsthecompany
Intheseinstances,andintheonestocome,tangibilityisusedtodescribethecharacteristicsof
messages. In this papers case, the use of tangibility is best described following Oxfords
(2015) definition, clear and definite examples of CSR activities. A more indepth
understandingofthecontextoftangibilityisoutlinedinthefollowingchapter,
Methodology
.
2.2.2Consumerbehaviorandpurchaseintention
As I have outlined throughout this chapter, while the literature has proven very light on the
effects CSR activities have on consumer attitudes, one can find a plethora of research and
writingsontheeffectstheformerhasonconsumerbehavior.
17
The research on the matter isquitescatteredinopinion,andwhilemanyhavefoundthatCSR

activities have positive financial effects on profits, there are still those who have found the
opposite to be true. In fact, a theoretical study on the matter conducted by Pava and Krauz
(1996) found that of the 22 studies analysed on the relationship between CSR activities and
financial performance, only one was found to have a negative correlation. The remaining 21
either found positive or neutral relationships. Having said that, the relationship between the
two variables is marred in assumptions, for while such assumptions may be correct,itwould
bequitedifficulttorelateanincreaseinprofitstoaCSRprogram.
That thesis is corroborated to varying degrees in most studies regarding the differences in
consumer behavior and purchase intention. Researchers are often unanimous in conceding
thatastrongdifficultyisfoundinreceivingatruthfulanswerfromparticipants.Particularlyin
the field of CSR, and philanthropy in general, participants have been found to skew their
answers based on social values and norms, for fear of judgement (Mohr, Webb and Harris,
2001). Whats more, Billig (1987) would argue that an individual may believe their own
attitude to be truthful, but that in fact such an attitude is only the product of context. This
issue is one which will be important to this studys empirical research and will be dealtwith
inmoredetailinthefollowingchapter(
Methodology
).
Therefore, while it has become difficult to measuretheeffectsofCSRactivitiesonconsumer

behavior, it has generally been accepted to follow researchpathstowardspurchaseintentions
instead, as consumers will either not know what their true attitude is, or will answer
untruthfully.
18
The myriad of literature that has looked at CSR have often tried to look at the specifictypes
of social initiatives which have been found to have a greater impact on consumer behavior
and purchase intention. For example, empirical research conducted by BeckerOlsen,
Cudmore and Hill (2006) found that companies who selected social initiatives which did not
fit with their objectives put themselves in peril. Others, which are more in line with this
studys goal, have sought to look at specific types of CSR activities which would be more
effectiveinaffectingconsumerbehavior.
Namely, causerelated marketing (CRM) has been judged very successful by a wide arrayof
academics (Barone, Miyazaki & Taylor, 2000 van der Brink, OdekerkenSchroder &
Pauwels, 2006). In what is widely recognised to be the most respected piece on CRM,
Varadarjan & Menon (1988: 60) have defined the activity as, a firms contribution to to a
designated cause being linked to customersengaginginrevenueproducingtransactions with
the firm. In other words, CRM is when a forprofit company and a nonprofit company
establish a campaign where revenue isdivided.Suchcampaignshavesincebeenproventobe
very effective and lucrative (Barone, Miyazaki & Taylor, 2000). Theirsuccess,however,has
led to some consumer skepticism. In a study by Webb and Mohr (1998), the scholars found
that approximately half of their sample exerted negative attitudes towards the forprofit
company. These respondents expressed skepticism towards the firm as they saw the CRM
campaignasselfserving.
However, since these findings were published, companies seem to have implemented
changes,asnewerstudieshavefoundthatskepticismhasbeendeclining(Barone,Miyazaki&
Taylor, 2000). In fact, further studies by van der Brink, OdekerkenSchroder and Pauwels
19
(2006) found that CRM campaigns have a positive effect on consumers brand loyalty. The
caveat being that the firm must investinlongtermCRMcampaignsforofferingswhichhave
low consumer involvement that is, for campaigns in fastmoving consumer goods (FMCG)
markets,wherelittlecognitivethinkinganddecisionmakingisfound.
Therefore, based on the literature reviewed here, we can produce the following final
hypotheses:
H3: Offering tangible examples of CSR activities increases a consumers purchase intention
oftheproductadvertised
H4: Offering tangible examples of CSR activities increases a consumers likelihood to

rememberamessage
20
3.1Researchobjectives
As the
Literature review has attempted to show, thenotionthatCSRmessagesmaybeuseda
promotional tool seems well established. However, ironically enough, that very basic
conclusiondemonstratestheearlystagesoftheresearchinthatfield.
This dissertation will aim to push beyond that conclusion, and will not try to prove what is
nowwellrecognisedtobeanobviousfact.Instead,thisdissertationwillseektogodeeperand
tohighlightandanalysetheDNAbehindapersuasiveCSRmessage.
What appears like an intuitively plausible hypothesis is, in fact, very farfrombeing thecase.
Based on corporate manifestos and other brand messages, companies seemtorelyheavilyon
the basic conclusion that CSR messages can prove to be persuasive without looking at what
exactly makes for a persuasive CSR message. This is the primary rationale and objective of
this dissertation, to push beyond the conclusion that CSR messages canbe persuasive,andto
startlookingathowandwhytheycanbepersuasive.
This will be done by focusing on the characteristics oftangibility.Peopleneedvisualprobes,

and this dissertation will seek to see the relationship between whatIcallthetangibilityofa
CSRmessage(definedandresearchedthroughoutthischapter)andconsumerreactions.
Therefore,thisstudysmainobjectivesare:
Tocreateanoriginalpieceofresearchusingexistingfindingsasguides
21
To understand whether the use ofspecificexamplesofCSRactivitiesinmessageshas

aneffectontheattitudeoftheviewertowardsthecompanyandproduct
To identify a change in purchase intention when the viewer is faced with tangible
examplesoftheadvertisersimplementationofCSRactivities
To identify an amelioration in memory when consumers are faced with tangible CSR
messagesoverlesstangibleCSRmessages
To show that in order for CSR to be a successful promotional tool it must be broken
intospecificactivities,someofwhicharemoreeffectivethanothers.
3.2Definingtangibility
The term, tangibility, used in the previous chapters hypotheses, is utilisedtodeterminethe
clarity and reality of a companys social activities in their message. This study aims toshow
that it is not merely enough to present ones CSR activities in any arbitrary fashion, but
changes in consumer attitude and purchase intention will arise only when brands use clear
examplesoftheirsocialactivitiesoverrhetoricallyvagueones.
Since the term tangibility is itself quite vague this study will produce its owndefinitionfor
the term based on existing ones (Oxford, 2015). Therefore, tangibility with regards to this
study alludes to the clarity and vividness which CSR activities are communicated to an
audience.
Since this definition is sopivotaltothisresearchpapersaccuracy,itwaspresentedto apanel

of marketers which was asked to rate the tangibility of CSR messages using a criteria that
focusedonvividnessofexamples(see
ResearchDesign
below).
22
3.3Researchmethod
This study will follow both a qualitative and a quantitativemethodofresearch.Thisdecision
was made basedonseveralfactorshighestofall,duetolimitationsinresources.Becausethis
study has no financial budget and a very narrow and precisetimeframe,quantitativeresearch
methods were deemed to be very favorable for their ability to produce a wide array of
responses in relatively little time at no cost. Secondly, quantitative data allow for a more
tangible and statistically precise understanding of consumer attitudes and beliefs (Fisher,
2007). However, that isnt to say that quantitative research methods do not pose any threats.
Techniques such as surveys and questionnaires must be designed and presented in a precise
and tested way, so as to reduce any chance for errors. This will be dealt with in more detail
laterinthischapter.
Qualitative research will then serve as a complement to the quantitative research. Since the
latter holds some flaws, including the inability for participants to convey personal answers
and the chance that participants donotreadthequestionscarefully, qualitativeresearchinthe
form of focus groups are perfect additions. In fact, Adams
et al.(2007:150)argue that focus
groups can be, particularly useful for validating findings, to make sure that the researcher
hasinterpretedthedatacorrectlyandinanunbiasedmanner.
However, as it was briefly touched upon in the

Literature review
, enticing participants to
speak candidly and honestly can at times be quite difficult. This is especially true for focus
groups,whereparticipantsmayfeelsocialconstraintsinthewaytheyanswer.Thisisalsotrue
for a research paper like this one where the subjectissocialresponsibility.Someparticipants
might feel subjugated by societal norms and feel pressured to answersimilarlytotheirpeers.
23
This was found to be the case in a study by Asch (1951) which found thatparticipantsfaced
with a majority opinion in a group, regardless of how truthfulthatopinionmaybe,willoften
conform to the majoritys opinion. Therefore, in order to minimise such pressures and their
subsequent possibility for inaccuracy, focus group participants will beaskedquestionsoneat
atime,inscatteredform,thereforeallowingeachparticipanttovoicetheirpersonalopinion.
However, this leads us to another issue which neither qualitative nor quantitative research
techniques can solve. It is the issue of opinion. As it was mentioned earlier, Billig (1987)
argues it is not only difficult to measure attitudes, but it is in fact difficult for individuals to
come totermswiththeirownattitudes.Billig(1987:224)speaksoftheambiguitiesinvolved
in the expression of attitudes as individuals are constantly debating issues in their minds.
Therefore, in an attempt to cater to such constant debate, questions will be posed using a
Likert scale where statements will be phrased both positively and negatively. As well as
reducing the ambiguities Billig (1987:224) speaks of, this will also help keep participants
more attentive and reduce thechancesofansweringdifferentquestions withthesameanswer.
Participants will also be warmed that statements will be phrased both positively and
negatively so as to make sure they do not give the same answer to each statement without
havingreadthemfirst.
3.4Sampling
Since our research has been designed to look at the reaction of specific types of CSR
messages on attitudes and behaviors in Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) markets, we
can comfortably argue in favor of using a nonprobability sampling technique. More
precisely, the exact sampling technique adopted is convenience also known as haphazard
24
and accidental sampling. This type of sampling technique is usually criticised for its
inability to produce participants who represent the targeted population and therefore cannot
give us a statistically accurate sampling error. However, since we are researching attitudes
and behaviors in FMCG markets I feel confident that any and all Western participants with
access to the brands presented will be ideal representatives of the population. In fact, for
precautionary measures, and to be entirely confident that participants have interacted in the
FMCG market before, they will be asked if they have purchased a product from one of the
brands presented in the survey. Failing to answer that question, participants will be thanked
andexcused,thuseliminatingsomeofthefaultswithnonprobabilitysamples.
Whats more, as Adams

et al. (2007: 89) explain, using nonprobability rather than
probability sampling is both time and cost beneficial. Since this study must be conducted
within a precise and narrow timeframe, using minimal costs, a nonprobability sampling is
thereforethemostidealtechniqueforthisstudy.
Regarding sample size, nonprobability sampling techniques leave us withlimitedabilitiesto

calculate an accurate sample size. Therefore, inordertoestablishanaccurate size,Ilookedat
past empirical studies on the same topic (BeckerOlsen, Cudmore, & Hill, 2006 Sen &
Bhattacharya, 2001 Mohr, Webb&Harris,2001)andfoundthattheaveragesamplesizewas
of 157 participants, each dividedequallybetweenmenandwomen.Therefore,basedonthese
finding and taking into consideration outliers, this researcher has concluded that the most
adequate and effective sample size to reach the goals of this study be of 200 participants,
equallymadeupofmen(100)andwomen(100).
25
3.5ResearchDesign
The following section describes and justifies in further details the choice of research method
andsamplingwhichwereintroducedinthefirsthalfofthischapter.
Part1:SelectingpiecesofCSRcommunication
The first partofthisstudyrequiredthe selectionofvarioustypescommunication,allofwhich
had to be associated to brands in the FMCG market. Additionally, for relevance sake, each
piece of communication could not be produced before 2005. Finally, since the research was
mainly conducted as a questionnaire, time constraints hadtobeimposedinordertoavoidthe
loss of participation. Therefore, this study also limited itself to 5 pieces of communication
whicheachtookanaveragetimeof2minutestobewatchedorread.
The pieces of communication which fit all these criteria were: two videos from McDonalds
and CocaColas official YouTube channels, two television commercials from Innocent
DrinksandPampers,andacorporatesustainabilitymanifestofromNestl.
Each piece of communication was taken from each brands official website or YouTube
channel in anattempttopresentparticipantswiththemostauthenticexperience,andtherefore
eliminatefurtherchancesoferror.
It was consideredtousefictitiouspiecesofcommunicationtobeabletocaterpreciselytothis
studys goals, but after much consideration existing pieces of communication were deemed
best, as all of the participants would have already heard of or interacted with these brands,
hence having preconceived attachments and beliefs.Itwouldhavebeenalotmoredifficultto
26
reenact the brands tone accurately and therefore would have opened this study up to a
possibilityoferrors.
Part2:ScoringpiecesofCSRcommunication
To get an unbiased and fair opinion on the clarity and quality of these various pieces of
communication a panel of marketing students with accumulated knowledge of CSR was
tasked to watch or read each piece of communication andratethemoutof5onthefollowing
criteria:
Figure4:
Criteriafortangibilitylevel
Criterion
Scoreoutof5
Thebrandcommunicatedtheirsocialactivitiesclearly
Thebrandshowedexamplesoftheiractivities
Thebrandusedsimpleandunderstandablerhetoric
Thebrandcommunicatedtheirsocialactivitiesinapersuasivestyle
This allowed me to fulfil this studys main objective of finding a relationship between how
clearlyandeloquentlyabrandcommunicatesitsCSRactivitiesandconsumerreactions.
Part3a:Survey
Finally, this section deals with the surveys design.The surveyfirstwelcomedparticipantsto
the study and explained the reason for the questions. They were then asked a few simple
questions about their opinion on philanthropy and corporate social responsibility. These
questions were not only important to this studys findings, but according to Fisher (2007),
27
allowed participants to become familiar with the format of the survey and make them feel
moreatease.
Once those preliminary questions were answered, participants were presented one of the 5
pieces ofCSRcommunicationoutlined earlier.Oncethepieceofcommunicationwasviewed,
the participant was asked to rate their enjoyment of the video out of 5. A new page then
appeared with 4 statements. Participants were asked to assess their approval, or lack thereof,
for each statement on a Likert scale offering the choice between Strongly Disagree to
Strongly Agree (Appendix 3.1). Participants were then asked a question regarding the
content of the piece of communication they just viewed. This question was then repeated at
the end of the survey to see if their memory has faded with time and if the message was
communicatedwellenoughtoberemembered.
The process was then repeated with the next piece of communication using the same
statements and Likert scale, except for, of course, changes in brand name. These produced
valuable information on whether participants attitude, purchase intention and memory was
affectedbythetangibilityofthecommunicatedmessages.
Quantitative research techniques such as this one hold many advantages. Namely, they give
the ability to easily compare answers between participants or to reduce the variability in the
interpretation of data (Adams
etal.
,2007).However,forsuchadvantages,andmany more,to
be taken advantage of, surveys must be designed in a specific manner, so as to avoid
interpretation errors. In order to do that, the survey was tested on a panel of 10 participants,
all of whom were from different age ranges andbackgrounds.Theparticipantsweregivenan
28
unlimited amountoftimetocompletethesurvey,andwereaskedtomakenotesofanyandall
confusions on a separate piece of paper. Then, once all the participants had completed the
survey,theirnoteswereanalysed,andbasedonpatternedflaws,correctionsweremade.
Once corrections were made the survey was distributed to the population using convenience
samplingtechniqueoutlinedearlier.
Part3b:Focusgroups
Focus groups were conducted in parallel to the surveys with the goal of prosing the latters
results. The focus groupconsistedof 9 participantsfromvariousbackgrounds,recruitedusing
thesamesamplingtechniquesasthesurvey.
However, unlike the survey, after having readorwatchedeachpieceofCSRcommunication,

I offered one question to instigate an openended discussion. This was done in an attempt to
understand participants unbiased opinion without the pressure of the interviewers
hypothesesloomingabovethem.
It should be noted that at no point was the hypotheses shared with participants. They were
only informed that this dissertations goal was to explore the relationship between consumer
behaviorandattitudes,andCSRmessages.
29
3.6Dataanalysistechniques
I am suggesting that pieces of communication withmoretangibleexamplesofCSRactivities
will produce more favorable attitudes and purchase intention towards the brands (H1H3).
ThereforesincethesearedirectionalresearchquestionsIusedonetailedandcorrelationtests.
Thespecificquantitativetestswhichwereusedonthedatawere:
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests to look at the relationship between the mean
scoresfromtheLikertscalequestionsandthetangibilitylevelsofCSRmessages.
Spearmans Rank Order Correlation, to look at the correlation betweenbehaviorsand

tangibility levels. Pearson's correlation coefficient was considered but since my
variablesareordinal,IhadtouseSpearmans.
Finally, a ChiSquared test which allowed me to look at the association between

categoricalvariables,suchasmemoryandtangibility.
30
Chapter4:DataAnalysis
The following chapter is made up of three sections, each of which contains components of
their own. The first section will look at putting into practice the definition of tangibility,
presented in the previous chapter, followed by an indepth analysis of the qualitative and
quantitative data presented according to their appropriate hypothesis. Finally, the lastsection
willbededicatedtodiscussingthefindings.
4.1Tangibilitytest
The panel of marketers were asked to view each piece of CSR communication and identify
how tangibly the companys CSR activity was being communicated. They were given the
same definition which was produced for this study, as well as a set of scoring criteria
reflectingthatdefinition(see
Methodology)
.
Based on each average score, each piece of communication was placed in one of three
categories,whichlaterallowedcomparativetests(Figure5).
Figure5:
CSRmessagesdividedintopanelratedcategories
Communicationpiece
Score
InnocentDrinks
4.24
Pampers
CocaCola
3.57
McDonalds
2.26
Nestl
1.55
Giventangibilitylevel
Hightangibility
Mediumtangibility
Lowtangibility
31
4.2Consumerattitudes
In an attempt to approximately reproduce the Businessweek & Harris (2000) survey
mentioned in the
Literature review
, I asked participants to express their opinion on the
responsibility corporations have. Results (Appendix 4.1)found that 86.5%ofparticipants(n=
200) either agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, Companies have a responsibility
towards the community they work in. Likewise for the environment, 87.5% of participants
(n= 200) agreed or strongly agreed that companies have a responsibility towards the
environment (Appendix 4.2). The remainder, either disagreed or slightly agreed. Finally,
while not as strong, amajorityofparticipants(83.5%)alsoexpressedawillingnesstoboycott
manufacturerswhodonottakepartinsociallyresponsibleactivities(Appendix4.3).
Though the statements presented might sound self evident or predictable, they were phrased
in this particular way to reflect the similarities with the original 2000 Businessweek/Harris
survey. In fact, in hindsight, after the data was collected, we can notice that 4% (Appendix
4.1) do not believethatcompanieshavearesponsibilitytowardsthecommunitytheyworkin
muchliketheBusinessweek/Harriss(2000)results.
4.2.1Trust(H1)
Moving towards the first hypothesis (H1) which stated that giving tangibleexamplesofCSR
activities increased theleveloftrustinaconsumer,aoneway analysisofvariance(ANOVA)
test was conducted. The results (shown in Figure 6) were found to be statistically significant
(p<0.01).
32
Figure6:
ANOVAtestingtrustofconsumersbasedontangibilityofCSRmessages
However, while these results tell us that there is a significant result, we must conduct
PostHoc tests to identify where the significance lays. In this case, usingtheTukeyHSDtest
(Figure 7), we can identify that all groupsvariedsignificantlyfromeachother.Therefore,we
can reject the null hypothesis and confirm that if corporate messagesshowclearandtangible
examples of their CSR activities, consumers will be significantly more inclined to trust the
authenticityoftheprogram.
Figure 7:
PostHoc comparison using Tukey HSD showing the statistically significant
differentreactionstomessagesbasedontheirtangibility
Most interesting is the inclination formed from the plotting of the means.Ifyoullremember
from the previous chapter, I explained using a 6point Likert scale where participants were
33
asked to read a statement and express their agreement, or lack thereof, between strongly
disagree to strongly agree (Appendix 3.1). Once the means were calculated (Appendix 4.4)
andplotted(Figure8),theyformedaverybalancedslope.
Figure8:
MeansplotofconsumertrustversusthetangibilityofCSRactivityinmessage
As Figure 8 shows, the level of tangibility of a CSR message has a proportioned linear
relationship with the trustaconsumerhas.Inotherwords,thegraphshowsusthatanincrease
in the clarity and tangibility of a CSR message will rise the consumers belief that the
companyis,genuinelyinvestedtomaketheworldabetterplace(Appendix3.1).
34
The qualitative research which was conducted in parallel to thequantitativesurveygaveway

to a glimpse of the latters justification. Participants in focus groups mentioned trusting the
message and company because of their partnership with another organization in these
instances,anonprofitorganizationwhichtheytrusted.
One participant, after having just watchedthePampersadvertfeaturingUNICEF, wasquoted

saying, I trust the message. First they associated with UNICEF [...] and I have my
confidenceinthem.(Appendix4.7)
4.2.2Skepticism(H1a)
Looking at the second hypothesis (H1a), which sought to confirm in a different manner the
first hypothesis (H1), the study found that skepticism lessens as the tangibility of a CSR
messageincreases.
Figure9:
ANOVAtestingskepticismofconsumersbasedontangibilityofCSRmessages
Another analysis of variance was conducted (Figure 9) andlookedforthelevel ofskepticism

in participants when faced with several types of CSR messages. The tests revealed very
significant findings (F=38.86,p<0.01),however,aPostHocanalysisusingtheTukeyHSD
test (Appendix 4.5 &4.6)revealedthatonlythehighlytangibleCSRmessages(
M=2.92,
SD
= 1.23) created statistically significantly different reactions compared to medium tangibility
messages(
M
=3.51,
SD
=1.35)andlowtangibilitymessages(
M
=3.69,
SD
=1.24).
35

Therefore, not only can we accept the second hypothesis (H1a), stating that giving tangible
examples of CSR activities reduces a viewers skepticism towards a CSR message, but we
can also argue that highly tangible messages (that is, messages which use a lot of examples,
are extremely clear, and rhetorically understandable) will produce significantly lower
skepticalsthananyotherformofCSRmessage.
Qualitative testsrevealedsimilarfindings.Whenfacedwithmessagesfeaturingweaktangible
examples of CSR activities, participantswerequotedassaying,Imveryskepticalaboutthis
CSR campaign and it felt that this [campaign] was completely profitdriven (Appendix
4.7).
However, in some rare instances, participants did show signs of skepticism with pieces of
communications categorised as highly tangible, stating, I really loved the advert, but Icant
believe that a big company, whose job is to make profits is sincere about the cause
(Appendix 4.7). Such findings were not found in the quantitative analyses, suggesting that
focus group participants might have been more apprehensive towards messages as they were
conscious of their role as critical thinkers. Such possibilities will be developed further in the
followingchapter,under
Limitations
.
4.2.3Attitude(H2)
In order to understandtherelationshipbetweenconsumerattitudestowardsbrandsengagedin
CSR activities I asked participants whether the message had fostered a positive attitude
36
towards the purchase of such brands. The data was analysed using Spearmans Rank Order
Correlationandwasfoundtobestatisticallysignificant(p<0.01)(Figure10).
Figure 10: Spearmans Correlation testing relationship betweentangibilityofCSRmessages

andformationofpositiveattitudes
The dataanalyzedshowedamoderatelystrongpositivecorrelation( rs
=0.48,p<0.01)which
allows us to partially accept the third hypothesis (H2) and argue that there is a moderate
relationship between the tangibility level of a CSR message and its ability to influence
attitudesinapositivemanner.
Qualitative results supported that statements. Participants justified their more favorable
attitudes after watching more tangible CSR messages,statingthat,Ididntknowtheproduct
too well before. Now that Ive seen the ad, I really like it. In fact this his morning I had an
Innocent juice and it makes me feel happier, (Appendix 4.7) referring to the Innocent
campaignwhichwasdeemedhighestintangibility(4.24outof5)bythepanelofmarketers.
37
4.3Consumerbehaviorandpurchaseintention
4.3.1Purchaseintention(H3)
When looking at consumer behavior, it is much more challenging to precisely know an
answers accuracy. As Billig (1987)hasargued,humansoftenfinditdifficulttoidentify their
unbiasedbeliefs.Inthisstudy,suchasuppositionwastakenintoseriousconsideration.
For that matter,whilequestionsoftenaskedparticipantstoratetheirwillingnesstopurchasea

product (Appendix 3.1), in this analysis we must not speak of actualbehavior,asnoneofthe
participants were interviewed postpurchase, but rather we must speak of the intention to
purchase.
Figure 11: Spearmans Correlation testing relationship betweentangibilityofCSRmessages

andconsumerpurchaseintention
As a result, the quantitative findings, which were analysed using Spearmans Rank Order
Correlation (Figure 11), found a significant moderate relationship ( rs
= 0.47, p < 0.01)
between the tangibility level of a CSR message and the viewers purchase intentions.
Therefore, we can confidently accept the fourth hypothesis (H3) and say that givingtangible
38
examples of CSR activities increases a consumers purchase intention for the product
advertised.
Qualitative data yielded similar results, supporting H3. The vast majority of focus group
participants were far more enthusiastic about highly tangiblecampaignssuchasPampersand
Innocent drinks. Regarding the latter, one of theparticipantssaidsomethingwhichseemedto
describe most ofhispeers opiniontoo.He said,knowingthatifthenexttimeIbuyajuiceit
can help someone in need, IwoulddefinitelybuyanInnocentjuice.However,thatwasntto
say that some didnt disagree. Interestingly, another participant, still speaking of the same
message, stated that, I think that 10% of profits is very little, referring to the brands
promise to donate 10% of theirprofitstoacharity.Itmakesitsoundtoosymbolictome[...]
and so I stay fairly indifferent about the brand. For me it doesnt really convince me to buy
it.(Appendix4.7)
4.3.2Memory(H4)
Moving along to look at the relationship between the tangibility of a CSR message and its
effect on memory, I used Pearsons ChiSquared test as it looks for independence or
associationsbetweencategoricalorordinalvariablessuchasours(Pallant,2010).
The data used on this test was from the questions posed attheendofthesurvey.Participants
wereasked iftheyrememberedthecontentofthemessagespresentedin previousquestions.It
wasthencomparedtothepanelratedtangibilitylevelsusedthroughoutthisstudy.
39
The results of the test, presented below (Figure12),showthatlessthan20%ofthecellshave

an expected count less than 5, which allows us to proceed since the ChiSquare test
assumption has not been violated. Proceeding, we can clearly identify that the test is
significant (p < 0.01) and therefore accept that there is an association betweenthetangibility
of a CSR message and a consumers ability to correctly remember the content of that
message.
Figure 12:
ChiSquare testing association between consumers memory and tangibility of a
CSRmessage
However, while aChiSquaredtestwilltelluswhetheranassociationexistsornot,itdoesnot

tell us the effect of the association. For that we proceed to conduct a Cramers V testwhich,
in this instanceshowsusasignificantmoderateeffect( c =0.39,p<0.01) basedonPallants
(2010:134)interpretationofrelationshipvalues.
40
Figure13:
CramersVtestingthesizeofthePearsonsChiSquaredresults
We can therefore reject our fifth null hypothesis and accept H4, stating that there is a
significant association or dependence between the tangibility of a CSR message and a
consumersabilitytocorrectlyrecallthecontentofthatmessage.
4.4Additionalfindings
Like most research projects which use qualitative techniques, revelations are made which
werent originally hypothesized. One of suchrevelationswasmadebyaparticipant,whosaid
the following regarding a low tangibility message: after you hear the message a couple of
times and concentrate you get what its saying. In a way, its a clear message, its just very
badly presented. [...] Compared to the CocaCola one (a medium tangibility message),Ilook
attheCocaColaoneandthink,thisis100%profitdriven(Appendix4.7)
The participant had originally expressed a negative attitude towards the brand because of its
poor audiovisual characteristics, rendering her unable to successfully understand the
message. Therefore, this statement not only reinforces the hypotheses which argue that
tangibility is an indispensable part of any CSR message, but it also highlights a new point:
thatthetacticalcharacteristicsofamessagetrumpthecontentofthatmessage.
41
In other words, one can have asuperiorsocialmessage,butifitisntcommunicatedtangibly,

that message will be even less persuasively effective than a messagewhichhasweakcontent
andgreattangiblecharacteristics.
4.5Discussion
Reflectingontheresearchanditsresults,wecanseetheadvantageof juxtaposingquantitative
with qualitative data. Though at times both produced conflicting results, the ability to hear
andunderstandeachvoiceinfocusgroupsallowedforquantitativeoutlierstobespokenfor.
For example, when considering the second hypothesis, H1a, it wasnt after a lot of
consideration that I came to the decision to completely acceptthe alternativehypothesis.The
reason being that a small minority of focus group participants mentioned feeling very
skeptical about highly tangible CSR messages. Their defences weresoundandfair,however,
the hypothesis did not speak of completely eliminating skepticism, but rather reducingitand
therefore,asalargemajorityfeltlessskepticaltowardssuchmessages,itseemedveryclearto
acceptH1a.
Interestingly, when looking at the firsthypothesis(H1),the sameparticipantsdidnotmention

any reduced trust towards the highly tangible messages. Both hypotheses therefore help
support each other and accept that CSR messages using vivid examples, clarity, and strong
persuasiveappealsprovedtobeveryinfluentialonattitudes.
Regarding behaviors (H3), both sets of data produced fairly homogenous results. Even the
earlier mentioned skeptics said their attitudes would not stop them from purchasing from
42
brands involved in CSR activities. One participants mentioned feeling pressure, its as
though theyre blackmailing me into buying. Saying, look at what will happen if you dont
buy [the product]. However, while this studys aim isnt to vouch forthesuccessofCSRas
promotional campaigns, looking at the use of vivid examples, striking clarity and humble
persuasive techniques, we can accept that such criteria for tangibility are somewhateffective
toolsinincreasingpurchaseintentions.
Finally, looking at the influence of the aforementioned criteria have on memory (H4), it is
there that one can see the most striking effects. Though a similar test was not carried out on
focus group participants for practical purposes, the results from the quantitative survey
showed a clear amelioration in memory when participants were confronted with tangible
elements such as figures, stories or examples. The reason Cramers V result was not higher
was because the data had to be compounded from 4 variables (as it was sourced from a
multiple choice question) into 2 (correct/incorrectanswers).ForthatreasonCramersVwas
diluted.However,thatveryfactonlycementsmyconfidenceintheresults.
As hypothesised, the campaigns which shaped attitudes and behaviors most were the ones
with high tangibility. However, as the further findings have shown,toaconsumerseyes,the
content of a social message will not sway their attitudes or behaviors, instead, the tangible
characteristics or the execution ofthatmessageiswhatwillaffectconsumers.Ineffect,
theimportanceliesintheexecutionofamessage,notinitscontent.
43
Figure14:
Hypothesesanddeductions
Hypothesis
Deduction
H1
Offering tangible examples of CSR activities

increases
the trust the viewer has towards a message and the
company
Accepted
H1a
Offering tangible examples of CSRactivities

reduces a
viewersskepticism
towardsthemessageandcompany
Accepted
H2

creates
more favorable attitudes in viewers towards the
company
Accepted
H3

increases
a consumers purchase intention for the presented
product
Partiallyaccepted
H4
Offering tangible examples of CSR activities increases

aconsumerslikelihoodto
rememberamessage
Accepted
44
Chapter5:Conclusion
5.1Limitations
Its been touched upon throughout this dissertation, but I will briefly discuss in this chapter
whatlimitationsweremetthroughoutthisresearchproject.
Highest of all, a feedback I received on several occasions, which I also mentioned in the
previous chapter, is the environment that participants were in. Often, participants stopped
seeingthemessagesfromtheirconsumereyes,butknowingtheirroleasresearchparticipants,
weretemptedtolookatthemessagesthroughafarmorecriticalpointofview.
I knew from the beginning of the difficulty I would have in fostering an environment where
participants saw messages through the eyes of consumers, as the setting of a survey orfocus
group is unlike that of a living room or supermarket. However, while the results were still
very favorable, I amleftbelievingthattheywouldhavebeen aslightlymore representativeof
consumers true opinion had a different, more sophisticated research method been adopted.
Unfortunately,financialandpracticalelementsdidnotallowforamoresophisticatedmethod.
Another limitation was that consumers were limited to viewing the messages once. Thiswas
purposely done in order to test their memory at the end. However, in a real world situation,
where integrated marketing communications is growing, consumers would be faced with far
more touchpoints as they were inthisstudy.Forexample,thePampersmessagewasonlyone
of over a dozen different iterations for the samecampaign.Consumerswouldhavebeenvery
unlikely to see the one message only once. In a real world scenario they would have been
45
faced with the same campaign through different messages repeated several more times. This
provedtobealimitation,asparticipantsoftenfeltthemessagewastooshort.
Additionally, as its been mentioned throughout this dissertation, I often avoid speaking of
consumer behavior, substituting it for the more appropriate purchase intention. However,
when questioning participants, I asked them if they would be likely to purchase a product
after seeing acertainmessage.Insuchinstances,aspastresearchershavefound(Mohr,Webb
&Harris,2001),itisverydifficulttomeasuretheaccuracyofparticipantsresponses,asitsa
loteasier(andcheaper)tosayyouwouldpurchaseaproductinaquestionnairethaninastore.
Likely, consumers might identify as being socially responsible consumers, but that feeling
does not always translate the same way in their shopping patterns. In fact, as Billig (1987)
argued, humans might believe their attitude to be theirs and genuine, but most times such
attitudes are the product of context or peer pressure. Its therefore quite difficult, as a
researcher, to know with certainty when consumers are answering questions truthfully or
bendingthetruthforfearofjudgmentconsciouslyorunconsciously.
Lastly,inordertosustainalevelofuniformityandinordertoreduceerrors,themarketwhich
was selectedforthisstudywastheFMCGmarket.Whilethismeansthattheseresultsmustbe
considered valid solely for FMCG products, they can be looselyreferredtoforothertypesof
consumerproducts,butthatremainsanotherlimitationofthisdissertation.
46
5.2Furtherresearch
To further develop this new field of research,Iwouldsuggestgoingintofurtherdetails,soas
to identify specific characteristics of tangible CSR messages whichmakethempersuasive.A
particular way of doing so would be to produce different pieces of communication, using a
single message but executed in different ways. Researchers would then preciselyidentifythe
characteristicsoftangibilitywhichmakeCSRsopersuasive.
Finally another area of research could be to replicate this study outside of theFMCGmarket
and look at the effect a CSR messages tangibility can have on consumer attitudes and
behaviors.
5.3Conclusionandimplications
This study has shown, using the FMCG market as an example, that there is a distinctive
relationship between whats been described as the tangibility of a CSR message (i.e. clarity,
imagery, simplicity) and consumer attitudes,behaviors,andevenmemory.Whilesomemight
consider these characteristics as selfevident or predictable for any kind of marketing
campaign, the past couple of decades of research depicted in the
Literaturereviewand
publishedcampaigns,demonstratethattheyareanythingbutselfevident.
It would seem, when juxtaposing past campaigns including the ones used in thisstudy
and published research (Sen & Bhattachayra, 2001 Murray & Vogel 1997), that marketing
practitioners are inclined to believe that the force of CSR activitiesaloneareforceenoughto
persuade and lure consumers totheirbrands.Unfortunately,theveryproductofsuchthinking
47
has created CSR campaigns which have only made consumers increasingly cynical and
skepticalabouttheauthenticityofabrandsactions(Mohr,WebbandHarris,2001).
From the very start of this dissertation, Ive tried to make my case very clear: I am not
interested in identifying the level of success CSR campaigns can have towards consumer
persuasion. This has already been done. Instead, through my research and review of past
literature, I havefoundagapinresearch:theveryreasonswhy CSRcampaignsare,orarenot
persuasive.
In doing so, Ive attempted to prove, through the use of concrete CSR campaigns and
messages from official sources, that the use of vivid examples, simple rhetoric and imagery
can have a positive effect on consumer attitudes, purchasing intentions, and memory. My
thesis has been, and continues to be, that a CSR campaigns persuasive success is inherently
embedded and dependent on its tangible qualities. In other words, it is only when marketers
focusontheexecutionofacampaignthattheywillsucceedtopersuade.
In fact, as it was briefly discussed in the fourth chapter, focus group transcripts (Appendix
4.7)revealed aninterestingpoint.Whenpressedandinterrogated,participantsexpressedmore
favorable attitudes towards the content of one of the low tangibility messages. However, it
was the poor audiovisual qualities of the message which countered these positive attitudes
andinfactsouredthem,renderingthecampaignanticlimactic.
We can therefore clearly infer from these findings that the trait of tangibility is itself not as
self evident to a CSR campaigns success as one might believe. As marketers scramble to
48
keep up with trends by soaking meaning into their brands, they are ignoring crucial qualities
that give them the savor of authenticity as well.Focusshouldthereforenotonlybeplacedon
campaign ideas, but more importantly, they should be placed on the way these ideas will be
brought to ones audience. To implement a campaign focused on a different equation could
havenegativeconsequences,eveninthelongterm.
In fact,thisstruggleisevenmoreimportanttoday,asevenaslightdegreeofskepticismmight
deter a consumer from consuming a product which might, in turn, tarnish theirownpersonal
brand. For the idea that a company is solely responsible to its shareholder is, today, long
obsolete.
49
References
Asch,S.(1951).Effectsofgrouppressureuponthemodificationanddistortionofjudgments.
In:H.Guetzkow,
Groups,leadership,andmen
,Pittsburgh,PA:CarnegiePress,pp.177190.
BeckerOlsen,K.,Cudmore,B.andHill,R.(2006).Theimpactofperceivedcorporatesocial
responsibilityonconsumerbehavior.
JournalofBusinessResearch
,59(1),pp.4653.
Billig,M.(1987).
Arguingandthinking
.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
BloombergBusiness,(1994).AreGoodCausesGoodMarketing?.[online]Availableat:
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/19940320/aregoodcausesgoodmarketing
[Accessed26May2015].
Bohner,G.andDickel,N.(2011).AttitudesandAttitudeChange.
Annu.Rev.Psychol.
,62(1),
pp.391417.
Brown,T.andDacin,P.(1997).TheCompanyandtheProduct:CorporateAssociationsand
ConsumerProductResponses.
JournalofMarketing
,61(1),p.68.
BusinessWeek/Harris,(2000).
HowBusinessRates:BytheNumbers(extended)
.[online]
Availableat:http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_37/b3698004.htm[Accessed24May
2015].
Drucker,P.(1954).
Thepracticeofmanagement
.NewYork:Harper&Row.
Fisher,C.(2007).
Researchingandwritingadissertation:Aguidebookforbusinessstudents
.
2nded.Harlow:FinancialTimesPrenticeHall.
Friedman,M.(1970).TheSocialResponsibilityOfBusinessIstoIncreaseItsProfits.
The
NewYorkTimes
,pp.33,122126.
Keltner,D.(2014).
TheCompassionateInstinct
.[online]GreaterGoodUniversityof
California,Berkeley.Availableat:
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_compassionate_instinct[Accessed17Jul.
2015].
Krech,D.andCrutchfield,R.(1948).
Theoryandproblemsofsocialpsychology
.NewYork:
McGrawHillBookCo.
Lavidge,R.andSteiner,G.(1961).AModelforPredictiveMeasurementsofAdvertising
Effectiveness.
JournalofMarketing
,25(6),p.59.
50

Mohr,L.,Webb,D.andHarris,K.(2001).DoConsumersExpectCompaniestobeSocially
Responsible?TheImpactofCorporateSocialResponsibilityonBuyingBehavior.
Journalof
ConsumerAffairs
,35(1),pp.4572.
Murray,K.andVogel,C.(1997).Usingahierarchyofeffectsapproachtogaugethe
effectivenessofcorporatesocialresponsibilitytogenerategoodwilltowardthefirm:Financial
versusnonfinancialimpacts.
JournalofBusinessResearch
,38(2),pp.141159.
O'Shaughnessy,J.andO'Shaughnessy,N.(2003).
Persuasioninadvertising
.London:
Routledge.
OxfordDictionaries,(2015).
TangibledefinitionoftangibleinEnglishfromtheOxford
dictionary
.[online]Availableat:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/tangible[Accessed13Jul.2015].
Pallant,J.(2010).
SPSSsurvivalmanual
.Maidenhead:McGrawHill.
Pava,M.andKrausz,J.(1996).Theassociationbetweencorporatesocialresponsibilityand
financialperformance:Theparadoxofsocialcost.
JournalofBusinessEthics
,15(3),
pp.321357.
Peck,J.andTickell,A.(2002).NeoliberalizingSpace.
Antipode
,34(3),pp.380404.
Rogers,S.(2013).
UKpublicspendingsince1963
.[online]TheGuardian.Availableat:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/apr/25/ukpublicspending1963#data
[Accessed19Apr.2015].
Russo,J.andChaxel,A.(2010).Howpersuasivemessagescaninfluencebehaviorwithout
awareness.
JournalofConsumerPsychology
,20(3),pp.338342.
Stiglitz,J.(2006).
Makingglobalizationwork
.NewYork:W.W.Norton&Co.
Storbeck,J.andClore,G.(2007).Ontheinterdependenceofcognitionandemotion.
Cognition&Emotion
,21(6),pp.12121237.
Taylor,F.(1967).
Theprinciplesofscientificmanagement
.NewYork:Norton.
U.S.BureauofEconomicAnalysis,(2015).
GrossDomesticProduct&Government
Spending
.NationalIncomeandProductAccountsTables.[online]U.S.Departmentof
Commerce.Availableat:
51
http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&904=1961&903=5&9
06=A&905=2015&910=X&911=0#.VdSyQXLiB1g[Accessed19Apr.2015].
Vakratsas,D.andAmbler,T.(1999).HowAdvertisingWorks:WhatDoWeReallyKnow?.
JournalofMarketing
,63(1),p.26.
vandenBrink,D.,Odekerken-Schrder,G.andPauwels,P.(2006).Theeffectofstrategic
andtacticalcause-relatedmarketingonconsumers'brandloyalty.
JournalofConsumer
Marketing
,23(1),pp.1525.
Varadarajan,P.andMenon,A.(1988).CauseRelatedMarketing:ACoalignmentof
MarketingStrategyandCorporatePhilanthropy.
JournalofMarketing
,52(3),pp.5874.
Webb,D.andMohr,L.(1998).Atypologyofconsumerresponsestocauserelated
marketing:Fromskepticstosociallyconcerned.
JournalofPublicPolicy&Marketing
,17(2),
pp.226238.
52
Appendix
Appendix3.1:
Survey
Part1:Participantvalidityquestions
Haveyouheard,orareyoufamiliar,withALLofthefollowingproducts:
McDonald's
Pampers
Innocent
Nestl
CocaCola
Yes
No
Nextpage
Part2:Participantpreparation
Let's start with some basic questions to get uswarmedup.Pleasereadandassesthefollowing

statements
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Somewha

Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
tAgree
Agree
Iconsider
myselfsocially
responsiblein

thewayIbuy
things
Iwillavoid
buyingfrom
certain
companies

whicharenot
socially
responsible
Companies

havea
responsibility
53
towardsthe
community
theyworkin
Companies
havea
responsibility
towardsthe
environment
Companies
havea
responsibility
todonate
Nextpage
Part3:Innocentdrinks
Please read or watch the following pieces of official communications and answer the
questionswhichfollowthem
VIDEOLINK:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeXgxN24loc
Didyouenjoythisvideo?(5=highenjoyment)
1
2
3
4
5
Nextpage
Pleaseassessthefollowingstatementsbasedonthevideo
(Be careful when you answer, some of the statements are phrased
bothpositivelyandnegatively)
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Somewhat Agree

Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Agree
Ifeelthat
Innocentis
genuinely
investedin

makingthe
worlda
betterplace
54
NexttimeI
buyajuiceI
willbuyan

Innocent
juice
Theadvert
hasmademe
feelgood

aboutbuying
Innocent
products
Theadvert
wasalltalk
anddidn't
makemefeel

more
confidentin
thebrand's
ethics
Selectthecorrectstatement
5%ofInnocent'sprofitsgotocharity
Noneoftheabove
Nextpage
Part4:CocaCola
VIDEOLINK:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByHcNZ2c8Mo
1
2
3
4
5
Nextpage
55
Strongly Disagree Somewhat Somewha

Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
tAgree
Agree
Ifeelthat
CocaColais
genuinely
investedin

makingthe
worldabetter
place
NexttimeIbuy
asodaIwillbuy

aCoke
Theadverthas
mademefeel
goodabout

buying
CocaCola
products
Theadvertwas
alltalkand
didn'tmakeme

feelmore
confidentinthe
brand'sethics
5%ofCocaCola'sprofitsgotocharity
Noneoftheabove
Nextpage
56
Part5:McDonalds
VIDEOLINK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL308D62066232AFA0&v=mEqpUvRaBtQ
1
2
3
4
5
Nextpage
Strongly Disagree Somewha Somewhat

Agree
Strongly
Disagree
t
Agree
Agree
Disagree
Ifeelthat
McDonaldsis
genuinely
investedin

makingthe
worldabetter
place
Nexttimea
burgeritwill
bea

McDonalds
burger
Theadverthas
mademefeel
goodabout

buying
McDonalds
products
Theadvertwas
alltalkand

didn'tmakeme
feelmore
confidentin
57
thebrand's
ethics
5%ofMcDonald'sprofitsgotocharity
Noneoftheabove
Nextpage
Part6:Pampers
VIDEOLINK:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZRp8kpQHYI
1
2
3
4
5
Strongly Disagree Somewh Somewha Agree Strongl

Disagree
at
tAgree
yAgree
Disagree
IfeelthatPampers
isgenuinely
investedinmaking

theworldabetter
place
IfIneededto,next
timeIbuydiapers

IwillbuyPampers
Theadverthas
mademefeelgood

aboutbuying
Pampersproducts
Theadvertwasall

talkanddidn't
58
makemefeel
moreconfidentin
thebrand'sethics
Foreverypacksold,Pamperswilldonate2tetanusvaccine
Foreverypacksold,Pamperswilldonate1tetanusvaccine
Pampersisnotdonatinganything
Nextpage
Part7:Nestl
The following image is a screenshot from Nestl's officialwebsite.Pleasereadthecontentof

themessageandanswerthefollowingquestionsafterwards
TEXTLINK(whichhassincechanged):http://www.nestle.com/aboutus/suppliers
59

Didyouenjoythistext?(5=highenjoyment)
1
2
3
4
5
Nextpage
Pleaseassessthefollowingstatementsbasedontheprevioustext
Strongly
Disagree Somewh Somewh
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
at
atAgree
Agree
Disagree
Ifeelthat
Nestlis
genuinely
investedin

makingthe
worldabetter
place
NexttimeIbuy
asnack,drink,
etc.Iwillmake

sureit'sfrom
Nestl
Theadverthas
mademefeel
goodabout

buyingNestl
products
Theadvertwas
alltalkand
didn'tmakeme

feelmore
confidentinthe
brand'sethics
60
5%ofNestl'sprofitsgotocharity
Noneoftheabove
Nextpage
Part8:Memorytest
We'renearlyfinished.ButbeforeIletyougo,pleaseanswerthefollowinglastquestions
DoyourememberhowmuchInnocentdonatestocharity?
10%ofInnocent'sprofitgoestocharity
5%ofInnocent'sprofitsgoestocharity
20%ofInnocent'sprofitsgoestocharity
Theadvertmadenomentionofdonatingtocharity
Idon'tremember
DoyourememberbyhowmuchCocaColaplanstoreducetheircarbonfootprint?
CocaColaplanstoreducetheircarbonfootprintby1/5by2020
Thevideomadenomentionofreducingtheircarbonfootprint
Idon'tremember
DoyourememberhowmuchMcDonald'splanstoreducetheirwaste?
McDonald'splanstoreducetheirwasteby30%by2045
Thevideomadenomentionofreducingwaste
Idon'tremember
Nextpage
Part9:Demographicquestions
Whatisyourgender?
Male
Female
61
Whatisyouragerange?
Below18
1825
2635
3645
4656
Above56
ENDOFSURVEY
Appendix3.2:
Defining
Tangibilitytestformarketerpanel
Definingtangibility
The term, tangibility, is utilised to determine the clarity and reality of a companys social
activitiesintheirmessage.
Since the term tangibility is itself quite vague this study will produce its owndefinitionfor
the term based onexistingones.Therefore,tangibilitywithregardstothisstudyalludestothe
clarityandvividnesswhichCSRactivitiesarecommunicatedtoanaudience.
Your task will be to look at the 5 pieces of CSR communication and rate their level of
tangibilityusingthedefinitionprovidedabove.
Intheseinstances,5isverytangibleand0isnottangibleatall
Piece1:CocaCola
Criterion
Scoreoutof5
62
Piece2:Innocentdrinks
Criterion
Scoreoutof5
Piece3:McDonalds
Criterion
Scoreoutof5
Piece4:Pampers
Criterion
Scoreoutof5
Piece5:Nestle
Criterion
Scoreoutof5
63
PleaseplacethepiecesofCSRcommunicationsinorderoftangibility.
1beingthe
most
tangibleand5beingthe
least
tangible
Ranking
Number/nameofcommunicationpiece
Chapter4:Dataanalysis
Appendix 4.1:
Frequency table for question, Companies have a responsibility towards the
communitytheyworkin
Appendix 4.2:
Frequency table for question, Companies have a responsibility towards the
environment
64
Appendix 4.3: Frequency table for question, I will avoid buying from certain companies
whicharenotsociallyresponsible
Appendix 4.4: Descriptive results and Test of Homogeneity of Variance between tangibility
levelsandtrust
65
Appendix4.5
:PostHoc,TukeyHSDtestbetweentangibilitylevelsandskepticism
Appendix 4.6: Descriptive results and Test of Homogeneity of Variance between tangibility
levelsandskepticism
66

Appendix4.7:
Focusgroup1&2transcriptextracts
Regardingamoderatelytangiblemessage(CocaCola)
Moderator: You all know CocaCola from before. Do you have a more favorable attitude
aboutthebrandcomparedtobefore?
Participant1.1:Notreally.
Participant1.2:Meyes
Participant1.3:Sameforme.
Moderator:WhatmakesyoumorefavorabletowardsCocaCola?
Participant 1.3: Well, I think, first of all, I like drinking CocaCola, andthenthewaytheyre
doing it, they protect the environment, andtheplanstheymakeitmakesmetrustthem,andit
justgivesmeapositivefeelingtowardsit.
Participant 1.4: Iagreethatit'sabigcompanysotheyrenotgoingtotaketherisktolie.ButI

feel that, to some extent, the video is a bit smokey. Like, they say things that are not very
clear. They saythingslike,weonlyusetheenergythatweneeditsaverygreyarea.What
does itmeanonlytheenergythatweneed?Whatifyouneedanexcessiveamountofenergy
67
thats not efficient? So its not very clear. Theres a lot of plans for the future,whichis good.
But theres not much evidence of what theyre doing.ThatsnottosaythatIdontthinkthey
do it. Its just that there is no evidence. Its a lot of good talk, and its good that they talk
aboutit,butIdontseeinthisvideothattheydidit,orthattheyredoingit.
Moderator:Whatdidyouguyslikeanddislikeaboutthemessage
Participant 2.2: I like the way the cartoon was made, because it was really creative and user
friendlyandeasytocomprehend.AndIthinkthatthecartoonreallyaffectsourperception.So
prettymuchIlikedit.
Regardingahighlytangiblemessage(Innocent)
Moderator:Doyoufeelthatthebrandisbeingsincere?
Participant 2.3: To be honest, Idont reallytrustthatbecauseitsonly10%oftheirprofitthat

goestocharity.Ijustthinkitsabigtalk.
Participant 2.1: No for me its the reverse completely. I think I completely trust them and I
thinkthat10%ofprofitsisquitealotactuallyanditcanhaveabigimpactonpeopleslives.
Participant 2.2: I really liked the ad. I think 10% doesnt sound like a lot,butIthinkthatits
not a nonprofit organization and they still want to make a profit on what they sell and still
68
putting on thebottlethattheygive10%tocharityisquitegoodanditsclearexampleofwhat
theyredoing.
Participant 2.1: I dont necessarilybuyintotheideaofthisguygoingtoschoolandbecoming

an engineer, but I understand that theyre really tryingtobeclearandinthatcase,sometimes
you dont know what 10% really means, and giving thisexamplemakesyouunderstandhow
itcanleadtothat.Itdoesntmeanthatitleadstothatallofthetime,butthatitcan.
Participant 2.2: For me, I had Innocent before but I didnt know the product too wellbefore.
Now that Ive seen the ad, I really like it. In factthishismorningIhadanInnocentjuice and
itmakesmefeelhappier.
Regardingalowtangibilitymessage(McDonalds)
Moderator:Whatareyourthoughtsonthemessage?
Participant 1.2: I agree that the video was terrible, because of the sound, I couldnt hear
everything properly. But I got the idea, and I can say that I dont really like those two
corporations (McDonalds and Greenpeace). Because there are so many political moves in
what they do. For example I would believe that McDonalds would buy Greenpeaces
opinion. You know? To fund some of Greenpeaces campaign, and they give a good shout
about McDonalds.Soitdidnotinfluencemeproperly andIdontreallylikeMcDonald'sand
IdontknowaboutGreenpeace.
69
Moderator: If you werewatchingthis on yourcomputeryourself,wouldyouwatchituntilthe

end?
Participant1.1:No
Participant1.3:No
Participant1.4:No
Participant1.2:Noitwasveryboring.
Participant1.3:Ithinkthesoundisnotclearandthevisualstoo.
Participant1.4:Ifindvideosinwhichthepicturesdontmatchabit
Participant1.3:...itdoesntreallymakeittempting
Moderator:Itneedstobeappealingtotheeye?
Participant 1.4: Not appealing to the eye, but this was just random shots of things without a
clear explanation of what they were. [...] It was images. And then there wasapersontalking.
Was there 2 people talking at one point? Or was it the same person talking? Like the voices
were different, and eventhesamepersonhaddifferentvoices.Thesoundqualitychangedand
justveryconfusing.
Participant 1.1: The wholethingwas bad,theonlypositivethingI would sayis thattheystick

toonlyoneinitiativeandthiswayyouonlyassociatethebrandwiththat.
70

Participant 1.4: Putting aside that it might have been McDonalds buying Greenpeaces
support and opinion, after you hear the message a couple of times and concentrate you get
whatitssaying.Inaway,itsaclearmessage,itsjustverybadlypresented.
Moderator:Doyouthinkthisisprofitorsociallydriven?
Participant q.2: Im very skeptical about this CSR activity, and generally ofmostbusinesses.
Andinthiscase,thisisnotanexception.Ithinkthisisprofitmotivated.
Participant 1.4: I think so too. I dont know if I know enough about the cause, and again, I
didnt understand enough about the video. But compared to the CocaCola one (a medium
tangibility message), I look at the CocaCola one and think, this is 100% profit driven,
because there is no clear evidence, there is no explanation of what theyre saying. It really
says, oh you know in the area where we work, we do this so you should feel good about
buyingyourproductfromus.
Regardingahightangibilitymessage(Pampers)
Moderator:Hasyouropinionaboutthebrandchangedafterseeingthismessage?
Participant1.2:Notatall.Itwastooshort,notinformative.
71
Participant 1.1: Its funny because I thought it was very persuasive and I really liked this
video.Itwassocute,Ilikedthemusic.
Participant 1.3: Yeah, the music was really good.WhileIdonthaveababy,mysisterinlaw

just had a baby and shes buying a tonne of these. So seeing this aditalreadymakesmefeel
good to know, as an imaginary mother, that Im doing something good for my baby and
savingsomebodyelse.Itsjustmakesyoureallyproudofyourselfwhenyoubuyit.
Moderator:Doyouthinkthiscampaignisprofitorsociallydriven?
Participant 1.1: Im like Participant 1.2 to that regard. I just cannot believe that big
companies, especially like Procter and Gamble (the parent company), their job is to make
profits.AttheendofthedayIdontbelieveitssincere.
Participant 1.3:Forme,Idobelieveits sincere.Itrustthemessage.Firsttheyassociatedwith

UNICEFsoUNICEFisnotgoingtolieandsoIhavemyconfidenceinthem.
Moderator:Withoutthinkinganalyticallyaboutthisadvert,whatdoyouthinkaboutit?
Participant1.2:Withoutthinking,IcansaythatImneutral.
Participant 1.4: I dont know, I believe it more than theothers.Idontknowifthatsbecause

it touches the mother in every girl, soits kindofeasiertobelieve.Assomeonesaid,theyare
aforprofitorganization,everythingtheydoisgoingtobedoneinordertomakemoreprofits.
72

Participant 1.1: Basically, everyonewouldagree,ifthiswasmakingthemlosemoney,Idont
thinktheywouldberunningthatcampaign.
Regardingalowtangibilitymessage(Nestl)
Moderator: First of all, its a different medium. So what do you think of that medium? The
waytheyveexpressedtheirCSR?
Participant1.2:Nothingforme.Justblablabla
Participant 1.1: Actually, if I was seeing this page in another context, I would never bother
readingit.
Participant 1.4: It doesn't really say anything.Itmaybesayswehaveminimumstandards,but

it doesn't really say what these minimum standards are. I guess its nice that these standards
arenonnegotiablebutstill,whatarethesestandards?Itdoesntreallysay.
Participant 2.1: Boring. And anyway, I dont like Nestle theres too much going in onwith
them. In South Africa they built these water factories, they dont careaboutthepeoplethere.
Ive lived in South Africa so I know how much they struggle these women, these families.
Theytakeawayeverythingtomakemoreprofit.
73
Participant 2.2: Message was boring. When reading that, I was thinking, yeah its great that
theyre giving their suppliers this code but you cant stop production if these people dont
adhere to the code. They dont have people watching them all the time. They dont have to.
So,itskindofliketheyrejustsayingit.
Participant 2.3: For me its the same, Ive also heard of a lot of bad behavior from them. I
dontknowhowmanypeoplewouldgototheirwebsitetotrytoseewhattheyredoing.
Moderator:Doyouhaveamorefavorableopinionafterseeingthismessage?
Participant 2.1: No. Its almost like theyre using this message to back themselves up. To be
like, here we said it just in case somebody questions the way they collaborate with their
suppliers and subcontractors. Its almostliketheyrejustdoingsotheycanrefertoit.ButasI
said,Idontlikethiscorporation.
74

Characteristics of Persuasion: The Role of Tangibility in CSR Messages

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Characteristics of Persuasion: The Role of Tangibility in CSR Messages

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

MScMarketing

My sincerest appreciation goes to my supervisor, Professor Nicholas OShaughnessy for his

This dissertation has thereforetriedtoexpandonthesepastfindingsandsoughttounderstand

As such, brands areencouragedtobemoreemotionallyexpressive,muchliketheircustomers

The following chapter (

As CSR becomes more prevalent in marketing, howcanpractitionersavoidconsumer

There are many contradicting beliefs as to what exactly is an organizations social

Many of the more rationalminded leaders of the past, includingFrederickTaylor(1967)and

Figure 1: Percentage of GDP spent by US & UK governments 19302000 (U.S. Bureau of

In fact, Friedman(1970)thoroughly believedintherighteousnessoffreemarketsocieties,for

U.S. corporations should have only one purpose to make

Therefore, corporate social responsibility seems to have transitioned, from being a

and Dacin (1997)whicharguesthatpastknowledgefillsingapswhenaconsumerscognitive

Others, who didnt use existing modelstotesttheirhypothesesalso foundsimilarresults.Sen

In fact, their argument is that todays consumersaremoreattunedtotheemotionalcontentof

The idea that inorderforacompanytoregainitscompetitiveadvantageitmustfocusonboth

H1: Offering tangible examples of CSRactivitiesincreasesthetrusttheviewerhastowardsa

The research on the matter isquitescatteredinopinion,andwhilemanyhavefoundthatCSR

Therefore, while it has become difficult to measuretheeffectsofCSRactivitiesonconsumer

H4: Offering tangible examples of CSR activities increases a consumers likelihood to

This will be done by focusing on the characteristics oftangibility.Peopleneedvisualprobes,

To understand whether the use ofspecificexamplesofCSRactivitiesinmessageshas

Since this definition is sopivotaltothisresearchpapersaccuracy,itwaspresentedto apanel

However, as it was briefly touched upon in the

Whats more, as Adams

Regarding sample size, nonprobability sampling techniques leave us withlimitedabilitiesto

However, unlike the survey, after having readorwatchedeachpieceofCSRcommunication,

Spearmans Rank Order Correlation, to look at the correlation betweenbehaviorsand

Finally, a ChiSquared test which allowed me to look at the association between

The qualitative research which was conducted in parallel to thequantitativesurveygaveway

One participant, after having just watchedthePampersadvertfeaturingUNICEF, wasquoted

Another analysis of variance was conducted (Figure 9) andlookedforthelevel ofskepticism

Figure 10: Spearmans Correlation testing relationship betweentangibilityofCSRmessages

For that matter,whilequestionsoftenaskedparticipantstoratetheirwillingnesstopurchasea

Figure 11: Spearmans Correlation testing relationship betweentangibilityofCSRmessages

The results of the test, presented below (Figure12),showthatlessthan20%ofthecellshave

However, while aChiSquaredtestwilltelluswhetheranassociationexistsornot,itdoesnot

In other words, one can have asuperiorsocialmessage,butifitisntcommunicatedtangibly,

Interestingly, when looking at the firsthypothesis(H1),the sameparticipantsdidnotmention

Offering tangible examples of CSR activities

Offering tangible examples of CSRactivities

Offering tangible examples of CSR activities

Offering tangible examples of CSR activities

Offering tangible examples of CSR activities increases

Let's start with some basic questions to get uswarmedup.Pleasereadandassesthefollowing

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Somewha

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Somewhat Agree

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Somewha

Strongly Disagree Somewha Somewhat

Strongly Disagree Somewh Somewha Agree Strongl

The following image is a screenshot from Nestl's officialwebsite.Pleasereadthecontentof

Participant 1.4: Iagreethatit'sabigcompanysotheyrenotgoingtotaketherisktolie.ButI

Participant 2.3: To be honest, Idont reallytrustthatbecauseitsonly10%oftheirprofitthat

Participant 2.1: I dont necessarilybuyintotheideaofthisguygoingtoschoolandbecoming

Moderator: If you werewatchingthis on yourcomputeryourself,wouldyouwatchituntilthe

Participant 1.1: The wholethingwas bad,theonlypositivethingI would sayis thattheystick

Participant 1.3: Yeah, the music was really good.WhileIdonthaveababy,mysisterinlaw

Participant 1.3:Forme,Idobelieveits sincere.Itrustthemessage.Firsttheyassociatedwith

Participant 1.4: I dont know, I believe it more than theothers.Idontknowifthatsbecause

Participant 1.4: It doesn't really say anything.Itmaybesayswehaveminimumstandards,but

S-ar putea să vă placă și