IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/mktlet/v33y2022i1d10.1007_s11002-021-09608-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When Less is More: Consumers Prefer Brands that Donate More in Relative versus Absolute Terms

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth A. Keenan

    (Harvard University)

  • Anne V. Wilson

    (University of Pennsylvania)

  • Leslie K. John

    (Harvard University)

Abstract

When trying to make a good impression on consumers through charitable giving, is it better for brands to maximize the overall dollars they donate or how much they give in relative terms; for example, the proportion of profits? Across five studies we show that consumers prefer a brand that donates less in absolute dollars, if it reflects a higher proportion of profits, compared to a brand that donates more money overall, when it reflects a smaller proportion of profits. This preference emerges because consumers use the relative size of the donation as a stronger indicator of the brand’s generosity than the absolute dollar amount. The effect persists even when firms make a smaller amount of money seem more generous (i.e., seem larger in relative terms) than a larger amount by condensing the timeframe of a donation.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth A. Keenan & Anne V. Wilson & Leslie K. John, 2022. "When Less is More: Consumers Prefer Brands that Donate More in Relative versus Absolute Terms," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 31-43, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:33:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s11002-021-09608-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s11002-021-09608-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11002-021-09608-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11002-021-09608-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonathan Meer & Benjamin A. Priday, 2021. "Generosity Across the Income and Wealth Distributions," National Tax Journal, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(3), pages 655-687.
    2. Pracejus, John W. & Olsen, G. Douglas, 2004. "The role of brand/cause fit in the effectiveness of cause-related marketing campaigns," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(6), pages 635-640, June.
    3. Judd B. Kessler & Katherine L. Milkman, 2018. "Identity in Charitable Giving," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(2), pages 845-859, February.
    4. Kahneman, Daniel & Knetsch, Jack L., 1992. "Valuing public goods: The purchase of moral satisfaction," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 57-70, January.
    5. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-477, June.
    6. Colin F. Camerer & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Anomalies: Ultimatums, Dictators and Manners," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 209-219, Spring.
    7. Ayelet Gneezy & Alex Imas & Amber Brown & Leif D. Nelson & Michael I. Norton, 2012. "Paying to Be Nice: Consistency and Costly Prosocial Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 58(1), pages 179-187, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aparna A. Labroo & Natalie Mizik & Russell Winer, 2022. "Sparking conversations: Editors’ Pick with commentaries and thematic article compilations," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 1-4, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chang, Chia-Chi & Chen, Po-Yu, 2019. "Which maximizes donations: Charitable giving as an incentive or incentives for charitable giving?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 65-75.
    2. Christina Schamp & Mark Heitmann & Robin Katzenstein, 2019. "Consideration of ethical attributes along the consumer decision-making journey," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 328-348, March.
    3. Johansson, Lars-Olof & Svedsäter, Henrik, 2009. "Piece of cake? Allocating rewards to third parties when fairness is costly," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 107-119, July.
    4. Ek, Claes, 2017. "Some causes are more equal than others? The effect of similarity on substitution in charitable giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 45-62.
    5. Dean Karlan & John A. List, 2007. "Does Price Matter in Charitable Giving? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1774-1793, December.
    6. Chilton, S. M. & Hutchinson, W. G., 2000. "A note on the warm glow of giving and scope sensitivity in contingent valuation studies," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 343-349, August.
    7. Arno Riedl & Paul Smeets, 2017. "Why Do Investors Hold Socially Responsible Mutual Funds?," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 72(6), pages 2505-2550, December.
    8. Yokessa, Maïmouna & Marette, Stéphan, 2019. "A Review of Eco-labels and their Economic Impact," International Review of Environmental and Resource Economics, now publishers, vol. 13(1-2), pages 119-163, April.
    9. Powe, N. A. & Bateman, I. J., 2003. "Ordering effects in nested 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' contingent valuation designs," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 255-270, June.
    10. Harel Alon & Procaccia Yuval & Ritov Ilana, 2017. "On the Economic Effects of Disobeyed Regulation in Employment Law," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 13(2), pages 1-24, July.
    11. James Andreoni, 2006. "Giving Gifts to Groups: How Congestible is Altruism?," Levine's Bibliography 321307000000000166, UCLA Department of Economics.
    12. Nyborg, Karine, 2000. "Homo Economicus and Homo Politicus: interpretation and aggregation of environmental values," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 305-322, July.
    13. Neeraj Arora & Ty Henderson, 2007. "Embedded Premium Promotion: Why It Works and How to Make It More Effective," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 514-531, 07-08.
    14. Ahlheim, Michael & Frör, Oliver & Langenberger, Gerhard & Pelz, Sonna, 2014. "Chinese urbanites and the preservation of rare species in remote parts of the country: the example of eaglewood," MPRA Paper 62897, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 11 Dec 2014.
    15. Clark, Jeremy & Friesen, Lana, 2008. "The causes of order effects in contingent valuation surveys: An experimental investigation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 56(2), pages 195-206, September.
    16. Kees Vringer & Eline van der Heijden & Daan van Soest & Herman Vollebergh & Frank Dietz, 2017. "Sustainable Consumption Dilemmas," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-21, June.
    17. Greiner, Ben & Vittoria Levati, M., 2005. "Indirect reciprocity in cyclical networks: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 711-731, October.
    18. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Jacobsen, Jette Bredahl, 2018. "Testing the effect of changes in elicitation format, payment vehicle and bid range on the hypothetical bias for moral goods," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 17-32.
    19. Gosnell, Greer K., 2018. "Communicating Resourcefully: A Natural Field Experiment on Environmental Framing and Cognitive Dissonance in Going Paperless," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 128-144.
    20. Foster, Joshua, 2014. "Putting social preferences to work: Can revealed preferences predict real effort provision?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 128-140.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:mktlet:v:33:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s11002-021-09608-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.