corporate giving: targeting the likely donor

Journal of Nonprofit and Volonrary Sector Markcring. Vol. 2 No. I. lW7, pp. 64-79. O t l n i r y Srcuart l’ublicxioiis. 13MMS7f1

Corporate giving: Targeting the likely donor

Adrian Sargeant and Helga Stephenson Centre for Management Studies, Thornton, New North Road, Exeter EX4 AIZ, U K ; Tel: +44 1392 263213; Fax: +44 1392 264518 Received (in revised form): 1st October, 1996

Helga Stephenson, aiter training as a commercial manager with Marks and Spencer, joined the Royal National Institute for the Blind as a corporate fundraiser. She is currently working as a marketing officer for the Devon Wildlife Trust, involved in corporate and charitable trust fundraising.

Adrian Sargeant is Lecturer in Marketing at the University of Exeter, a post he has held since 1994. Having given up a career in industrial marketing in 1990 in favour of developing links with the charity sector, he has worked in a consultancy capacity for a number of organisations including the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA) (Scotland), The Game Con- servancy Trust and more recently the West of England School For Children With Little Or No Sight. He is presently the course co-ordinator of Exeter’s Charities Management Course.

ABSTRACT

Recent years have seen a major change in corporate attitudes to givitig. There are many accounts in the literature 0fa move awayfrom a purely philanthropic motive for charity support, to an opportunity-based paradkni where companies seek some tangible benejits in ex- change for their donations.

Th i s paper reports t he jnd ings of a detailed survey of corporate givers undertaken in the coirnty of Devon. T h e aim of the research was to determine the primary motivations for giving among the business conrrtiirnity and the

criteria most commonly used to select charities for support.

T h e results clearly indicate that the primary motivation for giving remains a purely philanthropic one. T h e majority of businesses presently do not look fo r any gain to accrue f r o m their charitable support and therefore do not monitor the success of their relationships with the charity sector.

INTRODUCTION Recent years have seen a general shift in company approaches to charity giving. Gone are the days of what Fendlcy and Hewitt (p. 14)’ call, ‘battleship ladies in intimidating hats trying to get the chair- man in a moral half nelson’. Now, there are rather more sophisticated relationships where both partners work together to their collective and mutual advantage. Indeed, this change in emphasis might best be characterised by what Ostergard2 refers to as a shift from a responsibility- oriented paradigm to an opportunity- oriented paradigm.

The responsibility-oriented paradigm has been with us for some time. In the early days of the 19th century charitable giving was viewed as a logical extension of individual philanthropy and a number of wealthy industrialists did much to improve the social facilities that were available to workers in their local^.^ Even in the 1920s and 1930s such forms of

giving were still very much in evidence with high-profile individuals such as Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rocker- feller endowing institutions seemingly at random, but in keeping with their individual preferences and tastes. Indeed until the early 1980s corporate giving owed much to the interests and concerns of chief executives who usually made the final decision in respect of the organisations they wished to ~ u p p o r t . ~ Under this paradigm, corporate giving could be viewed as a genuinely philanthropic activity where the primary objective was for the business to give something back to its community.

The opportunity-based paradigm first hegan to emerge in the late 1960s and early 1970s with a number of organisations beginning to look for benefits of one form or another from their charitable giving . More recently authors such as Jones have referred to what they call the emergence of ‘strategic giving’, which reflects what they perceive as a move towards fiscal efficiency and measurable effectiveness in charitable giving. Other writers such as Pifer,‘ Mescon and Tilson’ or Wokutch and Spencer8 have identified a general shift towards what has become known as ‘Dual Agenda’ giving whereby organisations will be predis- posed to giving to charities that have a good strategic fit with their own strategic objectives. As an example Hunt9 points out that Hallmark chooses to support fine arts and design programmes in the hope that a supply of both employees and customers will be generated as a result.

I t was not until 1981, however, when American Express introduced what they termed cause-related marketing (CRM) that a new dimension of corporate philanthropy really began to emerge. The emphasis was no longer solely on what the business could do for charity, but equally on what the charity could do for

the business. In defining cause-related marketing in an address to his fellow business leaders, the senior vice-president of American Express warned that ‘if your primary goal is to make money for a worthy cause, stay away from it. It’s not meant to be philanthropy. Its objective is to make money for your business.”’

Varadarajan and Menon (p. 60)” define cause-related marketing as a ‘process of formulating and implementing marketing activities that are characterised by an offer from the firm to contribute a specified amount to a designated cause when customers engage in revenue providing exchanges that satisfy or- ganisational and individual objectives’. As Garrisont2 identifies, CRM is con- cerned with the development of a ‘win/win’ partnership where both parties derive broadly equal benefit. In addition Wagner and T h ~ m p s o n ’ ~ define cause- related marketing as a business linking its product or service to a specific charity.

Academic writers seem, however, div- ided between those who believe CRM is broadly a sound strategy to follow and those who remain firmly sceptical. In support of CRM, Kilbane, l 4 Pasley, and Nichols16 all contend that there are numerous benefits to accrue to both partners in the relationship. The charity will gain valuable resources either in terms of staff time, cash donations or donations in kind, while the company may expect favourable publicity, enhanced public image and improvements to employee morale. Indeed Kilbanc“ contends that benefits will inevitably accrue to the corporate partners’ bottom line. Other writers such as Corkery” and Levine” remain unconvinccd and see CRM as little more than a shallow sales ploy that will lcaw consumers largely unimpressed.

What is clear, however, is that from a charity’s perspective it is possihlc to

take two very different, distinct approaches to tapping the corporate donor market. One may appeal to the genuinely philanthropic chief executive who gives because he or she feels it is their responsibility to do so, or one may target those who subscribe to the opportunity- based paradigm and who are hence looking for a tangible gain to accrue to their organisation as a result of their support.

To facilitate fundraising it is clearly necessary to clarify which of these two approaches would be likely to be most effective. Promotional material and contact strategies can then be tailored to the specific needs of supporting business organisations. In the case of the former, an emotional appeal could be designed, perhaps not dissimilar from that utilised in soliciting individual donations. In the case of the latter, a radical change in emphasis would be called for, .where the exact benefits that could accrue to the corporate supporter would be clearly spelt out.

It is therefore the purpose of this preliminary study to identify the nature of the paradigm most common among Devonian employers in the hope that

Devonian businesses. Only those organisations employing ten or more employees were targeted and the sample was stratified to reflect the profile of businesses in the local economy. In total 87 replies were received of which nine were incomplete or unusable. The resulting analysis therefore is based on a usable response rate of 19.5 per cent.

PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS The sector profile of respondents to the survey is given in Table 1.

In terms of the number of employees, the responses ranged from 10 to 500 employed specifically within the county of Devon. The median number of employees (a representative ‘average’ in these circumstances) was 50. The businesses had a mean turnover of &22.6m, while the median turnover was somewhat lower at &3.4m. It is therefore argued that the sample may be taken as representative of the range of businesses that currently reside in the county.

CHARITY GIVING BEHAVIOUR corporate fundraising by the 5,357 currently registered charities in Devon could be greatly enhanced. The study will also examine the attitudes of those organisations that do not currently give to charity, as this may facilitate the development of a segmented approach to corporate fundraising. The reader will appreciate that if non-donors are found not to give because they view charitable support as a purely philanthropic activity, charities Sector % of respondents

may have much to gain by emphasising Manufacturing 32.1 the practical benefits that charitable sup- Construction 14.1

Food/confectionery 9.0 Paper/printing 6.4 Electronics 3.8 Other 25.6

Seventy-two per cent of the sample were found to be giving to charity, the median (cash) amount being recorded as 2500 per annum. A number of employers were

Table 1: Sector profile of respondent enterprises

port actually can offer. Engineering 9.0

METHODOLOGY A postal survey was conducted of 400

Table 2: Modes of donation supported ~~

Mode of donation % of respondents

Cash 89.3 Donations in kind 51.8 Donations in time 25.0

found to be giving substantially higher sums, distorting the mean (&1,750), but this was not found to be the norm. Moreover, a number of employers were found to be supporting charities by means other than cash. The specific breakdown of this activity is reported in Table 2.

When asked to describe whether their firm was giving more or less than previous years a fairly static pattern of giving was reported. (See Table 3 for details.)

Table 3: Changes to charity giving behaviour

Pattern ofgiving % of’ respondents ~

Giving more this year 15.3 Giving about the same 69.4 Giving less 15.3

Fifty-nine per cent of respondents indicated that their organisation had a specific company policy in respect of the arrange- ment of charitable donations. O f the respondents who indicated that such a policy existed, the criteria identified as being used to select organisations for support are indicated in Table 4.

A number of employers clearly will seek to select causes that would offer them some synergy with their own business operations. This might perhaps reflect an increasing sophistication on the part of employers who want to find appropriate partners to enhance their

Table 4: Criteria for selection of charity to support

Criteria % of respondents

Local cause 75.9 Relevant to staff 20.7 Relevant to business 13.8 Children’s charity 13.8 Size of organisation 10.3

overall reputation, either locally with their home community, or nationally with their defined customer groups. This issue will be returned to later when the attitudes of employers are examined in detail.

There would also appear to be preliminary evidence that employers will reflect the perceived wishes and interests of their staff in respect of charitable donations. Employers may seek to use their charitable involvement to enhance morale among their workforce and to be seen to support their individual or group preferences. Furthermore it seems very clear that local causes are viewed by corporate donors as being among the most worthy of support. Table 5 reinforces this view, indicating the types of charity currently supported by respondent organisations irrespective of whether they have a formal policy.

The pattern of giving was very much

Table 5: Charities currently supported

Nutitre of charity supported % of’ cases

Local cause 64. t Health research 43.6 Children’s charities 28.2 Community organisations 12.8 RNLI 5.1 Support of elderly 5 .1

as expected given previous work carried out in this area,” but it is interesting to note that Devonian employers seem unlikely to support educational charities; a category of organisation that in general receives significant support from the corporate sector. This perhaps reflects a general lack (by national definitions) of any medium- or large-sized manufacturing business residing in the county. Such concerns would traditionally have funded this type of charitable organisation.

Table 6 indicates the postholder who would normally make decisions in respect of charitable donations. As one might expect the data indicate that decisions are usually taken at a most senior level.

Table 6: Postholder with primary responsibility for charity giving

Postholder % of respondents ~~ ~

Managing director 47.3

Company secretary 10.9 Marketing director 9.1

Proprietor 14.5

Personnel director 7.3 Other 7.3 Finance director 3.6

These results suggest that charities should address their communications to either the managing director or proprietor as it seems clear (in Devon) that it remains such individuals who retain the primary responsibility for charity giving. While one should not be surprised that both managing directors and proprietors dominate this table, the low incidence of involvement of the marketing function is significant. This result would seem to indicate that Devonian employers tend to view charitable giving as a purely philanthropic activity and do not look for marketing gains to accrue to the organisa-

Table 7: Motivations for giving to charity

Motivation % of respondents indicating

Genuine concern for cause Develops community relations Staff have personal links with charity I feel it is part of my corporate responsibility Corporate image building Enhancing awareness of company Free publicity Staff morale building Generates additional sales Networking opportunities; access to contacts

71.4 57.1 53.6

30.4

21.4 17.9

10.7 10.7 5.4 5.4

tion as a result. This is supported by the findings of the motivational research reported in Table 7.

Since it is clearly a genuine concern for the cause that motivates the majority of organisations to give, charities would be well advised to include many of the same emotional themes that they would tend to use in relation to individual donors, in mailings to potential corporate sup- porters. The question of which charity to support appears to be no less irrational than in the individual donor market. This view is supported by the fact that many decisions would appear to be made on the basis of contacts that particular staff might have with a charity. This has significant implications for Devonian fundraisers in that as they widen their popular appeal and attract more individual donors, corporate fundraising will be greatly facilitated. It also suggests that charities would be well advised to remind individual donors that their or-

ganisation is also looking for corporate support. They should also indicate what the benefits of such corporate support might be. Many individuals might not see the links between their own charitable interests and those of the organisation they work for. Much benefit could therefore accrue by encouraging donors to make others in their place of work aware of their continuing support for a particular cause. Indeed there are many ways in which this could be accomplished, most obviously through the creation of occasional sponsored events, where donors seek support from others for their cause. The development of some forms of sales promotion activity might also be appropriate, but whichever strategy is adopted, the timing of any subsequent corporate follow-ups will undoubtedly be crucial.

A further factor of interest is the high incidence of respondents who indicated that they give because they see it as part of their corporate responsibility. For many social welfare and environmental charities, this represents a significant opportunity, again suggesting that emotional appeals remain those most likely to be successful in soliciting corporate support. If donors can be persuaded that ‘they owe it to their community to take a responsible attitude towards X’, it is likely that donations will be enhanced.

The notion of a generally philanthropi- cally motivated local business community is further supported by Table 8, which indicates how businesses would normally assess the success (or otherwise) of their relationship with a given charity.

Clearly, of those firms who do monitor the success of their Corporate donations, changes in public perception and employee morale are perceived as being significantly more important than any hard measures of corporate exposure to

Table 8: Criteria used to monitor success of relationship with charity

Criteria Yo of respondents

Do not monitor as do not 41.1 look for gain Changes to public perception 32.1 of company image Changes to staff morale 23.2 Cost effectiveness of publicity 5.4

3.6 Number of times name mentioned in press Number of additional 3.6 contacts made

the public. The question of image building is of paramount concern to those organisations that do monitor, suggesting that charities could draw benefit from promoting secondary themes in their publicity material that relate to this issue. There is no evidence, however, that this should be a primary promotional theme, certainly for smaller charities.

Larger organisations may, however, have the necessary resources to promote a segmented approach to corporate fundraising, which may offer them utility particularly where personal solicitations are involved. Production of two versions of publicity material may allow organisations to emphasise those issues known to be important to a particular donor. Such techniques of segmentation (by applica- tion) have been prevalent for a considcr- able time in the for-profit sector and may now offer considerable utility in this context too.

Data were gathered further in respect of the budget from which a charitable donation would be made. An over- whelming percentage of respondents (70.5 per cent) indicated that the funds would be allocated from no one particular budget. Interestingly 10.3 per cent of

respondents indicated that they held a separate budget for charity donations and/or social welfare.

The survey did not reveal any distinct patterns in respect of how a decision to donate a particular sum is taken. A number of respondents reported the need to ‘get a feel’ for the appropriate amount to give, while others felt that they would normally endeavour to give ‘enough to make a difference’. This would seem to indicate that corporate fundraising in Devon should be approached from the same perspective as that used to solicit individual donations, namely one of offering organisations a range of ‘prices’, or levels of donation, which are capable of providing specific (and distinct) sets of benefits to the community.

More general data were also gathered in the survey in respect of company attitudes to charitable giving. Respon- dents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with 18 attitudinal statements. The results are reported in Table 9.

The results may be taken as being somewhat disappointing for charity fundraisers. In general, firms remain unimpressed with charity promises or their ability to deliver the benefits that they promise. They would also appear to feel that improvements could be made to the quality of contact that is made with them and the extent to which this is targeted appropriately.

There is clearly a need, therefore, for charities to improve the quality of the relationship that they currently have with local enterprise. Perhaps greater emphasis could be placed on following up business contacts after a particular donation has been made. In those cases where the business was looking for a tangible benefit to accrue, care should be taken to monitor the success of the relationship and if necessary remedial action should be

taken. In those cases where the donation was made for purely philanthropic reasons, the donor should be kept in- formed of how the donation has been utilised and in the case of larger donations, the directors could be encouraged to form an ongoing relationship with the charity, perhaps by inviting them to particular events, strategy meetings etc. Indeed, the greater the level of involvement that can be encouraged, the more likely it is that the somewhat negative attitude to charities, outlined above, can be overcome. Perhaps more importantly, however, there is a clear opportunity highlighted for one or more organisations to differentiate themselves by the quality of ‘care’ they are able to provide.

In general the attitudinal data would also seem to support the earlier survey findings, in that donors do not appear (in general) to look for gain from their involvement with a charity. What is not clear, however, is the extent to which such a view might be prevalent and what links there might be between the ‘orien- tation’ of the business, its attitudes to giving and the overall amounts it might be persuaded to give.

CLUSTER ANALYSIS In an attempt to resolve these issues a cluster analysis was performed on the dataset. Essentially, cluster analysis al- lows the researcher to group together individuals (or in this case companies) that share very similar characteristics. It is therefore a useful technique for explor- ing patterns within a particular dataset and for highlighting, as in this case, whether distinct segments of respondents exist.

Hierarchical cluster analysis was therefore applied to the dataset. Visual in- spection of the dendrograms revealed a jump in what are variously called amal-

Table 9: Results of attitudinal survey (current charity donors)

Statements Frequencies Median

1 2 3 4 5

Charities always deliver what they promise Charities offer a good return on the investment My organisation benefits from the support at least as much as the charity Charity support can be a very effective use of our advertising budget Charity support can be very effective in enhancing employee morale The effects of sponsorship are impossible to quantify Charity sponsorship is rarely as effective as commercial sponsors hip Charity staff are generally not very professional in their approach The benefits of giving are very short term Charities make efficient use of the funds that we provide them with My organisation feels that the national lottery has reduced the need for it to give My organisation feels it is important to give priority to local causes I would only give to a charity that someone I know could benefit from The quality of the environment is important to my business My organisation would be prepared to give to charity to support the quality of the environment Charity approaches to my company are poorly researched and targeted I am now receiving many more requests for donations than I was 12 months ago 1 would exDect to receive Dublic

4

12

14

18

4

2

1

5

3

2

19

1

17

1

1

2

1

25

10

1 1

18

15

8

6

8

18

1 0

3

17

1

25

1

2

9

1 1

18

26

26

15

12

17

16

23

22

27

23

15

2

‘ 8

12

21

22

IS

7

14

5

8

10

24

19

14

5)

9

23

3

25

4

23

23

18

1s

4

1

1

0

0

1

11

8

0

5

3

0

25

0

17

7

3

12

0

3

3

2

2

3

4

3

3

3

3

2

4

2

4

4

3

3

2

recognition for my donation

K e y : 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly agree

gamation or fusion co-efficients between two and three clusters. The analysis also revealed that the population was better balanced a t this point and that each cluster had a higher descriptive appeal (compared with other potential solutions). K means cluster analysis was then applied to determine the solution for two clusters.

Table 10 contains a summary of the mean squares obtained in the analysis. The between clusters mean square is labelled Cluster MS and the within cluster mean square is labelled Error MS. Their ratio is displayed in the column labelled F. Readers are reminded that large F ratios and small observed significance levels are associated with variables that differ between the segments. For the sake of brevity, variables with a low F ratio and an associated probability of 0.05 or above have been omitted from this analysis.

The two-cluster solution is shown in Table 11. The F ratios and cluster means were used to develop the descriptive information displayed in this table. In the case of each major grouping, the criteria are arranged in descending order of im- portance as determined by the F ratios. Detailed interpretations of each factor are given.

An analysis of the data given in Table 11 suggested that the two clusters could be named ‘philanthropists’ and ‘investors’, perhaps reflecting the two distinct paradigms of giving referred to earlier. A detailed description of each segment fol- lows.

Segment 1: Philanthropists (72 per cent of the population) Members of this segment may be termed ‘philanthropists’. They appear to give purely because it feels good to do so and do not look for any kind of benefit to accrue to their organisation as a result. ‘Philanthropists’ also have a tendency to

give cash only and do not support charities in other ways, such as through the provision of staff secondments. They do not view charity support as a marketing opportunity for their organisation and would not view it as any kind of investment in their company’s future. Members of this group are also significantly less likely to have a company policy that would dictate the nature of the causes the organisation would wish to support. ‘Philanthropists’ would typi- cally give less than the members of the second segment, with the mean cash gift being recorded at 2800 (standard deviation &515).

Segment 2: lnvestors (28 per cent of the population) Members of this group are so named because they tend to regard charity giving as an investment. They see it as an opportunity to build awareness of their business and to enhance their relations with the local community. Indeed a number of these organisations may even fund charity giving from their marketing budget. ‘In- vestors’ give in a variety of ways to charity with gifts in kind and gifts of staff time being significantly more likely than in the case of members of segment 1. These organisations monitor carefully the success of their involvement with charity and in particular monitor any changes in public perception and the overall cost- effectiveness of the publicity they receive. O n the whole, these organisations would expect to receive some form of public recognition for their gift and most have a company policy that dictates the nature of the causes the organisation will con- sider supporting. ‘Investors’ tend to give more to charity than members of the first segment, with the mean gift recorded at 22,350 (standard deviation 21,500) per annum.

The results clearly indicate the exist-

Table 10: Cluster analysis of corporate donors

Variable Cluster DF Error DF F Probability M S M S

Mode of donation Donations in time Donations in kind Motivation for giving Corporate image building Enhancing awareness of company Develops community relations Networking opportunities Generates additional sales Free publicity Method of monitoring giving Changes to public perception Do not monitor as do not look for gain Cost-effectiveness of publicity Number of times name mentioned in press Statements I would expect to receive public recognition for my donation Charity support can be a very effective use of our advertising budget Charities offer a good return on the investment My organisation benefits from the support at least as much as the charity Other Existence of a giving ‘policy’ to govern donations

0.169 0.230

52 52

1.5601 1.4361

1 1

9.2081 6.2288

0.004 0.0 16

2.0103 1 0.140 52 14.2745 0.M)O

0.001

0.001

0.003

1.6456 1 0.125 52

52

13.1595

0.204 1 1.8009 2.4114

0.4333

1

0.046 52

52

9.3889

9.3889

1

0.046 0.4333 1 0.003

0.024 0.092 52 5.4098 0.5026 1

52

52

52

52

50.4242

I I .8009

9.3889

5.778

5. w77

2.4114

0.4333

0.1926

0.117

0.204

0.046

0.033

O.O(K)

0. (W) 1

0.003

0.020

0.03 1 52 40.3327 0. OW 1.2599 1

0.060 52 16.3383 0.9917 1

0.054

0.059

52

52

9.5906

6.6684

0.003

0.013

0.52076

0.3953

0.233 52 4.5395 0.038 1.0601

~ ~~

K e y D F = Degrees of freedom MS = Mean square

Table 11: Descriptive information for each cluster

Variable Cluster 1 Cluster 2

Mode of donation

Donations in kind

Donations in time

Motivation for giving

Corporate image building

Enhancing awareness of

company

Develops community

relations

Networking opportunities

Generates additional sales

Free publicity

Method of monitoring giving

Changes to public perception

Do not monitor as do not

look for gain

Cost effectiveness of publicity

Number of times name

mentioned in press

Statements I would expect to receive

public recognition for my

donation Charity support can be a very

effective use of our advertising budget

Charities offer a good return

on the investment

My organisation benefits from

the support at least as much

as the charity

Other

Existence of a giving ‘policy’

to govern donations

Some give donations in kind

Do not donate time

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

N o

Yes

N o

N o

Would definitely not expect to

receive public recognition for

their donation

Do not see charity support as

an effective use of their

advertising budget

Do not regard charities as

offering a good return on

the investment

Regard their organisation as

not benefiting from the support

they give to charity

N o

Most give donations in kind

Some give donations of time

Yes

Yes

Yes

Possibly

Possibly

Possibly

Yes

No

Possibly

Possibly

Would expect some public recognition for their donation

Regard charity support as a very

effective use of their advertising

budget

Regard charities as capable of

offering some return on the

investment

Regard their organisation as

benefiting from the support they

give to charity

Yes

ence of two distinct paradigms of company giving. While the existence of what Ostergard* would have referred to as the responsibility-oriented paradigm is still quite clearly the dominant driver of company giving, the organisations that, currently give the most to charity are those which see their support as an opportunity to derive a tangible benefit for themselves.

NON-DONORS Clearly it was important not only to ascert2.h the attitudes of those who did cur:ently support charity, but also to examine the views of those who indicated that they do not. This would allow the identification of any significant differences in attitude between the two groups, a knowledge of which could subsequently be exploited for fundraising purposes. For this reason respondents who indicated that they did not presently give to charity were asked an adapted set of attitudinal questions. The results are reported in Table 12.

Interestingly, a very similar pattern of responses to those recorded earlier emerged from the survey. In an attempt to clarify whether there were any significantly different responses between those who give and those who do not give, a chi square test was administered. The results are shown in Table 13.

In essence it would appear that such organisations do not currently give to charity, as they perceive that it is someone else’s responsibility to do S O .

Moreover, it would appear that such organisations arc rather more likely to regard giving as a purely philanthropic activity. This may give an indication of the type of promotional message that could be used to gain a response from this, at present, uncooperative segment.

In an attempt to clarify this position

further, non-donors were specifically asked why they chose not to give to charity at the present time. These results are reported in Table 14.

The results indicate that the majority of non-donors do not feel that they can afford to give at the present time. Charities could therefore approach this group, outlining the direct benefits that could accrue to the organisation by supporting the cause. Such organisations need to be persuaded that involvement with a charitable concern could make good business sense and that a series of very tangible benefits could result. Seeing that it has already been established that such organisations view corporate giving as a purely philanthropic activity and themselves do not presently give, a change of approach is clearly needed.

There is also evidence here to suggest that charities should emphasise the benefits that will accrue to the recipients of the charity’s work, in order that the donor may be made to feel that their contribution would in fact be wortk- while. At present a significant percentage of these organisations does not feel that they could actually make a difference and that as a consequence there would be nothing to be gained from their donation. It would therefore seem that the approach alluded to earlier of offering a menu of ‘prices’ where organisations can select an appropriate level at which to give, would also be effective in converting members of this previously unresponsive segment.

CONCLUSIONS There is much evidence in the results of the survey to suggest that charitics should segment (where possible) their corporate donor market. There would appear to be two primary motivations for giving among Devonian cniployers, of which

Table 12: Results of attitudinal survey (non-charity donors)

Statement Frequencies Median

1 2 3 4 5

Charities always deliver what they promise Charities offer a good return on the investment Charity support can be a very effective use of our advertising budget Charity support can be very effective in enhancing employee morale The effects of sponsorship are impossible to quantify Charity sponsorship is rarely as effective as commercial sponsorship Charity staff are generally not very professional in their approach The benefits of giving are very short term Charities would not make efficient use of any funds that we might provide them with My organisation feels that the national lottery has reduced the need for it to give My organisation feels it is important to give priority to local causes I would only give to a charity that sonieone I know could benefit from The quality of the environment is important to my business My organisation would be prepared to give to charity to support the quality of the cnvironrnent Charity approaches to my company are poorly researched and targeted I am now receiving many more requests for donations than I was 12 months ago I would expect to receive public recognition for my donation

2

5

4

3

0

0

2

1

2

5

2

3

1

3

0

1

5

6

7

7

6

2

3

7

4

7

6

1

7

2

4

2

9

6

12

9

10

9

3

11

8

9

8

11

7

8

6

14

12

4

8

2

1

1

4

14

5

2

5

5

0

12

3

I t

1

5

5

2

0

0

0

0

3

3

3

3

0

0

0

1

2

0

3

3

1

3

2

2.5

3

4

3

3

3

3

2.5

4

3

4

3

3

3

2.5 -

Key 1 = Strongly disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Neutral 4 = Agree 5 = Strongly agree

Table 13: Chi square values obtained by comparing attitudes of employers who currently give and employers who currently do not

Statement Chi square Sicqti $can ce (2 degrees nf

freedom)

Charities always deliver what they promise Charities offer a good return on the investment Charity support can be a very effective use of our advertising budget Charity support can be very effective in enhancing employee morale The effects of sponsorship are impossible to quantify Charity sponsorship is rarely as effective as commercial sponsorship Charity staff are generally not very professional in their approach The benefits of giving are very short term Charities would not make efficient use of any funds that we might provide them with My organisation feels that the national lottery has reduced the need for it to give My organisation feels it is important to give priority to local causes I would only give to a charity that someone I know could benefit from The quality of the environment is important to my business My organisation would be prepared to give to charity to support the quality of the environment Charity approaches to my company are poorly researched and targeted I am now receiving many more requests for donations than I was 12 months ago I would expect to receive public recognition for my donation

2.18 1.42 5.95

5.05

0.02 1.45

3.45

1.02 3.42

30.16

15.82

7.44

5.65

19.88

2.01

12.55

8.38

Notes: Employers who currently donate to charity are: a) significantly more likely to disagree that the national lottery has reduced the need for them to give b) significantly more likely to agree that local causes should be given priority c) significantly less likely to give only to causes that people they know can benefit from d) significantly more likely to indicate that they would support the quality of the eiivironniciit If

asked e) significantly more likcly to record an increase in the number of charities rcqucsting assistancc r) significantly less likely to require public recognition for a donation.

the most common has been shown to be a genuinely philanthropic concern for the cause. Members of this segment would appear not to expect to monitor thc

success (or otherwise) of their charitable involvement and may hcnce respond to many of the same emotional appeals that are currently directed to individual

Table 14: Reasons reported for not giving to charity

Reason %.of respondents

50.0 35.3

18.2

9.1

We cannot afford to give

have no effect on the cause I t is not the role of business to support charity

effective as other forms of marketing communication We have never been approached

The amount we give would

Charity support is not as

4.5

donors. Smaller charities with limited promotional benefits would therefore be well advised to focus on such emotional appeals in their promotional literature, as the largest proportion of charity giving has been shown to be decided on such a basis.

Larger organisations that pursue a direct form of contact with their corporate donors are advised to identify the primary motivation for giving early in the communication process. Com- munications messages may then be varied according to the primary concern of the potential sponsor. Separate promotional brochures could be produced, one emphasising the emotional reasons for giving, the other focusing on the more tangible and practical benefits that could accrue from support. The latter brochure would also be appropriate for use with those organisations that have not previously given to charity, since a large percentage of this group believe that they cannot afford to do so. Such organisations clearly view corporate support as primarily a philanthropic activity and may never have considered the full range of benefits that could be available.

Market segmentation may therefore be the key to success in the corporate donor

sector. What is not clear, however, is the extent to which there are any variables that charities could use a priori to decide which promotional themes would be most appropriate in dealing with a particular organisation. Further work will be necessary to explore whether any demographic, geographic or observable behavioural variables could offer utility in this regard. In the absence of such variables, charities will need to build a detailed database of corporate contacts over time, carefully recording not only the details of the contact, but also those promotional appeals that have been found (or are felt) to be most effective in that individual case. In this way the quality and efficacy of corporate fundraising will, over time, be greatly enhanced.

REFERENCES (1) Fendley, A. and Hewitt, M. (1994)

‘When charity begins with a pitch’, Marketing, 23rd June, pp. 14-15.

(2) Ostergard, P. M. (1994) ‘Fasten your seat belts’ Fundraising Management. March, pp. 36-38.

(3) Stroup, M. A. and Neubert, R. L. (1987) ‘The evolution of social responsibility’, Business Horizons, Vol. 30, March, pp. 22-24.

marketing’, Sales and Sales Managernenr, March, p. 60.

doing well’, Black Enterprise, Vol. 26, No. 7, pp. 178-84.

voluntarism and changing times’, Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Winter, pp. 119-31.

(7) Mescon, T. S. and Tilson, D. J. (1987) ‘Corporate philanthropy: A strategic approach to the bottom line’, California Management Review, Vol. 29, Winter, pp. 49-61.

(1987) ‘Corporate saints and sinners’,

(4) Kelley, B. (1991) ‘Cause-related

(5) Jones, J. (1996) ‘Doing good while

(6) Pifer, A. (1987) ‘Philanthropy,

(8) Wokutch, R. E. and Spencer, B. A.

California Management Review, Vol. 29, Winter, p. 72.

philanthropy’, Across The Board, JulytAugust, Vol. 23, pp. 23-30.

(10) Josephson, N. (1984) ‘AmEx raises corporate giving to market art’, Advertising Age , 23rd January, p. 10.

( 1 1 ) Varadarajan, P. R. and Menon, A. (1988) ‘Cause-related marketing: A co-alignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 58-74.

(12) Garrison, J. R. (1990) ‘A new twist to cause-related marketing’, Fund-Raising Management, Vol. 20, February, pp. 4044 .

(1994) ‘Cause-related marketing’, Non Proj t World, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 9-13.

(14) Kilbane, C . (1990) ‘Selected effects of cause-related marketing’, GBA 698

(9) Hunt, A. (1986) ‘Strategic

(13) Wagner, L. and Thompson, R. L.

Thesis, Bowling Green State University.

(15) Pasley, K. A. (1990) ‘Cause-related marketing bolsters image’, National Underwriter, Vol. 94, 13th August, pp. 38-39.

cause’, Incentive, Vol. 164, August, pp. 28-31.

me?’, Business Month, Vol. 134, November, pp. 46-47.

(18) Levine, J. (1989) ‘I gave at the supermarket’, Forbes, Vol. 14.4, December, pp. 138-40.

(19) McElroy, K. M. and Siegfried, J. J. (1994) ‘The effect of firm size and mergers on corporate philanthropy’, in Block, I3. and Goldschmid, J. H. (eds) ‘The impact of the modern corporation’, Columbia Press, New York.

(16) Nichols, D. (1990) ‘Promoting the

(17) Corkery, P. J. (1989) ‘What’s in it for

corporate giving: targeting the likely donor

Documents