David Matthew Godfrey and Dr. John Davies, Department of Communications

Summary

As more and more brands attempt to position themselves as socially responsible, this research attempted to discover the impact of “ethical” advertising messages on sales. The world needs solutions to complex social problems and corporations can contribute, but can “ethical” branding increase profit by increasing purchases of “ethical” products?

Aims and Predictions

This study hoped to determine how perceived efficacy of an ethical purchase (whether it effectively helps the cause it claims to) and perceived consumer benefits of an ethical product affect purchase action and attitudes toward advertisements, corporations, and brands. Three variables in ethical advertisements tested this: (1) messaging that promotes a consumer benefit; (2) messaging that promotes the efficacy of ethical purchases; and (3) messaging that incorporates both efficacy and benefit. Analyzing and linking previous research in “green” advertising and altruistic behavior produced the hypothesis that participants who viewed ads without benefit or efficacy messaging will score lowest in all dependant variable categories (attitude toward the ad, attitude toward the brand/product, attitude toward the corporation, and purchase action); participants who view an ad with an ethical product’s benefit highlighted in its messaging will score higher; participants who view an ad featuring messaging promoting the efficacy of purchasing an ethical product will score higher still; and participants who view an ad highlighting both the benefit and efficacy of purchasing the ethical product will score highest.

Method

119 participants completed a 10-minute survey on-location at computers in the Wilkinson Student Center at BYU and on paper at the Riverwoods Shopping Center in Provo, Utah. Each participant saw three advertisements for pseudo flashlight brands and answered a short series of questions after each ad that measured their attitude toward the advertisement, the product advertised, and the brand/corporation. The third ad promoted a flashlight that came with ethically produced batteries. At this, the survey offered participants a choice of 4 free battery packs (one of which was the brand promoted in the survey as ethically produced, two were the brands promoted in the first two ads and one was a dummy) to how the ads affected their selection.

Previous research in this area studied only purchase intention, which weakly correlates to actual purchase behavior. For example, past studies showed that 75 percent of consumers said that they were willing to pay more for products that were guaranteed to be produced ethically1 (O’Rourke 2005), while only 10-12 percent of consumers actually made socially responsible purchases2 (Makower 2000). Our research took the literature beyond intention to purchase action.

Results

Unfortunately, the hypothesis proved false. No significant correlations existed between the ethical message seen and the battery pack chosen. To ensure the accuracy of this result, further analysis checked whether the survey location (Riverwoods v. BYU Campus) significantly affected purchase action, which it did not. However, analysis of participants’ perceptions for the different advertisements they viewed found very interesting correlations.

First, the results revealed a pattern that followed according to our hypothesis. However, robust tests showed that it did not quite reach significance. Participants who saw the ethical ad that used a combination of benefit and efficacy messaging perceived the ethical brand’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) as higher. Although not technically significant, the strength of the correlation and its nearness to statistical significance show that a combination of efficacy and benefit seemed to most effectively promote CSR. Further research with larger samples may reveal this correlation with more significance.

Second, participants’ perceptions regarding advertised brands’ CSR predicted their positive perceptions of the advertisement, product, and brand presented. A comparison of CSR and overall perceptions across all three advertisements (two control ads and one “ethical” ad) showed that participants actually liked one of the controls most and perceived the CSR of that brand as highest. CSR for the second control ad and for the “ethical” ad also predicted overall appeal and perception. In fact, no difference existed between the three ads’ relationships between CSR and overall perceptions. The fact that neither control ad contained any ethical messages led to the conclusion that the appeal of an advertisement leads to higher perceptions of brands and products—including perceptions of CSR—whether or not CSR actually existed in that brand or product. When analyzed separately, the different variables of the “ethical” ad predicted perception slightly differently. The ethical ad highlighting only consumer benefit produced a weak, insignificant correlation between CSR and overall perceptions; however, the other variables predicted overall perceptions significantly.

Conclusions

Brands need to understand the actual impact of CSR and use it responsibly. Hoping to sell more products by advertising ethics or social responsibility will not directly influence purchases. However, a brand that chooses to support ethical causes that it can effectively advance and that create consumer benefits (e.g. products that are higher quality because they are sweatshop-free) will increase perceptions of CSR, which is critical in developing long-term consumer relationships and brand loyalty3. Still, the results of this study place tremendous responsibility in the hands of modern marketers. Essentially any product, ethical or not, could be perceived as socially responsible if marketing used appeals strongly enough to consumers. Brands should choose to act ethically (1) for the long-term well-being of our global society and (2) for the long-term, loyal relationships it can build with consumers through effective and beneficial CSR.

References

1. O’Rourke, D. (2005). Market Movements: Nongovernmental Organization Strategies to Influence Global Production and Consumption. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(1/2), 115-128.
2. Makower, J. 2000. Whatever happened to green consumers? Organic Consumer Association, July/August. www.organicconsumers.org/Organic/greenism.cfm>. Accessed March 2004.
3. Lacey, R., & Kennett-Hensel, P. (2010). Longitudinal Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility on Customer Relationships. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(4), 581-597. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0526-x