Differentiation of social marketing and cause-related marketing in US professional sport.
Pharr, Jennifer R. ; Lough, Nancy L.
Introduction
Since the early 2000s, a growing body of literature has examined
corporate social responsibility in sport (CSR) (Babiak & Wolfe,
2006; Babiak & Wolfe, 2009; Bradish & Cronin, 2009; Breitbarth
& Harris, 2008; Sheth & Babiak, 2010; Smith & Westerbeek,
2007; Walker & Kent, 2009; Walker & Kent, 2010). Similarly,
several studies have focused on the benefit of cause-related marketing
(CRM) for sport organizations (Irwin, Clark, & Lachowetz, 2010;
Irwin, Lachowetz, Cornwell, & Clark, 2003; Kim, Kim, & Kwak,
2010; Lachowetz & Gladden, 2003; Lachowetz & Irwin, 2002;
McGlone & Martin, 2006; Roy & Graeff, 2003). Yet few studies
have examined social marketing in sport (Bell & Blakey, 2010; Lough
& Pharr, 2010). Surprisingly, the link between CSR and CRM in sport
has not been clearly articulated. Some authors have inferred that CRM is
a tactic or strategy to achieve CSR (Roy & Graeff, 2003). Meanwhile,
social marketing has emerged as a more direct strategy to demonstrate
social responsibility. Yet most scholars have overlooked the use of
social marketing in sport or inaccurately labeled social marketing
campaigns as cause-related marketing.
The lack of sport marketing research focused on social marketing
presents an opportunity for investigation. In 2003, Roy and Graeff
briefly mentioned social advertising in the context of identifying the
benefits of CRM. More recently, Irwin, Irwin, Miller, Somes, and Richey
(2010) inaccurately used CRM to describe the NFL Play 60 campaign. In
this paper, we will demonstrate that a more appropriate depiction of the
NFL Play 60 would have defined it as a social marketing campaign. As
Lough and Pharr (2010) recently illustrated, CRM and social marketing
are two distinct marketing strategies. The need to clearly identify each
approach as unique has become more apparent with the recent increase in
social marketing campaigns used in the sport industry. The primary
purpose of this study is to show how both CRM and social marketing are
unique strategies employed in sport to achieve corporate social
responsibility.
Storey, Saffitz, and Rimon (2008) used five variables to
differentiate social marketing from commercial marketing. Lough and
Pharr (2010) expanded this model to include CRM, thus creating a
multi-tiered marketing model. In their model, commercial marketing,
social marketing, and CRM were differentiated by 1) locus of benefit, 2)
outcomes/objectives sought, 3) target market, 4) voluntary exchange, and
5) marketing perspective. For the purpose of this inquiry, these five
variables will be used to 1) analyze CRM and social marketing campaigns
employed by the top professional sport organizations in the US, 2)
highlight the differences between these two unique marketing strategies,
and 3) to present a conceptual model explaining the relationships
between corporate social responsibility, cause-related marketing, and
social marketing.
Social marketing and CRM each have a unique (different) locus of
benefit, objectives/outcomes sought, target market, voluntary exchange,
and marketing perspective. Because of this, it is important for sport
marketers to understand these distinct difference between the two
marketing strategies and how each can be utilized to achieve corporate
social responsibility objectives.
Social Marketing
Social marketing dates back to the early 1960s and was first
defined by Kotler and Zaltman in 1971 as the design and implementation
of programs used to increase the acceptability of social ideas which
involves the four Ps (price, product, placement, and promotion) of
marketing. Social marketing was further defined as the application of
"commercial marketing technologies to the analysis, planning,
execution and evaluation of programs designed to influence the voluntary
behavior of a target audience in order to improve their personal welfare
and that of their society" (Andreasen, 1995, p. 7). Social
marketing has been used extensively in the health promotion branch of
public health as a means to improve health and prevent disease in the
target market. Examples of social marketing in public health include
programs focused on increasing physical activity, increasing fruit and
vegetable consumption, anti-smoking/smoking cessation, and sexually
transmitted disease prevention (Grier & Bryant, 2005). Thus, social
marketing employs unique strategies for purposes such as addressing
social and health related issues.
Several commercial marketing strategies must be applied for social
marketing to succeed. These include exchange theory, audience
segmentation or target market, competition, the four Ps (price, place,
product, promotion), consumer orientation, and evaluation of the
marketing campaign (Grier & Bryan, 2005). Compared to commercial
marketing, social marketing tends to be more relational rather than
transactional and the cost/benefits tend to be less tangible (i.e.,
improved health). In commercial marketing, money (price) is exchanged
for a product or service. In social marketing the cost (price) is more
likely to be the intangible cost of time and/or the psychological
discomfort that comes from making a behavior change (i.e., the
discomfort of nicotine withdrawal). The benefit (product) of social
marketing is more likely to be intangible, such as improved health or
reduction of disease. The loci of benefit of a social marketing campaign
are individuals who need to change their behavior and society at large.
The primary outcomes/objectives sought are behaviors that increase
personal and/or social welfare and/or health (Storey et al., 2008).
Secondary outcomes/objectives of social marketing include improved
brand equity, brand awareness, and brand loyalty because consumers of
the brand supporting social marketing initiatives often benefit from the
feeling that their support of the brand made these initiatives possible
(Lough & Pharr, 2010). The target market for social marketing
campaigns encompasses individuals and groups in society in need of
making a behavior change. Just as in commercial marketing, the target
market should be segmented by psychographics and demographics to create
an effective marketing campaign. The voluntary exchange, as mentioned
previously, tends to be less tangible (time, discomfort, improved
health) in social marketing. Similarly, both economic and non-economic
costs and benefits must be weighed by the target market. The marketing
perspective of social marketing includes an acknowledgement of 1) the
intangibility of the costs/benefits; 2) the intangibility of the
competition (i.e., competing with the desire to be physically inactive);
and 3) economic factors like purchase power tend to be less important.
Two published articles have evaluated social marketing in sport.
One examined Nike's Gamechangers social marketing campaign (Lough
& Pharr, 2010) and the other examined European Football Associations
Championship for Women in 2005 (EURO 2005) (Bell & Blakey, 2010).
Lough and Pharr (2010) evaluated Nike's commercial, social, and
cause marketing campaigns and showed how each could be incorporated into
a multi-tiered marketing framework. The authors suggested social
marketing could be a means for sport marketers to connect more directly
with their target market. Bell and Blakey (2010) analyzed the use of
social marketing in the EURO 2005. They found that the social marketing
campaign created awareness of women's football, persuaded and
motivated girls and women to participate, and facilitated opportunities
to continue the behavior change of increased physical activity. Table 1
illustrates how the five variables of social marketing can be evaluated
with EURO 2005 as an example. Despite the paucity of published work
examining the use of social marketing in sport, there have been several
studies focusing on cause-related marketing in sport.
Cause-Related Marketing
In 1999, Adkins defined cause-related marketing as "activity
by which businesses and charities or causes form a partnership with each
other to market an image, product or service for mutual benefit"
(p. 11). In one of the earlier studies examining motivations to engage
in CRM, Ross, Stutts, and Patterson (1991) found nearly 50% of consumers
reported they had made a purchase because of their desire to support a
cause, most were willing to try a new brand because of a cause-related
promotion, and the majority demonstrated the ability to recall a
cause-related advertisement. Documented benefits of CRM programs include
an enhanced company image (Rigney & Steenhuyson, 1991), positive
publicity (Nichols, 1990), a differentiated image (Shell, 1989), and
favorable attitudes by consumers about sponsoring companies (Ross et
al., 1991). Cause-related marketing has also been shown to have a
positive influence on consumers' perceptions of corporate
reputation after a company has engaged in unethical behavior (Cone &
Roper, 1999).
Pringle and Thompson's (1999) conceptualization of CRM was
"as a strategic positioning and marketing tool which links a
company or brand to a relevant social cause or issue, for mutual
benefit" (p. 3). They also suggested CRM is a more integrated
marketing strategy as it is supported by marketing budgets, not more
limited philanthropic budgets. To be successful in cause-related sport
marketing (CRSM), a number of conditions are necessary such as
identifying a cause that resonates with consumers and sponsoring
organizations; complete and genuine organizational commitment to the
cause; evidence of a tangible (e.g., monetary, personnel) transfer to
the not-for-profit; and promotion of the CRSM program (Lachowetz &
Gladden, 2003). Accordingly, the degree to which the conditions are met
will establish the outcomes. Yet, if the consumer perceives a
superficial commitment to a CRM program, the benefits most likely will
not be realized. Without authenticity and commitment, negative image
associations could develop, and therefore diminish the brand image or
loyalty. According to Hoeffler and Keller (2002), CRM programs affect
brand image in two ways: 1) enhancement of the consumer's self
image and 2) enhancement of aspects of the organization's brand
personality (i.e., human characteristics associated with the brand). For
these reasons, a sport organization must ensure the cause selected
resonates with their target market (Quenqua, 2002), is consistent with
the image or belief system of the partnering organization, and is
congruent with the values of the sponsoring organization and the values
of the cause (Lachowetz & Gladden, 2003).
Consumers need to be educated about what causes actually do (Welsh,
1999). Therefore, the sport organization needs to publicize its
involvement with the cause, and include educational messages about what
the cause accomplishes. In essence, limited involvement by the
organization will not result in the desired benefits. A successful CRSM
program can create or further an emotional connection between the
consumer and the sport league/event/team/athlete (Lachowetz &
Gladden, 2003), but only if consumers perceive an authentic connection.
Using the five variables that differentiate CRM from social
marketing (Storey et al., 2008) the locus of benefit in CRM is the
charity/cause and the business that partners with the charity/cause. The
outcomes/objectives sought from this partnership are: 1) increased
donations or purchase of products with part of the proceeds going to the
charity/cause; 2) improved brand image for the business partner or its
product; and 3) increased brand loyalty or brand switching for the
business partner or product. The primary focus of CRM is the benefit to
the charity/cause and the business partner with a secondary focus being
the benefit to society (i.e., earlier detection of breast cancer through
the support of the Susan G. Komen Foundation). The target market of CRM
tends to be more affluent and concerned with cause-related issues. As
mentioned previously, the target market must be segmented by
demographics and psychographics to determine which cause-related
relationship will be seen as genuine by the target market. Voluntary
exchange in CRM is more tangible as money is donated or exchanged for
products with proceeds (or portions of proceeds) supporting the cause.
In the marketing perspective of CRM, the product tends to be a mixture
of tangibility (a physical product) and intangibility (a good feeling
from making a donation), competition is more tangible, and economic
factors such as purchase power tend to be more important than with
social marketing. An example of CRM in sport is the Lance Armstrong
Foundation's Livestrong campaign (Lough & Pharr, 2010). Table 1
illustrates how the five variables can be used to identify Livestrong as
a CRM campaign. Irwin et al. (2003) mentioned CRM as a subset of
corporate social responsibility. Yet, most scholars have only inferred a
relationship between CRM and CSR, without clear articulation of how the
relationship is manifest. The following section will further examine the
relationships between CSR and sport.
Corporate Social Responsibility in Sport
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) can be described as the
obligation or intent of a corporation to be ethical and accountable to
not only the stakeholders but to society as well. Ullman (1985) further
described CSR as "the extent to which an organization meets the
needs, expectations and demands of certain external constituents beyond
those directly linked to the company's products/markets" (p.
543). CSR is not exclusively about philanthropic giving. As Bradish and
Cronin (2009) pointed out, it should be a holistic business approach
that incorporates both social and economic factors into the practice of
social responsibility.
Although CSR has been the focus of academic research in business
for over 30 years, CSR in sport has only recently received the attention
of academic researchers (Babiak & Wolfe, 2006, 2009; Bradish &
Cronin, 2009; Breitbarth & Harris, 2008; Sheth & Babiak, 2010;
Smith & Westerbeek, 2007; Walker & Kent, 2009, 2010). While some
of the sport specific research has focused on providing an overview of
CSR in sport (Bradish & Cronin, 2009; Godfrey, 2009) others have
examined the use of CSR during specific events or with specific sport
leagues (Babiak & Wolfe, 2006; Breitbarth & Harris, 2008; Walker
& Kent, 2010). Babiak and Wolfe (2006) suggested that CSR activities
associated with an event such as the Super Bowl may help to lessen some
of the criticism surrounding such a large event and may enhance the
image of the NFL as a league that cares. Breitbarth and Harris (2008)
examined the role of CSR in European football and suggested
"increased awareness and integration of CSR into football business
fosters the competitiveness of the game and creates additional value for
its stakeholders" (p. 180). Additionally, they created a conceptual
model that demonstrated how CSR can help to foster financial, cultural,
humanitarian, and reassurance value.
Smith and Westerbeek (2007) studied sport as a vehicle to achieve
CSR. They found the unique aspects of sport that make it well suited for
corporate social responsibility include: mass media and communication
power, youth appeal, positive health impacts, social interaction,
sustainability awareness, cultural understanding and integration, and
immediate gratification benefit. Other studies of CSR in sport have
identified categories currently employed by organizations such as the
NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB (Sheith & Babiak, 2010; Walker & Kent,
2010). Categories included: 1) philanthropic, legal, economic, and
ethical (Sheith & Babiak, 2010) or 2) monetary charitable event,
non-monetary charitable event, volunteerism/community outreach, event to
honor meritable work, community appreciation, and social awareness
programs (Walker & Kent, 2010). More specific to marketing, these
categories could be described as either CRM, social marketing, or other
community outreach.
In a review of the sport marketing literature, there was little
reference made to CRM as a strategy for achieving CSR and no mention of
social marketing as a means to demonstrate CSR. Yet, CRM and social
marketing can and should be strategies through which social
responsibility is demonstrated and/or communicated. Increasingly, sport
organizations have utilized social marketing campaigns to realize CSR
goals, although little research about social marketing in sport has
appeared in the literature. Meanwhile, the label cause-related marketing
has consistently been used to define the marketing-related activities
attributed to corporate social responsibility in sport. Thus, the goals
of this paper are to analyze and categorize CRM and social marketing
campaigns being used by the top professional sport organizations in the
US, highlight the differences between these two unique marketing
strategies, and to present a conceptual model explaining the
relationships between corporate social responsibility, cause-related
marketing, and social marketing.
For the purpose of this inquiry, the five variables previously
discussed were used to analyze and categorize CRM and social marketing
campaigns being used by the NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB. A directed content
analysis was employed in this study and the following section describes
the methodology. Our discussion then highlights the differences between
the two unique marketing strategies and utilizes the analysis to present
a conceptual model explaining the relationships between corporate social
responsibility, cause-related marketing, and social marketing.
Methods
A qualitative content analysis was employed to analyze the outreach
programs of the NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB as described on each website.
Content analysis is an approach that has been used to empirically and
methodologically analyze text within the context of communications
(Mayring, 2000). This methodology can be used to put text into
categories for analysis, which helps in the understanding of the
phenomenon being studied. The approach to a content analysis can be
conventional, directed, or summative. For the current study, a directed
content analysis was used. As Hsieh and Shannon (2005) illustrated, a
directed content analysis should be used when "theory and prior
research exists about a phenomenon that is incomplete or would benefit
from further description" (p. 1281). The purpose of a directed
content analysis is to validate or extend a conceptual theoretical
framework. Previous research or an existing theory (theoretical
framework) can be used to pre-determine the variables of interest and
the initial coding scheme and categories (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005).
Categories are given an operating definition based on the previous
research/existing theory.
For the purpose of this study, the theoretical framework presented
by Lough and Pharr (2010) that defined and differentiated social and
cause-related marketing was utilized. The categories: locus of benefit,
objectives/outcomes, target market, voluntary exchange, and marketing
perspective, with their respective operating definitions were used to
identify programs engaged in by the NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB as CRM,
social marketing, or other community outreach. For this study, only
programs engaged in at the league level were analyzed. Programs that
individual professional teams engaged in were not analyzed. This
decision was made to insure consistency (i.e., comparing league to
league versus league to individual team) and trustworthiness of the
data.
In a qualitative study trustworthiness is established through
credibility, dependability, and transferability (Graneheim &
Lundman, 2003). Credibility of a study is enhanced by selecting the most
appropriate method for data collection, an appropriate sample for the
analysis and suitable measuring units (categories or themes) that cover
the data. Credibility is also enhanced by including representative
examples from the analysis and reporting agreement between coders
(Graneheim & Lundman, 2003). Inter-coder reliability is
"assessed by having two or more coders categorize units ... and
then using these categorizations to calculate a numeric index of the
extent of the agreement between or among the coders" (Lombard,
Snyder, & Duch, 2002, p. 590). There are several ways to calculate
inter-coder reliability (Lombard et al., 2002). In this study, percent
agreement and Cohen's kappa were used.
Programs were identified on the websites for each professional
league. For the NBA, programs were found under the "NBACares"
area of the NBA.com website. The programs of the NFL were located on the
"In the Community" section of NFL.com. NHL programs were found
in the "Community" portion of the NHL.com website. The
programs analyzed for MLB were located in the "MLB Community"
page of the MLB.com website. For each program that one of the
professional leagues was involved in, the information about the program
presented on the website was evaluated to determine the five variables
previously discussed: locus of benefit, objectives/outcomes, target
market, voluntary exchange, and marketing perspective. Based on this
evaluation, each program was then classified as CRM, social marketing,
or other community outreach. Previously presented operating definitions
of the five variables as they relate to CRM, social marketing, or other
community outreach were used in the evaluation.
Data Analysis
To reduce research bias, two researchers independently coded the
data. The coders had been trained in the same manner and understood the
operating definitions of each of the five variables and of CRM, social
marketing, and community outreach. Reliability of the coding was checked
during the process. Percent agreement and Cohen's kappa were used
to measure intercoder reliability. To be confident in the results
reported in a study, agreement between coders should be at least 80%,
and kappa should be at least .75 in each category (Riffe, Lacy, &
Fico, 2005; Wimmer & Dominick, 2006). In this study, there was
agreement between coders 97% of the time with program classification.
All categorical calculations had Cohen's kappa greater than .75.
After the directed content analysis was complete then a quantitative
data analysis was performed to compare frequencies and proportions of
the program classifications. The proportions of CRM, social marketing,
and other community outreach were quantified to reflect the usage of the
three types of programs. This information was calculated for each league
and for all leagues in general. To determine if there was a significant
difference between the three program classifications, a 95% confidence
interval for the proportions of CRM, social marketing, and other
community outreach was employed. The confidence interval was not
calculated for each league because the sample size was not large enough
to make the confidence interval meaningful. Although the complete matrix
was too lengthy to present in this article, an abbreviated matrix is
found in Table 2 and examples from the matrix will be used throughout
the discussion.
Several strategies were employed to ensure trustworthiness as
recommended by Graneheim and Lundman (2003). A directed content analysis
was deemed to be the most appropriate methodology to achieve the
research objectives. Predetermined codes and operational definitions
developed by Lough and Pharr (2010) were used to analyze the data
because they provided suitable categories to cover the data. Major
leagues were compared to each other rather than individual teams to
attain an appropriate and consistent sample. The abbreviated matrix
provides representative examples from the analysis. Lastly, the
inter-coder reliability was considered good with a high percent
agreement (97%) and a Cohen's Kappa value of greater than .75 for
each category.
Results
Categorization of CRM and Social Marketing Campaigns The
categorical evaluation of the various CRM and social marketing
initiatives that the NBA, NHL, MLB, and NFL are engaged in is
illustrated in Table 3.
In total, 43 programs were evaluated. Of those programs, 22 (51.2%)
were categorized as social marketing, eight (18.6%) as CRM, and 13
(30.2%) as other/community outreach. Social marketing programs were
identified significantly more than CRM based on a 95% confidence
interval. Each league was then analyzed separately. The results from
this analysis can be found in Table 4.
For the NBA, 13 programs were evaluated and the categorical
analysis showed that seven (53.8%) were social marketing, four (30.8%)
were CRM, and two (15.4%) were other community outreach. The NHL had
three programs that were analyzed and the results indicated two (66.7%)
programs were categorized as social marketing while one (33.3%) program
was categorized as CRM and no programs were categorized as
other/community outreach. Twelve programs of the MLB were evaluated with
six (50%) as social marketing programs, two (16.7%) as CRM, and four
(33.3%) as other/community outreach. The NFL had the greatest number of
programs with 15. Of the 15, seven (46.7%) were determined to be social,
one (6.6%) was cause, and seven (46.7%) were other/community outreach.
Of the 43 programs analyzed for all four leagues, the majority
(51.2%) were categorized as social marketing, while only 18.6% were
categorized as CRM. Based on this study, the major leagues were more
involved in activities designated as community outreach (30.2%) than CRM
initiatives. Yet, social marketing programs were identified
significantly more than either CRM or community outreach.
Discussion
CRM and Social Marketing Differentiation
One of the most interesting findings from this study was that
campaigns that have traditionally been thought of as CRM were
categorized as social marketing based on the five variables. The
NFL's United Way campaign serves as a good example. The
objective/outcomes sought and the voluntary exchange of the NFL's
Live United campaign exemplifies the difference between CRM and social
marketing. The objectives/outcomes sought by the partnership were a) to
make a difference through community volunteer work, outreach, and
involvement; b) to communicate the importance of volunteerism and
community service; and c) to inspire others to serve their communities.
The voluntary exchange identified involved the intangible cost of time
to participate in community service and volunteer work. In this example,
the NFL's Live United campaign would have been categorized as
cause-related marketing if the stated goal was to raise money for the
United Way, yet their objectives clearly demonstrate an effort toward
changing behavior of fans. The stated outcomes: "to make a
difference" through involvement, to "communicate the
importance of volunteerism" and to "inspire others to get
involved," led to the categorization of the current NFL program as
a social marketing campaign (Liveunited.org). Similarly, the investment
required was more one of time than money. In essence, the NFL players
were actively serving as role models for community involvement and
service, with the stated goal of encouraging similar behavior among
fans. Thus, a long-standing program believed to be cause-related
marketing was in fact recognized as social marketing.
The findings from this study highlight the differences between CRM
and social marketing campaigns used by professional sport organizations.
To illustrate the distinction the NFL's Crucial Catch (breast
cancer awareness) campaign can be compared to its Play60 campaign. As a
true cause-related marketing campaign, the NFL supports the fight
against breast cancer by creating awareness about the importance of
annual breast cancer screening for women and holds auctions with
proceeds to benefit the America Cancer Society (ACS). The beneficiaries
are both the cause (ACS) and women who heed the message. The Crucial
Catch campaign raises money through the purchase of NFL auction items
with proceeds going to the American Cancer Society. Strategic marketing
aspects of the campaign include pink water bottles, pink game apparel,
and pink coins, all seen throughout the NFL season during games.
In contrast, one of the most high-profile social marketing
campaigns is NFL's Play 60. With the stated objective/outcome
sought as "inspire kids to get the recommended 60 minutes of
physical activity per day," the emphasis on changing behavior is
clear (NFLrush.com). The voluntary exchange is the intangible cost of
time and discomfort for kids/parents (target market) to become and stay
physically active. The marketing strategy includes TV, print, and
internet ads for the NFL Play 60 Challenge, along with "exciting
and engaging curriculum for schools and classrooms to use to inspire
exercise" (NFLrush.com). In this example, the NFL is not working to
raise money to combat childhood obesity, which would classify it as
cause-related marketing. Similarly, the exchange sought is not one of
money for products or services. Instead the exchange required is more
personal on the part of effort made by those in the targeted group, who
need to engage in the behavior the NFL is promoting through the Play 60
campaign. The target goal of encouraging an active and healthy lifestyle
links well with the NFL's image as the premier professional sport
in the US. One can easily see how authors such as Irwin et al. (2009)
would refer to the NFL's social marketing campaign to get kids
physically active, as a "cause" related marketing effort.
However, sport marketers need to understand and distinguish between the
two strategic approaches, to ensure effectiveness when utilized.
The two campaigns could easily be labeled incorrectly, if not
categorized to demonstrate the unique benefits, objectives, voluntary
exchange, and marketing strategies. Yet, the significance of this
analysis is not limited to mere categorization or labeling.
Clarification and understanding of these two strategic marketing
approaches can assist in our understanding of the corporate social
responsibility efforts major professional sport organizations have
employed.
CRM, Social Marketing, and Corporate Social Responsibility
For decades, the community outreach arms of professional sport
organizations were viewed as strictly philanthropic oriented aspects.
Yet, as the marketing of sport has grown increasingly more
sophisticated, the need to strategically integrate community outreach
with marketing objectives has become more aligned. As Walker and Kent
(2009) illustrated in their conceptual model, philanthropy serves as one
arm, along with community involvement, youth education, and youth
health. All four arms converge to achieve corporate social
responsibility. Through the analysis and categorization exemplified in
this study, social marketing would be attributed to both youth education
and youth health. CRM would be placed in line with philanthropy, while
community outreach would link directly with the community involvement
icon. The connection of CRM, social marketing, and community outreach
with CSR is illustrated in our conceptual model presented in Figure 1.
Andreasen's (1995) definition of social marketing connects it
most directly with corporate social responsibility as social marketing
campaigns are specifically designed to improve the welfare of society
and its citizens by influencing voluntary behavior. As Bradish and
Cronin (2009) suggested, "sport will continue to play an important
role in social change" (p. 696). The critical direction of the role
sport plays in social change can be strategically directed through both
social marketing and CRM campaigns. Although the use of social marketing
and CRM as vehicles to achieve CSR have been well recognized in business
marketing literature (Kotler & Lee, 2005), prior to this study the
connection had not been clearly delineated in sport marketing
literature. In Kotler and Lee's work, six aspects of citizenship
behavior were identified as means by which businesses could demonstrate
CSR. Of these six aspects, social marketing and CRM stand out as the two
marketing specific strategies. In the current study, social marketing
was identified in more than half (51.2%) of the campaigns evaluated
while CRM was identified in 18.6% of the campaigns. The similarity
between Kotler and Lee's model and these findings suggest a good
fit of CRM and social marketing with CSR as depicted in Figure 1.
Marketing Implications
With documented benefits of CRM programs including enhanced company
image (Rigney & Steenhuyson, 1991), positive publicity (Nichols,
1990), and favorable attitudes by consumers about sponsoring companies
(Ross et al., 1991), cause-related marketing is designed to create a
positive influence on consumer's perceptions of the sport
organization. In times of scandal and negative publicity, the sport
organization's reputation can be improved through CRM. With major
professional sport organizations represented by players, coaches, and
officials who may unfortunately engage in unethical behavior, there
remains a clear need for targeted communication to offset negative image
connotations. These targeted efforts have also served to enhance
corporate image, often times portraying the organization as a
"global citizen." The NBA's Nothing but Nets (Table 3)
CRM campaign demonstrates the organization's commitment to the
health and social welfare of people in Africa. Such strategic approaches
in sport illustrate the type of citizenship behavior needed to achieve
CSR according to Kotler and Lee (2005).
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
Consumers have increasingly high expectations for organizations to
demonstrate corporate social responsibility and to address public
issues. Social marketing can be utilized to increase CSR goals by
increasing consumers' trust in companies that work to address
public issues. For example, Chang et al. (2009) found that
consumer's perceptions of service quality increased while their
perceptions of risk decreased, thereby establishing greater trust in
companies engaged in social marketing. Additionally, social marketing
resulted in favorable attitudes toward the firm and its products (Chang
et al., 2009). Thus social marketing is a way to communicate
organizational CSR initiatives that could be perceived positively by
consumers. In business marketing literature, social marketing
initiatives have been associated with marketing differentiation
strategies (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001), building brand equity
(Hoeffler & Keller, 2002), and enhanced consumer loyalty
(Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003).
The true benefit of both marketing approaches stems from the link
between the company or brand to a relevant social cause or issue.
Pringle and Thompson (1999) conceptualized such strategic positioning
and marketing tools as the means to achieve a mutual benefit. In this
case, the mutual benefit extends toward a demonstration of social
responsibility by the sport organization. Fortunately, social marketing
and CRM are more likely to utilize marketing budgets, not be held to the
more limited philanthropic budgets. Thus the growing need to demonstrate
social responsibility appears to have resulted in access to more
resources, through corporate partnerships/sponsorships and initiatives
to create social change. Simultaneously, sport organizations have
increasingly engaged in activities to build their image as "good
citizens." All four of the sport organizations studied invested in
both cause-related and social marketing initiatives aimed toward
demonstration of corporate social responsibility.
Conclusion
As demonstrated through this study, the major leagues have embraced
the use of social marketing strategies. Ironically, the attention paid
to cause-related marketing may have overshadowed the growing use of
social marketing in sport. More research is needed to determine best
practices relative to CSR among sport organizations and in particular,
the use of social marketing and cause-related marketing to effectively
achieve corporate social responsibility. Additionally, more research is
needed to understand the impact of social marketing, cause-related
marketing, and corporate social responsibility on sport consumer
behavior. Lastly, because each of the strategies studied provide unique
opportunities to reach various markets, it is important for sport
marketers to understand the difference between the two marketing
strategies, as well as how each can be utilized to achieve corporate
social responsibility objectives.
References
Adkins, S. (1999) Cause related marketing: Who cares who wins?
Oxford, UK: Butterworth Heineman.
Andreasen, A. (1995), Marketing social change: Changing behavior to
promote health, social development and the environment. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass Publishing
Babiak, K., & Wolfe, R. (2006). More than just a game?
Corporate social responsibility and Super Bowl XL. Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 15, 214-222.
Babiak, K., & Wolfe, R. (2009). Determinants of corporate
social responsibility in sport: Internal and external factors. Journal
of Sports Management, 23, 717-742.
Bell, B., & Blakey, P. (2010). Do boys and girls go out to
play? Women's football and social marketing at EURO 2005.
International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 7(3/4),
156-172.
Bhattacharya, C., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company
identification: A framework for understanding consumers'
relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67, 76-88.
Bradish, C., & Cronin, J. (2009). Corporate social
responsibility in sport. Journal of Sports Management, 23, 691-697.
Breitbarth, T., & Harris, P. (2008). The role of corporate
social responsibility in football business: Towards the development of a
conceptual model. European Sport Management Quarterly, 8(2), 179-206.
Chang, H., Chang, T., & Tseng, C. (2009). How
public-issue-promotion and revenue-related types of social marketing
influence customer-perceived value in Taiwan's banking industry.
Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 21 , 35-49.
Cone/Roper (1999). Cause related trends report: The evaluation of
cause branding. Boston, MA: Cone Inc.
Dawkins, J. (2004). The public's views of corporate
responsibility 2003. White Paper Series, MORI. Retrieved from
http://mori.com
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2003). Qualitative content
analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to
achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24, 105-112.
Green, J., & Thorogood, N. (2009). Qualitative methods for
health research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Grier, S., & Bryant, C. (2005). Social marketing in public
health. Annual Review Public Health, 26, 319-339.
Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. (2002). Building brand equity
through corporate social marketing. Journal of Public Policy and
Marketing, 21(1), 78-89
Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. (2005) Three approaches to qualitative
content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Irwin, R., Clark, J., & Lachowetz, T. (2010). Cause related
sports marketing: Can this marketing strategy affect company decision
making. Journal of Management and Organization, 16(4), 566-572
Irwin, C., Irwin, R., Miller, M., Somer, G., & Richey, P.
(2010). Get fit with the Grizzlies: A community-school-home initiative
to fight childhood obesity. Journal of School Health, 80(7), 333-339.
Irwin, R., Lachowetz, T., Cornwell, T., & Clark, J. (2003).
Cause-related sport sponsorship: An assessment of spectator beliefs,
attitudes and behavioral intentions. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12(3),
131-139.
Kim, K., Kim Y., & Kwak, D. (2010). Impact of cause-related
marketing (CRM) in spectator sport. Journal of Management and
Organization, 16(4), 530-542.
Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility:
Doing the most good for your company and your case. Hoboken, NY: Wiley.
Kotler, P., & Zaltman, G. (1971). Social marketing: An approach
to planned social change. Journal of Marketing, 35, 3-12.
Lachowetz, T., & Gladden, J. (2003). A framework for
understanding cause-related sport marketing programs. International
Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 4(4), 313-333.
Lachowetz, T., & Irwin, R.. (2002). FedEx and the St. Jude
classic: An application of a cause-related marketing program (CRMP).
Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11(2), 114-116
Liveunited.org. (2011). NFL & United Way. Retrieved from
http://liveunited.org/partners/national-football-league/
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Bracken, C.C. (2002). Content
analysis in mass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder
reliability. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587-604.
Lough, N., & Pharr, J. (2010). Use of a multi-tied framework to
analyze commercial, cause and social marketing. Journal of Applied
Marketing Theory, 1(2), 8-22.
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum:
Qualitative Social Research. Retrieved from
http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqstexte/2-00/02-00mayring-e.htm
McGlone, C., & Martin, N. (2006), Nike's corporate
interest lives strong: A case of cause related marketing and leveraging.
Sports Marketing Quarterly, 15, 184-189
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social
responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. The Academy of
Management Review, 26( 1), 117-127.
NBA.com. (2010). Read to Achieve. Retrieved from
http://www.nba.com/features/rtaindex.html
NFLrush.com. (2010). Play 60. Retrieved from
http://www.nflrush.com/play60/?icampaign=rush_nav_play60
Nichols, D. (1990). Promoting the cause. Incentive, 164(8), 28-31
Pringle, H., & Thompson, M. (1999). Brand spirit: How cause
related marketing builds brands. Chichester, UK: Wiley
Quenqua, D. (2002, January28). Cause and effect: Choosing the right
charity: Charitable support has the power to boost a corporate brand to
new heights. But tying the company to the right nonprofit is essential.
PR Week, p. 16.
Riffe, D., Lacy, S., Fico, F. G. (2005). Analyzing media messages:
Using quantitative content analysis in research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Rigney, M., & Steenhuyson, J. (1991). Conscience raising.
Advertising Age, 62(35), 19.
Ross, J., Stutts, M., & Patterson, L. (1991). Tactical
consideration for the effective use of cause-related marketing. Journal
of Applied Business Research, 7(2), 58-65.
Roy, D., & Graef, T. (2003). Consumer attitudes towards
cause-related marketing activities in professional sports. Sports
Marketing Quarterly, 12(3), 163-172
Schultz, M., & Morsing, M. (2003). The catch 22 of integrating
CSR and marketing: Findings from a reputation study of Danish companies.
Conference Proceedings, MSI, Boston University, September 17-19, 2003.
Shell, S. (1989). Cause related marketing: Big risks, big
potential. Public Relation Journal, 45(7), 8-13.
Sheth, H., & Babiak, K. (2010). Beyond the game: Perceptions
and practices of corporate social responsibility in professional sport
industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 91(3), 433-450.
Smith, A., & Westerbeek, H. (2007). Sport as a vehicle for
deploying social responsibility. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 25,
43-54.
Storey, D., Saffitz, G., & Rimon, J. (2008). Social marketing.
Health behavior and health education: Theory, research and practice. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishing.
Ullman, A. (1985). Data in search of theory: A critical examination
of the relationship among social performance, social disclosure, and
economic performance. Academy of Management Review, 10, 540-577.
Walker, M., & Kent, A. (2009). Do fans care? Assessing the
influence of corporate social responsibility on consumer attitudes in
the sport Industry. Journal of Sports Management, 23, 743-769.
Walker, M., & Kent, A. (2010). CSR on tour: Attitudes towards
corporate social responsibility among golf fans. International Journal
of Sports Management, 11(2), 179-207.
Welsh, J. (1999). Good cause, good business. Harvard Business
Review, 77, 21-24.
Wimmer, R. D., Dominick, J. R. (2006). Mass media research: An
introduction. Belmount, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Jennifer R. Pharr and Nancy L. Lough
Jennifer R. Pharr, PhD, is a doctoral fellow in the School of
Community Health Sciences at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Her
research interests include social marketing, healthcare marketing, and
health disparities.
Nancy L. Lough, EdD, is a professor in the Higher Education
Leadership program in the College of Education at the University of
Nevada, Las Vegas. Her research interests include marketing women's
sport, corporate sponsorship, social marketing, and leadership in
intercollegiate athletics.
Table 1.
Comparison of Social and Cause Marketing
Social Marketing Social Marketing
Example: Euro 2005
Locus of Benefit Individuals in target Girls and women liv-
market ing in the communi-
ties where the
Society at large tournament was
hosted
Objective/ Behaviors that An increased aware-
Outcomes increase personal ness of women's
and/or social welfare football
Norms, values, An increase in the
knowledge and atti- number of girls and
tudes addressed to women participating
the extent that they in football or sport
inform behavior in general
decision
A raised awareness of
health issues associ-
ated with physical
inactivity
Target Market Tends to be less afflu- Girls and women liv-
ent, more diverse, ing in the communi-
more in need of ties where the
social services, harder tournament was
to reach hosted
Voluntary Exchange Includes weighing of Cost = time
economic and non- Benefit = improved
economic social costs health
and benefits
Cost: time to partici-
Tends to be intangi- pate in festivals,
ble workshops, attend a
game or play football
Benefit included an
increased under-
standing of women's
football and the asso-
ciated health benefits
Market Perspective Products and services Marketing included
tend to be less tangible the use of posters,
festivals, campaigns
Competition tends to at schools, road
be less tangible and shows, participation
more varied opportunities, and
ticket give-aways
Economic factors like
purchase power tend Competition exist
to be less important with other events in
the community that
compete for the par-
ticipants time
Cause-Related CRM
Marketing Example: Livestrong
Locus of Benefit Cause group or asso- Lance Armstrong
ciation Foundation (charity /
cause)
Supporting corporate
partner Nike (the supporting
business partner)
Objective/ Purchase or donation Donations to the LAF
Outcomes behavior
Purchase of Nike
Attitudes towards the branded Livestrong
image of the brand, apparel, shoes, and
corporation, or prod- equipment with
uct 100% of proceeds
going to LAF
Consumer loyalty /
Brand switching A positive image,
enhanced brand, and
possible brand
switching to Nike
Target Market Tends to be more Active, sports fans
affluent and con- who are connected to
cerned with cause- cancer as a cause
related issues
Voluntary Exchange Includes weighing of Money (tangible) is
economic and non- donated to LAF to
economic costs and support the cause
benefits (intangible) or
money (tangible) is
Tends to be a mix of used to purchase
tangible and intangi- Livestrong apparel
ble cost/benefit (tangible)
Market Perspective Products tend to be a Livestrong must con-
mix of tangible and sider the mixture of
intangible tangibility and intan-
gibility of the volun-
Competition tends to tary exchange
be more tangible and
categorical The competition that
exists from other
Economic factors like causes (i.e., Susan G.
purchase power tend Komen)
to be more important
Adapted from Storey et al. (2008) and Lough & Pharr (2011).
Table 2.
Abbreviated Matrix for Categorizing Professional Sport
Organization Programs
Professional Locus of Objectives/Outcomes Target Market
Organization/ Benefit
CSR Initiative
NFL Communities To make a difference NFL fan
United Way through community
Families volunteer work, out- 120 million
reach, and involve- viewer each
Children ment week of the NFL
season
United Way Communicate the
importance of volun-
teerism and commu-
nity service
Inspire others to
serve their communi-
ties
A Crucial Catch Women Support the fight NFL Fans
against breast cancer
American Women
Cancer Creating awareness
Society about the importance
of annual screening
Auctions with pro-
ceeds to benefit the
America Cancer
Society
NFL Play 60 Youth Inspire kids to get Youth
the recommended 60
Adults minutes of physical Parents
activity per day
Schools
Encourage an active
and health lifestyle
Professional Voluntary Marketing Classification
Organization/ Exchange Perspectives/
CSR Initiative Strategies
NFL The intangible NFL Live United Social
United Way cost of time to initiative:
participate in * National
community advertising
services and campaign
volunteer work * Features one
player from each
club
* Billboards,
signs on buses,
phone depots,
online and in
print ads,
national
television PSA
* Hometown Huddle
--NFL player,
coaches, wives,
and staff
participate in a
variety of
community
services
activities
A Crucial Catch Money to NFL Sponsored Cause
purchase NFL Crucial Catch
auction items campaign:
with proceeds * Pink water
going to the bottles
American Cancer * Pink game
Society apparel
* Special K-balls
* Pink coins
NFL Play 60 Intangible cost NFL sponsored: Social
of time and * TV, print and
discomfort to internet ads
be physically * NFL Play 60
active Challenge--
exciting and
engaging cur-
riculum for
schools and
classrooms to
use to inspire
exercise
Table 3.
Categorical Classification of Professional League Programs
Professional Classification Professional Classification
Organization/ Organization/
CSR Initiative CSR Initiative
NBA/WNBA MLB
NBA/WNBA FIT Social Baseball Tomorrow Outreach
Fund
Basketball Social BAT Baseball Cause
without Borders Assistance Team
NBA Green Week Cause Boys and Girls Outreach
Club
Read to Achieve Social Breaking Barriers Social
in Sports and
Life
HP Digital Outreach Pitch, Hit and Social
Assistance Run
Coaches for Kids Social RBI--Reviving Social
Baseball in Inner
Cities
Nothing but Nets Cause Roberto Clemente Outreach
Award
Vaccines for Social Rookie League Social
Teens
Ninemillion.org Cause Help Take a Stand Cause
Against Cancer
Get Tested Social Team Greening Outreach
Get Caught Social Urban Youth Social
Reading Academy
Breast Health Cause Drug Free Social
Awareness Campaign
Inspiring Women Outreach
Professional Classification Professional Classification
Organization/ Organization/
CSR Initiative CSR Initiative
NFL NHL
United Way Social Hockey is for Social
Everyone
Teacher of the Year Outreach Hockey Fights Cause
Cancer
NFL Youth Outreach NHL Green Social
Education Towns
Play It Smart Social
A Crucial Catch Cause
Pro Bowl Outreach Outreach
Super Bowl Outreach
Outreach
Know Your Stats Social
about Prostate
Cancer
Play Safe! Health Social
and Safety Series
NFL Play 60 Social
Recharge! Social
One World Social
Student All Star Outreach
Program
Walter Payton Outreach
NFL Man of the
Year Award
Community Outreach
Quarterback Award
Table 4.
Proportions of Social Marketing, Cause Marketing, and Community
Outreach
Total Social Cause Community
Programs Marketing Marketing Outreach
N, % N, %, N, %, N, %,
(95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI)
All Leagues 43, 100% 22, 51.2%, 8, 18.6% 13, 30.2%
(36.2-66.1) (7.0-30.2) (16.5-44)
NBA 13, 30.2% 7, 53.8% 4, 30.8% 2, 15.4%
NHL 3, 7.0% 2, 66.7% 1, 33.3% 0
MLB 12, 27.9% 6, 50% 2, 16.7% 4, 33.3%
NFL 15, 34.9 7, 46.7% 1, 6.6% 7, 46.7%
