Integrated Marketing Communication

Submitted To: Madam Aneesa Zafar

Assignment: Writing a Term Paper

Registration No: SP07-BBA-008

Submitted By: Arsalan Zaheer Khan

Class: BBA-8
 Corporate social responsibility and cause related marketing

Introduction

The world of marketing is very dynamic. It swings with the mood of its perspective audience. It
sometimes rationally and sometimes irrationally persuades its prospects. This the reason, for the
concepts of social well being and various social causes, mode of marketing is being utilized.

With the emergence of new products and services, the consumers now have a l9t of options to satisfy
their needs. They have options within a product line and sometimes of substitute products. For the
purpose of creating a difference and to increase brand loyalty marketers concluded that they should
attach some intangible features with their offerings, that have a direct impact on the attitudes and
behaviors of their target audience and for this purpose they have now started the cause related
marketing and social responsibility marketing. Both of them are different but have same roots. They
have a soft6 side and consumers while making their purchase decisions consider them. As in the case of
two completely same competing products of same price and quality. The consumer will select the
product that is related to a cause or if the firm is socially responsible. This affiliation can be completive
advantage for the firm. Companies like NIKE, MOTOROLLA and VISA have used these strategies to
pursue their targets. Consumers now don’t see firms as satisfying their needs, but also what the firms
are doing for the rest of the society. That’s why every organization is being attached to a cause and its
fulfillment of its social responsibility is being highlighted.
 Literature Review

(Enderle and Travis, 1998) define corporate social responsibility as “the practices exercised by and
corporation that go beyond their legal obligations (jurisdictions) and are taken as their goodwill
towards the surroundings (stakeholders, society) and the environment in which it operates”.

(Angelidis and Ibrahim ,1993) give their definition of corporate social responsibility as “the social actions
undertaken by a corporation whose purpose along with conducting profitable business and continuing
growth is to satisfy social needs”.

The most obvious link of corporate social responsibility to overall corporate performance is through the
reputation aspect. Corporate social responsibility leads to a good repute, and this reputation has a direct
impact on the image of the firm. Reputations reflect firm’s relative success in fulfilling the expectations
of multiple stakeholders. (Freeman, 1984; Fomburn, 1996).

In their research on reputation building and corporate strategy, (Fomburn and Shanely , 1990) argue
that if a firm has been able to establish a reputation of a socially responsible firm then this reputation
can help it to wave off maximum profits by charging premium prices. This can also help the firm to
enhance their market share in terms of their stakeholders attract investors and attract top human
resource. Empirical evidence in their study suggest that the greater a firm’s contribution to social
welfare, the better its reputation. This can further be elaborated in a way that firms like MOTOROLLA
are working internally (by producing environment friendly products and adapting greener solutions) as
well as externally (pairing up with other socially responsible firms and even governments to enhance
their brand image) as a socially responsible firm.

Reputation is closely related to factors such as brand awareness, brand image etc this factor aids in
brand differentiation and ultimately helps a company gain (through a good reputation) or lose (through
a damaged reputation) competitive advantage. (Kay, 1993).

As customers have been introduced to the concept of social marketing so it’s steadily changing the
attitudes of customers and its persuading marketers to find new ways to make marketing relevant to
society, dialogue seeking, responsive and involving. Because consumers have access to more knowledge
about firms due to technological advancements and they want firms to act as socially responsible.
(Ptacek and Salazar, 1997).

Consumers are demanding more value for their money, .i.e., aside from the price they pay for the
offerings they purchase, they now attach some intangible value of their money and they want that value
to be repaid by the firms. Furthermore, from a corporation’s point of view association with a non-profit
organization can generate positive media coverage, build a reputation of comparison and caring for
company, build consumer loyalty, attract masses, enhance its integrity, and enhance employees’
motivation and productivity and consumer’s preferences. (Duncan and Moriarty, 1997).
Socially responsible organizational image building is a dramatic way to build brand equity. . . .As it
creates the most added values and directly enhances the financial performance of the organization.
Because it attracts a large amount of target market into direct consumers and this image helps the
organization to generate a large amount of profit. (Mullen, 1997).

(Collins, 1993) state that the societal marketing aspect of the corporation can generate the long term
value that the organization states in its mission, it also helps it to survive and can also be possibly linked
to competitive advantage.

Cause Related Marketing has a great potential in helping the marketers to stay align and in tune with the
mood of the audience, as it is more sensitive, trustworthy and relevant to society. (Duncan and
Moriorty, 1997).

The following statement underlines the paradox a firm encounters when considering cause related
marketing.

If they don’t say enough about their charity links consumers belief that the companies are
hiding something and if they say too mush they belief that charities are being exploited by the big
corporations. It makes the promotions of such schemes one of the most delicate jobs performed by the
marketers. Go too far one way and consumers believe you are using the charity and go the other way
and they will not even notice your involvement. (T.O’ Sullivan, 1997).

(Barone et al. 2000), Conclude that a firm’s support of social causes can influence consumer choice, but
simple support is not enough. Marketers must consider how consumers perceive the whole process. It
means that along side the support of a cause or social responsibility matter, this subject must be
communicated to the target audience so that awareness can be created to attract prospects.

(Webb and Mohr ,1998), suggests that companies clearly communicate the terms of the offer and
results as a cause related marketing campaign progresses. For customers it is important that they
believe the campaign is trustworthy, honest, long term commitment to a cause and involvement of non
profit organizations are factors that help to overcome customer’s skepticism towards cause related
marketing. However to properly manage stakeholder’s relationships and its reputation, the company not
only needs to adopt or social responsibility as an integral part of a company’s mission but must also
communicate this to stakeholders.

According to surveys conducted in USA, most consumers favor socially responsible firms and their
responding products (Cone/Roper, 1993; RSW, 1996). One-third of participants of the surveys said that
after the factors such as price and quality, a company’s responsible business practices are the most
important factor in deciding whether or not to buy a brand, and if price and quality are equal, they are
more likely to switch to a brand which has a cause related marketing benefit.
In today’s world corporations who have included or not included social responsibility in their
organizational charter and mission are looking towards this aspect of market as a serious note towards
their future and even their existence. They see this not as an act of goodwill but as an additional
investment that benefits not only the firm but its recipients (Schwartz, 1996).

(Lerner and Fryxell ,1988) suggest that corporate social responsibility describes the extent to which the
outcomes of an organization are consistent with the expectations and social values.
 Conclusion

Social image can be an important tool for building the reputation of a firm. It differentiates and can give
competitive advantage. In this era the firms who want to stay in the business for long term know the
importance of social responsibility. This image of care and compassion is appreciated by consumers in
the form of loyalty and is rewarded in terms of profit. But strategies are needed to cultivate such image.
A socially responsible firm knows that this is a give and take situation. You give an image of being caring
and you will get loyalty. Stakeholder’s relationships with the firms are now also being seen in terms of
this scenario. From the point of view of customers, the customers want the association to be
trustworthy, honest and a long term commitment for the cause by the firm.
 References

Angelidis, J.P. & Ibrahim, N.A. (1993) ‘Social demand and corporate strategy: a corporate social
responsibility model’, Review of Business, 15(1), (summer/fall), 7–10.

Barone, M.J., Miyazaki, A.D. & Taylor, K.A. (2000) ‘The influence of cause-related marketing on
consumer choice: does one good turn deserve another?’ , Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 28, 248–262.

Collins, M. (1993) ‘Global corporate philanthropy – marketing beyond the call of the duty?’ , European
Journal of Marketing, 27(2), 46–58.

Core/Roper (1994) Core Communications press release, 2 January.

Duncan, T. & Moriarty, S. (1997) Driving Brand Value: Using Integrated Marketing to Manage
Profitable Stakeholder Relationships. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Enderle, G. & Tavis, A.L. (1998) ‘A balanced concept of the firm and the measurement of its long-term
planning and performance’, Journal of Business Ethics, 17(11), 1129–1143.

Fombrun, C.J. (1996) Reputation, Realizing Value from the Corporate Image. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.

Fombrun, C.J. & Shanley, M. (1990) ‘What is in a name? Reputation building andcorporate strategy’,
Academy of Management Journal, 33(2), 233–259.

Freeman, E. (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. New York: Basic Books.
Kay, J. (1993) Foundations of Corporate Success. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lerner, D.L. & Fryxell, E.G. (1988) ‘An empirical study of the predictors of corporate social performance:
a multi-dimensional analysis’, Journal of Business Ethics, 7, 951–959.

Mullen, J. (1997) ‘Performance-based corporate philanthropy: how ‘giving smart’ can further corporate
goals’, Public Relations Quarterly, 42(2), 42–48.

O’Sullivan, T. (1997) ‘Why charity schemes need a delicate touch’, Marketing Week,20, 22–24.

Ptacek, J.J. & Salazar, G. (1997) ‘Enlightened self-interest: selling business on the benefits of cause
related marketing’, NonProfit World, 15(4), (July–August),9–15.

Schwartz, J. (1996) Corporate philanthropy today: from A.P. Smith to Adam Smith. NCPR,
www.ncpr.org/report/shwartz.html.

Webb, J.D. & Mohr, L.A. (1998) ‘A typology of customers’ responses to cause related marketing: from
skeptics to socially concerned,’ Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 17(2), 226–239.