Charity Brand Personality: The Relationship With Giving Behavior

Charity Brand Personality: The Relationship
With Giving Behavior
Adrian Sargeant
Indiana University
John B. Ford
Old Dominion University
Jane Hudson
University of the West of England
Charity brands have been found to assist income generation by enhancing donor
understanding of an organization and what it stands for. Despite an increasing interest
in this topic, few studies have addressed the dimensions of such brands and sought to
explore the link (if any) with donor behavior. The authors report the results of a large-
scale postal survey of donors to nine national nonprofits and conclude that traits asso-
ciated with benevolence, progression, and conservatism are incapable of distinguishing
between the study’s participating brands. Traits associated with emotional engagement,
service, voice, and tradition are capable of serving as the basis for differentiation and are
also linked to facets of individual giving behavior.
Keywords: nonprofit marketing; fundraising; branding; brand personality
INTRODUCTION
Charitable contributions reached an estimated $295 billion in the United

States in 2006. Giving was 4% higher than in 2005 (1% adjusted for inflation).
The increasing generosity is driven largely by individual donors who pro-
vided 75.6% of the total amount with gifts representing an average of around
2% of personal pretax income (Giving USA Foundation, 2007). In the United
Note: The researchers gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Economic and Social
Research Council, which made this work possible.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 3, September 2008 468-491
DOI: 10.1177/0899764007310732
© 2008 Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action
468
Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at UCSF LIBRARY & CKM on December 15, 2014
Charity Brand Personality 469
Kingdom, the figures are similarly impressive with the total amount donated
in the financial year 2004-2005 being $14.1 billion, or $300 per adult head of
the population (Pharoah, Wilding, Walker, & Wainwright, 2005).
For Wispe (1978), the issue of why individuals elect to offer this support
is a matter that has puzzled philosophers and economists since the dawn of
antiquity. This is perhaps an overstatement, since the past three centuries
have seen several schools of thought emerge from the economic, clinical psy-
chology, social psychology, anthropology, and sociology literatures. More
recently, marketing’s contribution to the subject has also been recognized
and noted for its attempts to develop a broader perspective on giving by
synthesizing these diverse strands of literature (Bendapudi, Singh, &
Bendapudi, 1996; Burnett & Wood, 1988; Guy & Patton, 1989; Sargeant, 1999).
Extant empirical work has tended to focus on distinguishing givers from
nongivers (Radley & Kennedy 1992; Schlegelmilch & Tynan, 1989), differen-
tiating low value givers from higher value givers (Jones & Posnett, 1991;
Prince & File, 1994; Schervish & Herman, 1988), and delineating a range of
individual motives for offering support (Davis, Hull, Young, & Warren, 1987;
Griffin, Babin, Attaway, & Darden, 1993; Kottasz, 2004). Rather less attention
has historically been given to the role that the charity itself might play in the
fundraising process, and it is only recently that a new strand of research has
emerged focusing on the use of specific fundraising techniques (e.g.,
Aldrich, 2004; Bennett & Barkensjo, 2005; Webber, 2004).
Of the organizational factors that remain to be explored, a notable gap
concerns the role that the characteristics of a recipient organization might
play in stimulating donations and stimulating them at specific levels
(Sargeant, West, & Ford, 2001; Venables, Rose, Bush, & Gilbert, 2005). The
role of branding in particular has received little empirical attention and this
despite a diverse (albeit often normative) literature arguing that nonprofit
brands can act to encourage support by developing trust (Ritchie, Swami, &
Weinberg, 1998; Stride, 2006; Tapp, 1996), effectively conveying the beliefs
and values of an organization (Bendapudi et al., 1996; Grounds & Harkness,
1996; Stride & Lee, 2007), stimulating interest and excitement (Hankinson &
Rochester, 2005), and acting to reduce the perceived risk to a donor of offering
a donation (Chiagouris, 2006).
At the heart of all these potential contributions lies the critical concept of
differentiation. Brands can deliver these benefits if they can differentiate one
“supplier” from another. In 1960, the American Marketing Association
defined a brand as “a name, sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of
them, intended to identify the goods or services of one seller or group of sell-
ers to differentiate them from those of competitors.” More recent thinking on
branding has recognized that brands can be much more than simple design
devices. De Chernatony and Dall’olmo (1998) made it clear that an emotional
dimension is critical to successful branding, allowing buyers to reflect their
moods, personalities, and the messages they wish to convey to others (Stride
470 Sargeant et al.
& Lee, 2007). For Grounds (2005), this additional dimension arises because “a
brand is quite simply—who you are, what you say and what you do” (p. 65).
Organizations are therefore seen as both developing and communicating
distinctive personalities through their brand.
To date, only Venables et al. (2005) have conducted empirical work
focused on the role and structure of nonprofit brand personality. Validating
Aaker’s (1997) for-profit structure of brands, the authors concluded that
there remains a need to explore empirically “the impact of brand personality
on contributions to nonprofit organizations” (p. 309). To adequately achieve
this, attitude theory suggests there is a need to disentangle those facets of
brand personality that may legitimately form the basis for differentiation
from those that are ostensibly “charitable” in nature and thus shared across
the sector (or cause) as a whole (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). The issue of brand
structure thus warrants further investigation.
It is the goal of this article to delineate a set of personality traits associated
with nonprofit brands, explore the extent to which these are genuinely dis-
tinctive or shared with others in the sector, and explore the relationship, if
any, with facets of giving behavior. Following a set of exploratory focus
groups, a series of hypotheses are developed that are then tested quantita-
tively in a survey of known donors to nine nonprofits, three drawn from
each of three distinct categories of cause. To begin the article, a brief review
of the extant brand personality literature will now be presented.
BRAND PERSONALITY
Aaker (1997), in her groundbreaking study of consumer brands, defined

brand personality as “the set of human characteristics associated with a brand”
(p. 347). In common with other authors (e.g., Kleine, Kleine, & Kernan, 1993),
she conceptualized personality as a series of traits or values (i.e., the stable
tendencies of individuals). Aaker stressed the significance of this conceptu-
alization because although “product related attributes” serve a predominantly
utilitarian function for consumers, brand personality serves a predominantly
symbolic or self-expressive function (Keller, 1993).
This latter point is highly significant because as Levy noted as long ago as
1959, people buy things not only for what they do but also for what they
mean. In electing to purchase brands with particular personalities, con-
sumers can thus seek to convey representations of themselves (Fournier,
1991; Ligas, 2000) and/or reinforce their self-image. As Wee, Ming, and
Matthew (2003) noted, “Symbolic values and meanings are desirable and
useful to consumers for the construction of their self, whether that is self-
enhancement or self-reinforcement” (p. 216). This may be particularly
important in the context of giving as writers such as Berger and Gainer
(2002) have identified that giving carries important psychosocial meaning
and that “fundraisers should recognize that the philanthropy opportunities

they provide represent identity props or tools for their donors” (p. 412).
Donors are drawn to brands that are perceived as having a personality
encompassing values congruent to their own, be they actual or aspired (De
Chernatony, Drury, & Segal-Horn, 2004). Similarly, Schervish (2000) argued that
philanthropy provides donors the opportunity “to excavate their biographical
history, or moral biography . . . and their anxieties and aspirations for the
future” (p. 25) and thus to express facets of self through identification with
a nonprofit.
Writers such as Grubb and Hupp (1968) or Sirgy (1982) emphasized the
significance of identification, since the degree of congruence between an indi-
vidual’s self-image and the personality of a particular product has been shown
to influence consumer behavior. Indeed, the concept of identification has recently
received considerable attention from organizational researchers (Bhattacharya,
Hayagreeva, & Glynn, 1995; Dutton & Harquail, 1994; Mael & Ashforth, 1992)
with links being demonstrated to increased loyalty to the organization (Adler
& Adler, 1987), brand loyalty/positive word of mouth (Peter & Olsen, 1993),
and subsequent behavior (Bhattacharya et al., 1995). We might therefore spec-
ulate that the derivation and communication of an appropriate brand person-
ality would offer considerable utility in the stimulation of donor support.
With respect to modeling this personality, Goldberg (1990), in a comprehen-
sive review of the literature, demonstrated how studies of human personality
employing trait theory could typically be reduced to the extraction of the
so-called Big Five factors of extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness,
emotional stability, and openness. Drawing on this earlier work, Aaker (1997)
attempted to clarify the underlying structure of brand personalities and
identified five similar dimensions, namely, sincerity, excitement, competence,
sophistication, and ruggedness. These dimensions have subsequently been
the focus of much empirical research, but it remains unclear the extent to
which Aaker’s framework could legitimately be generalized to all brand
contexts (Austin, Siguaw, & Mattila, 2003), and more recent work on the Big
Five has called into question the structure originally posited (Ashton, Goldberg,
& Kibeom, 2004; Ashton, Perugini, et al., 2004; Hofstee & Berge, 2004;
Venables et al., 2005). There is also the issue that organizational personality
may differ from the personality attributed to homo sapiens and that the Big
Five may be a flawed basis on which to build a model of organizational
brand personality. Recent work by Saxton (2002), for example, identified that
the public associated the traits accountable and traditional with the person-
ality of leading British charities. These and other traits sit outside the neat
product/personality dichotomy suggested by Aaker (1997) and make it
necessary to revisit her framework.
More fundamentally for the purposes of this research, Aaker’s (1997) orig-
inal focus lay in identifying those traits that would be likely to distinguish
among brands. It seems intuitively reasonable that this research determine
472 Sargeant et al.
not only those traits that are capable of differentiating among charities but
also whether any might typically be shared across the sector as a whole. This
point is of great practical significance because if certain traits accrue to an
organization’s brand by virtue of that organization being a charity or being
associated with a particular cause, the need to focus on that trait in individual
marketing practice is greatly reduced. The implications of such a determination
are therefore profound because such a model would effectively delineate the
span of control and opportunity of individual charity brand managers.
Similarly, from a fundraising perspective those facets of this distinctive
personality that were linked to individual giving behavior could form the
focus of particular attention. No previous studies have addressed these issues.
METHODOLOGY
To address these objectives, a two-stage methodology was implemented

with nine large national charities in the United Kingdom. Three charity part-
ners were selected from three distinct categories of cause: visual impairment
(V.I.), children, and animal welfare. These causes were deliberately selected
from the Charities Aid Foundation (2002) typology to optimize diversity in
the traits that would likely be exhibited. Each partner was a large national
charity, with a high level of brand awareness (Saxton, 2005) drawn from the
Top 200 as ranked by voluntary income.
In the first stage of the research, a series of nine exploratory focus groups
was conducted to delineate the values associated with the nine organizations
in the study and to formulate hypotheses with respect to how these might be
structured. In the second stage, a quantitative survey was administered to
test these hypotheses. Each will be discussed in turn.
QUALITATIVE PHASE
Focus group participation was solicited from donors to all nine organiza-
tions living in the geographical area in which the groups were to take place.
A total of 90 participants, stratified to reflect a mix of gender, age, and method
of giving, were offered a fee of £30 ($50) for attendance at each meeting,
which was scheduled to last for 90 minutes.
When the goal of research is to understand the meanings that individuals
give to their actions rather than to predict their behavior, qualitative
methods are often the most appropriate methodology (Braybrooke, 1965).
Field-based approaches, such as in-depth interviews or focus groups, are
particularly useful when the research objective is to understand tacit per-
ceptions and beliefs, especially when the researcher cannot be sure what
interpretation or code is guiding the actors (Fielding & Fielding, 1986;
Marshall & Rossman, 1989; McCracken, 1989; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Strauss,
1990). Cost and time were factors in the selection of focus groups for data
collection, but as Basch (1987) noted, focus groups “are well suited to collecting
in-depth qualitative data about individuals, definitions of problems, opinions,
feelings and meaning associated with various phenomena” (p. 434).
The group discussion was kept semistructured. Following an initial discus-
sion of the organizations participants elected to support, each group was
asked to consider the factors that had driven that choice and what, if anything,
was distinctive about each focal organization. They were then asked to specif-
ically consider the personality of the brand of their supported organization,
the moderators initiating discussion with the prompt “Suppose the brand
were a person, what kind of person would he/she be—with what personality?”
As Azoulay and Kapferer (2003) noted, “Consumers have no difficulty
answering metaphorical questions of this nature” (p. 145) and find it easier in
this way to articulate the dimensions of the brand. A similar exercise was
undertaken for the other two charities in the supported category of cause to
identify potential differences in perception. This was followed by a more gen-
eral discussion of other charities in other categories of cause.
In the summary that follows, the rationale for each hypothesis is demon-
strated by supplying quotations that are representative of the views of several
participants unless otherwise stated. The authors also draw, where appropriate,
on “concepts and theories from related fields to provide and enhance theoretical
sensitivity throughout the process [of analysis]” (Goulding, 1999, p. 868).
Pertinent theory and knowledge thus function as an additional informant.
PERSONALITY OF CHARITIES IN GENERAL
It was clear from the discussions with the participants that they were
employing the notion of charity to imbue an organization with a distinctive
set of characteristics. The data also suggested that the charities under inves-
tigation appeared not to have to earn or develop these generic traits.
Comments such as “Well it’s a charity so it must be caring, mustn’t it?” and
“Compassionate—goes without saying” were typical of the views expressed.
The analysis suggested that two categories of trait were considered as being
charitable in nature, namely, benevolence and progression.
Benevolence. Writers such as Werther and Berman (2001) claimed that what
distinguishes charitable organizations from those in the public or private
sector is the benevolent values-based way in which they manage and organize
themselves. This is a view supported by Malloy and Agarwal (2001) who
argued that the dominant climate in nonprofits is based on an individual car-
ing model and that this is key to the stimulation of ongoing public support.
It was apparent that the benevolent characteristics of being caring, compas-
sionate, supportive, fair, ethical, honest, trustworthy, and helpful were all
traits that were associated with the notion of charity.
474 Sargeant et al.
Progression. The second category concerns the issue of change or progres-

sion. Charitable purposes in the United Kingdom are defined as the relief of
financial hardship, the advancement of education/religion, and other purposes
for the benefit of the community (Charity Commission, 2005). As a consequence,
charities are under a legal obligation to effect societal change. Participants
felt that charities play a common role in this regard and were consequently
imbued with traits that reflected the nature of this progressive engagement
in society. Characteristics such as transforming, pioneering, responsive, and
engaging were typically mentioned by participants as being charitable traits
and shared across the nine focal organizations. As a result, the following
hypotheses are posited:
Hypothesis 1: Traits associated with benevolence will be shared by all charities

within the sector.
Hypothesis 2: Traits associated with progression will be shared by all charities
within the sector.
PERSONALITY FOR A SPECIFIC CAUSE
Many practitioners have argued that distinct brand values evolve by

virtue of participation in specific avenues of voluntary activity, such as animal
welfare, the prevention of child abuse, cancer research, and so on (Elischer,
2001; Growman, 2000; Pidgeon, 2002). There was evidence provided in support
of this contention in the present research.
My father died of cancer and I guess I don’t see much difference between
the hospices really. I mean they all have the same to offer. All see them-
selves as compassionate, inspirational and caring. They wouldn’t get
very far if they weren’t—would they. (Animal charity donor)
In the same way that donors appeared to have a strong sense of what values
or characteristics they would associate with a charity, many respondents
were able to articulate a similar profile for their chosen category of cause.
Across the three causes that comprised the present sample, it was apparent
that those organizations providing benefits for human beings were regarded
as distinctive. They were imbued with additional characteristics that defined
how participants felt a charity should deal with or should communicate with
a human beneficiary group. The emphasis here is deliberate because again,
it was expected that a certain style or tone would be adopted in the “service”
provided, unless evidence had been uncovered to the contrary.
I guess I would view them as open and approachable. They have to be

really to do what they do. I mean I’ve no experience, but you just have
that feeling. (V.I. donor)
No other shared categories of traits could be identified across the sampled

organizations. The following hypothesis is therefore offered:
Hypothesis 3: Traits associated with service will be shared by organizations

aimed at providing assistance to human beneficiaries.
PERSONALITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATION
Two categories of trait appeared to offer scope for distinguishing between

individual charitable organizations, namely, emotional engagement and
performance.
Emotional engagement. In respect to emotional engagement, the level of
excitement generated or perceptions of heroism were felt to be distinctive
about organizations such as the Air Ambulance or the Royal National
Lifeboat Institution. Emotional engagement could also be generated through
the use of humor or the use of a strong media voice in their advertising.
Traits such as strong, bold, exciting, fun, heroic, and inspiring were com-
monly linked to the level of arousal brands were able to generate and
appeared linked to giving behavior, as attitudinal theory would suggest
(Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). The level of emotional engagement appeared to
make the contact with the charity more memorable, thus prompting higher
levels of support. There are also clear parallels here with the work of Aaker
(1997), for whom excitement was a differentiating factor capable of encour-
aging the purchase of a particular commercial brand.
The materials they send me are genuinely fun, so they really stand out
from the crowd. If I’m honest it becomes a higher priority for me to
respond. You just really want to. (Animal charity donor)
Performance. With respect to performance, a cluster of values seemed

capable of distinguishing among a number of the focal charity brands. Traits
such as prudent, efficient, effective, wasteful, and bureaucratic appeared to
drive both the inclusion of an organization in an individual’s consideration
set (or not) and the subsequent amounts that would be donated. Higher per-
forming charities attracted a higher proportion of an individual’s “charitable
pot.” The following quote was typical of the views expressed.
I definitely give more to [X]. They spend nearly all of the money
donated on the cause, not on salaries and management. I know when I
give to them they’re not wasting my money. (Children’s charity donor)
As a result, the hollowing hypotheses are posited:
Hypothesis 4: Traits associated with emotional engagement will differentiate

among individual charity brands.
476 Sargeant et al.
Hypothesis 5: Traits associated with performance will differentiate among

individual charity brands.
Hypothesis 6: The perception of traits associated with emotional engagement
is linked to individual giving behavior.
Hypothesis 7: The perception of traits associated with performance is linked
to individual giving behavior.
QUANTITATIVE PHASE—THE SURVEY
To test the hypotheses pertaining to structure, a mail survey was conducted

of donors to nine nonprofit organizations, three each from three distinct cat-
egories of cause, namely, animal welfare, children, and visual impairment. A
sample of 500 individuals was drawn from the database of each participating
organization. The technique of postcard prenotification was employed and a
final usable response rate of 27.9% was achieved (1,255 respondents).
Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which the 61 traits identified
in the qualitative phase applied to the organization they supported, employing
a 7-point scale (for a complete list, see Table 1).
As a first step in the analysis, mean scores were calculated for each trait.
Tables 1 and 2 present the mean scores for each as well as for each cause,
respectively. To identify significant differences in these scores between char-
ities and causes, a series of one-way analyses of variance was conducted on
the data set, one for each personality trait addressed in the study. The details
of this analysis are reported in Table 3, where a number of significant mean
differences are highlighted. Indeed, only perceptions of the trait cautious
seem not to vary significantly across the nine nonprofits in our sample. In
addition, there appear to be significant differences between two or more sec-
tors with respect to all the personality traits listed.
However, before drawing any firm conclusions with regard to this analy-
sis, it is worth noting that the size of the sample is large and that as a conse-
quence, any statistical tests will be significantly affected (Snyder & Lawson,
1993; Thompson & Kieffer, 2000). It is therefore necessary to extend this
analysis to distinguish between statistical significance and practical signifi-
cance (Thompson, 2002). As Thompson (2002) noted, testing for statistical
significance does not clearly indicate whether the results are “important,”
and in the present case, relatively minor differences in mean scores may be
statistically significant yet represent little practical difference in terms of per-
ception between the organizations comprising the sample. Mean scores on
the trait conservative, for example, ranged from a low of 3.89 to a high of 4.40
on 7-point bipolar scales. This indicates a general level of ambivalence
regarding this trait in the context of all nine organizations, yet the ANOVA
result is highlighted as statistically significant.
Concern with effect sizes is not new. As long ago as 1925, Fisher advocated
the index known as eta squared for ANOVA, although there is now a range of
Table 1. Brand Adjective Means Across the Nine Charities
Charity
Adjective A B C D E F G H I
Accountability 4.72 5.15 4.94 5.30 5.53 5.46 5.54 5.34 5.51
Ambitious 4.48 4.74 4.63 5.52 4.63 5.14 5.51 5.30 5.62
Approachable 4.78 5.30 4.98 5.88 5.32 5.62 6.03 5.53 5.65
Authoritative 3.99 3.77 4.51 4.70 4.42 4.64 4.80 5.14 5.30
Bold 3.97 3.72 4.14 4.97 4.37 4.50 4.85 4.99 5.17
Caring 5.55 6.04 5.89 6.23 6.18 6.33 6.48 6.16 6.38
Cautious 4.00 3.90 4.11 4.16 4.03 4.26 4.27 4.45 4.42
Challenging 4.28 4.58 4.01 5.18 4.79 4.71 4.83 5.02 5.41
Collaborative 3.75 4.40 4.16 4.57 4.35 4.42 4.56 4.48 4.65
Compassionate 5.42 6.01 5.61 6.13 6.01 6.36 6.39 6.20 6.24
Conservative 4.15 4.11 4.40 3.94 3.89 4.22 4.04 4.37 4.01
Courageous 4.46 4.53 4.35 5.22 4.64 5.21 5.39 5.39 5.47
Dedicated 5.47 5.99 5.83 6.14 5.95 6.39 6.45 6.27 6.27
Determined 5.10 5.45 5.10 5.90 5.42 5.85 6.15 5.93 6.04
Dynamic 4.16 4.37 3.93 5.15 4.40 4.73 5.05 4.75 5.12
Effective 4.82 5.39 5.20 5.67 5.40 5.91 5.95 5.39 5.58
Empowering 4.19 4.27 4.00 5.03 4.62 4.48 4.52 4.57 4.95
Engaging 4.18 4.47 4.54 5.11 6.60 4.88 5.05 4.72 5.02
Evenhanded 4.40 4.79 4.49 4.95 4.97 4.90 5.16 4.88 4.87
Established 5.01 5.84 5.98 5.76 6.02 6.32 5.99 6.39 6.21
Ethical 5.15 5.62 5.38 5.72 5.85 6.03 6.01 5.74 5.86
Exciting 3.60 3.74 3.70 4.93 4.08 4.38 4.85 4.04 4.31
Fair 4.91 5.19 4.95 5.48 5.40 5.56 5.76 5.48 5.42
Flexible 4.42 4.49 4.19 5.11 4.80 4.90 5.02 4.69 4.79
Focused 5.16 5.59 5.33 5.86 5.73 5.99 6.09 5.93 5.95
Friendly 5.20 5.42 5.18 6.04 5.57 5.97 6.22 5.62 5.60
Fun 3.85 3.74 3.91 5.46 4.06 4.81 5.78 3.90 3.90
Generous 4.73 4.98 4.46 5.57 5.01 5.56 5.80 4.95 5.12
Helpful 5.20 5.72 5.20 5.77 5.52 5.93 6.01 5.70 5.66
Heroic 3.97 3.88 3.64 4.70 3.92 4.99 5.07 5.49 4.81
Honest 5.20 5.47 5.23 5.59 5.73 5.92 5.89 5.68 5.67
Inclusive 4.70 4.78 4.29 5.00 5.07 4.87 5.20 4.58 5.02
Independent 4.81 4.92 4.97 5.23 5.03 5.28 5.40 5.09 5.02
Influential 4.22 4.78 4.60 5.18 5.01 5.18 5.28 5.54 5.57
Informative 4.79 5.36 4.45 5.56 5.31 5.76 5.97 5.58 5.71
Innovative 4.09 4.45 3.90 5.15 4.65 4.79 5.37 4.60 5.02
Inspiring 4.35 4.67 4.58 5.52 4.76 5.15 5.66 5.31 5.46
Modern 4.10 4.53 4.13 5.52 4.70 5.15 5.69 4.78 5.09
Open 4.78 5.17 4.41 5.28 5.24 5.39 5.79 5.13 5.35
Outspoken 4.10 4.31 3.82 4.35 4.48 4.70 4.95 5.15 5.22
Passionate 4.87 4.82 5.01 5.76 5.00 5.84 6.04 5.98 5.80
Personal 4.60 4.90 4.60 5.41 4.75 5.07 5.45 4.82 5.14
Pioneering 4.26 4.67 4.23 5.27 4.66 5.09 5.17 4.83 5.15
Positive 4.97 5.49 5.11 5.90 5.39 5.76 6.05 5.69 5.69
Practical 5.01 5.45 5.50 5.70 5.42 5.87 5.86 5.63 5.39
Professional 5.26 5.68 5.45 5.87 5.62 6.16 6.08 5.96 5.80
Protecting 4.83 5.18 5.08 5.50 5.65 6.16 6.19 6.18 6.05
Prudent 4.43 4.71 4.63 4.72 4.95 5.04 5.11 4.78 4.79
(continued)
478 Sargeant et al.
Table 1. (continued)
Charity
Adjective A B C D E F G H I
Reputable 5.25 5.93 5.87 5.94 5.99 6.39 6.16 6.23 6.26
Respectful 5.22 5.67 5.19 5.80 5.47 6.05 6.02 5.94 5.97
Responsible 5.35 5.79 5.67 5.91 5.95 6.29 6.29 6.20 6.04
Responsive 4.73 5.18 4.83 5.47 5.24 5.78 5.96 5.69 5.69
Supportive 5.17 5.62 5.51 5.99 5.70 6.03 6.10 5.65 5.85
Sympathetic 5.32 5.76 5.39 6.00 5.77 6.14 6.18 5.80 5.97
Thoughtful 5.03 5.31 5.04 5.75 5.43 5.79 6.01 5.56 5.79
Traditional 4.66 5.06 5.26 4.30 4.95 5.63 5.08 5.42 5.09
Transforming 4.32 4.36 4.09 5.02 4.73 4.76 5.06 4.66 5.14
Transparent 3.88 4.09 3.73 4.23 4.42 4.25 4.42 3.89 4.08
Trustworthy 5.37 5.74 5.43 5.73 5.91 6.14 6.05 5.86 5.89
Visionary 4.63 4.86 4.13 5.34 4.88 5.12 5.39 4.81 5.19
Welcoming 5.20 5.29 4.83 5.91 5.45 5.97 6.08 5.35 5.61
additional choices available to the analyst (cf. Kirk, 1996; Olejnik & Algina,
2000; Snyder & Lawson, 1993). The eta squared index and associated effect
sizes for this sample are also presented in Table 3. Cohen (1969) provided gen-
eral suggestions for interpreting these indices regarding their typicality in the
literature throughout the behavioral sciences. He suggested that a standard-
ized difference of about 0.5 is a medium difference, whereas values of 0.2 and
0.8 would be considered small and large differences, respectively. Subsequent
meta-analyses have suggested that Cohen’s intuitions were fairly accurate
(Thompson, 2002), although it is worth noting that if one employs these guide-
lines with the same rigidity that the α = .05 criterion requires, the researcher
would add no new information of value with a new metric (Zwick, 1997). As
a result, these results too must be interpreted with caution.
In Table 3, medium and large effect sizes are highlighted. It is immedi-
ately apparent that few practical differences in perception exist between
causes. Only the traits of responsive, protecting, passionate, and heroic seem
to differ, with post hoc tests confirming that the key differences here are
found between the animal welfare and visual impairment sectors. The
majority of differences that emerged seemed to be between two or more of
the nine organizations comprising the sample, with a total of 29 adjectives
showing moderate or large effects across organizations.
To provide practical help for nonprofit brand managers, two additional
analyses were performed on the data set. In the first, a factor analysis was
conducted of the personality traits found only to exhibit small effect sizes (or
no effect at all) and where, as a consequence, one might argue that little prac-
tical difference in the perception of the nine charities emerged. Such an
analysis allows the researcher to define those facets of brand personality that
appear to be shared and perhaps ostensibly “charitable” in nature. It is important
Table 2. Brand Adjective Means Across the Three Sectors
Sector
Adjective Visual Impairment Children Sector Animals Sector All Charities
Accountability 4.95 5.45 5.46 5.35

Ambitious 4.63 5.21 5.33 5.14
Approachable 5.04 5.61 5.76 5.56
Authoritative 4.08 4.77 4.83 4.66
Bold 3.94 4.80 4.76 4.61
Caring 5.85 6.26 6.35 6.21
Cautious 4.00 4.19 4.31 4.20
Challenging 4.31 5.10 4.84 4.83
Collaborative 4.14 4.52 4.49 4.43
Compassionate 5.70 6.12 6.33 6.12
Conservative 4.22 3.94 4.19 4.10
Courageous 4.45 5.07 5.33 5.06
Dedicated 5.78 6.11 6.38 6.16
Determined 5.23 5.75 5.99 5.75
Dynamic 4.16 4.86 4.86 4.72
Effective 5.16 5.54 5.78 5.57
Empowering 4.16 4.85 4.52 4.57
Engaging 4.41 4.90 4.90 4.80
Evenhanded 4.58 4.93 5.00 4.89
Established 5.65 5.98 6.21 6.01
Ethical 5.40 5.81 5.94 5.78
Exciting 3.69 4.43 4.47 4.30
Fair 5.03 5.43 5.62 5.43
Flexible 4.40 4.91 4.89 4.79
Focused 5.38 5.83 6.01 5.82
Friendly 5.27 5.74 5.98 5.75
Fun 3.83 4.51 4.95 4.56
Generous 4.73 5.24 5.50 5.24
Helpful 5.39 5.65 5.90 5.70
Heroic 3.82 4.45 5.16 4.62
Honest 5.31 5.67 5.85 5.67
Inclusive 4.59 5.03 4.93 4.90
Independent 4.90 5.10 5.28 5.13
Influential 4.54 5.22 5.31 5.13
Informative 4.88 5.51 5.81 5.51
Innovative 4.16 4.93 4.97 4.79
Inspiring 4.54 5.21 5.39 5.15
Modern 4.27 5.09 5.26 5.00
Open 4.79 5.29 5.48 5.27
Outspoken 4.08 4.65 4.92 4.65
Passionate 4.90 5.49 5.96 5.57
Personal 4.71 5.09 5.15 5.04
Pioneering 4.40 5.00 5.05 4.91
Positive 5.22 5.65 5.85 5.65
Practical 5.34 5.51 5.80 5.60
Professional 5.48 5.75 6.08 5.83
Protecting 5.04 5.71 6.18 5.78
Prudent 4.60 4.83 5.00 4.85
(continued)
480 Sargeant et al.
Sector
Adjective Visual Impairment Children Sector Animals Sector All Charities
Reputable 5.71 6.05 6.26 6.07

Respectful 5.38 5.73 6.01 5.78
Responsible 5.62 5.96 6.27 6.02
Responsive 4.93 5.45 5.62 5.51
Supportive 5.45 5.84 5.96 5.81
Sympathetic 5.51 5.90 6.07 5.89
Thoughtful 5.13 5.64 5.82 5.61
Traditional 5.01 4.77 5.36 5.07
Transforming 4.26 4.95 4.85 4.77
Transparent 3.90 4.26 4.22 4.17
Trustworthy 5.53 5.84 6.03 5.86
Visionary 4.55 5.12 5.15 5.02
Welcoming 5.11 5.66 5.85 5.63
to stress that this particular work is exploratory and hence these facets may
not be shared by all charities, but the analysis is nevertheless insightful. The
point is that if these traits are shared by all charities in the sample, they will
not be beneficial for differentiating particular charities or sectoral causes.
The results of this exploratory factor analysis are reported in Table 4.
Principal components analysis was employed with both varimax and oblimin
rotations. It was interesting to note that the results were identical for both
types of rotations, which supported the appropriateness of the factor solu-
tions. When adjectives were removed due to high cross-loadings (reflecting
representation on two or more factors simultaneously), there were 21 adjec-
tives that loaded on three separate factors, explaining 62.2% of the observed
variance. Factor 1 contains the largest number of traits, including ethical, fair,
helpful, reputable, supportive, and sympathetic. Given previous work by the
authors, it is suggested that this factor be labeled Benevolence as this generic
term seems to adequately embrace all the traits listed. Factor 2 includes the
traits empowering, engaging, pioneering, transforming, and visionary, all of
which suggest a positive pattern of change. As a result, this factor is labeled as
Progression. Both of these factors were supported by the review of the existing
literature (e.g., Malloy & Agarwal, 2001; Werther & Berman, 2001) and the
exploratory qualitative analysis. Factor 3 appears associated with the traits
cautious and conservative and may thus be labeled Conservatism as the term
comfortably embraces both elements. It should be noted that although
Conservatism emerged from the analysis, the charities in this sample were not
viewed as exhibiting high levels of this factor. To confirm this solution, a con-
firmatory factor analysis was run with a two-, three-, and four-factor solution,
and the best chi-square statistic and fit measures were found for the three-
factor solution.
Table 3. ANOVA and Power Analyses
Organization Effects Cause Effects
Adjective F Significance η 2
f F Significance η2 f
Accountable 7.960 .000 .03 .17 15.056 .000 .02 .14

Ambitious 12.606 .000 .08 .29a 20.859 .000 .03 .17
Approachable 12.556 .000 .08 .29a 28.394 .000 .04 .20
Authoritative 12.057 .000 .08 .29a 23.284 .000 .04 .20
Bold 13.325 .000 .08 .29a 32.598 .000 .05 .23
Caring 8.428 .000 .05 .23 22.213 .000 .03 .17
Cautious 1.793 .074 .01 .10 3.563 .029 .01 .10
Challenging 9.149 .000 .06 .25 23.700 .000 .04 .20
Collaborative 3.204 .001 .02 .14 6.407 .002 .01 .10
Compassionate 11.674 .000 .07 .27a 34.115 .000 .05 .23
Conservative 2.095 .034 .01 .10 4.834 .008 .01 .10
Courageous 12.732 .000 .08 .29a 33.760 .000 .05 .23
Dedicated 11.151 .000 .07 .27a 32.432 .000 .05 .23
Determined 13.948 .000 .08 .29a 36.065 .000 .06 .25
Dynamic 11.827 .000 .07 .27a 25.334 .000 .04 .20
Effective 11.572 .000 .07 .27a 25.804 .000 .04 .20
Empowering 5.427 .000 .04 .20 17.571 .000 .03 .17
Engaging 5.364 .000 .04 .20 11.708 .000 .02 .14
Evenhanded 3.205 .001 .02 .14 8.257 .000 .01 .10
Established 13.109 .000 .08 .29a 21.493 .000 .04 .20
Ethical 6.270 .000 .04 .20 18.018 .000 .03 .17
Exciting 14.791 .000 .09 .31a 27.676 .000 .04 .20
Fair 6.312 .000 .04 .20 20.928 .000 .03 .17
Flexible 5.429 .000 .04 .20 15.172 .000 .03 .17
Focused 8.619 .000 .06 .25 28.443 .000 .05 .23
Friendly 12.236 .000 .08 .29a 28.921 .000 .05 .23
Fun 39.785 .000 .22 .53b 38.585 .000 .06 .25
Generous 14.164 .000 .09 .31a 26.859 .000 .04 .20
Helpful 6.605 .000 .04 .20 16.130 .000 .03 .17
Heroic 20.540 .000 .13 .39a 60.557 .000 .10 .33a
Honest 5.345 .000 .03 .17 17.642 .000 .03 .17
Inclusive 4.649 .000 .03 .17 7.825 .000 .01 .10
Independent 2.428 .013 .02 .14 6.242 .002 .01 .10
Influential 11.645 .000 .07 .27a 31.487 .000 .05 .23
Informative 17.565 .000 .11 .35a 47.740 .000 .07 .27
Innovative 14.149 .000 .09 .31a 31.675 .000 .05 .23
Inspiring 13.835 .000 .09 .31a 30.675 .000 .05 .23
Modern 19.752 .000 .12 .37a 41.332 .000 .06 .25
Open 10.419 .000 .07 .27a 22.444 .000 .04 .20
Outspoken 10.976 .000 .07 .27a 24.029 .000 .04 .20
Passionate 18.556 .000 .11 .35a 51.988 .000 .08 .29a
Personal 6.590 .000 .04 .20 7.902 .000 .01 .10
Pioneering 8.225 .000 .05 .23 18.909 .000 .03 .17
Positive 10.627 .000 .07 .27a 24.272 .000 .04 .20
Practical 5.636 .000 .04 .20 14.027 .000 .02 .14
Professional 7.912 .000 .05 .23 25.180 .000 .04 .20
Protecting 21.195 .000 .13 .39a 74.228 .000 .11 .35a
Prudent 2.907 .003 .02 .14 7.089 .001 .01 .10
(continued)
482 Sargeant et al.
Organization Effects Cause Effects
Adjective F Significance η 2
f F Significance η2 f
Reputable 9.440 .000 .06 .25 21.695 .000 .03 .17

Respectful 8.830 .000 .06 .25 23.371 .000 .04 .20
Responsible 9.735 .000 .06 .25 34.053 .000 .05 .23
Responsive 13.253 .000 .08 .29a 42.624 .000 .07 .27a
Supportive 7.488 .000 .05 .23 16.690 .000 .03 .17
Sympathetic 7.953 .000 .05 .23 20.298 .000 .03 .17
Thoughtful 8.585 .000 .06 .25 23.857 .000 .04 .20
Traditional 10.874 .000 .07 .27a 16.676 .000 .03 .17
Transforming 7.163 .000 .05 .23 20.224 .000 .03 .17
Transparent 2.751 .005 .02 .14 4.088 .017 .01 .10
Trustworthy 5.748 .000 .04 .20 16.667 .000 .03 .17
Visionary 8.723 .000 .06 .25 16.787 .000 .03 .17
Welcoming 13.121 .000 .08 .29a 27.764 .000 .05 .23
a. Medium effects.
b. Large effects.
Table 4. Charity Nondifferentiators: Factor Analysis of

Low Effect and Nonsignificant Traits
Component
Trait 1 2 3
Factor Name Benevolence Progression Conservatism
Caring .687
Cautious .771
Conservative .840
Empowering .786
Engaging .727
Ethical .683
Fair .661
Focused .709
Helpful .756
Honest .760
Pioneering .680
Practical .675
Reputable .803
Respectful .705
Responsible .841
Supportive .761
Sympathetic .792
Thoughtful .699
Transforming .742
Trustworthy .775
Visionary .682
Percentage of variance explained 37.1 18.4 6.8
Cumulative percentage explained 37.1 55.5 62.3
Table 5. Charity Differentiators: Factor Analysis of Medium and High Effect Traits
Component
1
Trait Emotional 2 3 4
Factor Name Engagement Service Voice Tradition
Ambitious .764
Approachable .702
Authoritative .777
Bold .788
Compassionate .863
Dedicated .846
Exciting .769
Fun .781
Heroic .619
Innovative .750
Inspiring .754
Modern .751
Traditional .920
Percentage of variance explained 27.9 18.1 16.9 8.6
Cumulative variance 27.9 46.0 62.9 71.4
In the next step, a factor analysis was conducted utilizing those traits that
exhibited moderate or high effects and where, as a consequence, it may be
argued that practical differences in perception exist among the charities that
comprised this sample. These traits are of particular interest because the
analysis suggests that they represent those traits that are distinctive and may
perhaps be managed to develop and maintain a unique brand personality.
Both varimax and oblimin rotations were run again, and they resulted in the
same solutions. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 5. In this
case when adjectives were removed, due to high cross-loadings, there
remained 13 that loaded on four separate factors, explaining 71.5% of the
observed variance. Factor 1 contains the traits exciting, fun, heroic, innova-
tive, inspiring, and modern. On balance, and given the authors’ earlier work,
it was felt that this factor warranted the title of Emotional Engagement because
each of these dimensions has the capacity to foster emotional arousal in
donors. Factor 2 contains the traits approachable, compassionate, and dedi-
cated. Because these traits refer to the manner of the service provision, this
factor was labeled Service. Factor 3 contains the traits ambitious, authorita-
tive, and bold. Because these traits seem to refer to the nature of the Voice a
nonprofit may adopt, this factor was labeled accordingly. Factor 4 contains
only one trait (explaining 8.5% of the variance) and the label Tradition was
maintained. Because this trait was not subsumed by any other factor, it was
felt to be appropriate to retain it. To further test the appropriateness of the
four-factor solution for the charity differentiating traits, a confirmatory
factor analysis was run on a two-factor, three-factor, and four-factor solution.
484 Sargeant et al.
The two- and three-factor solutions were found to be inferior to the four-
factor solution. The chi-square statistic and fit measures were found to be
best for the four-factor solution, and none of the correlations across the four
factors were found to be excessive.
Finally, to return to the second objective for this research, a series of
regressions was run to examine the impact of brand personality trait factors
on actual giving behavior. Dependent variables were attained by matching
questionnaire responses post hoc with the giving histories recorded on the
databases of participating charities. The variables that were added to the
data set were as follows: number of gifts given, the total amount given, and
the last gift given. As a first step, a series of regression analyses was con-
ducted employing the trait factors that were not able to distinguish between
the charities in our sample as predictor variables. None of the regressions
that were run were found to be significant. These generic factors did not
have any ability to affect giving behavior.
Regression analyses were run using the averages across the traits com-
prising each factor that can distinguish among charitable institutions, which
produced more meaningful results. The detail of this analysis is reported in
Table 6. Significant results were found for the number of gifts given and for
the amount of the last gift given. Although the relationships are somewhat
weak, they are nevertheless significant. As differentiation is key to the suc-
cess of any charitable organization facing competition, those traits that are
capable of differentiating between different institutions are more important
to giving than those that appear to transcend institutions. What also appears
to be the case here is that the factor Voice had a major bearing on the total
amount given, whereas Emotional Engagement had a major bearing on the
number of gifts and the amount of the last gift. This warrants further exam-
ination in future research.
DISCUSSION
The analyses here suggest that a large number of traits are exhibited
equally by the nine charities in the study. The nine organizations were prac-
tically indistinguishable on a total of 32 traits. Although it must be stressed
that the number of organizations included in the sample was small, these
findings reinforce the qualitative stage of the research that highlighted that
donors appear to imbue an organization with particular characteristics by
virtue of its charitable status. The subsequent factor analysis suggests that
these common or shared characteristics reflect the voluntary, benevolent
nature of nonprofits and the role that they play in attempting to instigate
change. As a result, it is not possible to reject Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis
2. A conservatism component was also uncovered, but it should be noted
that the charities in the sample were generally not regarded in this way,
exhibiting mean scores on the related items around the scalar midpoint.
Table 6. Regression Results: Charity-Differentiating Brand Personality Factors and Giving Behavior
Model 1 (Dependent Model 2 (Dependent Model 3 (Dependent

Variable = Total Giving) Variable = Number of Gifts) Variable = Last Gift)
Emotional Emotional Emotional
Constant Engagement Service Voice Tradition Constant Engagement Service Voice Tradition Constant Engagement Service Voice Tradition
Beta 119.163 0.065 –1.722 9.606 –9.741 –2.078 0.489 0.438 –0.115 –0.889 0.652 0.015 0.010 0.001 0.006
t 1.460 0.028 –0.329 2.241 –1.032 –0.346 2.705 1.077 –0.341 –1.241 5.387 4.427 1.260 0.152 0.481
Significance 0.145 0.978 0.743 0.025 0.302 0.730 0.007 0.283 0.733 0.216 0.000 0.000 0.208 0.879 0.631
R2 0.013 0.055 0.070
Adjusted R2 0.005 0.041 0.064
F 1.638 3.971 13.155
df 511 275 707
Significance 0.163 0.004 0.000
485
486 Sargeant et al.
The data lead to a rejection of Hypothesis 3. Although a Service factor did

emerge from the analysis, it appeared capable of distinguishing between orga-
nizations rather than causes per se. No clear pattern of traits distinguishing
between the three causes in our sample could be detected. Further work with
a wider variety of causes would be warranted to investigate this issue further.
With respect to Hypothesis 4 and Hypothesis 5, there were 29 traits that
were found to exhibit moderate or large organizational effects and where the
perception of two or more of the nine organizations differed both signifi-
cantly and practically. A factor analysis of these traits suggested four com-
ponents that charity brand managers might focus on to distinguish
themselves from both other charities in the sector and from those dealing
with a similar cause or issue. In seeking to differentiate their brand, charity
marketers are therefore advised to consider the nature of the emotional
engagement engendered by the organization, the nature of the voice projected
by the charity, the character of their service provision, and the extent to
which the organization might be viewed as traditional. There was therefore
evidence found in support of Hypothesis 4, but Hypothesis 5 may be rejected.
Traits did not cluster, as expected, around the notion of performance.
Moreover, although it was expected that traits associated with the nature of
an organization’s service provision would provide differentiation between
sectors, evidence was found that this factor can distinguish satisfactorily at
the organizational level.
There are numerous examples of charities that are presently differentiat-
ing themselves on the basis of the factors listed, and the results here suggest
that it is in these dimensions that the greatest opportunity for diversification
currently lies. With respect to emotional engagement, charities such as the
Dogs Trust, for example, have effectively differentiated on the basis of the
fun they engender in the relationship they develop with donors, allowing
them to sponsor a dog and as a consequence to receive Christmas cards and
other communications from “the animal.” Charities such as the National
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children have differentiated them-
selves by virtue of their bold stance on social issues such as the hitting of
children, whereas organizations such as the National Trust make much in
their positioning of the tradition and heritage they are preserving.
It is important to stress that this is in no way suggesting that these four fac-
tors are the only sources of differentiation that charities might exploit. There
may well be others in the population beyond this sample. It is also suggested
that these results are indicative only of current professional practice and
cannot therefore reflect other opportunities for differentiation that are presently
not pursued. Finally, we would not wish to suggest that differentiation on each
of these four factors would always have a positive impact on behavior. It is
quite possible for a nonprofit to attract characteristics regarded as undesirable
on these and other dimensions that would successfully differentiate it but
impact negatively on behavior. In 2004, for example, a harrowing advertise-
ment run by Barnardo’s showing a baby with a cockroach crawling out of its
mouth won the dubious distinction of being the most complained about
national press campaign in the history of the U.K. regulatory authority—the
Advertising Standards Authority (“Barnardo’s Ad Leads ASA’s Top Offenders,”
2004). Although the ads will undoubtedly have been effective at differentiating
the organization, their value for enhancing the organization’s ability to raise
funds was questionable at best (Solley, 2003)
With respect to the final Hypotheses 6 and 7, Hypothesis 7 must be
rejected because a performance dimension did not emerge from the analysis.
There was evidence found of a weak effect for Hypothesis 6, and the hypoth-
esis may therefore not be rejected.
CONCLUSIONS
These results have important implications for charity brand managers in

that they suggest that charity brand personalities are structured rather dif-
ferently from their commercial counterparts. It was found here that a high
proportion of perceived personality traits are shared with others addressing
the same issue/cause or, more typically, with those organizations in the
wider charity sector. Indeed, donors appear to have a clear conception of
what it means to be a charity and how they would expect such organizations
to behave. Of the 61 traits that were identified in this study, 32 appear com-
mon to all the organizations involved. It was interesting to note that donors
seem to begin their appraisal of a brand from the starting point that these
values automatically apply until they are given a specific reason to believe
otherwise. This has profound implications for nonprofit brand management
because brand conceptualization appears to develop in a very different way
from that observed in the commercial sector. In the nonprofit context there
would appear to be a series of traits that are not built directly through an
organization’s own fundraising or marketing communications. If the acqui-
sition of such generic personality traits is felt to be desirable, these results
suggest that an organization need only ensure that it is recognized as a char-
ity and/or recognized to be working with a particular cause. If on the other
hand these personality traits are felt to be inappropriate, it may be necessary
to work either with other organizations in the same cause or in the charity
sector as a whole to manage these perceptions.
These findings also have important implications for brand managers who
wish to differentiate their brand from those of their competitors. Promoting
values associated with benevolence or progression will likely prove futile in
this regard. Greater utility will be derived from conserving resources pro-
moting the dimensions that are shared and using them instead to promote
what is (or could be) genuinely distinctive. Four potential routes to such dif-
ferentiation have been specifically highlighted in this study. Given that it is
these distinctive dimensions that appear linked (albeit weakly) to individual
488 Sargeant et al.
giving behavior, this may well be an appropriate strategy to pursue, partic-

ularly where an organization is seeking to maximize its voluntary income.
Of course it is important to end by expressing a number of caveats. This
work is exploratory and it must therefore be emphasized that although these
results are persuasive, they may not generalize to the sector as a whole.
Further quantitative research would be necessary to confirm the conclusions
drawn here. This is not an easy task as a number of the traits delineated in
this study could be interpreted rather differently in different contexts (e.g.,
Austin et al., 2003; Morgeson & Hofmann, 1999). Although steps were taken
here to minimize the impact of this in reporting the present results, this may
be an issue in the design of subsequent research.
It must also be stressed that although the sectoral factors were not (as
expected) linked to giving behavior to the nine specific organizations in the
study, it is possible that the perception of these traits may drive the issue of
whether a given organization is included in a consideration set and/or
whether a favorable perception of “charity” is linked to an individual
becoming a donor for the first time. The design of this study did not permit
additional exploration.
Other avenues of research may also prove fruitful. It would be appropri-
ate, for example, to expand beyond this limited sampling of organizations
and explore additional subsectors or causes. It would also be prudent to
expand beyond U.K. borders to examine nonprofit brand personality in
other national/cultural settings. Do American charities exhibit different
traits than their U.K. counterparts? Another important question deals with
corporate donors and their giving patterns. Do companies give more to char-
ities that stress certain personality traits?
Overall, however, it is believed that these results offer new insight into the
structure of charity brand personalities. They suggest that a hierarchy of
traits may apply, making the application of branding practice to the context
of nonprofit organizations quite unique. Although certain industries and
product categories in the commercial sector may have brands imbued with
similar personality traits, it would be facile to suggest that all commercial
brands share components of a common identity. It seems, therefore, that the
manner in which nonprofit branding must be managed is genuinely distinc-
tive, even if the sector’s brands are presently not.
References
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 347-356.
Adler, P., & Adler, P. A. (1987). Role conflict and identity salience: College athletics and the
academic role. Social Science Journal, 24, 443-455.
Aldrich, T. (2004). Do-it-yourself DRTV: A practical guide to making direct response television
advertising work for charities. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,
9, 135-144.
Ashton, M. C., Goldberg, L. R., & Kibeom, L. (2004). A hierarchical analysis of 1,710 English
personality-descriptive adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 707-723.
Ashton, M. C., Perugini, M., de Vries, R. E., Boies, K., Kiboem, L., Szarota, P., et al. (2004). A six-factor
structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven lan-
guages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 353-367.
Austin, J. R., Siguaw, J. A., & Mattila, A. S. (2003). A re-examination of the generalizability of the
Aaker brand personality measurement framework. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11, 77-92.
Azoulay, A., & Kapferer, J. N. (2003). Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality?
Brand Management, 11, 143-155.
Barnardo’s ad leads ASA’s top offenders in 2003. (2004, April 23). Campaign, p. 1.
Basch, C. E. (1987). Focus group interview: An under-utilized research technique for improving
theory and practice in health education. Health Education Quarterly, 14, 411-448.
Bendapudi, N., Singh, S. N., & Bendapudi, V. (1996). Enhancing helping behavior: An integrative
framework for promotion planning. Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 33-54.
Bennett, R., & Barkensjo, A. (2005). Causes and consequences of donor perceptions of the quality
of the relationship marketing activities of charitable organizations. Journal of Targeting,
Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 13, 122-139.
Berger, I. E., & Gainer, B. (2002). Jewish identity, social capital and giving. Advances in Consumer
Research, 29, 408-413.
Bhattacharya, C. B., Hayagreeva, R., & Glynn, M. A. (1995). Understanding the bond of identi-
fication: An investigation of its correlates among art museum members. Journal of Marketing,
59(4), 46-57.
Braybrooke, D. (1965). Philosophical problems of the social science. New York: Macmillan.
Burnett, J. J., & Wood, V. R. (1988). A proposed model of the donation decision process. Research
in Consumer Behavior, 3, 1-47.
Charities Aid Foundation. (2002). Dimensions of the voluntary sector. West Malling, UK: Author.
Charity Commission. (2005). The register of charities. Retrieved March 5, 2007, from http://www.charity-
commission.gov.uk/
Chiagouris, L. (2006). Nonprofit brands come of age. Marketing Management, 14(5), 30-33.
Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Davis, M. H., Hull, J. G., Young, R. D., & Warren, G. G. (1987). Emotional reactions to dramatic
film stimuli: The influence of cognitive and emotional empathy. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 52, 126-133.
De Chernatony, L., & Dall’olmo, R. F. (1998). Modelling the components of the brand. European
Journal of Marketing, 32, 937-1090.
De Chernatony, L., Drury, S., & Segal-Horn, S. (2004). Identifying and sustaining services
brands’ values. Journal of Marketing Communications, 10, 73-94.
Dutton, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239-263.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich College Publishers.
Elischer, T. (2001, July). Organizational identity and brand issues. Paper presented at the Institute
of Fundraising Annual Conference, Birmingham, UK.
Fielding, N. G., & Fielding, J. L. (1986). Linking data. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Fournier, S. (1991). A meaning-based framework for the study of the consumer-object relations.
In R. Holman & M. Soloman (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 18, pp. 736-742).
Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
Giving USA Foundation. (2007). Giving USA. Indianapolis, IN: Author.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative description of personality: The Big Five factor structure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216-1229.
Goulding, C. (1999). Consumer research, interpretive paradigms and methodological ambiguities.
European Journal of Marketing, 33, 859-874.
Griffin, M., Babin, B. J., Attaway, J. A., & Darden, W. R. (1993). Hey you, can ya spare some change?
The case of empathy and personal distress as reactions to charitable appeals. Advances in
Consumer Research, 20, 508-514.
490 Sargeant et al.
Grounds, J. (2005). Special issue on charity branding. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Marketing, 10, 65-67.
Grounds, J., & Harkness, J. (1996). Developing a brand from within: Involving employees and
volunteers when developing a new brand position. Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Marketing, 3, 179-184.
Growman, L. (2000, March). Leveraging the brand. Paper presented at the Association of Fundraising
Professionals Annual Conference, New Orleans, LA.
Grubb, E., & Hupp, G. (1968). Perception of self, generalized stereotypes and brand selection.
Guy, B. S., & Patton, W. E. (1989). The marketing of altruistic causes: Understanding why people
help. Journal of Services Marketing, 2, 5-16.
Hankinson, P., & Rochester, C. (2005). The face and voice of volunteering: A suitable case for
branding. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 10, 93-105.
Hofstee, W. K. B., & Berge, J. M. F. (2004). Personality in proportion: A bipolar proportional scale
for personality assessments and its consequences for trait structure. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 83, 120-128.
Jones, A., & Posnett, J. (1991). Charitable giving by UK households: Evidence from the Family
Expenditure Survey. Applied Economics, 23, 343-351.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring and managing customer-based brand equity.
Kirk, R. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 56, 746-759.
Kleine, R. E., Kleine, S. S., & Kernan, J. B. (1993). Mundane consumption and the self: A social-
identity perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 2, 209-235.
Kottasz, R. (2004). How should charitable organizations motivate young professionals to give
philanthropically? International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 9, 9-27.
Levy, S. J. (1959). Symbols for sales. Harvard Business Review, 37(4), 117-124.
Ligas, M. (2000). People, products and pursuits: Exploring the relationship between consumer
goals and product meanings. Psychology and Marketing, 17, 983-1003.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated
model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103-123.
Malloy, D. C., & Agarwal, J. (2001). Ethical climate in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit
Management and Leadership, 12, 39-55.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McCracken, G. D. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement
process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 310-321.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morgeson, F. P., & Hofmann, D. A. (1999). The structure and function of collective constructs:
Implications for multilevel research and theory development. Academy of Management Review,
24, 249-266.
Olejnik, S., & James, A. (2000). Measures of effect size for comparative studies: Applications,
interpretations and limitations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 241-286.
Peter, J. P., & Olsen, J. C. (1993). Consumer behavior and marketing strategy. Burr Ridge, IL: Irwin.
Pharoah, C., Wilding, K., Walker, C., & Wainwright, S. (2005). UK Giving 2004/5. London: National
Council for Voluntary Organizations.
Pidgeon, S. (2002, July). Developing donor lifetime value. Paper presented at the Institute of
Fundraising Annual Conference, Birmingham, UK.
Prince, R. A., & File, K. M. (1994). The seven faces of philanthropy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Radley, A., & Kennedy, M. (1992). Reflections upon charitable giving: A comparison of individuals
from business, “manual” and professional backgrounds. Journal of Community and Applied Social
Psychology, 2, 113-129.
Ritchie, R. J. B., Swami, S., & Weinberg, C. (1998). A brand new world. International Journal of
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 4, 26-42.
Sargeant, A. (1999). Charity giving: Towards a model of donor behavior. Journal of Marketing
Management, 15, 215-238.
Sargeant, A., West, D. C., & Ford, J. B. (2001). The role of perceptions in predicting donor value.
Journal of Marketing Management, 17, 407-428.
Saxton, J. (2002). Polishing the diamond. London: The Future Foundation.
Saxton, J. (2005). The jeweller’s story. London: nfpSynergy.
Schervish, P. G. (2000). The material horizons of philanthropy: New directions for money and
motives. New Directions in Philanthropic Fundraising, 29, 17-31.
Schervish, P. G., & Herman, A. (1988). Empowerment and beneficence: Strategies of living and giving
among the wealthy. (Final report on the Study on Wealth and Philanthropy; submitted to the
T. B. Murphy Foundation Charitable Trust)
Schlegelmilch, B., & Tynan, C. (1989). The scope for market segmentation within the charity
market: An empirical analysis. Managerial and Decision Economics, 10, 127-134.
Sirgy, M. J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer Research,
9, 287-299.
Snyder, P., & Lawson, S. (1993). Evaluating results using corrected and uncorrected effect size
estimates. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 334-349.
Solley, S. (2003, December 18). Have Barnardo’s shock ads alienated donors? Marketing, p. 1.
Strauss, A. L. (1990). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Stride, H. (2006). An investigation into the values dimensions of branding: Implications for the
charity sector. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11, 115-124.
Stride, H., & Lee, S. (2007). No logo? No way. Branding in the non-profit sector. Journal of
Marketing Management, 23, 107-122.
Tapp, A. (1996). Charity brands: A qualitative study of current practice. Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing, 1, 327-336.
Thompson, B. (2002). Statistical, practical and clinical: How many kinds of significance do coun-
selors need to consider? Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 64-71.
Thompson, B., & Kieffer, K. M. (2000). Interpreting statistical significance test results: A proposed
new “what if” method. Research in Schools, 7(2), 3-10.
Venables, B. T., Rose, G. M., Bush, V. D., & Gilbert, F. W. (2005). The role of brand personality in
charitable giving: An assessment and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
33, 295-312.
Webber, D. (2004). Understanding charity fundraising events. International Journal of Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 9, 122-134.
Wee, T., Ming, T. T., & Matthew, C. H. (2003). Leveraging on symbolic values and meanings in
branding. Journal of Brand Management, 10, 208-218.
Werther, W. B., & Berman, E. M. (2001). Third sector management: The art of managing nonprofit
organizations. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Wispe, L. (1978). Altruism, sympathy and helping. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Zwick, R. (1997, March). Would the abolition of significance testing lead to better science? Paper pre-
sented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Adrian Sargeant is the Robert F. Hartsook Professor of Fundraising in the School of Public and
Environmental Affairs, Indiana University.
John B. Ford is professor of marketing and international business at the College of Business and Public
Administration, Old Dominion University.
Jane Hudson is senior lecturer in marketing at Bristol Business School, University of the West of England.

Charity Brand Personality: The Relationship With Giving Behavior

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Charity Brand Personality: The Relationship With Giving Behavior

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Charity Brand Personality: The Relationship

With Giving Behavior

Keywords: nonprofit marketing; fundraising; branding; brand personality

Charitable contributions reached an estimated $295 billion in the United

Aaker (1997), in her groundbreaking study of consumer brands, defined

and that “fundraisers should recognize that the philanthropy opportunities

To address these objectives, a two-stage methodology was implemented

PERSONALITY OF CHARITIES IN GENERAL

Progression. The second category concerns the issue of change or progres-

Hypothesis 1: Traits associated with benevolence will be shared by all charities

PERSONALITY FOR A SPECIFIC CAUSE

Many practitioners have argued that distinct brand values evolve by

I guess I would view them as open and approachable. They have to be

No other shared categories of traits could be identified across the sampled

Hypothesis 3: Traits associated with service will be shared by organizations

PERSONALITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATION

Two categories of trait appeared to offer scope for distinguishing between

Performance. With respect to performance, a cluster of values seemed

As a result, the hollowing hypotheses are posited:

Hypothesis 4: Traits associated with emotional engagement will differentiate

Hypothesis 5: Traits associated with performance will differentiate among

QUANTITATIVE PHASE—THE SURVEY

To test the hypotheses pertaining to structure, a mail survey was conducted

Table 1. Brand Adjective Means Across the Nine Charities

Table 2. Brand Adjective Means Across the Three Sectors

Adjective Visual Impairment Children Sector Animals Sector All Charities

Accountability 4.95 5.45 5.46 5.35

Adjective Visual Impairment Children Sector Animals Sector All Charities

Reputable 5.71 6.05 6.26 6.07

Table 3. ANOVA and Power Analyses

Organization Effects Cause Effects

Accountable 7.960 .000 .03 .17 15.056 .000 .02 .14

Organization Effects Cause Effects

Reputable 9.440 .000 .06 .25 21.695 .000 .03 .17

Table 4. Charity Nondifferentiators: Factor Analysis of

Model 1 (Dependent Model 2 (Dependent Model 3 (Dependent

The data lead to a rejection of Hypothesis 3. Although a Service factor did

These results have important implications for charity brand managers in

giving behavior, this may well be an appropriate strategy to pursue, partic-

You might also like