Shinhye Kim, Melanie Bowen and Xiaohan Wen
The objectives of this study are threefold: to delineate the phenomenon of “You Share, We Donate” (YSWD) campaigns and what distinguishes them from sales-based cause-related…
Abstract
Purpose
The objectives of this study are threefold: to delineate the phenomenon of “You Share, We Donate” (YSWD) campaigns and what distinguishes them from sales-based cause-related marketing; to contrast the effectiveness of YSWD and sales-based cause-related marketing campaigns and provide an explanation for the differences in the effectiveness; to explore boundary conditions of the proposed differences.
Design/methodology/approach
Three experiments were conducted to empirically test the differential effect of campaign formats (i.e. YSWD vs sales-based cause-related marketing), the underlying mechanism and structural as well as contextual features moderating the differential effect.
Findings
The findings suggest that YSWD messages elicit consumers’ message-sharing intentions more than traditional cause-related marketing messages. The effect is explained by consumers’ sense of empowerment and can be enhanced through donation cap non-specification. The findings further indicate that YSWD campaigns are especially fruitful in low power distance cultures.
Research limitations/implications
This study contributes toward corporate donation campaign literature by focusing on the usage of social media.
Practical implications
From a managerial perspective, this research provides marketers with guidelines on how to choose between the two cause-related marketing campaign formats and how to enhance the effectiveness of YSWD campaigns.
Originality/value
This paper extends cause-related marketing literature by not only introducing the phenomenon of YSWD campaigns to the literature but also exploring strategies to enhance the effectiveness of such campaigns and shedding light on an outcome beyond the sales impact of cause-related marketing campaigns, i.e. an increase of visibility in social media. From a managerial perspective, this research provides marketers with guidelines on how to choose between the two cause-related marketing campaign formats and how to enhance the effectiveness of YSWD campaigns.
Details
Keywords
Shinhye Ahn, Cecile K. Cho and Theresa S. Cho
This study investigates how a firm's regulatory focus (i.e. promotion and prevention foci) affects growth- and efficiency-oriented strategic change, highlighting the role of…
Abstract
Purpose
This study investigates how a firm's regulatory focus (i.e. promotion and prevention foci) affects growth- and efficiency-oriented strategic change, highlighting the role of organizational-level regulatory focus as a cognitive frame within which to interpret performance feedback and its subsequent effects on strategic decisions.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors collected longitudinal data on 98 S&P 500 manufacturing firms for a seven-year period. The panel data, which includes texts from the firms' 10-K filings, were then analyzed using a feasible generalized least squares (FGLS) regression estimator to test the authors’ hypotheses.
Findings
A firm's strategic change orientation is affected by its regulatory focus and performance feedback: a promotion focus increases the magnitude of growth-oriented strategic change, while a prevention focus favors efficiency-oriented strategic change. Furthermore, both foci moderate the effect of performance feedback on the strategic change orientation: under negative performance feedback, a promotion (prevention) focus increases (decreases) the magnitude of growth-oriented strategic change relative to that of efficiency-oriented change. The findings provide robust evidence that regulatory focus can influence how organizations learn from feedback and formulate strategic change.
Research limitations/implications
The authors’ examination of regulatory focus and organizational learning process relied on large manufacturing firms in the USA. However, learning process could be quite different in small and/or young firms. Future work should expand to a wider range of organizational types, such as nascent entrepreneurial ventures. In addition, the authors’ measurement of regulatory focus using corporate text has inherent weakness and could be supplemented with alternative research methods, such as surveys, interviews or experiments. All in all, however, the findings of this study offer a novel behavioral perspective while demonstrating that a regulatory focus is an important antecedent of organizational learning.
Practical implications
This study highlights the importance of motivational characteristics of the top managers in the process of organizational learning from performance feedback. Furthermore, recruitment of a new top manager should be aligned with the organizational context, values and goals. In addition, corporate governance systems such as managerial compensation schemes need to be carefully designed so as to maximize organizational resilience, especially in the context of performance downturn or environmental change. Establishing a constructive organizational culture so that strategic decisions are not overly swayed by the performance outcomes would also be crucial to the organizational learning process.
Social implications
This study highlights the importance of understanding the motivational orientations of top managers in organizational learning. In terms of managerial compensation, for instance, an optimal incentive system should reflect the desired performance output by encouraging managerial behavior that corresponds to its objective. Furthermore, motivational orientation of new recruits should be considered in the context of the composition of the top management team members in order to achieve “optimal fit.” In addition, this study suggests that top executives' regulatory focus can be a key factor for organizations in balancing goals of different value orientations.
Originality/value
The findings of this study demonstrated that a firm-level regulatory focus has a significant effect on organizational learning and strategic change following performance feedback. The authors hope this study provides an impetus for future discussions on the microcognitive mechanisms of organizational learning by exploring the relations between organizations' regulatory foci, performance feedback and strategic change orientations.