Effect Ofnon Profit

International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector MarketingInt.J Nonprofit Votunt. Sect. Mark. 14: 215-229 (2009)Published online 4 February 2009 in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.Wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/nvsni.356

The effects of nonprofit brandequity on individual giving intention:mediating by the self-concept ofindividual donorJundong Hou*, Lanying Du and Zhilong TianSchool of management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, P.R. China

• Currently nonprofit organizations have to rely more on individual donors and less on thegovernment for funding. Therefore, understanding the individual donor from theperspective of nonprofit has been of increasing interest to nonprofit marketers. Ln thisresearch, the effects of nonprofit organizational brand equity and individual self-concepton individual giving intention were studied by using survey to selected 393 validrespondents in China. The empirical results indicated that, (1) the three dimensionsbrand personality, brand image, and brand awareness of the nonprofit organization haspositive direct impact on individual giving intention; (2) brand personality and brandawareness of the nonprofit organization has positive direct impact on the self-concept ofindividual donor; (3) the self-concept of individual donor has positive direct impact onindividual giving intention; and (4) the self-concept of individual donor mediatessignificantly the relationships between brand personality, brand awareness, and indi-vidual giving intention, while not significantly between brand image and individualgiving intention.

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction the generous level of Chinese civics at a certaindegree, lack of resources is still one of the

Nonprofit services generally being called as ^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ development of many"public" or "collective" products (Weisbrod, ^^j^ .^^^^ nonprofit organizations (Wang and1977), and their development mainly relies on j . ^ ^002). Moreover, cutting down of govern-the help of social donations. It is reported that ^^^^ ^^^^^.^j ^^^^^^^ ^ j ^ ^ ^ ^ . ^ ^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^there was 3-4 billion per year to develop ^^pp^^rs' living styles and self-conceptions,nonprofit service (Ministry of Civil Affairs, li^j^^ji^n of resources, and aggravation of2008). Although this giving amount may show competition, which has been worsen the

nonprofit organization's resource plight.•Correspondence to: Jundong Hou, School of manage- Zhang (2006), correspondent from Worker

Wuhan"S74%^R''chi!!l°^^''**'"'''''"'''^^''''"°'°^' ^^^^ ^^ interviewing of Beijing Children'sE-mail: [email protected] Welfare Institution, relief stations, the Red

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int J. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Mark., August 2009DOI: 10.1002/nvsm

216 Jundong Hou et al.

Cross, and other charitable organizations,found there remained a great funding gap inthe development of these organizations. Thedirector from a relief station in Beijing (2006)said, "As charitable organization, relief stationsare established throughout the nation, but forsome local stations, governmental fundingevery year is merely 10,000 RMB while almostno personal donation received." However,some other nonprofit organizations in China,especially those with "China" or "Chinese" intitle, raise more than ¥10 million or even billionper year from individual donations. Forinstance, in the year 2006, China Environmen-tal Protection Foundation raised ¥11 million,China's Poverty Alleviation Foundation raised¥83 million while China Charity FederationFoundation raised ¥130 million (China Net-work of Civil Society Organizations, 2008).According to the survey by Chen et al. (2007)from McKinsey, 85% existing donor resourcesare occupied by only 7% nonprofit originationsholding support from governments, while theprivate nonprofits especially with the smallersize are very difficult to generate enoughdonations. Based on this phenomenon, wecannot help but ask why some nonprofits canraise huge individual giving resource whilesome others cannot? Why individual donorsselect to donate with certain nonprofits? Andwhat are their intentions and basis of decisionmaking in donation? In order to revealconfusions, there is a need to understandhow nonprofits can better address the market-ing practices that could be used to secureresources from donors.

In response to the resource challenges manynonprofits have increased their marketing andsales activities (Arnold and Tapp, 2003).Unfortunately, increased effort alone maynot meet these recent challenges (Faircloth,2005). It may be necessary to rethink, at astrategic and conceptual level, how to influ-ence public opinion and support behaviorregarding nonprofits. For instance, the Con-sultancy Interbrand Group recognized early onthat nonprofits fail to utilize brand market-ing and establish a foundation to help non-profits develop branding strategies to meet

their resource challenges (Beardi, 1999).Morgan (1993) suggested consumers madetheir brand selection in accordance with theirself-concept and this effected a lot in con-sumers mental and behavior processing. Thusas one type of consumers of nonprofits, donorsmust be influenced by self-concept also in theirdecision making of donation. However, doesbrand equity exist for nonprofits in China? Ifthere is, what kind of correlations is therebetween brand equity and the giving intentionof individual donors? And how does self-concept of individual donors influence onthe correlations between the tw o variables? Sofar, very few researches have answered thesequestions. Additionally, there are many differ-ences of traditional culture, perceptual habitand giving attitude, and other facets betweenChinese and western context. Thus, it isnecessary to introduce brand equity theoryto nonprofit sector, and empirically study onthe relationships between brand equity ofnonprofits and giving intention of individualdonors by measuring and distinguishing theconstruct of brand equity of nonprofit organ-ization, then reveal the influences of self-concept on the relationship between brandequity and giving intention of individualdonors in Chinese context.

Literature review

Brand equity in nonprofit sector

Early researches on brand equity mainly focusedon customer goods and services in profit sectorand governmental sector. Followîng w ithwildly accepting of consistent dimension ofbrand equity by scholars, brand equity withits conceptualization and measurements areextended to nonprofit sector.

In particular, the example set by a numberof high-profile UK fundraising charities, whichrenamed and repositioned. themselves in theearly 1990s, greatly encouraged other non-profit organizations to manage their imagesin a systematic manner. These high-profilecharities achieved increases in income ofupwards of 10% per annum following their


Effects of nonprofit brand equity on individual giving intention 217

adoption of new images, but donors expect aprofessional approach to image managementiunong fiind-raising organizations Oâpp, 1996).Tapp also argued that an excellent charityimage is a significant determinant of donationincome, on the other hand, it influences donorpreferences for charity brand choice, and thengenerates "halo effects" vis-à-vis a wide rangeof organizational activities.

In 21st century, scholars pay attention onmainly tw o topics. The first is to constructcharitable image, including the linkagesbetween image and reputation of charitableorganizations, and how to form the reputationof charitable organization and so on. Forinstance, Madalena (2006) considered brandpositioning and image development areimportant topics for any religious organizationwishing to provide an effective service to thepublic, and then she analyzed how to positionthe brand and design the image for charitableorganization through empirical research.

The second is to study on constnicting ofbrand equity for a nonprofit. For example,Keller (2000) concluded 10 attributes of world-class brands and summed them up into brandreport card (BRC) to help in accessing brandperformance. Michael and Napoli (2003) usingKeller's brand report card as a point ofdeparture, this article describe the develop-ment of a reliable, valid, and generalizablemultidimensional scale to assess nonprofitbrand orientation, including interaction,orchestration, and affect, which have madean operational and expressional improvementof Keller's BRC. And after the introduction ofbrand orientation, scholars began to study onthe differences of brand orientations for non-profit and profit sectors, such as why it isdifficult for many nonprofit organizations totake use of modern brand technologies andwhy they have been lacked compared withtheir business partners.

Overseas researches are mainly focused onbrand strategies, and just few concerns withtheir brand equity. Mark (2005) explainedbuilding and rebuilding of brand equity for anonprofit by case study. With brand equity,demand curve moves upward while cost curve

downward and as consequence, profits andcustomer surplus increase, thus brand equitybecomes a measurement of demand curvemoving and ftiture cash flow. Beverly et al(2005) researched on the role of brand perso-nality in nonprofits giving. Faircloth (2005) hadtested determinants of resource providersupport decision based on brand equity pers-pective. Domestically, little research on brandequity can be found in Chinese journaldatabases. Therefore, this paper based onthree dimensions of brand equity introducedby Faircloth, will test their infiuences onindividual giving intention in China.

Self-concept of individual donors

Self-concept is the cognitive or thinking aspectof self (related to one's self-image) andgenerally refers to "the totality of a complex,organized, and dynamic system of learnedbeliefs, attitudes, and opinions that eachperson holds to be true about his or herpersonal existence (Purkey, 1988)". In theoryof consumer behavior, self-concept is dividedinto five categories: ideal self, actual self, socialself, ideal social self, and self-expectations.Thus, self-concept is considered as a systemstructure forming from interaction of socialenvironment and individual mental behaviorinformation such as temperament, personality,values, and social roles. Or, it is said to beacquired self-recognition based on psychologi-cal genes. Super (1984) suggested that self-concept included individual's self-esteem, hisown understanding of the clarity, harmony,development, effectiveness, as well as personalinterest of the capacity and potential ofthe development status, and so on. Chen(2007) applied this concept to researches likedevelopmental psychology, social psychology,and educational psychology but merely con-sumer psychology or behavior. In China, fewscholars studied on effects of congruencebetween brand equity and self-concept onconsumer behavior, especially lack of researchon roles this congruence to brand loyalty.Additionally, almost all the studies about



self-concept in the field of consumer behaviorhave been focused in profit environment,while donors' self-concept has not been paidenough attentions.

Individual giving intention

Many researches support correlations betweenattitude and behavior while few studied onattitude of individual giving. Therefore, someauthors have researched the impacts ofdemographic, socio-economic, and psycho-logical variables on individual donation beha-viors. Based on variables effects in individualchoice of nonprofit organization, researchersdivided these influential factors into extrinsicfactor and intrinsic factor, where extrinsicfactors refer to those existences independentfrom human beings, and intrinsic factors arethe underlying motives for selecting to supporta nonprofit organization (Sargeant etal., 2006).In respect of the former, variables such asage, gender, income, social class, social norms,and the degree of religious conviction have allbeen shown to impact on donation behavior.Findings suggested these factors do effect onindividual donation making. In respect ofthe latter, factors shown to be sigtiificantindicators of giving including empathy, sym-pathy, nostalgia, as well as feelings of fear,guilt, and other emotions, Sargeant (2007),based on literature reviews, summed updeterminants of individual donations and alsocarried out many propositions from sources,external factors, motivation, and the processdetermining factor, output, personal charac-teristics, feedbacks, and other aspects. Byreviews of existing literatures, the reasonsabout why individuals are willing to donateto a certain nonprofit have been empiricallyexamined from a widely perspective (e.g,,sociology, psychology, anthropology, economics,etc).

Also, a variety of authors have begun toexamine the role of the organization solicitingfunds and more particularly, how donorsperceive distinct facets of the organization orthe ' 'product' ' on offer. Authors such as Glaser

(1994) and Sargeant et al. (2001) haveexamined how donors perceive the manage-ment of the organization, its performance, anda variety of benefits that might accrue to theindividual from giving. An empirical examin-ation of the impact of these factors has yet tobe attempted. This is an issue of considerablepractical importance since these are variablesover which fundraisers may exert somecontrol. What is more, donation actually isan interactive selection process, and then itis imperfect to ignore impacts of recipientorganizations on donor behaviors. It is, there-fore, our intention to delineate the brandequity of the support of nonprofits, to explorethe nature of the relationship between theseand individual donor giving intention, and todiscuss the mediating role of self-conceptbetween two constrticts, in order to helpnonprofits effectively soliciting individualdonations.

Theoretical model and hypotheses

Actually, like the decision of purchasing cer-tain commercial product, customer decisionmaking of donation on which nonprofit adonor should elect to give will be influencedby nonprofit brand, because brand provides auniqueness that can allow tonsumers todistinguish a nonprofit brand from competitors(Beverly et al., 2005). Furthermore, onlywhen a brand matches a donor's self-concept,these preference and intention are enhanced.According to Faircloth's (2005) research, non-profit brand equity can be divided into threedimensions, including brand personality, bra-nd image, and brand awareness. Therefore,conceptual model of this research can carriedout as in Figure 1.

Brand equity and individual givingintention

Brand personality often enharices customerpreference (Aaker et al., 2004), A brandpersonality that is strong, favorable, and/or

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Int J. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Mark., August 2009DOI: 10,1002/nvsm


Brand Equity

Brand personality

Brand image

Rraníi awareness

H2

Donor self-concept

HI giving inlcntion

Figure 1. Conceptual model of effects of nonprofit brand equity on donor giving intention.

unique to the consumer legitimates the brandas partner and can result in more positivereciprocal exchanges (Foumier, 1998). Analo-gously, a nonprofit brand is perceived as atmstworthy partner or possesses an interestingbackground which allows donors to feel morecomfortable with the brand and form brandpreferences or intentions of giving.

Without a favorable brand image, it isunlikely the firm can create consumer pur-chase intentions or biased behavior (Kotier,1997). Marketing researchers suggested brandimage is a vital element of brand equity, andresearches reported more positive brand imageis positively related to willingness to paypremium prices and higher brand equity(Faircloth et al., 2001). Communicating abrand image to resource providers is import-ant, since identification with nonprofit targetsand values is a significant contributor topositively biased support behavior towardthe nonprofits by consumers (Smith, 1997).Therefore, donors inclined to donate to thosenonprofits w ith strengthened brand imagethey perceived.

Rossiter and Percy (1987) claim brandawareness is the consumer's capability forrecalling or recognizing from memory thesubject brand in the product category. Top ofmind awareness increases the probability ofbeing chosen by the consumer, since a brandnot considered will not be chosen. Bhatta-charya et al. (1995) suggest marketing relatedcampaigns help donors to comprehend andidentify with the purpose of nonprofits. Thus,one would expect memory recall and greaterorganizational familiarity by individual donorsto increase supportive behavior toward thenonprofit.

These lead to the following hypotheses:

HI: There is a positive causal link betweennonprofit brand equity and giving inten-tion of individual donor.

Hla: There is a positive causal linkbetween nonprofit brand personality andgiving intention of individual donor.

Hlb: There is a positive causal linkbetween nonprofit brand image and giv-ing intention of individual donor.

Hlc: There is a positive causal link betweennonprofit brand awareness and givingintention of individual donor.

Brand equity and donors self-concept

Individual donor's self-concept develops dyna-mically by self-judgment and external environ-ment analysis. Changes come from twoaspects: changes of self-conditions or self-cognize; on the other hand, individual originalself-concept has been subjected to somechallenges because of changes of externalenvironment, such as new^ brand personalityand brand images. Previous researches sug-gested that brand personality, the core com-ponent of brand equity, is strongly positivelyassociated with customer self-concept. Sirgy(1982) indicated consumers preferred thosebrands by which their real selves and idealselves were embodied. Zinklian and Hong(1991) argued that for those products andbrands w^hich were used in public, theinfluence of ideal self-concept on the brand

Copyright © 2009 Jobn Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int J. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Mark., August 2009DOI: 10.1002/nvsm


selection is more than that of actual self-concept, while for those privately usedproducts and brands, the result is reversed.Hawkins et al. (2007) pointed out for func-tional products consumers would matchproduct images with their real self-concept,for symbolic products or those productsreferred w ith social status, customer w ouldmatch them with their ideal self-concept.Cao (2005) claimed the brand equities ofselecting products are significantly differentamong consumers with different self-concept.Behave-self consumers think much of "cool"and "brave" in brand personality, feeling-selfconsumers think much of its "elegant" and"kindness", while mind-self consumers paymore attention to its "kindness." The samelogic can apply to "consumption" process ofindividual donors, so good conception of adonor to nonprofit brand equity may impact itsself-concept. Thus, following hypotheses canbe put forward:

LL2: There is a positive causal link betweennonprofit brand equity and self-concept ofits individual donors.

H2a: There is a positive causal linkbetween nonprofit brand personality andself concept of its individual donors.

H2b: There is a positive causal linkbetween nonprofit brand image and self-concept of its individual donors.

Lí2c: There is a positive causal link betweennonprofit brand awareness and self-con-cept of its individual donors.

Onkvisit and Shaw (1987) suggested that self-concept is very important in studies of con-sumer behaviors since one's self-perceptiondirectly influenced his/her purchase process.For instance, if some one considers him or herself as a practical and self-controllable person,then he or she was possible to choose topurchase unfashionable dress. Morgan (1993)also provided empirical evidences to demon-strate that consumer behavior is rarely influ-enced by fimctional value of products butproduct image felt by consumers. That means,consumers choose brand following their self-concept, self-concept is strongly influential onconsumer mentality and behavior. Individualdonors are certain kind consumers for non-profit organizations, so their giving intention indonation process should be obviously influ-enced by their self-concept. Donors are alwayswith more positive attitude and strong givingintention to whose nonprofits with brandequity more congruence with their own self-concept. Then if individual giving intention isstrengthened enough, donation will be soli-cited. This leads to the following hypothesis:

H3: There is a positive causal link betweenthe self-concept of an individual donor andhis/her giving intention.

Base on the evidences provided above, thefoUo^ving hypotheses also can be advanced:

H4: There is a positive causal link betweenthe degree of nonprofit brand equity andgiving intention mediated by self-conceptof individual donor.

Individual donor's self-concept andgiving intention

With limitations of income and capabilities,individual donors are strongly influenced byself-concept in their giving intentions orbehaviors. Sirgy (1980) found that there ismiddle level of correlation between consumebehaviors and social self or ideal social self.

H4a: There is a positive causal linkbetween the degree of nonprofit brandpersonality and giving intention mediatedby self-concept of individual donor.

H4b: There is a positive causal linkbetween the degree of nonprofit brandimage and giving intention mediated byself-concept of individual donor.


Effects of nonprofit brand equity on individuat giving intention 221

H4c: There is a positive causal link betweenthe degree of nonprofit brand awarenessand giving intention mediated by self-concept of individual donor.

Methodology

Samples and data collection

In order to enlarge nonprofit marketing objectsto those potential donors, we cannot samplenot only those active donors but also on thosepotential and lapsed. Then, we sent ourquestionnaire randomly by QQ, e-mail, andalso record their QQ number and e-mailaddress to avoid overlap. Thus, 1000 ques-tionnaires are sent out while 516 answers arereceived during March-April 2008 in China. Tomake sure the respondents are with enoughability in judgment and perception, 88 of thosewhose age are less than 20 are thrown away.Then, in analyzing the kept samples, 35 couldnot distinguish from key nonprofits, so theyare also eliminated. Thus, 393 samples arevalid. Hair et al. (2006) suggested in those

Table 1. Basic characters and coding of the samples

regressions or SEMs with five or less con-structs, 100-150 samples are acceptable.Therefore, 393 samples in this research shouldbe suitable for regression analysis. And thetotal characters and coding of the samples inthis research are shown in Table 1.

Measures

Three constructs needs to measure in thisresearch, including nonprofit brand equity,self-concept of individual donors, and individ-ual giving intentions. Nonprofit brand equitywas measured by three dimensions: brandpersonality (measured by a 4-item, 7-pointscale), brand image (measured by a 4-itemsemantic differential scale) and brand aware-ness (measured by a 2-item, 7-point scale)developed by Faircloth (2005). Self-concept ofdonors was measured by a 7-item, 7-pointsemantic differential scale extracted fromMalhotra's scales (1981). Individual givingintention was measured by a 4-item, 7-pointscale developed by Sampath and Henley(2007).

Demographic

Gender

Age

Educational background

Salary/per month

Occupation

Value

MaleFemale20-2425-2930-3435-40More than 40Ph.D.Master (including MBA)BachelorOthersLess than 1000 RMB1000-1999 RMB2000-2999 RMB3000-3999 RMBNot less than 4000 RMBEmployee of firmsGovernment officialsTeacherStudentOthers

Code

121234543211234512345

Number

235150125112114

288

11497918364

116886A53

11499807716

Sample

Percentage

59.8%38.1%31.8%28.4%28.9%

7.2%2.1%

28.9%24.7%23.2%21.1%16.2%29.5%22.5%16.3%13.4%28.9%25.2%20.3%19.5%4.1%

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int J. Nonprofit Votunt Sect. Mark., August 2009DOI: 10.1002/nvsm


Assessing the measures .

The results of our measurement can be only asgood as our measures and we need to find outwhether our measures are good and corre-spond to the underlying theory. We startedtesting our measures using factor analysis. The21 items representing the five latent variableswere subjected to exploratory (FFA) and con-firmatory factor analysis (CFA). We ran EFA byusing maximum likelihood factor extractionand oblique rotation. The five factors, whichemerged accounted for 84.083% of thevariance. All items loaded heavily on thehypothesized a priori factors.

All items had factor loadings of more than0.6. All items were retained after the explora-tory factor analysis. Next we proceeded to testinternal consistency of our measures usingCronbach's a. For all the measures coefficienta was above 0.7 which suggested that themeasures were reliable (see Table 2).

Results

Correlation analysis and regressionassumptions

Table 3 shows the mean value, standarddeviations, and Pearson correlation coeffi-cients for each variable. As can be seen, self-concept is positively correlated with givingintention; individual donors' self-concept andtheir giving intention are positive correlatedw ith nonprofit brand personality and brandawareness; and demographical variables aresignificantly correlated with brand image andbrand personality, where education level iscorrelated with giving intention.

A regression model requires compliancewith assumptions of normality, linearity,coUinearity, and homoscedasticity. Normalityof the standardized residual was tested with aKolmogorov-Smimov (Lilliefors SignificanceCorrection) statistic. The results suggested

Table 2. Reliability and completely standardized loadings: confirmatory factor analysis

Construct Item Item loading t value oi

Brand personality (BP)

Brand image (BI)

Brand awareness (BA)

Self-concept

Giving intention (GI)

I would be proud to be associated with the nonprofit "X"The nonprofit "X" is an organization I would trustThe nonprofit "X" is different from other nonprofitsThe nonprofit "X" has a rich historyFamous-InfamousValuable-WorthlessLarge-SmallExcitable-CalmI will list the nonprofit "X" in the first recallI am very familiar with the nonprofit "X"Excitable — calmThrifty — IndulgentRational — EmotionalPleasant—UnpleasantYouthful—MatureOrthodox—LiberalModest—VainLikely to donate to the nonprofit "X"Will donate to the nonprofit "X" next timeWill definitely donate the nonprofit "X"Will recommend others to donate to the nonprofit "X"

0.630.720.670.750.880.790.820.840.630.850.610.880.910.620.750.720.930.830.870.870.90

5.616.236.017.008.857.548.008.045.578.415.368.989.395.427.036.238.466.096.357.258.19

0.75

0.83

0.80

0.87

0.89

Goodness of model fit statistics: xVdf=1.48, p = 0.00; NNFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.93, IFI = 0.93, RMR = 0.079;RMSEA = 0.080, 90% confidence interval for RMSEA = 0.069-0.01.

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int J. Nonprofit Voiunt Sect Mark., August 2009DOI: 10.1002/nvsm


Table 3. Means,

Variables

1, Gender2, Age3, Education4, Salary5, Occupation6, BP7, BI8, BA9, Self-concept

10, GI

standard deviation and intercorrelations between study

Mean

1,392,332,531,943,334,434,484,954,304,74

SD

,492,616,789,39

1,231,091,451,33,87

1,20

1

1,00-1,22

,05-,01

,08,36**,26*,24,24,11

2

1,00,77**,75**

-,64**- 1 5- ,03- 1 3- 1 1-0 ,4

3

1,00,78**

-,60**-,14*-0 ,1-0 ,5- ,13

,14*

4

1,00-,72**- ,11-,11- ,11- ,16

,01

variables

5

1,00,01 1,04,09,07,05

6

,00,65**,47**,34**,30*

7

1,00,41**,03,23**

8

1,00,44**,39**

9

1,00,36**

Notes: *p < 0,05; **/? < 0,01,

normality (p > .05). Examination of P-P Plotand scatterplot of each dependent variable.Self-concept and giving intention indicated alinear model. Although there are certain levelsof correlations between dependent and inde-pendent variables, even some of the measurecorrelations reached .50, consideration of thecoUinearity diagnostics indicated no ConditionIndex greater than 20 or VIF less than 2,5;thus, coUinearity was not detected (Hairetal., 2006), Finally, a regression standardizedresidual versus regression standardized pre-dicted value scatterplot revealed no non-random pattern of points, indicating homo-scedasticity. Thus, it can be concluded themodel met all regression assumption require-ments.

Therefore, multi-regression analysis is adapt-able in study on the effects of nonprofit brandequity on individual donors' self-concept andgiving intention if impacts of demographicalvariables can be controlled.

Hierarchical regression analysis

To assess support for mediation, hierarchicalregression analysis was used to examinewhether the self-concept of donor significantlyaffected the relationship between nonprofitbrand equity and giving intention. If asignificant relationship between nonprofit

brand equity and giving intention is eliminatingor significantly reduced because of controllingfor self-concept variable, which would indicatesupport for mediation. Therefore, self-conceptand giving intention is selected as dependentvariable respectively using hierarchical regres-sion analysis, results are shown in Table 4,

Relationship between nonprofit brand equityand individual donors' giving intention

When selecting regression equation of demo-graphical variables and individual giving inten-tion as benchmark model in Equation 2, regres-sion equation was significant (F= 2,834,Sig. = 0.004) but only explained an additional9.8 per cent of the variance in assessment ofgiving intention. After brand equity constructwas introduced (see model 2), regressionequation also was significant (F= 6.859, Sig. =0.000). Additionally, a significant amount ofincremental variance (/? = 0,240) in individualself-concept was provided by the antecedentsafter controlling for demographics, thus regres-sion is efficient. And the regression resultspresented in model 2 indicate that brand perso-nality (^ = 0,551, Sig. = 0.005), brand imageiß = 0.513, Sig. = 0.003), and brand awareness(^ = 0.334, Sig. = 0.045) can be identified asexplanative variables in predicting individualgiving intention significantly, therefore H la,Hlb, and Hlc are supported.

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Int J. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Mark., August 2009DOI: 10,1002/nvsm


Table 4. Hierarchical regression results of effects of nonprofit brand equity on individual donors'giving intention

DemographicsGenderAgeEducationSalaryOccupation •

Equation 1 (self-concept)

Benchmark

.245* (1.993).031 (.162)

-.135 (-.713)-.285 (-1.239)-.221 (-1.151)

Independent variablesBPBIBA

MediatorSelf-conceptF statistics

AFD.W. value

2.631.118

Model 1

.127 (1.086).028 (.162)

-.168 (-.982)-.073 (-.349)-.072 (-.404)

.368** (.2.856).049 (.299)

.460** (3.274)

3.796.344.226

6.6492.057

1

self-concept and

Equation 2 (individual donor giving intention)

Benchmark

.071 (.567)-.274 (-1.409)

.418* (2.188)-.004 (-.017)

.122 (.625)

2.834.098

Model 2

-.045 (-.385)-.206 (-1.197).505** (2.942)

.085 (.400).325(1.817)

.551** (2.919)

.515** (3.115)334. * (2.048)

6.859.338.240

11.0621.710

Model 3

.046 (.357)-.277 (-1.420)

.431* (2.241).025 (.104).144 (.729)

.285*** (.3.482)5.283.239

.141P '3.123P"1.923

Model 4

-.033 (-.276)-.204 (-1.177).489** (2.812)

.077 (.364).318(1.768)

.503** (2.412)

.510** (3.072).289* (2.165)

.281*** (3.475)14.230.490

.152P".15.5231'"

1.926

Note: ^l^F and A/f of model 2 report changes from benchmark model in Equation 2.' 'AF and A^^ of model 3 report changes from benchmark model 2.*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p< 0.001 (2-tail).

Relationship between nonprofit brand equityand individual donors' self-concept

When selecting regression equation of demo-graphical variables and individual self-conceptas benchmark model in Equation 1, overallequation was significant (F=2.6i\, Sig.=0.005) and explained 11.8 per cent of thevariance in assessment of self-concept, ßcoefficient of gender is 0.245 while/» = 0.05,which shows female donors are moreobviously in self-concept. When introducingnonprofit brand equity into regression model,regression equation is highly significant(/7= 3.796, Sig. = 0.001). Additionally, a sig-nificant amount of incremental variance(i?^ = 0.226) in individual self-concept wasprovided by the antecedents after controllingfor demographics. Thus The regression resultspresented in model 1 show that individual self-concept was predicted by nonprofit brand

personality (jS = 0.368, 5« = 0.008), brandimage (^ = 0.049, Sig. = 0.766), and brandawareness (jß = 0.460, 5? . = 0.002), whichsupported H2a, H2c, but rejected H2b.

Relationship between individual donors'self-concept and their giving intention

In model 3, overall individual giving intentionwas significantly influenced by their self-concept (F= 5.283, Sig. = O.OOO). Additionally,a significant amount of incremental variance(R^ = 0.141) in individual giving intention wasprovided by the antecedent of self-conceptafter controlling demographics, which showsself-concept (/3 = 0.285, Sig. = Q.OOV) can beidentified as explanative variable in explainindividual giving intention, that is individualself-concept can improve its giving intention.Therefore, H3 is supported.



Relationship between nonprofit brand equity,individual donors' self-concept, and givingintention

In model 4 of Equation 2, individual donors'giving intention was significantly influenced bythe set of antecedents' variables iF= 14.230,Sig. = 0.000). Additionally, a significant amountof incremental variance (i?^ = 0.152) in indi-vidual giving intention was provided by theantecedent of self-concept after controllingdemographics and self-concept, w hich indi-cated self-concept entered the Equationlatently was efficient independent variablesince it explained 49 per cent of the variancein assessment of individual donor givingintention. By adding "individual donors' self-concept," standard beta coefficient of brandpersonality, brand image, and brand awarenesswere 0.503 iSig. = 0.005), 0.289 iSig. = 0.035),and 0.510 iSig. = 0.005^, respectively. Com-paring the results of Equation 1 with Equation2, we can find all regression coefficients ofnonprofit brand equity was significant at acertain level; however, their influences ongiving intention have weakened obviously.Erom research on mediator by Reuben andKenny (1986), we can validate that individualdonors' self-concept has mediating effect onthe relationship between nonprofit personal-ity, brand awareness, and individual donors'giving intention, which supported H4a andH4C. However, in Equation 1, the effect ofbrand image on individual self-concept is notsignificant, then its mediating effect cannotbe ftiUy proved. And then Sobel (1988) test wasemployed, but it w as not significant yet(Z = 0.344). That means, there was no mediat-ing effect of self-concept on brand image andindividual giving intention. Hereby, H4b is notsupported.

Conclusions and implications

Conclusions and discussions

This research collected 393 valid sampleshierarchical regression analysis and employedby controlling of demographic variables to

discuss on relationships among nonprofitbrand equity, individual donors self-conceptand their giving intentions. Empirical resultsindicated that two dimensions of nonprofitbrand equity—brand personality and brandawareness could strengthen individual donors'self-concept, which in turns influenced onindividual giving intention directly and signifi-cantly. Also, three dimensions of nonprofitbrand equity did not only impact individualgiving intention indirectly through individualself-concept, but have also direct positivecorrelation on it. Besides H2b, H4b, otherhypotheses are supported.

Eournier (1998) claimed a brand personalitythat is strong, favorable, and/or unique to theconsumer legitimates the brand as partnerand can result in more positive reciprocalexchanges. This logic is applied to nonprofitdonor, because individual donors would feelmore comfortable if they consider nonprofitbrand equity as partnership reliable, and thiswould help in forming of brand preference anddonation intention. At the meantime, Sirgy(1982) suggested that consumer brand pre-ference would be strengthened if brandpersonality matched consumer self-concept.This research also proved brand personality'spositive effects on individual giving intentionand individual self-concept, and this was alsoconsistent with research results by Beverlyet al. (2005). This research also demonstratedindividual donors' self perception or feelingorientation could be strengthened by brandpersonality, w hich in turns resulted in indi-vidual giving intention, then solicited theiractual behaviors. This reveals mediating effectof self-concept betwêen brand personality andgiving intention.

Lauer (1995) contends a brand identity orimage ".. . can communicate a certain distinc-tiveness that w ill have a positive effect onpeople's perception of a nonprofit organiz-ation." Communicating a nonprofit brandimage to individual donor is important, sinceidentification with nonprofit goals and valuesis a significant contributor to positivelybiased support behavior tow ard the nonprofitsby consumers, which is also proved in this



research and in consistent with the findings byFaircloth (2005). Although nonprofit adminis-trators should do their best to develop brandimage, but brand image did not strengthenindividual donors self-concept, this may bebecause of influences from products, situ-ations, and personal factors (Haw^kins et al.,2007). In the following three cases — productsw ith symbolic value, consume situation inpublic, and as well as those people thinking lotof others' considerations to themselves, brandimage strengthened self-concept. However,individual's ongoing donation can be con-sidered as a product with utility, and is mostlyin personal consuming situation. Furthermore,those donors do not consider too much onthe others attitude. Therefore, effects ofbrand image on self-concept is uncertain, thisprovided some evidences to explain why H2bwas not supported in this research.

Brand awareness, the consumer's capabilityfor recalling or recognizing from memory thesubject brand in the product category, helps toensure the brand is available, either throughrecall or recognition for consideration inconsumer decision making. And nonprofitbrand awareness influence on individual self-attitude by enforcing them to consider onquestions "how am I now," "what I expect tobe," and "how I hope the others think aboutme." And cognition of these problems influ-ences on individual donors' attitudes andbehaviors. This also proves that brand aware-ness is positively related with self-concept andgiving intention, and the mediating role of self-concept.

The findings add to the literature in threeways: (1) empirically apply the brand equityconstruct from for-profit sector to the non-profit sector, and establish and examine thethree dimensions of nonprofit equity; (2) Theextant nonprofit brand equity literature issolely practitioner and nonprofit managershave occasionally been encouraged to imple-ment brand equity models w ithout empiricalevidence; the decision making of resourceconstrained resource providers will be posi-tively influenced; however, this research hasrevealed the influences each dimensional

antecedent of nonprofit brand equity onindividual giving intention; (3) mediatingeffects of individual self-concept betweenbrand equity and giving intention are sug-gested, and congruence between nonprofitbrand equity and self-concept can form activegiving intention is revealed.

Implications and limitations

Firstly, the results of this study suggest therelevance of the brand equity construct as atool for managers in nonprofit organizationscoping with scarce resources. Specifically, theresults indicated biased decision making byindividual donors (nonprofit brand equity) canpotentially be influenced by considering itsantecedents, the personality, image character-istics of the organization, and how consumersare aviare ofthe organization. This is importantto nonprofit managers who spend approxi-mately half their time trying to influence thedecision making of increasingly constrainedresource donors. It appears that managementof the antecedents may be the essential benefitof the brand equity concept, and these brandequity antecedents require development andnurture by nonprofit managers. This researchadvances the potential efficacy and importanceof integrating nonprofit brand equity andits components, also establishes the necessityof managing multidimensionality of nonprofitbrand equity. Only concerning on one part isnot enough, this is the necessary considerationfor nonprofit administrators in designingmarketing campaign.

Secondly, nonprofit administrators have topay attention to the congruence of brandequity and individual donors' self-concept.This research introduces self-concept inempirical research on the effect of brandequity on giving intention, and explores theinfluences of brand personality, brand image,and brand awareness on individual self-con-cept. Development and cultivation of brandpersonality and brand awareness can improveself-cognition, and strengthen self-perceptionand feeling orientation, and then impact self-



attitude and behaviors. Additionally, clarity ofdonor's self-concept would infiuence directlyself-orientation and decision making in donat-ing process, while faintness of self-conceptmakes gap between self-attitude and self-actuality, which makes it hard to solicit donor'sgiving intention and behavior. Consequently,nonprofit administrators have to develop andcultivate brand personality and brand aware-ness matching with target consumers' self-concept in order to guide and attract individualdonors to actively donate.

Though, important findings and implica-tions are established in this research, there arestill some limitations. For example, there aremany different kinds of nonprofits, and theirmissions and values are also different, thusthe attributes of social causes held by thesenonprofits can infiuence donor preference,but this research has not added relatedvariables to control or measure; secondly,feelings of individual donors' perception ofnonprofit brand equity and their self-conceptwould vary with the development of theircognition abilities, experiences, and situationchange. Furthermore, there is the hetero-geneity among respondents. Therefore, thisresearch using section survey data may notexamine the intrinsic development of individ-ual donor and differences of change amongdonors, further research should replicate ourwork employing longitudinal study to collectpanel date to test the results in this research;additionally, in this research, every respon-dents answered questionnaire after reading ofa short scenario, and this cannot be enoughto ensure them to make most real choice.Infiuencing by traditional culture, utilitarian-ism, and other factors, samples tend to show^their good side while hide the bad or deceptiveside. Therefore, experimental method couldbe adapted to remove these manmade inter-feres.

Acknowledgements

This study was conducted w ith support fromNatural Science Foundation of China (Project

No. 70872038 and 70672038) and Social ScienceFoundation of Hubei Province, P.R. China(Project No. 2007014).

Biographical notes

fundong Hou is a Ph.D. student in the School ofManagement, HuaZhong University of Scienceand Technology, Wuhan Hubei Province,China (430074). His research focuses on non-profit marketing.

Lanying Du is a Professor in the School ofManagement, HuaZhong University of Scienceand Technology, Wuhan, China (430074). Herresearch focuses on strategic and marketingmanagement, w ith several projects currentlyunderway in the consumer's behavior. She haspublished many related papers in internationaljournals and conferences, such as Asia PacificJournal of Marketing and Logistics.

Zhilong Tian is a Professor in the School ofManagement, HuaZhong University of Scienceand Technology, Wuhan, China (430074). Hisresearch focuses on strategic and marketingmanagement and cause-related marketing. Hehas published many related papers in inter-national journals and conferences, such asJournal of Public Affairs, Long Range Planning,etc.

ReferencesAaker J, Foumier S, Brasel SA. 2004. When good

brands do bad. Journal of Consumer Researcb31öune): l-l6.

Arnold MJ, Tapp SR. 2003. Direct marketing in non-profit services: investigating the case of the artsindustry. Journal of Services Marketing 17(2):141-160.

Beardi C. 1999- Interbrand opens foundation toconcentrate on non-profits. Advertising Age70(46): 120.

Beverly TV, Rose GM, Bush VD, Gilbert FW. 2005.The role of brand personality in charitable giving:an assessment and validation. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Science 33: 295-312.

Bhattacharya CB, Rao H, Glynn MA. 1995. Under-standing the bond of identification: an investi-gation of its correlates among art museum

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int J. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Mark, August 2009DOI: 10.1002/nvsm


members. Journal of Marketing 59(October):46-57,

Chen XH, 2007, The influence of the congnience ofconsumer self-concept and brand personality onconsumer brand preference, Sociai Psychologi-cal Science 22(3-4): 117-120 (in Chinese),

Chen YT, Pan L, Wu H. 2007, How do the firmsdrive the development of philanthropy?http://www,51cmc,com [8th January 2007](in Chinese),

China Network of Civil Society Organizations,2008, Annual Reports of Foundations in China.http://www,chinanpo,gov,cn/npowork/dc/listTitleReport,do?action=showList&dictionid=102&websitId=1000001&netTypeId=2 [26 Feb-ruary 2008] (in Chinese),

Faircloth JB, 2005, Factors influencing nonprofitresource provider support decisions: applyingthe brand equity concept to nonprofits,/owrnfl/of Marketing 13(summer): 1-15,

Faircloth JB, Capella LM, Alford BL, 2001, The effectof brand attitude and brand image on brandequity. Journal of Marketing Theory and Prac-tice 12: 61-75,

Fournier S, 1998, Consumers and their brands:Developing relationship theory in consumerresearch. Journal of Consumer Research24(March): 343-373,

Gaoju Cao, 2005, A study of relationship amongthe consumers' lifestyle, self-image and the pro-ducts' brand personality. Zhejiang University,P,R, China (in Chinese),

Glaser JS, 1994, The United Way Scandal-An Insi-der's Account of What Went Wrong and Why.John Wiley and Sons: New York,

Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, TathamRL, 2006, Multivariate Data Analysis, (6th ed),Pearson Education Inc: Upper Saddle River, NJ,

Hawkins DI, Mothersbaugh DL, Best RJ, 2007,Consumer Behavior: Buliding MarketingStrategy, (10th ed), McGraw-Hill Companies,Inc: New York,

Keller KL, 2000, The brand report card. HarvardBusiness Review 78(1): 147-154,

Kotier P, 1997, Marketing Management: Analysis,Planning, Implementation, and Control. Pre-ntice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ,

Lauer LD, 1995, How to use a total marketingapproach to renew your organization and makean impact. Nonprofit World 13(3): 51-55,

Madalena A, 2006, The brand positioning and imageof a religious organization: an empirical analysis.International Journal of Nonprofit and Volun-tary Sector Marketing 11: 139-146,

Mark G, 2005, Building and rebuilding charitybrands: the role of creative agencies. Inter-national Journal of Nonprofit and VoluntarySector Marketing 10(2y. 121-132,

Michael TE, Napoli J, 2003, Developing and validat-ing a multidimensional nonprofit brand orienta-tion scale. Journal of Business Research 58(6):841-853,

Ministry of Civil Affairs of P,R,, China, 2008, Statisticdata of civil affairs of China, http://www,mca,-gov,cn/article/zwgk/tjsj/ (in Chinese),

Morgan AJ, 1993, The evolving self in consumerbehavior: exploring possible selves. Advances inConsumer Research 20: 429,

Malhotra NK, 1981, A scale to measure self-con-cepts, person concepts, and product concepts.Journal of Marketing Research 11: 462,

Onkvisit S, Shaw J, 1987, Self-concept and imagecongruence: some research and managerialimplications. Journal of Consumer Behavior4(1): 13-123,

Purkey W, 1988, An Overview of Self-ConceptTheory for Counselors. ERIC Clearinghouse onCounseling and Personnel Services, Ann Arbor,Mich,

Reuben MB, Kenny DA. 1986, The Moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psycho-logical research: conceptual, strategic, and stat-istical considerations. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology 51(6): 1173-1182,

Rossiter JR, Percy L, 1987, Advertising and Pro-motion Management. McGraw-Hill: New York,

Sampath KR, Henley WH, 2007, Determinantsof charitable donation intentions: a structuralequation model. International Journal of Non-profit and Votuntary Sector Marketing 13(1);1-11,

Sargeant A, West DC, Ford JB, 2001, The role ofperceptions in predicting donor value. Journalof Marketing Management 17: 407-428,

Sargeant A, Ford JB, West DC, 2006, Perceptualdeterminants of nonprofit giving behavior. Jour-nal of Business Research 59: 155-165,

Sargeant W, 2007, Gift giving: an interdisciplinaryreview. International Journal of Nonprofit andVoluntary Sector Marketing 12: 275-307,

Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, IntJ Nonprofit Voiunt Sect Mark., August 2009DOI: 10,1002/nvsm


Sirgy MJ. 1982. Self-concept in consumer behavior:a critical revie-w.Journal of Consumer Research9(December): 287-300.

Sirgy MJ. 1980. The self-concept in relation toproduct preference and purchase intention.Development in Marketing Science 3: 350-354.

Smitli AM. 1997. Understanding and building thenonprofit brand. In Marketing T/je Nonprofit,Maxwell MM (ed.), Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.

Sobel ME. 1988. Direct and indirect effects in linearstructural equation models. In Common Pro-blems/Proper Solutions, Long JS (ed.). Sage:Beveriy Hills, CA; 46-64.

Super D. 1984. Career and Life Development.Jossey-Bass: San Francisco.

Tapp A. 1996. Charity brands: a qualitative studyof current practice. Journal of Nonprofit andVoluntary Sector Marketing 1(4): 327-336.

Wang M, Jia XJ. 2002. Development of ChineseNGO. Management World 8: 30-45 (in Chinese).

Weisbrod BA. 1977. The Voluntary Nonprofit Sec-tor. D.C. Heath: Lexington, MA.

Zhang M. 2006. Public involvement is essence ofphilanthropy: survey of Chinese philanthropy.Worker Daily [5 Feb.2006] (in Chinese).

Zinkhan GM, Hong JW. 1991. Self-concept andadvertising effectiveness: a conceptual modelof congruency, conspicuousness, and responsemode. Advances in Consumer Research 1(18):348-354.


Documents

Effect Ofnon Profit