ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH
Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802
The Gloves Are Coming Off! to Use Direct/Indirect Comparative Ads: Depends on the Comparison Strategy
Arti D Kalro, Assistant Professor, Shailesh J Mehta School of Management, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai,
India
Bharadhwaj Sivakumaran, Professor of Marketing, Great Lakes Institute of Management, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
Rahul R Marathe, Assistant Professor, Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai,
India
In comparative advertising, advertisers use differential ad formats (direct/indirect) and comparison strategies (targeting either the
market leader or multiple brands). Here, we show that when direct comparisons are employed, it is advisable to compare oneself with
multiple brands (rather than with the market leader); thus extending prior work in a managerial relevant way.
[to cite]:
Arti D Kalro, Bharadhwaj Sivakumaran, and Rahul R Marathe (2012) ,"The Gloves Are Coming Off! to Use Direct/Indirect
Comparative Ads: Depends on the Comparison Strategy", in AP - Asia-Pacific Advances in Consumer Research Volume 10, eds.
, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 237-244.
[url]:
http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1011172/volumes/ap11/AP-10
[copyright notice]:
This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in
part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/.
Arti D Kalro, Assistant Professor, Shailesh J Mehta School of Management, Indian Institute of Technology
Bombay, Mumbai, India
Bharadhwaj Sivakumaran, Professor of Marketing, Great Lakes Institute of Management, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
Rahul R Marathe, Assistant Professor, Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology
Madras, Chennai, India
ABSTRACT
In comparative advertising, advertisers use differential
ad formats (direct/indirect) and comparison strategies
(targeting either the market leader or multiple
brands). Here, we show that when direct comparisons
are employed, it is advisable to compare oneself with
multiple brands (rather than with the market leader);
thus extending prior work in a managerial relevant
way.
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATION
FOR RESEARCH
comparative advertising as “advertising which
alternative brand by name, illustration, or other
distinctive information”. Thus, comparative ads have
two formats: direct (“Total Corn Flakes have more
)
and indirect (“Tylenol is safer than other regular
non-prescription pain relievers”). Also, comparative
ads differ on another dimension: comparison strategy
(‘multi-brand’: when a brand compares itself with
multiple brands in that category or the ‘market leader’:
when a brand compares itself with the leading brand).
Prior research has shown that the effectiveness
by moderating conditions like message characteristics
(e.g. one-sided/two-sided message studied by
Goodwin and Etgar 1980; negative or positive valence
by Jain and Posavac 2004), media characteristics (e.g.
competitive interference studied by Ang and Leong
1994, Kent and Allen 1994) product characteristics (e.g.
Functional vs. Psychological studied by Goodwin and
Etgar 1980) or audience characteristics (e.g. Need for
Cognition and Self Construal studied by Polyorat and
Alden 2005). However, there is no research on whether
direct/indirect comparisons are better when a brand
uses ‘multi-brand/market leader’ comparison strategy.
In other words, does the effectiveness of comparison
format depend on type of comparison strategy? It is
important to answer this question since ‘multi-brand’
comparisons are used extensively (Kalro, Sivakumaran
and Marathe 2010) and most research in this genre has
studied single brand comparisons only (e.g. Gorn and
Weinberg 1984, Chattpodhyay 1998, Chang 2007).
This study examines the combined impact of
comparative advertising formats (direct vs. indirect)
and comparison strategy (‘market leader’ vs. ‘multibrand’) on consumer response/outcome variables
(perceived manipulative intent, attitude towards the
ad, attitude towards the brand, and perceived brand
differences). In particular:
Do ‘multi-brand’ or ‘market leader’
comparisons reduce the perceived manipulative
intent, that is, “a state wherein a consumer infers
that the advertiser is attempting to persuade him/
her by inappropriate, unfair, or manipulative means”
(Campbell 1995), of direct and indirect comparative
ads?
Do ‘multi-brand’ or ‘market leader’
comparisons create stronger/weaker favorable
attitudes toward direct and indirect comparative ads?
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Comparative ads can evoke negative responses (Chang
2007). These negative responses may get augmented
if the advertiser targets a particular competitor,
especially the market leader, due to the inherent
strength of belief in the market leader (Goodwin and
Etgar 1980). Therefore, a direct comparative ad against
the ‘market leader’ elicits more negative thoughts
because consumers perceive this as an “attentionseeking” tactic of the advertiser.
On the other hand, the higher information
content of comparative ads leads to greater information
processing and involvement of the consumers (Yagci,
Biswas, and Dutta 2009); thus, reducing the perceived
skepticism toward the comparative claim. Further, if
comparisons are made against multiple players in that
competitor is being attacked and they will perceive
such ads to be more credible. Therefore, use of ‘multibrand’ comparison strategy in direct comparative ads
|
will reduce the perceived manipulative intent of the
advertiser and create stronger favorable attitudetoward-the-ad (Aad). Also, availability of information
across multiple competitors (particularly by referring
to them explicitly) increases the vividness of the
information, thus, encouraging the readers to engage
in the elaboration of message information and also,
activating the pre-existing knowledge structures.
Comparative ads, by naming dominant brands, attempt
such activation of pre-existing knowledge structures
directly and thereby, encouraging the consumers to
use the central route of information processing (Dröge
1989). Thus, this enhanced message involvement in
direct ‘multi-brand’ comparisons encourages rational
thinking and reduces skepticism or suspicion in the
minds of the consumers and enhances favorable Aad.
Thus, based on the Persuasion Knowledge
Model and Attribution Theory, we posit that the
difference in perceived manipulative intent (H1) and
Aad (H2) between direct and indirect comparative ads
will be higher when the advertising brand compares
itself to the market leader than when it compares
itself to multiple competitors.
METHODOLOGY
Kalro, Sivakumaran, and Marathe (2010) found that
advertisers use comparative ads for both utilitarian
and hedonic products equally; and that comparative
ads were more common for products high on purchase
decision involvement (PDI). Hence, based on Voss,
Spangenberg and Grohmann (2003), and Mittal
(1989), we chose the smart phone category that met
the required criteria (MHED = 5.064; MUTI = 6.132 and
Scale
high PDI value = 5.606).
an existing company, Toshiba. The model was named
Toshiba TG-03 with Toshiba’s tagline, ‘Delivering
the Best User Experience’ with six superior attributes
(slimmest body, least weight, highest display
resolution, largest screen, highest camera resolution
and waterproof) relative to the referred-to brand(s).
We conducted the study in a prominent university
in India (N=109). The study was a 2 (comparison
formats: direct/indirect) X 2 (comparison strategies:
experimental design. The participants were asked to
For direct ‘market leader’ comparisons, we
compared Toshiba TG-03 against a real brand in the
smart phone category, Apple iPhone (the market
leader when this study was conducted in March
2009). For direct ‘multi-brand’ comparisons, Toshiba
TG-03 was compared to Apple iPhone, Nokia 5800
Xpress Music and BlackBerry, in a tabular format,
claiming superiority for Toshiba TG-03. For indirect
comparative ads, the text read ‘Toshiba TG-03 is
better than the leading brand’ (subtly referring to
Apple iPhone in terms of its logo font and color)
and in the indirect ‘multi-brand’ comparison it was
compared to Brand X, Brand Y and Brand Z (indirectly
referring to Apple iPhone, Nokia 5800 Xpress Music
and BlackBerry respectively through the use of logos,
fonts and colors).
We used “Users of comparison brand”
consumers” as covariates in this study (Barone, Palan
and Miniard 2004). All the scales were adapted from
extant literature (Table 1).
Source
Cronbach’s
Alphas
Voss, Spangenberg, and Grohmann (2003)
.805
Mitchell and Dacin (1996)
.874
Mittal (1989)
.901
Chang (2007), Campbell (1995)
.835
Muehling (1987), Dröge (1989)
.846
Hedonic/Utility
Subjective product class knowledge
Purchase Decision Involvement
(PDI)
Perceived Manipulative Intent
Attitude-toward-the-ad (Aad)
RESULTS
The two-way MANCOVA results are as follows:
Pillai’s Trace = .105; Wilks’ lambda = .895;
Hotelling’s Trace and Roy’s Largest Root = .117,
2
= .08. Both “Users of
(all p’s > .10). The follow-up ANOVAs are presented
below.
As predicted,
the interaction between comparison formats and
manipulative intent (MDirect-Market Leader = 3.94, MDirect=2.89, MIndirect-Market Leader= 3.47, MIndirect-Multi = 3.34;
Multi
2
= .09) (Figure 1).
DISCUSSION AND CONTRIBUTIONS
comparison format and comparison strategy on
perceived manipulative intent and Aad. We found that
broadly, manipulative intent was lower (higher) when
multi-brand (market leader) comparisons were used
for both direct and indirect comparative ads. Also, Aad
was higher (lower) when multi-brand (market leader)
comparisons were used.
theoretical and managerial contributions. Consistent
with recent studies (Chang 2007; Thompson and
Hamilton 2006
condition (comparison strategy) that enhances
Figure 1: PERCEIVED MANIPULATIVE INTENT
(Note: The dashed
Comparative Ads)
line
represents
Indirect
the effectiveness of comparative advertisements
Supporting the
hypothesis, the interaction between comparison
formats and strategies on Aad
Direct=
3.85,
M
=
4.92,
M
Market Leader
Direct-Multi
Indirect-Market Leader
= 4.57, MIndirect-Multi = 4.71; F(1, 103) = 4.778, p < .05,
2
= .09) (Figure 2). Both interactions were in the
predicted direction supporting H1 and H2.
‘multi-brand’ comparisons reduces the inference of
manipulative intent for direct comparisons.
Most prior research (e.g. Shimp and Dyer 1978,
Grewal et al. 1997) found that direct comparative ads
using ‘market leader’ comparison were ineffective.
However, we show that direct comparison ads are not
always seen negatively. When direct comparative ads
use ‘multi-brand’ comparisons, they are evaluated
|
Figure 2: ATTITUDE-TOWARD-THE-AD (Aad)
Hyp.
Dependent Variables
Independent Variables
P
Results
H1
Perceived Manipulative
Intent (Fig. 1)
.034**
Supported
H2
Attitude-toward-the-Ad
(Fig. 2)
Comparison Format
(Direct & Indirect)
X
Comparison Strategy
(‘Market Leader’ & ‘Multi-Brand’)
.031**
Supported
p
p < .05
more positively. To the best of our knowledge, this competitors. In other words, our research suggests that
the advertiser use ‘multi-brand’ comparisons directly.
effects of using ‘multi-brand’ comparisons. This In case they need to target a market leader, they must
is especially relevant since most comparative do so indirectly. Also, many advertisers may have
advertising uses ‘multi-brand’ comparisons (Kalro et distinct styles and philosophies. Some would prefer
al. 2010) while most extant research concerns itself to use direct over indirect comparisons. In this case,
with ‘market leader’ comparisons.
they may target multiple brands and not the market
Managerially, our research brings to light leader alone. In case advertisers have a bias for
practical implications for advertising executives. indirect comparison ads, they may target the market
This study demonstrates that if advertisers wish leader and not multiple brands. Thus, our research
shows the conditions under which advertisers may
advantageous to use the ‘multi-brand’ comparison use direct/indirect comparisons and/or market leader/
strategy rather than comparing against the market multi brand comparison strategies.
leader. Often, markets are fragmented (e.g. the
car market in several parts of the world) and in theoretical and managerial contributions.
such scenarios, it makes sense to target multiple
REFERENCES
Ang, Swee H. and Siew M. Leong (1994),
“Comparative Advertising: Superiority
Despite Interference?”
Management, 11 (1), 33-46.
Barone, Michael J., Kay M. Palan, and Paul W.
Miniard (2004), “Brand Usage and Gender
as Moderators of the Potential Deception
Associated with Partial Comparative
Advertising,” Journal of Advertising, 33 (1),
19-28.
Campbell, Margaret C. (1995), “When AttentionGetting Advertising Tactics Elicit Consumer
Inferences of Manipulative Intent: The
Investment: The Importance of Balancing
Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 4 (3), 225-54.
Chang, Chingching (2007), “The Relative
Effectiveness of Comparative and Noncomparative Advertising: Evidence for Gender
Differences in Information – Processing
Strategies,” Journal of Advertising, 36 (1), 2135.
Chattopadhyay, Amitava (1998), “When Does
Attitude? The Role of Delay and Market
Position,” Psychology and Marketing, 15 (5),
461-75.
Dröge, Cornelia (1989), “Shaping The Route to
Attitude Change: Central Versus Peripheral
Processing Through Comparative Versus Noncomparative Advertising,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 26 (2), 193-204.
Goodwin, Steven and Michael Etgar (1980), “An
Experimental Investigation of Comparative
Advertising: Impact of Message Appeal,
Information Load, and Utility of Product Class,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 17 (2), 187-202.
Gorn, Gerald J. and Charles B. Weinberg (1984),
“The Impact of Comparative Advertising
on Perception and Attitude: Some Positive
Findings,” Journal of Consumer Research, 11
(2), 719-27.
Grewal Dhruv, Sukumar Kavanoor, Edward F.
Fern, Carolyn Costley, and James Barnes
(1997), “Comparative Versus Non-comparative
Advertising: A Meta-analysis,” Journal of
Marketing, 61 (4), 1-15.
Jain, Shailendra P. and Steven S. Posavac (2004),
“Valenced Comparisons,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 41 (1), 46-58.
R. Marathe (2010), “Comparative Advertising
in India: A Content Analysis of English Print
Advertisements,” Journal of International
Consumer Marketing, 22 (4), 377-94.
Kent, Robert J. and Chris T. Allen (1994),
“Competitive Interference Effects in Consumer
Memory for Advertising: The Role of Brand
Familiarity,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (3), 97105.
Mitchell, Andrew A. and Peter A. Dacin (1996),
“The Assessment of Alternative Measures of
Consumer Expertise,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 23 (3), 219-39.
Mittal, Banwari (1989), “Measuring PurchaseDecision Involvement,” Psychology and
Marketing, 6 (2) 147-62.
Muehling, Darrel D. (1987), “Comparative
the-Ad on Brand Evaluation,” Journal of
Advertising, 16 (4), 43-9.
Polyorat, Kawpong and Dana L. Alden (2005),
“Self-Construal and Need-for-Cognition Effects
on Brand Attitudes and Purchase Intentions
in Response to Comparative Advertising in
Thailand and the United States,” Journal of
Advertising, 34 (1), 37-48.
Shimp, Terrence A. and D. C. Dyer (1978), “The
Effects of Comparative Advertising Mediated by
Market Position of Sponsoring Brand,” Journal
of Advertising, 7 (3), 13-9.
Thompson, Debora V. and Rebecca W. Hamilton
(2006), “The Effects of Information Processing
Mode on Consumers’ Responses to Comparative
Advertising,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32
(4), 530-41.
Voss, Kevin E., Eric R. Spangenberg, and Bianca
Grohmann (2003), “Measuring the Hedonic and
Utilitarian Dimensions of Consumer Attitude,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 30 (3), 310-20.
(2009), “Effects of Comparative Advertising
Format on Consumer Responses: The
Moderating Effects of Brand Image and
Attribute Relevance,” Journal of Business
Research, 62 (8), 768-74.
|
Jun Yao, Monash University, Australia
Harmen Oppewal, Monash University, Australia
ABSTRACT
This paper investigates how product type and
interest rate as well as consumer expertise in loans
sense of accountability and hence only succumb to
decision (Kunda 1990). They will not knowingly
select tempting alternatives when such a choice
for down payments in the context of loan decisions.
for utilitarian over hedonic goods and moderating
effects of expertise.
EXTENDED ABSTRACT
The present paper investigates how extrinsic
attributes, such as product type, interest rate (APR)
as well as consumer intrinsic characteristics, such as
expertise in consumer loan and attitude towards debt,
in the context of loan decisions.
LITERATURE REVIEW, THEORY AND
HYPOTHESES
Installment selling has been a popular marketing
practice and nowadays offering installment credit
has been widely adopted by retailers selling durable
goods. In the literature on consumer loan decisions
two issues have however remained unsolved. Would
consumer loan decisions differ across utilitarian and
hedonic goods? And is the promotion of “no deposit”
effective in persuading consumers to take up loans.
Previous research suggests that products can
products (Batra and Ahtola 1991; Mano and Oliver
1993). Compared to utilitarian goods, consumption
of hedonic goods is more associated with feelings of
guilt and responsibility (Kivetz and Simonson 2002a,
b; Lascu 1991; Strahilevitz and Myers 1998). A
central idea in the behavioral literature about hedonic
and utilitarian products is that, partly due to the guilt
spending on utilitarian goods (e.g., Okada 2005).
Also, Prelec and Loewenstein (1998) suggest
that consumers are prone to coupling payments
however this “coupling” is less likely to occur if
tends to be the case with hedonic products. Extant
literature shows that consumers try to maintain a
1996). Thus consumers are expected less willing to
borrow or take up loans for pursuing hedonism.
In addition, Okada (2005) empirically
indicates that people are willing to pay more in time
for hedonic goods and pay extra money for utilitarian
postpone purchases of hedonic products until the
money is saved, and to bring forward purchases of
utilitarian products by borrowing, even though this
incurs interest charges. Therefore an installment plan
with a greater focus on consumption than on payments
will be more consistent with a consumer’s motivation
to buy utilitarian products than with a motivation to
buy hedonic products. We thus predict that consumers
utilitarian goods over purchases of hedonic goods.
An installment loan can take many forms
by varying attributes such as APR, loan duration,
monthly repayment and down payment, allowing
consumers to establish their preferences for
installment plans (Ranyard and Craig 1995; Ranyar,
Hinkley, Williamson and McHugh 2006). In terms of
into consumer choices of automobile loans showed
that loans with low interest rates, moderate contract
lengths, high rebates and moderate down payments
are preferred (Wonder, Wilhelm, and Fewings 2008).
Because APR indicates the borrowing cost associated
with the installment loan, consumers should always
prefer a lower APR over a higher APR. The down
payment (or deposit), is the initial upfront portion of
the total amount due and it is usually paid in cash
in installment buying. For consumers, the down
payment may be perceived as an obligation but on
the other hand, involves no borrowing cost since it
is paid at the point of purchase. From a temporal
discounting perspective, people will prefer options
with low immediate costs such as down payments.
However, the higher the down payment, the less
interest will be charged on the outstanding balance,
is at a low level (e.g., close to 0%), a loan requiring
a lower down payment and a loan requiring a higher
down payment are nearly invariant in terms of the
borrowing cost and total cost. If the APR is higher
however, a loan with a lower down payment incurs
a higher borrowing cost and a higher total cost,
compared to a loan with a higher down payment.
Consumers are therefore expected to prefer a higher
down payment when APR is high, whereas prefer a
lower down payment when APR is low.
Prior research shows that the expertise that
consumers have in that particular problem solving
(Soman and Cheema, 2002). In the context of loan
decisions, experienced consumers should be more
aware of the incremental difference in the borrowing
cost and total cost associated with increases in APR,
such that they are more likely to shift their attention
from mitigating the immediate pain of paying to
higher amount as a down payment, if possible. We
thus predict that individual’s expertise in consumer
loan moderates the effect of APR (low vs. high) on
the preference for loan down payments.
With respect to the relationship between
consumer loan evaluations and product type,
Kamleitner and Kirchler (2006)’s qualitative work
has shown that shorter installment plans are often
used for hedonic goods, such as vacation and TV,
whereas longer loans are mainly taken for utilitarian
goods such as furniture. From the perspective of
term loan and a loan with a lower down payment, in
that both incur higher borrowing costs and total costs,
relative to a short-term loan and a loan with higher
down payment. Also, similar to our prediction that
purchases of hedonic products, they will also be more
likely settle the debt early on a hedonic product than
on a utilitarian product, even if they have to borrow.
Thus consumers are expected to prefer a loan with
durable goods while they prefer a loan with a lower
APPROACH, FINDINGS AND
DISCUSSION
Two experiments were conducted. For study 1,
a random sample of 85 undergraduate students
completed an on-line survey in exchange for course
credit. The experiment employed a single factor design
that adapted Hirst, Joyce and Schadewald (1994)’s
decide to buy a car for work use (utilitarian) as well
as a sail boat for recreation (hedonic) simultaneously
. The two goods were priced the same and it had to
purpose of the loan.
Study 2 was a laboratory experiment that
employed a 2 (high APR vs. low APR) x 2 (utilitarian
who completed the survey in exchange for course
a set of furniture (vs. a home theatre system) under
APR at 3% (vs. APR at 15%). They then indicated
their willingness-to-pay (WTP) the down payment
for the loan. Individual difference variables, such
as expertise in consumer loan (Soman and Cheema,
2002) and attitude towards debt (Davies and Lea
1995) were measured. The results suggest that people
who reported having more expertise in consumer loan
are willing to pay a higher down payment when APR
is high than those who reported themselves as having
in terms of WTP the down payment between people
with more expertise in consumer loan and people
with less expertise when APR is low.
Findings of the present paper extend the
literature on mental accounting and debt use by
empirically testing the effects of product type on
consumer loan decisions. The difference in purchase
behaviors for hedonic and utilitarian products
Thus the temptation of using installment credit may
be lower for purchases of hedonic products than for
purchases of utilitarian products. More importantly,
between consumer intrinsic characteristics, extrinsic
product attributes and loan decisions by revealing the
moderating effect of attitudes towards debt on product
type and preferred down payment. Furthermore, by
providing a better understanding of the moderating
role of individual’s expertise in APR and preferred
down payment, this paper not only contributes to the
research on consumer loan decisions but also to how
consumer knowledge accounts for loan decisions.
Consumers should be better educated to increase their
|
indebtedness.
REFERENCES
the Hedonic and Utilitarian Sources of
Consumer Attitudes,” Marketing Letters, 2 (2),
159-70.
Davies, E., and Lea, S. E. G. (1995), “Student
Attitudes to Student Debt,” Journal of Economic
Psychology, 16 (4), 663-79.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 66 (1), 122-29.
Kamleitner, Bernadette and Erich Kirchler (2006),
“Personal Loan Users’ Mental Integration of
Payment and Consumption,” Marketing Letters,
17 (4), 281-94.
Kivetz, Ran and Itamar Simonson (2002a), “Earning
the Right to Indulge: Effort as a Determinant
of Customer Preferences toward Frequency
Program Rewards,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 39 (2), 155-70.
_______ (2002b), “Self-Control for the Righteous:
Toward a Theory of Precommitment to
Indulgence,” Journal of Consumer Research, 29
(2), 199-217.
Kunda, Ziva (1990), “The Case for Motivated
Reasoning,” Psychological Bulletin, 108 (3),
480-98.
Lascu, Dana Nicoleta (1991), “Consumer Guilt:
Examining the Potential of a New Marketing
Construct,” in Advances in Consumer Research,
Vol. 18, ed. R. Holman and M. Solomon, Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research, 29093.
Mano, Haim and Richard L. Oliver (1993),
“Assessing the Dimensionality and Structure
of the Consumption Experience: Evaluation,
Feeling, and Satisfaction,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 20 (3), 451-66.
Consumer Choice of Hedonic and Utilitarian
Goods,” Journal of Marketing Research, 42 (1),
43-53.
Prelec, Drazen and George Loewenstein (1998),
“The Red and the Black: Mental Accounting of
Savings and Debt,” Marketing Science, 17 (1),
4-28.
Ranyard, R. and G. Craig (1995), “Evaluating
and Budgeting with Installment Credit - An
Interview Study,” Journal of Economic
Psychology, 16 (3), 449-67.
Ranyard, R., L. Hinkley, J. Williamson, and
S. McHugh (2006), “The Role of Mental
Accounting in Consumer Credit Decision
Processes,” Journal of Economic Psychology, 27
(4), 571-88.
Soman, Dilip and Amar Cheema (2002), “The Effect
of Credit on Spending Decisions: The Role of
the Credit Limit and Credibility,” Marketing
Science, 21 (1), 32-53.
Strahilevitz, Michal and John G. Myers (1998),
“Donations to Charity as Purchase Incentives:
How Well They Work May Depend on What
You Are Trying to Sell,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 24 (4), 434-46.