The Role of Brands as Frames for
Engagement in Meeting Pro-Social Goals
A Presentation to Philanthropy Ireland
PhD Candidate: Karen Hand
School of Psychology , Centre for Global Health, Trinity College, Dublin.
Ray Murphy Memorial Scholar
Supervisors: Prof. Malcolm MacLachlan Trinity College Dublin, Ireland &
Prof. Stuart Carr, Poverty Research Group, Massey. New Zealand.
Contact : Karen @ +353872243064 or karenhand9@gmail.com
Karen Hand - Background
• Experience
– More than 20 years working with clients on strategic planning and brand
strategy across sectors and geographies
– Unilever, IBM, Diageo, SEI, SMBC Aviation Capital, ding!, Origin Green
• Publications
– 2000 -Getting Out of Line: Tools and Techniques for Lateral Thinking
– 2012 – An Unequal Balance? The effects of unequal pay systems on
societal motivation in Ireland
– 2013 – Happy Nation? Prospects for psychological prosperity in Ireland.
– 2015 – Happiness in Texting Times? SMS as a method to track national
happiness levels.
– 2015 – A Line in the Sand – Key findings from a meta –analysis in the
IAPI effectiveness data-base
– 2016 – Stepping Up by Stepping Out- Sustaining humanitarian work
psychology
• Ray Murphy Bursary Award (2012)
Background: Pro –Social Sector
• Underlying rationale for Ngo’s, non-profits &
charities is to ‘do good’ & ‘be good’ as defined by
relevant stakeholders
– (Werker & Ahmed, 2007, Martens, B., 2005, Martens,
K., 2002, Slim, 2000, Hansmann, 1990)
• A crucial facet of a pro-social organisation is as a
repository of trust (Burt, 2012, O’Neill, 2009)
• Pro-social sector also includes CSR, ‘shared value’
initiatives and government social programmes.
Background: All Sectors: Crisis of Trust
Edelman Trust Barometer - 2012
Background – Pro-Social Brands
• Brands originally conceived as mechanisms of trust for
recipients as well as ownership for owners
• Theories to date for pro-social brands include:
– Management orientation/skill (Hankinson, 2001)
– Emphasis on values (Stride & Lee, 2007)
– Specific behaviours (Kylander & Stone, 2013)
• Structural Integrity, Democracy, Ethics & Affinity
• Need to theoretically align theories of pro-social
branding with more general theories of branding
• Need to empirically explore pro-social brands & how
they manifest internally & externally with stakeholders
Definition – ‘Brand’
REALITY
BRAND
REPUTATION
Brand – the value stakeholders put on your outputs as a result of actual
experiences of those outputs and associations, thoughts and feelings they
have about those outputs - reality and reputation need to reinforce each
other & create trust – otherwise there is effectively no ‘brand’ in place
Overall Research Question & Design
Investigating the role of brands & branding for pro-social sector in
motivating internal & external stakeholders
Mixed Methods Approach (Dewey , 1948, 1920, James , 1995,
1907, Peirce, 1878)
Study 1
An interpretative
phenomenological
analysis (Smith, 1986)
based on interviews with
ten decision –makers in
Oxfam International on
how they construct the
role of brand & branding
within their organisation
Study 2
A laboratory psychological
experiment (n=238) exploring
the relationships between (i)
‘framing’ appeals & (ii)
dispositional aspects (e.g Just
World motivations) in
intentional to support ‘People
Aid’ & (iii) estimates of public
on government aid levels .
Study 3
A naturalistic experiment
conducted with general public
(n = 3459) exploring (i)
relationships between social
capital (good deeds
done/received) & dispositional
(e.g happiness) situational (e.g
fairness) & (ii) effect of
feedback & participation levels
Study 1 – Design & Theory
• An interpretative phenomenological analysis
(Smith, 1986) based on interviews with ten
decision-makers in Oxfam International on how
they construct the role of brand & branding within
their organisation
• Key Theoretical Frameworks
– Branding as a dynamic system of stakeholder
expectations & experiences
• (e.g Hatch & Schultz, 2009, based on work of George Herbert
Mead, 1934); other dynamic theories of branding: Holt, 2002,
McMillan, Money & Downing, 2005, Fournier, 1998.
Brand as a Dynamic System of Meaning
Communication
Behaviour
Hatch & Schultz – 2009 – From Brands to Bricks – Organisational Dynamics. 38 (2) 117-130
Study 1 – Research Questions
1. How do NGO decision makers approach brands
& branding & make sense of stakeholder
expectations & experiences?
2. How does the NGO culture see branding in
terms of benefits & barriers?
3. What are the challenges moving forwards for
NGO branding?
4. In what way & to what extent are the answers
above similar/different to the role of brands
/branding in other organisations ?
Study 1. Key Themes
1. A Complex Balancing Act defining brands- both cognitively
& emotionally due to the ‘mediated’ nature of contracts,
long time-frames & distance
2. ‘Divided Selves’ – moral dilemma on the relative
importance of the ‘authority’ of the NGO itself versus it’s
stakeholders, especially it’s recipients
3. Cultural illegitimacy of ‘Brands’ – the language & ideology
of brands is not ‘neutral’ especially for internal
stakeholders
4. Sectoral illegitimacy of the NGO sector – deep critiques of
‘becoming’ (Sartre 1953/1946) within the NGO ‘project’. Is
it effective? Is is actually mal-effective? What does this
mean for branding?
‘Psychological Contracts’ Differ
Pro-Social
For – Profit
Consumer
Donor
Expectation
Expectation
NGO
Experience
Partner
Company
Experience
Recipient
‘Psychological Contract’ Self-Regulates
‘Psychological Contract’ ‘Mediated’
Divided Selves (Quotes)
Paul : ‘That is a fundamental disagreement between us
& the public effectively - we would not get out of bed in
the morning if we didn’t think poverty could be ended &
yet most people don’t think it can because they believe
its just ‘in the ether’ – its part of the human condition
that a certain percentage of our species will be poor &
that means if you say ‘Let’s end Poverty’ - unless you
have something on the scale of Make Poverty History –
you will get laughed out of court… because ‘Lets end
poverty’ is naive..’
Divided Selves (Quotes)
Alison: ‘Well it (brand) doesn’t have the same intensity with
all your stakeholders – by the time you get to the ‘sharp’ end
of what we do, it’s more of a ‘water-mark’ (to signify quality
or integrity)..you don’t want beneficiaries with Oxfam
stamped all over them – it’s not empowering –’
Emily: ‘ Jeff was over visiting here (the field) & he saw the logo
on the water-tank & he said ‘That’s my problem with Aid – it’s
all a competition between the NGO’s to get visibility & tell our
donors that we’re here’ & I actually disagree with him –
because I feel that the main reason for (brand) visibility in
humanitarian contexts is accountability to your beneficiaries’
…
Divided Selves (Quotes)
Susan : ‘The tension is…..if we want person X to give
us money – a lot of our communications and brand is
about us – it puts us in the centre, which is really
problematic – I don’t know how to square that circle
– and if in the rest of the world , we take a back seatif we puffed ourselves up we wouldn’t have anyone to
work with – ….. It’s just different in different countries
but it can be consistent – it’s hard to fix it in a slogan
and image …’
Interviewer: ‘True to every brand perhaps?’
Susan: ‘Although Coca Cola manage to do it ..’
Brands – Cultural Legitimacy?
Paul : ‘I do this 1.5 hour presentation for people joining Oxfam : ‘Brands
are not just Tesco. We have one whether you like the b-word or not’
…..I think you get more of a problem the further down you go & the
further away from marketing you go, you get that ‘brands are grubby
things we shouldn’t be getting our hands dirty with’….
Interviewer: ‘Is this Naomi Klein?’
Paul: ‘Not really- that was quite niche. It’s more the natural aversion to
all things marketing ….. – it’s the kind of Bill Hicks thing ‘-if you work in
marketing – kill yourself now’ …I think its more that ‘day-to-day’
rejection of ‘all things marketing’..
….People think you can’t be a charity & a brand …& of course from my
point of view you can …’
Underlying Legitimacy of NGO’s - quotes
Emily: ‘I think a huge challenge is going to be the Aid Debate –
how we react to it & how we deal with – I don’t think we’re
reacting to it in the right way – we’re reacting on a case by case
basis rather than looking at the critique on aid in general …I’m not
involved in this at the Head office level but from I do know -we
aren’t having a big debate on this – the Aid Question is a very very
difficult & complex question…We need to come out much more
strongly on our own limitations. We need to have a much more
honest conversation with the public?’
Interviewer : ‘Do you think the public is able for the honest version
of the conversation?’
Emily :‘I’m not sure……’
Underlying Legitimacy of NGO’s - quotes
Daniel : ‘ I wouldn’t shy away from any journalist or academic on any
question – we have an open policy …feel free to criticize – ‘come
and get it’ -……
…..Culturally making more of a failure is still something that makes
people uncomfortable – I personally think making a real cock-up on
a project is great because you can really learn from it - it shouldn’t
be swept under the carpet – it’s all right we need to be able to get
things wrong and I personally think it can be perfectly acceptable to
get things wrong and as an organization – getting things wrong – we
need to take ‘the fail’ out of failure…’
Discussion – Key Themes
• Complexity of factors within an NGO brand – the ‘heuristic’
can have value as long as it is not mis-leading
• Potential for brand to unite & integrate stakeholders if it
can articulate ‘common purpose’.
• Brands & branding are not fully integrated into NGO culture
– need dialogue with internal stakeholders?
– Possibly ‘re-named’ but this challenge isn’t about labelling but
about meaning, context & purpose?
• NGO ‘legitimacy’ under attack – where does this leave the
role of brands?
–
–
–
–
Irrelevant?
Distracting?
Defending?
Amplifying?
Towards a Theory of Integrated
Branding for NGO’s
• Interconnected Psychological Contracts
• Shared Purpose
• Anchored in Moral Capital
– (Versus financial, cultural or even social capital)
• With Recipient’s Well Being as Centre of
Gravity
• Emergent, Dialogical & ‘Always in Beta’
• A Crucible for Shared Transformation
Study 2 – Design & Theory
• A laboratory psychological experiment with general
public (n= 238) exploring (i) the role of framing appeals
as Crisis versus Development, & dispositional aspects
(e.g Just World) on intention to support ‘People Aid’ &
(ii) estimates of the public on Irish government
expenditure on Aid.
• Key Theoretical Frameworks
– Two-system decision-making (Loewenstein & Small, 2007,
Kahneman & Frederick, 2005, 2002)
– Framing (Lakoff, 2008, 2003)
– Positive Psychology (Anderson, 2003) & Just World Theory
(Lerner, 1980)
– Anchoring & Heuristics (Tverksy & Kahneman, 1974, Thaler
& Sunstein, 2011)
Epstein, 2006
Complex Balancing Act - Donor Motivations
‘Straw Man’
High Emotion
‘Smash & Grab’
Low Deliberation
High Deliberation
Tin Man
‘Sermon from the Mount’
Low Emotion
Lowenstein & Small - 2007
Study 2 – Research Questions
1. What effect does ‘framing’ appeals as crisis
/development or ‘emotional /deliberation’ have
on (i) intention to support & (ii) actual donation
to mythical overseas charity ‘People Aid’?
2. What effect do dispositional variables (e.g
happiness, just world, self-control, religion) have
on (i) intention to support & (ii) actual support
to ‘People Aid’?
3. What is the public’s estimate of the % of
government expenditure being spend on
overseas aid?
Study 2 - Experiment Design
Base-line Measures*
Independent Variables**
Dependent Variables
Demographics, including current charitable giving
Brief Measure of Self Control , Just World Measures, Hope for Just
world, Efficacy for Just World, Ideal NGO on Key Dimensions
4 x different pieces of print communication designed to get
donor support for ‘People –Aid’ (mythical NGO)
(a) Exploring ‘WHAT’ we promote : Crisis vs. Development
(e.g Hunger crisis versus farming education)
(b) Exploring HOW we promote it :’ Sympathy’ vs.
‘Deliberation’
Claimed Support
-To donate now
-Donate over time
-Volunteer now
-Volunteer overtime
-Advocacy etc
Actual SupportNOW
-Give money – 1
euro in 20 cents
-Give envelope –
no pressure
-Collect
* See actual scales in Appendix. ** Between subjects due to large sample size.
Estimate of
Government
Expenditure
on Overseas
Aid
- Open
question
Short Term Aid
This child is hungry.
This child is hungry.
For less than the cost of a
restaurant meal for two in Ireland,
Due to short-term severe famine,
she and her family can be given
enough food for a month
she and her family are suffering and need
to be given food for the next month
Sympathy
Deliberation
This child is hungry.
This child is hungry.
For less than the cost of a
restaurant meal for two in Ireland,
Due to long-term chronic famine,
she and her family can be taught
to produce food more effectively.
she and her family are suffering and
need to learn how to produce food
more effectively
Long Term Development
This child is hungry.
Due to short-term severe famine, she and her family are suffering
and need to be given food for the next month
Support PEOPLE AID – Let’s make a real difference
Ideal NGO on Key Dimensions?
If you were designing the ideal charity from your own point of view and
preferences would you want it to be :
Helping people in
emergencies /crisis
– e.g the tsunami
Helping people to help
themselves over time – e.g
education support /funding
Helping people in
Ireland
Helping the World’s
poorest
A charity which is passionate
about what they do
A charity which is professional in
how they work
A charity everyone knows
A charity that I know well
An Irish charity
khand@indigo.ie , +353872243064
An charity Based in the
Country which is being helped
Hope versus Efficacy in Just World
• Efficacy (a belief that change is possible) has been
shown to be a key factor in making change (Bandura)
• In social marketing, people only adopt healthy
behaviours when they believe it is both desirable and
possible
• Bonniface & Henley found people support
environmental activism when they believe it is worthy
and feasible.
• Moyhidenni & Montada found people support job
support schemes for unemployed when they find the
people worthy and the programme effective.
Study 2 – Research Findings
1. There was no significant difference in Intention to
Support or Actual donation to People Aid, linked with
different framing appeals
2. There was a significant difference linked with Just
World Efficacy (r = .234)) to Intention to Support
People Aid
3. This intention doesn’t carry through to actual
donation in a wider ‘choice architecture’ of People Aid
versus other charity/self/science, people choose REAL
options
4. The public estimate of % of government expenditure
spent on aid is largely inaccurate – a 25-percentile at
0.7%, a 50-percentile at 3.0% & a 75-percentile at
5.0%
Discussion – Key Themes
• People make their support decisions on a holistic
evaluation of the worthiness of a pro-social cause
• The one factor that determined support of
People Aid was the belief that it was possible
(not merely desirable) to tackle world poverty
• It may be difficult for people to feel ‘moved’ by
hypothetical charities
• The ultimate ‘hollow’ brand?
• Support for the fact that people are not acurately
aware of the actual levels of Irish government aid
Study 3 – Research Design & Theory
• Study 3 – a naturalistic experiment with general public
(n = 3459) via text exploring (i) relationship between
social capital variables (kind deeds done/received),
dispositional variables (happiness) & situational
variables (fairness) & (ii) relationship between
feedback (‘minimal meaning’) & participation rates in
the experiment
• Theoretical Frameworks
–
–
–
–
Putnam (2000) – social capital
Anderson (2003) – positive psychology & altruism
Batson (1991) social psychology & altruism
Ariely (2009) feedback as ‘minimal’ meaning
Background
1. Behavioural economic evidence that ‘kind deeds’
can be habit –forming (Rachlin & Locey)
2. Positive psychology evidence that health,
happiness, optimism and kindness can be mutually
re-inforcing – ‘Broaden and Build’ hypothesis
(Frederickson, 2006)
3. Framing evidence that collective identity and
societal context can affect altruism
4. Behavioural economic studies (Ariely et al) that
treating volunteers with respect can increase their
‘voluntary’ /unpaid engagement with tasks
National Happiness Experiment - Design
Week 1
Happiness
Satisfaction
Environment
County
Weather
Referendum
Social Norms
Fairness
Accountability
Identity
Pride
24 Hour contact
Relationships
Parents
Grandparents
24 hour contact
Kind Deeds
Behaviour
Voting
Kind Deeds
Thoughts
& Personality
Religion
Health
Good/Bad Things
Optimism
Genes
Health
RANDOM FEEDBACK
Week 2
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Study 3 - Research Questions
1. What is the relationship between past social capital
variables (kind deed done/received) & intended social
capital variables (to do /ask for kindness)?
2. How are social capital variables linked to dispositional
variables? (e.g happiness , satisfaction)?
3. How are social capital variables linked to situational
variables? (e.g fairness, accountability/national
identity/pride?
4. What is the relationship between randomised
feedback on the average happiness level in the
experiment (results/progress) & on-going
participation in the experiment?
Study 3 – Key Findings - Update
1. There are significant correlations between kindness
experienced and kindness potential
Strong r = .645 between kinds deeds done/received & small
r = .249 between likely to do /ask for kindness
2. There are small significant correlations (r< .3) between
both kindness experienced and kindness potential &
individual happiness & satisfaction
3. There were significant contributions from Societal
Fairness and Optimism about Ireland with kindness
potential
4. The random experiment with feedback on ‘results’
significantly increased the participation rates in each
week (e.g week 2 to week 3 – 80% (no feedback) versus
95 % (with feedback)
•
This significant difference was replicated every week
Effect of randomised results feedback on participation levels in
experiment
90
80
70
60
50
Participation Levels
40
30
20
10
0
Any Feedback
No Feedback
Discussion – Key Themes
• Overall support for a multi-level framework to
explain and increase altruism
• Support for the Broaden and Build hypothesis
at an individual level to increase kind deeds
• Support for importance of collective ‘frames’
to also increase kind deeds
• Strong support for the relationship between
transparent feedback in increasing voluntary
engagement with pro-social initiative
Overall Findings from Research
• Importance of shared purpose to connect stakeholders,
anchored in recipient well-being
• Importance of moral capital in what you do, how you
do it and how you evaluate /learn
• Actions and accountability (behaviour) trump slogans
and image (pseudo –communication)
• Importance of reality and efficacy to motivate support
• Importance of radical transparency to boost voluntary
engagement
• Importance of shared sacrifice – especially of
organisation versus pro-social goal
– This is a critical difference vs. for-profits
• Importance of societal frames (fairness and collective
identity) to ‘nudge’ altruism
Pro-Social – Brand as Circular Behaviour
Understanding)
Evalua&ng)
Social'Purpose'
Ac&ng)
Rela&ng)
Implications for Pro-Social Brands
• Brand needs to focus on shared purpose to unite all
stakeholders
• Shared purpose needs to be anchored in recipient wellbeing
• Brand needs action and accountability to build and
accumulate moral capital
• Slogans and imagery follow behaviour – they cannot
substitute it
• The organisation serves the goal rather than the goal
serving the organisation
• Courage, Transparency and Sacrifice are ‘costly’ behaviours
which will build trust and moral capital.
Pro-Social: Brand as Shared Sacrifice
Moral
Agency
Recipient
Well-being
Shared
Sacrifice
Radical
Transparency
Collective
Efficacy
Pro-Social – Across the Continuum
Public
Goods
Private
Goods
Shared Sacrifice (Sandel 2012)
Shared Value (Porter& Kranmer,
2011)
Pragmatism
Altruism
Social Enterprise
Social Purpose
Stakeholder
Culture
Altruist
‘Doing Good’
Moralist
Instrumentalist
Personal Motivation Trade-Off
Commercial Enterprise
Corporate Egoist
Agency
‘Doing Well’
More Research
• More case studies to explore and develop this
framework for pro-social branding
– Foundations, Religions, Shared Value, Tragic Gaps
• More multi-level experimental research which
builds in social networks to understand what
promotes and prevents altruism
– Role of betrayal, tall poppy syndrome, fallen angels
• More integration across economics, psychology,
social and religious studies to build more
integrated models to galvanise pro-social change.
Audience Observations
Thank You
The Role of Brands as Frames for
Engagement in Meeting Pro-Social Goals
A Presentation to Philanthropy Ireland
PhD Candidate: Karen Hand
School of Psychology , Centre for Global Health, Trinity College, Dublin.
Ray Murphy Memorial Scholar
Supervisors: Prof. Malcolm MacLachlan Trinity College Dublin, Ireland &
Prof. Stuart Carr, Poverty Research Group, Massey. New Zealand.
Contact : Karen @ +353872243064 or karenhand9@gmail.com