Skip to main content
Log in

Nonprofit Brand Strength: What Is It? How Is It Measured? What Are Its Outcomes?

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Nonprofit brand strength is conceptualized as the degree to which a nonprofit brand is well known to a target group, is perceived favorably by a target group, and is perceived to be remarkable by a target group. Hence, the authors conceptualize nonprofit brand strength as a priori having three dimensions: familiarity, remarkability, and attitude. The authors report the development of a nonprofit brand strength scale, using a series of charity brands, in three separate studies, supporting the scale’s reliability and validity. The scale’s ability to differentiate charities based on their respective nonprofit brand strength levels is demonstrated. Moreover, nonprofit brand strength is shown to be antecedent to a target group’s affective dispositions and behavioral intentions toward the nonprofit brand.

Résumé

La force de la marque d’une organisation à but non lucratif est considérée comme le degré de reconnaissance de cette marque par un groupe cible, le degré de perception favorable et le degré de perception comme étant remarquable par ce groupe. En conséquence, les auteurs conceptualisent la force de la marque d’une organisation à but non lucratif comme comprenant a priori trois aspects: familiarité, caractère distinctif et attitude. Les auteurs décrivent la conception d’une échelle de force des marques des organisations à but non lucratif grâce à un ensemble de marques d’associations caritatives, dans trois études distinctes, pour confirmer la fiabilité et la validité de l’échelle. La capacité de l’échelle à différencier les organisations caritatives en fonction des niveaux de force des marques de leurs organisations à but non lucratif respectives est démontrée. De plus, il est montré que la force de la marque d’une organisation à but non lucratif précède les dispositions affectives et les intentions comportementales du groupe cible envers la marque.

Zusammenfassung

Die Markenstärke im gemeinnützigen Bereich wird begrifflich erfasst als das Maß, in dem eine gemeinnützige Marke bei einer Zielgruppe bekannt ist, positiv von einer Zielgruppe wahrgenommen wird und von einer Zielgruppe als bemerkenswert erachtet wird. Daher konzeptualisieren die Autoren die Markenstärke im gemeinnützigen Sektor grundsätzlich als einen Bereich mit drei Dimensionen: Vertrautheit, Besonderheit und Einstellung. Die Autoren berichten über die Entwicklung einer Skala zur Markenstärke im gemeinnützigen Bereich unter Hinzuziehung einer Reihe von gemeinnützigen Marken in drei separaten Studien als Beweis für die Zuverlässigkeit und Gültigkeit der Skala. Es wird demonstriert, dass die Skala zwischen Wohltätigkeitsorganisationen beruhend auf ihren jeweiligen Markenstärken unterscheiden kann. Darüber hinaus wird dargelegt, dass die Markenstärke im gemeinnützigen Bereich den affektiven Dispositionen und Verhaltensabsichten einer Zielgruppe gegenüber der gemeinnützigen Marke vorhergeht.

Resumen

La fortaleza de la marca sin ánimo de lucro se conceptualiza como el grado en el que una marca sin ánimo de lucro es conocida para un grupo objetivo, es percibida favorablemente por un grupo objetivo, y es percibida como destacable por un grupo objetivo. De ahí que los autores conceptualicen la fortaleza de la marca sin ánimo de lucro considerando que tiene a priori tres dimensiones: familiaridad, destacabilidad y actitud. Los autores informan del desarrollo de una escala de fortaleza de la marca sin ánimo de lucro, utilizando una serie de marcas de organizaciones benéficas, en tres estudios separados, que apoyan la fiabilidad y validez de la escala. Se demuestra la capacidad de la escala para diferenciar a las organizaciones benéficas basándose en sus respectivos niveles de fortaleza de la marca sin ánimo de lucro. Asimismo, se muestra que la fortaleza de la marca sin ánimo de lucro antecede a las disposiciones afectivas de un grupo objetivo y a las intenciones comportamentales hacia la marca sin ánimo de lucro.

摘要

非盈利品牌的优势是指非盈利性品牌在目标群体的知名度、喜爱程度和被认为优秀的程度,因此,作者认为非盈利品牌的优势是一个先验性的三维概念: 熟悉、出色和态度。 作者称其在三个单独进行的研究中运用一系列慈善品牌开发了一个非盈利性品牌优势量表,量表的信度和效度得到了三个研究的支持,量表能根据慈善团体各自的品牌优势对这些慈善团体进行区分,另外, 发现非盈利品牌的优势是非盈利品牌情感倾向和行为意图的前件。

ملخص

تصور قوة العلامة التجارية الغير ربحية مثل الدرجة التي العلامة التجارية الغير ربحية معروفة بها لفئة مستهدفة، ينظر إليها بعين العطف من قبل الفئة المستهدفة، وينظر إليها على أنها لافتة للنظر من قبل الفئة المستهدفة. بالتالي، فإن المؤلفون تصوروا قوة العلامة التجارية الغير ربحية كبديهية لوجود ثلاثة أبعاد: المعرفة، يستحق الإهتمام، والمواقف. ذكر المؤلفون أن تطور العلامة التجارية الغير ربحية يقوي المقياس، ذلك بإستخدام مجموعة من العلامات التجارية الخيرية، في ثلاث دراسات منفصلة، يدعم ثبات وصدق المقياس. تم عرض قدرة المقياس على التفريق بين الجمعيات الخيرية على أساس مستويات قوة العلامة التجارية الغير ربحية لكل منهما. علاوة على ذلك، يظهر قوة العلامة التجارية الغير ربحية السابقة على التصرفات العاطفية لمجموعة الهدف والنوايا السلوكية تجاه العلامة التجارية الغير ربحية.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaker, D. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California Management Review, 38(3), 103–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aaker, J., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S. A. (2004). When good brands do bad. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 1–16.

  • Anderson, J., & Gerbing, D. (1982). Some methods for respecifying measurement models to obtain unidimensional construct measurement. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(4), 453–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J., & Gerbing, D. (1991). Predicting the performance of measures in a confirmatory factor analysis with a pretest assessment of their substantive validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 732–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. (1983). Issues in the application of covariance structure analysis: A further comment. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(4), 449–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastos, W., & Levy, S. (2012). A history of the concept of branding: Practice and theory. Journal of Historical Research in Marketing, 4(3), 347–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bendapudi, N., Surendra, S., & Bendapudi, V. (1996). Enhancing helping behavior: An integrative framework for promotion planning. Journal of Marketing, 60(3), 33–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 175–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biel, A. (1992). How brand image drives brand equity. Journal of Advertising Research, 32(6), 6–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brackett, M., & Mayer, J. (2003). Convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of competing measures of emotional intelligence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(9), 1147–1158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument. International Journal of Testing, 1(1), 55–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavill, H. (2011). Australia’s most trusted charity. Retrieved from http://www.cavill.com.au/cms/images/10013/trust.pdf.

  • Charity Navigator. (2012). 10 all-time most popular charity ratings. Retrieved from http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=147.

  • Coltman, T., Devinney, T., Midgley, D., & Venaik, S. (2008). Formative versus reflective measurement models: Two applications of formative measurement. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1250–1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dacin, P., & Smith, D. (1994). The effect of brand portfolio characteristics on consumer evaluations of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 31(2), 229–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danes, J., & Mann, O. (1984). Unidimensional measurement and structural equation models with latent variables. Journal of Business Research, 12(3), 337–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Chernatony, L., & Riley, F. (1998). Defining a “brand”: Beyond the literature with experts’ interpretations. Journal of Marketing Management, 14(5), 417–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decancq, K., & Lugo, M. (2013). Weights in multidimensional indices of wellbeing: An overview. Econometric Reviews, 32(1), 7–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delgado-Ballester, E. (2004). Applicability of a brand trust scale across product categories: A multigroup invariance analysis. European Journal of Marketing, 38(5/6), 573–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeVellis, R. (2011). Scale development: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. (2006). Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational measure development: A comparison and empirical illustration. British Journal of Management, 17(4), 263–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobni, D., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1990). In search of brand image: A foundation analysis. Advances in Consumer Research, 17(1), 110–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faircloth, J., Capella, L., & Alford, B. (2001). The effect of brand attitude and brand image on brand equity. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9(3), 61–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(2), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • François, P., & MacLachlan, D. (1995). Ecological validation of alternative customer-based brand strength measures. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12(4), 321–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorsuch, R. (2003). Factor analysis. In J. A. Schinka & W. F. Velicer (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Research methods in psychology (pp. 143–164). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice, J., & Harris, R. (1998). A comparison of regression and loading weights for the computation of factor scores. Multivariate Bahavioral Research, 33(2), 221–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. (1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 265–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, P., Cote, J., Leong, S., & Schmitt, B. (2003). Building strong brands in Asia: Selecting the visual components of image to maximize brand strength. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20(4), 297–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoeffler, S., & Keller, K. (2003). The marketing advantages of strong brands. Journal of Brand Management, 10(6), 421–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, D., Gillaspy, A., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods, 14(1), 6–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jarvis, C., MacKenzie, B., & Podsakoff, P. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John, D., Loken, B., Kim, K., & Monga, A. (2006). Brand concept maps: A methodology for identifying brand association networks. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(4), 549–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamakura, W., & Wedel, M. (2000). Factor analysis and missing data. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(11), 490–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, K. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B., (2010). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3rd ed). London: The Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Law, K., Wong, C., & Mobley, W. (1998). Toward a taxonomy of multidimensional constructs. Academy of Management, 23(4), 741–755.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M., & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loehlin, J. (1998). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, S. (2003). The dangers of poor construct conceptualization. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 31(3), 323–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, S., Podsakoff, P., & Jarvis, C. (2005). The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 710–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mimmack, G., Manas, G., & Meyer, D. (2001). Introductory statistics for business: The analysis of business data. Cape Town: Pearson South Africa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Napoli, J. (2006). The impact of nonprofit brand orientation on organisational performance. Journal of Marketing Management, 22(7–8), 673–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Netemeyer, R., Bearden, W., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P., & MacKenzie, S. (1994). An examination of the psychometric properties and nomological validity of some revised and reduced substitutes for leadership scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 702–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Readers Digest. (2007). Australia’s most trusted charities 2007. Retrieved from http://www.readersdigest.com.au/australias-most-trusted-charities-2007.

  • Rossiter, J. (2011). Marketing measurement revolution: The C-OAR-SE method and why it must replace psychometrics. European Journal of Marketing, 45(11/12), 1561–1588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samu, S., & Wymer, W. (2009). The effect of fit and dominance in cause marketing communications. Journal of Business Research, 62(4), 432–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumaker, R., & Lomax, R. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modelling. Mahwa, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simoes, C., & Dibb, D. (2001). Rethinking the brand concept: New brand orientation. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6(4), 217–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summers, J. (2001). Guidelines for conducting research and publishing in marketing: From conceptualization through the review process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 29(4), 405–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venable, B., Rose, G., Bush, V., & Gilbert, F. (2005). The role of brand personality in charitable giving—An assessment and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(3), 295–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, G., & Beatty, S. (2007). Customer-based corporate reputation of a service firm: Scale development and validation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 127–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wanous, J., Reichers, A., & Hudy, M. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 247–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, L. (2000). Brands and brand equity: Definition and management. Management Decision, 38(9), 662–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worthington, R., & Whittaker, T. (2006). Scale development research. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoo, B., Naveen, D., & Lee, S. (2000). An examination of selected marketing mix elements and brand equity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 195–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the Julius Paul Stiegler Memorial Foundation and the Friends Association of the Center for Public & Nonprofit Management at the University of Mannheim for the financial support of this research. They also thank the University of Lethbridge for financially supporting the data collection portion of this research project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Walter Wymer.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 107 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wymer, W., Gross, H.P. & Helmig, B. Nonprofit Brand Strength: What Is It? How Is It Measured? What Are Its Outcomes?. Voluntas 27, 1448–1471 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9641-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9641-8

Keywords

Navigation