Compare And Contrast Cornwell And Coote

Background/ Study Objectives T. Bettina Cornwell and Leonard V. Coote examine the effectiveness of corporate sponsorship of a cause. They researched and extensive about of information on whether or not sponsorships work and if so, what is the best method to use in order to increase the potential of effectiveness. They hypothesizes that “The development of organizational identification with the NPO influences subsequent purchases from sponsors who support it.” In order to test put this hypothesis, the authors factored in organizational prestige, race years of participation, primary motivation for participation, and events participated in annually. Cornwell and Coote tested their hypothesis at a nonprofit event for breast cancer survivors.
Methodology/ Results
Cornwell and Coote collected data from over 12,000 participants and 70
sponsors. They distributed questionnaires to and returned prior to the race. The first data collection venue was the annual Survivor Luncheon for breast cancer survivors. The data collection was organized at tables outside the ballroom. The participants completed the questionnaire before or after dining. The second data collection venue was the registration and T-shirt pick-up day. On the questionnaire this was a screening question to ensure that no one besides the individuals were all race participants. A simple tally measured nonresponse at the event.
The authors of this article used a confirmatory factor analysis model in order to help examine the validity and reliability of the scale items for sponsorship-linked purchase intent, organizational identification, and organizational prestige.
Covariances (organizational prestige, race years of participation, primary motivation for participation, and events participated in annually) were used as input to show the standard estimate of effect on organization identification. They used composite variables were created to represent these variables in the subsequent regression models. The regression models were used to test the hypothesis. As a result they found that the effects organizational prestige on organizational identification is positive and significant. Race years of participation also have a positive and significant effect on organizational identification. The effect of primary motivation on organizational identification is positive and significant. In conclusion, it seemed that organizational prestige is the most important predictor of identification with a Nonprofit Organization. These results came from Model 1 of the
article.
Model 2 of their test examined the effects of the antecedents on sponsorship-linked purchase intent. Organizational prestige, years of participation, and primary motivation all were proven to have a positive and significant effect on sponsor-linked purchase intent. The effect of events participated annually was proven not to have any significance. Model 3 of their research shows an increase in the strength of effect of organizational identification on sponsorship-linked purchase intent but the effects of the antecedents are not significant.
Discussion
Cornwell and Coote observed there data and found some discrepencies within their methodology. The first issues was the general nature of the sponsorship-liked purchase intent measure. The purchase intent items were developed with the thought of measuring purchase commitment, but within their research, they realize that these general measures brand loyalty as a whole and not for individual products. With this approach they found a measurement of error and a great reduction in the strength of their initial hypothesis. The authors also found that they limited the practical usefulness of the findings is that the sponsorship-linked purchase intent variable has a positive social bias. They believe that participants supporting the Race may respond positively to an enquiry regarding their purchase behavior but may behave differently. They suggest that future researchers might consider the difficult task of tracking purchase commitment to behavioral data. The article suggest that the study has a cross-sectional nature that might make it difficult to get clear, strong conclusion about the covariances. They realize that in order to measure or calculate identification with an NPO, people must have proper motivation to support the cause that the NGO is promotion. If they don’t have the proper motivation people the research is proven to be inconclusive. They also found that identification with the organization could help motivate a cause. For example, the relationship between of Susan G. Komen to breast cancer research. The authors also discuss the implications for market theory and its contribution within their research. The first is a mechanism, organizational identification, which helps others understand influence of sponsorship on consumers. The second theoretical contribution is an introduction to the importance of biodata. Biodata is an additional type of data that can effect the way the NPO identifies with consumers and visa versa.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the authors have found that there is a distinct correlation between the development of organizational identification with the NPO influences subsequent purchases from sponsors who support it. The main strengths of the authors work is the fact that they did a good job explaining their execution process of the research. They also did well to understand and discuss the troubling factors that could cause their research to be somewhat limited for future recreation or expansion.