Enhancing the Effectiveness of Cause-Related Marketing: Visual Style, Self-Construal, and Consumer Responses

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please check the review.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for the constructive and positive comments. We have revised the manuscript according to the comments and would like to re-submit it for your consideration. Please see the attachment for more details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper aims to study the impact of the visual style of cause-related marketing (CRM) messages on consumer responses, including brand attitude and purchase intention, and how self-construal moderates the effect of visual style on consumer responses to CRM messages.  The researchers conducted two studies with 464 participants via Credamo.  The results confirm that visual style has a significant effect on consumer responses.  In both studies, cause-focused messages engender higher brand attitudes and purchase intention than product-focused messages.

The authors are recommended to elaborate and explain the following details before publishing their research work:

In section 2.1, the authors highlighted the four key determinants of the CRM initiatives and explained the two determinants, i.e., consumer-related characteristics and execution-related characteristics; but why the other two determinants were not explained also, i.e., product-related characteristics and company-related characteristics?

In section 2.3, lines 209-211, the authors stated, “but a product-focused ad generates higher campaign attitude than a product-focused ad when charitable organizations are close from achieving their goals or are targeting local consumers.”  Please clarify if one of them should be cause-focused.

In section 3.1, lines 334-335, the authors stated that the questionnaire also collected personal information (e.g., gender, age, and education), but the paper did not discuss such findings.  Would the gender, age, and education factors affect the consumer responses?

As there were two different sets of questionnaires for Study 1 and Study 2, the authors should explain why separate two groups of participants to respond to two studies and why don’t use the SAME group of participants to respond to both Study 1 and Study 2 for having a consistent measuring the hypothesis from H1 to H4.

In section 3.2, line 327, the authors stated there was a “small financial reward” for the participants in Study 1, and in section 4.2, line 399, the authors said there was a “nominal payment” for the participants in Study 2.  Please explain the difference between “small financial reward” and “nominal payment” and why there were two different rewards for the participants in Study 1 and Study 2.

In section 4.2, lines 406-408, the authors stated that sixteen items were adapted from Singelis for Study 2, 10 items were used to measure interdependent self-construal and 6 items were used to measure independent self-construal.  Please explain why not use 8 items to measure interdependent self-construal and 8 items to measure independent self-construal for fair measuring and comparison in the interdependent self-construal versus independent self-construal.  Besides, the authors are advised to list the questions, the same as what you did in Study 1, to enhance the article’s readability.

Last but not least, the authors are suggested to proof-read the article again as some typos and grammatical errors are spotted, for example:

Line 112, “presenting the theoretical and practical implications, point out its limitations, and suggest potential research avenues”: please consider it should be “suggesting”.

Line 120, “In a broader sense, marketing campaigns attempting to boost firm sales by collaborating with non-profit organizations can be categorized as CRM”: please consider it should be “attempt”.

Line 202, “Samu  and Wymer demonstrated that consumers show more positive attitude towards the cause and higher purchase intention for a cause-focused”: please consider it should be “show a more positive attitude”.

Line 223, “and some of them reporting a non-significant main effect”: please consider it should be “report”.

Line 284, “It impedes their need to build social connections with those in need and fufill their social obligations.”: please consider it should be “fulfill”.

Line 504, “In addition, the psychological process that underlies the effect of visual style on consumer responses has not been clearly delineated and empirically tested.”: please consider it should be “have”.

Author Response

Thanks for the time and effort you have spent reviewing our paper. We have revised the manuscript according to yourcomments. Please see the attachment for more details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

this manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Sustainability.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed all of my concerns regarding the original manuscript, and I am satisfied with the revisions. The manuscript is now ready for publication.