Likewise, an Australian media relations official with the Salvation Army gave an interview with two gay journalists in that country in which the group’s views on homosexuality came up. In response to a question on whether or not the Bible states that gays should be put to death, Major Andrew Craibe said the group’s view that homosexuals should be put to death was “our belief” and that the Salvation Army has “an alignment to the Scriptures.”
The international organisation quickly moved to assure the public that Craibe’s comments were “extremely regrettable” and that Salvation Army members did “not believe, and would never endorse, a view that homosexual activity should result in any form of physical punishment.” But that wasn’t enough to keep the liberal-leaning America Blog from urging its followers to drop protest cards, not change, in the Salvation Army’s red kettles this year.
A personal investment
In both cases, one official’s statements conflicted with the personal beliefs of a segment of its audience who were, in turn, applying their values to the organisation in question. It’s not an uncommon phenomenon for both for-profit companies and charities, notes Wharton marketing professor Americus Reed.
“Consumers are drawing on their belief about what … this company is about. For a nonprofit, that’s all kinds of highly moralized things,” Reed says. “For a for-profit company, that’s not necessarily so unless the company is positioned that way. Ben and Jerry’s brand equity, for example, is associated with the environment and a higher order of socially impactful, socially collective sorts of ideas.”
Although neither Cathy nor Craibe expressed an opinion that was entirely out of step with their respective organization’s world view, consumers tend to take such statements more personally when they come from a nonprofit, Reed adds. Even if the personal views of a charity executive are not in conflict with the nonprofit’s mission – imagine the head of an environmental conservation group being pro-life, for example –speculation about the politics of a group can lead donors to make assumptions about its views across the board.
“When you connect your identity to an organisation that’s a not-for-profit, you’re not decoupling things in your mind. You’re connecting in a way that’s certainly explicit in the group’s outwardly defined values, and you’re assuming implicitly that those values are in total alignment with yours,” he says. “For most of us, we don’t connect with Chick-fil-A based on values. We connect with them based on that fact that we like their sandwiches.”
Transportable value
The differences stem from what a consumer believes he or she should receive in exchange for supporting a particular organisation, the professors note. For a for-profit company, usually that’s a tactile item: a chicken sandwich, a cell phone, a pair of pants. For a charity, it’s something more personal. “If we look back at the history of philanthropy and why donors give, it’s just about trying to get the most social bang for your buck,” Rosqueta points out. “It’s about what the donor believes a better world should look like.”
