International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing

Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 19: 200208 (2014)

Published online 26 June 2014 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/nvsm.1497

Fit in celebritycharity alliances: when

perceived celanthropy benefits nonprofit
organisations
Jasmina Ilicic1* and Stacey Baxter2
1

Business School, The University of Adelaide, Australia

Newcastle Business School, The University of Newcastle, Australia

This study investigates the effect of celebritycharity co-branding fit on perceived celebrity
philanthropy (celanthropy), attitude towards the celebrity and charity, as well as donation intention.
We manipulate celebritycharity functional fit through a 2 (celebrity: comedian vs athlete) 2
(charity: comedy related vs sports related) factorial design whilst controlling for celebrity credibility
(attractiveness, trustworthiness and expertise). Results show that a functional fit between the celebrity
and charitable organisation encourages positive altruistic attributions in terms of perceptions of
celebrity social responsibility, and egoistic attributions, with regards to celebrity and charity attitudes,
and donation intention. Finally, results demonstrate that celebritycharity fit (athlete (comedian) with
sports related (comedy related) charity) can promote positive attitudes towards a celebrity and charity
brand, as well as donation intention, with these relationships mediated by perceptions of celebrity social
responsibility or philanthropy. Findings from this research are able to aid nonprofit organisations and
celebrity brand managers in the creation of effective and persuasive co-branding alliances. Copyright
2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Keywords: co-branding, celebrity, philanthropy, match-up, attitudes

Introduction
In our celebrity-dominated culture, consumers place
great value on the opinions and actions of celebrities
as idols of consumption (Dyer, 1979: 45). Celebrity

*Correspondence to: Jasmina Ilicic, Business School, The University

of Adelaide, 10 Pulteney Street, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
E-mail: jasmina.ilicic@adelaide.edu.au

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

status and recognition facilitates the high visibility

of any organisation with which they are associated.
Celebrities use their power and influence to
encourage consumer awareness of and involvement
in a specific cause or with a particular charity, many
with great success. For example, when the late actor
Christopher Reeve collaborated with the American
Paralysis Association following his horse riding
accident, the American Paralysis Association saw its

Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2014

DOI: 10.1002/nvsm

Influence on attitudes and donation intentions

revenue double to $5 million within the first 3 years

(Forbes, 2012).
Despite a rapid increase in celebrity advocacy on
issues of humanitarian concern such as democracy,
human rights, and health (Meyer & Gamson, 1995;
Hood, 2010), celebrity philanthropy (celanthropy)
and celebritycharity alliances are an underresearched area in marketing. Look to the Stars
(2014) reports 3319 celebrities engage in humanitarianism and collaborate with charities, such as actress Angelina Jolies support for Doctors Without
Borders and musician Bonos partnership with Red
Cross. The alignment between celebrity and charity
is a type of co-branding partnership (Seno & Lukas,
2007; Ilicic & Webster, 2013), since celebrities
are brands themselves (Thomson, 2006). A celebritycharity alliance is a beneficial, reciprocal relationship as it not only affects the charitable brands
equity but the charitable brand also has the ability
to affect the celebritys equity (Seno & Lukas, 2007).
Celebrity co-branding partnerships are more
effective when there is a perceived fit or match
between the attributes of both brands (Misra &
Beatty, 1990; Ilicic & Webster, 2013). We therefore
posit that the collaboration between internationally
renowned chef Nigella Lawson with food related
charitable organisation Marys Meals (which
organises school feeding in communities where
poverty and hunger prevent children from gaining
an education) is congruent and therefore effective.
Although research supports a match-up hypothesis (e.g. Kamins, 1990; Kamins & Gupta, 1994;
Lynch & Schuler, 1994; Till & Busler, 1998, 2000;
Batra & Homer, 2004; Ilicic & Webster, 2013), no
research has examined fit between celebrity and
charitable organisations and how this influences
consumer perceptions of celebrity social responsibility, or perceived celanthropy. As such, the aim
of this paper is to examine the influence of perceptions of a celebritycharity fit alliance on consumer
perceptions of celanthropy, evaluations of the
celebrity and charity brands, as well as intentions
to donate to the charity. We also examine the
mediating role of celanthropy.

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

201

Strategic philantropy
Altruism is not always the motivation behind philanthropy, with many brands motivated by egoistic
factors. The notion of strategic philanthropy has
therefore emerged as a means to define philanthropic activity that is not solely due to altruistic intentions of a brand (Babiak, Mills, Tainsky, &
Juracich, 2012). Numerous researchers have sought
to understand and define strategic philanthropy, with
many suggesting that strategic philanthropy is the
synergistic use of a brands resources to achieve both
organisational and social benefits (Waddock & Post,
1995; Saiia, Carroll, & Buchholtz, 2003; Porter &
Kramer, 2006; Dickinson & Barker, 2007). Strategic
philanthropy is therefore viewed as having a dual
objective (and outcome), that is, the improvement
of brand image (egoistic motive termed marketised
philanthropy, Robert, 2013) along with the
betterment of society, through supporting a social
cause (altruistic motive, Lee et al., 2009; Babiak
et al., 2012).
Whilst researchers have focused their attention
on understanding strategic philanthropy in a
corporate and brand alliance setting (Dickinson &
Barker, 2007), Babiak et al. (2012) argue that the
principles of strategic philanthropy would also
apply in the context of individuals. Babiak et al.
(2012) suggest that when considering professional
athletes, philanthropic activities may provide the
athlete (and team and league) with a benefit
(financial, political, social capital) to themselves
and their brand or image, as well as social benefits
for the causes they support. Building upon Babiak
et al. (2012), we propose that strategic philanthropy
principles would apply to a broader definition of
celebrity (beyond athletes). Specifically, we argue
that philanthropic practices for both celebrity and
charity brands in a co-branding alliance are also
driven by both egoistic and altruistic motives,
whereby a celebritycharity alignment benefits not
only the celebrity and charity (image building,
donation intention), but also society at large
(perceived social responsibility or philanthropy).

Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2014

DOI: 10.1002/nvsm

202

The right charity paired with the correct celebrity

Research has identified that consumers are highly

sceptical of the social responsibility of organisations,
including charities, with a propensity to question a
charitable organisations use of funds (e.g. Bricknell,
2011). A higher degree of scepticism results in
lower levels of brand equity, increased vulnerability
to negative information about the brand, and defaming of the brand through negative word-of-mouth
(Skarmeas & Leonidou, 2013). Celanthropists too
are criticised for their underlying reason for
engaging in social activism or charity advocacy. A
common criticism of celanthropists in particular is
that they are perceived to be uninformed about
the causes that they are aligned with (fighting
for). For example, does Bono truly understand the
plight in Africa for which he publically aligns
himself with/donates to?
Celebrities are the embodiment of wealth (Dieter
& Kumar, 2008) and their involvement with and
support of nonprofits may appear as a contradiction
(Littler, 2008). This type of partnership may be
perceived as a form of self-promotion and publicity
for the celebrity and their brand (Samman,
McAuliffe, & MacLachlan, 2009), through an egoistic
motive. As such, consumers may be highly sceptical
of the motives of the celebrity and the celebritys
social responsibility especially when they do not
have logical belongingness or fit with the charity,
which may have a detrimental effect on the
organisational partner. Although research suggests
brandcause alliances result in higher scepticism
or lower perceived philanthropy, we are interested
here in the role of fit on consumer perceptions of
celebrity social responsibility or philanthropy
(altruistic motive) and celebrity and charity attitude,
and donation intention (egoistic motivation).
Celebritycharity fit and celanthropy

The perceived belongingness or similarity between

two brands enables the development of an associative
link between those brands (McSweeney & Bierley,
1984; Till & Nowak, 2000). According to Associative

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Jasmina Ilicic and Stacey Baxter

Network Theory, memory is structured as an associative network containing nodes (charity and celebrity
nodes) connected via related links (Collins & Loftus,
1975; Anderson, 1983; Martindale, 1991). To begin
with, the charity and celebrity nodes are unconnected
in consumer memory, and it is through the co-branding process that the connection between the charity
and celebrity is created. The co-branding process
presents the charity and celebrity nodes together,
activating memory retrieval for both nodes simultaneously. Fit between the two brands further allows
for spreading activation of associations in consumer
memory, produces greater meaning transfer between
the brands, prevents egoistic attributions to both
brands motives, and improves brand credibility
(Bigne, Curras-Perez, & Aldas-Manzano, 2012).
Literature in celebrity endorsement, co-branding,
cause-brand, and brand-nonprofit partnerships
identify that their effectiveness is based on fit
(Kamins, 1990; Kamins & Gupta, 1994; Lynch &
Schuler, 1994; Simonin & Ruth, 1998; Till & Busler,
1998, 2000; Batra & Homer, 2004; Becker-Olsen,
Cudmore, & Hill, 2006; Dickinson & Heath, 2006;
Gupta & Pirsch, 2006; Trimble & Rifon, 2006; Dickinson & Barker, 2007; Till, Stanley, & Priluck, 2008;
Ilicic & Webster, 2013). In celebrity endorsement,
an endorser is a greater match when they are an
expert in the associated product category (Lynch
& Schuler, 1994) or when they are attractive and
endorse an attractiveness-related product (Kamins,
1990). Expertise (matching an athlete with an
energy bar) results in positive brand attitudes and
purchase intentions (Lynch & Schuler, 1994),
whereas attractiveness (Tom Selleck endorsing a
luxury car) increases spokesperson credibility and
attitude towards the advertisement (Kamins, 1990).
Research in celebrity co-branding demonstrates that
a consumers brand benefit beliefs and purchase
intentions are diluted when the celebrity is found
to mismatch the brand (Ilicic & Webster, 2013),
and co-branding literature ascertains attitudes
towards individual partners in an alliance enhance
when a relatively high degree of brand fit exists
and dilute when there is a low degree of brand fit

Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2014

DOI: 10.1002/nvsm

Influence on attitudes and donation intentions

(e.g. Simonin & Ruth, 1998). Research in cause-related

marketing identifies causebrand fit results in positive
brand image (Gwinner & Eaton, 1999), brand credibility (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006) and product purchase
intention (Becker-Olsen et al., 2006; Gupta & Pirsch,
2006), whereas research on brand-nonprofit
alliances finds positive spill-over effects in terms of
positive affect (Dickinson & Barker, 2007). Barone,
Norman and Miyazaki (2007), however, suggest that
a high degree of fit between a company and a cause
generates greater consumer scepticism because of
the perception that the company is exploiting
rather than helping the cause. We argue, however,
a match-up hypothesis effect, whereby celebrity
charity fit enhances perceptions of celebrity social
responsibility or celanthropy, with misfit resulting
in higher scepticism or lower perceptions of
celanthropy.
Although some research examines image fit or
consistency (e.g. Dickinson & Heath, 2006; Bigne
et al., 2012), there is a predominant focus on
product category or functional fit. Functional fit is
determined by comparing the characteristics,
attributes and functions of the product, service or
main brand activity with the social cause characteristics and intentions (Bigne et al., 2012: 579). For
example, a musician such as Ricky Martin has a
functional fit with music-related charity, Music for
Relief, and a functional misfit for sports-related
charity, Right to Play. We argue that a fit between
the celebrity and the charity will enhance the
positive outcomes for both the celebrity and charity,
with a misfit resulting in heightened scepticism
(lower perceived celanthropy), weakened attitude
towards the celebrity and charity, and less likelihood
of intent to donate to the charity. As such, the
following hypotheses are proposed:
H1: Consumers will report a more positive
(negative) (a) perception of celanthropy, (b)
attitude towards the celebrity, (c) attitude
towards the charity, and (d) donation intention
when there is a functional fit (misfit) between
the celebrity and charity.

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

203

H2: Perceptions of celanthropy will mediate the

relationship between celebritycharity fit and
(a) attitude towards the celebrity, (b) attitude
towards the charity, and (c) donation intention.

Main experiment
This experiment aims to examine the effect of
celebritycharity fit on consumer evaluations of
celanthropy, examining the effect of celebritycharity
fit on attitude towards the charity, attitude towards
the celebrity, and donation intention, whilst also
considering the mediating role of celanthropy.
A sample of 165 participants was randomly
recruited by a research company panel from
metropolitan areas of Australia to participate in the
online experiment. The participants were drawn
from the Australian general public to increase the
generalisability of the findings. Overall, 46% of the
respondents were male, and 54% were female, with
participants predominantly between 2534 and
3550 years of age (34.9% and 32.7%, respectively).
A 2 (celebrity: comedian vs athlete) 2 (charity:
comedy related vs sports related) between subjects
factorial design was employed, with participants
randomly allocated to one of the four experimental
conditions. First, the participants were shown a
print advertisement that displayed the celebrity
with the charity with copy displaying {Celebrity}
supports International Sports Federation. International Sports Federation brings sports programmes
to disadvantaged communities to develop their
potential in sport ({Celebrity} supports Laughter
Matters. Laughter Matters brings laughter to disadvantaged communities to develop their wellbeing
and happiness). Participants were then asked their
perception of celanthropy adapting Bigne et al.s
(2012) corporate social responsibility scale using
six items including awareness of social matters,
fulfils social responsibilities, puts something back
into society, acts with societies interest in mind, acts
in a socially responsible way, and integrates philanthropic contributions into his activities (Cronbach

Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2014

DOI: 10.1002/nvsm

204

= 0.961). Next, the participants were asked to rate

their attitude towards the celebrity and charity using
three items drawn from Nan and Heo (2007) including dislike/like, unfavourable/favourable, negative/
positive (Cronbach Acelebrity = 0.962; Cronbach
Acharity = 0.975). Finally, participants rated their
donation intention using Samu and Wymers (2009)
two-item scale of degree of likelihood to donate
and likelihood to volunteer for the charity measured
on a seven-point Likert scale (Cronbach = 0.869).

Stimuli

Four celebrities (two athletes, Michael Phelps and

Rafael Nadal, and two comedians, Ricky Gervais
and Russel Brand) and four charities (sports related,
International Sports Foundation and United
Through Sport, and comedy related, Laughter
Matters and Laughter Heals) were selected. A pretest was undertaken to select the celebrities and
charities to be included in the final advertisements
(n = 36). The aim of the pre-test was to select two
celebrities equal on perceptions of credibility
(attractiveness, trustworthiness and expertise) and
who were perceived to misfit/fit two charities. Pretest participants were first asked to rate their
perception of celebrity attractiveness (unattractive/
attractive, not class/classy, ugly/handsome, plain/elegant, not sexy/sexy, Cronbach Rafael Nadal = 0.907,
Cronbach Michael Phelps = 0.953, Cronbach Ricky
Gervais = 0.805, Cronbach Russel Brand = 0.906), trustworthiness (undependable/dependable, dishonest/
honest, unreliable/reliable, insincere/sincere, untrustworthy/trustworthy, Cronbach Rafael Nadal = 0.863,
Cronbach Michael Phelps = 0.949, Cronbach Ricky
Gervais = 0.916, Cronbach Russel Brand = 0.950) and
expertise (not an expert/expert, inexperienced/
experiences, unknowledgeable/knowledgeable,
unqualified/qualified, unskilled/skilled, Cronbach
Rafael Nadal = 0.948, Cronbach Michael Phelps = 0.944,
Cronbach Ricky Gervais = 0.910, Cronbach Russel Brand =
0.937), using Ohanians (1990) source credibility
scale. Next, the participants were asked to indicate

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Jasmina Ilicic and Stacey Baxter

whether they perceived the celebrity to fit or misfit a

sports charity (either International Sports Foundation
or United Through Sport) or comedy charity (either
Laughter Matters or Laughter Heals).
A paired samples t-test was performed with
Michael Phelps and Ricky Gervais identified as an
athlete and comedian equal on perceptions of
source attractiveness (MMichael Phelps = 3.68, MRicky
Gervais = 3.53, t(35) = 0.47, p > 0.05), trustworthiness
(MMichael Phelps = 4.24, MRicky Gervais = 4.46, t
(35) = 0.84, p > 0.05) and expertise (MMichael Phelps =
5.13, MRicky Gervais = 4.89, t(35) = 0.80, p > 0.05).
Next, we performed a paired samples t-test with
Michael Phelps and Ricky Gervais differing
significantly on perceptions of fit for sports charities, International Sports Federation (MMichael Phelps =
1.86, MRicky Gervais = 1.19, t(35) = 6.83, p < 0.001)
and United Through Sport (MMichael Phelps = 1.83,
MRicky Gervais = 1.19, t(35) = 7.06, p < 0.001), and
comedy-related charities, Laughter Matters (MMichael
MRicky Gervais = 1.72, t(35) = 3.90,
Phelps = 1.33,
p < 0.001) and Laughter Heals (MMichael Phelps = 1.39,
MRicky Gervais = 1.69, t(35) = 2.74, p 0.01).
The final advertisements featured the celebrity
paired with a charity. Participants in the fit condition saw a celebrity Michael Phelps (Ricky Gervais)
with International Sports Federation (Laughter
Matters). In the misfit condition, participants saw
Michael Phelps (Ricky Gervais) with Laughter
Matters (International Sports Federation).

Results
We expected that participants would report more
positive perceptions of celanthropy, attitudes
towards both the celebrity and charity, and heightened donation intention when the celebrity was
found to have a functional fit with the charitable
brand. To test this assertion, a series of 2 (celebrity:
comedian vs athlete) 2 (charity: comedy related vs
sports related) ANOVAs were performed, with
celanthropy perception (celanthropy), attitude
towards the celebrity (Aceleb), attitude towards the

Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2014

DOI: 10.1002/nvsm

Influence on attitudes and donation intentions

charity (Acharity), and donation intention (DI) individually examined as the dependent variables. As
expected, a significant interaction effect was found
across celanthropy (F (3, 163) = 11.16, p = 0.001),
Aceleb (F (3, 163) = 12.32, p = 0.001), Acharity (F (3,
163) = 6.80, p = 0.010) and DI (F (3, 163) = 16.27,
p < 0.001). As shown in Table 1, participants
reported more positive attitude towards the
celebrity and charity, as well as heighten donation
intention when the celebrity and charity were functionally congruent, supporting Hypothesis 1a, 1b,
1c, and 1d. No significant main effects were observed (p > 0.05).
Next, to examine whether the interaction effect
between celebrity and charity on attitude towards
the celebrity (Aceleb), attitude towards the charity
(Acharity), and donation intention (DI) was mediated
by perceptions of celanthropy, the PROCESS macro
bootstrapping procedure (n = 5000) put forth by
Preacher, Rucker and Hayes (2007, Model 8) was
employed. For descriptive purposes, the PROCESS
macro provides tests of the effect of the interaction
on the mediator as well as the effects of the mediator
on the outcome variable. Significant results were
demonstrated across the models with the interaction
effect (celebrity charity) found to be a significant
predictor of perceived celanthropy and perceived
Table 1. SummaryCelebrity-Charity Alignment on Effects on
Celanthropy, Aceleb, Acharity and DI

Dependent measure
Celanthropy
Celebrity: athlete
Celebrity: comedian
Attitude towards the celebrity
Celebrity: athlete
Celebrity: comedian
Attitude towards the charity
Celebrity: athlete
Celebrity: comedian
Donation intention
Celebrity: athlete
Celebrity: comedian

Sports-related Comedy-related
charity
charity

4.93 (1.03)
4.19 (1.23)

4.30 (1.07)
4.70 (0.95)

5.43 (1.01)
4.59 (1.27)

4.67 (1.34)
5.20 (1.32)

5.53 (0.99)
4.87 (1.29)

5.17 (1.10)
5.47 (1.28)

4.36 (1.41)
3.15 (1.39)

3.85 (1.33)
4.27 (0.81)

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

205

celanthropy found to be a significant predictor of

Aceleb, Acharity, and DI. When testing for moderating
mediation, however, the key indicator is the indirect
effect of the interaction term on the dependent
variable through the mediator (Preacher et al.,
2007; Hayes, 2012). As the 95% bootstrapped
confidence interval for the indirect effect of the
interaction does not include zero across all dependent variables: Aceleb ( = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.33 to
1.43), Acharity ( = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.25 to 1.08) and
DI ( = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.19 to 1.00) results support
Hypothesis 2a, 2b, and 2c with a moderated mediated
effect identified. Specifically, perceived celanthropy
is found to mediate the effect of the interaction effect
(celebrity charity) on an individuals Aceleb, Acharity,
and DI. In all instances, the direct effect of the
interaction on the dependent variable was found to
become non-significant (p > 0.05) when perceived
celanthropy was included in the model, suggesting
full mediation.

Discussion and conclusion

This research demonstrates that a functional fit
between a celebrity and a charity positively impacts
an individuals attitude towards the celebrity and the
charity, as well as heightens an individuals intention
to donate to the aligned charity. These findings
reinforce findings of previous research, demonstrating that celebrity co-branding partnerships are more
effective when there is a fit between both brands
(Ilicic & Webster, 2013), even when considering
celebritycharity alignments. Although previous
research suggests a congruent alignment between
a brand and cause may increase consumer scepticism and egoistic attributions of the partnership
(Barone et al., 2007), this study suggests that
functional fit between celebrity and charity reduces
scepticism and results in increased perceptions of
celebrity philanthropy (altruistic attributions).
Interestingly, findings also show that celebrity
charity functional misfit does not result in negative
attitudes, with individuals shown to maintain more

Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2014

DOI: 10.1002/nvsm

206

positive than neutral attitudes towards both the

celebrity and the charity. Whilst findings suggest
that a celebrity seeking to fulfil egoistic goals should
optimally align with a functionally fitting charity,
this approach may not be crucial, with any charity
alignment leading to positive outcomes for the
celebrity. This finding supports Porter and Kramer
(2002), who argue that for any brand adopting a
strategic philanthropy approach, there is no wrong
cause, with any alignment leading to positive
outcomes (e.g. goodwill). These results may have
occurred as a result of this study utilising wellknown popular celebrities to which consumers
may already have strong positive attitudes. As such,
a one-time exposure to an advertisement featuring
a celebritycharity alliance may be sufficient to encourage affect transfer, whereby the positive attitudes associated with the celebrity are transferred
onto the charity brand. The pre-existing positive attitudes towards the celebrity are able to transfer
onto the charitable brand, regardless of whether
the celebrity is a functional fit. Future research is
needed, however, to confirm whether pre-existing
positive versus negative attitudes influence consumer responses to celebritycharity misfit alliances.
These results have implications for advertisers and
brand managers of nonprofit organisations considering a celebrity co-branding partnership with which
they do not have a functional fit. Nonprofit organisations can use any celebrity to increase attitudes
towards their brand. Although findings from this
research show evidence to suggest positive attitudes
towards the celebrity and charity when there is functional incongruence, nonprofit organisations should
exercise caution when deliberately pairing a
celebrity with a charity that is a functional misfit, as
donation intention is less likely.
When considering donation intention, celebrity
charity functional fit matters, with individuals reporting lower than neutral intentions to donate
when the celebrity and charity do not functionally
align. These findings suggest that celebrities seeking
to enhance both egoistic (attitude towards the
celebrity) and altruistic (perceived celanthropy)

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Jasmina Ilicic and Stacey Baxter

attributions should pursue an alliance with a functionally fitting charity. Importantly, these findings
also have ramifications for nonprofit organisations,
who are able to increase consumer intentions to
donate, in terms of money and time, to the charitable organisation by pairing with a functionally fitting
celebrity. Future research is needed, however, to
examine whether these effects convert to actual
donations. Research also should examine the longterm effectiveness of celebritycharity alliances
and whether any wear out effects occur.
Further, this study highlights the importance of
the perceived philanthropic activities of a celebrity
(celanthropy). Specifically, perceived celanthropy
is found to play a mediating role, driving the effect
of celebritycharity alignment on the achievement
of egoistic-related and altruistic-related attributions.
Future research, however, is needed to examine
multiple celebritycharity partnerships utilising a
variety of celebrity brands including musicians,
politicians, and actors. In addition, future research
should explore the role of image fit on consumer perceptions of both celanthropy and strategic charity
philanthropic motivations. Although the focus of this
study was on perceptions of celanthropy, further
research is needed to examine consumer perceptions of the egoistic and altruistic motivations of charities when they engage in celebrity co-branding
partnerships. Although we find here that functional
fit between celebritycharity partnerships results in
superior attitudes towards the charity (enhancing
brand attitude and resulting in increased egoistic
outcomes), no research to date has examined
whether functional celebritycharity fit enhances
perceptions of charity philanthropy (altruistic motivations). With increasing scepticism towards organisations and their philanthropic or altruistic motives
(e.g. Bricknell, 2011), future research is needed to
examine the influence of perceived charity philanthropy on the nonprofit organisations brand equity.
This research may provide insights into the resistance of the nonprofit organisation in the case of
negative information or publicity, and consumer
reactions through word-of-mouth.

Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2014

DOI: 10.1002/nvsm

Influence on attitudes and donation intentions

Acknowledgement
The authors thank The University of Adelaide,
Business School, for sponsoring this study.

References
Anderson J. 1983. Language, Memory, and Thought.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Hillsdale, New Jersey.
Babiak K, Mills B, Tainsky S, Juracich M. 2012. An investigation into professional athlete philanthropy: why
charity is part of the game. Journal of Sports Management 26: 159176.
Barone M, Norman A, Miyazaki A. 2007. Consumer
response to retailer use of cause-related marketing: is
more fit better? Journal of Retailing 83(4): 437445.
Batra R, Homer P. 2004. The situational impact of
brand image beliefs. Journal of Consumer Psychology
14(3): 318330.
Becker-Olsen K, Cudmore B, Hill R. 2006. The impact of
perceived corporate social responsibility on consumer
behaviour. Journal of Business Research 59(1): 4653.
Bigne E, Curras-Prez R, Aldas-Manzano J. 2012. Dual
nature of causebrand fit: influence on corporate
social responsibility consumer perception. European
Journal of Marketing 46(3/4): 575594.
Bricknell S. 2011. Misuse of the non-profit sector for
money laundering and terrorism financing. Australian
Institute of Criminology. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/421-440/tandi424.html
Collins A, Loftus E. 1975. Theory of semantic processing.
Psychological Review 82(6): 407428.
Dickinson S, Barker A. 2007. Evaluations of branding
alliances between non-profit and commercial brand
partners: the transfer of affect. International Journal
of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 12:
7589.
Dickinson S, Heath T. 2006. A comparison of qualitative
and quantitative results concerning evaluations of cobranded offerings. The Journal of Brand Management
13(6): 393406.
Dieter H, Kumar R. 2008. The downside of celebrity
diplomacy: the neglected complexity of development.
Global Governance 14(3): 259264.

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

207
Dyer R. 1979. Stars. British Film Institute: London.
Forbes. 2012. The 30 Most Generous Celebrities. http://
www.forbes.com/sites/andersonantunes/2012/01/11/
the-30-most-generous-celebrities/
Gupta S, Pirsch J. 2006. The companycausecustomer fit
decision in cause-related marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing 23(6): 314326.
Gwinner K, Eaton J. 1999. Building brand image through
event sponsorship: the role of image transfer. Journal
of Advertising 28(4): 4757.
Hayes A. 2012. PROCESS: a versatile computational tool
for observed variables mediation, moderation and
conditional process modelling, http://www.personal.
psu.edu/jxb14/M554/articles/process2012.pdf
Hood J. 2010. Celebrity philanthropy: the cultivation of
Chinas HIV/AIDS heroes. In Celebrity in China, Louise,
E, Elaine, J (eds). Hong Kong University Press: Hong
Kong; 85102.
Ilicic J, Webster C. 2013. Celebrity co-branding partners
as irrelevant brand information in advertisements.
Journal of Business Research 66(7): 941947.
Kamins M. 1990. An investigation of the match-up
hypothesis in celebrity advertising: when beauty may
be only skin deep. Journal of Advertising 19(1): 413.
Kamins M, Gupta K. 1994.Congruence between spokesperson and product type: a match-up hypothesis
perspective. Psychology and Marketing 11(1): 413.
Lee H, Park T, Moon H, Yang Y, Kim C. 2009. Corporate
philanthropy, attitude towards corporations, and
purchase intentions: a South Korea study. Journal of
Business Research 62: 939946.
Littler J. 2008. I feel your Pain: cosmopolitan charity and
the public fashioning of the celebrity soul. Social
Semiotics 18(2): 237251.
Look To The Stars. 2014. Charitable and philanthropic celebrities. http://www.looktothestars.org/celebrity
Lynch J, Schuler D. 1994. The match-up effect of spokesperson and product congruency: a schema theory interpretation. Psychology and Marketing 11(5): 417445.
Martindale C. 1991. Cognitive psychology: a neuralnetwork approach. Brooks/Cole Publishing: California.
McSweeney F, Bierley C. 1984. Recent developments in
classical conditioning. Journal of Consumer Research
11: 619631.

Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2014

DOI: 10.1002/nvsm

208
Meyer D, Gamson J. 1995. The challenge of cultural elites:
celebrities and social movements. Sociological Inquiry
65(2): 181206.
Misra S, Beatty S. 1990. Celebrity spokesperson and brand
congruence: an assessment of recall and affect. Journal
of Business Research 2: 159173.
Nan X, Heo K. 2007. Consumer responses to corporate
social responsibility (CSR) initiatives: examining the
role of brandcause fit in cause-related marketing.
Journal of Advertising 36: 6374.
Ohanian R. 1990. Construction and validation of a scale
to measure celebrity endorsers perceived expertise,
trustworthiness and attractiveness. Journal of
Advertising 19(3): 3952.
Porter M, Kramer M. 2002. The competitive advantage
of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review
80(12): 5668.
Porter M, Kramer M. 2006. Strategy and society: the
link between competitive advantage and corporate
social responsibility. Harvard Business Review
84(12): 7892.
Preacher K, Rucker D, Hayes A. 2007. Assessing
moderated mediation hypotheses: theory, methods
and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research
42(1): 185227.
Robert J. 2013. Individualistic philanthropy: the
paradox of embodied participation for health
related fund-raising campaigns. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing
18: 261274.
Saiia D, Carroll A, Buchholtz A. 2003. Philanthropy as
strategy: When corporate charity Begins at Home.
Business and Society 42(2): 169201.
Samman E, McAuliffe E, MacLachlan M. 2009. The role of
celebrity in endorsing poverty reduction through international aid. International Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing 14: 137148.

Copyright 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Jasmina Ilicic and Stacey Baxter

Samu S, Wymer W. 2009. The effect of fit and dominance
in cause marketing communications. Journal of
Business Research 62: 432440.
Seno D, Lukas B. 2007. The equity effect of product
endorsement by celebrities: a conceptual framework
from a co-branding perspective. European Journal of
Marketing 41(1/2): 121134.
Simonin B, Ruth J. 1998. Is a company known by the
company it keeps? Assessing the spillover effects of
brand alliances on consumer brand attitudes. Journal
of Marketing Research 35(1): 3042.
Skarmeas D, Leonidou C. 2013. When consumers doubt,
Watch out! The role of CSR scepticism. Journal of
Business Research 66(10): 18311838.
Thomson M. 2006. Human brands: investigating antecedents to consumers strong attachments to celebrities.
Journal of Marketing 70(3): 104119.
Till B, Busler M. 1998. Matching products with endorsers:
attractiveness versus expertise. Journal of Consumer
Marketing 15(6): 576586.
Till B Busler M. 2000. The match-up hypothesis: physical
attractiveness, expertise, and the role of fit on brand
attitude, purchase intent and brand beliefs. Journal of
Advertising 14(3): 113.
Till B, Nowak L. 2000. Toward effective use of causerelated marketing alliances, Journal of Product and
Brand Management 9(7): 472484.
Till B, Stanley S, Priluck R. 2008. Classical conditioning
and celebrity endorsers: an examination of belongingness and resistance to extinction. Psychology and
Marketing 25(2): 179196.
Trimble CS, Rifon NJ. 2006. Consumer perceptions of
compatibility in cause-related marketing messages.
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Marketing 11: 2947.
Waddock S, Post J. 1995. Catalytic alliances for social
problem solving. Human Relations 48(8): 951973.

Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark., August 2014

DOI: 10.1002/nvsm