‘Can you see it?’ how one-for-one promotions increase imagery vividness and promotion effectiveness in cause-related marketing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates consumer response to one-for-one promotions in cause-related marketing (CRM), relative to promotions with cash. Three empirical studies explore how one-for-one promotions enhance mental imagery vividness, leading to improved promotional outcomes. Study one demonstrates one-for-one promotions generate superior promotion effectiveness compared to monetary donations. Study two is an extension demonstrating one-for-one promotions amplify imagery vividness associated with the donated product and its usage context, improving consumer responses. Study three reveals this effect is moderated by consumers’ product usage experience, such that one-for-one (vs. monetary) promotions produce a stronger effect among consumers with limited experience with the product. This research contributes to the CRM literature by integrating Construal Level Theory and relational processing theories, highlighting imagery vividness as a key cognitive mechanism driving consumer responses. Marketers can apply these findings by deploying strategies to enhance imagery in promotions and targeting consumers with less product experience, who are especially responsive to one-for-one promotions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".