research proposal
harishreddy
AT5Sample1.pdf
Page 1
Research Proposal
“Investigation into Childhood Cancer brand awareness and general population attitude
towards giving in Australia”
Prepared by: Melanie Cottell, Reagan Bledee, Katherine Nichole
Date: 10 December 2016
Page 2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Background
3. Business Problem
4 Research Problem
5. Research Objectives
6. Research Propositions
7. Literature Review
7.1 Motivation for charitable donations
7.2 Disincentives for charity giving
7.3 Behavioural economics
7.4 Brand recognition
7.5 Key findings
8. Research Methodology
8.1 Literature review
8.2 Focus Group
8.3 Survey Questionnaire
9. Data collection and analysis
10. Deliverables, Budget and Timeline
11. Limitations
12. Conclusion
13. References
Page 3
1. Introduction
The Childhood Cancer Association Inc. (‘CCA’) is a South Australian based charity providing a
range of tailored support services to children with cancer and their families. It was formed by
a group of parents of children with cancer in 1982 (CCA 2016). Services include professional
counselling, family and sibling support programs, education support (home tutoring), daily
hospital visits, accommodation for country and interstate families and bereavement services
(CCA 2016). It “supports children and their families from South Australia, Northern Territory
and country Victoria/New South Wales” (CCA 2016). In 2015 they provided support to over 400
families (CCA 2016).
2. Background
Donation Landscape and Community Attitudes to Giving
The Australian public is particularly charitable. In 2015 “nine out of every ten Australians made
a donation to charity” (ACNC 2015). Further, in 2015 87% of Australians contributed to charity
and 75% of people regularly supported at least one charity (ACNC 2015). The average annual
charitable donation in Australia is now $348 (Yeates 2016). This represents an increase of $12
or 6.5% from 2015 to 2016 (Yeates 2016).
A crowded market place and potential brand confusion
Within Australia there are approximately 54,000 registered, regulated charities (ACNC 2015).
This includes “many hundreds of consumer support and advocacy groups, and cancer charities
across Australia” (Cancer Australia 2016). Given the volume of cancer charities operating within
the cancer and childhood cancer space many of the services provided overlap. For example,
some focus on cancer research, others focus on supporting families and others provide support
to adult cancer patients. The scope of services provided vary from nationwide to state based.
The key cancer and childhood cancer charities in Australia are as follows:
● The Cancer Council Australia - (independently fund cancer research in Australia, and
provide information to doctors, health professionals and the general community)
(Cancer Council Australia 2016).
● The Kids Cancer Project - (national charity dedicated to supporting childhood cancer
research) (Kids Cancer Project 2016).
● The Children’s Cancer Foundation - (provides funding for clinical research, clinical
care and family support programs) (Children’s Cancer foundation 2016).
● Children’s Cancer Institute - (conducts independent medical research) (Children’s
Cancer Institute 2016).
● Kids With Cancer Foundation Australia - (provides family and hospital support) (Kids
With Cancer Foundation 2016).
Page 4
At a meeting between the researchers and the Chief Executive of the Childhood Cancer
Association, Cath O’Loughlin, on 26 October 2016, she identified a potential lack of awareness
of the Childhood Cancer Association brand in the South Australian community and potential
brand confusion with other cancer charities. It is proposed that the majority of the community
are unaware that the above children’s cancer charities are based interstate whereas the
Childhood Cancer Association provides services exclusively to citizens from South Australian,
the Northern Territory and bordering rural areas.
Competition for Funding and the Charity Dollar
Competition for the charity dollar is fierce. The Childhood Cancer Association operates in a
very competitive market for financial resources (CCA 2015). In its 2015 annual report the
Childhood Cancer Association described the landscape as “an extremely challenging
environment” (CCA 2015). The key sources of income for the Childhood Cancer Association are
depicted in Figure 1 below. As can be seen less than a third of the organisation’s income comes
from donations. The majority of the income sources are ad-hoc in nature making funding flows
difficult to predict.
Figure 1: Childhood Cancer Association Sources of Income
Source: CCA 2015
Page 5
The Childhood Cancer Association has described the implementation of a sustainable financial
model as a key organisational objective (CCA 2015). Further, during the meeting with the Chief
Executive she emphasised the importance of obtaining sustainable, predictable funding
sources. This will assist with the budgeting process.
Despite the fact that nine out of ten Australians give to charity in some form (ACNC 2015) and
the growth in average annual donations, various studies have reported evidence of ‘donor
fatigue’ amongst donors (Brown and Minty 2008, p.5). This makes competition for the charitable
dollar ever more competitive amongst charities.
3. Business Problem
Based on the above two business problems have been identified:
1) “How can the Childhood Cancer Association raise its profile within the community as
the best provider of support services to children with cancer and their families in South
Australia, the Northern Territory and bordering rural areas?”
2) “How can the Childhood Cancer Association increase its share of charitable donations
and implement a sustainable financial model?”
4. Research Problem
The research problems can be defined as:
1) “How aware is the general community of the Childhood Cancer Association brand and
the services they provide?”
2) “What are the community’s attitudes to charitable giving and in particular in what
format do they prefer to give?”
5. Research Objectives
The key objectives of the research are to identify:
● the extent of the general community's awareness of the existence of the Childhood
Cancer Association;
● the extent of the general community's awareness of the services provided by the
Childhood Cancer Association;
Page 6
● the extent of the general community's awareness that the services provided by the
Childhood Cancer Association are for children and families from South
Australia/Northern Territory and bordering rural areas;
● the extent of the general community's awareness of the Childhood Cancer Association's
logo and whether this can be distinguished from competitor charities;
● the extent of the general community's awareness of its competitor charities and the
locations to which they provide services;
● to what extent the general community would be willing to donate on a regular basis and
if so whether a work place giving scheme would be the preferred donation mechanism;
● the price sensitivities of the general community – how much would they be willing to
give to charity and whether this would vary per donation method.
● Whether there are any differences in attitude to giving by demographic.
6. Research Propositions
It is proposed that the majority of the general population are unaware of the Childhood Cancer
Association brand and the services it provides. It is proposed that an increase in that awareness
may result in an increase in donations to the charity.
It is proposed that a significant portion of the community would be willing to give to the charity
on a regular basis via a workplace giving scheme.
These two hypotheses should be explored as part of the research process.
7. Literature Review
7.1 Motivation for charitable donations
There is a myriad of literature that looks at why people donate to charities with many of them
using experiments to validate their hypotheses. This wealth of information should be used to
provide a strong foundation for directing our research.
Many studies have considered that many people donate to charities because of intrinsic
motivations. One form of intrinsic motivation is for people to feel good about themselves when
they give to others. Riber and Wilhelm (2002) label it the "joy of giving", while Andreoni (1989)
describes it as a "warm glow". Studies, such as those by Harbaugh et al (2007) have explained
Page 7
this through neurological reasoning in that our neural activity increases (elicits a reward
response) when giving. It was found by this study that even when the giving was involuntary
this occurred; however it increased with voluntary giving. This concept has been explored
further with some theorists including Hebbert et al (2007) finding that people who feel guilty
are more willing to give to others to make themselves feel better.
Researchers have distinguished between the "warm glow" motivation for giving and the pure
altruistic motivations for giving (Andreoni (1990), Riber and Wilhelm (2002) and Crumpler and
Grossman (2008). Pure altruism is described by Crumpler and Grossman (2002) as "motivated
solely by an interest in the welfare of the recipients of their largesse". We can see that the
motivation is for the recipient, rather than for the donor.
Studies into psychology and the motivation for giving have also found that giving to others is
wrapped up with people's identity, how they see themselves (Aaker and Akutsu, 2009. They
summarise: "The degree to which identities are malleable, involve a readiness to act, and help
make sense of the world has significant implications determining whether and how much
people give"
Read Montague & Lohrenz (2007) let us know that we are hard-wired to conform to social norms
(survival of the species) and suffer cognitive dissonance when there is a deviation from this.
"Humans have an automatic drive to “balance the scales” for social wrongs perpetrated on
themselves and others"
There are of course extrinsic motivations to donate to charity, when there is some form of
external benefit, such as a tax deduction. Tiehen (2001) considers that the benefit of a tax
deduction has a "substantial impact" on charitable giving. She further found that those people
most affected by the decision had the highest price elasticity. However even with monetary
incentives, there still needs to be some other motivation to donate, as Sargeant & Jay (2004)
imply when stating "donors will always be better off not making a donation".
However where the perceived benefits outweigh the cost, such as with a lottery, this would
indicate that the extrinsic motivation is stronger than intrinsic for some. In their experiment
Landry et al (2005) found that the lottery treatments raised considerably more money than the
voluntary contributions treatments.
There are a number of studies on another form of motivation to give to charity, and that is
social recognition. Many researchers, such as Kasser & Ryan (1996) class this as a form of
extrinsic motivation. Karlan & McConnell (2014) in conducting their experiment found, similar
to others previously conducted, that the desire to increase social image was a motivating factor
Page 8
in charity donations. Similarly Li and Riyanto (2016) in their experiment found people would
donate more if these donations were publically reported.
Does familiarity breed a propensity to donate? Burgoyne et al (2005) found that people who
knew other suffering from a particular illness were more likely to give to a charity dealing with
that illness. This familiarity concept was confirmed by Olsen & Eidem (2003) - they showed
there were more donations to health charities associated with more common illnesses.
The most important criteria for choosing a charity (van Iwaardenet al, 2009) was the type of
activity of the charity.
In viewing the Australian "most trusted charities" lists complied by Probone Australia (2015),
the top charities listed were ones which had good reputations and were easily recognisable.
Finally, we look at a mechanism that often pays dividends - asking for donations (soliciting).
Bryant et al (2003) deduced that around 85% of all donations are a direct or indirect result of
soliciting. The negative effects of over soliciting are discussed in the next section.
7.2 Disincentives for charity giving
It is also as important to look at why people don't give to charity as to why they do. There is
not as much literature on this as motivation for giving, however there is sufficient to gain a
good understanding of the key reasons.
Papers looking at altruism vs. "warm glow" and similar (Ribar & Wilhelm (2002), Andreoni (1990)
confirm the "crowding out" effect. This is where "monetary rewards may reduce intrinsic
motivation" (Frey & Oberholzer-Gee, 1997), for instance when the government makes a large
donation to a charity, people are less motivated to donate to that charity.
Duncan (2004) identified that many donors contribute to charities because they want to feel
that their donation will make a difference, therefore if prospective donors have the
perception that it won't it is a great disincentive. Research by a Dutch institution (NIPO, 2003)
shows that the majority of charity supporters would like to know more about what happens
with their donations. Rose-Ackerman (1982) shows that donors don't like charities that spend
a lot on fundraising. Even perceptions are important as the Bekkers and Crutzens (2007)
experiment shows which demonstrated that using a plain envelope raised more for charity
than using a fancier envelope with a picture of the beneficiaries. The learning here is that
donors want the maximum amount of their contribution to go to the cause rather than on
administration.
Page 9
Lack of trust of the charity is a huge disincentive to give - this ties in with what we have
previously discussed and also with the brand or reputation of the charity. In a Chilean study
(Torres-Moraga et al, 2010) found the charities (good) reputation and the donors familiarity
with the charity promoted trust and the charities" opportunism decreased trust. We will look
further at brand identification in the next section.
Donor fatigue is an issue in a disincentive to donate - both from new and existing donors.
"Because of increasing numbers of solicitations for charitable contributions, the standard
response is to reject an appeal": Bekkers & Wiepking (2011). Van Diepen et al (2009) found that
existing donors may become irritated with excessive requests and may actually decrease their
giving.
7.3 Behavioural economics
Hibbert & Horne (1996) contended that while there is a lot of research on the "why" people
donate (motivation) we need to look at "how" people make decisions to get some insight on
marketing possibilities for charitable donations. They suggested looking at consumer
behaviour, which shows that many people have low involvement in making many decisions
which means that they use simple processes which are not always rational.
Building on this concept Edwards & List (2014) conducted an experiment which confirmed that
when charity collectors ask for a certain amount of money, more people give and they are likely
to give that amount.
7.4 Brand recognition
From the literature above we iterate that it is important for a charity to be recognisable, and
for the prospective donors to realise what it does. "...the perception of specific categories of
trait may be linked to individual giving behaviour": Sargeant et al (2004). Simon (1997) proved
that the high amount of media coverage of a natural disaster correlated with a high amount of
donations. Research by Michel & Rieunier (2011) also showed that that non-profit brand image
correlates strongly with intention to give time or money.
However, Stride (2006) argues that there is a growing concern about the "over-
commercialisation" of the charity industry.
Dixon (1996) looks at benefits and constraints of small and medium sized charities in developing
a brand identity and concludes that while more difficult it is important for them to build this.
She suggests that a priority is projecting clear organisational values and messages. Long (2010),
who acknowledges the charity brand confusion in Australia, similarly recommends for charities
Page 10
to keep things simple: "Simple image, simple straplines, simple concepts that members and
consumers can grasp and refer to themselves".
Brand building is importance as charities are in effect competing with each other for the donor
dollar. An experiment by Luca et al (2013) has concluded that overall donations and the number
of effectively funded charities may both decrease as the total number of charities increase.
7.5 Key findings
The literature has demonstrated that there are so many factors to take into account in
understanding why people donate to charity, reasons they don't donate, what charities are they
likely to choose and the important of brand recognition.
People are motivated to give for a number of reasons including pure altruism, the cause may
correlate to their values or area of concern, it may make them feel good or better, or less
guilty, or it may increase their self-esteem. There may be extrinsic benefits to giving, such as
tax deductions, having a chance to win something or the significant aspect of increasing
someone's social capital or reputation.
It is important for charities to solicit for donations, however to achieve the balance of not
irritating people by excessive donation seeking. A charity may be able to make use of the
behavioural insights, such as people often giving a suggested amount. People also don't want
the impression that the charity is spending a lot on anything other than the cause. The
reputation of the charity is important as people need to trust that the charity will do the right
thing.
People need to be able to recognise the "brand" of the charity, to know they exist and to know
what they do. There are many charities out there and with over-saturation being a risk, a
charity needs to manage all these factors carefully to flourish.
8. Research Methodology
A combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods will be utilised in this research
project to address the research questions. Information and data gathered from the literature
review, focus group and survey questionnaire will capture how aware is the general community
of the Childhood Cancer Association brand and what are the community’s attitudes are to
charitable giving. The research will be conducted in accordance with the ethical and
professional standards prescribed in the Australian Market and Social Research Society (AMSRS)
Code of Professional Behaviour (AMSRS 2016).
Page 11
8.1 Literature review
Secondary data collection forms an integral part of the Childhood Cancer Association research
project. The literature review will assist familiarity with the landscape of charitable giving in
Australia and the level of awareness of the Childhood Cancer Association brand amongst major
charities and particular among cancer charities. The exploratory data collection will also
provide a comparison of the Australian context to the international perspective and evaluate
current trends. In addition to identifying the research gap and previous research in this field,
the literature review intends to show how our work extends, challenges or address a gap in this
field.
The literature review has uncovered extensive research into charitable giving. However, there
is very limited or no information about previous research into Childhood Cancer Association
brand awareness. The literature review will be conducted using University of Adelaide online
research databases, peer reviewed and professional journals, and other sources. Figure 2 below
visually depicts the key words arising from the literature review conducted to date.
Figure 2: Word Cloud created in NVivo 11 using a word frequency search of the secondary research material
Page 12
8.2 Focus Group
A focus group will be conducted during the project duration. It is intended that a minimum of
ten people will attend the session. The focus group will help explore staff, volunteers and
stakeholders’ experiences, insights and knowledge about CCA operations, the awareness of CCA
brand among other cancer charities and if connection with CCA charity influence their giving
behaviour. Findings of the focus group will help describe the phenomena which are charitable
giving and CCA brand penetration. While the primary intention is to conduct a focus group,
individual interviews will supersede this where this is not feasible.
The research framework will take into consideration how many groups to run, the size of the
group, participants, questions to ask, level of moderator involvement, recording, transcription
and structure. Relevant interview questions will be formulated. Focus group participants or
individuals to partake in semi-structured group where participants will be asked pre-
determined set of open questions (questions that prompt discussion) with the opportunity for
the interviewer to explore particular themes or responses further. Two moderators to lead the
focus groups, one moderator will focus on asking questions, probing and guiding the focus
groups, one will focus on recording, notes, and time controlling.
8.3 Survey Questionnaire
The survey will be conducted to collect relevant data about the general community awareness
of Childhood Cancer Association brand and what are the community’s attitudes are to charitable
giving. Survey questionnaire will be built using Qualtrics, a professional market research
software which support systematic development and distribution of a survey questionnaire, and
data collection and analysis. Data collected from the survey questionnaire will be exported to
MS Excel and IBM SPSS for further analysis and testing. The survey questionnaire will collect
data about relevant independent and dependent variables to help investigate the general
population attitudes towards giving and CCA brand penetration. Variables will include
motive(s) (reason) for charitable giving, motive for not giving, which charity they give to,
methods of giving, brand equity of CCA charity and respondents demographic characteristics
(e.g. gender, income, education).
9. Data collection and analysis
The focus group (alternatively individual interviews) helps explore in depth the research
questions. Data collected from focus group (or individual interviews) will be recorded and
transcribed. Bryman (2007) suggest that focus group session will work best if it is recorded and
Page 13
subsequently transcribed. The focus group transcription will be imported into NVivo. NVivo is
a comprehensive qualitative data analysis computer software package. The team will utilise
various functions in NVivo to accurately organize emergent ideas, critically analyse information,
find insights into the data, ask questions of the data, find relationships or connections between
variables, rigorously back-up findings with evidence and finally link findings to research
objectives. The focus group is scheduled in the last week of January 2017.
The survey questionnaire built in Qualtrics will be distributed to a convenience sample of the
general population. A minimum sample size of 100 has been proposed for the project. Mode of
distribution will include online sources including emails and social media (Facebook, Twitter,
LinkedIn). The questionnaire design process will carefully take into issues with data validity,
reliability and integrity. Survey questions will be structured, worded and ordered to avoid
possible biases. The survey is scheduled in early February 2017 and will open for a duration of
three weeks. Data collected in Qualtrics will be exported to SPSS (statistical package for the
social sciences) software for analytical purposes. The team will apply various SPSS
functionalities including frequency distribution, crosstab analysis, corrections and regression,
standard deviation, cluster analysis, factor analysis, multidimensional scaling, Chi-Test, ANOVA
and independent samples T-test.
10. Project Deliverables, Budget and Timeline
This research project will be delivered in trimester 1 in 2017 according with University of
Adelaide academic guidelines (19 January to 30 April). Figures 3, 4 and 5 below depict the
project deliverables, indicative timeline and budget. This will enable our team to complete
the project and for CCA to gain access the report.
10.1 Deliverables
Below are tangible milestones of the research project which the team wish to achieve:
Figure 3: Project deliverables
Project Deliverables Description
Final Research Proposal to CCA Refine and submit final proposal to CCA for approval
Secondary data collection Conduct further literature review and enhance focus of the research
Interview questionnaire Develop interview questions
Focus Groups Conduct focus groups
Analyse data Transcribe and analysis of data using NVivo
Page 14
Survey questionnaire Develop survey questionnaire, test and distribute
Collection of survey data Data to be collected through online survey and social media.
Analyse Data - nVivo & SPSS Clean and analysis of data using SPSS
Draft Report Topline results with preliminary findings, data validity and trends
Submission to CCA Presentation of report to CCA and feedback
Final Report Refine and submit final report
10.2 Timeline
The indicative project timeline is described below in Figure 4. This timeline is subject to some
external factors which are outside the team’s control including the University of Adelaide ethics
approval and internal documentations process, and access to CCA staff and administration.
Ceteris paribus, the project deliverables and outcomes are expected to be achieved in time.
Figure 4: Indicative project timeline
10.3 Budget
A conceptual budget has been developed for the research project totalling $18490. The amount is derived from comparison data from similar research projects. The majority of the fund will be spent on survey participants and a research officer to manage data and other process of the project. The team will offer a $50 e-gift certificate to those who successfully complete the
Page 15
surveys questionnaire. Participants will be offered the option of forgoing the certificate to donate the money back to the Childhood Cancer Association.
Figure 5: Conceptual budget: CCA Research Project
Budget items Estimated Costs
Research officer support ($30 per hour for 5 hours per week for 26 weeks $2400
Focus groups participants (10 x 50) $500
Survey participants (300 x $50) $15000
Transcript of focus groups (2 x 1 hour approximately x $120 p.h) $240
Report design and graphic work $350
TOTAL $18490
11. Limitations
Potential limitations associated with the data to be obtained from the research include:
● Relatively small sample size - (although an aspirational target of 100 survey respondents
and ten focus group participants has been set it is possible a small number will respond).
● The questionnaire will be emailed to friends, family and MBA colleagues of the
researchers. Therefore the societal demographic (age, income etc.) and potentially
attitudes to giving and behaviour of respondents will be similar to that of the
researchers. The data may not be representative of the wider population.
● It is possible the questions may not be clear or unambiguous to respondents.
● Respondents may not answer honestly – e.g. they may say that they give regularly or
larger amounts to charity than they do. They may not want to admit that they do not
give to charity or that the give a low amount. The complementary focus group research
method has been proposed as discussion forums led by a skilled facilitator might garner
more trust (Moorman et al 1993) and therefore provide deeper insights and more reliable
data.
● There may not be a 100% response rate to all questions (i.e. some respondents may not
answer all the questions).
● The results are not static and are a snapshot at a point in time.
Page 16
● Where statistically appropriate to do so, the results will be generalised and inference
made to the community’s attitudes to charitable giving. However, further targeted
research may be required to build in findings identified by the research and provide
richer data to assist the organisation in addressing the research and business problems.
● Unconscious bias of the researchers - “The training and person values of the researcher
form part of the context of the business research in that they may influence the research
area, the research questions and the methods chosen”. (Bryman and Bell 2011, p. 7).
● It is important to match the research question to the appropriate research method
(Bryman and Bell 2011 p. 4). It is possible that some questions explored in the focus
groups may be better explored in the survey or alternative research methods and vice
versa.
12. Conclusion
The research will provide qualitative and quantitative data to address the hypotheses and
identified research gap. The information gained from the research can be used by the Childhood
Cancer Association to inform its strategic plans and develop marketing strategies to increase
awareness of its brand and to generate an increased, sustainable, predictable flow of donations.
Page 17
13. References
Aaker, Jennifer and Akutsu, Satoshi, Why Do People Give? The Role of Identity in Giving (June
1, 2009). Stanford University Graduate School of Business Research Paper No. 2027.
Australian Market and Social Research Society 2016, Code of Professional Behaviour, AMSRS,
viewed 6 December 2016, <http://www.amsrs.com.au/documents/item/194>
Australian Charities and Not for Profit Commission, ACNC 2015, viewed 7 December 2016, <https://www.acnc.gov.au/ACNC/Comms/Med_R/_Nine_out_of_10_Australians_donate_to_charity_.as px>
Andreoni, J. (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm-glow
giving. Economic Journal, 100, 464-477.
Bekkers R, Wiepking, P, A Literature Review of Empirical Studies of Philanthropy: Eight
Mechanisms That Drive Charitable Giving (Sept 2010) Non-profit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 2010
Bekkers, R., & Crutzen, O. Just keep it simple: A field experiment on fundraising letters.
(2007). International Journal of Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12, 371-378.
Brown, P. H, & Minty. J 2008. ‘Media coverage and charitable giving after the 2004 tsunami’, Southern Economic Journal, vol. 75, no. 1. pp. 9-25
Bryant, W. K., Slaughter, H. J., Kang, H., & Tax, A. (2003). Participating in philanthropic
activities: Donating money and time. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26(1), 43-73.
Bryman, A, & Bell, E 2011, Business Research Methods, 3rd ed, Oxford University Press, England.
Burgoyne, C. B., Young, B., & Walker, C. M. Deciding to give to charity: A focus group study in
the context of the household economy. (2005). Journal of Community & Applied Social
Psychology, 15, 383-405.
Cancer Australia, Cancer Support Organisations, viewed 7 December 2016,
<https://canceraustralia.gov.au/affected-cancer/cancer-support-organisations>
Cancer Council Australia, viewed 6 December 2016, <http://www.cancer.org.au/about-
us/what-we-do.html>
Childhood Cancer Association, CCA 2016, viewed 6 December 2016, <http://www.childhoodcancer.asn.au/about-us/history-background/>
Childhood Cancer Association, CCA 2016, viewed 6 December 2016, http://www.childhoodcancer.asn.au/about-us/our-mission/
Page 18
Childhood Cancer Association, CCA 2016, viewed 6 December 2016, <http://www.childhoodcancer.asn.au/our-services/about-our-services/>
Childhood Cancer Association, CCA 2016, viewed 6 December 2016,
<http://www.childhoodcancer.asn.au/about-us/our-mission/>
Childhood Cancer Association, CCA 2016, Annual Report 2015, viewed 6 December 2016, <http://www.childhoodcancer.asn.au/about-us/our-annual-report/>
Children’s Cancer Foundation, viewed 6 December 2016, <
http://childrenscancerfoundation.com.au/about-us>
Children’s Cancer Institute, viewed 7 December 2016, <https://ccia.org.au/home/our-
services/>
Crumplera, H, Grossman, P. J., An experimental test of warm glow giving (June 2008) Journal
of Public Economics Volume 92, Issues 5–6, Pages 1011–1021
Dixon, M Small and medium-sized charities need a strong brand too: Crisis' experience
(January 1997) International Journal of Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Volume 2,
Issue 1, pp 52–57
Duncan, B. A theory of impact philanthropy. (2004). Journal of Public Economics, 88, 2159-
2180
Edwards, J.T., List, J, A., Toward an understanding of why suggestions work in charitable
fundraising: Theory and evidence from a natural field experiment, Journal of Public
Economics, Vol 114 pp 1-13
Frey, B. S, Oberholzer-Gee, F. The Cost of Price Incentives: An Empirical Analysis of
Motivation Crowding- Out (Sep., 1997),The American Economic Review, Vol. 87, No. 4 pp.
746-755
Harbaugh, W. T., Mayr, U., & Burghart, D. R. (2007). Neural responses to taxation and
voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations. Science, 316, 1622-1624.
Hibbert, S, Horne, S, Giving to charity: questioning the donor decision process (1996) Journal
of Consumer Marketing pp 13:2 , 4-13
Hibbert, S, Smith, A, Davies, A, Ireland, F. Guilt appeals: Persuasion knowledge and
charitable giving (August 2007) Psychology and Marketing, Volume 24, Issue 8, Pages 723–742
Page 19
Karlan, D, McConnell, M. A.,Hey look at me: The effect of giving circles on giving (Oct 2014)
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Volume: 106, pp 402-412
Kasser, T, Ryan, R. M.,Further Examining the American Dream: Differential Correlates of
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Goals (March 1996), Personal Social Psychological Bulletin vol. 22 no. 3
280-287
Kids Cancer Project, viewed 6 December
2016,<http://www.thekidscancerproject.org.au/about-us>
Kids With Cancer Foundation, viewed 6 December 2016,
<https://www.kidswithcancer.org.au/>
Kotler, P. & Keller, K. L., 2016. A Framework for Marketing Management. 6 ed. Global Edition: Pearson.
Landry, C. E., Lange, A, List, J. A., Price, M. K., Rupp, N. G. Toward An Understanding Of
The Economics Of Charity: Evidence From A Field Experiment,(2 May 2006) Quarterly Journal
of Economics, 2006, v121 pp747-782
Li, J, Riyanto, Y. E., Category Reporting in Charitable Giving: An Experimental Analysis (Jan
2017) Economic Enquiry, Volume 55, Issue 1, pp 397–408
Long, M Branding for NFPs (Nov 2010) Associations, Edition 27 https://associations.net.au/resources/marketing-and-communications/branding-for-
nfps.html
Luca, C, Cotton, C, Valbonesi, P. "Too many charities? Insight from an experiment with
multiple public goods and contribution thresholds." (August 7, 2013) Insight from an
Experiment with Multiple Public Goods and Contribution Thresholds (2013).
Michel, G, Rieunier, S, Non-profit brand image and typicality influences on charitable giving
(May 2012), Journal of Business Research, Volume 65, Issue 5, Pages 701–707
Moorman, C, Deshpandé, R, & Zaltman, G 1993, ‘Factors Affecting Trust in Market Research Relationships’, Journal of Marketing, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 81-101
NIPO (2003), De kritische gever, Report of the Dutch Institute of Public Opinion and Market
Research, (The Critical Donor), Dutch Institute of Public Opinion and Market Research,
Amsterdam.
Olsen, J. A., & Eidem, J. I. An inquiry into the size of health charities: The case of Norwegian
patient organizations. (2003). Journal of Socio-Economics, 32, 457-466
Page 20
Probone Australia, Australia’s Most Trusted Charity Revealed 23 Jul 2015,
https://probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2015/07/australias-most-trusted-charity-revealed/
Read Montague, P, Lohrenz, T, To Detect and Correct: Norm Violations and Their
Enforcement (Oct 2007) Neuron, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp 14-18
Ribar, D. C., & Wilhelm, M. O. (2002). Altruistic and joy-of-giving motivations in charitable
behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 425-457.
Rose-Ackerman, S, Charitable Giving and "Excessive" Fundraising (May, 1982), The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, Vol. 97, No. 2 pp. 193-212
Sargeant, A, Hudson, J, West, D. C. Conceptualizing brand values in the charity sector: the
relationship between sector, cause and organization (2008) The Service Industries Journal Vol.
28 , Iss. 5
Sargeant, A., & Jay, E. (2004). Fundraising management analysis, planning and practice.
London: Routledge.
Simon, A. F. Television news and international earthquake relief. (1997). Journal of
Communication, 47(3), 82-93
Stride, S, An investigation into the values dimensions of branding: implications for the charity
sector (May 2006) International Journal of Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol 11,
Issue 2, pp 115–124
Tiehen, L. “Tax Policy and Charitable Contributions of Money.” National Tax Journal, vol. 54,
no. 4, 2001, pp. 707–723. www.jstor.org/stable/41789583.
Torres-Moraga, E, Vásquez-Parraga, A, Barra, C. Antecedents of Donor Trust in an Emerging
Charity Sector: the Role of Reputation, Familliarity, Opportunism and Communication.( Feb.
2010) Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, [S.l.], p. 159-177
Van Diepen, M., Donkers, B., & Franses, P. H. (2009). Does irritation induced by charitable
direct mailings reduce donations? International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26, 180-188.
van Iwaarden, J, van der Wiele, T, Williams, R, Moxham, C "Charities: how important is
performance to donors?" (2009) International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
Vol. 26 Iss: 1, pp.5 - 22
Yeates C. 2016, ‘Australia’s charitable giving jumps 65 per cent: National Australia Bank”, The Sydney Morning, 26 April 2016, viewed 7 December 2016,
Page 21
<http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/australias-charitable-giving-jumps-65-per-cent- national-australia-bank-20160426-gof5vs.html>
