http://jmk.sagepub.com/Journal of Macromarketing

http://jmk.sagepub.com/content/33/3/217The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0276146712470457

2013 33: 217 originally published online 11 January 2013Journal of MacromarketingKatharina Hutter and Stefan Hoffmann

Carrotmob and Anti-consumption: Same Motives but Different Willingness to Make Sacrifices?

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Macromarketing Society

can be found at:Journal of MacromarketingAdditional services and information for

http://jmk.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jmk.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jmk.sagepub.com/content/33/3/217.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Jan 11, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Aug 14, 2013Version of Record >>

at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from at The University of Auckland Library on November 5, 2013jmk.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/content/33/3/217http://www.sagepublications.comhttp://www.macromarketing.orghttp://jmk.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jmk.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jmk.sagepub.com/content/33/3/217.refs.htmlhttp://jmk.sagepub.com/content/33/3/217.full.pdfhttp://jmk.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/01/09/0276146712470457.full.pdfhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/http://jmk.sagepub.com/

Article

Carrotmob and Anti-consumption: SameMotives but Different Willingness to MakeSacrifices?

Katharina Hutter1 and Stefan Hoffmann2

AbstractThe carrotmob—often defined as an inverse boycott—is a new, fast-diffusing form of pro-environmental consumption focusingon societal issues. Organized by activists, consumers swarm a predefined store and collectively buy its products. In return, thecompany engages in pro-environmental actions. This is the first study that empirically analyzes consumer attitudes towardcarrotmob and participation intention. The article compares the drivers of carrotmob and anti-consumption (e.g., ecological con-sumer boycotts). Both forms of consumer activism are triggered by ecological concern. However, carrotmobbing differs becauseparticipants do not have to sacrifice their preferred consumption patterns. Study 1 (n ¼ 437) demonstrates that willingness tomake sacrifices moderates the impact of ecological concern on attitudes toward the carrotmob. Study 2 (n ¼ 153) establishesexternal validity by modifying the carrotmob target. As expected, the carrotmob is an alternative consumption option attractivefor consumers unwilling to make sacrifices in expressing their environmental concerns.

Keywordscarrotmob, anti-consumption, boycotts, willingness to make sacrifices, environmental concern, macromarketing

Introduction

Mankind is confronted with growing environmental problems

including the destruction of rain forests, water, and air

pollution and increasing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and

global warming. Consumers all around the globe increasingly

are becoming aware of these problems and agree that humans

should protect the environment (Soyez et al. 2009). More and

more people realize that environmental problems, such as

producing unnecessary waste, are connected to modern con-

sumption patterns and that societal change toward more envir-

onmentally friendly consumption is needed (Albinsson, Wolf,

and Kopf 2010). The more individuals are environmentally

concerned, the more they agree that they should change their

way of consumption (Bamberg 2003).

In particular, different forms of anti-consumption have

evolved to help reduce ecological footprints and/or to influ-

ence the supply side to produce in a more environmentally

friendly way (Black and Cherrier 2010; Cherrier, Black, and

Lee 2011; Prothero, McDonagh, and Dobscha 2010; Sharp,

Høj, and Wheeler 2010; Zavestoski 2001). However, many

forms of anti-consumption, such as boycotting (Sen, Gürhan-

Canli, and Morwitz 2001), brand-avoidance (Lee, Motion,

and Conroy 2009), voluntary simplicity (Etzioni 1998), and

frugality (Witkowski 2010), require that participating consu-

mers reduce consumption generally and/or abstain from con-

suming specific products (Lee, Motion, and Conroy 2009).

Pro-environmentally motivated anti-consumption obviously

requires sacrifices, but many consumers are not willing or able

to bear the subjective costs of reduced consumption and thus

are unwilling to make sacrifices.

This article explores a new form of pro-environmental con-

sumption as one possible way that might solve this dilemma:

The carrotmob. The first part of this artificial term refers to the

old saying that a man can persuade a donkey to walk forward

by beating the animal with a stick or by offering a carrot. The

carrotmob builds on the latter strategy to shape behavior of a

target company. The second part of the name is borrowed from

the term flash mob. Carrotmobbers collectively swarm a spe-

cific store and purchase its goods because the company prom-

ised to invest a predefined share of revenue in environmentally

friendly improvements. Participating in carrotmobs is based

on pro-environmental motives similar to many forms of anti-

consumption. Hence, a highly relevant question is whether the

carrotmob gives consumers unwilling to make sacrifices a new

1 Department of Marketing, Dresden Technical University, Dresden, Germany2 Department of Marketing, Christian-Albrechts-University, Kiel, Germany

Corresponding Author:

Katharina Hutter, Department of Marketing, Technical University Dresden,

Germany.

Email: katharina.hutter@tu-dresden.de

Journal of Macromarketing33(3) 217-231ª The Author(s) 2013Reprints and permission:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0276146712470457jmk.sagepub.com

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp:/jmk.sagepub.com/

platform to express pro-environmental concerns that tradition-

ally have been expressed by some form of anti-consumption.

So far, most carrotmobs strive to reduce the target com-

pany’s energy consumption and CO2 emissions (Heiskanen

et al. 2010). Macromarketing is interested in environmental

issues including sustainable consumption from the perspective

of society (Dolan 2002; Fuller, Allen, and Glaser 1996; Kil-

bourne, McDonagh, and Prothero 1997; Layton and Grossbart

2006). As carrotmobs are carried out for social and societal rea-

sons, they also fall into the field of macromarketing (Monieson

1988; Fisk 1981). This field of research is conducted in the ser-

vice of humanity (Monieson 1988). It covers both ‘‘the impact

and consequence of marketing systems on society’’ and ‘‘the

impact and consequence of society on marketing systems’’

(Hunt 1981, p. 8). Macromarketing recognizes a conflict

between the microscopic level of individual consumption

(maximizing short-term profits without limitations), the micro

institution (companies maximizing profit at the expense of the

environment), and the macroscopic level (long-run damage of

the environment and society; Crane 2000; van Dam and Apel-

doorn 1996). The carrotmob suggests a new way to solve this

conflict. Carrotmobs try to stimulate consumer behavior on the

micro level in order to help solve societal and/or environmental

problems on a macro level by raising the society’s attention

toward environmental issues. Furthermore, carrotmobs are inter-

esting from the standpoint of the marketing discipline because

they provide some form of legitimacy to marketing, while other

forms of anti-consumption have a more hostile posture toward

marketing. Carrotmobs consider the impact of consumption on

the environment but act in accordance with the very existence

of markets and marketing practices. Carrotmobs seek to ‘‘save’’

both the environment (or social issues) and marketing.

Furthermore, ‘‘vote-for’’ behavior is more effective than the

‘‘vote-against’’ behavior (McGinnis and Gentry 2009). Since a

carrotmob uses a rewarding strategy to foster micro institutions

(companies) to engage in environmental issues, it might be

more effective for urging changes on the macro level (society)

than boycotts. Hence, from the macromarketing perspective,

the question arises whether the carrotmob is a new approach

in which societal forces (activists and consumers) bundle their

purchase power within a given marketing structure to force

companies to act more socially and/or environmentally

responsible.

To date, the academic literature has not yet empirically

analyzed consumers’ motivation to participate in carrotmobs.

As this is the first empirical study of participation intention,

we start the investigation of consumer attitudes toward the

carrotmob in an exploratory way. Afterward, we conduct two

empirical studies that are based on 465 and 153 respondents,

respectively. In both studies, we apply structural equation

modeling (SEM) to test our fundamental hypothesis that the

effect of ecological concern on attitudes toward the carrotmob

is moderated by the willingness to make sacrifices. We orga-

nize the remainder of the article as follows: First, we review

the relevant literature on anti-consumption and carrotmob.

Second, we develop our hypotheses. Third, we report the

empirical investigations. Finally, we point out avenues for

further research.

Theoretical Background

Definition of the Carrotmob

The carrotmob is a subtype of buycott. While boycotters collec-

tively punish companies for unacceptable behavior by not buy-

ing their products (Friedman 1999), buycotters reward

desirable behavior of companies by increasing purchases

(Friedman 1996). Hoffmann and Hutter (2012, p. 218) define

the carrotmob as

a temporary buycott in the form of a purchase flashmob by a group

of consumers organised by activists. These activists choose the

company offering the best bid within an auction as the target of the

carrotmob. The best bid can be defined in terms of the company’s

monetary and/or non-monetary inputs or in terms of expected

improvements in issues the activists ask for.

The first carrotmob was initiated by Brent Schulkin and

involved a liquor store in San Francisco on Saturday, March

29, 2008 (Pezzullo 2011). Activists asked twenty-three liquor

stores in the Mission District whether they wanted to become

the carrotmob target and how much they were willing to invest

in pro-environmental improvements. K&D Market set the

highest bid by promising to invest 22 percent of its profits on

a given day for energy-efficient improvements. Thus, the acti-

vists chose K&D Market as the target of the carrotmob.

By November 2012, more than 250 carrotmobs had already

taken place worldwide (Carrotmob 2012), but carrotmobs have

been most frequent in North America and Europe (Hoffmann

and Hutter 2012). In the United States, Germany, Finland, and

the United Kingdom, carrotmobs are particularly popular.

Since the first carrotmob, the diffusion pace has steadily

increased. Carrotmobs have been arranged for food stores

(supermarkets, bakeries), nonfood stores (clothing, flowers),

gastronomy (restaurants, cafés), and entertainment offers

(clubs, theaters). So far, carrotmobs have pursued three main

objectives: make the target save energy, reduce waste, and use

socially responsible suppliers. These objectives are mirrored in

the target companies’ quid pro quos. Most companies have

promised to invest in more energy-efficient devices (e.g., light-

ing, heating) or to save energy in general (e.g., switching off

lights as often and for as long as possible). Less often compa-

nies have agreed to reduce waste, to start recycling and com-

posting, to ban plastic bags, or to buy products from local

suppliers or fair-trade products.

A carrotmob follows a typical procedure: First, the initiators

of the carrotmob invite selected companies (usually from one

specific field and from one specific area) to an auction. The

company setting the best bid (e.g., the highest percentage of the

carrotmob sales volume that the company invests in environ-

mentally friendly devices) becomes the carrotmob target. After

the activists have chosen the target company, they schedule a

specific date. They announce the carrotmob to consumers using

218 Journal of Macromarketing 33(3)

social media such as blogs, Facebook, and Twitter (Pezzullo

2011). During the carrotmob event, consumers collectively

purchase the target’s products. Hence, the carrotmob is a sub-

type of a flash mob since a group of individuals gathers at a

predefined point in time at a public place jointly performing

an action (Hoffmann and Hutter 2012).

According to the carrotmob organizers (Carrotmob 2012),

one of the main advantages of a carrotmob over a boycott is

that the carrotmob appeals to activists, consumers, and the tar-

get company. The carrotmob creates a win–win situation. The

target company increases its sales volume. In return, it fulfills a

promise given in the auction. Thus, activists and participating

consumers encourage a company to act in a desired manner and

to change socially irresponsible practices. In this way, the car-

rotmob connects to macromarketing’s interest in how to benefit

society (Shultz 2007).

The carrotmob ties into other forms of pro-environmental

consumption. It supports similar objectives and includes the

same vote-for mechanism of other types of buycotts, such as

supporting environmentally friendly or fair-trade products. The

carrotmob also overlaps with donations of money to pro-

environmental and social initiatives. However, while donating

requires some sort of altruistic giving, carrotmobbers only

spend money for products they use themselves. Although acti-

vists might use the carrotmob platform for many different con-

cerns (e.g., social improvements for employees), most previous

carrotmobs have addressed pro-environmental issues. Accord-

ingly, this study focuses on pro-environmental carrotmobs.

Anti-consumption

Anti-consumption ‘‘literally means against consumption’’

(Lee, Fernandez, and Hyman 2009, p. 145). More specifically,

anti-consumption is an expression of the averseness to the pro-

cesses of (mass) consumption and/or the acquisition, use, and

dispossession of certain commoditized goods and services (Lee

et al. 2011; Zavestoski 2002). Anti-consumption research iden-

tifies the causes and motives why consumers reject products or

brands (Lee, Fernandez, and Hyman 2009). Anti-consumption

is often motivated by the wish to make a difference and it partly

overlaps with consumer resistance (Lee et al. 2011; Peñaloza

and Price 1993; Roux 2007).

Various manifestations of anti-consumption and consumer

resistance include boycotts and brand-avoidance. A consumer

boycott is ‘‘an attempt by one or more parties to achieve certain

objectives by urging individual consumers to refrain from

making selected purchases in the market place’’ (Friedman

1985, p. 97). Brand-avoidance is a deliberate rejection of

brands (Lee, Motion, and Conroy 2009).

Overlap of Carrotmob Motives and Anti-consumptionMotives

Many consumers engage in anti-consumption practices because

of environmental concerns (Albinsson, Wolf, and Kopf 2010;

Black and Cherrier 2010; Cherrier 2009). Carrotmobs are also

usually initiated because of environmental concerns (Heiskanen

et al. 2010; Hoffmann and Hutter 2012; Pezzullo 2011). Hence,

we assume that participating in carrotmobs and practicing

anti-consumption have the same motivational foundation.

Additionally, people engage in some form of anti-consumption

to urge change in specific practices of an institution (Cherrier

2009). Carrotmobbers also aim at changing corporate behavior

(e.g., toward more pro-environmental production; Pezzullo

2011). Lee et al. (2011) classify anti-consumption into three

nonexclusive phenomena: reject, restrict, and reclaim. Rejec-

tion means to exclude certain goods from consumption.

Restriction implies lowering or limiting consumption of some

goods. Reclaim fosters an ideological rethinking of the pro-

cesses of acquisition, use, and dispossession. The carrotmob

falls into the third category. Carrotmobbers reclaim social and

ecological responsibility from companies instead of rejecting

or restricting their own consumption patterns. The carrotmob

fulfills the ideological shift by rewarding corporate pro-

environmental behavior.

Iyer and Munchy (2009) distinguish different types of

anti-consumption on basis of the two dimensions: ‘‘level of

consumption’’ and ‘‘focused issues’’. The former describes

some anticonsumers as striving to decrease their overall level

of consumption, whereas others avoid consuming specific

brands or products. Focused issues distinguish anticonsumers

from those who are concerned about societal issues (such as

environmentalists) and those who care about personal issues

(such as simplifying their own life). Combining the dimen-

sions creates four types of anti-consumption: First, global

impact consumers are interested in reducing the general level

of consumption for the benefit of society or the environ-

ment. Second, simplifiers wish to drop out of the fast-

paced, high-consumption society and move to a simpler, less

consumption-oriented lifestyle. Third, market activists try to

use consumer power to impact societal issues. Fourth, antil-

oyalists are consumers who explicitly refuse certain brands.

Carrotmobbers overlap with the market activists, as they

focus on specific products (e.g., products harming the envi-

ronment) for social reasons (e.g., protecting the pro-

environment).

Carrotmob as Pro-Environmental Consumption forConsumers Unwilling to Make Sacrifices

Typical forms of anti-consumption such as boycotts imply

that consumers have to abandon a product or brand. While

some consumers get along without those products, others

might not be willing or able to miss a convenient item

(Connolly and Prothero 2003). The boycott literature pro-

vides evidence that consumers avoid joining boycotts

because they do not want to miss their favorite products

or brands, because the switching costs are too high, and/or

because no adequate substitutes are available (Klein, Smith,

and John 2004; Hoffmann 2011; Sen, Gürhan-Canli, and

Morwitz 2001). Refusing to purchase certain items can often

be emotionally and/or financially costly (Cherrier and

Hutter and Hoffmann 219

Murray 2007), since consumption provides comfort, satisfies

physical needs, and contributes to the construction of one’s

self (Ewen 1988). Consumers often create their individual

identities by choosing from a diverse set of products or ser-

vices (Firat and Venkatesh 1995; Holt 2002).

Carrotmobbers are not confronted with these costs. Hence,

the underlying mechanisms of boycott (as a form of anti-

consumption) and buycott (including carrotmob) behaviors

may be markedly different. Consumer participation in both

types of action might be based on the desire to make a differ-

ence and the wish to identify with the activist group and thus

to enhance one’s self-view (Hoffmann 2011; Klein, Smith, and

John 2004). However, boycotts are hostile ‘‘vote-against’’

behaviors, whereas carrotmobs are friendly ‘‘vote-for’’ beha-

viors (McGinnis and Gentry 2009). Vote-against by anti-

consumption is by definition linked to self-restrictions, which

consumers negatively associate as ‘‘colder’’ and ‘‘darker’’

(Connolly and Prothero 2003). Hence, in boycotts consumers

have to weigh up the benefits and costs of the participation

(Hoffmann 2011; Klein, Smith, and John 2004; Sen, Gürhan-

Canli, and Morwitz 2001). As individual costs are high, the

willingness to make sacrifices has to be high. Previous litera-

ture has demonstrated that boycotts therefore suffer from social

dilemmas. Consumers who support the boycott’s objective but

are not willing to make sacrifices, tend to free ride on the boy-

cotting behavior of others (Delacote 2009; Rea 1974; Klein,

Smith, and John 2004; Sen, Gürhan-Canli, and Morwitz 2001).

Carrotmobs are social events that are exciting and stimulating

(Heiskanen et al. 2010; Pezzullo 2011). Carrotmobs are planned

in such a way that the collective objective (increasing purchases

to exert influence) and the individual objectives of participating

consumers (purchasing an item to satisfy individual needs) do

not diverge. Participation requires little subjective costs and thus

the willingness to make sacrifices does not need to be high.

Sacrifice can involve money or time and effort (Belk 1996).

We define the willingness to make sacrifices as voluntary

restriction of one’s own consumption patterns (e.g., abandoning

a previously used product) under the condition that the

abandonment has emotional and/or financial consequences

(e.g., time or money for finding substitutes).

Proposed Model and HypothesesDevelopment

The model depicted in Figure 1 explains consumers’ intention to

participate in carrotmobs. First, it proposes that ecological con-

cern improves attitudes toward the carrotmob (Hypothesis 1).

Positive attitudes toward the carrotmob, in turn, foster the inten-

tion to participate (Hypothesis 2). Most importantly, the model

proposes that willingness to make sacrifices moderates the

impact of ecological concern on attitudes toward the carrotmob

(Hypothesis 3). The model further assumes that consumers’

involvement in the target company’s products and services

affects participation intention.

Ecological concern is considered as a pro-environmental

value orientation (Soyez et al. 2009). The literature distin-

guishes different dimensions of pro-environmental value

orientation: anthropocentric, egocentric, and ecocentric (Dun-

lap and van Liere 1978; Soyez et al. 2009; Stern, Dietz, and

Kalof 1993; Thompson and Barton 1994). Anthropocentric-

orientated people consider humans as dominators of nature.

Nature has to be used for the benefit of man. Egocentric-

oriented individuals are deeply affected by the natural environ-

ment and seek to enjoy nature (e.g., nature as stress reducer or

as enabler of a higher quality of life). In contrast, individuals

with an ecocentric value orientation claim that the environment

needs to be protected for its own sake. Ecocentric value orien-

tation is based on the widely cited new environmental para-

digm (NEP) of Dunlap and his colleagues’ (Dunlap and van

Liere 1978; Dunlap et al. 2000). Ecocentric value orientation

is closest to the typical pro-environmental motivation of anti-

consumption practices. Therefore, we focus on this type of

value orientation. One of the main objectives of the carrotmob

is urging companies to act more pro-environmentally. Conse-

quently, consumers who believe that the environment is worth

being protected may have more positive attitudes toward the

EcologicalConcern

Attitudes towardsthe Carrotmob

CarrotmobParticipation

Intention

Willingness to MakeSacrifices

ProductInvolvement

H1 H2

H3

Figure 1. Proposed model of carrotmob participation intention.

220 Journal of Macromarketing 33(3)

carrotmob. Hence, we expect that ecological concern has a

positive impact on attitudes toward the carrotmob.

Hypothesis 1: Environmental concern improves attitude toward

the carrotmob.

According to balance theory (Heider 1958), individuals strive

for internal balance. Diverging attitudes and behavioral inten-

tions evoke internal disbalance. Hence, we expect that individu-

als transfer attitudes toward the carrotmob to their participation

intention in order to avoid dissonance. Numerous studies con-

firm the effect of attitudes on behavior intention (e.g., Brown,

Homer, and Inman 1998). We propose that positive attitudes

toward the carrotmob raise the participation intention.

Hypothesis 2: Positive attitudes toward the carrotmob increase

participation intention.

Most importantly, this article proposes that willingness to make

sacrifices moderates the influence of ecological concern on

attitudes toward the carrotmob. Traditionally, consumers

expressed their ecological concern with anti-consumption

practices requiring participants to make sacrifices. Those

consumers unwilling to make sacrifices had no adequate way

to express their ecological concern via their consumption pat-

terns. The carrotmob is a new form of ecological consumption

that suits the motives of ecologically concerned consumers

with weak willingness to make sacrifices. On the other hand,

those who are willing to make sacrifices might consider anti-

consumption as the ‘‘true’’ way to reduce environmental pol-

lution. As there are now various ways to express ecological

concern, persons with different levels of willingness to sacri-

fice should be distinguished.

Given that somebody is concerned about ecological issues,

weak willingness to make sacrifices might prevent him or her

from joining boycotts. This consumer might consider the carrot-

mob as an alternative way expressing ecological concerns and

thus develop positive attitudes toward the carrotmob. In contrast,

those who are willing to make sacrifices prefer boycotting as this

is the more consistent way to personally make a difference. In

fact, Cherrier, Black, and Lee (2011) demonstrate that consu-

mers who practice nonconsumption for environmental reasons

define their social identity by distinguishing themselves (I) from

others (them) who they consider less caring and responsible.

Schaefer and Crane (2005) state that ‘‘deep green’’ environmen-

talists strongly reject green marketing and greenwashing. By

contrast, consumers who feel uneasy with making sacrifices

avoid boycotting. They are presumably more open to carrot-

mobs. We expect a greater impact of ecological concern on the

attitudes toward the carrotmob for those unwilling to make sacri-

fices (past nonboycotter) than for those willing to make sacri-

fices (past boycotter).

Hypothesis 3: Willingness to sacrifice moderates the influence of

ecological concern on attitudes toward the carrotmob. The impact

of ecological concern is more intensive for individuals unwilling to

make sacrifices than for those willing to make sacrifices.

Consumers usually buy products that are relevant to them and

in which they are interested (Phelps and Thorson 1991). In par-

ticular, for products and services used by a specific target group

(e.g., clubs visited by teens and young adults), product involve-

ment plays an important role. The carrotmob implies that con-

sumers purchase products or services of a specific target

company. Thus, we add the path involvement to participation

intention to our model without formulating a hypothesis.

Overview of Studies

We conducted a series of studies to investigate the moderating

role of sacrifice in the context of carrotmob behavior (Figure 2).

Starting with a pilot study using qualitative data, we demon-

strated that consumers believe the carrotmob supports societal

change. Hence, the carrotmob is relevant to macromarketing.

Next, a pretest revealed that willingness to make sacrifices cor-

relates with boycott behavior mirroring the anti-consumption

view of our study. In the two main studies, we tested the mod-

erating role of willingness to make sacrifices on the impact of

environmental concerns on attitudes toward the carrotmob.

Study 1 (n = 437)Testing the Proposed Model

Macromarketing View(Effect on Society)

Anti-consumption View(Relationship of Boycott and Carrotmob)

Pilot Study (n = 465)Carrotmob Benefits for Society

Pretest (n = 88)Willingness to Make Sacrifices

Study 2 (n = 153)Replication and Generalization, Comparison of Boycott and Carrotmob

Figure 2. Flow of studies.

Hutter and Hoffmann 221

Pilot Study: Carrotmob Benefits for Society

Objectives and Procedure

Since this is the first study to analyze consumer attitudes

toward a carrotmob and intention to participate, we first ran

an exploratory analysis to gain a broader understanding of con-

sumer attitudes toward the carrotmob. The explorative part of

the study primarily strives to answer the following research

questions: ‘‘What are consumer attitudes toward the carrot-

mob?’’ (Research Question 1) and ‘‘Who do consumers expect

to benefit from carrotmobs?’’ (Research Question 2).

Given that the carrotmob is a fairly new concept not familiar

to every consumer, we explained the concept to the participants

of the study at the very beginning. Afterward, the respondents

had to answer two open-ended questions considering (1) their

general evaluation of the carrotmob and (2) their opinion of

who benefits from a carrotmob. At the end of our questionnaire,

we provided an open field for further comments. As no partici-

pant used this field to report any confusion about the open-

ended questions, these questions were well understandable.

Sample

A total of 465 undergraduate first-year business administration

students (50.2 percent female, 21.3 years on average) took part

in the study. Undergraduate students are an appropriate sample

since participants in previous carrotmobs were young adults

(Pezzullo 2011).

Results

We categorize the participants’ answers to the two open-ended

questions in an inductive procedure. Three coders coded the

statements based on coding prescriptions (Table 1). The find-

ings are independent of the perspective of single researchers

as we generally found very high levels of intercoder reliability.

In 92.0 percent of all cases, the coders agreed upon which cate-

gory a statement belongs (Neuendorf 2002).

More than half of the participants (54.5 percent) evaluated

the carrotmob positively. Only 11.0 percent had negative asso-

ciations. Furthermore, the respondents stated that apart from

the target company (32.3 percent), mainly society (50.3 per-

cent) benefits from a carrotmob. Hence, consumers believe that

the carrotmob exerts effects on a macro level.

The qualitative pilot study revealed several aspects

affirming that it is worth analyzing carrotmobs from a macro-

marketing perspective. First of all, society benefits from a

carrotmob. The respondents consider the carrotmob as a way

to protest against socially and ecologically irresponsible mass

consumption and to urge companies to act more responsibly.

Thus, the effects of carrotmobs are not restricted to the relation-

ship between companies and customers. Carrotmobs, which are

based on microscopic consumption behavior, also exert posi-

tive effects on the macro level of society creating a win–win

situation. No party has to ‘‘pay the costs’’ and thus activists,

companies, and consumers can jointly strive to achieve their

goals.

These findings are in line with conceptual approaches

(Hoffmann and Hutter 2012). The carrotmob exerts societal

influence as it draws public attention to prosocial (here pro-envi-

ronmental) issues. Members of society start reflecting their own

behavior pattern. Aggregated consumer behavior might sum up

to a changing process on the societal level. The carrotmob uses

guerrilla tactics (unconventional, surprising, innovative actions)

to attract the media in order to spread its message (Hutter and

Hoffmann 2011). This catalytic function might also ensure that

more companies strive to become a carrotmob target.

Pretest: Willingness to Make Sacrifices

Since boycotters abandon preferred products and replace them

with less favorable alternatives that might cause even higher

Table 1. Categories of Answers to the Open-Ended Questions.

Question Category Description Example

General evaluation Positive Participant states a positive attitude toward the carrotmob concept.She or he used positively connoted words, such as good, positive,innovative, interesting, amazing, and great

Good actionI am positively impressedAmazing idea

Negative Participant states a negative attitude toward the carrotmob concept.She or he used negatively connoted words, such as ridiculous,negative, senseless, commercial, ideological, greed for gain

This is just a marketing gagWhat nonsenseDon’t they have anything interesting

to do?Benefiting party Target company Participant expects that companies will benefit from the carrotmob in

monetary and nonmonetary terms. She or he names increasingsales figures as well as consumer and media attention

The carrotmob will increase salesfigures

Acquiring new customersCompany’s image will improve

Society Participant expects that society in general will benefit from thecarrotmob in terms of increasing environmental awareness andecological behavior both from consumers and companies. She orhe names resource saving and social responsibility

The carrotmob initiates a changeprocess

Environmental protectionIncreasing attention toward

environmental issues

222 Journal of Macromarketing 33(3)

subjective costs (e.g., in terms of breaking habits, longer trips

to the store, accepting higher prices), boycotting might be an

appropriate proxy variable for the willingness of making sacri-

fices. However, as not all consumers might perceive boycotting

as a sacrifice and as not all nonboycotters might be unwilling to

make sacrifices, we first ran a pretest with eighty-eight consu-

mers (53.4 percent female, 24.2 years on average) to empiri-

cally test whether there is a substantial relationship.

In accordance with Klein, Smith, and John (2002) and Sen,

Gürhan-Canli, and Morwitz (2001), we applied a single-item

measure of boycott participation. We measured willingness

to make sacrifices with twelve items adopted from Kinnear and

Taylor (1973), Mainieri et al. (1997), Maloney and Ward

(1973), and Minton and Rose (1997) covering relevant aspects

of sacrifices in a consumer context (e.g., spend additional time,

money, or effort as well as changing habitual behavior). All

items were measured with seven-point Likert-type scales rang-

ing from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree.

The willingness to make sacrifices scale displays a high

level of internal consistency (Cronbach’s a¼ .94). The pretestconfirms a strong relationship of boycotting with the scale (r ¼.525, p ¼ .000) and every single indicator (rmin ¼ .401, p ¼.000; Table 2). Hence, we can feasibly operationalize willing-

ness to make sacrifices via boycotting.

Furthermore, we examined whether willingness to make

sacrifices is more strongly related to boycotts or carrotmobs.

We asked the respondents to answer the question ‘‘Which con-

cept requires making more sacrifices?’’ on a bidimensional

scale ranging from (1) carrotmob to (7) boycott (M ¼ 4.04,SD ¼ 1.53). Since the scale indicates a strong relationship toboycott behavior (r ¼ .385, p ¼ .000) and willingness to makesacrifices (r ¼ .391, p ¼ .000), we consider this indicator as analternative operationalization for the moderator variable in

Study 2.

Study 1: Testing the Proposed Model

Objectives and Procedure

We ran a survey study to test our proposed model of carrotmob

participation intention. We used a fictitious carrotmob

announcement as a treatment (Figure 3). It describes that acti-

vists call for a carrotmob in a local club. The manager of the

club had promised to invest in pro-environmental improve-

ments. A previous test with ten subjects revealed that the

announcement is perceived as realistic and the questionnaire

is easy to understand.

After having read the announcement, the participants

answered a questionnaire covering indicators of the five con-

structs included in our model. We also added filler items to

control for common method variance ex post. To avoid biased

answers, we disguised that the announcement was fictitious. At

the end, participants were debriefed.

Sample

The sample of this study is similar to the one of the pilot study.

Due to missing data, we had to exclude some respondents from

the confirmatory test of the proposed model. After data cleans-

ing, we could use data of 437 participants (50.9 percent female,

21.2 years on average) for SEM.

Measures

We took three items from Soyez et al. (2009) to measure

ecological concern. We adopted three items from Laurent and

Kapferer (1985) to measure involvement. Attitudes toward the

carrotmob was also measured by a three-item scale.

The measure of participation intention is adapted from Sen,

Gürhan-Canli, and Morwitz’s (2001) boycott study. Based on

the pretest’s findings, we operationalized willingness to make

sacrifices by past boycott participation. In this way, we have

a rather objective measure of the willingness to make sacrifices

that is not affected by demand effects, such as social desirabil-

ity. We split the respondents into a group who had already

joined boycotts (n ¼ 166) and one without boycotting experi-ence (n ¼ 271).

We used seven-point rating scales ranging from (1) strongly

disagree to (7) strongly agree to measure ecological concern,

attitudes toward the carrotmob, and product involvement. By

contrast, we asked the respondents to rate their intention to

Table 2. Correlation between Willingness to Make Sacrifices and Boycott Behavior.

Indicators of willingness to make sacrifices r p

I would buy ecological products even if this takes more time .584 .000To buy ecological products I would invest more time than for conventional products .457 .000To buy ecological products I would pay a higher price than for conventional products .528 .000Even if ecological products are more expensive, I would buy those before conventional products .584 .000I would buy ecological products even if this means additional effort .487 .000When buying something I usually check product ingredients and production process .401 .000I would change my consumption behavior to buy ecological products .472 .000I would buy ecological products even if this requires an additional way .426 .000I would buy ecological products even the choice of products is shortened .568 .000To buy ecological products I would accept a smaller choice of products .534 .000I gather information about the ecological production process .450 .000When purchasing I am aware of information about product ingredients and production process .472 .000

Hutter and Hoffmann 223

participate in the carrotmob on a percentage scale ranging from

0 to 100. We explicitly used different scaling formats to pre-

vent common method variance (Podsakoff et al. 2003).

Reliability, Validity, and Common Method Variance

Confirmatory factor analysis (maximum likelihood estimation)

with AMOS (v.18.0) confirms the measurement model of our

focal constructs, w2(24) ¼ 44.559, p � .01, w2/df ¼ 1.857,Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) ¼ .965, adjusted goodness-of-fitindex (AGFI) ¼ .935, root mean square error of approximation(RMSEA)¼ .056. All scales display a high level of internal con-sistency (Bagozzi and Yi 1988; Table 3). Cronbach’s a rangesfrom .86 to .90, composite reliability (CR) from .76 to .89, and

average variance extracted from (AVE) .52 to .74. Additionally,

Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) test demonstrates discriminant

Table 3. Measures.

Loading

Ecological concern (M ¼ 5.25; SD ¼ 1.11; AVE ¼ .52; CR ¼ .76; a ¼ .86; r2max ¼ .189)It makes me sad to see natural environment destroyed .84Nature is valuable for its own sake .77One of the most important reasons to conserve is to preserve wild areas .52

Attitude toward the carrotmob (M ¼ 4.50; SD ¼ 1.29; AVE ¼ .74; CR ¼ .89; a ¼ .86; r2max ¼ .189)I think the carrotmob is a good possibility to exercise influence .98The carrotmob offers a creative way to exert control .80The carrotmob has the power to foster companies’ pro-environmental behavior .79

Involvement (M ¼ 4.61; SD ¼ 1.68; AVE ¼ .74; CR ¼ .89; a ¼ .90; r2max ¼ .004)I am interested in clubs .92I know all clubs in my vicinity .82I often go clubbing .84

Carrotmob participation intention (in %; M ¼ 29.56; SD ¼ 25.52)How likely are you participating in this carrotmob? —

Note. a¼ coefficient alpha; AVE¼ average variance extracted; CR ¼ composite reliability; M¼ mean; SD¼ standard deviation. Confirmatory factor analysis withmaximum likelihood estimation.

Join us at the first Carrotmob in your town!

We invite you to the First carrotmob in town on June 24th, 2011

for setting a sign for our environment.

Carrotmob? What does this mean? Everybody talks about consumer power – we put consumer power into action! We turn around the boycott strategy by rewarding companies who take care of our environment.

How does it work?We ask several clubs in town how much of a day’s revenue they want to invest in environmental issues. The clubpromising the highest percentage is our carrotmob target.We use our contacts to newspapers, local radio stations etc. to announce the carrotmob. We email and twitter, useFacebook and blogs to talk about the carrotmob. Additionally, we engage a professional consultant who defines themost effective investment to make the club more environmentally-friendly (e.g., buy energy saving devices, use greenelectricity).The carrotmob is on June 24th, 2011. We will collectively swarm the club in a flashmob. And we will have a lot of fun!

Does this work?Definitely! The first carrotmob took place in March 2008 in San Francisco at the liquor store K&D Market. The storeinvested 22 percent of its revenues on the carrotmob day in energy-efficient improvements. Many newspapers andradio stations reported on this carrotmob. The carrotmob was widely recognized in public. More than one hundredcarrotmobs followed all over the world.

We are looking forward to seeing you at the first carrotmob in town!

Figure 3. Carrotmob announcement for study 1.

224 Journal of Macromarketing 33(3)

validity. The AVE of each multi-item construct exceeds the con-

struct’s squared correlation with any other scale (r2max).

We carefully checked for common method variance (e.g.,

Lindell and Withney 2001; Malhotra, Kim, and Patil 2006;

Podsakoff et al. 2003). An exploratory factor analysis including

all items revealed seven factors explaining 62.9 percent of the

variance, whereas one general factor would explain only 17.6

percent of the variance. Hence, the single-factor test indicates

that common method variance did not distort the findings.

Additionally, we calculated correlations between an unrelated

marker variable (I am bored when events happen again) and the

relevant constructs (Lindell and Withney 2001). Since none of

these correlations is significant (|rmax| ¼ .060, pmin ¼ .212),there is strong evidence that common method variance does not

inflate the results.

Results

We evaluated the suggested model using SEM as implemented

in AMOS (v.18.0). We first ran a baseline model with no mod-

eration effects to test Hypotheses 1 and 2. The analysis reveals

an excellent global model fit, w2(73) ¼ 122.788, p � .01, w2/df¼ 1.682, GFI ¼ .946, AGFI ¼ .918, RMSEA ¼ .039. The ratioof w2 to corresponding degrees of freedom (w2/df) is far below2.5. The GFI and AGFI exceed the threshold of .90 (Bagozzi

and Yi 1988; Baumgartner and Homburg 1996), while the

RMSEA is less than .05 (Browne and Cudeck 1992). The

model explains about 37.2 percent of the carrotmob participa-

tion (R2 ¼ .372).As postulated in Hypothesis 1, ecological concern

statistically significantly influences the attitudes toward the

carrotmob (b ¼ .393, p � .001). Supporting Hypothesis 2,attitude toward the carrotmob fosters participation intention

(b ¼ .561, p � .001). Furthermore, the influence of involve-ment on carrotmob participation is statistically significant

(b ¼ .234, p � .001). Hence, the analysis fully confirms ourbaseline model (Figure 4).

In the next step, we included the willingness to make sacri-

fices as moderator variable to test Hypothesis 3. As the modera-

tor is categorical, we applied multigroup structural equation

modeling (MGSEM; e.g., Bagozzi, Baumgartner, and Yi

1992; Byrne, Shavelson, and Muthén 1989; Cortina, Chen, and

Dunlap 2001). MGSEM requires multiple runs. In the baseline

model, all structural parameters of the model are constrained

equally across the two groups. Afterward, parameters of struc-

tural paths are estimated separately for the two groups. First,

we set the path ecological concern to attitudes toward the car-

rotmob free to check the suggested moderating influence. Next,

we released the path attitudes toward the carrotmob to carrot-

mob participation intention to explore for additional modera-

tion effects. If one path is set free (Ddf ¼ 1), a change in chisquares of Dw2 � 3.841 indicates that the moderation isstatistically significantly (p � .05) more adequate than thefixed model.

As postulated, we found a significant model improvement for

the moderation of the influence of ecological concern on atti-

tudes toward the carrotmob (Dw2 ¼ 4.159, Ddf ¼ 1, p � .05).This influence is much stronger among nonboycotters (b ¼.446, p � .001) than among boycotters (b ¼ .244, p � .05).Thus, the analysis supports the moderation effect suggested in

Hypothesis 3.

Discussion

This study provides evidence that the carrotmob is an attractive

way for consumers to express their ecological concerns. All

hypothesized main effects are confirmed. First, ecological con-

cern fosters positive attitudes toward the carrotmob. This is

because the carrotmob aims at forcing companies to act more

pro-environmentally. Our analysis reflects that people con-

cerned about environmental issues have more positive attitudes

toward the carrotmob. Second, people who positively evaluate

the carrotmob are more likely to participate than those with a

negative attitude. Third, product involvement further deter-

mines whether consumers join a carrotmob. The more persons

EcologicalConcern

Attitude towardsthe Carrotmob

CarrotmobParticipation

Intention

Willingness to Make Sacrifices

ProductInvolvement

.393*** .561***

.446***

.234***

.244*

low high

Moderation effect of model 2

Notes. * p≤.05, **p≤.01, ***p≤.001.

Figure 4. Model of carrotmob participation intention.

Hutter and Hoffmann 225

are interested in the target company’s products and services,

the more likely they will participate.

Most importantly, this study provides evidence for our fun-

damental claim. Consumers who are ecologically concerned

need to be segmented. As expected, the impact of ecological

concern on carrotmob attitudes is much stronger for persons

unwilling to make sacrifices than for those who are willing.

We empirically found that those who are not willing to make

sacrifices are more willing to engage in carrotmobs and those

who are willing to make sacrifices are less willing to engage

in carrotmobs. The latter group might prefer anti-consumption

behavior (as demonstrated by past behavior). For instance,

people downshift to reduce their ecological footprint or join

boycotts to urge the supply side to produce in a more environ-

mentally friendly manner. As the results only indirectly support

this statement, we call for further validation of this conclusion.

By contrast, consumers who care about environmental pollu-

tion and who are unwilling to restrict their consumption pat-

terns prefer carrotmobs as a means of expressing their

concerns.

There might be alternative explanations for the results.

Experienced boycotters might have a more complete view on

some forms of activism and consider carrotmobs less effective

than other forms of protests. That would be an explanation as to

why they are less willing to participate in carrotmobs. On the

contrary, some nonboycotters might be unfamiliar with any

form of activism and thus are more willing to participate in

carrotmobs.

Study 2: Replication and Generalization

Objectives

Although Study 1 has already confirmed our basic assump-

tions, there are several directions for improving the model.

Research findings should to be replicated and cross-validated

before establishing a theory. In accordance with Easley, Mad-

den, and Dunn (2000) and Toncar and Munch (2010), we ran a

second study that applies a modification design that replicates

the results of our first study using deliberate modifications and

extensions. First, Study 1 used clubs as the object of investiga-

tion since many carrotmobs have been carried out in clubs. We

now use a food retailer as most people usually buy food them-

selves and are familiar with purchasing in local supermarkets.

Furthermore, buying at a retailer is a less hedonic action than

going to clubs. Hence, in Study 2 the fun side of participating

in carrotmobs is less present. By considering retailers in addi-

tion to clubs, we factored in the possible explanation for carrot-

mob participation (hedonism, pleasure to be involved). Second,

in Study 1, we designed a fictitious treatment that was based on

the announcements of early carrotmobs. The textual elements

of these announcements explained the carrotmob method in a

favorable way. In Study 2, we used an announcement with

fewer verbal and persuasive elements. In this way, we demon-

strate that the findings are robust across different designs of the

treatment. Finally, in Study 1 we primarily looked at

carrotmobs and we used past boycott participation as a proxy

variable of the willingness to sacrifice to avoid answering

effects. In Study 2, we used a scale that indicates the need to

make sacrifices by participating in carrotmobs compared to

boycotts. Furthermore, in Study 2, we directly compared how

consumers evaluate boycotts and carrotmobs. Hence, we were

able to pinpoint the conditions under which carrotmobs might

be an effective alternative to anti-consumption behavior.

Preparation and Procedure

Prior to data gathering we applied a content analysis of recent car-

rotmob announcements to identify which elements and phrases

they usually contain. The analysis of twelve carrotmob announce-

ments revealed that every flyer included the following elements:

call for carrotmob, main objective, date, time, and the target com-

pany’s address. More recent announcements contain fewer tex-

tual elements that describe the carrotmob method. Based on

these findings, a designer created a realistic announcement for a

carrotmob in a local supermarket for pro-environmental improve-

ments (Figure 5). After having read the announcement, the parti-

cipants answered a questionnaire. Finally, we thanked the

participants and disclosed that the announcement was fictitious.

Sample

Since the carrotmob target is a supermarket, we recruited a con-

sumer sample of potential carrotmob participants. In total, 153

persons participated (56 percent female, 24.3 years on

average).

Measures

The questionnaire consisted of the five constructs used in the

first study with one exception. This time we additionally mea-

sured the moderator variable willingness to make sacrifices via

the question ‘‘Which concept requires to make more sacri-

fices?’’ Subjects answered on a bidimensional scale ranging

from (1) carrotmob to (7) boycott. In this way, we could

Figure 5. Carrotmob announcement for study 2.

226 Journal of Macromarketing 33(3)

directly check whether the different level of perceived need to

make sacrifices influences consumer decisions.

To compare consumer’s attitudes toward carrotmob and boy-

cott, we used six additional image measurements on bidimen-

sional semantic differential scales ranging from (1) to (7).

Three indicators reflected the scope of the societal view (pas-

sive/active, past-oriented/future-oriented, and global/local) and

three indicators measured the anti-consumption view (consump-

tion-oriented/abstinence from consumption, abstinence from

sacrifices/need for sacrifices, and warm/cold). Furthermore, we

asked about the participants’ attitudes toward boycott using a

three-item scale equivalent to the scale attitudes toward

carrotmob.

A confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the measurement

model, w2/df ¼ 1.224, GFI ¼ .952, AGFI ¼ .912, RMSEA ¼.038. All scales once more displayed high internal consistency

(Cronbach’s a � .70).

Results

In the first step, we compared the image profiles of carrotmob

and boycott. As Figure 6 indicates, from the macromarketing

(societal) view, consumers evaluated the carrotmob as more

active (MC ¼ 5.14; MB ¼ 3.81), future-oriented (MC ¼ 4.54,MB¼ 3.65) and local (MC¼ 4.88, MB¼ 3.33) than the boycott.Note that carrotmobs were connoted more active than boycotts,

since consumers need to actively join the carrotmob for being

part of it (e.g., going to the event at the right time, buying things

etc.), while consumers could participate in boycotts by staying

passive (e.g., they don’t have to go somewhere and do/buy

something specific). In that way, participation in boycott was

perceived as more passive than participation in carrotmobs.

From the anti-consumption (individual) view, a boycott was

more anti-consumption-oriented (MB ¼ 4.08; MC ¼ 2.61),more strongly associated with sacrifices (MB ¼ 4.26; MC ¼2.44), and associated colder (MB¼ 3.64; MC¼ 1.95) than a car-rotmob. T tests confirmed that carrotmob and boycott differ

significantly on each dimension (p ¼ .001).In the second step, we evaluated the suggested model using

SEM. We first successfully replicated the proposed model from

Study 1 using past boycott behavior as moderator (Table 4,

model 1). Hence, this model was robust across different fields

and announcement designs. This study used a food retailing

treatment. As most consumers frequently buy in supermarkets,

we did not find any influence of involvement on participation

intention. Hence, a more parsimonious model could be built

1

2

3

4

5

6

Boycott

Carrotmob

activefuture-

oriented localabstinence from

consumption sacrifices cold

Macromarketing(Societal View)

Anti-consumption(Individual View)

passive past-oriented global consumption-oriented

abstinence from sacrifices

warm

Figure 6. Image profiles of boycotts and carrotmobs.

Table 4. Goodness of fit indices for multi-group structural equation modeling.

Global fit Incremental fit

w2/df GFI AGFI RMSEA Dw2 Ddf

Model 1 .892 .934 .886 .000Model 2 .503 .976 .949 .000Model 3 .759 .960 .927 .000 5.310* 1*

Notes. GFI ¼ Goodness of Fit Index; AGFI ¼ Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index; RMSEA ¼ Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; Dw2 ¼ difference of w2;Ddf ¼ difference of degrees of freedom; * p � .05.

Hutter and Hoffmann 227

without involvement as indicated by an improved global model

fit (Table 4, model 2). Thus, for the following analyses we used

the model excluding involvement.

Next, we analyzed the moderated model MGSEM. As group

moderator we used the measure of willingness to make sacri-

fices that was divided by a median split. Hence, we compared

a group of respondents that believes that boycott requires mark-

edly more sacrifices than carrotmobs and a group that does not.

In the first MGSEM run, all structural parameters of the model

were constrained as equal across the two groups. We then

released the path ecological concern to attitude toward the car-

rotmob (Table 4, model 3). The change in chi-squares indicated

that the moderated model is significantly more appropriate than

the fixed model (p � .05). Again, the influence of ecologicalconcern on attitudes toward the carrotmob was markedly stron-

ger among people unwilling to make sacrifices (b ¼ .709, p ¼.000) than among people willing to make sacrifices (b¼ .129, p> .05).

To directly compare boycott and carrotmob, we additionally

checked how consumers’ intention to join a boycott evolves.

As boycotts are based on triggering effects that are negatively

connoted (e.g., scandals, crises), we could not use the carrot-

mob call directly for analyzing the intention to participate in

a boycott. Therefore, we asked for consumers’ attitudes toward

boycotts called for ecological reasons. As expected, ordinary

least squares regression demonstrated that an interaction effect

occurs between ecological concern and willingness to make

sacrifices on attitudes toward boycotts (b ¼ .361, p � .001).Consumers who were ecologically concerned had negative

attitudes toward boycotts the more they believed that

boycotts required sacrifices. Ecological concern had no main

effect (b¼ .138, p > .05) indicating that the effect of ecologicalconcern on boycott attitudes was completely contingent on the

willingness to make sacrifices.

To ensure the stability of our results, we carefully controlled

the attitudes toward the company (I like the retailer). Multivari-

ate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) yielded effect of

company attitudes neither on ecological concern, F(6,153) ¼1.393, p > .05, nor on attitudes toward the carrotmob,

F(6,153) ¼ 1.023, p > .05, nor on carrotmob participationintention in general, F(6,153) ¼ 1.003, p > .05. Furthermore,MANCOVA confirmed that there was no significant effect of

attitudes toward the company, Wilk’s l ¼ .877, F(6,153) ¼1.080, p > .05, on ecological concern, attitudes toward the

carrotmob and carrotmob participation intention in general.

The results were stable concerning attitudes toward the

company.

Discussion

The second study replicated the results of Study 1 and thus gen-

eralized that consumers might express their ecological con-

cerns via carrotmob participation. The basic idea of this

research is that ecologically concerned people may not engage

in pro-environmental behavior because they are not willing (or

able) to make sacrifices. This is particularly relevant since

many forms of pro-environmental consumption behavior are

based on anti-consumption. For example, boycotts for expres-

sing ecological concern often claim to make sacrifices

(e.g., change consumption patterns). Given that we need more

pro-environmental consumer behavior, innovative ways of fos-

tering this way of consumption are required.

We further found that the main characteristics of a carrot-

mob are more positive compared to a boycott, which might

strengthen the catalytic function of the carrotmob stimulating

pro-environmental behavior in the society. It might be easier

to convince people to participate in a carrotmob action per-

ceived as warm and active instead of in a cold and passive

anti-consumption action.

The results show that the carrotmob provides a new plat-

form to express pro-environmental concerns that consumers

traditionally had to express by some form of anti-consump-

tion. The degree to which consumers are willing to make

sacrifices determines which form of ethical consumerism

fits to a consumer. The carrotmob represents a rewarding

approach of activism. The present findings may contribute

to our understanding of a broader spectrum of activist con-

sumer behavior beyond the single site of the carrotmob.

From our findings, we conclude that other types of reward-

ing strategies (e.g., buycotts) might also offer alternative

ways to participate in activism movements for those consu-

mers not willing to make sacrifices. The results further pro-

vide new insights into the field of macromarketing.

Collective consumer actions aiming to urge change on a

macro (societal) level depend on motives (i.e., environmen-

tal concern) and barriers (i.e., willingness to make sacri-

fices) on the micro (individual) level. Hence, our study

addresses the interplay of micro-consumer behavior and

macro-societal processes. Therefore, the carrotmob might

be considered as one new approach in which societal forces

(activists and consumers) bundle their purchase power

within a given marketing structure to force companies to act

more socially and/or environmentally responsible.

Carrotmob also might be connected to the field of cause-

related marketing. Cause-related marketing does not negate

consumption, but extends the benefits of consumption from the

mere satisfaction of the consumer’s needs to some wider social

or ecological benefits. By consuming something, the customers

provide some benefits to some good cause. The carrotmobs

could be considered as a form of cause-related marketing with

the interesting spin that the initiative does not come from a

company, but from consumers.

Further Research

Our study provides a first contribution to the academic litera-

ture on consumers’ carrotmob motivation embedded in

research stream of pro-environmental consumption. We high-

light that those who are unwilling to limit themselves may con-

sider the carrotmob as a positive approach to express concern

that otherwise had to be demonstrated in some form of anti-

consumption. This finding provides fruitful avenues for future

228 Journal of Macromarketing 33(3)

research on pro-environmental consumption, sustainable con-

sumption, and anti-consumption.

First, we found a lower impact of ecological concern on the

attitudes toward the carrotmob for those who had previously

engaged in anti-consumption than for those who had not

engaged in anti-consumption. Further research needs to gain

a deeper understanding of this finding. How do anticonsumers

view the carrotmob? On one hand, the carrotmob might

encourage companies to become more ecologically friendly.

It helps to change companies’ behavior and it might raise eco-

logical awareness of other companies, consumers, and the

media. On the other hand, carrotmobbers do not need to

restrict their way of consumption. Hence, many consumers

who engage in pro-environmentally motivated forms of anti-

consumption might reject the assumption that carrotmobbing

truly is a way to help solve environmental problems. They

might even consider carrotmobbers negatively as they gather

for one (presumably joyful) event without changing their

usual way of consumption. We call for future studies to ana-

lyze whether anticonsumers and carrotmobbers could build a

joint pro-environmental movement or if they are separate

groups with different objectives and identities. We especially

appeal for further research using different research methods

(e.g., qualitative methods) to get comprehensive reasons why

consumers join a carrotmob.

Second, research should examine the external validity of our

findings by analyzing various types of carrotmobs with respect

to target field and company, and to aspects of administration

(e.g., location: metropolis vs. small town, time: weekend vs.

weekday, further promotion: additional incentives such as com-

panies’ price cuts or nonmonetary incentives). Further variables

such as product type or value of the target company’s investment

could have an impact on consumers’ motivation to participate.

Third, future studies should check for mediating vari-

ables on carrotmob participation, such as brand image or the

corporate reputation of the target stores. Moreover, con-

sumer motives also might be culturally different. Further

studies on carrotmob participation might apply a sociocog-

nitive perspective considering influence variables such as

subjective norm, moral obligation, or the striving for self-

enhancement. Additionally, in this study, we considered

ecocentric pro-environmental values as a driver of participa-

tion. Future research might also consider consumers with

egocentric attitudes (Soyez et al. 2009), since they might

have a reduced willingness to make sacrifices due to the

centrality of their ego for them.

Finally, like in many other studies, our findings are limited

by the fact that we analyzed the intention to participate in a car-

rotmob. A gap may exist between the behavioral intentions and

real behavior due to situational factors such as time, costs, and

mood. Future studies are needed to overcome this restriction.

One feasible option might be to evaluate past real behavior.

As carrotmob is a fairly new concept, few people have partici-

pated. However, given the steadily rising number of carrot-

mobs, future studies should be able to measure real (past)

carrotmob participation.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship,

and/or publication of this article.

References

Albinsson, Pia A., Marco Wolf, and Dennis A. Kopf (2010),

‘‘Anti-Consumption in East Germany: Consumer Resistance to

Hyperconsumption,’’ Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9 (6),

412-425.

Bagozzi, Richard P., Hans Baumgartner, and Youjae Yi (1992), ‘‘State

Versus Action Orientation and the Theory of Reasoned Action: An

Application to Coupon Usage,’’ Journal of Consumer Research, 18

(4), 505-518.

Bagozzi, Richard P., and Youjae Yi (1988), ‘‘On the Evaluation of

Structural Equation Models,’’ Journal of the Academy of Market-

ing Science, 16 (1), 74-94.

Bamberg, Sebastian (2003), ‘‘How Does Environmental Concern

Influence Specific Environmentally Related Behaviors? A New

Answer to an Old Question,’’ Journal of Environmental Psychol-

ogy, 23 (1), 21-32.

Baumgartner, Hans, and Christian Homburg (1996), ‘‘Applications of

Structural Equation Modeling in Marketing and Consumer

Research: A Review,’’ International Journal of Research in Mar-

keting, 13 (2), 139-161.

Belk, Russel W. (1996), ‘‘The Perfect Gift,’’ in Gift Giving. A

Research Anthology, Cele Otnes and Richard F. Beltramini, eds.

Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular

Press, 59-84.

Black, Iain R., and Hélène Cherrier (2010), ‘‘Anti-consumption as Part

of Living a Sustainable Lifestyle: Daily Practices, Contextual

Motivations and Subjective Values,’’ Journal of Consumer Beha-

viour, 9 (6), 467-487.

Brown, Steven P., Pamela M. Homer, and J. Jeffrey Inman (1998), ‘‘A

Meta-Analysis of Relationships Between Ad-evoked Feelings and

Advertising Responses,’’ Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (1),

114-126.

Browne, Michael W., and Robert Cudeck (1992), ‘‘Alternative Ways

of Assessing Model Fit,’’ Sociological Methods & Research, 21

(2), 230-258.

Byrne, Barbara M., Richard J. Shavelson, and Bengt Muthén (1989),

‘‘Testing for the Equivalence of Factor Covariance and Mean

Structures: The Issue of Partial Measurement Invariance,’’ Psycho-

logical Bulletin, 105 (3), 456-466.

Carrotmob (2012), ‘‘About Carrotmob,’’ (accessed November 15,

2012), [available at https://carrotmob.org/about].

Cherrier, Hélène (2009), ‘‘Anti-Consumption Discourses and

Consumer-Resistant Identities,’’ Journal of Business Research,

62 (2), 181-190.

Cherrier, Hélène, Iain R. Black, and Michael S. W. Lee (2011),

‘‘Intentional Non-Consumption for Sustainability. Consumer

Resistance and/or Anti-Consumption,’’ European Journal of Mar-

keting, 45 (11/12), 1757-1767.

Hutter and Hoffmann 229

https://carrotmob.org/about

Cherrier, Hélène, and Jeff B. Murray (2007), ‘‘Reflexive Disposses-

sion and the Self: Constructing a Processual Theory of Identity,’’

Consumption, Markets & Culture, 10 (1), 1-29.

Connolly, John, and Andrea Prothero (2003), ‘‘Sustainable Consump-

tion: Consumption, Consumers and the Commodity Discourse,’’

Consumption, Markets & Culture, 6 (4), 275-291.

Cortina, Jose M., Gilad Chen, and William P. Dunlap (2001), ‘‘Testing

Interaction Effects in LISREL: Examination and Illustration of

Available Procedures,’’ Organizational Research Methods, 4 (4),

324-360.

Crane, Andrew (2000), ‘‘Marketing and the Natural Environment:

What Role of Morality,’’ Journal of Macromarketing, 20 (2),

144-154.

Delacote, Philippe (2009), ‘‘On the Sources of Consumer Boycotts

Ineffectiveness,’’ Journal of Environment Development, 18 (3),

306-322.

Dolan, Paddy (2002), ‘‘The Sustainability of ‘Sustainable Consump-

tion’,’’ Journal of Macromarketing, 22 (2), 170-181.

Dunlap, Riley E., and Kent D. van Liere (1978), ‘‘The New Ecological

Paradigm: A Proposed Measuring Instrument and Preliminary

Results,’’ Journal of Environmental Education, 9 (4), 10-19.

Dunlap, Riley E., Kent D. van Liere, Angela G. Mertig, and Robert E.

Jones (2000), ‘‘Measuring Endorsement of the New Ecological

Paradigm: A Revised NEP Scale,’’ Journal of Social Issues, 56

(3), 425-442.

Easley, Richard W., Charles S. Madden, and Mark G. Dunn (2000),

‘‘Conducting Marketing Science: The Role of Replication in the

Research Process,’’ Journal of Business Research, 48 (1), 83-92.

Ewen, Stuart (1988), All Consuming Images: The Politics of Style in

Contemporary Culture. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Etzioni, Amitai (1998), ‘‘Voluntary Simplicity: Characterization,

Select Psychological Implications, and Societal Consequences,’’

Journal of Economic Psychology, 19 (5), 619-643.

Firat, A. Fuat, and Alladi Venkatesh (1995), ‘‘Liberatory Postmodern-

ism and the Reenchantment of Consumption,’’ Journal of Con-

sumer Research, 22 (3), 239-260.

Fisk, George (1981), ‘‘An Invitation to Participate in Affairs of the

Journal of Macromarketing,’’ Journal of Macromarketing, 1 (1),

3-6.

Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker (1981), ‘‘Evaluating Structural

Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement

Error,’’ Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39-50.

Friedman, Monroe (1985), ‘‘Consumer Boycotts in the United States,

1970-1980: Contemporary Events in Historical Perspective,’’

Journal of Consumer Affairs, 19 (1), 96-117.

Friedman, Monroe (1996), ‘‘A Positive Approach to Organized Con-

sumer Action: The "Buycott" as an Alternative to the Boycott,’’

Journal of Consumer Policy, 19 (4), 439-451.

Friedman, Monroe (1999), Consumer Boycotts: Effecting Change

Through the Marketplace and the Media. London, UK:

Routledge.

Fuller, Donald A., Jeff Allen, and Mark Glaser (1996), ‘‘Materials

Recycling and Reverse Channel Networks: The Public Policy

Challenge,’’ Journal of Macromarketing, 16 (1), 52-72.

Heider, Fritz (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. New

York, NY: Wiley.

Heiskanen, Eva, Mikael Johnson, Simon Robinson, Edina Vadovics,

and Mika Saastamoinen (2010), ‘‘Low-carbon Communities as a

Context for Individual Behavioural Change,’’ Energy Policy, 38

(12), 7586-7595.

Hoffmann, Stefan (2011), ‘‘Anti-consumption as a Means of Saving

Jobs,’’ European Journal of Marketing, 45 (11/12), 1702-1714.

Hoffmann, Stefan, and Katharina Hutter (2012), ‘‘Carrotmob as a New

Form of Ethical Consumption. The Nature of the Concept and Ave-

nues for Future Research,’’ Journal of Consumer Policy, 35 (2),

215-236.

Holt, Douglas B. (2002), ‘‘Why do Brands Cause Trouble? A

Dialectical Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding,’’ Journal

of Consumer Research, 29 (1), 70-90.

Hunt, Shelby (1981), ‘‘Macromarketing as a Multidimensional

Concept,’’ Journal of Macromarketing, 1 (1), 7-8.

Hutter, Katharina, and Stefan Hoffmann (2011), ‘‘Guerrilla Market-

ing. The Nature of the Concept and Propositions for Further

Research,’’ Asian Journal of Marketing, 5 (2), 39-54.

Iyer, Rajesh, and James A. Muncy (2009), ‘‘Purpose and Object of Anti-

consumption,’’ Journal of Business Research, 62 (2), 160-168.

Kilbourne, William E., Pierre McDonagh, and Andrea Prothero

(1997), ‘‘Sustainable Consumption and the Quality of Life: A

Macromarketing Challenge to the Dominant Social Paradigm,’’

Journal of Macromarketing, 17 (1), 4-24.

Kinnear, Thomas C., and James R. Taylor (1973), ‘‘The Effect of Eco-

logical Concern on Brand Perception,’’ Journal of Marketing

Research, 10 (2), 191-197.

Klein, Jill G., N. Craig Smith, and Andrew John (2002), ‘‘Exploring

Motivations for Participation in a Consumer Boycott,’’ in

Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 29, Susan Broniarczyk and

Kent Nakamoto, eds. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer

Research, 363-369.

Klein, Jill G., N. Craig Smith, and Andrew John (2004), ‘‘Why we

Boycott: Consumer Motivations for Boycott Participation,’’ Jour-

nal of Marketing, 68 (3), 92-109.

Laurent, Gilles, and Jean-Noël Kapferer (1985), ‘‘Measuring Con-

sumer Involvement Profiles,’’ Journal of Marketing Research, 22

(1), 41-53.

Layton, Roger A., and Sanford Grossbart (2006), ‘‘Macromarketing:

Past, Present, and Possible Future,’’ Journal of Macromarketing,

26 (2), 193-213.

Lee, Michael S. W., Karen V. Fernandez, and Michael R. Hyman

(2009), ‘‘Anti-Consumption: An Overview and Research agenda,’’

Journal of Business Research, 62 (2), 145-147.

Lee, Michael S. W., Judith Motion, and Denise Conroy (2009), ‘‘Anti-

consumption and Brand Avoidance,’’ Journal of Business

Research, 62 (2), 169-180.

Lee, Michael S. W., Dominique Roux, Hélène Cherrier, and Bernard

Cova (2011), ‘‘Anti-Consumption and Consumer Resistance: Con-

cepts, Concerns, Conflicts, and Convergence,’’ European Journal

of Marketing, 45 (11/12), 1680-1687.

Lindell, Michael K., and David J. Withney (2001), ‘‘Accounting for

Common Method Variance in Cross-sectional Research Designs,’’

Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (1), 114-121.

Mainieri, Tina, Elaine G. Barnett, Trisha R. Valdero, John B. Unipan,

and Stuart Oskamp (1997), ‘‘Green Buying: The Influence of

230 Journal of Macromarketing 33(3)

Environmental Concern on Consumer Behavior,’’ The Journal of

Social Psychology, 137 (2), 189-204.

Malhotra, Naresh K., Sung S. Kim, and Ashutosh Patil (2006), ‘‘Com-

mon Method Variance in IS Research: A Comparison of Alterna-

tive Approaches and a Reanalysis of Past Research,’’ Marketing

Science, 52 (12), 1865-1883.

Maloney, Michael P., and Michael P. Ward (1973), ‘‘Ecology: Let’s

Hear From the People. An Objective Scale from the Measurement

of Ecological Attitudes and Knowledge,’’ American Psychologist,

28 (7), 583-586.

McGinnis, Lee P., and James W. Gentry (2009), ‘‘Underdog Con-

sumption: An Exploration into Meanings and Motives,’’ Journal

of Business Research, 62 (2), 191-199.

Minton, Ann P., and Randall L. Rose (1997), ‘‘The Effects of Environ-

mental Concern on Environmental Friendly Consumer Behavior:

An Explorative Study,’’ Journal of Business Research, 40 (1),

37-48.

Monieson, David D. (1988), ‘‘Intellectualization in Macromarketing:

A World Disenchanted,’’ Journal of Macromarketing, 9 (2), 4-10.

Neuendorf, Kimberley A. (2002), The Content Analysis Guidebook.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Peñaloza, Lisa, and Linda L. Price (1993), ‘‘Consumer Resistance: a

Conceptual Overview,’’ in Advances in Consumer Research, Vol.

20, Leigh McAlister and Michael L. Rothschild, eds. Provo, UT:

Association for Consumer Research, 123-128.

Pezzullo, Phaedra C. (2011), ‘‘Contextualizing Boycotts and Buy-

cotts: The Impure Politics of Consumer-based Advocacy in an Age

of Global Ecological Crises,’’ Communication and Critical/Cul-

tural Studies, 8 (2), 124-145.

Phelps, Joseph, and Esther Thorson (1991), ‘‘Brand Familiarity and

Product Involvement Effects on the Attitude Toward an Ad-

brand Attitude Relationship,’’ in Advances in Consumer Research,

Vol. 18, Rebecca H. Holman and Michael R. Solomon, eds. Provo,

UT: Association for Consumer Research, 202-209.

Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and Nathan

P. Podsakoff (2003), ‘‘Common Method Biases in Behavioral

Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended

Remedies,’’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), 879-903.

Prothero, Andrea, Pierre McDonagh, and Susan Dobscha (2010), ‘‘Is

Green the New Black? Reflections on a Green Commodity

Discourse,’’ Journal of Macromarketing, 30 (2), 147-159.

Rea, Samuel A. Jr. (1974), ‘‘The Economics of a Consumer Boycott,’’

International Marketing Review, 27 (1), 89-92.

Roux, Dominique (2007), ‘‘Consumer Resistance: Proposal for an

Integrative Framework,’’ Recherche et Applications en Marketing

(EBSCO English Edition), 22 (4), 59-79.

Schaefer, Anja, and Andrew Crane (2005), ‘‘Addressing Sustainability

and Consumption,’’ Journal of Macromarketing, 25 (1), 76-92.

Shultz, Clifford J. II. (2007), ‘‘Macromarketing,’’ in Explorations of

Marketing in Society, Gregory T. Gundlach, Lauren G. Block and

William L. Wilkie, eds. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western, 766-784.

Sen, Sankar, Zeynep Gürhan-Canli, and Vicki Morwitz (2001),

‘‘Withholding Consumption: A Social Dilemma Perspective on

Consumer Boycotts,’’ Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (3),

399-417.

Sharp, Anne, Stine Høj, and Meagan Wheeler (2010), ‘‘Proscription

and its Impact on Anti-consumption Behaviour and Attitudes: the

Case of Plastic Bags,’’ Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 9 (6),

470-484.

Soyez, Katja, Stefan Hoffmann, Stefan Wünschmann, and Katja

Gelbrich (2009), ‘‘Pro-environmental Value Orientation Across

Cultures: Development of a German and Russian Scale,’’ Social

Psychology, 40 (4), 222-233.

Stern, Paul C., Terry Dietz, and Linda Kalof (1993), ‘‘Value Orienta-

tions, Gender, and Environmental Concern,’’ Environment and

Behavior, 25 (5), 322-348.

Thompson, Suzanne C. G., and Michelle A. Barton (1994), ‘‘Eco-

centric and Anthropocentric Attitudes Toward the Environment,’’

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 14 (2), 149-157.

Toncar, Mark F., and James M. Munch (2010), ‘‘Meaningful Replica-

tion: When is a Replication no Longer a Replication? A Rejoinder

to Stella and Adam (2008),’’ The Journal of Marketing Theory and

Practice, 18 (1), 71-80.

van Dam, Ynte K., and Paul A. C. Apeldoorn (1996), ‘‘Sustainable

Marketing,’’ Journal of Macromarketing, 16 (2), 45-56.

Witkowski, Terrence H. (2010), ‘‘A Brief History of Frugality

Discourses in the United States,’’ Consumption, Markets & Cul-

ture, 13 (3), 235-258.

Zavestoski, Stephen (2001), ‘‘Environmental Concern and Anti-

consumerism in the Self-concept: Do They Share the Same

Basis?’’ in Exploring Sustainable Consumption: Environmental

Policy and the Social Sciences, Joseph Murhpy and Maurice

Cohen, eds. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Pergamon Press, 179-189.

Zavestoski, Stephen (2002), ‘‘The Social-psychological Bases of Anti-

consumption Attitudes,’’ Psychology & Marketing, 19 (2),

149-165.

Author Biographies

Katharina Hutter is a lecturer in marketing at the Technical Univer-

sity of Dresden (Germany). Her research interests include ethical con-

sumption, particularly prosocial marketing and unconventional

communication strategies. She specializes in alternative methodolo-

gies of marketing communications such as guerilla marketing. Her

further research interests are cross-cultural marketing and advertising

efficacy.

Stefan Hoffmann is a professor of marketing at the Christian-

Albrechts-University Kiel, Germany. He received a diploma in psy-

chology from the University of Mannheim, Germany, and a PhD and

a second promotion (habilitation) in business administration from the

Technical University of Dresden, Germany. He has published several

articles about ethical consumption focusing on boycott behavior. His

further research interests are cross-cultural marketing, health market-

ing, and advertising efficacy.

Hutter and Hoffmann 231

/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages false /GrayImageMinResolution 266 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 200 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages false /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages false /MonoImageMinResolution 900 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Average /MonoImageResolution 600 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.00000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentif