Brand Warmth and Competence: Differential Effects on For-Profit and Non-Profit Evaluations

A brand's status as for-profit or non-profit shapes individuals' expectations along two fundamental dimensions: competence and warmth. These dimensions, grounded in person-perception models, influence how audiences evaluate brands. While the ideal brand is perceived as both highly competent and highly warm, for-profits and non-profits begin from different stereotypes: for-profits are generally seen as more competent (but less warm), whereas non-profits are viewed as warmer (but less competent). To overcome these imbalances, for-profits often emphasize warmth (e.g., through corporate social responsibility) and non-profits stress competence (e.g., through efficiency and performance signals). Across two experimental studies, we find that for-profit brands receive more favorable brand evaluations when emphasizing warmth, while non-profits receive less favorable evaluations when emphasizing competence. In practical terms, for-profit firms benefit from humanizing their image and showcasing prosocial engagement, but non-profits may inadvertently undermine their benevolent positioning when appearing overly business-like. A follow-up study revealed that political ideology moderates these effects: liberal audiences responded more favorably to warmth appeals for for-profits and showed more negative reactions to competence messaging for non-profits, whereas conservative consumers displayed minimal responses to both warmth cues for for-profits and competence-focused messages for non-profits. Together, these findings suggest that while warmth appeals enhance evaluations of for-profit brands, non-profits must tread carefully when emphasizing competence, particularly among liberal audiences who may view such messaging as inconsistent with nonprofit identity.