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.