2013 - kate daellenbach - examiningtheinfluenceoftheindividualinartssponsors[retrieved-2015!05!12]

7/23/2019 2013 - Kate Daellenbach - ExaminingtheInfluenceoftheIndividualinArtsSponsors[Retrieved-2015!05!12]

1/24

Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 25:81104, 2013Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1049-5142 print/1540-6997 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10495142.2013.759819

Examining the Influence of the Individual inArts Sponsorship Decisions

KATE DAELLENBACH and PETER THIRKELLSchool of Marketing & International Business, Victoria University of Wellington,

Wellington, New Zealand

LENA ZANDERDepartment of Business Studies, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Support from the corporate sector is an important revenue sourcefor many nonprofit organizations. In this article, we considerindividual-level influence within the decision-making processesof companies as they make decisions concerning nonprofit arts

sponsorship. These decisions have often been linked to the influ-ence of a single high-level executive, and the research containedhere seeks to better understand the role of the individual in influ-encing these decisions. Through qualitative multiple-case research

the authors find that a single individual, termed the advocate, isin fact influential. Furthermore, the advocate is determined not bytheir title or official ranking but by their possession of expert power,a combination of knowledge and the belief of others in that knowl-edge. In addition, how individuals influence these decisions relatesto their application not of gut instinct, but of informed intuition.The article closes in suggesting new perspectives that will assist inbetter understanding this role.

KEYWORDS arts, corporate philanthropy, decision making,

sponsorship

The authors gratefully acknowledge the participants in this study for their time andreflection, as well as the reviewers for their suggestions and insights.

Address correspondence to Kate Daellenbach, School of Marketing & InternationalBusiness, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand 6140.

E-mail: [email protected]

81


2/24

82 K. Daellenbach et al.

INTRODUCTION

Decisions surrounding sponsorship or support of nonprofit organizationsare important both for the nonprofit trying to generate revenue, as well

as the corporation in making an investment in the community (Seitanidi &Ryan, 2007). Related academic literature suggests that within the corporate(sponsor/donor) decision, a senior executive or board member, may hold ahigh level of personal influence (e.g., Brammer & Millington, 2004; OHagan& Harvey, 2000), and relationships have been found particularly through theuse of available quantitative data (e.g., Brammer, Millington, & Pavelin, 2006;

Wang & Coffey, 1992). However there remains opportunity to explore therole of influence in more depth via a qualitative study of decision-makingprocesses. Moreover, the role of influence may extend beyond previouslyknown individuals. Thus, the goal of the current study is to learn more

about the existence, relative organizational position and characteristics of akey individual in corporate support decisions of nonprofit organizations, inparticular those concerning nonprofit arts sponsorship. This study will there-fore take a qualitative multiple-case study approach to understand whether akey individual is influential, and to explore the characteristics and source ofinfluence for these individuals. In doing so, four propositions are presentedto guide further study.

It is a fact of nonprofit life that many organizations are struggling tobreak even. In that effort, managers of nonprofits often seek out the supportof the business community, be it via a sponsorship, donation, or another

arrangement (Seitanidi & Ryan, 2007). Accordingly nonprofit managers tryto understand the companies they are approachingtheir needs, their goals,

why they might take on this support role, and how they make their decisions.Much has been done in sponsorship and corporate philanthropy literatureconcerning the objectives and motivations for corporate support of non-profits (Hoek, Gendall, & West, 1990; Madden, Scaife, & Crissman, 2006;McAlister & Ferrell, 2002; Robinson, 2006). Within this literature, and relatedto decision making in particular, we find that objectives and motivations areoften linked with personal objectives and/or personal influence of a sin-

gle individual (e.g., Brammer & Millington, 2004; Thjme, Olson, & Brnn,2002). Given the importance of corporate support to the income of nonprofitorganizations, greater understanding of this individual and their role in thedecisions is warranted.

The idea of an influential single individual is not new to discussionsparticularly in the wider management decision-making or organizational pur-chasing fields (e.g., Eisenhardt & Zbaracki, 1992; Pettigrew, 1975; Wind &Robertson, 1982). However, decisions related to corporate support, althoughnoted as becoming more strategic (Cantrell, Kyriazis, Noble, & Algie, 2008;Nickell, Cornwell, & Johnston, 2011; Porter & Kramer, 2002), offer a con-

text not frequently examined with these frameworks. As authors note,


3/24

Individual Influence and Arts Sponsorship 83

considering new contexts and examining corporate support in particularvia new lenses will contribute to the knowledge of this area (Daellenbach,Davies, & Ashill, 2006; Eisenhardt & Zbaracki, 1992; Webster & Wind, 1996).

In investigating how a single individual might influence these decisions,

this study takes a qualitative, multiple-case approach, and finds that theseindividuals are not defined as influencers more generally, but by a specificrole, here termed the advocate. Furthermore, the role of the advocate isbetter understood as an individual who takes this role not through theirofficial position in the company, but via their knowledge, expert power, anduse of informed intuition.

This article begins by providing theoretical background followed by anexplanation of the methodology employed. The results and discussion willbe presented along three themes: (a) the identification and characterizationof the advocate, (b) expert power as a defining characteristic of the advocate,

and (c) the presence and use of informed intuition. These themes lead to theformation of four propositions to guide future research. We conclude with asummary of implications for research and managers, along with a discussionof limitations and future research opportunities.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

In organizational decisions, it is well established that key influential indi-viduals are identifiable (e.g., Drumwright, 1994; Hambrick & Mason, 1984;Pettigrew, 1975). However, despite the growing ubiquity of corporate sup-port of nonprofit organizations, this perspective has received little attentionin the context of such decision-making (Cantrell et al., 2008).

Past research has identified influential individuals in varying decisionmaking contexts, such as organizational purchasing and strategic decisionmaking, revealing a number of defined roles including policy entrepreneurs(Drumwright, 1994), gatekeepers (Pettigrew, 1975), boundary role person(Krapfel, 1985), and linking pin (Wind & Robertson, 1982). Commonalitiesamong these types of roles indicate that people who hold sway often con-

trol the flow of information, they possess leadership qualities and someelement of power, but they are not always the top-level manager. Thislater point is in contrast to other authors such as Hambrick and Mason(1984) who consider the individuals status in an organization as relatedto their influence, and Orlitzky and Swanson (2002) who propose that acorporations attunement to values of socially responsible decision mak-ing is supported and influenced by top executives. While the above onlylists a few studies, it is clear that influential roles are likely to be presentin organizational decisions, although this may not always be determinedby the persons formal status. While a number of decisions have been

examined in a variety of contexts, there remains opportunity to examine


4/24


these ideas within the decision-making context of sponsorship and corporatephilanthropy.

Historically, currently and likely well into the future, nonprofit organi-zations have, do and will seek out the support of the business sector via

corporate investment. There are a multitude of partnership arrangementswithin this investment umbrella, sponsorship and corporate philanthropybeing two that are relatively well studied in the academic literature(Seitanidi & Ryan, 2007). Sponsorship focuses on commercial sponsorship orsponsorship-linked marketing where a sponsor and a property (the non-profit organization) have a mutually beneficial relationship (Cornwell, 2008;Seitanidi & Ryan, 2007). On the other hand, corporate philanthropy is con-sidered to be a relationship in which the supporting/giving company doesnot receive a commercial benefit (Seitanidi & Ryan, 2007). While the twoarrangements have differing definitions, there is acknowledgment that both

fall into a broader category of corporate support, sometimes referred to ascorporate community investment (London Benchmarking Group, 2011), orconsidered in the realm of corporate social responsibility initiatives (Lii & Lee,2012; Madden, 2006; Plewa & Quester, 2011; Wymer, 2006). Furthermore, asillustrated by Thjme et al. (2002) and Daellenbach (2012), in some casesmanagers making associated decisions do not separate sponsorship fromphilanthropy as clearly as the definitions may suggest. For these reasons,both literatures dealing with sponsorship and corporate philanthropy areconsulted to inform this study.

The variety of partnerships considered, corporate support is important

to nonprofit organizations, and is increasingly an activity in which for-profitcompanies engage (Seitanidi & Ryan, 2007). It is therefore no wonder thatthis area has attracted the attention of academic research. Subsequently, stud-ies have been conducted, especially in the sponsorship arena, revealingmuch about the motivations for investment, measuring investment, exam-ining partnerships as relationships, and the influence on consumer response(Cornwell, 2008; Nickell et al., 2011). However comparatively little attentionhas been given to whether and how a key individual may be influential inthe associated decision making processes.

The Individual in Sponsorship Decisions

In considering sponsorship, the influence of a senior executive has beennoted primarily as characteristic of past agreements, indicating a shift insponsorship decision making. Cornwell and Maignan (1998) noted that acompanys involvement in sponsorship was often more individual, perhapsmotivated by personal interest in the nonprofit organization. Other stud-ies that considered motivations for sponsorship have also cited personalobjectives particularly of top level managers (Hoek et al., 1990; LeClair

& Gordon, 2000; Meenaghan & Flood, 1983; OHagan & Harvey, 2000).


5/24


However, sponsorship has changed over time, becoming both more popularand more strategic, especially in its incorporation into advertising campaigns(Papadimitriou, Apostolopoulou, & Dounis, 2008). With this change, com-panies have responded via the establishment of more formal programs

and procedures for evaluating, and managing their sponsorships (Cornwell,2008). However, even in this new era of more strategic sponsorship, the for-mal roles of individuals involved has been found to vary (Brennan, Binney,& Brady, 2012). While individuals are therefore noted, as is the changingclimate, little research attention has been given to understanding the poten-tial for individual influence, within this environment of potentially greaterformality.

There is some insight into individual influence in these relationshipsespecially within qualitative research into arts sponsorship. Studies taking alonger term perspective of the relationships between sponsors and arts prop-

erties have found that an individual emerges as important in that they act as abridge between the arts organization and the sponsor. Ryan and Fahy (2003)referred to this person as a champion of the sponsorship (p. 37). Similarly,Olkkonen (2002) proposed that there be relationship promoters on eachside of the relationship: persons who act as translators between two differ-ent organizational fields, who understand both parties goals and needs, and

who try to find the balance in the cooperation (p. 284). These studies estab-lish that in examining the sponsor-property relationship, an individual maybe crucial. Both of the above studies also point to the importance of personalrelationships, personalities and the beliefs and mindsets of individuals. Also

evident here is that the roles suggested informally evolve and are not specificto the top executive. A related finding was evident in Daellenbachs (2012)process-oriented research into arts sponsorship which also highlighted thatan individual was likely to be influential in the decision but again, this wasnot always the top-level executive. The findings in these later studies aresomewhat in contrast to research suggesting that top managers are thosemost influential. Sponsorship research thus raises the question of who mayemerge as influential in the context of a shorter-term decision making pro-cess? How might they take on this role? What are the characteristics of this

role?

The Individual in Corporate Philanthropy Decisions

Turning to corporate philanthropy, studies exist supporting both the exis-tence and absence of influential individuals. Some authors have found noevidence to suggest personal influence (Bartkus, Morris, & Seifert, 2002;Navarro, 1988), while other research suggests personal interests may playa role (Brammer & Millington, 2004; Campbell, Moore, & Metzger, 2002;Madden et al., 2006; Wang & Coffey, 1992; Werbel & Carter, 2002). In these

later studies, the finger is typically pointed to the high level executive, such


6/24


as the CEO (Brammer et al., 2006) or members of the board (Wang & Coffey,1992). Many of these studies, however, are based on quantitative data thatmay only confirm or deny the presence of relationships, suggesting that anin-depth, qualitative perspective may be revealing.

The inconsistent findings here may be due to changes that haveoccurred over time in the field of corporate giving. Similarly to the evo-lutions of sponsorship, corporate philanthropy has also undergone change.Cantrell, Kyriazis, Noble, and Algie (2008) noted that while personal motivesmay have been influential in the past when corporate giving was more moti-

vated by altruism, corporate giving is becoming more strategic, resulting ingreater levels of policy formulation as well as the appointment of corporategiving managers. These authors highlight this specific role, and go on to notethat greater examination of the role of these managers is an opportunity forfuture research.

Another avenue of the corporate philanthropy literature considerssofter characteristics and backgrounds of key individuals. Emotional andpersonal interests of senior-level managers, especially as they relate to thearts, have been suggested as being present underneath the layer of whatmight be thought of as more commercial rationale (Kirchberg, 2004). Authorshave also found relationships between corporate giving, and whether theCEO felt philanthropy was part of their self-identity (Dennis, Buchholtz,& Butts, 2009). These ideas of self-identity, values, and more personalcharacteristics are echoed by authors who present conceptual models forunderstanding the relationships between executives and giving (Choi &

Wang, 2007; Jones, 2007; Valor, 2006). Here again is the suggestion thatbeliefs, values and mindsets may well be important aspects of an individualsinfluence, but with the exception of Dennis et al. (2009), these papers areconceptual in nature. Furthermore, these authors suggest that there remainsopportunity to examine the influence of these individual backgrounds onactual decisions related to corporate philanthropy.

The Context of Arts Sponsorship

The context under study here is that of decisions associated with sponsorshipof nonprofit arts organizations such as theatre, ballet, galleries, and orches-tras. Within corporate support partnerships there are typically three cate-gories of recipient: sports, arts, and social cause (Hoek et al., 1990). Thearts sponsorship context offers both a specific situation to investigate (thusproviding a boundary for the study), as well as one that has the poten-tial to bridge characteristics of both sports and social charity support. Artssponsorships offer events that attract a particular market, and in that sensehave similarity to sports sponsorships. However, arts sponsorship does notoffer the attractive media coverage often associated with sports (Farrelly &

Quester, 1997). Perhaps as a result, arts sponsorships are often linked to


7/24


objectives with less emphasis on return on investment, as is often the casefor support of social causes. In particular, arts sponsorships have been linked

with objectives of providing a more enlightened image (LeClair & Gordon,2000), and important to this study, of objectives related to the interests of per-

sonal managers (Hoek et al.,1990). Arts sponsorship decisions may be seenas sitting somewhere between the more commercial sports sponsorship, anda more philanthropic social sponsorship/support. Arts sponsorship decisionsthus offer a context that has been suggested as containing a key individualinfluence, and also a context that has the potential to shed light on relatedrecipient categories.

The previous discussion has highlighted that there is likely to be a keyindividual involved in decisions of corporate support to nonprofit organiza-tions. However, a number of questions are also posed. Does this individualconsistently emerge via a formally assigned role? How do they acquire this

influence? What is the impact of their influence? To restate the research objec-tive, this research seeks to better understand the existence of a key individualin corporate support decisions of nonprofit organizations, in particular thoseconcerning nonprofit arts sponsorship.

METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS

Given the emphasis in this study of providing understanding rather thangeneralization, a qualitative, multiple case study method was employed,

allowing for insight into a specific situation (Eisenhardt, 1989; Eisenhardt& Graebner, 2007; Yin, 2009). A case was defined as a decision in supportof arts sponsorship. The selection of cases was purposive and followed areplication logic, whereby cases were selected which were both interesting,and which were thought to either replicate results, or reveal new, contraryresults (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Yin, 2009). Initial respondents wereidentified via expert informants, followed by snowballing to identify anotherperson within the decision/case, or to identify another case. In this man-ner, each case included responses from multiple informants from both sides

of the dyad (i.e., from the arts property and the sponsor). Relevant docu-ments were also examined and further clarification of points was sought asrequired.

To be included in the study, responses had to be obtained from bothsides (the arts property and the sponsor), and had to be sufficient to allowthe researchers to feel that the decision was adequately captured. If a case

was not adequately captured, associated responses were eliminated fromthe analysis. With these provisos a total of ten cases were captured fromtwenty-four interviews. Comparisons were sought between art organizations,sponsoring companies and company characteristics, as well as comparisons

in the actual decisions. Table 1 represents some of the characteristics of the


8/24


TABLE 1Case Characteristics

Case

Total respondentsincluded in

analysisRespondents from sponsoring

companyRespondents from arts

organization

A 3 Corporate sponsorship manager Arts board member, arts chiefexecutive

Ba, b 3 Corporate sponsorshipmanager, Corporate chiefexecutive

Arts chief executive

Ca 6 Corporate sponsorshipmanager, corporate chiefexecutive

Arts chief executive, arts boardmember, other arts managers

Dc, d 3 Corporate sponsorshipmanager, corporate marketingmanager

Arts chief executive

Ec 2 Corporate sponsorship manager Arts chief executiveFb 4 Corporate sponsorship

manager, corporate marketingmanager

Arts board member, arts chiefexecutive

G 2 Corporate marketing manager Arts chief executiveH 4 Corporate chief executive,

corporate marketing managerArts chief executive

Jd 2 Corporate marketing manager Arts chief executiveKb 3 Corporate sponsorship manager Arts board member, arts chief

executive

aCases B and C are within the same company. b Cases B, F, and K share the same arts organization. cCasesD and E are within the same company. dCases D and J share the same arts organization.

respondents and cases (limited information is provided in order to maintainconfidentiality).

Interviews were conducted on a confidential basis, beginning with therespondent identifying a particular decision. The respondent was then askedto describe how the decision progressed, with appropriate probing questionsas deemed necessary (McCracken, 1988). Further questions were asked suchas were there others involved in the decision? Could you describe theseindividuals and the role they played? Interviews varied in length, ranging

from one to two and a half hours. Prior to analysis using NVivo, recordingswere transcribed and checked, and reviewed by the respondent. A sum-mary of findings was later sent to all respondents, seeking their input andcommentary, for which only comments in agreement were received.

An initial coding structure was based on the literature, and adjustedas analysis progressed (Richards, 2005). As data were entered and coded,memos were created and updated to summarize thoughts on themes andcases. Alongside this, individual case summaries were created and updated,as recommended by authors (Yin, 2009). In this way a summarizingdocument was maintained for each case throughout the initial iterative

process of data collection and analysis.


9/24


Between-case analysis occurred throughout data collection, helping toinform the selection of further case studies, and refine codes and themedevelopment. However, the bulk of the between-case analysis occurred onceall case summaries were relatively complete. Between-case analysis com-

prised a number of tactics to highlight similarities and differences and buildexplanation (Yin, 2009).

FINDINGS AND THEMES

Three key themes were identified via the analysis and will be discussedhere. Firstly, it was evident that a key individual was influential, and willbe referred to as the advocate. Secondly, Advocates were characterized bytheir possession of expert power. Thirdly, the use of intuition by Advocates

will be explored. Each of these themes will be discussed in terms of thespecific findings from this study with comparison to the literature previouslyexamined.

Theme 1: Identifying and Describing the Advocates

The first theme relates to the identification and initial characterization of theadvocatesthe key individuals who influenced the decision to the greatestextent. The finding that there was a key individual was not surprising andis in support of literature in decision making, sponsorship and corporatephilanthropy (e.g., Brennan et al., 2012; Cantrell et al., 2008; Drumwright,1994). In addition to this however, certain characteristics of these advocatesemerged from the analysis, and will now be discussed.

ADVOCATES WERE NOT DETERMINED BY THEIR FORMAL ROLE

Advocates were not consistently characterized by their formal role in thecompany. In fact, while previous literature focused on the influence of theCEO, owner or chairman (Brammer et al., 2006; LeClair & Gordon, 2000),

in six of the cases, the advocate was in fact a lower-level managerthesponsorship or marketing manager. In the other four cases, it was the chiefexecutive or owner who took on the advocate role. At times this was aformal role, while at other times the formal role was ignored, as it was notdeemed appropriate to the situation. For example, one manager, charged

with a formal role of sponsorship evaluation, noted that in this particularcase the CEO owned that relationship; analysis suggested this CEO wasthe advocate. Thus, this advocate role is not solely confined to senior-levelexecutives, or to a sponsorship manager, or even to the person formallyassigned to evaluate such investments. This is a variation to recent literature,

which suggests that there will be a formal role assigned to these decisions


10/24


(Cantrell et al., 2008; Cornwell, 2008). It suggests that while formal roles maybe present, the emergence of an advocate, as a key influencing individual,is dependent on the situation.

ADVOCATES HAVE AND SEEK KNOWLEDGE

Within each case, responses highlighted characteristics identifying advocatesas the information and knowledge holders and gatherers. In each case, advo-cates assembled information from within the company and sector, as well asfrom their own experiences in order to generate justification and supportfor the sponsorship. For example, one manager/advocate stated, [We got]some feedback from within the organization, and also did a bit of researchexternally to ascertain whether it was, you know, a good product.

Advocates also sourced their knowledge over time via their research,negotiations and meetings with the arts organization, as illustrated by onemanager/advocate:

[The arts chief executive] and his people wrote a proposal and sent it tous . . . we had meetings to talk about that, about the potential and theideas that we had and the ideas that they had and I think it was probablya little bit like falling in love. It builds over time, its not love at first sight,but you work at it and something grows.

In addition to actively sought knowledge, another source of knowledge waspersonal experience with the artform, arts property, and the market moregenerally. This knowledge was relevant for both the manager and executive-level advocates. One manager/advocate spoke of his own knowledge asaiding him in moving a proposal forward:

So I reviewed it and then had to . . .explain why I thought we should doit and how it would fit in with some of our goals. So previously havinglived in [the city] on a number of occasions, and knowing the historyof the [arts property], and knowing what it meant to [people in the city]. . . we decided to, after reviewing it, taking a look at it and doing someinternal selling of it, we made the decision to go ahead with it.

In addition, one arts manager stated that the executive/advocate had a hugebackground with the [arts property] which was seen to provide informationuseful to the decision.

In terms of the type of knowledge used, advocates accessed knowledgeof their companys objectives, of sponsorship generally and of the specificarts initiative. General sponsorship knowledge was commented upon by

both executive and manager-level advocates:


11/24


I get so much information about who wants what, whats happening inthe market, what other sponsors are doing, what businesses are doing,

what our business wants to do . . . I can actually get a good sense ofwhat a proposal is kind of worth in terms of what theyre offering orwhat theyre reaching. (Manager/Advocate)

Knowledge related to the arts property specifically was drawn upon again byadvocates at all levels. For example, one manager/advocate stated, I knewit . . . I didnt have any problem visualising that. I didnt have any problemjustifying it and selling it internally.

Other respondents noted that the executive/advocate held this knowl-edge via their passionate interest or their history with the arts initiative.

This personal experience with the arts organization appears at first toresonate with earlier literature discussing personal preferences of managers

being influential (Brammer & Millington, 2004; Madden et al., 2006; Werbel &Carter, 2002). However, respondents from both sides of the dyad in each caseappeared to view the advocates knowledge more as information that con-tributed to the evaluation of the property. This finding also puts the elementof personal values and backgrounds, suggested in corporate philanthropy lit-erature (Jones, 2007; Kirchberg, 2004) into a new light wherein the personal

views are seen more as an accumulation of knowledge to be employed inthe decision, rather than just personal preferences.

ADVOCATES MOVE THE DECISIONS FORWARD VIA THEIR ACTIVE SUPPORT

The role of knowledge was an important aspect of the advocate role inhelping them move beyond information gathering to active support andadvocacy. For example, one manager/advocate used their personal knowl-edge and experience of a particular event to help support the cause whichinitially more senior-level executives had declined: everybody over thereactually refused. They were ready to, they said no, and it was only when I

went back and I said I see value in this.In moving the request forward, these advocates also actively sought

out others within the company to generate support. One manager/advocatespoke of the need to convince his direct manager, as well as managersoverseas. He noted, perhaps if there hadnt have been somebody like mesitting here who . . . knew how [people in the city] felt about the [artsproperty] then they wouldnt have had an internal sponsor to push it anyfurther.

The knowledge and use of knowledge in moving the decision forwardwas also evident for executive-level advocates. One arts manager describedthe CEO somewhat unexpectedly taking an active role in the decision, callingfor a meeting and asking for more: [The CEO] said I just dont think Ive quite

got value yet, tell me why I should give you [this amount of money] . . .[so]


12/24


we added a value product . . . and he was really taken with that (arts chiefexecutive speaking of the sponsoring companys chief executive).

In the above case, the sponsorship was initially not supported by thesponsorship manager, and while the CEO shared the impression that they

were not getting enough value from it, it was the CEO who called the artsmanager in to extend negotiations. This particular arts manager further noted,I got called down there and sat with [the CEO] on my own and got told toshift it up a gear.

Here, we see the advocate taking their information and impression, andusing it to generate support within the company. It is noted that this wasthe case even if the advocate was not assigned with the formal authority tomake a decision on the sponsorship. For example one manager/advocatesupported the sponsorship, negotiated with the arts organization, gatheredsupport internally, but still acknowledged that the formal authority was with

the CEO, and this required additional negotiation:

So there were a lot of negotiations, they wanted 3 [years], we said 1,they said how about 2. In the end this time we did 1 year. It was acompromise. We argued with [the chief executive] and the compromise

was 1 year.

This role of actively gathering support internally is not something that hasbeen addressed in any great length in the literature. While leadership andcontrol of information is noted (Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Pettigrew, 1975),

the extent of this second sales pitch by the advocate is a revealing finding,which places this individual as crucial to the decision outcome.

ADVOCATES HAVE ENTHUSIASM FOR THE INITIATIVE

While it was evident that advocates were the individuals who could ini-tially see the value in the sponsorship, they were also unique in that theyexpressed enthusiasm towards the particular sponsorship. One participantnoted more generally that in these decisions, youve got to have people

that are genuinely interested in what youre putting on.Another arts manager observed the interest expressed by the advo-cate, when we first met, I had the impression very much that [the brandmanager] was not into it . . .and that [the manager/advocate] was genuinelyinterested.

This characteristic of enthusiasm and an ability to generate enthusiasmfurther characterizes this role. It suggests the individuals own passion for theinitiative, similar to Ryan and Fahys (2003) suggestion that a champion ofthe sponsorship . . . [has] a deep love of the arts and a deep understandingof their possible effect on people at a personal and professional level

(p. 37). It also suggests personality traits such as those noted for policy


13/24


entrepreneurs as individuals who were usually facile at both motivatingpeople and making the system work for them . . . [who also had] tenaciouspersistence and high energy level. They were undaunted by resisters andoperational problems (Drumwright, 1994, p. 4).

The above discussion supports that a key individualan advocatewaspresent and identifiable in these decisions; they gathered information andknowledge, had enthusiasm for the sponsorship, and subsequently assem-bled support for it. Returning to the literature, the advocate role resonates

with a number of previously defined roles. The control of information is sim-ilar to gatekeepers (Pettigrew, 1975), the role of gathering internal supportand connecting other individuals in the company with the property resonatesto some extent with linking pins (Wind & Robertson, 1982). However, theirenthusiasm and drive to generate interest throughout the company, for aninitiative, goes beyond the definitions provided. Looking at further litera-

ture, the role of the product champion from innovation literature may bestconvey the essence of the advocate in arts sponsorship decisions:

[Champions] manifest the personality characteristics of risk-takingpropensity and innovativeness . . . [they articulate] a compelling visionof the innovations potential for the organization, [and express] confi-dence in others to participate effectively in the initiative. . .[they] appealto larger principles or unassailable values about the potential of the inno-

vation for fulfilling the organizations dream of what it can be, [andthrough this] champions capture the attention of others. Moreover by

providing emotional meaning and energy to the idea, champions inducethe commitment of others to the innovation. (Howell & Higgins, 1990,p. 336)

It is not surprising that the champion role for a product innovation res-onates with advocates of arts sponsorship decisions, as both products may be

viewed as holding elements of risk and uncertainty. The evidence presenteddoes suggest that these advocates see the vision of how the sponsorship will

work to the benefit of the organization, that they have the ability to capture

the attention of others within the company, and that they provide energy tothe idea.To conclude this theme, we see that a key individual, the advocate, is

influential. While definitions from a number of areas have contributed, theadvocate in these decisions requires a unique description. The advocate maybe described as the individual within the sponsoring company who possessesa higher level of experience and knowledge with the arts initiative, who cansee how it will benefit the company, and who takes the initiative to garnersupport within the company. In all cases studied, there was consistencyin that the advocate could be identified and was influential in the manner

discussed.


14/24


Theme 2: The Advocate and Possession of Expert Power

The discussion above noted that advocates had knowledge, and that othersperceived there was value in this knowledge. This finding resonates particu-larly with the concept of expert power, identified as characteristic of policy

entrepreneurs (Drumwright, 1994) and defined by Kohli (1989, p. 52):

The extent to which an individual is perceived by others as being knowl-edgeable about relevant issues. Others comply with such an individualbecause of their belief that doing so will lead to a better decision, notbecause compliance will lead to certain consequences independent ofthe decision or because of formal or informal obligations to comply.

This definition suggests that expert power is derived from both the individ-uals knowledge and the belief of others in this individuals knowledge. Theearlier theme explored the idea of knowledge, but based on this definitionof expert power, knowledge on its own is not sufficient. There needs to bethe belief of others in this knowledge. The evidence in this study suggestedthat this belief is often gained via the advocates formal roles within the com-pany. In six of the cases, the advocate was at a managerial level, charged

with researching and justifying sponsorship proposals within the company;in a sense, these individuals held formal responsibility to be knowledgeableand in fact to be an advocate for the decisions. In one case, the advocate

was the CEO and the CEO felt it was within their responsibilities to review

and make decisions, to be an advocate for these types of decisions. In theremaining three decisions, the CEO emerged as the advocate even thoughthey were not charged with the research or management of sponsorships.In these cases, these individuals were deemed to have superior knowledgeof the particular arts initiative. One respondent noted that even though thesponsorship manager was the one formally assigned to make recommen-dations, in the case being considered, the key relationship thats held isactually with our CEO. In another case the respondent simply noted that thechief executive has the ultimate say at the end of the day. Here, there maybe superior knowledge and/or the effect of a higher hierarchical position

leading to expert power and the advocate role.Certainly this suggests that the expert power and the advocate role is not

always in the chief executive position, nor can it always be defined solely bythe formal role. The formal role, combined with relevant knowledge appearsto lend to expert power.

Before leaving the ideas of knowledge and expert power an impor-tant question is whether the advocate drew their knowledge based on thebusiness/commercial grounding for the initiative, or on the moral case tocontribute to the community. Both of these objectives are acknowledged inthe literature and it is feasible that the different bases of knowledge may

influence the belief of others in the knowledge, and subsequent expert


15/24


power. Details on the philosophies of the respondents in this study gobeyond the confines of this article, although it was noted that all respondentsacknowledged the existence of both commercial and community objectivesas important to their decisions. However, their expert power was drawn pri-

marily from their knowledge and experiences that related to the businesscase supporting the initiativethat it would ultimately provide value to thesponsoring company.

Therefore, advocates possess expert power. They hold knowledge,at times related to their role and responsibilities, but also at times drawnfrom their individual background and past experience. Furthermore othersbelieve in the knowledge of the advocate. The following propositions aretherefore made:

P1a: The expert power of an advocate is likely to be derived from that

individuals personal views and past experiences with the arts, thespecific arts initiative and sponsorship as well as their more formalrole within the company.

P1b: Individuals are likely to become advocates for a sponsorshipthrough the expert power they hold.

Looking at the previous discussion and propositions reveals that these deci-sions may be seen as a result of the combination of two spheres of influence,referred to earlier as the business and the personal. There is an element of

what is expected from the formal role (i.e., to research and negotiate). There

is also an element of what is known and felt. One might consider this alsoas a combination of input from the head and input from the hearttherational and the emotional. It is perhaps obvious that a sponsorship proposal

will not be accepted simply because an individual possessing an appropri-ate formal role does their research. There needs to be the recognition thatthe partnership will work, and as noted in the first theme, there needs tobe some excitement and enthusiasm. Thus we see the advocate as holdingexpert power, and more. The next theme addresses an aspect of the more.

Theme 3: Is it Gut Instinct or Informed Intuition?

In addition to the interplay between a rational business decision and personalexperiences and insight, analysis of the cases indicated that some advo-cates appeared to be quickly interested and enthusiastic about the particularsponsorships under consideration. This raises the question: could this initialinterest of the advocate be described as gut instinct or more of an informedintuition? Related research (Daellenbach, 2012) suggests that informed intu-ition, as defined by Hodgkinson, Sadler-Smith, Claxton, and Sparrow (2009),is the better descriptor, and the following expands on this idea in greater

depth.


16/24


As noted, the advocate was the individual in possession of expert power,and part of this expert power was knowledge. In some cases, this knowledgeseemed to allow the advocate to make more of a subjective judgment on thedecision early on in the process. Advocates suggested they just felt it was the

right thing to do, or they simply knew the benefits. This is evident in thefollowing comments:

They didnt do a presentation . . . I was emailed stuff . . . because Iknew it probably so I mean I didnt have any problem visualizingthat. I didnt have any problem justifying it and selling it internally.(Manager/Advocate)

They left us a proposal which I barely read because really we like toown things that we do and we tend to talk about things rather than write

things down, and we got enthusiastic enough to say yeah lets do this.(CEO/Advocate)

This subjective judgment was further investigatedwas it gut instinct? Wasit intuition? How could this be described? In four of the cases studied, asubjective judgment appeared to shorten the evaluation of the sponsorship,suggesting more of a quick gut instinct decision. However, even in cases

with a lengthy, in-depth evaluation, the decisions still held elements of sub-jectivity. For example, one sponsorship manager in a case that went througha rigorous evaluation stated,

When we went through the process of evaluating the strategy . . . wealso developed a statistical model . . .[but] its all subjective, because itsalways going to be, but [the statistical model] enabled us to relativelyrank properties against one another.

This quote both notes the subjective nature of the decision, along witha reliance on rigorous evaluation. In most cases evidence supported thisapplication of knowledge, evaluation, and past experience, along with a sub-

jective element. As one manager noted, instinct and due process are both atplay:

You just know instinctively its a good fit for us . . . you go through [theprocesses] and you make sure that . . . you eliminate the risk that youcan. But certainly there is a lot of instinct involved in our sponsorships.

This combination of knowledge, quickly applied in an instinctive fashion,is proposed here to be referred to best not as gut instinct, but rather as

informed intuition. Informed intuition refers to judgments that are made


17/24


often in a nonconscious manner, but based on knowledge and past expe-rience. Hodgkinson et al. (2009, p. 280) provided a three-part definition ofintuition as comprising:

A capacity for attaining direct knowledge or understanding without theapparent intrusion of rational thought or logical inference;

neither the opposite of rationality, nor a random process of guessing,intuition corresponds to thoughts, conclusions and choices producedlargely or in part through non-conscious mental processes; and

affectively charged judgments that arise through rapid, non-consciousand holistic associations.

This definition highlights the cognitive knowledge and rational thought aswell as the non-conscious processes involved in intuition. These authors

argued, informed intuition is as essential to the competence portfolio ofhard-pressed decision makers as many of the analytical skills that feature incontemporary business school curricula (p. 278). Reflecting on the quotesfrom respondents in this study, this definition is consistent. Looking back atthe discussions of the advocate and expert power, it is evident that the advo-cates were often individuals who used intuition in these decisions, and thisintuition was fueled by their knowledge and past experience. The knowl-edge and experience of the advocate allowed them a level of intuition thatinformed the process and drove the evaluation forward.

Further analysis of the interviews in terms of knowledge and intuition

revealed a relationship between expert power, and the extent to which intu-ition influenced the decisions. For each case, the level of knowledge heldby the advocate was categorized as low, medium or high, and compared

with the extent of intuition which entered into the decision, also categorizedas low, medium or high. The relationship was most apparent in the cases

where knowledge appeared at the high and low levels. In three cases theadvocate possessed a high amount of knowledge (and high expert power)and this corresponded with a high level of intuition observed in the decisionprocess. One case held a similar relationship at the other end of the scale:low knowledge, low intuition. However, two cases had characteristics of a

high level of intuition influencing the decision, while the advocates knowl-edge was low or medium. These later two cases may appear in contrastto the first group, however if one considers expert power as derived fromboth knowledge and formal roles it was in these cases that the advocatesheld the role of chief executive. Here, it appears that the ability of the advo-cate to use intuition was made possible via their knowledge and/or theirrole. In this sense the argument goes back to expert power, with the higherexpert power gleaned from a combination of knowledge and role, pavingthe way for higher levels of intuition to enter into these decisions. Restating

this, the following is proposed:


18/24


P2: The more expert power the advocate holds the more likely informedintuition is to play a strong role in the decision.

Similar in some respects is the observation made by Hambrick and Mason

(1984) that more complex decisions involve behavioral factors (personalcharacteristics and experiences) rather than a pure economic justification.Whether or not individuals involved considered these decisions complex wasnot always apparent, however the input of behavioral factors and intuition

was evident. The final proposition is therefore made:

P3: Informed intuition concerning arts sponsorship is likely to befostered via the experiences and knowledge of individuals.

The above themes bring our knowledge of the key individual into a new

light. It is evident that in many cases, this key individual is not best describedas the chairman or senior executive but as the advocate. Furthermore, theidea of knowledge and experience facilitating informed intuition is putforward as a means by which these advocates influence these decisions.

THEORETICAL AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

The goal of the current study was to gain a better understanding of a key indi-vidual in corporate support decisions of nonprofit organizations, in particularthose concerning arts sponsorship. Based on the existence of little literaturethat investigates this question in this context, the study took a qualitativemultiple-case study approach to understand whether a key individual wasinfluential in these decisions, and to explore the characteristics and source ofinfluence for these individuals. As described above, key individuals, termedadvocates, were apparent in all decisions studied.

The existence of a key individual is consistent with literature ondecision-making, organizational buying, sponsorship, and corporate philan-thropy. With the increasing emphasis on more strategic corporate support

initiatives, authors have noted that these decisions are subject to more pol-icy and procedure, and the input of specific corporate support (Cantrellet al., 2008; Cornwell, 2008). This study does not disagree with the findingof formal roles, but it contributes a fuller and richer understanding of theformal position and influence of the advocate, and provides a more in-depthdescription of this role. The role of the advocate here is not defined solely bythe individuals formal role in the company, but more by their knowledge,their enthusiasm, and their ability to actively move the decision forwardinternally. Examination of knowledge in particular leads to findings that thisis a combination of personal and business-related knowledge, knowledge of

the art, the sponsor, and sponsorship, generally. This enables advocates to


19/24


gain expert power within the companya perspective originally proposedby Kohli (1989), and noted by Drumwright (1994) in an organizational pur-chasing context. This perspective highlights that the knowledge possessedby advocates will be such that others involved in the decision believe this

knowledge will lead to a better decision. Another related perspective thathas been brought into the current context is that of informed intuition(Hodgkinson et al., 2009). While this concept is based in strategic man-agement decision-making, its application here appears revealing. This studysuggests that the subjective component of the advocates decision is not justa gut instinct reaction, but nonconscious mental processes (Hodgkinsonet al., 2009, p. 280) based on knowledge and information.

The understanding of the advocate has clearly benefited from the appli-cation of additional theory in areas beyond sponsorship and corporatephilanthropy. Viewing sponsorship via multiple frames is not a new per-

spective (Daellenbach, Davies, & Ashill, 2006), and in concluding this study,one last perspective is suggested. The importance placed on knowledgeand intuition resonates with further literature both in strategic managementand more recently in entrepreneurial management; the application of thesenew lenses may yield additional insight into the field of corporate supportdecision-making. The perspective is that suggested by Sarasvathy (2001),

who pointed to two different routes to decisions in the strategic managementcontext: causation and effectuation. In the causation approach, the managernotes the objectives and goals of the company (i.e., establishes the end),and seeks to find the means to achieve these ends. This could be equated to

one approach to sponsorship decisions: the manager considers goals to beachieved (such as image building and brand awareness) via sponsorship, andthus looks for a particular sponsorship (the means) to achieve this. On theother hand, Sarasvathy also illustrated an effectuation approach wherein themanagers first look at what they have and know (the means) and look forgoals (ends) that could therefore be achieved. This effectuation approachappears to resonate more with the study contained here. The advocates tookmore of an effectuation approach. They appeared to establish (in a non-conscious manner) first the means that they have (the knowledge of their

company, the arts property, and sponsorship generally). Armed with thesemeans, they could then see opportunities via the sponsorship.Related to this is Siegel and Renkos (2012) recent consideration of

opportunity recognition by entrepreneurs. Based on a study of biotech-nology ventures they find that both market knowledge and techno-logical knowledge . . . contribute to firms subsequent recognition ofentrepreneurial opportunities (p. 797). These authors propose that thesources of entrepreneurial opportunities do not just come from the techno-logical knowledge, but also what they refer to as market-pull opportunitiesincluding idiosyncratic information about customers, markets, and ways

to serve markets (Siegel & Renko, 2012, p. 800). Similarly in the arts


20/24


sponsorship decisions, the advocates possessed and acquired knowledge onthe various inputs. This gave them expert power, and a basis for informedintuition, but taking the perspective of Sarasvathy and Siegel and Renko, italso allowed the advocates to be able to recognize the potential ends/goals,

the opportunities. In considering the present findings via these new per-spectives it appears that corporate support decisions may bear similarity toand benefit from comparisons with decisions in innovative, entrepreneurialenvironments.

Implications from this study are also evident for arts and nonprofitmanagers. Arts managers need to be aware that in order for their pro-posal to move forward in the decision making process, there needs to bean advocatean individual within the sponsoring company who has theexperience and knowledge to see that this will be a success, and has theability to gather support within the company. An arts manager therefore

needs to be knowledgeable about the business community and individu-als in the business community. They should seek to understand who mightbe the advocate in various companies, making attempts to find these peo-ple by searching attendance records, or inviting companies to offer ticketsto interested employees (and therefore they will identify themselves). Theyshould take a proactive role in identifying and cultivating individuals whomay potentially be advocates, and make attempts to introduce key businesspeople to the art form, introducing them to the potential opportunities whichmay lie in sponsorship.

For managers in sponsoring companies, academic authors have sug-

gested that informed intuition, fed by knowledge, may be just as importantin decisions as the more overt economic justifications. This study supportsthis and suggests that with these decisions being potentially complex, indi-

viduals experience and knowledge hold legitimate roles in recognizing newopportunities that may be achieved via sponsorship. For managers this sug-gests that benefit may be gained from understanding the role that intuition,knowledge, and taking an approach more akin to effectuation may take.It also suggests that managers should be alert to specific individuals whoexhibit the attributes of an advocate, recognizing that such people have a

potentially valuable role to play in discerning, and at times even intuiting,sponsorship opportunities that hold potential to offer rich benefit to thesponsoring firm.

Limitations and Future Research

This study is not without its limitations, although many are by design andsuggest future research. Firstly, only successful outcome decisions werestudied in order to determine how these positive decisions happened, and

whether there were variations within this group. This allowed for focus and

comparison, but research comparing successful and unsuccessful outcomes


21/24


would extend understanding. Secondly, the decisions studied had alreadybeen made; although this may have allowed for respondent bias, it alsoallowed decisions and multiple respondents to be identified. On a relatednote, although multiple informants were interviewed, it is impossible to

tell if all information was truly acquired. This is especially of concern withrespect to the discussion on intuition; while other respondents appearedto acknowledge the advocates intuition, the main quotations on which theideas were based were self-reported, and thus may be comments that havebeen rationalized over time.

There are many avenues identified here for future research.Research into varying contexts (arts, sports, social charities), or varyingcultures/countries may be revealing, as would a real-time, longitudinal study.More specifically the propositions given are worthy of further investigation,to confirm the characteristics of the advocates, as well as the existence and

use of expert power and informed intuition. Comparison has been madebetween these corporate support decisions, and decisions involving inno-

vations, and entrepreneurship. It has been acknowledged that the field ofcorporate support is evolving, offers multiple benefits, via multiple partner-ships. It is broadly suggested here that greater comparison with decisions inhigher risk, less defined contexts such as innovation and entrepreneurshipmay reveal more about this area.

Conclusion

To conclude, a single individual is crucial in arts sponsorship decisions. Thisindividual will hold a formal role, but their identification as the key influenc-ing individual is also related to their knowledge, expert power, and informedintuition. While personal experience and interests are related to this, theseexperiences and interests are seen as serving as a reference for them, allow-ing advocates to see the benefits and opportunities of how such partnerships

will work. This research has thus provided a richer understanding of the roleand characteristics of a key individual in decisions associated with corporatesupport. While decisions around arts sponsorship were investigated, simi-

larities may be found in considering other recipients and other partnershipsunder the corporate support umbrella. It is also suggested that these deci-sions are potentially complex and innovative, and that they are influencedby a key knowledgeable individual, who is open to the opportunities such apartnership may deliver.

REFERENCES

Bartkus, B. R., Morris, S. A., & Seifert, B. (2002). Governance and corporate

philanthropy: Restraining Robin Hood? Business and Society, 41, 319344.


22/24


Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2004). Stakeholder pressure, organizational size, andthe allocation of departmental responsibility for the management of corporatecharitable giving. Business and Society, 43, 268295.

Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Is philanthropy strategic? An anal-ysis of the management of charitable giving in large UK companies. BusinessEthics, 15, 234245.

Brennan, L., Binney, W., & Brady, E. (2012). The raising of corporate sponsorship:A behavioral study. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 24,222237.

Campbell, D., Moore, G., & Metzger, M. (2002). Corporate philanthropy in the U.K.19852000: Some empirical findings. Journal of Business Ethics,39(1/2), 2941.

Cantrell, J., Kyriazis, E., Noble, G., & Algie, J. (2008). Towards NPOs deeper under-standing of the corporate giving managers role in meeting salient stakeholdersNeeds.Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 20, 191212.

Choi, J., & Wang, H. (2007). The promise of a managerial values approach to

corporate philanthropy. Journal of Business Ethics, 75, 345359.Cornwell, B., & Maignan, I. (1998). An international review of sponsorship research.

Journal of Advertising, 27(1), 121.Cornwell, T. B. (2008). State of the art and science in sponsorship-linked marketing.

Journal of Advertising, 37(3), 4155.Daellenbach, K. (2012). Understanding the decision-making processes for

arts sponsorship. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary SectorMarketing, 17, 363374.

Daellenbach, K., Davies, J., & Ashill, N. J. (2006). Understanding sponsorshipand sponsorship relationships-multiple frames and multiple perspectives.

International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(1),

7387.Drumwright, M. E. (1994). Socially responsible organizational buying

environmental concern as a noneconomic buying criterion. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 119.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. The Academyof Management Review, 14, 532550.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from case studies:Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 2532.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Zbaracki, M. J. (1992). Strategic decision making. StrategicManagement Journal, 13, 1737.

Farrelly, F., & Quester, P. G. (1997, June). Sports and arts sponsors: Investigating thesimilarities and differences in management practices. Paper presented at theAMA Conference Proceedings, Dublin.

Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper Echelons: The organization asa reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management. The Academy of

Management Review (pre1986), 9(2), 193206.Hodgkinson, G., Sadler-Smith, E., Burke, L., Claxton, G., & Sparrow, P. (2009).

Intuition in organizations: Implications for strategic management. Long RangePlanning, 42, 277297.

Hoek, J. A., Gendall, P. J., & West, R. D. (1990). The role of sponsorship in marketingplanning selected New Zealand companies. New Zealand Journal of Business,

12, 8795.


23/24


Howell, J. M., & Higgins, C. A. (1990). Champions of technological innovation.Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 317341.

Jones, G. R. (2007). Senior executives personal values: The role personal val-ues play in decisions regarding corporate philanthropya theoretical model.

International Journal of Management & Decision Making, 8, 343355.Kirchberg, V. (2004). Structures of corporate arts patronage between the world wars:

A case study of the corporate leader P. S. du Pont.Journal of Arts Management,Law, and Society, 33, 263280.

Kohli, A. (1989). Determinants of influence in organizational buying: A contingencyapproach. Journal of Marketing, 53(3), 5065.

Krapfel, R. E. (1985). An advocacy behavior model of organizational buyers vendorchoice. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 5159.

LeClair, M. S., & Gordon, K. (2000). Corporate support for artistic and cultural activ-ities: What determines the distribution of corporate giving? Journal of Cultural

Economics, 24, 225241.

Lii, Y.-S., & Lee, M. (2012). Doing right leads to doing well: When the type of CSRand reputation interact to affect consumer evaluations of the firm. Journal of

Business Ethics, 105(1), 6981. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0948-0London Benchmarking Group. (2011). About LBG. Retrieved from http://www.lbg-

online.netMadden, K. (2006). Growing national philanthropy: Australia steps forward.

International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(3),155163.

Madden, K., Scaife, W., & Crissman, K. (2006). How and why small to mediumsize enterprises (SMEs) engage with their communities: an Australian study.

International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(1),

4960.McAlister, D. T., & Ferrell, L. (2002). The role of strategic philanthropy in marketing

strategy. European Journal of Marketing, 36, 689743.McCracken, G. (1988).The long interview. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Meenaghan, J., & Flood, P. (1983). Commercial sponsorship: The misunderstood

corporate art. Dublin, Ireland: Corporate Image.Navarro, P. (1988). Why do corporations give to charity? The Journal of Business,

61(1), 6593.Nickell, D., Cornwell, T. B., & Johnston, W. J. (2011). Sponsorship-linked marketing:

A set of research propositions. The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,

26, 577589. doi:10.1108/08858621111179859OHagan, J., & Harvey, D. (2000). Why do companies sponsor arts events? Someevidence and a proposed classification. Journal of Cultural Economics, 24,205224.

Olkkonen, R. (2002). On the same wavelength? A study of the dynamics of sponsorshiprelationships between firms and cultural organizations (doctoral dissertation).Turku School of Economics and Business Administration, Turku, Finland.

Orlitzky, M., & Swanson, D. L. (2002). Value attunement: Toward a theory of sociallyresponsible executive decision-making.Australian Journal of Management,27,119128.

Papadimitriou, D., Apostolopoulou, A., & Dounis, T. (2008). Event sponsorship

as a value creating strategy for brands. The Journal of Product and BrandManagement, 17, 212222.


24/24


Pettigrew, A. M. (1975). The industrial purchasing decision as a political process.European Journal of Marketing, 9(1), 419.

Plewa, C., & Quester, P. G. (2011). Sponsorship and CSR: Is there a link? A concep-tual framework. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 12,301317.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporatephilanthropy.Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 5668.

Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. London, England:Sage.

Robinson, D. (2006). Public relations comes of age. Business Horizons,49, 247256.Ryan, A., & Fahy, J. (2003). A relationship marketing perspective on the sponsorship

of the arts in Ireland: A Galway Arts Festival-Nortel Networks case study. IrishMarketing Review, 16(1), 3142.

Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shiftfrom economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of

Management. The Academy of Management Review, 26, 243263.Seitanidi, M. M., & Ryan, A. (2007). A critical review of forms of corporate commu-

nity involvement: from philanthropy to partnerships. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12, 247266.

Siegel, D. S., & Renko, M. (2012). The role of market and technological knowledge inrecognizing entrepreneurial opportunities. Management Decision, 50, 797816.

Thjme, H. M., Olson, E. L., & Brnn, P. S. (2002). Decision-making processessurrounding sponsorship activities.Journal of Advertising Research,42(6), 615.

Valor, C. (2006). Why do managers give? Applying pro-social behaviour theoryto understanding firm giving. International Review on Public and Nonprofit

Marketing, 3(1), 1728.

Wang, J., & Coffey, B. S. (1992). Board composition and corporate philanthropy.Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 771778.

Webster, F. E. J., & Wind, Y. (1996). A general model for understanding organizationalbuying behavior. Marketing Management, 4(4), 5257.

Werbel, J. D., & Carter, S. M. (2002). The CEOs influence on corporate foundationgiving. Journal of Business Ethics, 40(1), 4760.

Wind, Y., & Robertson, T. S. (1982). The linking pin role in organizational buyingcenters. Journal of Business Research, 10(2), 169184.

Wymer, W. (2006). Special issue on corporate philanthropy. International Journalof Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(1), 12.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

2013 - kate daellenbach - examiningtheinfluenceoftheindividualinartssponsors[retrieved-2015!05!12]

Documents