Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 25:81104, 2013

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1049-5142 print/1540-6997 online
DOI: 10.1080/10495142.2013.759819

Examining the Influence of the Individual in

Arts Sponsorship Decisions
KATE DAELLENBACH and PETER THIRKELL
School of Marketing & International Business, Victoria University of Wellington,
Wellington, New Zealand

LENA ZANDER
Department of Business Studies, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Support from the corporate sector is an important revenue source

for many nonprofit organizations. In this article, we consider
individual-level influence within the decision-making processes
of companies as they make decisions concerning nonprofit arts
sponsorship. These decisions have often been linked to the influence of a single high-level executive, and the research contained
here seeks to better understand the role of the individual in influencing these decisions. Through qualitative multiple-case research
the authors find that a single individual, termed the advocate, is
in fact influential. Furthermore, the advocate is determined not by
their title or official ranking but by their possession of expert power,
a combination of knowledge and the belief of others in that knowledge. In addition, how individuals influence these decisions relates
to their application not of gut instinct, but of informed intuition.
The article closes in suggesting new perspectives that will assist in
better understanding this role.
KEYWORDS arts, corporate philanthropy, decision making,
sponsorship

The authors gratefully acknowledge the participants in this study for their time and
reflection, as well as the reviewers for their suggestions and insights.
Address correspondence to Kate Daellenbach, School of Marketing & International
Business, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand 6140.
E-mail: kate.daellenbach@vuw.ac.nz
81

82

K. Daellenbach et al.

INTRODUCTION
Decisions surrounding sponsorship or support of nonprofit organizations
are 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 a
high level of personal influence (e.g., Brammer & Millington, 2004; OHagan
& Harvey, 2000), and relationships have been found particularly through the
use of available quantitative data (e.g., Brammer, Millington, & Pavelin, 2006;
Wang & Coffey, 1992). However there remains opportunity to explore the
role of influence in more depth via a qualitative study of decision-making
processes. Moreover, the role of influence may extend beyond previously
known individuals. Thus, the goal of the current study is to learn more
about the existence, relative organizational position and characteristics of a
key individual in corporate support decisions of nonprofit organizations, in
particular those concerning nonprofit arts sponsorship. This study will therefore take a qualitative multiple-case study approach to understand whether a
key individual is influential, and to explore the characteristics and source of
influence for these individuals. In doing so, four propositions are presented
to guide further study.
It is a fact of nonprofit life that many organizations are struggling to
break even. In that effort, managers of nonprofits often seek out the support
of the business community, be it via a sponsorship, donation, or another
arrangement (Seitanidi & Ryan, 2007). Accordingly nonprofit managers try
to 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 literature
concerning the objectives and motivations for corporate support of nonprofits (Hoek, Gendall, & West, 1990; Madden, Scaife, & Crissman, 2006;
McAlister & Ferrell, 2002; Robinson, 2006). Within this literature, and related
to decision making in particular, we find that objectives and motivations are
often linked with personal objectives and/or personal influence of a single individual (e.g., Brammer & Millington, 2004; Thjme, Olson, & Brnn,
2002). Given the importance of corporate support to the income of nonprofit
organizations, greater understanding of this individual and their role in the
decisions is warranted.
The idea of an influential single individual is not new to discussions
particularly in the wider management decision-making or organizational purchasing fields (e.g., Eisenhardt & Zbaracki, 1992; Pettigrew, 1975; Wind &
Robertson, 1982). However, decisions related to corporate support, although
noted as becoming more strategic (Cantrell, Kyriazis, Noble, & Algie, 2008;
Nickell, Cornwell, & Johnston, 2011; Porter & Kramer, 2002), offer a context not frequently examined with these frameworks. As authors note,

Individual Influence and Arts Sponsorship

83

considering new contexts and examining corporate support in particular

via 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 these
individuals are not defined as influencers more generally, but by a specific
role, here termed the advocate. Furthermore, the role of the advocate is
better understood as an individual who takes this role not through their
official position in the company, but via their knowledge, expert power, and
use of informed intuition.
This article begins by providing theoretical background followed by an
explanation of the methodology employed. The results and discussion will
be presented along three themes: (a) the identification and characterization
of 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 the
formation of four propositions to guide future research. We conclude with a
summary of implications for research and managers, along with a discussion
of limitations and future research opportunities.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
In organizational decisions, it is well established that key influential individuals are identifiable (e.g., Drumwright, 1994; Hambrick & Mason, 1984;
Pettigrew, 1975). However, despite the growing ubiquity of corporate support of nonprofit organizations, this perspective has received little attention
in the context of such decision-making (Cantrell et al., 2008).
Past research has identified influential individuals in varying decision
making contexts, such as organizational purchasing and strategic decision
making, 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). Commonalities
among these types of roles indicate that people who hold sway often control the flow of information, they possess leadership qualities and some
element of power, but they are not always the top-level manager. This
later point is in contrast to other authors such as Hambrick and Mason
(1984) who consider the individuals status in an organization as related
to their influence, and Orlitzky and Swanson (2002) who propose that a
corporations attunement to values of socially responsible decision making is supported and influenced by top executives. While the above only
lists a few studies, it is clear that influential roles are likely to be present
in organizational decisions, although this may not always be determined
by the persons formal status. While a number of decisions have been
examined in a variety of contexts, there remains opportunity to examine

84

K. Daellenbach et al.

these ideas within the decision-making context of sponsorship and corporate

philanthropy.
Historically, currently and likely well into the future, nonprofit organizations have, do and will seek out the support of the business sector via
corporate investment. There are a multitude of partnership arrangements
within this investment umbrella, sponsorship and corporate philanthropy
being two that are relatively well studied in the academic literature
(Seitanidi & Ryan, 2007). Sponsorship focuses on commercial sponsorship or
sponsorship-linked marketing where a sponsor and a property (the nonprofit organization) have a mutually beneficial relationship (Cornwell, 2008;
Seitanidi & Ryan, 2007). On the other hand, corporate philanthropy is considered to be a relationship in which the supporting/giving company does
not receive a commercial benefit (Seitanidi & Ryan, 2007). While the two
arrangements have differing definitions, there is acknowledgment that both
fall into a broader category of corporate support, sometimes referred to as
corporate community investment (London Benchmarking Group, 2011), or
considered in the realm of corporate social responsibility initiatives (Lii & Lee,
2012; Madden, 2006; Plewa & Quester, 2011; Wymer, 2006). Furthermore, as
illustrated by Thjme et al. (2002) and Daellenbach (2012), in some cases
managers making associated decisions do not separate sponsorship from
philanthropy as clearly as the definitions may suggest. For these reasons,
both literatures dealing with sponsorship and corporate philanthropy are
consulted to inform this study.
The variety of partnerships considered, corporate support is important
to nonprofit organizations, and is increasingly an activity in which for-profit
companies engage (Seitanidi & Ryan, 2007). It is therefore no wonder that
this area has attracted the attention of academic research. Subsequently, studies have been conducted, especially in the sponsorship arena, revealing
much about the motivations for investment, measuring investment, examining partnerships as relationships, and the influence on consumer response
(Cornwell, 2008; Nickell et al., 2011). However comparatively little attention
has been given to whether and how a key individual may be influential in
the associated decision making processes.

The Individual in Sponsorship Decisions

In considering sponsorship, the influence of a senior executive has been
noted primarily as characteristic of past agreements, indicating a shift in
sponsorship decision making. Cornwell and Maignan (1998) noted that a
companys involvement in sponsorship was often more individual, perhaps
motivated by personal interest in the nonprofit organization. Other studies that considered motivations for sponsorship have also cited personal
objectives particularly of top level managers (Hoek et al., 1990; LeClair
& Gordon, 2000; Meenaghan & Flood, 1983; OHagan & Harvey, 2000).

Individual Influence and Arts Sponsorship

85

However, sponsorship has changed over time, becoming both more popular
and more strategic, especially in its incorporation into advertising campaigns
(Papadimitriou, Apostolopoulou, & Dounis, 2008). With this change, companies 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 formal roles of individuals involved has been found to vary (Brennan, Binney,
& Brady, 2012). While individuals are therefore noted, as is the changing
climate, little research attention has been given to understanding the potential for individual influence, within this environment of potentially greater
formality.
There is some insight into individual influence in these relationships
especially within qualitative research into arts sponsorship. Studies taking a
longer term perspective of the relationships between sponsors and arts properties have found that an individual emerges as important in that they act as a
bridge 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 each
side of the relationship: persons who act as translators between two different organizational fields, who understand both parties goals and needs, and
who try to find the balance in the cooperation (p. 284). These studies establish that in examining the sponsor-property relationship, an individual may
be crucial. Both of the above studies also point to the importance of personal
relationships, personalities and the beliefs and mindsets of individuals. Also
evident here is that the roles suggested informally evolve and are not specific
to the top executive. A related finding was evident in Daellenbachs (2012)
process-oriented research into arts sponsorship which also highlighted that
an individual was likely to be influential in the decision but again, this was
not always the top-level executive. The findings in these later studies are
somewhat in contrast to research suggesting that top managers are those
most influential. Sponsorship research thus raises the question of who may
emerge as influential in the context of a shorter-term decision making process? 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 existence and absence of influential individuals. Some authors have found no
evidence to suggest personal influence (Bartkus, Morris, & Seifert, 2002;
Navarro, 1988), while other research suggests personal interests may play
a 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

86

K. Daellenbach et al.

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 that
may only confirm or deny the presence of relationships, suggesting that an
in-depth, qualitative perspective may be revealing.
The inconsistent findings here may be due to changes that have
occurred over time in the field of corporate giving. Similarly to the evolutions of sponsorship, corporate philanthropy has also undergone change.
Cantrell, Kyriazis, Noble, and Algie (2008) noted that while personal motives
may have been influential in the past when corporate giving was more motivated by altruism, corporate giving is becoming more strategic, resulting in
greater levels of policy formulation as well as the appointment of corporate
giving managers. These authors highlight this specific role, and go on to note
that greater examination of the role of these managers is an opportunity for
future research.
Another avenue of the corporate philanthropy literature considers
softer characteristics and backgrounds of key individuals. Emotional and
personal interests of senior-level managers, especially as they relate to the
arts, have been suggested as being present underneath the layer of what
might be thought of as more commercial rationale (Kirchberg, 2004). Authors
have also found relationships between corporate giving, and whether the
CEO felt philanthropy was part of their self-identity (Dennis, Buchholtz,
& Butts, 2009). These ideas of self-identity, values, and more personal
characteristics are echoed by authors who present conceptual models for
understanding the relationships between executives and giving (Choi &
Wang, 2007; Jones, 2007; Valor, 2006). Here again is the suggestion that
beliefs, values and mindsets may well be important aspects of an individuals
influence, but with the exception of Dennis et al. (2009), these papers are
conceptual in nature. Furthermore, these authors suggest that there remains
opportunity to examine the influence of these individual backgrounds on
actual decisions related to corporate philanthropy.

The Context of Arts Sponsorship

The context under study here is that of decisions associated with sponsorship
of nonprofit arts organizations such as theatre, ballet, galleries, and orchestras. Within corporate support partnerships there are typically three categories of recipient: sports, arts, and social cause (Hoek et al., 1990). The
arts sponsorship context offers both a specific situation to investigate (thus
providing a boundary for the study), as well as one that has the potential to bridge characteristics of both sports and social charity support. Arts
sponsorships offer events that attract a particular market, and in that sense
have similarity to sports sponsorships. However, arts sponsorship does not
offer the attractive media coverage often associated with sports (Farrelly &
Quester, 1997). Perhaps as a result, arts sponsorships are often linked to

Individual Influence and Arts Sponsorship

87

objectives with less emphasis on return on investment, as is often the case

for 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 personal managers (Hoek et al.,1990). Arts sponsorship decisions may be seen
as sitting somewhere between the more commercial sports sponsorship, and
a more philanthropic social sponsorship/support. Arts sponsorship decisions
thus offer a context that has been suggested as containing a key individual
influence, and also a context that has the potential to shed light on related
recipient categories.
The previous discussion has highlighted that there is likely to be a key
individual involved in decisions of corporate support to nonprofit organizations. However, a number of questions are also posed. Does this individual
consistently emerge via a formally assigned role? How do they acquire this
influence? What is the impact of their influence? To restate the research objective, this research seeks to better understand the existence of a key individual
in corporate support decisions of nonprofit organizations, in particular those
concerning nonprofit arts sponsorship.

METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS

Given the emphasis in this study of providing understanding rather than
generalization, 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 support
of arts sponsorship. The selection of cases was purposive and followed a
replication logic, whereby cases were selected which were both interesting,
and which were thought to either replicate results, or reveal new, contrary
results (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007; Yin, 2009). Initial respondents were
identified via expert informants, followed by snowballing to identify another
person within the decision/case, or to identify another case. In this manner, each case included responses from multiple informants from both sides
of the dyad (i.e., from the arts property and the sponsor). Relevant documents were also examined and further clarification of points was sought as
required.
To be included in the study, responses had to be obtained from both
sides (the arts property and the sponsor), and had to be sufficient to allow
the researchers to feel that the decision was adequately captured. If a case
was not adequately captured, associated responses were eliminated from
the analysis. With these provisos a total of ten cases were captured from
twenty-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

88

K. Daellenbach et al.

TABLE 1 Case Characteristics

Total respondents
included in
Case
analysis
A

Ba, b

Ca

Dc, d

Ec
Fb

2
4

G
H

2
4

Jd
Kb

2
3

Respondents from sponsoring

company

Respondents from arts

organization

Corporate sponsorship manager Arts board member, arts chief

executive
Arts chief executive
Corporate sponsorship
manager, Corporate chief
executive
Corporate sponsorship
Arts chief executive, arts board
manager, corporate chief
member, other arts managers
executive
Corporate sponsorship
Arts chief executive
manager, corporate marketing
manager
Corporate sponsorship manager Arts chief executive
Corporate sponsorship
Arts board member, arts chief
manager, corporate marketing
executive
manager
Corporate marketing manager
Arts chief executive
Corporate chief executive,
Arts chief executive
corporate marketing manager
Corporate marketing manager
Arts chief executive
Corporate sponsorship manager Arts board member, arts chief
executive

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

respondents and cases (limited information is provided in order to maintain

confidentiality).
Interviews were conducted on a confidential basis, beginning with the
respondent identifying a particular decision. The respondent was then asked
to describe how the decision progressed, with appropriate probing questions
as deemed necessary (McCracken, 1988). Further questions were asked such
as were there others involved in the decision? Could you describe these
individuals and the role they played? Interviews varied in length, ranging
from one to two and a half hours. Prior to analysis using NVivo, recordings
were transcribed and checked, and reviewed by the respondent. A summary of findings was later sent to all respondents, seeking their input and
commentary, for which only comments in agreement were received.
An initial coding structure was based on the literature, and adjusted
as analysis progressed (Richards, 2005). As data were entered and coded,
memos were created and updated to summarize thoughts on themes and
cases. Alongside this, individual case summaries were created and updated,
as recommended by authors (Yin, 2009). In this way a summarizing
document was maintained for each case throughout the initial iterative
process of data collection and analysis.

Individual Influence and Arts Sponsorship

89

Between-case analysis occurred throughout data collection, helping to

inform the selection of further case studies, and refine codes and theme
development. However, the bulk of the between-case analysis occurred once
all case summaries were relatively complete. Between-case analysis comprised a number of tactics to highlight similarities and differences and build
explanation (Yin, 2009).

FINDINGS AND THEMES

Three key themes were identified via the analysis and will be discussed
here. Firstly, it was evident that a key individual was influential, and will
be referred to as the advocate. Secondly, Advocates were characterized by
their possession of expert power. Thirdly, the use of intuition by Advocates
will be explored. Each of these themes will be discussed in terms of the
specific findings from this study with comparison to the literature previously
examined.

Theme 1: Identifying and Describing the Advocates

The first theme relates to the identification and initial characterization of the
advocatesthe key individuals who influenced the decision to the greatest
extent. The finding that there was a key individual was not surprising and
is in support of literature in decision making, sponsorship and corporate
philanthropy (e.g., Brennan et al., 2012; Cantrell et al., 2008; Drumwright,
1994). In addition to this however, certain characteristics of these advocates
emerged 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 the

company. In fact, while previous literature focused on the influence of the
CEO, owner or chairman (Brammer et al., 2006; LeClair & Gordon, 2000),
in six of the cases, the advocate was in fact a lower-level managerthe
sponsorship or marketing manager. In the other four cases, it was the chief
executive or owner who took on the advocate role. At times this was a
formal role, while at other times the formal role was ignored, as it was not
deemed appropriate to the situation. For example, one manager, charged
with a formal role of sponsorship evaluation, noted that in this particular
case the CEO owned that relationship; analysis suggested this CEO was
the advocate. Thus, this advocate role is not solely confined to senior-level
executives, or to a sponsorship manager, or even to the person formally
assigned to evaluate such investments. This is a variation to recent literature,
which suggests that there will be a formal role assigned to these decisions

90

K. Daellenbach et al.

(Cantrell et al., 2008; Cornwell, 2008). It suggests that while formal roles may
be 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 advocates

as the information and knowledge holders and gatherers. In each case, advocates assembled information from within the company and sector, as well as
from their own experiences in order to generate justification and support
for the sponsorship. For example, one manager/advocate stated, [We got]
some feedback from within the organization, and also did a bit of research
externally 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 one
manager/advocate:
[The arts chief executive] and his people wrote a proposal and sent it to
us . . . we had meetings to talk about that, about the potential and the
ideas that we had and the ideas that they had and I think it was probably
a 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 was

personal experience with the artform, arts property, and the market more
generally. This knowledge was relevant for both the manager and executivelevel advocates. One manager/advocate spoke of his own knowledge as
aiding him in moving a proposal forward:
So I reviewed it and then had to . . . explain why I thought we should do
it and how it would fit in with some of our goals. So previously having
lived in [the city] on a number of occasions, and knowing the history
of 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 some
internal selling of it, we made the decision to go ahead with it.

In addition, one arts manager stated that the executive/advocate had a huge
background with the [arts property] which was seen to provide information
useful to the decision.
In terms of the type of knowledge used, advocates accessed knowledge
of their companys objectives, of sponsorship generally and of the specific
arts initiative. General sponsorship knowledge was commented upon by
both executive and manager-level advocates:

Individual Influence and Arts Sponsorship

91

I get so much information about who wants what, whats happening in

the market, what other sponsors are doing, what businesses are doing,
what our business wants to do . . . I can actually get a good sense of
what a proposal is kind of worth in terms of what theyre offering or
what theyre reaching. (Manager/Advocate)

Knowledge related to the arts property specifically was drawn upon again by
advocates at all levels. For example, one manager/advocate stated, I knew
it . . . I didnt have any problem visualising that. I didnt have any problem
justifying it and selling it internally.
Other respondents noted that the executive/advocate held this knowledge via their passionate interest or their history with the arts initiative.
This personal experience with the arts organization appears at first to
resonate 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 case
appeared to view the advocates knowledge more as information that contributed to the evaluation of the property. This finding also puts the element
of personal values and backgrounds, suggested in corporate philanthropy literature (Jones, 2007; Kirchberg, 2004) into a new light wherein the personal
views are seen more as an accumulation of knowledge to be employed in
the 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 in

helping them move beyond information gathering to active support and
advocacy. For example, one manager/advocate used their personal knowledge and experience of a particular event to help support the cause which
initially more senior-level executives had declined: everybody over there
actually 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/advocate
spoke of the need to convince his direct manager, as well as managers
overseas. He noted, perhaps if there hadnt have been somebody like me
sitting here who . . . knew how [people in the city] felt about the [arts
property] then they wouldnt have had an internal sponsor to push it any
further.
The knowledge and use of knowledge in moving the decision forward
was also evident for executive-level advocates. One arts manager described
the CEO somewhat unexpectedly taking an active role in the decision, calling
for 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]

92

K. Daellenbach et al.

we added a value product . . . and he was really taken with that (arts chief
executive speaking of the sponsoring companys chief executive).
In the above case, the sponsorship was initially not supported by the
sponsorship manager, and while the CEO shared the impression that they
were not getting enough value from it, it was the CEO who called the arts
manager 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 to
shift it up a gear.
Here, we see the advocate taking their information and impression, and
using it to generate support within the company. It is noted that this was
the case even if the advocate was not assigned with the formal authority to
make a decision on the sponsorship. For example one manager/advocate
supported the sponsorship, negotiated with the arts organization, gathered
support 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 a
compromise. We argued with [the chief executive] and the compromise
was 1 year.

This role of actively gathering support internally is not something that has
been addressed in any great length in the literature. While leadership and
control 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 initially see the value in the sponsorship, they were also unique in that they
expressed enthusiasm towards the particular sponsorship. One participant
noted 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 advocate, when we first met, I had the impression very much that [the brand
manager] was not into it . . . and that [the manager/advocate] was genuinely
interested.
This characteristic of enthusiasm and an ability to generate enthusiasm
further characterizes this role. It suggests the individuals own passion for the
initiative, similar to Ryan and Fahys (2003) suggestion that a champion of
the sponsorship . . . [has] a deep love of the arts and a deep understanding
of their possible effect on people at a personal and professional level
(p. 37). It also suggests personality traits such as those noted for policy

Individual Influence and Arts Sponsorship

93

entrepreneurs as individuals who were usually facile at both motivating

people and making the system work for them . . . [who also had] tenacious
persistence and high energy level. They were undaunted by resisters and
operational problems (Drumwright, 1994, p. 4).
The above discussion supports that a key individualan advocatewas
present and identifiable in these decisions; they gathered information and
knowledge, had enthusiasm for the sponsorship, and subsequently assembled support for it. Returning to the literature, the advocate role resonates
with a number of previously defined roles. The control of information is similar to gatekeepers (Pettigrew, 1975), the role of gathering internal support
and connecting other individuals in the company with the property resonates
to some extent with linking pins (Wind & Robertson, 1982). However, their
enthusiasm and drive to generate interest throughout the company, for an
initiative, goes beyond the definitions provided. Looking at further literature, the role of the product champion from innovation literature may best
convey the essence of the advocate in arts sponsorship decisions:
[Champions] manifest the personality characteristics of risk-taking
propensity and innovativeness . . . [they articulate] a compelling vision
of the innovations potential for the organization, [and express] confidence in others to participate effectively in the initiative . . . [they] appeal
to larger principles or unassailable values about the potential of the innovation for fulfilling the organizations dream of what it can be, [and
through this] champions capture the attention of others. Moreover by
providing emotional meaning and energy to the idea, champions induce
the commitment of others to the innovation. (Howell & Higgins, 1990,
p. 336)

It is not surprising that the champion role for a product innovation resonates with advocates of arts sponsorship decisions, as both products may be
viewed as holding elements of risk and uncertainty. The evidence presented
does 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 to
the idea.
To conclude this theme, we see that a key individual, the advocate, is
influential. While definitions from a number of areas have contributed, the
advocate in these decisions requires a unique description. The advocate may
be described as the individual within the sponsoring company who possesses
a higher level of experience and knowledge with the arts initiative, who can
see how it will benefit the company, and who takes the initiative to garner
support within the company. In all cases studied, there was consistency
in that the advocate could be identified and was influential in the manner
discussed.

94

K. Daellenbach et al.

Theme 2: The Advocate and Possession of Expert Power

The discussion above noted that advocates had knowledge, and that others
perceived there was value in this knowledge. This finding resonates particularly 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 knowledgeable about relevant issues. Others comply with such an individual
because of their belief that doing so will lead to a better decision, not
because compliance will lead to certain consequences independent of
the decision or because of formal or informal obligations to comply.

This definition suggests that expert power is derived from both the individuals knowledge and the belief of others in this individuals knowledge. The
earlier theme explored the idea of knowledge, but based on this definition
of expert power, knowledge on its own is not sufficient. There needs to be
the belief of others in this knowledge. The evidence in this study suggested
that this belief is often gained via the advocates formal roles within the company. 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 knowledgeable
and 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 the
remaining three decisions, the CEO emerged as the advocate even though
they were not charged with the research or management of sponsorships.
In these cases, these individuals were deemed to have superior knowledge
of the particular arts initiative. One respondent noted that even though the
sponsorship manager was the one formally assigned to make recommendations, in the case being considered, the key relationship thats held is
actually with our CEO. In another case the respondent simply noted that the
chief executive has the ultimate say at the end of the day. Here, there may
be 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 by
the formal role. The formal role, combined with relevant knowledge appears
to lend to expert power.
Before leaving the ideas of knowledge and expert power an important question is whether the advocate drew their knowledge based on the
business/commercial grounding for the initiative, or on the moral case to
contribute to the community. Both of these objectives are acknowledged in
the literature and it is feasible that the different bases of knowledge may
influence the belief of others in the knowledge, and subsequent expert

Individual Influence and Arts Sponsorship

95

power. Details on the philosophies of the respondents in this study go

beyond the confines of this article, although it was noted that all respondents
acknowledged the existence of both commercial and community objectives
as important to their decisions. However, their expert power was drawn primarily from their knowledge and experiences that related to the business
case supporting the initiativethat it would ultimately provide value to the
sponsoring company.
Therefore, advocates possess expert power. They hold knowledge,
at times related to their role and responsibilities, but also at times drawn
from their individual background and past experience. Furthermore others
believe in the knowledge of the advocate. The following propositions are
therefore made:
P1a: The expert power of an advocate is likely to be derived from that
individuals personal views and past experiences with the arts, the
specific arts initiative and sponsorship as well as their more formal
role within the company.
P1b: Individuals are likely to become advocates for a sponsorship
through the expert power they hold.

Looking at the previous discussion and propositions reveals that these decisions 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 also
as a combination of input from the head and input from the heartthe
rational and the emotional. It is perhaps obvious that a sponsorship proposal
will not be accepted simply because an individual possessing an appropriate formal role does their research. There needs to be the recognition that
the partnership will work, and as noted in the first theme, there needs to
be some excitement and enthusiasm. Thus we see the advocate as holding
expert 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 personal
experiences and insight, analysis of the cases indicated that some advocates appeared to be quickly interested and enthusiastic about the particular
sponsorships under consideration. This raises the question: could this initial
interest of the advocate be described as gut instinct or more of an informed
intuition? Related research (Daellenbach, 2012) suggests that informed intuition, as defined by Hodgkinson, Sadler-Smith, Claxton, and Sparrow (2009),
is the better descriptor, and the following expands on this idea in greater
depth.

96

K. Daellenbach et al.

As noted, the advocate was the individual in possession of expert power,

and part of this expert power was knowledge. In some cases, this knowledge
seemed to allow the advocate to make more of a subjective judgment on the
decision 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 the
following comments:
They didnt do a presentation . . . I was emailed stuff . . . because I
knew it probably so I mean I didnt have any problem visualizing
that. 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 to
own 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? Was

it intuition? How could this be described? In four of the cases studied, a
subjective 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 subjectivity. For example, one sponsorship manager in a case that went through
a rigorous evaluation stated,
When we went through the process of evaluating the strategy . . . we
also developed a statistical model . . . [but] its all subjective, because its
always going to be, but [the statistical model] enabled us to relatively
rank properties against one another.

This quote both notes the subjective nature of the decision, along with
a reliance on rigorous evaluation. In most cases evidence supported this
application of knowledge, evaluation, and past experience, along with a subjective element. As one manager noted, instinct and due process are both at
play:
You just know instinctively its a good fit for us . . . you go through [the
processes] and you make sure that . . . you eliminate the risk that you
can. 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

Individual Influence and Arts Sponsorship

97

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

A capacity for attaining direct knowledge or understanding without the

apparent 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 produced
largely or in part through non-conscious mental processes; and
affectively charged judgments that arise through rapid, non-conscious
and holistic associations.

This definition highlights the cognitive knowledge and rational thought as

well as the non-conscious processes involved in intuition. These authors
argued, informed intuition is as essential to the competence portfolio of
hard-pressed decision makers as many of the analytical skills that feature in
contemporary business school curricula (p. 278). Reflecting on the quotes
from respondents in this study, this definition is consistent. Looking back at
the discussions of the advocate and expert power, it is evident that the advocates were often individuals who used intuition in these decisions, and this
intuition was fueled by their knowledge and past experience. The knowledge and experience of the advocate allowed them a level of intuition that
informed 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 intuition influenced the decisions. For each case, the level of knowledge held
by the advocate was categorized as low, medium or high, and compared
with the extent of intuition which entered into the decision, also categorized
as low, medium or high. The relationship was most apparent in the cases
where knowledge appeared at the high and low levels. In three cases the
advocate possessed a high amount of knowledge (and high expert power)
and this corresponded with a high level of intuition observed in the decision
process. 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 knowledge was low or medium. These later two cases may appear in contrast
to the first group, however if one considers expert power as derived from
both knowledge and formal roles it was in these cases that the advocates
held the role of chief executive. Here, it appears that the ability of the advocate to use intuition was made possible via their knowledge and/or their
role. In this sense the argument goes back to expert power, with the higher
expert power gleaned from a combination of knowledge and role, paving
the way for higher levels of intuition to enter into these decisions. Restating
this, the following is proposed:

98

K. Daellenbach et al.

P2: The more expert power the advocate holds the more likely informed
intuition 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 (personal
characteristics and experiences) rather than a pure economic justification.
Whether or not individuals involved considered these decisions complex was
not 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 be
fostered 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 described
as the chairman or senior executive but as the advocate. Furthermore, the
idea of knowledge and experience facilitating informed intuition is put
forward 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 individual in corporate support decisions of nonprofit organizations, in particular
those concerning arts sponsorship. Based on the existence of little literature
that investigates this question in this context, the study took a qualitative
multiple-case study approach to understand whether a key individual was
influential in these decisions, and to explore the characteristics and source of
influence for these individuals. As described above, key individuals, termed
advocates, were apparent in all decisions studied.
The existence of a key individual is consistent with literature on
decision-making, organizational buying, sponsorship, and corporate philanthropy. With the increasing emphasis on more strategic corporate support
initiatives, authors have noted that these decisions are subject to more policy and procedure, and the input of specific corporate support (Cantrell
et al., 2008; Cornwell, 2008). This study does not disagree with the finding
of formal roles, but it contributes a fuller and richer understanding of the
formal position and influence of the advocate, and provides a more in-depth
description of this role. The role of the advocate here is not defined solely by
the individuals formal role in the company, but more by their knowledge,
their enthusiasm, and their ability to actively move the decision forward
internally. Examination of knowledge in particular leads to findings that this
is a combination of personal and business-related knowledge, knowledge of
the art, the sponsor, and sponsorship, generally. This enables advocates to

Individual Influence and Arts Sponsorship

99

gain expert power within the companya perspective originally proposed

by Kohli (1989), and noted by Drumwright (1994) in an organizational purchasing context. This perspective highlights that the knowledge possessed
by advocates will be such that others involved in the decision believe this
knowledge will lead to a better decision. Another related perspective that
has been brought into the current context is that of informed intuition
(Hodgkinson et al., 2009). While this concept is based in strategic management decision-making, its application here appears revealing. This study
suggests that the subjective component of the advocates decision is not just
a gut instinct reaction, but nonconscious mental processes (Hodgkinson
et al., 2009, p. 280) based on knowledge and information.
The understanding of the advocate has clearly benefited from the application of additional theory in areas beyond sponsorship and corporate
philanthropy. Viewing sponsorship via multiple frames is not a new perspective (Daellenbach, Davies, & Ashill, 2006), and in concluding this study,
one last perspective is suggested. The importance placed on knowledge
and intuition resonates with further literature both in strategic management
and more recently in entrepreneurial management; the application of these
new lenses may yield additional insight into the field of corporate support
decision-making. The perspective is that suggested by Sarasvathy (2001),
who pointed to two different routes to decisions in the strategic management
context: causation and effectuation. In the causation approach, the manager
notes 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 be
achieved (such as image building and brand awareness) via sponsorship, and
thus looks for a particular sponsorship (the means) to achieve this. On the
other hand, Sarasvathy also illustrated an effectuation approach wherein the
managers first look at what they have and know (the means) and look for
goals (ends) that could therefore be achieved. This effectuation approach
appears to resonate more with the study contained here. The advocates took
more of an effectuation approach. They appeared to establish (in a nonconscious manner) first the means that they have (the knowledge of their
company, the arts property, and sponsorship generally). Armed with these
means, 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 biotechnology ventures they find that both market knowledge and technological knowledge . . . contribute to firms subsequent recognition of
entrepreneurial opportunities (p. 797). These authors propose that the
sources of entrepreneurial opportunities do not just come from the technological knowledge, but also what they refer to as market-pull opportunities
including idiosyncratic information about customers, markets, and ways
to serve markets (Siegel & Renko, 2012, p. 800). Similarly in the arts

100

K. Daellenbach et al.

sponsorship decisions, the advocates possessed and acquired knowledge on

the various inputs. This gave them expert power, and a basis for informed
intuition, but taking the perspective of Sarasvathy and Siegel and Renko, it
also allowed the advocates to be able to recognize the potential ends/goals,
the opportunities. In considering the present findings via these new perspectives it appears that corporate support decisions may bear similarity to
and benefit from comparisons with decisions in innovative, entrepreneurial
environments.
Implications from this study are also evident for arts and nonprofit
managers. Arts managers need to be aware that in order for their proposal to move forward in the decision making process, there needs to be
an advocatean individual within the sponsoring company who has the
experience and knowledge to see that this will be a success, and has the
ability to gather support within the company. An arts manager therefore
needs to be knowledgeable about the business community and individuals in the business community. They should seek to understand who might
be the advocate in various companies, making attempts to find these people by searching attendance records, or inviting companies to offer tickets
to interested employees (and therefore they will identify themselves). They
should take a proactive role in identifying and cultivating individuals who
may potentially be advocates, and make attempts to introduce key business
people to the art form, introducing them to the potential opportunities which
may lie in sponsorship.
For managers in sponsoring companies, academic authors have suggested that informed intuition, fed by knowledge, may be just as important
in decisions as the more overt economic justifications. This study supports
this and suggests that with these decisions being potentially complex, individuals experience and knowledge hold legitimate roles in recognizing new
opportunities that may be achieved via sponsorship. For managers this suggests 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 who
exhibit 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 the
sponsoring firm.

Limitations and Future Research

This study is not without its limitations, although many are by design and
suggest future research. Firstly, only successful outcome decisions were
studied 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

Individual Influence and Arts Sponsorship

101

would extend understanding. Secondly, the decisions studied had already

been made; although this may have allowed for respondent bias, it also
allowed decisions and multiple respondents to be identified. On a related
note, although multiple informants were interviewed, it is impossible to
tell if all information was truly acquired. This is especially of concern with
respect to the discussion on intuition; while other respondents appeared
to acknowledge the advocates intuition, the main quotations on which the
ideas were based were self-reported, and thus may be comments that have
been rationalized over time.
There are many avenues identified here for future research.
Research into varying contexts (arts, sports, social charities), or varying
cultures/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 made
between these corporate support decisions, and decisions involving innovations, and entrepreneurship. It has been acknowledged that the field of
corporate support is evolving, offers multiple benefits, via multiple partnerships. It is broadly suggested here that greater comparison with decisions in
higher risk, less defined contexts such as innovation and entrepreneurship
may reveal more about this area.

Conclusion
To conclude, a single individual is crucial in arts sponsorship decisions. This
individual will hold a formal role, but their identification as the key influencing individual is also related to their knowledge, expert power, and informed
intuition. While personal experience and interests are related to this, these
experiences and interests are seen as serving as a reference for them, allowing advocates to see the benefits and opportunities of how such partnerships
will work. This research has thus provided a richer understanding of the role
and characteristics of a key individual in decisions associated with corporate
support. While decisions around arts sponsorship were investigated, similarities may be found in considering other recipients and other partnerships
under the corporate support umbrella. It is also suggested that these decisions are potentially complex and innovative, and that they are influenced
by a key knowledgeable individual, who is open to the opportunities such a
partnership may deliver.

REFERENCES
Bartkus, B. R., Morris, S. A., & Seifert, B. (2002). Governance and corporate
philanthropy: Restraining Robin Hood? Business and Society, 41, 319344.

102

K. Daellenbach et al.

Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2004). Stakeholder pressure, organizational size, and
the allocation of departmental responsibility for the management of corporate
charitable giving. Business and Society, 43, 268295.
Brammer, S., Millington, A., & Pavelin, S. (2006). Is philanthropy strategic? An analysis of the management of charitable giving in large UK companies. Business
Ethics, 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 understanding of the corporate giving managers role in meeting salient stakeholders
Needs. 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 Sector
Marketing, 17, 363374.
Daellenbach, K., Davies, J., & Ashill, N. J. (2006). Understanding sponsorship
and 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 Academy
of 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. Strategic
Management Journal, 13, 1737.
Farrelly, F., & Quester, P. G. (1997, June). Sports and arts sponsors: Investigating the
similarities and differences in management practices. Paper presented at the
AMA Conference Proceedings, Dublin.
Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper Echelons: The organization as
a 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 Range
Planning, 42, 277297.
Hoek, J. A., Gendall, P. J., & West, R. D. (1990). The role of sponsorship in marketing
planning selected New Zealand companies. New Zealand Journal of Business,
12, 8795.

Individual Influence and Arts Sponsorship

103

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 values 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 contingency
approach. Journal of Marketing, 53(3), 5065.
Krapfel, R. E. (1985). An advocacy behavior model of organizational buyers vendor
choice. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 5159.
LeClair, M. S., & Gordon, K. (2000). Corporate support for artistic and cultural activities: 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 CSR
and reputation interact to affect consumer evaluations of the firm. Journal of
Business Ethics, 105(1), 6981. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0948-0
London Benchmarking Group. (2011). About LBG. Retrieved from http://www.lbgonline.net
Madden, 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 medium
size 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:10.1108/08858621111179859
OHagan, J., & Harvey, D. (2000). Why do companies sponsor arts events? Some
evidence and a proposed classification. Journal of Cultural Economics, 24,
205224.
Olkkonen, R. (2002). On the same wavelength? A study of the dynamics of sponsorship
relationships 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 socially
responsible 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 Brand
Management, 17, 212222.

104

K. Daellenbach et al.

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 conceptual framework. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 12,
301317.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate
philanthropy. 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. Irish
Marketing Review, 16(1), 3142.
Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift
from 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 community 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 in
recognizing entrepreneurial opportunities. Management Decision, 50, 797816.
Thjme, H. M., Olson, E. L., & Brnn, P. S. (2002). Decision-making processes
surrounding sponsorship activities. Journal of Advertising Research, 42(6), 615.
Valor, C. (2006). Why do managers give? Applying pro-social behaviour theory
to 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 organizational
buying behavior. Marketing Management, 4(4), 5257.
Werbel, J. D., & Carter, S. M. (2002). The CEOs influence on corporate foundation
giving. Journal of Business Ethics, 40(1), 4760.
Wind, Y., & Robertson, T. S. (1982). The linking pin role in organizational buying
centers. Journal of Business Research, 10(2), 169184.
Wymer, W. (2006). Special issue on corporate philanthropy. International Journal
of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(1), 12.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.