Sponsorship decisions occur within the context of an organisation, and involve a group of individuals referred to as the buying centre or decision-making unit (DMU) (Johnston &
Lewin, 1996; Webster & Wind, 1972a). Sponsorship and philanthropy literatures have addressed aspects of this, though not with the lens of the DMU. Some authors in sponsorship discuss the involvement of various departments (Farrelly & Quester, 1997;
Thjømøe et al., 2002); similarly corporate philanthropy decisions have been noted as being made largely by groups (Bennett, 1998). In the study contained here, all decisions involved a number of individuals to varying extents, and therefore consideration was given to these decisions in terms of the DMU. Four main conclusions were drawn from the analysis of the DMU: 1) the vertical involvement, particularly of the CCE, was consistent; 2) the lateral involvement appeared to be controlled by the formal policies and decisions of the CSM/CMM; 3) the role of decider was often subject to a further
“approval”; and 4) the presence and influence of an advocate was essential.
184
6.3.1 Vertical Involvement and the Role of the CCE
As noted, a number of vertical levels were represented in the DMU‟s for these decisions, and the CCE was present in all DMU‟s. This is consistent with studies in corporate philanthropy, which note the involvement of senior executives to be prevalent (Bennett, 1998; Brammer & Millington, 2004b; Brammer et al., 2006; Dunn, 2004). On the other hand, sponsorship studies emphasize the involvement specifically of marketing and public relations, and a movement away from Head Office involvement (Burton et al., 1998b; Farrelly & Quester, 1997; Thjømøe et al., 2002; Witcher et al., 1991). While this study‟s findings may appear to contrast with sponsorship studies, there is more similarity when considering decisions within a commercial/philanthropic range. Specifically, while the CCE was always a part of the DMU, the decisions which were deemed to be oriented towards more commercial means (section 5.2.2) tended to have greater involvement of the marketing department. In decisions deemed more philanthropically driven the CCE took on a greater role in the DMU. This finding suggests that the company‟s philosophy of CCI plays a role in determining the DMU.
Also evident was the implication that the ambiguity associated with sponsorship partly determined CCE involvement. This is reminiscent of DMU studies from OBB. In particular, Lewin and Donthu (2005) concludes that the DMU structure is related to the
“purchase situation,” which includes the buyclass, product type, importance, complexity and uncertainty. Applying Lewin and Donthu‟s framework to the sponsorship decisions revealed many parallels. Taking sponsorship as a purchase situation, it was evident that the “newness”, the importance and the uncertainty all related to who was in the DMU.
Renewing sponsorships had established relationships, and the person most involved in this relationship was included in the DMU – in particular, renewing relationships determined the advocate. New sponsorships relied on a different type of relationship which then influenced the DMU. The idea of “product importance” also related to the DMU, with importance here related to the financial request. Specifically, larger financial requests were moved to higher levels in the company (see section 5.4.1). Uncertainty around sponsorship has also been shown to determine the presence of higher-level managers in the DMU. Further discussion of the characteristics of the investment will be undertaken in section 6.4, however the relationship between the “purchase situation” – i.e. sponsorship – and the characteristics of the DMU appears important, especially in identifying the presence of higher executive levels in the DMUs for these decisions.
185 6.3.2 DMU Lateral Make-up
The lateral involvement in a DMU refers to the inclusion of individuals from different areas within the company, but from the same hierarchical level. Studies in sponsorship and philanthropy have noted the involvement of Marketing and/or Public Relations departments, but examination beyond this is not evident. Consideration of lateral
involvement revealed that this was an important part of the decisions, and appeared to be determined by the characteristics of the investment and the planned use of the
sponsorship. For example, in two cases, the CSM sought out other appropriate Marketing Managers who would benefit from the sponsorship, and were crucial to moving forward. This point is an important finding in this study, suggesting that
individuals involved in the DMU may be those who need to be involved – those who are affected, those who may benefit and those who see the benefit.
Brammer and Millington (2004b) make a related argument, noting that “organisations appear to allocate responsibility for the management of donations to functional
departments that have the capabilities to cope with the particular stakeholder pressures they face” (p.289). In this argument, the company recognises the stakeholder pressures, and in turn, allocates responsibility to the departments which can best address this. In terms of the present study, the companies were noted as having particular goals and objectives, and a need to find a “fit”. The fit may or may not be best handled solely by a Sponsorship Manager, Marketing Manager, or Public Relations Manager, and may be best managed by the CCE level. This study thus agrees with the findings of Brammer and Millington, but diverges from a number of studies particularly in sponsorship.
Sponsorship studies have typically noted high levels of involvement from Marketing and Public Relations, and speak of sponsorship as a confirmed tool in the marketing mix (Dolphin, 2003; Tripodi, 2001). This study finds evidence to suggest that with sponsorship used to achieve numerous objectives within the company, it may be too limiting to prematurely restrict the decision and/or management to one specific area.
Related to this discussion is the notion that the group who makes the decision may well be different from the group who manages the relationship. So, while authors have noted that Marketing and Public Relations are commonly involved in the decisions and
management of sponsorship (Cornwell & Maignan, 1998; Dolphin, 2003; Tripodi, 2001), others have made a distinction. Specifically Witcher et.al (1991) suggest Public Relations
186
is more prominent in decisions and Marketing more prominent in managing the
relationship. Bennett (1998) found that corporate philanthropy decisions were typically handled by Head Office, with the management of the relationship resting with Marketing or Public Relations. Similarities with this literature were noted in this study. Firstly the common involvement of a senior executive level along with representation from
Marketing and/or Public Relations was evident in the decisions. Secondly, while this study focused on the decisions themselves, it was evident that the management of the relationship typically fell away from higher levels, and moved into Marketing or Public Relations.
This study then is in agreement with the literature that there will be vertical and lateral representation in the DMU for support decisions, but provides a contribution in
highlighting the CCE involvement, and in suggesting what may influence vertical and lateral involvement. The extent of the vertical influence, being the involvement of the CCE, may be determined by the orientation of the company to more philanthropic or commercial means, as well as characteristics defining the purchase situation. The vertical and lateral involvement is also likely to be determined by the recognition of which stakeholder groups will benefit from the relationship and who is best positioned in the company to manage these stakeholder groups.
6.3.3 Roles in the DMU
This study also looked at specific roles within the DMU. OBB authors have identified a number of roles including users, influencers, buyers, deciders, gatekeepers, initiators and controllers (Dwyer & Tanner, 2006; Webster & Wind, 1972a). Other authors have identified and described additional roles, such as “policy entrepreneurs” (Drumwright, 1994), “boundary role person” (Krapfel, 1985), and “linking pin” (Wind & Robertson, 1982). In the sponsorship and philanthropy literature roles have been noted as they relate to sponsorship relationships (Olkkonen, 2002; Ryan & Fahy, 2003), and authors have identified CEO‟s as potential controllers and influencers (Brammer et al., 2006) but this has not been brought into a decision-making context.
Within this study, support was found for the involvement of multiple individuals in the DMU who take on roles such as those above. Users, gatekeepers, influencers and deciders were easily identified as noted in the previous chapter. In addition, other roles
187
emerged as deserving more consideration, in particular, Initiators, Advocates and Approvers.
Initiators are noted in the OBB literature (Dwyer & Tanner, 2006), as individuals who start the process: “the initiator starts the purchase process by recognising the need” (p.
101). However the idea of a separate initiator role is not commonly considered in OBB.
In fact, Webster and Wind (1972b) note users and influencers as having a role in
identifying the need. In this study, the idea of an initiator is borrowed, but based on the results, the role was adapted.
Here, the initiators are characterised as the individuals who see and act on the link
between the company and arts organisation, rather than the individuals who see the need.
These individuals were not within the company‟s DMU unless it was a renewing
sponsorship; however initiators were very much a part of the decisions (see section 5.4).
Initiators were connected to the arts organisation, and had knowledge of the arts initiative as well as the company to which a request was made. This connection and knowledge appeared to allow them to make the link and open the door. Their role in terms of the process will be further discussed in section 6.5.
The role of the decider also varied from the literature in this study. Webster and Wind (1972b) propose that “deciders are those members of the organisation who have either formal or informal power to determine the final selection of suppliers” (p.79). The results identified deciders as the individuals who appeared to make the decision. This was at times the CCE, and at other times a CSM or CMM. In this sense, the study agrees with the literature that there were deciders who have either formal or informal power to decide. However, in many cases there was another layer of approval, within which the formal power to decide was held, should the decider have informal power. Although it would seem logical that this effect may be related to the size of the company, the two levels were found in both large and small companies.
The role within this second layer of approval was termed the “approvers.” The
approvers were consistently high-level executives or board members, who considered the recommendation provided to them. Approvers emerged in decisions in which the decider held the informal power to decide. Looking back to the literature, this suggests that the role of deciders may be divided into an informal role and formal role, the formal role
188
here being named “Approvers.” The identification of the approvers represents a contribution to the literature. This role is not noted in OBB literature, yet justification appears in this study to suggest dividing the role of deciders to present a more accurate picture of these decisions. To some extent this is alluded to in the philanthropy literature, with authors considering the effect of board composition on the level of giving (Bartkus et al., 2002; Wang & Coffey, 1992), however a direct acknowledgement of this second layer of decision has not been made. As well as bringing in the Approver role, this discussion implies that there may be an internal sales process, where the decision may have been largely made (by the deciders), but the approvers yet had to be convinced.
This will be discussed further in terms of the process (section 6.5).
6.3.4 Importance of the Advocate
A final category observed was that of an advocate, being the person who internally supported the investment to a greater extent than others. The results indicated this person possessed a higher level of experience and knowledge with the arts initiative, saw how it would benefit the company, and had the power to be influential. The advocate was seen as the key individual within the DMU who made the decision happen.
The existence of a “key individual” is acknowledged in sponsorship and philanthropy literature. Some authors note the potential for the CCE in particular to individually shape these decisions (Brammer et al., 2006; Cornwell & Maignan, 1998; LeClair & Gordon, 2000; Wang & Coffey, 1992; Werbel & Carter, 2002). While this study also found that the CCE often held the advocate role, at times the CSM or CMM was the advocate.
Therefore, the discussion will not focus on the position held by the individual, but the characteristics of the advocate.
Sponsorship and philanthropy literature particularly looking at relationships have noted the importance of having a key individual. For example, Ryan and Fahy (2003) observed a “champion of the sponsorship” (p.37). Olkkonen (2002) proposed “relationship
promoters” in arts sponsorships being “persons who act as translators between two different organisational fields, who understand both parties‟ goals and needs, and who try to find the balance in the cooperation” (p. 284). While the above authors are talking about the management of the relationship rather than the decision, the similarity is
189
evident, and this study is congruent with the suggestion that there is a need for a type of promoter or advocate.
Other authors have similarly proposed an advocate type role. In offering advice to companies wanting to develop strategic philanthropy, Craig Smith (1994) proposes that the company “empower a philanthropy czar”(p. 115). Authors in OBB have suggested key individuals, such as “policy entrepreneurs” (Drumwright, 1994), “gatekeepers”
(Pettigrew, 1975), “boundary role person” (Krapfel, 1985) and “linking pin” (Wind &
Robertson, 1982). Another area which shares similarity is the discussion of a “product champion” in the innovation literature (for example Howell & Higgins, 1990). In comparing the findings of this study with the roles noted above, similarities and differences emerge. These will be now be discussed.
Advocates in this study, were individuals who had the power or authority to hold influence, had more knowledge than others in the DMU concerning the investment, and had the enthusiasm and ability to generate excitement and a positive response within the company.
The idea of the advocate having power or authority suggests these individuals as gatekeepers, and in many cases their official roles involved this. Certainly for
CSM/CMM‟s, formally assigned the responsibility of considering sponsorship proposals, these individuals were gatekeepers first. The role in this sense is similar to that defined by Webster and Wind (1972b): “gatekeepers are group members who control the flow of information into the group … [they] exert their influence primarily at the stage of
identifying buying alternatives” (p.80). The main difference in this study was that the advocates did not identify alternatives, but identified the arts initiative as being one to consider. That is to say, in these decisions not all advocates were faced with a number of alternatives at one time, but made an initial yes (consider it) / no (eliminate it) decision for a single sponsorship. This reinforces the significance of this role and also highlights an important distinction in these decisions which will be revisited in section 6.5 dealing with the process.
Moving beyond the identification phase, Pettigrew (1975) noted that gatekeepers may play an important part in the evaluation process. Similarly, evident here was that the
190
advocate‟s influence went beyond the identification of potential within an investment, to play a significant role in the evaluation phase of the decisions.
An additional finding of the advocate role, and a rationale for taking the definition beyond that of a gatekeeper was that these individuals possessed a deeper understanding of the sponsorship than others in the DMU. As noted, they “get it”. The idea of “getting it” relates to the requirement of knowledge and understanding, noted as existing with champions (Ryan & Fahy, 2003), relationship promoters (Olkkonen, 2002) and
philanthropy czars (Smith, 1994). Similarly, Drumwright (1994) refers to expert power
“arising from extensive research [policy entrepreneurs] personally had done” (p. 37).
The idea of expert power is defined by Kohli (1989) as follows:
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. (p.52)
This definition of expert power coincides with findings that advocates had more
knowledge than others. It further suggests that others may comply because they believed in the knowledge of this advocate/expert. It is therefore suggested that the advocates in these decisions were the individuals who possessed expert power.
Returning to the idea of knowledge, this study found that the advocate‟s knowledge was often unrelated to their business experience, but may have been personal knowledge built through experience with the artform. This is reminiscent of suggestions made by authors (Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Jones, 2007) that personal values and experiences may influence business decisions. This further suggests that advocates may or may not get knowledge directly from a proposal, but will bring their background and experiences into these decisions.
The final characteristic noted of advocates was that they were able to create enthusiasm within the organisation. Again, this moves the role beyond the idea of a gatekeeper, and beyond the possession of knowledge. The ability to generate enthusiasm suggests the