180 nassmpresentationken t2007

Consumer Reactions to Strategic Philanthropy in the Sport Industry: 

Consumer Reactions to Strategic Philanthropy in the Sport Industry

Definitions: 

Definitions Corporate philanthropy – “…encompasses activities ranging from public relations, advertising, promoting a company’s image or brand through cause-marketing, or other high profile sponsorship” (Porter & Kramer, 2002, p. 92). Strategic Philanthropy – Has been conceptualized as being at the opposite end of the corporate philanthropy continuum from altruism – which is giving without concern for reward (Burlingame & Frishkoff, 1996).

The Sport Industry: 

The Sport Industry Leagues, Teams, Players FIFA Reebok, Nike NHL, PGA Tour Foundations

4 Prevailing Justifications for CSR: 

4 Prevailing Justifications for CSR Moral Obligation Sustainability License To Operate Reputation Based on broad aspirations that provide little direction for company actions

Convergence of InterestsPorter & Kramer (2002): 

Convergence of Interests Porter & Kramer (2002) Pure Philanthropy Pure Business Social Benefit Economic Benefit Combined Social & Economic Benefit

Strategic PhilanthropyClassifications: 

Strategic Philanthropy Classifications Proactive Philanthropy: Increase visibility and enhance corporate image - non responsive. Reactive Philanthropy: Reacting to a negative event likely to involve some level of negative affect. General vs. Directed

Rationale for the Study: 

Rationale for the Study Ricks (2005) framework required further empirical assessment Extend for the sport industry Focus on organizational level perceptions (as opposed to brand level)

Methods: 

Methods N = 424, undergraduate students. 246 male / 178 female; Age: 17 – 33 (M = 21) Observed Power (.979) Experimental Design: Survey administered during first day of class. How much influence did the manipulations have on the respondents perception of the DV’s? Importance of philanthropy type on the DV’s? Press Releases Manipulation Check

Manipulations: 

Manipulations Time Activity Condition – Proactive Response – Reactive

Press Release: 

Press Release General Information Financial Overview CSR Activity Philanthropy Recent News/Activity

What did we expect?: 

What did we expect? Proactive/Directed would have the most positive influence on the outcomes Both proactive dimensions would be more positive than the reactive conditions Any philanthropy would be better than none

What did we find?: 

What did we find? Proactive Philanthropy – Overall the respondents demonstrated positive attitude toward proactive philanthropy across all cells (M = 5.82) Reactive Philanthropy – Overall the respondents attitude toward reactive philanthropy was lower than the proactive condition across all cells (M = 4.64) General: M = 5.14 Directed: M = 4.37

What did we find?: 

What did we find? Expected: Proactive/Directed would have the most positive influence on the outcomes Found: Proactive/General philanthropy was clearly the highest for both outcomes Reputation (M = 5.55) Patronage (M = 4.52)

What did we find?: 

What did we find? Expected: Both proactive dimensions would be more positive than the reactive conditions Found: Only General/Proactive philanthropy scored higher than the reactive conditions

What did we find?: 

What did we find? Expected: Any philanthropy would be better than none Found: Proactive/General condition produced higher outcome scores, but comparison (no philanthropy) condition was higher than all others.

Discussion : 

Discussion Mixed support for the assertion that corporate philanthropy has a positive affect on reputation and patronage intentions Proactive Philanthropy – supported higher evaluations than those found in the reactive condition Directed Proactive – did not support higher DV evaluations than those in the general condition

Discussion: 

Discussion “Overcommercialization” (Polansky & Wood, 2001) Consumer Backlash (Drumwright, 1996; Osterhus, 1997) Company Assessments Ricks (2005) Typology