Stakeholder status in the identification, prioritization and management of college athletic donors

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to examine how athletic fundraising managers perceive status and seek to use status to identify, prioritize and manage stakeholders within college athletics.Design/methodology/approachTo test this purpose, the researchers use the Gioia methodology to interview 19 college athletic department fundraising officers within National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) institutions. Following interviews, the data were analyzed by the researchers and structured within a first-order and second-order concept designation.FindingsInterviews show that status is an effective concept for explaining how athletic fundraisers identify and prioritize donors. Officers relied on economic (capacity) and social (passion and interest) factors to rank order donors. The results also show that athletic departments use status to manage stakeholders by rewarding their giving and escalating their commitment. Status is used in four strategies to manage the donor hierarchy: benefits, recognition, membership and access. Each strategy highlighted exclusivity and rank order.Originality/valueThere is a need to empirically test the application of status within the stakeholder theory context. These findings also contribute to the evolution of stakeholder management beyond the use of social identity theory or stakeholder salience. It helps our understanding of the evolving relationship between fundraiser and donor by recognizing the importance of capacity, passion and interests when identifying and prioritizing donors. Further, status-markers such as exclusive benefits, recognition, membership and access can be used to manage donors toward the organization's goals.

Athletic Fundraising: An In-depth Analysis of the Challenges Faced and Strategies Utilized in the NCAA Division II Athletic Landscape

“…Freeman argued that organizations must create as much value as possible for these stakeholders because they can influence strategic direction and also be influenced by the organization. There is a history of scholars applying stakeholder theory within the sport management field as well as athletic fundraising (Covell, 2004(Covell, , 2005Huml & Cintron, 2021;Steadland, 2015;Welty Peachey & Bruening, 2011). Athletic departments are multi-level organizations comprised of numerous stakeholders (athletic directors, chancellors, coaches, and donors) with influence, both internally and externally.…”

“…Furthermore, participants in the study did not expect their donations to lead to more on-field victories. Huml and Cintron (2021) examined perceived status by fundraisers as they identify, manage, and prioritize their stakeholders, finding that status was a useful tool for donor management. Walker (2015) examined athletic department donations the year following an institution's participation in the NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Final Four and major college football bowl games over a 10-year period (2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011).…”

“…This study was guided by the following research questions, which were motivated by the literature on athletic fundraising and stakeholder theory (Covell, 2004(Covell, , 2005Huml & Cintron, 2021;Popp et al, 2016;Steadland, 2015):…”

Investigating Student-Donor Memberships Within Collegiate Athletics

“…Further, Stinson and Howard (2010b) found that nearly three-quarters of the donors that give charitable donations up to $5,000 do so because that is the minimum amount that they can give to still be able to receive the primary seat locations they desire. For purchasing tickets to college athletic events, multiple studies have presented a relationship exiting between a donor's charitable gift and their preferred season ticket seating options (Coughlin & Erekson, 1984;Mahony, Gladden, & Funk, 2003;Humphreys & Mondello, 2007;Huml, Brown, & Bergman, 2020;Huml & Cintron, 2021). This situation has been shown to operate as case of supply and demand, meaning that for successful athletic programs, the desire individuals have for the best seats is greater than the available seat options that facilities have, thus resulting in donors being required to make large donations to secure these prime locations (Coughlin & Erekson, 1984;Mahony, Gladden, & Funk, 2003;Humphreys & Mondello, 2007).…”

“…While prior research has acknowledged the connection between donor motivations and fan identification (Huml, Brown, & Bergman, 2020;Huml & Cintron, 2021), a dearth of empirical examination has been conducted on student-donor programs. Therefore, the value in this study rests in its key findings, which convey the details on the essential elements necessary for constructing a student-donor membership.…”