Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Sport MarHetlng Quarterly, 2005,14,18-30, © 2005 West Virginia University
Toward a Better Understanding ofCollege Athletic Donors: What Are thePrimary Motives?
James M. Gladden, Daniel F. Mahony, Artemisia Apostolopoulou
Abstract
The purpose of the current paper is to help improveour understanding of v hy people donate money toathletic support groups, which motivations are mostprevalent among donors, and how motivations differacross three schools. Four thousand one hundred andthirty-seven responses (from 1,579 athletic supportgroup donors at three universities) to an open-endedquestion about donor motivation were content ana-lyzed. Results suggest that primary motives includesupporting and improving the athletic program, receiv-ing tickets, helping student-athletes, deriving entertain-ment and enjoyment, supporting and promoting theuniversity (non-athletic programs), receiving member-ship benefits, repaying past benefits received, helpingand enhancing the community, and psychologicalcommitment. Comparisons to past research efforts(and comparisons among the three schools) are dis-cussed and directions for future research are offered.
IntroductionAccording to the American Association of
Fundraising Counsel (AARFC), an estimated $203 bil-lion was donated to charities in the United States in2000 (American Association of Fundraising Counsel,
James M. Gladden, PhD, is an associate professor andgraduate program director in the Department of SportManagement at the University of Massachusetts. Hisresearch interests are sport brand management and col-lege athletic marketing.
Daniel F. Mahony, PhD, is an assistant universityprovost at the University of Louisville. His research inter-ests include sport consumer behavior and issues in inter-collegiate athletics.
Artemisia Apostolopoulou, PhD, is an assistant profes-sor of sport management at Bowling Green StateUniversity. Her research interests include brand extensionstrategies, sponsorship, and endorsement issues.
"The need for increased sophistication in fundrais-ing efforts is driven by the challenges associated
with soliciting charitable donations."
2001). Of this extremely large figure, $28.2 billion or13.9% of this charitable giving was targeted to educa-tion (American Association of Fundraising Counsel,2001). While the monies generated by athletic supportgroups or booster clubs are usually only a fraction of thelarger university's development (i.e., fundraising) oper-ation (Clotfeller, 2001), athletic fundraising accountsfor 18% of the total revenue generated by NCAADivision I-A athletic departments (Fulks, 2002).Further, athletic fundraising is often looked to as oneof the revenue streams that can still be grown or devel-oped within a college athletic department (Walker,1994). In fact, donations represented only 5% of thetotal revenue in the 1960s (Howard & Crompton,1995), well below the 18% contributed today. Thus, ina time when more than one-half of all Division I col-lege and university athletic departments run a deficit,and the average deficit for these schools is $3.3 million(Suggs, 2000), one can argue that furthering an under-standing of why people donate to athletic supportgroups is important.
Over the past 20 years, significant research effortshave been undertaken to examine college athleticfundraising. Early studies examined the impact of ath-letic success on donations to both the general universi-ty and the school's athletic department (Brooker &Klastorin, 1981; Sigelman & Bookheimer, 1983;Sigelman 8c Carter, 1979). More recently, and consis-tent with a research trend in the general fundraisingliterature (Cermak, File, & Prince, 1994; Harvey, 1990),research on athletic fundraising has attempted to delvedeeper and identify the motives underlying the athleticdonor's decision to give to an athletic department'sfundraising operation (Billing, Holt, & Smith, 1985;Mahony, Gladden, & Funk, 2003; Staurowsky,
18 Volume 14 • Number 1 • 2005 • Sport Marhetlng Quarterly
Parkhouse, & Sachs, 1996; Verner, Hecht, & Fansler,1998). These studies have resulted in scales to measureathletic donor motivations. However, these studies gen-erally did not: (a) utilize extensive open-ended datafrom actual donors; or (b) explore the prevalence ofeach individual donor motive. The goal of the currentstudy is to fill in these gaps in the literature.
Challenges Facing Athletic Fundraising
The need for increased sophistication in fundraisingefforts is driven by the challenges associated with solic-iting charitable donations. As it relates to athleticfundraising in the United States, at least four very for-midable challenges exist. First, starting in 2001, the firsteconomic downturn in more than a decade occurred,which would naturally cause people to fiarther scruti-nize discretionary expenditures. Second, there areapproximately 600,000 charitable organizations in theUS (Kelly, 1997). Given this volume of potential
"However, as is frequently the case, a school'steams may experience a periodic or long-term
downturn in fortunes that could cause decreaseddemand for tickets. In this case, donations (as wellas gate receipts) for that particular program gener-
ally suffer due to decreased demand."
opportunities, it can be argued that competitionamong charitable organizations is quite significant.Sargeant (2001) found that 26% of all "lapsed" donors(i.e., people that once gave to a charity but no longerdo) in the United Kingdom stopped giving to onecharity because they felt other causes were more wor-thy. A third challenge associated with athletic fundrais-ing is that donors do not exhibit a regular habit ofgiving to educational institutions and the situationdoes not appear to be improving. In Clotfeller's (2001)analysis of data from 14 selective colleges and universi-ties (generated in the College and Beyond Survey), hefound that the percentage of donors giving money toan educational institution every year for five years was27.5% among people who graduated in 1951, but wasonly 12.6% among people who graduated in 1976.
The fourth and final challenge is that athleticfundraising is motivated by a desire to attain priorityseating (Hall & Mahony, 1997; Mahony et al., 2003).People "donate" money to an athletic support group inorder to receive priority points that determine both theability to purchase season tickets and the location ofthose tickets for a school's athletic contests. For schoolswith a consistently successful team, the athletic supportgroup benefits from people's desire to have seatsand/or have good seats for those games (Hall &
Mahony, 1997). However, as is frequently the case, aschool's teams may experience a periodic or long-termdownturn in fortunes that could cause decreaseddemand for tickets. In this case, donations (as well asgate receipts) for that particular program generally suf-fer due to decreased demand.
Understanding Donor Motivations
According to Schervish (1997), there are now a"litany of weD-documented factors that appear tomotivate charitable giving" (p. I l l ) in the mainstreamfundraising literature. The knowledge of such factors isattributable to the efforts of researchers who have iden-tified donor motivations as a means of creating a toolto better segment donors and increases the sophistica-tion of the marketing to donors (Harvey, 1990; Cermaket al., 1994). In perhaps the most comprehensive seg-mentation effort to date. Prince and File (1994) pub-lished the Seven Faces of Philanthropy: A New Approachto Major Donors, a four-phase research protocol withaffluent donors that identified seven distinct types ofdonors: communitarians (focus on community bene-fits), devout (feel religious need to give), investors(focus on benefits of giving to donor), socialites (focuson socializing benefits), altruists (giving is a responsi-bility), repayer (focus on giving back), and dynasts(giving is a family tradition).
Athletic Donor MotivationsWhile work such as Prince and File's (1994) is suc-
cessfiilly moving along research in other areas offundraising, research on athletic fiindraising is stilldeveloping. Previous research on intercollegiatefundraising has documented that donor behavior isinfluenced by priority seating (Hammersmith, 1985;Isherwood, 1986), parking privileges (Isherwood,1986), special recognition (Isherwood, 1986), socialevents (Isherwood, 1986), improving the quality andimage of the athletic program (Comstock, 1988;Hammersmith, 1985; Webb, 1989), promoting theimage of the university and the state (Hammersmith,1985), and contributing to the academic success of stu-dent athletes (Comstock, 1988). However, many ofthese studies focused on only a few potential motiva-tions rather than attempting to develop a broaderunderstanding of the reasons that donors give moneyto athletic support groups. Further, none of these stud-ies elicited in-depth open-ended feedback fromdonors.
To date, there have been four studies that specificallyexamined a broad range of donor motivations. Billinget al. (1985) created the Athletics ContributionsQuestionnaire (hereafter referred to as the ACQ). TheACQ identified four potential motives for giving to
Volume 14 • Number 1 • 2005 • Sport MarHeting Quarterly 19
attitetic support groups: philanthropic (giving to pro-vide scholarships), social (giving so that games can beattended with family and friends), success (of the ath-letic program), and benefits (such as parking and pri-ority points for tickets that are tied to donations).
Staurowsky et al. (1996) built on the efforts of Billinget al. (1985) in creating the Athletics ContributionsQuestionnaire Revised Edition II (ACQUIRE II) scale.ACQUIRE II incorporated the four motives from theBilling et al. study (1985) and added two new motives,curiosity (stemming from the donor's interest in ath-letics and the needs associated with athletics) andpower (giving to have an influence over athleticdepartment operations). Factor analysis of the itemsgenerated for ACQUIRE II led to the elimination ofthe curiosity construct and the expansion of the suc-cess construct to include: (a) Success I, which wasrelated to supporting the success of the school; and (b)Success II, which was related to the impact of the ath-letic program on the state and past participation inintercollegiate athletics.
Verner et al. (1998) attempted to further extend theunderstanding of donor motivations with the creationof the Motivation of Athletic Donors (MAD-I) instru-ment. Utilizing a four-phase research process, MAD-Iincorporated concepts from previous studies in identi-fying 11 unique donor motivations: participating insecondary events (desire to participate in events onlyfor donors), pubhc recognition (desire for pubhcrecognition from the organization), giving of time andenergy (desire to be involved beyond a monetary con-tribution), access to inside information (desire forinformation not given to non-donors), priority treat-ment (desire for special benefits), philanthropy (desireto assist in education of athletes), collaboration (desireto work with others toward a common goal), create(desire to bring something new to the athletic pro-gram), change (desire to improve or modify some-thing), curiosity (desire to be involved with decisionmaking), and power (desire to have an affect on deci-sion making).
While these studies provide some very importantand instructive findings, some limitations do exist.Interestingly, Verner et al. (1998) did not include itemsrelated to the success of the athletic program or pro-
Another limitation to prior research is the significantheterogeneity relating to donor motives could be thatthere is significant heterogeneity among schools.Colleges and universities can differ along a variety ofdimensions, including public versus private, CarnegieResearch I or not, and commuter versus on-campusstudent population. Prior research supports thisnotion. Rhoads and Gerking (2000) found thatCarnegie Research I schools that were highly selectivein the admissions process tended to generate the high-est levels of donations. In fact, in their research,Rhoads and Gerking used a fixed effects model to con-trol for the heterogeneity that they found among uni-
"Among the variety of program aspects that donorssought to support and/or improve were: athletic
programs, coaches, facilities, recruiting, and con-ference membership. Additionally, a significant
number of respondents suggested they were givingto help the department and/or specific programs
achieve success in competition."
versities. Additionally, Harrison, Mitchell, and Peterson(1995) found that schools with higher levels of part-time students experienced lower levels of donations.
Based on these limitations, Mahony et al. (2003)developed an instrument that included 12 differentfactors thought to motivate donations to athletic sup-port groups. Some of these constructs were examinedin prior research (philanthropic, social, benefits, andsuccess). The benefit construct was separated into threedifferent constructs - priority seating for football, pri-ority seating for men's basketball, and businessenhancement - because it was argued that the relativeaffect of each of these motives on individual donorscould be different. For example, priority seating forfootball could be more important for SoutheasternConference members that regularly compete for bids topremier bowl games and national championships thanit would be for Conference USA members that do notexperience the same level of success in football. Basedon Staurowsky et al's (1996) contention that successcould be multi-dimensional, Mahony et al. (2003)identified four success factors: (a) past success andimage, (b) current success of the program, (c) the
motion of the school and/or community in their study, affect of a successful program on the university, andeven though these motives had been found to be rele-vant in prior research. Additionally, as Hall andMahony (1997) argued, the tie between the donor andthe university (not just the athletic department) couldrepresent an important motivation for donating.Similarly, a donor could be motivated to donate by apsychological commitment to an athletic program orschool (Mahony, Madrigal, & Howard, 2000).
(d) the affect of a successful program on the communi-ty. Consistent with some of the aforementioned limita-tions, Mahony et al. (2003) also examined some newmotivations, including nostalgia and psychologicalcommitment.
Beyond the fact that it built on past research as wellas expanding the scope of dimensions examined,Mahony et al. (2003) offered several other unique con-
20 Volume 14 • Number 1 • 2005 • Sport MarHetlng Quarterly
tributions. First, it became the first study in the sportliterature to examine the relationship between a donormotivation scale and actual donor behavior (amountdonated) finding five of the factors related to theamount donated. Secondly, the Mahony et al. studyexamined a large sample from different schools and assuch was able to actually compare and identify differ-ences in motivations between schools. However, therewere some limitations with the Mahony et al. research.Perhaps most notably, the regression analyses account-ed for less than 20% of the variance at each of theschools, suggesting a variety of motivational factorsmay exist that have not been uncovered, or that thefactors uncovered need further refinement. Thus, it canbe argued that there is still a lack of a commonlyaccepted set of motives that affect donations to athleticsupport groups.
Purpose of the StudyIn order to further the understanding of donor
motives, this research employed an open-ended ques-tion to solicit feedback from respondents on why theydonate to athletic support groups. Rather than directlyimposing scale questions on respondents, this researchsought feedback from respondents in their own terms.
Table fSummary of Institutions Surveyed
In doing so, the aim was to supplement the existingknowledge on donor motives. The data also allowedthe authors to make some determinations regardingwhich motives were most prevalent. Thus, the purposeof this study was threefold:
Add to the understanding of the variety ofreasons people give to athletic support groups;Assess which motives are most prevalent ininftuencing the decision to donate to athleticsupport groups; andGompare the motives across differentuniversities.
MethodologyIn order to generate a broad base of responses, sur-
veys were sent to donors at three Division I institu-tions. The institutions were selected based on theirgeographic location within the US, the location of thecampus (i.e., urban vs. rural), conference membership,which sport(s) was the most important to the genera-tion of revenue, whether donors were alumni of theschool, and the distance donors lived from the school.Schools were also selected based on their willingness tohave their donor base surveyed. Table 1 presents adescription of each school based on the factors listed
Area of country
School location
Primary sport
Gonference type
% of respondents that werealumni of the institution
% of respondents that were footballseason ticket holders
% of respondents that were men'sbasketball season ticket holders
Mean # of miles that respondentslived from campus
% of respondents that lived within25 miles of campus
% of respondents that lived morethan 250 miles from campus
School A
West
Urban
Men's basketballand football
Mid-major
57.4%
64.3%
52.9%
31.9
82.1%
3.0%
SchoolB
Midwest
Urban commuter
Men's basketball
Major Men's BballMid-Major Football
63.4%
62.8%
71.1%
28.4
85.1%
3.0%
School G
Southeast
Small college town
Football
Major
88.5%
99.7%
96.1%
181.4
11.5%
62.2%
Volume 14 • Number 1 • 2005 • Sport MarHetlng Quarterly 21
Sam
ple
Item
crip
tion
Des
1
Dim
en
tea
rt
"Be
a p
art
ofra
ct
co(U
som
>
allo
v
. *^
IU
ing
beca
u
; 3
1 i' ON^ H
^ §: Q
IU
^ ^
• %
ion
(A
ffili
at
ty p
rogr
ama
qual
iiit
h"A
ssoc
iati
on'
c'bb
elon
eans
o
Brt
IHfli
1 ot
h(
• ^
'1
soci
aliz
ean
d
" I U
peop
]ep
artm
ent
hlet
ic d
.4H
•B
"Ass
ocia
te w
i
do"
is w
hat
we
4—)
2bO
"It
is t
he t
hin
Vi
bC
jivi
n
rri
nse
thi
IUCO
ativ
e,
QJ
a.
ITt
onin
g is
a m
Giv
i
4 H
'C
• ^
l.tH
;go
od
Alt
ruis
on-p
rofi
t"e
to a
ngi
v"I
mp
ort
ant
t<ik
e
Vi
Vi
IH
• ^
io
1—)
> ^
spon
sibi
lia
re;
1994
)
S
(Pri
nce
out"
"; "
To
help
all w
ay'
BCOOJ
"Hel
p i
n so
m
„ .
o
"dui
"To
cont
ribu
i
e
rogr
a'L
ove
the
pp
ort
s";'
Vi
"Lov
e [s
choo
lina
lor
att
ii
c
litm
e
g
com
rt
: be
caus
e
O
itm
e:G
omm
titr
ibut
c
urt
"Pro
ud t
o be
univ
er:
o
ram
(
bO
OJ
tOW
i
(00
o
1
riga
l, <
(Mah
oi
tion
to
[cit
^re
cogn
ii
-a
"Bri
ng p
rid
e;
) H
o<.&
o
s.
dons
hi
IH
OJ
G
• bus
1.4—t
-a
ing
is g
ooi
Giv
i
OJCO
IUCO
OJ
Bo
bo
in:
Doi
TO
3jran
Com
m
"coai
t loc
al c
ausi
5upp
or1
"Val
ue t
o st
atm
mu
n
8
eth
e
4 H
rom
(
a,^
com
mun
ith
ei19
94)
(Pri
nce
wn"
tick
et i
n to
y sh
ow/
"I l
ive
her
e";'
'g4 ^
"Fam
ily
tra
diB
par
tOJ
thle
tic
IU
2
O
ao
lily
trad
iti
ePH
CO
diti
2
irtCO
good
bO
:Do
iD
ynas
t
ids"
IH
t2
I
"Han
d t
icke
ts19
94)
aj"
OJ
"cO+JIH
o
"Enj
oy t
eam
i
CO
prov
6
ific
tea
(U
hes
f
1<2
; be
caus
e
'6
ent
S
/enj
oy
)UIU
l
tnOJ
C
EPU9JJ1
prim
aril
y a
orts
we
o
"Enj
oy t
he t
w
;_,I + H
OJ
3
SO i
ncl
[lent.
B
"1I H
O
rtai
nmen
g
R
Otb
alj"
;"L
ov
efo
e sp
orti
leg
O
"Enj
oy/l
ove
c
4->IH
o
cula
r s
I H
Q
ion
f
rt
lter
est
orto
lr
OJ
eri
IS gr
eat
cam
arad
prov
ide
"Att
endi
ng g
a
T3
rtco"OJ
O
tion
s, I
IDE.
inte
r>^
fam
i]
I H
o
ng a
llow
sG
ivi
CO
a
Fam
ily
'e
wit
hin
ou
r fa
i
i-H
• spe
ndlo
ws
lilt
.;^*
itio
ns t
o I
trad
•am
ily"
ds a
nd i
g.'H
"Bei
ng w
ith
fir
en
io
;rs (
s]I
ra:
wit
h fa
irti
me
ram
s"
So.1
1oobO
Q
bO
;ivi
y ar
e g
OJ
Iike
1
"o3
OJ
ng b
ecau
jG
ivi
ause
Goo
d c
R
OJ
lal c
om
pon
ucat
ion
-oOJ
C
"Ath
letic
s as
a
co
e -
or g
iv
Vi
Uhl
etes
"d
ent-
atst
u"H
elp/
supp
or
co"
toI H
rtO
t
3 pr
ovi
4>J
11•s.c
incl
udes
Thi
sth
lete
s
rt4H
uden
Hel
p st
i
R
o
as p
eisu
cces
sful
lete
s be
"Hel
p s
tude
n!
I H
(2COOJ
rtun
:
oCl-
ing
op]
rs
, pro
A
CO
C
ing
stud
eihe
lprs
hip
s"ol
a
CO
c
1«
tude
nt
1".3
duca
IU
:es,
ent-
athl
eist
udid
ents
""E
duca
tion
fo
II
II
II
Oi €
il22 Volume 14 • Number 1 • 2005 • Sport MarHetlng Quarterly
1
pie
Sam
ana
HI
111
Cat
egor
ytlo
n
5iS
Cla
ss
iple
Ite
mri
ptio
n
Q
o
lens
i
Q
ceiv
e th
e ne
ws]
-
ets
tic• t
han
s ot
hei
.%OJ
: a
dono
r re
15
60
'.B
1tnOJ
-T3
also
incl
bene
fits
(sh
ipM
embe
r
)A3
ial
elus
ion
in s
pec
roup
.
60
t:
supp
o;h
letic
CO
OJ
-3
iber
ship
in
jgh
mem
thro
i
i
'ile
rinc
e &
Fbr
th b
y Pi
to
1
"co
a
:ep
park
ing
stai
-
otntn
and
ane
fits
X de
duct
ion"
M
park
ing
beili
ties.
incl
udes
Thi
s
<i2_o
CO3iD3J
6
ppor
t m
y al
ma
(5
n an
d
.2- 1IJIJSU
I
om a
nte
dfr
: ha
s be
nefi
eone
thai
Som
n re
turn
ng g
ood
iD
oiay
er:
Rep
S
' ^CO
JO"o
j j
• . - ;
OJ
c
irm
er a
thle
te o
i
os
ion.
?
le i
nst
port
tl0
sup
:)bl
igat
ion
tfe
els
an (
now
e, 1
994)
nee
I(P
ri
"ooJ2
[sc
lildr
en a
ttend
ii
(J
OJ
160
: with
fri
ends
a
-
vide
s a
OH
luse
itig
bec
agi
vir
al n
etw
ork.
tes
a so
ciC
rea
is fu
nin
g go
od:D
oia
lite
Soci
"t/sO H
: |
c.2H
cial
gat
heri
ngs
-
) the
rs.
vith
cio
cial
izin
g ^
brm
for
<pl
atf
e, 1
994)
P H
nee
I(P
ri
1-t
-oeCOCOOJ
c60
Ctu
O
its o
f fr
iend
s w
ethe
r"1—1 o
CO
60
LH
O H
leti
omot
e st
rong
i
1-,OH-
teth
e
o
2
o
buil
d.\in
d.0
supp
ort,
fng
to h
el]
Giv
ii
I
rogr
OH
.y
the
athl
eim
prov
ean
dpo
rtSu
p
loOJ
. * H
"H.H
oO H
ovid
e fi
nanc
ial
1.HOH3
leci
fic
O H
tioni
n
OJ
1
am. T
his
inlie
pro
gr
'In
prog
ram
ific
spor
tsp
ec(a
ncgr
am
2OH
with
60
.g
is h
elp
incl
ud(
also
iac
hes.
Thi
sts
and
CO
spor
:ess
a3tn
<H.H
O
aint
ain
high
le'
ng
to
"oj
andh
)men
t;eq
uii
;iliti
es, a
ndli
ting
, fa(
riva
lsre
cri
beat
OJ
"SM-,O(U
Oi•—1
QJ
•^-^
W>
*to
elp
the
univ
ersi
3
o
2ol
, or
Isc
hop
supp
ort
atig
to h
el]
Giv
ii)n
of
the
prom
otic
and
port
Sup
lletic
pro
gram
1
colL
sC
itio
O
D' a>
u<
mtr
ibut
e to
hij
3
;t se
ason
tic
ket
O
2t t
icke
t
60
«5
1 tic
ket
2
cal
ving
aro
u
60C
IB
I
ted
rien
ice
t-oT
id;e
p se
ason
tic
k(l/
mai
nt;
*.H
*ss°
"hav
e:k
ets.
jet b
ette
r ti<
ticke
ts, £
keep
"tn4 - *
4.H
;tb;
iori
ty f
or b
ask(
imes
-§:s
leve
l, at
teri
ty p
oint
prio
i
oCOo
abov
efi
t the
1 not
>-,
4.Hon
s th
atR
eas
tn
OOJ
CO
OJ
i
o
1
opro
p
iOJ
OJ
e to
o va
jb
)ai
vmg
'So
liy r
easo
nse
not
rea
JB (D
Volume 14 • Number 1 • 2005 • Sport MarHeting Quarterly 23
above as well as the percentage of donors that werefootball and men's basketball season ticket holders.Based on the findings of Rhoads and Gerking (2000),differences were expected between schools whose pri-mary sport was football versus schools whose primarysport was basketball. In selecting schools that were andwere not members of major athletic conferences, wesought to examine differences that may exist based onthe prestige of the conference. In defining schools, wetermed schools participating in major conferences asones where the conference received bids to major bowlgames in football or where they received multiple bidsto the NCAA tournament in men's basketball. In con-trast, mid-major conferences were ones where membersdid not receive bids to the major bowl games in foot-ball and typically only received one, or at most two,bids to the NCAA men's basketball tournament.
"A desire to help student-athletes was the thirdmost frequently identified athletic donor motiva-tion, with 29.7% of respondents citing it as a pri-mary motive. Responses in this category tended tofocus on providing educational opportunities forstudent-athletes, providing scholarships for stu-
dent-athletes, and providing some form of educa-tional assistance."
Participation in the survey was voluntary and a sepa-rate letter indicating the participant's rights wasincluded. A university Human Subjects ReviewCommittee approved both the letter and the question-naire. Additionally, each school's agreement to partici-pate in the study was contingent upon maintainingtheir anonymity in the reporting of the research.Therefore, hereafter the schools will be referred to asSchool A, School B, and School C. The researchers sug-gested a minimum sample size necessary for the study,but allowed schools to survey more donors if they sodesired. The schools printed and mailed the surveys totheir respective donor bases, thus protecting the confi-dentiality of the donors. A total of 1,781 surveys werereturned from donors at the three institutions, with935 received from School A (19% response rate), 405received from School B (41% response rate) and 441received from School C (45% response rate). Theresponse rate at both Schools B and C was good. Whilethe response rate at School A was lower, there were alarge number of responses received from School A. Afollow-up mailing was not possible due to limitedfunding available for this study.
InstrumentBecause prior research relied heavily on quantitative
scale-based methods, we decided to solicit open-ended
feedback from donors on why they give to athletic sup-port groups. By doing so, the goal was to broaden thetypes of data collected with respect to athletic donormotivations such that comparisons to prior researchcould be undertaken. Within a larger, more quantita-tive-based survey instrument, respondents were askedto write-in the three most important reasons why theygive to an athletic support group. Three separate lineswere provided to accommodate the respondent notingthree different motivations. Across the three schools,1,579 of the 1,781 respondents who completed the sur-vey entered at least one response to the question. Thisgroup of 1,579 respondents served as the basis for thefollowing analysis. Eight hundred and six of the 1,579respondents were at School A, 362 were at School B,and 411 were at School C. As evidenced by the 4,137different responses, most of the respondents offeredmore than one motivation for giving.
Data AnalysisThe open-ended data was content analyzed in accor-
dance with the standards set forth by Weber (1990).First, the recording unit was defined as the entirethought offered by each respondent on a given lineprovided within the survey. Second, categories wereidentified based on the literature review presented atthe beginning of this paper. Categories were gleanedfrom past research on athletic support groups as wellas the research conducted by Prince and File (1994)associated with the "Seven Faces" study. Categorieswere deemed to be mutually exclusive. In some cases,the actual entry had to be separated because two (orthree) different themes emerged within one sentence.In accordance with Weber (1990), categories ofresponses were created based on careful reviews of thedata by one of the principal investigators. In all, 16 cat-egories were identified for inclusion. These categories,a definition of the category, and a sample responsewithin the category are presented in Table 2. The mis-cellaneous category captured responses that were eithertoo ambiguous to code or responses that were irrele-vant to the question asked. Following the developmentand definition of categories, two independent coderscategorized all 4,137 responses. Initial intercoder relia-bility was 88.3%. In an effort to improve the intercoderreliability, definitions for each category were furtherdeveloped and the items where disagreement occurredwere recoded. The second coding resulted in an inter-coder reliability of 96.5%.
Results
Table 3 presents the overall incidence of occurrencefor each of the categories of response. Of the 16response categories, more than 20% of respondents
24 Volume 14 • Number 1 • 2005 • Sport Martfettng Quarterty
mentioned five. Four additional response categorieswere mentioned by at least 20% of respondents at oneof the schools. Given that one of the purposes of thisstudy was to understand which athletic donor motiva-tions were most prevalent, these nine categories are thefocal point for the remainder of this paper.
of all respondents cited ticket benefits as a primarymotivation for giving. Responses in this category mostoften referred to the link between donations and theability to buy season tickets, keep season tickets, andimprove the seat location of season tickets.Additionally, a number of respondents at all three
"In addition to indicating that some factors from prior research may not be as strong as originallythought, this research helped add to the understanding of what motivations are salient. Strong support
was found for the importance of supporting and improving the athletic program."
The desire to support and improve the athletic pro-gram was the most often mentioned motivational fac-tor (by 61.8% of all respondents). Additionally, it wasthe most often identified motive at Schools A and C.Among the variety of program aspects that donorssought to support and/or improve were athletic pro-grams, coaches, facilities, recruiting, and conferencemembership. Additionally, a significant number ofrespondents suggested they were giving to help thedepartment and/or specific programs achieve successin competition. The second most often cited motivewas the desire to receive ticket-oriented benefits(49.8% of all respondents). This motivation appearedto be particularly important at School B, where 84.0%
TablesFrequency or Category Occurrence: Overall and By School
schools mentioned the link between donations and theability to generate priority points, which are then usedto purchase season tickets. Beyond these general trends,a more specific trend emerged at School B. Of the 304respondents who indicated ticket benefits was a pri-mary motive, 75 (24.7%) indicated at least some feel-ing they were "forced" to provide a donation. In fact,such negative terms as "extortion," "coercion," "must,"and "told to" emerged in respondent comments to theopen-ended question.
A desire to help student-athletes was the third mostfrequently identified athletic donor motivation, with29.7% of respondents citing it as a primary motive.Responses in this category tended to focus on provid-
Support and improve the athletic program
Ticket-oriented
Help student-athletes
Enter tainment/enj oyment
Support and promote the university
Membership benefits (investor)
Repayer (doing good in return)
Communitarian (doing good makes sense forthe community)
Commitment
Socialite (doing good is fun)
Affiliation
Family needs
Altruist (doing good feels rigbt)
Good cause
Dynast (doing good is a family tradition)
Miscellaneous
Total(N = 1,579)
61.8%
49.8%
29.7%
28.2%
21.7%
15.7%
14.8%
14.4%
11.5%
5.0%
3.8%
3.5%
2.2%
1.6%
0.4%
3.3%
School A(N = 806)
48.5%
42.1%
36.2%
38.7%
20.7%
8.3%
14.1%
22.0%
5.6%
6.1%
3.1%
4.6%
2.8%
2.4%
0.2%
3.3%
School B(N = 362)
61.9%
84.0%
14.1%
10.5%
15.7%
9.1%
10.2%
11.0%
11.0%
1.0%
2.5%
2.5%
0.8%
1.1%
0.6%
2.8%
School C(N = 411)
87.8%
35.0%
29.7%
18.0%
29.0%
36.0%
20.2%
2.7%
23.6%
4.9%
6.8%
2.4%
3.9%
0.5%
. 0.5%
3.6%
Volume 14 • Number 1 • 2005 • Sport MarHetlng Quarterly 25
ing educational opportunities for student-athletes, pro-viding scholarships for student-athletes, and providingsome form of educational assistance.
Unlike the first three motivations, there were somesignificant differences among the schools in terms ofthe fourth most mentioned motive. Responses relatedto entertainment, enjoyment, and interest were cited by28.2% of the donors. Responses in this category cen-tered on respondent's enjoyment of attending theschool's games, enjoyment of college sports, or enjoy-ment of attending events as a whole. However, this fig-ure is skewed by the disproportionate number ofrespondents and significantly higher frequency ofresponse on this item at School A (38.7% of all SchoolA respondents).
The fifth most often mentioned motive was to sup-port and/or promote the university as a whole(21.7%). Responses in this category focused on helpingthe university grow, promote itself on a national basis,and succeed in general.
While the desire to give to receive membership bene-fits other than tickets was the sixth most often citedmotive overall (15.7%), this incidence is skewed by thehigh prevalence of mentions at School C, where 36.0%of respondents mentioned it. On further examinationof the data, dl.1% of the responses categorized asmembership benefits at School C were found to berelated to parking privileges. Given that School C was aschool that competed in a major football conferenceand had a large football stadium, it can be suggestedthat people valued how their donation allowed them tohave better parking associated with football games.
The desire to repay for something that had beenreceived in the past, or "repayer" factor (Prince & File,1994), was the seventh most often identified motivecited by respondents (14.8%), and the seventh mostoften at Schools A (14.1%) and C (20.2%). Responsesin this category included those that donated to "giveback," those that donated because family membersattended or were currently attending the school, andthose that were seeking to support their alma mater.The prevalence of the communitarian construct wascited by 22.0% of respondents at School A. Responsesin this category included mentions of promoting thecity/town in question, supporting a community basedprogram, supporting the program because it was a partof the community, as well as business and personnelentertainment purposes. Finally, a personal commit-ment to the athletic program or school was the ninthmost frequently mentioned motive overall (11.5%).Responses in this category included words such as"love," "pride," "loyalty," and "fondness" to describe theschool, athletic program, or an individual sport.
DiscussionThis study utilized an open-ended question to elicit
responses from donors to athletic support groups. Thismethodology differs significantly in approach frompast research on athletic donors that developed scaleditems and then tested the reliability of the scales usinga survey-based methodology. As such, the results fromthis study add to the understanding of donor motiva-tions from several perspectives. First, the results of thisstudy allow for comparisons to athletic donor motiva-tions uncovered in prior research. Second, this researchprovides the second documented effort to determinethe primary motives for athletic donors. Third, becausethis research generated a large volume of open-endedresponses across three different sets of athletic donors,it allows for comparisons by school. Discussions relat-ed to each of these contributions constitute theremainder of this section.
Comparisons to Prior ResearchThe analysis of open-ended responses in this study
helps lend support to and challenge the existence ofconstructs derived in prior research efforts. As it relatesto the more general fundraising literature, it was inter-esting that while six of the seven major donor clustersset forth by Prince and File (1994) were present, noneof their clusters were one of the five most often citedmotives by respondents. This result would seem tosupport the notion that fundraising in athletics issomewhat different than fundraising in other areas,and thus needs to be examined separately. In addition,there was essentially no mention of power, eventhough it was a factor identified by both Staurowsky etal. (1996) and Verner et al. (1998). This result wouldappear to support Mahony et al.'s (2003) suggestionthat very few donors truly have any real power, so for alarge majority of donors, power is not an importantfactor. Power may be important to a select few donors,but in a study like this that relies on a large sample ofresponses, power was not important. Given the supportit received in prior research (e.g., BiUing et al., 1985;Verner et al., 1998), it was also interesting to find thataccess to social networks (i.e., "socialite" category) wasnot often mentioned. This result is important becauseit tends to suggest that communication strategiesgeared toward making people feel they are part of anelite group are potentially misguided.
In addition to indicating that some factors fromprior research may not be as strong as originallythought, this research helped add to the understandingof what motivations are salient. Strong support wasfound for the importance of supporting and improvingthe athletic program. This is consistent with prior
26 Volume 14 • Number 1 • 2005 • Sport Marheting Quarterly
research in athletic fundraising, which all included oneor more similar factors (Billing et al., 1985; Mahony etal., 2003; Staurowsky et al., 1996; Verner et al., 1998). Itis also consistent with other research on sport fans thatfocused on the desire of fans to bask in the reflectedglory of their favorite teams (e.g., Cialdini, Borden,Thorne, Walker, Freeman, & Sloan, 1976; Mahony,Howard, & Madrigal, 2000). Support was also foundfor the notion that people may be significantly moti-vated to give to an athletic support group based on adesire to support and promote the local communityand the university. Uncovering support for and interestin helping the community and university is logicalgiven the potential prominence of an athletic programin both. In fact, athletic departments focus on the
"A downturn in fortunes could lead to decreaseddemand for season tickets that would also result indecreased donations. In order to avoid being overly
reliant on athletic team success, the goal oftheathletic fundraiser must he to hetter understand
the other reasons that people are motivated to giveto athletic departments and programs and to
emphasize such benefits."
importance of the athletic program to the communityand, particularly, to the university. In addition, individ-uals like to be associated with success. Prior researchhas indicated that basking in reflected glory is not lim-ited to sports (e.g., Cialdini & Richardson, 1980;Snyder, Lassegard, & Ford, 1986). Individuals mayreceive similar self and public image benefits if they areassociated with a successful community or university.
Clear support was also found for the importance oftangible benefits (e.g., tickets, parking, etc.) to thedonor. Again, this was a factor that was included in allof the prior studies on fundraising motives (Billing etal., 1985; Mahony et al., 2003; Staurowsky et al., 1996;Verner et al., 1998). In addition, support was found forthe separation of tickets from other membership bene-fits (as per Mahony et al (2003)). Given the high inci-dence of responses related to ticket benefits andpriority seating, it is clear that this is more often a pri-mary motive than are the other tangible benefitsreceived by the donors. This finding was not surprisinggiven the limited availability of tickets at many collegeathletic stadiums and arenas, and the significant com-munication that emanates from athletic supportgroups to donors regarding the ticket benefits associat-ed with donating. Nor is this finding surprising giventhe prevalence of priority seating points programs atmany Division I programs throughout the country.WhUe such benefits are provided by other non-profits(particularly in the performing arts), the presence of
such a direct and valuable tangible benefit as an out-come of a donation is somewhat unique across charita-ble organizations.
The prevalence of this motive should also serve togenerate significant concern for several reasons. First,as was evidenced in the negative responses related toticket benefits at School B, the use of ticket benefits toprovide value associated with donations can create verynegative feelings among donors. Nearly one-quarter ofall respondents at School B held negative perceptionsabout the relationship between tickets and donations.Additionally, if such feelings exist, it adds increasedpressure for the athletic department, and in particular,its revenue generating sport(s) to be successful in com-petition. A downturn in fortunes could lead todecreased demand for season tickets that would alsoresult in decreased donations. In order to avoid beingoverly reliant on athletic team success, the goal of theathletic fundraiser must be to better understand theother reasons that people are motivated to give to ath-letic departments and programs and to emphasize suchbenefits. As such, in addition to a distinct categoryrelated to tickets, future research should also accountfor people who are motivated by other membershipbenefits, such as parking privileges, newsletters, andaccess to special events. Beyond ticket benefits, thesebenefits (particularly parking) were still important toat least some of the respondents in the research.
Consistent with prior research (Billing et al., 1985;Mahony et al., 2003; Staurowsky et al., 1996; Verner etal., 1998), support was also found for philanthropicmotives, particularly as it relates to certain areas. V^ileless support was found for the more general altruisticmotivation for giving (i.e., giving to "do good"), athlet-ic donors clearly have some altruistic motives.However, as is evidenced fi^om an analysis of itemsused to examine this factor in prior research, there maybe multiple dimensions to this category. For example,these data suggest helping student-athletes and repay-ing the university and athletic program may be distinctand important philanthropic motives. The identifica-tion of helping student-athletes as a primary motivewas not surprising because athletic departments fre-quently focus on this in their solicitation materials.Some universities even use the term "education" intheir support group name. Nor is it surprising thatthere is significant support for the repayer constructgiven the perceived benefits that a school can offer to astudent (e.g., scholarship, education, great memories)that serve to create a sense of indebtedness in an indi-vidual.
Two other motives that were rarely, if ever, directlyidentified in prior research on athletic donors, emergedin the current study: entertainment/enjoyment and
Volume 14 • Number 1 • 2005 • Sport MarHetlng Quarterly 27
commitment. Particularly at School A, there were a sig-nificant number of donors who were motivated by thedesire to be entertained and the desire to receive per-sonal enjoyment. Given that many of the responses inthis category were related to respondents' enjoyment ofevents, future research should look at the relationshipbetween this category of motivation and the ticket-related category of motivation. It can be deduced thatthe donors would not receive enjoyment if they cannotattend and they cannot attend if they do not receivetickets. For the athletic fundraiser, it suggests consider-ing communication strategies that emphasize theatmosphere at games and the enjoyment that can bederived from attending college athletic events.
While it can be suggested that entertainment might berelated to, or an outcome of the ability to get tickets,psychological commitment could be an underlyingimportant motivation related to donor giving. This is amotivation that is weaved throughout nearly all of theprior research on athletic donors, but is most directlyarticulated by Mahony et al. (2003). This researchdemonstrated there are a significant number of donorswho feel a very strong emotional connection and/orcommitment to the university, athletic program, or aparticular team. Athletic fundraisers should attempt torecognize this connection and express genuine apprecia-tion for their commitment and support. Such efforts canrange from personal thank you letters from coaches andadministrators to special exclusive events for donors.
Between School DifferencesA very interesting outcome of this research was the
differences that occurred between schools with respectto the importance of the various donor motivations.Examining Table 3 from both an overall ranking per-spective and frequency of response perspective, thereare some notable differences among the three schoolsstudied. Such differences have significant implicationsfor both researchers and practitioners. These differ-ences are not generalizable to all schools that fit thedescriptions listed in Table 1. Rather, this research sug-gests that care should be taken to understand theunique environmental factors that exist at each school.Further, future research should strive to increase thetypes of schools studied such that an even greaterunderstanding of the heterogeneity among schools isachieved.
At School C, the most often cited motive was to sup-port and improve the athletic department. This motivewas cited more than twice as frequently as any othermotive. As such, it was a stronger motive for donors atSchool C than it was at Schools A and B. Several factorsmay have accounted for this difference. First, thisresearch was conducted during a highly successful
football season, so there is potential that the goodwillfrom this season carried over to the survey responses.Second, it is interesting to note that School C was theonly one of the three schools where football was the"primary" sport. A possible explanation is that withfootball's naturally occurring games on weekends, itserves as a much more effective tool at bringing peopleto campus en masse and demonstrating how donationscan be used. A third explanation may be that School Cwas also the only school located in a small collegetown. Hall and Mahony (1997) suggested that locationof the institution was an important factor in athleticfundraising. A fourth explanation for this differencemay be that donors at School C are more committedfans, as evidenced by the fact that they were more likelyto be alumni of the school (88.5%), do not live close tothe school (62.2% live more than 250 miles from theschool), but still have extremely high incidences of sea-son ticket ownership (99.7% for football and 96.1% formen's basketball). Based on the current study, an inter-esting direction for fiature research would be to explorewhether rural campuses have advantages over urbancampuses in generating emotions (such as nostalgia)that are more effective in stimulating certain motiva-tions to give. Further, these findings also suggest anexamination of the links between commitment andbeing an alumnus of the university.
Respondents at School A were more likely to cite thedesire to help their surrounding community as a pri-mary motive. It was not surprising that this responsewas so low at School C given its proximity in a ruralarea. In contrast. School A exists in a city of nearly900,000 people, and respondents suggested they sup-ported the program because it was a community-basedprogram and because it plays an integral role in pro-moting the city. However, it was surprising that 22.0%of respondents at School A cited this reason, but only11.0% of respondents at School B cited this as amotive, given that School B is also located in an urbanmarket (with a similar population base to School A).This suggests that there may also be some differenceswithin urban universities.
The difference could be due to the extremely highemphasis that donors at School B placed on receivingticket benefits. While 84.0% of respondents at School Bcited ticket benefits as a motive for giving, only 42.1%of donors at School A cited ticket benefits as a motive.School B possesses a much more significant traditionrelated to the "major" sport at both schools - men'sbasketball - in that it has been a national power in thesport. Accordingly, tickets could be in greater demandat School B. It would be interesting to content analyzethe communications from each school's athleticdepartment to its donors to determine if access to tick-
28 Volume 14 • Number 1 • 2005 • Sport Marheting Quarterly
ets was a more prevalent message in the communica-tions at School B.
The differences between schools with respect to theentertainment/enjoyment motive were also intriguing.Respondents at School A (38.7%) were much morelikely to cite this motive than respondents at Schools B(10.5%) or C (18.0%). One potential reason for such ahigh incidence at School A is that the school repre-sents, as some respondents put it, "the only show intown," and in the case of School A, the city is sizable.While School B is also in an urban market, it competeswith both a very successful AAA minor league baseballteam and a more prominent state university in thesame state. For these reasons. School B's donors mightnot view their sports teams as the only entertainmentoption in town.
Implications for College Athletics MarketersThis analysis of open-ended responses has significant
implications for college athletic marketers. While pri-ority point systems are a financial necessity at mostDivision I schools, this research suggests sport mar-keters must be very careful to not over-emphasize theticket benefits associated with giving. Such a strategymay engender negative feelings (e.g., "I am coerced togive") and inadvertently connect levels of giving to ath-letic performance. Perhaps even more importantly,such feelings could harm the donor's long-term rela-tionship with the athletic department.
Instead, sport marketers may want to focus on theintangible and altruistic motivations that were preva-lent in this study and supportive of past research. Bystressing the importance of donations to helping theathletic department and university grow and succeed,the donor might be more likely to develop a more loyaland consistent relationship with the athletic depart-ment. Similarly, messaging related to how donationshelp scholar-athletes succeed can help donors see thenecessity of consistent donations as well as help themfeel good about their donations. A focus on non-ticket-related benefits, such as parking privileges or access touniversity facilities could also be stressed as a group ofrespondents cited the importance of such benefits as amotive for giving.
Finally, collegiate sport marketers should realize thateach college/university may be unique and because ofthis, the importance of the various motivations may dif-fer significantly by school. For example, there may bedifferences in motivations depending on whether theuniversity competes in Division I-A football in a"major" conference. Similarly, the degree to which theuniversity's athletic events are perceived to provideentertainment or are integral to creating an image forthe community are likely to differ depending on the
school. At the very least this research suggests there areprobably some differences in motivations depending onwhether the school is located in an urban or rural set-ting. Therefore, care must be taken to generalize theimportance or salience of donor motivations across allschools. This research suggests that studying donormotives at each individual school is definitely warranted.
Limitations and Directions for Future ResearchThere are several limitations associated with this
research that bear mentioning. First, the way in whichthis data was collected asked respondents to identifythe reasons that they donated to athletic supportgroups. Top-of-mind reasons for donating wereoffered. However, this research was based on one ques-tion and was asked as part of a larger mail surveymethodology, so there was no opportunity to proberespondents about their responses. Therefore, theremay be categories representing deeper levels of motiva-tion that could be underrepresented. For example, psy-chological commitment may actually be a moreprevalent motive than was indicated in this research.Future quantitative efforts examining donor motiva-tions should include items to represent some of theconstructs that were not as salient in this research, butcould be theoretically argued as important.Alternatively, depth interviewing with individualdonors could help uncover the salience of deeper, sub-conscious, or socially desirable motivations.
Social desirability bias may have affected the fre-quency with which some categories of motivation werementioned. For example, the authors were surprisedthat power and the social nature of attending athleticevents were not more salient in the minds of athleticdonors. A reason for this could be that admitting to theimportance of such a motivation might not be sociallydesirable for someone that considers him or herself a"die-hard" fan. In order to determine whether this lim-itation existed, in-depth qualitative interviews could beuseful.
Beyond the research directions suggested in the dis-cussion of the findings and limitations, other poten-tially importance research directions exist. Forexample, research could examine the motivational dif-ferences based on the year of graduation for alums of aparticular school. As Clotfeller (2001) noted, oldergraduates were more likely to give than younger gradu-ates. It would thus be important to determine if therate of athletic giving increases as a donor ages. Thisalso raises the prospects of surveying people that arefans of a college athletic program or team, but do notgive to the athletic department. Such research mightallow practitioners to focus on several key motivatorsthat are integral to transforming a fan into a donor.
Volume 14 • Number 1 • 2005 • Sport MarHeting Quarterly 29
ConclusionOverall, this is still another step in improving our
understanding of intercollegiate athletics donor moti-vation. It allows us to make some suggestions to cur-rent athletic fundraisers. Moreover, it provides somedirection for future research in this area. In particular,the findings regarding the importance of variousmotives and differences across institutions suggest thateach institution may be unique. Thus, the challenge offuture studies is to develop the understanding of donormotives at a wider variety of schools. With fundraisingbecoming such a critical element in intercollegiate ath-letics funding, a more thorough understanding ofdonor motives is important for current and future ath-letic fundraisers.
ReferencesAmerican Association of Fundraising Counsel. (2001). Total giving reaches
$203.45 billion as charitable contributions increase 6.6 percent in 2000.Retrieved March 21, 2002, from http://www.aafrc.org/press3.html.
Billing, J. E., Hoh, D., & Smith, J. (1985). Athletic fund-raising: Exploring themotives behind donations. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North CarolinaPress.
Brooker, G., & Klastorin, T. D. (1981). To the victors belong the spoils?College athletics and alumni giving. Social Science Quarterly, 62, 744-750.
Cermak, D. S. P., File, K. M., & Prince, R. A. (1994). A benefit segmentationof the major donor market. Journal of Business Research, 29, 121-130.
Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Freeman, S., &Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in Reflected Glory: Three (football) fieldstudies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 366-375.
Cialdini, R. B., & Richardson, K. D. (1980). Two indirect tactics of imagemanagement: Basking and blasting. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 39, 406-415.
Clotfeller, C. T. (2001). Who are the alumni donors? Giving by two genera-tions of alumni from selective colleges. Nonprofit management and lead-ership, 12(2), 119-138.
Comstock, J. B. (1988). A comparison of athletic donors (male and female)to selected Big Ten Conference institutions. Dissertations AbstractsInternational, 49, 06A.
Fulks, D. L. (2002). Revenues and expenses of division I and II intercollegiateathletics programs: Financial trends and relationships - 2001.Indianapolis, IN: The National Collegiate Athletic Association.
Hall, J. S., & Mahony, D. F. (1997). Factors affecting methods used by annualgiving programs: A qualitative study of NCAA Division I athleticdepartments. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 6(3), 21-30.
Hammersmith, V. A. (1985). The development of a survey instrument toprofile donors to athletics. Dissertation Abstracts International, 46, 09A.
Harrison, W.B, Mitchell, S.K., & Peterson, S.P. (1995). Alumni donationsand colleges' development expenditures: Does spending matter?American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 54(4), 397-412.
Harvey, J. W. (1990). Benefit segmentation for fundraisers. Journal of theAcademy of Marketing Sciences, 18{\), 77-86.
Howard, D. R., & Crompton, J. L. (1995). Financing sport. Morgantown,WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc.
Isherwood, A. C. (1986). A descriptive profile of the fund raising programsin NCAA Division I-A. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 09A.
Kelly, K. S. (1997). Effective fund raising management. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mahony, D. F., Gladden, J. M., & Funk, D. C. (2003). Examining athleticdonors at NCAA division I institutions. International Sports Journal,7(l),9-27.
Mahony, D. F., Howard, D. R., & Madrigal, R. (2000). BIRGing andCORFing behaviors by sport spectators: High self-monitors versus lowself-monitors. International Sports Journal, 4(1), 87-106.
Mahony, D. F., Madrigal, R., & Howard, D. R. (2000). Using the psychologi-cal commitment to team (PCT) scale to segment sport consumers basedon loyalty. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9, 15-25.
Milne, G.R., & McDonald, M.A. (1999). Sport marketing: Managing the
exchange process. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.Prince, R.A., & File, K.M. (1994). The seven faces of philanthropy: A new
approach to cultivating major donors. San Francisco: Josey BassPublishers.
Rhoads, T.A., & Gerking, S. (2000). Educational contributions, academicquality, and athletic success. Contemporary Economic Policy, 18(2), 248-258.
Sargeant (2001). Relationship fundraising: How to keep donors loyal.
Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 12(2), 177-192.Schervish (1997). Inclination, obligation, and association: What we know
and what we need to learn about donor motivations. In D.F. Burlingame(Ed.), Critical Issues in Fundraising (pp.110-138). New York: John Wiley& Sons, Inc.
Sigelman, L., & Bookheimer, S. (1983). Is it whether you win or lose?
Monetary contributions to big-time college athletic programs. SocialScience Quarterly, 64(2), 347-359.
Sigelman, L., & Carter, R. (1979). Win one for the giver? Alumni giving andbig-time college sports. Social Science Quarterly, 60(2), 284-294.
Snyder, C. R., Lassegard, M. A., & Ford, C. E. (1986). Distancing after groupsuccess and failure: Basking in reflected glory and cutting off reflectedfailure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 382-388.
Staurowsky, E. J., Parkhouse, B., & Sachs, M. (1996). Developing an instru-ment to measure athletic donor behavior and motivation. Journal ofSport Management, 10, 262-277.
Suggs, W. (2000, November 17). Gap grows between the haves and have nots
in college sports. Chronicle of Higher Education, 47, A73.Verner, M. E., Hecht, J. B., & Fansler, A. G. (1998). Validating an instrument
to assess the motivation of athletic donors. Journal of SportManagement, 12, 123-137.
Walker, S. (1994). The athletic department and the institutional developmentoffice: A systems approach to athletic fund-raising. Unpublished doctoraldissertation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Webb, J. T. (1989). Analysis of financial donors to Oklahoma StateUniversity's Athletic Department. Dissertation Abstracts International,50, 09A
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park, CA: SagePublications, Inc.
30 Volume 14 • Number 1 • 2005 • Sport Martfettng Quarterty
