Using a Significant Physical Feat as a Fundraising Tactic for Charity

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements of the Degree of

Master of Arts in Philanthropy and Development

Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota

Winona, Minnesota

By Cheyanne Constance Kofmehl

July, 2012

  2 M.A. in Philanthropy and Development

As administration and faculty of Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota, I have evaluated the FINAL CAPSTONE PAPER:

Using a Significant Physical Feat as a Fundraising Tactic for Charity

by

Cheyanne Constance Kofmehl

and recommend that the degree of Master of Arts be conferred upon the candidate.

Gary Kelsey, Ed.D. Date

Program Director

  3 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my husband Karl, whose patience, encouragement, and

unfaltering love were the grounding and humbling forces that were instrumental in the

completion of this paper.

I would also like to thank my family for all of their love and support.

A special thanks goes to all of the faculty and staff at Saint Mary’s University and

in the Masters of Philanthropy and Development program. I will never forget your

kindness and encouragement.

Lastly, I would like to acknowledge all of the athletes who sacrifice so much and

give of their time and talent to achieve significant physical feats for charitable causes.

  4 Abstract

In recent years, the non-profit sector has seen a rise in popularity of significant

physical feats achieved by athletes in order to raise funds and awareness for a charitable

cause. Sometimes these athletes are famous and are the donors and supporters of the

cause. When someone participates in a painful-effortful experience in order to gain

support for a cause, it is referred to as “the martyrdom effect” (Olivola, 2011). World-

famous athlete Lance Armstrong, who has won seven Tour de France titles and several

other arduous tasks, best exhibits this phenomenon by affiliating his efforts with his co-

created cause with the Nike ® corporation. This collaborative cause, the Livestrong

campaign, is aimed at promoting a healthy lifestyle and most importantly, fighting

against cancer.

Although Lance is one single athlete completing a feat to raise funds, many other

feats have partnered with campaigns that display the martyrdom effect. One example is

the Susan G. Komen 3-Day Walk for a Cure ®, in which several participants, who also

participate in raising and even donating funds themselves, complete this feat.

By analyzing several different examples of Olivola (2011)’s martyrdom effect,

the reader can identify how this interesting means of fundraising can be both profitable

and hindering to an organization. As the reviewed literature is synthesized and reflected

upon, many parallels and conclusions are found that can help development professionals

gain valuable perspective and insight into how they can utilize this unique type of

fundraising for their own organization.

  5 Table of Contents

Title Page……………………………….…………………………………………………1

Final Paper Approval Form…….…………………………………………………………2

Acknowledgments……………….………………….………………………….…………3

Abstract……………………….………….……………………………………………….4

Table of Contents…………….……………………...……………………………………5

Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………...…………………..………..6

Chapter 2: Literature Review…………………………………………..………………..12

Chapter 3: Conclusions and Recommendations……………………………..………….34

References……..………………..…………………………………………………...….39

Annotated Bibliography………….…………………………………….……………….42

  6 Chapter One

Introduction

Purpose

When someone says, “Significant physical feat”, what comes to mind? Climbing

Mt. Everest? Running a marathon? Swimming the English Channel? What determines

and defines a significant physical feat?

Christopher Y. Olivola, a behavioral psychologist specializing in donor behavior,

found that “people are clearly motivated to partake in painful, effortful, and sometimes

dangerous efforts to raise money for charity and to support others who engage in such

efforts- a phenomenon we refer to as the martyrdom effect” (Olivola, 2011, p.49). In

other words, a feat that is demanding and daunting enough to impress others and defeat a

high level of adversity, can lead donors to feel inspired; ultimately motivating them to

give. In the past decade, this form of inspiration has led to a rise in the popularity of using

a significant physical feat as a tactic to raise funds and awareness for charity. Before

concluding that one has led to the other, the reader must ask the following questions: Has

this fundraising tactic become a popular means of raising awareness and funds because of

the athlete and the athlete’s popularity? Is it due to the chivalric qualities of the endeavor

that inspires donors? Is it the popularity of the cause in which the athlete is raising

awareness and funds for and does the cause have a specific relation to the athlete? Are

there other subtler but effective factors that are not easily identified that could help

organizations use a similar fundraising tactic?

Various marketing and psychological research have shown that there are many

different factors contributing to the motivation of donors who give to an athlete achieving

  7 a significant physical feat in order to raise funds and awareness for a cause or

organization. With the rise in popularity of philanthropic campaigns such as the Susan G.

Komen 3-Day Walk for a Cure®, or Lance Armstrong’s LIVESTRONG® campaign, a

question is raised: Why are these campaigns so successful at raising funds and awareness

for a cause?

This literature review will explore and determine what a significant physical feat

is and will attempt to identify and address some of the various factors that motivate

donors to give to organizations; more specifically, organizations who have benefited from

using an athlete’s physical feat as a means of inspiring and motivating donors to give.

The purpose of this study is to help the reader understand what has made these campaigns

so successful so that their charitable organization and/or cause can benefit from using a

similar fundraising tactic.

Research Question

What are the motivating factors of a donor who gives to athletes who are

achieving a significant physical feat for a charitable cause or organization?

Background

There are many different types of significant physical feats that athletes set out to

accomplish, yet there are certain criteria that some may feel define what a significant

physical feat is. Many may feel that regardless of whether or not a person is going to

climb Mount Everest but are going to run a 5-kilometer road race, the 5k may be

considered a significant physical feat to the particular individual. In some cases, even a

5k may not seem like enough of a challenge for someone who runs regularly for longer

distances (Olivola, 2011).

  8  Perhaps what makes multiple-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong’s

physical feats so admirable and inspirational is the fact that he gained his successes after

battling a very serious cancer diagnosis. For him as an individual, getting back onto his

bicycle and training to win such a grueling race was considered a significant physical

feat. For someone who has battled obesity for a long time, perhaps running a 5-kilometer

road race would be considered a significant physical feat. For someone who is a breast

cancer survivor, being able to walk in a Komen 3-day for a Cure® event may be

considered a significant physical feat.

For the purpose of this literature review, the definition of a significant physical

feat will be defined as a feat that an individual is working towards or has accomplished

despite tremendous odds; whether the odds are physical limitations or other forms of

adversity; such as cultural or socioeconomic barriers.

When a criterion for categorizing a significant physical feat is established,

development professionals can begin to identify and analyze the factors that motivate

donors to give. While analyzing motivational factors that influence donors, there are

several things that must be considered:

1. What is the definition of a significant physical feat?

2. Who is the athlete and does their fame play an important role in gaining donor

support?

3. What significant physical feat is the athlete(s) trying to achieve?

4. What is the donor’s relationship to the athlete?

5. What is the donor’s relationship to the cause? Are they participating in the athletic

feat as well?

  9 6. How does gender affect a donor’s motivation to give to an athlete achieving a

significant physical feat for charity?

7. Does the significant physical feat have to be something that relates to the cause or

the mission of the organization in order to be effective? How important is an

emotional tie between the donor, the athlete, and the cause?

8. What types of donors/prospects would a significant physical feat attract?

By considering these questions, the writer was able to analyze and synthesize data

and other information in order to more effectively identify the psychological and

motivational factors behind donors who give to athletes achieving significant physical

feats for charity.

After considering the previous questions, research can begin to analyze the

successes of other athletes and organizations that have used a significant physical feat as

a fundraising tactic. The following questions served as guidelines to explore how using a

significant physical feat to raise funds can be an effective tool and tactic and will help the

reader identify possible ways in which they, too, can integrate the concepts explored into

their own fundraising campaign or organization. These exploratory questions are as

follows:

1. What is the actual fiscal impact on a charitable cause or organization in which this

tactic is used?

2. What are some well-known examples of an athlete working towards achieving a

significant physical feat to raise funds for an organization?

3. How can these fundraising tactics be useful to other organizations?

  10 4. Is there any information or data that is missing from the body of knowledge

that would help organizations apply the following study to their fundraising

strategy?

By trying to gain a better understanding of the factors that motivate donors to give to

an athlete raising funds for an organization, more advantages and opportunities can be

identified that would help development professionals more effectively raise funds

through the utilization of this unique and increasingly popular fundraising tactic.

Significance

With the increase in popularity of this unique fundraising tactic, it is important to

understand what makes it so successful. With so many athletes at all levels of physical

ability working toward raising money for many charities; oftentimes for a well-known

cause (i.e. cancer research), many donors are numbed by its commonality, and therefore

may feel their support would not make an impact.

By discovering what is at the root of the emotional bonds, needs, and other factors

behind a donor’s charitable giving to this niche within the world of fundraising,

development professionals can help their own organization (or those who are trying to

use similar tactics) raise funds for their cause. Understanding the relationship on both

sides of giving is crucial to the athlete or whoever is at the helm of fundraising, because

they will be able to recognize more opportunities in which to engage donors with their

campaign. The fundraiser will be more informed, better equipped, and ultimately more

successful in utilizing this tactic in their fundraising strategy.

  11 Definition of Terms

CRM: Cause-Related Marketing; a marketing tactic used by corporations in which they

affiliate themselves with a charitable cause or organization in order to improve their

brand and/or image with their consumers.

Eustress: a type of stress that gives one feelings of positive fulfillment.

Hedonic Motive: a type of motivation that is experiential in nature and involves more of

the emotional responses one gets from the experience of attending a sports even or

supporting an athlete or team (Funk, Filo, Beaton, & Pritchard, 2009). Examples include

excitement, vicarious achievement, group affiliation, etc (Funk et al., 2009).

Martyrdom Effect: Means of charitable giving that involve significant pain and effort

(Olivola, 2011).

Pareto Hedonism and Pareto Utilitarianism: Normative standards for making donation

choices. These terms are similar to the terms Hedonic and Utilitarian (Olivola, 2011).

Target-Market: a marketing term used to narrow down or specify a segment or

demographic of concentration within a market of consumers.

Tour de France: a grueling annual bike race held in France. The race lasts twenty-one

days and covers approximately 3,200 kilometers. The course changes every year: always

ending in Paris.

Utilitarian Motive: a type of motivation representing objective desires or tangible

attributes of a sport product or service. Some examples include venue services, admission

costs, marquee players, and other more materialistic motivations (Funk et al., 2009).

  12 Chapter Two

Literature Review

Introduction

A review of the related literature is best presented and analyzed under the following

headings:

1. Defining a significant physical feat

2. The psychological factors that motivate people to support a cause affiliated with

an athletic achievement

3. Additional factors that increase motivation to give to an athlete raising funds for

charity

4. The influence of gender on giving to athletics

5. The Martyrdom Effect: How it benefits and hinders a fundraising campaign or

organization

6. Using Cause-Related Marketing in conjunction with an athlete achieving a

significant physical feat for charity

7. Leadership and its effectiveness in raising funds by an athlete achieving a

significant physical feat

8. Utilizing a significant physical feat within a fundraising campaign

Defining a significant physical feat

In recent years, the popularity of individuals competing or participating in

significant physical feats in order to raise awareness and funds for a charitable cause or

organization has risen. This is perhaps due to popularity of events such as Lance

Armstrong’s consecutive Tour de France wins, while simultaneously promoting his

  13 LIVESTRONG® campaign. Other individuals run marathons or join walks to promote

a cause. Why are such significant physical feats effective in motivating people to give?

Perhaps it is because such physical feats are inspiring and noble, due to the amount of

sacrifice, both physically and mentally, in which one must overcome great odds in order

to achieve the feat (Olivola, 2011). For this literature review, a significant physical feat

will be defined as any feat of endurance or physical effort in which the amount of

suffering or pain that is endured enhances and increases the meaning and support of the

fundraising efforts related to the significant physical feat. This parallels Olivola (2011)’s

observation that people may feel more inclined to support or participate in this type of

“painful-effortful” form of fundraising because the prospect of suffering to raise money

for a cause makes their sacrifice of time and talent seem more meaningful to them. This

emotional connection and feeling of physical investment is one of the factors that make

this form of fundraising so unique and inspiring (Olivola, 2011).

The factors that motivate people to give to athletics can be difficult to pinpoint

and target. These motivations can vary depending on several different factors such as age,

gender, athletic team affiliation, or emotional ties to the team or cause. This literature

review will attempt to address some of these various motivations by analyzing various

literatures by those who have studied donor psychological behavior in this particular

field.

For the purpose of this capstone, the following literature review will be

supplemented by the research of donor trends and data within the field of fundraising for

college athletic programs. Tsiotsou (2007) pointed out that athletic fundraising has shown

the greatest percentage increase in universities within the last few decades. Perhaps this is

  14 why athletic fundraising in the non-profit sector is also successful? By studying what

motivates donors to give to athletes of a college or university, the reader can begin to

recognize common trends among those who support the athlete and whatever

organization the athlete is affiliated with. The reader will also be able to recognize the

different factors that affect donor retention and donor loyalty in college athletics. After

this study, development professionals can use this information to recognize parallels

between a college or university working to motivate donors to support their athlete or

athletic program, and a charitable organization working to motivate donors to support an

athlete achieving a significant athletic feat for their cause.

Now that the criterion for defining and determining a significant physical feat is

in place, the reader can now move on to analyze how a significant physical feat more

specifically impacts and triggers the psychological factors that motivate a donor to give

to the organization.

The psychological factors that motivate people to support athletics and/or a cause

affiliated with an athletic achievement

Crowds are drawn to a fight-to-the-finish race or an exciting football game;

however, Funk, Filo, Beaton, and Pritchard (2009) argued that the true reason why people

are attending the event and giving to the athletes runs deeper than just pure excitement.

Funk et al. (2009) suggested that the many motivations behind donors can be divided into

two categories: utilitarian and hedonic. For a motive to be categorized utilitarian, it must

be functional and represent objective desires or tangible attributes of a sport product or

service including venue services, admission costs, marquee players and coaches,

promotions, the schedule of games, new arenas, accessibility, and the relationship

  15 between social demographic variables and watching sports (Funk et al., 2009). These

motivations are more materialistic in nature and in contrast may seem like self-serving

motivations for supporting an athlete raising funds for a cause or organization.

The opposite of the utilitarian category is the category of hedonic motives (Funk

et al., 2009). These motives are “experiential” in nature and involve more of the

emotional responses a donor gets from the experience of attending a sports event or

supporting an athlete or team (Funk et al., 2009). These emotional responses are

“excitement, fantasy, eustress, vicarious achievement, escape, aesthetics, group

affiliation, and social interaction” (Funk et al., 2009, p.128). Funk et al. (2009)’s article

reminds the reader that it is not as simple as merely liking a team or athlete for their

ability; supporting that athlete, whether cheering them on or financially supporting them

and anything they are affiliated with, runs much deeper. Fans are loyal to the athlete

because they benefit from the relationship in some way. In the unique relationship found

in athletic-related fundraising, the athlete and fan both win.

Social motivations, or as Funk et al. (2009) called it, “hedonic motives”, can be a

very interesting motivational factor when attracting donors. Since there are various types

of significant physical feats that can be achieved by a singular athlete or by a group of

donors who both participate and contribute, the various types of social motivation are

what help donors choose the role they want to play (Snelgrove & Wood, 2010).

Snelgrove and Wood (2010) revealed that the social motive is defined by event

participants’ desire to spend time engaging with others in conversation encircling their

experience and connection to the charity and cause. Snelgrove and Wood (2010) also

concurred that research has yet to address whether or not social motivation influences

  16 participants to participate as part of a team or individually. They also suggested that in

some cases, the type of sport and the physical aspect of the event is what attracts

participants, not necessarily the charity and cause. However, others may be drawn to both

the sport and the cause (Snelgrove & Wood, 2010). Snelgrove and Wood (2010) revealed

that a determining factor of whether or not an athlete achieving a significant physical feat

will participate individually or with a team, can be predicted by either the individual’s

identity that is tied to the type of event, i.e. triathlon, cycling, etc., or their desire to

socialize in a team setting. These insights offer a deeper look at the more social types of

motivations behind those who support and participate in fundraising that is related to an

athlete or participants achieving a significant physical feat for charity.

Though Funk et al. (2009) categorized these motivations, Olivola (2011) found an

interesting exception that does not fall into either the hedonic or utilitarian category.

When exploring the motivations behind why donors support an athlete or an athletic

event, Olivola and Shafir (2011) concluded that some simply feel connected to the event

because of the pain and effort a competitor exerts for the benefit of the cause. In a

collegiate setting, this exception could only exist if an alumni donor is or was actually an

athlete in the athletic program in order to have the perspective necessary (Tsiotsou,

2006). Though this observation pertains mainly to donors who were actually competing

in a charitable event and not simply attending an athletic event, such as Komen’s 3-day

Walk for a Cure ®, Olivola and Shafir (2011)’s observations can cross into both realms:

both collegiate and non-profit. Ultimately, Olivola and Shafir (2011)’s article emphasized

that in order for this unique type of fundraising to be successful, they felt that an

  17 emotional tie, which seems to be rooted in the “painful-effortful” experience of the

athlete or participant, must be established and strengthened.

To explain this exception to the rule, Olivola and Shafir (2011) used a scenario in

which participants were willing to contribute more to a fundraising event in which they

must run 5 miles, which is considered a “painful-effortful experience”, than they would

be if they were to attend a picnic instead, which is considered an “easy-enjoyable

experience” (p.2-3). Olivola and Shafir (2011) observed and concluded that a willingness

to donate more to participate in a charity run instead of a charity picnic may show that

people prefer or have a “taste” for a more challenging, and ultimately more rewarding

fundraiser when an emotional bond is created as a result of a “painful-effort” (Olivola &

Shafir, 2011).

Additional factors that increase motivation to give to an athlete raising funds for charity

A motivation to donate is one thing, but what are some other sparks that ignite a

donor’s passion to give to an athlete achieving a feat for charity? When analyzing the

factors that led individuals to donate to athletes affiliated with a university, Gladden,

Mahoney and Apostopolous (2005) ranked some of the leading factors in the following

order from the most popular factor to the least popular. Overarching Gladden et al.

(2005)’s list were three main motivations for donating; (a) Social benefits, (b)

Materialistic benefits, and (c) Philanthropic obligations.

Many factors within Gladden et al. (2005)’s list showed that donors were giving

because they wanted to obtain social benefits from donating to the cause. Donors gave to

  18 athletics in order to fulfill various social needs. These social needs included:

1. Creating a social network

2. Creating a sense of belonging

3. Promoting community

4. Spending quality social time with family

For example, Nike® created a social network by creating a fad with the gold wristbands

of the LIVESTRONG® campaign (McGlone & Martin 2006). The wristbands could only

be available at certain locations such as Nike®town and the Lance Armstrong Foundation

website which created exclusivity for the donor and included them in a tight-knit

community of those supporting Lance Armstrong and the fight against cancer (McGlone

& Martin, 2006).

Other factors listed by Gladden et al. (2005) showed that many donors give for

materialistic benefits they will receive in return and do not give because of purely

altruistic motives. These donors gave for priority tickets, for the entertainment and

enjoyment value of attending games and other various benefits (Gladden et al., 2005).

Although opposite from the ideals of altruism and philanthropy, targeting the

materialistic desires of each demographic can create a leveraging system to increase

giving (McGlone & Martin, 2006).

Also within this list, Gladden et al. (2005) showed that many factors display a

connection between donors and a philanthropic and loyal obligation to give to an

organization. Gladden et al. (2005) felt donors with a loyalty or philanthropic motive

want to donate for many reasons including:

1. A desire to support and improve the organization/university as a whole

  19 2. A devout loyalty to the athletic department

3. A sense of responsibility to give

4. A desire to give to a good cause

5. A sense of duty to fulfill their family’s tradition

6. A desire to do good in return for a past benefit

7. A desire to help student athletes

Loyalty and a feeling of obligation to give can be strong motivations for a donor.

According to Biebel (2007), alumni donors were found to be more committed,

passionate, and loyal in addition to being motivated to donate in order to support, fund,

build, and improve the athletic program. Non-alumni donors were found to be motivated

by incentives such as receiving tickets, engaging in social interaction, feeling like they

are apart of the team, and participating in the athletic program community (Biebel, 2007).

If “athletic program” were replaced with athlete, cause, or organization, perhaps these

findings would be similar? If compared to the Nike LIVESTRONG® campaign, Lance

Armstrong fans and those supporting the fight against cancer may be the most committed,

passionate, and loyal, etc. However, donors that are not fans and those that are not

supporting the fight against cancer may more than likely donate purely for the

materialistic benefits; such as having the bracelet and belonging to the social community

that the LIVESTRONG® bracelet symbolizes (McGlone & Martin, 2006).

The motivational factor of craving social interaction is also addressed in

Drummer (2008)’s analysis of special events. Drummer (2008) found that special events

create community and provide an opportunity to build up an organization and its capacity

to accomplish its mission, vision and goals. Drummer (2008) used The Headwaters Walk

  20 for Justice as an example of an athletic feat used in conjunction with an event in order

to spur social involvement. This unique relationship between the athletic feat and donor

participant created a culture to inspire giving (Drummer, 2008).

In support of Drummer (2008)’s findings, Wayson (1998) pointed out that special

events have four goals:

1. Raise money for the organization

2. Raise visibility for the organization

3. Involve, engage and increase volunteers of the organization

4. Reach out to new prospects that could support the organization

By using special events such as a gala or a walk for a cause, or by creating a social

culture revolving around a cause or charity, the athlete achieving a significant physical

feat creates a role for themselves as a spokesperson and leader for their affiliated cause or

charity. Ultimately, the athlete creates a unique relationship between donors and the

charitable organization, ultimately achieving all four goals in Wayson (1998)’s list.

Lance Armstrong and his LIVESTRONG® campaign displays another interesting

factor in what motivates donors to give: success (McGlone & Martin, 2006). When a

sports team is doing well, more people desire to watch them perform on TV, or attend the

actual event. When Lance Armstrong did well in the Tour de France, people paid closer

attention; thus, exciting fans and non-fans alike. This ultimately attracts both loyal and

non-loyal people to who Lance Armstrong is as an athlete and a person. His success

draws attention to that which he is passionate about, ultimately increasing awareness and

support of the LIVESTRONG® campaign. This ideal of success attracting support aligns

with the findings of Fopma (1998) who, by studying similar donor behavior in the college

  21 athletics setting, concluded that satisfaction is gained from winning and success

because it gives alumni and parents pride in the institution. Turner, Meserve, and Bowen

(2001) supported this conclusion for four reasons:

1. Good publicity increases the possibility of alumni responding to

solicitations from the university

2. Success in athletics was viewed as the administrators’ and trustees’

willingness to uphold the “the quality of one’s alma mater”

3. Donor benefits seem more exclusive and valuable when teams are winning

4. Success of athletics creates more social cohesiveness, thus encouraging

alumni to return to campus and participate in events

Turner et al. (2001)’s list shows that people want to have pride in what they are

donating to; success attracts people and for social reasons, people want to be associated

with something that is successful. Biebel (2007) found that winning gets people excited

about athletics because people want to support a winner. Fundraisers can then use this as

leveraging with the potential of participation in post-season events in order to secure

further donations and donor retention, especially at the annual giving level (Biebel,

2007). Biebel (2007) went on to stress that development of athletics emphasizes the

athlete along with the product itself and the ultimate end result “is all about winning”.

Having a sense of pride in an organization gives donors a sense of belonging and when an

athlete is doing well, everything associated with that athlete becomes important to those

the success is attracting (Biebel, 2007). This aligns with Gladden et al. (2005) s’ findings

that many donors give because of the social benefits they receive.

  22  The idea that success for the athlete achieving the physical feat leads to more

donations is supported by the same principle that governs the findings of Baade and

Sundberg (1996). Baade and Sundberg (1996) took a deeper look at the correlation

between the success of athletics at a university and subsequent donations by alumni.

Baade and Sundberg (1996) found that when a football team made a bowl appearance,

the real gift per alum increased. This enforced the concept that when loyal supporters see

that the athlete and its affiliated college or organization are doing well, the donor feels

obligated or inspired, thus motivating them to give (Biebel, 2007).

The influence of gender on giving in athletics

This section is devoted to the exploration of the various influences that gender has

on donor behavior within athletic fundraising. By gaining a deeper understanding of the

relationship between male and female donors and athletics, development professionals

can identify more effective and efficient strategies to better attract, engage, and retain

donors of each gender when fundraising for a charitable cause that is affiliated with a

significant physical feat.

Of all of the possible motivational factors behind donor behavior in athletic

related charities, Olivola and Shafir (2011) argued that an emotional bond is also very

important. Are there other important factors to consider? Are there more parallels that can

be found within other similar types of fundraising that can help development

professionals grasp and utilize the fundamentals of this unique “painful-effort” based

altruism? To attempt to identify parallels between donor behavior in the collegiate

athletic realm and using an athletic feat to inspire giving for charity, another important

factor to consider is whether or not gender influences donor motivation in athletic giving.

  23  Tsiotsou (2007) revealed that in the year of 2006, more men (96%) gave to

intercollegiate athletics than women. Tsiotsou (2007) advanced this by arguing that

development professionals need to identify ways to emotionally attach women donors in

order to attract more donors to support an athletic-related cause. Tsiotsou (2007)

concluded that women donate because they want to make a personal impact, to make a

difference, and offer their time and monetary support. This contrasts with the observation

that men give for recognition, benefits, networking, tax purposes and business reasons

(Tsiotsou, 2006, p.212). With more women entering the work place and gaining higher

incomes, Tsiotsou (2007) pointed out that wealthy women are less motivated by tax and

estate laws to support charities than are wealthy men. Women are also inspired by strong

feelings about a cause (Tsiotsou, 2006). Both of these observations encourage

development professionals to take a deeper look at finding ways in which to engage

female donors, as they can become powerfully connected to and supportive of an athletic

feat that is raising awareness and donations for charity (Tsiotsou, 2006).

Hall (2004, p.25), supported Tsiotsou (2006 and 2007)’s findings in the following

three observations:

1. Women’s gifts tend to be smaller than gifts from men.

2. It takes more time to cultivate significant gifts from women.

3. Contrasting to men, women do not give to be competitive or to receive perks.

In summary, evidence suggests that women become more emotionally invested in

altruistic causes, therefore, finding ways in which to emotionally engage them can be a

very powerful way to attract and engage more female donors and participants. A type of

fundraising event that has gained popularity and success are those events with a deep

  24 emotional investment of all donors and participants by a “painful-effortful” based

experience, called “the martyrdom effect”; a phenomenon defined by Olivola (2011).

The Martyrdom Effect: How it benefits and hinders a fundraising campaign and/or an

organization

This section is devoted to pinpointing a more succinct explanation for why a

significant physical feat is so inspiring and impacting in the world of fundraising. It will

also present contrasting views of whether or not it is ultimately a positive and effective

fundraising tactic.

In epic movies and novels, the hero is usually a character who takes charge in

order to bring about a positive outcome. Perhaps the hero has unusual strengths and

talents that set them above all other characters. Often, the hero is considered to have an

above-average amount of courage because they have taken it upon themselves to take

risks for the benefit of everyone, even if those risks may lead to their physical harm or

even death. Perhaps it is this mentality of what a hero is that leads to many athletes taking

it upon themselves to use extreme measures in order to raise awareness and funds for

charity. According to Olivola (2011), this phenomenon is called the martyrdom effect.

In one experiment, Olivola (2011) found that one of the main reasons the

martyrdom effect is so successful is that it not only inspires the individual, but it extends

to others as well. Participants in Olivola (2011)’s experiment indicated that they were

more willing to donate to charity after they had been solicited for contributions by a

hypothetical friend who was anticipating on participate in a painful-effortful fundraising

feat for the same charity as opposed to not participating in a painful-effortful activity

(Olivola, 2011).

  25  Hindrances of the Martyrdom Effect

Whilst many may think that being a martyr is a noble and valiant thing to do for a

cause one is passionate about, Olivola (2011) argued that it could also harm the cause and

a charitable organization it is affiliated with. Olivola (2011) presented research that

suggests donation decisions due to the Martyrdom Effect often violate both Pareto

hedonism and Pareto utilitarianism. This may lead to implications and dilemmas that

result from the growing preference and expectation for challenging and sometimes

dangerous forms of altruism (Olivola, 2011) in order to effectively fundraise.

Olivola (2011) pointed out that the main idea of Pareto utilitarianism “implies that

charities and donors alike should always prefer the most efficient method of raising

money for a cause, all else being equal” (p. 56). Olivola (2011) went on to argue that

despite the fact participants were willing to put themselves through pain and suffering for

a cause and although this means of fundraising for charity may seem noble, this approach

is often highly inefficient and ultimately violates Pareto utilitarianism. Olivola (2011)

concluded that although this means of fundraising does attract larger than average

donations, ultimately, painful-effortful fundraising is inefficient and costly, with some

fundraising campaigns producing net losses. Olivola (2011) advanced this finding by

revealing that using the martyrdom effect in charitable fundraising also violates Pareto

hedonism, due to a preference for martyrdom in altruism leading people to participate in

painful, effortful, and at times, dangerous means of raising money for charity.

In summary, Olivola (2011) felt that the martyrdom effect becomes so extreme at

times that it may drive donors and participants beyond the mission and budget of the

charity it hopes to benefit. Perhaps a better balance can be found in order to utilize a less

  26 hands-on approach combined with utilizing a significant physical feat as the

inspirational spark?

Using Cause-Related Marketing in conjunction with an athlete achieving a significant

physical feat for charity

This section will explore Cause-Related Marketing and how it can be used to

supplement and enhance the utilization of a significant physical feat to fundraise for

charity. How can the marketing department of a non-profit organization target and

motivate donors to give to an athlete raising funds and awareness for a cause or

organization? An excellent example of this unique way of marketing is shown in the very

popular LIVESTRONG® campaign, where multi-winner of the Tour de France, Lance

Armstrong, used his athletic stardom to serve as the driving force behind his

LIVESTRONG® campaign to fight cancer (McGlone & Martin, 2006). Lance Armstrong

used his athletic ability as a paralleled reflection of those who face adversity to achieve a

lofty goal, whether it is achieving a fitness goal, a fundraising goal, or in his

circumstance, beating a daunting illness. Lance used his unique journey and physical feat

to unify his donors behind a cause that is not only important to him, but the donors who

support him. This relationship displays the unique concept of Cause-Related Marketing,

which is defined and analyzed in McGlone and Martin (2006)’s article. McGlone and

Martin (2006) analyzed the concept of Cause-Related Marketing and leveraging in

regards to the LIVESTRONG® campaign displayed by world-famous company, Nike.

Cause-Related Marketing, (CRM), is actually a “new phenomenon” in the sport

sponsorship world (McGlone & Martin, 2006, p.184). The concept of CRM is “a

commercial activity by which businesses and charities form a partnership with each other

  27 to market an image, product, or service for mutual benefit” (McGlone & Martin, 2006,

p.184). McGlone and Martin (2006) emphasized the benefits of CRM because it creates a

win-win situation for both donor and the athlete raising funds and awareness through its

use as an effective leveraging mechanism.

CRM is considered a leveraging mechanism used to tip the scale of decision-

making for a donor, and also for an endorser as they are deciding and choosing causes to

support in order to enhance their company’s image (McGlone & Martin, 2006). One of

the most common and very effective reasons this is used is because this strategy links a

company’s products and brand directly to the cause or issue that attracts and appeals to

the company’s target market (McGlone & Martin, 2006). CRM programs achieve an

array of benefits, not only for the customer, but also for the company, or in this case, the

donor and organization (Irwin, Lachowerz, Cornwell, & Clark, 2003). CRM is an

effective way to raise money and awareness for social causes and can result in favorable

consumer attitudes towards the firm (Irwin et al., 2003), much like the relationship

between a non-profit and a professional athlete achieving a feat. Donors may feel more

inclined to give to the athlete if they are associated with a cause that creates favorable

consumer attitudes among donors that are already customers to the company or

organization (McGlone & Martin, 2006). For example, people who already buy Nike®

products may see the good Nike® is doing and will donate to Lance Armstrong’s

LIVESTRONG® campaign. Consumers who like the brand of McDonalds may donate to

the Ronald McDonald House on behalf of an athlete who is completing a marathon in an

effort to raise money for the Ronald McDonald House charity. McGlone and Martin

(2006) supported this idea when they pointed out “CRM helps to advance a company’s

  28 image and increases sales by giving the cause-corporation association a moral

dimension” (p.187). The same may hold true for a business that sponsors an athlete

raising funds and awareness for a charitable cause or organization.

CRM is also effective because it can be used to stimulate short-term sales of a

product (McGlone & Martin, 2006). This could be very beneficial, especially if the

product or service is offered by the organization in conjunction with the athlete. For

example, the gold wristband associated with Lance Armstrong’s LIVESTRONG®

campaign created a lot of short-term sales for Nike® because many people simply wanted

the band as a fad item. In Nike®’s case, a fad was not a negative outcome. The fad of the

gold LIVESTRONG® bracelets quickened the rate of awareness, and spread the

awareness across a more diverse field of demographics. This ultimately inspired more

donors to give to the cause (McGlone & Martin, 2006). Many other organizations have

been successful by using a similar tactic to symbolize their cause, which ultimately

created a fad effect. One example of this type of symbolism that is used to represent a

cause can be seen in the use of the trademark pink ribbon and pink paraphernalia of

breast cancer awareness for Susan G. Komen® (McGlone & Martin, 2006).

In summary, creating a partnership between the participants of the significant

physical feat and an effective marketing strategy could take some of the extremism away

from the potentially dangerous side of a significant physical feat. In doing so, a balance

could be found in order to prevent danger to participants and a possible lack of cost-

effectiveness that Olivola (2011) asserted.

  29 Leadership and its effectiveness in raising funds by an athlete achieving a significant

physical feat

An athlete achieving a significant physical feat has become a highly effective

tactic to raise awareness and funds for a charity because the athlete or participants display

courage, dedication, commitment to the cause, and the trait of leadership-a trait that is

very important in the world of philanthropy and development (Heifetz & Kramer, 2004).

With a poor economy, perhaps the rise in popularity of using a significant physical feat to

raise awareness and funds for charity is due to the creativity and leadership among the

athletes using their athletic ability for good.

According to Heifetz and Kramer (2004), leadership is most often viewed as an

activity rather than a formal position or personal characteristic and may or may not be

accompanied by authority. Lance Armstrong, for example, was no CEO when he began

his fight against cancer, but has lived through cancer himself and acted out his passion to

fight cancer. This action has proven his leadership in the eyes of the many donors and

endorsers of his campaign, projecting him as a great leader of the LIVESTRONG®

campaign and all that it represents (McGlone & Martin, 2006). Perhaps that is why

standout athletes are perceived as great leaders, even if they are not the captain of their

team or the most prominent athlete in their sport. They have proven their leadership

through action on the field and in the name of the cause and/or charity they support.

Given, the athlete may not be successful and may not be competing in their sport because

of the cause, but in choosing a cause or organization to support, the donors and loyal fans

have seen what the athlete is passionate about and what the athlete is committed to. This

  30 creates a simultaneous and parallel motivation for the donors and fans to feel

committed to the same cause (McGlone & Martin, 2006).

In larger business corporations, CEOs and marketing staff try to create a sense of

ownership for those investing in their business (Heifetz & Kramer, 2004). This creates a

close bond with the investor because it develops a greater sense of commitment to the

business. In turn, when the business needs the financial support of the investor, the

investor feels obligated to pitch in. This same approach is displayed when an athlete like

Lance Armstrong completes or wins the Tour de France; he draws fans to his side and

then simultaneously directs them toward his cause. These fans are loyal to Lance

Armstrong and are familiar with his passion to fight against cancer. Ultimately, they feel

obligated to help his LIVESTRONG® campaign as Lance courageously leads the way

(McGlone & Martin, 2006).

In Albion (2010)’s article, a similar view of effective leadership is displayed, but

one that takes a different approach. Albion (2010) defined leadership as less of a

forefront position in fundraising; one that is a silent but strong presence and a position

that is steadfast, yet slightly passive, in order to leave space for the enablement and

empowerment of others in an organization. This definition supports the idea that an

athlete must act as a leader: not as a dictator, but a diplomat (Albion, 2010). The athlete

and/or participants create a persona much like the ambassador of an organization: one

that the donor can relate to and one that creates a bridge between society and the cause.

Many famous athletes are captains of a team, but when it comes to a team of people

donating money to the athlete’s cause, Albion (2010) suggested that the athlete must

inherit a role similar to that of an architect and must build up the culture of the

  31 organization they support in order to fundraise effectively. In support of Albion

(2010), Jay Coen Gilbert, cofounder and former CEO of AND 1, a basketball footwear

and apparel company, said:

“Never underestimate the things you can’t count. The most important thing you

have at your company is your culture; through it you engage your values, build

commitment, and inspire action.” (Albion, 2010, p.3)

Although Albion (2010) mainly referred to the relationship of a leader with its

organization, this leadership role can also hold true for the athlete as they are creating a

leadership role both within and outside of the organization they are fundraising for. By

acting out on their desire to support their cause, they are helping donors discover their

passion for the cause as well, thus empowering them to support the cause and use their

time, talent and resources to make a difference (McGlone & Martin, 2006). This form of

empowerment is well displayed in events such as Komen’s 3-Day Walk for a Cure ® or

The March of Dimes ®. In events such as these, Albion (2010)’s form of diplomatic

leadership is found at a much more tangible level within the hearts of regular people who

empower and enable those around them to join in on the walk or other physical feat.

Albion (2010) brought forth a powerful realization that leadership can be found in

anyone: CEOs, organizational staff, athletes, and donors alike. By creating a culture that

brings all of these roles to the same level, athletes are creating a sense of unity between

an organization and current and potential donors. This sense of unity provides donors

with a deep realization that they, too, can lead and can ultimately make a difference.

In summing up leadership and its effectiveness at raising funds for charity, Albion

(2010) revealed to the reader specific and desired qualities that were identified in

  32 McGlone and Martin (2006)’s analysis of the LIVESTRONG® campaign. This

campaign creates a culture that inspires action. Those who run marathons or climb

mountains for a charitable cause create a culture that inspires action. By leading in the

way as Albion (2010) described, the athlete does not force donors into action; they utilize

their leadership skills to inspire donors into action, thus motivating them to give. This

could perhaps be very beneficial when utilizing a significant physical feat as a creative

approach to renewing or reviving a cause that is common (i.e. fighting cancer). Won,

Park, and Turner (2010) asserted that in recent years, attaining money for charities for

NPOs has been challenging, largely due to the economic downturn (p.19). Won et al.

(2010) revealed that in addition, “fierce competition among an increasing number of

charities has exacerbated the situation” (p.19). By using leadership to inspire more

leadership in donors and participants, it could possibly give a charity or non-profit

organization a competitive edge and would remind all of those involved the impact that

they, too, could have on the cause and/or charity.

Utilizing a significant physical feat within a fundraising campaign

Snelgrove and Wood (2010) pointed out that charity sport evens are unique in a

way that they require a research focus that is distinct from other types of sport events.

This is due to the fact that the cause and sport have a “significant and collective impact”

on the attachment and attraction those participants feel towards the event (Snelgrove &

Wood, 2010). Based on the literature that has been reviewed, an overlying trend is that

utilizing a significant physical feat in a fundraising campaign, whether the feat is

completed by a single athlete or by donors being able to participate, an emotional bond is

established through Olivola (2011)’s “painful-effortful” experience. Olivola (2011) has

  33 found that this type of experience has shown to be one of the most powerful and

effective ways to emotionally attach and engage donors. Also, Snelgrove and Wood

(2010) asserted that this unique type of fundraising is powerful because those who

participate are strongly motivated by the desire to support others. This is especially true if

the cause is related to something the athlete, donor, or participants in the event have

experienced, such as an illness (Snelgrove & Wood, 2010). This leads to a personal

connection with the cause; whether it is because the participant has had the disease them

self, because they feel a desire to support or honor someone in their life who has been

affected, or because of a fear of developing the disease themselves (Snelgrove & Wood,

2010).

  34 Chapter Three

Conclusions and Recommendations

Introduction

The writer concludes that although there is a rise in popularity of using a

significant physical feat as a fundraising tactic, there are both positive and negative

affects on the organization or cause that is to benefit from the feat. Development

professionals can benefit from this unique way of fundraising because it can strengthen

the emotional bond between donors and a cause and/or charity. It can also offer a

different and more unique fundraising experience for those who support the cause and/or

charity.

Development professionals should take care in determining whether their

organization or cause has the means to hold such an event in affiliation with an athlete or

participants, as these events can be dangerous and non cost-efficient, as Olivola and

Shafir (2011) pointed out.

The writer agrees with Olivola (2011) when he concluded that using a significant

feat as a method of fundraising can also be a hindrance and harmful to an organization or

cause. Possible injury to athletes and donor participants and incurred costs can sometimes

outweigh the good that the significant event or feat can bring to the organization.

Although Olivola (2011) argued that significant feats are not a valuable/efficient

use of time, money, and energy (due to caloric expenditure), the writer feels that there is

a collaborative art behind utilizing a significant feat to fundraise. This art is created

through selflessness and rewards its participants with a valuable and rewarding

perspective. This unique fundraising tactic is very inspiring and impacting; which can

  35 provide a strong sense of unity amidst all who participate. This sense of unity renews

the face of fundraising and can rejuvenate a campaign that has a message or mission that

may have dulled over time. Ultimately, the reader feels that the benefits outweigh the

hindrances and utilizing a significant physical feat; whether it is being achieved by an

athlete or by several participants, is a wonderful way to unite, inspire, engage, and

ultimately retain donors who support the cause or organization. Beyond the cause or

organization, this fundraising tactic also has the potential to renew the face of fundraising

and a culture of philanthropy in the United States and beyond.

Since raising funds for a charitable cause by achieving a significant physical feat

is a fairly new fundraising tactic, there is not an extensive amount of writing and

research. There is a lot of room to research giving patterns and a more precise look

should be taken at exactly how this form of fundraising impacts a single campaign, an

overall cause, and an entire organization over time. More research also needs to be

completed in order to solidify ways in order to find out what type of physical feat could

best serve an organization’s fundraising needs. For example, would a marathon be as

effective in attracting donors and participants to support a fine arts related cause, as

opposed to a health or fitness related cause?

Conclusions

One of the overarching topics explored in this literature review is how donor

participation in an athletic event for charity can often lead to a deeper level of

engagement and emotional connectivity. To explore this idea, college athletics were

explored and paralleled with an athlete or donor participant in an athletic-related charity

event. Much of the research found that alumni who were a member of a college varsity

  36 athletic team were more likely to be alumni givers as well (Shapiro & Ridinger, 2011).

Meer and Rosen (2008) asserted “the usual assumption” is that the correlation between

those who were members of a varsity athletic team and future giving is caused by a

strong tie that students feel with their college after being a member of the team

themselves. Meer and Rosen (2008) went on to note that if affection toward the team in

which the former student played on affects their giving, then the future success of the

team may affect his or her feelings of the institution and ultimately, their giving. After

revealing this finding, Meer and Rosen (2008) pointed out that “institutional-level data

cannot investigate this phenomenon” (p. 3). This phenomenon is when the success of an

alumni’s team at the time they were an undergraduate student affects their giving during

the years beyond their undergraduate studies (Meer & Rosen, 2008).

Recommendations for Further Study

There is a great body of knowledge that explores behavioral motivations behind

donor giving, namely motivations related to emotional ties connecting donors to a cause

and/or charity. More research must be done to find whether or not a participant in an

athletic “painful-effort” event for charity will gain a deep enough affinity and tie to

subsequently participate and give to the affiliated cause or organization. Will this vary

from person to person? Is there a way to measure this “phenomenon” as Meer and Rosen

(2008) called it? Another way in which donors are emotionally bonding with the feat and

its cause is perhaps the donor recognizes a powerful parallel between triumphing over the

painful-effortful experience and overcoming a painful-effortful form of adversity, such as

a daunting disease.

  37  After a thorough review of all of the factors found that motivate donors, the

differences between the behavior of donors of athletes affiliated with a college or

university as opposed to athletes competing or achieving a significant physical feat for

charity remains a fairly new concept of study. With a recent rise in popularity of such

feats, more research needs to be done regarding these motivational factors. An interesting

area of study would be to see whether or not a physical feat directly related to the cause

would be as effective as a feat that is not related. For example, would running a marathon

be as effective raising funds for an animal shelter as opposed to raising funds for

something related to a human health issue tied to running and physical well-being?

Another tangent of study would be to analyze the motivational factors behind an athlete

who is donating their time and talent for the cause and how their personal contributions

affect a donor’s motivation to give. Also, does a parallel between the magnitude of the

physical feat and the magnitude of the organization’s fundraising goal affect the

motivations of a donor? Another research topic would be whether or not there is a direct

correlation between donors and whether or not they identify with the athlete or

participants in the significant physical feat.

This conclusion also brings about another recommendation of study: Whether or

not loyalty to a cause will play as significant of a role in donor motivation since many of

the more recent causes that athletes raise awareness for have not been around for very

long. As the popularity of utilizing significant physical feats as an effective way to

fundraise increases, perhaps further research will find new factors that motivate donors

who give to such unique, adventurous, and inspiring fundraising campaigns.

  38 Summary

As a culture of philanthropy increases throughout the United States and the world,

development professionals will need to create new and innovative ways to fundraise. In

doing so, development professionals will attract, connect, engage, and retain donors of all

demographics. Development professionals can also learn a lot by taking a look at how

colleges fundraise for their athletic programs and by paralleling those practices with their

organization’s fundraising needs. Development professionals can also utilize similar

approaches to attracting donors and participants.

Since there are so many significant physical feats that can be accomplished, there

is a lot of room for creativity in each fundraising campaign. This can be very beneficial

for causes that may have lost their appeal due to their commonality, such as causes aimed

at fighting a common disease or social justice issue that has been around for a long time.

By utilizing a creative fundraising tactic such as an athlete or participant achieving a

significant physical feat, an organization can revive and renew a cause and can more

exclusively and emotionally connect with their donors (Olivola & Shafir, 2011).

Ultimately, this would make the fundraising campaign profoundly rewarding to all

involved.

  39 References

Albion, M. (2010, Fall). Monk, architect, diplomat. Stanford Social Innovation Review,

8(4), 21-22. Retrieved June 13, 2011, from: www.ssireview.org

Baade, R.A., & Sundberg, J.O. (1996). Fourth down and gold to go? Assessing the link

between athletics and alumni giving. Social Science Quarterly, 77(4), 789-803.

Biebel, B. (2007). Motivational factors involved in making contributions to athletics:

Exploring the concepts at the division I level. Unpublished Masters Capstone.

Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota, Winona, MN.

Drummer, K.P. (2008). Special events-Creating community. Unpublished Masters

Capstone, Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota, Winona, MN.

Fopma, W.D. (1998). The effect of athletic fund raising on the annual fund of a Christian

college coalition member. Unpublished Masters Capstone, Saint Mary’s

University of Minnesota, Winona, MN.

Funk, D.C., Filo, K., Beaton, A.B., & Pritchard, M. (2009). Measuring the motives of

sport event attendance: Bridging the academic-practitioner divide to

understanding behavior. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 18(3), 126-138.

Gladden, J.M., Mahony, D.F., & Apostopolous, A. (2005). Towards a better

understanding of college athletic donors: What are the primary motives? Sport

Marketing Quarterly, 14(1), 18-30.

Hall, H. (2004). Gender differences in giving: Going, going, gone? New Directions for

Philanthropic Fundraising, 43, 71-81.

  40 Heifetz, R. Kania, J., Kramer, M. (2004, Winter). Leading boldly. Stanford Social

Innovation Review, 2(9), 20-31. Retrieved June 13, 2011, from:

www.ssireview.org

Irwin, R.L., Lachowerz, T., Cornwell, T.B., & Clark, J.S. (2003). Cause-related sport

sponsorship: An assessment of spectator beliefs, attitudes and behavioral

intentions. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12(3), 131-139.

McGlone, C., & Martin, N. (2006). Nike® ’s corporate interest lives strong: A case of

Cause-Related Marketing and leveraging. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 15(3), 184-

188.

Meer, J., & Rosen, H.S. The impact of athletic performance on alumni giving: An

analysis of micro data. Economics of Education Review (2008),

doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2008.06.003

Olivola, C. (2011). When noble means hinder noble ends: The benefits and costs of a

preference for martyrdom in altruism. In Olivola, C., & Oppenheimer, D. (Ed.)

The science of giving: Experimental approaches to the study of charity (pp. 49-

62). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.

Olivola, C., & Shafir, E. (2011). The martyrdom effect: When pain and effort increase

prosocial contributions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making.

doi: 10.1002/bdm.767

Ridinger, L., & Shapiro, S. (2011). An analysis of donor involvement, gender, and giving

in college athletics. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 20(1), 22-32.

Roy, D.P., & Graeff, T.R. (2003). Consumer attitudes towards Cause-Related Marketing

activities in professional sports. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12(3), 162-173.

  41 Snelgrove, R., & Wood, L. (2010). Attracting and leveraging visitors at a charity

cycling event. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 15(4), 269-285.

Tsiotsou, R. (2006, August). Investigating differences between female and male athletic

donors: A comparative study. The International Journal of Nonprofit and

Voluntary Sector Marketing, p. 209-223.

Tsiotsou, R. (2007) An empirically based typology of intercollegiate athletic donors:

High and low motivation scenarios. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and

Analysis for Marketing, 15(2), 79-92.

Turner, S.E., Meserve, L.A., & Bowen, W.G. (2001). Winning and giving: Football

results and alumni giving at selective private colleges and universities. Social

Science Quarterly, 82(4), 812-826. doi: 10.1111/0038-4941.00061

Wayson, T. (1998). Putting the benefit back into fundraising benefits. New Directions for

Philanthropic Fundraising, 20(6), 79-91.

Won, D., Park, M., & Turner, B. (2010) Motivations for participating in health related

charity sport events. Journal of Venue and Event Management, 1(2), 17-44.

Retrieved: http://www.hrsm.sc.edu/jvem/Vol1No2/JVEM%20Manuscript_02.pdf

  42 Annotated Bibliography

Albion, M. (2010, Fall). Monk, architect, diplomat. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 8(4), 21-22. Retrieved at www.ssireview.org. Mark Albion is a former Harvard Business School Professor who cofounded six organizations. This article is based on his book True to Yourself: Leading a Values-Based Business. Albion provides the reader a way to understand deep concepts of leadership by referring to various roles of leadership that have well known titles, such as: Father, Dictator, and Captain. Albion picks apart these roles and the traits that make up each one. Albion then goes on to point out how these traits can hinder the health of an organization and then guides the reader into the role of another type of leader under another commonly known title, such as: a Father, an Architect, and a Diplomat. Many times, these are opposite of the roles the reader initially thinks they ought to be inheriting in order to effectively lead their organization. With this change of perspective, the reader can begin to understand how changing one’s initial perceptions of what defines a leader can actually help them become a more effective one. This literature review utilizes Albion’s findings in order to put together and reassemble the traits that Albion discusses, into the role that the athlete achieving a significant physical feat must in habit and utilize in order to affectively raise funds and awareness for a cause.

Baade, R.A., & Sundberg, J.O. (1996). Fourth down and gold to go? Assessing the link between athletics and alumni giving. Social Science Quarterly, 77(4), 789-803. Baade and Sundberg analyzed the impact of successful football and men’s basketball programs on alumni giving. This article presented data and other research that showed an increase in giving due to athletic success, even in programs that were not related to athletics. For example, Baade and Sundberg presented data that showed the department of Liberal Arts saw a correlation between winning percentage and alumni giving. Baade and Sunberg also found that “winning records did not translate into higher gifts at the university level, but bowl game appearances did lead to significantly higher gift totals”. Their findings supported the idea that success attracts and motivates donors to give, both in college athletics and in charitable fundraising.

Biebel, B. (2007). Motivational factors involved in making contributions to athletics: Exploring the concepts at the division I level. Unpublished Masters Capstone. Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota, Winona, MN. Biebel, an alum of the Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota Masters program in Philanthropy and Development, presented research and data that explored the motivations behind those that gave to athletics at the Division I level. Different donor groups were researched, including: male, female, alumni, and non-alumni. By exploring individual motivational factors, Biebel was able to determine if they are motivated by a sense of philanthropy or by benefits they received associated with their gift. This information was explored in order to identify the various factors that motivate donors who give to athletic-related causes. By determining the significance of each motivating factor, Biebel hoped to help development staff of

  43 organizations create effective strategies to improve fundraising for athletics beyond the Division I level.

Drummer, K.P. (2008). Special events-Creating community. Unpublished Masters Capstone, Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota, Winona, MN. Drummer described the various types of special events utilized by non-profit organizations in order to raise money and how special events not only raise funds but also provide a bridge between the organization and its donors. Drummer discussed the specific ways in which special events can provide a glimpse of the organization’s overall mission and how it can effectively engage its donors through special events. Drummer did this by analyzing The Headwaters Foundation for Justice Walk for Justice and how it utilized special events. The main purpose of Drummer’s paper was to present how special events affect the long-term building of an organization’s capacity and to help development professionals utilize special events in order to more effectively carry out their organization’s mission.

Fopma, W.D. (1998). The effect of athletic fund raising on the annual fund of a Christian college coalition member. Unpublished Masters Capstone, Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota, Winona, MN. The purpose of Fopma’s paper was to analyze and discuss the affects of athletic fundraising on a Christian college coalition member’s annual fund. Fopma did not find substantial information, but did find that athletic fundraising was very important to the institution’s overall development program. Fopma’s research concluded that there are many donors who support athletics at a Christian College coalition member and that a successful development program “should make it possible for donors to continue to do so” (retrieved from Abstract).

Funk, D.C., Filo, K., Beaton, A.B., & Pritchard, M. (2009). Measuring the motives of sport event attendance: Bridging the academic-practitioner divide to understanding behavior. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 18(3), 126-138. Funk et al. (2009)’s article raised several questions and points regarding the current state of athletic events and several factors that affect event attendance. They asserted that an aging population and decreasing rates of attendance are raising the competition level between sporting events and entertainment events. This is cause for concern for those in the non-profit sector looking to use athletic-based events to raise funds for charity. To overcome this concern, Funk et al. (2009) collected and studied data to find trends and motives behind what attracts people to attend these events. This article, like Olivola (2011) and Olivola and Shafir (2011)’s articles, analyzed the hedonic and utilitarian based motives behind supporting a fundraising event. Both offered beneficial perspectives and informational approaches that could help development professionals identify ways to keep donors and participants coming back year after year to their athletic-based fundraising event(s).

Gladden, J.M., Mahony, D.F., & Apostopolous, A. (2005). Toward a better understanding of college athletic donors: What are the primary motives? Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14(1), 18-30. This article was used to help development professionals identify parallels between donor behavior and motivations in giving to college athletics and those who donate to support athletic-based charity events. Gladden

  44 et al. (2005) found many different factors that motivate giving, especially those that were most prevalent. They are: “supporting and improving the athletic program, receiving tickets, helping student-athletes, deriving entertainment and enjoyment, supporting and promoting the university (non-athletic programs), receiving membership benefits, repaying past benefits received, helping and enhancing the community, and psychological commitment” (p.18). When analyzed in conjunction with Olivola (2011)’s article, these motivations can be categorized into either hedonistic or utilitarian motives. By recognizing the basic themes found within donor behavior of athletic-based events, development professionals can use this information and apply it to their own athletic-based charity event in order to attract and engage donors and to effectively and efficiently raise funds for their cause or charity.

Hall, H. (2004). Gender differences in giving: Going, going, gone? New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 43, 71-81. Hall, an editor for The Chronicle of Philanthropy, wrote this article while researching to find out whether or not gender differences in giving exist. Her basic research question was, “Are commonly assumed differences between male and female donors disappearing or, indeed, nonexistent?”(p.71). Hall studied contrasting opinions on why any particular segment of a population gives and noted that the reasons for why women give are hard to find. She revealed that not a lot of research had been done in this area and what has been found is very beneficial to the body of knowledge in the non-profit sector. Hall asserted that in recent literature, there are a lot of assertions that suggest men and women who give are different, but then went on to advance that there are some significant differences in giving between men and women. Hall’s findings supported Tsiotsou (2007)’s article, which also studied differences in gender influences on giving. Both articles supplemented the section of this literature review dedicated to analyzing those differences as well.

Heifetz, R. Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2004, Winter). Leading boldly. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 2(9), 20-31. Retrieved at www.ssireview.org Heifetz et al. (2004) used this case study to break down the most common stereotypes and idea of what most believe a leader to be and rebuilt a vision of what the ultimate leader can and should be, even if the leader/ leadership is creating controversy or is going against traditional leadership norms. This article is aimed at helping the reader recognize how important leadership is in the success of utilizing a significant physical feat in raising funds for charity. By using leadership in conjunction with Olivola (2011)’s Martyrdom Effect, development professionals can build a very inspiring and strong force to raise funds for their cause and/ or charity. This article empowers leaders to think outside the box and if necessary, go against traditional approaches in order to reach their fundraising goals.

Irwin, R.L., Lachowerz, T., Cornwell, T.B., & Clark, J.S. (2003). Cause-related sport sponsorship: An assessment of spectator beliefs, attitudes and behavioral intentions. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12(3), 131-139. Irwin et al. (2003) brought a more business management perspective to a predominantly behavior psychology based study of the motivations behind those who give to an athlete achieving a significant physical feat. This article discussed the concept of CRM, Cause-

  45 Related Marketing, and the benefits it can bring to both a corporation and a charitable cause that it supports. By being affiliated with an altruistic cause, a corporation not only helps a charity, but also their brand’s image; drawing more of their consumers to support the cause they support. CRM helps to attract more consumers, who then become faithful and loyal to their corporation. Irwin et al. (2003) supported this by studying the “attitudes, beliefs, and purchase intentions of consumers exposed to a firm’s sponsorship of a sporting event associated with a non-profit organization” (p. 131). This concept was useful in dissecting the association between Nike® and the Livestrong® campaign with Lance Armstrong, in order to determine what made it so successful; namely why it attracted both athletes and consumers alike who were affiliated with both sides of the partnership.

McGlone, C., & Martin, N. (2006). Nike® ’s corporate interest lives strong: A case of Cause-Related Marketing and leveraging. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 15(3), 184-188. McGlone and Martin analyzed the success of the Nike Livestrong campaign and the affects of Cause-Related Marketing and leveraging on fundraising in the non-profit sector. By taking a look at the relationship between Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong’s success and Nike®, McGlone and Martin presented several ideas as to what has made this partnership so successful. After battling and beating cancer, Lance Armstrong went on to win several Tour de France titles. By pairing with an admirable athlete such as Lance Armstrong, Nike® was able to inspire and unite millions of people through their Livestrong campaign. By doing so, they created a culture that encourages a healthy lifestyle and a donor base that is very passionate about beating cancer, supporting their favorite athlete, and a myriad of other factors that led them to support Lance, Nike®, and the Livestrong campaign. McGlone and Martin informed the reader about the effects of Cause-Related Marketing, which is a form of marketing that takes place when a corporation partners with a cause-many times a charitable organization-that not only helps an organization in need, but also benefits the image and publicity of the corporation. In this case, the Livestrong campaign represented Cause-Related Marketing in the collaborative effort between Nike® corporation, and the Livestrong campaign’s cause of fighting cancer.

Meer, J., & Rosen, H.S. The impact of athletic performance on alumni giving: An analysis of micro data. Economics of Education Review (2008), doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2008.06.003 Meer and Rosen (2008) combined data and behavioral psychology to analyze and determine the correlation between the success of a college athletic team and subsequent giving by those who support the college’s athletic program. Meer and Rosen (2008) concluded that one of the main reasons for subsequent giving is the emotional connection alumni still feel with their school and the athletic team beyond their undergraduate years, especially if they were a participant on the team or had a history of playing the sport themselves. This article tied into the research related to identifying the motivating factors behind donor giving, donor engagement, and donor retention associated with athletic-based events that raise money for charity.

  46 Olivola, C. (2011). When noble means hinder noble ends: The benefits and costs of a

preference for martyrdom in altruism. In Olivola, C., & Oppenheimer, D. (Ed.) The science of giving: Experimental approaches to the study of charity (pp. 49-62). New York, NY: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC. Christopher Olivola received a joint-PhD in Psychology and Policy from Princeton University, and a BA in Psychology from the University of Chicago. He studies the psychology of human decision-making, experimental philosophy, and behavioral economics. He is the co-editor, along with Daniel Oppenheimer, of The Science of Giving: Experimental Approaches to the Study of Charity. Olivola brought both a scientific and modern-day perspective to his article on the rising popularity of a phenomenon in fundraising called the martyrdom effect. The martyrdom effect occurs when someone uses drastic means to inspire donors to give to a campaign or organization. To define and explain the martyrdom effect, Olivola used his strengths as an expert in behavioral psychology to analyze the motivations of donors and their desire to use drastic and sometimes excruciating ways to raise funds and awareness for a cause that is meaningful to them. Olivola also revealed that the martyrdom effect goes against common psychological behaviors in donors because of the strong emotional bonds donors form due to the extreme measures they or an athlete takes in order to raise money. Olivola began this article by discussing Pareto hedonism and Pareto utilitarianism, which are two normative standards for making donation choices. By analyzing these two categories of choices, Olivola was able to present an argument that was supported by literature and concurred that donors may not always be motivated to follow these standards. Instead, they preferred ways of charitable giving that involved significant pain and effort on behalf of the individual who is raising awareness and funds.

Olivola, C., & Shafir, E. (2011). The martyrdom effect: When pain and effort increase prosocial contributions. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. doi: 10.1002/bdm.767. Olivola and Shafir, both leaders and researchers in the field of behavioral psychology, have compiled various data to draw conclusions on the motivations behind why people not only support a charitable cause that is associated with a “painful-effort” fundraising event, but some also participate. After analyzing and summarizing a few experiments, Olivola and Shafir (2011) named this phenomenon of donor behavior the “martyrdom effect”. Olivola and Shafir (2011) asserted that this is considered a phenomenon because normally, people view that pain and effort are deterrents from an activity. Olivola and Shafir noted that, “However, human motivation is more complex” (p. 13). The overall finding was that “not only were people willing to participate in painful-effortful events and give away their money to aid anonymous others but that the prospects of experiencing pain and exerting effort for a prosocial cause can actually lead to greater altruism!” (p.14) These findings supplemented an array of the benefits of using a significant physical feat as an inspiring tactic for an athlete raising funds for a charitable cause. While Olivola’s other article, When Noble Means Hinder Noble Ends, discussed the possible hindrances and negatives about painful-efforts and their inefficiencies in fundraising, this article supported the idea that although

  47 it is not cost-effective at times, overall, it inspires a culture of giving, is a powerful motivator, and helps to better engage and retain donors in the long run.

Ridinger, L., & Shapiro, S. (2011). An analysis of donor involvement, gender, and giving in college athletics. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 20(1), 22-32. Ridinger and Shapiro (2011) took a consumer behavior approach in order to analyze and examine gender differences in donor involvement. By taking a closer look at the various factors that motivate donors of both genders in college athletics, the writer of this literature review hoped to help development professionals recognize parallels between college athletic fundraising and utilizing a significant physical feat or athletic achievement to raise funds for charity. Ridinger and Shapiro (2011) formed their study around five main questions: (1) Does involvement differ between male and female college athletic donors? (2) Do male and female donors differ in annual income? (3) Do male and female donors differ in donor longevity? (4) Do male and female donors differ in age? (5) Do male and female donors differ in annual income? Ridinger and Shapiro (2011) found many different motivational factors, namely how both genders participate in giving. Ridinger and Shapiro (2011)’s article was beneficial in identifying ways in which development professionals can potentially attract and engage members of both genders and ultimately as many unique demographics as possible.

Roy, D.P., & Graeff, T.R. (2003). Consumer attitudes towards cause-related marketing activities in professional sports. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12(3), 162-173. Like McGlone and Martin (2006)’s article, Roy and Graeff took a closer look at Cause-Related Marketing, this time from the consumer’s point of view. Roy and Graeff revealed the unique benefits of collaboration between a corporation and a non-profit and the positive affects this relationship has on the corporation’s image among its consumers. Roy and Graeff’s article contributed to this literature review by helping the reader better understand how an athlete raising funds for charity benefits from aligning with a good cause and how the corporate sponsors of the athlete can benefit from the relationship. Ray and Graeff emphasized how important image is in the world of marketing and suggested that by aligning oneself with a good organization that has a pristine image, a corporation could do really well as a result of proud and loyal consumers.

Snelgrove, R., & Wood, L. (2010). Attracting and leveraging visitors at a charity cycling event. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 15(4), 269-285. Snelgrove and Wood (2010)’s article was analyzed in order to determine various ways in which to further engage donors and participants in an athletic-based charity event. Snelgrove and Wood (2010) asserted that charity events need special research that is different from regular sport events because there is a unique relationship between the cause and the sport at hand. This relationship has “a significant and collective impact on participants’ attraction and attachment to the event” (Snelgrove & Wood, 2010, p. 270). Snelgrove and Wood (2010) cultivated this realization throughout the article and went on to identify other psychological factors that build emotional ties between participants, and among participants, donors and the cause they are supporting. Snelgrove and Wood (2010)’s article contributed to this literature review by offering development professionals additional ways to identify how

  48 donors and participants become emotionally invested in charity sport events. Although this article mainly focused on charity cycling events, it provides an opportunity for development professionals to analyze parallels between charity sport events and their own athletic-based charity event. Snelgrove and Wood (2010) found many ways in which a charity sport event can unite its participants, donors, local businesses, and an entire community. They also identified the various motivational factors that help to attract and engage all involved. This article would be very helpful to development professionals that are planning such an event and could help them to recognize and identify potential athletes, donors, and participants in order to help their athletic-based charity event become a success.

Tsiotsou, R. (2006). Investigating differences between female and male athletic donors: A comparative study. The International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, (August), p. 209-223. Tsiotsou received her PhD from Florida State University and used her expertise in marketing within the non-profit sector and donor segmentation to help the reader understand the basic motivations behind giving in intercollegiate athletics. In this article, Tsiotsou focused on the differences between male and female donors who give to athletics and how development professionals can more successfully fundraise within the two groups by understanding what motivates them to give. Overall, Tsiotsou (2006) also emphasized that aside from gender, a common motivation for giving in both genders is how previous “involvement in a sport positively affects the level of involvement in athletics and indirectly affect the amount of money donated.” Tsiotsou also spent much of the article encouraging donor engagement with women donors, who are often overlooked or under-engaged. Tsiotsou found that female donors tend to give more when an emotional bond is present and this unique characteristic in female donors can help development professionals reach out to, engage, and retain female donors.

Tsiotsou, R. (2007). An empirically based typology of intercollegiate athletic donors: High and low motivation scenarios. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 15(2), 79-92. Tsiotsou received her PhD from Florida State University and used her expertise in marketing within the non-profit sector and donor segmentation to help the reader understand the basic motivations behind giving in intercollegiate athletics. Tsiotsou (2007) wrote this article to help development professionals gain a better understanding of this market so that they, too, can build a successful and efficient marketing program for their college athletic fundraising program. The writer incorporated this article in order to help development professionals identify parallels between marketing within college athletic fundraising and athletic-based charity events. Tsiotsou’s findings could help development professionals recognize similar ways in which to utilize the motivations that were presented in order to attract and engage donors.

Turner, S.E., Meserve, L.A., & Bowen, W.G. (2001). Winning and giving: Football results and alumni giving at selective private colleges and universities. Social Science Quarterly, 82(4), 812-826. Turner et al. (2001)’s article analyzed the relationships between alumni and the success of the athletic program at their alma

  49 mater. To analyze these relationships, Turner et al. (2001) researched several questions in order to find the various factors that affect alumni giving. These questions were (p. 814): (1) Do variations in the won-lost records of the most visible athletic teams affect the percentage of graduates who make general gifts (the “general giving rate”)? (2) Does variation in won-lost records affect the amount that donors contribute for general purposes? (3) How are “athletic giving rates” (percentages of graduates who make gifts specifically for athletics) and the amounts given to athletics affected by won-lost records? In addition, two newer questions were researched (p.814): (1) In their giving behavior, are former varsity athletes more or less sensitive than other former students to the competitive success of their school? (2) Are graduates of schools that sponsor big-time, Division 1A programs more or less sensitive to won-lost records than graduates of schools with the lower-profile programs found in the Ivy League and Division III liberal arts colleges? This study also presented various findings on alumni and how their subsequent giving is affected. By analyzing this research and data, development professionals can identify ways in which to further engage their donors and participants in order to gain subsequent support beyond their sports-related charity event.

Wayson, T. (1998). Putting the benefit back into fundraising benefits. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 20(6), 79-91. Wayson’s article provided an optimistic look into how non-profit organizations can effectively use special events to bridge the gap between the community and the non-profit organization. Wayson also presented research and findings on how to turn those who have been involved with the organization at the most superficial level into the most active and engaged donor. Wayson suggested that through education, various effective marketing strategies, and effective communication, a non-profit organization could be highly impacting and effective within the community it serves. Wayson (1998) concluded, “With a plan to integrate events into the total development process, an event can be an effective tool for introducing prospects to an organization and setting them on the path toward becoming donors” (p. 91).

Won, D., Park, M., & Turner, B. (2010). Motivations for participating in health related charity sport events. Journal of Venue and Event Management, 1(2), 17-44. Retrieved: http://www.hrsm.sc.edu/jvem/Vol1No2/JVEM%20Manuscript_02.pdf Won et al. (2010)’s article studied donor motivations in sport marketing and analyzed the motivations for participation in charity sport events. The results of this study helped the writer of this literature review gain a deeper understanding of the motivations behind donors and those who participate in sports-related/ athletic-based charity events. Won et al. (2010) concluded that once development professionals are able to recognize and identify these motivations, they could be used in an effective fundraising program to engage and retain donors and participants.