differentiation of social marketing and cause-related
TRANSCRIPT
Public Health Faculty Publications School of Public Health
6-1-2012
Differentiation of Social Marketing and Cause-Related Marketing Differentiation of Social Marketing and Cause-Related Marketing
in US Professional Sport in US Professional Sport
Jennifer Renee Pharr University of Nevada, Las Vegas, [email protected]
Nancy L. Lough University of Nevada, Las Vegas, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/
community_health_sciences_fac_articles
Part of the Advertising and Promotion Management Commons, Marketing Commons, Sports
Management Commons, and the Sports Studies Commons
Repository Citation Repository Citation Pharr, J. R., Lough, N. L. (2012). Differentiation of Social Marketing and Cause-Related Marketing in US Professional Sport. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 21 91-103. https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/community_health_sciences_fac_articles/84
This Article is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this Article in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. This Article has been accepted for inclusion in Public Health Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Sport Marketing Quarterly, 2012, 21, 91-103, © 2012 West Virginia University
Differentiation of Social Marketingand Cause-Related Marketing in USProfessional Sport
Jennifer R. Pharr and Nanq/̂ L. Lough
Jennifer R. Pharr, PhD, is a doctoral fellow in the School of Community Health Sciences at the University of Nevada, LasVegas. Her research interests include social marketing, healthcare marketing, and health disparities.Nancy L. Lough, EdD, is a professor in the Higher Education Leadership program in the College of Education at theUniversity of Nevada, Las Vegas. Her research interests include marketing women's sport, corporate sponsorship, socialmarketing, and leadership in intercoHegiate athletics.
(=10
fr>AbstractSeveral studies have focused on cause-related sport marketing (CRM), yet few have examined social mar-keting in sport. The purpose of this study was to show how both are imique strategies employed in sport toachieve corporate social responsibility. A qualitative content analysis was utilized to analyze the outreachprograms of the NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB as described on each website. A directed content analysis wasused to categorize outreach programs as CRM, social marketing, or other community outreach based on fivevariables that differentiate each strategy. Forty three programs were evaluated. Twenty two (51.2%) werecategorized as social marketing, eight (18.6%) as CRM, and 13 (30.2%) as other community outreach. Socialmarketing programs were identified significantly more than CRM. The findings demonstrate how the majorleagues have embraced the use of social marketing strategies to demonstrate corporate social responsibility.
IntroductionSince the early 2000s, a growing body of literature hasexamined corporate social responsibility in sport (CSR)(Babiak & Wolfe, 2006; Babiak & Wolfe, 2009; Bradish& Cronin, 2009; Breitbarth & Harris, 2008; Sheth &Babiak, 2010; Smith & Westerbeek, 2007; Walker &Kent, 2009; Walker & Kent, 2010). Similarly, severalstudies have focused on the benefit of cause-relatedmarketing (CRM) for sport organizations (Irwin, Clark,& Lachowetz, 2010; Irwin, Lachowetz, Cornwell, &Clark, 2003; Kim, Kim, & Kwak, 2010; Lachowetz &Gladden, 2003; Lachowetz & Irwin, 2002; McGlone &Martin, 2006; Roy & Graeff, 2003). Yet few studies haveexamined social marketing in sport (Bell & Blakey,2010; Lough & Pharr, 2010). Surprisingly, the linkbetween CSR and CRM in sport has not been clearlyarticulated. Some authors have inferred that CRM is atactic or strategy to achieve CSR (Roy & Graeff, 2003).Meanwhue, social marketing has emerged as a moredirect strategy to demonstrate social responsibility. Yetmost scholars have overlooked the use of social market-ing in sport or inaccurately labeled social marketingcampaigns as cause-related marketing.
The lack of sport marketing research focused onsocial marketing presents an opportunity for investiga-tion. In 2003, Roy and Graeff briefly mentioned socialadvertising in the context of identifying the benefits ofCRM. More recently, Irwin, Irwin, Miller, Somes, andRichey (2010) inaccurately used CRM to describe theNFL Play 60 campaign. In this paper, we will demon-strate that a more appropriate depiction of the NFLPlay 60 would have defined it as a social marketingcampaign. As Lough and Pharr (2010) recently illus-trated, CRM and social marketing are two distinctmarketing strategies. The need to clearly identify eachapproach as unique has become more apparent withthe recent increase in social marketing campaigns usedin the sport industry. The primary purpose of thisstudy is to show how both CRM and social marketingare unique strategies employed in sport to achieve cor-porate social responsibility.
Storey, Saffitz, and Rimon (2008) used five variables
to differentiate social marketing from commercial
marketing. Lough and Pharr (2010) expanded this
model to include CRM, thus creating a multi-tiered
marketing model. In their model, commercial market-
Volume 21 • Number 2 • 2012 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 91
Table 1.Comparison of Social and Cause Marketing
Social Marketing
Locus of Benefit Individuals in targetmarket
Society at large
Objective/ Behaviors thatOutcomes increase personal
and/or social welfare
Norms, values.knowledge and atti-tudes addressed tothe extent that theyinform behaviordecision
Target Market Tends to be less afflu-ent, more diverse.more in need ofsocial services, harderto reach
Voluntary Exchange Includes weighing ofeconomic and non-economic social costsand benefits
Tends to be intangi-ble
Market Perspective Products and servicestend to be less tangible
Competition tends tobe less tangible andmore varied
Economic factors likepurchase power tendto be less important
Adapted from Storey et al. (2008) and Lough &
Social MarketingExample: Euro 2005
Girls and women liv-ing in the communi-ties where thetournament washosted
An increased aware-ness of women'sfootball
An increase in thenumber of girls andwomen participatingin football or sportin general
A raised awareness ofhealth issues associ-ated with physicalinactivity
Girls and women liv-ing in the communi-ties where thetournament washosted
Cost = timeBenefit = improvedhealth
Cost: time to partici-pate in festivals.workshops, attend agame or play football
Benefit included anincreased under-standing of women'sfootball and the asso-ciated health benefits
Marketing includedthe use of posters.festivals, campaignsat schools, roadshows, participationopportunities, andticket give-aways
Competition existwith other events inthe community thatcompete for the par-ticipants time
Pharr(2011).
Cause-RelatedMarketing
Cause group or asso-ciation
Supporting corporatepartner
Purchase or donationbehavior
Attitudes towards theimage of the brand.corporation, or prod-uct
Consumer loyalty /Brand switching
Tends to be moreaffluent and con-cerned with cause-related issues
Includes weighing ofeconomic and non-economic costs andbenefits
Tends to be a mix oftangible and intangi-ble cost/benefit
Products tend to be amix of tangible andintangible
Competition tends tobe more tangible andcategorical
Economic factors likepurchase power tendto be more important
CRMExample: Livestrong
Lance ArmstrongFoundation (charity /cause)
Nike (the supportingbusiness partner)
Donations to the LAF
Purchase of Nikebranded Livestrongapparel, shoes, andequipment with100% of proceedsgoing to LAF
A positive image.enhanced brand, andpossible brandswitching to Nike
Active, sports fanswho are connected tocancer as a cause
Money (tangible) isdonated to LAF tosupport the cause(intangible) ormoney (tangible) isused to purchaseLivestrong apparel(tangible)
Livestrong must con-sider the mixture oftangibility and intan-gibility of the volun-tary exchange
The competition thatexists from othercauses (i.e., Susan G.Komen)
ing, social marketing, and CRM were differentiated by ing perspective. For the purpose of this inquiry, these1) locus of benefit, 2) outcomes/objectives sought, 3) five variables will be used to 1) analyze CRM and socialtarget market, 4) voluntary exchange, and 5) market- marketing campaigns employed by the top professional
92 Volume 21 • Number 2 • 2012 • Sport Marketing Quarterly
sport organizations in the US, 2) highlight the differ-ences between these two unique marketing strategies,and 3) to present a conceptual model explaining therelationships between corporate social responsibility,cause-related marketing, and social marketing.
Social marketing and CRM each have a unique (differ-ent) locus of benefit, objectives/outcomes sought, targetmarket, voluntary exchange, and marketing perspective.Because of this, it is important for sport marketers tounderstand these distinct difference between the twomarketing strategies and how each can be utilized toachieve corporate social responsibility objectives.
Social MarketingSocial marketing dates back to the early 1960s and wasfirst defined by Kotier and Zaltman in 1971 as thedesign and implementation of programs used toincrease the acceptability of social ideas which involvesthe four Ps (price, product, placement, and promo-tion) of marketing. Social marketing was furtherdefined as the application of "commercial marketingtechnologies to the analysis, planning, execution andevaluation of programs designed to influence the vol-untary behavior of a target audience in order toimprove their personal welfare and that of their socie-ty" (Andreasen, 1995, p. 7). Social marketing has beenused extensively in the health promotion branch ofpublic health as a means to improve health and pre-vent disease in the target market. Examples of socialmarketing in public health include programs focusedon increasing physical activity, increasing fruit andvegetable consumption, anti-smoking/smoking cessa-tion, and sexually transmitted disease prevention(Grier & Bryant, 2005). Thus, social marketingemploys unique strategies for purposes such asaddressing social and health related issues.
Several commercial marketing strategies must beapplied for social marketing to succeed. These includeexchange theory, audience segmentation or target mar-ket, competition, the four Ps (price, place, product,promotion), consumer orientation, and evaluation ofthe marketing campaign (Grier & Bryan, 2005).Compared to commercial marketing, social marketingtends to be more relational rather than transactionaland the cost/benefits tend to be less tangible (i.e.,improved health). In commercial marketing, money(price) is exchanged for a product or service. In socialmarketing the cost (price) is more likely to be theintangible cost of time and/or the psychological dis-comfort that comes from making a behavior change(i.e., the discomfort of nicotine withdrawal). The bene-fit (product) of social marketing is more likely to beintangible, such as improved health or reduction ofdisease. The loci of benefit of a social marketing cam-
paign are individuals who need to change their behav-ior and society at large. The primary outcomes/objec-tives sought are behaviors that increase personaland/or social welfare and/or health (Storey et al.,2008).
Secondary outcomes/objectives of social marketinginclude improved brand equity, brand awareness, andbrand loyalty because consumers of the brand support-ing social marketing initiatives often benefit from thefeeling that their support of the brand made these ini-tiatives possible (Lough & Pharr, 2010 ). The targetmarket for social marketing campaigns encompassesindividuals and groups in society in need of making abehavior change. Just as in commercial marketing, thetarget market should be segmented by psychographicsand demographics to create an effective marketingcampaign. The voluntary exchange, as mentioned pre-viously, tends to be less tangible (time, discomfort,improved health) in social marketing. Similarly, botheconomic and non-economic costs and benefits mustbe weighed by the target market. The marketing per-spective of social marketing includes an acknowledge-ment of 1) the intangibility of the costs/benefits; 2) theintangibility of the competition (i.e., competing withthe desire to be physically inactive); and 3) economicfactors like purchase power tend to be less important.
Two published articles have evaluated social market-ing in sport. One examined Nike's Camechangers socialmarketing campaign (Lough & Pharr, 2010) and theother examined European Football AssociationsChampionship for Women in 2005 (EURO 2005) (Bell& Blakey, 2010). Lough and Pharr (2010) evaluatedNike's commercial, social, and cause marketing cam-paigns and showed how each could be incorporatedinto a multi-tiered marketing framework. The authorssuggested social marketing could be a means for sportmarketers to connect more directly with their targetmarket. Bell and Blakey (2010) analyzed flie use ofsocial marketing in the EURO 2005. They found thatthe social marketing campaign created awareness ofwomen's football, persuaded and motivated girls andwomen to participate, and facilitated opportunities tocontinue the behavior change of increased physicalactivity. Table 1 illustrates how the five variables ofsocial marketing can be evaluated with EURO 2005 asan example. Despite the paucity of published workexamining the use of social marketing in sport, therehave been several studies focusing on cause-relatedmarketing in sport.
Cause-Related MarketingIn 1999, Adkins defined cause-related marketing as"activity by which businesses and charities or causesform a partnership with each other to market an
Volume 21 • Number 2 • 2012 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 93
image, product or service for mutual benefit" (p. 11).In one of the earlier studies examining motivations toengage in CRM, Ross, Stutts, and Patterson (1991)found nearly 50% of consumers reported they hadmade a purchase because of their desire to support acause, most were willing to try a new brand because ofa cause-related promotion, and the majority demon-strated the ability to recall a cause-related advertise-ment. Documented benefits of CRM programs includean enhanced company image (Rigney & Steenhuyson,1991), positive publicity (Nichols, 1990), a differentiat-ed image (Shell, 1989), and favorable attitudes by con-sumers about sponsoring companies (Ross et al.,1991). Cause-related marketing has also been shown tohave a positive influence on consumers' perceptions ofcorporate reputation after a company has engaged inunethical behavior (Cone & Roper, 1999).
Pringle and Thompson's (1999) conceptualization ofCRM was "as a strategic positioning and marketingtool which links a company or brand to a relevantsocial cause or issue, for mutual benefit" (p. 3). Theyalso suggested CRM is a more integrated marketingstrategy as it is supported by marketing budgets, notmore limited philanthropic budgets. To be successfulin cause-related sport marketing (CRSM), a number ofconditions are necessary such as identifying a causethat resonates with consumers and sponsoring organi-zations; complete and genuine organizational commit-ment to the cause; evidence of a tangible (e.g.,monetary, personnel) transfer to the not-for-profit;and promotion of the CRSM program (Lachowetz &Gladden, 2003). Accordingly, the degree to which theconditions are met will establish the outcomes. Yet, ifthe consumer perceives a superficial commitment to aCRM program, the benefits most likely wül not berealized. Without authenticity and commitment, nega-tive image associations could develop, and thereforediminish the brand image or loyalty. According toHoeffler and Keller (2002), CRM programs affectbrand image in two ways: 1) enhancement of the con-sumer's self image and 2) enhancement of aspects ofthe organization's brand personality (i.e., human char-acteristics associated with the brand). For these rea-sons, a sport organization must ensure the causeselected resonates with their target market (Quenqua,2002), is consistent with the image or belief system ofthe partnering organization, and is congruent with thevalues of the sponsoring organization and the values ofthe cause (Lachowetz & Gladden, 2003).
Consumers need to be educated about what causesactually do (Welsh, 1999). Therefore, the sport organi-zation needs to publicize its involvement with thecause, and include educational messages about whatthe cause accomplishes. In essence, limited involve-
94 Volume 21 • Number 2 • 2012 • Sport Marketing Quarterly
ment by the organization wül not result in the desiredbenefits. A successful CRSM program can create orfurther an emotional connection between the con-sumer and the sport league/event/team/athlete(Lachowetz 8c Gladden, 2003), but only if consumersperceive an authentic connection.
Using the five variables that differentiate CRM fromsocial marketing (Storey et al., 2008) the locus of bene-fit in CRM is the charity/cause and the business thatpartners with the charity/cause. The outcomes/objec-tives sought from this partnership are: 1) increaseddonations or purchase of products with part of theproceeds going to the charity/cause; 2) improvedbrand image for the business partner or its product;and 3) increased brand loyalty or brand switching forthe business partner or product. The primary focus ofCRM is the benefit to the charit)^/cause and the busi-ness partner with a secondary focus being the benefitto society (i.e., earlier detection of breast cancerthrough the support of the Susan G. KomenFoundation). The target market of CRM tends to bemore affluent and concerned with cause-related issues.As mentioned previously, the target market must besegmented by demographics and psychographics todetermine which cause-related relationship wül be seenas genuine by the target market. Voluntary exchange inCRM is more tangible as money is donated orexchanged for products with proceeds (or portions ofproceeds) supporting the cause. In the marketing per-spective of CRM, the product tends to be a mixture oftangibüity (a physical product) and intangibüity (agood feeling from making a donation), competition ismore tangible, and economic factors such as purchasepower tend to be more important than with socialmarketing. An example of CRM in sport is the LanceArmstrong Foundation's Livestrong campaign (Lough& Pharr, 2010). Table 1 ülustrates how the five vari-ables can be used to identify Livestrong as a CRM cam-paign. Irwin et al. (2003) mentioned CRM as a subsetof corporate social responsibüity. Yet, most scholarshave only inferred a relationship between CRM andCSR, without clear articulation of how the relationshipis manifest. The following section wül further examinethe relationships between CSR and sport.
Corporate Social Responsibility in SportCorporate social responsibüity (CSR) can be describedas the obligation or intent of a corporation to be ethi-cal and accountable to not orüy the stakeholders but tosociety as well. Ullman (1985) further described CSRas "the extent to which an organization meets theneeds, expectations and demands of certain externalconstituents beyond those directly linked to the com-pany's products/markets" (p. 543). CSR is not exclu-
sively about philanthropic giving. As Bradish andCronin (2009) pointed out, it should be a holistic busi-ness approach that incorporates both social and eco-nomic factors into the practice of social responsibility.
Although CSR has been the focus of academicresearch in business for over 30 years, CSR in sport hasonly recently received the attention of academicresearchers (Babiak & Wolfe, 2006, 2009; Bradish &Cronin, 2009; Breitbarth & Harris, 2008; Sheth &Babiak, 2010; Smith & Westerbeek, 2007; Walker &Kent, 2009, 2010). While some of the sport specificresearch has focused on providing an overview of CSRin sport (Bradish & Cronin, 2009; Godfrey, 2009) oth-ers have examined the use of CSR during specificevents or with specific sport leagues (Babiak & Wolfe,2006; Breitbarth & Harris, 2008; Walker & Kent, 2010).Babiak and Wolfe (2006) suggested that CSR activitiesassociated with an event such as the Super Bowl mayhelp to lessen some of the criticism surrounding such alarge event and may enhance the image of the NFL as aleague that cares. Breitbarth and Harris (2008) exam-ined the role of CSR in European football and suggest-ed "increased awareness and integration of CSR intofootball business fosters the competitiveness of thegame and creates additional value for its stakeholders"(p. 180). Additionally, they created a conceptual modelthat demonstrated how CSR can help to foster finan-cial, cultural, humanitarian, and reassurance value.
Smith and Westerbeek (2007) studied sport as avehicle to achieve CSR. They found the unique aspectsof sport that make it well suited for corporate socialresponsibility include: mass media and communicationpower, youth appeal, positive health impacts, socialinteraction, sustainabüity awareness, cultural under-standing and integration, and immediate gratificationbenefit. Other studies of CSR in sport have identifiedcategories currently employed by organizations such asthe NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB (Sheith & Babiak,2010; Walker & Kent, 2010). Categories included: 1)philanthropic, legal, economic, and ethical (Sheith &Babiak, 2010) or 2) monetary charitable event, non-monetary charitable event, volunteerism/communityoutreach, event to honor meritable work, communityappreciation, and social awareness programs (Walker& Kent, 2010). More specific to marketing, these cate-gories could be described as either CRM, social mar-keting, or other community outreach.
In a review of the sport marketing literature, therewas little reference made to CRM as a strategy forachieving CSR and no mention of social marketing as ameans to demonstrate CSR. Yet, CRM and social mar-keting can and should be strategies through whichsocial responsibility is demonstrated and/or communi-cated. Increasingly, sport organizations have utilized
social marketing campaigns to realize CSR goals,although little research about social marketing in sporthas appeared in the literature. Meanwhile, the labelcause-related marketing has consistently been used todefine the marketing-related activities attributed tocorporate social responsibility in sport. Thus, the goalsof this paper are to analyze and categorize CRM andsocial marketing campaigns being used by the top pro-fessional sport organizations in the US, highlight thedifferences between these two unique marketing strate-gies, and to present a conceptual model explaining therelationships between corporate social responsibility,cause-related marketing, and social marketing.
For the purpose of this inquiry, the five variablespreviously discussed were used to analyze and catego-rize CRM and social marketing campaigns being usedby the NBA, NFL, NHL, and MLB. A directed contentanalysis was employed in this study and the followingsection describes the methodology. Our discussionthen highlights the differences between the two uniquemarketing strategies and utilizes the analysis to presenta conceptual model explaining the relationshipsbetween corporate social responsibility, cause-relatedmarketing, and social marketing.
Methods
A qualitative content analysis was employed to analyzethe outreach programs of the NBA, NFL, NHL, andMLB as described on each website. Content analysis isan approach that has been used to empirically andmethodologically analyze text within the context ofcommunications (Mayring, 2000). This methodologycan be used to put text into categories for analysis,which helps in the understanding of the phenomenonbeing studied. The approach to a content analysis canbe conventional, directed, or summative. For the cur-rent study, a directed content analysis was used. AsHsieh and Shannon (2005) illustrated, a directed con-tent analysis should be used when "theory and priorresearch exists about a phenomenon that is incompleteor would benefit from further description" (p. 1281).The purpose of a directed content analysis is to vali-date or extend a conceptual theoretical framework.Previous research or an existing theory (theoreticalframework) can be used to pre-determine the variablesof interest and the initial coding scheme and categories(Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Categories are given anoperating definition based on the previousresearch/existing theory.
For the purpose of this study, the theoretical frame-work presented by Lough and Pharr (2010) thatdefined and differentiated social and cause-relatedmarketing was utilized. The categories: locus of benefit,objectives/outcomes, target market, voluntary
Volume 21 • Number 2 • 2012 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 95
exchange, and marketing perspective, with theirrespective operating definitions were used to identifyprograms engaged in by the NFL, NBA, NHL, andMLB as CRM, social marketing, or other communityoutreach. For this study, only programs engaged in atthe league level were analyzed. Programs that individ-ual professional teams engaged in were not analyzed.This decision was made to insure consistency (i.e.,comparing league to league versus league to individualteam) and trustworthiness of the data.
In a qualitative study trustworthiness is establishedthrough credibility, dependability, and transferabUity(Craneheim & Lundman, 2003). Credibility of a studyis enhanced by selecting the most appropriate methodfor data collection, an appropriate sample for the analy-sis and suitable measuring units (categories or themes)that cover the data. Credibility is also enhanced byincluding representative examples from the analysis andreporting agreement between coders (Craneheim &Lundman, 2003). Inter-coder reliability is "assessed byhaving two or more coders categorize units ... and thenusing these categorizations to calculate a numeric indexofthe extent ofthe agreement between or among thecoders" (Lombard, Snyder, & Duch, 2002, p. 590).There are several ways to calculate inter-coder reliabili-ty (Lombard et al., 2002). In this study, percent agree-ment and Cohen's kappa were used.
Programs were identified on the websites for eachprofessional league. For the NBA, programs werefound under the "NBACares" area ofthe NBA.comwebsite. The programs of the NFL were located on the"In the Community" section of NFL.com. NHL pro-grams were found in the "Community" portion oftheNHL.com website. The programs analyzed for MLBwere located in the "MLB Community" page oftheMLB.com website. For each program that one oftheprofessional leagues was involved in, the informationabout the program presented on the website was evalu-ated to determine the five variables previously dis-cussed: locus of benefit, objectives/outcomes, targetmarket, voluntary exchange, and marketing perspec-tive. Based on this evaluation, each program was thenclassified as CRM, social marketing, or other commu-nity outreach. Previously presented operating defini-tions ofthe five variables as they relate to CRM, socialmarketing, or other community outreach were used inthe evaluation.
Data AnalysisTo reduce research bias, two researchers independ-
ently coded the data. The coders had been trained inthe same manner and understood the operating defini-tions of each ofthe five variables and of CRM, socialmarketing, and community outreach. Reliability ofthe
96 Volume 21 • Number 2 • 2012 • Sport Marketing Quarterly
coding was checked during the process. Percent agree-ment and Cohen's kappa were used to measure inter-coder reliability. To be confident in the resultsreported in a study, agreement between coders shouldbe at least 80%, and kappa should be at least .75 ineach category (Riffe, Lacy, & Fico, 2005; Wimmer &Dominick, 2006). In this study, there was agreementbetween coders 97% of the time with program classifi-cation. All categorical calculations had Cohen's kappagreater than .75. After the directed content analysis wascomplete then a quantitative data analysis was per-formed to compare frequencies and proportions of theprogram classifications. The proportions of CRM,social marketing, and other community outreach werequantified to reflect the usage ofthe three types of pro-grams. This information was calculated for each leagueand for all leagues in general. To determine if therewas a significant difference between the three programclassifications, a 95% confidence interval for the pro-portions of CRM, social marketing, and other commu-nity outreach was employed. The confidence intervalwas not calculated for each league because the samplesize was not large enough to make the confidenceinterval meaningful. Although the complete matrix wastoo lengthy to present in this article, an abbreviatedmatrix is found in Table 2 and examples from thematrix will be used throughout the discussion.
Several strategies were employed to ensure trustwor-thiness as recommended by Craneheim and Lundman(2003). A directed content analysis was deemed to bethe most appropriate methodology to achieve theresearch objectives. Predetermined codes and opera-tional definitions developed by Lough and Pharr(2010) were used to analyze the data because they pro-vided suitable categories to cover the data. Majorleagues were compared to each other rather than indi-vidual teams to attain an appropriate and consistentsample. The abbreviated matrix provides representativeexamples ftom the analysis. Lastly, the inter-coder reli-ability was considered good with a high percent agree-ment (97%) and a Cohen's Kappa value of greater than.75 for each category.
Results
Categorization of CRM and Social Marketing CampaignsThe categorical evaluation ofthe various CRM andsocial marketing initiatives that the NBA, NHL, MLB,and NFL are engaged in is illustrated in Table 3.
In total, 43 programs were evaluated. Of those pro-grams, 22 (51.2%) were categorized as social market-ing, eight (18.6%) as CRM, and 13 (30.2%) asother/community outreach. Social marketing programswere identified significantly more than CRM based on
osN
2fOt;
o
oS
S)
H <
u
•S-o
o
ë -s
60 ^
•S -PG t
(U
II
c «o -.p
I
tí;
„ - -ৠ• 5 îj
iH ^ .E S
.13> ij..
C °
o ^
1
3•o > .6
2 -S „-1 i «
I s'-P ^ '>
•5«o;«
OH •
lu c:«u re
Í4 oU .
-go .23a. 1-
S2 o
•£ .iso 'o
3
EoU
:73 - 0raU
qD
I•st;
O
S 3 1o
o y
0 0 ^ u
ZÖ S,̂
00q
"̂ 'H .Si§2 Gq J j -o S pS Z 'S
o
60
:he
f.
;_
a.a.3
C/5
q
S
reas
t
JD
^qcS00CO
(Uq
a war
00q
• ¿03<uU
: irr
ip
<u
30
X>ra
q
scre
ual
cq«
0
o1 ^
"Ö -a
8 _
9- î̂ -S3
00q
I?
W3 W5
00q«S
Î3 ZraO
c K cq _« • "
oj _3 o 2
3 u
o-g
(U
-oqn!
Volume 21 • Number 2 • 2012 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 97
ICMu
g
13o
2VIM
O
Is
13
ii601)
cic
atss
if
C_o
rofe
ss
OH
C_o
ssifi
ca
G
sion
alPr
ofes
ion
ù(.̂
CO
rt
iona
lPr
ofes
s
c
tioC
lass
ifica
;ssi
onal
è
"Bo
rgan
i
O
izat
ion/
Org
anza
tion
/O
rgan
ini
zati
on/
Ô
%tú
îti
SR
In
O
liti
ativ
eC
SR II
itiat
ive
CSR
In
Initi
ativ
e
z
NFL
ML
B
<;IX
<u
z
U
>s £
IIxè
n
Soci
Way
Uni
ted
U
(U
Out
ooo
Bas
ebal
lF
und
Soci
alW
NB
A F
IT
nZ
Si3
s,
ocke
yan
cer
au
ieac
h
O
r of t
he Y
eaT
each
ei
<u
Cau
a S
BA
T B
asA
ssis
tan
Soci
al
4 . 4
tbal
l w
ithou
TS
^ ^
' uo
c0)
HL
Gr
Z
Tea
ch
3O
>uth
¡on
Tow
nsN
FL
Yc
Edu
cati
s
Out
lub
i G
irls
C
c«)O
Cau
seG
reen
Wee
k
z
ial
Soc
Smar
tPl
ay I
t
H
Soci
5 B
arri
ers
and
Lif
Bre
akin
jin
Spo
rtSo
cial
to A
chie
ve
1
ial C
atch
A C
rue
H
Soci
§
it an
d R
iPi
tch,
HO
utre
ach
äS
igita
l Ass
ists
Q
K
trea
ch
3O
wl
Out
read
Pro
Bo
Soci
eviv
ing
in I
nnei
RB
I-R
iB
aseb
all
Citi
es
Soci
alle
s fo
r K
ids
L>CO
a
trea
chO
Supe
r I
Out
rea
u<u
o
<J
Cle
men
Rob
erto
Aw
ard
Cau
sein
g bu
t N
ets
•So
ial
Soc
four
Sta
ts'ró
stat
eK
now
1ab
out I
Can
cer
•a
Soci
Lea
gue
Roo
kie
]So
cial
(A
nes
for
Tee
r
•y
ial
Soc
fe!
Hea
lthFe
ty S
erie
s11
iÔ
•a
ke a
Sta
rC
ance
rH
elp
Ta
Aga
inst
Cau
se11
illio
n.or
gN
inei
ial
Soc
ay 6
0N
FL P
I
Xrt
O
reen
ing
Tea
m G
Soci
al'e
sted
i-i
O
ial
CO
ül
Rec
har
ial
Soc
•S
P >~
Urb
an "i
Aca
dem
Soci
al
an.S
>aug
ht R
eadi
4 - t
ial
oCO
brld
One
Wia
lSo
c
V to
Dru
g Fr
Cam
pai
Cau
se;t
Hea
lthen
ess
rt ^ZJ >M <
trea
ch
3O
t All
Star
mSt
uden
Prog
raO
utre
ach
ring
Wom
er
"S.c
trea
ch
O
Payt
on[a
n of
the
war
d
Wal
ter
NFL
MY
ear A
trea
ch
O
unit
yir
back
Aw
aiC
omm
Qua
rt«
98 Volume 21 • Number 2 • 2012 • Sport Marketing Quarterly
a 95% confidence interval. Each league was then ana-lyzed separately. The results from this analysis can befound in Table 4.
For the NBA, 13 programs were evaluated and thecategorical analysis showed that seven (53.8%) weresocial marketing, four (30.8%) were CRM, and two(15.4%) were other community outreach. The NHLhad three programs that were analyzed and the resultsindicated two (66.7%) programs were categorized associal marketing while one (33.3%) program was cate-gorized as CRM and no programs were categorized asother/community outreach. Twelve programs of theMLB were evaluated with six (50%) as social market-ing programs, two (16.7%) as CRM, and four (33.3%)as other/community outreach. The NFL had the great-est number of programs with 15. Of the 15, seven(46.7%) were determined to be social, one (6.6%) wascause, and seven (46.7%) were other/community out-reach.
Of the 43 programs analyzed for all four leagues, themajority (51.2%) were categorized as social marketing,while only 18.6% were categorized as CRM. Based onthis study, the major leagues were more involved inactivities designated as community outreach (30.2%)than CRM initiatives. Yet, social marketing programswere identified significantly more than either CRM orcommunity outreach.
Discussion
CRM and Social Marketing DifferentiationOne of the most interesting findings from this studywas that campaigns that have traditionally beenthought of as CRM were categorized as social market-ing based on the five variables. The NFL's United Waycampaign serves as a good example. The objective/out-comes sought and the voluntary exchange of the NFL'sLive United campaign exemplifies the differencebetween CRM and social marketing. Theobjectives/outcomes sought by the partnership were a)to make a difference through community volunteerwork, outreach, and involvement; b) to communicatethe importance of volunteerism and community serv-ice; and c) to inspire others to serve their communities.The voluntary exchange identified involved the intan-gible cost of time to participate in community serviceand volunteer work. In this example, the NFL's LiveUnited campaign would have been categorized ascause-related marketing if the stated goal was to raisemoney for the United Way, yet their objectives clearlydemonstrate an effort toward changing behavior offans. The stated outcomes: "to make a difference"through involvement, to "communicate the impor-tance of volunteerism" and to "inspire others to get
involved," led to the categorization of the current NFLprogram as a social marketing campaign(Liveunited.org). Similarly, the investment requiredwas more one of time than money. In essence, the NFLplayers were actively serving as role models for com-munity involvement and service, with the stated goalof encouraging similar behavior among fans. Thus, along-standing program believed to be cause-relatedmarketing was in fact recognized as social marketing.
The findings from this study highlight the differencesbetween CRM and social marketing campaigns used byprofessional sport organizations. To illustrate the dis-tinction the NFL's Crucial Catch (breast cancer aware-ness) campaign can be compared to its Play60campaign. As a true cause-related marketing campaign,the NFL supports the fight against breast cancer bycreating awareness about the importance of annualbreast cancer screening for women and holds auctionswith proceeds to benefit the America Cancer Society(ACS). The beneficiaries are both the cause (ACS) andwomen who heed the message. The Crucial Catch cam-paign raises money through the purchase of NFL auc-tion items with proceeds going to the American CancerSociety. Strategic marketing aspects of the campaigninclude pink water bottles, pink game apparel, andpink coins, all seen throughout the NFL season duringgames.
In contrast, one of the most high-profile social mar-keting campaigns is NFL's Play 60. With the statedobjective/outcome sought as "inspire kids to get therecommended 60 minutes of physical activity per day,"the emphasis on changing behavior is clear(NFLrush.com). The voluntary exchange is the intangi-ble cost of time and discomfort for kids/parents (targetmarket) to become and stay physically active. The mar-keting strategy includes TV, print, and internet ads forthe NFL Play 60 Challenge, along with "exciting andengaging curriculum for schools and classrooms to useto inspire exercise" (NFLrush.com). In this example,the NFL is noi working to raise money to combat child-hood obesity, which would classify it as cause-relatedmarketing. Similarly, the exchange sought is not one ofmoney for products or services. Instead the exchangerequired is more personal on the part of effort made bythose in the targeted group, who need to engage in thebehavior the NFL is promoting through the Play 60campaign. The target goal of encouraging an active andhealthy lifestyle links well with the NFL's image as thepremier professional sport in the US. One can easily seehow authors such as Irwin et al. (2009) would refer tothe NFL's social marketing campaign to get kids physi-cally active, as a "cause" related marketing effort.However, sport marketers need to understand and dis-
Volume 21 • Number 2 • 2012 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 99
Table 4.Proportions of Social Marketing, Cause Marketing, and Conimunity Outreach
All Leagues
NBA
NHL
MLB
NFL
Total ProgramsN, %
43, 100%
13, 30.2%
3, 7.0%
12, 27.9%
15, 34.9
Social MarketingN, %, (95% CI)
22, 51.2%,(36.2-66.1)
7, 53.8%
2, 66.7%
6, 50%
7, 46.7%
Cause MarketingN, %, (95% CI)
8, 18.6%(7.0-30.2)
4, 30.8%
1, 33.3%
2, 16.7%
1, 6.6%
Community OutreachN, %, (95% CI)
13, 30.2%(16.5-44)
2, 15.4%
0
4, 33.3%
7, 46.7%
tinguish between the two strategic approaches, toensure effectiveness when utilized.
The two campaigns could easily be labeled incorrect-ly, if not categorized to demonstrate the unique bene-fits, objectives, voluntary exchange, and marketingstrategies. Yet, the significance of this analysis is notlimited to mere categorization or labeling. Clarificationand understanding of these two strategic marketingapproaches can assist in our understanding of the cor-porate social responsibility efforts major professionalsport organizations have employed.
CRM, Social Marketing, and Corporate SocialResponsibilityFor decades, the community outreach arms of profes-sional sport organizations were viewed as strictly phil-anthropic oriented aspects. Yet, as the marketing ofsport has grown increasingly more sophisticated, theneed to strategically integrate community outreachwith marketing objectives has become more aligned.As Walker and Kent (2009) illustrated in their concep-tual model, philanthropy serves as one arm, along withcommunity involvement, youth education, and youthhealth. All four arms converge to achieve corporatesocial responsibility. Through the analysis and catego-rization exemplified in this study, social marketingwould be attributed to both youth education andyouth health. CRM would be placed in line with phi-lanthropy, while community outreach would linkdirectly with the community involvement icon. Theconnection of CRM, social marketing, and communityoutreach with CSR is illustrated in our conceptualmodel presented in Figure 1.
Andreasen's (1995) definition of social marketingconnects it most directly with corporate social respon-sibility as social marketing campaigns are specificallydesigned to improve the welfare of society and its citi-zens by inñuencing voluntary behavior. As Bradish andCronin (2009) suggested, "sport will continue to play
100 Volume 21 • Number 2 • 2012 • Sport Marketing Quarterly
an important role in social change" (p. 696). The criti-cal direction of the role sport plays in social change canbe strategically directed through both social marketingand CRM campaigns. Although the use of social mar-keting and CRM as vehicles to achieve CSR have beenwell recognized in business marketing literature(Kotier & Lee, 2005), prior to this study the connec-tion had not been clearly delineated in sport marketingliterature. In Kotier and Lee's work, six aspects of citi-zenship behavior were identified as means by whichbusinesses could demonstrate CSR. Of these sixaspects, social marketing and CRM stand out as thetwo marketing specific strategies. In the current study,social marketing was identified in more than half(51.2%) of the campaigns evaluated while CRM wasidentified in 18.6% of the campaigns. The similaritybetween Kotier and Lee's model and these findingssuggest a good fit of CRM and social marketing withCSR as depicted in Figure 1.
Marketing ImplicationsWith documented benefits of CRM programs includingenhanced company image (Rigney & Steenhuyson,1991), positive publicity (Nichols, 1990), and favorableattitudes by consumers about sponsoring companies(Ross et al., 1991), cause-related marketing is designedto create a positive influence on consumer's percep-tions of the sport organization. In times of scandal andnegative publicity, the sport organization's reputationcan be improved through CRM. With major profes-sional sport organizations represented by players,coaches, and officials who may unfortunately engage inunethical behavior, there remains a clear need for tar-geted communication to offset negative image connota-tions. These targeted efforts have also served to enhancecorporate image, often times portraying the organiza-tion as a "global citizen." The NBA's Nothing but Nets(Table 3) CRM campaign demonstrates the organiza-
Figure 1.Conceptual Model. Adapted from Kotier & Lee (2005) and Walker & Kent (2009).
ÁProfessional
Sport League:
NFL, NBA,
NHL, MLB\
\
SocialMarketing:-YouthEducation
-YouthHealth
-Health andEducationInitiatives
Cause-related
Marketing:
-CorporateSocial
Philanthropy
-CausePromotion
Community
Outreach:
-Community
Involvement
-Community
Volunteering
\
• w
/
Corporate
SocialResponsibility
/
//
Corporation
Reputation:
-Brand Image
-Company Image
-Positive
Publicity
-Trust
-Citizenship
-Differentiation
Consumer
Intention:
-Purchase
Intention
-Brand Loyalty
-Brand Switching
-Repeat Purchase
tion's commitment to the health and social welfare ofpeople in Africa. Such strategic approaches in sportillustrate the type of citizenship behavior needed toachieve CSR according to Kotier and Lee (2005).
Consumers have increasingly high expectations fororganizations to demonstrate corporate social respon-sibility and to address public issues. Social marketingcan be utilized to increase CSR goals by increasingconsumers' trust in companies that work to addresspublic issues. For example, Chang et al. (2009) foundthat consumer's perceptions of service qualityincreased whue their perceptions of risk decreased,thereby establishing greater trust in companies engagedin social marketing. Additionally, social marketingresulted in favorable attitudes toward the firm and itsproducts (Chang et al., 2009). Thus social marketing isa way to communicate organizational CSR initiativesthat could be perceived positively by consumers. Inbusiness marketing literature, social marketing initia-
tives have been associated with marketing differentia-tion strategies (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001), buildingbrand equity (Hoeffler & Keller, 2002), and enhancedconsumer loyalty (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003).
The true benefit of both marketing approaches stemsfrom the link between the company or brand to a rele-vant social cause or issue. Pringle and Thompson(1999) conceptualized such strategic positioning andmarketing tools as the means to achieve a mutual ben-efit. In this case, the mutual benefit extends toward ademonstration of social responsibility by the sportorganization. Fortunately, social marketing and CRMare more likely to utilize marketing budgets, not beheld to the more limited philanthropic budgets. Thusthe growing need to demonstrate social responsibilityappears to have resulted in access to more resources,through corporate partnerships/sponsorships and ini-tiatives to create social change. Simultaneously, sportorganizations have increasingly engaged in activities to
Volume 21 • Number 2 • 2012 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 101
build their image as "good citizens." All four of thesport organizations studied invested in both cause-related and social marketing initiatives aimed towarddemonstration of corporate social responsibility.
ConclusionAs demonstrated through this study, the major leagueshave embraced the use of social marketing strategies.Ironically, the attention paid to cause-related marketingmay have overshadowed the growing use of social mar-keting in sport. More research is needed to determinebest practices relative to CSR among sport organiza-tions and in particular, the use of social marketing andcause-related marketing to effectively achieve corporatesocial responsibility. Additionally, more research isneeded to understand the impact of social marketing,cause-related marketing, and corporate social responsi-bility on sport consumer behavior. Lastly, because eachof the strategies studied provide unique opportunitiesto reach various markets, it is important for sport mar-keters to understand the difference between the twomarketing strategies, as well as how each can be utilizedto achieve corporate social responsibility objectives.
ReferencesAdkins, S. (1999) Cause related marketing: Who cares who wins? Oxford,
UK: Butterworth Heineman.Andreasen, A. (1995), Marketing social change: Changing behavior to pro-
mote health, social development and the environment. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass Publishing
Babiak, K., & Wolfe, R. (2006). More than just a game? Corporate socialresponsibility and Super Bowl XL. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 15, 214-222.
Babiak, K., & Wolfe, R. (2009). Determinants of corporate social responsi-bility in sport: Internal and external factors. Joumai of SportsManagement, 23, 717-742.
Bell, B., & Blakey, P. (2010). Do boys and girls go out to play? Women'sfootball and social marketing at EURO 2005. International Journal ofSport Management and Marketing, 7{3li), 156-172.
Bhattacbarya, C, & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: Afi-amework for understanding consumers' relationships witb companies.Journal of Marketing, 67, 76-88.
Bradisb, C, & Cronin, J. (2009). Corporate social responsibility in sport.Journal of Sports Management, 23, 691-697.
Breitbarth, T., & Harris, P. (2008). The role of corporate social responsibili-ty in football business: Towards tbe development of a conceptualmodel. European Sport Management Quarterly, 8(2), 179-206.
Chang, H., Chang, T., & Tseng, C. (2009). How public-issue-promotionand revenue-related types of social marketing influence customer-per-ceived value in Taiwan's banking industry. Journal of InternationalConsumer Marketing, 21, 35-49.
Cone/Roper (1999). Cause related trends report: The evaluation of causebranding. Boston, MA: Cone Inc.
Dawkins, J. (2004). The public's views of corporate responsibility 2003.White Paper Series, MQRL Retrieved from bttp://mori.com
Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2003). Qualitative content analysis innursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trust-worthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24, 105-112.
Green, J., 8t Thorogood, N. (2009). Qualitative methods for health research.Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Grier, S., 8c Bryant, C. (2005). Social marketing in public bealth. AnnualReview Public Health, 26, 319-339.
HoefQer, S., & Keller, K. (2002). Building brand equity through corporatesocial marketing. Joumai of Public Policy and Marketing, 2J(1), 78-89
Hsieh, H., 8; Shannon, S. (2005) Three approaches to qualitative contentanalysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277-1288.
Irwin, R., Clark, J., 8; Lachowetz, T. (2010). Cause related sports marketing:Can this marketing strategy affect company decision making. Journal ofManagement and Organization, J6(4), 566-572
Irwin, C, Irwin, R., Miller, M., Somer, G., 8t Richey, P. (2010). Get fit withthe Grizzlies: A community-school-home initiative to fight childhoodobesity. Journal of School Health, 80(7), 333-339.
Irwin, R., Lachowetz, T., Cornwell, T., 8c Clark, J. (2003). Cause-relatedsport sponsorship: An assessment of spectator beliefs, attitudes andbehavioral intentions. Sport Marketing Quarterly, J2(3), 131-139.
Kim, K., Kim Y., 8c Kwak, D. (2010). Impact of cause-related marketing(CRM) in spectator sport. Journal of Management and Organization,¡6(4), 530-542.
Kotier, P., 8c Lee, N. (2005). Corporate sodal responsibility: Doing the mostgood for your company and your case. Hoboken, NY: Wiley.
Kotier, P., 8c Zaltman, G. (1971). Social marketing: An approach to plannedsocial change. Journal of Marketing, 35, 3-12.
Lachowetz, T., 8c Gladden, J. (2003). A framework for understanding cause-related sport marketing programs. International Journal of SportsMarketing & Sponsorship, 4(4), 313-333.
Lachowetz, T., 8c Irwin, R.. (2002). FedEx and the St. Jude classic: An appli-cation of a cause-related marketing program (CRMP). Sport MarketingQuarterly, 11(2), 114-116
Liveunited.org. (2011). NFL & United Way. Retrieved from http://liveunit-ed.org/partners/national-football-league/
Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., 8c Bracken, C.C. (2002). Content analysis inmass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliabili-ty. Human Communication Research, 28(4), 587-604.
Lough, N., 8c Pharr, J. (2010). Use of a multi-tied framework to analyzecommercial, cause and social marketing. Journal of Applied MarketingTheory, 1(2), 8-22.
Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative SocialResearch. Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs-texte/2-00/02-00mayring-e.htm
McGlone, C, 8c Martin, N. (2006), Nike's corporate interest lives strong: Acase of cause related marketing and leveraging. Sports MarketingQuarterly, 15, 184-189
McWilliams, A., 8c Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A the-ory of tbe firm perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 26(1),117-127.
NBA.com. (2010). Read to Achieve. Retrieved from bttp://www.nba.com/features/rta_index.html
NFLrush.com. (2010). Play 60. Retrieved from http://www.nflrush.com/play60/?icampaign=rush_nav_play60
Nichols, D. (1990). Promoting the cause. Incentive, 164(&), 28-31Pringle, H., 8c Thompson, M. (1999). Brand spirit: How cause related mar-
keting builds brands. Chichester, UK: WileyQuenqua, D. (2002, January28). Cause and effect: Choosing the right chari-
ty: Charitable support has the power to boost a corporate brand to newheights. But tying the company to the right nonprofit is essential. PRWeek, p. 16.
Riffe, D., Lacy, S., Fico, F. G. (2005). Analyzing media messages: Using quan-titative content analysis in research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Rigney, M., 8c Steenhuyson, J. (1991). Conscience raising. Advertising Age,62(35), 19.
Ross, J., Stutts, M., 8c Patterson, L. (1991). Tartical consideration for theeffective use of cause-related marketing. Journal of Applied BusinessResearch, 7(2), 58-65.
Roy, D., 8c Graef, T. (2003). Consumer attitudes towards cause-related mar-keting activities in professional sports. Sports Marketing Quarterly,12(3), 163-172
102 Volume 21 • Number 2 • 2012 • Sport Marketing Quarterly
Schultz, M., & Morsing, M. (2003). The catch 22 of integrating CSR andmarketing: Findings from a reputation study of Danish companies.Conference Proceedings, MSI, Boston University, September 17-19, 2003.
Shell, S. (1989). Cause related marketing: Big risks, big potential. PublicRelation Journal, 45(7), 8-13.
Sheth, H., & Babiak, K. (2010). Beyond the game: Perceptions and practicesof corporate social responsibility in professional sport industry. Journalof Business Ethics, 91(3), 433-450.
Smith, A., & Westerbeek, H. (2007). Sport as a vehicle for deploying socialresponsibility. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 25, 43-54.
Storey, D., Saffitz, C, & Rimon, J. (2008). Social marketing. Health behaviorand health education: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass Publishing.
Ullman, A. (1985). Data in search of theory: A critical examination of therelationship among social performance, social disclosure, and economicperformance. Academy of Management Review, 10, 540-577.
Walker, M., 8; Kent, A. (2009). Do fans care? Assessing the influence of cor-porate social responsibility on consumer attitudes in the sport Industry.Journal of Sports Management, 23, 743-769.
Walker, M., 8; Kent, A. (2010). CSR on tour: Attitudes towards corporatesocial responsibility among golf fans. International Journal of SportsManagement, 11(2), 179-207.
Welsh, J. (1999). Good cause, good business. Harvard Business Review, 77,21-24.
Wimmer,.R. D., Dominick, J. R. (2006). Mass media research: An introduc-tion. Belmount, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Volume 21 • Number 2 • 2012 • Sport Marketing Quarterly 103
Copyright of Sport Marketing Quarterly is the property of Fitness Information Technology, Inc. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.