Data Collection

After identifying and selecting the cases for investigation, the next step in conducting a qualitative case study is the collection of data, which, according to Creswell (2013) is generally an extensive process. According to the same author,

“a hallmark of a good qualitative case study is that it presents an in-depth understanding of the case” (Creswell, 2013, p.98). In order to achieve this, an exploratory qualitative design employing in-depth, semi-structured interviews informed this research. In addition to the semi-structured interviews, the researcher also relied on observations as well as on internal company documents and external publications and newspaper articles in an effort to further support and validate the findings of the study.

An exploratory, design was deemed appropriate in this instance since the Cyprus sport context is a domain lacking empirical knowledge regarding sponsorship arrangements, a fact that favoured the use of a qualitative approach (Yin, 2003).

Additionally, the need to generate rich and detailed “thick” descriptions of the sponsorship phenomenon as well as to analyse the dynamics and powers

101 shaping sponsorship management practices and actions adopted by the different sponsors in Cyprus, created the need for going “inside” those sponsorship relationships and analysing their content and development, a goal that only qualitative methodology could accomplish.

i. Use of Interviews as a methodological tool

Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were regarded by the researcher as being the most appropriate tool for investigating the sponsorship management processes employed by sponsors. In-depth interviews were regarded as enabling the researcher to capture the reality as experienced by the individuals engaged in sponsorship management activities, and thus were deemed appropriate to inform the present study. In addition, in-depth interviews were regarded as offering the opportunity to the researcher to fully understand a sponsorship domain with little or no empirical based literature. The main reason for adopting semi-structured interviews was that, this particular methodological tool has the capacity to elicit detailed information on the management practices, motives, objectives, and priorities of sponsor, while at the same time it allows the researcher to maintain a degree of control over the line of questioning (Minichiello, Aroni, Timewell &

Alexander, 1995).

According to May (1997), semi-structured interviews allow the respondents to answer on their own terms, while at the same time provide a better structure for comparability. Similarly, Patton (2002, cited in Marshal & Rossman, 2011), refers to this method as the topical approach, which involves the researcher using an interview guide providing a list of topics or questions for discussion. According to Marshall and Rossman, this type of interview is the most common in qualitative studies, and one of the strengths of this method is that the researcher uses those topics to help uncover the views of the participants, but at the same time the researcher should respect the way the respondent develops and structures the responses. The use of an interview protocol when conducting an interview, however, was also proposed by Creswell (2013), as he suggested that

102 researchers should develop some open-ended questions which are a narrowing of the central question and sub-questions in the research study, and those questions have been regarded as the core of the interview protocol. For the purposes of the current research study, the researcher developed an interview protocol consisting of seven broad topics and several sub-questions (the protocol is presented in table 3.1) The development of the protocol was based on a deductive categorisation of the findings of the systematic review, based on which several important sponsorship management decision making processes and practices were identified. The aim of the protocol was to enable the researcher to elicit rich descriptions on the sponsorship management practices adopted by the several sponsors by focusing on several issues and allowing the respondent to expand on questions, whilst at the same time enabling the researcher to undertake further probing when appropriate or needed.

When did they first sponsor a sport?

How many years of sponsorship involvement

Motivation Why – the reason for their investment in football sponsorship/the driving force for entering the sponsorship agreement)

Which were the main reasons for getting involved in the sponsorship of the certain club? Why did they decide to use sponsorship?

Did they like the sport?

Who made the final decision? (Top level, middle level managers, marketing and advertising managers or senior executives?

Who are the persons involved in this decision making process?

Who initiated this procedure? Who had the idea of sponsoring the certain sport – club.

Was there any screening process?

Why choosing the certain club? There had been other options?

Alternatives? If yes, which sports or clubs?

Did they consider FIT? How do they believe that the club / sport

103

fit with their company? What kind of fit (image, demographic? Strategic alignment?/ Fit)

Which were the most important criteria for selecting the certain club/s?

Many alternative options or only the certain one?

Which were the components included in the contract?

The components of the contract were predetermined, or it was a result of negotiation?

Why did they decide to sponsor only one club / or 3,4,5,6 different clubs in the same championship?

Objectives - Goals  What did they try to achieve through the certain sponsorship agreement?

 Did they have predetermined goals/objectives? Or those emerged throughout the process / discussions with sport officials?

 Mainly corporate or brand related Objectives?

 Objectives were measurable / specific?

 Importance of objectives

Target Audiences  Which were the main target audiences to be reached through sponsorship? (External customers /internal (employees), Business partners)?

Sponsorship Management

 How did they manage / support their sponsorship investment? Use of any additional activities? Which are those?

 How much do they think they spent on additional leveraging activities?

 Who is responsible for managing the sponsorship/Which departments/Which levels? Marketing department/Top-level management?

Sponsorship Evaluation Did they measure the results of their sponsorship investment?

How many times per year?

What kind of measures did they use? Sales? Image? Attitudes?

Who is responsible for measuring the results? Which Department?

Measurement against objectives?

Although the goal of the researcher was to learn about those practices from the perspective of the sponsor, through investigating their own views and beliefs about sponsorship, it is also important to acknowledge that the interview is not an impartial and unbiased tool of data gathering. According to Fontana and Frey (2005, p.698) interviews involve “rather active interactions between two (or more) people leading to negotiated, contextually based results”. Thus, it is important for

104 the researcher to realise that each interview case conducted in this study is located within a context “…of interaction and relation, and the result is as much a product of this social dynamic as it is the product of accurate accounts and replies” (Fontana & Frey, 2005, p.699).

ii. Data Collection Procedure

In depth interviews were conducted with the key individuals responsible for sponsorship activities in the ten organisations constituting the sample of this multi-case study. Originally the idea was to access all key individuals responsible for establishing and maintaining sponsorship arrangements with the clubs, but when conducting preliminary investigation, the researcher realised that there was basically one person in charge for each organisation’s sponsorship investments, and thus this person was regarded as being the most well informed and most appropriate to discuss sponsorship related issues. The interviewees had a variety of titles, with most of them representing top-level management, and only two individuals having middle-level management positions, but all of them were directly involved in sponsorship decisions. Specifically, two of the participants operate at the president and vice president level, two of them serve as general secretaries, three participants hold marketing, communications and PR senior management positions in large organisations, one individual is a regional manager of an international business, and two interviewees operate at the middle-level management having the position of the marketing manager (see table 3.2)

Table 3:2 Roles of key individuals responsible for Sponsorship interviewed in this study

1. Local Media Agency President 2. Local distributors of beauty/styling

products company

Vice President 3. Local Cooperative Bank General Secretary

4. Municipality General Secretary

105 7. Local Cooperative bank Marketing, Communications and PR Senior

management positions 8. International Betting Company Regional Manager 9. Local Company /Construction

Industry

Marketing Manager 10. Local Oil Company Marketing Manager

The researcher attempted to capitalise on the professional relationship she has managed to build with several football sponsors due to her long-term involvement with the football industry (both managerial and research involvement) and most of the contacts with sponsors were first conducted by phone in an effort to identify the person responsible for sponsorship arrangements. In many cases there was also an involvement of the clubs sponsored that enabled the researcher to obtain the name of the contact person in each organisation. A follow up telephone contact was also made with the individual responsible for sport sponsorship in each of the ten targeted organisations. The telephone contact enabled the researcher to state the aims of the research project and the method by which it was being conducted in detail, and to provide additional insights into the goals of the research when needed. All ten organisations originally targeted demonstrated a willingness to participate in the research study, and thus a meeting was subsequently arranged with each individual separately at a mutually convenient time and place. Nine of the ten interviews were carried out at the participants’

offices, whilst one of the interviewees offered to meet with the researcher at the latter’s workplace (European University Cyprus), where the interview was conducted. Nine of the ten interviews took place between May 2012 and July 2012, whilst the last interview was carried out in October 2012 due to the very heavy schedule of the interviewee, who serves as the vice president of a group of companies in Cyprus.

The interviews were conducted face to face, thus facilitating the eliciting of information on several additional issues raised by the participants and the collection of rich data. Prior to the interview participants were provided with an

106 interview schedule containing the seven main topics for discussion. This process is consistent with Stake’s (1995) recommendations indicating that researchers should distribute brief questions prior to interview to indicate that there is an agenda. In addition, the respondents were assured of confidentiality, and anonymity of the respondent was guaranteed for the duration of the project and in any subsequent publication. A conversation based on open-ended questioning followed, containing a number of prompts in an effort to explore a variety of issues related to sponsorship practices and to gain more complete understanding of the factors influencing their sponsorship related decisions. Although the overall discussion was guided to a large degree by the responses of the individuals being interviewed, the open ended question employed by the researcher coalesced around seven major themes cited in the interview protocol (see table 3.1). The questions were directed toward uncovering the motives that mobilised their sponsorship involvement, the criteria they used when arriving at the decision, the manner in which they were handling sponsorship requests, the goals they were trying to pursue, the target audiences they were trying to reach through sponsorship, and the activities they undertook for managing and evaluating their sponsorship arrangements. Some examples of questions asked include the following: “what is the organisation trying to achieve through sponsoring the certain club/s?”, “Who is involved in the decision making process?” “Do you think that the actions of your competitors influenced your decision to sponsor or the kind of sponsorship activity in which you decided to invest?”, “Are there any politics involved in your decision to sponsor certain club/s?”, “How do you support the particular sponsorship?”. It is also important to mention that any new topic of interest that emerged from an interview was incorporated into the protocol used at subsequent interviews, a data collection practice that is regarded as totally acceptable in exploratory research (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Each of the interviews lasted between 30 and 55 minutes, except one interview conducted with the representative of a municipality which lasted 15 minutes. Most of the interviews were conducted in the local language, which is Greek. Provided

107 that both local and international organisations were included in this multi-case study, the participants were given the opportunity to express their preference with regard to language, and this was done in an effort to enable the interviewees to express themselves and their views in the most fluent way, in order to ensure rich and detailed information. As a result, nine of the ten interviews were conducted in Greek and one in English. With the consent of the interviewees, all interviews were tape-recorded and subsequently translated, when needed. Throughout the translation process, the researcher’s aim was to translate the responses of the participants as accurately as possible, and thus, the transcribed interviews contain phrases and expressions used in the Greek language in an effort to remain as close to the meaning of the response as possible and to depict their own perception, their own views, realities and feelings as precisely as possible.

Furthermore, interviews were fully transcribed verbatim by the researcher immediately following the interview in order to allow for a comprehensive analysis of the findings.