Helmut M. Dietl, Anil Özdemir and Nicolas Schweizer
The purpose of this paper is to understand and explain why some professional sports organizations outsource their sponsorship-related activities to sports marketing agencies…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to understand and explain why some professional sports organizations outsource their sponsorship-related activities to sports marketing agencies, whereas others purposely retain these activities in-house.
Design/methodology/approach
The paper applies transaction cost economics (TCE) and the resource-based view (RBV) to outsourcing of sports sponsorship activities. It examines the extent determinants descending from these theories influence the sourcing choice of professional sports organizations.
Findings
This paper argues that determinants derived from TCE and the RBV are useful to understand the factors likely to influence an outsourcing decision and to analyze which sponsorship-related activities are more or less likely to be outsourced. However, these determinants are insufficient to shed light on why sports organizations arrive at different conclusions about their internal and external environments. With recourse to contingency theory, the authors propose two additional contingencies that affect the sourcing decision: a sport organization’s size and its degree of professionalism. This integrative conceptual framework improves the understanding of sports sponsorship outsourcing, makes several propositions, and paves the way for future empirical research in sports sponsorship.
Originality/value
This is the first paper to apply classical theoretical concepts to outsourcing sports sponsorship activities. As a conceptual paper, it hopes to stimulate further research on outsourcing in sports sponsorship and on the relationship between sports organizations and sports marketing agencies.
Details
Keywords
Patricia Deflorin, Helmut Dietl, Markus Lang and Maike Scherrer‐Rathje
The purpose of this paper is to compare two distinct network structures to determine and show which structure is more profitable. Specifically, it aims to show which factors…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to compare two distinct network structures to determine and show which structure is more profitable. Specifically, it aims to show which factors render the lead factory concept advantageous.
Design/methodology/approach
Based on a simple, two‐stage model for prototype and serial production, the authors highlight factors that determine the relative advantages and disadvantages of the lead factory concept in comparison to an archetype network. The archetype network mirrors those networks that have not implemented special strategic plant roles.
Findings
The analysis shows that the lead factory concept benefits from an efficient knowledge transfer. Particularly, it is more profitable than the archetype network under the following conditions: there are a high number of production plants; the adaptation costs for implementing the transferred prototype from the lead factory to the plant are low; the manufacturing costs for the prototype are high; and the manufacturing processes are not highly specific or knowledge intensive.
Originality/value
The paper enables better understanding of the conditions under which the lead factory concept is advantageous for transferring knowledge within an intra‐firm network.