Prospective Partners
Nonprofit arts organizations and business collaborations
University of Amsterdam
Lorin Kamperman
6146201
MSc. in Business Studies - Track EMCI
Supervisor: Joris Ebbers
2
ndSupervisor:
Nachoem Wijnberg
Date: 15/08/2014
Final Version
2
Table of Content
Introduction pg. 3
Chapter 1: Strategic Alliances pg. 6
1.1 Motivations to collaborate with other businesses pg. 7
1.1.1 Resource-based view pg. 8
1.1.2 Organizational learning theory pg. 9
1.1.3 Institutional theory pg. 10
Chapter 2: Social Alliances pg. 12
2.1 Strategic alliances vs. Social alliances pg. 12
2.1.1 Resource-based view pg. 13
2.1.2 Organizational learning theory pg. 14
2.1.3 Institutional theory pg. 15
2.2 Challenges pg. 16
2.3 Collaboration stages pg. 17
Chapter 3: Arts and Cultural Industries pg. 18
Chapter 4: Method Section pg. 20
4.1 Research rationale pg. 20
4.2 Research method pg. 21
4.2.1 Unit of analysis pg. 23
4.2.2 Data collection process pg. 24
4.3 Quality of research pg. 25
4.4 Data analysis pg. 26
Chapter 5: Result Section pg. 27
5.0 General description of art- business alliances pg. 27 5.1 Reasons businesses ally with arts organizations pg. 29 5.2 Motivations to join in social alliances pg. 30
5.2.1 Resource-based view pg. 30
5.2.1.1 Financial resources pg. 30
4.2.1.2 Resources in kind / expertise pg. 31
5.2.1.3 Reputational resources pg. 33
5.2.1.4 Relational resources pg. 34
5.2.1.5 Marketing resources pg. 35
5.2.2 Organizational learning theory pg. 36
5.2.2.1 Learning organizational wide pg. 36 5.2.2.2 Learning on department level pg. 36 5.2.2.3 Learning on personal level pg. 37
5.2.3 Institutional theory pg. 37
5.2.3.1. Following institutional norms pg. 38
5.2.3.2 External stakeholders pg. 39 5.2.3.4 Internal stakeholders pg. 40 5.3 Development of alliance pg. 41 5.4 Challenges pg. 43 5.4.1. Resource based-view pg. 43 5.4.1.1 Handling pg. 43 5.4.1.2 Internal activation pg. 44 5.4.1.3 Reputational damage pg. 44 5.4.1.4 Financial dependence pg. 45 5.4.1.5 Artistic dependence pg. 46 5.4.2 Institutional theory pg. 46 5.4.2.1 Recession pg. 47 5.4.2.1 Stakeholder management pg. 47 5.4.2.1 Lack of commitment pg. 47 Chapter 6: Discussion pg. 49
6. 1 Summary of empirical findings pg. 49
6.2 Discussion of findings pg. 52
6.3 Implications for practice pg. 58
6. 4 Limitations and recommendations for future research pg. 59
References pg. 61
3
Introduction
Within the 21st century the economy of western societies is increasingly interested in the sphere of arts and culture. Today artistic and cultural assets can be found in multiple aspects of the social life, from urban spaces to commercial goods. Products and services are increasingly sold on their aesthetic or symbolic attributes, which make the creative aspect an important ingredient of their competitive advantage (Comunian, 2010).
Since the cultural and economic spheres move towards each other, it is interesting to see how this affects the interaction and collaboration of nonprofit arts organizations and businesses. Therefore this research will be dedicated to explain the specific context of arts organizations and businesses that join in a social alliance. Social alliances are inter-organizational relationships that involve at least one nonprofit organization and that aim to create both economic and non-economic value (Berger et al, 2004). By looking at art-business collaborations, this research will add new knowledge to the body of social alliance literature since it focuses on a specific context that has not been empirically studied before within the business literature.
Studies that are conducted within the social alliance stream of literature mainly focus on social or environmental nonprofit organizations that collaborate with businesses. This stream of literature sees social collaborations as a way to improve societal problems or to raise awareness for certain causes (Selsky and Parker, 2005; Porter and Kramer, 2011). The social alliances described in the literature therefore aim to address social challenges such as health care, education, poverty alleviation and economic sustainability. Within these collaborations businesses can help the nonprofit organization achieve it’s mission while nonprofit organizations are able to improve the business social objectives (Selsky and Parker, 2005).
While social or environmental nonprofit organizations aim to address social causes, arts organizations’ main objective is to create, show or preserve ‘works of art’ which embody or convey cultural expressions, things that are beautiful, or deliberately are not, that make you think twice; that communicate cultural value through music, visual arts or performance. Therefore arts organizations first and foremost aim to pursue an artistic mission (KEA, 2010, pg.3). Besides this mission, arts organizations can have social missions such as the aim to educate or enrich the community. The difference in missions shows these two nonprofit spheres operate in slightly different ways. Therefore, it is interesting to see how alliances between nonprofit arts organizations and businesses are constructed.
4 In order to explore this specific context, I will answer the research question: Why do businesses and nonprofit art organizations collaborate in social alliances, how do the collaborations evolve and what are potential challenges of nonprofit art-business alliances?
Since this research involves the exploration of a new context within the social alliance literature, a qualitative empirical study is conducted. The study revolves around eight art-business alliances, more specifically eight art museums and their collaborating business partners within the Netherlands. This research is mainly interested in the motives to join social alliances since understanding the motivating forces behind the decisions to collaborate, form the cornerstone upon which alliances are built (Austin, 2005). By studying the motives of both nonprofit arts organizations and their business partners, this research will investigate in what way this context deviates from the social- and environmental nonprofit organizations already studied within the literature; it will reveal if businesses have (slightly) different motives to collaborate with nonprofit arts organizations or if the arts organizations ally with businesses from deviant perspectives than social or environmental nonprofit organizations.
Besides the fact that the motives clarify the main reasons why nonprofit art organizations and for profit businesses collaborate, they also give an insight into the nature of the art-business alliance and reveal in which stage the alliance finds itself. In a more one-sided philanthropic relationship (based on an altruistic donation of the business), a sponsorship relation (which is based on the exchange of money and brand awareness) or a partnership relation (Austin, 2000). The last stage involves a higher level of integration, in which both organizations share and join more intangible resources and core-capabilities. Within this stage, value creation for both organizations has the greatest potential (Austin and Seitanidi, 2012a).
Where some research within the arts and cultural field has been conducted to art-business collaborations, these studies mainly examine the philanthropic or sponsorship based relations (Comunian, 2010). Since this study also considers a partnership-based alliance, it looks at the art-business alliance from a more holistic perspective. For the academic field, this study will provide a clear picture of the nature of art-business alliances within this specific time frame, explore in what way this context differentiates from other social alliances as well as it will reveal new developments and detect if the general arts-business alliance is moving forward. For practice, the study will help nonprofit arts organizations to understand what is the underlying thought for businesses to join in an alliance with arts organizations. They can shape their own proposition and consider how they could create value for businesses. Moreover, arts organizations are able to discover how their peers connect with businesses
5 and learn about the different opportunities available. At the same time, this research gives businesses a range of different possibilities in which they can join in an alliance with arts-organizations. This way, businesses can discover what the benefits are of collaborating with arts organizations and where added value can be created.
Moreover, this research will contribute to the general social alliance literature since it looks at social alliances from multiple theoretical lenses. The literature streams used to explain the main motivations of joining an alliance come from the strategic alliance literature. These streams are the resource based view, the organizational learning theory and the institutional theory. Within the social alliances literature arguments of these theories are used but in a more fragmented fashion (Wymer and Samu, 2008).
In order to structure this research first of all, the study will explain different strategic alliance theories that explain why organizations join in an alliance. Secondly, the paper will elaborate on the social alliance literature and adapt the different strategic alliance theories to this specific type of alliances. Then, the empirical part of the study is explained, which is a qualitative research that revolves around a multiple case study and consists of eight art-business alliances. Following the empirical research, the results are provided and eventually the main motives and challenges of the art-business social alliance are explained within the discussion section.
6
1. Strategic Alliances
Since the 1980’s, collaborations between firms increased rapidly. The fast increase of inter-organizational collaborations is enhanced by the trend of organizations to focus on their core capabilities, the rise of information technology as well as regulatory, economic and competitive conditions that ask for more interdependence (Gudergan et al, 2012; Contractor and Lorange, 2002). The collaboration trend suits the economy based on ideas, knowledge and information technology since this economy “favors customization, flexibility, rapid response and disinternalization or deconstruction of the value chain” (Contractor and Lorange, 2002 pg. 487).
Inter-firm relations are popular because they are able to create value for the parties involved. Collaborations have the potential to: give access to particular resources and capabilities, create speed to market and economies of scale, share risks and costs, give access to new (foreign) markets, reduce environmental uncertainty, enhance innovation and product or service development, allow for collective lobbying and create social network and learning opportunities (Ireland et al, 2002; Spekman et al, 1998; Barringer and Harrison, 2000).
One form of an inter-firm collaboration is the strategic alliance. The term strategic alliance is rather broad and includes many different forms, from short-term relationships that are established to reach a certain goal to long-term partnerships with a high level of interconnectedness and mutual learning. This research uses the definition from Gulati who describes strategic alliances as a “voluntarily initiated inter-firm cooperative agreement that involves exchange, sharing, or co-development, and it can include contributions by partners of capital, technology, or firm-specific assets” (Gulati, 1995 pg. 621).
Strategic alliances incorporate multiple structural forms, mainly based on the incorporation or absence of equity (Kale and Singh, 2009). Within equity alliances the partners are more integrated and interdependent of each other than non-equity alliances since they are linked by formal governance structures and often involve a joint ownership. These forms of alliances need to decide on how to manage control and allocate alliance benefits which is rather complex given the equity both parties share (Dacin, 2007; Barringer and Harrinson, 2000).
Non-equity alliances need less formal governance structures and organizational control or coordination mechanisms, which makes them less demanding and risky as equity alliances (Dacin, 2007). The nature of non-equity alliances is more free and flexible since these collaborations are based on contractual agreements. The contracts, when constructed well, provide an overview of the rights and
7 obligations of each partner (their inputs, the processes and expected outcomes) and help arranging the main aspects of the partnership, which prevents ambiguity and specifies the expectations of both parties (Kale and Singh, 2009). Within this paper, the focus lies on non-equity alliances since most social alliances are non-equity based.
While strategic alliances are very popular and are formed regularly, research shows that 30 to 70 percent of strategic alliances fail (Gudergan et al, 2012). There are many factors that lead to failures of partnerships such as opportunistic behavior or learning races (when a firm tries to quickly internalize the partner’s skills and then underinvests in the partnership), goal divergence conflicts, asymmetrical alliance objectives or expectations and cultural differences that are not able to overcome and increase difficulty of developing trust between partners (Spekman et al, 1998; Kale et al. 2000).
The high failure rates imply that it is difficult to manage an inter-firm relationship since these relationships are fairly complex (Barringer and Harrison, 2000). A large stream within the alliance literature looks at the way organizations can impact the degree of alliance success. Research found a number of factors that are able to improve success rates. The main aspects that increase alliance success are: prior experience, the creation of a dedicated alliance function and the implementation of firm level processes to enhance and leverage alliance management know-how and skills (Anand and Khanna, 2000, Gualiat et al, 2009; Dyer et al, 2001; Kale and Singh, 2007).
Another stream of literature looks from an individual alliance perspective and focuses on the different phases of alliances, the life cycle stages. These life cycle stages are: the formation phase in which selection takes place and focuses on partner fit, the design phase in which the partnering organizations set up an appropriate governance structure (Gulati, 1995; Dyer and Singh, 1998; Dussauge et al, 2000; Cummings and Holmber, 2012) and the post formation phase in which the organizations need to manage the alliance and establishment of behavioral attributes as trust, communication and bonding (Schreiner et al, 2009; Robson et al, 2006).
1.1 Motivations to collaborate with other businesses
Strategic alliances are established in the first place to achieve strategic objectives and create collaborative advantages. Collaborative advantages are seen as the added value of the partnering organization and the reduced added value of their competitors (Teng, 2003, pg 3). In order to detect the motives behind strategic alliances, this paper will now refer to the main theories that explain why non-equity strategic alliances are formed.
8 Since the main focus of this paper lies at the motivations of non-equity alliances between non-profit arts organizations and businesses and the challenges both parties face, the former mentioned factors as the selection of partners, the implementation of a governance structure and the establishment of behavioral attributes are not further discussed. Therefore, this paper will not incorporate theories that focus on partner selection, formation and governance structures such as social network theory (Gulati, 1995) or the transaction cost economics theory (Williamson, 1985).
1.1.1 Resource-based view
The resource-based view approaches strategic alliances from an internal perspective and sees firms as a bundle of heterogeneous resources. Resources are referred to as all “assets, capabilities, processes, information and knowledge controlled by the firm enabling it to select and use strategies that enhance organizational efficiency and effectiveness” (Barney, 1991 in: Ireland et al, 2002 pg. 428). Firm heterogeneity means that firms do not own the exact same amount and kinds of resources as other firms. Therefore firm resource heterogeneity can be a source of competitive advantage since it is firm specific and not perfectly imitable by competitors (Parmigiani and Rivera- Santos, 2011). Moreover, the management and the way different resources are combined, enhances the heterogeneity and competitive advantage of the firm (Lavie, 2006).
The theory argues that firms form strategic alliances to maximize the value of their resources by combining them with resources from other firms (Harrison et al, 2001). Research shows that partners with similar resources mainly create economies of scales, which allows for resource exploitation while partners with complementary resources increase the possibility to create economies of scope and develop new resources and skills (Dussauge et al, 2000). Resource complementarity thus allows for synergy to be created which can be very valuable when the nature of the synergy is unique and hard to imitate (Harrison et al, 2001). So, in contrast to the transaction cost perspective which focuses on minimizing costs, the resource-based view emphasizes on the creation of maximum value of the firm’s existing resources by pooling them with resources from partners (Das and Teng, 2000).
Related to the RBV is the knowledge-based view of the firm, which sees knowledge as the most important resource of firms and the primary function of the firm as “integrating specialist knowledge resident in individuals into goods and services” (Grant, 1996, pg.120). The knowledge-based view argues that the primary advantage of an alliances to both firms is accessing rather than acquiring knowledge. The difference lies within the knowledge application (alliance as a form to share knowledge in order to
9 exploit complementarities while maintaining its distinctive base of specialized knowledge) and knowledge generation (alliance as tool of transferring, learning and absorbing the partners knowledge base) (Grant and Baden-Fuller, 2004).
The distinction made between accessing and acquiring knowledge refers to the difference of exploration and exploitation. The knowledge accessing theory applies exploitation, in which firms combine knowledge resources to develop new products and services and exploit complementarities while maintaining their own distinctive base of specialized knowledge (Grant and Baden Fuller, 2004). The partners complement each other but do not have the urge to acquire the other partner’s knowledge since this knowledge will not strengthen their specialized core knowledge base (Buckley et al, 2008).
1.1.2 Organizational learning theory
Where within the resource-based view the partner’s knowledge is accessed and combined with the firm’s own knowledge to enhance the own resource-base and/or create synergies, it does not lead to organizational learning (Buckley et al, 2008). From the organizational learning theory the main motivation to join in a strategic alliance is to learn, transfer and absorb knowledge from the partner in order to supplement and widen its own firm’s knowledge base (Grant and Baden-Fuller, 2004). The acquired knowledge can be internalized and applied in activities that are unrelated to the alliance. Therefore, organizations are able to increase their knowledge-base in a way they were not able to before, which means the alliance is able to increase both firms’ strategic position (Inkpen, 2000).
One form of knowledge that is highly desirable is tactic knowledge. When managed well, tactic knowledge like technical competence, customer insight or creativity, is able to create new knowledge and innovations. However, since tactic knowledge is embedded within routines and processes of organizations, it is hard to detangle and transfer across organizations (Muthusamy and White, 2005). So even though learning and obtaining new knowledge is said to be one of the main reasons why organizations partner, it is not that easy to transfer knowledge from one organization to the other. Often, the partner’s knowledge is not well understood, the mechanisms or processes to transfer knowledge are inappropriate or too little resources are provided to enhance learning. Therefore it is highly important that organizations create a successful alliance-learning environment and overcome knowledge transfer barriers (Inkpen, 2005).
In order to effectively acquire knowledge, it is important that a firm has established a well-defined knowledge connection between different organizational levels. The knowledge connections
10 enable individual observations and experiences to be shared within the company. Moreover, learning is enhanced when both firms share a common language and if the new knowledge obtained relates to knowledge already in-house (Inkpen, 2000). This is where the importance of reciprocity comes in. Reciprocity increases the chance that both organizations create relational capital. Relational capital is based on personal relations and mutual trust and encourages the communication and shared language between two partners (Kale at al, 2000). With relational capital more complex knowledge can be exchanged since the willingness to share capabilities and knowledge will be larger within a trustful relationship (Hitt et al, 2000a).
On the individual organizational level, when an organization wants to increase the scope of its knowledge base, organizations need absorptive capacity. Absorptive capacity is the ability to “recognize the value of new, external knowledge, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial ends" (Cohen and Levintal, 1990 pg. 128). Absorptive capacity is a byproduct of routines, depends on existing knowledge, the quality of employees, the knowledge base, the resources available and the culture of the organization (Cohen and Levintal, 1990).
1.1.3 Institutional theory
Institutional theory looks at the motivations to form strategic alliances from a wider perspective then the organizational level. Organizations are embedded in social environments, the organizational fields. The fields organize the specific industry by collectively held frameworks and beliefs on how to operate. There are general norms, rules and sanctions that together shape common values and define what is appropriate or not (Kostova and Dacin, 2008). Institutional theory therefore proposes that the behavior and actions of organizations are driven by social justification, which means that organizational actions are embedded within a social and normative context (Dacin, 2007).
The institutional pressures motivate firms to seek approval and do as the others in the field do. This isomorphic behavior results in the adoption of the ‘standards’ and norms of the organizational field (Kostova and Dacin, 2008). Firms apply and adapt standards and norms in order to enhance their legitimacy. Legitimacy refers to the social justification of an actor or activity. An actor or activity is legitimate when publicly validated or endorsed (Dacin et al, 2007). If organizations fail to meet the legitimacy needs, they can be excluded from crucial markets, suppliers or other partners, which decreases their competitive success. Therefore businesses strive to gain and preserve legitimacy (Dacin et al, 2007).
11 Following from this reasoning strategic alliances can be formed from an isomorphic behavior motive (to do as the others do) or because alliances promote desirable objectives and enhance the legitimacy of the organizations (Barringer and Harrison, 2000). By forming an alliance with a reputable partner, the partnership signals social and symbolic characteristics that together enhance the firm’s legitimacy within the field. Therefore, a partnership as a source of legitimacy can function as a strategic resource for the focal firm since it allows the firm to pursue activities in the organizational field (Dacin, 2007).
Besides paying attention to the main players within the organizational field such as (key) suppliers, customers and competitors, there are other stakeholders that surround the organization and keep a close eye on the organizations like governmental bodies, NGO’s and local communities. These stakeholders are affected by the organizations actions, objectives and policies and judge the strategic actions of a firm (Donaldson and Preston, 1995). They access the appropriateness of a firm’s behavior and actions and put pressure on organizations to behave in a certain way.
In recent years various stakeholders have imposed pressure on organizations to behave in a more social responsible way. The way corporations respond to these stakeholder demands, depends on the way the institutional field is organized. If there are strong governmental regulations, collective industrial self-regulations and other independent organizations that monitor the firms, organizations are likely to act in a more responsible way (Campbell, 2007). Firms that lack social responsible behavior in the eye of society can face (consumer) boycotts or governmental sanctions. In order to avoid these boycotts and sanctions, one way firms can satisfy their stakeholder and show their CSR involvement is by partnering with a social responsible partner such as nonprofit organizations. “Firms that are highly visible, due to size and potential impact on public goods, and that tend to lack a socially responsible image or set of behaviors, are also more likely to need social legitimacy to enhance firm performance and success” (Dacin, 2007).
12
2. Social Alliances
The collaboration between nonprofit organizations and companies is a more recent phenomenon than same-sector collaborations (Bendell, 2010; Austin, 2000; Googins and Rochlin, 2000; Kolk et al, 2008). This is due to the fact that the relationship between nonprofit organizations and for-profit businesses is changing. Nonprofit organizations are to be found in many fields, ranging from culture to environment, health and social causes. The primary reason of existence is the nonprofit organization’s mission, which will guide all activities of the organization. Moreover, nonprofit organizations by definition do not make profits; they redistribute their revenues to strengthen their organization’s mission (Helin, 2013).
Even though nonprofit organizations and businesses are very different, they become more interested in engaging with each other since cuts in government funds and changes in philanthropic giving raise the need for nonprofit organizations to generate revenues with commercial activities. At the same time, businesses receive more pressure to look beyond shareholder value creation and incorporate corporate social responsibility behavior (Samu and Wymer, 2008).
Social alliances arise at the intersection of profit and nonprofit sectors. This special type of inter-organizational relationship differs from strategic alliances since at least one nonprofit partner is involved. And in addition to economic goals, social alliances include non-economic objectives (Berger et al, 2004). Business-nonprofit social alliances therefore are different from strategic alliances since they focus on more intangible, non-financial performance outcomes (Murphy et al, 2012).
2.0 Strategic alliances vs. social alliances
The dynamics of a social alliance differs from that of a strategic alliance. A closer look is therefore necessary to see what the consequences of the differences are. The main difference is obviously related to difference in type of organization, nonprofit or profit (Wymer and Samu, 2008). This fundamental a-priori difference indicates that businesses and nonprofit organizations have a lot less in common than same-sector organizations (Murphy et al, 2012).
These a-priori dissimilarities that stem from the difference in organizational type are: differences in missions and strategy (Rondinelli & London, 2003), identity and language differences (Austin, 2000, Selsky and Parker, 2004), different value orientations and expectations (Hardy et al, 2003), employee motivation differences as well as resource differences (Selsky and Parker, 2004; Googins and Rochlin, 2000; Babiak and Thibault, 2009). All these a-priori dissimilarities increase the organizational cultural
13 difference between nonprofit and profit organizations (Austin, 2000, Berger et al, 2004) and make it harder for both parties within the collaboration to get the most value out of the partnership (Seitanidi and Crane, 2009; Rondinelli and London, 2003). Berger et al (2004) list predictable problems that can occur within cross-sector alliances: misunderstandings of each other’s objectives, misallocation of cost and benefits, mismatch of power, mismatched partners, misfortunates of time and mistrust (Selsky and Parker, 2004).
The implication of the differences between nonprofit organizations and businesses is that the partnering organizations should put even more effort into selecting, implementing and managing the social alliance than when collaborating with a same-sector partner (Jamali and Keshishian, 2009; Berger et al, 2004; Simpson et al, 2011; Seitanidi and Crane, 2008; Murphy et al, 2012). The literature stresses that it helps when partners have a certain ‘fit’ or similarity such as mission, culture or resource fit (Berger et al, 2004). Fit refers to the degree collaborative partners find congruence in their perceptions, interests and strategic direction (Austin and Seitanidi 2012a). Next, the building of relational capital and trust by working together and developing shared meanings and languages moderate the aforementioned differences (Selksy and Parker, 2004, Helin, 2013). But first and foremost, the a-priori differences impact the motivations of parties that want to join in a social alliance (Murphy et al, 2012). In order to get an overview of the main motives and challenges, the major theories that explain non-equity strategic alliance motivations are consulted.
2.1.1 Resource-based view
Within the resource-based view both parties are interested in the (complementary) resources and knowledge or expertise of the other party (Parmigiani and Rivera- Santos, 2011). From the resource-based perspective businesses and nonprofit organizations exchange different types of resources and knowledge within a social alliance: financial resources, resources in-kind, human resources, expertise, reputational, marketing resources and relational resources (Austin and Seitanidi, 2012; Graf and Rothlauf, 2012).
From a resource-based perspective motivations of businesses often come down to the acquisition of reputational resources. Reputation is an important organizational asset since it is related to image, prestige and goodwill. If firms are reputable, they show credibility, which in turn enables them to attract employees, customers and partners (Graf and Rothlauf, 2012). Businesses want to acquire reputational resources to improve their brand image and the loyalty of customers as they demonstrate their
14 involvement with social or environmental issues (Samu and Wymer, 2008). Moreover, businesses motivations can be to attract contextual knowledge since this particular knowledge allows businesses to identify and respond to upcoming trends and issues from fields they are not familiar with (Pendersen et al, 2013).
The main motivation of nonprofit organizations to join social alliances is to obtain financial resources. But nonprofit organizations also are interested in reputational resources. Nonprofit organizations enhance their chance to get donations and volunteers when they have a good reputation. So by allying with a reputable partner, nonprofit organizations are able to increase their (brand) image, create a higher level of awareness for their cause, and potentially attract new volunteers. Other motivations of nonprofit organizations refer to getting access to business networks as well as having access to technical or managerial skills (Austin and Seitanidi, 2012a; Samu and Wymer, 2008; Pendersen et al; Kourula and Laasonen, 2009).
Another reasons businesses and nonprofit organizations collaborate is the ability to combine resources and capabilities that when co-joined, are able to create synergies. Functional different organizations such as profits and nonprofits can help each other by providing complementary resources and capabilities that, when combined, are able to generate new unique resources or knowledge (Arya and Salk, 2006). While combining resources, knowledge and expertise, partners are able to create new products or services, which they couldn’t have created on their own. They can for example make fair or sustainable products and co-brand them, share each other’s networks or establish a new project that aims to tackle a social cause at the core by for example stimulating education for children in third world countries (Gray and Stites, 2013).
2.1.2 Organizational learning theory
Looking from the organizational learning perspective, social alliances are vehicles to learn from each other and experiment with new kinds of activities (Selsky and Parker, 2010). Businesses for example can learn to be more mission driven and enrich their corporate values as well as increasing their employees’ skills while nonprofit organizations are able to learn to be more customer and market driven (Arya and Salk, 2006). Moreover, businesses and nonprofit organizations can both acquire knowledge of their partner, knowledge that they are also able to use outside the alliance such as contextual knowledge about particular countries, markets or new types of products, technical knowledge or managerial skills (Pedersen and Pedersen, 2013).
15 However, compared to business-to-business alliances, the process of knowledge transfer and acquirement is harder within social alliances. This is due to the fact that both parties find it more difficult to recognize the other party’s valuable knowledge. Moreover, within social alliances it is harder to transfer and acquire new knowledge since both parties have different overall objectives, cultures, professional languages, governance structures and decision-making processes (Murphy et al, 2012). Therefore within this theory, it is stressed that increasing the social relationship enhances the chance to overcome the a-priori obstacles and increase the ability to actually acquire knowledge from the other party (Murphy et al, 2012). The amount of knowledge transferred and implemented between collaborating partners therefore highly depends on the level of collaboration. When the collaboration revolves around ongoing, informal social interactions, trust is built and knowledge will be transferred easier than when the alliance relies on sole formal agreements with clearly identified goals (Hardy et al, 2003).
2.1.3 Institutional theory
From the institutional perspective, organizations face competitive and institutional pressures that organizations need to conform to if they want to be seen as a legitimate player within the field (Bryson et al, 2006). Forming a social alliance with nonprofit organizations benefits the company especially when behaving in a corporate social responsible way (CSR) is an institutional norm. CSR means that businesses go further than pursuing their economic responsibility for their shareholders, and are willing to contribute to the improvement of the welfare of their stakeholders (Jamali and Keshishian, 2009).
Allying from a CSR motive is a form of cause related marketing, which is a marketing mechanism that enhances the image of the company as a ‘good corporate citizen’ and is a way to improve the corporate reputation as well as it leads to be seen as a legitimate player in the field (Seitanidi and Ryan, 2007). Moreover, also nonprofit organizations are sensitive to institutional norms and isomorphic pressures. They therefore also have legitimacy enhancement motivations for entering a social alliance. Joining a social alliance with a reputable business signals the nonprofit organization’s ability to be a legitimate player within the field. By showing to be a legitimate nonprofit organization, stakeholders such as governmental bodies or funding agencies will be more willing to take the organization seriously (Gray and Stites, 2013).
However, even though social alliances can enhance both parties legitimacy, it also is able to harm and reduce a partner’s legitimacy. Nonprofit organizations feel the pain more easily compared to
16 businesses since they rely on more stakeholders that closely watch their actions and keep track of the activities pursued. When nonprofit organizations form alliances with businesses that stakeholders within their institutional field do not accept, their organizational legitimacy decreases. Therefore nonprofit organizations constantly need to balance between the partner’s and stakeholder expectations and concerns (Simpson et al, 2011).
2.2 Challenges
Following from the theories mentioned before, there are a couple of barriers within a social alliance that can constrain the relationship. The first barrier relates to competing institutional logics that come from a-priory differences. Both the business and the nonprofit organizations represent and enact from their own institutional logic (with distinct formal and informal rules and patterns). What seems legitimate from one perspective might be seen as less legitimate from another’s institutional thinking (Bryson et al, 2006). Moreover, different goals and missions can lead to conflicts between partners, which can enhance distrust and the lack of commitment to the partnership (Babiak and Thibault, 2008).
The second barrier relates to the fact that organizational learning within social alliances is harder than within strategic alliances. This is due to the fact that both parties find it more difficult to recognize the other party’s valuable knowledge. Also, since the two parties come from different institutional fields they have different cultures, languages and objectives which makes it more difficult to transfer and acquire knowledge (Murphy et al, 2012).
The third barrier organizations within social alliances face is related to reputational or legitimacy loss that is caused by the partner’s conflicting goals with main stakeholders or involvement within a scandal. Image or legitimacy loss can be a true problem for the continuity of the organization (Austin, 2000 and Austin and Seitanidi, 2012).
The last barrier refers to potential imbalance that could occur when one organizations becomes more depended on the resources of the other party. Social alliances deal with these aspects of resource imbalance since nonprofit organizations often rely on external parties for (financial) resources (Selsky and Parker, 2005). The asymmetric level of dependency therefore is frequently in favor of the company. A consequence of power asymmetry is that nonprofit organizations face the loss of control, which can increase mission drifts or cause internal conflicts within the nonprofit organizations since resistance grows among employees that fear loss of independence and a compromise of the nonprofit organization’s identity (Helin, 2013). One way to deal with these institutional, learning and resource-based challenges is
17 to increase the social relationship. When organizations within an alliance have a social relation, rather than only a transactional relation, control over the alliance becomes more balanced, trust is built and a common language is created which decreases the a-priori differences and allows for knowledge to be accessed and acquired more easily (Hardy et al, 2003; Lefroy and Tsarenko, 2011).
2.3 Collaboration stages
Different motivations and the strength of interaction determine the type of the collaboration. Austin (2000) created a framework that divides three different collaboration stages namely the philanthropic, the transactional and the integrative stage.
A philanthropic relationship is the most common type of cross-sector alliances. This stage is rather one-directional as it mainly includes the donations and gifts provided to the nonprofit organization by the business partner. The transfer of mainly generic resources such as funds result from an altruistic motive of the company as it does not expect a return. Within this stage, the business indirectly ‘does good’ by funding a social cause (Austin and Seitanidi, 2012a).
The transactional stage refers to a relationship between two parties in which reciprocity and the creation of benefits for both parties are central concepts. Within this stage the compatibility and complementarity between the two organizations becomes more important as well as the level of interaction. Within this stage, reputational resources are the main benefit for the company while nonprofit organizations still benefit most from transactional resources such as financial resources. This stage is very similar to the sponsorship arrangement in which the company is mainly interested in linking the corporate brand with the reputational resources of the nonprofit and the nonprofit organization is able to address its mission with the mainly financial resources provided by the business (Austin and Seitanidi, 2012a).
The integrative stage has the greatest potential of value creation for both organizations as it involves high levels of integration. Both the company and the nonprofit organization need to be committed for a longer time in order to share and co-join organization specific resources and capabilities. Together the organizations set common goals. Within this stage, more intangible resources and knowledge are exchanged and combined, which allows for synergistic value to be created, value that is alliance specific and differentiates the alliance from other social alliances which enhances the strategic position of both organizations (Austin and Seitanidi, 2012a).
18
3. Arts and Cultural Industries
Collaboration between art organizations and businesses become more relevant these days. This is due to the fact that the two spheres of economy and culture are moving towards each other. Businesses feel the need to integrate more creativity into their practices while at the same time arts-organizations feel pressure to incorporate a wider market orientation (Thomas et al, 2009). Following from this trend, initiatives pop up all over the world to link those two sectors together. One of the first organizations dedicated to this is the Arts & Business Council from the UK. Other initiatives are: the Americans for the Arts (America), Businesses for the Arts (Canada), Cultuur-Ondernemen (the Netherlands) and Flanders DC (Belgium). Even though within the fields itself, art-business collaborations become a blooming activity, within the business literature there is not much attention paid to this special collaboration.
The arts and cultural industries are ‘those industries producing and distributing goods or services which embody or convey cultural expressions, irrespective of the commercial value they may have’ (Hagoort and Kooyman, 2010 pg.9).The cultural industries therefore include the core arts such as performing arts, visual arts, as well as film and video, music and literature (Hagoort and Kooyman, 2010). The desire to create things whose value is not purely economic– things that are beautiful; that communicate cultural value through music, arts or performance; that communicate social position through style and fashion – these desires operate apart from the economic sphere (KEA, 2010, pg.3).
Especially in Europe, arts and cultural nonprofit organizations have been able to operate fairly independent from commercial spheres since most of them got subsidized by the (local) governments. However, government cuts have decreased the financial stability of many cultural organizations. And in order to cope with these losses, arts and cultural organizations need to seek alternative funding sources (McNicholas, 2004). Arts and cultural organizations therefore increasingly need to unify cultural content with commercial possibilities. By collaborating with businesses, these market values can be enhanced and a more entrepreneurial attitude can be triggered (Klamer, 2011).
Commissioned by Business for the Arts (Canada, 2009) McKinsey & Company investigated the economic impact and social importance of the arts and built a case for businesses investing in the arts. They discovered that the arts are able to significantly impact the local communities, market and promote their regions, increase tourism and indirectly increase economic activities. Moreover they found that cities benefit from the arts since the arts improve the quality of life and community engagement; often regenerate undervalued urban real estate; art education helps building skills such as critical thinking and
19 problem solving; that arts enhance innovation and “in contrast to other social causes that use financial support to ‘solve problems,’ funding of the arts add to the richness of the civil society.” “The arts create opportunities and require much less investment than other ‘charitable’ sectors (in absolute dollar terms) to create benefit and positive impact” (McKinsey, 2009 pg. 26).
The study shows arts are critical to the quality of a community’s life. Related to this is the fact that within the 21st century it becomes more important for businesses to be located within a area in which a high quality labor pool wants to live, work and play. Often this is an area with a thriving arts and cultural scene (Lynch, 2013). Robert Lynch states that: “According to the 2007 Americans for the Arts report Arts and Economic Prosperity III, the key lesson learned is that cities and countries that invest in the arts reap the additional benefits of jobs, economic growth, and a quality of life that positions those areas to compete in our 21st-century creative economy.” (Lynch, R. 2008, pg. 9).
Moreover, attracting high quality employees is one thing; the second is to develop the creative skills of employees internally. A new trend connected to this is the art-based learning trend. Art-based learning is a method in which the arts and artists are used to develop “more innovative employees and innovation-friendly organizational cultures” (Scheifter, 2012 pg. 11). One whole edition of the Journal of Business Strategy has been committed to art-based learning (2010, volume 31, issue 4). Art is a process that is able to enhance innovation by stimulating people to ask different questions and explore. Since the arts by nature inhabit some of the innovation skills sought after in businesses like creative and critical thinking, problem identification, well-written and oral communication and teamwork, they are able to stimulate employees’ skills. Moreover, artists often have a higher tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity and are more adaptive to change (Nisseley, 2010). According to Scheifter (2012), more than 350 of the Fortune 500 (and a large amount of smaller firms) employ art-based learning and report positive results. An example of art based learning is the Unilever Case. Unilever introduced an art-based learning program in 1999 called Catalyst. The idea behind Catalyst was to use artists and the artistic process as a way to solve business problems and explore topics such as “creativity, consumer insight, communication, winning mindsets, behavioral change, and personal expression as well as providing tools and techniques for working in new ways” (Boyle and Ottensmeyer, 2005 pg. 15). James Hill, chairman of Unilever Ice Cream and Frozen Foods, explained: "Catalyst has helped us develop by drawing on the energy and the creative power of the arts. It is my belief that it has worked, it has speeded up the change process, and made people more open minded, helped them embrace creativity” (Boyle and Ottensmeyer, 2005 pg. 19).
4. Method Section
Within this section, the empirical part of the thesis is presented. First, I will explain the chosen research design and how it matches the research objective. Then the unit of analysis is described, the sample, as well as the process of data collection. Third, the research quality is presented by discussing how main characters of qualitative research are met and ensured while the last part of this section describes the data analysis methodology.
4.1 Research rationale
The aim of this research is to explain the phenomenon of social alliances within the specific context of businesses collaborating with arts and cultural nonprofit organizations. This research is needed since the specific context of art- business collaborations from a social alliance standpoint has not yet been the object of study, neither in this specific research area nor in the general business literature. The social alliance literature relates to the creation of shared or social value and focuses mainly on businesses that collaborate with social or environmental nonprofit organizations or NGO’s. This stream of literature sees social collaborations as a way to improve societal problems or raise awareness for certain causes (Selsky and Parker, 2005; Porter and Kramer, 2011). Austin (2000, p. 44) for example stated that the ‘‘collaboration paradigm of the 21stcentury needs to solve ‘increasingly complex challenges that exceed the capabilities of any single sector”. Often businesses are involved in reducing these problems since they acknowledge their role within the process causing these social or environmental problems (Pendersen and Pendersen, 2013).
Nonprofit art organizations do not perfectly suit the profile of the more ‘charitable’ or political (nongovernmental) nonprofit organizations that are talked about within this stream of literature since their aim is to create artistic value and contribute to the community instead of directly solve today’s problems. This is due to the fact that nonprofit arts organizations in essence want to achieve artistic excellence, educate, surprise and enrich people, innovate and get peer recognition (Thomas et al, 2009). The artistic autonomy and integrity makes the collaboration between businesses and arts organizations more delicate than social alliances in which both parties work together to solve a social or environmental problem (Thomas et al, 2009). It is therefore most interesting to see where the collaboration between businesses and the arts is heading.
21 The neglected context of the arts and cultural industries is an important context since the economy is changing at fast speed and creativity and innovation have become core items business aim to achieve. Leading businesses look to the arts and implement art-based learning programs to enhance the skills of their employees. The arts are able to offer increasingly valuable assets since “the intangible assets of creativity and innovation have become critical success factors in 21st century businesses” (McNicholas, 2004. pg. 57). The cultural industries comprise knowledge about aesthetics, ambiguity, diversity and rapid change. Following from that, art signals experimentation and questions borders and limits, which can be an eye-opener for employees (Weinstein, 2010). The arts are able to provide new insights, internally but also outside the company. The creative industry is growing and becomes more important for cities and countries that want to attract skillful employees and leading businesses (Florida and Tinagli, 2004).
So partnering with the arts is interesting for businesses as it has a lot of potential (Weinstein and Cook, 2011). But do businesses already notice? Do they partner with the arts to strengthen their employees’ capabilities, to perceive their CSR objectives or to improve their company’s image? And what do the arts think? Within the arts and cultural field some research has been conducted to art business collaborations. However these studies stay in the sponsorship sphere in which arts organizations are mainly interested in financial resources and provide brand awareness in return (Comunian, 2010). But can it be the case that arts organizations are motivated to join in an alliance with businesses beyond a financial motivation? In order to explore this specific context, I will answer the research question: Why do businesses and nonprofit art organizations collaborate in social alliances, how do the collaborations evolve and what are potential challenges of art-business alliances?
The motivations of both parties offer insight into the nature of the art-business alliance and reveal in which stage the alliance finds itself. The challenges faced allow me to detect possible constraints that withhold the alliance to evolve. With this research, I want to investigate if the art-business alliances still revolve around sponsorships or that they have a different nature, with different motivations behind them. This research will contribute to both the academic and professional field by providing a better understanding of the art-business alliances.
4.2 Research method
I will use qualitative research to gather empirical data on the motives, development and challenges of nonprofit art organizations and business alliances. In order to gather qualitative data, I will use the
22 interview method since it allows me to gather inclusive and more contextual data than when using quantitative data gathering methods. I chose to use qualitative research since I am interested in the social actors’ (both the arts organization’s and the business’) motivations and felt constraints in order to understand the phenomena of art-business. The in-depth character of the interview method gives me the opportunity to get a rich understanding of the subject since it allows me to discover the meaning of this social construct that appears in real life and is hard to measure using quantitative research (Yin, 2009).
Within the format of qualitative research, I chose to use a deductive research approach. This approach allows me to detect to what extend general social alliance theory applies to this particular context. By conducting qualitative research, I will gain insights into how the different theoretical explanations relate to practice (Gephart, 2004). However, while gathering data, new and emerging themes will also be taken into account, which will allow for some inductive research and context specific theory building. This study therefore explores the relation between the theories that form an explanation for real life motivations to join art-business alliances as well as it refines the existing body of social alliance literature (Yin, 2009).
The form of qualitative research chosen is the multiple case study. The case study method is applied since it is a method that allows gaining rich data and in depth knowledge of the particular context (Yin, 2009). By using multiple cases, I am able to conceptualize and quantify the main motivations, and potential barriers of the arts organization as well as the business to join social alliances. Moreover, the multiple case studies provide the opportunity to see trends within the art-business social alliances, the general level of collaboration and potential future.
My case study will revolve around eight art-business alliances. Both the arts organization as well as the corporate partner will be the unit of analysis. In order to be coherent, I focus my case study on one type of arts-business alliance, namely the museum and its business partner. Art museums lie at the core of the arts and cultural industries. They represent the high arts, which means they heavily preserve their artistic autonomy. Since the artistic autonomy lies at the core, art museums deal with a delicate balancing act between creating artistic value while pursuing commercial activities to remain in business (Zimmer and Toepler, 1999). Therefore their collaboration with businesses is a continuous search for balance between art and commerce. The collaboration with art museums and businesses will make the differences between motives and challenges between the nonprofit organizations and business clearer than when more popular arts organizations were chosen. Moreover, museums are one of the high art institutions who already have a history in collaborating with businesses. So they represent the high
23 culture arts scene in both ways, first by being at the center of the arts world, second by already having a history in collaborating with businesses.
4.2.1 Unit of analysis
In order to narrow down the research area, I focus on art museums within the Netherlands and their corporate partners. The museum landscape of the Netherlands can be characterized with the following numbers: there are 442 registered museums of which 75 art museums. The museums attract almost 20,5 million visitors a year, of which 27% foreign visitors. The branch makes a turnover of €850 million a year, of which the art museums are responsible for 43,2%. The branch employs 9.578 fulltime jobs. Museums are funded by a combination of their own income, private donations and subsidies by (local) governments and public or private funds (Berbers and Krabshuis, 2013). Recently the Dutch government redesigned its cultural policy that now focuses on stimulating cultural entrepreneurship and the decreasing the dependency on governmental subsidies, which resulted in subsidy cuts (Press release Rijksoverheid, 2012).
The way I selected my cases is twofold. First, I narrowed my research area down to medium and large art museums and their corporate partners within the Netherlands. I did not look at the small regional art museums since most of them are very small, depending heavily on governmental money and have little to no substantial relation with businesses. Secondly, I selected art museums that have established collaborations with businesses on a mid- to long-term level. So the second criterion is that the nature of the alliance goes beyond a project-based collaboration.
The final research population consists of eight museums and eight businesses that are part of the top within their field. In order to gather data from the field of analysis, I chose to conduct interviews with the persons responsible for the alliance on both the museum and the business side. At the museum side these employees have titles like: account manager, relationship managers or deputy director business affairs. At the business side, the employees mainly have marketing or communication titles such as: communication, sponsor or brand activation manager. These people are the most credible sources since their daily work consists of maintaining and developing the relation with the partner. They have the most current and relevant information for my research.
24 Table no. 1 - Organizations that are part of the empirical study
Museum Size* Visitors Business Employees
1 Amsterdam Museum Art collection of the city of Amsterdam
Middle
Large 295.000
Allen & Overy
International law firm 5000
2
Boijmans van Beuningen Old and modern masters and design
Middle
Large 300.000
Ploum Lodder Princen
Dutch law firm 105
3 Cobra Museum
The Cobra Movement Middle 86.000
Van Doorne
Dutch law firm 270
4 Foam
Photography and young talent
Middle 200.000 Brauw Blackstone Westbroek Dutch Law Firm
650
5 Kröller-Müller Museum Modern sculpture in unique garden and Van Gogh
Middle 332.000 ABN AMRO
Dutch bank
23.000
6 Mauritshuis
Dutch and Flemish masters in 17th century
Middle 247.000 1
Royal Dutch Shell International energy and petrochemical company
90.000
7 Stedelijk Museum
Modern and contemporary art and design
Large 700.000 Rabobank Amsterdam Dutch bank
59.600
8 Van Gogh Museum
Van Gogh and art of the 19th century
Large 1400.000 Akzo Nobel
International paints and coating firm
50.000
4.2.2 Data collection process
Within the field of interest, I first contacted museums that I already had access to via friends or ex-colleagues (I worked as an intern in one of the participating museums), who could introduce me to the right person within the museum. Then, I contacted other museums that I had no personal connection with. Already within my introduction e-mail, I asked the museums if they could introduce me to their (or one of their) corporate partner(s).
1 All visitor numbers are from 2013 except the Mauritshuis of which the visitornumber is from 2011 due to a temporary closure of the museum ( It reopened the 27 of June 2014)
*Middle = between 0 – 50 employees Middle Large = between 50 – 100 employees Large = above 100 employees
25 In the end I contacted fourteen museums of which eleven responded. Two of the responses were negative due to the lack of time or the fact the museums did not want to partake in more then one student research. Then, one of the museums responded positively but did not wish to introduce me to their business partners. So, in the end, I was able to interview eight museums and eight businesses. Between April and July 2014 I conducted 15 interviews (of which one was a double interview). The interviews were conducted mainly at the interviewees’ organizations, in office spaces or the organization’s café. However, I conducted one interview in a public café.
At the start of the interview I asked if I was allowed to record the interview, I stated the terms of confidentiality and explained the interviewees that they were able to read and comment on the processed interview. The interviews conducted were semi-structured. For my interviews I used an interview protocol (Appendix 1). The protocol consists of 18 questions and stressed themes that related to the theory of chapters 1 to 3. All the interviews more or less followed the same interview protocol. Each interviewee was asked about the origin and nature of the collaboration their organization was in, the organization’s motivations, the evolvement of the relation, the risks of the collaboration and potential challenges faced by the respondents. However, when other interesting themes or constructs came up, I showed interest to get to know more about these topics. Also, sometimes I changed the sequence of the questions or skipped a question when the topic or theme was already discussed previously.
The interviews took between 35 and 70 minutes, of which the interview of 70 minutes was an exception, most interviews took around 45 minutes. I recorded each interview except one since the interviewee refused the interview to be recorded. In that case I extensively wrote down the interviewee's words and after transcribing it, I immediately contacted the interviewee on the correctness of the transcript. For the rest of the interviews a transcript was made of each interview by listening to the audio recordings. The transcripts are to be found in the appendix (Appendix 2).
4.3 Quality of research
To ensure credibility, the research consists of multiple sources of evidence. The museums and businesses studied are located at the top within their fields, which indicates the organizations are reliable and at the forefront of new developments. Moreover respondents of the selected museums and businesses have extensive knowledge about the research topic. These are the most credible sources since their daily work consists of the relation with the other party. By including multiple cases, and different forms of alliances, I do not just confirm my preconceptions but let new and surprising arguments in. Moreover an in depth
26 analysis is conducted in which all cases are compared and contrasted with each other. Pattern matching is conducted, in which the empirically observed patterns are contrasted with predicted ones from the literature (Gilbert and Ruigrok, 2010). And since both parties of the alliance participate in the research, a one-sided bias is eliminated. Lastly, the in-depth character of the research gives the opportunity to give a rich understanding of the subject, which can give useful insights and can lead to further research directions (Yin, 2009).
To ensure transferability eight prototypical cases are included within the research. However, since the research approach is qualitative and the size of the research sample is relatively small, the research does not allow for statistical generalization. Analytical generalization however is possible since case studies can be a starting point for theory development (Gilbert and Ruigrok, 2010). Comprehensive method and result sections are included to create a detailed depiction of the research setting and the data analyzing process. Within the analysis, all cases are incorporated, also the slightly deviant cases. Moreover, within the result section data is displayed to build a comprehensive chain of evidence.
To ensure dependability, an audit trail is provided which is available for external scrutiny. Transparency is granted by a careful documentation and explanation of the data collection as well as the analysis procedures. A case study protocol is used, references to the case studies are made within the analysis section and interview transcripts are enclosed to facilitate the replication of the study (Gilbert and Ruigrok, 2010).
4.4 Data analysis
Once I gathered all my data, I analyzed it using a deductive coding approach, in which the theoretical framework is used to direct the data analysis. Coding is an interpretive technique that organizes the data and demarcates segments within the data (Yin, 2009). I used qualitative coding software Nvivo (2014) to help me divide the data into themes and categories. After creating codes derived from the theory I divided the data and added and refined the codes while analyzing. When I finished coding my data, I displayed the data in tables and matrices in order to compare and contrast the cases. Within this stage, also a few new themes or categories emerged and where added to the data display. Next, I reduced my data, summarized parts and started interpreting the data. This led to the result section in which raw data is included to show the data analyzing proses and reveal differences and similarities within the data.
27
5. Results Section
5.0 General description of art- business alliances
Alliances between businesses and museums in the Netherlands are based on different constructions. The most common construction is the bilateral relation in which the business provides financial resources and/or resources in kind for a set of privileges that is designed for the specific alliance. In bilateral relations the privileges often revolve around brand association (some more visible than others), hospitality (such as free use of museum spaces for events) and other activities such as presentations or guided tours by curators or free access to museums for employees. The majority (five out of eight) of the cases studied are based on a bilateral construction.
Besides the five bilateral alliances, there are three alliances within the study that fit into a different structure. A second construction is the business club, which is a network-construction in which businesses pay a contribution fee to join the business network of the museum and receive a set of preset privileges in return that mainly include some free tickets, invitations to openings and access to networking events or dinners. One museum founded a high profile business club, in which businesses donate €12.500 every year for a period of 3 years and get a rich set of privileges in return. The museum hereby creates an internal fund to directly support new exhibitions.
While a majority of the museums within the study also provide a business club construction, in most cases the financial contribution ranges from 500 to 3.000 euro. The particular Business Club that is included within the study is different in the sense that the entry level and privileges in return are higher. The museum chose this construction since there was a drop in businesses involved in their previous business circle. When they noticed this was due to the difference in business motivations to join the network, they divided the network and added a high segment to it. Where the privileges within the Corporate Member Club (similar to business clubs of other museums) involve more general privileges such as free tickets, invitations to openings, a guided tour or a free lunch and name associations, the high profile Business Club offers privileges like 24/7 access to the museum with relations, the opportunity to dine in the museum after closing hours, a specific day with free entrance for your employees, and an invitation for the business diner.
Another construction is a museum fund, which is created to connect 3rd parties to the museum, both private individuals and businesses. These third parties receive certain privileges and name recognition for their donation. The privileges given in return depend on the amount of money that has
