Transfer of Marketing Knowledge Within Business‐Nonprofit Collaborations

This article was downloaded by: [University of Connecticut]On: 13 October 2014, At: 05:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Nonprofit & PublicSector MarketingPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wnon20

Transfer of MarketingKnowledge WithinBusiness‐NonprofitCollaborationsRoger Bennett , Wendy Mousley & RehnumaAli‐ChoudhuryPublished online: 08 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: Roger Bennett , Wendy Mousley & Rehnuma Ali‐Choudhury (2008)Transfer of Marketing Knowledge Within Business‐Nonprofit Collaborations, Journal ofNonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 20:1, 37-70, DOI: 10.1080/10495140802165352

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10495140802165352

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wnon20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10495140802165352

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10495140802165352

and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Transfer of Marketing Knowledge WithinBusiness-Nonprofit Collaborations

Roger Bennett

Wendy Mousley

Rehnuma Ali-Choudhury

ABSTRACT. Companies often develop collaborative joint ventureswith nonprofits, and sometimes help their nonprofit partners with themarketing activities associated with these projects. Often, theassistance furnished is embodied in a transfer of knowledge from afirm to a nonprofit and involves knowledge about marketingtechniques, strategies and methods. This article presents the resultsof a survey concerning the extents, natures and effectiveness ofmarketing knowledge transfers taking place between 291 UKenterprises and their nonprofit partner organisations. The surveycovered the knowledge transfer methods that companies employed,the scope of the knowledge communicated, the factors thatencouraged or impeded marketing knowledge transfer, and theconsiderations that determined which partner completed most of themarketing tasks associated with a project. It emerged that knowledge

Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, Vol. 20(1) 2008Available online at http://jnpsm.haworthpress.com# 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.

doi: 10.1080/10495140802165352 37

Roger Bennett, PhD, is a professor of marketing at London MetropolitanUniversity, London, UK (E-mail: [email protected]).

Wendy Mousley is a research assistant in the Department of Business andService Sector Management, London Metropolitan University, London,UK (E-mail: [email protected]).

Rehnuma Ali-Choudhury is a lecturer in Marketing in the Departmentof Business and Service Sector Management, London MetropolitanUniversity, London, UK (E-mail: [email protected]).

Address correspondence to Roger Bennett, Centre for Research inMarketing, London Metropolitan University, 84 Moorgate, London EC2M6SQ (E-mail: [email protected]).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

transfers occurred mainly through face-to-face communications,though with little formal teamworking. Both the extent and theeffectiveness of transfers depended on the degree of marketingknowledge within the nonprofit partner, on levels of knowledgespecificity and project complexity, and on the financial importanceof the collaboration. The extent of knowledge transfer wasadditionally influenced by cultural and organisational distance.Similar considerations affected commercial partners’ decisions to domost of the marketing work required by a collaboration. Suchdecisions were especially likely if anti-marketing bias existed withinthe nonprofit organisation and if the nonprofit’s staff knew littleabout marketing.

KEYWORDS. Marketing knowledge, technology transfer, know-how, business-nonprofit collaborations, cause-related marketing

INTRODUCTION

The volume of collaborative arrangements involving businessesand nonprofit organisations has grown substantially in recentdecades (Chong, 2003; Wymer and Samu, 2003; Hollis, 2005). Aplethora of forms of collaboration has arisen including, inter alia,financial sponsorships, activities connected with corporate socialresponsibility programmes, the joint branding of retail products,transaction based promotions, affinity branding, and joint ventures(see Bennett and Gabriel [2000] and Wymer and Samu [2003] for listsof examples). Licensing contracts whereby nonprofits allow compa-nies to use their names and logos for commercial purposes are alsocommon (Berglind and Nakata, 2005). Nonprofits receive cash and/or other resources from these arrangements; commercial partnersobtain favourable publicity and, in certain cases, direct increases inrevenues from sales. Sometimes, a nonprofit’s participation in acollaborative project provides the organisation with access to itscommercial partner’s entire customer base (Berglind and Nakata,2005). It is relevant to note in this connection that a messagedelivered through an alliance with a well-known corporation mayachieve far greater penetration than otherwise would have been thecase. Companies frequently use collaborations with nonprofits to

38 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

build brands. Here the firm is likely to select a good cause for whichits customers will have an affinity, in the hope that this ‘will translateinto higher brand memorability, preference and purchasing’(Berglind and Nakata, 2005 p.447). In general, according to Wymerand Samu (2003), relationships between businesses and the nonprofitsector have progressively evolved from ‘philanthropic beneficence’ tosituations based on market exchanges wherein the partners mutuallybenefit from collaborations.

Need for Collaborative Marketing Activity

The outputs or consequences of a business-nonprofit collabora-tion will need to be marketed. Thus, for example, an operaproduction or an art exhibition sponsored by a business has to bepublicised effectively before either of the partners can benefit fromthe arrangement. It is relevant to note in the arts sponsorshipcontext Chong’s (2003) observation that nonprofit arts and culturalorganisations sometimes entered collaborative arrangements with‘household name’ companies with the aim not only of attractinglarge audiences but also of drawing in people who normally wouldnot visit arts and cultural venues. In the case of a conventionalsponsorship involving a lump sum payment, the degree of benefitaccruing to the firm might depend entirely on how visibly thesponsorship is advertised (Wragg, 1994). A commercially supportedcharity fun run, cycling or other mass participation sporting eventmust itself be properly marketed, or public awareness will be lowand neither the supporting firm nor the beneficiary charities willgain from the collaboration. If a collaboration entails a firm and anonprofit joining forces to publicise the existence of a socialproblem with a view to changing behaviour (e.g., in relation tochild abuse or domestic violence), then promotional materials mustbe prepared and printed, advertisements need to be created, pressreleases drafted, and so on. In several countries there existlicensing agreements between credit card companies and nonprofitswhereby, in return for a royalty, the latter allow their names andlogos to appear on credit cards issued by the former. The cardsare targeted at the nonprofit’s supporters. Hence a marketingcampaign is needed to promote the cards among the nonprofit’sknown donors.

Bennett, Mousley, and Ali-Choudhury 39

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

Transfer of Marketing Knowledge Within Collaborations

It follows from the above that a firm may have a strong incentiveto offer to its partner advice on and assistance with the nonprofit’smarketing activities in order to ensure that a collaborative project iseffectively promoted. Help could range from the provision of ad hoccontributions to specific tasks (market research, design of advertise-ments, campaign planning, etc.) through to a company more or lesstaking over a nonprofit’s entire marketing function. Berglind andNakata (2005) argued that a major stimulus to firms to providesubstantial assistance with the development and implementation ofjoint marketing activities with nonprofits was that collaborativeventures were ‘typically complex.’ Hence the commercial partner’scontribution to ‘conceptualising, shaping, and delivering the promo-tion’ was extremely valuable (p.447). A further reason for interven-tion might involve a firm’s lack of confidence in the marketingcompetence and capabilities of a nonprofit partner. Bennett’s (2002)survey of sponsorship managers in 94 British companies that engagedin cause related marketing found that (i) the respondents generallyheld poor opinions of the marketing abilities of the nonprofits theydealt with, and (ii) firms typically completed most of the promotionalwork connected with cause related marketing projects themselves.Overall the sample businesses adopted highly pragmatic (andcertainly not philanthropic) approaches to cause related marketing.

The Present Study

Despite their obvious importance, issues concerning the extentsand mechanisms of marketing knowledge transfer from commercialto nonprofit partners in collaborative ventures have not beencomprehensively investigated. This paper attempts to help remedythis lacuna in the research literature by reporting the results of anempirical study of 291 companies engaged in collaborative activitieswith nonprofit organisations. The factors that determine the extentand effectiveness of the marketing knowledge transfer between acommercial firm and its nonprofit partner are examined, togetherwith the methods that are most frequently used to transfer marketingknowledge. Additionally the considerations that determine which ofthe partners (the business or the nonprofit) does most of themarketing work associated with a collaboration are investigated.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

Whilst it is acknowledged that a number of large nonprofits haveextensive and sophisticated marketing departments, the majority willnot (see Bennett, 1998b; Bennett and Savani, 2004). Hence theresearch examined transfers from firms to nonprofits rather than theother way round.

The remainder of the article is structured as follows. Firstly, themeaning of ‘marketing knowledge’ is defined and briefly discussed,particularly vis-a-vis issues arising from the fact that much marketingknowledge is tacit in nature (i.e., informal and often communicatedverbally). Then, the main methods available for transferring market-ing knowledge are outlined and their relative merits examined. Thissection is followed by a description of the factors that prior researchhas found to encourage or impede effective knowledge transfer. Nextthe survey methodology is detailed, together with an account of howthe main constructs employed in the course of the investigation weremeasured. The paper ends with statements of the results, conclusions,implications and limitations of the study.

Marketing Knowledge

Knowledge, according to Davenport et al. (1998) is ‘informationcombined with experience, context, interpretation and reflection’(p.46). ‘Marketing knowledge,’ in the words of Rossiter (2001) iseverything ‘that marketing managers and consultants teach andwhich marketing managers draw upon when formulating marketingplans’ (p.9). It can relate to (but, according to Rossiter [2001], is notcoincidental with) marketing skills, marketing know-how, andmarketing technology. Marketing skills are ‘capabilities which areused in a specialist situation’ (Sanchez et al., 1996) and incorporateactivities such as planning, analysis, decision making and commu-nication (Rossiter, 2001). Skills can contribute to strategic marketingcapabilities (Hunt and Morgan, 1996), to the establishment of goodrelations with customers, and to the use of marketing resources torespond to environmental changes (Day, 1994). They can prevailthroughout the organisation (see Petts, 1997) or in specialist areas(Hooley et al., 1999). Marketing know-how is confidential non-patented technical knowledge concerning the methods and mannersin which marketing tasks are completed (Bennett, 1996). Marketingtechnology comprises the ‘aggregation of ideas, understanding,systematic ways of doing things, and the incorporation of these


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

ideas in usable procedures’ (Carson, 1990 p.13). The successfulapplication of marketing technology results in the transformation ofresource inputs such as money, time, and human effort into effectivemarketing activities (communications, the development of attractivenew products, etc.) and campaigns (cf. Bennett, 1996).

Marketing knowledge can be tacit or explicit. Tacit knowledge istypically based on personal experience and observation; dependsheavily on ad hoc trial and error; and frequently relies on listening toanecdotal stories about how other people have dealt with problems.Often it involves ‘‘intangible insights, beliefs, hunches and intuitions’’(Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995, p.17) that are manifest only in theirapplication (Grant, 1997). Thus tacit knowledge is difficult to unraveland communicate, ephemeral, and rarely written down. Hence it iscommonly transferred via conversations on-the-job. Explicit knowl-edge, conversely, is factual and objective and normally capable ofbeing codified and recorded in operating manuals or instructionbooks, or of being incorporated into databases. Codified explicitmarketing knowledge can be transferred relatively easily and at lowor negligible cost (Archibugi and Pietrobelli, 2003). A number ofstudies have concluded that a great deal of marketing knowledge istacit, person-embodied, and hence hard to transfer (for details seeBennett, 1998a; Simonin, 1999; Archibugi and Pietrobelli, 2003;Schlegelmilch and Chini, 2002). An additional problem is thatmarketing knowledge is frequently acquired in specific culturalcontexts and is highly experiential in nature (Simonin, 1999;Schlegelmilch and Chini, 2003). Consequently, the application ofknowledge concerning a particular marketing technique (embodiedperhaps in a set of instructions) might not produce the same outcomeswhen the technique is employed in similar circumstances, even ifknowledge of the technique is applied in exactly the same manner(Archibugi and Pietrobelli, 2003). Differences in outcomes may resultfrom disparate understandings of the tacit elements of the technique.

Methods For Transferring Marketing Knowledge

Marketing knowledge can be transferred through visits and verbalcommunications, through the provision of databases or documents(e.g., handbooks, written reports, instruction and proceduralmanuals) (Zeleny et al., 1990), the co-option of a company’sexecutives to work temporarily within a nonprofit (Wragg, 1994;


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

Fontes, 2005), the establishment of teams with members from bothorganisations (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1995), or via the employmentof intermediaries (Jain and Triandis, 1990). Also, staff from thenonprofit might be invited to participate in the commercial partner’smarketing training programmes. Training (whether systemic or adhoc) should help people in the recipient organisation understand thelanguage of the firm’s marketing function and the overall aims,priorities and perspectives of the commercial partner (Maltz andKohli, 2000). This paper examines the degrees to which these transfermethods are employed in business-nonprofit collaborations.

Visits and Face-to-Face Communications

A number of surveys of commercial organisations have suggestedthat two-third’s of the average manager’s information and knowledgeabout operational issues derives from informal face-to-face interac-tions and only one third from documents (see Davenport, 1994). One-to-one knowledge transfers within informal networks occur naturallyand, according to Dougherty (1999), are essential for successfulknowledge transfer. The knowledge acquired in this manner relatesimmediately and directly to the personal needs and objectives of therecipient, who is fully in control of the learning situation. Learningoccurs through trial and error (Carson, 1990). It is importantnevertheless that the parties to the transfer share common values,beliefs and approaches to issues, resulting in fewer misunderstandingsand better communications (Grant, 1997). Specifically, the transferee(according to Carson, 1990) needs to recognise the value of marketingand to wish to practise marketing on behalf of the recipientorganisation. A substantial body of research has concluded that themore frequent are face-to-face communications the more helpful theyare for assisting ‘the creation of shared meaning and a commoncontext within which the knowledge transfer process can befacilitated’ (Sarker, 2005 p.10).

Transfer of Documented Procedures

A firm might offer to its nonprofit partner written information onits marketing procedures via manuals, reports. software, databases,etc. The recipient can then apply these to its own operations,following the example set by the commercial organisation


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

(Huckzynski, 1983). Unfortunately, the procedures transferred mightnot be suitable for a nonprofit (especially a small nonprofitorganisation), possibly resulting in the transferee implementinginappropriate marketing practices (cf. Carson, 1990). For thesuccessful transfer of documented procedures, both parties must bewilling to devote substantial time and resources to the transferprocess (Szulanski, 2000), particularly in relation to the adaptationof the transferred procedures to meet the recipient’s specificrequirements.

Establishment of Teams

An extensive literature in the knowledge management field hasalleged that the use of task and responsibility sharing teamscomprising employees of two organisations is very likely to resultin meaningful and comprehensive flows of knowledge between them(see Kerssens Van Dronglen et al. [1996] and Bennett [1998a] fordetails of studies supporting this proposition). Project teams havebeen found to be especially useful for transforming tacit knowledgeinto codified formats, which can then be transmitted to and sharedamong many end-users (Lee, 1994; Bennett, 1998a). According toKolb et al. (1974), working in a team provides participants withconcrete experiences which lead to reflection and conceptual thoughtand hence the application of what has been learnt to other activities.Teamworking is said to generate feelings of personal responsibility, toenhance the flow of communications, and to improve interpersonalrelations leading to more frequent transfers of knowledge (particu-larly tacit knowledge) (see Lee, 1994; Amesse and Cohendet, 2001).

The formation of a team to deal with the marketing aspects of acollaborative arrangement could help overcome institutional diffi-culties associated with the accommodation of activities that clashwith one of the partner’s internal norms and practices (Rappert andWebster, 1997). Ruekert and Walker (1987) concluded that a majorbenefit of teamworking across organisational borders was that itencouraged managers to focus on the superordinate goals of a jointproject, rather than on parochial interests. A superordinate goal,according to Pinto et al. (1993) is one that is urgent and compellingfor all the participants but which requires their joint efforts andresources for its attainment. A high level of identification with the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

superordinate goals of a project supposedly motivates interactionbetween the parties (Ruekert and Walker, 1987).

Use of Intermediaries

Inter-organisation knowledge transfer can, according to Szulanski(2000), be ‘laborious, time-consuming and difficult’ (p.10). It mightbe convenient, therefore, to have a single person responsible forcontrolling all the activities and resources involved in a collaborativearrangement, and then imposing decisions. Wragg (1994) noted howcommercial sponsors sometimes placed a senior manager onto asponsored nonprofit’s board of governors in order to provide thespecialist expertise necessary to expedite a joint project. Anintermediary can liaise between the parties, establish the details ofthe marketing knowledge required by the nonprofit, and thenorganise the timely provision of relevant information (Jain andTriandis, 1990). In consequence, direct interactions between the twoorganisations will be limited (Amesse and Cohendet, 2001).

If the intermediary is to succeed, it is necessary that the personinvolved possesses the competencies and contacts necessary to matchthe marketing knowledge available in the commercial firm to theneeds of the nonprofit partner, and thereafter to have the authority tomake decisions (Wragg, 1994). Also the intermediary must under-stand the causes and effects of differences in the perceptions of themarketing function possibly held by managers in the two organisa-tions, including misunderstandings of the language used by each sideto describe marketing activities and objectives (cf. Chiesa andPiccaluga, 1998). Hence the intermediary may have to translate thelanguage employed by one group to make it comprehensible to theother.

Effective Knowledge Transfer

Irrespective of the particular transfer method employed, the aim isto facilitate effective knowledge transfer; namely, transfer that resultsin (i) the integration of the new knowledge in the recipientorganisation and its subsequent conversion into improved capabil-ities and (ii) the application of the acquired knowledge in practice(Buckley and Carter, 1999). Schlegelmilch and Chini (2003) cited twofurther indicators of effective knowledge transfer. The first was


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

whether the recipient recognised the benefits of the use of thetransferred knowledge, and whether the transferee was generallysatisfied with the knowledge transferred. It is relevant to note in thelatter connection however the finding of Bennett (1998a) thatmarketing knowledge communicated between commercial sectorjoint venture partners was sometimes received enthusiastically bythe recipient organisation (implying thereby overall satisfaction withthe knowledge transfer), but that the knowledge received was hardlyever used. Thus, much of the time, effort and resources devoted toknowledge transfers had been wasted. Simonin (1999) and others (fordetails see Schlegelmilch and Chini, 2003) have concluded thatcultural and organisational distance between the parties (see below)represent major obstacles to effective knowledge transfer.

Factors Encouraging and Impeding Effective Knowledge Transfer

The academic literature on knowledge management and (general)technology transfer has suggested the existence of a number of factorsthat possess the potential either to stimulate or to impede inter-organisational knowledge transfer, as listed below. Thereafter thepaper presents the results of a test of whether these same key factorsimpact on knowledge transfers in the context of business-nonprofitcollaborations.

Stimuli

Prior studies have identified four major stimuli to effectiveknowledge transfer: source credibility, knowledge specificity,complexity of a project, and the partner’s past experience ofcollaborations.

(a) Source credibilityMoenaert et al. (1992) found that before transferred informa-tion was actually applied it would normally be evaluated bythe user in relation to its relevance and credibility. If thesource is seen as expert, reputable and trustworthy, therecipient is more likely to accept the transmitted knowledge(Szulanski, 2000). Knowledge transfer is facilitated in thesecircumstances (see Bennett, 1998a). However, the processwhereby source credibility is assessed may be highly subjective


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

and heavily influenced by the recipient’s preconceptions of thequality of the source organisation. Unfortunately, moreover, ahigh degree of source credibility might lead to ‘informationdependence,’ i.e. to unquestioning conformance to thetransferor’s suggestions consequent to the (possibly false)pre-assumption that the source organisation is expert in allaspects of a subject. This can result in the application ofinappropriate methods (Cherrington, 1989). Informationdependence is known to be especially problematic in twosituations. Firstly, when the recipient has no knowledge orexperience whatsoever of a certain topic or activity and hencewants to set his or her behaviour against norms established bysomeone who is both respected and known to haveencountered similar situations previously; secondly when therecipient is faced with situations regarded as frightening orthreatening (Schachter, 1959). Within these circumstances,advice from an organisation with common interests and whichis perceived to possess first hand experience is warmlywelcomed (Moenaert et al. 1992).

(b) Knowledge specificityIt could be that the marketing activities necessitated by acollaboration require specialist and specific marketing knowl-edge, skills, training, experience, business contacts and work-ing relationships with outsiders, that are only possessed byand/or available to the commercial partner. In this case thefirm might reasonably be predicted to want to transfersubstantial amounts of marketing knowledge, and the non-profit involved may be expected to want to receive it (Simonin,1999). Concomitantly the firm may wish to manage andcontrol relatively more of the marketing activities associatedwith the project rather than leaving this to the nonprofitpartner, which might not be deemed capable of coping withthe work involved (cf. Williamson, 1985). The reversesituation may be anticipated in circumstances where themanagerial and technical marketing skills needed to expeditethe collaborative project are very similar to those employed bythe nonprofit in the normal course of its operations (Bennettand Gabriel, 2000).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

(c) Complexity of the projectSimonin (1999) defined a complex marketing situation as onewherein a large number of interdependent routines, individualsand separate marketing resources were required to deal with iteffectively. Large flows of marketing knowledge from the firmto the nonprofit organisation might be expected in this case,because staff in the nonprofit may find it difficult to grasp thedetail of all the elements of all the marketing tasks involved.Inputs will be needed from many different sections of the sourceorganisation. High levels of complexity might impel thecommercial partner to seek to assume a greater degree ofcontrol over the marketing aspects of a collaboration thanwould occur in simpler marketing situations (Bennett, 1999).

(d) The partner’s past experience of collaborationsA firm with extensive experience of collaborating withnonprofit organisations may be better equipped to recogniseand understand the needs and competencies of its nonprofitpartner, to gather and interpret relevant information, and totransfer knowledge in appropriate formats and manners(Simonin, 1999). Likewise a nonprofit that has previouslycollaborated with businesses might be able to benefit from amarketing knowledge transfer more than one which is new tocollaborative ventures (cf. Powell et al., 1996). A nonprofitwith such experience should be more familiar than others withthe context and content of the marketing knowledge it receivesfrom its commercial partner.

Barriers

Previous research has confirmed the presence of a number ofsubstantial barriers to the inter-organisational transfer of knowledge,as outlined below. An additional potential obstacle to effectiveknowledge transfer specific to the business-nonprofit context is alsoworthy of discussion, namely the possible existence of an anti-marketing bias among the staff of some nonprofit organisations.

(a) Transferor’s failure to understand the transferee’s requirementsBennett (1998a) found that neglecting to analyse a recipient’smarketing knowledge requirements prior to a knowledge


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

transfer represented a significant impediment to its successfulexecution. Ideally, the transferor should assess the transferee’sneeds, list the assistance resources available, and liaise withthe recipient to determine the transfer methods that are mostappropriate. Failure to complete these tasks often resulted,Bennett (1998a) concluded, in the wrong knowledge beingcommunicated in inappropriate manners at the wrong times.It could be that, rather than the transferee receiving technicalhelp with marketing, the recipient would be better off beingprovided with basic knowledge concerning elementary mar-keting competencies and an awareness of the value ofmarketing as an organisational function (Simonin, 1999).Another problem potentially arising from a firm’s ignoranceof its nonprofit partner’s true requirements is the possibilitythat it might release marketing knowledge that managers inthe nonprofit find interesting, but for which applications havenot been identified. Here the firm should suggest opportu-nities for using the knowledge provided, in the context of therecipient’s specific needs and operations (cf. Dasgupta andDavid, 1994).

(b) Poor absorptive capacity in the recipient organisationAn organisation’s capacity to absorb the knowledge it receivesfrom a partner involves its ability (i) to use the knowledge, (ii)to recognise the value of new information, (iii) to assimilatethe knowledge, and (iv) to apply the knowledge to create freshcapabilities (Schlegelmilch and Chini, 2003). A nonprofit withhigh absorptive capacity will be able to learn quickly how toemploy the received knowledge and, importantly, to under-stand its tacit elements (Archibugi and Pietrobelli, 2003).The development of absorptive capacity could requireconsiderable effort and investment on the part of the recipientorganisation.

(c) Cultural distanceEffective knowledge transfer requires that the individuals whoreceive the transferred knowledge ascribe to it the samemeaning as the people who send it. This may be difficulthowever if there exist differences in the ‘contextual rules’


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

embodied in the social structures, values and conventions ofthe two organisations (Simonin, 1999 p.466). Cultural distancedoes not imply dislike (Swift, 1998), but it does makeindividuals feel less ‘at ease’ with others they perceive to bedifferent. Also the higher the level of cultural distance thegreater the ‘effort’ required to understand and effectivelycommunicate with the other party and hence form a closeworking relationship (Conway and Swift, 2000 p.1391).Manifestations of the difficulties that could arise from a highdegree of cultural distance include differences of opinionregarding market opportunities, relevant joint work pro-grammes, and overall managerial approaches (Simonin, 1999).A study completed by Moenaert et al. (1992) concluded thatthe organisational climate within a transferee’s organisationcritically influenced how readily information was received andhow enthusiastically it was acted upon. Wymer and Samu’s(2003) survey of North American business-nonprofit alliancessimilarly found that disparate cultures, objectives and‘operating styles’ often meant that the ‘dynamics’ of therelationships between commercial and nonprofit organisationswere very different to those pertaining within same-sectorcollaborations (p.4).

Cultural distance between a business and its nonprofitpartner could arise from disparities in the personalcharacteristics and values of managers in the twoorganisations. Marketing executives in companies fre-quently possess business qualifications and experience andare likely to speak about revenue surpluses, efficiency andperformance. Their ‘World view’ might focus on marketorientation, communications techniques and technologies,the development of corporate image and identity, etc.Conversely, managers in charge of a nonprofit may comefrom a wide range of backgrounds, possess non-businessrelated qualifications, and have been attracted to nonprofitwork by heavily altruistic motives. Doz (1998) and Swift(1998) found that dissimilarities in the levels of status ofthe people involved in the knowledge transfer process ineach of the organisations could also contribute to culturaldistance.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

(d) Organisational distanceStructural elements within an organisation allegedly possessthe capacity to facilitate or inhibit the sharing of marketingknowledge across organisational boundaries (Schlegelmilchand Chini, 2003). Simonin (1999) used the term organisationaldistance to describe differences in the internal managementstructures, business processes and practices and workingmethods of two organisations. A high degree of organisationaldistance, Simonin (1999) asserted, was evidenced by sub-stantial disparities between organisations vis-a-vis decisionmaking processes, attitudes towards key marketing issues, andmanagement style. Organisational distance, Simonin (1999)continued, had the potential to reduce levels of understandingbetween the parties, especially in relation to connectionsbetween marketing actions and outcomes. Siegel et al. (2004)concluded that organisational distance could also result inmanagers in a source company not being fully aware of thepartner’s specific knowledge requirements. A further exampleof organisational distance is the possible existence of a largedifference in the level of initial marketing knowledge held bymanagers in each of the partner organisations (Amesse andCohendet, 2001; Fontes, 2005). Substantial disparities in thebase-knowledge of the partners will probably mean that therecipient is fundamentally unfamiliar with the ideas, language,and marketing methods communicated by the firm (Baughnet al., 1997). Thus, as well as recognising the knowledgerequirements of the transferee, the knowledge source needs toassess the recipient’s pre-existing level of marketing knowl-edge, as only then will it be able to transmit appropriateknowledge in suitable formats (Fontes, 2005).

(e) Special problems relating to small recipient organisationsIn Britain, large nonprofits often possess extensive marketingdepartments and have much marketing expertise (see Bennettand Savani, 2004). However, small nonprofits share with theircommercial small business counterparts several characteristicsthat could cause them to know little about marketing. Themanagement of a small nonprofit will be undertaken directlyby a handful of individuals who complete all functions and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

tasks (marketing, finance, beneficiary operations, administra-tion, etc.) Strategy will be determined by the same group(Carson, 1990). A small nonprofit may have engaged withmarketing haphazardly and spasmodically, and marketingperformance is likely to have depended heavily on thepersonal aptitude for marketing of a single individual (cf.Carson, 1990). Resource constraints within a small nonprofitmay have prevented it from completing serious marketingplans, from developing significant marketing strategies, orfrom providing staff with marketing training (Bennett, 1998a).This could result in a commercial partner transferringrelatively more marketing knowledge to a small nonprofitpartner, but also in the transfers being more difficult toexecute consequent to low initial base knowledge and limitedabsorptive capacity in the recipient organisation.

(f) Possible anti-marketing bias in nonprofit organisations‘Anti-marketing bias’ has been observed in a number of theUK’s leading nonprofit organisations (see Burnett, 1986;Clutterbuck and Dearlove, 1996; Bennett, 1998b). Often,nonprofits have numerous and diverse stakeholders (benefici-aries, donors, volunteers, government agencies, politicians,trustees, programme managers, employees, funding bodies,etc.), some of whom may believe emphatically that a nonprofitorganisation should concentrate exclusively on its coreactivities, certainly not on marketing and public relations.Often, individuals join a nonprofit ‘because of the compat-ibility of their beliefs with the values of the organisation’(Catano et al., 2001 p.257), and competence at marketingmight not be among the characteristics of an organisation thatthe person most admires (Berglind and Nakata, 2005). Hencemarketing might be seen by detractors as a cost (as opposed toa revenue generater) that, through its glossy promotions,expensive advertising and PR stunts, drains resources fromoperational programmes and inhibits the pursuit of anonprofit’s goals. Further objections to nonprofit marketingcould derive from the assumptions that anything gained byone organisation from a successful campaign is necessarily lostby others and that high-profile promotions create among


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

potential donors feelings that their contributions will merelybe spent on additional advertising, not on beneficiaries.Clearly, perceptions on this nature among a nonprofit’semployees have the potential to reduce the ease with which acommercial business can transfer marketing knowledge to itsnonprofit partner effectively, and thereafter ensure that theknowledge will be properly applied.

The Investigation

A questionnaire was drafted consequent to a literature review andwas pretested via (i) discussions with 2 senior executives in companiesheavily involved in cause related marketing and with a number ofsenior academics in the non-profit marketing field, and (ii) apreliminary mailing to 50 companies selected at random from thesampling frame used for the main study. This sampling frame wasdrawn from two sources: (i) lists of ‘sponsoring and donatingcompanies’ appearing in the arts and charities sections of the HollisSponsorship and Donations Yearbook 2005 (Hollis Directories Ltd.),and (ii) the regional, national and international membership lists ofthe UK Business in the Community (BIC) organisation. Threehundred and eighty-eight contacts were obtained from the formersource (which gives the name and address of the manager in charge ofthe sponsorship activities of a business as well as sponsorship budgetdetails and main areas of interest) and 681 from the BIC lists. BICacts as a ‘broker’ between nonprofits seeking cause related marketingpartners and companies willing to participate in collaborations.Outcomes to the discussions and examination of the thirteenquestionnaires that were returned from the preliminary mailingfacilitated the identification of ambiguities in the wordings ofindividual questions and the merging of excessively overlappingitems. In particular, the replies to the pre-test suggested that therespondents were not prepared to reveal any financial or other detailsof their collaborative projects, so requests for this information werenot included in the revised version. The final questionnaire wasmailed to the remaining firms in the sampling frame (1019organisations). After a follow-up, 291 usable replies were received.A letter was sent to a random sample of 50 non-respondentsenclosing a slip requesting the recipient to tick off reasons for non-response. Twelve of these slips were returned, with ‘too busy’ being


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

the major reason cited (six responses). The second most frequentreason was ‘it is company policy not to reply to questionnaires’ (fourresponses). hence there was no reason to believe that there were anysignificant response biases among the companies actually participat-ing in the survey.

The questionnaire itself is summarised in the Appendix to thepaper, which also specifies the prior literature upon which specificsets of items were based and states the summary diagnostics fromfactor analyses completed on particular constructs. The procedureemployed for adapting questionnaire items borrowed from previousliterature followed the recommendations of Engelland et al. (2001).Accordingly, the altered scales were scrutinised by the authors andthen independently by two other marketing academics at the authors’home university to ensure that they fell within the domain of therelevant construct and fully expressed its meaning, that the outputsanticipated from the altered items matched those expected of theoriginals, and that the modifications were compatible with thevocabulary of the target respondents. The independent adjudicatorsagreed with the authors that the modifications satisfied these criteria.A covering letter outlined the nature of the investigation and(following Dillman’s [1978] Total Design research method) askedthe respondent to focus on a current (no more than one year old) orpast but recent (i.e., terminated less than three years ago) collabora-tion with which they were most familiar.

Section A of the questionnaire contained queries regarding the sizeof the firm (section A1) and the respondent’s perception of the size ofthe nonprofit partner (A7), how knowledge was transferred and howfrequently (A2 to A5), and which partner had completed most of themarketing duties necessitated by the project. Subsequent sectionsdealt with the extent of knowledge transfer, knowledge specificity, thecomplexity of the project, and organisational and cultural distance.Then the questionnaire concentrated on the nonprofit partner’sabsorptive capacity and base-knowledge and on how staff in thenonprofit viewed the credibility of the transferred knowledge. Thequestionnaire concluded with sets of items that explored the possiblepresence of anti-marketing bias among staff in the nonprofit organisa-tion, the measures (if any) taken by the firm to establish the nonprofit’smarketing knowledge requirements, the respondent’s assessment of theeffectiveness of the knowledge transfer, and two ad hoc items (see


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

section M) concerning a company’s experience of collaborativeventures and the financial importance of the arrangement.

RESULTS

Descriptive Results

The firms in the sample had a median of 1888 employees (range161 to 174,000). Published information was available (via the Hollisdirectory) on the levels of the 2005 sponsorship budgets of 112 of therespondent companies. This averaged £300,000 per enterprise (range£50,000 to £6 million). Half the respondents described their nonprofitpartner as comprising a small or very small organisation (seeAppendix section A7), 28% characterised the partner as a mediumsized organisation. Responses to the Appendix section B itemsregarding the extent of knowledge transfer were relatively evenlydivided across the seven categories. The median number of companyemployees reported to have been concerned with knowledge transferwas four. Knowledge transfers (see the Appendix A3) occurredpredominantly via face-to-face discussions (this happened in 92% ofall cases) and through the transfer of documents or electronic files(42%). Telephone conversations and exchanges of letters took placein all instances. Teamworking happened in 26% of the collaborations.None of the firms offered formal training to people in the nonprofitpartner organisation; seven per cent provided ‘informal’ training.Staff transfers from a business to a nonprofit were rare (just two ofthe 291 respondents stated that their companies had engaged in thispractice) and none of the enterprises had used an outsideintermediary to facilitate the knowledge transfer process.

Communications had taken place across all levels in the partnerorganisations, with none of the four Appendix A4 optionspredominating. Forty-four per cent of the firms had communicatedwith their partner on matters to do with marketing on a monthlybasis; 22% on a weekly and 16% on a quarterly basis. Knowledge wastransferred mainly in relation to ‘marketing in general’ (Appendixsection B [iv]) (71% of the responses fell in the top three categories forthis item), and ‘specific marketing techniques’ (67%). Correspondingfigures for ‘marketing organisation and procedures’ and ‘marketing


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

strategy’ were 46% and 22% respectively. Overall the participantsheld low opinions of the marketing knowledge and competenceof their nonprofit partners: 67% of the responses fell in the bottomthree categories of the composite formed from the items pertainingto this matter (see the Appendix section H). At the same time,few of the responses (13%) fell in the top three categories of thecomposite concerning the degree to which a firm had undertakenmeasures to understand the transferee’s knowledge requirements(Appendix section K). A minority of the respondents perceived theexistence of substantial anti-marketing bias within their partnerorganisations. The replies of 49 of the 291 participants (17%) fellin the top three categories for the anti-marketing bias composite(Appendix section J).

Analysis

The factors determining the extent and effectiveness of marketingknowledge transfers were examined via a least squares regressionanalysis. Factors relevant to the determination of which partner didmost of the work involved in the marketing aspects of a venture wereidentified through a binomial logistic regression which used adependent variable coded as zero if the nonprofit was reported ashaving undertaken all or most of the marketing tasks required by thecollaboration, and as unity if the firm was stated to have done all ormost of these tasks (Appendix A6). Forty-five per cent of therespondents stated that the firm had done all or most of the work;25% stated that the nonprofit had done all or most of the work; and30% stated that the work had been shared equally. These analysesrequired the formation of aggregate variables from the items relatingto the constructs listed in the Appendix sections B to L. Each set ofitems within each of these sections was factor analysed andCronbach’s alpha values were computed (the Appendix to the paperlists the items in each factor, the Cronbach’s alpha reliability figurefor the items in each group, and the eigenvalue of the dominant factorfor the group). Unidimensional solutions emerged for project com-plexity, cultural distance, absorptive capacity, base-knowledge asym-metries, source credibility, anti-marketing bias, measures taken tounderstand the transferee’s requirements, and the effectiveness ofknowledge transfer. Hence the items pertaining to each of theseconstructs were averaged to form eight new composite variables. Two


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

factor solutions arose for the extent of knowledge transfer, knowledgespecificity and organisational distance (see the Appendix for details). Ineach case however the two factors were significantly and substantiallycorrelated (R.0.51 in all three instances), so again the items relating toeach construct were composited to create fresh variables.

Since the assessments of the effectiveness of knowledge transferwere subjective and had been provided by the same person who hadsupplied the information on the independent variables, it wasnecessary to check the data for common method bias (i.e. thepossible overstatement of the strengths of the relationships underinvestigation). As is conventional, the issue was addressed via a jointfactor analysis of the responses to the dependent variables (i.e., thefour items of Appendix section B and the composite formed fromAppendix section L) and all the candidate independent variables(namely the composites for Appendix sections C to K and the two ad-hoc items in section M) to see whether they loaded onto the samefactor (see Lindell and Whitney, 2001). This was not the case,suggesting that common variance bias was not a problem. Moreover,the standard deviations of the variables indicated a wide range ofresponse, and correlations among variables not theoretically con-nected were insignificant (r,.05) reinforcing the conclusion that theresults were not affected by common method variance.

Table 1 presents the outcomes to the regressions. Significantrelationships were identified through an experimental procedurewhereby all the candidate independent variables were entered inregression equations, firstly in total, thereafter in various combina-tions. An independent variable was removed if it failed to attainsignificance at the 0.05 level in any configuration of independentvariables. The data was also examined for significant differences withrespect to the numbers and levels of people involved in knowledgetransfer (Appendix A2 and A4), methods of knowledge transfer (A3),and communication frequency (A6). No meaningfully significantdifferences (r50.05 or below) were detected vis-a-vis any of thesevariables.

Extent and Effectiveness of Knowledge Transfer

It can be seen from Table 1 that lack of knowledge of marketing inthe partner organisation, knowledge specificity, project complexity,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

and the financial importance of the collaboration to the companysignificantly influenced both the extent and the effectiveness (asdefined) of marketing knowledge transfer. The extent of knowledgetransfer was affected negatively by cultural distance and organisa-tional distance. Also, more knowledge was transferred the smaller thecharity concerned. This suggests that small nonprofits do in fact faceresource and other constraints (see above) that cause them to acceptmore marketing knowledge transfers than occur with respect to theirlarger counterparts. The effectiveness of knowledge transferdepended positively and significantly on the nonprofit’s absorptivecapacity, on the degree to which the firm had taken measures toinvestigate the transferee’s knowledge requirements, and on whetherinterorganisational teams had been used to facilitate knowledgetransfer activities. Teamworking was the only transfer method (seeAppendix A3) that exerted a significant impact on any of thedependent variables. Transfer effectiveness was influenced negativelyand significantly by both cultural and organisational distance, and by

TABLE 1. Regression Analysis

Variable A B CStandardised

coefficientStandardised

coefficientExpBeta

Base-knowledge asymmetries .33 (2.96) 1.79 (4.48)

Knowledge specificity .30 (2.28) 1.22 (4.08)

Complexity of the project .24 (1.99) 1.19 (4.01)

Financial importance of the collaboration .42 (4.11) 1.93 (5.11)

Absorptive capacity .41 (3.92)

Cultural distance 2.22 (2.14) 2.30 (3.31)

Organisational distance 2.25 (2.07) 2.21 (2.0)

Charity size 2.21 (1.99)

Anti-marketing bias within the nonprofit 2.30 (3.27) 1.20 (4.0)

Firm took measures to understand the

partner’s knowledge transfer requirements

.48 (5.02)

Use of interorganisational teams .24 (2.01)

Source credibility 2.22 (7.99)

Model R2 .63 .67

-2LL statistic (284df) 244.9

Dependent variablesRegression A: Extent of knowledge transfer (T-values in parentheses)Regression B: Effectiveness of knowledge transfer (T-values in parentheses)Regression C: Binary logistic regression. Which partner did all or most of the work? (Chi-square values inparentheses [1df])


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

the presence of substantial anti-marketing bias within the nonprofitorganisation.

Division of Responsibilities

Anti-marketing bias also had a positive effect on firms’ decisions todo most or all of the marketing work necessitated by a collaborativeproject. Additionally, companies were more likely to complete most orall of these marketing tasks the greater the degree of source credibilityreported to exist within their nonprofit partners. Presumably, anonprofit that accepted without question the marketing expertise andtrustworthiness of its commercial collaborator was more inclinedthan others to place in its partner’s hands full responsibility for themarketing activities connected with the collaboration. A nonprofit’ssize did not influence the effectiveness of knowledge transfer to anysignificant extent. It appears therefore that although the size of thenonprofit partner helped determine the amount of knowledgetransferred, the absorptive capacities and initial base knowledge ofsmaller nonprofits were comparable to those of larger organisations.

Firm size did not emerge as a significant explanatory variable; nordid an enterprise’s prior experience with collaborations. Anexamination of the data revealed that larger businesses weresignificantly (r,.05) more likely to have linked up with very largenational or international charities that, ipso facto, should themselvesbe competent at marketing and possess substantial marketingdepartments. As such these nonprofits would not require help withthe marketing function. Long experience of collaborative projectspossibly led firms to decide not to intervene in their partner’smarketing activities in circumstances where a less experiencedbusiness may have felt impelled to do so. Further research is neededinto this matter. Firm size was significantly correlated (R5.39) withlength of experience, and the latter was correlated with the size of thenonprofit partner (R5.36). This suggests that experienced firmstended to deal with large nonprofits.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that many of the factors that have been foundto encourage or impede the extent and effectiveness of knowledge


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

transfer between commercial businesses also affect knowledgetransfers between firms and nonprofits. In particular, differences inbase knowledge, levels of absorptive capacity, knowledge specificityand complexity, the financial importance of a project, the transferor’sunderstanding of the recipient’s knowledge requirements, and the useof inter-organisational teams exerted positive and significantinfluences on the amount of knowledge transfer and its effectiveness.Cultural and organisational distance between the partners and anti-marketing bias within a nonprofit had negative effects. Teamworkingoccurred in barely a quarter of the collaborations, but where it was infact present it appeared to improve the effectiveness of transfers.Likewise, few of the firms had assessed their partner’s marketingknowledge requirements, but when this happened the outcomes onaverage were beneficial. Transfers occurred predominantly throughface-to-face discussions, reflecting perhaps the tacit nature of muchmarketing knowledge. Documents and/or electronic files containingmarketing knowledge were transferred to the nonprofit in 42% of thecases.

A number of managerial implications arise from the outcomes tothe study. Teamworking enhanced knowledge transfer effectiveness,suggesting that practitioners should invest time, effort and otherresources in the establishment and development of interorganisa-tional teams to oversee marketing knowledge transfers. (Teamwork isthe major knowledge transfer method advocated by the researchliterature in the area.) An important task that should be undertakenby an interorganisational team is the establishment of the nonprofit’sprecise marketing knowledge requirements, as the completion of suchan analysis seemingly facilitates effective knowledge transfer.Teamworking could also help to reduce cultural distance betweenthe parties. The cultural gap between a firm and its nonprofit partnermight also be reduced by using external consultants with experienceof both sectors. (As previously mentioned, none of the respondents inthe present sample reported that the collaboration had employed anoutsider to mediate between the two organisations.) This might beespecially valuable in a situation where there exists a great deal ofanti-marketing bias within the nonprofit, as an external consultantwith nonprofit experience might be better placed than companyexecutives to explain the benefits of marketing to sceptical nonprofitmanagers. The firms in the sample rarely offered training to staff who


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

worked in their nonprofit partners. It could be that allowing freeaccess to a company’s internal marketing training events to peoplefrom a nonprofit partner would contribute to the reduction not onlyof anti-marketing bias within a nonprofit but also the magnitude oforganisational distance between the parties.

Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research

Information on attitudes and behaviour among nonprofit partnerswas gathered from and based on the reported assessments ofexecutives in commercial firms. It was not possible within theconfines of the present study to corroborate the accuracy of theseassessments by investigating the actual situation in each of the 291nonprofit organisations. Nevertheless, there were no a-priori reasonsfor believing that the respondents would proffer false informationabout the nonprofit they had dealt with, and there was no statisticalevidence of common method bias within the response data. Furtherresearch would be valuable into perceptions of knowledge transfereffectiveness from the nonprofit’s points of view. Another limitationof the study was that the investigation did not gather details of theforms and financial values of the collaborative projects therespondents had in mind when they completed the questionnaire.Requests for such information had been included in the draftquestionnaire used for the pre-test, but the relevant section hadtypically been ignored and/or negatively commented upon by theparticipants. Moreover, nine other firms had returned the ques-tionnaire uncompleted and accompanied by a letter stating that theywere not prepared to reveal confidential information of this nature.Hence it was decided not to pursue this particular line of enquiry. In-depth individual case studies of specific collaborations are needed toexamine these matters properly.

Fresh studies could explore the management of the knowledgereceived by nonprofits subsequent to its arrival from their commer-cial partners. How exactly is marketing knowledge processed, storedand integrated into the knowledge base of a nonprofit organisation?Does anti-marketing bias within a nonprofit affect knowledgeprocessing and storage activities? Do nonprofits that possessextensive experience of collaborative projects with commercialbusinesses behave differently in these respects than nonprofits withlittle or no experience? Do the manners in which received marketing


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

knowledge is managed differ according to the size of the nonprofitpartner? An additional area for future research concerns the possiblecauses and effects of information dependence in business-nonprofitcollaborations. The study revealed that source credibility significantlyaffected the question of which of the partners did most of themarketing work associated with a joint project. However, it was notpossible to examine in any detail the impact of a very high level ofsource credibility on internal policy and decision making andmarketing management within the nonprofit. It would be useful toinvestigate whether high source credibility tended to lead toinformation dependence and the application of inappropriatemarketing techniques, policies and methods.

REFERENCES

Amesse, F. and Cohendet, P. (2001). ‘‘Technology transfer revisited from the

perspective of the knowledge-based economy,’’ Research Policy, 30(7), 1459-1478.

Archibugi, D. and Pietrobelli, C. (2003). ‘‘The globalisation of technology and its

implications for developing countries: Windows of opportunity or further

burden,’’ Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 70(9), 861-883.

Baughn, C., Denecapm, J., Stevens, J. and Osborn, R. (1997). ‘‘Protecting

intellectual capital in international alliances,’’ Journal of World Business, 32(2),

103-117.

Bennett, R. (1996). International Business. London: Pitman.

Bennett, R. (1998a). ‘‘First insights into the transfer of marketing know-how from

Western firms to enterprises in Central and East Europe: A qualitative study,’’

Journal for East European Management Studies, 3(1), 7-25.

Bennett, R. (1998b). ‘‘Marketing orientation among small to medium sized UK

charitable organisations: Implications for fundraising performance,’’ Journal of

Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 6(1), 31-45.

Bennett, R. (1999). ‘‘Foreign marketing control decisions of firms engaged in west-

east technology transfer: A test of the transactions cost hypothesis,’’ International

Journal of Technology Management, 17(4), 402-420.

Bennett, R. (2002). ‘‘Corporate perspectives on cause related marketing,’’ Journal of

Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 10(1), 41-60.

Bennett, R. and Gabriel, H. (2000). ‘‘Charity affiliation as a determinant of product

purchase decisions,’’ Journal of Product and Brand Management, 9(4), 255-270.

Bennett, R. and Savani, S. (2004). ‘‘Managing conflict between marketing and other

functions within charitable organisations,’’ Leadership and Organisational

Development Journal, 25(2), 180-200.

Berglind, M. and Nakata, C. (2005). ‘‘Cause related marketing: More buck than

bang?’’ Business Horizons, 48(5), 443-453.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

Brown, S. and Eisenhardt, K. (1995). ‘‘Product development: Past research,

present findings, and future directions,’’ Academy of Management Review,

20(3), 343-378.

Buckley, P. and Carter, M. (1999). ‘‘Managing cross-border complementary

knowledge,’’ International Studies of Management Organisation, 29(1), 80-104.

Burnett, K. (1986). Advertising by Charities. London:Directory of Social Change.

Carson, D. (1990). ‘‘Some exploratory models for assessing small firms’ marketing

performance: A qualitative approach,’’ European Journal of Marketing, 24(11), 8-

51.

Catano, V., Pond, M. and Kelloway, E. (2001). ‘‘Exploring commitment and

leadership in volunteer organisations,’’ Leadership and Organisation Development

Journal, 22(6), 256-263.

Cherrington, D. (1989). Organisational Behaviour: The Management of Individual and

Organisational Performance. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Chiesa, V. and Piccaluga, A. (1998). Transforming rather than transferring scientific

and technological knowledge: The contribution of academic spin-out companies.

In R. Oakey and W. During (Eds), New Technology-based Firms in the 1990s

(pp. 117-129). London: Paul Chapman.

Chong, D. (2003). ‘‘Revisiting business and the arts,’’ Journal of Nonprofit and Public

Sector Marketing, 11(1), 151-165.

Clutterbuck, D. and Dearlove, D. (1996). The Charity as a Business: Managing in the

Public Sector, Learning from the Private Sector. London: Directory of Social

Change.

Conway, T. and Swift, J. (2000). ‘‘International relationship marketing: The

importance of psychic distance,’’ European Journal of Marketing, 34(11/12),

1391-1413.

Dasgupta, P. and David, P. (1994). ‘‘Towards a new economics of science,’’ Research

Policy, 23(4), 487-521.

Davenport, T. (1994). ‘‘Saving IT’s soul: Human centred information management,’’

Harvard Business Review, 72, March-April 1994, pp. 119-131.

Davenport, T., Delong, D. and Beers, M. (1998). ‘‘Successful knowledge manage-

ment projects,’’ Sloan Management Review, 39(2), 43-57.

Day, G. (1994). ‘‘The capabilities of market driven organisations,’’ Journal of

Marketing, 58(4), 37-52.

Dillman, D. (1978). The Total Design Method. New York: Wiley.

Dougherty, V. (1999). ‘‘Knowledge is about people, not databases,’’ Industrial and

Commercial Training, 31(7), 262-266.

Doz, Y. (1998). ‘‘Technology partnerships between larger and smaller firms: Some

critical issues,’’ International Studies of Management and Organisation, 17(1),

31-57.

Engelland, B., Alford, B. and Taylor, R. (2001). Cautions and precautions on the use

of ‘borrowed’ scales in marketing research. In T. Sutor (Ed.), Marketing Advances

in Pedagogy, Process and Philosophy (Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the

Society for Marketing Advances, New Orleans, Society for Marketing Advances).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

Fontes, M. (2005). ‘‘The process of transformation of scientific and technological

knowledge into economic value conducted by biotechnology spin-offs,’’

Technovation, 25(3), 339-347.

Gaski, J. and Etzel, M. (1986). ‘‘The index of consumer sentiment toward

marketing,’’ Journal of Marketing, 50(3), 71-81.

Grant, R. (1997). ‘‘The knowledge-based view of the firm: Implications for

management practice,’’ Long Range Planning, 30(4), 450-454.

Hollis Ltd. (2005). Hollis Sponsorship and Donations Yearbook 2005. London: Hollis

Publications Ltd.

Hooley, G., Fahy, J., Cox, T., Beracs, J., Fonfara, K. and Snoj, B. (1999).

‘‘Marketing capabilities and firm performance: A hierarchical model,’’ Journal of

Market Focused Management, 4(3), 259-278.

Huckzynski A. (1983). Encyclopedia of Management Methods. Aldershot, UK:

Gower.

Hunt, S. and Morgan, R. (1996). ‘‘The resource-advantage theory of competition:

Dynamics, path dependencies and evolutionary dimensions,’’ Journal of

Marketing, 60(4), 107-114.

Jain, R. and Triandis, H. (1990). Management of Research and Development

Organisations: Managing the Unmanageable. New York: Wiley and Son.

Kerssens-Van Dronglen, I., Weerd-Nederhof, P. and Fisscher, O. (1996).

‘‘Describing the issues of knowledge management in R&D: Towards a

communication and knowledge tool,’’ R&D Management, 26(2), 213-230.

Kolb, D., Rubin, I. and McIntyre, J. (1974). Organisational Psychology: An

Experimental Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lee, D. (1994). ‘‘Social ties, task-related communication and first job performance of

young engineers,’’ Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 11(2),

203-208.

Lindell, M. and Whitney, D. (2001). ‘‘Accounting for common method bias in cross-

sectional research designs,’’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114-121.

Maltz, E. and Kohli, A. (2000). ‘‘Reducing marketing’s conflict with other functions:

The differential effects of integrating mechanisms,’’ Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 28(4), 479-492.

Moenaert, R., Deschoolmeester, D., De Meyer, A. and Souder, W. (1992).

‘‘Information styles of marketing and R&D personnel during technological

product innovation projects,’’ R&D Management, 22(1), 1-23.

Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Petts, N. (1997). ‘‘Building growth on core competencies: A practical approach,’’

Long Range Planning, 30(4), 551-561.

Pinto, M., Pinto, J. and Prescott, J. (1993). ‘‘Antecedents and consequences of project

team cross-functional co-operation,’’ Management Science, 39(10), 1281-1297.

Powell, W., Koput, K. and Doerr, L. (1996). ‘‘Interorganisational collaboration and

the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology,’’ Administrative

Science Quarterly, 41(2), 116-145.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

Rappert, B. and Webster, A. (1997). ‘‘Regimes of ordering: The commercialisation of

intellectual property in industrial-academic collaborations,’’ Technology Analysis

and Strategic Management, 9(2), 115-130.

Rossiter, J. (2001). ‘‘What is marketing knowledge? Stage 1: Forms of marketing

knowledge,’’ Marketing Theory, 1(1), 9-26.

Ruekert, R. and Walker, O. (1987). ‘‘Marketing’s interaction with other functional

units: A conceptual framework and empirical evidence,’’ Journal of Marketing,

51(1), 1-19.

Sanchez, R., Henne, A. and Thomas, H. (1996). Dynamics of Competence Based

Competition. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Press.

Sarker, S. (2005). ‘‘Knowledge transfer and collaboration in distributed US-Thai

teams,’’ Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 10(4), 1-21.

Schachter, S. (1959). The Psychology of Affiliation: Experimental Studies in the

Sources of Gregariousness. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Schlegelmilch, B. and Chini, T. (2003). ‘‘Knowledge transfer between marketing

functions in multinational companies: A conceptual model,’’ International

Business Review, 12(2), 215-232.

Siegel, D., Waldman, D., Atwater, L. and Link, A. (2004). ‘‘Toward a model of the

effective transfer of scientific knowledge from academicians to practitioners:

Qualitative evidence from the commercialisation of university technologies,’’

Journal of Engineering Technology Management, 21(2), 115-142.

Simonin, B. (1999). ‘‘Transfer of marketing know-how in international strategic

alliances: An empirical investigation of the role and antecedents of knowledge

ambiguity,’’ Journal of International Business Studies, 30(3), 463-490.

Swift, J. (1998). ‘‘Cultural closeness as a facet of cultural affinity,’’ International

Marketing Review, 16(3), 182-201.

Szulanski, G. (2000). ‘‘The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of

stickiness,’’ Organisation Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 9-27.

Williamson, O. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: The Free

Press.

Wragg, D. (1994). The Effective Use of Sponsorship. London: Kogan-Page.

Wymer, W. and Samu, S. (2003). ‘‘Dimensions of business and nonprofit

collaborative relationships,’’ Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing,

11(1), 3-22.

Zeleny, M., Cornet, R. and Stoner, J. (1990). ‘‘Moving from the age of specialisation

to the era of integration,’’ Human Systems Management, 9(2), 153-157.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

APPENDIX: THE QUESTIONNAIRE

A. General

1. Approximately how many people does your firm employ?2. How many of the firm’s employees were involved in providing

knowledge about marketing to the nonprofit partner?A single person / 2 to 3 people / 4 to 8 people / 9 or more people

3. How did your firm transmit knowledge about marketing to yournonprofit partner?

(i) Face-to-face discussions between one or two people fromeach organisation.

(ii) Face-to-face discussions involving many people in eachorganisation.

(iii) Letter and telephone.(iv) The formation of a team or teams that shared duties and

responsibilities.(v) The transfer of documents (or electronic files) that specified

standard marketing procedures or systems.(vi) Provision of informal training to the nonprofit’s employees.(vii) Provision of formal training to the nonprofit’s employees.(viii) Staff secondments.(ix) Use of an outside intermediary, e.g., a consultant.

4. At which levels was knowledge about marketing transmitted?

(i) Senior manager(s) in the firm to junior manager(s) in thenonprofit.

(ii) Senior manager(s) in the firm to senior manager(s) in thenonprofit.

(iii) Junior manager(s) in the firm to junior manager(s) in thenonprofit.

(iv) Junior manager(s) in the firm to senior manager(s) in thenonprofit.

5. How frequently did your firm communicate with the nonprofitpartner in relation to the marketing aspects of the collaboration?Daily; weekly; monthly; quarterly; less frequently than once aquarter.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

6. Which partner did most of the marketing work associated withthe collaborative project?

(i) We did all the work.(ii) We did most of the work.(iii) We shared the work equally.(iv) The nonprofit organisation did most of the work.(v) The nonprofit organisation did all the work.

7. How would you describe the size of the nonprofit partner?

(i) As a national, well-known and very large organisation (e.g.,one with more than 1000 employees).

(ii) As a large organisation (e.g., having between 501 and 1000employees).

(iii) As a medium sized organisation (e.g., having between 101and 500 employees).

(iv) As a small organisation (e.g., having between 21 and 100employees).

(v) As a very small organisation (e.g., having less than 20employees).

B. Extent of knowledge transfer (l51.7 for items [I] and [ii]; l51.4 foritems [iii] and [iv])

Source: Sarker (2005). Four seven-point scales:75 very extensive; 15 hardly any knowledge was transferred at all.How would you describe the volume of the marketing knowledge

that you transferred to the nonprofit partner in relation to (i) specificmarketing techniques, (ii) marketing organisation and procedures,(iii) marketing strategy, (iv) marketing in general.

C. Knowledge specificity (l52.62, a50.82 for section (a); l50.88 forsection b)

Source: Bennett (1999). Five seven point agree/disagree scales.

(a) The marketing tasks associated with the implementation ofthe collaborative project required (i) specialised facilities, (ii)specialised contacts, (iii) specialised training, (iv) specialisedknowledge.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

(b) It would be difficult for outsiders to learn how to complete themarketing tasks involved in the collaborative project.

D. Complexity of the project (l53.1, a50.81)Source: Simonin (1999). Four seven point agree/disagree scalesThe marketing tasks associated with the implementation of the

project required (i) the application of many interdependent techni-ques, (ii) complex routines, (iii) the interactions of many individuals,(iv) the complicated scheduling of resources.

E. Organisational distance (l51.99 for items [i] and [iii]; l51.12 foritems [ii] and [iv])

Source: Simonin (1999). Four seven point agree/disagree scalesThe following are very similar in each of the organisations: (i) the

marketing techniques and methods employed by the organisation, (ii)the way the marketing function is organised, (iii) marketingoperations, (iv) management style in relation to marketing.

F. Cultural distance (l53.87, a50.88)Source: Bennett and Savani (2004). Five seven point agree/disagree

scales.Compared to employees in the firm’s marketing department,

people concerned with marketing in the nonprofit partner organisa-tion: (i) speak a ‘different language’, (ii) have a different ‘Worldview’, (iii) have different norms and values, (iv) hold different ethicaland moral positions, (v) have a different culture.

G. Absorptive capacity (l53.11, a50.9)Sources: Archibugi and Pietrobelli (2003); Schlegelmilch and Chini

(2003). Four seven point agree/disagree scales.The nonprofit (i) proved itself well-capable of using the marketing

knowledge we supplied, (ii) quickly assimilated the knowledge andintegrated it into its operations, (iii) took measures to build upon theknowledge we provided, (iv) had employees who were quick to learnthe marketing methods, etc., we provided.

H. Base-knowledge asymmetries (l52.72, a5.80)Source: Sarker (2005). Four seven point scales: 75 extremely high;

15 extremely low.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

(a) How would you rate the nonprofit organisation’s prior level ofknowledge in relation to each of the following at the outset ofthe collaboration: (i) marketing management, (ii) the applica-tion of marketing procedures and techniques, (iii) marketingin general.

(b) At the outset of the collaboration the nonprofit partner washighly competent at marketing.

I. Source credibility (l52.79, a50.91)Sources: Moenaert et al. (1992); Szulanski (2000). Four seven point

agree/disagree scales.Staff in the nonprofit partner accepted without question (i) the

accuracy and value of the marketing knowledge we gave them, (ii)that the knowledge transferred would be relevant to their needs, (iii)that staff in the firm were expert at the marketing function, (iv) thateverything our staff said about marketing could be trusted.

J. Presence of anti-marketing bias within the nonprofit (l53.0, a50.84)Source: Gaski and Etzel (1986). Four seven point agree/disagree

items.Many of the people we dealt with in the nonprofit partner tended

to believe that:

(i) The beneficiaries of the nonprofit organisation would bebetter off if the nonprofit did not engage in marketing.

(ii) It is not generally appropriate for a nonprofit organisation toengage in marketing.

(iii) Most advertisements for nonprofit organisations provide thepublic with very little essential information.

(iv) The marketing activities of nonprofit organisations should beclosely regulated.

K. Measures taken to understand the transferee’s requirements (l52.9,a50.79)

Source: Bennett (1998a). Four seven point agree/disagree scales.

(i) We carefully assessed the partner’s marketing knowledgeneeds prior to transferring the knowledge.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4

(ii) We prepared an inventory of the assistance and marketingresources we were capable of providing prior to transferringthe knowledge.

(iii) We liaised with the nonprofit to determine the best ways inwhich to transfer knowledge relative to their needs.

(iv) Prior to transfer we examined the precise applications towhich the knowledge could be put by the nonprofitorganisation.

L. Effectiveness of knowledge transfer (l53.1, a50.84)Source: Schlegelmilch and Chini (2003). Five seven point agree/

disagree scales.

(i) The recipient devoted substantial time and effort to theapplication of the marketing knowledge we made available.

(ii) The recipient devoted significant financial resources to theintegration within its own organisation of the knowledge wemade available.

(iii) The recipient made extensive use of the transferred knowl-edge.

(iv) The recipient clearly recognised the benefits of the transferredknowledge.

(v) The recipient voiced satisfaction with the marketing knowl-edge it received from us.

M. Ad-hoc itemsSeven point agree/disagree scales.

(a) This firm has a great deal of experience of working withnonprofits in collaborative ventures.

(b) The success of the collaboration was very important for thefinancial well-being of the business.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

onne

ctic

ut]

at 0

5:56

13

Oct

ober

201

4