Theoretical implications

This sub-chapter discusses two theories by McNicholas (2004) & Lund (2010), which will help us draw our own model for value co-creation with partners in festival context.

McNicholas (2004, p.63) theory about building successful partnerships give some key highlights on a successful value co-creation process in collaborative partnerships. The key factors are here presented and discussed with the collected empirical data.

1- “Strategic match of core values, image and target audiences, and sometimes key goals - that is, a synergy of parts of their mission statements”

The empirical data of the thesis matches with McNicholas statement, especially in the following points:

• Need for a common direction/purpose

• Compatible brand values and image

2- “The development of two-way, interactive relationships; effective communication and compatibility between the parties on the personal and operational level, as well as in vision”

The interviews conducted with the experts brought to our attention that both sides expect a deep and personal commitment to the partnership relationship.

A direct and dynamic approach helps to create trust with a potential partner, as it shows a genuine interest for the company. From the discussions, we also understand that effective communication also means constant wish to develop

the relationship and use of common resources.

3- “Longevity of commitment: a building of relationships and associations over time; this convey sincerity and authenticity, and enables the development of customised approaches and activities through development of security in the relationship “

Experts have stated that a partner-festival relationship is a long-learning curve which will reach its optimum point after a few years of working together. Trust, openness and honesty are key points of a long-term commitment. Moreover, long-term gives both side the chance to co-create content which increasingly matches with their principles and therefore have more value. However, it is worth highlighting that both sides are continuously influenced by the changes in the environment they evolve in, which might threaten the development of the relationship.

4 - “Creativity and customisation” are key factors for success. Having something organic (unique) relying on the content of the event gives more weight and impact to a co-created project. There is an evolution from commercial (can be done with anyone) to more organic partnership projects that are integrated by festivals as a part of their main identity, therefore increasing credibility, impact and legitimacy. A bit of partner + built around the content of the event

= organic partnership project.

According to McNicholas’ theory compared with the empirical data, we can emphasises the following factors as key of value co-creation:

• A long-term relationship brings more customised projects

• Need to develop a common purpose

• Relationship must be based on matching values or mission, and meet both sides individual objectives

Lund also draws a first model of development of more collaborative partnership programs in his case study of the sponsorship system of the Royal Swedish Opera

(Lund, 2010, p.119-123). His goal is to understand how value is co-created in interaction with sponsors, and he sets four relationship stages. Naturally, this model is adaptable to year-round, established cultural organisations and is not fitted for partnership strategy in festival field, but it gives us a framework to adapt it to the festival context.

During a first stage, the organisation re-assesses its strengths and weaknesses, and looks into potential matching partners’ type in terms of image association.

They also perform a detailed audience segmentation and profiling study. All of this information is used when approaching potential partner.

The empirical data has highlighted the lack of awareness in festivals of their own brands and audience segments. Lund suggests here tools to help us built festivals as legitimate entities, stepping away from being considered as project-based organisations.

In a second time, when discussing with potential partners, both sides explore each others’ resources and combine knowledge in order to highlight potential values. Lund presents the partner identification phase from a very transactional point of view, with terms mentioned such as “sales presentation” or “marketing and sales”. We miss here the human dimension emphasised as crucial by the interviewees.

The third stage is about optimising the relationship: both sides work jointly, establish shared objectives, involve other staff members. This increases trust and openness. The organisation also works as a group with all its sponsors, bringing to higher impact thanks to larger resources available for use. This phase is the most crucial phase of the relationship, as the co-creation process should start from the very first steps of the relationship.

The fourth stage is about evaluating the partnership. They proceed to shared evaluation discussions as well as individuals ones, and have an open discussion about successes and drawbacks. Both sides research the achievement of their

individual objectives and report to the other. The collected empirical data has established the current issues of a lack of suitable measurement and evaluation tools to provide the required report to partners. Lund offers here some hints on the way to proceed, even though those are applicable only in specific cases, and the evaluation process should be like the rest of the partnership: customised to both sides’ identities and needs.

Effective and continuous relationship is one of the key for success of the new model of partnership. Many triggers, both internal and external, frequently threaten the balance of the relationship between the partner and the organisation. This leads to the necessity to comprehend and work with any upcoming structural, environmental, financial or managerial changes that might occur in the close circle of the agreement. For example, the arrival of a new board member, the dismissal of the partnership responsible, the financial difficulties of the sponsor or a bad weather can all be triggers of possible difficulties. However, it is important to see these changes as a positive outcome, in the way that it enables a natural redefinition of the relationship which might otherwise have been postponed or forgotten.