Event Management, Vol. 9, pp. 169–183 1525-9951/06 $20.00 + .

00
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved. Copyright © 2006 Cognizant Comm. Corp.
www.cognizantcommunication.com

THE 20TH GREEK FESTIVAL OF SYDNEY: A STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS

SPIROS SPIROPOULOS,* DIMITRIS GARGALIANOS,† and KALLIOPI (POPI) SOTIRIADOU‡

*ATHENS 2004 Torch Relay, Athens, Greece

†Department of Physical Education & Sports Science, Democritus University, Greece
‡Bowater School of Management & Marketing, Deakin University, Australia

In response to the demand for the adoption of a corporate culture by not-for-profit festivals, festival organi-
zations increasingly identify strategic planning process and stakeholder management as crucial components
for successful events. The purpose of this article is to present a framework developed for categorizing ethnic
festivals stakeholders from a functional role (i.e., marketing, administration, and production) and an ethnic
origin (i.e., Greek, Greek-Australian, and non-Greek origin) orientated perspective. The proposed frame-
work was developed and applied to the 20th Greek Festival of Sydney (GFS), which was held in 2002, by
identifying, categorizing, and examining the role of its stakeholders in the management and delivery of the
event. The identification of the type of stakeholders, the ways they influence the GFS organization, and the
strategic implications that derived from their involvement are addressed. The methodology utilized to de-
velop the stakeholder framework was qualitative in nature. It combined triangulated data that derived from a
number of interviews with representatives from the GFS administration, participant observations, and con-
tent analysis of internal documents and reports. The GFS stakeholder analysis offered an understanding of
the several marketing-, administration-, and production-related strategic implications to the organization
and running of the festival, such as the impact on its content, participants, and future development. The
proposed framework derives from the GFS case study, yet it has the potential to be used for the examination
of stakeholders’ strategic implications to other ethnic festivals.

Key words: Ethnic festivals; Event stakeholder; Stakeholder functions; Strategic planning

The management of ethnic festivals in multicultural
societies often involves strong partnerships between di-
verse organizations and interest groups deriving from
different ethnic backgrounds and encompassing a wide
range of functional roles. Due to their unique nature, stra-
tegic planning processes of ethnic festivals may be com-
plicated. Getz (1997) argued that crucial to the success
of strategic planning, management and delivery of a fes-
tival are the identification and categorization of the stake-
holders that are involved with it. Considering that ethnic
festivals, as a mean of preservation of customs in ethnic
communities and the application of corporate culture and
management in them, are still emerging (Albanis, 2003),
the relative lack of literature on ethnic festival stakeholder

Address correspondence to Spiros Spiropoulos, Master of Management in Arts Management, Section Manager, ATHENS 2004 Torch Relay, 3
Dimitsanis St, 15342, Athens, Greece. E-mail: s.spiropoulos@gmail.com

169
170 SPIROPOULOS, GARGALIANOS, AND SOTIRIADOU
identification and categorization is only reasonable. This
makes the current study a legitimate effort towards add-
ing to the field of ethnic events management.
As the review of literature that follows reveals, stake-
holder identification and categorization are crucial for
the event to effectively perform an environmental scan-
ning (Getz, 1997). This article is part of an environ-
mental analysis that examines the features of the inter-
nal and external environment impacting on the planning
and operation of the Greek Festival of Sydney (GFS)
(Spiropoulos, 2001), and it identifies and categorizes
the GFS stakeholders. Among other ethnic festivals, the
GFS presented an ideal case study due to its long his-
tory (the GFS was established in 1980) and size (the
GFS offers about 26 events at 10 different venues an-
nually). In addition, the lack of any research from a
management standpoint or any strategic plan in a writ-
ten form by the GFS organization during its 20 years
of existence and the need for strategic planning (be-
cause it experienced a growing operational deficit since
2000, and hardly any paid staff or chairperson remained
in their position for more than 1 year since 1995) formed
good grounds for choosing the GFS as a case study.
Finally, one of the authors’ direct involvement with the
GFS organization as marketing manager enabled ac-
cess to GFS’s internal documents and staff for in-depth
interviews, and allowed observations to occur.
The purpose of this article is to present a framework
developed for categorizing ethnic festival stakeholders
from a functional role and an ethnic origin perspective.
The main reasons for developing the proposed frame-
work were: (a) to offer to the GFS administration an
understanding of the strategic implications that the
stakeholders involved with the festival may have, (b)
the lack of any stakeholders’ identification and catego-
rization framework to cater for ethnic festivals, and (c)
the emerging state of corporate cultures’ application in
not-for-profit community festivals. The identification
and categorization of the GFS stakeholders, the ways
they influenced the festival’s organization, and the stra-
tegic implications that derived from their roles and their
ethnic origin are addressed.
Review of Literature
The Need for Strategic Planning in
Community Festivals
Community-run festivals play an important role in the
growth of the event industry. Although most of them are
often of small scale and have local or regional appeal,
collectively they represent an attraction base of growing
significance (Getz & Frisby, 1988). The Australian gov-
ernment, in recognition of the role community festivals
play and the impacts that they have to the society, have
actively provided advice on their management (i.e., the
Festival manual published by the Department of Com-
munication and Education in 1988). In its simplest form,
the planning process of an event begins by assessing its
current position, followed by determining its future de-
sired position, and, finally identifying the approach/strat-
egies needed to achieve its goals (McDonnell, Allen, &
O’Toole, 1999). Getz (1997) defined strategic planning
as a future-orientated process that seeks to attain goals
through the formulation and the implementation of broad,
long-term strategies. “Strategic planning does more than
set goals and ways to achieve them. It continuously moni-
tors the environment, anticipates forces that will act on
the organization and the event, and devises and refines
strategies” (p. 72).
When evaluating effective management techniques
in community festivals in Canada, Getz and Frisby
(1988) noted that most organizers of community festi-
vals did not engage sophisticated planning or market-
ing procedures. Although the majority had formal goals
and objectives, they preferred not to become profes-
sional for fear of losing their community foundation. A
similar study conducted in Canada by Frisby and Getz
(1989) confirmed previous findings and added that al-
though the number of festivals was growing rapidly
many of them were unsophisticated from a managerial
standpoint. They also noted that managerial sophisti-
cation did not always increase as a festival’s history
lengthened. Last but not least, Getz (1997) argued that
“many event organizations struggle from year to year
and their planning ends up being very much like a one-
time project, when what they really need is strategic
planning for the long term” (p.75).
Getz and Frisby (1988) argued that formulating a
comprehensive strategic management plan is such an
enormous task that many event organizers are likely to
not attempt it. However, they continued that all event
organizers must be aware of the issues, concepts, and
methods associated with the management and formal
planning approach. They argued on the benefits of a
more professional approach to event management by
stating that community event organizations that adopt
a more professional and business-like structure acquire
more resources and achieve their goals.
 EVENT STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
McDonnell et al. (1999) and Getz (1997) explained
that the first step of the strategic planning process is to
set up the Mission Statement of the organization. As a
second step, they identified Goal Setting and argued
that this step should include the identification of the
range of stakeholders participating in the event, as well
as the description and the balancing of their overlap-
ping and conflicting needs. Additionally, they stressed
the importance of consultation with all stakeholders
during shaping the vision, mission, and goals of the
event, especially if event stakeholders are requested to
endorse and support the strategies that flow from these
goals. The third step of the strategic planning process
is the Environmental Scanning, and it refers to the ex-
amination of the internal and external environment of
the organization. It includes an analysis of the strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT analy-
sis) that affect the management and the delivery of the
event (McDonnell et al., 1999).
Defining and Categorizing Event Stakeholders
Getz (1997) stated that: “ ‘Stakeholders’ are those
people and groups with a stake in the event and its out-
comes, including all groups participating in the event
production, sponsors and grant-givers, community rep-
resentatives, and anyone impacted by the event” (p. 15).
The event management literature reveals a number of
stakeholder categorization perspectives. Shone and
Parry (2001), for example, presented the “public, pri-
vate and voluntary sector” perspective that examined
event stakeholders from a social angle. McDonnell et
al. (1999) offered the “relation of stakeholders to
events” (p. 39) perspective, which identified event stake-
holders from a functional angle. The following section
describes the main characteristics of these perspectives
and stresses the usefulness of McDonell et al.’s point
of view to the current study.
According to Shone’s and Parry’s (2001) perspective,
the public sector includes organizations such as national
and regional tourist organizations (e.g., the New South
Wales Tourism Department), national trade associations
and industry professional bodies, educational institutions,
including colleges and universities that teach event man-
agement (e.g., the Australian Centre for Event Manage-
ment), Ministries of culture and other related art bodies
(e.g., the Australia Council for the Arts).
The event business is not solely concerned with the
provision of activities, entertainment, refreshment, and
171
equipment. Shone and Parry (2001) identified six differ-
ent types of companies deriving from the private sector,
which are capable of participating as event stakeholders.
These are event management, production and event ca-
tering companies, party planners and professional event
organizers, exhibitions and theatrical contractors, and
technical service and multimedia companies. Finally,
Shone and Parry noted that volunteer bodies such as com-
munity groups, clubs, and charity organizations under-
take many events, including community festivals and
charity events. Voluntary bodies can organize a whole
event based on just voluntary work, on a mixture of vol-
untary work, support from the local authorities, and other
organizations, or with the partial use of commercial or-
ganizations, companies, and freelancers.
Alternatively, the model develop by McDonnell et
al. (1999) included six major event stakeholder groups.
These are the “Host organization,” the “Host commu-
nity,” the “Co-workers” and the “Event sponsors,” the
“Media,” and the “Participants and spectators” (see Fig.
1).
“Host organization” is the organization responsible
for running the event, and “Host community” is the
geographical meaning of the term by relating the im-
pacts of an event to its host community. The term “Co-
workers” refers to both the administrative and produc-
tion staff of the event. The “Co-workers” relationship
with the host organization includes their labor and sup-
port for the event, in exchange for payment or any other
type of reward. The “Event sponsors” provide money
or in-kind benefits to the event and seek
acknowledgement through it, while the “Media” play
an important role in the advertising of the event, but
also seek self-promotion. Last, but not least, “Partici-
HOST
ORGANIZATION
PARTICIPANTS HOST
& SPECTATORS COMMUNITY
EVENT
CO - WORKERS SPONSORS
MEDIA
Figure 1. The relation of stakeholders to events. Adapted from
McDonnell et al. (1999, p. 39).
172 SPIROPOULOS, GARGALIANOS, AND SOTIRIADOU
pants and spectators” comprise the event’s audience,
who pay a fixed price to attend the festival events and
seek quality content and service from the organizer.
McDonnell et al. (1999) argued on the importance
of stakeholders’ identification from a managerial per-
spective by stating that: “Events are now required to
serve a multitude of agendas. It is no longer sufficient
for an event to meet just the needs of its audience. It
must also embrace a plethora of other requirements
including government objectives and regulations, me-
dia requirements, sponsors’ needs and community ex-
pectations” (p. 39). They concluded that events are
judged by their “success in balancing the competing
needs and interests of a diverse range of stakeholders”
(p. 39). This study takes into consideration and draws
upon the model developed by McDonnell et al. to de-
velop a framework for identifying and examining GFS
stakeholders’ roles from a managerial perspective. The
functional approach to stakeholder analysis developed
by McDonnell et al. was useful because it identifies
event stakeholders according to their managerial role,
similar to the present study.
The Unique Characteristics of Ethnic Festivals in
Multicultural Societies
As the literature on stakeholder categorization sug-
gested, there are several perspectives on identifying
and categorizing event stakeholders. However, these
frameworks do not take into account the distinctive
characteristics of ethnic festivals and the diverse roles
they perform in multicultural societies. The section
that follows provides a review of the ethnic festival
characteristics from a global and an Australian per-
spective. From a global perspective, the notions of
identity and cultural politics of representation, com-
munity formation, customs preservation, and cultural
commodification are explored. From an Australian
point of view, the Carnivale, an Australian major eth-
nic festival, is used as an example to illustrate the poli-
tics of cultural representation, multicultural arts fund-
ing, and goal settings.
To examine the distinct ethnic festival characteris-
tics from a global perspective, information from vari-
ous international case studies is drawn. Labrador (2002)
used the example of the “Brotherhood of students study-
ing Filipino at the University of Hawaii,” also known
as Katipunan, to illustrate the “cultural politics of rep-
resentation” (p. 294). One of the main objectives of
Katipunan’s Brotherhood was “to preserve the Filipino
Language and Philippine culture in Hawaii.” Accord-
ing to Quemuel (1996), the Katipunan have a political
function “in the sense that they are taking positive ac-
tion to retain, represent and promote Filipino cultural
awareness and pride” (p. 17). Labrador (2002) argued
that the representational tension around the construc-
tion of Filipino social identities could be seen as part of
a more general cultural politics of representation. The
term representation, as used in this context, has a double
meaning. On one hand, representation is a question of
who can legitimately speak for whom. This points out
to the issue of hegemony between and within racial/
ethnic groups. On the other hand, it refers to “a voice
in the allocation and redistribution of resources, often
from local, state and national agencies” (Labrador,
2002, p. 300). This points out to the degree of partici-
pation in the political and the economic distribution
system (i.e., the amount of relative power a group has
with respect with other groups and the state).
Goolam (2002) utilized the example of Muharram,
the first Indian communal festival to be observed in
colonial Natal (South Africa) during 1860–1910, which
mourned the martyrdom of Hussein, grandson of the
Prophet Mohammad, to illustrate community forma-
tion. The extended length of the Muharram celebra-
tions was perfectly suited to building a collective spirit.
Through Muharram, which was a common cultural fes-
tival attracting the participation of the mass of Indians,
Indian workers challenged official white definitions of
respectability and culture in Natal. It promoted group
cohesion through joint involvement and cooperation.
In addition, Goolam noted that it also strengthened links
between the individual and the community, which was
important in constituting a diverse collection of people
into a collectivity.
Furthermore, Mayfield and Crompton (1995) argued
that festivals are the context and the process of creating
links between people in the ethnic community and be-
tween the community and the wider national and cul-
tural environment. Nord (2000) studied the creation of
the Nisci Week in Los Angeles, a festival organized by
the Japanese-American Citizen League (JACL). Set in
the 1930s, the Nisci Week mixed traditional Japanese
arts and dances with mainstream American entertain-
ment such as parades and beauty contests. Through
Nisci Week, the JACL sought to reach out to the major-
ity of Los Angeles population, while strengthening in-
ternally the Japanese-American community.
 EVENT STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
Mayfield and Crompton (1995) noted that the po-
tential of ethnic festivals to preserve customs has long
been recognized. They were perceived to have an im-
portant role in perpetuating subcultures in the US and
offered an opportunity to search out disappearing im-
migrant customs that people have brought with them
in the nature of celebration. In addition, Bakirathi
(2002) described South Asians public events and festi-
vals in the US as primary sites for the formation of ide-
ologies of subjectivity and community among South
Asians in Diaspora. She portrayed these events as fa-
cilitators for the production of nationhood and citizen-
ship among first- and second-generation South Asian
immigrants in the US.
Bankston and Henry (2000) discussed the role of
ethnic festivals in the commodification of ethnic cul-
tures. They explained that given the growing influence
of consumerism in defining the social order in Ameri-
can life, much of the contemporary ethnicity can be
understood as a form of consumption and those ethnic
displays can be understood as spectacles. Bankston and
Henry (2000) suggested that:
Identification with a social group involves three factors:
(a) the socio-economic position of the group members,
(b) the images of an interpreted past that can be used to
render an objective position meaningful, and (c) the means
of expressing these images of the past that is provided by
the contemporary organization of social activities. (p. 5).
To support their argument they drew upon the ex-
tensive work of LeMenestrel (1999) on Cajun Festi-
vals. LeMenestrel noted that two concepts of culture
coexist: one as commodity and one as heritage. She
argued that since the 1960s, Cajun culture has been
rehabilitated through the organization of Cajun Festi-
vals, and as a unique resource in a ratified Louisiana
economy is valued and promoted by insiders who can
use it to show up ethnic awareness. Furthermore, she
stated that a commodified Cajun culture signals ac-
ceptance outside the ethnic group and its integration
into American society, again reinforcing a positive
ethnic identification. After examining ethnic festivals
characteristics from a global perspective, the focus is
now shifted to the Australian perspective, as the GFS
operates in Sydney.
Australia is home to people from 140 nations. It has
an indigenous heritage of 40,000 years; the world’s old-
est surviving culture, an Anglo-Celtic history of 200
years, followed closely by migration of people from
173
nearly everywhere in the world (Australia Council,
1998). The ideology of multiculturalism took roots in
Australia during the late 1960s (McKenzie, 1997). Ac-
cording to McDonnell et al. (1999), the 1970s saw not
only the emergence of multiculturalism and the new
age movement, but also the forging of the community
arts movement and a new diverse range of festivals
across Australia. This wide range included the Aquarius
festival (Nimbin), the Carnivale celebration of
multiculturalism, and the Sydney Gay and Lesbian
Mardi Gras.
In order to analyze the politics of cultural represen-
tation and state government patronage of ethnic/
multicultural festivals, the case of Carnivale Festival is
used. The Carnivale Festival was established by the
Ethnic Affairs Commission in September 1976, with
the aim to provide NSW ethnic communities the op-
portunity to showcase their diverse cultural heritage
(www.carnivale.com.au, 2001). In 1991, the then Min-
ister for the Arts, Peter Collins, announced a merger
between the Festival of Sydney and Carnivale. Carnivale
supporters lobbied the state government to reinstate it
as a stand-alone festival and run in its traditional month
of September. In 1995, the Carr government announced
the reinstatement of Carnivale as its own event, and the
following year saw a comeback for the festival
(www.carnivale.com.au, 2001). Dunne (1996) noted
that: “Carnivale, Sydney’s multicultural arts festival,
has had a rough trot of late—most recently spending
four years disappearing beneath the behemoth of
January’s Sydney Festival” (p. 5).
In 1997, Carnivale was incorporated to become
Carnivale Ltd., an ongoing professional arts organiza-
tion established to support and to nurture the develop-
ment of multicultural artists and art forms in NSW.
Turner (1998) noted that: “It is no secret, however, that
the Government in general, have been keen to make
key government boards more accountable to ministers”
(p. 28). This is becoming more interesting when com-
paring the reasons of Canivale’s artistic director resig-
nation in 1999. Bearup (1999) stated that:
Allegations that the Premier has stacked the Board of
Carnivale with his own people have seen a mass resigna-
tion staff including the artistic director (Lex Marinos) and
the General Manager (Frank Panucci). Mr. Marinos said
the board now consisted of two ethnic affairs commis-
sioners, whom Mr. Carr appointed to the commission, his
ethnic affairs adviser, the secretary for the Ministry of Arts
and only one independent member. (p. 3)
174 SPIROPOULOS, GARGALIANOS, AND SOTIRIADOU
Multicultural funding during 1999–2000 comprised
the 7.5% of all NSW Ministry funds in the arts.
Carnivale, the state’s main multicultural festival, which
ran for 5 weeks, was supported with more than
AU$760.000, while the Festival of Sydney 2000, which
ran over 18 days, was funded with AU$2.53 million
(NSW Ministry for the Arts, 2001). Moreover, in terms
of mission and objectives, the Sydney Festival is fo-
cusing on excellence, by displaying the finest Austra-
lian talent alongside some of the most acclaimed inter-
national artists and companies in the world today.
Conversely, Carnivale’s mission and objectives (al-
though including production quality as an important
objective), focuses on equal cultural representation of
all ethnic groups in Sydney, by staging traditional, popu-
lar, as well as innovative productions relevant to ethnic
audiences.
In terms of ethnic (non-English-speaking people,
NESP) and non-ethnic audiences (English-speaking
people, ESP), major differences arise from a market-
ing perspective and sometimes even among ethnic au-
diences such as first-generation non-Australian born
and second/third-generation Australian born.
Multicultural marketing is a flourishing industry tar-
geted at some 25% or 4.5 million Australians whose
first language is other than English. The ethnic mar-
ket is not a single homogenous group but a plethora
of market segments with their own language and cul-
ture (Department of Immigration and Multicultural
Affairs, 1997). Bednall (1992) indicated that commu-
nication channels for ESP and NESP are significantly
different. For example, the most frequently accessed
sources of government information for ESP are friends
and family, print media, and direct contact with the
organization. However, those sources used from eth-
nic communities and NESP apart from friends and
relatives are the ethnic radio and press. Television,
including Social Broadcasting Services (SBS), the
English press, and the mainstream Australian maga-
zines are generally infrequent sources of government-
related information.
In relation to ethnic press, Bednall (1992) noted that
96% of Chinese speakers, 93% of Vietnamese speak-
ers, 87% of Greek speakers, 83% of Italian speakers,
and 69% of Arabic speakers are regular readers of at
least one local or overseas publication in their own lan-
guage. However, only 24% of them read English lan-
guage newspapers. As a result, marketing and commu-
nication channels for NESP varied from those used to
reach ESP audiences. As both global and Australian
perspective of ethnic festivals characteristics were dis-
cussed and analyzed, the presentation of the study’s
methods follows.
Methods
The purpose of this study was to explore the nature
and the implications of the stakeholder involvement with
the 20th GFS. The explorative nature of this case study
pointed towards a qualitative method that included the
collection of primary (semistructured in-depth inter-
views and participant observation) as well as second-
ary (event management and strategic planning litera-
ture, ethnic festivals case studies, and GFS internal
documents) sources of information.
Interview Data Collection and Analysis
Because a managerial perspective was the focus of
this study, the population consisted of all groups that
had a stake in the management and running of the 2002
GFS. A representative number of eight individuals, six
involved with the administration of the festival and two
high-profile ethnic event managers, was selected and
interviewed. The interviewees included three paid staff
members, a volunteer, two chairpersons, and two eth-
nic managers. The criteria for interviewees’ selection
were: a) for the paid staff to have sufficient previous
experience on the festival (i.e., minimum a year), b)
for the volunteer to have a minimum of 10-year period
of involvement with the festival, c) for the board com-
mittee of GFS to have the longest duration in presi-
dency, and d) for both high-profile Greek–Australian
administrators to have strong involvement in the man-
agement of ethnic festivals.
After the interviews were transcribed, a SWOT analy-
sis was utilized to explore the data. Data from the inter-
views were recorded as referring to the internal and/or
external GFS environment and were categorized under
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. In-
formation about the identities and the roles of the GFS
stakeholders were placed under a framework encom-
passing two dimensions: the stakeholders’ ethnic ori-
gin and their functional role in the GFS organization.
The categorization of all the GFS stakeholders under
these two dimensions was used to identify them, ex-
amine their role, and draw conclusions about the stra-
tegic implications that they have had in the manage-
ment of the GFS organization.
 EVENT STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
Participant Observation
Observations for this study took place in three forms:
(a) as volunteers in helping with the management of
the GFS, (b) as attendees at the GFS events, and (c) as
paid staff (marketing manager). Volunteer participation
and attendance at the festival events took place during
the festival and the observations focused on the ethnic
origin of the GFS audience (Greeks, non-Greeks, Greek-
Australians). Box office reports and visitor participa-
tion numbers (for free events) were also recorded and
estimated for all GFS events. Paid staff observations
took place in the GFS offices on an every day basis and
during the GFS Organizing Committee meetings and
focused on administration procedures, human resources
issues, marketing methods, and organizational behav-
ior.
Documentation
The GFS’s internal documents examined included
all event programs from previous years, past
coordinator’s evaluation reports, and the examination
of GFS’s correspondence files with all stakeholders
since 1980, board committee meeting minutes, and fi-
nancial reports. Content analysis of the documents pro-
duced information on the types of events and content
of the festival throughout the years, the festival’s dura-
tion, organizers, sponsors, and other supporters. The
framework this study proposes takes into consideration
the existence of all stakeholders that comprise the GFS,
but their identification, categorization, and evaluation
are based on the perspectives deriving from one group
of stakeholders. This group involves the GFS adminis-
tration, which includes paid staff, volunteers, and the
board committee members, as well as two high-profile
Greek-Australian ethnic festival managers. Hence, the
results for this study are drawn from a specific point of
view, that of the GFS administration staff. For the pur-
poses of this study, data deriving from all sources of
data collection including interviews, documents, and
personal observations were integrated and are presented
in the following sections.
The Case of the Greek Festival of Sydney
Gilchrist (1997) reveals that the first Greeks arrived
in Australia in the early 1850s. Altman and Taylor
(1983) argued that since then the two countries went
through various social penetration stages and had many
175
common experiences in the process. One of the most
important of these experiences was the participation of
Australians in battles fought in Greece against the Axis
powers during the two great wars. Nowadays, the Greek
community is among the third largest and active in
Australia with 300,000 Greeks living in Melbourne.
Throughout the years, the Greek population of Austra-
lia found several organizations and many Greeks have
risen to the highest ranks of the Australian society
(Gargalianos, 2000). As part of this growth, the first
GFS was organized in 1980 by a voluntary-based com-
munity, the Greek Orthodox Community (GOC) of New
South Wales. Their aim was to retain and display the
Greek culture to Greek migrants. The GOC was estab-
lished in 1898; it is the third largest ethnic community
in Australia and largely involved with the running of
the GFS. Since the early 1980s, the objectives of the
GFS have changed and nowadays its major goal is to
act as a framework and a chance for Greek-Australian
origin artists (and in particular the second and third
generation of Greek-Australians) to experiment, create
hybrids, and search through the arts for their cultural
identity. Its other main goal is to act as a cross-cultural
communication channel of the Greek community with
the wider Australian society (www.goc.com.au/
greekfestival, 2002). The GFS includes not only a wide
but also a diverse range of stakeholders, who derive
from different ethnic origins and play important roles
in all aspects of the GFS administration, production,
and marketing functions. As a result, the need to derive
conclusions regarding the GFS stakeholders’ roles,
needs, and the way they influence the GFS organiza-
tion lead to the development of a framework that caters
for ethnic festivals and in particular for the GFS.
The Ethnic Origin of the GFS Stakeholders
(Profile and Role Diagnosis)
Three categories of ethnic origin stakeholders were
identified, namely (a) Greek origin stakeholders, such
as the Greek government and nongovernment organi-
zations as well as individuals, (b) Greek-Australian
stakeholders that derived from the Greek community
of Australia, and (c) non-Greek origin stakeholders that
included Australian nongovernment and government
organizations in NSW at the state and federal levels as
well as individuals. The ethnic origin of the festival’s
board committee members (whether a community or
the state’s official multicultural festival) is perceived
176 SPIROPOULOS, GARGALIANOS, AND SOTIRIADOU
as an important factor (yet, not the only one) towards
the outcome of the event and the cultural representa-
tion of the social/ethnic groups that it caters for. In the
case of the GFS, the board was comprised of both Greek
origin (migrants born in Greece) and Greek-Australian
(Australian-born) members. The two types of members
perceived themselves as most appropriate to culturally
represent the Greek Diaspora in different ways and sub-
sequently generated internal conflict in terms of who
has the power over representing whom. Greek origin
board members were heading towards the close repro-
duction of the images they had before leaving Greece,
while Greek-Australian board members were lobbying
towards the hybrids that second- and third-generation
Greek-Australian artists created, as well as the repro-
duction of images that were relevant to the contempo-
rary image of Greece. Additionally, the ethnic origin of
key decision makers (representation on funding boards
and sponsors) played an important role in terms of com-
prehending (to say the least) the projects proposed by
ethnic festivals to be financially supported. Cross-cul-
tural communications between the GFS stakeholders
and strengthening of the relationships between differ-
ent ethnic groups took place in three ways. First, by
negotiations between the GFS organizers and the Greek
government and nongovernment organizations in or-
der to have the latter participate (by providing artists)
and fund part of the festival. Second, by communica-
tion between the Greek-Australians GFS organizers and
another non-English-speaking community of Sydney
(which differs every year) that was selected and included
in the GFS program. This was a cross-cultural subevent
that showcased both participants culture to each other,
creating stronger ties between the communities. The
third way of communicating took place between the
media and the non-Greek origin audience. Therefore,
this part of the festival’s campaign aimed indirectly at
strengthening the relationship between the Greek Com-
munity of Sydney and the wider Australian society.
The Functional Roles of the GFS Stakeholders
(Profile and Role Diagnosis)
All GFS stakeholders were categorized and
subcategorized according to their role and function in
the GFS organization. The roles were grouped into three
functional areas: marketing, administration, and pro-
duction. Marketing stakeholders were split into: (a)
product (festival content) stakeholders, (b) place stake-
holders (all venues used for the GFS events except the
GFS administration offices. This distinction is made
because the GFS administration offices are owned by
the GOC and are categorized as infrastructure resources,
while all venues that the GFS events take place do not
belong to either the GOC or the GFS), (c) promotion
stakeholders (stakeholders that were responsible for
GFS communication campaign), and (d) the GFS audi-
ence (Greek, Greek-Australian, and non-Greek origin).
Administration stakeholders included: (a) human re-
sources (paid staff, volunteers, the GFS board of direc-
tors, and the GOC board of directors), (b) financial re-
sources (government support, corporate sponsorship,
and individual donors), and (c) infrastructure resources
(administration space, plant and equipment, and legal
framework). Production stakeholders were: (a) the
Street Fair production stakeholders (such as local au-
thorities stall renters and sound-system provider), and
(b) all the other events stakeholders that contributed in
the production of these events such as venues’ person-
nel. Figure 2 illustrates the categorization of the GFS
stakeholders according to their functional role. This fig-
ure is based on McDonnell et al.’s (1999) model on
“the relation of stakeholders to events” (p. 39). Taking
into account their analysis on the stakeholders’ relation
to events, roles, and grouping, the McDonnell et al.
(1999) model facilitated the development of the frame-
work that is pertinent to this study and caters for the
needs of the GFS.
MARKETING
STAKEHOLDERS
Product (Content)
Place (Venues)
Promotion
Audience
THE 20th
GREEK
FESTIVAL
OF
ADMINISTRATION
SYDNEY
STAKEHOLDERS PRODUCTION
STAKEHOLDERS
Human
Street Fair
Financial &
Infrastructure
resources
All other events
Figure 2. The categorization of the GFS stakeholders according to
functional role.
 EVENT STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
Marketing stakeholders such as “Media” and “Par-
ticipants and spectators” were identified by McDonnell
et al. (1999) as two of the six key stakeholder groups.
For the purposes of this study, the term participants re-
fers to all stakeholders that comprise the content of an
event such as artists, music and theater groups, and
performers, while the term spectators represents the
festival audience. Hence, the “Media,” and the “Par-
ticipants and spectators” from the McDonnell et al.
(1999) model are incorporated in the marketing stake-
holders’ group.
Administration stakeholders such as the “Host orga-
nization” in the McDonnell et al. (1999) model refers
to the constituency responsible for organizing the event.
For the case of GFS, the host organization refers to the
GFS Organizing Committee and the GOC. When men-
tioning “Host community,” McDonnell et al. (1999)
refer to the geographical perspective of the term, in-
cluding all groups of people that will be affected by a
festival organized in their community, such as a regional
community of NSW comprised of its residents, local
authorities, and businesses. However, the impacts of
the event to the “Host community” were not in the scope
of this study and are excluded.
The host organization comprises the administration
stakeholders. While the GOC provides the necessary
infrastructure, staff, funding, and a legal framework to
the GFS, the GFS Organizing Committee is responsible
for coordinating and implementing all parts of the event.
The administration stakeholders constitute a crucial part
of GFS stakeholder population and included human
(i.e., the administrative staff that comprises a part of
McDonnell et al.’s, 1999, “Co-workers” group), finan-
cial, and infrastructure resources. Government fund-
ing organizations, the GOC, and corporate sponsors
(i.e., McDonnell et al.’s “Sponsors” group) comprise
an important part of the financial resources stakehold-
ers subgroup. Infrastructure resources relate to office
spaces, plant and equipment, as well as to legal frame-
work.
Production stakeholders represent all the groups of
people that relate to the production of the GFS events
and reflect the “Co-workers” group in the model of
McDonnell et al. (1999). As mentioned above, the ad-
ministration personnel was categorized under the hu-
man resources section because they maintained a close
relationship with the GFS, either as paid staff, volun-
teers, or board committee members. The production
stakeholders were comprised of two main groups of
177
people: (a) those that had to do with the Street Fair event
and (b) those that related with the production of all other
indoor events. The Street Fair was the only outdoor GFS
event and attracted about 100,000 visitors during the
day that took place. Therefore, it required different pro-
duction scheduling from those events that took place
in already existing cultural venues that attracted from
200 to 1000 people per day. The Street Fair production
stakeholders included local authorities, companies, and
individuals offering their services such as cleaning,
catering, sound and light provision, and stage manage-
ment. Production stakeholders for all other events in-
cluded mainly the venues personnel for GFS events such
as music, video, theater, awards, and educational events.
The Ethnic Origin of the GFS Stakeholders
(Profile and Role Analysis)
When categorizing the GFS stakeholders by their
ethnic origin it was found that 45% had a Greek-Aus-
tralian origin, 45% had a non-Greek origin, and only
10% of all stakeholders had a Greek origin. A further
categorization of stakeholders according to functional
roles indicated that 50% of them (regardless of origin)
were involved with the marketing of the festival, 30%
of them were engaged with the festival’s overall pro-
duction, and remaining 20% of the stakeholders were
actively involved with the administration of the GFS
(see Table 1). A combination of the results deriving from
the two-way categorization according to ethnic origin
and functional role offered the following findings.
The Greek Origin Stakeholders. From a marketing
perspective, out of 26 events offered at the festival, the
Greek origin stakeholders provided five of them, and
comprised 17% of the total content of the festival. Fur-
thermore, 52% of GFS audience that attended GFS
events had a Greek origin. Marketing stakeholders in-
cluded Greek governmental and nongovernmental or-
ganizations such as the Greek Ministry of Culture, the
General Secretariat of Greeks Abroad (GSGA), and the
Ministry of Aegean, the Greek Film Centre and the
University of Crete, as well as Greek artists. The GSCA
presented a major administration stakeholder that pro-
vided financial support to the GFS in the form of a Greek
government grant. This financial assistance covered an
overall 13% of the total GFS budget expenditure and a
large proportion of the expenses related to the GFS in-
ternational events (fees/airfares for Greek artists). In
addition to the GSCA, a large proportion (80%) of the
178 SPIROPOULOS, GARGALIANOS, AND SOTIRIADOU
Table 1
The Roles of the GFS Stakeholders to the Festival
Marketing (50%)
Greek origin (10%) 52% audience, 5 events,
17% content
Greek-Australian origin (45%) 36% audience, 83% content,
75% com. campaign
Non-Greek origin (45%) 12% audience, 20% ticket
distribution, 25% com.
campaign, 10 venues
Greek Orthodox Community (GOC) board members
had a Greek origin. Two of the GOC board members
participated in the GFS board (which was comprised
by 20% of people with a Greek origin) and occupied
leading decision-making roles in the administration of
the event along with the GFS chairperson. Greek ori-
gin stakeholders were not involved in the production
of the festival; hence, the production stakeholder group
is not applicable.
The Greek-Australian Origin Stakeholders. This
group of stakeholders included a wide range of people
and organizations such as individual artists, promot-
ers, theater companies, and the National Network of
Greek Festivals of Australia. The marketing stakehold-
ers of a Greek-Australian origin have had a significant
influence in shaping the content of the GFS and its
outcomes. They were responsible for 83% of the con-
tent and were thus powerful in shaping the identity and
the message that came across to the Greek Diaspora of
Sydney. The GOC club was the major festival venue
and hosted almost half of the 2002 GFS events. The
GFS organized half of their public relations activities
at Greek-Australian-owned venues and used the ser-
vices of a website design company and an advertising
agency owned by Greek-Australians to do so. The GFS
maintained a close relationship with the Greek com-
munity media such as Special Broadcasting Service
(SBS) radio, Metropolis magazine, and Greek-Austra-
lian Television (GATV) and used them as the main ve-
hicle to inform the Greek-Australian community about
forthcoming events. Stakeholders of a Greek-Austra-
lian origin (ethnic media) implemented 75% of the com-
munication campaign, and last, but not least, 36% of
Administration (20%) Production (30%)
13% budget (GSGA), 20% board N/A
(GFS), 80% board (GOC),
10% staff /volunteers
26% board (GOC), 100% infrastructure/ Street Fair and all other
accounting/legal, 80% board (GFS), events, 50% crew
90% staff/volunteers
4% budget (sponsors/government Setting, implementation, and monitoring
organizations) of regulations for the Street Fair,
50% crew of all other events
the festival audience had a Greek-Australian origin.
As far as the Greek-Australian administration stake-
holders and human resource management is concerned,
the GFS was run by: (a) the GOC board that was made
up of 20% of Greek-Australians who provided all nec-
essary infrastructure (office spaces, plant, and equip-
ment), as well as accounting services and a legal frame-
work for the GFS to operate, and b) the GFS board that
was comprised of 80% of Greek-Australians. Addition-
ally, 90% of all paid staff and volunteers were people
with a Greek-Australian origin. In terms of financial
resources, the GOC, the Greek–Australian individual
donors, and the corporate sponsors were the financial
support stakeholders. For the production of the Street
Fair and all other events relevant stakeholders such as
security personnel, stall provision company, and stage/
sound management crew were evenly derived from both
the Greek and the Greek-Australian community.
The Non-Greek Origin Stakeholders. As far as the
marketing stakeholders are concerned, although non-
Greek origin stakeholders did not play a major role in
shaping the GFS identity, they played a significant role
in communicating this identity to a wider audience and
created a remarkable status for the GFS organization in
the Australian society. Non-Greek stakeholders were
in charge of communicating the profile of the GFS
events (by using the communication campaign)
throughout the non-Greek origin metropolitan media.
In relation to this, 12% of the GFS audience had a non-
Greek origin and included filmgoers, graduates of clas-
sic and Modern Greek studies, a specific non-English-
speaking community (different every year) and
international concertgoers. The GFS used eight high-
 EVENT STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
profile venues, including prestigious locations such as
the Custom House Museum and the ABC Hall, owned
by non-Greek origin stakeholders that hosted almost
half of the GFS events, while it distributed 20% of its
tickets via Ticketek Australia. The 20th GFS used the
services of professional publicists who have strong re-
lationships with metropolitan media, while it developed
a paid advertising campaign by using two major met-
ropolitan newspapers. For its public relationships, it
used an additional two venues—owned by non-Greek
origin stakeholders—in order to host two of its open-
ing nights. It also used the services of a printing agency
of a non-Greek origin.
With regard to the administration stakeholders, the
GFS maintained close relationships with the Austra-
lian government authorities and nongovernment orga-
nizations. These included the Federation of Ethnic Com-
munities Council of Australia, the Department of
Ageing and Disabilities, the City, the Australian Coun-
cil for the Arts, as well as non-Greek origin corporate
sponsors. Non-Greek government organizations con-
tributed only 4% of the total budget expenditure.
In relation to the production of the festival events,
numerous non-Greek origin stakeholders played an im-
portant role in the production of the Street Fair. For ex-
ample, authorities such as the Rockdale Council, the
Police, the St. George Ambulance Services, and the Roads
and Traffic Authority (RTA) provided the template and
the regulations that the Street Fair organizers had to com-
ply with. They also provided paid staff (which accounted
for half of the production crew) for the implementation
and the monitoring of these regulations. In all other
events, half of the production crew came from non-Greek
origin stakeholders and included the owners, the venue
staff, or the technical personnel (wherever needed) of
non-Greek origin venues that hosted less than half of the
GFS event. Table 1 summarizes the roles and illustrates
the relative importance of each stakeholder group (Greek,
Greek-Australian, non-Greek) on the marketing, admin-
istration, and production of the festival.
The Functional Roles of the GFS Stakeholders
(Profile and Role Analysis)
The profile and role analysis from a functional per-
spective provided a useful insight of the GFS organiza-
tion management and brought to attention several is-
sues that are presented below.
179
Marketing Stakeholders. GFS participants (e.g., art-
ists and performers) appeared to be the least coordi-
nated of all marketing stakeholders. For example, the
Greek-Australian participants, even though they ac-
counted for the majority of the GFS content, did not
maintain a close relationship with the GFS due to the
lack of GFS paid staff to cater for their needs efficiently
(the debility of GFS administration to plan and coordi-
nate long-term content development will be further
analyzed in the administration stakeholders section).
The latter led the GFS administration to act more as a
receiver of event proposals seeking to participate in
GFS, rather than looking outward for supporting the
artists, establishing collaborations, or investing in new
productions of Greek-Australian artists.
With the exception of the regular events of the festi-
val (i.e., the opening ceremony and the film festival)
and from an average of 26 events that are staged on an
annual basis, only a small number of them are internal
productions or have a long-term presence in the festi-
val. A big proportion of the events take place tempo-
rarily and would have been conducted regardless of the
efficiency and organizational abilities of the GFS.
Therefore, some of the events are not created to keep
pace with GFS cultural mission and objectives, miss
on quality aspects, and are more relevant to a Greek
origin audience rather than to younger generations of
Greek-Australians and non-Greek origin people. The
Greek Film Festival (GFF) and the Sidetrack Theatre
collaboration provided the exemptions to the above. The
GFF, for instance, evolved due to the efforts of two GFS
paid staff film expertise (Manolis Plantzos and Petros
Alexiou) from single video screening sessions to a
weekly Film Festival that includes the latest film pro-
ductions and documentaries presented in a well-estab-
lished cinema complex. This event attracted an audi-
ence of 70% Greek-Australians and non-Greek origin.
The production of the Sidetrack Theatre assisted the
establishment of a strong relationship with the GFS,
which in turn allowed for interesting and relevant to
younger generations theater plays to be presented as
part of the GFS.
On the other side, supply of event proposals over-
whelmed the demand side of the GFS content. This il-
lustrates the cultural productivity of Greek-Australian
artists, their needs to showcase their work through an
official framework and be supported by the GFS, as
well as to get promoted not only in the Greek-Austra-
180 SPIROPOULOS, GARGALIANOS, AND SOTIRIADOU
lian community but also in the wider Australian soci-
ety. Finally, even though the GFS participants received
little help and motivation from the GFS, they did their
best to represent it decently with quality projects (which
sometimes were cofunded by the artists themselves).
Administration Stakeholders. Efficiency levels, con-
flicting expectations, and interdependency between the
GFS administration and the GOC board appeared to be
the causes for the GFS operational and organizational
problems, and its weakness to plan and coordinate con-
tent development or manage participants’ problems. The
GOC’s constant provision of infrastructure and finan-
cial backing resulted in them maintaining control over
most of the GFS decisions regarding strategic planning
and development. Even though the GOC supported and
financed the GFS throughout the years, they did so
without considering strategic planning as a priority.
Consequently, they adopted an “ad hoc” approach to it.
Until 2000, the GFS operated with two casual paid staff
and was largely dependent on the involvement and con-
tributions of volunteers. Nevertheless, these contribu-
tions rested with their own initiatives because the GFS,
after attracting them, did not provide the necessary in-
kind rewards, training, and the means for these people
to become most useful to the GFS. These volunteers,
along with volunteers from the GOC environment, for-
mulated subcommittees (e.g., film festival, public rela-
tions, and Street Fair) that were coordinated by the GFS
paid staff. These subcommittees were perceived as in-
efficient due to the lack of volunteer motivation and
coordination. The coordination of all aspects of the
multivenue ethnic festival was in the hands of the two
casual paid staff and proved extremely difficult, if not
impossible (GFS coordinators even until 2001 had to
tap into 25–30 events, among all other administrative
duties, and since 1995 did not stay more than 1 year in
their position).
In terms of conflicting expectations, the GOC board
saw the festival as more of a political vehicle to pro-
mote its position in the wider Australian society than a
means of cultural expression and progress. On the other
hand, the GFS administration saw the festival as an
opportunity for cultural expression and communication
of the Greek-Australian community and in particular
for younger generations, a means to help and endorse
projects of artistic hybridism, and a chance to express
existential, social, and cultural identity-related issues
through art. Stakeholder interdependencies were also
apparent. For example, the GOC board performed bi-
annual elections in December. That included the GFS
board elections. As a result, after the elections, a new
GFS committee was established and preparations for
the next GFS started from December while the GFS
opening period is March. Having only 4 months to co-
ordinate and implement most aspects of the festival,
this organizational interdependency placed a lot of pres-
sure on the GFS committee. This reflects Getz’s (1997)
remark that many event organizations struggle from
year to year and their “planning ends up being very
much like a one-time project, when what they really
need is strategic planning for the long term” (p. 75).
Production Stakeholders. It was identified that a
number of powerful community authorities were in-
volved in the production planning of the Street Fair.
This involvement along with the distinctive nature of
the event of being hosted outdoors and attracting up to
100,000 visitors in one day meant that the relations of
the Street Fair production planning stakeholders and
its impacts to the host community (in a geographical
sense) present a separate study. In general, the commu-
nity authorities set the production template for the GFS
to comply with and left little to no space for its orga-
nizers to question them. The production stakeholders
for all other events (as they were either GFS paid staff
and volunteers or venues technical staff) did not have
any overlapping needs and conflicting expectations and
did no impede on the GFS operations.
Strategic Implications and Conclusions
In relation to the marketing function, the Greek
government’s policy to supply the GFS with high-qual-
ity artists from Greece and encourage nongovernmental
Greek organizations to actively participate in the festival
has had strategic implications to the organization’s pro-
file. It took it from a local to an international level, by
providing almost all of its international content. Addi-
tionally, its official endorsement reflected positively on
its profile in order to be identified by the Australian gov-
ernment authorities as the official cultural event of the
Greek-Australian community of Sydney. On the other
hand, the weakness of the GFS’s administration to look
outwards and actively seek to help Greek-Australian art-
ists (by maintaining a close relation with them, sharing
their needs, setting common artistic goals, and financially
supporting them) impeded the artistic development of
 EVENT STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
the GFS. It also acted as a barrier for younger genera-
tions of Greek-Australians to get involved by staging
events irrelevant to them.
The non-Greek venues and the metropolitan media
partners played a strategic role in shaping the GFS
profile to the wider Australian community. The GFS
events that were held in non-Greek origin-owned high-
profile venues were more accessible to all Australians
and were considered to be of general interest, thus
breaking away from the ethno-specific notion that the
GFS caters only for people with a Greek origin. The
non-Greek media partners (metropolitan media)
worked towards the same direction, displaying Greek
and Greek-Australian culture by promoting the GFS
major events to a wider audience. More than half
(52%) of the festival’s audience was comprised of
Greek origin people (migrants from Greece, over 50
years old). This highlights the absence of younger
generations of Greek-Australians and a largely static
audience of Greek migrants.
Regarding the administration function, several stra-
tegic implications derived from the fact that the GOC
was the major administration stakeholder by providing
all necessary human, financial, and infrastructure re-
sources to the GFS. The GOC’s involvement was cru-
cial to the festival’s survival and future development.
However, the filtering of GFS major decisions and the
“ad hoc” approach that was adopted by the GOC board
members, along with their interdependencies and di-
verse expectations, affected the content quality and
continuity along with its long-term audience develop-
ment. However, in 2003, the GFS revised its organiza-
tional structure by replacing most of the subcommit-
tees with a functional structure that included six paid
staff with specific job descriptions and roles such as
the GFS manager, cultural director, corporate director,
and three administrative staff.
Finally, authority regulations related to the produc-
tion of the Street Fair, namely the non-Greek origin
authorities’ decisions, such as the decisions from the
Rockdale Council (i.e., closing time by 2100 h), the
police, and the RTA (i.e., refusal of GFS committee
proposal to expand the event venue and include part of
the vertical seaside avenue), have had strategic impli-
cations concerning what could or could not be imple-
mented during the event. These decisions were based
on existing council and government regulations for stag-
ing events, and thus made it difficult for further nego-
tiations. Several issues identified and discussed in this
181
article could be applied to emerging ethnic festivals as
well as to cases where ethnic festivals are due to occur.
It is recommended that:
• The festival is organized or endorsed by the con-
stituency that represents the majority of migrants
in the host country (the GOC for the case of GFS).
• It should have a main financial supporter willing
to cover possible operational deficits and justify
them as a social service function. In contrast, al-
though the financial support that a festival might
receive from the ethnic community it derives from,
managers of ethnic festivals are strongly advised
to keep their own organization financial records,
budgets, and chart of accounts categorized under
the administration, marketing, and production func-
tion.
• It should adapt a functional organizational struc-
ture (at least for those organizations at an initial
stage) and involve younger generations in strate-
gic decision-making processes about the manage-
ment and content planning of the event, thus mak-
ing it more relevant to them.
• It should be looking outward for collaborations and
providing resources for new artists to utilize (it is
recognized that this is difficult for emerging festi-
vals).
• It should use flagship events (i.e., the Street Fair
and the film festival in the GFS case) and engage
the local community (in a geographic sense) as
much as possible (apply for outdoor events) to
approach visitors other than the specific ethnic
group.
• It is strongly advised to identify with, and be en-
dorsed by, the festival origin’s government and non-
government cultural organizations. This would
offer credentials for the event to the specific mi-
grant community and to be considered as the offi-
cial cultural event from the host country’s authori-
ties and cultural environment.
• It should include metropolitan media to pass on its
message to a wider audience than the specific eth-
nic group, at least for its flagship events.
Application of the Proposed Framework
to Ethnic Festival Managers
Although the GFS stakeholder framework presented
in this study is derived from GFS, it does not preclude
182 SPIROPOULOS, GARGALIANOS, AND SOTIRIADOU
generalization to other ethnic festivals that operate un-
der similar circumstances. Consequently, when catego-
rizing stakeholders by their ethnic origin or by their
functional role, a number of issues may apply to all (at
least Australian) ethnic managers. Ethnic markets com-
prise 25% of the Australian population. Hence, the iden-
tification of an ethnic festival’s audience by their eth-
nic origin, along with their demographics and
psychographics, can be crucial factors from a sponsor’s
perspective when deciding to promote a new product
to ethnic markets. In addition, the identification of con-
tent stakeholders by their ethnic origin can become a
crucial factor for setting up the policy for a multicultural
festival in terms of equal level of cultural representa-
tion for all ethnic communities represented in the event.
In community festivals in particular, that are organized
by one ethnicity, the ethnic origin of stakeholder groups
who have the power to decide on the event content can
became a crucial factor towards the identification of
the event as folkloric or progressive oriented.
Stakeholders’ categorization by their functional role
(administration, marketing, and production) can help
ethnic event managers to obtain the “big picture” of
the event (i.e., who has a stake in the event, under what
role, and how this role affects or is affected by the event).
As a result, they can reach beyond the “traditional”
environmental analysis, and be able to identify prob-
lems and apply solutions to specific recipients (i.e.,
communication or spectators related issues to market-
ing manager, production related issues to production
manager). From a financial management perspective
and budgeting procedures, the proposed stakeholder
categories can be a useful tool in monitoring forecasted
and real expenses/income.
While the current study has been successful in achiev-
ing its desired purpose, it has also highlighted the need
for further and continued research into the potential
impacts of the stakeholder’s involvement within events.
Specifically, a similar study incorporating the perspec-
tive of other groups of stakeholders about the running
of the GFS events, such as the participants themselves
or local businesses, would shape a comprehensive pic-
ture of the event and would possibly lead towards iden-
tifying further strategic solutions. Also, the Street Fair,
due to its nature, may present a separate stakeholder
analysis case study. To maximize the sociocultural, eco-
nomic, touristic, and environmental benefits of the Street
Fair to its community, the event’s stakeholder roles and
perspectives should be addressed. The results of this
case study could help establish and communicate a
common direction, policies, and procedures among the
various stakeholders, and could assist in running the
event in an efficient manner.
References
Albanis, J. (2003). Presentation of the Network of Social Sup-
port for Immigrants and Refuges of Athens (Greece). Sym-
posium for social disadvantage groups: The case of Spain,
Ireland and Greece. Cultural Development Company of
Cyclades Region, Syros, Ermoupoli.
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1983). Social penetration: The devel-
opment of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Wilson.
Australia Council. (1998). The taxi driver the cook and the
greengrocer: The representation of non-English speaking ori-
gin people in theatre, film and television. Sydney: Author.
Bakirathi, M. (2002). The imagination of South Asian America:
Cultural politics in the making of Diaspora. Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University (available at
www.ingenta.com).
Bankston, III, C. L., & Henry, J. (2000). Spectacles of ethnicity:
Festivals and the commodification of ethnic culture among
Louisiana Cajuns. Sociological Spectrum, 20, 377–407.
Bearup, G. (1999, October 29). For staff, Carnivale is over after
Carr appointments. Sydney Morning Herald, p. 3.
Bednall, D. (1992). Media and immigrant settlement. Canberra:
AGPS.
Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. (1997).
Multicultural marketing. Sydney: Author.
Dunne, S. (1996, September 5). Carnivale con amore. Sydney
Morning Herald, p. 5.
Frisby, W., & Getz, D. (1989). Festival management: A case
study perspective. Journal of Travel Research, 1, 7–11.
Gargalianos, D. (2000). The Powerhouse Museum’s exhibition
of ancient objects from Greece. A cross-cultural communi-
cation approach. Sydney: University of Technology.
Getz, D. (1997). Event management & event tourism. New York:
Cognizant Communication Corporation.
Getz, D., & Frisby, W. (1988). Evaluating management effec-
tiveness in community-run festivals. Journal of Travel Re-
search, 1, 22–27.
Gilchrist, H. (1997). Australian and Greeks. Broadway, NSW,
Australia: Halstead Press.
Goolam, V. (2002). Construction of community and identity
among Indians in colonial Natal, 1860–1910. The role of
Muharram Festival. The Journal of African History, 43, 77.
Labrador, R. (2002). Performing identity: The public presenta-
tion of culture and ethnicity among Filipinos in Hawaii. Cul-
tural Values, 6(3), 287–307.
LeMenestrel, S. (1999). Constructions identitaires et contexte
touristique: L’exemple des Cadiens du Sud-Ouest du la
Louisiane. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Universite de
Paris X–Nanterre, France.
Mayfield, T. L., & Crompton, J. (1995). Development of an in-
strument for identifying community reason for staging a fes-
tival. Journal of Travel Research, 33, 37–44.
 EVENT STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
McDonnell, I., Allen, J., & O’Toole, W. (1999). Festivals and
special events management. Sydney: Wiley & Sons Austra-
lia.
McKenzie, C. (1997). The menace of multiculturalism. Avail-
able at www.members.ozmail.com.au
Nord, P. D. (2000, March). On the borderland of ethnicity and
race: An introduction. The Journal of American History.
NSW Ministry for the Arts. (2001). 2000 annual report. Sydney:
Author.
Quemuel, C. (1996). Filipino student apathy or activism? In J.
Okamura & R. Labrador (Eds.), Pagdiriwang: Legacy and
183
vision of Hawaii’s Filipino Americans (pp. 17–19). Hono-
lulu: University of Hawaii, Student Equity, Excellence, and
Diversity, and Centre for Southeast Asian Studies.
Shone, A., & Parry, B. (2001). Successful event management. A
practical handbook. London: Continuum Books.
Spiropoulos, S. (2001). Features of the internal and external
environments impacting on the planning and operation of
the Greek Festival of Sydney. Unpublished master’s thesis,
University of Technology, Sydney.
Turner, B. (1998). Weird alchemy at the Australian Council.
Australian Financial Review, p. 2