Association for Consumer Research
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802 An Empirical Comparison of Ambushing and Sponsorship Effects: the Case of 2006 Fifa World Cup Germany™ Manuel Michaelis, University of Muenster, Germany David M. Woisetschlaeger, University of Dortmund, Germany Vivian Hartleb, University of Muenster, Germany Existing research about sponsorship effects often considers only data collected at a particular time and does not take into account longitudinal effects on the individual level. In this paper, we compare brand effects of an official sponsor with those of an ambusher during the 2006 FIFA World Cup 2006 Germany™ using panel data. Our findings show that the measurement of recall alone in order to assess communication effectiveness could provide misleading results. Furthermore, we found evidence that mass events can be used to strengthen brand image and brand equity when a brand is unfamiliar to most consumers before the event. [to cite]: Manuel Michaelis, David M. Woisetschlaeger, and Vivian Hartleb (2008) ,"An Empirical Comparison of Ambushing and Sponsorship Effects: the Case of 2006 Fifa World Cup Germany™", in NA - Advances in Consumer Research Volume 35, eds. Angela Y. Lee and Dilip Soman, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 527-533. [url]: http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/13405/volumes/v35/NA-35 [copyright notice]: This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/. An Empirical Comparison of Ambushing and Sponsorship Effects: The Case of 2006 FIFA World Cup Germany™ Manuel Michaelis, University of Münster, Germany David M. Woisetschläger, University of Dortmund, Germany Vivian Hartleb, University of Münster, Germany1 INTRODUCTION Ruth and Simonin 2003; Speed and Thompson 2000; Stipp and Sponsorship as a marketing tool has grown remarkably during Schiavone 1996; Turley and Shannon 2000) or is based on data the last two decades, especially with respect to endorsement of using different respondents over time, making it impossible to worldwide sports events. Overall, global expenditures are forecast analyze effects on the individual level (e.g., Easton and Mackie to reach $37.7 billion in 2007, up 11.9 percent from $33.7 billion in 1998; Nebenzahl and Jaffe 1991; Quester and Farrelly 1998; Stipp 2006 (anonymous 2007). Events like the Formula One, the Olympic 1998). As a consequence, further studies are needed in order to Games and the FIFA World Cup™ have become fully globalized in obtain insights about the effects of ambush marketing strategies on terms of media coverage. Therefore, especially many large interna- brand evaluation over time. tional companies use the FIFA World Cup™ as a platform for In the present paper, we (1) use learning theory to develop a building, strengthening and maintaining their brand equity. For a dynamical perspective of sponsorship and ambush marketing ef- sponsorship license, enabling the sponsors to market the partner- fects on brand perception and (2) investigate the proposed effects ship with the 2006 FIFA World Cup™ worldwide, companies have based on a panel survey that was conducted before and after the spent about $53 million US each (anonymous 2006). Hence, 2006 FIFA World Cup™. companies that engage in sponsorship have to be sure about the In accordance with these research objectives, the paper is effectiveness of their investment (Johar, Pham, and Wakefield organized as follows. First, we briefly describe our rationale for 2006), which can be endangered if too many official sponsors share choosing the two brands that are used in this research. Second, we a visitor’s attention. To maintain exclusivity for the official spon- briefly discuss the theoretical background of the study and develop sors, FIFA has limited their number to fifteen “Official Partners” our hypotheses based on existing literature. After describing the and six “National Partners,” who paid $17 million US each for local methodology, we present the results of the empirical analysis, advertising rights. Still, sponsors do not seem to be satisfied with which is based on panel data gathered from 254 respondents. The the granted exclusivity. paper concludes with a discussion of the key findings and their While too many sponsors will most likely result in reduced managerial implications to both official sponsors and ambush sponsorship effectiveness for a single sponsor, a second–and prob- marketers. ably more severe–threat is the activity of ambush marketers. Am- bush marketing is defined as “the practice whereby another com- THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND pany, often a competitor, seeks association with the sponsored HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT activity without payment to the activity owner” (Meenaghan 1994, Before we conceptualize the influence of sponsorship and 77). Despite enhanced legal precautions to protect the interests of ambush activities on brand perception, it is useful to define our official sponsors (Townley, Harrington, and Couchman 1998), understanding of a the term “brand”. Following Farquhar (1989) many examples of ambush marketing in the context of the FIFA and consistent with new interdisciplinary definitions of brand World Cup™ can be found (e.g., Nike, O2, and Puma). equity (e.g., Srinivasan, Park, and Chang 2005), we define brand Existing research on ambush marketing focuses on describing equity as added value that a product has due to its brand. From a the phenomenon and examining strategic issues related to the perspective of learning, brand equity can be seen as a node in the practice of ambush marketing (e.g., Collett and Johnson 2006; mind of an individual, which is connected to product-related Crompton 2004; Crow and Hoek 2003; Ettorre 1993; Farrelly, attributes, utility-expectations, pictures, and emotions (Erdem et al. Quester, and Greyser 2005; Meenaghan 1994; Meenaghan 1998a; 1999). Repeated confrontation with stimuli from marketing man- Meenaghan 1998b; Payne 1998), ethical and legal issues (e.g., agement (such as advertising, sponsorship, and ambush market- Crompton 2004; McKelvey 2003; McKelvey 2006; O’Sullivan and ing), from the environment (social networks), and due to personal Murphy 1998; Townley, Harrington, and Couchman 1998; Uphoff, experiences lead to an enforcement of associative connections in a Massey, and Brown 2006) and consumer perceptions of ambush consumer’s mind (Martindale 1991; Till 1998). marketing (Grohs, Wagner, and Vsetecka 2004; Lyberger and Following Keller (1993), brand awareness and brand associa- McCarty 2001; McDaniel and Kinney 1998; Mizerski, Mizerski, tions (image) are important dimensions that contribute to brand and Sadler 2001; Sandler and Shani 1989; Shani and Sandler 1998). equity. Brand awareness relates to the strength of a brand in However, research revealed only one study that deals with the memory, and the likelihood and ease with which the brand will be effects of ambush marketing on brand evaluation (McDaniel and recognized or recalled under various conditions (Silverman, Sprott, Kinney 1998). Moreover, existing studies evaluate the effects of and Pascal 1999). Brand image is defined as “perceptions about a ambush marketing at only one point in time. The predominance of brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer the research on brand effects of sponsorship is either static (e.g., memory” (Keller 1993). Becker-Olsen and Simmons 2002; Javalgi et al. 1994; Lardinoit and The favorability, strength, and uniqueness of brand image Quester 2001; Menon and Kahn 2003; Pope and Voges 1999, 2000; permit the brand to be strategically differentiated and positioned in the consumer’s mind. These associations can be built, strengthened, and maintained when consumers gain awareness of stimuli related 1The authors greatly acknowledge the financial support of the to the brand. International sport events like the FIFA World Cup™ German Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF–FKZ 01 are promising suppliers of pictures, episodes, experiences and HQ 0523) for this research. stories that may be relevant for building new associations. These 527 Advances in Consumer Research Volume 35, © 2008 528 / An Empirical Comparison of Ambushing and Sponsorship Effects: The Case of 2006 FIFA World Cup Germany™ associations are predominantly–but not exclusively–communicated prior knowledge about the sponsoring (ambushing) brand, the by mass media. sponsored object, and existing attitudes (e.g., toward sponsorship We propose that the process of building new associations or ambush marketing in general). between a brand and an event is identical for both sponsorship and We propose that the event image (Grohs, Wagner, and Vsetecka ambush marketing practice, unless an individual realizes that he or 2004; Speed and Thompson 2000), the attitude toward commercial- she falsely associated a company with an event. In this case, ization of sports events, and the attitude toward ambushing (Lyberger existing attitudes about ambush marketing might play an important and McCarthy 2001) influence the change of brand awareness role (Lyberger and McCarthy 2001). Accordingly, in the next (brand image, brand equity) over time. Based on the learning section, we develop our hypotheses about sponsorship effects on perspective as described above, we expect a positive influence of three brand constructs (brand awareness,