A Model Of Consumer Buyer Behaviour Relating To The Sponsorship Of Major Sporting Events In Australia
Yayoi Chester
Doctor of Philosophy
2007
A Model of Consumer Buyer Behaviour Relating To The Sponsorship Of Major Sporting Events In Australia
by Yayoi Chester Faculty of Business and Enterprise Swinburne University of Technology
Abstract
This thesis investigates the key determinants of positive consumer behaviour to sponsorships. Using the consumer decision making process and classical conditioning principles as an underpinning framework, this thesis examines consumer perceptions of a sponsor, sponsored property and sponsorship activity relative to a consumer’s intent to purchase a sponsor’s product or service.
The purchase intent of consumers is analysed as an outcome of five significant constructs: event factors, sponsor factors, sponsorship factors, a pre-purchase response and the transfer of image values. Intent to purchase is evaluated as the antecedent to purchase, however, both economic and non-economic outcomes are considered in this study as pivotal to encouraging positive consumer behaviour.
A multi-method approach involved the collection of both qualitative and quantitative data. Focus groups established the scope of research followed by the distribution of multi-item surveys to members of the public from regional and metropolitan areas of Victoria, Australia. By selecting Australian Rules Football and the Australian Tennis Open as the context for the empirical component of this study, a number of sponsors in key industries could be examined.
i Structural equation modelling was used to analyse survey data. The conceptual model and hypotheses were tested using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The results show that consumer attitudes and beliefs about a sponsor, and their perception of fit between a sponsor and sponsored property, have a strong bearing on their pre- purchase response. The strength of a pre-purchase response is determined by a consumer’s interest in, and favourability of a sponsor’s products or services. Image congruence and a positive sponsorship experience ensure a transfer of image values occurs. This transfer is central to predicting a consumer’s intent to purchase, enhancing the possibility of actual purchase. Of the 696 survey respondents, half made an actual purchase of a sponsor’s product or service.
This study posits solid sponsor and property collaboration assists effective sponsorship administration. Both parties must invest resources towards market research to facilitate the development and adherence of appropriate fit and congruence objectives. Image and image effects act as a mechanism from which consumers can construct meaningful evaluations of sponsorships and must also be considered. Most importantly, a holistic, consumer-centric approach to sponsorship examination offers practitioners a guide to effective sponsorship planning and execution.
ii
Acknowledgements
I will reflect upon this experience as an important and fulfilling chapter of my life. It has been an incredible journey, one that has carried me across the borders of academia, to a place of personal significance.
I am grateful to have experienced many highs throughout my candidature and I certainly could not have done so without a number of very important people in my life. First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to my amazing and inspirational supervisor, Dr. Antonio Lobo. I would not be where I am today without your superior guidance, understanding, and unconditional support. I feel so blessed to have met you and I am truly honoured to have had you as my supervisor. Thank you. I would also like to thank my wonderful co-ordinating supervisor Dr. Denny Meyer for her incredible support and expert assistance. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I feel so lucky that you were a part of my team.
Thank you also to the lovely and hardworking staff involved with the postgraduate program at Swinburne University. It has been an awesome experience. Additionally, a very, very big thank you to everyone who kindly volunteered their time to be a part of this research. I know I could not have done this without you all.
On a personal note, I would like to thank my amazing mother for her love, strength, and support. I will eternally be grateful for everything you have done for me. Love you. Thank you to Stuart for being there for me when I needed you most. You mean the world to me. A big thank you to my family, including the wonderful Stan and Yvonne, and to all of my friends who have supported me every step of the way.
Thank you!
iii
Statement of Declaration
I, Yayoi Chester, declare that this PhD thesis:
• contains no material which has been accepted for the award to the candidate of any other degree or diploma, except where due reference is made in the text of the thesis; • to the best of the my knowledge contains no material previously published or written by another person expect where due reference is made in the text of the thesis; and • where the work is based on joint research publications, discloses the relative contributions of the respective workers or authors.
Signature Date
iv Table of Contents
Abstract i
Acknowledgements iii
Statement of Declaration iv
Table of Contents v
List of Tables xiv
List of Figures xvi
Chapter One
Introduction
1.0 Background 1
1.1 Sports Sponsorship 2
1.2 Sponsorship and Consumer Behaviour 3
1.3 Context of the Study 3
1.4 Defining the Determinants of Sports Sponsorship Response 6
1.5 Examining the Key Constructs of Sports Sponsorship Response 7
1.6 Theoretical Contribution 10
1.7 Outline of the Thesis 10
1.7.1 Chapter One 10 1.7.2 Chapter Two 11 1.7.3 Chapter Three 11 1.7.4 Chapter Four 11 1.7.5 Chapter Five 11 1.7.6 Chapter Six 12 1.7.7 Chapter Seven 12
v
Chapter Two
Key Concepts in Sponsorship
2.0 Introduction 15
2.1 Sponsorship Definition 16
2.2 Sponsorship Development and Growth 18
2.3 The Role of Sponsorship in Marketing Communications 20
2.4 Sponsorship of Sports and Sporting Events 21
2.5 Sponsorship Objectives 25
2.6 Evaluating Effective Sponsorships 27
2.7 Issues in Sponsorship and Sports Sponsorship Practice 31
2.7.1 Issues Regarding Sponsorship Research 34
2.8 Chapter Summary 36
Chapter Three
Consumer Behaviour and The Role of The Consumer in Sponsorship
3.0 Introduction 39
3.1 Developing Relationships Through Sponsorships 42
3.1.1 Relationship Marketing and Exchange Theory 42
3.2 Segmenting the Sponsorship Audience 44
3.3 Consumer Behaviour 44
3.4 The Consumer Decision Making Process 46
3.4.1 Need Recognition 48 3.4.2 Search for Information 49 3.4.3 Pre-Purchase Evaluation of Alternatives 50
vi 3.4.4 Purchase Decision and Consumption 51 3.4.5 Post Consumption Evaluation and Divestment 52 3.4.6 Consumer Satisfaction 52
3.5 The Psychological Influences of the Consumer Decision Making Process 53
3.5.1 Information Processing 53 3.5.2 Learning 53 3.5.2.1 Associative Learning 54 3.5.2.2 Cognitive Learning 54 3.5.3 Attitudes and Behaviour Change 55
3.6 Engaging the Consumer Through Sponsorships 56
3.7 Event Factors 56
3.7.1 Event Status 56 3.7.2 Liking 57 3.7.3 Fan Involvement 57
3.8 Sponsor Factors 58
3.8.1 Attitudes and Beliefs Towards the Sponsor 59 3.8.1 Prominence 59 3.8.2 Goodwill 60
3.9 Sponsorship Factors 61
3.9.1 Exposure 62 3.9.2 Sponsor-Event Fit 63
3.10 Sponsorship Effects on the Consumer 63
3.10.1 Interest 63 3.10.2 Recall and Recognition 63 3.10.3 Awareness 64 3.10.4 Favourability 65
3.11 The Transfer of Image Values 65
3.11.1 Activity Level Transfer 66 3.11.2 Emotive Level Transfer 66 3.11.3 Image Congruence 67
3.12 Chapter Summary 70
vii
Chapter Four
Determinants of Consumer Response to Sponsorship and Development of The Conceptual Framework
4.0 Introduction 72
4.1 Event, Sponsor and Sponsorship Factors 79
4.2 Event Factors 79
4.2.1 Event Status 79 4.2.2 Personal Liking 80 4.2.3 Fan Involvement 81
4.3 Sponsor Factors 82
4.3.1 Personal Beliefs 82 4.3.2 Sponsor Prominence 83 4.3.3 Sponsor Goodwill 84
4.4 Sponsorship Factors 85
4.4.1 Type and Level of Exposure 85 4.4.2 Sponsor-Event Fit 86
4.5 Pre-Purchase Response 87
4.5.1 Recall 87 4.5.2 Awareness 88 4.5.3 Favourability 88 4.5.4 Interest 89
4.6 Transfer of Image Values 89
4.6.1 Activity Level 90 4.6.2 Category Level 91 4.6.3 Image Congruence 91
4.7 Intention Purchase 92
4.8 Actual Purchase 93
4.9 Chapter Summary 93
viii Chapter Five
Methodology
5.0 Introduction 95
5.1 Context of Research 95
5.2 Unit of Analysis 98
5.3 Research Design and Data Collection 98
5.4 Focus Groups 99
5.5 Instrument Design 101
5.6 Operationalisation of the Constructs 102
5.7 Phase One: Event, Sponsor, Sponsorship Factors 102
5.7.1 Event Factors 102 5.7.2 Event Status 103 5.7.3 Personal Liking of Event 103 5.7.4 Fan Involvement 103
5.8 Sponsor Factors 106
5.8.1 Personal Beliefs Regarding the Event Sponsor 106 5.8.2 Sponsor Prominence 106 5.8.3 Perceived Sponsor Goodwill 107
5.9 Sponsorship Factors 108
5.9.1 Level of Exposure 109 5.9.2 Type of Exposure 109 5.9.3 Sponsor-Event Fit 109
5.10 Phase Two: Pre-Purchase Response, Transfer of Image Values, Intention to Purchase and Actual Purchase 112
5.10.1 Pre-Purchase Response 112 5.10.2 Interest 112 5.10.3 Awareness 113 5.10.4 Recall 113 5.10.5 Favourability 113
ix 5.11 Transfer of Image Values 115
5.11.1 Sponsorship Activity Effect 115 5.11.2 Sponsorship Effect on Personal Feelings 115 5.11.3 Image Congruence of Sponsorship 116
5.12 Intention to Purchase 116
5.13 Actual Purchase 117
5.14 Scaling and Measurement 118
5.15 Reliability and Validity 118
5.16 Pretest 121
5.17 Chapter Summary 124
Chapter Six
Analysis and Findings
6.0 Introduction 125
6.1 Data Analysis 125
6.1.1 Profile of Respondents 125 6.1.2 Gender 126 6.1.3 Age 127 6.1.4 Income 128 6.1.5 Education 128 6.1.6 Occupation 129 6.1.7 Marital Status 130 6.1.8 Geographical Area 130
6.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis 131
6.2.1 Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA1) 132 6.2.2 Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA 2) 135
6.3 Construct Reliability 138
6.4 Construct Validity 139
6.5 Measurement Models 139
6.5.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis 140
x 6.6 Goodness-of-Fit Measurement 140
6.6.1 Chi-Square Value 140 6.6.2 Descriptive Fit Indices 141 6.6.3 Alternative Fit Indices 141
6.7 CFA’s for the Six Factors of EFA (Part 1) 142
6.7.1 CFA for Liking/Fan Involvement 142 6.7.2 CFA for Sponsor Related Attitudes/Beliefs 143 6.7.3 CFA for Event Status 144 6.7.4 CFA for Exposure 145 6.7.5 CFA for Goodwill 146 6.7.6 CFA for Sponsor-Event Fit 146
6.8 CFA’s for the Six Factors of EFA (Part 2) 147
6.8.1 CFA for Sponsorship Effect 147 6.8.2 CFA for Awareness 148 6.8.3 CFA for Favourability 149 6.8.4 CFA for Image Congruence 149 6.8.5 CFA for Intention 150 6.8.6 CFA for Interest 151
6.9 Nomological Validity 152
6.10 Multicollinearity 152
6.11 Discriminant Validity 153
6.12 Structural Equation Modelling 154
6.13 Testing of Hypotheses 157
6.14 Discussion of Hypotheses Tests 158
6.14.1 Event Status 158 6.14.2 Personal Liking 158 6.14.3 Fan Involvement 159 6.14.4 Personal Beliefs 159 6.14.5 Sponsor Prominence 159 6.14.6 Goodwill 160 6.14.7 Type of Exposure 160 6.14.8 Level of Exposure 160 6.14.9 Sponsor-Event Fit 161 6.14.10 Pre-Purchase Response 161 6.14.11Transfer of Image Values 161
6.15 Qualitative Responses 162
xi 6.16 Examining the Models 163
6.17 Invariance Testing 167
6.17.1 Results 167 6.17.2 Sponsor-Event Fit and Response 169 6.17.3 Image Congruence and Transfer of Image Values 170 6.17.4 Sponsor-Event Fit and Image Congruence 170
6.18 Segmentation Analysis 171
6.18.1 Gender 171 6.18.2 Age 172 6.18.2.1 Favourability and Response 173 6.18.3 Income 174 6.18.3.1 Transfer of Image Values and Response (1) 175 6.18.3.2 Transfer of Image Values and Response (2) 176
6.19 Intention to Purchase 176
6.20 Chapter Summary 179
Chapter Seven
Discussion, Management Implications and Directions for Future Research
7.0 Introduction 181
7.1 A Unique Model for Determining Sport Sponsorship Effectiveness and Consumer Buyer Behaviour 182
7.2 Examination of the Constructs 182
7.2.1 Event Status 183 7.2.2 Fan Involvement 184 7.2.3 Personal Beliefs Regarding the Sponsor 187 7.2.4 Exposure 188 7.2.5 Sponsor-Event Fit 189 7.2.6 Goodwill 190 7.2.7 Image Transfer 191
7.3 Segmentation Implications 192
7.3.1 Gender, Age and Income Implications 192
xii 7.4 Managerial Implications for Properties 194
7.5 Managerial Implications for Sponsor 195
7.6 Limitations of the Study 200
7.7 Directions for Future Research 203
7.8 Chapter Summary 207
7.9 Conclusion 207
Bibliography 209
Appendices 230
Appendix 1 Letter of Informed Consent 231 Appendix 2 Sample Copy of Sponsorship Survey Questionnaire 234 Appendix 3 Pattern Matrix for EFA 1 239 Appendix 4 Structure Matrix for EFA 2 241 Appendix 5 Pattern Matrix for EFA 2 243 Appendix 6 Structure Matrix for EFA 2 245 Appendix 7 Discriminant Validity Table 247 Appendix 8 Details of Conference for Research Presentation and Acceptance Letter 250
xiii List of Tables
Table 1.0 Definitions of Key Constructs 13 Table 4.0 Major Findings of Relevant Consumer-Based Sponsorship Studies 77 Table 4.1 Study Hypotheses 94 Table 5.0 Constructs and Measures 1 105 Table 5.1 Constructs and Measures 2 108 Table 5.2 Constructs and Measures 3 111 Table 5.3 Constructs and Measures 4 114 Table 5.4 Constructs and Measures 5 116 Table 5.5 Constructs and Measures 6 117 Table 5.6 Constructs and Measures 7 118 Table 6.0 Survey Response Rate 126 Table 6.1 Gender Distribution 127 Table 6.2 Age Distribution 127 Table 6.3 Distribution of Income 128 Table 6.4 Distribution of Education Level 129 Table 6.5 Distribution of Occupation 129 Table 6.6 Marital Status of Participants 130 Table 6.7 Distribution of Geographical Base of Participants 131 Table 6.8 Results of EFA 1 133 Table 6.9 Pattern and Structure Matrix for EFA 1 134 Table 6.10 Factor Correlation Matrix for EFA 1 134 Table 6.11 Results of EFA 2 136 Table 6.12 Pattern and Structure Matrix for EFA 2 137 Table 6.13 Factor Correlation Matrix for EFA 2 138 Table 6.14 Regression Weights for Liking/Fan Involvement 143 Table 6.15 Regression Weights for Sponsor Related Attitudes/ Beliefs 143 Table 6.16 Regression Weights for Event Status 144 Table 6.17 Regression Weights for Exposure 145 Table 6.18 Regression Weights for Goodwill 146 Table 6.19 Regression Weights for Sponsor-Event Fit 147 Table 6.20 Regression Weights for Sponsorship Activity Effect 148 Table 6.21 Regression Weights for Favourability 149 Table 6.22 Regression Weights for Image Congruence 150 Table 6.23 Regression Weights for Intention 151 Table 6.24 Regression Weights for Interest 151 Table 6.25 Discriminant Validity 153 Table 6.26 Hypotheses Testing 157 Table 6.27 Standardised Regression Weight for Constructs 158 Table 6.28 Open-ended Responses Linked to Hypotheses 162 Table 6.29 Regression Weights for Final Model 166 Table 6.30 Standardised Regression Weights for Final Model 166 Table 6.31 Squared Multiple Correlations 166 Table 6.32 Invariance Test Results for Toyota 167 Table 6.33 Invariance Test Results for Kia 168
xiv Table 6.34 Invariance Test Results for Carlton 169 Table 6.35 Invariance Test Results for Garnier 169 Table 6.36 Segmentation Results for Males 171 Table 6.37 Segmentation Results for Females 171 Table 6.38 Segmentation Results for Under 24 172 Table 6.39 Segmentation Results for 25-34 172 Table 6.40 Segmentation Results for 35+ 173 Table 6.41 Segmentation Results for Under $20000 174 Table 6.42 Segmentation Results for $20000-$30000 174 Table 6.43 Segmentation Results for $30000-$40000 175 Table 6.44 Segmentation Results for Over $40000 175 Table 6.45 Variables in the Equation 177 Table 6.46 Actual Purchase Q7.2 177 Table 6.47 Actual Purchase Q7.4 178 Table 7.0 Action Table for Effective Sponsorship to Promote Positive Consumer Buyer Behaviour 198
xv List of Figures
Figure 1.0 Main Research Question and Objectives of This Study 5 Figure 1.1 The Conceptual Model 9 Figure 1.2 Roadmap To Thesis Chapters 14 Figure 2.0 Roadmap to Literature Review 1 16 Figure 2.1 Sponsorship Expenditure 21 Figure 3.0 Roadmap to Literature Review 2 41 Figure 3.1 The Consumer Decision Making Process 47 Figure 3.2 A Representation of Speed and Thompson’s (2000) Conceptual Model 69 Figure 3.3 A Representation of Meenaghan’s (2001) Model of Sponsorship Effects 69 Figure 3.4 A Representation of Grohs et al.’s (2004) Sponsorship Model 70 Figure 4.0 The Conceptual Model 73 Figure 6.0 CFA for Liking/Fan Involvement 142 Figure 6.1 CFA for Sponsor Related Attitude/Beliefs 143 Figure 6.2 CFA for Event Status 144 Figure 6.3 CFA for Exposure 145 Figure 6.4 CFA for Goodwill 146 Figure 6.5 CFA for Sponsor-Event Fit 147 Figure 6.6 CFA for Sponsorship Activity Effect 148 Figure 6.7 CFA for Favourability 149 Figure 6.8 CFA for Image Congruence 150 Figure 6.9 CFA for Intention 150 Figure 6.10 CFA for Interest 151 Figure 6.11 Detailed Initial Model 155 Figure 6.12 Initial Model to Test Hypotheses 156 Figure 6.13 Detailed Final Model 164 Figure 6.14 Simple Final Model for Intention to Purchase 165 Figure 7.0 Sponsorship Effects Towards Positive Consumer Buyer Behaviour 199
xvi Chapter One
Introduction
1.0 Background
Despite the rapid increase in sponsorship utilisation and expenditure, academic research that intimately explains effective sponsorship practice is deficient (Gwinner, 1997). Even in the face of a dynamic and ever-changing business platform, the research that should complement sponsorship development is not as readily available as other marketing disciplines. While Australian and global figures continue to demonstrate that it is a fiscally self-sustaining paradigm of its own (Mason, 2005), conceptually, sponsorship remains somewhat stagnant. The main exceptions to this, however, are Speed and Thompson (2000) and Meenaghan (2001) who made notable contributions to the exploration of effective sponsorships using consumer behaviour models.
For business, sponsorship is no longer considered an insignificant surrogate of advertising, rather, a lucrative and well-popularised form of financial investment. The returns sponsorships can offer on investment are indeed questionable when there is no solid justification to demonstrates that sponsorships actually work. Consequently sponsorship is often viewed as a relatively new marketing term, when in fact it has been in existence for more than a century. The use of sponsorship in its literal term can be traced as far back as the Greek and Roman eras when kings sponsored individual athletes in the Ancient Games (Farrelly, 2003). But it is the past decade that has seen the sponsorship phenomenon intensify, attune mainly to the commercially driven focus of modern business practice. Businesses view sponsorships as an alternative avenue for promotion that can differ from advertising and the popularity of its use is most evident in the expenditure directed towards it. In the mid 80’s, when sponsorship comprised a market worth US$850 million in the United States, it would not have been conceivable
1 then, that it would become the multi-billion dollar industry that it is worth today (Mason, 2005).
The promotional elements of sponsorship and advertising bind the two concepts together, however, the growth of sponsorship can be attributed to the actual differences between the two concepts. A notable reason why companies and businesses have embraced sponsorship derives from the perceived ‘noise’ associated with advertising, especially in the print and electronic media (Mullin, Hardy, & Sutton, 2000). While sponsorship did not sound the death knell of advertising, it certainly acquired a large chunk of company budgets previously allocated towards traditional advertising. Moreover, with rising advertising costs, sponsorship offered a fresh and less cost intensive alternative.
Objectives in sponsorship range from assumption of social responsibility to the commercial objectives normally proposed for advertising such as awareness, recall, recognition and sales (Mullin et al., 2000). From a professional’s perspective, sponsorship can be an effective method of etching consistency and continuity into brand programs (Donelly, 2004). Sponsorship of sport events in particular can provide companies with a geographic market focus and obvious exposure to that market for the brand. While these ideas have been embraced in sponsorship practice, most commonly in sports, a planned and methodological approach for ensuring successful sponsorship implementation is still a necessity. The research that is required to achieve this goal has stimulated the focus for this study.
1.1 Sports Sponsorship
Sports sponsorships no doubt makes up a significant proportion of the general sponsorship market. It is estimated that over 60 percent of the money exchanged through sponsorships is injected into sports and sporting events, and this is equivalent to more than double the sponsorship dollars that is expended towards charities (Helitzer, 2000). The overt commercial nature of sponsorships in modern business practice presents an ironic contention to the philanthropic nuance associated with sponsorship in past literature (D'astous & Bitz, 1995).
2 Despite the array of opportunities for sponsors to engage their target market at sporting events, its impact on the consumer cannot be guaranteed. The major issues that cloud sponsorship effectiveness at sporting events includes the negligence of companies to continuously monitor campaign progress, in addition to activity assessment relative to business aims and objectives. The importance for business to acknowledge that sponsorship is about more than simply exchanging money for exposure has never been more crucial than now with such intense competition and clutter. Such a traditional and simplistic understanding of sponsorship is problematic and subsequently ignores the significant role the consumer plays as a stakeholder in a sponsorship.
1.2 Sponsorship and Consumer Behaviour
A consumer’s response to sponsorship is a developing rationale for research. This is an approach that is very much in contrast to the managerial egos and non-consumer based demands prevalent in the objectives of some sectors of business (Donnelly, 2004). The emphasis for sponsorship brings into focus the commercial benefits that can be attained as a result of its implementation. To take advantage of this, research into the consumer psyche is essential. While sponsorship objectives vary from business to business, all share a common denominator in that they want the sponsorship activity to affect the consumer. Blackwell, Miniard and Engel (2001, p.10) contend that consumer behaviour research is paramount for companies to ensure that they know ‘how to please the king and directly impact company revenues’. From a sponsorship perspective, this could not be any more appropriate. While it is common for companies to use sponsorships as a tool to influence the consumer, consumer research can assist by identifying the drivers that may induce a positive consumer response to sponsorship exposure. As such, this return on investment (ROI) is a significant focus for companies investing in sport and sporting events. Without such knowledge, the basis of the sponsorship campaign is somewhat worthless and economically unfavourable.
1.3 Context of the Study
The unit of analysis used in this study is the consumer. In this instance, the consumer is defined as an individual that has an intent to purchase, or has made a purchase of products and/or services for their personal use (Blackwell et al., 2001). As consumers
3 of sport are at the heart of this research, this study aims to develop a model of consumer buyer behaviour relating to the sponsorship of major sporting events in Australia. The consumer is viewed as one of the three major stakeholders of a sponsorship, in addition to the sponsored property and the sponsor. The sponsored property is also referred to as the ‘event’ in this study. The sponsor is the organisation which acts within assistance, either financial or in kind to an activity for the purpose of achieving commercial objectives (Meenaghan, 1983). This study examines the perceived associations between the consumer and the sponsored property, the consumer and the sponsor, as well as the consumer and the sponsorship activity. The associations are inferred to mutually contribute to an understanding of how to achieve effective sponsorship processes that when implemented, results in positive consumer buyer behaviour.
The conceptual understanding of sponsorship relative to rigorous research is still in its infancy. As such, the paucity of consumer awareness regarding sponsorship (Donnelly, 2004) highlights the subsequent importance and usefulness of this research. Additionally, a large proportion of past research has subsisted on examining sponsorship against a limited number of variables. Very few studies have investigated sponsorship as a holistic process that incorporates an understanding of its effect(s) on consumer buyer behaviour. This behaviour is essentially upheld by the intent of a consumer to purchase a sponsor’s product and/or service.
This study posits that event factors, sponsor factors and sponsorship factors are crucial constructs in determining a consumer’s intent to purchase a sponsor’s product and/or service. It is suggested that they all lead to a post-event, pre-purchase response, which is postulated as the precursor for the transfer of image values. Once this transfer has occurred it is believed to cause a behavioural change in the consumer, encouraging an intent to purchase.
This study is significant for a number of reasons. First it measures constructs that have in the past been examined in isolation, rather than as a synergistic blending of structures and processes. Event status, fan involvement, personal attitudes/beliefs, goodwill, exposure, fit and the transfer of image values are some constructs that have been proven to impact sponsorship response in a number of contexts. However, the extent of their collective impact towards a positive sponsorship response is scant.
4
Additionally, the sponsorship-based consumer studies that have focused on one or two variables, have been limited in scope both in sample size and demographically, i.e. majority of the studies have used student respondents. While the worth of knowledge a student sample can provide is not to be discounted, a much more expansive sample can enable a better understanding of how the community as a whole perceives and reacts to sponsorships. This ensures that findings can be applied to more diverse business situations. As such, the research in this thesis facilitates a better understanding between properties and sponsors, consequently cementing a path towards effective sponsorship management and implementation. Figure 1.0 presents a summary of the research questions and objectives of this study.
Figure 1.0 Main Research Question and Objectives of This Study
Research Objectives
• To develop a model of consumer buyer behaviour relating to the sponsorship of major sporting events in Australia. Research Questions • To identify the key constructs that affect consumer buyer behaviour and sponsorship How does sponsorship effect consumer response. buyer behaviour, hence their intent to • To describe the extent to which key constructs purchase? affect a consumer’s response to sponsorship and their behaviour to purchase. How can sponsorship be used to • To examine the perceived associations influence consumer buyer behaviour? between the consumer and the sponsored property, the consumer and the sponsor, as How can sponsorship be used more well as the consumer and the sponsorship effectively to elicit a positive consumer activity. response? • To investigate sponsorship as a holistic process that incorporates an understanding of its effect(s) on consumer buyer behaviour. • To facilitate a better understanding between properties and sponsors, consequently cementing a path towards effective sponsorship management and implementation
5 1.4 Defining the Determinants of Sports Sponsorship Response
Sponsorship evaluation and effectiveness have been contentious issues in the realm of the literature, suggesting that there is a lack of understanding in this area of sponsorship research. Though the commercialisation of sponsorship is prevalent, well-evaluated and effective sponsorship is reliant on the intricate understanding of consumer cognition and behavioural actions. It is through this understanding that management can exercise relevant and operational objectives. In researching and nurturing this knowledge of the consumer, the detection of attitudes, beliefs and perceptions can be harnessed.
This thesis contends that sponsors and properties that understand the determinants of sponsorship effectiveness are in a better position to implement sponsorship campaigns that will have a significant impact on their target audience. Subsequently, the likelihood of a return on investment multiplies. Additionally sponsors and properties with this knowledge are more likely to engage in an enriched and mutually beneficial relationship as well as having the ability to align brand goals and objectives.
In order to understand consumer behaviour in the context of sponsorship, with the objective of obtaining a favourable response to purchase, the Consumer Decision Process (CDP) model was applied. As conceptualised by Engel, Kollatt, and Blackwell (Blackwell et al., 2001), it was used as the basis for logically arranging relevant constructs that may affect consumer buyer behaviour.
The CDP’s comprehensiveness as a model, which covers the state from which a consumer recognises the need to buy a product to the stage of divestment, made it a suitable candidate for inclusion and use in this research. It is proposed that adapting the model into one that is representative of the sponsorship process can assist in revealing the ways in which sponsorship works to induce positive consumer behaviour. Meenaghan and O’Sullivan (2001), concurs that it is this element of sponsorship research that has its shortcomings.
A classical conditioning framework was also effective in guiding this research. According to classical conditioning, simply pairing one stimulus that spontaneously evokes certain meanings and feelings with another can cause a transfer of these
6 meanings and feelings from one to the other (Blackwell et al., 2001). As a result, this study postulates that the effects of sponsorship may be assessed upon a consumer’s: (1) attitudes towards the event, (2) attitudes towards the sponsor and (3) perception of congruence between sponsor and event. More comprehensively, these attitudes and perceptions were examined against event, sponsor and sponsorship factors. Each consequently impacting upon one another and taking into consideration previous and currently learned attitudes, beliefs, perceptions and behaviours leading to a pre-purchase response. In addition, recall, awareness, favourability and interest measures were introduced as the link between a pre-purchase response and the transfer of image values.
A transfer of image values is exemplified by invoking positive feelings and attitudes towards the sponsor by the close connection between a sponsor to an event the recipient values highly. Ideally, effective image transfer occurs when the image of the event “rubs off” on the sponsor(s). Image values for this study were categorised by: • activity – utilising the right tools to deliver specific image values; • category – the transference of traits by the association of the sponsor to the event/sponsored property; and • congruence – the portrayal of an image (by a sponsor) attune to the property, and one that the consumer wants to or has connected with.
It is proposed that a culminative understanding of each of the factors that may influence a consumer’s behavioural response to sponsorship as well as how they relate and connect with one another is important. Additionally, it is significant in developing and enhancing the progression of the sponsorship phenomenon.
1.5 Examining the Key Constructs of Sports Sponsorship Response
The model for determining sponsorship initiated consumer buyer behaviour, developed in this thesis (as explained in Chapter Four), posits that a pre-purchase response is constructed as a result of the event, sponsor and sponsorship factors, and that these are the antecedents for the transfer of image values. The transfer of image values is purported to be the antecedent of the intention to purchase, which is then followed by the actual purchase.
7 The event factors relate to understanding the positive sentiments a consumers holds of the chosen event (or property), their liking of the event, and their involvement with the event. The sponsor factors are centred upon the attitudes and beliefs the consumer holds of the sponsor, in addition to their perceptions of a sponsor’s prominence and goodwill. Finally the sponsorship factors exist on examining exposure and the level of congruence between the sponsor and event a consumer believes is existent. It is proposed that in defining the level of each proponent the consumer is positively engaged, the likelihood of the consumer partaking in a pre-purchase response increases.
The pre-purchase response is based upon understanding how the event, sponsor and sponsorship factors have developed into more concrete attitudes and beliefs, by assessing firstly, the interest garnered by the sponsorship the consumer was exposed to. Awareness then follows, specifically focusing on the likelihood a consumer is to notice and remember the sponsor. This leads to recall measures, which investigates the impact of the sponsorship’s message on memory. Finally, it is proposed that favourability ensues and this focuses on the sponsorship’s appeal in improving sponsor perception and attitude. It is inferred that the development of a positive pre-purchase response enhances the probability of a transfer of image values to occur.
A successful transfer of image values means success in portraying an image of association; a sponsorship that meets the needs of, and is meaningful for the consumer; and lastly a sponsorship that makes the consumer feel the event and sponsor share a similar image. By achieving a transfer of image values, the intent to purchase and the incidence of actual purchase is deemed plausible. A graphical representation of this conceptual framework can be found in Figure 1.0.
This study suggests that a distinctive route towards understanding sponsorship effects is imperative. This can be achieved through the identification and classification of individual elements and more pertinently, through proposing a comprehensive overview of their interaction. Subsequently, this will assist practitioners in their sponsorship decision making as well as provide an important progression for academics on the road to constructive knowledge (Meenaghan & O'Sullivan, 2001).
8
Figure 1.1 The Conceptual Model
Favour- Recall Awareness Interest Event Status ability
Event Personal Liking Factors Pre-Purchase Response Fan Involvement
Personal Beliefs
Intention to Transf er of Image Sponsor Sponsor Purchase Values Prominence Factors
Sponsor Goodwill Activity Category Image
Level Level Congruence Actual Purchase
Type of Exposure
Sponsorship Exposure Level Factors
Sponsor - Event Fit
9 1.6 Theoretical Contributions
This study aspires to advance and contribute to sponsorship, and more broadly, marketing theory and practice. The sponsorship centric approach to the consumer decision making process (CDP) has allowed for a deeper insight into sponsorship response, and one that is not typical to what has been previously established in sponsorship literature. The detailed nature of this study demonstrates that consumer decision making in sponsorships, is hard pressed to be defined by the generic process outlined in the original CDP model. Rather the complexities arising from the multiple relationships between the consumer, sponsor and sponsored property, means that a multitude of factors come into play. Additionally, the associations made from stimuli exposure to purchase in the sponsorship process, indicates that a transfer of feelings, in addition to meanings, occurs. The role of classical conditioning was also pivotal, most evidently in the development of the conceptual model used in this study. Most research in this domain has focused on the examination of its effects in advertising, opening the door for this study to contribute to the little known effects of classical conditioning on sponsorships, extending upon the research of Speed and Thompson (2000).
Most significantly, this research has contributed to extending knowledge on how sponsorships function as a holistic process, with the consumer at its core. An intimate understanding depicting consumer responses to event sponsorships combining perceptions before, during and after an event is rare, adding value to the rationale for this study.
1.7 Outline of the Thesis
1.7.1 Chapter One
Chapter One provides an introduction and background to the research conducted in this study.
10 1.7.2 Chapter Two
Chapter Two comprises one part of the literature review that explores sponsorship. This chapter focuses on the conceptual understanding of sponsorship by examining the historical background and key developments of the phenomenon. A review and analysis of the role of sponsorship in marketing communications is detailed in addition to the attributes, objectives and evaluative measures often used in business practice. Despite the growth of sponsorship practice, key issues plague its development and subsequent advancement. These are discussed in the final portion of the chapter.
1.7.3 Chapter Three
Chapter Three constitutes the second part of the literature review and examines sponsorship-based literature relating specifically to consumer behaviour. The review demonstrates that the breadth of consumer based sponsorship research is rather limited, however, highlights the key findings that have emerged from past research. The focus of this review remains essentially on positive consumer behaviour as a result of sponsorship, with the consumer decision making process playing a feature role in explaining this rationale.
1.7.4 Chapter Four
Chapter Four formalises the conceptual framework. A model was developed to explain the behaviours and causes that may lead a consumer to make a purchase of a sponsor’s product or service. A rationale explaining the role of event factors, sponsor factors, sponsorship factors, pre-purchase response and the transfer of image values as the antecedents of purchase are articulated. Following the development of the framework, an outline of formal hypotheses is presented.
1.7.5 Chapter Five
This chapter describes the methodology used for the data collection process. This chapter details the context of the research, the unit of analysis and the research design used to collect data. A detailed examination of survey development is presented,
11 including the operationalisation of the constructs. Additionally, key reliability and validity issues are discussed with a description of the pretest conducted to ensure that the proposed questionnaire was suitable for this study.
1.7.6 Chapter Six
Chapter Six presents the major findings of the data collected for this study. Both qualitative and quantitative elements of the data are presented, with a focus on the analysis of data using structural equation modelling (SEM). The model and hypotheses presented in Chapter Four are tested and subsequent results presented. Here, the observation of effects between the antecedents of sponsorship initiated consumer purchase intentions are examined.
1.7.7 Chapter Seven
This chapter involves the discussion of the key findings of the research conducted in this study and managerial implications for the sponsors and properties are presented. Additionally, this chapter examines the limitations of this study and opportunities for further research.
12
Table 1.0 Definitions of Key Constructs KEY CONSTRUCTS DEFINITION The act of assistance, either financial or in kind to an activity by a Sponsorship commercial organisation, for the purpose of achieving commercial objectives (Meenaghan, 2001). The perceived level of stature an event encapsulates on either a national Event Status or global scale. Event Personal Liking Linked to gratitude, liking influences positive consumer sentiment. Factors Fan The extent to which consumers identify with, and are motivated by their Involvement engagement and affiliation with particular leisure activities Personal Beliefs An attitude can be described as an enduring evaluative disposition toward (Attitudes and an object or class of objects (Chisman, 1976). Beliefs represent the basis Sponsor Beliefs) for an attitude toward engaging in a specific behaviour. Factors Sponsor Refers to those sponsors consumers find to ‘stand out’ at an event and/or Prominence in the marketplace. Sponsor Those sponsors who undertake sponsorship as an act of philanthropy or Goodwill in support of a (charitable) cause. Type and Level Refers to the type of sponsorship activity a consumer is exposed to. of Exposure Sponsorship Level of Demonstrative of the amount of time for which a consumer is exposed to Factors Exposure a sponsorship activity. Functional fit describes the thematic relatedness between a sponsor and Sponsor-Event an event while image related fit encompasses the attributes associated Fit with a sponsor and the sponsored event. Recall Relates to the ability of a consumer to retrieve information. Awareness is concerned with how well a recipient (for example, the event patron) remembers the sponsoring company and is a basic concept that Awareness inspires most brand-related goals that aim at marketing goods or services Pre- (Grohs et al., 2004). Purchase Refers to the ability of a consumer to choose one Favourability Response company/brand/product/service over another. Grohs et al. (2004) postulates that interest enhances consumer memory Interest and has the ability to enhance the effects of other constructs and sponsor-property attributes. Relates to how well the sponsorship has worked at utilising the right tools Activity Level to deliver specific image values and how well they have been instilled in the consumer’s mindset. Refers to the traits, that, following event, sponsor and sponsorship Transfer of Category Level factors, as well as the pre-purchase response, has been transferred by Image the association of the sponsor to the event/sponsored property. Values This construct is more concrete in defining whether the image a sponsor Image has conveyed through a sponsorship is representative of the sponsored Congruence property and/or event; and whether the sponsor has portrayed an image a consumer wants to connect with. Intention to Purchase The stage a consumer decides to make a purchase of a product and/or service. Actual Purchase The stage a consumer has actually made a purchase of a product and/or service.
13
Figure 1.2 Roadmap to Thesis Chapters
Step 1: Getting Started Chapter One: An Introduction to the Thesis
Chapter Two: Examining Sponsorship
Step 2: Review of Literature
Chapter Three: Exploring Consumer Behaviour in Context of Sponsorship
Chapter Four: Determinants of Step 3: Developing Sponsorship Response & Model & Hypotheses Framework Development
Step 4: Crafting Instruments & Protocols
Chapter Five: Methodology
Step 5: Data Collection
Step 6: Analysing the Chapter Six: Findings & Results Data
Step 7: Revisiting the Chapter Seven: Discussion Literature
Step 8: Striving for Closure
14 Chapter Two
Key Concepts in Sponsorship
2.0 Introduction
Sponsorship has become an integral component of the modern marketing milieu (Bennett, 1998; Hoek, 1999; Meenaghan & O'Sullivan, 2001). The increasing rigour and competitiveness of modern business has aided its popularity as a means of investment and funding of a wide range of major public events, especially sport (Crompton, 2004; Lee, Sandler, & Shani, 1997; Meenaghan & O'Sullivan, 2001). Actual practice of sponsorship has increased rapidly over the past decade and the incidence of its use is now commonplace (Crompton, 2004; Harvey, Gray, & Despain, 2006; Madrigal, 2001). However, in spite of the scale and recent growth of sponsorship, research in most areas of the concept has been both narrow and limited (Dolphin, 2003; Thjomoe, Olson, & Bronn, 2002). Practice of sponsorship appears to far outweigh literature that examines the concept in detail (Gwinner & Eaton, 1999; Stotlar, 2004). Therefore, this study posits that in order to facilitate a better understanding of the concept, as well as to encourage more effective usage of sponsorship, various tenets of the concept require investigation.
This chapter, in particular, highlights the significance of understanding and identifying key sponsorship objectives and evaluative measures. Rather than focusing solely on the commercial and monetary value of sponsorship, communication, image, brand and related issues are discussed and reviewed. Overall, this chapter examines sponsorship as a multifaceted process rather than as a set of isolated variables. It is evident within the literature that sponsorship constitutes a more complex and diverse gradation than what is historically noted (Speed and Thompson, 2000; Meenaghan, 2001).
15 Figure 2.0 Roadmap to Literature Review 1
Introduction
Chapter Two: Key Concepts of Sponsorship
Sponsorship Definition
Sponsorship Development & Growth
The Role of Sponsorship in Marketing Communications
Sponsorship of Sports and Sporting Events
Sponsorship Objectives
Evaluating Effective Sponsorships
Issues in Sponsorship and Sports Sponsorship Practice
Chapter Summary
2.1 Sponsorship Definition
Akin to its conceptual counterparts, sponsorship is not restricted to a single definition. The proliferation of interest in sponsorship, combined with its widespread appeal in practical applications, has seen the definition of the concept multiply, as well as broaden across a varied cross-section of industries. Sponsorship is therefore not unified as an isolated concept, rather, one that comprises a number of suppositions in accordance to its context. An all-encompassing definition of sponsorship is difficult, if not impossible to make (Hoek, 1999). Despite sponsorship's growth, research remains without a clear theoretical base (Cornwell & Maignan, 1998) and no enduring thorough theoretical definition of sponsorship has been agreed. Cornwell and Maignan (1998) claim that this lack of an accepted definition obstructs the development of theoretical frameworks on
16 which significant sponsorship research might be based. Lee et al. (1997) comment that one important prelude to the evolution of an appropriate level of rigour in empirical studies is the development of an acceptable definition to guide future research. Though Head (1989) has once described an attempt to define sponsorship is like trying to harpoon a butterfly in a gale. Therefore the issue does not regard a lack of definitions for sponsorship, rather, the myriad of interpretations of the concept is diverse and consequently, unclear.
The variability of sponsorship definitions does, however, facilitate the necessity to emphasise the core elements the concept entails. Sleight (1983) contends that the main premise of a sponsorships lies within a profitable business relationship, favouring an outlook towards commercial advantage. More specifically, Meenaghan (2001) purports that the essence of sponsorship transpires within the act of assistance, either financial or in kind to an activity by a commercial organisation, for the purpose of achieving commercial objectives. This notion, is supported transversely by various academic researchers and marketing practitioners (Assimakopoulos 1993; Cornwell and Maignan, 1998). Similarly, Cornwell and Maignan (1998) add that sponsorship involves two activities: a) an exchange between a sponsor and property whereby the latter receives a fee and the former obtains the right to associate itself with the activity sponsored, and b) the marketing of the association by the sponsor. Evidently, sponsorship exhibits an overall link with promotions and marketing (Farrelly, 2002). Knecht and Stoelinga (1988) add that sponsorship is an activity in which a sponsoring organisation supports:
• an association or person for the presentation of sporting, artistic or similar performances of interest to the general public; • organisers of a sporting or cultural event in exchange for mention of its brand name.
The exploitable commercial potential associated with an activity and event (Gwinner & Swanson, 2003) is sought on bottom line results (Bennett, 1998). Therefore it is ideal for a sponsorship to be attributed to a beneficial outcome, or return on investment (ROI). Bennett (1998) cites this as achieving favourable publicity for a company and/or its brands. Surveys conducted in American and European firms concur that sponsorship
17 investments pursue the main objectives of increasing consumer awareness and improving corporate image (D'astous & Bitz, 1995; Gwinner & Swanson, 2003).
The notion of a ‘payback’ is a notable characteristic of sponsorship in the literature (Collins, 1993; Farrelly, 2002), and it is this particular attribute that separates sponsorship from the domain of philanthropy and other forms of charitable donations. According to Gwinner and Swanson (2003) modern sponsorship has moved from a primarily philanthropic activity to a mutually advantageous business arrangement between sponsors and properties (Abratt et al., 1987). Copeland, Frisby and McCarville (1996) posit that a sponsorship is definable upon three principles: a) the sponsor makes a contribution, b) the company’s sponsored activity is not part of its own commercial function and c) the sponsor expects a return in some form. In spite of D’astous and Bitz’ (1995) contention that sponsorships subsist on altruistic objectives, it is obvious the ‘payback’ element of sponsorship is not as palpable in philanthropic investments. However, an intent that both philanthropy and more importantly, sponsorships aspire to, is the creation of value (Aaker, 1996 Brown & Dacin, 1997; Miyazaki & Morgan, 2001; Shilbury, Quick, & Westerbeek, 1998). Yet in order to create value, it is necessary to understand what sponsorship constitutes and how it functions.
2.2 Sponsorship Development and Growth
The commercial dictum of sponsorship as it is recognised today is not a new phenomenon. The word itself has been discovered to derive from the Greek term ‘horigia’, and its use traced back to the Greek and Roman eras (Farrelly, 2002). It is believed that the first incidence of sponsorship occurred during the first Olympics in 756BC. Historical documents note that sports and commerce merged following the first Olympic Race with merchants turning the event into a trade fair in order to demonstrate their wares (Russel, 1987). Sponsorship was then legislated at the end of the 6th Century BC, when the Athenian democracy was established.
In Roman history, sponsorship appeared at the Gladiatorial Games, whereby wealthy Roman patriarchs offered funding of these games (Head, 1981). By the 4th Century BC, wealthy citizens were expected to provide charitable funding. It is documented that despite the philanthropic nuance of these contributions, the patriarchs also used this
18 opportunity to achieve political goals, to win public esteem, and to protect the fortunes of their families (Head, 1981). Such motivations are comparative to the modern corporate and commercial goals of business today. Irrespective of such goals, however, the Games itself escalated to heights that reached exceptionally high demand (Yamauchi, 1980), demonstrating little change to the pronounced stature it boasts today.
When referring to sponsorship, as it is well renowned in the modern era, Mark McCormack is considered a pioneer. In the late 1950’s McCormack, as a talented golfer, could see the potential for sports stars to earn money through sponsorship and endorsements and with that in mind, he sought and acquired from Arnold Palmer an agreement to manage him (Wood, 2004). In the early 1960’s he then went on to establish the International Management Group (IMG) and forty years on is considered a particularly influential figure in the sports marketing and sponsorship industry.
Contemporary sponsorship is now a global affair and one that continues to grow rapidly in the face of a commercially driven environment. While an extensive history ensues when tracing the applied use of sponsorship, scholarly studies of the concept are of more recent origin. Early research on sponsorship first attempted to establish the role of sponsorship in marketing communications (Meenaghan, 1983, 1991) and how sponsor organisations planned, executed, and measured event sponsorships (Abratt et al., 1987; Crowley, 1991; Shanklin & Kuzma, 1992). Cornwell and Roy (2003) have identified that the body of literature that has emerged in the last 15 to 20 years has examined corporate event sponsorship as a distinct marketing communications vehicle that complements a firm's marketing communications program (Cornwell & Maignan, 1998). Additionally, how sponsorships have incorporated various theories in an effort to explain the effects of sponsorship on consumer behaviours has also been examined (Olkkonen, Tikkanen, & Alajoutsijarvi, 2000). However, in spite of the growth in sponsorship interest, it is unfortunate that research in most areas of the concept has been both narrow and limited (Amis, Slack, & Berrett, 1999; Bennett, 1998; Dolphin, 2003; Meenaghan & O'Sullivan, 2001; Pope, 1998; Skildum-Reid, 2004; Speed & Thompson, 2000).
19 2.3 The Role of Sponsorship in Marketing Communications
Sponsorship has seen tremendous growth since at least the 1960’s. Figures from research group Ipsos show UK sponsor spending on sport alone at over 400 million pounds in 2001, and a growth rate over recent years comparable to that of the more dynamic advertising media (Admap, Oct 2002). Worldwide, the Sponsorclick organisation (Admap, Oct 2002) reported total sponsorship spending for 2001 at US$27.4 billion with compound growth running at over 10 percent for the past 12 years. Despite such figures, sponsorship increasingly has to justify itself by meeting specific financial objectives, not merely by appealing to the chairman of the board (Admap, Oct 2002). It is inferred that such figures are nothing more than insignificant numbers unless there is evidence that purports success at both a tangible and intangible level.
The various associations made between a company or brand and non-product elements, such as other organisations or individuals, can influence perceptions of the company and its products (Aaker, 1996; Brown & Dacin, 1997; Miyazaki & Morgan, 2001; Sleight, 1989). It has become apparent that sponsorship is a way for brands to communicate with their target audience by attaching themselves to a trusted property and as such gives the brand an excuse to talk to an audience that is happy to listen (Earl, 2002). The secret of a brand’s success lies not only in the choice of property, but in its ability to activate its sponsorships through consumer promotions, all forms of media, internal communications and public relations. Perhaps the most constructive view comes from former Coca-Cola advertising chief Sergio Zyman who believes that managers need to dump the patronising term ‘sponsorship’ and think of ‘marketing property utilisation’ – and proceed with this mindset (Admap, Oct 2002).
Whilst some academics believe that sponsorship in today’s commercial realm has, or should have, no association with charity or patronage, according to the URL www.sponsorship.co.uk the rationale behind a sponsorship should appreciate that: • it is targeted and cost effective as other elements in the marketing mix; • quantifiable results can be obtained from it to demonstrate success; • it is used as a common denominator that can cross boundaries and display a sharing of common values; • it offers a payback to the community; and
20 • it responds to consumer demand that companies can take a stand on.
It is evident that sponsorships imply a degree of altruism absent from more commercial types of marketing and as such success can be achieved on a small budget, whilst impacting the consumer more powerfully than other marketing disciplines. If used effectively, sponsorship is a powerful communications tool. However the ability to implement effective sponsorship is an issue facing many marketers. While literary philosophy facilitates to some degree elements to achieve this effectiveness, a marriage between those concepts and what occurs in practice is not evident.
2.4 Sponsorship of Sports and Sporting Events
Sports sponsorship no doubt makes up a significant proportion of the general sponsorship market. The injection of money into sports and sporting events is phenomenal and has been estimated to be worth over half of the sponsorship market as illustrated in Figure 2.1. Furthermore it surpasses more than double the sponsorship dollars that is expended towards charities (D'astous & Bitz, 1995). It is well documented that event sponsorship expenditures outstrip estimates of any other type of promotional spending (Donelly, 2004). This demonstrates the obvious commercial value of sponsorships and certainly refutes claims in the literature which suggest that sponsorship is primarily guided by philanthropic objectives (D'astous & Bitz, 1995; Miyazaki & Morgan, 2001).
Figure 2.1 Sponsorship Expenditure
Estimated Sponsorship Expenditure
27% Sport Sponsorship
Mus ic Concerts
7% Festivals, Fairs, Charity, 66% Arts
(IBIS Report, 2004).
21
To say that sports sponsorship is a growth area within the overall sponsorship market would be an understatement. With corporate spending in sports sponsorship increasing from 10 to 15 percent annually, analysts believe that the sports sponsorship market in Australia will reach in excess of A$1.2 billion (IBIS Report, 2004). While Donelly (2004) reported a drop in the sponsorship figure in 2003, the Athens Olympics is considered the key instigator of driving that figure upwards. Additionally, it is believed that there is a huge buyer’s market in big sport. This is due in part to the sluggishness with which big sporting organisations have come to understand that exposure and pre- packaged sponsorships are no longer appealing to sponsors (Donelly, 2004; Miyazaki & Morgan, 2001).
Sports sponsorship has moved from being simply an opportunity for corporate entertainment and brand awareness into a sophisticated brand building, two-way marketing platform. Wood (2004) believes that the major challenge for rights holders as well as brand owners is the ability to successfully activate a sponsorship program so that it achieves all of its strategic objectives. A sports sponsorship agreement, no matter how attractive, will never achieve its full potential unless it is supported by other communication and promotional activities. This takes sports sponsorship into a new dimension – that of experiential communication whereby the audience takes part and shares in the excitement that a successful sports sponsorship has to offer. Wood (2004) concurs that many brand owners still fail to realise the full potential of their sponsorship investments. This is attributable to the old adage that sponsorships are simply donations whereby it is not expected of a sponsor to incur a return on investment, rather than the realisation that the emphasis on value creation for sponsors is vital.
The basic premise behind sports sponsorships appears to be their proposed ability to increase brand (or corporate) equity by means of enhancing brand (or corporate) image (Helitzer, 2000). More specifically, the key goals associated with corporate sponsorship of sports/events are: • enhanced brand image via associations with positively perceived events; • increased goodwill via perceptions of corporate generosity; and • elevated brand awareness due to increased exposure.
22 Morgan (2004) adds that sport engages the fan like nothing else and that rather than being a mere hospitality opportunity, or a route for television exposure, sports sponsorships are a way to harness passion and loyalty. Wood (2004) adds that behind its appeal, sports sponsorships are a relationship-building tool that is not just concerned about brand awareness, but engages with an audience on both rational and emotional levels. At its core is a commercial proposition that provides a return on investment for both the brand owner and rights holder, though Benady (2003) warns that converting competitive success on the field of play into brand loyalty and merchandise sales is still in its infancy.
Sports sponsors range accordingly to the events or target audiences they focus their fortunes upon. This is not to say that sponsors are directly related to the events that they sponsor, rather, they target events that in some way correlates with their main aims and objectives. According to Helitzer (2000), the most common sponsors of sports and sporting events are: airlines, food manufacturers, sporting equipment manufacturers, automotive businesses and beverage companies.
While sponsorship growth encompasses a number of sporting events the world over, the importance of sponsorship to sport is particularly evident in motor sports. Five decades ago corporate marketing was considered a mystery in motor sport, owing partially to the absence of commercial television until the mid-1950’s. Subsequently, there was no global audience (Beck-Burridge & Walton, 2001). Between 1977-80, however, commercial funding of motor sports increased and this improved the wealth of the sport (Beck-Burridge & Walton, 2001). It has now reached a point whereby today neither the global show nor engineering business of motor sport can exist without the large and continuous flow of sponsorship funds (Beck-Burridge & Walton, 2001; Greising, 1996; Miyazaki & Morgan, 2001; Starr & Springen, 1996).
Vehicle wise, stadium sponsorship is a common form of sports sponsorship and its popularity is easily justified by the exposure it can bring a company or business. Stadium sponsorship is generally described as stadium signage and purely by its use, it has the ability to reach the vast audience attending a sporting event. In the case of sports like Australian Rules Football, that audience broadens to those watching the televised broadcast. Stadium signage can take the form of time clocks, banners, equipment and
23 even the turnstiles, which use ‘ad sleeves’ a durable plastic covering for the turnstiles which aims to engage the audience as they enter the stadium. With approximately 20 percent of the gross income of stadiums derived from signage, stadium owners are keen to make use of every possible avenue of promotion (Miyazaki and Morgan, 2001). This is particularly evident with the Olympics, one of the most globally promoted and highly commercialised sporting events in the world (Miyazaki & Morgan, 2001). Along with consistently focused media coverage over the 17-day event, the ability to be an exclusive sponsor in one’s product category presumably aids in avoiding the competitive interference that is typically experienced in other media contexts. In theory, this allows for a more favourable brand image via the unique nature of the brand association (Miyazaki & Morgan, 2001). Research has shown that most consumers generally think that an Olympic sponsor is the best company in its industry (Ho, 1995), suggesting that the Olympics, and subsequently sport/event sponsorships, have image- enhancement value (Donelly, 2004). Despite such results, however, venue sponsorship is a contentious issue amongst several scholars in the industry, with Skildum-Reid (2004) claiming that as a proactive marketing exercise, it has little marketing value. Nevertheless, venue sponsorship, along with technology, is considered a driving force behind the growth of sports sponsorship, supporting its validity as a successful avenue of promotion for companies at sporting events. Digital sponsorships which can take the form of specific logo placement during broadcasts or on screens at the sporting field or stadium have also proven to be particularly popular (Morgan & Summers, 2005).
While the opportunities available to sponsors to engage in a meaningful exchange with a target audience at sporting events are plentiful, the guarantee that an exchange actually occurs is questionable. Donelly (2004) has suggested that without the implementation of proper measures and processes to monitor sponsorship’s fulfilment of its aims and objectives, any opportunities may in fact prove pointless. Therefore sponsors must be clear in what they seek to achieve.
24 2.5 Sponsorship Objectives
A sponsorship typically involves an investment by an organisation into an event or activity in return for some benefit supporting corporate or marketing objectives. Thwaites (1995) proposes that one of the features of sponsorship is its ability to contribute to a wide range of objectives at both the corporate and brand level.
Media, corporate and marketing objectives are the three broad categories of objectives that are commonly examined within sponsorship literature (Pope, 1998; Sandler & Shani, 1992). While often it is not unusual that these three categories intertwine, Pope (1998) suggests that there is a sheer lack of evidence examining the impact and results of the latter two objective categories. Additionally, the range and variety of objectives seems large. They vary from organisation to organisation, from industry to industry, from large organisation to small. Many companies now sponsor events routinely as part of their promotional activities, but Javalgi, Traylor, Grass and Lampman (2001) suggest that these objectives tend to be vague. Cornwell, Roy and Steinard (1994) concede that little research has investigated how sponsorship participation benefits a firm; whilst sponsorship strategies are used to reach a variety of marketing objectives.
Several studies have found that the primary objective of many sponsors is to increase brand awareness and to enhance brand and/or corporate image (Gilbert, 1988; Marshall & Cook, 1991; McDonald, 1991; Quester, 1997; Shanklin & Kuzma, 1992). These objectives are consumer-based outcomes that a sponsor can measure to determine a sponsorship's effectiveness in communicating with the target audience(s). Achievement of these objectives would mean that a sponsorship was successful in strengthening and shaping consumer brand knowledge structures.
More specifically, Javalgi et al. (1991) opine that sponsorship is the underwriting of a special event with the aim of supporting organisational objectives. This is achieved by enhancing corporate image as the impressions of a particular company held by some segment of the public (Johnson & Zinkhan, 1990). Recent interest amongst scholars has begun to focus on managing corporate reputation through sponsorship initiatives. Ashill et al. (2001) notes some empirical work examining intangible returns relevant to consumer behaviour. Hall (1993) reports that company reputation is the intangible
25 resource most focused on by CEO's and that it has long been recognised that intangible assets represent a significant portion of company value.
McDonald (1991) also notes that long-term sponsorships may do much to enhance corporate image. Meenaghan (2001) believes that sponsorships are highly regarded for their perceived ability to enhance corporate identity, awareness or image; though Javalgi et al. (1998) query whether sponsoring an activity for handicapped children produces the same impression of a company that sponsors the fine arts. Despite this, Cornwell et al. (2001) propose that generating brand awareness accrues naturally from sponsorship regardless of the event. Perhaps the sponsor wants to achieve name recognition and raise the profile of the corporate brand. Maybe image association is the strategy. Easton and Mackie (1998) reported that MasterCard International gained significant image awareness simply by sponsoring soccer event, Euro 1996.
In the context of the challenge of managing global brand images, Miyazaki and Morgan (2001) note that the global nature of events like the Olympics (which they describe as the most important marketing opportunity of the decade) is of great interest. They have observed that marketers leverage corporate image into their strategies. As an example, they note that corporate sponsors drew upon the image and aura of the Olympics to market themselves as leaders in their field. Additionally, Crowley (1999) reflects that sponsorships can enhance the promotional message by cutting through the clutter widely affecting mass media advertising. In support of this notion, Erdogan and Kitchen (1998) suggest that sponsorships enable companies to avoid clutter in a cost effective way. Levine and Thurston (2001) propose that clutter and confusion are commonly cited as detracting from any sponsor's ability to present a strong image. Perhaps it can be said that sponsorship is a communication approach penetrating consumer perception filters in an indirect way - overlapping between corporate and marketing communications (Kitchen 1993).
While Meenaghan (1999) suggests that sponsorship is but one factor influencing perceptions to boost community involvement, Mack (1999) suggests that it is an excellent mechanism for an organisation to give back to the community that supports it, and to build relationships, create goodwill and enhance employee motivation. Tripodi (2001) reports that an objective of Ansett Airlines' sponsorship of the Sydney 2000 Olympics was to boost staff morale and productivity levels. On another front, Ho (1995) 26 presented research revealing that most consumers thought an Olympic sponsor was the best company in its industry - suggesting another dimension of impact on corporate reputation. Despite this, Miyazaki and Morgan (2004) report that some executives doubt such value and subsequently, further research is required to validate such findings.
Overall, it is proposed that the absence of clearly defined sponsorship objectives is the first sign of a sponsorship investment lacking proper articulation (Tripodi, 2001). Providing that synergy exists between the activity being sponsored and the brand providing the sponsorship, both sides of the transaction should benefit from the activity. Hoek (1999) however, is quick to add that the benefits of sponsorship do not accrue automatically.
2.6 Evaluating Effective Sponsorships
Sponsorship evaluation is an issue of contention in the literature, with the suggestion that current methods fail to address or understand the full effects of sponsorship activities. Stotlar (2004) believes that a lack of assessment exists because the process of evaluation has not been solidified in theory or practice. Additionally, Hoek (1999) reported in the findings of Witcher et al. (1991) that only 33 per cent (from a UK sample of 140 companies) made any attempt to evaluate their sponsorship programmes. In a survey conducted by Gardner and Shuman (1987), nearly 50 per cent of respondents admitted that they did not measure the outcomes of their sponsorship activities. As the amount of money devoted to sponsorship increases, it becomes imperative for managers to account for the effectiveness of sponsorships (Dolphin, 2003).
Sponsorships, in general, are submissions of commercial opportunities and therefore, the referral to return on investment (ROI) as evaluation is commonplace. Several major corporations, such as Visa, undertake studies in market share gains, or as in Puma’s case, sales volume increases (Donelly, 2004). They are not valid means of sponsorship evaluation, as they do not take advantage of the full scope of returns that can be delivered within sponsorship activities.
Javalgi et al. (1994) cites the increase in the monetary value of sponsorship as one of the contributing factors for the misgivings of sponsorship evaluation. They remark this
27 especially with respect to individuals in charge of sponsorships who are reluctant to measure the effects in the fear of a possible career risk, whereby the sponsorship does not equate to an impressive monetary return. The one-dimensional nature of modern sponsorship evaluative practices, will fail to capitalise financially if the non-commercial effects, such as emotive cues, are ignored. According to Adam Jeffrey of Fit Sponsorship the bulk of measurement is not consumer-centric but asset centric, (cited in Donelly, 2004).
Nicholas Cameron of Starfish Research (cited in Skildum-Reid, 2004) also adds that existing measurement is either media or exposure-based, ignoring what effective sponsorship is about. He says, “essentially, the main problem with sponsorship measurement is cultural. Marketers in Australia are slower to embrace the concept of measurement than our American counterparts. As a rule of thumb in the US, five to seven percent of sponsor expenditure is allocated to measurement, whereas in Australia, we would be lucky to reach 0.5 percent” (cited in Skildum-Reid, 2004, p.22). Additionally, there is also a challenge to get people to believe intellectual property is actually the most valuable part of the equation (Meenaghan, 1991; Parker, 1991; Shanklin & Kuzma, 1992). Donelly (2004) concurs that the use of sales figures as an indicator of sponsorship effectiveness is highly problematic owing to the possible influences of collateral marketing communications inputs, carry-over effects of past advertising, changing economic conditions and entry or exit of competing businesses. The results of sponsorships are typically appraised in terms of awareness levels achieved, attitudes created or altered, prompted and unprompted brand or company name recall. In addition, the extent of television, radio and press coverage, and cost per thousand are also assessed. A common approach is to measure the duration of television coverage of a sponsored event and the magnitude of press coverage obtained in terms of column space and then to compute the cost of purchasing such space or broadcast time (Allen 1990). This is convenient and practicable, but only indicates the extent of the publicity resulting from sponsorship, rather than the impact and effects of the exposure (Kuzma & Shanklin, 1992; Meenaghan, 1991; Parker, 1991). According to Dolphin (2003), properties that understand their brand and understand who their audience is and have detailed research about who is passionate about their property are doing well in the marketplace. Sutton (1999) notes several key points to achieving successful sponsorships:
28
a) Consistency of the brand message Sponsorship is a communications medium that, as Kitchen (1993) has noted, can reach many people very quickly and very easily; and it can be cost effective. But the referred to cost includes investment in the other tools of integrated marketing communications brought into play. These ensure that both the success of the sponsorship and the organisation speaks with a single voice (Heath, 1994). Meenaghan (2002) illustrates the importance of this using the analogy of an orchestra, with each section contributing to the performance.
b) Visual identity A study by Slattery and Pitts (1991), found that recognition rates of sponsors did change positively over time although a surprising 63 percent of the respondents stated that they would not be more inclined to purchase the products of sponsoring companies because the company was a sponsor. Therefore, finding ways in which sponsorships can be portrayed more effectively is imperative.
c) Simplicity Meenaghan (1991) suggests that sponsorship messages are less easy to control than those originating from other parts of the communication mix. Munson (2001) notes that, while the results from sponsorships can be unpredictable, corporations know that when it works the results are unparalleled. Munson (2001) instances the AMEX sponsorship of the American Bicentennial and the restoration of the statue of Liberty, which stirred many organisations into recognising that affiliating with the right cause can add enormous value to their product lines.
Concurrently, Meenaghan (2001) recommends a three-fold evaluation procedure: determination of a company's present position in terms of pre-sponsorship awareness and image with the target audience; tracking to detect movements in customer attitudes towards the firm; and the post-sponsorship comparison of performance levels against initial objectives. A number of theorists have advocated the use of tracking devices to monitor sponsorship effectiveness. McDonald (1991) suggests that tracking measures have successfully been used to measure the awareness, familiarity and preferences engendered by sponsorship. However, Cornwell et al. (1998) note that overall these
29 investigations have been inconclusive. Marshall and Cook (1991) found that although 78 per cent of a sample of 58 UK sponsoring companies evaluated their investments in some way or another, very few of them actually undertook specialised tracking measures (for example, customer mail or telephone surveys) to establish changes in attitudes and purchasing activities. Allen (1990) similarly reported evidence to suggest that only a small number of companies completed any formal evaluation of their sponsorship expenditure, or engaged in any research whatsoever designed to identify the likely interests of target customers. Additionally, a survey conducted by Thwaites (1995) found that while two-thirds of a sample of 30 companies sponsoring UK football teams attempted to evaluate their sponsorship activities, few went beyond the basic measurement of media coverage. Even so, generally unsophisticated methods seemed to be applied. Reasons advanced for not evaluating sponsorship effectiveness included the costs and uncertainties involved, technical research difficulties, absence of meaningful criteria for assessment, and lack of clear initial objectives (Allen & Janiszewski, 1989; Hoek, 1999; Thwaites, 1995). Thwaites (1995) proposes that, if a range of specific objectives is developed, organisations will already have in place a benchmark in which to measure the effectiveness of sponsorship initiatives.
A number of researchers have also documented the need for a systematic approach to sponsorship management and evaluation (Hoek, 1999; Meenaghan, 1998); an area in which Miyazaki and Morgan (2001) note a growing interest but a lack of results. Ashill et al. (2001) comment that it is imperative that managers are able to assess the impact of sponsorships on their target audience, whilst Meenaghan (2001) suggests that rigorous approaches to evaluation have replaced the gut feel factor of earlier experience. Additionally, Kover (2001) proposes that payoff can be measured by:
• attitudinal effects; • direct market effects; and • impact on stock prices.
Stipp and Schiavone (1996) also suggest that the three factors that determine the effectiveness of a sponsorship campaign are: consumer attitudes towards sponsorship; consumer perceptions of the quality of leverage advertising; and the visibility of the campaign.
30 Canning and Sinclair (2004) remark that if sponsorship is to make an efficient contribution to an organisation's communication objectives it is essential to develop a comprehensive framework for its management. Tripodi (2001) proposes that by having measurable objectives, the answer to the question of whether the monies invested were well spent is an easy one at which to arrive. Thus the decision whether to renew a sponsorship becomes easier.
Irwin and Assimakopoulos (cited in Canning & Sinclair, 2004) offer a framework of the key stages:
• review marketing objectives; • prioritise specific objectives; • identify evaluation criteria; • screen proposals; • implement; and • evaluate.
2.7 Issues in Sponsorship and Sports Sponsorship Practice
“Whatever your situation and whatever you decide, sponsorship of major sport is definitely not business as usual right now. If you are involved in big sport, you need to listen to your target markets like never before, expect more of your partners than ever before, and protect yourself like never before (Skildum-Reid, 2004, p.21).
Despite the positive nature of global sponsorship market forecasts, there is still a voice of concern from sponsors who remain to be convinced of a sponsorship’s ability to form a long-term, brand-building activity. Darby (2004) believes the increased effort by the sponsorship industry to quantify effectiveness has been the driver of the sponsorship industry’s growth and its potential demise as a lot of dollars are at risk.
Bing Lee, Bluescope Lysaght and Mitsubishi Electric Australia demonstrated earlier in the 2004 National Rugby League (NRL) season that sports sponsorships extended beyond the simple attachment of a company or business name to a sport or sporting club (The Mercury, 2004). All three companies who were sponsors or potential sponsors of the NRL’s Canterbury Bulldogs, terminated sponsorship deals with the team, following
31 the report of rape allegations involving several of the Bulldogs players. In this instance sponsorship was clearly a multifaceted agreement involving not only the administration entity of the sporting club, but also its individual players. Dabkowski (2004) asserts that scandals and poor behaviour tarnish a sport’s image and makes sponsorships unpalatable. An expert in the sports sponsorship market (cited in Dabkowski, 2004) believes the uncontrollable nature of sports can hurt sponsors and consequently, sponsorships in the modern day must be about risk management (Canning & Sinclair, 2004). Park (cited in Olkkonen et al., 2000) believes that the onus is clearly on the sponsors to make sure that due diligence and risk analysis is undertaken.
Skildum-Reid (2004) argues that with too much money and adulation, sportspeople have lost track of the fact that they and their teams are businesses and that their top two goals are to build their audience and their revenues. Skildum-Reid (2004) adds that while winning certainly helps, care taking of the brands of the players and teams is clearly the biggest component to attracting and retaining audiences and sponsors. Additionally, sponsors need to invest in sponsorship opportunities, not results.
23red managing partner Adam Wylie (cited in Skildum-Reid, 2004) adds that if sponsors strike a benefit in kind partnership, it must be a genuine two-way deal. It is important that the rights holder understands that unless it can supply solutions for its sponsors, the whole market will suffer. If sponsors feel they did not get what they wanted out of the deal, it will depress the price of that event as well as future events. As a result, Flack (2002) believes that brand marketers are beginning to take sponsorships more seriously, and as a result new agencies are springing up to exploit this market.
According to GEM Europe director Nigel Currie (cited in Marketing Week, 25, 44, 2002), the sponsorship industry has evolved so quickly over the past ten years, it has thrown up problems for numerous brands along the way, which in turn leads to an increase in the complexity of sponsorship deals. Currie (Marketing Week, 25, 44, 2002) believes that sponsorships have become a victim of their own success and without a strong relationship with the rest of the company, and a commitment to support any deal it cuts, sponsorships can be left high and dry. Tumbridge (2002) states a good relationship between brand owners and their agents is crucial. Sponsorships can be a vital part of the marketing mix, however, brand owners must be clear about what they
32 want, what they can get and what steps must be put in place to support the sponsorship in order to achieve their goals. Paying the money is the easy part. The main concerns relate to: major sports being a buyers’ market and the significant potential to effect change; the need to target markets, expect more from the relevant stakeholders; and the consideration of protection rights.
Clutter, is well documented as the bane of any sponsorship campaign (Hayes cited in Media, 2004). Research by MEC Media Lab (Media, 2004) discovered that among 13,200 people surveyed across 20 countries, nearly 50 percent believed sports events to be far too heavily sponsored. Despite this finding, sponsorship is still considered a booming global industry (Media, 2004). Culminating from clutter is the questionable value of sponsorship deals with considerable tension mounting between sponsors of individuals, sponsors of teams, sponsors of competitions and even sponsors of the media (Cornwell, Pruitt, & Ness, 2001). Sutton (2000) is also concerned about the pace of sponsorship becoming increasingly cluttered and competitive. Sutton (2000) emphasises that marketers are using sponsorships over more recognised advertising channels to raise brand awareness and sell products, and are increasingly finding the need to standout, have impact and differentiate. Consequently, sponsors must ensure that protocols are set in place that considers branding will play a central role and will subsequently increase the significance of marketing strategies, due to media fragmentation and brand saturation. As a global passion attracting a degree of consumer loyalty unrivalled by any other entertainment attraction, sponsorships will need to tap into the unique and highly emotive link that consumers have with sport. Paying big money will also help, and a consistent implementation and a planned marketing support campaign will assist in cementing the investment (Sutton, 2000).
Like clutter, ambush marketing is also an issue associated with sponsorships as a whole, though particularly in sports, with an increasing need for companies to make sure they have complete exclusivity in an area or risk being ‘ambushed’ (Canning and Sinclair 2004). Ambush marketing is not particularly new, though, according to Elliot (2004), some companies have made it an art.
33 Ambush marketing can induce a negative effect on everyone involved with an event and, in the end, on the sport itself. While it is difficult to stop ambush marketing, some of the ways in which to curb its effect are:
- a brand protection policy; - sponsorship exclusivity; and - pricing the sponsor rights so that they allow marketing budgets to absorb official rights payments and associated marketing costs at or before an event. (Elliott, 2004)
According to Cornwell and Maignan (1998), sponsorships have a fairly loose meaning in sport, covering everything from the traditional patronage of sporting endeavours to highly technical, multiparty arrangements, contractually having more in common with joint ventures, which are now becoming the norm. Flack (2002) believes that in sports today, there needs to be increasingly more advantages offered to an even wider field of potential sponsors. The more desperate sporting properties must therefore offer more and be less particular.
2.7.1 Issues Regarding Sponsorship Research
While the 2000’s have seen the elevation of sponsorship to an elite plateau of business, it is evident that it is no longer limited to a set of simplistic marketing activities, constituting the exchange of currency for exposure. Rather, the main premise of ‘modern’ sponsorship is a multi-faceted and integrated approach for successful corporate communication. While, the principle nature of a reciprocal relationship is not lost at the heart of the sponsorship notion, the complexities that espouse corporate business in modern society, is a contrast to that when sponsorship first came into ‘vogue’ in the 1950’s and 60’s.
Sponsorship is prevalent in a number of key aspects of society, such as the arts, the public sector, the media, and sports (Felt, 2002). While sponsorship itself is not limited to any one division, sport has consistently garnered two-thirds of all corporate sponsorship dollars (Felt, 2002). While key figures indicate healthy growth propositions for the global sponsorship industry, there still appears to be a notable lack
34 of academic research into the actual sponsorship notion and within that, a shallow understanding into the basic principles that apply to it.
Measuring the effects of sponsorship activities is clearly justifiable from the viewpoint of both the sponsor and property to assess the supposed effect of a specific sponsorship campaign. However, there are and have been numerous flaws attached to research in this domain to date. The first being that research of this kind, like any other, is not accurate, though it can be considered somewhat of a snapshot. Secondly, with each sponsorship campaign administered differently to cater for different events, sports, and audiences, it is clearly difficult to generalise what makes a good sponsorship campaign as each must meet a specific goal, that must suit the specific time and situation it is set. The third and final flaw is that most often, sponsorship research is neither in depth nor representative of how a consumer will behave in response to a sponsorship, and how their behaviour evolves over time. A consumer’s attitude may change, and can be affected by memory, or even in the discovery of alternatives, such as another sponsor.
A review by Cornwell and Maignan (1999) concurs that sponsorship research to date has not adopted any specific theoretical framework that could guide investigations of consumers’ reaction to sponsorship. On the other hand, notable academics in the area of sponsorship, including Olkkonen et al. (1999) and Farrelly (2002) believe that sponsorship research is dominated by consumer related research and overlooks other factors such as key relationships in sponsorships.
Hoek (1999) concurs that although sponsorships account for a sizeable proportion of some companies’ promotional budgets, aspects of its management remain undeveloped and surprisingly few companies rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of their sponsorship investments. Despite this, the popularity of sponsorship continues to be evident at some of the world’s most famous events, including the Olympics and World Cup Soccer tournaments. This continued and predicted growth in sponsorship expenditure comes as managers attempt to quantify the returns generated by other elements of their promotional mix. Given that the budgets allocated to sponsorship now often exceed those spent on brand advertising, it seems likely that managers will require a more rigorous evaluation of sponsorship investments. At present, however, sponsorship evaluation remains poorly defined and attempts to assess the effectiveness
35 of promotions are typically ad hoc (Flack, 2002). Hoek (1999) believes that almost all of the sponsorship management research undertaken has revealed a heavy reliance on a cognitive information processing perspective. There exists an uneasy and ill-defined relationship between many of the objectives managers are setting and the behavioural goals they hope to realise. The failure of this perspective to offer clear insights into consumer behavioural responses raises serious questions about the value and logic of the image and awareness goals so often set for sponsorship.
Overall, past research is dominated by a very traditional methodological perspective aiming at quantitative measurement of the main empirical properties of sponsorship- related phenomena. Existing sponsorship literature is also characteristically normative, even "manual-type", including many seemingly practical details of the best practices of sponsorship management (Pope, 1998). It lacks theoretical frameworks and research designs that allow a deeper, action-oriented understanding (Dolphin, 2003). Therefore, this study intends on defying this mould by engaging in a higher and more constructive level of research.
2.8 Chapter Summary
The extent of cited research indicates the growing significance of sponsorship at the strategic level, playing a significant role in marketing and thus in corporate strategy. The benefits from sponsorship are difficult to quantify in tangible terms but are benefits that cannot be disputed. Evidently, further scholarly research is imperative and is likely to confirm the growing importance of the role of this marketing communications tool (Dolphin, 2003).
Lee et al. (1997) contend that as an element of the promotional mix, sponsorship has been a stepchild when it comes to a careful understanding of how it works and its effect on consumers. While the promotional element of advertising has been carefully researched (MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989), sponsorship has rarely undergone systematic study. It is usually mentioned as "war stories" of specific examples which worked well for a company. Consequently, a comprehensive model of sponsorship is not currently available in the literature. Therefore, it is the aim of this thesis to investigate key sponsorship constructs relative to consumer behaviour measures and scales.
36 Past research into event sponsorship has also largely focused on the sponsoring company perspective: issues such as identifying the sponsoring company’s objectives (Cornwell, 1995; Irwin & Assimakopoulos, 1992; Komoroski & Biemone, 1996) as well as the allocation and preference among various sponsorship opportunities such as sport, art and music (Gardner & Shuman, 1987; Meenaghan, 1991; Parker, 1991). Some effort has been devoted to the process and the required input of choosing the best sponsorship opportunities (Cornwell, 1995; Irwin & Assimakopoulos, 1992; Komoroski & Biemone, 1996), however, most of the research efforts have been conceptual in nature. In the few empirical studies, the unit of analysis was the sponsoring organisation.
Several empirical efforts have, however, investigated the objectives companies try to achieve through their sponsoring activities. Early studies found that media objectives were the first priority (Abratt et al., 1987; Waite, 1979), while more recent studies point to a shift in the priority of objectives. In a study amongst 54 large companies in the UK, corporate objectives (e.g., enhancing corporate image) were found to be the leading objective followed by marketing objectives and media objectives (Witcher et al., 1991).
This shift in emphasis increases the importance of understanding consumer reactions to a sponsoring organisation, and in investigating how sponsorship influences their response. Very little research has been conducted to investigate these issues (McDaniel & Kinney, 1997; Sandler & Shani, 1992). Of the handful of empirical studies that have looked at the effect of sponsorship on the consumer, most have measured the impact of the sponsorship effort on the recall and recognition of sponsors. Such results are inconclusive, with some studies showing high levels of recall and recognition (McDaniel & Kinney, 1997) while others show only marginal impact on recall and recognition (Lee et al., 1997). This lack of comprehensive investigation into the sponsorship phenomenon can be attributed to the absence of a widely accepted definition of sponsorship to guide such research efforts (Lee et al., 1997). Therefore, an important prelude to more thorough empirical studies is an understanding that can guide future studies.
Lee et al. (1997) believe that although it has been argued that sponsorship works differently to advertising, there is a lack of theory and knowledge proving such differences. If sponsorship does indeed work differently, then traditional advertising 37 models cannot be used to explain sponsorship explicitly. Therefore the need to develop a distinct model of sponsorship is paramount. However, in order to do this, the consumer must be a central consideration.
38 Chapter Three
Consumer Behaviour and The Role of The Consumer in Sponsorship
3.0 Introduction
Chapter Two defined and examined sponsorship theory and practice. This chapter examines the mechanisms of the sponsorship process that impacts and affects the target audience and individual consumer. A key component for understanding sponsorship effectiveness is simply by understanding how sponsorships work. In doing so, research into the consumer psyche is imperative. While sponsorship objectives vary from company to company, all share a common denominator: the consumer. Blackwell et al. (2001, p.10) contend that consumer behaviour research is paramount for companies to ensure that they know ‘how to please the king and directly impact company revenues’. It is well established that a common goal for sponsors is to shape or enhance consumer behaviour. However, it is also worth noting that research can assist both sponsors and properties by shaping and forming corporate goals and objectives for a sponsorship campaign. The latter parts of this chapter examine the variables that may assist sponsors and properties in achieving this aim.
The consumer is a financial asset that companies and organisations should measure, manage, and maximise just like any other asset (Blattberg, 2001). In the domain of sports and sports sponsorships this cannot be any truer. However, a common issue that often supersedes the importance of the consumer is the incomparable ‘deal’. The ‘deal’ essentially comprising of the contract negotiations between a property and sponsor. ‘Simple mindedness’ could be a way to describe sponsorships which centre on this alone, as understanding what consumers contribute to successful sponsorships is paramount. While Blattberg’s (2001) mantra for building customer equity sounds straightforward, when applying it to sponsorships, the multiple levels of enquiry and research is in fact quite complex.
39
This chapter also focuses on the need for key players in sponsorships to make better decisions. Decisions that are based upon information-based target marketing rather than blanketed mass marketing (Blattberg, 2001). The chain for understanding consumer reactions to sponsorships are indeed multifaceted and do not rely on observing two or three factors alone. There are various themes, ideas and processes that interact to contribute towards a complete understanding. Hence, examining such variables is what will drive efficient and effective sponsorship campaigns. Concurrently, Anderson (2004) concurs that traditional thinking in the area of sponsorship is outdated, with a need for practitioners to understand more concretely the concept of consumer behaviour in order to capitalise on emerging opportunities. Anderson (2004) proposes four key points for consideration. (1) Sponsors must recognise changes and adapt to the new market conditions where consumerism is paramount. Anderson (2004) purports that sponsorship is no longer reliant on a simple handshake solution between the property and sponsor. While the two parties are in control of the who, what, where and how elements of the sponsorship, the driving force behind its success is the consumer. Since they constitute the target focus of the sponsorship, it should be the consumers that drive the factors that underlie a sponsorship (Ashill, 2001; Daneshvary & Schwer, 2000; Funk, Mahony, & Havitz, 2003). (2) Power shift to consumers. Expectations and values are higher. The modern business platform now accommodates an environment where consumers have voices and are no longer confined to the background in business decision making. If consumers want something, businesses must listen, and the application to sponsorship is no different (Donelly, 2004; Skildum-Reid, 2004). Delivering to meet consumer demands will no doubt enhance the attractiveness of a sponsorship, therefore optimising the likelihood of achieving economic and commercial oriented objectives. (3) Mining new value, forget just branding, engage and connect. It cannot be stressed enough that sponsors and properties must be willing to commit resources and processes that focus on this key objective. Whilst branding is important, engaging and connecting with the consumer is imperative for ensuring that a brand possesses some purpose and meaning (Madrigal, 2001). A lack of willingness by businesses to engage and connect with their audience demonstrates that the business is not ready to advance. Fostering consumer relations increases the capacity for ROI (return on investment) to occur. (4) Understand people, a deeper understanding of ‘tribes’. Consumerism in sports conveys an importance of tribe and group mentality.
40
Sports consumers are essentially a group of people bound by a common interest. The core focus of business relies on examining the ways in which sports can bring a broad cross section of people together and how best to utilise that association. The challenge for sponsors is in categorising those groups within the target audience that are most likely to process the sponsorship message and to prioritise them. Thus the task of targeting prospective audiences and doing so with precision becomes an imperative (Dolphin, 2003). Figure 3.0 Roadmap to Literature Review 2
Introduction
Chapter Three: Consumer Behaviour and the Role of the Consumer in Sponsorship Developing Relationships Through Sponsorships
Segmenting the Sponsorship Audience
Consumer Behaviour
The Consumer Decision Making Process
The Psychological Attributes of the Consumer Decision Making Process
Engaging the Consumer Through Sponsorships
Event Factors, Sponsor Factors, Sponsorship Factors
Sponsorship Effects on the Consumer
The Transfer of Image Values
Chapter Summary
41
3.1 Developing Relationships through Sponsorships
Often when companies plan and implement their sponsorship strategies, the consumer is a secondary consideration. When companies do think about the people they are attempting to influence, it tends to be a very generic based perspective based on industry standards, truisms and generalisations (Marketing Week, 2006).
Sports sponsorships are an effective vehicle for reaching consumers, however for a long period, targeting and audience identification have relied solely on demographic data presented in adjunct with television ratings, as well as attendance and participation figures. A more disciplined approach to sponsorship replaces the development of strategic messages and programmes using gut instinct and what sports marketers believe about the typical fan. According to Schiffman et al. (2000), sponsorship in sport has only recently become firmly established as a marketing activity and consequently, the objectives and practice of sports sponsorships in Australia in particular, has been both vague and inconsistent. Essentially, there are many typical groups of fans whose passion for sport must be understood and embraced by marketers if their goal is to maximise their sponsorship and differentiate themselves from the competition. Sports teams and sporting individuals present a major reference group for a considerable proportion of consumers (Schiffman et al., 2000). The quantified insight into why fans are fans is a pertinent and more certain approach for marketers to create stronger, more permanent connections with consumers (Marketing Week, 2006). However, in doing so, such connections must be built on solid relationships, and as a result, the theories embedded in relationship marketing play a key role.
3.1.1 Relationship Marketing and Exchange Theory
The 1990’s saw the relationship marketing phenomenon ascend and become a fashionable concept (Stone, Woodcock, & Machtynger, 2000) overtaking, in essence, the traditional transaction view of marketing, which was considered to be overly clinical and regimented (Brodie, Brookes, & Coviello, 2000).
Relationship marketing and its associated theories play an integral role in sponsorship, bridging the two components of consumer behaviour and sponsorship. Relationship
42 marketing is concerned with finding ways to integrate the consumer into the company, and to create and sustain a relationship between the company and the consumer (Mullin, Hardy, & Sutton, 2000). According to Mullin et al. (2000), consumers of sport are generally highly involved consumers who desire a long-term association with a sports team or branded product. Due to the diversity of the sporting marketplace it is essential to build a relationship with the consumer to retain that person as a repeat consumer (Mullin et al., 2000). Relationship marketing (RM) is defined as the use of a wide range of marketing, sales, communication, service and consumer care approaches to: • identify a company’s individual consumers; • create a relationship between the company and its consumers that stretches over many transactions; and • manage that relationship to the benefit of the consumers and the company. (Stone et al., 2000)
The focus of RM is deeply etched in finding the consumer, getting to know them and keeping in touch. RM is by no means simple nor a short-term process, and the implications of its use in sponsorship are paramount. Surprisingly, in spite of the widespread publicity that RM has garnered, it continues to be a neglected aspect within the broader context of sponsorship utilisation (Anderson, 2004). RM is vital as acquiring customers is usually more expensive than retaining them. RM is particularly important to sponsorships in the sporting marketplace as globalisation and technological sophistication expands. Competition is also more intense and consumers are more demanding (Brodie et al., 2000).
According to Schiffman et al. (1997) relationship marketing requires commitment and trust and is consequently dependent upon clear benefits, shared values and effective communication. The emphasis of relationship marketing is to make the consumers feel good about the company they are interacting with and to give them a personal connection with the business as a result of this interaction (Brodie, 2000; Schiffman et al., 1997; Stone, 2000).
In sport, it is concurred that several pre-existing conditions are present. These include the consumer’s ongoing desire for products or services, the control of the consumer to 43 select the product or service supplier, and alternate suppliers available. In general consumers of sport are highly involved and have a desire for a long-term association. Therefore, as a result of the extremely competitive nature of the sporting marketplace, building a relationship with the consumer is essential (Mullin et al., 2000).
Mullin et al. (2000) believe that sponsorship works as a result of affinity marketing. That is, the level of an individual’s cohesiveness, social bonding, identification, and conformity to the norms and standards of a particular reference group. Affinity marketing comprises a number of specific components and tactics (Mullin et al., 2000) with relationship marketing being one of these. The reference group is characterised by a number of mechanisms, such as size and operation, and sport in particular, can be seen as an attractive market for sponsors.
3.2 Segmenting the Sponsorship Audience
Sports and its various associations merge as the obvious reference group when examining consumers and sports sponsorships. In particular, fan involvement and team association are two specific variables which have direct implications on the sports sponsorship audience. Segmenting the audience is particularly important in marketing strategy, with the concept described as a process of identifying a group of people similar in one or several ways, based on a variety of characteristics and behaviours (Blackwell et al., 2001). In identifying groups of people, communication strategies and activities can be adapted to meet specific needs. In doing so, the likelihood of achieving a positive outcome increases.
3.3 Consumer Behaviour
Understanding the psychological structures that underlie the decisions a consumer makes before a purchase is central to the investigation conducted in this thesis. Consumer behaviour theory demonstrates an integration of psychology and marketing concepts that has a relevant application to sponsorship. Behavioural research in sponsorship tends to favour aspects of memory and perception, more so than the actions that underlie buyer behaviour, such as purchase intention and actual purchase (Funk et al., 2003). Similarly, most evaluation measures exist on simple recall and recognition observations. Despite these shortcomings, it is still necessary to foster a conceptual
44 understanding of consumer behaviour in order to explain its implication in sponsorship research.
Theoretically, consumer behaviour relies on understanding the acts of individuals directly involved in obtaining and using economic goods and services, including the decision processes that precede and determine those acts (Blackwell et al., 2001). Key items for attention subsisting upon the act of the individuals, and subsequent decision processes. Additionally, Grunert (2000) contends that the essence of consumer behaviour is founded upon what consumers want, how they buy and what determines whether they will be satisfied with a product or service. Whilst ostensibly, consumer behaviour appears to be a particularly simple concept, its application to the context of sponsorship obscures the dimensions of its existence. However difficult it may be to encapsulate and grasp consumer behaviour in its entirety, demonstrating willingness towards its use, is fundamental to achieving business, and more pertinently, sponsorship success (Solomon, 2002).
Research of consumer behaviour is a vital mechanism for assisting managers in their decision making and provides marketing researchers, as well as potential sponsors, with a theoretical base from which to observe consumers and make assumptions (Mowen, 1990). More specifically, the comprehension and appreciation of consumer behaviour is considered a distinctive competence for successful business. As such, those businesses who continuously try to understand the consumer and use that knowledge is referred to as ‘market oriented’ (Blackwell et al., 2001; Farrelly & Quester, 2003; Grunert, 2000).
The complexities that engulf the modern consumer market means that the patterns and trends of consumer behaviour are ever changing and differ for each of the circumstances it is applied. Accordingly, as consumer behaviour tends to be affected by any number of internal and external variables, businesses need to continuously examine and monitor consumer behaviour to achieve the successful delivery of timely goals and objectives. Undoubtedly the potential audiences of a sponsorship activity are vast, representing persons in direct and indirect contact with the activity and in the case of televised events, a possible global audience. Consequently, the task for marketers in fostering competence in this discipline is at once both awe inspiring and challenging (Dolphin, 2003).
45
Understanding consumer behaviour is not only important for the retailers who sell to the consumer, but also the ‘actors’ preceding the retailer (Blackwell et al., 2001; Grunert, 2000). Capturing the consumer, and overall market cannot simply be about obtaining a good deal and excess volume. As much of a good understanding is concerned with effectively positioning a brand, product, or service in the mind of the consumer (Schiffman et al., 2001). Additionally, Mason (2005) concurs that encouraging positive emotional attachments has the ability to enable corporate sponsors to alter a consumer’s cognitive structures leading to desirable behaviours. While there is no single or correct method for studying or analysing consumer behaviour, it is said that being open to understanding and adapting to consumer motivation and behaviours is not a choice, but the underpinning of competitive survival (Blackwell et al., 2001). Therefore as marketers strive to make a positive connection with the consumer, finding a suitable way of harnessing a better understanding of consumer behaviour is imperative.
3.4 The Consumer Decision Making Process
It is proposed that consumer behaviour may best be explored through the use of the consumer decision making process. The consumer decision making process (CDP) is both a comprehensive and complete model, which covers the state from which a consumer recognises the need to buy a product to the stage of divestment (though this stage may not be particularly relevant in this study). It is posited that adapting the process to sponsorship, will allow for a general model that may facilitate an overall understanding of the mechanics of sponsorship and lead to discovering ways in which sponsorships can be utilised more effectively.
The desired result of any corporate sponsorship deal is bottom line results, ROI (return on investment); and ultimately, ROI is the reason most corporate sponsorships are undertaken (Brown & Dacin, 1997; K. Mason, 2005; Solomon, 2002). Therefore it is necessary to understand a consumer’s intent to purchase and their behaviour during purchase, as this is what ultimately stimulates ROI. It is in understanding these processes and the effects of sponsorships on consumer behaviour that forms the crux of this research. This insight will enable sponsors and properties to better understand and target their audience as well recognise the potential effectiveness of a sponsorship.
46
Blackwell et al. (2001, p.71) describes the consumer decision making process as a ‘roadmap of consumers’ minds that marketers and managers can use to help guide product mix, communication and sales strategies’. Typically it is surmised that consumers encounter seven stages of decisions in their purchase encounters: need recognition, search for information, pre-purchase evaluation, purchase, consumption, post-consumption evaluation, and divestment (Blackwell et al., 2001). In essence these stages fall into three main phases. The first phase is the phase of pre-purchase, whereby a consumer recognises the need for a product or service, searches for information and makes an evaluation. The second phase is based upon a consumer purchasing or using a product or service. The third phase subsists upon a consumer making a purchase and engaging in a post-purchase evaluation of their experience regarding a product or service. The importance and relevance of the consumer decision making process in the context of sponsorship relies essentially on the dictum of why people are or are not buying products and what to do to get consumers to make a purchase or repeat purchase. The following sections will explain the steps of the consumer decision making process, which is graphically represented in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 The Consumer Decision Making Process
Need Recognition
Search for Information
Pre-Purchase Evaluation of Alternatives
Purchase
Consumption
Post Consumption Evaluation/Divestment
(Blackwell et al., 2001)
47 3.4.1 Need Recognition
Need recognition is in other literature interchangeably referred to as problem recognition, however, in order to save confusion, need recognition will be the term used throughout this study. Need recognition is said to occur when a consumer perceives incongruity between an actual state and a desired state (Grunert, 2000; Kotler et al., 1998). Need recognition may be triggered by either internal or external stimuli with internal stimuli representative of a person’s normal needs, such as hunger and thirst. Conversely, external stimuli may be elicited through sight, sound or touch. When observing need recognition, the means-end chain concept is a constructive means of analysis. Essentially, the means-end concept examines what it is that motivates consumers to buy a product. Schiffman et al. (1997) describes motivation as the driving force within individuals that impels them to action. According to Blackwell et al. (2001), consumer motivation represents the drive to satisfy both physiological and psychological needs through product purchase and consumption. It is a fact that people experience a need, wish or desire. These are often fuelled by unmet physical needs, fantasy or imagery (Schiffman et al., 1997). The course of action that consumers undertake in order to fulfil such needs, wishes and desires vary, however, such actions are essentially based upon a consumer’s thinking processes (i.e. cognition) and previous learning. Subsequently, marketers must be conscious of using motivational theory to influence a consumer’s cognitive processes (Schiffman et al., 1997).
In addition to the use of motivational theory, need recognition itself, has the ability to reveal the barriers to a business’s success (Blackwell et al., 2001). Sponsorship may help activate need recognition by simply reminding the consumer of a need which may be defined by both primary demand and selective demand (Blackwell et al., 2001; Schiffman et al., 1997; Solomon, 2002). Primary demand relates to representing a total product or brand category whereas selective demand is associated more with specific products or product categories. The potential for sponsors is evident in both types of demands, however, it appears that most sponsorship campaigns are focused on the brand and primary demand, e.g. Toyota and the AFL, Garnier and the Australian Tennis Open.
48 Sponsorship by its very existence as a marketing communications vehicle, represents a significant platform for which sponsors can enter into the consumer psyche in order to activate a consumers’ cognitive switch. This idea is a relatively new area of research and as such the potential for research schemes are diverse.
3.4.2 Search for Information
Once a consumer has recognised a need for a product or service, a search for information usually follows (Schiffman et al., 2001). However, the degree to which this function occurs differs in accordance to the situation and product or service the consumer wishes to acquire. In the context of sponsorship, the search for information would be considered a passive search, as categorised in the literature. As sponsorships are carried out with the intention of capturing the attention of the consumer, it would therefore be fair to assume that the consumer is not undertaking an active search. The search component is troubling, to say the least, in the aspect of the word ‘search’ itself. An active sponsorship is a noticeable and somewhat obtrusive vehicle for which the consumer’s attention is hopefully attained. In any way that it is observed, a search does not necessarily occur. However, it is argued that by mere passive observation, a search has occurred. Yet, the degree to which the consumer absorbs and consequently searches further for information is an element of research that lacks considerably in breadth and depth.
Search can also be affected by the type of sponsorship undertaken, hence, the vehicle used to communicate with the consumer. Even if a consumer has experienced need recognition, it does not guarantee that a consumer will continue to search. Consumers may passively engage in a search without actually being interested in the sponsor or the products or the services on offer. Therefore this stage has significant implications for how a consumer’s attention is captured, their interest, and subsequent awareness of what is on offer. There are two types of searches a consumer may undertake. An internal search constitutes the process whereby consumers who have experienced need recognition rely on existing knowledge or stored knowledge from memory towards the process of a purchase. However, some consumers also undertake an external search whereby their internal search is not sufficient and the consumer collects additional information. An external search may also be similarly compared to an ongoing search
49 whereby consumers are motivated to extend their current knowledge state. What role search plays is certainly undefined in sponsorship literature but there are significant implications for understanding how consumers process sponsorship information and how initial exposure impacts a consumer decision to buy (Funk et al., 2003). The process of search is about making better purchase decisions and has subsequent implications for promotional strategy. It is posited that once a search has occurred, a pre-purchase evaluation of alternatives follows.
3.4.3 Pre-purchase Evaluation of Alternatives
In general there is an assumption that in purchase situations, a consumer will have to choose between various options before reaching a final decision to purchase. The evaluation process can be quite simple, however in other cases of comparisons, it can be unique and influenced by a number of key characteristics. In the case of the latter, multi-attribute decision-making is the term used to describe this process. In the case when rules of thumb may be invoked, these rules are known as decisions heuristics, and these may apply in both simple and complex evaluation situations (G. Foxall, Goldsmith, & Brown, 1998).
Although the stages of need recognition and search have been presented as separate tasks in the consumer decision making process, they also collaborate and influence the process of pre-purchase evaluation. How much impact it does have, however, is variable upon the situations and contexts by which it is defined and bound. Before deciding to purchase, consumers have several decisions to make. First they will determine the choice of alternatives. These alternatives are also known as the consideration set (Blackwell et al., 2001). The size of the consideration set may differ, with some consumers having a large consideration set or for those consumers who are loyal to a particular brand or product, the consideration set may be smaller. The consideration set is generally formulated upon the recall of the alternatives available and these are often retrieved from memory and existing knowledge. In this stage, Blackwell et al. (2001) concurs that recall of a business or brand’s offering is particularly important, although at other times recognition may also play an important role. In sponsorship research, both measures are often used to conduct evaluations. However, when consumers don’t rely on existing evaluations, they may construct new evaluations.
50 There are two processes whereby consumers may construct evaluations: the categorisation process and the piecemeal process (Kotler et al., 1998). The categorisation process is a form of evaluation whereby a consumer makes an assessment based on a particular category. For example, in the context of sponsorship, a beverage sponsor may be the sponsor and the consumer may build their evaluation of the product based on the broad category of beverages, and perhaps their desire for a beverage may influence that evaluation. The piecemeal process is a form of evaluation based on bits and pieces of information, generally, the advantages of important dimensions of a brand, product or service. In all circumstances, the implications for sponsorships cannot be ignored, especially as research into this domain is scant. As the antecedent of purchase and consumption, evaluation plays a vital role in the total consumer decision making process.
3.4.4 Purchase Decision and Consumption
Grunert (2000) terms this stage the ‘outcome’ and this is a sufficient and appropriate word to describe what entails the final phase of the consumer decision making process. The ideal ‘outcome’ for a business and in particular, a sponsor, is when the consumer decides to make a purchase (Blackwell et al., 2001). While a consumer may move through the previous stages of the decision process to plan, it does not however, guarantee a consumer will make an actual purchase.
Sponsorship research to date has tended to focus on a consumer’s intention to purchase and has often failed to examine the actions that have led a consumer to an actual purchase. As a consequence, the literature in this area is limited. During the purchase phase, a consumer considers whether they will make a purchase based on when they purchase, what they will purchase, where they will purchase and how they will purchase (Blackwell et al., 2001). Whilst consumer behaviour literature suggests that during the purchase phase a consumer will choose which type of store or specific retailer they will go to, in the case of sponsorship, it is suggested that this stage is more concerned with the actual act of purchase over any other characteristic.
51 3.4.5 Post Consumption Evaluation and Divestment
As the title suggests, this is the stage when a consumer experiences either a sense of satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their purchase. Obviously, this stage applies only to those consumers who do make a purchase. The act of purchase is dependent upon the initial stages of the consumer decision making process and how they have impacted upon one another. Consumer behaviour research tends to examine tenets regarding consumption whereas the context of sponsorship is more concerned with the actions that lead a consumer to make an actual purchase rather than their post purchase experiences (D. S. Mason, 1999; Speed & Thompson, 2000). Overall Grunert (2000) concurs that consumer perceptions of a product or service in this stage is dependent upon communication, previous knowledge and expectations.
3.4.6 Consumer Satisfaction
Satisfaction and dissatisfaction are the two possible outcomes of the consumer’s decision to consume a product or service (G. R. Foxall & Pallister, 1998) and subsequently plays a major role in defining the success or failure of a sponsorship campaign.
Satisfaction entails a consumer’s pleasure from possessing or consuming a product or service (Schiffman, 1997). Additionally, it relates to the overall collection of the cognitive component of knowledge, perception and beliefs (Brown & Cox, 1997). This can be accumulative of the awareness, favourability, interest and recall/recognition measures a consumer attests to a product or service that has been consumed. Failure to satisfy a consumer is destined to result in consumer loss, dissolution and will affect a consumer’s future decision process (Schiffman, 1997). Whilst it is concurred that consumers need not be satisfied completely, they must however, be satisfied ‘enough’ (O'Shaughnessy, 1987).
In the context of sponsorship, the consumer satisfaction variable could be used interchangeably with actual purchase. As mentioned previously, it is this domain of sponsorship research that is deficient and in need of more vigorous investigation. Whilst reports and analyses of the effects of sponsorship on the consumer are available,
52 understanding how the consumer is satisfied is often mistaken with single measures of recall or recognition. What is required is a better understanding of how a collaboration of the main variables that affects a consumer’s decision making process impacts upon consumer satisfaction (Meenaghan, 2001). A way in which this may be achieved is by examining the psychological influences of the consumer decision making process.
3.5 The Psychological Influences of the Consumer Decision Making Process
More so than any other influences, the psychological aspects of consumer behaviour are often chosen as the most important when examining consumer responses to sponsorships. This study aspires to regress from a singular or dyadic examination of psychological influences, to provide a clear and general overview. More specifically, this section examines the theory behind these influences and how they may contribute to a consumer’s response to sponsorship. In future it is suggested that an investigation of individual and environmental differences may further help to enhance knowledge of the psychological processes. It is posited that three basic psychological processes influence consumer behaviour: information processing, learning, and attitude and behaviour change (Blackwell et al., 2001).
3.5.1 Information processing
Information processing looks specifically at how a consumer receives, processes and makes sense of information (Blackwell et al., 2001). It has a direct link to stage two of the consumer decision making process – search for information. Kotler (1998) concurs that as more information is obtained, consumer awareness and knowledge structures become more receptive. Subsequently, the source of information becomes an imperative. The aim of any sponsorship should be to ensure that consumers can select or are exposed to a stimuli that can be interpreted into a meaningful and coherent picture (Schiffman et al., 2001). A stimulus is any unit of input to any of the senses. Examples of stimuli include products, packages, brand names, advertisements and commercials. All these functions are called into play either individually or collectively during information processing which consequently affects the evaluation and use of consumer products (Blackwell et al., 2001; Schiffman et al., 2001; Schiffman et al., 1997) .
53
Several research studies have found that the primary objectives of many sponsors are to increase brand awareness (Cornwell & Roy, 2003) and to enhance brand or corporate knowledge. These objectives are consumer-based outcomes that a sponsor can measure to determine a sponsorship’s effectiveness in communicating with the target audience. Achievement of these objectives would mean that the sponsorship activity was successful in strengthening and shaping consumer awareness and brand knowledge structures (Kotler et al., 1998), allowing for effective information processing to occur. Unfortunately, the extent of research into this domain still requires elaboration, leaving a void in the literature that demands attention.
3.5.2 Learning
Learning comprises another of the psychological influences of the consumer decision making process. Learning concerns the change in a person’s behaviour as a result of experience and occurs through the interplay of drives, stimuli, cues, responses and reinforcement (Till & Shimp, 1998). An interesting point of research is to confirm whether learning occurs following sponsorship exposure and to what extent it occurs. The literature confirms that two streams of learning occur: associative learning and cognitive learning.
3.5.2.1 Associative Learning
Associative learning is an aspect of interest considering the many elements involved in a sponsorship. There can be several stakeholders, all of which may contribute to memory being organised in the form of an associative network.
The increase in consumer attitude normally associated with sponsorships is developed through associative learning, which leads to heightened brand awareness and increased product consumption (Kuzma, Veltri, Kuzma, & Miller, 2003). As consumers become familiar with the brand through sponsorships and develop a positive attitude toward the product, the likelihood of purchase is increased (Speed & Thompson, 2000).
Associative learning, as part of behavioural learning posits that learning is an observable response to stimuli. New interpretations view traditional classical
54 conditioning as associative learning with three principles providing the theoretical underpinning for many marketing stimuli: repetition, stimulus generalisation and stimulus discrimination. As such the implications for sponsorships are plentiful.
3.5.2.2 Cognitive Learning
This type of learning is what Speed and Thompson (2000) and others (Bennett, 1998; D'astous & Bitz, 1995; Jagre, Watson, & Watson, 2001) propose occurs in sponsorship through the classical conditioning framework. The theory of cognitive learning concerns the processing of information in short-term memory that is stored in long-term memory.
Previous experience is not always at the heart of learning. Consumer thinking and problem solving are also indicators of the amount of learning that takes place. Learning based on mental activity is called cognitive learning. Cognitive theory holds the view that learning involves the complex mental processing of information. Additionally, cognitive theorists suggest that a desired response is the act of motivation and mental processes (Blackwell et al., 2001). That is, how information is processed by the human mind: how it is stored, retained and retrieved (Blackwell et al., 2001). A simple model of the structure and operation of memory suggests the existence of three separate storage units: a sensory store, a short-term store and a long-term store. The processes of memory include rehearsal, encoding, storage and retrieval. In the context of sponsorship, cognitive learning has a direct relationship to the sponsorship activity and its impact on the consumer. To date, Speed and Thompson (2000) have identified that this method of learning impacts a consumer’s purchase intent. However, supporting justification is required to confirm the validity of these results.
3.5.3 Attitude and Behaviour Change
Another psychological process that consumers are said to undergo during the consumer decision making process is a change in attitude and behaviour. Depending on pre- existing attitudes and beliefs, the impact of a sponsorship can be examined based on either the reinforcement or the change in a consumer’s behaviour (Shannon & Turley, 1997). Therefore this is vital for understanding the real impact sponsorship may
55 possess and in determining its level of importance in the overall evaluation of consumer action.
A great deal of research emanating primarily from the field of consumer behaviour has found that the repeated exposures generated with sponsorship influences a positive increase in consumer attitude and in behaviour change (Blackwell et al., 2001). Marketers are interested in consumer attitudes towards a specific product or brand because that attitude will affect the consumer’s buying behaviour. However, the examination of attitudes is not simply reliant on exposure measures. Attitudes stem from a series of consumer thought processes. Embedded in these processes are guides as to how a consumer may perceive usual and acceptable ways of behaving as well as a consumer’s consistent feelings and tendencies towards an object or idea (Schiffman 1997). Attitudes are linked relatively closely to both associative and cognitive learning and all three constructs are considered to have a strong bearing on positive consumer outcomes to sponsorship. Therefore this path of research is worthwhile.
3.6 Engaging the Consumer Through Sponsorships
This section briefly examines the key constructs that may impact upon a consumer’s perception and receptiveness of a sponsorship.
3.7 Event Factors
An overview of the literature suggests that event factors play an important role in most aspects of a consumer’s response to sponsorship. Status, liking and fan involvement are the three most significant factors identified to affect a consumer’s behavioural pattern.
3.7.1 Event Status
It is believed that regard for a high status event leads to a more favourable response from the consumer (Stipp & Schiavone, 1996). Additionally, Speed and Thompson (2000) contend that event status is the antecedent of favourability and interest. An assumption based on fundamental marketing literature suggests that favourability and interest are an imperative linkage to purchase intentions (Kotler et al., 1998) providing
56 an opportunity to research what role status does play in sponsorship response and effectiveness.
Status appears to be a self-sustaining concept and the actual impact of its effect on the consumer and effective sponsorship is potentially significant. The traditional perception of status suggests that it has the ability to create opportunities for sponsors as a result of the high regard consumers have for an event that is well known and as a consequence has high visibility. A study by Stipp and Schiavone (1996) examining the Olympics found that status positively affected image, most evidently through a rub off effect the event had on its official sponsors (Stipp & Schiavone, 1996).
To date there has been little done in the way of status research in the context of sponsorship, therefore validating the rationale for further investigation into the topic.
3.7.2 Liking
An assumption is often made that if an event is liked, a favourable response should then ensue as a result. In sponsorship, it is believed that personal liking of an event has a significant connection to purchase intentions (Speed & Thompson, 2000). Yet what liking constitutes remains undefined alongside its effect on consumer response. In theory, liking is defined as the perceived benefits a consumer believes they may receive from an event. Crimmins and Horn (1996) suggest that gratitude often arises from those who have a strong liking for an event, with Kotler et al. (1998) concurring that liking is concerned with how a consumer feels about a product. It is also inferred that liking is related to building favourability, with promotional tools often having the ability to affect liking also. While this element of consumer behaviour is not intimately discussed in either consumer or sponsorship related literature, it does offer an opportunity for further discussion.
3.7.3 Fan Involvement
Fan involvement is considered to be a vital component for determining sponsor recognition, attitude towards sponsors, sponsor patronage, and satisfaction with sponsors (Gwinner & Swanson, 2003). Consequently, this comprises an important market segment for sports sponsorship managers. Gwinner and Swanson (2003)
57 contend that the higher the level of fan involvement, the better the response to a sponsorship.
Fan involvement and team association is important in the understanding of sponsorship mechanisms as it represents an indirect form of persuasion that can affect a consumer’s perception of a brand by its linkage towards a property that the target audience is already highly identified (Crimmins & Horn, 1996). The intensity to which the consumer or fan is involved with a particular activity provides a useful framework against which the concepts of goodwill, perceptions of benefit, image transfer, and related consumer responses can be understood (Meenaghan, 2001).
Consumers are more likely to adopt behaviour advocated by an association (group) if they identify with the group (identification). Furthermore, if they perceive the source (association) as credible and as an expert in the products which it endorses, consumers are likely to purchase a product (internalisation) (Kotler et al., 1998). Team identification can also moderate the effect of attitude on purchase intentions. Past research has found that consumers highly identified with a team formed behavioural intentions that were consistent with the goals and objectives of the group they associated with (Madrigal, 2001). Despite the potential importance of fan involvement and team identification in the consumer decision making process, issues abound regarding external influences, which may endanger the positive effects of the concept’s existence (Madrigal, 2001). Benefits may denigrate unless businesses ensure that disturbance of what is traditionally a positive aspect of sport marketing, does not occur.
3.8 Sponsor Factors
As advocated by Speed and Thompson (2000), sponsor factors are likely to affect a consumer’s interest, favourability and use of a sponsor’s product or service. The three key factors identified are: attitudes and beliefs towards a sponsor, sponsor prominence, and perceived sponsor goodwill. Research that explains the direct links between these factors is still in its infancy, therefore requiring further verification of these results.
58 3.8.1 Attitudes and Beliefs Towards the Sponsor
Obviously, any existing attitudes and beliefs consumers’ hold of sponsors will purposely, or inadvertently affect sponsorship response and the extent of such a response (Blackwell et al., 2001; Mullin et al., 2000). The important consideration is identifying how pre-existing attitudes and beliefs are moulded over the duration of sponsorship exposure and whether they change.
Results of Kuzma et al.’s (2003) study demonstrated that the introduction of negative information about a corporate sponsor negatively influenced consumer attitudes toward the sponsor, the sponsorship, and purchase intentions. These negative influences caused the perception of the sponsor/property relationship to be distorted.
An attitude may be defined by an emotionally charged idea which predisposes a class of actions to a particular class of social situations (Triandis, 1971). According to Mason (2005) all attitudes have affective, cognitive and behavioural components. Simply put, attitudes and beliefs are related to what consumers like or what they dislike. Blackwell et al. (2001) postulates that holding a favourable attitude and belief is a prerequisite for consumers to hold a favourable purchase intention or consumption intention. However it must also be considered that a favourable attitude or belief does not necessarily mean that a consumer will intend to make a purchase. How these attitudes and beliefs are harnessed in sponsorship is still in need of consideration. In sponsorships, sponsors hope the positive feelings a consumer associates with a sponsored property will transfer to the sponsor. Mason (2005) suggests that a factor that may influence the effect of a sponsorship on consumer attitudes and beliefs is accessibility of the cognitive element of the attitude or belief. Levin (2001) concurs that the greater the prominence of cognition in consumer memory, the greater the impact on a consumer’s attitudes and beliefs.
3.8.2 Prominence
In addition to attitudes and beliefs, Cornwell and Roy (2003) state that consumers draw inferences about a brand based on its market prominence. Johar and Pham (1999) concur that sponsor identification is biased towards companies that are prominent in the marketplace though Meenaghan (2001) fails to acknowledge the role of prominence in
59 his conceptual model. Johar and Pham’s (1999) study involved only a small sample, suggesting a need for further verification of the results. Prominence would mean that global corporations would more likely incur the benefits of a positive response as a result of their exposure, though there is still a need to understand how such a bias operates. In one study it was suggested that sponsors with low brand equity should not expect to be accepted as an event sponsor by the target audience simply because they had paid the rights fee to be associated with the event (Bloxham, 1998). Yet it was conceded that sponsors with high brand equity appeared to reap greater benefits from their sponsorships regardless of the type of linkage employed (Cornwell & Roy, 2003).
3.8.3 Goodwill
Goodwill is not commonly associated with the highly competitive domain of sports and sponsorships, however, Speed and Thompson (2000) identify that there is evidence to support that a positive response and interest in a sponsorship is contingent upon the perceived goodwill of the sponsor and the sponsorship activity. Conversely, the nature of goodwill is indeterminate and remains to be classified though D’astous and Bitz (1995) contend that any sponsorship has philanthropic qualities in its wake. This line of research is highly contentious yet particularly interesting.
Mason (2005) suggests that a feeling of “good corporate citizen” in a sponsorship can affect how consumers view a business and/or their products or services. Bloxham (1998), Hoek (1997), McDonald (1991) and Meenagahan (2001) contend that the goodwill element of sponsorship is what differentiates itself from advertising. As one form of marketing communications, a focus group study found that sponsorship is seen to benefit society by the way of message subtlety and the hidden commercial intent of the communication (Meenaghan, 2001). The goodwill component of sponsorship is said to lower the defense mechanisms of a consumer therefore making them more receptive to the sponsorship activity.
It is proposed that goodwill occurs on three levels: the generic level, the category level and the activity level. At the generic level it is suggested that the sponsorship is seen to benefit the general property that is being sponsored. The category level of goodwill is associated with the type of property that is being sponsored. At the activity level, it is
60 proposed goodwill is acknowledged on the basis of its perceived benefit to the consumer (Meenaghan, 2001). The overlap between the commercial objectives and philanthropic perceptions of a sponsorship offers researchers an interesting route for investigation.
3.9 Sponsorship Factors
Sponsorship factors are those factors linked directly to the sponsorship activity. It is proposed that two key factors affect a consumer’s response to a sponsorship: exposure and sponsor-event fit. A detailed examination of these factors can be observed in the following sections.
3.9.1 Exposure
Blackwell et al. (2001) describes exposure as the physical proximity to a stimulus that allows one or more of the five senses to have the opportunity to be activated. Exposure is also related to entering the person’s sphere of existence. This construct has particular implications for how a consumer accesses the target market and as such, importance is laid upon the media, promotional programs and distribution channels used by a business to convey their sponsorship message.
The type and level of exposure a sponsor receives may have a significant impact on sponsorship response though little has been examined in regards to sponsorship type in previous research, and is considered more a measure relevant to advertising.
Exploring what exactly captures the attention of the consumer is of particular interest, as is the motivation for a consumer to respond positively. Lardinoit and Derbaix (2001) found television to be more effective then field sponsorship due to the lengthy and consistent levels of exposure, though further evidence is required to support this finding. Concurrently, Speed and Thompson (2000) identify exposure measures as a direction for future research. While the profiling of management practices research shows that media exposure monitoring is the most widely used method of sponsorship evaluation, sponsor awareness and sponsor association with the sponsored property are also regarded as important indicators of sponsorship effectiveness and requires investigation.
61
3.9.2 Sponsor-Event Fit
Sponsor-event fit, or congruence, is identified as another key component of determining sponsorship response and one that enhances personal liking of the event. Additionally, it is deemed to have minimal effect on the perceived status of the event or attitudes about the company (Speed & Thompson, 2000). This contradicts Johar and Pham (1999), as well as Rifon and Choi’s (2004) line of contention that sponsor-event fit has an overall mediating effect on response. On the other hand, Jagre et al. (2001) concur that a moderately inconsistent fit in fact assists sponsorship response and this is inadvertently demonstrated by the number of high profile, global companies who continue to sponsor events without a seeming or obvious ‘fit’. However, the challenge lies in understanding more comprehensively, why this is so.
Cornwell and Roy (2003) found that consumers who perceived a brand and event linked together via sponsorship as being congruent, tended to have more favourable affective responses towards the sponsoring brand than consumers who viewed the sponsor-event linkage as being less congruent or incongruent. Using the match up hypothesis and schema theory as explanations, the findings clearly demonstrate the benefits of a good match-up between a brand and an event. This study was one of several recent papers to have found a relationship between sponsor-event fit and a positive consumer response.
Event sponsorships are considered to possess either logical or strategic links. A logical or self-evident link refers to a link between the sponsor and event, such as brand use being associated with the event. A strategic link refers to sponsoring an event that forges a link between the target audience the brand wants to reach and the event’s audience. Using the match up hypothesis as an explanation of how consumers evaluate sponsorships, it is conceivable that using either a sponsorship with a logical link or one with a strategic link can develop favourable consumer responses. Image transfer from event to brand has been found to occur for sponsorships with both functional linkages and image-based linkages (Gwinner & Eaton, 1999).
Fit also has a specific bond with congruence and congruity theory. Jagre et al. (2001) confer that congruence and congruity theory has been applied to various aspects of
62 social psychology with the onus on its effect on memory and attitude formation. Congruence is related to the value of harmony between thoughts, feelings and behaviours. Solomon (1996) suggests that consumers feel the need to maintain uniformity amongst these elements. While D’Alessandro (1998), Jagre et al. (2001), Kate (1995) and Taylor (1999) suggest there is limited research that focuses on the compatibility of sponsor and event attributes to maximise communication potential, Johar and Pham (1999) found that sponsor identification was biased towards those brands who were semantically related to the event being sponsored.
3.10 Sponsorship Effects on the Consumer
This section investigates the potential effects of a sponsorship on the individual consumer. It is inferred that these effects are most likely to occur in the pre-purchase phase of the consumer decision making process.
3.10.1 Interest
Interest is quite self-explanatory however its role in sponsorship research appears to be deficient and as yet, undefined. Established research by Zajonc (1980) suggests that intervening attitudes such as interest and liking are not necessary for a response to a stimulus. As such, this notion, which relates to mere exposure effects, is often used as a basis for consumer based sponsorship research. Whilst research using this foundation warrants attention, it would be ignorant to overlook the value of interest having established that fan involvement, team identification, and favourability have a role in the overall sponsorship process. It is possible that interest may be cultivated over the duration for which a consumer is exposed to a sponsorship and while not formally proven, interest is purported to influence the sponsorship process and consumer response.
3.10.2 Recall and Recognition
Undoubtedly, recall and recognition has been a consistent source of research in the field of sponsorship, essentially as they are measures and techniques imported from conventional advertising research (Meenaghan, 2001). Recognition is related to being familiar with something by having seen it before. More cognitively demanding,
63 however, is recall, which is related to the retrieval of information from memory. Despite considerable popularity, it must be recognised that sponsor recall and recognition tests are merely first-line measures of sponsorship impact, and do not themselves serve to facilitate a complete understanding of consumer engagement with sponsorship (Chattopadhyay & Alba, 1988). What previous research has found, however, is that higher levels of recall and recognition can predict positive attitude abstractions (Dolphin, 2003) and higher levels of receptiveness (Lardinoit & Derbaix, 2001). Despite these findings, there is still a lack of sufficient evidence that establishes a concrete foundation for understanding the total effects and effectiveness of sponsorships. Nevertheless, this does not discount the worth of understanding levels of recall and recognition, especially in a densely cluttered and competitive sponsorship environment (Johar & Pham, 1999). In the same instance, low recognition rates for official World Cup sponsors show that simply throwing a lot of money at a major event doesn’t always work. It is surmised that while they are simplistic forms of measurement, achieving recall and recognition can be a challenging process.
3.10.3 Awareness
Awareness is described to intrude on the event audience through event and corporate sponsors. It is related to a consumer’s knowledge of a business, brand, product or services’ existence. Awareness is interrelated with recognition and some elements of recall. It can also be assessed as a consequence of action. If the target market is unaware, building awareness is imperative to ensuring that a business or brand is at the top of a consumer’s mind, especially when it comes to making a purchase (Kotler et al., 1998). It is important for consumers to know who the sponsor is and what they represent. Hoek (1999) suggests that of those companies that do attempt an evaluation, most track awareness among target audiences over time. However there are issues with assessing this as a sole measure.
In a survey at Euro 2000, headlines claimed that the event had failed its sponsors after an awareness study revealed almost half of the respondents could not name one of the 12 official sponsors (Grunert, 2000); therefore a lift in sales and awareness was not guaranteed. Grunert (2000) concurs that a key objective of any marketing campaign is to ensure adequate awareness levels amongst the target audience. One major issue that
64 surrounds awareness is that it can be selective. Of all the things that may surround a consumer during the day, week or year, or even at the time of sponsorship exposure, only a small amount of what the consumer is exposed to is perceived (Blackwell et al., 2001). This mechanism ensures that the human mind is not ‘overloaded’ with information (Speed & Thompson, 2000). What is integral to both sponsorship and marketing research, is grasping the crux of what assists communications that raise awareness amongst consumers.
3.10.4 Favourability
Speed and Thompson’s (2000) sponsorship research identified favourability as a factor integral to the overall development of building positive consumer sentiment. It was discovered that a consumer’s general attitude towards the sponsor was positively related to a response to a sponsorship. Previous conditioning research has highlighted the importance a favourable disposition may have on purchase decisions (Blackwell et al., 2001); however, research into this particular aspect of sponsorship is limited. Favourability is not specifically related to what a consumer may like in a brand or product. Rather, at the core of favourability is the ability of a consumer to choose a brand, or product, or service over another. Similarly, a preference for a particular brand demonstrates a consumer’s favourability towards that brand. In the consumer decision making process, favourability is an element of the pre-purchase evaluation phase (Meenaghan, 2001), therefore, it signifies the stage in which a consumer determines their choice. In examining favourability in the context of sponsorship, it is suggested that sponsors make a notable and significant impression. However, in order to understand exactly how such impact is fostered, alongside what variables favourability constitutes, sponsorships must be examined as a sequential process of antecedents and outcomes. After all, favourability is ‘one’ of a series of response mechanisms. While favourability has strong links to the formation of the consideration set in the consumer decision making process, further enquiry into this sphere of research is imperative.
3.11 The Transfer of Image Values
It is suggested that an outcome of the pre-purchase evaluation phase is the transfer of image values. Image transfer represents a much sought after sponsorship objective,
65 however, image effects have received considerably less research attention than have recall and recognition. This is perhaps understandable given the more problematic nature of the image evaluation task (Meenaghan & Shipley, 1999). Image transfer is commonly referred to as the transfer of brand image, which is related to the linkages a consumer holds in their memory structure. These linkages are also referred to as brand associations and they may be developed from a variety of internal and external forces. It is suggested that if a sponsor’s image has linkages with the sponsored property, in the consumers’ mind a transfer of image values has occurred. Gwinner and Eaton (1999) postulate that if a transfer of image values has occurred, sponsors must consider the deals made with the property, as well as exposure issues, congruence issues and positioning goals and objectives. As image predisposes the consumer to act, working towards directing behaviour and communication towards establishing a common vision of reality and symbolism (Ferrand & Pages, 1999) is essential. The following sections examine the three methods of image transfer.
3.11.1 Activity Level Transfer
Sponsorship essentially lives in the reflection of the sponsored activity, with the sponsor and sponsored activity becoming involved in a symbiotic relationship with transference of values from the activity to the sponsor (Speed & Thompson, 2000) and to the consumer. Contention lies in understanding whether the values of the sponsor are in fact translated to the consumer with a positive impact and whether this has a subsequent effect on intent to, and actual purchase.
Image transfer at the activity level is linked to the understanding of promotional effects which suggests that each particular media vehicle possesses its own personality and consequently transfers specific image values (Meenaghan, 2001).
3.11.2 Emotive Level Transfer
Blackwell et al. (2001) and Grunert (2000) define emotional value as a reaction to a cognitive appraisal of events or thoughts that are accompanied by physiological processes, and may result in specific actions to cope with or affirm that emotion. Sponsors would hope a consumer would make a repeat purchase as a result of the
66 positive emotional values held by the consumer towards the sponsor, their product(s) and/or service(s).
In the past, marketers have embraced the power of passion-based marketing as an effective engagement tool. There is now a greater need for a more strategic approach to the development of sponsorship activation. This has led organisation Octagon to developing passion drivers research; a methodology that quantifies why fans are fans, and enables marketers to activate their sponsorship programmes based on an in-depth insight into their motivations and passion for their sport (Marketing Week, 2006).
Emotional value can also be influenced by the characteristics of sign value, whereby social significance is attached to the brand, product or service the consumer has been acquainted with. The more sign value a product has, the more involved consumers tend to be with the purchase (Hoek, 1999). In sponsorship, and especially that of sports, the emotional nuances are unmistakable and subsequently, this reason alone justifies the rationale for research in this area.
3.11.3 Image Congruence
Sponsor-event image congruence is identified as another key component of determining sponsorship response and one that enhances personal liking of the event (Speed & Thompson, 2000). Additionally, it is deemed to have minimal effect on the perceived status of the event or attitudes about the company (Crimmins & Horn, 1996; Gwinner & Eaton, 1999; Johar & Pham, 1999; McDaniel, 1999; Speed & Thompson, 2000).
Several studies have utilised either schema theory or congruence as an explanation of how consumers respond to event sponsorships (Johar & Pham, 1999; Pham & Johar, 2001). When consumers are exposed to information about a sponsorship, a schema- based explanation of consumer response suggests that information about the sponsor and event are accessed from memory and the new information is compared with the schema. These schemas are used to make judgments on the appropriateness of a product and event presented together via a sponsorship. Results from these studies concur that consumers who perceive fit or relatedness between a sponsor and an event generally have more positive responses to a sponsorship, including sponsor recognition (Gwinner & Eaton, 1999), image transfer from event to sponsor (Speed & Thompson,
67 2000) and favourability towards a sponsor. Subsequently, supporting research is necessary.
What has been examined thus far offers an overall impression of the various factors and constructs that have been established or examined to somewhat of a limited capacity in regards to sponsorships and consumer buyer behaviour. As described, each of these factors or constructs have influenced consumer buyer behaviour to some extent, however, there is a need for further empirical investigation to support this notion as research to date has been more antidotal. As marketers continue to face issues and challenges in every aspect of the marketing concept, the necessity for research into consumers and sponsorship will always be present. The following three models are representations of the key conceptual frameworks illustrating the link between sponsorships and consumer response.
68 Conceptual Frameworks of Relevant Consumer-Based Sponsorship Studies
Figure 3.2 A Representation of Speed and Thompson’s (2000) Conceptual Model
Customer Perceptions of Sponsorship
Event Factors
Status of event
Sponsorship Personal liking for Response the event
Customer Interest
Exposure Sponsorship Factors to Sponsorship Sponsor-event Fit Favorability
Sponsor Factors Use
Attitude to sponsor
Sincerity of sponsor
Ubiquity of sponsor
Figure 3.3 A Representation of Meenaghan’s (2001) Model of Sponsorship Effects
Sponsor Process Response
Intensity of Contingent Goodwill
Generic Category Favourable Transfer Intent to Actual Sponsor Individual Communications Filter Filter Awareness Disposition of Image Purchase Purchase Activity Values
Intensity of Fan Involvement
69 Figure 3.4 A Representation of Grohs et al.’s (2004) Sponsorship Model
Brand Prominence
Pre-Event Sponsor Image
Event-Sponsor Fit
Sponsor Awareness Post-Event Sponsor Image
Event Involvement
Event Image
Exposure
Moderating Sponsor-specific Effects
Drivers of Sponsor Awareness Image Transfer- Regression Model
3.12 Chapter Summary
Sponsorship is often observed as a management centric issue when in fact, the consumer plays an integral role in both its planning and application. However, the consumer in many instances is overlooked as nothing more than a number. Though quantification studies has its benefits, in order to fully understand what leads a consumer to act positively as a result of sponsorship, consumer behaviour research is essential. Consumer behaviour is an umbrella term for the number of ways for which the factors that underlie a consumer’s actions can be understood. While in some ways simple, the concept’s application in the context of sponsorship can be varied and complex. As a result, a number of key factors that may directly influence the consumer in the sport sponsorship market were observed.
Conceptually, relationship marketing (RM) theory made a notable inclusion as one method of gaining a deeper insight into successful sponsorships. RM elicits that the identification, creation and management of consumer relationships is of paramount importance. In particular the identification of the sponsorship audience is vital in allowing a sponsor to adapt to, and meet the specific needs of their audience. Additionally, the testaments of previous studies suggest that engaging in a relationship with the consumer is crucial – yet difficult. This difficulty is compounded by the lack
70 of consumer based sponsorship research that examines the ways in which a sponsor may ‘engage’ a consumer. One way, however, of overcoming this pitfall is by using a systematic approach for evaluating consumer responses – the consumer decision making process model. It is suggested that this model, in conjunction with psychological consumer attributes and emotive cues, may assist a sponsor in ensuring that a sponsorship is effective. While there have been a number of sponsorship studies that have examined one or a few particular aspects of consumer behaviour and sponsorship, there is still a necessity for the observation of consumer behaviour and sponsorship as a holistic process. The gaps in the literature suggest that there is a need to develop a generalised model, which not only examines the factors that influence consumer response to sponsorship, however, also observes the process of consumer action. It is negligence in this area of research that will stunt the growth of sponsorship development, especially in the wake of an increasingly fast paced and evolving business environment. Therefore, the need to engage in deeper sponsorship research has never been more prominent and the following chapters will examine how this extension of research will be undertaken.
71 Chapter Four
Determinants of Consumer Response to Sponsorship and Development of the Conceptual Framework
4.0 Introduction
The aim of this chapter is to formalise the conceptual framework drawn from the diverse range of marketing literature examined in the review that spans sponsorship, sports marketing, advertising, consumer behaviour and psychology. The hypotheses are also presented with supporting justification.
A route towards understanding effective sponsorship is supported by the plight to understand the significant role of the consumer. The conceptual framework model presented in Figure 4.0 attempts to explain the determinants of effective sponsorship through the examination of consumer buyer behaviour. This model postulates that six major constructs may lead a consumer to purchase a sponsor’s product(s) and/or service(s), this of course constituting the desired outcome for a return on investment (ROI).
The model in Figure 4.0 demonstrates that a sequence of consumer behaviour takes place whereby property/event factors, sponsor factors and sponsorship factors lead a consumer to a post-event, pre-purchase response. From this response it is suggested that a transfer of image values occurs. Following this transfer, the model suggests that an intent to purchase and then finally, actual purchase takes place. It is surmised that sponsorship invokes sequential behavioural patterns, which strengthen across a continuum following exposure to a sponsorship activity. The success of influencing a consumer to move from one phase to another is dependent upon this strength.
72
Figure 4.0 The Conceptual Model
Favour- Recall Awareness Interest Event Status ability
Event Personal Liking Factors Pre-Purchase Response Fan Involvement
Personal Beliefs
Intention to Transf er of Image Sponsor Sponsor Purchase Values Prominence Factors
Sponsor Goodwill Activity Category Image
Level Level Congruence Actual Purchase
Type of Exposure
Sponsorship Exposure Level Factors
Sponsor - Event Fit
73 At the core of this conceptual model are two key frameworks: the consumer decision making process (CDP) model and the classical conditioning framework. The CDP was introduced as a way of understanding how consumer buyer behaviour works and as a way of adding structure and sequence to the many elements deemed to effect consumer behaviour following sponsorship exposure. Additionally the potential to use it to underpin a more general sponsorship model to assist in exploring the mechanics of sponsorship effectiveness was evident. To begin with, the skeleton of the CDP model was used as the foundation of this model. As highlighted in the literature review, the CDP model is a comprehensive yet simple model, which outlines the state from which a consumer recognises a need to purchase a product to the stage of divestment. It is inferred that in the context of this study, sponsorship acts as a trigger for a consumer to make a purchase, which then influences them to feel and act in a certain way that may or may not lead them to make a purchase.
The original CDP model consists of three phases across a continuum. Phase one consists of the three stages of pre-purchase, i.e. need recognition, search for information and evaluation. Once a need has been recognised by the consumer, a process of search related sequences transpire, which may occur on a direct or indirect level. Consumers may retrieve knowledge internally from memory, or externally from peers, friends or the marketplace (Blackwell, Miniard, & Engel, 2001). Essentially, sponsors count on consumers processing information passively through their attention of a sponsorship activity. As Blackwell et al. (2001) indicate, marketers must really possess an intimate knowledge of this phase. If they know what consumers need and similarly, desire, they have a better idea of what to provide. They can do this through not only their products and services, yet more importantly, through effective communication programs and communicative channels, in this instance, the selected sponsorship activity.
As the search for information emerges across the continuum, the consumer then proceeds to the stage of evaluation. Consumers use new or pre-existing evaluations in the step towards making a purchase. As situations differ, evaluation criteria and processes diverge. It is the understanding of this stage that is integral for encouraging effective sponsorship as it examines the specific impact the sponsorship has had to this point that affects whether a consumer chooses to make, or not make a purchase. Blackwell et al. (2001) confer that this is problematic for marketers as understanding the
74 attributes that consumers use in the evaluation process affects both marketing and promotional strategy. Salient attributes include such factors as price and reliability, whilst determinant attributes comprise of elements such as brand, style and finish. In the scope of this study, it is important for sponsors to examine how to effectively present their best and most compelling attributes in a limited space and time.
Phase two of the CDP model has two stages, i.e. purchase and consumption. Once evaluation has occurred, an ideal situation postulates that the consumer proceeds to make a purchase, which then subsequently leads to consumption. Consumption occurs at the stage when a consumer takes possession of a product or uses the services it has purchased. Whilst it is safe to assume that a consumer may traverse the initial three stages of the CDP as intended, there is certainly no guarantee that they will make a purchase as a result of it. Consequently this leaves what appears to be a void in current sponsorship related literature, yet an opportunity for examination.
Phase three has two stages, i.e. post consumption evaluation and divestment. How the consumer uses the product is often an indication of their satisfaction with their purchase and their intent to repurchase which entails the process of post consumption evaluation. Divestment refers to the disposal of the consumers’ purchase, which, in this particular scope of research, was not relevant and was therefore excluded in the conceptual model for this study.
In addition to the CDP model, Speed and Thompson’s (2000) body of work in “Determinants of sports sponsorship response” also played a figurative role in framework formation. As one of the only empirically tested sponsorship models designed to assess consumer response, it was deemed both a relevant and important inclusion in the development of this study and subsequent conceptual model. Speed and Thompson’s (2000) response model was inspired by the classical conditioning framework. Subsequently their proposal of sports sponsorship effects comprised of an assessment of a consumer’s: (1) attitudes towards the event, (2) attitudes towards the sponsor and (3) perception of congruence between sponsor and event. According to classical conditioning, simply pairing one stimulus that spontaneously evokes certain meanings and feelings with another can cause a transfer of these meaning and feelings from one to the other (Blackwell et al., 2001).
75
Whilst the CDP model and Speed and Thompson’s (2001) model were both relevant and appropriate for guiding this study, it was equally important that the framework be informed by a selection of other sponsorship research, which both supported and contrasted Speed and Thompson’s (2000) research. It is expected that the inclusion of a vast range of academic work will allow this research to complement its objective of presenting a complete examination of sponsorship effects and its overall effectiveness. Using previous results and findings to guide the model, the research aims to include important constructs significant to sponsorship effectiveness and consumer buyer behaviour that were also excluded in Speed and Thompson’s (2000) model.
76 Table 4.0 Major Findings of Relevant Consumer-Based Sponsorship Studies
Author/s Year Key Findings D’astous and Bitz 1995 Found the link between a sponsor and property influences consumer reactions. Businesses wishing to improve image need to choose a property with moderate to strong links. The greater the interest in the property, the better the impact on corporate image. Gwinner 1997 Showed the transfer of image effects is impacted by the degree of similarity between a property and sponsor. The image of a property and sponsor is not necessarily affected by the level or frequency of sponsorship. Low involvement products exhibit positive outcomes from sponsorships. Lee, Sandler and 1997 Evidence shows that consumer attitudes towards a property, Shani commercialisation and behavioural intent are prominent across three major sporting events. Pope 1998 Awareness can affect consumption levels however the values affected are not always the same as those which impact product use or brand attitudes. Bennett 1999 Demonstrated that sponsorship is a powerful communication device, enhancing brand awareness and recall in addition to creating perceptions of widespread use of a sponsor’s product(s). Johar and Pham 1999 Found sponsor identification is biased towards prominent brands that are semantically related to a property. Prominence and relatedness benefits consumer recollections. Nicholls and Roslow 1999 Showed that the overall correlations for brand recall and brand preference was significantly high. Madrigal 2000 Favourable purchase intentions are more likely to occur when team identification increases as well as when intentions are perceived as a group norm. Speed and Thompson 2000 Demonstrated fit, sincerity and perceived ubiquity of the sponsor were the main factors contributing to a favourable consumer response. Liking and event status had differing significance. Event fit had interaction effects with perceived status and personal interest in an event. Johar and Pham 2001 Brand prominence is a confirmation cue to validate or conflict with consumers’ vague recollections of a sponsorship. Prominent brands that were identified or misidentified benefited from an enhanced brand image. Madrigal 2001 Demonstrated that an attitude towards purchasing a sponsor’s product was highly related to purchase intentions for low, rather than high, identifiers. Gwinner and Swanson 2003 Found team identification to be an important consideration when assessing sponsorship effectiveness. Kuzma et al. 2003 Showed that exposure to negative information about a sponsor negatively affected a consumers’ attitude towards the sponsor and purchase intentions for the sponsor’s products. Rifon et al. 2004 Found a fit between a sponsor and property generates consumer attributions of altruistic sponsor motives, enhances sponsor credibility and attitude towards the sponsor. Harvey, Gray and 2006 Evidence demonstrated that sponsorship has recall and persuasion effects. Despain Additionally, sponsorship has positive business effects based on different cognitive processes that can include perception change.
77 It is evident in the literature review that past sponsorship research has concentrated more on the behaviours of consumers leading up to a purchase and has failed to examine the effects of sponsorship for those who purchased. This is surprising considering that sponsorship is not deemed completely effective, particularly by modern corporate standards, if it has not met its ROI.
Since this study explores the sponsorship of major sporting events the conceptual model demonstrates that seven major components for exploration exist, they are: the event factors, the sponsor factors, the sponsorship factors, pre-purchase response, the transfer of image values, the intention to purchase and actual purchase. These constructs were extracted from a number of key sponsorship based studies as well as the CDP model. As a result it was identified that pre-purchase response is dependent upon three constructs: event factors, sponsor factors and sponsorship factors. Transfer of image is reliant on pre-purchase response, which is inclusive of the sub-constructs of recall, awareness, favourability and interest. Intention to purchase is dependent upon the transfer of image values at the activity level, category level and image congruence. Finally, actual purchase is dependent upon a consumer’s intention to purchase.
While there is growing interest in assessing the impact of sports and entertainment sponsorships (Copeland, Frisby, & McCarville, 1996; Hoek, 1999; Thomas, 1996) many sponsoring companies do not have formal sponsorship evaluation systems or procedures. Post hoc cost-benefit analyses of sponsorship values are often complicated and ambiguous (Miyazaki & Morgan, 2001). However, this study will demonstrate that sponsorship can be assessed and observable upon a lucid and sequential process.
It is suggested that such a mapping of a route towards understanding sponsorship effects, through the identification and classification of individual elements and more pertinently, through proposing a comprehensive overview of their interplay, may provide a guide to practitioners in their sponsorship decision making as well as provide an important advance for academics on the road to a deeper insight into this phenomenon (Meenaghan, 2001). It is hoped that the results from this study will enable sponsors and properties to better understand and target their sponsorship plans as well as recognise sponsorship’s effect on consumer behaviour. The following sections will
78 examine the conceptual model in more detail, explaining the constructs and sub- constructs which comprise its design.
4.1 Event, Sponsor and Sponsorship Factors
The phase comprising of the event, sponsor and sponsorship factors pertains to the time period leading to and including the duration of the event. These constructs are representative of when the consumer recognises or is prompted of a need to purchase a product or service and in doing so, uses both internal and external factors to determine their decision and subsequent actions. Further to this, Speed and Thompson’s (2000) model of consumer perceptions of sponsorship is founded on a consumer’s attitudes towards the event, the sponsor and perceived sponsor-event congruence. The basic assumption is that the higher the status of the event, the more an event is liked, and the greater the involvement of the fan, the more likely the fan is left with a positive sentiment (Speed & Thompson, 2000). Likewise, further to this, the more positive the sponsor and process attributes, the greater the interest in the sponsorship. But whether this results in a response to purchase or actual purchase remains to be investigated.
4.2 Event Factors
4.2.1 Event Status
Put simply, the status of an event refers to the perceived level of stature an event encapsulates on either a national or global scale. An example would define the Olympics as a high status event with its worldwide exposure and involvement of 150 sporting nations. Conversely, a local baseball game would constitute a low status event. Additionally, Speed and Thompson (2000) concur that event status plays a key role in providing indirect benefits to individual respondents who may not have a personal liking for the event. As a result, it is believed, and has subsequently been proven that regard for a high status event leads to a more favourable response from the consumer (Stipp & Schiavone, 1996). Various event characteristics such as the professional status of performers, or the venue at which the event is staged, can impact upon one’s overall assessment of the event’s status (Gwinner, 1997).
79 Concurrently, Speed and Thompson (2000) contend that event status is the antecedent of sponsor favourability and interest, however, not for use (purchase). A basic assumption based on fundamental marketing literature suggests that favourability and interest are vital factors towards purchase intentions (Kotler, Armstrong, Brown, & Adam, 1998), providing somewhat of friction in determining to what extent event status plays a role in consumer buyer behaviour relating to sponsorship. Literary evidence suggests that incongruence in such findings and theory requires further investigation. To date, past research favours the notion that events perceived to be high in status tend to equate to a positive sports sponsorship response. However, the intensity of research into this area of sponsorship is minuscule in comparison to other elements of the sponsorship process and therefore needs further investigation. To verify or refute what has been previously presented, the following hypothesis was developed.
H1: The level of perceived event status is an antecedent of a positive pre-purchase response. i.e. (Event Status → Pre-purchase Response)
4.2.2 Personal Liking
In sponsorship, it is believed that personal liking of an event has a significant connection to purchase intentions with Speed and Thompson (2000) inferring that liking corresponds to the perceived benefits a consumer receives directly form the event. Additionally, Crimmins and Horn (1996) concur that this construct has a link to gratitude, consequently influencing positive consumer sentiment, and as such has the ability to affect favourability and advocate preference (Kotler et al., 1998). Yet the confines of what liking constitutes remains undefined and whether such levels of liking do in fact affect the variability in response. By definition, each sponsorship involves a direct tie to an event. Consumers may have different attitudes towards different events, which may affect the levels to which a sponsorship achieves its objectives. Attitudes toward the event reflect consistently favourable or unfavourable responses to an event. This would be seen as relatively straightforward, with a consumer’s action(s) representing an accretion of their experience over time (Lee, Sandler, & Shani, 1997).
A common assumption made in both marketing literature and in psychology is the more something is ‘liked’, the more favourable the response that is attained. While this is 80 somewhat of an obvious idea, the importance of having this component in the study is to understand how personal liking may, or may not interconnect or perhaps, influence, other components of a consumer’s buyer behaviour. As mentioned previously, event status was believed to have the ability to influence the favourability of a consumer response without necessarily being affected by personal liking. It is also believed that personal liking of an event has a significant connection to purchase intentions (Speed & Thompson, 2000). Therefore the following hypothesis is proposed:
H2: Personal liking of the event is positively associated with a pre-purchase response. i.e. (Personal Liking → Pre-purchase Response).
4.2.3 Fan Involvement
Fan involvement refers specifically to the extent to which consumers identify with, and are motivated by their engagement and affiliation with particular leisure activities. The phenomenon of fan involvement provides a commanding explanation of social behaviour as witnessed in fan responses to rock music stars and the fanatical loyalty of sports fans (Meenaghan, 2001). Social identity can be thought of as one’s self- conception as a group member. As such, characteristics of the group, such as perceived prestige, should be salient in the strength of an individual’s identification with a particular group (Bhattacharya, Rao, & Glynn, 1995; Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Fisher and Wakefield (1998) found empirical evidence to support their argument that the personal relevance of a particular object, situation, or action was an important dimension in the development of identification with a particular group. Fan involvement can also help to explain the very different reactions of consumers to individual sponsorships.
In a sponsor/property relationship there is positive emotional orientation toward the sponsor who bestows benefit on the consumers’ favoured activity. This is mediated by the intensity of fan involvement and in turn forms the basis of consumer reaction to the sponsor (Meenaghan, 1999). More specifically, Gwinner and Swanson (2003) suggest that fan involvement is considered to be a vital component for determining sponsor recognition, sponsor patronage, and satisfaction with sponsors. Gwinner and Swanson (2003) contend that the higher the level of fan involvement, the better the response to 81 sponsorship. Mason (2005) equally contends that the one thing that seems to be known for sure is that highly involved fans seem more receptive to sponsorship.
Focus group interviews demonstrated that increased event or fan involvement in a particular sponsored activity evoked a positive emotional orientation toward the sponsor (Meenaghan, 2001). Furthermore, highly involved fans were the most aware of the sponsor’s investments. High involvement reduced the number of incorrect sponsor attributions to 56 percent in a study conducted during the 1998 World Cup Soccer in France. Additionally, Hansen and Scotwin (1995) presented evidence to suggest that involved sports fans had significantly higher recall than those not involved. Similarly, Madrigal (2001) discovered that highly identified individuals were more likely to act in a manner that was congruent with what was good for the object regardless of their objective attitude towards that behaviour. The notion of evaluative consistency suggests that there will be a transference of affects such that identification with a sports team will be positively related to attitudes toward a corporate sponsor of that property (Madrigal, 2001). Hence the following hypothesis is proposed:
H3: Fan involvement is positively associated with a pre-purchase response. i.e. (Fan Involvement → Pre-purchase Response).
4.3 Sponsor Factors
4.3.1 Personal Attitudes and Beliefs
To understand how sponsorship affects a consumers’ attitude it is first necessary to understand what an attitude is and how it functions. An attitude may be defined as an idea charged with emotion, which predisposes a class of actions to a particular class of social situations (Triandis, 1971). An attitude can also be described as an enduring evaluative disposition toward an object or class of objects (Chisman, 1976). Beliefs represent the basis for an attitude toward engaging in a specific behaviour.
Any existing attitudes and beliefs consumers hold of sponsors will purposely, or inadvertently affect their response to a sponsorship and the extent of such a response (Blackwell et al., 2001; Mullin, Hardy, & Sutton, 2000). An important consideration is 82 in identifying how pre-existing attitudes and beliefs are moulded over the duration of sponsorship exposure and whether there is any change. Moreover, interattitudinal models of cognitive consistency suggest that people’s attitudes tend to be linked to one another in molar cognitive structures. This view is consistent with findings by Shavitt et al. (1992) who have reported that a distinct function of an attitude and belief is to symbolise and express a person’s self image through identification with salient reference groups (Madrigal, 2001).
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) have argued that the proximal predictor of an intention to act in some way is an attitude toward that behaviour. They also note that any effect of beliefs and the perceived importance of those beliefs on intentions are fully mediated by that attitude.
Speed and Thompson (2000) concur that positive attitudes and beliefs towards a sponsor are positively associated with intentions to attend to, favourability towards, and willingness to consider a sponsor’s product. Thus, understanding a fan’s attitude and belief towards a sponsor may play a role in understanding consumer purchase behaviour. This forms the basis of the fourth hypothesis which can therefore be stated as the following:
H4: Personal attitudes/beliefs are indicative of a positive pre-purchase response. i.e. (Personal attitudes/beliefs → Pre-purchase response).
4.3.2 Sponsor Prominence
Johar and Pham (1999) concur that sponsor identification is biased towards companies that are prominent in the marketplace though Speed and Thompson (2000) fail to acknowledge the role of prominence in their study. Johar and Pham’s (1999) study involved only a small sample, suggesting a need for further verification of the results. Prominence would mean that global corporations would likely incur a more positive response as a result of their sponsorship, though there is still a need to understand how such a bias operates, whether it is a singular or a combined effort inclusive of the components mentioned in this conceptual model.
83 As sponsorships cannot pass on specific information about a product or service, consumers need to have a basic knowledge about the sponsor and its product category (Grohs et al., 2004). Only then, can the consumer connect the information conveyed by the sponsorship to establish knowledge and value structures, thus enhancing recall.
Principles of contingent source identification suggest that constructive reliance on relatedness and prominence should be less likely when the memory record of the event- sponsor association is readily accessible (Pham & Johar, 2001). Johar and Pham (1999) empirically demonstrated that consumers engage in a process of mental construction that favoured prominent brands as well as firms whose activities could be related in some way to the sponsored event. According to the theory of attitudinal inertia (Derbaix, 1995) less prominent firms and brands enjoy less internalised and thus less stable attitudes than their more established counterparts. Parallel to these findings, hypothesis five concurs that:
H5: Sponsor prominence is positively associated with a pre-purchase response. i.e. (Sponsor Prominence → Pre-purchase Response).
4.3.3 Sponsor Goodwill
Goodwill and/or the perception of goodwill are considered to be a critical component of assessing how consumers will relate to a sponsor. Although the actual act of sponsorship is led by commercial objectives, the perception of the sponsor undertaking sponsorship as a means of “goodwill” so far appears to add more favourable weight towards the sponsor. As such, it is stated as a common reason of sponsorship’s differentiation to advertising (Meenaghan, 2001), with D’astous and Bitz (1995) concurring that the chance of superior results from sponsorship increase if a sponsor’s intentions appear philanthropic. Despite this finding, this area of research is still underdeveloped in current sponsorship literature, yet proves to be one that is very interesting.
Goodwill would not be commonly associated in the highly corporatised world of sport and sponsorship. However, Speed and Thompson (2000) identify that there is evidence to support that a positive response and interest in a sponsorship is contingent upon the 84 perceived goodwill of the sponsor and the activity. In one such study it was discovered that the perceived goodwill aspect of Olympic sponsorship had a major impact on the consumer (Stipp & Schiavone, 1996). Commercial sponsorship, as a generic form of marketing communications is seen as involving benefit to society. It is seen as subtle and indirect, involving a disguised intent to persuade resulting in the lowering of consumer defense mechanisms (Meenaghan, 2001), therefore, it is hypothesised that:
H6: The level of goodwill attributable to a sponsor is positively associated with the pre-purchase response of a consumer. i.e. (Goodwill → Pre-purchase Response).
4.4 Sponsorship Factors
4.4.1 Type and Level of Exposure
The type and level of exposure a sponsor receives may have a significant impact on sponsorship response. Little has been examined with regard to sponsorship type in previous research, and is considered more a construct relevant to advertising. However, sponsorship can be undertaken in various forms, from sportswear to broadcast rights and it is finding out what exactly captures the attention of the consumer that is of particular interest, and furthermore, how it motivates them to respond positively. For example, Lardinoit and Derbaix (2001) contend that television can be more effective then field sponsorship due to the lengthy and consistent levels of exposure though further evidence is required to support this finding.
A factor, which may increase the effect of sponsorship on consumer attitudes, is the accessibility of the cognitive component of the attitude. If the cognitive thoughts/beliefs are prominent in consumers’ memory the impact will be greater on their attitudes and thus their behaviour (Levin, 2001). Hence, for those consumers drawn to particular sporting events, marketers can use sponsorship to increase the frequency of exposure for their marketing messages and have greater impact on consumer attitudes.
The most commonly reported methodology for evaluating the results of sponsorship is based on measuring the quantity of exposure the sponsoring brand achieves through 85 media coverage of the event (Cortez, 1992). Although exposure alone has been shown to influence liking of the exposed items (Bornstein, 1989; Zajonc, 1980) measurement of exposure cannot provide direct evidence of sponsorship’s effect on a targeted audience’s level of brand awareness or image (Speed & Thompson, 2000). Nor is it sufficient to determine goal attainment at later stages of sponsorship participation (Meenaghan, 1991). However, there is a substantial body of research that suggest that in most circumstances exposure is necessary and as sponsorship is a strategic and conscious process, the consumer’s attitude towards different attributes of a promotion plays a major role in shaping their response to that promotion (Speed & Thompson, 2000). Therefore the next couple of hypotheses are postulated thus:
H7: Type of exposure is positively associated with a pre-purchase response. i.e. (Type of Exposure → Pre-purchase Response).
H8: The level of exposure to sponsorship is significantly associated with a positive pre-purchase response. i.e. (Level of Exposure → Pre-purchase Response).
4.4.2 Sponsor-Event Fit
Most academic studies distinguish between a functional fit and an image related fit. Functional fit describes the thematic relatedness between a sponsor and an event while image related fit encompasses the attributes associated with a sponsor and the sponsored event. With all else being equal, companies and brands that seem to be related to an event are more likely to be identified as actual sponsors (Grohs et al., 2004).
Empirical studies of functional congruence support its ability to enhance image transfer from event to sponsor (Gwinner & Eaton, 1999), sponsor recall (Johar & Pham, 1999), and likeability of a sponsor (Haley, 1996). Congruent sponsorships can create product differentiation (Amis, Slack, & Berrett, 1999) and increased market share (Chandon, Wansink, & Laurent, 2000), whereas incongruent sponsorships slow image transfer (Meenaghan, 2001). The effects of congruence have been explained through schema theory (Cornwell & Maignan, 1998; McDaniel, 1999) but some elements of the explanation are missing. Cognitive explanation for congruence effects assume that incongruence or a mismatch yields a greater number of inferences and as a result, 86 facilitates recall of the sponsor’s name based on the development of a stronger, more elaborate schema.
Fit matters because high fit sponsorships are consistent with what would be expected from a business, whereas low fit sponsorships are not. This difference affects the clarity of a business’ positioning, and it alters the processing of sponsorship information to influence how well the sponsorship is liked (Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006). Therefore the following hypothesis is proposed:
H9: Sponsor-Event fit contributes to a positive association with a pre-purchase response. i.e. (Sponsor-Event Fit → Pre-purchase Response).
4.5 Pre-Purchase Response
Fundamentally, the communication effects of sponsorship vary according to the degree to which the individual consumer is involved with the sponsored activity. In the case of the uninvolved audience, the effects of sponsorship are quite limited. In the case of the involved audience, several levels of communication effects arising from sponsorship can be detected and these are similar to the multistage process central to the understanding of advertising effects (Meenaghan, 2001). The role of pre-purchase following from the event, sponsor and sponsorship factors, to one as antecedent to the transfer of image values is important to understanding purchase intent and actual purchase. The following sections will examine this construct in more detail.
Pre-purchase response is comprised of four sub-constructs, i.e. recall, awareness, favourability and interest.
4.5.1 Recall
Undoubtedly, recall and recognition has been a consistent source of research in the sponsorship field. While higher levels of recall and recognition have been found to predict positive attitude abstractions (Chattopadhyay & Alba, 1988) and higher levels of receptiveness (Dolphin, 2003), individually, it is not sufficient enough a component to elicit a concrete foundation for understanding the total effects and effectiveness of 87 sponsorship. Nevertheless, this does not discount the worth of understanding levels of recall and recognition, especially in a densely cluttered and competitive sponsorship environment (Lardinoit & Derbaix, 2001).
4.5.2 Awareness
Awareness is concerned with how well a recipient (for example, the event patron) remembers the sponsoring company and is a basic concept that inspires most brand- related goals that aim at marketing goods or services (Grohs et al., 2004). One of the main objectives of companies engaging in sponsorships is to increase awareness. Awareness is created as events and consequently corporate sponsors intrude on the consciousness of event audiences (Meenaghan, 1999). While a number of both academic and business studies have examined awareness through the use of tracking measures, they have failed to investigate the factors that actually determine sponsor recall. The ability of the consumer to recall a sponsor is one thing, being aware of what they represent, or what they do or produce, is critical for understanding just how well the sponsor has been received and also for assessing the effectiveness of what the sponsor attempted to convey through a sponsorship activity.
Meenaghan’s (2001) focus group research showed that awareness of the sponsor is highest among those most involved with the activity, parallel to evidence presented by Bennett (1998), Clark (1991), Diakpoulou (1990), Eilander and Koenders (1991), and Parker (1991). It is posited that highly involved fans/consumers are more aware of a sponsor’s investment and the arising benefit. Therefore they are more likely to be favourably disposed towards that sponsor (Clark, 1991; Diakpoulou, 1990; McDonald, 1991; Parker, 1991).
4.5.3 Favourability
Being in a favourable disposition is when a consumer is in a position where they feel they are able to choose one company/brand/product/service over another. As the name suggests, they favour that company/brand/product/service. On its surface, a social sponsorship is an intrinsically favourable action, one consumers are expected to like. While the event, sponsor and sponsorship factors are considered to be antecedents of
88 favourability (Meenaghan, 2001; Speed & Thompson, 2000), there is little in research that suggests exactly what makes a sponsor favourable through sponsorship and what impact it has in other pre-purchase decisions, and further, the actual decision to purchase.
4.5.4 Interest
Interest is necessary in the overall make up of sponsorship research as it gauges just how much impact such things as personal liking and sponsor-event fit has on one’s interest in a sponsoring company/brand/product/service and even image. Grohs et al. (2004) postulates that interest enhances consumer memory and has the ability to enhance the effects of other constructs (as indicated in the conceptual model) and sponsor-property attributes. It can be assumed that the more ‘interest’ one has, the more likely they will make a purchase related to the sponsor, however, due to the paucity of research in this area, investigation is required to offer a sense of guidance as to where interest fits in the overall picture of sponsorship effects.
Inclusive of the aforementioned sub-constructs of pre-purchase response, i.e. recall, favourability and awareness, hypothesis ten suggests that:
H10: Pre-purchase response is positively associated with image transfer. i.e. (Pre-purchase Response → Image Transfer).
4.6 Transfer of Image Values
Sponsorship essentially lives in the reflection of the sponsored activity, with the sponsor and sponsored activity becoming involved in a symbiotic relationship with transference of values from the activity to the sponsor (McDaniel & Kinney, 1997; Meenaghan & Shipley, 1999) and with hope to the consumer. Contention lies in understanding whether the values of the sponsor in fact transcend to the consumer with a positive impact and whether this has a subsequent effect on intent to, and actual purchase.
Sport sponsorships can impact consumer attitudes by soliciting positive emotional attachments, whilst sponsors can alter consumers’ cognitive structures leading 89 consumers to engage in desirable behaviours (Mason, 2005). Therefore, the aim is to evoke positive feelings and attitudes towards the sponsor by closely linking the sponsor to an event the recipient values highly. In other words, the image of the event should ‘rub off’ on the sponsors. Evaluating image transfer is vital for assessing the effectiveness of a sponsorship. Yet so far, only a small number of studies have empirically assessed image transfer from a sponsored event to a sponsoring company. Results show partial support for successful image transfers in sports sponsorships. Crimmins and Horn (1996), Grohs et al. (2004), Okter and Hayes (1987) and Ratjaretam (1994) found a weak but consistently significant image change. Javalgi et al. (1994) conclude the change in sponsor image depends on the industry. Image transfer should be more pronounced if the association between event image and sponsor image is high. Research on classical conditioning finds a positive effect of awareness on attitudes, referred to as mere exposure effects. For sponsorships, this effect suggests that sponsors whose messages create higher recall have a more positive post-event sponsor image. The concept of image transfer states that sponsor image after the event is also determined by event image. Event image should have a significant incremental contribution in shaping attitudes towards the sponsor after the event.
If this image transfer process is occurring, then brand managers considering sponsorship arrangements should not only consider exposure issues, but should also take into account the congruence between a sporting event’s image and the image/positioning goals for their brand. The three components of image transfer, i.e. activity level, category level and image congruence are explained below:
4.6.1 Activity Level
Image transfer at the individual sponsored activity level provides further insights to aid understanding of sponsorship effects. Additionally, it relates to how well the sponsorship has worked at utilising the right tools to deliver specific image values and how well they have been instilled in the consumer’s mindset. When combined with a brand in a sponsorship message, there is a transfer of values from the media vehicle to the brand.
90 Meenaghan (2001) suggests that each vehicle used to convey the sponsor’s message possesses its own personality that can induce different consumer moods and receptivity. More specifically, the individual sponsored activity is “possessed of a personality and there is a rub-off or halo effect to corporate or product image from association” (Meenaghan, 1983, p.31). While image transfer in the general sense has been proven to be an indicator of consumer actions to purchase, there fails to be an understanding of how much of this rub-off effect works.
4.6.2 Category Level
The transfer of image values at the category level refers to the traits, that, following event, sponsor and sponsorship factors, as well as the pre-purchase response, has been transferred by the association of the sponsor to the event/sponsored property. These traits and subsequent values, are usually more concrete markers of how consumers “feel” about the sponsor following their exposure to the sponsorship. The main objective of researching this component is to ascertain the degree to which image transfer at the category level is relevant, and whether different categories of sponsorship transfer different images. Furthermore, it is important to understand how particular qualities may affect a consumer’s perception of the message being delivered through the sponsorship (Steward & Ward, 1994). In addition to how it links with other levels of image transfer, there is necessity in understanding how the sponsorship to which the consumers were exposed made them feel, and how it did or did not influence their purchase behaviour.
4.6.3 Image Congruence
Image congruence, though related to sponsor-event fit, looks more specifically at how the image of the sponsor, what they have sponsored and the image they have conveyed is relevant to each other and, to the consumer. This construct is more concrete in defining whether the image a sponsor has conveyed is attune to the sponsored property and/or event; that they have conveyed their message in such a way that it is an image the consumer wants to, and has, connected with. Meenaghan’s (2001) focus group research relating to this issue supported the proposition that consumers perceive congruence in certain sponsor/property arrangements. The central factor in
91 determining perceptions of congruence is the extent to which consumers perceive a logical connection between both parties to the relationship. Parallel research into consumer attitudes to broadcast sponsorships suggests that congruence between the sponsor’s brand and the sponsored broadcast is an important criterion in terms of consumer evaluations (Bloxham, 1998). Similarly, Kinney and McDaniel (1996) suggest that incongruity between an event and a sponsor may well retard image association between a property and a sponsor.
Subsequently, the following hypothesis is postulated in relation to image transfer:
H11: Image transfer is positively associated with an intention to purchase. i.e. (Image Transfer → Intention to Purchase).
4.7 Intention to Purchase
The conceptual model in figure 4.0 is inclusive of the steps of pre-purchase evaluation, intention to purchase and actual purchase. The effects of sponsorship to pre-purchase evaluation are often identified. However, the intention and purchase constructs are in itself neglected in sponsorship research, most likely due to the difficulty in obtaining information observing actual purchase behaviour. The components of these constructs are absent from Speed and Thompson’s (2000) study.
While the first six constructs of the conceptual model (event factors, sponsor factors, sponsorship factors, pre-purchase response, and transfer of image values) are yet to be tested, it is assumed that all of these constructs are precursors for the purchase of a sponsor’s product or service. From the developed studies, the intention to purchase construct has been formulated on the basis of an understanding that a positive experience at the event will result in a favourable disposition and ultimately a response to initiate purchase. In addition, from the time of sponsorship exposure to a consumer’s intent to purchase, it is believed that a transfer of image values has taken place, as well as either the reinforcement or change in beliefs towards the sponsor, with recall and recognition to support this period of behaviour.
92 Ultimately, the construct, which entails a consumer’s intention to purchase, can be seen as a period for relationship development between the sponsor and the consumer. The “process” to which the consumer was exposed at the event, is eliminated, as consumer response relies more heavily on consumer cognition.
4.8 Actual Purchase
This is the final construct of the conceptual model and constitutes post consumption evaluation. This is a new insight in the context of sponsorship and has not been undertaken previously. This construct is a collaboration of effects and responses of the preceding six constructs, and also allows the observation of sponsorship effectiveness. It is assumed that by this stage, the consumption experience has had desirable effects, attitudes and beliefs are well formed and that the image values in addition to the positive attitude and beliefs have resulted in the transfer of emotional value, that is, a real attachment to the sponsor. Springing from this is increased interest and favourability and overall, satisfaction. This is the ultimate goal of the sponsorship, which in future should attract repeat consumers who exhibit favourable behavioural intentions. Among those focus group participants who were highly involved with an activity and to whom the benefit of the sponsorship was most apparent, the level of goodwill/gratitude was such that respondents expressed a strong preference for the particular sponsor’s product or service. This finding is confirmed by several other research studies (Bennett, 1998; Eilander & Koenders, 1991; Okter & Hayes, 1987).
4.9 Chapter Summary
This chapter explained and formalised the conceptual framework to be used in this study. The CDP (consumer decision process) model and classical conditioning framework were vital components for the skeletal development of the conceptual model for this study. The seven major constructs of this model, and their sub-constructs were examined in detail with the documentation of the accompanying hypotheses.
Table 4.1 summarises the 11 hypotheses developed for this study. The next chapter describes the method used to test these hypotheses.
93 Table 4.1 Study Hypotheses No. Hypothesis The level of perceived event status is an antecedent of a positive pre-purchase 1 response. Event Status → Pre-purchase Response Personal liking of the event is positively associated with a pre-purchase 2 response. Personal Liking → Pre-purchase Response Fan involvement is positively associated with a pre-purchase response. 3 Fan Involvement → Pre-purchase Response Personal attitudes/beliefs are indicative of a positive pre-purchase response. 4 Personal attitudes/beliefs → Pre-purchase response Sponsor prominence is positively associated with a pre-purchase response. 5 Sponsor Prominence → Pre-purchase Response The level of goodwill attributable to a sponsor is positively associated with the 6 pre-purchase response of a consumer. Goodwill → Pre-purchase Response Type of exposure is positively associated with a pre-purchase response. 7 Type of Exposure → Pre-purchase Response The level of exposure to sponsorship is significantly associated with a positive 8 pre-purchase response. Level of Exposure → Pre-purchase Response Sponsor-Event fit contributes to a positive association with pre-purchase 9 response. Sponsor-Event Fit → Pre-purchase Response Pre-purchase response is positively associated with image transfer. 10 Pre-purchase Response → Image Transfer Image transfer is positively associated with an intention to purchase. 11 Image Transfer → Intention to Purchase
94 Chapter Five
Methodology
5.0 Introduction
This chapter examines in detail, the research process that was undertaken for this study including the context of the research, the research design, and issues associated with reliability, validity and testing.
Taking into account the widespread proliferation of sponsorship in sport, this study engaged in research with consumers of two major sporting events in Australia: Australian League Football and the Australian Open Tennis. Using this context, the research design process involved the application of the conceptual model, as discussed in Chapter 4, and the development of a research instrument to best understand how sports sponsorship may affect a consumer’s decision making process. This involved several focus group discussions and the subsequent development of a survey instrument. Following the design of the research instrument, the survey was pre-tested with the assistance of focus group participants. Several modifications were made as a result of their feedback. Following this phase, the surveys were then distributed to collect data.
5.1 Context of Research
The research in this study was undertaken within the metropolitan and regional areas of Victoria, Australia. The research sought to involve a broad cross section of the community who engaged in the observation of two major sporting events in Australia, Australian League Football and Australian Open Tennis. Both events are significant events within Victoria and were therefore chosen on the basis of their stature and patronage.
95 The Australian Football League (AFL) and the sport it represents is an attractive national sponsorship property in Australia. Fifty-nine percent of the AUD$159.7 million revenue acquired by the league is made up of sponsorship and broadcast rights (afl.com.au). AFL football games are broadcast on FTA (free-to-air) broadcast stations nationally, further adding to its commercial appeal. Press coverage of the sport is equally significant with league representations through clubs in Victoria, Western Australia, South Australia, New South Wales and Queensland. The team basis of the sport attracts a brand of loyalty and attachment of its followers.
The Australian Open Tennis, on the other hand, has enjoyed a resurgence over the past decade with the glamour and prestige proponents associated with the sport signifying its return to the world stage. In contrast to the AFL, the Australian Tennis Open is an international affair with the world’s best players its main attraction. Though an individually based sport, the Open attracts a significant audience from Australia and abroad, with many often in support of a player from their home nation. In 2005,
550,550 paid up patrons attended the Australian Open (www.australianopen.com) with the figure exclusive of the huge television audience exposed to a fortnight of continuous broadcasts.
In this study, the AFL entity was fragmented to represent itself, and the individual games of the twenty-four week home and away season. Therefore it was characterised by the eight games played each week and formed the umbrella for the overall competition. Likewise, the Australian Tennis Open was representative of its role as body corporate as well as all the games played within the two-week duration of the tournament.
The high level status of both events was a focal point for the research and ensured a high response rate as well as capturing an extensive collection of data examining the same set of variables. The contrasts between the two events meant that the responses were not defined by a single environment or set of relationships, rather a more broad understanding of sponsorship and its effects could be investigated as well as cross analysed for a more accurate representation of how sponsorship works. Additionally, it was anticipated this would enable for an all-encompassing discussion, leading to conclusions applicable to the broader sponsorship industry in Australia.
96
Although an examination of all property and sponsor relationships would have been ideal, it was considered impracticable and unfeasible. Therefore, this study elected three major protected sponsors for each property, chosen on the basis of their protection rights, type and consequently, exposure. The protection as well as the status of sponsors was defined by the exclusivity of their relationship to a property and consequently event, and was equally determined by the financial worth of their deal. Essentially, the property’s financial gain was exchanged for access to its intellectual and physical assets. Customarily this meant the sponsor had high visibility and exposure at the events.
The three corresponding sponsors of the AFL were: Toyota Motors, Carlton Draught and the National Australia Bank. For the Australian Tennis Open they were: KIA Motors, Garnier and IBM. The sponsors of both events were representative of a wide range of industries and coincidentally the AFL and the Australian Tennis Open were engaged in deals with motor vehicle manufacturers. Toyota Motors and KIA Motors were the primary sponsors for both properties/events and both these organisations manufactured cars, commonly classified as high involvement products. Concurrently, Carlton Draught, a beverage company and Garnier, who are involved in cosmetics, were both exemplary of low involvement products. The National Australia Bank, a banking firm and IBM, software and IT specialists, denoted service providers.
For the collected data to be current and meaningful, the chosen sponsors were to have engaged in a relationship with the property for at least 12 months. This was to ensure that the sponsor and property had developed sufficient time to establish a partnership and to maximise consumer recognition and accordingly, response rates for the research. Furthermore, a conscious decision was made to include various sponsors of industrial and categorical difference to allow for comparisons and a broader understanding of sponsorship mechanisms.
97 5.2 Unit of Analysis
The unit of analysis is an integral proponent of the research in that it acts as the defining factor for the development of the research process. Zikmund (1994) concurs that data collection, sample size and variables are all influenced by this appraisal. The unit of analysis may constitute the primary empirical object, individual or group under investigation (Davis, 2005). In this particular study, the unit of analysis was the consumer. Consumers were sourced from across various metropolitan and regional areas of Victoria with several respondents from interstate and abroad. They were a mix of diverse backgrounds and professions, ages and genders allowing for a comprehensive and wide representation of the broader community.
Past consumer-based sponsorship studies exploring both managerial and academic ideals appeared to exclude the commercial essence of sponsorships and neglected to comprehensively examine the effect it had on the consumer. Therefore, this study attempts to fill the void to provide a complete understanding of sponsorship effects on the generic consumer.
5.3 Research Design and Data Collection
A number of factors influenced the research design of the study, though the main objective was primarily directed towards solving the research problem: understanding the effect of sport sponsorship on consumer perceptions, behaviours and purchase intentions. Additionally, it was essential that the instrument developed in the design phase would include all the facets of the conceptual framework, established in Chapter 4 and furthermore, that the items be measurable and relevant to the research objectives.
As research approaches and strategies do not exist in isolation multi-methods were used in order to attain optimum and relevant results for the study. Using multi-methods is both beneficial and advantageous in that it can give the researcher a feel for the key issues, and that it also enables triangulation to take place (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2003). Triangulation refers to the use of different data collection methods within the one study (Saunders et al., 2003).
98 The qualitative component of this study enabled the investigation of underlying motivations and reasons behind sponsorship behaviours and responses, hence contributing to rigorous academic research. In addition, using quantitative research methods, results could be quantified and generalisations made, and having adopted the framework from the qualitative data, it was inferred that the measurement items selected would have more significance and impact.
The first step in the qualitative research component was the focus groups. The details are discussed in the following section.
5.4 Focus Groups
Focus groups, are an increasingly popular method of conducting exploratory research (Burns & Bush, 1998) and was utilised to comprise the initial stage of primary data collection for this study. The unstructured and natural characteristics (Malhotra, 1999) of this interview procedure proved a beneficial method of data collection. Following on from the secondary data collection undertaken for the literature review, and with the main constructs and research questions for the study established, it was deemed appropriate, if not necessary, for the use of focus group discussions to better understand the main ideas associated with sponsorships and for the justification of the constructs and questions posed.
In all, three focus group discussions took place with a total of twenty participants. The focus groups were conducted in groups of six, six and eight. Some academics call these groups ‘mini groups’ and they are often praised for gaining more in depth information than full groups (groups of ten people or more) by enabling the moderator to get more information from each individual (Greenbaum, 1998).
The focus group participants were fairly representative of the community with a mixture of males and females, from various ethnicities, ages and professions. Included in the sample were people aged between 18 and 65 years who were students, housewives, lawyers, industrial workers, marketers or unemployed. There were no known clusters amongst the participants, which assisted in avoiding any potential partiality or bias in responses.
99
All the participants were either known to the researcher or were acquaintances of the participants. The selection of the sample was based on convenience and availability and was overall considered a fair and good combination. It was not necessary to be precise with the selection procedure purely because the exercise was really focused on generating thoughts and ideas regarding sponsorships and the research process.
Participants were given prior notice to the commencement of the focus groups and were all informed one month prior to the occurrence of the activities. The forewarning allowed the researcher to establish the number of participants that would most likely be available to join the groups. Although in total, three separate focus groups discussions were conducted, there was no particular preference for certain participants to participate in one group over another, rather, the groups were split based on time and availability.
To ensure that proper procedures could be undertaken, the focus groups were given ethics approval by the university’s ethics board before the commencement of any of the group discussions. Prior to meeting, participants were either given in person, or by email a brief guide of ideas that would be discussed and a letter of informed consent that explained the purpose of the exercise and to also gain written and signatory permission for participants to join the focus group discussions. The letter also informed participants of the likely outcomes of the discussions, how the information would be used and an assurance that the data collected as a result of the focus groups would remain in the hands of the researcher and that all members of the focus groups would be given anonymity. The participants were also informed that they could withdraw from the activity at any time, although this did not occur.
All three focus group discussions were moderated by the researcher who had previous expertise in acting as facilitator through in class training and actual experience in tasks within and outside of the university. The facilitator was equipped with the necessary information and materials for the commencement of the task.
The focus group discussions were informal though loosely guided by the major themes, constructs and ideas, previously established from the literature review. Paper and pens
100 were provided for note taking and to illustrate participant ideas and thoughts. The major topics of discussion for the focus groups were:
• sponsorship definition; • general thoughts on sponsorship and more specifically, sports sponsorships; • examples of sponsorship and what made them stand out, the effect on their perceptions of the sponsor and purchase decisions; • the effect of sponsorships on purchase intentions; • ineffective and effective sponsorships; • how participants would use sponsorships – who they would sponsor, why they would sponsor and their objectives; and • suggestions for this study
At the conclusion of each focus group, all notes and data were collected and were collated using computer software. Following the collation, an analysis of the data was performed using content analysis. This constitutes the analysis of data drawn from the meanings expressed through words (Dey, 1993; Healey and Rawlinson, 1994). Based on the information collected in the focus group discussions, a foundation was formed for the survey design. The selection of the sporting events that would best complement the study and illicit a high response rate were also finalised as a result of this procedure.
5.5 Instrument Design
Davis (2005) concurs that instrument design is very much an art and that it is pivotal researchers not lose focus of the primary objective of the study. Therefore, the instrument design process in this study was driven by the seven major constructs of the conceptual framework, as detailed in Chapter 4, these being: event factors, sponsor factors, sponsorship factors, pre-purchase response, transfer of image values, intention to purchase and actual purchase. The seven major constructs were chosen on the basis of previous sponsorship research, which highlighted both collectively and individually the importance of each construct on consumer behaviour.
101 As this study also sought to understand the effect of sponsorship on consumer purchase intentions and actual purchase, Blackwell et al.’s (2001) consumer decision making process (CDP) model played a figurative role as the blueprint for the flow and order of these constructs. The model indicates that consumers go through seven major stages when making decisions, and for such stages to be applicable to the sport sponsorship context, the aforementioned constructs were applied to this model.
5.6 Operationalisation of the Constructs
For each of the seven major constructs to be examined in the study, each constituted a set of sub-constructs in order to attain a thorough and complete understanding of the myriad of effects a sponsorship may have on a consumer. These are discussed in the following sections.
5.7 Phase One: Event, Sponsor, Sponsorship Factors
This is the time period leading to and including the duration of the event. In this phase a consumer recognises or is prompted for a need to purchase and in doing so, uses both internal and external factors to realise their decision and following actions. Speed and Thompson’s (2000) model of sponsorship response concurs that upon the basis of classical conditioning, attitudes towards the event, the sponsor and perceived sponsor- event congruence is integral to determining sponsorship response.
5.7.1 Event Factors
Without exposure to an event, there would be no applicable effect of a sponsorship on the consumer and therefore, this was the first construct integrated towards the design of the survey. The ‘event’ was defined by the two major sporting events selected for research, AFL Football and Australian Open Tennis. The event factor items measured the consumer’s perception of the event in terms of its status, likeability and involvement. Under each of these categories, four scaled items were chosen to best elicit appropriate and relevant information. Previous research has identified that positive consumer attitudes towards the event is associated with a positive response toward the sponsor (Speed & Thompson, 2000).
102
5.7.2 Event Status
The status of the event refers to the perceived level of stature an event holds on either a national or global scale. The status of an event can also refer to the “benefits that individual respondents receive indirectly from [the] event and that a respondent may receive without any personal liking for the event” (Speed & Thompson, 2000, p.288).
In consideration of these two descriptions of event status, the main issue was in identifying whether the status of an event as described above, affected the outcome of a sponsorship response from the consumer and also to understand if any linkages existed with other factors that may affect sponsorship response, such as fan involvement and sponsor prominence.
5.7.3 Personal Liking of Event
A common assumption made in both marketing literature, and that in psychology is the more something is ‘liked’, the more favourable the response that is attained. While this is somewhat of an obvious idea, the importance of having this sub-construct in this study was to understand how personal liking may, or may not interrelate or perhaps, may influence, other components of the behavioural intentions of the consumer. Event status has proven to have the ability to influence the favourability of a consumer response without necessarily being affected by personal liking. It is also believed that personal liking of an event has a significant connection to purchase intentions (Gwinner & Swanson, 2003; Speed & Thompson, 2000). However, what liking constitutes remains undefined and whether such levels of liking do in fact affect a variance in response.
5.7.4 Fan Involvement
Fan involvement is considered to be a vital component for determining sponsor recognition, attitude towards sponsors, sponsor patronage, and satisfaction with sponsors (Gwinner & Swanson, 2003). Gwinner and Swanson (2003) contend that the higher the level of fan involvement, the better the response to sponsorship. However, in
103 only identifying and catering specifically for ‘fans’, sponsors would be missing out on a potentially larger market. Therefore this research will either verify or refute the validity of Gwinner and Swanson’s (2003) results as well as identifying other methods in making sponsorship inclusive of fans of all levels.
All four items used to understand fan involvement are a variation of items that have been used previously by Wann and Branscombe (1993), Madrigal (2001) and Grohs et al. (2004). Though the wording has been altered slightly, they all express the same ideas as the original items intended.
104 Table 5.0 Constructs and Measures 1 Factor CONSTRUCT Author ADAPTED MEASURE ITEM Loadings Speed and This is a significant sporting event Event Status 0.81 2.1 Thompson, 2000 Speed and This event is important to my 0.70 2.2 Thompson, 2000 community Speed and This event is popular N/A 2.3 Thompson, 2000 Speed and This event has international significance N/A 2.4 Thompson, 2000 Personal Liking of Speed and I strongly support this sporting event 0.91 Event Thompson, 2000 2.5 Speed and I enjoy following coverage of this event 0.92 2.6 Thompson, 2000; 0.93 Gwinner and Swanson, 2003 Gwinner and This event is important to me 0.92 2.7 Swanson, 2003 Gwinner and This event is my favourite sporting 0.93 2.8 Swanson, 2003 event Grohs, Wagner My interest in this event exceeds that of N/A 2.9 and Vsetecka, a general spectator 2004; Wann and Fan Involvement Branscombe, 1993; Madrigal, 2001
Grohs, Wagner I am a fan of this event N/A 2.10 and Vsetecka, 2004; Wann and Branscombe, 1993; Madrigal, 2001 Gwinner and Being a fan of this event is important to 0.80 2.11 Swanson, 2003; me Grohs, Wagner and Vsetecka, 2004; Wann and Branscombe, 1993; Madrigal, 2001 Grohs, Wagner My friends see me as a fan of this event N/A 2.12 and Vsetecka, 2004; Wann and Branscombe, 1993; Madrigal, 2001 I am a member of a club or organisation N/A 2.13 associated with this event
105 5.8 Sponsor Factors
It has been proven in previous sponsorship research that the effect of a sponsorship can be predetermined by the attitude a consumer holds towards the sponsor. Javalgi et al. (1994), Stipp and Schiavone (1996) and Speed and Thompson (2000), have demonstrated that those consumers who have a positive attitude towards the sponsor are more inclined to view the sponsor more favourably, and as a result may impinge on the effectiveness of a sponsorship. The sub-constructs of sponsor factors examine how personal attitudes and beliefs towards a sponsor, and the perceived prominence as well as goodwill of a sponsor may affect consumer response.
5.8.1 Personal Attitudes and Beliefs Regarding The Event Sponsor
Any existing attitudes and beliefs consumers hold of sponsors will purposely, or inadvertently affect sponsorship response and the extent of such a response (Blackwell et al., 2001; Mullin, Hardy, & Sutton, 2000). The important consideration is identifying how pre-existing attitudes and beliefs are moulded over the duration of sponsorship exposure and whether there is any change over time.
The items developed for this construct are adaptations of the items used in D’astous and Bitz’ (1995) study of consumer evaluations of sponsorship programmes and items from Gwinner and Swanson’s (2003) study.
5.8.2 Sponsor Prominence
Prominence in the marketplace is postulated to affect both consumer perceptions and memories relating to a sponsor (Johar & Pham, 1999). Consequently, the literature suggests that there is a tendency for bias towards more prominent sponsors, which increases the likelihood of a consumer engaging in positive behaviour towards that sponsor. This avenue of research, however, remains underdeveloped and while the signs supporting the impact of prominence is promising, a verification of the results is required.
106 5.8.3. Perceived Sponsor Goodwill
Goodwill and perceptions of goodwill is an issue of great contention in the literature. Although the actual act of sponsorship is led by commercial objectives, the perception of the sponsor undertaking sponsorship as a means of “goodwill” so far appears to add more favourability towards the sponsor. This area, like prominence, is still underdeveloped in current sponsorship literature, and yet is one that is very interesting considering that a) several academics do not consider sponsorship philanthropic and b) some research has found that a philanthropic dimension can in fact work favourably for the sponsor in terms of receiving a positive response from consumers.
D’astous and Bitz (1995) and Speed and Thompson (2000) identify that there is evidence to support that a positive response and interest in a sponsorship is contingent upon the perceived goodwill of the sponsor and the activity. Conversely, the nature of the goodwill is indeterminate and remains to be classified as goodwill in philanthropic terms or goodwill in terms of, for example, the support of an event itself, or a sports team the consumer may identify with.
107 Table 5.1 Constructs and Measures 2 Factor CONSTRUCT Author ADAPTED MEASURE ITEM Loading Speed and I like this sponsor Personal 0.95 3.1 Thompson Attitudes/Beliefs 2000 Speed and My general perception of this sponsor is 0.91 3.2 Thompson positive 2000 Gwinner and I would favour this company because they are 0.91 3.3 Swanson, a sponsor of this event 2003; D’astous and Bitz, 1995 D’astous and I think this sponsorship will improve the N/A 3.4 Bitz, 1995 sponsor’s image Bello, Pitts This sponsor came to my attention as a result Sponsor N/A 3.5 and Etzel, of this sponsorship Prominence 1983 Bello, Pitts I am familiar with this sponsor N/A 3.6 and Etzel, 1983 Speed and This company sponsors many different sports 0.88 3.7 Thompson, events 2000 Speed and I expect this company to sponsor major events 0.68 3.8 Thompson, 2000 D’astous and This sponsorship will have a positive impact on Sponsor Goodwill N/A 3.9 Bitz, 1995 the success of this event Speed and The sponsor would generally believe the event 0.85 3.10 Thompson, deserves support 2000 Speed and The sponsor would have the best interests of 0.93 3.11 Thompson, the event at heart 2000 Speed and The sponsor would support this event even if it 0.77 3.12 Thompson, had a much lower profile 2000
5.9 Sponsorship Factors
Akin to the two major constructs discussed previously, researchers of the sponsorship phenomena believe that the attitude of consumers towards sponsorship will ultimately affect the extent to which the sponsorship influences consumer behaviour. The major components of the sponsorship that can make it effective include the level to which the consumer is exposed to the sponsorship and how they are exposed to it. Bennett (1998) purports that previous sponsorship research supports the proposition that exposure levels can affect consumer familiarity with and liking of the sponsorship stimuli.
108 Likewise, the way in which consumers are exposed to the stimuli can further increase or reduce the degree of consumer receptiveness.
5.9.1 Level of Exposure
Known theories suggest that the longer the level of exposure of a promotion, in this case sponsorship, the higher the level of awareness which is believed to invoke a positive response. However, it is also suggested that being ‘over-exposed’ can also lead to a negative response from consumers.
Speed and Thompson (2000) identify exposure as a direction for future research as it still remains to be determined whether sponsorship, like advertising would have greater levels of awareness, recall/recognition as a result of frequency or extent of exposure.
5.9.2 Type of Exposure
Little has been examined in regards to type of sponsorship exposure in previous research, and is considered more a component pertinent to advertising. However, sponsorships can be undertaken in various forms, from on field signage to broadcast rights and it is exploring how a consumer responds to a sponsorship activity that is of particular interest. While Lardinoit and Derbaix (2001) contend that television can be more effective then field sponsorship due to the lengthy and consistent levels of exposure, further evidence is required to completely support this finding. Major corporate organisations commonly rely on the use of mass media to reach a mass audience through advertising, however with sponsorship, the promotional tools tend to differ, and therefore it is necessary to identify the types of sponsorship activities that work best and/or attract attention.
5.9.3 Sponsor-Event Fit
Sponsor-event congruence is identified as another key component of determining sponsorship response and one that enhances personal liking of the event. Additionally, it is deemed to have minimal effect on the perceived status of the event or attitudes about the company (Speed & Thompson, 2000) though Johar and Pham (1999) and
109 Rifon and Choi (2004) contend that sponsor-event fit has an overall mediating effect on response. On the other hand, Jagre et al. (2001) concur that a moderately inconsistent fit assists sponsorship response and this is inadvertently demonstrated by the number of high profile, global companies who continue to sponsor events, which on the outset do not seem to ‘fit’. However, the challenge lies in understanding more comprehensively, why this is so (for example, Garnier and the Australian Open Tennis, as opposed to Castrol motor oil and the V8 Supercar Championships).
110 Table 5.2 Constructs and Measures 3 Factor CONSTRUCT Author ADAPTED MEASURE ITEM Loadings Gwinner and I always like to watch this event 0.85 4.1 Level of Exposure Swanson, 2003 The last time I watched this event was from N/A 4.2 start to finish (full game/match) Bello, Pitts This sponsor was prominent throughout the N/A 4.3 and Etzel, event 1983 The sponsor’s promotion was clear and obvious N/A 4.4 throughout the event Grohs, The last time I watched this event it was: N/A 4.5 Wagner and Vsetecka, 2004 In the past year, approximately how many N/A 4.6 games of your chosen sporting event (Event 1 or Event 2) did you watch? The majority of these games were: N/A 4.7 Bello, Pitts This sponsor was immediately noticeable N/A 4.8 Type of Exposure and Etzel, 1983 Bello, Pitts This sponsor stood out N/A 4.9 and Etzel, 1983 Bello, Pitts I clearly remember the sponsor’s message N/A 4.10 and Etzel, 1983 Which of the following types of sponsorship N/A 4.11 tools used by the sponsor was in your opinion the most effective? The sponsorship tool used was valuable N/A 4.12 Speed and I see a strong logical connection between the 0.85 4.13 Thompson, event and the sponsor 2000; Sponsor Event Fit Grohs, Wagner and Vsetecka, 2004
Speed and The image portrayed by the event and the 0.90 4.14 Thompson, sponsor are similar 2000 Speed and It makes sense to me that this company 0.86 4.15 Thompson, sponsors this event 2000 Speed and A fit between the event and a sponsor is N/A 4.16 Thompson, important 2000
111
5.10 Phase Two: Pre-Purchase Response, Transfer of Image Values, Intention to Purchase and Actual Purchase
Phase two is inclusive of the CDP steps of pre-purchase evaluation, actual purchase and consumption. The effects of sponsorship to this stage are often identified, however, the purchase stage in itself is neglected in sponsorship research, most likely due to the difficulty in obtaining information observing purchase behaviour. The components of this stage are absent from Speed and Thompson’s (2000) study.
It is assumed that all of the constructs and sub-constructs mentioned are precursors for the purchase of a sponsor’s product or service. Based on past studies, phase two has been formulated on the basis of an understanding that a positive experience at the event will result in a favourable disposition and ultimately a response to coax purchase. In addition, from the time of sponsorship exposure in phase two, it is believed that a transfer of image values has taken place. This includes a reinforcement or change in attitudes and beliefs towards the sponsor, with recall and recognition supporting this behaviour.
Ultimately, phase two can be seen as a stage for relationship development between the sponsor and the consumer.
5.10.1 Pre-Purchase Response
This construct primarily assesses the interim effect a sponsorship may have had on the consumer, which is a culmination of their attitudes towards the event/property, the sponsor and the sponsorship activity they were exposed to. The sub-constructs examine the level of interest the sponsorship has garnered, as well as estimating the awareness and recall levels demonstrative of the short-term effectiveness of the sponsorship. Favourability was included as the final sub-construct to determine the impact of the sponsorship on a consumer’s personal attitudes and beliefs as a result of exposure.
112
5.10.2 Interest
Interest is not a particularly popular measure in sponsorship research and it may have to do with the difficulty in its assessment. However, when it came to examining the sequence of consumer buyer behaviour, it was hard to ignore this variable. It can be assumed that if you are ‘very’ interested in something, you are likely to pursue some form of positive behaviour to feed that interest. On the other hand, it is likely that if one is not interested, then no behavioural action will ensue at all. The important mission in this study is to either prove, or disprove this theory.
5.10.3 Awareness
Awareness is about how well a recipient (for example, the event visitor) remembers the sponsoring company (Grohs et al., 2004). The ability of the recipient to recall a sponsor is one thing, being aware of what they represent, or what they do or produce, is critical. Especially as sponsors align their sponsorships against specific aims and objectives, it is imperative that consumers have responded as intended.
5.10.4 Recall
Like exposure, recall (and recognition) is a popularly recognised form of sponsorship evaluation. Whilst higher levels of recall have been found to predict positive consumer attitudes (Chattopadhyay & Alba, 1988) and higher levels of receptiveness (Dolphin, 2003), individually, it is not an adequate form of evaluation. Nevertheless, this does not discount the worth of understanding levels of recall, especially as competition and clutter is prevalent.
5.10.5 Favourability
Favourability is demonstrative of a consumer who feels they are able to choose one company/brand/product/service over another. While the event, sponsor and sponsorship factors are considered to be antecedents of favourability (Meenaghan, 2001; Speed & Thompson, 2000), a gap in the literature suggests that the reasons why a sponsor
113 becomes favourable and how that impacts other pre-purchase decisions, is still undefined.
Table 5.3 Constructs and Measures 4 Factor CONSTRUCT Author ADAPTED MEASURE ITEM Loadings Bello, Pitts and The sponsorship caught my attention Interest N/A 5.1 Etzel, 1983 Bello, Pitts and I am interested in the sponsor and the N/A 5.2 Etzel, 1983 products/services they offer Bello, Pitts and I have more interest in the sponsor following N/A 5.3 Etzel, 1983 this sponsorship Grohs, Wagner My interest in the event has led me to be N/A 5.4 and Vsetecka, interested in the sponsor 2004 Speed and This sponsorship has made me more aware 0.84 5.5 Awareness Thompson, of the sponsor 2000 Speed and I know more about the sponsor because of N/A 5.6 Thompson, this sponsorship 2000 Speed and This sponsorship would make me more likely 0.84 5.7 Thompson, to notice the sponsor on other occasions 2000 Speed and This sponsorship would make me more likely 0.88 5.8 Thompson, to remember the sponsor’s brand 2000 Bennett, 1999 I can recall all of the products and/or services Recall N/A 5.9 promoted by the sponsor in the sponsorship Bennett, 1999 This sponsor now first comes to mind when N/A 5.10 thinking of the products/services they offer Bennett, 1999; When I think about this event, I am reminded N/A 5.11 Grohs, Wagner of this sponsor and Vsetecka, 2004 Bennett, 1999 I only recall this sponsor as a sponsor of this N/A 5.12 event and nothing more Speed and This sponsorship makes me feel more 0.92 5.13 Thompson, favourable towards the sponsor 0.91 Favourability 2000; Gwinner and Swanson, 2003 Speed and This sponsorship has actually improved my 0.95 5.14 Thompson, perception of the sponsor 2000 Speed and I like the sponsor more because of this 0.92 5.15 Thompson, sponsorship 2000 Speed and My general attitude towards the sponsor 0.91 5.16 Thompson, following this sponsorship is positive 2000
114 5.11 Transfer of Image Values
Image values are those values that consumers associate a sponsor with, and in the process of making such judgment, assess whether they want to connect or withdraw from them. Meenaghan (2001) strongly concurs that like advertising, sponsorship has the ability to transfer image values to the consumer on three key levels: the activity level, the sponsorship level and the image congruence level. These levels are reflective of a deeper effect the sponsorship may have with the consumer on a more personal and intense level.
5.11.1 Sponsorship Activity Effect
Activity level image transfer relates to how well the sponsorship has worked at utilising the right tools to deliver specific image values and how well they have been instilled in the consumer’s mindset. Meenaghan (2001) suggests that each vehicle used to convey the sponsor’s message possesses its own personality that can induce different consumer moods and receptivity. More specifically, the individual sponsored activity is “possessed of a personality and there is a rub off or halo effect to corporate or product image from association” (Meenaghan, 1983, p.31). While image transfer, in general, has proven to be an indicator of consumer actions to purchase, there fails to be an understanding of how much of this works.
5.11.2 Sponsorship Effect on Personal Feelings
This variable examines the transferral of traits between the property and the sponsor. These traits and what can also be referred to as “values” are an indicator of how a consumer feels emotionally about the sponsor following sponsorship exposure. In exploring this variable, it is concurred that the degree to which image transfer at the category level is relevant, links with the other levels of image transfer and how it affects consumer emotions, can be ascertained.
115 5.11.3 Image Congruence of Sponsorship
Image congruence can be observed as perhaps the advanced stage of ‘sponsor-event fit’. This variable examines how the image of the sponsor, what they sponsored and the image they conveyed are relevant to each other and, to the consumer. As a sub- construct of the pre-purchase phase, it is more concrete in defining whether the image a sponsor has conveyed is pertinent to the sponsored property, and that they have communicated their message in such a way that the image portrayed is one the consumer wants to, and has, connected with.
Table 5.4 Constructs and Measures 5 Factor CONSTRUCT Author ADAPTED MEASURE ITEM Loadings Sponsorship Wells, 1986 The sponsorship portrayed an image I want N/A 6.1 Activity to associate with Rodgers, The sponsor’s association with the event N/A 6.2 2003 makes me feel closer to the sponsor Wells, 1986 I believe the sponsor and I engage in a N/A 6.3 similar image Personal Feelings Wells, 1986 The sponsor relates to me and my needs N/A 6.4 (Category) Wells, 1986 The sponsorship was meaningful to me N/A 6.5 Wells, 1986 The sponsorship made me feel more N/A 6.6 positively about both the event and sponsor Gwinner and Following the event, I see that event and the N/A 6.7 Eaton, 1999; sponsor share a similar image Grohs, Image Congruence Wagner and Vsetecka, 2003 Gwinner and Following the sponsorship, the sponsor and N/A 6.8 Eaton, 1999 the event share a stronger connection to one another Gwinner and The values I associate with the event extend N/A 6.9 Eaton, 1999 to the sponsor
5.12 Intention to Purchase
The intent to purchase is the penultimate goal for the sponsor, specifically as their objectives are primarily driven by commercial aims, and most exclusively, ROI (return on investment) projections. As a result this phase is situated at the final stages of the survey instrument. While consumers employ different evaluative criteria, that is, the standards and specifications employed by consumers that influence the decision to make a purchase (Blackwell et al., 2001), the items within this construct focus on how
116 strongly the sponsor and the sponsorship impacted on the intent of a consumer to make a purchase.
Table 5.5 Constructs and Measures 6 Factor CONSTRUCT Author ADAPTED MEASURE ITEM Loadings Gwinner and In general, the fact that a firm is a sponsor of 0.91 7.1 Purchase Intent Swanson, this event weighs heavily on my purchase 2003 decision Gwinner and I now actively seek products and services sold 0.86 7.2 Swanson, by this sponsor 2003 Speed and All else being equal, I am more likely to 0.90 7.3 Thompson, purchase products/services from this sponsor 2000 than non-sponsors Speed and I will try to buy products from this sponsor 0.92 7.4 Thompson, because their sponsorship had a positive effect 2000
5.13 Actual Purchase
Intent to purchase does not necessarily result in the actual purchase of a sponsor’s product and therefore this construct was included to assess whether the portion of those consumers who intended to buy the sponsor’s product, made it to the phase of actual purchase. The measures examine whether the consumer did make a purchase, why they did so and if in future they would make a purchase. Sponsorship research to date has primarily focused on one or two of the aforementioned measures, often failing to fully identify the many antecedents for how and why sponsor product or service purchases are made.
This construct is ultimately the phase sponsors hope consumers will engage as a result of sponsorship exposure. The items in table 5.6 are primarily those that have been developed as variations of the previous items detailed and as a result of the data collected in the focus group discussions.
117 Table 5.6 Constructs and Measures 7 CONSTRUCT ADAPTED MEASURE ITEM The sponsorship resulted in my purchase of the sponsor’s Purchase 8.1 products/services I purchased the sponsor’s product/service to show support for this 8.2 event I purchased the sponsor’s product/service to show support for the 8.3 sponsor In future I will try to purchase more products/services from this 8.4 sponsor
5.14 Scaling and Measurement
The survey employed the use of the seven point Likert scale for all items requiring a degree of agreement or disagreement. Named after its developer Rensis Likert, the scale is easy to construct and administer, with respondents readily understanding how to use the scale (Malhotra, 1999). The response categories were defined by a scale of 1 to 7 with 1 representing the respondent “Strongly Disagree”, 4 denoting a “Neutral” stance and 7 denoting the respondent “Strongly Agree”.
The Likert scale is a widely accepted technique and it is considered highly reliable when it comes to the “ordering of people with regard to a particular attitude” (Davis, 2005, p.212). The scale is a particularly good way of assessing psychological traits that do not seem to lie on a known physical scale (Elmes et. al., 2003). However, its disadvantage is that it takes longer to complete than other itemised rating scales (Malhotra, 1999) although it did not appear to significantly affect the data collection for this study. The scale provides a mid-point for respondents who are in a neutral state of mind, and as a result improves reliability. The advantages far outweighed the negatives of the scaling technique and its employment proved to be a success with the pilot testing of the survey justifying its use and its purpose.
5.15 Reliability and Validity
The extensive scope of research encompassed in this study meant that it was exposed to a number of issues pertaining to reliability and validity. Reliability and validity underpins the very structure of credibility a study or research project is dependent upon. Though it is difficult, if not, impossible, for a researcher to assess whether the research
118 and the data has been both correct and adequate before and during the research process, reliability and validity measures assist in combating such issues in occurring. Robson (2002) concurs that there are four factors which have the ability to affect the reliability of a study, these being:
• subject or participant error; • subject or participant bias; • observer error; and • observer bias.
In order to address these issues the study underwent several stages of testing to ensure that the credibility of the study could withstand detailed critique.
Subject or participant error refers essentially to the time of survey distribution and how this may influence the answers offered by a subject or participant when completing the survey (Saunders et al., 2003). In order to reduce the likelihood of this problem occurring, surveys were distributed to participants at various times. However, the participants were given the freedom to complete and return the survey at their convenience within a particular overall time frame.
Similarly, in managing subject or participant bias, steps were taken to ensure the anonymity of respondents of surveys so that they did not feel threatened with respect to the risk of having their responses exposed. The application of ethical practices ensured that this step was strictly adhered to. This also allowed respondents to answer the survey as they saw fit, understanding that anonymity would mean that their responses would not be scrutinised or criticised by external parties.
Observer error and observer bias were two important elements for assessing the reliability of the study and these two tasks related directly to the researcher. To ensure that observer error did not occur, the researcher used previous experience as well as a highly structured data collection schedule to minimise bias. Additionally, the researcher ensured that the survey was designed in such a way to solidify the integrity and meaning
119 of all the items. Easterby-Smith et al. (2002) concur that there are three questions researchers should consider before and whilst undertaking research:
1. Will the measures yield the same results on other occasions? 2. Will other observers reach similar observations? 3. Is there transparency in how sense was made from the raw data?
In designing the survey, several factors were considered to ensure it would be reliable. Borque and Clark (1994) suggest that when designing individual questions for a survey, that researchers confer with one of the following three activities:
• adopting questions used in other questionnaires (surveys); • adapting questions used in other questionnaires (surveys); • developing original questions.
While Borque and Clark (1994) believe that engaging in one of the above activities ensures that reliability occurs, the researcher took note of all of the above measures when designing the survey.
The three common approaches to assessing the reliability of a completed survey are: • test re-test; • internal consistency; • alternative form. (Mitchell, 1996).
Test re-test refers to how data correlates after being administered twice to the same respondent in near equivalent conditions (Saunders et al., 2003). Internal consistency is the process of assessing how questions in a survey correlate to other questions in the survey. A common approach to make this assessment is Cronbach’s alpha. Check questions are frequently used as an alternative form of assessing reliability. This essentially allows for responses to be compared to alternative forms of the same question or groups of questions (Saunders et al., 2003). Concurrent to reliability, validity tests were also undertaken.
120
Validity is concerned with whether the findings are actually about what they appear to be about (Saunders et al., 2003). The validity of a study should show that the research findings accurately represent the actual occurrence of a situation. More specifically, Coolican (1992, p.35) concurs that ‘an effect or test is valid if it demonstrates or measures what the researcher claims it does’. Validity is exposed to the danger of being extremely low if researchers fail to address the key proponents that hold it up.
These proponents are often classified within the following four categories: 1. content validity; 2. construct validity; 3. external validity; 4. internal validity.
Validity was assessed on several levels, with the first being content validity. Content validity is concerned with the degree to which the scale items represent the domain or the universe of the concept under study (Davis, 2005). To assess content validity several procedures were undertaken. The initial stage consisted of the search for sponsorship and relevant psychology and behavioural studies to identify scales that may be included in the survey. Secondly, expert advice was sought from academics as to which scales were relevant or irrelevant to the study and should subsequently be included or excluded. Following this, a pretest was undertaken and pertinent modifications made to the survey. The details of the pretest process can be found in the following section.
To test construct validity, that is, the degree to which the scale represents and acts like the concept being measured (Davis, 2005), a thorough review of the literature was undertaken, in order to justify theoretical assessment.
5.16 Pretest
The pretest is a vital component of the research process as it helps to identify and eliminate potential problems (Malhotra, 1999). Following the approval of the survey by
121 the university’s ethics board, a pretest was conducted with the assistance of 24 participants. All the participants involved in the focus group gave their consent to be involved in the pretest. The respondents were selected on the basis they were representative of the wider community and they were also representative of the respondents that would participate in the final research phase. The focus group participants were particularly helpful, as they had previously developed skills in communication and were honest and comprehensive in their responses when required. With the survey being one requiring self-completion, the researcher was able to perform all of the pretests.
An adaptation of protocol analysis and debriefing was used to pretest the survey. Rather than thinking aloud, respondents were asked to write down any of their thoughts with respect to the survey in general. Additionally, in debriefing, respondents were asked to identify any problems they encountered in answering the items in the survey. Respondents were also given a checklist to assess their understanding of the survey as well as their comprehension of particular areas of the survey that may need attention such as: • Item structure – are particular items suited as structured questions or open-ended questions? • Were the items appropriate and pertinent to the study? • Were the items worded appropriately? Were the items easily understood? • Did the order of the survey flow? • Thoughts on the form and layout of the survey
The resulting data from the pretest was collected and analysed using computer software. The analysis involved the assessment of general and specific responses, with special attention given to those items with more than one comment.
The initial modification was made to the layout of the survey. The Swinburne University emblem on the front page was reduced slightly in size and made a watermark, freeing up space at the head of the survey. This minor alteration made the survey look neater and reduced the length of the survey from five to four pages, which
122 worked in the favour of both the researcher, by having more items on less pages, and for the respondents who did not perceive the survey to be as long.
Several pretest respondents found it difficult to define and associate the sponsored property with their sponsors. Therefore a table was inserted to clearly identify the property and its three corresponding sponsors. These were also coded to avoid confusion.
Two respondents did not understand the instructions in the first section clearly. This was an issue that needed immediate action and clarification was made to the instructions, with major points highlighted in bold print. A follow up test found that all respondents understood the instructions better as a result of this modification.
As the items in the survey followed the sequence of the proposed conceptual model, in general, the comments regarding the flow of items was positive and therefore no changes were made to that aspect of the survey. There were two minor wording alterations made to items that several people had confusion in understanding, however, overall, the response regarding item wording and appropriateness was positive. An item concerning the type of sponsorship used at the event was altered from a blank space to four boxes with four options, in order to prompt a response.
The final section of the survey regarding actual purchase and general thoughts and comments provided a blank space for respondents to write their answers. It was suggested by the majority of respondents that a set of lines take place of the blank space to 1) make the space look better/neater and 2) encourage respondents to actually write comments. It was a common belief that the blank space would make respondents overlook the page altogether.
In all, only three of the original 78 items were modified with 5 additions made, one in Section 2, three in Section 4 and two in Section 10. One item was deleted as it was deemed unnecessary and inappropriate. The final survey can be found in Appendix 2.
123 5.17 Chapter Summary
This chapter examined the research method used to best understand the key objective of this study, the effect of sport sponsorship on the consumer and buyer behaviour. The study utilised a multi-method approach, that is, the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods, to assist in the research design and for the collection of data. Following in-depth focus group discussions, a survey was designed, based primarily on the conceptual model, with the use of items from previous studies of both similar and different contexts. To ensure the reliability and validity of the research instrument, a pretest was undertaken with several alterations made before the final distribution of the survey to the general public. While the final survey proved to be quite extensive, the justification of the item inclusions demonstrated that the effects of sponsorship on the consumer can be broad and varied and thus demonstrated that such scope in research is necessary.
The following chapter will discuss the results obtained as a result of the distribution of the surveys.
124 Chapter Six
Analysis and Findings
6.0 Introduction
In this chapter the main determinants contributing to sponsorship response are examined following the collection of data using the survey instrument described in chapter five. This chapter analyses meaningful data pertaining to sponsors who had engaged in a long-term partnership with a property. Additionally, the conceptual framework relating to buyer behaviour in the context of sports sponsorship is thoroughly analysed. The hypotheses developed in chapter four are tested and accompanying results presented.
6.1 Data Analysis
This section discusses the profile of participants and also the various tests conducted to ensure the reliability and validity of the data collected.
6.1.1 Profile of Respondents
The surveys for this study were distributed using snowball and random sampling techniques. It was a prerequisite that respondents should be at least 18 years of age. The sample included acquaintances of the researcher, as well as members of the general public who were all randomly selected. In contacting acquaintances, the researcher was able to obtain referrals for other members of the population, including those of varying backgrounds and characteristics to the acquaintance. As a result, this form of snowball sampling enabled an extension of the core sample. A general distribution of surveys at a number of locations including shopping centres, educational institutions, sporting grounds as well as known affluent and working class regions, ensured that the final sample was not biased geographically. In meeting time and convenience issues, the
125 final sample only included respondents from country and metropolitan areas within the state of Victoria. Surveys were either collected as they were completed or were returned by mail to a post office box address.
Of the 800 surveys distributed for this study, 704 were returned out of which 8 incomplete surveys were discarded as outlined in Table 6.0. For thorough estimates and analyses, only those surveys that were filled out correctly and completely were used for this study (87% of the total distributed). Based on this figure, the response rate is considered to be very good.
Table 6.0 Survey Response Rate
Surveys Frequency Percent
Distributed 800 100% Returned 704 88% Usable 696 87%
The demographic profiles of respondents corresponding to the sporting events (AFL football or Australian Open) are shown in the cross-tabulation tables below. In addition to these tables, crosstab tests were conducted to assess the chi-square and Cramer’s V values. Cramer’s V is a useful measure of association and adjusts for the large sample size, in this case 696. Chi-square tends to be too sensitive for sample sizes above 300. It is concurred that the larger the Cramer’s V, the stronger the association between the variables. The results of these tests are evident in the following section.
6.1.2 Gender
Of the 696 respondents of the surveys, 331 were male and 365 female. Despite the minor skew favouring the female population, overall the gender divide was evenly distributed (insignificantly different from a 1:1 ratio). Whilst more females within the sample chose the Australian Open as their selected event over their male counterparts, the gender distribution for the AFL was quite even. Table 6.1 depicts the gender distribution of respondents in the context of the two major sporting events. A crosstab test shows no significant difference between the events in terms of gender.
126 Table 6.1 Gender Distribution Sporting Event * Gender Crosstabulation
Gender Male Female Total Sporting AFL Count 228 186 414 event % within Sporting event 55.1% 44.9% 100.0% Aus Open Count 103 179 282 % within Sporting event 36.5% 63.5% 100.0% Total Count 331 365 696 % within Sporting event 47.6% 52.4% 100.0% (Chi-square = 23.137, df = 1, p = <0.001, Cramer’s V = .182)
6.1.3 Age
While trying to provide a broad range of ages for this study, participants predominantly fell within the 16-24 or 25-34 age groups. Unfortunately, this phenomena was not easily controlled as the administration of the surveys was random. 18.7% of participants were made up of those who were categorised within the age ranges of 35-44 and the remaining 8.7 percent were 45 and over. Table 6.2 depicts the age distribution of respondents in the context of the two major sporting events. The agreement between the age distributions for the two events confirms that any differences between the sponsors are not the result of age.
Table 6.2. Age Distribution Sporting Event * Age Crosstabulation
Age Total 55 and 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 over Sporting AFL Count 148 152 82 25 7 414 event % within 35.7% 36.7% 19.8% 6.0% 1.7% 100.0% Sporting event Aus Count 97 108 48 24 5 282 Open % within 34.4% 38.3% 17.0% 8.5% 1.8% 100.0% Sporting event Total Count 245 260 130 49 12 696 % within 35.2% 37.4% 18.7% 7.0% 1.7% 100.0% Sporting event (Chi-square = 2.359, df = 4, p = <0.001, Cramer’s V = .58)
127 6.1.4 Income
As table 6.3 indicates, the distribution of income groups is skewed towards the lower end of the spectrum. A total of 84 percent of respondents earned an income of $40,000 or below. For both sporting events, the response rate was highest amongst the group of respondents earning less than $20,000 and between $20,000-$30,000. By taking into account the likelihood of income varying across geographical areas, surveys were distributed to participants in both metropolitan and regional areas of the state of Victoria. However, the results suggest that despite undertaking this conscious step to ensure parity, responses from high-income earners were limited. Again, similar income distributions for the two events confirm that any differences between the sponsors are not the result of income.
Table 6.3 Distribution of Income Sporting Event * Income Crosstabulation
Income Total Less More Not than 20,000- 31,000- 41,000- 51,000- 61,000- than working 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 70,000 Sporting AFL Count 64 102 110 69 37 18 5 9 414 event % within 15.5% 24.6% 26.6% 16.7% 8.9% 4.3% 1.2% 2.2% 100.0% Sporting event Aus Count 46 81 79 32 20 6 4 14 282 Open % within 16.3% 28.7% 28.0% 11.3% 7.1% 2.1% 1.4% 5.0% 100.0% Sporting event Total Count 110 183 189 101 57 24 9 23 696 % within 15.8% 26.3% 27.2% 14.5% 8.2% 3.4% 1.3% 3.3% 100.0% Sporting event (Chi-square = 11.647, df = 7, p = <0.001, Cramer’s V = .129)
6.1.5. Education
As expected the majority of respondents were either secondary school or university educated, constituting 86 percent of the total sample. For both sporting events, just over half of the respondents were university educated. The inclusion of the postgraduate and TAFE categories ensured that all groups were catered for. Table 6.4 depicts the distribution of educations levels of respondents in the context of the two major sporting events, with similar results for both events.
128 Table 6.4. Distribution of Education Level Sporting Event * Education Crosstabulation
Education Secondary Post school University Graduate TAFE Total Sporting AFL Count 129 230 24 31 414 event % within Sporting event 31.2% 55.6% 5.8% 7.5% 100.0% Aus Open Count 91 149 25 17 282 % within Sporting event 32.3% 52.8% 8.9% 6.0% 100.0% Total Count 220 379 49 48 696 % within Sporting event 31.6% 54.5% 7.0% 6.9% 100.0% (Chi-square = 3.054, df = 3, p = <0.001, Cramer’s V = .66)
6.1.6. Occupation
In observing the occupations of respondents, six categories were addressed to best represent the general categories of employment available in the workplace. The two stand out categories were students and managers/professionals, with a combined total of 63 percent of the total sample. The unemployed, apprentice/junior and own business/self employed categories were fairly evenly distributed both as a total sample and within their chosen sporting event. The only category to present a rather low return was the supervisory group. Table 6.5 depicts the occupation distribution of respondents in the context of the two major sporting events.
Table 6.5. Distribution of Occupation Sporting Event * Occupation Crosstabulation
Occupation Total Own business/ Not Apprentice/ Super- Managerial/ Self working Student Junior visory Professional employed Sporting AFL Count 38 117 61 16 139 43 414 event % within Sporting 9.2% 28.3% 14.7% 3.9% 33.6% 10.4% 100.0% event Aus Count 20 99 32 7 85 39 282 Open % within Sporting 7.1% 35.1% 11.3% 2.5% 30.1% 13.8% 100.0% event Total Count 58 216 93 23 224 82 696 % within Sporting 8.3% 31.0% 13.4% 3.3% 32.2% 11.8% 100.0% event (Chi-square = 8.122, df = 5, p = <0.001, Cramer’s V = .108)
129 6.1.7 Marital Status
For both groups of participants who selected the football or tennis as their preferred sporting event, the majority were single. A total of 82 percent of respondents were single as opposed to the 18 percent who were married. 79 percent of respondents who chose the football as their selected event were single together with 86 percent of those respondents who chose the tennis. Despite the random distribution of surveys, the skew towards single respondents seemed unavoidable. Table 6.6 depicts the marital status of respondents in the context of the two major sporting events.
Table 6.6. Marital Status of Participants Sporting Event * Marital status Crosstabulation
Marital Status Single Married Total Sporting AFL Count 327 87 414 event % within Sporting event 79.0% 21.0% 100.0% Aus Open Count 242 40 282 % within Sporting event 85.8% 14.2% 100.0% Total Count 569 127 696 % within Sporting event 81.8% 18.2% 100.0% (Chi-square = 5.246, df = 1, p = <0.001, Cramer’s V = .087)
6.1.8 Geographical Area
The geographical distribution was skewed because surveys were distributed in metropolitan and regional areas of Victoria. The overwhelming majority of respondents (89 percent) resided in Victoria. Table 6.7 depicts the geographical distribution of respondents in the context of the two major sporting events.
130 Table 6.7. Distribution of Geographical Base of Participants Sporting Event * Base Crosstabulation
Base Victoria Interstate International Total Sporting AFL Count 376 18 20 414 event % within Sporting 90.8% 4.3% 4.8% 100.0% event Aus Open Count 245 7 30 282 % within Sporting 86.9% 2.5% 10.6% 100.0% event Total Count 621 25 50 696 % within Sporting 89.2% 3.6% 7.2% 100.0% event (Chi-square = 9.792, df = 2, p = <0.001, Cramer’s V = .119)
6.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis
Factor analysis is an approach that was first developed by psychologists as a way to represent latent (hypothetically existing) variables (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2000). Although the latent variables could not be directly measured, psychologists still wanted to handle them as if they were measurable.
In general, factor analysis is an approach for expressing in the language of mathematics hypothetical constructs by using a variety of observable indicators that can be directly measured. The analysis is considered exploratory when the concern is with determining how many constructs (factors) are needed to explain the relationships among the observed indicators and confirmatory when a pre-existing model of the relationship among the indicators directs the search.
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was first employed to uncover the underlying structure of the relatively large set of variables contained within the study. The EFA has three core features: (1) The potential number of factors ranges from one up to the number of observed variables. (2) All of the observed variables in EFA are allowed to correlate with every factor.
131 (3) A given EFA solution usually requires rotation to make the factors more interpretable. Rotation changes the correlations between the factors and the indicators so the patterns of values are more distinct. (Kline, 1998).
The EFA for this study was conducted in two parts to rationalise the fairly complex nature of the constructs, which were arranged in accordance to the conceptual model in Figure 4.0. The main constructs were split into two parts. The first part (EFA 1) comprised the constructs pertaining to the event, sponsor, sponsorship and pre-purchase response. The second part (EFA 2) comprised the constructs pertaining to the transfer of image values, intention to purchase and actual purchase.
Both EFA’s employed the use of principal axis factoring. Principal axis factoring is a form of factor analysis that seeks the least number of factors that can account for the common variance of a set of variables and was deemed the most appropriate method of factor extraction for this study. Oblimin with Kaiser Normalisation was used for rotation. Oblimin rotation is the standard method for extracting a non-orthogonal solution, that is, one in which the factors can be correlated. The Kaiser criterion (Kaiser Normalisation) is essentially the common rule of thumb for dropping the least important factors from the analysis. The Kaiser rule is to erase all components with eigenvalues under 1.0 and the results of these analyses can be observed in the following sections.
6.2.1 Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA 1)
EFA 1 examined the initial 36 items as they were presented in the survey instrument (items between 2.1 to 4.14, refer to Appendix 2 for survey instrument).
Table 6.8 illustrates the six factors that were generated, which had eigenvalues greater than one. The eigenvalue for a given factor measures the variance in all the variables that is accounted for by that factor. The ratio of eigenvalues is the ratio of explanatory importance of the factors with respect to the variables. If a factor has a low eigenvalue, then it is contributing little to the explanation of variances in the variables and may be ignored as superfluous. Eigenvalues basically measure the amount of variation in the total sample accounted for by each factor (Byrne, 2001).
132
Table 6.8 Results of EFA 1
Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Factor Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total 1 11.665 41.661 41.661 9.835 2 4.210 15.037 56.699 5.575 3 2.102 7.506 64.205 3.466 4 1.833 6.545 70.750 6.565 5 1.417 5.059 75.809 2.734 6 1.089 3.890 79.699 5.925 7 .726 2.594 82.293 8 .529 1.888 84.181 9 .496 1.771 85.953 10 .460 1.644 87.596 11 .372 1.330 88.926 12 .343 1.225 90.151 13 .305 1.088 91.239 14 .284 1.015 92.253 15 .244 .873 93.126 16 .228 .814 93.941 17 .224 .800 94.740 18 .208 .741 95.482 19 .194 .695 96.176 20 .183 .654 96.830 21 .163 .580 97.411 22 .130 .463 97.874 23 .122 .435 98.309 24 .111 .397 98.706 25 .104 .372 99.078 26 .094 .335 99.413 27 .088 .313 99.726 28 .077 .274 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. a. When factors are correlated, sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total variance.
133 As a result of the factor analysis, 8 items (i.e. 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 4.10, 4.14) were eliminated as they did not load strongly on any factor, recording loadings below 0.4 (Nunally, 1978). The remaining 28 items, as a result of the above omissions, are presented in Table 6.9 together with the pattern and structure loadings from the pattern and structure matrices found in Appendix 3 and 4.
Table 6.9 Pattern and Structure Matrix for EFA 1
Item Loading Correlation Cronbach Factor No. Items (Pattern) (Structure) Alpha for Factors 2.7 Event importance .920 .922 2.11 Importance of being fan .899 .922 2.8 Favourite sporting event .888 .899 2.10 Fan of event .882 .886 Factor 1 2.12 Fan perception by friends .870 .884 Liking/Fan 2.9 Interest exceeds general spectator .844 .882 0.971 Involvement 2.6 Enjoy following coverage .830 .874 4.1 Always like to watch event .819 .863 4.2 Watched full game .770 .861 2.5 Strongly support event .767 .826 Factor 2 3.2 Positive perception of sponsor .921 .918 Sponsor 3.1 Sponsor likeability .921 .922 Related 3.3 Sponsor favourability .704 .783 0.891 Attitudes/ 3.4 Improvement of sponsor image .496 .678 Beliefs
Factor 3 2.1 Event significance .827 .859 Event Status 2.3 Event popularity .813 .828 0.796 2.2 Community importance of event .497 .600 Factor 4 4.6 Sponsor was immediately noticeable .931 .896 Exposure 4.7 Sponsor stood out .929 .910 4.8 Clearly remember sponsor message .646 .745 0.896 4.4 Clear and obvious sponsor promotion .614 .725 4.3 Sponsor prominence .534 .722 Factor 5 3.11 Sponsor would have best interest of event .989 .969 Goodwill 0.819 3.12 Sponsor support of event of lower profile .711 .714 3.10 Sponsor belief event deserves support .596 .682 Factor 6 4.11 Strong logical connection between event and sponsor .935 .919 Sponsor- Event Fit 0.939 4.12 Similarity of portrayed image of event and sponsor .926 .945 4.13 Sense of company sponsoring the event .856 .881
134 Shown below in Table 6.10 is the factor correlation matrix for the 6 factors of EFA 1.
Table 6.10 Factor Correlation Matrix for EFA 1
Factor Correlation Matrix
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 1.000 .277 .334 .438 .013 .333 2 .277 1.000 .177 .408 .384 .565 3 .334 .177 1.000 .206 .063 .039 4 .438 .408 .206 1.000 .145 .506 5 .013 .384 .063 .145 1.000 .275 6 .333 .565 .039 .506 .275 1.000 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.
6.2.2 Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA 2)
The second EFA followed in a similar manner as EFA 1. It examined the group of items that represented the post event elements of the conceptual model in Figure 4.0. This EFA started with a total of 29 items, which were reduced to 25 following a process of elimination. Items 5.5 and 5.6 were removed because they loaded strongly on two factors while a further two items (5.11 and 5.12) were removed to improve discriminant validity.
Table 6.11 illustrates the results of the second EFA with six factors generated (Eigenvalues greater than 1).
135 Table 6.11 Results of EFA 2
Total Variance Explained
Initial Eigenvalues Rotation Factor Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total 1 16.501 66.005 66.005 12.414 2 1.206 4.826 70.831 7.753 3 .955 3.821 74.652 13.078 4 .906 3.623 78.275 10.923 5 .810 3.240 81.515 12.956 6 .637 2.549 84.065 11.201 7 .528 2.113 86.177 8 .471 1.883 88.060 9 .427 1.707 89.767 10 .296 1.184 90.950 11 .282 1.129 92.080 12 .242 .966 93.046 13 .220 .878 93.924 14 .184 .735 94.659 15 .180 .721 95.380 16 .163 .652 96.032 17 .157 .629 96.661 18 .146 .585 97.246 19 .135 .539 97.786 20 .126 .505 98.291 21 .117 .468 98.759 22 .093 .372 99.131 23 .078 .313 99.444 24 .072 .287 99.731 25 .067 .269 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. a. When factors are correlated, sums of squared loadings cannot be added to obtain a total variance.
136 Table 6.12 shows the 6 factors and their associated items. These have been generated from the pattern and structure matrices shown in Appendix 5 and 6.
Table 6.12 Pattern and Structure Matrix for EFA 2
Item Loading Correlation Cronbach Factor No. Items (Pattern) (Structure) Alpha for Factors 6.3 Engage in similar image as sponsor .748 .918
Factor 1 6.1 Sponsorship portrayed image of association .718 .900
Sponsorship 6.2 Feel closer to sponsor as result of sponsor association with event .668 .857 0.960 Effect 6.4 Sponsor relatedness to needs .562 .856 6.6 Positive feeling for event and sponsor as result of sponsorship .530 .846 6.5 Sponsorship was meaningful .519 .849 Factor 2 5.8 More likely to remember sponsor’s brand .812 .915 Awareness 5.7 Sponsorship leads to more notice of sponsor on other occasions .757 .905 0.921 Factor 3 5.14 Sponsorship improved perception .978 .959 Favourability 5.13 Sponsorship increased favourability .903 .936 0.956 5.15 Like sponsor more as result of sponsorship .850 .919 5.16 General attitude towards sponsor positive .693 .832 Factor 4 6.7 Similarity of event and sponsor image following sponsorship .929 .937 Image Congruence 0.906 6.8 Event and sponsor have stronger connection following sponsorship .735 .816 6.9 Values associated with event extend to sponsor .717 .872 Factor 5 7.3 More likely to purchase from sponsor than non-sponsor .960 .946 Intention (to purchase) 7.4 Try to buy sponsor products/services as result of positive effect of .914 .943 0.955 sponsorship 7.2 Actively seek products/services of sponsor .864 .937 7.1 Fact company sponsors event weighs on purchase decision .699 .843 Factor 6 5.9 Recall of all products/services promoted .609 .781 Interest 5.3 More interest in sponsor following sponsorship .602 .848 5.10 Sponsor first comes to mind when thinking of offered .566 .822 0.924 product/service 5.2 Interest in product/service of sponsor .562 .783 5.1 Sponsorship caught attention .517 .724 5.4 Interest in event leading to interest in sponsor .423 .776
137 Shown below in Table 6.13 is the factor correlation matrix for the 6 factors of EFA 2.
Table 6.13 Factor Correlation Matrix for EFA 2
Factor Correlation Matrix
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 1.000 .414 -.723 .637 .748 .627 2 .414 1.000 -.609 .514 .509 .533 3 -.723 -.609 1.000 -.678 -.716 -.660 4 .637 .514 -.678 1.000 .654 .605 5 .748 .509 -.716 .654 1.000 .669 6 .627 .533 -.660 .605 .669 1.000 Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.
6.3 Construct Reliability
Construct reliability refers to the consistency and stability of a score from a measurement scale (Davis, 2005). The validity of a scale relies heavily on it being reliable. Construct reliability is often ascribed to the consistency, precision, and repeatability of a study (Kline, 1998). There are a number of techniques available for assessing reliability though they are generally categorised into three general methods: the test-retest, alternative forms, and internal consistency (Davis, 2005). The three methods of reliability testing are focused on determining the degree to which systematic or true variance exists in the measurement scales with all methods relying on identifying the coefficient of reliability. The coefficient of reliability is a value between 0 to 1.0, with zero indicating no reliability and 1.0 indicating perfect reliability.
For this particular study, the internal consistency method was employed. The internal consistency method of testing assesses the correlation for a set of items (Davis, 2005). Tests that demonstrate reliability are generally free of random measurement error, producing high values for Cronbach’s Alpha. As can be seen in Tables 6.9 and 6.12 the Cronbach Alpha values for all the factors are relatively high (majority of them are close to 0.9) hence proving reliability of these factors.
138 6.4 Construct Validity
Construct validation involves the evaluation of the extent to which a particular instrument measures the latent variable(s) it is supposed to measure. The four major validation techniques employed in this study were face validity, convergent and discriminant validity, as well as nomological validity.
Face validity is an important component of construct validation and is considered the most common utilised in business research. Face validity ensures the test or measures used actually measure or represent what they are expected to (Collis & Hussey, 2003). In order for face validity to occur, an extensive search of previously conducted sponsorship and sports marketing related studies was undertaken and assessed for relevant items and findings. As a result, a survey was designed utilising these items, and was pretested using focus groups to ensure that it met the aims and goals of the study. The pretest involved a general evaluation of the survey items, with any required modifications made accordingly.
The concepts of convergent validity and discriminant validity involved the evaluation of measures against one another instead of against an external criterion. A set of indicators presumed to measure the same construct shows convergent validity if their intercorrelations are at least moderate in magnitude. If the estimated correlations of the factors that underlie sets of indicators that are supposed to measure different constructs are not excessively high, then there is evidence for discriminant validity (Kline, 1998).
6.5 Measurement Models
To evaluate the measurement models for each construct, covariance structure analysis was performed using AMOS Version 6 (Analysis of Moment Structures). Measurement models are commonly used to assess the convergent validity of the constructs (Steenkamp & Van Trijp, 1991).
139 6.5.1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models are most commonly used to examine patterns of interrelationships among several constructs. Each construct included in the model is usually measured by its own set of observed indicators. In a CFA model, no specific directional relationships are assumed between the constructs, only that they are correlated with one another (Byrne, 2001). Subsequently, CFA is not concerned with discovering a factor structure, but with confirming the existence of a specific factor structure. CFA is considered to be a general modelling approach that is designed to test hypotheses about a factor structure whose number and interpretation are given in advance. In CFA (a) the theory comes first, (b) the model is then derived from it, and finally (c) the model is tested for consistency with the observed data using a SEM-type approach (Byrne, 2001).
6.6 Goodness-of-Fit Measurement
Fit indexes reflect the overall fit of the model. It is important for researchers to consider for study the models that represent conceivable means of data description and explanation (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2000). These can be identified with the use of model fit evaluation. The following sections briefly examine the goodness-of-fit indices commonly used.
6.6.1 Chi-square Value
This evaluation of model fit is carried out on the basis of an inferential goodness-of-fit index as well as a number of other descriptive indices. The inferential index is called a chi-square value. It represents a test statistic of the goodness-of-fit of the model and it is used when testing the null hypothesis that the model fits the analysed covariance matrix perfectly (Byrne, 2001).
140 6.6.2 Descriptive-Fit Indices
The descriptive-fit indices provide an alternative unit of indices that assess the goodness-of-fit of the proposed model based on the particular sample at hand. A popularly utilised descriptive-fit index is the goodness-of-fit index (GFI). The index is considered a measure of the proportion of variance and covariance that the proposed model is able to explicate (Raykov and Marcoloudies, 2000). It is concurred that if the number of parameters is also taken into account in computing this measure, the consequential index is called the adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI). It is currently viewed that models with a GFI and AGFI in the mid .90s or above may represent a good approximation of the data (Hu and Bentler, 1999).
6.6.3 Alternative-Fit Indices
Alternative fit indices are based on an altogether different conceptual approach to the process of hypothesis testing in SEM. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) index has become a popular index of alternative fit. Byrne (2001) suggests that a value of RMSEA of less than .05 is indicative of a model producing a reasonable approximation of the data.
Coexisting, the comparative fit index (CFI) is defined as the ratio of improvement in noncentrality in the proposed model to the noncentrality of the null model. Typically, the null model is considered to have higher noncentrality than a proposed model because it is expected to fit the data poorly (Raykov and Marcoulides, 2000). Therefore, values of CFI close to 1 are considered likely to designate a well fitting model. In general, a CFI in the mid .90s or above is usually associated with models that provide a reasonable approximation of the data.
The confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) for the 12 factors are presented in the figures on the following pages. Please note the uniform reporting style to ensure clarity and to reduce confusion.
141 6.7 CFA’s for the Six Factors of EFA (Part 1)
This section examines the confirmatory factor analyses for the six factors of the first exploratory factor analysis (EFA1).
6.7.1 CFA for Liking/Fan Involvement
As indicated in section 6.2.1 the liking, fan involvement and exposure level constructs of the conceptual model in Figure 4.1 merged as a result of the exploratory factor analysis. This factor comprised of ten items as can be seen in Table 6.9. In order to obtain a good fit, items 2.6, 2.8, 2.11, 2.12 and 4.1 were removed. The final congeneric measurement model is depicted in Figure 6.0 below.
Figure 6.0 CFA for Liking/Fan Involvement 1 q4.2 d3 1 1 q2.5 d4
Liking/Fan Involvement 1 q2.7 d6
1 q2.9 d8 1 q2.10 d9
Chi-square = 11.984, df = 3, p=0.035, CMIN/DF = 2.397, GFI = 0.993, AGFI = 0.979, T 0.996, CFI = 0.998, RMSEA = 0.045, 90%CI for RMSEA = (0.011, 0.078).
As the results indicate the GFI and AGFI represent a good approximation of the data, with RMSEA <.05. The CFI demonstrates a value close to one and therefore suggests that it is a well fitting model.
142 The regression weights for the items of the final measurements model are shown in Table 6.14.
Table 6.14 Regression Weights for Liking/Fan Involvement: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label Q2.5 <---Liking .812 .029 27.723 *** Q2.7 <---Liking .980 .032 30.242 *** Q2.9 <---Liking .964 .037 26.356 *** Q2.10<---Liking .985 .032 30.387 *** Q4.2 <---Liking 1.000
There are five items that indicate a significant relationship. One is the weight assigned to item 4.2 in order to obtain a solution. The weights for the other four variables were less than one, but still significant at p<0.001 level.
6.7.2 CFA for Sponsor Related Attitude/Beliefs
The model in Figure 6.1 is a saturation model reproducing the covariance matrix exactly, hence the chi square is zero. As Table 6.9 indicates, this factor was originally comprised of four items, however, in order to obtain a good fit item 3.4 was removed.
Figure 6.1 CFA for Sponsor Related Attitude/Beliefs 1 1 q3.1 e1 1 Attitude/ q3.2 e2 Beliefs 1 q3.3 e3 Sponsor Related Attitude/Beliefs Chi-squared=0, df =0 (Saturation model)
The regression weights for the items of the final measurement model are shown in Table 6.15.
Table 6.15 Regression Weights for Sponsor Related Attitude/Beliefs: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label Q3.1<---Attitude/Beliefs 1.000 Q3.2<---Attitude/Beliefs .913 .026 35.689 *** Q3.3<---Attitude/Beliefs .885 .035 25.642 ***
143
There are three items that indicate a significant relationship. The weight assigned to item 3.1 is one in order to obtain a solution. The weights for the remaining two variables were less than one, but still significant at p<0.001 level.
6.7.3 CFA for Event Status
The model depicted in Figure 6.2 is a saturation model reproducing the covariance matrix exactly. No items were removed.
Figure 6.2 CFA for Event Status
1 1 q2.1 e1 1 Event Status q2.2 e2 1 q2.3 e3
Chi-square = 0.000, Df = 0 (Saturation model)
The regression weights for the items of the final measurement model are shown in Table 6.16.
Table 6.16 Regression Weights for Event Status: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label Q2.1<---Event status 1.000 Q2.2<---Event status .936 .058 16.061 *** Q2.3<---Event status .811 .043 18.684 ***
There are three items that indicate a significant relationship. One is the weight assigned to item 2.1 in order to obtain a solution. The weights for the other two variables were less than one, but still significant at p<0.001 level.
144 6.7.4 CFA for Exposure
The final congeneric measurement model for exposure is depicted in Figure 6.3 below. In order to obtain a good fit, item 4.4 was removed.
Figure 6.3 CFA for Exposure 1 q4.3 e1 1
1 Exposure q4.6 e3 1 q4.7 e4 1 q4.8 e5
Chi-square = 4.683, Df = 2, p = 0.096, CMIN/DF = 2.341, GFI = 0.997, AGFI = 0.983, TLI = 0.995, CFI = 0.998, RMSEA = 0.044, 90% CI = (0.000, 0.097)
The results indicate the GFI and AGFI represents a good approximation of the data with RMSEA <.05. The CFI demonstrates a value close to one and therefore suggests this is a well fitting model.
The following table shows the regression weights of the final four items.
Table 6.17 Regression Weights for Exposure: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label Q4.3<---Exposure 1.000 Q4.6<---Exposure 1.331 .069 19.210 *** Q4.7<---Exposure 1.400 .072 19.498 *** Q4.8<---Exposure 1.325 .079 16.831 ***
There are four items that indicate a significant relationship. One is the weight assigned to item 4.3. in order to obtain a solution. The weights for the other three variables were also significant.
145 6.7.5 CFA for Goodwill
The model in Figure 6.4 reproduced the covariance matrix exactly resulting in a chi- square of zero.
Figure 6.4 CFA for Goodwill 1 q3.10 e1 1 1 Goodwill q3.11 e2 1 q3.12 e3
Chi-square = 0, DF = 0 (Saturation model)
The factor of goodwill in this model indicated there were three items attached to this factor and as evidenced above, no items were removed. The regression weights for the three items are shown in Table 6.18.
Table 6.18 Regression Weights for Goodwill: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label Q3.10<---Goodwill .624 .040 15.663 *** Q3.11<---Goodwill 1.000 Q3.12<---Goodwill .672 .041 16.498 ***
There are three items that indicate a significant relationship. One is the weight assigned to item 3.11. in order to obtain a solution. The weights for the other two variables were less than one, but still significant at p<0.001 level.
6.7.6 CFA for Sponsor-Event Fit
As a result of reproducing the covariance matrix exactly, the chi-square for the model in Figure 6.5 is zero. No items were removed.
146 Figure 6.5 CFA for Sponsor-Event Fit 1 q4.11 e1 1 1 q4.12 e2 Sponsor-Event 1 Fit q4.13 e3
Chi-square = 0, df=0 (Saturation Model)
The regression weights for the three items are shown in Table 6.19.
Table 6.19 Regression Weights for Sponsor-Event Fit: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label Q4.11<---Fit 1.000 Q4.12<---Fit 1.038 .025 42.294 *** Q4.13<---Fit .976 .027 35.834 ***
There are three items that indicate a significant relationship. One is the weight assigned to item 4.11 in order to obtain a solution. The weights for the other two variables were less than one, but still significant at p<0.001 level.
6.8 CFA’s for the Six Factors of EFA (Part 2)
This section examines the confirmatory factor analyses for the six factors of EFA 2.
6.8.1 CFA for Sponsorship Effect
This factor combines the image transfer constructs at the sponsorship activity level and sponsorship category level. This factor initially comprised of six items, however, in order to obtain a good fit, items 6.4 and 6.5 were removed. The final congeneric measurement model can be observed in Figure 6.6.
147 Figure 6.6 CFA for Sponsorship Activity Effect
1 q6.1 e16
Sponsorship 1 1 Effect q6.2 e17
1 q6.3 e18
1 q6.6 e21
Chi-square = 2.682, DF = 2, CMIN/DF = 1.341, GFI = 0.998, AGFI = 0.991, TLI = 0.999, CFI = 1.000, RMSEA = 0.022, 90%CI = (0.000, 0.082).
As the results indicate the GFI and AGFI represents a good approximation of the data, and equitable approximation of the data with RMSEA <.05. The CFI demonstrates a value of one and therefore suggests this is a well fitting model.
The regression weights for the four items are shown in Table 6.20.
Table 6.20 Regression Weights for Sponsorship Activity Effect: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label Q6.1 <---Sponsorship effect .941 .022 42.693 *** Q6.2 <---Sponsorship effect .916 .023 39.990 *** Q.6.3<---Sponsorship effect 1.000 Q6.6 <---Sponsorship effect .918 .026 35.341 ***
There are four items that indicate a significant relationship. One is the weight assigned to item 6.3. in order to obtain a solution. The weights for the other three variables were also significant.
6.8.2 CFA for Awareness
There was no CFA conducted for awareness, as there were only two items for this factor.
148 6.8.3 CFA for Favourability
The chi-square for favourability is zero, representing a saturation model with the exact reproduction of the covariance matrix. This model can be observed in Figure 6.7. Item 5.16 was removed in order to attain a good fit.
Figure 6.7 CFA for Favourability
1 q5.13 e1 1 1 q5.14 e2
Favourability 1 q5.15 e3
Chi-square = 0, DF = 0 (Saturation model)
The regression weights for the three items are shown in Table 6.21.
Table 6.21 Regression Weights for Favourability: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label Q5.13<---Favourability 1.000 Q5.14<---Favourability 1.018 .019 53.036 *** Q5.15<---Favourability .986 .023 43.508 ***
There are three items that indicate a significant relationship. One is the weight assigned to item 5.13. in order to obtain a solution. The weights for the other two variables were still significant.
6.8.4 CFA for Image Congruence
As with the previous model, the following model in Figure 6.8 is a saturation model with the reproduction of the covariance matrix, hence the chi-square is zero. No items for this factor were removed.
149 Figure 6.8 CFA for Image Congruence 1 1 q6.7 e1
Im age 1 q6.8 e2 Congruence 1 q6.9 e3
Chi-square = 0.000, Df = 0 (Saturation Model)
The regression weights for the three items are shown in Table 6.22.
Table 6.22 Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label Q6.7<---Image congruence 1.000 Q6.8<---Image congruence .831 .029 28.297 *** Q6.9<---Image congruence .955 .030 32.159 ***
There are three items that indicate a significant relationship. One is the weight assigned to item 6.7 in order to obtain a solution. The weights for the other two variables were less than one, but still significant at p<0.001 level.
6.8.5 CFA for Intention
The following model in Figure 6.9 is an exact reproduction of the covariance matrix and therefore has a chi-square of zero. This factor comprised of four items, as indicated in Table 6.9 however, in order to obtain a good fit, item 7.1 was removed.
Figure 6.9 CFA for Intention (to purchase)
1 q7.2 e2 Intention 1 1 q7.3 e3 1 q7.4 e4
Chi-square = 0.000, Df = 0 (Saturation model)
The regression weights for the three items are shown in Table 6.23.
150 Table 6.23 Regression Weights for Intention: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label Q7.2 <--- Intention .922 .020 45.766 *** Q7.3 <--- Intention 1.000 Q7.4 <--- Intention .960 .017 56.459 ***
There are three items that indicate a significant relationship. One is the weight assigned to item 7.3. in order to obtain a solution. The weights for the other two variables were less than one, but still significant at p<0.001 level.
6.8.6 CFA for Interest
This factor represents both interest and recall constructs, which merged as result of the EFA conducted. This factor initially comprised of six items, however, was reduced to three items in order to obtain a good fit. Items 5.1, 5.9 and 5.10 were removed as evidenced in Figure 6.10.
Figure 6.10 CFA for Interest
1 q5.2 e2 1 1 q5.3 e3
1 Interest q5.4 e4
Chi-squared = 0, Df = 0 (Saturation model)
The regression weights for the three items are shown in Table 6.24.
Table 6.24 Regression Weights for Interest: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label Q5.2<---Interest .879 .033 26.270 *** Q5.3<---Interest 1.035 .032 32.856 *** Q5.4<---Interest 1.000
There are three items that indicate a significant relationship. One is the weight assigned to item 5.4 in order to obtain a solution. The weights for the other two variables were still significant.
151
6.9 Nomological Validity
Nomological validity determines the level to which constructs that are theoretically related, intercept empirically and examine the extent to which they correlate in a predicted direction (Malhotra, 1999). The full structural model (measurement model and structural relationships between latent variables) needs to be specified and thoroughly examined in order to predict the level of nomological validity.
Nomological validity for this study was assessed using the discriminant validity tables, which can be found in Appendix 7. Correlations of 0.7 and above were considered strong correlations. The following is a summary of the nomological validity for the factors.
• Intention to purchase has a strong positive relationship with sponsorship effect, image congruence, favourability and interest. • Sponsorship effect has a strong positive relationship with image congruence, favourability, interest and attitudes/beliefs. • Image congruence has a strong positive relationship with favourability, interest and sponsor-event fit. • Favourability has a strong positive relationship with recall and interest. • Recall has a strong positive relationship with interest. • Interest has a strong positive relationship with attitudes/beliefs.
6.10 Multicollinearity
Multicolleanarity indicates the degree to which independent variables are correlated. A correlation value of 0.8 and above generally indicates that two or more independent variables are perfectly or very closely correlated and consequently they are considered to measure the same construct. The greater the multicollinearity, the more technical problems that arise with regard to multiple regression and correlation analyses, including structural equation modelling. In order to check for multicollinearity, the correlation matrix in Tables 6.9 and 6.12 were examined and found to be appropriate.
152
6.11 Discriminant Validity
Discriminant validity refers to the principle that the indicators for different constructs should not be so highly correlated as to indicate that they are measuring the same thing. This was done for the entire model and is shown in Appendix 7. A summary of the results is shown in Table 6.25.
Table 6.25 Discriminant Validity Discriminant Construct Item Validity 7.4 0.957 Intention (to purchase) 7.3 0.954 7.2 0.913 6.6 0.88 Sponsorship effect 6.3 0.924 6.2 0.896 6.1 0.917 6.9 0.894 Image congruence 6.8 0.816 6.7 0.916 5.15 0.913 Favourability 5.14 0.958 5.13 0.944
Awareness 5.8 0.894 5.7 0.955 5.2 0.818 Interest 5.4 0.895 5.3 0.917 4.13 0.909 Sponsor-Event Fit 4.14 0.953 4.15 0.882 4.3 0.651 Exposure 4.8 0.907 4.9 0.937 4.10 0.767 3.10 0.694 Goodwill 3.11 0.94 3.12 0.732 3.1 0.917 Sponsor Attitude/Beliefs 3.2 0.934 3.3 0.821 2.5 0.883 2.7 0.923 Fan Involvement 2.9 0.846 2.10 0.93 4.2 0.804 2.1 0.877 Event status 2.2 0.67 2.3 0.802
153
6.12 Structural Equation Modelling
Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) is a statistical methodology often used in a wide array of fields of research. Its appeal essentially lies in the ability for researchers to quantify and test theories (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2000). SEM also enables the account of measurement error that is omnipresent in most disciplines and contains latent variables (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2000).
Latent variables are theoretical or hypothetical constructs; the recording or measurement of features of the constructs is typically obtained by using applicable instrumentation. Once constructs have been assessed, SEM can be used to test the credibility of hypothetical assertions about potential interrelationships among the constructs as well as their relationships to the indicators of measures assessing them (Raykov & Marcoulides, 2000).
Next the 12 confirmatory factor analysis models (measurement models) were arranged sequentially as per the conceptual model in Figure 4.0. All the items together with their error terms are shown in Figure 6.11. This constitutes the initial consolidated SEM model.
154 Figure 6.11 Detailed Initial Model
q2.1 1 Event q5.3 q2.2 1 Status Interest q5.4 q2.3
q2.5 1 q5.7 Pre-purchase q2.7 Response Awareness Fan q5.8 q2.9 Involvement q2.10 1 1 q5.13
q4.2 Favourability q5.14 q5.15 q3.1 1 Attitude/ q3.2 Beliefs 1 q6.7 q3.3 Image Congruence q6.8 q3.10 q6.9 q3.11 Goodwill Transfer of 1 Image Values 1 q6.1 q3.12 Sponsorship q6.2 q4.3 Effect
q4.6 q.6.3 Exposure q4.7 1 q4.8 q7.2 Intention to q4.13 1 Sponsor- Purchase q7.3 q4.14 Event Fit q4.15 q7.4
155 The initial model was used to test the hypotheses and the results are shown in Figure 6.12 and Table 6.26. Basically, a version of ‘t’ test was employed which uses critical ratios from the SEM. The direction and importance of the relationship is determined by the magnitude of Beta.
Figure 6.12 Initial Model to Test Hypotheses
Event Status
Fan -0.149 Involvement
0.220
Attitudes/Beliefs Pre- 0.411 Purchase Response 0.108
0.993 Sponsor Goodwill 0.124 Transfer of 0.405 Image Values
Exposure
0.845
Sponsor Event Fit
Intention to Purchase
Chi-square = 3682.475, Df = 649, p<0.001, CMIN/DF = 5.674, GFI = 0.772, AGFI = 0.739, TLI = 0.882, CFI = 0.891, RMSEA = 0.082, 90% CI = (0.079: 0.085)
156 6.13 Testing of Hypotheses
The 11 hypotheses in Table 4.0 were reduced to 8. The initial 9 underlying constructs were reduced to 6 during the process of EFA (part one). The three factors eliminated were personal liking (hypothesis two), sponsor prominence (hypothesis five) and type of exposure (hypothesis seven). Hypotheses 2, 5, and 7 could not be tested as they merged during the process of EFA. Personal liking (hypothesis two) merged with fan involvement to form hypothesis three (H3), type and level of exposure (hypothesis
seven) merged to form hypothesis eight (H8) and sponsor prominence (hypothesis five) was removed. The results of the hypotheses tests are shown in Table 6.26.
Table 6.26 Hypotheses Testing Hypotheses Beta No. Estimate S.E. C.R. P Support for hypotheses H1 Response <--- Event Status -.223 .048 -4.640 *** No support -.149 H2 Response <--- Personal Liking Personal Liking merged with Fan Involvement to form H3 H3 Response <--- Fan Involvement .175 .026 6.845 *** Very weak support .220
H4 Response <--- Attitudes/Beliefs .384 .033 11.781 *** Moderate support .411
H5 Sponsor Response <--- Sponsor Prominence removed Prominence H6 Response <--- Goodwill .111 .027 4.062 *** Very weak support .108 H7 Response <--- Exposure Type Exposure type merged with Exposure Level to form H8
H8 Response <--- Exposure Level .151 .038 3.997 *** Very weak support .124 H9 Response <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .336 .029 11.454 *** Moderate support .405
H10 Image <--- Response 1.003 .040 25.035 *** Strong support .993 H11 Intention <--- Image 1.084 .045 23.965 *** Strong support .845 Note: Response = Pre-purchase Response Image = Transfer of Image Values
157 The standardised regression weights for the eight constructs are shown in Table 6.27.
Table 6.27 Standardized Regression Weights for Constructs: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate Pre-purchase Response <--- Event Status -.149 Pre-purchase Response <--- Fan Involvement .220
Pre-purchase Response <--- Attitude/Beliefs .411
Pre-purchase Response <--- Exposure .124 Pre-purchase Response <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .405 Pre-purchase Response <--- Goodwill .108 Transfer of Image Values <--- Pre-purchase Response .993
Intention to Purchase <--- Transfer Image Values .845
6.14 Discussion of Hypotheses Tests
The following section comprises a discussion of the hypotheses tested.
6.14.1 Event Status
H1: The level of perceived event status is an antecedent of a positive pre-purchase response.
The results revealed event status was in fact negatively associated with pre-purchase response, subsequently meaning that it had no bearing on a consumer’s decision to purchase a sponsor’s products or services. Evidently this refutes previous works conducted by the likes of Speed and Thompson (2000) and Stipp and Schiavone (1996). The results clearly indicate that event status is not a significant construct within the original framework and therefore H1 is rejected.
6.14.2 Personal Liking
H2: Personal liking of the event is positively associated with a pre-purchase response.
As personal liking merged with fan involvement following the factor analysis, H2 could not be tested hence the original hypothesis was rejected.
158
6.14.3 Fan Involvement
H3: Fan involvement is positively associated with a pre-purchase response.
The results indicate that fan involvement does not have a significant association with pre-purchase response. This result is somewhat surprising considering the amount of research conducted in this area that predominantly concurs that fan involvement is particularly significant. This indicates that sponsor consciousness of actual audience segmentation is somewhat redundant if the level of fan involvement is insignificant.
6.14.4 Personal Attitudes/Beliefs
H4: Personal attitudes/beliefs are indicative of a positive pre-purchase response.
The results in this test show that there is moderate support for this hypothesis and subsequently supports the work of Blackwell et al. (2001) and Mullin et al. (2000) who propose that personal attitudes and beliefs act purposefully in inadvertently affecting sponsorship response. The outcome suggests that the attitude/belief construct is an important component in the overall CDP structure and care should be taken by sponsors to create an image that either establishes or builds on what consumers have previously been exposed to regarding them. The results demonstrate that what consumers have previously believed of the sponsor, whether it is positive or negative, has a moderate bearing of what they think of the sponsor in the present and subsequently influences their pre-purchase response.
6.14.5 Sponsor Prominence
H5: Sponsor prominence is positively associated with a pre-purchase response.
As mentioned previously, this hypothesis was removed following the results of the EFA and was subsequently rejected.
159
6.14.6 Goodwill
H6: The level of goodwill attributable to a sponsor is positively associated with the pre-purchase response of a consumer.
The results show there is only weak support for this conception and understandably so from a consumer viewpoint where commercialism is rife, attune to the current business environment. Cynicism can easily cloud a consumer’s perception of goodwill when the money surrounding high profile sponsorships is so heavily publicised and additionally it can, and appears to have reduced any role of importance goodwill may play in sponsorship evaluation. Therefore the results indicate that consumers in this study did not place great importance on the philanthropic intentions of the sponsors and this refutes the results of previous studies conducted by D’astous and Bitz (1995), Speed and Thompson (2000) as well as assumptions made by Meenaghan (2001).
6.14.7 Type of Exposure
H7: Type of exposure is positively associated with a pre-purchase response.
As type of exposure merged with level of exposure following the factor analysis, H7 could not be tested hence, the original hypothesis was rejected.
6.14.8 Level of Exposure
H8: The level of exposure to sponsorship is significantly associated with a positive pre-purchase response.
Though standard cognitive learning literature concurs that learning grows with increased exposure, it appears to have little bearing on the indicators associated with a positive pre-purchase disposition. The results present only weak support for this hypothesis and suggest that sponsors should not rely solely on exposure level to forecast consumer behaviour’s impact on a return on investment.
160
6.14.9 Sponsor-Event Fit
H9: Sponsor-Event fit contributes to a positive association with pre-purchase response.
The results indicate that there is moderate support for this hypothesis. Previous research has indicated a divide in opinion regarding the degree to which sponsor-event fit, or congruence, affects the decision to purchase a sponsor’s product or service. The result though not highly significant, indicates that it is still necessary for sponsors and properties to assess the compatibility of a partnership before making the final decision to engage in such relationship.
6.14.10 Pre-purchase Response
H10: Pre purchase response is positively associated with image transfer.
The results demonstrate a strong level of support for this hypothesis, therefore signifying that the levels of recall, favourability and interest are predictors of the level of image transfer that occurs in the consumer decision process. This therefore illustrates the significance of sponsors engaging in sponsorship activities to take full advantage of, and exploit the three key variables that define pre-purchase response.
6.14.11 Transfer of Image Values
H11: The transfer of image values is positively associated with intention to purchase.
Parallel to hypothesis ten, this notion resulted in a strong level of support. The results indicate a snowball effect that predicates pre-purchase response to affect the transfer of image values, which subsequently leads to an affect of, and is positively associated with, the intention to purchase. The result indicates the necessity for sponsors to engage their audience and convincingly demonstrates the importance of the transfer of image values.
161
6.15 Qualitative Responses
This section examines the qualitative responses relating to the hypotheses. A relatively small proportion of final respondents provided qualitative feedback to the open-ended questions in Section 9 of the survey (approximately 34 percent). The responses are tabulated in Table 6.28.
Table 6.28 Open-ended Responses Linked to Hypotheses
Hypothesis Responses Linkage to SEM findings and Hypothesis Testing Not representative of total sample There was no support for event status’ association with a positive pre-purchase A small proportion of responses presented a mix of supporting response in the SEM results. While the H1 sponsors of popular events with little clutter & local sport teams. small number of qualitative responses Event Status “A major event with a lot of coverage that didn’t have too much demonstrates that event status was clutter” important, overall it appears the hypothesis test results can be accepted. “A major event would be good commercially”
Not representative of total sample The findings of both the qualitative and quantitative data suggest that fan Fan involvement was only a consideration for a minimal involvement is not of particular consideration H3 number of respondents. for consumers. Fan “Team sponsorship [capitalises] on a loyal following” Involvement Sponsorship effects consumer decision making “…especially if they sponsor a sport that I am a fan of”
Representative of total sample The SEM results indicated only moderate support for the effect of personal A significant proportion of respondents believed that a positive attitudes/beliefs on a positive pre-purchase sponsorship response was defined by preconceived attitudes response. The qualitative results appeared and beliefs held by the consumer. to demonstrate a more notable emphasis on H4 “I think KIA’s products are very cheap and poor quality and I its importance in affecting consumer Personal would not consider them” purchase intentions.
Attitudes and “This isn’t a great beer so I don’t buy it”
Beliefs “…still feel that KIA is a cheap and unreliable car – this has come through word of mouth”
“Because I do not know anything positive about their products. Word of mouth has told me negative things”
Not representative of total sample There is a level of agreement between the findings of quantitative and qualitative data, Only very few respondents commented on the appeal of with both indicating goodwill is not of H6 goodwill in a sponsorship. particular importance in determining a Goodwill Sponsorship “further[s] the community” positive sponsorship response.
“Builds goodwill amongst the public”
Not representative of total sample The hypothesis test results suggested that
there was only weak support for exposure’s Essentially a very small group of respondents considered bearing on a positive pre-purchase response. H8 exposure to be a value-adding motive for sponsorship. The small number of qualitative responses Exposure Sponsorship “…gains exposure for a brand” commenting on exposure’s importance implies the same result. “…all comes down to exposure”
162 Not representative of total sample The SEM results indicated only moderate support for the contribution of sponsor-event For a small-medium, yet notable group of respondents, fit on a positive pre-purchase response. sponsorship response was defined by the relevance and Qualitative data findings appeared to H9 relatedness of a sponsor to a property and vice versa. demonstrate a similar level of emphasis on Sponsor-Event “The event has nothing much to do with the sponsor” sponsor-event fit as the catalyst for an effective sponsorship response. Fit “…they don’t really fit with the OZ Open’s classy image”
“I love AFL but the connection between the two doesn’t lead me to buy a Toyota” Representative of total sample The quantitative data demonstrated that image transfer is positively associated with The qualitative responses demonstrated that inherent in the pre-purchase and the intention to purchase. understanding of image transfer is the personal nature and Similarly a significant number of qualitative effect it can purport. responses shared the same sentiments. H11 “I see it as a ‘beer only’ company. I think the brand’s image is Image Transfer one with which I don’t want to be associated”
“Because the image of the company alone is not enough to influence my buying decisions”
“KIA is known to be a ‘cheap’ brand. I do not want to purchase a car with this image”
The qualitative responses, although generally not representative of the total population, appear to agree with the quantitative findings. In particular, the open-ended responses pertaining to the personal attitudes/beliefs and image transfer constructs appear to be comparable to the quantitative findings, which is interesting to note.
6.16 Examining the Models
The initial model as illustrated in Figure 6.11 did not fit the data well (i.e. GFI=0.772, RMSEA=0.082). Consequently, the weak relationships (beta<0.2) were removed to provide a better fit.
Despite this, the model still did not fit well. A link between fit and image congruence was suggested. As both variables are based upon the same objective this link made sense, with Gwinner and Swanson (1999) concurring that they essentially focus on achieving some level of relatedness. The strength of the link between the two variables meant only one dimension of the transfer of image values construct need be affected. Additionally, the standardised residuals for q3.3, q5.2, q5.7 and q5.8 were too large (>2.50) so these variables were removed. Eventually, a reasonably good fit was obtained as shown in the models in Figure 6.13 and 6.14.
163 Figure 6.13 Detailed Final Model
q3.1 1 Attitudes/ q5.3 Beliefs 1 q3.2 Interest 1 q5.4 Pre-purchase q5.13 Response 1
Favourability q5.14
q5.15 q4.13 1
Sponsor q4.14 Event Fit q4.15
q6.9 Image q6.8 Transfer 1 Congruence Image Values q6.7 1 q.6.3
q6.2 speffect 1 q7.2 1 q6.1 Intention to Purchase q7.3
q7.4
Chi-squared = 592.291, df = 142 .000, CMIN/DF = 4.171, GFI = 0.920, AGFI = 0.893, TLI = 0.965, CFI = 0.971, RMSEA = 0.068, 90%LL = 0.062, 99%UL = 0.073
164 A simplified version of the final model is depicted in Figure 6.14 below.
Figure 6.14 Simple Final Model for Intention to Purchase
Attitude/ Beliefs Interest 0.44 0.86
Pre-purchase response 0.55 0.88 0.45 Favourability
Sponsor-Event Fit
0.99
0.40
Image Congruence 0.54 Transfer of Image 0.92 Values Sponsorship Effect 0.87
Intention
165 The regression weights for the final model are shown in Tables 6.29 and 6.30.
Table 6.29 Regression Weights for Final Model Estimate S.E. C.R. P Label Pre-purchase Response <--- Attitude/Beliefs .412 .034 12.133 *** Pre-purchase Response <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .397 .031 12.605 *** Transfer Image Values <--- Pre-purchase Response 1.052 .041 25.707 *** Image Congruence <--- Transfer Image Values .580 .040 14.335 *** Interest <--- Pre-purchase Response 1.000 Favourability <--- Pre-purchase Response .943 .038 24.927 *** Intention to Purchase <--- Transfer Image Values 1.079 .041 26.421 *** Sponsorship Effect <--- Transfer Image Values 1.000 Image Congruence <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .389 .035 11.106 ***
Table 6.30 Standardized Regression Weights for Final Model: (Group number 1 - Default model) Estimate Pre-purchase Response <--- Attitude/Beliefs .445 Pre-purchase Response <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .457 Transfer Image Values <--- Pre-purchase Response .998 Image Congruence <--- Transfer Image Values .546 Interest <--- Pre-purchase Response .888 Favourability <--- Pre-purchase Response .863 Intention to Purchase <--- Transfer Image Values .870 Sponsorship Effect <--- Transfer Image Values .922 Image Congruence <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .400
The squared multiple correlation (R2) values for the various constructs are shown in Table 6.31. These (R2) values are for the 7 dependant constructs (which have error terms in Figure 6.13) and they indicate the percentage of variance explained for those constructs. Table 6.31 Squared Multiple Correlations: (R2) Estimate Pre-purchase Response .631 Transfer Image Values .996 Intention to Purchase .756 Sponsorship Effect .849 Image Congruence .764 Favourability .744 Interest .788
166 6.17 Invariance Testing
Invariance testing involves the examination of applications involving more than one sample and considers whether the components of the measurement model are invariant across groups (Byrne, 2001). Invariance testing was conducted for four of the six sponsors that were proposed for the study, i.e. Toyota, KIA, Carlton Draught and Garnier. The National Australia Bank (NAB) and IBM were eliminated from this procedure, as the response rate for those respondents who selected these sponsors was rather poor.
Using the final model, invariance testing was performed, firstly for organisations manufacturing high involvement products, i.e. Toyota and KIA.
6.17.1 Results
The invariance test results for the two high involvement product sponsors, Toyota and KIA, are shown in Tables 6.32 and 6.33. This test shows significant differences between the sponsors.
Table 6.32 Invariance Test Results for Toyota Standardized Regression Weights: (Toyota - Default model) Estimate Pre-purchase Response <--- Attitude/Beliefs .397 Pre-purchase Response <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .565 Transfer Image Values <--- Pre-purchase Response 1.005 Image Congruence <--- Transfer Image Values .613 Interest <--- Pre-purchase Response .904 Favourability <--- Pre-purchase Response .906 Intention to Purchase <--- Transfer Image Values .797 Sponsorship Effect <--- Transfer Image Values .905 Image Congruence <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .289
167 Table 6.33 Invariance Test Results for Kia Standardized Regression Weights: (Kia - Default model) Estimate Pre-purchase Response <--- Attitude/Beliefs .293
Pre-purchase Response <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .575 Transfer Image Values <--- Pre-purchase Response 1.021 Image Congruence <--- Transfer Image Values .889 Interest <--- Pre-purchase Response .896 Favourability <--- Pre-purchase Response .781 Intention to Purchase <--- Transfer Image Values .825 Sponsorship Effect <--- Transfer Image Values .903 Image Congruence <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .063
Significant difference between sponsors (Chi-squared = 233.974, df = 60, p<0.001)
As can be seen from the results, there appears to be a significant difference in the relationship of image congruence (items 6.7, 6.8 and 6.9) and sponsor-event fit (items 4.13, 4.14 and 4.15) and image congruence (items 6.7, 6.8 and 6.9) and transfer image values (items 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.6) in the context of Toyota and Kia. Toyota and KIA sponsoring two very different sporting events may possibly contribute to this difference. Another possibility behind this disparity may lie essentially in the length and exposure periods of the sporting properties the two sponsors are in partnership. Toyota enjoys a longer season of more than 24 weeks by sponsoring the AFL whereas KIA is exposed only over a two-week period through the Australian Tennis Open. Therefore, this time difference alone would give Toyota an advantage with exposure and may enable them to develop more meaningful relationships with the consumer.
Next invariance tests were performed for the two low involvement products, i.e. beer and personal care products and the findings are shown Tables 6.34 and 6.35.
168 Table 6.34 Invariance Test Results for Carlton Standardized Regression Weights: (Carlton - Default model) Estimate Pre-purchase Response <--- Attitude/Beliefs .532 Pre-purchase Response <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .264 Transfer Image Values <--- Pre-purchase Response 1.022 Image Congruence <--- Transfer Image Values .417
Interest <--- Pre-purchase Response .873 Favourability <--- Pre-purchase Response .786 Intention to Purchase <--- Transfer Image Values .869 Sponsorship Effect <--- Transfer Image Values .901
Image Congruence <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .567
Table 6.35 Invariance Test Results for Garnier Standardized Regression Weights: (Garnier - Default model) Estimate Pre-purchase Response <--- Attitude/Beliefs .312 Pre-purchase Response <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .653 Transfer Image Values <--- Pre-purchase Response .998 Image Congruence <--- Transfer Image Values .796
Interest <--- Pre-purchase Response .830 Favourability <--- Pre-purchase Response .921 Intention to Purchase <--- Transfer Image Values .932 Sponsorship Effect <--- Transfer Image Values .935
Image Congruence <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .073
The major difference in estimates is evident in three factor relationships pertaining to the Carlton and Kia: sponsor-event fit (items 4.13, 4.14 and 4.15) and pre-purchase response (items 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4); transfer of image values (items 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.6) and image congruence (items 6.7, 6.8 and 6.9); and sponsor-event fit (items 4.13, 4.14 and 4.15) and image congruence (items 6.7, 6.8 and 6.9).
6.17.2 Sponsor-Event Fit and Response
There appears to be a significant difference in the relationship between response and sponsor-event fit with Carlton demonstrating a weaker relationship of the two sponsors. Consequently, the post-event, pre-purchase response between Garnier and the Australian Open appears to have a greater impact on sponsor-event fit than the pairing between Carlton and the AFL. While on paper, Carlton, an alcoholic beverage manufacturer and the AFL (football) seemed to have an ideal fit, a significant proportion of respondents demonstrated a preference for other beverages or dislike of
169 alcoholic beverages, subsequently presenting a hurdle in achieving positive perceptions of sponsor-event fit and post-event response for the sponsor. On the other hand, it appears that the cosmetic association of Garnier presents a suitable match to the glamour component of the Australian Open with the results supporting this assertion.
6.17.3 Image Congruence and Transfer of Image Values
In somewhat of a parallel with the previous result, the findings show that there was a positive association between the transfer of image values with image congruence for Garnier. It would not be amiss to surmise that like fit, the cosmetic link of Garnier and the glamourous association of the Australian Open was a stronger and more effective sponsorship coupling than Carlton and the AFL.
6.17.4 Sponsor-Event Fit and Image Congruence
Conversely, the results for image congruence and sponsor-event fit show that Garnier had the weaker relationship of the two sponsors. Therefore, Carlton achieved a stronger relationship between image congruence and sponsor-event fit. In a way, this demonstrates that sponsor-event fit and congruence were effective for eliciting a response for Garnier. However, in terms of observing image congruence and sponsor- event fit in isolation, Carlton appeared to have the greater impact. It is likely that this is attributable to the previous justification, which demonstrated that whilst respondents observed sponsor-event fit and congruence for Carlton, their preference for other beverages or dislike of alcoholic beverages prevented them from moving through to the next phase of the decision process to purchase.
Similar to the case of Toyota and KIA, it is possible that the differences in results between Carlton Draught and Garnier may be a result of the properties they sponsored, i.e. Carlton sponsors AFL and Garnier sponsors the Australian Open Tennis. It was evident that sponsor-event fit and congruence issues were at the heart of the significantly different results.
170 6.18 Segmentation Analysis
Using the final model, this section examines the differences in segmentation variables of gender, age and income level.
6.18.1 Gender
The segmentation analysis for gender is shown in Tables 6.36 and 6.37.
Table 6.36 Segmentation Results for Males Standardized Regression Weights: (male - Default model) Estimate Pre-purchase Response <--- Attitude/Beliefs .467 Pre-purchase Response <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .480 Transfer Image Values <--- Pre-purchase Response .994 Image Congruence <--- Transfer Image Values .549
Interest <--- Pre-purchase Response .869 Favourability <--- Pre-purchase Response .827 Intention to Purchase <--- Transfer Image Values .885 Sponsorship Effect <--- Transfer Image Values .915
Image Congruence <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .414
Table 6.37 Segmentation Results for Females Standardized Regression Weights: (female - Default model) Estimate Pre-purchase Response <--- Attitude/Beliefs .452
Pre-purchase Response <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .400 Transfer Image Values <--- Pre-purchase Response 1.002 Image Congruence <--- Transfer Image Values .525 Interest <--- Pre-purchase Response .904 Favourability <--- Pre-purchase Response .899 Intention to Purchase <--- Transfer Image Values .858 Sponsorship Effect <--- Transfer Image Values .929 Image Congruence <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .407
Insignificant difference (chi-squared = 25.867, df = 20, p=0.170) - No significant difference
The responses obtained from males and females were not significantly different in any of the nine linkages. In terms of audience, it appears that neither sport is particularly biased towards one gender. Whist AFL football is a professional league employing only male players, the overall image of the sport conveys one that is family-oriented as
171 well as one that is appealing to both genders with a number of promotional activities which assist in this agenda. The Australian Tennis Open, on the other hand, focuses more on its glamour and prestige objectives. However, by involving both male and female tennis players in the tournament, it appeals to both genders. As a result, both the football and tennis, along with their corresponding sponsors, did not seem to favour one gender over another.
6.18.2 Age
The segmentation analysis for age is shown in Tables 6.38 to 6.40.
Table 6.38 Segmentation Results for Under 24 Standardized Regression Weights: (age1 - Default model) Estimate Pre-purchase Response <--- Attitude/Beliefs .399 Pre-purchase Response <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .505 Transfer Image Values <--- Pre-purchase Response 1.004 Image Congruence <--- Transfer Image Values .461
Interest <--- Pre-purchase Response .880 Favourability <--- Pre-purchase Response .804 Intention to Purchase <--- Transfer Image Values .884
Sponsorship Effect <--- Transfer Image Values .904 Image Congruence <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .505
Table 6.39 Segmentation Results for 25-34 Standardized Regression Weights: (age2 - Default model) Estimate Pre-purchase Response <--- Attitude/Beliefs .443 Pre-purchase Response <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .405 Transfer Image Values <--- Pre-purchase Response .992 Image Congruence <--- Transfer Image Values .521 Interest <--- Pre-purchase Response .882 Favourability <--- Pre-purchase Response .918 Intention to Purchase <--- Transfer Image Values .891 Sponsorship Effect <--- Transfer Image Values .919 Image Congruence <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .476
172 Table 6.40 Segmentation Results for 35+ Standardized Regression Weights: (age3 - Default model) Estimate Pre-purchase Response <--- Attitude/Beliefs .514
Pre-purchase Response <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .451 Transfer Image Values <--- Pre-purchase Response .998 Image Congruence <--- Transfer Image Values .682 Interest <--- Pre-purchase Response .919 Favourability <--- Pre-purchase Response .850 Intention to Purchase <--- Transfer Image Values .835 Sponsorship Effect <--- Transfer Image Values .943 Image Congruence <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .203
Significant difference (chi-squared = 92.332, df = 40, p<0.001) – Significant differences
The results of this invariance test show that there is a significant difference between age categories at p=0.001.
6.18.2.1 Favourability and Response
There appeared to be a significant difference between the 25-34 and the 35+ age categories when observing favourability and response. The findings reveal that the 25- 34 category had a stronger relationship between favourability and response than the 35+ category. This ‘younger’ demographic, overall, would on paper seem to favour all the sponsors in the survey and in practice, it appears that this may in fact impact the positive association between favourability and response.
173 6.18.3 Income
The segmentation analysis for income is shown in Tables 6.41 to 6.44.
Table 6.41 Segmentation Results for Under $20000 Standardized Regression Weights: (income1 - Default model) Estimate Pre-purchase Response <--- Attitude/Beliefs .466 Pre-purchase Response <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .414 Transfer Image Values <--- Pre-purchase Response 1.011 Image Congruence <--- Transfer Image Values .511 Interest <--- Pre-purchase Response .901 Favourability <--- Pre-purchase Response .881 Intention to Purchase <--- Transfer Image Values .881 Sponsorship Effect <--- Transfer Image Values .960 Image Congruence <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .438
Table 6.42 Segmentation Results for $20000-$30000 Standardized Regression Weights: (income2 – Default model) Estimate Pre-purchase Response <--- Attitude/Beliefs .578 Pre-purchase Response <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .385 Transfer Image Values <--- Pre-purchase Response 1.020 Image Congruence <--- Transfer Image Values .444 Interest <--- Pre-purchase Response .785 Favourability <--- Pre-purchase Response .861 Intention to Purchase <--- Transfer Image Values .844 Sponsorship Effect <--- Transfer Image Values .907 Image Congruence <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .533
174
Table 6.43 Segmentation Results for $30000-$40000 Standardized Regression Weights: (income3 - Default model) Estimate Pre-purchase Response <--- Attitude/Beliefs .416 Pre-purchase Response <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .485 Transfer Image Values <--- Pre-purchase Response .991 Image Congruence <--- Transfer Image Values .553
Interest <--- Pre-purchase Response .907 Favourability <--- Pre-purchase Response .924 Intention to Purchase <--- Transfer Image Values .902 Sponsorship Effect <--- Transfer Image Values .943
Image Congruence <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .383
Table 6.44 Segmentation Results for Over $40000 Standardized Regression Weights: (income4 - Default model) Estimate Pre-purchase Response <--- Attitude/Beliefs .378
Pre-purchase Response <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .457 Transfer Image Values <--- Pre-purchase Response .992 Image Congruence <--- Transfer Image Values .775 Interest <--- Pre-purchase Response .943 Favourability <--- Pre-purchase Response .721 Intention to Purchase <--- Transfer Image Values .878 Sponsorship Effect <--- Transfer Image Values .890 Image Congruence <--- Sponsor-Event Fit .135
Significant difference (Chi-squared = 127.21, df = 60, p<0.001)
The results of this invariance test show that there is a significant difference between income brackets at p=0.001.
6.18.3.1 Transfer of Image Values and Response (1)
The results show that the group of respondents comprising of those with incomes under $20,000 demonstrated a weaker relationship between the transfer of image values and response than respondents from the $20,000-$30,000 income bracket. In this particular instance it is possible that the difference in needs of both groups as a result of their income may have contributed to this finding. For the respondents with incomes under $20,000, it is likely that as they are at the lowest end of the income spectrum, they are not necessarily inclined to make a purchase of a sponsor product. Consequently, they
175 are less interested in, aware of, recall or favour a sponsor, creating a more negative pre- purchase response which then essentially detriments the transfer of image values (than those respondents from higher income brackets). On the other hand, the $20,000- $30,000 income bracket seemed to comprise a demographic market more suited to the sponsors under analysis.
6.18.3.2 Transfer of Image Values and Response (2)
Like the previous result, the $20,000-$30,000 income bracket had a stronger relationship between the transfer of image values and response, yet in this instance against the income bracket of $40,000+. It is possible to assume that the sponsors from the two events (tennis and football) and their products/services appealed more to the $20,000-$30,000 bracket, therefore leading to a favourable response from this group. The results indicate that the pre-purchase response for the $20,000-$30,000 income bracket acted as a positive precursor to the transfer of image values.
6.19 Intention to Purchase
Finally the relationship between actual purchase and intention to purchase was analysed using binary logistics regression.
Table 6.45 suggests that the responses to Q7.2 and Q7.4 have a significant relationship with purchase. The odds of purchase increased on average by 1.56 and 1.42 for each additional unit of agreement with purchase intent. The effects of Q7.1 and Q7.3 are not significant when statistically controlled for the effects of Q7.2 and Q7.4.
176 Table 6.45 Variables in the Equation
95.0% C.I.for B S.E. Wald Df Sig. Exp(B) EXP(B) Lower Upper Step q7.1 -.204 .113 3.261 1 .071 .816 .654 1.018 1(a) q7.2 .446 .123 13.116 1 .000 1.562 1.227 1.988 q7.3 .124 .129 .932 1 .334 1.132 .880 1.456 q7.4 .354 .134 7.005 1 .008 1.425 1.096 1.853 Con -2.882 .267 116.865 1 .000 .056 stant a Variable(s) entered on step 1: q7.1, q7.2, q7.3, q7.4.
Questions 7.2 [I now actively seek products and services sold by this sponsor] and 7.4 [I will try to buy products from this sponsor because their sponsorship had a positive effect] are the best predictors of actual purchase. These were further used to evaluate their impact on respondents’ actual purchase.
The following tables show crosstab results for each of the behavioural intention variables. The 7 point likert ratings have been converted to Yes and No. (Ratings 1 to 3 are assumed to be “No” and ratings 5 to 7 “Yes”).
Table 6.46 Actual Purchase * Q.7.2 Actively seek products/service of sponsor Crosstabulation
Actively seek products/service of sponsor Total Strongly Strongly Disagree 2 3 Neutral 5 6 Agree Actual NO Count 100 73 73 102 22 13 1 384 Purchase % within Actively seek products/service of 80.6% 79.3% 68.9% 61.8% 23.2% 14.0% 4.8% 55.2% sponsor YES Count 24 19 33 63 73 80 20 312 % within Actively seek products/service of 19.4% 20.7% 31.1% 38.2% 76.8% 86.0% 95.2% 44.8% sponsor Total Count 124 92 106 165 95 93 21 696 % within Actively seek products/service of 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% sponsor
(Chi-square = 190.012, df = 6, p=<0.001, Cramer’s V = .522)
In Table 6.46, 312 (45%) respondents actually purchased a sponsor’s products, whereas 384 (55%) did not make a purchase. On closer examination from the cohort of respondents who actually purchased, 173 (55%) would in the future actively seek products/services of the sponsor, 63 (20%) were neutral and the rest, 76 (25%) would 177 not actively seek products/services of the sponsor. From an examination of the cohort of respondents who did not make a purchase, the majority obviously disagreed (64%) with this statement. The crosstab test results show a significant relationship between q.7.2 and actual purchase.
Table 6.47 Actual Purchase * Q.7.4 Try to buy sponsor products as result of positive effect of sponsorship Crosstabulation
Try to buy sponsor products as result of positive effect of sponsorship Total Strongly Strongly Disagree 2 3 Neutral 5 6 Agree Actual NO Count 90 73 74 96 37 11 3 384 Purchase % within Try to buy sponsor products as result of 85.7% 78.5% 65.5% 64.4% 30.1% 12.5% 12.0% 55.2% positive effect of sponsorship
YES Count 15 20 39 53 86 77 22 312 % within Try to buy sponsor products as result of 14.3% 21.5% 34.5% 35.6% 69.9% 87.5% 88.0% 44.8% positive effect of sponsorship
Total Count 105 93 113 149 123 88 25 696 % within Try to buy sponsor products as result of 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% positive effect of sponsorship (Chi-square = 185.018, df = 6, p=<0.001, Cramer’s V = .516)
In Table 6.47, the same 312 (45%) respondents actually purchased a sponsor’s products, whereas 384 (55%) did not make a purchase. On closer examination from the cohort of respondents who actually purchased, 185 (59%) would in the future try to buy a sponsor’s products as a result of the positive effect of the sponsorship, 53 (17%) were neutral and the rest, 74 (24%) would not try to buy a sponsor’s product. From an examination of the cohort of respondents who did not purchase the products, the majority obviously disagreed (61%) with this statement. The results clearly show a significant relationship between q.7.4 and actual purchase.
178 6.20 Chapter Summary
This chapter reveals the findings of the structural equation modelling which examined the effect of event status, fan involvement, personal attitudes/beliefs, goodwill, exposure and sponsor-event fit on a consumer’s pre-purchase response. Additionally, the effect of a consumer’s pre-purchase response on the transfer of image values, and sequentially, image value’s influence on a consumer’s intention to purchase was also evaluated. The initial model was used to test the hypotheses. This model was then modified to provide a good fit with the data.
The analysis revealed that the best indicator of a consumer’s intention to purchase a sponsor’s products and/or service was a positive pre-purchase response, followed by a transfer of image values. The sequential nature of the proposed structural model allowed for the relationship between the independent variables to be examined. Personal attitudes/beliefs and sponsor-event fit contributed towards a positive pre- purchase response. Event status did not seem to contribute to sponsorship effectiveness. Popularised concepts of fan involvement, goodwill and exposure were found to demonstrate only weak support in aiding a positive pre-purchase response. Overall, a consumer’s interest in, and favourability of a sponsor defined what constituted a positive pre-purchase response. The transfer of image values was defined by a congruence of image between the sponsor and sponsored property, in addition to the specific effects of a sponsorship activity on the consumer. The level of image congruence was found to be partially attributable to the level of a consumer’s perception of sponsor-event fit. Overall, attitudes/beliefs, congruence and image appeared to most effect a consumer’s intention to purchase a sponsor’s products and/or services. Additionally, the invariance tests between the sponsors demonstrated the same constructs were also significant. The segmentation analysis revealed that gender did not have a bearing on buyer behaviour in relation to the AFL nor Australian Open Tennis. However this was not true for the variables of age and income. Finally, the examination of intention to purchase resulted in some interesting findings. Approximately half of the total sample size purchased a sponsor’s product. Around half of those who made a purchase believed that they would in the future actively seek products/services of that sponsor. Likewise, around 45 percent believed that they would try to buy a sponsor’s product as a result of the positive effect of the sponsorship to which they were exposed.
179 All this demonstrates promising data for future and current sponsors wishing to seek or retain customers. The remaining respondents who did not make a purchase or were not convinced to do so in the future constitutes a market that presents both an opportunity and issue that requires attention. The following chapter will examine the results in more detail.
180 Chapter Seven
Discussion, Management Implications and Directions for Future Research
7.0 Introduction
The main purpose of this study was to better understand sponsorship effectiveness by investigating consumer decision-making and buyer behaviour towards a sponsor’s product or service. The influence of event, sponsor and sponsorship factors was examined in relation to their impact on a consumer’s pre-purchase response. The effect of recall, awareness, favourability and interest on the transfer of image values was then evaluated. In addition the aggregate sponsorship’s effect on a consumer’s intent to purchase, actual purchase was also assessed. A conceptual model was developed which derived from literature on sponsorship, sports marketing, advertising, consumer behaviour and psychology. The conceptual model was tested empirically and was found to support four of the eight proposed hypotheses. As a result of the study, knowledge associated with the dynamics of sponsorship was furthered. Additionally, sponsorship effects on consumer behaviour, as a sequential process was better understood.
As part of this research, a broad cross section of the community was randomly asked to complete a survey assessing the effects of sponsorship based on their previous experience(s). The broader findings suggest that personal attitudes and beliefs towards a sponsor and sponsor-event fit shape a consumer’s pre-purchase response. Interest in, and favourability of a sponsor follows, leading to the transfer of image values and finally, the intention to purchase.
This chapter discusses the findings and highlights the managerial implications for both sponsors and properties. The limitations of the study are also identified in addition to the opportunities for future research.
181 7.1 A Unique Model for Determining Sport Sponsorship Effectiveness and Consumer Buyer Behaviour
As figure 6.13 in chapter six demonstrates, the initial conceptual model was modified in order to produce a well fitting final model. This model was developed on the basis of a rigorous process consisting of exploratory factor analyses, confirmatory factor analyses and structural equation modelling.
The final model illustrates that a pre-purchase response is dependent upon the attitudes and beliefs a consumer holds of a sponsor and the fit of the property and sponsor. More specifically, attitudes and beliefs are measured upon the likeability of a sponsor and the positive perception a consumer holds of the sponsor. Fit is observable upon a strong logical connection between a property and sponsor; the similarity of image portrayed by a property and sponsor; and the logic in the sponsor sponsoring the property. This pre- purchase response leads a consumer to be interested in, and favour a sponsor. Interest is determinant upon an increase of interest in the sponsor, and the transferral of a consumer’s interest in a property to the sponsor. Favourability is assessable upon an increase in sponsor favourability, improved sponsor perception and liking the sponsor more as a result of the sponsorship.
Once a pre-purchase response has been established, it is proposed that image transfer occurs. This involves increased image congruence, which is based upon image similarity between a property and sponsor, a strong connection between the property and sponsor and the extension of values from a property to the sponsor. Image congruence is also a product of fit. Image transfer is additionally dependent upon sponsorship effect. Sponsorship effect is exemplified by the personal implications of the sponsorship on the consumer. These include the ability of the sponsorship to portray an image of association; the closeness a consumer feels towards a sponsor as result of the sponsor’s association with a property; and the level to which a consumer feels they engage in a similar image as the sponsor.
Once a transferral of image effects has occurred, it is concurred that an intention to purchase ensues, which may result in a conative action of actual purchase.
182 Whilst this final model is an accurate derivative of the findings produced as a result of the field research conducted, it is proposed that it be used as a blueprint to understand the determinants of sponsorship effectiveness and positive consumer buyer behaviour. The importance of this model lies in the procedural aspect of connectivity between constructs that exists in sponsorship evaluation. It is clear that relying on single isolated or dual constructs is ineffective in properly understanding how sponsorship functions. For a consumer to reach the point of purchase intention, an orchestration of effects is observable. Before further elaboration of the implications of this model, the major constructs that led to the creation of this final model will be discussed in addition to the results of the hypotheses testing.
7.2 Examination of the Constructs
The following sections will examine each of the main constructs of the initial model and will explain their role in harnessing positive consumer behaviour as a result of sponsorship exposure.
7.2.1 Event Status
Event status is a construct often overlooked in sponsorship literature and research. In one way, it can be perceived to be somewhat of a distinct construct due to this lack of reporting. Speed and Thompson (2000) believe event status is related to the perceived benefits a consumer receives both directly and indirectly from a sporting event without any liking for the event.
The inclusion of event status made sense in light of the environment sponsorships are widely perceived to operate in. The prosperity of sponsorships is often reliant upon the events they are associated with, and in most cases the status of such events. The commercialism that is at the core of modern day sponsorships means that the elevation of its value can only be further assisted by an event’s status. Lee et al. (1997) cite the Olympics as one such example whereby it is clearly apparent that the magnitude of the event is subsidised by the commercial support of the sponsors. Though positive connotations permeate in the simple observation of this highly popular event and the benevolence of the sponsors, Lee et. al (1997) concur that the growing concerns over
183 commercialism associated with such events can hinder the effectiveness of the sponsorship activity. Conversely, Stipp and Schiavone (1996) suggest that the high level status of an event can induce favourable sponsorship opportunities due to the high regard consumers often associate with such events.
The first EFA for event status indicated three important relationships: significance, community importance and popularity. Closer examination of event status and positive pre-purchase response, however, indicated no support whatsoever, refuting the findings of previous research.
Despite this result, it did highlight several points, one of which is the proof that popularity and subsequent status, may not always buy a consumer’s business. This is a common misconception often implicated within both sponsorship related and general marketing literature. The result also questions the validity of sponsoring major events for the sake of sponsoring them, as it seems, many large organisations seem to do. The results of this research demonstrate that in two major Australian sporting events, one of which was deemed the most profitable in 2003, the Australian Tennis Open (Morgan and Summers, 2005), status had no value on consumer response. The exact reasons as to why consumers felt this way is questionable and would ultimately differ for each individual. It can be surmised, however, that consumers have advanced well beyond superficiality and are more concerned with aspects concerning what the sponsorship can ‘offer’ them. Status and popularity on the outset sounds appealing, however, at the core of a sponsorship is accountability. This accountability is based upon the effective promotion of a sponsor’s products and/or service and hopefully for the sponsor, a return on that investment through sales. As such, status appears to act more as the introductory phase of the sponsorship. Once consumers have engaged in this phase, they move on to receiving images and information of the sponsorship that concerns their attitudes and beliefs. Therefore at this stage they have moved on and status is disregarded.
7.2.2 Fan Involvement
Fan involvement proved to be a popular stream of sponsorship research as indicated in the literature review. The construct was often found, however, to be examined in
184 isolation, though even in this context, it proved to be of importance (Madrigal, 2001; Meenaghan, 2001). Meenaghan (2001) attested that a tenet of understanding sponsorship was reliant on understanding the construct of fan involvement.
Fan involvement is commonly referred to as the extent to which consumers identify with, and are motivated by their engagement and affiliation with particular activities. It is deemed to be a powerful explanation of social behaviour that affects perception and attitude. Meenaghan (2001) claims that fan involvement is a powerful explanation of consumer behaviour and as such fan involvement has been the subject of previous research in the field of sports. Fan involvement relates to a positive emotional orientation. However, it is argued that there is a need for a better understanding of a consumer’s level of attachment and the affect it has on the intention to purchase, as current studies have failed to consider this notion explicitly (Cornwell & Maignan, 1998; Madrigal, 2001). To date, the basic assumption that has been made is that consumers with higher levels of attachment are more likely to support the source of the identification directly (i.e. the property/sponsor) and subsequently, would be more willing to offer direct support. Madrigal (2001) observed that as group norms and identification increased, the intent to purchase also increased. Mason (2005) established that highly involved fans were more likely to be receptive to sponsorship activities. Subsequently this led to the inclusion of fan involvement in this study and as a result was tested for its association with pre-purchase response. The findings demonstrated that fan involvement was not significantly associated with pre-purchase response. This result was somewhat contradictory in light of extant research available in this area. However, this is not surprising considering that there have been several inconsistencies in results with previous studies. One such example lies within the research presented by Hansen and Scotwin (1995). Whilst they discovered that more involved sports fans had significantly higher recall than those less involved for one sponsor, they failed to replicate the result for a second sponsor.
Gwinner and Swanson (2003) presented results that supported the premise that highly identified fans were more likely to exhibit a positive response to sponsorship. They also discovered fan involvement to influence sponsor recognition, attitudes towards sponsors, sponsor patronage and sponsor satisfaction. They advocate that from a management perspective, sponsorship effectiveness may be leveraged by segmenting
185 the audience in accordance to fan identification. However the results of this study would suggest this might be too simplistic an approach.
Similarly Oliver (1999) discovered group identification and group norms to contribute to social alliances that lead to consumer loyalty. According to Oliver (1999), loyalty occurs when a consumable becomes part of the consumers’ extended self and/or social identity. Madrigal’s (2001) research also supported this finding and found group identification to be positively related to a consumer’s intention to purchase a sponsor’s product. It was discovered that favourable purchase intentions was related to perceptions that such actions would be beneficial to a group. The implication is that psychological connectedness to a sports team contributes to self-identity and group norms which in turn promotes behavioural intentions that are considered to be supportive of their team.
According to Meenaghan (1999) highly involved fans are more likely to be responsive to the sponsorship as a result of their knowledge and sensitivity to the sport. The more a fan is involved, the more likely they are to apprehend the image values implicated in the sponsorship activity. However, Meenaghan (1999) does point out that the extent to which a favourable disposition towards a sponsorship is demonstrated through purchase is unclear from existing research. In this instance, it may be surmised that fan involvement did not influence consumer purchase intentions and behaviour due to the circumstances surrounding the particular sponsorships under investigation. Rather than team or player based sponsorships, the sponsorships examined in this particular research design were based on the sponsorship of events. Therefore, the likelihood a consumer felt favourably as a fan may have reduced dramatically due to this factor. It also appears that the sponsors used in this study represented products and/or services that catered to individuals rather than groups. The products and services on offer, such as motor vehicles and cosmetics, are essentially chosen if they suit the needs of the individual as opposed to a sports apparel brand that sponsors a sporting team. This may have been the defining factor in the final result of the hypothesis test and is certainly an issue that should be considered in future research.
186 7.2.3 Personal Attitudes and Beliefs Regarding the Sponsor
Madrigal (2001) concurs that a consumers’ underlying beliefs contributes to an attitude toward supporting corporate sponsors. Furthermore, Madrigal (2001) adds that beliefs form the foundation upon which attitudes are formed. An attitude can be observed as a psychological tendency, one that affects an individual’s evaluative response either positively or negatively. Additionally, Mason (2005) purports that consumers holding a favourable attitude and belief of a sponsor are more likely to support them, thus highlighting the importance to solicit positive emotional attachments to alter consumer cognition.
In this study, personal attitudes and beliefs were examined on the assumption that they acted as antecedents to a positive pre-purchase response. Studies conducted by Blackwell et al. (2001) and Mullin et al. (2000) strongly propose that the attitude/belief construct impacts response. The confirmatory factor analysis in this study found that the attitude/belief construct was dependent upon three items, however, the hypothesis test results suggested that it was dependent upon only two items. These items comprised of the assessment of the level of the consumer’s positive perception of the sponsor and sponsor likeability. These items essentially support Madrigal’s (2001) stance that a consumer’s intention to purchase is influenced by a belief and attitude towards that behaviour. Additionally, such attitudes and beliefs are predictive upon what the consumer believes to be the consequence of their behaviour.
However, the Beta results demonstrated that overall, there was only moderate support for the proposition that personal attitudes and beliefs were positively associated with pre-purchase response. Whilst such a result suggests that attitudes and beliefs are certainly not predictive of positive purchase behaviour on its own, it is still an important consideration for sponsors and properties. The final model also suggests that attitudes and beliefs are interrelated with sponsor-event fit and it is perceivable that a positive response from both may lead to a more favourable pre-purchase response.
To a certain degree, the results also confirm the distinctive nature of the effects that sponsorships evoke on the consumer. The results demonstrate that the moderate importance of personal attitudes and beliefs pertains to a consumer identifying with and
187 responding to a sponsorship in correspondence with what they need, want or feel. Therefore, it is integral that both sponsors and properties are aware of their potential customers, implying that sponsorships must embrace the consumer at a personal level and be prepared to fulfil an emotive role.
7.2.4 Exposure
Exposure, along with recall, is a commonly used method of measuring sponsorship effectiveness by marketing practitioners. Although there are doubts surrounding the use of this measure, it is still a well-received concept within marketing and sponsorship literature. The connection between exposure and consumer behaviour is a common passage of observation (Speed & Thompson, 2000), with Zanjonc’s (1980) work a commonly cited reference exemplifying and laying the foundation for this trend. Grohs et al. (2004) found exposure to positively affect sponsor recall, although they failed to prove that it affected a positive pre-purchase response. As exposure is a post-hoc method of measurement, Speed and Thompson (2000) suggest that it cannot be used as a direct process for evaluation of proposals or decision making. However, they concede that in most circumstances, exposure is a necessary condition for a response to promotion. Additionally, standard cognitive learning literature suggests that learning grows with increased exposure and subsequently affects behaviour. Therefore, this concept played an important role in the conceptual model proposed in this study. The underlying classical conditioning (learning) undertones of relevant frameworks also suggests that exposure was a necessary inclusion.
The results of the first EFA demonstrated that exposure presented four significant relationships: sponsor prominence, recalling the sponsor’s message, the sponsorship tool used, and the value of that tool. This aligned with the majority of studies, which has supported the effect of exposure on various aspects of consumer behaviour. This study also examined exposure in the context of its type and level, both of which seemed relevant. However, when observing exposure as an antecedent of pre-purchase response, the results presented very weak support for this notion. Such results prove that in isolation, exposure has a chance of standing strong as an indicator of a positive pre-purchase, as had been identified in previous studies. On the other hand, the results also seemed to dampen the popularity of the positive connotations associated with
188 exposure and response, especially in its examination in a broader perspective. This therefore proves that exposure should not be used as a sole measure of consumer pre- purchase response. Speed and Thompson (2000) strongly believe that it is not enough to consider exposure alone when evaluating sponsorships. In light of the research that has been undertaken, it is clear that exposure itself is effective. However, it is simplistic and examining the construct alone does not allow for a significant explanation of what and how a sponsorship is made effective. It is probable that exposure was not particularly important in shaping a consumer’s pre-purchase response simply because it was surpassed by factors that were deemed more superior and important. Personal attitudes and beliefs and sponsor-event fit are two factors that appeared to present at the forefront of the consumer’s consciousness, debilitating any effectiveness exposure might have had. The results demonstrate that consumers can no longer be considered a passive audience, rather individuals that have needs and wants that require attention if sponsors want to make their investments accountable.
7.2.5 Sponsor-Event Fit
Advertising and marketing literature has often categorised fit as an indication of consumer perceptions of similarity (Rifon & Choi, 2004). The results of this research have indicated that there is only moderate support for the notion that sponsor-event fit is a significant precursor to consumer pre-purchase response on both levels of functional based similarity and image based similarity. Empirical studies of fit have been heavily biased towards its highly positive effect on several aspects of consumer decision making such as recall (Johar & Pham, 1999), consumer attitude (McDaniel, 1999), likeability (Haley, 1996) and economic gain (Cornwell, Pruitt, & Ness, 2001). The findings for this research indicate a more moderate result encompassing the areas of attitude and image congruence.
There is merit in the effect of fit on attitudes as the schema of cognitive structures that explain congruence is developed through the influences of processing which include encoding, comprehension, retention and retrieval of information (Rifon & Choi, 2004). Thus such processes are undoubtedly at the core of attitude formation and as a result event fit is important. Additionally, Grohs et al. (2004) concur that a certainty of fit between the unconditioned and conditioned stimulus elevates the conditioning process.
189 With the sports event acting as the unconditioned stimulus and the sponsor the conditioned stimulus, Grohs et al. (2004) states that a better fit between the event and sponsor leads to an increase in image transfer. The results of the final model in this study suggest that to an extent, fit plays such a role.
However, relying on fit as the primary indicator for purchase intentions would seem negligent. Speed and Thompson (2000) concur that a consumer’s ability to observe a link between marketing assets enhances the effectiveness of these assets. However, each person’s perception of fit is not homogenous as what one sees as congruent another sees as incongruent. Such views can change considerably with each individual. Therefore, the necessity for further research into this concept is paramount. In the meantime, however, it would be justifiable to infer that in this instance fit is important in the structure of a sponsorship as it helps a consumer to receive the communications it is exposed to. If there is sense in something, the likelihood of it being accepted heightens. Concurrently, if the consumer acknowledges fit, there is likely to be some level of conviction the consumer can associate with both the sponsor and property. This would only assist in enhancing the beliefs a consumer holds and promotes positive implications, which may then result in positive outcomes.
7.2.6 Goodwill
Despite the growing and already established commercial connotations associated with modern day sponsorships, goodwill was still considered an important construct when examining sponsorship effectiveness and consumer buyer behaviour. Essentially, the philanthropic roots of sponsorship played an important role in ensuring that this construct was included in the framework for this study. Undoubtedly, the financial superiority of sponsorships in a number of major global sporting events would suggest that goodwill has no place in the observation of sponsorship effectiveness and buyer behaviour. Yet contradicting this thought, it would not be unreasonable to suggest that in contrast, commercialism may in fact fuel a consumer to desire sponsorships with the perceived value of goodwill.
Speed and Thompson (2000) reported consumers were sensitive to the potential philanthropic element a sponsorship may encompass. Whilst they concur that these
190 findings correlate with those of D’astous and Bitz (1995) and Stipp and Schiavone (1996), it would be premature to infer that goodwill is significantly functional. Speed and Thompson (2000) advocate that sincerity may be at risk if the commercial objectives of the sponsor are highlighted.
Meenaghan (1999) believes that sponsorships are in need of management undertaking and suggests that goodwill is a strategic component that requires observation and attention. In order to maximise goodwill effects the sponsor must be seen as undertaking and bestowing on their chosen promotional activity to be doing good and something beneficial. Meenaghan (1999) hints that without proper strategic leverage, the sponsorship can be viewed unfavourably and as a consequence it may influence any subsequent opinions or behaviours. Speed and Thompson (2000) also concur that excessive exploitation can be followed by negative consumer attitudes.
Using structural equation modelling, it was discovered that goodwill was contingent upon the belief that the event deserved support and the sponsorship was undertaken in the best interest of the property. Additionally it was perceived that a sponsor would support a property if it had a lower profile. However when goodwill was tested against its ability to provoke a consumer to make a purchase, the Beta showed a very weak result. In light of the highly commercialised nature of business, the result is no surprise. The aforementioned test results already demonstrate that consumers have become more aware when it comes to marketing and how they receive and process it. Therefore it can be surmised that goodwill intentions are not detrimental, however, a focus purely on this characteristic will not enhance the receptiveness or accountability of a sponsorship. Nevertheless, goodwill may be factored during the drafting process of a sponsorship.
7.2.7 Image Transfer
Image transfer can be considered to be a reasonably well-established construct of the sponsorship process and is most commonly observed in terms of its effect, rather than as a measure of effectiveness. Grohs et al. (2004) are one of the few who advocates image transfer’s role in assessing sponsorship effectiveness, though they also state that only a small number of examples empirically fit. This construct is certainly not as popularly
191 conveyed in the literature as fan involvement and exposure, however, it has strongly been pronounced as a vital tool for understanding sponsorship function. Equally it is said to enhance a sponsorship’s purpose to establish, strengthen or change brand image (Cornwell & Maignan, 1998; Crowley, 1991; Gwinner, 1997; Marshall & Cook, 1991).
While Gwinner and Eaton (1999) concede that image related literature and research is prevalent, they argue that the issues associated with the construct have been largely ignored. The relative associations between image and branding, with the sponsor and property have meant that even individually, image transfer is a construct that is hard to ignore. Consequently, it was included in the final framework as the result of a positive post-event, pre-purchase response and as the antecedent to an intention to purchase.
The transfer of image values in this study was observed on three levels, as proposed by Meenaghan (2001): activity, category and congruence. Gwinner and Eaton (1999) concur that the transfer process is enhanced by the match of an event and property on both an image and functional basis. The construct was examined against pre-purchase response and intention to purchase. Both hypotheses demonstrated a strong level of support, with the former indicating that recall, favourability and interest (components of the pre-purchase response), are indicative of the level of image transfer that occurs within a sponsorship. The latter proves that image transfer edicts a positive association with a consumer’s intention to purchase a sponsor’s product or service. The two main findings suggest a flow on effect, signified by its support indicated in the results. Essentially, identifying the components of the pre-purchase response and image transfer are not only important, but critical factors for a sponsorship to be effective.
7.3 Segmentation implications
7.3.1 Gender, age and income implications
There were a number of segmentation findings as a result of the invariance testing conducted in this study. An important observation made was that males and females did not perceive the two events under investigation to be different. This finding is important considering the two events involved one that was male dominated and another, which had an equal number of male and female competitors. The implication
192 of this finding is significant in consideration of the amount of gender studies that has dominated marketing research both historically and currently. In essence it conveys that sports demonstrates a level of equivalence across genders regardless of the gender mix in the actual sport itself. Sports of one gender, in this case, Australian Rules Football, is attractive to not only the dominant gender of males, however, has demonstrated itself to be both attractive and relevant to females. Therefore properties and sponsors must not be ignorant to exclude or favour any one gender due to popular beliefs or perceptions. In contrast, this may offer a unique opportunity and market for sponsors to capitalise upon.
In observing the events against age and income, there were significant differences. Age was assessed upon three main groups, the under 24 years age group, the 25 to 34 years age group and finally the 35 and over age group. Invariance tests indicated that the younger age groups had a much stronger relationship with recall and response than their older counterparts, with the under 24 group showing the strongest results. This indicates that in terms of memory receptiveness, the likelihood of the younger audience recalling a sponsor’s message is much higher than that for an event with an older audience base. In addition, the under 24 age group also had the best response for favourability and pre-purchase response than the other two age groups. This constituted the second major difference between the age groups and again highlights the benefits of exposing a sponsorship to a younger audience, and also the need to find ways to impress a sponsorship upon an older audience.
When testing income, there were a number of differences between income groups. The income groups were segmented into four major categories, the under $20,000 group, $20,000-$30,000 group, the $30,000-$40,000 group and the over $40,000 group.
In assessing image congruence and image, the $40,000+ income bracket had a stronger transfer of image values (that corresponded with image congruence perceptions) than other groups. The weak results for the lower income groups indicate the importance image plays for those of higher incomes. In essence this corresponds with the perception of brands and high society. However, it also emphasises the need for sponsors to not forget their grassroots and to find ways in which to accommodate the egalitarian mentality some consumers from lower incomes may hold. Sponsors may
193 also need to focus on the elements that help to build favourability, as well as image congruence and fit with the lower income groups. The test results also demonstrate a strong relationship between the lower income groups with favourability and pre- response in addition to image congruence and fit.
Overall the results of the invariance tests for demographic groups show that there are significant differences between groups on contrasting levels of the spectrum and obviously this is an issue sponsors and properties must be conscious of.
7.4 Managerial Implications for Properties
The findings of this empirical research will enable sponsored properties to develop a better understanding of sponsorship, sponsorship practice and consumer behaviour. In particular, the results demonstrate that sponsorship research is still in its infancy, and therefore, such implications are to develop and evolve through its application and use. Whilst research is of paramount importance it also appears that fit and congruence measures require attention in conjunction with a collaborative approach with the sponsor(s). Properties should also be conscious of image and image transfer effects.
Research is at the forefront for developing, engaging in and sustaining a beneficial sponsorship. While the focus on research tends to favour the sponsor, properties must also participate in this process to ensure that they are able to benefit from the sponsorship, and offer value to the sponsors. It is clear that properties cannot evoke or sustain value as they are. The inference of value is strong in modern day sponsorship, particularly with reference to the recognition that sponsorship is no longer a philanthropically centric concept or business practice. The results of this study have demonstrated this idea clearly, particularly in regards to consumer buyer behaviour. Goodwill presented only very weak support in invoking a positive pre-purchase response from consumers.
While a sponsorship engages both property and sponsor parties, properties still need to focus on ensuring that they offer a favourable opportunity for sponsors. While major events garner sufficient interest and proposals from prospective sponsors, it is still difficult to assess the level of success that may be achieved without sufficient research.
194 Research is important as it ensures that the property has an understanding of their target market and any surrounding markets that they may need to focus on. No stone must be left unturned as each segment of the market is an opportunity. Research is not only of assistance to a sponsor, however, it can aid a property enormously in understanding the attitudes of their market and to predict their behaviour. The implication of a sponsorship deal affects the property as their association with a particular sponsor can affect how they are perceived, their standing in the marketplace and their reputation. Subsequently, research also assists a property in avoiding an ineffective partnership.
Event fit was an important factor of sponsorship effectiveness. Properties and in particular, property management, need to ensure that there is a fit of some sense between the property and the sponsor. Without a certain level of fit, whether it is in values or image, the consumer will fail to understand and accept the alliance. This can be damaging in regards to consumer perception, as well as for the relationship between the property and sponsor, and may cause unnecessary friction. More importantly, the transfer of image values and image congruence were highlighted as major points for properties to be conscious of. It is likely that by engaging in a sponsorship agreement with a sponsor, the property needs to be aware of the values and image the sponsor already has and wishes to convey. Using this assessment, a property can determine whether a sponsorship deal is relevant, appropriate and is capable of success.
Overall, properties need to focus on both consumer and management centric goals and viewpoints to get the most out of a sponsorship and to add value to a relationship with the sponsor.
7.5 Managerial Implications for Sponsors
As was evident in the previous section, the implications for a sponsor are heavily weighted upon research. It is obvious that research provides the foundation for finding a beneficial sponsorship opportunity as well as maintaining and obtaining a positive result from the sponsorship. The results of both the structural equation modelling (SEM) and hypothesis testing demonstrate that sponsorship is no longer a simplistic marketing communication tool that can be entered into. Especially in consideration of
195 the economic requirements of modern day sponsorships, the stakes are now much higher and the requirements for successful sponsorship more complex.
The implications for sponsors are highly critical. As a sponsor, they are making an investment and the unfortunate problem that arises with some sponsor management teams is the expectation of an automatic return on their investment without lifting a finger. The results of this research clearly indicate that sponsors require full involvement in the sponsorship procedure. As is the case with the property, research is of paramount importance for the sponsor. An intimate knowledge of the market of the property for which they wish to engage a sponsorship deal is critical. In the first instance, the sponsor needs to determine the type of audience they are to deal with, in respect to the property. A general understanding of the characteristics of the audience, such as demographics, can assist in determining the needs, wants and interests of the prospective consumers. Having achieved a level of background understanding, sponsors need to factor past marketing and promotional activities to determine how to leverage the sponsorship activity they wish to undertake. Sponsors should not rely solely on a manager’s perception of the sponsor and what works. The consumer’s viewpoint and their opinions are invaluable. A common managerial misconception is the belief a popular event equates to a successful sponsorship campaign and the SEM results demonstrated that this is simply not the case. In particular, the hypothesis test results effectively showed that there was simply no support that event status influenced a consumer’s positive pre-purchase response. The important consideration of this result is that this finding was not measured directly against a consumer’s intention to purchase, rather at a much earlier stage of the consumer buyer behaviour process. This indicates that as much attention a popular event may garner, relying on status alone to uphold the sponsorship would be both irresponsible and ignorant on the sponsor’s behalf. In the same context that sponsors should not rely on the size and/or status of an event for success, they should also not rely on exposure and recall measures in both preliminary stages and in evaluation as is predominant in current business practice. Sponsors need to understand that sponsorship relies on a number of processes to achieve beneficial and meaningful returns. Exposure alone is not a sufficient enough means of assessing the success of a potential sponsorship or evaluating a current one. Again, working with consumers through market research is a key component of sponsorship development and management.
196
Once adequate research has been achieved, sponsors will be able to understand how to best engage the consumer in the sponsorship and how to change or enhance the attitudes and beliefs of their target market. Understanding how a consumer will favour the sponsor when assessing their consideration hinders on several key factors. First and foremost, sponsors need to ensure that there is a fit between themselves and the property they wish to sponsor. Previous sponsorship research has highlighted the importance of sponsor and event fit with this study being no different. While the level and degree of fit does not have to be particularly explicit, the sponsorship must be able to demonstrate to the target market that there is synergy in the relationship between the sponsor and sponsored property. This assists in conveying a sense of genuineness and connectedness, which in essence is transferred to the consumer.
In addition, sponsors also need to observe such things as how well the property has been received in the past and any previous misdemeanours that may have occurred that may affect how consumers view them. Further to this, sponsors also need to determine how best to ensure that a transfer of image values may be facilitated. Fit and image components of the sponsorship can maximise the value of the sponsorship immensely. The approach to achieving success in this area will vary for each sponsor and their market. It is important that a sponsor is able to observe image transfer at the levels of the activity, individually for the consumers, and in the context of congruence. Achieving this will ensure they are well on their way to building specific sets of objectives that targets each of the key areas which assists in the transfer of image values. Overall, these steps will ensure that a sponsor gains maximum benefit from their investment in a sponsorship, and also allows for a certain level of protection, from other sponsors and from the possibility of ambush marketing.
Table 7.0 and Figure 7.0 summarises the key managerial implications for sponsors and properties as well as presenting actions to be taken for effective sponsorship to promote positive consumer buyer behaviour. Both the table and figure are representations of the results outlined in the detailed final model (Figure 6.13), which includes the relevant items from the distributed survey.
197
Table 7.0. Action Table for Effective Sponsorship to Promote Positive Consumer Buyer Behaviour Relating to Measures for Effective Sponsorship Relating to Sponsorship Relationships Develop a working platform that integrates sponsorship activities with Consumer Attitudes public and media relations to harness a favourable perception of the Sponsor likeability sponsor. Ensure that research of the target market has been Positive sponsor perception conducted and establish key characteristics of the audience that may affect likeability. Create a sponsorship campaign that works in harmony with the key characteristics of the audience. Initially, the suitability of either the property or sponsor for one another is integral to determine fit. This can be determined by a set of criteria pertaining to core values in addition to internal and external qualities of Sponsor-Event Fit both parties. Once fit has been established on this level, management must ensure that there is an incentive for sponsors and properties to collaborate on the sponsorship campaign. They must also ensure that sponsors and properties are able to align objectives on the specific sponsorship campaign and share a core focus. The sponsorship activity needs to encourage enough interest in the product or service on offer for the consumer to consider purchase. Pre-purchase Response This interest must be leveraged by the interest a consumer has in the Interest event/property. Additionally, the sponsorship activity must also Favourability improve perception and likeability for a sponsor to encourage favourability. This involves a collaborative effort between sponsors and properties that focuses on strengthening their relationship, as well as offering or projecting something that is different or unique. Sponsors must ensure the sponsorship activity has portrayed an image a consumer wants to associate with and enhance the belief that a similar image is shared. Again, this must be leveraged against the sponsor’s relationship and association with the property. The Transfer of Image Values sponsorship activity must also demonstrate that the sponsor and Sponsorship activity effect property share a stronger connection and the values a consumer Image congruence of sponsorship associates with the property extend to the sponsor. The sponsorship activity must solidify the relationship between the consumer, the property and sponsor and must seek a true connection. The property plays a key role in connecting the consumer to the sponsor. Therefore the initial criteria of key market characteristics plays a critical role in ensuring this occurs. Other forms of marketing and communications must support the sponsorship activity. The promotion of the availability of the product or service must be considered. It may be incorporated into the sponsorship activity or in supporting communication platforms. This Intention to Purchase ensures that a consumer is able to actively seek the sponsor’s product
or service. The sponsorship itself is also bankable upon the point of difference it has over a non-sponsor. Establishing criteria between sponsors against non-sponsors can assist in developing strategies and objectives that differs from and is superior to its competitors.
198 Figure 7.0. Sponsorship Effects Towards Positive Consumer Buyer Behaviour Pre-Event
Likeability
Consumer Sponsor
Positive Perception
During Event / Period of Sponsorship Exposure
Sense that company is sponsor Fit Event/ Consumer Sponsor Property
Fit between sponsor & property important
Post Event Response/Consumer Response after Sponsorship Exposure
Sponsorship Consumer
Feel more favourable towards sponsor as result of sponsorship
Interest in event led to interest in sponsor Sponsorship improved perception of Actively seek sponsor products & services sold by this sponsor
Values associated with the Like sponsor more as result of sponsorship property extend to sponsor
Attitude towards sponsor is positive Following sponsorship, sponsor and following sponsorship property share stronger connection More likely to purchase from sponsor than non- sponsor Following event sponsor and property share similar image Event/ Sponsor Property
Try to buy from sponsor due to positive effect of sponsorship
199 7.6 Limitations of the Study
The findings of this research are bound by the context for which sponsorship was examined. This study looked specifically at large organisations and their sponsorship of two major sporting events in Australia. Therefore the implications for this research more likely apply to organisations and sporting events that share similar characteristics to those examined in this study. As the sporting events – Australian Rules Football and the Australian Open Tennis – were confined to Australia, the generalisability of the results may have been affected. Therefore such results could be considered to be unique to the Australian marketplace.
The choices of stimuli (the sponsors and sporting events) used in this study were real life examples. As it is likely the survey respondents would possess information about the stimuli as a result of this, such information could not be controlled. Fictional stimuli in a controlled situation may have perhaps enabled the drawing of conclusions using data at a less aggregated level. Additionally, the impact of specific characteristics of the organisations or sporting events, i.e. length of existence, multi-national or national control etc. was not examined and subsequently presents a gap that may need to be addressed in future research.
To an extent, the cross-sectional research design of this study was also a limitation. In aid of convenience and time constraints this research design was ideal. However, the capacity of the study to understand change and development in consumer perceptions and behavioural intentions was bound by this time frame. For example, consumers newly acquainted to the examined sporting events or sponsors may change their opinion after considerable time has lapsed. Consequently, this research was unable to capture the effect of time on consumer responses and additionally, on sponsorship effectiveness.
On a more specific note, the conceptual framework used in this study included the attitude/beliefs, interest and favourability constructs. These were examined based on the perceptions of the survey respondents at any given time. Therefore no comments could be made on what factors led the consumer to perceive, be interested in, or favour a sponsor. As a result, this factor was not controlled.
200 As indicated, a survey strategy was employed for this study. The survey consisted predominantly of scaled items to allow for analysis using structural equation modelling. Subsequently, the qualitative element of the research was limited. The items used in the survey were sourced from previous sponsorship based studies. However, more testing is necessary to ensure that each item tests what is required, as not all had been empirically tested beforehand. The large number of items in the survey, which reflected the considerable scope of this study, affected the detail that could be extracted from respondents and subsequently presented a key limitation of this study.
For increased confidence in generalisability and external validity, a more extensive sample could have been used. Several of the demographic profiles were skewed, i.e. marital status, and therefore a larger sample of sporting fans and non-fans would be necessary for a more comprehensive understanding. A random sampling method would be ideal in this situation. Alternatively, a sample representative of only a certain group of sporting fans, unlike the general sample profiled for this study, may elicit more tailored responses and conclusions.
7.7 Contributions to Theory and the Literature
This is one of the first studies to examine and test sponsorship effectiveness upon seven major constructs of event, sponsor and sponsorship factors, pre-purchase response, transfer of image values, intention to purchase and actual purchase. Recent calls for research and the subsequent lack of empirical investigation in this area stimulated the development of a conceptual model that would enhance knowledge into this domain. Additionally, in order to ensure that this study did not lapse into duplication, new and timely literature helped shape the rationale for the context and scope of this study.
The consumer decision making process (CDP) model (Blackwell et al., 2001) played a central role in the development of the conceptual model used in this study. As a generic model of consumer buyer behaviour, it offered a logical and holistic method of assessing and explaining sponsorship response and effectiveness. In this study a more intense and sponsorship centric examination of the CDP process was applied. The findings of this study demonstrated that whilst the basic premise of the original model held true in its application to sponsorship, the steps to reach actual purchase were more
201 complex and involved a deeper insight into the importance of a pre-purchase response and the transfer of image values. This study confirmed that beyond a transfer of meaning, simple associations had the ability to cause a transfer of feelings and liking. Similarly, the findings expanded upon theoretical observations of the power of association from one variable to another, demonstrating that at any one time, two variables may influence one response.
This study also extended upon Speed and Thompson’s (2000) conceptualisation of the determinants of sports sponsorship response, which was framed upon a classical conditioning framework. The findings of this study confirmed the importance of the effects of attitudes towards an event, attitudes towards the sponsor and the perception of congruence between the event and sponsor on the conditioned response. Most research in the domain of classical conditioning has focused on its effects in advertising with little addressing its effects on sponsorships. This study found that while in principle advertising and sponsorship goals may be similar, functionally, there are notable differences.
Additionally, the empirical component of this study facilitated a better understanding of previously untested constructs, or those constructs that had been tested in isolation. The diversity of the constructs tested ensured that an intimate and detailed insight into consumer buyer behaviour and sponsorships could be ascertained. The results demonstrated important linkages between major constructs that were part of a sequenced process, in particular, the significance between the pre-purchase response, the transfer of image values, and the intention to purchase. Such linkages also highlighted their importance in driving a sponsorship towards a business tool of economic value, which is particularly important when the value of sponsorships is often criticised or questioned.
This study also contributed to the limited research that examines multiple sponsor- property relationships, offering results that are not limited to one example. Additionally the study also examined the antecedents and outcomes of consumer responses to sponsorships, offering a guide for successful sponsorship planning, implementation and diagnosis.
202 The final construct and outcome of the conceptual and final model developed in this study was purchase. Economically, sponsors are most likely to benefit from this transaction with the bulk of sponsorship literature focused on this point. However this study demonstrated that the overall process to reach purchase is one that should also involve the property, emphasising the significance of a dyadic and collaborative effort.
As global expenditure in, and practice of sponsorship increases, the need to find ways in which to harness effective usage multiplies. Accordingly, the following section extends upon the contributions made by this study by offering timely and constructive directions for future research.
7.8 Directions for Future Research
The implications for further research in the context of this study are several. However, the following will present some suggestions that may be of value.
First and foremost, future research should examine the final model presented in this study and test it for validity. As the model itself is a unique contribution to current sponsorship literature and research, further research needs to be conducted to support its existence. Such validation should also confirm the wording and structure of the survey instrument that will provide evidence to support the final model. Likewise, the sequence of the model demonstrating the determinants of sponsorship effectiveness on consumer response also requires verification. The exploratory factor analyses conducted examined the model in two parts. However, future studies may require a more extensive analysis. As not all antecedents of pre-purchase response and actual purchase had been empirically tested before this study, the applicability of the model has its limitations.
Congruence was a prominent finding in this study. The construct played a dominant role in the final model, demonstrating its role in a consumer’s pre-purchase response as well as in the transfer of image values. This concerned the level to which a sponsor was able to establish image value congruence and a connection with the sponsored property. Congruence in this study was not specifically defined; rather, it was based solely on the consumer’s perception of congruence. Though Jagre et al. (2001) developed a
203 conceptual model of congruence effects on consumer attitudes and recall of event sponsorship, this study did not provide specific definitions of what congruence constituted. While perception may be enough to judge and assess the degree of influence it may have on consumer behavioural intentions, a deeper understanding of congruence is necessary in order to advance sponsorship research. The questions that remain to be answered are what consumers perceive congruence to be and of those elements, which of them influences their behaviour. Real life cases of sponsor and property relationships are most likely to offer insight into this underdeveloped area of research. In understanding what defines congruence, sponsors will be better equipped to identify potentially bankable prospects as well as developing congruence specific sponsorship objectives. It may be that congruence is purely incidental or that it is controlled by what product or service the sponsor offers and how it relates to the property. This avenue of research is certainly necessary if sponsorship practice is to advance.
Additionally, interest and favourability were two constructs that constituted a consumer’s pre-purchase response in the final model for a consumer’s intention to purchase. Again, these two constructs were based on perception and were not specifically defined. The research design of this study did not facilitate for an intricate understanding of interest and favourability due to the survey based nature of the research. This opens an opportunity for more qualitative analysis to understand what makes a consumer interested in a sponsor and why they would favour a sponsor over a non-sponsor. Similar to the aforementioned suggestion, real life cases would most likely assist in developing an understanding of these constructs. Interest is hard to define as what individuals believe to be of interest will and can differ significantly. However, if future research was able to somehow segment or discover patterns within a sample regarding interest, the findings may well be generalisable. Favourability on the other hand, is more concerned with the ‘why’ rather than the ‘what’ element that is associated with interest. Why a consumer favours one sponsor over another, or over a non-sponsor is of considerable interest. The implications of such findings may assist in determining how important a role sponsorship plays in a business or organisation’s marketing communications mix. Such research may shed an insight on why some companies fare better using sponsorship over others. Additionally, the findings of such research may also assist in the development of strategies to counter ambush marketing.
204 If the findings are able to demonstrate that being an official sponsor holds some level of superiority over non-sponsors, the elements that constitute superiority may be used in some way to combat those who do try to ambush official event sponsors.
Future research may also focus on brand and brand beliefs as a step to assessing sponsorship effectiveness. While a generalised understanding of brand, that is, the examination of the sponsor and attitudes towards the sponsor was undertaken, a more brand centric approach may be of benefit to the sponsor. This may enable a more tailored understanding of the sponsor within their current sponsorship undertaking. This includes symbolic associations, which may affect how they may be perceived in any prospective sponsorship deals. The moderate to strong support of congruence and image values implicating the sponsors suggests that such an approach to sponsorship research is necessary.
Whilst event status did not play a role in the final model, the implications for research into this factor are many. In the model developed in this study, as well as in Speed and Thompson’s (2000) study of sports sponsorship response, event status was considered in preliminary conceptual models. However, due to poor statistical results the factor was eliminated. Though such results may infer that event status is not important, it still may have implications in other contexts of sponsorship or marketing communications. Since sponsorship research is still in its infancy, this would be another step towards advancement. This study proved that event status did not affect a consumer’s intention to purchase a sponsor’s product or service. Likewise, Speed and Thompson (2000) found it held no bearing whatsoever on sports sponsorship response. Nevertheless, event status was initially considered in both models due to the very fact that many of the well-known sponsorship campaigns around the world are associated with major events. The Olympics is one such example. Yet, there appears to be a level of contradiction between the attraction of sponsors to major, high status events and the actual effect of status on effective sponsorship. The incongruence between the perceived and real benefits of event status is in need of understanding. Celebrity endorsements are based on the very same principals of event sponsorship and have been shown to be successful in many cases. The question therefore remains as to what role event status plays and in what context it is effective.
205 There are also a web of important relationships within sponsorships that were not examined in this study, such as the media and subsequent broadcast partners. This presents another avenue for research in terms of developing an understanding of how such stakeholders may affect effectiveness as well as what influence they may have on the consumer. Additionally, the relationship and dependence between variables in the model also presents itself as another prospect. The Beta values of the hypothesis testing suggest that sponsor-event fit affected image congruence directly. Originally, it was presented in the initial model as an antecedent to pre-purchase response, which was preceded by the transfer of image values and image congruence. It is proposed a better understanding of this relationship is invaluable.
While invariance testing was conducted using the demographic data obtained from the surveys, there is an opportunity for further research examining demographics and psychographics in more detail. The specifics relating to marital status poses an interesting avenue of research considering the grass-roots/family based orientation of Australian rules football. Additionally, research that embarks on better understanding the effect of embedded attitudes and beliefs as a result of peer or group identity will add to the individualistic focus of research conducted in this study. The team based nature of AFL football and patriotic flavour of the Australian Open tennis implicates the necessity of such research.
What can also be considered an opportunity and limitation of the study are that of time and the effects of time on consumer perceptions and reactions to sponsorship. As no direct research pertaining to this was included in this research design, it may be possible that future research may be longitudinal in nature. Of particular importance is understanding for how long a sponsorship may be effective. This involves an understanding of those consumers who made a purchase or used a service of a sponsor due to their exposure to a sponsorship and whether they continue to consume or use that product or service. Sponsorship is generally known to sustain effects over a short period of time. However, this study has shown to a degree that those who were exposed to a sponsorship some time ago were still able to recall the sponsorship, as well as make a purchase as a result of that exposure. In a different perspective, future research may also examine consumers who are newly acquainted with property/sponsor stimuli as
206 opposed to those at the other end of the spectrum and assess how their reactions may differ or correlate.
7.9 Chapter Summary
This chapter discussed the main findings of the study and proposed a number of key managerial implications for both sponsors and properties. The limitations of the study were identified, as were the suggestions for future research.
That a positive pre-purchase response had a strong impact on the transfer of image values was expected given that it is guided by a consumer’s interest in and favourability of a sponsor. Event status, fan involvement, goodwill and exposure had very weak to no support on a positive pre-purchase response. This is explained by the impact of consumer perceptions of these constructs as opposed to the actual emotive cues and actions associated with interest and favourability. This can also explain the strong support for the transfer of image values on a consumer’s intention to purchase.
In context of the suggested managerial implications, it was detailed that both a sponsor and property’s intricate understanding of their target market is essential for the execution of an effective sponsorship. It was also considered imperative that sponsors and the sponsored property engage in maximising the value of their sponsorship by integrating fit and image components into their activities and/or programs. By harnessing sponsorship activities using these guidelines, sponsorship initiates and embodies a purpose and an affect on the consumer.
7.10 Conclusion
Developing an all-encompassing framework that determines sponsorship effectiveness and consumer purchase intentions of sponsor’s products and services is a useful development in sponsorship research. It is certainly a step towards a deeper understanding of what is commonly perceived as a superficial platform for marketing communications. Sponsorship should not be defined by status and popularity; rather, by the effect it has on the consumer. Whilst the commitment between a sponsor and property is integral to the success of a sponsorship, unless the goal orientation of the
207 sponsorship is consumer centric, the level of effect a sponsorship may have is dubious. The consumer must be at the core of any sponsorship. The manager’s role is to implement, rather than be a constituent, of sponsorship goals and objectives.
This study and the conceptual model developed as a result of it, has enabled sponsors and properties to view sponsorship as a sequential and logical process that is dependent upon a number of key factors rather than one aspect such as sponsor-event fit. Additionally, this study has proven that well worn methods of sponsorship evaluation for effectiveness such as recall and recognition, are no longer valid in the modern marketing platform. Consumer attitudes and beliefs, sponsor and property congruence as well as the transfer of image effects are at the core of successful and effective sponsorship. The proposed model in this study focuses on making sponsorship accountable, which is necessary especially in sponsorships where large financial exchanges are made.
The most effective sponsorships are also proven to be those sponsorships that demonstrate a strong connection between the sponsor and property. Consequently, this means that both sponsors and properties must work collaboratively if they want their sponsorships to work. The old adage of a sponsor simply offering money for advertising space is well and truly void.
However, it is first necessary that both sponsors and properties engage in substantial research of their market and each other before the sponsorship itself commences. Once this has been established, there must be a bilateral commitment between the sponsor and property to offer a unique and image driven sponsorship activity that involves the consumer. It is also imperative that sponsorships are not used purely as a tool to sell management impinged objectives.
Ultimately the most successful sponsorships are those that harness the unique and interesting assets of properties and sponsors as well as integrating the objectives of both parties to achieve a mutually driven goal. Though achieving such a task is not simple, this research highlights that steps can be taken to significantly improve the chances of a harmonious and successful sponsorship campaign occurring.
208 Bibliography
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Measuring brand equity across products and markets. California Management Review 38 (3), 102(119).
Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of Consumer Expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13 411-454.
Allen, C. T., & Janiszewski, C. A. (1989). Assessing the Role of Contingency Awareness in Attitudinal Conditioning With Implications for Advertising Research. Journal of Marketing Research, 26 30-43.
Amis, J., Slack, T., & Berrett, T. (1999). Sports sponsorship as distinctive competence. European Journal of Marketing, 33 (3/4), 250-272.
Anderson, L. (2004, 11th June 2004). The new sponsorship order: a passion for fans. B&T, 54 2475, 13.
Anibeze, O. (2004, 6th April 2004). AAGM: Out Biggest Football Problem. The Financial Times Limited.
Ashill, N. J. (2001). Consumer attitudes towards sponsorship: a study of national sports event in New Zealand. Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, December/January 291-310.
Beck-Burridge, M., & Walton, J. (2001). Sports sponsorship and brand development: the Subaru and Jaguar stories New York: Palgrave.
Benady, D. (2004). Special Report - Sponsorship: Taking a sporting chance. Marketing Week, 37.
209 Bennett, R. (1998). Sports sponsorship, spectator recall and false consensus. European Journal of Marketing, 33 291-313.
Bhattacharya, B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M. A. (1995). Understanding the bond of identification: An investigation of its correlates among art museum members. Journal of Marketing, 59 46-57.
Blackwell, R. D., Miniard, P. W., & Engel, J. F. (2001). Consumer Behavior (9 ed.): Harcourt College Publishers.
Blattberg, R. C. (2001). Customer Equity: Building and Managing Relationships as Valuable Assets Harvard Business Press Books.
Bloxham, M. (1998). Brand affinity and television programme sponsorship. International Journal of Advertising, 17 89-99.
Bornstein, R. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: overview and meta-analysis of research. Psychological Bulletin 106 (2), 265(225).
Brady, T. (2003). Are the sponsors taking their eyes off the ball? Marketing Week, July 31 2003 14.
Brodie, R., Brookes, R., & Coviello, N. (2000). Relationship Marketing in Consumer Markets. In K. Blois (Ed.), The Oxford Textbook of Marketing. Sydney: Oxford University Press.
Brooks, C. M. (1999). Sports marketing: Competitive Business Strategies for Sports. European Journal of Marketing, 33 (3).
Brown, T. J., & Cox, E. L. (1997). Corporate associations in marketing and consumer research: a review. Corporate Reputation Review, Summer/Fall 34-38.
210 Brown, T. J., & Dacin, P. A. (1997). The Company and the Product: Corporate Associations and Consumer Product Responses. Journal of Marketing, 61 (1), 68-84.
Burns, A. C., & Bush, R. F. (1998). Marketing Research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall.
Byrne, B. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS : basic concepts, applications, and programming London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Canning, S., & Sinclair, L. (2004, 01/04/2004). Game of CHANCE. The Australian.
Catherwood, D. W., & Van Kirk, R. L. (1992). The Complete Guide to Special Event Management New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Chandon, P., Wansink, B., & Laurent, G. (2000). A Benefit Congruency Framework of Sales Promotion Effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 64 (4), 65-81.
Chattopadhyay, A., & Alba, J. (1988). The situational importance of recall and inference in consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 15 (1), 1.
Chisman, F. P. (1976). Attitude Psychology and the Study of Public Opinion. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Clark, J. (1991, February 14). Sponsorship and Europe. Paper presented at the Successful Sponsorship: Strategy, Solutions and Creativity, London.
Coakes, S. J., & Steed, L. G. (2001). SPSS Analysis without Anguish. Milton, Queensland: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
Collins, M. (1993). Global philanthropy- Marketing beyond the call of duty. European Journal of Marketing, 27 (2), 46-58.
211
Collis, J., & Hussey, R. (2003). Business research : a practical guide to undergraduate and postgraduate students (2nd ed.). Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan
Copeland, R., Frisby, W., & McCarville, R. (1996). Understanding the sport sponsorship process from a corporate perspective. Journal of Sports Management, 10 32-48.
Cornwell, T. B. (1995). Sponsorship-linked marketing development. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12 (4), 13-24.
Cornwell, T. B., & Maignan, I. (1998). An international review of sponsorship research. Journal of Advertising, 27 1-21.
Cornwell, T. B., Pruitt, S. W., & Ness, R. V. (2001). The Value of Winning in Motorsports: Sponsorship-linked Marketing. Journal of Advertising Research, 41 (1), 17.
Cornwell, T. B., & Roy, D. P. (2003). Brand equity's influence on responses to event sponsorships/Executive summary. The Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12 (6/7), 377.
Cornwell, T. B., Roy, D. P., & Steinard, E. A. (2001). Exploring managers' perceptions of the impact of sponsorship on brand equity Journal of Advertising, 30 (2), 41- 51.
Cortez, J. P. (1992). Julius Keeps the Score for Sports Promotion. Advertising Age, 63 (22), 10.
Crimmins, J., & Horn, M. (1996). Sponsorship: From management ego trip to marketing success. Journal of Advertising Research, 36 11-21.
212 Crompton, J. L. (2004). Conceptualization and alternate operationalizations of the measurement of sponsorship effectiveness in sport. Leisure Studies, 23 (3), 267- 281.
Crowley, M. G. (1991). Prioritising the Sponsorship Audience. European Journal of Marketing, 25 (11), 11.
D'Alessandro, D. (1998). Event Marketing: Winners, Losers and Chumps (Vol. 64, pp. 296-301): Vital Speeches of the Day.
D'astous, A., & Bitz, P. (1995). Consumer evaluations of sponsorship programmes. European Journal of Marketing, 29 (12), 6-23.
Daneshvary, R., & Schwer, K. R. (2000). The association endorsement and consumers' intention to purchase. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17 (3).
Davis, D. (2005). Business research for decision making (6th ed.). Belmont, California: Thomson/Brooks/Cole
Derbaix, C. (1995). The impact of affective reactions on attitudes toward the advertisement and the brand: a step toward ecological validity.: (includes appendix) Journal of Marketing Research 32 (4), 470(410).
Diakpoulou, A. (1990, September 22-29). Arts Sponsorship. Paper presented at the Il Futuro Televisio Europeo, L'Informazione Transnationale in Europa, Italy.
Dolphin, R. (2003). Sponsorship: perspectives on its strategic role. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 8 (3), 173-186.
Donelly, J. (2004, June). The Power of Passion. Marketing, June, 16-20.
Earl, K. (2002, October 2002). How sports sponsorship can always win. Admap, 16-18.
213 Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Lowe, A. (2002). Management research (2md ed.). London: SAGE.
Easton, S., & Mackie, P. (1998). When football came home: a case history of the sponsorship activity at Euro '96. International Journal of Advertising 17 (1), 99(16).
Eilander, G. (1992, December 2-4). Improving the media performance by using sponsorship on top of other media. Paper presented at the Sponsorship '92 Conference, Monte Carlo.
Eilander, G., & Koenders, H. (1991, October 23-25). Communications research into the effects of short and long term sponsorship. Paper presented at the Sponsorship '91 Conference, Holland.
Elmes, D. G., Kantowitz, B. H., & Roediger III, H. L. (2003). RESEARCH METHODS in psychology. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Erdogan, B. Z., & Kitchen, P. J. (1998). Managerial mindsets and the symbiotic relationship between sponsorship and advertising. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 16 (6-7), 369(366).
Fahy, J., Farrelly, F., & Quester, P. G. (2004). Competitive advantage through sponsorship: A conceptual model and research propositions. European Journal of Marketing, 38 (8), 1013-1030.
Farrelly, F. J. (2002). A Predictive Model of Sport Sponsorship Renewal in Australia. University of Adelaide, Adelaide.
Farrelly, F. J., & Quester, P. G. (2003). The effects of market orientation on trust and commitment: The case of the sponsorship business-to-business relationship. European Journal of Marketing, 37 (3).
214 Farrelly, F. J., Quester, P. G., & Burton, R. (1997). Integrating sports sponsorship in the corporate marketing function: an international comparative study. International Marketing Review, 38 (8).
Felt, J. (2002). How sports sponsorship can help your brand. . Managing Intellectual Property (125), 24.
Ferrand, A., & Pages, M. (1999). Image management in sport organisation: the creation of value. European Journal of Marketing, 33 (3).
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Fisher, R. J., & Wakefield, K. (1998). Factors Leading to Group Identification: A Field Study of Winners and Losers. Psychology and Marketing, 15 (1), 23-40.
Flack, J. (2002). Sports sponsorship is a team game. Marketing Week, 35 (3).
Foxall, G., Goldsmith, R., & Brown, S. (1998). Consumer Psychology for Marketing: International Thomson Business Press.
Foxall, G. R., & Pallister, J. G. (1998). Measuring purchase decision involvement for financial services: Comparison of the Zaichkowski and Mittal Scales. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 16 (4/5), 180.
Funk, D. C., Mahony, D. F., & Havitz, M. E. (2003). Sport Consumer Behaviour: Assessment and Direction. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12 (4), 200-205.
Gardner, M. P., & Shuman, P. J. (1987). Sponsorship: An Important Component of the Communications Mix. Journal of Advertising, 16 11-17.
Gardner, T. (2004). Letter: Sponsorship is not just about making noise. Marketing Week, 16.
215 Gilbert, D. (1988). Sponsorship strategy is adrift. The Quarterly Review of Marketing, 14 (1), 6-9.
Gofton, L., & Ness, M. R. (1997). Business Market Research. London: Kogan Page Limited.
Greising, D. (1996, July 29). Run, jump - and sell: commercial exploitation of sports explodes. Business Week, 36(32).
Grohs, R., Wagner, U., & Vsetecka, S. (2004). Assessing the Effectiveness of Sport Sponsorships - An Empirical Investigation. Schmalenbach Business Review (SBR), 56 (2), 119-138.
Grunert, K. (2000). Consumer Behaviour. In K. Blois (Ed.), The Oxford Textbook of Marketing. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Gwinner, K. (1997). A model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsorship. International Marketing Review, 14 145-158.
Gwinner, K., & Eaton, J. (1999). Building Brand Image Through Event Sponsorship: The Role of Image Transfer. Journal of Advertising, 28 (4), 19-35.
Gwinner, K., & Swanson, S. R. (2003). A model of fan identification: antecedents and sponsorship outcomes. Journal of Services Marketing, 17 (3), 275-294.
Haley, E. (1996). Exploring the Construct of Organization as Source: Consumer's Understanding of Organizational Sponsorship of Advocacy Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 25 (2), 19-35.
Hall, R. (1993). A framework linking intangible resources and capabilities to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 14 607-618.
216 Hansen, F., & Scotwin, L. (1995). An experimental enquiry into sponsoring: what effects can be measured? . Marketing & Research Today (Netherlands) 23 (3), 173(179).
Harvey, B., Gray, S., & Despain, G. (2006). Measuring the Effectiveness of True Sponsorship. Journal of Advertising Research 398-409.
Hastings, G. (1984). Sponsorship works differently from advertising. Journal of Advertising, 3 (2), 171-176.
Head, V. (1981). Sponsorship. Cambridge: Woodhead-Faulkber.
Heath, R. L. (1994). Management of Corporate Communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Helitzer, M. (2000). The dream job : $port$ publicity, promotion and marketing (3rd ed.). Ohio: University Sports Press.
Ho, R. (1995). Olympic exclusivity is not in the cards for NationsBank. Atlantic Journal and Constitution.
Hoek, J. (1999). Sponsorship: An Evaluation of Management. Assumptions and Practices. Marketing Bulletin, 10 1-10.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Convential criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling 6(1), 1-55.
Irwin, R. L., & Assimakopoulos, M. K. (1992). An approach to the evaluation and selection of sport-sponsorship proposals. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 1 (2), 43- 51.
217 Jagre, E., Watson, J. J., & Watson, J. G. (2001). Sponsorship and Congruity Theory: A Theoretical Framework for Explaining Consumer Attitude and Recall of Event Sponsorship. Advances in Consumer Research, 28 439-445.
Javalgi, R. G., Traylor, M., Grass, A. C., & Lampman, E. (1994). Awareness of Sponsorship and Corporate Image: An Empirical Investigation Journal of Advertising 23 (4), 47-58.
Jevons, C., Gabbott, M., & de Chernatony, L. (2005). Customer and brand manager perspectives on brand relationships: a conceptual framework. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15 (5), 300-309.
Johar, G. V., & Pham, M. T. (1999). Relatedness, prominence, and constructive sponsor identification. Journal of Marketing Research, 36.
Johnson, M., & Zinkhan, G. M. (1990). Defining and measuring company image. Paper presented at the Conference of the Academy of Marketing Science XIII.
Kate, N. T. (1995). And Now, a Word from Our Sponsors. American Demographics (June), 46-52.
Keller, K. L. (2001). Mastering the Marketing Communications Mix: Micro and Macro Perspectives on Integrated Marketing Communication Programs. Journal of Marketing Management, 17 (7/8), 819-847.
King, A. (1997). The social performance uncertainty principle. Corporate Reputation Review, Summer/Fall 43.
Kinney, L., & McDaniel, S. (1996). Strategic implications of attitude toward the ad in leveraging event sponsorships. Journal of Sports Management, 10 250-261.
Kitchen, P. J. (1993). Public relations: a rationale for its development and usage within UK fast-moving consumer goods firm. European Journal of Marketing, 27 (7), 75.
218
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
Knecht, J., & Stoelinger, B. (1988). Communicatiebegrippenlijst. Deventer: Kluwer Bedrijfswetenschappen.
Komoroski, L., & Biemone, H. (1996). Sponsor accountability: designing and utilizing an evaluation system. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 2 35-39.
Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Brown, L., & Adam, S. (1998). marketing (4th ed.). Sydney: Pearson Education Australia.
Kover, A. J. (2001). Editorial: The Sponsorship Issue. Journal of Advertising Research, 41 (1), 5-5.
Kuzma, A. T., & Shanklin, W. L. (1992). How medium-market-share companies achieve superior profitability. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 7(3), 29(11).
Kuzma, J. R., Veltri, F. R., Kuzma, A. T., & Miller, J. J. (2003). Negative corporate sponsor information: The impact on consumer attitudes and purchase intentions. International Sports Journal, 7 (2), 140.
Lardinoit, T., & Derbaix, C. (2001). Sponsorship and Recall of Sponsors. Psychology and Marketing, 18 (2), 167-190.
Lardinoit, T., & Quester, P. G. (2001). Attitudinal Effects of Combined Sponsorship and Sponsor's Prominence on Basketball in Europe. Journal of Advertising Research 41 (1), 48.
League, A. F. L. (2004). Corporate Information. Retrieved 12/12/05, 2005, from www.afl.com.au
219 Lee, M., Sandler, D. M., & Shani, D. (1997). Attitudinal Constructs Toward Sponsorship: Scale Development Using Three Global Sporting Events. International Marketing Review, 14 (3), 159-169.
Levine, J. B., & Thurston, K. (1992).The Real Marathon: Signing Olympic Sponsors. Business Week 30.
Mack, R. W. (1999). Event sponsorship: an exploratory study of small business objectives, practices and perceptions. Journal of Small Business Management, 37 (3), 25-30.
MacKenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context.: (advertising) Journal of Marketing, 53 (2), 48(18).
Madrigal, R. (2000). The Influence of Social Alliances with Sports Teams on Intentions to Purchase Corporate Sponsors' Products. Journal of Advertising, 29 (4), 13-24.
Madrigal, R. (2001). Social identity effects in a belief-attitude-intentions hierarchy: implications for corporate sponsorship. Psychology and Marketing, 18 (2), 145.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and Their Alma Matter: A Partial Test of the Reformulated Model of Organizational Identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13 (2), 103-123.
Malhotra, N. K. (1999). Marketing research : an applied orientation (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall.
Marlin, A. T. (1997). Social and environmental rating of companies. Corporate Reputation Review, 39.
Marshall, D. W., & Cook, G. (1991). The corporate (sports) sponsor. International Journal of Advertising, 25 (11), 307-324.
220 Mason, D. S. (1999). What is the sport product and who buys it? The marketing of professional sports leagues. European Journal of Marketing, 33 (3).
Mason, K. (2005). How Corporate Sport Sponsorship Impacts Consumer Behaviour. The Journal of American Academy of Business, 7 (1), 32-35.
McCarville, R. E., Flood, C. M., & Froats, T. A. (1998). The Effectiveness of Selected Promotions on Spectators' Assessments of a Nonprofit Sporting Event Sponsor. Journal of Sport Management, 12 (1), 51-62.
McDaniel, S. (1999). An Investigation of Match-Up Effects in Sports Sponsorship Advertising: The Implications of Consumer Advertising Schemas. Psychology and Marketing, 16 (2), 162-184.
McDaniel, S., & Kinney, L. (1997, June 12-15). Antecedents convictions in consumer response to event involvement and psychographics on brand awareness and brand image for official Olympic Sponsors. Paper presented at the New and evolving paradigms: The emerging future of marketing, Ireland.
McDonald, C. (1991). Sponsorship and the image of the sponsor. European Journal of Marketing, 25 31-38.
Meenaghan, T. (1983). Commercial Sponsorship. European Journal of Marketing, 17 (7), 1-73.
Meenaghan, T. (1991). The role of sponsorship in the marketing communications mix. International Journal of Advertising, 10 35-47.
Meenaghan, T. (1998). Ambush Marketing: Corporate Strategy and Consumer Reaction. Psychology and Marketing, 15 (4), 305-322.
Meenaghan, T. (1999). Sponsorship and Advertising: A Comparison of Consumer Perceptions. Psychology and Marketing, 18 (2), 191-215.
221 Meenaghan, T. (2001). Understanding Sponsorship Effects. Psychology and Marketing, 18 (2), 95-122.
Meenaghan, T., & O'Sullivan, P. (2001). Editorial: The Passionate Embrace - Consumer Response to Sponsorship. Psychology and Marketing, 18 (2), 87-94.
Meenaghan, T., & Shipley, D. (1999). Media effect in commercial sponsorship.: (Sports and Marketing) European Journal of Marketing, 33 (3-4), 328(322).
Misra, S., & Beatty, S. E. (1990). Celebrity spokesperson and brand congruence: an assessment of recall and affect Journal of Business Research, 21 159-173.
Miyazaki, A. D., & Morgan, A. G. (2001). Assessing Market Value of Event Sponsoring: Corporate Olympic Sponsorships. Journal of Advertising Research 9-15.
Morgan, G. (2004). Spending on sport sponsorship? Just think of it as a transfer fee. Marketing Week, 18.
Morgan, M. J., & Summers, J. (2005). SPORTSMARKETING. Southbank, Victoria: Thomson.
Mowen, J. C. (1990). Consumer store choice and sales taxes: retailing, public policy, and theoretical implications. Journal of Retailing 66 (2), 222(221).
Mullin, B. J., Hardy, S., & Sutton, W. A. (2000). Sport Marketing (2nd ed.). Illinois: Human Kinetics.
Munoz, T. (2005). Achieving marketing ROI - finally. Handbook of Business Strategy, 6 (1), 81-84.
Munson, M. (2001). Corporate Sponsorships: Increasing Your Slice of the Pie. Fund Raising Management 0016-268X 32 (2), 28.
222 Ness, M. R. (1992). Corporate Social Responsibility. British Food Journal, 94 (7).
Nicholls, J. A. F., Roslow, S., & Dublish, S. (1999). Brand recall and brand preference at sponsored golf and tennis tournaments. European Journal of Marketing, 33 (3).
Nunally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
O'Shaughnessy, J. (1987). The art of persuasion. Marketing and Media Decisions, 22.
Okter, T., & Hayes, P. (1987, 13-17 November). Judging the efficiency of sponsorship experiences from the 1986 Soccer World Cup. Paper presented at the 40th ESOMAR Marketing Research Congress, Montreaux, Switzerland.
Olkkonen, R., Tikkanen, H., & Alajoutsijarvi, K. (2000). Sponsorship as relationships and networks: implications for research. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 5 (1), 12-19.
Organisation, Australian Tennis (2005). Corporate Information. Retrieved 12/12/05, 2005, from www.ozopen.com.au
Parker, K. (1991). Sponsorship - the research contribution. European Journal of Marketing, 25 22-30.
Pham, M. T., & Johar, G. V. (2001). Market Prominence Biases in Sponsor Identification: Processes and Consequentiality. Psychology and Marketing, 18 (2), 123-142.
Pope, N. (1998). Consumption values, sponsorship awareness, brand and product use. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 7 (2), 124-136.
Quester, P. G. (1997). Awareness as a measure of sponsorship effectiveness: the Adelaide Formula Grand Prix and evidence of incidental ambush effects. Journal of Marketing Communications, 3 1-20.
223
Quester, P. G., & Thompson, B. (2001). Advertising and Promotion Leverage on Arts Sponsorship Effectiveness.: (1998 Adelaide Festival of the Arts ) Journal of Advertising Research 41 (1), 33.
Ratjaretnam, J. (1994). The long-term effects of sponsorship in corporate and product image - findings of a unique experience. Marketing and Research Today, 22 62- 74.
Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2000). A First Course in Structural Equation Modeling. New Jersey.
Report, I. (2004). p9319 - Sports and Services to Sports n.e.c. in Australia.
Rifon, N. J., & Choi, S. M. (2004). Congruence effects in sponsorship: the mediating role of sponsor credibility and consumer attributions of sponsor motive. . Journal of Advertising, 33 (1), 29(14).
Rodgers, S. (2003). The Effects of Sponsor Relevance on Consumer Reactions to Internet Sponsorships. Journal of Advertising, 32 (4), 67 (10).
Russell, C. T. (1987). Sports Marketing's Historic Role Expands to $100 Billion Business. Financier 35-38.
Sandler, D. M., & Shani, D. (1992). The value of sponsorship in sports marketing: an empirical study. Paper presented at the Conference of the American Academy of Advertising
Sandler, D. M., & Shani, D. (1993). Brand Globally But Advertise Locally? An Empirical Investigation. Journal of Product & Brand Management 2(2).
224 Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2003). Research methods for business students (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall.
Schiffman, L., Bednall, D., Cowley, E., O'Cass, A., Watson, J., & Kanuk, L. L. (2001). Consumer Behaviour (2nd ed.). Frenchs Forest, New South Wales: Pearson Education.
Schiffman, L., Bednall, D., Watson, J., & Kanuk, L. L. (1997). Consumer Behaviour. Sydney: Prentice Hall.
Schlossberg, H. (1994). New Service Helps Measure Impact of Sponsorships. Marketing News.
Scott, D. R., & Suchard, H. T. (1992). Motivations for Australian Expenditure on Sponsorship -- An Analysis. . International Journal of Advertising 11 (4), 325- 332.
Shanklin, W. L., & Kuzma, J. R. (1992). Buying that sporting image. Marketing Management.
Shannon, I. R., & Turley, L. W. (1997). The influence of in-arena promotions on purchase behaviour and purchase intentions. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 6 (4), 53-59.
Shavitt, S. (1990). The role of attitude objects in attitude functions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26 124-148.
Shavitt, S., Lowrey, T. M., & Han, S. P. (1992). Attitude functions in advertising: The interactive role of products and self monitoring. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 1 337-364.
Sheth, J., & Sobel, A. (2000). Clients of Life. New York, USA: Simon & Schuster.
225 Shilbury, D., Quick, S., & Westerbeek, H. (1998). Strategic sport marketing St Leonards, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin.
Simmons, C., & Becker-Olsen, K. (2006). Achieving marketing objectives through social sponsorships. Journal of Marketing, 70 (4), 154(115).
Skildum-Reid, K. (2004, June 2004). The price is wrong. Marketing, 21.
Slattery, J., & Pitts, B. G. (2002). Corporate sponsorship and season ticket holder attendees: an evaluation of changes in recall over the course of one American collegiate football season. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship 4(2), 151 (124).
Sleight, S. (1989). Sponsorship : what it is and how to use it London: McGraw-Hill.
Solomon, M. (2002). Consumer behaviour: buying, having and being (International Edition ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall.
Speed, R., & Thompson, P. (2000). Determinants of sports sponsorship response. Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (2), 226.
Sponsorship, B. (2004). BDS Sponsorship. Retrieved 16/04/04, 2004, from www.sponsorship.co.uk
Starr, M., & Springen, K. (1996, Jan 15). A piece of the Olympic action: for up to $40 million, sponsors buy the right to spend really big money. Newsweek, 127, 58(52).
Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Van Trijp, H. C. M. (1991). The use of LISREL in validating marketing constructs. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8 283- 299.
Stipp, H., & Schiavone, N. P. (1996). Modeling the Impact of Olympic Sponsorship on Corporate Image. Journal of Advertising Research, 36 (4), 22-28.
226
Stone, M., Woodcock, N., & Machtynger, L. (2000). Customer Relationship Marketing Get To Know Your Customers and Win Their Loyalty (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page Limited.
Stotlar, D. K. (2004). Sponsorship Evaluation: Moving from Theory to Practice. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13 (1), 61-64.
Sutton, R. (2000). They think it's all over: it may be without coherent branding. Brand Strategy.
Taylor, T. (1999). Audience Information the Key to Sports Marketers. Marketing News, 33 (2), 10.
Thjomoe, H. M., Olson, E. L., & Bronn, P. S. (2002). Decision-making Processes Surrounding Sponsorship Activities. Journal of Advertising Research, Nov/Dec 6-15.
Thomas, E. (1996). The Bottom Line: Is an Olympic Sponsorship Worth It? As the Price Climbs, Companies Are Desperate to Find Out. Wall Street Journal.
Thwaites, D. (1995). Professional football sponsorship - profitable or profligate? . International Journal of Advertising 14 (2), 149(116).
Till, B. D., & Shimp, T. A. (1998). Endorsers in advertising: The case of negative celebrity information. Journal of Advertising, 27 (1), 67-82.
Triandis, H. C. (1971). Attitude and attitude change. New York: Wiley.
Tripodi, J. A. (2001). Sponsorship - a confirmed method in promotional armoury. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, March/April.
227 Tripodi, J. A., Hirons, M., Bednall, D., & Sutherland, M. (2003). Cognitive Evaluation: Prompts Used to Measure Sponsorship Awareness. International Journal of Market Research, 45 (4), 435-455.
Unknown. (2002). Keeping your eye on the sponsorship ball: sports sponsorship is an expensive way to raise brand awareness. Without proper planning it can be a waste of money. Marketing Week, 25 (24).
Unknown. (2004, 10 March 2004). Sponsors shun Bulldogs. The Mercury.
Unknown. (2006). INSIGHT: Scoring goals with sponsorship. Marketing Week 34.
Vickers, S., Brown, M., & Thompson, I. (2002, October 2002). Sponsorship: the real deal. Admap, 19-22.
Waite, M. (1979). Sponsorship in Context. Cranefield Institute of Management.
Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1993). Sports Fans: Measuring Degree of Identification with Their Team. International Journal of Sports Psychology, 24 1-17.
Witcher, B., Craigen, J. G., Cuffigan, D., & Harvey, A. (1991). The Links Between Objectives and Function in Organizational Sponsorship. International Journal of Advertising 10 (1), 13-33.
Wood, L. (2004). Research and Markets: Global Sponsorship, Up 7.4% from $24.4 billion in 2002. Retrieved 28th March, 2004
Yamauchi, E. (1980). New Testament cities in Western Asia Minor: Baker Bookhouse Company.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The Personal Involvement Inventory: Reduction, Revision and Application to Advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23 (4), 59-69.
228 Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences. American Psychologist, 35 (2), 151-175.
Zikmund, W. G. (1994). Exploring marketing research (5th ed.). Fort Worth: Dryden Press.
229
Appendices
230 Appendix 1
Letter of Informed Consent
231
SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY
FORM OF DISCLOSURE AND INFORMED CONSENT
Dear Participant
I am a Doctorate Student at Swinburne University of Technology. As part of the requirement to attain a Doctorate degree in Marketing I am conducting a study titled “A Model of Consumer Buyer Behaviour Relating To The Sponsorship of Major Sporting Events in Australia”.
This study seeks to:
a) Form a solid backbone in providing an insight, as well as an understanding, of the effects of sports sponsorship on consumer purchase decisions regarding sponsor products; b) Illustrate how sponsorship mechanisms work on the consumer; c) Identify ways in which sponsorship can be used more effectively.
Please be assured that your responses will be kept strictly confidential and anonymous. All findings from this study will be used solely for academic purposes. Any questions regarding this project can be directed to the Supervisor, Dr. Antonio Lobo of the Faculty of Business and Enterprise on telephone number 9214 8535.
Your privacy and identity will be fully protected; neither your name nor any other identifying details will be used. Only the student and the supervisor will have access to the contents of the completed survey forms. Should the material be used to support an academic paper or conference presentation, no names will be mentioned.
You may lodge a complaint on any aspect regarding your participation in this study, or make a query that the Supervisor has been unable to satisfy by direct contact with the following personnel:
The Chair The Chair Human Research Ethics Committee Faculty of Business & Enterprise Ethics Sub-committee Swinburne University of Technology Dr. Michela Betta P O Box 218 Phone: 9214 5339 HAWTHORN. VIC. 3122 Phone: (03) 9214 5223
Participation in this study is voluntary and you can withdraw at any time.
Thank you for your time and cooperation.
YAYOI CHESTER
ANTONIO LOBO
232 AGREEMENT I______have read and understood the information above. Any questions I have asked have been answered to my satisfaction. I agree to participate in this activity, realising that I may withdraw at any time. I agree that research data collected for the study may be published or provided to other researchers on the condition that anonymity is preserved and that I cannot be identified.
NAME OF PARTICIPANT......
SIGNATURE...... DATE......
YAYOI CHESTER
SIGNATURE………………………………………………………………………………….DATE………………………….
233
Appendix 2
Sample Copy of Sponsorship Survey Questionnaire
234 SPONSORSHIP SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
SECTION 1: CHOOSING THE SPORTS EVENT AND SPONSOR
The sports event and sponsor you choose will form the basis of the questions and your answers to this survey. If you do not recognise the sports events below, please do not continue this survey.
Stated below are two major sporting events in Australia. Please tick only one box beside [1] or [2] which indicates the sporting event that you are most familiar with. When you have chosen the event, tick only one of the corresponding major event sponsors that you recognise.
SPORTING EVENT EVENT SPONSOR
[1] AFL Football [1A] Toyota Motors [1B] Carlton Draught [1C] National Australia Bank
[2] Australian Open Tennis [2A] KIA Motors [2B] Garnier [2C] IBM
To answer the following questions, keep in mind the game of Sporting Event [1] or [2] that you last watched or attended. Sections 2 through to 8 contain statements pertaining to sports sponsorship. Please indicate your level of agreement to these statements by circling the appropriate number from 1 to 7. There are no right or wrong answers.
SECTION 2: EVENT FACTORS
Statement EVENT STATUS Strongly Neutral Strongly Ref. Disagree Agree 2.1 This is a significant sporting event 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 2.2 This event is important to my community 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 2.3 This event is popular 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 2.4 This event is has international significance 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 Statement PERSONAL LIKING OF EVENT Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree Ref. 2.5 I strongly support this sporting event 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 2.6 I enjoy following coverage of this event 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 2.7 This event is important to me 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 2.8 This event is my favourite sporting event 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 Statement FAN INVOLVEMENT Strongly Neutral Strongly Ref. Disagree Agree 2.9 My interest in this event exceeds that of a general spectator 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 2.10 I am a fan of this event 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 2.11 Being a fan of this event is important to me 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 2.12 My friends see me as a fan of this event 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 2.13 I am a member of a club or organisation associated with this event Yes No
SECTION 3: SPONSOR FACTORS
Statement PERSONAL BELIEFS REGARDING THE EVENT Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree Ref. SPONSOR 3.1 I like this sponsor 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 3.2 My general perception of this sponsor is positive 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 3.3 I would favour this company because they are a sponsor of this event 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 3.4 I think this sponsorship will improve the sponsor’s image 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 Statement SPONSOR PROMINENCE Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree Ref. 3.5 This sponsor came to my attention as a result of this sponsorship 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 3.6 I am familiar with this sponsor 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 3.7 This company sponsors many different sports events 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 3.8 I expect this company to sponsor major events 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 Statement PERCEIVED SPONSOR GOODWILL Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree Ref. 3.9 This sponsorship will have a positive impact on the success of this event 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 3.10 The sponsor would generally believe the event deserves support 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 3.11 The sponsor would have the best interests of the event at heart 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 3.12 The sponsor would support this event even if it had a much lower profile 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7
235
SECTION 4: SPONSORSHIP FACTORS
Statement LEVEL OF EXPOSURE Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree Ref. 4.1 I always watch this event 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 4.2 The last time I watched this event was from start to finish (full game/match) 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 4.3 This sponsor was prominent throughout the event 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 4.4 The sponsor’s promotion was clear and obvious throughout the event 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 4.5 The last time I watched this event it was: Live Broadcast
Statement TYPE OF EXPOSURE Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree Ref. 4.6 This sponsor was immediately noticeable 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 4.7 This sponsor stood out 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 4.8 I clearly remember the sponsor’s message 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 Which of the following types of sponsorship tools used by the sponsor was in your opinion the most effective? (Please tick one) Broadcast Television Commercials/Broadcast Messages Promotional Stands On site sponsorship (on field signage/flags etc.) Other (please specify)
4.10 The sponsorship tool used was valuable 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 Statement SPONSOR-EVENT FIT Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree Ref. 4.11 I see a strong logical connection between the event and the sponsor 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 4.12 The image portrayed by the event and the sponsor are similar 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 4.13 It makes sense to me that this company sponsors this event 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 4.14 A fit between the event and a sponsor is important 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7
SECTION 5: POST EVENT RESPONSE
Statement INTEREST Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree Ref. 5.1 The sponsorship caught my attention 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 5.2 I am interested in the sponsor and the products/services they offer 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 5.3 I have more interest in the sponsor following this sponsorship 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 5.4 My interest in the event has led me to be interested in the sponsor 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 Statement AWARENESS Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree Ref. 5.5 This sponsorship has made me more aware of the sponsor 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 5.6 I know more about the sponsor because of this sponsorship 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 5.7 This sponsorship would make me more likely to notice the sponsor on other 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 occasions 5.8 This sponsorship would make me more likely to remember the sponsor’s 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 brand Statement RECALL Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree Ref. 5.9 I can recall all of the products and/or services promoted by the sponsor in 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 the sponsorship 5.10 This sponsor now first comes to mind when thinking of the products/services 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 they offer 5.11 When I think about this event, I am reminded of this sponsor 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 5.12 I only recall this sponsor as a sponsor of this event and nothing more 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 Statement FAVOURABILITY Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree Ref. 5.13 This sponsorship makes me feel more favourable towards the sponsor 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 5.14 This sponsorship has actually improved my perception of the sponsor 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 5.15 I like the sponsor more because of this sponsorship 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 5.16 My general attitude towards the sponsor following this sponsorship is positive 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7
236 SECTION 6: TRANSFER OF IMAGE VALUES
Statement SPONSORSHIP ACTIVITY EFFECT Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree Ref. 6.1 The sponsorship portrayed an image I want to associate with 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 6.2 The sponsor’s association with the event makes me feel closer to the 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 sponsor 6.3 I believe the sponsor and I engage in a similar image 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 Statement SPONSORSHIP EFFECT ON PERSONAL FEELINGS Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree Ref. 6.4 The sponsor relates to me and my needs 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 6.5 The sponsorship was meaningful to me 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 6.6 The sponsorship made me feel more positively about both the event and 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 sponsor Statement IMAGE CONGRUENCE OF SPONSORSHIP Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree Ref. 6.7 Following the event, I see that event and the sponsor share a similar image 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 6.8 Following the sponsorship, the sponsor and the event share a stronger 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 connection to one another 6.9 The values I associate with the event extend to the sponsor 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7
SECTION 7: INTENTION TO PURCHASE
Statement PURCHASE INTENT Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree Ref. 7.1 In general, the fact that a firm is a sponsor of this event weighs heavily on 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 my purchase decision 7.2 I now actively seek products and services sold by this sponsor 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 7.3 All else being equal, I am more likely to purchase products/services from 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 this sponsor than non-sponsors 7.4 I will try to buy products from this sponsor because their sponsorship had a 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 positive effect
If you have purchased a product or service from the sponsor, proceed to Section 8, if not, please proceed to Section 9.
SECTION 8: ACTUAL PURHCASE
Statement PURCHASE Strongly Neutral Strongly Disagree Agree Ref. 8.1 The sponsorship resulted in my purchase of the sponsor’s 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 products/services 8.2 I purchased the sponsor’s product/service to show support for this event 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 8.3 I purchased the sponsor’s product/service to show support for the sponsor 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7 8.4 In future I will try to purchase more products/services from this sponsor 1 : 2 : 3 : 4 : 5 : 6 : 7
SECTION 9: NON-PURCHASE
If you chose not to purchase or use the sponsor’s product and/or services, briefly explain why you chose not to do so: ______
______
______
GENERAL THOUGHTS ON SPONSORSHIP/COMMENTS: (Please use this space to write any comments etc.) ______
______
______
237 SECTION 10
The following questions are for classification purposes only and will be kept strictly confidential. (Please tick the appropriate box). Only aggregated results (not individual responses) will be mentioned in the research outputs.
1. What is your gender? Male Female
2. What is your age group? 16-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55 and over
3. What is your income range? Not working Less than $20,000 $20,000 - $30,000 $31,000 - $40,000 $41,000 - $50,000 $51,000 - $60,000 $61,000 - $70,000 More than $70,000
4. What is your educational level?
Secondary School University Post Graduate Degree TAFE
5. What is your occupation? Not working Student Apprentice/Junior Supervisory Managerial/Professional Own Business/Self Employed
6. What is your marital status? Single Married
7. Where are you based? Victoria Interstate International
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. IT IS VERY MUCH APPRECIATED.
238
Appendix 3
Pattern Matrix for EFA 1
239 Pattern Matrix for EFA 1
Pattern Matrixa
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 Event importance .920 -.001 .073 -.037 .055 -.020 Importance of being fan .899 .014 -.072 -.011 .069 .073 Favourite sporting event .888 .084 -.016 -.038 -.068 -.007 Fan of event .882 .043 .076 .013 .015 -.011 Fan perception by friends .870 .004 -.099 .025 .044 .073 Interest exceeds general .844 .073 -.122 .033 -.022 .073 spectator Enjoy following coverage .830 -.006 .236 -.005 .046 -.065 Always like to watch event .819 .008 .074 .114 -.030 -.041 Watched full game .770 -.071 -.009 .151 -.093 .039 Strongly support event .767 .025 .269 -.005 .058 .002 Positive perception of -.045 .921 .094 -.055 .054 -.010 sponsor Sponsor likeability .036 .921 -.012 -.004 -.009 -.004 Sponsor favourability .187 .704 -.189 .064 -.012 .068 Improvement of sponsor -.115 .496 .112 .191 .075 .154 image Event significance .125 -.032 .827 -.035 .022 .046 Event popularity -.034 .042 .813 .100 -.004 -.043 Community importance of .267 .051 .497 .026 -.078 .102 event Sponsor was -.076 .028 .019 .931 .031 -.042 immediately noticeable Sponsor stood out -.063 .020 .019 .929 -.006 -.004 Clearly remember .058 -.007 -.068 .646 .012 .175 sponsor message Clear and obvious .171 .044 .065 .614 .009 .008 sponsor promotion Sponsor prominence .370 -.003 .016 .534 .001 .047 Sponsor would have best .048 -.038 .016 -.019 .989 -.019 interest of event Sponsor support of event .056 .006 -.166 .018 .711 .027 of lower profile Sponsor belief event -.105 .136 .231 .048 .596 .050 deserves support Strong logical connection between event and -.001 -.043 .032 -.011 .045 .935 sponsor Similarity of portrayed image of event and .005 .030 -.038 .001 .002 .926 sponsor Sense of company -.020 .051 .036 .016 -.028 .856 sponsoring the event Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 8 iterations.
240 Appendix 4
Structure Matrix for EFA 1
241 Structure Matrix for EFA 1
Structure Matrix
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 Event importance .922 .262 .376 .379 .060 .285 Fan of event .922 .306 .382 .430 .047 .320 Importance of being fan .899 .312 .236 .420 .099 .390 Favourite sporting event .886 .281 .284 .369 -.033 .297 Enjoy following coverage .884 .244 .512 .378 .051 .226 Always like to watch event .882 .259 .369 .467 -.007 .288 Fan perception by friends .874 .296 .204 .431 .074 .385 Strongly support event .863 .306 .533 .406 .094 .295 Interest exceeds general .861 .331 .181 .441 .034 .400 spectator Watched full game .826 .189 .263 .465 -.078 .306 Sponsor likeability .284 .922 .162 .382 .342 .524 Positive perception of .214 .918 .233 .324 .402 .487 sponsor Sponsor favourability .370 .783 .014 .428 .277 .551 Improvement of sponsor .196 .678 .211 .455 .341 .518 image Event significance .393 .169 .859 .203 .071 .090 Event popularity .279 .191 .828 .247 .066 .051 Community importance of .492 .252 .600 .307 .009 .231 event Sponsor stood out .355 .380 .192 .910 .136 .455 Sponsor was .333 .378 .190 .896 .166 .429 immediately noticeable Clearly remember .374 .364 .090 .745 .148 .518 sponsor message Clear and obvious .476 .361 .257 .725 .123 .405 sponsor promotion Sponsor prominence .625 .347 .251 .722 .096 .440 Sponsor would have best .041 .340 .083 .124 .969 .239 interest of event Sponsor support of event .028 .288 -.097 .127 .714 .247 of lower profile Sponsor belief event .055 .424 .269 .216 .682 .289 deserves support Similarity of portrayed image of event and .309 .550 .005 .477 .266 .945 sponsor Strong logical connection between event and .305 .504 .062 .457 .287 .919 sponsor Sense of company .298 .532 .074 .465 .231 .881 sponsoring the event Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.
242 Appendix 5
Pattern Matrix for EFA 2
243 Pattern Matrix for EFA 2
Pattern Matrix a Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 Engage in similar .748 .056 -.017 .071 .112 .008 as sponsor Sponsorship portrayed image of association .718 .002 -.113 .098 .019 .037 Feel closer to sponsor as result of sponsor .668 .075 -.174 .048 .005 -.004 association with event Sponsor relatedness to needs .562 .044 .003 .031 .189 .186 Positive feeling for event and sponsor as result of .530 .077 -.116 .107 .075 .121 sponsorship Sponsorship was .519 .144 .022 .051 .193 .173 meaningful More likely to .013 .812 -.020 .069 .059 .037 sponsor's brand Sponsorship leads to more notice of sponsor .099 .757 -.090 -.016 .039 .077 on other occasions Sponsorship improved -.041 .031 -.978 -.022 .014 -.005 perception Sponsorship increased -.014 -.002 -.903 -.022 .040 .047 favourability Like sponsor more as .107 -.005 -.850 .001 .031 -.042 result of sponsorship General attitude towards .020 .020 -.693 .130 -.018 .056 sponsor positive Similarity of event and sponsor image following -.032 -.085 .026 .929 .054 .091 sponsorship Event and sponsor have stronger connection .000 .170 -.060 .735 -.024 -.051 following sponsorship Values associated with event extend to sponsor .165 -.025 -.055 .717 .047 -.008 More likely to purchase from sponsor than -.066 .033 -.018 .012 .960 -.003 non-sponsors Try to buy sponsor products as result of -.052 .001 -.064 -.008 .914 .041 positive effect of sponsorship Actively seek products/service of .100 -.004 .014 .009 .864 .007 sponsor Fact company sponsors event weighs on .142 .020 -.011 .065 .699 -.034 purchase decision Recall of all products/services -.013 .162 -.005 .087 .056 .609 promoted More interest in sponsor following sponsorship .118 .034 -.093 -.001 .141 .602 Sponsor first comes to mind when thinking of -.087 .072 -.141 .143 .139 .566 offered product/service Interest in product/service of sponsor .265 -.166 -.119 .055 .046 .562 Sponsorship caught .063 .199 -.093 .058 -.051 .517 attention Interest in event leading to .227 .109 -.041 .064 .130 .423 interest in sponsor Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser a. Rotation converged in 15
244 Appendix 6
Structure Matrix for EFA 2
245 Structure Matrix for EFA 2
Structure Matrix
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 Engage in similar image .918 .474 -.726 .666 .764 .636 as sponsor Sponsorship portrayed .900 .448 -.738 .668 .727 .635 image of association Feel closer to sponsor as result of sponsor .857 .483 -.736 .631 .697 .602 association with event Sponsor relatedness to .856 .486 -.709 .646 .774 .705 needs Sponsorship was .849 .562 -.729 .672 .789 .721 meaningful Positive feeling for event and sponsor as result of .846 .525 -.753 .685 .745 .686 sponsorship More likely to remember .475 .915 -.637 .569 .566 .572 sponsor's brand Sponsorship leads to more notice of sponsor .545 .905 -.690 .569 .604 .618 on other occasions Sponsorship improved .673 .603 -.959 .637 .682 .628 perception Sponsorship increased .683 .576 -.936 .634 .691 .646 favourability Like sponsor more as .717 .551 -.919 .637 .689 .605 result of sponsorship General attitude towards .634 .538 -.832 .645 .626 .604 sponsor positive Similarity of event and sponsor image following .603 .439 -.627 .937 .636 .606 sponsorship Values associated with .681 .464 -.673 .872 .660 .583 event extend to sponsor Event and sponsor have stronger connection .532 .545 -.611 .816 .552 .507 following sponsorship More likely to purchase from sponsor than .685 .510 -.684 .625 .946 .635 non-sponsors Try to buy sponsor products as result of .699 .501 -.703 .625 .943 .658 positive effect of sponsorship Actively seek products/service of .745 .477 -.685 .630 .937 .642 sponsor Fact company sponsors event weighs on .701 .457 -.648 .609 .843 .580 purchase decision More interest in sponsor .681 .531 -.696 .610 .714 .848 following sponsorship Sponsor first comes to mind when thinking of .595 .568 -.692 .653 .683 .822 offered product/service Interest in product/service .705 .368 -.651 .589 .657 .783 of sponsor Recall of all products/services .538 .558 -.596 .571 .597 .781 promoted Interest in event leading to .706 .553 -.688 .634 .710 .776 interest in sponsor Sponsorship caught .535 .561 -.603 .542 .547 .724 attention Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization. 246
Appendix 7
Discriminant Validity Table
247 Discriminant Validity Table
intention speffect imagecon favour recall interest fit exposure goodwill sponsorat fan eventst intention 1 speffect 0.812 1 imagecon 0.712 0.782 1 favour 0.739 0.814 0.718 1 recall 0.651 0.663 0.631 0.727 1 interest 0.795 0.833 0.746 0.781 0.706 1 fit 0.613 0.633 0.783 0.628 0.575 0.658 1 exposure 0.419 0.441 0.489 0.457 0.535 0.535 0.512 1 goodwill 0.308 0.404 0.303 0.405 0.196 0.316 0.293 0.169 1 sponsorat 0.652 0.72 0.601 0.618 0.458 0.706 0.58 0.416 0.404 1 fan 0.348 0.438 0.4 0.419 0.425 0.355 0.35 0.451 0.083 0.34 1 eventst 0.068 0.133 0.144 0.17 0.279 0.074 0.117 0.288 0.105 0.237 0.526 1 q7.4 0.957 0.777 0.682 0.708 0.623 0.761 0.587 0.401 0.295 0.624 0.333 0.066 q7.3 0.954 0.775 0.679 0.705 0.621 0.759 0.585 0.4 0.294 0.622 0.332 0.065 q7.2 0.913 0.742 0.65 0.675 0.594 0.726 0.56 0.383 0.281 0.595 0.318 0.063 q6.6 0.715 0.88 0.689 0.716 0.584 0.733 0.557 0.388 0.356 0.634 0.385 0.117 q.6.3 0.751 0.924 0.723 0.752 0.613 0.77 0.585 0.408 0.374 0.666 0.405 0.123 q6.2 0.728 0.896 0.701 0.729 0.594 0.747 0.567 0.395 0.362 0.646 0.392 0.12 q6.1 0.745 0.917 0.717 0.747 0.608 0.764 0.58 0.404 0.371 0.661 0.402 0.122 q6.9 0.636 0.699 0.894 0.642 0.564 0.667 0.699 0.437 0.271 0.537 0.357 0.129 q6.8 0.581 0.638 0.816 0.586 0.515 0.609 0.638 0.399 0.247 0.49 0.326 0.118 q6.7 0.652 0.717 0.916 0.658 0.578 0.684 0.717 0.448 0.278 0.55 0.366 0.132 q5.15 0.675 0.743 0.656 0.913 0.664 0.713 0.574 0.417 0.37 0.565 0.382 0.155 q5.14 0.708 0.779 0.688 0.958 0.696 0.748 0.602 0.438 0.388 0.592 0.401 0.163 q5.13 0.698 0.768 0.678 0.944 0.686 0.737 0.593 0.431 0.382 0.583 0.395 0.16 q5.8 0.581 0.593 0.564 0.65 0.894 0.631 0.514 0.478 0.175 0.409 0.379 0.249 q5.7 0.621 0.633 0.603 0.694 0.955 0.675 0.549 0.51 0.187 0.437 0.405 0.266 q5.2 0.65 0.681 0.61 0.638 0.578 0.818 0.538 0.438 0.258 0.577 0.291 0.06 q5.4 0.712 0.746 0.668 0.699 0.632 0.895 0.589 0.479 0.282 0.632 0.318 0.066 q5.3 0.729 0.764 0.684 0.716 0.648 0.917 0.603 0.491 0.289 0.647 0.326 0.067 intention speffect imagecon favour recall interest fit exposure goodwill sponsorat fan eventst q4.13 0.557 0.575 0.711 0.571 0.522 0.598 0.909 0.465 0.266 0.527 0.318 0.106 q4.14 0.584 0.603 0.746 0.599 0.548 0.627 0.953 0.488 0.279 0.553 0.333 0.111 q4.15 0.54 0.558 0.69 0.554 0.507 0.58 0.882 0.451 0.258 0.511 0.308 0.103 q4.3 0.273 0.287 0.319 0.298 0.348 0.349 0.334 0.651 0.11 0.271 0.294 0.187 q4.8 0.38 0.4 0.444 0.414 0.485 0.485 0.464 0.907 0.153 0.377 0.409 0.261 q4.9 0.393 0.413 0.459 0.428 0.501 0.502 0.48 0.937 0.158 0.39 0.423 0.27 q4.10 0.321 0.338 0.375 0.35 0.41 0.411 0.393 0.767 0.129 0.319 0.346 0.221 q3.10 0.214 0.281 0.21 0.281 0.136 0.219 0.203 0.117 0.694 0.28 0.058 0.073 q3.11 0.289 0.38 0.285 0.381 0.184 0.297 0.275 0.158 0.94 0.379 0.078 0.099 q3.12 0.225 0.296 0.222 0.296 0.144 0.231 0.215 0.123 0.732 0.296 0.061 0.077 q3.1 0.598 0.66 0.551 0.567 0.42 0.647 0.531 0.381 0.37 0.917 0.312 0.218 q3.2 0.609 0.673 0.561 0.578 0.427 0.659 0.541 0.389 0.377 0.934 0.318 0.222 q3.3 0.535 0.591 0.493 0.507 0.376 0.579 0.476 0.341 0.331 0.821 0.279 0.195 q2.5 0.308 0.387 0.353 0.37 0.375 0.314 0.309 0.398 0.074 0.301 0.883 0.465 q2.7 0.321 0.404 0.369 0.386 0.392 0.328 0.323 0.416 0.077 0.314 0.923 0.486 q2.9 0.295 0.37 0.338 0.354 0.359 0.301 0.296 0.381 0.07 0.288 0.846 0.445 q2.10 0.324 0.407 0.372 0.389 0.395 0.33 0.325 0.419 0.077 0.316 0.93 0.489 q4.2 0.28 0.352 0.322 0.337 0.341 0.286 0.281 0.363 0.067 0.273 0.804 0.423 q2.1 0.06 0.117 0.127 0.149 0.244 0.065 0.102 0.252 0.092 0.208 0.462 0.877 q2.2 0.046 0.089 0.097 0.114 0.187 0.049 0.078 0.193 0.07 0.159 0.352 0.67 q2.3 0.055 0.107 0.116 0.136 0.224 0.059 0.094 0.231 0.084 0.19 0.422 0.802
Appendix 8
Details of Conference for Research Presentation and Acceptance Letter
250 Conference Details
The research conducted in this thesis has been accepted for presentation at the following:
2007 NASMEI Conference on Delivering Value in the Developing World - December 2007, Chennai, India.
The chair for this conference is Professor V. Srinivasan, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
251 Letter of Acceptance
Dear Dr. Antonio,
We are happy to inform you that your abstract for the Great Lakes-NASMEI International Marketing conference has been accepted. Please send in your extended abstract as per the following:
1. Extended abstracts should be in Word document form with standard formatting (Font: Times New Roman, font size (12), margins (1.5 inches all around), single spaced, one to two pages in length - anything longer will be cut off at the bottom). At the top of the abstract include the title, and all the authors’ full names and affiliations and e-mail addresses.
2. Extended abstracts should be sent as an e-mail attachment; Subject line in e-mail: NASMEI-Great Lakes: First Author's Last Name
3. STRICT Deadline for the receipt of extended abstracts: November 15, 2007
4. Information about the hotel accommodation and conference venue will be e-mailed in a few weeks
5. Conference registration fees: Rs. 2,000 for participants from India; Students can attend for Rs. 1,000 each. Registration fees for international participants: U.S. $100. The registration fee includes lunch, tea, dinner at the end of the first day, and conference materials. The registration fee does not include hotel accommodation or any other meals or travel expenses.
With warm regards.
V.J. Sivakumar and V. “Seenu” Srinivasan
Conference Cochairs
252