The Future of Tobacco Sponsorship of Sport in Canada
by
John Anthony McKibbon
A Thesis Submitted to the College of Graduate Studies and Research through the Department of Kinesiology in partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Human Kinetics at the University of Windsor
Windsor. Ontario, Canada
2000 National Library Bibliothèque nationale 1*1 of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibiiographic Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. nw, Welligtori OttawaON KlAOM OttawaON KlAON4 Canada canada
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sel1 reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microfom, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels rnay be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. The Future of Tobacco Sponsorship of Sport in Canada
02000 John Anthony McKibbon This study was designed to uncover the predictions of experts regarding the
fùture of tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada. The Delphi Technique was used as the research protocol. A census of al1 marketing managers of tobacco brands involved in sport sponsonhip (N=4) and elite sporting events that utilize sponsorship funds from tobacco companies (N=7) were involved in the study.
Data were collected in three rounds as per the Delphi Technique protocol. In the first Round. each expert answered three open ended questions regarding the future of tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada. From the responses provided in Round
One. eighteen statements were generated that formed the basis for the last two rounds. Responses for the statements on the last two Rounds were evaluated on a
5-point Likert scale for probability. desirability. importance, impact. and priority.
The results from Rounds Two and Three lead the researcher to predict that tobacco sponsorship of sport will be severely diminished afier the year 2000 and that talent development prog-rams which provide the international events with Canadian sport talent will need to find alternative sponsors if these programs are to survive.
Further. many of the current events receiving hinding will need to downgrade their events from major international status. DEDICATION
To my parents who have always been supportive in whatever endeavor 1 undertake. Acknowledgements
1 would like to thank al1 my fnends who have made my years at the
University of Windsor mernorable. From my entrance to university life in 1993 as
an unsuspecting French-Canadian, to my senior year as President of the Human
Kinetics Society, to my time as a graduate student, my fiiends have been there.
In particular, 1 would like to thank Dénis Belanger for being there when I
needed someone to talk to over a couple of libations. As well, the 'gang' from
L'Essor, for being great companions. While Jamie and Pol may be punuing happiness outside of Essex County. Denis. Dave, J.P. (Puttz) and I are always there to welcome them home.
I would like to acknowledge Matt McMillan and his family for providing a
'-second home" for me while at the University of Windsor. There wasdt a single
Shopper's Dmg Mart/Big V driving shift that 1 didn't make an effort to visit 2929
Apple Lane. Thanks to Matt for being a geat fiiend and enthusiastic fan of the red and white winged wheel. Those days at Cobo Joe's will forever live on. As for the Lions, we have Our Super Bowl every year on Draft Day.
1 would like to thank Drs. Bob Boucher, Bill Wellington and Karen
Danylchuk for taking time out of their busy schedules to serve on my cornmittee.
A very large thank you to Dr. Jim Weese for al1 of the time not only on this thesis but also in my undergraduate and CO-opstudies. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ...... iv Dedication ...... v Acknowledgements ...... vi. . Table of Contents ...... vil List of Tables ...... ix List of Appendices ...... xi
CHAPTER PAGE
I . BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM ...... 1
Introduction ...... 1 Purpose of the Study ...... 7 Research Questions ...... 8 .. De finition of Terrns...... 8 Limitations of the study ...... 15 Delimitations of the study ...... 16
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 1 7
An Introduction to Sponsonhip ...... 17 Defining Sponsorship...... -20 Why Corporations Sponsor Sport? ...... -22 Exchange Theory ...... -26 Image-Sponsor Compatabi lity ...... -27 Measuring Sponsorship...... -32 Sponsorship vr . Advertising ...... -33 Tobacco Sponsorship of Sport ...... -37 Summary ...... -49
III . METHODOLOGY...... 5 1
Research Design ...... 1 Study Population ...... -52 Instrumentation ...... 54 Data Collection Procedures ...... -5 8 Data Analysis Procedures ...... 59
vii IV RESULTS ...... 60
Delphi Instrument .Round 1 ...... 60 Delphi Instrument - Round 2 ...... 61 Delphi Instrument - Round 3 ...... -99
V SUMMARY. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 105
Summary and Discussion of Findings ...... 105 Conclusions ...... 124 Implications for Sport Management ...... 129 Recornrnendations for Future Research ...... -130
REFERENCES...... 134
APPENDICES ...... 145
VIT) .AUCTORIS ...... 191 LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
Table 1 . Mean. Median. SD Scores for Group .S 1 ...... 63
Table 2 . Mean. Median. SD Scores for Tobacco - S 1 ...... 63
Table 3 . Mean. Median. SD Scores for Events .S 1 ...... *...... 64
Table 4 . Mean. Median. SD Scores for Group - S2 ...... 66
Table 5 . Mean, Median, SD Scores for Tobacco - S2 ...... 66
Table 6 . Mean, Median, SD Scores for Events - S2 ...... -67
Table 7 . Mean, Median, SD Scores for Group - S3 ...... -67
Table 8 . Mean, Median. SD Scores for Tobacco - S3 ...... 68
Table 9 . Mean, Median, SD Scores for Events - S3 ...... 68
Table 10 . Mean, Median . SD Scores for Group - S4 ...... 70
Table 11 . Mean, Median, SD Scores for Tobacco - S4 ...... 70
Table 12 . Mean, Median . SD Scores for Events - S4 ...... 71
Table 13 . Mean, Median, SD Scores for Group - S5 ...... 71
Table 14 . Mean, Median, SD Scores for Tobacco - SS ...... 72
Table 15 . Mean, Median . SD Scores for Events - S5 ...... 72
Table 16 . Mean, Median, SD Scores for Group - S6 ...... 74
Table 17 . Mean, Median, SD Scores for Tobacco - S6 ...... 74
Table 18 . Mean, Median, SD Scores for Events - S6 ...... 75 Table 19 . Mean. Median. SD Scores for Group - S7 ...... -75
Table 20 . Mean. Median. SD Scores for Tobacco - S7 ...... 76
Table 21 . Mean, Median . SD Scores for Events - 57...... 76
Table 22 . Mean, Median, SD Scores for Group - S8 ...... -78
Table 23 . Mean, Median, SD Scores for Tobacco - S8 ...... 78
Table 24 . Mean, Median, SD Scores for Events - S8 ...... 79
Table 25 . Mean .Median, SD Scores for Group - S9 ...... 79
Table 26 . Mean, Median, SD Scores for Tobacco - S9 ...... 80
Table 27 . Mean, Median, SD Scores for Events - S9 ...... 80
Table 28 . Mean, Median . SD Scores for Group - S 10 ...... 82
Table 29 . Mean, Median, SD Scores for Tobacco - S 10 ...... 83
Table 30 . Mean, Median, SD Scores for Events - S 10...... 85
Table 31 . Mean, Median . SD Scores for Group - S 1 1 ...... 88
Table 32 . Mean, Median. SD Scores for Tobacco - S 1 1 ...... 89
Table 33 . Mean, Median, SD Scores for Events - S 1 1 ...... 91
Table 34 . Mean, Median. SD Scores for Group - S 12 ...... 94
Table 35 . Mean, Median . SD Scores for Tobacco - S 12 ...... -95
Table 36 . Mean, Median, SD Scores for Events - S 12...... 97
Table 37 . Mean and SD changes from Round 2 to Round 3 .Group ...... 100
Table 38 . Mean and SD changes fiom Round 2 to Round 3 .Tobacco ... 100
Table 39 . Mean and SD changes from Round 2 to Round 3 O Events ...... 101 LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX PAGE
APPENDLX A ...... Delphi Instmment .Round One ...... 145
APPENDIX B ...... Delphi Instrument .Round Two ...... -150
APPENDIX C ...... Delphi Instrument .Round Three ...... 159
APPENDIX D ...... Pre-Study Information Letter ...... 168
APPENDK E ...... Explanatory Letter ...... 170
APPENDUI F ...... Follow-up Fax ...... 172
APPENDIX G ...... Bill C-7 1 ...... 174
APPENDIX H ...... Bill C-42 ...... 187 CCIAPTER 1
BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM
This chapter provides an overview of the issues related to tobacco
sponsorship of sport in Canada. The chapter is presented in six sections which
include: (a) Introduction; (b) Purpose of the Study; (c) Research Questions; (d)
Definition of Terms; (e) Limitations of the Study, and; (0 Delimitations of the
Study .
Introduction
Sports sponsorship is an important marketing tool for corporations due to
its flexibility, broad reach. and hi& level of brand or corporate exposure that can
be gained in the process (Kropp, Lavack. Holden & Dalakas. 1999). In Canada, sponsorship of sporting events is a multi-million dollar industry. It is estimated that the Canadian sports market is worth more than $700 million in sponsorship and related advertising expenditures (How big, 1998). The large arnount of money spent highlights the importance that sports sponsorship has gained within the corporate community.
One of the corporate sectors that has embraced sport sponsorship in Canada is the tobacco industry. Estimates by the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturer's
Council indicated that, in 1995. tobacco companies invested $60 million sponsoring sports events (Sheikh, 1997). Sparks (1997) added that the $60 million dollars spent annually by tobacco companies in sport sponsorship supports events that produce nearly $250 million dollars in economic benefits and 4,000 full-time jobs. Advocates Say it's a 'win-win' relationship: cultural organizations get much-needed fun&, while the companies remain visible despite a ban on tobacco advertising (Chidley, 1996). However, "to rnany people, it appears inconpous that sport which exemplifies a healthy, fit, lifestyle, should be used as a promotional vehicle for products that appear to be the antithesis of this"
(Crompton, 1993, p. 148). This philosophical argument has stretched into the domain of the Canadian governrnent which has been recently forced to deal with the topic through legislation.
Tobacco sponsorship of sport has proven to be an effective form of tobacco promotion. Sponsoring an event can give a tobacco brand tremendous exposure
(Cunningham, 1996). For this reason and othen, tobacco sponsorship of key sporting events in Canada have continuously increased yearly. In 1995. tobacco companies sponsored more than 370 sporting and artistic events across the country
(Sheikh, 1997). However, tobacco sponsorship of sporting events has been a controversial issue. According to Howard and Crompton ( 1995). the controversy centers around three central factors. The first issue deals with image compatability, namely the belief that the connection between sport and tobacco
'gobscuresthe comection between cigarettes and chewing tobacco. and disease"
(p. 273). The success of tobacco companies in obscuring this fact is demonstrated by Crompton (1993) who asked people to ". .. speak the words 'Virginia Slims' and what do you see? (a) Chris Evert or (b) the cancer ward? If you answered (a) - and rnost people do - then Phillip Moms has you Rght where it wants you"
(p.151).
A second contentious issue is that tobacco sponsorship allows these
companies to penetrate the youth market. In the United Kingdom, where cigarette
advertising has been banned on television for more than a quarter century. 64
percent of children aged nine to 15 years of age daim to have seen cigarette
advertising on television. The reason is the saturation of tobacco sponsored sports
programming on television (Crompton, 1993).
The third issue central to the debate relates to the circumvention of existing
legislation (Howard & Crompton, 1995). Critics charge that the inclusion of tobacco Company brand names and logos in broadcasts of events breaches the spirit of govemment bans on advertkingThe governrnent ban on advertising in
Canada was legislated by the Tobacco Products Control Act (TPCA) in 1988.
This Act was subsequently overturned in 1995 by the Supreme Coun of Canada on the grounds that it was judged to be unconstitutional (Sparks, 1997). The
Tobacco Act (Bill C-71) replaced both the TPCA and the Tobacco Sales to Young
Persons Act. Bill C-7 1 (see Appendix G) came into effect on October 1, 1998.
Additionally, Bill C-42 (see Appendix H), passed in 1998, includes exemptions for most of the sporting events originally affected by the Tobacco Act (Govemment of
Canada. 1999). The purpose of Bill C-7 1 is to protect the health of Canadians and, in particular. to protect and restrict access to tobacco products (Govemment of
Canada, 1998b). Among other initiatives, Bill C-7 1 restricts, but does not forbid. tobacco sponsorship of sporting events. As Sparks (1997) noted, Bill C-71 is a
health bill, not a sponsorship bill. "It is intended to restrïct the distribution,
promotion and sale of tobacco products in such manner as to minimize the
collective health damage to Canadians caused by smoking" (p. 22). The health
risks associated with smoking are well known. Every year, more than 45.000
Canadians die fiom smoking and smorking related illnesses (Chidley, 1996.
Sparks, 1997). Cigareîtes are the only product that, when consumed as intended,
can result in health problems and a premature death. The idea that sport
sponsorship contributes to increased use of tobacco has been agressively argued
from both sides of the debate. The tobacco companies argue that they don?
promote smoking but more accurately. attempt to get existing smoken to change
their brand preference. Cntics. however. cite studies like the New Zealand Toxic
Substances Board where researchers reviewed data fiom 37 countries and reported
that those with the greatest degree of govemmental restrictions of tobacco
promotion has the greatest degree of annual average decrease in tobacco
consumption (Crompton. 1993).
Sponsorship of sport is an effective medium through which sponsors cm achieve high levels of exposure for their brands? reinforcing the impact of other forms of traditional advertising (Furlong. 1994).
"A major influence on the evolution of the concept of sponsorship
has been the advent of television coverage of sport. The high public
exposure given to event titles, advertising signs in stadiums and even the clothing and equipment used by sporting participants has opened
up new commercial opportunities for a sport and those associated
with it" (p. 16 1).
Around the world, tobacco companies sponsor a wide varie@ of sports. arts. music, and other cultural activities. "Tobacco companies choose which sports to sponsor based on the level of popularity of that activity within the target market"
(National Clearinghouse, 1999). Tobacco companies tend to sponsor elite sports so they can build a linkage between tobacco use and excellence. fitness, health, excitement, risk-taking, and independence. Most importantly, tobacco companies seek to portray sophistication in their sponsortship of sporting events. In Canada. tobacco companies are very careful in their selection of sporting events that they support. The events that are sponsored by tobacco in Canada are pnerally broadcasted on major television networks which allows for wide distribution to the
~eneralpopulation. Davidson (1996) suggested that tobacco companies sponsor C sport because "such events represent large gatherings of the marketers' target audiences, and exposing a brand name to these groups should be an effective manner of communication" @. 160). One major advantage that tobacco companies enjoy when sponsoring sport is that they are able to have their brand names shown or mentioned on television and radio without being accompanied by health wamings such as those that appear on the packaging of the products
(Howard & Crompton, 1995). Madden and Grube (1994) examined the fiequency and nature of tobacco advertising in the United States and found that the primary way in which tobacco companies and their products are advertised is through appearances of stadium signs. These signs are in the full view of the live audience as well as to the television audience through the broadcast. However, this only identifies the fact that tobacco sips can be integrated into television broadcasts of sports and does not address the effect this may have on consumption or brand choice.
The three major auto races in Canada are seen by a worldwide audience.
The Player's Grand Prix of Canada and the Molson Indy races both in Toronto and
Vancouver are heavily supported by the Player's brand name of cigarettes. These events, as well as the other Canadian sporting events have been aven a reprieve from the restrictions of Bill C-7 1 and cm continue to operate until the year 2003
(Richardson, lW8a).
Other events in Canada that will be affected by Bill C-7 1 include the duMaurier Classic women's golf tournament that rotates host locations annually within Canada. As part of the Ladies Pro tour. the duMaurier Classic is one of the four major toumaments held each year on the tour. The Export "A" Skins game. which attracts four of the world's elite male golfers to a course in Canada to compete for large sums of money would also be affected by these regulations.
The duMaurier International Equestrian event hosted by Spruce Meadows in
Alberta is another international showcase of sport that is affected by Bill C-71.
The other major sporting events to be affected are the duMaurier Open and the "Omnium" duMaurier temis toumaments held in Toronto and Montreal
respectively. The men's tournament is a part of the Mercedes Super 9 which
means it is one of the richest tournaments in the world.
There are many arguments for, and against, the regulation of tobacco
advertising. Arguments for regulation include that smoking is considered to be the
largest preventable cause of death. For this reason and othen. legislators view
smoking as a major public health issue. As a means of reducing consumption.
advertising and sponsorship have been targeted (Furlong, 1994). The argument
against regulation comes primarily from the tobacco industry and the events being
sponsored by tobacco. "The industry maintains that advertising and sponsorship
do not cause increases in consurnption?' (Tobacco Institute of Australia, from
Furlong, 1994, p. 179). Furthemore. the tobacco industry "argues that patterns of
consumption mirror adult behavior and that children smoke because of peer and
social pressures and parental influence, not because of advertising and
sponsorship?' (p. 179). They contest that advertising will encourage existing
smokers to change brands and not influence non-smokers to initiate the habit.
Naturally, these arguments are amplified when it comes to tobacco sponsorship andor advertising sporting events given the perceived incompatibility with the values held for sport. namely fitness and health.
Pur~oseof the Studv
The purpose of this descriptive study was to examine the objectives of tobacco companies in relation to the sponsorship of sporting events in Canada and to determine their strategic plans for funve sponsorship given the adoption of Bill
C-7 1. With the introduction of Bill C-7 1K-42, it is unclear whether or not tobacco companies will continue to support the major events they currently support. Because of the uncertainty and large amount of money involved. it is unclear whether or not these events can survive without the support of tobacco companies. These events may be moved to other countries that accept tobacco sponsorship of sport events, thus creating a void in not only local economies but the Canadian economy as well.
Research Ouestions
In order to address the study purpose, the following three research questions were constructed:
1. What are the implications of the Tobacco Act on the sponsorship strategies of
Canadian tobacco companies?
-2. What are the implications for sport event organizers of the Tobacco Act as it is
currently written? - How will the Tobacco Act change the sponsorship procurement strategies of tobacco-sponsored event organizers?
Definition of Terms
Advertising:
Any paid, nonpenonal. clearly sponsored message conveyed through the
media (Mullin, Hardy & Sutton. 1993). ATP Tour
The pro men's tennis tour, the Association of Temis Professionais, holds
events around the world including a rotating event in Canada which is held
in either Montreal or Toronto.
Bill C-42
This is an act to amend the Tobacco Act (Bill C-71). It was passed during
the 3 6&parliament ( 1998) and includes exemptions for sponsorship
promotion of sporting events in Canada until the year 2000 or 2003 based
on certain criteria.
Bill C-5 1
Also known as the Tobacco Products Control Act (TPCA). This act is the
predecessor to Bill C-7 1. The final version of the TPCA banned tobacco
advertising, but exceptions permitted certain forms of sponsorship
promotion. The Bill came into law in 1988 but was overtumed in 1995 by
the Supreme Court of Canada.
Bill C-71
This enactment replaces the Tobacco Products Control Act and the Tobacco
Sales to Young Persons Act. The purpose of this enactment is to protect the
health of Canadians and, in particular. to protect young persons from
inducements to use tobacco products and to restrict access to tobacco products. Bill C-7 1 also regulates sponsorship by tobacco companies. The
Act became law on October 1, 1998.
CART
Charnpionship Auto Racing Teams, Inc., (CART), was organized as a
corporation under the law of the State of Michigan in 1978. Its primary
purpose is to enhance the sport of automobile racing through, among other
things, conducting and sanctioning championship car races (Rulebook,
1998).
Delphi Techiclue
Delphi is a method for structuring a group communication process so that
the process is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a whole. to
deal with a cornplex problem (Linstone & Turoff. 1975). Additionally, the
Delphi Technique is an instrument that is used to solicit. collate. and report
judgements and estimations of a panel of experts regarding a future event
and is used when other methods can't be used.
Exchange process
Inherent to the notion of sponsorship is the process of exchange. At least
two parties exchange resources which may be physical. financiai or
intangible. As well, the resources offered by each party must be valued by
the reciprocating partner. Within this context, sponsorship represents an
exchange relationship (McCarville & Copeland, 1994). Formula One Racing
Racing series with road races in many different nations around the world
including Canada. The Canadian Grand Prix is held in Montreal. Quebec
every year and its title sponsor was Player's. Due to Bill C-71K-42. the
Canadian Grand Prix is now sponsored by Au Canada. -Image The image of products, services, or brands can be enhanced when a
Company aligs itself with the positive characteristics of a sport event or
successfùl sport athletes (Wilkinson, 1993 fiom Copeland. Frisby, &
McCarville, 1996).
Imperial Tobacco
Owned by Imasco Ltd.. which is controlled by B.A.T. Industries (based in
Britain). Share of the Canadian tobacco market is 67%. Tobacco brands
include: Player's, duMaurier, Matinee, Cameo, Peter Jackson. Avanti.
Medallion, Kool. Imasco also owns Shoppers Dnig MartPhamaprix,
Canada Trust & Hardee's. Imperial Tobacco sponsors car racing, golf
tournanents, tennis tournaments and equestrian events as well as a fashion
foundation, jazz festivals and various performing arts.
LPGA
Ladies Professional Golf Association which was founded in 1944. In 1997.
prize money on the tour reached 30.2 million dollars. The duMaurier
Classic is the LPGA Tour's fourth major charnpionship of the season. Played in Canada, this prestigious event, like the U.S. Women's Open.
changes its venue every year. The duMaurier Classic has been a part of the
LPGA Tour since 1973 and gained major championship status in 1979.
This year's purse totaled 1.2 million dollars (LPGA tour, 1998).
Marketing- communications/promotion- mix
Consists of four different elements - persona1 selling, advertising. sales
promotion and publicity. Each element of the marketing communications
mix can be subdivided into fùther detailed components (Meenaghan. 1983).
Marketing- of sport
The selling of a particular event or series of events to sport consumers.
Marketing through sport
Using sporting events and personalities as a means to promote a particular
product or service being offered by an outside corporation.
NASCAR
National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR)is a U.S. based
stock car racing association. A major supporter is Winston cigarettes which
sponsors the Winston Cup Series comprising individual NASCAR races
across the United States.
RJR-MacDonald
Owned and control led by RJR-Nabisco Inc.(a large U.S.-based
conglomerate). Share of the Canadian market is 12%. Tobacco brands
include Export "A", Vantage, MacDonald and Contessa Slims; as weil, RJR MacDonald imports Camel, Winston and Salem. RJR-Nabisco also
owns and operates Planters, Life Savers, Oreo and Ritz. RJR MacDonald
sponsors golf events, concerts and a salmon derby.
Rothmans. Benson & Hedges-
Owned mainly by Philip Moms (largest tobacco firm in the US.) and
Rothmans International B.V. (based in the Netherlands). Share of
Canadian Market is 20%. Tobacco brands include: Rothmans, Craven -*A",
Benson & Hedges, Number 7, Belvedere, Mark Ten, Viscount, Dunhill,
Black Cat, Belmont, Canadian Classics. Parent Company also owns Kraft,
Miller, Toblerone. Post & Maxwell House. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges
sponsors fireworks competitions. car racing and white water rafting.
S~onsorSatisfaction
The degree to which a sponsor receives their intended retum on investment
through their sponsorship of a particular event. individual or team.
Sponsorship
The provision of resources of any kind by an organization in direct support
of an event (sports or arts) or social concem (educationai or environmental)
with the purpose of directly associating the organization's name/product
with the event. The licensee then uses this relationship to achieve its
promotions' objectives or to facilitate and support its broad marketing
objective (Mullinl Hardy & Sutton, 1993). Sport Consumers
Encompasses many types of involvement with sport, including playing,
officiating, watching, listening, reading, and collecting.
Sport Marketing
Marketing is the process of (a) accomplishing objectives of the organization
by means of a coordinated set of activities and (b) providing programs,
products, and services that satisfy client needs. Sport marketing
encompasses the use of sport or sport figures to promote consumer products
(Callecod & Stotlar, 1990).
The Tobacco Act
Referred to as Governmental Bills C-7 1 and C-42. Bill C-7 1 was the
original Tobacco Act and Bill C-42 amended and revised Bill C-7 1.
Tobacco indus^
In Canada, the tobacco industry is lead by the Canadian Tobacco
Manufacturers' Council. This groups mandate includes lobbying against
government anti-tobacco initiatives and other pressing rnatters that affect
the tobacco companies in Canada. Worldwide. the tobacco inidustry is a
$200 billion dollar industry while in Canada, tobacco companies have sales
of over 4.5 billion and profits of over $4 billion dollars (Canadian Council
for Tobacco Control, 2000). WTA Tour
The women's pro tennis tour, the Women's Ternis Association holds tennis
events around the world including a rotating event in Canada which is held
in either Montreal or Toronto.
Limitations of the study
The researcher acknowledged the following five limitations and undertook
procedures to minimize their effect:
1. niere are a limited number of tobacco companies in Canada. The three
companies based in Canada include Imperia1 tobacco; Rothmans? Benson &
Hedges; & RJR-Macdonald. The tobacco brands that are involved in sport
sponsorship include duMaurier: Player's; Export "A"; & Rothmants.
3 Despite assurances of confidentiality. participants in the study may have
been hesitant to provide accurate information due to perceived
consequences associated with providing negative responses.
3. Participants in this study may have understood the importance of the
research but gave low pnority to responding. Therefore, they may not have
devoted sufficient time or thought to their responses.
4. This study was Iimited by the restrictions imposed by the validity and the
reliability propenies of the selected technique (Delphi). 5 The study examined a moment in time. Bill C-71 became law on October
1, 1998. Tobacco companies may not have had enough time to evaluate the
effects of Bill C-7 1 in the time fiame of this study.
Delimitations of tbe study
The researcher delimited the scope of this study in the following three ways:
1. This study was limited to Canadian tobacco companies.
2. This study was limited to "majorœ'Canadian sporting events that are on the
calendars of their respective governing bodies. (e.g., duMaurier Classic
Golf Tournament - one of four majors on women's professional golf tour).
3. Further, the study was limited to tobacco Company involvement in the
sponsonhip of sport. excluding the activities these companies have in
sponsoring arts events in Canada. The purpose of this chapter is to present a review of literature related to this
study. The review is presented in nine sections which include: (a) An Introduction
to Sponsorship; (b) Defining Sponsorship; (c) Why Corporations Sponsor Spon? ;
(d) Exchange Theory; (e) Image-Sponsor Compatability; (0 Measurement of
Sponsorship; (g) Sponsorship vs. Advertising; (h) Tobacco Sponsorship of Sport.
and; (i) Summary.
An Introduction to Soonsorshi~
During the 1st quarter century. the use of sport as a means of marketing a product has become an integral part of the marketing mix used by multinational and small companies. Sport is of particular interest to companies marketing consumer goods and services because of its mass spectator appeal (Abratt. Clayton & Pitt,
1987). The term "spon marketing'' was fint used in 1978 (Callecod & Stotlar.
1990; Mullin. Hardy & Sutton, 1993). While this was not the birth of sport marketing as it is commonly known today. the term was first used to "describe the activities of consumer and industrial product and service marketers who were increasingly using sport as a promotional vehicle" (Mullin. Hardy & Sunon. 1993. p. 6). Since then, "sport marketing'' as a term to descnbe these activities has been widely accepted by researchers and practitioners. Mullin et al. (1993) offered the following definition of sport marketing which was adapted fiom a standard definition of general marketing:
Sport marketing consists of al1 activities designed to meet the needs
and wants of sport consumers through exchange processes. Sport
marketing has developed two major thrusts: the marketing of sport
products and services directly to consumers of sport, and marketing
of other consumer and industrial products or services through the use
of sport promotions (p.6).
Marketing through sport, as described above was a direct reaction to the increased clutter and expense developing within advertising. Sponsorship is one of the ways in which corporations can market through sport. "Sponsoring is a communication technique that is becoming increasingly integrated into corporate marketing policies" (Ferrand & Pages. 1996. p. 278). As well. the versatility of the sponsorship medium enables it to filfil or cornplernent many of the fùnctions performed by other elements of the marketing communications mix (Meenaghan,
1991a).
The origin of sponsorship is a point of contention arnong researchers.
Some researchers agree that early sponsorship began with Caesar's gladiators in
65 B.C. (Comwell, 1995; Gilbert. 1988; Stotlar, 1993). Still, others believe that sponsorship began in the 1950's when U.S. president Dwight Eisenhower asked
Mutual of Omaha and Union Oil to sponsor the fint presidential physical fitness program (Lazarus, 1984). Meenahan (199 1b) advanced that sponsorship has been with us since the middle to late 1960's. This time period also seems to correspond with the beginnings of the tobacco and alcohol industries' foray into sport sponsorship.
"Begiming in 197 1 with legislation that made it illegai to advertise cigarettes on television and radio in the United States, sponsorships were delivered a staunch supporter" (Comwell, 1995, p. 14). Thus, the access to the promotional needs of tobacco and alcohol that sponsorship opportunities offered made a large contribution to the growth of the sponsorship medium. "Much of sponsorship growth was catalyzed by the tobacco industry and its need to find new advertising outlets when traditional media were denied it either by legislation or by voluntary codes" (Meerabeau, Gillett. Kennedy. Adooba Byass & Tabi. 199 1. p.3). Another reason for the growth of sponsorship is offered by McCarville and Copeland
( 1994) who noted that "industrialization and resulting urbanization brought large numbers of people together and created consumer goods that could be highlighted through sponsonhips" (p. 104).
While sport sponsorship in the past was seen as a way to please a Chief
Executive Officer's (CEO) interests in certain spons and to fùlfil community responsibilities, it is now viewed as a legitimate element in the promotionall communications mix that should be viewed as a justified business expense
(Sandler & Shani, 1993; Oneal. Finch. Hamilton. & Harnmonds, 1987).
Corporations now realize this, but are ofien inundated with requests fkom groups and events requesting sponsorship (Copeland, Frisby & McCarville. 1996). While the reasons why corporations choose one of these many requests, the stren-@ of a
well-developed sponsorship package is highlighted by Meenaghan (1983):
A traditional classification of marketing communication elements
fails to suggest parameters for such a versatile and flexible
communications activity and while it can be argued that sponsorship
is merely an adjunct to individual communication rnix elements. this
is hardly an adequate recognition of both the commercial scale of
sponsorship and its integrative potential with a marketing
communications campaign (p. 7-8).
Definine S~onsorship
Meerabeau, Giliett, Kennedy, Adooba, Byass and Tabi ( 199 1 ) suggested
that trying to define %ponsorship'' is a bit like trying to harpoon a butterfly in a
eoale. A widely accepted definition of sponsorship does not exist. Meenaghan
( 1983) reviewed various definitions for sponsorship and found that the definitions
are not consistent. Most of the definitions reviewed by Meenaghan "served the
immediate purpose of the proposing organisation"(p. 9). As well. none of the
definitions reviewed can be regarded as sufficiently comprehensive to reflect the
breadth of real sponsorship activity or sufficiently rigorous to provide a theoretical
base for an examination of sponsorship practice.
Following this review? Meenaghan ( 1983) suggested that sponsorship should be defined as "the provision of assistance either financial or in kind to an activity by a commercial organisation for the purpose of achieving commercial objectives?' (p. 9). However, in their study of Olympic sponsorship, Sandler and
Shani (1989) criticized Meenaghan's definition as being too broad and instead defined sponsorship as:
The provision of resources (e.g., money, people, equipment) by an
organization directly to an event or activity in exchange for a direct
association to the event or activity. The providing organization can
then use this direct association to achieve either their corporate,
marketing, or media objectives (p. 10).
Mullin, Hardy and Sutton ( 1993) agreed that both defmitions attempted to define sponsorship in broad terrns. and that they both indicated that the sponsor's objective is to achieve its commercial objectives. However, Mullin, Hardy and
Sunon found that the definitions failed to indicate the place and the fùnction of promotional licensing or sponsorship within the marketing mix noting that: Tt is increasingly accepted that sponsonhip best fits with the variables under the promotions / communications mix. yet no definition indicates this point" (p. 206).
Consequently they offered this definition for sponsorship, naming it promotional
Iicensing:
"Promotional licensing is the provision of resources of any kind by
an organization in direct support of an event (sports or arts) or social
concem (educational or environmental) with the purpose of directly
associating the organization's narne/product with the event. The licensee then uses this relationship to achieve its promotions'
objectives or to facilitate and support its broad marketing objective?'
(p. 208).
This definition is indeed broad enough to include a wide range of activities as well as demonstrating sponsonhip or promotional licensing within the promotions/ communications mix variables. A common variable that appears in al1 of the definitions that were presented is that sponsorship is the provision of money from a Company to a sport in order to gain a certain association with that sport for the use of achieving corporate objectives.
Whv Corsorations Sponsor S~ort?
There have been a number of researchers who have explored the reasons why corporations would choose to involve themselves in the sponsoring of sport
(Abratt, Clayton, & Pitt. 1987: Amis. Pant & Slack. 1997: Crowley. 199 1 : lrwin &
Asimakopoulos, 1992; Irwin 8: Sunon. 1994; Kuzma, Shanklin. & McCally, Jr,
1993; Short & Irwin, 1998). Their involvement in sport sponsorship is not soiely the result of the companies' love of sport but. rather as a consequence of their commercial ambitions (Hong. 1997).
Improving corporate image and awareness are routinely named as primary reasons for corporate involvement in sport (Gardner & Shuman. 1987: Shanklin &
Kuzma, 1992). McDonald, Musante and Milne (1 998) argued that companies seek to irnprove name exposure to a target market, through sponsorship oppominities. This has led to corporations being more scientific in their approach to realizing sponsorship agreements in the face of the numerous requests that they
receive from groups requestinp sponsorships. Kuzma, Shanklin and McCally
(1 993) stated that: "a sponsorship agreement will be consurnmated only if there is
a close correspondence between what a corporation is seeking to achieve for its
participation and what the event has to offer" (p. 29). The danger in sponsorship.
fiom a corporate perspective, is that there are no guarantees that the event will be of the quality that they expect. "Corporations are often inundated with requests
for sponsorship funding, yet cannot always ensure that events sponsored will be executed in a quality fashion or that an adequate retum on investrnent will be achieved" (Copeland. Fnsby & McCarville, 1996. p. 33).
While corporations may be taking a more scientific and selective approach to sponsoring sport, they are spending more money in the process. Short and
Invin (1998) noted that according to the IEG Sponsorship Report (1996), in the
1990's. North American companies had increased their sponsorship spending by
1 5% to $5 -4 billion. The increased expenditure and the exposure of major events have led to treating sponsorship no longer as just a form of corporate social behavior but rather as an equal cornpetitor for promotion dollars with the other components of the promotion mix (Sandler & Shani, 1989). Arthur, Scott and
Woods (1997) suggested that, despite these increases there has been little research as to how corporations decide between sponsorship proposals. The research that has been done in the area of corporate objectives when sponsoring can only help in understanding the decision process used by managers. As noted by Short and lrwin (1998), there have been efforts to assess the relative importance of corporate sponsorship objectives and proposal selection criteria within the United States
(Invin, Assimakopoulos, & Sutton, 1994; Irwin & Sutton, 1994). However. there has been minimal research done in Canada on the same topic.
Copeland, Frisby & McCarville (1996) examined the sport sponsorship process from a corporate perspective. This research was done using Canadian corporations with advertising budgets in excess of $50,000 that were currentlp involved in sport sponsonhips. The purpose of their research was to:
1. construct Canadian corporate sponsor profiles;
2. determine the criteria used in selecting grassroots, elite amateur sport. and professional sport sponsorship opportunities;
3. detemine the post-event evaluation critena used by corporations to evaluate the success of their sponsorship involvements;
4. uncover reasons for discontinuing sport sponsorships; and
5. assess the level of perceived benefits received by corporations through the sponsorship exchange process (p. 34-35).
The results of their study "suggest that corporate involvement in sport sponsorship is in its relative infancy in Canada" (p. 44). As well. the respondents of the snidy
"expected sponsorship opportunities to offer product/service exclusivity. opportunities to increase brand awareness, and to reinforce Company image" (p.
45). The companies involved in the survey were also interested in events that enabled them to target specific market segments with the ultimate goal of increasing sales. Twenty-two percent of respondents to the survey believed that the "benefits they received from sport sponsorships were somewhat less than the
benefits they provided to their respective partners" (p. 46). Sport organizers must
ensure that the benefits they are exchanging are fait and equitable.
Short and lrwin (1998) conducted a study that was sirnilar to that of
Copeland, Frisby and McCarvil le's 1996 study . The di fference' however. was that
they were able to compare U.S. corporations (Invin & Sution, 1994) to the
responses they reviewed from the Canadian survey. A modifi ed version of the
survey instrument used by Invin et al. (1994) was sent to 50 Canadian
corporations. "In the end, relatively few differences were found between
Canadian and American respondents (Short. 1997. p. 5). The differences that were
found, however, included the finding that Canadian corporations were more
interested in achieving objectives. While the order was reversed between U.S. and
Canadian corporations. the top two reasons for sponsoring sport were the same: increasing image and target market fit and product/sport image fit. In Canada, increasing image and target market fit was most important while in the U.S., productkport image fit was more important.
Another popular reason for sponsoring sport seems to be heightened corporate responsibility and cornmunity relations. However, the level of importance of this objective seems to Vary among research tindings. In a study of
Fortune 1000 firms, Kuzma. Shanklin and McCalIy (1993) found that demonstrating community responsibility was the 3rdhighest priority among those corporations surveyed. However, sponsors of the i 99 1 International Special Olympics stated that this objective was the first priority. The nature of events
such as this is likely the reason for this view. "Whenever an event is local andior
has a charitable theme. the community responsibiiity objective often becomes
more important than the purely commercial goals of awareness and image" (p.3 1 ).
Corporations align with sport to demonstrate citizenship and interest in the
community and to receive double exposure through media coverage of the events
(Liesse & Ryan, 199 1).
The research that has been done exploring the reasons why corporations
sponsor sport indicates that there are wide and varying objectives being sought.
While some research has shown the trend toward satisQing the money made by
corporations through sponsorship and advertising, there is also research that has
shown the need to be responsible to the communities in which these corporations
exist. Event organizers that are soliciting sponsorships must acknowledge these
varied objectives and work toward meeting and satisQing the needs of those
sponsors to help in the retainment of sponsorship.
Exchange Theow
"Inherent to the notion of sponsorship is the process of exchange"
(McCarville & Copeland, 1994, p. 104). Sport sponsorships represent an
exchange relationship between the sport organizer and the sponsoring organization
or group. "Such relationships are based on pnnciples of maxirnizing rewards and
minimizing risks for ail parties involved" (McCarviIle, Copeland & Frisby, 1996, p. 32). "Firms like Mobil are, increasingly, no longer prepared to enter into sponsorship agreements without having a more concrete idea of whether the investrnent is likely to realize a cornpetitive advantage" (Amis, Pant & Slack,
1997, p. 83). Sponsorship is a process which involves the exchange of resources with a partner in the hopes of gaining a corresponding return for the sponsor
(McCarville & Copeland, 1994). The understanding and acknowled+ment of the exchange process cm lead to long-term sponsonhip relationships.
McCarville and Copeland ( 1994) recognized two conditions which make sponsorships an exchange process. The first condition is that at least hvo parties exchange resources and the second is that the resources offered by each party must be of value to the reciprocating partner. They noted the notion of mutual retum involved in the exchange process "distinguishes sponsorship fiom other forms of corporate support assistance lilie philanthropy . charity and patronageYY(p.105).
Exchange partners often evaluate sponsorships in terms of past experiences. If the exchange was fair and equitable. a corporation would be inclined to renew their interest in sponsoring the sport in question. Further, "new opportunities may be judged through the presence or absence of variables that proved rewarding in the past ... Therefore, sport groups' satisfied partners will continue to be their best prospects for future sponsorship support?' (p. 105-106).
While other objectives are fiequently cited, one common purpose a
Company uses the sponsorship medium is for image enhancement (Brooks, 1998;
Gardner & Shuman, 1987; McDonald, Musante, & Milne, 1998; Shanklin, & Kma, 1992). "While increasing name exposure for a brand/fim is the most commonly acknowledged goal of sponsorship, firms also cite fostering a favorable image for a brand as a sponsorship objective" (McDonald et al.. 1998, p.5). The use of sport to build image association is reflected in the large nurnber of advertising carnpaigns linked to certain events. Exarnples include the tobacco industry's sponsorship of auto racing (Marlboro, Player's), tennis (DuMaurier,
Virginia Slims), and golf (Export "A") to name but a few.
Like a penon, a given brand can be perceived as upscale, fun. active or formal. According to McDonald, Musante and Milne (1 998)' "one's perceptions of a person are affected by nearly everything associated with that individual --
&ends, activities, and so forth" (p.7). The main factor in brand personality is mostly product-related. Non-product related characteristics such as advertisement style. age, user image and Company image also may affect brand personality. The sales impact of image association is demonstrated by Came1 cigarette ads. which use the cartoon "Joe Camel" to portray a youthfùl and "hip" image to young consumers (Phelan, 1997). Consumers easily can think about brands as if they were ceiebnties or famous historical figures (Aaker. 1997)
A popular sport example is the association of Cadiliac with the Master's golf toumament. The Master's golf toumament is considered the premier golf b event on the golf calendar. McDonald, Musante and Milne add that "Cadillac's long-term affiliation with professional golf, a sport perceived to be sophisticated and upscale serves to enhance the image of the brandy' (p. 9). Therefore. in a circumstance where a fm is considering sponsorship, the firm should also be
aware of the perceived image of the sport or the event. The image of products.
services, or brands cm be enhanced when a company aligns itself with the positive
characteristics of a sport event (Copeland, Frisby & McCarville, 1996). Further,
modem businesses have realized that sport offers corporations access to an
"international phenornenon that canies with it vexy strong and positive imageso'
(Ferrand & Pages, 1996, p. 279).
When sponsoring sport, the company or brand involved seeks to transfer or
appropriate to itself the positive images of the event or group. However, such a
transfer is only possible if consumers perceive similarities between the attributes
of the company or the products it is marketing and the attributes of the event or
moup (Ferrand & Pages, 1996). McDonald. Musante & Milne ( 1998) offered that C
there are three basic assumptions that must be made for image transfer by
association to occur. These assumptions include that:
a) brands maintain distinct images
b) sporting events maintain distinct images
C) spectators perceive various levels of image "fit" between brands and sports in a sponsorship situation
The presentation of consistent associations between brand images and sport
images help define the 'penonality ' of the brand. McDonald ( 199 1 ) adds that, "a
synergy is sought between the event and company values: if one can directly link the event to a product, so much the better"(p.35). The perception of the spectator or consumer is critical in achieving image objectives in the sponsorship of sports events. Ferand and Pages note that, "in image sponsoring, the sponsoring corporation attempts to identim itself or one or more of its products with the positive images of the event held by the event's consumers such as spectaton or viewers" (p. 279). To help achieve a positive image, the sponsor must consider the image of the event, the sponsor's present image, and the desired future image of the sponsor or its brand.
The image of a company can be divided into three different categories - the registered image, the wanted image, and the diffised image (Ferand, & Pages,
1996). The wanted image is the image that the strategic decision makers of the company are hoping to achieve by sponsoring sport. This is perhaps the most important of the three categones. as it wili ultimately affect a company's image the most. If the company chooses a sport that has a desired image. and this image is maintained with strong event management, the company will ultimately benefit from this. The registered image is the image that consumers already have of a company. This image is based on the perceptions of ordinary people in their daily interactions with the company's products and promotions. The third category is the diffised image which refiects what is being transmitted by the coherent messages of the company. Al1 three perspectives must be considered when planning a sponsorship program in order to have any appreciable effect on a company's image (Ferand et al., 1996). Meenaghan (1991b) noted that image by association is a result of an image
"rub off'. The company's association with an event, new or 014 will act as fiesh
input to be processed by their consumes, a cue that may influence perceptions or the image of the Company or brand. According to McDonald, Musante and Milne
(1990
.. the result will be that the firm wiil be more likely to be
perceptually positioned closer to the sport. Employing such a
strategy, a firm seeking a certain identity would pursue an affiliation
with an entity, which represents the desired image or personality
traits (p. 8-9).
One sector that has benefitted from sports' positive and wide appeal is the tobacco industry. Cigarette companies have used sport to their advantage in building and maintaining their brand images over years of affiliation with particular sports and events (Beaudry, 1997).
The fact that different sports cany different social representation is another factor to consider in image sponsoring:
From a different perspective, the same sport may project different
social representations in different locales where it is practised. That
is, different events (or venues) attract different sets of fans who may
differ in their social and economic indices and lifestyles. Therefore,
it is likely that they may have different images of a sport or sporting
event (Ferand, & Pages, 1996, p. 282). Measurine- S~onsorsbi~
There is a growing body of literature on the measurement of sponsorship effectiveness (Copeland, Frisby & McCarville, 1996; Invin & Suaon, 1995; Short
& Irwin, 1998). Many sponsors fail to exercise post-event evaluation of their involvement to test their retum or! investment. "Post-event evaluations supply sponsonhip feedback, providing insight into both successfÙ1 sponsorship rxecution, as well as poor returns on investmentt (Phelan & Weese, 1998. p. 1 5).
Sponsorship evaluation is a critical component in the sponsorship process. The success adorfailure of past sponsorship endeavors will affect future decision rnaking (Phelan, 1997).
"Unlike other more traditional marketing communication mediums ... users of sponsorship are still struggling to fülly understand its capabiiities and how to effectively use it" (Brooks. 1998). As well, the demand for greater accountability of al1 corporate expenditures has generated interest in developing objective cnteria to guide both event selection decisions and post-event evaluating (Kuzma?
Shanklin, & McCally. 1993). -'Obviously, a lack of post-event evaluation will make it difficult for managers to determine if an adequate retum on investment has been achieved and whether sponsorship relationships should be continued in the future" (Copeland, Frisby, & McCarville, 1996, p. 36). By measuring the perceived effectiveness of sponsorship, corporations wouid have a beîter understanding of the capabilities of sponsorship. Sport organizers may lack insight regarding the ways in which corporations select and evaluate sponsorships. "Little is known about how the corporations actually evaluate the success of their sponsorships involvement and how these assessments affect decisions to continue or discontinue fiitwe involvements"
(Copeland, Frisby, & McCarville, 1996). Gardner and Shuman (1 987) found that
50 percent of corporations do not measure sponsorship outcornes at all. "The development of a valid set of sponsorship criteria to empirically evaluate sponsor objectives is a necessary component in precipitating and sustaining a healthy sponsorship relationship" (Phelan, 1997, p. 18). As well, Keller ( 1993) noted that a "most valuable asset for improving marketing productivity is the knowledge that has been created about the brand in consurners' minds fkom the firrn's investment in previous marketing prograns" (p.2).
S~onsorshiovs. Advertising
Advertising has been defined as "any paid, nonpersonal, clearly sponsored message conveyed through the media" (Mullin, Hardy, & Sunon, 1993, p. 176).
As with al1 promotion. the bais of successful advertising is effective communication. However. a major problem in advertising is perceptual distortion. which occurs when the recipient of the message interprets it differently than the sender intended (Mullin et al., 1993). This is of particular importance with tobacco companies advertising or sponsoring sport. The reasons why and the message they are attempting to convey are important factors in the reception of the message by consumers. Adveriising offers a Company many options. Some of these include print media such as newspapea, outdoor media such as billboards and broadcast media such as television. A new option is the use of the World Wide Web (WWW) which is becoming quite popular. This medium allows advertisers to reach a worldwide audience rather than a localized audience. Stadium advertising is a sporting option that is prevalent throughout different levels of sport. Seemingly, at a professional sporting event, advertising is ever-present. Most stadium advertising originates from sponsorship of the team or stadium and signs at major sporting events such as golf toumaments almost always are linked to sponsorship.
While sponsorship may provide advertising for the sponsoring organization, the two practices are inherently different.
Sponsorship is different from advertising, for example. in that it is
centred upon an activity outside the company's main operations: it is
a business agreement built up on the basis of an event. a team. a
penonality, anaor an organisation; an association which will, it is
hoped, benefit both the sponsor and the sponsored body (Otker,
1988, p. 77).
Meenaghan (199lb) offered that specific target groups can be reached through sport sponsorship in a more direct and cost-eficient manner than traditional forms of mass advertising. An advantage of sponsorship is that it is an alternative to advertising. Sponsorship is a form of corporate communication which is different. new, and less manifestly commercial than advertising.
Advertising agencies have overcome their initial hostility towards sponsorship and included sponsorship as a legitimate media option for clients
(Meenaghan, 199 la). "Though capable of achieving awareness and image type objectives at both the corporate and brand level in a rnan.net similar to advertising. sponsorship, in expenditure ternis, is quite small compared to mainstream advertising" (p.8). Meenaghan ( 199 1a) noted that sponsorship is a complementary rather than competitive expenditure when considered with traditional advertising.
Meenaghan ( 199 1a) observed key differences between the two communication media. One of these differences was the level of control sponsorship offers in cornparison to advertising.
Sponsorship is quite like public relations in that the quantity and
quality of coverage is largely beyond the control of the sponsor.
This is quite different fiom advertising where these aspects of
communication are controlled by the advertiser (p. 8).
The message being conveyed is also a key difference between sponsorship and advertising. In traditional advertising, the advertiser has the opportunity to create the image being portrayed using visual and vocal cues while sponsorship is usually very non-verbal in that it is delivered by association with an activity possessed of its own personality in the eyes of the receiving audience (Meenaghan. 199 1a).
The implementation of a sponsorship program is quite different from advertising in that advertising is usually required in order to properly promote a Company or brand 's association with an event. "An investment in sponsorship merel y provides the sponsor with the right to exploit his purchased sponsorship property rights" (p.
8). Additional fûnds in promoting the event and the association with the event are required if a sponsor wishes to receive a return on investment fkom sponsorship.
Sponsorship is different not only from advertising, but also fkom sales promotion, product public relations, publicity, etc. Sponsorship does require close cooperation with al1 of these marketing communication elements in order to achieve proper exploitation. This is evident in that it has been estimated that for every dollar spent on sports event sponsorship. another three to five dollars is spent on sponsorship linked marketing (Comwell, 1995 ; Otker, 198 8).
An unknown factor in sponsorship is how the audience will react to the association with a particular event by a corporation. This reaction is likely to be different from other media. "Sponsorship investrnent is likely to have a recognised beneficial effect on the sponsored activity, a fact likely to be appreciated by that activity's audience" (Meenaghan, 199 1 a. p. 8). One possible outcome of sponsorship is that the audience may have a less cynical reaction to sponsorship rather than traditional advertising because of the goodwill involved in sponsorship which may explain why tobacco companies associate themselves with sport.
As Sandler & Shani (1989) noted, fewer companies now sponsor events on managerial preferences. Persona1 motives by CEOs and Presidents have become less important in sponsorship selection but can still be considered an important distinction between sponsorship and advertising. '
The 'chairman's choice' syndrome, also labeled 'spouse-driven
projects', has long been associated with the practice of sponsorship
and while there is increased evidence of a more commercial
orientation arnong sponsors there can be little doubt that the persona1
agenda of sponsorship decision maken is still a factor in modem
sponsorship decision making (Meenaghan, 1991 a, p.9).
Tobacco Sponsorship of S~ort
"Tobacco sponsonhip is woven into Canada's cultural fabric" (Chidley, 1996, p. 53). If this statement is correct, the cultural fabric of Canada is about to change.
With the passing of Bill C-7 1 ("The Tobacco Act"). the sponsonhip of spon by tobacco companies will be a difficult proposition if the companies want to continue to impact their bottom Iine - new smokers. In this section. the history of tobacco sponsorship in Canada will be discussed as well as in other parts of the world such as Australia and the United States. The predicted impact of The
Tobacco Act will also be discussed as it appears in the literature.
According to Furlong ( 1994), tobacco sponsorship of spon began over 70 years ago in 19 19 when a cigarette Company undertook the sponsorship of an
English golfer's tour in Australia. As well, this is also one of the earliest known commercial sponsonhips of sport. Today, tobacco sponsorship of sport has grown to include such sports as motor racing, golf, tennis to narne but a few. in Canada, there are events such as the duMaurier Classic in golf and duMaurier Open in
Tennis. In the United States, the largest motor sports series, NASCAR is narned afier Winston and has been for over 20 years. Furlong (1994) added that:
The most valuable source of fùnding for a sport is sponsorship.
Sports may obtain funds fiom other sources, such as membership
fees, entrance fees and the sale of advertising and broadcasting
rights, but most sponsonhips will provide not only monetary
assistance, but other benefits such as equipment, prizes and
concessions, advertising and promotion, and expert advice
(p. 162).
Cunningham (1996) adds that "sponsorship lends social acceptability to smoking and neutralizes health concems held by consumes" (p. 96). By sponsoring sport. tobacco companies are able to associate their brand with healthy and desirable activities while also giving executives a forum in which to win new friends. exert influence and improve their image (Cunningham, 1996).
While advertising and sponsorship have already been shown as being important components of product marketing. it is interesting to note the view of the tobacco industry's view of advertising.
"The industry defines advertising as a direct, paid-for
communication of information to consumers for the purposes of
publicity and increasing sales. It is an invitation to treat, intended to benefit the advertiser directly" (Tobacco Institute of Ausualia, from
Furlong, 1994 , p. 160).
While increasing sales and positive publicity may be cornmon in other definitions
of advertising (Mullin, Hardy & Sutton, 1993), it is increasingly important to the
tobacco industry . As Dany lchuk (2000) noted,
Tobacco companies acknowledge the advantage of having their
brand names shown or metioned on television and radio without
being accompanied by health warnings that appear on their
packagng (p. 105).
In Canada alone, 40,000 people die due to tobacco related illnesses (Sparks. 1997).
This means that the tobacco industry must find at least 40.000 new smoken each year to keep the same profit level. One way to do this is to sponsor sporting events which have a large potential to be seen by millions (Beaudry, 1997). The tobacco industry defined sponsorship as:
.. an indirect form of communication for the purpose of creating
goodwill and, unlike advertising, is not a direct form of
communication in order to increase sales. Sponsorship, it is
maintained, is solely a corporate image exercise (Tobacco Institute
of Australia, from. Furlong, 1994. p. 16 1 ).
In order for tobacco sponsorship to be effective, corporations put even more money into promoting the event than they do sponsoring the event (Beaudry,
1997). An exampie of this in sport is the Interstate Battery Company that sponsors NASCAR. Interstate invests seven million dollars sponsoring a tearn as weli as up to 75% of that on marketing and promotion of the car, tearn and product.
Consequently, the cost of sponsoring a NASCAR car is in excess of twelve million dollars (Beaudry, 1997). These figures would be standard for most sponsors which makes the tobacco industry's statement of a "corporate image exercise" difficult to justiQ.
In Canada, tobacco sponsorship of sport has been instrumental in the growth of many sports including tennis and auto racing. The advent of the
Tobacco Act is the culmination of over 30 years of debate and legislation by lawmakers and anti-smoking groups. The first pressure fiom Canadian parliament came in the early 60's when Federal Health Minister Judy LaMarsh delivered a statement in the House of Commons warning of the dangers of smoking. This was followed the next year by a voluntary code restricting tobacco advertising by the tobacco industry. However, the code contained an important provision that aliowed for lifestyle advertising. In 1969, the CBC announced that it would stop airing tobacco ads? which was followed in 197 1 by the industry announcing that it would voluntarily stop advertising on radio and television. (Tobacco Timeline,
1998). Later. this debate was fueled by the Canadian ski team's objection to tobacco sponsorship of their races, led primarily by Steve Podborsky.
The 1980's would see more bills passed in parliarnent, including the predecessor to the Tobacco Act -- Bill C-5 1. In 1985, Sports Minister Otto Jelinek announced that any amateur sports organizations that accepted new tobacco sponsorships would face losing their federal fundhg. This is followed in 1987 by
Bill C-5 1, the Tobacco Products Control Act (TPCA) which wodd ban brand sponsorship by Tobacco Companies.
"The fmal version of the TPCA banned tobacco advertising, but
exceptions pemitted certain fonns of sponsorship promotion' in
essence a fonn of tobacco advertising. The TPCA permitted
promotion of sponsorships using a corporate narne, provided this
was not done 'in association with a tobacco product', with the onus
on the advertiser to show no such association" (Cunningham, 1996.
p. 97).
However, in 199 1, this act would be overturned. This led to appeals by the soovernment which would win its case and then by the tobacco industry which finally prevailed. Finally, The Supreme Court of Canada, in 1995 overtumed the advertising ban because it was found to infiinge the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. A few months later, federal Health Minister Diane Marleau announced that Onawa was going to try and introduce a total ban on advertising eiving way to Bill C-7 1 (Tobacco Timeline, 1998). C-
The Tobacco Act has been the center of considerable debate in Canada. It is seen by the government as a dramatic new cornmitment to restrict tobacco promotion through the sponsorship of sport (Sparks, 1997). Some of the highlights of Bill C-7 1 include the following: -The enactment establishes powea to regulate tobacco products
-The enactment prohibits the advertising of tobacco products, except
product information and brand preference advertising in publications
with primarily adult readership, in materials mailed to adults and in
places where young persons are not permitted by law.
-With regard to sponsorship promotions that contain tobacco brand
elements, the enactment provides that the tobacco brand elements
may only appear in the bottom part of the promotional material and
occupy no more than ten per cent of the display surface; and the
promotional material is limited to publications with pnmdly adult
readenhip. materials mailed to adults and signs on the site of the
event and in places where young persons are not permitted by law.
(Government of Canada. 1997a)
"Bill C-7 1 is intended to restore tobacco promotion legislation in Canada and correct what many in the health field saw as loopholes in the sponsorship provisions"(Sparks, 1997. p. 22) of the TPCA. The purpose of the Tobacco Act is outlined in Bill C-7 1 :
The purpose of this Act is to provide a legislative response to a
national public health problem of substantial and pressing concem
and. in particular, (a) to protect the health of Canadians in light of conclusive evidence
implicating tobacco use in the incidence of numerous debilitating
and fatai diseases;
(b) to protect young persons and others nom inducements to use
tobacco products and the consequent dependence on them;
(c) to protect the health of young persons by restricting access to
tobacco products, and;
(d) to enhance public awareness of the health hazards of using
tobacco products.(Govemment of Canada. 1997b)
One important factor to remember is that Bill C-71 does not prohibit sponsorship, nor does it prohibit the promotion of sponsored events (Parker, 1997). AAer the
October 1. 1998 implementation date. tobacco companies will be fiee to continue to sponsor the events they choose to. albeit with limitations placed on those sponsorships.
In L 998, Bill C-42 was passed by the Govemment of Canada and was intended to arnend the Tobacco Act (Bill C-7 1). This Bill allows some forms of sponsorship to continue until the year 2000 or 2003 depending on certain circumstances.
If a tobacco product-related brand element was displayed, at any
time between January 25, 1996 and Apri125, 1997, in promotional material that was used in the sponsorship of an event or activity that
took piace in Canada subsections 24(2) and (3) do not apply until
(a) October 1,2000 in relation to the display of a tobacco product-
related brand element in promotional rnaterial that is used in the
sponsorship of that event or activity or of a person or entity
participating in that event or activity; and
(b) October 1. 2003 in relation to the display ... on the site of the
event or activity for the duration of the event or activity or for any
other period that may be prescribed
(Government of Canada, 1999).
These exemptions will allow some events and tobacco companies time to prepare and seek new sponsors should tobacco companies choose not to sponsor these events after these implementation dates corne into effect in the year 2000 or 2003.
Many of the sportinp events that are held in Canada with the support of the large tobacco companies fear that. in losing this support, these events will cease to exist (Chidley, 1996: Gagnon. 1997; Sheikh. 1997; Stevenson, 1997). "Event
sponsors, nevertheless, will be hit hardest by the new restrictions" (Barrineton.L.
1997, p.62). One of the more prominent sporting segments sponsored by tobacco is the auto racing circuits that make regular stops in major Canadian cities.
"Tobacco companies are the most noticeable advertisers on Formula One (F 1 ) cars and drivers' uniforms"(Stevenson, 1997). The three largest races in Canada are the Player's Grand Prix of Canada (Formula 1) and the Molson Indys in both Toronto and Vancouver (Championship Auto Racing Teams). Boui Molson Indys are also sponsored heavily by Player's Racing. While arnending Bill C-7 1. the government allowed auto races to continue using logos on the side of the cars and on uniforrns (Stevenson, 1997). Health groups were quick to criticize this move calling it a "cave-in with tragic consequences" (Cunningham, 1996).
The teenage population is a popular target of tobacco companies. Although tobacco company's would not admit to targeting teens, the youth market is one of the most important markets because of the need to establish new smoken
(Cunningham, 1996; Geekie, 1985: Motonports, 1998; Sparks. 1997; Tobacco
Bill, 1998).
Teens have few illusions about tobacco Company event sponsorship:
they tend to see these activities as just one more adjunct to other
marketing activities. While teens deny being influenced by tobacco
advertising, there is strong evidence that brand identities have been
established and preferences established among smoking teens
(Government of British Columbia. 1997).
Marketing to teens by tobacco companies is a major reason for the restrictions that have been passed in Canada. "Bill C-7 1. is a health bill. not a sponsorship bill as such .. it is not at al1 surprising that Bill C-7 1 targets underage (less than 18 years) youth markets" (Sparks, 1997. p. 22-23).
The intemet has emerged as a dynamic new communications medium at an astounding Pace in recent years (Koomen, 1997). One way tobacco companies are begiming to promote their products is by using the intemet and intemet web sites to reach their target markets. This is an example of the way in which tobacco companies can circumvent the ban on advertising and sponsorship. There are no restrictions against tobacco companies advertising on the intemet in the United
States and in Canada. A ban on intemet advertising would necessitate that the medium be regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the
United States and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications
Commission in Canada (CRTC). The problem with intemet regulation is that these departments do not believe that they cm pursue enforcement action
(Teinowitz. 1997). In Japan, where the tobacco industry is worth $27 billion dollars. there has been a ban on internet advertising since 1998. Tobacco companies were forced to stop placing ads on television, radio, movies and the intemet. This ban on intemet advertising was an attempt to reduce the number of teenagers who srnoke in Japan (Warner, 1997).
In Canada, there are some intemet web sites that promote certain events or entities such as the player's auto racing team. However, many of the brands do not have specific web sites to promote their brands on the world wide web. One of the concems found with intemet marketing by tobacco companies is that digital tobacco brands could sway legions of net-savvy adolescents (Warner, 1997). This is reinforced by the fact that many of the sites, including the players-racing.com web site require registration and may elicit household information that adolescents may unwittingly provide for marketing lists (Schiesel, 1997). To demonstrate the importance of tobbaco brands and target market.
Danylchuk (2000) conducted a study of fans at the duMaurier classic. A random sample of 400 spectators was surveyed. The results of her study show that of the respondents that were smoken, duMaurier was the most popular brand. However, of the non-smoken, 98% said that attending the tournament had no influence on them to begin smoking and that 94% of the smokers indicated that they had no intention of changing brands after the tournament.
In the United States, tobacco sponsorship of sporting events is a large enterprise. It is estimated that tobacco companies spend upwards of 200-300 million dollars in the promotion of their products through sporting events(Patrick.
1997: Vlasic. 1997). Since tobacco advertising was banned in the early 1 970's. tobacco companies have searched for alternative methods to keep their name in the publicYsmind. One of the most successful ways of doing this has been nonstandard tobacco advertising and sponsorship of sporting events (Davidson,
1996; Madden & Grube. 1994; Stoner. 1992).
Sponsorship allows the Company to circumvent the ban on television
advertising of tobacco products. The proponents of a ban on tobacco
sponsorship contend that this sponsorship is aimed directly at teens
who are the group most likeiy to begin smoking. The tobacco
companies dispute this contention and state that their advertising is airncd solcly at peoplc who already smoke as a way to encourage
smokcrs to change brûnds (Stoner. 1992. p. 64 1).
Sponsorsh i p o t' sport ing cvcnts also allows the tobacco brands to associate thcmsciws with imiigcs thal arc desirable in society - glamour, health. vitality. cool ( [lubey. 199%:Stoncr. 1992 ).
In August, 1996. cigarettes and smokeless tobacco became the subject of rcgulaticin hy ihc Food and Dnig Administration in the United States. Subpart D ofthc rcr?ulations- dcüls wirh advcrtising and sponsorship in sports. This section sc.\.crcly rcstricts bi 1iboard aduxtising and sports sponsorship by the tobacco indusip. in thc I hiid States. Section C will eliminate the ability of a tobacco conipany io use hrand names whili: sponsoring sport as well as restncting the use othy \\orci. color or item thai çûn ideniify a brand. These regulations would csscniiall>-rcniovc any brand dillkrcntiation which has existed in the past and rohaçco produçts would bc vinuûlly indistinguishable From the next (Patrick.
1997 1. Whilc ihis Rill ctfkciivcly \vas killed in June 1998. a new piece of
Irgislaiion \\ris horn betwecn tobacco companies and states that hadn't settlrd
Iriu suits indi\-idurilly (Mishra. 1998) The deal was worth 206 billion dollars
.;pannine 25 >.cars. A hiphlight ot' the new deal that involves sport sponsorship is
ihai tobricco comprinics would be limited to one brand-name sponsorship of a
sports or cntcnainmcnt wcnt crich >.car. Corporate sponsonhip of events not
Iühclcd u ith hrmd namcs would continue. As well. al1 outdoor cigarette advertising, promotional merchandise with brand-name logos and use of cartoon characters in advenising tobacco products are banned (Gibson & Mishra, 1998).
In Australia and other countries around the world, restrictions on tobacco sponsoehip of sport are not new. "The marketing and promotion of tobacco products in Australia is strktly regulated by Parliament. Legislation at the
Commonwealth level dates fkom 1976 and imposes restrictions on the advertising of tobacco products" (Furlong, 1994, p. 159). This legislation was reinforced in
1992 along with other restrictions that were imposed by individual states.
However, international sporting events have been given exemptions within these restrictions. The governent wanted to correct these exemptions and have placed restrictions that will corne into effect in the year 2006 (Tingle, 1998). The sports affected include the Formula One race, the Australian Motorcycle Grand Prix. the
CART race and the Ladies? Masters golf tournament (Johnston. 1998). The reason for choosing the year 2006 as a target date is that it allows these events time to find new sponsors so that the events will not be sent to other countries (Tingle,
1998).
Summaw
This review of literature has examined sponsorship as it relates to tobacco support of sporting events. A singular consistent definition of sponsorship was not apparent in the literature, however, a definition that relates to this study was found in Mullin, Hardy, and Sutton ( 1993). There are many reasons why corporations sponsor sport. The two most popular reasons indicated in the literature seem to be improving corporate image and increasing the awareness of a Company (Gardner
& Shuman, 1987; McDonald, Musante, & Milne, 1998; Shanklin & Kuzma,
1992). Further, the objective of matching an image of a sponsor with the appropriate image portrayed by an event. nie difference between sponsonhip and advertising was explored with the main reason being that there is more control on the part of the corporation in advertising as well as the reaction an audience may have to sponsonhip or advertising (Meenaghan, 199 la). Finally, tobacco sponsorship of sport was exarnined in reference to recent legislation in Canada and other countries around the worid.
For evidence of the importance of tobacco sponsorship to certain sports, one must only look towards the 1999 Formula One race schedule. China and
Malaysia have been added to the schedule to cornpiement the Japanese Grand
Prix. "The 'Asian triangle' of cigarette fnendly races marks a departure from the iraditional European venues in the light of increasing hostility towards the tobacco funding of Formula One" (Richardson, l998b). CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter outlines the procedures used to investigate tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada. This chapter is presented in five sections which include: (a) Research Design; (b) Study Population; (c) Instrumentation; (d) Data
Collection Procedures, and; (e) Data Analysis Procedures.
Research Desia
The researcher investigated the perceptions held by tobacco companies and sport event organizers as to the future of tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada with the implementation of the Tobacco Act. The purpose of this descriptive study was to explore and descnbe the effects of Bill C-7 1 on tobacco companies and the sporting events receiving sponsorship îùnding. The sport event organizers and tobacco Company marketing managers were selected on the basis of their involvement with the implementation of tobacco sponsorship in major sporting events across Canada.
Using the Delphi technique. qualitative and quantitative measures were used to gather data the anticipated effects of Bill C-7 1 on tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada. The future of tobacco sponsorship as well as the future of certain events was deterrnined using the Delphi technique as well as sponsorship strategies of tobacco companies and sponsonhip procurement strategies of event
organizers.
Patton (1 980) suggested that mixing qualitative and quantitative measures
is an effective way to strengthen the design of a study. According to Patton
(1 980), quantitative measurement relies upon "the use of instruments that provide
a standardized fiamework in order to limit data collection to certain predetermined response or analysis categories'? (p. 22). Convenely, qualitative measurement
"has to do with the kinds of data or information that are collected (p. 22). The researcher who uses a qualitative approach to measurement seeks to capture what people have to say in their own words.
There are many sources of measurement error, including misinterpretation by the population being studied and using an instrument that is not valid or reliable
(Emory. 1980). The design of this study was strengthened, and measurement error controlled by: (a) enriching the quantitative data collection and analysis procedures with the inclusion of qualitative data (Patton, 1980), and: (b) employing valid and reliable instruments.
Studv Population
The research called for a census of al1 tobacco brand managers and event organizers of large sporting events in Canada sponsored by tobacco. The population used for this study consisted of four marketing managers of the largest tobacco brands in Canada. As well, the organizers of major sporting events which receive sponsorship support fiom tobacco companies were surveyed. These included the event organizen of seven sporting events in Canada in the following sporting segments: golf, tennis, auto racing and equestrian.
The marketing managers for the brands involved in sponsoring sport were chosen because they are the individuals who make decisions on sponsonhip prograrns. "Sponsorship decisions are typically made in the marketing group which encompasses brand management tearns. advertising people, and others concerned with selling product and services to customen (Barker, 1997). This individual is the communication link with the sport events that they sponsor.
Within the tobacco industry, the brand managers would be considered the foremost experts on the topic of tobacco sponsorship of sport due to their involvement with the sponsonhip agreements with the sport event oganizers.
They must have an acute knowledge of the rules and restrictions that govem their participation in sponsoring events in Canada. The marketing managers participated in the Delphi questionnaire which comprised of three Rounds of data collection answering questions on the fuhire of tobacco sponsorship in Canada.
Event organizers were chosen because of their involvement in the implementation and fultillment of sponsorship requirements as outlined in sponsorship agreements with the tobacco companies who sponsor their respective events. The event organizers used in this study were the individuals who negotiated sponsorship contracts and thus would have an expert opinion on the implementation of tobacco sponsorship within their event. As with the tobacco brand marketing managers. sporting event organizers participated in the Del phi
Rounds.
The Delphi Technique offered the researcher the opportunity to include qualitative data in the study. By doing this, the quantitative data was enriched with qualitative data that allowed the respondents to expand on their responses. share their persona1 experiences and interactions, and discuss the implications in their own terms and in their own natural settings (Patton, 1980).
Instrumentation
The Delphi Technique "may be characterized as a method for structuring a group communication process so that the process is effective in allowing a group of individuals. as a whole, to deal with a complex problem" (Linstone & Turoff,
1975, p. 3). The Delphi technique was used to gain a census of the companies and event organizers involved in the study. The Delphi data collection procedure utilized in this study involved three Rounds. Prior to the begiming of the Round
One data collection, the three open-ended questions were vhetted for clarity by a panle of experts in spon management. The experts who pre-tested the instrument's first Round were Dr. David Stotlar (University of Northem
Colorado); Dr. Christine Brooks (University of Michigan); Dr. Denis Howard
(University of Oregon); Dr. Bob Sparks (University of British Columbia); and Dr.
Brenda Pitts (Florida State University).
The Delphi technique is utilized to improve one's vision of a potential future (Hentges & Hosokawa, 1980) and was first used by the Rand Corporation in 1953 (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963). The Delphi technique utilizes informed intuitive
judgements on the part of experts with the realization that projections of the future
are large1y based upon their personal expectations (McElary, 1988).
The objectives of a Delphi study were clearly stated by Dalbecq, Van de
Ven, & Gustafson (1975):
- To determine or develop a range of possible program alternatives.
-To explore or expose underlyuig assumptions or information leading to
di fferent judgements
-To seek out information which may generate a consensus on the part of the
respondent group.
-To correlate informed judgements on a topic spanning a wide range of
disciplines.
-To educate the respondent goup as to the diverse and inter-related aspects
of the topic (p. 1O- 1 1).
One advantage to using the Delphi is that the experts are not brought together in order to respond to the problem. In addition to the costs and time saved by elirninating travel. the respondents are not in persona1 contact with one another and consequently their opinions are not influenced by stronger, more dominant personalities (McElary, 1988).
The first Round of the Delphi Technique (see Appendix A) is generally a open-ended question or Iist of questions to a broad problem issue (Delbecq, Van de Ven, & Gustafson, 1975; Hentges & Hosokawa, 1980). The responses fkom Round One should be categorized or coliated in such a manner that repeated answers or statements can be identified as the sarne idea (McElary, 1988). The basis for Round Two is devised from the solicited professional judgements collated from Round One (Boucher, 1980). Murray and Jarman( 1987) added that
"the Delphi method collection process recognizes those answers and opinions that appear most fkequently, then redistributes them for Merclarificationo' (p. 125).
Information for Round Two (see Appendix B) of the Delphi data collection procedure exarnined the following measures based on the statements given in
Round One. Al1 were measured using a five-point Likert scale ranging fiom very low (1) to very high (5):
1. The desirability of the statement occumng
2. The probability of the statement occumng
3. The priority ranking of the statement occuring
4. The importance of the statement occuring
5. The impact of the statement occuring
The five measures used in this study were consistent with the measures used in previous Delphi studies (Boucher. 1980: Murray & Jarman, 1987; Chai, 1977).
Analysis of Round Two data included finding the mean, median and the standard deviation for each of the above statements. Standard deviations were calculated to indicated the levels of variance amoung the study participants. A lower standard deviation calculation indicated a smaller amount of variance amoung the study participants. Round Three of the data collection procedures called for sending the same questionnaire that was employed in Round Two with the addition of the statistics anaiyzed from Round Two (See Appendix C). This allowed the experts to review and compare hidher judgements with other respondents. During Round Three, respondents were given the opportunity to reconsider their initial response
(Boucher, 1980; Delbecq, Van de Ven, & Gustafson, 1975). If a respondant's answer was outside of the indicated range and he/she wished to rernain in that position, the participant was asked to provide a written justification why he/she did not want to converge.
There are some problems to be noted when using the Delphi technique.
These include:
- Imposing monitor views and preconceptions of a problem upon the
respondent group by overspecifj4ng the structure of the Delphi and not
allowing for the contribution of other perspectives related to the problern;
- Assuming that Delphi can be a surrogate for al1 other human
communications in a given situation;
- Poor techniques of summanzing and presenting the group response and
ensuring common interpretations of the evaluation scales utilized in the
exercise;
- Ignoring and not exploring disagreements. so that discouraged dissenters
drop out and an artificial consensus is generated;
(Linstone & Turoff, 1975). Data Collection Procedures
Data collection transpired in three separate stages. A pre-study letter was
sent to the marketing managers of the tobacco brands involved (see Appendix D)
as well as the event organizers which are sponsored by tobacco (see Appendix E).
The letters were designed to inforrn them of the purpose and importance of the
study as well as to outline the level and nature of participation that would be
necessary fiom them.
Each tobacco brand marketing manager and event organizer received the
Delphi instrument, and an explanatory letter detailing the study (See Appendix E).
Each participant received a personalized package and was requested to retum the
information as quickly as possible in the stamped, self-addressed envelope
included in the package- Al1 participants in the study were assured that
confidentiality would be maintained to the highest degree possible.
In order to increase the response rate. a four step non-response procedure was employed. Non-respondents to the sponsorship questionnaire were given two weeks before they were faxed a follow-up reminder (see Appendix F). After an additional week, a phone cal1 was placed to non-respondents. After fourteen days. a second phone cal1 was placed to those who indicated interest in the study, but had yet to return their completed questionnaire. This process was carried out to provide assurance that non-respondents did not substantially differ from respondents. For the Delphi instrument, the first response time period followed the plan outlined above, however for subsequent Rounds, participants were given less time before a follow-up fax was sent (7 days). AAer an additional seven days.
a phone cal1 was placed to non-respondents. Fourteen days after the fax was sent,
a second phone cal1 was placed to those who had indicated interest in the study.
but had yet to retum their completed questionnaire.
Data Analvsis Procedures
Research questions outlined in Chapter One were examined using the
Modified Delphi technique. This consisted of three Rounds of data collection and
was consistent with the objectives of each research question. After each Round,
the data were summarized and sent out again to obtain further information. AAer three Rounds of qualitative date collection, conclusions were made based on the
information provided by the tobacco brand managers and the event directors of tobacco sponsored sporting events. CHAPTER IV RESULTS
This chapter contains the results of the modified Delphi Technique analysis procedure. The data were collected from tobacco company brand managers as well as organizers of major tobacco sponsored sporting events. This chapter is presented in three sections which include: (a) Round One - Delphi Technique; (b)
Round Two - Delphi Technique, and; (c) Round Three - Delphi Technique.
Round One - Dei~hiTechniaue
Prior to the sport event organizers and tobacco brand managers answenng the Round One questionnaire, it was distributed to five experts in the field of sport management. The open-ended questions were tested for content and face validity and retumed to the researcher. Al1 the sport management experts retumed comments and suggestions for a response rate of 100%. Most of the suggested changes dealt with the specific wording of the questions. AAer revisions. the
Round One questionnaire consisted of three open-ended statements which were distnbuted to the study population (see Appendix A).
The study population used in the Round One data collection consisted of four tobacco brand managers and seven sport event organizers. Of the eleven individuals, nine responded to Round One for a response rate of 82%. The two non-respondents indicated a level of discornfort in completing the questionnaire given the controversy involved with the issue being surveyed. Both non- respondents represented the auto racing segment of the study, which received
sponsorship monies by tobacco brands at the non-title sponsor level. Al1 of the
sporting event respondents were receiving title sponsorship from tobacco
companies at the time of this study. After Round One, the study population
consisted of the four tobacco brand managers and five event organizers.
The replies from the Round One questionnaire were used to formulate the
statements to be used in the Round Two and three questionnaires involved in the
Delphi Technique. A summary of the statements will be presented in the final chapter.
Round Two - Del~biTechniaue In Round Two of the Delphi Technique (see Appendix B), the researcher categorized and collated the responses fiom Round One in such a manner that repeated answers or statements were identified as the same idea. This process led to the development of eighteen different statements to be analyzed by the panel of experts consisting of four tobacco brand managers and five sport event organizers.
AI1 were measured using a five-point Likert scale (l=very low to 5=very high).
The statements were ranked on the following criteria:
1. The desirability of the statement occurring
2. The probability of the statement occurring
3. The priority ranking of the statement occuring
4. The importance of the statement occuring; and
5. The impact of the statement occurring; nie data analysis of the Round Two questionnaire called for the researcher
to calculate the mean, median and standard deviation of the responses received.
Of the nine participants, seven responded to Round Two for a response rate of
78%. The seven respondents consisted of four tobacco brand managers and three
sport event organizers.
The fint statement of the Round Two questionnaire asked the study
participants whether or not they thought the tobacco legislation would eliminate
tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada (see Table I ).
The responses for the group as a whole yielded a very low desirability of
this occumng but a high probability. The priority of the statement becoming true
was found to be average with a standard deviation of over one. The importance
was also found to be average with a wide range of variability. The impact of
tobacco sponsorship of sport disappearing was found to be very hi& according to the study participants.
When the results are analyzed for tobacco brand managers (see Table 2) and event organizers (see Table 3). there are some slight differences in opinion as to the probability, priority and impact of statement one becoming true. Tobacco brand managers gave a higher ratine for the priority and impact of the statement becoming true while event organizers ranked the probability as being very high Table 1
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Croup - Round 2
S 1 .The tobacco legislation (The Tobacco Act) will effectively wipe out tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.2 Very Low 0.4 1
Probability 4.2 Hi@ 0.4 4
Prioriîy 3.0 Average 1.2 3.5
Importance 3.3 Average 1.1 4
Impact 4.7 Very High 0.5 5
Table 2
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Tobacco - Round 2
S 1 .The tobacco legislation (The Tobacco Act) will effectively wipe out tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1 .O Very Low 0.0 1
Probability 4.0 High 0.0 4
Priority 3.3 Average 1.3 4
Importance 3.3 Average 1.3 4
Impact 5.0 Very High 0.0 5 Table 3
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Events - Round 2
S 1 .The tobacco legislation (The Tobacco Act) will effectively wipe out tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.3 Very Low 0.5 1
Probability 4.7 Very High 0.5 5
Priority 2.3 Low 0.5 2
Importance 3.3 Average 0.5 3
Impact 4.0 High 0.0 4 The second statement of the Round Two questionnaire dealt with the title sponsor option which exists with most of the sporting events surveyed and whether or not this option could still exist with the current federal legislation (see
Table 4). The results showed that the desirability and pnority of this happening were average or low while the probability, importance and impact were towards the hi@ or very hi& end of the Likert scale. When the results were analyzed for tobacco brand managers (see Table 5) and event organizers (see Table 6) seperately, tobacco brand managers gave a higher desirability rating for the desirability rating and there was a slightly higher probability rating by event organizers compared with the tobacco brand managers.
The third statement also dealt with the title sponsorship theme but asked whether or not tobacco companies could feasibly participate in sponsoring sport if other title sponsors were found (see Table 7). The desirability of this happening was high but the probability was found to be low. Priority and importance measures were al1 bund to be average to high while impact was less than average.
When the results are analyzed for Tobacco brand managers (see Table 8) and event organizers (see Table 9). the largest differences are found in the impact and priotity measures. The tobacco brand managers ranked priority higher than the event organizers while event organizers ranked the impact of statement three as being higher than did the tobacco brand managers. Table 4
Mean. Median and Standard Deviation Scores for gr ou^ - Round 2
S2. As a result of Bill C-7 1, the title sponsor option will no longer exist for tobacco companies
------Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 2.7 Average 1.4 3
Probability 4.5 Very High 0.5 4.5
Priority 2.5 Average 0.8 3
Importance 3.7 Hi& 0.9 4
Impact 4.3 High 0.5 4
Table 5
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Tobacco - Round 2
S2. As a result of Bill C-7 1, the title sponsor option will no longer exist for tobacco companies
- - Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 3.3 Average 1.3 4
Probability 4.3 High 0.4 4
Priority 2.5 Average 0.9 3
Importance 3.5 High 0.9 3
Impact 4.3 High 0.4 4 Table 6
Mean, Median and Standard Deviatioa Scores for Eveats - Round 2
S2. As a result of Bill C-7 1, the title sponsor option will no longer exist for tobacco companies
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.7 Low 0.5 1
Probability 5.0 Very High 0.0 5
Priority 2.3 Low 0.5 3
Importance 3.7 Hi& 0.9 3
Impact 4.7 Very High 0.5 5
Table 7
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Grour, - Round 2
S3.Event organizers will be forced to find new title sponsors but might continue to use tobacco sponsors in accordance with Bi11 C-7 1
-- Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 3.3 Average 1.4 4
Probabi Iity 1.8 Low 0.4 2
Priority 3.7 High 0.9 4
Importance 3.5 High 1.1 4
Impact 2.8 Average 0.9 2.5 Table 8
Mean, Median and Standard Deviatioo Scores for Tobacco - Round 2
S3.Event organizers will be forced to find new title sponsors but rnight continue to use tobacco sponson in accordance with Bill C-71
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 3.3 Average 1.3 4
Probability 2.0 Low 0.0 2
Priority 4.3 High 0.4 4
importance 3.3 Average 1.3 4
Impact 2.3 Low 0.4 2
Table 9
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Events - Round 2
S3.Event organizers will be forced to find new title sponsors but might continue to use tobacco sponson in accordance with Bill C-71
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 3.7 High 1.2 4
Probability 1.3 Very Low 0.5 1
Priority 2.7 Average 0.5 3
Importance 4.0 High 0.0 4
Impact 4.0 Average 0.0 4 The fourth statement dealt with the ability of the current tobacco sponsored
sporting events in being able to find other sponsorship money from other corporate
segments (see Table 10). The priority, importance and impact measures were al1
very high while the probability measure was average to low. Desirability of this
happening was found to be hi& but the standard deviation was hi@ showing a
large degree of variability. When tobacco (see Table 1 1) and events (see Table
12) are seperated for analysis, the only major difference is that the event
organizers gave a high rating to the pnority measure while the tobacco brand
managers gave a very high rating to this measure. There were only siight
differences for the four other measures for the fourth statement.
The fifth statement of the Round Two questionnaire dealt with the
international status enjoyed by many of the sports involved in the study and whether or not this status would have to be downgraded (see Table 13). The desirability of this occumng was found to be very low with no standard deviation at al1 showing that al1 involved were against this occumng. The probability. however was found to be slightly above high. The pnority measure was found to be low while the importance and impact measures were both at the high level.
When analyzed for tobacco brand managers (see Table 14) and event organizers
(see Table 19, the major difference came in the pnority measure where the sport event organizers gave a high rating while the tobacco brand managers only ranked Table 10
Mean, Median and Standard Deviatioa Scores for gr ou^ - Round 2
S4. If tobacco sponsorship becomes more limited, event organizers will be able to find sponsorship money elsewhere to continue operating their events
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 3.8 Hi& 1.7 5
Probability 2.5 Average 0.8 3
Pnority 4.5 VeryHigh 1.1 5
Importance 4.8 VeryHigh 0.4 5
Impact 4.8 Very High 0.4 5
Table 11
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Tobacco - Round 2
S4. If tobacco sponsorship becomes more limited. event organizers will be able to find sponsorship money elsewhere to continue operating their events
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 4.0 High 1.7 5
Probabiiity 2.5 Average 0.9 3
Priority 5.0 Very Hi@ 0.0 5
Importance 5.0 Very High 0.0 5
Impact 5.0 Very High 0.0 5 Table 12
Mean, Median and Standard DeMation Scores for Events - Round 2
S4. If tobacco sponsorship becomes more limited, event organizers will be able to find sponsorship money elsewhere to continue operating their events
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 4.0 High 1.4 5
Probability 2.3 Low 0.5 2
Priority 4.0 High 1.4 5
Importance 4.7 Very High 0.5 5
Impact 4.7 Very High 0.5 5
Table 13
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Grour, - Round 2
Sj. Without major sponsors, some events will clearly have to downsize their international status
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.0 VeryLow O 1
Probability 4.2 High 0.4 4
Priority 2.2 Low 1.2 2
Importance 4.3 High 0.7 4.5
Impact 4.0 High O 4 Table 14
Mean. Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Tobacco - Round 2
S5. Without major sponsors, some events will clearly have to downsize their international status
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.O Very Low O 1
Probability 4.0 High 0.0 4
~nority 1.5 LOW 0.9 1
Importance 4.5 Very High 0.9 5
Impact 4.0 Hi& O 4
Table 15
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Events - Round 2
S5. Without major sponsors. some events will clearly have to downsize their international status
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.0 Very Low 0.0 1
Probability 4.7 Very High 0.5 5
~nonty 4.0 High 0.8 4
Importance 4.0 High 0.0 4
Impact 4.0 High 0.0 4 this statement as having a low priority. Also, the tobacco brand managers gave a
higher rating for the importance of the fifi statement.
Statement six prompted respondents to comment on whether or not a
replacement sector such as breweries or distilleries could replace tobacco
companies' sponsonhip of sport in Canada (see Table 16). The desirability of this
occumng was found to be hi& to very high. However, the probability rneasure of
low-average showed that other sectors stepping in to replace tobacco would be
unlikely. The priority? importance. and impact measures were al1 high showing
the importance of replacing tobacco and keeping the events in Canada. When the
data is analyzed for tobacco (see Table 17) and event organizers (see Table 18)' there. the tobacco brand managers ranked probability as being low while event organizers ranked this statement as having an average chance of becoming tme.
The development of Canadian sport talent was the subject of the seventh statement (see Table 19). Currently, the du Maurier golf program and Player's racing program use the sporting segments they sponsor (e.g., golf, auto racing) in
Canada to showcase the talent they develop through programs across the country.
The desirability of Bill C-71 impeding the programs in place was found to be very low. This, however was not the case with the probability of Bill C-7 1 having an effect on the programs in place as respondants retumed a high response. Pnority, importance and impact were al1 found to be high. When analyzed for differences between tobacco brand managers (see Table 20) and tobacco sponsored event organizers (see Table 2 1), there were only slight differences. Table 16
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for gr ou^ - Round 2
S6. There will be a replacement sector for tobacco sponsorship of sport (e-g.. breweries, distilleries, etc.)
Mean Value
Desirability 4.3 Hi&
Probability 2.5 Average
~nonty 4.7 VeryHigh
Importance 4.7 Very High
Impact 4.0 High
Table 17
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Tobacco - Round 2
S6. There will be a replacement sector for tobacco sponsonhip of sport (e.g.. breweries, distilleries, etc.)
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 4.3 High 0.4 4
Probability 2.3 Low 0.4 2
Priority 5.0 VeryHigh 0.0 5
Importance 4.8 Very Hi@ 0.4 5
Impact 4.0 High 0.0 4 Table 18
Mean. Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Events - Round 2
S6. There will be a replacement sector for tobacco sponsorship of sport (e-g.. breweries, distilleries, etc.)
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 4.7 Very High 0.5 5
Probability 3.3 Average 0.9 4
Priority 4.0 High 0.0 4
Importance 4.7 Ver-High 0.5 5
Impact 4.0 High 0.0 4
Table 19
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Groua - Round 2
S 7. Bill C-7 1, in its current fom will severely impede the development of Canadian Sport Talent for international competitions (e.g., women's golf program, auto racing programs)
Mean Value SD Median
Desirabiliiy 1.2 Very Low 0.4 1
ProbabiIity 4.0 Hi& 0.6 4
Priority 3.7 High 0.5 4
Importance 4.2 High 0.9 4.5
Impact 3.8 High 0.4 4 Table 20
Mean. Mediaa and Standard Deviation Scores for Tobacco - Round 2
S7. Bill C-71, in its current fom will severely impede the development of Canadian Sport Talent for international competitions (e.g., women's golf program. auto racing programs)
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.0 Very Low 0.0 1
Probability 4.0 High 0.0 4
Priority 3.8 High 0.4 4
Importance 4.5 Very High 0.9 5
Impact 4.0 High 0.0 4
Table 21
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Events - Round 2
S7. Bill C-71, in its current form will severely impede the development of Canadian Sport Talent for international competitions (e-g., women's golf program, auto racing programs)
Mean Value SD Median
Desirabiiity 1.3 Very Low 0.5 1
Probability 4.3 High 0.9 5
Priority 3.7 High 0-5 4
Importance 4.0 High 0.8 5
Impact 3.7 High 0.5 4 The tobacco brand managers ranked the importance of the statement slightly
higher than the event organizers and the event organizers ranked the desirability
and probabiiity slightly higher than the tobacco managers.
The eighth statement of the Round Two questionnaire polled studp
participants as to whether or not they thought tobacco companies would find
alternatives to sponsoring sport in order to promote their product (see Table 22).
Desirability and probability were both found to be averagehigh while the other measures were al1 hi@. When tobacco brand managers (see Table 23) and event organizers (see Table 24) were seperated for analysis, it was found that tobacco ranked desirability slightly lower but had higher ratings for ail other measures involved in the analysis of the eigth statement (probability, priority, importance. impact).
Bill C-42, which was the amendment to the original tobacco legisiation
(Bill C-7 1 ), provided for a reprieve of three years before the full ramifications of
Bill C-71 would be irnplemented. The ninth statement of the survey asked the study population whether or not they thought that tobacco companies would continue to support sponing events between October 1.2000 and October 1,2003
(see Table 25). The desirability and probability of this occurring was average while the priority, importance and impact were al1 hi&. When analyzed for tobacco brand managers (see Table 26) and event organizers (see Table 27). there were differences in the desirability and importance measures. Sport event organizers ranked the desirability of the ninth statement becoming true and being Table 22
Meaa, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for gr ou^ - Round 2
S8. Due to Bill C-7 1, tobacco companies will fmd alternatives to sponsoring sport.
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 3.6 High 0.9 4
Probabi lity 3.2 Average 0.9 3.5
Priority 4 Hi& 1.2 4.5
Importance 4 Hi@ 1.2 4.5
Impact 3.8 Hi@ 1.2 4
-- --
Table 23
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Tobacco - Round 2
S8. Due to Bill C-7 1. tobacco companies will find alternatives to sponsoring sport.
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 3.5 High 0.9 4
Probability 3.5 High 0.9 4
Priority 4.3 High 1.3 5
Importance 4.3 High 1.3 5
Impact 4.5 Very High 0.9 5 Table 24
Mean. Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Events - Round 2
S8. Due to Bill C-71, tobacco companies will find alternatives to sponsoring sport.
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 4.0 High 0.8 4
Probability 2.7 Average 0.5 3
Prioriîy 3.3 High 0.5 3
Importance 3.3 Average 0.5 3
Impact 2.3 Low 0.5 2
-
Table 25
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Grou~- Round 2
S9. Between October 1.2000 and October 1.2003. tobacco companies will continue to sponsor events abiding by the restrictions found in Bill C-7 1
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 3.3 Average 0-7 3
Probability 3 Average 0.6 3
Priority 3.7 High 0.5 4
Importance 3.8 High 0.7 4
Impact 3.8 High 0.4 4 Table 26
Mean. Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Tobacco - Round 2
S9. Between October 1,2000 and October 1,2003, tobacco companies will continue to sponsor events abiding by the restrictions found in Bill C-7 1
-- -
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 3.0 Average 0.0 3
Probability 3.0 Average 0.0 3
Priority 3.8 High 0.4 4
Importance 3.8 High 0.4 4
Impact 3.8 Hi& 0.4 4
Table 27
Mean. Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Events - Round 2
S9. Between October 1,2000 and October 1.2003, tobacco companies will continue to sponsor events abiding by the restrictions found in Bill C-7 1
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 4.3 High 0.9 5
Probability 3 Average 0.8 3
Prionty 3.7 High 0.5 4
Importance 4.3 High 0.9 5
Impact 4.0 High 0.0 4 high while tobacco brand managers gave this measure an average rating. As well. the event organizers found the importance of the statement as being higher than that of the tobacco brand managers.
The next ihree statements al1 had three components to them and will be surnmarized together. Statement ten asked whether or not respondants believed that tobacco sponsorship in Canada would cease to exist in (a) three, (b) five or (c) ten years. Statements eleven and twelve were the sarne with the exception that they asked whether tobacco sponsorship would cease to exist in North America and the World respectively. With respect to Canada (see Table 28), the study population found the desirability of tobacco sponsorship of sport ceasing to exist was low in three years and very low in both five and ten years. The probability for three years and five years was found to be hi& and changed to very high when the ten year option was given. The priority rneasure began at below average and moved to average at five years and above average at ten years. Importance was found to be high at ail three timelines while impact began at high-very high and became very high at ten years. When the tenth statement is analyzed for tobacco brand managers (see Table 29) and event organizers (see Table 30), there were some differences in al1 three parts of the statement (3, 5 and 10 years). The event organizers responded that it was slightly less desirable that the three year statement become me. Table 28
Mean. Median and Standard Deviation Scores for gr ou^ - Round 2
S lOa. Tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada will cease to exist in 3 years
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.2 Very Low 0.4 1
Probability 4.3 High 0.5 4
~nonty 2.2 LOW 0.9 2.5
Importance 4 High O 4
Impact 4.7 Very High OS 5
Meaa, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Group - Round 2 S IOb.Tobacco sponsonhip of sport in Canada will cease to exist in 5 years
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.2 Very Low 0.4 1
Probability 4.2 High 0.4 4
~nonty 2.7 Average 1.4 3
Importance 4 Hi& O 4
Impact 4.5 Very High 0.5 4.5 Table 28 (continued)
Meao. Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Groui, - Round 2
S lOc. Tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada will cease to exist in 10 years
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.7 Low 0.5 2
Probability 4.8 Very High 0.4 5
Prioriîy 3.2 Average 9 3.5
Importance 4.2 High 0.4 4
Impact 4.2 Hi@ 0.4 4
Table 29
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Tobacco - Round 2
S 10a. Tobacco sponsonhip of sport in Canada will cease to exist in 3 years
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.0 Very Low 0.0 1
Probability 4.3 High 0.4 4
Prioriîy 2.5 Average 0.9 3
Importance 4.0 Hi& 0.0 4
Impact 5.0 Very High 0.0 5 Table 29 (continued)
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Tobacco - Round 2
S lOb.Tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada will cease to exist in 5 years
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.0 Very Low 0.0 !
Probability 4.0 High 0.0 4
Priority 3.3 Average 1.3 4
Importance 4 High O 4
Impact 4.8 Very High 0.4 5
-- - - Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Tobacco - Round 2
S 1 Oc. Tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada will cease to exist in 10 years
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.8 Low 0.4 2
Probability 5.0 Very Hi@ 0.0 5
Prionty 4.0 High 1.7 5
Importance 4.3 Hi@ 0.4 4
Impact 4.3 Hi& 0.4 4 Table 30
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Events - Round 2
S 1 Oa. Tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada will cease to exkt in 3 years
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.3 Very Low 0.5 1
Probability 4.7 VeryHigh 0.5 5
Priority 2.0 Low 0.8 2 importance 4 High O 4
Impact 4.3 High 0.5 4
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Events - Round 2 S IOb-Tobaccosponsorship of sport in Canada will cease to exist in 5 years
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.3 Very Low 0.5 1
Probability 4.7 Very High 0.5 5
Priority 1.3 VeryLow 0.5 I
Importance 4 High 0.0 4
Impact 4 High 0.0 4 Table 30 (continued)
Mean. Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Events - Round 2
S lOc. Tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada will cease to exist in 10 years
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.3 VeryLow 0.5 1
Probability 3.7 High 0.5 4
Priority 1.7 Low 0.5 2
Importance 4.0 High 0.0 4
Impact 4.0 High 0.0 4 With respect to the five year statement, the event organizers gave a ve- low priority rating while tobacco brand managers gave this same measure an average rating and tobacco brand managers ranked the impact of the five year statement as being very high compared to a high rating fkom the event organizen.
When the statement asked whether or not tobacco sponsorship of sport would cease to exist in ten years, the event organizers again had a much lower priority rating than that of the tobacco brand managers.
The desirability of tobacco sponsorship ceasing to exist in North America
(see Table 3 1) was found to be average at three years and moved to very low at five years and low-very low ten years from now. The probability of tobacco sponsorship ending in North America was rated at average in the next three years and hi$ in five years moving to high-very hi& within 10 years. The priority measure was fairly average for the three options while the importance and impact measures were both either high or very high throughout the timeline.
When the results for the eleventh statement are analyzed for tobacco brand managers (see Table 32) and sport event organizers (see Table 33), there were differences in al1 three parts of the question. With respect to tobacco sponsorship of sport ceasing to exist in North America in three years, the tobacco brand managers had higher rating for the desirability and priority measure while they had a lower rating than the event organizen for the probability measure. Table 31
Mean. Median and Standard Deviation Scores for gr ou^ - Round 2
S 1 1a. Tobacco sponsorship of sport in North America will cease to exist in 3 years
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 2.7 Average 1.4 3
Probability 2.8 Average 0.9 2.5
Priority 2.7 Average 1.4 3
Importance 4 High O 4
Impact 4.5 Very High 0.5 4.5
S I 1 b. Tobacco sponsorship of sport in North America wiii cease to exist in 5 years
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.2 Very Low 0.4 1
Probability 3.7 High 0.7 3.5
Priority 2.2 Low 0.9 2.5
Importance 4.2 High 0.4 4
Impact 4.2 High 0.4 4 Table 31 (continued)
Mean. Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Group - Round 2
S 1 1c. Tobacco sponsorship of sport in North Arnerica will cease to exist in 10 Ye=
- Mean Value SD Media.
Desirability 1.7 Low 0.5 2
Probability 4.3 High 0.5 4
Priority 2.7 Average 1.4 3
Importance 4.2 High 0.4 4
Impact 4.5 Very High 0.5 4.5
Table 32
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Tobacco - Round 2
S 1 ta. Tobacco sponsonhip of sport in North America will cease to exist in 3 years
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 2.7 Average 1.4 3
Probability 2.8 Average 0.9 2.5
Priority 2.7 Average 1.4 3
Importance 4 High O 4
Impact 4.5 Very High 0.5 4.5 Table 32 (continued)
Mean, Median and Standard Deviatioa Scores for Tobacco - Round 2
S 1 1b. Tobacco sponsorship of sport in North America wifl cease to exist in 5 years
------pp - - Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.2 Very Low 0.4 1
Probability 3.7 Hi@ 0.7 3.5
Priority 2.2 Low 0.9 2.5
Importance 4.2 High 0.4 4
Impact 4.2 High 0.4 4
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Tobacco - Round 2
S 1 1c. Tobacco sponsorship of sport in North America will cease to exist in 10 years
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.7 Low 0.5 2
Probability 4.3 High 0.5 4
Priority 2.7 Average 1.4 3
Importance 4.2 High 0.4 4
Impact 4.5 Very High 0.5 4.5 Table 33
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Events - Round 2
S 1 1 a. Tobacco sponsorship of sport in North Arnerica will cease to exist in 3 years
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 2.7 Average 1.4 3
Probability 2.8 Average 0.9 2.5
Priority 2.7 Average 1.4 3
Importance 4 Hi& O 4
Impact 4.5 Very High 0.5 4.5
Mean. Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Events - Round 2 S 1 1b. Tobacco sponsorship of sport in North America will cease to exist in 5 years
Mean Value SD Median
DesirabiIity 1.2 Very Low 0.4 1
Probability 3.7 High 0.7 3.5
Priority 2.2 Low 0.9 2.5
Importance 4.2 High 0.4 4
Impact 4.2 High 0.4 4 Table 33 (continued)
Mean. Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Events - Round 2
S 1 lc. Tobacco sponsorship of sport in North Amerka will cease to exist in 10 Y cars Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.7 Low 0.5 2
Probability 4.3 High 0.5 4
Priority 2.7 Average 1.4 3
Importance 4.2 High 0.4 4
Impact 4.5 Very High 0.5 4.5 When the question changed to five years, the only major difference was
found in the pnority measure where the sport event organizen had a lower rating than the tobacco brand managers. The third part of the statement asked the panel of experts whether or not they believed that tobacco sponsorship of sport would cease to exist in ten years. The only notable difference was again in the priority measure where the tobacco brand managers gave an average rating compared to a very low rating by the sporting event organizers.
The last statement of the Round Two questionnaire asked the study population whether or not they believed tobacco sponsorship of sport would disappear around the worid (see Table 34) in the next three, five or ten years.
Desirability measures were al1 very low while probability measures moved from below average to above average to high. Priority among the study population was low or veq low while the importance measures were high-very hi&.
When the results from the twelth staternent are analyzed for tobacco brand managers (see Table 35) and event organizers (see Table 36), there were minor differences among the three parts of the questions. The two differences found were with the impact measure of the first part of the statement which asked the panel of experts whether or not they thought tobacco sponsonhip of sport would cease to exist in three years. The tobacco brand managers gave a very high rating to the impact measure while the event organizers found this measure to be high.
The other notable difference came when the question surveyed the possibility of tobacco sponsonhip of sport ceasing to exist in ten years. Table 34
Mean. Median and Standard Deviation Scores for gr ou^ - Round 2
S 12a. Tobacco sponsorship of sport around the world will cease to exist in 3 years
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.3 VeryLow 0.5 1
Probability 2.7 Average 0.7 2.5
Priority 1.3 VeryLow 0.5 1
Importance 3.7 High 0.5 4
Impact 4.7 Very High 0.5 5
-- .- -. . ..-- - S 12b. Tobacco sponsorship of sport around the world will cease to exist in 5 years
Mean Value SD Mcdian
Desirability 1.2 Very Low 0.4 1
Probability 3.2 Average 0.4 3
Priority 1.7 Low 0.7 2
Importance 3.7 High 0.5 4
Impact 4.2 High 0.4 4 Table 34 (continued)
Mean. Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Group - Round 2
S 12c. Tobacco sponsorship of sport around the world will cease to exist in 10 years
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.5 Low 0.5 1.5
Probability 4 High O 4
Prioriîy 1.5 Low 0.5 1.5
Importance 3.8 High 0.4 4
Impact 4.5 Very High 0.5 4.5
Table 35
Mean. Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Tobacco - Round 2
S 1Za. Tobacco sponsorship of sport around the world will cease to exist in 3 years
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.3 Very Low 0.4 1
Probability 2.5 Average 0.5 2.5
Priority 1.3 Very Low 0.4 1
Importance 3.5 High 0.5 3.5
Impact 5.0 VeryHigh 0.0 5 Table 35 (continued)
Mean. Median and Standard Deviatioa Scores for Tobacco - Round 2
S 12b. Tobacco sponsonhip of sport around the world will cease to exist in 5 years
-- Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.0 Very Low 0.0 1
Probability 3.0 Average 0.0 3
Priorïty 1.8 Low 0.8 2
Importance 3.5 Hi& 0.5 3.5
Impact 4.3 High 0.4 4
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Tobacco - Round 2
S 12c. Tobacco sponsorship of sport around the world will cease to exist in 1O y ears
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.5 Low 0.5 1.5
Probability 4 High 0.0 4
Priority 1.5 Low 0.5 1.5
Importance 3.8 High 0.4 4
Impact 4.8 Very High 0.4 5 Table 36
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Events - Round 2
S 12a. Tobacco sponsorship of sport around thz world will cease to exist in 3 years
Mean Value SD Median
Desirabil ity 1.3 Very Low 0.5 1
Probability 2.7 Average 0.9 2
Priority 1.3 VeryLow 0.5 1
Importance 4.0 High 0.0 4
Impact 4.0 High 0.0 4
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Events - Round 2 S i 2b. Tobacco sponsorship of sport around the world will cease to exist in 5 years
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.7 Very Low 0.5 2
Probability 3.3 Average 0.5 3
Prioriîy 1.3 Very Low 0.5 1
Importance 4.0 High 0.0 4
Impact 4.0 High 0.0 4 Table 36 (continued)
Mean, Median and Standard Deviation Scores for Events - Round 2 S 12c. Tobacco sponsorship of sport around the world will cease to exist in 10 y ears
Mean Value SD Median
Desirability 1.7 Low 0.5 2
Probability 4 High 0.0 4
Priority 1.7 Low 0.5 2
Importance 4.0 High 0.0 4
Impact 4.0 High 0.0 4.5 Again, the tobacco brand managea responded with a very hi& rating for impact while event organizen responded with a high rating.
Round Three - Del~biTechaiaue
The third Round of the Modified Delphi Technique called for the researcher to analyze the data fkom Round Two and remit to the study participants so they could modiQ their answers in light of the group responses that have been reported. nie results nom Round Two were embedded in the Round Three questionnaire as well as a column showing the respondent's initial Round Two response and a space to change the answer to a specific measure (see Appendix C). Of the remaining participants, al1 retumed their Round Three questionnaire for a Round
Three response rate of 100%. This represented four tobacco brand experts and three event organizers. Some of the replies included changes to previous answers while some opted to keep their answers from the previous Round. The statements that were affected will be summarized in this section including the changes to the mean and standard deviation as well as the final result for those measures (see
Table 37). If no change was required. the second Round summary served as the final result for that respondant. The changes found when tobacco brand managers
(see Table 38) and event organizers (see Table 39) were analyzed seperately and represented in the same manner as the group summary. Table 37
Mean and Standard Deviation changes for gr ou^ from Round 2 to Round 3
Statement Measure
1 Prioriîy 1 Importance 3 & Desirability -7 Importance 3 Importance 3 Prioriîy 6 Priority 8 Desirability 8 Probability 8 Priority 8 Importance 9 Impact 1oc Importance
Table 38
Mean and Standard Deviation changes for Tobacco from Round 2 to Round 3 S tatement Measure R2 Mean R3 Mean R2 SD R3SD Priority Importance Desirability Importance Importance Priori@ Desirabi lity Probability Priority Importance Impact Importance Table 39
Mean and Standard Deviation changes for Events from Round 2 to Round 3 Statement Measwe R2 Mean R3 Mean R2 SD R3SD
4 Priority 4 4.7 1.4 0.4 As Chai (1977) outlined, the purpose of Round Three of the Delphi
Technique is to note the possibility of a convergence of opinion or of obtaining a more refined group opinion. Of the changes made by the panel of experts most produced smaller standard deviations which represents the convergence of the group on those particular measures. The only exception was found in the priority measure of the sixth statement where the standard deviation rose 0.03 indicating a small increase in the variance in that particular measure.
In the first statement of the Delphi questionnaire, the priority and importance values were changed by study participants in Round Three. The priority of tobacco legislation eliminating tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada went fiom average to below average while the importance measure moved kom above average to high. The second statement dealt with the title sponsor option currently available to tobacco companies and whether or not they would be able to continue being title sponsors under the current legislation. The desirability measure changed for this answer from below average to low while the importance rating moved from hi@ to average. There was a slight change from average-high to average for the importance measure in statement three which asked whether or not event organizers would be forced to find new title sponsors while continuing to use tobacco sponsors in accordance with Bill C-7 1 . The priority for the fourth statement was changed from high-very high to very high with respect to event organizers finding new sponsonhip money other than the current money coming fkom tobacco. There was a slight change to the priority measure of the sixth statement which dealt with the replacement of tobacco sponsorship.
The majonty of changes came with the eighth statement. which asked whether or not tobacco companies would be able to find alternatives to sponsoring sport in order to promote their product. The desirability measure moved from slightly above average to hi& while the probability measure increased from average to average-hi@. There was also a slight change between the Round Two and Round Three values for the importance and impact measures. Finally, there was a change in the priority of tobacco sponsorship of sport ceasing to exist in
Canada in ten years. Rather than a response of average, the changes made in
Round Three chnaged the value of the response to hi&.
When the changes from Round Two to Round Three were analyzed. there were some changes in the differences between the two groups participating in this snidy. Most of the changes in Round Three came from tobacco brand managers.
The singular change by event organizers came with the priority measure of the fourth statement. The value for this measure moved from 4 to 4.7 which also moved the event organizers response into the very high rating given by tobacco brand managers. The tobacco brand managers value for the priority of the first statement changed fiom above average to below average which moved it closer to the event organizers response of low. The desirability measure of tobacco brand managers changed fiom above average (3.3) to a rating of low which also moved the group response for tobacco brand managers closer to the low rating of event organizers. Another change which moved tobacco event organizers closer to the event organizers was found in the priority rating of the sixth statement where the value shified down slightly but remained very high. The eighth statement produced four changes in the group response fiom tobacco brand managen and moved them apart fiom the responses on the probability, priority and importance measures. However, the change in the desirability measure made the response by tobacco brand managers and event organizers exactly the same. Another change which moved the two groups fùrther apart was the change made by tobacco brand managers with respect to the importance rating of the third statement. The tobacco response moved fiom above average (3.3) to below average (2.8) while to event response remained at a hi& rating.
Changes in the standard deviation within the expert groups was also seen between rounds two and three. The goal of the Delphi Technique is to try and get the study group to converge duhg Round Three of the data collection procedure.
The Round Three standard deviations of the tobacco brand managers al1 moved closer together except for the pnority rating of the sixth statement which showed a slight increase. The standard deviation of the change made by the event organizers also decreased the standard deviation among the experts showing a higher level of agreement on that particular measure. CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this descriptive study was to examine the perceptions and perspectives of tobacco cornpanies in relation to the sponsorship of sporting events in Canada and to determine their strategic plans for hiture sponsorship given the adoption of the Federal tobacco legislation. This chapter contains a sumrnary and interpretation of the results of this study along with a discussion of the implications of the findings. The chapter is presented in four sections, which include: (a) Summary and Discussion of the Findings; (b) Conclusions: (c)
Implications for Sport Management. and; (d) Recommendations for Future
Research.
Summary and Discussion of the Findines
Improving corporate image and awareness have been found to be primary reasons for corporate sponsorship of sport (Gardner & Shurnan, 1987; Shanklin &
Kuzma, 1992). Cigarette companies claim there are two reasons why they continue to sponsor sporting events. "One reason cited is that they are trying to reinforce brand loyalty, and the other is to switch brand loyalty?'(Turco, 1999, p.
63). With their sponsorship of high profile sporting events, tobacco companies are able to associate their brand with healthy and desirable activities, which often leads to an improved image for their brand and/or Company. The Tobacco Act (Bill C-71K-42) in Canada and federal legislation in the
United States have attempted to regulate the North American sports sponsorship
landscape in North America. In Canada, Bill C-7 1 was met with strong opposition
from both the tobacco companies and sporting events that received sponsorship
funds fiom the tobacco companies. At the same time, anti-smoking groups
applauded the legislation as a way to finally end tobacco advertising of any kind,
especialiy the type directed towards the Canadian youth segment (National
Clearinghouse, 1999). Whether or not this will occur has yet to be seen as the full
effects of Bill C-71 will not be felt until October 2003. However, the results of
this study may help with the predicting of what may transpire.
If the reasons tobacco companies sponsor sport is indeed to reinforce brand
loyalty and encourage brand switching, they should be able to adapt to the rules
set forth in The Tobacco Act and continue to sponsor sporting events. The
problem lies in the fact that the primary thrust of The Tobacco Act restricts
tobacco companies' access to the youth market, which makes a return on their
sponsorship investment diffcult to justiQ. By denying tobacco companies' access
to the same media they've enjoyed prior to Bill C-7 1. and fürther limiting their
access to mainly adult read publications, tobacco companies are not able to
promote their product directly to the youth of Canada as effectively as the- have in the pst. This does not mean that children would not be allowed at tobacco sponsored sporting events, but does mean that children and adolescents would not be overburdened with advertisements prior to, during, and after the event. Sheikh (1997) noted that tobacco companies invested $60 million dollars sponsoring sports events. While some tobacco companies continue to sponsor the same sporting events, there are others who have changed their focus to other endeavours in order to promote their product An example of this is Rothman's which has withdrawn its sponsorship of auto racing. As well, while Player's is still a major player in auto racing, the effects of Bill C-7 1 and United States laws are being felt. "Air Canada replaced Player's as the title sponsor of the Canadian
Grand Prix .. . giving the Formula One motor race the non-tobacco sponsor it needed for its long-term survival" (Asociated Press, 1998). In the United States, whenever the Player's racing team cornpetes in any CART race. they cannot use the Player's logo due to rules set out in the American legislation stating that a tobacco Company may only sponsor one sporting entity per year.
Among other issues, the agreement restricts tobacco companies to
supporting one brand in each area of sponsorship. Because Philip
Moms already sponsors Marlboro Team Penske on the CART
circuit, it would have violated the letter of the agreement by
sponsoring the Player's brand (Grange, 1999, p.S5)
Player's is therefore restricted fiom using its logo to promote their racing team and their product to Canadians watching on television. Showing how resiliant and creative tobacco companies can be, Player's now uses "playersracing.com" on their cars and uniforrns. This is the name of the website created by Player's to promote their racing tearns in Canada and the United States. The innovation that Player's has shown in modiQing their brand name to comply with American legislation shows that 'loopholes' cannot only be found but also exploited.
The Tobacco Act, as passed by the Canadian government does not eliminate al1 fonns of tobacco sponsonhip. This is important to realize before an understanding of the results of this study cm be appreciated. Primarily. Bill C-7 1 eliminates many of the more lucrative benefits of sponsoring a sporting event in
Canada. Bill C-7 1 clearly States that: "a person rnay display a tobacco product- related brand element in a promotion that is used in the sponsonhip of a person, entity , event, activity or permanent facility"(Govemment of Canada, 1998b).
However, major restrictions include: (a) '*A penon may display a tobacco product- related brand element only within the bottom ten percent of the display surface of any promotional material" and (b) "A person may use promotional material that displays tobacco product-related brand elements in publications provided by mail to adults; in publications with over 85% adult readership; in signs or programs on- site at the actual event and in signs in a place where young persons are not permitted by law" (Govemment of Canada? l998a). These rules, while restrictive. do not impede a tobacco Company fiom continuinp to sponsor sporting events.
However, recent activity such as the replacement of Player's in the Canadian
Grand Prix and the replacement of du Maurier in tennis events indicate that tobacco companies are reluctant to abide by the rules in C-7 1/C-42.
The first Round of the Deiphi Technique used in this study allowed the researcher to gather qualitative data from the panel of experts which consisted of four tobacco brand managers and seven event oganizen of tobacco sponsored events. The study group answered three open-ended questions in order to determine statements to be used in Round Two of the study. The responses in
Round One showed that there was some discontent with the realities of the
Tobacco Act. Some of the responses included:
"Hundreds of event organizers throughout Canada are currently trying to secure alternative sponsors for their events. This is an incredibie challenge since there is a limited pool of corporate financial support for event sponsorships and most corporations are already associated with many events and worthy causes".
Another respondant added that: "It is impossible to know if every event will be successful in finding new sponsors before October 1,2003. If they are not siiç~essful~the event organizers will clearly have to either downsize their event or cancel it altogether". A tobacco executive stated their reasons for sponsoring sport by saying: "Tobacco brands sponsor events for two reasons:
to raise awareness of our brands within the cornpetitive tobacco industry;
to promote valuable events for the enjoyment of Canadians in communities throughout Canada''
The relative ability of organizers in securing sponsors was expressed in the following statement: "Organizers will have difficulty finding similar large fünding by a single sponsor and will have the daunting task of finding enough sponsors to make up the fûnding needed". Another study participant indicated the danger to existing peripheral programs by saying that the "Development of Canadian talent via such organizations as Fashion Foundation and Racing Prograrns is at risk". The objectives for sponsoring sport were the topic of the next respondents statement:
"Objectives are now even more crucial, given the legislative restrictions.
Sponsorships are more integrated with marketing communication vehicles to enhance the objectives of image, exclusivity and awareness versus other companies who sponsor sports events. However, unlike tobacco companies. non- tobacco sponsors can enhance their sponsonhip through additional sponsorship of other Iike events or other progarns? thus enhancing the achievement of their objectives9*
The next statements were the strongest of those compiled. An example includes that "It will put an end to major sporting events sponsorship by tobacco companies. especially as title sponsor". Another statement blamed the government by saying that The Tobacco Act "is draconian legislation that is designed to gain political points with little if any regard to the heart of the matter, the stakeholders or the effects. No one ever started smoking at a sporting event"
Finally, an event organizer wondered why tobacco companies would want to continue sponsoring sport by stating: "Why would they or should they continue to sponsor? There would be no possible return on the investment"
Some of the statements above suggest the end of tobacco sponsonhip because of the Tobacco Act. However. the pkzyersracing.com example given earlier in this Chapter shows that tobacco companies cm seek and exploit
loopholes.
Rounds Two and niree of the Delphi Technique used in this study allowed
the researcher to gather quantitative data based on the statements gathered fiom
Round One. Study participants provided their professional opinions on the
desirability, probability. priority, importance and impact of 19 different statements
being or becoming ?me.
The likelihood of Bill C-7 1 eliminating tobacco sponsonhip of sport was
exarnined by the first statement of Rounds Two and Three of the Delphi-based data collection procedures. which was worded as follows:
SI The tobacco legislation (Bill C-71)will effectively 'wipe out' tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada.
The results showed that this would likely occur in some marner while. at the same time the study participants did not want this to occur. The impact of this statement becoming true was deemed to be very high. The strong results such as a very low desirability factor and a hi@ probability factor show that Bill C-71 is indeed going to have a large impact on the tobacco sponsorship landscape in
Canada. However, the probability was not an ovewhelming majority where al1 study participants believed that Bill C-7 1 would eliminate tobacco sponsorship of sport. This may be due to the fact that tobacco companies do sponsor some adventure sports which they can promote in "adult" establishments such as bars and magazines with adult readership which would still adhere to the restrictions of
Bill C-71.
When the results were analyzed seperatinp tobacco brand managers and
event organizers, the differences found were with the probability and impact
measures. The sport event organizers found the probability of tobacco
sponsorship ceasing to exist in Canada as very high while tobacco gave this
measure a hi& rating. This could be due to the fact that the event organizers are
faced with the reality of losinp the sponsorship and believe strongly that there is
no chance that tobacco companies will continue to sponsor their events. The
lower rating by tobacco companies may be due to the fact that they feel somewhat confident that their coun case will be successful in overtuming Bill C-7 1 and C-
42. The tobacco brand managers found that the impact of the first statement becoming true was very high while event organizers gave this measure a high rating. This may be due to the possibility of tobacco companies losing their only major outlet to reach their target markets.
The title sponsor option presently available to tobacco companies was the topic of the second statement which was worded:
S2 As a result of Bill C-71, the title sponsor option will no longer exist for tobacco companies.
Title sponsorship is almost a necessity in today's cornpetitive spon marketplace. The title sponsor is the sponsor who generates the highest amount of exposure for the sporting event being sponsored. Without title sponsorship, the events affected by Bill C-71 would indeed find it very difficult to continue operation with the success enjoyed presently. The results for the second question showed a very low desirability for the elimination of tobacco sponsors as title sponsors while at the same tirne, the probability and impact were very hi&.
Events that are currently sponsored by tobacco are primarily title sponsored (i.e., duMaurier Classic Golf Tournament) with the exception of the Molson Indy's in
Toronto and Vancouver (did not participate in study) where Player's is simply a sponsor of the races. With the elimination of title sponsorship, it would be very difficult for tobacco sponsored events to survive. The option available to these events is to try and find another title sponsor. The Canadian Grand Prix successfully secured another sponsor in signing Air Canada (rather than Player's) as the title sponsor (Associated Press. 1998). When the results are analyzed for tobacco brand managers and event organizers, there are only slight differences.
The third statement was closely related to the second in that it attempted to determine whether or not tobacco sponsored events would continue to use tobacco brands as sponsors if they were successfûl in finding a new title sponsor. The statement was worded as follows:
S3 Event organizers will be forced to find aew title sponsors but might continue to use tobacco sponsors in accordance with Bill C-7 1. AAer October 1, 2000. many of Bill C-7 1's 'restrictions' corne into effect such as limiting sponsorship advertising to direct-mail brochures, publications with adult readership, bars and event sites themselves. The results of this question show a reluctance to believe that tobacco companies want to be restricted by Bill
C-7 1 and that they may discontinue their sponsorship after October 1,2000. This
has yet to be seen, but the low probability measure and average desirability
measure indicate that there may be some events that will be lefi without tobacco
sponsorship.
Tobacco brand managers disagreed with event organizers on three measures
of the third statement. Tobacco brand managers gave a higher rating for the priority measure while event organizers found the impact to be high compared to a
low rating by tobacco brand managers. As well, the tobacco brand managers
found the importance to be lower than the event organizers. The higher impact meaure by the event organizers could represent a certain discornfort over losing tobacco sponsors as their primary and title sponsors. The higher priority measure by tobacco brand managers could represent a certain degree of willingness in remaining involved with the events they currently sponsor until 2003. The replacement of tobacco sponsors is of higher importance to event organizers verifj4ng the higher rating given by event organizers for that measure.
lnherent to the survival of tobacco sponsored events is their ability to find new sponsors to replace or complement tobacco sponsors once the restrictions from Bi11 C-7 1 are enforced in October. 2000. The fourth statement of Round
Two and three of the data collection procedure was: S4 If tobacco sponsorship becomes more ümited, event organizers will be able to find spoasorship money elsewhere to continue operating their events.
The priority and importance of this statement was found to be hi& as both
tobacco companies and the events they sponsor would certainly like to explore the
option of finding new sponsors to ensure long term survival. If new sponsors such as Air Canada can be found, this gives the tobacco companies more flexibility in their sponsorship and a better oppominity to comply with Bill C-71. This is due to the fact that the event would have a major sponsor to replace the title sponsorship of the event and the tobacco sponsor could still, conceivably continue to sponsor that event in a reduced manner which is precisely what Bill C-7 1 intended.
However, the probability measure for this statement was quite low, demonstrating an uncertainty by the tobacco companies and event organizers that they will be able to secure new sponsors.
Currently, many of the sporting events that are sponsored by tobacco brands in Canada are major events on their goveming bodie3 calendar of events.
The du Maurier Classic women's golf toumament is one of four 'major' toumaments on the women's professional golf tour which is mainly dominated by events in the United States. Another example is the du Maurier Open Tennis
Championships held in Montreal and Toronto. The men's toumament is part of the lucrative Mercedes Super 9 tournaments and is one of the nine richest tennis toumaments in the world (Naylor, 1999). The were no differences in responses between the tobacco brand managers and the event organizers. The fifi statement of the second and third Round dea1t with the downsizing of international status due to Bill C-7 1 and was worded as follows:
S5 Without major sponsors, some events will elearly have to downsize their international status
The results of this statement demonstrated a unanimousl y low desirability of the statement becoming tnie. However, the probability measure was 'high'. indicating that the downsizing of international status would become a reality if the events were unsuccessful in securing new title and/or major sponsors. The results of this question align well with the results for statements two, three and four due to the fact that they al1 confinn a growing and imminent need to secure new title sponsors in order to ensure the survival of these sporting events in Canada beyond
October. 2003. The major difference between tobacco brand managers and event organizers was found in the priority measure. The tobacco brand managers gave this rneasure a low rating while event organizen rated this measure as having a high priority. This could be due to the fact that the success of the events on the international stage is the responsibility of the event organizers and they would not want to have their events downgraded due to a lack of funding fueled by a retreat of tobacco sponsors due to Bill C-7 1.
Where this new sponsorship money might corne from was the topic of the next statement: 56 There will be a replacement sector for tobacco sponsorship of sport (e.g., breweries, distilleries etc).
While the question was vague in the use of the word sector, the examples given demonstrate the general idea behind the word 'sector7. The results of this question showed a high desirability for the statement becoming true but a less than average probability . As well, the priority and importance measures were hiwvery high showing that the replacement of tobacco sponson is significant if not imminent. Apin, this casts doubts on the prospect of sporting events secunng major sponsorships from other sectors. The value of each event being considered by new sponson would have to be determined specifically in relation to their needs. As well, the value a Company gets for sponsoring a sporting event is never
*eoing to match the value that tobacco companies receive. This is due to the fact that potential sponsors other than tobacco have access to advertising medium such as television and print media that are not available to tobacco companies
(Ferguson, 1999). One possible replacement sector could be the intemet web site sector, which has grown over the last few years. When the results from this statement are analyzed for tobacco brand managers and event organizers, no si pificant differences are found.
An important and unique aspect of tobacco sponsonhip of sporting events is their involvement of Canadian talent through development programs separate from the major events themselves. DuMaurier is involved with a women's golf development program which highlights Canadian talent at events across the country and culminates with the inclusion of certain qualifiers in the duMaurier
Classic. As well, Player's has a well known and highly successfül race car driver development program which has brought Racing fans in Canada and around the world narnes such as Jacques Villeneuve (Le., FI world champion) and Greg
Moore (i-e., CART series champion). Without the involvement of tobacco companies, it would be difficult to justiQ the continuation of these programs.
Once again, the exposure the tobacco companies cm receive for their benefit by funding these programs far outweighs the benefit a bank, for example, would enjoy. The next statement of Rounds two and three of the Delphi Technique dealt with this topic and was worded:
S7 Bill C-71, in its current form will severely impede tbe development of Canadian Sport Talent for international cornpetitions (e-g., women's golf program, auto racing programs).
The results for this statement demonstrated a very low desirability of this staternent being tme while also yielding high measures for probability, priority, importance and impact. The high probability measure indicates that these programs may be in jeopardy. The reason for this could be the high cost involved in running these programs. Tobacco companies support the major international events. but they also support the development events that provide some Canadian talent at the International event. Without tobacco companies, the major events may be able to find new titlejmajor sponsors to fil1 their need. but the development programs may be too much of an expense for a prospective sponsor to accept. As in the previous statement, there were no significant differences between tobacco brand managers and event organizen.
In 1988, when tobacco companies were banned fkom advertising with Bill
C-5 1 (TPCA), they tumed to sport as an alternative to advertising. Companies see sponsorship of sporting events as a form of marketing through sport. The loopholes that allowed tobacco to sponsor sport were exploited until the advent of
Bill C-7 1 and C-42, which will essentially end tobacco sponsonhip of sport in
2003. Bill C-7 1 was intended to "restore tobacco promotion lepislation in Canada and correct what many in the health field saw as loopholes in the sponsorship provisions'? (Sparks, 1997, p.22). The next statement which the study participants were asked to respond to dealt with whether or not they believed that tobacco companies would be able to find alternatives to sponsoring sport in order to promote their brands. The statement was worded as follows:
SS Due to Bill C-71, tobacco companies wilt find alternatives to sponsoring sport
The results of this statement show that both event organizers and tobacco brand managers would like to see this happen while they also believe that there is a moderate chance of this occurring. These results show the restrictions that the tobacco legislation exerts over the tobacco industry. In the past, these same companies have been able to find other oppominities to promote their products to the general public. The Tobacco Act regulates against this by limiting access to the adult population. One segment that is not covered by The Tobacco Act is the world wide web which could become a very important tool for the tobacco industry to use in the promotion of their products.
When the results of this statement are analyzed seperately for tobacco brand managers and event organizers, there are differences in the probability, priority. importance and impact measures. In al1 four cases, the tobacco brand managers gave higher ratings than the sport event organizers. These results demonstrate that tobacco companies are attempting to fmd other methods to circurnvent the ban on sponsoship. As with Bill C-5 1 which provided for loopholes in the sponsorship provisions, tobacco companies are notorious for finding ways to promote their brands to their target markets.
Bill C-42, introduced to amend Bill C-7 1, set out stricter rules for sponsoring sport but allowed for a longer period to adapt and prepare for the onset of the elimination of tobacco sponsorship of sport. After October 1.2000. more restrictive measures will be in place for three years. After October 1.2003,
"no person may display a tobacco product-related brand element or
the name of a tobacco manufacturer in a promotion that is used.
directly or indirectly, in the sponsorship of a person, entity. event.
activity or permanent facility?'(Government of Canada. 1999).
The ninth statement of Round Two and three of the study was intended to survey study participants on the relevance of the following statement: S9 Between October 1,2000 and October 1,2003, tobacco companies will continue to sponsor events abiding by the restriction found in Bill C-71.
The results of this statement showed a certain degree of uncertainty as to the sponsorship of sporting events afier October 1,2000. The desirability was above average. but only rnarginally. As well, the probability was found to be average. This can be due to the fact that tobacco companies need to assess their return on investment if they continue to sponsor certain events under the restrictions. They may opt to sponsor one of the three years and see what exposure they can garner under the restrictions of Bill C-71 or they may discontinue their sponsorships altogether and leave the events to find new major andor title sponsors. When this question is compared to responses from other questions. the likelihood of tobacco companies continuing to spensor sporting events is positive. However. they will not be supporting these events with the sarne amount of money and will not be as involved with the development of
Canadian sport talent in tobacco sponsored deveiopment prograrns. Tobacco brand managers gave slightly higher ratings to the desirability and importance.
The higher ratings in those two measures could mean that tobacco brand managers are more prepared to support the events they currently sponsor under the restrictions of Bill C-7 1.
The next three questions dealt with a timeline for the discontinuation of tobacco sponsorship in Canada, North America and the World. The only mandated discontinuation of tobacco sponsorship is in Canada with Bill C-42. The United States has legislation in place that allows the continuation of tobacco sponsorship with brand specific restrictions while tobacco sponsorship around the world depends on individual countries. The questions were each subdivided in three sections asking whether or not study participants believed that tobacco sponsorship would cease to exist in three, five or ten years. The statements were worded as follows:
SI0 Tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada will cease to exist in (a) 3 years, (b) 5 years or (c) 10 yerrs.
S11 Tobaeco sponsorship of sport in North America will cease to exist in (a) 3 years, (b) 5 years or (c) 10 years.
SI2 Tobacco sponsorship of sport in the World will cease to exist in (a) 3 years, (b) 5 years or (c) 10 years.
The results of the Canadian statement showed a decreasing desirability for the statements being true while there was also an increasing probability over the years. In three years. Bill C-42 will. theoretically eliminate tobacco sponsorship of sport. The probability measure for al1 three timelines were not unanirnously
'very high'. This may be due to the fact that the tobacco industry still holds hope that they can successfully reverse The Tobacco Act in the courts, although a court date has not been set (Ferguson, 1999). The major differences between tobacco brand managers and event organizers were found in the priority measure of the five and ten year statements. In both cases, the tobacco brand managers gave a much higher rating than event organizers showing their concem in losing the sport sponsorship option which currently allows them access to some of their more important markets.
When the focus shified to North America, the study participants indicated that eventually, there rnay no longer be tobacco sponsorship of sport in North
America. The desirability measure began at below average and moved to low at
10 years. The probability measure at three years was below average, but this measure quickly moved to above average and high. The results of these questions illustrate the possibility that stricter guidelines in Canada and tougher laws in the
United States may eventually lead to the elimination of tobacco sponsorship in
North Amerka. As in the Canada statements, the priority ratings of tobacco brand managers were higher than those of the event organizen. As well, the desirability of the three year statement becoming tme was rated lower by event oganizer.
This may be due to the fact that the three year time fiame involves the events in
Canada directly due to The Tobacco Act.
The final statement of Rounds two and three dealt with tobacco sponsorship of sport around the world. The study participants found a generally average score for the elimination of tobacco sponsorship of sport around the world in the next 3.
5 and 10 years. Also, they found a low priority overall for these statements. This could be explained by the fact that this does not really affect the Canadian situation and that they are more concemed with their own needs rather than those which they cannot control. When the results for the three statements are analyzed for tobacco brand managers and event organizers there were only slight differences in the impact ratings given by tobacco brand managers in al1 three parts of the statement. In al1 cases, tobacco brand managers gave slightly higher rating demonstrating the global scope of sponsoring a sporting event. This is due to the fact that the sponsonhip of an event in Asia can be very important to
Canadian tobacco companies if that event is being shown in whole or part on
Canadian television.
Overall, the responses to Rounds one, two and three of the Delphi
Technique showed a low desirability for the elimination, in whole or in part of tobacco sponsonhip of sport in Canada. This coupled with a penerally hi& score for the probability measures of eliminating tobacco sponsorship does not bode well for the tobacco sponsored events currently enjoying funding from tobacco brands to promote their sport and the brand narne in question. As was the case with the Montreal Grand Prix (which changed from Player's to Air Canada). most of the sports involved in tobacco sponsorship (e.g., tennis, golf, equestrïan, auto racing) wiil have to search for new sponsors to replace tobacco by 2000 or 2003.
The füture depends on the retum on investment tobacco can realize or believes they cmrealize under the restrictions of the federal tobacco legislation.
Conclusions
The Federal Tobacco legislation (Bill C-71K-42) had a purpose to :O' reglate the manufacture, sale. labelling and pomotion of tobacco products"
(Government of Canada, 1998a). What this means in terms of tobacco sponsorship of sport is beginning to become clear. With the stronger stand in Bill C-42, the Canadian government has effectively initiated the retreat of tobacco companies' sponsorship of major sporting events in Canada.
While they can continue to sponsor sporting and cultural events until the year 2003 (under Bill C-42), many tobacco brands seem to be opting out of event sponsonhip, thus forcing event organizen to fmd new major sponsors to replace them and maintain the viability of these events. Recently, the du Maurier Open tennis tournament based in Montreal announced that they had successfully found a replacement sponsor for du Maurier which will begin sponsoring the event in 200 1
(Tebbun, 2000). As well, the fashion industry leamed that Matinee will no longer be sponsoring fashion events in Canada (Habib, 2000). This occurrence, coupled with the early exit of Player's from the Canadian Grand Prix, leads the researcher to believe that tobacco companies will be very reluctant partners with sporting events under the new restrictions. There may be some involvement by some of the tobacco brands over the next three years, but this will undoubtedly be at a much smaller level than is currently enjoyed by event organizen.
The results of the Round Two and three data collection procedures also point to a mass exodus of tobacco brand sponsorship of sport. Many questions dealt with the elimination of tobacco sponsorship of sport after Bill C-42 takes effect in October, 2000. The responses generally showed that there would be a severely reduced presence of tobacco companies in sport while at the same time, they showed very low desirability ratings for ending their involvement in major
Canadian sporting events. A review of the major issues involved in tobacco sponsorship of spon clearly demonstrates the need for tobacco legislation of sponsonhip properties.
As Crompton (1 993) indicated. the "linkage obscures the comection between cigarettes and chewing tobacco, and disease" (p. 15 1). Also, tobacco companies' association with sport allows brand narnes and images to penetrate the youth market. Underage smoking is one of the major factors of any smoking debate and was central to the Canadian government's legislation including the restrictions levied on sponsorship of sporting events. A third issue in the tobacco sponsorship argument is the fact that sponsorship ciosely mirrors advertising. Thus. sponsoring sport allows tobacco companies to circumvent the ban on advertising.
The Tobacco Act attempts to close the loop-holes which were present in the previous legislation.
The resuits of this study prompted the researcher to make the following eight conclusions:
1. The tobacco legislation. as amended, will eiiminate the current form of
tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada by 200 1 (Le.. title sponsorship etc).
Some form of tobacco promotion will continue to exist between 200 1-2003
for certain events with the discontinuation of tobacco sponsorship of sport
altogether coming in 2003.
.7 Some event organizen will find new title sponsors as well as other sponsors
to cover possible shortfalls in the overall financial contributions currently
enjoyed with tobacco companies. If no new major sponsors are found, the events affected may have to
downsize their international "major" status hurting not only the event but
the local economies where the events are held and the image of Canada as a
major player in professional sports.
The development of Canadian sport talent through such programs as the
duMaurier Golf program and the Player's auto racing program will be
adversely affected due to limited sponsorship monies focused primarily on
the major event involved.
Tobacco companies will find alternatives to sponsoring sport in order to
promote their brands.
Tobacco brand managers found the priority of the elimination of tobacco
sponsorship of sport to be higher than sport event organizers.
Sport event organizers were more concerned about the elimination of
development programs than were the tobacco brand managers.
Tobacco brand managers were more confident that they would be able to
find alternatives to sponsoring sport once than the event organizers were of
this occuring.
As Turco ( 1999) outlined, tobacco companies have many other marketing opportunities available to them in light of the recent legislation. These include direct mail in which major tobacco companies already have extensive mailing lists of millions of smokers and rnay target them with stepped-up mailing and incentives. Another possibiltity is up-and-coming celebnties which may be paid huge sums by tobacco makers to smoke their brands in public. As well, retailers
could tum private property into tobacco promotions for new ad spaces. Countries
in Asia and the nine countries in the European Union (EU) that do not regdate tobacco ads will become "battle grounds" for aggressive cigarette market ing.
Another possibility is cause related events where tobacco makers increasingly will link up with hi&-profile research and charitable events. Finally, Intemet ventures and the use of web sites to promote brands and entities such as Player's racing will become the nom rather than the exception.
Tobacco companies have exploited sporting events to serve their own commercial purposes. The association of tobacco with exciting physical activities seriously undermines wamings of the health consequences of smoking and allows
Canadian youth to hold favourable opinions of both tobacco products and tobacco companies. Federal tobacco legislation aims to eliminate this association. It is clear that controls on tobacco product advertising can only be effective if indirect foms of advertising are controlled in an equally stringent manner. As the deadlines corne and go for Bill C-7 1/C-42. it will be interesting to note actions by both tobacco companies and event organizers with respect to the restrictions intended in the legislation. The study results showed that these restrictions may be ovenvhelming for tobacco companies to comply with but, as in the past. they may find a way to circumvent this ban on sponsorship. Implicatioas for S~ortManagement
The direct spending by Canadian tobacco manufacturers on sports sponsorship is an estimated $35 million dollars (How big, 1998). The results of this study have shown that a large portion of this money will no longer be available to sport managers that are involved in organizing major sporting events in Canada. This represents a large sum of money that needs to be replaced. A report commisioned by the tobacco-funded "Alliance for Sponsorship Freedomo' estimated that sixteen tobacco-sponsored events in Canada contribute $133 million dollars to the economy and generate 2,700 jobs. While these figures could probably be debated in many different ways, they represent a large void in the
Canadian economy if they are not replaced.
Sport event organizers in Canada have a daunting task ahead of them.
They may have to change the focus and/or scope of their event due to the reduced funding available to them because of The Tobacco Act. It is possible that the changes they may face mirror the changes seen in other Canadian sport areas (e.g.,
National Sport Organizations. Canadian University Sport) where the reduction of stable funding has led to program reduction and a desperate need to secure alternative funding sources. This section includes the four implications of this research with regards to tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada and the field of sport management.
1. Event organizers or Sport Management firins need to secure long-term
sponsors to assure the viability of their events beyond 200 1 and 2003. 2. Event organizen should be aware of the other opportunities available to
tobacco brand managers under the restrictions of Bill C-7 1/C-12 and see if
they can integrate them in their event promotions to continue to enjoy some
form of financial contribution fiom tobacco cornpanies. An example could
include web site ventures.
3. The financial viability of some events may becorne an issue once tobacco
sponsorship ends in 2003. There will no longer be a deep pocket approach
to the sponsoring of these events and the new sponsors will be seeking a
return on investment irnmediately. This was not as important to tobacco
companies as they were using their only avenue available to promote their
brands. There will be more turnover involved in the sponsoring of the
major sporting events in Canada.
4. The major changes about to occur in the Canadian sporting landscape will
allow Sport Managers ample oppominities to measure differences between
the old and new as well as the analysis of the effectiveness of the Federal
Governement's legislation.
Recornmendations for Future Research
Based upon the results of this study, the researcher generated twelve recomrnendations for fùture research:
1. This research was restricted to tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada.
There is a growing number of federal govemments attempting to legislate
tobacco sponsorship of sport including the United States. Future studies could include a cornparison of the successes and failures of tobacco
legislation around the world.
2. Future research could include the financial impact of the Tobacco Act on
the Canadian econorny. The full effects of The Tobacco Act would have to
be known before this study could take place, probably after 2003.
3. A statistical analysis of the impact of tobacco sponsorship generated
impressions and new smokers or brand-changing smokers would be
diff~cultbut could be usefül in arguing for or against tobacco sponsorship
of sport.
4. Studies on the effectiveness of internet advertising and intemet ventures
need to be done to help in the understanding of the effectiveness of these
delivery methods. 1s intemet promotion for tobacco companies viable and
if so, will they continue to expand their presence in promoting their brand
over the internet?
5. Future research analyzing another country such as France which has a ban
on al1 forms of direct. indirect and sponsorship advertising would be
helpfûl in undentanding the effects of the elimination of tobacco
sponsorship of sport.
6. The use of a different sample may help understand the impact of The
Tobacco Act. A possible sample could be the retailers which sel1 tobacco
products. 7. Canada is unique among developed countries in that our tobacco market is
dominated by domestic Canadian brands. In most of the rest of the world,
the tobacco market is dominated by global brands which adopt a global
marketing strategy. A study on the marketing practices of these global
brands would be usefùl in understanding the promotional opportunities
provided by the sponsonhip of major sporting events.
8. A study on the international opportunities presented by global brands in
circumventing individual countries could be done to highlight the
importance of sport in the promotion of tobacco brands. An example is the
tobacco sponsorship/advertising associated with Formula One Racing
Events which are broadcast on television in many countries with bans on
tobacco sponsorship.
9. The increasing popularity of "challenge events" such as white water rafting
and _mueling relays could be examined for their relationships with tobacco
companies that provide powerfül lifestyle advertising to the sponsoring
brand.
10. This study was limited to major event sponsorship. The Tobacco Act may
be tailored to smaller events. A study on the other events sponsored by
tobacco companies and their willingness to continue sponsorship would be
useful in understanding the complete effects of The Tobacco Act.
1 1. This study was also limited to sporting events in Canada and not Arts
programs such as Fireworks and Fashion Shows. The effect of restricted sponsorship on these events would also help in the understanding of the
effects of Bill C-7 1/C-42.
12. Clearly, the event organizers involved in this study have to be creative in
their approach to new sponsorship. One possible study could be to
determine precisely what sectors or groups they would target for new
sponsonhips and why. Aaker, J. L. ( 1997). Dimensions of brand penonality. Journal of
Marketing Research, 34, 347-356.
Abratt, R., Clayton, B. C., & Pitt, L. F. (1987). Corporate objectives in sports sponsorship. International Journal of Advertisinq, 5(4), 299-3 1 1.
Amis, J., Pant, N., & Slack, T. (1 997). Achieving a sustainable cornpetitive advanîage: A resource-based view of sport sponsorship. Journal of Sport
Management, il, 80-96.
Arthur, D., Scott, D., & Woods. T. (1997). A conceptual mode1 of the corporate decision-making process of sport sponsorship acquisition. Journal of
Sport Management, 223-233.
Associated Press ( 1998). Airline replaces tobacco Company as Canadian
Grand Prix sponsor. [On-line] Available at: http://~~~.sportserver.com/newsroom/feat~archive/O61 898/car502 19.html.
Barker. J. ( 1997. December 17). Sponsorship or charitable contribution -
What's in a name? [On-line] Available at: http://www.charityvil lage.~om/charityvillage/research/rspon5.html.
Barrington, S. ( 1997. April2 1 ). Canada's latest cig marketing regs under fire. Advertisine Aee, 68, p. 62. Beaudry, P. (1997). Advertising in racing. [On-line] Available: http://www.wsu.edu: 8080/-rnhooyer/ads.html.
Boucher, R. L. (1980, May). Forecasting for intramural and recreational programs: The delphi approach. National Intramural Recreation S~onsJournal, 4,
22-25.
Brooks, C. (1998, April). Self-destrovine Drocesses of mon soonsorship:
An omen for Amencan S~ort?Paper presented at the North Arnerican Society for
Sport Management 13" Annual Conference, Buffalo, N.Y.
Canadian Council for Tobacco Control(2000, May). Dornestic sales of cigarettes and fine-cut tobacco equivalents and tobacco tax revenues: Canada
198 1- 1999. [On-line] Available at: h~p://www.cctc.ca/ncth/stats/econ/gdb3b.pdf.
Callecod, R. L., & Stotlar. D. K. ( 1990). Sport marketing. In Parks, J. B.
& Zanger, B. R. K. (Eds.), Sport and titness management: Career strategies and professional content (pp. 73-85). Champaip. Illinois: Human Kinetics.
Chai, D.X. (1977). Future of Leisure: A Delphi Application. The Research
Ouarterly, a(3). 5 19-523.
Chidley, J. (1996, January 1). Tobacco's sofi sell. Maclean's, p.53.
Copeland, R., Frisby, W.. & McCarville, R. (1996). Understanding the sport sponsorship process from a corporate perspective. Journal of Soort
Management, u,32-48.
Comwell, T. B. ( 1995). Sponsorship-linked marketing development. Spon
Marketing Ouarterlv, 3(4), 13-24. Crompton, J.L. (1 993). Sponsorship of sport by tobacco and alcohol
companies: A review of the issues. Journal of S~ortand Social Issues, 73(4). 148-
167.
Crowley, M. G. ( 199 1). Pnoritising the sponsorship audience. Eurooean
Journal of Marketinp, 25( 1 I ), 1 1-2 1.
Cunningham, R. (1996). Smoke and Mirrors - The Canadian Tobacco War.
Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
Dalbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group
techniques for Droeram olanning: A mtide to nominal group and delvhi mocesses.
Illinois: Scott, Foresman & Co.
Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the
delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3),458-467.
Danylchuk. K.E.(2000). Tobacco sponsorship: Spectator perceptions at an
LPGA event. Soort Marketine Ouarterl~,9 (2). 103- 1 1 1.
Davidson. D. K. (1 996). Selling sin: The marketing of sociallv unacceptable oroducts. Westport, Conn: Quorum.
Dubey, A. (1995). Gotcha! Cigarette sponsorship ads fool teens. [On-line]
Available at: http://www.tobaccofacts.org/gotcha.html.
Emory, C. W. (1 980). Business research methods. Homewood. IL:
Richard D. Invin, Inc.
Ferand, A., & Pages, M. (1996). Image sponsoring: A methodolou to match event and sponsor. Journal of S~ortManagement, iO,278-29 1. Ferguson, R. (1999, June 17). Events in linbo over sponsorship. Toronto
Star, p.B 1.
Furlong, R. (1994). Tobacco advertising legislation and the sponsonhip of sports. Australia Business Law Review, 22, 159- 189.
Gagnon, L. (1997. Apnl 28). Sponsorship issue remains unsettled.
Marketing, 1 02, p.3.
Gardner, M. P., & Shuman, P. J. (1987). Sponsorship: An important component of the promotions mix. Journal of Advertising, l6, 1 1- 17.
Gardner, M. P., & Shuman, P. J. (1988, October). Sponsorship and small business. Journal of Small Business Management, 44-52.
Geekie, D. A. (1985). Sponsorship by tobacco companies: CMA's stand.
Canadian Medical Association Joumal, 13 2, 1252.
Gibson, G., & Mishra, R. (1998. November 17). States feel push for tobacco deal [On-Iine] Available at: http://~urw.f?eep.com/news/nw/qdealI7.htm.
Gilbert, D. (1988, Autumn). Sponsorship strategy is adrifi. The Ouarterlv
Review of Marketing, 6-9.
Government of Bntsh Columbia ( 1997). Tobacco use in British Columbia.
Government of Canada ( l998a). [On-line] Available at: http:/luww.parl.gc.ca~bills/govemementlC-71/C-7 13/21404eE.html.
Govemment of Canada (1 998b). [On-Iine] Available at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/bills/govemement~C-71/C-7 13121 404bE.html. Govemment of Canada ( 1999). [On-line] Available at: http://www.parl.gc.ca/bills/govemment/C- 1404eE.html.
Grange. M. (1999, March 22). Canadian flag shines in sponsorship flap.
Globe and Mail, p. S5
Habib, M. (2000, March 25). Unwavering Canadians. The Windsor Star. p. E3.
Hentges, K., & Hosokawa, M. C. (1980). Delphi: Group participation in needs assessrnent and curriculum development. The Journal of School Health,
50(8), 447-450.
Hong, F. (1997). Commercialism and sport in China: Present situation and future expectations. Journal of Sport Management, 11, 343-354.
Howard, D. R., & Crompton, J. L. (1995). Financine Spon. Morgantown.
WV: Fitness Information Technology.
How big (1 998). How big is the Canadian s~onsorshiopie? [On-line]
Available at: http://www.sponsorship.ca/p-issues-howbightml.
Irwin. R.L., & Sutton. W.A. (1994). Sport sponsorship objectives: An analysis of their relative importance for major corporate sponsors. European
Journal for S~ortManagement, 1(2), 93- I O 1.
Invin, R. L., & Asimakopoulos, M. K. ( 1992). An approach to the evaluation and selection of sport sponsorship proposals. S~ortMarketing m,1(2), 43-5 1. Johnston, D. ( 1998, September 23). Smoke fkee motor racing. [On-line]
Available at: http://www. theaustralian.com.a~:80/state/4295721 .hm.
Keller, K. L. (1 993). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, E, 1-22.
Koomen, K. (1997). The internet and international regdatory issues.
International Information and Library Review, a271-297.
Kropp, F., Lavack, A.M., Holden, S.J.S., & Dalakas, V. (1 999). Attitudes toward beer and tobacco sports sponsonhips. Sport Marketing Ouarterlv, 8(3),
49-58.
Kuzrna, J. R., Shanklin. W. L., & McCally, J. F. (1993). Number one principle for sporting events seeking corporate sponsors: Meet benefactors objectives. S~ortMarketin sz Ouarterlv, z(3). 27-32.
Lazanis, L. (1984, April). Sports sponsonhip requires marketing expertise. realistic expectations and social responsibility. Marketing News, 13, 11.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.)(1975). The Del~himethod:
Techniques and A~~lications.Reading, MS: Addison-Wesley.
Liesse, J., & Ryan. M. (1991). Marketers take the field by storm.
Advertisine Aee,- 62, p.26.
LPGA Tour (1998). LPGA Tour: The majors [On-line] Available at: http://www.lpga.com/tour/tmyhist~ihistindx.htm1. Madden, P. A., & Grube, J. W. (1994). The fiequency and nature of alcohol and tobacco advertising in televised sports, 1990 through 1992. Amencan
Joumal of Public Health, 84(2),297-299.
McCarville, R. E., & Copeland, R. P. (1 994). Undentanding sport sponsorship through exchange theory. Journal of Soort Management, 8, 102- 1 14.
McDonald, C. (1 99 1). Sponsonhip and the image of the sponsor.
European Journal of Marketing, a(1 1), 3 1-38.
McDonald, M. A., Mussante, M., & Milne, G. R. (1998). Saort s~onsorshio:- The role of oersonalitv matching. Paper presented at the North
Amencan Society for Sport Management 13~Annual Conference, Buffalo. N.Y.
McElary, K. J. (1988). Predicting the future develooments in the Canadian em~loveefitness and healthv lifestvle field usina the delphi technique.
Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Windsor.
Meenaghan, T. ( 1983 ). Commercial sponsorship. International Journal of
Advertisinq, 2, 5-3 5.
Meenaghan, T. ( 199 1a). Sponsorship - Legitimizing the medium.
Euro~eanJoumal of Marketing, a,(1 1 ), 5- 10.
Meenaghan, T. (199 1b). The role of sponsorship in the marketing communications rnix. International Journal of Advertising, lO( 1 ). 3 5-47.
Meerabeau, E., Gillett, R., Kennedy, M., Adooba, J., Byass, M.. & Tabi, K.
( 199 1). Sponsorship and the dnnks industry in the 1990%. Euro~eanJournal of
Marketing, -(Il ), 39-56. Mishra, R. (1998, June 18). Tobacco bill dies after vote in Senate [On-line]
Available at: http://www. freep.com/news/nw/qsmoke1 8.htm.
Motorsports and cigarette smoking (1998). [On-line] Available at: http ://fight-smoking-team.org/proposal.html#Motorsports.
Mullin, B.J., Hardy, S., & Sutton, W.A. (1993). S~ortMarketinq.
C harnpaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics.
National Clearinghouse on Tobacco and Health (1999). Sports sponsonhip and tobacco products promotion. [On-line] Available at: http://www.cctc.ca/ncth/docs/sp-sport-htm Accessed: September 7, 1999.
Naylor, D. (1999, Feb 5). LPGA may lose Classic as Major. Globe and
Mail, p. S 1 1.
Oneal. M., Finch, P.. Hamilton, J.. & Hammonds. K. (1987). Nothing sells like sports. Business Week, 48-53.
Otker, T. ( 1988, May). Exploitation: The key to sponsorship success.
European Research, 77-83.
Parker, R. (1997, February 24). Tackling the tobacco act. Marketing, p. 10
Patrick, B. J. (1997). Snuffing out the 1'' amendment: The FDA replation of tobacco Company advertising and sports sponsorship under the federal food, drug and cosmetic act. Marquette S~onsLaw Journal, 8 (1 ), 139- 1 79.
Patton, M. Q. (1 980). Oualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage Publications. Phelan, T. (1997). S~orts~onsorship: A studv of the relationshi~between athletics Canada and their cornorate uartners. Unpublished major paper.
Phelan, T., & Weese, W. J. ( 1998). Criteria for s~onsorshi~and suonsor satisfaction: A stud~of Athletics Canada. Paper presented at the North American
Society for Sport Management 13~Annual Conference, Buffalo. N.Y.
Richardson, C. (1998a, June 15). Canada reprieved for 5 years but no U.S.
GP till at least 2000.[On-line] Available at: h ttp://ww2.formula 1.corn/news/headlines/canada/hcanadareprieved 15june98. html
Richardson, C. (1998b, October 16). FIA Provisional F 1 Grand Prix dates for '99. [On-Iine] Available at: htip://mvw.formula 1 .com/news/headlines/japan/hcalender16oct98.html
Rulebook ( 1998). 1998 CART Rulebook [On-line] Available at: http ://~w.cart.comlrulebook/foreword.html
Sandler, D. M., Br Shani. D. (1989). Olympic sponsorship vs. ambush marketing - Who gets the gold? Journal of Advertisine Research, î9,9-14.
Schiesel, S. ( 1997. March 7). On web, new threats seen to Young. New
York Times, p. Al.
Shanklin, W. L.. & Kuzma. J. R. (1992, Spnng). Buying that sporting image. Marketing Management, 2. 59-65.
Sheikh, F. (1997, November 10). Nicotine fits. Marketing, 102, p.33.
Short, G. (1997). Canadian study reveals what motivates sports sponsors.
The sponsorshi~reDort, i2(9), 5-6. Short, G. D., & Irwin, R. L. (1998, May). The objectives pursued and pro~osalcriteria desired arnong Canadian monsors of sport. Paper presented at the
North American Society for Sport Management 13" Annual Conference, Buffalo,
N.Y.
Sparks, R. E. C. (1997). Bill C-71 and tobacco sponsorship of sports.
O~tionsPolitiaues, 2,22-25.
Stevenson, C. (1997). Changes to C-7 1 might Save races. [On-line]
Available at: http://www.canoe.ca~SlamMotor~portsCanadianGrdPrijun16-motor 1 .html.
Stoner, R. H. (1992). ZOOMPH cigarette ads: A cornpainson of international restrictions on tobacco sports sponsorship. Hastings International &
Com~arativeLaw Review, 15(4). 639-670.
Stotlar, D. K. (1993). Sponsorship and the Olyrnpic games. Sport
Marketing Ouarterlv, '(1). 35-43.
Tebbutt, P. (2000, April4). Replacement found for duMaurier Open. The
Globe and Mail, p. S2.
Teinowitz, 1. (1997. March 24). Justice dept. Iooks to FCC before probing web cig ads. Advertisine Aee, 6- p. 40
Tingle, L. (1 998, September 23). Minister plans to enforce tobacco sponsorship ban. [On-line] Available at: http://www.smh.com.au:80/news/8909/23/textlpageone 17.html. Tobacco bill does not restrict broadcasting (1998).[0n-line]. Available at:
http ://www. hc-SC. gc .ca/main/hc/web/datapcp/cocome/news/97 1 5 e .htm
Tobacco Timeline ( 1998) [On-line] Available at:
hnp ://www.tobaccofacts.orgltimeline6.html.
Turco, D.M. (1999). The state of tobacco sponsorship in sport. Sport
Marketing Ouarterlv, t3(1), 35-38.
Vlasic, B. (1997, July 21) Speedways who smoke. Business Week, 3534,
38.
Warner, B. (1997, June 9). A smoke-fiee web? The furor over tobacco marketing reaches the net. Ad Week, 38,60. APPENDICES APPENDLX A
DELPHI INSTRUMENT - ROUND 1 DELPEU INSTRUMENT - ROUND ONE
Questions:
1 a) How will the federal legislation restricting tobacco sponsorship of sport affect tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada?
1 b) Please comment on the possible effects on the following sporting segments: golf, tennis, auto racing and equestrian. Tennis:
Auto Racing
Equestrian 2) According to recent Canadian studies on sport sponsorship, the top reasons why corporations sponsor sport include promoting and fostering a favorable corporate image; exclusivity and increased awareness. Please comment on the importance of these objectives as they relate to tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada. 3) Please comment on sponsorship acquisition and potential target sponsor pools as a result of recent federal legislation. Will tobacco sponsored events continue to depend on tobacco companies in the fiiture or will their focus shifi to other opportunities due to the restrictions imposed by the federal legislation? APPENDIX B
DELPHI INSTRUMENT - ROUND 2 DELPHI INSTRUMENT - ROUND TWO
Instructions for Round Two
-Please answer al1 statements by ranking each one based on the following criteria: desirability, probability, priority, importance, impact -Answer questions with the perspective that you are an expert on this topic and that your answer re flects that expertise -Mark your answers on each scale by circling the appropriate nurnber (fiom 1-5) -Note: If answering using word processor - please bold appropriate response - It is estimated that this Round will take no more than 15 minutes to complete
Procedure for Round Three
-Afier al1 responses fkom Round Two have been received, the statements will be anaiyzed statistically to determine the mean, median and standard deviation for the responses -You will receive the sarne questionnaire as in Round Two, however, the responses of the group will be included for you so you may see where the rest of the group placed their response in relation to your response. -You will be asked to re-rank your responses -It is estimated that this Round will take no more that 15 minutes to complete DflPHl INSTRUMEMT - ROUND 2 QUE811WNAIRE NOTE: QLEA8E RENRN BY NOVEMBER 5/99
SCALE TO USE WHEN ANSWERING QUESTIONS
PLEASE CIRCLE APPROPRIATE RESPONSE
Statements
I.The tobacco legislotion (Bill C-71) will effectively wipe out tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada DESIRABILITY 1 2 3 4 5 PROBABILITY 1 2 3 4 5
IMPORTANCE I 2 3 4 5 IMPACT i -7 3 4 5
2. As a resuit of Bill C-71, the title sponsor option will no longer exist for tobacco companies DESIRABILITY I 2 3 4 5 PROBABILITY 1 -7 3 4 5
IMPORTANCE 1 2 3 4 5 IMPACT 1 2 3 4 5 3.Event organizcrs will be forccd to tïnd ncw titlc sponsors but migbt continue to use tobacco sponsors in accordancc witb Bill C-71
DESIRABILITY 1 7 3 4 5
PROBABILITY 1 2 3 4 5
IMPORTANCE 1 -7 3 4 5
IMPACT 1 -7 3 4 5
1. Iftobacco sponsorship becornes more limitcd, event organizers will be able to find sponsorship rnoney elsewhere to continue operating their events
DESIRABILITY 1 2 3 4 5
PRIORITY I 2 3 4 5
IMPORTANCE 1 2 3 4 5
IMPACT 1 -7 3 4 5
5. Without major sponsors, some events will clearly have to downsize their international statu DESIRABILITY 1 -7 3 4 5
PROBABILITY 1 -7 3 4 5
PRIORITY I 2 3 4 5
IMPORTANCE 1 -7 3 4 5
IMPACT 1 2 3 4 5 6. There will be r replacement sector for tobacco sponsorship of sport (eg., brewerits, distilleries etc)
PROBABILITY 1 2 3 4 5
IMPORTANCE 1 2 3 4 5
IMPACT 1 2 3 4 5
7. Bill C-71,in its current form will severcly impcdc the development of Canadian Sport Talent for international competitions (e.g., women's golf program, auto racing programs)
PROBABILITY
1 &7 3 4 5
IMPORTANCE
1 C7 3 4 5
IMPACT I 2 3 4 5
8. Due to Bill C-71, tobacco companies will find alternatives to sponsoring sport. DESIRABILITY
1 Ci3 3 4 5
PROBABILITY 1 2 3 4 5
IMPORTANCE 1 2 3 4 5
IMPACT 1 2 3 4 5 9. Between October 1,2000 and Ocâobcr 1,2003, tobicco cornpiaies will continue to sponsor cvents abiding by the restrictions found in Bill C-71 DESIRABILITY 1 2 3 4 5
PROBABILITY 1 2 3 4 5
IMPORTANCE 1 2 3 4 5
IMPACT 1 2 3 4 5
10a. Tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada will ce- to exist in 3 years DESIRABILITY 1 -7 3 4 5
PROBABILITY 1 2 3 4 5
IMPORTANCE 1 2 3 4 5
IMPACT 1 2 3 4 5
1Ob.Tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada will cease to exist in 5 years
PROBABILITY 1 2 3 4 5
IMPORTANCE 1 2 3 4 5
IMPACT I 2 3 4 5 1Oc. Tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada will case to cxUt in 10 years
IMPORTANCE 1 2 3 4 5
IMPACT 1 2 3 4 5
1 la. Tobacco sponsorship of sport in North America will case to exist in 3 yean
PROBABILITY 1 -7 3 4 5 PRIORITY 1 2 3 4 5
IMPORTANCE 1 2 3 4 5
IMPACT 1 -3 3 4 5
Ilb. Tobacco sponsorship of sport in North America will case to exist in 5 years
DESIRABILITY 1 -3 3 4 5 PROBABILITY f 2 3 4 5
IMPORTANCE 1 2 3 4 5
IMPACT 1 2 3 4 5 1 lc. Tobacco sponsonhip 01sport in North Amcricri will cuse to exist in 10 years
DESIRABILITY 1 2 3 4 5
PROBABILITY 1 2 3 4 5
IMPORTANCE 1 2 3 4 5
IMPACT 1 2 3 4 5
121. Tobacco sponsorsbip ofsport around the world wili cease to exist in 3 years
PROBABILITY 1 -7 3 4 5
IMPORTANCE 1 2 3 4 5
IMPACT 1 2 3 4 5
12b. Tobacco sponsorsbip of spon around the world will cease to exist in 5 years
PROBABILITY 1 -7 3 3 5
IMPORTANCE 1 -7 3 4 5 IMPACT 1 2 3 4 5 I tc Tobacco sponsorship of sport around the world will ccut to cxUt in IO ytars
IMPORTANCE 1 2 3 4 5
IMPACT 1 -3 3 4 5
THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR INTEREST IN THIS STUDY
PLEASE RETURN BY NOVEMBER S. 1999 APPENDIX C
DELPHI INSTRUMENT - ROUND 3 DELPHI INSTRUMENT - ROUND THREE
Instructions For Round 3
- The same questionnaire as in Round Two is king used, however, the results of the group are included so you may see where the rest of the group placed their response in relation ta your response. - You will be asked to re-rank your responses, if you wish to do so. - If you do not want to change your answer fiom Round 2, please leave the Round 3 column biank. - The group mean, standard deviation and mediaa are provided -It is estimated that this Round will take no more that 15 minutes to complete DELPHI lM8TRUMEWT - ROUND 3 QUE8TIONNAIRE NOTE: PLEAOE RETURN BY MARCH 4/00
SCALE TO USE WHEN ANSWERING QUESTIONS
Mean = V Mediand Standard Deviation=Underline
Sta temen ts
1.The tobacco legislation (Bill C-71) will effcctively wipe out tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada Your Response Round 2 Round 3 DESIRABILITY 4 -lu 2 3 4 5 (1) PROBABILITY 4 I -3 3 4U 5 (4)
IMPACT $ 1 2 3 4- us (5)
2. As a result of Bill C-71, the title sponsor option wiH no longer exist for tobacco companies
DESIRABILITY 4 1 2 U3 4 5 (4)
IMPORTANCE 4 I 2 3 u4 5 (4)
IMPACT 4 1 2 3 4U 5 (4) 3.Event organizcrs will bt forccd to find new titk spons~rsbut might continue to use DESIRABILITY 4 1 2 3U 4 5 (4)
PROBABILITY 4 i U2 3 4 5 (4)
IMPORTANCE 4 1 2 3u4 5 (4)
IMPACT 4 1 2 113 4 5 (4)
4. If tobacco sponsorsbip becornes mon limiteâ, cvcnt orgrnizcrs will bc able to îïnd sponsonhip money elsewherc to continue opcrating their cvcnts
PROBABILITY 4 1 2u3 4 5 (4)
IMPORTANCE @ 1 -3 3 4 -us (4) IMPACT 4 1 -7 3 4 -u 5 (4) 5. Without major sponsors, some events will clearly have to downsize their international status
PROBABILITY $ I -3 3 411 5 (4
IMPORTANCE 4 1 2 3 4U 5 (4)
IMPACT O 1 2 3 -u 5 (4) 6. There will bc a repl.cemcnt scctor for tobacco sponsorsbip of sport (cg., brewcries, distilleries etc) Your Response Round 2 Round 3 DESIRABILITY 4 1 2 3 411 5 (4)
PROBABILITY 4 I 2u3 4 5 (4)
PRIORITY 4 1 2 3 4- U 5 (4)
IMPORTANCE 4 1 2 3 4- U 5 (4)
IMPACT @ I 2 3 -u 5 (4)
7. Bi11 C-71, in its curnnt form will sevcrely impede the dcvclopment of Canadian Sport Talent for international cornpetitions (e.g., women's golf program, auto racing programs)
DESIRABILITY I$ lu 2 3 4 5 (4)
PROBABILITY 4 I -7 3 U 5 (4)
IMPORTANCE @ 1 2 3 4u 5 (4
IMPACT O 1 -7 3 U4 5 (4 )
8. Due to Bill C-71, tobacco companies will find alternatives to sponsoring sport.
DESIRABILITY 9 I -7 3 u4 5 (4 )
PRIORITY 4 1 2 3 u 5 (4)
IMPORTANCE 4 1 2 3 u 5 (4)
IMPACT $ 1 2 3 114 5 (4) 9. Between October 1,2000 and October 1,2003, tobmcco rompnies will continue to sponsor events abiding by the restrictions round in Bill C-71 YOU~Response Round 2 Round 3
DESIRABILITY 4 1 2 3u 4 5 (4)
PROBABILITY 4 1 2 u 4 5 (4) PRIORITY + 1 2 3 u4 S (4)
IMPORTANCE 9 1 2 3 u4 5 (4)
IMPACT 4 I 2 3 U4 5 (4)
IOa. Tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada will case to exist in 3 years
DESIRABILITY 41 lu2 3 4 5 (4)
PROBABILITY 9 1 2 3 4U 5 (4)
IMPORTANCE 4 1 7 3 -U 5 (4
10b.Tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada will cease to exist in 5 years
DESIRABILITY 4 lu 2 3 4 5 (4)
PROBABILITY 9 I 2 3 4U 5 (4
PRIORITY 9 1 2 u3 4 5 (4
IMPORTANCE @ 1 2 3 -U 5 (4) l MPACT 4 t 2 3 4U5 (4) 10c. Tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada will case to cxist in 10 yars Your Response Round 2 Round 3 DESIRABILITY 4 lu 2 3 4 5 (4)
PROBABILITY O 1 -7 3 4- Us (4 1
IMPORTANCE 4 1 2 3 4U 5 (4)
IMPACT 4 1 2 3 4u 5 (4)
1 la. Tobacco sponsorship of sport in North America will cerise to cxist in 3 ycars
PROBABILITY 4 1 -7 II; 4 5 (4)
IMPORTANCE 9 1 -3 3 -U 5 (4 1
IMPACT 9 I -7 3 4 U 5 (4)
IIb. Tobacco sponsorship of sport in North America will cerise to exist in S years
PROBABILITY O 1 -3 3 U4 5 (4 1
PRIORITY 4 1 2u 3 4 5 (4)
IMPACT O 1 2 3 4U 5 (4) 1 lc. Tobacco sponsonbip of sport in North America will cc- to exkt in 10 ycars Your Response DESIRABILITY 4 Round 2 Round 3 1 u2 3 4 5 (4)
IMPORTANCE 4 1 2 3 4u 5 (4)
IMPACT 4 1 2 3 4u5 (4) t 2a. Tobacco sponsorship of sport around the world will cease to exist in 3 ycars
PROBABILITY Q 1 2 U3 4 5 (4)
PRIORITY 4 le 2 3 4 5 (4) IMPORTANCE 9 1 -3 3 u4 5 (4
12b. Tobacco sponsorship of sport around the world will cease to exist in S years
PROBABILITY 4 I -3 3u 4 5 (4) PRIORITY 4 1 U2 3 4 C (4
IMPORTANCE 4 1 2 3 u4 5 (4)
IMPACT 9 1 2 3 4U 5 (4 12c. Tobacco sponsorsbip of sport around the world will cease to exist in 10 ycars Your Response DESRABILIW + Round 2 Round 3 1u2 3 4 5 (4)
PROBABILITY $ 1 2 3 -u 5 (4)
IMPORTANCE # 1 2 3 u4 5 (4)
IMPACT @ I 2 3 4u5 (4)
THANKS AGAlN FOR YOUR INTEREST IN THIS STUDY APPENDIX D
PRE-STUDY INFORMATION LETTER 1 am writing to you to introduce rnyself as a Master's candidate studying in the area of Sport Management at the University of Windsor. 1 am writing to gain support for my Master's thesis study that has been approved by rny thesis cornmittee.
My Master's thesis focuses on the area of tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada. As you are aware, The Tobacco Act @il1 C-7 1/C-42) has the possibility to change the sponsorship landscape of Canada drarnatically. 1 am asking you to participate in this study. This participation will consist of completing a brief questionnaire which will be delivered to you in the near hture. The questionnaire is part of the Delphi Technique which is the data collection procedure i have chosen for this thesis. The Delphi Technique will require responses to the open-ended questionnaire which will then be summarized by the researcher and retumed to a11 participants for a second and third round. Although the cornmitment 1 am requesting is minimal, the results have tremendous implications for my study.
The information vou ~rovidewill be ke~tstrictlv confidenthl. Your participation is critical to the success of this study. 1 will gladly share with you the collective fmdings upon cornpletion of this study.
Yours mly,
John McKibbon
YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS BRIEF STUDY IS IMPERATIVE
RESPONDENT CONFIDENTIALITY ASSURED
Home Telephone Email Address nickibbofi!hot~nail.com Graduate Supervisor Dr. W.James Weese Telephone Number (5 19) 253-3000 X. 5024 Email Address University Fax Number
DEPARTMENT OF KINEQIOLOOY
8CHOOL OF HUMAN KINETICO
401 QUNQET - WINDOOR, ONTARIO - N90 3P4 - 619-163-3000 APPENDM E
EXPLANATORY LETTER UNmRSITY OF 'WINDSOR
Two weeks ago, 1 sent you an introductory letter introducing my thesis study on Tobacco sponsorship of sport in Canada. Enclosed, you wiil find a package containing Round One of the Deiphi Technique which consists of three open-ended questions. At this time, 1 am asking you to complete the questionnaire within ten days (if possible) and return it using the self addressed stamped envelope. This smdy is dealing with a very small population, therefore each response is critical.
The informatian vou ~rovidcwill bc kc~tstrictlv confidential. The questionnaire will only take about 20 minutes to complete. Although the cornmitment 1 am requesting is minimal. your participation is important to the success of this study. 1 will gladly share with you the collective findings upon completion of this study.
Yours tnily,
John McKibbon
YOUR PARTICIPATION IN TWIS BNEF STUDY IS IMPERATWE
RESPONDENT CONFIDENTIALITY ASSURED
Home Telephone (5 19) 735-8994 Email Address n~ckibboG11otrnaiI.com Graduate Supervisor Dr. W. James Weese Telephone Nurnber (5 19) 253-3000 x. 5024 Email Address j wcesefduwindsor.ca University Fax Number (5 19) 973-7056 APPENDIX F
FOLLOW-UP FAX YOUR RESPONQE 18 IMPORTANT Dear a
Lasi week an important package of research materials related to tobacco sponsorship of spon in Canada was forwarded to you. 1 trust it arrived safely and in gdcondition. I have received many responses fiom other tobacco brand managers and event organizers to date.
1 have not as of yet received your completed matenals. If you have already retumed your response, please accept my sincere thanks for your help, and disregard this reminder notice. If you have not fonwarded your response, this note will serve as a fiiendly reminder to do so today.
Your response is essential to my research
If you did not receive the package, or it has ken misplaced, please cal1 me immediately at (519) 735-8994 or email me at mckibbo~hotmail.cornor contact my advisor, Dr. Jim Weese at (5 19) 253-3000 x. 5024. I will be happy to forwtird you another package.
Thank You.
John McKibbon C/O Department of Kinesiology University of Windsor Windsor. Ontario N9B 3P4
QCHOOL OF HUMAN KlNEïlC9
401 8UNQn - WINDSOR, ONTARIO - N98 3P4 - 610-163-3000 APPENDIX G
BILL C-71 2d Session, 35th Parliament, 45-46 Ebbeth 11, 1996-97 Tbc House of Commons of Canada BILL C-71
An Act to rcgulate the maaunicture, sale, labelling and promotion of tobacco products, to rnake coasequential amcbdmcntstoamtbcrActandtotcpealcertainAct~ Her Majesty, by and with tbe advice and CO- of the Scnate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as fobws: SHORT TITLE
Short tale 1. This Act niay bc cited as tbe Tobacco Act.
Definitions 2. The definitions in this section appiy in this Act.
' *accessory" "accessory" means a product that may be used in the << accessoire » co~lsu~~lptionof a toùacco product, inciuding a pipe, cigarette holder, cigar clip, lighter and matches. "anaiystn "analyst" means a person designated as an analyst under (< analyste H subsection 34(1).
brand element" * 'brd eiement" includes a brdname, trade-rriark, (< élément de marque » trade-mcne!, distiqguishing guise, lago, graphic arrangement, design or slogan that is reasonabty associated with, or that evokes, a product, a service or a brand of product or service, but does not iaclude a colour.
' 'emissionn "emi_cs'i)nmmeans a substance that is produced when a tobacco émission 1) product is used. "ent iTyn "entity" includes a corporation, partnership, association, entité » society, trust or other organization, whether incorporated or not. "fiirnishmmeans to se& lend, assign, give or çend, with or without consideraiion, or to barter or deposit with amther person for the pwformance of a service. .. . '' inspector" 1l1spector" rneans a person designated as an inspector under (< inspecteur » subsection 34( t ). **txlan-e " ((fabriquer»
**Miaist& minisîre » "package" '*pacbgcm means the container, receptack or wrapper m which « emballage » a tobecco poduct is SOM
* 'prescn'bed" Version anglaise seulement
' 'retailer" "retaiiern means a person who is engaged m a business that détaillant » inchdes the sale of a tobr#> produa to mmumcrs. -sellu "seli" inchdes O* for sak and expose for de. « vendre » "tobacco product" "toko product" mauis a product composed in whok or m « pmduir du tabac » part of tobecco, inciuding tobleam and any extract of tobaîco kaves. It inchdes c@ctk prprs tubes and filtc~ but dots mt include any food, drug or device tbat contains nicotine to which thc Fdand Drugs Act applics. "young person" "young person" rru4ns a person dereighteen years of agc. «jeune n
Binding on Her Majesty 3. This Act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada or a province. PURPOSE
Purpose of Act 4. The piirpor of this Act is to provide a iegishtive responsc to s national pubk health problem of substantiai and pressing concm and, in particuiar, (a) to protect the health of Canadians in light of conciusive evidence implicaîing tobacco use in the incidence of numerous debiiing and iàtai diseases; (6) to protect young pemns and others fiom inducements to use tobacco products and the consequent dependence on thcm; . . (c) to pmtect the health of young persors by mstmtmg access to tobacco products; and (4 to enhance public awateaess of the health hazards of using tobacco products. PART 1
TOBACCO PRODUCTS
Product standards S. No person shaii manufacture a tobacco product thst does not canform with tht standards establisbed by the reguiations. 6. Evay mmmktuuof a tobceo product &ail provide to tbcMiiiista,mtbtpescri'badniimacrandwithinthe ptesc~l'bedtimc, information about the product and N emissions, as rcquircd by the rcgulatioos 7. The Govmwr in Council rmy LldaLt rcgulatiOns (a)estabiishing stadads for tompducts, mchrdmg (i) ptescni the amoimu of substanws that xmy kcontaiœdmtbcproductorits~ns,and (@ presaii su- that may mt be addd to tobprodufts; (b) prescribing test Lnethods, inctuding mthods to assess conformity with th standards; (c)prescriiing information tbet munrtraas must provide to the Minister about tobacco pmducts and thtir emissions, including sales data and information on pduct composition, ingredients, hanudous properties andbradelerœnts; (4prescri'b'i the means, including electronic, by which the information referred to m paragraph (c)rnay be communïcatod to the Minister; and (e) generaîiy for carrying out the purposes of this Part. PART II
ACCESS
Furnishing tobacco products 8. (1) No person shall funiish a tobacco product to a young person in a public place or in a place to which the public reasonabiy has access. De fence (2) A perçon duil not be found to have wntravd subsection (1) if it is established that the pemn atternpted to ver@ that the person was at least eighteen years of age by asking for and king sbown documentation prcscnkci for the purposes of venrjiiiS age, riid beiieved on rruoaPMe grounds that the docunrmtation was autbentic. Signs 9. Every retaikr shaii pst, at retail, in the prescnid phce and -, signs m tk ptcscn'bed form and with the prrrni content, that infonn thc public that the sak or giving of a tobcco proâuct to a yoimg pss~nis prohiaied by Lsw, or tbaî containapcstribedMih~e,rmLosthattttaikrir exanpttd by the regulatbns hmthe requircr#nt to post the sigxls. Number of cigarettes m 10. (1) No person sball stil cigarcttcs cxccpt in a package tbat package contains a! kasi twcnty cigariettces or at ltast a prcscri'bed neof cigarcttcs, whkh number shall be more than twenty. Number of tobaca products (2) No person &ail scii a tobacco product, otkthan cigarettes, tbat is phscrii for the purposes of this subscction, in a package that contains fkwer ththe prtxni numbet or kss than the prrrnkd quantitics or portions of the product. Self-service display 11. No person, unkss exempted by the regulatians, shaii seii a tobacco proâuct by of a display that pcrmits a pcrson to - it. hanUt the tobecco proâuct b&rc paying for Dispensing device 12. No pcrson sball fiwish or permit tht fùmishing ofa tokco producî by mcans of a device that dispenses toW productsexccptwhcrcthedeviceism (a)a place to which the pubk does not reasonably have access; or (b)a bar, tavem or beverage room and has a prescrï'bcd secirritymcchsnian. DeLiver or mail 13. (1) No person shail, for consideration, cause a tobacco product to be delivered fiom one province to another or to be sent by rnaii unless the deiivery or niailing is between ~ll~in- or retailm or the pmon is othenvise exempted by the reguiations. Advertising an offer (2) No person shall advertise an offer to deliver a tobacco product fiom one province to another or to mail a tobacco product. Regulations 14. The Governor in Councl may deregdations (a)premiiing the documentation that may be used to ver@ the age of a person for the purposes of subsection W); (6) exempthg pmoiis fkom the application of sections 9, Il and 13; (c) prescniing signs that are required by section 9 to be poste4 including theu form, sk, content, number and p-t p-t ; (4prescniing tobacco products for the purposes of subsection 1q2); (e) mspect@ exemptions hmthe application of section 12; (g) gcnaally for ciymg out thc purposes of this Part.
LABELLING
15. (1) No xmmufiicturcr or Mersball sell a tobacco product unies thc package containing it displays, in the prescnibed form aadmaraur,theïnfôrmafiOntb~uiradbytht~nsaboan the product and its CLILiSSbiis. and about thc kaih hazgtdS and heaith effects arising hmthc ust of the proâuct or fiom its emkions. (2) Ifquircd by tbe rcgulations, cray or retaikr sball provide, m the prcscni form ami mamer, a ieafkt cbat disphys the idormation requirod by the reguiaîions about a tobacco product and its emissions and about the heahh hanads adhealth e&as arishg hmtbe us of tbe product and hmits emissions. Attriiut ion (3) The information refkrred to m subsections (1) and (2) may be attn'buted to a prcscn'bed person or bdy if the attn'bution is madeinthcpricscnbedirianncr. Exist ing obligations saved 16. This Part dots not affect any obiigation of a man- or retaiier at bw or under an Act of ParIiament or of a provincial legislature to warn consumers of the health hds and beahh effects amnig hmthe usc of tobecco products or fkom tbeir emissioas. 17. The Govmior in Council may rnake regdations (a)respecthg the information that must appear on packages and in leaflets about tobacw pmducts d tbeir ernissions and the heaith bazar& d heahh effects arising hmthe use of the products and hmtheir emissions; (b)prescriii an- that by this Part is to be prescri'bed; and (c) generally for carrying out the purposes of this Part. PART IV
PROMOTION
De-n of "promotiona 18. (1 ) In thPm "promotion" mcpm a rcprestntaîion about a product or service by any rmans, whether directiy or indircctly, irrhiding any connnunicatïon of infiormation about a product or strvict and its price aad distniution, that is iikeîy to SiBuence and sbapt attitudes, kiki5 and btbaviours aboutth prodm or senice. Application (2) This Part docs not apply to (a)a literary, dramatic, musicai, cinematographic, scicatifk, eduahnal or artistic work, production or pdùnnaacc tbaî uses or dcpicts a tobacco product or tobacco product-rtlated brand elemtnt, whatever the moàe or form of its expression, ifm coderation is given ckdyor bihdyfor tbat use or depction in the work, production or @O-; (6) a report, cornmentary or opinion in respect of a tobacco product or a brand of tobproduct if' no consideration is given by a manufrichirer or retailer, directly or indirectiy, for the reference to the tobacco product or brand in that report, commentary or opinion; or (c) a promotion by a tobgrower or a rnanufàctwer that is directed at tobacco growers, manufkturers, persons who distniute tobacco products or rctaikts but not, either directîy or indirectly, a! ConSumerS. Proh'bition 19. No person shail prornote a tobacco product or a tobacco product-rriated brand element except as authorized by this Act or the regulations. FaIse promotion 20. No person sbaii promote a tobacco product by any means, including by meaas of the packaging, that are $Ise, misleading or deceptive or that are iikely to create an mneous imprtss'in about tbe characttristics, heaitb effeîts or beahh hdsof the tobacco pduct or its emissions. 21. (1) No prson shan proamte a tobacco product by maris of a testimonial or an endorsement, however displayai or CO- (2) For the piirposa of subsation (l), the dephion of a pason, character or animai, whether d or fictionai, is considercd to bt a testimonial for, or an endorsement of; twl-d- Exception (3) This ocction does mt appiy to a trade-mark that appearcâ on a tobacco pmduct for sale in Canada on December 2, 1996. Advertising 22. (1) Subjcct to this section, m pason sbali promote a tobecoo product by m of an advcrtisemtnt that depicu, m whok or in part, a tobacco product, its package or a brdelemcnt of onc or that evokes a tobacca product or a brand elemtnt. Exception (2) Suùject to the rcgdatbns, a person may ad& a tobecco product by mans of information advertisimg or brand-prefhnce advcrtising that is m (a)a publication that is provided by niail and addrtssed to an adult Wb0 is idmti6eâ by mœ; (b)a pubiication that bas an aduh readership of mt less than eighty-five pcr cent; or (c) signs in a place wkre young persans are not permitted by iaw. Lifestyle advertising (3) Subsection (2) does mt apply to Me styk advertking or advertising tbat could be constnied on reasonable grounds to be appealing to young persons. De finitions (4) The definaions m this subsection appiy m this section. "brand- "brand-preference adwrtising"mcam advertising Lhat preference advertising" promotes a tobacco product by means of its brand publicité préfëren- characterist ics. fielle >) informat ion advertising" "idormation advcrtising"rneans advertking that provides « publicité inforwta- &tuai infoxmation to the consumer about rive » (a)a product and its characteristics; or (6) the avaihbility or price of a product or brdof product. ' ' Miestyle advertising" "lifestyle advertking" means advertking that associates a (( publicité de styie de vie » product with, or evokes a positive or negative emotion about or irnage oc a way of life such as one that indudes glamour, recreation, excitcment, vitality, risk or daring. 23. No pmon shall package a tobproduct in a nmner tbat is contrary to this Act or the regulations. Sponsorship promotion
(b)is associated with a way of lifi such as one that inchdcs glamour, rccmuion, cxcitcmt~lt,vaality, tisk or daring. Display of brand element (2) A person may display a tobproduct-reiated brand ekmcnt or@ within the bottom ten per cent of the display srPboc of8nypmotpd mstaPL (3) A person inay use promotionai matcrial that codôrms with subsection (2) and that displays tobacco product-relatcd branâ ekments
(6) m a publication that bas an ad& readership of not les than eighty-he pcr cent; (c) in signs or program availabk on tbe site of the event, activity or perrnaacnt tic*, or (d) in signs in a piace where young persons are mt pennitted by law. (4) Wherc the deria descrii in paragraphs (1 )(a) ad (6)do mt appiy to a sponsorship, a person may, subject to the regulations, use a tobacw product-related brand element m the promotion of the sponsorship. 25. If a tobacco product-related brand ekmnt is part of the name of a permanent kiiity, the tobacco product-related hndelement may appear on the fàcility in accordance with the rcgulations. Accessories 26. (1) Subject to the reguiaîions, a manufàcturer or retaikr may seii an accessory that disphys a tobacca product-related brand element. Promotion (2)No person shall prornote an accessory that dilays a tobproduct-related brand ekment except m the prescri'bed mamier and form and in a pubkation or place descnbd in paragraphs 22(2)(a) to (c). Non-tobacco product displaykg 27. No person SMnimish or promote a tobacco product if tobacco btand ekrnent any of its braad ekmcms is disphyed on a non-tobacco product, other tban an accessory, or is d with a service, ifthe mn-tobecco product or service
(b)is associatcd with a way of lie such as one that ibcludcs glamour, remcation, excitement, vitality, nsk or cîdng. Exception - tobaaï> poduct 28. (1) Subjcct to the regulations, a person may seiî a tobacco product, or advcrtise a tobacco product in accordance mth section 22, if any of its brdelenicnts is displaycd on a mmtobecco product, 0ththan an -ty, or uscd with a service, ifthe non-tohnrrrr producî or smice does mt Ml within the criteria descni m pamppbs 27(a) and (b). Exception - non-tobacco (2) Subject to the rcgdatbns, a person rnay prornotc a product non-tobecco product, other tban an accessory, that dispiays a tobacco product-related brand elexmnt, or a service that uses a tobacco pduct-relatai brand ekmcnt, to which section 27 does mt appîy. Sales promotions (O) O& or provide any consideration, direct or indirect, for the purchase of a tobacw product, incluàing a gift to a purchaser or a third Party, bonus, prcmium, cash rcbate or right to participate in a game, lottery or contest; (b) ftniish a tobacco product without monetary consideration or in consideration of the purchase of a product or service or the performance of a service, or (c) fhnish an accessory that bars a tobacco product-related brand element without monetary consideration or in conderation of the purchase of a product or scMce or the performance of a service. Retail display of tobacco 30. (1) Subject to the regulations, any person rnay display, products at retad, a tobacco product or an accessory that disphys a tobacco product-reiated brand element. Signs (2) A retailet of tobproducts may pst, in accordance with the regulations, signs at retail that indicate the availability of tobacco products and their price. Communica- 31. (1) No pmon shaii, on behalfof another person, with tion media or without consideration, publish, bmadcast or otherwise disseminate any promotion that is prohiied by this Part. Exception (2) Subscction (1 ) doa not apply to the distribution for saie of an miported pubkation or thc -in of radio or tekvision broadcasis tbat originaîe outde Canada Foreign media (3) No person in C.ndi hl,by maros of a publication that is pubüs&d outsidc Canada, a broadcast that orightes outsidt~oranyw~notherthana publication or brodcaclt tbat o~tsoutside Canada, pornote any product the promotion of which is reguiated derthis Part, or dissemmatc promotional materiai tbat contams a tomprodwt-mlated àeod elcmnt in a way that is contrary to this Part, Report to Minister 32. Every manufircturer shall provide the Minister, in the prcscri'bed mniiilcr and within the prtscni the, with the phscnkd information about any promotion derthis Part.
(a)respecting the promotion of tobacco products and tobecco product-ctlatni kaPd ekmmts and the packagimg of tobicco products, includÏng the fonn, mariner and conditions of the promotion and packaging, and the promotion of senices and mn-tobiicoo products fbr the purposes of section 28; (6) respect@ the dvaiiscmmt of tobprodm for the purposes of subsazion 22(2); (c) respecting the use of tobacco product-related brand ekmmts for tbe purposcs of subsection 24(4); (d)prescniit.henrannetmwhichatobacco product-rektad brdelement may appear on a permanent kility; (e) rrspccting, for the purposes of subsation 26(1), the nianaer in whieh a tobacco product-related brand ekmnt may appear on an accessory; V) respecting the display of tobacco products and accessories at retail; (g) respecta signs that a rrtailet rnay post der subsection 30(2), includhg the placement of the signs and their number, size and content; (h) requiring manufiicturers to discbse the partich of thei. tobacco product-related bdelements and promot ional activities; (Q prescni anything that by this Part is to be prescni; and generally for carr- out tbe purposes of this Part. Designation of iiispectoors and 34. (1) The Minister may designate any person or class of e pe~onsas an -or or adyst for tbe purposes of this Act and must provide evcry inspcctor and an- with a certificate of designation, in the form determined by the Minister. Certificaîe must be produccd (2) An iiiopctor cntcring a pbder this Act must, on request, show tbc cediCate to the person m charge of the ph- Places inspectors niay enter 35. (1) For tbe purpose of ensuring cornpliance with this Act, an inspector may, subject to section 36, at any rcasonable time, enter any piacc, ohthan a mcaris of transportation, in which the inspector believes on reasoaable grounds (a)a tobecco product is tested, stored, packaged, LabeIkd or sold; (b)there is anything used in the manuîàcnire, testing, packaging, labelling, promotion or sale of a tobacco product; or (c) there is any information relatiag to the rnanufàcture, testing, packaging, labehg, promotion or sale of a tobacco product. Powers of iiispector (2) In c.out an inspection, an inspecter may (a)examine a tobecco pduct or thing referred to in paragraph ( 1MW (b)require any person in the place to produce for inspection, m the mannet and fonn quested by the inspector, the tobacco product or thing; (c) open or require any person in the place to open any container or package found in the place tbat the inspecter bekves on ~aronabkgrounâs contains the tobacco product or thing; (4 take or require any pmon in the place to produce a sample of the tobacco product or thing; (e) coaduct any test or anaiysis or take any measurements; or V)require any person found in the piace to produce for inspection or copying any written or electronic idormation that is relevant to the admMistration or enforcement of this Act. Use of cornputers adcopybg (3) In canying out an impctiop an inspector may equipment (a) use or cause to bc d any computer system m the phcc to exsrni# data contahaî in or available to the computa. systcm that is rekvant to the rubnnitctration. or dorcemtllt of this Act; (b)rcpnoduct tbt data in tbc kmof a print-out or otkintelügii output and take it for examination or wpying; and (c) use or cause to bc uSOd any copyhg equipment in thc pbto make copies of any data, record or documtnt- 36. (1) An hspcctor may not enter a dweihg-place exccpt with the consent of the occupant or derthe authority of a warrant issued uader subscction (2). AuthorÏty to issue warrant (2) On ex parte appiicatioa, a justice, as denned m section 2 of the Crimi~ZCode, may issue a warrant authorizing the inspector luurred in the warrant to enter and inspect a dwelling-ph, subject to any conditions specM in tbc wamint, ifthe justice is satkki by information on oath (O) tbat the dweiiing-pbce is a place refmed to m subsection 35(1); (b) thentry to the dwelling-place is accessery for the Ildmintcttation or enforcement of this Act; and APPENDK H
BILL C-42 1st Session, 36th Parliameas, 46-47 EWII, 1997-98 The House of Gommons of Canada BILL C-42
An Act to amdtbe Tobacco Act Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Conimons of lanada, cnacts as fobws: 1. Section 24 ofthe Tobacco Act is rcplrced &y the ' following: Proh%ition- sponsorship 24. No pemm iaay display a tobproduci-rclatcd brd promotion tkrntnt or the ruurit of a tobacco nrsn- in a promotion that is use& directiy or indireftly, in the sponsonhip of a person, entity, event, activity or permanent fàciiity. 2. (1) Won25 oftbe Act b nphdby the folbniag: Prohibition - name of fàcility 25. No pmon may display a tobacco product-related brand element or the name of a tobacco manufacturer on a pemiancnt fàcility, as part of tbe name of tbe kility or otberwise, if the tobacco proàuct-rehted brand element or name is thereby associated with a sports or cultural event or activity. (2) Section 25 of the Act, as it mdimmtdiateiy before the coming into force of subsection (1), continues to appiy until October 1,2003 in relation to the dispiay, on a permanent facility, of a tobacco product-rrhted brand ekmeat that appcarcd on tbt facility on tbe day on wbicb tbb Act cornes into force 3. Pamgmpbs 33(c) and (d)of the Act aiz repealed. 4. (1) Section 66 of the Act is rtnumbered as subsection 66( 11. (2) Subsectioa 66u) of the Engüsh version of tbc Act is replaced by the following: Subsections 24(2) and (3) 66. (1) Subsections 24(2) and (3) corne iato force on Octokr 1,1998 or on aay crrlier day tbat tbc Govemor in Couneil may fu by order. (3) Section 66 oftbe Act is amended by adding the followiag after subsection (1): Application dclaycd - (2) Ifatobacco prodaet-rehteà bmad ekmcat wu sponsor&@ beforc April25, dbpliyed, at iny time ktiramJiiui y 25,1996 and 1997 Aprll2!!,1997, ï~ promotb.d materhl tbat wuad in the rpomronlip of am evemt or ictmy tbat took phce in Canada, sa~as24(2) iad (3) do not ipply uatil (a) Octokr 1,2000 in nhtion to the disphy of a tolmcco prodaet-rehtd bnad ekaaeat ii promotioid materhl that ia rdii the rponsonhip of that eveat or activity or of a person or cntity partkipating in that evcnt or activity; and (6) Octobcr 1,2ûû3 ii mhtioi to the déphy referred to in parrgnpb (a)on the rite of tbe mat or activity for the dumtion of the eveat or activity or for ray otbcr period tbat may be prescribed. (3) Smbueiioor U(2) iid(3) apply begiiiiig oa October 1,2ûûû and ending on Septembtr 30,2003 to prohibit the furnisbiag to the public, on the site of aa ment or activity to which pamgnph (2)(b)applieq of pmmotional matehl tbat dtphys a tobacco prodact-nhted bnnd ekmeat otbernise than in conforrnity witb suhtion 24(2). Coming into force 5. (1) Sections 1and 3 corne iato force on Octobcr 1, 2003. Coming into force (2) Sibscetioi 66(2) of the Act, excpt pangrapb (b), 8s enacted by section 4, is deemed to have come into force on October 1, 1998. Cornhg into force (3) Pimgriph 66(2)(b)and subscction 66(3) of the Act, 8s emrrctcd by section 4, come into force on October 1, 2000. Name: John Anthony McKibbon
Place of Birth: Windsor, Ontario
Date of Birth: February 23, 1975
Education: Ecole Secondaire L'Essor St. Clair Beach, Ontario 1988-1993
Bachelor of Human Kinetics Major - Sport Management University of Windsor Windsor, Ontario 1993- 1997
Master of Human Kinetics Sport Management University of Windsor Windsor, Ontaio 1997-2000