How to blend in while hunting for hooligans

A study about sponsor-event fit amongst Dutch football supporters

Master thesis

Msc. in Business Studies – Marketing

Student : Jeffin J. Adel Number : 10013504 Date : 6-8-2014 Supervisor : Drs. Ing. A.C.J. Meulemans 2nd Supervisor : prof. dr. J.H.J.P Tettero Table of contents Table of contents ...... 2 1. Abstract ...... 3 2. Introduction ...... 4 3. Theoretical framework ...... 8 3.1. Sponsorship ...... 9 3.2 Sponsor-event fit ...... 11 3.3 Brand knowledge ...... 14 3.5. Fan loyalty ...... 17 4. Methodology ...... 25 4.1 Research procedure ...... 25 4.1.a AFC AJAX ...... 26 4.1.b Sponsors of AFC AJAX ...... 27 4.3 Sample ...... 28 4.3 Dependent variables ...... 29 4.5 Independent variables ...... 32 5. Results ...... 33 5.1 Reliability analysis ...... 33 5.2 Univariate analysis ...... 34 5.2.a Fan loyalty descriptives ...... 34 5.2.b Sponsor-event fit descriptives ...... 36 5.2.c Brand Image descriptives ...... 39 5.2.d Awareness descriptives ...... 41 5.3 Testing of Hypotheses ...... 43 6. Discussion ...... 46 7. Conclusion ...... 51 7.1 Limitations and suggestions for further research ...... 52 8. References ...... 55 Appendix. Survey questions ...... 61

2

1. Abstract

The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of sponsor-event fit and fan loyalty on brand awareness and brand image in the context of sport sponsorship. Data was collected through an online survey of which 152 respondents were included in the sample. The respondents are fans of a Dutch football club AFC AJAX. The survey measured the levels of brand awareness, sponsor-event fit and perceived brand image of the ten official sponsors of the Dutch football club. The results revealed that fans with higher levels of sponsor-event fit also had higher levels of brand awareness and a more positive perceived brand image. In addition there was only one sponsor for which levels of fan loyalty had a significant influence on perceived brand image. Fan loyalty did not have any influence on the other nine sponsors for brand image, nor had it any influence on levels of awareness for any of the sponsors.

These results have implications for both the Dutch sport market industry as well as the research to apply the efficacy of consumers’ perception of sponsor-event fit, brand awareness and brand image in accomplishing sponsorship goals.

3 2. Introduction

Sponsorships are popular methods of advertising, used to influence consumers’ attitudes and behavioral intentions (Cornwell, Weeks & Roy, 2005). Sponsorships are a field of advertising where companies are investing millions of dollars yearly.

Global spending on sponsorships for the year 2014 is projected at 55.5 billion dollars, which indicates the popularity of sponsorships (IEG Press release, 2014).

One example of a multimillion-dollar sponsorship is the sports sponsorship of

Emirates airline with Arsenal Football Club. The sport sponsorship of Emirates airline is the biggest football sponsorship contract in history. The sponsorship is worth 150 million pounds and gives the airline company promotion rights for the upcoming five years with Arsenal Football Club. One of these promotion rights for the airline company is the naming rights of the home stadium for the English football club, which is called the ‘Emirates Stadium’ (“Arsenal sign up…”, 2013).

The naming of the Arsenal Football Club stadium ‘Emirates Stadium’ in conjunction with the shirt sponsorship has created an enormous boost in awareness for the airline company. More than 80% of UK sport attendees are aware of the naming rights the airline company entails with the English football club (“Emirates soar as…,” 2014) . Creating awareness is very important for organizations and one of the main reasons why organizations enter into a sponsorship agreement

(Meenaghan, 2001). Another reason for entering into a sponsorship agreement is the enhancement of brand image. According to Keller (1993) organizations should have strong, unique and favorable associations in order to build customer-based

4 brand equity. One way of establishing and reinforcing this is by pairing up a company with a sports club. Organizations who enter into a sports sponsorship hope that the image of the sports club will be transferred to its own image, hereby enhancing its brand equity (Meenaghan, 2001; Grohs & Reisinger, 2013).

Even though a sponsorship increases brand awareness and enhances brand image, it doesn’t mean that organizations can pair itself up with just any sports club or event and expect to increase its level of awareness and perceived brand image.

Studies show that there are factors that influence sponsorship outcomes. For instance there is evidence that indicates that the sponsoring of an event can have different outcomes depending on how well a company and sports club fit together. A higher sponsor-event fit will lead to more brand awareness and a more positive brand image (Gwinner & Eaton, 1999; Meenaghan, 2001; Grohs, Wagner & Vsetecka,

2004).

Another factor that can influence sponsorship outcomes are the consumers of sport events itself, the sports fans. There is a lot of variety in sports fans regarding their loyalty to the sport. For example, there are sports fans that highly identify themselves with a sports team, Gwinner and Swanson (2003) believe that highly identified fans will have more favorable sponsorship outcomes than fans with low team identification. There are also fans that express their loyalty not only on an attitudinal level such as team identification but also on a behavioral level. These are the fans that will not miss a single game of their favorite sport, even if this mean they have to travel to another country to watch the game. They not only buy tickets to game matches but also express their loyalty by buying sports team paraphernalia

5 such as clothing and accesoires (Funk & James, 2001). The different levels of sponsor-event fit and the differences in the loyalty of sports fans have led to the following central research question:

How does sponsor-event fit and fan loyalty influence brand awareness and brand image in sport sponsorships?

Reading up on the literature in sport sponsorships and sponsorship outcomes it becomes clear that most of the studies have been done in experimental settings and made use of fictive brands. This study will aim to contribute to the scientific literature by using real brands and by questioning actual fans of an actual sports club. The results from this study can also be used on a managerial level.

Managers can use the results from this study in order to prepare a better analysis before entering into a sponsorship agreement with a sports club, preferably one that has the best fit for their organization. By using the results, managers can stop wasting money on sponsorships that are not making sense in the minds of their target group and hereby not making the most out of the sponsorship responses.

In order to answer the central research question this study will follow a certain order of conduct and will start off with a theoretical framework that will explain the important constructs that are being covered within this study. After the theoretical framework a section covering the research design and methodology will follow. After the methodology chapter, there will be a chapter covering the results of the empirical research that has been gathered through an online survey amongst fans. This study will discuss the results in the discussion section where it will explain the implications of the results and summing up with an answer to the

6 central research question in the following chapter. This study will finalize with an overall conclusion, managerial implications, limitations of this study and suggestions for further research. In order to find relevant literature for the theoretical framework, the author made use of the following online databases

Google Scholar, Web of Science and Picarta. The total number of articles that the author used for this study is 56. The articles have been found using the following keywords: Sponsorship, consumer behavior, sponsor-event fit, fan loyalty, team involvement, fan involvement, brand awareness, brand image, behavior loyalty, attitudinal loyalty, social identification, team identification, purchase intention, sponsorship effects, sponsorship outcomes, fan identification, sports spectators, sports consumers, psychological commitment, fan attendance, image transfer, brand equity, congruity in sponsorship, perceive fit and brand attitude. In order to find more relevant literature the snowball method was also used, which means that the reference lists within the articles that have been found were used as a database to find more relevant articles for this study. All the relevant articles that have been used within this paper can be found in the reference list on page 55.

7 3. Theoretical framework

In this chapter the main theoretical constructs that are being used in this study will be explained through a discussion of the current literature about these constructs.

This chapter will start with explaining the constructs of what a sponsorship exactly entails. It will start with a widely accepted definition of sponsorship followed by sponsorship objectives. The explanation of the sponsorship construct will be finalized by explaining the different sectors where it is common to find sponsorships. The next theoretical construct that will be discussed is sponsor-event fit. This section will start of by explaining what sponsor-event fit exactly is and will follow by explaining the two forms of fit that can occur in terms of sponsor-event fit.

The section will then try to explain sponsor-event fit through schema theory by

Anderson (1983) and it will finalize the section with the outcomes of having a high sponsor-event fit followed by stating the first two hypotheses. The following chapter will discuss the constructs of brand knowledge explained through the customer based brand equity model (hereafter CBBE-model) by Keller (1993). The chapter will then move on to the construct of fan loyalty and will start of by discussing what the determinants are for the attendance at sport events in general. After this it will discuss what the determinants are that make football leagues attractive from the perspective of fans. This chapter will then finalize by discussing the two dimensions of the loyalty construct before explaining the construct of fan loyalty itself.

8 3.1. Sponsorship

A sponsorship is defined by Meenaghan (1983) one of the key authors within this field, as “The provision of assistance either financial or in kind to an activity by a commercial organization for the purpose of achieving commercial objectives”.

This definition shows the two most important factors that a sponsorship entails. The first factor is the agreement between an organization and an event. This agreement is about exchanging funds from the sponsor organization to the sponsored event in order to achieve commercial objectives, which is the second important factor. There are many sorts of commercial objectives that organizations wish to achieve through sponsorship. The two most common commercial objectives that are pursued are brand awareness and the enhancement of brand image. Brand awareness is created through the exposure that the sponsor brand creates by sponsoring an event.

Everybody who will partake in the event in some sort of manner will most likely be exposed to the sponsor brand. It is therefore fairly easy to create brand awareness by sponsoring an event because it will automatically create exposure and thus create brand awareness (Cornwell, 1995; D’Astous & Bitz, 1995; Gwinner & Eaton,

1999; Becker-Olsen & Hill, 2006; Alexandris, Tsaousi & James, 2007). The enhancement of brand image is somewhat more complicated, Meenaghan and

Shipley (1999) explain that the enhancement of brand image is strongly linked to the perception of the sponsor and the event of consumers. In order to achieve enhancement of brand image by sponsoring an event, there first must be a perceived fit between the event and the sponsor. Solely the sponsoring of an event will not automatically lead to the enhancement of brand image. The importance of

9 this sponsor-event fit will be discussed in the next chapter. Another objective that organizations pursue through sponsorship is explained by Keller (1993) and is related to the enhancement of brand image, and that is image transfer. When an organization enters into a sponsorship with an event it indirectly links the image of the event to their brand image. Organizations hope that through this indirect linkage the image of the event will eventually permanently transfer to their own brand image in the mind of consumers, when such a linkage is established it strengthens and enhances the organizations brand image, this is also confirmed by other scholars (Jalleh, Donovan, Giles-Corti & Holman, 2002). Cornwell and Maignan

(1998) add some more sponsorship objectives to the sponsorship objectives list and that is the improvement of goodwill, the improvement of internal and external relationships, the improvement of profitability and the recruitment of new employees.

Sponsorships occur in five different industries: culture, entertainment, media, society and sports (van Maaren, 2001, p.35). Cultural sponsoring is the sponsoring of museums and cultural events. The entertainment industry is mostly related to the sponsoring of concerts and shows. Media sponsoring is the sponsoring of television shows or radio programs, whereas society sponsoring is mostly related to the sponsorship of non-profit organizations that are active with environmental or human rights issues. And the last industry and certainly not the least is the sports industry. This thesis will have its focus in the sports industry.

10 3.2 Sponsor-event fit

As discussed in the previous section the enhancement of brand image is strongly related to the perceived fit that consumers have of the pairing between the sponsor and an event. Sponsor-event fit is the fit or logic that exists between the pairing of an organization and an event through sponsoring (Gwinner, 1997; Gwinner & Eaton,

1999; Gwinner & Bennet, 2008). Studies have shown that there are two forms of fit possible between an event and an organization regarding sponsorship (Keller, 1993;

McDaniel, 1999; Rifon, Choi, Trimble & Lee, 2004; Koo, Quartermann & Flynn,

2006). The first form of fit is ‘functional fit’ and occurs when the product of the sponsor is related towards the event on a functional level. Functional fit occurs for example when a shoe retailer sponsors a running event. There is a very logical connection between shoes and a running event, which cannot be performed without proper shoe wear. The second form of fit that exists is ‘image based fit’, which occurs when the image of an event and the image of a sponsor are congruent. An example of an image based fit sponsoring would be an art gallery event that is sponsored by a prestigious brand such as an expensive watch or car brand. The art gallery and the prestigious brand have congruity or fit based on their image of being

‘sophisticated’. (Aaker, 1997; Gwinner , 1997).

The logic of sponsor-event fit can be explained through schema theory of

Anderson (1983) Schema theory explains that the level of similarity affects the accessibility into memories that people have stored in their minds. This is why people more easily understand the logic behind a running event that is sponsored

11 by a sports apparel brand that produces running shoes than the same running event sponsored by a brand that produces glue. There is a similarity between the sports apparel brand sponsor and the running event, therefore memories are more easily accessible, whereas glue and a running event have no obvious connection. This is the same for an event that has a fit on an image-based level. An art gallery that is sponsored by a prestigious brand is more logical and therefore more easily accessible in the memory, instead of the same generic glue company sponsoring the art gallery. There is no logical connection between the art gallery and the glue company on either a functional level or image-based level, therefore the level of similarity is low and the memory is more difficult to access in order to understand the fit.

Having a high sponsor-event fit can result in several advantages when it comes to sponsorship outcomes (Gwinner & Eaton, 1999; Rifon et al., 2004;

Alexandris et al., 2007). One of the possible outcomes of sponsorship would be raising the level of brand awareness for the sponsor brand (Speed & Thompson,

2000; Meenaghan, 2001; Jalleh et al., 2002). Scholars have found that a sponsorship with a high perceived sponsor-event fit will lead to higher levels of brand awareness than sponsorships with lower perceived levels of sponsor-event fit. This can be explained due to the fact that when there is a low perceived sponsor-event fit consumers experience cognitive inconsistency, this negatively influences the responses towards brand awareness (Gwinner & Eaton, 1999; Rifon et al., 2004;

Becker-Olsen & Hill, 2006; Koo et al., 2006). These findings have led to the creation of the following hypothesis:

12 H1. Sponsors with a high level of perceived sponsor-event fit will have higher levels of awareness than sponsors with a low level of sponsor-event fit.

Another possible outcome of sponsorship is the effect it could have on brand image

(Speed & Thompson, 2000, Meenaghan, 2001). This effect occurs when the image of the sponsored event is transferred to the image of the sponsor, and it is called image transfer. Image transfer is most favorable when the positive images of a sponsored event becomes linked to the image of the sponsoring brand (Keller, 1993). Evidence in the study of Koo et al. (2006) suggests that a high sponsor-event fit will not only lead to an enhancement of image transfer but it will also influence a more positive brand image, therefore strengthening brand identity (Speed & Thompson, 2000;

Rifon et al. 2004; Becker-Olsen & Hill, 2006). As such, this has led to the creation of the second hypothesis:

H2. Sponsors with a high level of perceived sponsor-event fit will have a more positive perceived brand image than sponsors with a low level of perceived sponsor-event fit

13 3.3 Brand knowledge

In order to understand the whole concept of brand knowledge it is important to state a definition of what a brand actually is. A commonly used definition is the definition by Kotler (1991, p. 442) “a brand is a "name, term, sign, symbol or design, or a combination of them intended to identify the goods and services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of other sellers.” This definition clearly makes the distinction that a brand most important purpose is to differentiate itself from competitors.

In order to explain how to create a strong, favorable and unique brand this section will now discuss the CBBE-model by Keller (1993). To understand what happens in the mind of the consumer when it is exposed to marketing activities, it is important to understand the structure of the CBBE-model of Keller (1993). The first dimension of this CBBE-model is ‘brand awareness’. One of the main raisons for organizations to enter into a sponsorship agreement with an event is to create brand awareness (Meenaghan, 1983; Crowley, 1991; Gwinner, 1997; Cornwell &

Maignan, 1998). Brand awareness is defined by Rossiter and Percy (1987) as “the strength of brand node or the trace of memory as reflected by consumers ability to identify the brand under different conditions’’. Keller (1993) explains that brand awareness consists of two elements. The first element is brand recognition and refers to the ease at which consumers can identify a brand when one is asked to name a brand within a certain category. Brand recognition also refers to recognizing a brand when the brands’ product or logo is shown. The second element Keller

14 (1993) discusses is brand recall. Brand recall refers to the ease at which consumers are able to recall a brand after it has been exposed with advertising of such a brand.

These two elements ‘brand recognition’ and ‘brand recall’ thus forms the construct of ‘brand awareness’. In the context of this paper, brand awareness will be empirically tested in means of recognizing the sponsor brands of a sports team and is the first independent variable in this thesis.

The second dimension in the CBBE-model of Keller (1993) is ‘brand image’.

The enhancement of an organizations brand image is one of the possible outcomes of sponsorship (Speed & Thompson, 2000). Keller (1993) defines brand image as

“perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations held in consumer memory”. The brand associations Keller (1993) talks about are all the thoughts that come up when consumers think of a particular brand. These brands associations are preferably strong, unique and favorable. There are three types of brand associations that can come up in the mind of the consumer. The first type is

‘attributes’ and is related to the features that describe the product or service of the brand. The attributes can be either non-product related which are all externally related such as the price of the product, the packaging of the product, user imagery of the product, which means what are the type of persons that make use of this product and last usage imagery, which is related to what kind of situation one would make use of the product. Product-related attributes are all internally related to the product and are concerned with the physical composition or service requirements of the product.

15 The second type of association is ‘benefits’ and is related to what the product or service can do for the consumer; what is the benefit one has when making use of the product or service? Benefits can be divided into functional, experiential and symbolic. Functional benefits are related to intrinsic advantages such as physiological and safety needs and are concerned with the need for solution for a basic problem. Experiential benefits are all about the feeling a consumer gets when the product is being used. The last benefits are symbolic benefits and are related to extrinsic advantages such as how the usage of a product will affect the self-esteem or personal expression.

The third and last type of association is that of ‘attitudes’ and that is related to the overall evaluation of a brand (Aaker, 1997). For the purpose of this paper, this study will mainly focus on these last types of associations, which is the overall attitude of a brand. The CBBE-model of Keller (1993) is shown below in figure 1.

Figure 1: Customer Based Brand Equity model of Keller (1993).

16 3.5. Fan loyalty

In order to get a full grasp of what fan loyalty entails it necessary to first take a look at the determinants for the demand for sports itself. What are the factors that create the demand to attend a sports event? Borland and Macdonald (2003) argue that sport event attendance is determined through the following five dimensions: form of consumer preferences, economic, quality of viewing, characteristics of the sporting contest and supply capacity. The first dimension ‘consumer preference’ is concerned with for example the habits of consumption. Fans might be attending a sporting event because it is a part of their lifestyle and an expression of loyalty to the team. Attendance might also be due to conspicuous consumption where fans are able to have preferred seating in VIP areas such as skyboxes or business seats. Being able to attend a sports event in preferred seating area makes it very attractive to make use of this possibility. Another possibility for attending a sports event might be due to the bandwagon effect whereby the attendance of one fan increases the value of attending the sports event for another fan. Sport fans can then be amongst peers who share the passion for that particular sport event (Borland & Macdonald,

2003). The second dimension ‘economic’ is easily explained that economic factors can influence attendance. The price of a ticket for example is one of the first obstacles one must overcome in order to attend a sporting event. One must be willing to pay the price of the ticket, being able to pay for a ticket is another economic factor that might be influential. Not everybody can afford a ticket to a big and popular sports event. There is also such a thing as opportunity costs where a sports fan also has the option to spend its money on a different form of

17 entertainment for example go to a different sporting event or even a different form of entertainment such as a concert or a movie (Borland & Macdonald, 2003). The third dimension is ‘quality of viewing’ and is concerned with factors such as the facilities at the stadium, if the weather is cooperating that day and the timing of the event. These are all factors related to the quality of viewing that determine attendance of a sporting event (Borland & Macdonald, 2003). The fourth dimension is ‘characteristics of the sporting contest’ and this dimension is all about uncertainty of outcome, success of competing teams, quality of contest and significance of contest. Fans might be willing to pay more to attend a sporting event where their favorite team is sure to win. There are fans whom are less attached to a particular sports team and they might be more attracted to attend a match where the level of the two teams is ‘even’ and both teams have a chance of winning instead of a sure win for one of the sport teams. When the particular match is one that is very important for the rankings of the league, the winner will be sure to end as the league champions, the demand for attending such a match is higher than a match that is not that influential for the rankings of a league. The last dimension the authors Borland and Macdonald discuss (2003) is ‘supply capacity’ and is concerned with the size of the stadium and if it can carry the number of fans that wants to attend the sports event. Madrigral (2006) also adds to this list of determinants the level of skill that is displayed. Consumers whom attend a sport event are also attracted to the level of skill that is being displayed, which is usually a skill level higher than the average skill level.

18 Now that the factors are discussed that determine attendance at a sports events in general, it is important to discuss factors that determine the attractiveness in football leagues because this study will focus its research with fans in the Dutch football league. Koenigstorfer, Groeppel-Klein and Kunkel (2010) discuss four determinants for professional football leagues that determine the attractiveness from the perspectives of the fans. The first determinant that they discuss is the

‘stadium atmosphere’. Stadium atmosphere is defined as ‘’ the entirety of emotionally affective stimuli in a sports stadium”. These can include fan rituals such as club songs or chanting during the game to encourage the sports team, it also includes the opportunity to be with other fans and share the love for the club or team, which adds to the experience of being in the stadium (Uhrich & Koenigstorfer,

2009). The second determinant the authors Koenigstofer et al. (2010) discuss is success in international competitions. When sport teams or clubs are successful in international competitions the club becomes more attractive to fans, media and sponsors than if they were not successful. This success makes it desirable for the fans to attend matches because their club is now an internationally recognized sports club. The third dimension Koenigstofer et al. (2010) discusses is ‘the uniqueness of dominating clubs’. The clubs that are the most dominating clubs within their league also have the highest number of fans compared to the less dominating clubs. Clubs or unique is this way in that they are considered to be the best in their league. Every club is also allowed to display their past successes by incorporating gold stars on their shirt that represent the number of times they have become the champions within their league. Having multiple stars on the shirt adds

19 to the uniqueness of the club. The fourth and last dimension the authors

Koenigstorfer et al. (2010) discuss that determines the attractiveness of a football league is ‘the competitive balance’. The competitive balance is in line with the determinant ‘characteristic of the sporting event’ that is mentioned in the previous section regarding the determinants of fan attendance in sport in general.

Competitive balance is related to uncertainty of outcome within the league and if all the teams are somewhat equally matched. If it is not certain who will win a match or who will win the league it makes the league more attractive and adds to the emotional experience of a fan and therefore to the attractiveness of the event and the football league (Borland & Macdonald, 2003: Koenigstorfer et al., 2010).

Now that there is an understanding how on how attendance and the attractiveness of football leagues is influenced we will move on to how fan loyalty is determined. First we will take a look on how loyalty is constructed. Scholars indicate that the loyalty construct exists out of two dimensions (Kaynak, Salman & Tatoglu,

2008; Bee & Havitz, 2010). The first dimension of the loyalty construct is a behavioral dimension and is called ‘behavior loyalty’. Behavior loyalty is related to the actual behavior of a consumer, specifically it is related to the purchase behavior

In terms of sport fans this can be anything from purchasing game tickets or it could be anything related to the purchase of sports team paraphernalia such as team clothing, supporter clothing and sports team accessories (Stevens & Rosenburger,

2012). The second dimension of the loyalty construct is an attitudinal dimension and is called ‘attitudinal loyalty’. Attitudinal loyalty is a more complicated dimension within the loyalty construct than behavioral loyalty because it happens on a

20 cognitive level. Attitudinal loyalty is concerned with identification processes such as how much does a fan identify itself with the sport or sports team (Bodet &

Bernache-Assolant, 2011). The literature refers to these identification processes in the context of sports as ‘team identification’ (Ashfort & Mael, 1989, Bauer

Stokburger-Saur & Exler, 2008; Bee & Havitz, 2010, Bodet & Bernache-Assollant,

2011). Team identification occurs for example when a sports fan perceives its favorite sports team achievements and failures as it’s own. When a sports fan has high or strong team identification this individual will be extremely happy when the team wins a match but can be also really upset when the team loses or makes mistakes (Funk & James, 2001). Before the literature was discussing ‘team identification’ Pooley (1978) was discussing a similar construct which is called

‘involvement’. The involvement construct of Pooley (1978) makes a distinction in this identification process with fans between high and low involvement with the sports team or sports club. When a sports fan has a low involvement it means that this fan has a rather passive relationship with his or hers sports team. These low involvement fans could be consumers whom occasionally watch a match on the television at home with friends or family and do not strongly identify themselves with the sports team (Statista, 2011). A fan that has a high level of involvement with sees the team’s identity as its own identity, which is similar to the team identification construct where one with a high team identification sees the team winnings and losing as its own. The fans with a high level of involvement are extremely loyal fans and commit to a long-term relationship with the sports team where they will not miss a single match (Pooley, 1978; Alexandris et al., 2007;Bauer,

21 Stockburger-Saur & Exler, 2008; Kaynak et al., 2008). Wakefield (1995) discusses that there are three factors that determine attendance on future games for sport fans. Amongst these three factors is the previously discussed team identification, the other two factors are social influence and perceived value. Social influence is related to whether or not attendance at a sport event is approved by others or not. If there is approval there is a higher chance of attending future games. Perceived value is related to previously discussed ‘economic’ dimension of Borland and Macdonald

(2003) that affect fan attendance of sport event. It means that the perceived value of attending future games should be in contrast with the economic price of attending the game.

So why is it important to understand whether or not a fan has a high or low level of team identification? This study will focus its research specifically on sponsorship related outcomes amongst fans of the Dutch football league, it is therefore important to understand the theories related to fans and sponsorship outcomes. Literature indicates that fans that score high on team identification elaborate more on sponsorships messages than fans that score low on team identification. Elaborating more on sponsorship messages has several implications.

Because these fans elaborate more on the sponsorship message they seem to recognize the sponsor-event fit better than fans that do not score high on team identification. Because they strongly identify themselves with the team they also see the teams sponsors as part of themselves. Therefore there will be more thoughts about the sponsor and the sponsorship than if they did not see the team’s sponsor as a part of themselves (Roy & Cornwell, 2004; Deitz, Meyers & Stafford, 2012).

22 Another explanation for fans that have higher levels of team identification and therefore also higher levels of fan loyalty, which recognize sponsor-event fit more easily than fans with lower levels of fan loyalty, is due to a construct called ‘in-group favoritism’. In-group favoritism entails that fans that score high fan loyalty is that they deal with inconsistent information between the sponsorship and their team by being more open to the perceived sponsor-event fit. They adjust their thinking when they think about the sponsor-event fit until they succeed in doing so. In-group favoritism amongst loyal fans thus means, that they are biased to anyone or anything that is part of their in-group, which is the team. This specifically is related to the perception of sponsor-event fit (Galinksy & Moskowicz, 2000).

Scholars also believe that fans that score high on fan loyalty will have a preference for sponsor brands versus non-sponsor brands. A study that has been conducted amongst golf fans contains evidence that the highly committed golf fans have a positive attitude toward the sponsor brands versus non-sponsor brands

(Lascu, Giese, Toolan, Guehring & Mercer, 1995). This result is the same in a study amongst fans of NASCAR races, which showed evidence that loyal fans have a more positive attitude toward sponsor brands versus non-sponsor brands. Several other studies have confirmed these results with similar findings, where fans have a preference for sponsor brands (Speed & Thompson, 2000; Madrigal, 2000;

Meenaghan, 2001; Levin, Beasly & Gamble, 2004). The last study that confirmed this the relation between loyal fans and brand attitude is the study of Boyle and

Magnusson (2007). The scholars have conducted empirical research amongst fans of college basketball and have found that the loyal fans of college basketball have a

23 more positive perceived brand image of the sponsor brand, which in their research is the athletic program of the university. All these results imply that highly dedicated supporters lead to more favorable attitudes towards the sponsor and sponsorships. This implicates that highly dedicated fans should be important to a sponsor and are worthwhile paying focusing on this group. In this study, fans will be distinguished based on their level of fan loyalty and how this relates to their levels of perceived sponsor-event fit and their perceived brand attitudes, all this has led to the creation of the following hypotheses:

H3. Fans with a high level of fan loyalty will have higher levels of perceived sponsor- event fit than fans with low levels of fan loyalty.

H4. Fans with high levels of fan loyalty will have a more positive attitude towards sponsor brands than fans with low levels of fan loyalty.

The hypothesized model is depicted in the following fig. 1.

Sponsor-event fit H1 Brand awareness

H3 H2

Fan loyalty Brand image H4

Fig 1. Hypothesized model

24 4. Methodology

This chapter will explains the construction of the empirical research as well as the process of the research.. This chapter will first start off with explaining the procedure of this research in the first subchapter 4.1. It will then continue by describing the sample characteristics in subchapter 4.2. And as a last part of this chapter the operationalization of the independent variables in subchapter 4.3 followed by the dependent variables in subchapter 4.4 that will be explained.

4.1 Research procedure

The research goal of this paper is to answer the following central research question:

How does sponsor-event fit effect brand awareness and brand image in sport sponsorships and where does fan loyalty play a role in this?

In order to answer this central research question the choice has been made to do research amongst real sports fans of a real sports team. The sports team that is chosen is the Dutch Eredivisie Football club AFC AJAX. The reason for choosing this sports team is because of the personal interest the author has for this particular sports team. This personal interest also made it possible to access the right channels in order to connect with the fans of AFC AJAX. Since a real sports team was chosen, it was only natural to measure sponsor-event fit, brand awareness and brand image of the actual sponsors of AFC AJAX. In order to collect data the researcher choose to distribute an online survey through Facebook groups created for fans of AFC AJAX.

This survey was distributed between 28th May 2014 and the 5th of June 2014. The online survey consisted out of four parts. The first part contained questions

25 regarding the level of fan loyalty of the respondents. The second part of the survey concerned the measurement of the perceived awareness level for the sponsors of the Dutch Football club. The third part contained questions regarding the level of sponsor-event fit and the last part was concerned with questions regarding the perceived brand image of the sponsors.

The reason for choosing an online survey is because of the limited timeframe available for this research and also the ease of conducting an online survey. The online survey was translated in Dutch because most of the AFC AJAX supporters were native Dutch speakers. The online survey has been distributed via a social network site, Facebook, in a Facebook group called “Zuid H Forever”, which stands for a particular seating area in the Amsterdam arena, which is the home stadium of the Dutch Football Club. There were several more Facebook groups related to Ajax supporters but the author choose this group specifically because of the active users within this group. A copy of the survey can be found in the appendix on page 61 of this paper.

4.1.a AFC AJAX

The Dutch Eredivisie football club AFC AJAX is an Amsterdam based football club that exists since the year 1800. Since its establishment the football club has been playing in the highest division of the Dutch football, called ‘De Eredivisie’, and has been the champion of this division for 33 times heading for the 34th this current year.

26 4.1.b Sponsors of AFC AJAX

The Dutch Football Club has in total ten sponsors of which two are main sponsors.

Because the two main sponsors are easily recognized sponsors, because of their prominent promotion rights, such as the players wearing team clothing from one of the main sponsors and the other main sponsor is printed very large on the chest of the team clothing, the author choose to incorporate all ten sponsors within this study in order to give a better comparison amongst the sponsor brands for the

Dutch football club.

Adidas is one of the main sponsors and is a sports apparel brand that supplies all the apparel for the Dutch Football club including the medical and technical staff. This means that every official sports clothing is from the brand

Adidas, with an exception to the shoes .The second main sponsor is AEGON, which is a Dutch company who provides services in the financial sector in 25 countries such as pensions, insurances and asset management. Aegon has the sponsor rights to be displayed on the shirts of the Dutch football club and has been a main sponsor for

Ajax for the last five years (Hoofdsponsors…’’,2014).

The following eight sponsors are regular sponsors and have no display right on the shirts of the Dutch football players and are not obvious sponsors for the

Dutch football club. The first sponsor that is used within this study is BDO, which is an international consultancy firm specialized in financial services. The second sponsor that is used within this study is CSU Total Care. CSU total care is a Dutch cleaning company and is one of the biggest in the country. The third sponsor within this study is CST Tires. CST Tires is an international company that is specialized in

27 car and bike tires. The fourth sponsor that is used within this study is HUBLOT.

HUBLOT is an exclusive watch brand that is the official timekeeper of the Dutch football club. The fifth sponsor is Mercedes. Mercedes is an exclusive car brand and provides every AFC AJAX player and staff with a new car. The sixth sponsor that is used within this study is OGER. OGER is an Amsterdam based company who sells men’s business clothing. OGER provides the business suits for the AFC AJAX players and technical staff every year. The seventh sponsor is Verwelius Bouwen. Verwelius

Bouwen is a Dutch company that is specialized in property development, property management, property construction and property investment. The last sponsor of the Dutch Football club that is included within this research is the sponsor

Vriendenloterij. Vriendenloterij is a Dutch gambling company that is specialized in

Dutch lotteries. Since the start of this research there is a new official sponsor that signed an agreement with the Dutch Football club in June 2014, which is the sponsor SENGLED. SENGLED is a high tech organization that is specialized in LED- lighting. (Sponsors…’’,2014).This sponsor was not included within the scope of this research because of its late entry as a sponsor for the Dutch Football club, however to ensure completeness of the sponsor’s description, this sponsor is mentioned briefly.

4.3 Sample

In total there were 272 respondents of which 152 respondents completed the survey. Only the 152 completed surveys have been included within this research. Of these 152 respondents there were 80% male respondents and 20% female respondents with an average age between 19 and 30 years old. The author choose to

28 only approach AFC AJAX supporters that had access to the Facebook group ‘Zuid H

Forever’ in which the survey was distributed. The distribution of age of the respondents is depicted in the table below.

Age Percent N under 18 years 7.20% 11 19 and 30 years 48.70% 74 31 and 40 years 20.40% 31 41 and 50 years 13.80% 22 51 years and older 9.20% 14 Table 0. Age distribution

4.3 Dependent variables

Respondents were asked for their thoughts for each separate sponsor of AFC AJAX about the sponsor-event fit, brand image and brand awareness.

In order to measure the brand awareness of the sponsors of AFC AJAX, the respondents were given a list of the ten real sponsors together with 30 fictive sponsors included in a randomized order. The respondents were asked if they could recognize and recall which of the 40 sponsors in the list were official sponsors of

AFC AJAX. This variable was measured before the sponsor-event fit and brand image variables to make sure that the answers were not biased by the follow-up questions about the actual sponsors, which were supported with pictures of the actual sponsors and therefore would give the right answers to question related to brand awareness. The question that is related to the measurement of brand awareness is question number 12.

In order to measure sponsor-event fit respondents were first shown a picture of the actual sponsor, to aid in recall, of the sponsor brand to which the question was related. Sponsor-event fit was measured using four items that were

29 derived from a scale used by Gwinner and Eaton (1999). This scale was originally constructed with six questions, but for the purpose of this research it was reduced to four questions. The sponsor-event fit scale has two questions covering functional fit and there are two questions covering image-based fit. Because the survey was structured to cover all sponsors of AFC AJAX, which are ten in total, the author choose to reduce the questions as much as possible since every question was repeated ten times for every different sponsors, therefore the original six-items from Gwinner and Eaton (1999) have been reduced to four items. The author was afraid that respondents otherwise might become irritated or bored with every question being repeated ten times but with a different sponsor. If the respondents would become irritated it could harm the data if respondents would not give honest answers to just get it over with or simply stop participating and leaving the survey half empty making the response invalid. The questions that measured sponsor- event fit are question numbers 13 through 32.

Brand image was measured using two items that is derived from scales used by Gwinner and Bennet (2008) and from Gwinner and Eaton (1999). With each question the respondents were shown a picture of the sponsor brand in order to aid with brand recall. The scales that have been used were originally constructed with three items each, which would make six in total (Gwinner & Bennet, 2008; Gwinner

& Eaton, 1999). These items have been reduced to two items for the previously stated reason to make the survey as pleasant as possible for the respondents. The questions that measured brand image are question number 33 through 52. All items except for brand awareness were measured on a seven-point likert scale

30 ranging from 1=Strongly disagree to 7=Strongly agree.

In order to test the scale reliability the author used Chronbachs Alpha to check for internal consistency between the items. The outcome from this analysis can vary between ranges of 0 to 1. The minimal score for a scale to be reliable is 0.6 and higher (van Groningen & de Boer, 2008, p.164). All 20 scales prove to be reliable according to Chronbachs Alpha and the results are depicted in table 1 and table 2.

Five of the ten scales did not show an internal inconsistency as a four-item scale

(Chronbachs Alpha=<0.6) but were reliable (Chronbachs Alpha=>0.6) after deleting one of the items. The scales that were reduced to a three-item scale are the following: Sponsor-event fit BDO, Sponsor-event fit CSU, Sponsor-event fit CST,

Sponsor-event fit Mercedes and Sponsor-event fit Verwelius Bouwen. In chapter 5 of this paper there will be a more detailed explanation of which items were deleted.

Sponsor-event Chronbachs fit Alpha Adidas α 0.7 Aegon α .60 BDO * α .67 CSU * α .64 CST * α .60 HUBLOT α .60 Mercedes * α .69 OGER α .73 Verwelius Bouwen * α .72 Vriendenloterij α .60 Table 1. Chronbachs Alpha for Sponsor-event fit scales * Scales reduced to a three-item scale for higher internal consistency

31 Brand Image Chronbachs Alpha Adidas α 0.81 Aegon α 0.83 BDO α 0.77 CSU α 0.80 CST α 0.82 HUBLOT α 0.74 Mercedes α 0.74 OGER α 0.87 Verwelius Bouwen α 0.83 Vriendenloterij α 0.87 Table 2. Chronbachs Alpha for Brand image scales 4.5 Independent variables

There is only one independent variable in this study and that is the variable of fan loyalty. This item was measured using eleven items, which were derived from a scale by Trail, Anderson and Fink (2000) and items constructed from the author’s own interpretation. In this scale there were four items that measured behavioral loyalty, three items that measured attitudinal loyalty and four items that measured team identification, hereby covering all constructs discussed in the theoretical framework that are part of fan loyalty. All items were measured on a seven-point

Likert scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree. The fan loyalty scale was internally consistent and therefore reliable (Chronbachs Alpha=0.85).

32 5. Results

This chapter will cover the results of this research and will be structured in the following order. In the first subchapter 5.1 there will be an explanation of the reliability analysis that has been performed in order to measure the internal consistency of the scales. In the next subchapter 5.2 there will be a statistical description of each of the variables separately before linking the variables together.

In the following subchapter 5.3 there will be an explanation of the results of the regression analysis that is used to test the four hypotheses stated in this paper.

5.1 Reliability analysis

This subchapter will explain scale reliability that has been conducted. This part of this paper will specifically discuss the scales that were not internally consistent as a four-item scale. It will also explain which of the items have been removed in order to create a reliable scale.

As previously stated in chapter 4, there was a reliability analysis conducted to measure the internal consistency of the scales. Before conducting the reliability analysis all the negatively keyed items, such as “I do not see the players of AFC AJAX make use of brand X during a game’’, have been ‘reversed’ into new variables to prevent that the variables would disturb the internal consistency. After recoding the items Chronbachs Alpha was used to check for internal consistency between items.

There were five scales of sponsor-event fit that were not reliable as a four-item scale

(Chronbachs Alpha=<0.6). These five scales have been reduced to a three-item scale in order to have a higher internal consistency between the items and hereby being

33 reliable (Chronbachs Alpha=>0.6). The items that have been removed were all of the same question “ I do not see the players of AFC AJAX make use of brand X during a game”. These were also the questions that have been recoded because of it negatively stated question. Obviously the recoding did not prevent for all the scales to be reliable. The five scales that did not have an internal consistency between items (Chronbachs Alpha=>0.6) were the following scales: Sponsor-event fit BDO,

Sponsor-event fit CSU, Sponsor-event fit CST, Sponsor-event fit Mercedes and Sponsor- event fit Verwelius Bouwen. These scales together with the three and four-item scores are depicted in table 3 below.

Chronbachs Scale if item Sponsor-event fit Alpha deleted BDO α 0.55 α 0.67 CSU α 0.57 α 0.64 CST α 0.59 α 0.60 Mercedes α 0.56 α 0.69 Verwelius Bouwen α 0.59 α 0.72 Table 3. Chronbachs Alpha of scales that have been reduced to three-item scales

5.2 Univariate analysis

This subchapter will give a description of the characteristics for each of the variables. The variables that will be discussed are fan loyalty, sponsor-event fit, and brand awareness and brand image.

5.2.a Fan loyalty descriptives

A total of 152 respondents were included in the fan loyalty scale, which was measured from question 1 through 11. Scores within these 11 items range from 11, which is the lowest possible score, to 77, which is the highest possible score. The scales are grouped into four categories; the first group is the ‘low fan loyalty group’ where all scores between 11 and 27 were included, the second group is the

34 ‘moderate fan loyalty’ group where all scores between 24 and 43 were included, the third group is the ‘moderate high fan loyalty group’ where all scores from 44 through 59 were included and the last group is called the ‘high fan loyalty group where all scores above 60 were included. Even though the histogram shows a bell shaped curve, which indicates a normal distribution, it is still skewed to the right.

Together with the Kolmogorov statistic test, which is a test the statistical program spss automatically produces to indicate whether or not if there is a normal distribution, it shows a significant result (p<0.05), which for this test indicates that there is no normal distribution. This result is depicted in figure 2. The average score for the fan loyalty scale is 51.92 (M=51.92, SD=12.99). The level of fan loyalty for this sample set is moderate high, where 7.2% of the respondents (n=11) measure a low level of fan loyalty, 14.5% of the respondents (n=22) measure a moderate-low level of fan loyalty, 48% of the respondents (n=73) measure a moderate-high level of fan loyalty and 30.30% of the respondents (n=46) measure a high level of fan loyalty. These results are depicted in table 4 and table 5.

Figure 2. Histogram fan loyalty

35 Fan loyalty N 152 Mean 51.92 Mode 54 SD 12.99 Table 4. Fan loyalty frequencies

Groups N Percentage Low 11 7.20% Moderate low 22 14.50% Moderate high 73 48.00% High 46 30.30% Table 5. Fan loyalty low and high grouping

5.2.b Sponsor-event fit descriptives

A total of 152 respondents answered the items in question 13 through 32 that measured the sponsor-event fit for the ten sponsors brands of AFC AJAX. The ten sponsor brands for which sponsor-event fit was measured are Adidas, Aegon, BDO,

CSU, CST, Hublot, Mercedes, OGER, Verwelius Bouwen and de Vriendenloterij.

Because there are brands that measured sponsor-event fit on a three-item scale and brands with a four-item scale, this subchapter will first describe the frequencies of the brands with a four-item scale since the range of scores are different depending on the number of items within the scale. The sponsor brands with a three-item scale are described as second.

Scores in the four-item scale range from 4, which is the lowest possible score for sponsor-event fit, to 28, which is the highest possible score for sponsor-event fit.

The scales are grouped into four categories; the first group is the ‘low sponsor-event fit group’ where all scores between 4 and 9 were included, the second group is the

‘moderate low sponsor-event fit’ group where all scores between 10 and 15 were included, the third group is the ‘moderate high sponsor-event fit’ where all scores from 16 through 21 were included and the last group is called the ‘high sponsor-

36 event fit group’ where all scores above 22 were included. There were only two sponsors that measured a high sponsor-event fit and those are the main sponsor

Adidas and one regular sponsor Oger, The second main sponsor Aegon only has a moderate low sponsor-event fit. The average score for sponsor-even fit for the main sponsor Adidas is 21.09 (M=21.09, SD=5.6), 55.3% of the respondents (n=84) measure a ‘high sponsor-event fit’ for Adidas.

The average score for sponsor-even fit for the 2nd main sponsor Aegon

16.36(M=16.36, SD=5.37), the level of sponsor-even fit for the 2nd main sponsor

Aegon is moderate low, where 5.9% of the respondents (n=9) measure a ‘low sponsor-event fit’ for Aegon, 41.4% of the respondents (n=63) measure a ‘moderate low sponsor-event fit’ for Aegon, 32.2% of the respondents (n=49) measure a ‘ moderate high sponsor-event fit’ for Aegon and 20.4% of the respondents (n=31) measure a ‘high sponsor-event fit’ for Aegon.

The second sponsor that measured a high score for sponsor-even fit is the sponsor OGER, with an average score of 18.64 (M=18.64, SD=6.62), 38.8% of the respondents (n=59) measure a ‘high sponsor-event fit’ for OGER. These results together with the other sponsors are depicted in table 6 and table 7.

Sponsor brands Mean Mode SD ADIDAS 21.09 28 5.67 Aegon 16.37 16 5.37 Hublot 14.32 16 5.25 OGER 18.64 16 6.62 Vriendenloterij 13.55 10 5.41 Table 6. Sponsor-event fit for brands with a four-item scale

37 Adidas N Percent Low 6 3.9 Moderate low 17 11.2 Moderate high 45 29.6 High 84 55.3 Aegon N Percent Low 9 5.9 Moderate low 63 41.4 Moderate high 49 32.2 High 31 20.4 Hublot N Percent Low 20 13.2 Moderate low 58 38.15 Moderate high 60 39.47 High 14 9.2 Oger N Percent Low 12 7.9 Moderate low 32 21.1 Moderate high 49 32.2 High 59 38.8 Vriendenloterij N Percent Low 28 18.4 Moderate low 64 42.1 Moderate high 48 31.6 High 12 7.9

Table 7. Sponsor-event fit low-moderate-high groups

The following sponsors are the sponsors where the sponsor-event fit is measured on a three-item scale. Scores in the three-item scale range from 3, which is the lowest possible score for sponsor-event fit in the three-item scales, to 21, which is the highest possible score for sponsor-event fit in the three-item scales. The scales are grouped into four categories; the first group is the ‘low sponsor-event fit group’ where all scores between 3 and 7 were included, the second group is the ‘moderate low sponsor-event fit group’ where all scores ranging from 8 through 12 were included, the third group is the ‘moderate high sponsor-event fit group’ where all scores from 13 through 17 were included and the last group is the ‘high sponsor- event fit’ group where all scores higher than 18 were included. There was only one

38 sponsor that measured a high sponsor-event fit and that is the sponsor Mercedes with an average score for sponsor-even fit of 15.63 (M=15.63, SD=4.78 and 44.1% of the respondents (n=67) whom measure a ‘high sponsor-event fit’ for Mercedes.

All the results are depicted in table 8 and table 9.

Sponsor brands Mean Mode SD BDO 8.95 12 4.09 CSU 8.27 12 3.8 CST 9.24 12 3.76 Mercedes 15.63 21 4.78 Verwelius Bouwen 7.86 3 4.15 Table 8. Sponsor-event fit of three-item scales

BDO N Percent Low 60 39.5 Moderate low 69 45.4 Moderate high 18 11.8 High 5 3.3 CSU N Percent Low 70 46.1 Moderate low 66 43.4 Moderate high 14 9.2 High 2 1.3 CST N Percent Low 50 32.9 Moderate low 81 53.3 Moderate high 18 11.8 High 3 2 Mercedes N Percent Low 9 5.9 Moderate low 33 21.7 Moderate high 43 28.3 High 67 44.1 Verwelius B. N Percent Low 79 52 Moderate low 53 34.9 Moderate high 17 11.2 High 3 2 Table 9. Sponsor-event fit low-moderate-high groups.

5.2.c Brand Image descriptives

A total of 152 respondents answered the items that measured the Brand image for the ten sponsors brands of AFC AJAX and were measured through question 33 through 52. The brand image scale is a two-item scale where respondents could

39 range in scores from 2, which is the lowest possible score for brand image, through

14, which is the highest possible score for brand image. The higher a score within this scale, the more positive the perceived brand image for the sponsor brand is. The scales are grouped into four categories; the first group is the ‘low sponsor-event fit group’ where all scores from 2 through 4 were included, the second group is the

‘moderate low sponsor-event fit’ group where all scores ranging from 5 through 7 were included, the third group is the ‘moderate high sponsor-event fit’ where all scores ranging from 8 through 10 were included and the last group is called the

‘high sponsor-event fit’ group where all scores above 11 were included. There were three sponsors that measure a high perceived brand image, indicating that they have the most positive perceived brand image amongst the fans. The three sponsors are Adidas, Mercedes and Oger. Where 14 is the highest possible score Adidas has an average score for brand image of 9.61 (M=9.61, SD=3.34), 49.3% of the respondents (n=57) measure a ‘high brand image’ for Adidas. Mercedes has an even higher average score of 10.23 (M=10.23, SD=3.15), and also more respondents whom measure a ‘high brand image’ for Mercedes, 48.7% of the respondents (n=74) fall within this group. The average score for Oger is 9.19 (M=9.19, SD=3.57), 38.8% of the respondents (n=59) measure a ‘high brand image’ for Oger. These results together with the other sponsors are all depicted in table 10 and table 11.

40 Sponsor brands Mean Mode SD Adidas 9.61 12 3.34 Aegon 7.93 8 3.05 BDO 6.7 8 2.73 CSU 6.7 8 2.53 CST 6.34 8 2.54 Hublot 7.7 8 2.92 Mercedes 10.23 14 3.15 Oger 9.19 8 3.57 Verwelius B. 6.53 8 2.6 Vriendenloterij 7.09 8 3.3 Table 10. Descriptives brand image sponsor brands

Adidas N Percent HUBLOT N Percent Low 17 11.2 Low 18 11.8 Moderate low 18 11.8 Moderate low 34 22.4 Moderate high 42 27.6 Moderate high 76 50 High 75 49.3 High 24 15.8 Aegon N Percent OGER N Percent Low 22 14.5 Low 19 12.5 Moderate low 26 17.1 Moderate low 17 11.2 Moderate high 79 52 Moderate high 57 37.5 High 25 16.4 High 59 38.8 BDO N Percent Mercedes N Percent Low 31 20.4 Low 9 5.9 Moderate low 35 23 Moderate low 11 7.2 Moderate high 78 51.3 Moderate high 58 38.2 High 8 5.3 High 74 48.7 CSU N Percent Verwelius B. N Percent Low 29 19.1 Low 34 22.4 Moderate low 35 23 Moderate low 31 20.4 Moderate high 84 55.3 Moderate high 82 53.9 High 4 2.6 High 5 3.3 CST N Percent Vriendenloterij N Percent Low 34 22.4 Low 38 25 Moderate low 35 23 Moderate low 24 15.8 Moderate high 81 53.3 Moderate high 67 44.1 High 2 1.3 High 23 15.1 Table 11. Brand image sponsors grouping

5.2.d Awareness descriptives

A total of 152 respondents answered the question that measured the Awareness level for the ten sponsor brands of AFC AJAX that was measured with question 12.

The ten sponsor brands for which sponsor-event fit was measured are Adidas,

41 Aegon, BDO, CSU, CST, Hublot, Mercedes, OGER, Verwelius Bouwen and de

Vriendenloterij. The top five of the sponsors with the highest levels of awareness will be explained below.

The brand with the highest level of awareness is the main sponsor Aegon,

81.6% of the respondents (n=124) recognized Aegon as an official sponsor of AFC

AJAX. The 2nd main sponsor Adidas was the follow up in this ranking with 79.6% of the respondents (n=121) recognizing Adidas as an official sponsor of AFC AJAX.

Third in place is the brand Mercedes, where 65.10% of the respondents (n=99) recognized Mercedes as an official sponsor of AFC AJAX. The brand that has the fourth highest ranking is Oger, where 51.3% of the respondents recognized Oger as an official sponsor of AFC AJAX. Vriendenloterij came in fifth with 30.90% of the respondents (n=47) recognized Vriendenloterij as an official sponsor for AFC AJAX.

These results together with the levels of other sponsors are all depicted in table 12 and figure 3.

Sponsor brand N Percent Aegon 124 81.60% Adidas 121 79.60% Mercedes 99 65.10% Oger 78 51.30% Vriendenloterij 47 30.90% BDO 31 20.40% Hublot 30 19.70% CSU 23 15.10% Verwelius b. 21 13.80% CST 10 6.60% Table 12. Awareness counts

42

Figure 3. Awareness chart sponsor brands

5.3 Testing of Hypotheses

This subchapter will discuss the results of the hypotheses that have been tested using a regression analysis to test the relation of independent variables to dependent variables. This subchapter is divided in four parts where the first part the testing of Hypothesis 1 will be discussed, which is about perceived sponsor- event fit and the relation to levels of awareness. The second part of this subchapter will discuss the testing of hypothesis 2, which is about the perceived sponsor-event fit in relation to brand image. The third part of this subchapter will discuss the testing of hypothesis 3, which is how fan loyalty might influence perceived sponsor- event fit and the last part of this subchapter will discuss the testing of hypothesis 4,

43 which is about the relation fan loyalty might have to perceived brand image.

Hypothesis 1 assumes that a high sponsor-event fit will lead to higher levels of awareness than a low sponsor-event fit. This hypothesis was confirmed for five of the ten sponsors of AFC AJAX, based on a significance level of 5%. The five sponsors for which a higher sponsor-event fit leads to a higher level of awareness, thus supporting the stated hypothesis, are the following sponsors: BDO (B=0.263, p=0.001), CSU (B=0.222, p=0.006), Hublot (B=0.329, p=0.000), Mercedes (B=0.391, p=0.000) and the last sponsor for whom the hypothesis was confirmed, Oger

(B=0.0373, p=0.000). All these results together with the sponsors for whom the hypothesis is not confirmed are depicted in table 13 below.

Sponsor brand B P BDO 0.263 0.001 CSU 0.222 0.006 Hublot 0.329 0.000 Mercedes 0.391 0.000 Oger 0.373 0.000 Aegon* 0.159 0.051 Adidas* 0.118 0.147 Vriendenloterij* 0.124 0.112 Verwelius b.* 0.058 0.476 CST* 0.096 0.237 Table 13. Results hypothesis 1 * Hypothesis not supported

Hypothesis 2 assumes that sponsors with a higher level of sponsor-event fit will result in a more positive brand image than sponsors with a lower level of sponsor- event fit. With a significance level of 5% this hypothesis was confirmed for all the ten sponsors, Adidas (B=0.683, p=0.000), Aegon (B=0.457, p=0.000), BDO (B=0.546, p=0.000), CSU (B=0.557, p=0.000), CST (B=0.453, p=0.000), Hublot (B=0.543,

44 p=0.000), Mercedes (B=0.468, p=0.000), Mercedes (B=0.468, p=0.000), Oger

(B=0.601, p=0.000), Verwelius Bouwen (B=0.552, p=0.000) and the last sponsor for which the hypothesis is confirmed, Vriendenloterij (B=0.452, p=0.000). These results for hypothesis 2 are depicted in table 14 below.

Sponsor brands B P Adidas 0.683 0.000 Aegon 0.457 0.000 BDO 0.546 0.000 CSU 0.557 0.000 CST 0.453 0.000 Hublot 0.543 0.000 Mercedes 0.468 0.000 Oger 0.601 0.000 Verwelius B. 0.552 0.000 Vriendenloterij 0.452 0.000 Table 14. Results hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 3 assumes that higher levels of fan loyalty will lead to a higher perceived sponsor-event fit for the sponsor brands. With a significance level of 5% this hypothesis was not supported for any of the ten sponsors. All The results for hypothesis 3 are depicted in table 15 below.

Sponsor brands B P Adidas -0.15 0.859 Aegon 0.192 0.180 BDO 0.66 0.422 CSU 0.149 0.067 CST 0.062 0.446 Hublot 0.159 0.510 Mercedes 0.037 0.650 Oger 0.063 0.439 Verwelius B. 0.106 0.195 Vriendenloterij 0.108 0.184 Table 15. Results hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 4 assumes that a higher level of fan loyalty will lead to a more positive brand image than lower levels of fan loyalty. With a significance level of 5% the

45 hypothesis was not supported for nine of the sponsors. The sponsor for whom the hypothesis was supported is CSU (B=0.178, p=0.028). All the results for this hypothesis are depicted in table 16 below.

Sponsor brands B P Adidas -0.25 0.762 Aegon 0.212 0.090 BDO 0.133 0.102 CSU * 0.178 0.028 CST 0.063 0.443 Hublot 0.044 0.594 Mercedes 0.106 0.195 Oger 0.026 0.755 Verwelius B. 0.004 0.963 Vriendenloterij 0.129 0.112 Table 16. Results hypothesis 4 * confirmed hypothesis

6. Discussion

This chapter will discuss the findings of the empirical research that is conducted.

This chapter will follow a logical sequence in which the findings will be discussed in the order at which the hypotheses have been stated in previous chapters. Each discussed result will end with a short implication of the findings. This chapter will first discuss the empirical results related to sponsor-event fit and the effect on brand image. Then this subchapter will discuss sponsor-event fit and its influence on brand image. This chapter will finalize with the third part that will discuss the findings for the third and fourth hypotheses, which are concerned with the level of fan loyalty related to brand awareness and brand image.

The results from this research partially indicate that fans of the Dutch

Football club AFC AJAX, that have a high perceived sponsor-event fit for the sponsors of the club also have higher levels of awareness for the sponsor brands.

The reason that the first hypothesis only partially is supported is because the

46 hypothesis only was confirmed for five of the ten sponsors, of which none are main sponsors. The confirmed findings are similar to the findings of the scholars discussed in the theoretical framework (Gwinner & Eaton, 1999; Speed &

Thompson, 2000; Meenaghan, 2001; Jalleh et al., 2002; Rifon et al., 2004 Becker-

Olson & Hill, 2006; Koo et al. 2006). There are several explanations why some of the sponsor’s perceived sponsor-event fit did not have any significant influence on the level of awareness. The first explanation is allocated to the simple reason that the main sponsors already have a high level of awareness because of its prominent promotion rights. These are also the brands with the highest levels of awareness of all the ten sponsors (fig.2). The second explanation could be because of the different promotion rights every sponsor has with the Dutch football club. Due to the scope of this paper it was not possible to obtain all information concerning the promotion rights of the sponsors other than the information that was available via desk research and the authors own observation. Some of the sponsors might have more favorable promotion agreements than other sponsors, which obviously influence its level of awareness and thus also the relation sponsor-event fit has on this level of awareness. A third explanation might be due to overall promotion strategy a brand has outside the sponsorship agreement, this obviously affects levels of awareness.

These findings give insight into another possible factor influencing sponsorship outcomes which is the comparison of the specific promotion rights a sponsor has with its sponsored event, assuming it involves an event where multiple sponsors in partake. It is therefore important for managers in sport sponsorships to make sure that either there is a perceived fit between the brand and the event, by selecting an

47 event has the most optimal fit, or it should create this fit by explaining it to the consumers of the event. By creating a fit or selecting an event with the highest fit, managers can make sure that sponsorship responses toward levels of awareness are most favorable.

The results from this study also support the findings of scholars, whom indicate that higher levels of sponsor-event fit lead to a more positive perceived brand image (Speed & Thompson, 2000; Meenaghan, 2001; Rifon et al., 2004). This hypothesis was confirmed for all the ten sponsors of the Dutch football club AFC

AJAX. This implicates that whenever a fan recognizes a fit between the sponsor and the event, it automatically has a more positive brand image of the sponsor than if it would not recognize the sponsor-event fit. It is therefore important for managers in sport sponsorship departments to make sure that there is a perceived fit between the event and the brand. If there is no obvious fit such as a functional or image- based fit, managers should implement programs communicating the fit towards the consumers of events. Otherwise diminished sponsorship responses might be the result of the sponsorship agreement.

Other findings from this research indicate that there is no relationship between levels of fan loyalty and sponsor-event fit. One explanation for this could be that this study made use of actual sponsors. Madrigral (2000) a scholar that has contradictory findings regarding fan loyalty and sponsor-event fit made use of fictive sponsors amongst real spectators (Madrigal, 2000). This indicates that using real sponsors might lead to different outcomes. Other contradictory finding are from scholars such as Deitz et al., (2012) whom indicated that fans that have higher levels

48 of fan loyalty will elaborate more on a sponsor’s message therefore recognizing the level of fit more than fans with lower levels of fan loyalty. One explanation why the findings of this paper contradict the findings of Deitz et al. (2012) is that this study measured the level of fan loyalty amongst actual sports fans of a real sports team.

Deitz et al., (2012) used an experimental setting where fictive brands and fictive sports were used. The respondents were all students who participated in a marketing class. Because of this difference in measurement the research of Deitz et al. (2012) might have contradictory findings. These findings implicate the need for using real sports teams, real sponsors and actual sport fans when measuring levels of sponsor-event fit. It is still unclear whether or not there is a significant relation between fan loyalty and perceived-sponsor event fit. There is more research needed in this direction in order to clarify the contradictory findings. In the subchapter covering suggestions for further research there will be a more detailed description of which factors should be considered for further research.

Other findings within this paper did not find any support for higher levels of fan loyalty related to a higher perceived brand image, except for one of the ten sponsors of AFC AJAX, which was not a main sponsor. The author of this paper can only think of one reason why this hypothesis was supported for this one particular sponsor and that might be due to the promotion rights this specific sponsor has with the Dutch Football club. Unfortunately the promotion rights for this sponsor were not accessible via desk research, therefore the author can only speculate about its findings. But the author believes that this particular sponsor has additional interactive activities that are involved around matches of the Dutch football club.

49 These activities might contribute to the relationship fan loyalty has on brand image.

The findings of the other nine sponsors for which the hypothesis was not supported, are contradictory to the findings of previous scholars. Levin, Beasly and Gamble

(2004) found that higher loyalty levels of NASCAR fans have a higher perceived positive brand image than NASCAR fans with lower levels of fan loyalty. Levin,

Beasly and Gamble (2004) conducted their research with real fans, real sport events and actual sponsors. The sponsor brand for which the finding was related was a beer brand. The explanation for the findings of Levin, Beasly and Gamble (2004) might be due too the strong association that exists between NASCAR and beer

(Forget beer…’’2014). Because of this strong association between the NASCAR races and beer, the fans might already be leaning towards a positive attitude towards the sponsor beer brands. Therefore the higher the level of a fan of NASCAR is, the higher its perceived positive attitude of the beer sponsor brand. Another scholar that has contradictory findings related to fan loyalty and brand image, conducted research with fictive sponsor brands amongst fans of an actual sporting event. This scholar is already mentioned for the explanation of the contradictory findings of the third hypothesis, and its explanation is the same for the fourth hypothesis contradictory findings. Thee use of fictive sponsor brands cannot be generalized with the use of actual sponsor brands (Madrigal, 2000). The last scholar from whom the results in this paper differ is that from Boyle and Magnussson (2007). The difference in results between their research and this study might be because of the brand they used as sponsor brand. The brand was the University’s athletic program. The respondents were also students of this University. Because Boyle and Magnusson (2007) did not

50 use a commercial brand for which the respondents were not already biased to, it could be the reason that their findings indicate a more positive brand attitude amongst loyal fans. If their brand would be an independent commercial brand to which the students did not have any antecedents with, it might show that the hypothesis would not uphold, supporting the results of this study. These contradictory findings together with the other findings related to fan loyalty, indicate that there might be room for further research within this specific area of sport sponsorship. This study will explain more about the suggestions for further research in the following chapter after the overall conclusion.

7. Conclusion

In this chapter there will be given an overall conclusion of this study by answering the general research question of this study: How does sponsor-event fit and fan loyalty influence brand awareness and brand image in sport sponsorships?

This chapter will be the final chapter of this paper and will end with a section about the limitations of this research and suggestions for further research.

The aim of this paper was to form an answer to the central research question how sponsor-event fit and fan loyalty influence brand awareness and brand image.

By answering the research question this paper contributes to the scientific literature by combining results from previous scholars and giving a deeper understanding in the context of sports sponsorships, specifically taking the findings of previous scholars and measure if these results are also generalizable for Dutch football clubs and its sponsors. The results from this paper also have managerial implications.

51 Dutch managers of sports sponsorships can use the implications of these results when assessing fit for new sponsorship agreements and by using these implications to negate negative results from sponsorships as much as possible, striving only for most favorable results.

In order to answer the central research question, empirical research was conducted amongst sports fans of the Dutch Football club AFC AJAX and its ten official sponsors. There was an online survey developed and distributed amongst fans that consisted out of four parts that resembles the four variables used in this paper. The first part of the survey measured the levels of fan loyalty on attitudinal loyalty, behavioral loyalty and team identification. The second part of the survey measured the levels of brand awareness, where the third and fourth part measured sponsor-event fit and brand image of the official sponsors of the Dutch football club.

The findings of this study show that higher levels of sponsor-event fit will lead to higher levels of brand awareness and an enhancement of brand image for the sponsor brand. There are no significance results within this study that confirm the influence of fan loyalty to levels of brand awareness and brand image. There is one exception in the results where there was evidence of levels of fan loyalty influencing brand image for one sponsor for the other nine sponsors there was no proof of this relationship. The limitations of this study will be discussed in the next subchapter.

7.1 Limitations and suggestions for further research

This subchapter will discuss the limitations that this research has and should be taken into consideration before generalizing the results of this study. Together with

52 every limitation this subchapter will give suggestions for in which direction further research is needed.

The first limitation of this paper is that it was conducted amongst Dutch football supporters of one specific club. This means that the findings cannot be generalized to sports sponsorship in general, but only for Dutch football and specifically the Dutch football club AFC AJAX. Future research might expand the scope of the research by considering more clubs on a national level or a comparison between clubs from other countries.

Second, the findings concerning brand image and brand awareness did not measured awareness levels and brand image levels before the sponsorship with the

Dutch football club, this would clearly show which of the impact on brand awareness and brand image could be allocated to the marketing efforts of sponsorship. This means that the respondents within this study might have been influenced by promotional factors of the sponsor brands, outside the sponsorship with the Dutch football club. For example, advertisements on television from the same brands that is not related to the sports team but are part of the brands promotional strategy. Future research might conduct tests where there is a measurement of brand awareness and brand image levels both before and after a sponsorship.

Third, the sample of this research was not normally distributed. 78% of the respondents (n=119) were included in the two levels of fan loyalty that were considered high. Only 22% of the respondents (n=33) were grouped into the low levels of fan loyalty. Future research should obtain sample sets where the

53 distribution of fan loyalty is equally distributed. In this sample set the majority of the respondents (n=119) were considered to be fans with high levels of fan loyalty.

Fourth, this research was conducted through an online survey. This means that only fans that have access to the internet were able to partake in this research.

Future research should try to gather the sample set through various methods in order to have a better representation of the fans. This combined with the previous limitation will give a better sample set with a normal distribution.

Fifth, the scales that measure sponsor-event fit and brand image, were reduced to fewer items in order to make the survey as pleasant as possible. Further research should try to add additional items in order to capture the full measurements of sponsor-event fit and brand image and not a summary of important items.

The sixth and last limitation is that the level of brand awareness was only measured on recognition of brands. Further research should measure awareness on both brand recognition and brand recall, as Keller (1993) explains that brand awareness consists of these two constructs. Measuring only one does not give a full measurement of brand awareness as explained by Keller (1993).

In conclusion this study provides important insights for sponsors to select events with the highest sponsor-event fit and by doing this ensuring that sponsorship outcomes will be most favorable. This study also gives important cues for future research in order to further close the understanding of sports sponsorship.

54 8. References

Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 (8), 347–356.

Alexandris, K., Tsasousi, E. & James, J. (2007) Predicting sponsorship outcomes from attitudinal constructs: the case of a professional basketball event, Sport Marketing Quarterly, 16 (3), 130-139.

Arsenal sign up £150 m Emirates sponsorship and line up Adidas (n.d) in The Week.co.uk, Retrieved April 2, 2013, from www.theweek.co.uk/business/arsenal/50247/arsenal-sign-150m-emirates- sponsorship-and-line-adidas

Ashforth, B.E. & Mael, F. (1989), Social identity theory and the organization, Academy of Management Review, 14 (1), 20-30.

Anderson, John R. (1983), The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Baarda, D.B. & De Goede, M.P.M. (1990) Basisboek methoden en technieken. Praktische handleiding voor het opzetten en uitvoeren van onderzoek. Leiden: Stenfert Kroese.

Becker-Olsen, K.L., & Hill, R.P. (2006) The impact of sponsor fit on brand equity, Journal of Service Research, 9 (1), 73 – 83.

Bee, C.C., & Havitz, M.E. (2010). Exploring the relationship between involvement, fan attraction, psychological commitment and behavioral intentions in a sports spectator context. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 11 (2), 140–157.

Bauer, H.H., Stokburger-Sauer, N.E., & Exler, S. (2008). Brand image and fan loyalty in professional sport team: A refined model and empirical assessment. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 205–226.

55 Bodet, G., & Bernache-Assollant, I. (2011). Consumer loyalty in sport spectatorship services: The relationships with consumer satisfaction and team identification. Psychology and Marketing, 28 (8), 781–802.

Borland, J., & Macdonald, R. (2003). Demand for sport. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19, 478-502.

Boyle, B.A., & Magnusson, P. (2007). Social identity and brand equity formation: A comparative study of collegiate sports fans. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 497–520.

Cornwell, T. B. (1995). Sponsorship-linked marketing development. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 4, 13-24.

Cornwell, T.B. & Maignan, I. (1998), An International Review of Sponsorship Research, Journal of Advertising, 27 (1), 1-21.

Cornwell, T.B., Weeks,. C.S. & Roy, D.P. (2005) SPONSORSHIP-LINKED MARKETING: OPENING THE BLACK BOX, Journal of Advertising, 34 (2), 21- 42.

Crowley, M. G. (1991), Prioritizing the Sponsorship Audience, European Journal of Marketing, 25 (11), 11-21.

D'Astous, A., & Bitz, P. (1995). Consumer Evaluations of Sponsorship Programmes. European Journal of Marketing, 29 (12), 6-22.

Deitz, D.G., Myers, S.W., & Stafford, M.R. (2012) Understanding Consumer Response to Sponsorship information: A Resource Matching Approach. Psychology and Marketing, 29(4), 226–239.

Emirates soar as ‘dual sponsorship’ deals spells success for sponsor (n.d.) in Repucom. Retrieved April 2, 2014, from http://repucom.net/media/emirates-sponsorship-deals

56 Funk, D., & James, J., (2001) The psychological continuum model: A conceptual framework for understanding an individual’s psychological connection to sport. Sport Management Review, 4 (2), 119-150.

Forget Beer-Drinking Good Ol' Boys; Meet Nascar's Fitness-Freak Drivers (n.d), retrieved 20 June, 2014, from http://adage.com/article/media/nascar- drivers-real-athletes/291797/

Galinsky, A.D., & Moskowitz, G.B. (2000). Perspective taking: decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (4), 708–24.

Grohs, R., & Reisinger, H. (2013) Sponsorship effects on brand image: The role of exposure and activity involvement, Journal of Business Research, 67 (5), 1018 – 1025

Grohs, R., Wagner, U., & Vsetecka, S. (2004). Assessing the effectiveness of sport sponsorships. An empirical investigation. Schmalenbach Business Review, 56 (3), 119–138.

Gwinner, K., (1997) A model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsorship. International Marketing Review, 14 (3), 145-158.

Gwinner, K., & Bennett, G. (2008). The impact of brand cohesiveness and sport identification on brand fit in a sponsor- ship context. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 410–426.

Gwinner, K., & Eaton, J. (1999). Building brand image through event sponsorship: The role of image transfer. Journal of Advertising, 28 (4), 47–57.

Gwinner, K., & Swanson, S. (2003), “A Model of Fan Identification: Antecedents and Sponsorship Outcomes,” Journal of Services Marketing, 17 (3), 275–294.

Hoofdsponsor (n.d.) in www.ajax.nl, Retrieved May 30, 2014, from http://www.ajax.nl/Sitewide-Tabs/Business/Sponsors/Hoofdsponsor.htm

57 IEG Press Release. (2014). Sponsorship Spending Growth Expected to Slow As Marketers Eye Newer Media And Marketing Options. Retrieved 3 February, 2014 from http://www.sponsorship.com/About-IEG/Press- Room/Sponsorship- Spending-Growth-Expected-to-Slow-As-Ma.aspx

Jalleh, G., Donovan, R., Giles-Corti, B., & D’Arcy, J. Holman, C. (2002) Sponsorship: impact on brand awareness and brand attitudes. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 8 (1), 18–35.

Kaynak, E., Salman, G.G., & Tatoglu, E. (2008). An integrative framework linking brand associations and brand loyalty in professional sports. Journal of Brand Management, 15 (5), 336–357.

Keller, K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity Source, Journal of Marketing, 57 (1), 1-22.

Koenigstorfer, J., Groeppel-Klein, A., & Kunkel, T. (2010) The Attractiveness of National and International Football Leagues: Perspectives of Fans of “Star Clubs” and “Underdogs”, European Sport Management Quarterly, 10 (2), 127- 163

Koo, G., Quarterman, J. & Flynn, L. (2006). Effect of perceived sport event and sponsor image fit on consumers’ cognition, affect and behavioral intentions. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 15 (2), 80 – 90.

Kotler, P. H. (1991). Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, and Control, (8th edition)Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Lascu, D., Giese, T., Toolan, C, Guehring, B., & Mercer, J (1995). Sport involvement: A relevant individual difference factor in spectator sports. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 4, 41-56.

Levin, A. M., Beasley, F., & Gamble, T. (2004). Brand loyalty of NASCAR fans towards sponsors: The impact of fan identification. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 6 (1), 11-2

58 Madrigal, R (2000), The influence of social alliances with sports teams on intentions to purchase corporate sponsors’ products. Journal of Advertising, 20 (4), 13-24.

Madrigal, R. (2006) Measuring the multidimensional nature of sporting event performance consumption, Journal of Leisure Research 38(3), 267-292.

Van Maren, K. (2001). Sponsoring: hoe maak je sponsoractiviteiten profijtelijk? Alphen a.d. Rijn: Kluwer.

McDaniel, S.R. (1999). An investigation of match-up effects in sport sponsorship advertising: the implications of consumer advertising schemas. Psychology & Marketing, 16 (2), 163 - 184.

Meenaghan, T. (1983). “Commercial sponsorship”. European Journal of Marketing, 17 (7), 5-73.

Meenaghan, T. (2001), Understanding Sponsorship Effects, in: Psychology & Marketing, 18 (2), 95 –122.

Meenaghan, T., & Shipley, D. (1999). Media Effect in Commercial Sponsorship. European Journal of Marketing , 33 (4), 328-347.

Pooley, J.C. (1978). The sport fan: A social psychology of misbehavior. CAPHER Sociology of Sport Monograph Series. University of Calgary, Canada

Rifon, N.J., Choi, S.M., Trimble, S. & Li, H. (2004) CONGRUENCE EFFECTS IN SPONSORSHIP: The Mediating Role of Sponsor Credibility and Consumer Attributions of Sponsor Motive. Journal of Advertising, 33 (1), 30-42.

Rossiter, J.R. & Percy, L. (1987), Advertising and Promotion Management. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Roy, D. B., & Cornwell, T. B. (2004). The effects of consumer knowledge on responses to event sponsorships. Psychology & Marketing, 21 (3), 185–207.

59

Statista. (2011) Time spent watching NFL football, retrieved 16 January 2014, from http://www.statista.com/statistics/205941/nfl-football-tv-viewing-time-of- us-adults/

Stevens, S., & Rosenberger, P.J. (2012). The influence of fan involvement, following sport and fan identification on fan loyalty: An Australian perspective. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 13 (3), 220–234.

Speed, R., & Thompson, P. (2000). Determinants of sports sponsorship response. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28 (2), 226-238.

Sponsors (n.d.) in www.ajax.nl, Retrieved May 30, 2014, from http://www.ajax.nl/Sitewide-Tabs/Business/Sponsors/Sponsors.htm

Trail, G. T., Anderson, D. F., & Fink, J. (2000). A theoretical model of sport spectator consumption behavior. International Journal of Sport Management, 3 (2), 154 –180.

Uhrich, S., & Koenigstorfer, J. (2009). Effects of atmosphere at major sports events a perspective from environmental psychology. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 10, 325 - 344.

Van Groningen, B. & de Boer, C. (2008) Beschrijvende statistiek. Boom onderwijs

Wakefield, K.L. (1995) The pervasive effects of social influence on sporting event attendance, Journal of Sport and Social Issues 19(4), 335-351.

60 Appendix. Survey questions

Fan loyalty

Dankuwel dat u de tijd heeft genomen om deel te nemen aan dit onderzoek. Met het beantwoorden van deze vragenlijst bent u ongeveer 10 minuten bezig.Uw antwoorden zijn een belangrijk onderdeel van mijn masterthesis, waarbij ik onderzoek doe naar de mate van fan loyaliteit en de sponsors van Ajax. Mocht u verder nog vragen hebben met betrekking tot dit onderzoek dan kunt u altijd contact opnemen met mij via [email protected]

Met de volgende vragen wil ik graag weten wat voor type Ajax-supporter u bent.U krijgt hieronder een aantal stellingen te zien waarop u kunt aangeven in hoeverre dit van toepassing is voor u.

Ik koop Ajax gerelateerde producten zoals spelertenue's en andere fanartikelen. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Nooit:Altijd ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Als ik naar een wedstrijd ga draag ik kleding van Ajax. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Nooit:Altijd ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Ik draag regelmatig kleding van Ajax, zelfs als ik niet naar een wedstrijd ga. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Nooit:Altijd ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Het afgelopen seizoen ben ik naar de thuiswedstrijden van Ajax geweest. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Nooit:Allemaal ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

61 Het afgelopen seizoen ben ik naar de uitwedstrijden van Ajax geweest. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Nooit:Allemaal ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Wanneer ik niet naar een wedstrijd van Ajax kan gaan, kijk ik de wedstrijd op tv of ik stream het online. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Nooit:Altijd ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Hieronder volgen een aantal stellingen die betrekking hebben op uw gevoel ten opzichte van Ajax. U kunt hierop antwoorden door aan te geven in hoeverre dit van toepassing is voor u.

Ik heb een persoonlijk gevoel van overwinning wanneer Ajax wint. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Het is belangrijk voor mij dat Ajax wint. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Ajax is een belangrijk onderdeel in mijn leven. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Ajax is een onderdeel van wie ik ben. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

62 Wanneer iemand over Ajax spreekt dan voel ik mij persoonlijk aan gesproken. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

De volgende vraag heeft betrekking tot de sponsors van Ajax. Er zijn hier geen goede of slechte antwoorden in mogelijk. Het gaat om uw eerste reactie, zonder dat u hier al te lang over moet nadenken.

Kunt u uit de volgende lijst van merken en of bedrijven aangeven welke de officiële sponsors van Ajax zijn. U kunt dit doen door de namen van sponsors uit de lijst naar de rechts te slepen. Click to write Group 1 ______Nike (1) ______Heineken (2) ______Grolsch (3) ______Coca Cola (4) ______BMW (5) ______Mercedes (6) ______Sony (7) ______Samsung (8) ______Honda (9) ______Volkswagen (10) ______Aegon (11) ______Siemens (12) ______Abn Amro (13) ______Huawei (14) ______Rabobank (15) ______RTL 4 (16) ______Deloitte (17) ______BDO (18) ______KPMG (19) ______CSU (20) ______ING (21) ______Hertog (22)

63 ______Panerai (23) ______PWC (24) ______HUBLOT (25) ______Rijksmuseum (26) ______CST (27) ______PostNL (28) ______Michelin (29) ______Suitsupply (30) ______Oger (31) ______BAM (32) ______RTL7 (33) ______Verwelius Bouwen (34) ______Staatsloterij (35) ______Jimmy Woo (36) ______Vriendenloterij (37) ______Postcodeloterij (38) ______Bankgiroloterij (39) ______Adidas (40)

Met de volgende vragen wil ik graag weten in hoeverre u de officiële sponsors bij Ajax vindt passen. Dit gaat zowel over gelijkenissen in functionaliteit als het imago tussen een sponsor en Ajax. U kunt aangeven in hoeverre u het met de stellingen eens bent.

64 Het is zeer waarschijnlijk dat spelers van Ajax tijdens wedstrijden te maken krijgen met producten van Adidas. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Adidas is niet een merk dat ik spelers van Ajax zie gebruiken. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Het is zeer waarschijnlijk dat spelers van Ajax tijdens wedstrijden te maken krijgen met producten van Aegon. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Ik zie de spelers van Ajax niet zo gauw gebruik maken van de producten van Aegon. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

65

Het is zeer waarschijnlijk dat spelers van Ajax tijdens wedstrijden te maken krijgen met producten van BDO. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Ik zie de spelers van Ajax niet zo gauw gebruik maken van de diensten van BDO. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Het is zeer waarschijnlijk dat spelers van Ajax tijdens wedstrijden te maken krijgen met producten van CSU. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

66 Ik zie de spelers van Ajax niet zo gauw gebruik maken van de producten van CSU. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Het is zeer waarschijnlijk dat spelers van Ajax tijdens wedstrijden te maken krijgen met producten van CST. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Ik zie de spelers van Ajax niet zo gauw gebruik maken van de diensten van CST. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Het is zeer waarschijnlijk dat spelers van Ajax tijdens wedstrijden te maken krijgen met producten van HUBLOT. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

67 Ik zie de spelers van Ajax niet zo gauw gebruik maken van de producten van HUBLOT. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Het is zeer waarschijnlijk dat spelers van Ajax tijdens wedstrijden te maken krijgen met producten van Mercedes. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Ik zie de spelers van Ajax niet zo gauw gebruik maken van de producten van Mercedes. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

68 Het is zeer waarschijnlijk dat spelers van Ajax tijdens wedstrijden te maken krijgen met producten van Oger. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Ik zie de spelers van Ajax niet zo gauw gebruik maken van de producten van Oger. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Het is zeer waarschijnlijk dat spelers van Ajax tijdens wedstrijden te maken krijgen met producten van Verwelius Bouwen. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Ik zie de spelers van Ajax niet zo gauw gebruik maken van de diensten van Verwelius Bouwen. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

69 Het is zeer waarschijnlijk dat spelers van Ajax tijdens wedstrijden te maken krijgen met producten van de Vriendenloterij. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Ik zie de spelers van Ajax niet zo gauw gebruik maken van de producten van de Vriendenloterij. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Met de volgende vragen wil ik graag weten hoe u over de sponsors van Ajax denkt. U kunt aangeven in hoeverre u vindt dat de stellingen bij u passen.

Ajax en Adidas hebben hetzelfde imago. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Het is voor mij logisch dat Ajax door Adidas wordt gesponsord. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

70

Ajax en Aegon hebben hetzelfde imago. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Het is voor mij logisch dat Ajax door Aegon wordt gesponsord. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Ajax en BDO hebben hetzelfde imago. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Het is voor mij logisch dat Ajax door BDO wordt gesponsord. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

71

Ajax en CSU hebben hetzelfde imago. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Het is voor mij logisch dat Ajax door CSU wordt gesponsord. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Ajax en CST hebben hetzelfde imago. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

72 Het is voor mij logisch dat Ajax door CST wordt gesponsord. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Ajax en HUBLOT hebben hetzelfde imago. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Het is voor mij logisch dat Ajax door HUBLOT wordt gesponsord. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Ajax en Mercedes hebben hetzelfde imago. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

73 Het is voor mij logisch dat Ajax door Mercedes wordt gesponsord. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Ajax en Oger hebben hetzelfde imago. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Het is voor mij logisch dat Ajax door Oger wordt gesponsord. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Ajax en Verwelius Bouwen hebben hetzelfde imago. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Het is voor mij logisch dat Ajax door Verwelius Bouwen wordt gesponsord. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

74

Ajax en de Vriendenloterij hebben hetzelfde imago. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Het is voor mij logisch dat Ajax door de Vriendeloterij wordt gesponsord. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Met de volgende vragen wil ik graag weten wat uw gevoel is bij de sponsors van Ajax. U kunt op de volgende stellingen aangeven in hoeverre deze van toepassing voor u zijn.

Wanneer ik aan Adidas denk dan zijn de eerste gedachten die ik krijg. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Niet positief:Zeer ! ! ! ! ! ! ! positief (1)

75 Ik heb een voorkeur voor Adidas. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Wanneer ik aan Aegon denk dan zijn de eerste gedachten die ik krijg. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Niet positief:Zeer ! ! ! ! ! ! ! positief (1)

Ik heb een voorkeur voor Aegon. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

76 Wanneer ik aan BDO denk dan zijn de eerste gedachten die ik krijg. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Niet positief:Zeer ! ! ! ! ! ! ! positief (1)

Ik heb een voorkeur voor BDO. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Wanneer ik aan CSU denk dan zijn de eerste gedachten die ik krijg. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Niet positief:Zeer ! ! ! ! ! ! ! positief (1)

Ik heb een voorkeur voor CSU. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

77

Wanneer ik aan CST denk dan zijn de eerste gedachten die ik krijg. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Niet positief:Zeer ! ! ! ! ! ! ! positief (1)

Ik heb een voorkeur voor CST. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Wanneer ik aan HUBLOT denk dan zijn de eerste gedachten die ik krijg. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Niet positief:Zeer ! ! ! ! ! ! ! positief (1)

Ik heb een voorkeur voor HUBLOT. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

78

Wanneer ik aan Mercedes denk dan zijn de eerste gedachten die ik krijg. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Niet positief:Zeer ! ! ! ! ! ! ! positief (1)

Ik heb een voorkeur voor Mercedes. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Wanneer ik aan Oger denk dan zijn de eerste gedachten die ik krijg. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Niet positief:Zeer ! ! ! ! ! ! ! positief (1)

Ik heb een voorkeur voor Oger. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

79

Wanneer ik aan Verwelius Bouwen denk dan zijn de eerste gedachten die ik krijg. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Niet positief:Zeer ! ! ! ! ! ! ! positief (1)

Ik heb een voorkeur voor Verwelius Bouwen. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

Wanneer ik aan de Vriendenloterij denk dat zijn de eerste gedachten die ik krijg. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Niet positief:Zeer ! ! ! ! ! ! ! positief (1)

Ik heb een voorkeur voor de Vriendenloterij. 1 (1) 2 (2) 3 (3) 4 (4) 5 (5) 6 (6) 7 (7) Oneens:Eens ! ! ! ! ! ! ! (1)

80 Wat is uw geslacht? ! Man (1) ! Vrouw (2)

Wat is uw leeftijd ! t/m 18 jaar (1) ! 19 t/m 30 jaar (2) ! 31 t/m 40 jaar (3) ! 41 t/m 50 jaar (4) ! 51 jaar en ouder (5)

81