2019 Sport Marketing Association Conference (SMA XVII) Exploring Attitudes toward Naming-rights and Jersey Sponsors for an NBA Team Terry Eddy, University of Windsor Jean-Francois Scraire, University of Windsor Keifer Bell, University of Windsor James Caron, University of Windsor Wednesday, November 6, 2019 25-minute oral presentation 4:30-4:55 PM, Chi. River (A, B, C) (including questions) Naming-rights and jersey sponsorships are two forms of activation that have become important revenue streams for sport organizations across the globe. The naming-rights market is highly developed in North America (Eddy, 2014), with over 80% of the facilities used by the four major professional sport leagues bearing corporate names. On the other hand, although jersey/shirt sponsorship is omnipresent globally, it is relatively new in North America (Jensen et al., 2012). In 2007, the MLS became the first North American professional league to place corporate logos on jerseys (Jensen et al., 2012), and the NBA became the first of the four major leagues to allow jersey sponsorship in 2017. Interest in becoming naming-rights or jersey sponsors from new and existing league partners, as well as continued price escalation, suggests these forms of activation are considered premium marketing vehicles. For example, the San Antonio Spurs’ jersey deal represented an upsell to Frost Bank, a Spurs sponsor since 1973 (Wolkenbrod, 2018). Similarly, State Farm, a long-time NBA sponsor, only recently enter the naming-rights space, purchasing naming-rights to the Atlanta Hawks’ arena in 2018 (Sunnucks, 2018). Current NBA jersey sponsorships have cost brands in the range of $5-20 million annually (Lefton & Lombardo, 2019), which is comparable to the figures for naming-rights of NBA venues. Despite this growth, resistance from fans have been frequent themes for both naming-rights (Woisetschlager et al., 2014) and jersey sponsorships (Block, 2016). As such, the purpose of this study is to examine individuals’ attitudes and behaviors toward naming-rights and jersey sponsors and determine if there are differences in how people respond to the two activation strategies. Although activation is considered a critical element in sponsorship processing, it has received little focused study (Dreisbach, in press; Kim et al., 2015). Since it has been found that certain products may better fit a different type of activation between venue or team (Martinez & Janney, 2015), this work is a timely addition to the literature. Numerous attitudinal/cognitive factors, including team identification, involvement, and fit, have been identified as positive predictors of important sponsorship outcomes, which include brand image and behavioral intentions (Kim et al., 2015). However, past research on naming-rights has found team identification to be a non- significant (Eddy, 2014) or negative predictor (Chen & Zhang, 2012; Woisetschlager et al., 2014) of sponsor outcomes. Increased resistance from fans and concerns about over-commercialization with naming-rights, compared to other forms of sponsorship, has been one factor that has driven these results. Due to this divergence, it has been argued that naming-rights require focused research attention – the same has also been said for jersey sponsorship (Jensen et al., 2012). However, studies on jersey sponsorship have been limited. Even in European settings, brands that appear on shirts are often the research context (Zaharia et al., 2016), but perceptions/attitudes toward the practice of jersey sponsorship are generally not assessed. Early research on MLS/WNBA jersey sponsorship indicated fan reactions were generally positive, due to perceptions of the ‘need’ for revenue for league survival (Jensen et al., 2012). As such, it was noted that similar acceptance might not occur for a league with less perceived need for revenue. Theory from the advertising literature, particularly brand placement and prominence, will frame this study. Brand prominence is the extent to which the brand is the focus of attention within media programming (Gupta & Lord 1998). Prominence is affected by numerous elements of brand placement, such as location, product/logo size, Chicago, IL November 6-8, 2019 2019 Sport Marketing Association Conference (SMA XVII) integration into programming, and frequency/duration on screen (Choi et al., 2018). In past research on television, prominent placements of brands had a negative effect on brand attitudes (Matthes et al., 2007). Subtle, or more natural, placements were less likely to cause negative shifts in brand attitude (Cowley & Barron, 2008). Within the context of sponsor activations, naming-rights and jersey sponsorships are highly prominent, due to their integration within the core product. However, jersey sponsorship is arguably more prominent since the brand usually appears simultaneously with the team brand/players. Further, North Americans may view corporate facility names as being more natural, since the practice has been mainstream for several decades. As such, the following hypotheses were created: H1: Attitudes toward naming-rights sponsorship will be more positive than attitudes toward jersey sponsorship, when controlling for team identification. H2: Image of the naming sponsors will be more positive than the image of the jersey sponsors, when controlling for team identification. H3: Behavioral intentions toward naming sponsors will be more positive than intentions toward jersey sponsors, when controlling for team identification. The Toronto Raptors provide an appropriate setting for this research because the jersey (Sunlife) and arena naming (Scotiabank) sponsors are both relatively new (2017 and 2018, respectively). Thus, the public has been exposed to each sponsor for similar times. Recruitment began in November, 2018 using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). MTurk continues to grow as a recruitment platform for sport marketing research as it has been found to provide valid and reliable results, especially when targeting diverse populations (Casler et al., 2013; Weiner & Dwyer, 2017). Since a Canada-wide sample was desired for the study, using MTurk was appropriate. Recruitment is ongoing, with 235 usable responses already received. To ensure data quality, geographical restrictions, minimum worker ratings, and IP limiters were utilized (Buhrmester et al., 2011). Timed knowledge questions and attention checks were also inserted throughout the survey (Peer et al., 2014), and any incorrect responses removed the participants from the survey immediately. A two group, post-test only, quasi-experimental design was employed, with workers randomly assigned to either a naming-rights or jersey sponsor survey. Both questionnaires were identical except for contextual differences (e.g. sponsor names). Sponsor image and behavioral intentions were adapted directly from Alexandris and Tsiotsou (2012), and attitude toward sponsorship items were minimally altered to suit the activation context. A one-way MANCOVA, with team identification included as a covariate, will be used to address the hypotheses. The findings will help brands better understand how activation can affect how their partnerships are perceived, and inform the decision-making process on leveraging strategies. References Alexandris, K., & Tsiotsou, R. H. (2012). Testing a hierarchy of effects model of sponsorship effectiveness. Journal of Sport Management, 26(5), 363-378. Block, J. (2016, April 19). Why ads on NBA jersey aren’t the end of the world. Huffington Post. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/why-ads-on-nba-jerseys-arent-the-end-of-the-world-according-to-a soccer-fan_n_57112ae7e4b0060ccda32e05 Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5. Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2156-2160. Chen, K.K., & Zhang, J.J., (2012). To name it or not name it: Consumer perspectives on facility naming rights sponsorship in collegiate athletics. Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics, 5, 119-148. Choi, D., Bang, H., Wojdynski, B. W., Lee, Y. I., & Keib, K. M. (2018). How brand disclosure timing and brand prominence influence consumer's intention to share branded entertainment content. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 42, 18-31. Cowley, E., & Barron, E. (2008). When product placement goes wrong: The effects of program liking and placement prominence. Journal of Advertising, 37(1), 89-98. Chicago, IL November 6-8, 2019 2019 Sport Marketing Association Conference (SMA XVII) Dreisbach, J., Woisetschlager, D. M., Backhaus, C., & Cornwell, T. B. (2018). The role of fan benefits in shaping responses to sponsorship activation. Journal of Business Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.041 Eddy, T. (2014). Measuring effects of naming-rights sponsorships on college football fans’ purchasing intentions. Sport Management Review, 17(3), 362–375. Gupta, P. B., & Lord, K. R. (1998). Product placement in movies: The effect of prominence and mode on audience recall. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 20(1), 47-59. Jensen, R., Bowman, N., Wang, Y., & Larson, B. (2012). New league, new market and new sponsorship: An exploratory study of attitudes towards shirt sponsorship in Major League Soccer. Soccer