MARK GROZA ,Univers i ty of Massachusetts

JOE COBBS,Northern Kentucky Univers i ty

ATTENUATING THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF A LOW-FIT

SPONSORSHIP:THE ROLE OF CONCURRENT

SPONSORS

“When we are approached by sports bodies to act as a sponsor, we immediately investigate who else they may be

courting” -- Lothar Korn, head of marketing communications at Audi

Distinct brand image increases recall; more attractive (Fournier 1998; Currás-Pérez et al. 2009)

Clarity of brand positioning favorable attitudes, purchase intentions (Simmons and Becker-Olsen 2006)

Sponsorship frequently used for diff erentiation, creation of distinct image (Amis et al. 1999; Cornwell et al. 2001)

Sponsorship rarely occurs in isolation (Chien et al. , 2010)

Incongruent sponsorships adversely eff ect brand distinctiveness and clarity of positioning (Fleck and Quester 2007)

Articulating congruence is one avenue to assuage the adverse eff ects of a low-fi t sponsorship (e.g., Cornwell et al. 2006; Simmons and Becker-Olsen 2006)

RQ: How do concurrent sponsors influence the adverse eff ects of a low-fi t sponsorship?

BRANDING THROUGH SPONSORSHIP

March 14, 2011

SPORTS-BUSINESS JOURNAL

H1: The adverse eff ects of a low-fi t sponsorship are hypothesized to be less prevalent in the presence of a fellow incongruent (versus congruent) co-sponsor.

Categorization & accentuation theories (Loken et al. 2008; Rosch and Mervis 1975; Krueger and Clement 1994; Tajfel 1959)

H2 (Moderation): Eff ects reversed when the number of co-sponsors is increased. Incongruent sponsor rated better in the presence of multiple congruent co-sponsors versus multiple incongruent co-sponsors.

HYPOTHESES

Experiment: 2 (congruence of co-sponsor(s): congruent versus

incongruent) x 2 (portfolio size: one versus fi ve co-sponsors) between subjects factorial design

Participants: n=106, cell size 24-29.Dependent variables

Brand identity distinctiveness (Bhattacharya and Sen 2003; Currás-Pérez et al. 2009)

(The brand) is diff erent from the other brands in the sector.(The brand) is diff erent from the rest of i ts competitors.(The brand) stands out from its competitors.

Brand identity clarity (Simons and Becker-Olsen 2006)

(The brand) clearly communicates what i t stands for.(The brand) has an image that is diffi cult to understand.(The brand) conveys a clear image in al l of i ts actions.

DESIGN

Manipulation Check (Congruence of Concurrent Sponsors)Congruent 5.10

(1.29)Incongruent 4.58

(1.18)  F=4.299

P=.041

MANIPULATION CHECK

Brand Identity Distinctiveness of Incongruent Title Sponsor (Buca di BEPPO)

  Congruence of Concurrent SponsorsCongruent Incongruent

Number of Concurrent Sponsors

One 4.31(1.47)

4.75(0.98)

Five 4.54(1.30)

4.04(0.98)

RESULTS

Clarity of Positioning of Incongruent Title Sponsor (Bucca Di Beppo)

  Congruence of Concurrent SponsorsCongruent Incongruent

Number of Concurrent Sponsors

One 4.08(1.11)

4.56(1.26)

Five 4.21(1.30)

3.79(1.08)

MANCOVA  Wilks’s λ F-Value     Intercept .456 39.01*Gender .896 3.80*Age .965 1.86Co-Sponsor Congruence

.993 .232

Portfolio Size .993 .539Congruence*Size .949 2.67*Note: * p < 0.10

RESULTS

Tests of Between Subjects Effects  Brand

DistinctnessBrand Clarity

  F-Value F-ValueIntercept 76.82 106.56Gender .026 4.467*Age 2.144 3.534Co-Sponsor Congruence

.013 .001

Portfolio Size 1.062 1.544Congruence*Size 4.264* 4.491*Note: * P<.05

RESULTS

RESULTS

One Co-Sponsor Five Co-Sponsors3.8

4

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5

Congruent Co-Sponsor Incongruent Co-Sponsor

4.31

4.75

4.54

4.04

Bra

nd I

dent

ity

Dis

tinc

tive

ness

of

Buc

a

Single co-sponsor: brand distinctiveness and clarity of positioning of incongruent sponsor lower when paired with a congruent (versus incongruent) co-sponsor

Five co-sponsors: distinctiveness and clarity of incongruent sponsor higher in a portfolio of otherwise congruent (versus incongruent) co-sponsors

Incongruent sponsors should aim to align with… Sponsored entities with small portfolios inclusive of another

incongruent sponsor Large portfolios composed primarily of co-sponsors

congruent to the sponsored enterprise

CONCLUSION