Event Sponsership

8/6/2019 Event Sponsership

1/12

Bu ilding Brand Image Through Event Sponsorship:The Role of Image TransferKevin P. Gwinner and John EatonPast sponsorship research has primarily focused on awareness building strategies, and ha s virtually ignoredbrand image issues. As a result, little guidance is available for firms that seek to use sponsorship opportuni-ties to aid in brand positioning. This study reports the results of an experiment using undergraduate studentsubjects, who assessed the degree to which a sporting event's image was transferred to a brand through evensponsorship activity. Subjects in the sponsorship pairing treatment were more likely to report similarities onbrand-event personality components than subjects who were not exposed to the event-brand sponsorship linkthus suppo rting the notion that sponsorship results in image transfer. Further, we found that when event andbrand are matched on either an image or functional basis the transfer process is enhanced. Managementimplications for sporting event sponsorship and future research directions are discussed.

Kevin P. Gwinner (Ph.D., ArizonaState U niversity) is Assistant Professorof Marketing, K ansas St ate Un iversity.Jo hn Elaton (M.B A , University ofToledo) is a doctoral candidate inmarketing at Arizona State University.The authors wish to thank StephenNowlis (Arizona State University) forguidance related to experimentaldesign issues and the four anony-mous Journal of Advertisingreviewers and former editor LesCarlson (Clemson University) fortheir helpful comm ents on earlierversions of this m anuscript.

Joumal of Advertising,Volume XXVIII. Number 4Winter 1999

While firms e nter into sponsorship arran gem ents for a variety of reasons,two of the most common are: (1) to increase brand awareness, and (2) toestablish, stren gthen, or change brand image (Comwell and Maignan 1998;Crowley 1991; Gwinner 1997; M arshall and Cook 1992; Meenaghan 1991;Meerabeau et al. 1991). Typically, strategies aimed at increasing brandawareness are implemented using a multitude of promotional media andare designed to have tbe sponsoring brand exposed to as many potentialconsumers as possible. Past researcb has examined the effectiveness ofthese awareness building strategies through a variety of methods (e.g., totalevent attend ance , exit polls, sales following th e event, and num ber of mediamentions). Regrettably, far less research attention has focused on brandimage issues. Indeed, researchers have suggested that little is understoodabout what makes sponsorship "work," particularly with regard to imageassociation (Javalgi e t al. 1994; Lee, Sandier and Shan i 1997).

The purpose of this p aper is to gain insight into the brand image aspects ofsponsorsbip. Specifically, based on tbeoretical perspectives from the celeb-rity endorsement, schema, and advertising litera tures, we propose and testseveral relationsh ips involving the infiuence of sporting event sponsorshipon the sponsoring brand's image.Image Transfer in Sporting Event Spon sorships

Brand image bas been defined as "perceptions about a brand as reflectedby the brand associations held in memory" (Keller 1993, p. 3). This defini-tion takes an associate memory network view, in tbat brand image is basedupon linkages a consumer holds in his/her memory structure regarding thebran d. These linkages, or in Keller's terminology, "brand associations," aredeveloped from a variety of sources including brand and product categoryexperiences, product attributes, price information, positioning in promo-tional com munications, packaging, user imagery (e.g., typical brand users),and usag e occasion (Keller 1993). From a tbeo retica l pos ition, Keller (1993)suggests tbat brand associations can be infiuenced when a brand becomeslinked with a celebrity through an endorsement or linked with a sportingevent through sponsorsbip activities. In these cases, the pre-existing asso-


2/12

48 The Journal ofAdvertisinciations held in consumers' memories regarding a ce-lebrity or sporting event become linked in memory withthe endorsed or sponsoring brand. In essence, the ce-lebrity or event image is transferred to the hrand.This transfer of associations is consistent withMcCracken's (1989) view ofthe celebrity endorsementprocess. McCracken eschews the "credibility" and "at-tractiveness" models of endorsement used to explainthe persuasive na tu re of endorsers. Instead he offersa theo ry of mean ing transfer, where "meaning" refersto an overall assessment of what a celebrity "repre-sents" to the consumer. This meaning is built uponan individual's interpretatio n ofthe celebrity's publicimage as demonstrated in "television, movies, mili-tary, athletics, and o ther careers " (McCracken 1989,p. 315). According to this theory, the m eaning attrib -uted to celebrities moves from the celebrity endorserto the product when the two are paired in an adver-tisemen t (McCracken 1989). The transfer process iscompleted when a consumer acquires/consumes theproduct, thus transferring the m eaning to the user.

With regard to implications for brand image, sport-ing event8 and celebrity endorsers are similar on twolevels. First, consumers can associate both sportingevents and celebrities with particular m eanings. Whilecelebrities derive their meanings from consumer per-ceptions of their various public activities (e.g., movies,athletics, politics, etc.), the meanings associated withsporting events a re derived from the type of event, theevent's characteristics (e.g., professional status, venue,size, etc.), and individual consumer factors such as one'spast experiences with the event (Gwinner 1997). Sec-ond, events may act in a manner analogous to celebrityendorsers in the transfer ofimage to sponsoring brands .That is, just a s consumers associate a celebrity's "mean-ings" with the brand they endorse, consumers may alsoassociate a sporting event's "memings" w ith a sponsor-ing brand. Obviously, if this image transfer process isoccurring, then brand managers considering sponsor-ship arrangements should not only consider exposureissues (i.e., brand awareness) but should also take intoaccount the congruence between a sporting event's im-age and the image/positioning goals for their brands.While it is possible tha t the directionality ofthe imagetransfer may move from brand to event rather thanevent to brand, this is less likely to occur when theevent has a strong established image relative to thesponsoring brand . Fu rthe r, since the primary focus ofthe spectator is typically on the activities ofthe sport-ing event rath er than on the sponsors, the event's im-age is likely to be more salient in th eir m ind, suggest-ing the image transfer process would move from eventto brand. This discussion leads to the first hypothesis:

H I: A sporting event's image will transfer toa sponsoring brand 's image when they arelinked through sponsorship.The Impact of Event and B rand M atchup on Image Transfer

Many scholars have examined or commented othe importance of matching the characteristics ospokespersons with the characteristics of the products they endorse (see Lynch and Schuler [1994] foan excellent review of this litera ture ). Generally, thestypes of studies have found that a match betweenendorser and brand leads to a variety of positive oucomes for firms including enhanced spokesperson expertise/credibility, a more positive attitude towarthe ad, a more positive attitu de tow ard the brand anhigher brand recall.Kahle and Homer (1985) were among the first tempirically examine and propose a "match-up" hypothesis in the context of celebrity endorsement. Thesautho rs argued and found support for the notion thaadvertising effectiveness is increased when the image of the celebrity converges with the image of thendorsed product. Specifically, the y found physicallattractive celebrity endorsers of a beauty enhancinproduct (i.e., endorser-brand match) to have a positive influence on consumer's brand attitudes, purchase intentions, brand recall, and recall of advertisement argu ments. Building on Kahle and Homemany spokesperson-brand congruence studies havbeen conducted by manipulating some physical attribute of the spokesperson to be in-congruence oout-of-congruence w ith a given product. For examplein one experiment. Lynch and Schuler (1994) manipulated muscularity ofthe spokesperson to be in oout of congruence with products t ha t e ither helped tproduce muscularity (e.g., exercise equipm ent) or proucts perceived to be masculine in nature (e.g., cabatteries). In another study, Kamins (1990) manipulated spokesperson attractiveness to be in or out ocongruence with an attractiveness related producThe Kamins study found that when product anspokesperson physical characteristics were congruent, then spokesperson believability/knowledge waincreased, while Lynch and Schuler (1994) found th acongruency led to high perceived spokesperson knowedge. One notable exception to the manipulation ospokesperson physical characteristics is Misra anBeatty (1990) who examined image congruence in holistic manner akin to M cCracken's notion of meaning. In their study, Misra and Beatty m atched spokeperson characteristics with product characteristics


3/12

Winter 1999 49For example, in their pretest of celebrities, ClintEastwood was associated with the characteristics of"tough" and "rugged." In the congruent condition thiscelebrity was paired with a flctitious brand of jeans(Unitough jeans), while in the incongruent conditionhe was paired with a fictitious board game calledFunnybone. Results of this study indicated that thecongruence condition resulted in higher recall andmore favorable brand attitudes than incongruent orneutral congruency pairings. Kamins and Gupta(1994) also manipulated spokesperson-product con-gruence in te rm s of image. They found increased con-gruence resulted in perceptions of higher believabil-ity and attractive ness o fthe spokesperson and a morefavorable product attitude.Sowhy does this m atch-up hypothesis seem to be ineffect? One of the more compelling arguments pro-posed is based on schema theory (Lynch and Schuler1994; Misra and Be atty 1990). A schema is a cogni-tive struc ture th at rep resen ts knowledge about a typeof stimulus, for example, a person, event, or object(Bartlett 1932; Lord and Foti 1986). Schema theory isbased on research which found t ha t memory is not averbatim account of past experiences, but rather ablend of both specific memories as well as generalabstractions about t j^ es of people, activities, and ob-jects (Bartlett 1932; Rumelhart and Ortony 1977).Schema represe nts a m echanism to allow individualsto function in a complex environment. That is, in-stead of having to recall from memory what behav-iors are appropriate in a specific situa tion (e.g., board-ing a United A irlinesflight)or what evaluations havebeen m ade of some specific person (e.g.. Dr. Bemhard)or specific object (Campbell's soup), one is able tosimply recall knowledge related to the general type ofsituation (airline boarding), person (heart surgeon),or object (soup).

With regard to th e use of schema theory in support ofthe match-up hypothesis, Misra and Beatty (1990) foundevidence of a "filtering model," which suggested spokes-person characteristics that are incongruent with brandschema characteristics will be 'Tiltered out" and notencoded as well a s congruent information. They arguedtha t the better recall demonstrated by subjects in theircongruent condition is a result of better or more effec-tive encoding of information. Further, they proposed,but did not test, that this encoded information associ-ated with a congruent celebrity spokesperson schemawould become integrated with the product's schema. Ifthis were to hold true, then one would expect theschemas of celebrities and th e schemas ofthe productsthey endorse to become more similar, assuming con-gruence of some salient characteristics.

In an event sponsorship context, McDaniel (1999)has explored an aspect ofthe match-up hypo thesis bymatching event and brand in terms of involvement.He found that subjects rated attitude toward the adsignificantly more positively when a h ighly involvingproduct (e.g., an automobile) was paired with a highlyinvolving sporting event (e.g., the Olympics) thanwhen the product was paired with a low involvementsporting event (e.g., PBA Bowling). In his study, event-product involvement m atch w as not found to have aneffect on attitude toward the brand or purchase in-tention. While providing insight into one match updimension, McDaniel's study did not attem pt tomatchthe sporting event and the sponsoring brand on at-tribu tes related to their respective "meanings" in themanner that McCracken (1989) discussed or thatMisra and Beatty (1990) explored.This begs the question, "on what basis might wejudge a sporting event to be similar or dissimilar to aproduct?" McDonald (1991) discusses the importanceof product relevance to the sponsored event, suggest-ing that it might occur directly or indirectly. Thedirect method occurs when the sponsoring firm's prod-ucts are (or could be) used in the event. Indirectly,relevance can be achieved if some aspect of thesponsor's image corresponds with the event. Gw inner(1997) has used the terms "functional based" and"image based similarity" to refer to the potential con-gruence between events and the brands/companiesthat act as sponsors. Consistent with McDonald (1991),Gwinner (1997) has suggested th at functional basedsimilarity can occur when the sponsored brand "isactually used by the participants during the event;.."(p. 152). Examples of this type of similarity wouldinclude Seiko being an official tim er a t th e U.S. OpenTennis Championships or Gatorade sponsoring theIronman T riathlon. In both cases, functional similar-ity is present because of the use of the sponsoringbrand in the event. Image based similarity has beendescribed as occurring when th e "image of the eventis related to the image ofthe bran d..." (Gwinner 1997,p. 152). For example, the Master's Golf Tournamentand C adillac Automobiles may be sim ilar in term s ofa prestige image. Drawing on the earlier schematheory discussion, it can be argued that congruentevent-brand information in the form of either func-tional or image based sim ilarity will lead to enhancedimage transfer. Thus, extending the notion of thematch-up hypothesis found in th e celebrity endorsercontext, we offer th e following two-part hypothesis:H2a: Similarity between brand and event willinfluence the image transfer such that

the image transfer will be stronger for


4/12

60 The Journal of Advertisinbrands having functional-based similar-ity with tbe event they are sponsoringthan wben brands have no similaritywith the event.

H2b: Similarity between brand and event willinfluence the image transfer such thattbe image transfer will be stronger forbrands having image-based similaritywith th e event they are sponsoring thanwhen brands have no similarity withthe event.Method

OverviewTo test th e hypotheses an experiment was conductedusing one between groups factor (sponsorsbip: [yessponsorship tnd no sponsorship]) and one repeatedmeasures factor (level of event-brand similarity: [im-age based, functional based, and no similarity]). Wbilethere m ay be many ways to examine image transfer,our examination uses brand and event personality.Brand personality can be regarded as "the set of hu-man characteristics associated with a brand..." (Aaker1997, p. 347). Brand personality has been describedas an important aspect of brand image tbat is im-pacted by one's expectations ofthe type of person who

would use a particular product - user imagery - andin which situation s a product might be used - usageimagery (Aaker 1997; Keller 1993; Plummer 1985).Both user and usage imagery can be communicatedin an event sponsorship context. The brand personal-ity concept is important because it serves as a m echa-nism upon which producers can differentiate theirgoods and services. This becomes especially criticalwhen other potentially differentiating features areperceived by consumers as equal across competingbrands (Plummer 1985).Prete8t8

The first pretest sought to find appropriate pair-ings of sporting events and sponsoring products toreprese nt each of the thre e type s of similarity (func-tional based, image based, and no sim ilarity) for usein the main experiment. As illustrated in Table 1,eacb potential sporting event was paired with threedifferent brands. Gwinner (1997) suggests tbat cer-tain event characteristics (e.g., size, history, venue,etc.) will influence an event's im age. Using this as aguide, we selected seven sporting events based onthe ir nation al visibility and rich, long histories. This

was done because subjects in the m ain study needto have some prior image of the event in order increase our confidence in the image transfer mesure. That is, they needed to have an image of tevent in order to have it transfer to the brand.We developed scale items to measure functionand image based similarity based on the definitioprovided by G winner (1997). Functional based simlarity was measured using three items assessed oseven-point strongly disagree/strongly agree scaleThe three items were: (1) "It is likely that (particpants) in the (event name) use (brand name) duritbe (event name)," (2) "Wben I watch th e (event namI often see (brand name) being (used)," and (3) "(Braname) is not a product that (participants) in tbe (evename) would consider (using)." The third item wreverse coded. The pa renthe tical "p articipan ts" labin these questions was replaced by the appropriaparticipant title, depending upon the specific eve(e.g., player, rider, driver, etc.). Cronbacb's alpha this scale is .89, thu s demonstratin g good reliabili

Image based similarity was also assessed wiseven-point strongly disagree/strongly agree anchorscales using the following three me asures: (1) "T(event name) and (brand name) have a similar image," (2) "The ideas I associate with (brand name) arelated to the ideas I associate with the (event nameand (3) "My image of the (event nam e) is very diffent from the image I have of (brand name)." Tthird iniage based similarity measure was revercoded in th e analysis. Cronbach's alph a for this scais .90. The best "No Similarity" pairing woperationalized as th e event-product score receivitb e lowest score on a summed scale consisting of six item s listed above.One hundred and thirty-five undergraduate stdents enrolled in a marketing management courresponded to the similarity pretest survey. In ordto reduce respondent fatigue, each subject was radomly assigned to respond to questions regardithree of the seven events. This resulted in a useabsample of between 41 and 50 subjects per event.

As indicated in Table 1, for the image similaricondition, the p airing of the U.S. Open Golf Champonship and Acura Automobiles was found to be tbest pairing. For functional similarity, the preteshowed that the Indianapolis 500 Auto Race aGoodyear Tires was the best pairing . Finally, the beillustration of tbe no similarity condition w as WoCup Soccer and Camel Cigarettes. These pairinwere assessed after removing those subjects wscored below the scale mid-point on a brand familiity question in order to increase validity.


5/12

Winter 1999

Similarity TypeImage Based

Functional based

No similarity

Tabie 1Pretest 1 Pairings of Sporting Events and Sponso ring Prod uctsEvent AlternativesProfessional Beach V olleyball

KentucKy Derby

U.S. Open Golf Championship

indianapoiis 500 Auto Race

NCAA basketball tournament

Worid Cup Soccer

Rose Bowl

Product Pairing AlternativesCuervo G old tequilaDorito's tortilla chipsN i n te n d o v i d e o g a m e sAmerican ExpressOldsmobile automobilesJohn Hancock insurance

) Acura automob iiesSony camcordersMichelob beerGoodyear tiresPennzoil motor oilShell gasolineChampion brand uniformsReebok shoesPowerade sports drink

Dell computersClorox bleachCamei cigarettes

Irish Spring soapRenuzit air freshenersLevi's jeans

51

Mean Similarity (std dev)9.99.7a o10.39.28.8

12.110.59.419.217.014.116.916.015.5

Functional6.9 (4.8)6.4 (4.5)4.1 (2.0)Functional

5.3 (3.7)4.7 (2.5)4.1 (2.3)

(5.8)(4.7)(5.3)(5.0)(5.1)(4.0)(5.5)(5.1)(5.2)(2.6)(3.6)(4.8)(3.1)(4.4)(4.3)

image7.8 (4.2)8.4 (5.1)4.8 (3.1)

image7.3 (5.1)5.2 (3.6)7.5 (5.1)

Note: Bold faced event-product combinations w ere rated as the best representatives of their respective similarity ty pe category (based onhigh mean value for image and functional simiiarity pairings and low m ean value for no simiiarity pairing) and w ere subsequently used inthe main study.A second pretest was conducted to create a set ofpersonality-oriented adjectives that could be used todescribe image dimensions of each ofthe three eventsselected from the first p retest. Twenty at^ectives weregenerated by the authors for each ofthe three sportingevents. In order to increase the saliency of the task,

only adjectives that could potentially describe the par-ticular event were included (Graeff 1996). Eighty-oneundergraduate studen ts enrolled in a marketing courseused a seven-point scale to rate the 60 adjectives onthei r usefulness in describing each of the th ree events(20 adjectives per event). The ten adjectives rated asmost useful in describing the event were selected foruse in the experiment and are listed in Table 2.Experimental Procedure

Three hundred and sixty undergraduate businessstudents participated in the experiment for extra

credit. Because of the use of sporting events withlong, rich histories, we believe a stude nt sample willbe familiar w ith the even ts and, therefore, the resultswill be generalizable to a larger population. Subjectswere randomly assigned to one of the two sponsor-ship treatmen ts. Randomization assures that the im-pact of individuals* prior product schemas will notbias the results in any given treatment. In each con-dition, subjects assessed event-brand combinationsrepresen ting all three similarity conditions (i.e., im-age based, functional, no similarity). Cell sizes wereevenly distributed, resulting in a uniform 180 sub-jects per cell assignm ent.Independent Variables

Sponsorship condition. This condition consisted oftwo levels, one in which the event and brand werepaired in a sponsor relationship ("yes sponsorship")


6/12

52 The JourncU ofAdvertisinTable 2Ad jectives Used in iMeasurement of Image Transfer from Event to Brand

U.S. Open Golf Championship(Image Based Similarity)CalmMatureLeisurelyCleanFormalCivilizedAccuratePressureOrderlySlow

Indianapolis 500 Auto Race(Functional B ased Similarity)FastDangerousExcitingAggressiveMasculineWildHistoricTacticalStrategicMonotonous

World Cup Soccer(No Similarity)ActiveMulti-culturalEnergeticExcitingForeignThrillingYouthfulTacticalToughBrazen

and one in which they were not ("no sponsorship"). Inthe "yes sponsorship" level subjects viewed three blackand w hite photographs, each depicting one ofthe sport-ing events. Each picture was designed to resemble amagaz ine advertisement for the event and the actual logoofthe sponsoring brand w as superimposed on the photo-graph. In addition, ad copy typical of a sponsorship ar-rangement was included on the photo (e.g., "Camel ciga-rettes is proud to sponsor World Cup Soccer W ).The cover page also added to the sponsorship ma-nipulation through the survey title, 'Troduct Spon-sorship of Sporting Events Survey" and through thesurvey instruction s which referred to the sponsorshipties in the photographs ("Yes Sponsorship" instruc-tions: "We are conducting this study to be tter under-stand how studen ts feel about corporate sponsorshipof sporting events"). For the "no sponsorship" level nophotos were included; the survey was titled simply,"Image Survey," and mention ofthe sponsorship wasnot included in the instructions ("No Sponsorship"instructions: "We are conducting this study to betterunderstand the images studen ts have regarding dif-ferent events and products").Similarity condition. As described in pretest 1, thesimilarity condition w as m anipulated by pairing sport-ing events and sponsoring brands to create three simi-lsirity levels: image sim ilarity (the U.S . Open GolfCham pionship and Acura Automobile), functionalsimilarity (the Indianapolis 500 Auto Race andGoodyear Tires), and no similarity (World Cup Soccerand Camel Cigarettes).

Dependent MeasuresAdjective based image transfer measure. As stated

above, this study examines brand/event personality

as a specific aspect of image. Recall that in pretetwo, three groups of ten adjectives were selected abeing useful in describing each ofthe thre e events. Ithe experiment each of the 10 adjectives were rateas to how well it described the particular event (l=vewell; 7=not at all) and then, separately, subjects responded as to how well the same 10 adjectives described the brand. If an image transfer is occurrinone would expect the image of the event and thimage of the brand to be more similar in the "yesponsorship" cond ition, as the event's image would"transferring" to the brand. Accordingly, we calculated a measure of congruence/similarity by takinthe sum of the absolute differences between the coresponding adjectives in the event and the brand raings. For example, if a subject rated the adjectiv"mature" as a "2 " for the event and a "5 " for thbrand, then the absolute difference for those corresponding adjectives would be "3." We summed thten absolute difference scores for each event-branpair to create a congruence index. Smaller numbein the index indicate greater congruence (i.e., lesdifference between event an d bra nd). Hypothesis onwould predict that this measure will be significantsmaller for those subjects in the "yes sponsorshiplevel than in the "no sponsorship" levelindicatinmore similarity.Holistic image transfer measure. Although the dference score method discussed above has been useby most studies examining self-image congruencSirgy et al. (1997) have argued for a more parsimonous measure of congruence. These authors suggethat a method which directly measures congruencusing the respondent's own image dimensions anemploying a holistic evaluation is more appropria

for examining image congruence between a bran


7/12

Winter 1999 63and one's own image. We extended this advice byadapting the Sirgy et al. (1997) measure to studyevent-brand congruence. Specifically, we offered thefollowing instruc tions (adapted from Sirgy et al. 1997)and asked subjects to rate the consistency betweenthe event image and the brand image:Ta ke a moment to think about the (sporting eventname). Think about the various images and expe-riences one would encounter when they attendedor watched this event. Imagine this event in yourmind and then describe the event using severaladjectives such as: exciting, traditional, young,conservative, sexy, or whatever adjectives you thinkdescribe the image of this sporting event."Subsequent to this m ental imagery task, consistencywas scored on a seven point scale (l=Strongly Agree,7=Strongly Disagree) keyed to the following ques-tion: "My image of the (sporting event name) is con-sistent with my image of (brand nam e)."

ResultsHj^othesis One was analyzed using a one-wayMANOVA, between groups design. With sponsorshiptreatm ent (yes, no) as the between groups factor andthe three image congruence scores (based on summedabsolute differences) as the criterion, a significantmultivariate effect was found for sponsorship treat-men t (Wilk's lambda=.89, F [3,324]=12.33; p< .0001).

The sample means are displayed in Table 3. T uk e/ sHSD test reveals that subjects who were exposed tothe sponsorship arran gem ent h ad significantly lowerdifference scores (i.e., higher image congruence) thanthose subjects not exposed to the sponsorship tie forboth the functional similarity (Indianapolis 500 andGoodyear tires) and image similarity (U.S. Open GolfChampionship and Acura automobiles) event-brandcom binations. There was not a significant differencebetween subjects in the "yes sponsorship" level and the"no sponsorship" level with regard to the no similarityevent-brand combination (World Cup soccer and Camelcigarettes). Therefore, two ofthe three "absolute differ-ence" congruence measures support Hypothesis One.Hypothesis One was also tested using the holisticimage congruence measu res adopted from Sirgy et al.(1997). Again, using a one-way MANOVA, betweengroups design, we found a significant multivariateeffect (Wilk's lambda=.92, F [3,3531=10.48; p< .0001)for sponsorship treatm ent. As with th e adjective basedcongruence measure, the Tukey HSD test showedsignificantly higher congruence in the "yes sponsor-ship" treatment level than in the "no sponsorship"treatm ent level for both the functional similarity and

image similarity event-brand combinations. Althougha significant difTerence does exist for the no similar-ity event-brand pairing, the means are the oppositeofthe hypothesized direction. Tha t is, there is greatercongruence between World Cup Soccer and Camelcigarettes in the "no sponsorship" condition. Thus,Hypothesis One is supported by two of the three ho-listic congruence mea sures. This unexpected patte rnof results in the no similarity pairing is considered inmore detail in the discussion section.Hypotheses 2a and 2b state that image transferwill be stronger in sponsor relationships when th ereis either functional (H2a) or image (H2b) based simi-larity th an when the re is no similarity. Accordingly,these hypotheses were tested using only data fromthose subjects exposed to the sponsorship relation-ship (data in the top row of Table 3). Since eachsubject responded to all three event-brand sponsor-ships these hypotheses were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance, repeated mea sures design.The test reveals a significant effect for sponsorshipsimilarity us ing the summed absolute difference scoresas the dependent congruence measures, F(2,328)=231.85; p


8/12

64

"Yes" Sponsorship^"No" Sponsorship^

Table 3Summ ary of Image Congruence Means and

ImageSimilarity14.218.6

Adjective Measure^FunctionalSimilarity

20.322.5

WoSimilarity34.331.9

The Journal of Advertisin

Image Transfer Strength

ImageSimilarity3.34.2

Holistic MeasuredFunctionalSimilarity

2.73.3

NoSimilari6.45.9

^Sum ofthe absolute differences between the ten corresponding adjectives in each event-brand pairing, iower numbers indicate greater cogruence/image transfer.^Singie item measure of congruence based on respondent's own adjectives, iower numbers indicate greater congruence/image transfer.^Means are significantly different b etween sponsorship treatment ieveis (p


9/12

Winter 1999 55awareness) are the overriding goal, recent researchhas begun to document the importance of image re-lated ohjectives to corporate sponsors (A hratt, Claytonand Pitt 1987; Hoek, Gendall and Sanders 1993; Irwinand Sutton 1994). Indeed, in their framework forevalua ting the a ttractivenes s of sponsorship opportu-nities, Irwin and Asimakopoulos (1992) describe im-age association as one ofth e six primary sport spon-sorship objectives. The point is tha t if image transferis of concem, then event selection should be madewith degree of similarity in mind. To enhance thestreng th of image transfer in cases of event sponsor-ship, it seems plausible tha t the m arketing managermay wish to alter the communication regarding theproduct prior to the event, to be m ore congruent (oneither a functional or image basis) with the image ofthe event. For example, a flurry of advertising linkingthe attrib utes ofthe event with the advertised product.Our findings indicate that if the match between theevent and product can be made stronger, then the re-sulting image transfer will be more pronounced.

Limitations and Directions forFuture ResearchThe results of this study should be considered inlight of several constraints. First, due to concernsover our subjects' available time, we conducted this

experiment using one event-brand pairing per simi-larity tjTJe and a single exposure to the sponsorshipstimuli. Other studies may wish to develop researchdesigns allowing for a more robust treatment of thesimilarity condition utilizing multiple sponsorshipties. Although some experimental control may be lost,a field experiment at an a ctual spo rting event wouldprovide a context in which multiple brands coupledwith the dynamic environment of a realistic eventcould be studied. Fu rthe r, a field study would be ableto incorporate other elements that are difficult tocreate in a "lab" setting (e.g., the influence of otherspectators and the "secondary" na tur e ofthe sponsor-ship association versus th e "primary" concern of theevent itself). Second, our use of a student sampleshould be expanded to include non-student respon-dents. For example, future studies m ight explore howdifferent "types" of fans experience the image tran s-fer process. Given th e increasing am ount of researchon sports-fan team identification (e.g.. Fisher andWakefield 1998; Mael and Ashforth 1992; Wann andBranscombe 1995; Wann and Dolan 1994), it wouldbe interesting to test for differences on sponsorshipissues (e.g., image transfer, sponsor recall, sponsorpatronage, etc.) between high identified and low iden-

tified sports fans. A third issue is our use of differentsets of instructions in the "yes" and "no" sponsorshipconditions, as well as the use of photos only in the"yes" sponsorship condition. Given our research de-sign, we are unable to assess the influence, if any,that these differences between conditions may havehad on the dependent variables above and beyondestablishing the event-brand linkage. Finally, we ex-amined image congruence afler th e exposure to spon-sorship stimuli. Thus, we assumedrather thantestedthe direction of the image transfer. Accord-ingly, it is possible that the image transfer occursfrom the brand to the event rather than from theevent to the brand. Examining the direction of theimage flow and under what conditions it might beswitched represents a fruitful future research direc-tion. The use of known versus unknown brands m ightbe instrum ental in understanding these effects (Tripp,Jensen and Carlson 1994).Another interesting issue surrounding image trans-fer and related to degree of similarity is tha t of con-flicting images among multiple sponsorships. It isnot uncommon for firms to engage in multiple spon-sorship relationships over the course of any givenyear (Farrelly, Quester and Burton 1997). It may beinsightful to consider the effect to a consumer's brandschema when a brand sponsors multiple events withconflicting images. Would the image transfer cancelout? Would the most recent image have the largerimpact? Here schema theory may prove useful forproviding insigh t. As discussed, discrepant informa-tion is less likely to lead to schema change because itis often discounted by th e individual. However, a brandassociated with m ultiple events, each having a differ-ent and discrepant meaning, might lend credence tothe d iscrepant information, or at leas t call into ques-tion the existing schema. Alternatively, social adap-tation theory would suggest that discrepant eventassociations would, presumably, not be effectivesources of information and, therefore, would not fa-cilitate adaptation to environm ental conditions (Kahleand Homer 1985). In con trast, it may be possible for afirm to positively leverage the image transfer by spon-soring multiple events with consistent images. Ofcourse, the sponsorship of two (or more) events withconflicting images only becomes an issue w hen a giventargeted consumer group is aware of both sponsor-ship ties. Still, within a single event it may be possibleto have conflicting similarity types (i.e., functional andimage based). For example, an interesting future re-search question could address how image transfer m i ^ tbe affected when an event-product pairing is high infunctional similarity, but low in image similarity (and


10/12

The Journeil ofAdvertisinvice versa). Additionally, will image transfer be en-hanced when both types of similarity a re presen t (andconsistent) in the sponsorship arrangem ent?A related issue is the impact of multiple sponsors ofa given event. Gwinner (1997) suggests that the tran s-fer of an event's image to a sponsoring brand will bemoderated by the exclusiveness of the sponsorshiparrangement as measured by the number of othersponsors and the level of the sponsorship. He sug-gests transfer will be less in instances of multiplesponsors and lower sponsorship levels (e.g., title spon-sor versus perimeter fence signage). This is consis-tent with recent research in the celebrity endorserliterature which has found th at the num ber of prod-ucts endorsed by a celebrity is negatively related toendorser credibility, likability and attitude towardthe ad (Tripp, Jensen and Carlson 1994). As such,studies might explore how image transfer and bran dattitudes are impacted by the number of sponsorsand the level of sponsorship. Further, although ourresults are supportive of the image transfer hypoth-esis, they do not provide insight into the enduringnature of this phenomenon. Addit ional studies areneeded to assess the long term influence of eventsponsorship as it relates to image transfer.

ReferenceAaker, Jennifer L. (1997), Ilim en sio ns of Brand P ersonality,"


11/12

Winter 1999 57Plummer, Joseph T. (1986), "How Personality Makes a Differ-ence," c/oumoi of Advertising Research, 24 (6), 27-31.Rumelhart, David E . andAndrew Ortony (1977), The Representationof Knowledge in Memory," in Schooling and the Acquisition ofKnowledge, Ridiard C. Anderson, Rand J. Spiro, and William E.Montague, ed a, H illsdale, NJ: Lawrence&U>aum Associates.Sherif, Muzafer and Carl I. Hovland (1961), Social Judgement:Aaaimilation and Contrast Effects in Comm unication and At-titude Change, New Haven: Yale University Press.Sirgy, M. Joseph, Dhniv Grewal, Tamara F. Mangleburg, Jae-okPark, Kye-Sung Chon, CB. Claihome, J.S. Johar and HaroldBerkman (1997), "Assessing the Predictive Validity of TwoMethods of Measuring Self-Image Congruence," Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science, 25 (3), 229-241.

Tripp, Carolyn, Thomas D. Jensen and Les Carlson (1994), "TheEffects of Multiple Product Endorsements by Celebrities on(Consumers' Attitudes and Intentions," Joumal of ConsumerResearch, 20 (4), 535-547.Wann, Daniel L. and Thomas J. Dolan (1994), "Attributions ofHighly Identified Sports Spectators," The Joumal of SocialPsychology, 134 (6), 783-792.and Nyla R. Branscombe (1995), "Influence of Iden-tification with a Sports Team On Objective Knowledge andSubjective Beliefs," International Joumal of Sports Psychol-ogy, 26 (Oct./Dec.), 551-567 .


12/12

Documents

Event Sponsership