View
212
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Mark D. GrozaUniversity of Massachusetts – Amherst
Joe CobbsNorthern Kentucky University
A Portfolio Approach to Sponsorship Alliances: A Portfolio Approach to Sponsorship Alliances: Challenging Unilateral Brand Spillover EffectsChallenging Unilateral Brand Spillover Effects
Presentation OutlineResearch Motivation
Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
Survey design and empirical results
Discussion and Implications
Research Motivation
“Earlier this year, BP signed on as a major USOC sponsor, saying the Olympic movement's commitment to environmental issues gave it a perfect platform to promote its own green initiatives. ….The deal puts the USOC in an awkward situation -- partners with a company involved in an environmental disaster on U.S. shores -- though CEO Scott Blackmun said Monday he sees no indication that the sponsorship could be in jeopardy.”
-- ESPN.com, May, 3, 2010
Feb. 15, 2010
Commercial Sponsorship“Provision of assistance either financial or in
kind to an activity by a commercial organization for the purpose of achieving commercial objectives” – Meenaghan, 1983
Top objectives: Build brand equity (Cliffe & Motion,
2005; Thjømøe et al., 2002); Goodwill (Meenaghan, 2001)
Sponsoring firm/brand
Popular [sports] enterprise
$ VIK
Benefits
Sports Brand ValuesSports Brand Values* (Forbes Magazine, 2010)
1. New York Yankees $328M2. Manchester United $285M3. Real Madrid $240M4. Dallas Cowboys $208M5. Barcelona $180M6. Bayern Munich $178M7. Arsenal $176M8. Boston Red Sox $163M9. New York Mets $158M10. New England Patriots $156M
*Revenues from sponsorships, naming rights, local media, tickets and merchandise that are not attributable to market demographics and league.
Brand Spillover Effects
H1) Consumer perceptions of a sponsored enterprise’s brand quality will be positively associated with the brand quality perceptions of the firms within the sponsored enterprise’s sponsorship portfolio.
Dimensions of Brand Equity
•Loyalty•Associations•Awareness
•QUALITYAaker (1991)
InvolvementElaboration Likelihood Model -- when evaluating
advertisements relevant to ones consumption interests people pay closer attention -- Petty and
Cacioppo 1981; Petty, Cacioppo, and Schumann 1983
Involvement in the sponsorship domain —Gwinner and Swanson 2003
H2) A consumer’s involvement in the sponsored enterprise’s domain will positively moderate the relationship between the perceived brand quality of the sponsors within a portfolio and the perceived brand quality of the sponsored enterprise.
Perceived Prestige
Social prestige influences consumer evaluations of brand quality (Hellofs and Jacobson 1999)
H3) The level of prestige a consumer associates with a sponsored enterprise will be positively related to the perceived brand quality of the sponsored enterprise.
Reverse Image Transfer Model
Perceived Prestige of Sponsored Enterprise
Perceived Brand Quality of Sponsors
Involvement in Sponsored Enterprise’s
Domain
Perceived Brand Quality of Sponsored Enterprise
H1 (+)
H2 (+)
H3 (+)
Survey Design Pre Test
Ensure stimuli was realisticEnsure measures were reliableEnsure variation in domain involvement amongst
subject pool
Main Study 171 undergraduate students
Created a series of activation advertisements
NHL sponsored enterprise Sponsors from 4 product category
Four Constructs
Brand Quality of Sponsored Enterprise [i.e. NHL] (Yoo et al. 2000) α = 0.93
Brand Quality of Sponsorship Portfolio (Yoo et al. 2000) α(s) > 0.88
Domain Involvement (Gwinner and Swanson 2003)
α = 0.95
Perceived Prestige (Mael and Ashforth 1992; Gwinner and Swanson 2003) α = 0.87
Hierarchal Regression Analysis
Outcome Variable: Brand Quality of Sponsored EnterpriseModel 1 2Step 1 (Constant) 4.502 4.509 Brand Quality of Sponsorship Portfolio .277a .270a
Perceived Prestige .570a .582a
Domain Involvement .283a .265a
Step 2 Portfolio Brand Quality *Domain Involvement
.184b
F 40.00a 32.61a
Adj R-Sq .408 .426R-Sq Change .018b
Note: a = (P<0.01); b =(P<0.05)
Discussion Results indicate a relationship between quality
perceptions of sponsoring brands and sponsored enterprise (H1)
Corresponds to literature in the brand alliance domain - Samu et al. 1999
Traditional spillover effects in sponsorship limited to asymmetrical conceptions
Highly involved individuals are more likely to process quality associations in sponsorship arrangements (H2) - Gwinner and Swanson 2003; Dietz et al. 2009
Quality associations hold after controlling for perceived prestige of sport property (H3)
Implications
Managers of sponsored enterprises should be concerned with the brand quality of the firms that comprise their sponsorship portfolio
Firms acting as corporate sponsors bring more to the negotiating table than just revenue and functional trade resources
Contemporary sponsorship is best framed as a bilateral alliance – both partners engage in ongoing co-production of a promotional resource to be collectively leveraged
Recommended