Sponsorship: An Important Component of the Promotions Mix

Sponsorship: An Important Component of the Promotions MixAuthor(s): Meryl Paula Gardner and Philip Joel ShumanSource: Journal of Advertising, Vol. 16, No. 1 (1987), pp. 11-17Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4188609Accessed: 14-07-2016 20:11 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

http://about.jstor.org/terms

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted

digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about

JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofAdvertising

This content downloaded from 128.175.100.121 on Thu, 14 Jul 2016 20:11:58 UTCAll use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

SPONSORSHIP: AN IMPORTANT

COMPONENT OF THE PROMOTIONS MIX

Meryl Paula Gardner Philip Joel Shuman

Meryl Paula Gardner received her Ph.D. from Carnegie Mellon University and joined the faculty of New York University where she is currently an Associate Professor of Marketing. Professor Gardner's research interests include the effects of

advertising on information processing and the cognitive/ emotional mediators of such processing. She has published numerous articles and conference proceedings including

articles in the Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Retailing and Journal of Advertising. She is a frequent speaker in the United States and abroad on various aspects of consumer behavior.

Mr. Shuman is a senior counselor for Burson-Marsteller New York, specializing in strategic planning and innovative pro-

gramming. In recent years he has pioneered the development of corporate relations and marketing-support programs keyed

to public television, independent radio and television syndi- cation and cable. Mr. Shuman is a graduate of New York University with an M.B.A. in marketing. He has a Bachelor of Arts degree in communications from Temple University (Philadelphia).

ABSTRACT

Four surveys were conducted to investigate sponsorships from the perspectives of all participants in the sponsorship

system. Respondents were drawn from the following popula- tions: 1) corporations (i.e., actual and prospective sponsors), 2) channel members (i.e., distributors of sponsored and unsponsored brands), 3) the public (i.e., private individuals) and 4) sponsored organizations (i.e., cultural institutions). Questionnaires were used to assess perceptions of sponsorships, knowledge of sponsored events, attitudes towards sponsors, forecasts about the future of sponsorships, and

behavior in response to sponsorships. Findings examine the inter-relationships of the views of the different system mem-

bers, and provide insight into the relationship of sponsorship to other aspects of promotion.

INTRODUCTION

Corporate sponsorships are a relatively small ($1 billion), but rapidly growing (300% in five years)

part of the promotions mix (2). Sponsorships can be defined as investments in causes or events to support

corporate objectives (e.g., enhance company image) or marketing objectives (e.g., increase brand awareness), and are usually not made through traditional

media-buying channels. Such investments provide funds to a variety of organizations and activities, including sports (e.g., Olympics), music (e.g., Kool

Jazz Festival), cultural (e.g., Smithsonian Institution), philanthropic (e.g., Statue of Liberty), public television (e.g., MacNeil/Lehrer Newshour) and com-

munity events (July 4th fireworks). Because sponsor-

ship can effectively reach specific target groups with well-defined messages, they are powerful tools

for establishing meaningful communications links

with distributors and potential consumers.

From the perspective of the sponsoring company, the goals and objectives of sponsorships vary widely and may be as diverse as those associated with other forms of promotion (e.g., advertising). Sponsorships can associate the name of the sponsoring company or brand with activities or causes of critical importance to particular target groups, reach affluent consumers who are hard to reach with traditional media, and create an experience that appeals to all the senses. They are often the most cost-effective way for corporations to establish or clarify consumer and trade perceptions of their companies and the products or services they offer.

The increasing importance of sponsorships in the promotions mix is reflected in the growing number of companies sponsoring events, the increasing amount spent on sponsorships in total, and the growing number of corporations hiring experts to supervise special events. Corporations spent more than $1 billion in corporate sponsorships in 1985, compared to $300 million in 1980 (2). This represents an annual growth rate of 27 percent, more than double the 12 percent growth rate in spending for advertising and promotion in general (3). In addition, the number of companies sponsoring events has more than doubled - from 900 companies in 1980 to 2,500 companies in 1985 (2). As a result of the rapid growth in the number of companies sponsoring programs, special events marketing companies are proliferating - approximately 70 today compared with 20 only one year ago, and more than 200

Received June 16, 1986. Accepted for publication July 22,

1986.

OJOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1987 11


corporations report they now have positions such as "director of special events" (8).

Several factors suggest sponsorships will continue to grow in importance:

1) They help sponsors cut through the clutter of more traditional advertising channels. With the number of 15-second commercials expected to grow, perceived clutter is expected to worsen. In fact, Aaron Cohen, vice president of broad- casting for Grey Advertising predicts fifteen- second commercials will replace thirties as the industry standard by 1987, effectively doubling clutter (4).

2) Sponsorships help companies cope with changing media viewing habits. They provide an alternative to network television at a time when the number of people watching and the way in which they watch is diminishing the effectiveness of that expensive medium. Network television's share of prime-time viewers has dropped from 89 percent in 1975 to 74 percent in 1984 (4). Twenty percent of all viewers were confessed zappers in 1984 (eliminating commercials by switching stations with their remote controls or by fast-forwarding past them on their video cassette recorders). This compares to 13 percent a year earlier (6). Television is increasingly used as a background for other, more personally relevant activities. Advertisers have noted these changes, and some agree with General Foods' James Spaeth: "If we continue to pay premium prices for advertising of diminished value, then we are fools" (7).

3) Sponsorships help companies relate to both consumer and nonconsumer publics. They provide access to key constituencies such as environmen- talists, stockholders, employees, public policy makers, and the educational community (1). As marketing enters the age of megamarketing, successful implementation of product strategies may depend upon the favorable actions and opinions of such audiences, and sponsorships can help gain their support. (For a discussion of the role of public relations in megamarketing, see (5).)

As sponsorships grow in importance, they increasingly attract the attention of advertisers and marketers. Unfortunately, research in this area has not kept pace with the growth of interest and dollars. An extensive review of the literature indicates there is a dearth of studies that examine the impact of sponsorships or provide systematic insights into their direct effects on sponsoring and sponsored companies and their indirect effects on members of the distribution channel and the public.

The general purpose of this manuscript is to provide a preliminary exploration of this important, but inadequately charted, territory. More specifically, our goal is to provide a multi-dimensional view of sponsorships by investigating the perspectives of all four participants in the sponsorship system: 1) corporations (i.e., actual and perspective sponsors), 2) channel members (i.e., distributors of sponsored and unsponsored brands), 3) the public (i.e., private individuals) and 4) sponsored organizations (i.e., cultural institutions). Surveys are used to assess perceptions of sponsorships, knowledge of sponsored events, attitudes towards sponsors, forecasts about the future of sponsorships, and behavior in response

SURVEY OF CORPORATIONS

Method

Questionnaires were mailed to 300 corporations randomly selected from a list of Fortune 500 companies. They were addressed to individuals with the title of "corporate vice president of marketing" or its equivalent. Seventy-eight useable questionnaires were returned for a response rate of 26 percent.

Due to resource limitations and the exploratory nature of the research, follow-ups were not used to investigate differences between respondents and non-respondents. One might postulate the former are more interested in and favorably disposed toward sponsorships. If this is so, companies that sponsor events and causes may be over-represented in the sample. Non-response bias may limit the generalizability of the reported results; further research is needed to assess its magnitude and effects.

To gain insight into the relationship of business type to sponsorship practices and attitudes, respondents were asked to provide their primary field of business. Responses were classified as "commercial" (in the sense that the companies are primarily sup- pliers of products and services to other firms), or "consumer" (in the sense that they are primarily to sponsorships of all four groups. Our intent is to provide an initial exploration of a broad area, not to put the finishing touches on an already detailed map of a well-explored, smaller territory. The paper is organized in five sections. In the first, the method and findings of a survey of corporations are presented. In the second, the method and findings of a survey of channel members are discussed. In the third, the method and findings of a survey of private individuals are presented. In the fourth, the method and findings of a survey of cultural institutions are discussed. In the fifth, the findings of all four surveys are inte- grated to gain insight into the role of sponsorships in the promotions mix and the effects of sponsorships on the four audiences.

12


engaged in retailing and direct sales to individuals

and families). Of the responding companies, 34 were categorized as "commercial," and 44 as "consumer."

Findings for commercial and consumer firms are

reported separately when they differ significantly (or almost significantly) and meaningfully.

Findings

Seventy-five percent of the responding companies sponsor projects involving cultural organizations, community functions, sports events, PBS program- ming and musical performances. Consumer companies are marginally more likely (84%) to sponsor programs than commercial firms (6 5%; Z=1.92; p<0.7). Cultural and community affairs are the most popular types of sponsorships, and are supported by 53 percent and 49 percent of the companies respec- tively. They are followed by sports (44%), public television (36%) and music (36%). Consumer companies are more likely (54%) to sponsor sports events than commercial firms (32%; Z=2.0; p<.05), while commercial firms are marginally more likely (47%) to contribute to public television than consumer companies (28%; Z1.74; p<.10).

Most firms (89%) involved in sponsorships provide project support (e.g., advertising) and tie-ins (e.g., contests) in conjunction with the sponsored event itself. When asked to compare the costs of these extensions to the base cost of sponsorship, companies report extensions average 40 percent of the base, but responses vary widely. Only 10 percent match or exceed their financial commitment to an event with support expenditures, 46 percent spend less than a quarter of the cost of the event, and 33 percent spend more than 50 percent.

Advertising, promotion, and employee tie-ins are the most common forms of extensions to sponsorships (59%, 55%, 52%). All of the consumer corporations provide some form of support for their sponsored events, but only 72 percent of the commercial firms do so (Z=3.6; p<.01). When support is provided, commercial and consumer companies provide different forms. Commercial firms are more likely to donate equipment, consulting services and administrative tours, while consumer firms tend to provide speakers, print materials, and coupons.

Respondents were asked to list their basic objectives for sponsorships in priority order, and responses were weighted accordingly. Three points were awarded for first choice, two for second, one for third. The highest-scoring objective was community relations with 24 percent of the total available points. Aware- ness was second with 20 percent, followed by image

(15%) and corporate responsibility (15%o). When asked how they measure their degree of

success in achieving sponsorship goals, 17 percent

report they use audience research, and 47 percent indicate they do not measure sponsorship outcomes at all. Twenty-seven percent of the consumer firms report they use market share or sales data to assess the success of their sponsorship programs, while eight percent of the commercial firms indicate they do so (Z=2.33;p<.02).

When asked to forecast outlays for sponsorships over the next three to five years, nearly half (49%) of those surveyed forecast stable outlays, 39 percent forecast an increase of ten percent or more, and 12 percent forecast a drop of ten percent or more. Chi-square analysis indicates significant differences in forecasts by business type (X2 = 7.826, df=2, p<.05). Inspection of frequencies reveals respondents in the commercial sector are more likely (20%) to forecast decreases than those in the consumer sector (6%), and the former are less likely (20%) to forecast increases than the latter (53%).

Respondents indicate they use a wide variety of criteria to screen proposed sponsorships. Eighty percent report they rely on in-house expertise to evaluate proposals, while 24 percent say they rely on outside counsel. Ninety percent require written proposals; four out of five do background checks. Eighty-one percent of the consumer firms require detailed expected budgets while only 61 percent of the commercial firms seek financial details (Z=1.95; p<.07). Two-thirds of the consumer companies consider the likelihood predicted event atten- dance can be achieved and documented, while only one quarter of their commercial counterparts request this information (Z=4.09; p<.01). Finally, both types of firms seem to prefer informality, with only 26 percent requiring formal presentations of proposals for sponsorships.

SURVEY OF CHANNEL MEMBERS

Method

To assess reactions of channel members to sponsorships, questionnaires were distributed to 400 head buyers and senior managers of supermarket chains. Names were randomly selected from a list of sub- scribers to Progressive Grocer. Ninety-one completed questionnaires were returned for a response rate of 23 percent. Due to resource limitations and the exploratory nature of the research, follow-ups were not used to investigate differences between respondents and non-respondents. Further research is needed to examine the possibility of nonresponse bias.

Supermarket executives were selected as represen- tative of channel members because they are respon- sible for the distribution and display of a wide variety of items, many of which are associated with

13


sponsored events. Their power to reward (or punish) sponsors with better (or worse) shelf space contri- butes to the effectiveness of sponsorships. In addition, because retailers are close to consumers, they may be able to provide insight into consumer responses to sponsorships.

To explore the relationship of channel member size to beliefs and attitudes about sponsorships, responses were categorized by size of supermarket chain. Chains with 1-25 retail outlets were classified as small (n=65), and those with 26 or more outlets as large (n=26). Findings for large and small chains are reported separately whenever they differ significantly (or almost significantly) and meaningfully.

Findings

Respondents report the most common types of support they receive from companies sponsoring special events are promotional pricing (73%), tie-in ads (70%) and point-of-purchase displays (70%). Findings indicate respondents are fairly pleased with the way companies use advertising and promotion to link sponsorships to the trade and the consumer. Nine percent rate the linkage "excellent," 42% rate it "good," 44% rate it "fair" and five percent rate it "poor." Chi-square analysis indicates marginally significant differences in ratings by chain size (x2= 6.56, df=3, p<.1O). Inspection of cell frequencies reveals small chains are more likely to rate the linkage excellent (12%) or good (45%) than large chains (0% excellent; 35% good), and the former are less likely to rate the linkage fair (40%) or poor (5%) than the latter (54% fair; 8% poor).

Perceptions of the effects of sponsorships on brand sales were measured with two questions. The first asked respondents to estimate the overall effect of sponsorships on sales. Fifty-four percent indicate sponsorships increase sales, 43 percent they do not affect sales, and two percent they decrease sales. Of those who report sales increase, 13 percent indicate they go up 0-5 percent, 56 percent that they go up 6-10 percent, 28 percent that they go up 11-25 percent, and three percent that they go up at least 26 percent. The second question asked respondents if sponsorships affect the likelihood a consumer buys a particular brand. Fifty-one percent report sponsorships increase the likelihood of brand purchase, and 48 percent say they do not. Chi-square analysis indicates significant differences in responses by chain size

(X2 =5.55, df=1, p<.05). The pattern of findings suggests small chains are more likely (58%) than large chains (31%) to report sponsorships increase the likelihood of brand purchase, and small chains are less likely (42%) than large chains (6 5%) to report sponsorships do not affect the likelihood of brand purchase.

When asked to compare the effectiveness of event sponsorship to regular advertising and promotion efforts, 28 percent indicate that sponsorships are more effective than ads and promotions, 47 percent indicate that they are equally effective, and 25 percent indicate that they are less effective.

Forty percent of the respondents say sponsorship efforts have improved their relationships with sponsoring companies, 58 percent say they have had no effect. When asked to compare shelf space received by sponsoring companies to that received by non- sponsoring companies; respondents indicate the former receive more or better shelf space about half the time and the same space about half the time.

When asked what messages they feel sponsorships communicate to consumers, 56 percent of the respondents list messages with positive connotations (e.g., civic responsibility, concem, commitment and good- will), 30 percent report no specific messages are communicated, and six percent list messages with negative connotations (e.g., making so much money they're giving it away).

SURVEY OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS

Method

To assess the effects of sponsorships on private individuals, questionnaires were mailed to a sample of 500 residents in the metropolitan area of a large Eastern city. Names were selected at random from a list of homeowners. Eighty-five completed questionnaires were returned for a response rate of 17 percent.

Due to resource limitations and the exploratory nature of the research, follow-ups were not used to investigate differences between respondents and non-respondents. One might postulate the former are more knowledgeable of and favorably disposed toward sponsorships. If this is so, non-response bias may limit the generalizability of the reported results; further research is needed to assess its magnitude and effects.

To gain insight into the relationship of demographics to beliefs and attitudes about sponsorships, respondents' age, household income, educational level and occupation type were assessed. The break- down of respondents by demographic categories appears in Table 1 (Column 1).

The survey investigated two issues: 1) the degree to which individuals could identify the sponsor of a cause or event; and 2) the influence of sponsorships on individuals' purchases of sponsors' products. The first issue was assessed by asking respondents to select from a list of corporations the primary

14


TABLE 1

SPONSORSHIP IDENTIFICATION AND EFFECT ON PURCHASE

Number of Sponsorship Effect of Sponsorship Respondents Identification On Brand Purchase

More As Less

Right Wrong Total Likely Likely Likely

Age

21-35 25 152 148 300 13 10 2 3649 31 152 220 372 12 18 1 50+ 29 139 209 348 19 6 4

Total 85 443 577 1020 44 34 7

Income*

$0-20,000 12 57 87 144 7 1 4 $20-30,000 11 50 82 132 8 3 0 $30-40,000 15 78 102 180 7 8 0 $40-50,000 16 87 105 192 7 7 2 $50,000+ 25 173 127 300 13 11 1

Total 79 445 503 948 42 30 7

Education

High School 17 65 139 204 8 8 1 Some College 20 118 122 240 14 3 3 Completed College 48 260 316 576 22 23 3

Total 85 443 577 1020 44 34 7

Occupation

Professional 18 105 111 216 7 11 0 Skilled 43 243 273 516 27 13 3 Clerical 8 40 56 96 4 2 2 Not Employed 16 55 137 192 7 7 2

Total 85 443 577 1020 45 33 7

*Six respondents did not report their incomes.

sponsors of twelve events that take place (or have taken place) in their region of the country or that

they have access to via television. Of the 12 events, four were sports-related, two involved music, two

were public television shows, one involved a cultural

organization, and three were community functions. The second issue was assessed with a direct question

asking whether a corporate sponsorship has ever made the individual more or less likely to buy a sponsor's product. Note that this is a self-report measure; additional data is needed to link sponsorships to actual sales.

Findings: Sponsor Identification

On average, respondents were able to identify 5.2 sponsorships out of 12 (i.e., 43%). To gain insight into the relationship of demographics to

accuracy of sponsor identification, frequencies were broken down by age, income, education, and occupation, and appear in Table 1 (Columns 2-4). Chi-square tests indicate significant differences in accuracy by each variable [ i.e., age (x2 =9.43, df=2, p<.O1); income (X2=23.85, df=4, p<.01); education (X2=15.51, df=2, p<.O1); occupation (x2= 22.12, df=3, p<.O1)]. The pattern of findings obtained suggests that accurate identification is greatest for respondents between 21 and 35 years of age, with incomes over $50,000, with at least some college, and with professional occupations.

Findings: Effects of Sponsorships on Purchases

When asked if a company's sponsorship of an event had ever made them more or less likely to buy its product or services, 53 percent of the

15


respondents indicate a sponsorship has made them more likely to buy, and eight percent say a sponsorship has made them less likely to buy. The remaining 39 percent indicate sponsorships have never affected their purchases in either direction.

To gain insight into the relationship of demographics to self-reported tendencies to buy sponsored brands, responses were broken down by age, income, education, and occupation, and appear in Table 1 (Columns 5-7). Chi-square tests indicate significant differences in responses by age (X2 =10.67, df=4, p<.05) and income (X2-18.63, df=8, p<.01). The pattem of findings obtained suggests respondents who are over 50 years of age and those with incomes of $20,000-30,000 are most apt to report they are more likely to buy because of corporate sponsorship. Chi-square tests indicate d?frerences in responses by education and occupation do not approach conven- tional levels of statistical significance.

SURVEY OF CULTURAL

INSTITUTIONS

Method

Orchestras, museums, dance companies and theatre groups were surveyed to assess their beliefs about sponsors, attitudes toward sponsorships and expectations for future funding from corporate sponsors. Questionnaires were sent to 80 cultural institutions randomly selected from a nationwide directory. Twenty-four completed questionnaires were returned for a 30 percent response rate.

While this rate is fairly high, it does not preclude the possibility of nonresponse bias. Due to resource limitations and the exploratory nature of the research, follow-ups were not used to investigate differences between respondents and non-respondents. One might postulate the former may be more favorably disposed toward sponsorships, perhaps due to positive experiences with corporate donations and sponsored events. If this is so, cultural organizations receiving a great deal of sponsorship funds may be over-represented in the sample, and non-response bias may limit the generalizability of the reported results. Further research is needed to investigate this possibility.

Findings

Respondents report corporations provide an average of 23 percent of their special events budgets and the average corporate contribution to a special event is $104,643. In contrast, they indicate corporations provide only ten percent of their operating budgets, and the average non-event contribution is

$4,703. (The implications of these differences will be discussed in the Discussion section.)

Seventy-five percent of the institutions report their support from sponsorships has increased in the last five years. Respondents' forecasts for the next five years reflect a modest level of optimism - an annual increase of 7.2 percent. Eighty percent described their relationships with corporate funders as "good." When asked to suggest ways to improve relations between sponsoring and sponsored organizations, the most frequent response was an increase in the level of communication.

DISCUSSION

Sponsorships and the Promotions Mix

Findings indicate a wide variety of events and causes are sponsored by consumer and commercial firms, with the former sponsoring marginally more than the latter. Sponsorships are used to achieve a wide set of objectives, such as community relations, brand awareness, company image, and corporate responsibility. Company type appears to influence choice of sponsorship, with corporations sponsoring particular activities to reach target constituencies with events that induce suitable mind-sets. For example, consumer firms are more likely to sponsor sports events, and commercial companies are marginally more likely to sponsor public television programs. Further research is needed to investigate the inter-relationships between sponsors' business type, sponsorship type, and successfully met sponsorship goals.

Responding cultural institutions indicate sponsorships provide a small percentage of their operating budgets. This suggests such organizations are not totally dependent on corporate funding for their survival, and cultural offerings are not directly influenced by corporate priorities and preferences. Respondents also indicate sponsorships provide a large percentage of their special events budgets. This suggests cultural organizations are, to some extent, dependent upon corporate sponsors for special events. If such events are needed to attract contri- butions from non-corporate sources, cultural offerings may be indirectly influenced by corporate priorities and preferences. Further research is needed to investigate this possibility and its implications.

Both corporations that sponsor events and their channel members report sponsorships interact with other forms of promotion and other aspects of marketing. Channel members report they respond to sponsorships by providing more or better shelf space about half the time. Most corporate respondents indicate they provide related support worth approximately 40 percent of the base price of the

16


event, with greater spending reported by consumer firms. Channel members indicate support may involve several different forms of promotion (e.g., tie-in advertisements, point-of-purchase displays and promotional pricing) that link sponsorships to the trade and the consumer. Although channel members of all sizes seem fairly satisfied with the linkage, findings suggest small chains are more likely to consider the link "good" or "excellent" than large chains.

Effects of Sponsorships

Findings indicate corporations, channel members

and private individuals believe sponsorship work, but very little hard data is collected to assess the effectiveness of particular sponsorships. Forty-seven percent of the corporate respondents indicate they do not measure the outcomes of their sponsorships, while only 17 percent use audience response research.

Findings of the survey of private individuals indicate sponsorships affect knowledge about sponsoring companies, in the sense that people can identify sponsors of events and organizations with some accuracy (43%). Findings suggest accurate identification is greatest for respondents between 21 and 35 years of age, with incomes over $50,000, with at least some college, and with professional occupations. Further research is needed to investigate the accuracy with which respondents in this ostensibly "Yuppie" segment can identify a wider range of sponsorships, and the effects of such knowledge on sales. Findings of the survey of private individuals also indicate 53 percent report sponsorships have made them more likely to purchase a sponsored brand. Results suggest respondents over 50 years of age and those with income of $20,000- 30,000 are most apt to report they buy because of sponsorships. Further research is needed to investigate the effects of sponsorships on actual purchases by this segment.

Findings of the survey of channel members are consistent with the positive perceptions of sponsorships reported for corporations and individuals. Respondents indicate sponsorships communicate positive messages to consumers (53%), are as or more effective than advertising (75%) and increase sales (54%). Fifty-one percent report sponsorships increase the likelihood of a consumer buying the sponsored brand. Findings suggest small chains are more likely than large chains to report sponsorships increase tfhe likelihood of brand purchase. This is consistent with the finding that small chains seem more satisfied with the way companies use advertising and promotions to link sponsorships with the trade and with consumers. Further research is needed

to investigate the effects of channel member size on perceptions of sponsorships and their effects.

REFERENCES

1. Aduss, Edward L. "Specials Underwriting," PBS Seminar,

(June 1983). 2. "Banking on Leisure Transcripts," Event Marketing Seminar Series, presented by International Events Group (March 10-12, 1985), p. 6.

3. Bowman, Russell D. "Advertising and Sales Promotion Report," Marketing Communications, August 1985.

4. Foltz, Kim. "Ads Popping Up All Over," Newsweek, August 12, 1985, p. 50. 5. Kotler, Philip. "Megamarketing," Harvard Business Review, 64 (2, 1986), pp. 117-24. 6. Sherman, Stratford P. "When You Wish Upon a Star," Fortune, August 9, 1985, p. 68.

7. "Soaring Costs Lead Firms to Seek Better Viewer Data," The Wall Street Journal, November 1, 1984, p. 31. 8. Trachtenberg, Jeffrey A. "Beyond the 30-Second Spot," Fortune, December 17, 1984, p. 176.

inghouse. I am interested in electronic ordering through the following systemis):

Ol DIALOC/Dialorder El ITT Dialcom El OnTyme O OCLC ILL Subsystem

O Other (please specify) Cl I am interested in sending my order by mail.

El Please send me your current catalog and user instruc- tions for the system(s) I checked abme.

Nam

m.il-

Institution/Company

Department

Addrese

City State . Z ip

Phone ( -_

Mail to: University Microfilms International 300 North Zeeb Road, Box 91 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

17


Documents

Sponsorship: An Important Component of the Promotions Mix