1997 - Gwinner - A Model of Image Creation and Image Transfer in Event

8/18/2019 1997 - Gwinner - A Model of Image Creation and Image Transfer in Event

1/20

International Marketing ReviewA model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsorship

Kevin Gwinner

Ar tic le information:To cite this document:Kevin Gwinner, (1997),"A model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsorship", International Marketing Review,Vol. 14 Iss 3 pp. 145 - 158Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02651339710170221

Downloaded on: 18 October 2015, At: 17:06 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 28 other documents.

To copy this document: [email protected]

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 21161 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded th is article also downloaded:

Donald P. Roy, T. Bettina Cornwell, (2003),"Brand equity’s influence on responses to event sponsorships", Journal of Product

& Brand Management, Vol. 12 Iss 6 pp. 377-393 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420310498803

Dimitra Papadimitriou, Artemisia Apostolopoulou, Theofanis Dounis, (2008),"Event sponsorship as a valuecreating strategy for brands", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 17 Iss 4 pp. 212-222 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610420810887563

Myung-Soo Lee, Dennis M. Sandler, David Shani, (1997),"Attitudinal constructs towards sponsorship: Scaledevelopment using three global sporting events", International Marketing Review, Vol. 14 Iss 3 pp. 159-169 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02651339710170230

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:478385 []

For Authors

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors serviceinformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Pleasevisit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of onlineproducts and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on PublicationEthics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02651339710170221


2/20

Image creationmodel

145

A model of image creation andimage transfer in event

sponsorshipKevin Gwinner

School of Business, East Carol ina University, Greenvi lle,

North Carolina, USA

IntroductionDue to the proliferation of leisure events in today’s society, the awareness andopportunity for corporate event sponsorship is at an all time high. Looselydefined, sponsorship “can be regarded as the provision of assistance eitherfinancial or in-kind to an activity [e.g., sport, musical event, festival, fair, orwithin the broad definition of the Arts] by a commercial organization for thepurpose of achieving commercial objectives (Meenaghan, 1983, p. 9)”. Until thepast decade the majority of firms have viewed event sponsorship as anobligation to the community (Catherwood and Van Kirk, 1992). Sponsorshipshad been placed on a level somewhere between charitable donations and publicrelation opportunities. Furthermore, the selection of which events to sponsorwas often determined by the current pet project of the firm’s CEO (Meenaghan,1991). Today, although still representing a small percentage of the overallpromotional budget, the outlay of promotional dollars for sponsorship activitiesis growing rapidly (Parker, 1991; Sandler and Shani, 1989; Scott and Suchard,1992). Not only are today’s sponsorships more sophisticated (i.e., more thansimply the donation of cash for event production), but most firms are expectinga reasonable return on their sponsorship dollar in the form of increased sales(Catherwood and Van Kirk, 1992).

While firms enter into sponsorship arrangements with a variety of goals,two of the most important are: to increase brand awareness; and to establish,strengthen, or change brand image (Crowley, 1991; Marshall and Cook, 1992;Meenaghan, 1991; Meerabeau et al ., 1991). Recently, these goals have beentheorized to be important in the development of customer-based brand equity,

defined as the differential effect of brand knowledge on the consumer’s purchasedecision (Keller, 1993). In Keller’s conceptualization, brand knowledge (whichdrives customer-based brand equity) is a function of both the consumer’sawareness of the brand and the image(s) associated with that awareness. “Inparticular, the favorability, strength, and uniqueness of the brand associationsplay a critical role in determining the differential response” (Keller, 1993, p.8).

Brand awareness is achieved by exposing the brand to as many potentialconsumers as possible (Aaker, 1991). Sponsorship activities present multipleopportunities for achieving awareness objectives, and much of the research to

International Marketing Review,Vol. 14 No. 3, 1997, pp. 145-158.

©MCB University Press, 0265-1335


3/20

InternationalMarketingReview14,3

146

date in the sponsorship literature has focused on awareness issues such assponsor recall (e.g. McDaniel and Kinney, 1996). Regrettably, less attention hasbeen given to event and brand image issues. A number of questions existregarding the effect of sponsorship promotional activities on brand and eventimage. For example:

• What factors contribute to an event’s image?

• Do consumers associate an event’s image with sponsoring brands?

• If there is an image association between event and sponsor, is there atheoretical explanation that can be used to understand this linkage?

• If there is an image association between event and sponsor, what factorsmoderate (strengthen or weaken) this relationship?

• How does event image influence attitude towards the brand?

Although attempts at measuring the return on the sponsorship investmenthave been made (e.g., total event attendance, exit polls, sales following theevent, and number of media mentions), an understanding of how sponsorship“works” has yet to be developed (Catherwood and Van Kirk, 1992; Javalgi et al .,1994; Meerabeauet al ., 1991; Parker, 1991). The purpose of this article is topresent a model explaining the mechanisms by which brand image may beimpacted through sponsorship activities. Specifically, drawing on the theory of meaning transfer from the celebrity endorsement literature, a model ispresented which suggests the factors involved in creating an event’s image and

the subsequent transfer of that image to the sponsoring brand. Furthermore,several factors are identified that may moderate the relationship between eventimage and brand image. While the focus of this article is on the conceptualdevelopment of image transfer in sponsorship, a variety of researchpropositions are offered to guide future empirical inquiry.

A framework for the transfer of event imageModel conceptualization and overview

Brand image has been defined as “perceptions about a brand as reflected by thebrand associations held in memory” (Keller, 1993, p. 3). Keller suggests that thefavourability, uniqueness, and strength of the associations are critical to a brand’ssuccess. Brand associations are developed from a variety of sources includingproduct use, informational sources (e.g., advertising, packaging, word-of-mouth),and association with other entities. The “association with other entities” source isof particular relevance to sponsorship activity. Keller has suggested that when abrand becomes associated with an event, some of the associations linked with theevent (e.g., youthful, relaxing, enjoyable, disappointing, sophisticated, élite, etc.)may become linked in memory with the brand.

This transfer of associations is consistent with research in the celebrityendorsement process. Initial research regarding celebrity endorsement focusedon the credibility and attractiveness of the message source (i.e., celebrity) toexplain the persuasive nature of endorsers. That is, more credible and attractive


4/20

Image creationmodel

147

endorsers were viewed as more persuasive. However, McCracken (1989),pointing to conflicting research results, suggested that endorsementeffectiveness is better explained by the “meanings” consumers associate withthe celebrity endorser and subsequently transfer to the brand. McCraken usesthe term “meaning” to describe consumers’ overall assessments of what acelebrity “represents” based on characteristics such as social class, gender, age,personality, and lifestyle. Thus, individual characteristics (e.g., regal, trashy,maleness, strong, caring, sexual, irreverent, wise) are integrated to define themeaning of the celebrity. Meaning which has been accumulated through theirroles in “television, movies, military, athletics, and other careers” is thought toreside in celebrities (McCracken, 1989, p. 315).

According to McCracken, the meaning attributed to celebrities moves fromthe celebrity endorser to the product when the two are paired in anadvertisement. That is, meanings associated with the celebrity becomeassociated with the product in the mind of the consumer. To complete themeaning transfer process, consumers acquire the meaning in the productthrough consumption. This process is illustrated in Figure 1.

McCracken’s (1989) “meaning” in celebrities is analogous to Keller’s (1993) eventassociations. Following the convention set forward by Keller with reference tobrand image, this article uses the term event “image” to represent thecumulative interpretation of meanings or associations attributed to events byconsumers. A comparison can be drawn between celebrity endorsers andevents. Just as consumers associate celebrities with certain meanings, so too areevents associated with particular attributes and attitudes. It is suggested herethat these associations are derived from the event’s type, event characteristics,

and several individual consumer factors. This is not unlike the meaningattributed to a celebrity being formed by the various roles he or she occupies.For example, event associations attributed to the annual Chicago Blues Festival(a food and musical extravaganza drawing over 500,000 people) might includetradition, celebration and civic pride.

Extending this concept of meaning transfer from the celebrity endorserliterature, it is suggested that events act in a manner analogous to endorsers inthe transfer of image to sponsoring brands. The framework presented in Figure2 theorizes from McCracken’s celebrity endorsement model to suggest that

Figure 1.Meaning movement in

the endorsementprocess

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1108/02651339710170221&iName=master.img-000.png&w=339&h=94


5/20


148

event image is formed from a number of external and internal factors. Throughsponsorship, an event’s image, which may be relatively distinct for differentconsumer groups, may be transferred through association to the sponsoringproduct. As indicated in the figure, several factors may moderate the strengthof this image transfer. This discussion leads to the offering of the first research

proposition:P1 : Through sponsorship, an event’s image will become associated with the

sponsoring brand’s image.

Determinants of event image

An event’s image is represented by a particular market segment’s overallsubjective perceptions of the activity. The proposed framework suggests threefactors that may impact one’s perception of a particular event: event type, eventcharacteristics, and individual factors.

Event t ype . In accordance with the earlier definition, event type can becategorized into at least five areas: sports related, music related, festival/fairrelated, fine arts related (e.g., ballet, art exhibit, theatre, etc.), and professionalmeeting/trade show related. The type of event impacts event image in a varietyof ways. First, it conjures up image associations in the mind of the consumer.

That is, most individuals, through past patronage or other forms of exposure(word-of-mouth, television, etc.) will develop some attitudes (i.e., positive ornegative predispositions towards an event) regarding particular events. Theseattitudes will serve to frame the image of the particular event type. Notehowever, that one’s attitude towards an event is only one part of an event’simage. One’s attitude towards an event represents a summary of experiencesresulting in some general predisposition to respond to an event in a consistently

Figure 2.A model of imagecreation and imagetransfer in eventsponsorship

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showImage?doi=10.1108/02651339710170221&iName=master.img-001.png&w=334&h=208


6/20

Image creationmodel

149

favourable or unfavourable manner. Thus, event attitude is an enduringevaluation (Cohen, 1990).

While an event’s image will be strongly influenced by one’s attitude towardsthe event, event image will also be impacted by non-evaluative perceptions of anevent that are formed through associations held in the consumer’s memory(Keller, 1993). In this sense, event image reflects the meaning of the event for anindividual, and can be characterized using descriptive labels that represent asummation of one’s perceptions. These labels, termed image associations,would include: youthful, mature, carefree, adventurous, educational, social,traditional, exclusive, common, liberal, conservative, high class, familyoriented, children oriented, cerebral, athletic, artistic, pride, political, etc. Thus,

event image can be thought of as a collection of image associations.In addition to past experiences and other indirect exposures, it is likely that

new experiences will shape one’s perception of event image. In fact, imageperceptions formed from the most recent event experiences will likely be themost influential in shaping one’s overall event image perceptions (Bagozzi andWarshaw, 1990). New experiences can be divided into two types: the specificactivities engaged in or observed; and all interactions with other eventattendees/participants and event staff. It is through these two experiences thatpast event images may be changed or modified and new image associations canbe added.

The specific activities engaged in or observed may be the same for allparticipants[1] (e.g., attendees at a soccer match) or quite varied (e.g., the

individual rides and attractions selected at a local festival), depending on thetype of event. Regardless of the similarity of experiences, the essential issue isthat a given consumer’s specific event experiences or observations will shapetheir perceptions of event image. It is also argued here that the number and typeof other participants will have an impact on one’s evaluation of the event’simage. For example, the number of spectators may impact one’s assessment of the success of the event. Perhaps events may be viewed as more successfulwhen they draw more attendees. In addition, the number of participants mayimpact perceptions of crowding, event availability, and wait times. “Type of participant” represents the demographic and psychographic characteristics of others attending the event. The attendees at some events represent relativelyhomogeneous market segments in terms of social class, family life cycle, age,gender, political affiliation, etc. For example, spectators of professional golf tournaments may be middle aged, white males, with above median incomes. Inother cases, events draw heterogeneous types of participants. Just as othercustomers can have a substantial impact on consumer’s perceptions of servicefirms, so too can other participants have an impact on one’s event experiencesand subsequent assessment of event image (Bitner et al ., 1994).

These factors, perceptions based on past experiences, event activities, andthe number and type of spectator/participant, constitute one aspect that willserve to shape consumers’ overall subjective perceptions of a given event. Basedon the above discussion, several research propositions are suggested:


7/20


150

P2a : Direct experience and/or indirect information (word-of-mouth,advertising, etc.) with an event type will influence event image.

P2b : The specific activities experienced or observed during an event willinfluence event image.

P2c : The number and type of other spectators/participants will influenceevent image.

Event character istics . Within a given event type (e.g., music concert series, tradeshow, etc.), a number of characteristics will vary from event to event. The “level”of the following five event characteristics will likely influence consumers’perceptions of an event’s overall image: event size, professional status of

participants (professional or amateur), tradition/history associated with theevent, event venue, and promotional appearance.

Event size can be considered along a number of dimensions, including lengthof event, level of media exposure (local, regional, national, international),number of performers (if applicable), and amount of physical space occupied.

The same type of event, for example electronic industry trade shows, can varyalong all of these dimensions, creating different images for the same event type.Likewise, other event characteristics such as the professional status of performers (professional versus amateur) or the venue in which the event isstaged (e.g., temperature, convenience, physical condition, etc.) will impact one’soverall assessment of the event’s image. One could theorize that, in most cases,perceptions of quality, legitimacy, and attendance desirability will be higher

with long running, large, elaborately staged events, featuring professionals inattractive and convenient venues. The perceived promotional appearance of a brand’s sponsorship activities may

appear anywhere along a spectrum from advertiser to benefactor. A perceptiontowards the benefactor end of the spectrum may lead to increased feelings of goodwill towards the brand because it is perceived as donating funds to make theevent possible (McDonald, 1991). Conversely, there may be a negative reaction tothe commercialization of events that have not been sponsored in the past. Theseevents may be perceived as “selling out” to the corporate world. This has becomeespecially true in the Arts, where some individuals feel that sponsorship(corporate or governmental) of the Arts leads to censorship (Jacobson, 1993;Wood, 1996) . However, due to increasing costs, it has become even more criticalfor events to obtain outside sponsors in order to continue to exist. To take fulladvantage of the goodwill aspects, the sponsoring brand may need to educateattendees regarding the beneficial role sponsorship plays in event production.

Due to its association with the event, a sponsoring brand’s promotionalclaims can be legitimized, which serves to increase the believability of thepromotional message (McDonald, 1991). Additionally, a sponsoring firm may beperceived as making an event possible for the consumer (Chew, 1992;McDonald, 1991). The perception may be especially strong for small eventswhich often have difficulty securing financial support. In this sense, theconsumer does not view the sponsorship as a form of promotion, but rather the


8/20

Image creationmodel

151

sponsoring brand is seen as providing a service to the attendee and a level of goodwill is generated by the firm. Again, the scepticism that can be associatedwith traditional advertising may be circumvented. Brands that are viewed as“benefactors” will be seen in a more favourable light. The consumer may evenfeel the need or desire to reciprocate by purchasing the brand. Following fromthe above discussion, the following research propositions are suggested:

P3a : Event size will influence event image.

P3b : Professional status of participants will influence event image.

P3c : Tradition/history associated with the event will influence event image.

P3d : Event venue will influence event image.P3e : Promotional appearance will influence event image.

Individual factors . Because of the large number of factors influencing eventimage and the unique manner in which participants may interpret those factors,an event may have different images for different individuals. “Qualitativeresearch has revealed each sport to have its own individual image, andsponsors will tend to benefit from image transfer accordingly” (Parker, 1991, p.26). Three individual factors are suggested here that may impact event image:the number of images an individual associates with an event; the strength of theparticular image; and the past history one has with a specific event. This lastfactor differs from the “past experience” factor discussed under event type. Past

history refers to the unique experiences associated with a specific event,whereas past experiences refers to encounters with a general event type.Events that consumers perceive as having multiple images will be more

difficult to associate with a single identity. This will be compounded when themeanings are of a conflicting nature. Thus, an individual with many eventassociations may have a shifting image of the event, depending on whichassociation is currently most salient. Related to this is that images can be verystrong or relatively weak. It is likely that a single strong image will dominateover several weaker ones. This will cause an event image to be consistent overtime, but limits the richness that multiple image associations would confer.Finally, an individual’s personal history with a particular event may have animpact on one’s perception of an event’s image. A long history will typically

lead to a more ingrained and consistent image. An individual that has attendedor has been associated with an event for a substantial time period may alsohave nostalgic feelings that become associated with the event’s image. Eventsthat have multiple or vague images pose problems for a firm’s sponsorshipselection decision because it becomes more difficult to predict the image thatmay become associated with the event, and ultimately “transferred” to theproduct. The above discussion leads to the following research propositions:

P4a : Individuals associating an event with a large number of images willhave difficulty identifying a consistent event image.


9/20


152

P4b : Individuals with a single, strong image association will haveconsistent event images over time.

P4c : Individuals with a single, strong image association will have less richevent images.

P4d : Individuals with long-term participation in an event will hold aconsistent event image for that event.

This section has identified three broad areas (event type, event characteristics,and individual factors) that influence the creation of an event’s image, althoughthere may be some event image determinants not explicitly discussed in theprevious section. It is likely that any unrepresented factors could be

accommodated within the proposed areas. The next section discusses constructsthat may moderate the relationship between event image and brand image.

Moderating variables in the modelPotential moderating variables presented in the model are discussed in twosections. In the first section variables potentially impacting the strength of theimage transfer from event to brand are discussed. As such, variables pertainingto the formation of strong memory associations (degree of similarity) andexposure to the sponsor’s message (level of sponsorship and event frequency)are discussed. The second section on moderating variables examines how one’sinvolvement with a product may moderate the impact of the event’s image onbrand attitude. Attitude towards the event and attitude towards the brand are

conceptualized and discussed as being components of event image and brandimage, respectively. Although not illustrated in Figure 2, these attitudecomponents should be considered as a part of each of the respective “image”boxes in the figure.

Moderators between event image and brand image

This section will discuss three moderating variables impacting the strength of the “transfer” between an event’s image and the image of a sponsoring brand.As indicated above, the basis of the relationship is the meaning transferbetween these constructs and it is this process that the moderating variables areproposed to influence.

The first moderating factor to be discussed in the image transfer process isthe degree of similarity between the event and the sponsor. A product can haveeither functional or image related similarity with an event. Functional similarityoccurs when a sponsoring product is actually used by participants during theevent. An example of this type of similarity is Valvoline’s sponsorship of automobile racing. The link is established because, apart from being a sponsor,Valvoline’s motor oil products are actually used by many of the participantsduring the event. The second type of similarity is termed image related, andoccurs when the image of the event is related to the image of the brand. Anexample of this type of linkage is Pepsi’s sponsorship of the 1993 Michael

Jackson World Concert Tour. Here the similarity comes from the youth and


10/20

Image creationmodel

153

excitement orientation of both the music and the product. Interestingly, somesponsors do not appear to be linked to the events they sponsor. For example, theUSF&G Sugar Bowl combined a large insurance firm with a collegiate footballgame. It is suggested here that either functional or image based similaritiesforge stronger ties and help the consumer to link the event image with thebrand. Thus, sponsor-event similarity (functional or image based) will enhanceimage transfer by more firmly anchoring the relationship in the consumer’smind. This assertion is consistent with some celebrity endorsement literaturewhich suggests that “mis-matches” between endorser and brand decrease theeffectiveness of the endorsement (Kaikati, 1987).

A second factor that may moderate the image transfer from event to

sponsoring brand is the level of sponsorship. Sponsorship arrangements canrun the gamut from a single sponsor to hundreds of sponsors at many differentlevels. Multiple sponsors for a given event lessens the probability that aparticular brand will be associated with the event, due to the additional stimulieach consumer must attend to and recall (Hutchinson and Alba, 1991). Often,events allowing multiple sponsors will offer different “levels” of sponsorship.By contributing different dollar amounts to the event, the sponsor can buyenhanced packages. These enhancements include better sign/banner location,more frequent media mentions, and premium ticket and hospitality packages.Exclusive sponsorship, or at least a dominant position, will increase thelikelihood of meaning transfer from the event to the sponsoring brand by morefirmly establishing the link between event and brand.

The frequency of the event will also have an impact on the image transferprocess. Events may be on either a one-time or recurring basis. Although a one-time event does not allow recurring event-sponsor associations to be developedover time, some events may be of such a unique nature that they attract a greatdeal of media attention (e.g., Hands-Across-America). However, an ongoingevent (annual, semi-annual, monthly, etc.) should have the benefit of more firmlyestablishing a link between the event and the brand due to repeated exposures(MacInnis et al ., 1991). The above discussion leads to the following researchpropositions:

P5a : The higher the degree of similarity (image or functional based)between event and sponsoring brand, the more effective the imagetransfer between event and brand.

P5b: The more exclusive the level of sponsorship, the more effective theimage transfer between event and brand.

P5c : The more frequent the event, the more effective the image transferbetween event and brand.

Moderator s between event image and atti tude towards the brand

As discussed previously, one’s attitude towards the event will help to shapeone’s image of the event. Thus, event attitude is a component of event image.Likewise, attitude towards the brand is considered under this framework as a


11/20


154

component of brand image. Indeed, recent conceptualizations of brand imageinclude an attitude component (Keller, 1993). As such, the model presented inFigure 2 suggests that event image will have an impact on attitude towards thebrand. However, might there be situations in which this relationship ismoderated by another factor?

Advertising research with endorsers has demonstrated that productinvolvement level (defined as the level of personal relevance a product has to aconsumer, resulting from the perceived level of risk associated with the product’sconsumption or non-consumption) can impact the attitude formation process(Petty et al ., 1983). “Specifically, we have shown that when an advertisementconcerned a product of low involvement, the celebrity status of the product

endorsers was a very potent determinant of attitudes about the product. Whenthe advertisement concerned a product of high involvement, however, thecelebrity status of the product endorsers had no effect on attitudes, but thecogency of the information about the product contained in the ad was a powerfuldeterminant of product evaluations” (Petty et al ., 1983, p. 143). Following fromthis research, level of product involvement should moderate the relationshipbetween event image and attitude towards the brand, such that event image willhave a larger impact on brand attitude for a low involvement product.

The influence of event image on brand attitude can be understood further byconsidering the type of persuasion process likely to occur. Petty and Cacioppo’s(1986) elaboration likelihood model (ELM) suggests that persuasion can occuralong two routes. The central route to persuasion occurs when an individual

bases product evaluation on “diligent consideration of information that aperson feels is central to the true merits of an issue or product” (Petty et al .,1983, p. 144). The second route to attitude change, peripheral, suggests thatchange may also occur through the association of the object with positive ornegative cues (e.g., expert source, pleasant surroundings, forceful presentation,etc.). This conceptualization of the peripheral persuasion route is consistentwith Keller’s (1993) position of links in memory being established between anevent and the sponsor.

One characteristic of sponsorship that distinguishes it from some otherpromotional methods is its indirect nature (McDonald, 1991). That is, thesponsorship is, at best, a secondary concern (behind the actual event) for theparticipant. Furthermore, other than the brand’s name and/or logo, seldom isany type of commercial message associated with the firm’s products. Thus,sponsorship would appear to operate along Petty and Cacioppo’s peripheralpersuasion route due to this indirect nature, and lack of available cognizantinformation. Empirical tests of the ELM model suggest that the central route topersuasion is more effective for high involvement goods, while the peripheralroute has a higher impact on low involvement goods (Petty et al ., 1983).

Theorizing from the ELM, one could conclude that when the sponsoringbrand is a low involvement product, event image will be a potent force indetermining brand attitude. Conversely, the promotional benefit, in terms of attitude change, for high involvement products appears to be small. Product


12/20

Image creationmodel

155

involvement is only likely to be applicable when the sponsorship is focused atthe brand level, as opposed to the sponsorship focus being at the firm level. Thediscussion in this section gives rise to the following research propositions:

P6a : Brand attitudes of low involvement goods will be strongly influencedby event image.

P6b : Brand attitudes of high involvement goods will be weakly influencedby event image.

P6c : Persuasion processes from event sponsorship take place on theperipheral route.

Implications for practice and researchImplications for practice

Several implications for marketing practice can be drawn from the proposedmodel. First, firms should consider more than simply the number of potentialcustomers their sponsorship signage and other identifiers will reach. It isimportant to consider the image of the event, as this image may becomeassociated with the brand. An event’s image can be assessed through a varietyof methods. However, given its potentially ambiguous and transitory nature,qualitative methods in the form of depth interviews, focus groups, andprojective techniques, are likely to provide the best view of how consumersperceive a given event. Event organizers might take it on themselves to conductsuch studies and use the results to recruit potential sponsors. In the course of

such research, event organizers may find that the image of their event is notwhat they thought. Furthermore, it would be wise for event image studies totake place on a regular basis to assess changes in event image over time. Thiswould allow event organizers to take corrective action in a timely manner. Theproposed model suggests a variety of event image determinants that could bemanipulated to position a given event in a different light.

In terms of the sponsoring brand, the model suggests several aspects of sponsorship that should be considered when deciding on potential eventaffiliations. One aspect that should be considered, in light of image transferbenefits, is the degree of similarity between the event and the brand. Brandawareness benefits are likely to accrue regardless of similarity levels, but it hasbeen argued here that image associations will be more likely when some linkexists, either image or functional, in the consumer’s mind. Firms looking to addsponsorship activities to their promotional mix should also consider the level of sponsorship and frequency of the event. Although most firms will look at theseaspects with an eye towards the total dollar commitment, it may also be wise toconsider the meaning transfer implications. As discussed previously, exclusivesponsorships in events occurring on a frequent basis will likely maximize theimage transfer potential of the sponsorship purchase.

Finally, firms should consider whether image transfer benefits will actuallyhave any influence on consumers’ attitudes towards their brand and ultimatelytheir purchase intention. The model suggests that, in terms of impacting a


13/20


156

consumer’s attitude towards a brand, low involvement products will be moreeffective in sponsorship promotions due to the peripheral nature of persuasiontaking place. However, brand attitude represents only one part of brand image.Other image associations are likely to occur, regardless of product involvementlevel. As such, firms of high involvement products should carefully considertheir promotional goals to determine if event sponsorship is the best use of theirpromotional budget.

Implications for research

This article has set forward a number of research propositions that aresuggested by the proposed model. Although the propositions are in need of empirical validation, in terms of research priorities, those dealing with imagetransfer (P1 ) and product involvement (P6a -P6c ) stand out as needing the mostimmediate attention due to their potential importance to marketing managers.

The biggest challenge in the empirical testing of these propositions will likelybe in the measurement development of the event image construct and theassessment of image transfer. Event image measures might be developed thatconsist of a series of semantic differentials (e.g., young-old, exclusive-common,adult oriented-family oriented, etc.). An event typology might then beconstructed using cluster analysis techniques to identify common imagegroups. Such a typology would have significant implications for sponsorshipselection activities.

Another fruitful area of future empirical research might focus on the event

image determinants identified in the model. No predications were made withregard to the relative strength of these image determinants. However, it is likelythat some determinants (e.g., event size) will have a stronger impact on theformation of an event’s image. These determinants should be assessed to seewhich explain the most variance in event image and to identify possibleinteractions existing between the determinants.

Of course, research attempting to validate the image transfer process and thepresence or absence of moderating effects would represent a substantialcontribution to the sponsorship literature. Here researchers might consider theuse of experimental designs. Following such a research programme,investigators could vary levels of similarity (both functional and image),sponsorship level and frequency, and product involvement. Pre- and post-

measures of brand image could be compared in relationship to each of thetreatment level combinations (cf. McDaniel, 1997).

Another interesting area for further study would be to expand the eventimage transfer model by examining the influence of sponsorship on brand imagecreation as compared to other more traditional promotional activities (e.g.,television and magazine advertising, packaging, etc.). Furthermore, it would beuseful to examine the effect on brand image when the brand sponsors multipleevents. Will some events have a larger impact on brand image than others? If so,can specific event determinants be identified for driving this differential effect?


14/20

Image creationmodel

157

In addition, how do consumers sort out the meaning transfer from event tobrand, when brands sponsor multiple event with conflicting images?

Event image transfer is perhaps an even more critical issue in the evergrowing global community. Sponsors of events with international televisionaudiences, such as the Olympic Games, may need to consider the image of theglobal event in relationship to the image goals of local markets. Cultural andsocial norms may vary across national boundaries, such that a given event’simage would not be appropriate for all consumer groups. It may also be possiblethat culture will moderate the image transfer process. Perhaps in cultures wherean individual’s self-concept is more closely tied to consumption activities (e.g.,the type of clothing worn, the model of car driven), the transfer of image fromevent to brand may proceed more effectively. In such cultures consumers aremore active in looking for “meaning” in products that can be used to change orreinforce their concept of self.

As a result of its growing importance and lack of attention, more research inthe area of event marketing, and specifically the image transfer process isneeded. This article has put forward several theoretical arguments to explainthe mechanisms by which brand image may be influenced through varioussponsorship activities. Past research in the area of event marketing has tendedto focus on brand awareness issues and has been mostly descriptive in nature.If this field of inquiry is to progress, we must have theoretical explanations fromwhich to build. This article represents a first step in the discussion of howsponsorship actually works.

Note

1. Individuals “consuming” an event can be referred to using a variety of terms depending onthe specific event type. These labels include participant, attendee, spectator and observer.All of these terms are used in this article to reflect the varied nature of event types, butthese terms should be regarded as synonyms.

References

Aaker, D.A. (1991),Managing Brand Equity , The Free Press, New York, NY.

Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw P.R. (1990), “Trying to consume”, Journal of Consumer Behavior ,Vol. 17, September, pp. 127-40.

Bitner, M., Booms, B.H. and Mohr, L.A. (1994), “Critical service encounters: the employee’sviewpoint”, Journal of M arketing , Vol. 58, October, pp. 95-106.

Catherwood, D.W. and Van Kirk, R.L. (1992),The Complete Guide to Special Event M anagement , John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Chew, F. (1992), “The advertising value of making possible a public television program”,Journal of Advertising Research , November-December, pp. 47-52.

Cohen, J.B. (1990), “Attitude, affect, and consumer behavior”, in Moore, B.S. and Isen, A.M. (Eds),Affect and Social Behavior , Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp. 152-206.

Crowley, M.G. (1991), “Prioritizing the sponsorship audience”,European Journal of Marketing ,Vol. 25 No.11, pp. 11-21.

Hutchinson, J.W. and Alba, J.A. (1991), “Ignoring irrelevant information: situational determinantsof consumer learning”, Jour nal of Consumer Research , Vol. 18, December, pp. 325-45.

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F208543http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1251919&isi=A1994PM30200008http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FEUM0000000000628http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F209263&isi=A1991GV82400006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F209263&isi=A1991GV82400006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1251919&isi=A1994PM30200008http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F209263&isi=A1991GV82400006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F208543http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FEUM0000000000628


15/20


158

Jacobson, M. (1993), “Museums that put corporations on display”,Business and Society Review ,Vol. 86, Summer, pp. 24-7.

Javalgi, R.G., Traylor, M.B., Gross, A.C. and Lampman, E. (1994), “Awareness of sponsorship andcorporate image: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Advert ising , Vol. 23, December,pp. 47-58.

Kaikati, J.G. (1987), “Celebrity advertising: a review and synthesis”, Int ernati onal Journal of Advertising , Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 93-105.

Keller, K.L. (1993), “Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity”,Journal of M arketing , Vol. 57, January, pp. 1-22.

Levin, G. (1993), “Sponsors put pressure on for accountability”, Advert ising Age , 21 June,pp. S1-S4.

MacInnis, D.J., Mooreman, C. and Jaworski, B.J. (1991), “Enhancing and measuring consumers’

motivation, opportunity, and ability to process brand information from ads”, Jour nal of Marketing , Vol. 55, October, pp. 32-53.

Marshall, D.W. and Cook, G. (1992), “The corporate (sports) sponsor”, In ternat ional Journal of Advertising , Vol. 11, pp. 307-24.

McCracken, G. (1989), “Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsementprocess”,Jour nal of Consumer Research , Vol. 16 December, pp. 310-21.

McDaniel, S.R. (1997), “An investigation of match-up effects in event sponsorship advertising: theimplications of consumer advertising schemas”, Paper presented at the American MarketingAssociation Winter Educators’ Meeting, St Petersburg, FL.

McDaniel, S.R. and Kinney, L. (1996), “Ambush marketing revisited: an experimental study of perceived sponsorship effects on brand awareness, attitude toward the brand and purchaseintention”, Journal of Promoti on Management , Vol. 3, pp. 141-67.

McDonald, C. (1991), “Sponsorship and the image of the sponsor”, Eur opean Jour nal of Marketing , Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 31-8.

Meenaghan, J.A. (1983), “Commercial sponsorship”,European Journal of M arketing , Vol. 7 No. 7,pp. 5-73.

Meenaghan, J.A. (1991), “Sponsorship – legitimizing the medium”, Eur opean Jour nal of Marketing , Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 5-10.

Meerabeau, E., Gillett, R., Kennedy, M., Adeoba, J., Byass, M. and Tabi, K. (1991), “Sponsorshipand the drinks industry in the 1990s”,European Journal of M arketing , Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 39-56.

Parker, K. (1991), “Sponsorship: the research contribution”,European Journal of Marketing ,Vol. 25 No. 11, pp. 22-30.

Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986),Communication and Persuasion: Central and Per ipheral Routes to At ti tude Change , Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.

Petty, R.E., Cacioppo, J.T. and Schumann, D. (1983), “Central and peripheral routes to advertisingeffectiveness: the moderating role of involvement”, Jour nal of Consumer Research , Vol. 10,September, pp. 135-46.

Sandler, D.M. and Shani, D. (1989), “Olympic sponsorship vs. ‘ambush’ marketing: who gets thegold”,Journal of Advertising Research , August-September, pp. 9-14.

Scott, D.R. and Suchard, H.T. (1992), “Motivations for Australian expenditure on sponsorship – ananalysis”, International Journal of Advert ising , Vol. 11, pp. 325-32.

Wood, J. (1996), “Sold out”,The New Republi c, Vol. 215 No. 2, p. 9.

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F00913367.1943.10673458&isi=A1994QC36600005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1252054&isi=A1993KH92100001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1251955&isi=A1991GL03300003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1251955&isi=A1991GL03300003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F209217&isi=A1989CN82800005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F209217&isi=A1989CN82800005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1300%2FJ057v03n01_09http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FEUM0000000000630http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FEUM0000000000630http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FEUM0000000004825http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FEUM0000000000627http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FEUM0000000000627http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FEUM0000000000631http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FEUM0000000000631http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FEUM0000000000629http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2F978-1-4612-4964-1http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2F978-1-4612-4964-1http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F208954&isi=A1983RK13100001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F209217&isi=A1989CN82800005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1251955&isi=A1991GL03300003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1251955&isi=A1991GL03300003http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2F978-1-4612-4964-1http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2F978-1-4612-4964-1http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FEUM0000000000630http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FEUM0000000000630http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1252054&isi=A1993KH92100001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FEUM0000000000631http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F00913367.1943.10673458&isi=A1994QC36600005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FEUM0000000004825http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1086%2F208954&isi=A1983RK13100001http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FEUM0000000000629http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1300%2FJ057v03n01_09http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FEUM0000000000627http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?system=10.1108%2FEUM0000000000627


16/20

This article has been cited by:

1. Reinhard Grohs, Heribert Reisinger, David M. Woisetschläger. 2015. Attenuation of negative sponsorship effects in thecontext of rival sports teams’ fans. European Journal of Marketing 49:11/12. . [ Abstract] [PDF]

2. Philip Gross, Klaus-Peter Wiedmann. 2015. The Vigor of a Disregarded Ally in Sponsorship: Brand Image Transfer Effects Arising from a Cosponsor. Psychology & Marketing 32:10.1002/mar.2015.32.issue-11, 1079-1097. [CrossRef ]

3. Angeline Close Scheinbaum, Russell Lacey. 2015. Event social responsibility: A note to improve outcomes for sponsors andevents. Journal of Business Research 68, 1982-1986. [CrossRef ]4. Shih-Tung Shu, Brian King, Ching-Hung Chang. 2015. Tourist Perceptions of Event–Sponsor Brand Fit and Sponsor Brand

Attitude. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 32, 761-777. [CrossRef ]5. David Shani. 2015. Sport marketing and non profit marketing - perfect together. International Review on Public and Nonprofit

Marketing 12, 93-95. [CrossRef ]6. Nigel L. Williams, Alessandro Inversini, Dimitrios Buhalis, Nicole Ferdinand. 2015. Community crosstalk: an explorator y

analysis of destination and festival eWOM on Twitter. Journal of Marketing Management 31, 1113-1140. [CrossRef ]7. Daniela Andreini, Diego Rinallo, Giuseppe Pedeliento, Mara Bergamaschi. 2015. Brands and Religion in the Secularized

Marketplace and Workplace: Insights from the Case of an Italian Hospital Renamed After a Roman Catholic Pope. Journal of Business Ethics . [CrossRef ]

8. Dan Petrovici, Yujian Shan, Matthew Gorton, John Ford. 2015. Patriot games? Determinants of responses to Chinese andforeign sponsors of the Beijing Olympics. Journal of Business Research 68, 1324-1331. [CrossRef ]

9. Jean-Luc Herrmann, Mathieu Kacha, Christian Derbaix. 2015. “I support your team, support me in turn!”. Journal of Business Research . [CrossRef ]

10. Robert Demir, Sten Söderman. 2015. Strategic sponsoring in professional sport: a review and conceptualization. EuropeanSport Management Quarterly 15, 271-300. [CrossRef ]

11. Sonia Ferrari, Chito Guala. 2015. Mega-events and their legacy: Image and tourism in Genoa, Turin and Milan. Leisure Studies 1-19. [CrossRef ]

12. Jens Blumrodt, Philip J. Kitchen. 2015. The Tour de France: corporate sponsorships and doping accusations. Journal of Business Strategy 36:2, 41-48. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

13. John Nadeau, Norman O'Reilly, Louise A. Heslop. 2015. Cityscape promotions and the use of place images at the OlympicGames. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 33:2, 147-163. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

14. Yen-Ju Wang, Li-Ren Yang. 2015. Business Social Responsibility to Improve New Product Development. Journal of Economics,Business and Management 3, 510-513. [CrossRef ]

15. Kijpokin Kasemsap 171. [CrossRef ]16. Ye Wang. 2015. Affective and cognitive influence of control of navigation on cause sponsorship and non-profit organizations.

International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing n/a. [CrossRef ]17. Kun Lai. 2014. Destination Images Penetrated by Mega-events: A Behaviorist Study of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. Asia

Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 1-21. [CrossRef ]18. Michael Schade, Rico Piehler, Christoph Burmann. 2014. Sport club brand personality scale (SCBPS): A new brand

personality scale for sport clubs. Journal of Brand Management 21, 650-663. [CrossRef ]19. Gordon Liu, Wai Wai Ko. 2014. An integrated model of cause-related marketing strategy development. AMS Review .

[CrossRef ]20. Sujin Yang, Sejin Ha. 2014. Brand knowledge transfer via sponsorship in the financial services industry. Journal of Services

Marketing 28:6, 452-459. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]21. Daniela Andreini, Giuseppe Pedeliento. 2014. The multichannel effects of sponsorship: an empirical analysis. MERCATI

E COMPETITIVITÀ 65-83. [CrossRef ]22. Robert James Thomas. 2014. An evaluation of the effectiveness of rugby event sponsorship: a study of Dove Men+Care a nd

the Welsh Rugby Union. Journal of Product & Brand Management 23:4/5, 304-321. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]23. Angeline G. Close, Russell Lacey. 2014. How the Anticipation Can Be as Great as the Experience: Explaining Event

Sponsorship Exhibit Outcomes Via Affective Forecasting. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 35, 209-224.[CrossRef ]

24. Erol Duran, Bahattin Hamarat. 2014. Festival attendees’ motivations: the case of International Troia Festival.International Journal of Event and Festival Management 5:2, 146-163. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

25. Erol Duran, Bahattin Hamarat, Emrah Özkul. 2014. A sustainable festival management model: the case of InternationalTroia festival. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research 8:2, 173-193. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-03-2014-0533http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/JPBM-03-2014-0533http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/JPBM-03-2014-0533http://dx.doi.org/10.3280/MC2014-003005http://dx.doi.org/10.7763/JOEBM.2015.V3.237http://dx.doi.org/10.7763/JOEBM.2015.V3.237http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2015.1035308http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12208-015-0139-2http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/IJCTHR-04-2013-0017http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/IJCTHR-04-2013-0017http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-04-2013-0017http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/IJEFM-07-2012-0020http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/IJEFM-07-2012-0020http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJEFM-07-2012-0020http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2014.900294http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/JPBM-03-2014-0533http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/JPBM-03-2014-0533http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-03-2014-0533http://dx.doi.org/10.3280/MC2014-003005http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/JSM-11-2013-0313http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/JSM-11-2013-0313http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JSM-11-2013-0313http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13162-014-0061-5http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/bm.2014.36http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10941665.2014.904802http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1534http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-8125-5.ch010http://dx.doi.org/10.7763/JOEBM.2015.V3.237http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/MIP-03-2014-0061http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/MIP-03-2014-0061http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MIP-03-2014-0061http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/JBS-04-2014-0046http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/JBS-04-2014-0046http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JBS-04-2014-0046http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2015.1037788http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2015.1042000http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.016http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.12.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2709-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2015.1035308http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12208-015-0139-2http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2014.946576http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.017http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20848http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/EJM-01-2013-0010http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJM-01-2013-0010


17/20

26. Margaret A. Johnston, Neil Paulsen. 2014. Rules of engagement: A discrete choice analysis of sponsorship decision making. Journal of Marketing Management 30, 634-663. [CrossRef ]

27. Tsedendorj Enkhchimeg, Gwi-Gon Kim, Ji-Won Oh. 2014. The Effect of Sponsorship Articulation and Moderating Effectof Articulation Type & Thinking Style. Journal of Digital Convergence 12, 149-157. [CrossRef ]

28. Reinhard Grohs, Heribert Reisinger. 2014. Sponsorship effects on brand image: The role of exposure and activity involvement. Journal of Business Research 67, 1018-1025. [CrossRef ]

29. Leah Donlan. 2014. An empirical assessment of factors affecting the brand-building effectiveness of sponsorship. Sport,Business and Management: An International Journal 4:1, 6-25. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]30. Ellen L. Bloxsome, Mark R. Brown, Nigel K. Ll. Pope, Kevin E. VogesInternational Sponsorship Research 529-553.

[CrossRef ]31. Norm O’Reilly, Denyse Lafrance Horning. 2013. Leveraging sponsorship: The activation ratio. Sport Management Review

16, 424-437. [CrossRef ]32. Pascale Quester, Carolin Plewa, Karen Palmer, Marc Mazodier. 2013. Determinants of Community-Based Sponsorship Impact

on Self-Congruity. Psychology & Marketing 30:10.1002/mar.2013.30.issue-11, 996-1007. [CrossRef ]33. Marc Mazodier, Amir Rezaee. 2013. Are sponsorship announcements good news for the shareholders? Evidence from

international stock exchanges. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 41, 586-600. [CrossRef ]34. 박박박, 박박박. 2013. The Impact of Sports Event Participant’s Gender, Age, and Involvement on Preference toward Sponsorship

Brand. Journal of Public Relations 17, 340-378. [CrossRef ]35. Walter Wymer, Katie McDonald, Wendy Scaife. 2013. Effects of Corporate Support of a Charity on Public Perceptions of

the Charity. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations . [CrossRef ]36. Susan Ferrier, Kathryn Waite, Tina Harrison. 2013. Sports sponsorship perceptions: An exploration. Journal of Financial

Services Marketing 18, 78-90. [CrossRef ]37. Jeonghee Na, Junghyun Kim. 2013. Does ‘Articula tion’ matter in sponsorship? The type of articulation and the degree of

congruence as determinants of corporate sponsorship effects. Asian Journal of Communication 23, 268-283. [CrossRef ]38. Natalia Vila‐López, MaCarmen Rodríguez‐Molina. 2013. Event‐brand transfer in an entertainment service: experiential

marketing. Industrial Management & Data Systems 113:5, 712-731. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]39. Beth Myers, Wi-Suk Kwon. 2013. A model of antecedents of consumers' post brand attitude upon exposure to a cause-brand

alliance. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 18, 73-89. [CrossRef ]

40. Tony Meenaghan, Damien McLoughlin, Alan McCormack. 2013. New Challenges in Sponsorship Evaluation Actors, New Media, and the Context of Praxis. Psychology & Marketing 30:10.1002/mar.2013.30.issue-5, 444-460. [CrossRef ]41. Margarida Abreu Novais, Charles Arcodia. 2013. Measuring the Effects of Event Sponsorship: Theoretical Frameworks and

Image Transfer Models. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 30, 308-334. [CrossRef ]42. John Nadeau, Norm O'Reilly, Louise A. Heslop. 2013. Linking place, mega‐event and sponsorship ev aluations. Journal of

Product & Brand Management 22:2, 129-141. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]43. Leah Kathleen Donlan. 2013. The Role of Brand Knowledge in Determining Sponsorship Effectiveness. Journal of Promotion

Management 19, 241-264. [CrossRef ]44. Shintaro Okazaki, Charles R. Taylor. 2013. Social media and international advertising: theoretical challenges and future

directions. International Marketing Review 30:1, 56-71. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]45. Matthew Walker, Kiki Kaplanidou, Heather Gibson, Brijesh Thapa, Sue Geldenhuys, Willie Coetzee. 2013. “Win in Africa,

With Africa”: Social responsibility, event image, and destination benefits. The case of the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa. Tourism Management 34, 80-90. [CrossRef ]

46. Eunha Chun, Jane Ko, Jieun Lee, Eunju Ko. 2013. The effect of sports event tourism on event attitude and the brand equity of sportswear sponsors. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science 23, 72-91. [CrossRef ]

47. David M. Woisetschläger, Jan Dreisbach, Marc Schnöring, Christof Backhaus. 2013. Einstellungstransfer durch Sponsoring:Welche Stellhebel zum Erfolg führen. Marketing Review St. Gallen 30, 46-57. [CrossRef ]

48. Stefan Hattula, Jörg Richter, Torsten Bornemann, Hans H. Bauer. 2013. Sportlicher Erfolg — Treiber für Aktienrenditenvon Sponsoren. Marketing Review St. Gallen 30, 12-21. [CrossRef ]

49. Christoph Burmann, Michael Schade, Christopher Kanitz. 2013. Augen auf bei der Sponsorenwahl. Marketing Review St.Gallen 30, 36-45. [CrossRef ]

50. Ni Chen. 2012. Branding national images: The 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics, 2010 Shanghai World Expo, and 2010Guangzhou Asian Games. Public Relations Review 38, 731-745. [CrossRef ]

51. Reinhard Grohs, Udo Wagner, Regina Steiner. 2012. An Investigation of Children's Ability to Identify Sponsors andUnderstand Sponsorship Intentions. Psychology & Marketing 29:10.1002/mar.2012.29.issue-11, 907-917. [CrossRef ]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02651331311298573http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/02651331311298573http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/02651331311298573http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2013.769474http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421311321004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/10610421311321004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/10610421311321004http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2013.784149http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20618http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1439http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02635571311324160http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/02635571311324160http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/02635571311324160http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2012.731606http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/fsm.2013.4http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9397-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20573http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2012.04.003http://dx.doi.org/10.1365/s11621-013-0187-0http://dx.doi.org/10.1365/s11621-013-0185-2http://dx.doi.org/10.1365/s11621-013-0188-zhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21639159.2012.744512http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.03.015http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/02651331311298573http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/02651331311298573http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02651331311298573http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2013.769474http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/10610421311321004http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/10610421311321004http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10610421311321004http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2013.784149http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20618http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1439http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/02635571311324160http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/02635571311324160http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02635571311324160http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2012.731606http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/fsm.2013.4http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9397-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.15814/jpr.2013.17.3.340http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-013-0325-xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20662http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.01.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118378465.ch26http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/SBM-09-2011-0075http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/SBM-09-2011-0075http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/SBM-09-2011-0075http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.08.008http://dx.doi.org/10.14400/JDC.2014.12.5.149http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.838986


18/20

52. Guillaume Bodet, Marie-Françoise Lacassagne. 2012. International place branding through sporting events: a Britishperspective of the 2008 Beijing Olympics. European Sport Management Quarterly 12, 357-374. [CrossRef ]

53. Namin Kim, Youri Sung, Moonkyu Lee. 2012. Consumer Evaluations of Social Alliances: The Effects of Perceived FitBetween Companies and Non-Profit Organizations. Journal of Business Ethics 109, 163-174. [CrossRef ]

54. Annmarie Ryan, John Fahy. 2012. Evolving priorities in sponsorship: From media management to network management. Journal of Marketing Management 28, 1132-1158. [CrossRef ]

55. Emmanuel Chéron, Florian Kohlbacher, Kaoru Kusuma. 2012. The effects of brand‐cause fit and campaign duration onconsumer perception of cause‐related marketing in Japan. Journal of Consumer Marketing 29:5, 357-368. [ Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

56. Matthias Messner, Marc-André Reinhard. 2012. Effects of Strategic Exiting from Sponsorship after Negative Event Publicity.Psychology and Marketing 29:10.1002/mar.2012.29.issue-4, 240-256. [CrossRef ]

57. Yung-Lan Wang, Gwo-Hshiung Tzeng. 2012. Brand marketing for creating brand value based on a MCDM model combining DEMATEL with ANP and VIKOR methods. Expert S ystems wit h Applications 39, 5600-5615. [CrossRef ]

58. Miguel Moital, Julie Whitfield, Caroline Jackson, Arjun Bahl. 2012. Event sponsorship by alcoholic and non‐alcoholic drinksbusinesses in India. International Journal of C ontemporary Hospitality Management 24:2, 289-311. [ Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

59. Inés Küster Boluda, Vicente Castillo Lozoya. 2012. EFECTOS DE LOS VIDEOJUEGOS EN LAS MAR CASEMPLAZADAS: LA TRANSMISIÓN DE EMOCIONES. Revista Española de Investigación en Marketing ESIC 16, 29-58.

[CrossRef ]60. Kirstin Hallmann. 2012. Women's 2011 Football World Cup: The impact of perceived images of women's soccer and the

World Cup 2011 on interest in attending matches. Sport Management Review 15, 33-42. [CrossRef ]61. George N. Filis, George S. Spais. 2012. The Effect of Sport Sponsorship Programs of Various Sport Events on Stock Price

Behavior During a Sport Event. Journal of Promotion Management 18, 3-41. [CrossRef ]62. Jung-Im Lee, Su-Yun Shin. 2011. The Influences of Consumer Behavior according to their Perceived Suitability toward the

Type of Corporate Social Responsibility Activities. Journal of the Korean Society for Clothing Industry 13, 888-899. [CrossRef ]63. Carmen Lopez, Manto Gotsi, Constantine Andriopoulos. 2011. Conceptualising the influence of corporate image on country

image. European Journal of Marketing 45:11/12, 1601-1641. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]64. David Nickell, T. Bettina Cornwell, Wesley J. Johnston. 2011. Sponsorship‐linked marketing: a set of research propositions.

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 26:8, 577-589. [ Abstra ct] [Full Text] [PDF]

65. Yu Kyoum Kim, Yong Jae Ko, Jeffery James. 2011. The impact of relationship quality on attitude toward a sponsor. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 26:8, 566-576. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

66. Alexander Leischnig, Marko Schwertfeger, Anja Geigenmueller. 2011. Do shopping events promote retail brands?.International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management 39:8, 619-634. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

67. Manto Gotsi, Carmen Lopez, Constantine Andriopoulos. 2011. Building country image through corporate image: exploring the factors that influence the image transfer. Journal of Strategic Marketing 19, 255-272. [CrossRef ]

68. Kenneth K. Chen, James J. Zhang. 2011. Examining consumer attributes associated with collegiate athletic facility naming rights sponsorship: Development of a theoretical framework. Sport Management Review 14, 103-116. [CrossRef ]

69. Alexander Leischnig, Marko Schwertfeger, Anja Geigenmüller. 2011. Shopping events, shopping enjoyment, and consumers’attitudes toward retail brands—An empirical examination. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18, 218-223. [CrossRef ]

70. Heidi M.K. Ngan, Gerard P. Prendergast, Alex S.L. Tsang. 2011. Linking sports sponsorship with purchase intentions.

European Journal of Mar keting 45:4, 551-566. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]71. Lewis Hershey, John Branch. 2011. Lexicon Rhetoricae: the narrative theory of Kenneth Burke and its application to

marketing. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 14:2, 174-187. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]72. Erik L. Olson, Hans Mathias Thjømøe. 2011. Explaining and Articulating the Fit Construct in Sponsorship. Journal of

Advertising 40, 57-70. [CrossRef ]73. Frances Woodside, Jane Summers. 2011. Sponsorship leveraged packaging: An exploratory study in FMCG. Journal of

Marketing Communications 17, 87-105. [CrossRef ]74. Eun Mi Lee, Seong-Yeon Park, Jae H. Pae. 2011. The Effect of the Perceived Corporate Fit on Loyalty: The Mediating

Roles of the Corporate Social Responsibility Perception. Journal of Global Academy of Marketin g Science 21, 32-44. [CrossRef ]75. P. Monica Chien, T. Bettina Cornwell, Ravi Pappu. 2011. Sponsorship portfolio as a brand-image creation strategy. Journal

of Business Rese arch 64, 142-149. [CrossRef ]

76. Yosuke Tsuji. 2011. Overview of Sport Sponsorship Research. Japanese Journal of Sport Management 3, 23-34. [CrossRef ]77. Rala Kawas, Gerard P. Prendergast, Alex S.L. Tsang. 2011. Linking sports sponsorship with purchase intentions. European

Journal of Marketing 45:4, 551. [CrossRef ]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527260903194667http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367400104http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13522751111120684http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/13522751111120684http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/13522751111120684http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2011.581387http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590551111148686http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858621111179840http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858621111179840http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858621111179840http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/08858621111179840http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/08858621111179840http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/08858621111179840http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858621111179859http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858621111179859http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561111167315http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561111167315http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/03090561111167315http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/03090561111167315http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/03090561111167315http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/03090561111167315http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2012.642769http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2011.05.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1138-1442(14)60008-5http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/09596111211206187http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20518http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/07363761211247479http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/07363761211247479http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/07363761211247479http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561122334455http://dx.doi.org/10.5225/jjsm.2011-003http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.02.010http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/12297119.2011.9711010http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527260903194667http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367400104http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/13522751111120684http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/13522751111120684http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13522751111120684http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/03090561111111334http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/03090561111111334http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561111111334http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2010.11.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2010.10.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0965254X.2011.581387http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/09590551111148686http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/09590551111148686http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09590551111148686http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/08858621111179840http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/08858621111179840http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858621111179840http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/08858621111179859http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/08858621111179859http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858621111179859http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/03090561111167315http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/03090561111167315http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090561111167315http://dx.doi.org/10.5805/KSCI.2011.13.6.888http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2012.642769http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2011.05.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1138-1442(14)60008-5http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/09596111211206187http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/09596111211206187http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09596111211206187http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.11.057http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20518http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/07363761211247479http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/07363761211247479http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/07363761211247479http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/07363761211247479http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2011.645858http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1115-3http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2012.693114


19/20

78. Seong-Yeon Park, Young Yang. 2010. The Effect of Celebrity Conformity on the Purchase Intention of Celebrity SponsorshipBrand: The Moderating Effects of Symbolic Consumption and Face-Saving. Journal of Global Fashion Marketing 1, 215-229.[CrossRef ]

79. Enrique Bigné Alcañiz, Ruben Chumpitaz Cáceres, Rafael Currás Pérez. 2010. Alliances Between Brands and Social Causes:The Influence of Company Credibility on Social Responsibility Image. Journal of Business Ethics 96, 169-186. [CrossRef ]

80. Kirk L. Wakefield, Gregg Bennett. 2010. Affective Intensity and Sponsor Identification. Journal of Advertising 39, 99-111.[CrossRef ]

81. Abel Tasiyana Kahuni, Jennifer Rowley, Arnaz Binsardi. 2010. Guilty by Association: Image ‘Spill-over’ in Corporate Co-branding. Corporate Reputation Review 12, 52-63. [CrossRef ]

82. 박박박. 2010. The Influence of Sport Involvement and Relevance between Sponsor and Event on the Effect of SponsorshipMediating Role of Belief about Sponsorship and Perception of Sponsoring Motive. Journal of Public Relations 14, 5-43.[CrossRef ]

83. Srdan Zdravkovic, Peter Magnusson, Sarah M. Stanley. 2010. Dimensions of fit between a brand and a social cause and theirinfluence on a ttitudes. Inte rnational Journal of Research in Marketing 27, 151-160. [CrossRef ]

84. Kirstin Hallmann, Christoph Breuer. 2010. The impact of image congruence between sport event and destination onbehavioural intentions. Tourism Review 65:1, 66-74. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

85. Nicolas Chanavat, Guillaume Martinent, Alain Ferrand. 2010. Brand Images Causal Relationships in a Multiple Sport EventSponsorship Context: Developing Brand Value through Association with Sponsees. European Sport Management Quarterly10, 49-74. [CrossRef ]

86. Roberta Comunian. 2009. Toward a New Conceptual Framework for Business Investments in the Arts: Some Examples fromItaly. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society 39, 200-220. [CrossRef ]

87. Frank E. Dardis. 2009. Attenuating the Negative Effects of Perceived Incongruence in Sponsorship: How Message RepetitionCan Enhance Evaluations of an “Incongruent” Sponsor. Journal of Promotion Management 15, 36-56. [CrossRef ]

88. George D. Deitz, Susan Wesson Myers, Melissa Markley. 2009. A Resource-Matching Based View of Sponsorship InformationProcessing. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising 31, 75-87. [CrossRef ]

89. Lalla Ilhame Sabbane, FrançoisBellavance, Jean-Cha rles Chebat. 2009. Recency Versus Repetition Priming Effects of CigaretteWarnings on Nonsmoking Teenagers: The Moderating Effects of Cigarette-Brand Familiarity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 39:10.1111/jasp.2009.39.issue-3, 656-682. [CrossRef ]

90. Erik J. Hunter, J. Henri Burgers, Per DavidssonCelebrity capital as a strategic asset: Implica tions for new venture strategies

137-160. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]91. David N. BibbyBrand image, equity, and sports sponsorship 21-99. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]92. Andrew SmithUsing Major Events to Promote Peripheral Urban Areas 3-19. [CrossRef ]93. Jennifer Rowley, Catrin Williams. 2008. The impact of brand sponsorship of music festivals.Marketing Intelligence & Planning

26:7, 781-792. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]94. M. Joseph Sirgy, Dong-Jin Lee, J.S. Johar, John Tidwell. 2008. Effect of self-congruity with sponsorship on brand loyalty.

Journal of Business Research 61, 1091-1097. [CrossRef ]95. Torsten Tomczak, Silke Mühlmeier, Tim Oliver Brexendorf, Wolfgang Jenewein. 2008. Relevanz von Sponsoring — wann

sich das Engagement wirklich lohnt. Marketing Review St. Gallen 25, 46-51. [CrossRef ]96. Carl M. Sylvestre, Luiz Moutinho. 2007. Leveraging Associations: The Promotion of Cultural Sponsorships. Journal of

Promotion Management 13, 281-303. [CrossRef ]

97. Nathalie D. Fleck, Pascale Quester. 2007. Birds of a feather flock together…definition, role and measure of congruence: Anapplication to sponsorship. Psychology and Marketing 24:10.1002/mar.v24:11, 975-1000. [CrossRef ]

98. Lena Mossberg, Donald Getz. 2006. Stakeholder Influences on the Ownership and Management of Festival Brands.Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 6, 308-326. [CrossR ef ]

99. Henrik Uggla. 2006. The corporate brand association base. European Journal of Marketing 40:7/8, 785-802. [ Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

100. Xiaoyan Xing, Laurence Chalip. 2006. Effects of Hosting a Sport Event on Destination Brand: A Test of Co-branding andMatch-up Models. Sport Management Review 9, 49-78. [CrossRef ]

101. Fiona Davies, Cleopatra Veloutsou, Andrew Costa. 2006. Investigating the Influence of a Joint Sponsorship of Rival Teamson Supporter Attitudes and Brand Preferences. Journal of Marketing Communications 12, 31-48. [CrossRef ]

102. Carrie S. Trimble, Nora J. Rifon. 2006. Consumer perceptions of compatibility in cause-related marketing messages.International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 11:10.1002/nvsm.v11:1, 29-47. [CrossRef ]

103. JULIE Z. SNEATH, R. ZACHARY FINNEY, ANGELINE GRACE CLOSE. 2005. An IMC Approach to Event Marketing:The Effects of Sponsorship and Experience on Customer Attitudes. Journal of Advertising Research 45, 373. [CrossRef ]

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/03090560610669991http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/03090560610669991http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/03090560610669991http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15022250601003273http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15022250601003273http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20192http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10496490802308497http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11621-008-0086-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.09.022http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02634500810916717http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/02634500810916717http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/02634500810916717http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1871-3173(2009)0000003006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/S1871-3173%282009%290000003006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdf/10.1108/S1871-3173%282009%290000003006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/S1871-3173%282009%290000003006http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1074-7540(2009)0000011007http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1074-7540(2009)0000011007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/S1074-7540%282009%290000011007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/S1074-7540%282009%290000011007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/S1074-7540%282009%290000011007http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00455.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2009.10505258http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10496490902837759http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10632920903218521http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16184740903554090http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/16605371011040915http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/16605371011040915http://dx.doi.org/10.15814/jpr.2010.14.3.5http://dx.doi.org/10.15814/jpr.2010.14.3.5http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021849905050440http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.42http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527260500264574http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1441-3523(06)70019-5http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/03090560610669991http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/03090560610669991http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/03090560610669991http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560610669991http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15022250601003273http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mar.20192http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10496490802308497http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11621-008-0086-yhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.09.022http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/02634500810916717http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/02634500810916717http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02634500810916717http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-045100-8.00001-6http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/S1871-3173%282009%290000003006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdf/10.1108/S1871-3173%282009%290000003006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/S1871-3173%282009%290000003006http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1871-3173(2009)0000003006http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/S1074-7540%282009%290000011007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdf/10.1108/S1074-7540%282009%290000011007http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/S1074-7540%282009%290000011007http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S1074-7540(2009)0000011007http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00455.xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2009.10505258http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10496490902837759http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10632920903218521http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16184740903554090http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/16605371011040915http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/16605371011040915http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/16605371011040915http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2010.01.005http://dx.doi.org/10.15814/jpr.2010.14.3.5http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/crr.2009.1http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367390307http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0461-xhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2010.10593073


20/20

104. Gareth Smith. 2005. Politically Significant Events and Their Effect on the Image of Political Parties. Journal of Political Marketing 4, 91-114. [CrossRef ]

105. Simon J. Cliffe, Judy Motion. 2005. Building contemporary brands: a sponsorship-based strategy. Journal of Business Research58, 1068-1077. [CrossRef ]

106. Jong Ho Lee, Moon Tae Kim, Jung Won Ock. 2005. 박박박박박 박박박박박 박 박박박, 박박박박 박 박박박 박박박 박박박 박박. Journal of Global Academyof Marketing Science 15, 99-122. [CrossRef ]

107. T.Bettina Cornwell, Leonard V. Coote. 2005. Corporate sponsorship of a cause: the role of identification in purchase intent. Journal of Business Research 58, 268-276. [CrossRef ]108. Adamantios Diamantopoulos, Gareth Smith, Ian Grime. 2005. The impact of brand extensions on brand personality:

experimental evidence. European Journal of Marketing 39:1/2, 129-149. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]109. Stephen M. McKelvey. 2004. The Growth in Marketing Alliances between US Professional Sport and Legalised Gambling

Entities: Are We Putting Sport Consumers at Risk?. Sport Management Review 7, 193-210. [CrossRef ]110. Donald P. Roy, T. Bettina Cornwell. 2004. The effects of consumer knowledge on responses to event sponsorships. Psychology

and Marketing 21:10.1002/mar.v21:3, 185-207. [CrossRef ]111. Donald P. Roy, T. Bettina Cornwell. 2003. Brand equity’s influence on responses to event sponsorships. Journal of Product

& Brand Management 12:6, 377-393. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]112.Richard R. Dolphin. 2003. Sponsorship: perspectives on its strategic role.Corporate Communications: An International Journal

8:3, 173-186. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]113. Ruth Herman. 2003. An Exercise in Early Modern Branding. Journal of Marketing Management 19, 709-727. [CrossRef ]114. Robert Madrigal. 2001. Social identity effects in a belief-attitude-intentions hierarchy: Implications for corporate sponsorship.

Psychology and Marketing 18:10.1002/1520-6793(200102)18:2<>1.0.CO;2-6, 145-165. [CrossRef ]115. Tony Meenaghan. 2001. Sponsorship and advertising: A comparison of consumer perceptions. Psychology and Marketing

18:10.1002/1520-6793(200102)18:2<>1.0.CO;2-6, 191-215. [CrossRef ]116. Tony Meenaghan. 2001. Understanding sponsorship effects. Psychology and Marketing

18:10.1002/1520-6793(200102)18:2<>1.0.CO;2-6, 95-122. [CrossRef ]117. Robert Madrigal. 2000. The Influence of Social Alliances with Sports Teams on Intentions to Purchase Corporate Sponsors'

Products. Journal of Advertising 29, 13-24. [CrossRef ]118. Stephen R. McDaniel, Gary R. Heald. 2000. Young Consumers’ Responses to Event Sponsorship Advertisements of Unhealthy

Products: Implications of Schema-triggered Affect Theory. Sport Management Review 3, 163-184. [CrossRef ]119. Kevin P. Gwinner, John Eaton. 1999. Building Brand Image Through Event Sponsorship: The Role of Image Transfer. Journal of Advertising 28, 47-57. [CrossRef ]

120. Stephen R. McDaniel. 1999. An investigation of match-up effects in sport sponsorship advertising: The implications of consumer advertising schemas. Psychology and Marketing 16:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199903)16:2<>1.0.CO;2-K,163-184. [CrossRef ]

121. Pascale Quester, Francis Farrelly. 1998. Brand association and memory decay effects of sponsorship:. Journal of Product & Brand Management 7:6, 539-556. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

122. Fabio SeverinoCultural Sponsorship and Entrepreneurial Mistrust 113-125. [CrossRef ]123. John A. FortunatoDigital Media and Sports Advertising 491-506. [CrossRef ]124. Cristina Aragonés-JericóThe Transfer from a Major Sport Event to a Sponsoring Brand: 960-982. [CrossRef ]

125. Luke Lun

Documents

1997 - Gwinner - A Model of Image Creation and Image Transfer in Event