How Corporate Sport Sponsorship Impacts Consumer Behavior

Abstract

Corporate sport sponsorship is one of

Full text

How Corporate Sport Sponsorship Impacts Consumer Behavior
Kevin Mason, Ph.D., Arkansas Tech University, Russellville, AR
ABSTRACT
Corporate sport sponsorship is one of rketers have at their disposal to try and reach
discussed forms of marketing
rstanding of how
e purpose of this conceptual piece to examine the relationship
), affective (evaluative emotional attachments), and
impact on consumer behavior. Attitudes can
be changed by altering one or more of the three components. Sponsorship seems to affect the affective
component of an attitude b rt team and the company’s
oduct. However sponsorship can also affect the attitudinal cognitive component by altering brand
beli ns. It should be noted aging activities are hen dealing with cognitive
changes. Regardless, the ultimate goal o ate sponsorship is to change re attitude resulting in positive
beha (e.g., shopping and purchases)
Marketers strive to make positive connections with consumers via numerous “tools” such as advertising,
ublic relations, promotional tie-ins, and sponsorship. At present corporate sport sponsorship is becoming a very
rominent marketing vehicle. Sponsorship occurs when a corporation funds a program (e.g., television or radio) or
vent whereby the sponsoring corporation has promotional material included into the program or event. Originally,
dvertising for radio and T.V. programs occurred in the form of corporate sponsorship (Harvey, 2001). Over the
ears, corporate sponsorship has grown to become a huge promotional tool. For example, in the United Kingdom,
onsorship expenditures increased from 4 million dollars in 1970 to 107.5 million dollars in 1997. Likewise,
onsorship expenditures in the United States increased from 850 million dollars in 1985 to 8.7 billion dollars in
000. In 1994, 4500 companies spent around 4.2 billion dollars on sponsorship rights in North America and 67
ercent of the rights purchased were sport related (McDaniel, 1999).
Anheuser-Busch and Phillip Morris are some of the more active companies involved with corporate
onsorship with each spending in excess of 135 million dollars on sponsorship in 1998. In particular, corporate
orting event sponsorship has become increasingly popular. For example, Coca Cola spent at least 650 million
ollars on the Atlanta Olympic Games. MasterCard spent around 100 million dollars on the World Cup. North
merican corporations in 1999 invested 7.6 billion dollars in sponsorship with 67 percent of the money going on
orts (Meenaghan, 2001; Madrigal, 2000).
of
e a
esult, the sports indus Westerners are
otivated to achieve thletic activity
a week (Douvis, 2004).
Problems facing marketers include how to assess the effects of sport sponsorship on consumer behaviors
and how
checking accounts, 4 million dollars in deposits and a 300 percent return on its
investme
the many tools ma
consumers and influence them to buy their products and yet one of the least
communications addressed in the marketing literature. A key to effective sponsorship is the unde
consumer attitudes are formed and change. It is th
between sponsorship and attitudes.
Attitudes are comprised of enduring cognitive (beliefs
behavior tendencies towards an object. As such, attitudes have a strong
then
y creating a positive association between the consumer’s spo
pr
efs/perceptio though
r
that lever helpfu
nti
l w
f corpo the e
viors .
INTRODUCTION
p
p
e
a
y
sp
sp
2
p
sp
sp
d
A
sp
Corporate sport sponsorship is becoming increasingly attractive in the United States and Europe because
value that these cultures place upon entertainment, competition, and accomplishment (McCook, 2004). As
th
rtry is worth roughly 320 billion dollars in the United States. In addition,
healthy lives. For example, forty percent of Americans participate in an a
highly m
at least once
to determine its business value (Harvey, 2001; Meenaghan, 2001). In the past, researchers have relied upon
theories from various social sciences disciplines (Douvis, 2004) to explain possible effects of sponsorship on
consumer behavior. However, the research findings are antidotal, not empirical. For example, in California, a
Federal Bank offered team themed checking accounts as part of sponsoring the NHL’s San Jose Sharks (Madrigal,
2000). The bank reported 2000 new
nt. It is unclear how much of the increase in new accounts can be attributed to the promotional
sponsorship. In short, while it appears sport sponsorship might be effective; the mechanics by which it works need
to be better understood to determine its value as a marketing tool and to enhance its effectiveness.
The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge * Vol. 7 * Num. 1 * September 2005 32

It is clear that sponsorship has some impact on consumer behavior, but how much and why is not well
understood. The purpose of this conceptual research is to explore the effects of corporate sport sponsorship on
consumer behavior. Specifically, this paper explores how corporate sport sponsorship impacts consumer behavior
via its effect on their attitudes.
ATTITUDES
understand how sponsorship affects , it is first necessary to understand what an
attitude
they have separate measures (Madrigal, 2000).
Attitude
sible for people to have beliefs that are inconsistent with their feelings,
but people
toward o
are two kinds of sponsorship, “on site” or field sponsorship and televised broadcast sponsorship
(Lardino
There are several benefits of sponsors advertising (Meenaghan, 2001). For example,
sponsorship operates through different cognitive pr ertising (Harvey, 2001). It engages the consumer
by besto
nsor which will rub off on the
brands (H vey, 2001).
To a consumer’s attitude
is and how it functions. An attitude may be defined as an idea charged with emotion which predisposes a
class of actions to a particular class of social situations (Triandis, 1971). An attitude can also be described as an
enduring evaluative disposition toward an object or class of objects (Chisman, 1976).
All attitudes include affective, cognitive, and behavioral components. According to Chisman (1976), the
cognitive component is merely the knowledge, belief, or idea one has about the object of the attitude (e.g., beliefs
about a given brand). Triandis (1971) describes the affective component as the emotional attachment one has
towards the object of the attitude (e.g., the degree to which one likes/dislikes a given brand). The behavioral
component refers to how one reacts towards the object (Triandis, 1971). For example, does the person purchase the
brand? While the attitude components are consistent with each other,
Formation
When people are forming attitudes, stimuli are generalized and many different objects are placed into the
same category of associations in their minds (Triandis, 1971). Once a category is formed through cognition, it can be
associated with pleasant or unpleasant affective state (Lardinoit, Derbaix, 2001). When assigning the attitude, there
is a prediction being made from previous observations of how a person acts at certain times towards an object.
Attitudes are not perfect in this, since it is pos
will usually “select” consistent beliefs (Chisman, 1976). For instance, if a person changes their attitude
ne related thing, others will fall in line. But generally, attitudes are consistent if a person’s beliefs and
actions toward an object reflect their feelings about it in some way, which leads to attitudes being assigned
according to the affective component.
Corporate Sponsorship
There
it, Quester, 2001). Field sponsorship refers to the placement of a logo on sports equipment or billboards at
the scene of the event (Lardinoit, Derbaix, 2001). Broadcast or television sponsorship refers to a favored practice by
advertisers who want their name associated with a specific TV program or its promotion (Lardinoit, Quester, 2001).
With field sponsorship there is the potential for a lot of distraction from other sponsors and the event
(Lardinoit, Derbaix, 2001). One thing to remember is that highly involved fans will pick up on field sponsorship
better than those not as involved. The reason for this is because highly involved fans are more knowledgeable and
thus more sensitive to the environment around the event (Lardinoit, Quester, 2001) as they strive to know everything
related to it (Lardinoit, Derbaix, 2001).
TV broadcast sponsorship occurs when funding of a TV program is paid for by a sponsoring company. TV
broadcasts are less affected by the type of emotions generated by an event (Lardinoit, Quester, 2001) and unlike
field sponsorship, there are no distractions from the event (Lardinoit, Derbaix, 2001).
hip over mass
ocesses than adv
wing benefit on an activity which the consumer has an intense emotional response to (Meenaghan, 2001). In
turn, goodwill feeling comes to the company which influences attitude and behavior toward the brand. It is this
goodwill that really makes sponsorship different from advertising. While advertising changes a consumer’s
perception of a specific product, sponsorship changes the perception of a specific spo
ar
Sponsorship is also more accepted by the public than advertising (Lardinoit, Quester, 2001). This may be
because people know many events would not exist without sponsorship. In a study of people’s attitudes towards 350
companies, the most favorable were those people aware of both sponsorship and advertising activities. Hence, the
The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge * Vol. 7 * Num. 1 * September 2005 33

sponsor’s attempt to exploit the event in the media is seen as legitimate. In fact, TV sponsorship broadcasts that raise
the awareness of the association may directly affect attitudes toward the sponsor. In fact, those with the highest
involvement and most awareness of a sponsor’s investment and benefit are the ones that are most pleased
ere are extra burdens put upon the marketer when using sponsorship, which
in turn m kes the two forms of promotion intertwined (Dean, 1999). There has to be a creation of a link between the
this link is not obvious it must be interpreted. This is not as easy as it may seem as only
twenty p
esides all of the differences sponsorship has, it does have some similarities with other forms of marketing
(Madriga
Consumer Attitudes
o effect” may then suggest to
consumers that the sponsor’s products are better than the competition. Therefore this feeling of “good corporate
citizen”
may increase the effect of sponsorship on consumer attitudes is the accessibility of the
cognitive component (thoughts or understandings) of the attitude. If the cognitive thoughts/beliefs are prominent in
s. More specifically, as corporate sponsorship increases consumers’ awareness about the
corporation m
corporat
(from the marketer’s perspective) behaviors. However, the goals of the company should be considered when making
a sponso
(Meenaghan, 2001).
Sponsorship is an indirect/disguised attempt to persuade, unlike advertising which is seen as direct with an
overt intent to persuade. These factors, combined with the goodwill from sponsorship, make a consumer’s defense
mechanisms low when perceiving sponsorship, while these same mechanisms are high when watching commercials.
For example, a person receives sponsorship in goodwill while they will be skeptical of advertising. Since one of the
functions of an attitude is to keep a person’s world pleasant by blocking out unwanted stimuli, sponsorship holds
great potential for overcoming this.
Even with these advantages, th
a
sponsor and the event, and if
ercent of Olympic sponsors created these links and achieved a boost in perceived product superiority. The
duration of this linkage is perishable and must be reinforced by advertising, which is known as a “leveraging
activity.”
B
l, 2000). In addition to influencing a consumer’s perception of product quality, uniqueness, and
manufacturer esteem, and corporate citizenship; sponsorship is used to increase brand awareness by exposing it to as
many potential customers as possible while establishing, enhancing, or changing brand image. The altering of the
brand image occurs as a result of linking the product to a sport team or even (Harvey, 2001).
The Rel hip of Sponsorship and ations
People desire all three attitude components to be harmonious and will thus alter their overall attitudes to
achieve consistency (Dean, 1999). A corporate sponsor hopes the consumer’s positive feelings for the sponsored
event will become linked with the company. Then after the feelings are linked, a “hal
for sponsoring the event may make consumers assume the company makes better goods. For example, if
these exposures are associated with something for which the consumer has an affinity (the sporting event or
programming being sponsored), positive emotional attachments may become intertwine. That is, the consumer’s
positive emotional liking for the sporting event or program (being sponsored) may rub off onto the sponsoring
product or company (Lardinoit, Derbaix, 2001).
A factor which
the consumer’s memory, the impact will be greater on the consumer’s attitudes and thus his/her behavior (Levin,
2001). Thus for those consumers drawn to particular sporting events, marketers can use sponsorship to increase the
frequency of exposure for their marketing messages and have greater impact on consumer attitudes.
Another interesting factor in sponsorship effectiveness is a company’s prominence in the marketplace
(Lardinoit, Quester, 2001). There may be a synergy between building market share and effective corporate
sponsorship activitie
ay result in greater market share. And, a greater market share can increase the effectiveness of
e sponsorship.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, sport sponsorship can impact consumers’ attitudes. By soliciting positive emotional
attachments, corporate sponsors the alter consumers’ cognitive structures leading consumers to engage in desirable
rship decision. A company must decide if they are trying to enhance brand awareness, image, or consumer
attitude. This goal may dictate which form of sponsorship, if any, to use.
The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge * Vol. 7 * Num. 1 * September 2005 34

One thing that seems to be known for sure is that highly involved fans seem more receptive to sponsorship,
which in turn may have consequences on chosen markets. There must also be a good fit between the sponsor and the
property in order to properly reach the desired market (McDaniel, 1999) and capture their affective associations. If a
. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
0, pp. 23-31.
Madrigal,
Triandis, Har
lifestyle image is associated with a particular sport or event is not in line with a sponsor’s target market then the
company could really lose out. And after the proper sporting events are chosen to boost the brand image, more
effective advertising must be used to leverage it.
REFERENCES
Chisman, Forrest. (1976). Attitude Psychology and the Study of Public Opinion
Dean, Dwane. (1999). Brand endorsement, popularity, and event sponsorship as advertising cues affecting consumer pre-purchase attitudes.
Journal of Advertising. Vol. 18, pp. 2-12.
Douvis, John. (2004). A review of the research areas in the field of sport marketing: foundations, current trends, future directions. Cyber Journal
of Sport Marketing. Retrieved June 17, 2004. http://www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/2000/cjsm/v4n2-3/douvis43.htm
Harvey, Bill. (2001). Measuring the effects of sponsorship. Journal of Advertising Research. Vol. 41, pp. 59-65.
Kiesler, Charles & Collins, Barry & Miller, Norman. (1969). Attitude Change; A Critical Anaylsis of Theoretical Approaches. New York, New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Lardinoit, Thiery & Derbaix, C. (2001). Sponsorship and recall of sponsors. Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 18, pp. 167-190.
Lardinoit, Thiery & Quester, Pascale. (2001). Attitudinal effects of combined sponsorship and sponsor’s prominence on basketball in Europe.
Journal of Advertising Research. Vol. 41, pp. 48-58.
Levin, Aron & Joiner, Chirs & Camron, Gary. (2001). The impact of sports sponsorship on consumers’ brand attitudes and recall. Journal of
urrent Issues and Research in Advertising. Vol. 2
C
Robert. (2000). The influence of social alliances with sports teams on intentions to purchase corporate sponsors’ products. Journal of
Advertising. Vol. 29, pp. 13-24.
McCook, Kristie & Turco, Douglas & Riley, Roger. A look at the corporate decision making process. Cyber Journal of Sport Marketing.
Retrieved July 12, 2004. http://www.ausport.gov.au/fulltext/1997/cjsm/v1n2/mcook.htm
McDaniel, Stephen. (1999). An investigation of match-up effects in sport sponsorship advertising: the implication of consumer advertising
schemas. Psychology and Marketing. Vol. 16, pp. 163-184.
Meenaghan, Tony (2001). Understanding sponsorship effects. Psychology and Marketing. Vol. 18, pp. 95-122.
ry. (1971). Attitude and Attitude Change. New York, New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge * Vol. 7 * Num. 1 * September 2005 35